SERA      NRMRL
                                                                  EPA/600/F-10/017
                                                                           July2010
   www.epa.gov/nrmrl
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
GROUND WATER  AND ECOSYSTEMS RESTORATION RESEARCH
   Control of Subsurface Contaminant Migration by Vertical Engineered Barriers
 This Fact Sheet provides a synopsis on the use of vertical
 engineered barriers (VEBs) to control the migration of
 contamination in the subsurface. This Fact Sheet is intended
 to provide remedial project managers (RPMs), on-scene
 coordinators (OSCs), contractors, and other remediation
 stakeholders with a basic overview of hazardous waste
 containment systems constructed to prevent or limit the migration
 of contamination in ground water as well as their limitations.
 Physical containment systems are constructed to isolate
 contaminated soil, ground water and aquifer materials by creating
 engineered barriers to ground water flow and recharge. By
 isolating the source(s), such systems can prevent or reduce the
 degradation of ground water and potential threats to human health
 and the environment outside the contained area. Conceptually, a
 containment system can be visualized as a box, whose sides, top
 and bottom are represented by VEBs, a cap, and an underlying
 low permeability unit or aquitard, respectively.  Containment
 systems also typically include a ground water extraction system
 and a monitoring system (Figure I).1-2
     Figure 1. Major conceptual components of a
     containment system "box" include the cap (top),
     vertical engineered barrier (walls), aquitard (bottom),
     and monitoring wells.

     Vertical engineered barriers (VEBs), or cut-off walls,
     are most commonly slurry walls composed of native soils
     enriched with bentonite or another type of clay.  Other
     materials such as cement, geomembranes, and steel sheet
     piling can also be used separately or in combination. Testing
     will generally be required to ensure that the VEB materials
     of construction are compatible with the wastes to be
     contained.1'3'4'5'6'7
     A low permeability cap is normally constructed to prohibit
     or reduce infiltration into the containment system. The
                                cap may be constructed of various layers of natural and/or
                                geosynthetic materials. If consistent with future land use,
                                concrete or asphalt may also be used.1'2'8
                              • The bottom or 'floor' of a containment system is typically
                                a low hydraulic conductivity (K) unit, into which the
                                wall is constructed or 'keyed'.9 The presence of a lower
                                confining unit and an adequate key significantly reduce the
                                horizontal and vertical advective flow of contaminants from
                                a containment system.10'11 Technologies for the emplacement
                                of low K 'floors' in situ have been demonstrated for
                                relatively shallow  contaminant sources.12 Hanging wall
                                containment systems lacking 'floors' have been used to
                                prevent the lateral  movement of light nonaqueous phase
                                hydrocarbons.1
                              • A ground water extraction system is typically required
                                to maintain inward and upward hydraulic gradients, so
                                that the flux of water through the walls or floor is into the
                                containment facility rather than out of it. Vertical extraction
                                wells or horizontal drain systems can be used to remove
                                fluids at a rate sufficient to maintain the desired inward
                                hydraulic gradients.  The  extracted ground water will
                                generally be contaminated and will require  treatment.1
                              • A good monitoring system will incorporate a variety
                                of monitoring techniques, rather than relying on a single
                                method.13 A monitoring system may include piezometers
                                inside and outside  the VEB to  demonstrate  that inward
                                gradients are maintained, and in the underlying aquifer
                                beneath the 'floor' to demonstrate an upward gradient.
                                Ground water quality monitoring surrounding the facility
                                may be used to demonstrate that contaminants are not
                                leaving the system at unacceptable rates.14'15 Monitoring
                                will generally be needed for as long as contaminants
                                within the containment system are potentially able to cause
                                unacceptable exposures outside of the system.16
                            While the concept of a  containment system is relatively simple,
                            successful implementation may be  difficult.17 Available
                            information on the performance of VEBs for hazardous waste
                            containment suggests that the primary short term factor affecting
                            their performance is poor construction.10'16'18 Successful
                            construction of a wall that meets design specification for K
                            (typically 10'8 to 10~9 meters/second1'10'14) requires deployment
                            of an experienced construction crew,18'19'20 strict  adherence to
                            construction quality control/construction quality assurance
                            (CQC/CQA),1'14'16'18 and the selection of appropriate construction
                            materials for the contaminants of concern and hydrogeologic
                            setting.10'21  Construction difficulties could create "windows"
                            of higher hydraulic conductivity in some places  in the wall,
                            allowing for an outward advective flux of contaminants, or
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory

-------
requiring a greater ground water extraction rate to maintain
an inward gradient.5'16'22 "Windows" of higher permeability
or discontinuities can also occur naturally in the underlying
aquitard.9'23 Figure 2 illustrates some of the problems that can
occur when containment systems are improperly designed.
constructed, and/or operated. The higher water level inside the
containment system relative to the upper and lower aquifers may
result in leakage out of the system.
Even when a containment system is designed, constructed, and
operated to design specifications, diffusive flux of dissolved
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) through slurry walls.
geomembranes, and the containment system floor can still
occur.24'25'26'27'28'29'30  Site specific ground water flow conditions
will determine whether this steady state flux rate will result in
ground water concentrations exceeding ground water cleanup
criteria.
Site conditions may have an adverse impact on construction and
performance of containment systems.  It is not uncommon for
some contamination to remain outside the perimeter of a VEB.
and this can cause confusion about the integrity of the system.1
At many sites, it may be difficult to  determine the continuity and
integrity of the underlying aquitard in the containment area.9'23
Fractures in the aquitard that are hydraulically active are difficult
to characterize and may allow short-circuiting of contaminants
out of the containment system and into a lower aquifer.31
Monitoring and maintenance of the containment system are
crucial to ensure that the system remains effective for as long
as contamination poses a risk to areas beyond the containment
system.16 The rate at which the effectiveness of a containment
system will diminish over time depends  on the conservativeness
of the original design, the effectiveness of the CQC/CQA
program, and the adequacy of system maintenance.  Currently
there is insufficient data documenting the long-term performance
of containment systems to predict their useful life with any
degree of reliability.15'22'32 Wells, pumps, the treatment system
and its related infrastructure, and the cap will all require regular
maintenance. Due to the long term (decades or centuries) nature
of most of the containment systems, it is likely that  some or all of
the components will require repair and/or replacement during the
lifetime of the system.1'16'33
The presence of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) in
containment systems creates additional concerns. Many NAPLs
may impact the integrity of the wall. For example, some NAPLs
may cause shrinkage of bentonite slurry  walls that may increase
the K of the wall.5'18'34 Dense NAPLs (DNAPLs) may accumulate
behind a wall and eventually penetrate the  lower confining unit
and contaminate a deeper aquifer.  Fractures in the  aquitard
may allow rapid downward migration of DNAPLs.23'35'36 High
dissolved phase concentrations adjacent to the wall  caused
by the proximity of NAPLs may allow diffusive transport of
contaminants from the containment system at rates that cause
unacceptable groundwater concentrations outside of the system.30
      Figure 2. Potential leakage pathways and causes
     for contaminants to leak out of a containment system
      include high K windows, discontinuities in the
      aquitard and inadequate keying of wall into aquitard,
      and higher hydraulic heads inside then out.

Making the determination whether or not a containment system
has significant leakage can be accomplished using hydraulic
head data and is relatively straight forward at some  sites.37 For
example, significant temporal changes in water levels indicate
that water is either entering or exiting the containment system.
The installation of transducer-type water level recorders inside
and outside the wall may be helpful in understanding the water
balance of the system.1'16'37 However, determining the magnitude
and specific location(s) of leakage will generally not be feasible
with the monitoring well networks commonly found at most
sites.  If leakage from a containment system is deemed significant
or unacceptable, additional site characterization will likely be
required to  determine the  specific locations of leakage.1'3'15'33'37'38
Tracers added to the contained waste may be helpful in
determining the location of leakage.
At some sites, containment systems can be implemented
relatively quickly to reduce the spread of contamination
in the subsurface.  However, the  long term performance  of
containment systems has not been verified. Frequent maintenance
and monitoring is required to maintain the desired level of
effectiveness of the system, 1,3,15,16,33,37,38 Source remediation
may be required within the containment  system to improve the
system's effectiveness.
For more information, contact Eva Davis at (580) 436-8548 or
davis.eva(@,epa. gov or Randall Ross at (580)  436-8611 or ross.
randall(@,epa.gov.
See Also: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/gwerd/
References are available at: http://www.epa. gov/nrmrl/
pubs/600f 10017/600f 10017ref.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory

-------
SERA      NRMRL
                                                               EPA/600/F-10/017
                                                                       July2010
   www.epa.gov/nrmrl
NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
GROUND  WATER AND ECOSYSTEMS RESTORATION  RESEARCH
            References for Control of Subsurface Contaminant Migration by
                                    Vertical Engineered Barriers
 1.  USEPA, Evaluation of Subsurface Engineered Barriers
    at Waste Sites, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
    Response,  EPA 542-R-98-005, 1998.
    http://www.clu-in.org/download/remed/subsurf.pdf
 2.  Shackelford, C.D. and S.A. Jefferis, Geoenvironmental
    engineering for in situ remediation, GeoEng2000,  An
    International Conference on Geotechnical & Geological
    Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 121-185, November
    19-24, 2000.
 3.  USEPA, Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution Migration
    Control, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    EPA 540/2-84-001, 1994.
 4.  Filz, G.M., and J.K. Mitchell, Design, Construction and
    Performance of Soil- and Cement-based Vertical Barriers, in
    R.R. Rumer, and J.K. Mitchell, eds., Assessment of Barrier
    Containment Technologies: A Comprehensive Treatment for
    Environmental Remediation Applications, NTIS: PB96-
    180583, pp 45-75, 1995.
 5.  Evans, J.C., Hydraulic conductivity of vertical cutoff walls.
    Hydraulic Conductivity and Waste Contaminant Transport in
    Soil, STP1142, pp 79-94, 1994.
 6.  McMahon, D.R., Vertical barriers: Sheet piles, in R.R.
    Rumer, and J.K. Mitchell, eds., Assessment of Barrier
    Containment Technologies: A Comprehensive Treatment for
    Environmental Remediation Applications, NTIS: PB96-
    180583, pp 77-93, 1995.
 7.  Koerner, R.M., and J.L. Guglielmetti, Vertical barriers:
    Geomembranes, in R.R. Rumer, and J.K. Mitchell, eds..
    Assessment of Barrier Containment Technologies: A
    Comprehensive Treatment for Environmental Remediation
    Applications, NTIS: PB96-180583, pp. 95-119, 1995.
 8.  Daniel, D.E.,  and B.A. Gross, Caps, in R.R. Rumer, and
    J.K. Mitchell, eds., Assessment of Barrier Containment
    Technologies: A Comprehensive Treatment for
    Environmental Remediation Applications, NTIS: PB96-
    180583, pp. 119-140, 1995.
 9.  Boutwell, G.P, and T Hueckel, Floors and bottom
    barriers: Indigenous, in R.R. Rumer, and J.K. Mitchell.
    eds., Assessment of Barrier Containment Technologies: A
    Comprehensive Treatment for Environmental Remediation
    Applications, NTIS: PB96-180583, pp 141-184, 1995.
                           10. Benson, C.H., and S.F. Dwyer, Material stability and
                              applications, in Chien, C.C., H.I. Inyang, and L.G. Everett.
                              eds., Barrier Systems for Environmental Contaminant
                              Containment and Treatment, Taylor & Francis Group, New
                              York, pgs. 143-207, 2006.
                           11. Tachavises, C., and C.H. Benson, Hydraulic importance of
                              defects in vertical groundwater cut-off walls, Proceedings of
                              the Conference In Situ Remediation of the Geoenvironment.
                              Minneapolis, Minnesota, Geotechnical Special Publication
                              No. 71, ASCE, October 5-8, 1997.
                           12. Peterson, M.E., and R.C. Landis, Artificially emplaced
                              floors and bottom barriers, in R.R. Rumer, and J.K. Mitchell.
                              eds., Assessment of Barrier Containment Technologies: A
                              Comprehensive Treatment for Environmental Remediation
                              Applications, NTIS: PB96-180583, pp 185-209, 1995.
                           13. Daniel, D.E., Long-Term Monitoring of Subsurface Barrier
                              Integrity - Current Technology Capabilities and Limitations.
                              Subsurface Remediation: Improving Long-Term Monitoring
                              & Remedial Systems Performance, USEPA, Office of Solid
                              Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/542/B-00/002, pp.
                              68-69, April 2000.
                           14. Barvenik, M.J., and J.E. Ayres, Construction Quality
                              Control and Post - Construction Performance Verification
                              for the Gilson Road Hazardous Waste Site Cutoff Wall,
                              EPA/600/2-87/065, August 1987.
                           15. Inyang, H.I., Performance monitoring and evaluation, in
                              R.R. Rumer, and J.K. Mitchell, eds., Assessment of Barrier
                              Containment Technologies: A Comprehensive Treatment
                              for Environmental Remediation Applications, NTIS:
                              PB96-180583, pp. 355-400, 1995.
                           16. National Research Council, Assessment of the Performance
                              of Engineered Waste Containment Barriers, The National
                              Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007.
                           17. Evans, J.C., E.D. Stahl, and E. Drooff, Plastic concrete
                              cutoff walls, Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal '87,
                              Geotechnical Special Publication NO  13, ASCE, pp. 462-472,
                              June 1987.
                           18. Benson, C.H., Containment systems:  lessons learned from
                              North American failures, in Guilherme de Mello, L., and
                              M. Almeida, eds., Environmental Geotechnics, Proceedings
                              of the Fourth International Congress on Environmental
                              Geotechnics, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, August 11-15, 2002.
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory

-------
19. Zamojski, L.D., S.W. Perkins, andD. Reinknecht, Design
    and construction evaluation of a slurry wall at FLR Landfill
    Superfund Site, Geoenvironment 2000: Characterization,
    containment, remediation, and performance in environmental
    geotechnics, pp. 1192-1206, 2000.
20. Bergstrom, W.R., M.B. Sweatman, M.E. Dodt, Slurry trench
    construction - Collier Road Landfill, Geotechnical Practice
    for Waste Disposal '87, Geotechnical Special Publication
    No. 13, ASCE, pp. 260-274, June 1987.
21. Ryan, C.R., Vertical barriers in soil for pollution
    containment, Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal
    '87, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 13, ASCE, pp.
    182-204, June 1987.
22. Inyang, H.I., and G. Tomassoni, Indexing of long-
    term effectiveness of waste containment systems for a
    regulatory impact analysis, Draft, Office of Solid Waste,
    EPA530-R-97-024, USEPA, Washington, DC, January 1993.
23. Cherry, J.A., B.L. Parker, K.R. Bradbury, T.T. Eaton, M.B.
    Gotkowitz, D.J. Hart, and M.A. Borchardt, Contaminant
    Transport through Aquitards:  A "State of the Science"
    Review, Published by the American Water Works Association
    (Awwa) Research Foundation, Denver, CO, 2006.
24. Gray, D.H. and WJ. Weber, Jr., Diffusional transport of
    hazardous waste leachate across clay barriers, Proceedings of
    the Seventh Annual Madison Waste Conference, University
    of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, pp. 373-389, 1984.
25. Johnson, R.L., J.A. Cherry, and J.F. Pankow, Diffusive
    contaminant transport in natural clay: A field example
    and implications for clay-lined waste disposal sites,
    Environmental Science & Technology, 23(3):340-349, 1989.
26. Mott, H.V., and W.J.  Weber, Jr., Diffusion of organic
    contaminants through soil-bentonite cut-off barriers,
    Research Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
    63(2): 166-176, 1991.
27. Park, J.K., and M. Nibras, Mass Flux of organic chemicals
    through polyethylene geomembranes, Water Environment
    Research, 65(3):227-237,  1993.
28. Park, J.K., J.P Sakti, and J.A. Hoopes, Transport of aqueous
    organic compounds in thermoplastic geomembranes. I:
    Mathematical model, J. of Environmental Engineering,
    122(9):800-806, 1996.
29.  Park, J.K., J.P. Sakti, and J.A. Hoopes, Transport of aqueous
    organic compounds in thermoplastic geomembranes. II. Mass
    flux estimates and practical implications, J. of Environmental
    Engineering, 122(9):807-813, 1996.
30.  Krol, M. and R.K. Rowe, Diffusion of TCE through Soil
    Bentonite Slurry Walls, Soil and Sediment Contamination,
    13:81-101,2004.
31.  Harrison, B., E.A. Sudicky, and J.A. Cherry, Numerical
    analysis of solute migration through fractured clayey
    deposits into underlying aquifers, Water Resources Research,
    28(2):515-526, 1992.
32.  Inyang, H.I., and S.J. Piet,  Damage and  System Performance
    Prediction, in Chien, C.C., H.I. Inyang, and L.G.  Everett,
    eds., Barrier Systems for Environmental Contaminant
    Containment and Treatment, Taylor & Francis Group, New
    York, pgs. 1 - 70, 2006.
33.  Shackelford, C.D., Environmental issues in geotechnical
    engineering, in Proceedings of the 16th International
    Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
    Engineering, vol. 1, Osaka, Japan, Millpress Science
    Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 95-122,
    September 12-16, 2005.
34.  Mitchell, J.K. and F.T. Madsen, Chemical effects on clay
    hydraulic conductivity, Geotechnical Practice for Waste
    Disposal '87, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 13,
    ASCE, pp. 87-116, June 1987.
35.  O'Hara, S.K., B.L. Parker, PR. Jorgensen, and J.A. Cherry,
    Trichloroethene DNAPL flow and mass  distribution in
    naturally fractured clay: Evidence of aperture variability,
    Water Resources Research, 36(1): 135-147, 2000.
36.  Parker, B.L., J.A. Cherry, and S.W. Chapman, Field study
    of TCE diffusion profiles below DNAPL to assess aquitard
    integrity, J. Contaminant Hydrology, 74:197-230, 2004.
37.  Ross, R.R., and M.S. Beljin, Evaluation of containment
    systems using hydraulic head data, J. of Environmental
    Engineering, 575-578, June 1998.
38.  Rowe, K.R., Long-term performance of contaminant barrier
    systems, Geotechnique, 55(9):631-678, 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory

-------