Evaluation of Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT AT THE WELLS G&H SUPERFUND SITE, WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, FROM 1960 TO 1986 AND ESTIMATION OF TCE AND PCE CONCENTRATIONS DELIVERED TO WOBURN RESIDENCES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree, Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Maura A. Metheny, B.S., M.S. The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee Professor E. Scott Bair, Advisor Assistant Professor Anne Carey Approved by Professor Carolyn Merry ______________________________ Professor Franklin Schwartz Advisor Department of Geological Sciences Copyright by Maura A. Metheny 2004 ABSTRACT Contamination of municipal wells G and H was discovered in 1979 and was statistically linked by epidemiological studies to leukemia cases that occurred in Woburn, Massachusetts in the late 1960’s through the early 1980’s. Historical contamination of the buried valley aquifer at the 133 hectare Wells G&H Superfund Site is simulated using MT3D-HMOC code to determine the possible contamination history of the wells with TCE and PCE. A MODFLOW groundwater flow model calibrated using measured heads, measured streamflow gains and losses, and tritium/helium-3 groundwater ages was used to compute flow velocities. The 26-year transient groundwater flow model incorporates realistic pumping schedules and variable recharge rates. Although the wells operated from 1964 to 1979, the transport model spans the period 1960 to 1985 so that the simulated concentrations can be compared to water quality measurements from 1979 through 1985. At least five local sources contributed TCE, PCE, and other contaminants to the groundwater system. The precise contaminant release times and source concentrations are not known for the sites. Historic aerial ii photographs, EPA documents, trial documents, and personal accounts of site investigators were used to estimate source locations and source release times. Water quality samples were used to estimate source concentrations. Eleven plausible scenarios, comprising 66 simulations, are used to test hypotheses of source concentrations, source release times, and contaminant retardation factors. Based on the results, it is likely that TCE contamination reached well G between 1966 and 1968. The estimated range of TCE plus PCE concentrations at well G from 1964 to 1979 is from 10’s to 100’s of ppb. The concentrations of TCE and PCE in wells G and H predicted by the contaminant transport model are multiplied by the fraction of wells G and H water predicted by a water distribution model to estimate the range of concentrations that were likely delivered to the residents in Woburn. Results show that exposure to TCE plus PCE varied greatly, depending on the date and location in Woburn. These results can be used by public health scientists to explore further the possible causes of the Woburn childhood leukemia cluster. iii Dedicated to my rock, Jeffrey Nicoll iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would not have been successful without the help of a host of individuals. I am tremendously grateful the following. First and foremost, my thanks go to my advisor, Dr. E. Scott Bair. It was with the expertise and generosity of Dr. D.K. Solomon and Alan Rigby of the University of Utah that the groundwater age dates were obtained and thanks to Dr. Robert Poreda for the use of his field equipment. Thanks to the folks in Massachusetts who were willing to share their recollections, data, and spare time with Scott and me; Chuck Myette of Brown & Caldwell, John Drobinski of ERM, Jay Bridge and John Guswa of GeoTrans Inc., Mary Garren of U.S. EPA Region I, Gretchen Latowski of JSI Research and Training Institute in Boston, and Bob McLaughlin of the Massachusetts Rifle Association. For assistance in obtaining and processing aerial imagery, thanks to Dr. Norm Levine of Bowling Green University and former astronaut Kathleen Sullivan of COSI. Heather Thomas Gladhill and Shay Beanland Turner were wonderful field assistants. Martin Van Oort created digital animation files of the model. Stephen Wheatcraft provided insight for the presentation of model results. Thanks to Terry Lahm for all his help over the years. Thanks to Dean Bair and Sandy Fajans for their hospitality. Special thanks to the researchers at MIT. v VITA 1986......................................................... B.S., Geology, California State University Chico Chico, California 1998........................................................ M.S., The Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio PUBLICATIONS 1. Metheny, M.A., and E.S. Bair. 1999. Injection of FGD grout to mitigate acid mine drainage at the Roberts-Dawson underground coal mine, Coshocton and Muskingum Counties, Ohio, phase 2, vol. 1: contaminant transport model, final report. submitted to U.S. Department of Energy, Ohio Coal Development Office, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Metheny, M.A., E.S. Bair, and D.K. Solomon. 2001. Applying variable recharge to a 19-year simulation of groundwater flow in Woburn, Massachusetts and comparing model results to 3H/3He Ages, MODFLOW 2001 and Other Modeling Odysseys, Golden, Colorado, September 11-14, 2001, vol. II: 783-789. 3. Metheny, M.A., and E. S. Bair. 2001. The Science Behind A Civil Action, Hydrogeology of the Aberjona River, Wetland, and Woburn Wells G and H, Geological Society of America Field Trip Guidebook: Geological Society of America Meeting, November 2001, Boston, Massachusetts: D1-D25. 4. Bair, E.S., M.A. Metheny. 2002. Remediation of the Wells G&H Superfund Site, Woburn, Massachusetts, Ground Water, 34, no. 6: 657-668. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Geological Sciences vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v VITA.................................................................................................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiii INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1 SIMULATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW..........................................7 1.1 Site Location and Description ................................................................................8 1.2 Previous Groundwater and Surface Water Studies in Woburn ............................11 1.3 Geology and Hydrogeology..................................................................................16 1.3.1 Bedrock and Sediments within the Aberjona Buried Bedrock Valley.......18 1.3.2 Geologic Cross Sections of the Wells G&H Site .......................................26 1.3.3 Northeast Uplands – W.R. Grace and UniFirst Properties.........................39 1.3.4 Western Valley – NEP and UniFirst Properties .........................................42 1.3.5 Central Valley – Wetlands, Wells G and H, and Olympia and Wildwood Properties......................................................................................................45 1.3.6 Potentiometric Surfaces and Stream/Aquifer Interaction...........................49 1.4 Method for Estimating Variable Recharge Rates Used for Modeling..................54 1.5 Method for Obtaining 3He/3He Age Dates ...........................................................58 1.6 Simulated Groundwater Flow System..................................................................61 1.6.1 Model Grid .................................................................................................62 1.6.2 Discretization of Hydraulic Conductivity ..................................................66 1.6.3 Discretization of Porosity...........................................................................67 1.6.4 Boundary Conditions..................................................................................68 1.6.5 Aberjona River Boundary Conditions........................................................69 1.6.6 Recharge Boundary Conditions..................................................................69 1.6.7 Pumping Stresses and Stress Periods .........................................................72 1.6.7.1 Pumping Rates of Wells G and H ....................................................73 1.6.7.2 Pumping Rates of the Riley Wells S46 and S47 ..............................75 1.6.7.3 Pumping Rates of the NEP Wells ....................................................76 1.6.7.4 Pumping Rate of the Johnson Brothers Well ...................................77 1.6.8 Model Calibration.......................................................................................77 vii 1.6.8.1 Calibration Statistics for Heads and Flows of the Steady-State Model and 30-Day Transient Models ...................................................78 1.6.8.2 Using 3H/3He Groundwater Ages to Improve Simulated Flow Velocities ..............................................................................................80 1.6.9 Model Sensitivity........................................................................................83 1.7 Well Screen Mixing Analysis Used to Identify the Contribution of Groundwater From the Five Source