Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:07:01.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Non-Pumped Wells in Backfilled Trenches versus Permeable Reactive Barriers for Containing and Treating Contaminated Groundwater

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2016

Paul F. Hudak
Paul F. Hudak*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography and Environmental Science Program, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #305279, Denton, TX 76203-5017
Get access

Abstract

A flow and mass transport model simulated two low-energy groundwater remediation strategies: 1) a permeable reactive barrier and 2) non-pumped wells with filter cartridges in a backfilled trench. Both structures occupied a linear transect 5 m downgradient of the leading tip of a contaminant plume and perpendicular to the local hydraulic gradient. In each of four simulated homogeneous and heterogeneous settings, models identified the shortest permeable reactive barrier (measured lengthwise, normal to the ambient hydraulic gradient) or locations of the smallest number of non-pumped wells necessary to contain and remove a contaminant plume. Results suggest that non-pumped wells emplaced in trenches backfilled with aquifer material (when allowed from a regulatory perspective) may be a viable alternative to more costly permeable reactive barriers in some settings.

Environmental Practice 18: 247–252 (2016)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 247 - 252
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

API (American Petroleum Institute). 1989. Hydrogeologic Database for Groundwater Modeling. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Blowes, D.W., Ptacek, C.J., Benner, S.G., McRae, C.W.T., Bennett, T.A., and Pul, R.W. 2000. Treatment of Inorganic Contaminants Using Permeable Reactive Barriers. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 45(1):123–137.Google Scholar
Bortone, I., Di Nardo, A., Di Natale, M., Erto, A., Musmarra, D., and Santonastaso, G.F. 2013. Remediation of an Aquifer Polluted with Dissolved Tetrachloroethylene by an Array of Wells Filled with Activated Carbon. Journal of Hazardous Materials 260:914–920.Google Scholar
Byung, L., Park, E., Um, J., Lee, K., Jeong, J., and Nam, K. 2013. Release Characteristics of Molasses from a Well-Type Barrier System in Groundwater: A Large Test Tank Study for Nitrate Removal. Environmental Earth Sciences 70(1):167–174.Google Scholar
Elder, C.R., Benson, C.H., and Eykholt, G.R. 2002. Effects of Heterogeneity on Influent and Effluent Concentration from Horizontal Permeable Reactive Barriers. Water Resources Research 38(8):1152. doi: 10.1029/2001WR001259.Google Scholar
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Economic Analysis of the Implementation of Permeable Reactive Barriers for Remediation of Contaminated Ground Water. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Gilbert, O., De Pablo, J., Cortina, J.-L., Ayora, C., and Cama, J. 2010. In situ Removal of Arsenic from Groundwater by Using Permeable Reactive Barriers of Organic Matter/Limestone/Zero-Valent Iron Mixtures. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 32(4):373–378.Google Scholar
Guerin, T.F., Horner, S., McGovern, T., and Davey, B. 2002. An Application of Permeable Reactive Barrier Technology to Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contaminated Groundwater. Water Research 36(1):15–24.Google Scholar
Gupta, N., and Fox, T.C. 1999. Hydrogeologic Modeling for Permeable Reactive Barriers. Journal of Hazardous Materials 68(1):19–39.Google Scholar
Hemsi, P.S., and Shackelford, C.D. 2006. An Evaluation of the Influence of Aquifer Heterogeneity on Permeable Reactive Barrier Design. Water Resources Research 42:W03402. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004629.Google Scholar
Hudak, P.F. 2007. Mass Transport in Groundwater near Hanging-Wall Interceptors. Journal of Environmental Science and Health 42(3):317–321.Google Scholar
Hudak, P.F. 2008. Configuring Passive Wells with Reactive Media for Treating Contaminated Groundwater. Environmental Progress 27(2):257–262.Google Scholar
Hudak, P.F. 2012. Relative Efficiency of Multi-Transect, Non-Pumped, Reactive Well Networks for Removing Contaminated Groundwater. Toxic and Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering 47(13):2159–2162.Google Scholar
Hudak, P.F. 2014. Comparison of Permeable Reactive Barrier, Funnel and Gate, Non-Pumped Wells, and Low-Capacity Wells for Groundwater Remediation. Journal of Environmental Science and Health 49(10):1171–1175.Google Scholar
Lai, K.C.K., Lo, I.M.C., Birkelund, V., and Kjeldsen, P. 2006. Field Monitoring of a Permeable Reactive Barrier for Removal of Chlorinated Organics. Journal of Environmental Engineering 132(2):199–210.Google Scholar
Ludwig, R.D., McGregor, R.G., Blowes, D.W., Benner, S.G., and Mountjoy, K. 2002. A Permeable Reactive Barrier for Treatment of Heavy Metals. Ground Water 40(1):59–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Painter, B.D.M. 2004. Reactive Barriers: Hydraulic Performance and Design Enhancements. Ground Water 42(4):609–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, W.D., Blowes, D.W., and Cherry, J.A. 2000. Long-Term Performance of in situ Reactive Barriers for Nitrate Remediation. Ground Water 38(5):689–695.Google Scholar
USGS (US Geological Survey). 1999. Deep Aquifer Remediation Tools (DARTs): A New Technology for Ground-Water Remediation. US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 156-99, Reston, VA.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.D., Mackay, D.M., and Cherry, J.A. 1997. Arrays of Unpumped Wells for Plume Migration Control by Semi-Passive in situ Remediation. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Summer 185–193.Google Scholar
Zheng, C., and Wang, P.P. 1999. MT3DMS, a Modular Three-Dimensional Multi-Species Transport Model for Simulation of Advection, Dispersion and Chemical Reactions of Contaminants in Groundwater Systems; Documentation and User’s Guide. US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Contract Report SERDP-99-1, Vicksburg, MS.Google Scholar