1. SESSION: MANAGING CONTAMINATION North Carolina DOT’s Experience with UV Fluorescence for Measuring Petroleum Contamination in Soil Cyrus Parker, LG P.E., NCDOT The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has started using Ultra Violet Fluorescence (UVF) to analyze soil samples for petroleum compounds instead of the traditional USEPA Method 8015. This presentation will discuss the 3 ways NCDOT has used the UVF test, the test results and potential cost and time savings associated with using the UVF test instead of Method 8015. Cyrus is the GeoEnvironmental Supervisor for the North Carolina Department of Transportation. He has over 18 years of experience with geoenvironmental engineering as both a consultant and with the Department of Transportation. Mr. Parker has a bachelor’s degree from North Carolina State University and licenses to practice Geology and Engineering in the state of North Carolina.

2. Ultra Violet Fluorescence Soil Analysis Cyrus Parker, LG, PE North Carolina Department of Transportation

3. The Green Box

4. Overview Ultra Violet Fluorescence (UVF) Introduction to UVF Data Comparison with EPA Method 8015 User Feedback Cost Comparison with EPA Method 8015

6. Weigh 10 Grams Soil

7. Add Methanol to soil. Shake. Wait.

8. Extract Sample and Transfer to Cuvette

9. Place Cuvette into analyzer, Enter Sample ID and Click Analyze

11. Diesel Fuel

12. Heavy Fuel Oil

13. Regulatory Approval

14. NOTE: Thi s summary represents a review of soil samples collected as grab samples on-site, analyzed immediately in the field, followed by submitting a separate container to the laboratory for 8015 analysis. Some samples noted were submitted for UVF testing for 24 or 48 hour TAT. Thorough Homogenization was not applied. It is important to note that the Lab and the UVF did not test the same 10g sample or extract in this correlation study. Key Notes: UVF and EPA Method 8015 Data Comparision

15. UVF/DRO8015/DRO 1) HA-1503264 2) HA-268.146.2 3) HA-313221060 4) HA-400 5) HA-52.40 6) HA-72.50 7) HA-83.30 8) HA-93.80 In the last 4 samples the Lab results a Non Detect and the UVF results in below the action limit. The UVF results show that there are still trace amounts in the sample. Note the fingerprint example on next slide. ONSITE RENTAL

16. UVF Fingerprint Sample HA-5 (F&R, Lincoln) UVF fingerprint trace clearly shows the presence of a degraded petroleum hydrocarbon. This is consistent with all samples where the Lab reports 0… UVF/DRO8015/DRO 5) HA-52.40

17. Values are very close for the DRO range. A 30% error bar is incorporated into this graph to show that the UVF/8015 values fall within the 30% error range. OFFSITE UVF LAB UVF/DRO8015/DRO 1) 4-140.5123 2) 4-313.86.6 3) SB-13504.63440 4) SB-223563220 5) SB-7579.2528

18. Highlighted numbers are very close to standard calibrator values for GC 8015. All other samples correlated OFFSITE LAB UVF/GRO8015/GRO 4-14.66.9 4-300 SB-1844.75170 SB-2989.95230 SB-7293.45360

19. SB-1 Lab Result UVF/GRO8015/GRO SB-1844.75170

20. SB-2 Lab Result UVF/GRO8015/GRO SB-2989.95230

21. SB-7 Lab Result UVF/GRO8015/GRO SB-7293.45360

22. Background Organics *The top 2 fingerprints represent the presence of the contaminant in high concentrations. *The bottom 2 fingerprints represent how a negative on the Rowan site would appear with background organics. UVF/GROUVF/DRO SB-1844.73504 SB-2989.92356 SB-300 SB-400

23. *Please note the dates in which the samples where collected and the dates in which they were analyzed at the lab. UVF sample data was generated within 24 hours. The UVF fingerprints exhibit the high levels of background organics in the samples, which may account for the high recoveries and results in the lab data. The Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate for these samples show 133% and 155% surrogate recovery. They have a qualifier to that effect In the QA/QC data.

24. UVF/DRO8015/DRO 110-3-1012.9<7.0 137-7-22.122.9 137-8-15 155-4-1030.6308 66-6-103128326600 66-14-8190252 66-19-9915.35460 66-25-12.54515.84580 66-26-1171840 116-16-1021.5148 116-16-1213.717 *Sample 66-26-11 is a major discrepancy. A review of S&ME field notes indicated a positive PID reading, odor and discoloration for this sample.

25. UVF/GRO8015/GRO 110-3-1000 137-7-2012.9 137-8-153.7<7.2 155-4-104.20 66-6-102432696 66-14-87.67.9 66-19-983.1<6.7 25-12.5176.240.1 26-11540 116-16-1025.463.8 116-16-128.8120 Sample fingerprints on the following slides exhibit background organics and explanation of conflicts. ONSITE LAB

26. 137-7-2 Exhibits background organics substantial in the low level sample. 66-6-10 Exhibits an over range sample that was not diluted or recalculated with the UVF and may have been closer to Lab result. 110-3-10 Lab reports <7.0 mg/kg for DRO, UVF reports 12.9 mg/kg DRO. Product is present in sample. UVF/DRO8015/DRO 137-7-22.122.9 66-6-103128326600 110-3-1012.9<7.0

27. 137-8-15 Normal blank subtraction was not carried out in this sample. UVF reported 3.7 mg/kg GRO and the Lab reported <7.2 mg/kg GRO. 66-19-9 High concentrations of degraded diesel would require a large dilution by GC for the DRO range and it is possible the GRO range was diluted away in the process. Lab reports 5,460 mg/kg DRO and < 6.7 GRO respectively. This product is NOT highly degraded, thus to produce such high levels of DRO and NO GRO would be atypical for Diesel fuel. UVF/ DRO 8015/ DRO UVF/ GRO 8015/ GRO 137-8-15<1.3 <6.1 3.7<7.2 66-19-9915.35460 83.1<6.7

28. *PLEASE NOTE background and particulate present in the samples from this site.

29. The Fingerprints clearly show the presence of petroleum product. UVF/DRO8015/DRO 101_SS- 14.819.6 96_SS-737.3391 071_2-215.317.1 075_312.10 079-14.80 085_11.90

30. 100% Correlation UVF/GRO8015/GRO 101_SS- 100 96_SS-700 071_2-2<0.60 075_3<070 079-1<0.60 085_1<0.60

31. 71-2(0-2) Lab reports 17.1 mg/kg DRO and UVF reports 15.3 mg/kg DRO, which shows almost a perfect correlation. 75-3(0-2) Lab reports 0 mg/kg for DRO and UVF reports 12.1 mg/kg DRO. A very clear fluorescent fingerprint of fuel product. UVF/DRO8015/DRO 071_2-215.317.1 075_312.10

32. 79-1(0-2) Lab reports 0 mg/kg DRO and the UVF reports 4.8 mg/kg DRO. A very clear fingerprint of fuel product is shown in the fingerprint. Perhaps it was detected below the lab PQL? 85-1(0-2) Lab reports 0 mg/kg DRO and UVF reports 1.9 mg/kg. Perhaps it was detected below the lab PQL? UVF/DRO8015/DRO 079-14.80 085_11.90

33. UVF/DRO8015/DRO 96_SS-737.3391

34. Batch SS-7 QC Data

35. UVF/DRO8015/DRO 96_SS-737.3391 SS-7 Chromatogram

36. User Feedback

40. Cost Analysis

41. UVF Options Onsite UVF Equipment Rental for Immediate Results ~$800 per day Rental Shipping Supplies Additional Labor Onsite Laboratory for Immediate Results ~$1100 per day (all inclusive) Ship to Offsite Laboratory for 24 or 48 hour Results 24 hour $55 per sample 48 hour $45 per sample

44. The Real Question Would the regulatory decision change if UVF was used instead of Method 8015?

48. Conclusions Flexibility for onsite or laboratory analysis Potential cost and time savings Experienced users like the system Less Experienced users can ship samples to laboratory for analysis similar to their current process Using UVF would not have change our recommendations, most of the time

49. Felecia Owen QROS, LLC fowen@qros.us 919-278-8926 http://qros.us/ More Information? Cyrus Parker NCDOT cfparker@ncdot.gov 919-707-6868