Cleary Wellhead Protection

OVERVIEW OF WELLHEAD PROTECTION Robert W.
Cleary UNICAMP, 11 de outubro, 2011 Organizao: Clean Environment e Instituto de Geocincias
Princeton Groundwater Inc.s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course Tampa, FL 813/964-0800 www.princeton-groundwater.com All Slides Robert W. Cleary. All Rights Reserved. Not to be reproduced or used without written permission of Robert W. Cleary
WHERE DOES WATER COME FROM IN A PUMPING WELL?

CONSIDER HOMOGENEOUS, ISOTROPIC GEOLOGY. Principal Source Of Water Is Vertical Recharge. DOES IT FLOW INTO THE WELL UNIFORMLY AND RADIALLY?
(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course
Q
ZOI (ZONE OF INFLUENCE) Drawdown (s) = 0 or 0.01 feet or 0.3 cm
Question: Does Water Always Flow Into The Well Radially? Does It Ever Flow Radially?
FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITION (Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] Of 1986)

Subsection 1428 (e): the term Wellhead Protection Area means the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or wellfield, supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are likely to move toward and reach such water well or wellfield.
DELINEATION OF WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS USING NUMERICAL FLOW MODELS
VISUAL MODFLOW SIMULATION
A =Q/R St-St
2D CAPTURE ZONES IN A WELLHEAD PROTECTION STUDY. THIRD DIMENSION [Z] CAPTURE = f (KH/KV)
THE EFFECT OF HETEROGENEITIES ON WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS
HETEROGENEOUS AQUIFER
HOMOGENEOUS AQUIFER
STATUTE KEY TERMS IN THE SDWA 1986

For each state WHP program, the State: shall, at a minimum, identify within each wellhead protection area all potential anthropogenic sources of contaminants which may have any adverse effect on the health of persons.
BACKGROUND
EPA required to release these guidelines by SDWA 1986 1428 (e) States not required to use guidelines Developed by EPA with consultation from the Hydrogeology Consultation Committee Reflects analysis/results of existing programs in the States (e.g., MA [Littleton: spill in nearby Acton in the early 80s shocked the town into wellhead protection], FL [Miami]) and Western Europe (e.g., Germany) States required to submit WHP programs within 3 years from the SDWA of 1986 (26 states submitted programs; CA and FL did not submit programs in 1989, but now have plans. All 50 states have EPA-approved WHPPs. Virginia was the last state to be approved on May 26, 2005
RELATED PROGRAM: SOURCE WATER PROTECTION

UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS [SDWA] OF 1996
www.epa.gov/safewater/protect.html
US EPA, 1997. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs and Guidance. EPA 816-R97-009
SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM (SWAPP) [Section 1453 of the SDWA Amendments of 1996]
SOURCE WATER IS UNTREATED WATER FROM RIVERS, LAKES, STREAMS, OR UNDERGROUND AQUIFERS WHICH IS USED TO SUPPLY PRIVATE WELLS AND PUBLIC DRINKING WATER UNDER THE ACT, ALL STATES WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE COMPLETE ASSESSMENTS OF THEIR DRINKING-WATER SUPPLIES BY MAY 2003. ONLY 20 STATES SUBMITTED PROGRAMS BY THE DEADLINE. THE DEADLINE WAS EXTENDED.
COMPONENTS OF A SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PLAN [SWAP]

Delineate the drinking water source protection area Inventory known and potential sources of contamination within the delineated area Determine the susceptibility of the water supply system to these contaminants Notify and involve the public about threats to the public water system (PWS) from these contaminants Implement management measures to prevent, reduce or eliminate the threats Develop contingency planning strategies to deal with contamination or service interruption emergencies
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AREA AND SUSCEPTIBILITY EXAMPLE
Source Water Protection Area [SWPA]
Ref: US EPA, Drinking Water Pocket Guide #3
Ref: US EPA, Drinking Water Pocket Guide #3
GROUNDWATER MAY BE AN IMPORTANT SOURCE FOR A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM
WELLHEAD PROTECTION
TYPICAL ELEMENTS OF A WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM

Delineation of the WHPA (Wellhead Protection Area) Contaminant Source Inventory (CSI) Management of the WHPA Public Education and Participation Contingency Planning Groundwater Monitoring Program Within and Near the WHPA
10
WHPA vs. Capture Zone

WHPA is a political boundary used to prescribe restrictions on municipal zoning Capture zone is the technical basis for a well head protection zone WHPAs are typically based on advective groundwater travel times within the saturated zone (e.g., 2-year, 5-year, 10-year). Sometimes advection and dispersion effects are considered.
Where else can Capture Zones be used?

Remediation System Design
pump and treat systems funnel and gate systems trench and gate systems soil vapor extraction systems
11
EXAMPLE OF A CAPTURE ZONE FOR REMEDIATION
VISUAL MODFLOW SIMULATION
A =Q/R St-St
PLUME
TWO-DIMENSIONAL CAPTURE ZONE OF A PLUME. THIRD DIMENSION [Z] CAPTURE = f (KH/KV)
12
WELLHEAD TERMINOLOGY
ZOCZONE OF CAPTURE (or ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION) ZOIZONE OF INFLUENCE ZOTZONE OF TRANSPORT
FLAT WATER TABLE CASE (i = 0): ZOI = ZOC
13
i = GRADIENT = ZERO ZOI = ZOC
WHEN THERE IS A REGIONAL GRADIENT:

THE ZONE OF INFLUENCE ZONE OF CAPTURE
14
ZONE OF INFLUENCE: CONE OF DEPRESSION MEASURABLE LIMIT: s =0.01 feet (0.3 cm)
Source: EPA 600/R-08/003
Stagnation Point [Groundwater Divide]
ZOI = Zone Of Influence

SLOPING WATER TABLE SURFACE [Asymmetrical Cone of Depression]
ZOC = X Zone Of Capture ZOT = Zone
Of Transport
Ref: US EPA 1987, 1988
ZOT (Zone Of Transport)
15
Ref: Traduzido da EPA, 1987, 1988; ABRH, 1989, Capitulo do R.W. Cleary, p. 100, Gratuito: Clean Environment Brasil www.clean.com.br
What is the shape of the drawdown contours when the geology is isotropic?
16
DRAWDOWN CONTOURS [s = Ho H] Around a Pumping Well
Direction of Max. Permeability [ Kx]
ISOTROPIC: PERFECT CIRCLES
ANISOTROPIC: ELLIPSOIDAL IN SHAPE
Time-of-Travel (ToT)
Time Related Capture Zone

Pumping Well
10-year
5-year
2-year
Steady-State Capture Zone
Plan View Cross Section
Flow Lines
Aquitard
Definition
17
WHPA DELINEATION METHODS

Arbitrary Fixed Radius Calculated Fixed Radius Analytical Solutions (e.g., Uniform Flow Model) Hydrogeologic Mapping in the Field Numerical Flow and/or Transport Models

18
EXAMPLES: 1. 4000 FT RADIUS FOR BEDROCK WELLS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE 2. 2 KM. IN GERMANY 3. Florida. Unconfined Aquifers: Minimum 1500 Feet Radius for Wells with no known contamination. For a FAVA (FL Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment) value of 4: 5-year travel time or 2,500 feet, whichever is greater. Confined Aquifers: Minimum 500 Feet Radius (Well Integrity Maintained); Uncorrected Well Problems: Minimum of 1,500 feet or 5-year travel time, whichever is greater. Known Contamination: appropriate distance
19
EXAMPLE OF ARBITRARY TIME OF TRAVEL (TOT) REGULATIONS

100-250 DAYSBACTERIAL CONTAMINANTS 5 YEARSPETROLEUM PRODUCTS 25 YEARSCHLORINATED SOLVENTS
Source: Province of New Brunswick, Canada, 2000. Regulation 2000-47

20
Qt = n ( r2 H)

Arbitrary Fixed Radius Calculated Fixed Radius Analytical Solutions [e.g., Uniform Flow Model (Based on Darcys Law)] Hydrogeologic Mapping in the Field Numerical Flow and/or Transport Models
21
+Y -Y
Y = Q/(2Kbi)
R=0
Q = - K A H/X = -K A i Q = - K (2Y b) i Y = Q/(2Kbi) Or Y = Q/[(2Kbi)(Factor)] Suggested Factor: 1.5-2.0 (EPA-600/R-08/003)
2Y
Y 1/K Y 1/i
b Q ORIGINAL UNIFORM FLOW MODEL [NO RECHARGE (FACTOR = 1)] FACTOR: TRIES TO ACCOUNT FOR VERTICAL LEAKAGE OR DOWNGRADIENT SOURCE OF WATER (e.g., A RIVER)
22
Example of Exaggerated Capture Zones Cabot Carbon/Koppers Superfund Site, Gainesville, FL

Width 1/K
548 m Q = 8-11 Lpm
23

KARST
24
DYE STUDIES CAN BE USED TO DELINEATE THE BOUNDARIES OF DRAINAGE BASINS OR SPRINGSHEDS (ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION [ZOC]) IN MATURE KARST AQUIFERS, WHICH HAVE SINKHOLES, CONDUITS AND SPRINGS
NOTE: SURFACE WATERSHEDS AND KARST SPRINGSHEDS RARELY ARE COINCIDENT
Spring
Sinkholes
Dye Trace Drainage Basin [SPRINGSHED] (ZOC)
25
FRACTURED HARD ROCK
DETERMINING WHPAs FOR SIMPLE CONFINED AQUIFERS SUBJECT TO RECHARGE FROM OVERLYING WATER TABLE AQUIFERS
26
WHPA Q
Pre-Pumping Potentiometric Surface Potentiometric Surface
LUST
}H

WATER TABLE
CONFINED AQUIFER
27
APPLICATION OF A NUMERICAL FLOW MODEL TO DELINEATE A WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA

ACCOUNTS FOR ADVECTIVE FLOW ONLY (DISPERSION IS NEGLECTED)
Ref: J.M. Shafer, 1987, Ground Water, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 283-289
ONE WELL (500 GPM) HETEROGENEOUS GEOLOGY

10 YEAR CAPTURE ZONE USING GWPATH
28
12000
5 1
Distance North (Feet)
40 25 20
100
10
25
50
0 0
30
Distance East (Feet)
12000
Block Hydraulic Conductivities (ft/day)
2D HEAD DISTRIBUTION
29
DELINEATING THE WHPA USING GWPATH
GWPATH MODEL
30
GWPATH MODEL
31
AMORPHOUS WHPA DELINEATED BY GWPATH
10 YEAR CAPTURE ZONE WHPA
32
BACKWARD AND FORWARD PARTICLE TRACKING
EACH LINE REPRESENTS 10 YEARS OF TRAVEL TIME
COMPARISON ONE WELL (500 GPM) HOMOGENEOUS GEOLOGY (Kx = Ky = 20 ft/day)

10-YEAR CAPTURE ZONE
33
34
AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TO ADDRESS GEOLOGIC UNCERTAINTY IN NUMERICAL MODELING
Capture Zone Uncertainty

K1=370 ft/d, Recharge1= 8 in/yr K/R 46 NRMS = 4.6 K2=275 ft/d, Recharge2 = 6 in/yr K/R 46 NRMS = 4.2
Need to address geologic uncertainty

Both scenarios equally calibrated and valid Width of capture varies by a factor of 2 Use composite results to make conservative predictions
Source: Paul Martin www.AquaResource.ca
70
35
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT WHPA METHODOLOGIES

NUMERICAL FLOW MODEL UNIFORM FLOW MODEL (ANALYTICAL SOLUTION) CALCULATED FIXED RADIUS..
New Jerseys Keyhole approach (Uniform Flow + Calc. Fixed Radius)
25 Year TOT
Overprotected Uniform Flow Model Based on Darcys Law
Calculated Fixed Radius
Numerical Flow Model Correct WHPA Underprotected
36
25
10
5 Yr. TOT
Municipal Well Locations: Ave. Error = 400 feet
NEW JERSEY WHPA EXAMPLES USING CALCULATED FIXED RADIUS + THE UNIFORM FLOW MODEL: KEYHOLE
IMPORTANCE OF KH/ KV IN DEFINING THE LIMITS OF CAPTURE ZONES

THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CAPTURE ZONE IN THE VERTICAL DIMENSION ARE VERY IMPORTANT
37
CAPTURE ZONE FOR WELLHEAD PROTECTION OR PLUME CAPTURE: CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW
KH = KV [hypothetical only]
Source: Cohen, et al., 1994. EPA/600/R-94/123
KH/KV = 100
Area of Contribution = A = Q/R
At St-St: Q=RA
R = 4 inches/year Q = 21.5 gpm
REF: LARSON ET AL., 1987
38
Containment Boundary
A = Q/R
KH/KV = 1000
AREA OF CONTRIBUTION
A = Q/R= 21.5 gpm/4 inches/year 4.5 X 106 ft2
39
LATEST EPA REPORT ON CALCULATING CAPTURE ZONES FOR PUMP & TREAT REMEDIAITON SYSTEMS
A Systematic Approach for Evaluation of Capture Zones at Pump and Treat Systems: Final Project Report. ORD, EPA-600/R-08/003. January 16, 2008 www.epa.gov/ada/download/reports/600R08003/600R08003.pdf
40
COMPLETE AREAL OR VERTICAL CONTAINMENT BOUNDARIES ARE NOT SHOWN (DISTAL EXTENT UNDEFINED)
Source: EPA 600/R-08/003
SIMPLE EXAMPLES OF DELINEATING WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS USING WATERLOO HYDROGEOLOGICS NUMERICAL MODEL: VISUAL MODFLOW
41
WHPA REFRACTION K1 >> K2 K1 K2
EFFECTS OF VERTICAL ANISOTROPY

WHPA
KH/KV = 1400
KH/KV = 2400
KH = KV Vert Ex = 13
ANISOTROPIC: FLOWLINES NOT PERPENDICULAR TO EQUIPOTENTIAL LINES. NOTE REFRACTION OF FLOWLINES AT THE INTERFACES OF THE DIFFERENT UNITS
42
TIME-RELATED CAPTURE ZONES
Presenting VMOD WHPA Results in GIS

Export VMOD results as DXF files Import DXFs as tables in GIS Choose a coordinate system (e.g., NAD83, Zone 17)
43
EFFECTS OF DIMENSIONALITY (2D vs. 3D) AND ANISOTROPY ON WELLHEAD CAPTURE ZONES
SPECTACLE POND, LITTLETON, MA
BOSTON
44
45
TWO-DIMENSIONAL VS. THREE-DIMENSIONAL ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION (ZOC)

vertical hydraulic gradients, KH/KV, heterogeneities, all may have significant effects in the vertical dimension and the ZOC
2D VS. 3D
.
.
[Drawdown = .1 ft ] Sources (threats) of Contamination missed in a 2D Analysis
EFFECTS OF DIMENSIONALITY: 2D Vs. 3D ZONES OF CONTRIBUTION

COMPARISON OF CONTRIBUTING RECHARGE AREAS TO 7 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELLS DETERMINED BY TWO DIFFERENT NUMERICAL MODELS
Source: Guidelines for Evaluating Ground-Water Flow Models. USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5038
46
2D
1 Layer Ref: USGS 2004-5038
3D
8 Layers
EFFECTS OF ANISOTROPY ON CAPTURE ZONES OF PUMPING WELLS
47
Ref: US EPA, 1996. Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation. EPA/625/R-95/005
KARST AQUIFERS
48
GOOD PRIMER ON KARST
American Geological Institute AGI Environmental Awareness Series, 4, 2001
www.agiweb.org
ANISOTROPY IN KARST AQUIFERS
49
KARST Possibly Triple Porosity/Triple Hydraulic Conductivity Systems

Matrix (the rock between fractures). Fractures (apertures typically < 1 mm) Channels (diameter: mm to cm range) Conduits (diameter > 1 cm) Caves (diameter > 1 meter) Matrix: Most of the Storage Fractures/Channels/Conduits/Caves: Most of the Flow. Velocities in Channels/Conduits/Caves can reach hundreds of meters/day
ANISTROPY EFFECTS ON FLOW DIRECTIONS IN THE MAMMOTH CAVE KARST AQUIFER
Source: Dr. Steve Worthington (905) 627-1781 55 Mayfair Avenue, Dundas, Ontario, L9H 3K9, Canada www.worthingtongroundwater.com/
50
EPM: EQUIVALENT POROUS MEDIA ECM: EQUIVALENT CONTINUUM MODEL
EPM: Equivalent Porous Medium (Flow) vs. DFM: Discrete Fracture Model (Transport)
DYE TRACING PATHS: MULTIPLE ANISOTROPY DIRECTIONS
51
UNDER ANISOTROPY, GROUNDWATER DOES NOT FLOW IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE MAXIMUM HYDRAULIC GRADIENT DIRECTION
FLOW VS. STORAGE IN TRIPLE POROSITY KARST AQUIFERS

MATRIX, FRACTURES AND CHANNELS
52
FRACTION OF FLOW IN TRIPLE POROSITY (MATRIX, FRACTURE AND CHANNEL) KARST AQUIFERS [Channels: 93.8 to 100%; Fractures: 0.2 to 6.2%;Matrix: 0.000001 to 0.02%]
Ref: Matrix permeability of the confined Floridan Aquifer, Florida, USA David A. Budd H. L. Vacher Hydrogeology Journal (2004) 12:531549
53
THE IMPACT OF EFFECTIVE POROSITY ON TRAVEL TIMES IN KARST AQUIFERS

MOST OF THE FLOW IS IN THE FRACTURES AND CHANNELS/CONDUITS, WHERE VELOCITIES CAN BE VERY HIGH
DEFINITIONS
54
Ki V = n ef
Where: V = Linear groundwater velocity (seepage velocity) i = Hydraulic Gradient K = Hydraulic Conductivity nef = Effective Porosity for Flow
EFFECTIVE POROSITY DEFINED IN TERMS OF THE SEEPAGE VELOCITY AND THE DARCY FLUX
55
Darcy Velocity ( Darcy Flux = Ki) nef = Seepage Velocity

nef 1/Vs
Where: Seepage Velocity = Actual linear groundwater velocity that a conservative tracer would show. The larger the seepage velocity, the smaller nef will be.
Travel Velocities Measured by Tracers in Unconfined Karst Conduits Between Sinking Streams and Springs
On average, Approx. 9000 ft/day
Source: Worthington, Davies, Ford [2000])
Based on 2877 Tracer Tests
56
TRACING VS. NON-TRACING METHODS TO ESTIMATE GROUNDWATER VELOCITIES IN KARST AQUIFERS CONTAINING FRACTURES AND CONDUITS
TYPICALLY, NON-TRACING METHODS UNDERESTIMATE CONDUIT VELOCITIES BY 1-5 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE
[non-tracing methods reflect a combination of matrix, fractures and conduit velocities with matrix effects dominating]
Conduit Flow Paths and Conduit/Matrix Interactions Defined by Quantitative Groundwater Tracing in the Floridan Aquifer
Todd R. Kincaid, Ph.D. H2H Associates, LLC
www.h2hmodeling.com
ChristopherL.Werner,Ph.D. ShellOilCorp. WoodvilleKarst PlainProject

www.wkpp.org
Hydrogeology Consortium
www.hydrogeologyconsortium.org
Reference: Todd Kincaid, Santa Fe River region Floridan Aquifer data (North Florida). Presentation at the 5th NGWA Conference on Hydrogeology of Karst, February, 2009
57
Comparison of Calculated Groundwater Velocities

Woodville Karst Plain, North Florida Method Tracing Pumping Test Transmissivities Model Derived Transmissivities Geochemical age dates Velocity (m/day) 252-2,337 m/day 0.03-0.23 m/day 0.03 1.17 m/day 7.5 15 m/day Assumptions none Calculated Gradient Aquifer b = 100m Calculated Gradient Aquifer b = 100m Age ~20-40 years 100% of Recharge derived from top of basin (~110 km to north) Source 5 1 3 2, 4
1. Bush,P.W.,andJohnston,R.H.,1988.Groundwaterhydraulics,regionalflow,andgroundwaterdevelopmentoftheFloridan aquifersystem inFloridaandpartsofGeorgia,SouthCarolinaandAlabama:U.S.GeologicalSurveyProfessionalPaper1403C,80p. 2. Chanton,J.2002.UnpublisheddataandreportonstableisotopicagedatingofwatersintheWoodvilleKarst Plain,FloridafortheFlorida GeologicalSurvey,Tallahassee,FL. 3. Davis,H.1996.Hydrogeologic InvestigationandSimulationofGroundWaterFlowintheUpperFloridan AquiferofNorthCentralFloridaand DelineationofContributingAreasforSelectedCityofTallahassee,Florida,WaterSupplyWells:USGSWaterResourcesInvestigationReport 954296. 4. Katz,B.G.,Chelette,A.R.,andPratt,T.R.,2004.Useofchemicalandisotopictracerstoassessnitratecontaminationandgroundwaterage, WoodvilleKarst Plain,USA:JournalofHydrology,v.289,no.1/4,p.3661. 5. Kincaid,T.R.andWerner,C.L.,2008.ConduitFlowPathsandConduit/MatrixInteractionsDefinedbyQuantitativeGroundwaterTracinginthe Floridan Aquifer,inLynnYuhr,CalvinAlexander,andBarryBeckeditors,SinkholesandtheEngineeringandEnvironmentalImpactsofKarst: Proceedingsofthe11thMultidisciplinaryConferenceonSinkholesandtheEngineeringandEnvironmentalImpactsofKarst,AmericanSociety ofCivilEngineers.
EFFECTIVE POROSITY IN KARST (for an EPM [Equivalent Porous Medium] Model)?

30%,15%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.01% or smaller?
58
CABOT CARBON/KOPPERS SUPERFUND SITE

GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE REGIONAL UTILITIES AND THE MURPHREE WELLFIELD
SITE DESCRIPTION
CERCLA site shared by Koppers and Cabot Carbon Corporations in separate but neighboring areas Koppers is an active 82-acre facility used to preserve wood utility poles and timbers since 1916. Creosote use stopped in 1992. Currently using the CCA process (CopperChromium-Arsenic) Cabot Carbon operated a 49-acre facility from 1945 to 1965 for the distillation of pine stumps to generate 6,000 gallons of crude wood oil and pitch daily. Site was paved over to create a small shopping center.
59
Source: GeoTrans, Inc.
SITE LOCATION MAP
Murphree Wellfield. Approx. 2 miles from The site
Koppers Portion of the Superfund Site Cabot Carbon Portion
Source: Tech. Memo. #1: A Critique of the GeoTrans Flow and Transport Model, Koppers, Inc. Site, Gainesville, Florida. Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc./Princeton Groundwater. Report to Gainesville Regional Utilities, Gainesville, FL, June, 2005.
60
Hydrogeology Schematic
Source: GeoTrans, Inc.
Hawthorn Group Ocala UTZ Ocala SCU Ocala LTZ
Naphthalene
VISUAL MODFLOWS 3D EXPLORER REPRESENTATION OF THE HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY
Ocala Limestone Upper Transmissive Zone Parameters Thickness is approximately 100 ft Ocala UTZ, SCU and LTZ use various numerical layers Effective Porosity: 0.15 Specific Storage: 1.0 e-05 /ft Dispersivity: Longitudinal: 100 ft Horizontal: 10 ft Vertical: 1 ft Unit Surficial Aquifer Hawthorn Group Ocala Limestone UTZ Ocala SCU Ocala LTZ Kx, Ky (ft/d) 21 Ranges from 0.01 to 0.3 46 (20 near Mur. WF) 1e-6 175 Kz (ft/d) 1 Ranges from 0.0018 to 0.1 0.0035 0.00145 0.0035
Figure 3: 3D View of Hydrogeologic Units used in WHI Scenarios.
61
OUTCROP AREAS OF THE UPPER TRANSMISSIVE ZONE OF THE OCALA LIMESTONE FORMATION
HAILE QUARRY, GAINESVILLE, FL
DRAMATIC EXAMPLE OF A KARSTIC AREA WITH TOP SOIL REMOVED (DISSOLVED CAVITIES AND ROUND SOLUTION PIPES). HAILE QUARRY (BUDA LIMEROCK MINE), ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA (NEAR GAINESVILLE). PHOTO: BILL WISNER, 1972
62
63
Solution Cavity/Conduits
Vertical Fractures
Ocala Limestone: Upper Transmissive Zone of the Floridan Aquifer (Haile Quarry)
64
Solution Cavity/Cave
Sediment Bedding
Thick Horizontal, Sediment Bedding in the solution cavity indicating significant flow
65
~30 ft
~20 ft
Solution Channel
Solution Conduit
Total Area = 600 ft2 Ocala Fm - Porosity of fractures and channels is very small
Porosity 15% Matrix of Ocala Fm limestone
66
THE SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OF EFFECTIVE POROSITY (nef) ON TRAVEL TIMES FROM CONTAMINANT SOURCES TO WELLFIELDS UNDER KARST GEOLOGY
Time: 3804 days (10.4 years)
Figure 6b: 3D View of Particle Tracking and Contaminant Transport Simulations used in WHI Scenarios (Ocala UTZ 100 ft).
67
i) Effective Porosity = 0.15 (Base Case) Min. time: 102 yrs Max. time: 124 yrs Kx, Ky = 10 ft/d Kz = 0.0035 ft/d
ii) Effective Porosity = 0.01 Min. time: 8 yrs Max. time: 9 yrs
Kx, Ky = 23 ft/d Kz = 0.0035 ft/d
Ocala UTZ Layer 200 ft
50 yrs
VCONT APPROACH True Thickness of the UTZ Particles Released in Ocala UTZ TO ACCOUNT FOR THE SCU Is 100 feet RESULTED IN THE UTZ = 200 FT Figure 4a: Effects of Decreasing Effective Porosity on Groundwater Travel Time in 200-ft Ocala UTZ. Cross-section shown is from Model Column 26.
i) Effective Porosity = 0.15 (Base Case) Min. time: 51 yrs Max. time: 63 yrs Kx, Ky = 20 ft/d Kz = 0.0035 ft/d
ii) Effective Porosity = 0.01 Min. time: 4.3 yrs Max. time: 5 yrs
Kx, Ky = 46 ft/d Kz = 0.0035 ft/d
Ocala UTZ Layer 100 ft
50 yrs
Particles Released in Ocala UTZ

Figure 4b: Effects of Decreasing Effective Porosity on Groundwater Travel Time in 100-ft Ocala UTZ. Cross-section shown is from Model Column 26.
68
It is our opinion that a conservative approach to dealing with the limited data in the literature and the karstic nature of the Floridan Aquifer is to use small values for the effective porosity (on the order of 1% or perhaps even less, similar to those found at the Old Tampa Wellfield, the only tracer study done in the Ocala Formation in Florida to date). In contaminant modeling studies where critical data such as effective porosities are limited or missing entirely, the model cannot make reliable predictions. In these cases and particularly when a water supply is potentially threatened, the prudent approach is to make direct measurements of concentrations as soon as possible.
Source: Tech. Memo. #1: A Critique of the GeoTrans Flow and Transport Model, Koppers, Inc. Site, Gainesville, Florida. Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc./Princeton Groundwater. Report to Gainesville Regional Utilities, Gainesville, FL, June, 2005.
Principal Conclusion: Theres enough certainty and reasonable uncertainty in our technical analyses that we must directly measure concentrations in the Upper Transmissive Zone of the Floridan Aquifer as soon as possible. A sufficient number of transects of multilevel monitoring wells must be installed at the Site to guarantee that the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination beneath the site in the UTZ will not be missed.
69
LIKELY EXPLANATION FOR FINDING NAPHTHALENE IN THE UTZ OF THE FLORIDAN BELOW THE LOWER CLAY UNIT WHERE THERE IS A 90 FOOT DROP OVER 30 FEET OF THICKNESS [ H/Z = i = 3.0]
VERTICAL MIGRATION OF DNAPL THROUGH WORM TUBES CAUSED BY BIOTURBATION
70
7 in
MONTEREY, CA AQUARIUM
71
WESTBAY MULTILEVEL DESIGN FOR THE UTZ OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER
Using Westbays
100 Ft
Source: GeoTrans
72
MULTILEVEL MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS IN THE UTZ OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER
Known Source Areas
Isotropic Flow Direction
73
PATHLINES
Koppers
FW-9
FW-7
Surficial Extraction Wells Less than FW-3 100% effective.
FW-6 FW-5
Multilevel Monitoring Well Existing Well
FW-8
Cabot
SEGMENTS
Source: GeoTrans, Oct. 2005
74
USING A NUMERICAL TRANSPORT MODEL TO DELINEATE A WHPA

ACCOUNTS FOR ADVECTION (FLOW MODELS) & DISPERSION (TRANSPORT)
FEFLOW
75
Reverse Contaminant Transport and Particle Tracking

p Base Case: Peak Probabilities, 20 years
capture probability
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
2 km
Base Case: Peak Probabilities, 40 years

capture probability
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
2 km
++ ++ + ++
++ ++ + ++
particle traces
particle traces
Source: Paul Martin and Emil Frind
PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROBLEMS
76
WELLHOUSE NEAR A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK
WELLHOUSE AT A RAILROAD CROSSING
77
WELLHOUSE
Sewer line at Penn. State Univ. next to a municipal well
Transformers
Wellhouse
PCBs leaked from transformers
78
CASE HISTORY: DESTRUCTION OF A MUNICIPAL WELL BY DIESEL FUEL IN MIAMIDADE COUNTY
79
Diesel Tanks Municipal Well #3
DIESEL FUEL TANKS
80
DIES EL T
AN K
Loading point
81
HOW MUCH WATER CAN BE PUMPED FROM AN AQUIFER?: THE SAFE YIELD MYTH
HOW MANY BELIEVE THE AMOUNT OF WATER ONE CAN PUMP FROM A WELLFIELD DEPENDS ON THE AMOUNT OF RECHARGE?
82
CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE DEFINED SAFE YIELD AS THE AVERAGE NET RECHARGE A GROUNDWATER BASIN RECEIVES EACH YEAR. SURPRISINGLY, RECHARGE PLAYS ABSOLUTELY NO QUANTITATIVE ROLE IN HOW MUCH WATER CAN BE PUMPED ON A SUSTAINED BASIS FROM AN AQUIFER
Virgin Hydraulic Head Distribution [Already Includes the Effects of Recharge and Discharge]
Initial Equilibrium. Discharge = Recharge Groundwater Divide
In general, at Equilibrium, Q = Reduction in Discharge plus Increase in Recharge of the Aquifer from the Stream
83
SAFE YIELD vs. GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY

Groundwater sustainability is defined as the development and use of groundwater resources in a manner that can be maintained for an indefinite time without causing unacceptable environmental, economic, or social consequences. Today, it is widely recognized that pumping can affect not only surface water supply for human consumption, but also the maintenance of streamflow requirements for fish and other aquatic species, the health of riparian and wetland areas, and other environmental needs. Ref: Alley et. al. 2004
SOME KEY REFERENCES ON THE SAFE YIELD MYTH

Sophocleous, M., 1997. Managing Water Resources Systems: Why Safe Yield Is Not Sustainable. Ground Water, Vol. 35, No. 4, p. 561-574 Sophocleous, M., 2000. From Safe Yield to Sustainable Development of Water Resourcesthe Kansas Experience. Journal of Hydrology. Volume 235, pp. 27-43 Bredehoeft, J.D., 2002. The Water Budget Myth Revisited: Why Hydrogeologists Model. Ground Water, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 340-345 Hiscock, K.M., M.O. Rivett and R.M. Davidson (editors), 2002. Sustainable Groundwater Development, Special Publication 193. Geological Society of London. 344 pp. Go to the Bookshop at www.geolsoc.org.uk Kendy, E., 2003. The False Promise of Sustainable Pumping Rates. Ground Water, Vol. 41,No. 1, pp. 2-4 Alley, W.M. and S.A. Leake, 2004. The Journey from Safe Yield to Sustainability. Ground Water, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 12-16 Sophocleous, M and J.F. Devlin, 2004. Discussion of J.D. Bredehoefts 2002 paper and response by J.D. Bredehoeft. Ground Water, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 618-619 [The Issue of Recharge]
84
BEST (ONLY) BOOKS ON GROUNDWATER MODELING TO DELINEATE WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS
1992
2002
85
ONE LAST THOUGHT: IN MODELING REMEMBER: MEMS
MEMS
To some modelers: Merda EntrandoBeleza Saindo Reality: Merda EntrandoMerda Saindo The accuracy of your modeling results depends on how well the site has been characterized, especially its heterogeneities, anisotropies (flow) and mobile/immobile porosities (transport)
86
BEST BOOK ON SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND MONITORING
2006
87
WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS MUST BE MONITORED CONTINUOUSLY TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION

THREE-DIMENSIONAL DATA ARE NECESSARY TO BE SURE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES ARE PROTECTED
COLLECTING 3D DATA: USE MULTILEVEL WELLS

Best Reference: Murray Einarsons Chapter 11 in David Nielsens Environmental Site Characterization and Groundwater Monitoring Book
88
CLUSTER
NEST
SOME TYPES
EXAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL MULTILEVEL WELLS

CMT WESTBAY WATERLOO MULTILEVEL FLUTE
89
CMT EXTRUDED PLASTIC PIPE (UP TO 300 FEET) CONTAINING 7 CHAMBERS: 1.7 Inches O.D. SOLD BY SOLINST
Westbay MP System
Packer [Polyurethane] - independent hydraulic inflation Measurement Port - for in-situ measurement, low-k testing, and fluid sampling [At Formation Pressure] Casing - variable lengths Pumping Port - for hydraulic conductivity testing and purging
Monitoring Zone
90
WATERLOO MULTILEVEL [SOLD BY SOLINST]
FLUTe Multilevel and Liner Urethane Coated Nylon Fabric
Applied Reference: Cherry, J.A., B.L. Parker and C. Keller, 2007. A New Depth-Discrete
Multilevel Monitoring Approach for Fractured Rock. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 57-70
91
Cambridge, Ontario Installation for the University of Waterloo 15 Ports/15 pressure transducers
SELECTED REFERENCES
Bair, E.S. and T.D. Lahm, 1996. Variations in Capture-Zone Geometry of a Partially Penetrating Pumping Well in an Unconfined Aquifer. Ground Water, Vol. 34, No. 5,pp. 842852 Cleary, R.W., 1989. Aguas Subterraneas. Chapter 2 in Portuguese. Written for the Associacao Brasileira de Recursos Hidricos (ABRH) as Capitulo 5 em Engenharia Hidrologica.Vol II, Editora da UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, pp. 291-404. Now available as a free download PDF file from Clean Environment of Brasil: http://www.clean.com.br/portal/artigos-tecnicos Larson, S.P., C.B. Andrews, M.D. Howland and D.T. Feinstein, 1987. Three-dimensional modeling analysis of ground water pumping schemes for containment of shallow ground water contamination. Proceedings of the Conference on Solving Ground Water Problems with Models, Volumes 1 and 2, Denver, CO., National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH, pp. 517-530 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987. Guidelines for delineation of wellhead protection areas. Office of Ground-water protection, Wash. D.C., EPA 440/6-87-010 U.S. EPA, 1994. Handbook: Ground Water and Wellhead Protection. Office of Research and Development, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA/625/R-94/001, 269 pp.
92

Cleary Wellhead Protection

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cleary Wellhead Protection

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OVERVIEW OF WELLHEAD PROTECTION Robert W.

Cleary UNICAMP, 11 de outubro, 2011 Organizao: Clean Environment e Instituto de Geocincias

WHERE DOES WATER COME FROM IN A PUMPING WELL?

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITION (Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] Of 1986)

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

DELINEATION OF WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS USING NUMERICAL FLOW MODELS

VISUAL MODFLOW SIMULATION

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

THE EFFECT OF HETEROGENEITIES ON WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

STATUTE KEY TERMS IN THE SDWA 1986

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

RELATED PROGRAM: SOURCE WATER PROTECTION

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

COMPONENTS OF A SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PLAN [SWAP]

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AREA AND SUSCEPTIBILITY EXAMPLE

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

Source Water Protection Area [SWPA]

Ref: US EPA, Drinking Water Pocket Guide #3

Ref: US EPA, Drinking Water Pocket Guide #3

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

GROUNDWATER MAY BE AN IMPORTANT SOURCE FOR A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM

TYPICAL ELEMENTS OF A WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

WHPA vs. Capture Zone

Where else can Capture Zones be used?

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

EXAMPLE OF A CAPTURE ZONE FOR REMEDIATION

VISUAL MODFLOW SIMULATION

TWO-DIMENSIONAL CAPTURE ZONE OF A PLUME. THIRD DIMENSION [Z] CAPTURE = f (KH/KV)

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

FLAT WATER TABLE CASE (i = 0): ZOI = ZOC

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

i = GRADIENT = ZERO ZOI = ZOC

WHEN THERE IS A REGIONAL GRADIENT:

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

Source: EPA 600/R-08/003

Stagnation Point [Groundwater Divide]

ZOI = Zone Of Influence

ZOC = X Zone Of Capture ZOT = Zone

Ref: US EPA 1987, 1988

ZOT (Zone Of Transport)

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

DRAWDOWN CONTOURS [s = Ho H] Around a Pumping Well

Direction of Max. Permeability [ Kx]

ISOTROPIC: PERFECT CIRCLES

ANISOTROPIC: ELLIPSOIDAL IN SHAPE

Time Related Capture Zone

Plan View Cross Section

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

WHPA DELINEATION METHODS

WHPA DELINEATION METHODS

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

EXAMPLE OF ARBITRARY TIME OF TRAVEL (TOT) REGULATIONS

Source: Province of New Brunswick, Canada, 2000. Regulation 2000-47

WHPA DELINEATION METHODS

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course

WHPA DELINEATION METHODS

(C) Princeton Groundwater Inc.'s Groundwater Pollution and Hydrology Course