US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAL AGENCY
OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
401M STREET S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MISSION NEEDS ANALYSIS
ForA
SUPERFUND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
DATA SYSTEM
Report of the Data Collection Effort
October 1988
EPA
220/
1988
BAH/
001
-------
« t
V, '
MISSION NEEDS ANALYSIS For A
SUPERFUND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS DATA SYSTEM
Report of the Data Collection Effort
Contract # 68-01-7282 Delivery Order # 065
October 1988
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Information Resources Management
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Prepared by:
BOOZ'ALLEN & HAMILTON Inc.
4330 East West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814-4455
(301)951-2200
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.2C*6Q
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose
B. Background
C. Study Methodology
Chapter H. KEY FINDINGS
A. Potential Applications
B. Benefits
C. Input Requirements
D. Processing Requirements
E. Output Requiements
F. Other Considerations
Chapter HI. CONCLUSIONS
A. Preliminary Conclusions
B. Recommendations
Appendix A. Acronymns and Abbreviations
Appendix B. Interview Questionnaire
Appendix C. Region I Data Collection Report
Appendix D. Region n Data Collection Report
Appendix E. Region HI Data Collection Report
Appendix F. Region IV Data Collection Report
Appendix G. Region V Data Collection Report
Appendix H. Region VI Data Collection Report
Appendix I. Region VH Data Collection Report
Appendix J. Region Vm Data Collection Report
Appendix KL Region DC Data Collection Report
Appendix L. Region X Data Collection Report
Appendix M. HQ/OAR Data Collection Report
Appendix N. HQ/OEA Data Collection Report
Appendix O. HQ/OGC Data Collection Report
Appendix P. HQ/OPPE Data Collection Report
Appendix Q. HQ/OPTS Data Collection Report
Appendix R. HQ/ORD Data Collection Report
Appendix S. HQ/OSWER Data Collection Report
Appendix T. HQ/OW Data Collection Report
1
3
8
11
12
15
18
24
25
26
30
30
33
36
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit!. . Overview of the CARD Database
Exhibit H. CARD Process How
Exhibit m. Data Collection Methodology
Exhibit IV. S ummary of Needs and Benefits
5
7
10
13
11
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE
There is a strong conviction that needs for high quality, easily accessible and
comprehensive environmental monitoring data cut across all EPA programs. EPA
managers need environmental monitoring data to implement programs, conduct program
oversight, and develop regulations and policy. Currently, there is no centralized repository
of environmental monitoring data for all media collected under the Superfund program (air,
soil, and water).
Therefore, the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM) has
undertaken a mission needs analysis for a Superfund Chemical Analysis Data System.
This analysis will identify the programmatic requirements for environmental data in the
Contract Laboratory Program (£LP) Analytical Results Database (CARD). To date, the
use of the data in CARD has been limited to contract compliance; that is, determining
whether contract laboratories have analyzed the environmental samples in the manner
specified in the contract in order to determine payment is appropriate for work done. The
purpose of the mission needs analysis is to identify potential applications for the data in
CARD beyond its current use and to delineate any constraints surrounding the current
structure of the database. EPA will decide whether or not to proceed with a preliminary
design and options analysis based on the outcome of this study.
This report presents the findings of the first phase of the mission needs analysis.
The results of interviews with key personnel in all regional and Headquarters offices are
summarized according to the potential applications of the data, perceived benefits from the
use of the data, and input, processing and output constraints surrounding the use of the
data. No attempt is made at this time to address the feasibility the potential applications
presented within this report; this will be done in the initial systems concept (a graphical
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
model of the proposed computer system) and the final specification and documentation of
results.
This chapter will describe the contents and operating environment of the CARD
database and will also describe the technical approach to this study. The remainder within
this report, of this report is divided as follows:
• Chapter U, KEY FINDINGS, summarizes the information obtained from the
interviews concerning the needs, benefits, inputs, processing, outputs, and
additional considerations associated with new applications of the information
contained in CARD;
• Chapter ffl, CONCLUSIONS, presents conclusions about the data collected;
• Appendix A, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS, contains a reference list
of the many acronyms and abbreviations used throughout this report;
• Appendix B, INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE, contains an exact copy of the
questionnaire used to guide the interviews of EPA personnel;
• Appendices C through L contain copies of the final versions of all ten regional
data collection reports; and
• Appendices M through T contain copies of the final versions of the
Headquarters data collection reports.
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
B. BACKGROUND
Since the early 1980s, the Contract Laboratory Program has been EPA's major
vehicle for obtaining chemical analyses of samples from Superfund sites. During the
ensuing time, hundreds of thousands of samples have been analyzed and the results from
the analyses used to determine the type and extent of cleanup required. CARD has
accumulated the results of analyses since January 1988, and can supply a user with a
wealth of quality assurance information along with qualifiers that key the user to the
compliance of the analysis procedures with contract requirements.
To date, however, the use of CARD data has been dedicated to that single purpose,
ensuring that contract laboratories have performed within the contract requirements. In
conducting the mission needs analysis, other potential applications of CARD have been
proposed, such as trend analysis, vulnerability and risk assessments, and contamination
mapping. In particular, one critical application of CARD would be its potential interaction
with an EPA Geographic Information System (GIS). At present, OIRM is evaluating the
utility of the GIS system to operate on the Agency's minicomputers. GIS can graphically
depict, by geographic location, Superfund sampling data such as that housed in CARD.
Key pieces of information, such as a unique identification code and latitude/longitude
coordinates of sampling locations might allow the linking and overlaying of CARD data to
other key baseline information or ancillary data such as land use, ambient water quality,
population distribution, and industrial locations to perform integrated, whole ecosystem
analysis. These analyses could support critical EPA decisions on actions based on
vulnerability analysis, risk assessment, or compliance determination, and strengthen EPA's
unified cross-media management posture.
1.
The Contents of CARD
CARD contains the analytical results of EPA field samples and their
corresponding quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) data. A case number, Sample
Delivery Group (SDG) number, and lab sample number are assigned to each sample. This
information is recorded in the system along with the date of laboratory receipt, the date of
sample analysis, and pertinent physical descriptions, such as matrix and weight or volume.
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
Organic and inorganic samples are the two bask categories of chemicals on
the CLP's Target Compound List. The organic samples are divided into three fractions
according to chemical make-up. They are volatile organic (VOA) compounds, semi-volatile
or base neutral acids (BNA) compounds, and pesticide/PCD compounds. The inorganic
samples are divided into two fractions -- metals (consisting of 23 elements) and cyanides.
In the future, CARD also will contain results of the analysis of dioxins. Exhibit I illustrates
the contents of the CARD Database.
CLP laboratories are required to follow the strict analytical and reporting
guidelines specified in the CLP contract when analyzing environmental samples. The
majority of requirements related to the implementation of QA/QC protocols are necessary to
certify the quality of data generated during sample analysis. For instance, instrument
calibration must be performed before, during, and after the analysis of the field samples.
Several QA/QC samples also are run concurrently during the analysis. They include but are
not limited to blanks, duplicates, and matrix spikes. The number of QA/QC samples per
case is determined by the number of SDGs. A SDG consists of up twenty samples or the
number of samples received at the lab over a fourteen day period, whichever is less. One
full set of QA/QC samples are analyzed per SDG.
The analytical results and the respective QA/QC data produced by each
contract laboratory are entered on the appropriate CLP data reporting form and the
hardcopy and electronic versions (on floppy disk) of the form are sent to the Sample
Management Office (SMO) for analysis. The SMO judges from those data whether the
contract laboratory's performance was in compliance.
2. The CARD Operating Environment
CARD receives all of its data from the analysis of field samples. The
process flow of data can be divided into three steps (refer to Exhibit II) - data collection,
data manipulation, and data analysis and storage:
Step 1: The contract laboratories are required to send the sample analysis report
forms and a floppy diskette containing the summary information to the
SMO. [NOTE: The analysis reports (without the data diskette) are also
-------
Report of tbe Data Collection Effort
EXHIBIT I
OVERVIEW OF THE CARD DATABASE
ORGANICS
VOLATILE AND SEMI-
VOLATILE ANALYTICAL
RESULTS:
PESTICIDE ANALYTICAL
RESULTS:
LAB NAME
CONTRACT NUMBER
EPA SAMPLE NUMBER
LAB CODE
CASE NUMBER
SAS NUMBER
SOG NUMBER
MATRIX
SAMPLE WEIGHT
SAMPLE UNITS
DATE RECEIVED
DATE EXTRACTED
DATE ANALYZED
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
CONCENTRATION
INSTRUMENT ID
PCB STANDARDS
SURROGATES
MATRIX SPIKES
DUPLICATES
LINEARITY CHECK
BREAKDOWN MONfTORING
METHOD BLANK TABLE
RETENTION TIME
SHIFT OF DBC
LAB NAME
CONTRACT NUMBER
EPA SAMPLE NO.
LAB CODE
CASE NUMBER
SAS NUMBER
SDG NUMBER
MATRIX
SAMPLE WEIGHT
SAMPLE UNITS
DATE RECEIVED
DATE ANALYZED
DILUTION FACTOR
CAS NUMBER
COMPOUND
CONCENTRATION
NUMBER OF TIC*
INSTRUMENT ID
TUNE TABLE
CALIBRATIONS
INTERNAL STANDARDS
SURROGATES
MATRIX SPIKES
DUPLICATES
METHOD BLANK TABLE
CARD
DATA
INORGANICS
LAB NAME
CONTRACT NUMBER
LAB CODE
CASE NUMBER
SAS NUMBER
SDG NUMBER
EPA SAMPLE NUMBER
COMMENTS
MATRIX
PCT SOLIDS
DATE RECEIVED
CONCENTRATION UNITS
CAS NUMBER
ANALYTE
COLOR
CLARITY
TEXTURE
(TO BE DETERMINED)
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
sent to the regional Environmental Services Division (BSD) form which
the sample was taken and to the Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory (EMSL) in Las Vegas. The regional ESD validates that the
data in the report is of good quality; that is, they check the reported result
against the instrument readouts to assure that there are no computational
errors, etc. The ESD will set flags to mark the data as "qualified/
estimated" or "rejected", as required. These flags are not currently
incorporated into the CARD database. EMSL in Las Vegas also reviews
the data. They look for testing methodologies which appear to be
particularly effective or efficient, with the intent of improving over the
long term the Contract Laboratory Program.]
Step 2: The data diskette is then loaded onto a microcomputer to verify the
readability of the data. If it passes this preliminary test, the data is
uploaded to the logical mainframe (IBM 4381) in Cincinnati. SMO, using
procedures running under a statistical analysis package called SAS, then
checks the data to assure that the laboratory's analytical methods and
results comply with the contract. This process is called contract
compliance screening. After screening the data and setting flags for
compliance, the data is finally uploaded to the IBM 3090 mainframe at
Research Triangle Park (RTP). There it is converted to the format
required by ADABAS, a widely used database management system, and
appended to the existing CARD data.
Step 3: CARD data is accessed electronically by the Data Audit Group of EMSL
for QA/QC purposes. Other groups with the ability to translate laboratory
sample numbers to EPA Site ID numbers have the potential to also use
this data.
The CARD system is designed to have three automated functional
capabilities: (1) automated data capture from diskette, (2) automated data review by the
Data Audit Group, and (3) reporting capabilities. The CARD pilot project was completed
as of January 1988 and the system is expected to be fully operational by October 1988.
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
to
<
z
t-
Q
to
CL
UJ
if)
a
<
_i
13
Q.
Q
c\i
a.
UJ
_1
_f
O
<
5
O
a.
UJ
EXHIBIT II
CARD PROCESS FLOW
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
C. STUDY METHODOLOGY
To help ensure the success of this mission needs analysis, the classical approach
presented in EPA's System Design and Development Guidance (OIRM 87-02, Volume A)
is being followed. In this first stage of this approach, potential users of the data in CARD
were identified and interviewed -- the results of which are the basis of this report. An
interview package, consisting of a questionnaire and strawman (i.e., information about
CARD and potential applications/benefits of CARD data) was sent to all potential
interviewees prior to the interview. (See Appendix B to view the questionnaire.)
Interviewees included more than 100 EPA personnel in all ten regional offices and
approximately 50 Headquarters personnel representing each of the eight major offices.
Each of the interviewees was identified by the EPA Project Officer or regional or
Headquarters (Senior Information Resources Management Officials) as having potential use
for the information in CARD. In each case, personal interviews were conducted to ensure
complete consideration of user needs and system benefits.
At the beginning of all interviews, each interviewee was briefed on the background
of the CARD database. Each interviewee was then asked to:
• Identify his/her potential application(s) of the CARD data, such as trend
analyses, risk analysis, determination of contamination extent and magnitude,
remedy effectiveness evaluation, and/or multimedia integrated analyses;
• Describe the anticipated benefits which would be realized by addressing the
needs of the interviewee;
Characterize the quality and types of data that must be applied to each need in
terms of environmental medium, number of samples, historical sampling
records, geographic distribution, and non-sampling data (e.g.,. drinking water
standards, lethal dosages, etc.);
Identify sources of other needed data, such as the Facility Index Data System
(FINDS), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS), the Hazardous Waste Data
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
Management System (HWDMS), or. the Storage and Retrieval of the National
Water Quality Database (STORET);
• Describe the desired automated or manual processing required of the data, such
as selection/sorting capabilities, report generation, or statistical calculations; and
• Describe the types of desired outputs (e.g., graphs, maps, Congressional
reports).
This information was gathered in the above manner in order to later facilitate the design of
an automated computer system (see Exhibit ffl- Data Collection Methodology).
All information, obtained from interviews, were confirmed by summarizing
information at the conclusion of each interview. In addition, draft summary reports were
produced in each region through use of Macintosh computers and presented prior to
departure from the region. Summary reports were also developed for the Headquarters
program office participants. All Headquarters and regional summary reports were
approved by the appropriate SIRMO. (Please refer to Appendices C-T for individual
reports.)
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
10
EXHIBIT III
DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
I
i!i
ii i
I.
tlln
ii
ill III 'i 3
111 IJj iii III
III
-------
CHAPTER II
KEY FINDINGS
According to the data collection methodology described in the previous chapter, the
framework for reporting the results of the interviews is the following:
* Section A reviews the current and potential applications of the data in CARD;
* Section B describes the benefits which the users hope to receive from the use
of the data;
* Section C indicates what inputs are needed to support the applications, in
terms of additional data in CARD and interfaces to other data sources;
* Section D lists the processing needs of the users;
• Section E defines the output requirements of the users; and
• Section F summarizes some of the more important considerations expressed
by users during the interviews.
Each of the individual findings in this chapter is followed by either a percentage of
total users interviewed or an abbreviated list of the regions/HQ offices which suggested the
requirement. For example, an item followed by [IV-HWD] indicates that the item
references the Hazardous Waste Division in Region IV- Atlanta, GA. These references
allow the reader to find the detailed information in the attached individual reports.
Percentages are used when the reference listing would be too long. Appendix A contains a
list of acronyms and abbreviations and Appendices C through T contain the detailed reports
of findings.
- 11 -
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
12
A. POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS
A variety of potential applications were identified during the interviewing process.
Most were to related to current activities. Exhibit IV on the following page summarizes the
needs and benefits identified. The most commonly identified potential applications of the
environmental monitoring data in CARD are for:
• Characterization of Environmental Conditions -- Determining the
severity of a release of hazardous contaminants is a critical application of
environmental monitoring data such as are in CARD. These data could give
confidence to decisions on appropriate courses of remediation. The information
in CARD can enhance this process by providing quality analytical data to
characterize the extent and magnitude of a release. For example, CARD data
could be used to analyze current conditions in terms of substances and volumes
present and could be extrapolated to estimate future conditions. Potential users
for this type of application would be Field Investigation Team and remedial
contractors, Remedial Program Managers, On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), and
state and local environmental program personnel. CARD data could also be
used to perform large-scale, global assessments such as identifying the
prevalence of major contaminants and quantities on a national level in order to
plan for necessary treatment technologies and capacity requirements needed to
handle the wastes. Headquarters Superfund and RCRA personnel would be
potential users for this type of application. [II, ffl, IV, V, VH, VIII, X, OAR,
OPPE, OPTS, OSWER, OW]
• Assessment of Trends - The data in CARD could be used to study the
changes in various parameters over time. This could be applied to analysis of
trends in environmental quality, determination of priorities for various
programs, documentation of the reduction in health risks due to lowered
contamination levels, observation of contamination migration, tracking of the
incremental effects of contaminants over time, and performance evaluation. For
example, CARD data can be used by regional ESD and OSWER users to
evaluate the trends in data usability over time for specific contract labs; that is,
to determine the change in percentage of data that is qualified versus rejected.
[I,m,rV,VI,Vn,OPPE,OPTS,ORD,OSWER,OW]
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
13
EXHIBIT IV
SUMMARY OF NEEDS AND BENEFITS
NEEDS
BENEFITS
• Detarmlnlng program effectivenesss
• Assessing trends
• Supplementing existing data
- Assessing exposure and risk
• Improving enforcement and lltigative
capabilities
• Supporting and validating models
• Selecting and evaluating remedies
• Verifying and Improving lab performance
• Supporting NPL ranking
• Increased dots consistency
• Increased data reliability
• Increased data accessibility
• increased data timeliness
• Increased data uniformity
• Increased data comprehensiveness
• Increased scope and quality
of environmental rankiny factors
• Increased proactive stance in
policy making
• Reduced keypunching and
searching
• Reduced labor costs
• Increased confidence in data
Access to Information of Sites with Similar Conditions - Access to
sampling data from sites with similar circumstances could help users in
determining potential negative impacts based on experiences of dealing with
similar releases, selecting effective remedies, selecting appropriate sampling
methodologies, and planning response and regulatory actions. An example of
this application would be site remedial action selection. By having a large pool
of contaminant information from CARD, as well as other information, decision
makers can identify similarities in site circumstances and compare remedy
selection options under consideration at that site with those chosen at others.
Potential users for this application include Regional site managers and other
contributors to the Record of Decision (ROD). In addition, the chance of
convincing leading parties (federal, state, or RPs) of the potential
successfulness of proposed remedial alternatives would be greater if the
information on the success of specific treatment technologies and remedial
actions employed at other sites is available through CARD. [I, II, in, IV, VII,
Vffl, X, IX, OAR, OPPE, OPTS, ORD, OSWER, OW]
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
14
Determination of Project or Program Effectiveness — Analysis of
CARD data could support evaluation of the effectiveness of various types of
courses of action. For example, information in CARD could be used to
evaluate the progress of a cleanup at a Superfund site and to assess its overall
effectiveness upon completion by comparing the findings of sampling
performed before cleanup to those obtained later. The QA/QC information in
CARD could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of new analytical methods
and then added to laboratory contracts. Analysis of samples consisting of
complex matrices and/or substances at concentrations approaching instrument
detection limits often require Special Analytical Services (SAS). These SAS
analyses are often the testing grounds for innovative analytical techniques. The
success of the SAS could be assessed by statistical analysis of QA/QC data such
as percent recovery, precision, and accuracy results from performance
evaluations. Lastly, the information in CARD can also be used to measure the
effectiveness of the Superfund program itself. Data in CARD can, for example,
show whether there is a reduction in levels of contaminants at Superfund sites
and demonstrate whether there is an overall reduction in the risk to the public
and the environment because of program implementation. Potential users for
effectiveness evaluation include OPPE (for an ongoing project to develop
Superfund Environmental Indicators), ORD, RPMs, OSCs, remedial
contractors, state site coordinators, etc. [I, II, IE, IV, V, VI, VII, Vm, IX, X,
OPPE, ORD, OSWER, OW]
Identification of Duplication of Effort -- CARD data could contribute to
identification of duplication of sampling efforts at a single site or between major
programs. For example, identification of needed data in the form of Superfund
data in CARD could avoid conducting a new sampling episode in support of
RCRA or state programs. Users of CARD data for this application might
include on-site cleanup contractors, remedial project managers, RCRA
inspectors, and state emergency response personnel. [I, n, IE, V, VII, X,
OPTS, OSWER, OW]
Input to Assessment of Exposure and Risk to Human Health and
the Environment - The risk posed by the release of hazardous material into
the environment is determined by a number of factors such as the amount and
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
15
type of materials found and potential routes to vulnerable populations. CARD
contains specific information about the levels of contaminants in various media
found at Superfund sites and could thus be used to contribute to determination
of those key factors. For example, CARD data could be input to various risk
assessment models to identify likely exposure routes and measure the severity
of the risk. Risk is considered when ranking factors to determine a Hazard
Ranking Score (HRS). Historical data can also be used to validate existing
models for determining risk and exposure or transport and distribution. Users
for this potential application including contractors and site personnel performing
remedial investigations and personnel from non-Superfund programs such as
OTS or OW responsible for evaluating risks. [IE, IV, V, DC, X, OAR, OPTS,
ORD, OSWER, OW]
Support in Case Preparation - Successful case preparation depends in
large part on proving that an uncontrolled release of hazardous material has
occurred and that it poses a threat to human health and the environment. The
enforcement and litigation community would benefit from a centralized source
of Superfund environmental monitoring data when such data are depended upon
to prove a threatening release, answer public inquiries, assemble legal briefs,
issue permits, etc. CARD data are, by nature, of well-documented, known
quality, and would be appropriate to support such applications. Users of this
potential application include regional council, permit writers, and waste
program enforcement personnel. [I, Vm, OSWER, OEA, OGC, OW]
B. BENEFITS
Interviewees identified many potential benefits of having access to the data in
CARD. They include:
• Reduction of Effort -- The increased data management capabilities offered
in CARD will reduce or eliminate:
Keypunching of data into local systems;
Duplication of data collection effort; and
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
16
- Laborious searching for and tracking of data.
This will result in overall savings in cost, time, and labor. For example, less
new data may have to be collected in the event of an uncontrolled release of
hazardous materials if RCRA data analyzed through the CLP were available
through CARD. [I, II, IE, IV, V, VI, VII, X, OSWER, OPTS, OW, OAR,
ORD, OSWER, OEA]
Greater confidence in decisions -- Decisions based on CARD data for
environmental activities will be firmly supported because of the well
documented CARD data quality. For example, CARD data can be relied upon
for use in setting cleanup priorities based upon the risk potential and exposure
routes of identified hazardous substances because CARD data quality is known
and therefore defensible. P, HI, IV, VH, OAR, ORD, OSWER]
Maximized Use of Available Information and Minimized
Duplication of Effort - Greater accessibility of environmental data and site
information will allow more widespread use and re-use of those data, reducing
the need to collect new information. For example, if a project manager of a new
NPL site can readily access a list, complete with contacts, of all Superfund sites
with similar contaminants, it would then be possible to draw upon the safety
plans and sampling methodology for the previous investigation and thereby
eliminate the duplication of efforts. [I, H, Vn, X, OPTS, OPPE, OW]
Improved Data Consistency, Uniformity, and Reliability -- The
process that is established for organizing, formatting and managing CLP data
can be useful in setting a precedent for management of all sampling data
analyzed through this and other programs. For example, there is a known array
of QA/QC data available for all CLP data, and users can be assured of being
able to access those data with the findings in CARD. [I, II, IV, VII, LX, X,
OSWER, OGC, OW, OPTS]
Increased Uniformity in Inter-Regional Analytical Approaches - At
present, there is limited access to data between EPA regional programs. Some
activities could benefit by the sharing of information with others with similar
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort 17
responsibilities. For example, users might benefit from the availability of
documentation of the Special Analytical Services (SAS) to analyze the complex
matrices frequently found at Superfund or RCRA sites for which others might
have experience. [D, IV, VI, VII, X, OPPE, OSWER]
Increased Comprehensiveness of Information and Promotion of
Innovative Uses of Available Data -- The additional source of reliable
environmental data will beneficially supplement many data collections. For
example, Superfund CLP data will enhance drinking water source location data
in regional performance of vulnerability assessments. This type of analysis
could be performed using new analytical techniques such as CIS (Geographic
Information Systems). [I, H, VH, OW, OPPE, OPTS]
Justification of Priorities and Resource Allocation ~ Increased
availability and use of CLP analytical results data will offer additional support to
such activities as priority determination and fund distribution planning. For
example, Region II interviewees suggested that, through the use of an
automated database, results from a Low-Tiered Site Investigation (LSI) could
be effectively and efficiently screened to yield candidates for a full-scale Site
Investigation (SI) and thus set priorities for conducting Sis. [II, m, OW]
Increase in Scope and Quality of Environmental Ranking Factors -
The data in CARD provide the information needed to identify environmental
ranking factors, which are critical to the evaluation of Superfund priorities.
There could be more confidence in the suitability of selected ranking factors
because of the excellent documentation of CARD data quality. [HI, VII, OPPE,
ORD]
Improved Institutional Memory of Environmental Monitoring Data
— There is a pervasive problem in the Superfund Program of loss of
•
information due to contractor and EPA staff changes with no established
procedure for storing environmental monitoring data. In addition, data collected
may be stored in a variety of formats. The institutional memory of
environmental data and interpretive capability will be greatly enhanced through
the use of a centralized database. Processes that will be established for creating
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
18
and maintaining this central repository would assure a reliable, complete source
of CLP data. [I, VIH, X, OAR, OSWER]
Cross-Media Analysis Support -- CARD can provide additional support to
multi-media analyses involving integration of data from many media. CARD
data contains data from several media, and with the inclusion of SAS data, data
for all environmental media will be available in a single source, [HI, IV]
Improved Planning Capabilities « The increased ability to detect missing
or incomplete data at early stages of a site investigation will allow proper
planning of activities to assure collection of needed information. For example,
using CARD to determine that there is incomplete data on the extent of
contamination can assist site cleanup personnel in the development of a site
sampling plan for a Remedial Investigation. [I, IV]
Decreased Costs for Accessing Needed Information — Chemical
analysis data for the Superfund Program are often buried in mountains of
hardcopy reports, logs and documentation. Many manhours are spent
searching and sifting through these sources to identify needed data. Having
needed data available in a reliable central repository will decrease the costs
associated with identifying and acquiring needed data. [IT]
Improved Community Relations -- CLP analytical data is often needed to
answer public inquiries on the circumstances and conditions at an uncontrolled
release site. CARD could provide a means for making these data more useful in
responding to public inquiries. For example, the use of site maps produced by
GIS with sampling points and contaminant information provided by CARD
could enhance the community 's understanding of administrative records and
facilitate the community relation phases of Superfund activities. [OSWER]
C. INPUT REQUIREMENTS
The points discussed below represent the specific type of information that the
interviewees suggested be incorporated into the CARD system, the databases or systems
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
19
where the data can be located, and the potential uses of this information. The [%] indicated
after each bullet represents the percentage of all interviewees that endorsed that particular
point.
1.
Modifications/Additions to CARD Data
The types of data that are available in the Superfund Program but not now
currently included with CLP analytical results data, in order of priority as indicated by
interviewees, are identified below.
• Validated CLP Data -- Data that are accepted by the SMO are passed
on to EPA regional personnel for validation; i.e., a judgement
determination as to whether the data are "good" or "bad." Regional
personnel will assign flags to the data reviewed indicating its level of
quality. Date of validation is also necessary for proper documentation.
A significant number of interviewees stressed the importance of
validated data stating that nonvalidated data would not provide the level
of confidence required for litigation, site characterization, trend analysis,
and laboratory and analytical methodology profiles. [51%]
• Site and Sample Geographic Locaters -- Spatial identifiers
documenting the location of the sampling point of which the data in a
particular record is representative, with varying degrees of precision
(e.g., latitude/longitude coordinates to 1/10 second or Cartesian
coordinates for sample location, and legal addresses such as county,
state and Congressional district for site location). Such data may be
available in part in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). Location
descriptors would also allow the analysis of CARD data on the
Geographic Information System (GIS). The GIS depicts environmental,
geographic, cultural and political data using a spatial coordinate system.
The GIS could be used to plot or map trends on a national- as well as
site-specific level. [47%]
-------
Report or the Data Collection Effort
20
• Special Analytical Services (SAS) Data -- Currently, only
"routine analytical services" data are entered into CARD. Data from
special media, such as air and sludge, or special contaminants such as
dioxin isomers and radiation are not in CARD. These data along with
the corresponding methodology and detection limits are necessary to
give users a "complete picture" of site conditions. These data would
also increase the accuracy of trend analyses, regional or site
characterizations and laboratory assessments because consideration will
be given to environmental media outside of the routine parameters.
[42%]
* Sample Description Information - Data describing the purpose of
the sample would help CARD users put findings data in context. Types
of sample descriptors that were identified include type of well, specific
matrix, method of collection, sample depth, distance to public water
supply or contamination source and type of sampling effort such as
investigation, remediation or monitoring effort. This data are currently
available only from the sampling contractor. This information could be
used when selecting a subset of CARD data for contaminant migration
mapping, site investigations or trend analysis. [41%]
* Historical CLP Data -- CARD currently contains only data collected
since January, 1988. Pre-1988 data are available, but have not be
entered into the CARD database. Such historical data are necessary to
identify trends in contaminant concentration, migration of contaminants
at a site and site characterization. [24%]
* Site Identification Codes - The identification code currently used
in CARD, "case number", is different that those used in other
collections of information. Inclusion of other identification codes for
the site for which the sample was collected would allow cross-
referencing of data with the Sample Management Office's case number
(e.g., site reference number from CERCLIS, permit number, NPL
number, Dunn and Bradstrcet number or EPA Facility Index number).
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort 21
With these codes, CARD system can more easily be integrated with
many outside data systems. [17%]
Flags or Indicators of Availability of Reference Data -- Many
types of data, such as MCLs, ambient air quality standards and
reference doses serve as bases of comparison and give context to
findings such as are in CARD. Interviewees suggested flagging the
availability of these bases of comparison in CARD with the findings
data. Indicators of data confidence level and source of data are also
needed for users to evaluate the suitability of particular CARD data for
their own uses. Availability of this information would save time when
performing a site characterization and could also be used to determine
data suitability for a variety of uses. [16%]
Additional fields -- Fields for miscellaneous types of information
were identified as a useful addition to the CARD system. Such fields
could be used for location identification of CLP data sheets, contact
person/phone numbers (e.g., site manager), data dictionary file, and
interactive search and display screens. In the event of questions
concerning data and its application or data searches, access to this
information through these fields would save time. [7%]
2. Other Data Sources
Interviewees identified needs for certain data which, while inappropriate to
put into CARD, would be beneficial to interface with CARD data. These data are identified
below,
• General Site Information - Ecologic data (geologic, biologic, and
meteorological) were identified as necessary to characterize the location
of a hazardous release. Data such as soil type, sensitive environment
location, topography, and climatology were identified as needed to
interface with CARD data. The USGS Land Use/Land Cover database
was identified as a source of wetlands, estuarine and natural park
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
22
information. The NPL Technical Database, if interfaced with CARD,
could provide HRS scoring data, site-specific administration data,
chemical names, and air, groundwater and surface water contaminant
migration route information. This information is vital to site
characterization and risk assessment efforts. [37%]
Hydrologic Data - Data such as depth to ground water, types of
water resources available, well specifications and topographic setting are
needed to understand the sample. This information is available in the
Ground Water Site Inventory (GWSI), a database maintained by the
U.S. Geological Survey, and could be interfaced with CARD.
Additional information can be obtained through the USGS WATSTORE
system which contains water quality and use information and well
inventories. This data could be utilized with CARD data to monitor
contamination plumes and characterize a site. [32%]
Demographic and Land Use Information — Data such as
population and local industry classification, local hazardous waste
generators, transporters and facility owners and operators were
identified as necessary when characterizing an uncontrolled release of
hazardous materials. The Hazardous Waste Data Management System
(HWDMS) contains this type of information and could be interfaced
with CARD data to identify potential sources of contamination and
exposure pathways. The Industrial Discharge File (IDF) also contains
information on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) facilities such as Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code
and latitude/longitude coordinates which could augment the CARD data
collection. The Facility Index Data System (FINDS) is another source
of identification and descriptive data for all facilities tracked by EPA and
could be a valuable source of identification and location data not
currently in CARD. FINDS could supply information such as EPA ID
code, facility name, address, SIC code and latitude/latitude. The Master
Area Reference File (MARF2), a demographic database, contains
summary statistics on persons and housing units in the U.S. which
could be interfaced with CARD to identify populations at risk.
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
23
Longitude/latitude coordinates are given for each population central zone
down to the block level. [23%]
Non-CLP Data - Not all Superfund samples are analyzed through the
CLP. Superfund samples are occasionally processed by state-,
regionally-, or PRP-contracted laboratories. Furthermore, pertinent
RCRA data is often obtained form non-CLP laboratories. The
availability of these data would facilitate performance of contaminant
trend analysis on a national and local level because a larger data pool
from which to base results increases the level of confidence in the
analytical results. [22%]
Ambient Monitoring Data -- Sampling data representing the
environmental conditions of an area that may or may not be affected by
the site of concern are needed to compare against on-site findings.
Ambient data are needed for several media including for groundwater,
surface water and drinking water. Many existing data systems can
supply this required information. The Storage and Retrieval of National
Water Quality Database (STORET) contains information that could be
interfaced with CARD, such as ambient water quality, point source,
flow, and limited data on drinking water. The USGS National Water
Use Database contains withdrawal data, return flow data, and usage data
on twelve categories of water use including agricultural, commercial,
domestic, public supplies and sewage treatment The REACH File
provides data on surface water features such as names and
latitude/longitude coordinates, and has water identification parameters
allowing for a common hydrologic structure analysis. When
determining the magnitude and extent of contamination at a given site,
regionally, or even on a national level, the integration of these data with
the data in CARD would contribute significantly to the credibility of data
analyses. [15%]
Toxicological and Risk Information — Data describing the
characteristics of the hazardous substances identified in CLP-analyzed
samples were identified as helpful if interfaced with CARD. Data such
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort 24
as the most commonly found toxic chemicals, their relative toxicity
levels and reference doses could be found through accessing one of
several systems including the Public Health Risk Evaluation Database
(PHRED), the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), TOXCAT,
TOXLINE, and the TOSCA Chemical Inventory. Additional
information can be obtained through the National Pesticide Information
Retrieval System (NPIRS) which has summaries of known physical,
chemical and toxicological properties for pesticides. The National Air
Toxic Information Clearing House (NATICH) also contains information
regarding toxic program regulations, emissions inventory and air quality
standards. When identifying the contaminants of concern and the
appropriate clean up goals at a site, toxicity information integrated with
CARD data would save time and allow for a more uniform approach.
[14%]
Superfund Management Information - Information on the status
and types of cleanup activities at a Superfund site was identified as
useful to be interfaced with CARD. Data on contaminants of concern,
remediation technology used, HRS score, and remediation and sampling
cost information could be obtained from CERCLIS and regional
databases. This type of data could be used at the program/site level for
trend and program analyses. [4%]
Other Databases -- Various miscellaneous databases were also
mentioned to be interfaced with CARD. These databases were specific
to a particular set of users. For example, some regional Environmental
Services Divisions have an automated Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS) with regionally-specific databases which
could be interfaced to CARD.
D. PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS
The types of analyses and manipulations that might be performed on CARD data are
as follows:
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
25
Selection and Sorting of Data -- The most frequent type of data analysis
identified to be performed using CARD were simple data selection and sorts
based on user-identified criteria. Users identified sorts and listings based on a
combination of values of data types such as site type (mining, landfill, etc.),
location of sample, region, county, contaminant, media, CAS#, MCLs or
regulatory requirements. This sorting capability would allow users to
efficiently obtain the subset of CARD data needed for a particular type of
analysis. [49%]
Statistical Calculations — The capability to perform various types of
statistical analyses of CARD data was also identified as needed by CARD users.
Standard statistical calculations such as mean, standard deviation and range are
needed to facilitate the aggregation of chemical analysis data. The need for
other calculations was also expressed, including the determination of percent of
Superfund budget spent These sorts of calculations allow users to summarize
the findings at a Superfund site. [21%]
Data Entry Using Bar Codes -- Entry of field sample data consisting of
site and sample descriptive information could be more easily loaded into CARD
system via bar code scanner. Bar code labels could be attached to sample
bottles, and then the data from laboratory analyses would be entered directly
into CARD using the identification data stored in the bar code. The scanner
method would save time in the field when sampling and allow for a more
accurate and timely update of field information. [<1%]
E. OUTPUT REQUIREMENTS
Suggestions for various types of outputs that interviewees indicated should be
generated by using the data found in CARD are identified below.
• Geographic Data Display -- Users commonly requested the ability to
produce maps of the data in CARD. Maps could be generated by using CIS to
integrate CARD with other data sources. The GIS would allow the CLP data to
be viewed from a national, regional or site-specific perspective. The utilization
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort 26
potential would be enormous such as mapping high frequency contaminant
zones at the state level or following a contaminant plume on a site level. [45%]
Hardcopy Listings and Automated Data Updates - Listing of
selected/sorted information from CARD as a result of integrating CARD with an
outside data source was a frequently-identified output request. This type of
output would be useful for various reporting purposes ranging from EPA
Congressional reports to local or inter-office reporting. [43%]
Formatted Electronic Files -- Many users prefer to perform analyses of
CARD data on computers other than the EPA mainframe on which CARD
resides, and would like to produce a file of CARD data that can be downloaded
onto their own computers. Applications such as dBase m and Lotus 123 were
commonly identified. Download capabilities will allow users to access and
analyze CARD data locally, thus increasing the overall usability of the system.
[14%]
Charts and Tables - Graphic displays of CARD data such as tables and
charts were identified as needed by some users. Such output could be used to
depict changes in concentration over time, remedial costs per year, or the
frequency of occurrence of a contaminant at a site. The Statistical Analysis
System (SAS) was identified as one means of producing charts, tables, and
other graphical output types. This type of analysis will facilitate reporting or
summarizing of data. [<1%]
F. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The points listed below are additional considerations which were mentioned by the
interviewees regarding the use of CARD data and a future system which would incorporate
this data. The comments listed below are not an exhaustive listing but rather a
representative sample. The remaining comments can be found in the "Other
Considerations" section of each individual Headquarters and regional summary report.
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort 27
1. Current Quality of CLP Data/Validation Issues
• The Environmental Services Division (ESD) in Regions IV and X
estimate that between 15-25 percent of the data from the CLP is
qualified (i.e., has been recalculated or modified due to incorrect
calculations) and less than 5% is totally rejected due to inferior quality.
• Within the Region IV-ESD, no purging of regional data takes place on
rejected records; rather, flags are set to indicate rejection. It would be
possible, therefore, to upload the same records back into CARD and
insert the regional data flags.
• The Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs) in the CARD system
should be flagged in order to indicate that this data has not been
validated. In addition, the group responsible for validating the data in
question should be identified. The Environmental Services Division in
Region VHI believes that these indicators would serve in defining the
usability of this data.
* In order to allow the data validation process and the contract compliance
process to be executed in parallel, various groups within Regions IV,
VI, VII and X strongly suggest a data diskette from the CLP laboratory
be sent to the regional office or the RPM at the same time as the Sample
Management Office. This will save manhours re-entering the data into
regional data management systems.
• Region V-ESD suggested specific site/sample information should be
submitted by the contractor to the region concurrently with the sample
data package from the contract laboratory. This procedure would allow
for site information to be utilized in conjunction with the analytical data
in a more timely fashion.
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort 28
2. Design Considerations
• It was strongly suggested by several interviewees, including Region IX,
Office of Water (OW), Office of Research (ORD), and Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), that the possibility of
integrating CARD data into an existing system such as STORET, rather
than develop a new system, should be examined.
* Duplication of data (i.e., the same data residing in different sources such
as STORET and CARD) should be avoided in order to prevent incorrect
analysis and a potential duplication of effort This point was mentioned
by Region X's Hazardous Waste Division (HWD) and Headquarters
Office of Water (OW).
* According to the Water Division in Region I, a pilot database including
aquifer, NPDES, Superfund, and RCRA data is currently under
development and should be considered in order to prevent duplication of
efforts when redesigning the CARD system.
• Various interviewees, including Regions IE, VI, VII and X and HQ-
OSWER, indicated that security measures should be taken to govern the
entering and manipulation of data in the CARD system.
* The Superfund branch in Region n stated that contractors are required to
retain Superfund analytical results for 10 yrs.; PRPs for 7 yrs.; and
EPA indefinitely. This requirement should be considered when
developing the CARD system. This same group also suggested that a
cost-benefit ratio should be performed prior to any expansion of CARD.
• A new system should be user-friendly, menu-driven, on-line, and
interactive in order to allow for maximum usability. This suggestion
was expressed by groups in Regions IH, IV and X.
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
29
Region X's BSD Laboratory expressed the need to coordinate local and
national database updates in order to include the most current data and
prevent any duplication of efforts.
Region X's ESD, HWD and Water Division, and HQ-OW stressed that
core data elements, such as ground-water minimum data elements,
should be uniform across regions in order to facilitate data integration
with CARD.
The HQ-Office of Policy and Planning Evaluation (OPPE) expressed the
need for National estimation capabilities in order to account for
variations in sampling and analytical techniques. In addition, if time
sharing is implemented, infrequent users need to be supplemented in
terms of computer time.
3.
User Information
The RPM turnover rate is high and thus institutional memory of
environmental information is lost or must be retrieved each time a new
RPM is assigned. The SIRMOs from Regions I and X feel that this
must be considered when assessing the value of the CARD system.
In Region I it is estimated the potential users would be approximately
20% management and 80% scientific with no clerical use within the
office. Additional users would include states, counties, and cities within
-------
CHAPTER HI
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of the data collection efforts clearly reveal a wealth of potential uses for
CARD information across EPA programs and throughout regional offices. Most needs
identified tended to support EPA's top-level strategic direction towards the areas of
management of environmental results, public access and awareness, and data sharing and
integration. While a strong need for good quality, easily accessible and comprehensive
environmental data was demonstrated, several risks and investments associated with
providing such data also become obvious. This chapter sets out certain conclusions and
recommendations that appear to be warranted from the data collection efforts.
A. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
The data findings of the previous chapter lead to the following preliminary
conclusions:
* CLP analytical and QA/QC data can support many applications for
the environmental protection community beside contractor
laboratory performance - A key question in the performance of this study
is whether there is a need to provide access to the CLP analytical results data to
a wider user community than exists now. The conclusion is clearly that there
is. Decision makers in all program areas need to use Superfund monitoring
results to support key policies, activities, decisions, etc. The utility of CLP data
spans programs for many different types of applications, from determining
whether the air emissions of the selected remedy will have to be regulated, to
determining the wasteload allocation for a facility located on a stream reach with
an uncontrolled hazardous waste site. CLP data is currently accessible to users
only in paper files, and the tremendous effort required to locate, organize and
use these data degrades their potential utility.
- 30 -
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
31
The utility of CARD data to a new user community would be
greatly enhanced if it were validated and contained spatial
identifiers ~ Two outstanding data needs were identified by EPA data
managers: the need for validated data and the need for spatial (locational)
identifiers. Without these specifications, the utility of CLP analytical data
would be greatly compromised to the environmental data user community.
SMO review of CLP data assures only that the data are generated in an
acceptable procedure according to laboratory contract specifications. Users in
the environmental community, however, want to know that someone has
reviewed those data and passed a judgement as to their actual quality. Some
users need only to know that the data has been reviewed for quality assurance
and found acceptable. Others need access to the quality assurance information
for each sampling episode to determine whether those data will support their
application. In both cases, users would like to trust that the data in CARD have
been determined to be of acceptable quality for general use.
Spatial identifiers have also been identified as critical to the utility of CARD
data. Spatial identifiers were identified as key to:
- Setting a spatial "context" for monitoring results at a site to determine
relationships between and significance of findings; and
- Serving as a basis for interfacing CARD data with other locationally-based
data such as demography and geology.
The most commonly identified spatial identifier was a set of latitude/longitude
coordinates of the specific point from which the sample was taken. Other
spatial identifiers included general coordinates for the site and address.
The inclusion of key data elements would allow the interface of
CARD data to other databases -- Users identified many other data
collections that could be interfaced with CARD data to maximize their utility.
To achieve an interface capability, key data elements would have to be added to
CARD as selectable data elements. Such data elements might include site
identification code or latitude/longitude coordinates.
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort 32
Overcoming many of the constraints surrounding the expanded
use of CARD data will entail significant resource investments by
OIRM and/or the Superfund program ~ In order to provide the necessary
access to CARD data and to assure that it is in a format appropriate for
widespread use, several efforts will have to be undertaken. The efforts that are
anticipated to incur significant costs are:
• Adding Missing Data to CARD ~ Many pieces of data identified as
needed to support the CLP analytical results data in CARD exist in paper
files but do not yet accompany CARD data. Information such as sits ID
code, sample point location, and site name must be available for every
sample record in CARD to enhance their utility. Some of this information
may be found in CERCLIS, but others may require new data entry.
Providing these missing data is anticipated to be expensive.
- Creating Interfaces to Other Databases -- A commonly requested
capability for the CARD system is the ability to "integrate" CARD data with
other valuable databases such as the GWSI, STORET, or HWDMS. The
mechanics of providing this capability could be expensive, as procedures
and data transformations will have to be identified and developed.
- Validating Data and Providing Qualifiers - As discussed above,
validation is critical to the utility of CARD data. This includes the
assignment of qualifiers or "flags" which communicate the quality of data
for each observation. The data validation process now occurs (by either
regional ESD or Superfund personnel), but the qualifiers, which differ
between regions, arc generally recorded in paper files and never in CARD.
Developing a process to include the qualifiers of validated data in CARD
will greatly enhance its utility, but will incur significant costs to execute.
The analytical processing requirements identified were not
complicated, but a mapping function does require the addition of
spatial identifiers - Users expressed the need to perform several types of
analyses with CLP analytical results data. Many of the analytical techniques
were simple sorts and listings. For example, users identified the need to list
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort 33
sites where specific hazardous substances have been found or list all the
hazardous materials identified at a single site. These analytical capabilities are
relatively simple and should not be difficult for OIRM to provide. However, a
commonly requested analytical capability of CLP results data is to map them
using a GIS. GIS software is available to all EPA program and regional
personnel. The addition of spatial identifiers would allow the mapping of
CARD data using GIS.
Many users discouraged the development of a new database or
data system — Many users expressed being overwhelmed by the large number
of disconnected data collections they must access. Making CARD data available
to users through an existing system would be preferable because:
- Many users might already be able to access an existing system;
- Training for a new system may not have to occur, and
- Development costs could be minimized.
STORET is a prominent repository and analytical tool for EPA environmental
monitoring data. Although limitations have been identified for STORET,
several users felt that its existing structure and analytical capabilities plus access
to other environmental monitoring data would make STORET a favorable
repository for CARD data.
Several types of output are needed to interpret the data in CARD -
Several types of output capabilities are needed to enhance the utility of data in
CARD. In particular, users need to create hardcopy output of analyses or
listings of CARD data to store in files or incorporate into reports; and electronic
output in order to integrate CARD data with other data collections or incorporate
mem into local analytical systems.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
A significant market for the CLP analytical results in CARD has been identified in
this study. A key objective for OIRM is to provide access to those many potential users
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
34
who have expressed interest Therefore, OIRM should continue to progress in providing
wider access to CARD to the user community.
Several steps should be taken by OIRM to successfully develop the CARD system
to support the identified applications:
• OIRM should develop a project management structure, where roles and
responsibilities are established.
• A lead region should be appointed to serve as the "client", and to assist in the
development and refinement of CARD enhancements. Region Vn expressed
enthusiasm for this project and has suitable characteristics to serve as a lead
region. Other possibilities include Regions I, Vm and X.
Several legal issues concerning the use or release of CARD data were identified.
during the course of this study and should be resolved prior to CARD data release. For
example, all data collected for Superfund site characterization and cleanup activities become
pan of the Administrative Record for that site. They are, therefore, available for general
access and are not considered enforcement sensitive. However, there are certain
circumstances where CLP data might be sensitive:
- The data contain confidential business information and/or the PRP requests that
those data not be revealed; and
- The data are collected specifically to support litigation rather than for cleanup
purposes.
Data collected under these circumstances should not be available for access by unauthorized
users; therefore, the expanded use of CARD data must include a means for identifying
these sensitive data and limiting its availability.
An additional legal issue is that contracted laboratories are only paid for those data
which EPA accepts. However, data are now entered into CARD prior to EPA screening.
Therefore, the possibility exists that rejected data, (data not paid for and thus not owned by
EPA) might remain in CARD. A procedure must be established whereby data not accepted
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort 35
by EPA are removed from the CARD database prior to its being made available to the user
community.
-------
APPENDIX A
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS
EPA OFFICES/SUB-OFFICES:
-OPPE
-OP A
-OSR
-OMSE
-OSWER
-OWPE
-OERR
-OPMS
-OAR
-OW
-ODW
-OGWP
-OWRS
Office of Policy and Planning Evaluation
Office of Policy Analysis
Office of Standards and Regulations
Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Waste Programs and Enforcement
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Program Management and Support
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Water
Office of Drinking Water
Office of Ground Water Protection
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
OEA
OGC
OPTS
-OCM
-OPP
-OTS
Office of External Affairs
Office of General Council
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Office of Compliance Monitoring
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Toxic Substances
ORD
OIRM
EMSL
ESD
Office of Research and Development
Office of Information Resources Management
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Environmental Services Division (Regional)
- 36 -
-------
Report of the Data Collection Effort
37
COMPUTER/DATABASE SYSTEMS:
-ADABAS
- CERCLIS
-FINDS
-GIS
-HWDMS
-IRIS
-LIMS
-MARK
- NATICH
-NPDES
-NPIRS
-PHRED
-SAS
-STORET
Adaptable Database
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information System
Facility Index Data Systems
Geographic Information System
Hazardous Waste Data Management System
Integrated Risk Information System
Laboratory Information Management System
Master Area Reference File
National Air Toxic Information Clearing House
National Pollutant Discharge Effluent System
National Pesticide Information Retrieval System
Public Health Risk Evaluation Database
Statistical Analysis Package (see also below)
Storage and Retrieval of the National Water Quality
Database
OTHER ACRONYMS:
-ARARS
-BNA
-CLP
-CARD
-CAS
-DQp
-GWSI
-HRS
-IDF
-LSI
-MCL
-NPL
-osc
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
Base Neutral Acids
Contract Laboratory Program
CLP Analytical Results Database
Chemical Abstract Service
Data Quality Objectives
Ground Water Site Inventory
Hazardous Ranking Score
Industry Discharge File
Low-Tiered Site Investigation
Maximum Contaminant Level
National Priority List
On-Scene Coordinator
-------
Report or the Data Collection Effort
38
-PRP
-QA/QC
-RVFS
-RP
-RPM
-SAS
-SDG
-SI
-SIC
-SIRMO
-SMO
-TIC
-USGS
-VOC
Potentially Responsible Party
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Responsible Party
Regional Program Manager
Special Analytical Services
Sample Delivery Group
Site Investigation
Standard Industrial Classification
Senior Information Resource Management Official
Sample Management Office
Tentatively Identified Compounds
United States Geologic Survey
Volatile Organic Compounds
-------
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
MISSION NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR A
SUPERFUND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS DATA SYSTEM
QUESTIONNAIRE
The following pages contain questions that will be asked in order to clearly define the needs
of potential system uses/users.
A. Need/Benefit Identification
1. What potential applications of Superfund environmental monitoring data, including
CLP analytical results, would you find useful in your work (e.g., trend analysis,
such as determination of contaminant extent and magnitude; policy impact analysis
to measure policy, effectiveness; programmatic trend analysis in order to define
program weaknesses and strengths; evaluation of remedy effectiveness in an
attempt to save time and money; NPL support or risk assessment)?
2. Within the context of your organization's mission and framework, how will this
application be beneficial?
FOR EACH APPLICATION THAT IS IDENTIFIED ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:
B. Identification of User
1. Who would be potential users of such an application within your organization?
2. Of the potential users, what percentages would you anticipate to work in
management, scientific, and clerical positions?
3. What other offices within EPA or organizations outside EPA could benefit from
(or use the data needed for) this application?
C. Characterization of Input Data
1. What additional sources of data would be required for this application (e.g.,
CERCLIS, FINDS, HWDMS, STORET, CIS, NPL Technical Database,
TOXLINE, CHEMBANK, STATSGO, MARF2, Ground Water Site Inventory
File, NPERS(National Pesticide Information Retieval System),Water Use
Database, REACH file, IDF, Land Use/Land Cover Database, regional analytical
data, pre-1988 CLP analytical data, or non-existent)?
j 2. Which of the following types of information would you need for this application:
a. Site Information: History, geology, meteorological data, surrounding area
description/use, demographic and ecological data, site location, selected
remedy, remediation costs, and waste volume.
b. Sample Data: Contaminant concentration, matrix, location, geo/hydrological
environment.
-------
c. Sample Analysis information: QA/QC, method, detection limits, linear range,
and potential interferences.
d. Chemical-specific data: Toxicity persistence, mobility, environmental fate,
physiochemical properties, water/air quality criteria and regulations.
3. What quality of data would be needed in terms of precision, accuracy,
representativeness, and completeness?
4. Indicate the medium by which die data would be entered into the system (e.g.
external interface to database, magnetic diskette, barcode scanners, OCRs, and
direct key.
5. When accessing the above information, what potential problems do you anticipate
(eg. excessive amounts of data needed, difficulty in aquiring site information from
other regions or agencies, data available only on paper, etc.)?
D. Processing/Data Selection Requirements
1. In support of this application, what types of automated data processing will be
required (e.g., computer modeling, statistical calculations, computations, automated
data selection/sorting)?
2. What types of manual data manipulation will be required (e.g., data collection,
manual data selection/sorting, calculations, expert judgement)?
E. Characterization of Output
1. With reference to die potential application, state the purpose and the recipients of the
desired output (e.g., Congressional briefing, management briefing, FOIA request,
report of findings to legal counsel).
2. Indicate the type of output data and output format that would best suit your needs
(e.g., output for programmatic trend analysis: a summary report of all remedial
actions; a table of applicable NPL sites, primary contaminants, and selected
remedies a bar graph charting remedial technology versus average cost, and a map
depicting the locations of the sites employing source treatment).
3. For each type of output, indicate the optimum medium/media (e.g., paper, on-line
display, slides, film, micrographs).
4. List any special considerations which should be addressed in meeting your needs
(e.g., color, resolution, size, speed, retention, access, security, sharing).
F. Additional Information
1. Please identify additional contacts that are either potential users or sources of
technical information.
-------
APPENDIX C
REGION I DATA COLLECTION REPORT
-------
c
1
1>
2? >>
i <=
5 00
^
U
1 i
e ! 1
•2 « °
| 1 '^ 3
- S w c
— S 2 §
— > .£ 00
o c •" c
g -J S S
•^ 71 ~ (5
0 ^ T
^
CU
f
0
,C
•1— >
f|
O
t/5
'^
13
c
(D
(D
2
C
0
'53
i
®
cn
13
c
13
o
1 s
JC S
^ >>
-o i/i
G rrt
CD
*U ^
CD Q
a
D
5/1
13
C
^
X
t.
-^ s
^ S
^ r^^
«*,
*5 C
O O oo
00 I-
S5 ^ -
^ 3 |
1 2
Q
Q< *^,
c;
C
ll
u
g
*
Q
h-
^
S
•*;
N
§
-------
(U
3
CM
O
cd
e
E
*— 1
•2
^Q
S x
1 r 1 1 1
H UJ Q P ^
i i P i i
j- 43 j-
o TT " o
c a u
^ CO ^ ^
5 u fe5J
c,< «^?
< i ^11
v\
_ 5
[Waste
gement
Division
ste Mana
U cO
*** ^
vi !>
CO
£ ,
60
G
La
L.
CQ
—
CO
J=
U
1
U
06
O
"S
VI
c
o
u
"co
c
_o
00
u
*o
Office
fft
CO
60
O
Q
o
CO
i
1
o
s
£
H!
13
EftMf
fiww
O
s
-
Senior
o,c
o
*i 0*
— u
O o>
CO 0)
U Cu
1 '
c
o
VI
*>
Q
(A
Service
mmental
w
P
£y
0
CO
N
l/l
Q
1
60
-------
•o
(D
OJ
C-
OS
s
S
—v
^
.Q
j-j
§
O
c:
to
C
co
>
—
13
• Compare similar sites to gain
X
X
B^^
— 'co
0 g.
^ ^
~ o
^^ • *•
r^^ *"*
— £
support of RI/FS [Waste] [Airl
• Support states' assessment of '
e
v "^
'-• C
CO to
™ oo
c
t/1 "7
«> V
— fl
e s
ce *
H°
G
supplementing water monitori
• Provide additional information
*-*
C U
0 «
Q. cO
® U
C f
^^
t 'i
CO tl
reporting on air and water qu
source pollution [WaterHESD]
• Trend analysis to determine p
1
ions
^u ^^
m ~*
•<4 (Q
** .°
I Q,
*** ^*«
o a
| programs [Water]
—
cO
remedi
c_
o
a
a
3
•o
C
• Assess remedy effectiveness a
action planning [Waste]
u
o
a
a
3
en
C
CO
CO
-o
t3
C
CM
• Improve accessibility of Super
of litigation IORC]
CM*
O
X
u
o
E
Q}
£
*co
c
o
3
• Improve data QA/QC and insti
environmental data [SIRMO]
*o
(A
M
C
(J
Q £•
to o>
w
_C
P^S AiJ
— U
'o O
• Assess and report on data usat
• Monitor regional laboratories f
u
CO
•~ "O
Q c
VI CO
fj_
v* o
minant
ipport <
CO 3
C
0 C
CJ —
f) "
*v* w
^H *rf
0 '"
methodologies in detecting sp
• Compare SAS requests of othei
testing methodologies [ESDI
CM
t>
(SO
-------
(D
C
(L)
s
s
3
(/I
9
Region I (continue
^m^
c-
V
4_>
cd
£
IT
<
*""*
c
C3
j_i
• New or additional source of informal
[Waste]
c
cd
o
V)
0>
"en
c.
• Additional sampling data from simila
•o
c
cd
•o
a
S
help define the scope of monitoring
O
25
** X3
*""^ C
T cd
t/1
— -o
u cu
*i c-
*U
U
cd ^
§1
*3 t,
cd *"
e c
u o
pinpointing of gaps in sampling info
• More comprehensive set of informati
0
^•t
VI
cd
^
Water:
™™
U
to base decisions and write reports
[SIRMO]
•o
c
cd
m
V)
"cd
c
cd
c.
^
0
• Avoidance of re-keying information 1
thereby reduction of costs [Waste]
JZ
CM
o
c
o
4-1
o
3
•o
4)
^3
C
cd
»M
• Prevention of lost or misfiled record!
U
o
(/}
time required to search for documen
O
C£
5
• Promotion of uniform data standards
ro
(90
CQ
a.
-------
C
CL>
e
0)
_u
'5
er
0)
Q
o
« \
S
.5
^•t
1
O
c;
.O
QJ
j — t
ilWaterllWaste
c_
• Validated data needed in CAR
c
o ^
o S
0) M
5 rt
o ~
4^ 1^
>"^ J>
? «
•0 rt
flj .
• Precise geographic locators ne
if possible) [AirHWaterllWaste]
to
•S
*2
£
Q
O
U
— :
Si *• -•
M U
(0 0)
hip IWaterllW
MO]
lysis (AirllWat
V) (V CO
c ± c
° ~" ^
V ^M
descriptors such as county or
and in 3 dimensions, if possibi
• Historical data needed for trei
*•»
Q
q
04
c ^j
o 0
_u
<
si
5 6
3
c c
0
*** r/3
2 *
S o
[3 o
<_ «-»
• SAS data with methodology in
• Site ID required which tracks
iWaterllWaste]
*»
in
C
igical conditio
WaterHWaste]
^^
2 •-
S ""
4*^
• Sampling information (e.g. me
sampling number and method]
co
TD
a
c*
a.
-o
c
<_>
CO
• Non-CLP data (i.e., regional, st
desired [Air][Water]|Waste]
o>
c
o
a
c
CO
£
CO
C
included (refi
CD
•°
VI
^J
• Broader list of contaminants m
list in STORET) [Water]
o
2
c
o
-o
c
CO
CO
^J
•o
a
taj
• Fields describing location of C
CO
c
•^^
60
"C
o
60
£Z
_C
CD
e
*•*
-------
C
(U
e
Q.
"^
O
V)
T5
W
abase containing
ite lAirllWastel
• Regional Superfund dat
information about the si
8
•5
3 i
3 0)
in
U
•4_>
CO
^
V
CO
OJ
^
c
CO
u
o
c
u
cfl
60
C
• Ground, surface, and dr
STORET) iWater]
oi
z:
en
C
O
•^
CO
j5
U
T3
C
CO
VI
• Community water suppl
u
w
CO
^
"^
System (FRDS))
Federal Reporting Data
™
(U
.^
1~'
(/I
.ti
•o
c
3
CM
U
Q>
0.
3
C.
O
c
o
*>•
CO
f _
• Record of Decision infoi
ROD database) [Waste]
06
«5
a.
-------
G
(D
S
cr
(U
O
o
S
S
D
^
eO
3 ^ .S —
0= e c
G *- cO O
— 0) *-• -S
•o * o 8
"S — ° 5
*•" *z M CJ
(^^ j^l Cv C.
^5 ^^ ^« *VM
^^ 0) CJ
>> > 4)
*-> .2 CO Q.
fl> tl ««
"^ <-» 1/3
Ell|
** **t 5fl CL
e o| *
O *J 3 1)
10 « o S
"O 7i co '•S
5 c £_
Cu _« **
RJ — O)
c = « >
o '= .2 o —
"^ t/J t/» *-»
o « .52 — eO .E '
=S ^- eO trt
U CJ *-» c
-- 0
— t- c —
«« «2 P a
*^ i Q.
|||o
_ t.
= ^°§-
" « g s 2
S" '^ O ^
2 ^ u O ^
2 *0 ~—
y^ w b 5 ro
— e X •- CM
O 5 U ^ —
Q
§
a -^
Q. 3
** O-
O ^
o
M
CO
3.
-------
C
O
u
u
(D
x:
O
e
e
S
•S
Q
O
•2
O&
Qi
..
CO
*jjj
*v
source of d
CO
c
o
"5
• Contractor databases are an a
developed
c
0)
£>
CO
however, no standard format
[AirJIWaste]
"O
iperfund, an<
3
(/i
j/i
u
Q
O.
• A pilot database of aquifer, N
developmeni
u
s
RCRA information is currenti;
memory of
13
o
1
iWater]
• RPM turnover is high and ins
4->
Gu
O
ential users
4_>
0
Q.
0)
OJ
no clerical personnel would bi
•o
c
CO
;s, counties,
uy
4_>
CO
<->
C
o
database within EPA; in addit
in
9
cities would also be potential
-------
APPENDIX D
REGION H DATA COLLECTION REPORT
-------
c
S
a>
S j*
Al *"*
yj» *•>. ,_ ,_
*| 2
c a, T
O_n ^J
^** «»^
'S S -CM
" c i
E S ^ U
u s ^ a
S S « e
= 8 ?|
•o>^-
w-JS|
= ^ o 5
a
UJ
0)
*c
c^
O
c/)
*^^
15
c
CD
&
C
'J5
s
f cQ }
t/5
•v*4
V3
^>
15
G
<
15
o
*^^
S
>
03
Q
b
2 1
^ s
•*»
^< v)
^ q S
>•«« o °^
••*,, —
V ***
S Ci ^
«•* VJ fsj
O ^«
-------
C/3
U
(U
tt
P
S
s
p
5
c:
.0
^Jfl
*»
N
• Vincent Pitruz
• Peter Ucker
Li.
C
p^
u
u
a
3
V}
• Ben Conetta
• Robert Hayton
Is
-5
u
E
CJ
02
1
•u
0.
.«M
• John McGaren
• Doug Garbarin
VI
u
00
CO
c
CO
s
4_»
CJ
V
'o*
a
75
c
o
00
C*
• Peter Grevatt
-------
C/3
-o
cd
e
e
tinued)
<5
O
^O
>-N
*-N
c:
o
•»•«
tiO
o
X
4-»
To
3
CT
L.
V
*4
co
"O
c
3
O
00
(A
CO
£
0
3
.2
(A
X
75
c
CO
•o
c
w
H
•
_
^
^
O
0
ET
_1
0)
E
*^
u
0)
o
IA
0>
4_>
(A
<
tt
O
&
CM
O
u
u _
s<
U fti
«y
£ C£
4-> —
(A
T3
U
CO
"O
C
CO
4^
(A
4_t
C
0)
E
^
u
"O
0)
x:
4^
M
O
CtaH
• Support
£
(D
O
c
o
4_>
CO
N
"u
haracte
O
0>
0
£ 1
£5
•
c
o
(A
w
M
V)
<
C*
u
Q£
CM
0
intribution
RCRA]
source co
ironment i
w >
5 c
**
co
^
•o
c
3
O
00
u
£
4->
u
o
a
a
3
(A
73
• Technic
[OGW]
t>i
c;
O
'**,
^^
«xj
0
••««
'o,
a
^
T3
.-
"a
a
co
IA
(A
0)
C
0)
>
4_>
o
d>
«M
<_
u
X
•o
0)
E
a>
•D
c
co
(A
*IA
X
73 h.
c m
CO —
^ c
SA O
'= 8
fe5
^^ H\
»•• Q/
4^
U _^
a|
Is
•
u.
on
agement 1
c
(0
4)
4_*
VI
U
o
c*^
• Support
u.
-2
t ranking
V)
J
•h.
Priorit>
• National
S
CO
00
o
M
Q.
X)
CO
•^
*^>
t
**•*
4_l
C
'Q.
S
CO
(/I
•
U*
VI
m
V)
0>
0)
>
4-1
U
u
CM
U
CM
60
CO
a.
-------
C
CD
CQ
s
e
// (continued)
c:
o
•»•»
<*
*^
u
o
a
t
H
IJU
u
o
4>
S
4-»
-o
• Decrease turnaroun
c
o
tizing Low-tiered Site Investigati
Id SI candidates |SF]
• Assistance in priori
(LSI) results to yie
c
«
U
cterization, providing data which
• Expedite site chara
or Potentially Responsible Parties
£
o
cd
c "^
« a
M a
£5
tion of analytical methodology -
by circulating the SAS data [SFl
• Reduce the duplica
development efforts
znefits
CQ
0)
<_>
o
E
es with similar problems can pro
• An awareness of sit
tency in remedy selection ISFl
ource of reliable data [OGW]
Agency-wide consis
• New or additional s
ty to environmental data [RCRAI
• Increase accessibili
lJU
W}
M
<_>
t/)
0
o
c
o
• Minimize reproduct
k.
CO
>.
u
4_»
C
0>
rt
<_>
CO
•o
"rt
c
a
• Reduce errors in m
-------
C
o
S
cr
(U
cd
Q
cd
S
e
Region II (continued)
• Validated data needed |SF][RCRA][OGW]
w
u
o
c
{fl
i/2
V)
73
• Geographic locators needed for spatial an.
interface to CIS [SFI
V
» Historical data needed [RCRAllOWj
<
c*
u
& „
> ^
^*" - _j
o
= 1
tO RCRA analytical data required [RCRAi
c
o
*•»
o
^^ ^^
« s
n
Q 4)
~ "a
S £
.- CO
ifl in
» Site and sample information needed (e.g.,
type, legal address of site, name of RPM,
••••i
<*
Q
O C
0 c
o
u
o
c
*^
,23
"°_
"3.
date, geohydrological environment of samj
c
•h
e
C
r
L>
C
< ^
; c.
««t
"O
(U
•M
CO
•^
cO
fO
public water supply, analytical method, d
[SFHRCRAHOGW1
Q
a
Q
s
•4
<
«;
J
x
U
S
u
'c
^
» Data from other regions needed to suppor
selection [SFIIOGW]
w
—
r^
VI ^^
1 ' *2?
-o -c
"O s*j
D
81
-o £
> Data on all tentatively identified compoun
» Data on tentatively identified compounds
v w
concentrations needed [SFI
-------
\f J
4->
C
CD
e
(D
• v>4
D
GT
M(
,G
O
c^^
o
>>
e
s
C/l
x-^
^
,C!
*^»
C
0
v3
„,„,
i^^
~*
c;
.0
.
£
i/j "«/>
c if
o> eo
E a
£ w
3 . C
cr o
0) 'H
c
^J •*
.2 -o
ft i c
Zl £ 5
afli
:r
^ a ^
a <
MM • ~
w -O — 60
^ S 5/1 >S
« ~" r- • ^
T3 <-» tn « "l
G *j ^ *••
O <8 O "™ "" - ^*
3 l?-gE^|
ON Cd ^ ~™ (/^ C8 ^
|§i°lll|f 1
WH^5 U~ C£ °O
O fi ** fll< *t^ ^ *^ ^
t2^ = "O (^
eg 2. —. ^
^^» ^3* ^^ ^^^
eg co
Q Gi 5 S
U-
Pu —
_ ~ g
U. (/} H
(/)•*(«
>»- (/I
•£ 2
CO C (U
5 « eo
JS <1>
C o. U
o §• <
b, -
^ ^ «
O O o
,— 0 — j
l^o^o
^ a - o 2
G O v O 3 Qfi
fl\ f^
« "5
s I 2
O q «0 O
3 «0 co 2
r ^ Q 0,
in
-------
G
O
U
G
(U
S
(D
U
'3
cr
(D
x:
6
S
S
/^•^
1 (continued,
^Tt
C
•2
*
^
0
o
Lu
jn
ted/sorted items
S
*^
en
a
a
[SFHRCRAIIOGW]
4-t
u
Cfl
a
en
5
3
Q.
*-»
3
U-
en
a
/^
• Electronic c
ements
.^
3
D-
O
O ^
.—
,»
u
O
O.
a
(/)
o
•o
c
"oo
c
o
u
(U
u
00
3
CO
• Historical d
u.
| assessment
>» S
5s
«Z 1"
••3 D
0 u
O o
a «
en
t X
addition to CARD1
ranch are typicall
equired in
sessment B
t- V)
<
03 -*
•o .2
1 OJ
0)
j- £—
en
X .
75 Q
e a
CQ <
*- U
U
CO
O.
-------
APPENDIX E
REGION III DATA COLLECTION REPORT
-------
C
i
>
c g
CTj (j^
s *
(/> ^
s c
H .2
° «
n> ^»
=^2 =
C * T
° ~Z °
'is^M
|1^
° <- "
legs
= 1^1
8 -1 s 5
a
UJ
o
C/3
15
G
tt
-a
CL)
(U
z
^"^•^^
c
c^
CX3
•*M
S
%.v^30^
^c^l^
V3/
al Analysis
o
S
OJ
U
"O
G
D
C-,
a
p
15
G
O
'^
2
e
CD
>>
C/l
cd
cd
Q
-b
ft, 1
«? s
Made Ip hi<
ction Su
3%
^ 0
^U
|S
S»75
^C
: BOOZ* ALLEN & HAMILTON INC s=s
oo
<*«»
t/1
D
60
D
<
-------
Q
i
^
CJ
C
2
CO
- Drinking Water Branch
- Ground Water Protection
L.
E
^
o
QQ
i
C
"53
Environmental Services Div
(ESD)
•o
c
CO
- Environmental Monitoring
Compliance Branch
c
£
V)
— •
o
O
^
u
CO
s
t
c
i
00
CO
c
CO
c
CO
X
o
"o
a
CM
0
o S
C Q.
52
_£-
c
CB
Information Resources Br;
N
O
1^^
^
ffj
'^
^
X
2
c
CQ
i
C
Hazardous Waste Manageme
Division (HWMD)
- Superfund Branch
u
00
-------
>
u
Region HI (continued)
\n
3
O
•o
c-
• Identify sites/areas with potential/actual haza
«
waste releases to surface water, ground water,
Q
s
£ «
I c
drinking water supplies, and air [AMD][WMD][
• Identify sites with potential/actual air emissio
^
eg
•«•«
«•»
q
u
4kl
O
Q,
0*
c
resulting from remedial actions, e.g. air strippi
excavation, incineration [AMD]
«/>
Q
O
•«*
«.*
«3
O
•»*
'S,
Q,
^
c
C_ O
* '5
• Determine exposure or risk to population from
emissions, ground and surface water contamin;
[AMDHWMD]
,
'gs
ra S
• Estimate potential for air emissions using cont
nated soil/ground water concentration data |A1
o
3
O
• Trend analysis of specific contaminants of var
in
migration pathways to predict where resource:
could best be targeted for future initiatives,
c
o
4_>
e.g, air, ground water [AMDHWMD]
• Identify potential/actual sources of contamina
•o
«s
0)
£
affecting groundwater in State-designated we!
protection areas [WMD]
£
WM
O
• Ensure potential sampling locations identified
EPIC have been sampled [ESDI
EM
00
0}
-------
CD
G
CD
CQ
-o
C
TD
(U
CJ
s
s
Region III (continued)
9r}
^Q
^^
~}
O
rt
• Determine whether wetlands have been imp
Superfund sites IESD]
60
C
• Identify which surface water bodies are bei
impacted by Superfund sites as part of CWA
^
•«*
•h*
O
•hd
O
a.
o
§
c
c.
0
amendments initiative [ESDI
• Identify laboratories with high-quality perf
<5 '
0
S
'S.
Q,
^ >
S g
^
1*0
OJ
for use in analyzing FIT-collected samples |
• Identify constituents for field screening bas<
-N
'D
1
C
<^.
contaminants found at similar sites IHWMD]
^
£
• Identify most likely source of contamination
u
t/1
3
T3
relating type of contaminant to nature of in<
IHWMD]
4_|
V
• Allows management to more efficiently targ
<_»
S
A_ft
resources to areas which may pose the greai
problems IAMDHWMDHESDHHWMD]
V>
«•*
c;
CQ
O
O
(Q
• Time savings due to greatly increased data
bility [WMDllESDHHWMD]
ro
V
CO
05
O.
-------
C
O
U
(U
C
e
s
^^^\
tinued
Qj
O
^
Q
•2
'Si
M
w 0
co >
s -o »'g
w c c •••
S , p •— -
2 o o 2- c
eo «;; «« g -—
2 •« c 8 c
co Si .2 4_> 1) r«
^ c « - £
o u .E * S
0 e ^- S
c o <"
« 0 CO <«
3 > <-» _ CO
* = § 1 «
m _ , .2 o — .±
*>««-» . 5« in
to U — en <» ^
^iS-SI° aSt
CO ^> 0> 1) W
c — 5 "S a c. c
"s " g- a°
« 5 ^ ffl c -
«-°?srs
Isissp
iirri:t
tn ** S <" W ^.
« < « 5 c - £
6o o, .Si "" « a> —,
£UJ a c-o £3 «S
is-lia"*
w^cco'S'S^
Coeo3cl.5c;:r
[jjfcjQ^.Q^ tn cO^i
, !
^ c
Q O
u f \
CQ H
^^ ^^
Q a
— LJ ?
Q SS ^
tn a ss
LJ S Q
D ^ <
1 °I
— 2 (/)
5 ^^
SCO
. -a c
•< «
co 2B « u „,
2 s « 2 Q
*? "^S
>*^ __ ^y
— CL x iii
c: ti
p* 0^
O Q ^
O o O
_
c
3
0 —
^D
60 _
in
-------
c
£
V t*
_e C
• Site-specific remedy selections to determine wl
remedy could impact air quality, e.g. air strippi
[AMD]
• Non-CLP laboratory data, e.g, RCRA, State, and
RP data [AMD][WMD][ESD][HWMD]
«»
• Geologic/topographic data, e.g., identification
of aquifer [AMDlIWMDllHWMD]
c:
.0
W ~^
cj -^
c
•»
M •
^ .
«a C
eg q
Q 0
.. T3
5 2
j-^
is
CO
4>
• Demographic data and current and historical ar
use information [AMD][WMD][HWMD]
Q
c<
X
O
o
*a
J;Q
• Provision of sample preparation information, e.j
filtered vs. nonfiltered [AMD][WMD][ESD][HWM
(/]
OJ
• Analytical data on SDWA parameters, e.g, nitrat
[WMDHHWMD]
u
o
u
o
00
• Sampling cost data [HWMD]
• Information of industry classifications/site cate
i
c
0
0
f
LM
O
identifying likely sources of contamination and
ducting site discovery initiatives [HWMD]
_
a
S
mZ*
*
• Ground, surface, and drinking water locations [
[HWMD]
• Include data before and after QA to determine
laboratory's performance [HWMD]
ID
-------
C
CD
£
cr
u
0)
o
CM
O
cd
6
S
Region III (continued)
i
6 ~ Q
r; «j i-J
2 c S
WF ^ ^K*
S o> u ^
S «->
|