Ground Water Sampling Technologies
Verification Test Plan
Environmental Technology
Verification Program
Sponsored by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478
Sandia National Laboratories
Environmental Characterization and Monitoring Department
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0755
July 1999
Version 2
Prepared by
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
ii
-------
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction 9
Demonstration Objectives 9
ETV Program - Site Characterization and Monitoring Pilot Background 9
Performance Evaluation Goal 10
Commercial-Ready Technologies 10
Third-Party Verification Organizations 10
Pilot Phase 11
Pilot Technology Areas 11
Stakeholder Groups 11
Private Sector Funding 11
Pilot Evaluation and Program Decisions 12
Outreach and Information Diffusion 12
Market Gap Definition 12
The Technology Verification Process 12
Identification of Technology Needs 14
Solicitation and Selection of Vendors 14
Demonstration/Test Plan Development 14
Field Demonstration 15
Data Analysis and Reporting 15
Information Outreach 15
Section 2 Roles and Responsibilities 17
Demonstration Participant Roles 17
Responsibilities 18
Project Sponsor: EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory-Environmental Sciences Division
(Las Vegas) 18
Verification Organization: Sandia National Laboratories 18
Demonstration Site: NASA, USGS and associated contractors 18
Technology Vendors 18
Communications, Documentation, Logistics, and Equipment 19
Logistical Responsibilities 19
Vendor Equipment Shipments to SSC 20
Section 3 Technology Descriptions 21
Discrete-Level Pump/grab Samplers 21
Clean Environment Equipment - SamplEase/SampleMan 21
QED Environmental Systems - MicroPurge/Well Wizard 22
Geolog - Geoguard 24
Sibak Industries - Kabis Sampler 25
Multi-Level Samplers 26
Burge Environmental — Multiprobe 100 26
W. L. Gore - Gore Sorber 27
Margan - Diffusional Multi-Level Sampler 29
Section 4 Site Description 31
The NASA-Stennis Space Center 31
US Geological Survey Standpipe 31
Site Geology 33
Site Hydrology 34
NASA-Stennis GW Monitoring Wells 34
Section 5 Sampling Plan 37
l
-------
Summary Objectives 37
Experimental Design Summary 37
Technology categories 37
Experimental factors - pump/grab samplers 37
Target VOC compounds 38
Standpipe standard mixture preparation 38
Standpipe reference samples 38
GW well reference samples 39
Sampling procedures 39
Sample analysis 39
Sample Management 40
Deviations from the Sampling Plan 40
Data analysis 40
Phase 1 Pre-Demonstration 40
Pre-demonstration standpipe sampling objectives 40
Pre-demonstration GW well sampling objectives 41
Pre-demonstration test schedule and task list 41
Phase 2 Full Demonstration Standpipe Sampling 45
Standpipe test objectives 45
Standpipe sampling matrix - Pump/grab samplers 45
Standpipe sampling matrix - Multi-level samplers 46
Phase 3 Full Demonstration—GW Well Sampling 47
GW well sampling test objectives 47
GW sampling matrix - Pump/grab samplers 47
GW sampling matrix - Multi-level samplers 47
Schedule 48
Field Observations 49
Section 6 Sample Analysis 51
Introduction 51
Analytical Qualifications 51
Analytical Procedures 51
Analytical System 51
Quality Assurance/Quality Control 52
Reporting 52
Facility Support Requirements 53
Waste Handling and Management 53
Waste Disposal 53
Section 7 Data Management and Analysis 55
Introduction 55
Field Data Categories 55
Site Environmental 55
Groundwater Sample Collection/Distribution 55
Technology Audit Results 55
Experimental Plan Deviations 55
Laboratory Data Categories 55
Laboratory Sample Analysis Results 55
Laboratory QC Data 55
Laboratory Audit Results 55
Sample and Data Management 56
2
-------
Field and Laboratory Data Management 56
Data Management 56
Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses and Evaluations 56
Data analysis 56
Section 8 Quality Assurance Project Plan 59
Purpose and Scope 59
Quality Assurance Responsibilities 59
Data Quality Parameters 60
Representativeness 60
Completeness 60
Comparability 60
Accuracy 60
Precision 61
Calibration Procedures, Quality Control Checks, and Corrective Action 61
Initial Calibration Procedures 61
Continuing Calibration Procedures 61
Field and Method Blanks 62
PE Samples 62
Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting 62
Data Reduction 62
Data Validation 62
Data Reporting 62
Calculation of Data Quality Indicators 63
Performance and System Audits 63
Performance Audit 63
On-Site System Audits 64
Quality Assurance Reports to Management 64
Status Reports 64
Audit Reports 64
Section 9 Health and Safety Plan 65
Introduction 65
Responsible Personnel 65
Site-Specific Hazard Evaluation 65
Chemical Health Effects, Exposure Pathways and Preventive Measures 65
Health Effects 65
Inhalation 66
Skin Contact 66
Ingestion 66
Physical Hazards 66
Preliminary Safety Briefing 67
Field/Medical Support 68
Periodic Air Monitoring 68
Heat Stress Monitoring 68
Site Control 68
Health and Safety Plan Enforcement 68
Equipment Decontamination 69
Emergency Contingency Planning 69
What to do in the event of an emergency 69
Emergency Information Telephone Numbers 70
3
-------
Hospital Route Directions 70
Section 10 Deliverables 71
Demonstration Plan 71
Technology Verification Report 71
Other Reports 72
Section 11 References 73
Appendix A Field Operations Procedure: GW Sampling
Appendix B Field Operations Procedure: GW Monitoring and Equipment Field
Check
Appendix C Field Operations Procedure: Equipment Decontamination
Appendix D Field Analytical Sample Analysis Method
Appendix E NASA-SSC Health and Safety Plans
4
-------
List of Tables
Table 1 Demonstration Participants and Roles 17
Table 2 VO/Site-Supplied Field Equipment 20
Table 3 Vendor-Supplied Field Equipment (as required by each technology) 20
Table 4 Hydrogeologic Units as SSC 33
Table 5 Hydrologic Conductivity Parameters for SSC 34
Table 6 Candidate GW Monitoring Wells at SSC 35
Table 7 Sampling Technology Categories 37
Table 8 Experimental Factors for Pump/grab and Multi-Level Samplers 38
Table 9 Target VOC compounds 38
Table 10 Pre-demo Standpipe Sampling Matrix - Trial PI 43
Table 11 Pre-demo GW Well Sampling Matrix - Trial P4 43
Table 12 Pre-demo Standpipe Flush Sampling Matrix - Trial P2 44
Table 13 Pre-demo Standpipe Dirty/Clean Sampling Matrix - Trial P3 44
Table 14 Pre-demo GW Well Sampling Matrix - Trial P5 44
Table 15 Pre-demo GW Well Sampling Matrix - Trial P6 45
Table 16 Pump/grab Sampler Matrix for Standpipe Experiment 46
Table 17 Multi-Level Sampler Matrix for Standpipe Experiment 46
Table 18 Full Demonstration Pump/grab Samples from GW Wells 47
Table 19 Full Demonstration Multi-level Samples from GW Wells 48
Table 20 Pre-demo Schedule 48
Table 21 Full Demo Schedule 49
List of Figures
Figure 1 The Environmental Technology Demonstration Verification Process 13
Figure 2 A schematic diagram of the USGS Standpipe (Drawing courtesy of USGS-HIF) 32
Figure 3 The USGS standpipe showing the depth of sampling ports from the top of the pipe 42
5
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ANOVA
Analysis of variance
BFB
Bromofluorobenzene
BNZ
Benzene
BTEX
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
CPR
Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation
1,2-DCA
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-DCE
1,1 -Dichloroethene
DMLS '
Diffusional multi-level sampler
DNAPL
Dense non-aqueous phase layer
DOT
Department of Transportation
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ES&H
Environmental Safety and Health
ETV
Environmental Technology Verification Program
FPA
Field Portable Analytical Inc.
FY
Fiscal year
GC/MS
Gas chromograph/mass spectrometer
GW
Ground water
HASP
Health and safety plan
HIF
Hydrological Instrumentation Facility
LNAPL
Light non-aqueous phase layer
LRL
Lower recovery limit
MS
Mass spectrometry
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NIOSH
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PAH
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCE
T etrachloroethene
PE
Performance evaluation
PPE
Personal protective equipment
QA
Quality assurance
QAPP
Quality assurance program plan
QC
Quality control
%REC
Percent recovery
RSD
Relative standard deviation
SAB
Science Advisory Board
SAP
Sampling and analysis plan
SCMT
Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies Pilot
SD
Standard deviation
SNL
Sandia National Laboratories
SOP
Standard operating procedures
SP
Standpipe
ssc
Stennis Space Center
6
-------
1,1,2-TCA 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethene
USGS United States Geological Survey
VO Verification organization
VOA Volatile organics analysis
VOC Volatile organic compound
7
-------
-------
Section 1 Introduction
This section summarizes the objectives of the ground water (GW) sampling technologies demonstration that
is being conducted under the US EPA Environmental Technology Verification program. The plan also
provides an overview of the Environmental Technology Verification Program Site Characterization and
Monitoring Technologies Pilot Project under whose direction this demonstration is being conducted.
Demonstration Objectives
The overall purpose of this demonstration of GW sampling technologies is to produce a set of field data
which can be used to systematically document the performance characteristics of the participating
technologies. This particular demonstration is targeted at demonstrating groundwater sampling technologies
for the collection of water samples containing volatile organic compounds (VOC). The technologies chosen
for this demonstration are all suited for the collection of VOC-contaminated water from monitoring wells and
offer a range of capabilities applicable to GW sampling. The technologies have been designed with cost-
efficiencies in mind, thereby reducing the overall costs associated with routine groundwater monitoring
programs at contaminated sites. The primary objectives of this demonstration are:
1) Produce a verified data set suitable for evaluating important sampler operating parameters such as
accuracy and precision.
2) Compare sampler performance to a reference sampling method.
3) Demonstrate sampler attributes that may be of particular interest in the technologies intended
scope of application.
4) Record and evaluate the logistical and financial resources needed to operate each sampler.
Secondary objectives of this demonstration are to evaluate the sampling technologies for their reliability,
durability, useful range, and ease of operation. The demonstration is not intended to compare the various
technologies with each other and the evaluation of each technology will be published in a separate technical
report.
ETV Program - Site Characterization and Monitoring Pilot Background
Throughout its history, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has evaluated technologies to
determine their effectiveness in monitoring, preventing, controlling, and cleaning up pollution. Since the
early 1990s, however, numerous government and private groups have identified the lack of an organized
and ongoing program to produce independent, credible performance data as a major impediment to the
development and use of innovative environmental technology. Such data are needed by technology buyers
and permitters both at home and abroad to make informed technology decisions. Because of this broad
input, the President's environmental technology strategy, Bridge to a Sustainable Future, and the Vice
President's National Performance Review, contain initiatives for an EPA program to accelerate the
development of environmental technology through objective verification and reporting of technology
performance. In 1994, EPA's Office of Research and Development formed a work group to plan the
implementation of the Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV). The work group
produced a Verification White Paper that guided the initial stages of the program. Following the efforts
of this work group, a Verification Strategy was developed that updates the earlier paper based upon the
evolution of the program over recent years. The Verification Strategy outlines the operating principles
and implementation activities that are shaping the program, as well as the challenges that are emerging
and the decisions that must be addressed in the future. The program will continue to be modified through
input from all parties having a stake in environmental technology, through further operational experience,
9
-------
and through formal evaluation of the program. The Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies
Pilot is one of 12 pilots operating under the ETV umbrella. The other eleven pilots are listed below:
1) Drinking Water Systems
2) Pollution Prevention/Waste Treatment
3) Pollution Prevention/Metal Finishing
4) Pollution Prevention/Innovative Coatings
5) Indoor Air Products
6) Advanced Monitoring Systems
7) Air Pollution Prevention and Control
8) EvTEC (an independent private-sector approach)
9) Wet Weather Flows Technologies
10) Source Water Pollution Technologies
11) Climate Change Technologies
The goal of the overall ETV program, which remains unchanged, is to verify the environmental
performance characteristics of commercial-ready technology through the evaluation of objective and
quality assured data, so that potential purchasers and permitters are provided with an independent and
credible assessment of what they are buying or approving for use in environmental characterization or
monitoring activities requiring regulatory agency oversight.
Several important operating principles have defined the basic ETV program structure and remain
fundamental to its operation. These are briefly outlined below.
Performance Evaluation Goal
Under ETV, environmental technologies are evaluated to ascertain and report their performance
characteristics. EPA and its partners will not seek to determine regulatory compliance; will not rank
technologies or compare their performance; will not label or list technologies as acceptable or
unacceptable; and will not seek to determine "best available technology" in any form. In general, the
Agency will avoid all potential pathways to picking "winners and losers". The goal of the program is to
make objective performance information available to all of the actors in the environmental marketplace
for their consideration and decision making.
Commercial-Ready Technologies
The ETV program is a service of EPA to the domestic and international marketplace in order to
encourage rapid acceptance and implementation of improved environmental technology. ETV, therefore,
focuses its resources on technologies that are either in, or ready for, full-scale commercialization. The
program does not evaluate technologies at the pilot or bench scale and does not conduct or support
research. Participation in ETV is completely voluntary.
Third-Party Verification Organizations
ETV leverages the capacity, expertise, and existing facilities of others through third-party partnerships in
order to achieve universal coverage for all technology types as rapidly as possible. Third-party
verification organizations are chosen from the both the public and private sector, including states,
universities, associations, business consortia, private testing firms, and federal laboratories. EPA designs
and conducts auditing and oversight procedures of these organizations, as appropriate, to assure the
credibility of the process and data. In order to determine if EPA participation is important to the
commercialization process, ETV is testing the option of one totally unstructured and independent, private
sector pilot in which EPA's role will be solely fiduciary. In addition, the Agency will continue to publish
10
-------
the results of commercial-ready technology evaluations that it conducts in the normal course of its
business.
Pilot Phase
The program is currently in the middle of a five-year pilot phase to test a wide range of partner and
procedural alternatives, as well as the true market demand for and response to such a program.
Throughout the pilot period, EPA and its partners operate in a flexible and creative manner in order to
identify new and efficient methods to verify environmental technologies, while maintaining the highest
credibility standards. The operational objective is to actively look for ways to optimize procedures
without compromising quality. The ultimate objective of the pilot phase is to design and implement a
permanent verification capacity and program within EPA by 2000, should the evaluation of the
effectiveness of the program warrant it.
Pilot Technology Areas
ETV has begun with pilots in narrow technology areas in each of the major environmental media and will
expand as appropriate, based on market forces, availability of resources, and the willingness of the
marketplace to pay for third-party verification. For example, the drinking water technology pilot has
started with a focus on microbial and particulate contaminants, and disinfection byproducts in small
systems (less than 3300 users), an obvious and very large domestic and international market with pressing
environmental problems. In fiscal year 1997 (FY97), the program will be expanded to the wider area of
nitrates and synthetic organic chemicals and pesticides in all drinking water systems. Success in particular
technology areas will allow the program to have a "pump-priming" effect to bring new technologies to the
marketplace. Selection criteria for ETV pilot programs and other verification focus areas are discussed in
a subsequent section of this paper.
Stakeholder Groups
The ETV program is guided and shaped by the expertise of appropriate stakeholder groups in all aspects
of the program. These groups consist of representatives of all customer groups: buyers and users of
technology, developers and vendors, and, most importantly, technology "enablers", i.e., the consulting
engineering community that recommends technology alternatives to purchasers, and the state permitters
and regulators who allow it to be used. Stakeholder groups must be unique to each technology area in
order to capture the important individual aspects of the different environmental media and to get buy-in
from affected groups. For example, state drinking water permitters are necessary to participate in
development of testing protocols for Cryptosporidium; air pollution regulators are needed to evaluate
innovative compliance monitoring devices; metal production parts manufacturers need to help design
testing procedures for new coating compounds. In general, the role of stakeholders will be to assist in the
development of procedures and protocols, prioritize types of technologies to be verified, review all
important documents emerging from the pilot, assist in defining and conducting outreach activities
appropriate to the particular area, and, finally, to serve as information conduits to the particular
constituencies that they represent. As of June 1996, over 80 individuals are serving in the three
stakeholder groups formed to date.
Private Sector Funding
Over the pilot phase of the program, the costs of verifying technologies in many pilots will move from a
primarily government-funded effort to a primarily private-sector funded effort. At least two pilots will be
vendor supported from the beginning. The original goal, as articulated in the 1994 strategy, called for
complete private sector sponsorship within three years. A recent review of the program by a panel of
outside experts convened by the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) concluded that such a goal was
11
-------
probably not achievable in so short a time-frame (they suggested five to eight years) and that some level
of government support (10 to 20% of ongoing costs) would remain necessary to keep the activity viable.
Conclusions on this issue will have to be reached as data emerge on the economic value-added of the
program and the cost that the private sector is willing to bear in the various technology sectors.
Pilot Evaluation and Program Decisions
The Agency will collect data on operational parameters, e.g., number of participants; cost and time
required to perform tests and report results, and on outcomes, e.g., use of data by the states and public;
sales reported by vendors, in order to evaluate all aspects of the program. EPA will use this information to
make long-term recommendations to the Congress on the future and shape of the program in December
1998. Among the choices at that time will be the formulation of a permanent, broad scale program; the
narrowing of efforts to certain areas in which ETV appears to be effective; or the discontinuance of
verification efforts. The latter conclusion could be reached either because state regulators/permit writers
and the technology innovation industry are not assisted by ETV or because the cost of verification proves
to be prohibitive.
Outreach and Information Diffusion
As was pointed out by the SAB in its 1995 review of ETV, verification alone will not move better,
cheaper, faster technologies to success in the marketplace. Substantive and substantial interface with the
permitters of environmental technology (primarily at the state level) will be necessary to have any chance
of rapidly implementing innovative approaches. To date, the outreach activities of the program have been
limited to assuring substantial state representation on the Stakeholder Groups that are designing the
protocols and procedures for each pilot; developing informational fact sheets about the program; and
placing a Web page on the Internet. In 1997, the Agency intends to develop an overarching outreach
strategy with the help of a "corporate board" of major organizations in the technology area, e.g., National
Governors Association, Western Governors Association, Environmental Council of the States, National
Pollution Prevention Roundtable, appropriate corporations, and others. State permitter training, a national
conference and other efforts will be included.
Market Gap Definition
Lastly, EPA will track applications and expressions of interest on the part of technology developers who
come to all parts of the Agency that do not fit into the present suite of verification activities. This universe
will be characterized during the initial stages of the pilot period and a strategy to address gaps will be
developed.
The Technology Verification Process
The SCMT Pilot provides developers with a clearly defined technology verification pathway to follow, from
demonstration planning to data evaluation and verification, as shown in Figure 1. The demonstration process
is a cooperative effort of EPA, the Verification Organization (VO), in this case Sandia National Laboratories
(SNL), and the participating vendors.
12
-------
Environmental Technology Demonstration
and Verification Process
Site Characterization and Monitoring Technologies Pilot
Demo Plan
Preparation
Guidance
Document
Field
Demonstration
Technology
Verification
Report
Verification
Statement
EPA with assistance
from Program Regions
Other Agencies
Developers
Professional Societies
SNL and Sites with
assistance from
Developers (EPA review
and approval)
Developer with
Assistance from SNL
(with EPA oversight)
SNL with assistance from
sites (EPA oversight and
approval)
Prepared by SNL/EPA
and sent to Developer,
EPA Program & Other
Agencies State, Public
Figure 1 The Environmental Technology Demonstration Verification Process
The technology verification process established by the Pilot is intended to serve as a template for conducting
technology demonstrations that will generate high quality data that can be used to verify technology
performance. This process will be applied to demonstrations conducted by both private and public (e.g., DoD
and DOE) entities. The pilot's verification process can help in moving innovative site characterization and
monitoring technologies into routine use more quickly.
The verification of a technology's performance involves six sequential steps :
1) Identification of technology needs
2) Solicitation and selection of vendors
3) Development of demonstration/test plan
4) Field demonstration
5) Data analysis and reporting
6) Information transfer
Although the Agency is interested in any and all innovative site characterization and monitoring technologies,
resources for verification testing are limited. Consequently, an important Pilot activity is the identification of
technology and data gaps that impede cost-effective and efficient environmental problem-solving. This
assessment, done through stakeholder interactions, enables the prioritization of technology demonstrations to
best meet user community needs.
The Pilot also provides technology cost and performance data to the intended technology user groups. An
important product of the Pilot is the preparation of reports that contain the data generated for each
technology demonstration along with a summary of technology performance. The distribution of this
performance information to the user community facilitates user community acceptance of innovative
technologies. Following a field demonstration, the data are evaluated by the verification organization and a
report that systematically evaluates technology performance characteristics is distributed. A verification
statement1 will be issued summarizing the technology's performance and ability to meet the user
communities' site characterization and monitoring needs.
The verification statement is prepared by the verification organization, is signed by the EPA, and is provided to the developer. It is a three-page
summary of the performance results for each participating technology.
13
-------
Identification of Technology Needs
Technology categories are reviewed and selected based stakeholder group feedback and the perception of
pilot personnel with regard to user-community needs. Technology categories are considered in light of their
ability to meet one or more of the following criteria:
capable of being used in the field or in a mobile laboratory
applicable to a variety sites (hazardous waste, contaminated, brownfields)
acceptable performance in comparison to conventional analytical methods
acceptable logistical and economic resources to operate
adequate maturity
meets a recognized environmental characterization or monitoring need
represents a special request priority
addresses a unique problem
Solicitation and Selection of Vendors
Technology solicitation and selection are carried out through the use of a Developers' Conference at which
Developers, Verification Organization, and EPA personnel come together to discuss and review the
applicability of various candidate technologies to an identified need in the environmental characterization and
monitoring community. Following the conference, the Verification and EPA personnel review the candidate
technologies and select those that best fit the anticipated demonstration area. In some cases, additional
technology solicitation may be carried out following the conference in order to populate the demonstration
with the most applicable technologies.
Demonstration/Test Plan Development
After a technology has been judged appropriate for an ETV Demonstration, the developers are asked to
submit a letter of intent to participate in the demonstration. This letter provides a description of the
technology along with technology performance characteristics such as instrument detection levels, accuracy,
precision, linear range and others. These vendor-supplied instrument performance characteristics are
particularly useful in the development of a comprehensive demonstration design by the verification
organization. The activities listed below are carried out in the process of demonstration design
• Identifying demonstration sites that will provide the appropriate analytes in the desired environmental
sample media or media (contaminants must be present in concentrations amenable to the technology
being evaluated)
• Defining the roles of appropriate demonstration participants, observers, and reviewers
• Arranging analytical support for comparative testing (for example, reference analysis)
• Supplying standard operating procedures (SOPs), analysis methodologies, and other relevant protocols
• Addressing the experimental design, sampling design, QA/QC, health and safety considerations
• Scheduling field and laboratory operations, data analysis procedures, and data output format
• Determining logistical requirements and support (for example, field equipment, power and water sources,
mobile laboratory, communications network)
• Anticipating possible corrective actions that may be required during the actual demonstration and
providing this information to the demonstration participants
• Assuring the overall demonstration design will provide a data set adequate for the determination of
instrument performance characteristics.
14
-------
Field Demonstration
The technologies are evaluated under field test conditions at real environmental sites. The evaluations of
each technology is conducted independently from other participating technologies and each evaluation
includes a comparison with reference technologies where applicable. Testing is generally conducted at two
sites in at attempt to broaden the range of conditions under which the evaluation is conducted. An audit of
each technology is also conducted in the field to thoroughly document performance conditions and method of
use.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Data from the field demonstration are analyzed and a summary of sampler performance is prepared by the
verification organization. The data are organized into a indexed data volume, with accompanying analytical
procedures and analytical results. The data and accompanying analyses are subjected to peer review to insure
data quality and integrity. A summary report, called an Environmental Technology Verification Report, that
outlines technology performance along with a summary of the sites used for the demonstration and the
demonstration design is prepared and published as an official EPA document.. A three-page verification
statement will accompany this report and serve as an executive summary of the demonstration and the
technology performance. In this demonstration, the data analysis and reporting will be conducted by Sandia
National Laboratories (SNL), one of the SCMT Pilot's verification organizations.
Information Outreach
The ETV program has an aggressive and varied program of information outreach. The program has an
extensive web site that includes all lists of all stakeholder groups, testing schedules, test plans,
verification reports and statements as well as other supporting information. Although limited paper
copies of verification reports and statements are prepared, the web site is viewed as the primary tool for
information outreach. The program also participates in a wide variety of conferences and professional
society meetings with exhibit booths and organized panel discussions. The Site Characterization and
Monitoring Pilot also, through the coordination of EPA's Technology Integration Office, hosts periodic
electronic brown-bag seminars featuring discussion of verification testing results. These seminars utilize
a conference call mechanism combined with visual aids that are available via the Web to those
participating in the call.
15
-------
16
-------
Section 2 Roles and Responsibilities
This section identifies the organizations involved in this technology demonstration and describes the
responsibilities of each organization throughout the demonstration process.
Demonstration Participant Roles
The primary demonstration participants and roles are shown in Table 1. Roles for each participant are
briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.
Table 1 Demonstration Participants and Roles
Agency/Company
Point of Contact
Role
US EPA -NERL (Las Vegas)
Eric Koglin
EPA Project Officer
Steve Gardner
Technical Review
Sandia National Laboratories
Wayne Einfeld
Verification Org. Project Manager
Tom Burford
QA/QC Officer
Gary Bailey
Robert Lynch
Reference Sampling Team
Members
US Geological Survey
Ed Ford
Bill Davies
NASA SSC Interface
Standpipe Facility Support
USGS ES&H Officers
NASA
Janette Gordon
GW Monitoring Admin Oversight
Foster Wheeler
Greg New
GWWell Selection Consultant
Johnson Controls
Paul Byrd
ES&H Officer
Wendy Robinson
Onsite GW Monitoring and Waste
Management Coordinator
Field Portable Analytical
Craig Crume
Dave Curtis
Onsite Sample Analysis
Burge Environmental
Scott Burge
Technology Vendor
Clean Environment Engineering
Michael Breslin
Technology Vendor
GeoLog
Jim Mirand
Technology Vendor
QED
David Kaminski
Technology Vendor
Margan
Dan Ezra
Technology Vendor
Sibak Industries
Tom Kabis
Technology Vendor
W. L. Gore
Andre' Brown
Technology Vendor
A description of the roles of the various participants in the demonstration is given below: This
demonstration is being conducted by SNL under the guidance of the U.S. EPA National Exposure
Research Laboratory/Environmental Sciences Division/Characterization Research Branch, located in
Las Vegas. The EPA's role is to administer the overall Site Characterization and Monitoring
Technologies Pilot. The EPA Project Officer is Eric Koglin. The EPA personnel will also serve in a
technical review and QA audit capacity during the demonstration.
Sandia National Laboratories' role as the Verification Organization (VO) is to provide technical and
administrative leadership and support in demonstration planning, demonstration conduct, data
analysis, and documentation. Sandia will take the lead in the process of technology solicitation and
selection and demonstration planning. Prior to and during the field demonstration, Sandia will work
closely with site personnel and technology developers to efficiently plan and carry out the
demonstration. Sandia will provide technology auditors to oversee sample management and review
the technologies used during the field demonstration. Sandia have the lead role in analysis of the data
17
-------
following the field demonstration and will summarize its findings in a Technology Verification
Report for each participating technology.
The technology developers are required to submit written technology descriptions for inclusion in the
demonstration plan. They will also be required to review and comment on the draft demonstration
plan. At the demonstration, the developers will operate the technology and be responsible for
submitting their analytical data to the verification organization at the conclusion of the demonstration.
The developers will also be required to review their respective Technology Verification reports prior
to final publication.
Responsibilities
Specific responsibilities for each of the demonstration participants are outlined in detail below.
Project Sponsor: EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory-Environmental Sciences
Division (Las Vegas)
• Overall project management responsibilities
• Technical review of demonstration plan and verification reports
• Final approval on vendor selection and demonstration plan
• Program management oversight during field demonstration
• Quality assurance project plan audits
• Coordination of EPA peer-review of demonstration documents
• Final approval of Technology Verification Reports and Verification Statements
Verification Organization: Sandia National Laboratories
• Design and prepare all elements of the demonstration plan with developer input.
• Develop a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) and a health and safety plan (HASP) for the
demonstration activities in consultation with the site representatives.
• Coordination of all interagency and vendor communications both prior to, during, and following
the field demonstration.
• Field demonstration site selection
• Review and selection of reference laboratory support
• Providing detailed procedures for technology field use with developer input.
• Oversight of Performance Evaluation sample preparation and distribution
• Oversight of field sample collection, management and transport
• Coordinate site logistical and other support, as required
• Coordinate pre-demonstration and field demonstration activities
• Providing documentation of the experimental methodology and operation of the technology with
developer input.
• Data reduction and technical reporting
Demonstration Site: NASA, USGS and associated contractors
• Grant access to the site and help coordinate standpipe facility and monitoring well access
• Review of demonstration plan
• Supporting role in field sample collection, management and transport
• Waste management responsibilities
• Visitor's Day Coordination
Technology Vendors
Pay a non-negotiable $5,000 verification testing fee to Sandia National Laboratories
18
-------
Provide input (technology description and performance specifications) for the demonstration plan
Review and comment on the proposed demonstration plan
Provide formal written procedures for technology field use
Operate the technology during the demonstration
Participate in the demonstration in accordance with the procedures outlined in the demonstration plan.
Review and comment on draft Technology Verification Report
The Verification Organization, prior to the onset of the field demonstration, will provide a complete
hazard communication briefing in collaboration with the site owner or its contractor. The briefing will
include a description of environmental safety and health hazards likely to be encountered during the
field demonstration along with safe work practices to be followed by all demonstration participants.
The Verification Organization will take appropriate steps to provide a safe working environment
during the demonstration, however the ultimate responsibility for vendor participant safety rests with
each vendor organization for its representatives at the field demonstration.
Communications, Documentation, Logistics, and Equipment
SNL will communicate regularly with the demonstration participants to coordinate all field activities
associated with the demonstration and to resolve any logistical, technical, or QA issues that may arise as
the each demonstration progresses. A short briefing and time for resolution of issues will be held at the
start of each day during the demonstration. The successful implementation of the demonstration will
require detailed coordination and constant communication between all demonstration participants.
All critical vendor field activities will be documented both by the vendor and verification organization.
Means of field documentation will include field logbooks, photographs, field data sheets, and chain-of-
custody forms. The SNL field team leader will be responsible for maintaining all field documentation.
Field notes will be kept in a bound logbook. Each page will be sequentially numbered and labeled with
the project name and number. Completed pages will be signed and dated by the individual responsible
for the entries. Errors will have one line drawn through them and this line will be initialed and dated.
Specific notes about each sample collected, as required, will be written on sample field sheets, and in the
field logbook. Any deviations from the approved final demonstration plan will be thoroughly
documented in the field logbook and communicated to the SNL technical lead and other parties that may
be affected by the change.
Original field sheets and chain-of-custody forms will accompany all samples shipped to the reference
laboratory. Copies of field sheets and chain-of-custody forms for all samples will be maintained in the
project file, maintained by Sandia, the Verification Organization.
Logistical Responsibilities
The responsibility for providing the necessary equipment to conduct this demonstration is shared
between the verification organization and the vendors. The following two tables (Table 2 and 3) list the
support equipment and services to be provided by the VO and vendors, respectively.
19
-------
Table 2 VO/Site-Supplied Field Equipment
Chemicals and mixed solutions for standpipe
Equipment for preparation of standpipe mixtures
Deionized water for sampler decon (for both VO and vendors)
Receptacle for decon wastewater (for both VO and vendors)
Pre-cleaned 40 mL VOA vials (for both VO and vendors)
Sample labeling materials and Chain of Custody forms
Purge water quality monitoring instrumentation (for VO use only, not for vendor use)
Data reporting forms (sreadsheet templates, forms, etc.)
Coolers and Blue Ice for sample storage
Vendor Equipment Shipments to SSC
Vendors must accept all responsibility for the timely shipment of their equipment to SSC in
preparation for the demonstration. Vendors should assume that they should provide all equipment not
included in the above list unless other arrangements have been made.
The mailing address for vendors to send equipment to is.
U.S. Geological Survey
Building 2101
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000
ATTENTION: Ed Ford - ETV
Any packages sent to the above address will not be opened but will be held until the vendors arrive to
claim them. Vendors should make sure that any equipment mailed to us is well packaged to prevent
damage by the carrier and that they are insured.
Table 3 Vendor-Supplied Field Equipment (as required by each technology)
Vehicle for transportation to the demonstration sites.
Complete sampling apparatus.
Sampler decon equipment (or use onsite equipment after coordination with VO)
Purge water quality monitoring instruments (if required)
Purge water monitoring data forms
Calibration solutions for water quality monitoring instruments (if required)
General field supplies (solvents, tissues, etc.) as needed.
Appropriate clothing and equipment for field sampling activities
Appropriate protective gear (gloves, safety glasses etc.) for GWwell sampling
OSHA 40-hr HAZWOPER Training for GW sampling crews
20
-------
Section 3 Technology Descriptions
This section includes a description of each of the technologies who will be participating in this
demonstration. At the present time, seven technologies have expressed an interest in participating in
this demonstration. The technologies range from simple to complex and address a broad spectrum of
characterization and monitoring needs encountered in regional or local groundwater monitoring
programs. Each fulfills a specific characterization or monitoring role; and, in some cases, the
technologies may be viewed as complementary to each other. The various technologies are presented
in alphabetical order in the following sections.
Discrete-Level Pump/grab Samplers
The participating technologies have been categorized into two general categories, namely, discrete
level pump/grab samplers and multi-level samplers. The discrete level samplers are briefly outlined
below
Clean Environment Equipment - SamplEase/SampleMan
BACKGROUND
Since 1982 Clean Environment Equipment (CEE) has a manufacturer of pneumatic pumps and
controls which are used in the sampling and remediation of ground water. The SamplEase™
sampling system designed by CEE has a number of unique products consisting of a several models of
Teflon-bladder pumps, pneumatic controllers, well caps, fittings, tubing and accessories.
EQUIPMENT DESIGN
The SamplEase™ pump is typically installed in a well and submerged in the ground water. It is filled
via hydrostatic pressure through its lower check valve. When the annulus between the stainless outer
tube and the Teflon bladder is pressurized with compressed gas, the bladder is squeezed and the
collected ground water is forced upwards through the pump's upper check valve and is thus expelled
from the well. When the compressed gas is released from the annular space outside the bladder, the
pump can fill again.
The SamplEase™ pumps are designed to disassemble easier than prior art. They are available in two
lengths with PVC or Teflon heads. CEE has a wider range of tubing fittings for sampling pumps than
what is normally available. These options give the user the ability to better use the pump in a
portable or dedicated mode.
The SampleMan™ Controllers are designed to be the smallest, lightest, most durable and reliable
controllers on the market. They were designed for ease of understanding, use and handling. The
circuit design has been used for many years in remediation systems created by CEE. The bright
yellow color was selected to show up easily so it is easy to find in storage bags, the back of pickup
trucks, in darkened vans and on the site at dusk.
The controls are designed to be user friendly, operate with wet compressed air, to operate in rain
storms, and to survive submersion in water and be ready to be used within minutes afterwards.
The SamplEase™ System can be used in either portable or dedicated mode and can perform in either
the high-purge or low-flow sample collection mode of operation.
21
-------
NEW SAMPLING PROCEDURE
CEE has also developed what is believed to be a new sampling method to be used with bladder
pumps and the low-flow sampling method. The CEEP™ method overcomes some of the arguments
against the typical use of bladder pumps for sampling. It has not been mentioned in any of the
literature on bladder pumps or the low-flow sampling method read by CEE employees. When
introduced to people in the sampling industry, the universal response is one of interest and a statement
that they have not heard of it previously. It is hoped the method would be tested by this EPA
evaluation test program.
UNIQUE ADVANTAGES OF THE CEEP™ SAMPLING METHOD -
Low-flow CEEP sampling is from within the well screen can greatly reduce the volume of water
purged from a well before samples are collected. The typical advantages include:
Reduced Purge volume of up to 95%.
Quality and accuracy is improved
Consistency is improved
In addition, the method not only discharges the contents of the pump at the low-flow rate (100 to 500
ml/min.), but it also intakes the fluid at the about the same rate. This is unlike other methods which
discharge slowly, but then intake rapidly. Such an operation can defeat the purpose of the low-flow
sampling technique.
01:1) Environmental Systems — Micro Purge/Well Wizard
BACKGROUND
Sampling ground water has traditionally involved purging a monitoring well to remove stagnant water
in the well casing prior to sampling. The approach of removing 3-5 volumes of the well often results in
the removal of large volumes of water. Users resort to high pumping rates to purge efficiently; where
wells are hand bailed, large purge volumes make bailing a tedious and time-consuming task. If purge
water must be collected or treated, large purge volumes create handling problems, and treatment costs
can add greatly to sampling budgets.
These traditional purging methods can affect sample quality and greatly increase sample turbidity,
causing false-positive analytical results that can trigger re-sampling or assessment. Sample filtration
simply adds to the time and cost of sampling and analysis, and can cause bias or error in results.
MICROPURGE SAMPLING
The MicroPurge sampling method is based on the "low-flow/minimal drawdown" sampling procedure
described by Puis and Barcelona in their 1996 EPA Ground Water Issue paper (EPA/540/S-95/504).
The three main elements of their approach are:
1. Place a variable-flow sampling pump within the well intake zone
2. Operate the pump at a low flow rate while continuously monitoring the water level in the well
3. Monitor water chemistry indicator parameters to determine when purging is completed.
The well must be pumped at flow rates low enough to avoid turbulent flow through the well screen that
could mobilize fine particles from the sand pack and surrounding formation and increase sample
turbidity. To prevent movement of overlying stagnant water into the sampling device and over-
stressing the surrounding formation, the water level in the well must be monitored during pumping and
the flow rate adjusted to prevent continuous drawdown of the water level. Indicator parameter
monitoring is achieved through use of an in-line flow cell chamber with associated sensors and
instrument.
22
-------
ADVANTAGES OF MICROPUURGE SAMPLING
Low-flow MicroPurge sampling from within the well screen can greatly reduce the volume of water
purged from a well before samples are collected. The advantages include:
• Purge volume is typically reduced 90-95%, with resultant purge time reduction for most wells.
• Sample quality and accuracy are improved through reduced turbidity and minimized alteration.
False-positive results for turbidity-affected analytes can be eliminated.
• Sample precision can also improve, making it easier to "pass" statistical data evaluation.
MICROPURGE SAMPLING SYSTEM COMPONENTS
QED's MicroPurge sampling system is made up of the following components (as shown in the figure
below):
~ A dedicated Well Wizard® bladder pump system (pump, inlet screen, tubing and well cap
assembly)
~ Model 400 Digital Controller for controlling pump flow rate
~ Model 6400 Digital Water Level Measurement system (down-well probe and instrument)
~ Model FC4000 Flow Cell Water Analyzer
~ System driver (portable electric or gasoline-powered compressor, or compressed gas cylinder)
Pump Controller Water Level Meter
W/ Data Storage W/ Data Storage
IX
jlj JH
I;
Water
Level
Probe
Low-Flow
Bladder
Pump
PURGE
WATER
In-Line Flow Cell
Analyzer W/ Data
Logging
APPICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS
23
-------
MicroPurge sampling systems can be used in a wide variety of hydrogeologic setting and monitoring
programs. MicroPurge sampling is appropriate for collection of ground-water samples for all ground-
water contaminants and any naturally occurring analytes, including metals and other inorganics,
pesticides, PCBs, volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds (VOCs and SVOCs), other organic
compounds, radiochemical and microbiological constituents. This method is not applicable to the
collection of light or dense non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs or DNAPLs). Nearly any type of well
configuration can be accommodated, though long-screened wells may require equipment modifications.
Systems have been installed to depths of 1,100 feet (335 meters). Well diameters of 1.5 inches (38 mm)
and larger can be equipped with MicroPurge systems.
MicroPurge® and Well Wizard® are registered trademarks of QED Environmental Systems, Inc.
Geolog — Geoguard
A bladder pump is submersible, air-operated pump that was developed on or about 1980, the
cooperative efforts of an independent manufacturer and a USGS scientist. The device was developed
as a better way to acquire samples from ground water monitoring wells. Simple in design, a bladder
pump has inlet and outlet check valves, and an internal membrane (bladder) that separates the drive
air from the sample.
Since 1980 as many as nine different companies have manufactured bladder pumps. During this time
numerous studies and technical papers have been published that have promoted the benefits of using
bladder pumps over other lift devices such as bailers, electric submersible pumps and peristaltic
pumps. The U.S. EPA has stated that "bladder pumps are generally recognized as the best overall
sampling device for both organic and inorganic constituents..." (ref. U.S. EPA Solid Waste Disposal
Facility Criteria, Nov. 1993 Technical Manual). The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has approved and
recommended this technology for use on numerous DOE and DOD facilities. Conservative estimates
indicate that over 60,000 of these devices have been commercially produced and installed since the
technology was first conceived.
The use of a dedicated bladder pump is critical to the success of the low-flow method. By having the
pump permanently in place, turbidity is significantly eliminated, and there is no potential of agitating
the water column, as is common when portable pumps or hand bailers are used. Also, the manner in
which a bladder pump is actuated allows the sample to be obtained without agitation, which is critical
to the preservation of volatile organic compounds. Finally, since the internal membrane separates the
drive air from the sample, there is no mixing or potential for aeration.
The low-flow method relies on purging at a rate not to exceed 500 ml per minute, also while
monitoring specific water quality parameters such as pH, temperature, conductivity, and dissolved
oxygen. When specific parameters stabilize, the sample can be obtained at a rate of 100 ml per minute
or less. Studies have indicated that purge water volumes are greatly reduced when using this method,
as compared to a volumetric purging protocol, which often required 3 to 5 well volumes. When
considering the disposal costs associated with purge water, facilities with large numbers of
monitoring wells can significantly reduce the operating costs associated with their sampling
programs.
In summary, the low-flow sampling method utilizing dedicated bladder pumps is a cost effective way
to acquire ground water samples. Solid waste disposal facilities (landfills) represent the largest
24
-------
potential end user of this technology, specifically if the international market begins to adopt U.S. EPA
standards.
Sibak Industries - Kabis Sampler
Introduction
The KABIS Sampler is a revolutionary new groundwater sampling device designed to eliminate
sample turbidity, eliminate organic constituent volatilization, and eliminate costly well purging.
There are three versions, one of which easily fits any 2" well. The other two versions may be used in
wells 4" diameter or larger, and will take either 1 liter bottle sample or three simultaneous 40 ml vial
samples.
Sampler Operation
General - KABIS Sampler cap is loaded with any standard VOA vial and the cap is screwed to the
weighted body. The sampler is then lowered down the well to the predetermined sampling depth at
which point the sampler automatically begins filling (sampling) by means of differential head
pressure. Sampling is facilitated via laminar flow directly into the sample container. Low turbidity is
achieved through the minimal disturbance caused by the hydrodynamic shape of the sampler. The
minor field modification, the KABIS Sampler can sample through free-floating product, or scavenge
from the bottom of the well.
Well Purging - The KABIS Sampler is engineered to obtain a sample from any depth desired. This
means that the sampler can be lowered down the well to a depth substantially below the top of the
screened interval, where the well is free to communicate with formational ground-water. The result is
a representative sample of the formational groundwater without the generation of hazardous purge-
water waste and associated disposal costs.
Turbidity - Turbidity is kept low due to the hydrodynamic shape of the sampler. The "bullet" shape
of the sampler weight, attached to the sampler body, gently and almost imperceptibly pierces the
water column creating laminar flow across the smooth outer sampler body surface. The result is
minimal disturbance to the settled flocculants and clay/silt particles in the well and therefore, less
turbid sample collection.
Low VOC Loss - The sample collection tube is positioned so that it rests approximately % inch
above the bottom of the sample container. The container is slowly filled from the bottom up. Using
the best laboratory procedures, the receiving container is repeatedly rinsed with the receiving sample,
assuring purity through repeated flushing (a procedure recommended in "Standard Methods"). In
fact, the KABIS Sampler flushes the sample container a minimum of six times (3 times for the liter
sampler) before actually taking the sample for laboratory analysis.
Because the sample is collected directly into the sampling container, VOC loss through sampler
transfer is eliminated. Because there is little disturbance to the water column during sampler
penetration, VOC loss is eliminated. Finally, because the sample container is filled from the bottom-
up via laminar flow and in the absence of air (at the point of filling), effervescence, splashing, and
bubbling (sources for volatilization) are eliminated. The sample container is removed from the
sampler, preserved if necessary, and immediately capped.
25
-------
Sample Preservation
The sample may be preserved using sodium thiosulfate directly through the fill tube, or by acidifying
after removing the sample container (VOA vial or other container) from the sampler.
Construction
The KABIS Sampler is precision machined from solid stainless steel. All crevices and corners have
been radiused or hollow-ground to leave no "square" edges. The sampler is sturdy and field-ready.
The sampler is stored and carried in a sturdy carrying case which is fitted with holders for sample
containers, cleaning solutions, preservation solutions and an upright can postioner for the sampler
when it is being downloaded.
There are no moving parts, so there is nothing to break down. If the sampler is accidentally run over
by a vehicle or damaged in any way, components are easily removed and replaced (there are only
two; the cap and the body). Even dented (in the middle), the sampler will still operate and be capable
of obtaining a viable sample.
Decontamination
The KABIS Sampler is designed for ease of operation and decontamination. In order to
decontaminate the sampler after use, simple immerse the sampler alternately in ALCONOX ™ (or
equivalent) and deionized water. Let the sampler air dry after use (in the field) or immediately load
another sample container and proceed to the next well. The all-stainless steel construction also allows
the sampler to be periodically cleaned in an autoclave.
Multi-Level Samplers
This technology category includes those samplers that have the capability of sampling at multiple
levels within a monitoring well. The category includes both pump/grab samplers, diffusional
samplers, and integrating samplers.
Burge Environmental — Multiprobe 100
Product Name: Multiprobe 100
Physical Characteristics
Size: Lower Unit: 12 inches long for 4-inch diameter wells
Upper Unit: 18 inches long and 4 inches in diameter
Available Diameters: 2- and 4-inch
Weight: Approximately 3 pounds for 4-inch diameter unit
Method of Operation
To be provided...
Range of Applications
Ground Water Sampling-The system may be placed into a monitoring well to collect discrete samples
from any interval within the well. The sampling system uses a micro-purging technology to reduce
the amount of water brought to the surface.
Sensor Platforms-The system was designed to locate sensors inside or outside of a monitoring well.
The sampling system is capable of creating a headspace over a volume of water while under the static
water level of the well. This design allows various sensors to be placed within a monitoring well
26
-------
without becoming wet. Alternatively, the sensors can be placed at the top of the well casing or in
specially designed, environmentally controlled boxes adjacent to the monitoring wells. A calibration
module is available which allows the sensors to be calibrated while residing inside the monitoring
well.
Multi-Level Sampling-The standard system is capable of sampling up to 4 separate levels within
existing monitoring wells without any major modifications of the sampling modules. Stacking two
modules allows for multi-level sampling of up to 8 separate levels.
Required Support Equipment
The system requires a cylinder of compressed gas (nitrogen). The operation pressure is usually less
than 30 psi, which allows a cylinder of nitrogen to collect hundreds of samples before recharging the
cylinder.
Cost
The cost of the basic 4-inch diameter ground water sampling system capable of collection samples
from four levels within a monitoring well is $3,000.00.
Maintenance Requirements
Periodic replacement of the nitrogen cylinder is required. Because the only moving parts of the
ground-water sampling system are electrically controlled valves, the system is capable of years of
operation without replacement of electrical components.
Materials of Construction
The system is constructed of Teflon™, Pyrex™ glass, stainless steel and Delrin™.
Flow Rate versus Depth
The flow rate is independent of depth, because the system moves approximately 200 mL of water per
sample through the Teflon™ tubing.
W. L. Gore — Gore Sorber
The GORE-SORBER® Screening Survey has been validated and applied on over 1,000 projects
since 1992. When placed in the screened, saturated interval of a monitoring well or piezometer,
the waterproof, vapor-permeable GORE-TEX® (ePTFE) membrane collector housing allows for
water/air partitioning (in accordance with Henry's Law) of dissolved-phase organic compounds
while preventing transfer of liquid water and eliminating impact from suspended solids on the
adsorbent. Outlined below are some general guidelines for the use and installation of passive,
adsorbent-based GORE-SORBER collectors in monitoring wells as a means of qualitatively
screening water quality as part of a ground water monitoring program.
• GORE-SORBER collectors can be used to reduce the frequency of ground water purging and
sampling for petroleum and chlorinated organic chemicals, including PAHs.
• We recommend an initial round of testing consisting of matrix (water) sampling and testing
by conventional means and testing using GORE-SORBER modules. The deployment and
retrieval of the GORE-SORBER modules should occur prior to any purging/sampling of the
well for matrix testing purposes. This is done in order to establish a baseline relationship at
this site between the matrix concentration data and the sorber mass data. The results will then
be plotted on a scatter diagram to show the site-specific relationship between ground water
concentration and mass on the GORE-SORBER module (see an example scatter plot below).
• Subsequent testing is performed only using GORE-SORBER modules to monitor trends in
water quality over time on an individual well basis.
27
-------
Periodic purging and sampling with concurrent GORE-SORBER collector monitoring is
recommended every four to six sampling events. To ensure comparability of the data, the
periodic matrix samples must be collected and analyzed in a consistent manner.
GORE-SORBER modules should be placed adjacent to the screened interval in the
monitoring well, not in the headspace of the well or outside the screened interval. This is
done to avoid any stagnation effects. The modules should not be installed to a depth greater
than 25 feet below the water surface.
Modules should not be placed in direct contact with free product (that is, liquid hydrocarbons
or solvents).
Only a two-day exposure period is required for modules deployed directly in the
groundwater. This exposure period has been derived experimentally as part of our
validation.
GORE-SORBER® Screening Modules can be used to test for BTEX, Petroleum
Hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents and many semi-volatile organic compounds, such as
PAHs. Application for ethers, alcohols, ketones or most other highly water-soluble
compounds has not been validated at this time.
Information relative to the site, the well construction, and matrix sampling and testing
procedures being used, will be useful for data interpretation purposes.
Monitoring wells being used as soil vapor extraction points are NOT suitable to this
application.
28
-------
TCE COMPARISON
o>
3
CO
+->
CO
Q
CO
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
-5000
500.00
1000.00
1500.00
Gore-Sorber Data, ug
Morgan — Diffusional Multi-Level Sampler
1. Background
DMLS is a passive multi-layer sampler for groundwater that is based on dialysis cell technology. It
was developed as a research tool by a group of scientists at the Weizmann institute who studied
processes in the water table zone. Since its introduction in 1985, the DMLS has been incorporated
into many studies throughout the world, providing information never available before. Margan has a
world wide exclusive license to commercialize the DMLS.
29
-------
2. The DMLS principle
A dialysis cell is a vial that is filled with distilled and covered by
permeable membranes at both ends. When a dialysis cell is exposed
to an external water having concentration of solutes different from
the that inside the cell, a natural process of diffusion of solutes from
the high concentration to the low one occurs across the membrane,
until a dynamic equilibrium is reached. At this stage the contents of
the cell will be representative of the water surrounding the cell. The
process is dynamic and concentration of solutes inside the cell will
change as the concentration outside the cell changes with a lag
period (the equilibration period) which varies from one solute
another.
The DMLS comprises a rod on which dialysis cells are placed. The
cells are separated by seals which fit the inner diameter of the well.
When lowered into the well, the seals form layers corresponding the
layers of the aquifer. Therefore, each cell accommodated between
two seals, samples the layer formed.
While being lowered into the well, the DMLS ( as any other
externally introduced device) mixes the water column inside the
well. Therefore it must be left in the well for the minimum period of
time required for the natural flow of the aquifer to exchange at least
one volume of water and to reestablish the natural stratification of
the solutes of the aquifer. This minimum period of time depends on
the nature of the aquifer and the diameter of the borehole. No active
purging is required when using the DMLS.
After the DMLS is retrieved from the well, the cells are capped and sent to the lab, or analyzed in the
field. When plotted, the results show a vertical profile of the chemical composition of the
groundwater at a resolution of 1 ft or higher. It is also possible to obtain a vertical profile of
horizontal component of specific discharge, by a reverse diffusion of a tracer which is loaded in the
cell and by applying the modified point dilution technique.
The DMLS is modular and flexible in use. Its units can be connected one to the other to fit existing
wells and any sampling program.
30
-------
Section 4 Site Description
A single site, the NASA John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) in southwestern Mississippi has been
selected for use in this demonstration. The demonstration will incorporate three testing phases at this site.
The first testing phase will involve preliminary testing at a 100-ft standpipe, operated by the US
Geological Survey (USGS) and selected GW monitoring wells at Stennis prior to the vendors being
onsite. This pre-demonstation effort will help to define sampling procedures used in the following
demonstration activities. The second phase will involve all vendors and will incorporate the use of the
standpipe as an above-ground well that can be accessed by external sampling ports. The third phase will
involve the use of onsite GW monitoring wells known to be contaminated with a chlorinated VOC. This
section provides a brief description of the facilities to be used in these two demonstration phases.
The NASA-Stennis Space Center
The John C. Stennis Space Center in South Mississippi is one of ten NASA field centers in the United
States. It is NASA's lead center for testing and flight certifying rocket propulsion systems for the Space
Shuttle and future generations of space vehicles. Because of its important role in engine testing for more
than three decades, SSC has been designated NASA's Center of Excellence for rocket propulsion testing.
Stennis is also NASA's lead center for rocket propulsion testing and has the responsibility for conducting
and/or managing all NASA propulsion test programs.
Over the years, SSC has evolved into a multiagency, multidisciplinary facility for federal, state, academic
and private organizations engaged in space, oceans, environmental programs and the national defense. In
addition to NASA, there are 30 other agencies located at Stennis. Of approximately 4,100 employees,
about 1,500 work in the fields of science and engineering. These agencies work side by side and share
common costs related to infrastructure, facility and technical services, thus making it economical for each
tenant to accomplish its independent mission at SSC.
US Geological Survey Standpipe
The USGS is a resident agency at SSC and operates a number of testing facilities, as a part of the
Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility (HIF). This facility supports USGS agency-wide hydrologic
data-collection activities through the identification of needs, development of technical specifications,
design or development of specialized interfaces, contracts and procurements, testing and evaluation,
specialized field applications, repair and calibration, quality control and assurance, and storage and
distribution of hydrologic instrumentation.
The HIF Standpipe Facility was designed by Doreen Tai, an HIF chemical engineer, and is housed in
a Saturn V rocket storage building at SSC. A schematic diagram of the standpipe and accessories is
shown in Figure 2. The standpipe is an above-ground, 100-foot long, 5-inch diameter, stainless steel
pipe with numerous external sampling ports along its length. Two large tanks at the top of the
standpipe are used to prepare solutions prior to filling the standpipe. The tanks are equipped with
floating lids to minimize loss of volatile compounds during solution preparation and transfer. An
external fill/drain line enables the pipe to be filled from the bottom up, thereby minimizing flow
turbulence in the prepared solutions. The external access ports allow control samples to be taken
simultaneously with the collection of samples inside the pipe. As shown in Figure 2, the indoor
facility has six levels of access, including the ground floor, and all levels are serviced by a freight
elevator. In this demonstration, the standpipe will be used in a series of controlled water sampling
experiments. VOC-contaminated water solutions will be prepared in the standpipe. Technology
vendors will sample from the pipe while reference samples are simultaneously taken from the
external ports.
31
-------
5 IN. DI A. ¦
SP14
CF4/5
SP13 r&
5P12
CF3/4
SP11
SP10 fi
SP9
CF2/3
SP8 (A
SP7
5P6
SP5
fA
/FLOAT VALVE
/STILLING WELL
WATER LEVEL
HOLDING TANKS
CF1/2
150 GAL
LEVEL 6
FLOATING TOP
110 GAL ~~
LEVEL 5
-1 IN. DIA. FILL/DRAIN LINE
LEVEL 4
CF - FLANGE CONNECTION
SP - SAMPLING PORT
SP DISTANCE FROM TOP WATER LEVEL
LEVEL 3
SP13
17.
.5 ft
SP9
54
ft.
SP7
64
ft.
(pH TESTING)
SP4
82
ft.
(CONDUCTIVITY
SP2
92
ft.
LEVEL 2
/EXIT LINE
Figure 2 A schematic diagram of the USGS Standpipe (Drawing courtesy of USGS-HIF). Note
that two new sampling ports, not shown in the figure, have been added midway between SP 10 and 11
and SP 12 and 13.
32
-------
Site Geology
In 1998, Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation published an investigation report on the
hydrogeologic characteristics of the Stennis Space Center [Foster Wheeler, 1998], The following text
is adapted from this report.
Literature on the regional and local geology and hydrology were surveyed to determine the
stratigraphic relationships as defined by published works for southern and coastal Mississippi. Using
field data recorded on lithologic boring logs from over 190 borings, a database of hydrogeologic data
was constructed for SSC with a commercial software package. This database was then utilized to
construct site-specific cross-sections for each of the 16 investigation sites within the SSC. The
shallow near surface geology of can be summarized as follows: This geology generally consists of a
thin veneer of clayey sediments (Upper Clay) overlying a sandy unit named the Upper Sand. The
Upper Sand is underlain by a second clayey unit named the Lower Clay and a second sandy unit
called the Lower Sand. Below the Lower Sand another clayey unit is present which represents an
unnamed or undifferentiated Pleistocene deposit. This deposit is underlain by a thick zone of
interbedded sand and clay deposits which form the Citronelle Formation. Table 4 includes summary
of the relationship between stratigraphic and hydrogeologic units at SSC.
Table 4 Hydrogeologic Units as SSC
Epoch
Lithologic Units
Regional Hydro-
geologic Unit
SSC
Hydrogeologic Unit
Approximate
Elevation Range
(relative to MSL,
feet)
Holocene
Recent
Surficial Aquifer
Surface Soil
+10 to +30
Pleistocene
Upper Clay
Surficial Aquifer
Semi-Confining
Upper Clay Unit
+10 to +30
Pleistocene
Upper Sand
Surficial Aquifer
1st Water-Bearing
Zone (watertable)
+5 to +15
Pleistocene
Lower Clay
Surficial Aquifer
Semi-Confining Unit
-15 to +10
Pleistocene
Lower Sand
Surficial Aquifer
2na Water-Bearing
Zone
-35 to +5
Pleistocene
Undifferentiated
Pleistocene/Possi
ble Bioloxi
Formation
Surficial Aquifer
Semi-Confing Unit
I
ro
o
I-H
0
1
O
Pliocene
Citronelle
Surficial Aquifer
3ra Water-Bearing
Zone
-40 to -100
Pliocene
Citronelle
Surficial Aquifer
Semi-Confining Unit
-75 to -130
Pliocene
Citronelle
Surficial Aquifer
4tn Water-Bearing
Zone
Below -120
Miocene
Pacagoula Clay
or Hattiesburg
Clay
Chickasawhay
River Upper
Confining Unit
Semi-Confining Unit
-140 to -300
Miocene/Oligocene
Catahoula
Sandstone,
Glendon,
Marianna, Mint
Springs or Forest
Hills Formations
Chickasawhay
River Aquifer
Chichasawhay River
Aquifer
Unknown, below -
300 feet
Table adapted from SSC Hydrogeologic Investigation Report [Foster Wheeler, 1998]
33
-------
Site Hydrology
As a part of the hydrogeologic investigation, data from a series of single well slug tests were
evaluated and used with hydraulic gradient determinations, made from the potentiometric surface
maps and estimates of the aquifer's porosity, to estimate the minimum and maximum rate of
groundwater flow in each of the first three water-bearing zones. In-situ hydraulic conductivity or slug
tests were conducted on over 80 of the existing monitoring wells at SSC. Of the 80 wells which were
tested, more than 70 percent of the wells were screened in Water-Bearing Zone 1, about 20 percent
were screened in Water-Bearing Zone 2 , and 10 percent were screened in Water-Bearing Zone 3.
Specific details on the methodology used to estimate hydraulic conductivity are included in the
previously referenced Foster Wheeler report. Table 5 summarizes the hydraulic conductivity values
for each water-bearing zone. Using groundwater gradients from the potentiometric surface maps
prepared for each water-bearing zone and estimates of the porosity for each zone, the average
groundwater flow was estimated for each water-bearing zone using Darcy's Law.
Table 5 Hydrologic Conductivity Parameters for SSC
Parameter
Water-Bearing Zone 1
Water-Bearing Zone 2
Water-Bearing Zone 3
Number of wells
evaluated
59
16
5
Range of hydraulic
conductivity (ft/day)
1 -67
1—49
1—30
Average hydraulic
conductivity (ft/day)
11.0
10.9
13.1
Standard deviation of
hydraulic conductivity
(ft/day
12.9
14.7
13.9
Hydraulic gradient
2x10~3—4x10"3
6.2x10"3
1.9x10"3
Estimated range of
aquifer porosity
25—35%
25—35%
25—35%
Range of groundwater
flow rates (ft/day)
0.006—1.18
0.012—1.22
0.005—0.023
"Best guess"
groundwater flow rate
(feet/day)
0.18
0.22
0.08
NASA-Stennis GW Monitoring Wells
The third phase of this technology demonstration involves the collection of ground water samples
from onsite wells at SSC. The site has about 200 wells that have been used for characterization and
ground water monitoring. A list of candidate wells for use in this demonstration is given in Table 6.
The wells shown offer a range of sampling depths and penetrate the three top water bearing zones at
SSC. The water from these wells is contaminated with TCE to varying degrees. The TCE
concentrations given for each of the wells is only an approximation since many of these wells have
only been sampled once or twice in the last several years.
34
-------
Table 6 Candidate GW Monitoring Wells at SSC
Well No.
Relative
Sampling
Depth
Total
Well
Depth
(feet)
Well
Dia.
(inches)
Top of Casing
(ref. MSL feet)
Approx.
Depth
to Water
(feet)
Screened
interval
(ref. MSL feet)
Approx. TCE
Concentration
(Mfl/L)
12-09MW
Shallow
18
2
28.0
9.8
18.0 to 8.0
10
12-06MW
Shallow
17
2
28.11
9.7
21.0 to 11.0
110
18-08MW
Shallow
19
2
28.75
7.6
18.7 to 8.7
200
06-09MW
Intermediate
18
2
13.0
8.6
4.0 to -6.0
110
06-08MW
Intermediate
17
2
10.5
6.5
1.7 to -8.4
580
06-04MW
Intermediate
39
2
28.8
24.6
-1.3 to -11.3
450
06-16MW
Deep
45
2
242
20.3
-3.3 to -13.3
22
06-12MW
Deep
100
4
28.8
28.0
-57.9 to -67.9
4
06-11MW
Deep
150
4
15.3
14.1
-62.8 to -72.8
36
35
-------
36
-------
Section 5 Sampling Plan
Summary Objectives
The objectives of this verification effort are to evaluate key performance parameters of the
participating GW sampling technologies. The specific application being evaluated is the sampling of
volatile organic compounds from ground water. Important sampler performance parameters include:
accuracy, precision, and comparability to reference sampling methods. Other important attributes
include: ease of use, personnel and equipment support requirements, and sampler throughput. The
verification experiments will be conducted under two testing scenarios: 1) samples collected from an
above-ground well, referred to as a standpipe, with known sample constituents and concentrations;
and, 2) samples collected from onsite GW monitoring wells.
Experimental Design Summary
The study will be conducted in three phases. The first phase will be a preliminary assessment of the
standpipe and selected onsite GW monitoring wells. This phase will be conducted without vendor
involvement and will be for the benefit of study designers and field support personnel in order to gain
familiarity with the site, understand the characteristics of the standpipe, and identify and characterize
candidate onsite GW monitoring wells for use in the later phases of the verification. The second phase
will involve collection of water samples from the standpipe by the technology vendors and the third
phase will involve vendor sample collection at onsite GW monitoring wells. Further descriptions of
the three study phases as given in following paragraphs.
General descriptions of key elements in the demonstration design are introduced and discussed below.
A more detailed description of the sampling scheme for the various experimental trials in included
elsewhere in this section.
Technology categories
Those vendors participating in the demonstration have been grouped into two categories: Pump/grab
samplers and multi-level samplers. The pump/grab samplers include the bladder pumps, a discrete-
level bailer and a multi-level sampling pump. The multi-level category includes a diffusional system
and integrating system. Table 7 shows the grouping of the participating vendors into the two
categories.
Table 7 Sampling Technology Categories
Pump/grab Sampling Technologies
Multi-Level Sampling Technologies
CEE - Bladder pump
W. L. Gore - Sorbent sampler
QED - Bladder pump
Margan - Diffusional sampler
Geolog - Bladder pump
Sibak - Grab sampler
Burge - Multi-level sampler
Experimental factors — pump/grab samplers
The study design includes an evaluation of a number of potentially influential factors on sampler
performance. A summary of these are listed in the Table 8. A further breakdown of assigned levels
for the various factors is also included in the table.
37
-------
Table 8 Experimental Factors for Pump/grab and Multi-Level Samplers
Factor
Pump/Grab Samplers
Multi-Level Samplers
Depth
Two Levels
Five Levels
Concentration
Two Cone. Levels
Low - 10 ppb
High - 200 ppb
Compound Volatility
Three Volatility Levels
Low - 12DCA/112TCA
Mid - TCE/Benzene
High - PCE/ 11DCE
This GW well sampling phase of the study will have fewer experimental factors than the standpipe
testing phase. Two factors, namely sampling depth and contaminant concentration will be used to
select four wells for use in the study. TCE is the only major contaminant at the site, and thus
compound volatility will not be a factor in this phase of the study.
Target VOC compounds
The target compounds to be used in the investigation are listed in Table 9. The compounds are all
regulated contaminants under the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act and have MCLs of 5 ug/L. The
compounds possess a range of volatilities, as delineated by the Henry's Law Constant, also shown in
the table.
Table 9 Target VOC compounds
Compound
Volatility
(Henry's Constant, atm/ mole
frac.)
Boiling Pt.
°C
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
High (1492)
121
1,1-Dichloroethene (11DCE)
High (1270)
32
Trichloroethene (TCE)
Mid (648)
87
Benzene (BNZ)
Mid (309)
80
1,2-Dichloroethane (12DCA)
Low (65)
84
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (112TCA)
Low (54)
114
Standpipe standard mixture preparation
A number of standard mixtures of VOCs in water will be prepared in large mixing tanks located at the
top of the standpipe. These mixtures will then be loaded into the standpipe for subsequent sampling
by the participating technologies as well as by reference sampling methods. Stock solutions of
chlorinated VOCs will be prepared from pure compounds. Known volumes of these stock solutions
will be added to the mixing tanks. The total water volume in the mixing tanks will be metered using
an in-line flow meter positioned at the tank inlet. Using this technique, the final concentration of
VOCs in the SP will be known to an accuracy of about ±5%.
Standpipe reference samples
The use of the standpipe enables the collection of reference samples from sampling ports on the
exterior of the pipe while vendor sampling is being conducted inside the pipe. The reference samples
will be processed through the same analytical sequence as the vendor samples. Two types of
reference samples will be collected. For those technologies classified as pump/grab samplers, the
reference sample will also be a pumped sample, collected from the external port adjacent to the point
where the vendor sample is taken. A second category of samplers being evaluated is multi-level
samplers and at least one of the technologies in this category is an integrating sampler. In this case
38
-------
the reference sample will be a time-integrated sample, collected over the duration which the samplers
are in the well. The means of collecting the reference sample has not been determined at this time
and is dependant upon the stability of the mixtures in the standpipe. Collection of this time-integrated
sample may be by periodic collection of pumped samples with subsequent compositing into a single
sample, or by continuous withdrawal of a sample with a syringe pump or similar device. Results
from the pre-demonstration test will be used to help in the selection of a reference method for this
integrating multi-level sampler type.
GW well reference samples
The selection of a GW well reference sampler is more difficult. Choices include the collection of a
syringe sample at the same time and point of sample collection by the technology sample. A syringe
sampler is desirable from the point of view that no chemical losses can occur in tubing lines
extending from the down-well collection point to the point of sample collection at the well head. The
use of syringe samplers is complicated by the requirement for replicate samplers however and for this
reason they are unsuitable for use in this experiment. As an alternative, we have chosen a low-flow
submersible electric gear pump as a reference sampler. The pump has only stainless steel and inert
polymer parts and is very small and compact. The tubing lines from point of sample collection to the
surface will be constructed of inert fluorocarbon polymer material. Most importantly, the
performance characteristics of the reference pump will be verified during the pre-demonstration phase
of the experiment at the standpipe. The pump will be used to sample known mixtures of VOCs with
varying volatilities at several sampling depths to assess its accuracy and precision in sample
collection at the range of depths used in the GW sampling portion of the study.
GW well reference samples will be collected simultaneously with vendor sample collection. This
scheme will require that two samplers (the vendor and reference) will be co-located in the well during
the sample collection period.
Sampling procedures
Two types of reference sampling activities will be conducted during this demonstration. The first
involves the collection of reference samples from the external ports of the standpipe. These samples
will be collected directly into 40-ml VOA vials using the written method included in the appendix.
Sampling will also be conducted by the VO using the submersible electric gear pump sampling
method described previously.
During the pre-demonstration sampling of GW wells with the submersible electric gear pump, a low-
flow purge will be used to insure that formation water is being sampled from each of the wells. In
these situations, ground water quality parameters such as temperature, pH, redox potential, and
turbidity will be monitored using procedures that are also included in the appendix.
Finally, each vendor organization will also operate their own technology and collect a variety of
samples from both the standpipe and GW wells as specified in this demo plan. Each of vendors will
follow their own written sampling procedures that are normally used in the operation of their
sampling technology. [An exception to this requirement may be made for the multi-level sampler
category. To lessen vendor time on site, vendors may request that multi-level samplers be either
deployed or retrieved by the verification organization.]
Sample analysis
With one exception, all samples will be analyzed using the same analytical methodology. A field-
portable GC/MS and a temperature-controlled headspace sampling accessory will be used in this
demonstration. The analytical method used will be a variation of SW846 Method 8260A. Reasons
39
-------
for selection of the field-portable method include the following: 1) The performance of the method,
is as good as or better than conventional laboratory purge-and-trap GC/MS methods. This was
established in an earlier ETV Program verification study [EPA, 1998c] 2) The costs are equivalent
to conventional lab analysis costs. 3) Analytical data will be available in near real time, allowing
prompt feedback to experiment planners. 4) All sample analysis will be complete within several
days of the end of the field sample collection period, thus allowing results to be processed more
quickly. A more complete description of the analytical procedures is given in Section 6. The one
exception to this analysis plan is that the Gore Sorber samples will be analyzed by Gore's own
laboratory using their proprietary method. The Gore laboratory will report the total loading of the
various contaminants on the sorber units and the VO will conduct all further analysis of the data.
Sample Management
Formal chain of custody protocol will be maintained for all samples collected and distributed during
the demonstration. A sample chain of custody form is included in Appendix B. Each participant is
also required to keep a written logbook during the demonstration in which sample receipt is
documented. All samples will be maintained by the sampling team in coolers or insulated shipping
containers until delivery to participants. It is the responsibility of each participant to maintain
samples at appropriate temperature and storage conditions following release of samples to their
custody.
Deviations from the Sampling Plan
Deviations from the sampling plan outlined in this document may occur for a variety of reasons.
Deviations will be noted by the field sampling team or the assigned sample management auditor and
brought to the attention of the test director such that corrective actions, if warranted, may be taken.
Data analysis
Test data analysis will concentrate on determination of sampler accuracy (or recovery), sampler
precision (both with and without analytical method contributions) and comparability of sampler
results to a reference method. The sampling plan incorporates the collection of a number of replicate
samples by both vendor and reference sampling technique at each level of the standpipe and at each
GW monitoring well. The replicates will allow precision parameters to be computed for each of the
technologies. Analytical method variability is a complicating factor and its contribution to the overall
variability of a particular method must be assessed using statistical techniques. The study design
incorporates a suitable number of replicate samples to do this. Analysis of variance methods
(ANOVA) will be used to make quantify sources of imprecision in the overall sampling and analysis
process.
Phase 1 Pre-Demonstration
A preliminary evaluation of the standpipe will be conducted by SNL in cooperation with the USGS
prior to the actual demonstration. The objectives of this investigation for both the standpipe and the
onsite GW monitoring wells are listed below:
Pre-demonstration standpipe sampling objectives
• Develop and test operational procedures to be used in the full demonstration.
• Determine the degree of stability of a homogeneous mixture of VOCs in water at fixed sampling
points over time.
• Determine the degree of vertical stability of a homogeneous mixture of VOCs in the standpipe
overtime.
40
-------
• Determine the rate and extent of intermixing between clean and dirty layers within the standpipe.
• Determine the amount of clean water flushing required to bring the standpipe to background
levels of VOCs.
• Assess the accuracy and precision of the reference sampling method to be used in the GW
sampling portion of the test.
• Assess the accuracy and precision of the chemical analytical method to be used during the
demonstration
Pre-demonstration GW well sampling objectives
• Develop and test sampling procedures to be used in the full demonstration.
• Characterize ground water quality parameters in the candidate wells.
• Characterize TCE concentration levels in the candidate wells.
• Assess the degree of comparability between two identical reference samplers that sample
simultaneously from the same wells.
Pre-demonstration test schedule and task list
A detailed task list for the pre-demonstration study is given in the following paragraphs. The
procedures to be used during these various tasks are included in the appendix. A diagram showing
the standpipe and associated sampling port depths from the top of the pipe is given in Figure 3.
Floor Level
Standpipe Access Ports
Distance from SP Collar (feet)
Level 6"
Level 5-
Level 4-
Level 3-
Tank Access Level -
Level 2-
Level 1 (Ground)
Collar
0.00
Port 14
Port 13
Port 12B
Port 1?
Port 11
PortiOR
Port 10
Port9
Porta
Port 7
Port6
Port 5
Port 4
Port 3
Port?
Port 1
Port 1 1.0'above floor Stubbed off
Port 2 3.1'above floor Sampling Port
Port 3 8.0'above floor Sampling Port
Port4 12.0'above floor Sampling Port
Port 5 0.5'above floor Sampling Port
Port 6 5.0'above floor Sampling Port
Port 7 0.5'above floor Stubbed off
Port 8 5.0'above floor Sampling Port
Port 9 1.0'above floor Bubbler Tube
Port 10 5.0' above floor Temperature Probe
Port 10.5 12.0' above floor Sampling Port
Port 11 0.33'above floor Sampling Port
Port 12 5.0' above floor Temperature Probe
Port 12.5 12.0' above floor Sampling Port
Port 13 0.67'above floor Sampling Port
Port 14 5.0' above floor Temperature Probe
41
-------
Figure 3 The USGS standpipe showing the depth of sampling ports from the top of the pipe.
Day 1 Tasks
• SP Facility Orientation—Setup working space; verify engineering modifications to SP; write SP
mix, fill, drain, and flush procedures.
• GC-MS/Headspace system setup and calibration—To be done by FPA personnel according to
written procedures.
• SP clean and flush—Clean and flush the mixing tanks and SP as required for the first test
mixture.
• Sampler checkout—Check out reference samplers in preparation for SP and GW well sampling.
• GW well orientation—Determine well locations and best grouping for the following two days of
well sampling.
Day 2 Tasks
• Prepare Mix 1(10 ppb concentration level), sample the mixing tank (3 replicates) and then fill
SP. SP sampling to follow the matrix given in Table 10.
42
-------
Table 10 Pre-demo Standpipe Sampling Matrix - Trial PI
SP Level
To
T +1 hr
T+ 2hr
T + 4hr
T + 24hr
Mixing Tank
3
SP13
3 external
3 external
3 external
3 external
3 external
3 reference
3 reference
3 reference
3 reference
3 reference
SP11
2
3
2
3
2
SP9
2
2
2
2
2
SP5
3 external
3 external
3 external
3 external
3 external
3 reference
3 reference
3 reference
3 reference
3 reference
SP2
2
2
2
2
2
Note: Three replicate external samples and three reference (pump) samples will be collected at the
SP13 and SP5 levels. All other replicate samples will be collected from the SP external sampling
ports.
• Analyze water samples via onsite GC/MS—Headspace and evaluate data.
• Collect samples from candidate GW monitoring wells using an electric submersible gear pump
and a low-flow purge and sampling protocol. Collect replicate sample when turbidity or
dissolved oxygen parameter stabilizes to ± 10%, using the sampling matrix given in Table 11.
Table 11 Pre-demo GW Well Sampling Matrix - Trial
P4
GW
Monitoring
Well No.
Well Dia.
(inches)
Depth from top of well
casing to middle of
screen
Approx.
TCE Cone.
(PPb)
Number of
Replicate
Samples
12-06MW
2
12.1
110
4
06-16MW
2
35.5
22
4
06-11MW
4
83.1
36
4
06-04MW
2
35.1
450
4
• Analyze GW samples using Headspace—GC/MS and evaluate data.
Day 3 Tasks
• Additional multi-level sample collections from Mix 1 after setting overnight (last column of
Table 1).
• Drain Mix land flush SP.
• Analyze SP samples for residuals at three levels following each flush using the sampling matrix
given in Table 12.
43
-------
Table 12 Pre-t
emo Standpipe Flush Sampling Matrix - Trial P2
SP Level
Flush 1
Flush 2
Flush 3
(if necess.)
SP13
2 (replicates)
2
2
SP9
2
2
2
SP2
2
2
2
Prepare Mix 2 (200 ppb) and Mix 3(10 ppb) in the two mixing tanks, sample both mixing tanks
(3 replicates)
Fill SP to 50% level with Mix 2, then add Mix3 from the bottom fill port until standpipe is full.
Collect periodic replicate reference samples (submersible pump and external sampling port) from
several sampling levels as specified in the sampling matrix shown in Table 13.
Table 13
re-demo Standpipe Dirty/Clean Sampling Matrix - Trial P3
SP Level
To
T + 1 hr
T + 2 hr
T + 3 hr
Pump
Port
Pump
Port
Pump
Port
Pump
Port
Mixing
Tank 1
3
Mixing
Tank 2
3
SP12
3
3
2
3
3
2
SP9
2
2
2
2
SP5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Analyze samples using GC/MS—Headspace and evaluate data.
Collect samples from candidate GW monitoring wells using an electric submersible gear pump
and a low flow sampling protocol. Collect replicate sample when turbidity or dissolved oxygen
parameter stabilizes to ± 10%, using the sampling matrix given in Table 14.
Table 14 Pre-demo GW Well Sampling Matrix - Trial P5
GW Monitoring
Well No.
Well Dia.
(inches)
Depth from top of
well casing to
middle of screen
Approx. TCE
Cone.
(PPb)
Number of
Replicate
Samples
18-08MW
2
15.1
200
4
06-08MW
2
13.8
580
4
06-12MW
4
91.7
4
4
12-09MW
2
15.0
4
10
Day 4 Tasks
• Collect simultaneous replicate samples using two submersible electric gear pumps and a low-flow
purge protocol, using the sample matrix given in Table 15. The two pumps will be positioned in
the well above and below the desired sampling point.
44
-------
Table 15 Pre-demo GW Well Sampling Matrix - Trial P6
GW Monitoring
Well
Well Dia.
(inches)
Depth from top
of well casing to
middle of screen
Approx. TCE
Cone.
(PPb)
Number of Replicate Samples
Reference 1
Reference 2
18-08MW
2
15.1
200
5
5
06-11MW
4
83.1
36
5
5
06-16MW
2
35.5
22
5
5
• Analyze GW samples using Headspace—GC/MS and evaluate data.
Day 5 Tasks
• Complete sample analysis; complete preliminary data evaluation.
• Secure SP and GW sites.
• Pack up and depart the site.
Post-demo Tasks
• Complete data evaluation.
• Revise and update the demo plan as necessary to accommodate that learned in the pre-demo
experiments.
Phase 2 Full Demonstration Standpipe Sampling
In this phase of the study, vendors will be included and samples will be collected from prepared
mixtures in the standpipe. Reference samples will be collected at designated sample ports on the
exterior of the standpipe simultaneously with the collection of water samples with the technologies
under evaluation. Two sets of experiments will be conducted on two different weeks; one week for
the pump/grab samplers and a second week for the multilevel samplers.
Standpipe test objectives
The following objectives have been identified for the standpipe testing activities:
• Assess accuracy of each sampling technology for the 6 target compounds by comparison with the
true concentration levels in the standpipe.
• Assess precision of each sampling technology through the collection of replicate samples.
• Assess the effects of compound volatility, compound concentration, and sample depth on sampler
precision and accuracy.
• Assess comparability of each sampling technology with the reference sample collection method
through the collection of co-located samples.
Standpipe sampling matrix — Pump/grab samplers
The sampling design will involve the collection of samples from six different standpipe mixtures and
sampling depths by all participating technologies. Each sampling system will be required to collect
five replicate samples from the standpipe at the designated collection depths. Replicate reference
samples will be collected from the adjacent standpipe external sampling port simultaneously with
each technology sample collection. The sampling matrix for pump/grab samplers is given in Table
16. During the experiment, the trials will be conducted blind. Thus, for a given trial the technology
vendors will be directed to sample at a designated level but they will not know the concentration level
of the VOCs in the standpipe. One of the trials listed in Table 16 is labeled "clean-through-dirty."
45
-------
This trial will involve a clean layer of water in the standpipe that is overlaid with a contaminated
layer. The vendors will be asked to sample from the clean layer. The results from this trial will be
used to assess the extent of sample contamination that results from lowering the sampling unit
through the contaminated layer into the clean layer.
Table 16 Pump/grab Sampler Matrix for Standpipe Experiment
Trial No.
Standpipe
Port
Sampler Depth
VOC Concentration
Level
Number Replicates/
Technology
1
SP14
Low (17 ft)
Low (10 ppb)
5
2
SP3
High (92 ft)
Low (10 ppb)
5
3
SP14
Low (17 ft)
High (200 ppb)
5
4
SP3
High (92 ft)
High (200 ppb)
5
5
SP3
High (92 ft)
Blank
3
6
SP3
High (92 ft)
Blank/Low
(Clean through dirty)
3
vfote: Burge Environmental will collect samples from multiple levels (SP14, S
P12, SP10, and SP3)
for each of the six trials shown in Table 16.
Standpipe sampling matrix - Multi-level samplers
The multi-level samplers will be evaluated separately from the pump/grab samplers since their mode
of operation differs. In these tests the DMLS and Gore samplers will be positioned in the SP
simultaneously. Three different test mixtures will be evaluated at multiple levels, as outlined in Table
17.
Table 17 Multi-Level Sampler Matrix for Standpipe Experiment
Trial
Sampler Ports (Depth-ft)
Concentration
Level
Replicates
DMLS
GORE
7
SP14 (16.5)
SP 12 (35)
SP 10 (53)
SP 6 (71.5)
SP 2 (95.5)
SP 14 (16.5)
SP12B (28)
SP 12 (35)
SP10B (46.3)
SP 10 (53)
Low
4 (for each technology at
each level)
8
SP14 (16.5)
SP 12 (35)
SP 10 (53)
SP 6 (71.5)
SP 2 (95.5)
SP 14 (16.5)
SP12B (28)
SP 12 (35)
SP10B (46.3)
SP 10 (53)
High
4 (for each technology at
each level)
9
SP 13 (21)
SP 9 (57.5)
SP 13 (21)
SP 9 (57.5)
Blank/Low (Clean
through dirty)
4 (for each technology at
each level)
Note: Control for the DMLS will be 4 replicates collected with the reference sampler following
DMLS equilibration. Control for Gore will be 2 replicates taken with reference sampler every 12
hours (6 sets of samples per trial) from which a time-averaged well concentration will be computed.
46
-------
Phase 3 Full Demonstration—GW Well Sampling
In this third phase of the demonstration, samples will be collected from a number of monitoring wells
at the NASA-Stennis site. Trichloroethene is the primary contaminant at this site. Wells for use in
the verification test have been selected to cover a range of TCE concentrations and sampling depths.
The historical data from previous well characterization studies has been used to aid in well selection.
GW well sampling test objectives
The following objectives have been identified for the GW well sampling test activities:
• Assess the performance of each sampling technology in terms of ease of use, logistical
requirements, sample throughput, etc.
• Assess the comparability GW well sample results for each sampling technology with the results
obtained with a co-located reference sampler.
GW sampling matrix — Pump/grab samplers
This phase of the demonstration incorporates the collection of contaminated water samples by both
vendor and reference method from onsite GW wells. The two samplers (vendor and reference) will
be co-located in the well, with the reference sampler positioned below the vendor's sampler. The
vendor technologies will be sequenced through the well and the reference sampler will remain in
place in the well throughout the sampling sequence. Replicate samples will be simultaneously be
collected by the vendor and reference. The vendor has the discretion to choose his own purging
protocol in preparation for sampling. The reference sampler will not purge the well, except to purge
the sampling lines between the down-well pump and the sample collection vessel prior to collection
of each set of replicate reference samples. Each vendor will be cycled through the well with the
reference sampler left in the well throughout the collection of all vendor samples. The sampling
matrix for the GW well sampling is given in Table 18.
Table 18 Full Demonstration Pump/grab Samples from GW Wells
Trial
Well
Distance from
Distance from top
Approximate
No. of Replicates
top of well to
of well to water
TCE Cone.
per technology
screen mid
point (feet)
(feet)
(PPb)
10
18-08MW
15.1
8.2
200
4
11
06-11MW
83.1
15.2
36
4
12
06-04MW
35.1
24.6
450
4
13
12-06MW
12.1
10.0
110
4
GW sampling matrix - Multi-level samplers
The GW well sampling phase for the multi-level samplers will be carried out much like that
prescribed for the standpipe sampling effort with all three systems deployed simultaneously. Two of
the multi-level samplers (Margan and Gore) have a requirement to be in the well at the sampling
location for at least 72 hours so in the interest of time savings, a number of samplers will be deployed
over the same time interval in separate wells. A reference sampler will also be positioned in the wells
to collect periodic reference samples over the duration that the samplers are in the well. The
sampling matrix for this phase of the experiment is included in Table 19.
47
-------
Table 19 Full Demonstration Multi-level Samples from GW Wells
Trial
Well
Distance from
Distance from top
Approximate
No. of
top of well to
of well to water
TCE Cone.
Replicates per
screen mid point
(feet)
(feet)
(PPb)
technology
14
18-08MW
15.1
8.2
200
4
15
06-11MW
83.1
15.2
36
4
16
06-04MW
35.1
24.6
450
4
17
12-06MW
12.1
10.0
110
4
Note: The Burge sampler will collect four replicates sequentially. The Gore and Margan samplers
will position four separate units simultaneously in the well.
Schedule
The anticipated schedule for the pre-demo and full demonstration testing is given in the following
Tables 20 and 21. The tables are laid out as follows: The first column gives the date of testing, the
second gives the trial numbers scheduled for that date (as outlined in the foregoing material), the third
gives another table reference which outlines the specific sampling matrix for the trial. The fourth
column gives the sample count, the fifth gives an estimate of the amount of waste water to be
generated, and last gives the groups participating in the test. The test is expected to take place over a
total period of three weeks with the first week allocated to the pre-demonstration tests, a second week
allocated for the pump/grab samplers to collect samples from both the standpipe and GW wells, and a
third week allocated for the multi-level sampling technologies to collect samples from both the
standpipe and GW wells.
Table 20 Pre-demo Schedule
Date
Trial
Table
Sample
Approx. Waste
Participants
Numbers
Reference
Count
Volume (gal)
July 12, Mon
0
0
VO only
July 13, Tue
P1
Table 10
77
0
VO only
P4
Table 11
16
10 (MW)
July 14, Wed
P2
Table 12
18
120 (SP)
VO only
P3
Table 13
54
120 (SP)
P5
Table 14
22
10 (MW)
July 15, Thu
P6
Table 15
30
10 (MW)
VO only
July 16, Fri
0
0
VO only
Total Number of Samples (Pre-demo
217
48
-------
Table 21 Full Demo Schedule
Date
Trial
Table
Sample
Approx. Waste
Participants
Numbers
Reference
Count
Volume (gal)
August 9, Mon
1
Table 16
60
120 (SP)
VO +
2
Table 16
60
120 (SP)
Pump/grab
August 10, Tue
3
Table 16
60
120 (SP)
VO +
4
Table 16
60
120 (SP)
Pump/grab
August 11, Wed
5
Table 16
36
120 (SP)
VO +
6
Table 16
36
120 (SP
Pump/grab
10
Table 18
48
10 (MW)
11
Table 18
48
10 (MW)
August 12, Thu
12
Table 18
48
10 (MW)
VO +
13
Table 18
48
10 (MW)
Pump/grab
August 13, Fri
0
0
VO +
Pump/grab
Total Number of Samples (Pump/grab)
504
August 14, Sat
0
0
VO + ML
August 15, Sun
0
0
VO + ML
August 16, Mon
7
Table 17
64
0
VO + ML
14
Table 19
16
August 17, Tue
0
0
VO + ML
August 18, Wed
0
0
VO + ML
August 19, Thu
8
Table 17
64
120 (SP)
VO + ML
15
Table 19
16
10 (MW)
16
Table 19
16
10 (MW)
August 20, Fri
0
0
VO + ML
August 21, Sat
0
0
VO + ML
August 22 Sun
9
Table 18
24
120 (SP)
VO + ML
17
Table 19
16
10 (MW)
August 23, Mon
0
0
VO
Total Number of Samples (ML)
216
Note: A more detailed schedule for GW well sampling will be developed after the pre-demo and
prior to the full demo.
Field Observations
The field verification test will also incorporate field observation of technology performance in
addition to the sampling activities outlined above. Personnel from SNL and the EPA will observe
each technology in operation both at the standpipe and at the onsite monitoring wells to assess its
performance in a number of qualitative categories including: ease of use, support equipment
requirements, field personnel support requirements, and decontamination methods. Two separate
field auditors will spend at least 4 hours observing the operation of each technology throughout the
course of the verification test. A suggested list of items to be covered in the technology audit is
included below. Auditor observations will be summarized in the verification report.
49
-------
Audit Checklist (all may not apply to this technology category)
• Description of equipment used (weight, size, number of pieces)
• Logistical considerations including setup time, power requirements, and other accessories needed,
but not provided by the developer
• Historical uses and applications of the technology
• Maintenance activities associated with the equipment
• Estimated acquisition, deployment and maintenance costs associated with the equipment
• Number of people required to operate the equipment
• Qualifications and training of technology operators
• Description of data each technology can produce and a description of the operational mode
required for producing this data
• Analytes which the technology can detect
• Approximate detection levels of each analyte
• Initial calibration criteria
• Calibration check criteria
• Corrective action used for unacceptable calibrations
• Other QC measures employed
• Corrective action for QC data failure
• Description of the number of samples that can be collected in a work day
• Description of the amount of time required for data interpretation
• Description of the reports and graphics that each technology will produce
• Specific problems or breakdowns occurring during the demonstration
• Matrix interferences found during the demonstration
50
-------
Section 6 Sample Analysis
Introduction
Approximately 700 water samples will be collected by a variety of sampling technologies over a ten-
day demonstration period. Each sample will require analyses for a specific short list of Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC's) by field-portable gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)
using an equilibrium headspace interface. The use of two field-portable GC/MS systems will provide
rapid, definitive data for the compounds of interest for approximately 60 to 70 samples per day.
Analytical Qualifications
Field-Portable Analytical, Inc. (FPA) is uniquely qualified for this project. As the name states, FPA
is dedicated to the analysis of samples at the site of investigation utilizing the latest field-portable
instrumentation. The principals of FPA have significant experience using both fixed laboratory and
field-portable equipment. They understand all aspects of high quality, rapid analysis at the site of
investigation. Their experience positions them to be able to understand the abilities and limitations
and take full advantage of this technology.
Analytical Procedures
Water samples will be collected in 40 milliliter VOA bottles and delivered to FPA personnel at a
predetermined location on-site. Samples will be analyzed for a specific short list of VOC's by field-
portable GC/MS utilizing an equilibrium headspace interface. Rapid, on-site analysis will provide
'over the shoulder' information to the project team. Two field-portable GC/MS's will easily keep up
with the heavy sample volume produced during this demonstration and will provide real time
feedback to the project team. A complete written method, adapted from SW846 Method 8260 is
included in Appendix D.
All phases of this project will be overseen by Mr. David Curtis or Mr. Craig Crume of Field-Portable
Analytical, Inc. Both individuals have extensive experience in performing testing and analysis at the
site of investigation.
Analytical System
FPA utilizes an Inficon Hapsite GC/MS. This is a truly portable GC/MS designed specifically for the
analysis of volatile compounds. The Hapsite is a full featured quadrupole GC/MS capable of meeting
all of the EPA's stringent SW-846 QC criteria even though it weighs only 37 pounds and can be
carried over the shoulder.
The Hapsite GC/MS uses a sampling wand with an internal pump to collect the sample. The sample
is pulled into a sample loop with variable injection capabilities. The column is a 30 meter OV-1 with
a 3 meter backflush column. The backflush column allows the volatile organic target compounds to
get onto the column, then backflushes off the non-target semivolatile compounds. This keeps the
instrument free of contamination and eliminates the need to 'bake out' the contamination between
analyses. The interface between the GC and MS is a methyl silicone membrane. This membrane
allows organics to migrate through to the MS while sweeping most non-organics out through the vent.
By minimizing what gets into the MS, this instrument is able to utilize a chemical 'getter' pump
rather than a mechanical pump. The getter pump maintains adequate vacuum for weeks at a time. It
is very compact and allows the GC/MS to be used in a portable mode without the need to drag heavy
mechanical pumps around.
51
-------
The run time on the Hapsite GC/MS is typically about 10 minutes even for a very aggressive list of
compounds. Since the column is isothermal and the heavier compounds never reach the analytical
column, there is no cool down time and the next analysis can be started immediately after the last for
maximum throughput.
In addition to target compounds, the Hapsite GC/MS produces standard NIST searchable spectra to
identify and semi-quantitate unknown compounds. The Hapsite GC/MS co-injects 2 compounds as
internal standards with every analysis. These compounds are used for semi-quantitation of any
unknowns and as additional QA/QC for each analysis.
In addition to full scan mode, the Hapsite can be operated in Selected Ion Mode (SIM). In this mode,
a few selective compounds can be monitored at lower concentrations. It is common to obtain an
order of magnitude more sensitivity in this mode.
The Hapsite GC/MS can also be operated in MS only mode. This mode is well suited towards
compound specific real time 'sniffing'. The instrument can be carried over the shoulder and operated
in continuous mode directly at the site of concern. This allows for a real time, target specific
screening for contamination in the ppbv range.
The Hapsite GC/MS will be connected to a heated, equilibrium headspace sampler. The sampler
allows analytes of interest to migrate from the water sample into equilibrium with the headspace
above the water. The samples are allowed to equilibrate at 60°C for at least 20 minutes before
analysis. All standards, blanks, and samples are treated identically.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The GC/MS will be calibrated for the specific short list of VOC's. A five point calibration will be
performed. The five concentration levels will span the linear range of the instrument. The linear
range of the instrument is from 5 to 10 ug/L (dependant on the compound) to 1000 ug/L. The
calibration will have a relative standard deviation (RSD) of less than or equal to 30%.
There will be a mid-level calibration check standard analyzed on the GC/MS at the beginning and end
of each day of analyses. The acceptance criteria for the calibration check standards will be ± 30% of
the expected concentration for the specific compounds of concern.
The instrument tune will be verified using to Bromofluorobenzene (BFB) at the beginning of each
day of analyses. Standard SW-846 acceptance criteria will be used.
In addition, internal standards and surrogates will be added to every sample analyzed on the GC/MS.
These internal standards and surrogates will be used to monitor and adjust for any drift within the
mass spectrometer. Acceptance criteria for the internal standard recovery will follow the criteria set
forth in Method 8260A.
A blank sample will be analyzed daily prior to analysis of any samples. A blank sample will also be
analyzed after any high level samples. The acceptance criteria for the blank samples will be that there
are no compounds above the detection limits.
Reporting
Preliminary data will be provided as it is available. Preliminary data will also be provided in
spreadsheet form upon completion of each day of analyses. A complete report, describing the
52
-------
procedures and methods used, the data collected, and the analytical results will be prepared within ten
working days of completion of the project.
Facility Support Requirements
Field-Portable Analytical, Inc. will require the following at the USGS the facility in Mississipi:
1) At least eight feet of bench inside a building on-site for equipment set-up and operation
2) Four 115 volt power outlets
3) 24-hour access to the analysis area during entire sampling event
Waste Handling and Management
A minimal amount of waste will be generated in the preparation and analysis of the water
samples. These wastes will be collected in suitable containers that will be obtained and set
up by the USGS. USGS will label the drums in the field to indicate waste description (i.e
decontamination water), well number, and date. USGS will obtain Waste Disposal Forms
from Johnson Controls, and submit completed forms to Johnson Controls for all wastes
generated during sampling activities. USGS will provide to Johnson Controls a 'drum log' of
all waste drums generated, and for each drum include drum contents, drum location, and the
analytical results of the water sampled at the station where the waste was generated.
A hazardous waste determination will be made by Johnson Controls, Inc. based on the
characteristic of toxicity. Wastes produced during the sampling of each well/stand pipe will
be considered a hazardous waste if the sample obtained from the well/stand pipe contains any
contaminant listed in 40CFR 261.24, shown in Table 22 in a concentration that exceeds its
respective regulatory level. The analysis of the water samples from the testing activities will
be sufficient to make this determination (a TCLP analysis of wastewater will not be
required).
Waste Disposal
Based on the hazardous waste determination previously mentioned, Johnson Controls Inc.
will appropriately dispose of the wastes. All Johnson Controls, Inc. support associated with
waste disposal will be funded by USGS. Non-hazardous wastes will be treated in SSC's on
site waste water treatment system or pre-treatment system. Hazardous waste will be disposed
off site at a permitted facility. The cost of the disposal of hazardous waste will be funded by
USGS.
53
-------
Table 22 Hazardous Waste Action Levels from 40CFR261.24
EPA HW
Contaminant
CAS No.
Level
No.
(mg/L)
D004
Arsenic
7440-38-2
5.0
D005
Barium
7440-39-3
100.0
D018
Benzene
71-43-2
0.5
D006
Cadmium
7440-43-9
1.0
D019
Carbon tetrachloride
56-23-5
0.5
D020
Chlordane
57-74-9
0.03
D021
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
100.0
D022
Chloroform
67-66-3
6.0
D007
Chromium
7440-47-3
5.0
D023
o-Cresol
95-48-7
200.0
D024
m-Cresol
108-39-4
200.0
D025
p-Cresol
106-44-5
200.0
D026
Cresol
200.0
D016
2#4-D
94-75-7
10.0
D027
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
7.5
D028
1,2-Dichloroethane
107-06-2
0.5
D029
1,1 -Dichloroethylene
75-35-4
0.7
D030
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
0.13
D012
Endrin
72-20-8
0.02
D031
Heptachlor (and its
epoxide)
76-44-8
0.008
D032
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
0.13
D033
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
0.5
D034
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
3.0
D008
Lead
7439-92-1
5.0
D013
Lindane
58-89-9
0.4
D009
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.2
D014
Methoxychlor
72-43-5
10.0
D035
Methyl ethyl ketone
78-93-3
200.0
D036
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
2.0
D037
Pentrachlorophenol
87-86-5
100.0
D038
Pyridine
110-86-1
5.0
D010
Selenium
7782-49-2
1.0
D011
Silver
7440-22-4
5.0
D039
Tetrachloroethylene
127-18-4
0.7
D015
Toxaphene
8001-35-2
0.5
D040
Trichloroethylene
79-01-6
0.5
D041
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
95-95-4
400.0
D042
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
88-06-2
2.0
D017
2,4,-TP (Silvex)
93-72-1
1.0
D043
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
0.2
54
-------
Section 7 Data Management and Analysis
Introduction
Nearly all the activities outlined in this section will be performed by SNL. As part of this
demonstration, SNL will establish a data management system that will include computerized data
files as well as hard copy data, such as field and laboratory notebooks. This data management system
will be used to store sample and analytical data obtained from each technology and the onsite
analytical laboratory.
Field Data Categories
Site Environmental
Meteorological data that are pertinent to the demonstration periods. Other site data of interest in
terms of technology performance (e.g. terrain where deployed, availability of power, water, etc.)
Groundwater Sample Collection/Distribution
Field logbook data describing sampling procedures, deviations from SOP, well purge times, bulk
sample mixing and dispensing operations. A complete record of sample numbers and chain of
custody forms are included here.PE Sample Preparation/Distribution
Field logbook data describing: PE sample preparations procedures, PE mix certificates of analysis,
mixing and dispensing operations.
Technology Audit Results
A written narrative of the time spent by the auditors with each participating technology. The
narrative will assess the various qualitative aspects of each technology and its performance as
described in Section 6.
Experimental Plan Deviations
A written record of where deviations occurred in the actual demonstrations as compared to that called
out in the demonstration plan.
Laboratory Data Categories
Laboratory Sample Analysis Results
Analytical data similar to that provided by each technology.
Laboratory QC Data
The accompanying QC data such as spike recovery, continuous calibration checks, lab precision
checks, etc.
Laboratory Audit Results
A written narrative of sample analysis results from the portable GC/MS system performed prior to the
demonstration.
55
-------
Sample and Data Management
The verification organization will be responsible for all sample custody until the samples are
delivered to the onsite laboratory. Sample containers and COC forms will be given to each sampling
technology vendor for each particular trial of the experiment. The technology operators will be
responsible for verifying the accuracy of sample collection information on the chain of custody form
prepared by the verification organization prior to turning the COC and the samples over to the
verification organization for analysis.
Field and Laboratory Data Management
All samples will be collected and documented as described in Section 6. The sample number will be a
alpha-numeric code that will uniquely identify the sample with regard to the site, trial number and
location of its collection.
Data Management
A logbook will be used to document sample receipt for each sample submitted for analysis.
Laboratory tracking will be performed by the operator responsible for sample analysis. Samples will
be analyzed and the data obtained will be reduced, validated, and reported as described in Section 6.
Sample result tables will then be transferred from the report forms generated by the operators to the
computerized data management system by computer file transfer or by data entry transcription. In
either case, all data transferred to the data management system will be checked for transcription errors
before the actual statistical evaluation is performed.
Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses and Evaluations
Samples submitted for chemical analysis will be analyzed by a reference laboratory. Each shipment
of samples sent to the laboratory will be accompanied by a chain-of-custody form, which will be
completed by the laboratory's sample custodian and returned to the SNL project manager. Samples
will be entered into the laboratory's Laboratory Information Management System. This system tracks
the progress of sample analysis within the laboratory and provides a reporting format for sample
results. After samples are analyzed, the data will be reduced, validated, and reported as described in
Section 6.
Validated sample results will be sent to SNL for entry into its data management system. In addition
to sample results, SNL will request QA/QC summary forms for the reference analysis. These forms
will enable SNL to verify the quality of data generated by these methods. SNL will then transfer this
data into its data management system. All data transcribed will be double-checked for accuracy in
SNL's data management system.
Data analysis
The following performance parameters will be assessed during the standpipe phase of the experiment:
Precision, Accuracy, Representativeness, Completeness and Comparability. Precision is defined as
the degree of agreement from independent measurements using a repeated application of a process
under specified conditions. Sampler precision will be obtained through the use of replicate samples.
The relative standard deviation for each VOC compound reported from the analysis will be used as a
measure of sampler precision. This precision estimate will include laboratory variation. Additional
statistical tests will be performed to apportion the variability of the replicate measurements between
the sampler and the laboratory.
56
-------
Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or accepted value of
the quantity of concern. Sampler accuracy will be determined relative to the reference samples from
the standpipe and will be expressed as percent recovery relative to the reference value.
Representativeness is defined as the degree to which the data from a process accurately and precisely
represent the parameters in the entire population being sampled.
Completeness is defined as a measure of the amount of data obtained in a measurement process
compared to the amount of data that was expected to be collected under the conditions of the
measurement. The completeness of the sampling system will be expressed as a ratio of the number
of samples delivered versus the number of samples specified in the verification plan.
Comparability is defined as the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another
reference data set. A measure of the comparability of the technology data with the reference data will
be done using statistical techniques. A 3-way analysis of variance approach will be used to evaluate
the effects of the independent variables (technology type, sampling depth, and compound volatility)
on overall performance sampler performance at high and low VOC concentrations. The analysis of
variance approach allows a comparison of the variance encountered between groups and among
groups to assess whether observed differences in technology results can be explained by random
variability or by a real effect. Additional post-hoc tests such as Tukey's Honest Significant
Differences Test will be used be used to further identify which sampling technologies significantly
differ from the reference method.
57
-------
58
-------
Section 8 Quality Assurance Project Plan
The QAPP for this demonstration specifies procedures that will be used to ensure data quality and
integrity. Careful adherence to these procedures will ensure that data generated from the demonstration
will meet the desired performance objectives and will provide sound analytical results.
Purpose and Scope
The primary purpose of this QAPP is to outline steps that will be taken by the operators of the various ground
water sampling technologies and the common analytical technology to ensure that data resulting from this
demonstration is of known quality and that a sufficient number of measurements are taken for a credible
technology performance assessment. The QAPP also details the QA/QC criteria that will be used to validate
the reference laboratory results. This project-specific QAPP is based upon the guidance contained in two
documents. The first is the Environmental Technology Verification Program Quality Management Plan for
the Pilot Period 1995-2000 [EPA, 1998a], and the second is the Environmental Technology Verification
Program Quality Management Plan for the Site Characterization and Monitoring Pilot [EPA, 1998b].
The scope of the QAPP includes a comparison of ground water sampling technology results to those
generated by a reference sampling method. The collected samples from the various participating
technologies and the reference technology will undergo analysis by a common field analytical GC/MS
procedure. During the verification testing, each technology operator follow a formal written sampling
procedure that has been prepared by the developer and submitted to the VO prior to the start of the
verification test. The field analytical laboratory will use a modified EPA SW-846 Method 8260 that
incorporates gas Chromatography/mass spectrometry for VOCs in water via headspace analysis. The
complete analytical method is included in Appendix D.
Data generated by each technology will be evaluated to determine the level of data quality it is capable of
generating. Each technology is expected to produce data quality that parallels the results from SW-846,
Method 8260. An additional means of technology performance evaluation is afforded by the inclusion of
many Performance Evaluation samples (of known content) in the experimental design. Adherence to the
QA/QC requirements of this QAPP will ensure that definitive level data quality is generated by the reference
laboratory.
Quality Assurance Responsibilities
SNL as the Verification Organization is responsible for the preparation of this QAPP for the demonstration.
The guidelines in the Site Characterization and Monitoring Pilot Quality Management Plan and the
overarching ETV Quality Management Plan cited previously have been used in the preparation of this plan.
It is important that the project principals understand and agree on the experimental approach. For this reason,
the Technology Demonstration Plan Approval Form must be signed by all key personnel. These signatures,
which must be obtained before the final Demonstration Plan is submitted, indicate that the key personnel
have read the appropriate sections of the Demonstration Plan and are committed to full cooperation and
implementation of the study design elements.
The QA/QC oversight of all demonstration activities will be provided by Tom Burford, the QA/QC officer at
SNL for this demonstration. Many individuals will be responsible for sampling and analysis QA/QC
throughout the demonstration. The primary responsibility for ensuring that sampling activities comply with
the requirements of the sampling plan (Section 5) will rest with Wayne Einfeld, the SNL demonstration
project leader. QA/QC activities for the field demonstration will incorporate those activities recommended
59
-------
by the developers as well as those specified by the EPA or SNL in this QAPP to assure that the demonstration
will provide data of the necessary quality.
QA/QC activities for the onsite field analytical laboratory analysis of samples will be the responsibility of
Craig Crume, the lead analyst of the field analysis team. If problems arise or any data appear unusual, they
will be thoroughly documented and corrective actions will be implemented as specified in this QAPP or in
the written analytical method in Appendix D. The QA/QC measurements made by the field analytical
laboratory are dictated by the analytical methods being used. This QAPP includes additional QA/QC
guidance which must be followed during the analysis of demonstration samples.
Data Quality Parameters
The data obtained during the ground water sampling technology demonstration will be thoroughly
documented and included in a Technology Verification Report along with conclusions drawn on individual
technology performance parameters. For all measurement and monitoring activities conducted for EPA, the
agency requires that data quality parameters be established based on the proposed end uses of the data. Data
quality parameters include five indicators of data quality: representativeness, completeness, comparability,
accuracy, and precision.
Representativeness
Representativeness refers to the degree to which the data accurately and precisely represents the conditions or
characteristics of the parameter represented by the data. For the purposes of this demonstration,
representativeness will be defined as the collection and analysis of samples that adequately represent the
characteristics of those that would be collected under typical field applications of the participating
technologies. In this demonstration, representativeness will be ensured by selecting commonly encountered
target analytes for spiking into the standpipe, as well as, the collection of GW samples from actual GW
monitoring wells at the NASA-SSC complex.
Completeness
Completeness refers to the amount of data collected from a measurement process compared to the amount
that was expected to be obtained. For this demonstration, completeness refers to the proportion of valid,
acceptable samples collected by each technology relative to the expected sample count. Completeness is
expressed as a percentage of the number of samples collected versus the number of samples expected from
each technology vendor.
Comparability
Comparability refers to the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another. One of the
important objectives of this demonstration is to evaluate how well the various sampling technologies perform
in comparison to a reference sampling method. The study design incorporates a high number of blind
replicate PE samples of known composition to assist in this determination of data comparability. By this
provision, QC samples are built into the study design and are not left to the discretion of the technology
operators.
Accuracy
Accuracy is a parameter that describes systematic differences between sample results and the true value or
reference method results for a particular sample or a group of samples. A related term, bias, is a measure of
the departure from accuracy and can be caused by such processes as systematic volatile losses in sample
collection or handling, chemical adsorption on or reaction with components of the sampler, or interferences
and/or systematic carryover of contaminats from one sample to the next. Accuracy and bias will be assessed
60
-------
for the monitoring technologies using sample data compared to reference sampling methods and
measurements made on the PE samples. Accuracy will also be evaluated for the reference sampling method
through the use of PE samples. PE samples used during this demonstration will provide the best estimate of
accuracy because they are of known composition while the reference sampling method results are themselves
estimates. Accuracy for the PE sample results will be evaluated through the comparison of percent recoveries
for each target analyte. The study design calls for more than 50% of all samples provided to the developers
to be PE samples to insure that reliable accuracy estimates can be obtained for each technology.
Precision
Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements and provides an estimate
of random error. Precision for this demonstration will be expressed in terms of the relative standard deviation
(RSD) between replicate sample measurements.
Precision for each technology will be assessed using replicates sample collections of both standpipe PE
samples and ground water samples. The replicate samples will provide an estimate of overall data precision
and will include such influential factors as: sample collection, field preparation, handling, and transportation
procedures, as well as analytical procedures.
The confidence interval of the mean is another measure of analytical precision and provides a range in which
the true mean of a population would be expected to fall with a given probability. For example, a 95%
confidence interval implies that the repeated samplings and measurements of a particular sample or mixture
will yield a value that lies within the stated interval 95 times out of 100 trials.
Calibration Procedures, Quality Control Checks, and Corrective Action
Calibration procedures, method-specific QC requirements, and corrective action associated with non-
conforming QC for the GC/MS technology and the reference method are described in the following
subsections.
Initial Calibration Procedures
The initial calibration of ancillary equipment used for measurements of water quality parameters associated
with a particular sampling technology will be the sole responsibility of the vendor. Similarly, the calibration
of ancillary equipment used in the collection of reference method samples will be the responsbility of the VO.
The methods of equipment calibration are included in Appendicies A, B, and C. Calibration of the onsite
GC/MS systems will be performed in accordance with the written analytical procedure which a modified
version of SW846-Method 8260A and included in Appendix D. The types of standards used and the
acceptance criteria for the initial calibration or calibration curve also will be those outlined in the written field
analytical method.
The initial calibration for the field analytical method consists of the analysis of five concentration levels of
each target analyte along with a calibration blank. The low-level calibration standard will be at a
concentration which defines the Lower Recovery Limits (LRLs) of the method. The remaining calibration
standard levels will be used to define the linear range of the instrument. The initial field analytical calibration
is used to establish calibration curves for each target analyte to be used in the demonstration.
Continuing Calibration Procedures
Continuing calibration checks of the field analytical method will be performed according to the written
procedure. Normally, continuing calibration checks specify a maximum error tolerance for the repeated
measurement of a stable calibration mixture over an extended (days or weeks) analysis interval. Continuing
calibration of the field GC-MS instruments to be used in this study is performed at least every 24 hours. The
61
-------
check frequency, the standard levels used, and the acceptance criteria for continuing calibrations also will be
those outlined in the written procedure in Appendix D. Continuing calibration acceptance criteria and
corrective actions are also specified in the written method.
Field and Method Blanks
The collection and analysis of field blank samples by the various sampling technologies is incorporated into
the study design. Field blank samples will be collected by all participants and will be analyzed using the
same procedure used for all other samples. The field analytical method also specifies the periodic analysis of
method blanks in accordance with the specifications of SW-846 Method 8260A.
PE Samples
A critical element of this demonstration's experimental design in the preparation of performance evaluation
(PE) samples in the standpipe for collection by the various technologies participating in the test. These
samples are critical to the success of the demonstration since they provide the only absolute check of
sampling technology and accompanying analysis accuracy and precision during the demonstration.
Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
To maintain a high level of data quality, specific procedures will be followed during data reduction,
validation, and reporting. These procedures are detailed below.
Data Reduction
Data reduction refers to the organization of all demonstration data into a data base or spreadsheet to facilitate
further analysis and reporting. Data reduction will be performed by the verification organization following
the chemical analysis of all the collected samples from all the participanting technologies. Supplementary
data, such as that collected in field logbooks during standpipe or well sampling will also be used in the data
reduction process.
Data Validation
Each technology operator will cross check and verify the list of samples collected by their technology and as
provided to them by the verification organization. The verification organization will also review calculations
and inspect field logbooks and data sheets as necessary to verify accuracy, completeness, and adherence to
the specific analytical method protocols. Calibration and QC data will also be regularly examined by the
field analytical instrument operators to ensure acceptable GC/MS performance. Chemical analysts will verify
that all instrument systems are within established control limits and that QA objectives for accuracy,
completeness, and method detection limits have been met. These QA data will be reported along with the
sample analytical results.
Analytical outlier data are defined as those QC data lying outside a specific QC objective window for
precision and accuracy for a given analytical method. Should QC data be outside of control limits, the
chemical analysts will investigate the cause of the problem. If the problem involves an analytical problem,
the sample will be reanalyzed if possible. If the problem can be attributed to the sample matrix, the result will
be flagged with a data qualifier. This data qualifier will be included and explained in the Technology
Verification Report.
Data Reporting
Analytical data will be reported using the onsite laboratory's standard data report form. At a minimum, the
forms will list the results for each sample and include the detection limits, reporting units, sample numbers,
results, and qualifiers.
62
-------
Calculation of Data Quality Indicators
The following calculation will be used by all methods for determining precision for the reference laboratory.
This calculation is used to determine the precision between sample results and duplicate sample results.
RSD = SD MEAN x 100 Equation 1
where
RSD = relative standard deviation
SD = standard deviation
Mean = average concentration of analyte in replicate sample measurements
Standard deviation is determined through the following calculation:
SD = [{£ (xj - mean)2} / (n-l)]1/2 Equation 2
SD = standard deviation
x, = concentration of analyte in specific replicate sample
Mean = average concentration of analyte in all replicate samples
n = total number of replicate sample measurements
The following calculation is used to determine PE sample recovery, which can be used to assess the accuracy
of the analytical method.
% Rec = (Measured value + True value) x 100 Equation 3
where
% Rec = percent recovery
Measured value = Result from field instrument measurement
True value = The certified value as provided in the PE sample documentation
The following calculation is used to determine the 95% confidence interval for a population mean.
confidence = x ± {(tn) x [s / (n)1/2]} Equation 4
where
confidence = 95% confidence interval for a population mean
x = mean value
tn= multiplicative constant for a standard t distribution that will yield a 95% confidence
interval with n samples
s = standard deviation
n = sample size
Performance and System Audits
The following audits will be performed during this demonstration. These audits will determine if this
demonstration plan is being implemented as intended.
Performance Audit
A performance audit will be carried out during this demonstration through the use of PE samples in the
experimental design. PE samples will be prepared from stock solutions and will be diluted to appropriate
63
-------
concentration levels for analysis by the onsite GC/MS systems prior to the demonstration. Percent recovery
calculations for the PE samples will be used to evaluate method performance and data acceptability.
On-Site System Audits
On-site technology audits during vendor sampling activities will be conducted. These audits will be
scheduled and performed by a representative of SNL. The EPA quality assurance officer may also be present
to conduct an audit during the demonstration to determine compliance with the ETV Program and Site
Characterization and Monitoring Pilot Quality Management Plans. Audit reports will be completed and
included in the subject matter of the Technology Verification Report.
Quality Assurance Reports to Management
QA reports provide management with the necessary information to monitor data quality effectively. It is
anticipated that the following types of QA reports will be prepared as part of this demonstration project.
Status Reports
The SNL project manager will prepare periodic reports for the EPA project manager. These reports should
discuss project progress, problems and associated corrective actions, and future scheduled activities
associated with the demonstration. When problems occur, the SNL project manager will discuss them with
the EPA project manager or EPA technical lead, estimate the type and degree of impact, and describe the
corrective actions taken to mitigate the impact and to prevent a recurrence of the problems.
Audit Reports
Any QA audits or inspections that take place in the field or at the reference laboratory while the
demonstration is being conducted will be formally reported by the auditors to the SNL analytical QC
manager and the SNL project manager who will forward them to the EPA project manager.
64
-------
Section 9 Health and Safety Plan
Introduction
This chapter describes specific health and safety procedures SNL and its contract personnel will use
during the field work to be performed at the NASA-SSC demonstration sites. The purpose of the HASP is
to define the requirements and designate the protocols to be followed during the field work specified
under Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR 1910.120(b) Final Rule. All SNL
personnel, subcontractors, and visitors on site must be informed of site emergency response procedures
and any potential fire, explosion, health, or safety hazards related to demonstration activities. This
section summarizes information contained in the NASA-SSC Health and Safety Plan, prepared for all
field operations at the site. A copy of the NASA-SSC Health and Safety Plan is included in Appendix E.
This plan will be provided to all SNL personnel, subcontractors, vendors, and other site visitors who may
be exposed to dangerous conditions during the demonstration. This provisions of this site-specific HASP
must be reviewed and approved by the SNL project manager, the onsite ES&H officers, and the EPA
project officer prior to the start of the demonstration. A HASP compliance agreement form must be
signed by all field personnel before they enter the site. Any revisions to this plan must be approved by
the same demonstration participants listed above.
Responsible Personnel
The SNL project manager along with the USGS site health and safety officer will be responsible for
implementing and enforcing the health and safety provisions of this HASP.
Site-Specific Hazard Evaluation
The field activities to be conducted at the SRS present a variety of chemical and physical hazards. Actual
personnel exposure to these hazards are dependent on the specific work tasks, weather conditions, levels
of protection utilized, and personal work habits.
The identified potential hazards associated with the GW Sampling demonstration are listed below.
• Chemical exposure
• Physical hazards
• Elevated working surfaces
• Heat Stress
• Mechanical
• Electrical
• Unstable/Uneven Terrain
• Other Environmental Hazards
• Insect and Animal Stings or Bites
• Inclement Weather
Chemical Health Effects, Exposure Pathways and Preventive Measures
Health Effects
Some of the chlorinated and non-chlorinated volatile organic target compounds to be used in this
investigation (PCE, TCE, 112-TCA, 1,1-DCE, 1,2-DCA, and benzene) are classified by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as potential carcinogens. Symptoms of acute
(high-level) VOC exposure to the above chemicals include the following: irritation of eyes, nose, and
throat, dermatitis, headache, vertigo, visual disturbance, tremors, nausea, vomiting, central nervous system
depression, cardiac arrhythmia. Chronic expsoure (long-term low-level exposure) symptoms can include
liver damage and blood disorders.
65
-------
The paragraphs below outline the various routes of potential exposure to chemicals associated with this
demonstration. Preventive measures taken to minimize exposure hazards are also described.
Inhalation
The risk of inhalation exposure from chemical contaminants is considered minimal because the
concentrations of contaminants being characterized are low and sampling is performed using sealed
containment. Furthermore, quantities of pure chemicals used for spiking water solutions at the standpipe
will be very small and thus will pose insignificant inhalation hazards to demonstration personnel.
Skin Contact
Personal exposure to chlorinated VOC contaminated water may occur by absorption through the skin or
eyes. Such contact will be avoided by the use of protective gloves and safety glasses during sampling
activities when the likelihood of skin or eye contact with contaminated water is present.
Ingestion
Personal exposure to CVOCs may occur by absorption through the gut after ingestion. Ingestion will be
avoided. To minimize ingestion, smoking and eating in the vicinity of sampling operations will not be
allowed.
Physical Hazards
A number of physical hazards likely to be encountered during the planned tests at the standpipe and the
GW monitoring wells are briefly outlined below.
Elevated Surfaces: Sampling activities at the standpipe will be conducted on a platform 100 feet above
the ground floor of the Saturn building. The platform is equipped with a railing, however, sampling
crews will be required to lift their sampling equipment over the railing for insertion into the standpipe. A
minor fall hazard is present under these working conditions. Furthermore, a falling debris hazard is
present for those who may be working below. To address these hazards, the following precautions will be
taken:
Personnel engaged in sampling activities at the standpipe will be required to wear a body harness that is
tethered to a suitable anchor as a fall prevention measure.
The railing face in the vicinity of the standpipe will be covered from the top of the rail to the floor level
with a tight mesh nylon netting to prevent the loss of tools etc. that may be lying on the floor surface over
the edge through inadvertent kicking by or mishandling by sampling crews.
A tight mesh nylon net will be positioned in a horizontal plane outward from the railing edge in the
vicinity of the standpipe. This net will serve to catch any items that may be dropped over the edge of the
railing during sampling activities at the standpipe.
The ground floor level zone below the standpipe will be cordoned off from all personnel during work
activities at the top of the standpipe. This is to prevent falling debris hazard for personnel on the ground
level floor in the vicinity of the standpipe.
Heat Stress: Technology demonstrations are scheduled for the July-August time frame. Heat stress may
become a concern during the demonstration period because of elevated air temperature and relative
humidity. Personnel will be provided adequate shelter, water, and work/rest regimens as required by
66
-------
environmental conditions. Additionally, sun screen may be used to reduce the risk of sunburn and skin
damage caused by UVB solar radiation.
Mechanical. Machinery or equipment capable of movement will be stopped and the power source de-
energized or disengaged, and if necessary, the movable parts mechanically locked or blocked to prevent
inadvertent movement during cleaning, servicing, or adjusting operations. Controls will be locked in the
off position and marked with accident prevention signs and/or tags. If machinery must be able to move
during servicing, extension tools must be used to protect personnel from movement.
All other mechanical hazards, such as sharp edges, tripping hazards, bumping hazards, etc., will be
identified and guarded or highlighted to ensure visibility and minimize the potential for personal injury.
Electrical. All electrical connections and grounding will be in accordance with the current edition of the
Nation Electric Code.
Unstable/Uneven Terrain: Electrical cables represent a potential tripping hazard. When practical cables
will be placed in areas of low pedestrian travel. If necessary, in high pedestrian travel areas, covers or
bridges will be installed over cables. Site personnel shall attempt to minimize the potential for slips, trips,
and falls by providing clean footing. Site personnel shall be aware of uneven terrain and existing ground
level piping and conduit, and they shall maintain good housekeeping in the area. Permanent roadways,
walkways, and material storage areas will be maintained free of dangerous depressions, obstructions, and
debris.
Insect and Other Animal Stings and Bites: A potential for insect or other animal stings or bites exists
during the technology demonstration period. Insect repellent may be used to minimize insect bite hazards.
In the event of snake or other large animal bite, the injury will be immobilized and immediately reported
to qualified medical personnel. All demonstration personnel will be notified of animal hazards at the
initial safety meeting. Appropriate clothes should be worn.
Inclement Weather. Severe weather conditions may generate lightning or flooding hazards. If a potential
for significant thunderstorm activity exists during demonstration activities, personnel will not be allowed
in the field during the threat period. Personnel will take refuge in support shelters. Vehicles will not be
driven in potential flood areas.
Preliminary Safety Briefing
Prior to involvement in any field activity, either at the standpipe or at the site monitoring wells, all
Sandia, EPA, and vendor personnel will attend a safety briefing. The briefing will include the nature of
the chemical contamination likely to be encountered, other physical hazards and their recognition, normal
operating procedures, personnel protective measures, and emergency operating procedures. The briefing
will be jointly conducted by USGS and Sandia personnel. NASA personnel will also conduct a briefing
regarding endangered species at SSC.
Protective Equipment and Clothing
Protective equipment and clothing will be selected based on known contaminant types, atmospheric
concentrations, aqueous concentrations, and known routes of entry into the human body. In situations
where the contaminant type, concentration, and exposure potentials are unknown, a subjective decision
regarding the assignment of PPE will be made by the site Health and Safety Officers. These individuals
may choose to upgrade or downgrade the required PPE depending on work area conditions, atmospheric
contaminant concentration, air temperature, or other environmental factors. All field sampling crews
should be prepared to work in a modified D level ensemble, as further described below:
Level of protection: D-modified
Respiratory Protection: None
67
-------
Suit:
Coverall (optional)
Steel toe
Neoprene (or equivalent)
Hard hat (as appropriate for overhead hazards)
Safety glasses/goggles
Muffs/Plugs (as required)
Boot:
Glove:
Head:
Eye:
Hearing:
Field/Medical Support
In the event of a chemical exposure injury or illness, the onsite ES&H officers and/or the SNL project
manager will promptly initiate the steps necessary to identify the chemical(s) involved in the exposure.
Chemical identification will be accomplished through the use of monitoring equipment and any available
prior sampling data. The chemical agent(s) information will be made available to the treating physician
and other emergency responders.
Any injury or illness not limited to a first-aid response will require notification of the onsite ES&H officer
and the SNL project manager. Notification allows the coordination of resources to assist emergency
response personnel and the treating physician in rendering appropriate care.
Any person suspected of having an overexposure to chemicals found on-site will be given another
complete physical examination.
Periodic Air Monitoring
Personnel exposure determination for each field activity will be made as frequently as deemed necessary
by the onsite ES&H officers.
Heat Stress Monitoring
Air temperature and relative humidity will be monitored by appropriate instrumentation and as deemed
necessary by the onsite ES&H officers.
Site Control
The onsite ES&H officer(s) will enforce all site control requirements. Communications from the work
site to other facilities will be by phone.
A warning barricade will surround the work area and warning signs stating hard-hats and safety glasses
with side shields are required for entry will be posted as necessary and appropriate.
Each company will provide the required training and equipment for their vendor personnel on-site to meet
safe operating practices and procedures in effect at the SSC. Each company will be responsible for the
safety of their workers. All general safety guidelines and procedures will conform to the requirements
and provisions of 29 CFR 1910.120.
Health and Safety Plan Enforcement
Failure of any demonstration personnel to comply with the Health and Safety plan may be grounds for
expulsion from the site and withdrawal of the associated technology from the demonstration. The
designated onsite ES&H officer(s) is the sole determinant of compliance with the Health and Safety Plan.
68
-------
Equipment Decontamination
Sampling equipment and tools used during sampling activities will be decontaminated using a water
solution of Alconox, rinsed with tap water, and rinsed with distilled water. All contaminated site
equipment will be decontaminated both before and after site activities. Equipment will also be properly
decontaminated between sampling locations to prevent cross contamination. All uncontaminated
equipment should be wiped with a wet towel at the close of site activities.
Decontamination materials will be containerized, labeled, and left on-site pending appropriate
characterization of the material. These materials will be properly disposed.
The following decontamination equipment and supplies will be used during the tests:
Alconox
Distilled water
Scrub brushes
Towels
Plastic buckets
5 5-Gallon DOT-17 drums
Emergency Contingency Planning
The objective of the Health and Safety Plan is to minimize chemical and physical hazards and operational
accidents. The following directions are provided to ensure personnel respond to emergency situations in a
calm and reasonable manner.
During field operations, the existing emergency medical assistance network at SSC will be used.
Emergency phone numbers are listed in the attached SSC Health and Safety Plan. A vehicle will be
available on-site during all activities to transport injured personnel to the identified emergency medical
facility. An ambulance or air-rescue will be on-call at the medical facility to transport seriously injured
personnel to the nearest medical facility equipped to handle the specific emergency. Telephone numbers
and locations of the nearest emergency room facilities will be posted at the site. At least two people will
be present at the demonstration site during all activities.
The onsite ES&H officer(s) will hold the leadership role in all emergency situations. They will also be
certified to render first aid and cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) prior to initiation of field activities.
Other provisions are as follows:
• A first aid kit will be available at the demonstration site.
• An emergency eye wash will be available at the demonstration site.
• An adequate supply of potable water will be available at the demonstration site.
• Demonstration personnel will be trained in emergency procedures during the personnel training
sessions.
• Evacuation routes as outlined in the SSC Health and Safety Plan will used by the project team and
will be communicated to all test personnel during the initial safety conference prior to field activity
commencement.
• The onsite ES&H officer(s) will be responsible for ensuring that all personnel understand the specific
emergency signals and procedures.
What to do in the event of an emergency
In the event of an emergency, immediately call for emergency medical assistance, notify theonsite ES&H
officer and the Sandia project manager. Give first aid as appropriate. In an emergency, the primary
concern is to prevent loss of life or severe injury to site personnel. In the event of protective equipment
69
-------
failure when immediate medical treatment is required to save a life, decontamination should be delayed
until the victim is stabilized. If decontamination can be performed without interfering with essential life-
saving techniques or first aid, or if a person has been contaminated with an extremely toxic or corrosive
material that could cause severe injury or loss of life, decontamination must be performed immediately.
In the event of a fire or explosion, all site work will cease and the site will be evacuated. The oniste
ES&H officer and the Sandia project manager will determine the appropriate action following site
evacuation.
Emergency Information Telephone Numbers
Person
Title
Phone Number
Wayne Einfeld
SNL Project Manager
tbd (local cell phone)
Ed Ford
USGS Project Manager
tbd
?????
ES&H Officer (USGS)
tbd
?????
ES&H Officer (Johnson Controls)
tbd
?????
SSC Medical Clinic
(601) 688-3810
Center for Disease Control
(404) 329-3311
(404) 329-2888
National Response Center
(800) 424-8802
See also Table 12.1 in the NASA-SSC Health and Safety Plan in Appendix E.
Hospital Route Directions
Directions to the nearest hospital, including a map, are included in the NASA-SSC Health and Safety
Plan and will be posted at the site.
70
-------
Section 10 Deliverables
Several documents and reports will be produced by the SNL as part of this demonstration. Deliverables
include a Demonstration Plan and a Environmental Technology Verification Report for each technology
participating in the demonstration. Each of these reports is discussed below.
Demonstration Plan
This demonstration plan has been prepared to provide a detailed description of all activities that will take
place as part of this demonstration. Key elements of the demonstration plan include the following:
• Test Plan - The test plan includes an overview of the demonstration process (Section 1), a description
of the roles and responsibilities of involved parties (Section 3); technology descriptions (Section 4); site
descriptions (Section 5); a discussion of the experimental design and sampling protocols (Sections 6 and
7) and an explanation of the methodology for evaluating the performances of the technologies (Sections 8
and 9).
• Quality Assurance Project Plan - This section was prepared according to EPA guidelines listed in the
statement of work. The QAPP includes a project description, delineation of QA/QC responsibilities, QA
objectives for critical measurements, sampling and analytical procedures, data reduction, validation, and
reporting procedures, plans for system and performance audits, and descriptions of internal QC checks,
calculation of data quality indicators, plans for corrective actions, and QC reports to management. The
QAPP is provided in Section 8.
• Health and Safety Plan - The HASP identifies the key personnel who will be involved with
demonstration activities and the minimum training requirements for field personnel, evaluates anticipated
hazards associated with field work, and discusses site entry, personal protection equipment,
communication, and decontamination procedures to be followed during field work. The HASP is
provided in Section 10.
Technology Verification Report
The main product of a completed demonstration under the ETV Program, Site Characterization and
Monitoring Pilot is a Technology Verification Report. This report documents the results of the
demonstration for each developer and reports on the performance of the technology. The report will
include descriptions of sampling and analytical procedures, data collection and management procedures, a
data summary and analysis, as well as associated QA/QC requirements.
The report content for this demonstration project is given in more detail as follows:
A demonstration summary.
A description of the technology that was demonstrated including diagrams, operating instructions, and a
brief discussion of the theoretical concepts under which the technology operates.
A description of the experimental design for the demonstration including method protocols, sampling and
analysis procedures and methods, QA/QC procedures and records, descriptions of the demonstration site,
and any other pertinent information about the demonstration.
An interpretation and assessment of the technology that compares results to those obtained using
reference or standard methods.
Analytical performance data and data interpretation for the technology including an evaluation of data
quality parameters (precision, accuracy, comparability, completeness, representativeness), and a
description of the methods used to assess this data.
Limited information on cost of technology acquisition, deployment and maintenance.
Conclusions about the advantages and limitations of each technology on its own merit compared to
conventional EPA sample analysis.
71
-------
Recommendations for the potential use of the technologies for field screening, as well as
recommendations for improvements or further testing, if appropriate.
Other Reports
Other reports or documents may also be prepared as directed by the EPA. Examples of other reports
which may be required include memorandum trip reports following field activities or visits to developer
facilities. In addition, the EPA project manager may require development of technology transfer
documents including technology mailers, bulletins, journal articles, or other publications.
72
-------
Page D-73
Section 11 References
Foster Wheeler, 1998. "Final Hydrogeologic Investigation Report for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Stennis Space Center, Mississippi," Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation,
Lanham, MD.
EPA, 1998a. "Environmental Technology Verification Program, Quality Management Plan for the Pilot
Period 1995-2000," EPA Report No. EPA/600/R-98/064. Available at the ETV Web Site:
www. epa. gov/etv/librarv .htm
EPA, 1998b. "Environmental Technology Verification Program, Quality Management Plan for the Site
Characterization and Monitoring Pilot," No EPA report number assigned; contact Eric Koglin, US EPA,
Las Vegas for more information.
EPA, 1998c. "Environmental Technology Verification Report, Field-Portable GC/MS, Inficon Inc.,
HAPSITE," EPA Report No. EPA/600/R-98/142. Available at the ETV Web Site:
www .epa. gov/etv/librarv .htm
------- |