Capture Zone Analyses

For
Pump-and-Treat Systems
Rob Greenwald, GeoTrans, Inc.
Dave Burden, U.S. EPA ORD

EPA NARPM Conference

May 24, 2005
1
Disclaimer

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation and the Office of Research and
Development funded and managed the development of
these training materials and course under contract # 68-
C-02-092 to the Dynamac Corporation. It has been
subjected to Agency review and approved for
presentation.

2
Objective of This Course

z Provide a general overview of issues

associated with capture zone evaluations for
pump and treat systems as they relate to
the functions of a project manager

3
Notes

z We are specifically discussing capture zone

analysis for porous media or aquifers that behave
as a porous medianot addressing karst or
fracture systems

z Many aspects of capture zone analysis require

hydrogeologic expertiseproject managers should
use the assistance of support personnel and/or
contractors if they lack that expertise

4
Key EPA Reference Documents

z A Systematic Approach for Evaluation of

Capture Zone at Pump and Treat System
(in review)

z Elements for Effective Management of

Operating Pump and Treat Systems, 2002
(EPA 542-R-02-009)

z Methods for Monitoring Pump-and-Treat

Performance, 1994 (EPA/600/R-94/123)
5
Status of Capture Zone Document

z Presents basic (and sometimes complex)

concepts, and illustrates those concepts
with schematics and three case studies

z Currently under review by EPA

z Expect final published document in 2005

6
Presentation Outline
z What is a capture zone, and why is it important to
evaluate capture zones?

z How is capture zone analysis integrated with other

components of effective P&T management?

z A systematic approach to capture zone analysis

Six basic steps for systematic capture zone analysis
Using converging lines of evidence
Iterative approach

z Summary of key concepts for a project manager

7
What is a Capture Zone?

z Capture Zone refers to the three-dimensional region that

contributes the ground water extracted by one or more wells or
drains
Capture zone in this context is equivalent to zone of hydraulic Capture Zone
containment Schematic

z For pump-and-treat (P&T) systems, there are two components

that should be the focus of a project manager
Target Capture
target capture zone Zone Schematic
actual capture zone

z Capture zone analysis is the process of interpreting the actual

capture zone, and comparing it to the target capture zone to
determine if sufficient capture is achieved
8
 Capture Zone Schematic
Horizontal Capture Zone
Extraction Well

Capture Zone
Flowlines
96 6

968

970

972

4
6
978
97
97

980

988
984

986
982
Vertical Capture Zone
Partially Penetrating ground surface
Extraction Well

Capture Zone

988
974

986
968
966

970

6
97

984
97

982
98
8
Flowlines 97

Vertical capture does not encompass the entire aquifer thickness for this partially penetrating well. The top figure does not convey 9
this, which shows the need for three-dimensional analysis.
If vertical anisotropy is present (Kx > Kz), then the greater the vertical anisotropy, the shallower the vertical capture zone will be.
 Target Capture Zone Schematic
Target Capture Zone: Should Be 3-Dimensional
Map View

Regional Flow

Plume
Receptor
Extraction
Well

Target Capture Zone

Extraction
Receptor Cross-Section View Well

Regional Flow
Plume
Target Capture Zone

Semi-confining unit

10
Why Perform Capture Zone
Analysis?
z Hydraulic containment of impacted ground water (i.e., plume
capture) is one of the remedy objectives at almost every site with
a P&T system
Control the leading edge of the plume
Control source areas

z Interpreting actual capture and comparing it to a target capture

zone allows success or failure to be evaluated

z Recommendation to perform an improved capture zone analysis

was made at 16 of the first 20 Fund-lead sites where a
Remediation System Evaluation (RSE) was performed

11
Common Capture Zone Issues
Observed During RSEs
z No target capture zone defined, or no comparison of target capture
zone to interpreted capture zone (capture not really evaluated in any
way at about half of the sites)
At some sites actual pumping rates are far lower than in ROD or design, but
modeling and associated capture estimates from ROD/design never updated
accordingly
z Ignored issues associated with water levels measured at pumping
wells when interpreting water levels Well Inefficiency
Schematic
z Neglected potential for vertical transport
Drawdown vs Capture
z Confused drawdown response with capture Schematic
z Not monitoring water levels at all measuring points, or not converting
depth to water to water level elevation
z Model predictions from design not verified based on observed
pumping rates and resulting observations
12
 Well Inefficiency Schematic
Issues Associated With Well Inefficiency and
Well Losses at Pumping Wells
Extraction
Piezometer
Well
Extraction
Rate (Q)

Water level in piezometer Caused by

represents aquifer condition Well Inefficiency and
Well Losses

Water level in pumping well does not

represent aquifer condition

Piezometer Screen Well Screen

Cross-Section View
13
 Drawdown vs Capture Schematic
Drawdown and Capture Are Not The Same Thing
Drawdown Contours
Outline of the Cone of Depression
(zero drawdown contour)

Extraction Well
Capture Zone
96 6

9 68

970

972

4
97

976
Water Level
978

980

982
Contours

984

988
986
Drawdown is the change of water level due to pumping. It is calculated by subtracting water level under pumping conditions
from the water level without pumping.

Cone of Depression is the region where drawdown due to pumping is observed.

Capture Zone is the region that contributes the ground water extracted by the extraction well(s). It is a function of the 14
drawdown due to pumping and the background (i.e., without pumping) hydraulic gradient. Capture zone will only coincide
with the cone of depression if there is zero background hydraulic gradient.
Items Where Actual System May
Differ From Designed System
z It is not enough to assume capture is sufficient because the design
indicated it would be the actual capture zone must be evaluated
because it may be different than assumed or estimated during the
design of the remedy
Actual extraction well locations or rates differ from those in the design

Design may not have accounted for

z system down time (i.e., when wells are not pumping)
z time-varying influences such as seasons, tides, irrigation, or transient off-
site pumping
z declining well yields due to fouling (need for proper well maintenance)
z Geologic heterogeneities (such as zone of higher hydraulic conductivity
due to a buried paleochannel)
15
Potential Negative Impacts From
Poor Capture Zone Analysis
z May compromise protectiveness with respect to
receptors Failed Capture
Schematic

z May allow plume to grow

May require expansion of extraction and/or monitoring
network
May increase cleanup time

z Potentially wastes time and money

16
 Failed Capture Schematic

Negative Impact on Protectiveness From Failed Capture

Regional Flow
Target Capture Zone

Extraction
Well Actual Capture Zone

Plume

Actual Capture Zone

Receptor

Escaped plume due to the gap between the capture zones

17
Capture Zone Analysis As a
Component of P&T Management
z Are remedy objectives clearly established?
Is hydraulic containment one of the objectives, and if so, why?
Is there a target capture zone that can be illustrated?
If hydraulic containment and cleanup are both objectives, is the relative
priority of each clearly stated?

z Is capture being routinely evaluated and reported?

Has there been any capture zone evaluation to date?
What lines of evidence are being evaluated?
Is the frequency of capture zone analysis appropriate for the site?

Elements for Effective Management of Operating Pump and Treat Systems provides an overview
of these types of management issues for P&T systems (EPA 542-R-02-009, December 2002) 18
Capture Zone Analysis As a
Component of P&T Management
z Is it uncertain whether or not capture is sufficient?

Iterative process (evaluated capture, identify key data gaps, fill the data
gaps, re-evaluated capture)

z Is there a viable exit strategy?

How will it be determined that capture is no longer required?

Does the Target Capture Zone change over time (e.g., shrinking plume)
and how will that be addressed?

Elements for Effective Management of Operating Pump and Treat Systems provides an overview
of these types of management issues for P&T systems (EPA 542-R-02-009, December 2002) 19
Six Basic Steps for Capture Zone
Analysis
z Step 1: Review site data, site conceptual model, and remedy objectives
z Step 2: Define site-specific Target Capture Zone(s)
z Step 3: Interpret water levels
Potentiometric surface maps
Water level pairs (gradient control points)
z Step 4: Perform calculations (as appropriate based on site complexity)
Estimated flow rate calculation
Capture zone width calculation (can include drawdown calculation)
Modeling (analytical and/or numerical) to simulate heads, in conjunction with particle
tracking and/or transport modeling
z Step 5: Evaluate concentration trends (and potentially tracer tests)
z Step 6: Interpret actual capture based on steps 1-5, compare to Target
Capture Zone(s), and assess uncertainties and data gaps

20
Converging lines of evidence increases confidence in the conclusions
Step 1: Review Site Data, SCM,
and Remedy Objectives
z Is plume delineated adequately in three dimensions (technical
judgment required)? Plume Delineation
Example

z Is there adequate hydrogeologic information to perform capture

zone analysis (technical judgment required)?
Hydraulic conductivity values and distribution
Hydraulic gradient (magnitude and direction) Hydraulic Gradient
Aquifer thickness and/or saturated thickness Example
Pumping rates and locations
Ground water elevation measurements
Water Levels
Water quality data over time Example
Well construction data 21
 Plume Delineation Example
Plume Delineation, Model Layer 1
(ft)
2600
20.5 ND
Concentrations (ppb) ND
ND Not Detected
2400 87.2

ND 0.1
2200
Plume
207.5
244.4
0.9
2000 Plume Width = 550 ft 0.7
398.6
29.0
River 101.4
1.4 475.2 0.2
1800
287.0

43.3 161.4
1600

710.3

1400 142.2 0.1

ND 927.8
1200 814.8 681.6

996.0

1000 43.0

0.4 0.1
800
Continuous Sources
(upper horizon only) 22

1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 (ft)

 Hydraulic Gradient Example
Hydraulic Gradient Can Vary In Magnitude or Direction

Property Line
River

Plume

In this case, the gradient magnitude is fairly uniform, but the direction
varies based on location 23
 Water Levels Example
Water Levels w/out Remedy Pumping, Layer 1
(ft)
2600
613.5
612.9

Water Supply Wells 612.3

2400
(deep aquifer only)

618.0 616.4
2200 Plume
617.8
618.1
619.3 619.4
2000
620.8
622.2
River 622.4
623.4 623.3 623.5
1800
624.3

626.0 626.1
1600

627.6

1400 629.3 629.5

630.3 630.5
1200 631.0 630.9

632.2

1000 633.2

634.5 634.4
800
Continuous Sources 630.5 Water Level
(upper horizon only) Measurements (ft) 24
(All in layer 1)
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 (ft)
Step 1: Review Site Data, SCM,
and Remedy Objectives
z Is there an adequate site conceptual model (SCM) (not to be
confused with a numerical model) that
Indicates the source(s) of contaminants
Summarizes geologic and hydrogeologic conditions
Explains the observed fate and transport of constituents
Identifies potential receptors

z Is the objective of the remedy clearly stated with respect to

hydraulic containment?
Does it include complete hydraulic containment?
or
Does it only require partial hydraulic containment with other remedy (e.g.,
MNA) for portion of the plume outside of the Target Capture Zone?

Remedy Objective: Section View Remedy Objective: Map View

25
 Remedy Objective: Section View
Complete Horizontal and Vertical Capture
Receptor Extraction Well Regional
Flow
Horizontal capture requires
an inward gradient
Plume

Semi-confining unit

Vertical capture requires

an upward gradient
Cross-Section View

Complete Horizontal Capture Only

Receptor
Extraction Well Regional
Flow
Horizontal capture requires
an inward gradient
Plume

Semi-confining unit

Concentrations in uncaptured
portion of plume are below
cleanup levels and/or addressed
Cross-Section View by other technologies 26

*Performance monitoring wells are not depicted on these schematics to maintain figure clarity
 Remedy Objective: Map View
Capture for Entire Plume Extent

Regional Flow

Receptor Plume

Extraction
Well

Capture Zone

Capture for Portion of Plume

Uncaptured Portion Below Cleanup

Regional Flow
Levels and/or Addressed By Other Technologies

Receptor Plume

Extraction
Well

Capture Zone 27

*Performance monitoring wells are not depicted on these schematics to maintain figure clarity
Step 2:
Define Target Capture Zone
z Where specifically is hydraulic capture required?
Horizontally
Target Capture
Vertically Zone Schematic
Any related conditions that must be met

z Should be clearly stated on maps and/or cross-sections

z May be defined by a geographical boundary or a concentration

contour
Note that concentration contours can change over time
If multiple contaminants, all should be considered

28
 Target Capture Zone Schematic
Target Capture Zone: Should Be 3-Dimensional
Map View

Regional Flow

Plume
Receptor
Extraction
Well

Target Capture Zone

Extraction
Receptor Cross-Section View Well

Regional Flow
Plume
Target Capture Zone

Semi-confining unit

29
Step 3:
Interpretation of Water Levels
z Potentiometric surface maps
Extent of capture interpreted from water level contours
Confirm horizontal capture and vertical capture

z Water level pairs (gradient control points)

Confirm inward flow across a boundary, or from a river or creek
into an aquifer, at specific locations
Confirm vertical flow is upward or downward at specific locations

30
Step 3: Notes about Water Level
Measurements
z Installing piezometers is generally inexpensive at most
sites
If data gaps exist, installing new piezometers should be
considered
z Historical depth to water at each well should be available
in the field so sampling technician can identify (and
ideally reconcile) anomalies during sampling
z Performing periodic well surveys is recommended to
verify the measuring point elevations

31
Step 3a:
Potentiometric Surface Maps
z Can apply to horizontal or vertical capture Horizontal Water Level
Within a horizontal unit Schematic
Vertical between two distinct horizontal units Vertical Water Level
Schematic
z Contouring can be done by hand or with software
By hand incorporates the insight of the hydrogeologist
Software can allow vectors of flowlines to be created and displayed
Gradient Vector Schematic
There are methods to improve accuracy of contours for field data by
conditioning the results based on assumed trends or with the results of
an underlying analytical or numerical model

z Important to critically address a variety of issues before

accepting interpretation of capture based on potentiometric
contours (may require assistance from support personnel or
contractors with hydrogeologic expertise) 32
 Horizontal Water Level Schematic
Potentiometric Surface Map for Horizontal Capture

Municipal
Well

Interpreted
Capture
Zone
River

Plume

Notes

1) Water levels not posted for

figure clarity (normally they
should be posted).

2) Water levels at extraction wells

not used for contouring.
Extraction Well
33
Monitoring Well

1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600

 Vertical Water Level Schematic (1 of 2)
Potentiometric Surface Map for Vertical Capture

Municipal
Well

River

Area With
Upward Flow
Plume

Downward Flow
Head difference > 0
Upward Flow
Head difference < 0
0 Contour
34
Extraction Well
Monitoring Well Clusters
 Vertical Water Level Schematic (2 of 2)
Potentiometric Surface Map for Vertical Capture

Extraction Well
Area With Downward Flow
Municipal Well River

Area With Downward Flow

Area With Upward Flow

Potentiometric Surface of
Potentiometric Surface of
Upper Aquifer
Lower Aquifer

* Monitoring Wells are not depicted to maintain figure clarity

35
 Gradient Vector Schematic
Gradient Vector Map Example

Municipal
Well

Interpreted
Capture
Zone
River

Plume

Gradient Vector
Extraction Well
Monitoring Well 36
Clusters
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600
Step 3a: Issues Evaluating
Potentiometric Surfaces
Issue
Are number and distribution of locations
adequate?
Are water levels included in vicinity of
extraction wells?
Has horizontal capture evaluation been
performed for all pertinent horizontal
units?
Is there bias based on contouring
algorithm?
Is representation of transient influences
adequate?
Has potential for vertical transport been
neglected?
Comments
Contouring accuracy will generally increase as the number of
data points increases
Water levels measured at extraction wells should not be
used directly due to well inefficiencies and losses.
Preferably, water level data representative of the aquifer
should be obtained from piezometers located near extraction
wells. If not, water levels near pumping wells can be
estimated.
Only observations collected from a specific unit should be
used to generate a water level map for evaluating horizontal
capture in that unit.
There may be valid alternate interpretations of water level
contours that indicate a different capture zone
A water level map for one point in time may not be
representative for other points in time
Successful horizontal capture in one aquifer does not
preclude impacted water from being transported vertically to
other aquifers 37
Step 3a: Critical Pitfalls
(Potentiometric Surfaces)
z Drawdown is not the same as capture
Drawdown vs. Capture Schematic Drawdown vs. Capture Schematic
(Map View) (Section View)

z Water levels at extraction wells are generally not representative of

the aquifer just outside the well bore due to well losses
Well inefficiencies and losses caused by Well Inefficiency Schematic
z Poor or inadequate development of well
z Biofouling and encrustation Bias from Using WLs
z Turbulent flow across the well screen at Extraction Well
Best to have piezometer(s) near each extraction well

Well losses due to turbulent flow across the well screen can be
calculated (such as from a step-drawdown test) if piezometers near
extraction wells are not present, but this does not account for other
aspects of well inefficiency it is far preferable to use water levels from
piezometers located near extraction wells 38
 Drawdown vs Capture Schematic
Drawdown and Capture Are Not The Same Thing
Drawdown Contours
Outline of the Cone of Depression
(zero drawdown contour)

Extraction Well
Capture Zone
96 6

9 68

970

972

4
97

976
Water Level
978

980

982
Contours

984

988
986
Drawdown is the change of water level due to pumping. It is calculated by subtracting water level under pumping conditions
from the water level without pumping.

Cone of Depression is the region where drawdown due to pumping is observed.

Capture Zone is the region that contributes the ground water extracted by the extraction well(s). It is a function of the 39
drawdown due to pumping and the background (i.e., without pumping) hydraulic gradient. Capture zone will only coincide
with the cone of depression if there is zero background hydraulic gradient.
 Drawdown vs Capture Schematic (Section View)
Cross-Section View:
Difference Between Drawdown and Capture

This area has observed drawdown, Pumping

but is outside the capture zone Well Static Water Table

Drawdown

Resulting Water Table

Downgradient Extent Due to Pumping
of Capture Zone

40
 Well Inefficiency Schematic
Issues Associated With Well Inefficiency and
Well Losses at Pumping Wells
Extraction
Piezometer
Well
Extraction
Rate (Q)

Water level in piezometer Caused by

represents aquifer condition Well Inefficiency and
Well Losses

Water level in pumping well does not

represent aquifer condition

Piezometer Screen Well Screen

Cross-Section View
41
 Bias from Using WLs at Extraction Well (1 of 2)
Water Level Interpretation Using Measurement
from Extraction Well
MW-1
(120.21)

MW-3
(120.52) MW-4 MW-5
(118.55) EW-1 (118.03)
(110.41)

MW-6
112 (118.15)
Plume
114

116
MW-2 LEGEND
(118.58) 118
Extraction Well
Monitoring Well
Piezometer
120 Flow Direction

Using water level at the extraction well for developing contours biases
interpretation to indicate extensive capture 42
 Bias from Using WLs at Extraction Well (2 of 2)
Water Level Interpretation Using Measurement
at Piezometer near Extraction Well
MW-1
(120.21)
Not used
for contouring

120
MW-3
(120.52) MW-4 MW-5
(118.55) 119
EW-1 (118.03)
(110.41)
PZ-1
(118.31) MW-6
(118.15)
Plume

MW-2 LEGEND
(118.58)
Extraction Well

118 Monitoring Well

Piezometer
Flow Direction

With piezometer data to indicate actual water level in aquifer near the
extraction well, no clear-cut capture zone is apparent 43
Step 3b: Water Level Pairs
(Gradient Control Points)
z Water level pairs (gradient control points)

Are most likely to indicate outward flow when located between

pumping wells
Site Boundary Schematic
Can indicate outward flow, yet capture can still be achieved, if water
level pairs are too far downgradient
Discharge to River Schematic Divide near River Schematic
Increasing pumping rates to achieve inward gradients at a boundary
can increase confidence that capture is achieved, but there may be
increased cost associated with that

For evaluating vertical flow direction, usually only a few clustered

locations are available and locations between those clusters must be
interpreted
44
 Site Boundary Schematic

Inward Flow Hardest to Achieve Half-Way Between Pumping Wells

Flowlines
Outward flow at the boundary, Site Boundary
though still captured by the well
9.92
10.16 10.23
9.71 10.30
10.26
A 10.19 10.26 A'
10.18 10.19

Pumping Wells

45
 Discharge to River Schematic
Water Level Pairs May Suggest Failed Capture
When Capture is Actually Successful
(Flow Divide Between Well and River)

River 94.7 Stages

94.1
94.3 94.6
Water Levels
94.8
94.7 94.6 94.7
A flow divide must exist 94.8
Inward flow near the capture zone
between this monitoring
location and the river 94.2 95
Interpreted
94
Capture Zone
97 River Stage
Measurements
Water Level
Captured Measurements
Extraction Well
Plume 99
95 Water Level
Contour
46
Divide Near River Schematic INWARD GRADIENT FROM RIVER

Using WL Pairs EW PZ-A PZ-B PZ-C

WL pairs indicate inward flow to aquifer RIVER

LEGEND
EW EXTRACTION WELL

PZ PIEZOMETER
FLOW DIVIDE BETWEEN EXTRACTION WELL AND RIVER GROUND WATER FLOW DIRECTION WATER TABLE

EW PZ-A PZ-B PZ-C

WL pairs indicate flow divide between

RIVER
extraction well and surface water
LEGEND
EW EXTRACTION WELL

PZ PIEZOMETER
GROUND WATER FLOW DIRECTION WATER TABLE FLOW DIVIDE BETWEEN EXTRACTION WELL AND RIVER NOT CERTAIN

EW PZ-A PZ-B PZ-C

WL pairs do not indicate flow divide RIVER

between extraction well and surface water
LEGEND
EW EXTRACTION WELL

PZ PIEZOMETER
GROUND WATER FLOW DIRECTION WATER TABLE

47
Note: Each schematic contains several water level pairs.
Step 4:
Perform Calculations
z Specific calculations can be performed to add additional lines of
evidence regarding extent of capture

z Which calculations to perform should be based on site complexity

Simple horizontal analyses
z Estimated flow rate calculation
z Capture zone width calculation (can include drawdown calculation)

Modeling to simulate heads, in conjunction with particle tracking

and/or transport modeling
z Modeling of heads may be analytical or numerical
z Numerical modeling is more appropriate for sites with significant
heterogeneity and/or multiple aquifers

z Not suggesting that numerical modeling is appropriate at all sites 48

Step 4a: Simple Horizontal
Analyses
z Estimated Flow Rate Calculation: calculate
estimated pumping required for capture based on
flow through the plume extent

and/or

z Capture Zone Width Calculation: evaluate analytical

solution for specific values of pumping to determine if
capture zone width is likely sufficient drawdown at
pumping wells can also be calculated
These are very simple calculations based on a series of Simple Calculation
simplifying assumptions that are not fully met at most sites Assumptions 49
 Simple Calculation Assumptions

Assumptions for Simple Calculations

(Estimated Flow Rate Calculation and Plume Width Calculation)

Homogeneous, isotropic, confined aquifer of infinite extent

Uniform aquifer thickness

Fully penetrating extraction well(s)

Uniform regional horizontal hydraulic gradient

Steady-state flow

Negligible vertical gradient

No net recharge, or net recharge is accounted for in regional hydraulic gradient

No other sources of water introduced to aquifer due to extraction

50
Step 4a: Estimated Flow Rate
Calculation
z Calculate estimated total pumping rate (Q) required for capture based on
flow through the plume extent multiplied by a factor
Estimated Flow
Rate Calculation

z The factor accounts for water that might be captured by the well from
sources other than the water that flows through the plume
Water from an overlying or underlying unit
Water from a creek

z There is no scientific rule for assigning factor, although common

practice is to assign a number between 1.5 and 2.0

z The variability in hydraulic conductivity at many sites is as great or

greater than the variability in factor

51
 Estimated Flow Rate Calculation

Estimated Flow Rate Calculation

Q = K (b w) i factor
(Must use consistent units)

Where: Map View i

Q = extraction rate
K = hydraulic conductivity
b = saturated thickness Plume

w
w = plume width
i = regional hydraulic gradient
factor = rule of thumb is 1.5 to 2.0,
intended to account for other Cross Section View
contributions to the pumping well, such
as flux from a river or induced vertical Water table
flow from other unit
Plume
b

52
Step 4a: Capture Zone Width
Calculation
z evaluate analytical solution for specific values of pumping to determine if
capture zone width is likely sufficient
Capture Zone Width
Calculation

z With multiple extraction wells, the method is often applied with one
representative well pumping at the total extraction rate

z In very simple cases, multiple wells can be evaluated directly

Equal pumping rate at each well
Equally spaced in a line perpendicular to background hydraulic gradient

z When multiple wells are not combined as a representative well, it is

possible to also make a simplified calculation of drawdown at the each
pumping well

53
 Capture Zone Width Calculation

Capture Zone Width Calculation

2Ti Q Q 1 y
x = -y tan y or y = tan
Q 2Ti 2Ti x
X 0 = Q / 2Ti; Ymax = Q / 2Ti; Ywell = Q / 4Ti
(Must use consistent units)
i
Where: y
Q = extraction rate
+Ymax
T = transmissivity,
transmissivity, Kb
K = hydraulic conductivity
b = saturated thickness +Ywell
i = hydraulic gradient Well
X0 = distance from the well to the
downgradient end of the capture zone
along the central line of the flow X0 x
direction
(Stagnation Point)
Ymax = maximum capture zone width from
the central line of the plume -Ywell
Ywell = capture zone width at the location of
well from the central line of the plume
-Ymax
54

This simple calculation can also applied for multiple wells (in some cases) based on simplifying assumptions
Step 4a: Application of Simple
Calculations
z Easy to apply quickly, and forces basic review of conceptual model

z One or more assumptions are typically violated, but often are still useful
as scoping calculations and/or to evaluate ranges of possible outcomes
based on reasonable variations of parameters

z Note that Q in the Estimated Flow Rate Calculation incorporates factor

to account for other contributions to the extraction well, whereas Q in the
Capture Zone Width Calculation does not account for any such
contributions of water

z Important to ask the questions about assumptions, such as:

Is there significant heterogeneity at the site
z If Yes, may not be applicable
Do transient conditions and/or off-site stresses exist?
z If Yes, may not be applicable

55
Vertical capture not evaluated by these methods!
Step 4b: Modeling plus Particle
Tracking
z It is important to look at both horizontal and vertical aspects of
capture
Particle Tracking Example
z It is easy to be misled by a picture made with particle tracking, it is
important to have the particle tracking approach evaluated by
someone with adequate experience with those techniques

z Evaluation of capture with a numerical model is precise if performed

properly, and can allow consideration of both horizontal and vertical
capture, but is still only as accurate as the water levels simulated by
the model (if model inputs do not reasonably represent actual
conditions, there is potential for garbage in garbage out)

z Model predictions are subject to many uncertainties, and should be

verified with field data to the extent possible (usually verify drawdown
responses to pumping)
56
 Particle Tracking Example (1 of 3)

Particles Tracking Results, Upper Horizon of Aquifer

(ft)
2600

2400
Plume
Extraction Wells
(screened in upper
2200
horizon only)

2000

River
1800

1600

1400
Note
When viewed in color,
1200 each different color
represents the particles
captured by a specific
well.
1000

Continuous Sources
800
(upper horizon only) 57

1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 (ft)

 Particle Tracking Example (2 of 3)
Particles Tracking Results, Middle Horizon of Aquifer
(ft)
2600

2400
Plume
Extraction Wells
(screened in upper
2200
horizon only)

2000

River
1800

1600

1400
Note
When viewed in color,
1200 each different color
represents the particles
captured by a specific
well.
1000

Continuous Sources
800
(upper horizon only) 58

1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 (ft)

 Particle Tracking Example (3 of 3)
Particles Tracking Results, Lower Horizon of Aquifer
(ft)
2600

2400
Plume
Extraction Wells
(screened in upper
2200
horizon only)

2000

River
1800

1600

1400
Note
When viewed in color,
1200 each different color
represents the particles
captured by a specific
well.
1000

Continuous Sources
800
(upper horizon only) 59

1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 (ft)

Step 5: Evaluate Concentration
Trends (and Tracer Tests)
z Concentration Trends
Sentinel wells
z downgradient of Target Capture Zone, and
z not currently impacted above background concentrations
Downgradient performance monitoring wells
z downgradient of Target Capture Zone, and
z currently impacted above background concentrations

z Tracer Tests

60
Step 5a:
Concentration Trends
z Concentration trends at monitoring wells can provide evidence of
capture (or lack thereof), but the wells must be located properly to
provide useful evidence of capture

If located within the capture zonemay show early declines but then
stabilize above cleanup levels if there is a continuing source
Concentration Trend
Schematic
Therefore, locations of performance monitoring wells for evaluating
capture must be carefully scrutinized, and in some cases adding
additional monitoring points may be appropriate

z Even if located properly (beyond the actual capture zone), usually

take a long time (typically years) to indicate successful capture

Example of Monitoring Well Concentrations 61

 Concentration Trend Schematic

Concentration Trend at Monitoring Well Located Within Capture Zone

Extraction
Well
Regional Flow

Plume with
Continuous Source

Monitoring well remains

impacted by continuous
source

Capture zone

62
 Example of Monitoring Well Concentrations (1 of 2)

Monitoring Wells for Concentration Measurement

Uncaptured Portion Below Cleanup

Levels and/or Addressed By Other Technologies
/
Regional Flow

Extraction
Downgradient Well
Performance
Monitoring Well
MW-2
Plume with
MW-1 Continuous Source
Sentinel Well

Receptor MW-3

Target Capture zone

63
 Example of Monitoring Well Concentrations (2 of 2)

Concentration vs. Time at Monitoring Wells

MW-1 MW-2 MW-3

1000
Concentrations (ug/l)

100 Within Capture Zone

10
Cleanup Standard

1
Downgradient Performance Monitoring Well
Non-Detect, plotted at half the detection limit

0.1
Sentinel Well

0.01
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
64
Year
Background concentration is non-detect
Step 5a:
Concentration Trends
z Although these issues complicate interpretation of capture from
concentration trends, the concentration trends at these
downgradient performance monitoring wells over time may
ultimately provide the most solid and compelling line of evidence
that successful capture has actually been achieved

z Therefore, both hydraulic monitoring and chemical monitoring

should usually be components of capture zone evaluations

hydraulic data allow for relatively rapid assessment of system

performance

monitoring of ground water chemistry allows for long-term

assessment
65
Step 5b:
Tracer Tests
z A tracer can be released within the Target Capture Zone, and
monitored for beyond the Target Capture Zone
failed capture is confirmed if the tracer is detected

z A tracer can be released in an area where capture is uncertain, and

monitored for in the extraction wells
capture is confirmed (in the area of tracer release) if the tracer is detected

z Tracers should have the following properties

non-reactive and highly mobile
no negative impacts to the environment
reliably detected, monitoring/analysis is inexpensive

z Examples include bromide, radioactive isotopes, fluorescent dyes

z Provide solid evidence regarding capture, but because ground water

flow is often slow, results may take a prohibitively longsince most
systems operate for a long time, use of tracer tests should be 66

considered to assist with long-term capture zone interpretation

Step 6: Interpret Capture
Based on Steps 1-5
z Compare the interpreted capture to the target capture zone
Does the current system achieve remedy objectives with respect to plume
capture, both horizontally and vertically?

z Assess uncertainties in the interpretation of actual capture zone

Are alternate interpretations possible that would change the conclusions as to
whether or not actual capture is achieved?

z Assess the need for additional characterization and monitoring to fill data
gaps (iterative approach)
Do data gaps make assessment of capture effectiveness uncertain?
If so, fill data gaps (e.g., installation of additional monitoring wells), and re-
evaluate capture
Iterative Approach
z Evaluate the need to reduce or increase extraction rates
Should extraction rates and/or locations be modified?
67
 Iterative Approach
Capture Zone Analysis Iterative Approach
Iterative
Evaluate capture using existing data

Fill data gaps

Yes Are there data gaps that

make conclusion of capture
evaluation uncertain?

No

Complete capture zone

evaluation

Optimize extraction

Capture successful?
No
Yes

Continue routine Optimize to reduce

monitoring cost
68
Step 6a: Potential Format for
Presenting Results of Analysis
Line Of Evidence Is Capture Sufficient? Comments
Water Levels
z Potentiometric surface maps
z Water level pairs
Calculations
z Flow budget calculations
z Cap zone width calculations
z Modeling of heads/particle tracking
Concentration Trends/Tracers
z Sentinel wells
z Downgradient performance MWs
z Tracers

Overall Conclusion
z Capture is (is not) sufficient, based on converging lines of evidence
z Key uncertainties/data gaps
z Recommendations to collect additional data, change current extraction rates, change number/locations of
extraction wells, etc.
69
Key Concepts For a Project
Manager
z The suggested six steps provide a systematic approach for
evaluating capture, can serve as a general checklist

z Need to have a clearly stated remedy objective

z Need to clearly define a Target Capture Zone that

Considers potential for both horizontal and vertical transport
Is consistent with the remedy objectives
May change over time as plume grows/shrinks

z Interpreting capture is usually difficult converging lines of

evidence (i.e., use of multiple techniques to evaluate capture)
should be used, and should primarily rely on field-collected data that
indicates capture and/or validates model predictions that indicate
capture
70
Key Concepts For a Project
Manager
z Need for additional field data to reduce uncertainties in the capture zone
analysis should be routinely evaluated, and any such data gaps should be
addressed

z Frequency of capture zone evaluation is site-specific, factors include time

to reach quasi-steady state, temporal nature of stresses (on-site, off-site),
travel-time to potential receptors, etc.
Throughout first year of system operation is common
One or more evaluations per year is appropriate at many sites

z Many aspects of capture zone analysis require hydrogeologic

expertiseproject managers should use the assistance of support
personnel and/or contractors if they lack that expertise
Simple calculations usually not sufficient because underlying assumptions are
not valid
Scrutinize the interpretation of each line of evidence (e.g., the availability of 71
water levels at or near the extraction wells)
Summary
z The six basic steps provides a general approach for
evaluating capture, can serve as a general checklist
z Need to have a clearly stated remedy objective
z Need to clearly define a Target Capture Zone that
Considers potential for both horizontal and vertical transport
Is consistent with the remedy objectives
May change over time as plume grows/shrinks
z Interpreting capture is usually difficult converging lines of
evidence (i.e., use of multiple techniques to evaluate capture)
should be used
Each additional line of evidence adds confidence in the
conclusions of the evaluation
72
Summary
z The operating system may differ substantially from the
designed system, and/or may be subject to transient
influences such as droughts or off-site pumping
Suggests the need for routine capture zone evaluations
z Many aspects of capture zone analysis require hydrogeologic
expertiseproject managers should use the assistance of
support personnel and/or contractors if they lack that
expertise
Simple calculations usually not sufficient because underlying
assumptions are not valid
Scrutinize the interpretation of each line of evidence (e.g., the
availability of water levels at or near the extraction wells)
73