• Skip to main content
itrc_logo

Remediation Management of Complex Sites

Home
About ITRC
Navigating this Website
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
1 Introduction Overview
1.1 What is a Complex Site?
1.2 Significance of Complex Sites
1.3 Site Objectives and Interim Objectives
1.4 Remediation and a Reasonable Remediation Time Frame
1.5 What is Adaptive Site Management?
1.6 Notable Previous Guidance for Complex Sites
2 Site Challenges
2 Site Challenges Overview
2.1 Technical Challenges
2.2 Nontechnical Challenges
2.3 Developing a CSM Based on Site Characteristics
3 Remediation Potential Assessment
3 Remediation Potential Assessment Overview
3.1 Whole Site versus Site Segment Analysis
3.2 Preremedy Implementation
3.3 Answering Preremedy Questions
3.4 Weighing the Evidence
3.5 Postremedy Implementation
4 Adaptive Site Management
4 Adaptive Site Management Overview
4.1 Steps in the Adaptive Site Management Process
4.2 Refine the Conceptual Site Model
4.3 Set or Revisit Site Objectives
4.4 Develop Interim Objectives and an Adaptive Remedial Strategy
4.5 Document Interim Objectives and the Remedial Approach
5 Long-Term Management
5 Long-Term Management Overview
5.1 Remedy Components
5.2 Basis for Predicting Performance and Decision Criteria
5.3 Periodic Evaluations
5.4 Decision Logic for Adaptive Site Management
5.5 Completion Strategy
5.6 Project Risks and Uncertainty
6 Case Studies (Part One)
6 Case Studies Overview
6.1 Koppers Oroville Wood Treatment Facility, California
6.2 Moffett-MEW Regional Plume, California
6.3 Rocky Flats Solar Ponds Plume, Colorado
6.4 Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado
6.5 Naval Air Station Jacksonville OU 03, Florida
6.6 DOE Test Area North, INEEL, Idaho
6.7 Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, Illinois
6.8 Tri-State Mining District (Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri)
6 Case Studies (Part Two)
6.9 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) Groundwater, Kentucky
6.10 Velsicol Chemical, Michigan
6.11 Onondaga Lake, New York
6.12 Former UGI Columbia Manufactured Gas Plant, Columbia, Pennsylvania
6.13 Savannah River Site (SRS) F-Area Seepage Basins Groundwater, South Carolina
6.14 Former Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, McGregor, Texas
6.15 Hanford 200 Area ZP-1 OU, Washington
6.16 Industrial Site, Australia
7. Stakeholder Perspectives
Additional Information
Appendix A. Survey Results
Appendix B. Summary of Tools For Site Characterization
References
Acronyms
Glossary
Acknowledgments
Team Members and Contact Information
Document Feedback

 

Remediation Management of Complex Sites
HOME

5. Long-Term Management

Long-term management of complex sites begins with remedial design and includes all postconstruction phases of remediation management, monitoring, and evaluation of remedy protectiveness. At complex sites, long-term management may last several decades; projected time frames to meet site objectives can sometimes exceed 100 years. These long time frames increase uncertainties. For example, engineered remedy components can fail or underperform over time unless they are routinely maintained and modified. Systems designed for initial mass loading may not perform effectively if the mass loading changes over time. Furthermore, long-term performance and potential replacement of caps, slurry walls, and other containment technologies are assessed by monitoring and periodic evaluation of these components.

An adaptive site management approach can identify and account for these uncertainties over a project life cycle using a long-term management plan. This approach informs decision makers of remedy progress, expedites remedy reevaluations, and eases transitions to alternative remedies or contingency actions. As part of the adaptive site management of a complex site, decisions need to be fully scoped as early in the decision-making process as possible. These decisions and other key project evaluations are maintained in a long-term management plan, which is a living document that is revised based on periodic performance evaluations. Some states, including New York, require a long-term management plan in the environmental review process of Brownfield remediation sites. For CERCLA NPL sites, long-term management and its related costs and risks may be first considered at the FS stage and then further developed throughout the remedial design/remedial action phase. A long-term management plan can help achieve goals of protecting human health and the environment and making progress toward the site objectives.

Because adaptive site management repeats the remediation potential assessment and remedy evaluation steps, decisions are based on the current CSM (USEPA 2011a) as well as the state of science and practice. As part of this iterative process, additional site characterization may also be performed under the long-term management phase. For example, additional site characterization may be performed if at any time data show unexplainable gaps, if contaminant concentrations are not decreasing as anticipated, or if new contamination is identified that requires additional investigation. Changing site conditions are charted and documented. These changes are evaluated to determine their influence on the remedy effectiveness, which is reflected in the periodic performance evaluations. The effects of ICs, such as deed restrictions that limit exposure to residual contamination, are also included in periodic performance evaluations.

Figure 5 summarizes the long-term management phase of the adaptive site management process. Once the long-term management plan is developed, site operations consist of the following steps:

  • implementing the remedy
  • monitoring and conducting scheduled periodic evaluations to assess protectiveness and remedy progress
  • deciding to evaluate, optimize, modify, or transition the remedial approach if the remedy is no longer protective or if remedial progress is inadequate

Figure 5. Long-term management flowchart.

A long-term management plan includes the following sections:

  • remedy components
  • basis for predicting performance and decision criteria
    • performance baseline
    • performance model
    • performance metrics
    • interim objectives
    • decision criteria
  • periodic evaluations (may supplement Five-Year Review reports at CERCLA sites).
  • decision logic for remedy evaluation, optimization, modification, or transition
  • completion strategy
  • project risks and uncertainty

The planning process includes developing metrics for how remedy performance will be measured and evaluated, metrics for each major remedy component, and metrics for each interim objective. Planners can collaborate and agree on the interim objectives and performance metrics, then adapt the remedial design accordingly. Planning also includes monitoring and administrative controls of the site-specific infrastructure management. Using the DQO process, monitoring data are reviewed to evaluate system performance versus performance metrics and progress towards meeting interim or site objectives for the duration of remedial activities. Scheduled periodic evaluations compare expected to actual progress toward meeting interim or site objectives and reflect changes in the remedial strategy, site knowledge (such as the discovery of previously unknown contamination), or other changing conditions (such as changes in regulations).

image_pdfPrint this page/section



RMCS

web document
glossaryRMCS Glossary
referencesRMCS References
acronymsRMCS Acronyms
ITRC
Contact Us
About ITRC
Visit ITRC
Document Download
social media iconsClick here to visit ITRC on FacebookClick here to visit ITRC on TwitterClick here to visit ITRC on LinkedInITRC on Social Media
about_itrc
Permission is granted to refer to or quote from this publication with the customary acknowledgment of the source (see suggested citation and disclaimer). This web site is owned by ITRC • 1250 H Street, NW • Suite 850 • Washington, DC 20005 • (202) 266-4933 • Email: [email protected] • Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Usage Policy ITRC is sponsored by the Environmental Council of the States.