1. Dredging 2012 San Diego, California October 23, 2012 Ruth L. Forman, CEAC – Environmental Standards, Inc. Rock J. Vitale, CEAC – Environmental Standards, Inc. William J. Rogers, Ph.D. – Tennessee Valley Authority Implementation of a Quality Assurance Program for the Emory River Dredging Project Resulting from the TVA Kingston Ash Spill

2. 2  Client Background/ Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)  Project Background/ Event Facts  Initial Challenges  Project Accomplishments  Activities, Challenges, and Notes of Interest  Conclusions Agenda

3. 3  Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant  1.7-GW coal-burning power plant  Bordered by three rivers – Emory, Clinch, Tennessee  Harriman, TN  Containment ponds TVA Kingston Fossil Plant June 2007

4. 4 Project Background/Event Facts  December 22, 2008, shortly before 1 AM  Ash dike of 84-acre containment pond ruptured  5.4 million cubic yards of fly ash into the Emory River  1.1 Billion Gallons  Impacted over 300 acres December 23, 2008

5. 5 Challenges?  Many challenges in the initial response but chief is Chaos

6. 6 Incident Command  TVA sample collection and environmental management in action within hours  Sample collection begins with minimal documentation  Regulatory agencies arrive  Incident Command System (ICS) set up within days

7. 7 Decision-Making  Rapid decision-making but still, chaos ensues  “Who is in charge” in spite of ICS and team efforts  Command hierarchy is not obvious at the bottom  TVA Personnel  Weekly rotations  Substantial responsibilities elsewhere; need to return to pre-December 22 roles  Sustainability?

8. 8 Field Sample Collection  Few trained TVA field sample collectors  Previous downsizing by TVA and elimination of Field Manual  No Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) applicable to specific project collection activities  Samplers still did a fair job on field custody records and some field logbooks  No consistent nomenclature

9. Analytical 9  Plans - Lack of overall QA plan  Existing laboratory contracts  Capacity  Analytical Capability  TAT  Data reporting capability

10. Data Management  TVA IT staff rotated members on-site to manage Scribe Access™ and implement data reasonableness rules  DM tools and process  Manual  Lack of reporting tools  Accessibility 10

11. Immediate Concerns 11  Concern about integrity and quality of data  Need bulletproof, legally defensible data  Sampling issues  Laboratory issues  Data issues

12. Environmental Standards’ Involvement  It became obvious that assistance was needed (NOW!) and there were needs for longer term  QA documents and procedures  Enterprise data management system  Laboratory contracts  Niche consulting expertise and staffing  Contracted January 21, 2009 - One month after event 12

13. Specific Recommendations 13  Initial steps  Develop overall QA Plan document  Transition from existing business process – Day 1 forward  Insert quality system, oversight for lab services  Real time data assessment of current data  Assume sampling oversight and training  Implement data management process

14. Immediate Actions: Data Management  Implement a full cycle Data Management Process  Implement an Enterprise Level Data Management System  Automating to maximum extent  Sample planning  Correctness / completeness checking  Automated data review - verification  Data validation support  Web Reporting (Self Service)  Assessment and loading of past data  Develop Data Management Plan 14

15. Immediate Actions: Laboratories  Implement laboratory contracts  Perform laboratory site visits  Include EDD specifications in contract  Include Data deliverables (Level I, Level IV)  Assist engineers in understanding that the typical laboratory cannot provide 24-hour turn-around-time for extended periods 15

16. Immediate Actions: Field Oversight  Review Field Sampling Plans  Perform sample crew training – an iterative process made more complex by rapid addition and removal of field crew  Implement good field practices and adhere to draft SOPs as they were being developed based on previous practice and training.  Subcontractor brought in excellent work ethic and quality process – no “recalibration” 16

17. Policy on Plans: Utility before Approval  Developments were so rapid  Forced to implement plans and procedures in draft form and then wait for:  Later approval  Or re-write of documents months later to determine final official copy  Information to support Analytical Requests could have been better 17

18. 18 Accomplishments  Develop and support a business process that minimizes time from sample collection to release from “Never” to 6 business days (5 days at laboratory, 1 day at Environmental Standards), while ensuring that data were releasable. These checks include:  Rapid reasonability check  Completeness  Correctness  Automated analytical chemistry data verification  Develop and support graphing approach for public information website  Develop and support graphing approach for agency information website

19. 19  TVA collected data for many reasons  Community Outreach  Worker Safety  Spill Investigation  Characterization and Delineation  Regulatory Compliance  Waste Characterization  and many special studies  Over 600K analytical records, > 1.2M related parameters, and > 2M monitoring readings for air and river water Activities

20. 20  Laboratories don’t always follow the published method or their own SOP…let me count the ways  Lead contamination – weights used for surface water sampling points were sources of contamination  Defensible (truly) reporting down to a project method detection limit  Well homogenized, wet fly ash can go into a rail car like pudding and after being rattled, lots of pooled water is on top and packed concrete-like solid resides underneath Interesting things along the way…

21. 21  Catching snapping turtles is tricky business Interesting things along the way…

22. 22 Three Golden Rules of Gathering Meaningful Information 1.Within most commercial laboratory settings, there is no difference between one sample and the next in terms of the levels of importance and care applied 2.Gathering truly important information requires attention to planning and almost a Murphy’s Law attitude – expect and plan for “stuff happening” that will have negative effects on the information 3.If the information is truly important, there is a high likelihood that someone, somewhere at some point may challenge the underlying data, especially if there are financial implications Meaningful Information from Data

23. 23 Conclusions  Every Emergency Response starts off on the wrong foot…and behind in data reporting  Emergency Response requires a different type of project planning and implementation – optimize for speed while appropriately adding control  Laboratories and consultants nearest and dearest to the organization are not necessarily the best fit for the emergency  Bean Counting is critical but relies on proper planning and control – data controls are key  Plans, Processes, and Partners  Making it up on the fly during the emergency response is too hard

24. 24 Conclusions (Cont.) Why harp on Quality Assurance and Data Management? In the end, all you have are data ….. and a nicely restored site December 31, 2011 – Three years after the spill

25. Contact 25 Environmental Standards, Inc. “Setting the Standards for Innovative Environmental Solutions” Headquarters 1140 Valley Forge Road | PO Box 810 | Valley Forge, PA 19482 | 610.935.5577 Virginia 1208 East Market Street | Charlottesville, VA 22902 | 434.293.4039 Tennessee 1013 Brentwood Way | Kingston, TN 37763 | 865.376.7590 Texas 11200 Richmond Avenue, Suite 350 | Houston, TX 77082 | 281.752.9782 Web www.envstd.com | E-mail solutions@envstd.com