ois-isrp-1.itrcweb.orgOptimizing Injection Strategies and In situ Remediation Performance

ITRC Navigating this Website 1 Introduction 1 Introduction Overview 1.1 The Problem and the Need for Optimization 1.2 Intended Audience 1.3 Approaches to Optimizing an In Situ Remedy 1.4 Document Organization 2 Remedial Design Characterization 2 Remedial Design Characterization Overview 2.1 Cost Benefits of RDC 2.2 Characterization Parameters for Refining the CSM 2.3 RDC Considerations 3 Amendment, Dose, and Delivery Design 3 Amendment, Dose, and Delivery Design Overview 3.1 The Design Wheel and Optimization Process 3.2 Design Considerations 3.3 Design Support Elements 3.4 Amendment Selection Considerations 3.5 Amendment Dose Requirements 3.6 Amendment Delivery Optimization 3.7 Delivery Layout Design and Volume per Location 3.8 Delivery Strategies 4 Implementation and Feedback (Monitoring) Optimization 4 Implementation and Feedback (Monitoring) Optimization Overview 4.1 Pre-implementation Considerations 4.2 Adaptive Implementation and Feedback Optimization 4.3 Implementation and Optimization Staircase 4.4 Monitoring 4.5 Implementation Optimization 4.6 Transition and Contingency Planning 5 Regulatory Perspectives 5 Regulatory Perspectives Overview 5.1 Statutory Challenges 5.2 Traditional CERCLA Site Cleanup Process 6 Community and Tribal Stakeholder Considerations 6 Community and Tribal Stakeholder Considerations Overview 6.1 Background 6.2 Identifying Stakeholders 6.3 Stakeholder Concerns 6.4 Approach to Stakeholder Engagement 6.5 Communications Additional Information Appendix A. Amendments and Other Additives Appendix A. Amendments and Other Additives Overview A1 Common Biotic Amendments A2 Abiotic Amendments A3 Other additives Appendix B. Commonly Encountered Issues with In situ Remediation Appendix C. Characterization Parameters for In situ Treatment Remedies–Definitions and Descriptors for Table 2-2 Appendix C. Characterization Parameters for In situ Treatment Remedies–Definitions and Descriptors for Table 2-2 Overview Physical Properties Transport Properties Aqueous Geochemistry Degradation Potential Appendix D. Injection Fact Sheets Appendix D. Injection Fact Sheets Overview D1 Direct Push Delivery Methods D2 Injection Through Wells & Boreholes D3 Electrokinetics Delivery Methods D4 Solid Injection Principles D5 Hydraulic Fracturing–Based Delivery Methods D6 Pneumatic Fracturing–Based Delivery Methods D7 Permeable Reactive Barrier Construction Appendix E. Case Studies Appendix E. Case Studies Overview E-1. In Situ Biological and Chemical Reduction of Hexavalent Chromium and Perchlorate E-2. Strontium-90 Apatite Permeable Reactive Barrier E-3. Rapid Site Closure of a Large Gas Plant Using In Situ Bioremediation Technology in Low Permeability Soil and Fractured Rock E-4. Performance of Injected Powdered and Liquid Activated Carbon at a Petroleum Hydrocarbon Site E-5. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory—Annual Groundwater Report E-6. Oxidant Surface Eruption During Direct Push Injection E-7. TerraVac Under EPA’s Demonstration Program Conducted SVE in the Source Area E-8. Unusual Dichloroethylene Isomerizations and External Nitrate Input to Help Decipher in Situ Pilot Test Outcomes E-9. In Situ Bioremediation and Soil Vapor Extraction at the Former Beaches Laundry & Cleaners E-10. LNAPL Remediation Combining Mobile Dual Phase Extraction with Concurrent Injection of a Carbon-Based Amendment: Little Mountain Test Facility E-11. Eastern Surplus Company Superfund Site, Southern Plume: Meddybemps E-12. Hollingsworth Solderless E-13. Former Industrial Site Characterization and Remediation in Fractured Rock E-14. Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Site 11 Appendix F. Performance Evaluation & Optimization of In situ Remediation using Amendment Delivery Appendix G. Glossary References Acknowledgments Team Contacts Document Feedback ITRC & Environmental Justice/Diversity Equity & Inclusion HOME Errata Statement to ITRC OIS-ISRP Guidance Please Read The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) published an update to the ITRC Optimizing Injection Strategies and In Situ Remediation Performance Guidance Document on 7/21/2022. The published update includes clarifications and corrections regarding the following: Section 2: changed the sulfate charge from 3- to 2- in Figure 2-2 Terminal electron receptors and associated metabolic products in order of reaction preference . Section 2: added a charge of 1- to the nitrite in Figure 2-2 Terminal electron receptors and associated metabolic products in order of reaction preference. If you have any questions about the update or Guidance Document itself, please email us directly at [email protected] . ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council). 2020. . OIS-ISRP-1. Washington, D.C.: Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, OIS-ISRP Team. In situ remedies using amendments delivered to the subsurface can be effective, challenges with their implementation can lead to technologies failing to achieve performance or remedial objectives. The Optimizing Injection Strategies and In Situ Remediation Performance (OIS-ISP-1) guidance describes how treatment ineffectiveness can be avoided through effective upfront characterization and design. Additionally, in-progress enhancements to both delivery technologies and amendments can improve performance. Each in situ remedial action requires collection, analysis, and evaluation of the treatment technology, site-specific subsurface characteristics, and groundwater chemical properties to develop an adequate remedial design-level conceptual site model. There are many types of in situ remediation amendments and emplacement technologies, and each site provides unique challenges that can limit the effectiveness of the in situ remedy. The importance of proactive planning, including using processes such as site characterization analysis, bench- and field-testing and/or design optimization testing, and performance evaluation, cannot be overemphasized. Many challenges encountered during in situ remediation can be overcome with a thorough understanding of the contaminant phase and distribution, site hydrogeology and biogeochemistry, and the amendment ’s physical and chemical characteristics. All technologies have limitations, and limitations can be addressed, sometimes through combining or sequencing two or more treatment technologies, potentially including alternative or supplemental remedies, or monitored natural attenuation. This guidance provides the state of the practice based on firsthand knowledge and experiences for a broad audience, including environmental consultants, responsible parties, federal and state regulators, and community and tribal stakeholders. This guidance includes: Remedial Design Characterization , which discusses data required to refine the CSM, remedial design, and implementation plan. Amendment, Dose, and Delivery Design , which discusses the iterative and cyclical process of a remedial design. Implementation, Monitoring, and Interpretation , which discusses assessment of remedial performance, refinement of the design, and implementation. Regulatory Perspectives , which discusses statutory and regulatory challenges and how to address them to improve the chance of success. Community and Tribal Stakeholder Considerations , which discusses how to engage with stakeholders before, during, and after a project. This guidance also includes additional information on the following topics: Amendments and Other Additives Commonly Encountered Issues Associated with Remedial Design Characterization Characterization Parameters for In situ Treatment Remedies Injection Fact Sheets Case Studies Performance Evaluation and Optimization of In situ Remediation Using Amendment Delivery If you are visiting this site for the first time please review the Introduction of this guidance. All users may find Navigating this Website helpful. Click here to view our most recently recorded web seminar via CLU-IN. Published by the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council, February 2020...