OSWER 9283.1-27
EPA 542-R-05-014
August, 2005
2004 Annual Progress Report
for Ground Water Remedy Optimization
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
-------
1.0. Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Annual Report is to provide a summary and analysis of progress
toward implementation of optimization recommendations at Superfund-fmanced Pump and Treat
(P&T) sites. The report summarizes successful implementation strategies, opportunities for
improvement, barriers to implementation, and changes in project costs as a result of
optimization. The report also identifies sites requiring no further follow-up and discusses
optimization reviews funded by the Regional program offices.
The main body of the report is accompanied by an appendix containing a summary of
optimization recommendations by Region and site name. Regions are encouraged to review the
appendix to assess progress in their respective programs. This Annual Report generally
represents the status of optimization efforts in the Superfund program at the end of calendar year
2004. However, as noted in the appendix, the information for a few sites is current as of June,
2005.
1.2 Project Background
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) developed the pilot
Fund-lead P&T optimization initiative as part of the FY2000-FY2001 Superfund Reforms
Strategy (OSWER 9200.0-33; July 7, 2000). Optimization is intended to facilitate systematic
review and modification of existing P&T systems to promote continuous improvement, and to
enhance overall remedy and cost effectiveness. In the Superfund program, optimization
evaluations should be accomplished using the Remediation System Evaluation (RSE) process, a
tool developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The pilot phase of the optimization initiative has demonstrated that this effort offers
measurable benefits in the form of cost savings and improved remediation systems. In August
2004, the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) developed the
"Action Plan for Ground Water Remedy Optimization" ("2004 Action Plan") (OSWER 9283.1-
25; August 25, 2004) to further implement important lessons learned from the pilot phase and
fully integrate optimization into the Superfund cleanup process where appropriate. Among other
things, the Action Plan envisions an annual summary of progress concerning the implementation
of recommended system changes.
1.3 Sites Subject to Optimization Reviews
There are currently fewer than 100 Superfund-fmanced P&T systems operating
nationwide. To date, the Superfund program has conducted an optimization evaluation at 33
sites, most of which address this universe of Fund-financed P&T systems. The name, location
and review date for these sites are listed in Exhibit 1.
The approach for selecting sites to receive an optimization review typically includes a
review of annual operating costs, the age of the system, and concerns for remedy effectiveness or
August, 2005 1 OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
system efficiency. Ground water remedies with the highest annual operating costs likely offer
the greatest opportunities for cost savings and increased efficiency. RSEs may also be
appropriate for systems that have been operating for two to four years, in order to maximize
early opportunities for improvements and cost savings.
Regardless of annual operating costs or the age of the system, an optimization review
may be valuable at sites where there are concerns about the effectiveness of the remedy or the
efficiency of the P&T system. An RSE may also help address recommendations in Five-Year
Reviews that identify similar concerns.
1.4 Monitoring Implementation Progress
Each site that receives an optimization review is subject to follow-up, typically in the
form of annual conference calls between OSRTI and the Region, for at least two years after the
RSE report is finalized. These follow-up discussions highlight the status of recommended
changes and obstacles to implementation that require additional attention. Continuous oversight
of progress at RSE sites helps maximize the benefits of optimization, identify lessons learned,
and provide technical assistance. The appendix to this report represents the status of
optimization efforts in the Superfund program at the end of calendar year 2004, based on the
results of the most recent round of follow-up discussions. Additional information provided by
site managers is also used to supplement the appendix, particularly at sites for which several
months passed between the last follow-up call and the development of this report.
RSEs generate a number of suggestions, ideas, and recommendations which should be
discussed and evaluated. Regions should weigh many factors including, but not limited to,
technical feasibility, short-term implementation issues, long-term benefits, public and State
acceptance, contractual requirements, effectiveness and availability of funding, when
determining whether to implement optimization recommendations. Disagreements regarding the
implementation of a particular recommendation are possible, and may be elevated to
management for resolution.
If RPMs have questions regarding implementation of complex RSE recommendations,
technical assistance is available from many sources, including Regional technical support staff,
OSRTI staff and the RSE team, the EPA laboratories through the Technical Support Project, and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
August, 2005 2 OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
Exhibit 1. Sites where OSRTI pursued an optimization evaluation
EPA
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
State
MA
NH
MA
MA
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NY
PA
PA
PA
VA
NC
sc
NC
MN
WI
MI
IN
IN
AR
LA
NE
CO
CA
CA
WA
OR
WA
WA
Site Name
Baird & McGuire
Savage Municipal Water Supply
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Groveland Wells
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
Claremont Polychmical
Brewster Well Field
Bog Creek Farm
SMS Instruments, Inc.
Higgins Farm
Circuitron Corp. ^
Hellertown Manufacturing
Raymark
Havertown PCP
Greenwood Chemical Co.
PCX, Inc. (Statesville Plant)
Elmore Waste Disposal
Cape Fear Wood Preserving ^
MacGillis and Gibbs Co. /Bell Lumber & Pole Co.
Oconomowoc Electroplating
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.
Douglas Road/Uniroyal, Inc., Landfill
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Indianapolis Plant)
Midland Products
Bayou Bonfouca
Cleburn Street Well
Summitville Mine
Modesto Ground Water Contamination
Selma Treating Co.
Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel (Well 12A)
McCormick & Baxter
Boomsnub/Airco
Wyckoff Co ./Eagle Harbor
Fiscal Year
of Review (a)
2001
2001
2001
2002
2001
2001
2002
2002
2003
2003
2004
2001
2001
2003
2003
2000
2000
2004
2000
2000
2001
2004
2004
2001
2001
2001
2002
2001
2002
2001
2001
2002
2004
(a) Date refers to date of site visit; RSE reports are typically finalized several months later, following multiple-
party review.
(b) Streamlined reviews ("RSE-Lites"), utilizing a conference call instead of a site visit. These sites were
reviewed in August, 2004 and have not yet been subject to formal followup discussions.
August, 2005
OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
2.0 Summary of Implementation Progress
2.1 Overview
Each of the RSEs resulted in an improved understanding of the operating P&T systems
and identified a number of opportunities for improvements in efficiency and effectiveness. The
RSE reports specifically highlight recommendations in the following four categories:
• recommendations to improve remedy effectiveness,
recommendations to reduce operating costs,
• recommendations for technical improvement, and
• recommendations to expedite site closure.
The annual follow-up discussions between OSRTI and the Remedial Project Manager
(RPM) assess progress with the implementation of each recommendation contained in the RSE
reports. Exhibit 2 summarizes progress in each of the four categories of recommendations. The
subsequent sections provide a discussion of the most common recommendations, an analysis of
implementation progress, and highlights of site-specific progress. RPMs have made positive
efforts to address a total of 89% of all recommendations made to date; only 11% of the RSE
recommendations remain to be addressed.
Exhibit 2. Status of optimization recommendations
Types of
Recommendations
Remedy Effectiveness
(98 total)
Cost Reduction
(108 total)
Technical Improvement
(89 total)
Site Closure
(38 total)
Other Recommendations
(9 total)
Overall Progress
(342 total)
Implementation Status
Implemented
56.1%
(55)
46.3%
(50)
57%
(51)
21%
(8)
67%
(6)
50%
(170)
VI
X
o>
•_
OK
O
O.
e
HH
14.3%
(14)
10.2%
(11)
16%
(14)
32%
(12)
15%
(51)
Planned
14.3%
(14)
7.4%
(8)
3%
(3)
5%
(2)
80/
/o
(27)
Considered,
then Declined
8.2%
(8)
17.6%
(19)
9%
(8)
13%
(5)
22%
(2)
12%
(42)
Deferred to
PRP/State
2%
(2)
5.5%
(6)
6%
(5)
5%
(2)
4%
(15)
Under
Consideration
5.1%
(5)
13%
(14)
9%
(8)
24%
(9)
11%
(1)
11%
(37)
Note: Numbers in parentheses represent actual number of recommendations, used to calculate rounded percentages.
August, 2005
OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
2.2 Implementation of Remedy Effectiveness Recommendations
A principal element of any optimization evaluation should be a review of remedy
effectiveness, defined for purposes of this effort as the ability of a remedy to meet its stated
objectives, contain contaminated ground water, and eliminate exposure pathways to potential
receptors. Recommendations to improve effectiveness predominantly suggest more rigorous
evaluation of the extraction and subsurface portions of the remedy rather than the above-ground
treatment portion. The most common recommendations in this category generally relate to
plume delineation, additional characterization or sampling, and improved data collection and/or
reporting.
Deficiencies with respect to plume delineation typically result in recommendations to
conduct a capture zone analysis, develop updated plume maps, or initiate ground water flow or
contaminant transport modeling. RPMs may install new monitoring wells or additional samples
may be taken from existing wells. In order to investigate potential impacts from site
contaminants, many RSEs result in recommendations to sample nearby surface water or
sediments, or indoor air in nearby buildings.
Several RSEs identified deficiencies in routine site management reports, specifically
insufficient information or analysis to adequately assess the effectiveness of the system. In some
cases key data were not included in the report, and in other cases the reports were not being
produced and/or reviewed in a timely manner.
Implementation of remedy effectiveness recommendations has helped confirm the
effectiveness of some P&T systems and helped identify deficiencies in others. Approximately
56% of remedy effectiveness recommendations have been implemented and another 14% are in
progress. The time required to consider or implement recommendations varies, and may be
assessed by reviewing the detailed information in the appendix. RPMs have cited existing
contract obligations and the programmatic budget cycle as rationale when delays have occurred
in implementing these recommendations.
In response to these findings, OSRTI will continue to place a high priority on funding
requests associated with optimization. The 2004 Action Plan outlined a process for Regions to
formally request funding to implement RSE recommendations through the existing budget
process. To further address RPM feedback on implementation, OSRTI also completed a fact
sheet entitled "Effective Contracting Approaches for Operating Pump and Treat Systems"
(OSWER 9283.1-21FS / EPA 542-R-05-009; April 2005), which provides helpful information
on establishing flexible contracts with an appropriate scope and duration.
At some sites, further site characterization was conducted than was originally
recommended in the RSE report with positive results (see highlight below for a site example). In
general, these recommendations associated with further source-zone or plume delineation could
benefit from OSRTI's continuing effort to apply the Triad approach. Key Triad concepts
include the use of systematic planning, dynamic work strategies, and real-time measurement
tools. OSRTI will continue to encourage the use of the Triad through technical support
(http://brownfieldstsc.org/request_support.cfm) and outreach (http://www.triadcentral.org).
August, 2005 5 OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
The highlight below provides two examples of successful implementation of remedy
effectiveness recommendations.
Highlights: Success with Remedy Effectiveness Recommendations
MacGillis & Gibbs Co. Site: The RSE report included recommendations to develop atarget capture zone
for the P&T system, then to evaluate whether the current system is achieving the intended capture. This
effort would also serve to evaluate whether portions of the plume were being appropriately addressed
through monitored natural attenuation (MNA).
Upon implementation of these recommendations, the site team determined that the current extraction well
network was not providing adequate plume capture, and that conditions were not favorable for MNA.
Two new extraction wells were installed and routine modeling now confirms plume capture. As a result
of these optimization efforts, the site team is now confident that the P&T system is performing as intended
and providing full protection of human health and the environment.
Elmore Waste Disposal Site: The RSE report included recommendations to install additional monitoring
wells to define the extent of the contaminant plume and to perform a capture zone analysis to evaluate the
adequacy of the ground water extraction network. These recommendations addressed uncertainty
concerning the extent of the plume and the impact of the plume on a nearby creek.
The site team performed aquifer characterization and modeling, using data from newly installed
monitoring wells and piezometers. Implementation costs were greater than anticipated because the site
team installed 10 wells rather than the recommended 5 wells. However, the expanded effort provided
information on a previously unknown source area. The team was able to use the additional data to
determine that plume capture was highly dependent on the location of extraction wells with respect to
fractures in the subsurface media. Based on the study, the extraction system was modified and now is
routinely evaluated to ensure plume capture.
2.3 Implementation of Cost Reduction Recommendations
RSE recommendations pertaining to cost reduction may cover many aspects of system
operation, including the selection of treatment technologies, operator and laboratory labor, and
project management. The most common recommendation for cost reduction typically calls for
site managers to reduce or eliminate ground water or process monitoring that is no longer
necessary once a system is operating at steady-state.
Some treatment components become inefficient or unnecessary as a result of changing
site conditions or due to conservative estimates of influent contaminant concentrations in the
design phase. By simplifying a treatment system and removing some components, reductions in
material usage, utilities, and labor can often result. Implementing alternate discharge options for
treated water may also result in cost savings.
A number of RSEs identified opportunities to reduce operator or onsite labor without
sacrificing the effectiveness of the remedy. Such reductions should be expected following
system shakedown, when a system is operating at steady-state. Additional cost savings may
result from efforts to automate system operations (e.g., alarms, automatic shut-off, and on-call
August, 2005 6 OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
operators). The implementation of other recommendations, such as removing treatment
components and reducing monitoring, may also lead to reduced labor, materials, or utility costs.
Approximately 46% of cost-reduction recommendations have been implemented and
10% are in progress. Documenting cost savings and expenditures directly related to the RSE
process has been challenging. In December 2004, an OSRTI analysis of costs available for 14
RSE sites concluded that nearly $1.2 million has been saved as a result of implementing RSE
recommendations.l
Highlights: Success with Cost Reduction Recommendations
Wvckoff Co ./Eagle Harbor Site: The RSE team recommended a simplified treatment system in order to
reduce costs associated with upgrades and repairs, operator labor, and process monitoring. This effort
would also assist the site team in designing a cost-effective treatment system to replace the aging system
currently in operation.
The site team conducted a pilot test to treat effluent from the dissolved air flotation (DAF) unit with
existing granular activated carbon (GAC) units, thereby bypassing the biological treatment phase of the
current system. The pilot test was successful, and the site team expects to reduce operating costs by
$30,000 per month ($360,000 per year). As a result, the biological treatment component has been
excluded from the new treatment system design, resulting in a more cost-effective approach to long-term
operation.
Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.: The RSE report included recommendations to reduce aquifer and
process monitoring and analysis. After discussions with the State, the recommendations were
implemented. Process monitoring was reduced, and ground water monitoring was reduced for both water
quality parameters and water elevations. Approximate cost savings total $250,000 per year ($150,000
annual savings in labor and support costs, and $100,000 annual savings in lab analysis).
MacGillis and Gibbs Site: The RSE report included a recommendation to reduce sampling and analysis
of discharge points by combining the piping of multiple discharge points into a single discharge, and
sampling the combined discharge less frequently and for fewer parameters.
After discussions with the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), an alternative was implemented
with a similar effect. Analysis found contaminant levels well below POTW pre-treatment requirements.
With local government acceptance, the permit was modified and the sampling frequency reduced. The
project team also reduced sampling frequency within the treatment plant. Changes in performance
monitoring and confirmation sampling resulted in total annual cost savings of approximately $98,000.
As a result of the implementation of cost reduction recommendations, both OSRTI and
States have been able to realize cost savings and improved efficiencies associated with operating
long-term P&T systems. Recommendations implemented earlier in the LTRA period tend to
offer the greatest potential cost savings to both EPA and the States. Where implementation
1 This figure represents gross savings, and does not take into account expenditures to implement RSE
recommendations or increases in annual O&M costs.
August, 2005 7 OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
occurs later, States may derive most of the benefits. To maximize cost savings for EPA, it may
be beneficial to implement recommendations that offer the greatest potential reduction in annual
operating costs as early as possible during the LIRA phase.
The highlight above provides three examples of successful implementation of cost
reduction recommendations.
2.4 Implementation of Technical Improvement Recommendations
Technical improvement recommendations cover a wide range of items to improve overall
site operations. The RSE reports contain a total of 86 recommendations in this category. As
Exhibit 2 demonstrates, more than half of these recommendations have been fully implemented,
and several are currently in progress. RPMs implemented the majority of these
recommendations shortly after the RSE site visit highlighted opportunities for improvement.
These types of recommendations are generally easy to implement, require little up front funding,
and generally are not contingent on other recommendations. Examples of technical
improvement recommendations include the following:
Clean, repair or replace faulty equipment,
• Rehabilitate fouled extraction or injection wells,
• Improve or streamline data evaluation protocols,
• Reformat O&M reports, and
• Modify sampling protocols.
2.5 Implementation of Site Closure Recommendations
RSE reports typically contain recommendations to accelerate progress toward achieving
final cleanup goals and eventual site closure. These recommendations most commonly involve
developing a clear and comprehensive exit strategy and/or evaluating alternate remedial
approaches.
An exit strategy usually details the specific steps for achieving closeout of the remedy or
various components of the remedy. Developing an exit strategy typically involves establishing
clear and valid cleanup goals, then determining the specific data and criteria to be used to
evaluate if goals are met such that some or all of the system can be shut down. An exit strategy
generally involves setting milestones for the remedy and determining intermediate goals and
metrics to measure progress. If the intermediate goals and milestones are not met, RPMs should
then consider alternatives to the current system.
A number of RSEs include recommendations to consider alternate technologies to replace
P&T, or to supplement it with more aggressive source removal. These recommendations are
intended to address P&T systems that may take an exceptionally long time to meet established
cleanup goals. Such recommendations are highly site-specific and may range from increased
pumping in source areas to the potential use of chemical oxidation, air sparging, or in situ
thermal remediation to address additional source material. The selection of a particular
technology may depend on site hydrogeology, the nature and extent of contamination, the
August, 2005 8 OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
proximity to receptors, and other factors. Implementation of these recommendations may
require additional site characterization work or pilot treatability tests.
Approximately 21% of recommendations associated with site closure have been
implemented and 32% are in progress. Exit strategy recommendations, while valuable in the
long-term, often are considered after effectiveness and cost reduction recommendations are
implemented. In addition, consideration of supplemental or alternative remedial technologies
generally requires higher expenditures than what is expected for routine O&M, and may require
changes to site decision documents (e.g., an amended Record of Decision). For these reasons, a
lower percentage of these recommendations have been implemented, and many are in the
planning stage.
The RSE teams recommended shutting down a P&T system in favor of monitored natural
attenuation (MNA) or another remedial approach in very few instances. Two examples where
site teams are pursuing such recommendations are the Midland Products site and the SMS
Instruments site.
The highlight below provides an example of successful implementation of a supplemental
technology for source removal that could allow earlier shutdown of the P&T system.
Highlight: Success with Recommendations to Expedite Site Closure
SMS Instruments Site: The RSE report included a recommendation to develop an exit strategy for this
site in order to determine if or when the P&T system can be discontinued. The RSE team suggested a
variety of approaches from discontinuing the P&T system to piloting an alternate technology (with
appropriate monitoring for each approach).
The site team acted quickly to delineate residual contamination at the site and has implemented a strategy
to aggressively remediate the area with a pilot air/bio sparging system. The site team expects this system
to operate for only 4-6 months, reducing contaminant concentrations more rapidly than with the current
P&T system alone. The State will take responsibility for operation and maintenance of the P&T system
in 2005, and the pilot air/bio sparging effort is expected to significantly reduce the amount of time that
the State will need to operate the P&T system.
2.6 Sites Requiring No Further Follow-Up
As shown in Exhibit 2, RPMs have made significant progress with the implementation of
RSE recommendations. In fact, the optimization process is complete at a number of sites as a
result of the successful implementation or thorough consideration of all RSE recommendations.
OSRTI is no longer conducting annual follow-up discussions at these particular sites, though
assistance is still available to site managers in the event that any optimization-related issues
arise.
OSRTI has also completed the follow-up process for a number of sites where EPA is no
longer responsible for operating or optimizing the P&T system. Included here are sites where
the State now has responsibility for operation and maintenance of the remedy, or where the P&T
August, 2005 9 OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
system is no longer operating. Exhibit 3 provides a full list of sites (11 in total) that completed
the follow-up process.
Exhibit 3. Sites requiring no further follow-up
Rationale
Successful implementation and/or thorough consideration of
all RSE recommendations
Long-Term Response Action (LTRA) is complete; State is
now responsible for operation and maintenance (O&M)
Site Name
Hellertown Manufacturing
MacGillis & Gibbs Co.
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
Midland Products
McCormick & Baxter
Selma Treating Co.
Silresim Chemical Corp.
Summitville Mine
Baird & McGuire
Raymark
Bayou Bonfouca
3.0 Related Initiatives
3.1 Region 3 "Regional Optimization Evaluation Team"
EPA Region 3, with assistance from OSRTI, is currently piloting a Regional-based
optimization program referred to as the "Regional Optimization Evaluation (ROE) team." The
team members include representatives from Regional management and technical staff, OSRTI
staff, and a private contractor with optimization expertise. The ROE team is conducting
streamlined optimization evaluations (reduced in cost and scope relative to a full optimization
evaluations) at the Region's Fund-lead P&T sites, beginning with four reviews in 2004.
Subsequent to the site reviews, the ROE team will undertake the following efforts:
• Develop a formal follow-up/tracking program to monitor progress at each site to
receive an evaluation,
Provide technical assistance based on requests of the RPMs and findings during
follow-up, and
i.2
• Demonstrate a systematic approach to capture zone analysis at two sites.
Infrastructure Assessment of Water Treatment Plant
At the Summitville Mine site (Summitville, CO), EPA Region 8 and the site contractor
applied infrastructure assessment software. Each component of the existing older treatment
plant was reviewed to assure continued operation of the aging plant. Results of the software
evaluation were also used to prioritize maintenance and make recommendations for capital
equipment improvements or replacement.
August, 2005
10
OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
3.3 Optimization Evaluations Led by Regions
In November 2004, a team comprised of two engineers and two geologists from EPA
Region 2 and the Army Corps of Engineers conducted an RSE site visit at the Mohonk Road
Industrial Plant site (High Falls, NY). The site was evaluated due to its expected long-term
operation and overall cost. Recommendations outlined in the draft report include characterizing
the potential for indoor air exposures, conducting additional source characterization, reducing
the amount of reporting, salvaging an unused filter, using an alternative sampling method for
some contaminants, upgrading the acid delivery system, eliminating the use of some treatment
components, and automating the water level monitoring in wells. Although the RSE report is still
in draft phase, a few of these modifications have already commenced at the site.
In July 2004, a representative from EPA's Environmental Response Team (ERT) visited
the Palmetto Wood Preserving Site (Cayce, SC) to assess the current P&T system which had
been shutdown based on an earlier ERT recommendation. The visit also intended to gather
information for optimization of the system or evaluating MNA as a possible alternative. The
RPM, system operators, and State representatives also participated in the effort.
4.0 Future Plans
OSRTI expects to fund independent, technical experts to conduct RSEs at 5-8 Fund-lead
sites each year, depending on available resources. A streamlined evaluation (referred to as an
"RSE-Lite") may be used at less complex sites in order to conserve resources. OSRTI will
continue to select sites for future reviews based on annual operating costs, the age of the system,
and concerns for remedy effectiveness and system efficiency. Regions should contact OSRTI to
recommend any sites that may benefit from an optimization review.
The "Action Plan for Ground Water Remedy Optimization" (OSWER 9283.1-25; August
2004) introduced a new strategy to pursue optimization reviews at the Regional level, not just
through OSRTI efforts. Each Region should pursue an RSE at a minimum of one site each year,
where suitable candidate sites exist. Contractual access to OSRTFs RSE experts may be made
available to the Regions for this purpose, if needed.
OSRTI will continue to utilize the existing process for follow-up discussions in order to
monitor progress with the implementation of RSE recommendations. Follow-up will continue at
all sites, with the exception of those identified in Section 2.6 of this report. RPMs may request
technical assistance to aid in the implementation of system changes. This assistance may include
a variety of efforts by the RSE team, such as an independent review of a work plan for
implementing recommendations, an evaluation of the outcome of recommended changes, or
justification of cost estimates provided in the RSE report.
August, 2005 11 OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
5.0 References
5.1 Internet Resources
OSRTI, Post-Construction Program Area
• Guidance for post-construction completion activities, with optimization project updates
http ://www. epa. gov/superfund/action/postconstructi on/index.htm
OSRTI, Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) web site
Site-specific RSE reports and recommendations
• http://www.clu-in.org/optimization
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste Center of Expertise
• RSE checklists and scope of work, provided by developers of the RSE tool
• http://www.environmental.usace.army.mil/library/guide/rsechk/rsechk.html
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable
Case studies, conference materials and more, compiled by an inter-agency workgroup
• http://www.frtr.gov/optimization.htm
5.2 Guidance and Fact Sheets
Effective Contracting Approaches for Operating Pump and Treat Systems (OSWER 9283.1-
21FS / EPA 542-R-05-009; April 2005)
O&M Report Template for Ground Water Remedies (With Emphasis on Pump and Treat
Systems) (OSWER 9283.1-22FS / EPA 542-R-05-010; April 2005)
Cost-Effective Design of Pump and Treat Systems (OSWER 9283.1-20FS / EPA 542-R-05-008;
April 2005)
Action Plan for Ground Water Remedy Optimization (OSWER 9283.1-25; August 25, 2004)
Pilot Project to Optimize Superfund-financed Pump and Treat Systems: Summary Report and
Lessons Learned (OSWER 9283.1-18; November 2002)
Elements for Effective Management of Operating Pump and Treat Systems (OSWER 9355.4-
27FS-A; November 2002)
Implementation of RSE Re commendations: Technical Assistance Resources Available toRPMs
(January 2002)
5.3 General Project Documentation
Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems: Summary of Selected Cost and Performance
Information at Superfund-financed Sites (EPA 542-R-01-021a; December 2001)
August, 2005 12 OSWER 9283.1-27
-------
Super fund Reform Strategy, Implementation Memorandum: Optimization of Fund-lead Ground
Water Pump and Treat (P&T) Systems (OSWER 9283.1-13; October 31, 2000)
August, 2005 13 OSWER 9283.1-27
------- |