Appendices

Appendix A. Brief History of Carlsbad Environmental
Monitoring and Research Program

The Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring & Research Center (CEMRC) was created in 1991, as a division of the Waste-management Education & Research Consortium (WERC), in the College of Engineering at New Mexico State University (NMSU). The CEMRC was conceived as a result of inquiries to WERC by concerned citizens of the Carlsbad region, acting as a grassroots coalition who recognized the need for high-quality, independent, health and environmental assessment data. Many individuals and organizations supported the CEMRC's formation including the residents of Carlsbad, New Mexico, and the surrounding region; NMSU; the Carlsbad Department of Development; the New Mexico Congressional Delegation; the New Mexico Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Committee; Westinghouse Electric Corporation; and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The CEMRC was established with a grant entitled "Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Program" (CEMRP) from DOE to NMSU. The CEMRP initially was funded for $27 million over a seven year period (1991 - 1998). Subsequently, the grant was increased to almost $33 million to support operations of the program until 2008.

Dr. Rohinton (Ron) K. Bhada served as Project Director for the CEMRP during 1991-1999. Dr. Donald J. Fingleton served as Director of the CEMRC during 1991-1996. In 1996, Dr. Fingleton was named Director of Laboratory Development, and Dr. Marsha Conley became Director of Operations. Dr. Fingleton was transferred to a position with WERC in 1997, and Dr. Conley became Director. Mr. Joel Webb was named Manager of Program Development in 1998. Dr. Conley was named CEMRP Project Director in 1999.

Temporary office accommodations for the CEMRC initially were provided at NMSU-Carlsbad. In 1992, the CEMRC moved to a leased facility at 800 West Pierce in Carlsbad, which served as a basis for operations through December 1996. Flatow Moore Bryan Shaffer McCabe Architects (Albuquerque, New Mexico) and Research Facilities Design (San Diego, California) were selected in 1991 to design the CEMRC's new facilities. In December of 1993, DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary made a commitment to provide approximately $7 million in additional funding to support debt service for construction of the new facility. In 1994, the NMSU Board of Regents approved the sale of New Mexico State University Research Corporation Lease Revenue bonds to secure construction money. Construction of the Phase I facility began in August 1995 and was completed in December 1996. The facility is located adjacent to the NMSU-Carlsbad campus, on 22 acres of land donated to NMSU by then New Mexico State Representative Robert S. Light (D-55^th District). On March 23, 1997, the Phase I facility was named the Joanna and Robert Light Hall (to be referred to as Light Hall).

In addition to work associated with design and construction of buildings for the CEMRC, a variety of other developmental projects were undertaken to support the CEMRC's scientific activities. In 1993, design began for the Mobile Bioassay Laboratory (MBL) that would complement the facilities planned for the new CEMRC building. Construction of the MBL began in 1994, and the unit was completed and delivered to Carlsbad in 1996. An application for a Radioactive Material License was prepared and submitted to the New Mexico Environment Department, and the license was issued in 1996.

In 1999, CEMRC was separated from WERC and is now a division reporting directly to the Dean of Engineering at NMSU. However, CEMRC continues to conduct various collaborative activities with WERC.

Appendix B. Subcontracts for Technical Assistance during 2000

^aCollaborative work not funded through CEMRP

Appendix C. Members of Scientific Advisory Board (SAB)
and Program Review Board (PRB)

Appendix D. Professional Presentations and Publications during 2000

Appendix E. Guest Colloquia

Appendix F. Major Tours, Public Presentations, Exhibits and Other Outreach

Appendix G. Leadership Participation by CEMRC Staff
in Professional Functions

Appendix H. New Project Development

Appendix I. Status of Completion of 2000 Key Performance Indicators

• Concurrent high-volume and low-volume aerosol sampling at three locations through 2000. [Completed]
• Collection of daily FAS samples in WIPP exhaust shaft through 2000. [Completed]
• Collection of soil samples at current 32 locations during January-February 2000. [Completed]
• Concurrent operation of meteorological sampling stations at two sites through 2000. [Completed]
• Collection of drinking water samples at six sources during March-April 2000. [Completed]
• Collection of sediment and surface water samples from three reservoirs during June-July 2000. [Completed]
• Collection of vegetation samples from six locations during fall 2000. [No collection due to failure to complete analyses of archived samples from 1997-1999]
• Completion of repeat counts for half of original volunteer cohort and initial counts for a minimum of 100 new volunteers. [Through 1 October 2000, bioassays completed for 98 of original volunteer cohort and 133 new volunteers since first waste receipt at WIPP; 500 volunteer participants measured since project initiation]
• Radioanalyses of all pre-2000 aerosol, sediment, surface water, drinking water and vegetation samples by October 2000 [Analyses of all pre-2000 aerosol, surface water, and drinking water samples completed; alpha spectroscopy analyses of pre-2000 sediment samples delayed to February 2001; analyses of pre-2000 vegetation samples delayed to August 2001]
• Radioanalyses of soil, aerosol, sediment, surface water and drinking water samples collected through June 2000 by October 2000 [Analyses of all 2000 soil, aerosol, sediment, surface water and drinking water samples completed, except alpha spectroscopy of 2000 sediment samples, which is delayed to February 2001]
• Radioanalyses of FAS sample analyses to meet weekly and quarterly posting schedule. [Completed]
• Non-radiological (trace element inorganic) analyses of representative subset of 2000 low-volume aerosol, soil, sediment, surface water and drinking water samples within three months after each sample collection. [Completed]
• Non-radiological (trace element inorganic) analyses of FAS samples to meet weekly and quarterly posting schedule [Completed]
• Post results of radioanalyses of 2000 and pre-2000 samples within two months after completion of analyses [Postings of analytical results for 2000 and pre-2000 samples were delayed, averaging three months after completion of analyses]
• Post results of non-radiological analyses of 2000 samples within two months after completion of each set of samples. [Postings of analytical results for 2000 samples were delayed, averaging three months after completion of analyses]
• Issue CEMRC 1999 Report and post report and background data to CEMRC web site by March 2000. [Completed]
• Issue newsletters in March and September 2000. [Spring newsletter issued in March 2000; Fall newsletter issued in October 2000]
• Submit manuscript for publication by February 2000 on baseline characteristics of soils. [Delayed, submitted April 2000, accepted for publication in Journal of Environmental Radioactivity]
• Submit manuscript for publication by July 2000 on baseline characteristics of aerosols. [Delayed due to delayed completion of radioanalyses of pre-2000 aerosol samples, rescheduled for February 2001]

Appendix J. CEMRC Quality Assurance Policy

The Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring & Research Center (Center) is a division of the College of Engineering, New Mexico State University (NMSU). The Center is subject to the policies, procedures and guidelines adopted by NMSU, as well as state and federal laws and regulations that govern the operation of the university. Subject to limitations specified by state law, NMSU is legally responsible for the operations and products of the Center. In addition to the general goals, mission and standards of NMSU, the Center adheres to the following principles:

• A quality system will be maintained to ensure that sponsor requirements are consistently met and carried out in accordance with recognized standards as identified and adopted by each programmatic area. The goal of the quality system will be continuous improvement in the processes composing the Center's activities in research and service.
• Standards of quality assurance and quality control incorporating standard scientific methods will be developed and implemented that are appropriate to the objectives and functions of specific projects and programmatic areas.
• Methods for performance assessment and quality improvement will be used throughout the Center in keeping with policies and procedures of NMSU, and with protocols adopted for specific projects and programmatic areas to ensure that all applicable quality objectives are met and maintained.
• Personnel, equipment and facilities will be provided to achieve adopted project objectives and quality standards, subject to the limitations of fiscal and other applicable constraints.
• Personnel will be provided access to written and verbal guidance, training and other professional development to support continuous improvement within all programmatic areas, subject to the limitations of fiscal and other applicable constraints.
• Personnel will be held accountable for their actions related to protection of employees, the public, and the environment, in carrying out projects and other activities, in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
• Employees are responsible for personal compliance with policies, procedures and other guidance adopted for purposes of quality control, fiscal accounting, and other management objectives.

Appendix K. Quality Assurance/Quality Control for Inorganic Analyses

As noted elsewhere in this report, the analytical methods employed for inorganic analyses in the environmental chemistry program at CEMRC are based, when applicable, on various standard procedures (EPA, 1983, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, EPA/600/4-79-020; EPA, 1997, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA/SW-846; American Public Health Association, 1981, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 15^th Edition). For some matrix/analyte combinations, appropriate external standard procedures do not exist, and for those cases, specialized procedures have been developed to meet the needs of the WIPP EM and other research projects.

Instrumentation

A DIONEX 500 ion chromatography (IC) system was used to determine the concentrations of a suite of anions, including nitrate, nitrite, sulfate, chloride, fluoride, and phosphate in water samples and aqueous extracts of aerosol samples, soils, and sediments. Configured differently, the same instrumentation was used to determine the concentrations of several cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, ammonium and potassium). The anion analyses were performed with the use of AS11 and AS14 anion exchange columns and AG11 and AG14 guard columns, with chemical suppression and conductivity detection. The cations were determined using a CG12A guard column and a CS12A analytical column, with the same type of chemical suppression and conductivity detection.

Elemental analyses employed an atomic absorption spectrometer (AAS) with a computer-controlled Perkin-Elmer 5100PC atomic absorption unit with Zeeman background correction. Samples are introduced into the AAS by aspiration through an air/acetylene flame, by vaporization in a heated graphite furnace, by flow-injection via a heated quartz cell, or through an unheated quartz cell (for Hg). Additional inorganic analyses were performed using a Perkin-Elmer Elan 6000 inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS). The two instruments used for the elemental analyses are complementary; AAS is more sensitive than the ICP-MS for some elements, especially for the hydride elements (As, Se and Hg), but compared with the ICP-MS, the AAS has a narrower linear range, requires more operator effort for calibration and operation, and has a much lower sample throughput.

General Quality Control

Several analytes are readily determined by more than one of the three instruments used at CEMRC, and this facilitates intra-laboratory comparisons as summarized below. Some of these internal QC comparisons are also summarized in other sections of this report that deal with specific media.

Independent quality assurance samples are obtained and analyzed to verify the performance of the instrumentation and the proficiency of the analyst. Both blind samples (obtained from an outside source, with true values not known at the time of analysis) and reference samples (obtained from an outside source or prepared internally, with true values known at the time of analysis) are used to perform this function. Regular QC verifications and batch QC provide records of sample performance data. Copies of the analytical data and performance results are maintained in the environmental chemistry instrument laboratory. The laboratory also carried out several informal inter-laboratory comparisons, and participated in two formal intercomparison studies in 2000.

Calibrations are verified with a standard obtained from a source different from that used for the procurement of the primary calibration standards. The calibration standards and the verification standards used at CEMRC are, where possible, traceable to NIST. A calibration blank is analyzed at the beginning of each workday when samples will be run, after every ten samples, and at the end of the day. To pass the calibration verification, blank results must be less than the minimum detectable level or ± 3 standard deviations (SD) of control limits. Analysis of a blank and a standard are performed at a frequency of 10% during analytical runs, and these are repeated at the close of each analytical run to verify continued calibration validity. Batch quality control samples are counted as samples in determining the 10% frequency, but the continuing check samples are not counted as samples in determining the 10% frequency.

Various types of field blanks, check solutions and laboratory fortified (spiked) samples are analyzed along with the samples as part of the QA/QC procedures. These vary somewhat among matrices and analyses as described in more detail below. In addition, when feasible, duplicate samples (both field and laboratory duplicates) are processed to evaluate reproducibility and sample homogeneity. Control charts for each matrix have been established, and ± 3 SD limits have been determined for future reference. Control charts are used to track the performance of the instrument and the sample preparation procedures. Similarly, spike recoveries are calculated, tracked, and reported along with the analytical data.

Beginning in January 2000, Method Detection Limits (MDLs) were determined using a procedure outlined in 40 CFR 136, Appendix B. Briefly, this involves processing and analyzing seven replicates of a low level standard as though they were samples. The standard deviations of the replicate analyses are multiplied by 3.14 to obtain the MDLs. For previous reports, the MDLs for metals were determined by replicate analyses of prepared blanks, as outlined by the instrument manufacturers. In some cases, this change produced improved limits of detection (note the filter detection limits for V, Cr, Zn Sr, Sb, etc.)(Tables K1 and K2). In other cases, the change caused the limits to increase (e.g., drinking water for Cu and Ba).

The use of a closed microwave digestion system for the preparation of the surface water, soil and sediment also contributed to better method detection limits for some analytes (Zn, Na, K, Mg, Al, Fe, and Ca) in these matrices. It should be noted however, that the method used in 2000 for determining detection level does not address the problem of a systematic bias (such as background filter contamination). Therefore, it is possible to have a high level of precision without an accompanying high level of accuracy. In situations where this happens, the MDL obtained by this method may not accurately represent the true limit of detection.

The environmental chemistry laboratory participated in the InterLaB WatR^TM Pollution WP-58 Proficiency Testing Program sponsored by Environmental Resource Associates. Overall, the lab received a "Very Good" rating, with a laboratory score of 90.3% (Table K3). Calcium and ortho-phosphate results were flagged "Not Acceptable" and magnesium results were flagged "Check for Error". A comparison of ICP-MS calibration standards to other known standards indicated that the calibration standards were high for calcium and magnesium. New standards were purchased from another source and the problem was resolved. New IC calibration standards were also purchased. After calibration with the new standards, the phosphate test sample was rerun and found to be within acceptance limits.

Quality Control for Analyses by IC

For IC analyses, QC samples are analyzed with each sample batch as an indicator of the reliability of the data produced. The types, frequencies of analysis, and limits for these QC samples have been established in a set of standard operating procedures.

Fluoride was not determined in sediments due to co-eluting organic peaks; method development is in progress to determine whether it will be possible to correct for this. QC samples included Laboratory Reagent Blanks (LRB), with one LRB prepared for each sample batch (normally a set of ten samples). LRB results below MDL are considered acceptable (Tables K4 and K5). LRB results higher than MDL must be subtracted from sample results. For aerosol filter analyses, some LRB results indicated reagent blank contamination for nitrate. Sources of blank contamination were traced to some laboratory personal protective equipment and various containers. More rigorous cleaning methods were employed to reduce contamination on these items. Laboratory Fortified Matrix (LFM) samples were also used for QC, with one LFM analysis per batch. Results from analyses of LFMs are used to calculate matrix spike recoveries, with recoveries of 70-130% considered acceptable. As prescribed by EPA Method 300.0, chloride and sulfate LFM values for surface water samples and chloride and sulfate LFM values in sediments were not reported because the concentration of the fortification was less than 25% of the background concentration (Table K6).

One duplicate analysis was performed for each sample batch. When available, duplicate aliquots of some field samples were analyzed. In cases where duplicate aliquots from the original sample were not feasible (such as aerosol filters), separate aliquots of the sample extract were analyzed. The relative percent difference (RPD) between the sample and the duplicate was calculated, with a difference of < 20% (or an absolute difference of ± MDL for samples less than five times the MDL) considered acceptable (Table K7).

A Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) was prepared and analyzed with each sample batch, using a spiked ultrapure water sample for aerosol filters and water samples, and certified reference materials (CRM) for soils and sediments. Recoveries of 85-115% were considered acceptable for aerosol filters, and water samples(Table K8). The CRM for soils and sediments was "Anions in Soils" from Environmental Research Associates (ERA) in Arvada, Colorado. Because there is no existing standard reference method for extracting soils or sediments for anion analysis, the results obtained by different methods may not be directly comparable. Recoveries for fluoride and phosphate were lower than desirable on CRM samples for soils (average recovery 73% and 67%, respectively), indicating a possible negative bias for fluoride and phosphate for this matrix. Fluoride and chloride recoveries for CRM samples from sediments were also low (average recovery 67% and 79%, respectively), indicating a negative bias for fluoride and chloride results from sediment samples. During 2000, matrix spikes were added to soil and sediment samples prior to extraction. This change resulted in lower recoveries for fluoride and phosphate than in previous years when the spikes were added after sample extraction. The standard procedure for future analyses will employ spiking after extraction.

Low-volume aerosol filters were also analyzed by IC for five cations with overall acceptable results (Table K9). Acceptance limits for each QC parameter were the same as previously described.

Quality Control for Elemental Analyses by ICP-MS and AAS

For elemental analyses, sets of quality control samples comparable to those previously described for the IC analyses were included with each sample batch. Detailed performance results for all QC measures are not presented here due to the number of elements that are determined by ICP-MS and AAS. For all media (aerosol filters, water, soils, and sediments) ICP-MS and AAS values were reported relative to the method detection limit as determined by the method outlined at 40 CFR 136, Appendix B. Digestion QC samples were analyzed at a frequency of 10% relative to samples. The digestion QC control parameters used for the evaluation of metals in aerosol filters included laboratory reagent blank (LRB) filters and vendor-supplied certified reference filters. Due to limitations in sample quantities, duplicate and post digestion spike analyses could not be performed for the ICP-MS and AAS analyses of aerosol samples.

The digestion QC parameters used for the evaluation of metals in water, soils, and sediments were based on EPA Contract Laboratory Program (1994, U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, EPA 540/R-94013) and SW-846 methods (EPA, 1997, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA/SW-846). No comparable control parameters presently exist for aerosol samples. The EPA CLP sets a required detection limit for metals referred to as the CRDL (Contract Required Detection Limit). The CRDL is used in determining acceptance criteria for blanks and duplicates. Due to the limited scope of analytes monitored in the CLP program, and the relatively high detection limit requirements, it is common practice in commercial laboratories to establish Practical Quantitation Limits (PQLs) which are used in the same manner as CRDLs for non-EPA projects. The PQL is obtained by multiplying the Method Detection Limit (MDL) by five. For drinking water, surface water, soils, and sediments, PQLs were calculated to evaluate precision based on the analysis of duplicate samples.

For aerosol samples, unused cellulose ester filters were used as LRB samples. LRB results above the MDL were subtracted from each associated batch of sample results because the LRB results were greater than the MDL for many of the analytes studied. Analysis of reagent digests have shown inherent contamination in the cellulose ester filters for some analytes (Ca, Cr, Cu, Mg, Ni, and Pb), while others (Al, Ba, Co, Hg, and La) are introduced in trace amounts by the reagents used for digestion. A cellulose ester CRM ("Trace Metals on Filter Media" from High Purity Standards in Charleston, South Carolina) was also used for QC of aerosol sample analysis. Mean recoveries for all analytes were within ± 15% of the manufacturer's established true values for all analytes except Se. The average recovery for Se was 78%, and therefore a negative bias is assumed to be present in reported values for Se in aerosol samples.

For FAS samples, unused Versapore® filters were used as laboratory reagent blank samples. LRB results above the MDL were subtracted from each associated batch of sample results because they were greater than the MDL for several of the analytes studied. Analysis of reagent digests showed inherent contamination in the Versapore filters for Cr, Cu, K, La, Mg, Na, Nd, Ni, Pb, Sm and V, while Be, Cd, Dy, Gd were introduced in trace amounts by the reagents during digestion. A cellulose ester CRM ("Trace Metals on Filter Media" from High Purity Standards in Charleston, South Carolina) was used for QC of the FAS samples. Mean recoveries for all analytes were within ± 15% of the manufacturer's established true values, with the exception of Cu (77%). The filter fortified by High Purity Standards has a much lower Cu background than the Versapore filter and the Cu level contained in the Versapore filters is significant compared to the fortification level, therefore when blank subtraction is performed the CRM recovery is biased low.

Four standard QC measures were used in association with analyses of drinking water and surface water samples. Ultrapure water was used for LRB samples, and average concentrations were less than the MDLs for all analytes except Al, Cr, Fe, Li, Pb, Sb, Sn, Sr, Th, and Ti in drinking water samples and Be, La, Mn and Zn in surface water. All results were corrected for blank bias. A LFB was prepared by adding a known quantity of each analyte of interest to ultrapure water. All analytes for drinking water and surface water preparation were recovered within the 85-115% limits as specified by EPA methods.

LFM samples were also used for QC in analyses of water samples, with all recoveries within a 70%-130% acceptance window, with the exception of Ba in surface water (31%). In compliance with the EPA CLP, the results for Ba must be considered estimates and are possibly biased low. When evaluating LFM results, the concentration of the analyte in the sample must also be considered. If the concentration of the fortification is less than 25% of the background concentration, the recovery of the LFM is not reported. A duplicate digestion analysis of water samples was also performed to demonstrate reproducibility, but a slight modification of the EPA CLP program was used for acceptance determination. If the sample result were less than the PQL, a ± PQL control limit was used. If the sample result were greater than the PQL, a ± 20% RPD control limit was used. All duplicate results were within these modified acceptance limits.

For soils and sediments, LRB samples of prepared ultrapure water were compared to MDLs to determine if contamination was introduced during sample preparation. LRB results were within acceptance limits for soils with the exception of Al, Ba, Ca, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, La, K, Mg, Mn, Na, Ni, Pb, Sb, Sn, Sr and Zn, which were above the MDL. The sample measurements were at least ten times higher than the LRB results for all analytes except Ca, Cd, Cr, Cu, Na, Ni Sb, Sn and Zn. The contaminant effects on the measurements are considered negligible for analytes with sample concentrations greater than 10 times the blank level. Sample results were corrected for bias by reagent blank subtraction for all analytes with LRBs above the MDL, regardless of sample concentration.

Sediment LRB results were less than the MDL with the exception of Al, Ba, Ca, Co, Cu, Cr, Fe, Gd, Hg, K, La, Li, Mg, Mn, Nd, Ni, Pb, Sb, Sr, Ti and Zn. The elemental concentrations of all analytes in the sediment samples were 10 times the level in the blanks with the exception of Sb in all sediment samples and Hg in four of the sediment samples. Results for Sb and Hg in these samples may be biased high. For samples with results greater than ten times the blank levels,