Basic concepts transport. The primary consideration in the evaluation of this type of barrier design is to ensure that the hydrogeologic environment is such that one can reasonably expect low hydrau- lic gradients over the long term. Under these circumstances the movement of contaminants will be slow and controlled primarily by diffu- sion. The clay itself can also act as an important medium for the attenuation of some contami- nants due to processes such as sorption, precipita- tion and biodegradation. Nevertheless, migration will occur and it is important to check that contaminant impact at the site boundary, due to molecular diffusion from the landfill, will ‘meet regulatory requirements. The diffusive movement of contaminants through saturated clayey deposits is relatively well understood and, as discussed in Chapter 9, research has shown that natural, diffusion-controlled, chemical profiles established over thousands of years are consistent with simple theoretical predictions. () Advective-diffusive transport While situations such as that shown in Figure 1.1 do exist, they are not common and a more typical situation involving mounded waste is shown in Figure 1.2. Prior to landfilling, there are downward gradients from the water table to the underlying aquifer. The clayey soil provides a natural barrier; however in order to design a suitable landfill, careful consideration must be given to the selection of the landfill base elevations and to the design of the leachate collection system. Figure 1.2 shows a situation where the base elevations are below the groundwater level but above the potentiometric surface (i.c., water levels) in the aquifer and hence there will be down- ward advective flow from the landfill to the aquifer. Figure 1.3 shows a situation where the base elevations are such that the design leachate mound is below the potentiometric surface in the aquifer and hence there is upward advective flow from the aquifer to the landfill; this design relies on hydraulic containment of contaminants and Figure 1.2 Barrier design involving a leachate collection system, a natural clayey deposit and downward advective~ diffusive transport. 2Figure 1.3 Barrier design involving a leachate collection system, a natural downward diffusion ~ a hydraulic trap. may be referred to as a “hydraulic trap” (as discussed in Section 1.2.1(d)). A discussion of modelling of these types of situations for intact soil is given in Chapters 10 and 16. (©) Fractured clays ‘A major consideration for a landfill design such as that shown in Figure 1.2 is whether the clayey soil or till is fractured. Research by D’Astous etal, (1989), Herzog etal. (1989), Rowe etal. (2000c) and others has provided evidence to suggest that clayey till beneath the obviously weathered and fractured zone may be fractured to depths of 615m (e.g,, see Table 1.1). It is important to recognize that fractures with very thin (¢.g., 10-15 um) openings at relatively wide spacings of I-3m can still have a signifi- cant effect in terms of increasing the bulk hydraulic conductivity (compared to that of the intact soil). Furthermore, even if the fractures are closed prior to construction of the landfill, stress relief due to excavation of the landfill cell may, under some circumstances, cause opening of fractures in the underlying clays. layey deposit, upward advection and If present, fractures are likely to control the hydraulic conductivity of the clay and hence the downward advective velocity and it may be necessary to construct a clay liner by reworking the existing soil (if it is suitable) to reduce outward advective transport from the landfill to acceptable levels. Relatively simple semi-analytical models have now been developed which will allow the designer (see Chapter 11) to estimate the potential impact associated with fractured clay, or a liner overlying fractured clay, for situations similar to that shown in Figure 1.2. (@) Hydraulic containment The hydraulic containment (often called a “hydraulic trap") as shown in Figure 1.3 is very attractive from a contaminant impact perspec- tive since the inward advective flow of ground- water from the aquifer tends to inhibit the outward diffusion of contaminants. However, as illustrated in Chapter 10, there may still be a potential impact on the underlying aquifer even with an operating hydraulic trap. Appropriate contaminant transport calculations are required 3Basic concepts making a quantitative prediction of potential impact of the facility on groundwater quality, keeping in mind that under most circumstances involving contaminant movement through a barrier and into an aquifer, the best one can expect to do is to predict trends and a likely range of concentrations at any given point in space and time. There are four aspects of any attempt to make quantitative predictions, namely the need to: 1. identify the controlling mechanisms; 2. formulate or select a theoretical model; 3. determine the relevant parameters; and 4. solve the governing equations. The controlling mechanisms for contaminant transport are discussed in the following sub- sections together with the development of the governing differential equation. The relevant boundary conditions are discussed in Sections 1.5 and 1.6. The evaluation of relevant param- eters is discussed in Chapters 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 13 and 16, Section 1.7 illustrates some simple “hand solutions” to the governing equations. More elaborate solution techniques are examined in Chapter 7 and their application is illustrated in Chapters 10, 11 and 16. When dealing with contaminant transport through saturated clayey barriers or the matrix of an intact rock (¢.g., shale), the primary trans- port mechanisms are advection and diffusion. When dealing with transport through aquifers the key transport mechanisms are usually advec~ tion and dispersion. In fractured materials, transport is generally controlled by advection and dispersion along the fractures and diffusion from the fractures into the matrix for the adja- cent porous media. 1.3.1 Advective transport Advection involves the movement of contamin- ant with flowing water. This may be thought of as being analogous to a moving walkway at an airport (see Figure 1.14). If it is assumed that 45 \pistance, devia? Concentration as imass'is a-6 = umber of points ‘rea d=6 Concentration Figure 1.14 Schematic showing advective transport (c.g, people standing on a moving walkway) and a decrease {in source concentration with time (e-g., in an airport holding bay) as individuals move out of the holding bay. ‘once people step onto the walkway they remain standing, then they will be transported along at the speed of the walkway. In this analogy, the speed of the walkway corresponds to the groundwater (seepage) velocity, v. The move- ment of contaminants at a speed corresponding to the groundwater velocity is often referred to as plug flow. The time required for a plug of contaminant to move a given distance, d, is equivalent to the distance, d, divided by the groundwater velocity, v (see Figure 1.14). The concentration, c, of people on the walkway is 13