8 -ADEC Field Sampling Guidance.pdf

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

DIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE

CONTAMINATED SITES PROGRAM

Field Sampling Guidance January 2022

FIELD SAMPLING GUIDANCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

QUALIFICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING

SAMPLING WORK PLAN

NOTIFICATION TO AGENCIES

SOIL SAMPLING

5.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES

5.2 FIELD SCREENING

Primary Field Screening Methods Photoionization Detector and Flame Ionization Detector Immunoassay Infrared Spectrophotometry Colorimetric Wet Chemistry Qualitative Physical Screening Methods Selection Criteria Target Analytes Multiple Petroleum Hydrocarbon Mixtures

5.2.2 Training and Expertise

Capabilities and Limitations

Other Technology Selection Considerations

5.2.4 Selecting Appropriate Field Screening Methods

5.3 SOIL LABORATORY ANALYTICAL SAMPLE COLLECTION

SOIL SAMPLING EQUIPMENT

5.4.1 Scoop/Trowel/Stainless Steel Spoon

5.4.2 Bucket Auger

5.4.3 Soil Coring Device

5.4.4 Split Spoon Sampler

5.4.5 Shelby Tube Sampler

5.4.6 Soil Core Samplers (VOC)

5.4.7 Power Auger

5.4.8 Direct Push Technology

GENERAL GUIDELINES

DRINKING WATER

GROUNDWATER LABORATORY ANALYTICAL SAMPLE COLLECTION

GROUNDWATER SAMPLING EQUIPMENT

Bladder Pump Variable Speed Submersible Centrifugal Pump Gear Pump Inertia Pump Peristaltic Pump Passive Diffusion Bag Samplers Direct Push Technology

Plume Delineation Electrical Conductivity Hydraulic Conductivity Cone Penetrometer Test High-Resolution Piezocone

HydraSleeveTM Snap SamplerTM Bottom Fill Bailer

SterivexTM filters Bio-TrapsTM Purge Techniques No Purge Techniques

PASSIVE GROUNDWATER SAMPLING

Passive Groundwater Sampling for Microorganisms

AIR SAMPLING

AIR AND SOIL GAS SAMPLING

SURFACE WATER SAMPLING

SEDIMENT SAMPLING

SEDIMENT GRAB SAMPLING AND CORE SAMPLING

SEDIMENT PORE WATER SAMPLING

Extracting sediment pore water from sediment samples Extraction via centrifugation Extraction via other methods

Active sampling methods for pore water Passive sampling methods for pore water

Equilibrium-based samplers Sorbent-based Samplers Passive sampling sediment pore water for metal contaminants

FISH TISSUE

QUALITY CONTROL (QC) MEASURES

12.1 FIELD DOCUMENTATION

12.2 INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION

12.3 SAMPLE CONTAINERS AND GENERAL SAMPLE COLLECTION QC

12.4 SAMPLE PRESERVATION FOR BIOLOGICAL EMD ANALYSES

12.5 QUALITY CONTROL FIELD SAMPLE COLLECTION

12.6 FIELD DUPLICATE REQUIREMENTS

12.7 TRIP, FIELD, AND EQUIPMENT BLANK REQUIREMENTS

12.8 EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION

LABORATORY CERTIFICATION

CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY AND SAMPLE HANDLING AND SHIPMENT

REPORTING

INVESTIGATIVE DERIVED WASTE

APPENDIX A – REFERENCES

APPENDIX B – INITIAL COMPARISON FOR SELECTING THE APPROPRIATE FIELD

SCREENING METHOD FOR PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS

APPENDIX C – TECHNICAL AND LOGISTICAL SCREENING METHOD COMPARISON

APPENDIX D – SAMPLE COLLECTION REFERENCE GUIDE – SOIL, SEDIMENT,

SLUDGE, FILL MATERIAL

APPENDIX E – SAMPLE COLLECTION REFERENCE GUIDE – GROUNDWATER,

SURFACE WATER7, MARINE WATER, DRINKING WATER7, WASTEWATER

APPENDIX F – DETERMINATION OF SAMPLING AND LAB ANALYSIS FOR SOURCE

AREAS IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER, AND RECOMMENDED SAMPLING

MATERIALS

APPENDIX G – FISH COLLECTION RECORD

Tables

Table 1. Field Screening Methods Guide Table 2A. Excavated Soil Sample Collection Guide Table 2B. Surface/ Excavation Base and Excavation Sidewall Soil Sample Collection Guide Table 3. Volume of water in well casing Table 4. Typical Sample Volumes for Various Sediment Analyses Table 5. Summary of passive sampling media and configurations for organic and metal analytes Table 6. Minimum Quality Control Requirements……………………………………………….…... 82

Figures

Figure 1. Stainless Steel Scoop. ................................................................................................ ………29 Figure 2. Bucket Augers Figure 3. Soil Coring Device

Figure 4. Split Spoon Sampler Figure 5. Shelby Tube Sampler Figure 6. Soil Coring Devices Figure 7. Teflon® Constructed Bladder Pump Figure 8. Proactive SS Monsoon® Pump Figure 9. Disassembled Grundfos® Pump Figure 10. Fultz Pump Figure 11. Gear Pump Figure 12. Inertia Pumps Figure 13. Geopump™ Peristaltic Pump Figure 14. Eon PDB Sampler with Accessories Figure 15. 1.5-inch Hydra SleeveTM and Stainless Steel Weight Figure 16. Snap SamplerTM VOA Vial Figure 17. Bottom Fill Bailer with Teflon® Figure 18. Teflon® Constructed Bailer with Teflon® Ball Check Valve Figure 19. Sterivex™ Filter and Filter Fittings Figure 20. Bio-Trap™ Passive Microbial Sampling Device Figure 21. Van Dorn Water Sampler and Kemmerer Bottle Sampler Figure 22. OC Sampler That Holds Four VOA Vials Figure 23. Ponar Grab Sampler, Van Veen Grab Sampler, and Rectangular Dredge Sampler Figure 24. Sediment Hand Core Sampler, and Box Corer Figure 25. Photo Showing Vapor Implant and Henry Sampler Push Points Figure 26. Polymer Passive Sampling Materials Figure 27. Peeper Sampling Device Figure 28. SPMD Wound on Sampling Apparatus

Introduction

The purpose of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Contaminated Sites Program’s (CSP) Field Sampling Guidance is to provide fundamental guidelines, methods, and equipment options for sample collection at contaminated sites. This document builds on the sampling procedures found in the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Procedures Manual (DEC, March 2017), adopted by reference in the 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 78 regulations.

Alternatives to the procedures and equipment described in this guidance may be proposed in project work plans on a site-specific basis.

The Field Sampling Guidance can be used for developing site characterization work plans under 18 AAC 75.335, cleanup work plans (including sampling and analysis per 18 AAC 75.355) under 18 AAC 75.360, and corrective action plans (including sampling and analysis per 18 AAC 75.355) under 18 AAC 78.250. Additionally, in accordance with 18 AAC 75.370(b), the Field Sampling Guidance can be used to develop work plans for construction projects at contaminated sites. All plans must be reviewed and approved by CSP.

The Field Sampling Guidance is not a stand-alone manual and includes web links to other resources.

This creates a comprehensive system of tools to guide the environmental professional. This guidance is not intended to be used for site characterization of munitions or unexploded ordnance. Munitions and unexploded ordnance guidance can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/fedfac/military-munitionsunexploded-ordnance#tab-2.

Additional CSP guidance documents necessary to work plan development and sampling design and procedures are located at http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/guidance-forms/ and include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Guidance on Developing Conceptual Site Models (January 2017)

• Underground Storage Tank Procedures Manual (March 2017)

• Biogenic Interference and Silica Gel Cleanup - Technical Memorandum (December 2021)

• Procedures for Calculating Cumulative Risk (February 2018)

• Determining the Fraction of Organic Carbon for Methods Three and Four (March 2017)

• Arsenic Technical Memorandum (March 2009)

• Vapor Intrusion Guidance (November 2017)

• Ecoscoping Guidance: A Tool for Developing an Ecological Conceptual Site Model (March

2014)

• Monitoring Well Guidance (September 2013)

• Risk Assessment Procedures Manual (February 2018)

• Site Characterization Work Plan and Reporting Guidance for Investigation of Contaminated

Sites (March 2017)

• Minimum Quality Assurance Requirements for Sample Handling, Reports and Laboratory

Data Technical Memorandum (October 2019)

• Guidance for Evaluating Metals at Contaminated Sites (August 2018) https://www.epa.gov/fedfac/military-munitionsunexploded-ordnance#tab-2 https://www.epa.gov/fedfac/military-munitionsunexploded-ordnance#tab-2 http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/guidance-forms/

Send suggestions on how CSP can improve the Field Sampling Guidance to Todd Blessing at todd.blessing@alaska.gov.

The use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not constitute endorsement of these products by the State of Alaska, DEC, or the Division of Spill Prevention and Response.

Qualifications for Environmental Sampling

DEC established a set of qualification standards for environmental samplers to ensure sampling, interpretation, and reporting is performed or supervised by experienced and knowledgeable persons.

Both 18 AAC 75 and 18 AAC 78 require "qualified environmental professional" status for those who have direct responsibility in investigation and cleanup at a contaminated site, including leaks from regulated underground storage tanks. A qualified environmental professional is defined in 18 AAC

75.333 and 18 AAC 78.088:

A qualified environmental professional means a person who is an impartial third party and who is qualified to perform site characterization and cleanup activities including fate and transport analysis, remediation design and other activities associated with contaminated sites; actively practices in the field of environmental science or another related scientific field including engineering, geology, physical science, hydrology, biology, chemistry, or a related field; has not been found to have falsified environmental data or committed other acts of fraud directly related to environmental work; and meets one or more of the following minimum educational qualifications and experience requirements:

A. has an undergraduate or graduate degree from a nationally or internationally accredited postsecondary institution in environmental science or engineering, geology, hydrology, physical science, biology, chemistry, or a related field and at least one year of professional experience in contaminated site characterization and cleanup activities under the direct supervision of a qualified environmental professional completed after the degree described in this paragraph was obtained;

B. has a four year degree in any field or a two year associates degree in environmental science, geology, hydrology, physical science, biology, chemistry, or a related field from a nationally or internationally accredited postsecondary institution, and at least three years of professional experience in contaminated site characterization and cleanup activities under the direct supervision of a qualified environmental professional;

C. is certified as an environmental technician under an apprenticeship program that conforms to the requirements of the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 29 CFR Part 29, Labor Standards for the Registration of Apprenticeship Programs, Amendment of Regulations, Final Rule, October 29, 2008, and has at least three additional years of professional experience in contaminated site characterization and cleanup activities under the direct supervision of a qualified environmental professional.

Site characterization and cleanup work plans and reports required under 18 AAC 75 and site assessment, release investigation, and corrective action work plans and reports required under 18 AAC 78 must be prepared by a qualified environmental professional.

http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/glossary.htm#ust http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/aac/query=%5Bgroup+18+aac+75!2E990!3A%5D/doc/%7B@1%7D/hits_only?

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/aac/query=%5Bgroup+18+aac+75!2E990!3A%5D/doc/%7B@1%7D/hits_only?

http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/aac/query=%5Bgroup+18+aac+78!2E995!3A%5D/doc/%7B@1%7D/hits_only?

In some cases, a “qualified sampler” may conduct the field sampling in accordance with 18 AAC 75 and 18 AAC 78. A qualified sampler is defined in 18 AAC 75.333 and 18 AAC 78.088 and refers to an impartial third party with experience and/or a degree that has the following minimum training:

A. applied field work involving environmental sample collection of soil, groundwater or surface water associated with coursework for a completed degree in environmental science, engineering, geology, hydrology, physical science, or a related scientific field, at a nationally or internationally accredited postsecondary institution; or

B. an environmental sampling training program recognized by DEC; and

C. at least three months of experience in environmental sampling under the direct supervision of a qualified environmental professional.

Sampling Work Plan

It is important to have a defined sampling strategy in the work plan prior to conducting field work.

CSP recommends the use of systematic planning to generate data that is of sufficient quality and quantity in order to serve the goals of the investigation. The type of systematic planning described below is called the data quality objective (DQO) process, a systematic planning process based on the scientific method. DQOs help clarify study objectives, define the appropriate type, quantity, and quality of data, and specifies tolerable levels of potential decision errors to answer specific environmental questions and support proper decision making. Using the DQO process helps ensure environmental data collection activities result in sufficient information being collected to make decisions that will meet the goals of the study and leads to more efficient use of resources.

DEC staff and the qualified environmental professional project team should agree on project DQOs during the development of the work plan before sampling occurs.

Each work plan or quality assurance project plan (QAPP) submitted to CSP should answer the following questions with regard to quality assurance and the DQO process:

1. What is the problem that needs to be addressed?

2. What are the questions this project should answer? Is there a conceptual site model developed that can guide the questions to be answered?

3. What information is needed to answer the questions? What pollutants are to be evaluated? Are there visual or other signs of pollution that could guide what chemicals need to be evaluated? How will decisions be made (i.e., what rules govern how to answer the questions)?

4. What are the boundaries of the study (i.e., area of concern, media of concern, spatial and temporal variability, and constraints to collection of data)?

5. What is the proposed analytical approach (i.e., equipment needed to collect data, discrete samples versus incremental sampling or statistical evaluation on 95% upper confidence

Work Plan Requirements: CSP will not accept work plans that reference this guidance in lieu of providing detailed sampling and analysis procedures. Each work plan submitted to CSP should include a description of data quality objectives.

level of the mean results, screening or cleanup levels, laboratory detection and reporting levels, soil or groundwater parameter data collection to support alternative cleanup level calculations or modeling, target receptors, etc.)? What are the consequences and probabilities of making an incorrect decision based on the proposed analytical approach?

6. What decisions will be made with the results (i.e., initial survey or screening for presence/absence determination, delineate nature and extent of contamination, calculation of exposure point concentration with 95% upper confidence level or maximum concentrations, modeling, calculating alternative cleanup levels, or collection of background data to compare to contaminated site data)? What is the performance or acceptance criteria for qualifying or rejecting analytical data (i.e., method or project specific quality control limits/criteria, method quantitation limits, and decision errors from sampling, measurement)?

7. What are the methods and procedures for obtaining the data (i.e., number of samples, sample types, collection methods, sample locations and depths, sample handling, preservation, packaging, and analytical methods, etc.)? How do these procedures accomplish the objectives of the project and answer questions?

The full DQO process is described in the EPA’s Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA, February 2006). This document can be accessed at:

https://www.epa.gov/quality/guidance-systematic-planning-using-data-quality-objectives-process-epa-qag-4.

Sampling procedures should also be described in detail so the study objectives can be met and the work plan adequately evaluated by CSP. The sampling procedures section should describe the proposed number of samples to be collected per location, considering level of effort, logistical limitations, weather conditions, and other issues that may affect sample integrity. The sampling strategy or design may have flexibility to be adjusted based on conditions in the field. Deviations from the Field Sampling Guidance may be approved by CSP on a site-specific basis but should be clearly identified and described in the work plan and report. The document Guidance on Choosing a Sampling Design for Environmental Data Collection (EPA, December 2002) available at:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/g5s-final.pdf, provides detailed information on a number of sampling designs that may be applied to a particular site or support the

Standards for Validating and Evaluating Data Usability

Each work plan or QAPP should discuss the standards or criteria for qualifying or rejecting data. To aid in assessing laboratory data usability, the CSP program recommends adhering to the most current version of EPA’s Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Data Review. You can access these guidance documents here:

https://www.epa.gov/clp/superfund-clp-national-functional-guidelines-data-review. In cases where investigation or cleanup of contamination is occurring at a Department of Defense or a Department of Energy facility, then the consolidated Quality Systems Manual (QSM) for Environmental Laboratories (DOD/DOE, September 2019) could be referenced for data validation and usability assessments. You can access the latest QSM document here:

https://denix.osd.mil/edqw/documents/manuals/qsm-version-5-3-final/ https://www.epa.gov/quality/guidance-systematic-planning-using-data-quality-objectives-process-epa-qag-4 https://www.epa.gov/quality/guidance-systematic-planning-using-data-quality-objectives-process-epa-qag-4 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-06/documents/g5s-final.pdf https://www.epa.gov/clp/superfund-clp-national-functional-guidelines-data-review https://denix.osd.mil/edqw/documents/manuals/qsm-version-5-3-final/ data use objectives. Different approaches may be applicable to sites with multiple source areas or to account for contaminant type, fate and transport considerations, or other factors.

CSP will review and approve the work plan based on 18 AAC 75 and 18 AAC 78 regulatory criteria and an evaluation of whether the planned work is likely to provide sufficient information to meet the DQOs and support the site decisions expected as a result of the field work and sampling. For work under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA guidance documents will also be used.

During work plan development, the qualified environmental professional should describe how nondetects are to be evaluated before sampling commences. Refer to CSP’s Guidelines for Treating Non-Detect Values, Data Reduction for Multiple-Detections and Comparison of Quantitation Limits to Cleanup Value (DEC, April 2017) at: http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/guidance-forms/ as a guide to treatment of nondetects and comparison of quantitation limits to cleanup values.

Refer to CSP’s Site Characterization Work Plan and Reporting Guidance (DEC, March 2017) at http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/guidance-forms/ and the specific requirements outlined in 18 AAC

75.335 and 18 AAC 75.360 for further guidance on general and required work plan elements. These may vary on a site-specific basis. Work plan approval by CSP is required prior to conducting any sampling.

The qualified environmental professional should notify the CSP project manager prior to mobilizing for field activities and must obtain approval prior to implementing field modifications not provided for in the approved work plan. Site-specific field modifications that are not approved by CSP may result in the rejection of site data, qualification of the site data as estimated, and/or a requirement that additional supplemental data be collected. All work plan modifications and decision rationale should be documented in the field log and the final report. While in the field, environmental samplers are required to retain a reference copy of the approved work plan and should have a copy of the CSP approval letter.

Notification To Agencies

Notification to the CSP is required before any site assessment work is performed for UST closure or change-in-service and may be subject to additional notifications per 18 AAC 78.085.

Soil Sampling

In accordance with 18 AAC 75 and 18 AAC 78, a responsible party shall characterize the nature and extent of contamination at a site. To achieve this goal, the qualified environmental professional must delineate the extent of soil contamination to the default method two most stringent cleanup levels (i.e., lowest cleanup level for the appropriate climate zone) listed in 18 AAC 75.341, Tables B1 and B2.

For hazardous substances listed in Table B1 or, if not listed in Table B1, calculated using the DEC Cleanup Levels Calculator, the most stringent of the human health and migration to groundwater exposure pathway cleanup level for the applicable climate zone should be used for delineation. For petroleum hydrocarbon ranges listed in Table B2, the most stringent of the ingestion, inhalation and migration to groundwater exposure pathway cleanup level for the applicable climate zone should be used for delineation. For guidance on the delineation of soil contamination in the Arctic Zone, please refer to DEC’s Technical Memorandum on Establishing Arctic Zone Cleanup Levels (DEC, April 2019) which can be downloaded at: http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/guidance-forms/.

Use Appendix F of this Field Sampling Guidance for determining what site characterization analytes and methods should be employed for each source type. Please also note that site characterization activities must be conducted so cumulative risk can be evaluated as required under 18 AAC 75.325(g) and 18 AAC 78.600(d).

Under Alaska regulation 18 AAC 75.990, surface soil is defined as soil that extends no more than two feet below the surface, subsurface soil is defined as soil that is more than two feet below the surface.

Deviations from guidance provided in this section may be approved by CSP on a site-specific basis but should be clearly identified and described in the work plan and report.

5.1 General Guidelines

The soil sampling methodology should be clearly described in the work plan and should support data quality objectives and intended site decisions. Unless approved by the CSP project manager on a site-specific basis, all laboratory soil samples should be discrete samples and not composited before analysis, except when approved as part of a plan that includes incremental sampling methodology (ISM), or when required by federal regulations (e.g., TSCA for polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCB) or RCRA waste disposal characterization). Environmental professionals are encouraged to check with the appropriate EPA office for the most recent federal guidance on compliance with applicable federal regulations.

Judgmental sampling involving the collection of discrete analytical samples based on field screening results is the most common sampling approach used at contaminated sites in Alaska. Therefore, field sampling guidelines and procedures relevant to judgmental sampling are emphasized in this guidance.

Alternatives to discrete sampling, such as incremental sampling methodology (ISM), may be approved by the CSP on a site-specific basis. Alternative sampling approaches can also be designed to perform a statistical analysis of the results. The CSP recommends the use of a systematic random sampling design when statistical analysis of results is proposed for cleanup complete decisions. A general guideline for a systematic random sampling design is to collect a minimum of 30 samples from each source area in order to adequately perform statistical analysis, such as a derivation of a 95% upper confidence limit (UCL). The collection of incremental samples should be collected in accordance with the 2020 Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) Incremental Sampling Methodology Guidance (ITRC, October 2020).

For a regulated UST system site assessment, the sampling must meet or exceed the minimum requirements in 18 AAC 78.090.

Soil samples should be collected and analyzed for all applicable contaminants of potential concern using the method specifications listed in Appendix D or in accordance with a site-specific, CSP approved work plan.

Potential seasonal groundwater fluctuations should be assessed at sites where groundwater contamination is a concern. If soil contamination has the potential to extend to seasonal high groundwater, in accordance with a CSP site-specific approved work plan, install short-term or long-term monitoring wells to assess potential groundwater contamination (see groundwater section). For light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) contaminants collect soil samples above, within, and below the zone of seasonal saturation. For dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) or other contaminants, additional sampling of other intervals may be required.

The creation of a preferential contaminant migration pathway during site work may impact groundwater. As necessary, implement precautionary measures to assure the groundwater will be protected (i.e., grouting boreholes and compacting soil). If groundwater is encountered, grout soil borings in accordance with CSP’s Monitoring Well Guidance (DEC, September 2013).

5.2 Field Screening

Field screening supports, and is used in conjunction with, a judgmental sampling approach. Field screening is required for site characterization and assessment of underground storage tanks in accordance with 18 AAC

78.090. Field screening is useful to determine where to

collect samples for laboratory analysis, segregate excavated soils, identify release points, and estimate the extent of contamination. The chosen field screening method should differentiate degrees of contamination at the site.

The proposed field screening method(s) and frequency should be stated in the work plan and support the data use objectives.

If applicable, describe minimum field screening device detection/quantitation levels and possible interferences in the work plan.

The CSP recommends site-specific correlation studies be conducted to compare field screening results with analytical laboratory results when variable field screening results are anticipated, such as at sites with aged fuel releases or sites with contaminants that have very low cleanup levels. The work plan should describe how the correlation study will be conducted and how the results will be applied during the fieldwork.

The tables below are provided as a general guide to some of the available field screening methods.

For each field screening method cited in Table 1 and in Appendices B and C, there may be other types

Note: The guidelines in Section 5.2 are appropriate for most petroleum contaminated sites, but may not be appropriate for non-petroleum contaminated sites. Field screening at sites contaminated with metals, PCB, solvents, or other contaminants may be subject to additional requirements and should follow appropriate guidance for those contaminants. Prior to developing a sampling plan for non-petroleum contaminated sites environmental professionals should consult the appropriate guidance and consult with CSP to determine an appropriate sampling approach.

and sources of field screening equipment, methods, or test kits available. For example, there are numerous companies that manufacture and sell petroleum hydrocarbon immunoassay test kits. Each manufacturer uses similar methods but different techniques to detect and measure petroleum hydrocarbons. These differences may be important to you when selecting a field screening technology for your site. Include for approval in the proposed work plan a discussion of field screening method detection limits and accuracy, along with the expected quantification tolerances for any proposed detection levels used for decision making.

Additional guidance on the methods available can be found in Solid Waste (SW) -846 or through

ASTM.

Table 1. Field Screening Methods Guide 1,2

Type Media Contaminants of Concern Direct Reading Devices photoionization detector (PID), flame ionization detector (FID)

Soil Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Gasoline Range Organics (GRO), Diesel Range Organics (DRO)

Qualitative Physical Screening Methods (stick test, jar shake test, sheen test)

Soil/sediment Hydrocarbons

Field test kits (Hach®, etc.) Soil /Water Metals, PCB, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Organics

Ultra Violet Fluorescence (site LAB®, etc.)

Soil/Water/ Sediment Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

(PAH), DRO, GRO, TPH, PCB

Hanby® Diesel Dog® Soil/Water Hydrocarbons, Aromatics

Dexsil®-Petroflag® Soil Hydrocarbons

Immunoassay (EnSys, EnviroGard

TM

, RaPID Assay, etc.)

Soil/water PCB, PAH, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes (BTEX), TPH, Pesticides, Pentachlorophenol

(PCP)

Colorimetric Wet/Gas Chemistry

Soil/Water/ Air Target specific including petroleum hydrocarbons

UV/ROST technology Soil TPH, PAH

Membrane Interface Probe Soil TPH, VOC X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Soil/Sediment Metals Field gas chromatography Soil/Water Hydrocarbons, VOC, Semivolatile

Organic Compounds (SVOC)

Type Media Contaminants of Concern Infrared Spectrophotometry Field Analyzer (Wilks)

Soil/Water TPH

The CSP does not endorse or recommend any specific brand test kit for use. While Table 1 provides methods available at the time this document was written, it’s important to note that new and/or improved methods may become available and should be considered in the work plan design phase of the project.

Some field screening procedures have an associated EPA approved method.

Primary Field Screening Methods

Photoionization Detector and Flame Ionization Detector

Two commonly used field instruments for detecting volatile organic vapors at petroleum sites are PID and FID. Because PID and FID are limited to compounds that readily volatilize, they should not be used as the sole method of field screening for weathered fuels, used oil, or other compounds with low or no volatile components.

Heated headspace organic vapor monitoring involves the measurement of volatile organics emitted from soil samples in a sealed container. The container is typically warmed and then tested for volatile organic vapors using photo- or flame-ionization techniques. The results generated by this method are qualitative to semi-quantitative and are limited to compounds that readily volatilize and are able to be ionized and measured via PID or FID.

Conduct headspace analysis in glass jars or re-sealable polyethylene bags. If using re-sealable polyethylene bags, a blank sample should be tested prior to field screening to account for potential interferences caused by the bags themselves. In addition, the presence of moisture may interfere with instrument readings. Results should be presented in the report and documented in the field notes.

To ensure that field instruments will be properly calibrated and remain operable in the field, the following procedures should be followed:

• PID and FID instruments must be calibrated before each testing session to yield "total organic vapors" in parts per million to a benzene equivalent. The PID instrument should be operated with a lamp source that is able to detect the contaminants of concern, operates at a minimum of 10.6 eV, and is capable of ionizing those contaminants of concern.

• All standards used to calibrate field instruments should meet the minimum requirements for source and purity recommended in the instrument's operation manual.

• If the instrument's operation manual recommends specific calibration requirements for other criteria in calibrating the instrument (such as pH, conductivity, temperature, etc.), those criteria should be adhered to.

• Acceptance criteria for calibration should be determined depending on the potential contaminant(s) and should be within the limits set in the manufacturer's operations manual.

• The dates, times, and results of all calibrations and repairs to field instruments should be recorded in the field record.

• All users of the instrument should be trained in the proper calibration and operation of the instrument and should be required to read the operation manual before initial use.

• Operation, maintenance, and calibration should be performed in accordance with the instrument manufacturer's specifications.

• All users of the instrument should be trained in routine maintenance, including battery and lamp replacement, lamp and sensor cleaning, and battery charging.

• Each instrument's operation and maintenance manual should be present at the site.

• Field instruments should be inspected before departure for the site and also while on site.

• Instrument battery charge should be inspected far enough ahead of time to bring the instrument up to full charge before departure for the site.

• At a minimum, a source of extra batteries and lamps (if applicable) should be readily available.

The following heated headspace field screening procedure should be used:

• Partially fill (one-third to one-half) a glass jar or re-sealable polyethylene bag with the sample to be analyzed. Total capacity of the jar or bag may not be less than eight ounces (approximately 250 mL), but the container should not be so large as to allow vapor diffusion and stratification effects to significantly affect the sample.

• If the sample is collected from a split spoon, after collecting analytical sample, transfer it to the jar or re-sealable polyethylene bag for headspace analysis immediately after opening the split spoon.

• Collect the sample from freshly uncovered soil if it’s collected from an excavation or soil stockpile.

• If a jar is used, quickly cover the top with clean aluminum foil or a jar lid. Use screw tops, strong rubber bands, or other methods that will tightly seal the jar. If a re-sealable polyethylene bag is used it should be quickly sealed shut.

• From the time of collection, allow headspace vapors to develop in the container for at least 10 minutes but no longer than one hour.

• Shake or agitate containers for 15 seconds at the beginning and end of the headspace development period to assist volatilization. Temperatures of the headspace should be warmed to at least 40˚F (approximately 5˚C).

• After headspace development, insert the instrument sampling probe to a point about one-half the headspace depth. The container opening should be minimized and care should be taken to avoid uptake of water droplets and soil particulates.

• After probe insertion, record the highest meter reading. This normally will occur between two and five seconds after probe insertion.

• Complete headspace field screening within one hour from the time of sample collection.

• Document all field screening results in the field record or logbook.

• Do NOT reuse soil from the head space sample in subsequent laboratory samples or analyses;

separate samples from undisturbed, freshly exposed soil are to be collected and used for laboratory analyses.

Immunoassay

Immunoassay field screening involves the detection and measurement of petroleum hydrocarbons using specific binding characteristics of antibodies and antigens. The antibodies form antibody/antigen compounds with molecules of specific organic compounds present in the petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and motor oils. Most immunoassay test kits use an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) process. In this process, the samples being tested are combined with a labeled enzyme that competes for binding antibody sites. The process requires incubation prior to separation of bound and unbound antibodies. The bound antibodies are then quantified using secondary processes.

The immunoassay methods generate quantitative and semi-quantitative results. Most of these methods have been designed to measure the presence and concentration of a variety of petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures. Concentration determinations are based upon a relative response to specific types of organic compounds or molecular structures present in all hydrocarbon mixtures. Therefore, it is possible to monitor for gasoline, diesel, and other hydrocarbon mixtures using immunoassay methods.

Immunoassay methods require methanol extraction of a known mass of soil containing petroleum hydrocarbons. The methanol extract is then introduced to the antibody/antigen reaction to focus the testing process on the appropriate target compounds. Once the antibody/antigen reaction has been terminated, colorimetric or turbidimetric processes are used to quantify the petroleum hydrocarbon mixture present in the soil.

Infrared Spectrophotometry

Infrared spectrophotometry (IRS) is typically used to measure the carbon-hydrogen bonds (C-H bonds) present in all petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures. IRS field screening techniques recommend the addition of silica gel to a known mass of petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil prior to extraction using a suitable solvent. The soil extract is then analyzed directly following calibration of the infrared spectrophotometer adjusted to the appropriate wavelength to measure the C-H bond emissions. The quantitative results are prepared using the extraction solvent and appropriate petroleum hydrocarbon target analyte. The concentrations are determined based on project-specific data quality objectives and require an understanding of basic chemistry for proper preparation.

Colorimetric Wet Chemistry

Colorimetric test methods employ visible monitoring techniques to identify and quantify the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons. The methods require visual observation and quantification using visual comparison or spectrophotometric equipment. These methods usually employ organic wet chemistry techniques for determination of petroleum hydrocarbons on a qualitative, semi-quantitative, or quantitative basis.

Colorimetric wet chemistry methods require mixing soil containing petroleum hydrocarbons with coloring reagents. The presence of petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures is then determined through visible wavelength spectrophotometry or by visual observance of color in the reaction vessel.

Qualitative Physical Screening Methods

Physical screening methods, such as visual and olfactory screening, are qualitative and provide only basic information related to the presence or absence of petroleum hydrocarbons. However, these should be reported and documented in the field notes if observed. Physical screening methods require little or no preparation prior to a direct observation to evaluate the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons. If other field screening methods do not detect contaminants but visual or olfactory evidence suggests that they are present, soils should be treated as contaminated until analytical results are received.

Selection Criteria

Petroleum hydrocarbon field screening methods use different technologies to measure or respond to the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons. These methods can react differently under similar conditions. To select a field screening method that will provide the user with the desired results, several criteria should be considered and evaluated during the selection process. These criteria include:

• Determination of the target analytes (volatile, semi-volatile, or relatively non-volatile petroleum hydrocarbons);

• Estimation of the target analyte concentration ranges (generally comparable to applicable cleanup standards);

• Determination of the data quality objectives, such as the need for quantitative, semi-quantitative or qualitative data;

• Required expertise to perform the screening analysis; and

• An understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the screening methods. These criteria are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

Target Analytes

Each field screening method is designed to respond to various petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures or classes of organic compounds. Some screening methods are capable of testing only for volatile organics, while others are capable of measuring higher molecular weight petroleum hydrocarbons.

To select an appropriate field screening method, first try to identify the petroleum hydrocarbon mixture in the soil being tested. This is typically established using fixed laboratory analyses and/or prior knowledge of the source of contamination.

Multiple Petroleum Hydrocarbon Mixtures

The presence of multiple petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures complicates the use of field screening methods. The field screening methods are based on the detection of a variety of hydrocarbon mixtures or a combination of the petroleum fractions - GRO, DRO, and RRO. Without knowing which petroleum hydrocarbon mixture(s) are present, a range of field screening methods may need to be used to adequately estimate concentrations and guide analytical sample locations.

Field screening methods have limitations concerning the applicable ranges of concentrations they can detect. The concentration ranges are different for each field screening method. The screening method user should identify project-specific data quality objectives and identify the field screening method that can meet those objectives. Field screening methods alone are not capable of generating results that correspond directly to the analytical methods required for GRO, DRO and RRO (AK 101, 102 and 103). Instead, the field screening methods are capable of detecting multiple ranges or varying portions of these hydrocarbon mixtures. The user should be familiar with information provided by various equipment and test kit manufacturers to ensure the selected screening method will evaluate the desired petroleum hydrocarbon ranges or mixture.

Training and Expertise

Operation of the various field screening methods requires different levels of personnel training and expertise. Some of the simpler field screening methods can easily be completed after reviewing general procedures and becoming familiar with the operation of instrumentation and equipment.

Other field screening methods require training and/or support from experienced personnel, test kit manufacturers, or trained chemists. It is important that the operator responsible for the direct reading of instrumentation, test kits, and field-adapted laboratory equipment fully understand the principles used to measure and quantify target analytes. This knowledge allows the operator to maximize the reliability and usability of the data being generated.

Capabilities and Limitations

It is important to know the specific capabilities and limitations of the various methods when selecting an appropriate field screening method. It may be important to consult with the equipment/method manufacturers to further investigate the capabilities and limitations for application to particular projects. Some factors that affect the applicability of various field screening methods are listed below, along with examples of the limitations or effects.

Moisture in soil may interfere with the operation of direct reading instruments, which may result in erroneous data.

Natural organic matter in the soil may bias screening results due to the contribution of organic compounds similar to those present in refined petroleum hydrocarbons of concern.

Soil types may interfere with testing procedures and results. Examples are: moist, dense, plastic clay that is not easily broken apart may limit the generation of headspace hydrocarbon vapors for monitoring using a direct reading instrument; organic peat lithologies can introduce significant quantities of natural organics causing high bias in immunoassay screening results; gravel and rock lithologies may decrease the accuracy of all screening methods due to limited sample surface areas, increased sample mass, and the limited sample size required by most screening methods.

Low temperature and high altitudes may limit or preclude the operation of some direct reading instruments.

Temperature fluctuations may alter the response from field screening instrumentation and equipment requiring frequent calibration.

Electrical power source stability is required for operation of some field screening method equipment. Continuous power with limited voltage and current fluctuations is typically required when using electrical equipment requiring an alternating current (AC) power supply.

Other Technology Selection Considerations

Logistical concerns require attention when shipping United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) hazardous substances such as methanol, hexane, isobutylene, or other chemicals or compressed gases to project sites. Shippers, including environmental consultants, must ensure that they have received the appropriate training and certification to be able to ship hazardous substances.

Some immunoassay methods require low temperature preservation during shipment and storage prior to use.

Timeframe for testing should be considered. Some of the field screening methods will allow the user to test hundreds of samples per day, while others will be limited to fewer than 40.

Cost will play an important role. The number of samples to be tested and the usability of the data will have a direct bearing on cost feasibility. It is suggested that the user perform a cost-benefit analysis prior to selecting field screening methods.

Selecting Appropriate Field Screening Methods

Appendix B provides general information for each field screening method category described in this guide. It should be used as a preliminary or initial guide to select the field screening technologies or categories that meet the site-specific data quality objectives and approximate concentration ranges for the contaminants of potential concern.

Once the selection criteria in Appendix B are understood, Appendix C can be used to identify the field screening method category or categories most appropriate for a site. Appendix C further elaborates on the technical and logistical criteria important to selecting a field screening method. Factors affecting accuracy and precision are noted for each category. A relative comparison of the training and desirable expertise for the field operator is noted. General causes of interference and the associated effects on the screening results are described for each category. Finally, other logistical considerations such as waste by-products, transportation, storage, and shelf life are briefly compared.

The task of selecting “the best fit” field screening method can be difficult and is dependent upon site-specific technical data.

5.3 Soil Laboratory Analytical Sample Collection

General Guidelines

Sample holding times must conform to the specifications in the required analytical method (see Appendix D). When sampling frozen soils, the equipment and techniques described in the following sections may or may not apply. Refer to Appendix E for a list of recommended sampling materials.

Excavated Soil Characterization Sampling

In accordance with 18 AAC 75.360(8) and 18 AAC 75.370(a), known and suspected contaminated soil must be managed and contained separate from soil known or suspected to be free of contamination. Field screening samples and laboratory analytical samples must be collected from all stockpiled soils, including those soils suspected of being free of contamination, except as noted below.

If instruments or other field observations indicate contamination, soil should be separated into stockpiles based on apparent degrees of contamination. Segregate all excavated soils into different stockpiles of apparent degrees of contamination based on field screening results and site observations.

To assist in characterizing excavated soil, use Table 2A to determine the minimum number of screening and laboratory analytical samples to collect from any excavated soils (including overburden soils and soils placed into stockpiles, drums, and other containers) at contaminated sites.

Excavated overburden soils should be sampled as any other excavated soil unless it has been demonstrated to CSP’s satisfaction that the overburden soils meet the applicable site cleanup levels.

For each stockpile, use Table 2A to determine the appropriate number of field screening and laboratory analytical samples. Table 2A was originally developed for petroleum contaminated sites;

however, it may also be appropriate for sites with other types of contaminants if there is a known release source.

Field screening and associated laboratory analytical samples should be collected at different depths and locations to adequately represent soil contaminant heterogeneity and be of sufficient quantity to ensure representativeness.

Field screening samples for volatiles should be collected at least 18 inches beneath the exposed surface of the stockpile unless additional field screening samples are needed to represent soil contaminant heterogeneity. Petroleum contamination can be persistent near the bottom of long-term stockpiles, so it is important that some field screening samples be collected near the base.

For non-petroleum contaminants, or sites without a known source, CSP may require a different frequency of screening and analytical samples depending on data use, contaminant type, site management decisions, remediation goals, and other site-specific factors to determine the proper management of the excavated soil. Sample collection procedures, including frequency should be clearly outlined in a site-specific work plan for all contaminated sites, and should be submitted to CSP for review and approval prior to sampling.

Table 2A. Excavated Soil Sample Collection Guide1 By Volume (cubic yards)

Number of Screening Samples

Associated Number of Laboratory Samples

0-10 5 1

11-50 5 2 51-100 1…