United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH BRIEF
The Impact of Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions on
Contaminant Transport with Application to an Arsenic
Contaminated Site
Robert Ford*
Introduction
It is recognized that physical and chemical interactions between adjacent ground water
and surface water bodies are an important factor impacting water budget and nutrient/
contaminant transport within a watershed (Winter et al., 1998). This observation is
also of importance for hazardous waste site cleanup within the United States, since
about 75% of sites regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA or Superfund) are located within a half mile of a surface-water body
(Tomassoni, 2000; Biksey and Gross, 2001). The boundary between adjacent ground-
water and surface-water bodies is referred to as the ground-water/surface-water (GW/
SW) transition zone. The transition zone plays a critical role in governing contaminant
exchange and transformation during water exchange between the two water bodies.
The intervening transition zone between a stream and its adjacent aquifer has
historically been referred to as the hyporheic zone (see Triska et al., 1993 for specific
definition). The more general terminology, GW/SW transition zone, is used throughout
this document to stress the importance that water and solute exchange is not limited
only to streams.
The purpose of this document is to provide a brief overview of the dynamics of chemical
processes that govern contaminant transport and speciation during water exchange across
the GW/SW transition zone and to present results from a field study examining the fate
of arsenic during ground-water discharge into a shallow lake at a contaminated site. A
conceptual model of the GW/SW transition zone is defined to serve as a starting point for
prioritizing tasks carried out during site characterization to define contaminant mass flux
across the GW/SW transition zone. This information is a critical component towards estab-
lishing site-specific risks and alternatives for remedial intervention to reduce or eliminate
these risks. Developing a knowledge base for delineating the biogeochemical processes
controlling subsurface transport of the contaminant is one component of the investigative
effort to define human or ecological risk. The discussion that follows necessarily ignores
specific risk receptors. Since risk is dependent on the degree of current and future con-
taminant exposure to the receptor, it is important to define contaminant mass distribu-
tion (aqueous, solid, gas) and the dynamics of mass re-distribution within the regulatory
boundaries established for the site. However, receptor response to contaminant exposure
may not vary proportionally to contaminant mass or media-specific concentration, so the
overall risk characterization effort must be guided by knowledge of both contaminant and
receptor(s) distribution within the investigative boundary.
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management
Research Laboratory, Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division, Ada, OK.
contact: 580-436-8872, ford.robert@epa.gov
-------
Assessment of thefactors controlling contaminant transport
and distribution between interacting ground-water and sur-
face-water bodies will be guided by the conceptual model
that delineates the relevant hydrologic and biogeochemi-
cal processes. The conceptual model is developed based
on site-specific data and will be improved or revised with
continued accumulation of data that document relevant
processes active on site. The complexity of the conceptual
model and the extent of required refinement or revision will
be dictated by site heterogeneity and process variability in
time and space. While similarities may exist between dif-
ferent sites with regard to hydrology, contaminant identity,
and system biogeochemistry, the initial conceptual model
should always be viewed as a prototype for each given site.
Therefore, site-specific monitoring plans should include
iterative review and revision of the site conceptual model
concurrent with improvements in the knowledge base.
Evaluation of GW/SW Interactions at Waste Sites
Regulatory Framework
There is general recognition within the USEPA regulatory
program of the significance of water transport across the
GW/SW transition zone as a pathway for contaminant
transport (Tomassoni, 2000). Programs administered in
support of achieving requirements set forth in RCRA and
CERCLA have common goals of returning usable ground
water to beneficial uses where practical and preventing
contaminant migration and exposure to surface-water
receptors. The Environmental Indicators (El) assessment
programs administered through the RCRA Corrective Ac-
tion (CA) Program and the Superfund Program provide an
example wherethe Agency provides guidance for evaluating
the importance of ground water/surface water (GW/SW)
interactions for contaminanttransport and exposure. These
indicators are used to monitor intermediate progress in en-
vironmental terms at sites identified for restoration. Under
Superfund, the Migration of Contaminated Groundwater
Under Control (GM) Environmental Indicator is used for
assessment of contaminant levels in ground water and
the potential for contaminant migration and discharge to
surface water (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/ei/
gwsurvey.pdf). Underthe RCRA CA Program, the Migration
of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control El (RCRIS
code CA750) determination is used to monitor whether
any existing plumes of contaminated ground water are
getting larger or adversely affecting surface-water bodies
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/eis/eLguida.
pdf). Guidance documents developed to support these
El assessments point towards the potential need to col-
lect cross-media data (e.g., ground water, surface water,
sediment and ecological data) for evaluating site-specific
progress towards meeting cleanup goals.
Agency Documentation
There are two documents published by the USEPA that
directly address scientific and policy aspects of chemical
transport between ground-water and surface-water bodies
as well as approaches to site characterization. A review
of methods for assessing contaminated ground-water
discharge to surface water was published by the Office of
Water in 1991 (EPA, 1991). While there have been new
technological developments that improve the capability for
delineating GW/SW interactions, the general approaches
and many of the specific techniques for mapping the dis-
chargeof non-point contaminant sourcesfrom ground-water
to surface-water bodies are still applicable. The Office of
Water has supplemented the 1991 document by outlining an
approach for using biological indicators to assist in assess-
ing the impact of contaminated ground-water discharge on
surface-water quality (EPA, 1998a). The U. S. Geological
Survey has also published examples where contaminant
discharge area(s) have been mapped out using hydrologic
and physicochemical techniques to assess the fate of
volatile organic compounds and inorganic contaminants
during transport across the GW/SW transition zone (e.g.,
Savoie et al., 2000; McCobb et al., 2003).
The USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse (OSWER) sponsored a workshop in January
1999 to bring together a group of experts to address the
ecological importance of the GW/SW transition zone and
review approaches to characterize relevant hydrogeologi-
cal, chemical, and biological processes within this zone.
This workshop was jointly organized by the Ecological Risk
Assessment Forum (ERAF) and the Ground Water Forum
(GWF), which comprise ecological risk assessment and
ground-water specialists, respectively, from USEPA Re-
gional Offices, Headquarters, and the Office of Research and
Development. A proceedings document was published to
synthesize workshop discussions and to propose directions
for future research that will benefit the USEPA regulatory
mission (EPA, 2000a). This document also provides an
update to many of the methods for site characterization
published by the Office of Water and a compendium of
case studies where GW/SW investigations have been a
critical component of site characterization. Together, these
publications provide a concise synthesis of the technical
and policy issues relevant to contaminant transport across
the GW/SW transition zone, and they should be consulted
as resources for designing a site characterization plan. In
addition, a draft ERAF-GWF Issue Paper is currently in
preparation entitled, "Evaluating Ground-Water/Surface-
Water Transition Zones in Ecological Risk Assessment."
The intent of this document is to provide Agency guidance
on data requirements and techniques for performing an
ecological risk assessment.
National Research Initiatives
As a regulatory body, the USEPA does not maintain/oper-
ate field sites to support long-term research in the area of
GW/SW interactions. However, several site-specific case
studies are docu mented withinthe1999 OS WE R-sponsored
workshop on GW/SW interactions (EPA, 2000a) that can be
consulted as points of reference for designing a monitor-
ing plan to support a site-specific conceptual model. The
Agency also maintains web-based resources pertinent
to this technical area, e.g., the Ground Water Task Force
website located at http://gwtf.cluin.org/resources/. This
website provides a compilation of information sources for
characterization of ground-water plumes, several of which
-------
pertain directly to GW/SW interactions. In addition, the
USEPA partners with other federal agencies, such as the
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), that are better positioned
to support long-term field-based research initiatives. The
USGS supports several research programs that address
chemical transport at the watershed level, including hydro-
geological investigations pertaining to the GW/SW transition
zone. The National Science Foundation also sponsors the
Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network, which
has as one of its core research areas the assessment of
patterns of inorganic inputs and movements of nutrients
through soils, ground water, and surface waters. Internet
links are provided below to several of these programs:
1) Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budgets Program
http://water.usgs.gov/webb/
2) Toxic Substances Hydrology Program
http://toxics.usgs.gov/
3) Shingobee Headwaters Aquatic Ecosystems Project
http://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov/projects/SHAEP/index.html
4) Long-Term Ecological Research Network
http://lternet.edu/
While the primary focus of these research initiatives is not
exclusive to contaminated sites, they provide a unique
resource to practitioners due to the knowledge base
developed relative to evaluation of successful tools for site
characterization and modeling of water transport and solute
interactions across the GW/SW transition zone.
Conceptual Model Development
Interacting System Components
A simplified diagram of the GW/SW transition zone is
shown in Figure 1A. The graphic simplicity of this diagram
is purposeful to emphasize the importance of process iden-
tification (hydrologic or biotic-abiotic chemical processes)
in guiding design of the monitoring program for assessing
contaminant transport and distribution. Three components
are identified within a hypothetical boundary encompassing
the ground-water and surface-water bodies that exchange
waterand the chemical components mobile within this phase.
The three system components include 1) the ground-water
aquifer, 2) the GW/SW transition zone, and 3) the surface-
water body. Arrows located at the water surface in both
the ground-water aquifer and the surface-water body are
shown to emphasize that water levels may fluctuate in
GWSW Titntftion ZfiM
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the system components that govern contaminant transport across the GW/SW transition
zone. (A) Chemical fluxes entering the GW/SW transition zone (Zone 2) emanate from surface-water (Zone
3) and/or ground-water (Zone 1) sources. Arrows shown at the surface of the ground- and surface-water
components indicate the fluctuations in hydraulic head that may occur resulting in a potential change in the
direction of water flow. (B) The soil/sediment material within the G W/SW transition zone can further be de-
lineated into surface sediments (or gyttja) and aquifer solids. (C) Solid matter within the GW/SW transition
zone includes inorganic/organic substrates of which the soils/sediments are composed as well as plant and
animal biomass.
-------
either component. Differences in the relative water level
between these two components will dictate both thedirection
and magnitude of water flux across the GW/SW transition
zone (Winter et al., 1998). The detail shown in Figure 1B
is included to emphasize that the physical composition of
the GW/SW transition zone may incorporate both aquifer
and surface-water sediments. The importance of plants
as well as the microbial and benthic communities that in-
habit the GW/SW transition zone is emphasized in Figure
1C. These organisms play an important role in governing
nutrient transport and the development of chemical gradi-
ents within the GW/SW transition zone (e.g., Jaynes and
Carpenter, 1986). Chemical gradients develop across the
GW/SW transition zone due to the inherent difference in the
ground-water and surface-water chemistry and the biotic
communities inhabiting this unique ecological niche. The
microbial community within the GW/SW transition zone
may, in part, govern contaminant transport across this
zone through regulation of the chemistry of redox-sensitive
elements such as carbon, iron, nitrogen, and sulfur. This
will impact the chemical composition of water and solids
within this zone and, therefore, contaminant mobility (EPA,
2000b).
Surface-water sediments are delineated separately from
aquifer sediments in the diagram shown in Figure 1 due
to their intimate contact with the surface-water body. As
a result of inputs from terrestrial sources, surface-water
sediments (referred to as gyttja) may develop chemical
properties distinct from adjacent aquifer sediments. Due to
these unique characteristics, contaminants that otherwise
are not attenuated by sorption onto aquifer sediments may
accumulate within surface-watersediments. While contami-
nant partitioning to surface-water sediments may mitigate
transport into the surface-water body, sediments that have
accumulated a significant mass of a recalcitrant contami-
nant may present either a separate exposure medium or
pose a significant long-term source of contamination to the
surface- or ground-water body as a result of contaminant
release. In addition, contaminant reactions with surface-
water sediments may be controlled by light- or tempera-
ture-dependent factors, e.g., photosynthesis-induced pH
changes (e.g., Jones et al., 2004 and references therein).
These reactions are distinct from those that may be active
outside of the zoneof light influence in buried surface-water
sediments or aquifer sediments within the GW/SW transi-
tion zone and must be accounted for separately in order to
properly assess the influence of ground-water discharge
on contaminant mass in the surface-water body. From
this perspective, it is important that the site investigation
provides data to assess contaminant mass loading and
reactivity in surface-water sediments, including sorption
capacity for continued contaminant uptake.
Contaminant flux may be multi-directional and transient,
so developing an understanding of contaminant flux within
or between the relevant compartments will depend on
ascertaining the dynamics and distribution of temporal and
spatial factors governing contaminant reactive transport.
Contaminanttransportand, therefore, exposure-based risk
estimates can best be understood in the context of a mass
balance of the contaminant(s) of concern. A contaminant
may remain mobile across the GW/SW transition zone,
become immobilized on sediments within or adjacent
to the boundaries of the transition zone, or undergo
transformation in waterto products with lower/greatertoxicity.
Development of an understanding of the processes that
control contaminant mass distribution withintheboundaries
of the site investigation underpins the risk evaluation and
the design of intervention strategies to minimize risk.
Unifying Concept: Contaminant Flux
While contaminant concentration is a determining factor
for human or ecological risk, this metric does not provide
a measure of contaminant mass and distribution within the
system of interest. Determination of a contaminant mass
balance is critical for determining changes in contaminant
mass or speciation during water transport within and across
the transition zone. The transition zone not only encom-
passes the transition from one flow regime to another, it is
also commonly the location of dramatic chemical gradients
driven by biotic/abiotic reactions. For organic contami-
nants, a mass balance calculation aids determination of
whether contaminant degradation or sorption is occurring.
For inorganic contaminants, a mass balance is required
to assess changes in chemical speciation and mobility.
The mass balance is inclusive of liquid and solid matrices
(e.g., sediments) within the boundaries of the conceptual
model. The distribution of contaminant mass is important
with respect to projecting current and future risk. This is
critical for recalcitrant organic compounds and inorganic
contaminants that may accumulateonsolid matrices within
the transition zone, thus posing future risk due to processes
such as contaminant desorption.
Contaminant flux (M) is defined as the product of contami-
nant concentration (C) in the mobile phase (water and mobile
colloids) and the volumetric flow of the mobile phase (Q).
M = C*Q
Eq.1
Contaminant flux can be calculated for point locations or
cross-sectional areas perpendiculartowaterfluxdepending
on the level of heterogeneity in water flow or contaminant
concentration distribution (Einarson and Mackay, 2001;
Buscheck et al., 2004). For inorganic contaminants, this
general equation represents the flux of all contaminant
species at a given point in time. Since a mobile inorganic
contaminant can change chemical form, it may be useful or
necessary to further define contaminant flux for individual
contaminant species relevant to site-specific conditions.
M; = C, * Q
Eq.2
Contaminant transport occurs along water flow paths in
the subsurface. Therefore, the first step to determining
contaminant flux is developing an understanding of system
hydrology. With the establishment of a water budget for
the site (i.e., water flux distribution), then a mass budget
can be developed to establish contaminant flux across the
system component boundaries.
Within the aquifer and the GW/SW transition zone, con-
taminant flux is dependent on water flow and contaminant
-------
Easting
Contaminant
Flux
M = C*Q
HI
Figure 2. Conceptual diagram illustrating potential spatial heterogeneity and variability in the magnitude of contaminant
flux across the G W/SW transition zone: A) plan view and B) cross-sectional view through monitoring transect
D-D'. Variation in magnitude of contaminant flux is indicated by thickness of arrows and is a function of the
contaminant concentration and water flux within a given reaction volume.
distribution as illustrated in Figure 2. The spatial and
temporal distribution of the contaminant will depend on
source location, the spatial distribution and velocity of
water flow (or diffusion where advective flux is low), and
the abundance and biotic/abiotic reactivity of aqueous
and solid phase biogeochemical components along the
paths of water flow. The extent to which biogeochemical
processes will influence contaminant chemical speciation
during transport will depend on the relative rates of fluid
transport and chemical reactions (Morgan and Stone,
1985). For example, contaminant transport will be relatively
conservative for systems in which the timescale for water
flow within a hypothetical reaction volume is much shorter
than the timeframe for significant reaction to take place.
Conversely, significant attenuation/transformation will be
observed for contaminants in systems where react ions occur
rapidly relative to the timescaleforfluid transport. The latter
situation is commonly assumed to apply to ground-water
systems, but this needs to be confirmed during site char-
acterization. This is particularly important for near-surface
systems that may experience large variability in water flux
and fluid velocities (e.g., Conant Jr., 2004).
Sebestyen and Schneider (2004) present field results
that illustrate the interdependence between fluid flow
and chemical reactions. Trends in the sediment pore
water concentrations of iron and zinc were related to the
magnitude of ground-water seepage. Low seepage flows
resulted in higher concentrations of these metals due to
the development of anoxia from microbial reactions. The
influence of these reactions was diminished with higher
seepage flows, since solutes were rapidly flushed from
the system. Harvey and Fuller (1998) have proposed a
dimensionless index that may be used to assess the rela-
tive significance of chemical reactions within the hyporheic
zone in mitigating solute transport within a drainage basin
based on the assessment of chemical reaction rates and
fluid residence times within the GW/SW transition zone
(specifically, the hyporheic zone). These authors provide a
detailed assessment of the influence of manganese uptake
within the hyporheic zone in the Final Creek Basin, Arizona.
Manganese was partially sequestered from contaminated
ground water within the hyporheic zone due to the down-
ward flux of oxygen from stream water, which stimulated
microbial oxidation and precipitation of manganese within
shallow sediments. As demonstrated in a subsequent
publication (Fuller and Harvey, 2000), the manganese
oxidation-precipitation process exerted direct influence on
the transport of contaminant metals (cobalt, nickel, zinc)
derived from ground-water discharge to the stream. These
-------
studies illustrate the importance of understanding the bal-
ance between fluid transport and chemical reaction rates
for assessing contaminant migration across the GW/SW
transition zone.
A concise summary of relevant chemical processes that
may influence contaminant flux is presented by Winter et
ai. (1998). Common types of biogeochemical reactions
that impact contaminant transport across the GW/SW
transition zone include acid-base reactions, precipitation
and dissolution of minerals, sorption and ion exchange,
oxidation-reduction reactions, biodegradation, and dis-
solution and exsolution of gases (Winter et al., 1998).
Examples of these reaction types relevant to the GW/SW
transition zone are presented in Table 1. These reactions
will impact contaminant phase distribution (liquid, solid, gas)
and chemical speciation within a given phase. Thus, it is
critical to understand the chemical properties unique to the
contaminant(s) under consideration in relation to the bio-
geochemical characteristics of the GW/SW transition zone.
A detailed discussion of the physical and biogeochemical
processes leading to organic contaminant (chlorinated
solvents and fuel hydrocarbons) degradation/immobiliza-
tion is provided by Wiedemeier and others (EPA, 1998b).
Discussions of chemical processes that may influence
inorganic contaminant transport in surface and subsurface
systems are presented in texts by Chapelle (1993), Stumm
and Morgan (1996), and Langmuir (1997). The reader is
referred to these references for a more comprehensive
overview of chemical processes relevant to lacustrine
sediment and ground-water systems.
Documented Impact of GW/SW Interaction on
Chemical Transport
Understanding of the factors controlling contaminant trans-
port across the GW/SW transition zone is improving with
increased publication of site-specific field studies in the
literature. The literature reviewthat follows highlights salient
features that should be considered during assessment of
contaminant transport across the GW/SW transition zone.
This review targets only those studies where contaminant
fate was examined in conjunction with assessment of
system hydrology. There are numerous studies that focus
solely on evaluating and modeling the hydrologic charac-
teristics of GW/SW interactions for various flow regimes,
and the reader should consider alternate sources for ad-
ditional background on this aspect of site characterization.
Literature reports included in Tables 2 and 3 below were
predicated on thorough characterization of site-specific
hydraulic characteristics prior to initiating or interpreting
results from geochemical site characterization.
Table 1. Classes of Biochemical Reactions with Examples Relevant to Contaminant Transport Across the GW/SW
Transition Zone.
Geochemical
Reaction
Acid-Base
Precipitation-
Dissolution of
Minerals
Sorption and Ion
Exchange
Oxidation-Reduction
Biodegradation
Gas Dissolution and
Exsolution
Relevant Process
Acid neutralization
by aqueous
carbonate alkalinity
Precipitation of
metal sulfide
Ion exchange on
feldspars
Reductive
dissolution of iron
oxide coupled to
organic carbon
oxidation
Benzene oxidation
coupled to
denitrification
Ammonia gas-
water exchange
Example Reaction
HC03 + H+ = H2C03°
Zn2+ + HS = ZnS(s) + H+
KAISi308(s) + MM/ = NH4AISi308(s) + rC
4Fe(OH)3(s) + 8H+ + CH2O = 4Fe2+ + CO2(g) +
11H20
C6H6 + 6N03- + 6H+ = 6C02(g) + 6H2O + 3N2(g)
NH3(g) + H2o = NH; + OH-
-------
Table 2. Examples from Peer-Reviewed Literature Documenting Field Case Studies Designed to Assess the Physicochemical Processes In-
fluencing Inorganic Contaminant Transport Across the GW/SW Transition Zone. OC = organic carbon, DOC = dissolved organic car-
bon, EDTA = ethylene daminetetraacetic acid.
Compound
Identity
Nitrate
Nitrate,
Ammonia
Nitrate
Nitrate
Nitrate
Nitrate
Phosphate
Manganese,
Nitrate
Manganese
Manganese
Cadmium,
Copper,
Iron,
Manganese,
Nitrate, Zinc
Cadmium,
Copper,
Manganese,
Nitrate, Zinc
Cadmium,
Copper,
Iron,
Manganese,
Nitrate, Zinc
Arsenic,
Iron
Iron, Zinc
Location
Great South Bay,
New York
Seine River,
France
Elbe River, eastern
Germany
Western Sierra
Nevada foothills,
California
Northwestern
France
Florida Keys
Tidal freshwater
marsh, Virginia
Oder River, north-
eastern Germany
Lot River,
Bordeaux, France
Lot River,
Bordeaux, France
Glatt River,
northeastern
Switzerland
Glatt River,
northeastern
Switzerland
Silver Bow Creek,
Montana
Silver Bow Creek,
Montana
Several lakes,
Adirondack
Mountains, New
York
Hydrologic Setting
Submarine ground-water discharge to
coastal marine ecosystem
River-water infiltration into ground
water
River-water infiltration into ground
water
Ground-water discharge into stream;
temporal variations in mixing of
bedrock and soil drainage sources
Shallow and deep ground-water
discharge into second-order stream
Ground-water discharge to coastal
canal system
Marsh ground-water infiltration-
exfiltration
River-water infiltration into ground
water
River-water infiltration into ground
water
River-water infiltration into ground
water
River-water infiltration into ground
water
River-water infiltration into ground
water
River-water/ground-water infiltration-
exfiltration
River-water/ground-water infiltration-
exfiltration
Lake/ground-water infiltration-
exfiltrations
Chemical Processes
Denitrification (N2 or N2O production) and dissimilation
(NH^-N production) in sediments
Nitrification-denitrification coupled to microbial
mineralization of aqueous and solid OC; ammonia
release from OC decay
Denitrification using oxidizable aqueous and solid OC
from river water and river bed/aquifer sediments
Nitrification of ammonia; leaching of nitrogen
compounds from soil solids
Denitrification coupled to pyrite oxidation
Near-conservative transport of low-salinity plume;
denitrification in off-axis portions of plume
Iron oxidation-precipitation limits diffusive and
advective phosphate transport into marsh
Denitrification and Mn reduction-oxidation coupled to
microbial degradation of OC
Weathering of Mn-bearing minerals coupled to
bacterial degradation of OC; Mn(ll) oxidation coupled
to sorption-precipitation
Weathering of Mn-bearing minerals coupled to
microbial degradation of OC - spatial variability due to
different OC or mineralogical Mn sources; Mn(ll)
oxidation coupled to sorption-precipitation
Mineral weathering/precipitation coupled to microbial
degradation of OC; Cu-EDTA complexation; metal
sorption-precipitation due to fluctuations in abiotic
chemical equilibria; denitrification
Mineral weathering/precipitation coupled to microbial
degradation of OC; Cu-DOC complexation; metal
sorption-precipitation due to fluctuations in abiotic
chemical equilibria; denitrification
Oxidative precipitation of Fe and Mn; precipitation-
sorption of Cd, Cu, Zn; denitrification
Dissolution of As-bearing iron oxides from sediment
deposited in reducing hyporheic zone
Anaerobic microbial OC degradation, mineral
weathering and ion exchange reactions
Reference
Capone and
Bautista, 1985
Doussan et al.,
1997
Grischek et al.,
1998
Holloway and
Dahlgren, 2001
Grimaldi et al.,
2004
Griggs et al.,
2003
Chambers and
Odum, 1990
Massmann et al.,
2004
Bourg and Berlin,
1993
Bourg and Berlin,
1994
Jacobs et al.,
1988
von Gunten et al.,
1991
Benner et al.,
1995
Nagorski and
Moore, 1999
Sebestyen and
Schneider, 2004
-------
Table 3. Examples from Peer-Reviewed Literature Documenting Field Case Studies Designed to Assess the PhysicoChemical Processes Influencing
Organic Contaminant Transport Across the GW/SW Transition Zone. EDTA = ethylene diaminetetraacetic acid, NTA = nitrilotriacetic acid,
A/DC = naphthalene dicarboxylate, APEC = alkylphenol polyethoxy carboxylates, HAA = haloacetic acid, CFC = chlorofluorocarbon.
Compound
Identity
Trichloroethylene,
Tetrachloroethylene,
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene,
1 ,3-Dimethylbenzene,
Organochlorine
Volatile, Semivolatile,
Non-volatile
compounds
Chloroform, Benzene,
Tetrachloroethylene,
Trichlorethylene
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Alkylphenol
polyethoxylate
surfactants
Chloroethene
EDTA, NTA, NDC,
APEC, HAA
Trichloroethylene,
1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane
Tetrachlorethylene
Tetrachloroethene
CFC-11.CFC-12, CFC-
113
GC-
hexachlorocyclohexane
Location
Glatt and Aare Rivers,
northeastern
Switzerland
Sava River, northern
Croatia, Yugoslavia
Watson Creek,
Aberdeen Proving
Ground, Maryland
Inner Piedmont, South
Carolina
Glatt and Sitter Rivers,
northern Switzerland
St. Joseph, Michigan
Santa Ana River,
Orange County,
California
West Branch Canal
Creek, Aberdeen
Proving Ground,
Maryland
Pine River, Angus
Ontario, Canada
Pine River, Angus
Ontario, Canada
Everglades National
Park, south Florida
Coastal northeastern
Florida
Hydrologic Setting
River-water infiltration into
ground water
River-water infiltration into
ground water
Ground-water discharge
into stream
Ground-water discharge
into stream
River-water infiltration into
ground water
Ground-water discharge-
recharge into lake with
wave infiltration
River-water infiltration into
ground water
Ground-water discharge-
recharge into wetland and
stream
Ground-water discharge
into river (short circuiting
and low-high dispersed
flow)
Ground-water discharge
into river (short circuiting
and low-high dispersed
flow)
Surface-water infiltration
into ground water
Ground-water discharge
into a stream
Chemical Processes
Conservative transport for some volatile
organic compounds; aerobic and anaerobic
microbial degradation; sorption of lipophilic
compounds limited by low organic carbon
content of aquifer solids
Inferred biological degradation and/or sorption
onto solid OC in surface water and aquifer
sediments
Not studied; passive samplers used to
delineate contaminant plume discharge zone
Not studied; passive samplers used to locate
rock fractures that were conduits for
contaminant discharge
Biological degradation of organic compounds
primarily within GW/SW transition zone
(shallow aquifer)
Chloroethene co-oxidation by methane-
oxidizing bacteria
Microbial degradation of NTA, APEC and HAA
Anaerobic biodegradation (hydrogenolysis
and reductive dechlorination) under reducing
conditions (iron-reducing, sulfate-reducing,
methanogenesis)
Reductive dehalogenation producing cis-1 ,2-
dichloroethylene and vinyl chloride (low-
moderate discharge zone)
Reductive dehalogenation producing cis-1 ,2-
dichloroethylene and vinyl chloride (low-
moderate discharge zone)
CFC degradation coupled to microbial
methanogenesis
Biological degradation in non-acidic,
anaerobic portions of plume
Reference
Schwarzenbach et
al, 1983
Ahel, 1991
Vroblesky et al.,
1991
Vroblesky et al.,
1996
Aheletal., 1996
Lendvay et al.,
1998
Ding et al., 1999
Lorah and Olsen,
1999
Conant Jr., 2000
Conant Jr. et al.,
2004
Happell et al.,
2003
Lawet al., 2004
00
-------
Summaries of published studies from the peer-reviewed
literaturethat documentthe influenceof GW/SW interactions
on inorganic and organic contaminant fate are provided in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Several general themes are
echoed throughout the summarized studies:
1) Hydrologic transients imposed by long-term (e.g.,
seasonal) and short-term (e.g., storm events) flow
variations impact the types and intensity of chemical
reactions that influence contaminant chemical specia-
tion and transport;
2) Chemical gradients of major and trace elements/con-
taminants are often greatest in the vicinity of the GW/SW
transition zone;
3) Contaminant transport is dependent on the diversity
and interactions between the biotic and abiotic solid
components within the GW/SW transition zone; and
4) Microbial degradation of natural and anthropogenic
sources of organic matter and the availability of terminal
electron acceptors influence the distribution of redox
zones within the GW/SW transition zone.
Hydrologic Transients. With regard to hydrology, it must be
understood that water flow across the transition zone is a
two-way street. The direction of waterf low (and contaminant
flux) will respond to changes in water level in surface water
or ground water. Changes in water level may originate from
natural events such as rainfall, snow melt, evaporation, or
tidal/wave influences or from man-made events such as
changes in water storage in a managed reservoir or from
ground-water withdrawal. In wetland or peatland settings
with dense plant growth, watertransport due to evapotranspi-
ration can also exert a significant influence on ground-water
flow patterns (Doss, 1993; Fraseretal., 2001). Water flow
dynamics influence contaminant transport directly due to
changes in the volume and direction of waterflux. However,
changes in waterflowalso exert an indirect effect by altering
major element chemistry that can stimulate or quench bio-
geochemical reactions controlling the chemical speciation
of contaminants. As an example, changes in the activity
of organic matter degradation that accompany variations
in the flux of dissolved organic matter due to ground-water
recharge/discharge may impact iron and/orsulf uroxidation-
reduction reactions. Oxidation-reduction transformations of
iron or sulfur drive the precipitation/dissolution of iron- and
sulfur-bearing minerals involved in inorganic contaminant
sorption (e.g., Moore et al., 1988; Moore, 1994) or abiotic
degradation of organic contaminants (e.g., Ferrey et al.,
2004). Thus, the accuracy of a site-specific conceptual
model depends on defining the interaction between fluid flow
and the biogeochemical processes governing contaminant
transformations and mobility.
Chemical Gradients. The dynamics of hydrologic events in
concert with the diversity and activity of microscopic and
macroscopic organisms that occupy the GW/SW transi-
tion zone can result in steep gradients in chemical mass
in transitioning from the ground-water to the surface-water
body (and vice versa). The chemical gradients that develop
may pertain both to the major element composition as
well as the contaminant mass in the water or solids in the
GW/SW transition zone. Two examples are discussed to
illustrate the magnitude of chemical mass changes relative
to transport distances. The first example is taken from work
conducted by Conant et al. (2004) to assess the extent of
PCE discharge from a contaminated ground-water plume
into a stream. Determination of the potential for natural at-
tenuation/degradation of PCE during transport was a critical
component of this assessment. The authors observed the
following: 1) transport of PCE with little attenuation to the
streambed, 2) the presence of both PCE and degradation
products within the streambed, and 3) low detections of
PCE and degradation products in the overlying stream. The
predominant fraction of anaerobic degradation of the PCE
plume occurred within the top 2.5 meters of the streambed.
Solids within the streambed also served to concentrate
volatile organic compounds from the plume due to sorp-
tion or retardation. Failure to monitor water and sediment
concentrations within the streambed could have resulted
in a misinterpretation of low surface water PCE concen-
trations as resulting only from dilution of the discharging
plume. The second example illustrating the development
of sharp chemical gradients is taken from work published
by Benner et al. (1995). These authors observed changes
in water chemistry during GW/SW interactions in a stream
receiving dischargef rom an acidic, metal rich ground water.
Order-of-magnitude changes in cadmium, copper, and
zinc concentrations were observed over a distance of less
than one meter during ground-water transport through the
hyporheic zone into the overlying stream. The reduction in
contaminant metal concentrations was due to partitioning
to solid phases such as iron oxides that precipitated as pH
and dissolved oxygen levels increased during transport from
ground water to surface water. Knowledge of the solid-
phase partitioning process was critical in order to assess
the potential long-term stability of the contaminant metals
accumulating within streambed sediments.
Transition Zone Composition. Solid components within a
ground-water aquifer are primarily derived from weathered
rock or soil materials and subsurface microbial communi-
ties. In contrast, solid components within the GW/SW
transition zone may include both aquifer materials as well
as microscopic/macroscopic biotic and abiotic components
that are primarily derived from the surface terrestrial system.
For example, both submerged and emergent plants can
contribute a significant portion of the total mass of solid
components within the GW/SW transition zone. These
components can play two critical roles with regard to the
chemistry within this zone 1) by influencing the transport
of important chemical constituents directly through nor-
mal physiological functions (e.g., Jaynes and Carpenter,
1986) or indirectly by hosting microbial communities that
influence localized oxidation-reduction (redox) conditions,
and 2) by contributing a source of organic material to
surface sediments within the GW/SW transition zone at
the end of their life cycle. The abiotic organic and mineral
components within the GW/SW transition zone, in part,
control the system chemistry by buffering changes in redox
or pH and serving as temporary/permanent reservoirs for
-------
contaminants that are absorbed/adsorbed during transport
across the transition zone.
Redox Chemistry. The importance of redox processes for
organicand inorganic contaminant transport and fate in sub-
surface systems at waste sites has been addressed in detail
in a recent Agency publication (EPA, 2000b). Developing
an understanding of the relevant redox processes control-
ling contaminant degradation or solid-liquid partitioning is a
critical task for projecting contaminant flux. Due to spatial
and temporal heterogeneity in the physical and chemical
properties across the GW/SW transition zone, multiple
reaction zones with differential impacts on contaminant
transport may develop as illustrated in Figure 3. Many
redox reactions that govern contaminant fate are directly
Microtoial
J PTOCMBM
Figure 3. Conceptual diagram showing snapshotof chem-
ical component profiles across the GW/SW
transition zone. Redox reaction zones develop
within fixed spatial regions due to biogeochemi-
cal reactions maintained by chemical fluxes.
Conceptual adaptation of illustration from
Figure 7 in Bourg and Berlin (1993). NOM =
natural organic matter, TEAP = terminal elec-
tron acceptor process.
or indirectly influenced by microbial degradation of natural
or anthropogenic organic compounds coupled to electron
transfer reactions with terminal electron acceptors such
as oxygen, nitrate, ferric iron, sulfate, and carbon dioxide
(Chapelle, 1993; Vroblesky and Chapelle, 1994).
Variations in the mass flux of these chemical components in
addition to temperature fluctuations will influence both the
type and intensity of microbially-mediated redox reactions
that affect contaminant chemical speciation. For example,
Groffman and Crossey (1999) monitored the response
of oxygen, iron, manganese, and sulfur distributions in a
shallow alluvial aquifer in contact with a first order stream
influenced by rain and snow melt infiltration events. The
distribution of terminal electron acceptors or redox zones
in the shallow aquifer shifted spatially and temporally in
response to seasonal infiltration events. These variations
were significant across spatial and temporal scales of
centimeters and weeks, respectively. The impact of flow
fluctuations on nitrate concentrations in a stream partially
fed by ground-water discharge was illustrated by Grimaldi
et al. (2004). Reduction of nitrate coupled to the oxidation
of sulfur in the pyrite-bearing aquifer played a key role in de-
termining stream nitrate concentration throughout the year.
The magnitude of nitrate reduction was mediated by daily,
storm-event, and seasonal variations in system hydrology.
Both studies point to the importance of delineating the role
of both soluble and solid-phase redox reactants/products
toward developing a sound conceptual understanding of
contaminant fate across the GW/SW transition zone.
These studies illustratethe impact of redox-driven processes
on the transport of inorganic and organic contaminants
across the GW/SW transition zone. The evaluations docu-
mented in these reports provide a useful context for evaluat-
ing the spatial and temporal detail needed in a monitoring
program designed to support development and validation
of site-specific conceptual and analytic models.
Application to an Arsenic Contaminated Site
Contaminant source identification is a critical task during
site characterization to assess contaminant transport across
the GW/SW transition zone. Identification of the major
contaminant sources provides the basis for assessing po-
tential long-term contaminant flux to the risk receptor and
for targeting intervention efforts to minimize contaminant
transport and exposure. As previously noted, a common
direct source of contaminant flux to a surface-water body
is from discharge of a contaminated ground-water plume
from an upgradient waste site. Removal or isolation of the
contaminant source zone within the upgradient ground-water
aquifer is a logical step to minimize continued contaminant
flux. However, historical contaminant attenuation and ac-
cumulation within the GW/SW transition zone may pose
a secondary long-term source of contaminant flux to the
surface-water body. Determination of the fraction of the
total contaminant flux derived from sediment desorption/
dissolution thus becomes an important aspect for appor-
tioning risk to the various contaminant source terms and
for evaluating whether intervention is required to manage
estimated risk from sediment contamination.
10
-------
The following field study provides an example where sur-
face-watersediment contamination due to arsenic transport
from an upgradient ground-water plume poses a potential
long-term source for arsenic flux into the surface-water
body. Methods employed forsite assessment are illustrated
along with field data that provide evidence that the flux of
arsenic into surface water is due to 1) direct discharge from
contaminated ground water and 2) concurrent release of
arsenic from contaminated sediments.
Initial Site Conceptual Model
Site Hydrology. The study location is down gradient from a
Superfund site in Massachusetts in which historical on-site
disposal of arsenic-bearing wastes has resulted in leaching
of arsenic into site ground water (Durant et al., 1990;
Davis et al., 1994). A portion of the ground-water plume
discharges into a constructed shallow lake that also receives
surface-water inputs from a perennial stream (Halls Brook)
on its western edge and an intermittent runoff channel at
its northwestern end (Figure 4). The constructed shallow
lake was built for flood control and is referred to as the Halls
Brook Holding Area (HBHA) Pond throughout this report.
The HBHA Pond has a maximum depth of approximately 5
meters, and it discharges into a heavily vegetated wetland
area. The HBHA Pond discharge reconstitutes Halls Brook,
which meanders through the wetland until discharge into
the Aberjona River. Based on eight measurements during
the period of 7/1/1997 to 1/27/1998, Wick et al. (2000)
determined a range in surface-water inputs and HBHA
Pond outflow of approximately 48,380-459,090 ft3d'1,
0-423,776 ft3d'1, and 118,304-953,496 ft3d'1 for Halls
Brook, the intermittent runoff channel, and the HBHA
Pond outflow, respectively. Assuming steady state for the
lake water balance, this resulted in an estimated total flow
input from ground-water discharge ranging from 27,898 to
185,755 ft3d'1 (ranging from approximately 7% to 60% of
the water flux). This ground-water discharge corresponds
with an independent estimate of approximately 91,818
ft3d~1 based on surface-water flow measurements at the
Halls Brook discharge into the HBHA Pond and the point
of discharge into the Aberjona River (Aurilio et al., 1994).
These estimates are higher than ground-water discharge
rates determined using seepage meters installed along
the center-line of the lake (706 ft3d1; Davis et al., 1996).
However, based on salt balance calculations, Wick and
others (1998a, 2000) have estimated that the contaminated
ground-water plume contributes 1,412-16,951 ft3d~1 to the
HBHA Pond. Visual observations of ground water seeps
along the northern edge of the HBHA Pond (Aurilio et al.,
1994) and salt balance calculations within the HBHA Pond
(Wick et al., 2000) indicated that contaminated ground
water primarily discharges into the northern end of the
HBHA Pond.
Intermittent
Image derived from May 1995 aerial
photograph obtained from MassGIS.
Halls
Brook
I Arsenic Plume
i Hydrocarbon Plume
Tube Wells (TO)
O Multi-level Tube Sampler (NML)
Outlet1
(Halls Brook) (,\\
Figure 4. (A) Aerial photograph and (B) aerial schematic of study site including approximate locations of ground-water
and surface-water monitoring points. The major sources of water input into the pond include discharge from
1) Halls Brook, 2) site-derived ground water with overlapping plumes of arsenic and BTEX compounds (ap-
proximately 130 and 100 m of shoreline, respectively), and 3) an intermittent runoff channel.
11
-------
Monitoring Strategy. Based on this information, the site
characterization effort for this study was focused towards
defining the spatial extent of contaminated ground-water
discharge into the northern portion of the HBHA Pond.
The spatial location of ground-water and surface-water
monitoring points is shown in plan-view relative to the
configuration of the pond (Figure 4). Tubing wells were
employed at multiple depths adjacent to and within the
lake to capture the vertical extent of the GW/SW transition
zone. A combination of tubing wells, diffusion samplers,
and depth-resolved sampling within the pond was used to
measure water chemistry parameters in-situ and collect
water samples for laboratory analyses. Tubing wells con-
sisted of six-inch stainless steel screens attached to the end
of Teflon-lined tubing. The multi-level tube cluster (NML)
consisted of a series of ten six-inch screens with attendant
Teflon-lined tubing attached to a PVC pipe anchored in the
shallow aquifer. Sampling from tubing wells was carried
out under low-flow sampling conditions (Puls and Paul,
1995). The locations of key monitoring points including the
elevation at which water samples were collected within the
HBHA Pond and adjacent aquifer are shown in Figure 5.
Discrete monitoring points within the HBHA Pond bound-
ary were used to assess the magnitude of time-dependent
variations in arsenic concentration. Water chemistry data
collected from ground-water monitoring points adjacent
to the HBHA Pond perimeter indicated that the highest
arsenic concentrations were being discharged proximate
to well-cluster location TW07.
Arsenic Plume Characteristics. Historical data collected
from the site indicated that ground water contaminated with
arsenic and hydrocarbons discharges into the lake along
the north-northeastern portion of the HBHA Pond (Davis et
al., 1994; Wickand Gschwend, 1998b). Site-derived ground
water contains elevated concentrations of ferrous iron and
sulfate (Davis et al., 1994), which leads to the production of
iron oxides and iron sulfides in oxic and anoxic portions of
the HBHA Pond, respectively. Shallow ground-water seeps
are distributed along the northern boundary of the HBHA
Pond as evidenced by the formation of orangish-red iron
oxide precipitates where reduced ground water comes in
contact with air. These shallow oxidized sediments contain
arsenic concentrations ranging from 500-850 mg/kg based
on measurements in this study. The ground-water input
represents a significant fraction of the volumetric flow into
the lake (Wick and Gschwend, 1998a; Wick et al., 2000).
Contaminants discharging intothe lake via the ground-water
input potentially interact with aqueous and solid-phase
components in the sediments and water column. Significant
portions of the site under study consist of former wetland
areas in-filled with native soil materials and waste products
from historical industrial activities. The general chemistry
of the shallow unconsolidated aquifer is thus reflective of
the high productivity commonly observed in wetland areas
with significant rates of organic carbon turnover. In general,
site ground water is reducing due to this native productivity
and from anthropogenic factors such as degradation of
buried waste materials (Davis et al., 1994). Ground water
Figure 5. (A) Cross-sectional view of surface elevation through the northern end of the HBHA Pond and the upgradient
aquifer. (B) Relative depths of sampling intakes for ground water and surface water are shown for locations
TW10, TW07, TW02, and NML. (C) Aerial photograph showing the cross-section used to construct the dia-
gram in Panel A. Land surface elevation at locations TW10 and TW07 is 67.25 and 58.75 feet above see
level, respectively. A scale used to track water level in the HBHA Pond is installed at the location marked
'culvert'.
12
-------
is characterized by high concentrations of iron, sulfate, and
organiccarbon (natural and anthropogenic). Published data
for sediment samples collected from the lake indicate that
a fraction of the arsenic transported across the GW/SW
transition zone is partitioned to sediments (Aurilioetal., 1994;
Davis et al., 1996; Wilkin and Ford, 2002; Ford, 2004).
An initial conceptual model was developed around the as-
sumption that transformations of redox-sensitive elements
such as iron, sulfur, and carbon would in part govern the
speciation and transport of arsenicacross the GW/SWtran-
sition zone. Differences in specific conductance between
surface-water and ground-water inputs into the HBHA Pond
result in nearly continuous chemical and physical stratifica-
tion of the water column throughout the year (Wick et al.,
2000). Seasonal profiles of specific conductance, dissolved
oxygen, and oxidation-reduction potential measured in
the HBHA Pond water column during this study support
this observation (Figure 6). It was hypothesized that the
chemocline that develops within the lake water column
would maintain distinct oxic and anoxic zones at shallow
and deep depths, respectively. It was assumed that iron
oxides derived from oxidation-precipitation of ferrous iron
supplied continuously from discharging ground water would
control the concentration of soluble arsenic within the lake
water column. However, the fate of arsenic partitioned to
iron oxides formed in the presence of dissolved oxygen
near the chemocline was not known. Data from sediment
characterization by Wilkin and Ford (2002) indicated that a
fraction of the arsenic carried down to the sediments with
settling iron oxide particles would ultimately partition to
authigenic sediment minerals such as iron sulfides. There
was no direct method to identify whether dissolved arsenic
measured in the water column was derived from ground-
water discharge or desorption/dissolution of arsenic from
iron oxides deposited onto the reduced sediments. Thus,
delineation of the relative contributions of arsenic to the
lake water column from direct ground-water discharge or
release from previously contaminated sediments was criti-
cal towards developing an understanding of arsenic fluxes
across the GW/SW transition zone.
Identifying Arsenic Sources to Surface-Water
Receptor
Monitoring the recovery of the HBHA Pond water column to
steady-state conditions following a surge in surface-water
input was used to assist delineation of arsenic sources.
During Spring 2001 of our sampling campaign, a significant
rainfall event coupled with snow melt resulted in a major
flow event within the Aberjona watershed. Surface-water
flow data for a monitoring station at Winchester, MA (USGS
01102500 approximately 2.5 miles down gradient of the
HBHA Pond), are shown in Figure 7 todocument the relative
intensity of this flow event. Depth-resolved sampling of the
HBHA Pond water column was carried out over a period of
several months to observe the recovery to pre-storm strati-
fication. The time trend in specific conductance measured
for ground water collected at the TW10, TW07, and TW02
sampling locations is illustrated in Figures. These data in-
dicated little variation in ground-water specific conductance
over a period of approximately 1.5 years. However, there
is a slight reduction in specific conductance for sampling
Sp. Cnd. (nS/cm) DO(mg/L) Eh (mV)
0 4000 8000 0 4 8 0 200 400
Ground Water
Site-derived
High conductivity
As, Fe(ll), SOf organic carbon
Suboxlc or anoxic
\ Water Column
| Sediment
I Aquifer
Figure 6. Conceptual diagram depicting important hydrologic and chemical processes controlling water column chem-
istry within the HBHA Pond. Predominant inputs of water into the surface-water body include site-derived
ground water and discharge from Halls Brook. Iron and sulfate reduction processes are active at the sedi-
ment-water interface and within shallow sediments. Representative vertical profiles of specific conductance
(Sp. Cnd.), dissolved oxygen (DO), and redox potential (Eh) are shown to illustrate the chemical stratification
that prevents mixing of shallow oxic and deep anoxic water (April 4, 2000; north end).
13
-------
Date
Date
Figure 7. (A) Daily streamflow for USGS 01102500 Aberjona River at Winchester, MA, located approximately 2.5 miles
downgradient of the HBHA Pond. Open circles show the NML sampling dates following the March 2001
storm event, and filled triangles show sampling dates for the TW07 and TW10 ground-water wells. Inset (B)
shows NML and TW sampling dates relative to surface-water flow in greater detail. Two apparent phases of
the post-storm water column recovery in the HBHA Pond are noted with labels '1' and '2' in inset (B). Inset
(C) shows relative water levels measured at a fixed scale mounted to the culvert on the eastern side of the
HBHA Pond (see Figure 4 for culvert location).
2000-
--TW10-1 (10.58fbgs)
-ffl-TW10-2 (15.58 fbgs)
-D- TW10-3 (20.58 fbgs)
--TW07-1 (12.25 fbgs)
-0-TW07-2 (15.00 fbgs)
-O- TW07-3 (20.00 fbgs)
o NML Sampling Dates
Peak Surface Flow
v HBHA Pond South
Sampling Dates
3/1/2000 9/1/2000 3/1/2001
Date
9/1/2001
Figure 8.
Trends in specific conductance with depth for ground-water upgradient to NML: (A) TW10, (B) TW07, and (C)
at TW02 below the HBHA Pond sediments adjacent to NML (fbgs = feet below ground surface). The dates
for maximum flow observed at the USGS 01102500 station and the subsequent NML sampling dates are
shown in Panel C with open and closed triangles, respectively. The inset in Panel C documents changes
in the specific conductance depth profile in the south end of the HBHA Pond as a result of the March 2001
peak surface flow. Error of duplicate measurements is within the size of the data symbol.
14
-------
locations TW10-1,TW10-2,TW07-2, and TW07-3during the
period of March 29 to April 3, 2001, immediately following
the major flow event (Figure 8). Also documented in this
figure is the change in HBHA Pond stratification for three
sampling dates that bracket the major flow event (inset to
Figure 8C). The nearly continuous chemical stratification of
the HBHA Pond water column was interrupted as a result
of the March 2001 peak surface flow.
Data collected from upgradient ground-water wells during
the period of observation indicated a relatively constant
concentration of arsenic discharging into the HBHA Pond
(Figure 9). Monitoring well TW10 is adjacent to a channel
used to route storm water runoff from a large parking facility
(see Figure 4). The channel is lined with rip-rap to minimize
erosion, but it is hydraulically connected to the adjacent
aquifer. Changes in arsenic concentration at downgradient
monitoring locations TW07-2, TW07-3, and TW02 showed
little or no response to upgradient surface-water recharge
(Figure 9B and 9C). The inset in Figure 9C displays the
vertical distribution of dissolved arsenic within the HBHA
Pond water column (south) for the same sampling dates
shown in the inset of Figure 8C. These data confirm inter-
ruption of the chemical stratification within the HBHA Pond
immediately afterthe March 2001 peak surface flow. Water
column monitoring was subsequently used totrack recovery
of the specific conductance and dissolved arsenic vertical
profiles within the north end of the HBHA Pond adjacent to
the primary discharge of arsenic-laden ground water.
Time-series monitoring data collected from a tubing well
cluster (NML) installed within the northern portion of the
HBHA Pond immediately downgradient from ground-water
monitoring cluster TW07 are shown in Figure 10. The rela-
tive vertical locations of surface-water and ground-water
monitoring points are shown at the right-hand side of the
figure. Vertical profiles of specific conductance are shown
in the left panel for five sampling dates from April 5, 2001,
to September 13, 2001. The greatest variation in specific
conductanceoccurredoveradepth interval of approximately
8-11 feet below the water surface, which brackets the ap-
proximate depth of ground-water monitoring point TW07-2.
The water column remained stratified in this portion of the
HBHA Pond since it is north of the primary contributor of low
conductivity surface water (Halls Brook; see Figure 4), and
it is close to the main discharge point for high conductivity
ground water. However, specific conductance and other
water parameters were sufficiently depleted due to storm
2-
-
1 -
0-
2-
1 -
0-
2-
1 -
0-
(Afe ^x /"
K \ /
*-^ '--. /
^^^^r^
n n ^ ^\
^n
(B)
t-e-- _ _e
~ --a- "'
_A -9
^
O-O- -O ^ O ^
(C) -o-Aug 2000
/, -*- Apr 2001
T -£-Sep2001
1 HBHA
T\ Pond
, \s South
, ^2e
X 1^
0123
As, mg/L
A ^ ^
.0
.2
4I
6 "a ĞD 00 0
8 : :: : : :
10 ::: : : :
v w. \\ *7
i i i i i i i i
--TW10-1
ffl-TW10-2
-D-TW10-3
-- TW07-1
^ TW07-2
-O- TW07-3
-A-TW02
o NML Sampling Dates
Peak Surface Flow
v HBHA Pond South
Sampling Dates
Date
Figure 9. Trends in total dissolved arsenic concentration with depth for ground-water upgradient to NML: (A) TW10,
(B) TW07, and (C) at TW02 below the HBHA Pond sediments adjacent to NML. The dates for maximum
flow observed at the USGS 01102500 station and the subsequent NML sampling dates are shown in Panel
C with open and closed triangles, respectively. The inset in Panel C documents changes in the dissolved
arsenic depth profile in the south end of the HBHA Pond as a result of the March 2001 peak surface flow.
Error of duplicate measurements is within the size of the data symbol.
15
-------
i GW Discharge
Water Surface
k2) Sediment Dissolution
u
2 -
4 -
6 -
8-
4;
£ 12-
16
1 Q
lo I
April 5, 2001
* A April 10, 2001
4 * May 14, 2001
K * May 31, 2001
% September 12-13, 2001
4*...
"' '"'''"Ğ.:.
ğ:A. '"'*/,,...
*""""^fc*
^ft&fc
Sediment
Aquifer "^*
1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1
0 4000 8000 12000 16000
if
if
i Oxic
&^-,. Anoxic
^^A""--
%4r " '"" -..,.. İ
"^& °D' r'-~=°~ """:.:
if
*
I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I
012345
NML-1
NML-2
NML-3
NML-4
NML-5
NML-6
NML-7
NML-8
NML-9
NML-10
Q
D
0
D
D
D
D TW07-1
D D TW07-2
D
DTW07-3
D
D TW02
Specific Conductance, u,S/cm
Dissolved As, ppm
Figure 10. Water column recovery following the March 2001 peak surface flow event based on specific conductance
and dissolved arsenic measurements. The vertical location of the NML sampling ports is shown relative
to upgradient (TW07) and adjacent (TW02) ground-water sampling locations (see aerial view in Figure 4).
Error of duplicate measurements is within the size of the data symbol. The mean and standard deviation
for specific conductance at NML-2, NML-6, NML-8, and NML-10 for the period of April - September 2001
are 804 ħ 136 (n=5), 8006 ħ 2964 (n=5), 13665 ħ 515 (n=4), 15445 ħ 876 (n=4) pS/cm, respectively. For
comparison, the mean and standard deviation for specific conductance at TW07-2 and TW02 for the period
of April 2000 to September 2001 are 960 ħ312 (n=5) and 8852 ħ 342 (n=5) pS/cm, respectively.
water dilution to allow observation of changes in water
chemistry followingthepeakflow event. According to specific
conductance measurements, the pre-storm stratification in
the water column was re-established by May 14, 2001, or
earlier. Variations in specific conductance observed beyond
this date within the watercolumn and the underlying shallow
aquifer (see Figure 10 caption) were smaller in magnitude
and representative of non-storm flow conditions. The stable
specific conductance profile indicates re-establishment of
a new steady-state mixing profile between ground-water
and surface-water inputs into the HBHA Pond.
In contrast, evolution of the vertical distribution of dissolved
arsenic did not parallel that observed for specific conduc-
tance (Figure 10, right panel). Assuming that specific
conductance can be used as a conservative indicator for
water chemistry in this system, the observed changes in
the vertical distribution of arsenic indicated the influence
of processes other than mixing of different water sources.
Up to May 14, 2001, the vertical distribution of arsenic
appeared to evolve in a fashion similar to that observed
for specific conductance. The greatest change was again
observed overthe depth interval of approximately 8-11 feet.
However, arsenic concentrations continued to increase upto
September 13,2001, and this increase was most significant
near the sediment-water interface. Insignificant changes
in dissolved arsenic were observed in sediment pore water
(NML-9) andthe underlying shallow aquifer (NML-10;TW02
in Figure 9C) at this location within the HBHA Pond. The
concentration of dissolved arsenic at the sediment-water
interface (NML-8) exceeded the concentrations observed at
all proximate ground-water monitoring locations (compare
Figures 9 and 10). Forthis reason, it was proposed that two
separate processes were contributing arsenic to the HBHA
Pond water column: 1) direct ground-water discharge and
2) dissolution of fresh arsenic-bearing suspended solids
deposited within the reducing sediments subsequent to
the March 2001 peak surface flow. Based on the arsenic
vertical profiles, it appeared that ground-water discharge
dominated arsenic flux into the northern end of the HBHA
Pond during the period April 5 to at least May 14, 2001
(Phase 1 in Figure 7). After May 14, 2001, the arsenic flux
was derived from a combination of ground-water discharge
and the apparent dissolution of arsenic-bearing iron oxides
that had settled into the anoxic portion of the water column
(Phase 2 in Figure 7). This data set would have been
strengthened by additional sampling at the NML location
during the period of May-September 2001. However, the
16
-------
relative stability of measured specific conductance above
the sediment-water interface and the underlying aquifer
indicated that the monitoring data sufficiently captured the
endpoints of the transition following post-storm recovery.
Estimates of the magnitude of the arsenic flux from ground-
water discharge and dissolution of arsenic-bearing iron
oxides formed within the HBHA Pond water column can
be used to assess the relative importance of these two
sources of arsenic to the water column. Assuming a cross-
sectional area for the arsenic-bearing plume of 852 ft2
(approximately 426 ft of shoreline over a depth interval of
2 ft between sampling locations NML-4 and NML-7) and
an average arsenic concentration of 1.5 mg As L~1, an
instantaneous arsenic aerial flux of 0.0018 mg As L~1 ft"2
was derived from ground-water discharge at the north
end of the HBHA Pond. The flux of arsenic from sediment
dissolution/desorption can be estimated assuming that
all arsenic is derived from a depth within the HBHA Pond
corresponding to the location of NML-8. A bathymetric
survey of the HBHA Pond (data not shown) indicated an
approximate sediment area of 3,726 ft2 at this depth within
the north end of the pond. Thus, the instantaneous aerial
flux of arsenic derived from sediment dissolution/desorption
on September 13, 2001, near NML-8 (approximately 5 mg
As L1) was 0.0013 mg As L1 ft'2. The reader is cautioned
that these are estimates that represent a snapshot in time
for the system. However, the estimated values for arsenic
flux indicate that sediment dissolution can account for a
significant fraction of the total mass of dissolved arsenic
within the HBHA Pond water column.
Revised Site Conceptual Model
The patterns in ground-water and surface-water solute
chemistry can be used to revise the initial site conceptual
model. Upgradient ground water is clearly a source of ar-
senic into the HBHA Pond. A fraction of the arsenic derived
from ground water is partitioned to sediments along the
margin and the bottom of the pond (400-1500 mg As/kg for
sediments at the sediment-water interface over the aerial
extent of the HBHA Pond). However, patterns in dissolved
As and Fe observed in the north end of the HBHA Pond
indicated that an internal recycling process contributed
a fraction of the observed concentration of these solutes
within the intermediate and deep portions of the pond. The
elevated concentration of As observed at the NML sampling
location on September 2001 was likely derived from dis-
solution of As-bearing iron oxides deposited at the bottom
of the HBHA Pond. A general schematic of arsenic fluxes
into and out of the HBHA Pond water column is shown in
Figure 11. A key component that contributes to the arse-
nic mass balance within the water column is the internal
recycling of arsenic originally derived from ground-water
discharge (Ford, 2004).
Surface Water
Discharge
(Dissolved &
Suspended Solids)
Internal Recycling Process
02(aq)
As-HFO
,.,
As-HFO(s) + H2S(aq) (or other reductants)
İ j
As-FeS(s)
(or other Fe(ll)-bearing minerals
and organic matter)
Water Surface
2
I Iron '
r-J Oxidation-Precipitation
I | and Settling
Solids Dissolution
and/or Re-suspension
- Chemocline
Ground
3* Water
Q Discharge
Solids
Deposition
Aquifer
Figure 11. Revised conceptual model illustrating the arsenic flux balance within the HBHA Pond water column and em-
phasizing the importance of internal recycling of arsenic between the water column and sediments. Inputs
of arsenic into the water column (shown with a plus sign) include discharge of site-derived ground water and
dissolution/re-suspension of contaminated sediments. Removal of arsenic from the water column (shown
with a minus sign) is due to a combination of discharge at the pond outlet and arsenic removal during iron
oxidation-precipitation (HFO = hydrous ferric oxide) and settling at the chemocline and partitioning of arsenic
to reduced sediments during diagenesis and burial.
17
-------
The internal recycling process is due to the coupling of
iron oxidation-reduction processes that, in part, control the
distribution of arsenic between water and solids within the
water column (Figure 11). Observations within the HBHA
Pond water column indicate that ferrous iron generated
from dissolution of iron minerals diffuses upward from within
the water column (Process 1). When diffusing ferrous iron
encounters dissolved oxygen at the chemocline within the
water column, it is oxidized and precipitated (Process 2).
Poorly crystalline iron oxides collected within the HBHA
Pond at the chemocline contain significant concentrations
of arsenic, since these precipitates efficiently sequester
arsenic at the pH within the HBHA Pond (Ford, 2002). The
iron oxides subsequently settle back to the sediment-water
interface and are subject to iron reduction and dissolution,
again releasing coprecipitated/adsorbed arsenic (Process
3). A fraction of the arsenic derived from settled suspended
solids is likely incorporated into the sediments (Process
4). A similar process has been documented in lake and
stream sediments where iron oxides were abundant (Har-
rington et al., 1998; Nagorski and Moore, 1999; Senn and
Hemond, 2002).
Conclusions and Implications for Site
Characterization
The importance of arsenic partitioning to Fe-bearing sol-
ids within the HBHA Pond impacts both the approach to
characterizing the GW/SW transition zone and assessing
the fate of arsenic within the surface-water body. Temporal
and spatial measurements of arsenic within ground water
and surface water coupled with knowledge of arsenic
partitioning to solids within the HBHA Pond demonstrated
that ground-water discharge was not the only contributor
to dissolved arsenic concentrations within the pond water
column. Measured specific conductance proximate to the
sediment-water interface at the NML monitoring location and
adjacent shallow aquifer locations served as a constraint for
delineating an arsenic flux at the sediment-water interface
that was separatefrom direct ground-waterdischarge. This
observation supported the importance of recognizing the
distinct properties of sediments in direct contact with the
surface-water body as well as the aquifer solids that may
exist within the GW/SW transition zone (as illustrated in
Figure 1). The apparent instability of arsenic associated
with sediments at the bottom of the HBHA Pond also indi-
cates that elimination of the ground-water arsenic source
will not necessarily eliminate dissolved arsenic within the
lake water column. The potential for sediments to serve
as a secondary source of arsenic to surface water is an
important factor to be recognized with respect to selec-
tion of remedial alternatives and evaluation of subsequent
performance monitoring data. Due to the importance of
inorganic contaminant sorption to solids, the approach to
characterization of the GW/SW transition zone employed
at this site has general applicability to other sites impacted
by inorganic contaminants in ground water. Specifically,
the value of detailed temporal monitoring during hydraulic
transients within the site can provide useful information for
delineating coupled processes that are difficult to discern
within these complex systems.
Overall, the behavior of arsenic at this contaminant site
illustrates the level of complexity one may anticipate for
evaluating fate and transport of contaminants across the
GW/SW transition zone. This and other studies indicate
that site monitoring to support a reliable conceptual model
must properly address spatial and temporal variations
that are a common trait of this environmental setting. The
density of data collection will be dictated by the complexity
of the geomorphic setting as well as the variability in lo-
cal climatic conditions that can influence both the system
hydrology and biogeochemistry. The field study presented
here and the literature studies highlighted earlier all point to
the need to monitor during base-flow conditions and during
times when system hydrology is perturbed from base-flow,
e.g., during a storm cycle. Observation of the response
and recovery of the GW/SW transition zone to significant
perturbations to the hydrologic system could provide use-
ful insight into the system functionality. First, this type of
monitoring data will provide a realistic assessment of the
range in the magnitude and directionality of contaminant
flux that can be anticipated for the system. In addition,
for complex systems with multiple potential contaminant
sources this type of monitoring data may provide the most
straightforward means to delineate the relative importance
of the various contaminant sources and the dominant pro-
cesses controlling contaminant transport into or out of the
surface-water body.
Acknowledgement
Richard Wilkin, Frank Beck, Jr., Patrick Clark, Thomas
Holdsworth, Cynthia Paul, and Joseph LeMay provided
valuable assistance and guidance during field sampling.
Ning Xu and Sandra Saye provided analytical support for
determination of metals, and Victor Murray provided support
for GIS applications under Contract #68-C-98-138. Martha
Williams provided support for document formatting under
Contract #68W01032, Task Order 2018. This manuscript
benefited significantly from critical and constructive reviews
from Bart Faulkner (USEPA), Douglas Kent (USGS), Sonia
Nagorski (University of Alaska Southeast), Donald Rosen-
berry (USGS), Rebecca Schneider (Cornell University), and
representatives from the USEPA Ground Water Forum and
Ecosystem Risk Assessment Forum.
Notice
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency through its
Office of Research and Development funded the research
described here. This research brief has been subjected
to 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.
References
Ahel, M. Infiltration of organic pollutants into groundwater:
Field studies in the alluvial aquifer of the Sava River.
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
47:586-593(1991).
Ahel, M., C. Schaffner, and W. Giger. Behaviour of al-
kylphenol polyethoxylate surfactants in the aquatic
environment-Ill. Occurrence and elimination of their
18
-------
persistent metabolites during infiltration of river water
to groundwater. Water Research 30: 37-46 (1996).
Aurilio, A. C., R. P. Mason, and H. F. Hemond. Speciation
and fate of arsenic in three lakes of the Aberjona wa-
tershed. Environmental Science and Technology 28:
577-585(1994).
Benner, S. G., E. W. Smart, and J. N. Moore. Metal behavior
during surface-groundwater interaction, Silver Bow
Creek, Montana. Environmental Science and Technol-
ogy 29: 1789-1795 (1995).
Biksey, T. M., and E. D. Gross. The hyporheic zone: linking
groundwater and surface water - understanding the
paradigm. Remediation 12: 55-62 (2001).
Bourg, A. C. M., and C. Berlin. Biogeochemical processes
during the infiltration of river water into an alluvial
aquifer. Environmental Science and Technology 27:
661-666(1993).
Bourg, A. C. M., and C. Berlin. Seasonal and spatial Irends
in manganese solubilily in an alluvial aquifer. Environ-
mental Science and Technology 28: 868-876 (1994).
Buscheck, T. E., N. Nijhawan, and K. O'Reilly. "Mass flux
eslimales lo assisl remedialion decision-making." In
2003 Proceedings of the Seventh International In Situ
and On-Site Bioremediation Symposium, Orlando,
FL, 2004.
Capone, D. G., and M. F. Baulisla. A groundwaler source
of nilrale in nearshore marine sedimenls. Nature 313:
214-216(1985).
Chambers, R.M.,andW.E.Odum. Porewaleroxidalion,dis-
solved phosphaleandlhe iron curtain: Iron-phosphorus
relalions in lidal f reshwafer marshes. Biogeochemistry
10:37-52(1990).
Chapelle, F. H. Ground Water Microbiology and Geochem-
istry. New York: Wiley, 1993, 424.
Conant Jr., B. "Ground-water plume behavior near the
ground-water/surface water interface of a river." In
Proceedings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water In-
teractions Workshop, Denver, CO, 1999.
Conant Jr., B. Delineating and quantifying ground waterdis-
charge zones using streambed temperatures. Ground
Water 42: 243-257 (2004).
Conant Jr., B., J. A. Cherry, and R. W. Gillham. A PCE
groundwater plume discharging to a river: influence
of the streambed and near-river zone on contaminant
distributions. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 73:
249-279 (2004).
Davis, A., J. H. Kempton, A. Nicholson, and B.Yare. Ground-
water transport of arsenic and chromium at a histori-
cal tannery, Woburn, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Applied
Geochemistry 9: 569-582 (1994).
Davis, A., C. Sellstone, S. Clough, R. Barrick, and B.Yare.
Bioaccumulation of arsenic, chromium, and lead in
fish: constraints imposed by sediment geochemistry.
Applied Geochemistry 11: 409-423 (1996).
Ding, W. H., J.Wu, M.Semadeni, and M. Reinhard. Occur-
rence and behavior of wastewater indicators in the Santa
Ana River and the underlying aquifer. Chemosphere
39:1781-1794(1999).
Doss, P. K. The nature of a dynamic water table in a system
of non-tidal, freshwater coastal wetlands. Journal of
Hydrology 141: 107-126 (1993).
Doussan, C., G. Poitevin, E. Ledoux, and M. Delay. River
bankfiltralion: modeling of Ihe changes in waler chem-
islry wilh emphasis on nilrogen species. Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology 25: 129-156 (1997).
Duranl, J. L, J. J. Zemach, and H. F. Hemond. The history
of lealher induslry wasle conlaminalion in Ihe Aberjona
walershed: A mass balance approach. Civil Engineering
Practice 5: 41-66 (1990).
Einarson, M.D., and D. M. Mackay. Predicling impacls of
groundwaler conlaminalion. Environmental Science
and Technology 35: 66A-73A (2001).
Ferrey, M. L., R. T. Wilkin, R. G. Ford, and J. T. Wilson.
Nonbiological removal of cis-Dichloroelhylene and
1,1-Dichloroelhylene in aquifer sedimenl containing
magnelile. Environmental Science and Technology^:
1746-1752(2004).
Ford, R.G. Rales of hydrous ferric oxide cryslallizalion and
Ihe influenceoncoprecipilaledarsenale. Environmental
Science and Technology 36: 2459-2463 (2002).
Ford, R. G. Industri-Plex Superfund Site Natural Attenua-
tion Study, EPMeOQ/X-OAM 9. Cincinnali, OH: U.S.
Environmenlal Proleclion Agency, 2004.
Eraser, C. J. D., N. T. Roulel, and M. Lafluer. Groundwaler
flow pallerns in a large pealland. Journal of Hydrology
246:142-154(2001).
Fuller, C. C., and J. W. Harvey. Reaclive uplake of Irace
melals in Ihe hyporheic zone of a mining-conlaminaled
slream, Pinal Creek, Arizona. Environmental Science
and Technology 34: 1150-1155 (2000).
Griggs, E. M., L. R. Kump, and J. K. Bohlke. The fale of
waslewaler-derived nilrale in Ihe subsurface of Ihe
Florida Keys: Key Colony Beach, Florida. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science 58: 517-539 (2003).
Grimaldi, C., V. Viaud, F. Massa, L. Carleaux, S. Derosch,
A. Regeard, Y Fauvel, N. Gilliel, and F. Rouaull. Slream
nilrale varialions explained by ground waler head
fluclualions in a pyrile-bearing aquifer. Journal of En-
vironmental Quality 33: 994-1001 (2004).
Grischek,T,K.M.Hiscock,TMelschies,P.P. Dennis,andW.
Nesller. Factors affecling denilrificalion during inf illralion
of river waler into a sand and gravel aquifer in Saxony,
Germany. Water Research 32: 450-460 (1998).
Groffman, A. R.,and L. J.Crossey.Transienl redox regimes
in a shallow alluvial aquifer. Chemical Geology 161:
415-442(1999).
19
-------
Happell, J. D., R. M. Price, Z.Top, and P. K. Swart. Evidence
forthe removal of CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-13 at the
groundwater-surfacewaterinterfaceinthe Everglades.
Journal of Hydrology 279: 94-105 (2003).
Harrington, J. M., S. E. Fendorf, and R. F. Rosenzweig. Biotic
generation of arsenic(lll) in metal(loid) contaminated
freshwater lake sediments. Environmental Science and
Technology 32: 2425-2430 (1998).
Harvey, J. W., and C. C. Fuller. Effect of enhanced manga-
nese oxidation in the hyporheic zone on basin-scale
geochemical mass balance. Water Resources Research
34:623-636(1998).
Holloway, J. M., and R. A. Dahlgren. Seasonal and event-
scale variations in solute chemistry for four Sierra
Nevada catchments. Journal of Hydrology 250: 106-
121 (2001).
Jacobs, L. A., H. R. von Gunten, R. Keil, and M. Kuslys.
Geochemical changes along a river-groundwater infil-
tration flow path: Glattfelden, Switzerland. Geochimica
et Cosmochimica Acta 52: 2693-2706 (1998).
Jaynes, M. L., and S. R. Carpenter. Effects of vascular and
nonvascular macrophytes on sediment redoxand solute
dynamics. Ecology 67: 875-882 (1986).
Jones, C. A., D. A. Nimick, and R. B. McCleskey. Relative
effect of temperature and pH on diel cycling of dissolved
trace elements in Prickly Pear Creek, Montana. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution 153: 95-113 (2004).
Langmuir, D. Aqueous Environmental Geochemistry, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1997, 600.
Law, S. A., T. F. Bidleman, M. J. Martin, and M. V. Ruby.
Evidence of enantioselective degradation of a-hexchlo-
rocyclohexane in groundwater. Environmental Science
and Technology 38: 1633-1638 (2004).
Lendvay, J. M., S. M. Dean, and P. Adriaens. Temporal
and spatial trends in biogeochemical conditions at a
groundwater/surface water interface: Implications for
natural bioattenuation. Environmental Science and
Technology 23: 3472-3478 (1998).
Lorah, M. M., and L. D. Olsen. Natural attenuation of chlori-
nated volatile organic compounds in a freshwater tidal
wetland: Field evidence of anaerobic biodegradation.
Water Resources Research 35: 3811 -3827 (1999).
Massmann, G., A. Pekdeger, and C. Merz. Redox processes
in the Oderbruch polder groundwater flow system in
Germany. Applied Geochemistry 19: 863-886 (2004).
McCobb,T. D., D. R. LeBlanc, D. A. Walter, K.M. Hess, K. M.,
D. B. Kent, and R. L. Smith. Phosphorous in a ground-
water contaminant plume discharging to Ashumet
Pond, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, 1999. USGS Water-
Resources Investigations Report 02-4306, 2003.
Moore, J. N. "Contaminant mobilization resulting from re-
dox pumping in a metal-contaminated river-reservoir
system." In Environmental Chemistry of Lakes and
Reservoirs, by American Chemical Society, Washing-
ton, DC: L. A. Baker, 1994, 451-471.
Moore, J. N., W. H. Ficklin, and C. Johns. Partitioning of
arsenic and metals in reducing sulfidic sediments.
Environmental Science and Technology 22 (4), 432-
437(1988).
Morgan J. J., and Stone, A. T. "Kinetics of chemical pro-
cesses of importance in lacustrine environments." In
Chemical Processes in Lakes, New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 1985, 389-426.
Nagorski, S. A., and J. N. Moore. Arsenic mobilization in
the hyporheic zone of a contaminated stream. Water
Resources Research, 35: 3441-3450 (1999).
Puls, R. W., and C. J. Paul. Low-flow purging of monitor-
ing wells and field filtration of groundwater samples.
Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 15: 116-
123(1995).
Savoie, J. G., D. R. LeBlanc, D. S. Blackwood, T. D. Mc-
Cobb, and R. R. Rendigs. Delineation of discharge
areas of two contaminant plumes by use of diffusion
samplers, Johns Pond, Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
1998. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report
00-4017, 2000.
Schwarzenbach, R. P., W. Giger, E. Hoehn, and J. K.
Schneider. Behavior of organic compounds during
infiltration of river water to groundwater field studies.
Environmental Science and Technology 17: 472-479.
(1983)
Sebestyen, S. D., and R. L. Schneider. Seepage patterns,
pore water, and aquatic plants: hydrological and bio-
geochemical relationships in lakes. Biogeochemistry
68: 383-409 (2004).
Senn, D. B., and H. F. Hemond. Nitrate controls on iron
and arsenic in an urban lake. Science 296:2373-2376
(2002).
Stumm, W., and Morgan, J. J. Aquatic Chemistry, 3rd ed.,
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, 1022.
Tomassoni, G. "A federal statutory/regulatory/policy per-
spective on remedial decision-making with respect to
ground-water/surface-water interaction." In Proceed-
ings of the Ground-Water/Surface-Water Interactions
Workshop, Denver, CO, 1999.
Triska, F.J., J.H. Duff, and R.J.Avanzino. The role of water
exchange between a stream channel and its hyporheic
zone in nitrogen cycling at the terrestrial-aquatic inter-
face. Hydrobiologia 251: 167-184. (1993).
U. S. EPA. A Review of Methods for Assessing Nonpoint
Source Contaminated Ground-Water Discharge to
Surface Water. EPA 570/9-91/010, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC,
1991.
U.S. EPA. Biological Indicators of Ground Water- Surface
Water Interaction: Update. EPA 816-R-98-018,
20
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Off ice of Water,
Washington, DC, 1998a. http://www.epa.gov/safewa-
ter/swp/bioind.pdf
U.S. EPA. Technical Protocol for Evaluating Natural Attenu-
ation of Chlorinated Solvents in Ground Water. EPA
600/R-98/128, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC,
1998b. http://www.epa.gov/ada/download/reports/pro-
tocol.pdf
U.S. EPA. Proceedings o\'the Ground-Water/Surface-Water
Interactions Workshop. EPA 542/R-00/007, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
DC, 2000a. http://www.clu-in.0rg/s.focus/c/pub/i/600/
U. S. EPA. Workshop on Monitoring Oxidation-Reduction
Processes for Ground-water Restoration. EPA/600/R-
02/002, Office of Research and Development, Wash-
ington, DC, 2000b. http://www.epa.gov/ada/download/
reports/epa_600_r02_002.pdf
von Gunten, H. R., G. Karametaxas, U. Krahenbuhl, M.
Kuslys, R. Giovanoli, E. Hoehn, and R. Keil. Seasonal
biogeochemical cycles in riverborne groundwater.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 55: 3597-3609
(1991).
Vroblesky, D. A., M. M. Lorah, and S. P. Trimble. Mapping
zones of contaminated ground-water discharge using
creek-bottom-sediment vapor samplers, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland. Ground Water 29: 7-12
(1991).
Vroblesky, D. A., and F. H. Chapelle. Temporal and spatial
changes of terminal electron-accepting processes in
a petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated aquifer and
the significance for contaminant biodegradation. Water
Resources Research 30: 1561-1570 (1994).
Vroblesky, D. A., L. C. Rhodes, J. F. Robertson, and J. A.
Harrigan. Locating VOC contamination in a fractured-
rock aquifer at the ground-water/surface-water inter-
face using passive vapor collectors. Ground Water 34:
223-230(1996).
Wick, L.Y., and P.M.Gschwend. Sourceandchemodynamic
behavior of diphenyl sulfone and ortho- and para-hy-
droxybiphenylinasmalllakereceivingdischargesfrom
an adjacent superfund site. Environmental Science and
Technology 32: 1319-1328 (1998a).
Wick, L.Y., and P. M. Gschwend. By-products of a former
phenol manufacturing site in a small lake adjacent to a
superfund site in the Aberjona watershed. Environmen-
tal Health Perspectives 106: 1069-1074 (1998b).
Wick, L.Y., K. McNeill, M. Rojo, E. Medilanski, and P. M.
Gschwend. Fate of benzene in a stratified lake re-
ceiving contaminated groundwater discharges from a
superfund site. Environmental Science and Technology
34: 4354-4362 (2000).
Wilkin, R. T, and R. G. Ford. Use of hydrochloric acid for
determining solid-phase arsenic partitioning in sulfidic
sediments. Environmental Science andTechnology36:
4921-4927(2002).
Winter, T. C., J. W. Harvey, O. L. Franke, and W. M. Alley.
Ground water and surface water: a single resource.
USGS Circular 1139, (1998) http://water.usgs.gov/
pubs/circ/cird 139/pdf/circ1139.pdf
21
-------
v°/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Please make all necessary changes on the below label, detach
or copy, and return to the address in the upper left-hand corner
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE Q;
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/600/S-05/002
January 2005
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free.
------- |