• Skip to main content
itrc_logo

Pump & Treat

Home
About ITRC
Navigating this Website
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Why Was This Document Developed?
1.2 Audience
1.3 What Is Pump and Treat?
1.4 What Is Pump and Treat Optimization and Why Is It Needed?
1.5 Navigating the Document
1.6 Limitations
2 Life Cycle Optimization Framework For Pump and Treat Systems
2 Life Cycle Optimization Framework For Pump and Treat Systems
2.1 Pump and Treat Remedy Life Cycle
2.2 Performance-Based Pump and Treat Optimization
2.3 Interactive Tool for Assessing Whether Optimization Might Be Beneficial for Your Site
3 Pump and Treat Performance Evaluation
3 Pump and Treat Performance Evaluation
3.1 System Components, System Evaluation Process, and Drivers of Performance Evaluation
3.2 Identifying Data Gaps and Updating the Conceptual Site Model
3.3 Performance Assessment
3.4 Is P&T Still the Best Remedial Option for Cleanup?
4 Process Optimization and Management for Evolving Site Conditions
4 Process Optimization and Management for Evolving Site Conditions
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Recommendations to Address Changes to the Conceptual Site Model
4.3 Optimizing the Existing System
4.4 Enhancements to the Existing P&T System
4.5 Cost Estimating for Recommendations
4.6 Optimization Report
4.7 Implementation Approach
5 Transition and Termination
5 Transition and Termination
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Transition Planning
5.3 Step 1—Identify the Trigger Conditions and Affirm the Need for Pump and Treat Transition
5.4 Step 2—Identify the Transition Approach and Develop the Lines of Evidence for Pump and Treat Transition
5.5 Step 3—Implement the Pump and Treat Transition
5.6 Pump and Treat Termination
6 Integrating Sustainable and Resilient Remediation Into Optimization
6 Integrating Sustainable and Resilent Remediation Into Optimization
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Sustainability—Water Considerations
6.3 Sustainability and Green Energy
6.4 Cost-Efficiency in Sustainable Resilient Remediation
6.5 Resiliency to Climate Change
6.6 Well-Network Design / Retrofit Considerations
6.7 Climate Adaptation
7 Regulatory Perspective
7 Regulatory Perspective
7.1 Understanding Federal and State Regulatory Frameworks and Optimization
7.2 Communicating Optimization to Regulators
7.3 Changes to Regulatory Standards
7.4 Optimization and Remedy Change—How to Transition Away from Pump and Treat
7.5 Changes to Controlling Documents
7.6 Site Closeout
7.7 Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities Resources
8 Stakeholder Considerations
8 Stakeholder Considerations
8.1 Stakeholders and Risk Communication
8.2 Stakeholders and Optimization
8.3 Ongoing Stakeholder Engagement
8.4 Initiating or Renewing Stakeholder Engagement
8.5 Explaining the Optimization Process to Stakeholders
8.6 Explaining the Technical Basis of Optimization Decision-Making
8.7 Stakeholders and Sustainable/Resilient Remediation
8.8 Stakeholders as a Force for Optimization
Appendix A. Common Concepts 
Appendix B. Case Studies
Appendix C. Interactive Checklists
Interactive Checklists
Optimization Potential Questionnaire
Detailed Optimization Questionnaire
Appendix D. Existing Optimization Programs
Appendix E. State Survey Summary
References
Glossary
Acronyms
Acknowledgments
Team Contacts
Document Feedback

 

Pump & Treat
HOME

Detailed Optimization Questionnaire

Please complete the following questions to view your recommended optimization themes and relevant document sections. Note, results will not generate unless all questions have been answered.

Detailed Optimization Questionnaire
# Questions Responses
1 Are all identified decision-making regulators, potentially responsible parties, and stakeholders involved with the project?
2 Is there regulator, potentially responsible parties, and stakeholder consensus on the CSM?
3 Do formal RAOs exist? If so, are they realistic and clearly defined and interpreted the same way by all regulators, potentially responsible parties, and stakeholders?
4 Are regulators, potentially responsible parties, and stakeholders adequately informed regarding the pump and treat system, including the following areas:
– Performance and projected timeframes for achieving RAOs
– Optimization actions planned/implemented
– Transitions to alternative remedies or MNA (if applicable)
– Regulatory considerations, approvals, violations
– Relevant operational information including water use, reuse, renewable energy use, air quality monitoring, others

5 Is there regulator, potentially responsible parties, and stakeholder consensus on the remedial approach?
6 Are all regulator, potentially responsible parties, and stakeholder concerns addressed?
7 If the answer to questions 5 or 6 of this section is “No”, has the team developed a strategy for regulatory and stakeholder approval and justification of a system transition to another remedial action (i.e. passive/in-situ treatment), or MNA?
8 Are the aquifer heterogeneity challenges at the site well understood?
9 Has the plume been sufficiently delineated via a monitoring well network or High Resolution Site Characterization (HRSC) technologies to address aquifer heterogeneity?
10 Have alternatives to pump and treat already been evaluated and found to be less viable and/or efficient towards achieving RAOs?
11 If a transition from pump and treat is a likely path forward, has the implementation approach including timeframe, monitoring and evaluation plan been defined?
12 Has a flexible ROD incorporating a treatment train strategy been considered as an alternative for the site?
13 If a transition away from pump and treat is desired or planned, has stakeholder consensus been reached on the changed, and/or have regulators approved of the transition (i.e. ESD, TI waiver, ROD amendment, or other)?
14 Is the planned or active remediation site free from encumbrances related to a known or potential land acquisition?
15 Is (Are) the extraction well design(s) appropriate given the current understanding of the CSM?
16 Has the plume capture of the planned/existing extraction network been determined or improved via a capture zone analysis or similar evaluation?
17 Are system components (pumps, pipes, tanks) right sized for planned operations (i.e. not over-designed for the system)?
18 If reinjection of treated water is currently incorporated into system design, is the reinjection location, depth, volume, and chemistry optimized for recirculation and removal of contaminants?
19 Do the planned/existing injection wells/galleries have enough capacity to take the treated water?
20 Have beneficial reuse options for treated water been incorporated into the system design?
21 Is the efficiency of the extraction well network consistent?
22 Are well rehabilitation methods effective?
23 Are the influent and effluent conveyance system operating as designed without fouling/plugging, need for pipe diameter adjustments, etc?
24 Has the current system been evaluated to determine whether one or more operational parameters could be optimized without major capital investment (i.e. pH adjustment, flow rate, chemical dosages)?
25 Does the system currently employ energy saving components such as Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) pumps or premium efficiency motors?
26 Are tools such as SCADA and modeling programs used effectively to control and monitor the system, and evaluate the system performance?
27 Does the system have remote monitoring and is automation used to reduce required operator attention?
28 Are contaminant concentrations and influent flows consistent with design parameters?
29 Does the treatment system consistently meet the discharge requirements?
30 If capital investment is planned, has a cost-benefit analysis been performed to understand whether life-cycle costs will be optimized by implementing the upgrades?
31 Has the optimization program considered regulatory limitations to potential optimization actions such as water rights, water use/discharge requirements, renewable energy standards, air quality standards, and others?
32 Have green energy opportunities been considered and/or implemented utilized to power the remediation system (solar, wind, geothermal)?
33 Does system reporting incorporate energy usage, materials usage, waste volume, and other data that would be needed for routine energy assessments?
34 Has an energy assessment been performed for the remedy?
35 If a switch to alternative fuel or green energy is desired, has an evaluation on return-on-investment been completed to determine whether the investment will reduce costs over the life-cycle of operations?
36 Has a sensitivity analysis been performed for system redundancy and resilience to weather events, power outages, and other unforeseen circumstances?
37 Does the system (including groundwater extraction rates and extraction well screen depth intervals) address realized or projected challenges from groundwater elevation changes over time (i.e. due to climate change, drought, recirculation)
38 (For Superfund Sites): For an LTRA remedy, are RAOs likely to be achieved prior to transferring the site to the State?
39a For LTRA sites, is the remedy operating in a manner such that the site can be transferred successfully to the State according to the schedule?
39b If not, are the causes known and within the region’s control?
40

Has the pump and treat system received failing grades on performance evaluation and performed optimization to address deficiencies?


41 Are there pre-defined metrics for shutdown and transition into the next component of the remedy treatment train?
42 Has the pump and treat operation been shutdown (possibly inadvertently by a hurricane event, for example) to assess natural attenuation and evaluate plume stability without pumping?
43 Are contaminant concentration reduction or mass removal rates continuing to make significant progress in line with the original design intent?
44 Is the operability and reliability of the system sufficient to avoid excessive downtime due to corrosion, fouling, poor local power supply, or other threats?
45

Has an acceptable alternative performance objective been evaluated to determine whether remaining mass discharge (without pumping) can be naturally assimilated by MNA and remain protective of human health and the environment, and either ruled out or pursued?


46 Have extraction or monitor well systems been reviewed for impacts (e.g. rising or declining groundwater, saline intrusion, changes in permafrost) of climate change?
47 Has the site been evaluated for sustainability and resiliency considerations?

image_pdfPrint this page/section


PT-1

Home
glossaryGlossary
referencesReferences
acronymsAcronyms
ITRC
Contact Us
About ITRC
Visit ITRC
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.