Water quality guidelines for chemicals: learning lessons to deliver meaningful environmental metrics

Many jurisdictions around the globe have well-developed regulatory frameworks for the derivation and implementation of water quality guidelines (WQGs) or their equivalent (e.g. environmental quality standards, criteria, objectives or limits). However, a great many more still do not have such frameworks and are looking to introduce practical methods to manage chemical exposures in aquatic ecosystems. There is a potential opportunity for learning and sharing of data and information between experts from different jurisdictions in order to deliver efficient and effective methods to manage potential aquatic risks, including the considerable reduction in the need for aquatic toxicity testing and the rapid identification of common challenges. This paper reports the outputs of an international workshop with representatives from 14 countries held in Hong Kong in December 2011. The aim of the workshop and this paper was to identify ‘good practice’ in the development of WQGs to deliver to a range of environmental management goals. However, it is important to broaden this consideration to cover often overlooked facets of implementable WQGs, such as demonstrable field validation (i.e. does the WQG protect what it is supposed to?), fit for purpose of monitoring frameworks (often an on-going cost) and finally how are these monitoring data used to support management decisions in a manner that is transparent and understandable to stakeholders. It is clear that regulators and the regulated community have numerous pressures and constraints on their resources. Therefore, the final section of this paper addresses potential areas of collaboration and harmonisation. Such approaches could deliver a consistent foundation from which to assess potential chemical aquatic risks, including, for example, the adoption of bioavailability-based approaches for metals, whilst reducing administrative and technical burdens in jurisdictions.     

Application of an Adapted Version of MT3DMS for Modeling Back‐Diffusion Remediation Timeframes

Simulation of back‐diffusion remediation timeframe for thin silt/clay layers, or when contaminant degradation is occurring, typically requires the use of a numerical model. Given the centimeter‐scale vertical grid spacing required to represent diffusion‐dominated transport, simulation of back‐diffusion in a 3‐D model may be computationally prohibitive. Use of a local 1‐D model domain approach for simulating back‐diffusion is demonstrated to have advantages but is limited to only some applications. Incorporation of a local domain approach for simulating back‐diffusion in a new model, In Situ Remediation‐MT3DMS (ISR‐MT3DMS) is validated based on a benchmark with MT3DMS and comparisons with a highly discretized finite difference numerical model. The approach used to estimate the vertical hydrodynamic dispersion coefficient is shown to have a significant influence on the simulated flux into and out of silt/clay layers in early time periods. Previously documented back‐diffusion at a Florida site is modeled for the purpose of evaluating the sensitivity of the back‐diffusion controlled remediation timeframe to various site characteristics. A base case simulation with a clay lens having a thickness of 0.2 m and a length of 100 m indicates that even after 99.96 percent aqueous TCE removal from the clay lens, the down‐gradient concentrations still exceed the MCL in groundwater monitoring wells. This shows that partial mass reduction from a NAPL source zone via in situ treatment may have little benefit for the long‐term management of contaminated sites, given that back‐diffusion will sustain a groundwater plume for a long period of time. Back‐diffusion model input parameters that have the greatest influence on remediation timeframe and thus may warrant more attention during field investigations, include the thickness of silt/clay lenses, retardation coefficient representing sorbed mass in silt/clay, and the groundwater velocity in adjacent higher permeability zones. Therefore, pump‐and‐treat systems implemented for the purpose of providing containment may have an additional benefit of reducing back‐diffusion remediation timeframe due to enhanced transverse advective fluxes at the sand/clay interface. Remediation timeframes are also moderately sensitive to the length of the silt/clay layers and transverse vertical dispersivity, but are less sensitive to degradation rates within silt/clay, contaminant solubility, contact time, tortuosity coefficient, and monitoring well‐screen length for the scenarios examined. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.