Title: Introduction Text: The Navy's environmental mission is to protect human health and the environment, while supporting the defense mission by ensuring continued use of lands necessary for military operations. This mission is supported by an ongoing effort to improve the performance and cost-effectiveness of the Installation Restoration (IR) program and the Munitions Response (MR) program. The Navy's Environmental Restoration (ER) program encompasses both the IR and MR programs. As the ER Program matures, more projects are entering the post-remedy selection phase where millions of dollars can be spent operating, monitoring, and maintaining remediation systems. The Navy is committed to optimizing cleanup efforts at these sites through careful evaluation of project goals, remediation system effectiveness, life cycle design and cost analyses, and data management and reporting. This Web Tool provides an overview of optimization concepts to help Navy Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) implement these ideas at their sites. Visual Description: US map showing examples of sites utilizing concepts of optimization for remedial actions. These sites are Naval Air Facility, Adak, AK, Long Beach Naval Shipyard IR Sites 1 and 2, Long Beach, CA, Oscar Pier, Pearl Harbor, HI, Coastal Systems Station Pamana City, FL, Naval Training Center, Orlando, FL, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, GA, Naval Weapons Station, Charleston, SC, Trenton, NJ, and Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, ME.

Title: Navy Optimization Policy Text: It is estimated that more than $4 billion dollars are needed to complete environmental remediation at Navy ER sites. As the ER program has matured, a growing proportion of funds have been allocated to long-term site cleanup efforts such as Remedial Action Operations (RAO) and Long Term Management (LTM). In April 2004, the Chief of Naval Operations issued a policy statement to ensure that all remedies are continually optimized through each phase of the project. The goal of the Navy policy is to apply optimization wherever possible to ensure that the most appropriate remedies are screened, evaluated, selected, designed, and properly operated/maintained. Optimization efforts will also allow for system modifications to ensure that cleanup objectives are met in a timely and cost-effective manner. Click here to view the Navy's optimization policy. Visual Description: Chart of RAO+LTM as percent of DON IR Budget versus FY from FY00 to FY14. This % IR Budget was less than 20% in FY00 and is projected to over 80% beyond FY14 (according the NORM data September 1988).

Title: Optimization Definition Text: Optimization is a process to streamline remedial action programs by maximizing remedial effectiveness and cost-efficiency. Optimization is an ongoing responsibility of Navy RPMs and their contractors who operate, maintain, and monitor remediation systems. The goal of optimization is to achieve response complete (RC) to protect human health and the environment and ultimately to reach site closeout in the shortest amount of time and in the most cost-effective manner.

Title: Optimization Approach Text: The Navy has developed a systematic approach to optimization that can be applied during any phase of remediation from the site investigation phase through site closeout. This approach consists of the following steps which are described in detail in this Web tool: Develop a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to understand contaminant sources, fate and transport, risk and receptors, and other site-specific factors. Develop Remedial Action Objectives to address potential exposure routes and potential receptors. Identify Target Treatment Zones to protect potential receptors and to aggressively address contaminant sources. Identify Treatment Trains to address each target treatment zone and to incorporate life-cycle design principles. Develop Performance Objectives to measure the operational efficiency and suitability of the selected remedy. Implement the Navy's Optimization Process on an ongoing basis during Remedial Action Operations Develop an Exit Strategy for each component of the treatment train.

Title: Conceptual Site Model (1 of 2) Text: An important optimization component is the development of a well-defined Conceptual Site Model (CSM). The CSM is a useful engineering management tool and helps to successfully manage a site through the remediation process. The CSM summarizes the site conditions, the distribution of constituents of potential concern (COPCs), sources of contamination, potential receptors, likely exposure pathways, and relevant land use data available for a given site. The CSM is the basis for defining the remedial action objectives, determining the restoration potential of the site, and evaluating the effectiveness of the existing remediation systems. Visual Description: Graphic illustration of a site including disposal area, storm sewer, agriculture, recreation, industrialized waterfront, point source discharge, fishery resources sport/commercial, small-arms range, runway, storage tanks, paint shop, industry, and residential.

Title: Conceptual Site Model ( 2 of 2) Text: A comprehensive CSM should address the following elements: Nature and extent of contamination Geology Hydrogeology Biological and geochemical conditions Sources of contamination Transport pathways of contamination Monitoring points Receptors and potential receptors Historical uses Other factors relevant to the understanding of contamination at the site. CSM development is an iterative process that reflects the progress of activities at a site from initial assessment to site closeout. The CSM evolves over time to help focus objectives throughout the life of the project. Visual Description: Cross sectional graphic showing a contamination source and plume. The following important elements of a conceptual site model are addressed: contamination source and release information, geologic and hydrologic information, risk assessment, and contaminant distribution, transport and fate parameters.

Title: Text: Contamination Source and Release Information Location, nature, and history of previous contaminant releases or sources. Location and characterization of continuing releases or sources. Location of subsurface sources (e.g., vadose zone soil contamination, LNAPLs, or DNAPLs). Estimated path of potential contamination migration. Visual Description: Cross sectional graphic showing a contamination source and plume.

Title: Text: Risk Assessment Current and future receptors. Exposure scenarios. Completed pathways? Exposure concentrations. Visual Description: Cross sectional graphic showing a contamination source and plume.

Title: Text: Geologic and Hydrologic Information Description of regional and site geology. Physical properties of subsurface materials (e.g., porosity, bulk density). Stratigraphy, including thickness, lateral extent, continuity of units, and presence of depositional features, such as channel deposits, that may provide preferential pathways for, or barriers to, contaminant transport. Geologic structures that may form preferential pathways for contaminant migration or zones of accumulation. Depth to groundwater. Hydraulic gradients (horizontal and vertical). Hydraulic properties of subsurface materials (e.g., hydraulic conductivity, storage coefficient, effective porosity) and their directional variability (anisotropy). Spatial distribution of soil or bedrock physical/hydraulic properties (degree of heterogeneity). Seasonal changes in hydrologic conditions. Groundwater recharge and discharge information. Groundwater/surface water interactions. Visual Description: Cross sectional graphic showing a contamination source and plume.

Title: Text: Contaminant Distribution, Transport, and Fate Parameters Properties of contaminant source material that affect transport (e.g., composition, effective constituent solubilities, density, viscosity). Phase distribution of each contaminant (gaseous, aqueous, sorbed, free-phase NAPL or residual NAPL) in the unsaturated and saturated zones. Estimates of subsurface contaminant mass. Temporal trends in contaminant concentrations in each phase. Partitioning coefficients and migration rates. Contaminant natural attenuation processes (destructive and nondestructive). Visual Description: Cross sectional graphic showing a contamination source and plume.

Title: Remedial Action Objectives Text: Remedial action objectives are site-specific project goals that are formed based on the COPCs, the impacted media, fate and transport of COPCs, the exposure routes, and the potential receptors identified in the CSM. Furthermore, the objectives should represent a flexible approach towards the cleanup goals and should not be fixed and quantitative in nature. Examples of flexible remedial action objectives are provided here. It is important that the remedial action objectives be revisited during the remedy selection and design phases as regulations and project requirements change. Visual Description: Cross sectional graphic of a site with vadose zone, saturated zone and and low permeability layer, LNAPL, DNAPL, contaminant plume, groundwater, surface water and groundwater flow direction. Remedial action objectives include to remove LNAPL and vadose zone contamination source to decrease duration of plume contamination, to prevent infiltration and eliminate surface exposure pathway, to contain plume to prevent migration to surface water/ecological receptors, and to monitor and eliminate any unacceptable ecological risk in sediments.

Title: Target Treatment Zone Text: The target treatment zone is the volume or area at which the remedial action is determined to best apply. The zone is defined by the CSM and remedial action objectives, considering risk reduction, exposure routes, and the nature and extent of contamination. The selected target treatment zone has an important impact on the life cycle costs of the remediation project and often influences the length of time needed to achieve response complete at a given site. In most cases, targeting hot spots or source zones can be a cost-effective method of cleanup. However, in some case histories, the technology and the target treatment zones both were poorly defined, and target treatment zones were selected inaccurately, leaving the majority of the contaminants untreated. Visual Description: Graphical representation showing effects of biosparging operation on the contaminant plume.

Title: Multiple Remedial Technologies: Treatment Trains Text: A key optimization concept is that of sequential implementation of multiple remedial alternatives, also known as a treatment train. A single remedial technology is rarely the most cost-effective approach throughout the life cycle of a site cleanup project. A treatment train that combines both an active remedial approach (for source removal) and a passive remedial approach (as a polishing step) is an important strategy for achieving cost-effective site cleanup. The treatment train concepts can be applied to several different aspects of a remediation project. It can include the use of multiple remedial technologies over time. It can encompass the concurrent use of multiple remedial technologies over various locations for the same contaminant and/or media. The treatment train concept also can entail the use of several different unit processes within a single remediation system to address different types or to provide multi-step removal. Visual Description: Graphic animation of a treatment train and a chart of cost/output versus time for active, less active, and passive remedial technologies.

Title: Performance Objectives Text: Performance objectives are criteria that measure the operational efficiency and suitability of a particular remedial technology. They also help to document realistic performance goals and the practical limits of a particular remedial technology. Practical performance objectives should be established for each component of the treatment train. Performance objectives are typically distinct from remedial action objectives and final cleanup goals because they take into account typical engineering performance and the limitations of the individual technology. Performance objectives should be more specific and quantitative, giving ranges for acceptable performance and triggering optimization activities. Performance objectives help to define what the expected effective operational range of a given remedial approach may be, and can allow for flexibility within the remedial decision process to discontinue use of a specific technology once it is no longer operating within its pre-determined cost-effective range. Visual Description: Cross sectional graphic showing a contamination source and plume. Performance objectives include to minimize infiltration and eliminate surface exposure, to monitor for natural recovery, to remove contamination to extent practicable, and to monitor and prevent migration of contaminants.

Title: Optimization of Remedial Action Operations Text: To maximize the benefits, the optimization of remedial action operations should be an iterative process and an on-going responsibility of Navy RPMs and their contractors. This optimization may take many forms from simple and common sense steps to more complicated system changes and alterations. For systems not making adequate progress towards site cleanup, the optimization process will help to identify system modifications and/or alternate remedies to enhance performance and reduce operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. This flow chart is a step-wise summary of the Navy's RAO optimization process. It is important to click on the box for each step for more detailed information on the actions to be taken. Visual Description: RAO optimization flow chart.

Title: Review and Evaluate RA Objectives Text: The CSM is the basis for identifying likely exposure pathways, defining remedial action objectives, determining the restoration potential of the site, and evaluating the effectiveness of an existing remediation system (if any). The verification and revision of the CSM, if necessary, ensures that changes in site conditions are incorporated into the decision-making framework. Examples of these changes include reduced extent of contamination, a change in groundwater flow characteristics, or land use changes such as development. Particular attention is given to those assumptions that influence the technology selection and remedial design to ensure that remedial action objectives remain appropriate for the site.

Title: Evaluation of Remediation Effectiveness Text: The remediation system is evaluated for effectiveness based on its ability to achieve performance goals and remedial action objectives. If the evaluation of effectiveness indicates that the system is operating as designed, but is not capable of achieving remedial action objectives, then the suitability of the selected technology should be reconsidered.

Title: Evaluation of Cost-Efficiency (1 of 2) Text: In addition to verifying the effective performance of a remediation system, the cost efficiency of the system should also be evaluated. An evaluation of cost efficiency compares the costs associated with operating and maintaining a remedial system against some meaningful performance measurement, such as the rate at which mass is being removed. It should be noted that cost efficiency parameters are relative and reveal the most meaningful information when tracked over time (or against remedial progress parameters such as cumulative mass removed). It is common for cost efficiency to decrease over the operating duration of a remedial system, producing opportunities for optimization. Aggressive project management decisions may be required because of the insidious and consistent increase in the cost per unit mass removed that is typically observed in performance plots. Indeed, as mass removal rates approach zero, the cost per unit mass removed often asymptotically approaches infinity. Next Page

Title: Evaluation of Cost-Efficiency (2 of 2) Text: Cost and performance data plots are useful tools for assessing cost efficiency. When properly prepared using representative data they can reveal relative changes in costs and can be used to identify trigger points at which investment in optimization efforts is appropriate. These plots can also be used to demonstrate: Efficient system operation with cost-effective mass removal Decreasing efficiency and cost effectiveness over time resulting from increasing O&M costs or decreasing mass removal Previous Page

Title: Identification of System Modifications (1 of 3) Text: If evaluations of remedial effectiveness and cost efficiency show that remedial progress is limited and that the remediation system is not operating at optimum efficiency then modification of the existing system should be considered. Remedial effectiveness and cost efficiency can be improved by modifications that either result in enhanced performance or reduced costs. However, modifications are only appropriate for remediation systems that remain suitable for site conditions (or have no evidence of technical or lifecycle design limitations) and are capable of achieving remedial action objectives. Next Page

Title: Consideration of Remedial Alternatives (2 of 3) Text: If the evaluation of remedial effectiveness and cost efficiency indicates that the system cannot be modified to achieve remedial action objectives, then alternative remedial technologies should be identified. The alternative remedial technologies must be capable of attaining remedial action objectives in a shorter timeframe or at lower costs, or both. Also, the alternative remedial technologies must mitigate the conditions that limited remedial progress by the original system. Next Page | Previous Page

Title: Consideration of Remedial Alternatives (3 of 3) Text: If an alternative remedial strategy cannot improve the remedial effectiveness and cost-efficiency, then alternative regulatory mechanisms can be used to manage the site. These alternative regulatory mechanisms are used for sites where the specified cleanup goals cannot be achieved by any technology with reasonable cost and within a reasonable time. Such mechanisms include: Revising cleanup goals and remedial action objectives Implementing Land Use Controls (LUCs). LUCs may include the use of engineering controls (EC) and institutional controls (IC) together. ECs are engineered remedies that contain or reduce contamination and limit access to property. In contrast, ICs are a type of legal device imposed to prevent the completion of a likely exposure pathway. Obtaining Technical Impracticability (TI) waivers. TI waivers allow the implementation of an alternative remedial strategy that is technically practicable (even though that alternative is not expected to achieve remedial action objectives). Previous Page

Title: Development of Opt. Strategies Text: Optimization strategies are developed based on the findings resulting from the remedial action operations program evaluation and are targeted towards changing conditions that limit the efficiency of the system or prevent it from achieving its objectives. Optimization strategies must demonstrate benefits to the remedial action operations program, including: improvement of remedial performance and operational costs incurred by the existing remedial system maintained or improved progress towards achieving cleanup goals maintained or improved protectiveness of human health and the environment. Next Page

Title: Prioritization of Opt. Strategies Text: The optimization strategy may consist of one or more remediation alternatives implemented simultaneously or in succession. Since more than one optimization strategy may be available for a remedial site, the various optimization strategies should be prioritized to determine the most appropriate strategy to implement. Prioritization of optimization strategies is based on a relative cost-benefit analysis over the life cycle of a remediation alternative. This cost-benefit analysis will allow the project manager to select and implement the most effective and efficient optimization strategy at the remedial site. Previous Page

Title: Preparation of an Optimization Report Text: A general outline is shown here from the document Guidance for Optimizing Remedial Action Operation. The report should contain site-specific information concerning the remedial site, remedial system, remedial performance, cost, and recommendations to improve the remedial action operation program.

Title: Implementation of Optimization Strategy Text: The implementation of the optimization strategy may require additional regulatory documentation. For CERCLA sites, an explanation of significant difference (ESD) or Record of Decision (ROD) amendment may be required. An ESD documents a significant modification in cleanup goals or approach to those detailed in the original ROD, without a change in the overall remedy. A ROD amendment documents a complete change in cleanup goals and/or approach to those detailed in the original ROD, including a change in the selected remedy. RCRA sites may require a permit amendment or modification. The optimization strategy must gain acceptance from the regulatory agency prior to implementation. The optimization strategy may also require public review, and thus, would need to gain community acceptance as well. Finally, optimization strategies are implemented once acceptance is received from all stakeholders.

Title: Optimization Cycle and Exit Strategy Text: Exit strategies are a means of determining when it is time to stop, modify, or change a particular technology based on the achievement of previously established performance objectives. It is important to develop sound exit strategies that are based on predictable system behavior and achievable end points. Exit strategies should incorporate an understanding of typical engineering performance, technology limitations, and the regulatory framework. Exit strategies should include performance objectives for each selected remedy, but should also allow the transition to alternate technologies over time. They should be incorporated into the remedy evaluation and design process. Their development and documentation during the Feasibility Study, Record of Decision, and Remedial Design phases are necessary for ultimately achieving timely site closure. This flow chart provides a general example of an exit strategy. It shows that system operations can be stopped once performance objectives have been achieved and there is no significant rebound observed at the site. Visual Description: Optimization cycle flow chart.

Title: Conclusions Text: The Navy has taken a proactive approach to optimizing site cleanup efforts. In order to further promote these efforts, the Optimization Workgroup has developed two relevant guidance documents for Navy RPMs. The two guidance documents include one to address optimization of technology evaluation, selection, and design and another to address optimization of remedial action operations. This Web Tool has provided a brief overview of the optimization concepts discussed in these two documents. For more information, please click on the links below to view these guidance documents. Guidance for Optimizing Remedy Evaluation, Selection and Design Guidance for Optimizing Remedial Action Operation In addition, the Navy has prepared one more related guidance document titled Guide to Optimal Groundwater Monitoring.

Title: Contacts Text: For more information about the approach on optimization, please contact: NFESC POC (805) 982-1656 PRTH_NFESCT2@navy.mil