You are on page 1of 22

Ground Water Report

GROUND WATER INVESTIGATIONS IN SKRUBBA, SWEDEN

Babar Khan & Martin | GE5022-HT15 | December 17, 2015

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION: ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
AIMS & OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................... 2
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
GIS: ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3
ASSUMPTIONS: ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................................................... 4
Hydrologic Cycle ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
DARCYS LAW ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
LANDFILL RECLAMATION ................................................................................................................................... 5
DISCUSSION & RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Water Quality ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
CCA POLLUTANTS SPREAD ................................................................................................................................. 7
WATERSHED DELINIATION & FLOW DIRECTION ........................................................................................ 10
MANNUAL FLOW DIRECTION CALCULATION ...............................................................................................11
PRECIPITAION IN SKRUBBA ............................................................................................................................... 13
EVAPORATION PROFILE OF SKRUBBA ............................................................................................................ 14
SOIL DISTRIBUTION: ............................................................................................................................................ 14
POLLUTANTS FLOW DETERMINATION: .........................................................................................................19
CONCLUSION: .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
References .................................................................................................................................................................... 21

PAGE 1

INTRODUCTION:
Skrubba (5914'47.4"N 1811'43.3"E) is associated as a part of Skarpnck to the south of
Stockholm municipality. To the North it is connected to Nacka and to the east it is bordered with
Tyres. Starting from 1920 until 1966 it has been used as a waste landfill site mainly for industries,
when finally an investigation was done in early 1980s by MIFO phase1 (Methodology for the
inventory of contaminated sites) by the county board and the area was classified as Risk Class1.
Over a vast period of time from 2004 to 2014 various actors were involved to physically and
environmentally recover the contaminated site with the reduced economic costs and efficiency.
The actors that were involved in the rehabilitation of the contaminated site were SWECO,
Exploateringskontoret (Tyrns), NCC, Salem Salvo and Bro Betong. SWECO was mainly involved
in conducting the Water quality analysis and its monitoring.
Groundwater sampling has been done during 2004-2007 and along with the presence of other heavy
metals abnormal traces of Zinc, Arsenic, Chromium and Copper was found with the possible
spreads. It was the Exploration Office (exploateringskontoret) that finally passed the judgement
that the adjacent area is contaminated with CCA (Copper, Chromium and Arsenic).In the final
acquittal report (Jgbeck, 2010-02-12) it was decided to take water samples twice a year until 2014
by SWECO group for groundwater quality analysis.
Skrubba is an area of over 2 hectares and the material waste deposited over the area is around 12
meters. Ground water lies at the depth of 10 to 11 meters prior any coverage was done. Within the
contaminated vicinity there was a small timber depot (1500 cubic meter) that no one anymore
owned with a dried timber and after the studies a high level of CCA was also reported there, so it
was also demolished. At least a 1000 cubic meters of Arsenic contaminated soil was transported
for treatment or disposal. And later on it was decided to reuse the contaminated soil after proper
treatment for construction purposes. About 50 to 55,000 m3 of earth material (Gravel, morine, sand
and silt) was used after the approval of (Naturvrdsverket) Environmental Protection Agency to
cover and replace the contaminated site under the vegetative cover. It was also considered to elevate
the contaminated site from rest of the area in shape of small hill and fencing its surroundings, giving
it an expression that it is a contaminated site for future reference. Under the project it was also
ensured that creating a barrier between the contaminated ground and the ground water so to restrict
the infiltration of contamination (Jgbeck, 2010-02-12).
A group excursion was conducted in the mid of November 2015 under the course project work
Hydrology and Hydrology to investigate the project site for possible contaminations, topography,
flow paths, geology and biological associations etc. Prior to this excursion the group was already
provided with the initial hydrological and relevant associated data that will lead us to achieve the
qualitative and quantitative results and objectives of this course project.

AIMS & OBJECTIVES


The main aim of the project is to explore the groundwater behavior at Skrubba study site and
possible contaminants flow at the discharge point. On order to clearly analyze the contaminated

PAGE 2

site catchment will be delineated with possible watersheds and hydrologic data along with
contaminants data will be acquired to quantify aquifer material nature, their porosities, residence
times and flow. Results will be compared with the up to date reports by the consultants and
recommendations will be sited as a future reference.
Furthermore following are the main objectives of the project
1. Exploring the subsurface flow paths through available data
2. Flowrate of different contaminants to the nearest waterbody
A hypothesis will also be established on the Groundwater quality reports (2005-2006) and will be
compared to the Final acquittal report (Jgbeck, 2010-02-12) where it is stated that the
Contaminated site has been declared safe and also if there is a restricted layer under the upper soil
surface, our hypothesis will be that there shouldnt be any contaminants leaching down to the
subsurface.

METHODOLOGY
Methodology is an important part of our project cycle framework as it lays the very foundation
basis from initial to the completion of the project. All the data though is secondary data and most
of it was provided through the course portal MONDO and some missing data that is too attained
from internet or through any other mean. So secondary quantitative data will be used initially with
DEM (digital Elevation Model) raster file within GIS. Based on that all the possible information
will be extracted to delineate the catchment area, flow directions and the flow of chemicals. After
the GIS part mathematical calculations will be done by using Darcys Law and Water Balance
Equation.

GIS:
Geographic Information System ArcGIS was extensively used for to unveil the hydrogeological
characteristics of the Skrubba project area. The type of data that was availed and was attained
included
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Precipitation Data(1961-1990)
Evaporation Data
Borehole Data
DEM raster
Elevation Data
Evapotranspiration ET Data
Contaminates Data from Wells

ASSUMPTIONS:
1. Heavy metals flow at the same rate as ground water flow

PAGE 3

2. Surface water flow is zero


Surface flow is zero and therefore we can also assume that Evapotranspiration is negligible.
Though we will use Evaporation data but since there is less vegetation with no surface runoff so
we will ignore Transpiration within our calculations.

LITERATURE REVIEW
There is a lot of literature available on Groundwater investigations and Geographic information
System but already a Book by Ding man (Physical Hydrology, 2014) was recommended so it was
used mainly for the understanding of basic Hydrogeological concepts and formulas. At this point
its not may be necessary to explain all the basic concepts and definitions but literature that is
relevant in the understanding of this project. Hydrology is the science of earth which explains and
gives a predictions of the occurrence and circulation of the global fresh water resources (Dingman,
2014) and its scale could be any from a small watershed, local to the global.

HYDROLOGIC CYCLE
The Skrubba project relies too much on the hydrological cycle and without all the known values
and formulas it will remain a myth to know about the hydrology and hydrogeology of the project
area. The scope of hydrology has been included in the hydrologic cycle in the context of spatial
and temporal variations of water (Eagleson, 1991). Most of the work has been focused on GIS
(geographic information System) part where ArcGIS version 10.2.2 has been used with a provided
DEM (Digital elevation model) file, where onwards we could see Elevations, Slopes, Flow
direction ,Flow accumulations and could add more data like Wells, Evaporation, Precipitation etc .
Within our climatic system the Hydrological Cycle has a scale from local to global (J.P peixoto,
1992)

DARCYS LAW
Henry Darcy was the one who came up with the law that governs the flow of water through porous
medium and is well known as Darcys Law and based on his Law he constructed Darcys Equation
i.e
qxQx/Ax= -Khx(dh/ds)
Where
qx (L T-1) is the Specific Discharge that represents the volume rate of flow in Qx(L3 T-1) per unit area
of porous medium and Ax is area (L2). Khx (L T-1) is the saturated hydraulic conductivity and (dh/ds)
is the hydraulic gradient. The minus sign shows that the water moves from higher hydraulic head

PAGE 4

to lower hydraulic head. qxQx/Ax is sometime called Darcys Velocity (Dingman, 2014, p. 323)
and it will be simplified as to be used in the project

Velocity Q=AV where Q=KA (

) so Av=KA(

) hence V=K(

Water Balance Equation


When application to the regional context of water Balance is associated to the conservation of mass
equation and the flow of water through a watershed. For any time period of length t , A water
Balance Equation can be written as
P+GWin-(Q+ET+GWout)= S
Where P is the precipitation Q is Stream Outflow, ET is evapotranspiration, GWin is Ground water
inflow and GWout is ground water out flow. S is the change in Storage (Dingman, 2014, pp. 1822).
Runoff is the rate at which the water leaves the system
RO= P-ET
Porosity is the pore spaces of a material and is represented as flowing in equation form
V=

LANDFILL RECLAMATION
It is also important to understand the technique used by the project to reclaim the contaminated
area. The technique in general term is called as Landfill mining, where the previously disposed of
material from the landfill is excavated for processing. Different consulting companies have their
different techniques and do modification according to the situation and demands of the landholding
owner institute. So exact details of the complete procedures are not known to us from Skrubba
project but we do know what has been accomplished and their objectives, which are important for
our group to compare the data that we analyzed verses the real world scenario (Services, Landfill
Reclamation Demonstration Project, June 2009).

DISCUSSION & RESULTS


WATER QUALITY
We had been provided with the list of heavy metal and their concentrations in all the five wells in
project area from the year 2005 and 2006. Of all the heavy metal our main focus is CCA (Copper,

PAGE 5

Chromium and Arsenic). The reason to choose only the concentrations these three heavy metals is
that we would like to compare the results and see the concentrations provided in the final project
document (Jgbeck, 2010-02-12).But overall concentrations of the other heavy metals will also be
studied within the project to check incase if the concentrations apart from CCA has varied over the
year and what could be possible reasons or would be left as further studies or as recommendations.
To compare the Ground Water Quality limits, standards has been taken from New Jersey
Administrative Code (N.J.A.C, 2014).
The Table 1 provides the concentrations of heavy metals from the water quality tests conducted
during the year 2005 and 2006 and the thresholds maximum levels to be compared with. This table
will be used later in the discussion section along with other hydrological data for analysis. In the
table green color shows the Safe Limits and if it exceeds beyond that is considered as a hazard and
in yellow highlighted area are the metals that are going to be analyzed in particular. For the year
2006 on the right side of the Table 1 Red highlighted cells indicates the increased concentrations
of pollutants compared to 2005 and Blue cells shows that the concentrations has reduced as
compared to 2005. GW are the water wells or boreholes and as we can see that in Gw1 and Gw3
the concentrations has considerably increased compared to other three wells. This could also be
something to work on in the future to study the reasons that why in these two wells the
concentrations has increased. For those pollutants that we actually have the safe or maximum
limits we can see that Na has increased to an extreme level in all the wells and also the levels of
As are high in all the wells. The levels of Cr are higher and above safe limit in Gw 3 and Gw4.
Safe
Limit

2005
ELEMENT

SAMPLE

Gw 1

Gw 2

Gw 3

Gw 4

Ca

g/l

6580

216000

201000

64700

87600

Fe

g/l

50

33.4

32.4

38.8

95.6

g/l

1270

26800

31300

7560

Mg

g/l

1260

29700

46800

Na

g/l

25100

57200

g/l

3080

Si

g/l

Sr

2006

Gw 5

Gw 1

Gw 2

Gw 3

Gw 4

Gw 5

216000

6540

336000

75700

65500

6560

705

30000

6020

3430

18100

27400

972

37800

6200

15800

8380

24200

29500

1250

76300

9460

18200

63500

16700

51500

60400

22800

90300

13700

41700

120000

111000

6640

52700

111000

3070

234000

6970

34500

4880

9980

10500

8240

8730

12900

5560

21000

13400

14200

g/l

30.4

472

529

173

193

1270

670

4020

2820

1360

Al

g/l

46.3

8.77

0.9

3.63

4.74

0.678

0.189

10

0.778

0.684

As

g/l

0.497

0.515

57.6

15.7

107

57.8

81.2

Ba

g/l

27.6

61.2

0.05

2.36

0.192

0.135

Cd

g/l

0.313 <0,09

7.67

0.355

30.7

4.19

15.4

Co

g/l

0.595

8.13

18.3

2.76

14.8

6.02

0.617

28.7

12.4

9.72

Cr

g/l

0.266

0.711

0.143

0.349

0.102

22.3

2.02

596

107

14.4

<0,4
16.6

<0,4

<0,6
50.8

42.9

0.208 <0,05

<0,03

20

400

200 <0,08
6000

70

PAGE 6

Cu

g/l

8.39

Hg

g/l

Mn

g/l

9.5

35.4

151

156.8

54.2

Mo

g/l

9.73

116

40.4

99.7

48.9

Ni

g/l

2.83

65.9

377

52.9

36.6

g/l

9.86

4.76

2.79

1.68

Pb

g/l

0.362

0.239

Zn

g/l

15.4

42

699

5.1

5.07 2,000

Oil index
>C10-<C40 g/l

200

530

170

470

890

0,121

<1

13
0.037

0.356

0.025 <0,002

0.477 <0,01

0.787

1300

0.024

0.322 <0,002

0. 883

0.022 <0,002

34.2

39.9

167.4

213.9

43.1

130

1.23

51.8

50

32.8

40

67.3

3.907

689

52.8

27.5

100

85.7

10.6

596

228

157

4.86

2.67

1340

13.1

6.18

524

31.8

922

205

166

93.8

22.7

2410

78.2

18.6

230

720

160

330

<0,01

<50

Table 1: Pollutants within five borehole at Skrubba (2005-2006) and Safe limits

Figure 0.1 shows the difference of concentrations in all the wells for all the pollutants
Differences in concentrations among heavy metals 2006 and 2005 g/l in each borehole
in Skrubba
BH 1
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600

Sr

As

Ba

Cd

Co

BH 2

Cr

BH 3

Cu

BH 4

Hg

BH 5

Mn

Mo

Ni

Pb

Zn

Fig. 0.1 Difference of pollutants Concentration in each of borehole (2005-2006)

CCA POLLUTANTS SPREAD


We from the report (Jgbeck, 2010-02-12) already got the idea that the concentrations of the CCA
(Copper, Chromium and Arsenic) were the highest. So we choose their concentration values over
the GIS and were able to analyze the each of contaminant spreads.
2005
Cu
Borehole As
0,4
8,39
Gw 1

2006
Cr
As
0,266 0,678

Cu
22,3

Cr
6,02

Difference
As
0,278

Cu
13,91

Cr
5,754

PAGE 7

0,4
0,6
0,497
0,515

Gw 2
Gw 3
Gw 4
Gw 5

13
3
0,356
0,787

0,711 0,189
0,143
10
0,349 0,778
0,102 0,684

2,02
596
107
14,4

0,617
28,7
12,4
9,72

-0,211
-10,98 -0,094
9,4
593 28,557
0,281 106,644 12,051
0,169 13,613 9,618

Table 1.1: CCA Concentration Difference in all the wells


ARSENIC CONCENTRATION & SPREAD:
10

As 2005-2006

As concentration

Gw 1

Gw 2

Gw 3

Gw 4

Gw 5

2005.8

2006

0
2004.8

2005

2005.2

2005.4

2005.6

2006.2

Figure
0.2
gives
the
concentration and spread of
Arsenic
within
and
surroundings of the wells. So
from here we know that the
concentration of Arsenic in
the third water well is highest
i.e 10 g/l against the
maximum threshould limit of
3 g/l

Fig 0.2 As Concentrations and Spread (2005-2006)

PAGE 8

CHROMIUM CONCENTRATION &SPREAD

Figure 0.3 gives the


concentration and spread of
Chromium
within
and
surroundings of the wells. So
from here we know that the
concentration of Chromium
in the third water well is
highest i.e 29 g/l against the
maximum thresholds limit of
70 g/l

Cr 2005-2006

Cr concentration

Gw 1
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2004.8

2005

Gw 2

2005.2

Gw 3

2005.4

2005.6

Gw 4

2005.8

Gw 5

2006

2006.2

Fig 0.3 Cr Concentrations and Spread (2005-2006)

PAGE 9

COPPER CONCENTRATIONS & SPREAD:

Cu 2005-2006

Cu concentration

Gw 1

Gw 2

Gw 3

Gw 4

Gw 5

1000
500

0
2004.8

2005

2005.2

2005.4

2005.6

2005.8

2006

2006.2

Figure 0.4
gives
the
concentration and spread of
Copper
within
and
surroundings of the wells. So
from here we know that the
concentration of Copper in
the third water well is highest
i.e 600 g/l against the
maximum thresholds limit
of 1300 g/l

Fig 0.4 Cu Concentrations and Spread (2005-2006)

WATERSHED DELINIATION & FLOW DIRECTION

Different companies and people have different ways of carrying on the project for almost a similar
output or objectives. After the first presentations from different groups it was also clear that we all
had a different way of doing this project even though we had the similar data. From the DEM file
2m elevation we come up with the understanding that water is flowing in multiple directions, so
choosing a single watershed was not an option. So to make things easier four watersheds were
delineated as drawn in figure 1.1. Based on the available data merged with ArcGIS and the
possibilities and flow paths were analyzed initially. So this was the first step towards the analysis
of the study area.
Each of the watershed is separated and represented with a different color scheme
1. Black Watershed
2. Yellow Watershed
3. Red Watershed

PAGE 10

4. Green Watershed
Within the respective watershed the cross section line represents the flow path and its possible
discharge points. At the discharge point meters are the elevations (20,23.2,25.1).

Fig. 1: Skrubba delineated in four watersheds

After delineating Skrubba finally resultant four possibly of watersheds came across as mentioned
in the figure 1.1 consisting of Black, Red, Yellow and Green watersheds. Black is the largetst
watershed by area covering the area of 8,22 square
Watershed
Shape Area in Km2
Km and discharges out in to the ringe sjn that is
1,53
Red
in the North East of the Skrubba where the elevation
0,81
Yellow
is 25,1 meters. Next to the Black is Green Watershed
2,21
Green
covering an area of 2,21 square Km and discharges
8,22
Black
Table 2: Watershed Area
out in to the lta Sjn in the North West of Skrubba
where the elevation is 23,2 meters. Red Watershed is the third largest Watershed with an area of
1,53 square Km and discharges out into the Dreviken to the South West of Skrubba where the
elevation is 20 meters. Yellow is the smallest one with an area of 0,81 Square Km and it also
discharges out in Dreviken.

MANNUAL FLOW DIRECTION CALCULATION


Flow direction was manually calculated apart from the ArcMAP by using five bole holes data
provided on MONDO. This clearly shows the Ground water flow according to the gradient of the
wells and its towards North East Direction. (Green WS track) Containments will most likely to go
all the way to lta-sjn. This track consists mostly of sand 1450m, glacial till 250m and peat 320m.
PAGE 11

P1

P2
P1

P1

Gw3

GW2

Fig 3: Groundwater flow direction

PAGE 12

PRECIPITAION IN SKRUBBA
As stated in Table 3 four weather stations were selected that were close to the Skrubba which
includes Stockholm, Vsterhaninge, Stormyra and Gustavberg weather stations. The average
annual rainfall was calculated to be 583,4 mm and while calculating with ArcGIS its 585,4 mm.
Station Name
Stockholm
Vsterhaninge
Stormyra
Gustavsberg
Average

Annual (mm)
539,3
622,7
608,9
562,5
583,4

In ArcGis

585,4

Table 3: Precipitation data from various Weather Stations (1961-2011)

Figure 4 gives and understanding of Annual precipitation during winter season from Stockholm
Weather Station between the years 1961-2011

precipitation mm

Precipitation winter season Stockholm 19612011


100.0
50.0
0.0
1961

1966

1971

1976

1981

1986

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

Year

Fig. 4 : Winter season precipitation in Stockholm period (1961-2011)

Figure 5 provides the understanding of Precipitation in Stockholm Region for every month on
average basis for the years between 1961 to 2011. From January to May its between 20 to 40 mm
and from there starting from May it starts increasing from 40 to 70mm until August and from there
on until December it stays between 45 to 55 mm.

Stockholm

average precipitation

80.0

60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Jan

feb

mar

Apr

Maj

Jun

Jul

month per year

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Fig 5. Average Monthly precipitation 1961-2011

PAGE 13

EVAPORATION PROFILE OF SKRUBBA


Table 4 shows the evaporation profile data from the year 2000 to 2007. At the bottom row it
gives the Average monthly evaporation data of all the months within each respective year and the
right most column is the average for each month for all years between 2000 to 2007.
DATE

2000

Average
2000-2007
132
85
60
101
124
153
106
104
108
135
136
102
99
105
135
97
142
119
192
161
180
205
195
241
184
184
193
356
293
292
258
284
274
314
289
295
475
462
558
529
495
452
438
538
493
667
685
723
718
690
702
725
720
704
702
764
888
814
720
737
705
699
754
551
569
710
554
648
591
582
604
601
295
291
307
312
333
351
341
300
316
156
168
153
145
152
180
141
153
156
58
134
89
51
67
103
54
60
77
68
93
114
71
19
111
44
41
70
316
320
348
321
319
336
311
320 324

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Average
Annual

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Table 4: Average Annual Evaporation for Skrubba (2000-2007)

Figure 6 is the graphic representation of Evaporation profile in Skrubba from 2000 to 20007. The
least evaporation occurs in the month of November that is 77 mm and then under 400 mm are the
months (October, Mid-August, January, February and March. Maximum Evaporation months are
May, June, July and August where July is the warmest month and its average evaporation is
754mm.

Evaporation in Skrubba 2000-2007

800

704

700

601

600
500

Average evaporation

754

493

400
300
200
100

316

295

193

156

119

77

0
januari
mars is Skrubba
maj2000-2007 juni
Fig.6 : Monthly Evaporation

augusti

Month of the year

oktober

november

SOIL DISTRIBUTION:
Soil distribution data was attained through Geographical survey of Sweden and in the Table 5 it
explains the distribution of material profile and texture within Skrubba for all the four respective
Watersheds and table 5.1 Gives the Standard values of Porosities and Hydraulic Conductivities of

PAGE 14

various soil types. It is important to understand these soil profiles as each of these has variable
hydraulic conductivity which influence Ground water residence and travel time within and out of
the system. Red Watershed has a length of 1.53 square Km and consists of 1000 meters of Glacial
Till and 577 meters of Sand with a total of 1577 meters of depth averaging Low conductivity.
Green Watershed has a length of 2.21 square Km and consists of 250 meters of Glacial Till, 1450
meters of Sand and 320 meters of Peat averaging pretty much better conductivity then Red
watershed. Black Watershed has the longest flowline by the total area of 8, 22 square Km and it
has 310 meters of Glacial Till which has very low Hydraulic Conductivity but its though less than
Red WS but it considerable amount of Moss Peat and Fen Peat that also has Low K values. So the
Black WS is better in terms of Hydraulic Conductivity from Red WS but not from Green WS.
Yellow WS 1700 meters of Glacial till and little portion of sand averaging the lowest Conductivity.
Watershed
Soil type
Glacial Till
Coarse sand
Sand
fine sand
Silt
Clay
Unweathered marine clay
Moss peat
Fen peat
TOTAL
Average Conductivity

Red

Green

Black

Yellow

1000
0
577
0
0
0
0
0
0
1577
low

250
0
1450
0
0
0
0
0
320
2020
high

310
400
1100
0
0
0
62
280
885
3037
high

1700
0
215
0
0
0
0
0
0
1915
low

Table 5: Soil Profile of Skrubba (Ref. Geographical Survey of Sweden)

Range of Porosity and hydraulic conductivity Values


Soil Type
Porosity
Hydraulic conductivity
Gravel
0.25 - 0.40
3*10-4 to 3*10-2
Sand
0.25 - 0.50
9*10-7 2*10-4
Silt
0.35 - 0.50
1*10-9 to 2*10-5
Clay
0.40 - 0.70
1*10-11 to 4.7*10-9
Glacial Till
0.20-0.70
1*10-12 to 2*10-6
Table 5.1: Porosity and K values (Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. 1979: Groundwater)

SOIL TEXTURE & COMPOSITION


Figures 7, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 are very good illustration of all the four watersheds and its clearly gives
a view of each of a WS Elevations, Length and compositions.

BLACK WATERSHED:

PAGE 15

The Black WS has so far the longest flow path for the pollutants and initially comprises of mostly
Glacial Sand and Glacial till and peat bog. This means it will have a very low Hydraulic
conductivity and means the water and pollutants will stay here for much longer time. So this might
not be the best WS where the pollutants discharge would be of concern. The lower gives the
understanding of the velocity of flow over the distance verses elevation.

Soil distribution "Black WS"


Glacial sand

Glacial till

peat bog

Bedrock

Elevation in meters

70
60
50
40
30
20
0

151

304

455

608

761

912

1065

1216

1369

Distance in meter

Fig. 7 : Length, Elevation and Composition of Black WS

YELLOW WATERSHED
Figure 7.1 gives us the soil profile distribution in the yellow watershed and here in this figure we
can see that it is 90-95 % postglacial sand and glacial till and the pollutants rate of flow will be
very slow. So this WS will also be of no concern.

PAGE 16

Elevation in meters

Soil
distribution "Yellow WS"
postglacial sand Glacial till Bedrock
80
60
40
20
0

151

304

455

608

761

912

1065

1216

1369

1521

1674

1827

Distance in meters

Fig. 7.1 : Length, Elevation and Composition of Yellow WS

RED WATERSHED:
Figure 7.2 gives the soil profile distribution within the Red Watershed. Here in this figure we can
see its mostly glacial till up from beginning till the middle and it ends with postglacial sand. Even
though it has the shortest flowline but it has a very low conductivity for the pollutants flow.
Therefore Red watershed is also not the best for consideration

Soil depth Red WS


Postglacial sand

70

Glacial till and sand

Glacial till

Bedrock

Elevation in meters

60
50

40
30

20
0

151

304

455

608

761

912

Distance in meters

1065

1216

1369

1521
PAGE 17

Fig. 7.2 : Length, Elevation and Composition of Red WS

GREEN WATERSHED:
Figure 7.3 represents the Soil profile distribution of Green Watershed and we can see the multiple
soil profiles. In the beginning it is glacial till, in the middle its postglacial sand and at the end its
post glacial fine sand. So in the beginning it might take longer time for the pollutants within this
WS but overall it has a good conductivity despite of second largest flow path of all for WSs and
will discharge out in ltasjn.

Soil distribution "Green WS"

Postglacial finesand

Elevation in meters

70

Glacial till

Postglacial sand

Peat Bog

Bedrock

60
50
40
30
20
0

60

121

182

244

305

366

425

486

547

609

670

731

790

851

912

974

Distance in meters

PAGE 18

Fig. 7.3 : Length, Elevation and Composition of Green WS

POLLUTANTS FLOW DETERMINATION:


After all the analysis it was decided to choose the Green Watershed that would possibly and most
likely will have more potential impact of all the other watersheds. Flow velocity and travel times
for Green Watershed was calculated as following.
Evaporation average = 324 mm
Precipitation average = 583.4 mm or from ArcGis = 585.4 mm
Run off=583.4 324 = 259,4 mm

V=

0.0001 0.008
0.3

8.10 106
0.3

m/s =84.2 m/ Year

V is the GW velocity
K is hydraulic conductivity

dh
: is the hydraulic gradient
ds

PAGE 19

K m/s (Hydraulic conductivity)


i (-) (Hydraulic gradient)
V (m/year) (GW velocity)
T (year) travel time

0.0001
0.008
84,2
24

So this means that the pollutants will flow along the ground water annually at the rate of 84.2 m
and it will take 24 years for the pollutants to finally discharge out to ltasjn.

CONCLUSION:
As of our conclusions Skrubba contaminated site is still hazardous and most of the pollutants over
one year has increased which is a matter of greater concern. Even though during the Skrubba
Project there has been a restricting layer laid so that the pollutants will not leach down to the
subsurface but there has been a significant increase. This could mean that there are for sure some
other factors that were not considered during the project that might had led to this increase. Even
though according to our calculations it will take 24years more or less for the pollutants to discharge
in ltasjn the pollutant level might decrease. Some water quality sampling nearby ltasjn could
also lead to new findings. This conclusion is based on the limited data so it should not be considered
as final results since SWECO has been taking biannual water samples for the skrubba project till
2014 and unfortunately we didnt had that data to further analyze the variations.

PAGE 20

References
Dingman, S. L. (2014). Physical Hydrology (Third ed.). Long Grove,Illinois: Waveland Press,Inc.
Eagleson, P. S. (1991). Opportunities in Hydrologic Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
J.P peixoto, A. O. (1992). Physics of climate. Newyork: American Institute of Physics.
Jgbeck, P. O. (2010-02-12). Slutrapport fr projekt inom Miljmiljarden. Stockholm.
N.J.A.C, 7. (2014). Statutory Authority: N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq. and 58:11A-1 et seq. New Jercy. Retrieved from
http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_9c.pdf
Services, I. W. (June 2009). Landfill Reclamation Demonstration Project. Florida. Retrieved from
https://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/InnovativeGrants/IGYe
ar9/finalreport/Perdido_Landfill_Mining_Report_final.pdf
Services, I. W. (June 2009). Landfill Reclamation Demonstration Project. Florida.

PAGE 21

You might also like