skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Groundwater modeling in RCRA assessment, corrective action design and evaluation

Abstract

Groundwater modeling was conducted to design, implement, modify, and terminate corrective action at several RCRA sites in EPA Region 4. Groundwater flow, contaminant transport and unsaturated zone air flow models were used depending on the complexity of the site and the corrective action objectives. Software used included Modflow, Modpath, Quickflow, Bioplume 2, and AIR3D. Site assessment data, such as aquifer properties, site description, and surface water characteristics for each facility were used in constructing the models and designing the remedial systems. Modeling, in turn, specified additional site assessment data requirements for the remedial system design. The specific purpose of computer modeling is discussed with several case studies. These consist, among others, of the following: evaluation of the mechanism of the aquifer system and selection of a cost effective remedial option, evaluation of the capture zone of a pumping system, prediction of the system performance for different and difficult hydrogeologic settings, evaluation of the system performance, and trouble-shooting for the remedial system operation. Modeling is presented as a useful tool for corrective action system design, performance, evaluation, and trouble-shooting. The case studies exemplified the integration of diverse data sources, understanding the mechanism of the aquifer system, and evaluation of the performancemore » of alternative remediation systems in a cost-effective manner. Pollutants of concern include metals and PAHs.« less

Authors:
;  [1]
  1. Benchmark Engineering Inc., Birmingham, AL (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
215566
Report Number(s):
CONF-951139-
TRN: IM9618%%250
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: 16. hazardous waste conference and exhibition: new frontiers in hazardous waste, Washington, DC (United States), 6-8 Nov 1995; Other Information: PBD: 1995; Related Information: Is Part Of Superfund 16: Conference and exhibition proceedings. Volume 2; PB: 817 p.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; GROUND WATER; REMEDIAL ACTION; ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORT; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; METALS; REMOVAL; POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS; EXTRACTION APPARATUSES; PERFORMANCE; SITE CHARACTERIZATION; RESOURCE RECOVERY ACTS; DATA; HYDROLOGY; GEOLOGY; PLUMES

Citation Formats

Rybak, I., and Henley, W. Groundwater modeling in RCRA assessment, corrective action design and evaluation. United States: N. p., 1995. Web.
Rybak, I., & Henley, W. Groundwater modeling in RCRA assessment, corrective action design and evaluation. United States.
Rybak, I., and Henley, W. 1995. "Groundwater modeling in RCRA assessment, corrective action design and evaluation". United States. doi:.
@article{osti_215566,
title = {Groundwater modeling in RCRA assessment, corrective action design and evaluation},
author = {Rybak, I. and Henley, W.},
abstractNote = {Groundwater modeling was conducted to design, implement, modify, and terminate corrective action at several RCRA sites in EPA Region 4. Groundwater flow, contaminant transport and unsaturated zone air flow models were used depending on the complexity of the site and the corrective action objectives. Software used included Modflow, Modpath, Quickflow, Bioplume 2, and AIR3D. Site assessment data, such as aquifer properties, site description, and surface water characteristics for each facility were used in constructing the models and designing the remedial systems. Modeling, in turn, specified additional site assessment data requirements for the remedial system design. The specific purpose of computer modeling is discussed with several case studies. These consist, among others, of the following: evaluation of the mechanism of the aquifer system and selection of a cost effective remedial option, evaluation of the capture zone of a pumping system, prediction of the system performance for different and difficult hydrogeologic settings, evaluation of the system performance, and trouble-shooting for the remedial system operation. Modeling is presented as a useful tool for corrective action system design, performance, evaluation, and trouble-shooting. The case studies exemplified the integration of diverse data sources, understanding the mechanism of the aquifer system, and evaluation of the performance of alternative remediation systems in a cost-effective manner. Pollutants of concern include metals and PAHs.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 1995,
month =
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • The regional scale model, calibrated by an automatic least-squares procedure, resulted in a set of hydraulic parameter values consistent with other methods. The automatic procedure facilitated the calibration of the model in which ten hydraulic parameters were treated as unknowns. Ground water flow velocities were used to perform particle-tracking analyses. Local scale transport models were developed for the F and H Area seepage basins. The grid refinement technique in conjunction with the parameter estimation method was very effective in the analysis of regional and local flow and transport phenomena. The estimated hydraulic parameters, determined objectively by the automatic procedure, showedmore » excellent agreement with results from other methods. The local scale transport modeling required significant mesh refinements to meet the objectives of the study. Thus, it was necessary to reduce the area of the model domain to maintain cost and computational efficiency. Regional flow phenomena were preserved in the reduced scale models by extracting hydraulic boundaries and parameters from the regional flow model.« less
  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's RCRA Corrective Action Program is supporting a ground-water remediation strategy that is biased to taking early actions at the highest priority sites and conducting the investigation and remedial actions in a phased approach. The Corrective Action Program appreciates the need to attack ground-water remediations in the most effective and resource efficient manner and to account for uncertainty in setting remedial expectations. By prioritizing and phasing investigations and remedial actions, the limited resources of the regulatory and regulated communities can be focused in a directed manner. This focused and phased approach will allow for more directedmore » investigations, which will result in more judicious remedial actions. In October 1991, EPA proposed the RCRA Corrective Action Stabilization Initiative. This initiative was designed to expedite remediation by focusing on the prioritization of facilities and SWMUs. High priority units, resulting in the greatest environmental benefit from early actions, will be evaluated early in the corrective action investigation phases. The Stabilization philosophy is a logical first step in Corrective Action, especially at complex sites. Setting ground-water remedial goals based on limited facility information, which might be unattainable, does not lend credibility to the program in the eyes of the public. The result of the philosophy embraced by the RCRA Corrective Action Program is to maximize the environmental benefits by making the best ground-water remedial decisions based on the knowledge of the conditions, but at the same time considering the uncertainty present at the facility.« less
  • The US Department of Energy (DOE) is involved in the remediation of environmental contamination at many of its facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA`s corrective action provisions were established by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). In response to the HSWA mandate, EPA established a program for the conduct of RCRA corrective action that was similar to that established under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). In addition, EPA developed and implemented its ``stabilization`` initiative as a means of quickly addressing immediate risks posed by releases until long term solutionsmore » can be applied. To improve the efficiency of environmental restoration at its facilities, DOE is developing guidance and training programs on accelerated environmental restoration under RCRA. A RCRA guidance document, entitled ``Accelerating RCRA Corrective Action at DOE Facilities,`` is currently being developed by DOE`s Office of Environmental Policy and Assistance. The new guidance document will outline a decision-making process for determining if acceleration is appropriate for individual facilities, for identifying, evaluating, and selecting options for program acceleration, and for implementing selected acceleration options. The document will also discuss management and planning strategies that provide a firm foundation for accelerating RCRA corrective action. These strategies include a number of very basic principles that have proven effective at DOE and other federal facilities, as well as some new approaches. The purpose of this paper is to introduce DOE`s new guidance document, discuss the general approach presented in the guidance for accelerating RCRA corrective action, and to emphasize some of the more important principles of effective management and planning.« less
  • This document was prepared as an issue paper for the Department of Energy to serve in the decision-making process for environmental restoration activities. The paper compares cleanup requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and those currently proposed under Subpart S of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The history and regulatory framework for both laws is discussed, and the process for environmental restoration actions under both regulatory programs is compared and contrasted. Contaminants regulated under CERCLA and RCRA differ significantly in that radioactive contaminants are subject to Environmental Protection Agency jurisdiction only under CERCLA.more » The DOE has the jurisdiction to implement radioactive waste management and cleanup levels under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) at nuclear weapons facilities. For sites with significant amounts of contaminants which are radioactive only, cleanup under RCRA can present significant advantages, since the DOE can then manage restoration activities under its own authority. There are, conversely several significant advantages for a remedial action being conducted at a CERCLA site recognized on the National Priorities List (NPL). Other provisions in the CERCLA remediation and the RCRA corrective action process offer both advantages and disadvantages related to DOE environmental restoration programs. This paper presents a discussion of significant issues which should be considered in such negotiations.« less
  • On July 27, 1990, the US Environmental Protection Agency published (55 Federal Register 30798) a proposed rule entitled {open_quotes}Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities,{close_quotes} proposing procedures and rationale for implementing corrective actions at hazardous waste facilities. This article focuses on the effect the proposed rule will have on the development and implementation of RCRA corrective actions. It provides an analysis of the overall value of its framework for selecting remedial alternatives and the proposed action levels that are likely to drive cleanups. The article begins by presenting a brief background of the proposed rule,more » including how the proposed rule fits into the overall RCRA program and what the major points of interest in the proposed rule are. The article then discusses how corrective measure studies are to be performed. The development and the importance of the action levels in the proposed rule are also presented.« less