Managing Uncertainty through Better Upfront Planning and Flexible Workplans Albert Robbat, PhD Tufts University, Chemistry department Center for Field Analytical Studies and Technology Medford, Massachusetts tel ; Northeast States’ Improving the Quality of Site Characterization

Hazardous waste site characterization and cleanup is expensive and time-consuming. Small sites to extremely large sites require the same systematic planning and scientific assessment. Money is tight, yet data volume is needed to make sound scientific decisions as to the nature and extent, if any, of contamination. New sampling and analytical measurement technologies have been that have the potential to greatly reduce cost and time. New processes have been developed and promoted by state and federal agencies, but are rarely used. Why?? What’s the Problem

What’s The Opportunity Systematic Planning, Dynamic Workplans, Field Analytics and On-site Decision Making together can:  Provide more information at less cost and over shorter time periods.  Provide screening to quantitative “risk” quality data, when and where needed.  Increase field personnel efficiency and on-site decision making confidence.  Increase site-specific information and final site characterization decision confidence.

Brownfields Redevelopment Conversion of an Abandoned Chemical Plant to an Entertainment Complex

Brownfields Redevelopment Urban Waste Sites Converted to an Industrial Park

What is Decision Making Uncertainty? What is Sampling and Analysis Uncertainty? How Many Wells?

Rapid in situ Sample Collection and Analysis What is Decision Making Uncertainty? What is Sampling and Analysis Uncertainty? How Many Soil Samples? What Role Does Heterogeneity Play in the Sample Collection, Analysis, and Decision Making Process?

Better Contamination Depth Profiles DAF, dilution attenuation factor

Rapid Direct MS Measurements

Direct In situ TECP-MS

Better Assessment of VOC Risk to Groundwater

No degradation or loss of analyte due to time delays

Projected vs Actual Number of Samples Analyzed

Traditional Approach

Dynamic Workplan Approach

 Select Core Technical Team Designate one member with authority to make final field decisions Develop workplan “thought process and rules-to-follow” in the field Although in Massachusetts and Connecticut upfront buy-in is not needed, adherence to the documented “thought process” will help insure acceptance of field data results  Develop Conceptual Model & Decision Making Framework Produce map depicting vadose zone and groundwater flow systems that can influence contaminant movement Establish DQO’s to ensure type, quantity, and quality of field data  Develop Standard Operating Procedures Produce performance methods that support the DQO process Document MDL’s prior to field mobilization Systematic Planning and Dynamic Workplan

 Develop Data Management Plan Integrate chemical, physical, geological, and hydrogeological data  Develop Quality Assurance Project Plan Define technical team/regulators responsibilities consistent with EPA/state policy  Prepare Health and Safety Plan Establish DQO’s to monitor worker/community safety Systematic Planning and Dynamic Workplan

Field Requirements Collect samples quickly Analyze samples quickly Review and report results quickly Performance-based

PBMS/Keys to Success  Experienced, trained personnel  Data produced must provide level of assurance that it meets sufficient accuracy, precision, selectivity, sensitivity, and representativeness to meet project-specific DQO’s  Legal Defensibility, Rule 702, Determination of Reliability technique tested, subject to peer review, accepted by scientific community method reproducible, with potential rate of error known  Visible & well-documented practices and procedures manuals for effective quality system

High Performance/Quality Control  Blanks, LCS, SRMs, MS, MSDs  Calibration & Continuing Calibration  Peak Integration  MDL’s  DQO’s  Data Useability  Reporting

 In situ or Hand-held Vapor Analyzers ECD, FID, PID provides signal response in seconds  Portable GC’s with Selective Detection ECD, FID, PID provides screening data in seconds to 10’s minutes  Field GC’s with Selective Detection ECD, FID, PID provides semiquantitative data in 10’s of minutes  Field GC’s with Mass Spectrometry Detection Provides semiquantitative to quantitative data in seconds to 10’s of minutes  In situ Mass Spectrometry Provides semiquantitative data in seconds  Immunoassay or colorimetric Kits Provides screening data in 2-15 min Field Analysis of Organics

eNose Detection of Volatiles By Direct Measuring MS Or TECP-MS 50 compounds detected in 20 sec

 x-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy Provides screening to quantitative data in seconds to 10’s of minutes  Inductively Coupled Plasma/Optical Emission Spectroscopy Provides quantitative data in minutes  Anodic Stripping Voltammetry Provides quantitative data in minutes  Immunoassay or colorimetric Kits Provides screening data in 2-15 min Field Analysis of Metals

Comparison of Method and Data Quality Attributes

VOC Analysis of Soil by Purge and Trap GC/MS

SVOC Analysis of Soil by Thermal Desorption GC/MS

Cost Comparison and Data Turnaround Times

Barriers

Why is the Same Technology Readily Accepted in Other Regulated Markets? Answer They have learned how to deal with measurement and decision making uncertainties!!

Research Funding & Logistical Support U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Army Environmental Center, Joliet Ammunition Plant Hanscom Air Force Base Department of Energy Agilent Technologies State Regulatory Agencies OHM, CH2MHill, Jacobs Engineering, Bechtel Charles River Laboratories, Pharmacopeia