United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Research and
Development
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency
Response
EPA/540/S-97/504
September 1997
oEPA Ground Water Issue
for
Robert M. Cohen1, James W. Mercer1, Robert M. Greenwald1, and
Milovan S. Beljin2
The RCRA/Superfund Ground-Water Forum is a group of
scientists representing EPA's Regional Superfund Offices,
committed to the identification and resolution of ground-water
issues affecting the remediation of Superfund sites. Design of
conventional ground-water extraction and injection (i.e., pump-
and-treat) systems has been identified by the Forum as an issue
of concern to decision makers. This issue paper focuses on
design of conventional ground-water extraction and injection
systems used in subsurface remediation.
For further information contact Steve Acree (405) 436-8609 or
Randall Ross (405) 436-8611 at the Subsurface Remediation
and Protection Division of the National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma.
Introduction
Containment and cleanup of contaminated ground water are
among the primary objectives of the CERCLA (Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; also
known as Superfund) and RCRA (Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act) remediation programs. Ground-water
contamination problems are pervasive in both programs; over
85 percent of CERCLA National Priority List sites and a substantial
portion of RCRA facilities have some degree of ground-water
contamination (U.S. EPA, 1993a). A common approach to deal
with contaminated ground water is to extract the contaminated
water and treat it at the surface prior to discharge or reinjection
as illustrated in Figure 1. This is referred to as conventional
pump-and-treat (P&T) remediation.
Conventional pump-and-treat is an applicable component of
many remedial systems. However, such a system will not be
appropriate to achieve restoration in portions of many sites due
to hydrogeologic and contaminant-related limitations such as
those presented by significant accumulations of DNAPLs
(denser-than-water nonaqueous phase liquids) trapped below
the water table. Such limitations will directly impact the
effectiveness of P&T at many sites and the selection of remedial
actions. Detailed discussion of the contaminant transport and
fate processes that limit the potential for subsurface restoration
using P&T and their characterization is beyond the scope of this
document.
Injection
Well
Treatment Facility
ni | I I I I | I n^> _.*._ Water Table
1 ' I 1 ' ' ' 1 ^"^ Under Pumping
Overburden Sand Silt Clay Bedrock Flow Line Conditions
Figure 1, Example of a P&T system (after Mercer et al,, 1990),
1 GeoTrans, Inc., Sterling, VA
2 National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research
and Development, U.S. EPA, Ada, OK
Superfund Technology Support Center for Ground Water
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Subsurface Protection and Remediation Division
Roberts. Kerr Environmental Research Center
Ada, Oklahoma
Technology Innovation Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, US EPA, Washington, DC
WalterW. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
-------
Inadequate design and implementation also may severely impact
the performance of a P&T system. Examples of design
inadequacies include too few recovery wells, insufficient pumping
rates, deficient well locations or completion intervals, and failure
to account for complex chemistry of contaminants. Similarly,
poor system operation, exemplified by excessive downtime or
failure to manipulate pumping schemes to limit ground-water
stagnation, will restrict P&T effectiveness. This document
provides guidance on designing conventional ground-water
P&T systems. Chemical enhancements to P&T and immiscible
contaminant recovery methods are addressed elsewhere (e.g.,
American Petroleum Institute, 1989, 1992; Palmer and Fish,
1992; U.S. EPA, 1992a, 1995; Grubb and Sitar, 1994; NRC,
1994).
P&T Remediation
In order to determine an appropriate strategy to manage
contaminated ground water, it is necessary first to evaluate site
conditions and define remediation goals. Historically, the goal
of ground-water remediation has been to protect human health
and the environment and to restore ground water to beneficial
uses where practicable. For ground waterthat is or may be used
fordrinking, clean-up goals underCERCLAandRCRAgenerally
are set at drinking water standards such as Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established underthe Safe Drinking
Water Act. Other clean-up requirements may be appropriate
for ground water that is not used for drinking.
It has long been recognized that chemical transport from
contaminant source/release areas, such as abandoned landfills
and leaking tanks, contaminates ground water and other media
in downgradient areas (e.g., OTA, 1984). As such, a common
strategy for managing contaminated ground water has been to
remove or contain contaminant sources (e.g., by excavation,
construction of physical barriers, and/or pumping) and to address
downgradient contamination using P&T technology.
Strategies for managing ground-water contamination (Figure 2)
using P&T technology include: (1) hydraulic/physical
containment, (2) ground-water quality restoration, and (3) mixed
objective strategies. Several innovative technologies, such as
air sparging, engineered bioremediation, and permeable
treatment walls, can be used in conjunction with P&T, or alone,
to address these ground-water remediation objectives. At some
sites, natural attenuation processes may limit the need for P&T.
The management strategy selected depends on site-specific
hydrogeologic and contaminant conditions, and remediation
goals.
Hydraulic Containment
P&T systems are frequently designed to hydraulically control
the movement of contaminated ground water in orderto prevent
continued expansion of the contamination zone. At sites where
the contaminant source cannot be removed (e.g., a landfill or
bedrock with DNAPLs), hydraulic containment is an option to
achieve source control. Hydraulic containment of dissolved
contaminants by pumping ground water from wells or drains has
been demonstrated at numerous sites. The concept is illustrated
in Figure 3. Properly controlled fluid injection using wells,
drains, or surface application (e.g., along the downgradient
periphery of the proposed containment area) and physical
containment options (e.g., subsurface barrierwallsand surface
covers to limit inflow) can enhance hydraulic containment
TODAY
Plume Containment
Dissolved Rume
\
Pumping Well
Hume Cut-Off
Downgradient Aquifer Restoration
Pumping Wells for Cfeanup
/ I \ \ \ \
iHll&l. 1 I ' Y YV
******
Pump Well for
Source Containment
Downgradient Aquifer Restoration
Containment Pumping
and Cut-Off Wall
Aquifer Restoration
Pumping Wells for Cleanup
Source Removed
FUTURE
Dissolved Rume
\
Pumping Well
Natural Attenuation
ASA
MP *
RestoredAqufer
Pump Well for
Source Containment
Restored Aquifer
Containment Pumping
and Cut-Off Wall
Restored Aquifer
Figure 2. Several ground-water contamination management
strategies using P& T technology (after NRC, 1B94;
Cherry et al., 1992).
systems by reducing the pumping rate required to maintain
containment. In many cases, hydraulic containment systems
are designed to provide long-term containment of contaminated
ground water or source areas at the lowest cost by optimizing
well, drain, surface cover, and/or cutoff wall locations and by
minimizing pumping rates.
Cleanup/Restoration
For sites where the contaminant source has been removed or
contained, it may be possible to clean up the dissolved plume.
P&T technology designed for aquifer restoration generally
combines hydraulic containment with more aggressive
manipulation of ground water (i.e., higher pumping rates) to
attain clean-up goals during a finite period. Ground-water
cleanup is typically much more difficultto achieve than hydraulic
containment. Hydrogeologic and contaminant conditions
favorable to cleanup (e.g., degradable dissolved contaminants
in uniform, permeable media) are summarized in Figure 4.
Mixed Objective
At many sites, P&T systems can be used to contain contaminant
source areas and attempt restoration of downgradient dissolved
plumes (Figure 2). A mixed P&T strategy is appropriate,
therefore, at sites where different portions of the contaminated
-------
Static Water Table
Capture
Zone Limit
Upgradient
Barrier Wall
Hume
_ Downgradient
' Barrier Wall
Capture
Zone Limit
efforts must develop sufficient data to select and design an
effective remedy while recognizing that significant uncertainties
about subsurface conditions will persist.
Site characterization for remedial design is an extensive subject,
key aspects of which are addressed briefly below. Additional
information regarding procedures and strategies for investigating
contamination sites is provided by U.S. EPA (1988a, 1991 a,
1993b), Nielsen (1991), Cohen and Mercer(1993), Sara (1994),
CCME (1994), and Boulding (1995).
Using a Phased and Integrated Approach
Due to slow contaminant transport and interphase transfer,
many P&T systems will operate for decades to contain and
clean up contaminated ground water. Data collected during
investigation and remediation should be reviewed periodically
to refine the site conceptual model and identify modifications
that will improve P&T system performance. Thus, as depicted
in Figure 6, a phased and integrated approach should be taken
to site characterization and remediation. For example, given
significant uncertainty regarding well locations and pumping
rates needed to achieve remedial objectives, it may be prudent
to initiate pumping at several locations and then determine
system expansion requirements based on performance
monitoring data. This phased approach to system installation
may be more cost effective than grossly overdesigning the
system to account for uncertainty in subsurface characterization
at many sites.
During the initial phase of site investigation, prior studies and
background information are reviewed to identify likely
Figure 3. Examples of hydraulic containment in plan view and
cross section using an extraction well (a), a drain (b),
and a well within a barrier wall (c).
region are amenable to remediation using different methods. At
sites contaminated with LNAPLs (lighter-than-water NAPLs),
for example, a mixed remedial strategy may include: (1)
vacuum-enhanced pumping to recover free product, affect
hydraulic containment, and stimulate bioremediation in the
LNAPL release area; and (2) restoring downgradient ground
water via natural attenuation, P&T, and/or air sparging.
Characterizing for P&T Design
The main goal of site characterization should be to obtain
sufficient data to select and design a remedy (NRC, 1994). This
is accomplished by investigating: (1)the nature, extent, and
distribution of contaminants in source areas and downgradient
plumes; (2) potential receptors and risks posed by contaminated
ground water; and (3) hydrogeologic and contaminant properties
that affect containment, restoration, and system design in
different site areas. Categories of data used to formulate a site
conceptual model for remedy evaluation are identified in Figure
5. The conceptual model is used to formulate remedial strategies
such as restoration and/or containment.
Inadequate site characterization can lead to flawed P&T design
and poor system performance. A complete understanding of a
contamination site is unobtainable, however, due to subsurface
complexities and investigation cost. Thus, characterization
CONTAMNANrAND
HYDROGEOLOGIC
CHARACTERISnCS
GENERALIZED RESTORATION
DIFFICULTY SCALE
Increasing Difficulty >
SITE USE
Nature of Release
Small volume
Short duration »
Slug release
Laigevdume
Long duration
Continual
OTNTAMNANT PROPERTIES
Biofc/Abbtic Decay Potential
Volatility
Contaminant Sorption Potential
I ligh
Hinh >
nign >
Low
Low
Hfcjh
CONTAMINATE DISTRIBUTION
Contaminant Phase
Volume of Contaminated Media
Contaminant Depth
Aqueous, Gaseous »
Shallow -
LNAPL^DNAPL
Laige
Deep
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Stratigraphy
Unconsolidated Media Texlure
Degree of Heterogeneity
Simple i
Coais&grained >
Complex
Fine-grained
Hfcjh
GBOUNDWATER FLOW PARAMETERS
Hydraulic Conductivity
Temporal Variation
Vertical How
Hinh )
nign
(>0.01 cm/s)
I ittin >
Low
(<0.0001 cm/s)
Hicji
Highdownwaid
Figure 4. Generalized ground-water restoration difficulty scale
(modified from U.S. EPA, 1993a).
-------
Contaminant Sources
Location and characteristics of
continuing near-surface
releases and sources
Location of subsurface sources
(NAPL pods, residual NAPL,
metal precipitates, etc.)
Nature and Extent of
Contamination
Spatial distribution of
subsurface contaminants
Types and concentrations of
contaminants
Hydrogeologic Setting
Contaminant receptors
Description of regional and site
'gy
graphy (thickness and
il extent of units,
preferential pathways, etc.)
Depth to ground water
Hydraulic gradients
Hydraulic conductivity, storage
coefficient, porosity distribution
Temporal variation in water
levels
Ground-water recharge and
discharge
Ground water/surface water
interactions
Estimates of contaminant mass
Temporal trend in contaminant
concentration
Sorptbn data
Contaminant transformation
processes and rates
Contaminant migration rates
NAPL properties
Other characteristics that affect
transport and fate
Figure 5, Types of data used to develop a site conceptual model
for remedy assessment (modified from U.S. EPA,
1993a).
contaminantsources, transport pathways, and receptors. Based
on this initial conceptualization, a data collection program is
devised to better define the nature and extent of contamination
and provide information (i.e., hydraulic conductivity distribution,
aquifer boundary conditions, and initial hydraulic gradients) for
remedy design. Contaminantsourceanddowngradientdissolved
plume areas should be delineated early during the
characterization process to clarify site management strategies.
P&T systems can often be designed to contain source and
downgradient plume areas based on data acquired during the
early and intermediate phases of investigation. Additional
studies, including monitoring of actual P&T performance, are
usually required, however, to assess the potential to restore
ground-water quality in different site areas.
Mathematical models representing aspects of the site conceptual
model should be used to evaluate alternative extraction/injection
schemes, perform sensitivity analysis, and identify additional
data needs. Integrating P&T operation and monitoring data can
lead to model refinements and design enhancements.
P&T performance is typically assessed by measuring hydraulic
heads and gradients, ground-water flow directions and rates,
pumping rates, pumped water and treatment system effluent
quality, and contaminant distributions in ground water and
porous media. Guidance on methods for monitoring P&T
performance is provided by Cohen et al. (1994). Careful
examination of system performance, considering transient
effects, is commonly warranted during the first months after
start-up, andaftersubsequentmajorchangestoP&Toperation.
Remediation, therefore, should be considered part of site
characterization, yielding data that may lead to improved P&T
system design and operation.
In recognition of inherent uncertainty and the potential for
phased remediation, a reasonable degree of flexibility should
be incorporated in P&T design to accommodate modifications.
This may involve overdesign of certain system components
(e.g., pipe orelectric wire size), use of modular equipment(e.g.,
package treatment units), and strategic placement of junction
boxes. Overdesign may allow system modifications such as
Site background and
history review
Preliminary site
conceptual model
Preliminary site
investigation
Nature and extent of
contamination defined
Containment systems
designed
1 Near-surface
contaminantsources
removed
Drum and soil
removal
Excavation and
capping of lagoon
Monitoring
Subsurface contaminant
sources identified and
contained
Riot studies conducted
Source and
plume
containment
pumphg
Cleanup pilot
studies
Restoration potential
evaluated for site
subareas
Remediation systems
designed and installed
Remediation system
performance monitored
System adjusted as
necessary
Full-scale P&T
implementation
Figure 6. Iterative phases of site characterization and remediation
(modified from U.S. EPA, 1993a; NRC, 1994).
-------
incorporation of additional extraction wells or higher flow rates
at relatively minimal expense. The degree of overdesign
required as a contingency for uncertainties in subsurface
conditions will be site specific and largely dependent on the
level of site characterization performed priorto design. Estimates
of potential ranges of required flowrates may be obtained at
many sites during design-stage ground-water flow modeling.
Contaminant Characterization
Contaminant characterization is a key element of remedial
evaluations. The nature, distribution, and extent of contamination
will influence the selection of remedial actions and specific
system designs. Contaminant characterization data needed to
select and design a P&T system are listed in Figures. Important
goals include: (1) delineating contaminant source areas and
release characteristics; (2) defining the nature and extent
(horizontal and vertical) of contamination; (3) characterizing
contaminant transport pathways, processes, and rates; (4)
estimating risks associated with contaminant transport; and (5)
assessing aquifer restoration potential (see below). Contaminant
characterization efforts generally involve document review,
indirect and direct field characterization methods (e.g., soil, soil
gas analysis and ground-water sampling), and data analysis.
Assessing Potential Limitations to P&T
Monitoring contaminant concentrations in ground water with
time at P&T sites often reveals "tailing" and "rebound"
phenomena. "Tailing" refers to the progressively slower rate of
dissolved contaminant concentration decline observed with
continued operation of a P&T system (Figures 7 and 8). The
tailing contaminant concentration may exceed clean-up
standards. Another problem is that dissolved contaminant
concentrations may "rebound" if pumping is discontinued after
temporarily attaining a clean-up standard (Figure 7).
If aquifer restoration is a potential remediation goal, then site
characterization should investigate the physical and chemical
phenomenathatcausetailingand rebound. Atmanysites, most
of the contaminant mass is not dissolved in ground water, but is
present as NAPL, adsorbed species, and solids. Slow mass
transfer of contaminants from these phases to ground water
(a) Uniform sand-gravel aquifer
to
Contaminant concentration in
extracted water
to 11
Time
(b) Stratified sanckjravel aquifer
to
to ti
(c) Clay lens in uniform sand-gravel aquifer
to
(d) Uniform sand-gravel aquifer
to
12
Figure 8,
to
Hypothetical examples of contaminant removal using
P&T (modified from Mackay and Cherry, 1989). Black
indicates NAPL; stippling indicates contaminant in
dissolved and sorbed phases (with uniform initial
distribution); and arrows indicate relative ground-
water velocity. Ground water is pumped from the well
at the same rate for each case. The dotted lines in (a)
represent the volume of water that would have to be
pumped to flush slightly retarded contaminants from
the uniform aquifer.
Pump on -
Apparent
residual
. concentration «
%
Cleanup standard
Theoretical
removal without
tailing
Ftemoval
with tailing
Pump off
Fiebound
Pumping Duration or Volume Pumped
Figure 7. Concentration versus pumping duration or volume
showing tailing and rebound effects (modified from
Keely, 1989).
during P&T will cause tailing and prolong the clean-up effort.
Physical causes of tailing include ground-water velocity and
flowpath variations, and the slow diffusion of contaminants from
low permeabilityzones during P&Toperation. These phenomena
are briefly discussed in Appendix A.
Tailing and rebound patterns associated with different physical
and chemical processes are similar. Multiple processes (i.e.,
dissolution, diffusion, and desorption) will typically be active at
a P&T site. Diagnosis of the cause of tailing and rebound,
therefore, requires careful consideration of site conditions and
usually cannot be made by examining concentration-versus-
time data alone. Quantitative development of the conceptual
model using analytical or numerical methods may help estimate
the relative significance of different processes that cause tailing
and rebound. Knowledge of the potential limitations at each site
may allow more detailed analyses of the potential effectiveness
of different P&T remediation strategies and different system
configurations.
-------
Hydrogeologic Characterization
Components of hydrogeologic investigation needed for P&T
design are listed in Figure 5. Care must be taken to avoid
exacerbating the contamination problem as a result of field work
(e.g., inducing unwanted migration via drilling or pumping), or
performing investigations not needed for risk or remedy
assessment. Characterizingground-waterflowandcontaminant
transport is particularly challenging in heterogeneous media,
especially where contaminants have migrated into fractured
rock. Methods for characterizing fractured rock settings include
drilling/coring, aquifer tests, packer tests, tracer tests, surface
and borehole geophysical surveys, borehole flowmetersurveys,
and air photograph fracture trace analysis (Sara, 1994). At the
scale of many contaminated sites, complete characterization of
fractured rock (and other heterogeneous media) may be
economically infeasible (Schmelling and Ross, 1989), and not
needed to design an effective P&T system (NRC, 1994). The
appropriate characterization methods and level-of-effort must
be determined on a site-specific basis.
Long-term aquifer tests and phased-system installations are
often cost-effective means foracquiring field-scale hydrogeologic
and remedial design data. Aquifertests should be conducted to
acquire field-scale measurements of hydrogeologic properties,
such as formation transmissivity and storage coefficient, that
are critical to extraction system design. Test results are used to:
(1) determine well pumping rates and drawdowns; (2) assess
well locations and pumping rates needed forfull-scale operation;
(3) evaluate the design of well and treatment system components;
and (4) estimate capital and O&M costs. Recommended
procedures for conducting aquifer tests are described by
Osborne (1993) and others.
The number and duration of tests required to obtain sufficient
data to design a P&T system depends on many factors, including
plume size, the distribution of hydrogeologic units, theirhydraulic
properties, and hydrogeologic boundary conditions. In general,
multiple tests are warranted at large and heterogeneous sites.
Test design parameters (including specification of observation
well locations, testduration, and pumping rate) can be assessed
using well hydraulics solutions, ground-waterflow models, and/
or by conducting short-term step tests.
Observation wells should be located close enough to the pumping
well to ensure adequate responses to pumping stress.
Drawdowns will depend on site-specific hydrologic conditions
that influence ground-water elevations during the test. Wells
should also be located so that data may be used to evaluate
heterogeneity and anisotropy, if warranted.
Although reasonable estimates of formation transmissivity can
generally be obtained using data acquired during the first
several hours of pumping (if observation wells are close to the
pumping well), it may be advisable to extend aquifer tests to
days or weeks to evaluate capture zones, boundary conditions,
and ground-water treatability issues. Slug tests can also be
used to augment aquifer test results. However, short-term
aquifer and slug tests generally are not as reliable indicators of
system performance as long-term aquifer tests.
Disposal options for aquifer test water are subject to site
conditions and regulations but may include: discharge to a
storm or sanitary sewer, discharge to the ground, discharge to
surface water, reinjection to the subsurface, and transport to an
off-site disposal facility. Regulatory agencies should be contacted
to determine disposal requirements.
Ground-Water Treatability Studies
Treatability data needed for design of ground-water treatment
systems generally should be acquired by conducting chemical
analyses and treatability studies on contaminated ground water
extracted during aquifer tests. Analysis of water samples
obtained at different times during an aquifer test often will
provide data regarding the initial range of contaminant
concentrations in influent water to the treatment plant. Bench-
and pilot-scale treatability studies are valuable means for
determining the feasibility of candidate processes for treating
contaminatedgroundwater(U.S.EPA, 1989,1994a). Laboratory
bench-scale tests use small quantities of extracted ground
waterto provide preliminary data on various treatment processes,
pretreatment requirements, and potential costs. During pilot-
scale tests, skid-mounted or mobile pilot equipment is operated
to study the effect of varying system parameters (e.g., flow rate)
on treatment results and to identify potential problems, such as
chemical precipitation of dissolved iron (Fe) and manganese
(Mn) in an air stripper.
Air stripping and granular activated carbon (GAC) units maybe
used to remove organic compounds from ground water during
aquifer tests; ion exchange/adsorption can be used to remove
most metals (U.S. EPA, 1996). Air stripping is generally more
cost-effective than GAC for treating volatile organic compounds
when flow rates exceed 3 gpm (Long, 1993), but may require
additional vapor phase treatment.
Potential for Fluid Injection
Artificial fluid injection/recharge is used to enhance hydraulic
control and flushing of contamination zones. Treatment plant
effluent or public supply water can be injected above or below
the watertable via wells, trenches, drains, orsurface application
(sprinkler, furrow, orbasin infiltration). Theappliedwatercanbe
amended to stimulate bioremediation or to minimize well and
formation clogging problems. Recharge is typically controlled
by maintaining the water level in injection wells or drains or by
pumping at specified rates. Regulatory agencies should be
contacted to determine injection permit requirements. Potential
problems with the use of injection include undesired horizontal
or vertical contaminant migration due to the increased hydraulic
gradients. Sites where injection is to be used should be
carefully characterized and monitored to ensure that
environmental problems are not exacerbated.
Aspects of site characterization critical to fluid injection design
include determination of: (1) site stratigraphy and permeability
distribution, (2) hydrogeologic boundary conditions, (3) possible
injection rates and resulting hydraulic head and ground-water
flow patterns, and (4) the potential for well and formation
clogging due to injection.
Hydraulic parameters estimated from analysis of standard aquifer
tests are often used to design injection systems. Constant-
head, constant-rate, and stepped rate or head injection tests
can also be conducted to evaluate hydraulic properties and
injection potential using standard aquifer test procedures
(Driscoll, 1986; Kruseman and deRidder, 1990). More discrete
-------
techniques (e.g., packer tests, borehole flowmeter surveys)
may be desirable to identify high permeability zones. Hydraulic
heads and ground-water flow patterns resulting from injection
can be examined and predicted using well or drain hydraulics
equations and ground-water flow models. Such analysis can
also be used to determine potential injection rates, durations,
and monitoring locations for injection tests. In addition to
helping estimate formation hydraulic properties, injection tests
provide information on water compatibility and clogging issues
that are critical to injection design.
The most common problem associated with fluid injection is
permeability reduction due to clogging of screen openings. This
causes a decline in injection rates. Clogging results from
physical filtration of solids suspended in injected water, chemical
precipitation of dissolved solids, and the excessive growth of
microorganisms (also known as biofouling). Less frequently,
well or formation damage results from air entrainment, clay
swelling, and clay dispersion due to injection. In general, the
injection capacity of a system is often overdesigned by a
significant factor (e.g., 1.5 to 2) to account for loss of capacity
underoperating conditions dueto such problems as permeability
reduction and the temporary loss of capacity during well
maintenance. The optimal degree of overdesign is site specific
and will depend on such factors as the rate at which clogging
occurs and the cost of maintenance.
The potential for well clogging and mitigative measures can be
examined by analysis of the injected fluid and bench scale
testing. In general, injection water should contain: (1) no
suspended solids to minimize clogging; (2) little or no dissolved
oxygen, nutrients, and microbes to minimize biofouling; and (3)
low concentrations of constituents that are sensitive to changes
in pH, redox, pressure, and temperature conditions (e.g., Fe
and Mn)to minimize precipitation. Column permeameter tests
can be conducted to examine changes in hydraulic conductivity
resulting from injection. Due to the potential significance of
many hydrogeologic, physical, and chemical factors, however,
fluid injection is best evaluated by conducting extended
injection tests during which injection rates and hydraulic heads
are monitored carefully. Results of field tests help define
formation hydraulic properties, potential injection rates, injection
well spacings, mounding response, and clogging potential.
Dissolved or suspended solids may need to be removed from
water by aeration, flocculation, and filtration prior to injection.
Similarly, nutrients and/or dissolved oxygen may need to be
removed to prevent biofouling. Water should be injected below
the water table through a pipe to prevent its aeration in the well.
Injecting warm water can also promote biofouling. Clogging
problems can be minimized by overdesigning injection capacity
(e.g., by installing more wells, longer screens, etc.) and
implementing a regular well maintenance program.
Extraction and injection rate monitoring and well inspection,
using a downhole video camera or other means, can help
identify wells in need of treatment or replacement. Periodic
rehabilitation of wells or drains (by surging, jetting, chlorination,
or acid treatment) may be required to restore declining injection
rates (Driscoll, 1986). Chemical incrustation can be addressed
by acid treatment, backwashing, mechanical agitation (with a
wire brush or surge block), and pumping. Strong oxidizing
agents, such as a chlorine solution, can be used in conjunction
with backwashing, mechanical agitation, and pumping to treat
wells damaged by slime-producing bacteria. Acidification and
chlorination, however, may interfere with interpretation of
ground-water chemistry data. Fine particles can be removed
(to some extent) using standard well development techniques.
Experienced well drillers should be contacted for advice on
rehabilitation methods. These potential problems need to be
considered when projecting P&T costs. Significant maintenance
may be required at many sites to retain desired injection
capacity. More detailed discussions of the engineering aspects
of water injection are provided by Pyne (1995).
Data Presentation
Complete discussion of methods for characterization and
remedial design analyses and supporting data is beyond the
scope of this document. In general, such information should be
presented graphically and accompanied by supporting
calculations and analyses. Tools for electronic storage,
manipulation, analysis, and display of data and designs are
generally available and often provide a convenient format for
storage and access of this information (e.g., database, CAD,
and/or GIS programs). Characterization data such as three-
dimensional contaminant distribution are best presented on site
maps and in representative cross sections. Hydraulic properties
and hydraulic head data may also be presented in similar
fashion. Pertinentfeaturessuchaswelllocations(i.e.,monitoring,
production, injection), surface water bodies, potential source
areas, and relevant structures should be included, as appropriate.
Supporting data should be provided in tabular or spreadsheet
form and accompany the maps and cross sections.
Capture Zone Analysis for P&T Design
P&T design is refined by performing field tests, modeling
alternative injection/extraction schemes, and monitoring system
performance. The first step in establishing design criteria, after
characterizing pre-remedy ground-water flow patterns and
contaminant distributions, is to determine the desired
containment and/or restoration area (two-dimensional) and
volume (three-dimensional). These should be clearly specified
in the remedial design and monitoring plans. After defining the
proposed containment area, a capture zone analysis is conducted
to design the P&T system and a performance monitoring plan is
developed based on the predicted flow field.
The capture zone of an extraction well or drain refers to that
portion of the subsurface containing ground water that will
ultimately discharge to the well or drain (Figures 3 and 9). It
should be noticed thatthecapturezone of a well is not coincident
with its drawdown zone of influence (ZOI) (Figure 9). The extent
of the ZOI depends largely on transmissivity and pumping rate
under steady-state conditions. However, the shape of the
capture zone depends on the natural hydraulic gradient as well
as pumping rate and transmissivity. Relatively high natural
hydraulic gradients result in narrow capture zones that do not
extend far in the downgradient direction. Therefore, some
sidegradientanddowngradientareaswithintheZOI of a recovery
well will be beyond its capture zone, and "rules-of-thumb"
regarding overlapping drawdown zones should not be used to
determine well spacings or pumping rates for P&T design.
In recent years, many mathematical models have been
developed or applied to compute capture zones, ground-water
pathlines, flushing rates, and associated travel times to extraction
-------
w = Q/2Ti
w = -Q/2Ti
(b)
(d)
Cross Section
Ground Surface
Partially-Penetrating
Trench Drain
Figure 9. (a) Illustration of drawdown contours (i.e., zone of influence) and the capture zone of a single pumping well in a uniform
medium. Equations for the dividing streamlines (w = Q/2TI) that separate the capture zone of a single well from the rest of
an isotropic, confined aquifer with a uniform regional hydraulic gradient are given in (b) where T= transmissivity, Q=pumping
rate, and i = initial uniform hydraulic gradient. Simplified capture zone analysis methods may provide misleading results
when applied to more complex problems, such as those dealing with heterogeneous media, as depicted in (c) where K =
relative hydraulic conductivity, and three-dimensional flow (d).
wells or drains (Javandel etal., 1984; Javandel and Tsang, 1986;
Shafer, 1987a,b; Newsom and Wilson, 1988; Fitts, 1989,1994;
Strack, 1989; Bonn and Rounds, 1990; Bair et al., 1991;
Rumbaugh, 1991; Bair and Roadcap, 1992; Blandford et al.,
1993; Gorelicketa!., 1993; Pollock, 1994; Strack etal., 1994).
These models provide insight into flow patterns generated by
alternative P&T schemes and the selection of monitoring locations
and frequency. Additionally, linear programming methods are
being used to optimize P&T design (Ahlfeld and Sawyer, 1990;
Gorelick et al., 1993; Hagemeyer et al., 1993) by specifying an
objective function subject to various constraints (e.g., minimize
pumping rates but maintain inward hydraulic gradients).
Model selection for P&T design analysis depends on the
complexity of the site, available data, and the familiarity of the
analyst with different codes. In general, the simplest tool
applicable to site conditions and the desired degree of uncertainty
should be used in design. However, conditions at many sites
will be sufficiently complex that screening level characterizations
and design tools will result in significant uncertainty. Regardless
of the design tools which are used, capture zone analysis
should also be conducted, and well locations and pumping rates
optimized, by monitoring hydraulic heads and flow rates during
aquifer tests and system operation. Conceptual model
refinements gained by monitoring lead to enhanced P&T design
and operation. In some cases, these refinements are
incorporated in a mathematical model that is used to reevaluate
and improve system design.
Capture Zone Analysis Tools
Many types of tools are available for capture zone analysis and
system design (Table 1). Graphical methods are useful screening
level design tools in many situations. Based on this approach,
the simple graphical method shown in Figure 9 can be used to
locate the stagnation point and dividing streamlines, and then
-------
Table 1. P&T Design Tools (modified from van der Heijde and Elnawawy, 1993)
Method
Example
Description
Aquifer Tests and
Pilot Testing
Controlled and monitored pilot tests are conducted to assist P&T design.
Suggested operating procedures for aquifer tests and analytical methods
are described by Osborne (1993) and many others. Test results should be
used to improve P&T design modeling, where applicable.
Graphical -
Capture Zone
Type Curves
(Javandel and
Tsang, 1986)
A simple graphical method can be used to determine minimum pumping rates and
well spacings needed to maintain capture using 1, 2, or 3 pumping wells along a line
perpendicular to the regional direction of ground-water flow in a confined aquifer.
Semi-analytical
Ground-Water
Flow and Pathline
Models
WHPA
(Blandford et al.,
1993)
WHAEM
(Strack et al.,
1994; Haitjema et
al., 1994)
These models superposition analytic functions to simulate simple or complex
aquifer conditions including wells, line sources, line sinks, recharge, and regional
flow (Strack, 1989). Advantages include flexibility, ease of use, speed, accuracy,
and no model grid. Generally limited to analysis of 2-D flow problems.
Numerical MODFLOW Finite-difference (FD) and finite element (FE) ground-water flow models have been
Models of (McDonald and developed to simulate 2-D areal or cross-sectional and quasi- or fully- 3-D, steady
Ground-Water Harbaugh, 1988) or transient flow in anisotropic, heterogeneous, layered aquifer systems. These
Flow models can handle a variety of complex conditions allowing analysis of simple and
complex ground-water flow problems, including P&T design analysis. Various pre-
and post-processors are available. In general, more complex and detailed site
characterization data are required for simulation of complex problems.
Pathline and
Particle Tracking
Post-Processors
MODPATH
(Pollock, 1994)
GPTRAC
(Blandford et al.,
1993)
These programs use particle tracking to calculate pathlines, capture zones, and
travel times based on ground-water flow model output. Programs vary in assumptions
and complexity of site conditions that may be simulated (e.g., 2-D or 3-D flow,
heterogeneity, anisotropy).
Numerical
Models of
Ground-water
Flow and
Contaminant
Transport
MT3D
(Zheng, 1992)
MOC
(Konikow and
Bredehoeft, 1989)
These models can be used to evaluate aquifer restoration issues such as changes
in contaminant mass distribution with time due to P&T operation.
Optimization
Models
MODMAN
(Greenwald,
1993)
Optimization programs designed to link with ground-water flow models yield
answers to questions such as: (1) where should pumping and injection wells be
located, and (2) at what rate should water be extracted or injected at each well?
The optimal solution maximizes or minimizes a user-defined objective function and
satisfies all user-defined constraints. A typical objective may be to maximize the
total pumping rate from all wells, while constraints might include upper and lower
limits on heads, gradients, or pumping rates. A variety of objectives and constraints
are available to the user, allowing many P&T issues to be considered.
Software is available from a variety of sources including the Center for Subsurface Modeling Support at the U.S. EPA's Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Center in Ada, Oklahoma (405-436-8594).
-------
sketch the capture zone of a single well in a uniform flow field.
This analysis is extended by Javandel and Tsang (1986) to
determine the minimum uniform pumping rates and well spacings
needed to maintain a capture zone between two or three
pumping wells along a line perpendiculartothe regional direction
of ground-water flow. Their capture zone design criteria and
type curves can be used for capture zone analysis, but more
efficient P&T systems can be designed with nonuniform pump
well orientations, spacings, and extraction rates. The extent to
which the results ofthese simple models represent actual conditions
depends on the extent to which the assumptions vary from actual
site conditions.
More complextools are often necessary to optimize P&T design
and reduce uncertainty. Several semianalytical models employ
complex potentialtheoryto calculate stream functions, potential
functions, specific discharge distribution, and/or velocity
distribution by superimposing the effects of multiple extraction/
injection wells using the Thiem equation on an ambient uniform
ground-water flow field in a two-dimensional, homogeneous,
isotropic, confined, steady-state system (e.g., RESSQC,
Blandford etal., 1993). Streamlines, flushing rates, and capture
zones associated with irregular well spacings and variable
pumping rates can be simulated by these models. Many of
these models support reverse and forward particle tracking to
trace capture zones and streamlines. For example, reverse
particle tracking is implemented in RESSQC to derive steady-
state capture zones by releasing particles from the stagnation
point(s) of the system and tracking their advective pathlines in
the reversed velocity field. Similarly, time-related captures
zones (Figure 10) are obtained by tracing the reverse pathlines
formed by particles released around each pumping well (Shafer,
1987a; Blandford etal., 1993).
Application of semianalytical models to field problems requires
careful evaluation of their limiting assumptions (e.g., isotropic
and homogeneous hydraulicconductivity, fully-penetrating wells,
no recharge, no vertical flow component, and constant
transmissivity). Several analytical models relaxthese restrictive
assumptions by superposition of various functions to treat
recharge, layering, heterogeneity, three-dimensional flow, etc.
Examples of two-dimensional time-related capture zones
determined using TWODAN (Fitts, 1994; 1995) are shown in
Figure 10. Given their ease of use and inherent uncertainties
regarding the ground-water flow field, the more robust
semianalytical models are ideal tools for evaluating alternative
injection/extraction well locations and pumping rates at many
sites. Where field conditions do not conform sufficiently to
model assumptions, the simulation results will be invalid.
Numerical models are generally used to simulate ground-water
flow in complexthree-dimensionaI hydrogeologic systems (e.g.,
MODFLOW, McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988; and SWIFT/486,
Ward etal., 1993). For example, the benefits of using partially-
penetrating recovery wells to minimize pumping rates and
unnecessary vertical spreading of contaminants can be examined
using a three-dimensional flow model. Numerical flow model
output is processed using reverse or forward particle-tracking
software such as MODPATH (Pollock, 1994), GWPATH (Shafer,
1987b), and PATH3D (Zheng, 1990) to assess pathlines and
capture zones associated with P&T systems at sites that cannot
be adequately modeled using simpler techniques. Solute
transport models are primarily run to address aquifer restoration
issues such as changes in contaminant mass distribution with
time due to P&T operation.
Ground-water flow models can be coupled with linear
programming optimization schemes to determine the most
effective well placements and pumping rates for hydraulic
containment. The optimal solution maximizes or minimizes a
user-defined objective function subject to all user-defined
constraints. In a P&T system, a typical objective function may
be to minimize the pumping rate to reduce cost, while constraints
may include specified inward gradients at key locations, and
limits on drawdowns, pumping rates, and the numberof pumping
wells. Gorelick et al. (1993) present a review of the use of
optimization techniques in combination with ground-water
models for P&T system design. Available codes include AQMAN
(Lefkoff and Gorelick, 1987), an optimization code that employs
the Trescott et al. (1976) two-dimensional ground-water flow
model, and MODMAN (Greenwald, 1993), which adds
optimization capability to the three-dimensional USGS
MODFLOW model (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). A case
study of optimization code use to assist P&T design is given by
Hagemeyeret al. (1993).
Techniques have been presented in the literature for combining
nonlinear optimization methods with contaminant transport
simulation models (Gorelick, 1983; Wagner and Gorelick, 1987;
Ahlfeld et al., 1988). These techniques are intended to provide
solutions to problems formulated in terms of predicted
concentrations (e.g., minimize pumping such that TCE is below
the required clean-up level within five years at target locations).
However, such analysis requires the use of a solute transport
model and solution of a relatively difficult nonlinear problem. As
a result, computation effort is large and uncertainty in results is
high compared to optimization based on ground-water flow.
Nonlinear optimization methods using solute transport models
have not yet been packaged into commercial software and have
rarely been applied to ground-water contamination problems.
Extraction / Injection Scheme Design
For a successful hydraulic containment, contaminants moving
with ground water in the desired containment zone must follow
pathlines that are captured by the P&T system. An appropriate
remedial objective might be to minimize the total cost required
to maintain perpetual containment and satisfy regulatory
requirements. Given this objective, installing low permeability
barriers (Figure 3c) to reduce pumping rates might be cost-
effective. At sites with an objective of contaminant mass
removal (i.e., where the containment area size may be diminished
or P&T discontinued if clean-up goals are met), a more complex
cost-effectiveness trade-off exists between minimizing hydraulic
containment costs and maximizing contaminant mass removal
rates.
Unless natural attenuation mechanisms are being relied uponto
limit plume migration, hydraulic containment is generally a
prerequisiteforaquiferrestoration. Restoration P&Tdesign will
typically reflect a compromise among objectives that seek to:
(1) reduce contaminant concentrations to clean-up standards,
(2) maximize mass removal, (3) minimize clean-uptime, and (4)
minimize cost. Due to the limitations described in Appendix A,
P&T foraquiferrestoration requires a high degree of performance
monitoring and management to identify problem areas and
improve system design and operation.
Restoration P&T ground-water flow management involves
optimizing well locations, depths, and injection/extraction rates
to maintain an effective hydraulic sweep through the
10
-------
3 wells /
23 gpm extraction per well
1000 Feet
§ $
I I I I
3 wells
23 gpin extraction per well/
(c)
(d)
a 8 s 8
I I I I I
6 wells
123 gpm extraction from 3 wells
j 110 gpm injection via 3 wells (x )
Figure 10, Hydraulic head contours and capture zones simulated using TWODAN (Fitts, 1995) for several extraction/injection schemes
in an aquifer with a uniform transmissivity of 1000 ft 2/d, and an initial hydraulic gradient of 0,01, Pathline time intervals of
one year are marked by arrows. Note the stagnation zones that develop downgradient of extraction wells and upgradient of
injection wells.
11
-------
contamination zone, minimize stagnation zones, flush pore
volumes through the system, and contain contaminated ground
water. Wells are installed in lines and other patterns to achieve
these objectives (Figure 10). Horizontal wells and drains are
constructed to create ground-water line sinks and mounds, and
thereby affect linear hydraulic sweeps.
Pore Volume Flushing
Restoration requires that sufficient ground water be flushed
through the contaminated zone to remove both existing dissolved
contaminants and those that will continue to desorb from porous
media, dissolve from precipitates or NAPL, and/or diffuse from
low permeability zones. The sum of these processes and
dilution in the flow field yields persistent acceptable ground-
water quality at compliance locations.
The volume of ground water within a contamination plume is
known as the pore volume (PV), which is defined as
bn dA
(1)
where b is the plume thickness, n is the formation porosity, and
A is the area of the plume. If the thickness and porosity are
relatively uniform, then
PV = BnA (2)
where B is the average thickness of the plume.
Assuming linear, reversible, and instantaneous sorption, no
NAPL or solid contaminants, and neglecting dispersion, the
theoretical number of PVs required to remove a contaminant
from a homogeneous aquifer is approximated by the retardation
factor, R, which is the ground-water flow velocity relative to
velocity of dissolved contaminant movement. An example of
the relationship between the number of PVs and R, that also
accounts for dispersion, is demonstrated by a numerical model
used to evaluate a P&T design at the Chem-Dyne site in Ohio
(Wardetal., 1987). Dueto simulation of linearsorption, anearly
linear relationship was found to exist between retardation and
the duration of pumping (or volume pumped) needed to reach
the ground-water clean-up goal. Batch flush models (e.g., U.S.
EPA, 1988b; Zheng etal., 1992)often assume linearsorption to
calculate the number of PVs required to reach a clean-up
concentration, Cwt in ground wateras a function of the retardation
factor, R, and the initial aqueous-phase contaminant
concentration, Cwo:
No. of PVs = -R\n(Cwt/Cwo/
(3)
Though useful for simple systems, the representation of linear,
reversible, and instantaneous sorption in contaminanttransport
models can lead to significant underestimation of P&T clean-up
times. For example, the desorption of most inorganic
contaminants (e.g., chromium and arsenic) is nonlinear. In
addition, much of the pore space in aquifer materials may not be
available forfluid flow. In such situations, flushing is not efficient
and removal of a greater number of pore volumes of water will
be required.
Kinetic limitations often may prevent sustenance of equilibrium
contaminant concentrations in groundwater(Bahr, 1989; Brogan,
1991; Haley etal., 1991; Palmer and Fish, 1992). Such effects
occur in situations where contaminant mass transfer to flowing
ground water is slow relative to ground-water velocity. For
example, contaminant mass removal from low permeability
materials may be limited by the rate of diffusion from these
materials into more permeable flowpaths. In this situation,
increasing ground-water velocity and pore volume flushing
rates beyond a certain point would provide very little increase in
contaminant removal rate. Kinetic limitations to mass transfer
are likely to be relatively significantwhere ground-watervelocities
are high surrounding injection and extraction wells.
The number of PVs that must be extracted for restoration is a
function of the clean-up standard, the initial contaminant
distribution, and the chemical/media phenomena that affect
cleanup. Screening-level estimates of the number of PVs
required for cleanup can be made by modeling and by assessing
the trend of contaminant concentration versus the number of
PVs removed. At many sites, numerous PVs (i.e., 10 to 100s)
will have to be flushed through the contamination zone to attain
clean-up standards.
The number of PVs withdrawn per year is a useful measure of
the aggressiveness of a P&T operation. Many current systems
are designed to remove between 0.3 and 2 PVs annually. For
example, less than 2 PVs peryearwere extracted at 22 of the
24 P&T systems studied by U.S. EPA (1992b) and reviewed
by NRC (1994). Low permeability conditions or competing
uses for ground water may restrict the ability to pump at higher
rates. As noted above, kinetic limitations to mass transfer
also may diminish the benefit of higher pumping rates. The
potential significance of such limitations should be evaluated
prior to installation of aggressive systems designed for
relatively high flushing rates. If limiting factors are not
present, pumping rates may be increased to hasten cleanup.
The time required to pump one pore volume of ground water
from the contaminated zone is a fundamental parameter that
should be calculated for P&T systems. NRC (1994), however,
determined that the number of PVs withdrawn at P&T sites is
rarely reported. Restoration assessments should include
estimates of the number of PVs needed for cleanup. However,
it must be noted that such analyses generally oversimplify
highly complex site conditions. It may often be impracticable to
characterize the site in sufficient detail to reduce uncertainty in
estimates of restoration time frames to insignificant levels.
Uncertainty in these estimates should be considered during
remedial evaluations.
Poor P&T design may lead to low system effectiveness and
contaminant concentration tailing. Poor design factors include
low pumping rates and improper location of pumping wells and
completion depths. A simple check on the total pumping rate is
to calculate the number of PVs peryear. Inadequate location or
completion of wells or drains may lead to poor P&T performance
even if the total pumping rate is appropriate. Forexample, wells
placed at the containment area perimeter may withdraw a large
volume of clean ground water from beyond the plume via
flowlines that do not flush the contaminated zone. Similarly,
pumping from the entire thickness of a formation in which the
contamination is limited vertically will reduce the fraction of
waterthatflushesthecontaminatedzone. In general, restoration
pumping wells or drains should be placed in areas of relatively
high contaminant concentration as well as locations suitable for
achieving hydraulic containment.
12
-------
Well placement can be evaluated by: (1) using ground-water
flow and transport models; (2) comparing contaminant mass
removed to contaminant mass dissolved in ground water; and
(3) applying expert knowledge. P&T system modifications should
be considered if any of these methods indicate that different
pumping locations or rates will improve system effectiveness.
Minimize Ground-Water Stagnation
Ground-water flow patterns need to be managed to minimize
stagnation during P&T operation. Stagnation zones develop in
areas where the P&T operation produces low hydraulic gradients
(e.g., downgradient of a pumping well and upgradient of an
injection well) and in low permeability zones regardless of
hydraulic gradient. Ground-water flow modeling can be used to
assess ground water and solute velocity distributions, travel
times, and stagnation zones associated with alternative pumping
schemes. During operation, stagnation zones can be identified
by measuring hydraulic gradients, tracer movement, ground-
waterflow rates (e.g., with certain types of downholeflowmeters
or in situ probes), and by modeling analysis. Low permeability
heterogeneities should be delineated as practicable during the
site characterization and P&T operation. Stagnation zones
associated with different pumping schemes are evident in
Figure 10.
Once identified, the size, magnitude, and duration of stagnation
zones can be diminished by changing pumping (extraction and/
orinjection) schedules, locations, and rates. Again, flow modeling
based on field data may be used to estimate optimum pumping
locations and rates to limit ground-water stagnation. An adaptive
pumping scheme, whereby extraction/injection pumping is
modified based on analysis of field data, should result in more
expedient cleanup.
Guidance from Modeling Studies
Several modeling studies have been conducted to examine the
effectiveness of alternative extraction and injection well schemes
with regard to hydraulic containment and ground-water clean-
up objectives (e.g., Freeberg et al., 1987; Satkin and Bedient,
1988; Ahlfeld and Sawyer, 1990; Tiedeman and Gorelick, 1993;
Marquis, Jr. and Dineen, 1994; Haggerty and Gorelick, 1994).
Although the optimum extraction/injection scheme depends on
site-specific conditions, objectives, and constraints,
consideration should be given to guidance derived from
simulation studies of P&T performance.
A conceptual modeling analysis using FTWORK (Faust et al.,
1993) of three alternative pumping strategies for an idealized
site with a uniform medium, linear equilibrium sorption, a single
non-degrading contaminant, and a continuing release is
presented in Figure 11. The plume management strategies
include: (1) downgradient pumping, (2) source control with
downgradient pumping, and (3) source control with mid-plume
and downgradient pumping. As shown, downgradient pumping
by itself allows and increases the movement of highly
contaminated ground water throughout the flowpath between
the release area and the downgradient recovery well. This
alternative results in expansion of the highly contaminated
plume and makes it more difficult to achieve cleanup. The
importance of source control is clearly demonstrated by
comparing the management alternatives. Source control
pumping prevents continued offsite migration and thereby
facilitates downgradient cleanup of contaminated ground water.
The combined source control, mid-plume, and downgradient
pumping alternative reduces the flowpath and travel time of
contaminants to extraction wells and diminishes the impact of
processes which cause tailing. As such, with more aggressive
P&T, cleanup is achieved more quickly and the volume of
ground water that must be pumped for cleanup is less than for
the other alternatives.
The effectiveness of seven injection/extraction well schemes
shown in Figure 12 at removing a contaminant plume was
evaluated by Satkin and Bedient (1988) using the MOC transport
model (Konikow and Bredehoeft, 1989). The performance of
each scheme was assessed for eight different hydrogeologic
conditions, which were simulated by varying maximum
drawdown, dispersivity, and regional hydraulic gradient.
Effectiveness wasjudged based on simulated cleanup, flushing
rate, and the volume of water requiring treatment. Findings of
this study include (Satkin and Bedient, 1988): (1) multiple
extraction wells located along the plume axis (the center line
scheme) reduce clean-up time by shortening contaminanttravel
paths and allowing higher pumping rates; (2) the three-spot,
double-cell, and doublet schemes were effective under low
hydraulic gradient conditions, but require onsite treatment and
reinjection; (3) the three-spot pattern outperformed the other
schemes forsimulations incorporating a high regional hydraulic
gradient; and, (4) the center line pattern was effective under all
simulated conditions. Andersen et al. (1984) and Satkin and
Bedient (1988) showed that the five-spot pattern (Figure 12)
may be a relatively inefficient scheme for cleanup.
Brogan (1991) and Galley and Gorelick (1993) used simulations
to demonstrate that the best single recovery well location is
somewhat downgradient of a plume's center of mass. The
optimum location (requiring the lowest pumping rate) for a
single extraction well to remediate a plume within a given time
period increases in distance downgradient from the center of
contaminant mass with increasing remediation time (Galley and
Gorelick, 1993; Haggerty and Gorelick, 1994). Thus, optimum
pumping locations and rates depend on the specified clean-up
time frame.
The relative merits of conventional extraction/injection well
schemes, in-situ bioremediation, and P&Tenhanced by injecting
oxygenated water to stimulate biodegradation for containing
and cleaning up a hypothetical naphthalene plume in a uniform
aquiferwere examined by Marquis and Dineen (1994). Nineteen
remediation alternatives were modeled using BIOPLUME II
(Rifaietal., 1987), a modified version of the MOC code (Konikow
and Bredehoeft, 1989) that simulates oxygen transport and
oxygen-limited biodegradation. Key findings made by Marquis
and Dineen (1994) include the following: (1) ground-water
extraction was more effective at preventing offsite migration
than bioremediation; (2) P&T enhanced by injecting highly
oxygenated water (with 50 mg/L dissolved oxygen) provided the
most effective plume control and cleanup; (3) greatercontaminant
mass reductions occurred when extraction or injection wells
were located in the more contaminated portions of the plume;
(4) cleanup is hastened by minimizing the distances that
contaminants must travel to extraction wells or that dissolved
oxygen must travel to reach degradable contaminants; (5) to
maximize containment, P&T schemes should be designed to
produce convergent flow toward a central extraction location
and to minimize divergent flow along the plume periphery; and
(6) extraction/injection schemes should be designed to minimize
the presence of upgradient and intraplume stagnation areas.
13
-------
Uniform Pre-Pumping
Ground-Water Flow
Direction
Dissolved
Contaminant
Concentration
Coordinates in feet
Simulated Potentiometric Surface
for each Pumping Alternative
31 gpm
Continuing Contaminant
Source Area
Pre-Pumping Dissolved Contaminant
Concentration Distribution
(after 5 years of plume growth)
Downgradient Pumping
26 gpm
16 gpm
Source and Downgradient Pumping
21
Source, Mid-Plume, and
Downgradient Pumping
5 Years
9 Years
19 Years
29 Years
39 Years
Duration of Ground-Water Extraction
Figure 11. Results of FTWORK (Faust et al., 1993) simulation analysis of three P&T alternatives for an idealized site (with uniform media,
linear equilibrium sorption, and a single non-degrading contaminant) showing dissolved contaminant concentrations with time of
pumping.
-------
Extraction
Well
Figure 12, Well schemes evaluated by Satkin and Bedient (1988),
Pulsed Pumping
Pulsed pumping, with alternating pumping and resting periods
as illustrated in Figure 13, has been suggested as a means to
address tailing, flush stagnation zones by selective well cycling,
and increase P&T efficiency (Keely, 1989; Borden and Kao,
1992; Gorelick et al., 1993). Dissolved contaminant
concentrations increase due to diffusion, desorption, and
dissolution in slower-moving ground water during the resting
phase of pulsed pumping. Once pumping is resumed, ground
water with higher concentrations is removed, thus increasing
the rate of mass removal during active pumping. Due to slow
mass transfer from immobile phases to flowing ground water,
however, contaminant concentrations decline with continued
pumping until the next resting phase begins.
Several simulation studies have been conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of pulsed pumping (Powers et al., 1991; Brogan,
1991; Borden and Kao, 1992; Armstrong etal., 1994; Rabideau
and Miller, 1994; and Harvey etal., 1994). Harvey etal. (1994)
found that: (1) for equal volumes of ground water extracted,
pulsed pumping does not remove more contaminant mass than
pumping continuously at the lower equivalent time-averaged
rate; (2) if the resting period is too long, pulsed pumping will
remove much less mass than pumping continuously at an
equivalenttime-averaged rate; and, (3) if pulsed and continuous
pumping rates are the same, pulsed pumping will take longerto
achieve clean-up goals, but will require significantly less time of
pump operation. At many sites with significant tailing and
rebound, it will be preferable, therefore, to pump continuously at
a lower average rate than to initiate pulsed pumping. Cost
savings associated with less time of pump operation, however,
may make pulsed pumping advantageous.
If used, pulsed pumping schedules can be developed based on
pilottests, modeling analysis, orongoing performance monitoring
of hydraulic heads and contaminant concentrations. The
pumping period should be long enough to remove most of the
contaminant mass in the mobile ground water. The resting
period should not be so long that the dissolved concentration in
mobile ground water exceeds 70% to 90% of its equilibrium
value. Additional resting becomes inefficient as equilibrium is
approached because the rate of masstransferfrom immobileto
mobile phases is driven by the concentration gradient. Care
must be taken to ensure thatthe hydraulic containment objective
is met during pump rest periods. Further guidance on interpreting
field data to designate pulsed pumping parameters is provided
by Harvey etal. (1994). Simulation results showing the sensitivity
of pulsed pumping performance to rest period duration are
shown in Figure 13.
I Rate
Sensitivity to Rest Period
500 1000 1500
Time (days)
Figure 13. Effects of varying pulsed pumping parameters (after
Harvey etal., 1994). The fraction of total mass removed
with time is shown in (a) and (d); pumping well
concentrations are shown in (b), (c), (e), and (f). Dashed
lines represent equivalent constant pumping rates.
Black bars at top of figures represent pumping periods
and white bars represent rest periods.
Dealing with Multiple Contaminant Plumes
Multiple contaminants that migrate at different velocities in
ground water are commonly encountered at contamination
sites. Compoundsthatpartitionmorestronglytothesolidphase
are transported more slowly, remain closerto source areas, and
are more difficult to extract from the subsurface by pumping
than the more mobile compounds. Thus, a P&T design that is
ideal for a single contaminant plume might perform poorly at a
site with multiple contaminants.
Haggerty and Gorelick (1994) used a solute transport model
and optimization analysis to examine the ability of five pumping
schemes to simultaneously remediate three contaminant plumes
that were chromatographically separated during ground-water
transport. The simulated problem and alternative extraction
schemes are shown in Figure 14.
In the single well scheme, one well is placed along the plume
axis at one of the indicated locations. For the other schemes,
15
-------
Row
ecu
DCA
THF
Single Well Scheme
Flow
ecu
DCA
THF
Classic DowngreKfent Scheme
now
ecu
DCA
THF
Individual Downgradient Scheme
Flow
Row
300 meters
ecu
DCA mp
Hot-Spot Scheme
ecu
DCA
THF
Combination Scheme
CQ-4 = carbon tetrachloride
DCA=1,2, dichlaoethane
THF=tetrahydroliran
Initial 5 ng/L contours shown
Possible well location
Figure 14. Map view of five pumping schemes studied by Haggerty and Gorelick (1994) overlain on the initial 5 ng/L contours of
simulated CCI4, DCA, and THF plumes. Many of the possible well locations were not used because the optimization analysis
determined pumping at some locations to bet) liters/sec. Only the optimum single well location was used for pumping under
the single well scheme (modified from Haggerty and Gorelick, 1994),
wells can be placed at any number of the sites shown. The
optimum number, location, and pumping rates of wells in each
scheme were determined using the optimization modelto achieve
cleanup at the lowest possible pumping rate within a specified
remediation period. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to
examine the influence of mass transfer rate limitations on
contaminant mobilization and removal. Findings presented by
Haggerty and Gorelick (1994) for each pumping scheme are
summarized in Figure 15.
Forthe smallest mass transfer rate parameter, £, = 0.005 day1,
none of the schemes can achieve cleanup within three years
regardless of pumping rate due to mass transfer rate limitations.
Assuming thatthe site is cleaned up everywhere with no dilution
caused by mixing with uncontaminated ground water, then the
minimum remediation time due to mass transfer limitations can
be calculated as,
tmin= -
(4)
where pb is the formation bulk density (M/L3),?vk is the distribution
coefficient for compound k(L3/M),E, is a first-order mass transfer
rate parameter (1/T), sk* is the immobile domain concentration
standard (M/M), and sk is the initial maximum immobile
concentration of contaminant k found at the site (M/M). Rate-
limited mass transfer hinders short-term cleanup, but may have
negligible impacton long-term P&T. Desorption or diffusion rate
limitations may make it impossible to achieve cleanup within a
short time.
Forthe combination scheme shown in Figure 14, seven or eight
wells are optimal to achieve cleanup within three years to
sufficiently reduce the distance contaminants must travel within
the short remediation period. Ground water is pumped at the
highest rates along the plume axis and in the location of the most
retarded compounds to compensate for their low velocities.
The combination scheme essentially reduces to an individual
downgradient well design for longer remediation periods. Only
two orthree wells along the plume axis are needed for cleanup
and the ideal well locations approximate those of the individual
downgradient scheme (e.g., one well cleans up the most retarded
plume and the other cleans up the more mobile, downgradient
plumes). The individual downgradient scheme, which requires
fewer wells, therefore, is well-suited for longer-term P&T efforts.
For fast cleanup, the hot spot scheme requires less pumping
than all but the combination scheme. More pumping, however,
is required using the hot spot wells for a 15-year clean-up period
compared to the individual downgradient scheme. This is
because individual downgradient wells take advantage of the
plume migration via slow regional ground-water flow during the
longer clean-up period.
The classic downgradient scheme (Figure 14) is the least
desirable alternative shown for attaining cleanup because the
contaminants musttravel completely across the multiplume site
to reach the recovery wells. As a result, the more retarded
contaminant plumes are smeared to the wells, an excessive
volume of ground water must be extracted for cleanup, and
short-term cleanup is infeasible. The single recovery well option
also has significant drawbacks. It will generally require pumping
more ground water and result in more contaminant smearing
than all of the other schemes except the classic downgradient
design.
A good P&T design must address mobile, weakly-sorbed and
slow-moving, highly-sorbed contaminants to be effective at
16
-------
Mass Transfer Rate = Indefinite (equilibrium)
O.OS'day
0.02/day
0.005/day
Single Well
Classic Downgradient
Individual Downgradent
Hot-Spot
Combination
C
Single Well
Classic Downgradient
Individual Downgradent
Hot-Spot
Combination
(
Infeasible
Infeasible
Infeasible
Infeasible
Infeasible
Infeasible
Infeasible
Infeasible
5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 2
Total Pumping Rate (liters/sec)
Infeasibte
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
) 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 2J
Total Pumping Rare (liters/sec)
Figure 15. Optimal pumping rates for each well scheme {Figure 14) showing the minimum rate needed to capture and clean up the
contaminants for the 3-year and 15-year pumping periods and mass transfer rates ranging from infinite (at equilibrium) to
0.DOS/day (modified from Haggerty and Gorelick, 1994).
cleanup. Substantial pumping should occur in the upgradient
portion of a multiplume site to minimize both the smearing of
strongly sorbed contaminants and the total volume of ground
water that must be extracted for cleanup.
Other Considerations
Cyclic water-level fluctuations Ground-water levels near
surface water respond to changes in surface water stage.
Cyclic stage fluctuations occur in tidal waters and in some
streams that are regulated by pumping or discharge control.
Where the surface water fluctuates as a harmonic motion, as
occurs due to tides, a series of sinusoidal waves is propagated
intotheaquifer(Ferris, 1963). Theamplitudeofeachtransmitted
wave decreases and the time lag of a given wave peak increases
with distance from the surface water. Hydraulic gradients
between contamination sites and nearby tidal water bodies,
therefore, increase at low tide and decrease (or may be locally
reversed) at high tide. As a result, these cyclic water-level
fluctuations tend to enhance ground-water capture during high
tide periods and inhibit capture during low tide periods. The
impact of cyclic water-level fluctuations can be examined using
analytical solutions (Jacob, 1950; Ferris, 1963) or numerical
models with highly refined time steps and boundary conditions.
At contamination sites that are influenced by cyclic water-level
fluctuations, consideration should be given to adopting a variable
rate pumping schedule, with higher extraction rates during low
stage periods, to provide cost-effective hydraulic containment
throughout the surface water stage cycle.
Dewatering Water flushing will be limited to infiltration rates
where P&T operation has lowered the water table and partially
dewatered contaminated media. As a result, dissolved
contaminant concentrations may rebound when the watertable
rises after pumping is reduced or terminated. Water can be
injected or infiltrated, and pumping locations and rates can be
varied, to both minimize this potential problem and increase the
rate of flushing. Where injection is not feasible, soil vapor
extraction or other vadose zone remedial measures might be
needed to remove contaminant mass above the water table.
Drawdown limitations Under some conditions, hydraulic
containment cannot be maintained unless barrier walls are
installed and/orwateris injected (orinfiltrated)downgradientof,
or within, the contaminated zone. Limited aquifer saturated
thickness, a relatively high initial hydraulic gradient, a sloping
aquifer base, and low permeability are factors that can prevent
hydraulie containment using wells or drains (Saroff etal., 1992).
Where these conditions exist and hydraulic containment is
planned, particular care should be taken during pilot tests and
monitoring to assess this limitation.
Fractured and karst mediaFractured and solution-channeled
geologic materials often represent highly heterogeneous and
anisotropic systems to which techniques developed for
characterization and evaluation of porous media are not readily
applicable. Characterization techniques in such systems are an
area of continuing research and beyond the scope of this
document. Contaminant transport and P&T design/operation
will be largely controlled by such factors as orientation, density,
and connectivity of transmissive fracture systems. Techniques
used to evaluate potential capture zones and remedial time
frames based on porous-media assumptions often will not be
applicable. Evaluations of capture zones will generally be
based on site-specific characterization of the fractured or karst
system and may involve use of tracer tests, observations during
aquifertests, and other specialized techniques such as borehole
flowmeter investigations to define transmissive fracture systems
and evaluate connectivity.
Information required for extraction well design will include
characterization of transmissive, contaminated areas and
intervals in fractured/karst systems and characterization of flow
and transport parameters in any overlying porous materials
(e.g., overburden, saprolite). At some sites where overburden
and fractured rock are contaminated, extraction wells screened/
17
-------
open across both units may be acceptable with adjustments in
filter pack/screen specification for each unit. Conversely, it may
be practical to screen wells only in the moretransmissive unit to
capture contaminants in both units. Such determinations depend
onthe distribution of hydraulic parameters in each affected unit.
Ultimately, pilottesting of wells with careful monitoring generally
will be required to evaluate the effectiveness of such systems.
In some situations, rock units may be sufficiently fractured as to
approximate porous media behavior(de Marsily, 1986) allowing
use of more traditional design evaluations discussed elsewhere
in this document. In other situations, contaminants may be
moving only in very discrete fracture systems rendering
characterization difficult and necessitating careful delineation
of dominant fractures and design of wells with very discrete
screen/open intervals foroptimum operation. The usual design
approach in this situation is to locate and screen wells to
intersect as many contaminated, transmissive fractures as
possible (Gorelick et al., 1993). Testing of each well will be
required to determine specific drawdown/flowrate relationships
and evaluate potential gradient control.
The optimal well design for each of these situations will depend
on the site-specific distribution of contaminants and hydraulic
properties of each rock and overburden unit. However, similar
design principles apply to fractured systems as to heterogeneous
porous media. Design should be based on three-dimensional
contaminant distribution and three-dimensional analysis of
hydrologic properties of each unit within the system. In general,
there still will be a significant degree of uncertainty associated
with determinations of flow/transport in fractured/karst systems
at most sites due to the impracticability of defining contaminant
distribution and transport parameters in sufficient detail using
available characterization techniques. A flexible design
approach and performance monitoring can be used to minimize
the effect of these uncertainties.
Highly permeable and heterogeneous media In highly
permeable media, high pumping rates are usually required to
attain demonstrable hydraulic containment. Barrier walls and
low-permeability surface covers installed to reduce the rate of
pumping needed for containment also facilitate demonstration
of inward hydraulic gradients (Figure 3). Hydraulic containment
and site characterization can also be enhanced in heterogeneous
media by installing barrier drains and walls, particularly if done
in a manner that allows subsurface examination during
construction.
Horizontal anisotropy Significant horizontal anisotropy may
be present at some sites, particularly where strata are inclined
or fractured. The directions of maximum and minimum
permeability are usually aligned parallel and perpendicular,
respectively, to foliation or fractures. In anisotropic media, the
flow of ground water (and contaminants moving with ground
water) is offset from the hydraulic gradient in the direction of
maximum permeability. Interpretation of hydraulic head data
and capture zone analysis must account for anisotropy to
evaluate extraction/injection wellfield effectiveness. Various
well hydraulics equations (Papadopulos, 1965; Kruseman and
deRidder, 1990) and numerical models can be employed to
account for anisotropic conditions during P&T design.
Injection/extraction cells Recharging upgradient of the
contaminant plume and flushing the contaminant toward a
downgradient extraction well can be designed to create a
ground-water recirculation cell that isolates the plume from the
surrounding ground water (Figure 16). Injection and extraction
rates and locations can be adjusted to minimize the volume of
ground waterrequiringtreatment, increase flushing rates through
the contamination zone (thereby reducing the flushing time),
and provide additional containment (Wilson, 1984). If permitted
and properly designed, water injection can greatly enhance
hydraulic control and contamination zone flushing. Of course,
due to water balance considerations (i.e., recharge from the
land surface), it is generally not possible to reinject and recapture
all of the extracted ground water. Poorly designed and
inadequately monitored injection can lead to unintended
horizontal and/or vertical contaminant migration.
Partial penetration Construction of wells that only partially
penetrate the aquifer may be desirable or undesirable in different
situations. Contaminated ground water emanating from shallow
source areas frequently is limited to the upper portion of a
hydrogeologicunit. Forthiscase, partially-penetrating recovery
wells should be constructed to limit the downward spread of
contaminants and the extraction of clean deep ground water. In
situations where extraction wells or drains partially penetrate a
contaminant plume capture may not extend to the lower limits of
the plume. Three-dimensional data (e.g., hydraulic head,
hydraulic conductivity distribution, contaminant distribution) are
required to evaluate and monitorthree-dimensional capture. In
such situations, const ruction ofwellsordrains that fully penetrate
the contaminated interval may reduce uncertainty and costs
associated with monitoring vertical capture.
Physical barriers Physical barrierstoground-waterflow(e.g.,
slurry walls, grout curtains, sheet piling, etc.) reduce inflow into
the system and often allow use of lower ground-water extraction
and treatment rates to achieve a particular hydraulic head
distribution (e.g., inward hydraulic gradient or significant
dewatering). Surface caps may also be used to reduce infiltration
and further reduce extraction requirements. In addition, use of
such barriers and maintenance of an inward hydraulic gradient
will generally reduce the complexity of adequately monitoring
capture zones.
Injection
Well
Containment
Cell
Extraction
Well
Ground-water
Flow }
Figure 16, Plan view of a single-cell hydraulic containment,
showing flow lines and a hatched contaminant
plume (modified from Wilson, 1984).
18
-------
Situations in which use of physical barriers may be advantageous
or cost effective include sites where treatment capacity for
extracted ground water is limited, reductions in treatment costs
outweigh barrier construction costs, and heterogeneous sites or
sites with relatively high pre-design hydraulic gradients where
uncertainty in capture zone determinations is high. Additional
details regarding design and construction aspects of physical
barriers may be found in U.S. EPA (1984), Evans (1991), Grube
(1992), and Rumer and Ryan (1995).
Although these features may be used as enhancements to a
P&T system, they often will not be appropriate replacements for
P&T. Physical barriers withoutthe use of P&T to lower hydraulic
head within the enclosure will generally result in increasing
hydraulic head within the wall. This may result in leakage over
the wall, underthewall, orthrough relatively minor imperfections
in the wall.
Physical constraintsMany ground-water contamination sites
are located in developed areas where the presence of roads,
buildings, and other structures constrain the placement of P&T
components (i.e., wells, pipelines, and treatment plants). Such
constraints should be identified early in the design process and
incorporated into the analysis of feasible remedies. In some
cases, it will be necessary to assess potential for subsidence
that may result from pumping.
Surface-water interactionsStreams, rivers, lakes, and other
surface water bodies frequently act as discharge boundaries to
local and regional ground-water flow systems (and dissolved
contaminants migrating therein). A variety of complex leakage
and discharge relationships, however, exist spatially and
temporally between surface water and ground water. Interaction
between ground water and surface water may help or hinder
P&T operations. At some sites, P&T design can take advantage
of induced infiltration along stream line sinks to enhance hydraulic
containment and flushing rates. Elsewhere, it may be desirable
to limit streambed leakage (e.g., using physical barriers) to
minimize requisite pumping rates orthe inflow of surface water
that has been contaminated at upstream locations. Consideration
should also be given to potential hydraulic benefits of discharging
treated ground water at alternative stream locations. Relatively
complex interactions between surface water and ground water
can best be analyzed by numerical model analysis and monitoring
system performance.
Timeliness of remedial action Research has shown that
contaminants that have been in contact with porous media for
long times are much more resistant to desorption, extraction,
and degradation (Brusseau, 1993). As the residence time of a
contaminant plume increases, so do potential contaminant
tailing and rebound problems associated with sorption/desorption
and matrix diffusion. Old plumes are likely to exhibit significant
nonideal behavior, making cleanup difficult. Remedial efforts
should be implemented as soon as practicable following a
release to limit the difficulty of removing contaminant mass from
low permeability zones and sorbed phases.
Well completion intervalWell completion intervals are selected
based on site conditions and P&T strategy. Maximum well yield
can generally be obtained by screening 80 percentto 90 percent
of the thickness of a confined aquifer. In an unconfined
formation, the screen should be placed low enough in the
contaminated section so thatthe pumping level is not drawn into
the screen. This will prevent aeration of the screen and extend
the service life of the screen and pump. Longer screens may be
needed in thick contamination zones and in low permeability
formations to achieve an acceptable yield.
An individual well (with zone-dependent screen and sandpack
characteristics) may be completed in multiple transmissive
zones and hydrogeologic units if such a construction will not
exacerbate vertical contaminant migration or prevent the cost-
effective cleanup of individual layers. In general, (1) screens
should not be constructed to hydraulically connecttransmissive
zones across an aquitard; (2) it is undesirable to pump ground
water directly from uncontaminated intervals; and (3) partially-
penetrating recovery wells can be used to limit the downward
contaminant spreading and recovery pumping rates at sites
where contaminants are limited to the upper portion of a thick
hydrogeologic unit. Open-hole bedrock well completions are
usually acceptable, but care must be taken to not promote
contaminant migration (e.g., by completing an open-hole well
across an effective aquitard).
Site characterization activities (such as interval-specific packer-
aquifer tests, borehole flowmeter testing, and ground-water
sampling) and three-dimensional simulation analysis can be
used to help evaluate complicated cost-benefit trade-offs
between alternative well designs in vertically heterogeneous
media.
P&T Components
Ground-water extraction/injection systems are tailored to site-
specific conditions and remediation goals. As a result, system
component combinations yield a large variety of P&T
configurations. A conceptual process flow diagram for a typical
P&T system where volatile organic contaminants are removed
from ground water by air stripping (and carbon adsorption
polishing, as needed) is shown in Figure 17. Selected P&T
system components are described below and in Table 2. Specific
guidance regarding component selection and monitoring
treatment system discharge compliance with appropriate
regulations is beyond the scope of this document. Guidance
regarding monitoring system effectiveness with respect to
remedial design objectives is provided in Cohen et al. (1994).
Vertical Wells
Vertical wells are integral components of most P&T systems.
Extraction wells are intended to capture and remove
contaminated ground water; injection wells are used to enhance
hydraulic containment and ground-water flushing rates. Basic
component considerations include drilling/installation method,
well diameter, screen and casing specifications, completion
depth interval, and pump specifications. Detailed guidance on
well drilling, construction, and development methods is provided
by Repa and Kufs (1985), Driscoll (1986), Bureau of Reclamation
(1995), and others.
Well yield and efficiency are of prime concern when designing
extraction and injection wells. Yield is the rate at which
ground water can be pumped under site-specific conditions
(e.g., desired drawdown limits). Well losses caused by poor
design or construction decrease well efficiency and result in
increased drawdown within the well to maintain a particular
yield. This is one reason that hydraulic head measurements
taken in a pumping well are often poor indicators of hydraulic
head in the formation immediately adjacenttothewell. Within
19
-------
Wells
-i Fbwmeter
Valve
Pre-Treatme
(i.e., oilA/Vc
separation,
removal, m
treatment, chic
heatexchai
1 l>
\/
Storage
and Flow
Equilizafion
Tank
it Units
Jter
solids
etals
rination,
iger)
L> 1 1
s
\ 1
Air
Blower
Vapor
Discharge to
Atmosphere
Contingent
Vapor
Phase
Carbon
Treatment
Vapor
Discharge to
Atmosphere
Liquid Discharge
Figure 17, Example conceptual treatment diagram fora P& T system using air-stripping and optional granularactivated carbon polishing
treatment of liquid and vapor phase effluent from the air stripper.
Table 2, Appurtenant Pump-and-Treat Equipment
Equipment
Description
Piping
Flow/meters
Valves
Level Switches
Sensors
Pressure Switches
Pressure and
Vacuum Indicators
Control Panels
Remote Monitoring,
Data Acquisition, &
Telemetry Devices
Pull and Junction
Boxes
Pitless Adaptor Unit
Well Cover
Conveys pumped fluids to treatment system and/or point of discharge. Piping materials will dictate if the system may
be installed above or below grade with or without secondary containment measures. Piping materials (i.e., steel,
HOPE, PVC, etc.) are selected based on chemical compatibility and strength factors.
Measures flow rate at given time and/ orthe cumulative throughput in a pipe. Typically installed at each well, at major
piping junctions, and after major treatment units. Some designs allow for the instrument to act as an on/off switch
or flow regulator. Many different types are available.
The primary use of valves (i.e., gate, ball, check, butterfly) is to control flow in pipes and to connections in the pipe
manifold. Valves may be operated manually or actuated by electrical or magnetic mechanisms. Check valves are
used to prevent backflow into the well after pumping has ceased and siphoning from tanks or treatment units. Other
uses for valves include sample ports, pressure relief, and air vents.
Float, optical, ultrasonic, and conductivity switches/sensors are used to determine the level of fluids in a well ortank.
Used to actuate or terminate pumping and to indicate or warn operators of rising or falling fluid levels in wells and
tanks.
Used to shut off pumps after detecting a drop in discharge pressure caused by a loss in suction pressure.
Used to measure the pressure in pipes, across pipe connections, and in sealed tanks and vessels.
Device which provides centralized, global control of P&T system operation and monitors and displays system status.
Control panels are typically custom designed for specific applications.
Provides interactive monitoring and control of unattended P&T systems. Allows for real-time data acquisition. Alerts
operators to system failures and provides an interface for remote reprogramming of operations. Remote monitoring
devices should also be accessible from the Control Panel.
Above and/or below grade installations that allow access to connections in the piping manifold, electric wiring, and
system controls. Strategic placement provides flexibility for system expansion.
Allows for the transfer of extracted ground water from the well to buried piping outside of the well casing.
Available with padlock hasps, with and without a connection to the electrical conduit for submersible pumps.
20
-------
limits, such parameters as screen diameter, screened interval,
and screen open area are specified to optimize yield and
maximize efficiency. Increased yield results in minimizing the
number of wells required to attain specific system design
objectives.
The well diameter must be large enough to accommodate the
pump and other downhole instrumentation. The size of the
pump required to obtain the desired yield, within the site-
specific hydrogeologic limits, will determine the size of the
casing. Although several different types of pumps may be
selected, standard electric submersible pumps are most
commonly used for extracting ground water at contamination
sites. A close fit between the pump and casing promotes
cooling of the submersible pump motor; but can lead to insertion
or removal difficulties. Commonly, the casing diameter is sized
two standard pipe sizes larger than the pump. For example, a
4-inch diameter pump is set in a 6-inch diameter well. The well
diameter generally should be no less than one pipe size larger
than the nominal pump diameter. Except for well point systems,
pumping wells are usually at least four inches in diameter. The
casing size should also be selected to ensure that the uphole
velocity during pumping is <5 ft/sec (Driscoll, 1986) to prevent
excessive head losses.
Pump selection depends on the desired pumping rate, well
yield, and the total hydraulic head lift required. Designers
should consult performance curves and data provided by
pump manufacturers. Pneumatic pumps are used in some
P&T applications, particularly at sites where providing electrical
service is problematic, combustible vapors are present, or
excessive drawdown might damage electric submersible
pumps. Electric and pneumatic pumps that extract total fluids
or separate liquid phases (e.g., LNAPL, water, and DNAPL)
are readily available.
Extraction wells may be driven (or jetted) well points, naturally
developed wells, or filter-packed wells. Screens and filter packs
should be appropriately sized to the native media. Grain-size
analyses of unconsolidated formation samples are highly
recommended to determine appropriate slot and sandpack
sizes. Wells can often be developed with natural packs in areas
where the formation materials are permeable and relatively
coarse grained. In naturally developed wells, the slot size is
chosen so that most fines adjacent to the borehole are pumped
through the screen during development. Custom screen design
using sections with different slot sizes based on the grain size
distribution of the different materials in the screened interval
may be useful at sites where the highest possible specific
capacity is desired.
Use of an artificial filter pack is advantageous when the geologic
materials are highly laminated; highly uniform, fine-grained
deposits; or in situations where a small screen slot size (e.g.,
<0.010 inch) dictated by natural pack criteria would significantly
reduce the water transmitting capability of the screen (Driscoll,
1986). Filter pack materials generally are composed of clean,
well-rounded, uniformed-sized, siliceous grains and designed
to retain most of the natural formation materials. The screen slot
size is then typically selected to retain 90 percent of the
sandpack. Grading of the filter pack is based on the finest-
grained layer in the screened interval. Such a design generally
does not restrict flow from coarser-grained layers as the hydraulic
conductivity of the filter pack is significantly higher than the
conductivity of these layers.
Filter packs mechanically retain formation particles. The factor
controlling formation retention isthe ratio of packgrain size to
that of the formation, not pack thickness. Pack thickness
recommendations from the literature for production wells
range from approximately 3 inches to 8 inches (U.S. EPA,
1975). Pack thickness in the lower end of the recommended
range will often be required to allow sufficient development for
maximum well efficiency. Two common errors in filter packed
wells that lead to low yields are use of a standard filter pack
regardless of formation characteristics and use of screens
with improper slot sizes for given filter pack characteristics
(Driscoll, 1986).
Bedrock wells can be completed as open-holes; but screen
and sandpack may be desirable to prevent caving and limit
sand pumping. Well development by surging, jetting,
backwashing, and pumping improves well efficiency. Driscoll
(1986) provides a comprehensive treatise on well design,
construction, and development and should be consulted prior
to design.
Well screen and casing are frequently constructed of black low-
carbon steel, Type 304 or Type 316 stainless steel, and PVC.
Although low-carbon steel is frequently used for well casing,
serious iron oxidation problems may occur when sodium
hypochlorite is used to redevelop the wells. Iron flaking may
cause clogging in injection wells. Manufacturers can provide
advice on material compatibility with ground water and
contaminants regardingthe potentialforcorrosion, incrustation,
and chemical attack. Material compatibility guidance is also
available in various documents (e.g., Driscoll, 1986; McCaulou
et al., 1995). The physical strength of the screen and casing
materials is a concern for very deep wells. PVC casing may not
be suitable for depths exceeding 300 feet, especially for large-
diameter wells. Screens do not need to be as strong as casing
because their openings relieve hydrostatic pressure, but must
be able to withstand stresses associated with well installation
and development. Screens are more susceptible to corrosion
failure than steel casing. Whereas casing can suffer substantial
corrosion and still function, minor screen corrosion can enlarge
slotopeningsand result in severe sand pumping. This accounts
for the use of stainless steel screens in conjunction with mild
steel casing. For an economical well installation that resists
degradation due to high concentrations of organic chemicals,
stainless screen and casing can be threaded to PVC riser above
the water table. Properties and dimensions of selected well
casing products are highlighted in Table 3.
Generally, well screen diameter is selected to provide sufficient
open area so thatthe velocity of water entering the screen is less
than 0.1 ft/sto minimize friction losses, corrosion, and incrustation
(Driscoll, 1986). Screen diameter influences well yield but to a
lesserextentthan does screen length. The potential increase
of well yield with increasing screen diameter depends on site-
specific conditions. Potential increases in some situations
may be relatively insignificant. For example, in relatively
conductive material where yields are high, increasing the
screen diameter from 6 inches to 12 inches may only result in
yield increases of several percent. In materials with low hydraulic
conductivity, potential yield increases resulting from increased
screen diameter may be significant and should be considered.
Open area of the screen affects entrance velocity and well
efficiency. Limited open area limits well development and
results in increased drawdown withinthewellfora specific yield.
21
-------
Table 3. Properties and Dimensions of Selected Well Casing Products
Casing
Material
Wall Collapse
Size OD ID thickness Weight Strength
(in.) (in.) (in.) (in.) (Ib/ft) (psi)
Comments
Black Steel Thin 4 4.500 4.216 0.142 6.60 + Stronger, more rigid, and less temperature
Wall Water sensitive than PVC.
Well Casing 6 6.625 6.249 0.188 12.9 1030 + Much less expensive than stainless steel.
- Rusts easily, providing sorptive and reactive
Black Steel 4 4.500 4.026 0.237 10.8 capacity for metals and organic chemicals.
Schedule 40 - Subject to corrosion (given low pH, high
6 6.625 6.065 0.280 19.0 2286 dissolved oxygen, H,S presence, >1000mg/L
IDS, >50 mg/L Cl-)/
PVC
Schedule 40
(PVC 12454)
PVC
Schedule 80
(PVC 12454)
4.500 4.026 0.237 2.0 158
6.625 6.065 0.280 3.6 78
4.500 3.826 0.337 2.8 494
6.625 5.761 0.432 5.4 314
+ Lightweight, easy workability, inexpensive.
+ Completely resistant to galvanic and
electrochemical corrosion.
+ High strength-to-weight ratio.
+ Resistant to low concentrations of most organic
contaminants.
- Poor chemical resistance to high concentrations
of aromatic hydrocarbons, esters, ketones, and
organic solvents.
- Lower strength than steel; may not be suitable
for very deep applications.
Stainless Steel
Schedule 5
Stainless Steel
Schedule 40
4 4.500 4.334 0.083
6 6.625 6.407 0.109
4 4.500 4.026 0.237
6 6.625 6.065 0.280
3.9 315 + Stronger, more rigid, and less temperature
sensitive than PVC.
7.6 129 + Good chemical resistance to organic
chemicals.
+ Resistant to corrosion and oxidation.
10.8 2672 - Expensive.
- May corrode if exposed to long-term corrosive
19.0 1942 conditions.
Open area for different slot configurations (e.g., machine slotted
vs. continuous slot) varies significantly. Continuous slot screens
have significantly more open area perfoot of screen than other slot
configurations. Manufacturers should be consulted regarding
open area of their screens. If the entrance velocity is calculated to
be too high (i.e., >0.1 ft/s), longer screens with greater open area,
or larger diameter screens, where practical, should be considered.
The pump intake generally should not be placed in the well
screen. Such placement may result in high screen entrance
velocity, increased incrustation orcorrosion rates, sand pumping,
or dewatering of the screen (Driscoll, 1986). In general, the
pump intake position does notgreatly affect the relative volumes
of water produced by different formation materials in the screened
interval. In most situations, this distribution is predominantly
controlled by the hydraulic properties (e.g., hydraulic conductivity)
of the various materials.
Due to their tendency to clog, injection wells are typically
overdesigned in terms of well diameter or screen length to
reduce maintenance activities. Ratherthan using vertical wells,
artificial recharge may be better accommodated by surface
spreading, infiltration galleries, trenches, or horizontal wells.
These options have greater surface area and are less likely to
clog than vertical wells.
Vertical Well Point Systems
Well point systems are comprised of multiple closely spaced
wells that are connected via a main pipe header to a suction lift
pump. Suction lift systems are limited to pumping shallow
ground water at depths of less than approximately 25 feet. Such
systems are based on construction dewatering technology.
Well point systems are often used at sites where the hydraulic
conductivity of aquifer materials is relatively low and large
numbers of wells would be required to meet design objectives,
particularly hydraulic containment or dewatering objectives.
Where applicable, such systems may be more cost-effective
than conventional wells. Well point systems are described in
more detail in Bureau of Reclamation (1995).
Horizontal and Slant Wells
During recent years, directional drilling rigs from the utility,
mining, and petroleum industries have been adapted to install
horizontal wells at contaminated sites (Kaback et al., 1989;
22
-------
Karlsson and Bitto, 1990; Langseth, 1990; Kabacketal., 1991;
Morgan, 1992; Conger and Trichel, 1993; WSRC, 1993; U.S.
EPA, 1994b;andCCEM, 1995). As of January 1996, more than
370 horizontal wells had been drilled at contamination sites in
the United States for ground-water extraction (33%), soil vapor
extraction (35%), air sparging (21%) and other purposes (11%)
including petroleum recovery, ground-water infiltration, and
bioventing (CCEM, 1996). Most of these wells (73%) were
installed less than 26 feet deep by utility type contractors.
Horizontal wells can be drilled in soil or rock as continuous holes
with surface access at each end or as blind holes (Figure 18).
Slant wells are completed in straight angle borings. As shown
in Figure 18, slant or horizontal wells can be strategically
installed to: (1) allow injection or extraction in inaccessible
areas such as beneath buildings, ponds, orlandfills; (2) intercept
multiple vertical fractures; and (3) provide hydraulic control
along the leading edge of a plume or elsewhere by creating
hydraulic line sinks (extraction) or pressure ridges (injection)
without the need to excavate trenches. Horizontal wells with
long screens may be more cost-effective than vertical wells,
particularly at sites where contaminated ground water is extensive
horizontally, but not vertically. The higher cost of horizontal
wells, compared to vertical wells, may be offset by savings
derived from more efficient remediation, drilling fewerwells, the
purchase of fewer pumps, etc.
Horizontal well construction methods are described by U.S.
EPA(1994b), CCEM (1995), and in drilling contractor literature.
Continuous holes are typically drilled as inverted arcs from a
surface entry point to a surface exit point. Using an adjustable
angle, slant rotary drill rig, a pilot boring may be advanced at an
angle to the desired subsurface elevation, directed along the
completion path using a steerable drill head and a walkover
radio-frequency (or other) guidance system, and then angled
upward to exit the ground. Following completion of the pilot
hole, the boring is cut to the final diameter using reamers. Rock
holes may be advanced using a steerable tungsten carbide bit
with a downhole air hammer, air rotary, or mud motor assembly.
Drilling fluids, consisting of water, air, bentonite slurries, or
polymeric solutions, are typically recycled through a closed-
loop system to remove cuttings from the borehole. Well screen,
casing, risers, filter fabric and/or pre-packed filter media are
assembled at the exit end of a continuous hole and pulled into
place behind the reamer. Pre-packed stainless steel screens
have been selected for wells requiring a filter pack, but less
expensive materials, including PVC, HOPE, steel, and fiberglass
have also been used for well screen. Similar to conventional
water wells, horizontal well screen and filter pack sizes are
designed to optimize well yield and limit fine particle entry.
Much greater compressive and tensile strength are required of
horizontal well materials, however, to prevent failure during
emplacement or wellbore collapse. Pre-packed filter materials
are used due to the difficulty of placing sand, plugs, and grout
in a horizontal well bore. Horizontal wells may be developed
by pumping, swab/surging, and jetting. For blind wells, a
washover bit and pipe are used to allow horizontal well
construction within a temporary casing.
Trench Drain Systems
Trench drain systems are typically constructed perpendicularto
the direction of ground-water flow to cut off and contain
contaminant migration by creating a continuous hydraulic sink
(Figure 19). A trench drain installed along the plume axis,
Building, landfill,
lagoon, etc.
\^ __^
(a) Continuous horizontal well fa access
^
^
Leaking UST
(b) 'Blind' horizontal well to intercept a flat-lying plume
(c) Continuous
well to intersect vertical fractures
Figure 18. Se veral applications of horizontal wells (modified from
U.S. EPA, 1994b).
however, will provide more effective contaminant mass removal
(but may not provide complete containment). Designers should
assess the potential for downgradient mounding of ground
water transmitted along the length of a drain system, particularly
if the drain is not oriented perpendicular to the natural flow
direction. It may be appropriate to construct segmented drains
to restrict flow along the drain length.
Trench drains are typically constructed using a backhoe to
shallow depth in heterogeneous, low permeability media where
many wells would be needed to obtain the required yield for
capture of a specific area, but may also be suitable in moderate
and high permeability soil. Although the depth limit for
conventional excavation techniques is about 20 feet, specialized
equipment can be used to install trench drains as deep as
approximately 70 feet or deeper. The saturated zone of the
trench is backfilled with a highly-permeable granular material
such as sand or gravel. Geotextile filter fabric is placed around
the permeable backfill to prevent fine particles from clogging the
drain system. The upper few feet of the trench should be
backfilled with low permeability material to reduce infiltration.
Ground waterthat enters the granular backfill flows through the
fill, and/or through perforated pipe installed near the trench
bottom, to an extraction sump or sumps pumped to maintain a
hydraulic sink along the drain.
Consideration should be given to pipe cleanout access and the
installation of monitor wells along the drain length. At some
locations, it may be advantageous to install an impermeable
synthetic membrane on the downgradient side of a cutoff trench
to prevent fluid bypass. Trench drain systems can also be used
to inject treated or clean water to create pressure ridges and
23
-------
Figure 19. A trench drain constructed perpendicular to the
direction of ground-water flow may provide more
effective containment than extraction wells (e.g., for
shallow contamination in heterogeneous, low-
permeability media).
thereby enhance hydraulic containment and flushing rates.
Drain depth, spacing, location, and other design criteria can be
assessed using the computational tools described in Table 1
and various analytical solutions (Cohen and Miller, 1983).
The cost of excavating drains into bedrock is usually prohibitive.
Drain construction also may be impractical due to access
restrictions, building stability concerns, and costs associated
with excavating large quantities of contaminated materials.
Potential excavation stability problems can be addressed by
using a trench box or other shoring methods, minimizing both
the time that excavated sections are kept open and the length
of open sections, and/or by use of guarguam or other gels (U.S.
EPA, 1992c). Alternatively, 'one pass' trenching techniques
may be applicable. For example, a 'one-pass' trencher can be
used to excavate a 12-inch wide trench to a maximum depth of
22 feet, install a HOPE perforated collection pipe, and place
granular backfill in a simultaneous operation (Gilbert and Gress,
1987). This method minimizes contaminant exposure during
trenching, quantities of contaminated material requiring
disposition, and stability problems. Additional information on
trench drain systems is provided by Repa and Kufs (1985),
Meinietal. (1990), Day(1991), and U.S. EPA(1991b, 1994b).
Treatment Technology Selection
Ground-watertreatmenttechnologies rely on physical, chemical,
and/or biological processes to reduce contaminant
concentrations to acceptable levels. Presumptive treatment
technologies include use of: air stripping, granular activated
carbon (GAC), chemical/UV oxidation, and aerobic biological
reactors for dissolved organic contaminants; chemical
precipitation, ion exchange/adsorption, and electrochemical
methods for treatment of metals; and a combination of
technologies to treat ground water containing both organic and
inorganic constituents (U.S. EPA, 1996). Widely-used ground-
water treatment technologies that are available as package
plants are described in Appendix B .
The evaluation and selection of treatment alternatives for a
particular P&T system is based on technical feasibility and costs
(capital and operational) of achieving remediation goals. Key
parameters that influence treatment design and efficacy include
flow rate, ground-water constituents requiring treatment
(including naturally occurring dissolved metals that may foul or
interfere with a treatment system), influent concentrations, and
discharge requirements. Relationships between these
parameters and treatment design are discussed briefly below,
and in more detail by AWWA (1990), Nyer (1992), U.S. EPA
(1994a), WEF (1994), and Noyes (1994).
The treatment flow rate, influent concentrations, and desired
effluent concentrations influence the applicability of potential
treatment methods. Flow rate is usually based on a projection
of the pumping rate needed to achieve remediation goals.
Treatment plant capacity may need to be increased where
effluent is reinjected or where aggressive P&T is employed to
hasten cleanup. The degree of contaminant concentration
reduction required for each constituent is crucial to treatment
design. Forexample, although GAC adsorption may reduce the
concentration of a particularcontaminant more than airstripping,
depending on the discharge requirements, air stripping may be
utilized as the sole technology, as pretreatment to GAC, or not
at all. The discharge requirements often depend on the final
disposal method forthe treated water. Options include discharge
to surface water, reinjection, discharge to another treatment
system, or direct use. Regulations may preclude some options
due to effluent concentrations, flow rate, or potential impacts to
the ground water. Discharge to an existing treatment system
(POTW or industrial treatment system) is generally the least
restrictive option, but each system will have specific flow rate
and concentration requirements. Effluent discharge to surface
water and reinjection below the water table require permits.
The first step in selecting a treatment strategy is to exclude
methods that are not implementable based on contaminant
type, concentrations, flow rate, and site characteristics. Where
multiple contaminants are present, some technologies may be
excluded as complete solutions, but considered as a pretreatment
or polishing step in a 'treatment train'. Thus, to effectively use air
stripping for volatile organic contaminants, it may be necessary to
pretreatthe influent by chemical precipitation to remove dissolved
metalsthat could foulthe stripping unit. Examples of unit processes
and sequences in ground-watertreatment trains are listed in Table
4. At some sites, it may be beneficial to split ground water that is
extracted from different areas into more than one treatment train
(e.g., highly contaminated waterfrom a source area may be treated
differently than dilute downgradient ground water).
The technically implementable methods are then assessed with
regard to effectiveness, relative implementability, and cost. An
evaluation of effectiveness should consider the projected rate
and duration of flow, the level of treatment required for each
constituent, and the reliability of each method. Reliability may
be difficult to assess for innovative technologies based on
readily available data. In the absence of adequate performance
data, treatability and pilot-scale testing should be conducted to
yield critical data for use in technology selection, design of full-
scale facilities, estimating costs, and identifying potential
problems. The time element of treatment can be addressed
during pilot studies by appropriate scaling of treatment units,
flow rates, and concentrations (e.g., smaller capacity GAC units
can be used to determine constituent breakthrough times more
quickly). An evaluation of relative implementability should consider
technical and administrative aspects, including permits, space
limitations, storage and disposal options, availability of equipment,
availability of skilled workers to implement the technology, visual
impacts, and community relations. Cost estimates should include
capital costs, annual costs, and an estimate of treatment duration;
and cost comparisons should incorporate a discount rate forfuture
costs and a cash flow analysis.
24
-------
Treatment strategies should be designed and implemented in a
mannerthat will accommodate changing conditions overthe life
cycle of a P&T project. At many sites, modifying treatment
capacity or methods to match changing influent chemistry or flow
rate overtime can improve system performance and reduce cost. As
with pumping, treatment optimization requires ongoing monitoring.
Proposed designs (e.g., extraction/injection well construction
and placement, piping diagrams, treatment system design)
should be presented in drawings and accompanied by detailed
text discussion with appropriate tables. Discussion should
include such topics as materials selection, proposed processes,
and installation procedures. Rationale for design choices
should also be discussed with supporting calculations presented
and supporting data presented or referenced.
Technology Integration
Under favorable conditions (Figure 4), P&T technology can
achieve clean-up goals. However, most, if not all, remedial
methods will have difficulty rapidly restoring ground-waterquality
to meet low concentration standards in the presence of highly
sorbing contaminants, NAPL, and heterogeneous media. In
these cases, remedial performance may be improved by
integrating P&T operation with other clean-up technologies.
This integration can occur spatially (e.g., where P&T is applied
to the dissolved plume and other technologies are applied to
source areas) and temporally (e.g., where multiple technologies
are applied in series).
Remedial technology integration has occurred at many sites
contaminated with petroleum product LNAPLs. Although mobile
LNAPL may be pumped via extraction wells, immobile product
will remain in the subsurface. Excavation is a candidate
technology to remove shallow LNAPL. Due to their volatility and
degradability, many petroleum products, such as gasoline, can
also be remediated using SVE and enhanced bioremediation.
Alternatively, natural attenuation may be demonstrated to be an
effective petroleum contaminant management strategy at some
sites.
Table 4. Common Treatment Train Unit Processes1 and Sequence (modified from U.S. EPA, 1996)
Solid or Liquid Separation
Technologies
Ground-Water Treatment Train Unit Processes
Primary Treatment
Technologies
Effluent Polishing
Technologies2
Vapor Phase Treatment
Technologies3
Oil/grease separation4
Filtration5
Coagulation or flocculation5
Clarification or sedimentation5
For Organics:
Air stripping
Granular activated carbon
Chemical/UV oxidation
Aerobic biological reactors
For Metals:
Chemical precipitation
Ion exchange/adsorption
Electrochemical methods
Activated carbon
Ion exchange
Neutralization
Activated carbon
1 Catalytic oxidation
Thermal incineration
' Acid gas scrubbing
1 Condensation
General Sequence of Ground-Water Treatment Train Unit Processes
Sequence Unit Treatment Process Treatment Stage
Begin
End
Equalize inflow Pre-treatment
Separate solid particles Pre-treatment
Separate oil/grease (NAPLs) Pre-treatment
Remove metals Treatment
Remove volatile organic contaminants Treatment
Remove other organic contaminants Treatment
Polish organics2 Post-treatment
Polish metals Post-treatment
Adjust pH, if required Post-treatment
Notes:1 Technologies that may be required for treatment residuals, such as spent carbon, are not listed.
2 Effluent polishing technologies are used for the final stage of treatment prior to discharge, and can include pH
adjustment (neutralization) as well as additional removal of aqueous constituents.
3 Vapor phase contaminants released during water treatment may need to be contained and treated. These include
organic contaminants volatilized during air stripping, from biological treatment, or other gases released from chemical
oxidation, reduction, or biologic processes (e.g., hydrochloric acid, hydrogen sulfide, methane, etc.).
4 Methods for separating oil and/or grease from water include, but are not limited to, gravity separation and dissolved air
floatation. These methods can be used to remove NAPLs from extracted water.
5 These technologies can be used to remove solid particles at the start of the treatment train or to remove other solids
resulting from chemical precipitation, chemical/UV oxidation, or biological treatment.
25
-------
These same technologies (extraction, excavation, SVE, air
sparging and, to a lesser extent, bioremediation) have also
been applied to DNAPL source areas where the chemicals
have the appropriate properties. Additional technologies are
being evaluated for NAPL recovery (i.e., surfactant flushing,
steam flushing, alcohol flooding, hot water flooding, and
surfactant-enhanced solubilization). Except for excavation,
however, there are no proven technologies to remove sufficient
DNAPL to fully restore a DNAPL-contaminated aquifer (U.S.
EPA, 1992a). Therefore, hydraulic containment will remain
an important management option forthe DNAPL-contaminated
portion of the subsurface.
Away from source areas, bioremediation also can be combined
with P&T. Various solutions, including dissolved oxygen and
nutrients, can be injected upgradient or within the contaminant
plume to enhance biodegradation. At somesites, natural attenuation
may be used in conjunction with orfollowing ground-waterextraction.
Natural attenuation refers to natural biological, chemical, and
physical processes that reduce contaminant concentrations
and mass. Also known as intrinsic remediation, it includes
destructive chemical transformation processes (radioactive
decay, biodegradation, and hydrolysis) and nondestructive
partitioning and dilution processes (sorption, volatilization, and
dispersion). At many sites, contaminant plume growth is
restricted by biodegradation, partitioning, and/or dilution. For
example, the limited mobility of many soluble petroleum
hydrocarbons, such as BTEX compounds, in ground water due
to biodegradation has been particularly well-documented (e.g.,
Barker et al., 1987).
Natural attenuation processes may be significant factors in
contaminant removal and limitations to aqueous-phase
contaminant migration at many sites. Field evaluation of such
processes and rates is an area of continuing research. Proposed
methodologies for evaluating natural attenuation of fuel
contaminants are discussed in Wiedemeier et al. (1995) and
McAllister and Chiang (1994).
Potentially cost-effective, innovative enhancements and
alternatives to P&T (NRC, 1994) are being pilot-tested at many
contamination sites. Permeable treatment walls using the
funnel-and-gate approach are leading candidate remedial
technologies (Starr and Cherry, 1994). These systems are
designed to reduce contaminant concentrations in ground water
that is passively funneled through a permeable reaction wall,
which contains abiotic or biologically reactive media, an air
sparge system, or some other enhancement.
Design of Operations and Maintenance
Detailed plans for evaluation of maintenance requirements
should be established priorto installation. Establishment of the
plan during the design stage allows for incorporation of features
to simplify maintenance procedures (e.g., access ports for
cleaning distribution piping in infiltration galleries). Maintenance
such as pump replacement and well development may be
performed on an as needed basis. The required frequency will
depend on site conditions and equipment. Equipment manuals
may be consulted regarding maintenance requirements for
specific system components.
The major causes of decreased well performance include
reduction in yield due to incrustation or biofouling of the screen
or adjacent materials, formation plugging by fine-grained
materials, corrosion or incrustation resulting in increased water
velocity and sand pumping, structural failure of the casing or
screen, and pump damage (Driscoll, 1986). Periodic monitoring
of total depth, pumping rate, drawdown, specific capacity, and
efficiency may be used as indicators of maintenance
requirements for extraction or injection wells. Injection wells and
galleries are particularly susceptible to blockage or fouling and
may require frequent maintenance. Maintenance schedules
should be sufficiently frequent so as notto compromise system
performance with respect to the established design objectives
(e.g., maintain capture, maintain specified pore volume flushing
rates). Additional discussion of operation and maintenance issues
is provided in Driscoll (1986) and Bureau of Reclamation (1995).
Performance Monitoring
P&T performance is monitored by measuring hydraulic heads
and gradients, ground-waterflow directions and rates, pumping
rates, pumped water and treatment system effluent quality, and
contaminant distributions in ground water and porous media.
These data are evaluated to interpret P&T capture zones,
flushing rates, contaminant transport and removal, and to
improve system operation. Detailed guidance on methods for
monitoring P&T performance is provided by Cohen etal. (1994).
Restoration progress can be assessed by comparing the rate of
contaminant mass removal (e.g., plotted as cumulative mass
removed) to estimates of the dissolved and/ortotal contaminant
mass-in-place. If the rate of contaminant mass extracted
approximates the rate of dissolved mass-in-place reduction,
then the contaminants removed by pumping are primarily derived
from the dissolved phase. Conversely, a contaminant source
(i.e., NAPL, sorbed contaminant, or a continuing release) is
indicated where the mass removal rate greatly exceeds the rate
of dissolved mass-in-place reduction. Site hydrogeology and
contaminant properties should be evaluated to determine if
source removal or containment, or P&T system modifications,
could improve P&T performance.
The time needed to remove dissolved mass-in-place can be
projected by extrapolating the trend of the mass removal rate
curve or the cumulative mass removed curve. Future
concentration tailing, however, may extend the extrapolated
clean-uptime. If the mass removal trend indicates a significantly
greater clean-up duration than estimated originally, system
modification may be necessary. The effect (or lack of effect) of
P&T system modifications will be evidenced by the continuing
mass removal rate and cumulative mass removed trends.
Progress inferred from mass removal rates can be misleading,
however, where NAPL and solid phase contaminants are present
(e.g., the mass removed will exceed the initial estimate of
dissolved mass-in-place). Interpretation suffers from the high
degree of uncertainty associated with estimating NAPL or solid
contaminant mass-in-place. Stabilization of dissolved
contaminant concentrations while mass removal continues may
be an indication of NAPL or solid phase contaminant presence.
Methods for evaluating the potential presence of NAPL are
provided by Feenstra etal. (1991), Newell and Ross (1992), and
Cohen and Mercer (1993).
Mass removal rates are also subject to misinterpretation where
dissolved contaminant concentrations decline rapidly due to:
26
-------
(1) mass transfer rate limitations to desorption, NAPL or
precipitate dissolution, or matrix diffusion; (2) dewatering a
portion or all of the contaminated zone; (3) dilution of
contaminated ground water with clean ground water flowing to
extraction wells from beyond the plume perimeter; or (4) the
removal of a slug of highly contaminated ground water.
Contaminant concentration rebound will occur if pumping is
terminated prematurely in response to these conditions.
The projected restoration or clean-up time is site specific and
varies widely depending on contaminant and hydrogeologic
conditions and the clean-up concentration goal. Estimating
clean-up time is complicated by difficulties in quantifying the
initial contaminant mass distribution and processes that limit
cleanup. Guidance for estimating ground-water restoration
times using batch and continuous flushing models is provided
by U.S. EPA (1988b). The batch flushing model is based on a
series of consecutive discrete flushing periods during which
contaminated water in equilibrium with adsorbed contaminants
is displaced from the aquifer pore space by clean water. Values
of contaminant concentration in soil and water are calculated
after each flush. An example of an analogous method (and
corrections) to this batch flushing model are provided by Zheng
etal. (1991, 1992). The batch and continuous models assume
that: (1) zero-concentration influent water displaces
contaminated ground water from the contamination zone by
simple advection with no dispersion; (2) the clean ground water
equilibrates instantaneously with the remaining adsorbed
contaminant mass; (3) the sorption isotherm is linear; and (4)
chemical reactions do not affect the sorption process. Care
must be taken to avoid relying on misleading estimates of
restoration time that may be obtained by using these simplified
models. Although more sophisticated modeling techniques are
available (i.e., contaminant transport models), their application
often suffers from data limitations, resulting in uncertain
predictions. Nevertheless, clean-up time analyses are useful
for assessing alternative remedial options and determining
whether or not clean-up goals are feasible.
Disclaimer
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of
Research and Development partially funded and collaborated
in the research described here under Contract No. 68-C4-0031
to Dynamac Corporation. It has been subjected to the Agency's
peer and administrative review and has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Quality Assurance Statement
All research projects making conclusions or recommendation
based on environmentally related measurements and funded by
the Environmental Protection Agency are required to participate in
the Agency Quality Assurance Program. This project did not involve
physical measurements and as such did not require a QA plan.
References
Ahlfeld, D.P., J.M. Mulvey, G.F. Pinder, and E.F. Wood, 1988.
Contaminated groundwater remediation design using
simulation, optimization and sensitivity theory, 1 Model
development, Water Resources Research, 24(3):431-442.
Ahlfeld, D.P., and C.S. Sawyer, 1990. Well location in capture
zone design using simulation and optimization techniques,
Ground Water, 28(4):507-512.
Allen, H.E., E.M. Perdue, and D.S. Brown, 1993. Metals in
Groundwater, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
American Petroleum Institute, 1989. AGuideto the Assessment
and Remediation of Underground Petroleum Releases, API
Publication No. 1628, Washington, DC.
American Petroleum Institute, 1992. Pump and Treat: The
Petroleum Industry Perspective, API Publication No. 4561,
Washington, DC.
Armstrong, J.E., E.O. Frind, and R.D. McClellan, 1994.
Nonequilibrium mass transfer between vapor, aqueous, and
solid phases in unsaturated soils during vapor extraction,
Water Resources Research, 30(2):355-368.
Andersen, P.P., C.R. Faust, and J.W. Mercer, 1984. Analysis
of conceptual design for remedial measures at Lipari Landfill,
New Jersey, Ground Water, 22:176-190.
AWWA, 1990. Water Quality and Treatment, American Water
Works Association, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.
Bahr, J., 1989. Analysis of nonequilibrium desorption of volatile
organicsduring afield test ofaquiferdecontamination, Journal
of Contaminant Hydrology, 4(3):205-222.
Bair, E.S., A.E. Springer, and G.S. Roadcap, 1991. Delineation
of travel time-related capture areas of wells using analytical
flow models and particle tracking analysis, Ground Water,
29(3):387-397.
Bair, E.S., and G.S. Roadcap, 1992. Comparison of flow
models used to delineate capture zones of wells: Leaky-
confined fractured-carbonate aquifer, Ground Water,
30(2): 199-211.
Barker, J.F., G.C.Patrick, and D. Major, 1987. Natural attenuation
of aromatic hydrocarbons in a shallow sand aquifer, Ground
Water Monitoring Review, 7(1 ):64-71.
Bear, J., 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media, American
Elsevier Publishing Co., New York, NY.
Blandford, T.N., P.S. Huyakorn, and Y. Wu, 1993. WHPA - A
ModularSemi-Analytical Model forthe Delineation ofWellhead
Protection Areas, U.S. EPA Office of Drinking Water and
Ground Water, Washington, DC.
Bonn, B.A., and S.A. Rounds, 1990. DREAM Analytical
Ground Water Flow Programs, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
FL
Borden, R.C., and C.M. Kao, 1992. Evaluation of groundwater
extraction forremediation of petroleum-contaminated aquifers,
Water Environ. Res., 64(1):2836.
Boulding, J.R., 1995. Practical Handbook of Soil, Vadose
Zone, and Ground-Water Contamination Assessment,
Prevention, and Remediation, Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, FL.
27
-------
Brogan, S.D., 1991. Aquifer Remediation in the Presence of
Rate-Limited Sorption, Masters Thesis, Stanford University,
Palo Alto, CA.
Brusseau, M.L., 1993. Complex Mixtures and Groundwater
Quality, Environmental Research Brief, EPA/600/S-93/004,
U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada, OK.
Bureau of Reclamation, 1995. Ground Water Manual, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Carslaw, H.S., and J.C. Jaeger, 1959. Conduction of Heat in
Solids, Oxford University Press, London, England.
CCEM, 1995. Horizontal News, Vol. 1, No. 1, Colorado Center
for Environmental Management forthe Department of Energy
Office of Technology Development, Denver, CO.
CCEM, 1996. Horizontal drilling survey results. Colorado
Center for Environmental Management forthe Department of
Energy Office of Technology Development, Denver, CO.
CCME, 1994. Subsurface Assessment Handbook for
Contaminated Sites, Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment Report CCME EPC-NCSRP48E.
Cherry, J.A., S. Feenstra, and D.M. Mackay, 1992. Developing
rational goals for in situ remedial technologies, In: Subsurface
Restoration Conference Proceedings, Third International
Conference on Ground Water Quality Research, National
Center for Ground Water Research Dallas, TX, June 21-24,
1992.
Cohen, R.M., and J.W. Mercer, 1993. DNAPL Site Evaluation,
C.K. Smoley Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Cohen, R.M., and W.J. Miller, 1983. Use of analytical models
for evaluating corrective actions at hazardous waste disposal
facilities, Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on
Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring, NWWA,
Dublin, OH, pp. 85-97.
Cohen, R.M., A.H. Vincent, J.W. Mercer, C.R. Faust, and C.P.
Spalding, 1994. Methods for Monitoring Pump-and-Treat
Performance, EPA/600/R-94/123, U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
Conger, R.M., and K. Trichel, 1993. A ground water pumping
application for remediation of a chlorinated hydrocarbon
plume with horizontal well technology, Proceedings of the
Seventh National Outdoor Action Conference and Exposition,
NGWA, Dublin, OH, pp. 47-61.
Day, S.R., 1991. Extraction/interception trenches by the bio-
polymer slurry drainage trench technique, Hazardous Materials
Control, Sept/Oct, pp. 27-31.
de Marsily, G., 1986. Quantitative Hydrogeology: Groundwater
Hydrology for Engineers, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Domenico, P.A., and F.W. Schwartz, 1990. Physical and
Chemical Hydrogeology, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Driscoll, F.G., 1986. Ground Water and Wells, Johnson Division,
UOP, St. Paul, MN.
EPRI, 1989. Techniquesto Develop Data for Hydrogeochemical
Models, Electric Power Research Institute Report EA-6637,
Palo Alto, CA.
Evans, J.C., 1991. Geotechnics of hazardous waste control
systems, Chapter 20, Foundation Engineering Handbook,
2nd ed., H.Y. Fang, ed., Van Nostrad-Reinhold Co., New
York, NY.
Faust, C.R., P.N. Sims, C.P. Spalding, P.F. Andersen, B.H.
Lester, M.G. Shupe, and A. Harrover, 1993. FTWORK:
Groundwater Flowand Solute Transport in Three Dimensions,
Version 2.8, GeoTrans, Inc., Sterling, VA.
Feenstra, S., D.M. Mackay, and J.A. Cherry, 1991. A method
for assessing residual NAPL based on organic chemical
concentrations in soil samples, Ground Water Monitoring
Review, 11 (2): 128-1 36.
Felmy, A.R., D.C. Girvin, and E.A. Jenne, 1984. MINTEQ: A
Computer Program for Calculating Aqueous Geochemical
Equilibria, EPA/600/3-84/032, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
Ferris, J.G., 1963. Cyclic water-level fluctuations as a basis for
determining aquifertransmissivity, inMethodsforDetermining
Permeability, Transmissibility and Drawdown, U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-1, pp. 305-318.
Fetter, C.W., 1993. Contaminant Hydrogeology, Macmillan
Publishing Company, New York, NY.
Fitts, C.R., 1989. Simple analytic functions for modeling three-
dimensional flow in layered aquifers, Water Resources
Research, 25(5):943-948.
Fitts, C.R., 1994. Well discharge optimization using analytic
elements, Ground Water, 32(4):547-550.
Fitts, C.R., 1995. TWODAN manual, Scarborough, ME.
Freeberg, K.M., P.B. Bedient, and J.A. Connor, 1987. Modeling
of TCE contamination and recovery in a shallowsand aquifer,
Ground Water, 25:70-80.
Galley, R.M., and S.M. Gorelick, 1993. Design of optimal,
reliable plume capture schemes: Application to the Gloucester
landfill ground-water contamination problem, Ground Water,
Gilbert, S.G., and J.J. Gress, 1987. Interceptor trenches for
positive ground-water control, Ground Water Monitoring
Review, 7(2):55-59.
Gillham, R.W., E.A. Sudicky, J.A. Cherry, and E.O. Frind, 1984.
An advective-diffusive concept for solute transport in
heterogeneous unconsolidated geologic deposits, Water
Resources Research, 20(3):369-378.
Gorelick, S.M., 1983. A review of distributed parameter
groundwater management modeling methods, Water
Resources Research, 19(2):305-319.
28
-------
Gorelick, S.M., R.A. Freeze, D. Donohue, and J.F. Keely, 1993.
Groundwater Contamination Optimal Capture and
Containment, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Greenwald, R.M., 1993. MODMAN -An Optimization Module
for MODFLOW, Version 2.1, Documentation and User's
Guide, GeoTrans, Inc., Sterling, VA.
Grisak, G.E., and J.F. Pickens, 1980. Solute transport through
fractured media: 1. The effect of matrix diffusion, Water
Resources Research, 16:719-730.
Grube, W.E., Jr., 1992. Slurry trench cut-off walls for
environmental pollution control, Slurry Walls: Design,
Construction and Quality Control, ASTM STP 1129, D.B.
Paul, R.R. Davidson, and N.J. Cavalli, eds., American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Grubb, D.G.,andN.Sitar, 1994. Evaluation of Technologies for In-
Situ Cleanup of DNAPL Contaminated Sites, EPA/600/R-94/
120, U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ada, OK.
Hagemeyer, R.T., P.F. Andersen, R.M. Greenwald, and J.L
Clausen, 1993. Evaluation of alternative plume containment
designs at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Using
MODMAN, a well pumpage optimization module for
MODFLOW, Proceedings of the 1993 Ground Water Modeling
Conference, IGWMC, Colorado School of Mines, Golden,
CO, pp. 2-42 to 2-51.
Haggerty, R., and S.M. Gorelick, 1994. Design of multiple
contaminant remediation: Sensitivity to rate-limited mass
transport, Water Resources Research, 30(2):435-446.
Haitjema, H.M., J. Wittman, V. Kelson, and N. Bauch, 1994.
WhAEM: Program Documentation forthe Wellhead Analytical
Element Model, EPA/600/R-94/210, U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S.
Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
Haley, J.L., B. Hanson, C. Enfield, and J. Glass, 1991. Evaluating
the effectiveness of ground waterextraction systems, Ground
Water Monitoring Review, 11 (1): 119-124.
Harvey, C.F., R. Haggerty, and S.M. Gorelick, 1994. Aquifer
remediation: A method for estimating mass transfer rate
coefficients and an evaluation of pulsed pumping, Water
Resources Research, 30(7): 1979-1991.
Jacob, C.E., 1950. Flowofgroundwater, in Engineering Hydraulics,
Rouse, H., ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp. 321-386.
Javandel, I., C. Doughty, and C.F. Tsang, 1984. Groundwater
Transport: Handbook of Mathematical Models, American
Geophysical Union Water Resources Monograph No. 10,
Washington, DC.
Javandel, I., and C.F. Tsang, 1986. Capture-zone type curves:
A tool for aquifer cleanup, Ground Water, 24:616-625.
Kaback, D.S., B.B. Looney, J.C. Corey, L.M. Wright, and J.L.
Steele, 1989. Horizontal wells for in situ remediation of
ground water and soils, Proceedings of the Third National
Outdoor Action Conference on Aquifer Restoration, Ground
Water Monitoring, and Geophysical Methods, NWWA, Dublin,
OH, pp. 121-135.
Kaback, D.S., B.B. Looney, C.A. Eddy, and T.C. Hazen, 1991.
Innovative ground-water and soil remediation: In situ air-
stripping using horizontal wells, Proceedings of the Fifth
National Outdoor Action Conference on Aquifer Restoration,
Monitoring, and Geophysical Methods, NWWA, Dublin, OH,
pp. 47-58.
Karlsson, H., and R. Bitto, 1990. New horizontal wellbore
system for monitoring and remedial wells, Proceedings of the
11th National Superfund Conference, HMCRI, Silver Spring,
MD, pp. 357-362.
Keely, J.F., 1989. Performance Evaluation of Pump-and-Treat
Remediations, EPA/540/4-89/005, U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
Kharaka, Y.K., W.D. Gunter, P.K. Aggarwal, and E.H. Perkins,
1988. SOLMINEQ.88 - Solution-mineral equilibrium
computations., U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA.
Konikow, L.F., and J.D. Bredehoeft, 1989. Computer Model of
Two-Dimensional Solute Transport and Dispersion in Ground
Water, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Kruseman, G.P., and N.A. deRidder, 1990. Analysis and
Evaluation of Pumping Test Data, International Institute of
Land Reclamation and Improvement, Bulletin 11, 2nd ed.,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Langseth, D.E., 1990. Hydraulic performance of horizontal
wells, Proceedings ofthe 11th National Superfund Conference,
HMCRI, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 398-408.
Lefkoff, L.J., and S.M. Gorelick, 1987. AQMAN: Linear and
Quadratic Programming Matrix Generator Using Two-
dimensional Groundwater Flow Simulation for Aquifer
Management Modeling, U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigations Report 87-4061.
Long, G.M., 1993. Clean up hydrocarbon contamination
effectively, Chemical Engineering Progress, 89(5).
Mackay, D.M., and J.A. Cherry, 1989. Groundwater
contamination: Pump-and-treat remediation, Environmental
Science and Technology, 23(6):620-636.
Marquis, Jr., S.A., and D. Dineen, 1994. Comparison between
pump and treat, biorestoration, and biorestoration/pump and
treat combined: Lessons from computer modeling, Ground
Water Monitoring and Remediation, 14(2): 105-119.
McAllister, P.M., and C.Y. Chiang, 1994. A practical approach to
evaluating natural attenuation of contaminants in ground water,
Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, 14(2): 161-173.
McCaulou, D.R., D.G. Jewett, and S.G. Huling, 1995.
Nonaqueous Phase Liquids Compatibility with Materials Used
in Well Construction, Sampling, and Remediation, EPA/540/
S-95/503, Ground Water Issue Paper, U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S.
Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh, 1988. A Modular Three-
Dimensional Finite-Difference Groundwater FlowModel, U.S.
Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations, Book 6, Chapter A1, Reston, VA.
29
-------
McKay, L.D., R.W. Gillham, and J.A. Cherry, 1993. Field
experiments in a fractured clay till: 2, Solute and colloid
transport, Water Resources Research, 29:3879-3890.
Meini, D., M. Ghiasi, R.J. Patterson, N. Ramanujam, and M.P. Tyson,
1990. Extraction of TCE-contaminated ground water by subsurface
drains and a pumping well, Ground Water, 28(1): 17-24.
Mercer, J.W., D.C. Skipp, and D. Giffin, 1990. Basics of Pump-
and-TreatGroundwaterRemediation, EPA/600/8-90/003, U.S.
EPA, ORD, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Ada, OK.
Montgomery, J.H., and L.M. Welkom, 1990. Groundwater
Chemicals Desk Reference, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Morgan, J.H., 1992. Horizontal drilling applications of petroleum
technologies for environmental purposes, Ground Water
Monitoring Review, 12(3):98-101.
Myrand, D., R.W. Gillham, E.A. Sudicky, S.F. O'Hannesin, and
R.L. Johnson, 1992. Diffusion of volatile organic compounds
in natural clay deposits: Laboratory tests, Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology, 10:159-177.
NRC, 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup, National
Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Newell, C.J., S.D. Acree, R.R. Ross, and S.G. Huling, 1995.
Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids, EPA/540/S-95/500, U.S.
EPA, ORD, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Ada, OK.
Newell, C.J., and R.R. Ross, 1992, Estimating potential for
occurrence of DNAPL at Superfund sites, U.S. EPA Quick
Reference Fact Sheet, U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
Newsom, J.M., and J.L. Wilson, 1988. Flow of ground water to
a well near a stream Effect of ambient ground-water flow
direction, Ground Water, 26(6):703-711.
Nielsen, D.M., ed., 1991. Practical Handbook of Ground-Water
Monitoring, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Noyes, R., 1994. Unit Operations in EnvironmentalEngineering,
Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, NJ.
Nyer, E.K., 1992. Groundwater Treatment Technology, Van
Nostrand-Reinhold, New York, NY.
Osborne, P.S., 1993. Suggested Operating Procedures for
Aquifer Pumping Tests, Ground Water Issue Paper, EPA/
540/S-93/503, U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
OTA, 1984. Protecting the Nation's Groundwater from
Contamination, U.S. Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment, OTA-O-276, Volumes I and II, Washington, DC.
Palmer, C.D., and W. Fish, 1991. Physicochemical processes:
Inorganic contaminants, in Site Characterization for
Subsurface Remediation, U.S. EPA Seminar Publication,
EPA/925/4-91/026, U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S. KerrEnvironmental
Research Laboratory, Ada, OK, pp. 179-192.
Palmer, C.D., and W. Fish, 1992. Chemical Enhancements to
Pump-and-TreatRemediation, U.S. EPAGroundWaterlssue
Paper, EPA/540/S-92/001, U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
Pankow, J.F., and J.A. Cherry, eds, 1995. Dense Chlorinated
Solvents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History,
Behavior, and Remediation, Waterloo Press, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada.
Papadopulos, S.S., 1965. Nonsteadyflowtoa well in an infinite
anisotropic aquifer, Proceedings of Symposium international
Association of Scientific Hydrology, Dubrovnik, pp. 21-31.
Parker, B.L., R.W. Gillham, and J.A. Cherry, 1994. Diffusive
disappearance of immiscible phase organic liquids in fractured
geologic media, Ground Water, 32(5):805-820.
Parkhurst, D.L., D.C. Thorstenson, and L.N. Plummer, 1980.
PHREEQE - A Computer Program for Geochemical
Calculations, U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources
Investigation 80-96, USGS, Reston, VA.
Pollock, D.W., 1994. User's Guide for MODPATH, MODPATH-
PLOT, Version 3: A Particle Tracking Post-Processing
Package for MODFLOW, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 94-464, USGS, Reston, VA.
Powers, S.E., C.O. Loureiro, L.M. Abriola, and W.J.Weber, Jr.,
1991. Theoretical study of the significance of nonequilibrium
dissolution of nonaqueous phase liquids in subsurface
systems, Water Resources Research, 27(4):463-477.
Pyne, R.D.G., 1995. Groundwater Recharge and Wells, A Guide
to Aquifer Storage Recovery, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Rabideau, A.J.,andC.T. Miller, 1994. Two-dimensional modeling
of aquifer remediation influenced by sorption nonequilibrium
and hydraulic conductivity heterogeneity, Water Resources
Research, 30(5):1457-1470.
Repa, E., and C. Kufs, 1985. Leachate Plume Management,
EPA/540/2-85/004, U.S. EPA, Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, OH.
Rifai, H.S., P.B. Bedient, R.C. Borden, and J.F. Haasbeek,
1987. BIOPLUME II - Computer model of two-dimensional
contaminant transport under the influence of oxygen limited
biodegradation in ground water, Version 1.0, EPA/600/8-88-
093, February 1989.
Rumbaugh, J.O., 1991. Quick Flow: Analytical ground-water
flow model, Version 1.0, Geraghty and Miller, Plainview, NY.
Rumer, R.R. and M.E. Ryan, eds., 1995. Barrier Containment
Technologies for Environmental Remediation Applications,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Runnells, 1993. Inorganic chemical processes and reactions,
in Regional Ground-Water Quality, W.M. Alley, ed., Van
Nostrand-Reinhold, New York, pp. 131-153.
Sara, M.N., 1994. Standard Handbook for Solid and Hazardous
Waste Facility Assessments, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
FL.
30
-------
Saroff, ST., H. He, and G. Powell, 1992. Hydrogeologica!
implications of saprolite aquifer remediation at Fairfax, Virginia,
oil spill, Proceedings of HMCRI's 13th Annual National
Conference and Exhibition, Hazardous Materials Control
Research Institute, Silver Spring, MD, pp. 407-412.
Satkin, R.L., and P.B. Bedient, 1988. Effectiveness of various
aquifer restoration schemes under variable hydrogeologic
conditions, Ground Water, 26(4):488-498.
Schmelling, S.G., and R.R. Ross, 1989. Contaminant Transport
in Fractured Media: Models for Decision Makers, U.S. EPA
Ground Water Issue Paper, EPA/540/4-89/004, U.S. EPA,
ORD, R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada,
OK.
Shafer, J.M., 1987a. Reverse pathline calculation of time-
related capture zones in nonuniform flow, Ground Water,
25(3):282-289.
Shafer, J.M., 1987b. GWPATH: Interactive Groundwater Flow
Path Analysis, Illinois State Water Survey, Bulletin 69.
Starr, R.C., and J.A. Cherry, 1994. In situ remediation of
contaminated ground water: The funnel-and-gate system,
Ground Water, 32(3):465-476.
Strack, O.D.L., 1989. Groundwater Mechanics, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Strack, O.D.L., E.I. Anderson, M. Bakker, W.C. Olsen, J.C.
Panda, R.W. Pennings, and D.R. Steward, 1994. CZAEM
User's Guide: Modeling Capture Zones of Ground-Water
Using Analytic Elements, EPA/600/R-94/174, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
Stumm, W., 1992. Chemistry of the Solid-Water Interface, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Tiedeman, C., and S.M. Gorelick, 1993. Analysis of uncertainty
in optimal groundwater contaminant capture design, Water
Resources Research, 29(7):2139-2153.
Trescott, P.C., G.F. Pinder, and S.P. Larson, 1976. Finite-
Difference Model for Aquifer Simulation in Two Dimensions
with Results of Numerical Experiments, U.S. Geological
Survey Techniques of Water Resource Investigations Book
7, Chapter C1, USGS, Reston, VA.
Truesdell, A.H., and B.F. Jones, 1974. WATEQ: A Computer
ProgramforCalculating Chemical Equilibria of Natural Waters,
U.S. Geological Survey Journal of Research, 2:233-248.
U.S. EPA, 1975. Manual of Water Well Construction Practices,
EPA-570/9-75/001, Office of Water Supply, Washington,
DC.
U.S. EPA, 1984. Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution
Migration Control, EPA-540/2-84/001, U.S. EPA, Municipal
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, EPA/
540/G-89/004, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1988b. Guidance on Remedial Actions for
Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites, EPA/540/
G-99/003, OSWER Directive 9283.1-2, U.S. EPA, Washington,
DC.
U.S. EPA, 1989. Guide for Conducting Treatability Studies
Under CERCLA, EPA/540/2-89/058, U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1991 a. Site Characterization for Subsurface
Remediation, Seminar Publication, EPA/625/4-91/026, U.S.
EPA, Centerfor Environmental Research Information, Office
of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1991b. Handbook Stabilization Technologies for
RCRA Corrective Actions, EPA/625/6-91/026, U.S. EPA,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1992a. Dense nonaqueous phase liquids A
workshop summary, Dallas, Texas, April 17-18, 1991, EPA/
600/R-92/030, U.S. EPA, ORD, R.S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
U.S. EPA, 1992b. Evaluation of Ground-Water Extraction
Remedies, U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1992c. RCRA Corrective Action Stabilization
Technologies, EPA/625/R-92/014, U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1993a. Guidance for evaluating the technical
impracticability of ground-water restoration, Directive 9234.2-
25, Interim Final, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1993b. Subsurface Characterization and Monitoring
Techniques, A Desk Reference Guide, Volumes I and II, EPA/
625/R-93/003, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1994a. Manual - Ground-Water and Leachate
Treatment Systems, EPA/625/R-94/005, U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1994b. Alternative Methods for Fluid Delivery and
Recovery, EPA/625/R-94/003, U.S. EPA, Center for
Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA, 1995. How to Evaluate Alternate Cleanup
Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites, EPA/
510/B-94/003, U.S. EPA, Office of Underground Storage
Tanks, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA, 1996. Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ
Treatment Technologies for Contaminated Ground Water at
CERCLA Sites, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, EPA/540/R-96/023.
van derHeijde, P.K.M., and O.A. Elnawawy, 1993. Compilation of
Ground-Water Models, EPA/600/R-93/118, U.S. EPA, ORD,
R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK.
Wagner, B.J., and S.M. Gorelick, 1987. Optimal groundwater
quality management under parameter uncertainty, Water
Resources Research, 23(7): 1162-1174.
31
-------
Ward, D.S., D.R. Buss, J.W. Mercer, and S.S. Hughes, 1987.
Evaluation of a groundwater corrective action at the Chem-
Dyne hazardous waste site using a telescopic mesh
refinement modeling approach, Water Resources Research,
23(4):603-617.
Ward, D.S., A.L. Harrover, A.M. Vincent, andB.H. Lester, 1993.
Data Input Guide for SWIFT/486, GeoTrans, Inc., Sterling,
VA.
WEF, 1994. Pretreatment of Industrial Wastes, Manual of
Practice No. FD-3, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria,
VA.
Wiedemeier, T.H., J.T. Wilson, D.H. Kampbell, R.N. Miller, and
J.E. Hansen, 1995. Technical Protocol for Implementing
Intrinsic Remediation with Long-Term Monitoring for Natural
Attenuation of Fuel Contamination Dissolved in Groundwater,
Volume I, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence,
Brooks AFB, San Antonio, TX.
Wilson, J.L., 1984. Double-cell hydraulic containment of pollutant
plumes, Proceedings of the Fourth National Symposium and
Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water
Monitoring, NWWA, Dublin, OH, pp. 65-70.
Wolery, T.J., 1979. Calculations of Chemical Equilibrium
between Aqueous Solutions and Minerals: The EQ3/6
Software Package, UCRL-52658, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory, Livermore, CA.
WSRC, 1993. Summary Report of the Drilling Technologies
Tested at the Integrated Demonstration Site, WSRC-TR-93-
565, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC.
Zheng, C., 1990. PATH3D-A Ground-Water Path and Travel-
Time Simulator, Version 2.0, User's Manual, S.S. Papadopulos
and Associates, Bethesda, MD.
Zheng, C., 1992. MT3D - A Modular Three-Dimensional
Transport Model for Simulation ofAdvection, Dispersion, and
Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in Groundwater
Systems, S.S. Papadopulos and Associates, Bethesda, MD.
Zheng, C., G.D. Bennett, and C.B. Andrews, 1991. Analysis of
ground-waterremedialalternativesataSuperfundsite, Ground
Water, 29(6):838-848.
Zheng, C., G.D. Bennett, and C.B. Andrews, 1992. Reply to
discussion of analysis of ground-water remedial alternatives
at a Superfund site, Ground Water, 30(3):440-442.
32
-------
Appendix A
for P&T
Widespread experience with P&T systems during the past 15
years indicates that their ability to reduce and maintain dissolved
contaminant concentrations below clean-up standards in
reasonable time frames is hindered at many sites due to
complex hydrogeologic conditions, contaminant chemistry
factors, and inadequate system design (Keely, 1989; Mercer et
al., 1990; U.S. EPA, 1993a; NRC, 1994; and Cohen etal. 1994).
Hydrogeologic conditions that confound ground-water cleanup
include the presence of complex sedimentary deposits, low
permeability formations, and fractured bedrock. Chemical
processes that cause contaminant concentration tailing and
rebound during and after P&T operation, respectively, and
thereby impede complete aquifer restoration, include: (1) the
presence and slow dissolution of nonaqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs); (2) contaminant partitioning between ground water
and porous media; and (3) contaminant diffusion into low
permeability regions that are inaccessible to flowing ground
water. These limitations may render restoration using only
conventional P&T technology impracticable at some sites.
NAPL Dissolution
NAPLs that are denser than water (DNAPLs), in particular,
exacerbate ground-water restoration efforts. This is due to their
prevalence at contamination sites, their complex subsurface
migration behaviorand distribution, theirlowaqueous solubility,
and limits to DNAPL removal using available technologies (U.S.
EPA, 1992a; Grubb and Sitar, 1994; and Pankow and Cherry,
1995). Greater success has been achieved remediating
petroleum hydrocarbon LNAPLs using conventional methods
and enhanced technologies such as soil vapor extraction,
bioremediation, and air sparging.
Subsurface NAPL trapped as ganglia at residual saturation or
contained in pools can be a long-term source of ground-water
contamination, as illustrated in Figure 8-d, due to its limited
aqueous solubility that may greatly exceed drinking water
standards. At many sites, NAPL pools will continue to
contaminate ground water long after residual fingers and ganglia
have dissolved completely (Cohen and Mercer, 1993). If
NAPLs are not removed (e.g., by excavation) or contained (as
depicted in Figure 2), then tailing and rebound will occur during
and after P&T operation, respectively, in and downgradient of
the NAPL zone. Above residual saturation, NAPL will flow
unless it is immobilized in a stratigraphictrap or by hydrodynamic
forces. NAPL movement can greatly expand the subsurface
volume where restoration is impractical. A critical element of
site characterization, therefore, is to delineate the nature and
extent of mobile and residual NAPL so that these source areas
can be removed or contained. Detailed guidance on NAPL site
characterization is provided by American Petroleum Institute
(1989), U.S. EPA (1992a), Cohen and Mercer (1993), and
Newell etal. (1995).
Contaminant Sorption and Desorption
Sorption/desorption also cause tailing, concentration rebound,
and slow ground-water restoration. As dissolved contaminant
concentrations are reduced by P&T operation, contaminants
sorbed to subsurface media desorb from the matrix and dissolve
in ground water. The volume of ground water that must be
passed through a contamination zone to attain clean-up
standards increases with contaminant sorption and kinetic
limitations to the rate of desorption.
Equilibrium contaminant partitioning between porous media
and ground water can be described by the Langmuir or Freundlich
isotherms (Figure A-1). Forthe linear isotherms (N = 1) and for
limited ranges of Cw (particularly at low concentration) where N
^ 1, the Freundlich constant, Kf, can be identified as a soil-water
distribution coefficient, Kd:
i ~ Cs I C,,
(A-1)
where Cs and Cw are the equilibrium contaminant concentrations
in soil and water, respectively.
Csmax..
Langmuir Isotherm:
Cs=Csmax KO/V
1+KCw
Freundlich
Isotherm:
N
s = KfCw
Aqueous Concentration (Cw)
Aqueous Concentration (Cw)
Figure A-1 The Langmuir and Freundlich adsorption isotherms
(modified from Palmer and Fish, 1992).
Contaminant Kd values must be characterized to predict ground-
water restoration times for different P&T schemes or for natural
ground-water flushing. By assuming that sorption is
instantaneous, reversible, and linear, Kd values can be used to
estimate: (1) the retardation factor, R,
R=1
pb/n
(A-2)
and (2) the equilibrium distribution of contaminant mass between
the solid and aqueous phases
33
-------
fw = CWVW /[(CWVW )+(Cs MS)]=VW/(VW
Kd Ms
(A-3)
where pb is the dry bulk density of the media, n is the media
porosity, Vw is the volume of water in the total subject volume,
Ms is the mass of solids in the total subject volume, and fw is the
fraction of mass residing in the aqueous phase.
Although the ratio of bulk density to porosity is typically within a
range of four to six, Kd values for different contaminants vary
overorders-of-magnitude(e.g., Montgomery and Welkom, 1990).
Thus, contaminant velocity and P&T restoration time are
particularly sensitive to soil-water partitioning (Kd values) of
ground-water contaminants.
The nonlinearity of contaminant desorption and difficulty of
contaminant removal appear to increase with the duration of
contaminant presence in the subsurface (Brusseau, 1993).
Thus, old plumes are likely to exhibit significant nonideal behavior.
Conversely, ground-water cleanup may be simplified if remedial
efforts are undertaken quickly after the occurrence of a
contaminant release.
Sorption and retardation values vary between different
contaminants at a given site and between different sites for a
given contaminant (Mackay and Cherry, 1989). As depicted in
Figure 8, desorption and retardation increase the volume of
ground water that must be pumped to attain dissolved
contaminant concentration reductions. Tailing and rebound
effects will be exacerbated where desorption is slow relative to
ground-water flow and kinetic limitations prevent sustenance of
equilibrium contaminant concentrations in ground water (Bahr,
1989; Brogan, 1991; Haley etal., 1991; and Palmer and Fish,
1992). This concept is illustrated in Figure A-2.
Equilibrium Concentration
7
Long contact time
produced equilibrium
partitioning concentration
Kinetic limitations limit
dissolved concentration
Groundwater Velocity
Contact Tims
Figure A-2, Relationship between ground-water velocity and the
concentration of dissolved contaminants that (a)
desorb from porous media, (b) dissolve from
precipitates, or(c) dissolve fromNAPL (modified from
Keely, 1989). Kinetic limitations to dissolution
exacerbate tailing.
Solids Dissolution
Important physicochemical processes that affect the solubility,
reactivity, mobility, and toxicity of inorganic contaminants include:
(1) chemical speciation, (2) oxidation/reduction, (3) dissolution/
precipitation, (4) ion exchange and sorption, and (5) particle
transport (Palmer and Fish, 1991). Inorganic contaminants
occur in many different chemical forms or "species." Knowing
the total concentration of an inorganic element in ground water
or soil, as commonly provided by laboratory analysis, may be of
little value (alone) in assessing its subsurface behavior. Rather,
it is often more important to determine contaminant speciation
which depends on several factors including pH, Eh, ion and gas
concentrations, and temperature. For example, metal cations
combine with different anions to form aqueous complexes that
increase the solubility, mobility, and risk associated with
potentially toxic metals such as chromium and arsenic.
Given the complex interaction between solid minerals, inorganics,
and environmental factors (such as Eh-pH relations), computer
codes are used to assess the solubility and geochemical behavior
of inorganic species in ground water. Codes used to evaluate
mineral solubility, saturation, and chemical speciation include
WATEQ (Truesdell and Jones, 1974), SOLMINEQ88 (Kharaka
et al., 1988) and mass transfer codes, such as PHREEQE
(Parkhurstetal., 1980), EQ3/EQ6(Wolery, 1979), and MINTEQ
(Felmy etal., 1984), that can also be used to deduce equilibrium
chemical reactions. Data requirementsforthesecodestypically
include field analysis of ground-water samples for pH,
temperature, Eh or dissolved oxygen, and alkalinity, and a
complete inorganic chemical analysis for all major and minor
ions and all metals and anions under investigation.
Besides conducting thorough chemical analyses for speciation
studies, investigations should be conducted to delineate
inorganic contaminant plumes and estimate plume migration
rates. Mineralogical characterization efforts can be used to
identify solid phases (e.g., clay minerals and Fe and Mn
oxyhydroxides) that control inorganic contaminant partitioning
(EPRI, 1989). Sorption-desorption and other tests can be
conducted to assess inorganic contaminant partitioning,
solubility, and mobility as a function of pH and other factors, and
the potential for aquifer restoration. Additional information
relevant to assessing inorganic ground-water contamination is
given by EPRI (1989), Domenico and Schwartz (1990), Palmer
and Fish(1991), Stumm(1992), Fetter(1993), Runnells(1993),
and Allen etal. (1993).
Ground-Water Velocity Variation
Tailing and rebound also result from variable travel times
associated with different flowpaths taken by contaminants to
extraction wells. Ground water at the edge of a capture zone
travels a greater distance under a lower hydraulic gradient than
ground water closer to the center of the capture zone. Travel
times also vary as a function of initial contaminant distribution
and hydraulic conductivity differences. If pumping is stopped,
rebound will occurwhereverthe resulting flowpath modification
diminishes contaminant dilution. Permeability and contaminant
distributions should be characterized to facilitate analysis of
ground-water stagnation and velocity variations that would be
induced by alternative pumping schemes.
Matrix Diffusion
As contaminants advance through relatively permeable pathways
in heterogeneous media, concentration gradients cause diffusion
of contaminant mass into the less permeable media and thereby
retard solute velocity relative to ground water (Gillham et al.,
1984). During a P&T operation, dissolved contaminant
concentrations in the relatively permeable zones may be quickly
34
-------
reduced by advective flushing relative to the less permeable
zones. This causes a reversal in the initial concentration
gradient and the slow diffusion of contaminants from the low to
high permeability media. This slow process can cause long-
term tailing and rebound after the termination of pumping.
Matrix diffusion may dictate the time necessary for complete
remediation, particularly in heterogeneous and fractured media
where transport via preferential pathways results in large
concentration gradients (Grisak and Pickens, 1980; McKay et
al., 1993; and Parker et al., 1994). For example, consider a
sand aquifer with clay lenses that was contaminated for a long
time before commencing P&T operation. Advective transport
induced by pumping may quickly reduce contaminant
concentrations in the sand. Concentrations in the clay lenses,
however, will decrease slowly as contaminants slowly diffuse
from the clay to the sand. The areal extent of the clay is such
that an approximation of one-dimensional diffusion out of each
lens can be used to estimate the time needed to reduce
contaminant concentrations in the clay. If (C0) is a uniform initial
contaminant concentration in a clay lens of thickness m, and
that P&T maintains a very low concentration in the sand, then
the time required for diffusion to reduce the average relative
contaminant concentration (C/C0) in a clay lens can be estimated
by (Carslaw and Jaeger, 1959, p. 97):
_C_ 8C0 y 1_
c.. m LI 11~ j.
exp\ -
D°
(2n+ 1)2 n2t
)
(A-4)
where R is the retardation factor, a is tortuosity (typically =1.6
to 1.3 in granular media; Bear, 1972), D° is the free water
diffusion coefficient, and t is time. Considering typical free water
diffusion coefficients for organic contaminants (1 x 10~5to 1 x
10 ~6 cm 2/sec), changes in C/C0 in clay lenses of different
thickness are shown as a function of time in Figure A-3, and
indicate that matrix diffusion can greatly increase aquifer clean-
up time.
The potential for matrix diffusion to cause tailing and rebound
can be assessed based on (1) knowledge of the contaminant
concentration history in the subsurface, (2) site stratigraphy, (3)
chemical analyses conducted on vertical core samples taken
from low-permeability matrix material, (4) diffusion modeling,
and (5) review of P&T monitoring data. Estimates of water
diffusion coefficients for various contaminants and media are
available in the literature (Parker et al., 1994) or can be, but
rarely are, measured in a laboratory (Myrand et al., 1992).
Free Liquid Diffusion Coefficients
1.0E06sq.
1.0E05sq.
10 20
Time (years)
Figure A-3. Changes in average relative contaminant concen-
tration in clay lenses of specified thickness due to
diffusion to adjacent clean zones during P&T (based
on typical diffusion coefficient and tortuosity values).
35
-------
B
as
(modified from U.S. EPA, 1994a; Bouiding, 1995)
Method
Process Description
Package Plant Components
and Sizes
(Dimensions are for overall plant en velope)
Advantages and Limitations
Air Stripping
Widely used to
remove volatile
contaminants from
ground water.
Volatile contaminants are trans-
ferred from water to gas phase by
passing air or steam through water
in a tall packed tower, shallow tray
tower, or stripping lagoons. The air
stream containing volatile contami-
nants may require treatment (e.g.,
with vapor-phase carbon).
Stripping with steam may be cost-
effective for water containing a mix
of relatively nonvolatile and volatile
compounds, particularly at
industrial facilities where steam is
readily available.
Package plants include tall packed
tower or compact low profile diffuser
tray units, feed pump, air blower,
and effluent pump. Flow meters for
influent and air flow are required.
An influent throttle valve and blower
damper are required to adjust the
air/water ratio. Acid or chlorine is
used to wash the tower packing
(e.g., of Fe precipitates). Heights
are for packed tower units.
1-10gpm 4'x4'x20' 2 HP
10-50 gpm 6'x8'x25' 5 HP
50-100 gpm 7'x10'x30' 8 HP
100-400 gpm-- 8'x12'x40' 20 H P
Effective for VOCs. Equipment is
relatively simple. Startup and
shutdown can be accomplished
quickly. Modular design is well-suited
for contaminant P&T. Package
systems widely available.
Dissolved Fe and Mn can be
precipitated and foul the packed media
resulting in headless and reduced
system effectiveness. Pretreatment
(oxidation, precipitation, sedimentation)
of influent may be required. Biological
fouling may also occur (requiring
cleaning via chlorination or a biocide).
Sensitive to pH, temperature, and flow
rate. May be cost-prohibitive at tem-
peratures below freezing (may need to
heat). May need GAG polishing of
water effluent and treatment of air
stream.
Granular Activated
Carbon (GAC)
Adsorption
Widely used to
remove metals,
volatile and semi-
volatile organics,
pesticides, RGBs,
etc. from ground
water and leachate.
Aqueous contaminants are sorbed
to GAC or synthetic resin packed
in vessels in parallel or series.
Used sorbent is regenerated or
replaced. Extent of adsorption
depends on strength of molecular
attraction, molecular weight of
contaminants, type and
characteristics of adsorbent, pH,
and surface area.
Package systems include 1 to 3
pressure vessels on a skid, inter-
connecting piping, a feed pump,
optionally a backwash pump,
pressure gauges, differential pres-
sure gauges, influent flow meter,
backwash flow meter, and control
panel. Spent adsorbers are
disconnected and sent to
regeneration centers or landfills.
1-10 gpm - 12'x8'x8'-2 HP
10-50 gpm - 14'x8'x8'-7 HP
50-100 gpm - 20'x10'xS1 - 10 HP
100-200 gpm - 20'x20'x8' - 20 HP
Effective for low solubility organics.
Useful for a wide range of
contaminants over a broad
concentration range. Not adversely
affected by toxics.
High O&M costs. Intolerant of
suspended solids (will clog).
Pretreatment required for oil and
grease greater than 10 mg/L.
Synthetic resins intolerant of strong
oxidizing agents.
Chemical
Precipitation.
Flocculation,
Sedimentation
Widely used to
remove metals from
contaminated ground
water and landfill
leachate.
Metals are precipitated to insoluble
metal hydroxides, sulfides, carbon-
ates, or other salts by the addition
of a chemical (e.g., to raise pH),
oxidation, or change in water
temperature. Flocculent aids may
be added to hasten sedimentation.
Package plants include a rapid-mix
tank, flocculation chamber, and
settling tank. Inclined plate gravity
separation or circular clarifiers are
used for settling. Typical equipment
includes a rapid mixer, flocculator
and drive, feed pump, sludge pump,
acid and caustic soda pumps for pH
control, and a polymer pump.
1 -10 gpm - 8'x4'x9' - 3 HP
10-50 gpm - 10'x4'x13' -5 HP
50-100gpm-11'x6'x14'-7HP
Useful for many contaminated ground-
water streams, particularly as a
pretreatment step.
Effectiveness limited by presence of
complexing agents in water.
Precipitate sludge may be a hazardous
waste.
36
-------
Appendix B (continued)
Method
Process Description
Package Plant Components
and Sizes
(Dimensions are for overall plant envelope)
Advantages and Limitations
UV Oxidation
Used increasingly to
remove organic
contaminants from
ground water and
other wastewaters.
Ultraviolet (UV) oxidation involves
adding an oxidant, such as hydro-
gen peroxide, to contaminated
water and then irradiating the
solution with UV light. This splits
the hydrogen peroxide, producing
hydroxyl radicals which react with
organic contaminants, causing
their breakdown to non-toxic
products (e.g., low weight
aldehydes, carbon dioxide and
water).
An oxidant (hydrogen peroxide) is
injected upstream of the reactor
vessel and mixed with the contami-
nated water in line. The fluid then
flows sequentially through 1 or
more reactors containing UV lamps
where treatment occurs.
1x10kW-2'x6'x6'
1x30kW-4'x4'x8'
4x30 kW - 12'x5'x8'
UV oxidation can treat a broad range of
soluble organics and is particularly
effective for destroying chloroalkanes
such as TCE and vinyl chloride and
aromatic compounds such as benzene
and toluene.
Pretreatment may be needed to
remove suspended solids, NAPL, and
iron concentrations > 100 mg/L.
Treatability studies needed.
Widely used to
remove fine
suspended solids
from ground water
and landfill leachate.
A fixed or moving bed of media
traps and removes suspended
solids from water passing through
the media. Monomedium filters
usually contain sand, while multi-
media filters include granular
anthracite over sand possibly over
very fine garnet sand. Filters are
used upstream of other treatment
processes.
Package filters consist of one or
more pressure vessels on a skid. A
feed pump, backwash pump, piping,
and valves complete the system.
1-10gpm- 10'x4'x8' -2 HP
10-50gpm-14'x6'x8'-3HP
50-1QOgpm- 18'x8'x8' -5 HP
100-250 gpm - 24'x10'x8' - 15 HP
Reliable and effective means of remov-
ing low levels of solids. Equipment is
readily available and easy to operate
and control.
Filters clog if suspended solids concen-
tration is high. Backwash water
requires further treatment.
Ion Exchange
Widely used to
remove metal
cations, IDS, and
anions (e.g., nitrate,
sulfate, chromate)
from drinking water
and for various other
applications.
Ion exchange is an adsorption
process that uses a resin media to
remove dissolved ion contaminants
(by exchanging sorption sites held
by harmless ions). Cation resins
adsorb metals while anion resins
adsorb such contaminants as
nitrate and sulfate. Systems con-
sist of pressure vessels containing
beds of resin pellets and strainers
to retain the pellets. The resin bed
is regenerated by flushing with
acid and/or caustic soda.
Package plants include resin-filled
pressure vessels, regeneration
chemical tanks, and waste brine
storage tanks. Acid and caustic
soda solution pumps are provided
to regenerate the resin. Resins can
be selected that are ion-specific.
1 -10 gpm - 8'x3'x6' - 3 HP
10-50gpm-14'x5'x8'-10HP
50-100 gpm - 17'x6'x10' - 12 HP
Removes a broad range of ionic
species. Units are compact and not
energy intensive.
Must monitor effluent for contaminant
breakthrough. High concentrations of
Fe and Mn, hardness cations (Ca and
Mg), suspended solids, and certain
organics will foul ion exchangers.
These constituents are often present at
much higher concentration than the
targeted contaminants. One option is
to use ion-specific resins to remove
heavy metals in the presence of Ca and
Mg.
Reverse
Osmosis (RO)
Widely used for
removing dissolved
solids from drinking
water and other
applications.
RO is a separation process that
uses selective semipermeable
membranes to remove dissolved
solids from water. A high-pressure
pump forces the water through a
membrane, overcoming the natural
osmotic pressure, to divide the
water into a dilute (treated) stream
and a concentrated (residual brine)
stream.
RO package plants include
cartridge prefilters, a high-pressure
feed pump, RO modules, pressure
vessels, and a backpressure valve.
1-1Qgpm-8'x3'x6'-13 HP
10-50 gpm - 12'x6'x6' -35 HP
50-100gpm-14'x12'x8'-85HP
Can reduce both inorganic and organic
dissolved solids.
Some brine must flow out of the RO
module to remove concentrated con-
taminants. This rejected flow may be
10% to 50% of the feed flow. Units are
subject to chemical attack, fouling, and
plugging. Pretreatment needs (e.g., to
remove Fe, Ca, Mg) may be great.
37
-------
Appendix B (continued)
Method
Process Description
Package Plant Components
and Sizes
(Dimensions are for overall plant en velope)
Advantages and Limitations
Fluid/zed Bed
Biological Reactor
(FBR)
Widely used to
remove soluble
organics (e.g., BTEX,
aromatics, halo-
genated aliphatics,
etc.) from ground
water, but not landfill
leachate.
An aerobic FBR is a fixed-film
biological treatment technology
using microbes grown on GAC or
sand media. Dedicated pumps
provide desired fluidization and
control the reactor internal flux.
Influent enters the reactor bottom.
The media bed expands as the
biofilm grows thicker and reduces
the media density. An internal
growth control system intercepts
the rising bed at a desired height,
removes most biomass from the
media, and returns the media to
the reactor. Aerobic GAC FBR
integrates biological removal with
GAC sorption.
Package plants include an enclosed
vertical cylindrical vessel, influent
pump, air compressor or blower, air
diffuser, effluent recycle pump, and
media/biomass separation tank.
1-10gpm - 12'x7'x15'-7 HP
1Q-5Qgpm - 18'x10'x15' - 10 HP
50-100 gpm-18'x12'x15'- 12 HP
100-400 gpm - 18'x16'x15' - 40 HP
Expected to have a high process and
mechanical reliability. Single or dual
reactor design provides on-line
flexibility. GAC FBR provides stable
performance under fluctuating loading
conditions.
NAPL may pass through or cover the
biofilm surface. Iron levels > 20 mg/L
may require pretreatment to avoid
plugging. Ca and Mg may cause
scaling problems. Not designed for
removing suspended solids. GAC FBR
is not efficient for low-yield, nonbio-
degradable organics because it is often
operated as a high loading system with
a short retention time.
Activated Sludge
Widely used to
remove biodegrad-
able organic con-
taminants and
inorganic nutrients
(e.g., N and P) from
landfill leachate, but
not from ground
water.
This is a suspended-growth,
biological treatment system that
uses aerobic microbes to biode-
grade organic contaminants.
Influent is pumped into an aeration
tank, mixed with bacteria, and kept
in suspension. In the presence of
oxygen, nutrients, organic com-
pounds, and acclimated biomass,
organic contaminants are biode-
graded. After a treatment period,
the fluid and biomass are passed
to a settling tank, where cells are
separated from treated water. A
portion of the settled cells are
recycled to the next treatment
batch and the remaining sludge is
disposed.
Package plants include cylindrical
or rectangular aeration tanks and
clarifiers, positive displacement
blower, air diffusers, sludge recycle
pump, sludge waste pump,
chemical feed pumps, and control
panel.
1-10gpm-23'x12'x12'-5 HP
10-SOgpm-45'x24'x12'-15HP
50-100 gpm - 45'x50'x12' - 25 HP
100-200 gpm- 45'x1 OO'xl 2'- 47 HP
Effective and reliable if there are no
shock loads. Technology is highly
developed. Can tolerate higher organic
loads than most biological treatment
processes. High degree of flexibility.
High capital costs. Generates sludge
that may be high in metals and
refractory organics. Sensitive to high
concentrations of heavy metals or toxic
organics. Fairly energy intensive. Has
difficulty with low concentrations of
contaminants, relatively long time
needed for organism acclimation. Long
detention times for some complex
contaminant degradation.
Sequencing Batch
Reactor (SBR)
Widely used to
remove biodegrad-
able organics and
inorganic nutrients
from LF leachate, but
not from ground
water.
The SBR is a periodically
operated, suspended growth,
activated sludge process. It is
different from the continuous
activated sludge process in that
the treatment steps are carried out
in a single reactor tank in
sequential steps.
Package plants include 1 or 2
rectangular or cylindrical SBR
tanks, blowers, air diffusers, influent
pumps, waste sludge pump, effluent
pump, and chemical pumps. A
floating decanter removes clear
water from the reactor water at the
end of the treatment cycle.
1-1Qgpm-20'x10'x12'-7HP
10-50 gpm -30'x15'x14' -40 HP
50-100 gpm - 40'x20'x14' - 80 H P
See above.
By using a single tank, SBR saves land
requirements and provides flexibility in
changeable time and mode of aeration
in each stage.
38
------- |