Technical Basis for Evaluating Surface Barriers to Protect Groundwater From Deep Vadose Zone Contamination

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessors released nearly 2 trillion liters (450 billion gallons) of contaminated liquid into the vadose zone at the Hanford Site. Some of the contaminants currently reside in the deeper parts of the vadose zone where they are much less accessible to characterization, monitoring, and typical remediation activities such as removal and disposal. The DOE Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) prepared a treatability test plan in 2008 to examine remediation options for addressing contaminants in the deep vadose zone; one of the technologies identified was surface barriers (also known as engineered barriers, covers, and caps).Surface barriers have long been used to isolate contaminants from the accessible environment. In the typical configuration, the contaminants are located relatively close to the surface, generally within 15 m, and thus they are close to the base of the surface barrier. The proximity of the surface barrier under these conditions yielded few concerns about the effectiveness of the barrier at depth, particularly for cases in which the contaminants were in a lined facility. At Hanford, however, some unlined sites have contaminants located well below depths of 15 m, which means that the contaminants are increasingly distant from the surface barrier meant to isolate them from the accessible environment. The issue raised about these sites is the degree of effectiveness of a surface barrier in isolating contaminants in the deep vadose zone. Previous studies by Hanford Site and PNNL researchers suggest that surface barriers have the potential to provide a significant degree of isolation of deep vadose zone contaminants. The studies show that the actual degree of isolation is site-specific and depends on many factors, including recharge rates, barrier size, depth of contaminants, geohydrologic properties of the sediments, and the geochemical interactions between the contaminants and the sediments.After the DOE-RL treatability test plan was published, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was contracted to review the information available to support surface barrier evaluation for the deep vadose zone, identify gaps in the information and outcomes necessary to fill the data gaps, and outline tasks to achieve those outcomes. Full understanding of contaminant behavior in the deep vadose zone is constrained by four key data gaps: limited access; limited data; limited time; and the lack of an accepted predictive capability for determining whether surface barriers can effectively isolate deep vadose zone contaminants. Activities designed to fill these data gaps need to have these outcomes:• common evaluation methodology that provides a clear, consistent, and defensible basis for evaluating groundwater impacts caused by placement of a surface barrier above deep vadose zone contamination• deep vadose zone data that characterize the lithology, the spatial distribution of moisture and contaminants, the physical, chemical, and biological process that affect the mobility of ea...

Evaluation of deep vadose zone contaminant flux into groundwater: Approach and case study

“…For the Hanford Site pre-construction period, the recharge rate was assumed 9 to be 3.5 mm/year, based on lysimeter studies, water balance computations, and 10 numerical simulations (Gee et al, 1992;1994;Last et al, 2006a, Fayer andKeller, 11 2007;Fayer et al, 2010). In this period, vegetation was dominated by shrub-12 steppe plant communities, composed of summer and winter annual grasses and 13 perennial grasses and shrubs.…”

Evaluating Contaminant Flux from the Vadose Zone to the Groundwater in the Hanford Central Plateau. SX Tank Farms Case Study

“…The simulation to acquire the initial conditions started with unit hydraulic gradient conditions from the water table to the surface and was allowed to run for 10,000 years to establish steadystate conditions. For the pre-and post-construction periods, the respective recharge rates were assumed to be 3.5 and 92 mm/yr for the SX Tank Farm (Fayer et al 2010). The increase in the recharge rate is due to the removal of vegetation within the tank farm area.…”

Evaluation of Perched Water Post-Extraction Remedy Technologies: Interim Status Report

“…The top boundary received a constant recharge rate and the bottom boundary was represented as a water table condition. The recharge rate was set at 60 mm/yr, representing current conditions with disturbed surface (Fayer et al 2010).…”

“…The base thickness and hydraulic properties (Khaleel et al 2001) of the geological units in Table 9 were used unless otherwise stated in Table 11. The recharge rate was set at 60 mm/yr, representing current conditions with disturbed surface (Fayer et al 2010).…”