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 «->  c
• Selection and sorting by specific and/or gr
nants/site/locat ion/CAS number/matrix/rei
tives/MCL/SIC lAMDHWMDHESDllHWMDl
• External interfaces to other databases inch
CERCLIS, HWDMS, GWSI, IRIS, FRDS, Tox
Inventory System, NATICH, Chemical Ernei
Preparedness Plan [AMD]|WMD]IHWMD]
• Input data from reports using bar code sea
\
"O &C
O Q
«•* *««
CO ^ £
6CQ <*
a °
o i «o o
*- ^ *-» o
3 .2 eg £
^ ^ Q 0,

Q
2
^
^n^
Q
S
<

• Listing of selected information from CARD
IESD]
• GIS maps and charts [AMDIIWMDIIESD]
VI
*•*
c;
OJ
S
*- 2
a -J:
^ g,
•w O"
a o
O o<
<
^
J -, Q Q
.£ g S c S
T ? T3 ° ^
C ^ W a
0 J g « c
i u cc o
c — x J= •-
 _
^ 5

-------
                       APPENDIX F





REGION IV DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------











c
 ^
S W
w 3 -i
as S §
c a- T
2 «= S ,
£ <0 . (J
b £ -Q
— G 4) j£
1 ••" 5 «
0 3 T *
<£
OH
UJ





(D
,G
•*^
C4-,
O
.22
*^>
13
c
^^^^

-o
o
CD
z

C
ao
CXJ
C/l
®



C/3
•^^
C/1
13
c
^^

13
o
Is
^_i ^ ^
>»• !o t
S O 5
o ***
c>o Ci

^c

U,
!D
•
N
ca













-------
p

 o
 £
 £
 D
in





*
%o
'So
CD
fy













o
5
eo
=5




c:
.0
«•*
.N
C
*0
(«,
o




u


"2 Jr W
CT1 ^^ «•• &W
° 1 1 2
£ S. o
O •*•« a U
0 « S CO
to < ^ I
• M M A
V V V
Q
X
c
o

Q
4>
(/)
co

(/)
3
0
•o
c-
rt
VI
O
q
c
0

^^
IJ{
wo
,0 c c
0 C (0
(*^ ^* s^
• A A
w V
UJ
H
^
c
o
o
0)
o

t,
w
?3

•^
Ground



c
C j^
"2 fl
"o Z
° S
0 I
• A
V

2
c
0>
e
c
o _
^ f 1
C i-4
u —
—
•o c
Q> V
Integral
Assessm



u
4^ ""JJ? Q^
*-» P n
S fc| u
P"™J * . pl^l ,^^
w u « i
.^% ^^ ^J
_ £> Z w>
6 JD « 3
O O £Z O
H D3 U Q
c
o
vi
'>
• v^
Q
en
u
'>
to

*->
c
V
E
c
o
>!
u«




O
(2
0
2
">»
Q














                                                                    60

-------
C/5
(D
(U
e
s










Region IV (continued)









E
t-
2
c



0
2
o
co
Q
UJ
O
eg
co
"O
a
u
"5
X
u
c
a>
y
a>
Q


















ation management system [ESD]









"co
o
**M
X

CO

^
^
'o
• Sharing of analytical methodologies for Spe
Services [ESD]


5
*.»
c;
o
o
a.


WJ
c

*J
c
0)
X
*^_
• Preliminary site characterization in terms ol
magnitude of contaminants [HWD]
VI
C
O
CO
o
"••«
*s
a
^


1
a
(A

C
• mm
V)
^
• Inter-regional and programmatic trend anal;











w
00
c_
V*

o
C
port of risk assessment and remedy selectio
areas of concern IHWDHIEA]









c


CO
E

o
c

• Provide supplemental administrative record
in support of decision-making [HWD]








X
CM
C

CO
-o

^
o.
UJ
e_
• Support tool -- integrate CARD data to othei
bases in support of program activities ilEA]








                                                                                           CM


                                                                                            1>

                                                                                            60

-------
 (U

 C
 0)

03
 X
 u
 s
 E





Region IV (continued)






V)
O
t-
3
O
irt
• Identify relationships between contamination
and targets [IEA]









UJ
ta^
• Permits a proactive stance in policy making [
5/1
C
O
c:
tt!




«_>
c
• Supports EPA's unified cross-media managem
posture [IEA]





Q
(Si
u

S
j_»
• Minimize manual keypunching of data [ESD]
• Assure timely availability of data into the sysi









-------
 C
 (D
 e
 (L)
Q

 o
 e
 s




Region IV (continued)









\ • Validated data needed in CARD [HWD]




d
S
C)
*
t:
UJ
u
JO
z
• Dunn & Bradstreet or Document Control
• SAS data required (ESDI




0 o 0
c
S 2 U
~ "B "°
0) Q O" _ ai
••-» 1^ o> C i:
CO !> rV O c
• Geologic (hydrologic) and meteorologic d
[IEAHHWDHWATER1
• Toxological data and risk information [H
• Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate ]
(ARARs) IHWDIIWATERI
• Ecological data [HWD]
• Demographic data and area use informati
[HWDJIWATERIIIEA]
• Remediation costs information [HWDI
• Physical information about well site also
[IEAHWATER1
c:
%o
all!
co o
Q * 5 2
                                                                                                      60
                                                                                                      CO
                                                                                                     a.

-------
 G
 0)
 £
 CD
 U
'3
 cr
 0)
 
O

 o

 u

 s
 s
            §
                                  on

                                  Q
                        c
                        o
                   c
                   o
                   4_»
                   HJ
                   o
                   o
en
"•K
t->
C
c«
C

e
CO
                             X


                             Q
           * <  «-
            -W  «
                        ,
                        !
                                 w

                             o   u Q  I
                             2   _: (/)
     i
     0)
!2    >

<=    2
o — b
                  <*> <  G <  S
                  C ^  O •> T3
                                 h S  *
                                 w o  ~
                                  G i-l T X)
                        m'
                       | S    1 -s
                     \
                     "Q
                     O g ^ 6

                     ^ i Q a.
                                              LJ
                                              H
                       Q W


                       E -2


                       Q|
                                                 CO
E g
o u
i -
   4_»

II

I!
c3 o
t— ^»
.S M
   4->
"S «
" •= —
0 ° a
s*s
M
of
Listing
CIS maps an
[HWDKWAT
                                                  V)

                                                  O
                                                  S

                                               3 5
                                               2* 3

                                               o c<
c
e
<_    X
O    CO
     S
u
O    o
a— 
                                   o  •-

                                   
                                   S  fa
                                   i/i  .2
r
i
nterfaces
IHWD]
External
required
use
Very infrequen
(WATER]
                                                                 VI
                                                                 c;
                                                                 O
                                                                 2
                                      -c c
                                      v* o
                                      O U

-------
 G
 (L)
 e
 cr
 (U
 u
 CD
O
CM
 O
 S
 S












1
q
o
.0

^0

cr
u
CO
u
3 calendar days
""
fmm
O
• An average







rt
*•*
•o

o>
•>^

[/)
,2
c
I
o
E
a
a
E
rt
rt
•o
* i*
£
w
'>
0>
rt
rt
•o


-q
•«ia
O




^x

E
4^

U
o
1
\n
•o
rt
O.
U
E
o
X
WMM
*m»
Q)
L.
•5
E
o
u
en
E
V)
Q
O
••••»
•««»
CQ
C5
O
O











~^
mainfram
ex
H
o;
E
o
0)
u
c.
CO
<-»
c
electronic i





tn
-o
U
O
O
u
•o
flj
•b^
CJ

57
c
0
JS
*a
0)
rt
rt
rt
-o
15
c
o
• mm
00
0)
c.
<«
o
• No purging







0-

u

-o
c
rt

c/)
•o
recor
regional
rrespondence of
o
u
u
0
o
1
c
o
rt











rt
_
^s
*^
•o
(U
00
do
jO
V)
rt
rt
Q
ally guaranteed.
•3

•%.
| records is >









&«
~*
c
rt
jz


£
JTORET.
onsistent with 5
o

r*t
p
\ manner fair


















o
X
o
*"*
<0
L,
rt
(0
"O
0
u
u
"o





                                                                    o


                                                                    60

-------
                       APPENDIX G




REGION V DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------
c
£
i =
I &
«<
1> c
a.I
I §
£2
^ 2-
.
20400
ol' Informati
nvironmencal
Street S.W.
ngton, UC
                                 U
                                 >~.
                                 a:
                                 2
              (U
tf  C/}

1^5
c  CD *—l
                         b
                         1
                         a
                                 2
                                 •J
                                 N
                            04
           CD
           G 03
           O c
             73 O
                      §
             U

-------
U
(U
S
S
3








»s.
"^
1
So







5
CO







Organization




evin Bolger
ly Thakkar
^ ^
Q
in
uu
^•^
C j^
1 2
> CO
nvironmental Services Di
- Central Regional Labor
UJ
to
fl \
n\
.°
C5
cfl
•o
o
c_
"> C5
o?
<=>
4) ^
§"|
CO S

— O
2 5
tfl CO
rt £D
c E
/aste Management Divisio
- Superfund Program Mg
f-





«->
o
x G
c™ CO
g e
X <
^ 7






^ater Division (Water]/
- NPDES-Permits Section
^




__ (
^ "
u
V)
V)
3
cad
c
CO
x:
<_»
CO
Z






- Office of Groundwater







ill Melville
&













T3
C.
CO
a.
a>
A
IS*
u
CO



C
o
•fcj
a>
in
in
- Water Quality Standard:






.__
V)
U
o
O
c
X
CO
^


o

CJ
in
- 404 Wetlands Fill Perm











c
.0
'55
'>
5
lanning and Management
>MD1/





c
0
teve Gorans
in





c
o
- Information Mgmt. Sect





^
u
J5 2
IS I
Z CQ
C CO
II
CO CO
U 0.





c
o
- Air and Radiation Divis




                                                                                                          
-------
 (D
 C
 
*^
CO
•o
In
U
u








U
0>
CO
1 — '
^
>>> s
.S U 0
u t.
> Stream degradation monitoring for prio
pollutants by state under Section 304(1)
> Monitoring environmental degradation f
w ^










"O
c

CM
Superfund sites in support of non-Super
programs [WaterllARDl











(/)
c
CO
e
» Identification of volatilized air contami!
^








Q
—

-------
 O
 C
 CD

ffl
-a
 (D
 CD
 a
 s
 D
en







Region V (continued)






•o
c
3
c_
flj
a
3

• Increased level of data management in the








00
_c
t.
o
(U
remedial process {Waste}
• Support for meeting state environmental r
requirements iWaterl

«•*
0)
Q
O
GQ

^^
Q
o£
<
IT
4_>
• Validated data needed in CARD [WasteKWa










«

2*
• Precise geographic locators needed-such as
latitude/longitude to 1/10 second, site refe






[/I ""
a 2*
S E
O CO
CM VI
60
— w
< _
grid, USGS bench marks and stream reach 1
• Sample descriptive information needed, suci
•S
2
S>
C5
0
O


—
2>
M
^
—
depth, method of collection, specific matrix




q
O




0)
(Q
°
• Site identifiers required which can track to
number and integrate with CERCLIS
«*
Q
Q
Q<
^
O
Q
"™
^
"u
•M
^
^
(e.g. site ID*, site name, etc.) [ESDllWastell













• SAS data including radiation data, air, etc.








Q

<
^
en
is needed; in support of lab performance [E:
• Site characterization (ESDllARDllWaterl






«_>
,_,
ai
MX
o
S
c-
3
• Dioxin data needed due to frequency of occ






                                                                     as
                                                                     «
                                                                     a.

-------
 CD
 U

 5
 cr
 (D
 u
 CD
O
CM
 O
 s
 s
 p





Region V (continued)












^. » '""™|*
"u on un
0) cfl -r
« >• -J
co > (j
•£ — — Q£
= D 9 UJ
• Water quality monitoring data (e.g., STORETi
• Laboratory performance monitoring data) [ES
• Water quality/health criteria (e.g., MCLs) [ES
• Specific site identification information (e.g.,C
[ESDI

^



*
*w
^•M!
CQ
Q t


c
5 '£ .2 c
*— • TT ^ QJ
8 c ta e 
-------
 S
 CD
BU

'3
 cr
 u
 CD
O

 o
 S
 £
 p
c/i
 a

•S
 •Uj
 q
 o
 o
              c:
              0
                          VI
                          rt
                        0)
                          o c
                       — 60 C

                       o —  ri
                       •£ BJ  ^


                       11^
                       u oo
                       O 0)  ^
                       ^ *"•  « V
»
                     £>
                     03

                     3|«
                     e _   -
                       •3 « 2  3  §  »  r
                                        *
                                   OJ
                                a  3.
                                w  O-
                                3  O
                                O &!
                                                         s
h  o
&)  00

O "«
0  8
                                                                  V)
                                                                  3
                                                                  C8
                                                                  *J
                                                                  CO
                                                                  "0
                                                                  2
                                                                  2
                                                                  «
                                                                        QJ


                                                                       •o
                                                                        C
                                                                        o
                                                                        C.
                                  C    Q

                                  '"
                                     >
                                  a    ^
                                  e  x  >•
                                                                                      m

                                                                                        c  t-
              S- o  S
              (fl —•  C
                                                                       5 o |
                                                                       c - 2
                                                                       O-O*-
                                                                       w » 
-------
                      APPENDIX H
REGION VI DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------










c
 e
0 §
=) o
° 
C * V
.2 75 °
1 S ^ U
fe S'^a
c o K <=
- .£ £ 2
7? > :5i *>
0 C 1/1 C
8 a s 2
.Si • 
•— yi ~ «o
OD??
^
CX
JjJ




CD
,c
•4^

O
.^
'^
15
c

T3
4
S
<§>'



j/3
'c/3
15
c
^
^^
15
o
S
0)
x:
U
-o
c
D
U
(U
a
3

15
c
2











e

c/)
X
C/l
s
cd
Q












X
u
-N 1
^ S
^ 3
eg c
*««, O 00
eg ***« oo
Q"*«4 O^
>^ ° "
^^ OJ CM'
S ^
IT""* O ^
^0 1
c _
z* eg
O «a
**^ AM
^0 /""N
O ''H
C
C


II
L
0
K
|
5j

•

8
Ci












-------
 OJ
 tt

P
 S

 S
 D
C/l











£
c:
.0
CUh
fl^








«v
S
CO






Organization

l§
E a
a> P
.£ o
•i  c
CO CO
Q X
Q
i/l
UJ
c
0
"«
> §
Q -
nvironmental Services
- Hazardous Waste Sec
u
 ^.
"o ^
o
ft e
 =
Q ^




- Houston Laboratory



u
OJ
x:
u
*•*
X

jW

In
8
a.

tu
^
— j=
ivision
Branc
Q e
azardous Waste Mgmt.
- Superfund Enforcemel
X




c

esticides and Toxics Di
- Air Programs Branch
a






£
00
Lformation Resources M
RM]
i— i __


                                                                                    00
                                                                                    «
                                                                                   a.

-------
  VI eo
£ f|i _
*•* — .5 u
. C N £
o .2 = ^
t g 3 o
°  >
Q. ft .» CJ
^^^ ^^^ ^fl ^^ »ii
el C| S
•" 12 > o .s
c _ ^ ^ ""
1 i -2 1 s
" I 'S w
t" ~— ' o "^ o
list =H
5s to «• *j3 o yi
JS >> 0 C CX —
a) oo «^ -^ __ JJ
** c i/) o Q ^ r
*" ^ *55 ^ c/i 2 c-

u § 1 |~| c
c °^ § o, fS ~ .2
6 "g -o S S H «
•JT co c 2> > "O
(U N CJ > J/l O S
t. CO U 0> < t. «
a X H Q ^ a >
C
0
'2 o
a Q,
o ex
a, ^
Q.
D
O
C.
O

^^
>
4) 'JJ
eo 5
D co
^b-n:
O y^
o —
- §Q
IIS
v> ^^ G
60 2" O
C a T
.5 CO «»
CO £ ^
P
(A
CJ P «
£ "" °
H D eo


£
Q

03
                                                                              (M

                                                                              U
                                                                              0«
                                                                              (0
                                                                              n.

-------
G
(U

s
cr
(D
 O

 X



 6

 £


c/i
continued
on
a £
3 «-»

"2 o
O^


= *o

<^
Q «

* g
< G

^> £ —
c o o.
-gg ** f
   CO J~^


«s|
•o   U,
a u to
w •- —

c aD
co g  C C

£.2 a,
etj - «

5e3


?|s

W .5 «rt

b    ^
   >> y
t. 60 «


S|-


?ll
T3 -C £

8§ ^

c s-o
                                 <-> .
                               08 •-
                            —
                      -o «^  ca  ed c.
                      W    —  o  ^2
                      <-» 0) (A ...  TO Q
                      CO (rt (0  t_ ^ 2
                      'O '3 o  o


                      i £ a S < 5
                      > a S: Z on t/i
                           WJ
                           en
                           o  q 5
                          O  o O
   a


   a  g


   uTS

   ^3
  w
  X  a>
                                                   o

              fr
              H
              a

              £
                                                                 a
                                                                 5/1
                                                                 U
                                                               O UJ


                                                               2 O
           c  t.

           '"  >
           So
                                                                          Q


                                                                          UJ
                                                                       — 2
                                                                       Q co
                                                                       in t
                   -2 eo

                      ""
                                                                        e o
                                                                                    ro


                                                                                    u
                                                                                    00



                                                              *.» "O UJ    *j


                                                              •O co TT  e* t
      „

Sf 2  o
°0'-
o  x  O.

-------
 C
 (U

 S
 CD
 t*

"3
 a
U3

O
 s
 s
 3
C/l







^
'^j
fl \
xj
3
•»*<
*»*
§
^O
S
|
 o
E co a
• Selection and sorting by contai
CAS number [All Groups]
• Statistical calculations such as
levels over time as applied to s
\

l> C!
c3 — 5
o 2 S
^0 AJ si ^^
•-5 s ° o g '5 Q
>a .« „ -8>2
o 3  U cs, C -O .
C en" ^ ^ G -T Q
•"• i/i **"* to CO _ p/

«o -£ JgSj
r** ^^ ^" ^B *F
• Requirements for security mea«
enforcement sensitive data (i.e.,
and deletionMSF]
• Fewer than 5% of CLP data are
by ESD-Houston; however, as m
the data may be qualified IESD]
• Suggest that diskette of CLP da
ESD-Houston so that data valid;
compliance may be executed in
data could later be uploaded int
o
•*•«
*•*
t.

-------
                        APPENDIX I





REGION VH DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------











4_l
C
flj
s
m
2f >>
w o
S c
I &
 =
a.l
i s
y, t>
-1 i
C ^ T
0 "3 °
'C 2 • (M
2 = * ,,
S <" x <->
k 2 ^ a
-° c " -
£.121
*s*s?
8 JS:S
.« • c/>
•— y^ ^ «
o^i??
<
UJ





(U
^
^^

r^
^
c/)
'w
^>
15
c
<
c/i
T5
CD

C/3
x
LO
c^J
4->
OJ
a












X
-s t.

\j C
'^^M ^^^
^s
C 3
G^
'W oo
C« °o
5/1 O -
c\3 •««*
t/j **» aC
q o
CQ  ^« 3
™*l ^^* Qfi
Ci O 3
^ U <
^ 2
c JS?
IQ
fe*v ^^*
o g
^> "^
PMb *^^V



ll
L
%
*Nn
a
C
h«
3

S
-
*.

N
|











-------

C/3
U
 j








vt

• Pauletta
• France-Iset



perfund Branch ISF]
3
Cfi
i










u
5
(/I
o
CQ
"IT
4^
> C
— o
^ 3
Management Division
anning/Evaluation Sec
fca
4-t
CO
fli
fl\
O
(^

-------
cd
£

S






Region VII (continued)










__
Oi
LJ
• Ambient water quality trend analysis [WAT










o

u
| • Determination of the location and occurrenc










,
i
o
contaminants in ambient water [P/ES]
• Support for Environmental Indicators proje











—
2
to determine the success of the environmen
programs [OGWPI

^
5
c;
•22
o
Q,



i
i
£
• Support for the Wellhead Protection Progra
to help plan response and regulatory action:
[OGWPIIERB]
c;
O
•••«
O
^J
Q.
a
^






• Support for compliance monitoring [SFj
• Determination of remedy effectiveness [SF]













• Determination of contamination extent and
magnitude [SF]









!
£
0)
t/i
• Support RCRA's Environmental Ranking Sy:
to prioritize sites for assigning resources,







u
5£
c
.2 -o
*•* c
£ 
-------














CrJ
-o


3
-S
^^^
i^l
q
o
£
t^
i^_
^
Cl
p
"h*
^O

'I! ^
| =3 B
cS 3
o «*
'5 g -2
00 £
___ 4*^
^ CO (/J
*-» D
<-• C •— —
C D "O 03
0) tn 3 Q^
E £ 3 w
o ex ""
* * «
TO — • -~ *-»
c * o c
co 2 w 5
E x= g- E
ca. w w
u cO t. *••
o u — o «>
«— 60 £Q cZ ^-»
^ to
<->,-•*«
c- -^UJ u «
o 2? — o o
a 2 a co
a g 2 a a
3 fc CO 3 S
to 5 'o c/i —
V)
Q
0
^« *a
'•2 o !°
S ^ *"
*«i Q< S
0 Q. g
Q, ^ v-





. {^ ft)
(U C- «
— (U O
60 "O O«
c h  £ Q,
CO CO 00 "
E *j ^ ?T • o
co o £ d
C "O — -o ill (fl
o JO e « «
*VM o co !Z "i*. cJ **
^5 2 •«•! CO JlT* >«M C
'O tfl W 00 ^
«_• Q 03 cd w> **
g™eC™gotf_6-o.So
c Q ^> Q t« "** fr JL ^i ^
o)i/i'a3tn Sj^c/l o u S 
-------
 (D
 C
 (D

PQ
 6
 6
 p
c/i






continued)
>^-
C!
•2
0
4*^












f environmental
o
c
the utilizatio

reases
o
c
•
-





c
o

baring of informal
tn
cu
•o
c
co
2
-o
00
c
'u
o
o Uu
c (/I








CO
ty of environment
CO
3
cr
c
CO
a
o
o
V)

reased
O
j*
•








u
o
3
O
~
CO
•o
c
CO
en
O
A
00
c
a
c
CO
u










U
06

cu
"u
• ^^
u
a.
U
O
QQ




<-
o
ss and reliability
actions [RCRA]
8?
cu £
omprehensiv
other correc
0 _
^
cu e
en cfl
CO
CU en
O r.
C3
*
^
0
CJ
in
in
C
CU
en
C
CD
icreasing compreh
c
en
data source
,
CO
O
^1
"

•








e thinking
>
w
CO
s
0
13
c
CO
c
o
4-»
CO
o
E

fe,.
o









03
tt
UJ
V)
CU
V)
CO
CO
-o

00
c
-5
c,
CO
00
0)








ex
ironmental cleanu
>
e
tracking of

reased
U
c











Q
to
UJ

-------
 G
 CD

 s
 
-------
 C
 o
U
 C
 CD
 e
 CD
 u

'3
 cr
 
"O
ai
C
CO
CO
-o
t/1

v\
Q>
O
">
U
u
fj**!
«HHM
CO
O
15
e
o
0>
a



















Q
(XI
MJ
06
\ ISFIIRC
to
•5
I
c;
o
0

t/i
•o
c
compou
"O
1
c
w
•o

w^
£^
>
tentati1
15
c
o
CO
CO
Q




c^
0


o

reading
£
|
-o
2*
CO
'Q
A
V)
< rt
u 2i
Qu ^^
£ i
— E
needed
• QA/QC

1-
Q *
^ !
^ j
o ^



0
icators t
•o
c
c
o
"Z
CO
X
^^
e*
c
X
"5,
E
1 possibly

N
3
•*
•^
•n
J
\
J
•^

'o
«
VMM
-tracked
<
0.
u
0

"O
.S£
^*
M
'a
E
CO
Sfl
1 indicate




















OQ
U
*_>
O
c
c.
0






                                                                60
                                                                fl
                                                                a.

-------
 C
 o
U
  •*
 IS)

 C
  q




yi
C
• Public water supply geographical locatio
[OGWPl


Q
o<
S
o


2
03
•^
VI
• Missouri Department of Natural Resource
[OGWP]







u.
in
ta^M
rt
ca
• National Weather Service precipitation d








-------
 G
 (U

 S
 CD
^U

'3
 cr
 (U
 U
 (D
O

 o
 U
 cd
 S
 e



"^s
x>

CQ

"3
c
o
4_>
U
O
en
u
0
X.
T?
C
rt
4-1
U
a
*3
C/l


\
^j
V
^ '
o

a ,
1











OGWPIISFIIRCRAIIESD]





**
a
c
CQ
§ I


4)
^^
V)
(/)
C
O
^
g
1
c
** p...*
Interface to Geographic
;GIS) IP/ESI IOGWPIISF
•


^0
•S
2
CQ o
M Q

S £

U
&
in
O
•«->
rt
J2
£
*
LB
_t_»
Interface to Ground Wai
•













—
CQ
U
Ij-
t/1
0
c
4_»
(O
4-»
o
a
w
tt















Q
UJ
LU
^^
X-^s
en
SFIIRCRAIIESD)
Contamination maps (GI:
'




«*
Q.
•4d
3
O









^— ,
Q
Timeline charts (SFIIES1
•
VI
C!
0
S
o
5
o-

^

Q
UJ

rrt
•o
"5
3
Q.
O

Hardcopy and electronic
•









                                                                30


                                                                U
                                                                60

-------
 Qj
 o
U
 u
 CD
O

'o
 cd
 S
 S









Region VII (continued)







00
e
"3!
Wl
w
o
o
u
a
t.
• Data need to be imported into STORET fo
[P/ESHOGWPHESD]

*













• J
• Only background monitoring data relevan
[P/ESIIOGWP]














c
(U
• Caution needed about release of enforcem











0)
c_

e
a t_
sensitive data [SF]
• Would like data diskette directly from CL
(bypassing Sample Management Office) foi
tions

*_>
c
<_
timely access [SF]
• RCRA program not using CLP outputs cur











C/1
"O
0)
V

because:
- QA/QC requirements exceeded program










c
efl
•C
*"*
U.
j/l
- Chemical analysis more appropriate for
RCRA, and












"O
0)
V)

- Turnaround time on data too slow
• Currently an infrared surveying system is









15
o
liE
o.

*o u
. n
to determine precise geographical location
samples to within 1/1000 of a ft. The ge<














D
£
locations are manually key-punched into t
regional database [ESDI













2
CO
"O
• Need to consider states' requirements for
access, sharing, and standards [ERB]







                                                                             01

                                                                             u
                                                                             00
                                                                             «
                                                                             a.

-------
                         APPENDIX J
REGION VIII DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------



c
e
 * flj
O 3 -r


JJ-J
CD
x:
w
o
13
G

TD
fli
 ^
TD in
c -
D
f^^ ^"^
CD Q
a
D
L/l
13
c
BO
&



8
Den ver,
>^^
S
1^*
§
Sft

-------
 C/5
 u
 CD
 tt

P
 cd
 S
 e







*^
»*N
^
q
0
•«^
CVv
NAIJ
Jl V
CJ
Q<












0)
'»^
^
f
^1
u
•v^
Q
*•*
u
CO
jC
o
\n
- ^
"55 —
"O — •
O CO
O •*=
w 
O
u
*J
0
OU
Ground Water
Section
1







4_>
A k
V
00
60
CO
U
*
CJ
2
•

*•»
e

— <
Q

M
0)
o
*>
c-
(U
nvironmental Si
iSDl
us








c
v Dickstei
u
•



"C


c
O
Jo
">
Q
M
CJ
"x
o
H
o3
C.
<




                                                                                             CO
                                                                                             cd
                                                                                             a.

-------
 C
 
               A
               C
      u
      o
      

      o
      o
      w

>
o

                   & °
                   a <->
                   a c
                   3 a>
                   « £
                   ,_, v\
>
              "o. w C "° "« —
                *  ^

                            <»
             i!
             .  o

                        !l
                          "
  •- 2 •- — — «, >
  - G  ~ -r .2 «
    .
*- — -^   - G  ~ -r .  « « — o


                 iliSi
  >     x2'?J2«3«OT«t-
wi   *» t- ^ E b *- —   a>t-«t-Q
uw'Sww--«12100o00
WD
Single repository Tor data
         Q
         O
                          **  O

                          I  t
                          o  ex
                          ft,  ^
                                                    VJ

-------
 S
 (D
 b

 cr
 CD
a
CM
 O
 cd
 e
 6








^
eg ion VIII (continued
f^y















data qualifiers needed [ESDI
•!_>
• Consisten






0
^
"w
u

£
0
Ic
^
V)
fll
V
"a
«^
data neededlWDj
istinguish between ambient sarr
_ T3
• Historical
• Need to <
•«•*
V)
C
o q
O o

JL)
Q.
£
CQ
Vi

5SL
*2-
V\ V
.. *-»

environm
• Site and
CQ
*•»
Q
Q
as
^
u





^
V
<->
«
"O
c
0
*^
u
fll
atitude/longitude), sample colli
^_.*
location i













Q
ntal medium, sample depth |W
u
environm








t/f
C/)

^>
rt
C
CQ
<«
0
•o
o
information needed (e.g., meth
«
• Analytica







^wj
75
>
c-

4^
C
(L)
u
c
u
T3
limit, precision, accuracy, conf

detection





^•••i
Q
S2
y,

X— ^
VI
Q>
Servic
o>
c
on of analysis (Special or Rout
j_i
classified!












^
u
o
^
<»
0
pecs for laboratory, statement
vt
• Contract














Q
UJ
number [











__
Q
•o
0>
c
ca
4-1
CO
V)
o
u
"e3
o
15
c
"o
0
a
to





                                                                     66
                                                                     A
                                                                    a.

-------
 G
 CD
 S
 (U
pu
'5
 cr
 0)
a:
 CO
a
 S
 S
 O
 o
O
•*^
tic
                                                                o
                                                                60
                                                                rtj
                                                                O.
                          -O
                          C
                          CB
                U
                &


                00
—   rt
a   3
            2a ts
                   _ C S e«
                    U
                      c c
                    ,
                    « s e «
                    > S.2 a.
                   o: < CQ 3
                     2
                        -I*
                        4) •*. Q
                        t. 'O (V
                        '£ t> -w
                           - _.
                          S 2

-------
 e
 a>
 b
'3
 a4
 
O

'o
 E
 e
en
continued
                c
                o
                
                                   4,  tn  W

                                  J° '5  •*
                                   CO  H  O
                                  ~ =  CO
                                   co     a
                               —.  >  >»



                            «  ul ^  «  >>
M UJ  CO

£~  e
co .2  o
C  M
CO  X T>

eo  2  *>
«->  C  cO
«  CO  .0

    *-»  «d»
—  c  e_
cO  a)  O
U  e  m
-  o  ^
2  a o
3  E  «
2o«
trt u  w
ceeding regu

e to data ana
e
                                      n
'ac
                                      to  e
                                      S  5
\


 CO  «^

 o   2
                                      o
                                      o
                        a
                        to
                        u
                        U

                        S
                        o
                        c.
                        c
                        o

                        CO
                                                 —  trt
                          £
                                                          CO  =
                                                          •o  ?*
                                                           
-------
                       APPENDIX K





REGION IX DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------




c
4>
E
OJ
rt (j

fl\ **
22 i
c * ^
11 3iS
*-•• > -5? GO
8^32
E ^1 5 |
0 3 T
^^
^^\

DH
UJ
(D
JT
w
O
C/5
•'^
13
c

*o
CD
CD

G
o
•^

M
i
(c|)
C/5
'Sn
£>
13
c
<
13
0
•*•*
s s
0^ (J
u ^
T: vi
G „-
"•^ ^w
•-' 4->
o Q
a

C/1


13
G
^O
S


^
o
o
0
•2
CJ
c;
CO

C;
^\J
l^^
•-1
C5
O
•**«
00

c <
•ha
CO
Q

CO
c;
'»_
c


i
o
•UK
1
S.
a!
$
S
•3
u»
•^
_
•«;
•
S
8
Q
















-------
 (D
 en


P
 X
 u
 c^S

 s

 S









><

Q
•2










o
5
CO
=5


Organization










Superfund Division ISFl/


«











Field Operations Branch
V)
0
 "•
W v> "**
O T* * CL
S 5^1
rrt rrt -- CO
^v *w m ^^
Q Q vi S

c
Information Resource Manageme
Branch [IRM]














Toxics and Waste Management



N
_**
^
^
1 §
C >

X J
xt
J I


Division ITWMD]
- Waste Compliance Branch







c
c
co
~
0>
'u
3
CO

c
- Office of Program Manageme







c
o
l/l
£
CO
U


Water Division (Water]



                                                                                            60

                                                                                            Cfl

                                                                                            O.

-------
 (U
 a
 CD
QQ

*o
 c
 
• Site characterization in support of remedy selec







—
•§ c
QQ Q
— *
Q 1
• Improved data uniformity and consistency |SF][\
• Increased accessibility to data permitting more i



remedy analysis ISF]
• Supplemental data for other efforts [SF]
c
                                                                    CM
                                                                    U
                                                                    eo

-------
 G
 
-------
 c
 OJ

 S
 cr
 03

Q
 e
 s
 p
C/l
               •S
               ^^k
               ^^(

               o
               q
               o
                               o
3
O.
O
a

c.
o

V)

S
                           Q  M
                           3  0
                           «
Background levels

Proximity to sensi

                                                                                             4>
                                                                                             00

                                                                                             «

                                                                                            a.
                                                     c
                                                     o
                                                     o
 cfl

 C
s
o
O
                                                              c
                                                              o
         s
         JO
.


HI
"  a—
    CQ
2  w "g
*  c -o
•»  § T5
tr,'::  a>
.5 - J '£
                     Q

                     S



                     H


                      (U
>
o

c
o

co
                                                                          g
                                                                       x  o
                                                    o
                                                     to
                                                        3     «>
                                                     O  ±  «J 0
                                                     **  ~  *•* o
                                                     3  «S  J5 t-
                                                    ^  .§  cj a,

-------
 G
 (U
 E
 cr
 (D
 CJ
O
CM
 O
 e
 6








<•«<.
Region IX (continued.










Q
s

^
H
IJU
• CIS maps and charts ISFHTWMD)
• Listings of selected information [IRMllS
c;
§
** 2
3 •"•»
a s
«* o-
a  H ~ '^ Q. £
"P x _ "O a. «J
• Samples used for one time purpose shoul
computerized ISFl
• Do not duplicate data systems - data ma;
analyzed in different systems (CIS, SAS,
• Two types of sampling data exist:
- individual points that will change with
- ambient samples of environmental con
• All needed data are readily available in
• Unvalidated data should be flagged |SF|
• Interface to State systems would be adv
c:
_o
^»
2

-------
                      APPENDIX L




REGION X DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------




c
i
2? >•

C c
2*
W c
K.I
3 «
O °
V) «>
*8 3
c ^ £
o 0
s 2 - N
« c 4
g|*B
li?§
° = !C .s*
I3il


UU
UJ


o
5
o
C/3
*c/i
»L

I^J
15
c
^*
^•Vl

C/3
Q^
fl^
^
C
O
5X3
5^^
/


03
4->
c^5
Q
i/\
^*

^^^
P ^
In Q
A/
PX MN
^^^^ ^^^i
130
Q ^
^
15
c

CU
u



b
«3
-N S
^ D
\r\

f, V
H § i
JM **^ *~ "
c\J -k^

X 0 5
G co
,O *-
£ ^
CO
,c:
^

I
L
S
^
5
S
aj
UJ
"J
-J
^
N
S


















-------
 (U
 c/)

P
 s
 e
 D
C/l





C3
.O
'So
Q^












8
5







Organization








Q
X
c
o
'33
*^
^
Q
o>
4-»
V)
«0
£
in
0
o
•o
u
at
0}
3C
0
o
Q











jnd Branch

Management :

w
4_t
i/5
1



N
U
cfl
u
•5


»
c
o
0
4)
f/1
Management !

(U
«
(7i
1




1
vo
0)

c
0)
g
00
co
c
CO
S

c
2
00
o
Qu
•o
C
3 C
t .2
0) *-•
a u
3 * «-
CO o
m •— in
,0 OT S
3 "> 0
tn — « c
as Q co
o^ ^5
^^^ ^F^ ^^
^* ^ r* ^
C .2 cfl H
4) 00 . 'O
00 4) £ c
< ^ < ^



                                                                                         u
                                                                                         M
                                                                                         (Q
                                                                                         O.

-------
 (D
 c/]

D
 E
 D
C/1



-0
UIJUOC
\^
x
|
Qfi
fi\





§
*




Organization

Peterson
e Fuentes
x c
CO V
Q£ Di
* •
C
o
.2
Q
Environmental Service
[ESDI
. v3
3* QJ
^^ *3
£ -S

-------
                                                                       I
 (D
 C
 (D
DQ
-o
 0)
 (D
 cd
 e
 B
 p
en






X (continued)
C!
O
•»•»
<*

o o>
O *O
J= 4)
M ~
£ *o
« *
'£ W5
c u

X
60
flj
investigations [ESD]
lopment of sampling strat'
support of remedial
• Support in the deve






a
un
u

*^ ^
«j >>
on- and off-site sample d
onal Environmental Qualit
identifying existing
• Preparation of Regi







Q
on
UJ

cO
tvironmental indicator dat
report, providing en











un
data validation process IE
:ical methodologies [ESD]
• Facilitation of CLP
• Evaluation of analyl






                                                                  00
                                                                  «
                                                                  a.

-------
d)
C
(U
CQ
-o
0)
S
S
continued
  o

CM
o a)
c

>>
«_>
c
               •° u    - e
               S 2 S * a J
C (U u

s 2s
fc co tr
 w j an
W UJ o>

IE «
t» ;» vt
OJ ^ O
        2   2
                  - S M U

                  5 * - «-
             -; u
            o  3
    —
     ^
     c   •!-»
          J


          u



          
-------
 C
 

 s
 cr
Q

CM

 O
 S

 S
Q
•»*»
«**

«5
O
O
Region
                V}
Q u


w "2 —
Q O Q
                               60 X
                               u
                                  a
                                  a

                  =  -
                                                                  If)


                                                                  V

                                                                  66
                     
u ?
—— 4_t


S °
^ a

s&
^" «n ^

•2 o S
(rt *-» ^


"rt a> Q
c T3 >
«J « «
  
-------
 CO
 G
 CD

 6
  a> •- ,2 Z c JT] '5
° t, woo me
"— ' _ O >W'~ ^<_i
i« — 	 *iajCO Oc
• Integration with various database:
CERCLIS, HWDMS, PCS, etc.) wou
perform health assessments [HWDl
site investigation [ESD]
• Ecological data (e.g., water table
moisture in soil, demographics, m<
needed to support site characteriz
[HWDllESDllWD]
• Integration of CARD data with ST
data needed to support contamina
monitoring [ESDIIWDI
§ 9
o -^ S 3
> *S ** .Q
'2 "O ^ 4^1
^J E. -^ O q
*"* Q
Q C* 5 K> ^
** c.
.2 «
L« ^% ^>
5
S g U g
° ^ x. H g.Q
C ^* w 'en eiz "~"
CO C CO OQ Q
CU CO g (J ^ y^
"3 * .0. g u
. < * . =
• Selection and sorting by chemical
site name, concentration, case, EP
location, geographic locators, CAS
chemical class (e.g., hydrocarbons
data (e.g., surrogates, spikes, etc.)
of hits per geographic area [HWD
q> c;
en v>
e CO ^
^ a CD
O Q CXI O
3 * CB t.

                                                          o

                                                          u

-------
C
,


E
E
   o>

             X  S
             i  «
             fl)
             E

      •o
      c
      «
^ CO
*—  c
? .2
X M
"~* cfl
gn b

O S
   o
00 C
c o
N »
« 
-------
 G
 OJ

 s
 
 (D
x:
 s
 s






— N
13
=3
C
0
^O
X
c;
•2
'So






o
o

j"*;
C
o
of Regional c
• CARD may alleviate the problem




c

le information,
databases, containing specific sil






el [HWDHESD]
sent to ESD-
easily accessible to EPA personn
• A diskette of CLP data should be
 'O
« 3




t.
-S
•h*
O
2 •;
S €
O J

^
•«
»t
^
Ml
••
•\
J
v
J
•^




























                                                                 3O


                                                                 U

                                                                 00

                                                                 CO

-------
                              APPENDIX M




HEADQUARTERS/OAR DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------
•2  c-
.2  1
^  S
 03  S
Q  0
    O


    03
           OO
           CO
            3
            00
            3
                      1
                       o
                       I
                       kj
                       •J
                       •J

                       i

-------
 s
 (D
 U

'3
 cr
 S

 S
C/l



Headquarters-OAR

















0
O
2
5
ej
"r*
t.

••«*
•5
X
V\ W
 ~ 4-> JX O "™ ^ <-* W 4_» Cw
CO>C3c"->^Wfl>c^
'oee^S4>t"'ow*'aO
^^  *-*
2> •--< CQ
management in making decisions (e.g., shut-do'
ess due to emission of air pollutants exceeding
table levels
savings due to greatly increased data accessibil
entralized repository for Superfund analytical d
*T « CX «i O
.„ .« Q> p
tfl 3 y — tt>
< ,0 CO H .-


WJ
*
*>*•
Q

CQ

                                                                 4>

                                                                 60

-------
 C
 
 eg
 » k
4-> O.
                                    c **
                        O
                          *

                          Q

                        £ U
                        «>Q
                        a u
                        5  S
                        cr.2
                        eg
                        *«»


                        Q
                                                  o
                                                        U
                                                 -   .S <
                                       c

                                       c

                                       S
              c
              o
              u

              O
                                       U

                                       (U
•
too
                                           3 «a
                                           o 2
                                           G S ~
                                             CO 4>
     CO   CO


     sis
     
                u xO
                o w ^
                                                  eg -*,




                                                  O e
                                                  *«» ^

                                                  3
                                               CO
                                            eg  o
                                            **  O
                                            eg  t

                                            QQ;

-------
1







c


• ^^
4"^
cd
0 2
c E
•«•«
^^
M on
J O

c:
o
6
0
3 -^
Q. 3
*- CT
3 O
O c*

-o
3
cr
u
JO
0
C
O
c
o

«
E
o
i
u
to
O
U
u
Q
*
O
**

-------
                              APPENDIX N




HEADQUARTERS/OEA DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------










c
o
E
o
60 >,
c c
S oo
Vl *••
O c
el
i s
vi 0
ft *^
£8 g
c a. v
o — o
3 c 3:
2 c ^ _-
-gel
^
° = 1C .s
§2il

^^

PH
W






,
CD
2
O
C/l

>>
15
c
C/5
-a
fli
^
G

.^M
C/3
.—
S
^rx
l^1



CA)
«^-<
(^
^>
15
c
<
15
o
• VN
S S
a) aj
5£
-0 
*
UJ
^5
qj
O
5
5
O
\
0













b
1
s
^^
W1
cs
O OO
•**, OO
^ -

§ i
CO
£
Q
*fl1
s
•«^
^



<
MW
%
0
t-.
;.
i
•<
<
5
*OZ*ALL
O
ca


















-------
 SSI

 C
 (D
 e
 (D
^U

3
 cr
 (D
 s
 e













5
o
1
c
fl V
£
(M
a
cr

vD
**•
*w
d|Li
5



















O
gi
CO
J>













Cj
•S

^4
3
c
?
po
O





^
t,
&>
jj
(0
v^
U*
G
O

9





VI

2

^
•2J
>
QJ
c;
u
o

C
V)
C G
0 O

a §
£§•
e
._ M
— .b
5 <2
• «•• Ctart
c <
^s
a> 13
<-> C
«« u
O 4_»
« U
»M
C ,3
f° 4)
u ^_,
CO
CO «
o t«
10 c
(U 3
'C qj
o a
a, to
*

q
o
<•• **
Cy .^
•«^ eg
*•* .°
1 "S,
0 Q,
a, ^


•o
e
2,
***
w
a

5/1
,.
o
c
o

'C
.2
"°
•o
c
CO
bo
a
M
o
o
o
u e
o. o
• «M
JC fi
*J C
4L^ C^
^J ^
"-3.S
ej
a o
x <-•
Ul M
*



to
•«*»
c;
c
«






























e
o
z
*

to
*- eg
Q ««>
eg Q
^
S §
o q -^
O o O
                                                                    00
                                                                    n
                                                                    a.

-------
 C
 o
U
 S
 
3
QU ^
3 *rf
O ^*
a
JB 55
c
0 §
o *•*
0)
6
> « fe
— . x o.
u 5
CO (A
W *r i 3
73 o o
u "C
X v CO
0) 3
+* mm
*"* W S
CO Q O
E 2 <«
. •- S!
U "O —
Su

-------
                                APPENDIX O




HEADQUARTERS/OGC DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------
c
o


o

« **

s =
C3 O
2 ao


o e

^ °

g 3
X o
C ""  T

•§« .S
= §
    §
=
O D °
                 s s
                 
                            O  co
                            ^  S

                            §1
                            O  3
   Q
   O
                            O
             ID    03
0 CJ

8 *
             .-  03


                 O
                                          o
                                          ^
                                          o

                                          -J
                                         g
                                         -J
                                   oo
                                   oo
                                   o%
                               O

-------
S

<-. u
O a*
o u
o *-*
..£ V)
** CO
0^
QJ

^
0
^
•

O
a.
*
^
c;
.0
^ ^
•<^ >o
** o
q .^
^ Q.
o a
0, xt;







V)
(0
0
c
U
litigation of environm

0>
4-1
CO
4_»
•3
O
CO
U.
*



4d
e^
**^
q
5
c
o
'5o
0)
04
c 5
U (5
I «
w 5
-g -o S
o* «-» •-•
up-to-date data are re
rification required
be uniform throughou
finittons are needed pr
process
d) +*> ^
o > s ' S
co u s « r
^ cy •- *>
3 if nj t> ^
CJ ^ - « 5
u 2, « u ctf
< C/Q cu oo
• • • •

to
q *^
co Q
t.
*«* Q
q Q^
o q -^
U o O
                                                                          OJ
                                                                          oo
                                                                          «
                                                                          o.

-------
                                                                         I
      111
 C
 
 u
 cd
 S
 S






*^»y
-Jl
fli
1
*»»
C!
O
O
^^^
O
O
O
i
£
»
H
S
o
•°
2
3
o
M
C
o
o.
o
Q, M
3 t!
O 4)
S *
^ E
o tS
S5?
i
§
- £
3 --5
* 3.
*- o-
3  Crt t"
O G O
C 3 Q.
0 0.
XJ U 3
^ CO
3 —
O (fl —
> u «
2 S i
3 0 §
* ® I
^ O £
CO i^
«M tO
tl O o
j2 o
o 5 *o
«-• •- S
*-» 4-» 2
X*» ^^
«»
7j fc- 3
o o
G u U
CO y CO
3 CO >
^ 3 c
'*- 8 «
CO ^ -f-
S^l
ctf t*
q
o
'•»!
S
0
** o
0 0
                                                                    (M

                                                                    1>
                                                                    00
                                                                    «5
                                                                    a

-------
                                APPENDIX P





HEADQUARTERS/OPPE DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------




















I










c
0
£
o
1 =
ia
t/> ^
0 C
2.1
§ 3
K o
V n /-,
C4 ° °
C ^"
0 -; 0
'S 2 • (N
« c %
£ 5 < 0
| S w Q
O — •->
Office of Inl
U.S. Enviroi
401 MStrcc
Washington
<
CU
UJ







OJ
c^

.^

>>
15
G
vj

15
c
15
o
• ^•4
E S

-------
 (U
 en

D
 S

 S









Uj
Q,
a.
O
I
O
•b_k
Headquan





CJ





4>
S





Organization



X
o
Q

c
CO
C
0)
CD

C
•2
d Evalua
of Policy, Planning, an
u
u
til
0










co
C
nvironme
ce of Policy Analysis/E
j^
C
C
CO
W
a,
O
u
gram Management Staff/
1
0 <

D, —
1
X
U
e
flji
JC
U
^
3
a



c
CO
e
ce of Management Syste
•—
*^*
O
'












stems
luation/Management Sy
CO
^
UJ














Q
S
c
o
^
VVM
Q

' 1
                                                                               V

                                                                               BO

-------
-o
 (D

2

c*^
 O
 cd
 S
 e
 D
C/l




v^^^
^j
Headquarters-OPPE (continue*









o
V)
w
• Estimate contributions of anthropogenic sourc









u

3
naturally occurring chemical species [ERED]
• Evaluate remedy effectiveness in support of f

^
1
w
0
a.






regulations [ERED]
• Site-specific surface trend analysis [CSPD]
q
to
•^
0
'S,
Q,
^



"o
00
C
• Development of criteria for statistical clusteri











—
| sites based on indices of contamination [CSPD







•o

VI
O
V)
QJ
Ll
• Support the development of standard procedui










Q
Q.
to
U
t
C
rt
*0
u
CO
N
C
0)
o
a
0)
S
o






1
(_

-------
 C/3
 4-)
 C
 cr
 (D
2
 c3
Q
-o
 c
 0)
 C
 CD
PQ
 cd
 e
 s







^"^
^}
.£
11
(U '
u c
o
o2
A> 71
• Additional sourc<
• Uniformity in de


to
•*•«
O

flv
CQ










Q
(/I
s
remedy
"0
u
4^
U
tu
| confidence in se







Q
to
a

V)
4-1
o

0)
a
3
C
CO
9)
"o
"O
c
3
(••
C.
0>
a
3

eo
(0
-o
00
o
'c
• Post-cleanup mo

















Q
a
5/1
U
Q
UJ
C*
UJ
e
o
4_>
CO
2
"cO
effectiveness ev











CM
S.

-a
V
•a
a>
a>
ngitude) n
latitude/lo
SD]
5
(A
fe OT
S w
• Geographic local
individual sampl
to
•S
*2
to
Q
O
U






^^
Q
UJ
tt
UJ
d needed
|S
(Zl
00
_c
o
4.1
moni
(«_
o
en
en
U
CO
To
00
0)





q
O

Q
c a,
0 yj
*" f\
o —

~ *™*
R "5
0 S
^ 0>
a o
co £-
tn 3
00
£ 00
ieded incl
ironment i
*£
c »
-2 00
• Sample informat
method, samplin

CO
Q
Q
04
^j
U








—
Q
U
UJ
"a
a
u
v
4-t
CO
*_
ooQ
c a
is
i «
and distance to
• Site contact nam







                                                                         ro
60
OS
a.

-------
 C
 CD
 e
 (D

'3
 cr
 (L)
«

 cd
4-J

Q
C*_
 O
 e
 s
 3
C/l







~^
^^J
v?
_y
•S
q
0
c\
N^^.

a
a,
O
<5
w
eg
a
cy
X?

c
CO
.0

w
c
•o
o
W
"O
QJ
c
CO
4n«l

£
'C
o
4_>
O
3 S
o —
u
00 \n
ll
•ba
.q
CXJ
L,
^
f^
«
0
do
E
TJ
C —
3 - CO
o ~ '5
« 60^*
c .
0) — •• 0)
a Q "2 •-
>»to 2 .
«-.s»
3 g .2 8
- ° TJ C
D — u
-2 £ c«
4> 3 rt
*^ ex «
'S 0 CO «
a s
60 -0 '-. .£
« c G **
"^ CO o —
lilt
a> g u o
c ° !5
|| 1 ?
o « .S 5
c -^ 'i I
— -± 2 ^
1 1 5 '3
CO
•kd
Q5
Q e
^^ ^**
3! o
0 O v_








^•^
Q

S
.b Q
o-S
a> —
La  «-
- i
||
c o
< a,
















^—
<
a
r*
•^j

E
Q>
VI
tn
CO
*rf
CO
Q
00
£ a
o t/i
|s
1 u
u U
u. u
"0

-------
 c
 o>


 0)
 o-
 o
DC

 o


6
 CO


 E





•"^S
T3
O
3
c
^••1
•»•*
««*
^
»••»
0
o
Xl 	
uarters-OPPE i
cr
T3
>j
n*
^v
0)
a:






e Q
— E £
Q * s
6ocu E *
c w- o ^
•- • r > C 25 "^
•o H •- vi
3 Q E 0> m
u ° « 2
c s «" £
— ^ 60 U C
«n F 2 5
-0 G ^ e 2
— 0 « .S t/i
.2 « £ >>
c- fl rt G • (/I
ci . cO
2 2 60 „ £
« • ^ °
^ —  m —
g « -p E v 4>
™ 0. t. 3 (. W
>> *d e cfl  m in E M «
• • •
\
-D OQ
O C
«a •«•
* *- S
c CQ v>
«5 a v
o ± ^ o
^fal ^ •+•> ^H
^* ^^ ^* o
a <2 «o v;
r: 5 Q Q,

Q
U Q.
58
60"—
c e
=3 .2
^ 2 m
crt o -2 —
C c "0 ?
0 •-  '^
C "O '^ 1/1
IMSD] (See "Other Coi
tings of selected/sorte
have undergone effecl
site of summary stati:
^^r
yj .2 «-• >"»
a— ed £>
S -5- -
S 0 WQ &
(/} O. «» t/1 Q.
« u « -5 a>
o a « ± «
• • •
VI
•w
Q
(D

a>
Hh^ t>
^ ^
3 •**
ss
•«•* yj-
3 0
O Q<
Q 2
m 3
3 ° «-
* > aj
W ^ a.
u ' s
w S 2
> « g
A * ^^
S 2«
is 3
•eg
. u £
a) r:
> — o
•«^ ^^
*•* u
fc o w
o «:: in
a u
n CARD would be sup
e an intermittent need
f access CARD only th
D]
— > s u
2 5 S °*
^^ ^" •* r, i
«0 .- LU
"O T3 — —
~" *j >
|||S
H ? £ X
•
VJ
C5
o
•»^
*a
f?
^

-------
 c
 o

 o
 0)
en
 (

 E

CO




^
3
•S
rters-OPPE (cont
Head qua





<—
O
u
V
sn
3
0)
r:
W
&o
c
++
u
j>
13
•,
&
«M
c«




m
X '"
"c nl
vi ox:
O C J2 CO
£ O *-.•*-
<_> C_ CO
a> u in ^
s £ '" *
00 ^ = c
Q. C t_
and other advanced map
cted at different sites usi
d different QA criteria-- i
ing parametric techniques
misuse of CIS
Data are colle
procedures an
data worth us
site-specific.
er
siderations
irW
- §<3
O O v£




imetric
2
CO
a
>>
^^i
^^i
*^2
c
c5
•o
"o
^j
M
CJ
'C
4_>
C.
U
in
3
CO
CM





cJ
 — .
; howev
echnica
« —
"" -o
0 C
"O CO
X «
e CIS software will gladl
that has the common sens
procedures, th
it is the user




^
CO
£
t users
(0
C
d>
en
0
uj
O
O
e
understanding,



Q
a.
in
.. u
ningless
isions. [
CO O
V V
S -o
£2
C>0 oo
— c
'"c c
^ co
w
° 2
w C
o —
C «->

£
CO
a
CO
o
c
o
i limited National estimatj
V
CO
JZ
CO
CO
•a







•o
c
CO
in
"O
metho
;ypes of sample collection
the different <






VI
(7)
^»
CO
c
CO
•o
c
a>
4_»
nments preclude National
sample enviro
ICSPDI







-o
D
g <
£-
0) D
m c
3 .S
G t.
CO U
g is implemented, infrequ
ented in terms of computi
c S
L (y
S 



                                                                       u
                                                                       60
                                                                       09
                                                                       a.

-------
                                APPENDIX Q





HEADQUARTERS/OPTS DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------
OE^^^^^







c
u
E
& >>
ffl o
II
t <
<-> c
£.2
§ z
Z 3 _
;c or Information R
Environmental Pro
M Street S.W.
hington, DC 20460
.— ' I/>

-------
 >
 u
 as
 S
 S
 p
l/l






12
a.
O
i
c/>
2
> «
CO 3
^ VI
• •




O
'x
o
H
T3
C
m
fice of Pesticides ;
Ibstances IOPTSJ/
5r =
O to
V)

fc>
"S
H

x
u
c
*
c
v
Is Assessm
Existing Chemical
i










To
u
'i
JC
U
V.
C.
0
c
co
ffl
00
C
Chemical Screeni
i






t_
u
CO
Q
S
*^
•


5
5
u
c
JO
<_>
u

Q
4_>
L.
o
a
a
3
VI
Management and
t






c
o
X

Q
E
o
H
•


a
a
O
V)
e Program
Office of Pesticid
i




w
—
"S
jc
0
X

• Connie










                                                                           &0
                                                                           «$
                                                                           3.

-------
 d)

 C
PQ

-a
 c
 en
-a
 o
 CD
S
S






^"^
^
MJ
Headquarters-OPTS (continu












«-
O
V)
0)
• Support for the validation of computer mod











c
X

tn
CO
chemicals not in production [OTSI
• Provide data for exposure assessment such

^
'S
c;
£i
0
0,







•o
c
and magnitude of contamination at Superfu
sites [CRISIIECAHMSD]
c;
o
*,*
o
^
Q,
Q.
^









• Trend analysis [ECAllMSDI







60
C

Q 3
S'>
^^
^""^ CM
E °"

-------
 C
 0)
 e
 cr
 (U
 cd
Q
 S
 S
 p
            O
            O
ft,
O
 i

z

c
0>
o
e
o
0 -o
*> c

CO  .
C V
a ^
25
•-: <->
                        o   S
                        =   on
S fc
   X)
                                         §•
                           J °
                         «8

                    toCX.2
                 s 3^
                 -t.h-
                 «n o
       .rt
       u
g TP
.22
5 JS

 <0 Jv   C
"-' —   CO


 u   a c

"S j= a 'S
 a> - O X)
                        en
                        O  q "S
                        O  o O
                                           UQ

                                           5
                                           L>
                O
                       —,  co


                       sl


                       o  3

                       CO  U
                                                      m

                                                      u
                                                      no
                                                      a)
                                                      0.
       05 LJ
       H —

       •o S

       •o —
                                         .^  « °

                                         So?
                                         O  en s
  T3
CJ C
S «
a co
f° *
u co
00 "O

a«
2 5
< a
u n>
OO 60 '**
o o aJ
o 6 S
i) « s
O G U
ormation
c
2 w

9s
"a
-  S
8|

!«
CO  i
o
ndex Syste
Chem
GEM
S

i
ty

LIS HMD
Faci

CERC
                                     2=5
                                  eg
                                  •««>
                                  CO
                                  Q

-------
 C
 CD

 e
 CT

 CD
 (D
jG
 w

O
 cd

 B

 E
 D
cn


«s
^J
rt\
i^^
iS
C!
Headquarters-OPTS (conti









o Q
k^ ^ !••!
^* ••• ' »^
C^l ^
x oi 7>
0 C 3
i: o OS
C '^

> p o
C » '""
• STORET [IMDi
• TSCA Chemical Inventory [IMDl
• TSCA Inventory Update [IMDl
• Chemicals listed in the Toxic Release Ii
(Title III lists) HMD]
• CAIR (Comprehensive Assessment Infor
[IMD]
• PAIR (Preliminary Assessment Informal

J5
"O "-
8 § 5
"•5 ^ ^ *•*
^3 *f ^ r\ Q
^* ^*^ C^
CM ^^ A_ f \
Q c* 5 2 v-

00
1>
~ t/1 V,.
45 < —
^^ r ) Cd
JJ U 0 	
'
chemical properties of contaminant [CR
\
*Q bo

-------
 C
 d)

 e
 (U
 cr
O

 o
 S
 S
 3






"^*\
<•«»
>J

u
3

O
(^
4_>
V)
lo
U
£

CJ
^
_
in
C
CO
e
S
CO
4_»
C
o
u
• Grouping of























V)
oi
u
3
in
2
"3
o


-C!
«a
O


c
o
"^
co
o

?t3
t^
(U
^
4-1
CO
-o
•o
u
o-
u
IM
1
2

u
a
"x














m*m
[^1
^
•••I
i
C
IM
9
V)
• Extensive QA
qualifiers are
WJ
c:
o
••••»
**»
«0
i
o
0





•o
O

>
4_>
recen
CO


V
CJ
c
CO
**
i/»
O
I/I
0
"x
0
H
CM
O
CJ
O
S








^0
u
u

<»
o

^
1 revie
^?
VI
ttt
60
3
tfi
•o
C
CO
(A
"«5
13
a
CO
OT
4>
C
2
CO
(0






















V)
a
H
O
o
a
t
G
G
a>
"O





                                                                       in

                                                                       u
                                                                       60

-------
                               APPENDIX R




HEADQUARTERS/ORD DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------
c
o
E
o
S? >>
ra o

|s
a »
tn ^~
o e
P o
e "•
•s «
li
si
s e
ol
ou
   o
   vO

   O
   . rvj

  ^0
  I/I Q
  ^


  §1

  ^«

  z £
   en
               en

               en
            CD  03
               C
               
GO  en
5
U S
o S
q
                                   N
                        O
™ C
-o 5  cd
^ 5  m
s^s
   a
c
            .2 ^
            en ^^
            52  cd
            '   G
Q q
ct) O
                          O
  (S
                        oq

                        o
                               oo
                               oo
                               Cvl
                               (N
D

D
                        Ok

                        I

-------
 C/l
 U
 (U
 c/]

P
 e
 s
ui


Q
O
I
V)
^
qj
•ha
£^
]^^
C\J
^»
O*
^te
^
2
i«^
i^^













•
Q

•o -o
c c
CO CO
—
s
^ «
CO Q)

£
C£ O
«- W
O u
•"•
.- O
^ i
0
1
N
O
* Douglas Norton
• Susan Norton
» Rick Picardi
» John Schaum
i Rich Walentowi






in

c
CJ
£
V)

tf)
I/)

«!•
CO
c
(0
E
c
o
'£
c
u


•


c-
V)
CO

H
tn
U
""^^
in
"O
C

u
H
^3
c
CO
~J
^
cfl
Vj
73
u
tie
,2
o
o
UJ
i




60
CO
a.




























-------
 (L)
 C
 
 (U
 S
 £
 D
en



i_^

5 "° 2 S

"So. C
^^ ^^ **• ^™
o X u 8 "S H
fl ^ C W e8 Hi
« .2 « g w
^ wi S i« ^
• Time savings due to greatly increase
i.e., centralized repository for Superf
• Increased ability to produce of Congi
indicate progress of Superfund Progr
• Improved data reliability, yielding a
in data use (e.g., chemical frequency!
• Higher level of confidence in decisioi
• Reduces the need to collect new sam

W)
^A
Q

CQ
CM
4>
60
CO














-------
 e
 0)
^U

'3
 cr
 0)
Q


 o
 s
 e
 3


-^
"0
O

q
•^
Q
O
N*~'

Q
Headquarters-OR

















H
cn
UJ

^
-o
» Precise geographical locators nee
» Validated data needed [EST]


















<— »
5/1
e "O
» Field data needed (e.g., pH, hard)
* Background levels at site require


V)
•kU
•S
2
V)
C
o c;
O o
jW
a
E
* ,2
a
c e
O eO
CO
-2 o
»s
^" S
S
cfl cz
vi O
* Sample information needed (e.g.,
matrix, EPA case number, collect!



2
Q
Q
Q^
^
U
c-
O

0. ...
far M»
P*l O
V)
•*
S oo
C
si
V] —
~. u
-^ 

CO
water quality, location to ground
' IRIS

 Demographic data

o

Q
_O
•5
5
^

•S






£
w
VI
60
C

13
» GEMS - Geographic Exposure Mo
» Climatology data [EST)





Q
Q£
^
U












> Tissue Sampling results [EST]









M
CO
a.




















-------
 c
 (U

 S
 CD
.b
'3
 cr
 0)
 (D
^S

O
 S

 S





*^N
*Q

o w  ^3 .~
• Selection and sorting by av
specific contaminant, Regioi
levels of contamination
• External interfaces to other
• Cross reference between sit
number
• Statistical manipulation to <
contamination level and esti
waste IEST1
x
O C!
*"4 **•*

n 15 <*
o 2 «o o
**» l"» *•* Q
3 ,2 ^ <-
^ •§ Q ft,












Q ^

< 3
(J <•—

uU
^3 ^5
^^"* ^^j
^MM IF
C M
.2 S

• Listing of selected informal
• Congressional reports show
clean-up progress
• CIS maps IEST]
VJ

S
0>
*•* t_
3 -^
ft, 3
t- o-
3 D
o as


~
D
n. t*~
_j ^"
u 1
£
E o>
O J3
t_
«- -o
x "5
~ o
CJ ^
*"• l/»
-5 T3
C
 S
^^ *fc ^^
vj ^ in
— >»
"° m «
CO
• Site officers should receive
• Flagging samples collected
• Do not recreate a CLP data
p
1

, 'D
O v>
^« Q
*•* O
O O

^
V
ao

-------
                                  APPENDIX S





HEADQUARTERS/OSWER DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------
u
6
o
 o
£.1
K O
o *•*
£V ®
^ (X

Is
2 =


II
£ S

°'i
OUJ

E^
O 3
    o
    to
40 1 M Street S.W.

Washington, DC 2
                               c:
                               0
                                             Ill
                                             u
                                              o

                                              »J

                               0
                   cd
                   G
                  <
                   O
                                  CO
                               to
                                              S
                                              N



                                              C3
    -o

T5  S
 
                              S|
                               CJ
                               O

-------
D

o
s
e













C*
£
^
^^^
t/5
0
1
Headquarters



01







4>

co







Organization

i^
«_>

ic
>
!>

U
fc^
*_>
o

"u
CO
U
"X
4_>
C
u
e
4>
U
u
0
c
U
M
s
2
60
O
a
u
4_»
M
CO
^
«»
O
4>
O
«H
O
i

60
c

*u
a)
H/
4>»
Wl
X
U
U
>
u
OJ
^
u
* ^4


E
^
•



c
o
esponse
Hazardous Site Control Divisi
IHSCD]
06 i






x
•o
c
=}


«->
CO
a
•

c
o
tf)
'>
Hazardous Site Evaluation Di
IHSED]
'





c
V

"3
o

u
^
is
•


£:
'••i
CO
«->
(/I
Management and Evaluation
IMES]
i

















•o
c
CO
ffice of Program Management
O
i



M
(/)
3
CO
u
•b»
(/I

•4-1
*^
CO
S
•




upport/ Chemical Assessment
ivision [CADI
(/] Q






>>
JU
m*
U
*4


o
5
•




echnological Support [TS]
H
i


•••«
^
k
a>
«•*
c:
u
so
03
a


















-------
 s
 s
l/l

               •o o
               2 S
              ill!







                        **w

                              w«-«


                     to
                     q
                     o
                  *^  o
                  c  s
                  £  Q.
                  O  Q.
                                                   (M
                                          at)
                                          «
                                          Q.

-------
 
S
s





*^\
^11
?3
^*
C
Headquarters-OSWER (contL









>*

** 9
c
e 3 VI
.5 o* H
Sw ^~"
T1 C—
1*1 ** .*• t/5
• Prediction of concentration profiles and conti
residence times using source data and fate an
transport models [CAD]
• Trend analysis [CAD]
• Waste characterization and identification of f
mismanaged waste types [CAD]
• Assessment of proposed cleanup technologies
at Superfund sites through treatability studie:
C!
O
^^ *^*
~"j «a
•«^ ,
*- O -
4) "Q Q
O °< (J
£« "^ ^

u — .
^ -. 3 *° Q C
*V W ««» C i\ ^*
±i ti o 2 o — « w 60
— « — 3 2: — \A o
•- -o a o £ o* -r —
£ -0 - £ !T °
II I| i8 J !

ox li-c c5 « S S
• Time savings due to greatly increased data a
i.e., centralized repository for Superfund anal
[SEDHMES/HSCDHHSEDHCAD]
• Assist enforcement activities by providing a 1
in heavily industrialized areas of each PRP's
waste contribution to a particular site [SED]
• Promote better public understanding of admi
records through the inclusion of site maps wi
points [SED]
• Enhanced capabilities to look retrospectively
environmental conditions at Superfund sites 1
• Uniformity of analytical methodology [HSED]
• Higher level of confidence in decisions (e.g.,
ITS]


.**
o
Q
4)
CO
fO

u
50
(9
CU













-------
 C
 


Q

CM

 O
 03
 S

 s
 p
ontinued
eadquarters-OS WE
                          " ^
                          -o Q
                          3 <
                          IS
                                     o
     < «
     w 3
   c

-------

 C
 o
U
 S
 (U
^u

'5
 cr
Q

 o
 E
 S
 3
in





^

EA
VI
O
c
o

(3
«S
U
CM
O
Irt
E
u
.S
c
o
1
JU
"o.
E
CO — .
* Q
.h w







T3
Q>
c g

— "O
2 £
S o
•^
^ ^^
O
o o
~ c_
o «
0) >>
a "o
«« Q.
*o
c "
«< ^
co
• Specific contaminants in a group
to be stated (e.g., benzoin pyrate

*«*
_«5
5 S
t ^jC
*** ^
Q
0 §
o"
»•••
x:
a

c.
00
o
E
a>
•o

o
00
"o
o

*•*
u
E
carbons) ISED]
• Site information (e.g., geologic, i
and ecologic data) ISED1ITS)

'O
a
^
*c:
0
0

















• Background levels at site ISEDI













*>

cO
C
E
CO
4-1
C
o
u
60
£

•5
"o
G
E"
Q>
t-t
VI
X
VI
Q
0
£*
U
£
«_>
E
o
«•»
CO
4_l
«0
Q
•




1






u
O
c«
e
o

co
•5
0)
E
^
ttaH

c^i
w
found, remedies selected, and cos
•o
S
3
Cr
O
^
2
S










1 — 1
Q
<
,,
in
VF]
_z
priority sites IMES/HSCDHHSED
• CERCLIS site data [MES/HSCDH
o
c:
•2
_••»*
'o Q

5 u





^
E
^j
5/1
>»
W1
4_»
C
0>
00
CO
c
CO
• LIMS (Laboratory Information M
data [MES/HSCDl









Q

V^
X

«v
V)
cO
CO

co
Q
c

t->
CO

UJ
"CO
X
o
S — .
3 Q
























• Ecological data [HSED]
• Industry studies database [CAD]







in

«
rt
a.






















-------
 G
 (D

 S
 CD
 cr
 (D
 p
O
 £
 e
in
-o


               O
               £

               E
                     ?
Cfl 'Q <-» .— _C

_ o ^r "O ™"
                 o-^.tuco— tjsc
                 •^X«60CJ«e
                 o"   ct-U'O.S5'5

                 5 go  |2g! S Ijfj
                 to oo^-oUJuto EuH
        \
        X3
         «
                                         C ^
                                         — *->


                                         if

                                         fis
                                   
-------
 G
 O

 e
 cr
 (U
 4)


o
 cd
 e
 e
 3
in





C^
VJ
CO
^J
•S
•WA
c;
o
o
Headquarters-OS WER (








v
o

o
-o
c
in
iJ
u
V
c
u
00
Q
&
<
U
4_»
rt
£
4^
(fl
*d
O
a
QJ
D
r:
*j
u_
o
w
£
o
1/1
•












*o
•o
J2
^
| in "lay-terms" and not requiring a knc
-q
4^
O










5
(J
•+•
| science to describe conditions [MES/t
nsiderations
o
0





c
•••
X
to
U
.£
(_
°
| • There are many lists of "contaminants







c
o 2
4-> 3
0 O
c ^
o Q
5 5
0}
"a S
EPA, and many inquiries may be for s
Superfund's current list (having TICs









^^ ^t
Q c

(/) V
X L-
2 a
S M
— U
prepare EPA to address this problem)
• The detection limits acceptable by the













"in
u
JS
sufficiently low to permit human heal








o

3
O
m
.2
^
«
assessments; in order for CARD to be











£•
•2
2
"O
__.
| of data for risk assessments, analytica








en

.-
O
1>
a
i/i
u
£

u
>,
c
«
E
o
•o

•o
0)
w
2 S
'5 ^
1 1



r~
u
&o
CO
a.













-------
                               APPENDIX T




HEADQUARTERS/OW DATA COLLECTION REPORT

-------
;mcnt
<^j
s? >>
g y
If
O c
2.1
o S
!« o
f 1 w
(S 2 o
a: °
c a- v
o — o
Office of Informal*
U.S. Environ mcnta
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 2
<
OH
UJ
o
.52
>>
13
G

TD
(D
(L)
&
G
-2
C/3
i
^^^x
1^%^ 1
C/3
13
G
13
0
s e
«_
C



DOOZ* ALLEN & HAMILTON INC. SBBS

S
o^
m"
>!_»
trt
3
too
3
<






-------
 U
 
So
52
'


C
o
si
25 "S
. CO
r.



^
Q
O
u
w
CO

^
60
C

^4
G
'u
Q
«M
o
O
i


                                                                                             to
                                                                                            a.

-------
      III
-o
 CD
 
-------
 C

QQ
CM
 O

 X
 S
 e
 3





Headquarters-OW (continued)





fi
O
'<-»
S. — -~
V) ^n
(/I i C c*
• Additional source of reliable environmental data
potentially resulting in less field work [ODWIIOWR:
• Greater accessibility to an increased volume of infc
pertaining to sites [ODW][OGWP)[OWRS]
• Higher level of confidence in programmatic decisio
policy decisions, and risk assessments [SIRMOHOWI
• Allow management to more efficiently utilize
available data for national trend analysis [SIRMO]
• Time savings due to greatly increased data
accessibility [OWRS]
• Allow prioritization of most important sites [OWRS]
to
•4*1
C!
Q
4>
CQ
, - -,— -r
i
,2
3
00
Qj . Tj *J*
u % G
• Flagging of validated, high quality data needed for
tory development [ODWHOWRSl
• Site and sample information needed (e.g., site ID, si
type, FINDS *, site location, depth, matrix, sample
collection methodology, geologic/hydrologic data, a
meteorological data) lODWIISIRMOllOWRSllOW]
• Geographic locators required (to the nearest second
possible) [ODWHOWHOGWPHOWRS]
c **
•5 c«
^^. rf^fc.
V> M

O Q -^
U 0 O

                                                                         ao
                                                                         rt
                                                                         0.

-------
      IK
 C
 (L)

 e
 (D
 cr
Q


 o
 e
 s






**s
^j
flv
.c:
^>
quarters-OW (con
eg
QJ
a;




Q
O


G
JS
lalytical Services data wit
k>
'o
a








£
>,
lo
c
CO
•o
c
«rf
u
•o
•o
o
c
CO
CO
2°°
0& 00
O 7
— 0
e a
informatio
• Available
•ha
3
<2
S
o
o











OWRSIIOGWPI
| [SIRMOH



0

£
3
s
'c

^
u
u
<0
t
^3
ompatible with EPA Grour
0
w
A
V)
2
Q
c<
2











a
O
O
UJ
Q
V
c
6
UJ
Q

^
o
O


a
-I
o
c
o
c

bo
e
73
all Superfund samples, in
| • Results of















DWI IOGWP]
O
u
•o

-------
 S
 (D
^

'3
 cr
 *)
• Water quality criteria data [OWRS]
• Chemicals listed in the Toxic Release Inventor





23
CS
C)








Q
VI
4-1

*




V)
C
o

co y
• Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Regul
(ARARs) ISIRMO]
• Demographic data and area use information su
c;
.O
5 Q
^5 C^
2 ^
^ o
Qf^.
o








as river reach data [SIRMOIIOWRS]














S
o
• Ecological data for site assessment [OWRS]
• Integration of CARD with outside databases fr








c
o
..
CtS
a
u
o
e?
organizations such as the USGS, etc. [OWRS]
• Ground, surface, and drinking water quality ii












^
L^
La
01
to determine background conditions (i.e., STO1
[OWRS]










-------
 C
 »«£! G
C fe —" «0
.M o > >
"O - ^ 01
= - Q •::
                      2
                      c^

           (u
           8> s
             u
                  H^

                o <
           o
             «
•J3 c  o « ^ « **
% e  . & 2 S g
  «  c — G .2 §
* § 5 .a s 3 s
g w  5 a 2 -3

! cs*l<-s

                      .s s
             S
                    a>
                    en 3 3
         a
         <
                           o
                         
-------
 in
 C
 
-------

-------
j* '..  ',    '**•>

-------