Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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
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
) so Av=KA(
) hence V=K(
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).
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
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
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
PAGE 8
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
PAGE 9
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
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).
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.
P1
P2
P1
P1
Gw3
GW2
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
Figure 4 gives and understanding of Annual precipitation during winter season from Stockholm
Weather Station between the years 1961-2011
precipitation mm
1966
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
Year
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
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
PAGE 13
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
70
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
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.
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
V=
0.0001 0.008
0.3
8.10 106
0.3
V is the GW velocity
K is hydraulic conductivity
dh
: is the hydraulic gradient
ds
PAGE 19
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