Daniel M. Powell Technology Innovation Office US Environmental Protection Agency

1. Daniel M. Powell Technology Innovation Office US Environmental Protection Agency powell.dan@epa.gov A Modern Strategy forHazardous Waste Site Clean-Up:The "Triad" ApproachSept. 27, 2001ENRYBelgrade, Yugoslavia

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

4. EXIT ?? EXIT ?? EXIT ?? EXIT ?? Closeout Start here 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

5. Conducting Site Activities Without a Systematic Approach • 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 Close-out/ reuse Clean-up Design/ Implementation Site Assessment Site Investigation

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

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. EXIT START 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

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 • 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 Close-out/ reuse Clean-up Design/ Implementation Site Investigation Site Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

24. Analytical = 5% 2 7 Sampling = 95% 6 1 3 4 5 Sampling vs. Analytical Uncertainty 331 On-site 286 Lab 500 On-site 416 Lab 39,800 On-site 41,400 Lab 164 On-site 136 Lab 1,280 On-site 1,220 Lab 27,800 On-site 42,800 Lab 24,400 On-site 27,700 Lab

25. Total Uncertainty Sampling Uncertainty 3 X Ex. 2 Ex. 3 1/3 X Ex. 1 Ex. 2 Ex. 3 Adding Uncertainties Uncertainties add according to (a2 + b2 = c2) Analytical Uncertainty Ex. 1

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

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

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)

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

32. 1 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 2 / 5 / 1 4 2.5 2 4 2.5 1 2 5 Row A 1 / 1 / 5 / 1 / 4 / 2 / 2 / 4 / 2 / 1 1 5 4.5 4 2 2 4 2.5 Row B FR2/3 FR4/5 2 / 2 / 2 / 4 / 2.5 2 2 4 Row C 1 / 1 / 5 / 1 / 4 / 1 1 5 1 4 Col 1 Col 2 Col 4 Col 3 Col 5 Col 6 Col 7 Col 8 Col 9 Original Remediation Boundary X-Y Coordinate Origin NorthDrawing not to scale / Final Remediation Boundary 1 Top number is feet bgs planned for excavation and the bottom is feet bgs actually excavated 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 • EPA Case Study: (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 • Video: “A Guideline for Dynamic Workplans and Field Analytics” (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/

35. Resources: General • Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) Internet site (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) • Wenatchee • Oak Ridge drum disposal • Hanscom AFB • Florida Dry-cleaning Program • Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable Internet Site (http://www.frtr.gov)

37. Monitoring and Measurement Resources: General • Methods information (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) • Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program (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/) • EPA ReachIT (http://epareachit.org) • New Technologies • Sensor Technology Information Exchange (http://www.sentix.org) • Measurement and Monitoring for the 21st Century (21M2) Initiative (http://clu-in.org/21m2)

39. Monitoring and Measurement Resources: General • Training (http://trainex.org) • 1.5-, 3-, 5-day Field-Based Program • Technologies and strategies • Internet seminars (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) • Definitions • PBMS vs. standard methods • Data defensibility (legal) • Procurement “guide” (complete, Winter 2001-02)