Remedial Process Optimization (RPO) Inventory and Prioritizationby James S. Paulson, P.E.

JSEM Conference, Columbus, OHMay 21-24, 2007

2

Common Acronyms

AFCEE – Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence

CSM – Conceptual Site Model

DoD – Department of Defense

ERPIMS - Environmental Restoration Program Information Management System

LTM - Long-Term Monitoring

O&M – Operation and Maintenance

RPO – Remedial Process Optimization

RIPS – RPO Information and Prioritization System

3

Today’s Presentation

– What is Remedial Process Optimization (RPO)?

– Why do RPO?

– AFCEE Multi-level approach

– Elements of RPO

– Integration with Stakeholders

– Phase I - Application presented in a case study at Air Force Space Command

4

What is RPO?

Remedial Process Optimization (RPO) is the

systematic evaluation and enhancement of

site remediation processes to ensure that

human health and the environment are being

protected over the long term at minimum risk

and cost.*

* ITRC, 2004, “Remediation Process Optimization: Identifying Opportunities for Enhanced and More Efficient Site Remediation"

5

Air Force RPO Policy

– Define a Systematic, Standardized Approach to RPO Implementation/Execution

– Interim and Final Cleanup Activities from Feasibility Study through Site Closure

– Applies to operating Remedial Action Systems and LTM Activities

– Provide Focus to Develop and Execute Exit Strategy

6

Why do RPO?

– In the next decade, DoD will spend over $1b per year*• O & M• Monitoring

– Stewardship of taxpayer dollars

– Advancing sites toward site cleanup objectives

– Maintain protection of human health and the environment

– Focus DoD Environmental Managers and Contractors toward Site Cleanup Objectives

* AFCEE, 2001, “Remedial Process Optimization Handbook”

7

AFCEE Approach – 3 Phases

– Phase I Evaluation• Annual Review of System Performance• Collect data on:

Treatment system performanceSite monitoring data

• Evaluate progress toward cleanup goals• Screening to determine need for Phase II evaluation

Balance costs for Phase II with likely cost recovery

8

AFCEE Approach

– Phase II Evaluation• Generally independent RPO evaluation team or at least

team leader• Begin 18 months prior to mandatory program reviews• Evaluate site cleanup goals and risk reduction

objectives• Evaluate effectiveness and efficiency of the current

remediation and monitoring systems

9

AFCEE Approach

– Phase III• Implementation of RPO Recommendations• Continue existing systems if will meet goals• Change systems• Change approach

Source containment vs. removalReduction of area under land or groundwater restrictions

10

Elements of RPO

– Phase I Evaluation• Environmental Restoration Program Information Management

System (ERPIMS)Assessment and investigation dataMonitoring data

• Performance Tracking Tool (PTT)Only for “indicator contaminants”Cost informationRemediation performance

• Remedial Process Optimization (RPO) Inventory and PrioritizationSystem (RIPS)

Facilitates the annual review processInstallation focusCommand focus

11

Integration with Stakeholders

– Successful RPO depends on stakeholder buy-in• Installation mission• Regulatory agencies• Off-base community

– Get them involved early

– Develop forum for involvement

– Promote benefits for stakeholders

12

RPO Phase I Application Case StudyU.S. Air Force Space Command - RIPS

13

U.S. Air Force Space Command (AFSPC)

– Phase I Evaluation of 5 Bases• How much was being expended on restoration?• Where was it being expended (which bases)?• How many different remedial systems were out there?

(E.g. P & T, in situ treatments, ex situ treatments, SVE, AS, etc)• How many long-term monitoring (LTM) programs existed?• Were costs the same across similar systems?

Why or why not?Was there a metric to differentiate expenditures by system type?

• What are the regulatory drivers for each system?• Are there pending regulatory changes that impact the current

approach?

14

Remedial Process Optimization (RPO) Inventory and PrioritizationSystem (RIPS)

– Web-based database tool to conduct Phase I

– Initial data collection beginning in Fall 2005

– Training installation personnel and contractors on its use

– Evaluating recent historic RPO efforts (past 5 years)

– Evaluating installation-specific RPO efforts

– Recommendations for the Command

15

Initial Data Collection – System Inventory

– Site visit and interviews with Site Restoration Managers

– Remedial Systems:• Number and type of remedial systems• Remedial system objectives – site-specific goals• Original estimated time to closure• Revised estimated time to closure based on performance• Annual O & M costs – past and current FY• Annual performance monitoring costs – past and current FY• Regulatory environment

RCRACERCLAState

16

Initial Data Collection – System Inventory

– Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) Systems:• Number and type of LTM systems• Site-specific goals• Original estimated time to closure• Revised estimated time to closure based on performance• Annual monitoring – past and current FY• Regulatory environment

RCRACERCLAState

17

Review of System Inventories

– Tabulation of results

– Broken down by Remediation vs. LTM

– Costs by system• Current year• Previous year

– Regulatory drivers

18

Analysis and Prioritization of Systems

– Initially ranked based on cost factors• Annual O&M, excluding monitoring costs• Annual Monitoring costs• Life-cycle costs

(Annual O&M + Monitoring) x Est. Time Remaining

– Each cost assigned a “rank” from highest to lowest

– Ranks then summed to arrive at prioritization level

– Qualitative review of “other” information• Stakeholder issues• Completeness or existence of CSM• Relative risk of system failure

19

Final System Prioritization

– Based on overall RPO Potential• Likely return of costs to do RPO• Likely to shorten life-cycle

– Combination of:• Cost-factor ranking• Qualitative issues• Best Professional Judgment (BPJ)

20

Prioritization Results

– Top-ranked systems• Usually highest life-cycle costs• Most complex site conditions

Multiple or merged plumesComplex hydrogeologyDifficult access

– Active launch site– Remote location

• LTM sitesTypically longer term to end pointHigh annual costs

21

Prioritization Results

– Existing system costs are generally decreasing• Through active RPO efforts• Encouraged by previous results

– Captured prior-years RPO efforts

– Baseline for future annual RPO efforts

– Sharing of most-effective RPO techniques• Contracting mechanisms

Built-in RPOPerformance-based contracting

• Stakeholder review sessions• Coordinated periodic review schedules

22

Prioritization Results

– Savings widely varied across command• Depended on Remedial vs. LTM systems• LTM systems experienced greatest savings

– Isolated and Identified RPO efforts• Excluded new systems and new costs• Accounted for systems that were closed or terminated

– LTM systems offer regular opportunities to reduce costs• Reduce sampling frequencies• Reduced sampling networks• Reduction in analyte lists• Reduced reporting requirements (lean reporting)

23

Recommendations

– Regularly include Scope-of-Work items that specify Phase I or Phase II RPO (performance-based contracting)

– Conduct Phase II evaluations at sites that have one or more of the following:• Experienced significant reductions in performance• Partial or inadequate CSMs• Extended project life-time (30-50 years)

– Use of cooperative agreements between IRP managers, regulators and other stakeholders

– RPO remains a priority as more complex systems come online

24

Summary

– RPO efforts lead to significant savings

– RPO can reduce time to closure

– RPO keeps up with evolving regulatory trends

– RPO takes advantage of new and innovative technologies

– RPO can result in shut-down or decommissioning of non-performing or inefficient systems

25

Questions?James S. Paulson, P.E.ENSR Corporation970-493-8878