-------
Gross Removal
~Soil was excavated based upon the soil
contamination profile established by the IA
results
~Floor of excavation analyzed by IA
~If IA results > field action level, more soil
removed by hand
~When IA results < field action level, a
confirmation sample was collected
DWS-16
Planned and Actual Excavation
Depths
If
5A
l<
A
2/2-5
2h
'A
%
....
5/s
'/«
FR4/5
7 4
2A
'A
%
P..C
V,
'/
rr
!
a
7<
zk
'A
s
S
2
2
2
I
A
North
S3-
1
•oortwuK Origin
urtx! ii M bjs pUnnta lor •
Mil
Origin! Remediation BownMry
Fina RemedMlion Boundary
Closure Testing
~Closure confirmation from floors occurred
immediately after vertical removal activities were
completed
~Unexpected contamination was found in the
sidewalls of the excavation
~ IA guided delineation, excavation, and provided
closure confirmation of the sidewalls
DWS-18
6
-------
Final Conceptual Site Model:
Lateral and Vertical Removals
^ . . -J
f V.
'A
7s
/'
A
%
'h
74
i 7'
i
'/•
33
s
73
'/«
33
74
7«
j'/.
7
s
5
7<
7
21*
7*
7<
%s
A
North 1 j Top number a t»d bgs pUnrwd 95% statistical confidence
DWS-20
Site Restoration
~Site was backfilled with 463 tons of material
~Topsoil was placed and hydroseeded
DWS-21
-------
Cost Comparison (per U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers)
Traditional DWP
1. Review Existing Data
$7,150
$11,000
2. Design Site Characterization
$0
$17,640
3. Implement Site Characterization
$0
$84,134
4. Review Char, data
$0
$10,000
5. Design Remedy
$16,500
$26,460
6. Implement Remedy (- Disposal)
$168,094
$271,116
7. Waste Disposal
$910,000
$153,570
8. Closure report
$20,305
$20,305
TOTAL
$1,122,049
$594,225
This traditional cost estimate assumes no characterization,
only removal and incineration of the entire plot volume
Wenatchee Tree Fruit Project:
Successes and Lessons Learned
~ Cost: Site was remediated/closed out for < $600k
~ Time: About two years from time of request; < 4 months
of field work using a DWS approach
~ On-going regulator/stakeholder input critical to resolve
problems that could have derailed project
~ Systematic planning focused efforts on end-use of data
~ A regulatory focus on project outcome/performance
permitted flexibility to maximize innovation and cost
savings
(continued)
DWS-23
Wenatchee Tree Fruit Project:
Successes and Lessons Learned
~ Onsite analysis (lAs) increased the number and density
of samples
~ The CSM was refined in the field; specific sampling
strategies selected to match the specific decision
~ A pilot study helped determine
» appropriate field sampling and measurement tools
» project-specific field action levels for decisions
» project-specific SOPs and QC for field analysis
DWS-24
-------
Resources
~ USACE Cost and Performance Report:
www.costDerformance.org/monitorina/Ddf/wenatchee.Ddf
~ EPA Case Study: http://cluin.org/char1 edu.cfm
~ TPP Manual downloadable from:
httD://www.usace.armv.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-
manuals/em200-1 -2/toc.htm
~ "A Guideline for Dynamic Workplans and Field Analytics"
video (http://cluin.org/video/hansc6m:htrri)
DWS-25
9
-------
Fort Lewis Range Case Study
-------
Triad Characterization of
Soil Contamination at Former
Evergreen Infiltration Range,
Fort Lewis, Washington
Site Background
~ Investigation and
remediation performed
under Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
Agreed Order (AO)
with Washington
Department of Ecology
1
-------
Triad Approach During Remedial
Investigation Sampling Phase
4
Identify Stakeholders and Role in
Planning
~Fort Lewis Public Works
~Washington Department of Ecology
~Seattle District Corps Sampling Team
~Seattle District Corps Milcon Design Teafrt>
i/
Establish Core Project Team
/—
~Technical Lead
~Field Lead
~Project Data Coordinator
~X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analyst
~Additional Sampling Staff
.
6
2
-------
Systematic Planning
~Establish Conceptual Site Model (CSM) using
aerial photo review, Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) maps, and field recon
~Evaluate risk pathway, future uses, and potential
action levels to refine project objectives
»50 ppm, 250 ppm, 400 ppm, and 1,000 ppm
~Develop site investigation data management and
communication strategy
© Demo pits
FZ1 Firing points
E3 Lead
contamination
> 250 ppm
Develop Conceptual Site Model
~ Site had fixed firing points - soil contamination expected
primarily on impact berm
~ Lead expected to be the primary contaminant of concern
(COC)
» 45 caiiber cartridge 97 percent lead, 2 percent
antimony, trace arsenic, copper, tin, and zinc
~ Potential human and ecological receptors
~ Bullet impact result in significant fragmentation and
ricochet
~ Soil primary matrix of concern - COCs not expected to
have impacted groundwater
-------
Refine Project Objectives
~ Confirm presence of soil contamination
~ Confirm lead is primary COC for defining extent of
contamination
~ Delineate vertical/horizontal extent of lead contamination
above 50 ppm
~ Manage uncertainty around contaminant volume
estimates for soils > 250 ppm, 400 ppm, and 1,000 ppm
~ Collect data to determine if contaminated soil would be a
RCRA characteristic waste
10
Dynamic Work Strategy
~ Sample location density driven by process knowledge
and site usage
» 10 foot intervals lengthwise along berm face from 0-1
and 1-2 foot depth
» Additional sample location determined real-time to
define vertical and horizontal boundaries
~ Data visualization using Spatial Analysis and Decision
Assistance (SADA) to maintain close communication with
team members as work progressed, and evaluate
statistical uncertainty
11
Sample Support Design
~ Driven by potential
remedies and exposure
pathways
» Soil sieved with
number 10 sieve per
State reg(<2 mm)
»One gallon zip-lock
bag filled with soil
that was archived
4
-------
Real-Time Analytical Tools
~ Niton 300 Series XRF used
~ First round of samples
submitted for fixed laboratory
analysis (ICP or ICP-MS)
~ Comparison of XRF
measurements and fixed
laboratory samples
established during
demonstration of method
applicability (DMA)
13
Communication Strategy
~Daily meetings with core technical team
~Weekly update meetings to include project
support team
~Data and daily activity summary report ported
daily to eRoom
~Written documentation and meetings with
regulators on major decision points (i.e., after the
demonstration of methods applicability study)
14
DMA
~ 40 samples collected from two depths in representative
areas (in impact area, below, and at toe of berm)
~ Evaluate site-specific heterogeneities
» Sampling Design (bag versus cup)
» Confirm lead primary COC
~ Evaluate bias of the field-based instrument technology
» Evaluate XRF performance on site matrices
» Confirm 45 ppm XRF lead detection level
(continued)
15
5
-------
DMA
~ Develop uncertainty intervals where it is judged that data
can be confidently trusted to declare areas as
»"Clean" - No further investigation
»"Dirty" - Remedial action needed
»"Ambiguous" - Further data required
16
Recommendations from the DMA
~Analyze precision samples when primary result
near action levels
~Collect collaborative samples for fixed laboratory
analysis to confirm concentrations near the
detection limit per State request
Action Level
(ppm)
Uncertainty
Range (ppm)
50
ND-100
250
200-300
1,000
900-1,200
(continued)
17
Recommendations from the DMA
~If near potential remedial boundary and precision
sample average falls within the uncertainty
regions, then collect and measure an XRF cup
sample for comparison
~If variability is great, then collect co-located field
duplicate within 2 feet from primary
~If both precision average and XRF cup fall within
the uncertainty region, send collaborative sample
for fixed laboratory analysis
-------
Uncertainty Reduction
~Collaborative samples were collected within the
ambiguous "window of uncertainty"
~Co-located field duplicate sites to assess impact
of site heterogeneity
~ Precision samples to assess impact within
sample heterogeneity
~Collection of additional samples by immediate
step-out
19
Project XRF vs. Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP)
Correlation for Lead
Lead Estimates (Ordinary Kriging)
0-12"
Lta4 Estbuirs (Oriinn Krig lag) 0-I2"
-------
Evergreen Berm, Plan View 12"
Samples Probability > 250 ppm
UU frAtkilUj Mar Ki«ue)
22
Evergreen Berm, Plan View 12"
Samples Probability > 1,000 ppm
23
Lead Estimates (Ordinary Kriging)
12-24"
8
-------
Evergreen Berm, Plan View 24"
Samples Probability > 250 ppm
UU Pi* *lhn K* (Orfi-r, Kri.1^1
25
Evergreen Berm, Plan View 24"
Samples Probability > 1,000 ppm
26
Volume Changes with Respect to
Action Levels
Actian Level (mg/kg|
9
-------
Action Level
(mg/kg)
Volume
(Yards3)
Excavation
Effort
250
5000
Maximum
400
3000
Moderate
1000
2400
Minimal
Triad Approach During
Remediation Phase
29
Systematic Planning
~ Used members from initial sampling team for
continuity
~ Relied on trust built with stakeholders to expedite
activities
10
-------
Remedial Action Decisions
~Property slated for a Milcon barracks
construction project in fiscal year 06 - cleanup
action to be complete in September 2005
~Stakeholders agreed to action level of 250 mg/kg
for lead (State Model Toxics Control Act [MTCA]
Method A goal for unrestricted site use)
~Approximately 5,000 cubic yards of lead
impacted soils estimated to require removal
31
Remedial Action Approach
~Reuse contaminated soil at an active range at
the facility instead of disposing at a hazardous
waste landfill (per Interstate Technology and
Regulatory Council [ITRC] guidance)
~Washington Department of Ecology accepted if:
» bullet fragments removed from the soil
»residual soils treated to reduce leachability of
lead to below hazardous waste levels
32
Performance-Based Criteria
~Removal of lead contaminated soil to achieve
cleanup criteria of 250 mg/kg using MTCA
guidance
~Bullet removal so treated soil portions contain
<0.1 percent bullet by volume
~Treated soil to meet the Federal RCRA
hazardous waste and State Dangerous Waste
criteria
~Recycling of the bullet waste stream encouraged
33
-------
Remediation Process
~ Excavated soils sieved using power screen to generate
three waste streams:
» Plus 1 Vi inch - cleaned and left on site
» Between 1 Vi and 7/16 inches - bullet fragments
removed with magnets. Fragments sent to a recycling
facility and the remaining material left on-site
» Less than 7/16 inch - treated with 4 percent
EnviroBlend and hauled to active range on the
installation for berms construction
~Excavation areas
identified using the
CSM and existing Site
Investigation (SI) data
~ Excavation depths
ranging from 1' bgs to
7' bgs
~Total volume
excavated determined
by difference between
pre- and post-survey
Project Cleanup Criteria
•i ¦ - t-lwun • ' » All sample concentrations will
be less than twice the cleanup
level, i.e., 500 mg/kg;
» <10 percent of the samples
can exceed the cleanup level.
36
~ Reduce soil concentrations at site
to below 250 mg/kg such that:
» Upper 95 percent confidence
limit (UCL) of mean
concentration of sampling data
cannot exceed cleanup level of
250 mg/kg:
12
-------
XRF Sampling During Remediation
~ Soil samples collected from excavation bottoms to
confirm depth of removal
~ 30' by 30' square grid system
~ Each grid divided into nine subgrids. Discrete bag
samples collected randomly from five of the nine
subgrids.
~ Grid dimension based on excavation efficiency and
balance between representation of the remediation area
and a logical minimum response to discovery of
additional contamination
3?
Figure 3 - Confirmatory Sampling
Grids
Dynamic Work Strategy
~ XRF data used to determine additional areas of sampling
and excavation
~ Areas where samples exceeded 500 mg/kg were
immediately excavated
~ Depending on the distribution of data, areas adjacent to
hot spots were handled in one of the following ways:
» Area was sampled first - additional action was
determined based on data; or
» If areas were between hot spot samples and therefore
likely above 500 mg/kg, these areas were
automatically excavated
39
13
-------
Communication Strategy
~ Data visualization using hand sketches and
Excel tables updated daily
~Determination of additional excavation
coordinated daily with project team
~Regulator updated with additional excavation
plans after first pass completed and after
completion of field activities
~ProLICL used to determine 95th UCL at the site
40
Uncertainty Mana
gement
Matrix Heteroqeneitv
Increase sampling density in areas
where incorrect decision would be
impact protectiveness
^gfPSfe:;;.-
Technoloav Uncertainty
~Collaborative fixed laboratory
samples collected post excavation
~# of samples for fixed laboratory
analysis determined based on the
distribution of the field XRF data
~ 32 samples randomly selected from
archived bags retained from each grid
Sarrole Variability
~ Co-located field duplicates
~ 7 point precision samples from samples
near action levels
~Questionable areas could either be
resampled or re-excavated and
resampled fast enough to support real-
time decisions
41
Bullet Removal
mmm
~ Soil sieve tested to ensure
that bullet fragments
removed to less than 1
percent by volume
~5 kg subsample per ton
examined to confirm
removal
~ If the soil did not pass the
sieve test, then associated
stockpile was rescreened
-------
Treatment
~ Stabilized sieved soil by
adding fixation agent.
Stabilization criteria Toxic
j^jff 4M7i
Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) less than
or equal to 5.0 mg/L lead
~ 2 < pH < 12
j.**
-*•
~ One 30-point composite
* T
collected per 100 cy stockpile
Stetofc jKR -v
~ If a stockpile failed the pH and
TCLP criteria, it was retreated
and retested
43
Time Savings
~ Project characterized and remediated in under 2 years!
» December 2003 - Initial SI in one mobilization
» April 2004 - SI Report
» June - August 2004 - Alternatives Analysis
» September 2004 - Final Interim Cleanup Action Plan
» October 2004 - Performance-Based Contract (PBC) Awarded
» February - June 2005 - Field Construction
» August 2005 - Interim Cleanup Action Report
» September 2005 - Interim Cleanup Action Approved
~ Approximately 6,000 cubic yards removed and treated
44
Triad Cost Savings
~Sampling - Reducing mobilizations, laboratory
costs, developing accurate volume estimates,
and allowing efficient evaluation of remedial
alternatives. Estimated cost savings = $200,000
~ Remediation - Total construction cost =
$800,000. Cheaper analytics, faster project
completion, refined excavation areas, and
reduction in hazardous waste disposal costs.
Estimated cost savings = $500,000
46
15
-------
Triad Project Benefits
~XRF/dynamic work strategies possible by
gathering, interpreting, and sharing data fast
enough to support real-time decisions
~Reductions in analytical costs resulted in
increased data density, which resulted in
increased uncertainty management
~ Data generated reliable estimate of
contaminated soil volumes
46
Triad Project Benefits
~ Focused heterogeneity management by
increasing the sampling density in areas where
data was near the cleanup level and incorrect
decisions could be made ensure protectiveness
of cleanup.
(see http://www.trladcentral.org for complete
project case study).
Software Sources
~SADA http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~sada
48
16
-------
Hartford Case Study
-------
Case Study: Considerations for
Applying the Triad Approach at
the Hartford Hydrocarbon Plume
Site, Hartford, Illinois
Vapor Intrusion Mitigation and
Product Recovery System Design
Problem Statement
~ 48 historical hydrocarbon fuel spills from
surrounding pipelines and storage tanks
~ Fires and odors have been reported by
residences particularly during spring
~ Increased vapor intrusion is presumed to be
caused by raising water levels carrying
hydrocarbon vapors into utility corridors during
high stands of the river
~ Release of hydrocarbons to surface water
1
-------
Case Study Overview
~ Site History
~ Preliminary conceptual site model (CSM) for the site
~ Refining the CSM using dynamic work strategies and
real-time measurements
~ The CSM for product removal
~ Potential product removal strategies
~ The CSM for vapor intrusion
~ Potential vapor mitigation strategies
~ Current project status and lessons learned
DP-4
CSM Based Systematic Plan for
Design of an SVE and LNAPL
Recovery System
~ Shallow discontinuous sands capped by silts and
clays
~ Discontinuous sands and silts grade into more
massive channel type sands
~ Structural features created by periodic river
avulsions and bedrock features
~ Complex interconnectivity between sands and
structures
DP-5
2
-------
- Splav fill of abandoned channel
•a
\ \ • \ Floodplain .
V ^¦
/ A ' j' I A 1 ... . - cSQ. ' y
Solid line is \S, ' f7 \p"\ rw $< -
highest point^X^ I' ' / i. (T / irf0* A" y F,ow
r\ C
.. —¦—¦$
Exposed
-3
Fissure 7 Avulsion of a Sediment aiy Sequence
(FromReadina. 190S, Pediment aiyEnviroiurients)
¦ y
Coalescing crevasse splays
(natural levee)
/
Silt arid mud Mud sheets Sand, wood and
Vertical exaggeration=20x mud fragments
Fiaire 6: Gross-section of a Mixed Load River
(From Reading, 1998, "Sedimentary Environments)
DP-8
3
-------
Refining the CSM Using Dynamic
Work Strategies and Real-Time
Measurements
~ Rapid Optical Screening Tool (ROST™)used along with
soil borings to define the nature and extent of product
across the site
~ Nested vapor probes, subslab probes, active sewer soil
gas monitoring and real time devices used to define
vapor plumes based on the presence or absence of
product in surface and subsurface soil
~ Dissolved phase investigation being conducted using
direct push grab groundwater sampling methods
4
-------
-------
DP-18
6
-------
Important Observations from
ROST™ Investigation
~ Thick zones of product not always associated
with identified surface releases
~ Three distinct product types found across the site
~ Distribution of product appears to be controlled
by structural features and clay thickness
~ Changes in water level have created a large
smear zone that could control apparent product
thicknesses and thus product removal efficiency
Product Recovery CSM - Less Than
Obvious LNAPL Plume Characteristics
~ Initial head and not necessarily groundwater
gradients will control plume configurations
~ Porosity, percent hydrocarbon saturation, and
capillary pressures control mobility
~ Plumes tend to reach equilibrium and then
remain in a steady state
~ Standard methods for prediction of potential for
recovery may be inadequate without empirical
testing and the right information/data
DP-20
7
-------
Capillary Pressure
As pore size gets
smaller,
capillary rise gets
bigger.
DP-22
Feb 2005 LNAPL Apparent Thickness
Relatively similar distribution
observed March 2005 and
historically (since 1990),
indicates stable LNAPL
plume
Rate of LNAPL recovery
(mobility) observed in
baildown tests correlates w/
LNAPL distribution
Areas of greatest LNAPL
thickness targeted for pilot
testing liquid extraction
remediation
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP
I
8
I
-------
CSM for Product Removal
~ Product plume appears to be stable and ranges from
diesel to gasoline, but ongoing releases are occurring
~ Well-screened intervals and geology will control the
apparent thickness in wells
» If clay present above water table, then rise in water
table should improve apparent thickness and improve
recovery
» If no clay present above water table, then apparent
thickness should decrease with rise in water table
~ Dual Phase Extraction (DPE) most likely candidate, but
will be complicated by groundwater fluctuations
DP-26
Current Product Removal Related
Activities
~ A mobile DPE system is being used to evaluate
removal rates
~ Additional physical data are being collected to
evaluate percent saturation, porosities, viscosity,
and distribution, to develop a clearer picture of if
and where more permanent systems should be
installed
DP-27
-------
Vapor Intrusion Mitigation CSM -
Challenges
~ Vapor intrusion seems to be worst when water
levels rise
~ Indoor air evaluation complicated by access
issues and household contamination
~ Soil gas analysis complicated by presence of
clays near surface
~ Utility corridors vary in integrity and material
used to backfill
DP-28
m
I'iniHi'ii
'X'F"
¦
; n
-¦
k
r/'' ~
- J 5*-r
& —
10
-------
Soil Vapor Contours in
Main Stratum
• Vapor distribution
correlates with
LNAPL distribution
in Main Stratum
• Reduced vapor
concentrations
observed near
locations of
existing SVE wells
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP
"A" Clay Soil Vapor Distribution
" ¦ "t -fe
• Soil vapor
concentrations
correlate with
recent odor
complaints
• Reduced vapor
concentrations
observed near
rsamml i g h
locations of
existing SVE
|SkL. j;
wells
1
HARTFORD WORKING GROUP
The CSM and Vapor-Related Issues
~ Vapors
» Thinning in clays and structural highs seem to control
where vapor intrusion is greatest
» Near surface releases into thicker clay zones tend to
correspond with increased vapors
» Lateral migration of vapors possible in sand zones
away from product plume in unsaturated zone
» Utility corridors in contact with sands are potential
preferred pathways for vapors
DP-33
-------
Vapor Transport Model Where Clay
Layers are Present
Vapor Transport Model Where "B" and
"C" Clays Not Present
12
-------
Vapor Mitigation Strategy
~ Regional soil vapor extraction (SVE) system
design and optimization is planned because of
results obtained from community center pilot
~ Silty clay seems to limit direct exposure to
vapors under most conditions and enhance the
effectiveness/radius of influence of SVE system
~ Utility systems will be sealed and otherwise
mitigated prior to entry into homes
Current Site Activities and Status
~ The technology support center is working with
the Superfund Technical Assessment and
Response Team (START) and the Hartford
Working group to optimize the planned SVE and
product removal system based on a refined CSM
~ LNAPL recovery data collection efforts have
focused on the data needed to support the
design of both a mobile and a hardwired product
removal system
Lessons Learned
~ Building a comprehensive CSM leads to efficient
data collection and group consensus
~ House fans not a good vapor mitigation method
~ Passive and active soil gas does not necessarily
provide reliable data for evaluation of vapor
intrusion issues at petroleum sites
~ The geology, hydrogeology, and contaminant
characteristics at a site can be used to predict
vapor issues and product recovery systems
DP-39
13
-------
LNAPL Assessment Suggestions for
Product Removal
(additional information)
~ Obtaining Core Samples
~ Preserving Core Samples
~ Laboratory Measurements
» Soils: Saturation and Capillary Pressure
» Fluids: Interfacial Tensions, Viscosity, Density
~ Laser-Induced Fluorescence
DP-40
Obtaining Core Samples
~ Preferred Situation
» Existing well containing product has been cored.
» Geology and depth of likely LNAPL occurrence are known.
~ Data Noted in Boring Log:
» Percent gravel, sand, and fines
» Water content
» Odor
» Soil structure
» Signs of LNAPL
» Photoionization Detector/Flame Ionization Detector (PID/FID)
values
» Sampling data (to 5 feet below deepest LNAPL penetration or
lower boundary unit)
~ Further Sampling Locations Based on Data Obtained
DP-41
Preserving Core Samples
~ To remove core from sampler:
» If core in sleeves
— Fill any void with plastic wrap,
— Seal with Teflon film,
— Tape on plastic end caps.
» If core not in sleeves
— Slide gently from sampler onto split PVC core supports,
— Wrap with plastic and secure with clear box tape.
~ Label each core section with top and bottom depths.
~ Label multiple sleeves sequentially (A, B, C... etc.) starting with the
top or most shallow sleeve.
~ Immediately pack cores with ice or freeze with liquid nitrogen to
minimize migration of core fluids.
~ Ship cores at end of each day by overnight courier.
DP-42
14
-------
Core Testing When LNAPL Present
~ Photograph cores in normal light and ultraviolet
~ Perform saturation analyses where there are
LNAPLs
DP-43
NW Indiana Sand
9 feet below ground surface
13 feet below ground surface
ISiill
m
S - '
-
v e
Natural
c
UV
talk means n
Natural UV
Core Testing When LNAPL Present
(continued)
~ Perform grain size analyses and a few Atterberg
limit analyses for fine-grained soils
~ Obtain one or more air/water or LNAPL/water
drainage capillary pressure tests (depends on
your site)
~ Obtain imbibition curve data and relative
permeability curves (optional, based on
professional judgment)
DP-45
-------
Fluid Property Testing
~ Field-measured interfacial and surface tensions
of fluids differ from fresh product not in the soil
~ Collect LNAPL and groundwater samples from a
nearby well
~ Keep samples cold and measure properties
ASAP
~ Measure physical properties
~ Take measurements at a temperature near the
aquifer temperature
DP-46
Developing a LNAPL Management
Plan
Situation:
~ RCRA site, 250 acres underlain by residual hydrocarbons; 180 acres
of LNAPL may migrate
~ LNAPL recovery required
» Where LNAPL with the potential to migrate exists within 300 ft of
downgradient boundary
» Where LNAPL is a source of benzene to groundwater
~ Hydraulic conductivities, 240-350 ft/day
~ Depth to Water (DTW), 8-12 ft
~ LNAPL = gasoline, diesel, lube oil, composite
~ Currently, 300,000 gallons/year of recovery
DP-47
Original LNAPL Site Map
r : :
* •, . ~ , ^' , "
DP-48
16
-------
Comparison of Results
Flaw* 5 NAPL Saturation Log lor NH S-09 (Gnolme^JH HI
1Q'
y
nik-
D3 .
QD
Correlate ROST, capillary data, and saturation with API spreadsheets.
Make saturation and conductivity predictions; validate with field data.
jm>
LNAPL Conductivity Distribution
Blue = >10 2 cm2/sec (2.5 acres) Teal = >10 3 cm2/sec (23 acres)
Grey = >10^ cm2/sec (82 acres) Brown = > 10 5 cm2/sec (179 acres) DP-50
Results
~ LNAPL recovery to be implemented within areas
that contain benzene-impacted LNAPL with initial
conductivity >10-4 cm/second
~ Recovery required over about 46 acres instead
of 180
~ Process helped estimate optimum groundwater
pumping rates and operating periods with
recovery rate estimates
DP-51
17
-------
What Recovery Expectation Is
Realistic?
~ Modeling can be used to predict that wells should be
used for product recovery
~ For examples at one site, 3 feet or less of LNAPL would
recover 3 gallons but leave 17 gallons as residual
~ This was argued to be a practical limit
~ Agency agreed
~ Resolution:
» No further recovery at wells with 3 feet or less
» Recovery until asymptotic at wells with 5 feet or more
~ Site reuse plans going forward
DP-52
18
-------
Boeing Sediment Case Study
-------
Use of the Triad Approach to
Define Cleanup Boundary for
Polychlorinated Biphenyls in a
Riverine RCRA Sediment Site
Objectives
~Show applicability and reliability of the
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Enzyne-Linked
Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) (EPA Method
4020) compared to Gas
Chromatography/Electron Capture Detection
(GC/ECD) (EPA Method 8082) in a sediment
cleanup context
~ Emphasize usability for decision error
management
Systematic Planning Objectives
~Define patterns and determine source(s) of PCB
in a reach of the Lower Duwamish River, Seattle
~Generate data usable for guiding Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and
Corrective Measures Study
~Expedite remedial action decisions, namely:
» Whether to dredge/how deep to dredge (key
project decisions)
» Extent of actionable area and responsibility
1
-------
Stakeholders
~EPA RCRA
~EPA Superfund
~3 (or more) potentially responsible parties
4
Conceptual Site Model
~ Existing data suggested
spotty PCB distribution
south of RCRA cleanup
(not enough data for EPA
to make decision on
RCRA "plume")
~ Sediment transport in
estuarine river not clearly
defined
~ Additional potential
sources in area
5
Preliminary DMA
~ Prior testing of 20 samples from
the river using M4020 Space and
Naval Warfare Systems
Command (SPAWAR) and M8082
(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
[USACE] and Boeing) showed
linear correlation (R2 > 0.9)
~ Decision error rate versus dry
weight decision (130 pg/kg) was
10 percent, for example,
» 1 false negative
» 1 false positive
6
4020 « M»2 to< PCB. ugrig-dly
/"
y
y
s
5000 TOC11MJ6a<' ^
2
-------
Regulatory Framework for PCB
Pass
Note Organic Carbon
< 12 mgykg-OC
| Exceed SQS
A T2 0.95 MET
Reference Material;
Known Standard
(NRCC HS-1)
Once
% Recovery = 70-130% MET
Continuing
Calibration
Aroclor 1254 std.
every batch of 20
R2< 0.95 MET
Method Blank
(Methanol
Every batch of 20
< RL MET
Lab Duplicates
Every batch of 20
% RPD < 30% MET
9
3
-------
Regression Results
~R2 of 0.9 postulated in QA Project Plan
[M4020, mg/kg OC] = 0.377 * [M8082 mg/kg OC] + 13.61
R2 = 0.549, p <0.01, Durbin-Watson D = 2.03
~Regression predictions worked poorly for
predicting actual M8082 concentrations
10
Evaluation Approach
~Compare samples against regulatory criteria
using both methods. Focus on Organic Carbon
normalized (also evaluated dry weight, with
similar results).
~ Determine decision error rates (correct)
»false positive error [FPE]- screen says dirty
when clean
»false negative error [FNE]- screen says clean
when dirty
11
Pairwise Evaluation of Error Rate
12
N Error
Rate
Total 97
Correct 73 37%
FNE 17 17.5%
FPE 6 6.2%
C qualifiers are for low
organic carbon
Nortdelect based on
elevated DL for an
aroctor not seen in
any sample
4
-------
Entire OC Data Set
.^.Organic Carbon Normalized
\
•
•
*
8082 Result (m^kg OC)
Comparison to
65 mg/kg OC
(red line)
FPE: 2(2.1%)
FNE: 9(9.3%)
(Continued)
13
Entire OC Data Set
Comparison to
12 mg/kg OC
(yellow line)
FPE: 4(4.1%)
FNE: 8(8.2%)
14
Method-Related Contributions to
Uncertainty
Expected Distribution of 4020 Results Based on
Cross-Reactivity of Aroclcrs 1260,1248
Cross Rradivily lo J2S4:
Aroclor 1248 111.1%
Aroclcr 1254 100.0%
Aroclor 1260 55.6%
1. Sensitivity
Concentration by 8082
2. Extraction Efficiency
Methanolic
extraction (M4020)
not as aggressive
as Soxhlet method
(M8082)
-------
Heterogeneity Contribution to
Uncertainty
M8082 Field
duplicates had RPDs
up to 109 percent, with
a mean of 66 percent.
Sample heterogeneity
is a significant
contributor to non-
conforming samples.
16
Use of M4020 to Visualize Site
~F/'rsf view: stage 1 — assumed OC; results used
to establish Stage 2 locations; time is 3 days
~ Second view: stages 1 & 2 — known OC; time is
10 days
~ Third view: M8082 view ("correct answer"); time
is 4-5 months
~Display of "full knowledge" 8082 Dredge Plan
and difference plot from 4020 Dredge Plan
17
6
-------
Stages 1 & 2 — Known OC (10 d)
M8082 View OC (4-5 months)
Estimated Dredging Depth to Remove
>12 mg/kg OC Using 8082 Data
Dredge Depth (ft)
8082
21
7
-------
Difference Plot M8082 - M4020
Discussion
~ Method Applicability of M4020:
» Suitable for placement of adaptive surface samples, selecting
samples to analyze using M8082
» Less efficient predictor at 12 than 65 mg/kg OC
» Selection of M4020 should consider data use
—Differential sensitivity due to various Aroclor mixtures
—"Threshold" versus scalar determination of concentration
—Need for near-real-time info
~ Conceptual Site Model. For southern 2/3 of reach, we rejected the
river-transport hypothesis, based on presence of deep hotspots,
visible through M4020 (assumed OC)
23
Conclusions/Recommendations
~ M4020 can give information rapidly and permit near-real-
time assessment of a Conceptual Site Model
~ Estimates had a somewhat low bias which, when known,
can be considered
» For example, application of a 27 percent M4020
escalation factor decreased FNE ~4 percent, to 14
percent, but increased FPE by about the same amount
~ Major cost avoidance is not in cheapness of method, but
in use for triage of samples and gaining time in lab
sequencing
24
-------
RCRA-Specific Case Study
-------
Characterization of a Complex DNAPL Site Using the
Triad Approach
Tri-Goriiers q ..........
Introduction
Purpose
• Present an overview and results of a Triad investigation in an active
manufacturing area at the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility, New
Orleans, LA
Contents
• Introduction
• Background
• Project Overview
• Selection and Implementation of Triad Approach
- Systematic Project Planning
-Dynamic Work Strategy
- Rea -Time Measurement Technologies
• Results
• Conclusions
4 Trf-Cortters ass. ........
Facility Background
• The Michoud Assembly Facility was developed in the early 1940 s and
has been the location of a number of manufacturing programs
- Large quantities of trichloroethene (TCE) used
• Currently, Lockheed Martin operates the NASA Michoud Assembly
Facility (MAF) and builds the Space Shuttle System External Tank
¦ Tri-Corriers © sss. ...........»
1
-------
Remediation Background
• RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) was completed in 1999
-TCE contaminated soil and groundwater were identified under the
Pre-Clean Room and Chemical Clean Line Areas of the main
manufacturing building (Building 103)
• LDEQ established RECAP Standards (RS) for MAF soil and groundwater
on March 8, 2004
-Trichloroethene (TCE)
-Cis- and trans-dichloroethene (DCE)
-Vinyl chloride (VC)
• Lockheed Martin's planned remediation approach is to perform interim
stabilization measures (ISM) to remove/destroy DNAPL and then use
Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) to achieve the RS
• Additional information on the contamination in these areas was needed
for design and implementation of the ISM and MNA
Tri-Corders a sssfc. ...........rr
Building 103 Areas of Investigation
t I , -V- I
m
Pre-Clean Room Area J~~
~o
I J) i i i i ®~~
Previous investigation locations, DNAPL TCE detections in red.
Trf-Corders © tea. 1 ..........irapf-
Project Overview: Objectives
• Primary objective:
-Determine the volume of impacted soil and mass of DNAPL TCE
present in the subsurface in the Pre-Clean Room and Chemical Clean
Line Areas
• TCE concentration in soil gre
ater than 1200 mg/kg
• Secondary objectives:
- Determine the boundaries of the soil and groundwater Areas of
Investigation (AOIs), that is are
as where contamination concentrations
exceed the Limiting RECAP standards (LRS)
Soil (malka) GW (ma/L^
TCE
22 1.0
Cis-DCE
820 82
Trans-DCE
1300 120
Vinyl chloride
14 1.7
*||fs Trf-Corders ©
(Of mil mn mum
2
-------
Project Overview: Challenges
• Project challenges
-Areas of Investigation are inside a 43-acre aerospace manufacturing
building
• Cleanliness requirements
• Access limitations
• Underground utilities and other obstructions
- Limited budget and time for investigation
-Technical requirement
• Ability to detect and quantify specific chlorinated volatile organic
compounds
Tri-Corders © ass. ..........iiiijf ,
Selection of Triad Approach
Triad approach offered a number of advantages over conventional approach
• Conventional approach
-Write work plan and get LDEQ approval
- Collect soil and groundwater samples and send to off-site laboratory for
analysis
- Review data and submit report to LDEQ
- Repeat process as many times as necessary to get necessary data
• Triad approach
- Use of real-time data collection system capable of speciating chlorinated
volatile organic compounds
- Dynamic work strategy with flexibility for selecting sample locations
based on evaluation of real-time data
-Full involvement and buy in from LDEQ throughout planning and
execution of investigation
Tri-Corders © SSS. ........,
Implementation of Triad Approach
• Systematic Project Planning
- Established teams
- Developed initial Conceptual Site Model
- Developed method for managing data quality uncertainty
• Dynamic Work Strategy
- Developed dynamic work strategy document
• Decision logic flow diagrams
• Selected standard operating procedures
- Established data management system
- Established processes for data communication
• Real-Time Measurement Technologies
-Cone Penetrometer Technology/Membrane Interface Probe coupled
with several detection systems
- On-site mobile laboratory
Tri-Corders © ........
3
-------
Systematic Project Planning: Teams
• Core Technical Team
-Tri-Corders Environmental, Inc. vice-president
- Hayworth Engineering Science. Inc. president
-Applied Research Associates, Inc. field sampling technologies
operations
• Data Quality Objectives Team
- Lockheed Martin site remediation staff
- Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality site leader
-Tri-Corders Environmental, Inc. vice-president
- Hayworth Engineering Science, Inc. president
• Decision Team
- Lockheed Martin Site remediation staff
-Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality site leader
- NASA Marshall Space Flight Center environmental engineer
latima mnmrtm
Team Members Meeting at Job Site
Systematic Project Planning:
Management of Data Uncertainty
A number of ways for minimizing data upeeffainty were identified during
planning of the project
• Project QA/QC oversight/^
• CPT/MIP data collectkJn addressed sampling uncertainty by collecting
data pypry nnq nc-jwn feet
• EPA Mewiod 8265 oVsite analysis managed sampling and analytical
uncertain^
• EPA Method 8260b off-site analysis managed analytical uncertainty
• Multiple lines of evidence
Tn-Corders
ikiiiii mjtmtim
-O-] ^
(\f0 GrC
-------
Systematic Project Planning:
Initial Conceptual Site Model_
< C beraicai Clean Line Area j:
~ TCEppm
¦ :
i Pre-Clean Room An- .:
: ,,
1
^ Tri-Carders ® jSgb ........„
Initial Conceptual Site Model
Pre-Clean Line Selected Soil TCE Concentrations and Soil Types
April 2004 Soil Investigation
Location depth TCE Soil Type
SB01
24-26
1180
Silty sand
SB01
26-28
3160
Silty sand
SB01
44-46
3420
Silly clay
SB01
46-48
1570
Silty clay
SB01
48-50
3710
Sandy clay
SB03
16-20
1120
Clay/Silty clay
SB03
20-22
2130
Sand
SB03
22-24
550
Said
SB03
24-26
6350
Sand
SB03
26-28
3410
Sand/Silty clay
SB03
44-46
10400
Sand/Silty sand/Silty clay
SB03
46-48
4210
Clay
SB03
48-50
6240
Silty clay
SB05
20-22
1890
Silty sand
SB05
22-24
8170
Silty sand
SB05
24-26
659
Silty sand
SB05
46-48
1300
Silty sand
SB05
48-50
760
Silty clay
SB06
24-26
337
Sdty sand
SB06
26-28
433
Silty clay
SB06
44-46
440
Sand
SB06
46-48
1430
Sand/Silty sand
SB06
48-50
6720
Sity sand
Initial Sampling Transects
rmmauRT Ftt1" i~m
Trf-Carders © tSrs •••.«»••».
-------
Dynamic Work Strategy:
Data management and communications
• Data were summarized and posted to the project Web site daily
• Conceptual Site Model was updated and posted to the project Web site
as data were generated
• Multiple daily telephone communications between members of Project
Decision Team and Core Technical Team
• On-site meetings (near beginning
and near end of field work) with LDEQ
Dynamic Work Strategy:
Data management and communications
6
-------
Real-Time Measurement Technologies
A combination of technologies were used to generate high quality field
data to support real-time decision making
• Cone Penetrometer Technology (CPT) with a Membrane Interface Probe
(MIP) allowed for collection of soil lithology and soil/groundwater volatile
organic vapors
• Volatile organic vapor stream was split and sent to two separate
analytical systems
- Direct sampling ion trap mass spectrometer (DSITMS)
- Gas chromatograph with electron capture detector (ECD), flame
ionization detector (FID) and photo ionization detector (PID)
• On-site mobile laboratory with DSITMS for analysis of soil and
groundwater samples by EPA method 8265
- Samples collected using direct push technology (DPT)
%$f'Jtf-Carders ass. ..........sfiijf" „
7
-------
Results: Sample Collection and Analysis
• 15 days of field work with 8 days of CPT/MIP/DSITMS plus ECD/FID^ID
and 11 days of direct push soil and groundwater sampling
• CPTMIP/DSITMS + ECD/FID/PID
-14 locations
-848 linear feet of VOC screening and soil lithology
• Direct push sampling
-12 groundwater sampling locations
• 50 samples analyzed on-site by EPA method 8265 (206 linear ft of
aquifer)
• 50 samples sent off-site for analysis by EPA method 8260b
-7 soil sampling locations
• 57 samples analyzed on-site by EPA method 8265 (57 linear ft
investigated)
• 26 samples sent off-site for analysis by EPA method 8260b
\ Tr/-Cqrders Q S 2J
-------
Results: Data Collaboration
MIP04 MIP and EPA Method 8265 collaboration
Depth (ft BGS)
v Tri-Corders © ........ 26
Results: Data Collaboration
Split sample results EPA Method 8265
and EPA Method 8260B
10 100 1000 10000 100000
EPA Method 8260B
j EPA 8265 = 0.75 EPA Method 8260B + 93; r2 = 0.98, n = 207 \
9
-------
Results: Data Interpretation & DNAPL Final CSM
Results: DNAPL with Pore Pressure Final CSM
Areal extent of DNAPL TCE was approximately 4 acres
DNAPL estimates:
Upper zone: 17,400 kg, 11,800 L DNAPL
Lower zone: 48,400 kg, 33,000 L DNAPL
Trt-Corders
10
-------
Conclusions.
Project was a Success
• Project objectives were met on schedule and within budget
• Triad approach managed both sampling and analytica1 uncertainty
• Collaborative data sets created strong/defensible final conceptual site
model
Keys to Success
• Active participation of Decision Team during project planning and field
execution develops trust and confidence
• Daily posting of data to Web site and daily discussions of results facilitate
quick consensus concerning additional data requirements
• 3D visualization of field data posted to project Web site allowed
communication with off-site decision team members
-------
Sampling Design
-------
Sampling Design
SD-1
Select an Initial Sampling Design
~Nature of decision
~Type of data needed
~What data analysis
~Available tools
Wr WIB
^tHI
~Practical constraints
~Economic factors
D-2
The Basics of Classical Sampling
Design
~Authoritative - based on
professional judgment or
visual observations
~ Probabilistic/statistical -
designed to make
statements about an
area or population of
results
y^owLEDee"
SD-3
1
-------
Authoritative Sampling
SD-4
Probabilistic or Statistical
Approaches
~Simple random
A / ¦
~Stratified random
A A / ¦
~Systematic
A ¦ ¦
~ Ranked set
/\
~Sequential
• •
- Strata
~Adaptive cluster
• \
A high 1 medium • low
SD-5
Decision Error - The Misclassification
Ellipse
2
-------
/V
errur
c( cl f-^_ 'SVjT'v. o«'Sj-*/uVN ^ 'pf c4>y s"
j^w-
fiu^
Focused Sampling £nd Decision
Errors
X, = ACTION LEVEL ' ESTIMATED VALUE
i = Type I Error — False Positive AA = Sample Above, Estimate Above
II = Type II Error = False Negative BB = Sample Below, Estimate Below
Cost Benefit Curve Showing
Sampling Decision Error/Economic
Considerations
~ Total Cost
\ \ Cost
\ \ / Optimum
i
\ | —Sampling Cost
n!/'^ - Miselassification
Cost
+
Mumberof Simplss
30-9
-SftftWg fp«L)
/uotff<^y J i *sy0
3
-------
Now that I have data, what's next??
~Now that you have
analyzed available
data and collected
some innovative
forms of data, you
must match sampling
designs to decisions
Common Data Collection Goals
~ Data collection goals generally fall into one of two general categories:
Search and Population Characterization
~ Search:
» Identifying footprints/boundaries (for example, remediation or
evacuation support)
» Looking for isolated problems (for example, hot spots) or discrete
populations
» Segregating waste streams
» Showing compliance (never-to-exceed types of criteria or hot spots)
~ Population Characterization:
» Estimating contamination volumes
» Estimating average levels of contamination in an area
» Showing compliance (area-averaged criteria)
SD-12
-------
So, What Drives Sample Numbers?
~ When searching: higher confidence, larger decision
units, smaller hot spot sizes all result in more samples
~ When estimating population characteristics (for example,
means): more decision units, average residual
concentrations close to cleanup requirements, greater
sample variability, higher confidence all result in more
samples
~ Remember, most statistical tests guarantee, post-data
collection, contamination will not be missed at the
required certainty level (for example, 95 percent) no
matter the number of samples. Small sample sets
produce higher probabilities of a concluding there's a
problem when there is not
SD-13
Contamination Levels Drive Sample
Numbers
SD-14
What Doesn't Affect Sample
Numbers?
~When estimating population characteristics (for
example, mean), decision unit size does not
matter! The number of units does
~When searching, the number of decision units
doesn't matter! The size of decision units does
~In general, searching requires a lot more
samples than characterizing populations
SD-15
5
-------
Rules of Thumb (2D problems)
~When looking for hot spots, maximum sample
numbers equal search area divided by area
represented by target
~When estimating means or medians, sample
numbers should range between 5 and 30 per
decision unit
~When delineating boundaries, segregating waste
streams, supporting remedial actions, etc.,
correct sample numbers are a cost-benefit
calculation...can range from none to many
Traditional Approaches Have Issues
~ Hot spot analysis assumes shape and size of target known, and
contamination uniformly above requirements within target
~ Outliers and non-detects cause problems
~ Parametric statistics require assumption about underlying distribution
~ Usually assume sample independence (i.e., no spatial autocorrelation)
~ Consequently, most statistical approaches are scale independent (i.e., the
same number of samples regardless of area size)
~ Most statistical approaches have difficulty incorporating information from
multiple sources (for example, "soft" information about a site, or a
combination of analytical techniques)
~ All pre-planned statistical approaches assume site knowledge that is never
truly available (i.e., immature CSM). Consequently all pre-planned
approaches will never get sample numbers "right"
SD-17
Alternative Triad-Friendly
Approaches
~ Collaborative Data Sets
» Weight-of-evidence approaches
» Parametric methods for blending data
» Non-parametric methods for blending data
~ Dynamic Data Collection Programs
» Adaptive analytics: Delineation
» Adaptive analytics: Mean estimation
» Multi-increment sampling
» Adaptive compositing strategies
» GeoBayesian approaches
SD-18
-------
Multi-Increment Sampling Can Help
Control Spatial Heterogeneity
~ Multi-increment sampling is a very effective tool for managing
heterogeneity
~ Multi-increment sampling can address short-scale heterogeneity (for
example, for searching) and longer scale heterogeneity (for example,
determining decision unit means)
~ Assumptions:
» Heterogeneity is a significant potential source of decision error
» Sample acquisition/handling costs are significantly less than
analytical costs
» Appropriate methods exist for sample acquisition and aggregation
~ Design requires determining appropriate increment numbers and
identifying appropriate aggregation and sample preparation
strategies
SD-19
-------
Decision Support Tools/
Case Study
-------
Decision Support Tools
SD-1
Same Tools—Different Toolbox
~ Tools
» Query tools
» Spatial interpolation
» Secondary sampling
» Delineation
~ Toolboxes (Decision
Support Tools [DST])
» SADA
» FIELDS
»VSP
flf\ \ ^ t~- Y* A < j
What Are Decision Support Tools?
~Software systems for analyzing data and
communicating results
~ Uses included in this discussion:
» Designing and optimizing sampling schemes
» Comparison of results to regulatory thresholds
» Definition of boundary conditions
»Cost analysis in support of remediation
1
-------
Advantages
~ Base maps can be imported easily
~ Sampling coordinates output and input easily
~ Initial and secondary optimized sampling schemes
~ Most include multiple tools for data assessment
~ Real-time export of results
~ Compatible with most Web applications
~ Flexible
~ Free
SD-4
VJ& w
On-line DST Matrix
2
~ Intended to help users screen
public domain DSTs based on
project-specific needs
~ Consists of matrix (table),
additional comments and "bubble"
diagram that presents DSTs by
functional area (for example,
sample plan development)
~ Many of the DSTs included in this
matrix relate to the Triad approach
~ Now available on-line
http://vvww.frtr.qov/decisionsupport/
index.htm
-------
Example Analytical Model DST:
BIOSCREEN
FIELDS (Field Environmental.
Decision Support)
~ The FIELDS system is a
set of software modules
designed to organize and
analyze site and
contamination data
~ FIELDS can be
downloaded at:
http://www.tiem .utk.edu/
%7Efields/
SD-8
If -fax-A
«(v/ a a. /y > ^ ^ ¦j- rr^ (_ f-t
FIELDS Sampling Tools
~ Random sampling ¦
53EE58 QfUluv
» Simple or stratified
RANDOM "
~ Systematic sampling
SitaS«l
» Aligned or unaligned
Sk»»H5iidtHrtSpoiS««KM
Uretgned&td
~ Linear sampling
UHEAR
' Mal<*.£M*wfc»
~ Secondary sampling
roots
» Adaptive fill
MotBytWagn
End I e'V U rtf.
» Radial/nested
BtAQeugn
~ Visual sample plan
seasjowf. S4XPUM6
VISUAL SAMPLE HAN
l!nual Sample Wv>
SD-9
3
-------
FIELDS Interface
Plot Layout
Graphics View
SD-10
-------
FIELDS Sampling Schemes:
Adaptive Fill
SD-13
Spatial Analysis and Decision
Assistance (SADA)
~SADA is an evolving
freeware product targeted
to individuals performing
environmental
assessments in support
of decision-making
~SADA can be
downloaded at:
httD://www.tiem.utk.edu/
-sada/
m' ytm
14
. Bp,
w* fp
.1,
1
SD-
SADA - An Integrated Planning and
Decision-Making Tool
SD-15
5
-------
SADA User Interface
SADA Sampling Schemes:
Judgmental
~Allows users to
directly add new
sample locations by
hand
~ Permits direct
incorporation of
professional expertise
SD-17
SADA Sampling Schemes:
Adaptive Fill
~ Used to fill spatial m
data gaps
~ Does not require
interpolation, but you
must specify a grid
~ Does not consider
previous sample
results
©
*
»
JS
l
Polygon'
SD-18
6
-------
SADA Sampling Schemes: Estimate
Rank
~ Places new samples where modeled values are highest
~ Good for confirming the extent of hot spots
~ Does not consider model variance and may place points in a
well characterized hot spot
SD-19
Concentration Contour Map
-------
Site 14 Setting
~ Maintenance hangars and
nearby aircraft parking area
(Operations Area of NAS
Lemoore)
~ 22-acre site, 95 percent
surfaced with concrete
~ One of the suspected source
areas (Building 180)
undergoing $20M remodeling
concurrent with Triad
investigation
SD-22
Why Triad?
~Navy and regulators were motivated to jump start
the process
~Both parties realized a more collaborative
approach was necessary to make a "fresh start"
~ Innovative tools proposed to focus the
investigation
SD-23
Systematic Planning
~ Communication
» Quarterly meetings
» Conference calls: planning, interim results
» Web casts
» Regulatory participation in investigation
o
~ Conceptual Site Model
J J
» Collaborative input I
J
» DSTs
~ Managing Uncertainty
» Collaborative data sets
» "Focusing" the investigation (CFESS)
SD-24
8
-------
Preliminary Conceptual Site Model
for Site 14 Groundwater Plumes
Depicting the CSM: Conceptual
Model Alternative (CMA) Diagrams
CMA #1
Surface Spill
CMA #2B
Discharge through Sewer Joint
(and redistribution to capillary fringe)
SD-26
Focusing the Investigation
CMA 1
Document &
Drawing Review
CMA 2
CSM Development
Analytical Uncertainty
CFESS MIP Monitoring wells
Sampling Uncertainty
9
-------
Advantages and Limitations of
Analytical Data Types in
Collaborative Data Sets
Advantage Limitation
MIP Response
1. Continuous profile
2. Rapid data collection
3. Multiple sensors may
respond to a wide range of
VOCs
4. Can generate lithologic
information with CPT log
5. Sensitive to VOCs in all
matrices
1. N ot analyte speci fic
2. Not matrix specific
3. Must be calibrated to a single
contaminant
4. Probe subject to damage and
could require maintenance
5. Detection limits below 50ug/L
unlikely to be attained with
certainty
Mobile Lab
EPA Method
8260
1. Analyte specific for analytes
on list (8260)
2. Able to quantitate data to
5 ug/L
3. Matrix speci fic above the
water tabic
1. Only select points can be
sampled economically
2. May not identify VOCs on list
(8260)
3. Matrix specific above the water
table
4. Depth intervals may be
uncertain due to lost core
(continued) sd-28
Advantages and Limitations of
Lithologic Data Types in
Collaborative Data Sets
Advantage Limitation
CPT Logs
1. Continuous profile
2. Response is repeatabie and
consistent between bore
holes
3. Can be done at the same
time as MIP
4. Can collect hydrologic data
with pore pressure sensor
1 Not a riirecl observation of
geology
2. Some soil types may be
misrepresented
Geologic Bore
Logs
1. Direct observation of core
through sight, touch, and
odor
2. Can select direct sampling
intervals
3. Can directly observe
saturation conditions and
some types of contamination
(staining)
1. Depth intervals may be
misidentified due to lost core
2. Soil type based on subjective
observation of individual
geologist
CFESS: Conduit-Focused
Evaluation of Solvent Sources
Investigated potential pathways through: smoke testing, dye testing,
video survey and packer-based pressure testing and sampling
-------
CFESS Results
• Smoke testing confirmed connection
between sewer and the hangar ceck
dram (shown above) via the lateral
connection (shown at right)
• Pressure testing showed that joints
were sealed with rubber gaskets,
generally in good shape
• Video showed locat ons of 4 defects
such as the "break-in" aterai
connection below
WSyfiWF.W"
/.V- M
: /if
L
H'KS
Focusing the Investigation: CFESS
Info Provides Basis for MIP Locations
MIP profiles were locstec adjacent
To all four sewer defects
A fifth location was basec on a
floor drain discovered du ing the
hangar walk-through (botom left)
Membrane Interface Probe (MIP)
Investigation
~ Provides nearly-continuous
(0.35-foot increments) profile of ££**
VOC concentrations with depth
in both vadose and saturated
zones
1 i! iW'-
4 Combined with cone
penetrometer test (CPT)
sensors to obtain nearly-
continuous record of lithology
&W- *\ w # k
v—"
SD-33
11
-------
CPT I MIP I Sample Comparison at
MC14-204
r
Maximum response is 1.62
e+6 at 53.05 feel
ill"
V*
. „ \ «e
Decision Support Tools
~ SADA
» Before: Existing soil, soil gas, and
groundwater data
» During: Real-time data were loaded to SADA
during field effort
» After: Visualizations developed from revised
data set for technical memorandum
SD-36
12
-------
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
0.0 to 5.0 feet
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
5.0 to 10.0 feet
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
10.0 to 15.0 feet
-------
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
15.0 to 20.0 feet
SD-40
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
20.0 to 25.0 feet
SD-41
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
25.0 to 30.0 feet
SD-42
14
-------
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
40.0 to 45.0 feet
SD-45
15
-------
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
45.0 to 50.0 Feet
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
50.0 to 55.0 feet
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
55.0 to 60.0 feet
-------
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
60.0 to 65.0 feet
SD-49
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
65.0 to 70.0 feet
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
70.0 to 75.0 feet
SD-51
17
-------
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
75.0 to 80.0 feet
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
80.0 to 85.0 feet
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
85.0 to 90.0 feet
18
-------
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
90.0 to 95.0 feet
MIP Results: Average Response (uV)
95.0 to 100.0 feet
Preliminary MIP Observations -
Specific
~ Contamiration cuts across significant thickness of fine-
grained lihologies in northwestern and central source
areas
~ Contamiration has migrated downward and laterally and
is widespread at the 40- to 50-foot depth interval in north
and central areas
~ Contamiration is tightly concentrated in one depth
interval (20 to 30 feet bgs) in southeastern source area
~ Poor agreement between MIP response and discrete
sample results between 75 and 100 feet bgs at MC14-
203.
SD-57
-------
The CSM Evolves...
~CMA 1 ruled out for most of the source areas
~ CMA 2 confirmed for southeastern and central
source areas, still likely for northwestern source
area
~VOCs displaced from shallow portions of source
areas - likely occurred in the last 5 years
Well Installation
~ Proposed
~ Actual "Dynamic"
»15 wells
»16 wells
—3 shallow (25 feet)
—4 shallow (25 feet)
—7 mid-level (50 feet)
—6 mid-level (50 feet)
—4 deep (100 feet)
—6 deep (80-110
—1 alternate
feet)
» Rush turn-around VOC
» Sampled 32 well
data
network
—16 new
—16 existing
(continued) sd-59
Well Installation
~ Installed 16 wells - July/August 2005
»4 shallow (25 feet)
»6 mid-level (50 feet)
» 6 deep (80-110 feet)
~ Lithologic data
~Geotechnical data
~ Rush-turnaround VOC data
SD-60
20
-------
Groundwater Sampling
~Sampled 33 wells - September 2005
»17 existing wells
»16 new wells
~ Installed dedicated air bladder pumps in all wells
in network
SD-63
27
-------
Groundwater Results
~ Good correlation with MIP data
» Elevated VOC concentrations in shallow-upper aquifer
have migrated laterally downgradient; however, overall
lateral extent fairly stable
» VOCs have migrated downward to - 60 feet.
Significant decrease in concentrations below 60 feet
» A-clay acts as barrier to migration; however, not
impermeable
» Low-level VOCs detected in deep intervals
S[>65
-------
Triad Approach Positives
~One planning cycle, one SAP
» Saves time
» Saves budget
» Reduces approval process
(continuec)
SD-67
Triad Approach Positives
~Collaborative data set
»MIP data - real-time
»CPT data - real-time
» Lithologic data
» Mobile laboratory data -
» Fixed laboratory data -
» Fixed laboratory data -
» Fixed laboratory data -
- real-time
- confirmation
• rush turn-around
¦ normal turn-around
(continued;
Triad Approach Positives
~ Real-time consensus from Navy and regulators
»MIP locations and depth
»Well locations and depth
~Avoid pitfalls later
SD-69
23
-------
Triad Approach Challenges
~ Balancing real-time decisions with fixed-price
budgets
~SAP developnent
(continued)
SD-70
Triad Approach Challenges
~ Educating stakeholders - dynamic investigation
~Client buy-in - cost/technology
~Screening tools - pitfalls
~Active base/construction zone - not as easy to
be "dynamic"
~ Maintaining momentum
SD-71
Eyes on the Prize: Ultimate Goals
~ Complete collaborative data set
» MIP results
» CPT results
» Borelogs
» Soil and groundwater data
~ Risk assessment
~ Streamline the remedial investigation (Rl) and feasibility
study (FS) process - 2006
~ Navy goal is to have remedy in place by the end of FY
2007
SD-72
24
-------
25
-------
Resources
-------
Resources for Triad Educators
Okay, I get it, but where do I go to
figure out how to apply the concepts
at my site???
3
-------
V
\r
Affecting Site Decisions
(TUB Clients)
• Develop resources to fit specific audience
needs and backgrounds
Information Dissemination Efforts
~ TUB distributes technology information through many
media
» CLU-IN Home Page (http://clu-in.org)
» Subject-specific ".org" Internet pages
» Direct mail to subscribers (> 28,000 addresses) and
TechDirect E-mail (17,500+ subscribers)
» Road warrior approach: exhibits to major conferences
and seminars
» Newsletters -Technology News and Trends
» Traditional and Internet-based training
~ No longer a problem of too little information
i
EPA's Technology Innovation
Information
2
-------
General Sources of Information
~U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
» On-line
—EPA.gov
—.org sites
» Hardcopy
—Order on-line
—National Service Center for Environmental
Publications - (800)490-9198 or
http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom
EPA libraries (continued)
General Sources of Information
~ Other Federal agencies, other Sources
» Department of Defense (DOD)
» Department of Energy (DOE)
» National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA)
» Department of Interior (DOI) - United States Geological Survey
(USGS)
» Brownfields National Partnership (26 Agencies)
» Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
» State sites
» Nonprofits/associations
» Academia
» Private sector
8
Comprehensive Sources - Site
Cleanup
~ Hazardous Waste Cleanup Information (CLU-IN) Internet Site
» http://clu-in.org
~ Triad Resource Center
» http://www.triadcentral.org
~ EPA Internet site
» http://www.epa.gov
~ Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
» http://www.frtr.org
~ Brownfields Technology Support Center
» http://www.btsc.org
~ Interstate Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC)
» http://www.itrcweb.org
3
-------
'
CUM# v
-IrtteSCPS t ScfeiSB
MlWtSSI iiWMtfM ditfi
Hazardous Waste
~http://ciu-in.orq ciem-Up Information
~By subject area
~Remediation technology descriptions
~Contaminant focus.greas
~ Partnerships
'fclSttS&iK i C«t60?t=i ~ Databases
~Online training, videos (CLU-IN Studio)
^ ~Order documents
~ News, events, updates
~ Tech Direct
CLU-IN Triad Information
Key Citations, Articles
~ ES&T "Managing Uncertainty in Environmental
Decisions" article
» http://clu-in.org/download/char/oct01est.odf
~ Relationship Between SW-846 and Triad
» http://clu-in.oro/download/char/sw-846,pdf
~ Clarifying DQO Terminology Usage
» http://clu-in.org/download/char/dqo.Ddf
~ Quality Assurance journal "Representativeness" article
» http://clu-in.org/download/char/dataaualitv/
dcrumbling.pdf
(continued)
11
CLU-IN Triad Information
Key^CJlSfTanSjA rticles
~ Rernediation journal "Next Generation Practices"
article
»http://clu-
in.org/download/char/sDrina2003v13n2p91.pdf
~Archived Internet seminars
» http://clu-in.org/studio/seminar.cfm
~Assorted EPA guidance on representative
sampling:
http://clu-in.org/char1 edu.cfm#samp coll and
http://clu-in.org/char1 edu.cfm#stat samp
-------
http://clu-in.orci
~ Home
» T riad
~ Home
» Site Characterization
—Educational Tools
—Technology Tools
13
View
CLU-IN
r \
U i
• :>—: ws-:s. W
14
Technology Information Service
Highlights
~ Broadcasts monthly e-mail messages to a list
of over 24,000 subscribers.
~ Highlights events of interest to site remediation
and site assessment professionals.
~ Describes new products and provides
instructions on how to obtain them.
15
5
-------
"Triad Resource Center"
~http://www.triadcentral.org
~Provides the information hazardous waste site
managers and cleanup practitioners need to
implement the Triad effectively
~Formal Partners: USACE; DOE Argonne
~Purpose: scientifically defensible project
decisions
(continued)
16
"Triad Resource Center"
~ Pilot draft available for "friendly review"
» Primary web structure in place; first sections posted in draft form
» Gaps exist—some under construction, others deferred for future
or for reviewer suggestions
~ Structure
» Internet-based hyper-linked mapping of existing guidance and
technical documents to project life cycle.
» Designed to evolve and incorporate new techniques and real-
world case examples as experience and technology develops
» Users encouraged to suggest additions to document library and
links
17
http://www.triadcentral.orq
~ Home
»Triad Management
»Regulatory Information
» References/Resources
~ Home
» Glossary of Terms
» FAQs
18
6
-------
EPA Internet Site
~ http://www.eDa.QOV
~ Comprehensive information on federal environmental
laws, regulations, and guidance
~ News, press releases, speeches
~ Program-specific sites
» Brownfields site (.../brownfields)
— News, laws, regs
— Funding
— Regional sites
» Waste program initiatives, for example. Land
Revitalization (.../swerrims) :
(continued) ^
EPA Internet Site
~ Program-specific sites (continued)
»Office of Research and Development (.../ord)
—Funding
—Reports and technology evaluations
—Order publications
»Other program sites (air, water, etc.)
—Laws and regulations applicable to land
reuse
—Funding
21
-------
EPA Internet Site - Triad Information
Key Citations, Articles
~Agency-wide quality system documents
» http://www.epa.aov/aualitv/aa docs.html
~Waste methods (SW-846)
» http://www.epa.QOv/SW-846/
~Superfund Dynamic Field Activities guidance
» http://www.epa.qov/suDerfund/Droarams/dfa/in
dex.htm
The Federal Remediation
Technologies Roundtable
~ http://frtr.gov
~Agencies involved in
a >
lii
cleanup AND
Federal development of new
Tech,t'""g!"- technologies
Ko««diMr ^ Primary source of federal
experience, information
~Technology InfoBase
http://costperformance.
ora/pdf/infobase 500.pdf
m rn w
V
FKTR Meetings
information Unks
~http://www.frtr.aov
~ Cost and performance case studies
~Screening tools
~Clearinghouse of information on
optimization efforts
~ Find, download publications
~ Links to other federal agencies
~ Information on FRTR initiatives
(minutes of semi-annual meetings)
-------
Developing a Strategy for Your Site
and Your Information Needs
~ What am I doing (assessment, characterization, cleanup)
~ Why am I doing it (laws, regulations, and guidance)
~ How should I proceed (peeling back the onion)
» Problem identification
»Initial technology screening
» Detailed technology information, performance criteria
»Implementation issues
— Guidance
— Administrative (funding, procurement, etc.)
— Community involvement
2S
Problem Identification
~ Developing an understanding of what you might
encounter at a site
~ Laying a groundwork for identifying applicable
technologies and approaches
~ Rarely have to start as if you know nothing about a site or
technologies that you may use
~ Basis of planning process
» What we might ultimately be able to do at a site
» What we can begin to expect the cleanup process to
be
27
-------
Problem Identification - Resources
~Many site-specific sources available as well
~U.S. EPA Office of Compliance Industry Sector
Notebooks
»EPA Road Map-Tool Kit CD ROM or
» http://www.eoa.gov/compliance/resources/
publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/
index.html
~U.S. EPA Region 3 Industry Profiles
» http://www.epa.gov/req3hwmd/brownfld/
industrv.htm
(continued) ^
Problem Identification - Resources
~ Site-type or problem-specific tools
» U.S. EPA/ORD "Technical Approaches to...." Guides
— http://www.epa.gov/ttbnrmrl/
— Metals finishing, railyards, steel and iron mills, auto repair,
auto recycling, metals finishing, pulp and paper mills
» A Resource for MGP Site Characterization and Remediation:
Expedited Site Characterization and Source Remediation at
Former Manufactured Gas Plant Sites (download or order from
— http://clu-in.org/pub1 .cfm
» State Coalition for the Remediation of Drycleaners
— http://www.drvcleancoalition.org/pubs.cfm
29
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/
publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/
index.html
~Industry Sector Notebooks
»lron and Steel
10
-------
View
OECA
Sector
Notebooks
r \
n
x
31
Technology Screening Tools
~ Searchable or in matrix format ("Consumer Reports")
~ Allow users to match technologies with specific site
issues (contaminant, media, site type, performance and
cost criteria, etc.)
~ Often, initial screening supported by background
"reference guide," basis for selection
~ Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
» Matrices on cleanup technologies, analytical tools, and
sampling technologies
» http://www.frtr.gov/scrntools.htm
(continued)
32
Technology Screening Tools
~ U.S. EPA REmediation And CHaracterization Innovative
Technologies (REACHIT)
» http://www.eDareachit.ora
~ U.S. DOE Preferred Alternatives Matrix
» http://www.em.doe.gov/define/
~ TechKnow
» Global Environment and Technology Foundation
» DOE and EPA Funding
» Sustainable technologies as well as remediation
technologies
» http://www.techknow.org/search/remediation/find.cfm
33
11
-------
EPA REACH IT System
~ Free information service, searchable on-line
~ Vendor information from 229 treatment vendors (354
technologies) and 139 characterization vendors (195
technologies)
~ Detailed site information on 1,060 EPA remediation .
projects
~ Vendor supplied information on 762 remediation
technology applications and 188 sampling and analysis
technology applications
~ Flexible search options including technology,
contaminant, media, and sites
34
http://www.epareachit.orq
~ Custom search
» Narrow search, continue
— Data filters
- Characterization and Monitoring Technologies
- Both, OK
— Contaminants
- PAHs
- View results
- Technologies
- Immunoassays-RaPID Assays and Ohmicron
- Representative sites
- Former manufactured gas plant
35
View
REACHIT
p> lD
12
-------
Detailed Technology Information or
Descriptions
~ I have developed a general (screening) list of applicable
technologies, now want to dig deeper to find out if they
will meet the performance criteria for my site, or
~ Someone is suggesting a specific technology, I need to
learn more
~ Questions:
» What is it?
» How does it work?
» How well does it work on my problem?
» Has it been used elsewhere?
37
Field Analytical Technology
Encyclopedia (FATE)
http://fate.clu-in.org/
~On-line encyclopedia containing information on
field analytical technologies for hazardous site
cleanup
~Currently covers 15 technology classes, from
colorimetric indicator tests to X-ray fluorescence
~Combines information from multiple sources on
performance, verification reports, technology
providers, technology applications, etc.
~ New, "Ask the Experts" feature
~ Includes archived training modules
http://fate.clu-in.org
~Home
»Technologies
—XRF
- Performance specifications
- Cost
- Past use
-Vendor
- Verification
~ Home
» Training
13
-------
40
Detailed Technology Information -
Resources
~ CLU-IN
» Where has this been used before?
— Technology Profiles Databases
- http://clu-in.Org/clatabases/#remecl
- MTBE Treatment
- Thermal Treatment (in-situ)
- Phytoremediation
- Chemical Oxidation
- Alternative Landfill Covers
- Fractured Bedrock
- Permeable Reactive Barriers (continued)
Detailed Technology Information -
Resources
~ CLU-IN (continued)
» Technology Descriptions
— http://clu-in.org/remed1 .cfm#tech desc
—18 technologies
— Includes Citizen's Guides, application reports,
engineering and regulatory guidance, training
information, general references
» Contaminant focus areas
— http://clu-in.org/contaminantfocus/
— Perchlorate
— Arsenic
— Chromium VI
14
-------
Technology Evaluations,
Verifications
~Agencies apply technologies under real site
conditions and evaluate performance
~ Normally conducted by research and
demonstrations organizations using set QA
protocols
~ Focus: to develop performance information to
help determine applicability at other sites
Technology Evaluations,
Verifications - Resources
~ U.S. EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program
» http://www.epa. aoWORD/SITE/reports. html
» Remediation and Characterization and Monitoring
» Emerging Technologies Program
»180+ completed reports
» SITE Profiles on CD-ROM
~ U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification
Program
» http://epa.aov/etv/verifications/verification-index.html
ETV: Site Characterization and
Monitoring
Categories # Verified Status
Cone penetrometer/laser-induced fluorescence
2
Completed
Field-portable XRF (SITE)
7
Completed
Field portable GC/MS
3
Completed
Soil/soil gas sampling (SITE)
6
Completed
Gas Chromatographs
5
Completed
Immunoassay/lmmunosensors
6
Completed
Decision-support software
6
Completed
Ground water sampling
6
Completed
Infrared monitors
1
Completed
Ion mobility spectrometers
1
Completed
Sediments sampling (SITE)
2
Completed
Lead-in-dust detection
6
Completed
Ion selective electrodes
2
Completed
15
-------
Technology Evaluations,
Verifications - Resources
Other Federal Agencies/Programs
ESTCP^
Environmental Security -
Techmslogy Certification IVogranv
(continued)
47
Technology Evaluations,
Verifications - Resources
~Other federal programs
»U.S. Department of Energy
—"Green Books"
- http://www.em.doe.gov/Dlumesfa/intech/
—Argonne National Laboratory "Adaptive
Sampling and Analysis Program (ASAP)
- http://www.ead.anl.gov/Droiect/
dsp topicdetail;cfm?topicid=23
(continued)
48
-------
Technology Evaluations,
Verifications - Resources
~Other federal programs (continued)
»U.S. Department of Defense
—Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program (SERDP)
- http://www.serdo.org/research/
Cleanup.html
—Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program (ESTCP)
- http://www.estcp.org/proiects/cleanup/
(continued) 49
Technology Evaluations,
Verifications - Resources
~Other federal programs
»U.S. Department of Defense (continued)
—National Environmental Technology Test
Site Program
- http://www.serdp.Org/NETTS/default.html#
—Advanced Applied Technology
Demonstration Facility (AATDF)
- http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~aatdf/pages/
funded.htm (continued)
Technology Evaluations,
Verifications - Resources
~ Other programs
)> Remedial Technology Development Forum (RTDF)
— http://www.rtdf.org
» States
— Individual
— Interstate Technologies Regulatory Council (ITRC)
- http://www.itrcweb.org
— New England Waste Management Officials
- http://www.newmoa.oro/Newmba/htdocs/cleanu
p/advisorv.cfm
51
17
-------
Experience - Case Examples,
Studies
~ Federal experience
» www.frtr.gov/charmonstudies.htm
— 313 remediation case studies
— 110 characterization and monitoring case studies
» U.S. DOE Technology Innovative Technology
Summary Reports, "Green Books"
— http://www.em.doe.gov/Dlumesfa/intech/
~ CLU-IN
» http://clu-in.oro/char1 edu.cfm#site char
(continued)
52
Experience - Case Examples,
Studies
~Triad profiles data
Jnder construction
»TrrferacitveTt^TTsubmission function
»Also include working papers (for example,
SOWs, QAPPs, SAPs, etc.)
» http://brownfieldstsc.oro/triad/index.htm
(continued)
53
Experience - Case Examples, /jp
Studies V /
~Training
»Internet seminars (archived)
—http://clu-in.org/live/archive.cfm
» Classroom - case example module
—http://fate.clu-in.org/trainmod.asp
54
18
-------
http://www.frtr.gov
~ Home
» Technology Cost and Performance
—Site Characterization and Monitoring Case
Studies
- Field-Based Strategies/Direct Push/Cone
Penetrometer
~ Home
»Technology Screening Tools
— Field Sampling and Analysis Technologies
Matrix
- Sample Analysis Matrix
Implementation, Design Issues
~Guidance
~ Funding
~Other
» Procurement
— Regulations
— Identifying vendors
» Health and safety
» State and local requirements
» Community
57
19
-------
Guidance Resources
~ CLU-IN
~ EPA.gov
»Superfund Directives
» Waste management
»Waste methods guidance or SW-846
—GUIDANCE
—http://www.epa.gov/SW-846/
(continued)
58
Guidance Resources
~EPA Environmental Response Team
» http://www.ert.org
» Guidance
» Training
» Videos
»Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
59
http://www.ert.orq
~ Response resources
» SOPs
» Training
60
20
-------
View ERT
Resources
HI
/ \
n
\
61
Guidance Resources
~ EPA Technical Support Project (TSP)
» http://www.epa.aov/tio/tsp/
» Forums
—Engineering
—Ground Water
—Federal Facilities
» Support Centers
»Issue papers
(continued)
62
Guidance Resources
~ U.S. EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory CD-ROM
» Site Characterization Library, Volume 1, Release 2.5
» Planning and data quality
» Program guidance (RCRA, Superfund)
» Field operations, SOPs
» Site assessment
» Sampling and monitoring (soil and ground water)
» Risk assessment
» Data Analysis
» Software (25 programs)
» Order from the National Service Center for Environmental
Publications
— (800)490-9198
— http://www.eDa.QQv/ncepihom (continued) ^
-------
Guidance Resources
~ Other agencies
» USACE
—Engineering Manuals (EMs)
- http://www.usace.armv.mil/inet/usace-
docs /
ena-manuals/em.htm
- See USACE CSM (EM 1110-1 -1200) &
TPP (EM 200-1-2) Guidances
—USACE CRREL Technical Report Library
- http://www.crrel.usace.armv.mil/products/
products.html (continued) M
Guidance Resources
~Other agencies
»DOE
—Argonne National Laboratory ASAP Web
site
- http://www.ead.anl.aov/proiect/dsp topic
detail.cfm?topicid=23
—DOE DQO/statistics training materials Web
site
- http://www.hanford.gov/dqo/traininq/
contents1.html
(continued)
Guidance Resources
~ States
» State Internet sites
— Program specific initiatives
— Technical regulations, requirements
» ITRC
— Triad guidance drafted
— http://www.itrcweb.orn
» NEWMOA
— httD://www.newmoa.org/Newmoa/htdocs/cleanuD/
advisory.cfm
~ Vendor supplied SOPs
66
22
-------
http://www.itrcweb.org
~Tech Teams
» Teams N-Z
—SCM
~Guidance documents
» Sampling, Characterization, and Monitoring
~Success stories
67
View ITRC
Internet
Resources
/ \
IJ
\—
66
Procurement Issues
~ Brownfields TSC "Procurement Corner," guides
» httD://www.brownfieldstsc.orq
» "Publications"
— Assessing Contractor Capabilities for Streamlined Site
Investigations
— Preparing RFPs....
» Project results
— Work Plans
— RFPs
— See "Procurement Corner"
» Guide to Procurement Experiences for Innovative Assessment
and Investigation Approaches (DRAFT ON CD ROM)
~ Federal, state, and local acquisition regulations
69
23
-------
Training Information
~ Remediation and characterization
» Internet seminars
— http://clu-in.org/studio/seminar.cfm
— Live and interactive
— Low time commitment (2 hours)
— No travel commitment
— Archived
— 163 seminars since 1998, over 21,000 participants, from over
900 cities in over 40 countries
~ Classroom
» http://www.trainex.org
» http://www.ert.org
70
http://clu-in.org/studio
~ Internet seminars
» Archived
71
View
CLU-IN
Studio
¦/ \
u
V—^
72
24
-------
Vendor Support
~ CLU-IN Vendor Support Area
» http://clu-in.org/vendor
» Funding opportunities, programs
» Market information
» Demonstration, evaluation opportunities
» Permitting information
» Commercialization information
~ Other agencies
» Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, Site Remediation
Technology InfoBase
» http://costperformance.orQ/pdf/infobase 500.pdf
73
Resources - Brownfields/Reuse
Pit
ttmm y
4
aw
4
mm&s&i
Pmzms
4
PtamaikMs
4
4
Links
4
Brownfields Technology
Support Center
http://www. brownfieldstsc. org
~ Publications
~ Request site specific support
(Local, State, Regional staff)
~ Reports on past projects
~ Events
» Training
» Workshops
Brownfields TSC Partners
~ EPA
» Office of Research and Development
— NRMRL-Cincinnati
— NRMRL-Ada
— NERL-LV
» Environmental Response Team (Edison, NJ)
~ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
~ Department of Energy- Argonne National Laboratory
~ Hazardous Substances Research Center -Technical Assistance to
Brownfields (NJIT)
~ Site work resulting in new project profiles, supporting documents
75
-------
Brownfields TSC Publications
~ Road Map to Understanding Innovative
Technology Options for Brownfields
Investigation and Cleanup, Third Edition
~ Assessing Contractor Capabilities for
Streamlined Site Investigations
~ Brownfields Technology Primers:
» Requesting and Evaluating Proposals that
Encourage Innovative Technologies for
Investigation and Cleanup
» Selecting and Using Phytoremediation for
Site Cleanup
76
Promoting Technology Options:
Brownfields
~ Road Map to Understanding Innovative Technology
Options for Brownfields Investigation and Cleanup
» Targets new, non-technical decision makers
» Identifies process steps: site survey, site investigation,
selecting clean-up options, and cleanup design and
implementation
» Provides typical objectives and key questions
» Spotlights current cleanup issues and supporting
resources
» Glossary, acronyms, common contaminants for site
types
(continued)
77
Promoting Technology Options:
Brownfields
~ Tool Kit of Information Resources for Brownfields Investigation and
Cleanup
» CD-ROM-based
» Links to publications highlighted in Road Map
» Download many of the materials from the CD (.pdfs)
» Descriptions and order/access information
» Examples of "Starter Kit" tools on CD
— Data bases
— Technology Matrix
— Citizens' Guides to Innovative Treatment Technologies
(English and Spanish)
— Bibliographies
78
26
PmpmOz H
ivinns
-------
Spotlights on Current Topics
~ Other redevelopment
~ Drycleaner cleanup
initiatives
programs
~ Mothballed properties
~ Lessons learned: MGP
~ Getting technology
sites
acceptance
~ USTs in BF - more
~ The Triad - smarter uses
opportunities for the #1
of field technologies
site universe
~ Data quality in BF
~ Phytoremediation: How
cleanup
real is the greening of BF
~ Institutional controls -
considerations in BF
cleanup
79
Additional Brownfields TSC
Publications
~Recently completed (printing underway)
» Updated Directory of Services
»Technology Primer: Triad Approach
~Planned, Under Development
» Lessons in Procurement (DRAFT ON CD-
ROM)
» Vendor Guide
»Coal Mining Sites
»Technology application profiles (online)
80
Brownfields TSC - Direct Support
Littks
~Who? Government users
» Local
» State
» EPA Regions
»No consultants, NGOs (can work
through localities)
Strain
4
(continued)
-------
Brownfields TSC - Direct Support
Host*®
¦¦¦t&appm 4
»ma J
Simtts >§
Csmatet&tii M
faSSi 4
S:v-a«i3 ^
iiiVK-'s ^
~ Normal support services
» Technology scoping
» Technology review, literature, descriptions
» Procurement issues
» Education/training
» Plan review - technology focus
» Help identify "non-technology" support,
expertise
» Results, reports from support activities
posted on site
http://wAww.brownfieldstsc.org
~Request support
~ Home
~Completed projects
View
BTSC
Resources
/ \
n
^
84
-------
Conclusions
~"I can't find information on the technology" is no
longer an excuse to dismiss innovative
approaches
~Direct strategy based on needs only way to
navigate deep, fast, current of the "Sea" of
information (SYSTEMATIC PLANNING)
~Understand no "one-size-fits-all" answer (TRIAD
THEME)
~ Research can pay off in considerable savings in
time and money
85
29
-------
Triad Quiz
-------
Triad Quiz
A - What is the Biggest Contributor
to Effective Environmental Projects?
1. Rigidly defined data quality assurance
procedures and thorough statistical
characterization
2. Clearly defined phases for characterization and
remediation during a project
3. Goal-oriented investigation with a conceptual
site model (CSM) used to guide characterization
4. Convincing regulators that natural heterogeneity
really shouldn't matter
B
- Triad is... (pick 3)
1.
Any expedited, accelerated, or streamlined site
characterization
2.
Real-time measurement technologies
3.
Equivalent to the old "Benthic Triad" consisting of
community, bioassay, and chemistry measures
4.
A small, round stool
5.
Dynamic analytical strategies
6.
Systematic project planning
7.
A chord consisting of dominant, tonic, and subtonic
notes of the musical scale
3
1
-------
C - A CSM is... (pick 2)
1. Where you go to get cash
2. A picture of what is happening to contamination to fuel
decisions about risk and cleanup
3. A cartoon principally useful for explaining risk to the
public
4. A half-caf latte' with whipped cream and macaroon
flavoring
5. A set of inferences about contaminant populations and
behaviors that is used to predict nature and extent of
contamination or exposure
D - Which is NOT a CSM benefit?
(pick 1)
1. The CSM is your working hypothesis about the site's
physical reality, so working without a CSM is like
working blind-folded
2. Modeling and data interpretation aid
3- A communication device for regulators, the public, and
project stakeholders
4. Useful for age dating sediments back to the 1960's
5. A standard means to summarize what is known about
the site and identify data gaps
E - Major Kinds of CSMs (pick 3)
1. Soil - for this medium
2. Comprehensive - scientific and societal information
3. Limited scope - discipline specific (for example, ground
water) or related to particular task
4. Calendric - specific to certain days of the week or month
5. Exposure - risk assessment specific
6. Oceanographic - specific to marine conditions
6
2
-------
F - This CSM illustrates...
1. I am doomed
2. I need more
validated data
fm.- cm
3. I need real-time
measurements
4. This regulator is
gonna be really
mad
5. A CSM that does not ignore the plausible site complexity can
assist you to determine when information is sufficient for decision
7
H - Do you agree?
1. An incomplete or inaccurate CSM can potentially sabotage the
following...
» "Social Capital" (is equal to making progress with the regulator)
» Budget and contracts
» Estimates of exposure (an input to risk calculations)
» Remedial selection and design
» Site reuse options
» Real estate transactions and insurance
2. Yet even despite multiple mobilizations, "surprise" contamination is
often found later
3. Therefore, CSMs should be planned, updated, and become the basis
for continued decisions
I - Real-Time Technologies' Best
Advantages (pick 2)
1. Cheaper, quicker, just as good as fixed
laboratory
2. Keeps your field staff occupied and out of your
cubicle
3. Permit you to adjust the sampling program to
address unexpected developments
4. Regulators can see you doing them
5. Because of lower unit cost, more data density
may be achieved
3
-------
J - Effective Data is... (pick 2)
1. Any data that meets the need of the decision
maker
2. The full name of that yellow-eyed character from
Star Trek the Next Generation
3. Only fixed-laboratory data that has been
validated
4. Those collaborative data sets from field and
fixed laboratories that satisfy project objectives
5. Only real-time field analytical data
10
K - Triad Helps to Manage...
(pick all that apply)
1. The project investigation budget, to assure the least cost
characterization
2. The project life cycle cost, to assure that appropriate and
acceptable remedies are identified
3. Uncertainty associated with project "reality," in a
transparent manner that engages the regulators and
assists close-out
4. The demands of your organization to finish that work
before the fiscal year's end
n
4
-------
-------