1 of 108 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 1 - State the Problem Presenters: Mitzi Miller and Al...
-
Upload
tamsyn-lawson -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
2
Transcript of 1 of 108 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 1 - State the Problem Presenters: Mitzi Miller and Al...
1 of 108
The EPA 7-Step DQO Process
Step 1 - State the Problem
Presenters:Mitzi Miller and Al Robinson
8:15 AM - 9:30 AM (75 minutes)
Day 2 DQO Training CourseModule 2
2 of 108
Terminal Course Objective
To be able to develop a list of contaminants of concern, a conceptual site model (CSM), and a problem statement(s) for a specific project
3 of 108
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 108
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 108
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 “Process Effluent Trench” and has the icon in the upper right corner.
6 of 108
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 108
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 108
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 108
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 108
DQO Team Members CS
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
Albert Robins A.R. Consulting Radiochemist
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
Dan Mansel DOEProject Manager, provide sitehistory
11 of 108
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 108
Project Activities Budget Contractual Vehicle Milestone Dates
DQO summary report $15,000 Subcontract 4/1/02
Sampling and analysis plan $20,000 Subcontract 6/1/02
Sample analyses $50,000 Subcontract 8/30/02
Data quality assessment $8,000 Subcontract 9/21/02
Decision document $15,000 Subcontract 11/1/02
Available Resources and DeadlinesCS
13 of 108
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 108
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 Energy• Environmental Protection Agency• State Regulatory Agency
Step 1a - State the Problem
15 of 108
Decision Makers CS
Name Organization Role and Responsibility
Dempsey Fitzgerald EPA Federal Regulator
Dan Mansel Department of Energy Project Manager
Jack Nottingham State Office of the Environment State Regulator
16 of 108
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 108
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 108
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 108
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 108
Remedial Action Soil Process Knowledge
Process Effluent Trench used 1952-1965– Received mixed waste effluent from a uranium
fueled graphite reactor retention basin In 1965 the trench received water and
sludge from cleanup of the reactor retention basin
Subsequent to receiving the sludge, a 5 ft layer of clean fill was placed on top of the trench in 1966, bringing it to grade
CS
21 of 108
Example (cont.)
An interim Record of Decision (ROD) was signed and in 1998 an Remedial Design Report (RDR)/Remedial Action Work Plan (RAWP) was prepared to establish action levels (ALs) and preliminary COPCs
Data was obtained during RI/FS investigations to estimate the vertical extent of migration of COPCs inside and outside the trench
CS
22 of 108
Summary of Existing Data Summary of existing radioactive and non-
radioactive contaminant data– See following 4 tables
Samples from 3 Boreholes were obtained from inside the trench and from the perimeter of the trench– Samples were obtained from 3 depths in each
borehole 7 Radioactive constituents were measured Three non-radiological constituents were
measured
CS
23 of 108
Summary of Existing Data (cont.) Data from Boreholes Inside and Outside the Trench
– Pu-239/240, Cs-137, Co-60, Eu-152, Eu-154, Eu-155, Sr-90 detected above instrument background
• In Trench - samples show radionuclide concentration generally decreasing with depth
• Out of Trench - samples show radionuclide concentration exhibiting no trend with depth
– Chromium VI, arsenic and lead detected above instrument detection limit
• In Trench - concentration of metals show no trend related to depth
• Out of Trench - concentration of metals show no trend with depth
CS
24 of 108
CSRI/FS Borehole Data Radionuclides(Perimeter soil samples)
Sample-Depth from Surface (ft)
A-0 0.07 J 0.54 0.05 U 0.13 U 0.18 U 0.13 U 0.17A-5 0.01 U 0.20 0.04 U 0.53 0.13 U 0.13 U 0.19 JA-25 0.01 U 0.62 0.05 U 0.20 0.18 U 0.12 U 0.40 JA-35 0.01 UJ 0.15 0.03 U 0.78 0.10 U 0.06 U 0.61 b
B-0 0.06 10.53 0.49 3.65 0.28 0.03 1.26B-5 0.01 UJ 0.08 0.05 U 0.18 0.16 U 0.11 U 0.11 UB-25 0.01 U 0.69 0.02 U 0.84 0.09 U 0.11 U 0.55 JB-35 0.00 U 0.18 0.05 U 0.44 0.18 U 0.12 U 0.33 J
C-0 0.43 6.64 0.32 2.58 0.27 0.10 1.42C-5 0.32 11.55 0.43 12.81 1.40 0.15 U 5.77C-25 -0.03 U 0.79 0.04 0.11 0.16 U 0.14 U 0.57C-35 0.01 U 0.20 0.05 0.26 0.17 U 0.11 U 0.57
mean 0.08 2.68 0.13 1.88 0.27 1.00std dev 0.14 4.31 0.17 3.62 0.36 1.56% RSD 189% 161% 127% 193% 131% 156%
U = Not detectedJ = Estimated Concentration
Pu-239/240 (pCi/g)
Eu-152 (pCi/g)
Eu-154 (pCi/g)
Cs-137 (pCi/g) Co-60(pCi/g)
Eu-155 (pCi/g) Sr-90 (pCi/g)
25 of 108
CSRI/FS Borehole Data Metals(Perimeter soil samples)
Sample-Depth from Surface (ft)
A-0 0.40 U 9.70 6.20A-5 0.40 U 12.00 5.30A-25 0.41 12.00 5.40A-35 0.54 2.60 2.20
B-0 0.04 U 0.84 1.63B-5 0.41 4.50 3.30B-25 0.40 U 6.00 9.60B-35 0.40 U 5.60 3.70
C-0 0.27 U 6.32 4.70C-5 0.44 8.36 16.30C-25 0.49 5.30 9.00C-35 0.56 4.92 3.54
mean 0.40 6.51 5.91std dev 0.13 3.44 4.08% RSD 34% 53% 69%
U = Not detectedJ = Estimated Concentration
Pb (mg/kg)
As (mg/kg)
Cr+6 (mg/kg)
26 of 108
CSRI/FS Borehole Data Radionuclides(Trench soil samples)
Sample-Depth from Surface (ft)A-5 0.13 U 0.21 0.06 U 0.17 U 0.18 U 0.09 U 0.19 JA-10 1.64 66.00 2.12 88.80 6.60 0.55 4.20A-20 1.43 37.20 1.00 54.20 3.89 0.28 U 2.70A-30 0.39 UJ 14.00 0.52 21.90 1.70 0.18 U 0.92 J
B-5 0.17 U 0.12 0.00 U 0.18 U 0.04 U 0.03 U 0.33 JB-10 3.20 92.40 2.97 124.32 9.24 0.77 5.88B-20 2.00 66.00 1.20 106.00 3.00 0.53 4.10B-30 0.42 U 15.40 0.57 24.09 1.87 0.20 1.01
C-5 -0.13 U 0.11 0.03 U 0.07 J 0.10 U 0.06 U 0.14 UC-10 3.20 130.00 3.71 155.40 11.55 0.96 7.35C-20 3.00 75.00 1.75 138.10 6.81 0.49 5.10C-30 0.67 24.50 0.90 38.33 2.98 0.32 1.61
meana 2.14 59.40 1.32 99.43 4.57 0.43 3.97std dev 0.79 19.75 0.39 42.33 1.99 0.13 1.21% RSD 37% 33% 29% 43% 44% 31% 30%
a. Mean estimated from 20 ft samples onlyU = Not detectedJ = Estimated Concentration
Eu-154 (pCi/g)Eu-155 (pCi/g)
Sr-90 (pCi/g)
Pu-239/240 (pCi/g) Cs-137 (pCi/g)
Co-60 (pCi/g)
Eu-152 (pCi/g)
27 of 108
CSRI/FS Borehole Data Metals(Trench soil samples)
Sample-Depthfrom Surface(ft)
Cr+6(mg/kg)
Pb(mg/kg)
As(mg/kg)
A-5 0.40 U 9.30 6.70A-10 0.41 U 12.30 6.30A-20 0.41 U 5.90 8.50A-30 0.40 U 7.60 8.60
B-5 0.08 U 8.60 4.10B-10 0.57 7.50 15.20B-20 0.49 6.20 18.30B-30 0.44 8.36 16.30
C-5 0.42 U 6.40 1.90C-10 0.72 U 8.20 11.03C-20 0.62 U 4.30 12.20C-30 0.70 U 8.90 15.05
meana,b
0.51 7.80 10.35
std dev 0.11 2.03 5.18% RSD 21% 26% 50%a. Only data points from –20 ft used in mean estimate for
Cr+6.b. All data points used for mean estimate of As and Pb.U = Not detectedJ = Estimated Concentration
28 of 108
Areas to be Investigated - Top view
CS
29.4 mor 97 ft
Process
10 10020 8030 7040 60500
Process
About 30 ft of layback toaccomodate 1.5/1 slope
from 20 ft down
11.2 mor 37 ft
50.25 m, 166 ft
32.3 m, 106 ft
Original Trench ProfileArea to be left at -20 ft
Plan View
29 of 108
Summary of Spills and Releases
Trench is a rectangle 106 ft (32.3 m) long and 37 ft (11.2 m) wide
Excavation will proceed with a 1.5/1 side-slope perimeter around the trench footprint
Estimated working zone with trench centered within is 166 ft (50.3 m) by 97 ft (29.4 m)– Area of Trench is 3,922 ft2
– Area of Perimeter Zone is 12,180 ft2 (excluding Trench area)
CS
30 of 108
Volume of Trench, -5 to -20 ft, is 1,654 yd3
Volume of Perimeter Zone, 1.5/1 slope from20 ft depth, is 4,507 yd3 (excluding Trench area)
Volume of 5 ft of Overburden is 551 yd3
It is assumed that the 5 ft overburden and removed side-slope soil is not contaminated above regulatory limits.– Excavation progress will be monitored
Summary of Spills andReleases (cont.)
CS
31 of 108
Process Knowledge indicates the – Pu 239/240, Eu-152, 154, 155, Sr-90, Cs-137,
C-14, H-3, Sm-151, Co-60, Cr VI• Arsenic and lead were added since the site had been an
orchard and have been sprayed with lead-arsenates
– 5 ft Cover and side-slope soils will be removed and set aside for use as fill
– The trench will be excavated to the bottom of the engineered structure (-20ft)
CSSummary of Spills and
Releases (cont.)
32 of 108
Current Conditions
Housekeeping practices– Input lines to trench blocked to prevent use– Site Posted as an underground contamination area– Vegetation above trench limited to grasses
Site conditions and local environment– Avg. rainfall ~10 in./yr– Groundwater at ~65 ft below grade– Temperatures range 0 to 110°F– No cover or water collection system
CS
33 of 108
Areas to be investigated:– soil via direct exposure– groundwater
Areas Excluded– Biota (covered by overall site program)– exclude surface water
Current Conditions (cont.) CS
34 of 108
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
35 of 108
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
Step 1c - State the Problem
36 of 108
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
37 of 108
Interview Issues
Uncertainty in the borehole data: Regulators expressed concern that since the borehole data is limited, the CSM may not be accurate, which will then impact the sampling design
CS
38 of 108
Suitability/protectiveness of cleanup standards: Current Federal 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 DOE 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
39 of 108
Schedule delays, cost overruns, lack of sufficient sample data: DOE has expressed concerns over the involvement of special interests, particularly those who would require that the DOE perform potentially unneeded cleanup operations that are well beyond the scope and intent of the law. DOE 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.)
40 of 108
Land Use: – DOE believes land use is will be industrial
– EPA believes land use should be residential
CSInterview Issues (cont.)
41 of 108
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
42 of 108
CSTrench Remediation Objectives, Requirements, and Concerns
Responsible Party Objectives Requirements Concerns
John Ahlgreen,Citizens for aCleaner Community
Elimination ofenvironmental risk
Suitability/protectiveness ofcleanup standards.
Dan Mansel, DOERepresentative
Demonstrate sitecompliance or needfor further cleanup
Comply with regulations.
Schedule delays, Cost overruns, Lack of sufficient sample
data
Dempsey Fitzgerald,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.
Jim Hansen,RemediationContractor
Demonstrate sitecompliance or needfor further cleanup
Schedule delays, Cost overruns, Lack of sufficient sample
data
Jack Nottingham,State EcologyOffice 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.
43 of 108
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 of supporting the conceptual model for all liquid disposal sites 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
44 of 108
Scoping Issue: – Regulators expressed concern that since the borehole data
is limited, the CSM may not be accurate, which may impact the sampling design
Resolution: – Data will be obtained at the completion of remedial action
to adequately describe the end state of the site
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)CS
45 of 108
Scoping Issue:
– Suitability/protectiveness of cleanup standards: Implementation of current cleanup dose standards are questioned by the interest groups. The concern is that the compliance with the standards are not adequately demonstrated by dose risk scenarios.
Resolution:
– The State and Federal agencies have explained the risk assessment process to the interest groups. Compliance with these risk levels will be protective. Based on more information related to the scenarios used in the risk assessment process, the interest groups indicated that the approach was logical.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
46 of 108
Interview Issue: – Schedule delays, cost overruns, lack of sufficient sample
data: DOE has expressed concerns over the involvement of special interests, particularly those who would require that DOE perform potentially unneeded cleanup operations that are well beyond the scope and intent of the law. DOE 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.)
47 of 108
Resolution:
– DOE will rely on the DQO Process to determine the most cost-effective and technically defendable means for collection of samples. Furthermore, DOE will be using the DQO Process to document agreement of the sampling strategy with the regulators and local community as a means of reducing liability and future litigation. The Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) generated from the DQO effort will result in data collection sufficient for its intended purpose.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
48 of 108
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.)
49 of 108
Interview Issue:
– Conflicting land uses (industrial vs. residential): Regulators believe the land use is residential. An industrial scenario would change input parameters and may result in allowing higher concentrations to remain in the soil. DOE believes the future land use should be industrial.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
50 of 108
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.
– Since final land use will not be established until some time in the future, DOE agreed to remediate to potential future residential land use. However, DOE retained the option of achieving that goal through institutional controls if cost became unrealistic for the site.
CS
Global Issues Meeting (cont.)
51 of 108
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
52 of 108
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
53 of 108
CSExample Trench Remediation -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)
Water Contaminatedfrom Storage ofRuptured FuelElements in FuelBasin
Fission/activation,uranium,transuranics, anti-corrosion products
Co-60, Cs-137, Eu-152,154,155, Pu-239/240, Sr-90, Sm-151, C-14, H-3,uranium, Cr VI
Primary CoolingWater Overflow intobasin duringrefueling
Fission/activation,uranium,transuranics, anti-corrosion products
Co-60, Cs-137, Eu-152,154,155, Pu-239/240, Sr-90, Sm-151, C-14, H-3,uranium, Cr VI
Soil in Trenchbelow 5 ft
Sludge and potentialpieces of fuelelements fromCleanout of FSB
Fission/activation,uranium,transuranics, anti-corrosion products
Co-60, Cs-137, Eu-152,154,155, Pu-239/240, Sr-90, Sm-151, C-14, H-3,uranium, Cr VI
IncidentalContamination frompossible trenchoverflow, spillageduring sludgedisposal in trench
Fission/activation,uranium,transuranics, anti-corrosion products
Co-60, Cs-137, Eu-152,154,155, Pu-238/239, Sr-90, Sm-151, C-14, H-3,uranium, Cr VI
Perimeter Soilsand 5 ftoverburden
Orchard Sprayingprior toestablishment ofDOE reservation
Lead-arsenatespray
Pb, As
54 of 108
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
55 of 108
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
56 of 108
COPC Exclusions CS
WasteStream
COPCs Rationale for Exclusion
C-14,
H-3,uranium
Not detected during RI/FS process. Eliminated from further consideration inthe RI/FS.
Sm-151 No standard laboratory method available. Dose consequences negligiblecompared to other COPCs
Cr VIDetected in an occasional sample at very low levels during RI/FS process. Morethan 25x below Hanford background and remdiation goals. Perimeter andtrench soil approximately the same low concentrations.
Pb, As
According to RI/FS data, these metals were not found in quantities exceedingthe site background and/or were not present above regulatory thresholds.There is no evidence of contamination by operations. Perimeter and trench soilapproximately the same low concentrations.
Soil inTrench andSoil inTrenchabove -5 ftandPerimetersoils.
Eu-154, 155According to RI/FS data, these radionuclides were not found in quantitiesexceeding the site background and/or were not present within a factor of 25 ofregulatory thresholds.
Soil inTrench andSoil inTrenchabove -5 ftandPerimetersoils.
Pu-239/240According to RI/FS data, these radionuclides were not found in quantitiesexceeding the site background and/or were not present within a factor of 25 ofregulatory thresholds.
57 of 108
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
58 of 108
Final List of COPCs CS
Waste Stream COPCs Rationale for Inclusion
Soil in Trenchabove -5 ft andperimeter soils.
Co-60, Cs-137,Eu-152, Sr-90,
Soil in Trenchbelow 5 ft
Co-60, Cs-137,Eu-152,Pu-239/240, Sr-90
COPCs found at levels that could impact risk assessmentand evaluation of final end state.
59 of 108
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
60 of 108
Release Mechanisms How the COPCs arrived at the facility
– COPCs transported to the soil in the trench in two ways;• Contained in liquid effluents from the reactor fuel storage
basin. The effluent contained soluble and insoluble radionuclides and metals.
• Disposal of sludge trucked from the fuel storage basin.
– The only physical component in the CSM is environmental media (e.g., gravel, sand, and soil)
• The soil has been contaminated by solid and liquid material from the fuel storage basin at various times during the trench’s history
• The physical components of the site include surface and subsurface soils and gravel within the known boundaries of the disposal site
CS
61 of 108
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
62 of 108
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.
63 of 108
Create final list of COPCs with rationale for inclusions
Provide rationale for COPC exclusions
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
Specify release mechanisms
Identify fate and transport mechanisms
List potential receptors
Discuss decision drivers
Write CSM Summary Narrative
Identify COPCs
Types of sampling media:• Soil• Concrete• Groundwater• Gravel• Etc.
Step 1d - State the Problem
64 of 108
Fate and Transport How will/has the fate and transport
mechanisms affect(ed) the COPCs– Unimpeded access is assumed for all sampling
media. Because the site received contaminated water and sludge and has been exposed to weather (precipitation) during its history, transport into the subsurface blow the bottom of the trench is assumed
– To support site confirmation for residential release, the underlying soil is included within the boundaries of the site
CS
65 of 108
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
66 of 108
Receptors
Future land use– It is anticipated that the land must be released
for residential use at some future time. Therefore, potential receptor is a resident living on the property.
– For purposes of this project, plant and animal receptors do not need to be considered. They are addressed through other site-wide programs.
CS
67 of 108
The pathway for exposure via surface contamination and contamination in the vadose zone needs added evaluation
Exposure to contaminants left on site would occur through several pathways;– Inhalation
– Ingestion of crops, water, livestock
– Direct dose from near surface contamination
Potential PathwaysCS
68 of 108
Data for groundwater wells near the site have indicated contamination potentially attributable to this site
A resident on the site may drill a well and use the water for drinking and irrigation, thus the groundwater pathway must be included
The following figure shows the potential pathway to humans via exposure to the surface and subsurface soil
Potential Pathways (cont.)CS
69 of 108
CSPotential Receptors (cont.)
Process
Groundwater, Saturated Zone (SZ)
Original SoilSurface
SurfaceContamination
Depth toGroundwater
ExcavationFootprint
Estimate 50%of VadoseZone Soil
Contaminated
Estimate 50%of Vadose
Zone Soil NotContaminated
ContaminatedVadose
Zone (CZ) Depth
UncontaminatedVadose
Zone (UZ) Depth
Well
70 of 108
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
71 of 108
Football Field
One-AcreFootball Field
30'0"
72 of 108
Spatial Distribution - Football Field
73 of 108
Probability Density Function
74 of 108
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
75 of 108
Spatial Surface Soil Sample Results
CS
Process
Process
Original Trench ProfileArea to be left at -20 ft
PerimeterBorehole
#3
PerimeterBorehole
#2
PerimeterBorehole
#1
TrenchBorehole
#1
TrenchBorehole
#3
TrenchBorehole
#2
10 10020 8030 7040 60500
76 of 108
Distributions Presumed Spatial Distributions of the COPCs
– The trench received contaminated water from a pipe and concrete structure on one end. However the trench was usually filled to a depth of several feet, so there should be no significant differences in concentration in the soil below the trench floor.
– Because some of the site was covered with clean soil, it cannot be assumed that contamination decreases with depth from the surface. However, from the surface that received the effluent, whether or not that is the current surface, contamination is expected to decrease with depth. The borehole data supports this model; therefore, deeper soils are assigned a lower probability of being contaminated.
CS
77 of 108
Distributions (cont.)– 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
78 of 108
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
79 of 108
Frequency DistributionCS
Perimeter Cs-137Concentration (pCi/g)
Frequency
0-2 92-4 04-6 06-8 1
8-10 010-12 3
80 of 108
HistogramCS
0123456789
10
Perimeter Cs-137 Concentration (pCi/g)
Freq
uenc
y
81 of 108
Histogram (cont.)CS
0123456789
10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Perimeter Co-60 Concentration (pCi/g)
Fre
qu
en
cy
82 of 108
CSHistogram (cont.)
0123456789
10
Perimeter Eu-152 Concentration (pCi/g)
Fre
qu
en
cy
83 of 108
CSHistogram (cont.)
0
1
23
4
5
6
Perimeter Sr-90 Concentration (pCi/g)
Fre
qu
en
cy
84 of 108
Distribution Curves
Mo = Md = Mn
Normal
Mo Md Mn
Lognormal
M0 = modeMd = medianMn = mean
% of time when x < is high, for small n
85 of 108
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
Are COPCs co-located? (e.g., based on partition coefficients,pH causing precipitation) real time analysisfor indicator contaminants
Step 1d - State the Problem
86 of 108
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
87 of 108
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
88 of 108
Decision Drivers Future land use
– Effect of residual contamination on human residential receptors was not previously considered
– All parties agreed to use residential land use as the scenario
CS
89 of 108
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 CSM narrative summary states clearly the current understanding of the condition of the site
Step 1d - State the Problem
90 of 108
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
91 of 108
CSM Narrative The Trench and the surrounding soil (surface and
underlying) extending laterally up to 30 ft in any direction from the perimeter of the trench and down to a depth of 20 ft constitutes the conceptual model for the contaminated site. It is graphically depicted in the plan view and section view in the following section. – Perimeter side slope soil is defined as soil up to a depth of
-20 ft
– Trench footprint soil is defined as vadose zone soil in the trench footprint from -20 ft to groundwater (approximately 65 ft surface to groundwater)
CS
92 of 108
CSM Spatial GraphicalCS
Process
Process
5 ft of Uncontaminated Overburden
Side slopeSoils
20 ft level,bottom of theengineered
structure
15 ft of contaminated trench material
50% of Vadose Zone Contaminated (22.5 ft)
50% of Vadose Zone Uncontaminated (22.5 ft)
Ground Water, Saturated Zone
Grade
65 ft
10 10020 8030 7040 60500
93 of 108
Overview of the Receptor Pathway(CSM) Tabular
PrimarySources
SecondaryRelease
MechanismPathway
RupturedFuel Rods,
reactorcoolant
Sudgefrom
rupturedfuel rods,
dust in FSB
LiquidEffluent
from FSB
CleaningFSB and
Diposing ofSludge
Diposalto Soil
Dust, plantuptake,livestockuptake,humanactivity
MigrationthroughVadose
Zone to GW
Contaminationof foodstuffs
ReceptorHuman Biota
Exposure Route A
rea
Res
iden
tsS
i te
visi
tors
Terr
estr
ial
Aqu
atic
Ingestion X X XInhalationDermal Contact X X X
Ingestion X X XInhalation X X XDermal Contact X X X
Ingestion X X X XInhalationDermal Contact X X X X
SecondarySources
PrimaryRelease
Mechanism
Ground Water,drinking and
irrigating
Resupension
CS
94 of 108
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
95 of 108
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
96 of 108
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
97 of 108
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].
98 of 108
In order to confirm that the NaI survey data can replace High Purity Germanium (HPGe) results for use as Closeout Verification Plan (CVP) variance data, data regarding radiological soil contamination using both methods are needed.
In order to determine the sampling and release requirements for concrete and associated soils, data regarding metal, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and radiological contamination in concrete and soils are needed.
Problem Statement Examples
99 of 108
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 (cont.)
100 of 108
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
101 of 108
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
102 of 108
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
103 of 108
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
104 of 108
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
105 of 108
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
106 of 108
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
107 of 108
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
108 of 108
End of Module 2
Thank you