• Skip to main content
itrc_logo

Geospatial Analysis for Optimization at Environmental Sites

Navigating this Website
Overview
Fact Sheets
Fact Sheets Overview
Fact Sheet 1: Do You Need Geospatial Analysis?
Fact Sheet 2: Are Conditions Suitable for Geospatial Analysis?
Fact Sheet 3: How is Geospatial Analysis Applied?
Fact Sheet 4: What Software is Available to Help?
PM's Tool Box
PM's Tool Box Overview
Review Checklist
Choosing Methods
Common Misapplications
Optimization Questions
Geospatial Analysis Support for Optimization Questions in the Project Life Cycle
Data Requirements
General Considerations
Methods for Optimization
Geospatial Methods for Optimization Questions in the Project Life Cycle Stages
Release Detection
Site Characterization
Remediation
Monitoring
Closure
Documenting Results
Fundamental Concepts
Fundamental Concepts for Geospatial Analysis
Basic Data Concepts for Geospatial Analysis
Interpolation Methods and Model Prediction
Uncertainty in Geospatial Analyses
Characteristics of Interpolation Methods
Work Flow
Work Flow for Conducting Geospatial Analysis
Geospatial Analysis Work Flow Overview
Perform Exploratory Data Analysis
Select Geospatial Method
Build Geospatial Model
Evaluate Geospatial Method Accuracy
Generate Geospatial Analysis Results
Using Results
Using Analysis Results for Optimization
Plume Intensity and Extent
Trend Maps
Estimating Quantities
Hot Spot Detection
Sample Spacing
Estimating Concentrations Based on Proxy Data
Background Estimation
Quantifying Uncertainty
Remedial Action Optimization
Monitoring Program Optimization
Examples
Examples Overview
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Methods
Methods Overview
Simple Geospatial Methods
More Complex Geospatial Methods
Advanced Methods
Index of Methods
Software
Software Overview
Software Comparison Tables
Software Descriptions
Workshops and Short Courses
Case Studies
Case Studies Overview
Superfund Site Monitoring Optimization (MAROS)
PAH Contamination in Sediments—Uncertainty Analysis (Isatis)
Optimization of Long-Term Monitoring at Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant (GTS; Summit Envirosolutions)
Optimization of Lead-Contaminated Soil Remediation at a Former Lead Smelter (EVS/MVS)
Extent of Radiological Contamination in Soil at Four Sites near the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant, Japan (ArcGIS)
Optimization of Groundwater Monitoring at a Research Facility in New Jersey (GWSDAT)
Optimization of Sediment Sampling at a Tidally Influenced Site (ArcGIS)
Stringfellow Superfund Site Monitoring Optimization (MAROS)
Lead Contamination in Soil (ArcGIS)
Stakeholder Perspectives
Additional Information
Project Life Cycle Stages
History of Remedial Process Optimization
Additional Resources
Acronyms
Glossary
Index of Methods
Acknowledgments
Team Contacts
Document Feedback

 

Geospatial Analysis for Optimization at Environmental Sites
HOME

Remedial Action Optimization

The general topics of Evaluating Remedial Success and Future Data Prediction/Verification are related to Remedial Action Optimization (see General Topics, Table 2). The results of geospatial interpolation can be used to directly to help optimize remedial programs or as input into other analytical tools, such as groundwater flow and contaminant fate and transport models. This approach includes using geospatial methods to support the feasibility study, remedial design, and remedy implementation. This approach also includes evaluating remedial progress/success, remedy modifications, and remedy completion status.

Understanding the Results: ▼Read more

The results of geospatial interpolation can be used to optimize the following remedial program tasks:

  • Delineate the target treatment zone, which can be represented by a soil or groundwater concentration contour line equivalent to the cleanup goal, or contour lines representing the presence of mobile nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL). The target treatment zone should be represented in three dimensions, and the geospatial method and software to be used selected accordingly (for example, perform interpolation of distinct vertical intervals and combine, or use 3D interpolation in sophisticated software such as EVS/MVS or Isatis).
  • Select the optimal remedial technology considering geospatial factors such as: depth to groundwater and groundwater flux, stratigraphic elevations, contaminant concentrations, and total mass. These parameters can be interpolated using simple, more complex, or advanced methods to assist remedy selection. For example, technologies such as excavation may not be cost-effective at deep depths, and injection-based remedial technologies may be ineffective in low-permeability strata. Additionally, the mass of contaminant that will be treated in situ or extracted and treated drives decisions on in situ amendment requirements and above-ground treatment infrastructure (such as granular activated carbon versus thermal oxidizer technology).
  • Create continuous stratigraphic layers for input into groundwater models such as MODFLOW, and continuous fields of model parameters and boundary conditions such as hydraulic conductivity/transmissivity and recharge. Groundwater flow and contaminant fate and transport models have numerous uses in remedy optimization, such as:
    • determining the minimal number and lowest possible flow rate of extraction wells in a pump and treat system that will successfully capture a contaminant plume
    • quantifying contaminant mass discharge from a contaminant source area and how that discharge changes due to remediation
    • predicting future changes in contaminant concentrations resulting from remediation or long-term MNA
  • Calculate mass discharge as the product of concentration and groundwater flow rate. More generally, models can be used to identify data gaps and inform sampling design, together with geospatial analysis. For example, models can evaluate what source strength and geometry may be needed to generate an observed plume. Contaminant fate and transport models can also be used to differentiate between multiple contributing sources to a plume for use in litigation cases or remediation cost-sharing arrangements.
  • Evaluate changes in groundwater elevations, contaminant concentration and mass over time to evaluate remedy performance, design modifications to existing remedies, and make decisions regarding remedy completion or transition to a different remedy, such as MNA. Using geospatial methods to create potentiometric surface contour maps is typically required to delineate pump and treat capture zones and the hydraulic effects of in situ injections, such as groundwater mounding, that may significantly alter natural groundwater flow directions. Geospatial interpolations may show a benefit in focusing remedial efforts on areas with persistent impacts. Decisions on remedy completion status can be guided by advanced geospatial methods quantifying the probability of exceeding cleanup goals across the treatment zone through indicator kriging or conditional simulation. This may also include using interpolation as part of risk-based remediation; for example calculating exposure point concentrations which may be upper confidence limits on the mean (such as 95% UCL).
  • Evaluate spatial and temporal optimization of groundwater monitoring.

As with other optimization applications, using more complex and advanced methods quantifies interpolation uncertainty, which assists decisions regarding the target treatment zone or when remedial action is complete. This method can also be valuable in land use controls as part of an overall remedial strategy. Defensible geospatial interpolation with uncertainty analysis can help to evaluate whether a plume extends to an off-source property that may or may not need a groundwater use restriction.

image_pdfPrint this page/section



GRO

web document
glossaryGRO Glossary
referencesGRO References
acronymsGRO Acronyms
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.