United. States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5102G)
EPA-542-R-97-011
November 1997
www.epa.gov
&EPA Field Analytical and Site
Characterization Technologies
Summary of Applications
-------
-------
EPA-542-R-97-011
November 1997
Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Summary of Applications
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
NOTICE
This material has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract Number 68-W5-0055. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
Copies of this report are available free of charge from the National Center for Environmental Protection
and Information (NCEPI), PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419; telephone (800) 490-9198 or
(513) 489-8190 (voice) or (513) 489-8695 (facsimile). Refer to document EPA-542-R-97-011, Field
Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies, Summary of Applications. This document also can
be obtained through EPA's Clean Up Information (CLU-IN) System on the World Wide Web at
http://www.clu-in.com 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.
u
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Technology Innovation Office. The study was designed in coordination with EPA's National
Environmental Research Laboratory at Las Vegas. Information in this document was compiled with the
assistance of EPA's regional contacts for field analytical and site characterization technologies.
Special acknowledgment also is given to the federal and state staff and other remediation professionals
listed as contacts for individual sites and projects. Those individuals provided the detailed information
presented in this document. Their willingness to share their expertise will help to further the application
of field analytical and site characterization technologies at other sites.
in
-------
-------
ABSTRACT
This report provides information about experiences in the use of field analytical and site characterization
technologies at contaminated sites drawn from 204 applications of the technologies listed below. For
each technology, information is presented on the reported uses of the technology; including the types of
pollutants and media for which the .technology was used; reported advantages and limitations of the
technology; and cost data for the technology, when available. Information was obtained from federal and
state site managers and from the Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technologies System
(Vendor FACTS) database. This report is intended to provide information that will facilitate the broader
use of various field analytical and site characterization technologies at hazardous waste sites by
encouraging information exchange among federal, state, and private-sector site managers. However, it is
not intended to provide a comprehensive review of all field analytical and site characterization
technologies or of all potential uses of the technologies it does list. More detailed information about
them may be obtained from other sources, including those listed in Section 1.2.
This report documents uses of the following field analytical and site characterization technologies at
contaminated sites:
Chemical Technologies
Biosensor
Colorimetric test strip
Cone penetrometer mounted sensor
Fiber-optic chemical sensor
Fourier-transformed infrared (FTIR)
spectrometry
Gas chromatography
Immunoassay
Mercury vapor analyzer
X-ray fluorescence
Geophysical Technologies
Bore-hole geophysical
Direct-push electrical conductivity
Electromagnetic induction
Ground penetrating radar
Magnetometry
Seismic profiling
Radionuclide Technologies
• Gamma radiation detector
• Passive alpha detector
Sampling and Sampler Emplacement
Technologies
• Closed-piston soil sampling
• Direct-push prepacked well screen
• Low-flow ground-water pumping
• Soil gas sampling
• Vertical ground-water profiling
• Vibrating well installation
IV
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Section
NOTICE ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
ABSTRACT P iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE 1
1.2 BACKGROUND 3
2.0 SURVEY OF APPLICATIONS OF FIELD ANALYTICAL AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION
TECHNOLOGIES 5
2.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 5
2.1.1 Chemical Technologies 10
2.1.2 Geophysical Technologies 14
2.1.3 Radionuclide Technologies 17
2.1.4 Sampling and Sampler Emplacement Technologies 18
2.2 SUMMARY OF DATA ON SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES 19
Appendix
A LIST OF ACRONYMS
B DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
C VENDOR FIELD ANALYTICAL AND CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES SYSTEM
(Vendor FACTS) DATABASE
-------
Table
1-1
Tables
NUMBER OF SITES BY TECHNOLOGY 2
2-1 REPORTED USES OF DATA GENERATED BY FIELD ANALYTICAL
AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES 6
2-2 REPORTED USES OF TECHNOLOGIES BY MEDIUM AND ANALYTE 8
2-3 SUMMARY OF FIELD ANALYTICAL AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION
TECHNOLOGIES; REPORTED DATA ON SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES 20
VI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Newer field analytical and site characterization technologies offer potential savings in time and cost
compared with traditional technologies. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
interested in increasing awareness of these technologies by encouraging information exchange among
federal, state, and private-sector site managers, remediation professionals, and other interested parties.
Various field analytical and site characterization technologies have been used at Superfund and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites and at sites with leaking underground storage
tanks. In addition, as a result of EPA's Brownfields Initiative to encourage the productive reuse of
abandoned properties that are or are perceived to be contaminated, there is increasing interest in the use
of these technologies at such sites.
EPA believes that providing information about actual applications of new technologies can be very useful
in increasing awareness and promoting information exchange. EPA has collected information about the
uses of field analytical and site characterization technologies at 204 sites and has summarized the
experiences of those involved in applying the technologies at contaminated sites.
This report has two sections. Section 1.0 discusses the purpose and background of the report. Section
2.0 provides a summary of the information obtained about the uses of field analytical and site
characterization technologies, including a detailed tabular presentation of the data collected about sites at
which field analytical and site characterization technologies have been used. Limitations of the data,
including factors that affect the applicability and cost of field analytical and site characterization
technologies is also provided. Appendix A provides a list of relevant acronyms, and Appendix B
describes the methodology used in collecting the data. Appendix C provides information about the
Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technologies System (Vendor FACTS) database.
1.1 PURPOSE
This report is a summary of information about uses of 23 field analytical and site characterization
technologies, as reported by federal and state site managers. The purpose of this report is to: (1) provide
information that will facilitate the broader use of various field analytical and site characterization
technologies at hazardous waste sites by encouraging information exchange among federal, state, and
private-sector site managers and (2) provide a selected inventory of sites at which various types of field
analytical and site characterization technologies have been used. It is important to note that this report
presents a summary of the information obtained from federal and state site managers and is not intended
to be a comprehensive review of field analytical and site characterization technologies or of all potential
uses.
Table 1-1 presents a summary, by number of sites, of the field analytical and site characterization
technologies included in this report. As Table 1-1 shows, information was collected from 204 sites.
Appendix B presents a description of the methods used to collect the information for this report.
It is important to note that many factors can affect the technical feasibility and cost of field analytical and
site characterization technologies. Such factors include physical constraints, site layout, data quality
requirements, time constraints, matrix interferences, expected levels of contamination, and other
considerations particular to a given site. Such factors should be considered in determining whether
specific field analytical and site characterization technologies are appropriate for a particular site.
-------
Table 1-1
Number of Sites by Technology
;•'' • i i ;••;..- Technology _ '
Number of SWes Included itt this Report
Chemical Technologies
Immunoassay
X-ray fluorescence
Cone penetrometer mounted sensor
Gas chromatography
Fourier-transfonned infrared spectrometry
Colorimelric test strip
Fiber-optic chemical sensor
Mercury vapor analyzer
Biosensor
43
39
34
24
3
3
3
2
1
Geophysical Technologies
Seismic profiling
Ground penetrating radar
Bore-hole geophysical
Electromagnetic induction
Magnetometry
Direct-push electrical conductivity
8
4
4
3
2
1
Radionuclide Technologies
Gamma radiation detector
Passive alpha detector
3
1
Sample and Sampler Emplacement Technologies
Low-flow ground-water pumping
Vibrating well installation
Soil gas sampling
Vertical ground-water profiling
Closed-piston soil sampling
Direct-push prepacked well screen
9
6
5
4
1
1
Total 204
-------
With respect to cost information for applications of these technologies at specific sites, provided in
Section 2.0 of this report, it is important to note that the costs are presented exactly as reported by site
contacts and that the ways in which site contacts reported costs varied. For example, site contacts
reported cost information as cost per sample, foot, time, or item. This report did not attempt to
recalculate the costs on a consistent basis (normalize the costs) by technology, medium, or other
parameter. Cost information provided by site contacts usually was based on their comparison of the cost
of using the technology with the cost of off-site laboratory analysis. Therefore, cost information
should be considered qualitatively.
1.2 BACKGROUND
To better understand the factors that affect field analytical and site characterization technologies and for
more detailed information about those technologies, the reader should consult:
• Expedited Site Assessment Tools for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Regulators,
EPA-510-B-97-001, 1997
• Field Sampling and Analysis Matrix and Reference Guide (under preparation by the EPA and
U.S. Navy, with publication expected in November 1997)
• Site Characterization and Monitoring Bibliography of EPA Information Resources,
EPA-542-B-96-001, February 1996
• Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program, Technology Profiles,
EPA-540-R-97-502, December 1996
In addition, EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Site Characterization Pilot Project (also
known as the Consortium for Site Characterization Technology) verifies field analytical and site
characterization technologies. The program has completed verification reports for the site
characterization and analysis penetrometer system and laser-induced fluorescence (SCAPS-LDF)
technology and the rapid optical survey tool (ROST™), also a LIF-based technology. The EPA
document numbers for those reports are EPA 600-R97-019 and EPA 600-R97-020, respectively.
Verification reports are pending for seven field-portable x-ray fluorescence technologies and two field-
portable gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) technologies. Currently, there are 20 field
analytical and site characterization technologies in EPA's verification program. Information about the
program is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.epa.gov/etv/. In addition, EPA is developing
an encyclopedia of field analytical and site characterization technologies. This encyclopedia will be
available in 1998 through EPA's Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) World Wide Web site at
http://www.clu-in.com/charl.htm. '-.
-------
-------
2.0 SURVEY OF APPLICATIONS OF FIELD ANALYTICAL AND SITE
CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES
2.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This section provides a summary of the information obtained from 204 sites about uses of selected field
analytical and site characterization technologies. Tables 2-1,2-2, and 2-3, respectively, summarize the
general uses of the technology (such as site screening, site characterization, compliance monitoring, and
cleanup monitoring), the medium monitored, target analytes, and detailed reported data. Table 2-1
presents information about the general uses of data generated through the use of the field analytical and
site characterization technologies summarized in this report. Table 2-2 presents information about the
technologies by type of medium and analyte. Seven categories of analytes were reported: volatile
organic compounds (VOC), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), fuels, inorganic compounds,
pesticides, explosives, and radionuclides. An additional category, geophysical, was included among the
analytes to allow reporting of applications in which the technologies were used to analyze the physical
environment. Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.4 provide a brief description of the technologies and a
discussion of the reported advantages and limitations of each technology, when compared with
traditional sampling and analysis techniques. The sections are organized by technology type.
Federal and state site managers identified several common concerns related to the use of field analytical
and site characterization technologies. Many users reported that the innovative technologies required
experienced operators. Users also noted that several technologies yielded false negative results because
of insufficient lower detection limits and other causes. Several users reported difficulty in extracting the
contaminants from the soil sample and other matrix interferences. Several comments were associated
with EPA's role in the use of the technologies. One user reported that his EPA region had no established
sample collection procedures for a particular innovative technology. Users reported that little
information was available about official verification procedures for the use of the technologies. In
addition, one user noted that quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for a certain field
analytical technology were not well developed.
-------
Table 2-1
Reported Uses of Data Generated by Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
il - "1 '
(I
1
*
1 ;
1 Technology
i>
I
I
5?
1
1
-fr
-6
}
|
^ 4
\ »
Xi
'& v
Z c
t f. V ,
0 .J>
y r« ~> " J
S- s
-, +*A v
i. 1 '-
Chemical Technologies
Biosensor
Colorimelric test strip
Cone penelrometcr mounted sensor
Fiber-optic chemical sensor
Fourier-transformed infrared
spcctromctry
Gas chromatography
Immunoassay
Mercury vapor analyzer
X-ray fluorescence
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Geophysical Technologies
Bore-hole geophysical
Direct-push electrical
conductivity
Electromagnetic induction
Ground penetrating radar
Magnetomctry
Seismic profiling
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Radionuclide Technologies
Gamma radiation detector
Passive alpha detector
•
•
•
•
•
-------
Table 2-1
Reported Uses of Data Generated by Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
(continued)
Sampling and Sampler Emplacement Technologies
Closed-piston soil sampling
Diiect-push prepacked well screen
Low-flow ground-water pumping
i r
Soil gas sampling
Vertical ground-water profiling
Vibrating well installation
-------
Table 2-2
Reported Uses of Technologies by Medium and Analyte
Aasflyte
Tecmnology Medium
Biosensor
Colorimetric test strip
Cone penetrometer mounted sensor
Fiber-optic chemical sensor
Fourier-transformed infrared (FTER) spectrometry
Gas chromatography
Immunoassay
Mercury vapor analyzer
X-ray fluorescence
Bore-hole geophysical
Direct-push electrical conductivity
Electromagnetic induction
Ground penetrating radar
Magnetometry
Seismic profiling
Gamma radiation detector
Passive alpha detector
Closed-piston soil sampling
Direct-push prepacked well screen
Low-flow ground-water pumping
Soil gas sampling
Vertical ground-water profiling
Vibrating well installation
Volatile Organic Compounds
1
•
•
1
•
Ground Water
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Soil Gas
•
•
1
•
Scmivolatik Organic Compounds
1
•
•
Ground Water
•
•
•
•
Surface Water
•
5
O
1
•
5
•
Fuels
I
•
•
•
i
WJ
•
Ground Water
•
•
•
•
•
Surface Water
•
3
1
•
-------
Table 2-2
Reported Uses of Technologies by Medium and Analyte (continued)
Biosensor
Colorimetric test strip
Cone penetrometer mounted sensor
Fiber-optic chemical sensor
Fourier-transformed infrared (FTIR) spectrometry
Gas chromotography
Lnmunoassay
Mercury vapor analyzer
X-ray fluorescence
Bore-hole geophysical
Direct-push electrical conductivity
Electromagnetic induction
Ground penetrating radar
Magnetometry
Seismic profiling
Gamma radiation detector
Passive alpha detector
Closed-piston soil sampling
Direct-push prepacked well screen
Low-flow ground-water pumping
Soil gas sampling
Vertical ground-water profiling
-------
2.1.1 Chemical Technologies
Biosensor (Number of Sites: 1)
Biosensors are analytical tools in which the sensing element is an enzyme, antibody, deoxyribonucleic
acid, or microorganism and the transducer is an electrochemical, acoustic, or optical device. The
technology was used to detect explosives (trinitrotoluene [TNT]; cyclo-l,3,5-trimethylene-2,4,6-
trinitramine [RDX]; and cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine [HMX]) in soil, ground water,, and composite
residues.
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• Real-time data
Reported Limitations:
• None identified
Colorimetric Test Strip (Number of Sites: 3)
Colorimetric test strips are a single measurement, portable technology that uses a wet chemistry non-
immunoassay test to detect analytes in soil or water. The intensity of the color formation can be
determined visually or with a spectrophotometer. Colorimetric test strips were used to detect nitrates,
TNT, RDX, and HMX in soil and ground water.
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• Easy to use
• Real-time data
Reported Limitations:
• Possible interference caused by
nitrite
• Creation of soil slurry necessary to use
test strips
10
-------
Cone Penetrometer Mounted Sensor (Number of Sites: 34)
Cone penetrometer mounted sensors are real-time, in situ, field screening methods for petroleum
hydrocarbons and other contaminants, as well as lithologic parameters. Table 2-3 includes several uses
of the Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System Laser-Induced Fluorescence (SCAPS-
LIF) cone penetrometer mounted sensor technology. The SCAPS-LIF technology was developed through
a collaborative effort of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, under the auspices of the Tri-Service SCAPS
Program. The method uses a fiber optic-based laser-induced fluorescence sensor system, deployed with a
standard 20-ton cone penetrometer. Cone penetrometer mounted sensors were used to perform field
screening and site characterization for PAHs and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) such as diesel and
jet fuel, gasoline, waste oil, heating fuel, and kerosene, in soil and ground water, as well as the lithologic
parameters (pH, redox potential, conductivity, soil type, and other factors).
Reported Limitations:
• Expensive for a limited number of
sample locations
• Naturally occurring fluorescent
material can lead to false positives
• Limited by rough terrain
• Difficult to maneuver in tight spaces
• Subsurface cobbles cause probe refusal
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• Continuous, real-time data
• Accurate measurements
• Three-dimensional mapping possible
• Contaminant fingerprinting capability
• Enhanced delineation of contaminant
(2-inch vertical resolution)
• No soil cuttings
• Quick decontamination
• Data allowed selection of optimal
confirmation soil boring locations
Fiber-Optic Chemical Sensor (Number of Sites: 3)
Fiber-optic chemical sensors are coating-based sensors on fiber optics that detect contaminants by
monitoring the change in the refractive index on the coating of the fiber optics that alters the amount of
light transmitted to a detector. The technology was used to measure concentrations of TPH; benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX); and halogenated VOCs, such as trichlorethylene (TCE), in
ground water and soil gas.
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• Can be used in situ
* Easy to use
• Portable
• Quick turnaround time
Reported Limitations:
• Possible interference from other
chlorinated VOCs
• Results affected by bailing method and
amount of water bailed
• Concentration of contaminants affects
response time
11
-------
Fourier-Transformed Infrared Spectrometry (FTIR) (Number of Sites: 3)
This method is an air monitoring technique that identifies compounds by fingerprinting spectra. A
sample's molecular constituents are revealed through their characteristic frequency-dependent absorption
bands. The technology was used to measure the concentration of VOCs in air for health and safety,
compliance, and cleanup monitoring.
Reported Advantages
• Adequate detection levels
• Portable
• Real-time data
Gas Chromatography (Number of Sites: 24)
Reported Limitations
• Interference caused by water vapor
• QA/QC methods not fully developed
• Not appropriate when a high degree of
spatial resolution is required
Gas chromatography (GC) is an analytical technique used to separate and analyze environmental matrices
for contaminants. Gas chromatography has been accepted widely as a primary analytical tool for site
characterization because of its capability to separate, detect, identify, and quantify target analytes in a
complex mixture. The technique is suitable for the analysis of thermally stable organic compounds only.
Gas chromatography, with the use of various detectors (photoionization, flame ionization, electron
capture, electrolytic conductivity, nitrogen-phosphorus, mass spectrometer, and others), and with various
sample extraction and introduction methods (headspace, purge and trap, solvent extraction, solid phase
extraction, thermal desorption, and others), was used to measure concentrations of halogenated and
nonhalogenated VOCs, SVOCs (including polychlorinated biphenyls [PCB], polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons [PAH], and pentachlorophenol [PCP]), TPH, pesticides, and dioxins in soil, soil gas,
sediment, ground water, and air.
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• Low detection limits (able to measure
maximum contaminant level [MCL]
concentrations)
• Quick turnaround time
• High-quality data generated
• Portable
• High sample throughput
• Good correlation with EPA's Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory data
• Ability to perform simultaneous analysis
for BTEX and other hydrocarbon
compounds
Reported Limitations:
• Experienced operator required
• Learning curve associated with use of
equipment
• Library of components limited for mass
spectrometer
• Petroleum carrier solvent caused
interference with analysis for PCP
• Modification of extraction time
required to improve consistency of
results
• Poor extraction of diesel fuels from
soils with high organic matter
• Co-elution of three types of
contaminants hindered ability to
meet detection limits
12
-------
Immunoassay (Number of Sites: 43)
Immunoassay is a technique for detecting and measuring a target compound through the use of an
antibody that binds only to that substance. Quantitation is performed by monitoring color change, either
visually or with a spectrophotometer. The technology was used to detect or to measure the
concentrations of halogenated VOCs, PAHs, TPH, BTEX, PCBs, organic pesticides, mercury, and
bacteria in soil, sludge, sediment, surface water, ground water, and composite residues.
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• Near real-time data
• Reproducible results
• Reasonable correlation with laboratory
results
• Low rate of false negative results, except
when fuel compounds were highly degraded
• Portability
• Detection limits capable of meeting
action levels
• Capable of defining boundaries of
contamination
Reported Limitations:
• High rate of false positives found in
results from PCB and organic pesticide
kits
• Incapable of identifying individual
PAHs
• Poor extraction efficiency in peat or bog
samples
Mercury Vapor Analyzer (Number of Sites: 2)
This technology monitors mercury vapors emitted from soil. These analyzers were used for health and
safety monitoring and to determine soil sampling locations.
Reported Advantages
• Allowed for real-time understanding of
exposure
• Quick turnaround time for data
Reported Limitation:
• Learning curve associated with
equipment
13
-------
X-ray Fluorescence (Number of Sites: 39)
X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyzers operate on the principle of energy dispersive XRF spectrometry.
Energy dispersive XRF spectrometry is a nondestructive analytical technique used to determine the
metals composition of environmental samples. Field-portable and transportable XRF units were used to
detect or measure concentrations of heavy metals (mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, copper, nickel,
and arsenic) in both in situ and ex situ soils, sludge, sediment, and ground water.
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• No investigation-derived waste (IDW)
• Good correlation with analytical
laboratory results
• Real-time data
• Quick turnaround time
• Capability to determine multiple analytes
simultaneously
• Nondestructive method
• Little sample preparation
• Consistent quality of data
Reported Limitations:
• Limit on penetration depth
• Some field-portable units require liquid
nitrogen
• One field-portable unit weighs 50 pounds
• Preparation of quality control sample
required
• Difficulty in obtaining sufficiently
low detection limits because of
matrix interference
• Detection limits sometimes not low
enough to respond to ecological
concerns
2.1.2 Geophysical Technologies
Bore-hole Geophysical (Number of Sites: 4)
Bore-hole geophysical technologies include ground penetrating radar (GPR), electromagnetic induction,
and acoustic methods. These technologies were used to map fractures in bedrock, and to determine
ground-water flow and depth of the water table. The technologies were used to generate data for use
both in site characterization and in placement of monitoring wells.
Reported Advantages:
• Accurate results
• Sensitivity
• Facilitation of better understanding of
ground-water flow
Reported Limitations:
• Well diameter must be greater than
two inches
• Well casing must be nonmetallic
14
-------
Direct-push Electrical Conductivity (Number of Sites: 1)
The direct-push sensing of electrical conductivity is a geophysical technique based on the physical
principles of inducing and detecting the flow of electrical current within geologic strata. Measurements
of soil conductivity and logs of soil conductivity combine to supply information about the lithologic
features of a site. This technology was used for site characterization and mapping to support placement
of monitoring wells, and to define subsurface geologic and hydrogeologic conditions.
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• Easy to use
• Portable
• Quick turnaround time
• Capability to identify thin stratigraphic
layers that conventional methods miss
• No soil cuttings
Reported Limitations:
• Large metal objects can cause
interference
• Susceptible to operator error
• Experienced operator needed to
calibrate and interpret logs
Electromagnetic Induction (Number of Sites: 3)
Electromagnetic induction units use a transmitter coil to establish an alternating magnetic field which
induces electrical current flow in the earth. The induced currents generate a secondary magnetic field
which is sensed by a receiver coil. This technology was used during site characterization to locate
disposal trenches at a landfill.
Reported Advantages:
• Easy to use
• Portable
• Quick results
Reported Limitations:
• Large metal objects such as fences
can cause interference
15
-------
Ground Penetrating Radar (Number of Sites: 4)
Ground penetrating radar (GPR) provides a rapid, real-time display of information about the subsurface,
ranging from geological features to hydrologic features. The GPR method uses a transmitter that emits
pulses of high-frequency electromagnetic waves into the subsurface. The electromagnetic energy that is
scattered back to the receiving antenna on the surface is recorded as a function of time. This technology
was used during site characterization to identify abandoned waste pits and other subsurface disturbances,
bedrock stratigraphy, and the depth to water table. The technology was also used to develop profiles of a
river bottom.
Reported Advantages:
• Data useful in identifying subsurface
disturbances without soil borings
• Data allowed the selection of optimal soil
boring locations
• Focused mapping of sample location
• Information compared favorably with that
obtained through other methods
Magnetometry (Number of Sites: 2)
Reported Limitations:
• Surface vegetation can inhibit
transmission of signals
• Soils with high electrical
conductivity can inhibit
transmission of signals
• Interpretation of data is complex;
experienced data analyst required
Magnetometers detect the presence of ferrous objects in the subsurface by measuring the earth's
magnetic field or how the field changes spatially. Hand-held and vehicle-towed magnetometry units
were used during characterization and mapping to identify buried ferrous metals.
Reported Advantages:
• Ability to detect large ferrous metal
objects 12 to 20 feet below ground
surface
• Ability to discriminate among subsurface
anomalies
Reported Limitations:
• Vehicle-based magnetometers limited
by terrain and field conditions
• Vehicle-based magnetometers tend to
underestimate the number of targets,
compared with hand-held devices
• Signals from extraneous metals must
be filtered out
16
-------
Seismic Profiling (Number of Sites: 8)
Seismic profiling technology is based upon the principle that, if an acoustic signal is introduced into the
ground, a wave will echo to the surface whenever a change in the medium is encountered. Sensors at the
surface receive the signal, which is recorded by a seismograph and processed by software developed by
the oil industry. Two- and three-dimensional seismic profiling technologies were used during site
screening and characterization to determine bedrock stratigraphy, soil type, and depth to water table.
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• Very detailed image of soil stratigraphy
• Bedrock fractures defined to within one
foot
• Easy to use
• Drilling costs-minimized
Reported Limitations:
• Large surface objects cause interference
• Data return is very specific
• Trained technician required to
interpret data
• Vegetation must be removed
• Equipment requires direct contact
with the ground, presenting a
problem for use in buildings
2.1.3 Radionuclide Technologies
Gamma Radiation Detector (Number of Sites: 3)
Gamma radiation detectors are portable instruments that often use sodium iodide or cesium iodide
scintillation counter detectors to detect gamma emissions. The technology was used to detect
radionuclides in soil, sediment, and liquid waste.
Reported Advantages:
• Easy to use
• Portable
• Lower cost than conventional methods
• Data compared favorably with laboratory
data
• Real-time data
Reported Limitations:
• Sensitive to power fluctuations
• Liquid nitrogen required
• Protection from weather required
Passive Alpha Detector (Number of Sites: 1)
Two types of commercially available passive radon detectors, electric ionization chambers and alpha
track detectors, have been modified for use in screening of soil in situ for alpha contamination. The
detectors were used to measure alpha contamination in soil.
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• Easy to use
• Fast
Reported Limitations:
• None identified
17
-------
2.1.4 Sampling and Sampler Emplacement Technologies
Closed-piston Soil Sampling (Number of Sites: 1)
This technology is a discrete-depth sampling technology that uses a locking piston. The locking piston
enables the user to collect samples from a previously sampled boring without allowing unwanted material
from the overlying borehole to be included in the sample. This sampling technology was used in
conjunction with direct-push technology during site characterization to obtain continuous soil cores from
below the water table.
Reported Advantages:
• No soil cuttings
• Less expensive than conventional drill
rigs
• Faster than conventional methods
Reported Limitations:
• Sampler is designed for use only in
soils and unconsolidated sediments
• Generally used at depths of less than
50 feet
• If used for sampling discrete
subsurface intervals, the hole must
be preprobed
Direct-push Prepacked Well Screen (Number of Sites: 1)
This technology uses a direct-push method to install prepacked stainless steel screens. The technology
was used during site characterization and compliance monitoring to install small-diameter monitoring
wells.
Reported Advantages:
• Less expensive and faster than installing a
conventional well
• No soil cuttings
Reported Limitations:
• Cannot be used in bedrock
• Limit on depth
• Small diameter of well may limit
sampling options
Low-flow Ground-water Pumping (Number of Sites: 9)
Low-flow ground-water sampling involves the use of any number of ground-water sampling pumps that
purge a monitoring well slowly so as not to cause turbulent flow into the well. The method decreases the
turbidity of the water sample and allows collection of a more representative ground-water sample than is
possible with conventional technologies. The technology was used to obtain ground-water samples for
analysis of VOCs and heavy metals.
Reported Advantages:
• Production of low-turbidity samples possible
• Less purge water generated
• More effective in low recharge wells
Reported Limitations:
• None identified
18
-------
Soil Gas Sampling (Number of Sites: 5)
A number of passive and active sampling devices can be used to obtain soil gas samples. Passive soil gas
absorption devices, in-well monitoring equipment, and canister devices were used to obtain soil gas
samples for on- and off-site analysis of VOCs.
Reported Advantages'.
• Potentially cost-effective
• Quick turnaround time
• Easy to use
• Large amounts of data generated
• Passive soil gas sampling technology can
absorb low-volatility compounds
• Good correlation with monitoring well data
Reported Limitations:
• Active soil gas sampling is not effective
in impermeable soils
• Passive soil gas sampling results may not
correlate well with results of active soil
gas sampling
Vertical Ground-water Profiling (Number of Sites: 4)
Vertical ground-water profiling technology collects point samples rather than samples over a screened
interval, as is the case with conventional monitoring wells. The technology uses a probe that is advanced
by a pneumatic piercing tool (air hammer) driven by a gasoline-powered air compressor. Ground water
is extracted from the profiler by means of a peristaltic pump. This technology was used to vertically
delineate contaminants in ground-water.
Reported Limitations:
• Problem with data comparability
• Difficulty in modeling the migration
ofTCE
Reported Advantages:
• Potentially cost-effective
• Enables vertical profiling
• Enables tracking the boundaries of the
contaminant plume
Vibrating-Well Installation (Number of Sites: 6)
This technology uses a specially designed all-terrain vehicle that uses a vibrating push mechanism to
install small-diameter wells. This vibrating well installation technology was used to install ground-water
wells and monitoring wells to depths up to 200 feet.
Reported Advantages:
• No soil cuttings
• Can be installed to 100 feet without pilot
hole
• Equipment fits into tight spaces
Reported Limitations:
• Well screens clog easily
• Equipment overheats frequently
• Casing requires welding
2.2 SUMMARY OF DATA ON SPECIFIC TECHNOLOGIES
The information collected using the data collection form in Appendix B has been organized and
presented in tabular format to more clearly display data from individual sites. Table 2-3 is organized by
technology, with site information listed sequentially by EPA region for each of the technology types.
19
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies
Contents
cction
Chemical Technologies .. 21
Biosensor 21
ColorimetricTest Strip 21
Cone Penetrometer Mounted Sensor 22
Fiber-optic Chemical Sensor 29
Fourier-transformed Infrared (FTIR) Spectrometry 29
Gas Chromatography , 30
Immunoassay 35
Mercury Vapor Analyzer 43
X-ray Fluorescence 43
Geophysical Technologies . 50
Bore-hole Geophysical 50
Direct-push Electrical Conductivity 51
Electromagnetic Induction 51
Ground Penetrating Radar 52
Magnetometry 52
Seismic Profiling 53
Radionuclide Technologies 55
Gamma Radiation Detector 55
Passive Alpha Detector 56
Sampling and Sampler Emplacement Technologies 56
Closed-piston Soil Sampling : 56
Direct-push Prepacked Well Screen 56
Low-flow Ground-water Pumping 57
Soil Gas Sampling 58
Vertical Ground-water Profiling 58
Vibrating Well Installation 59
20
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies
* • '. f ' ' t\=? ,
'*ltS>;V
c^/^
:f'0^l'/?f::\:-^^
1 ".' o ,//?'•' • f /;' .N. .VV ..VT \y " ^ • > ' la^rf t%Vn> - ! '"V5*!; ^ * ' ; ,* '! f , A'^> :°: ';'* -* '"'• ,
Umatilla Army Depot-
Hermiston, OR:
explosives washout
lagoon, open bum/open
detonation (OB/OD)
area, small arms
incinerator, explosives
in ground water
10
Research
International, Inc.
Soil,
ground water,
composite
residues
(biotreatment
monitoring)
Military
explosives
(TNT, RDX,
HMX)
15 months
10-30
samples per
day
Site screening,
cleanup
monitoring,
compliance
monitoring
Not provided
Vtu' "' '"'^ :iV -;$ ''C>N--'X^.#5"* ^^^j^^f^^^^f'^f^
AgraPWS-
Agra,KS:
grain fumigation,
pesticide and fertilizer
production
^aval Submarine Base
Bangor-
Silverdale, WA:
open burn and open
detonation area
Umatilla Army Depot-
Hermiston, OR:
explosives washout
lagoon, OB/OD area,
small arms incinerator,
explosives in ground
water
7
10
10
Merck, Ltd.
(purchased from
Thomas Scientific,
Inc.)
Strategic
Diagnostics, Inc.
(SDI)
(RDX soil test kit)
SDI
Soil (ex situ),
ground water
Soil (ex situ)
Soil,
ground water,
composite
residues
Nitrate
Explosives
(TNT, RDX)
Military
explosives
(TNT, RDX,
HMX)
5 days
3 months
15 months
Soil: 10
minutes per
sample
Water: 2
minutes per
sample
5 samples per
hour
10-30
samples per
day
Site screening,
site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site screening,
cleanup
monitoring,
compliance
monitoring
$10 per
sample,
including labor
$20 to $25 per
sample, plus
accessory kit
Not provided
Real-time data;
lower cost
compared with
analytical
laboratory; higher
sampling density at
same cost
s*'*^;/: jjf'rS1
Very fast; easy to
use; low cost; used
on site to guide
investigation
High sampling
density and
collection of real-
time data; less
expensive than
laboratory data
[leal-time data;
ower cost
compared with
analytical
laboratory; higher
sampling density at
same cost; worked
exceptionally well
with target analyte
Not provided
Harry Craig
(EPA)
503/326-3689
,1-""*'''?" i?s*
-------
Tahle2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
TProdoctf !"i
i ffisp
iMonltored
Contaminant/
Parameter
1 Perioil
: of Use
Through-
put
Data
Usefe)
least
• :Te$a$lb£^
Advantiges*
Cone Penetrometer Mounted Sensor
Site unidentified-
Netherlands:
landfill and rcfinety
Central Landfill 1-
RI
Hanscom Air Force Base
(AFB)-
MA
Industriplex 1-
MA
LoringAFB-
ME
Silresim 1-
MA
Stamina Mills 1-
RI
Union Chemical 1-
ME
Not
applicable
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Delft Geotechnics
(Chemoprobe)
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Soil,
ground water,
soil gas
Soil (in situ)
Soil
Soil
Soil (in situ)
Soil,
ground water
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Geophysical
data(pH,
redox potential,
specific
conductivity,
hydraulic
conductivity),
LNAPL
DNAPL
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
VOCs
TCE
VOCs
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
1994
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Measure-
ments in 4
minutes; 0.5
hour to 1
hour for a
complete
sounding
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Site
characterization
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
flot provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Much quicker and
more cost-effective
than conventional
methods; more
accurate
measurements;
allows three-
dimensional
mapping
Rapid sampling;
greater accuracy
Rapid sampling;
greater accuracy
Rapid sampling;
greater accuracy
Rapid sampling;
greater accuracy
Not provided
Technology
minimizes vertical
migration
Not provided
%efirBf5gy:
* Limitation* r
Not provided
Subsurface
cobbles; not too
sensitive
Subsurface
cobbles; not too
sensitive
Subsurface
cobbles; not too
sensitive
Subsurface
cobbles; not too
sensitive
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
-Contactfe)
JJ. Olie
(Delft
Geotechnics)
John Courzier
(EPA)
617/573-5779
BobLim
(EPA)
617/223-5521
Joe Lemay
(EPA)
617/573-9622
Mike Nalipinski
(EPA)
617/223-5503
Almerinda Silva
(EPA)
617/573-9627
Neil Handler
(EPA)
617/573-9636
Terry Connelly
(EPA)
617/573-9638
22
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
HP/ j- ''V7..,'/J
";*$ieiWcri|>tion
'Iftgjj^
Region
i ' ' - *•* v
'•*Jfci3&r ""
, Prodtiet
? ' ]V£6di& "
> IVJOHl WlTCu f
Contaminant/
>Par$aaeMr,
Peifed"",
'of Use ;
, Through*
,*, D^ta i.
, v'~XJse(s). „ j
" '.V^;t'
ff /; ;< - * vtiws r«ne.it|jMBe«!r inuuuitsi aeiisui i^uuuuueu/ x - ^ ,. ' ' ' x, ^"^x'
Naval Weapons Station
Earle-
Colts Neck, NJ
Freedom Textile
Chemicals Co.-
Charlotte, NC:
landfill contaminated
with VOCs and SVOCs
Maval Air Station
Mew Orleans-
Mew Orleans, LA:
fuel farm and piping
Sandia National
-aboratory-
Albuquerque, NM
2
4
6
6
U.S. Navy
(SCAPS)
Not provided
Navy Research and
Development
(NRaD)
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ),
sludge
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
BTEX,
nonhalogenated
VOCs,
nonhalogenated
SVOCs,
Halogenated
and
nonhalogenated
VOCs and
SVOCs
PAHs
(JP-5 aviation
fuel)
PAHs
(diesel fuel)
Not provided
Not provided
1/26/96-
1/27/96
8/16/95-
8/18/95 and
11/1/95-
11/8/95
4 per hour
Not provided
41LIF
pushes (296
feet)
18LIF
pushes (905
feet)
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Not provided
Not provided
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
Quick turnaround
of results and
fingerprinting
capability; good
for measuring the
extent of free
product in soils
Not provided
Enhanced site
delineation
Enhanced site
delineation
Not provided
Not provided
Mot provided
Not provided
Jeffrey Gratz
(EPA)
212/637-4320
John Mayhew
(U.S. Navy)
610/595-0567
xl25&x!46
Joseph Alfand
(EPA)
404/562-8496
Phillip Pelp
(Freedom Textile
Chemicals Co.)
704/393-0089
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Hal Bolinger
(LDEQ)
504/765-0232
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
fohn Wesnousky
'California
environmental
Protection
Agency
[CalEPA])
916/322-2543
Steve Billets
(USEPA National
Environmental
Research
^aboratory-Las
Vegas [NERL-
LA])
702/798-2232
23
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Held Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
'----- -*1
" -' -: ;i
Site Description |
'> - --^J~n.
EPA '
RemonH
'-- Vendor/r
Product ;
' Media
Monitored
Contaminant/
Parameter
Period 1 Itrougjh-
ofUse 1 put j
Data I
Usefs) 1 Cost
Cone Penetrometer Mounted Sensor (continued)
Site unidentified-
joca&oa not provided:
former manufactured
gas plant, coal tar wastes
Site unidentified-
Lexington, ME:
manufacturing site, use
of solvents, cutting oils,
motor fuels, hydraulic
iluids, and heating oil
Department of Defense
Housing Facility-
Novato, CA:
exchange gas station
Guadelupe Oil Field-
CA:
7
7
9
9
friServices
SCAPS program
Unisys
Corporation
[Rapid Optical
Screening Tool
[ROST™])
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
Soil (in situ),
ground water
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
PAHs,
TPH
Aromatic
petroleum
lydrocaibons
PAHs
(diesel fuel and
gasoline)
PAHs
(kerosene)
10 days
3 days
5/15/96-
5/22/96
8/23/94-
9/8/94
208 feet per
day
Cone
penetro-
meter is
advanced at 2
centimeters
per second or
290 feet per
day
15LIF
pushes (178
feet)
36LIF
pushes
(1,327 feet)
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
$2,300 to
4,600 per day
for an average
iush rate of
200 feet per
day
$7,000 per
day, or $500
jerpush.or
$24 per foot
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
Technology
Advantages |
Continuous, real-
time data; quick
decontamination;
no soil cuttings
Faster and less
expensive than
traditional
techniques;
continuous and
real-time data; no
soil cuttings;
quicker
decontamination
than other methods
Enhanced site
delineation
Enhanced site
delineation
Technology
Limitations
Limited by rough
terrain, tight
spaces, and
subsurface cobbles
Difficult to
correlate
fluorescence
intensity with TPH
data
Not provided
Not provided
Contact®
Greg Stenback
Iowa State
Jniversity)
Dr. AlBevolo
Ames
Laboratory)
515/294-5414
Kathy Older
(USAGE)
Kevin Barley and
Keith Rapp
(Unisys)
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
John Pfister
(NAVFACEFA-
West)
415/244-2568
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Richard Aleshire
(California
Central Coast
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board)
805/542-4631
24
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
V ' i . 1 ' v
lit'iiti { i
\ atViir QI'
* Region
.,^v«a«/*\
. -Product l "
'-, jiWa
Monitored
Contaminant/
Parameter
, ftftoi-*'
, of Use *
/tlrowgh.
."'put '-''
- Data -i
. ' .UsH4>' ' ,
«'*>' >"*
'I*-Cost< '
xccoiiQto&y $
Aviy^itt^sc^^ •^~
,7fedUuti0 '
!« Limitations
.^jP^S*
§d^ctkl>*
>\- :^'? 'V^ / S ./., ^, ->X ^''dnePenetro^^&mt^l^Cco^ed) ^^'\^/' '.'V' ' 1^?7 "'^ -.
Marine Corps Air
Station, Site 13-
Gallarnd, CA:
leaking USTs,
refinery wastes
Marine Corp Air
Station-
29 Palms, CA
Marine Corps Base-
Camp Pendelton, CA: .
ground control approach
facility
Marine Corp Air
Station-
Yuma, AZ:
firefighter training area
and fuel bladders
9
9
9
9
U.S. Navy
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
TPH
PAHs
(JP-5 [aviation
fuel], diesel
fuel, waste and
heating oil)
PAHs
(diesel fuel)
PAHs
^JP-5 [aviation
fuel], diesel and
gasoline fuel)
2 weeks
8/23/95-
8/25/95
6/27/94-
7/6/94
5/17/94-
6/9/94
4 cone
penetrometer
testing (CPT)
soundings
per day
(depends on
depth)
8 LIF pushes
(220 feet)
25 LIF
pushes (335
feet)
29 LIF
)ushes(1169
feet)
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
$3,500 per day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
»r an average
)ush rate of
200 feet per
day
Real-time profile;
quick
understanding of
site; allows
focusing of CLP
sampling
Enhanced site
delineation
Enhanced site
delineation
Enhanced site
delineation
Expensive;
requires a lot of
equipment;
naturally occurring
fluorescence
material can lead
to false positives
Not provided
Not provided
Minor mineral
fluorescence,
spectrally
indistinguishable
Rachael Simon
(EPA)
415/744-2383
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Vickie Church
(San Diego
County,
California)
619/338-2243
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Davis Mangold
Navy Facilities
Command
Southwest
Division
[NAVFACSW-
DIVD
619/532-2534
25
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
llRegkm pKprodact ^ a| Monitorea
Contaminant/
Parameter
Period j Tttrongb-
ofUse { pot
JSL^'Z™'M SB, M """iTiiii 'iinnr.i.r.
Date !
Use{s)
;.— Cone Penetrometer Mounted Sensors (continued)
Marine Corp Recruit
Jepot-
Yuma,AZ:
fire training area,
disposal of aircraft
cleaning fluids
(solvents), landfill,
sewage lagoon
Naval Air Station, Site
13-
Alameda, CA:
former refinery
Naval Air Station North
[sland-
CA:
leaking UST
Naval Complex-
Long Beach, CA:
multiple UST sites
9
9
9
9
U.S.Navy
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ),
ground water
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ),
ground water
PAHs
diesel and
;asoline fuel)
PAHs
refinery waste)
PAHs
(diesel fuel)
PAHs
(diesel fuel,
gasoline, and
waste oil)
1/30/95-
2/9/95 and
2/21/95-
3/1/95
3/17/94-
4/6/94
7/25/94-
8/4/94
9/16/96-
9/27/96,
10/7/96-
10/18/96,
and
10/28/96-
11/8/96
25 LIF
pushes (514
feet)
21 LIF
pushes (318
fAAA
teey
45 LIF
pushes (808
feet)
25 LIF
pushes (701
feet)
121 LIF
pushes (1667
feet)
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
" f "" | '
Cost | Advantage ( LJaltaflons
Not provided
$2,300 to
$4,"600perday
'or an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
For an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
enhanced site
delineation
Enhanced site
delineation
Enhanced site
delineation; data
was used to
support the closure
ofUSTs
Enhanced site
delineation;
assisted with
plume delineation;
site closure with
minimum
sampling; obtained
regulatory closure
of 16 sites with
LIF data and
limited
confirmation
sampling of soil
and ground water
by a fixed
laboratory
tot provided
Not provided
Not provided
Minor mineral
fluorescence,
spectrally
indistinguishable
•tifa^fEJ*^ V-L mc-i
Cootaict(s)
Tom Hampton
(U.S.Navy)
619/553-1172
Vickie Church
San Diego
County)
619/338-2243
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
^.Mike
Petouhoff
(Base
Bnvironmental)
510/263-3726
Torn Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Richard Mach
(NAVFAC
SWDIV)
619/556-9934
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Hugh Marley
(Los Angeles
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board)
213/266-7669
Gary Simon
(NAVFAC
SWDIV)
619/532-2537
26
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
!•<' '- y*j, <.*?"•'' y-
i\v ,.;-;;;. ^ -„ >
•~A Site Description - -
{'* . _*., lit'
; p£ ;,
lsK^on-^
,"" ViiifetfV
s,'^, Protect >•
Monitored *
" * - " v"Vv^-
Contaminant/
Parameter
!^%J.
•*vrfD$CV
' Btroap^'
Y: &- •
-• *.'-i^pt ",; „
^•Vfbeto.v.;,
" v>Myt
•\ ^Gbst^,;
1 !''~0 ? ^. JO-" r * • * 1 '* " « ' *•* " t - ^ * ' * X1* > ' * - > * S "* ^ ' '"-.-X* "- ;. *"" f&V , ' i .
' \ f:i- , '- .:C'T .v, .x-i-v '!*"" '• ' .',">'- ' '"'• l '^i^..^^^^^^^0™*^^!1^1^^?^?^*'^ : 3 .
Naval Radio Receiving
Facility-
Imperial Beach, CA
Naval In Service
Engineering/West-
San Diego, CA:
hydraulic pump pit
Naval Training Center-
San Diego, CA:
exchange service station
and hobby shop
Naval Weapons Station-
China Lake, CA
9
9
9
9
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
PAHs
(fuel oil)
PAHs
(hydraulic oil)
PAHs
(gasoline and
waste oil)
PAHs
(JP-5 [aviation
fuel], diesel
fuel, gasoline,
and waste oil)
3/6/95-
3/22/95
7/22/96-
7/23/96
10/24/94-
11/8/94, and
11/15/94-
11/16/94
8/29/95-
8/30/95
36LIF
pushes (813
feet)
8 LIF pushes
(56 feet)
33 LIF
pushes (593
feet)
16 LIF
pushes (214
feet)
12 LIF
pushes (224
feet)
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,60 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
For an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
• ITe&olJig^;".*,
", sxMvairtaggs;" c!
'"COnBi&iiQBS^
* '
' rr'!'- ' ;• s->, ' - ,"]"" * »;- *•> !ji
V - " '' ,"!\t"i ,-.-.,.1 IW'> • frll^ ,
Enhanced site
delineation;
obtained regulatory
closure of 2 UST
sites with only 1
confirmatory soil
boring each
Enhanced site
delineation; rapid
delineation with
limited
confirmatory soil
and water
sampling;
permitted
regulatory
approval of site
reuse
Enhanced site
delineation;
provided data to
develop and
implement site
remediation and
closure
Enhanced site
delineation
Petroleum UST
cleanups are
moving toward
risk-based closure;
therefore, the
screening-level
data from SCAPS
is becoming less
valuable
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Richard Mach
(NAVFAC
SWDIV)
619/556-9934
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Thomas
Macchiarelli
(NAVFAC
SWDIV)
619/532-3808
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
27
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
" | EPA I Vendor/
Site Description I Region { Product
Media
Monitored
Contaminant/
Parameter
Period Throogh-
ofUse 1 put
,- ...I.IIII 1 -.M.I III ill, l" • —
. j
Data
Usefs)
— r— -I
Cfrrt
Cone Penetrometer Mounted Sensors (continued)
Naval Outlying Landing
Held-
mperial Beach, CA:
fuel depot
Naval Station-
San Diego, CA:
Bldg 279
Naval Station-
San Diego, CA:
irefighter training
Slaval Construction
Battalion Corps-
Port Hueneme, CA:
nydrocarbon national
test site and exchange
Naval Air Station North
Island-
Coronado, CA:
fuel tank depot
9
9
9
9
9
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
NRaD
(SCAPS)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
PAHs
JP-5 [aviation
iiel], diesel fuel
and gasoline)
PAHs
[gasoline)
PAHs
(JP-5 [aviation
fuel], gasoline)
PAHs
(diesel fuel)
PAHs
(JP-5 [aviation
fuel], marine
diesel fuel)
11/30/94-
12/15/94
8/12/96-
8/15/96
1/11/94-
2/8/94
4/4/95-
4/11/95,
5/16/95-
5/22/95, and
5/28/96-
5/30/96
7/14/93-
7/15/93,
8/18/93-
8/3 1/93, and
10/5/93-
10/8/93
38LIF
pushes (698
feet)
20LIF
pushes
(177 feet)
22LIF
pushes (313
feet)
24LIF
pushes (472
feet)
40LIF
pushes (708
feet)
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
$2,300 to
54,600 per day
'or an average
jush rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
$2,300 to
$4,600 per day
for an average
push rate of
200 feet per
day
-''.--.^ .-----|
TedinoJogy
Advantages
Enhanced site
delineation; data
was used to
support the closure
of2USTs
Enhanced site
delineation
Enhanced site
delineation
Enhanced site
delineation;
vertical resolution
of 2 inches;
enhanced vertical
resolution
Enhanced site
delineation;
vertical resolution
of 2 inches; data
used to develop
site remediation
system
Technology
LSmitationjL^
*
^Jot provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Conta.ct(s)
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Richard Mach
(NAVFAC
SWDIV)
619/532-1156
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Rick Bassinet
(NAVFAC
SWDIV)
619/532-1636
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
John Wesnousky
(CalEPA)
916/322-2543
Steve Billets
(USEPANERJ^
LV)
702/798-2232
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Richard Mach
(NAVFAC
SWDIV)
619/556-9934
28
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
[»fl% A, -,y/> j*
" Site Description
I?PA '•**
- ?«r £S**/>. :
£*>fl^MeSM^' ^
Mtinitored
,' £Hlf' iy
" Parameter
;> ^iAA
"iofUse!
'TUT' Vfc.
1 a»i- ,"
•>' ^liata '
'^ ADi3?/
1 f' f,- V
rilllehlMrfflW)'-''"
|5
,' \> , T, - '"f .* >"?0^f *', '<\1 '',j\, , y u' * v, , C«ne1fenetre^W"MouBtedSei&(irs{cU^d«i^dl) j v | ';,«? ,^k •';:'? .-sMuV " ' " £\'!.M! *'"'*,*' ' ,-»,
Naval Amphibious
Base-
Coronado, CA:
abandoned fuel farm
4 ' fl ^ " ' J*V ' v
Site unidentified-
Northeast United States
(specific location not
provided):
two leaking UST sites
Savannah River Site-
Aiken, SC:
TCE used as degreasing
solvent
Site unidentified-
Las Vegas, NV:
leaking UST site
3^V' \.&f
French Limited
Superfund Site-
Crosby, TX
9
"ifHff
1
4
9
- ,' ' *
6
NRaD
(SCAPS)
;V **•• ' ''''^ •
ORS
Environmental
Systems
(ChemSensor)
Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory
(TCE sensor)
FCI
Environmental,
toe. (PetroSense®
PHA-100)
"' %.^\.
Not provided
Soil (in situ)
* £ " ' £ f
:^v ' a?
Ground water
Soil gas,
ground water
Ground water
^ j A
' t ^ '<
Air
PAHs
(gasoline and
diesel fuel)
;' ';/£?. V
VOCs (TCE),
SVOCs,
BTEX,
TPH
VOC (TCE)
TPH
^Jo^trai
BTEX,
PAHs,
methane,
carbon
monoxide
2/15/94-
3/1/94
Fiber-optic C
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
tt&fi&dfcfi
4 days
22LIF
pushes (274
feet)
!hemical Sens
10 minutes
per measure-
ment
Continuous
measure-
ment
Not provided
Continuous
measure-
ment
Site
characterization
•»jf ,;T,s
Site screening,
site
characterization
Site screening,
site
characterization
Site
characterization
Not provided
' . r.;**
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Enhanced site
delineation
* fc f&i\ J~ j~J
£ IN^ J'ji, *
Easy to use; rapid,
inexpensive data;
very portable
Capable of in situ
measurements; less
expensive than off-
site analysis; rapid
measurements
Can be used in
situ; real-time
data; easy to use;
less expensive than
off-site analysis
Cleanup
monitoring (to
evaluate
bioremediation),
health and safety
monitoring
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
"- "$'-'•>*' ^ >'»
Concentration of
contaminants
affects response
time
Possible
interference from
other chlorinated
VOCs
Results affected by
bailing method and
amount of water
bailed
Water vapor
presents a potential
interference for the
absorption features
of toluene,
benzene, and
naphthalene
Tom Hampton
(NRaD)
619/553-1172
Kevin Heaton
(San Diego
County,
California)
619/338-2243
•lllfA '
John Hanshaw
(ORS
Environmental
Systems)
800/228-2310
Joe Rossabi
(Westinghouse
Savannah River
Company)
803/725-5220
Devinder P.Salini
(FCI
Environmental,
toe.)
702/361-7921
Jim Sealy
(ManTech
Environmental
Technology)
405/436-8658
29
-------
Tahle2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continaed)
Product ' i| -Monitored
jf \ * • : :
Contsniitumt/
Parameter
*- *- t f ; u •
ofUw
TtaKtgb,
pot
Data 1 1 ]
Use{s)
: | r:-r-|.
Cost :
^Advantages
Fourier-transformed Infrared (FTIR) Spectroroetry (continued)
Bliss EUisville-
WildWood,MO:
dioxin-contaminated oil
sprayed on site, buried
drums of industrial
waste, and uncontained
Site unidentified-
Location not provided
W*4> «HWM-f f . ~
7
7
Not provided
None - developed
by universities
Air
Air
VOCs
VOCs
4 months
Iday
40-50
measure-
ments over a
4-month
period
Measure-
ments every
12 minutes
Health and safety
monitoring
Compliance
monitoring (for
air emissions)
Not provided
Not provided
Real-time data;
portable system;
compound-specific
Precision and
accuracy similar to
accepted Method
TO-14; adequate
detection levels;
fast, on-site data
Limitations
QA/QC methods
not well developed
Not appropriate for
a high degree of
spatial resolution
in ambient air
monitoring
'Contactfs)
Wood Ramsey
(EPA)
913/551-7382
Mark Thomas
(EPA)
913/551-7937
Randy
Scheidermann
(E&E)
913/432-9961
Jody Hudson
(EPA)
913/551-5064
"MI;*', * ' |, ;.- Gas Chromatograpby l '
Site unidentified-
Jard VT
Beede Waste Oil-
NH
Connecticut Building
CT
Indian Line Farm-
MA
1
1
1
1
Not provided
PE Photovac, toe.,
Thermo Instrument
Systems, toe.
PE Photovac, toe.
PE Photovac, toe.,
Thermo Instrument
Systems, toe.
Not provided
Soil
Air
Soil
Not provided
VOCs,
PCBs
VOCs
VOCs,
PCBs
12/31/91-
11/11/92
11/93-12/93
12/23/91
2/27/92-
5/28/93
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Avoided
downtime; data
quality effective
for determining
final sampling
locations
Avoided
downtime; data
quality effective
for determining
final sampling
locations
Avoided
downtime; data
quality effective
for determining
final sampling
locations
Avoided
downtime; data
quality effective
for determining
final sampling
locations
j
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
j
Mary Ellen
Stanton
(EPA)
617/573-9670
DorriePaar
(EPA)
617/573-5768
Dome Paar
(EPA)
617/573-5768
Gary Lipson
(EPA)
617/223-5584
30
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
01 ' ^ \," f *;"
"Sitej&^ption\
, ^PA -;
-tMegiflji^
s^- Vendor? , ;
^jftrod««5fc— »,-,'
l^'Mecfia^J
Mpritocea^
Contaminant/
Parameter s
'FeM«a '
'''•rflfetftf
Ihrotigh*
- rp« ' ;
-#S'/" ?, -"^-J-'l '
A- ~Mfa-M^-'
';^$<£s^-
' :»] ^*«
5 ',' COSJb}. ;,
;Admrffcg&*;,
f^1tedtatito|p§;%.
" Ifcanaii&fBHi^sv
v^V j^ ^,
4%te^S>?--:
o ! • < , '••' - ''.--, - x> • , '•"•''•' -,> M -. ' '•^•••^ A^ ti if .'h^'»l I,-, ' "v^ ,' ' rt x\ »-~x\-s * •*•% ¥ ^ _«,
Si/'*- ;* i/^^Ch^in^g^lffl^feBliu^^ , , t^ ;; :l;j-*± '!•• *S\'j. -k ; v^-^. '.- --,-r'
Site unidentified-
Leicester, MA:
landfill
Kchillo Farm Superfund
Site-Coventry, RI
Resolve 1-
MA
Site unidentified-
Stratford, CT
Three C-
MA
Toka-Renbe Farm-
MA
1
1
1
1
1
1
PEPhotovac,Inc.,
Thermo Instrument
Systems, Inc.
TMA
PE Photovac, Inc.
Thermo Instrument
Systems, Inc.
Thermo Instrument
Systems, Inc.
PE Photovac, Inc.,
Thermo Instrument
Systems, Inc.
Air
Soil (ex situ),
soil gas
Air
Soil
Soil
Soil
VOCs
VOCs,
SVOCs
VOCs
PCBs
PCBs
VOCs,
PCBs
1/22/92
6/96-12/96
6/93-7/94
6/17/93
8/8/95-
8/26/95
7/7/94
Not provided
2 soil
samples per
hour
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
^ot provided
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Compliance
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Mot provided
Not provided
Avoided
downtime; data
quality effective
for determining
final sampling
locations
On-site real-time
results
Avoided
downtime; data
quality effective
for determining
final sampling
locations
Avoided
downtime; data
quality effective
for determining
final sampling
locations
Avoided
downtime; data
quality effective
For determining
final sampling
'ocations
Avoided
downtime; data
quality effective
For determining
Final sampling
locations
Not provided
Not provided
Instrument
calibration requires
a significant
amount of time
Not provided
Mot provided
Not provided
Dorrie Paar
(EPA)
617/573-5768
Anna Kraskow
(EPA)
617/573-5749
Richard Willy
(EPA)
617/573-9639
Alan Peterson
(EPA)
617/860-4607
Joe Lemay
(EPA)
617/573-9622
Mike Jagingici
(EPA)
617/573-5786
Dorrie Paar
(EPA)
617/573-5768
Lisa Danek
(EPA)
617/573-5707
31
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
-" ~>-^- •
"' EEC
Vowlor/
Media
Contaminant/
Period
ofUse
Through-
pot
Data \
Ose(s)
Cost
Tedmology
Advantages
Gas Cbromatography (continued)
Site unidentified-
Location not provided:
active manufacturing
facility
Site unidentified-
Hlinois:
contamination from old
compressors that used
PCB-containing oils
Koppers-Morrisville-
Morrisville, NC:
wood treatment
operations
Florida Department of
Transportation -
Fairbanks, FL:
contaminated landfill
3
4
4
4
PB Photo vac, Inc.
(10S70GCwith
photoionization
detector)
Hewlett Packard
(5890 Series H
GC)
Shimadzu
(14AGC)
Not provided
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ),
sediment
(ex situ)
Soil (ex situ),
ground water,
air
Soil (ex situ)
Halogenated
and
nonhalogenated
VOCs
PCBs
SVOCs (PCP),
dioxin
PAHs
Not provided
Not provided
3 weeks
1 year
120 samples
xr day with
3GCs
20 minutes
per sample
2 samples per
hour
Not provided
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring,
health and safety
monitoring
Site screening,
site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring,
confirmation
sampling
$35 per sample
Not provided
$13.50 per
sample for
expendables;
$23,214 to
purchase GC
system; $1,500
per month to
rentGC
system
Not provided
On-site data used
to guide
investigation; less
costly than off-site
analysis; high
sample throughput;
saved costs for the
removal action
Good correlation
between on-site
and off-site data;
reduced cost;
quick data
On-site data used
to verify
performance of
remediation
technology; quick-
turnaround data;
less expensive than
formal analysis
Allows for quick
separation of soil
into clean or dirty
groups when
removing large
volumes of soil
Technology
Limitations
Not provided
Modified
extraction time
required to obtain
consistent results
Petroleum carrier
solvent for PCP
caused interference
problems, resulting
in poor recovery
for some soil
samples
Operator must be
familiar with
equipment
Coafact(s)
David Catherman
(Environmental
Resources
Management,
Inc.)
610/524-3500
Brad Anderer
(TRC
Environmental
Corporation)
Darrell Hamilton
(Tetra Tech)
913/894-2600
Wesley S.
Hardegree
(EPA)
404/562-8486
Steve Spurlin
(EPA)
404/562-8743
32
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
£ "\: •'' , „ ^
.Stebf&cription
EPA
* Product is
~ **** L
Medial ,
MtifiJtored
Contaminant/
x Parameter^
> Period
Xs of Use,
trough-
%PBt
v , Da&c
vt J'tJse(s) ,
' ;j?-s^\,"
" '"dost x/<<
tfechaologyV
5 Advantages* ,
Kcfenology
Limitations ,
*\ * * t*
*? '» , ? ,^N ( \ ' " ?> , ' v-t-r - ' 1< . ' ;pasCfirdmatograp%(coBfliaied} _/ %' ^ "'"* ,Cj% ' x.
Pig's Eye Landfill-
St. Paul, MN:
municipal solid waste
landfill (also contains
industrial wastes)
Hastings Superfund
Site-
NB:
landfill, contaminated
ground water
Kinsley Airport-
Kinsley, KS:
pesticide formulation,
spraying, and tank and
applicator cleaning
Site unidentified-
Location not provided:
drum recycling site
5
7
7
8
Tekmar-
Dohrmann, Inc.
(HSA)
Shimadzu
(14AGC)
Not provided
(GC used with
electron capture
detector)
Hewlett Packard
Viking Instruments
Inc.
(GC/MS)
Soil (ex situ),
ground water,
soil gas
Soil (ex situ),
ground water
Soil (ex situ),
ground water
Soil gas,
air
Halogenated
and
nonhalogenated
VOCs,
solvents,
BTEX
Halogenated
VOCs
Pesticides,
herbicides
(containing
chlorinated and
nitrogen
compounds)
VOCs
3 weeks
6/97
1 week
Not provided
20 samples
per day
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Site screening (to
determine extent
of
contamination),
site
characterization
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Site screening,
site
characterization
Cleanup
monitoring,
health and safety
monitoring
$50 per sample
Not provided
Approxi-
mately $100
per sample
Not provided
Technology was
less expensive than
off-site laboratory
analysis; achieved
low detection
limits, especially
for chlorinated
VOCs; data used
to guide
investigation; only
one mobilization
Real-time data;
CLP equivalent; no
purge and trap
required
Ability to detect
compounds at
MCL
concentrations;
technology
produced quick
results at about
one-thud the cost
of off-site analysis
Data correlated
well with off-site
data; data could be
used to guide the
removal action;
portable system;
data could be used
to monitor public
safety
- *>is> I
Not provided
Technology
requires mobile
laboratory
Simultaneous
elution of 3 target
pesticides hinders
ability to meet
detection limits
Not provided
Patrick Splichal
(TetraTech)
913/894-2600
Diane Easley
(EPA)
915/551-7797
Darrell Hamilton
(Tetra Tech)
913/894-2600
Alan Humphrey
(EPA)
732/321-6748
Steven Hawthorn
(EPA)
303/312-6061
33
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
•r^":h -s 1-- ^ -isiy^^aj^x
Site Description-
'^Region
Vendor/
Product
Monitored
Contaminant/
Parameter
Period
oflfse
Through-
put
Diia i
Dse{s)
Cost
JAdvsniagesH
; TecttHoJogy
Limitation's
;-=-: 'r'pr^f ;f
CoiaactCs)
Gas Ghroimtography (continued}
Mount Olivet Cemetery-
Salt Lake City, UT
China Lake NAWS-
Ridgecrest, CA:
laboratory wastes and
petroleum wastes from
refueling operations and
leaking USTs
Moffett Field-Mountain-
View, CA:
leaking USTs and
pipelines at fuel farm
Piper Aircraft
Corporation-
Vero Beach, CA
Garden City Ground
Water-
Garden City, ID:
ground water
contamination
8
9
9
9
10
PEPhotovac.Inc.
Hewlett-Packard
(5890 GC)
Shimadzu
(14AGC)
Tekmar-
Dohrmann, Inc.
(headspace
analyzer)
Sentex Systems,
Inc.
(portable GC -
Sentograph™)
Not provided
(sample extracted
using mobile
laboratory
equipment and
analyzed with field
GC)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ),
ground water
Soil (ex situ),
ground water
Soil (ex situ),
sediment (ex
situ),
ground water
Soil (ex situ),
ground water,
soil gas
VOCs
(Pentachloro-
ethane [PCE])
TPH-
extractable,
PAHs,
PCBs,
phthalates,
light
nonaqueous
phase liquids
(LNAPL)
TPH-
purgeable,
BTEX
VOCs (TCE)
VOCs,
solvents
Ongoing
6 weeks
2 weeks
8/23-8/26/92
5 weeks
Not provided
20 samples
per day
25 to 30
samples per
day
25 samples
per 4 days
2 samples per
hour
Site screening
(plume tracing)
Site screening,
site
characterization
Site screening,
site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site screening,
site
characterization,
enforcement
Not provided
Rental cost of
$3,000 per
month; $5,000
for expendable
supplies for
450 samples
Equipment can
be rented for
about $2,500
per month
Not provided
Not provided
Time savings; cost
savings
Quick turnaround
data; reduced
number of samples
sent off-site for
analysis; reduced
costs
Simultaneous
analysis for BTEX,
as well as several
fuels; inexpensive;
no solvent waste
Real-time data
Quick turnaround
time; allowed
sampling of a large
area for a low cost
Not provided
Lack of positive
identification
because there was
no mass
spectroscopy or
second column
confirmation;
requires operator
experience; TPH
interference
Poor extraction of
diesel fuel from
soils with high
organic matter
Library of
components
limited
Not provided
Luke Chaved
(EPA)
303/312-6512
Barry Hayhurst
(URS Greiner,
Inc.)
303/291-8270
Darrell Hamilton
(Tetra Tech)
913/894-2600
Patrick Splichal
(Tetra Tech)
913/894-2600
Jean Barranco
(Tetra Tech)
303/295-1101
Roger E. Carlton
(EPA)
706/355-8609
Bill Bokey and
Arthur Lee
(Piper Aircraft
Corporation)
706/355-8604
David Bennett
(EPA)
206/553-2103
34
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
^, v«
*• - Sifev Inscription- '
Region
, J" Vejjdor/, nf
,J'15rodoct,% -
• Media >''
. Monitored
Contaminant/
.Parameter,
Period
1 "put."*"
j*** * ' f
\ 5^ "* * * ^ "< "~-s ^ , •• > i , ,x 'v*- ~ "" 3-f,sl 1
/ '' " >( .'s''~ ' ; -„- * N 'x ->-' "GalTCfirl5iii»aitogEa|iIiy (continued)
Preston Ground Water-
Preston, ED:
gas station with a
leaking UST, causing
ground-water
contamination
it,- " Is'
Industrial Buildings-
Location not provided
Site unidentified-
Location not provided
CYRO Industries-
Location not provided
Site unidentified-
'Jorwood, MA
10
' ' 4 * " '
Not
specified
Not
specified
1
1
Hewlett Packard
(HP 5890)
?V« - ,' ^\ v,
ImmunoSystems,
SDI (EnvkoGard)
BioNebraska
(BiMelyze
Mercury Assay)
SDI
SDI
Soil (ex situ),
ground water
VOCs,
BTEX
1 month
3 samples per
hour
Site screening,
site
characterization
?,lcastVl
*i -v Siu' "i*"'f
Technttl&ly /
Limitations '
v/>* IY
' «J^\ ' "^ ^!|i\^>" r^W<" ~ ''
50 percent of
the cost of
CLP data
Real-time data to
help direct the
field program;
tracking of the
plume; cost-
effective; high
quality results
Not provided
Chris Field
(EPA)
206/553-1674
r aft '$. ' '••'' ~ • ' M ^ -. ^>» , s* * (V^-> x x" ,-i; f- rfT-fifrifi\3t f-F7'' ""i y§?. '^'4 if*- f •"•*"*•••£' t,,$&? ;^**''>; ^Ci^s^v'i
Wipe samples
from solid
surfaces
Soil (ex situ),
sediment
(ex situ),
ground water
Soil
Mot provided
PCBs
Mercury
PAHs
PCBs,
PAHs
Not provided
Not provided
10/95-11/95
12/94-8/95
20 samples
per 2 hours
Not provided
Mot provided
Mot provided
Cleanup
monitoring,
health and safety
monitoring
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Cleanup
monitoring,
tealth and safety
monitoring
Not provided
Not provided
Mot provided
Mot provided
Reduced cost per
sample; rapid
analysis; on-site
data
Convenient; cost-
effective; real-time
data; highly
selective for
mercury; data
correlates well
with those
obtained by other
methods
Low cost;
90% accuracy
Low cost; rapid
Better control
needed for
heterogeneity of
PCB distribution;
possible
interference from
PCB cleansers
Not provided
10% false positives
Mot provided
Craig Kostyshyn
(SDI)
215/860-5115
(contact obtained
from Vendor
FACTS database)
Craig Schweitzer
(BioNebraska)
800/786-2580
(contact obtained
from Vendor
FACTS database)
Ernest Waterman
(EPA)
617/223-5511
John LeMay
(EPA)
617/573-9622
35
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
9it* DttfrinHrm
teA
ftftamn
: Vendor/
Product
" Media
Monitored
Contaminant/
Parameter
Period
of Use
Urough-
put
Data
Usefs) 1 Cost 1
Itranunoassay (continued)
tyanza Chemical Waste
Superfund Site-
Ashland, MA:
dye manufacturing
acility, mercury
contamination in soils
and sediments
Pine Street 1-
VT
Pinette's-
ME
Raymark 3-
CT
Resolve 1-
MA
Resolve 2-
MA
Resolve 1 &2-
MA:
PCB-contaminated sites
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JioNebraska, Inc.
BiMelyzc
Mercury Assay)
*Iot provided
"•Jot provided
^ot provided
SDI
SDI
SDI
Sediment,
oil (ex situ)
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil (ex situ)
Mercury
PAHs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
9/94-10/94
>fot provided
Not provided
9/93-9/97
Mot provided
Not provided
2 months
70 split
amplesper
day
'tot provided
Not provided
^ot provided
Not provided
Not provided
3 per hour
Site screening
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
35 per sample
Not provided
Not provided
Mot provided
Not provided
Not provided
$10 per sample
"Advantages
lesults showed
acceptable
correlation with
aboratory results;
mercury
concentrations
ranged from less
than 0.5 parts per
million (ppm) to
greater than 100
ppm
Rapid, low cost
Rapid, low cost
Rapid, low cost
Low cost; 90%
accuracy
Low cost
Results more
conservative than
laboratory
(confirmation
sampling)
technology'
Limitations
4ot provided
Extraction problem
caused by soil
moisture content
Not provided
Not provided
10% false positives
False positives
No major problems
encountered
w—"N-J»;v*;'
Coatoct(s)
Greg Morin
U.S. Army
^orps of
Engineers
[USAGE])
617/647-8232
Pam Shields
(EPA)
617/573-9632
Ross Gilleland
(EPA)
617/573-5766
Ross Gilleland
(EPA)
617/573-5766
Mike Jasinski
(EPA)
617/573-5786
Joe Lemay
(EPA)
617/573-9622
Joe Lemay
(EPA)
617/573-9622
Joe Lemay
(EPA)
617/573-9622
36
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
•taX, ,
' * ' »' ** '
General Electric Corp.
(GE) Site No. 5-
NY:
industrial landfill
General Motors, Central
Boundary Division Site-
Massena, NY
Aberdeen Proving
Ground-
Aberdeen, MD:
military activities
Delaware Sand and
lew Castle, DE:
andfill drum pit
'ormer Coal
Gasification Site-
Georgetown, DE:
coal gasification wastes
Saunders Supply-
VA:
wood treating facility
Woodbridge Research
'acility-
Woodbridge, VA:
ormer radio
transmission
acility/research lab
jC,
> '«,o
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
s Predttfct^uS
"'^' A>
SDI (EnviroGard)
SDI
(PCB RISC™)
tfew Horizons
Diagnostic Corp.
(The SMART
Test)
OHM
SDI
(RaPJD® Assay)
•Jot provided
tot provided
""liedBa"
Contaminant/
, Parameter
, leried
^Through-.
pot tf"
/^'Data *
^Cost^
'•.> 'k'Vl^ ^fcwA^fcofctawp ''^//"^ "^\'f 4 , , > ^.''"1^
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ),
sediment
(ex situ)
Soil,
sediment
ex situ)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ),
ground water
Ground water
Soil (ex situ)
PCBs (Aroclor
1260)
PCBs
Bacteria
PCBs
VOCs,
BTEX,
PAHs
SVOCs
PCP)
PCBs
Not provided
2-3 months
on 2 occas-
ions
7/93-7/97
•Jot provided
•Jot provided
2 days
994
80 samples
per day
4 samples per
hour
Mot provided
>Iot provided
10 samples
jerday ;
tot provided
tot provided
Site
characterization
(technology
evaluation
performed by
GE)
Cleanup
monitoring,
compliance
monitoring
Mot provided
Site screening
Site screening,
ite
characterization
Site
haracterization
Site
haracterization
$18 per sample
Not provided
$6 per sample
*Jot provided
BTEX-$20per
sample
PAHs-$25per
ample
Mot provided
Not provided
Low rate of false
positives results
Large savings in
time and analytical
costs; savings in
labor and
equipment costs;
real-time data
aided in guiding
excavation
activities
Mot provided
Real-time
monitoring
Not provided
•ast results
•Jot provided
Not provided
No official report
on verification
procedures
Mot provided
Mot provided
Not provided
Mot provided
'alse positives
detected
*&Jf$&$$
^* , s> *,
><^vVx
LA. Socha
(GE)
Lisa Jackson and
Anne Kelly
(EPA)
212/637-4274
Jim Hartnett
(CMC)
315/764-2239
Peter Stopa
(U.S. Army)
Eric Newman
(EPA)
215/566-3237
lobertM.
Schulte
Delaware
)epartment of
Natural
Resources)
Andy Palestini
215/566-3223
ack Porosnak
(EPA)
215/566-3362
effWaugh
(Earth Tech)
410/671-1615
37
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
lcSto*»iit/|i Period 1 inrrogh- P Data ! TTrn * h'^ySSgjr l-^tlE^m^bgr 1^ '
1 Parameter | of Use I put I TJsefs) 1 'Cost |« Adwtoges T"ma»tat5or» T Contect®^
V- Immunoassay (continued)
Agricultural
Cooperative-
South-central,WI:
lerbicide and pesticide
American Creosote
JVorks-
Jackson, TN:
Transformer and
Refurbishing Facility-
Mi
utility wastes
AmesorTimber-
Steelville,MO:
lumber treatment
Farmland Refinery-
Coffeyville, KS:
refinery (petroleum
waste)
Former Manufactured
Gas Plant-
Marshalltown, IA:
coal gasification
4
4
5
7
7
7
SDI
(RaPED® Assay)
SDI(EnviroGard)
SDI
(RaPID® Assay)
SDI
SDI
(RaPID® Assay)
SDI
(DTech)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ),
ground water
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ),
ground water,
surface water
Soil (ex situ),
sediment
(ex situ),
ground water
Pesticides
atrazine)
PAHs
PCBs
SVOCs (PCP)
PAHs
TPH (coal tar
and coal
gasification
wastes),
dense
nonaqueous
phase liquids
(DNAPL)
"Jot provided
^ot provided
^Jot provided
3 days
5 days
Not provided
20 samples
wrday
80 samples
per day
Not provided
25 samples
per day
20 samples in
2 hours
50 samples
per day
*Iot provided
Site
characterization
(technology
evaluation)
Not provided
Site
characterizations
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
550 per sample
$18 per sample
$25 per sample
$225 per kit
$50 per sample
exclusive of
labor
$12,855 to
complete
project and
report
^ot provided
Good agreement
with results
produced by EPA
Method 8270
Not provided
Cost-effective;
quick turnaround
time for results;
helped to direct
sampling efforts;
reduced the
number of samples
needed to
characterize the
site
Easy to use; low
detection limits;
rapid data
Results of the
survey showed the
area of DNAPL
contamination
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Sufficient reagent
was not provided;
only 60 of the 70
samples collected
produced valid
results
Interference caused
by high
concentration of
petroleum; cannot
identify individual
PAHs
Conditions of
interference
affected the data
Dr. Kirsti Sorsa
(RMT.Inc.)
Dennis Revell
(EPA)
703/355-8807
P. Berlinski
fTVUfl
Environmental,
Inc.)
916/638-2085
Paul Doherty
(EPA)
913/551-7924
Patrick Splichal
(Terra Tech)
913/894-2600
Scott Ritchey
(EPA)
913/551-7641
Dr. Al Bevolo
(Ames
Laboratory)
515/294-5414
38
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
,} SiteBes4riptioii,~,
> P- ', •' f f »
Kinsley Airport-
Kinsley, KS:
washing of pesticide
application rigs
Osage Metal-
Kansas City, KS:
metal salvage yard,
recycling of car batteries
and transformers
Joanoke Apartments-
Kansas City, MO:
gasoline service station
with a leaking UST
Whiteman AFB-
MO:
gasoline service station
with a leaking UST
iows Landing-
'atterson, CA:
mm pit, landfill area
' JlegMto;
" '* s
7
7
7
7
9
/3te>
Mo*fitoM:-
f! "ifrlf '} ! l * jA\ ,< -iV /"
_,< > O i i ' ' ' "• } -f^ erday
0 samples in
2 hours
Site screening,
site
characterization
Cleanup
monitoring,
confirmation
sampling, waste
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site screening,
ite
haracterization
$50 per sample
exclusive of
labor
Not provided
$13,345 to
complete
jroject
$22,981 to
complete site
characteriza-
tion
$194 for 4
tests; $400 per
week for
pectrophoto-
leter
Cost savings;
portable; quick
turnaround times;
detection limits
capable of meeting
action levels
Saved time;
produced usable
results
Allowed definition
of migration
jathways
Allowed straight-
brward definition
of 2 plumes
confirmed by FID
eadings
Cost-effective;
easy to use; very
portable; quick
turnaround times
*JL ^ \ •» ' *"•
•t* , ecause fuel oil
was degraded
, , •'' -* ' i,>
Keith Brown
(Tetra Tech)
913/894-2600
Susan Stover
(KDHE)
913/296-5531
Wood Ramsey
(EPA)
913/551-7382
Craig Kostyshyn
(SDI)
215/860-5115
(contact obtained
rom Vendor
FACTS database)
Craig Kostyshyn
SDI)
215/860-5115
contact obtained
rom Vendor
'ACTS database)
'odd Bechtel
Tetra Tech)
03/295-1101
39
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
"~" ™~ ^ 1 IKS/ 1 S^te? •-•• J| - MeE» Icontanmant/l Vraod i throng
Site Description 1 Region 1 Product -• 1 Monitored I Parameter 1 of Use 1 put 1
Data
UseCs) 1
Irnmuntwssay (continued)
Gila River Indian
Reservation-
Gila River Indian
Community, AZ:
storage, mixing, and
application of pesticides
Hickam Air Force Base-
Honolulu, HI:
leaking UST site
McCormick and Baxter-
Stockton, CA:
wood treatment
9
9
9
SDI
SDI (EnviroGard)
SDI
(RaPID® Assay)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ)
"esticides
TPH(JP-4
aviation fuel)
Halogenated
SVOCs (PCP),
PAWc
1 months
Less than 1
month
10 days
1 sample
every 20
minutes
10 samples in
1 day
233 samples
Site screening,
site
characterization
Site screening,
site
characterization
Site screening,
site
characterization
- r - -i i|*=p^
Cost
Advantages 4
120 per sample
$18 per sample
Not provided
Faster method of
collecting reliable
data; easier to use
(can develop a
generic sampling
plan); cheaper;
quick, reliable
data; real-time
data; flexible for
use in the field
Low rate of false
positive results
[one false positive
result in 10
samples at a
screening level of
1,000 ppm)
Technology saved
money by allowing
reduction in the
number of samples
sent to the off-site
lab
'?•>
Limitations -| Contact®
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Carolyn Douglas
(EPA)
415^744-2343
Bryce Hataoka
[Hawaii
Department of
Health)
Marie Lacey
(EPA)
415/744-2236
40
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
' -v ->'
t {Site-Description '*
' Region '
| Vendor/
ferofliret
Monitored
Contaminant/
^Parameter
, * Pfiiod *
efUs&
-.V
*V Dita " s'<
- rttfefr) '
* ^ * <£
T~ , " s~ ^ * i n ; - >•< •! - * '* ,- ••' %' » ,^ Immnndassay (coitfaued) **Ss , ^,j; '*' *M
Navajo Nation Dip Vats
Project-
AZ:
toxaphene dip vats
Naval Station, Treasure
Island-
San Francisco, CA:
fire training area,
fuel farms
Naval Station Treasure
Island-
San Francisco, CA:
leaking USTs and
pipelines
NCS Stockton-Stockton,
CA:
pesticide storage,
leaking drums
containing pesticides
Sanders Aviation-
Tempe, AZ:
crop duster activities
9
9
9
9
9
SDI(EnviroGard)
SDI(PETRO
RISC™,
DTech)
SDI(PETRO
RISC™ and PCS
RISC™)
SDI(EnviroGard
and RISC™)
SDI
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (in situ),
storm drain
sediments
Soil (ex situ),
ground water
Soil (ex situ),
*round water
Soil (ex situ)
Pesticides
(toxaphene)
PCBs,
BTEX,
TPH(gas,
diesel)
BTEX,
PCBs,
PAHs
Pesticides
(Dichlorodi-
)henyltrichloro-
ethane [DDT])
Pesticides
Ongoing
6 months
5 months
2-3 weeks
2 weeks
1 sample
every 20
minutes
4 samples per
hour
4 samples per
liour
4 samples per
lour
10 samples in
t hour
Site screening,
site
characterization
(technology
demonstration)
Site screening
Site screening,
site
characterization
Site screening,
site
characterization
Site screening,
site
characterization
$20 per sample
$30 per test
Not provided
Less than $50
per sample
Mot provided
Advantages \"
s Limitations
^^LfcJM
;Jn; :;, : ^& ^";<", :'" :
Good agreement
with EPA Method
8081 (no false
positive or
negative results at
10-ppm level);
faster method of
collecting reliable
data; easy to use
cheaper; flexible
for use in the field
Real-time data;
able to delineate
and verify
contamination in
the field
Not provided
Field screening
data showed good
correlation with
ndependent
aboratory data
Real-time data;
cost-effective;
identification of
lot spots
Not provided
Need better
concentration
range; operator
must be certified to
use kit
Degraded fuels,
which lacked
aromatics, gave 15
to 20% false
negative results,
compared with
results from formal
laboratory; PAH
test kits not useful
TPH interference
required dilution
and affected
detection limit;
jeatorbog
samples gave poor
extraction
efficiency
Must be careful
about setting up
and defining
ranges
Carolyn Douglas
(EPA)
415/744-2343
Stanley Edison
(Navajo Nation)
520/871-6861
Gina Kathuria
(California
Regional Water
Quality Board)
510/286-4267
Thorsten
Anderson
(Tetra Tech)
415/543-4880
Gina Kathuria
(California
Regional Water
Quality Board)
510/286-4267
BethKelley
(Tetra Tech)
916/853-4523
Tom Dunkelman
(EPA)
415/744-2294
41
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
' •*- -^t^i^lgiHj-
- 1 TT |
l^A^
yf&i&d
Media
Monitored
Conlamiuant/
Parameter
Period
of Use
Through-
put
Data !
U$e(s):
,..,«,,-,,.
: Cost
"iBtajiogS'
Advantages
Immunoassay (continued)
Astoria Plywood-
Astoria, OR:
plywood mill operations
Battery Recycling Plant-
AK:
Environmental Pacific
Corp.-
Amity, OR:
abandoned battery
recycling facility
Pacific Wood Treating-
RidgeReld,WA:
former wood treating
10
10
10
10
SDI(PETOO
RISC™ and PCB
RBC™)
BioNebraska, Inc.
(BiMelyze
Mercury Assay)
BioNebraska, Inc.
(BiMelyze(R)
Mercury)
SDI
(RaPID® Assay)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ),
sludge
Soil (ex situ),
ground water,
dust, sludge,
concrete
residue
Soil (ex situ),
ground water,
surface water
PCBs,
TPH
Heavy metals
(mercury)
Heavy metals
(mercury)
SVOCs,
PCBs,
PAHs
4 days
Not provided
1 month
1 month
4 samples per
hour
48 samples
per day
1-2 samples
per hour
1 sample
every 2 hours
Site screening,
site
characterization
Not provided
Site screening,
compliance
monitoring,
verification
sampling
Site screening,
site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
PCB-S38per
sample;
TPH-$29 per
sample;
accessory kit
rented for
$550 per week
$24 per sample
Not provided
Not provided
Data for soil
samples screened
with PCB test kits
showed reasonable
correlation with
analytical
laboratory data
Operational
mercury range up
to 4,400 ppm for
analysis of
confirmation
samples
Cost-effective;
real-time data;
reproducible
results
Quick turnaround,
allowed for
definition of extent
of contamination;
reduced analytical
costs allowed for
effective direction
of field efforts
TteiSSogyif
limitations " --
Data for soil
samples screened
with TPH test kits
showed poor
correlation with
data from
analytical
laboratory;
possible matrix
interference from
presence of
hydraulic oil
having higher
molecular chains
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Coatactfs)
JoeMollusky
(TetraTech)
2067587-4650
Mike Boykin
(Ecology and
Environment)
206/624-9537
Thor Cutler
(EPA)
206/553-1673
Bill Langston
(EPA)
206/553-1679
Mark Ader
(EPA)
206/553-1808
42
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
" > Site Description 1
.Region
•• iS2£^
Monitored
Contaminant/
$&•
pttt •>
Data
» fSosi
jTeclsflnoIogy \
Limitations
?£*&,
,N ' , .. 'i f, v ' >xi f „ , JK' ^ o\ „ < > - ^ ^|\cf-" ,» ;\* „,„- * ''"* '^fc-'^y^ . >"" ,„« /" •••' •••"% _~" ^""m"'" "'"' "-* \y » >,
'" i
Reynolds Metal Co-
Troutdale, OR:
aluminum reduction
facility
Umatilla Army Depot-
Hermiston, OR:
explosives washout
lagoon, OB/OD, small
arms incinerator,
explosives in ground
water
» ;>'• ,-* ^ «-f'' , i ; (V^1113™?110?^8^!4;611"11111^^'' ' s'v^ss'"s ,- - \ ^ - * •-* •- r*< i.
10
10
SDI
(RaPID® Assay)
SDI
(RaPID® Assay,
D-TECH)
Soil (ex situ),
sediment (ex
situ),
ground water
Soil,
ground water,
composite
residues
PCBs,
PAHs
Military
explosives
(TNT, RDX,
HMX)
3 months
15 months
51 samples
per hour
(after
extraction
and analysis
in batches)
10-30
samples per
day
Site screening,
cleanup
monitoring,
confirmation
sampling
Site screening,
cleanup
monitoring,
compliance
monitoring
$20 per sample
Not provided
Quick turnaround
allowed for
definition of extent
of contamination;
provided oversight
of the potentially
responsible party's
data collection
efforts
Real-time data;
lower cost
compared with
analytical
laboratory; higher
sampling density at
same cost
Cannot distinguish
individual PCBs
Not provided
Chris Held
(EPA)
206/553-1674
Harry Craig
(EPA)
503/326-3689
' ''^' 'i"'S •/'••-' :ifc> •-'.'•• -^it'' ?••',' v^IlT^ - '-'&! * &£•• ' iiW*^*'-^' »*$' ^7' V"f^"«lM '"*" --^^'\f^' • -S??f'tt4t '•'•'' -™*^j< ""' -S^l1 -^*." y* 'r'S'^ *«?•?''
.,-«."§.vit: •
Dewey Daggett-
MA:
landfill
Truman-
St. Joseph, MO:
mercury spill
»-:;)'•! i-( *.*' J,^ 5f ' -I1'-:' ,-iW«V "i'S^:. *7'<; , W
1
7
Jerome Meter
(mercury vapor
analyzer)
Jerome Meter
(mercury vapor
analyzer), Gillian
pump™
Air
Air
Heavy metals
(mercury)
Heavy metals
(mercury)
Wi^vw*v^*^T**yBt:v;; • :^-f?>': -*C-FFf Ir •-;.-? -i i' 0 ' ' W'f 1 «-7 -J* i,-/C P * '* >
8/30/95
6/96-7/97
Not provided
Not provided
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring,
confirmation
sampling, health
and safety
monitoring
Not provided
$60 per sample
Avoided
downtime; data
quality effective
for determining
final sampling
locations; fast
analysis
Allowed for a real-
time understanding
of exposure; quick
turnaround time on
data
Not provided
Learning curve
associated with the
operation of the
technology; Gillian
pumps™ did not
work well if the
pumps were not
charged fully
Not provided
Ken Rapplean
(EPA)
913/551-7769
^w.v-1 r> '^Kay JFlo^re^cence ^ v/ ' * T !? -AX s^ __ , ,s yt/^^ ,sf%/''-'x ^"t ^,
Jristol Sandblasting-
RI
1
TN Spectrace
(Spectrace 9000)
Soil
Heavy metals
(lead)
10/19/94
Not provided
Site.
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Not provided
Effective in
guiding final
sampling locations
Not provided
Dorrie Paar
(EPA)
617/573-5768
43
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
- *-f - ' '
Site Description
at
Region
Vendor/
Product
Media
Monitored
Contaminant/
Parameter
Period
ofUse
Through-
put
Data
Usefs)
Cost
Technology i"
Advantages
X-Ray Fluorescence (continued)
Brockton Gas-
MA
Carroll Products-
RI
Cohen Property-
MA
HnbergHeld-
MA
Goldfedders-
CT
Hatherway and
Patterson-
MA
Kearsarge-
NH
Lake Success Business
Park, Remington Arms-
Bedford, MA
New Hampshire Plating
Co.-
Merrimack, NH:
electroplating facility
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mot provided
Not provided
Not provided
TN Spectrace
(Spectrace 9000)
TN Spectrace
(Spectrace 9000)
Not provided
Not provided
Niton XL spectrum
analyzer
Not provided
Soil
Soil,
sludge
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil (ex situ)
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(cadmium)
Not provided
Not provided
8/9/94
6/8/95
3/20/95-
8/18/95
Not provided
9/26/90-
4/17/91
10/96-present
1993
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Effective in
guiding final
sampling locations
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Low cost; quick
turnaround time
for data; ease of
use
Not provided
1 Tcctoiiogy '
larrutations
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Cootactfs)
Dome Paar
(EPA)
617/573-5768
Bob Bracket!
(EPA)
617/573-5744
Janis Tsang
(EPA)
617/573-5732
Frank Gardner
(EPA)
617/573-5722
Frank Gardner
(EPA)
617/573-5722
Lisa Danek
(EPA)
617/573-5707
Dean Taglioferro
(EPA)
617/263-5596
Stephanie Carr
617/573-5593
Niton, Inc.
800/875-1578
DickGoehlevet
(EPA)
(617) 573-5742
44
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
w* r ~&" j? ' As*. *•
Site Description "
New Hampshire Plating
Co.-
Merrimack, NH:
electroplating facility
Precision Chrome
Plating Corporation-
RI
RAEBattery-
CT
fcaymark-
CT
Shapiro Site-
MA
Sparkling Hber-
NH
Site unidentified-
Stratford, CT
Surrette Battery-
NH
West Street Property-
MA
Region
." - • * >
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f^^wf^
.:' '.' *y;« -' *
Not provided
TN Spectrace
(Spectrace 9000)
TN Spectrace
(Spectrace 9000)
Not provided
TN Spectrace
(Spectrace 9000)
TN Spectrace
(Spectrace 9000)
'iot provided
TN Spectrace
Spectrace 9000)
TN Spectrace
Spectrace 9000)
,>t {JEHCuBl s
Monitored
:^,H < "
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Contaminant/
**s> » 2 ^
/ **^*
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(lead,
chromium)
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
ieavy metals
(lead)
leavy metals
lead)
leavy metals
lead)
Heavy metals
(lead)
s. rfUtt
•jftky Fluores
6/93-6/94
4/24/95
Not provided
Mot provided
6/14/95
Mot provided
6/17/93
4/2/95-
8/22/95
Jot provided
Through""
tibj^ffeaSn
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Mot provided
Mot provided
Mot provided
>Jot provided
Not provided
ued)' >o"'"
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
1 / Cost
*c
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Mot provided
Mot provided
'tot provided
Mot provided
4ot provided
*, ^ NT M ^
. Advantages .
i, 't' ,:*!v-
Rapid analyses;
low cost
Effective in
guiding selection
of final sampling
locations
Speed and less
downtime
Not provided
Effective in
gliding selection
jf final sampling
ocations
Effective in
guiding selection
)f final sampling
ocations
>Jot provided
Jffective in
Aiding selection
)f final sampling
ocations
iffective in
gliding selection
>f final sampling
ocations
/ >• ' f*- ^
>iTech|i0J^y *
- Lirnitations
, ' " **#'•*
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Mot provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Jot provided
'* •• v * ^ ' J '
' '{20rtt#e$w
'*.#
Jim DiLorenzo
(EPA)
617/223-5510
Dome Paar
(EPA)
617/573-5768
Lisa Danek
(EPA)
617/573-5707
Mike Jasinski
(EPA)
617/573-5786
Dome Paar
(EPA)
617/573-5768
Dome Paar
(EPA)
617/573-5768
Mike Jasinski
(EPA)
617/573-5786
'rank Gardner
(EPA)
617/573-5722
JorriePaar
(EPA)
617/573-5768
45
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
— — J. — .
EPA
Vendor/
Media
Contaminant/
Period
ofUse
Through-
put
Data
Usefe)
Cost
Technolog?!
Advantages
X-Ray Fluorescence (continued)
Vega Baja Solid Waste
Disposal Site-
PR
Hebelka-
Location not provided
Mid-Atlantic Wood
Preserves-
MD-
wood treatment facility
Palmerton Zinc-
Palmerton, PA:
wall paint
Site unidentified-
Location not provided:
active manufacturing
Lockheed Martin
Advanced Recorders-
Sarasota, FL:
ground-water and soil
contamination
Old Citgo Refinery-
Bossier City, LA:
petroleum refinery
2
3
3
3
3
4
6
rNSpectrace
model number not
irovided)
Not provided
^ot provided
Outokumpu
Electronics and
Princeton Gamma
Tech
TN Spectrace
(Spectrace 6000)
Not provided
TN Spectrace
(Spectrace 9000)
Soil (in situ),
soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (in situ)
Solid walls
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ),
sludge
ifeavy metals
Heavy metals
(lead)
Heavy metals
(copper,
chromium,
arsenic)
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
(chromium,
copper, nickel)
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
(chromium,
lead)
7 days
2 months in
1992
Mot provided
6 months in
1991
4 months
5 days
1 week
350 samples
Not provided
200 samples
per 3 days
200 hours
954 samples
per 4 months
Not provided
Collected and
analyzed 200
to 300
Site
characterization
Not provided
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
Site screening
$17 per sample
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
$146 per
sample
Not provided
Approxi-
mately $4,000
per week
Effective use of
time and resources,
resulting in further
cost savings;
identification of
not spots
Not provided
Fast verification
during response
action; good
correlation with
lab samples
Not provided
Less expensive
than off-site
analysis; no waste
generated;
nondestructive
method; real-time
data; reduced cost
of cleanup
Not provided
Time and cost
savings
Technology
Limitations
Research needed to
determine how
effective an
analytical tool
technology would
be for non-
screening purposes
Mot provided
May want to use
concentration
range to allow
flexibility in
decision making
Penetration depth
was limited
Not provided
Analysis of metals
other than lead
may be suspect
Not provided
Ct«ta.ct(s)
Tennis Munhall
(EPA)
212/637-4343
fuan Davila
EPA)
212/637-4341
Fred MacMillian
(tirA)
215/566-3201
Eric Newman
(EPA)
215/566-3237
Fred MacMillan
(EPA)
215/50O-JZ01
David Catherman
[Environmental
Resources
Management,
Inc.)
610/524-3500
Wesley S.
Hardegree
(EPA)
404/562-0486
Paul Dubois
(TetraTech)
214/740-2012
46
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
\1''! 'K. '"'
jSiteD&fcription*
>-! * >*' ;*
St. Charles Metal
Finishing Company-
St. Charles, MO:
plating wastes
Tri-State-
Jasper County, MO:
airborne emissions
deposited from smelter
Site unidentified-
Location not provided:
15 abandoned or
inactive smelter sites
California Gulch
Superfund Site-
Leadville, CO:
old mining and smelter
operations
; HP!;*
Region
-1 A*' "" *
7
7
8
8
•*V«dM/''
ProdiHj'r"
f^
^ 5*
•Jfeefs) ^ i s^
i 4 .i"« ' ^
,• ? 'Gbst
*t:s&JHfagr'*
Advantages
. "itttauiiy "
'if Cindtatibns "4
• :*; >v'
^ V\*W ^^V"';^
5 days
lyear
Not provided
3 months
10 samples
per hour
10,000
samples
Not provided
10 samples
per hour;
analyzed
3,700 soil
samples
Site
characterization
Site screening,
site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring,
confirmation
sampling
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
$55,000 to
purchase
SEFA-P; rental
charge of
$2,000 for 2
weeks
$10 to $20 per
sample
(exclusive of
labor cost)
Mot provided
Not provided
Less expensive
than off-site
analysis; quick
turnaround time;
data used to guide
investigation; can
handle multiple
analytes
simultaneously;
little sample
preparation
Real-time data to
guide excavation;
quick turnaround;
portable
Rapid on-site data;
inexpensive; little
sample
preparation; no
solvent waste; can
landle multiple
analytes
simultaneously
Field-portable
XRFdata
correlated well
with CLP data;
aster and less
expensive than off-
site analysis; data
used to guide
investigation;
nondestructive
method
Detection limits
for chromium at
least 200
milligrams per .
kilogram;
instrument weighs
50 Ibs and is not
very portable;
requires liquid
nitrogen
Equipment
malfunctioned
Mot provided
•feed to pulverize
the quality control
check sample
nstead of using
oose soil
Ruben McCullers
(EPA)
913/551-7455
Dave Williams
(EPA)
913/551-7625
Lawrence Kaelin
(RFWeston)
Steve Hawthorn
(EPA)
303/312-6061
C.A. Kuharic and
W.H. Cole
Lockheed
rfartin)
47
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
?£PA
JVeaaoff .
; fflia
Contaminant/
Parameter
Period
ofUse
Through-
put
Data
Usefs)
Cost
tfecSnology j
Advantages
X-Ray Fluorescence (continued)
China Lake NAWS-
Udgecrest, CA:
laboratory wastes
discharged to drainage
ditches and lagoons
Concord Naval Weapons
Concord CA:
storage and distribution
of military munitions
Defense Distribution
Region West, Sharpe
Lanthrop, CA:
storage and distribution
of military munitions
Defense Distribution
Region West-
Location not provided
9
9
9
9
TN Spectrace
(Spectrace9000)
Mot provided
Not provided
Not provided
Soil (ex situ),
soil (in situ),
sediment
[ex situ),
sediment
(in situ)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (ex situ)
Soil (in situ),
soil (ex situ)
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
1 month
Fall 1995
2 weeks
Not provided
12 samples
per hour
30-50
samples per
day (no
preparation)
20 samples
per day (with
preparation)
3 samples per
tour
Not provided
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
jeasedfor
$6,000 per
month
Mot provided
Not provided
Not provided
Easy to use;
portable; can
perform in situ
measurements; no
solvent waste;
provides rapid
data; little sample
preparation
Quick screening of
sites; identification
of hot spots
Quick turnaround
time; cheaper than
use of CLP
laboratory;
good results
Can collect more
samples per area
because of cost
savings; allows for
identification of
trends in the field;
saves time and
money
*r; Limitations --
High detection
limits (200 rag/kg)
for chromium;
5eld portable XRF
barium data did
not compare well
with confirmatory
data
Detection limits
not low enough to
meet ecological
concerns; matrix
interference;
results only
indicate surface
conditions and
therefore may not
provide adequate
information for
remediation
purposes
Data not
comparable to
laboratory data
Lack of guidance
on data validation
procedures
3ryce Smith or
Scott Schulte
(Terra Tech)
913/894-2600
Barbara Smith
(EPA)
415/744-2366
John Guzman
(Defense
Logistics
Agency) '
209/982-2093
Mike Wolfram
(EPA)
415/744-2410
Marlon Mezquita
(EPA)
415/744-1527
48
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
£^£^«!'
•f\', *-•' '.,,-'-'
Mare Island Naval
Shipyard-
Vallejo, CA:
naval submarine and
ship repair,
maintenance, and
construction facility
Sacramento Army
Depot-
Sacramento, CA
Verdese Carter Park-
Oakland, CA:
lead acid waste, disposal
of batteries
McCarty's Pacific Hide
andFur-
Pocatello, ID:
metal salvaging yard and
lead acid battery storage
Region
V" .
9
9
9
10
^£?1:<
n, -' * s
TN Sprectrace
(Spectrace 6000)
Not provided
"Jot provided
)utokumpu
Electronics
Monitored
Containhiant/
Parameter
^' Period ^
, J&&
tr * %i '"*' ''- ; X s f X-jfeiyJB1uores<41tM;e4cokfii
Soil (ex situ),
sediment
(ex situ)
Soil (in situ),
soil (ex situ)
Soil (in situ),
soil (ex situ),
paint and
dust)
Soil (in situ)
Heavy metals
Heavy metals
leavy metals
(lead)
leavy metals
lead)
Ongoing
9 months
2 years
Odays
Not provided
Not provided
50 samples
icrday
Jot provided
. $*/;
i Technology
,, , " f ' A * yt * .'I x-t ,•* , ;
iuea)r- s' ,- -• ? " ,<,| K , ;> '•'J , ,. > * ^ s
Site
characterization
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Site screening,
site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
ite screening,
ite
haracterization,
leanup
monitoring,
confirmation
ampling
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Jot provided
Rapid turnaround
time; lower cost;
flexibility in the
field; consistent
quality control,
instead of
inconsistencies
that arise when
various
laboratories are
used
Can collect more
samples per area
3ecauseofcost
savings; allows for
identification of
trends in the field;
saves time and
money
Saves time and
money; non-
lestructive
(therefore the same
ample analyzed in
the field can be
analyzed in the
aboratory)
ransportable;
capable of
creening 6
laments
imultaneously;
data correlated
well with
aboratory data
Analytical biases
for certain metals;
difficulties in
obtaining
sufficiently low
detection limits
because of matrix
interference
Lack of guidance
on data validation
procedures
No EPA Region 9
standard operating
irocedures
Jot provided
Tom Huettenian
(EPA)
415/744-2384
Marlon Mezquita
(EPA)
415/744-1527
Mike Bellot
(EPA)
415/744-2364
Loran Henning
(EPA)
415/744-1305
Ann Williamson
(EPA)
06/553-2739
Lorraine Edmond
(EPA)
06/553-7366
David Frank
EPA)
06/553-4019
49
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
1 EPA 1 Vendor/
Site Description I Region I Product
IIMIIIII^IIIII m_|_iii* MI I. '.'..*" ,_„„„,. n " ««a ~ n"" I""IMM»
Jmatilla Anny Depot-
Hermiston, OR:
explosives washout
lagoon, OB/OD area,
small arms incinerator,
explosives in ground
water
10
TNSpectrace
(model number not
provided)
Media I Contaminant/ 1 Period I Burough- I D^ta 1
Monitored I Parameter I ofUse 1 put 1 Usefe) 1 Cost {
X-Ray Fluorescence (continued)
Soil
Heavy metals
(lead)
15 months
10-30
samples per
day
Cleanup
monitoring,
compliance
monitoring
Not provided
— ,^— ,-!-*-— •
Technology;"
Advantages 1
- ' -
•teal-time data;
owercost,
compared with
cost of using
analytical
laboratory; higher
sampling density at
same cost
Technology
Limitations {
"i ..""'.'~T'""-'-' ""'' L'" '-
Not provided
Contact® |
Harry Craig
(EPA)
503/326-3399
=
Geophysical Technologies
Bore-hole Geophysical
Coring AFB-
Jmestone, Maine:
iieloil release area,
>lasting conducted to
support recovery of fuel
oil
New Hampshire Plating
Co.-
Merrimack, NH:
electroplating facility
Letterkenny Army
Depot-
Letterkenny, PA
1
1
3
tfala Geo-
Sciences, Inc.
(Terra Plus bore-
hole GPR)
Geonics Ltd.
(EM-39 bore-hole
electromagnetic
induction unit used
in conjunction
with natural
gamma log survey)
Geophex
(bore-hole acoustic
equipment)
Soil (bedrock)
Soils (hi situ),
ground water
Ground water
Jedrock
stratigraphy
Electrical
conductivity
Depth to ground
water
6/95-present
1994
5/95-6/97
Not provided
Continuous
readout
1 hole per
day
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Bore-hole
radar $250,000
$25,000 per
unit
$120,000 per
unit
Produces "picture"
of bedrock planes
to 25-50 meter
radius of the bore-
hole
Technology
delivered good
results
Produces superior
data; produces
picture of bedrock
fractures; real-time
data
"lot provided
Can be used only
In open bore-
holes/PVCwith
diameter > 2",
(non-metallic
wells)
Post-processing of
data is expensive
Pete Haeni
(United States
Geological
Survey [USGS] -
Connecticut)
860/240-3299
Richard Willy
(EPA)
617/573-9639
Richard Willy
(EPA)
617/573-9639
Thomas Mach
(USGS)
603/226-7805
Paul Stone
(USAGE)
717/261-6863
50
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
v 2teS*f^
Region
f|£2£S
jSChrougJi-J-
>'.W*SUlt*,'\!s;
:
i^x?'*^;^;:^^^
Limestone Rd.-
Cumberland, MD:
ground water
contamination
?"",:• -i. "''
Salina North-
Salina, KS:
industrial area, solvent
use and disposal, grain
fumigation, chemical
manufacturing
3
~XC *„'
7
USGS
* s^ -> , ? ' '**
Geoprobe®
Systems
(Direct Image®
soil conductivity
logging system)
'^K v*' H tn > ^-!t' *
Holtrachem-
Location not provided
Bliss Effisville-
WildWood,MO:
buried drums containing
dioxin
Letterkenny Army
Depot-
Letterkenny, PA:
landfill
1
7
3
VLF
Electromagnetic
Survey equipment
Geonics, Limited
(EM-31)
Geophex
(multifrequency
conductivity
instrument)
Soil (bedrock)
*» ^\
• / s- ' *' i ~
Soil (in situ)
Bedrock
fracture
identification,
temperature
7/93
^ , h Direct-push Elec
Site subsurface
lithology ( to
define
subsurface
geologic and
hydrogeologic,
conditions)
3 days
3 bore-holes
per day
1 1 logs to 65
feet in 3 days
Site
characterization
fctivitv ? ! *
Site
characterization
> f , , '! |J, >! > "'" EIeetromagn6t!clBd«,c^|»ii
Bedrock
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Not provided
Buried ferrous
metal
Disposal
trenches
1994
2 months
6/97
Not provided
7 acres
12 acre site
per week
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Not provided
,' ,
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
EPA
-*»-.•<-.:--. -«—— »
Vendor/
Media
Contaminant/
Period
ofUse
Through-
put
Data
Use(s)
Cost
Ground Penetrating Radar
Ciba-Geigy-
Cranston, RI
General Electric-
Pittsfield,MA
Gilson Road-
Nashua, NH:
former waste disposal
site (1960-70s)
Dupont-Newport-
Newport, DE:
contamination in
riverbed
*
Naval Air Engineering
Station-
Lakehurst, NJ
1
1
1
3
2
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
OceanSystems,
Inc.
(GPR with dual
frequency
sounding and side-
scanning sonar)
Till,
bedrock
Till
Subsurface
Soil (in situ)
(river bottom)
Structure
contours
Structure
contours
Water table,
bedrock
stratigraphy
Sediment layers
.: A ] ?* * ^> ^ '
Geo-Centers, Inc.
(Surface-Towed
Ordnance Locating
System [STOLS])
Soil (in situ)
Buried ferrous
metals
1991
1995-present
Not provided
Not provided
Magm
Not provided
Mot provided
Not provided
Continuous
profile
Continuous
profile
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
tometry V *
3.75 acre per
iiour
Site
characterization
Mot provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
s
$8,600 per
acre
Technology ~
Advantages
Monintrusive
Nonintrusive
Information
pertaining to depth
of water table and
bedrock compared
favorable with
GFRdata;
produced a picture
of the bedrock
plane
Focused sample
location mapping
\ T
Relatively quick
survey of terrain
JTiwhraology *
Limitations
Poor identification
of buried utilities
Not provided
Not provided
Fine grain analysis
more expensive
\ '
Limited by field
conditions (mud,
severe weather,
foliage, and deeply
located anomalies);
equipment tends to
underestimate
number of targets
compared with
hand-held devices;
signals from
extraneous metals
must be filtered
out
ContactCs)
Frank Battaglia
(EPA)
617/573-5747
Bryan Olsen
(EPA)
617/573-5747
Thomas Mack
(USGS, New
Hampshire)
603/226-7805
Randy Sturgeon
(EPA)
215/566-3227
1 *• i N
S w
Jeffrey Gatz
(EPA)
212/637-4320
Greg Bury
(Naval Air
Engineering
Station
Lakehurst)
908/323-1014
52
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
:**&«*••
-*" .',*.'"•!,•
Bliss Ellisville-
WiIdWood,MO:
buried drums containing
dioxin
1 kegtoSff
M l
7
' %££: ,
h / i ^ '
Geonics Umited
(proton
magnetometer,
O-856)
^ ^ ftjfedia t
Monitored
o '?1 i~
Soil (in situ)
Contaminant/
i 'Parameter
i-ofCse
1 Through-
- *•: put '
J|s Data ^,1*
s" "^
'Tfechndogy :"
: Advantages
-T—p. -,, ,,
' 'Technology '^
N Limitations
^i '>'" "V
'"'^^^g^toriKtry^aaed) *'„,' , ^ '"' ' ! ^-^Vi:.'.^ ,- ' > '-'^ , ' l*
Buried ferrous
metal
2 months
7 acres
Site
characterization
Not provided
Not provided
Overhead power
lines caused
interference
if'V' ^ \,*' *t '1 £ '*? ,'! *•' ;-,' .?!? •* 'v>VVY / „» f ^ .'' ,-- f' * OJ5jlJjlL,vBK_&. '$ < ' * '1* t'^1 ' X J v, 1"'* '* 'U „
j t* ? * ' ! r , *
Allegany Ballistics
Laboratory-
Rocket City, WV:
TCE disposal pit, drum
storage area
National Aeronautic and
Space Administration
(NASA) Kennedy Space
Center-
PL:
former components
cleaning facility for
rocket parts
Former Vickers Site-
Omaha, NE:
lydraulic pump facility
NL JAir Station
Al leda-
Al: vieda, CA:
air aft support
op ations
s
3
4
7
9
.* <•.•&*& ••*'
Resolution
Resources, Inc.
(three-dimensional
seismic reflection
technology)
Resolution
Resources, Inc.
(three-dimensional
seismic reflection
technology)
Resolution
Resources, Inc.
[three-dimensional
seismic reflection
technology)
Resolution
Resources, Inc.
three-dimensional
seismic reflection
echnology)
<<#» i>i < ,
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
Soil (in situ)
sediments,
jedrock)
Wood Ramsey
(EPA)
913/551-7382
' ' 1 ,<,J. „ J/ OTiB«HV»»wtB»ag^ ; -> (_<1S> s ,<• ,, >4J • -~ vs; ; r ' -! i " ' I \ * >/ ' -
Bedrock
stratigraphy
Soil type
Depth to ground
water,
jedrock
stratigraphy
bedrock
stratigraphy
10/95-11/95
12 days on
site; 45 days
for data
assessment
5/12-5/20/97
11/96-
10 days
Not provided
2 months to
sample and
delineate
seismic data
for a 1,500' x
1,500' area
62,000 sq ft
3er day
^ot provided
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Site screening
Not provided
$150,000 to
develop
subsurface,
high resolution
model
$100,000 per
500,000 sq ft
^lot provided
Cost-effective
method for
determining
migration path for
DNAPLs
Very detailed
image of soil
stratigraphy that
aids in the
placement of wells;
defines fractures
within one foot
Portable unit;
identified fractures
in bedrock
Sfoninvasive; real-
time; cost-
effective; easy to
use
Data return is very
specific; trained
technicians
required
Removal of
vegetation required
Mot provided
Equipment
requires direct
contact with
ground, which
presents a problem
n buildings; data
require
interpretation
JeffKidwell
(Navy Sea
Systems
Command)
757/322-4795
Jacqueline Quinn
(NASA)
407/867-4265
Paul Broorner
(Unisys)
612/687-2673
Mike Westerheiw
612/687-2887
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
- - -
Site Description
EPA
Region
Vendor/
Product
Media
Monitored
Contaminant/
Parameter
Period
ofUse
Through-
put
Data
Usefe)
i •"•"• "
Cost
Seismic Profiling (continued)
Lawrence LivernuHe
National Laboratory-
Livermore, CA:
landfills, disposal pits,
spills
Lawrence livermore
National Laboratory-
livermore, CA
Naval Air Station North
Island-
San Diego, CA:
chemical waste dumping
site
9
9
9
EG&G.Inc.
(Innovative
Transducers)
Resolution
Resources, Inc.
(three-dimensional
seismic reflection
technology)
Resolution
Resources, Inc.
(three-dimensional
seismic reflection
technology)
Sediment,
ground water
Sediments,
bedrock
Soil (in situ)
Depth to ground
water,
soil type,
bedrock
stratigraphy
Subsurface
stratigraphy
(structure)
Bedrock
stratigraphy
1992-present
1-2 weeks
2 months
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
Site
characterization
$150,000 per
unit
Not provided
$250,000 for
40-acre site
Teduiology
Advantages
Rapid data
collection;
provides
opportunity to
properly design
and install
remedial system
and determine
migration
pathways for
contaminants
Information can be
used to determine
likely migration
pathways
Cost-effective
method of
obtaining detailed
on-site
stratigraphy, using
minimal
preexisting bore-
hole data; able to
identify fault zones
(contaminant
migration
pathways), saving
several months in
field exploration
Technology r
Limitations
Works best where
water table is
shallow
Not provided
Not provided
;-:"^ "»-'»'?:'"';
Contact®
Robert Bainer
(Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory)
510/422-4635
Robert Bainer
(Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory)
510/422-4635
Mary-Linda
Adams
(Resolution
Resources)
540/349-9172 or
517/647-1832
Bill Collins
(NAVFACSW-
DIV)
619/556-8929
54
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
Site Description
• " L - '
Stringfellow hazardous
waste site-
Riverside, CA:
Former hazardous waste
landfill (1956-1972)
^i 1- '
9
fSSS,;'
f S*' ' K '
Resolution
Resources, Inc.
(three-dimensional
seismic reflection
technology)
J Media "t
Monitored
Contaminant/
•f Parameter -.
;-'«fUsel
Ilirou^hi-
v rUseCsK^
'" / , t
Advantages y
^Tf&iuiSlagy /
'* Limitations
•^ 4J r ""'•
/v? \:f ' ; ^s^Ko^i^tin^ --^ r,* jvi^w-'-' vr ' "T* :\x«v^v
Soil (in-situ)
ff^':":<,sf ' fe^\l|.s' JR*'^ %<." :i '£**•' ' ;*h i'l^ipil''?'
Bedrock
stratigraphy,
fractures
1/97-6/97
11 acres
(7,800 data
points) per
30 days
Site
characterization
Not provided
tl-l|lf"': ,- §^lt£ j, jji'i <:> i;rj'/:,#' ^|p? j ? "}$-' 1^1^-'" -•"»
Used to locate
groundwater
extraction wells,
minimizing
drilling costs
4 /,.,-fip"' ..f^i
Metal objects on
surface (fence)
caused
interference, but
did not prohibit
use of equipment
?' > *'"" 'r -;47$$[
Stewart Black
(URS Greiner,
Inc.)
916/929-2346
;$fl$IMG.-i\
^^'M&bilti^^ ll-:i M^&rid&P^ &&**$:
•^i*-ff./Mfr\.£*:^^W^* ":':**» :*«r'f*?s?- /W\M^1P' :m^-&*\lP'<^'f.P- Jf;W;:^£fP jf^M:^
.;•''$*$>" .'ijfW'"'^ „£ ,"£/X' • \-ilj fil'' ' „ i^T--^' • / '-IHfiS?-: • .f
, k^ ,"'^iC'--'
Site unidentified-
Texas City, TX:
abandoned tin smelter
facility
iamp Industries
lemoval Action -
Denver, CO:
radioactive and mixed
waste processor, transfer
station, abandoned
material at site, spills
'Java! Air Station
Alameda,
lunters Point Annex-
Oakland, CA
,. j'±*,y- ,'
6
8
9
,. i.ClirW>- ,./,«
Ludlum, Inc.
(Model 19 with a
sodium iodide
scintillation
detector)
Canberra
(gamma
spectrography)
EG&GORTEC
(Micro Nomad)
* - A, ^ ^ * ,' 5,
Soil (in situ),
sediment
(in situ)
Liquid waste
(drummed)
Soil (in situ)
/'"'?' ' ./Kill,.
Radionuclides
Radionuclides
Radionuclides
i$? V?.- .s."*^- i:.?.:,??' p^fjj **••' ^*-'" J!: X-'i-- 'j;'t .- '"•%••'"• "i'SK*" , - --jj1 - 1; . <-f \.-y- -
J^lSW^^^^Rj^^^W " ..:fij& 3$ -^' - jMt:
Not provided
2.5 months
9/95-11/95
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Site
characterization
Waste
characterization
Site
characterization
Not provided
$900 per wk
rental,
inspector at
$370 per wk
$750 per week
[minus laptop)
'•'- %-s' -fil y*j::*":~ '' ,-v^f • •:.*'*' >*':! fpf5)!?;1 '.J-
Rapid, real-time
data; portable
system; data
compared
favorably with
laboratory data;
less expensive
Identifies waste in
the field before
shipping and
disposal
Base of use;
portability; much
cheaper than
conventional
methods
Not provided
Expensive;
requires trained
operator; sensitive
to power
fluctuations;
requires liquid
nitrogen; needs
protection from
elements
Mot provided
Warren Zehner
(EPA)
281/983-2127
Joe Cornelius
(E&E)
Dave Christenson
(EPA)
303/312-6645
Dave Hall
(SEG)
423/376-8246
Kevin Taylor
(TetraTech)
404/225-5505
55
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
•^tfflff -tv^> - |
S'pmflnrti
Media
Monitored
Contaminant/
Parameter
Period pttroiigh- ,Pkta : : '" :
ofUse 1 put 1 tJseCs): I Cost
Passive Alpha Detector
Area 11B at the Nevada
TestSite-
blercury, NV
9
Rad Electric, toe.
(electric ionization
chambers and
alpha track
detectors made by
Landuer, too.)
Soil (in situ)
Radionuclides,
[uranium)
Mot provided
Not provided
Site
characterization,
health and safety
monitoring
$25 per sample
;Advantagesa.4s limitations^ : I Contect(*> _^
Alpha track
detectors have
fewer potential
interferences than
electric ionization
chamber; both
techniques are fast,
easy to use, and
inexpensive
Not provided
C.S. Dudney and
KLE. Meyer
(Oak Ridge
National
Laboratory)
- r •- r,-r----; *" " ----- -• -*1;,-"j '•••• • -:
Sampling and Sampler Emplacement Technologies
Closed-piston Soffl Sampling
SalinaNorth-
Salina,KS:
industrial area, solvent
use and disposal, grain
iimigation, chemical
manufacturing
' - "<%:C ^'
SalinaNorth-
Salina, KS:
industrial area, solvent
use and disposal, grain
fumigation, chemical
manufacturing
7
*( N*
7
Geoprobe Systems,
inc.
(Marco-Core®
closed piston soil
sampler)
Geoprobe
(direct-push
prepacked-screen
monitoring well)
Soil (ex situ)
x~ F 1
\ ^ * \
Ground water
Not provided
2 days
Mot provided
Site
characterization
$630 per unit
, | U BSrect-push Prepacked If ett Screen «, S\
Halogenated
and
nonhalogenated
VOCs
1 week
3 hours to
install one
prepacked
well to 65
Site
characterization,
compliance
monitoring
$45 per 3-foot
prepacked
screen
Can retrieve intact
soil cores from
below the water
table (saturated
materials); no
cuttings; faster and
less expensive than
conventional drill
rig
V * * ***
Less expensive and
faster than
installing well by
conventional
methods; no soil
cuttings
The sampler is
designed for use
only in soils and
unconsolidated
sediments; it
generally is used at
depths of less than
50 feet; if used for
discrete interval
sampling at depth,
the bore hole must
be preprobed to the
top of the targeted
sampling interval
"•^ x >
Depth limitations;
wells cannot be
placed in bedrock;
small diameter of
well creates
difficulty in
developing,
purging, and
sampling when
large volumes of
water are needed
WesMcCall
(Geoprobe
Systems Inc.)
913/825-1842
Susan Stover
(KDHE)
913/296-5531
Sx f ! >
Wes McCall
(Geoprobe
Systems Inc.
913/825-1842
Susan Stover
(KDHE)
913/296-5531
56
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
fip£$
'gsi^- » "•* *$
vWegwn/
'•gp ^ia,fcci ; 1311
Auburn Road-
NH:
landfill
Davis GSR-
RI
Fort Devens-
MA
OtisAFB-
MA
Peterson/Puritan-
RI
Revere Textile-
CT
Saco Land Fill-
ME
Tibbetts-
NH
'onders Comer
Lakewood)-
SouthofTacoma,WA:
drycleaning and laundry
operations
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
SiiaffMiiflR
'••;%£f^^yt.
^tfsfi^i
";."$• »,.^.jftfi^, . -,
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Mot provided
Mot provided
Brainard-Kilman
•'WtiM9te&.f/
W^niytr
Ground water
Ground water
Ground water
Ground water
Ground water
Ground water
Ground water
Ground water
Ground water
'&> Iff-P'ffW -'ft
CoritMiiurt/
kBai^tt^ter •
SiSHfe$
VOCs,
heavy metals
VOCs,
SVOCs,
heavy metals
VOCs,
heavy metals
VOCs,
heavy metals
VOCs,
heavy metals
VOCs,
heavy metals
Heavy metals
VOCs,
heavy metals
Ualogenated
VOCs
4/95-4/96
4/93-8/93
1/96-present
1993-present
5/95-present
1993-present
1992-1993
6/95-present
7 days
°f , ' - ^f '*
i.lliro«gjtf '•
f «%5S-
f " '>j»Bt - '
„«-•* ^I|p5|cjl!\*i.
lfkci^lsSi--fi
)4<;>,.'*?£ • , ,C , '•'"•''•.
rVWH^t
"'TSl?:'fi'"M}^;-'i^'''!' -"•'."-" • ' "• „, , :•• f -^ "J- ! 4-''~&f- ~~-£ ?.;*; .'-PS-s,**1-' ' >-.fi •*•.!?-«! " ->,r'
m^^^^^^'^^^t ,e
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Mot provided
Mot provided
Mot provided
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Site screening,
site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Mot provided
Mot provided
Samples for
inorganic water
quality are more
representative
Samples for
inorganic water
quality are more
representative
Fewer waste by-
products; data
quality
Fewer waste by-
products; data
quality
Fewer waste by-
products; data
quality
Fewer waste by-
products; data
quality
Fewer waste by-
products; data
quality
Fewer waste by-
products; data
quality
Vlinimizes sucking
of soil and
sediments into
sampler
Longer sampling
time, increasing
cost
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Longer sampling
time, increasing
costs
Mot provided
Darryl Luce
(EPA)
617/573-5767
Joe Lemay
(EPA)
617/573-9622
Jim Byrne
(EPA)
617/573-5799
Carol Keating
(EPA)
617/223-5594
Dave Newton
(EPA)
617/573-9612
Leslie McVickar
(EPA)
617/573-9689
Ron Jennings
(EPA)
617/573-5794
Darryl Luce
(EPA)
617/573-5767
Ann Williamson
(EPA)
206/553-2739
57
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
" — — *--
~ - - * --m- =
EPA
^Oof/ '
Media
Cofrfaunjiwrit/
Period
of Use
Biroagb-
pat
Data
Use©
Cost
Soil Gas Sampling
Site unidentified-
eastern United States:
former coal gas
manufacturing plant
Davis GSR -
Smithfield, RI:
landfill
Sothersworth -
ixn:
landfill
Site unidentified-
Location not provided
Sacramento Army
Depot-
Sacramento, CA
Not
specified
1
1
7
9
W.L. Gore and
Associates
(GORE-
SORBER8")
Not provided
Petrex
Not provided
(Summa Canister)
SEAMIST
(equipment used in
conjunction with
soil gas monitoring
wells)
"V ss - 4"^ v i si ' '
PeaseAFBS-
NH
1
Waterloo Centre
forGroundwater
Research
Soil gas
[also used to
monitor soil
and ground
water)
Soil gas
Soil gas
Soil gas
Soil gas
PAHs,
SVOCs
VOCs
VOCs
VOCs
(solvents)
Halogenated
VOCs
(TCE, PCE)
Exposure
time of 3
weeks
4/92-8/92
Not provided
Not provided
9 months
Mot provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
50 samples
per well, 6
wells per day
Site
characterization
Site investigation
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring,
compliance
monitoring,
health and safety
monitoring
Verification
sampling
Mot provided
Not provided
Not provided
$658 per
canister
$30,000 per
well
MmSftogy"
Advantages
Low-volatility
compounds can be
absorbed; can be
used in situ; cost
savings; good
correlation with
monitoring well
data
Cost-effective;
real-time data
Not provided
Easy to collect a
sample; portable
system
Independent
verification;
versatility of
application (can
sample the ports
desired);
retractable (Could
move the wells)
TecEntdfogy' -:
Limitations
Not provided
Mot provided
Not provided
Not provided
Must customize
technology to the
site's lithology
^ ' V s / A * Vertical Ground-w^toProfiMng , % v?» _ *X -" ; ' ' ': '
Ground water
DNAPL
1/95-9/95
Not provided
Cleanup
monitoring
Not provided
Vertical
delineation of
contaminants
Not provided
Cowfact®
Mark Stutman
and Mark
Wrigley
(WJL. Gore and
Associates)
410/996-3406
Joe Lemay
(EPA)
617/573-9622
Roger Duwart
(EPA)
617/573-9628
Harry Kimball
(EPA)
913/551-5171
Marlon Mezquita
(EPA)
415/744-1527
t \ ' v
Mire Daly
(EPA)
617/573-5783
58
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterization Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
;\^,i;/;v ,/i
Site Description ,
/'EPA •>
Region
s' vendor/' , *
if Product £
;^Me!a^ ,
Monitored
Contaminant/
Parameter „
/fa****
.K^U^1-'*
Through-
^ *»t; ^
.^i&ify .
''* ^se(sL*:*
' "'
"7 O«t :,
TictaoMiy 4
'•** Advantages \
- ''** ' «•„''"*'
Savage-
NH
Wells G&H 1-
MA
Sacramento Army
Depot-
Sacramento, CA
,/ P -v" 3
Town Garage/Radio
3eacon-
NH
Yaworski-
CT
Fletcher's Paint-
NH
Gallops Quarry-
CT
few Hampshire Plating-
NH
» v ,
1
1
9
V^
1
1
1
1
1
I'&ctow^jT''
Limitations 3 ^
""* ^ 4V"V \ ** ^
• ^iite°et(s)- -
.f i i i s ' % , . . - *
'" <^fK^< ' „ \ Sv ' ' " ^f*tcalG^mn*-wafr»bffllnf(cori)t|nng^),! \ ,">' .$^^^ ,vi ,< _, «-- ^ ^ ft^ > ^
Waterloo Centre
for Groundwater
Research
Waterloo Centre
for Groundwater
Research
Not provided
(BAT Probe)
- ?" " ,1 „
Solinst, Inc.
(Ground-water
Packer)
Mykro Waters, Inc.
(Microwells)
Mykro Waters, Inc.
(Microwells)
Mykro Waters, Inc.
(Microwells)
Mykro Waters, Inc.
(Microwells)
Vlykro Waters, Inc.
[Microwells)
Ground water
Ground water
Ground water
DNAPL
Not provided
Halogenated
VOCs
3/95-5/95
8/94
6 months
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Site
characterization
f f ''^' ."•'.'/>' V'^||vibratii^WellIiistaliaCt<>n ' >'^x^
Ground water
Ground water
Ground water
Groundwater
Ground water
VOCs
VOCs
(benzene)
VOCs,
inorganics
VOCs,
inorganics
VOCs,
SVOCs,
inorganics
1/91-7/97
9/97-present
9/94
9/94
6/93-6/94
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
Cleanup
monitoring
$350, 000
Not provided
Not provided
~""" /fSS'^T-1
' AVT-'
Not Provided
Not provided
$1,000 per
well
Mot provided
Mot provided
Vertical
delineation of
contaminants
Discrete fracture
ground water
samples
Cost-effective;
enables vertical
profiling; can
target monitoring
well zones; enables
tracking of plume
boundaries
v f'bl
Discrete fracture -
ground water
samples
Lower cost, rapid
installation
Lower cost, rapid
installation
Lower cost, rapid
installation
Lower cost, rapid
installation
Not provided
Not provided
Problems with data
comparability;
difficult to model
migration of TCE
>«$•
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Dick Goehlert
(EPA)
617/573-5742
MaryGarren
(EPA)
617/573-9613
Marlon Mezquita
(EPA)
415/744-1527
¥ »- *V*
Jim Di Lorenzon
(EPA)
617/223-5510
Ann! Loughlin
(EPA)
617/223-5575
Darryl Luce
(EPA)
617/573-5767
Leslie McVickar
(EPA)
617/573-9689
Fim Di Lorenzo
(EPA)
617/223-5510
59
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Field Analytical and Site Characterizafion Technologies
Reported Data on Specific Technologies (continued)
^,V«*-»f
EPA
Region
I-- *«• - - -
Vendor/
Product
Media
Monitored
Contaminant/
Parameter
Period
of Use
Through-
put
Data
Usefs)
Cost
Tedmoiogy
Advantages
Vibrating Well Installation (continued)
Hastings Superfund
Site-
NE'
landfill, contaminated
ground water
7
Mykro Waters, Inc.
(Microwells)
Ground water,
soil
VOCs
6/97
Up to 2000
feet of well
per day
Site
characterization,
cleanup
monitoring
Not provided
Wells can be
installed to
approximately 100'
without pilot hole
and 200' with pilot
hole; generates no
drill cuttings;
equipment can fit
into tight spaces
Technology ;
Limitations
Equipment
overheats
frequently; well
screens clog easily
in clay and other
fine materials;
requires welding
20' sections
Contact(s)
Diane Easley
(EPA)
913/551-7797
RandeU Ross
(ADA)
405/436-8611
60
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF ACRONYMS
A-l
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFB
BTEX
CERCLA
CLP
CLU-IN
CPT
CSCT
DDT
DNAPL
EPA
FTER
GC
GC/MS
GPR
HMX
row
LIF
LNAPL
MCL
mg/kg
NERL-LV
NPL
NRaD
OB/OD
OSC
OSW
PAH
PCE
PCP
PCS
ppb
ppm
QA/QC
RCRA
RDX
RPM
SCAPS
SVE
SVOC
TCE
no
TNT
TPH
USAGE
UST
Vendor FACTS
VOC
XRF
Air Force Base
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
EPA Contract Laboratory Program
Clean-Up Information (Internet home page containing clean-up information)
Cone penetrometer testing
Consortium for Site Characterization Technologies
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
Dense nonaqueous phase liquids
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fourier-transformed infrared
Gas chromatography
Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
Ground penetrating radar
Cyclotetramethylenetetranitramine
Investigation-derived waste
Laser-induced fluorescence
Light nonaqueous phase liquids
Maximum contaminant level
Milligrams per kilogram
EPA National Environmental Research Laboratory-Las Vegas
National Priorities List (CERCLA)
Navy Research and Development
Open burn/open detonation
On-scene coordinator
EPA Office of Solid Waste
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Pentachloroethane
Pentachlorophenol
Polychlorinated biphenyl
Parts per billion
Parts per million
Quality assurance/quality control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Cyclo-l,3,5-trimethylene-2,4,6-trinitramine
EPA Remedial Project Manager
Site Characterization and Analysis Penetrometer System
Soil vapor extraction
Semivolatile organic compound
Trichlorethylene
EPA Technology Innovation Office
Trinitrotoluene
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Underground storage tank
Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technologies System
Volatile organic compound
X-ray fluorescence
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
B-l
-------
DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
Two methods were used to compile information for this report:
• A network of regional contacts for field analytical and site characterization technologies was
used to obtain information from the Environmental Protection Agency remedial project managers
(RPM), on-scene coordinators (OSC), site managers, and other project managers who are closely
involved in the use of site characterization technologies.
• Available files, reports, and other sources, such as the Vendor Field Analytical and
Characterization Technologies System (Vendor FACTS) database, that contain information about
field analytical and site characterization technology applications at EPA-lead and non-EPA-lead
hazardous waste sites were reviewed.
To expedite that process, EPA developed a form for gathering relevant information about the use of field
analytical and characterization technologies at Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and
federal facilities sites. The form, included in this appendix, was distributed to all EPA regions.
The data collection form had three parts; generally, 10 to 20 minutes were required for its completion.
Part 1 of the collection form requested general information about the individual who completed the form,
to provide a reference or contact familiar with the application of the technology at a particular site. Part
2 of the form requested general information about the site. Part 3 of the form requested data about the
technology and the application of the technology at the site. Requested specifically in Part 3 were:
(1) the type of technology used, (2) the type of data produced and how the data were used at the site, (3)
the medium characterized and monitoring targets, and (4) information about costs. In addition, Part 3 of
the form inquired about the performance of the technology at the site (advantages and limitations) and
the presence of independent verification of performance (such as a comparison of data produced in the
field with those obtained by analysis of samples at an off-site laboratory).
B-2
-------
Status Report
on Field Analytical
Technologies Utilization
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response is compiling an inventory of sites where
field portable, analytical and site characterization technologies have been used. The purpose of
this project is to support a broader use of new monitoring techniques that are capable of
streamlining the site assessment and remediation processes. This effort will result in a product
which will improye the capability for networking between project managers tasked with site
assessment and remediation. The report will be similar to EPA's Innovative Treatment
Technologies: Annual Status Report that describes applications of new technologies at hazardous
waste sites. .... ,
In order to compile information for this new report on field analytical and characterization
technologies, EPA's Technology Innovation Office (TIO) is interviewing site managers who are
closely involved in the use of site characterization technologies at contaminated sites. To
expedite this process, TIO has developed a data collection form that is included in this package
of information. Regional Project Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs ) should
use the form to provide relevant information about the demonstration of field analytical
technologies at Superfund projects. In addition, TIO will use the form to collect information
from other project managers on technologies used at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), underground storage tanks (UST) and federal facility sites and projects.
The blank data collection form contains three parts and generally requires 10 to 20 minutes to
complete. Part 1 of the collection form requests general information about the individual who is
completing the form. Its purpose is to provide a reference or contact concerning the application
of the technology at a particular site. Part 2 of the form requests some general data about the site
at which the application of the technology occurred. Part 3 of the form requests data about the
technology and application of the technology at the site. Specifically, Part 3 of the form
identifies: the type of technology used; its vendor; the type of data produced and how it was used
at the site; the media characterized and monitoring targets; and cost information. In addition,
Part 3 of the form inquires about the performance of the technology at the site, any interferences
noted, and references, such as a removal assessment or remedial investigation report, that may
describe an independent verification of the technology's performance (such as the comparison of
data produced in the field to that obtained by analysis of samples at an off-site laboratory).
B-3
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FIELD ANALYTICAL AND CHARACTERIZATION
TECHNOLOGIES
ANNUAL STATUS REPORT
DATA COLLECTION FORM
JUNE 1996
B-4
-------
Site Name/Technology
FIELD ANALYTICAL & CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES
DATA COLLECTION FORM
PART 1: GENERAL INFORMATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Name
Organization
Phone ( )
Ext.
Fax Number (
E-mail Address
Additional Contact(s). Please list any other individuals who may be familiar with
the application of the field analytical or characterization technology at this site.
Name
Phone { )
Name
Phone ( )
PART 2: SITE INFORMATION
1. Site Name
2. Region
3.
State
City.
Site Type or Waste Source. Describe the historic activity and/or source (such as a
landfill or surface impoundment) that caused contamination at the site.
4. Regulatory Status/Statute/Organization of Site. Please describe the regulatory
status of the site. For example, is the site a RCRA treatment, storage, or disposal
facility (TSDF) subject to corrective action? Please check all that may apply.
CERCLA O State (specify)
RCRA Corrective Action (RCRA Subtitle C) O DoD
UST Corrective Action (RCRA Subtitle I) O DOE
TSCA O Other (specify)
Safe Drinking Water Act O Not Applicable
B-5
-------
Site Name/Technology _
PART 3: TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
1. Technology or Trade Name.
2. Technology Type. Please check all that apply.
Geophysical
Analytical
Q
Air Measurement (Weather Measurement
Technologies Excluded)
Q Analytical Detectors (Stand Alone Only)
D Biosensors
Q Chemical Reaction-Based Indicators
(Colormetric).
Q In situ Chemical Sensors
Q Fiber Optic Chemical Sensors and Analyzers
Q Gas Chromatography (GC)
D Other Chromatography
Q Mass Spectrometry (MS) (May include GC/MS)
O Ion Mobility Spectroscopy
O Other Spectroscopy Techniques
Q Immunoassays
Q Soil Gas Analyzers
Q X-Ray Fluorescence Analyzers
O Electrochemical-based Detectors
O Thermal Desorption Devices
O Other:
Q In situ Physical Sensors
O Ground Penetrating Radar
D Shallow Seismic Reflection/Refraction
O Subsurface Resistivity Geophysical Instruments
(including cone penetrometer)
O Subsurface Conductivity Geophysical
Instruments
O Subsurface Magnetrometry Geophysical
Instruments
Extraction
O Extraction Technologies (Analytical Traps)
O Supercritical Fluid Extraction
Other Sampling Technology
O Air Sampling Technologies
O Water Sampling Technologies
O Soil Sampling Technologies
Other: — —
3. Vendor Name. Please provide the name of the manufacturer of the technology or
equipment used at the site.
(Note: Questions 4 through 9 may be answered by including a vendor or
manufacturer's fact sheet or sales brochure with the completed form)
«*• (For PRC only) Check to see if vendor is listed on Vendor FACTS: a Yes O No
B-6
-------
4.
Site Name/Technology
Vendor Address
6.
City State
5. Vendor Phone Number ( )
Zip Code.
Technology Description. Provide a brief description of the monitoring/measurement
device or technology, including scientific principles on which the technology is
based; key steps; unique or innovative features; whether the full-scale system is
continuous, on demand, or single measurement; and whether the technology is
transportable, portable, or in situ.
Data Type. What type of data does the technology produce? Please check all that
apply.
7.
O
O
O
Qualitative (yes/no, absence or presence)
Quantitative (specific number)
Semi-quantitative (measurement within range)
8. Use of Data Produced By the Technology. At this site, identify how the data
produced, by the technology was used?
O
a
a
Units
Screening
Compliance monitoring
Enforcement
Other:
O
O
Cleanup monitoring or verification
sample analysis
Risk assessment
Site characterization
9. Sample Throughput/Measurement Frequency. Please indicate the sample
throughput (that is, how long it takes to generate a useable data point).
Throughput is measured by the total time required to obtain the data divided by the
total number of data points.
per hour
per ft2
readout
O Other specify
per linear ft
per acre
continuous
B-7
-------
Site Name/Technology
10. Time Period Technology Used. Identify how long the technology or equipment was
used at the site.
Number of months/days
or
From:
To:
11.
o
a
a
a
a
a
a
12.
Media Monitored or Characterized. Identify all media in which the technology for
monitoring or measurement was used.
Soil (in situ)
Soil (ex situ)
Sludge
Solid (for example, slag, rock)
Sediment (in-situ)
Sediment (ex situ)
Light Non-aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs)
O
a
o
o
o
o
a
Dense Non-aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs)
Groundwater
Soil gas
Surface water
Leachate
Air particulates
Other (specify) —
Monitoring Targets. Please check all that apply. Identify all the contaminants that
have been monitored or measured by the technology at the site.
Chemical Monitoring Target
O Halogenated volatiles
O Halogenated semivolatiles
O Nonhalogenated volatiles
O Nonhalogenated semivolatiles
O Organic pesticides/herbicides
O Dioxins/furans
O PCBs
O Polynuclear aromatics (PNA)
O Solvents
O Benzene-toluene-ethyl benzene-
xylene (BTEX)
O Acetonrtrile (organic cyanide)
O Organic acids
O Heavy metals
O Nonmetallic toxic elements
O Radioactive metals
O Radionuclides
O Asbestos
O Inorganic cyanides
O Inorganic corrosives
Physical
o
o
o
a
o
o
o
o
o
o
a
o
o
o
Monitoring Target
Water Table
Soil Types
Bedrock Stratigraphy
Resistivity
Conductivity
Buried Ferrous Materials
Buried Non Ferrous Materials
Soil Moisture
Temperature
Other (specify)
Miscellaneous
Explosives/propellents
Organometallic
pesticides/herbicides
Radon
Other (specify)
13. Discussion of the Technology. Describe the benefits, accomplishments, or
advantages obtained by using this technology at the site. (For example, cost
effectiveness, quick turn-around time in obtaining data, portability, or ease-of-use).
B-8
-------
14.
Site Name/Technology
Cost of Using The Technology.
a. Who operated the equipment/technology?
O Vendor a Respondent Other (explain) f
b. Are there any cost data available? (For example, can you explain the cost of
using the technology in terms of the purchase of equipment, rental costs, or cost
per sample).
c. At this site or project, were there any specific factors affecting the cost of
using the equipment or technology (such as, labor rates, calibration time, other
equipment needed, depth to contamination, interferences, or access to power)?
15. Independent Verification of Technology Performance. During this project, was
there independent verification of the results produced by this technology?
O Yes
o NO
O Unknown
a. If the answer to question 13 is yes, is there a report(s) that documents the
verification of the results and how may the report be obtained?
B-9
-------
Site Name/Technology
16. General Comments. Please provide any other general comments concerning the
use or performance of the technology (such as, discussion of any technical
limitations, site conditions, contaminants, or other interferences encountered when
using the technology at this site, or lessons learned from applying the technology
at this site). Please also indicate if you were satisfied or dissatisfied with the
performance of the technology and technical support of the vendor.
17. Additional Information. The following information will not be included the Annual
Status Report summarizing information on field analytical and characterization
technologies, but may provide important additional information concerning future
efforts to evaluate or assess the use of field analytical and characterization
technologies.
Benefit of a More Detailed Case Study. Indicate whether the technology would benefit
from additional study or evaluation to verify its performance (such as that which may be
provided by a detailed case study).
O Yes
ONo
Comments:
Participation in Further Analysis of The Technology. Please indicate if you would be
interested in participating or contributing to further evaluation of the technology.
OYes
D No
Additional Data on Field Analytical and Characterization Technologies. Identify any
additional field analytical and characterization technologies on which you are interested in
obtaining useful data.
B-10
-------
APPENDIX C
VENDOR FIELD ANALYTICAL AND CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES SYSTEM
DATABASE
C-l
-------
VENDORFACTS
The Vendor Field Analytical and Characterization Technologies System (Vendor FACTS) is a
Windows™-based 'database of innovative measuring and monitoring technologies for site
characterization. It is a searchable database that allows users to: (1) obtain information about innovative
measurement and monitoring technologies for use in the field; (2) search the database to identify
technologies that measure or monitor specific types of contaminants or specific media; (3) identify
technologies that are used for analytical measurement, physical characterization, site mapping, or health
and safety monitoring; (4) identify vendors by technology or trade name; (5) view cost and performance
data for a technology, reported by project; (6) scroll through a vendor's information record page by page,
using menu selections; and (7) print or download to a file the results of custom searches and system
reports.
To access Vendor FACTS, the user first must select one of the following search categories:
General Vendor Information
Vendor Name
Technology Type
Trade Name
Media
Monitoring Targets
Waste Source
Technology Maturity
Intended Use
Data Quality Use
Project Data
Site Name
Site Location
Regulation/Statute
Project Type
Equipment Scale
Contaminant Type
A menu of vendor information will appear. The user then can select one of the following information
options:
Company Profile
Technology Profile
Technical References
Technology Description
Operation and Maintenance
Cost and Licensing
Monitoring Targets
Conditions Affecting Performance
Data Collected
Representative Projects
To become a registered user, mail or fax your name, organization, address, and telephone number to the
address below. Please indicate whether you wish to order the Vendqr FACTS software or to register as
a Vendor FACTS user.
U.S. EPA/NCEPI
PO Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419
Facsimile: (513)489-8695
C-2
-------
|