Short Courses

Instructors: Daniel Bouchard (GHD), Orfan Shouakar-Stash (Isotope Tracer Technologies Inc.), Ravi Kolhatkar (Chevron), Kammy Sra (Chevron), David Alden (Tersus Environmental)

Course Objective: This course will instruct field practitioners, regulators, site owners, consultants and young scientists in the use of CSIA, with respect to basic comprehensive knowledge, developing field application strategies and depicting tool limitations/advantages.

Course Overview: Over the last three decades, numerous research studies performed on CSIA have successfully produced a highly sensitive field assessment tool to document source signatures and transformation processes for organic constituents of concern (COCs), such as petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents (EPA, 2008). Application of CSIA as a characterization tool has been thoroughly studied through numerous scientific review publications and textbooks, and then related to field practitioners by environmental agencies and working groups (EPA, 2008; Aelion et al., 2010). Over time, the method has become cost effective and is now increasingly used by field practitioners to gain key information on origin and fate of the COC that traditional methods based on concentration analysis are unable to reveal.

CSIA is a process-based advanced characterization tool that tracks the stable isotope composition (13C/12C, 2H/1H or 37Cl/35Cl, ratios) of selected compounds present in groundwater. Based on these isotopic ratios, the tool can be used to differentiate sources of the same COC present in the subsurface (forensic investigations), or to better understand source architecture on complex sites having the potential for multiple source releases. When tracking the ratio evolution over distance, the tool has proven its reliability in demonstrating in situ biological destruction of organic compounds in groundwater, thus becoming an important line of evidence in the framework of a monitored natural attenuation program (EPA, 2008). More recently, CSIA has been applied to in situ remediation treatments. With CSIA being able to discriminate between co-occurring mass removal processes, application of CSIA during an engineered in situ remediation thus represents a great asset in assessing in situ treatment performance (Bouchard et al., 2018; Bouchard et al., 2024).

This workshop aims to explain the fundamentals of the CSIA method, to describe state-of-the-art applications to depict field implementation strategies for a successful CSIA assessment, and to expose all types of information that can be obtained by CSIA-based field site assessments. Field cases covering diverse in situ remediation treatments will be provided and discussed to highlight the value of CSIA as a diagnostic tool to monitor remedial performance and the lessons learned. 

Instructors: Josephine Molin (Evonik), Brant Smith (Evonik), Daniel Leigh (Evonik), Fayaz Lakhwala (Evonik) 

Course Objective: This session will target the fundamental concepts that are the basis for selecting a remedial technology to treat still prevalent contaminants such as chlorinated solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons.   

Course Overview: Remediation practitioners have many and diverse technologies to select between when designing a remedial action plan for a site, including physical, chemical or biological approaches.  For chemical and biological remediation technologies, the fundamental reaction chemistry is usually well understood for most common contaminants and oftentimes there are multiple technologies capable of degrading the contaminants of concern.  The challenge instead revolves around establishing contact with a sufficient reagent dose for a sufficient period of time, taking reaction kinetics, contaminant partitioning, flow mechanisms, lithology and distribution into account. There may also be site-specific constraints that could limit or impede both available application methods and certain chemistries. 

The practice of in situ remediation has matured for several decades incorporating many lessons learned from previous sites, designs, and applications.  This session will collect the lessons learned and review key decision-making criteria for technology selection using case studies as examples.  The core areas to be emphasized include:

• Site characterization that considers both risk assessment, remedial technology selection and eventual remedial technology design, including: 
  
  • Contamination distribution, partitioning, and solubility 
  • Lithology and hydrogeology – permeability, porosity, mobile porosity, groundwater flow and direction
• Site limitations / impediments:
  
  • Chemical interferences, metals mobilization, non-target demand, biological impediments
    
  • Physical impediments, utilities, existing structures and site use
    
  • Remedial objectives and timeframe
    
• Critical technology attributes.  These include not only the ability to react with the type of contaminant but also:
  
  • Distribution characteristics – dissolved versus solid reagents
    
  • Longevity – fast acting versus slow release reagents
    
  • Reaction kinetics
    
  • Dosing requirements
    
• Application methods to establish contact:
  
  • Review available technologies based on lithology, depth and surface conditions
    
  • Soil mixing versus injection strategies
    
  • High volume liquid injections versus high pressure injection of slurry
    

Case studies will be used as examples to discuss the critical details of a site that led to the technology selection.
The session will focus on oxidative and reductive technologies, including chemical/abiotic and biological. The session will conclude with an open discussion with participants regarding their questions and experiences in selecting technologies to remediate contaminated sites.

Instructors: Paige Molzahn (Jacobs), Betsy Collins (Jacobs), Katie Elich (Woodward & Curran), Gerlinde Wolf (Ramboll), Haley Young (EA Engineering) 

*LAPTOP REQUIRED COURSE*

Course Objective: This course, taught by members of the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF), will provide an overview of several publicly available tools that can be used to integrate and evaluate sustainability and resilience throughout the remediation project lifecycle. The training will include several case studies and hands-on demonstrations of a wide range of tools, including SiteWise™ (developed by Battelle jointly with the Navy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Army), Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA, developed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]), the ASTM Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups (E2893-16) and Standard Guide for Remedial Action Resiliency to Climate Impacts (E3249-21), the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC) guidance on Sustainable Resilient Remediation, USEPA’s Engineering Forum Issue Paper Conducting Climate Vulnerability Assessments at Superfund Sites, and USEPA’s EJScreen tool. Course participants will learn how to use these tools, the differences between them, appropriate use cases for each tool, and how to interpret results.

Course Overview: The focus on sustainability and resilience continues to grow in the remediation field, with stakeholders and regulatory agencies continuing to place more emphasis on the impacts of remedial actions on environment, social, and governance (ESG) factors and also ensuring the sustainability and resilience of site remedies themselves. Several open-source publicly available tools have been developed and gained recent popularity to address these concerns. These tools span a broad range of applicable use cases, providing anything from simple qualitative assessments to complex quantitative metrics.

The goal of this course will be to provide an overview of several commonly used and publicly available tools, discussion of the most appropriate use cases of each tool, a comparison of the tools and results they provide, and hands on exercises for participants to learn how to use these tools in their own work. The tools that will be discussed during this course include the following:

• SiteWise™ is a series of Microsoft® Excel spreadsheets used to calculate the environmental footprint of remediation activities in terms of common sustainability metrics such as emissions, energy use, worker safety, and waste generation.
• SEFA is an environmental footprint calculator based on Microsoft® Excel used to quantify and evaluate the impact of remedial activities in the context of the five core elements of the environmental footprint as defined by USEPA.
• The ASTM Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups (E2893-16) describes a process for identifying, prioritizing, selecting, implementing, documenting, and reporting best management practices with the goal of reducing the environmental footprint of remedial activities.
• The ASTM Standard Guide for Remedial Action resiliency to Climate Impacts (E3249-21) outlines various techniques for evaluating and mitigating the impacts of climate change and weather extremes on remediation systems, activity and use limitations, stewardship and remediation activities.
• The ITRC Guidance on Sustainable Resilient Remediation is a resource for regulators, stakeholders, consultants, and responsible parties to help integrate sustainability and resilience practices into remediation projects. The resource includes many tools, including a Sustainable Best Management Practices Checklist and a resource guide by state.
• USEPA’s Engineering Forum Issue Paper Conducting Climate Vulnerability Assessments at Superfund Sites can be used as a guide for performing climate vulnerability assessments at remediation sites. The publicly available document walks through the process of performing a climate screening and assessing vulnerabilities to climate change.
• USEPA’s EJScreen is a publicly available dataset that provides users with access to high-resolution environmental and demographic information for locations in the United States so they can compare their selected locations to the rest of the state, EPA region, or the nation. The tool can be used as a starting point for considering how a remediation site and its cleanup might differently impact different communities.

Attendees will have the opportunity to complete representative examples using these tools, and will leave the course knowing when to use these tools, where to find them, and how to start using them on their projects.

 

Instructors: David Adamson (GSI Environmental Inc.), Charles Newell (GSI Environmental Inc.), Lila Beckley (GSI Environmental Inc.), Hiroko Hort (GSI Environmental Inc.), Blake Actkinson (GSI Environmental Inc.), Kenneth Walker (GSI Environmental Inc.), John Wilson (Scissortail Environmental Solutions, Inc.) 

*LAPTOP REQUIRED COURSE*

Course Objective: This short course is designed to provide remediation professionals with an in-depth look at two new, publicly available tools that provide technical support to help environmental professionals with the effective long-term management of contaminated groundwater sites.  

Course Overview: Long-term groundwater monitoring is essential for many site cleanups, particularly for verifying the effectiveness of remediation strategies and ensuring environmental protection. However, this process can be expensive, with a large portion of costs, particularly for the Department of Defense (DoD), being directed toward such monitoring. Many impacted groundwater sites rely on active remediation methods like pump-and-treat systems but often face challenges in achieving closure due to site complexity and contaminant persistence.

This course introduces remediation professionals to two publicly available tools that offer technical support for managing contaminated groundwater sites more effectively. The tools help in improving decision-making and reducing costs for long-term site management.

TA2 Tool
The TA2 tool is designed to assist site managers in determining whether transitioning from active remediation to monitored natural attenuation (MNA) would be a more cost-effective strategy. Transition assessments, as envisioned by the National Research Council, are crucial for managing complex sites where ongoing remedial efforts plateau, or further remediation may not yield significant benefits. However, the process is still unfamiliar to many professionals.

The TA2 tool, developed by GSI through SERDP project ER20-1429, offers a structured framework to assess whether a site is suitable for transitioning to MNA. It provides site managers with a web-based, interactive app built using the R Shiny platform, making it accessible without the need for installation. The tool includes several modules that allow users to focus on site-specific issues or complete a comprehensive step-by-step assessment of the site.

Quantitative modules in the tool help estimate groundwater concentrations, evaluate plume stability, and forecast remediation performance and timeframes. Qualitative tools offer insights into processes like matrix diffusion, enhanced attenuation, and geologic heterogeneity. A summary tool compiles results from the other modules and provides guidance for conducting site-specific transition assessments.

MAROS
MAROS, the Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System, is recognized as a widely used tool for groundwater data review to support long-term monitoring optimization (LTMO) and decision-making frameworks for site closure. Originally developed as an early LTMO tool, MAROS has been used to document trends, calculate remediation performance metrics, and review groundwater data.

The latest version of MAROS, released in December 2024 under ESTCP Project ER22-7422, is a major update to the tool, incorporating modern computing capabilities for improved functionality. Like the TA2 tool, MAROS is built on the R Shiny platform and includes the popular features of its previous version while adding new tools for better data visualization and analysis.

MAROS employs statistical methods to optimize data collection efforts and support site management decisions. It can be used to analyze groundwater data from permanent monitoring locations and visualize soil and porewater data to estimate contaminant mass. For sites with extensive groundwater monitoring data, MAROS offers tools to optimize monitoring network performance, making it easier for site managers to evaluate whether monitoring objectives are being met.

Instructors: Parisa Jourabchi (Aris Environmental Ltd.), Matthew Lahvis (Shell Oil Products), Lisa Reyenga (GEI Consultants, Inc.), Kayvan Karimi Askarani (WSP USA)

*LAPTOP REQUIRED COURSE*

Course Objective: Nature-based solutions are increasingly used to manage risk and support sustainable remediation of nonaqueous phase liquid (NAPL) in the subsurface, but quantitative tools are needed to assess and communicate the effectiveness and efficiency of these approaches. The objective of this course is to demonstrate the application of available tools for quantitative assessment of natural processes for practical applications to remedial decision-making, where participants will be able to calculate metrics through examples for a range of methods and site conditions. Based on the methods and associated technologies in the Standard Guide for Estimating Natural Attenuation Rates for Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids in the Subsurface (ASTM E3361), the course is designed to link the data analysis with the enhancement of the conceptual site model, risk reduction, and optimizing remediation.

Course Overview: The course is structured on a framework of optimizing remedial systems and transitions to natural remedies as described in a number of guidance and toolkits (e.g., ANSR, 2024, Lahvis and Hers, 2024; ASTM E3361, 2022). The methods are described and compared for various site conditions and remedial concerns with the focus on calculating metrics for baseline assessment of remediation under natural conditions and transition thresholds (for remedy transition). Supporting the latest guidance and advances in research, including the methods and associated technologies in the ASTM Standard Guide (ASTM E3361), the course is designed to link the data analysis with the enhancement of the conceptual site model, risk reduction, and optimizing remediation.

The course will cover methods for estimating natural attenuation (and natural source zone depletion) of NAPL in the subsurface: 1. CO2 efflux; 2. temperature gradient; 3. soil gas gradient; 4. groundwater monitoring (including plume extent and stability); and 5. NAPL composition method. The course will address the challenges in practical application of the methods and related technologies. These include leveraging existing site data, screening or feasibility assessment of methods based on site conditions, addressing uncertainty and evaluating temporal changes. Participants will have an opportunity for hands-on application of calculation tools directly related to data interpretation of the technologies. These will include the temperature gradient method (and background correction); degassing for confined NAPL conditions; NAPL composition method; assessment of groundwater plume stability; and soil gas gradient methods.

Depending on the remedial concern, the soil gas gradient method will be presented with calculation tools for estimating the attenuation rate of bulk NAPL, or specific chemical of concern estimates. Case examples for long-term trends in the rate calculations will also be presented. Overall, the course is designed to increase awareness on new tools to help promote the application and facilitate uptake of nature-based solutions for sustainable remediation. This includes the latest ASTM Standard Guide and more recent publications and calculation tools within a framework (ANSR, 2024) that highlights the significance of these tools for improved remedial decision-making.