Post on 27-Dec-2015
transcript
1 of 99
The EPA 7-Step DQO Process
Step 1 - State the Problem
Presenter:Sebastian Tindall
(60 minutes)(15 minute Morning Break)
Day 2 DQO Training CourseModule 1
2 of 99
Objective
Based on comprehensive Scoping, to be able to develop, for a specific project:
1. a list of contaminants of concern,
2. a conceptual site model (CSM),
3. a problem statement(s)
3 of 99
Generic Flow Chart
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Information
OUT to
Next Step
Information IN
From Previous
StepActions
4 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Information
OUT to
Next Step
Information IN
From Previous
StepActions
Added information is presented in bubblesto explain how to implement an action orexplain items to consider.
Generic Flow Chart
5 of 99
Examples
There are two types of examples found in this training– The general example
CS
– The case study that is used to show the flow of the logic. The same case study is used for each step. It is called “Heli-101 Pad” and has the icon in the upper right corner.
6 of 99
Step Objective:
To clearly define the Problem so that the focus of the Project will be unambiguous
Step 1: State the Problem
Step 4: Specify Boundaries
Step 2: Identify Decisions
Step 3: Identify Inputs
Step 1: State the Problem
Step 5: Define Decision Rules
Step 6: Specify Error Tolerances
Step 7: Optimize Sample Design
7 of 99
Step 1a - State the ProblemInformation IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepIdentify the DQO Team and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Continue activities
Identify the decision makers and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Identify the Stakeholders and determine who will represent their interests
Planning Meeting
Identify available resources and relevant deadlines
8 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepIdentify the DQO Team and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Continue activities
Identify the decision makers and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Identify the Stakeholders and determine who will represent their interests
Planning Meeting
Identify available resources and relevant deadlines• The DQO Team is the technical group that
will develop the DQOs for the project• The number of members will be directly related to the size and complexity of the problem
Step 1a - State the Problem
9 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepIdentify the DQO Team and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Continue activities
Identify the decision makers and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Identify the Stakeholders and determine who will represent their interests
Planning Meeting
Identify available resources and relevant deadlines
DQO Team may include:• Chemist• Hydrogeologist• Engineer• Safety Specialist• Statistician• Modeler• Quality Assurance (QA)/ Quality Control (QC) Specialist• Etc.
Step 1a - State the Problem
10 of 99
Name Organization Area of Technical Expertise
Dr. Phil Meyer State University Technical Lead/Facilitator
Deborah Howard A.J. Consulting Regulatory Analysis
Pete Weiss A.J. Consulting Environmental Engineer
Samantha R. Rigley Detection Laboratories, Inc. Chemist
John Soilman A.J. Consulting Geologist
Rusty Rushman A.J. Consulting Risk Assessor
Susan Blackbird A.J. Consulting Statistician
Lt. Dan Mansel Army Corps of EngineersProject Manager
provide site history
DQO Team Members CS
11 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepIdentify the DQO Team and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Continue activities
Identify the decision makers and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Identify the Stakeholders and determine who will represent their interests
Planning Meeting
Identify available resources and relevant deadlines
• Stipulate the anticipated budget, available personnel, and contractual vehicles to be used• Enumerate any deadlines for completion of the study and any intermediate deadlines that may need to be met
Step 1a - State the Problem
12 of 99
Project Activities Budget Contractual Vehicle Milestone Dates
DQO summary report $15,000 Subcontract 1/1/02
Sampling and analysis plan $20,000 Subcontract 3/1/02
Sample analyses $45,000 Subcontract 6/30/02
Data quality assessment $8,000 Subcontract 7/21/02
Decision document $15,000 Subcontract 9/1/02
Available Resources and DeadlinesCS
13 of 99
Budget and Milestones
As is the case in the example, budgets and schedules are often set without any systematic planning
It is preferred that the DQO Process be performed well before the budget and schedule are established
Budgets for implementing the DQO Process are a must
The results of the DQO Process can then be used to set the remaining project schedule and budget
14 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepIdentify the DQO Team and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Continue activities
Identify the decision makers and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Identify the Stakeholders and determine who will represent their interests
Planning Meeting
Identify available resources and relevant deadlines
Decision makers are those that have authorityover the study and are representatives of:• Department of the Army• Environmental Protection Agency• State Regulatory Agency
Step 1a - State the Problem
15 of 99
Name Organization Role and Responsibility
Col. Stanely Carter U.S. Army Base Commander
Dempsey Fitzgerald U.S. EPA Federal Regulator
Lt. Dan Mansel Army Corps of Engineers Project Manager
Jack Nottingham State Office of the Environment State Regulator
Decision Makers CS
16 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepIdentify the DQO Team and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Continue activities
Identify the decision makers and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Identify the Stakeholders and determine who will represent their interests
Planning Meeting
Identify available resources and relevant deadlines
Decision Makers:• Seek, consider, and represent the concerns of the Stakeholders• Have the ultimate authority for making final decisions based
on the recommendations of the DQO Team
Step 1a - State the Problem
17 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepIdentify the DQO Team and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Continue activities
Identify the decision makers and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Identify the Stakeholders and determine who will represent their interests
Planning Meeting
Identify available resources and relevant deadlinesStakeholders are groups or individuals that will be impacted
by the decisions made as a result of the DQO Process.
Step 1a - State the Problem
18 of 99
Name Organization Represented By
Citizens for a CleanerCommunity
Local Special Interest Group Tom Ahlgreen
Associated Native Americans Local Native American’s Group Gary Silverhawk
Sierra Club National Special Interest Group Jessica Gonzalez
Mayor/City Council Local Community Martin Larson
Stakeholders CS
19 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Scoping Process Results:
• Collect site history, process knowledge,
• Summarize existing analytical data
• Specify areas to be investigated
• Summarize all recorded spills and releases
• Document applicable regulations
• Current housekeeping practices
• Current local environmental conditions
Administrative and logistical elements
Step 1b - State the Problem
20 of 99
Remedial Action Soil Process Knowledge
Heli-101 flight pad used 1970-1995 Used to load, unload and maintain aircraft Used oils and fuels spilled and washed off
pad, draining to the surrounding soil 1980 used as staging area for transformer
and motor oils
CS
21 of 99
1990s used as area to decon equipment from the Gulf War
Collection sump used to capture pad rinsate from Gulf War
Equipment was washed to remove depleted uranium
1995 trace uranium found on pad
CSRemedial Action Soil Process Knowledge (cont.)
22 of 99
Summary of Existing Data All data collected from surface soil (0-6”) Summary of existing total petroleum hydrocarbon
(TPH) data See next table All TPHs were below regulatory limit of 100 mg/kg PCBs detected in 2 of 5 samples and were above state
limit of 1 mg/kg No other volatiles, semivolatiles, or metals (excluding
Pb, U) were detected above background The Base ground and surface water have not detected
contamination
CS
23 of 99
RI/FS Data –Inorganics and TPH(surface soil samples)
CS
Sample IDLead
(mg/kg)Uranium(mg/kg)
TPH(mg/kg)
HELI-101-A 18 102 4.0HELI-101-B 27 96 3.0HELI-101-C 15 78 2.5HELI-101-D 10 86 2.0HELI-101-E1 12 112 0.03 UHELI-101-E2(duplicate of HELI-101-E1)
15 92 0.03 U
HELI-101-blk(Field Blank)
1.0 U 50 U 0.03 U
Sample Average* 16.7 92.8 2.3Standard Deviation 6.4 10.6 1.5Relative Standard Deviation 39% 11% 64%U = Not detectedJ = Estimated Concentration* Sample average includes duplicate sample (but not the blank)
24 of 99
RI/FS Data –PCBs (surface soil samples)
CS
Sample IDAroclor
1016(mg/kg)
Aroclor1221
(mg/kg)
Aroclor1232
(mg/kg)
Aroclor1242
(mg/kg)
Aroclor1248
(mg/kg)
Aroclor1254
(mg/kg)
Aroclor1260
(mg/kg)HELI-101-A 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.05 J 0.03 U
HELI-101-B 0.03 U 0.03U
0.03 U 0.7 J 0.03 U 0.20 1.5
HELI-101-C 0.03 U 0.08 J 0.05 J 0.7 J 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U
HELI-101-D 0.03 U 0.08 J 0.06 J 0.7 J 0.03 U 0.30 2.0
HELI-101-E1 0.03 U 0.17 0.09 J 0.9 J 0.03 U 0.20 0.75
HELI-101-E2(duplicate ofHELI-101-E1)
0.03 U 0.03 U 0.10 J 0.7 J 0.03 U 0.35 1.1
HELI-101-blk(Field Blank)
0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U 0.03 U
SampleAverage*
0.03 U 0.06 0.05 0.58 0.03 U 0.17 0.89
StandardDeviation
0 0.03 .03 0.31 0 0.13 0.88
RelativeStandardDeviation
0% 53% 54% 54% 0% 74% 99%
U = Not detectedJ = Estimated Concentration* Sample average includes duplicate sample (but not the blank)
25 of 99
Areas to be InvestigatedCS
Plan View
Former PadLocation
RunoffZone
0 50 100 150 ft 0 15 30 46 m
BufferZone
26 of 99
Summary of Spills and Releases*
Pad is ~75’ in diameter Add 50’ to include the Run-off area (d=125’) Buffer Zone is ~265’ in diameter, with Pad
centered within Area of Pad is 4,418 ft2
Area of Pad + Run-off Area = 12,272 ft2
Area of Buffer Zone is 42,884 ft2 (excluding Pad and Run-off area)
*Does not include layback area
CS
27 of 99
Volume of Pad & Run-off zone, 0-6”, is 227 yd3
Volume of Buffer Zone, 0-6”, is 794 yd3 (excluding Pad and Run-off area)
Volume of Pad & Run-off zone, 6”-10’, is 4,318 yd3
Volume of Buffer Zone, 6”-10’, is 15,089 yd3 (excluding Pad area)
*Does not include layback area
Summary of Spills andReleases* (cont.)
CS
28 of 99
No releases recorded before 1977 (e.g., before adopting RCRA)
Drum inventories from 1980s were imprecise Reports from 1990s were sparse and not
declassified. One report did include uranium data from the sump at 450 mg/L.
Interviews indicate that predominant metals were Pb and U. U was depleted.
CS
*Does not include layback area
Summary of Spills andReleases* (cont.)
29 of 99
Current Conditions
Housekeeping practices– physically barricaded to prevent use
Site conditions and local environment– Pad is removed, land is barren without
vegetation– Avg. rainfall ~20 in./yr– Groundwater at ~50 ft below grade– Temperatures range 12 to 98°F– No endangered species– No cover or water collection system
CS
30 of 99
Areas to be investigated:– exclude surface or groundwater– exclude biota (covered by overall base program)– include soil via direct exposure– include soil area/volume
Current Conditions (cont.) CS
31 of 99
Scoping Issues
The degree and extent of soil contamination reported from the RI/FS is questionable
There are different opinions as to whether multiple constituents of interest exist and whether the constituents are present above regulated levels at the site
CS
32 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepConduct interviews with decision makers and Stakeholders to determine their:
•Objectives
•Requirements (applies to decision makers only)
•Concerns
Specify interview issues
Hold Global Issues Meeting to resolve scoping and interview issues
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Continue activities
Any differences in interviewees’ objectives, requirements or concerns are listed as issues.
Step 1c - State the Problem
Note
33 of 99
Interview Issues
Shipment of wastes from the base could impact the local community: Local authorities expressed a concern over the transport of hazardous materials from the Base. Of particular concern was the impact to community traffic flow and the potential for an accidental release.
CS
34 of 99
Suitability/protectiveness of cleanup standards: Current State regulations regarding cleanup levels have been questioned by local stakeholders (special interest groups) as to their degree of protectiveness. Current special interest groups have argued that contamination, at any level, poses an unnecessary and unacceptable threat to human health and the environment. These special interest groups have asserted that the Base has a moral obligation to remove all detectable contamination in order to ensure that the surrounding community and wildlife is protected.
Interview Issues (cont.) CS
35 of 99
Schedule delays, cost overruns, lack of sufficient sample data: The Base has expressed concerns over the involvement of special interests, particularly, those who would require that the Base perform potentially unneeded cleanup operations that are well beyond the scope and intent of the law. The Base has also expressed a concern that the operation be managed within the schedule and costs for which the project has been assigned. There is also a need to collect data that will be sufficient for its intended purpose; site closure/risk assessment input, or, designation of the waste for cleanup and disposal.
CSInterview Issues (cont.)
36 of 99
Land Use: – Base commander believes land use is industrial
– EPA believes land use should be residential
CSInterview Issues (cont.)
37 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepConduct interviews with decision makers and Stakeholders to determine their:
•Objectives
•Requirements (applies to decision makers only)
•Concerns
Specify interview issues
Hold Global Issues Meeting to resolve scoping and interview issues
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Continue activities
Global Issues Meeting:Resolve any outstanding scoping issues and/or interview issues with decision makers.
Step 1c - State the Problem
38 of 99
CSExample Heli-101 Pad Objectives, Requirements, and Concerns
Responsible Party Objectives Requirements Concerns
John Ahlgreen,Citizens for aCleaner Community
Elimination ofenvironmental risk
Suitability/protectiveness ofcleanup standards.
Col. Stanely Carter,Base Commander
Demonstrate sitecompliance or needfor further cleanup
Comply with regulations.
Schedule delays, Cost overruns, Lack of sufficient sample
data
Dempsey Fitzgerald,U.S. EPA
Demonstrate sitecompliance or needfor further cleanup
Lower overall risk tohuman health and theenvironment.
Lack of sufficient sample data, orcollection of data not suited forrisk assessment.
Martin Larson,Mayor/City Council
Protection of theneighboringcommunity andcomply with localordinances.
Shipment of wastes from the basecould impact the localcommunity.
Lt. Dan Mansel,Army Corps ofEngineers
Demonstrate sitecompliance or needfor further cleanup
Schedule delays, Cost overruns, Lack of sufficient sample
data
Jack Nottingham,State Office of theEnvironment
Demonstrate sitecompliance or needfor further cleanup
Lower overall risk tohuman health and theenvironment.
Lack of sufficient sampledata, or collection of data notsuited for risk assessment.
Impacts to the localcommunity and stateinterests.
Gary Silverhawk,Associated NativeAmericans
Return of the land toits native state andclean up tobackground levels
Suitability/protectiveness ofcleanup standards.
39 of 99
Global Issues Meeting Scoping Issue:
– The degree and extent of soil contamination reported from the RI/FS is questionable
Resolution:– Currently available historical information (existing data) was
collected with the intent to characterize the site for disposal according to RI/FS considerations. However, such characterization data are not sufficient to support a decision for site closure or a decision to conduct additional remedial action if deemed necessary.
CS
40 of 99
Interview Issue: – Shipment of wastes from the Base could impact the local
community: Local authorities expressed a concern over the transport of hazardous materials from the Base. Of particular concern was the impact to community traffic flow and the potential for an accidental release.
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)CS
41 of 99
Resolution: – The only quantities planned for off-site shipment are
small quantities of slightly contaminated soil and/or water that would be sent to an independent analytical laboratory. Large shipments of hazardous substances are not planned. All Department of Transportation regulations will be followed as applicable. Shipments will be timed for off-peak traffic hours. If a large-scale soil remediation project is spawned as a result of the sampling effort, waste shipments will be planned at that time, and in such a way as to minimize the impact to the community.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
42 of 99
Interview Issue:
– Suitability/protectiveness of cleanup standards: Current State cleanup standards are questioned by the interest groups. The concern is that the standards are not protective of the wild life and community.
Resolution:
– The State and Federal agencies have explained the risk assessment process to the interest groups. Compliance with these risk levels will be protective. The State has encouraged the special interest groups to take their concerns to the legislature. Based on more information related to the risk assessment process, the interest groups indicated that the approach was logical.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
43 of 99
Interview Issue: – Schedule delays, cost overruns, lack of sufficient sample
data: The Base has expressed concerns over the involvement of special interests, particularly, those who would require that the Base perform potentially unneeded cleanup operations that are well beyond the scope and intent of the law. The Base has also expressed a concern that the operation be managed within the schedule and costs (presented later in this example) for which the project has been assigned. There is also a need to collect data that will be sufficient for its intended purpose; site closure/risk assessment input, or, designation of the waste for cleanup and disposal.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
44 of 99
Resolution:
– The Base is relying on the DQO Process to determine the most cost-effective and technically defendable means for collection of samples. Furthermore, the Base will be using the DQO Process to document agreement of the sampling strategy with the regulators and local community as a means of reducing base liability. The SAP generated from the DQO effort will result in data collection sufficient for its intended purpose.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
45 of 99
Interview Issue:
– Data will not be of sufficient quality for risk assessment: Regulators are concerned that previous data are not of the quality to support risk assessment.
Resolution:
– Regulators will be participants in the DQO Process which defines the data and quality requirements. In addition, they may take split samples at the same time sampling is performed.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
46 of 99
Interview Issue:
– Conflicting land uses (industrial vs. residential): Regulators believe the land use is residential which decreases the allowable risk (10-6 as opposed to 10-5) and may result in allowing higher concentrations to remain in the soil. Base command believes the land use is industrial.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
47 of 99
Resolution:
– For all government facilities a federal facility agreement (FFA) is signed between the EPA/State and the federal agency that owns the site (e.g., DOE or military). By law, this agreement indicates that the federal agency owning the site can designate the land use or agree to negotiate the land use. The FFA indicated that the military would designate the land use, thus, it will be industrial.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
48 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Step 1d - State the Problem
49 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Define the total list of COPCs :Identify:
• Source of contamination: Reactor fuel rods• Type of contamination from each source: Fission products• Specific COPCs Am-241, Co-60, Cs-137
Step 1d - State the Problem
50 of 99
CSExample Heli-101 Pad -Total List of COPCs for Each Waste Stream
Waste Stream
Known orSuspected
Source(s) ofContamination(e.g., equipment
maintenance,storage)
Type ofContamination
(General)(e.g., petroproduct)
COPCs(Specific)
(e.g., Lead, PCBs)
Aircraft FuelingOperations
Leaded andUnleaded Fuel
TPHLead
AircraftMaintenanceOperations (OilChange)
Used Motor Oil TPHLead
Maintenance ofthe Aircraft
AircraftMaintenanceOperations (CoolantChange)
Used Coolant Ethylene Glycol
1,2,2-Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)
Used Motor OilStorage
Used Motor Oil TPHLead
Staging Area forOils
Used TransformerOil Storage
Used TransformerOil
PCBs
Decontaminationof SpecialEquipment
Steam Spray runoff Heavy Metals Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, CadmiumCobalt, Copper , Iron, Thallium, TitaniumLead, Phosphorous , Selenium , TungstenUranium (total), Vanadium, Zinc,Zirconium
51 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Identify COPC Exclusions:• Develop rationale for the exclusion of any of the COPCs• Document the rationale for any exclusions
Example: - Isotope with short half-life- No health or ecological risk
Step 1d - State the Problem
52 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Consider the following questions:1. Was the compound/element ever used at the site?2. Does the compound react with water and thus no longer exist?3. For waste, does the pH of the matrix degrade the compound?4. Is the compound volatile and thus evaporate?
Step 1d - State the Problem
53 of 99
COPC Exclusions CS
Waste Stream COPCs Rationale for Exclusion
Ethylene GlycolNot detected during RI/FS process. Eliminated fromfurther consideration in the RI/FS. Water soluble anddegrades in environment
Maintenance ofthe Aircraft
1,2,2-Trichlorotrifluoro-ethane(Freon 113)
This compound is highly volatile and is likely to haveevaporated at the surface before traveling through thesoil to groundwater. Compound not detected usingfield analytical method
Staging Area forOils
No exclusions NA
Decontaminationof SpecialEquipment
Antimony, Arsenic, BerylliumCadmium, Cobalt, CopperThallium, Titanium,PhosphorousSelenium, Tungsten, Vanadium,Zinc, Zirconium
According to RI/FS data, these metals were not foundin quantities exceeding the site background, or werenot present above regulatory thresholds.
54 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Identify the Final List of COPCs
Step 1d - State the Problem
55 of 99
Final List of COPCs CS
Waste Stream COPCs Rationale for Inclusion
Maintenance of theAircraft
TPH
Lead
Staging Area forOils
TPH
Lead
PCBs
Decontaminationof SpecialEquipment
Lead
Uranium
Detected in quantities potentially posing increase health risks.
Lead attributable to one waste stream could not be distinguishedfrom lead attributable to other waste streams.Uranium has no ‘established risk information in the current stateregulations’, therefore special risk analysis is needed.Weapons contained depleted uranium, therefore no isotopicanalysis is needed.
56 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
How the release occurred?Still occurring?Single large release?Small release over long time?Stack release of gases?Contaminated debris?
Step 1d - State the Problem
57 of 99
Release Mechanisms How the COPCs arrived at the facility COPCs were typically washed from spills on the helicopter
pad and into the surrounding soil. Because all remaining structures have been removed during pad decommissioning, the only physical component in the CSM is environmental media (e.g., gravel, sand, and soil). The soil is suspected of being contaminated by spilled material that was washed from the pad at various times during the pad’s history. The physical components of the site include surface and subsurface soils and gravel within the known boundaries of the spill.
CS
58 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Begin to evaluate the fate & transport of COPCs
Begin to evaluate the distribution of COPCs
Step 1d - State the Problem
59 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Step 1d - State the ProblemUsed to make assumption on the distribution (lateral/vertical) of COPCs
Dependent on:• Types of COPCs expected• How they arrived• Amount of time since the release• Environmental conditions since the release• Effect of natural processes• Wind, weather, erosion, re-charge, etc.
Types of sampling media:• Soil• Concrete• Groundwater• Gravel• Etc.
60 of 99
Fate and Transport How has fate and transport mechanisms affected
the COPCs
Unimpeded access is assumed for all sampling media. Because the site has been exposed to weather (precipitation) since the spill occurrences, some transport into the subsurface is likely to have occurred; therefore, to support clean site confirmation, the underlying soil is included within the boundaries of the site.
CS
61 of 99
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Examples of receptors are • Humans• Plants• Animals
Step 1d - State the Problem
62 of 99
Receptors
Future land use– It is anticipated that the land must be released for
industrial use at some future time. Therefore, potential receptors include human workers as well as the surrounding biota (e.g., shrubbery).
CS
63 of 99
Data for groundwater wells on the military base have not indicated contamination attributable to this site
This leads one to believe that there is no groundwater contamination, thus the groundwater ingestion pathway is not complete and does not require added investigation. Industrial workers will use sanitary water from the city.
Potential ReceptorsCS
64 of 99Groundwater
Original SoilSurface
Total VadoseZone Depth
Previous PadLocation
10 ft
CSPotential Receptors (cont.)
65 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Spatial and frequency distributions
This is key point for determining the number of samples
Step 1d - State the Problem
69 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Liquid spill Plume model (decreasing with distance)Burn pit Lateral and vertical heterogeneityTank sludge Lateral homogeneity/vertical heterogeneityFill What information is available about the fill?Concrete Drivers? Air; Water; Contact
Step 1d - State the Problem
70 of 99
Spatial Surface Soil Sample Results
B (27, 96, 3, 1.5)
D (10, 86, 1, 2.0)
E2 (15, 92, 0.03, 11)E1 (12, 112, 0.03, 0.75)
C (15, 78, 2.5, 0.03)
A (18, 102, 4, 0.03)
Letter = sample point
Concentrations (Pb, U, TPH, Aroclor 1260)
CS
Plan View
Former PadLocation
RunoffZone
0 50 100 150 ft 0 15 30 46 m
BufferZone
71 of 99
Distributions Presumed Spatial Distributions of the COPCs
– The pad was washed, and therefore the area where the edge of the pad once existed is likely to have higher concentrations than the area further away from the previous edge of the pad. It cannot be assumed that contamination decreases with depth from the surface. However, contamination is expected to decrease with depth; therefore, deeper soils are assigned a lower probability of being contaminated.
– The probability of contamination will be scaled within a range bounded by the arbitrary lateral and vertical boundary to be determined during sample optimization (Step 7). This is because the amount of data collected from the RI/FS is not sufficient to define the physical boundaries of the expected residual contamination. The previous RI/FS did not use the DQO Process.
CS
72 of 99
Frequency DistributionConcentration,
pCi/g ColorNumber of Marbles
1 N/A 02 N/A 03 Clear 94 White 785 Green 2696 Red 3737 Yellow 2258 Blue 439 Black 3
10 N/A 0
73 of 99
Frequency DistributionCS
Pb Concentration(mg/kg)
Frequency
0-7 07-14 2
14-21 221-28 128-35 0
78 of 99
Mo = Md = Mn
Normal
Mo Md Mn
Lognormal
M0 = modeMd = medianMn = mean
% of time when x < is high,(when n is small)
Distribution Curves
79 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Identify driver compounds (e.g., based on greatest risk or movement or half-life)Examine concentration range and compare to action limit(e.g., far below or above action limit, near action level)
Step 1d - State the Problem
80 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCsOverall objectives of the project:
• Is the decision risk based?• Waste characterization based?• Regulatory restraints?• Future land uses?• Pilot study?• Remedial action?• Monitoring effort?• Characterization effort?• All potential data uses/users identified?
Step 1d - State the Problem
81 of 99
Decision Drivers Future land use
– Effect of residual contamination on the ecosystem was not previously considered
– Direct long-term industrial land use was not considered in the past risk models
– All parties agreed to use industrial land use as the scenario
– If concentrations are below the levels based on industrial use, the remediation will be complete, otherwise added remediation will be needed
CS
82 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCsUse information gathered from the scoping process,decision maker interviews and the Global Issues Meeting to develop a CSM
The CSM may be presented in the following forms:• Narrative statement• Graphical • Tabular
Step 1d - State the Problem
The CSM narrative summary states clearly the current understanding of the condition of the site
83 of 99
CSM Narrative
The Heli-101 Pad and the surrounding soil (surface and underlying) extending laterally up to 95 ft in any direction from the perimeter of the pad and up to a depth of 10 ft constitutes the conceptual model for the contaminated site. It is graphically depicted in the plan view and section view in the following section. Surface soil is defined as soil up to a depth of 6 in. and underlying (subsurface) soil is defined as soil up to a further depth of 10 ft.
(Etc.………………………………………..)
CS
84 of 99
Plan View
Section View
Former PadLocation
RunoffZone
0 50 100 150 ft0 15 30 46 m
Former PadLocation
RunoffZone
Grade Level
0 50 100 150 ft0 15 30 46 m
Vertical not to scale
BufferZone
CSM Spatial GraphicalCS
BufferZone
85 of 99
Overview of the Receptor Pathway(CSM) Tabular
PrimarySources
PrimaryRelease
Mechanism
SecondarySources
SecondaryRelease
MechanismPathway
Oil andFuel
Residualfrom
Equipment
Spills
Cleaning
Soil
Dust
StormWaterRunoff
Wind
SurfaceWater &
Sediments
ReceptorHuman Biota
Exposure Route A
rea
Res
iden
tsS
i te
visi
tors
Terr
estr
ial
Aqu
atic
IngestionInhalation X X XDermal Contact
Ingestion X X XDermal Contact X X X
Ingestion X X X XInhalationDermal Contact X X X X
CS
86 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
The goal of the DQO Process is to develop a sampling design that will confirm or reject the CSM.
Step 1d - State the Problem
87 of 99
Problem Statements
The CSM is used to constrain the problem statement(s)
The Problem Statement(s) allows the planning to be focused on issues that must be resolved with data and makes the problem unambiguous
88 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
A concise problem statement describes:• The problem as it is currently understood• The conditions that are causing the problem
Step 1d - State the Problem
89 of 99
Problem Statement Format
General Format: In order to [support decisions for site
remediation/better understand the nature of the waste/establish a basis for materials management] data are required that define [the nature and extent of contamination/the constituents of concern/the source and characteristics of the materials].
90 of 99
In order to confirm that the on-site in-situ GC/MS analysis can replace method 8260B results for use in final verification of closure, data regarding volatiles using both methods are needed.
In order to determine whether the concrete should be disposed at a TSCA incinerator, data regarding the PCBs in the concrete surface are needed.
Problem Statement Examples
91 of 99
Process knowledge indicates that there would have been low plutonium concentrations in the wastes disposed through the tank and relatively few other radionuclides should be present. Limited sampling of the sludge indicates that plutonium is distributed within strata throughout the tank; however, this distribution is somewhat heterogeneous and ill-defined. Characterization data are required to evaluate the need for an early removal action and, as required, to determine the appropriate methods for (1) removal of the sludge from Tank Y, (2) stabilization and packaging of the waste, and (3) sludge disposal.
‘Typical’ Problem Statement Example
92 of 99
In order to determine whether the residual soils at the site are contaminated, data regarding potential contaminants in the surface and underlying soils are needed.
Problem Statement CS
93 of 99
Step 1 Summary Scoping is the most important activity Adequate resources (time, money, people) must be
provided for scoping Adequate resources must be provided for the DQO
Process Identify the decision makers’ objectives, requirements,
and concerns Performing interviews allows the facilitator to
understand each decision maker’s objectives and requirements
Resolving global issues allows technical staff to focus on providing defensible designs
94 of 99
Global issues include land use and interpretation of regulations
Step 1 Summary (cont.)
Logic for inclusion and exclusion of COPCs must be documented
It is possible to greatly decrease the number of COPCs based on sound technical logic
Remember, if there is no receptor there is no risk CSM is based on scoping The DQO Process goal is to test the CSM CSM allows one to focus on problems that are
resolved by data/information
95 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepIdentify the DQO Team and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Continue activities
Identify the decision makers and define each member’s roles and responsibilities
Identify the Stakeholders and determine who will represent their interests
Planning Meeting
Identify available resources and relevant deadlines
Step 1a - State the Problem
96 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next StepConduct interviews with decision makers and Stakeholders to determine their:
•Objectives
•Requirements (applies to decision makers only)
•Concerns
Specify interview issues
Hold Global Issues Meeting to resolve scoping and interview issues
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Step 1b - State the Problem
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
97 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Continue activities
Scoping Process Results:
• Collect site history, process knowledge,
• Summarize existing analytical data
• Specify areas to be investigated
• Summarize all recorded spills and releases
• Document applicable regulations
• Current housekeeping practices
• Current local environmental conditions
Administrative and logistical elements
Step 1c - State the Problem
98 of 99
Information IN Actions Information OUT
From Previous Step To Next Step
Scoping Process Results
Scoping Process Issues
Global Issues Resolutions
Conceptual Site Model
Problem StatementEstimate COPC distributions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Step 1d - State the Problem