Transcript Northeast State’s Improving the Quality of Site

Northeast State’s Improving the
Quality of Site Characterization
Consultant’s Perspective
How the Triad Approach Works to Our
Advantage and Does It Make Cents?
Robert M. Burger, President
ESN North Atlantic
800-880-0533
If the Regulatory Community embraces it, and the
Consulting Community thinks it will work, what
more do we need?
The ultimate client, either private or government
and the public must believe it will provide a
quicker, less costly and more accurate solution!
The ultimate client wants solutions, not reports
and data.
2
ESN North Atlantic is committed to the
Triad Approach
Our business is 100% based on providing the support
services the Triad Approach needs!
We collectively have over 75 years experience
researching/designing and using Triad (interactive)
approach.
Used approach on 1000+ sites in past 10 years, from ½
day due diligence to multi-year Superfund.
Developed/refined many of the tools/techniques currently
used. We pioneered the use of direct push and field
analysis in New England over twelve years ago.
3
How did we arrive at this approach?
In order to be more competitive, we looked at areas
where we could reduce time and costs yet increase the
level of site understanding:
Quicker/less costly/more flexible sub-surface sampling –
Direct Push
Immediate chemical data – mobile laboratories
Use of geophysics
Concurrent collection of characterization and engineering
information, presumptive solutions.
Net result = more projects, more revenue, less time/project!
4
Implementing the Triad Approach at
all sites
The key is to understand the client’s requirements, what
is the goal for the project, i.e. due diligence, risk
assessment, clean-up, etc.
Collect and ascertain as much historical, physical, and
chemical information as possible.
Work backwards from the project goals to develop the
generic data needs to support a solution, e.g., where
were the chemicals deposited, how are they moving in
the environment and where are they likely to harm or be
in contact with the eco-system?
5
Tools that work for all sites:
Conceptual site model
Direct push sampling
Geophysics
Field-based analytics
Conceptual site model refinement in the field
6
Direct Push
At over 90% of all sites in New England, direct push is a
good investigation tool in the overburden.
We can collect soil, water, vapor samples quickly,
inexpensively, and with minimal hazard to the operators
and the public.
It can also be used to perform remedial option testing,
i..e. vapor extraction, material injection, etc.
Also use to apply geophysics, borehole logging for soil
lithology collection.
7
Geophysics
GPR/magnetometer – define lithology, utility
corridors, etc.
Borehole geophysics – collect more stratigraphy
data quickly.
Cone Penetrometer – lithologic/physical data
8
Field-based Analytics
If you collect soil, water or vapor, you need to
know what chemicals are present and at what
concentration, why wait?
If you can analyze it in a fixed base lab you can
analyze it in the field!
Do I need to also send samples to a fixed –base
lab…. No!
Can I use the data for risk and closure if I need
to…yes!
9
Wide variety of field analytics to
choose from
Screening level
Hand-held PID/FID
IR/UV
XRF
Immunoassay
Wet chemistry
10
Quantitaive/Qualitative Field
Analytics
GC
GC/MS
AA/GFAA/ICP
FTIR
11
Which field analytic method is best?
Screening data can be useful, e.g., soil vapor
can quickly cover a large area at low cost.
However, thorough and detailed analysis can be
as quick as most screening techniques!
Why spend the time and money for screening
level data if you can get qualitative data as fast
and inexpensively?
12
Our experience over past 15 years
suggests
Most screening data ends up in a database for
the site.
Inevitably, someone tries to compare or
extrapolate screening data with lab data,e.g., soil
vs soil vapor/headspace.
Someone wants to use screening data for
risk/engineering decisions
13
ESN Solution – field tested and client
approved!
Modify SW-846 methods, trim methods of time and
expense
Micro-scale sample extractions/preparations
Optimize target analyte list for project – no such thing
as standard target list
End result – performance based method
End result – analyze volatiles in < 15-20 minutes, SVOA
< 15-30 minutes
We vary QA/QC from minimal to complete depending
upon data use.
14
Does it Make Cents?
We can analyze/report 12- 25 samples plus QC per
standard day for $1000 - $2500
The per sample cost is usually same as fixed-base lab
costs or 50% of cost with 24 hour turnaround!
The data report is available immediately!
As fast as samples are collected, they are analyzed,
avoiding areas of non-detect, minimizing time/costs that
are not project productive.
On-site analytics are focused on the project, chemist is
part of decision making process, can suggest resampling, etc.
15
Have we received regulatory buy-in?
Generally, in New England, Yes! We have used
field analysis for a variety of end uses and have
gained acceptance on a project by project basis.
We may have to provide project specific SOP’s
We may need to perform LCS analysis and meet
other regulatory requirements prior to analysis.
We have an open door policy to all reviewers,
our system/data and methods are open to
scrutiny at any time!
16
Triad Approach Advantages
Shortest project turnaround possible – end of
day – data available
Minimal down time
No lag between sampling and lab data
Minimal concerns over preservation of sample,
immediate analysis avoids many of the issues.
Also collect data for remedial design concurrent
with characterization
17
Triad Approach Disadvantages
Need backup/support for staff/equipment
Empowered decision makers need to be on-site
to make decisions!
Need professionals that can synthesize
geology/hydrogeology/chemistry/regulatory
information.
18
Barriers to Use
Myths still exist:
that SW-846 methods are definitive
that field analysis can only be used for screening
all field analysis programs must split samples to offsite lab for confirmation.
all groundwater data must come from monitoring
wells
On-site analytical instruments are unreliable and
won’t stand up to the rigors of the field.
19
Project Examples – Due Diligence,
Merger & Acquisition Example 1
Fortune 500 Company, 5 properties in 3 states, needed
environmental data to confirm purchase price
Designed conceptual approach using existing
data/Phase II invest. Info., followed state regs for
analysis.
Used direct push for sampling, collected soil/water
samples from manufacturing plants, analyzed on-site,
re-directed invest. immediately
20
Project Examples – Due Diligence,
Merger & Acquisition Example 1
Use of field GC analysis yielded fingerprint for
TPH primarily hydraulic fluid, not gasoline,
reduced expected clean-up costs significantly!
Completed all sites within 2 weeks, reported
data/findings/recommendations to client on day
of sale!
Approx. cost = ½ of traditional approach, 1/3 of
traditional time
21
State/Federal Program Characterization
Examples – Remedial Investigation
Naval Aviation Facility – previous investigation
yielded pump/treat system, not performing.
Designed soil vapor delineation, soil and water
sampling/analysis as well as SVE testing
program.
Within 2 weeks, completed product delineation,
installed/tested SVE option, completed soil/water
analysis to confirm vapor program.
22
State/Federal Program Characterization
Examples – Remedial Investigation
Collected 150+ samples/analyzed, installed and
tested SVE system, measured performance,
radius of influence, etc.
At end of 2 week program, remedial option
proposed, data collected used for design.
Program cost = ½ of conventional approach, ¼
of time.
23
State/Federal Program Characterization
Examples – Remedial Investigation
DOT facility – previous investigation revealed
soil and groundwater areas of concern.
Client wanted to quantify and move to
remediation quickly.
Designed soil sampling/analysis for PAH’s,
groundwater sampling/analysis for VOC by GC.
2 day program collected soil and groundwater
samples/analysis to quantify extent of both.
24
Brownfield/CERCLA/RCRA
Examples
Region I Superfund/DOD facility – many point
sources suspected, some data to suggest leach
fields, sanitary discharges.
Designed direct push sampling/on-site analysis
using GCs and GFAA for metals to characterize
soil/groundwater.
Interactive sampling/analysis used to
confirm/refute conceptual site model developed.
25
Brownfield/CERCLA/RCRA
Examples
Over period of 4-6 weeks, collected/analyzed
1000+ samples, no off—site analysis or
confirmation analysis required.
State provided LCS/review of SOP’s.
Program was considered model at time, cost =
$500k vs original estimate of $1.0-1.5M, time
was ¼ of original estimate.
26