Theme: 01. Remediation Technology Innovations

Topic Area: 01m. In Situ Technologies: Lessons Learned

Formatted Title:

Cynicism and Optimism with In Situ Remediation: The Other Lessons Learned

Background/Objectives:

In the three decades since in situ technologies were first introduced for environmental remediation, there have been a number of successes, failures, and a few that are TBD. Successful approaches usually begin with a thorough understanding of the site geology, contaminants of concern, and the remedial objectives. Success then hinges on selecting the right technology and strategy including the chemistry or biochemistry, and access or distribution method. Finally, there must be correct dosing, appropriate equipment, and experienced personnel. It’s a challenge to have the optimal confluence of all of these parts that are required for a successful project, and degrees of uncertainty are associated with each aspect. That’s what most lessons-learned presentations concentrate on. But even when all of the science and engineering features come together, projects can still struggle. In fact, many of the best practitioners of in situ remediation will tell you that the challenging things mentioned above can often be planned or accounted for. It’s other things that keep them awake at night.

Approach/Activities:

As remediation contractors, we strive to successfully remove, destroy, or isolate contamination while remaining economically solvent. Our cost structure is based primarily on time in the field (and quantity of materials) yet we are often contractually constrained to limits that are estimated with limited data from a heterogeneous, and partially understood system. In addition to primarily completing our engineering goals, we are therefore focused on minimizing unnecessary extra time in the field. We evaluated the issues that are encountered all too often that frustrate us, and the successful completion of projects. Some of the most common and expensive frustrations are not science or engineering derived but are rather mundane and include delays in deliveries, potable water access, and unreported interferences. We have assessed and will present some of the current and most recurrent causes of field frustration that are not typically discussed as lessons learned.

Results/Lessons Learned:

It is important to recognize the mundane factors and uncertainties that can hinder or obstruct an otherwise successful remedial design and implementation. Awareness that GPR often misses things, hydrants are privately managed, and shippers are currently understaffed can be as important as understanding likely geologic features or extreme pH in properly executed in situ remediation. As redundant as communication may seem, it rarely is. Finally, the ability and authority to respond reasonably to changes, and appreciation of situations in which primary goals have been met, will help in situ remediation be successful and remediation contractors survive.

Menu

Steve Markesic