Headquarters U.S. Air Force I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Air Force Long-Term Monitoring Optimization Tools AFCEE/TDV Phil Hunter, P.G. 2011 May
Overview Process & Opportunity Tool Inventory Status & Availability Application & Management Summary I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 2
Products and Services AFCEE Restoration Branch Organization Peer Review Support Staff Decision Support & Analysis Mission Rapid Site Characterization Goals Innovative Technologies Products and Performance Based Remediation (PBR) Services Funding Consulting Services Exit Strategy Development Issues ROD Reviews 5-Year Review Support LTM Optimization Emerging Issues I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 3
Performance Based Remediation (PBR) Role of LTMO Tools Fence-to-fence approach Contracts are fixed price and regionalized AF Provides a preferred inventory of tools without fee Contractors should be familiar with tools and have relevant experience & training AF needs standardized approach to negotiate with regulators and validate PBR proposals Some orphan sites & installations are optimized out-of-cycle from PBR contracts I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 4
Why Optimize? Data Redundancy & Resource Considerations FY08 System Inventory Cost by Technology Enhanced Bioremediation, $7.6M Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE), $4.5M Pump and Treat, Monitored Natural $23.4M Attenuation (MNA), $4.1M LNAPL Recovery, $1.3M Other, $1.3M LTM, $23.9M Oxidation/ Reduction, $1.1M Wall/Barrier , $0.9M Most data is below env stds Target is essential data “Smart monitoring” & sustainable Resource effective & green I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 5
What are We Monitoring? 90% of Data are Below MCLs/PRGs Less than 10% Exceeds Env Criteria Air-Force Wide Data 0.6 ERPIMS Database 0.5 TCE 0.4 Perchlorate PB 0.3 CR6 PCE 165 Detect Rate 0.2 NAPH Military BE Installations Hazardous MTBE DIOXANE Waste 6,500 Sites 0.1 DCBZ14 Wells Monitor 70,000 TCP123 NDMA Soil 130,000 Borings RDX 104M Analytical Records DNT24 1000 10,000 100,000 SAMPLES I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 6
Process Describe existing monitoring program Wells, coordinates, events, & analytes CSM and aquifer zones Tool selection & optimization scope Create & edit dataset Decision Data Mgmt Validation & Framework Analysis • Legacy Data 5 Yr Review • Current Data Tool Reporting Inventory Reduce redundancy Cost Optimized Qualitative Propose new monitoring plan Analysis Analysis Network Expand coverage with new wells Temporal Regulatory Analysis Buy-in Cost benefit analysis Network Spatial Network Expansion Analysis Reduction I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 7
Opportunity What they do… Determines essential / redundant wells and placement of new wells • Calculates optimal sampling frequency • Typical LTM cost savings: 20-40% per site, up to $1M per installation; • savings are cumulative Formal test for trend • MW Sampling MW Sampling Remediation Remediation Network Network Characterization Characterization Essential to PBRs & 5 Yr Review • Standard reports • LTM LTM Initial Design Initial Design -Costs to perform optimization is Validate Validate Adjust Adjust about 10% of O&M budget Review Review LTM LTM -Return on Investment = 1-2 yrs 3–5 Yr 3–5 Yr Optimized Optimized Site Closure Site Closure Exit Strategy Exit Strategy LTM LTM - DQOs Met - DQOs Met - Goals Achieved - Goals Achieved Complete Complete I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e
Opportunity What you get… Decision logic and formalized approach Optimal sampling plan proposal New well locations to expand coverage & reduce uncertainty Living dataset GIS capability Time series graphics Ability to flag anomalous data Excellent tools for risk communication Free-public domain software I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 9
Tool Features Time Series Plots Transparent Decision Logic Essential Wells Formal Test for Trend Lower 90% Slope Upper 90% GTS Well Trend Slope Confidence Regulatory Trend Regulatory Loc ID Par Label Easting Northing Significant Confidence ID Type (ppb/day) Bound Limit (ppb) Direction Exceedance (p<0.1) Bound (ppb) (ppb) 9 E-04 LWQR CR 796273.1 404182.4 -0.0042 Yes 9.269 11.424 100 DECR NO INSUFFIC 10 E-04M IENT CR 796268.2 404169.5 No 100 FLAT NA 29 EL-01 LWQR CR 803442 400602 -0.00396 Yes 9.686 12.686 100 DECR NO 30 EL-02 LWQR CR 801093.2 403219 0.00599 Yes 14.849 24.023 100 INCR NO 31 EL-03 LWQR CR 799307.6 403114.9 -0.00746 Yes 2.471 4.491 100 DECR NO 32 EL-04 LWQR CR 796985.4 403395.4 -0.00249 Yes 10.791 12.525 100 DECR NO 33 EPA-01 LWQR CR 795412.1 403906.3 -0.00674 Yes -2.435 11.378 100 DECR NO 35 EPA-02A LWQR CR 796647.6 404489.8 -0.00448 Yes 11.002 14.105 100 DECR NO INSUFFIC 36 EPA-03 IENT CR 798228.5 405950.5 No 100 FLAT NA 37 EPA-04 LWQR CR 794893.5 405309.3 0.003 Yes 6.164 14.187 100 INCR NO I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e
Creating a Monitoring Knowledge Base Centralized, Comprehensive, Dynamic I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 11
LTMO Tool Inventory Geostatistical Temporal-Spatial (GTS) optimization software Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System (MAROS) software 3TMO (3-Tiered Monitoring Optimization tool) I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 12
LTMO Tools How They Compare… Quantitative/Statistical Qualitative/Judgmental Balanced Calculative Heuristics Approach I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 13
GTS Features Algorithm-based Unique Features Highly quantitative; focus on geostats Balance between full-scale expert system & heuristic model Designed for midlevel & expert analysts; numerous defaults Geospatial analysis uses quasi-genetic algorithm Installation-wide or individual site analysis I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 14
GTS Features Water Table Maps Non-Linear Trend Analysis Optimal Sampling Histogram “Bubble” Trend Maps Proposed New Wells Cost Benefit Analysis I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 15
GTS Features Essential & Redundant Plume Comparisons Well Map Baseline vs Optimized Baseline (All Wells) Optimized (reduced wells) Difference I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e
3TMO 3-Tiered Approach Site Screening Data Compilation Spatial Analysis Temporal Analysis Qualitative Analysis Monitoring Distribution and Frequency Recommendations I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 17
3TMO Well Retention Analysis I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 18
3TMO Analysis Tools • Filter Data Compilation • Group Tables • Sort COC Well Sample Data • COC Summary Information Parameters • Select time period of interest Well Retention Evaluation Chart • Dual-axis plots Qualitative Temporal Spatial Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation • Symbolize wells by parameters • Filter by well Monitoring Frequency Evaluation Map attributes • Measure distance Qualitative Evaluation Temporal Evaluation • Display ROI I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 19
3TMO Well and Frequency Analysis Well Analysis Qualitative Evaluation • Decision Diagram (yes/no questions) Temporal Evaluation • Mann-Kendall Trend Calculations Well Type & Frequency • Chart Tool Spatial Proximity Evaluation Risk to Receptors • Map Tool Low Moderate High Predictability of Predictable Combined Evaluation Summary Concentrations Type I Type II Type III • 3 sets of results COC Variable Type II Type III Type IV • Determine final retain/exclude recommendations • Enter rationale (optional) Highly Type III Type IV Type V Variable Type I Type II Type III Type IV Type V High Biennial Annual Semi-annual Quarterly Monthly Frequency Moderate Every 3 Years Biennial Annual Semi-annual Quarterly Frequency Semi- Low Every 5 Years Every 3 Years Biennial Annual Frequency annual I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 20
3TMO Frequency Analysis Path Freq. Recommendation Answer Relevant Well Functional (low, moderate, high) yes/no Questions Category Risk to Receptors Predictability of Well Type posed by COCs at COC Concentrations assignment the well (low, (stable/predictable, (I – V) moderate, high) variable, highly variable) Frequency recommendation (monthly to every 5 years) I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 21
Recommend
More recommend
