LNAPL Transmissivity End Points

Why, How and When

Andrew Kirkman P.E.

1
 LNAPL Transmissivity (Tn)

• LNAPL Transmissivity summarizes the following Well

key considerations in LNAPL recovery into one metric:
− LNAPL Density
− LNAPL Viscosity
Tn = ∑Kn ∆bn LNAPL
− Soil permeability
− Magnitude of LNAPL saturation in soil
(i.e., LNAPL concentration)
− Thickness that LNAPL flows over

ρ n ⋅ g ⋅ k ⋅ k rn
Kn =
µn Water
LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 2
How Transmissivity Relates to Reduction of
Mobile LNAPL
Permeability
K2<K1K1>0

A Pipe
Zero
=
Permeability
Max
Permeability

As LNAPL is recovered the number of pores occupied by

LNAPL decreases, which in turn decreases its relative
permeability. This is reflected in a decrease in LNAPL
Transmissivity

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 3

Gauged Thickness –
Poor Metric for Recoverability
• MW-4 Confined recovers to 5 feet thickness fast than wells with
33 feet of starting thickness
• MW-18 expected to take 3 years to recover to ~35 ft of thickness

MW-1 2008 MW-4 2004 UNCONFINED MW-18 2007 MW-4 2008 CONFINED MW-6 2008

35.0
RECOVERED LNAPL THICKNESS (FT)

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
ELAPSED TIME (MIN)
~ 2 weeks
LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 4
Gauged LNAPL Thickness Versus
Recovery - Poor Correlation
WATER ENHANCED RECOVERY AT 1 FOOT OF DRAWDOWN (GPD)
LNAPL SKIMMING RATE (GPD)
GAUGED LNAPL THICKNESS (FT)
1000
LNAPL RECOVERY METRIC VALUE

100
33.00 33.15

10 19.03

5.40
2.60
1

0.1

0.01

MW-18 MW-6 MW-4 CONFINED MW-4 MW-1

UNCONFINED
LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 5
 LNAPL Transmissivity Versus Recovery
Good Correlation
• LNAPL Transmissivity exhibits improved correlation
• LNAPL Recovery Rate is a Function of both drawdown induced and LNAPL
transmissivity
• Skimming drawdown is controlled by equilibrium fluid levels and soil profile
WATER ENHANCED RECOVERY AT 1 FOOT OF DRAWDOWN (GPD)
LNAPL SKIMMING RATE (GPD)
LNAPL TRANSMISIVITY (FT2/DAY)
LNAPL RECOVERY METRIC VALUE

1000

100

10 35 31

5.2
1

0.1
0.22
0.01
0.007
0.001

MW-18 MW-6 MW-4 CONFINED MW-4 UNCONFINED MW-1

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 6
Why use LNAPL transmissivity?

•LNAPL Thickness
− Inconsistent between hydraulic scenarios (perched, confined, unconfined)
− Inconsistent between soil types
− Poor indicator of LNAPL recovery
•LNAPL Recovery Rate More Robust Metric than LNAPL Thickness
− Need recovery system or pilot test data
− Operational variability and technology differences make it difficult to use
across technologies and/or sites
•Transmissivity
− Estimated with recovery data or field testing on monitoring wells
− Consistent across soil types
− Consistent across confined, unconfined or perched conditions

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 7

In well LNAPL thickness is a poor metric

• ITRC (2010) - recover LNAPL from areas with the largest

equilibrium in well thicknesses BUT
− Poor metric: correlates unfavorably with LNAPL
recoverability
− Does not account for soil and LNAPL properties, soil
heterogeneity, and LNAPL aquifer conditions
(unconfined/perched/confined)
• ASTM (2005) –
− LNAPL regulatory policies that define remediation metrics
by small LNAPL thickness in wells are…often inconsistent
with risk-based screening levels and with current technical
knowledge regarding LNAPL mobility and recoverability ¶
5.14.

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013

Short Term Recovery Evaluation

LNAPL Transmissivity LNAPL Recovery Rate Water Recovery Rate

0.5 50
LNAPL Transmissivity (ft2/day)

Water Recovery Rate (1000 gpd)

LNAPL Recovery Rate (gpd)
0.4 40

0.3 30

0.2 20

0.1 10

0 0
Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07

Qo
To = Tw ρ r
Qw
LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 Pa
So What Transmissivity Value Means
there’s a Bunch of LNAPL There

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 10

 LNAPL Transmissivity in Practice
1 0.1 5 10 20 0.01
LNAPL TRANSMISSIVITY CURVES
• Skimming LNAPL at 0.1
1000 3.7E+05
ft2/day results in less
than 400 GPY skimming
• Skimming LNAPL at 5
ft2/day results in 7300 100 3.7E+04

LNAPL RECOVERY RATE (GPY)

GPY skimming
LNAPL RECOVERY RATE (GPD)

10 3.7E+03

1 3.7E+02

0.1 MULTI-PHASE & 3.7E+01

VACUUM
SKIMMING WATER
ENHANCED
RANGE ENHANCED
SKIMMING RANGE
RECOVERY
Example Technology Drawdown Ranges
0.01 3.7E+00
0.1 1 10
LNAPL DRAWDOWN (FT)

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 11

Ongoing support for LNAPL Transmissivity

• 2006 ASTM Guide of LNAPL Conceptual Site Models (E2531-06)

• 2009 ITRC Guide for LNAPL technology selection – includes
LNAPL transmissivity range 0.1 to 0.8 ft2/day that corresponds to
closed sites in various states
• 2011 ASTM Guide for Estimation of LNAPL Transmissivity
(E2856-13)
• API LNAPL Transmissivity work book
− search for LNAPL Baildown Test on API.org
− API multiple tools and documents – most pertinent here LNAPL
baildown test spreadsheet and guide document
• Applied NAPL Science Review (www.napl-ansr.com)
− Online publication related to advancing LNAPL understanding
within the remediation industry

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 12

 ASTM LNAPL Transmissivity Standard
(E2856-13)
• Increase Accuracy of calculations for LNAPL Transmissivity
• Identify critical assumptions and best practices
• Resolved various approaches into a more unified practice
• Include multiple methods in a single standard to provide
comparison of methods
• Provide standardization to generate a consistent and larger
database of information
• Methods include:
1. Baildown/Slug Tests (Lundy & Zimmerman 3. Manual Skimming Tests
1999, Huntley, 2000 & Kirkman 2012)
4. Tracer Tests (Sale, 2007)
2. Recovery System Data (Charbeneau,
2007)

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 13

LNAPL Concern – ITRC introduced composition vs
saturation concern
Reduced
LNAPL
saturation
Benzene Concentration
in Groundwater (mg/L)

Changed
LNAPL
composition
(less benzene)
15% 30%
LNAPL Saturation

Source: Dr. Sanjay Garg

and ITRC LNAPL training

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013

LNAPL Transmissivity and Endpoints
for Hydraulic Recovery
ITRC Endpoint Range 0.1 to 0.8 ft2/day

• Represents the LNAPL transmissivity that occurred at multiple sites

that were closed with the following support data/evidence
− LNAPL Recovery was asymptotic and small compared to residual LNAPL
in place
− No risk to receptors via vapor or dissolved phase existed
− Remaining LNAPL was stable and not migrating
− Institutional controls were in place to prevent exposure
− Land/ groundwater use restrictions or;
− Active facilities ensured land use would remain industrial
− On going remediation would not significantly improve site
conditions
− Plume already stable
− No complete pathways / risk to receptors
• Following Closure of LNAPL Transmissivity data was compiled
and reviewed to generate the empirical ITRC range
LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 16
Stop Metric Example

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 17

What Fraction Can Be Removed for a
Given Starting LNAPL Transmissivity

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013

Reversed Decline
ELAPSED TIME (YEARS)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0% 17

RESID
VOLU
UAL
ME
10% 15

LNAPL TRANSMISSIVITY (FT2/DAY)

20% 13
REMAINING VOLUME (GAL)

LNAPL Recovered Above LNAPL Transmissivity of

30% Remaining Volume 11
Above Residual
40% 9

LNAPL
ft2/day

Reachi

Recov
After
ered
0.6
ng
50% 7

0.6 ft2/day
60% 5

70% 3

80% 1

90% -1

100% -3

Remaining Volume In Place LNAPL Transmissivity

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 19

 Residual LNAPL Fraction (unrecoverable)
>10 years - Elapsed Time
Fraction of LNAPL Beyond Proposed Endpoint Range/was not Recovered

Fraction of LNAPL Beyond Proposed Recovery Endpoint/Continued to be Recovered with Significant

Effort
100%

90% Residual Fraction

INTERVAL PRIOR TO RECOVERY EFFORTS (%)

2 years
FRACTION OF TOTAL LNAPL WITHIN MOBILE

80%
0.6 years
0.6 years
70%

60% 8 years 12 years

8 years
50% Mobile Fraction 13.5 years
40% Not Recovered
2 years 11 years Recovery Time and Fraction
30% Beyond Endpoint
2 years
8 years 7.5 years
20% 6 years 11 years 14 years
3.75 years Time Until Transmissivity of
11 years 4 years
10% 0.6 ft2/day (0.55 m2/day) >50 years
10 years
0%
14 14 6 2 3.6 10Starting1.4 4.6 1.4
LNAPL Transmissivity (ft0.0015
2/day)- 0.35
0.0023

Well 7 Wells 8 - 21 Well 22 Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6 Wells 23 - Well 25
24
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

Page 20 Page 20 LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013

 LNAPL Transmissivity vs Residual Fraction
Residual LNAPL Fraction (unrecoverable)
Fraction of LNAPL Beyond Proposed Endpoint Range/was not Recovered
>10 years - Elapsed Time
Fraction of LNAPL Beyond Proposed Recovery Endpoint/Continued to be Recovered with Significant Effort >10 years - Estimated Time
Fraction of LNAPL Within Proposed Endpoint Range

100%
INTERVAL PRIOR TO RECOVERY EFFORTS (%)
FRACTION OF TOTAL LNAPL WITHIN MOBILE

90%
2 years
80%
0.6 years
0.6 years
70% 10 years
60% 8 years 12 years
8 years
50%
13.5 years
40% 2 years 11 years
30% >10 years
2 years
8 years 7.5 years
20% 6 years 11 years 14 years
3.75 years 11 years 4 years
10% >50 years
10 years
0%
14 14 6 2 3.6 10 1.4 4.6 1.4 0.0015 - 0.35
0.0023
INITIAL LNAPL TRANSMISSIVITY (FT2/DAY)
Well 7 Wells 8 - 21 Well 22 Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6 Wells 23 - Well 25
24
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4

NOTES:
1. RECOVERABLE LNAPL VOLUMES ARE BASED ON DECLINE CURVE ANALYSIS, MASS BALANCE AND MODEL CALIBRATION
2. RESIDUAL SATURATIONS ARE BASED ON SOIL CORE ANALYSES AND/OR MODEL CALIBRATION TO FIELD DATA
3. MODEL CALIBRATION INCLUDED, SOIL AND FLUID
TYPE, AND LNAPL TRANSMISSIVITY DATA LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 21
Summary

• LNAPL transmissivity can be used as a start or stop metric for

Maximum Extent Practicable (Source Reduction via Hydraulic
Recovery)
• Guidance has been improved over the past twelve years and
provides a good foundation to
− Improve accuracy of LNAPL transmissivity estimates
− Provide multiple methods to estimate LNAPL transmissivity
throughout the life of a site
• ITRC range combined with site LNAPL transmissivity data provides
an absolute reference point for hydraulic recovery/transmissivity
values
• Sites exhibiting LNAPL transmissivity value below 0.8 ft2/day with
existing recovery systems should consider the effectiveness of
continued hydraulic recovery in reducing remaining LNAPL source
mass

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 22

Thank you

Andrew Kirkman, P.E.

 Remedial Performance Application - Scenario 2

• Weak decline supports using individual well measurements (e.g.,

baildown tests) to measure LNAPL transmissivity across the plume

Graphics provided by

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 24

 Remedial Performance Application - Scenario 1

• Strong decline indicates recovery system is well

representative of capture zone

Graphics provided by

LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoints 9/16/2013 25