1. A Modern Strategy for Hazardous Waste Site Clean-Up: The "Triad" Approach Sept. 27, 2001 ENRY Belgrade, Yugoslavia Daniel M. Powell Technology Innovation Office US Environmental Protection Agency powell.dan@epa.gov

2. Innovative Analytical and Sampling: Opportunities for Cost Savings, TODAY  An excellent target for innovative approaches »Available today »Impacts total project costs »Results in “remedy” savings (e.g. removal, treatment)  All sites require monitoring and measurement activities »Public lead, private lead »High value, low value, no value (redevelopment perspective) »Big sites, small sites »Clean-up, “no further action” sites  Monitoring and measurement activities occur from site assessment through site closeout, reuse

3. 1 1 2 1 2 2 We need more information 33 It ends when the $$ runs out!! Start: “Define the nature and extent of contamination.” 2

4. The Historical Process  Identify the site and rapidly charge into the maze  1980s: »Work needed to be accomplished right away »Limited experience, knowledge »Few tools available for monitoring or cleanup Start here Closeout ?? EXIT ??

5. Conducting Site Activities Without a Systematic Approach Site Assessment Close-out/ reuse Clean-up Design/ Implementation Site Investigation Without end-use, systematic focus for data collection, must start over, fill gaps, and refit data as move through process Each “phase” becomes an end to itself (multiple projects) Data collected for each phase may or may not be useful in subsequent phases

6. Systematic Planning Dynamic Workplanning On-Site Measurement Technologies The Triad Approach

7. Characteristics of the “Triad”  Fully maximizing capabilities of field analytical instruments and rapid sampling tools  Systematic planning »Meeting site or project-specific goals vs. prescriptive methods “checklists” »Relying on thorough advance planning/up-front understanding of the site »Global view of project, ultimate goals  Dynamic or adaptive decision making  Bringing together the right team  Changing perception »Requirements for accurate, protective, and defensible decisions »Time, money, and quality

8. Focus: Systematic Planning  Stakeholders involved  Multidisciplinary Team  Exit strategy clearly defined »Identify project decisions »Identify desired certainty  Project-specific Conceptual Site Model »Identifies data/information gaps »Data collection supports evolution of CSM as data/information gaps filled  Identify most resource-effective means to fill data/information gaps EXIT START

9. Core: Dynamic Work Plans  Real-time, decision-making in the field  Real-time analysis makes possible, field analytics makes economical  Experienced, senior technical personnel (scientists & engineers) in the field  Regulator-approved decision trees »Flexible work plans —Alternate contracting options —Regulator, senior staff involvement »Adaptive sampling and analysis plans »Evolve the CSM to maturity  Seamless flow of site activities  fewer mobilizations

10. Technical Team  Assemble the technical team  Get the right people involved from the start  Often means going outside the “normal” field-based team  Risk assessor, legal, statistician, analytical chemist, hydrologist, soil scientist, etc.  Requires access to decisionmakers during event

11. Why Consider the “Triad” Approach?  Lower costs »Assessment, investigation »Cleanup, close-out burden  Decrease time (mobilizations; also affects cost)  Creates “seamless” perspective on site work where data collection builds on previous work vs. segmented, serial approach to site work

12. Benefits of “Triad,” Systematic Approach: Building on Existing Information Site Assessment Close-out/ reuse Clean-up Design/ Implementation Site Investigation Each phase focuses on needs of subsequent work, requirements Data focuses on decisions which focus on site objective (one project) Maximize use of existing data

13. Why Consider the “Triad” Approach? (continued)  Focus on systematic planning helps remove biases against effective field technologies »Focus on site objectives/decisions vs. individual data points/measurement approaches »Improves communication between parties »Improves understanding of true site conditions »Decrease uncertainty (corollary - increase comfort) »Increases likelihood of consensus-based approaches to address contingencies

14. Modernizing site activities involves doing site cleanups:  Cheaper  Faster  Smarter, AND  Better Theme # 1

15. Theme 1: Summary  “Cheaper and faster” closely related »Key element: Dynamic Workplans »Require real-time measurement »New field technologies make “real-time” affordable  “Smarter and better” require systematic planning »Key element: focus on managing uncertainty »Requires development of site-specific goals and strategies to achieve goals

16. Theme #2  Accepting modernized approaches requires realistic understanding of the role of analytical quality vs. data quality  Must understand that: Non- Representative Sample Perfect Analytical Chemistry + “BAD” DATA

17. Data Quality  Distinguish: analytical quality from data quality  Data quality: the ability of data to provide information that meets user needs  Users need to make correct decisions  “Data quality” is thus a function of the data’s ability to represent the “true state” in the context of the decision to be made

18. The SYSTEM functions as if it believes that… { Data Uncertainty Automatically Managed Data Quality = Prescriptive Analytical Methods { Analytical Uncertainty Automatically Managed = Decision Quality { Decision Uncertainty Automatically Managed

19. Distinguishing Concepts Analytical Methods Overall Data Quality Decision Quality Method Modifications Method Selection { Manage Analytical Quality Representative Sampling Data Assessment Manage Uncertainty in Data Generation { Manage Uncertainty in Decision Making { Clarify Assumptions Draw Conclusions Non-scientific considerations

20. Core Concept of Systematic Planning: Focus on the Bottom Line  The bottom line: protect the health and well- being of humans and the environment by making scientifically defensible decisions  The goal is “decision quality”  Data quality is one means to this end

21. Unifying Concept for Triad: Managing Uncertainty  Systematic project planning »Identify decision goals w/ tolerable overall uncertainty »Identify major uncertainties (cause decision error) »Identify strategy to manage each major uncertainty  Use field analytical methods and dynamic work plan to effectively manage sampling uncertainty (sample representativeness)  Use various strategies to manage analytical uncertainty when using field analytical

22. Few higher quality data points  Lower information value of the data set Data Quality vs. Information Value Many lower quality data points  Higher information value of the data set Goal: A defensible site decision that reflects the “true” site condition Less likely More likely ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$

23. Sources of Uncertainty in Data Results e.g., Method 8260 PLUS = Total Uncertainty In Data Results + Uncertainty in Extract Cleanup Uncertainty in Extract Analysis + Uncertainty in Sample Preparation Analytical Uncertainties Uncertainty in Sample Location + Uncertainty in Sample Preservation + Uncertainty in Sample Support Uncertainty in Sub- sampling + Sampling Uncertainties

24. Sampling = 95% Analytical = 5% 39,800 On-site 41,400 Lab 500 On-site 416 Lab 164 On-site 136 Lab 27,800 On-site 42,800 Lab 24,400 On-site 27,700 Lab 1,280 On-site 1,220 Lab 1 2 7 63 4 5 331 On-site 286 Lab Sampling vs. Analytical Uncertainty

25. Adding Uncertainties Uncertainties add according to (a 2 + b 2 = c 2 ) Ex. 2 3 X Sampling Uncertainty Analytical Uncertainty Total Uncertainty Ex. 1 Ex. 3 1/3 X Ex. 1 Ex. 2 Ex. 3

26. Use Real-time Results to Decrease Overall Decision Uncertainty Total Uncertainty Analytical Uncertainty Sampling Uncertainty Ex. 1 Field Analytical (alone) Ex. 2 Controlled Sampling Uncertainty Ex. 3 Controlled Sampling Uncertainty in Fixed Lab Data Set FA guide Fixed Lab Ex. 1 Ex. 2 Ex. 3

27. Sample Representativeness  Finally able to address this issue defensibly and affordably!  Use cheaper analytical technologies that allow you to increase sample density.  Use real-time measurements at the site of the sample to support real-time decision-making  Balance analytical uncertainty against overall data uncertainty

28. Few higher quality data points  Lower information value of the data set Many lower quality data points  Higher information value of the data set Goal: A defensible site decision that reflects the “true” site condition Less likelyMore likely $ $ $ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Data Quality vs. Information Value $ $ $ NOW, few ”higher quality” data points  Highly informative data set Nearly Certain

29. Case Study of USACE Tree Fruit Project  Problem: Pesticide contamination of soil in the vadose zone  Scope of Remedial Activities: »Locate and remove bags of neat pesticide (focused removal) »Characterize pesticide contaminated soil: excavate to meet WA state cleanup standards »Manage/dispose excavated material »Residential development - needed clean closure  Case Study: EPA 542-R00-009 (http://cluin.org/char1_edu.cfm)http://cluin.org/char1_edu.cfm

30. Case Study of Tree Fruit Project: Results  Action required to achieve clean closure »390 tons of soil removed (56 tons incinerated; 334 tons landfilled) »vs. 708 tons if removed all soil  Time »Single mobilization: <4 months of field work to complete site closure  Costs »Projected: ~$1.2M; Actual: $589K »Savings:~50%  Happy client, regulator, and stakeholders

31. Wenatchee Tree Fruit Example: Cost Comparison (per USACE) This traditional cost estimate assumes no characterization, only removal and incineration of the entire plot volume DWP

32. Final Remediation Boundary North Drawing not to scale Top number is feet bgs planned for excavation and the bottom is feet bgs actually excavated Original Remediation Boundary X-Y Coordinate Origin Col 1Col 2 Col 3 Col 4 Col 5Col 6Col 7Col 8Col 9 2 2 / 1 1 / 5 5 / 1 1 / 4 4 / 2 2.5 / 2 2 / 4 4 / 1 1 / 1 1 / 1 1 / 1 1 / 5 5 / 1 4.5 / 4 4 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 4 4 / 2 2.5 / 4 4 / 2 2 / 2 2 / 4 4 / 5 5 / 1 1 / Row B Row C Row A FR2/3FR4/5 2 2.5 / 2 / 1 1 / Final CSM: Lateral and Vertical Removals

33. Resources Specific to Case Study  USACE Cost and Performance Report: www.frtr.gov/cost/pdf/Wenatchee.pdf www.frtr.gov/cost/pdf/Wenatchee.pdf  EPA Case Study: (http://cluin.org/char1_edu.cfm)http://cluin.org/char1_edu.cfm  Technical Project Planning Manual (publication number EM-200-1-2) downloadable from: http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng- manuals/em.htm http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng- manuals/em.htm  Video: “A Guideline for Dynamic Workplans and Field Analytics” (http://cluin.org/video/hanscom.htm)http://cluin.org/video/hanscom.htm

34. Florida DEP’s Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program  Success over 2½ years  10 contractors  156 assessments completed  100 cleanups underway  Compared to conventional »Cost 30-50% less »Better 3-D plume definition (better remedy design) »Assessment completed in half the time or less  Information on state drycleaning efforts: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners, http://www.drycleancoalition.org/ http://www.drycleancoalition.org/

35. Resources: General  Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) Internet site (http://clu-in.org)http://clu-in.org —Go to “Characterization and Monitoring” link —“TechDirect Email Newsletter” for automatic updates on new resources

36. Monitoring and Measurement Resources: General  Technology Information »Case Studies (http://cluin.org/char1_edu.cfm)http://cluin.org/char1_edu.cfm —Wenatchee —Oak Ridge drum disposal —Hanscom AFB —Florida Dry-cleaning Program —Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Internet Site (http://www.frtr.gov)http://www.frtr.gov

37. Monitoring and Measurement Resources: General  Methods information (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/ sw846.htm)http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/ sw846.htm  Technology evaluation »Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, Site Characterization and Monitoring Technology Pilot (http://www.epa.gov/etv/02/02_main.htm)http://www.epa.gov/etv/02/02_main.htm »Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program (http://www.epa.gov/ord/SITE)http://www.epa.gov/ord/SITE

38. Monitoring and Measurement Resources: General  Technology Information »Technology Screening —Navy/EPA Technology Matrix (http://www.frtr.gov/site/)http://www.frtr.gov/site/ —EPA ReachIT (http://epareachit.org)http://epareachit.org »New Technologies —Sensor Technology Information Exchange (http://www.sentix.org)http://www.sentix.org —Measurement and Monitoring for the 21st Century (21M 2 ) Initiative (http://clu-in.org/21m2)http://clu-in.org/21m2

39. Monitoring and Measurement Resources: General  Training (http://trainex.org)http://trainex.org »1.5-, 3-, 5-day Field-Based Program »Technologies and strategies »Internet seminars (http://clu-in.org/studio)http://clu-in.org/studio —~2hours, no travel —Dynamic Data Collection Strategy Using Systematic Planning and Innovative Field-Based Measurement Technologies  Perspectives (http://clu-in.org/char1.cfm)http://clu-in.org/char1.cfm »Definitions »PBMS vs. standard methods »Data defensibility (legal)  Procurement “guide” (complete, Winter 2001-02)