EPA-542-B-98-009

October 1998

**Innovations in Site Characterization: **

**Interim Guide to Preparing Case Studies**

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Technology Innovation Office

Washington, D.C. 20460

**Notice**

This material has been funded wholly by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract Number 68-W7-0051. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.

Copies of this report are available free of charge from the National
Center for Environmental Protection and Information (NCEPI), PO Box
42419, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-2419; telephone (800) 490-9198 or (513)
489-8190 (voice) or (513) 489-8695 (facsimile). Refer to document
EPA-542-B-98-009, *Innovations in Site Characterization: Interim Guide
to Preparing Case Studies*. This document can also be obtained through
EPA's Clean Up Information (CLU-IN) System on the World Wide Web at*
http://clu-in.org.*

Comments or questions about this report may be directed to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Innovation Office
(5102G), 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone (703)
603-9910.

**FOREWORD**

Cost-effective cleanup (remediation) of hazardous waste sites cannot
occur unless the type, quantities, and locations of chemical
contaminants present at the site are adequately determined by a process
called characterization. Sampling and chemical analysis of environmental
media (water, soil, sediment, etc.) is vital to designing a remediation
regimen that will accomplish the desired goal of reducing risk to human
health and the environment. Unfortunately, site characterization has
historically been very costly and time consuming because the
technological options have been few and sometimes inefficient.

Recent technological advances promise better site characterization at
less cost and in a shorter time frame, yet adoption of new technologies
into mainstream engineering practice is very slow.

Three widely acknowledged barriers to the adoption and use of innovative
site characterization technologies at hazardous waste sites are:

\_C potential users lack personal awareness and/or experience with the
technology,

C potential users lack the established performance criteria needed to
assess the applicability of

the technology for a prospective project, and

C potential users lack the cost and performance information needed to
efficiently plan the project and allocate resources.

The collection and dissemination of cost and performance information is
essential to overcoming these barriers. While technology developers and
vendors can be valuable sources of this information, their claims often
carry less weight than evaluations from colleagues who have used the
technology themselves. Case studies are a means by which technology
users and impartial observers may disseminate information about
successful applications of innovative technologies and add to the pool
of knowledge that helps move a technology past the "innovative" stage,
thus significantly shortening the time required for widespread benefits
to be realized. Case studies can also be a rich source of feedback to
researchers and developers seeking to improve or refine technology
performance under various site conditions.

Individual case studies may focus on a particular technology or on a
characterization approach or process. Case studies focused on process
can provide education about how efficient characterization strategies
can be implemented on a site-specific basis, and thus can be valuable
adjuncts in training courses. For many reasons, case studies are
valuable tools for the environmental remediation community.

\_This page intentionally left blank.

**Table of Contents**

This page intentially left blank.

1\. ab**INTRODUCTION**

There is growing dissatisfaction with the long study periods and the
high costs of traditional site investigations. Traditional approaches to
collecting contaminant data are being challenged by innovative methods
for collecting comparable data which are based both on process
(strategy) changes, and on new technologies for collecting and analyzing
samples. When used judiciously, innovative approaches can provide high
quality data in a cost-effective and timely manner. However, they often
evolve out of experimentation and pilot projects, so information on the
costs incurred can be unrepresentative, and a technology's performance
across a wide range of site conditions may be unknown or highly
variable. Since project managers, on-scene coordinators, and quality
assurance managers need that kind of information to properly direct
their projects, the adoption of even highly promising technologies and
strategies is hampered. The dissemination of case studies that report
cost and performance information relative to specific project needs and
conditions can help address this problem.

To reach their audience, case studies need to be brief; yet they must
contain sufficient contextual detail (site history and project
objectives) for the reader to understand why the innovative approach was
appropriate and what benefits were derived from its use. Actual
performance data is the most important aspect of a case study, as
potential users may use this information to assess whether a technology
might be applicable to their projects. Project costs related to
implementation must be sufficiently itemized to permit comparison with
more traditional scenarios in order to assess the cost-benefit of the
innovative technology, and to permit users to plan future project
budgets. Documenting actual costs, however, in a manner that serves
these purposes is frequently difficult.

The Technology Innovation Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency believes that site characterization case studies can assist
project managers to

\_C have a wider menu of technology options at their disposal,

C select from that menu the most cost-effective characterization
technologies that will meet the

decision-making needs of a project, and

C use those tools to design a site characterization strategy that can
produce quality data capable

of supporting defensible site decisions.

2\. ab**PURPOSE**

The purpose of this Interim Guide to Preparing Case Studies is two-fold.
First, it provides guidelines that facilitate collecting and documenting
the cost and performance information that will be needed to prepare the
case study. This is especially useful if it is known during project
planning that a case study is being considered. Documenting facts
(especially costs) important to the case study as the project unfolds
will considerably reduce the time and effort later required if that
information must be extracted after the project is completed. It will
also reduce the risk of errors associated with retrieving details from
memory or from incomplete records.

Second, the Interim Guide offers a suggested format for case study
reports in order to encourage consistency. The use of a standard
presentation format not only facilitates reader comprehension and use,
but also saves effort and money related to case study preparation since
there is no need to constantly "reinvent the wheel" with each report. As
a time-saving feature, an electronic copy of this file may be used as a
template into which a case study preparer may build the specifics of a
particular project. However, not all aspects of this Guide will be
relevant to all case studies. Additionally, this document is designated
as an *Interim* Guide because revisions are expected as more experience
is gained with a range of case studies topics. The suggestions presented
here are of a general nature and attempts for consistency should not be
construed as rigidity. Modifications to any part of this template may be
made as required to maintain relevance to the topic at hand, especially
when methodologies outside the realm of analytical chemistry are
surveyed.

Individual case studies may focus on a particular technology, such as a
field analytical or geophysical technology, a software package that
interprets data or facilitates decision-making, or a sample collection
device. Case studies focused on "process" (rather than technology) could
encompass characterization strategies, such as the use of a systematic
planning approach or compression of the traditional phased approach into
a single mobilization through the use of field analytical technologies
and dynamic work planning. Process-oriented case studies might also
describe successful cost-effective sampling designs used for determining
background concentrations or for composite sampling.

A case study may focus on only one aspect of a larger project, with
details about the rest of the project limited to providing a context for
the selection and use of the technology, or might tackle the description
of an entire project. Whatever the designated focus, the preparer should
have a clear vision what information the case study seeks to convey.

3\. ab**THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS DOCUMENT**

The primary audience for this guide are those charged with actually
preparing case studies based on project reports (e.g., project sampling
and analysis plans, work plans, and project reports). Secondary users of
this guide are those charged *during the course of a project's
execution,* with gathering the information that will be used to prepare
a case study after project completion.

Who may be interested in preparing case studies? Within the government,
EPA's Technology Innovation Office and other EPA Headquarters offices
have a strong interest in case studies as information dissemination and
teaching tools, as does the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable,
which includes representatives from the Department of Energy, the
Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and EPA.
Personnel from EPA Regional offices and state environmental agencies may
find that the preparation of case studies, which document well-planned
and executed projects and the astute use of innovative technologies, may
serve to comunicate these successes to colleagues and fiscal
decision-makers.

Within the private sector, consulting engineering firms may find that
case studies documenting successful projects may advertise their
expertise to potential clients shopping for cutting-edge firms. Site
owners may find that the openness of a case study builds good will with
the public and with regulators. Vendors of technologies which have been
showcased in a successful project would have another marketing tool
which not only demonstrates that the technology *works*, but also
explains how to achieve maximum performance under real-world conditions.

4\. ab**RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES AND FORMAT**

This Guide is organized in the following manner. First, templates have
been provided of two types of abstracts, a Case Study Abstract and a
Technology Quick Reference Sheet (TQRS), both of which capture essential
information in a single-page, tabular format. The Case Study Abstract
summarizes the characterization project itself. The TQRS condenses
information about the performance and commercial availability for each
technology featured in the case study (one TQRS per technology). Case
study preparers are free to modify these tabular templates as needed.

The body of the report follows the abstracts templates. The generic
report template includes suggested headings to aid report organization.
Within each heading is a brief statement of the purpose of that section
and some general suggestions regarding the information that might be
discussed. Some of the section headings that relate to historical
background and site-specific information will undoubtably be relevant
for any project. Other headings in this Guide are applicable for a case
study focused on an analytical technology, and thus may not be relevant
for other case study topics, such as a report on a composite sampling
design. The case study preparer will have to adapt those portions of the
Guide as necessary.

Experience leads to the following recommendations:

\_C Inclusion of information in any case study report should be limited
to that which directly supports the clearly articulated focus of the
case study. It must be short and easily understood. The tendency to
clutter (and enlarge) the case study with tangential facts should be
avoided.

C A case study should serve to advertise the existence and capabilities
of a technology or strategy and arouse interest. The case study itself
cannot serve as an exhaustive source of technical detail, but should
offer enough evidence to convince a discerning reader that additional
information is worth pursuing through the technology vendors, project
contacts, or literature references.

C Certain sections, such as the "Observations and Lessons Learned"
section should be readily accessible to non-technical readers.

\_

To assist a case study preparer to use this template with minimum
effort, electronic versions of this Guide may be downloaded in various
word-processing formats from the Site Characterization/Application
Support area of EPA's Technology Innovation Office website,
http://clu‑in.org/char1.htm#application. This same website area will
post actual case studies as they become available, and these may serve
as examples for case study preparers. The first site characterization
case study prepared by EPA's Technology Innovation Office, entitled
*Innovations in Site Characterization/Case Study: Hanscom Air Force
Base*, is posted at the above web address and may serve as a model for
case studies that focus on analytical chemistry technologies.

**Case Study Abstract**

**Site Name**

**County, State**

**Site Name and Location:**

  --
  --

**Sampling & Analytical Technologies:**

  --
  --

**CERCLIS \#**

  --
  --

**Period of Operation:**

**Operable Unit:**

  -- --
     
  -- --

**Current Site Activities:**

  --
  --

**Point of Contact:**

  --
  --

**Media and Contaminants:**

  --
  --

**Technology Demonstrator:**

  --
  --

**Number of Samples Analyzed during Investigation:**

  -- -- --
        
        
  -- -- --

**Cost Savings:**

  -- -- --
        
        
  -- -- --

**Results:**

  -- -- --
        
        
  -- -- --

**Description:**

  -- -- --
        
  -- -- --

This page intentially left blank.

**TECHNOLOGY QUICK REFERENCE SHEET**

**Case Study Name**

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| +------                                                              |
| -----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+ |
| | +----                                                              |
| -----------------+---+---+---+---+---+         |   |   |   |   |   | |
| | | **T                                                              |
| echnology Name** |   |   |   |   |   |         |   |   |   |   |   | |
| | +----                                                              |
| -----------------+---+---+---+---+---+         |   |   |   |   |   | |
| | |                                                                  |
|                  |   |   |   |   |   |         |   |   |   |   |   | |
| | +----                                                              |
| -----------------+---+---+---+---+---+         |   |   |   |   |   | |
| |                                                                    |
|                                                |   |   |   |   |   | |
| | **Sum                                                              |
| mary of Case Study's Performance Information** |   |   |   |   |   | |
| +------                                                              |
| -----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+ |
| |                                                                    |
|                                                |   |   |   |   |   | |
| +------                                                              |
| -----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+ |
|                                                                      |
| **Project Role:**                                                    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Analytical Information Provided:**

+------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| +------------------------------+---+---+ |   |   |   |   |   |
| | +------------------+---+---+ |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| | |   -- -- -- -- -- |   |   | |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| | |                  |   |   | |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| | |                  |   |   | |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| | |   -- -- -- -- -- |   |   | |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| | |                  |   |   | |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| | | **Total Cost:**  |   |   | |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| | +------------------+---+---+ |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| |                              |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| | **Cost Per Sample:**         |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| +------------------------------+---+---+ |   |   |   |   |   |
| |                              |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| +------------------------------+---+---+ |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Project Cost Breakdown**               |   |   |   |   |   |
+------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
|                                          |   |   |   |   |   |
+------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+

**Instrument Cost:**

  --
  --

**Consumables Cost:**

+------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+
| +--------------------------+                   |   |   |   |   |
| | +------------------+---+ |                   |   |   |   |   |
| | |   -- --          |   | |                   |   |   |   |   |
| | |                  |   | |                   |   |   |   |   |
| | |   -- --          |   | |                   |   |   |   |   |
| | |                  |   | |                   |   |   |   |   |
| | | **Labor Cost: ** |   | |                   |   |   |   |   |
| | +------------------+---+ |                   |   |   |   |   |
| |                          |                   |   |   |   |   |
| | **Waste Disposal Cost:** |                   |   |   |   |   |
| +--------------------------+                   |   |   |   |   |
| |                          |                   |   |   |   |   |
| +--------------------------+                   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                |   |   |   |   |
| **Site-Specific Accuracy/Precision Achieved:** |   |   |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+

**Throughput Achieved:* ***

+---------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
|   --                                        |   |   |   |   |   |
|   --                                        |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                             |   |   |   |   |   |
| **General Commercial Information            |   |   |   |   |   |
| (Information valid as of \[insert date\])** |   |   |   |   |   |
+---------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
|                                             |   |   |   |   |   |
+---------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+

**Vendor Contact:**

  --
  --

**Vendor Information:**

  -- -- --
        
  -- -- --

**Limitations on Performance:**

  -- --
     
     
  -- --

**Availability/Rates:**

+----------------------------------------+
|   --                                   |
|   --                                   |
|                                        |
| **Principle of Analytical Operation:** |
+----------------------------------------+

**Power Requirements:**

  -- -- --
        
  -- -- --

**Instrument Weight and/or Footprint:**

+-------------------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
| +-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+ |   |   |   |   |   |
| |   --                                |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| |   --                                |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| |                                     |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| | **General Performance Information** |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| +-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+ |   |   |   |   |   |
| |                                     |   |   |   |   |   | |   |   |   |   |   |
| +-------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+ |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                             |   |   |   |   |   |
| **Known or Potential Interferences:**                       |   |   |   |   |   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+
|                                                             |   |   |   |   |   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+

**Applicable Media/Matrices:**

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+---+---+
| +------------------------------------------------------------+---+---+ |   |   |
| | +---------------------------------------------+---+---+    |   |   | |   |   |
| | | +-----------------------------------+---+   |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | | |   --                              |   |   |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | | |   --                              |   |   |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | | |                                   |   |   |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | | | **Analytes Measurable with        |   |   |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | | | Expected Detection Limits:**      |   |   |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | | +-----------------------------------+---+   |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | |                                             |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | | **Other General Accuracy/Precision          |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | | Information:**                              |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | +---------------------------------------------+---+---+    |   |   | |   |   |
| | |                                             |   |   |    |   |   | |   |   |
| | +---------------------------------------------+---+---+    |   |   | |   |   |
| |                                                            |   |   | |   |   |
| | **Wastes Generated Requiring Special Disposal:**           |   |   | |   |   |
| +------------------------------------------------------------+---+---+ |   |   |
|                                                                        |   |   |
| **Rate of Throughput:**                                                |   |   |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+---+---+

This page intentially left blank.

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

The purpose of the executive summary is to concisely summarize the whole
case study, providing the essential details of the site conditions, the
actions taken, and the results obtained from those actions. The focus of
the case study should be clearly defined, such as whether the case study
is reporting on a particular site characterization technology as opposed
to a characterization process, and whether the report will primarily
summarize only a relevant portion of a project as opposed to an entire
investigation.

The 'take home' message of the case study should be presented, along
with a summary of the principal lessons learned. It is often best to
write this section last.

This page intentially left blank.

**SITE INFORMATION**

**Identifying Information **

The purpose of this section is to provide basic identifying information
about the site. The standard items to report here include (as
appropriate):

\_C Site Name

C City, State, Zipcode

C Operable Unit

C CERCLIS \#

C Enforcement Decision Document Date

\_

**Background ** **\[may put citation number here\]**

A clear description of the site background acts as the foundation on
which the site conceptual model was constructed to develop the
characterization strategy. Without such a description, it can be
difficult to understand the logical reasoning behind the
characterization strategy. The description of the site background should
provide a clear historical and physical description of the area that is
the subject of investigation. The historical perspective should
concisely present the history of the site as it relates to the release
of contaminants. It may also include a short description of the
enforcement and investigative history.

This information will likely be derived from other documents or reports,
which should appear in the Reference section at the end of the case
study, with a corresponding citation number in the body of the text or
at the section heading, as illustrated above.

Some items to report might include:

**Physical Description:**

\_C Site location

C Nearest population center

C Site size

C Study area size

C Site topography

C Physical features: wetlands, rivers, etc.

\_

**Site Use:**

\_C Historical use

C Changes in ownership

\_

**Release/Investigation History:**

\_C Release history

C Initial discovery/ investigation

C Removal actions: type and volume

C Present investigation

C Site map

\_

**Regulatory Context:**

\_C NPL listing

C ROD date

C Enforcement dates, including Consent on Decree/Administrative Order

\_**Site Logistics/Contacts **

This section contains the basic contact information for the project,
such as.

**Lead Agency or Party:**

**Oversight Agency:**

**Project Manager:**

**Quality Assurance Contact:**

**Technology Demonstrator:**

**Technical Site Contact:**

** MEDIA AND CONTAMINANTS**

The purpose of this section is to describe the types of contaminants
present at the site, and the characteristics of the matrices in which
they are found. Include information on the listed topics as needed to
aid case study coherence:

**Matrix Identification **

**Type of Matrix Sampled and Analyzed:** (e.g., Subsurface soil/Bedrock/
Groundwater)

**Site Geology/Stratigraphy ** **\[may put citation number here if all
information derived from a single reference\]**

The description of site geology might include:

\_C Lithography

C Depth to groundwater

C Depth to bedrock

C Confining layers

C Map of study area

\_

If appropriate, describe:

C Aquifer name and classification, e.g., sole source drinking water,
etc.

\_C Hydrogeology

C Direction of groundwater flow

C Transmissivity/conductivity

C Potentiometric gradients

\_

**Contaminant Characterization **

**Primary Contaminant Groups:** List contaminants of concern

**Matrix Characteristics Affecting Characterization Cost or Performance
**

The specific matrix characteristics that might be included will vary
from one investigation to the next. Report those that influenced the
design of the study and/or affected the performance or deployment of the
technologies employed during the investigation. Common characteristics
might include:

\_C Complex lithology

C Soil moisture

C Topographical relief across site

C Cultural interferences (e.g., structures that restrict implemention of
a geophysical technique)

C Depth to bedrock

C Depth to water table

C Presence of matrix interferences to analytical methods

\_

** SITE CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS**

The purpose of this section is to describe clearly the process that led
to the collection of information relevant to site characterization. The
scale of the project should be clearly defined, such as whether is was a
field test, a pilot project, or a full-scale application.

**Goal of Site Characterization **

When possible, the goal(s) of the investigation should be stated in
terms of the type of site investigation performed and the site-specific
decisions that were supported by data. Types of investigations that
might be performed include:

C Preliminary assessment

C Brownfields assessment

C Risk assessment or other health and safety concerns

C Remedial design

C Remedial monitoring

C Site closure

**Sampling Workplan ** **\[information source may be referenced here\]**

The description of the sampling plan can be used to establish the
context for the investigation results. The discussion should focus on
the scope of the investigation and the justification for the sampling
approach. For example, prior knowledge of releases may have been used to
locate hotspots by a judgmental sampling plan, or the use of statistical
measures to derive representative statements about site contamination or
risk. Action levels used to make site decisions should be presented and
the justification for their selection noted. As appropriate, information
may be displayed in tabular format.

\_**Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Measures **
**\[Reference?\]**

Most site characterization projects will use QA/QC measures of some kind
(depending upon the type of technology), with the necessary and
appropriate measures having been determined during project planning.
These measures (such as project-specific Data Quality Objectives, or
analyte-specific Data Quality Indicators in the case of analytical
technologies \[1\]) are used to assess the quality and useability of the
data generated during site characterization and should be described in
this section in concise terms or in tabular format, when appropriate.
The QA/QC measures described in this section will be the standards by
which technology performance will be assessed in the Performance
Evaluation section of the case study (described below).

**CHARACTERIZATION TECHNOLOGIES**

The purpose of this section is to provide a technical description of the
technologies used in the site characterization project if they are
relevant to the purpose of the case study. Topics to cover in this
section may include:

**Sample Collection ** **Technologies or Procedures**

If sample collection was an important parameter for the case study, this
section can be included to describe the specific technology used and
principle(s) of operation. The name of the vendor, the model number, and
the technical operating parameters should be presented (as applicable).
It is not the purpose of this section to *evaluate* the performance of
the technology, but rather to describe its role in the project (for
example, the collection of soil gas samples for chlorinated solvent and
BTEX target compounds).

**Analytical Technologies **

Any discussion of analytical technologies should include the specific
technology used, the name of the vendor, the model number, and the
technical operating parameters. As above, it is not the purpose of this
section to evaluate performance, but merely to describe the technology's
use and site-specific role (for example, field analysis for total PCBs
in drummed soil to designate individual drums for disposal either by
incineration or by landfilling). A *brief* summary of the operating
principle may be helpful for novel technologies. Sample preparation
technologies (such as an extraction method or a purge and trap device)
might be described in this section as well.

**PERFORMANCE EVALUATION**

The purpose of this section is to report the results of the site
characterization activities. Although the nature of the information
reported will vary depending on the technology or characterization
strategy used, the outcomes should be evaluated based on whether the
achieved performance was able to meet the the goal(s) of the
investigation. Evaluation of a technology's performance should be linked
to the corresponding QA/QC measures as described in the Site
Characterization Process section of the case study.

**Sample Collection **

If sample collection efficiency was important to the case study focus,
describe the scope of those activities here. To the degree possible, a
discussion of deviations from the original sampling plan should be
included, since such deviations can be used to assess whether the
performance of the site characterization technologies was able to meet
the expectations of the project's sampling and analysis plan (SAP).
Deviation from an original SAP may also occur as a result of finding
unanticipated site conditions or unexpected contamination. It is
instructive to discuss the adaptability of the characterization
technology or strategy in the face of unanticipated problems.

**Sampling Results **

This section can be used to describe the quantitative or qualitative
results of the investigation. The discussion can focus on the overall
findings and summarize the information that was obtained during the
investigation and used to inform the decision-making process (e.g., the
number of samples collected or analyses performed, the conclusions from
a geophysical survey). A contour map showing concentration levels in
spatial relation to source areas may help the reader to visualize the
results.

**Technology Performance **

The specific topics to discuss will vary from technology to technology,
and this section may be unnecessary if the topic of the case study is a
strategy rather than a technology. This section evaluates technology
performance in terms of the performance standards and QA/QC measures
discussed in the Site Characterization Process section. Were
project-specific Data Quality Objectives achieved? If analytical
technologies are the focus of the case study, topics that might be
discussed include:

\_C Initial and continuing calibration verification

C Detection limits

C False positive and negative analytical error rates

C Spike and surrogate recoveries

C Precision/duplicate and replicate results

C Accuracy/performance evaluation samples/check standards

C Field vs. traditional (confirmatory) laboratory comparisons

\_

To the degree possible, performance results should be presented in
tabular format.

** COST COMPARISON**

The purpose of this section is to provide as complete a description of
the costs associated with the site characterization as possible. Actual
costs taken from invoices or other documents serve best, but may not be
available in some instances. In such instances, estimates should be
provided along with an explanation of their source and underlying
assumptions. To the extent possible, project costs should be separated
into labor and capital components. Labor costs should be described in
terms of the type of labor (e.g., a mid-level geologist) and the
duration of involvement. Capital costs may be presented as purchase or
rental costs, as appropriate. In instances where labor and capital are
mixed together (as in a subcontracted task), this should be explained
and some effort should be made to separate the two components. Finally,
financial discounting of costs should be avoided because of the short
duration of these projects.

If known or if possible, a similar cost breakdown should be presented
for comparison to an alternate, more traditional scenario that might
have been used to accomplish the same site work. If alternate scenarios
were generated during project planning to select the most cost-effective
option, they would obviously be useful sources of cost comparison
information.** **

Where possible or available, "life-cycle" costing that considers
technology costs and benefits in the context of a entire life of a
project** **is a useful adjunct to the commonly used "cost-per-sample"
comparisons. For example, the use of a field method or on-site
laboratory may result in a higher cost per sample than sending the
sample to an off-site laboratory, but if the rapid turn around time of
the field methods permits the collection of fewer, more informative
samples, or decreases the number of mobilizations to a site to reach the
same decision, the overall cost of the project may be substantially
reduced.

Preparing cost comparisons in this way is always very difficult, because
a certain amount of prognostication is involved. No two sites will ever
be exactly comparable, and there is no way to account for every option
or variable that can affect a project's costs.** **Any attempt at cost
comparison will always be open to the criticism that some factor was
either ignored or was given too much emphasis.** ** With the current
state of the art, there is little that can about this except for the
case study preparer to be as clear and detailed as possible about how
any economic analysis was performed so that readers can prepare their
own cost estimate as they wish.

**OBSERVATIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED**

The purpose of this section is to report any important lessons learned
about the particular technologies or processes used during project
execution. The lessons learned should focus on the advantages,
disadvantages, limitations, time or cost savings discovered during
project execution. Lessons learned may be process-, technology-, or
site-specific.

The advantages of having back-up equipment or contingency plans in place
may be emphasized here. Contingency planning acknowledges that
unexpected mishaps, such as equipment failure or electrical power
irregularities, sometimes happen. Anticipating these eventualities
during project planning can save the time and costs of extended
down-time.

Other important lessons may demonstrate how confidence in site decisions
can be optimized by the use of systematic, advance planning and the
judicious selection of site characterization technologies. Documentating
the steps that site managers can take to improve the quality and
cost-effectiveness of site investigation can be the most important
lesson of all.

**REFERENCES**

Ref \# Author. *Report Title.* Publisher. City. Report Number. Date of
Publication

1\. U.S. EPA. *EPA QA/G-5: EPA Guidance on Quality Assurance Project
Plans.* Office of Research and Development, Quality Assurance Division.
Washington, DC.

EPA/600/R-98/018. February 1998.