Advances in Remediation Solutions

The New ROI: Return on Investigations

by Utilizing Smart Characterization Methods
by Suthan Suthersan, Joseph Quinnan, and Nicklaus Welty

Introduction
Ongoing innovation and advance-
ment of site investigation methods are
transforming the technical approaches
and economics of the remediation
industry today. Smart characterization
methods integrate dynamic, real-time,
high-density soil and groundwater
sampling with hydrostratigraphic
interpretations and permeability map-
ping in three dimensions. By correlat-
ing high-resolution concentration data
with hydrostratigraphy and perme-
ability data, it is possible to map and
distinguish contaminant mass transport
zones from mass storage zones. This
approach enables real-time classifica-
tion of the scales of variability that
control mass transport in the source
and distal segments of groundwater
plumes. This mass flux-based perspec-
tive is the foundation of the Smart
characterization approach. Dynamic
implementation and real-time decision
making reduces the investigation costs
while providing more robust concep-
tual site models (CSMs).
When Smart characterization
approach is applied in proper frame-
work, it helps to significantly reduce
the life cycle remediation costs at
complex sites, and the return on inves-
tigation (ROI) can be more than what
people might expect. In our experi-
ence, every dollar spent on mass flux
defining techniques can lead to an
ROI of three to five times (sometimes
more) in terms of reduction on the
overall cost of cleanup of contami-
nated groundwater plumes (Figure 1).
Ongoing advances in Smart methods
© 2015, National Ground Water Association.
NGWA.org
Figure 1. Overall cost savings utilizing Smart investigation methods and developing
better conceptual site models for cleaning up contaminated groundwater plumes using
the mass flux based approach.
will require our industry to rethink frequent groundwater sampling via
how we can develop CSMs and design monitoring wells, which are often
groundwater remediation systems. In placed at arbitrary depth intervals in
order to maximize the ROI derived thick aquifers (e.g., at the water table
from Smart Characterization methods, and middle and bottom of the aqui-
stakeholders need to move beyond the fer). Historical approaches to site
framework of traditional site investiga- characterization tended to artificially
tion approaches and focus on develop- separate soil sources from ground-
ing quantitative flux-based CSMs. water impacts, unless light- or dense-
Traditional site investigation meth- nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL
ods rely on a linear process of itera- or DNAPL) were present. This was
tive work plans, soil and groundwater mainly because regulatory frameworks
sampling, geologic and hydrogeologic often require separate regulated units
testing, analysis of data and reporting. for soil and groundwater. As a result,
The typical approach might include: soil contamination sampling was lim-
soil borings with interval split-spoon ited to the vadose zone, while ground-
soil sampling to evaluate stratigraphy water and NAPLs were evaluated using
and soil contaminant concentrations monitoring wells. Historically, signifi-
above the water table; less-frequent cant emphasis was placed on precision
split-spoon sampling of soil beneath of the testing and laboratory methods
the water table to evaluate soils and to ensure reproducibility of ground-
hydrostratigraphy, and much less water samples. The unintended conse-
quence has been to limit the number of
well locations due to the cost associ-
ated with rigorous laboratory quality
Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 35, no. 3/ Summer 2015 25
assurance. As a result, practitioners
were often forced to make CSM inter-
pretations based on sparse data, with
limited horizontal and vertical reso-
lution that often lacked important
geologic and hydrogeologic context
necessary to accurately interpret the
data. This skewed our perspective on
sources and their behavior, and limited
our ability to develop reliable remedial
strategies to cost effectively meet the
groundwater cleanup objectives.
The Smart approach utilizes new
high resolution tools in a technical and
economic decision-making framework
designed to maximize the ROI through
reduced total cost of remediation, bet-
ter definition of uncertainty and risk,
and understanding achievable end-
points before remediation commences.
The Smart tools summarized in Table 1
are geared toward providing quantita-
tive mappings of the distribution of
relative permeability and contaminant
concentrations in real-time and at high
resolution, thus enabling develop-
ment of three-dimensional, flux-based
CSMs. The key is to select the right
tools to ensure that the data collected
will meet the data quality objectives of
the project. Screening-level tools are
appropriate for source prospecting, but
are not likely to enable delineation to
meet groundwater quality standards.
Conversely, quantitative sampling at
the outset of a new project when little
is known about potential sources can
be cost prohibitive and inefficient.
The bottom line is that investments
in Smart characterization may be one
of the most powerful economic tools
we have today to continue to improve
the reliability and cost effectiveness of
remediation projects.
Traditionally, high-density sam-
pling and high-resolution site char-
acterization are largely viewed as
synonymous with high cost investiga-
tions. The reality is that it is fundamen-
tally cheaper and more reliable to use
Smart characterization to map a plume
and develop a quantitative CSM that
focuses the remedy on the mass that
matters, than it is to develop a remedy
based on an inaccurate site understand-
ing. The new ROI is based on our expe-
rience that the majority of the mass that
moves is concentrated in a relatively
small portion of impacted aquifers.
Understanding how the mass in the
26 S. Suthersan et al./ Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 35, no. 3/ Summer 2015
transport zones interacts with storage
zones enables one to focus on the mass
that matters most. Targeting transport
zones for remediation increases mass
removal efficiencies and reduces the
duration of remedies, so that potential
risks can be addressed more quickly
and cost effectively. Knowing whether
mass reduction in storage zones will
reduce mass flux or reduce cleanup
time is critical in determining if it is
technically feasible and economically
viable to do so, or whether a manage-
ment strategy is a better allocation of
limited remediation dollars. The ROI
that can be achieved from the imple-
mentation of Smart methods can be
measured in three primary ways:
• First, high-resolution mapping of
contaminant concentration, hydro-
stratigraphy and permeability
enables quantitative CSMs, where
contaminant transport is defined
based on reliable plume geometry,
flux, and maturity.
• Second, Smart characterization
reduces overall site investigation
costs through dynamic planning
and stakeholder engagement and
minimizes the repeated cycle of
work plan, investigation, and report-
ing. In addition, the number of
monitoring wells is significantly
reduced, which also reduces long-
term monitoring costs.
• Third, the flux-based approach
focuses remedies on the mass that
matters, maximizing treatment effi-
ciencies and minimizing total life-
cycle cost. Smart characterization
enables plume maturity evaluations
by quantifying the interaction
between mass storage and mass
transport zones. This enables the
optimization of the remedy at dif-
ferent segments of the plume, and
establishes reliable endpoints and
period of performance before
design and construction.
Limitations of Conventional
Investigation Practices
The primary limitation of rely-
ing on conventional monitoring wells
for groundwater investigations is that
they simply provide a transmissivity-
weighted average dissolved phase con-
centration that reflects the influence of
the most permeable segments within
the screened interval (Payne et al.
2008). While wells are ideally suited
for reproducibility, they often provide
an inaccurate assessment of dissolved-
phase distributions at the fine-scale
within a screened interval. Facies-
related changes in permeability can
lead to several orders of magnitude
variability in concentration over less
than a meter (Guilbeault et al. 2005).
Figure 2 shows a comparison of plume
characterization using monitoring
wells and high-density vertical aquifer
profiling from a site where a 4500-feet
long plume TCE plume was missed
by the conventional approach. While
the data from the monitoring wells
were precise and reproducible over
many rounds of sampling, the result
was not representative of site condi-
tions because the arbitrary well place-
ment missed the core of the plume that
was later mapped with vertical aquifer
profiling. The lesson learned is that
monitoring wells are reliable for moni-
toring, once the geometry and distribu-
tion of the plume has been determined
through appropriate sampling.
Additionally, wells provide little
or no direct information regarding the
presence and amount of nonaqueous,
sorbed, or vapor phase contaminants;
nor can they elucidate the distribu-
tion and mass stored in less perme-
able storage zones (Payne et al. 2008;
Sale et al. 2014). The limitations of
the conventional approach is obvious
when one considers the challenges of
using monitoring wells to accurately
characterize the vertical distribution
of LNAPL mass in the context of a
fluctuating water table. The Interstate
Technology and Regulatory Council’s
(ITRC’s) and ASTM’s approach
to LNAPL CSMs have shown that
apparent LNAPL thicknesses in wells
depend on the maturity of the release
and water table fluctuations relative
to hydrostratigraphy and well screen
placement (ITRC, 2009; ASTM 2014).
This approach has correctly shifted
our perspective from LNAPL distribu-
tion similar to pancakes, with uniform
NAPL floating on the water table, to
sharkfins, with vertical variations in
NAPL saturation based on water table
fluctuation and hydrostratigraphy. It is
important to note that LNAPL accumu-
lation in a well is only part of the story,
NGWA.org
 Table 1
A Summary of the Smart Characterization Tools
Selected References for
Tool Process Output Additional Information
Permeability profiling
Hydraulic Inject water during advancement; continu- Ratio of flow to pressure distinguishes transport www.geoprobe.com
profiling tool ously record flow and pressure response; zones from storage zones; effective range of
(HPT) HPT-GW version enables groundwater permeability resolution between10–2 and 10–5
sampling in permeable zones. cm/s; limited to direct push (usually <100 feet).
Cone Originally developed for geotechnical Relationship between pore-pressure, tip- and For a general overview
Penetrometer applications; continuously records tip- and sleeve-pressure enables soil behavior type classi- of CPT see Robertson
Testing sleeve-stress and pore-pressure as probe is fication, distinction between transport zones and et al. (1986). For infor-
(CPT) advanced via CPT rig. storage zones. Pore-pressure dissipation tests mation on application
enable point permeability estimates for lower-K of CPT for groundwater
soils. Slug-testing or grainsize analysis required remediation projects, see
for calibration of higher-k zones permeability. Quinnan et al. (2010)
Waterloo Inject water during advancement; continu- Ratio of flow to pressure distinguishes trans- Pitkin et al. (1999)
Advanced ously record flow and pressure; enables port zones from storage zones; effective range www.stone-env.com
Profiling groundwater sampling in permeable of permeability resolution between10–2 to
system zones. 10–5 cm/s; limited to direct push (usually <100 ft).
Groundwater sampling
Membrane Downhole probe heats soil and ground- Qualitative screening of magnitude of total vol- www.clu-in.org
Interface water causing volatile contaminants to atile impacts in groundwater; ideal for source Adamson et al. (2013)
probe (MIP) diffuse across membrane to carrier gas prospecting, but difficult to correlate sensor
system and uphole sensors. responses to concentration due to a number of
factors, including the influence of pore-pressure
on membrane diffusion rates and variable
composition of COCs; cannot distinguish high-
levels of dissolved phase from NAPL.
Vertical aqui- Collect groundwater samples via direct Quantitative results for contaminant species For descriptions of many
fer profile push, HPT-GW or Waterloo APS, various and concentrations in groundwater; potential of the different options
groundwater drilling methods (e.g., sonic, rotary). Use to identify NAPLs. Direct push applications for vertical aquifer
sampling fixed or mobile laboratory for quantita- typically limited to <100 feet; sonic and profile groundwater
tive analysis of groundwater contaminant rotary drilling methods have enabled samples sampling, see www.
concentrations. >700 feet. clu-in.org
Whole core Saturated soil sampling in lower-k storage Quantitative results for contaminant species ITRC (2015)
saturated soil zones via direct push or various drilling and concentrations in saturated soils. Saturated
sampling methods. Use fixed or mobile labora- soil result directly measures the total mass in
(WCSS) tory for quantitative analysis of total the storage zones, enabling plume maturity
mass. Hydrophobic dye testing for NAPL assessments. Enables NAPL screening via dye
screening can be easily added on to the methods and visual observation.
sampling process.
NAPL screening and mapping
Optical Direct-push probe uses laser to induce The method enables rapid screening and map- www.dakotatechnologies.
Screening fluorescence response related to NAPLs ping of NAPLs when appropriate wavelength com
Tools (OSTs) in unsaturated and saturated soils. Laser laser is used. Method is capable of resolving
or Laser wave-lengths are optimized for different residual NAPL concentrations in soil, but not www.clu-in.org
induced NAPLs: ultraviolet designed for petro- capable of discriminating mobile from immo-
Fluorescence leum LNAPLs (UVOST or LIF); green bile NAPLs. St. Germain et al. (2014)
(LIF) laser designed for tars, creosote, and coal
tars (TarGOST). Can be combined with
electrical conductivity sensor or CPT for
geologic interpretations.
Injection of hydrophobic dye during probe
advancement that partitions into NAPLs
without natural florescence (Dye-LIF).
While many different tools are available for site characterization, the key to success is selecting the right tools specific for each job to ensure the data quality is met to effec-
tively achieve the remediation objectives. References for additional information on tools are provided in the table. Note that many of these tools do not have peer-reviewed
papers available, but useful general resources are the USEPA Technology Innovation and Field Services Division website (www.clu-in.org), and the ITRC Integrated DNAPL
Site Characterization and Tools Selection (ITRC 2015).

NGWA.org S. Suthersan et al./ Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 35, no. 3/ Summer 2015 27
much like dissolved phased concentra-
tions are in monitoring wells. If one
understands the distribution of mass
relative to hydrostratigraphy before
the well is installed, mobility and
migration assessments will be much
more effective and reliable. Similarly,
better definition of potential exposure
pathways will also help in the evalu-
ation of risk-based methods to deter-
mine whether LNAPL management is
a cost-effective and equally protective
solution instead of active remediation.
The value of an accurate LNAPL
CSM is illustrated at a site where over
150 monitoring wells had been used
to map the extent of LNAPL over a
10-year period at a 50-acre former
natural gas plant (Figure 3). The well Figure 2. Comparison of plume interpretation using traditional monitoring well sam-
network failed to provide both the true pling (top panel) and Smart characterization vertical aquifer profile groundwater
extent of LNAPL, as well as enable sampling at high-resolution (bottom panel). The sampling and analysis protocols for
monitoring wells yield high precision but low accuracy data, and would lead to the
an assessment of LNAPL stability inaccurate conclusion that only a thick, diffuse, 50 ppb plume is present. Discrete
and recoverability potential. Prior to groundwater samples have higher accuracy, and reveal the true contaminant plume,
implementing the Smart approach, it which is a thin, high-concentration plume.
was believed that LNAPL recovery
was required to achieve regulatory
closure. Using Smart methods, includ-
ing a real-time, adaptive program of
NAPL mapping, permeability profil-
ing, and three-dimensional interpre-
tation, the focused investigation was
completed in less than one year. The
Smart approach, combined with risk
evaluation, stability and recoverability
assessments and natural source zone
depletion (NSZD) determination,
demonstrated that LNAPL removal
was not necessary to be protective of
the environment. The cost to imple-
ment the Smart methods for com-
pleting the evaluation was $750,000.
The resulting LNAPL management
strategy enabled the client to avoid
spending $4 to $5 million on active
LNAPL recovery and led to an ROI of
six times from the cost savings derived
from the Smart approach to develop an
accurate LNAPL CSM.
The evolving perspective on
DNAPL occurrence, fate, and trans-
port has led to the recognition that
the “source” can no longer be limited
to the release area. Mass exchange
between permeable flux zones and Figure 3. Smart LNAPL-characterization approach using laser-induced fluorescence
less permeable storage zones leads (LIF) to map the lateral and vertical extents of LNAPL compared to LNAPL observed
to a plume maturation process that in monitoring wells. Although monitoring wells with LNAPL accumulations (shown in
shifts the “functional” source from the blue) is relatively large, the recoverable LNAPL is limited to only two wells (shown
in red). The Smart approach, which integrated risk evaluation, stability and recover-
release location to the broader plume ability assessments and natural source zone depletion (NSZD) determination, demon-
trajectory over time. DNAPL plume strated that LNAPL removal was not necessary to be protective of the environment.
maturity can be classified based on

28 S. Suthersan et al./ Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 35, no. 3/ Summer 2015 NGWA.org
early, middle, and late stages of propa-
gation of the plume (Sale et al. 2008):
• Early stage: pools of DNAPL are
common and dissolved phase
impacts are limited to transport
zones;
• Middle stage: mass is dominated by
dendritic NAPL ganglia and diffu-
sion into storage zones proximal to
the release and dissolved phase
impacts in transport zones, often far
down-gradient of the source; and
• Late stage: dissolved phase plume
persists in slow advection and stor-
age zones along the plume’s
trajectory.
Without high-density sampling in
the transport and storage zones, it is
not possible to evaluate the influence
of plume maturity on the transport
behavior and remediation require-
ments along the length of the plume.
Mass Flux Perspective
Contaminant mass flux, J, is a mea-
sure of the mass discharge (mass/time)
per unit area. J = CKi, where, C is the
contaminant concentration (mass/
volume), K is the hydraulic conductiv-
ity (length/time), and i is the hydraulic
gradient (length/length). It is impor-
tant from a CSM perspective because
mass discharge provides a measure of
relative strength of individual sources,
which enables one to rank and priori-
tize remedies accordingly. Mass flux
is useful because it describes whether
a source is concentrated or diffuse;
mass flux allows further refinement in
prioritization efforts and development
of appropriate strategies to target and
effectively mitigate it.
Based on the mass flux relation-
ship above, the flux is linearly propor-
tional to each parameter; however, it
is important to recognize that both C
and K can vary several orders of mag-
nitude, while the gradient often varies
a few fold (e.g., one to three times).
A 10 mg/L concentration of trichloro-
ethene (TCE) in a well-sorted coarse
sand with hydraulic conductivity of
10–2 cm/s has two orders of magnitude
higher flux than a poorly sorted, fine-
grained, silty-sand with a conductivity
of 10–4 cm/s under the same hydraulic
gradient. In terms of transport veloc-
ity, the TCE might migrate 100 m/year
NGWA.org
in the coarse sand while it only moves terms of flux and are able to differenti-
1 m/year in the silty-sand. The mass ate the mass that moves, in other words
flux perspective puts groundwater that matters, from the mass that does
concentrations in the proper context— not and target the mass that really mat-
it differentiates the mass that moves ters. Smart methods can also enable
in transport zones from the mass that the assessment of the potential impacts
does not in the slow advection and of back diffusion on the water quality
storage zones within an aquifer. within the transport zone following
Transport behavior and the most remediation of the contaminant mass
effective cleanup options are different that moves. The magnitude of back of
along the length of a plume because of diffusion is driven by the mass trans-
the plume maturation process. Thus, it fer between the storage and transport
is important to change our approach to zones, which is strongly influenced by
site characterization, focusing on tools the morphology of the storage zones.
and methods that enable the identifica- Mass transfer rates are higher in inter-
tion of mass flux. We recommend a bedded facies comprised of fine layers
hierarchical approach that is found in of silt, sand, and clay because of the
classical geological methods of inter- combination of slow advection in the
pretation. At the fundamental level, thin permeable units and diffusion in
classical geologic soil classification the fine-grained units and it is slower
methods enable one to distinguish in thick fine-grained silts and clays
permeable transport zones from less because diffusion is the dominant pro-
permeable storage zones. Hydrofacies cess. From a remediation perspective,
analysis provides the means to interpo- storage zones that exhibit slow advec-
late between the boreholes and develop tion can limit cleanup potential in trans-
three-dimensional maps of the aquifer port zones, but this characteristic also
architecture. The approach is refined enables targeted remediation to reduce
by correlating permeability estimates mass flux. Storage zones that are dom-
to hydrofacies trends, providing a inated by diffusion are more difficult
stratigraphic flux framework for dis- to treat, but might not be as important
tinguishing primary transport path- in terms of meeting remedy objectives
ways from slow advection and storage in the transport zones. Having a mass
zones (Payne et al. 2008). flux perspective enables practitioners
As shown in Figure 4, by com- to develop remedy strategies that are
bining hydrofacies maps with relative matched to plume maturity along the
permeability and quantitative concen- plume trajectory and understand what
tration data in both the transport and endpoints are achievable before reme-
storage zones, we frame our CSMs in diation commences.
Stratigraphic Flux Early stage plume with Late stage plume with
transport regimes majority of mass in majority of mass in storage
transport zones zones
Figure 4. Stratigraphic Flux transport classification scheme based on relative perme-
ability profiling techniques (left panel) and plume maturity based on high-resolution
mass distribution. Early stage plumes (middle panel) are characterized by the major-
ity of the mass in the transport zones, which enables cost-effective, rapid remedia-
tion via in situ treatment or dynamic groundwater recirculation. Late stage plumes
(right panel) are characterized by the majority of mass in storage zones: when not
recognized, late stage plumes lead to rebound following remediation of the transport
zones or asymptotic cleanup via pump and treat. Smart characterization enables one
to determine if source remediation is cost effective, or if plume containment is a better
option, before remediation commences.
S. Suthersan et al./ Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 35, no. 3/ Summer 2015 29
 Our experience at sites where we
have mapped the contaminant mass
flux using Smart methods indicates
that typically 80–90% of the contami-
nant discharge is focused in less than
20% of the aquifer volume. The mass
flux approach establishes targets for
treatment that are focused on the mass
that moves in the transport zones. This
enables surgically precise application
of remedies that exploit the trans-
port pathways for extraction of con-
taminants or distribution of injected
reagents or directed groundwater
recirculation to reduce the volume of
groundwater treated and accelerate the
restoration process.
Using the Smart methods, con-
taminant mass flux was mapped at a
site in the northeastern United States.
In the course of 2 years, vertical aqui-
fer profiling was used to develop a
flux-based characterization of a semi-
volatile organic compound plume that
extended off-site several thousand feet.
This approach enabled implementa-
tion of a pump and treat solution that
precisely targeted the transport zone
that had a significant impact on the
off-site plume by controlling the flux
from the source on-site. Figure 5 illus-
trates the rapid impact that the pre-
cisely placed additional capture well
had on the plume after less than 1 year
of groundwater extraction with a clear
understanding of the mass flux within
the plume.
Application of Smart
Characterization Tools
and Demonstration of ROI
With conventional monitoring
wells as the framework for evaluating
impacts beneath the water table, it is no
wonder our industry developed a reli-
ance on the advection-dispersion equa-
tion. It dominated our design concepts
and discussions because it was neces-
sary to bridge the gap and smooth out
the noise of sparse data collected from
traditional characterization efforts and
volume-averaged performance moni-
toring. It was not until the application
of continuous screening tools such as
the membrane interface probe (MIP)
for chlorinated solvents and the ultra-
violet optical screening tool (UVOST)
for LNAPLs that we recognized what
we were missing in terms of contami-
nant distribution beneath the water
table.
Relative permeability mapping
tools like the cone penetrometer test-
ing, hydraulic profiling tool, and
advanced profiling system provide
continuous hydrofacies mapping that
can be matched with high-density
vertical aquifer profile (VAP) ground-
water sampling and saturated soil
sampling, enabling direct, quantita-
tive assessment of mass flux in shal-
low, unconsolidated sediments. A key
enabling factor is the advent of high-
capacity mobile labs, which provide
real-time quantification of dissolved
phase impacts in flux zones and
total contamination in storage zones,
where VAP sampling is not feasible.
Combined with dye-testing for NAPL
screening and geochemical sampling,
it is now possible to leverage mass
flux to target the mass that matters and
understand the impact of the mass that
does not.
Smart methods have also increased
the efficiency and reduced the cost
of site investigation by providing
real-time, three-dimensional map-
ping of contamination, hydrostratigra-
phy, and permeability at remediation
sites. Screening tools such as MIP
and UVOST have provided valuable
insights regarding the distribution of
gross contamination beneath the water
table, and this has improved our CSMs
considerably over what was possible
with monitoring wells. However, just
as we recognized that monitoring wells

Figure 5. Smart characterization provided a high-resolution mapping of a large plume that was framed using a flux-based perspec-
tive (top panel); focused pumping based on flux had rapid impact on plume control, resulting in dramatic separation of the source
and distal plume after only one year of pumping (bottom panel).

30 S. Suthersan et al./ Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 35, no. 3/ Summer 2015 NGWA.org
data have limited utility for making the thin sand seams, while carry-over necessary to evaluate potential remedy
remedy decisions, we now know that from the MIP could not resolve the options. Screening and quantitative
screening-level tools alone are limited true nature of the DNAPL distribu- tools can be combined in phases to
in their potential to enable accurate tion. Three-dimensional interpretation develop more quantitative CSMs.
remedy decisions. Screening methods of the hydrostratigraphy and DYE-LIF However, it is often more cost effec-
are valuable tools in our toolkit, but it results showed that the actual DNAPL tive to characterize a site in a single
is essential to select the right tool to impacted volume in the formation attempt using quantitative data, rather
meet the data quality objectives and is almost 99% less than previously than characterize it once with quali-
also evaluate the tool’s capability to believed. The ROI at this site became tative tools, and a second time with
differentiate contamination in different very clear when a roughly $100,000 quantitative tools to “calibrate” the
phases. MIP is widely deployed for investigation reduced the DNAPL- response of the qualitative tools.
rapid source characterization because impacted volume to less than 1% of The best way to maximize your
it readily differentiates high-level what was understood to be present ROI is to develop a dynamic, three-
impacts from low-levels. However, our prior to the investigation. dimensional CSM that is tested sys-
experience is consistent with Adamson Figure 6 also demonstrates that tematically during the investigation
et al. (2014) that it is difficult to cor- qualitative tools such as MIP have and remediation phases of the restora-
relate MIP responses to VAP and limited ability to distinguish NAPL- tion life cycle. We design our Smart
saturated soil sampling results, or to bearing zones from high dissolved programs with Exit Ramps, or decision
distinguish NAPL-bearing zones from phase concentrations. LIF is capable points, where the cost benefit of the
grossly impacted zones with sufficient of reliably identifying NAPL-bearing approach is evaluated against stake-
reliability to make informed remedy zones, but it is often not possible to use holder objectives regarding incremen-
decisions. relative sensor response to differenti- tal improvement in the CSM. This is
By applying the correct Smart tool, ate residual from mobile NAPLs. The accomplished through definition of
significant ROI savings were achieved ideal approach is to combine LIF with flux zones and transport behavior, and
at a remediation site due to a reduc- quantitative Smart tools such as satu- identification of potential receptors,
tion in the actual aquifer volume with rated soil sampling and analysis via exposure pathways, and site-specific
chlorinated solvent DNAPL impacts. a high-capacity mobile lab. This pro- factors that affect certainty of outcome.
Despite 20 years of conventional inves- vides quantitative data on the chemical One needs to balance the incremental
tigation and monitoring, the actual composition and concentration that is cost of implementing and continuing
thickness and extent of DNAPL in the
subsurface was not clearly identified.
Conventional techniques were used for
site characterization, and wells in the
source area contained up to 8 feet of
DNAPL. Remedial strategies for man-
agement of the DNAPL were based on
traditional data, and were well in excess
of $10M. As a result, a Smart approach
was implemented to evaluate potential
treatment and management strategies
for the DNAPL present at the site.
Using dye-enhanced laser-induced
fluorescence (DYE-LIF), we were able
to delineate the extent of DNAPL in
the source zone in a single mobiliza-
tion, thanks to the adaptive strategy
and real-time DYE-LIF data evalu-
ation. The DYE-LIF data resulted
in a significant change to the CSM.
Monitoring wells from the area had up
to 8 feet of DNAPL and were appar-
ently corroborated by MIP soundings,
which showed similar thickness of
elevated impacts. However, DYE-LIF Figure 6. Smart characterization is predicated on selecting the right tool to develop an
borings at the same locations revealed accurate conceptual site model and cost-effective remedy strategy. Prior characteriza-
that the DNAPL in the aquifer is pres- tion efforts relying on monitoring well DNAPL thickness (left column) and inferred
ent in thin seams 6–12 inches thick, potential DNAPL based on MIP response (center column) led to inaccurate conclusion
of more than 8 feet of DNAPL in a source area. Smart characterization using DYE-
as shown on Figure 6. The monitor- LIF (right column) showed that the DNAPL occurrence was limited to a few thin sand
ing wells exaggerated the apparent lenses.
thickness due to confined condition in

NGWA.org S. Suthersan et al./ Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 35, no. 3/ Summer 2015 31
phases of Smart characterization with
the incremental improvements in the
CSM with the incremental reduction
in treatment volume and cost. The
Exit Ramp concept should factor the
client’s business objectives into the
planning and decision process by
setting goals for the ROI, much like
businesses evaluate their return on
investment.
In the next example, a site had a
pump and a treat system with over
20 years of operation with likely
another 20–30 years of pumping
remaining. The key question was
whether the capital investment related
to expanded source treatment would
meet the business objectives of the
organization. A Smart characterization
program was applied with exit ramps
to evaluate whether the P&T system
could be optimized, and found that
mass flux was concentrated in a small
segment of the aquifer cross section.
Evaluation of the mass-flux transect
downgradient of the source area cost
$100,000 based on the difficult drill-
ing conditions, but showed that mov-
ing the existing pumping well would
enhance capture of contaminant mass
and decrease the long-term operation
(Figure 7). A second stage of Smart
characterization was then applied
Figure 7. Cross section showing results of first investigation stage, where the plume
based on concentration alone (gray shaded area) is greater than where the majority
of the mass flux is occurring (green to red shaded area). The original pumping well
(longer screen on the right) was not placed in the zone of highest mass flux, and the
pump and treat system was optimized by moving the well to the zone of highest flux.
32 S. Suthersan et al./ Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 35, no. 3/ Summer 2015
to evaluate the viability of poten-
tial source treatment and found that
while source treatment was viable, the
payback period was too long relative
to the responsible party’s cash flow
stream for the current P&T system. An
optimized pumping well limited the
capital costs compared to the aggres-
sive source treatment strategy and the
ROI on the Smart characterization was
gained by the significantly increased
capture of contaminant mass and the
resulting reduction in operational
costs, due to the overall improvement
of system performance.
Summary
Smart characterization methods
are transforming how we investigate
and remediate contaminated sites. The
new ROI demonstrates that the big-
gest impact on remedy performance
and total cost is not driven by remedial
technology, but rather by implement-
ing Smart remediation by applying
the right technology based on a flux-
based perspective derived from Smart
characterization.
• Through dynamic planning and
implementation, Smart character-
ization streamlines the site charac-
terization process by increasing
efficiency and reducing cost, while
providing quantitative, flux-based
CSMs in near real-time.
• By selecting the right tools to map
hydrostratigraphy, permeability and
contaminant distribution, one is
able to develop a stratigraphic flux
framework that distinguishes the
mass that moves in the transport
zones, and matters most, from the
mass that does not.
• High-resolution sampling methods in
the transport and storage zones per-
mit one to understand plume matu-
rity and apply it to tailor remedies
along the trajectory of the plume.
• The flux-based perspective allows
surgical precision when remediat-
ing transport zones and enables one
to determine in advance of design
and construction whether aggres-
sive source treatment makes busi-
ness sense, or if a management
strategy is a better allocation of
remediation dollars.
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Steven Gaito and
Allison Yanites of ARCADIS for their
support on this article.
References
Adamson, D.T., S. Chapman, N. Mahler, C.
Newell, B. Parker, S. Pitkin, M. Rossi,
and M. Singletary. 2014. Membrane
interface probe protocol for con-
taminants in low-permeability zones.
Groundwater 52, no. 4: 550–565.
ASTM. 2014. Standard Guide for Devel-
opment of Conceptual Site Models
and Remediation Strategies for Light
Non-aqueous-Phase Liquids Released
to the Subsurface. West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania: ASTM International.
Guilbeault, M.A., B.L. Parker, and J.A.
Cherry. 2005. Mass flux distributions
from DNAPL zones in sandy aquifers.
Groundwater 43, no. 1: 70–86.
ITRC (Interstate Technology & Regulatory
Council). 2015. Integrated DNAPL Site
Characterization and Tools Selection
(ISC-1). Washington, DC: Interstate
Technology & Regulatory Council,
DNAPL Site Characterization Team.
http://www.itrcweb.org/DNAPL-ISC_
tools-selection. Accessed July 16, 2015.
ITRC. 2009. Evaluating LNAPL Remedial
Technologies for Achieving Project
Goals. LNAPL-2. Washington, DC:
Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Council LNAPLs Team.
NGWA.org
Payne, F.C., J.A. Quinnan, and S.T. Potter.
2008. Remediation Hydraulics. Boca
Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Pitkin, S.E., J.A. Cherry, R.A. Ingleton, and
M. Broholm. 1999. Field demonstra-
tions using the Waterloo Ground Water
Profiler. Ground Water Monitoring and
Remediation 19, no. 2: 122–131.
Quinnan, J.A., N.R. Welty, and E. Killenbeck.
2010. Hydrostratigraphic and permeabil-
ity profiling for groundwater remediation
projects. In 2nd International Symposium
on Cone Penetration Testing, Paper no.
3-33. Huntington Beach, California.
Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D.
Gillespie, and J. Greig. 1986. Use of
piezometer cone data. In Use of In-Situ
Tests in Geotechnical Engineering (GSP
no. 6), 1263-1280. Reston, Virginia: ASCE.
Sale, T.C., C. Newell, H. Stroo, R. Hinchee,
and P. Johnson. 2008. Frequently asked
questions regarding management
of chlorinated solvents in soils and
groundwater. Environmental Security
Technology Certification Program.
Sale, T., B.L. Parker, C.J. Newell, and J.F.
Devlin, 2014. Management of con-
taminants stored in low permeability
zones—a state of the science review.
Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program. ER-1740.
St. Germain, R.W., M.D. Einarson, A. Fure,
S. Chapman, and B. Parker. 2014. Dye
based laser-induced fluorescence sens-
ing of chlorinated solvent DNAPLs. In
Proceedings of the 3rd International
Symposium on Cone Penetration
Testing. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Biographical Sketches
Suthan S. Suthersan, Ph.D., P.E.,
corresponding author, is Executive Vice
President and Chief Technical Officer of
ARCADIS U.S., Inc., 10 Friends Lane,
Suite 200, Newtown, PA 18940; (267) 685-
1800; Suthan.Suthersan@arcadis-us.com.
Joseph Quinnan, P.E., P.G., is Vice
President and Director of Site Investigation
Practice at ARCADIS U.S., Inc., 10559
Citation Drive, Suite 100, Brighton, MI
48116, (810) 225-1943; Joseph.Quinnan@
arcadis-us.com.
Nicklaus Welty, P.G., C.P.G., is Senior
Geologist and Director of the Smart
Characterization Program at ARCADIS
U.S., Inc., 10559 Citation Drive, Suite
100, Brighton, MI 48116, (810) 225-1958;
Nicklaus.Welty@arcadis-us.com.

Networking
and learning
opportunities
“NGWA’s networking and
learning opportunities are two
of its most important aspects,
and they help me grow both
professionally and personally.” Christopher Baker
Staff Hydrogeologist, The Source Group Inc.
Cerritos, California
Find out more about what being NGWA member since 2012
a member of NGWA can do for you!

800 551.7379 • www.NGWA.org/Membership • 614 898.7791 ®

NGWA.org S. Suthersan et al./ Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation 35, no. 3/ Summer 2015 33