Use and Application of

ASTM Standard Guide

for Estimation of
LNAPL Transmissivity
(ASTM E2856-11)
Christopher Pearson, P.E.
AECOM
Denver, CO

September 17, 2013 Client logo

Traditional Metric: In-well • Red Contours represent LNAPL
LNAPL Thickness: well Thickness (b) (ft)

• Green Contours represent

LNAPL Transmissivity (T)
Characterization based on LNAPL
(ft^2/day)
Thickness in wells can be misleading.

Rapidly
Perched Confined Decreasing
Conditions Conditions Water Table

Sand
LIF Response

Clay
LIF Response
LIF Response

Clay Sand Sand

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013 Page 2
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 MW-82: Groundwater and LNAPL Elevations Over Time
5095
Corrected Groundwater Elevation (ft msl)

5090

5085

5080

5075
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Groundwater Elevation Product elevation

Client logo
Presentation
ASTM LNAPL Title
Standard Guide for September 17, 2013 Page 3
September 17, 2013
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Why use LNAPL transmissivity?

•LNAPL transmissivity is a better metric for several reasons:

– It can be estimated using recovery data or field testing on monitoring wells

– Consistent across soil types
– Consistent across confined, unconfined or perched conditions
– Consistent for various LNAPL types
– Is comparable for multiple sites and multiple technologies
– It can be used for site characterization, mobility studies, technology
screening and feasibility, recoverability modeling, remediation timeframes,
performance monitoring, endpoints, and site-closure

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013 Page 4
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 1
LNAPL Relation of kro to LNAPL
Transmissivity: Saturation

kro
LNAPL Transmissivity (To): It is a
0 100% So 0
proportionality coefficient describing the
ability of a formation to transmit LNAPL MW
[L2/T]
• Zone of highest LNAPL saturation
has highest LNAPL conductivity
• Low LNAPL saturation results in low LNAPL
LNAPL conductivity
To = Ko
• Hydraulic recovery rate proportional over bo
to To for given technology
In simple terms, To is the measure of o g k kro
Ko
the oil flow rate onto a well for an
o
induced gradient. So it is a direct
measure of LNAPL recoverability
since it incorporates time and Ko(So) varies over
conductivity. shark fin

Client logo
ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity September 17, 2013 Page 5 From Andrew Kirkman
2006 - ASTM Guide of LNAPL 2009 - ITRC Guide for LNAPL
Conceptual Site Models technology selection
(currently being revised and will – Defines LNAPL Transmissivity
be published in 2014) Endpoint range of 0.1 to 0.8
ft2/day for Hydraulic Recovery

Published peer-reviewed
efforts to improve LNAPL
understanding

2011 - ASTM Guide for 2012 - API tools and documents

Estimation of LNAPL – most pertinent here LNAPL
Transmissivity baildown test spreadsheet (in
Excel) and guidance document
• Released October 2012

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013 Page 6
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
ASTM Transmissivity Standard Guide (E2856-11)

• It establishes standard protocol for conducting tests,

evaluating and analyzing To data
– Allows for To comparison across sites, between sites and over time

• Increase accuracy of calculations for To

– Aims for an accuracy within a factor of two of actual To

• Includes four different methods for measuring To in a single

ASTM guideline to provide comparison of methods
• Include methods that are applicable to a variety of geologic
conditions (perched, confined, and unconfined)
• Establish assumptions and limitations of each method

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013 Page 7
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
LNAPL Transmissivity Test Methods Include:

Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods

Instantaneous stress; monitor response prolonged stress, monitor response

Baildown/ Manual Recovery Tracer

Slug Skimming System Testing
Tests Test Data (Sale, 2007)
(Zimmerman and (Charbeneau,
Lundy, 1995 and 2007)
Huntley, 2000)

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013 Page 8
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Precautions for Baildown Tests: Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods

Baildown/ Manual Recovery Tracer

Slug Skimming System Testing
Test
• Relatively Mature LNAPL Tests Data

Conceptual Site Model (LCSM)

• Well Construction: Well screens need to extend over the entire
LNAPL mobile interval
• Establish that in-well LNAPL thicknesses are at equilibrium: pre-
test monitoring
• Well Development: establishes good communication between
well and formation
• Critical Points:
– Understand borehole/filter pack recharge – How much do you bail? (up to
67% of LNAPL is from the filter pack – e.g., 2” well with 8.25” borehole)
– Gauge well to completion of the test not 80%
ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo
September 17, 2013 Page 9
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods
1. Baildown Tests Manual
Baildown/ Recovery Tracer
Slug Skimming System Testing
Tests Test Data

• Applicable to:
– Aquifer types: confined, unconfined, perched
– Developed monitoring well

• Test method:
Qn Vn
– Remove single slug of borehole LNAPL (well+sand pack)
– Monitor LNAPL layer recovery over time
Vadose
sn bn • Analytical options:
– Cooper-Jacob Method
Filter Pack

LNAPL
– Bouwer-Rice Methodology
Groundwater
• Not generally applicable to
– LNAPL thicknesses <0.5 feet
rw – Variable water-table conditions where recharge is long
compared to changes in groundwater elevation.
Well radius – adjusted for filter
pack porosity and NAPL saturation
ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo
September 17, 2013 Page 10
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods

LNAPL Baildown Test Example Baildown/ Manual

Skimming
Recovery Tracer
Slug System Testing
and Initial Data Review Tools Tests Test Data

ASTM and API provide new tools to understand if the data is ideal or what
corrections, if any, are appropriate

Time (minutes) LNAPL Discharge (ft3/d)

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 0 2 4 6 8 10
25.0 0.45
25.5 0.40

LNAPL Drawdown (ft)

26.0
0.35
26.5
0.30
27.0

Depth (ft)
27.5 0.25

28.0 0.20
28.5 0.15
29.0
0.10
29.5
0.05
30.0
0.00
30.5
DTW (blue), Water Table (green), DTP (red)
LNAPL Drawdown - Discharge Relation
Where equilibrium fluid levels are not well understood,
equilibrium fluid level inputs can be adjusted to line the discharge
Hydrograph data can help understand variability in the versus drawdown trend to intersect the origin (0,0).
water-table and consistency of LNAPL recovery trends
Note how discharge goes to zero as drawdown goes to zero

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013 Page 11
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods

API Baildown Spreadsheet (2012) Baildown/

Slug
Manual
Skimming
Recovery
System
Tracer
Testing
Tests Test Data

• Provides tool consistent with

ASTM methodology to analyze 2
re ln R re ln sn t1 s n t
Tn
baildown tests 2 J t t1
– Helps identify and eliminate Enter early time cut-off for least-squares model fit Le/re
6.8
borehole recharge Timecut 0 <- Enter or change value here C
– Includes methodology to analyze 1.07
R/re
constant discharge portions of Model Results: Tn (ft2 /d) = 5.07 +/- 0.13 ft2 /d 3.95
confined and perched tests
J-Ratio
– Includes multiple graphs for data Time (minutes)
-0.157
interpretation 0 100 200 300 400 500
0.0

-0.5

Natural Log of Drawdown (ft)

• 3 Analysis Methods -1.0 Coef. Of
– Bouwer-Rice Variation
-1.5
0.02
– Cooper-Jacob -2.0

-2.5
– CP&B
-3.0

-3.5

-4.0

Bouwer and Rice Model

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013 Page 12
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Baildown Testing API Spreadsheet
B&R Type Curves: Casing Dia. (ft) = 0.25 ;
Borehole Dia. (ft) = 0.42
1.0

Normalized Drawdown (s/sinitial) (ft/ft)

0.9 T=0.01
ft2/day
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5 T=0.05
ft2/day
0.4

Time (minutes) 0.3

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 T=0.1 ft2/day
51.0 0.2
52.0 T=5 ft2/day
0.1
53.0 T=0.5 ft2/day T=0.2 ft2/day
0.0 T=2 ft2/day
54.0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
55.0 Time (min)
Depth (ft)

56.0
57.0
58.0
59.0
60.0
61.0
62.0

DTW (blue), Water Table (green), DTP (red)

ASTM LNAPL Transmissivity Client logo
September 17, 2013 Page 13
Standard Preview
 Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods

2. Manual Skimming Test Baildown/

Slug
Manual
Skimming
Recovery
System
Tracer
Testing
Tests Test Data

• Small thicknesses (i.e, <0.5 ft) do not yield good baildown

tests due to gauging errors
• Manual skimming similar timeframe to baildown test
• Methodology consists of repeated LNAPL removal events
to reach steady state recovery rate.
• Recovery rate used in Theim equation along with estimated
drawdown value Qn ln( Roi )
Tn rw
s
ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo
September 17, 2013
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods

Manual Skimming Testing Baildown/

Slug
Manual
Skimming
Recovery
System
Tracer
Testing
Tests Test Data

• Basis – Skimming Recovery Equation

• Field Methods
– Remove Borehole Volume Repeatedly
– Establish Sustainable NAPL Discharge
Transmissivity (Tn)

• Applicability
– <0.5 Feet or Rapid Recharge
– Minimizes Gauging Errors

• Equation:

Roi Roi
Qn ln( ) Qn ln( )
rw rw
Tn
sn bn (1 r)

©2010 by H2A Environmental, Ltd., All Rights Reserved

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods

3. Recovery System Data Baildown/ Manual Recovery Tracer

Slug Skimming System Testing
Tests Test Data
Water Enhanced Skimming

• Technologies
– Water Enhanced Recovery
• Single or dual pump
Transmissivity (Tn)

©2010 by H2A Environmental, Ltd.,

All Rights Reserved
©2010 by H2A Environmental, Ltd.,
• Vacuum enhanced
All Rights Reserved

Skimming
Vacuum & Water Extraction Trench Recovery
(MPE) – Multiphase extraction
– Trenches
– Skimming
Qn
STATIC CONDITIONS

zAO i • Equation Development

PUMPING CONDITIONS

zCGW
zOW – Charbeneau (2007)

©2010 by H2A Environmental, Ltd.,

All Rights Reserved
ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo
September 17, 2013
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods

Short Term Recovery Evaluation Baildown/

Slug
Manual
Skimming
Recovery
System
Tracer
Testing
Tests Test Data

Qo
To Tw r Qw
LNAPL Transmissivity LNAPL Recovery Rate Water Recovery Rate

0.5 50
LNAPL Transmissivity (ft /day)

Water Recovery Rate (1000 gpd)

LNAPL Recovery Rate (gpd)
0.4 40
2

0.3 30

0.2 20

0.1 10

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

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods

Long Term Recovery Evaluation Baildown/

Slug
Manual
Skimming
Recovery
System
Tracer
Testing
Tests Test Data

LNAPL Recovery Rate (gpd) LNAPL Transmissivity (ft^2/d)

1000

100

10

1
Qo
To Tw r Qw
0.1
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
 Short Term Test Methods Long Term Test Methods

4. Tracer Testing Baildown/

Slug
Manual
Skimming
Recovery
System
Tracer
Testing
Tests Test Data

• Can take months

• Basis
– Employ Localized Qf
and LNAPL gradient
Transmissivity (Tn)

– Initially Capital
Intensive

•(Sale
Fieldet al Test
2007)
• Analytical Options
– Tracer Concentrations (UV/VIS spectrometer)
– Calculate LNAPL flux through well
– Gradient
– Calculate LNAPL flux through
– LNAPL Thickness (>0.2 ft) formation
– Well Construction – Calculate To
ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo
September 17, 2013
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
Scale of LNAPL transmissivity values

• For example, new catastrophic release scenarios have resulted in LNAPL

transmissivity values on the order of up to 80 ft2/day.

• Considering the Theim Equation: =

( )

• To = 80 ft2/day with skimming (and assming ~1 ft of drawdown), it would

result in 816 gpd recovery at start up:
– A well would recover 80% of a 700K gallon release within 2 years with 6
skimming wells and considering declining recovery

• Alternatively, assuming an LNAPL To = 0.1 ft2/day, skimming (~ 0.15 ft of

drawdown) would result in only < 0.2 gpd at start up:
– Equal to a total recovery of only 300 gallons in 4 years
– Total remaining plume size is 6,400 gallons (so only 5% of plume recovered)
– i.e., Hydraulic recovery is not effective in significant plume reduction

ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo

September 17, 2013 Page 20
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
What Fraction Can Be Removed for a Given Starting
LNAPL Transmissivity?
Fraction at Initial LNAPL Transmissivity Fraction at LNAPL Transmissivity Endpoint
Log. (Fraction at Initial LNAPL Transmissivity)
100%

90%
FRACTION OF LNAPL ABOVE RESIDUAL (%)

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%
ITRC acceptable endpoint range of 0.1 to 0.8 ft2/day
20%

10%

0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
2
LNAPL TRANSMISSIVITY (FT /DAY)

Client logo
ASTM LNAPL Standard for September 17, 2013
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity Page 21
Summary

• The ASTM LNAPL Transmissivity Standard Guide presents 4 methods for

conducting, evaluating and analyzing data from short- and long-term tests.
– To is a better metric than in-well LNAPL thickness

• LNAPL Transmissivity is not a sole metric to evaluate a site. Most sites

usually come down to characterizing risk
– high To usually equates to higher saturation, potentially higher migration rates, and higher
risk.
– All must have a robust LCSM, remedial goals, and endpoints

• LNAPL transmissivity typically ranges from <0.1 ft2/day (in silts and clays)
up to 80 ft2/day (new releases, sands and gravels)
– To can be used to estimate gallons/day and ultimate recovery% under various technologies:
skimming, vacuum enhanced skimming, DPE and MPE.
– To can be used as a performance monitoring metric for a technology as well as an endpoint
goal.
– Some measurable LNAPL thickness will remaining in monitoring wells potentially for long
periods of time.
ASTM LNAPL Standard Guide for Client logo
September 17, 2013 Page 22
Estimating LNAPL Transmissivity
Thank You

Christopher Pearson, P.E.

Senior Environmental Engineer
AECOM Environment
303-228-3059 (direct)
303-884-6113 (cell)

AECOM
717 17th Street, Suite 2600
Denver, CO 80202

chris.pearson@aecom.com

Client logo