+ All Categories
Home > Documents > EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow...

EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow...

Date post: 14-Mar-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 2 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
367
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
Transcript
Page 1: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

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

Page 2: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

Copyright by Maura A. Metheny

2004

Page 3: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

ii

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

Page 4: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

iii

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.

Page 5: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

iv

Dedicated to my rock,

Jeffrey Nicoll

Page 6: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

v

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.

Page 7: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

vi

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

Page 8: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

vii

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

Page 9: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

viii

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 Properties, the Aberjona River, and the Wetlands...........85 1.8 Constructing the 26-Year Transient Simulation ...................................................89 1.9 Particle Tracking Results from the 26-Year Transient Simulation ......................96 1.10 Conclusions.......................................................................................................109

CHAPTER 2 SIMULATION OF TCE AND PCE TRANSPORT ...............................113

2.1 Descriptions of Contaminated Properties ...........................................................115 2.1.1 History of the W.R. Grace Property .........................................................116 2.1.2 History of the UniFirst Property...............................................................118 2.1.3 History of the Wildwood Property ...........................................................120 2.1.4 History of the Olympia Property ..............................................................123 2.1.5 History of the New England Plastics Property .........................................125 2.1.6 Contaminants East of Washington Street .................................................126

2.2 Measured Concentrations of TCE and PCE in Wells G and H ..........................127 2.2.1 Measured Concentrations of TCE and PCE in Well G ............................129 2.2.2 Measured Concentrations of TCE and PCE in Well H ............................129

2.3 Contaminant Transport Methodology.................................................................130 2.4 Transport Hypotheses .........................................................................................137

2.4.1 Simplifying Assumptions Underlying the Transport Hypotheses............141 2.4.2 Rationale for Hypotheses – W.R. Grace ..................................................144 2.4.3 Rationale for Hypotheses – UniFirst ........................................................145 2.4.4 Rationale for Hypotheses – Olympia .......................................................146 2.4.5 Rationale for Hypotheses – Wildwood.....................................................147 2.4.6 Rationale for Hypotheses – NEP..............................................................148 2.4.7 Rationale for Hypotheses – Washington Street Source............................149 2.4.8 Rationale for Hypotheses of Sorption Coefficients for TCE and PCE ....149 2.4.9 Rationale for Hypotheses of Dispersion...................................................155

2.5 Transport Scenarios ............................................................................................157 2.5.1 Transport Scenario #1...............................................................................157 2.5.2 Transport Scenarios #2, #3, and #4 ..........................................................161 2.5.3 Transport Scenario #5...............................................................................168 2.5.4 Transport Scenario #6...............................................................................171 2.5.5 Transport Scenario #7...............................................................................174 2.5.6 Transport Scenario #8...............................................................................177 2.5.7 Transport Scenario #9...............................................................................180 2.5.8 Transport Scenario #10.............................................................................183 2.5.9 Transport Scenario #11.............................................................................186

2.6 Methods of Hypothesis Testing ..........................................................................189 2.6.1 Methodology Used in Comparison of Simulated and Measured TCE and

PCE Concentrations at Wells G and H.......................................................189

Page 10: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

ix

2.6.2 Methodology for Comparison of Simulated and Measured TCE and PCE Distributions Using Scenario #1B..............................................................191 2.6.2.1 Comparisons from Scenario #1B at NEP.......................................200 2.6.2.2 Comparisons from Scenario #1B at Olympia ................................201 2.6.2.3 Comparisons from Scenario #1B at Wildwood..............................202 2.6.2.4 Comparisons from Scenario #1B at W.R Grace ............................204 2.6.2.5 Comparisons from Scenario #1B at UniFirst .................................206

2.7 Results of Hypothesis Testing ............................................................................209 2.7.1 Scenarios Eliminated by Comparison of TCE and PCE Time-Series

Graphs ........................................................................................................210 2.7.1.1 Elimination of Scenario #2.............................................................210 2.7.1.2 Elimination of Scenario #3.............................................................212 2.7.1.3 Elimination of Scenario #6.............................................................213 2.7.1.4 Elimination of Scenario #7.............................................................214 2.7.1.5 Elimination of Scenario #8.............................................................215 2.7.1.6 Elimination of Scenario #9.............................................................215

2.7.2 Scenarios Eliminated by Comparison with TCE and PCE Distributions ...............................................................................................216 2.7.2.1 Elimination of Scenario #10...........................................................217 2.7.2.2 Elimination of Scenario #11...........................................................219 2.7.2.3 Removal of UniFirst PCE from Sitewide Simulations...................221

2.7.3 Plausible Scenarios...................................................................................222 2.7.4 Mass Balance Analysis.............................................................................230 2.7.5 Simulated Contaminant Volumes.............................................................231 2.7.6 Model Sensitivity......................................................................................235

2.8 Model Results and Individual Source Contributions..........................................236 2.8.1 Results from Scenario #1B.......................................................................237 2.8.2 Results from Scenario #1A.......................................................................242 2.8.3 Results from Scenario #1C.......................................................................248 2.8.4 Results from Scenario #4..........................................................................251 2.8.5 Results from Scenario #5..........................................................................254 2.8.6 Simulated Distributions of TCE and PCE from Scenario #1B for

May 1979....................................................................................................259 2.8.6.1 TCE Distribution in May 1979.......................................................259 2.8.6.2 PCE Distribution in May 1979.......................................................260

2.9 Conclusions.........................................................................................................268 2.9.1 Conclusions on Contaminant Transport from the Wildwood Property....271 2.9.2 Conclusions on Contaminant Transport from the NEP Property .............272 2.9.3 Conclusions on Contaminant Transport from the Olympia Property.......272 2.9.4 Conclusions on Contaminant Transport from the W.R. Grace

Property ......................................................................................................273 2.9.4 Conclusions on Contaminant Transport from the UniFirst Property .......274

CHAPTER 3 ESTIMATION OF TCE + PCE CONCENTRATIONS DELIVERED TO RESIDENCES ..........................................................................................................275

3.1 Water Supply for the City of Woburn ................................................................277

Page 11: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

x

3.2 Description of the Water Distribution Model.....................................................281 3.3 Combining Output from the Water Distribution Model with the Simulated

Concentrations from the Contaminant Transport Model...................................293 3.4 Estimated Concentrations for Selected User Demand Areas .............................296 3.5 Conclusions.........................................................................................................309

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ..........................................................312

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................315

APPENDIX A TIME-SERIES GRAPHS SHOWING THE MAXIMUM, MINIMUM, AND AVERAGE SIMULATED TCE + PCE CONCENTRATIONS FROM WELLS G AND H TO USER DEMAND AREAS IN WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS BASED ON 18 PLAUSIBLE SIMULATIONS....................326

Page 12: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table page Table 1 Summary of hydraulic conductivity values reported for Wells G&H Superfund

Site from Woodward-Clyde (1984), NUS Corp. (1986), GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. (1994), Remediation Technologies Inc. (1996), Zeeb (1996), and Metheny (1998), based on slug tests, aquifer tests, grain-size analyses, and permeameter tests (modified from Metheny 1998) ..................................................................................41

Table 2 Recharge values from RORA output ...................................................................56

Table 3 Porosity values for sediment and bedrock used in the groundwater flow models.........................................................................................................................67

Table 4 Recharge rates used in the models for different land use designations ...............71

Table 5 Pumping rates of production wells used in groundwater flow models................72

Table 6 Comparison of 3H/3He groundwater ages with simulated travel times from reverse particle tracking (from Metheny et al. 2001) .................................................82

Table 7 River, wetland, and contaminant source area contributions determined from particle tracking under steady-state pumping conditions ...........................................88

Table 8 TCE and PCE analyses for wells G and H.........................................................128

Table 9 Summary of hypotheses for source locations, source start time, source concentration, Kd, and dispersivity...........................................................................139

Table 10 TOC values measured at the Olympia property (Garren 2002).......................151

Table 11 Rf values calculated from estimated Kd and used in Scenarios #1 through #11...............................................................................................................154

Table 12 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #1A, #1B, and #1C ...........................159

Table 13 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #2A, #2B, and #2C ...........................162

Page 13: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

xii

Table 14 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #3A, #3B, and #3C ...........................164

Table 15 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #4A, #4B, and #4C ...........................166

Table 16 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #5A, #5B, and #5C ...........................169

Table 17 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #6A, #6B, and #6C ...........................172

Table 18 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #7A, #7B, and #7C ...........................175

Table 19 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #8A, #8B, and #8C ...........................178

Table 20 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #9A, #9B, and #9C ...........................181

Table 21 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #10A, #10B, and #10C .....................184

Table 22 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #11A, #11B, and #11C .....................187

Table 23 Comparison of estimated volumes of TCE and PCE with their simulated volumes from Scenarios #1, #4, and #5....................................................................232

Table 24 TCE and PCE arrival times using no retardation, moderate Rf, and high Rf values for Scenario #1 ..............................................................................................251

Table 25 Simulated maximum TCE + PCE concentrations from wells G and H to user demand areas in Woburn during the 114 months that pumping occurred. Maximum concentrations are calculated from 18 different plausible simulations. ...................297

Page 14: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page Figure 1 1971 aerial photograph showing Operable Unit 1 and Operable Unit 2

properties of the Wells G&H Superfund Site, the Aberjona River and wetland, streets, pumping wells, bedrock outcrops, and other geographic features ...................9

Figure 2 Structure-contour map of the bedrock surface determined from borehole logs and seismic surveys ....................................................................................................18

Figure 3 Map of bedrock type from coreholes and the trend of bedrock fractures (compiled from corehole logs) (Toulmin 1964; Kaye 1976; Ecology and Environment 1982; HMM Associates Inc. 1990; and Woodhouse et al. 1991) .........20

Figure 4 General surficial geology (modified from Brainard 1990).................................23

Figure 5 Chronology of glacial events in Woburn and the New England region compiled from Kaye and Barghoorn (1964), Kaye (1982) Stone and Borns (1986) Zeeb (1996) and the table of glacial events in the Fresh-Pond Buried Bedrock Valley from Chute (1959), modified from Metheny (1998)......................................................................25

Figure 6 Locations of wells and geologic cross sections..................................................27

Figure 7 West to east geologic cross section 1-1’ .............................................................28

Figure 8 West to east geologic cross section 2-2’ .............................................................29

Figure 9 North to south geologic cross section 3-3’ .........................................................30

Figure 10 West to east geologic cross section 4-4’ ...........................................................31

Figure 11 North to south geologic cross section 5-5’ .......................................................32

Figure 12 West to east geologic cross section 6-6’ ...........................................................33

Figure 13 North to south geologic cross section 7-7’ .......................................................34

Figure 14 West to east geologic cross section 8-8’ ...........................................................35

Figure 15 North to south geologic cross section 9-9’ .......................................................36

Page 15: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

xiv

Figure 16 Well construction diagrams and lithologic logs of wells G and H (modified from Metheny and Bair 2001) ....................................................................................48

Figure 17 Water table contour maps of December 4, 1985, prior to the 30-day aquifer test, and January 3, 1986, after 30 days of pumping at wells G and H (data from Myette et al. 1987)......................................................................................................50

Figure 18 Southwest-northeast potentiometric profile extending from Wildwood to near W.R. Grace (modified from Metheny 1998) ..............................................................51

Figure 19 Streamflow change measured in the Aberjona River between Olympia Avenue and Salem Street during the 30-day aquifer test in 1985-86. Data are from Myette et al. 1987 (from Metheny and Bair 2001) .....................................................................53

Figure 20 Land use changes at the Wells G&H Superfund Site (from Metheny et al. 2001) ...........................................................................................................................57

Figure 21 Profile of wells showing 3H/3He groundwater ages (from Metheny et al. 2001) ...........................................................................................................................60

Figure 22 Groundwater flow and transport model grid ....................................................64

Figure 23 West to east cross section along model row 61 showing well G......................65

Figure 24 Recorded pumping rates of wells G and H.......................................................74

Figure 25 Stress period duration, percent change in average annual recharge rate, and pumping schedules for wells G and H........................................................................75

Figure 26 Calibration statistics for A. steady state and, B. 30-day transient simulations..................................................................................................................79

Figure 27 3H/3He sampling locations and pathlines from reverse particle tracking in the eastern side of the Aberjona River valley (modified from Metheny et al. 2001) .......83

Figure 28 Areas of particle termination from source areas on model cells representing wells G and H under steady-state pumping conditions ..............................................87

Figure 29 Simulated flow across the river boundary when A) wells G and H are not pumping and recharge rates are variable, B) wells G and H are pumping using realistic pumping rates and recharge rates are constant, and C) wells G and H are pumping using realistic pumping rates and variable recharge rates ...........................91

Figure 30 History matching statistics for the 26-year transient simulation using the U.S. Geological Survey 1985-86 aquifer test data (Myette et al. 1987), A) prior to pumping at wells G and H, December 4, 1985, and B) after 30 days of pumping at wells G and H, January 3, 1986..................................................................................95

Page 16: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

xv

Figure 31 Advective pathlines from the five source areas................................................97

Figure 32 Particle release times for each source area shown in Figure 31 .......................98

Figure 33 Advective travel times (residence times) of particles from A) W.R. Grace to well G, B) W.R. Grace to well H, and C) NEP to well G ........................................100

Figure 34 Particle pathlines projected onto model row 61 .............................................101

Figure 35 Advective travel time (residence time) of particles from A) the northern Wildwood source area (debris pile F) to well G, B) Olympia to wells G and H, and C) the Aberjona River to well G...............................................................................104

Figure 36 W.R. Grace property map (after GeoTrans Inc. 1995)...................................117

Figure 37 UniFirst property map (after GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). ............119

Figure 38 Wildwood property map (after Remediation Technologies Inc. 1998; GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994)......................................................................122

Figure 39 Olympia property map (after Remediation Technologies Inc. 1998; GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994) ......................................................................................124

Figure 40 NEP property map (after GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994)...................126

Figure 41 Time-series showing the minimum, maximum, and average simulated TCE concentrations at well G for six simulations using one set of transport conditions .136

Figure 42 Location of source cells in the contaminant transport model.........................143

Figure 43 Time-series of simulated and measured concentrations of TCE in well G for Scenario #1B.............................................................................................................190

Figure 44 Simulated TCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured TCE for model layers 1 and 2 based on results from Scenario #1B ........193

Figure 45 Simulated TCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured TCE for model layers 3 and 4 based on results from Scenario #1B ........194

Figure 46 Simulated TCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured TCE for model layers 5 and 6 based on results from Scenario #1B ........195

Figure 47 Simulated PCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured PCE for model layers 1 and 2 based on results from Scenario #1B.........196

Figure 48 Simulated PCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured PCE for model layers 3 and 4 based on results from Scenario #1B.........197

Page 17: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

xvi

Figure 49 Simulated PCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured PCE for model layers 5 and 6 based on results from Scenario #1B.........198

Figure 50 TCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #2B, #2C, #3B, and #3C ............................211

Figure 51 PCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #2A and #2C...............................................212

Figure 52 TCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #6B and #6C...............................................213

Figure 53 TCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #7B and #7C...............................................214

Figure 54 TCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenario #9B using a moderate Kd value for 1960 to 1986 ..........................................................................................................................216

Figure 55 Simulated PCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distribution of measured PCE for model layer 1 based on results from Scenario #10B..................218

Figure 56 Simulated TCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distribution of measured TCE for model layer 1 based on results from Scenario #11B..................220

Figure 57 TCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #1, #4 and #5 (9 different simulations) ......223

Figure 58 PCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #1, #4 and #5 (9 different simulations) ......224

Figure 59 Time-series of simulated and measured concentrations of TCE in well G for Scenario #1B, spanning the U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test in 1985-86 ..........225

Figure 60 TCE time-series graph of well H, measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations for Scenarios #1, #4 and #5................................................227

Figure 61 PCE Time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well H for Scenarios #1, #4 and #5 (excluding the UniFirst source).......................................................................................................................228

Figure 62 Time-series of simulated and measured concentrations of TCE in well H for Scenarios #1, #4, and #5 spanning the U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test in 1985-86. .............................................................................................................................229

Page 18: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

xvii

Figure 63 A) Simulated TCE concentrations at well G from W.R. Grace, Olympia, Wildwood and NEP for Scenario #1B, and B) simulated PCE concentrations at well G from NEP for Scenario #1B..................................................................................239

Figure 64 Simulated TCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace and Olympia for Scenario #1B.............................................................................................................242

Figure 65 A) Simulated TCE concentrations at well G from W.R. Grace, Olympia, Wildwood and NEP for Scenario #1A, and B) simulated PCE concentrations from NEP for Scenario #1A ..............................................................................................244

Figure 66 A) Simulated TCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace, UniFirst, and Olympia for Scenario #1A, and B) simulated PCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace and UniFirst for Scenario #1A..............................................................247

Figure 67 A) Simulated TCE concentrations at well G from Olympia, Wildwood and NEP for Scenario #1C, and B) simulated PCE concentrations at well G from NEP for Scenario #1C.............................................................................................................249

Figure 68 Simulated TCE concentrations at well H from Olympia and W.R. Grace for Scenario #1C.............................................................................................................250

Figure 69 A) Simulated PCE concentrations at well G from NEP for Scenario #4A, and B) simulated PCE concentrations at well G from NEP for Scenario #4B................253

Figure 70 Simulated PCE concentrations at well G from NEP for Scenario #4C..........254

Figure 71 Simulated TCE concentrations at well G from W.R. Grace, Olympia, Wildwood and NEP for Scenario #5A......................................................................255

Figure 72 A) Simulated TCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace and Olympia for Scenario #5A, and B) simulated TCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace and Olympia for Scenario #5B........................................................................................257

Figure 73 Simulated TCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace and Olympia for Scenario #5C.............................................................................................................258

Figure 74 Simulated TCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 1 and 2 based on Scenario #1B.............................................................................................................262

Figure 75 Simulated TCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 3 and 4 based on Scenario #1B.............................................................................................................263

Figure 76 Simulated TCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 5 and 6 based on Scenario #1B.............................................................................................................264

Page 19: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

xviii

Figure 77 Simulated PCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 1 and 2 based on Scenario #1B.............................................................................................................265

Figure 78 Simulated PCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 3 and 4 based on Scenario #1B.............................................................................................................266

Figure 79 Simulated PCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 5 and 6 based on Scenario #1B.............................................................................................................267

Figure 80 Map of Woburn showing the locations of Horn Pond and city water supply wells (modified from U.S. Census Bureau 1998; City of Woburn 1998). ...............279

Figure 81 Water distribution model network showing pipelines, demand nodes, and source nodes corresponding to the system configuration in 1984 (modified from Murphy 1990) ...........................................................................................................283

Figure 82 User Demand Areas for the water distribution model representing the period between 1964 to 1969 (modified from Murphy 1990) .............................................286

Figure 83 Distribution of wells G and H exposure index for user demand areas during October 1966 calculated by the water distribution model (modified from Murphy 1990) .........................................................................................................................290

Figure 84 User demand areas for the water distribution model representing the period from 1970 to 1979 (modified from Murphy 1990)...................................................292

Figure 85 Simulated range of TCE + PCE source node concentrations from wells G and H combined using Scenarios #1, #4, and #5 (without the UniFirst PCE source).....295

Figure 86 User demand areas showing the number of individual months when the maximum range of estimated TCE + PCE concentrations from wells G and H is greater than 5 ppb .....................................................................................................301

Figure 87 User demand areas showing the number of individual months when the minimum range of estimated TCE + PCE concentrations from wells G and H is greater than 5 ppb .....................................................................................................302

Figure 88 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 44 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18 plausible simulations ................................................................................................303

Figure 89 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 33 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18 plausible simulations ................................................................................................304

Page 20: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

xix

Figure 90 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 46 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18 plausible simulations ................................................................................................305

Figure 91 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 66 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18 plausible simulations ................................................................................................306

Figure 92 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 68 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18 plausible simulations ................................................................................................307

Figure 93 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 25 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18 plausible simulations ................................................................................................308

Figure 94 User Demand Area 23 ....................................................................................327

Figure 95 User Demand Area 24 ....................................................................................328

Figure 96 User Demand Area 25 ....................................................................................328

Figure 97 User Demand Area 26 ....................................................................................329

Figure 98 User Demand Area 32 ....................................................................................329

Figure 99 User Demand Area 33 ....................................................................................330

Figure 100 User Demand Area 34 ..................................................................................330

Figure 101 User Demand Area 35 ..................................................................................331

Figure 102 User Demand Area 36 ..................................................................................331

Figure 103 User Demand Area 38 ..................................................................................332

Figure 104 User Demand Area 39 ..................................................................................332

Figure 105 User Demand Area 40 ..................................................................................333

Figure 106 User Demand Area 41 ..................................................................................333

Figure 107 User Demand Area 42 ..................................................................................334

Figure 108 User Demand Area 44 ..................................................................................334

Figure 109 User Demand Area 46 ..................................................................................335

Page 21: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

xx

Figure 110 User Demand Area 47 ..................................................................................335

Figure 111 User Demand Area 48 ..................................................................................336

Figure 112 User Demand Area 49 ..................................................................................336

Figure 113 User Demand Area 50 ..................................................................................337

Figure 114 User Demand Area 51 ..................................................................................337

Figure 115 User Demand Area 52 ..................................................................................338

Figure 116 User Demand Area 53 ..................................................................................338

Figure 117 User Demand Area 54 ..................................................................................339

Figure 118 User Demand Area 55 ..................................................................................339

Figure 119 User Demand Area 56 ..................................................................................340

Figure 120 User Demand Area 57 ..................................................................................340

Figure 121 User Demand Area 58 ..................................................................................341

Figure 122 User Demand Area 61 ..................................................................................341

Figure 123 User Demand Area 62 ..................................................................................342

Figure 124 User Demand Area 63 ..................................................................................342

Figure 125 User Demand Area 64 ..................................................................................343

Figure 126 User Demand Area 65 ..................................................................................343

Figure 127 User Demand Area 66 ..................................................................................344

Figure 128 User Demand Area 67 ..................................................................................344

Figure 129 User Demand Area 68 ..................................................................................345

Figure 130 User Demand Area 69 ..................................................................................345

Figure 131 User Demand Area 70 ..................................................................................346

Page 22: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

1

INTRODUCTION

This study of the Wells G&H Superfund Site in Woburn, Massachusetts is for the

purpose of understanding the geology, hydrogeology, transport of the organic solvents

trichloroethene (TCE) and tetrachloroethene (PCE) in the groundwater flow system, and

to estimate the concentrations of these chemicals in drinking water delivered to

residences of east Woburn. Health studies show a statistically positive relation between

in-utero exposure to water from municipal wells G and H and the incidence of childhood

leukemia in Woburn (Costas et al. 2002). The groundwater flow and contaminant

transport models developed for this dissertation are used to estimate ranges of possible

TCE and PCE concentrations in wells G and H between October 1964 and May 1979.

These estimates are combined with the results from a water distribution model (Murphy

1990) constructed for previous health studies (Costas et al. 2002) to estimate ranges of

possible contaminant concentrations delivered to the residences of east Woburn.

The groundwater contamination problem in Woburn was made famous by the

book A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr (1995), who chronicled the 1986 civil trial of Anne

Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace et al., in which eight families alleged that two local

industries (W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods Inc.) were responsible for

contaminating groundwater in municipal wells G and H that caused the leukemia deaths

Page 23: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

2

of five children and one adult. W.R. Grace & Co. owned the Cryovac Plant in Woburn, a

machine manufacturing facility, where solvents were used daily during the 1960’s and

1970’s. Beatrice Foods Inc. owned the J.J. Riley Tannery. Solvents were illegally

dumped in the 1960’s and 1970’s on what was to become known as the Wildwood

property, 15 undeveloped acres that belonged to the Riley Tannery.

The presiding federal judge split the trial proceedings into three phases. The jury

would first decide whether or not either defendant was responsible for contaminating

wells G and H. In a second trial, the jury would decide whether or not the health

problems were caused by exposure to the contaminated well water. The third phase was

to decide punitive damages, if the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs during the first two

phases. During the first phase of the trial, attorneys for the plaintiffs (Woburn families)

and the two defendants (W.R. Grace & Co. and Beatrice Foods Inc.) used experts in

hydrogeology to testify about the contaminant travel times to wells G and H from the

source areas on the W.R. Grace and Wildwood properties. As a result, much of the trial

testimony was a presentation of hydrogeologic concepts and hydrogeologic data used as

the basis for the experts’ opinions on the groundwater flow system and contaminant

migration from the source areas.

The expert witnesses offered differing opinions to the jury about the travel times

of contaminants to the municipal wells. The jury was not given a consistent presentation

of the hydrogeology of the valley. Each expert used a different method to estimate

contaminant travel times. The plaintiffs’ expert witness used results from a one-

dimensional, analytical solution of the advection-dispersion equation to argue that travel

times from W.R. Grace were 3.00 years for TCE and 9.67 years for PCE. He testified

Page 24: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

3

that it would take 20 years for induced infiltration of water from the Aberjona River to

reach the wells (Anne Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.). The expert for

Beatrice Foods testified that groundwater from the Wildwood property did not flow under

the river because the river acted as a hydraulic barrier. Therefore, contaminated

groundwater from the Wildwood property could not reach wells G and H. He testified

that the travel time from the river to the wells was between 3 to 4 months (Anne

Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.). His opinion was not based on any

quantitative analysis, but was based on water table maps. The expert for W.R. Grace

constructed three-dimensional, groundwater flow and transport models with variable

recharge, bedrock leakage, historic pumping rates and schedules, and hydraulic

connection to the Aberjona River. He testified in the trial that the chemicals from W.R.

Grace could not reach well H by May 1979, and that the travel time of polluted river

water to the wells was less than 2 months (Anne Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et

al.). The jurors struggled in their deliberations for 10 days, almost deadlocked, and

ultimately delivered a verdict against W.R. Grace that was not upheld by the judge

(Pacelle 1986). W.R. Grace and the plaintiffs settled their suit, so a retrial of the first

phase and subsequent second phase never took place.

These dramatic events and the role that hydrogeologists played in them have been

a point of discussion among hydrogeologists for many years. No less than five areas of

TCE and PCE groundwater contamination are within 800 m of wells G and H, each

potentially contributing to the contamination of the wells (Massachusetts Department of

Public Health 1989). A number of scientific studies have been performed to determine

the extent of contamination in Woburn and to identify the health problems of the town

Page 25: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

4

residents. Epidemiological studies that established a relation between the incidence of

leukemia and the consumption of water from wells G and H (Costas et al. 2002) have

identified crucial questions similar to the questions put to the jury in 1986. “ When did

the wells become contaminated? ” and “ To how much TCE and PCE were the residents

exposed? ” My research attempts to answer these questions using three-dimensional,

numerical groundwater flow and contaminant transport models constructed to simulate

the history of the TCE and PCE transport to wells G and H from the contaminated

properties at the Wells G&H Superfund Site.

This study is presented in the format of three separate papers. Each chapter is a

paper, each with its own set of conclusions. The methods employed for simulating the

groundwater flow system are described in Chapter 1. Descriptions of the geology and

hydrogeology of the site are followed by an explanation of the construction of the

MODLFOW (McDonald and Harbaugh 1996) transient groundwater flow model that

incorporates the heterogeneity of sediments, variable pumping rates at wells G and H,

and transient recharge. An earlier generation of this flow model is presented in Metheny

(1998). Substantial improvements to the temporal and spatial discretization of recharge

were made using precipitation records, streamflow hydrographs, and land-use analysis

from historic aerial photographs. Grid refinements were made. Improvements to

porosity and hydraulic conductivity were made using tritium/helium-3 (3H/3He)

groundwater ages. These refinements to the 26-year transient flow model are presented

in Chapter 1. This second generation flow model serves as the foundation of detailed

particle tracking analyses presented at the end of Chapter 1 and contaminant transport

modeling, which is presented in Chapter 2.

Page 26: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

5

Chapter 2 contains a description of the contaminant transport model constructed

using the HMOC solver in the MT3DMS code (Zheng and Wang 1999). The history of

TCE and PCE contamination emanating from the five Superfund source properties is

investigated using a 26-year transient model for the purpose of estimating the

concentrations of TCE and PCE in municipal wells G and H. A description of what is

known about the use and disposal of contaminants at each property is presented,

recognizing there is uncertainty in the timing and quantity of contaminant releases at the

source properties. To address these uncertainties, eleven plausible scenarios are

presented and their results are used to formulate ranges of likely TCE and PCE

concentrations in wells G and H. Each scenario uses different source start times, source

concentrations, and sorption coefficients for TCE and PCE. As a check on the

plausibility of each scenario, the model results are compared to historic measured

concentrations at wells G and H and to the sitewide distribution of TCE and PCE

measured in monitoring wells sampled in 1985. Chemical time-series graphs of TCE and

PCE in wells G and H are presented to address the question of when the two municipal

wells were likely contaminated and how much TCE and PCE likely were present in the

municipal wells before they were sampled for the first time in May 1979. The time-series

graphs also show the contributions of TCE and PCE from each of the five source

properties. Finally, distributions of TCE and PCE are shown for the simulated time of

May 1979 based on one of the plausible scenarios.

Chapter 3 combines the results of the contaminant transport model with results of

a water distribution model constructed by Murphy (1990), which estimates the monthly

amount of water from wells G and H delivered to all parts of Woburn during the period

Page 27: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

6

from 1964 to 1979, when wells G and H were periodically used. The water distribution

model includes information from city records about water storage, water usage, and

pumping rates and schedules from all eight of Woburn’s municipal wells. It also includes

physical parameters defining the water system such as pipeline lengths, diameters, and

connectivity. Woburn is divided into 54 distinct user demand areas that each receives a

different fraction of their municipal water from wells G and H (Murphy 1990). The

monthly simulated TCE and PCE concentrations at wells G and H calculated by the

contaminant transport model are combined with the monthly fraction of wells G and H

water calculated by the water distribution model (Murphy 1990). The result is an

estimate of the TCE + PCE concentrations delivered to residences across Woburn via the

water distribution system from October 1964 to May 1979. Thus, in Chapter 3, the

question of how much TCE and PCE from wells G and H the residents of Woburn were

exposed to in their municipal water supply is addressed.

Page 28: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

7

CHAPTER 1

SIMULATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW

The goal of this research is to simulate the hydrogeologic system during the

period from 1960 to 1979 when municipal wells G and H were periodically used and

when industries in the valley were disposing the volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

blamed for the leukemia deaths during the famous civil trial.

To forensically simulate the transient behavior of the groundwater flow system, a

six-layer, transient, numerical groundwater flow model was constructed using

MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh 1996). The sparseness of site-specific

hydrologic data (water levels and streamflows) available for the 26-year simulation

period requires use of other data. Historic stream-gaging data for the Aberjona River,

historic precipitation data, historic aerial photographs, and groundwater ages derived

from 3H/3He techniques were used to refine the model so that the model reflects realistic

spatial and temporal changes in the groundwater flow system (Metheny et al. 2001).

Page 29: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

8

1.1 Site Location and Description

The Wells G&H Superfund Site in Woburn, Massachusetts encompasses 1.33 km2

within the Aberjona River valley (Figure 1). The U.S. EPA has segregated the site into

three Operable Units. Operable Unit 1 consists of five source properties: UniFirst in the

north, Olympia to the northwest, W.R. Grace to the northeast, NEP in the east, and

Wildwood in the west. Operable Unit 2 includes three properties just north of Salem

Street: Aberjona Auto Parts, Murphy Waste Oil, and Whitney Barrel. The Aberjona

River and wetland were classified as Operable Unit 3 until 2001, when they were

incorporated into the Industri-Plex Superfund Site located 2.4 km north of the Wells

G&H Superfund Site (U.S. EPA 2001a).

Page 30: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

9

Figure 1 1971 aerial photograph showing Operable Unit 1 and Operable Unit 2 properties of the Wells G&H Superfund Site, the Aberjona River and wetland, streets,

pumping wells, bedrock outcrops, and other geographic features

Page 31: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

10

The Aberjona River meanders southward through a wetland dominated by cattails

and purple loostrife. The wetland sediments are highly organic soils (peat) and root mat

(Bailon 1993). The wetland is surrounded by woodland (Figure 1) that is within the 100-

year flood plain (Alliance Technologies Corp. 1986a). Topographic relief at the study

area is about 20 m with the river and wetlands between 12 to 13 m relative to mean sea

level (msl) with valley walls sloping upward to the east, to approximately 30 m msl. The

transition between the wetland and the uplands to the west is more abrupt. In Figure 1,

the Riley Tannery sits on a terrace at 27-m msl, above a 6-m high railroad cut. Northwest

of the Riley Tannery, the terrace is roughly 15.5 m msl between the railroad tracks and

Wildwood Avenue, and abuts the 6- to 9 m-high bluff to the west.

The aerial photograph in Figure 1, taken in 1971, shows some commercial

buildings and residential areas around the wetland. Since that time, nearly all the

development in the valley is retail, light industry, warehouse and distribution. The

wetland and eastern woodland are the only remaining open spaces.

Wells G and H are just 5 m or so to the east of the wetland within the wooded

area used by the city of Woburn to store construction debris. Berms of soil, nests of

monitoring wells, and occasional remnants of field experiments performed by researchers

and students at MIT are hidden by overgrowth, but are evidence of the many years of site

investigations. Even so, the site retains a slightly wild character inhabited by turkey,

deer, and beaver.

Page 32: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

11

1.2 Previous Groundwater and Surface Water Studies in Woburn

After contaminants were first discovered in wells G and H in May 1979, a number

of investigations were conducted at the Wells G&H Superfund Site for the purpose of

characterizing the geology, hydrogeology, and extent of contamination. Research at MIT

has identified environmental exposure pathways and the fate of mutagens in human cells

related to the organic and metal contaminants found in sediments and waters of the

Aberjona River and wetland (Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2000). U.S. EPA,

U.S. Geological Survey, and contractors conducted pre-trial investigations used by W.R.

Grace, Beatrice Foods, the Riley Tannery, UniFirst, and the plaintiffs' attorneys. These

initial investigations were aimed at identifying source areas, the extent of contamination,

and characterizing the hydrogeology of the site. Although defendants for only three

source properties were named in the lawsuit, UniFirst, W.R. Grace, and Beatrice Foods

(for the Wildwood property), two additional contaminated properties, NEP and Olympia,

are included in the Wells G&H Superfund Site.

Initial hydrogeologic investigations by U.S. EPA identified the extent of the

buried valley aquifer and established that the source of contamination to wells G and H

was within the Aberjona River valley (Ecology and Environment 1982). Data from a

1981 seismic refraction survey of the bedrock and 22 U.S. EPA borings and well logs

from an sitewide well survey were used to construct cross sections and to determine the

general pattern of sedimentation (stratified sands, silts, gravels, and till) filling the

bedrock valley. The Ecology and Environment (1982) study also characterized the nature

of the bedrock and bedrock fractures. Subsequent to the Ecology and Environment

(1982) study, hundreds of borings were completed within the Wells G&H Superfund Site,

Page 33: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

12

allowing a detailed interpretation of the heterogeneity of sediments within the buried

valley.

The most extensive effort to characterize the hydrogeology across the entire site

occurred in 1985 and 1986, when U.S. EPA contracted the U.S. Geological Survey to

conduct an aquifer test using wells G and H. The U.S. Geological Survey determined the

zone of contribution to wells G and H, characterized the interaction of groundwater and

surface water, and provided hydraulic conductivity, drawdown, and streamflow data for a

subsequent numerical groundwater model (Myette et al. 1987; de Lima and Olimpio

1989). Field activities began in June 1985 and lasted 10 months. These activities

included periodic gaging of the discharge of the Aberjona River in two main locations

and at tributaries to the Aberjona River, monitoring groundwater levels in 106 wells,

performing a 30-day aquifer test using wells G and H, and conducting a second seismic

refraction survey of the bedrock valley.

Analysis of the seismic refraction survey identified the bowl-like shape of the

bedrock valley, which extends approximately 37 m below the wetland. Stream gaging

prior to, during, and after the 30-day aquifer test showed the Aberjona River is

hydraulically connected to the aquifer and that pumping induces river infiltration. The

area of influence of wells G and H is elongate and parallel to the bedrock (Myette et al.

1987).

All parties involved in the trial used the data from the U.S. Geological Survey

investigation. Following the aquifer test, the U.S. Geological Survey constructed a three-

layer, transient groundwater flow model using MODFLOW-88 (de Lima and Olimpio

Page 34: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

13

1989) for use in planning aquifer remediation by U.S. EPA. The U.S. Geological Survey

model was calibrated using the 1985-86 aquifer test data.

Prior to the trial, W.R. Grace & Co., Beatrice Foods Inc., and the plaintiffs each

undertook separate hydrogeologic investigations. At the W.R. Grace property, over 60

monitoring wells were constructed between 1983 and 1986, and it was the most intensely

investigated property by the time of the trial. Thirty-one trenches of 0.6 to 3 m in depth

were excavated in 1985 to characterize the stratigraphy and fracturing of the dense tills at

the site (Alliance Technologies Corp. 1986b). At the Wildwood property, Beatrice Foods

Inc. installed 11 monitoring wells prior to the trial and the plaintiffs installed 22

monitoring wells in preparation for the U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test mentioned

earlier.

Site-specific investigations of the UniFirst, NEP, and Olympia properties were not

conducted prior to the trial. Few wells were installed at the UniFirst property prior to

1986 and it appears from the well logs that most borings were installed in two time

periods; first in 1987 and then in 1992 (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994).

Contamination at the NEP property was not discovered until after the trial began in 1986.

Three industrial supply wells existed on the NEP property before 1986, but these are

completed in bedrock and not in the sediments where wells G and H are screened.

Eighteen borings were completed at NEP between 1988 and 1990 (GeoTrans Inc. and

RETEC Inc. 1994). Borehole investigations of the wetland area on the Olympia property

did not begin until 1987, after the trial.

Page 35: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

14

More than 70 monitoring wells were constructed for U.S. EPA in and around the

wetland area prior to the 1985-86 aquifer test. By 1990, more than 20 monitoring wells

were added to the monitoring well network sitewide (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc.

1994).

Since the trial, U.S. EPA has overseen the site investigations and clean-up

activities of the five source properties in the Wells G&H Superfund Site. The Record of

Decision (ROD) was finalized in 1989 (U.S. EPA 1989). The ROD describes the

strategy for site remediation. Remediation operations have been implemented at W.R.

Grace, UniFirst, Wildwood, and NEP properties (Bair and Metheny 2002).

As part of a Superfund Hazardous Substances Basic Research Program under the

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), an interdisciplinary

research program, initiated in 1987, was directed toward understanding, assessing, and

attenuating the adverse effects on human health resulting from exposure to hazardous

substances (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 1994). Several studies

were performed to determine the fate and transport of hazardous chemicals in the Mystic

River Watershed (Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2000). Two finite-element

groundwater models (Brainard 1990; Reynolds 1993) incorporate a large portion of the

watershed drained by the Aberjona River from the town of Wilmington to the town of

Winchester for the purpose of simulating groundwater flow and discharge to the

Aberjona River. Both models included the Wells G&H Superfund Site. A survey of the

distribution of metal contaminants (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc)

in sediments of the major surface waters of the watershed shows that concentrations of

these metals in the wetland sediments at the Wells G&H Site are larger than in most

Page 36: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

15

places along the river course, although the largest accumulations of metals occur at the

Industri-Plex Superfund Site and in the Mystic Lakes (Knox 1991). Bailon (1993)

characterized the engineering properties (compressibility, mineral and organic content,

sediment sizes, hydraulic conductivity, bulk density, and water content) and stratification

of the organic sediments in the wells G and H wetland using conventional methods. Zeeb

(1996) developed a piezocone penetrometer to map in detail the upper 6 m of wetland

sediments near well H. A two-dimensional groundwater flow model constructed by Zeeb

(1996) predicts the vertical mobility of arsenic through wetland sediments under pumping

conditions at well H and under wetland flood conditions. One geophysical survey using

resistivity techniques (Zhang 1997) and another survey using ground penetrating radar

(Cist 1999) were used to reproduce the basic stratigraphy of the wetland sediments

mapped by Zeeb (1996).

Other source areas contribute to the contamination at the Wells G&H Superfund

Site. The Industri-Plex Superfund Site, located 2.4 km upstream in the Aberjona River

watershed, continues to be a source of arsenic, chromium, VOCs, aromatic hydrocarbons

associated with gasoline (BTEX), and phenols to the watershed (Aurillo et al. 1994; Kim

1995; Wick and Gschwend 1998). The Department of Environmental Protection for the

State of Massachusetts oversees 15 sites in and adjacent to the Wells G&H Superfund

Site (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994).

The studies mentioned above are resources for this research. In 2000, I collected

gas and water samples, which were analyzed for 3H/3He to determine groundwater ages at

12 monitoring well locations (Metheny et al. 2001). The following sections leading up to

Page 37: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

16

the presentation of the groundwater flow model and particle tracking describe my

interpretation of the complex heterogeneity of sediments within the buried valley at the

site Wells G&H Site.

1.3 Geology and Hydrogeology

Buried bedrock valley aquifers, like that at the Wells G&H Superfund Site, are

common features in the glaciated terrain of New England where pre-existing or glacially

carved valleys are filled with glaciofluvial sediments (MacNish and Randall 1982). In

New England, where glacial deposits are relatively thin, buried bedrock valley aquifers

are exploited for their abundant groundwater resources because most of the underlying

bedrock consists of sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic rocks that typically have lower

yields than the sandy and gravelly valley fill materials (Hansen and Simcox 1994).

Early in its industrial history, the Aberjona River valley was recognized by local

industry as having a good supply of surface water and plentiful groundwater (Tarr 1987).

Although the existence of the buried bedrock valley, known as the Fresh-Pond Buried

Bedrock Valley, beneath the Aberjona River was not described until the late 1950s

(Chute 1959), industries tapped into the thick sand and gravel aquifer that occupies the

bedrock valley in east Woburn.

One reason for constructing the groundwater flow model of the valley in east

Woburn was to see how the complex heterogeneity of the aquifer sediments observed in

the numerous boreholes and represented in the MODFLOW model would affect the flow

paths and travel times of hypothetical advective particles. This approach differs from the

simplified distribution of heterogeneity employed in the three-layer U.S. Geological

Survey model (de Lima and Olimpio 1989) that simulates the bulk hydraulic properties

Page 38: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

17

and does not include the deepest sediments in the bedrock valley or the contribution to

flow from fractures in the bedrock. Another important difference between the two

models is the discretization to account for partial penetration of the pumping wells that

allows flow paths to converge toward the well screens from above and below.

A quasi three-dimensional view of the bedrock valley surface (Figure 2) is based

on borehole data and seismic surveys (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994) and shows

that the bedrock valley has an elongated shape, first identified by the U.S. Geological

Survey (Myette et al. 1987). The deepest bedrock underlies the wetland and municipal

wells G and H.

Page 39: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

18

Figure 2 Structure-contour map of the bedrock surface determined from borehole logs and seismic surveys

The large surface area of the buried bedrock valley contains open fractures that

contribute flow to sediments in the valley (HMM Associates 1990; GeoTrans Inc. and

RETEC Inc. 1994). Understanding the nature of the bedrock helps in characterizing the

flow system at the site.

1.3.1 Bedrock and Sediments within the Aberjona Buried Bedrock Valley

Although it is convenient (and practical) to consider the igneous bedrock that

underlies this sandy aquifer to be impermeable for groundwater modeling purposes,

pumping-well data from the valley in east Woburn show that, in places, fractures in the

Page 40: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

19

bedrock yield considerable amounts of water. HMM Associates (1990) reports bedrock

wells yield up to 170 1/min at NEP, and Remediation Technologies Inc. (1996) reports

bedrock wells on the Wildwood property yield 284 l/min.

Near Woburn, bedrock is composed of late Precambrian (630 Ma) granodiorites

intruded by Silurian gabbro-diorites that are part of the Avalon Terrane (Nance 1990;

Skehan and Rast 1990, 1996). These rocks were accreted to North America during the

Acadian Orogeny in New England (Silurian to Devonian) (Skehan and Rast 1990; Tucker

et al. 2001).

These two igneous rock types were identified in site coreholes and local outcrops.

The Dedham Granodiorite (LaForge 1932; Ecology and Environment 1982) is slightly to

moderately fractured and may be intruded by the moderately- to highly-fractured Salem

Gabbro-Diorite (Ecology and Environment 1982; Skehan and Rast 1996). Figure 3

shows the distribution of rock types noted within the upper 6 to 10 m of corehole logs. In

general, granodiorite is encountered in coreholes in the northeastern portion of the valley,

whereas gabbro-diorite material is encountered in coreholes in the southwestern portion

of the valley. In the deeper coreholes, both rock types are found alternating with depth in

the same boring (Ecology and Environment 1982; Remediation Technologies Inc. 1996).

Schist was observed in six core borings in the northwest and probably represents foliation

along shear zones within the gabbro-diorite (Toulmin 1964; Ecology and Environment

1982). Bedrock is exposed in a 30.5-m long, 4.6 m high road cut on Wildwood Avenue,

just south of Olympia Avenue (Figure 1 and Figure 3), along the railroad tracks in the

southwest, and in a small exposure just west of NEP. Additional exposures of

granodiorite occur to the northeast of the study area along interstate highway I-93.

Page 41: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

20

Figure 3 Map of bedrock type from coreholes and the trend of bedrock fractures (compiled from corehole logs) (Toulmin 1964; Kaye 1976; Ecology and Environment

1982; HMM Associates Inc. 1990; and Woodhouse et al. 1991)

There is some regional faulting that trends northeastward (Woodhouse et al.

1991). Kaye (1976) suggests that the northward trending bedrock valley under the Wells

G&H Superfund Site may be fault controlled. Observations of local schistosity, highly

fractured bedrock, and the high yield of some bedrock wells support that interpretation

(Toulmin 1964; Kaye 1976; Ecology and Environment 1982). However, McBrearty

(1995) examined records of tunneling projects that intersect the valley to the south and

Page 42: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

21

found no evidence for faults trending along the valley. The fault in closest proximity to

the site is the Mystic Fault (trending northeast-southwest) that passes between the

Industri-Plex Superfund Site and the Wells G&H Superfund Site, where I-93 crosses the

railroad tracks (Woodhouse et al. 1991) (see Figure 3). A survey of joint directions in

bedrock cores identified a general orientation of strike between N63°W and N90°W and

dips between 10° and 40° toward either the southwest or northeast (Ecology and

Environment 1982). Investigators at the NEP property observed fractures trending

northwest in downhole acoustic images (HMM Associates Inc. 1990). Hydrogeologic

studies described later show that some of these fractures are hydraulically connected.

The primary aquifer materials are the permeable glacial sediments deposited

episodically at the end of the last glacial period that ended about 14,000 years ago (Kaye

and Barghoorn 1964). The bedrock valley was filled with a tongue of ice that may have

persisted for about 1,000 years, after the ice melted from the uplands and surrounding

areas (Chute 1959; Mulholland 1982; Metheny 1998). The Fresh-Pond Buried Bedrock

Valley is about 19.3 km long and extends from the city of Wilmington, 3 km to the north

of the Wells G&H Site, to the Charles River in Cambridge, 15 km to the south (Chute

1959). The valley gets its name from Fresh Pond in Cambridge where Chute (1959)

identified push-moraines related to the re-advance of the ice tongue. Push-moraines are

low hills created at the toe of an advancing glacier by the pushing action of the ice into

surface materials (Chute 1959). Tills and glaciofluvial deposits fill most of the valley,

which is about 300 m wide in Wilmington, increases to between 1,100 and 1,600 m at the

Wells G&H Site, and broadens to 3,200 m near its terminus in Cambridge.

Page 43: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

22

The glacial deposits of the Fresh-Pond Buried Bedrock Valley were first mapped

by Chute (1959). He distinguishes ground moraine from various outwash deposits

extending from Fresh Pond to Wilmington. Figure 4 is a simplified surficial geologic

map of the Aberjona River watershed north of the Mystic Lakes. The course of the

Aberjona River roughly follows the axis of the bedrock valley as far as the Mystic Lakes.

Outwash sands and gravels cover lowland areas and wetlands exist in some areas along

the Aberjona River, as at the Wells G&H Site. The glacial outwash deposits contain

discontinuous kames composed of sand, silt, and gravel. Tills are exposed in the upland

areas (Chute 1959). In cross section, the outwash deposits overlie the tills that blanket

bedrock.

Page 44: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

23

Figure 4 General surficial geology (modified from Brainard 1990)

From his surficial mapping and borehole data, Chute (1959) chronicled ten

depositional events within the valley based on relative ages of materials beginning with

the glacial advance and deposition of ground moraine. Figure 5 shows the timing of the

glacial events compiled from Chute (1959) and other literature sources. Post-glacial

deposits in the organic-rich wetland area just west of well H have been dated using

radiocarbon methods and palynologic evidence (Zeeb 1996). The upper 4 m of organic-

Page 45: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

24

rich lowland deposits record the transition from periglacial to temperate conditions (Zeeb

1996). The episode of diatomaceous silt deposition (Zeeb 1996) occurred within a kettle

pond, overlying glacial outwash (Chute 1959). The succeeding swamp, marsh, meadow

and most recent cattail marsh deposits are found within the upper 2 m of material

underlying the present day wetland (Zeeb 1996).

Page 46: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

25

Event No. Description 1 Glacial advance and deposition of ground moraine 2 Glacial retreat and deposition of outwash 1

3 Marine incursion or deposition of clay interbedded with sand and gravel

4 Glacial re-advance to form the Fresh Pond moraine and deposition of outwash 2

5 Glacial retreat and deposition of outwash 3

6 Marine incursion or lacustrine environment and deposition of clay interbedded with sand and gravel

7 Deposition of outwash 4 8 Erosion of valleys into the outwash

9 Melting of ice-blocks occupying the larger ponds in the valley

10 Deposition of peat and post-glacial sand, silt, and clay in low areas of the valley

Figure 5 Chronology of glacial events in Woburn and the New England region compiled from Kaye and Barghoorn (1964), Kaye (1982) Stone and Borns (1986) Zeeb (1996) and the table of glacial events in the Fresh-Pond Buried Bedrock Valley from Chute (1959),

modified from Metheny (1998)

Page 47: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

26

1.3.2 Geologic Cross Sections of the Wells G&H Site

There are over 350 borehole logs within the Wells G&H Superfund Site that

contain a report of the vertical distribution of sediment grain sizes (Chute 1959; Ecology

and Environment 1982; NUS Corp. 1986; Myette et al. 1987; GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC

Inc. 1994; Bailon 1993; Zeeb 1996; Metheny 1998). For this study, the available

lithologic information was used to construct a network of geologic cross sections. Figure

6 shows the locations of wells and cross-sections. Figures 7 to 15 are the geologic cross

sections. Cross sections 1-1’, 2-2’, 4-4’, 6-6’, and 8-8’, (Figure 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14) are

oriented east-west, perpendicular to the trend of the bedrock valley, whereas cross

sections 3-3’, 5-5’, 7-7’ and 9-9’ (Figures 9, 11, 13 and 15) are oriented north-south,

parallel to the valley. Detailed description of the methods used for making the geologic

correlations on the cross sections is presented in Metheny (1998).

Page 48: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

27

Figure 6 Locations of wells and geologic cross sections

Page 49: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

28

Figure 7 West to east geologic cross section 1-1’

Page 50: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

29

Figure 8 West to east geologic cross section 2-2’

Page 51: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

30

Figure 9 North to south geologic cross section 3-3’

Page 52: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

31

Figure 10 West to east geologic cross section 4-4’

Page 53: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

32

Figure 11 North to south geologic cross section 5-5’

Page 54: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

33

Figure 12 West to east geologic cross section 6-6’

Page 55: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

34

Figure 13 North to south geologic cross section 7-7’

Page 56: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

35

Figure 14 West to east geologic cross section 8-8’

Page 57: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

36

Figure 15 North to south geologic cross section 9-9’

Page 58: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

37

A prominent feature in all the geologic cross sections (Figures 7 to 15) is the

heavy dashed line separating the dense sediments from the overlying loose sediments.

Genetically, the underlying dense sediments are lodgement or basal melt-out tills and are

commonly described as dense on lithologic logs (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994).

The blow-count information is used to define overconsolidation. A blow count refers to

the number of times the sampling device is struck with a weight in order to drive it 15.2

cm forward. The weight is 63.5 kg and is dropped from a standard height of 76.2 cm

(ASTM 1984). The sampling tube is typically 45.7 cm long, so three sets of blow counts

are recorded for each 45.7 cm sample. When the number of blows is more than 50 for a

15.2-cm drive, the sediment was considered dense. Genetically, the overlying loose

sediments are melt-out tills, flow tills, and glaciofluvial and fluvial materials. In the

loose sediments, the blow counts typically range from 10 to 30 for a 15.2-cm drive.

More than one borehole at a single drilling site may be represented on a

standardized borehole description. In most cases, a cluster of borings was drilled at a

particular location to install well screens at multiple depths in the aquifer. Where this

occurs, the logs shown are a composite of lithologic descriptions at the well cluster.

Furthermore, the well location map shows the location of the cluster and not locations of

individual borings. As a result, the boreholes and multiple well screens shown on the

cross sections are composite borings of individual wells, not multiple wells in one

borehole.

The position of the top of bedrock is determined from borehole data and a map

based upon seismic surveys (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). The east-west cross

sections (1-1’, 2-2’, 4-4’, 6-6’, and 8-8’) show that the bedrock is shallower to the east and

Page 59: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

38

west under the upland areas. The valley deepens in the center with bedrock walls on

either side. Depressions in the bedrock surface are typically filled with dense sediments

and these materials are also found overlying the bedrock walls. Bedrock fractures are

most abundant within the upper 6 m of the bedrock surface (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC

Inc. 1994).

Previous interpretations of the stratified drift in the valley identify three

hydrostratigraphic units: an upper peat, silt, sand, and clay layer between 0 and 7.6 m

thick; an intermediate layer of coarse and fine-grained sand between 3 and 15.2 m thick;

and a lower sand and gravel unit between 6 and 15.2 m thick (Myette et al. 1987). This

configuration is evident in places within the central portions of the valley. Examples of

this are shown on geologic cross sections 6-6’ and 7-7’, near well S93, and near well S79

on geologic cross sections 4-4’ and 9-9’. But in the upland areas and along the east and

west bedrock valley walls, dense tills directly overlie shallow bedrock. Groundwater

flows from the uplands toward the central valley suggesting that these hydrostratigraphic

units are not continuous in the direction of groundwater flow. This heterogeneity

influences the groundwater flow paths described later.

The detailed framework of sediments and a well-defined bedrock surface are

important for the conceptual model of the study area because at each contaminant source

property the bedrock configuration and stratigraphy are sufficiently different to influence

groundwater flow and contaminant transport. The contaminant recovery and treatment

technologies used at each contaminant source site vary depending on the site conditions

(Bair and Metheny 2002). Although the geologic cross sections are continuous across the

Page 60: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

39

site, a detailed description of the bedrock and stratigraphy is presented for each of the

five properties in Operable Unit 1 to highlight the similarities and differences among

them.

1.3.3 Northeast Uplands – W.R. Grace and UniFirst Properties

The W.R. Grace property is located on the eastern valley upland about 1 km away

from the river. At the W.R. Grace property, between 4.5 and 19.8 m of stratified and

dense sand, silt, and gravel overlie bedrock. The sediments are so densely compacted

that sample cores (10- to 13-cm in length and 3.8-cm in diameter) remain intact 20 years

after drilling and desiccation. The dense sediments are stratified and include lenses of

gravels and sands.

The dense sediments have lower hydraulic conductivities than the looser sands

and gravels in the center of the valley. Of the 59 slug tests performed at monitoring wells

on the W.R. Grace property, 29 were in bedrock and 19 were in dense sediments

(GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). Table 1 shows that the hydraulic conductivity of

the sediments at W.R. Grace ranges between 7.06x10-6 and 3.88x10-4 cm/s, whereas the

hydraulic conductivity of the upper 15.2 m of bedrock ranges between 7.06x10-7 and

1.83x10-3 cm/s (wells screened across both bedrock and sediments were not considered

here). For bedrock wells, only one slug test yields a value of hydraulic conductivity

greater than 2.5x10-4 cm/s, which is indicative of larger or an increased number of

connected fractures. There does not appear to be a significant increase or decrease in

hydraulic conductivity values with depth into bedrock. The low hydraulic conductivity

Page 61: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

40

of the dense sediments hampers extraction and treatment remediation efforts at W.R.

Grace, where approximately 30 l/min are recovered from 18 pumping wells (Bair and

Metheny 2002).

Prior to operation of the remediation system at the W.R. Grace property, the depth

to the water table was between 0.2 and 3 m in the eastern portion of the property and

nearly 6 m in the western portion. Pumping has lowered water levels by up to 6 m near

the recovery wells where the water table is maintained within the bedrock to prevent the

flow of groundwater off the property within the sediments (Myette et al. 1987; GeoTrans

Inc. 1995). In 1995, 15 recovery wells along the western and southern property boundary

were reported to capture groundwater up to 12.2 m below the bedrock surface (GeoTrans

Inc. 1995).

Page 62: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

41

Hydraulic conductivity Material type Location Sediment

description Minimum(cm/s)

Maximum(cm/s)

Number of tests

Geometric mean (cm/s)

Dense Northeast sandy silt, gravelly silt 3.53x10-6 3.88x10-4 19 7.06x10-5

diamict 7.06x10-6 3.53x10-5 3 1.76x10-5

Southwest at BW9 diamict 2.12x10-4 7.20x10-2 3 1.31x10-2

Across silt 1.76x10-5 1.76x10-5 1 1.76x10-5 the site sandy silt 3.53x10-6 1.27x10-3 20 7.06x10-5 silty sand 3.53x10-5 9.17x10-4 3 2.82x10-4 diamict 7.06x10-6 2.70x10-2 13 1.06x10-3

sand, sand and gravel 3.53x10-5 2.05x10-2 13 2.47x10-4

Loose Across the site

silt, sandy silt, sandy clay 1.52x10-4 4.41x10-3 3 6.00x10-4

silty sand 2.47x10-5 9.20x10-2 5 3.18x10-4 diamict 7.06x10-4 5.66x10-2 1 6.35x10-3 sand 3.53x10-5 1.00x10-1 28 2.47x10-3 sand and gravel 8.82x10-5 1.23x10-1 14 3.53x10-3

Bedrock Northeast 7.06x10-7 1.83x10-3 29 3.53x10-5 Southwest 3.53x10-6 1.50x10-2 9 1.41x10-3

Across the site 7.06x10-7 1.50x10-2 41 1.06x10-4

Peat Across the site 1.06x10-6 1.06x10-2 unknown

Table 1 Summary of hydraulic conductivity values reported for Wells G&H Superfund Site from Woodward-Clyde (1984), NUS Corp. (1986), GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. (1994), Remediation Technologies Inc. (1996), Zeeb (1996), and Metheny (1998), based

on slug tests, aquifer tests, grain-size analyses, and permeameter tests (modified from Metheny 1998)

Page 63: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

42

The deeper bedrock fracture system at the W.R. Grace property is, in places,

hydraulically connected to fractures at the UniFirst property (GeoTrans Inc. 1995). In

1995, after 2.5 years of pumping from the UniFirst extraction well (UC-22), up to 6.7 m

of drawdown was observed in a well on the W.R. Grace property, a distance of 198 m

from UC-22 (GeoTrans Inc. 1995) and at a depth of 48 m. The extent of the hydraulic

connection of bedrock fractures is not known, however, water levels in bedrock wells on

the far eastern portion of the W.R. Grace property are not influenced by pumping at UC-

22 (GeoTrans Inc. 1995).

1.3.4 Western Valley – NEP and UniFirst Properties

The NEP and UniFirst properties overlie shallow bedrock near the rim of the

bedrock valley wall. The UniFirst property (see cross sections 1-1’ and 3-3’) straddles the

bedrock valley wall where depths to bedrock are 3 m on the east and more than 18 m on

the west of the property. Well logs at UniFirst show that the upper 3 to 6 m of sediments

are loose, very sandy, and contain large boulders. During summer 2001, an excavation

just north of I-93 (427 m to the north of the UniFirst property) revealed occasional

boulders up to approximately 2 m in diameter in a sandy and gravelly matrix. I think that

these materials are similar to the looser materials underlying the UniFirst property. On

the western portion of the UniFirst site, where the sediments are thickest, the deeper

sediments are composed of the dense silts, sands, and gravels affected by glacial

compaction (see Figure 7, geologic cross section 1-1’).

The water table at UniFirst was approximately 4.8 m bgs in 1993 (ENSR

Consulting & Engineering 1993) and represents water levels prior to remediation

pumping in the bedrock. There are no extraction or remediation wells in the overlying

Page 64: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

43

sediments at UniFirst. The author is not aware of any tests or reported values for

hydraulic conductivity of the sediments at UniFirst. The compilation of hydraulic

conductivity values for the valley sediments and bedrock on Table 1, shows that the

sandy and gravelly sediments, like those at UniFirst, have hydraulic conductivities that

range between 8.82x10-5 and 1.23x10-1 cm/s. Hydraulic conductivities of the underlying

diamictic sediments range between 7.1x10-4 to 5.64x10-2 cm/s.

The bedrock at UniFirst is lithologically similar to that found at the W.R. Grace

property. The bedrock recovery well (UC-22) on the eastern portion of the UniFirst

property, intersects bedrock fractures between 4.5 and 58-m below ground surface (bgs)

and groundwater extraction rates are up to 170.3 l/min (ENSR Consulting & Engineering

and The Johnson Co. 1995). This pumping well has operated since 1992 and its area of

influence is estimated to extend 300 m to the south of the UniFirst property (ENSR

Consulting & Engineering and The Johnson Co. 1995) and beneath the western portion of

the W.R. Grace property (GeoTrans Inc. 1995).

South of the UniFirst property, along the trend of the eastern bedrock valley wall,

similar conditions are found at the NEP property. At NEP, borings encounter bedrock at

depths between 1.5 and 11 m, and the sediments are loose, stratified silty sands and

gravels overlying denser silty sands and gravels (see cross section 8-8’). In 2000, the

depth to the water table was between 2.4 and 5 m (Woodward & Curran 2000) and

represents non-pumping water levels. HMM Associates (1990) report that although

hydraulic conductivity at the property ranges from 10-5 to 10-2 cm/s, a value of 10-3 cm/s

best represents the sediments at the site.

Page 65: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

44

Geophysical logging of bedrock coreholes on the NEP property revealed joints

and fractures oriented northwest-southeast and an orthogonal set oriented roughly north-

northwest (HMM Associates Inc. 1990). NEP operated three uncased bedrock

production wells completed between 109 and 286.5 m bgs. Geophysical logs showed

zones of more intense fracturing at depth intervals of 21 to 24 m, 103 to 113 m, and 146

to 149 m bgs, in NEP production well NEP-3 (HMM Associates Inc. 1990). In 1988, a

72-hour aquifer test using one of the three NEP bedrock production wells pumping at

60.5 l/min resulted in 4.5 to 230 cm of drawdown in monitoring wells on the property

screened 1.5 to 12 m below the bedrock surface (HMM Associates Inc. 1990). In three

monitoring wells completed in the overlying unconsolidated sediments, less drawdown

was measured (0.6, 3.6, and 6.4 cm), indicating that some hydraulic connection exists

between the bedrock fractures and the overlying sediments.

The influence of the bedrock production wells on the NEP property extends at

least 130 m northward to monitoring well S66D and perhaps as far as 207 m to well

S65D, both of which are screened less that 10 m below the bedrock surface. Water level

monitoring equipment placed in well S66D during normal operation of the NEP

production wells showed a response of about 24 cm to pumping. The NEP production

wells were operated intermittently during the 30-day aquifer test performed by the U.S.

Geologic Survey in 1985-1986. HMM Associates (1990) report that hydrographs for

monitoring wells S66D and S65D, presented in Myette et al. (1987), show water level

fluctuations that might be produced by pumping at the NEP industrial wells. The

Page 66: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

45

hydraulic connection between the NEP property and wells S65D and S66D could be

either along the strike of fractures trending north to south, or along the southward dipping

plane of fractures trending northwest to southeast.

1.3.5 Central Valley – Wetlands, Wells G and H, and Olympia and Wildwood Properties

The wetland is adjacent to the Aberjona River and overlies the deepest portions of

the buried bedrock valley. In the center of the valley, dense silts, sands, and gravels that

vary in thickness between 0 and 19.8 m (Metheny 1998) mantle the 40-m deep bedrock.

Within the looser valley fill, occasional lenses of silt and clay are reported, but for the

most part, sediments consist of sand mixed with varying amounts of silts and gravels.

Sediments like these were mined elsewhere in the Aberjona River valley and the geologic

map by Chute (1959) shows over 100 sand and gravel pits between the cities of Woburn

and Cambridge.

One of the only significant deposits of silt and clay encountered by borings occurs

at the southern end of the Wells G&H Superfund Site. The bedrock surface shallows

near well S10 (Figure 13, geologic cross section 7-7’), and created a natural sediment

dam for the deeper portions of the bowl-shaped valley before it was filled. At the base of

this bedrock wall, at wells S77 and AB2, a 10-m thick deposit of silt and clay may be the

result of sedimentation in a small lake that existed after glacial melting, prior to infilling

of the valley by glaciofluvial material.

At the surface, organic deposits in the wetland range in thickness from 0.6 to 3 m.

Just west of well H (Figures 10 and 13, cross sections 4-4’ and 7-7’) up to 9 m of

diatomaceous silts fill what are thought to be former kettle lakes (Zeeb 1996; Metheny

1998). Engineering tests of the peat materials show that it is composed of 30 to 100

Page 67: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

46

percent organic material, the remainder being predominantly clays (Bailon 1993; Zeeb

1996). Hydraulic conductivity values obtained from permeameter testing of peat core

samples are between 1.0x10-6 and 1.06x10-2 cm/s (Bailon 1993; Zeeb 1996). Within the

peat are silty, sandy strata less than 0.5 m thick that have reported hydraulic conductivity

values ranging between 1x10-3 and 1x10-1 cm/s (Zeeb 1996). Wetland groundwater

levels are typically within 0.3 m of the ground surface. Adjacent to the wetland,

groundwater levels are within 1.5 to 3 m of the ground surface and the direction of

groundwater flow is toward the wetland and river.

The Olympia property is within the central valley and is bisected by the Aberjona

River (Figure 1). Prior to development of the property in 1965, the entire area was part

of the wetland as shown on historic aerial photographs. Figure 13 (cross section 7-7’)

shows that the bedrock valley is approximately 30.5 m deep at the Olympia property. As

at other locations in the central portion of the valley, the sediments are predominantly

sandy with some gravels and silty sand (Metcalf & Eddy Inc. and TRC Environmental

Corp. 2002). The mantle of dense sediments overlying bedrock is approximately 3- to 6-

m thick.

To the south, the Wildwood property overlies the eastern portion of the valley and

was partly wooded until construction of the on-site contaminant recovery and treatment

facility (Bair and Metheny 2002). Surface sediments are silty and sandy but also include

areas of peaty wetland similar to the Olympia property. In the subsurface, the eastern

bedrock valley wall slopes upward from a depth of 27.4 m in the eastern portion of the

property, to 9.1 m bgs in the western portion of the property at well BW9 (Figures 12 and

15, cross sections 6-6’ and 9-9’). Dense silts, sands, and gravels overlie bedrock with

Page 68: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

47

observed thicknesses varying between 0 and 12.1 m. Up to 18.2 m of loose sediments

overlie bedrock and dense sediments at the Wildwood property. Reported hydraulic

conductivity values of the dense sediments range between 5.64x10-4 and 3.60x10-2 cm/s,

based on analysis of six slug tests (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994).

Relatively large hydraulic conductivity values, between 3.53x10-6 and 1.50x10-2

cm/s (NUS Corp. 1986; Remediation Technologies Inc. 1994; GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC

Inc. 1994; Remediation Technologies Inc. 1996), indicate that bedrock in the

southwestern portion of the Wells G&H Superfund Site may be more fractured than at the

UniFirst, NEP, and W.R. Grace properties. A 1994 geophysical survey of bedrock

underlying the Wildwood property revealed a 15.2-m long fracture zone trending

northeast (Figure 3). Pumping in bedrock wells within this fractured area shows some

hydraulic connection between wells (Remediation Technologies Inc. 1996).

Municipal wells G and H are screened within the sands and gravels of the central

valley near the eastern bedrock valley wall (see Figures 10 and 12, geologic cross

sections and 4-4’ and 6-6’). Well G was constructed in 1964 and well H in 1967. Near

wells G and H, the aquifer is approximately 40 m thick. The 3-m long well screens only

partially penetrate the aquifer at depths between 21 and 24 m for well G and between

23.7 and 26.8 m for well H, as shown on the well construction diagrams in Figure 16.

Page 69: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

48

Figure 16 Well construction diagrams and lithologic logs of wells G and H (modified from Metheny and Bair 2001)

Page 70: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

49

Although sediment consolidation information is not presented on the original log

for well H, I think that well H is screened within the dense materials, as indicated by

blow counts on logs of wells nearby (see Figure 10, geologic cross section 4-4’). The

presence of denser sediments, its proximity to the bedrock wall, and the occurrence of a

9.1-m thick clay and sand layer just above the well screen may act to decrease the

quantity of available water at well H and may explain why well H was typically pumped

at a lower rate than well G.

Slug tests, permeameter tests, and aquifer tests performed in sediments within the

central portion of the valley yield hydraulic conductivity values for loose sediments

within the range of 3.53x10-6 to 1.23x10-1 cm/s, as shown on Table 1. The largest values

were obtained from aquifer test analyses (NUS Corp. 1986; Myette et al. 1987;

Remediation Technologies Inc. 1994; GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994).

1.3.6 Potentiometric Surfaces and Stream/Aquifer Interaction

In the 1960’s the Aberjona River valley was an attractive location for constructing

municipal supply wells G and H. Not only is there a large thickness of water-bearing

sand and gravel, but also additional water is available from induced infiltration of the

Aberjona River and the wetland.

Under non-pumping conditions, groundwater in the valley flows from the upland

areas and discharges into the Aberjona River and adjacent wetlands. Figure 17 shows

water table contours on December 4 1985, using the water-level data from Myette et al.

(1987). Hydraulic gradients are steepest in the upland areas, where the sediment cover is

thin and hydraulic conductivities are low. As groundwater flow enters the lowland,

hydraulic gradients decrease and flow converges on the river and wetland.

Page 71: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

50

Figure 17 Water table contour maps of December 4, 1985, prior to the 30-day aquifer test, and January 3, 1986, after 30 days of pumping at wells G and H (data from Myette et

al. 1987)

Page 72: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

51

Pumping at wells G and H enhances the natural gradients from the upland areas in

addition to reversing the normally upward flow of groundwater into the Aberjona River.

Figure 17 also shows the water table surface on January 3, 1986, after 30 days of

pumping 2,650 l/min at well G and 1,514 l/min at well H (Myette et al. 1987). Figure 18,

a potentiometric profile along geologic cross section 4-4’, shows contours of water levels

after 30-days of pumping and demonstrates that the partially penetrating pumping wells

create large vertical gradients above and below the well screen at well H. The same

partial penetration effect occurs at well G.

Figure 18 Southwest-northeast potentiometric profile extending from Wildwood to near W.R. Grace (modified from Metheny 1998)

Page 73: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

52

The well screens of G and H are within a lateral distance of 6 to 30 m of the

eastern bedrock valley wall and likely draw some water from bedrock fractures (HMM

and Associates 1990). During pumping, the bedrock becomes a low-permeability

boundary while induced infiltration from the river and wetland becomes a significant

source of water to the wells. This results in the elongation of the cone of depression

along the river and parallel to the valley walls (Myette et al. 1987).

According to the U.S. Geological Survey analysis (Myette et al. 1987), the river

and wetland contributed approximately 50 percent of the flow to wells G and H during

the 30-day aquifer test. This was determined from measurements of streamflow in the

Aberjona River and two small tributaries before, during, and at the end of the aquifer test.

Figure 17 shows the main upgradient and downgradient stream gaging locations, north of

Olympia Avenue and just south of Salem Street, respectively. A graph of streamflow

gains and losses during the 30-day period (Figure 19) shows the difference between the

upstream and downstream measurements. Immediately prior to pumping, the river

gained 2,886 l/min along the reach (Myette et al. 1987), but shortly after pumping began,

scientists monitoring the test noted a drop in surface water levels within the wetland.

During a typical December and January, the wetland remains flooded and is largely iced-

over until spring (Cist 1999). During the aquifer test in December 1985 and January

1986, however, water in the wetland dropped several centimeters below its cover of ice

(Myette 2001). Eventually, stream losses of 2,140 l/min were measured at the end of the

30-day pumping period, accounting for 50 percent of the water extracted by wells G and

H (Myette et al. 1987). A 1971 survey by Warrington (1973) noted a decrease in

Page 74: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

53

streamflow between Olympia Avenue and a location 228 m south of Salem Street, when

wells G and H were operated by the city of Woburn, and while wells S46 and S47 were

also operated by the Riley Tannery.

Figure 19 Streamflow change measured in the Aberjona River between Olympia Avenue and Salem Street during the 30-day aquifer test in 1985-86. Data are from Myette et al.

1987 (from Metheny and Bair 2001)

As shown on Figure 17, pumping greatly affects wetland area water levels, which

are normally near the ground surface. These pumping effects are much larger than the

normal fluctuation in the water table due to annual recharge cycles. Flooding of the

wetlands during storms also influences water levels in the wetlands (Reynolds 1993). In

the upland areas, the effects on groundwater levels from storms and pumping are

dampened. Consequently the annual fluctuation of groundwater levels due to recharge is

Page 75: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

54

more easily detected in upland areas. Water-levels measured at W.R. Grace well G2S

over the period from 1992 to 1995 show that for the water year 1992-93 the annual water-

table fluctuation was 52 cm (GeoTrans Inc. 1995). For 1993-94 the water-table

fluctuation was 107 cm (GeoTrans Inc. 1995). Myette and Simcox (1992) report that

regional water levels fluctuate between 90 to 150 cm.

1.4 Method for Estimating Variable Recharge Rates Used for Modeling

Although precipitation is fairly constant throughout the year in Massachusetts,

recharge to groundwater varies seasonally with larger amounts of recharge in the spring

and fall (Myette and Simcox 1992). Evaporative losses in summer and frozen ground

conditions in winter reduce recharge in these seasons. A study of the Charles River

Basin, to the south of the Aberjona River Watershed, concluded that recharge is between

35.5 to 71.1 cm annually (Myette and Simcox 1992). For this study, the base-flow

recession analysis of the Aberjona River watershed was done using 50 years of

streamflow data. The analysis indicates that recharge rates are generally comparable,

although in some years recharge might be as little as 11 cm. Changes in recharge rates

are estimated for the period from 1960 to 1986.

A streamflow hydrograph can be graphically and mathematically separated into

its component parts, chiefly surface runoff and base flow (Meyboom, 1961). Using an

empirical method of base-flow recession and a logarithmic plot of stream discharge over

time, first developed by Barnes (1939), one can determine the rate at which base flow

(the groundwater fraction of total streamflow) decreases after a recharge event. This

recession rate is the slope of the decreasing stream discharge plotted over one log cycle.

The recession index is the number of days of recession over one log cycle. Each

Page 76: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

55

watershed has its own recession characteristics and the average recession rate of a basin

can be estimated using long-term streamflow data. Each recharge event will cause an

offset in the slope of the recession line and that offset is related to the amount of recharge

(Rutledge 1998). The recession index and recharge for the Aberjona River were

calculated using the programs RECESS and RORA (Rutledge 1998). These programs

enable the user to select each recession segment, thus allowing for the determination of

seasonal or annual amounts of recharge.

The methods of estimating recharge from streamflow recession require several

simplifying assumptions. The assumptions are that the stream fully penetrates a

homogeneous and isotropic aquifer, recharge occurs uniformly, and the base of the

aquifer is impermeable. These methods do not account for wetland conditions like those

present along the Aberjona River in Woburn. However, estimates of recharge rates for

the years 1960 through 1985 can be used to evaluate relative changes in recharge

between wetter and drier years. For example, the Aberjona River streamflow data show

that 1964-65 had the lowest annual streamflow over the 26-year period. One can assume

that less recharge occurred during that water year.

Table 2 shows the results of the RORA recharge calculations. The average value

of recharge calculated from the Aberjona River streamflow data during the period from

1956 to 1986 is 34.8 cm. This value agrees closely with the low end of the range of

annual recharge rates of 35.5 to 71.1 cm calculated by Myette and Simcox (1992) based

on seasonal water-table fluctuations within the Charles River Basin adjacent and to the

south of the Aberjona River watershed.

Page 77: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

56

Year Calculated recharge

(cm)

Percent difference

from average

Year Calculated recharge

(cm)

Percent difference

from average

1960 31.5 -9.6 1973 42.4 21.9 1961 40.6 16.6 1974 29.0 -16.6 1962 49.7 42.9 1975 39.0 12.0 1963 32.0 -8.0 1976 25.12 -27.8 1964 30.1 -13.5 1977 45.3 30.2 1965 11.0 -68.4 1978 31.7 -8.8 1966 11.1 -68.3 1979 37.1 6.6 1967 32.7 -6.0 1980 16.7 -7.1 1968 30.8 -11.4 1981 24.2 -4.2 1969 42.1 21.0 1982 44.5 3.8 1970 29.6 -14.9 1983 60.5 10.1 1971 25.9 -25.7 1984 58.4 9.3 1972 55.9 60.6 1985 24.4 -4.1

Table 2 Recharge values from RORA output

Temporally variable recharge rates are incorporated into a 26-year transient model

simulation by increasing or decreasing the recharge rates used in a calibrated steady-state

model by the percent difference between the recharge calculated from the streamflow

data and the average estimated recharge rate of 34.8 cm/year.

Not only are temporally variable recharge rates considered, changes in the spatial

distribution of recharge over time are also incorporated into the 26-year transient

simulation. It is assumed that land cover and land use control infiltration to a large

extent. Changes in land cover and land use over time are determined from eight sets of

black and white aerial photographs taken in 1956, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1971,

and 1978. To illustrate these changes over time, Figure 20 shows that the area of the

Page 78: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

57

Wells G&H Superfund Site covered by development (paved and industrial uses)

increases from 5 percent in 1956 to almost 40 percent in 1978. The percentage of

agricultural, wetland, and wooded areas decrease over this same period. Areas of

development are assumed to receive less annual recharge than agricultural areas,

woodlands or wetlands.

Figure 20 Land use changes at the Wells G&H Superfund Site (from Metheny et al. 2001)

Page 79: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

58

1.5 Method for Obtaining 3He/3He Age Dates

3He/3He age dates from 12 groundwater samples collected in August 2000 were

used to calculate groundwater flow velocities from the eastern uplands toward the central

wetland areas, along a path that incorporates a high degree of sediment heterogeneity.

This information was important for calibrating simulated travel times, as presented in

Chapter 2. A brief description of the principles involved in the 3He/3He groundwater

age-dating method is provided.

Anthropogenic 3H is utilized as a tracer for determining groundwater ages. The

use of 3H/3He groundwater ages has been applied in a number of hydrologic studies

including the calibration of groundwater flow models (Solomon et al. 1992; Solomon et

al. 1995; Szabo et al. 1996; Sheets et al. 1998). Tritium, introduced into the atmosphere

by nuclear reactions, is incorporated into rainwater and enters groundwater flow systems

as recharge (Clark and Fritz 1997). Tritium decays to 3He over time causing an increase

in the ratio of 3He to 3H. When the amounts of 3H and tritiogenic 3He in a groundwater

sample are measured, the age of the groundwater can be calculated using:

+= − 1*ln 3

31

HHet λ

(1)

where t is time since precipitation entered the saturated zone, λ is decay constant for 3H

(0.0558 yr-1, which corresponds to a half-life of 12.43 years), and 3He* is tritiogenic

helium. In practice, the total amount of 3He includes atmospheric 3He and nucleogenic

3He (produced in the subsurface). Corrections for the non-tritiogenic He are made as

described in Solomon et al. (1993). D.K. Solomon and Alan Rigby at the University of

Utah performed mass spectrometer analyses for 3He concentrations from groundwater gas

Page 80: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

59

collected using in-situ diffusion samplers. Tritium concentrations also were measured by

mass spectroscopy using the 3He in-growth method (Clarke et al. 1976). The results of

these analyses are presented below and also in Metheny et al. (2001).

From the cross section through the sampled wells (Figure 21), it is apparent that

the groundwater age increases with depth and with distance from the recharge area in the

northeastern uplands. Groundwater ages in the bedrock wells are between 13 and 17

years old and groundwater ages in wells completed in the loose sediments ranges from

less than one year to 35 years old.

Page 81: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

60

Figure 21 Profile of wells showing 3H/3He groundwater ages (from Metheny et al. 2001)

Page 82: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

61

1.6 Simulated Groundwater Flow System

For this study, three groundwater models were constructed using MODLFLOW

(McDonald and Harbaugh 1996). These models incorporate the high degree of

heterogeneity in the distribution of hydraulic conductivity and recharge using the

geologic and hydrogeologic data described in previous sections.

The first is a steady-state model used to simulate flow conditions in December

1985, when wells G and H were not pumping. This model is used to calibrate the model

parameters of hydraulic conductivity, recharge, groundwater flow into and out of the

bedrock and the model perimeter, and to calibrate groundwater velocities using 3H/3He

ages. The equation governing steady-state groundwater flow that describes the value of

hydraulic head in a three-dimensional flow field is

=

∂∂

∂∂+

∂∂

∂∂+

∂∂

∂∂

zhK

zyhK

yxhK

x zyx

(2)

where x, y, and z are coordinate directions, and K is hydraulic conductivity (Domenico

and Schwartz 1991). Equation 2 is based on Laplaces equation (Anderson and Woessner

1992). MODFLOW uses finite-difference techniques to numerically solve this equation

(McDonald and Harbaugh 1996).

The second model is a transient model of the 30-day aquifer test, when wells G

and H are pumping at average rates (2,650 l/min for well G and 1,514 l/min for well H),

and is used to calibrate aquifer storage values and streamflow losses. The equation for

describing hydraulic head and the conservation of volume to account for storage of fluids

over time is

Page 83: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

62

RthS

zhK

zyhK

yxhK

x szyx +−∂∂=

∂∂

∂∂+

∂∂

∂∂+

∂∂

∂∂

(3)

where t is time, Ss is the specific storage, a term that describes the volume of fluid gained

or lost from a unit volume, and W and R are source/sink terms (Domenico and Schwartz

1991; Anderson and Woessner 1992). Changes in pumping stresses and recharge over

time result in changes in fluid volume in the model.

The third model is a 26-year transient simulation that incorporates the variable

pumping schedule of wells G and H and the estimates of temporally and spatially variable

rates of recharge. Therefore, equation 3 is also the governing equation for this model.

This 26-year simulation is used to unravel the contaminant history for the period between

1960 and 1986, which is the subject of Chapter 2.

All three models utilize the same grid, hydraulic conductivity distribution, and

boundary conditions. The transient models share the same distribution of porosity and

storage coefficient. The models differ in their recharge distributions, pumping stresses,

and simulation times depending on their purpose. Detailed explanations for model

construction, which is summarized below, is presented in Metheny (1998).

1.6.1 Model Grid

The groundwater flow model incorporates 2.87 km2 of the Aberjona River valley

around wells G and H, from the upland area at W.R. Grace in the northeast to the valley

terrace at the Riley Tannery in the southwest. An outline of the model area is shown on

Figure 22. The model grid contains 95 rows, 107 columns, 6 layers, and 30,111 active

cells. The largest cells are 60.9 x 30.5 m (200 x 100 ft). The smallest cells are 6 x 6 m

(20 x 20 ft) near wells G and H. Areas around the source properties are assigned cells

Page 84: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

63

that are 15.2 x 15.2 m (50 x 50 ft). This fine grid helps limit numerical dispersion during

transport simulations. Figure 22 shows the areal layout of grid spacing. All six model

layers are active in the center of the valley, but only the upper two model layers are active

in the upland areas. The active areas of the lower four layers are truncated at the valley

wall. Figure 23 is a west-to-east cross section through the mid-section of the model along

row 61 and intersects the cell for well G. The cells representing pumping wells G and H

have a thicknesses equal to the length of the well screens (3 m) to simulate the effects of

partial penetration. Variability in the thickness of the model layers corresponds to

lithologic horizons identified from the geologic cross sections in Figures 7 to 15.

Page 85: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

64

Figure 22 Groundwater flow and transport model grid

Page 86: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

65

Figure 23 West to east cross section along model row 61 showing well G

The base of layer 1 ranges from 16.8 to 22.9 m msl in the northeast upland and

slopes downward to about 9 m msl beneath the wetlands. In the upland areas to the east

and west, layer 1 represents saturated sediments between 1.3 and 12.5-m thick, and layer

2 represents the upper 3 m of bedrock. In the center of the valley, layer 2 represents a 6-

m thick layer of valley fill but its thickness varies between 1.5 and 16.5 m where the

bedrock valley walls become steeper. Layers 3 and 4 are each approximately 6 m thick

in the center of the valley and become variably thinner toward the valley margins. The

thickness of layer 5 varies between 1.5 to 6 m because the base of this layer represents

the undulating interface between the overlying, loose, glaciofluvial materials and the

Page 87: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

66

underlying glacially compacted materials. Layer 6 represents the deepest portion of the

valley-fill sediments that are bounded on the sides and bottom by bedrock. The thickness

of layer 6 cells varies between 1.5 to 16.5 m.

The groundwater flow model is designed to represent flow through the valley

sediments and to allow minor leakage into the valley sediments from the underlying

bedrock. These boundaries allow flow into and out of the base of the thinner sediment

cover in the upland areas where sediments are within a single model layer. The

boundaries also minimize the elevation differences or the stair-stepping effect between

adjacent cells in the same model layer that forms the bedrock valley wall.

1.6.2 Discretization of Hydraulic Conductivity

Correlation between boreholes on the geologic cross sections is used to determine

the distribution of different blocks or zones of hydraulic conductivity and porosity in the

three groundwater flow models. There are sufficient hydraulic conductivity analyses

from grain-size analysis, aquifer, slug, and permeameter tests (Table 1) to define a range

of hydraulic conductivities for different sediment types (i.e., sand, silt, sandy gravel) and

for bedrock. The specific value of hydraulic conductivity is assigned during model

calibration. For example, the range of hydraulic conductivity values for silty sand is

2.47x10-5 to 9.20x10-2 cm/s. Groups of model cells representing sandy silt are assigned

different values of hydraulic conductivity within that range. The hydraulic conductivity

data, the method employed to make these ranges, and a description of the hydraulic

conductivity distribution is presented in Metheny (1998).

Page 88: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

67

1.6.3 Discretization of Porosity

Porosity values are within published ranges and are assigned to sediment types, as

listed on Table 3 (Kaye and Barghoorn 1964; Freeze and Cherry 1979; Driscoll 1986;

Domenico and Schwartz 1990; and Zeeb 1996). The values of porosity and hydraulic

conductivity assigned to cells within the wetland are necessarily lower than the measured

peat porosity values because the peat deposits compose only the upper one-quarter to

one-third of the model cell. Therefore, the peat and underlying sand and silt materials are

represented by a bulk value (Metheny 1998).

Compaction Material Description Values of porosity (%) Source

Loose Sand and gravel 10 to 40 Driscoll 1986 Silty sand, silty gravel, and diamict 10 to 35 Driscoll 1986 Sandy silt, gravelly silt, silt and clay 35 to 50 Driscoll 1986 Peat 75 to 90 Zeeb 1996 Dense Sand and gravel 10 to 25 Driscoll 1986 Silty sand, silty gravel, and diamict 10 to 25 Driscoll 1986 Sandy silt, gravelly silt, silt and clay 10 to 25 Driscoll 1986

Bedrock Crystalline < 1 to 10 Freeze and Cherry 1979

Table 3 Porosity values for sediment and bedrock used in the groundwater flow models

In the transient models, values of porosity are used to represent values of specific

yield in model layer 1. In model layers 2 through 6, which remain fully saturated

throughout the simulations, a storage coefficient of 1x10-5 is assigned to every active cell.

Page 89: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

68

The U.S. Geological Survey in its groundwater flow model of the Wells G&H Superfund

Site (De Lima and Olimpio 1989) also used this value of storage coefficient.

1.6.4 Boundary Conditions

The hydrologic boundaries of flow system at the Wells G&H Superfund Site

include the groundwater divides on the eastern and western borders of Aberjona River

valley, the Aberjona River, and recharge.

The boundary conditions used for the eastern and western extents of the flow

model are the head-dependent flux type (Anderson and Woessner 1992) and are based on

the distance to and elevation of topographic highs to the east and west of the Aberjona

River valley. The head values at these topographic highs are assumed to be

approximately 1.5 m bgs, a depth similar the water table depth in the upland area at W.R.

Grace. To the east, this topographic high trends in a northwesterly direction and ranges

from 588 m beyond the border of the southeastern model cells to 90 m inside the

northeastern border. The western topographic high snakes into and out of the inactive

portion of the model grid. Details of the relations between the topographic highs and the

model borders are presented in Metheny (1998). The stipulated heads along the eastern

boundary range between 29 and 44 m msl and heads along the western boundary range

between 30 and 52 m msl (Metheny 1998). These boundary conditions simulate flow

into and out of the active model cells in layer 1 and the bedrock valley walls in layers 2

though 6. For layers 2 through 6, groundwater inflow and outflow is based upon the head

at the topographic high and a bedrock hydraulic conductivity between 2.82x10-5 and

5.64x10-4 cm/s. According to field studies, groundwater exchange between the valley-fill

Page 90: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

69

sediments and the bedrock fractures occurs on a limited basis and can be enhanced by

pumping (HMM Associates Inc. 1990; ENSR Consulting & Engineering and The

Johnson Co. 1995).

1.6.5 Aberjona River Boundary Conditions

The Aberjona River is represented by head-dependent flux conditions (river cells

in MODFLOW), where the head in each river cell is specified and based on the heads

used in the U.S. Geological Survey model that were obtained from detailed site

topographic maps (de Lima and Olimpio 1989). Where the river cells abut the northern

and southern edges of the model, head-dependent flux boundaries in layers 2, 3, and 4

represent under-flow passing into and out of the model beneath the river. Groundwater

flow lines are nearly parallel to the northern and southern borders of the model enabling

the use of no-flow boundary conditions along those borders. Along the northeastern

model border, 250 m of Snyder Creek, a small surface drainage is represented by head

dependent flux conditions.

1.6.6 Recharge Boundary Conditions

The recharge boundary conditions differed among the three flow models. In the

steady-state model, land use conditions from 1986 are used for assigning the distribution

of recharge. Table 4 shows the land use categories derived from my analysis of aerial

photographs taken in 1986 and the corresponding recharge rates applied to areas within

those categories. The actual values of recharge are obtained from model calibration that

matched the measured heads and the measured streamflow gains and losses. The average

Page 91: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

70

rate of recharge used in the steady-state model is 43 cm/year. This is within the range of

rates (between 35.5 and 71.1 cm/year) calculated for the watershed by Myette and

Simcox (1992).

Page 92: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

71

Land use Steady-state

recharge rates (cm/year)

26-year transient minimum

recharge rate (cm/year)

26-year transient maximum

recharge rate (cm/year)

Agricultural 46.0 14.5 80.0 Brush/grass 46.0 14.5 80.0 Cleared/excavated 45.7 14.5 132.6 Paved/industrial 25.4 8.1 44.2 Ponds/surface water 50.8 16.0 136.9 Residential 38.1 11.9 66.3 Wetland 76.2 24.1 132.6 Wooded 40.6 13.0 70.6

Table 4 Recharge rates used in the models for different land use designations

Recharge for the 30-day transient simulation is the same as that used by the U.S.

Geological Survey 30-day transient model (de Lima and Olimpio 1989). Recharge is

zero, except during one 24-hour period that represented a rainfall event of 2 cm (National

Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration 2004).

Variable recharge rates are a significant component of the 26-year transient flow

model. Table 4 shows the range in recharge rates used for each land-use category. For

each year in the transient model, recharge was obtained by varying the steady-state

recharge values by the percent increase or decrease in recharge estimated from the base

flow recession analysis of streamflow data (see Table 2). For example, the recharge rates

applied in the simulation period of 1965 are 68.4 percent less than the rates used in the

calibrated steady-state model. The average rate of recharge simulated over the 26-year

period is 46.2 cm/year. This is within recharge rates estimated by Myette and Simcox

(1992).

Page 93: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

72

1.6.7 Pumping Stresses and Stress Periods

The historic pumping stresses of the production wells in the valley vary over time.

Although the exact rates for some wells are not known, good approximations for most

wells can be made and applied in the groundwater flow models. The most important

pumping stresses are for wells G and H. Their central location and high extraction rates

exert the largest influence on the flow system. During the 1960’s and through the 1980’s,

at least six other industrial wells operated in the area. The Riley Tannery operated two

industrial wells (S47 and S46) (Myette et al. 1987) and NEP operated three industrial

wells completed in bedrock (HMM and Associates 1990). A sixth industrial well was

located at the Johnson Brothers greenhouses, to the west of Washington Street (Guswa

2001) and was completed in bedrock. The approximate pumping well locations and the

model layers in which these wells are assigned in the model are shown on Figure 22. The

pumping rates assigned to these wells in the three flow models are shown on Table 5.

Pumping rate (l/min)

Model Well G Well H Well S46 Well S47 Three NEP wells

Johnson Brothers

well Steady-state 2,650 1,514 568 227 10 20

30-day transient 2,650 1,514 568 227 0 0

26-year transient

variable for the 3,033 days of

pumping

variable for 929 days of

pumping

568, for the entire

simulation period

227, for the entire

simulation period

10, from 1962 to

1985

20, from 1960 to

1977

Table 5 Pumping rates of production wells used in groundwater flow models

Page 94: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

73

1.6.7.1 Pumping Rates of Wells G and H

Wells G and H were used by the city of Woburn when demand exceeded the

limits of the wells in the Horn Pond water supply system (Tarr 1987). Wells G and H

were often turned off for periods lasting several months to more than a year. The

variable pumping schedules and pumping rates of wells G and H significantly affected

the flow paths and groundwater velocities in the valley during the 16-year history of the

well field. It is critical for the 26-year transient groundwater flow model, the particle

tracking analysis, and the contaminant transport model (presented in Chapter 2) to

simulate these variable stresses. Well G was used more often and pumped at higher rates

than well H. This was partly due to the poorer quality of water from well H (Tarr 1987)

and partly due to the higher hydraulic conductivity near well G (Metheny 1998). Figure

24 shows the actual recorded pumping rates for both wells G and H. Between 1964 and

1979, well G operated for 3,033 days and well H for only 929 days. The longest period

of simultaneous, continuous pumping at both wells lasted 15 months and occurred just

prior to the shutdown of the wells in May 1979.

Page 95: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

74

Figure 24 Recorded pumping rates of wells G and H

Thirty-three stress periods were used in the 26-year transient simulation to

represent the recorded pumping rates during each pumping period. Twenty-two

additional stress periods were required to represent the variable recharge rates. Thus, the

26-year transient simulation contains 55 stress periods. Figure 25 is a graph showing the

duration of each stress period, the pumping periods of wells G and H, and the percent

change in average annual recharge rate.

Page 96: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

75

Figure 25 Stress period duration, percent change in average annual recharge rate, and pumping schedules for wells G and H

Pumping rates assigned to wells G and H in the 30-day transient simulation are

the same as those used in the 1985-86 aquifer test (Myette et al. 1987). During the test,

the pumping rate at well G was approximately 2,650 l/min and the rate at well H was

approximately 1,514 l/min. The 30-day transient simulation also includes two short-term

shutdowns, one at well G and one at well H that occurred on separate days during the

actual field test (Myette et al. 1987).

1.6.7.2 Pumping Rates of the Riley Wells S46 and S47

Daily and monthly pumping records are available for the operation of wells G and

H, so they can be represented in the model simulations. Few records, however, were kept

regarding the historic operations of the other four production wells in the area. The

primary Riley Tannery production well, S46, is located at the southern end of the

Wildwood property (Figures 1 and 22) and was installed in 1958 to supplement

Page 97: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

76

withdrawals from well, S47, which was installed in 1945 on the northeastern edge of the

Riley Tannery property (Ecology and Environment 1982). Well S46 is 15.5 m deep and

has a 4.7 m well screen in sediments. The depth of well S47 is not known and might be

an open borehole completed in bedrock. Historic pumping rates and pumping schedules

of the Riley Tannery wells are not known, but the pumping rate for S46 is reported to be

between 787 l/min and 1,048 l/min (Camp, Dresser & McKee 1967; Yankee

Environmental Engineering and Research Services Inc. 1983). The pumping rates of the

Riley Tannery wells applied in the steady-state and transient models are constant. The

rates used for wells S46 (568 l/min) and S47 (227 l/min) are between the reported high

and low values and are similar to the rates used in the groundwater flow model

constructed by the U.S. Geological Survey (de Lima and Olimpio 1989).

1.6.7.3 Pumping Rates of the NEP Wells

The three NEP production wells are 109, 152.4, and 286.5 m deep, respectively

and, according to their well logs, are open boreholes in bedrock. The first was completed

in 1962 at the startup of operations at NEP (Ecology and Environment 1982). Installation

dates for the other two wells are not reported on their well logs. Daily pumping rates at

these wells also are not reported. However, during a 1989 aquifer test, one well was

pumped at a rate of 60.5 l/min (HMM Associates Inc. 1990). During normal operations,

the three wells were used simultaneously and typical drawdowns in the pumping wells

were more than 60 m (HMM Associates Inc. 1990). Assigned withdrawal rates of the

NEP wells are low (10 l/min) and are distributed in the upper two model layers that

represent the valley-fill materials and underlying bedrock. The flow rates were selected

by comparing head values in monitoring wells and water-level contour data of the site

Page 98: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

77

during the 1989 aquifer test by HMM Associates Inc. (1990). The NEP wells do have a

small effect on simulated water levels, discharge to the Aberjona River, and on the

transport of contaminants from NEP.

1.6.7.4 Pumping Rate of the Johnson Brothers Well

The Johnson Brothers greenhouses were located on the west side of Washington

Street, to the southwest of the W.R. Grace property. The company operated a 111-m

deep bedrock irrigation well capable of pumping 416 l/min. The well was installed in

1958 and may have been in use until 1977 (Myette et al. 1987). Pumping at this well

may have an impact on flow and contaminant transport in bedrock fractures, similar to

effects from pumping the UniFirst bedrock remediation well, which produces between 12

and 61 m of drawdown in the well itself and began operation in 1992. The Johnson

Brothers well is included in the 26-year transient simulation in bedrock of layer 2 and is

assigned a constant pumping rate of 19 l/min between the years 1960 and 1975. The

simulated drawdown around this well is up to 2.4 m in layer 1 and 3.6 m in layer 2,

although its influence does not extend more than 20 m laterally.

1.6.8 Model Calibration

The data available for model calibration allowed the simulations to be compared

to 1) measured heads and streamflow gains and losses measured in late 1985, 2) the

response to pumping and variable recharge stresses during the 30-day aquifer test in

1985-86, 3) groundwater ages in the northeastern portion of the site in 2000, and 4)

general groundwater flow directions and water levels reported for the five contaminant

source properties.

Page 99: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

78

The foremost calibration data set was collected in 1985 and 1986 for the U.S.

Geological Survey 30-day aquifer test (Myette et al. 1987). Water levels in wells

completed in the valley-fill and upland sediments and in bedrock were measured on

December 4, 1985 before the start of pumping in wells G and H. Gaging measurements

of the Aberjona River discharge upstream (north of Olympia Avenue) and downstream of

the wetland area (south of the Salem Street bridge) were taken from August 1985 to

January 1986 (Myette et al. 1987). These data sets were used to calibrate the steady-state

model.

1.6.8.1 Calibration Statistics for Heads and Flows of the Steady-State Model and 30-Day Transient Models

Figure 26A is a graph of simulated heads plotted against measured heads for the

steady-state simulation in which wells G and H were not pumping. This simulation has a

mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.53 m and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.81 m.

The simulated stream gain of 1,242 l/min is 57 percent lower than the measured stream

gain of 2,886 l/min on December 4, 1985. Measured streamflow on this day included

runoff from a rain event that occurred in the two days prior to the test start-up (de Lima

and Olimpio 1989). Discharge in the Aberjona River has been observed to double and

even triple in response to a winter precipitation event of a similar magnitude (0.5 cm

rainfall measured in Boston) (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2004).

The magnitude of the discharge gain predicted by the steady-state flow model is

consistent with measurements of Aberjona River discharge without the additional runoff

from the rainfall event.

Page 100: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

79

Figure 26 Calibration statistics for A. steady state and, B. 30-day transient simulations

A second model calibration was performed using a transient version of the flow

model constructed to simulate measured heads and river discharge at the end of the 30-

day aquifer test. This same data set was used by the U.S. Geological Survey to calibrate

its transient model (de Lima and Olimpio 1989). The transient calibration improved over

the steady-state calibration in both the correspondence of heads and river discharge. The

MAE between measured and simulated heads is 0.47 m and the RMSE is 0.78 m. There

is a 3 percent difference between observed (2,140 l/min) and simulated (2,081 l/min)

streamflow change (Figure 26). Calibration of the 30-day transient model and the steady-

state model was an iterative process and improvements in one model resulted in

improvements in the other.

Page 101: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

80

The calibration statistics for the steady-state and 30-day transient model

simulations are good and show that the flow model is representative of flow conditions in

December 1985 and January 1986. For the purposes of predicting travel times of

hypothetical particles with the 26-year transient flow model, the simulated groundwater

ages calculated by particle tracking are calibrated using measured groundwater age data

from the four wells sampled in 2000 (Metheny et al. 2001).

1.6.8.2 Using 3H/3He Groundwater Ages to Improve Simulated Flow Velocities

Portniaquine and Solomon (1998) show that simulated travel times from a

groundwater flow model of Cape Cod, Massachusetts are sensitive to values of porosity,

recharge, and hydraulic conductivity. These researchers used head and age data to

constrain their inverse model solution. Their method requires independent estimates of at

least one of these model parameters. At the Wells G&H Site, measurements of head,

groundwater age, and hydraulic conductivity are available for matching model output

with 3H/3He ages.

Reverse particle tracking is performed using MODPATH (Pollock 1994) with

results of the steady-state simulation when wells G and H are not pumping. Advective

travel times of hypothetical particles are compared to the 3H/3He ages. Twenty particles,

distributed with equal spacing vertically across the well screens, are tracked from 10

separate wells in four well clusters. Table 6 shows a comparison of the 3H/3He ages with

simulated travel times based on reverse particle tracking. Although the flow model

contains some cells with low hydraulic conductivity and low porosity values that

represent the upper 6 m of bedrock in some locations, the model does not explicitly

simulate fracture flow. These cells are present to allow flow into and out of the model as

Page 102: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

81

though through fractures in bedrock and are not present to simulate pathlines in bedrock.

Therefore, reverse particle tracking from the bedrock wells sampled for 3H and 3He is not

presented. Particle pathlines from wells completed in sediments are shown in Figure 27.

The comparison between the 3H/3He groundwater ages and simulated travel times

from reverse particle tracking analysis is very good for wells S64S, S84S, S84M, S97S,

and S97M, where travel times are within the uncertainty attributed to field sample

collection and laboratory analysis methods of ± 1 to 5 years. From this favorable

correspondence, the flow model appears to be based on a reasonable ratio of bulk

hydraulic conductivity to recharge.

Pathlines from S64M and S84D have longer travel times than the corresponding

3H/3He groundwater ages. Travel times from S64M are longer than the 3H/3He

groundwater age because the simulated pathlines move into bedrock cells where the

particles slow down. Pathlines from S84D have longer travel-times than 3H/3He ages

because they are affected by the boundary conditions along the eastern border of the

model and make an abrupt turn to the north after about five years of travel (Figure 27).

Travel times for S87S, S87M, and S87D are much shorter than the 3H/3He ages. A likely

explanation for this is not apparent, especially for the shallowest well, which should

exhibit a relatively young age due to the downward vertical hydraulic gradient at that

location. Reverse-tracked particles from each of the sediment wells terminate at the

water table in the recharge area to the east.

Page 103: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

82

Simulated advective travel times (years) 3H/3He age Observation well Minimum Maximum Mean (years)

S64S 1.0 2.4 1.6 0 ± 1 S64M 8.7 14.1 11.4 0.8 ± 1

S64D (bedrock) ---- ---- ---- 14.9 ± 2 S84S 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.7 ± 1 S84M 1.9 2.9 2.3 3.0 ± 1 S84D 10.1 10.4 10.3 3.2 ± 1 S87S 0.7 1.8 0.7 18.6 ± 3 S87M 2.7 2.8 2.8 28.3 ± 4 S87D 10.1 10.4 10.3 30.5 ± 5 S97S 0.9 1.7 1.3 0 ± 1 S97M 4.6 5.1 4.9 5.8 ± 1

S97D (bedrock) ---- ---- ---- 16.2 ± 2

Table 6 Comparison of 3H/3He groundwater ages with simulated travel times from reverse particle tracking (from Metheny et al. 2001)

Page 104: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

83

Figure 27 3H/3He sampling locations and pathlines from reverse particle tracking in the eastern side of the Aberjona River valley (modified from Metheny et al. 2001)

The analysis of simulated advective travel times and groundwater ages resulted in

modifications of porosity values in some cells. This parameter is not characterized in any

site investigations but is significant to advective particle velocity, inter-cell fluxes, and

contaminant transport. This aspect of the transient flow model is crucial for developing

confidence in the long-term contaminant transport results because there are no direct

observations of groundwater flow rates or contaminant migration rates for the period

before 1979.

1.6.9 Model Sensitivity

After model calibration, important model parameters were tested to determine the

sensitivity of simulated heads and flows across the river boundary to deviations from

calibrated values. Values of hydraulic conductivity, recharge, leakance between layers,

Page 105: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

84

river stage, hydraulic conductivity of the riverbed, flow across the borders of the model,

storage coefficient, and specific yield were separately varied. Results show the flow

model is most sensitive to changes in hydraulic conductivity and flows across the borders

of the model (Metheny 1998). Most parameters were varied by a factor of 10 higher and

lower than the calibrated values, except specific yield and recharge, which were varied by

a factor of 2. The resulting effects on residual heads and flows across the river boundary

were examined. Details about the sensitivity analysis, including results and graphs, are

presented in Metheny (1998).

The sensitivity of the calibrated models to hydraulic conductivity is not

particularly significant because the distribution of this parameter in the model is

constrained by slug tests, aquifer tests, permeameter tests, and grain-size analyses (see

Table 1). Similarly, the flow across the model borders is calculated from hydraulic

conductivity and the distance to the mapped topographic high that does not vary. A

decrease in riverbed hydraulic conductivity has the third largest impact on residual heads

but has relatively little impact on flow across the river boundary. This is because the

constriction of flow through the riverbed is outweighed by the increased gradient to the

river that occurs when the hydraulic conductivity of the riverbed is lowered. In contrast,

model results were not very sensitive to increases in hydraulic conductivity of the

riverbed. The values of riverbed hydraulic conductivity used in the models were obtained

from the U.S. Geological Survey model and are derived from detailed topographic maps

of the river, measurements of hydraulic conductivity of riverbed sediments, and estimated

riverbed thickness (de Lima and Olimpio 1989). These values were not varied for

calibration purposes.

Page 106: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

85

Heads and flows across the river boundary are not sensitive to values of storage

coefficient or vertical leakance between layers 1 and 2, and are slightly sensitive to

values of specific yield. However, the range in reasonable values of specific yield for

unconsolidated sand, silt and gravel (0.12 to 0.32) is smaller than those used for

evaluating parameter sensitivity (0.08 to 0.64). A change in river stage of ±0.6 m has

little effect on steady-state flows across the river boundary, but does influence nearby

heads by less than a meter, which is similar to water-level changes observed during large

stream discharge events at the site (Reynolds 1993).

Heads and flows across the river boundary are sensitive to changes in recharge

rates. For example, a doubling of recharge rates increases the river flux by 60 percent

and halving recharge rates reduces river flux by 40 percent. These simulated responses

are reasonable considering that calculated base flow downstream at the Winchester

gaging station varies by factors ranging from 10 to 45 (U.S. Geological Survey 2004).

1.7 Well Screen Mixing Analysis Used to Identify the Contribution of Groundwater From the Five Source Properties, the Aberjona River, and the Wetlands

During the 1985-86 aquifer test, induced infiltration from the Aberjona River and

wetland was a significant source of water to the pumping wells (Myette et al. 1987). As a

test for the calibrated flow model, the contribution from the river and wetland to the cells

representing wells G and H (well cells) is estimated using the MODPATH particle

tracking program (Pollock 1994). A rough estimate of the contribution of groundwater

from the source properties is also made using this method.

To estimate these contributions using particle tracking under steady-state flow

conditions, it is assumed that groups of particles traveling from the river to a well cell

Page 107: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

86

define the “ river flow tubes ” ,which contain all the flow from the river to the well.

Therefore, the area of the well cell (148.6 m2) onto which these particles terminate is

proportional to the contribution from the river to the well at a particular pumping rate.

A particle can terminate on any of the six sides of a grid cell. These termination

points, computed by MODPATH, are plotted on an analogous six-sided graph.

Boundaries can be drawn around groups of points because the particles from each source

area tend to terminate in distinct areas of each well cell. Figure 28 depicts the three-

dimensional well cells as though they were boxes cut at the seams and unfolded to lie

flat. On Figure 28, the box for well H shows that areas enclosing particles released from

the river cover portions of the top, bottom, north, west, and south faces of the well H cell.

The total river contribution to well H covers an estimated area between 58 and 65 m2, or

between 39 and 44 percent of the total cell area. Therefore, as a source of water to well

H, the river contributes between 590 and 666 l/min to the total well discharge of 1,514

l/min. Figure 28 shows that the water pumped by wells G and H is a mixture of waters

derived from a variety of contaminant sources.

Page 108: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

87

Figure 28 Areas of particle termination from source areas on model cells representing wells G and H under steady-state pumping conditions

Page 109: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

88

Table 7 lists estimates of source area contributions to wells G and H based on

tracking hundreds of particles placed within the active cells underlying the river and

wetland, and the W.R. Grace, Olympia, Wildwood, UniFirst, and NEP properties. This

analysis shows how much contaminant source properties, the river and wetlands

contribute to flow in wells G and H under steady-state pumping conditions. The

Aberjona River makes the largest contribution to both wells because it is the nearest and

the largest source of water.

Well G Well H Particle source area Percent

screen area Flow

(l/min) Percent

screen area Flow

(l/min) W.R. Grace < 1 < 26 2 to 3 30 to 45 UniFirst 0 0 4 to 5 61 to 76 Olympia < 1 to 2 26 to 53 20 303 Wildwood 3 to 4 80 to 106 0 0 NEP 2 to 5 53 to 132 0 0 River 30 to 37 795 to 980 39 to 44 590 to 666 Wetland 7 to 10 186 to 265 6 to 8 91 to 121

Table 7 River, wetland, and contaminant source area contributions determined from particle tracking under steady-state pumping conditions

Particles from the river terminate onto the sides of the well cells closest to the

river (top, west, north, and south). Particles terminating on the bottom faces illustrate the

effect of partial penetration as particles starting near the water table travel downward into

the lowest layers of the model below the well cells enroute to the pumping wells. For

wells G and H combined, the river and wetland contribute between 40 and 49 percent of

Page 110: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

89

the total discharge (4,164 l/min) under steady-state conditions when the wells are pumped

at average historic rates. This result is very similar to the contribution of 47 percent river

water estimated by Myette et al. (1987) from the aquifer test data.

1.8 Constructing the 26-Year Transient Simulation

The transient flow model is complex, contains 55 stress periods, and simulates

changes in groundwater flow patterns at the Wells G&H Site from 1960 through 1985.

Figure 25 shows the duration and timing of each stress period. Each new stress period

represents a change in the rates of pumping, recharge, or both. An analysis of flow

across the river boundary and particle tracking results are presented to illustrate some of

the dynamics of the simulated flow system. The simulation period extends through

December 1985 so that the simulated heads and flow across the river boundary can be

compared to the measured heads and measured streamflow gains and losses observed

before and during U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test (Myette et al. 1987).

Variable recharge and variable pumping at wells G and H have a complex effect

on hydraulic gradients in the transient simulation. For example, variable recharge has a

greater influence in areas farthest from the pumping wells but has a relatively small

influence near the pumping wells. The simplest way to visualize the effects of the

variable pumping well stresses and variable recharge on the flow system is with graphs of

flow across the river boundary over time. The three graphs depicted on Figure 29 show

A) the flow across the river boundary from the 26-year simulation when recharge is

variable and wells G and H are not pumping, B) when realistic pumping rates are used

and recharge is constant, and C) the total flow across the river boundary when both the

recharge and pumping stresses are varied. The central river reach is an 853 m stretch that

Page 111: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

90

begins 305 m from the southern margin of the model and extends northward (see Figure

22). The northern reach is 365 m long and extends from the northern border southward

to the central reach. The southern reach is 305 m long extends from the southern

boundary northward to the central reach. The central reach corresponds to the portion of

the Aberjona River that was gaged by the U.S. Geological Survey during the aquifer test

in 1985-86. On the graphs (Figure 29), the flow across the river boundary is considered a

positive value when flow is from the river into the groundwater flow system (stream loss)

and is out of the groundwater flow system when the value is negative (stream gain).

Page 112: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

91

Figure 29 Simulated flow across the river boundary when A) wells G and H are not pumping and recharge rates are variable, B) wells G and H are pumping using realistic

pumping rates and recharge rates are constant, and C) wells G and H are pumping using realistic pumping rates and variable recharge rates

Page 113: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

92

When wells G and H are not pumping, the Aberjona River gains water and flow is

out of the model along the entire river boundary (Figure 29A). The largest amount of

flow occurs along the central reach (solid line) because it crosses a larger portion of the

model. Changes in the recharge rate occur annually and it takes from one to five months

after a change in the recharge rate until flow along the river boundary approaches a

steady rate. When recharge is variable and wells G and H are not pumping, the

difference between the maximum stream gain and minimum stream gain along the central

reach is 1,158 1/min, along the northern reach it is 389 l/min, and along the southern

reach it is 321 l/min.

When wells G and H are pumping and the recharge rate is constant (Figure 29B),

the net flow along the river boundary is into the groundwater system along the central

reach, whereas the net flow is consistently out of the groundwater system along the

northern and southern reaches. As with changes in recharge rates, it takes a number of

months for the flow along the river boundary to achieve a steady rate after the wells are

turned on or off. When recharge is constant and variable pumping stresses are applied at

wells G and H, the difference between the maximum stream gain and maximum stream

loss is 3,622 l/min. Along the northern and southern reaches, the effect of variable

pumping stresses is smaller than the effect of variable recharge. The difference between

the maximum stream gain and minimum stream gain is across the northern reach is 143

l/min and across the southern reach it is 238 l/min.

When variable recharge and variable pumping stresses are simulated together

(Figure 29C), the net flow along the northern and southern reaches remains consistently

out of the model, and as in Figure 29B, pumping at wells G and H results in a net flow

Page 114: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

93

into the model. The changes in flow are the highest for the simulation using both

variable recharge and variable pumping at wells G and H. The difference between the

maximum stream gain and minimum stream gain along the central reach is 4,300 1/min,

across the northern reach it is 448 l/min, and across the southern reach it is 564 l/min.

During the 26-year transient simulation when recharge is variable and pumping at

wells G and H is variable (Figure 29C), the net flow rate into the model exceeds the rate

measured during the 1985-86 U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test on four occasions

1967, 1974, 1976, and 1978-79). During these four pumping periods, the contribution of

groundwater from induced river infiltration is greater than the 47 percent estimated for

the 1985-86 aquifer test (Myette et al. 1987). This occurs because during these pumping

periods the combined pumping rate of wells G and H is greater than the individual

average rates used during the test.

The last stress period (stress period 55) in the 26-year transient simulation reflects

the pumping conditions during the U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test. After 6 years of

no pumping, wells G and H are turned back on for the last 30-days of the simulation at

the rates used during the aquifer test. At the end of stress period 54 on December 4,

1985, immediately prior to pumping, the MAE between measured and simulated heads is

0.52 m and the RMSE is 0.93 m. Figure 30A is a graph of the measured versus simulated

heads. The simulated stream gain is within 59 percent of the measured value of stream

gain. As described earlier, the measured stream discharge also includes runoff from a

rainfall event that the groundwater flow models cannot account for. The simulated heads

and stream loss are similar to the values measured on January 3, 1986, after 30-days of

Page 115: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

94

pumping at wells G and H. The MAE between measured and simulated heads is 0.50 m

and the RMSE is 0.79 m. The difference between measured and simulated stream loss is

19 percent (Figure 30B).

Page 116: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

95

Figure 30 History matching statistics for the 26-year transient simulation using the U.S. Geological Survey 1985-86 aquifer test data (Myette et al. 1987), A) prior to pumping at

wells G and H, December 4, 1985, and B) after 30 days of pumping at wells G and H, January 3, 1986

Page 117: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

96

The 26-year transient flow model compares favorably with the U.S. Geological

Survey data set even after 26 years of transient simulation. The MAE, RMSE, and

stream flow are nearly the same as those for the steady-state and 30-day transient models.

These comparison combined with the reasonable predictions of groundwater ages based

on backward particle tracking indicate that this transient model reasonably simulates

groundwater flow at the Wells G&H Superfund Site from 1960 through 1985.

1.9 Particle Tracking Results from the 26-Year Transient Simulation

Using MODPATH (Pollock 1994), time-series particle tracking pathlines are

computed for the five source areas (Figure 31). Releasing four particles from each source

cell every 60 days over the entire 26-year simulation generates these pathlines. The

pathlines terminate at either the river or at one of the pumping wells. However, some

pathlines represent tracks of particles still enroute at the end of the simulation. Although

individual pathlines are difficult to discern, this plot is designed to show the spatial range

of particle paths from each source area as recharge and pumping stresses change over the

26-year period. This demonstrates the lateral mixing that occurs in the central portion of

the aquifer. Notice that some particle trajectories abruptly change course. Particles

released at NEP, for example, travel west then turn southwestward just beyond the NEP

property boundary. This change in direction occurs between two cells of differing

hydraulic conductivity. Some particles turn 180 degrees, heading at first toward the river

when wells G and H are off, then turn toward the pumping wells as the pumping stresses

become active. Therefore, the pathline of a particle and its point of termination depend

on the time when the particle is released into the flow system.

Page 118: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

97

Figure 31 Advective pathlines from the five source areas

The particle release history for each contaminant source area is summarized in

Figure 32. The start-up time for each source cell is determined from historic records

and/or interpretation of aerial photographs, which are described in detail in Chapter 2.

The earliest plausible start times (given on Figure 32) show the NEP source starting in

1965, Wildwood in 1960, Olympia in 1969, and UniFirst in 1966. The first two sources

at W.R. Grace start in 1962, the third in 1969, and the fourth in 1974.

Page 119: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

98

Figure 32 Particle release times for each source area shown in Figure 31

Once started, the particles travel down hydraulic gradients until they terminate in

the river, at a well, or the simulation ends. Graphs of the release time of each particle

relative to its travel time approximate the residence time of the particle in the flow

system. Figure 33A shows residence times of particles released from the four source

areas at W.R. Grace that terminate in well G. Particles released from G-1 in 1962 take

between 6.1 and 14.2 years to reach well G. The maximum travel time of all particles to

well G is 15.2 years and the minimum travel time is about 5.8 years. So, the first

particles emanating from W.R. Grace reach well G in 1969, via advective transport. Only

10 percent of the particles released from the W.R. Grace property between 1962 and 1979

Page 120: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

99

arrive at well G, but 25 percent of the particles travel to well H, 8 percent terminate at

the Riley Tannery well, well S46, and the remaining 57 percent either travel to the river

or are enroute at the end of the simulation.

Figure 33B shows particles from W.R. Grace terminating in Well H. No capture

of particles occurs by well H until 1974, although well H ultimately captures a larger

number of particles from W.R. Grace than does well G. The minimum advective travel

time from the W.R. Grace source to well H is 4.9 years, so that no particles released after

mid-1974 terminate in the wells or river, but remain enroute. This is significant because

sources G-3 and G-4 do not become active until 1974 and 1975 and particles from these

two sources do not arrive at the well field before wells G and H are shut off in May 1979.

The contaminant transport parameters of retardation and dispersion can lengthen the

travel times of contaminants compared to the advective transport of hypothetical

particles. These slower travel times would diminish the impact of the W.R. Grace source

area on the well field. Advective travel times from W.R. Grace to the river (not shown in

the graphs) range from 6.4 to 20.3 years with an average travel time of 9.3 years.

Page 121: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

100

Figure 33 Advective travel times (residence times) of particles from A) W.R. Grace to well G, B) W.R. Grace to well H, and C) NEP to well G

Page 122: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

101

Figure 34 is a cross section depicting pathlines of particles from source cells at the

W.R. Grace, NEP, Olympia, and Wildwood source areas to wells G and H, and to the

river, as projected onto model row 61 that intersects well G. The particles from W.R.

Grace follow a U-shaped stream tube traveling downward into layer 6 before flowing

abruptly upward to the well cells or, when the wells are not pumping, to the river. This

demonstrates the vertical mixing that occurs in the central valley portion of the aquifer.

Figure 34 Particle pathlines projected onto model row 61

Page 123: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

102

Like W.R. Grace, NEP is on an upland area where a thin veneer of glacial

sediments overlie shallow bedrock and particles follow U-shaped pathlines down into the

center of the valley (see Figure 34). It takes particles between 9 months and 4.6 years to

reach well G from NEP (Figure 33C). Particle travel times from NEP to well G are

shorter than those from W.R. Grace because NEP is closer to the wells and wetland, and

the hydraulic conductivity of the sediments is larger in the center of the valley. Well G

captures all of the NEP particles released from 1965 through 1976, 97 percent of those

released in 1977, and 16 percent of those released in 1978. Only a few particles released

from NEP are captured by Well S46, on the Wildwood property. Those few particles are

only captured after they travel for at least 6 years and probably travel beyond well G and

under the river when wells G and H are off in 1972 and 1973. Once wells G and H are

shut off in May 1979, particles from NEP either travel to the river or toward well S46,

under decreased flow velocities so most of the particles released from NEP after mid-

1980 remain enroute until the end of the simulation. Particles released from NEP within

1.4 years of any well G pumping period are captured by the well. No particles from NEP

reach well H, but pumping at well H enlarges the capture zone of well G and some older

particles that initially bypass well G are re-directed to well G when well H is turned on in

1974. Only 9 percent of the particles released from NEP fail to terminate at well G.

Although the contaminant sources at Wildwood are close to well G (between 240

and 280 m away), well G only captures particles from the northernmost source cell at

Wildwood. The Riley Tannery well, S46, captures most of the particles released from the

four Wildwood source areas (Figure 31). The influence of well S46 induces infiltration

from the river into the aquifer along the eastern boundary of the Wildwood property and

Page 124: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

103

along the river south of Wildwood to Salem Street. According to deposition given by

John Drobinski in 1985, the Wildwood source areas correspond to debris piles

documented during a site investigation conducted in 1985 (Anne Anderson et al. v. W.R.

Grace & Co. et al.). Datable materials (beer can labels, newspapers, and vegetative

growth) found in the debris piles and corresponding images on historic aerial photographs

led investigators to conclude that the debris piles were present at the site in the early

1960’s (Anne Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.). Therefore, for particle

tracking, these sources are active for the entire simulation period from 1960 to 1986. The

source areas on the Wildwood property are underlain by up to 20 m of sediment and

groundwater contamination extends into bedrock (Remediation Technologies Inc. 1996).

To represent the shallower and deeper flow paths, sources at Wildwood were placed in

the upper two model layers. Well G captures only 6 percent of the particles from the

northern Wildwood source area and most of those particles are released in 1968 and in

1977 (Figure 35A). Particle travel times from the northernmost Wildwood source area to

well G range from 1 to 11 years with an average travel time of 3 years.

Page 125: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

104

Figure 35 Advective travel time (residence time) of particles from A) the northern Wildwood source area (debris pile F) to well G, B) Olympia to wells G and H, and C) the

Aberjona River to well G

Page 126: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

105

An investigation of variable pumping schedules at the Riley Tannery wells was

performed to determine whether or not well G would capture particles from the southern

Wildwood source areas if the Riley Tannery wells were pumped only on weekdays. This

weekly variation in hydraulic gradients was simulated over a 10-month period with the

Riley wells operating only during weekdays and shut off on weekends. Particle tracking

showed that the change in well stresses at the Riley Tannery wells has no apparent affect

on particle pathlines emanating from any of the four Wildwood source areas. This 10-

month, 86 stress-period simulation corresponds to the longest period of steady pumping

at wells G and H (March 1978 through December 1978). The simulated recharge rate is

uniform during this time. Wells G and H have the most influence on particle pathlines

from the Wildwood source areas during this prolonged pumping period. The pumping

rates at the Riley Tannery wells were increased so that, although the pumping period

decreased, the volume pumped during the 10-month simulation was equal to the volume

pumped from those wells during 10 months of constant pumping. Even with the Riley

Tannery wells routinely shut down for 2-day periods of time, well G captured no

advective particles from the southern source areas at Wildwood.

The model boundary that represents the Aberjona River influences particle

pathlines from the Olympia source area. Like Wildwood, the Olympia property

contained a debris pile, where drums were discovered in 1985. However, analysis of

aerial photographs indicates that the drums were not present in 1965 but appeared some

time before 1969. At the Olympia source area, particles were tracked from layers 1 and

2, and their pathlines are shown on Figure 31. The majority of these particles terminate

in the river, 18 percent reach well H, and 7 percent reach well G. The travel times of

Page 127: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

106

these particles are shown on Figure 35B. The average travel time from the Olympia

source area to wells G and H is 3.6 years, which is similar to the travel time from the

northern Wildwood source area to well G. Unlike the Wildwood particle pathlines, those

from the Olympia source area remain within the upper two model layers as they travel to

discharge at the river under non-pumping conditions (Figure 34) and enter the lower

model layers only when wells G and H are pumping. Wells G and H capture most of the

particles released from the Olympia source area between 1974 and 1976 (Figure 35B).

After 1976, only well H captures particles from the Olympia source area. Travel times of

particles from the Olympia source to the river (not shown on Figure 35B) range between

1.0 to 6.2 years.

Advective particles from the UniFirst source never reach wells G and H, but

instead they terminate at the river north of well H. The UniFirst source cells in model

layers 1 and 2 represent a solvent spill that may have occurred as early as 1966 when a

dry cleaning facility was operated on the property, or as late as 1976, when a solvent

storage tank was maintained on the premises (Alliance Technologies Corp. 1986b).

When well H is pumping, some of the particle pathlines follow U-shaped paths into the

deeper layers, but most remain in the upper three model layers on their way to the river.

Well H fails to capture advective particles from UniFirst because the river reach,

extending 150 m beyond well H to the northern model boundary, remains a discharge

boundary for the entire simulation period. Only a few particle pathlines veer southward

toward well H, but pumping ends in May 1979 before these particles reach the well, so

Page 128: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

107

the particles continue instead to travel toward the river. Travel times from the UniFirst

source area to the river are between 5.8 and 19.6 years with an average travel time of 10.8

years.

The Aberjona River plays a large role not only in the capture of particles from the

UniFirst, Olympia, and W.R. Grace sources, but it also contributes almost half of the

water pumped by wells G and H. The U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test analysis

showed that 47 percent of the discharge from wells G and H comes from induced

infiltration of river water (Myette et al. 1987). In the 26-year simulation, well G captures

particles released in the river along a reach that extends 335 m to the north and 244 m to

the south of the well. Well H has a smaller influence on particles migrating from the

river due to its lower pumping rate and captures particles released 170 m to the north and

73 m to the south of the well. The influence of well G can extend northward, beyond

well H, because much of the time well G is the only municipal well operating. Figure

35C shows the travel times of particles that travel to well G from the river. The travel

times to well G range from 20 days to 10.7 years with an average travel time of 0.73

years. Travel times to well H range from 13 days to 1.9 years with an average travel time

of 0.45 years.

There are three important features of the particle pathline analysis that are

illustrated by the diagonal alignment of particles apparent on all the plots (see Figures 33

and 35). First, the gaps between the diagonal clusters of particles are the result of the on-

off pumping schedules of wells G and H. Because particles were released at 60-day

intervals, the gaps represent release times of particles that terminate elsewhere. For

example, when well G or well H does not capture particles from the Olympia source area,

Page 129: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

108

those particles terminate at the river. Second, the groups of particles that make a

diagonal trend terminate in the same pumping periods and the widths of the diagonals are

proportional to the length of the pumping periods of wells G and H. Third, the diagonals

are composed of particles released over many years such that some particles captured by

a well are in the flow system for many years longer than other particles captured at the

same time. This is an indication of the considerable lateral and vertical mixing within the

aquifer. For example, Figure 35C shows that particles from the river released in 1974

might arrive at well G within 23 days or might persist for 2 years before terminating at

the well.

The groundwater flow model represents the historic hydrologic system at the

Wells G&H Superfund Site and computes the groundwater flow velocities and flow fields

for the transient contaminant transport model that is described in Chapter 2. The particle

tracking analysis illustrates flow directions and advective flow velocities, but does not

include reactions that occur between the aquifer materials and the dissolved chemicals,

such as chemical retardation. As in the 26-year transient groundwater flow model for

which the recharge history and land use history are used, the contaminant transport model

must include the contamination history to realistically represent contaminant transport in

a transient simulation. Chapter 2 answers many, but certainly not all, questions

concerning the contamination at the Wells G&H Superfund Site. When were wells G and

H likely contaminated? What were the likely concentration ranges of contaminants in the

municipal well water? Which source properties contributed to the contamination of the

municipal wells?

Page 130: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

109

1.10 Conclusions

The 26-year transient flow model is designed to simulate the history of

groundwater flow at the Wells G&H Superfund Site. Confidence in the model

simulations is demonstrated by the good match between measured values and simulated

conditions. Two sets of measured values are the head and stream gain/loss data collected

before and during the 30-day U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test in 1985-86. Results

from three groundwater flow models are compared with these same data. The steady-

state model reproduces heads (MAE = 0.53 m) and stream gains within 57 percent of

measured gains (representing conditions without additional runoff) prior to the start of

pumping at wells G and H. The 30-day transient model reproduces measured heads

(MAE = 0.47 m) and stream losses within 3 percent of measured rates after 30 days of

pumping at wells G and H at their historic average rates. The 26-year transient model

also compares well with both pre-pumping head (MAE = 0.52 m) and pre-pumping

stream gain values within 59 percent (representing conditions without additional runoff).

The 26-year transient model matches heads (MAE = 0.50) and stream loss measurements

within 19 percent. This history matching occurs following 26 years of variable recharge

and variable pumping at Wells G and H.

Confidence in the flow paths and particle travel times is achieved by comparing

backward tracked particle travel times from a steady-state simulation, to measured

groundwater ages determined from 3He/3He age dating techniques. Simulated travel

times of particles migrating in sediments and terminating normally, closely match

measured groundwater ages that range between < 1 year to 6.8 years.

Page 131: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

110

Important features of the 26-year transient are the realistic pumping schedules of

wells G and H, variable recharge rates, and changes in recharge distribution that reflect

observed changes in land use. Changes in these parameters, during 55 different stress

periods of variable length, result in temporally and spatially variable groundwater

velocities and flow directions. Particles migrating from the same source area but started

at different times in the simulation period can have different flow paths, different travel

times, and different destinations. This demonstrates that incorporating variable recharge

rates and realistic pumping schedules is a significant and unique feature of this Woburn

groundwater flow model compared to previous studies of the Wells G&H Superfund Site.

An important observation regarding the flow system, shown by the 26-year

simulation, is the large amount of vertical and lateral mixing of water within central part

of the valley. This mixing is demonstrated by the particle tracking analysis and by the

well screen mixing analysis. The particle tracking analysis shows that water infiltrating

from the Aberjona River mixes with water recharging at the eastern and western uplands.

Particles originating at different locations mingle in the central aquifer as the pumping

stresses and recharge change over time. The reason that the simulated flow system is

able to show the mixing caused by wells G and H is because the well screens are placed

in the model at their realistic depths and realistic screen lengths of 3 m are used as layer

thickness. The partial penetration of the well screens in the buried valley aquifer draws

water down toward the wells from the river and wetland and also draws water upward

from the bottom of the aquifer to produce vertical mixing. Hypothetical particles from

the Wildwood, Olympia, and UniFirst source areas travel downward into the deepest

portions of the aquifer when the wells are turned on. In contrast, particles from the W.R.

Page 132: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

111

Grace and NEP source areas tend to travel deeply into the aquifer even when wells G and

H are not pumping because these sources are more distant from the wells.

This mixing also results in water persisting within the flow system for many years

without discharging to the river or the wells. Physically, the mixing is the interweaving

of transient pathlines. For example, induced infiltration from the Aberjona River by

pumping at wells G and H may reach the wells within a month. If water from the river

does not reach wells G and H before they are temporarily (or permanently) turned off, the

groundwater may persist in the aquifer for more than 10 years and mingle with

groundwater from other sources before eventually discharging to the river.

Mixing is also demonstrated by particles tracked to the well screens of wells G

and H. Well H captures particles emanating from the northern source areas on the

Olympia, W.R. Grace, and UniFirst properties and from the northern part of the Aberjona

River and wetland. When wells G and H are pumping together, well G captures particles

emanating from the southern source areas on the NEP and Wildwood properties and from

the southern part of the Aberjona River and wetland. When well G is pumping without

well H, well G also captures some particles from the northern Aberjona River and

wetland, and the W.R. Grace, and Olympia properties. This analysis indicates that the

wells have distinctively different capture zones. The size of the capture zones of wells G

and H changes between October 1964 and May 1979 due to their variable pumping rates

and schedules.

During the trial, expert testimony differed concerning the role that the Aberjona

River plays in the flow system. Particle tracking results show that the river is not a

Page 133: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

112

hydraulic barrier and that when wells G and H are pumping, flow paths originating at the

water table west of the river are drawn under the river into the well screens.

One aspect of the model that influences the flow paths is the detailed

discretization of hydraulic conductivity derived from reported values of hydraulic

conductivity. The high degree of heterogeneity of the glacially and glaciofluvially

deposited sediments affects the pathlines of hypothetical particles and their travel times.

Particles traveling from the W.R. Grace property move more slowly through the upland

areas where hydraulic conductivity values are small. Once the particles reach the loose

sediments of the central valley where hydraulic conductivity values are larger, particles

move more rapidly. In contrast, particles traveling from the Olympia and Wildwood

properties that are closer to wells G and H, the river and wetland, move mainly through

the loose sediments of the central valley where hydraulic conductivity values are high. In

addition, the detailed discretization of hydraulic conductivity increases the variability of

transient pathlines.

Finally, this Woburn groundwater flow model is an important tool because these

simulations are the foundation of the contaminant transport model. Without a realistic,

temporally and spatially variable flow field, contaminant transport simulations could not

produce plausible plume movement and plausible arrival times of the contaminants TCE

and PCE to municipal wells G and H.

Page 134: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

113

CHAPTER 2

SIMULATION OF TCE AND PCE TRANSPORT

At the Wells G&H Superfund Site there is uncertainty concerning the history of

contamination because incidences of dumping of chemicals and spilling of chemicals

during the 1960’s and 1970’s were not regularly reported. Some of the contaminant

source areas were only discovered after U.S. EPA tested soil and groundwater in the

valley (Alliance Technologies Corp. 1986b). It is my hypothesis that the contaminant

transport model can predict the concentrations of trichloroethene (TCE) and

perchloroethene (PCE) that originate from five known source properties and travel to

municipal wells G and H, which operated from 1964 to 1979. The approach herein is to

present results of the contaminant transport model and to include much of the uncertainty.

As described in the previous chapter, questions about the contaminant history pertain to

when, how much, and where the contaminant sources occur. These questions are

addressed in the form of hypotheses concerning each source property and plausible

transport scenarios are created to test the hypotheses. The range of model results

obtained using the tested hypotheses is likely to contain a reasonable estimate of the

contaminant histories of wells G and H and the source properties.

Page 135: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

114

The contaminants TCE and PCE are selected for this study because they are the

most widely distributed organic solvents at the W.R. Grace, UniFirst, Olympia,

Wildwood and NEP properties. Breakdown products of TCE and PCE such as 1,2-

dichloroethene and vinyl chloride are detected in significant concentrations, but mostly

occur as a result of the TCE and PCE contamination and are found in the same areas.

The rationale and methods for modeling the transport of additional chemicals would be

similar to those used for TCE and PCE.

Before presenting model simulations of the site, a brief history of contamination

of each source area helps the reader to understand the rationale used in selecting the

hypotheses about the source properties. Information available about the concentrations of

TCE and PCE measured in wells G and H from 1979 to 1991 is presented. This is

followed by a description of the methods used to construct the MT3DMS (Zheng and

Wang 1999) contaminant transport model and the factors affecting contaminant transport

(retardation and dispersion). This is followed by the rationale used to formulate the

hypotheses for each source. A set of 11 scenarios representing 66 separate simulations is

used to test the hypotheses. Each scenario is evaluated by comparing simulated

concentrations with concentrations of TCE and PCE measured in wells G and H and in

monitoring wells located throughout the Wells G&H Superfund Site. These comparisons

are used to test the hypotheses and to demonstrate the verisimilitude of the simulation

results. Scenarios that compare well with the measured TCE and PCE concentrations are

considered plausible and the associated hypotheses are accepted. Scenarios that do not

compare well with the measured TCE and PCE concentrations are considered unlikely

Page 136: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

115

and the associated hypotheses are rejected. Estimates of source volumes of TCE and

PCE are compared with model-predicted volumes for each of the plausible scenarios.

The model results for the plausible scenarios are presented to address the

questions raised during the 1986 trial about the origin of TCE and PCE in wells G and H.

Time-series graphs from the plausible scenarios are presented are used to show the

simulated contribution of TCE and PCE from each source to wells G and H. Finally, the

results from one of the plausible scenarios is used to demonstrate the likely distributions

of the TCE and PCE plumes at the Wells G&H Superfund Site in May 1979, when

organic solvents were first discovered in the municipal wells.

2.1 Descriptions of Contaminated Properties

The five sources of TCE and/or PCE contamination within the Wells G&H

Superfund Site comprise the Operable Unit 1 properties, classified by U.S. EPA (1989).

On each of the five properties (W.R. Grace, UniFirst, Wildwood, Olympia, and NEP),

there is at least one source area where chemicals entered the groundwater flow system.

The location of each property is shown in Chapter 1 on Figure 1.

Figure 1 also shows the locations of wells G and H to the east of the Aberjona

River and adjacent to the wetland. Well G was constructed in 1964 and well H was

constructed in 1967. Based on historic reports (NUS Corp. 1986; GeoTrans Inc. and

RETEC Inc. 1994), groundwater contamination occurred at the Wells G&H Superfund

Site both prior to and after the municipal wells were installed. TCE, PCE, and other

contaminants were first discovered in wells G and H in May 1979.

One of the major challenges of this study is to characterize the source areas and

their contamination histories. The following histories of the five properties are

Page 137: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

116

summarized from numerous reports and discussions with professionals working on the

Wells G&H Superfund Site. The summaries highlight the information that is pertinent to

contaminant transport modeling such as where the contaminants entered the ground and

when contamination possibly began.

2.1.1 History of the W.R. Grace Property

Detailed study of contamination at the W.R. Grace property began in 1983. Of

the five source properties, W.R. Grace is the best characterized due to large number of

monitoring wells and well documented source locations. The primary contaminant is

TCE, with lesser amounts of PCE, which were part of the solvent mixture used by W.R.

Grace. Records suggest that not more than 625 liters (or the equivalent of three 55-gallon

drums) of solvent were potentially disposed of on the property (Guswa 2001).

Figure 36 is a map showing the Cryovac manufacturing building, owned by W.R.

Grace & Co., where food handling machines were manufactured, assembled, and painted

(GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994; GeoTrans Inc. 1995). According to trial

testimony (Anne Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al. 1986), the ditch located on

the south side of the building, near the rear entrance, was the initial disposal area. Paint

waste containing solvents was placed on the soil in small quantities each week, beginning

in late 1961. The first addition to the manufacturing building was built in 1969,

effectively moving the rear entrance and the disposal area approximately 25 m to the east.

In 1975, a second addition was built, extending the disposal area another 44 m farther

east from the original location (Guswa 2001). In 1974, at least six drums containing

solvent residue were buried in a pit to the east of the buildings (Massachusetts

Department of Public Health 1989; Harr 1995). Another source area is located near the

Page 138: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

117

northern entrance to the building. Although there are no reported dates associated with

this source area, it is believed that dumping occurred shortly after operations began in

late 1961 (Guswa 2001). There are five separate, chronologically distinct source areas on

the W.R. Grace property.

Figure 36 W.R. Grace property map (after GeoTrans Inc. 1995)

The contaminant concentrations measured during 1981 to 1989 are highest in

borings along the ditch and near the northern entrance. Between 1993 and 2001,

approximately 21 liters of VOCs were recovered by remediation pumping

Page 139: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

118

(Bair and Metheny 2002). Figure 36 shows the maximum TCE concentrations detected

in monitoring wells completed within sediments is 8,340 ppb, and is 4,940 ppb for

monitoring wells completed in shallow bedrock.

2.1.2 History of the UniFirst Property

The primary contaminant at the UniFirst property is PCE. Site investigators

discovered PCE as a non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) below the water table in 1986. In

1987, U.S. EPA ordered UniFirst to remove NAPL from wells on their property (U.S.

EPA 1989). In the late 1980’s, as much as 19,000 ppm PCE was reported in sediments

near the source area, a concentration that exceeds the aqueous solubility of PCE at 25°C

(Vershueren 1983). In fractured bedrock, concentrations as high as 53 ppb PCE were

reported in the early 1990’s (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). The map of the

UniFirst property, Figure 37, shows where the highest PCE concentration (19,000,000

ppb) was detected in monitoring wells between 1985 and 1993.

Page 140: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

119

Figure 37 UniFirst property map (after GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994).

Dry cleaning operations took place in the northeast corner of the UniFirst building

from 1966 to 1968 and reports indicate that approximately 625 liters of PCE were utilized

for dry cleaning (Alliance Technologies Corp. 1986b). Solvent spills reportedly drained

into a sewer connection (Alliance Technologies Corp. 1986b). From 1977 to 1982, an

18,900-liter PCE storage tank was maintained in the northeast corner of the building.

During that time one reported spill of approximately 380 liters occurred inside the

building and was cleaned up (Alliance Technologies Corp. 1986b). Remediation

pumping from well UC-22, a 58 m deep bedrock well recovered 546 liters of VOCs

(mostly PCE and TCE) between 1992 and 2001 (Bair and Metheny 2002).

Groundwater containing dissolved PCE and TCE has traveled within sediments

downgradient to the west and southwest from the source area toward the Aberjona River

(GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). The contaminants have traveled up to 142 m

Page 141: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

120

vertically into bedrock and likely have traveled laterally southward along north-south

trending bedrock fractures, although the precise flow directions and bedrock pathways

are not known.

2.1.3 History of the Wildwood Property

The Wildwood property is the largest of the five properties and has a long history

of contamination. This undeveloped land adjacent to the wetland was a dumping ground

for miscellaneous trash and debris containing chemical residue such as pesticides and

VOCs. According to John Drobinski, who investigated the property in 1985, growth

rings from a tree growing within a pile of drums and debris were used to estimate the age

of the pile, which likely was present on the property since at least the early 1960’s (Anne

Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.). It was assumed that the tree had grown up

through the pile. Cans with labels dating to the early 1960’s were also found in a debris

pile during Drobinski’s investigation (Anne Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.).

The unpaved access road through the Wildwood and Olympia properties is

present on aerial photographs dating to 1952 and is visible in Figure 1. Most of the

debris was found near the access road. The access road was widened in 1961 when an

underground sewer line was installed along the access road (DeFeo 1971). Newly

cleared areas appear along the access road in subsequent aerial photographs, some of

which were identified in trial testimony as debris pile locations (Anne Anderson et al. v.

W.R. Grace & Co. et al.). An aerial photograph taken in 1969 shows liquid-storage

tanks, some as long as 4.5 m, lined up along the access road through the Wildwood

property. I speculate that Whitney Barrel or Murphy Waste Oil stored these tanks on the

Page 142: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

121

Wildwood property, but it is not known if these tanks contributed to the contamination of

the Wildwood property. Their presence is evidence that the Wildwood property was

regularly used as a dump site.

During the trial, defense arguments maintained that scientific uncertainty in the

time when the contaminated debris was dumped would impact the arrival time of

contamination traveling to wells G and H from the Wildwood property (Anne Anderson

et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.). A map and inventory of miscellaneous debris

presented by the plaintiffs’ attorney in the civil trial (Anne Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace

& Co. et al.) identifies nine piles of debris. Six of the piles contained drums or drum

parts, in addition to the scattered drums, rusted scrap metal, tarry sludge, tires, which

were found on the property in 1985. The first reports of drums on the property occurred

in 1983 (Guswa 2003). Figure 38 shows the locations of the six debris piles that

contained drums.

In 1985, concentrations of TCE in groundwater as high as 440,000 ppb were

detected in a monitoring well completed in sediments near debris pile D (Figure 38).

Eight years later, in 1993, a bedrock well at the same location contained 92,000 ppb TCE,

indicative of downward vertical migration possibly associated with NAPL (Remediation

Technologies Inc. 1996). Between 1983 and 1993, the highest PCE concentration

detected in sediments was 110 ppb. For bedrock, 6 ppb was the highest PCE

concentration reported (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994).

Page 143: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

122

Figure 38 Wildwood property map (after Remediation Technologies Inc. 1998; GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994)

Page 144: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

123

2.1.4 History of the Olympia Property

Conditions at the Olympia property are similar to those at Wildwood. Dumping

along the access road also occurred to the north on the Olympia property. Use of the

property for uncontrolled dumping was reported as early as 1970 when 200 to 500 20-

liter containers of arsenic trioxide were discovered (Massachusetts Department of Public

Health 1989). The same 1969 aerial photograph showing storage tanks on the Wildwood

property also shows what appear to be drums, neatly lined up in the location where the

drum piles were reported 15 years later by U.S. EPA (Massachusetts Department of

Public Health 1989). It is not known if these are the same drums.

Figure 39 shows the location of the drum pile on the Olympia property. Water

samples taken from a shallow well in the source area in 1987 contained 3,100 ppb TCE.

The PCE concentration detected in the same sample was 41 ppb (GeoTrans Inc. and

RETEC Inc. 1994). Water quality data obtained in 2002 show concentrations of 8,000

ppb TCE in the same monitoring well, evidence of the persistence of these solvents at the

Olympia property (Metcalf & Eddy Inc. and TRC Environmental Corp. 2002). No wells

were completed in bedrock on the Olympia property before 2002.

Page 145: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

124

Figure 39 Olympia property map (after Remediation Technologies Inc. 1998; GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994)

Page 146: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

125

2.1.5 History of the New England Plastics Property

Contamination at the New England Plastics (NEP) property was not discovered

until 1986, after the trial. The primary contaminant at NEP is PCE, with some TCE.

NEP began manufacturing plastics at this location in 1964 (Kassler and Feuer 1987) and

according to HMM Associates Inc. (1990), beginning in 1962, leased part of its building

to Prospect Tool & Die Co. It is believed that solvents used by Prospect Tool & Die Co.

were spilled at the site of a trailer located to the west of the NEP building (Garren 1998;

HMM Associates Inc. 1990), as shown on Figure 40. A trailer is visible on aerial

photographs from 1969, until the latest photograph of my collection, taken in 1991. Soil

containing PCE was excavated from this location and concentrations of PCE and TCE are

highest in both sediment and bedrock monitoring wells near the site of the trailer. PCE

concentrations of 3,300 ppb in sediment monitoring wells and 1,100 ppb in bedrock

monitoring wells are reported for samples collected in 1988 and 1989.

Page 147: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

126

Figure 40 NEP property map (after GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994)

2.1.6 Contaminants East of Washington Street

The PCE source located approximately 45 m east of Washington Street and 30 m

south of the W.R. Grace site is thought to be a separate source of PCE contamination and

not associated with activities on the W.R. Grace property (GeoTrans Inc. 1995). The

history of the site, as documented by aerial photographs, shows that agricultural buildings

are present until 1971, when a single trailer is present to the south of the W.R. Grace

property at a location represented by the source location shown on Figure 42. It is not

known what activities took place there. Buildings in the 1973 aerial photographs replace

the trailer.

Page 148: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

127

Monitoring wells constructed to the west of Washington Street and downgradient

of this location contained up to 260 ppb PCE in 1993 (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc.

1994). These PCE concentrations exceed the measured concentrations at the perimeter of

the W.R. Grace property, which range from below detection limits to 10 ppb (GeoTrans

Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). The Washington Street monitoring wells did not contain the

TCE concentrations or dehalogenation byproducts of TCE characteristic of the W.R.

Grace plume. They did contain up to 45 ppb 1,1,1-trichloroethane, a chemical that is not

commonly detected in monitoring wells at W.R. Grace. In 1991, when recovery wells

along the southern perimeter of the W.R. Grace began operating, concentrations of PCE

in the recovery wells began to increase (GeoTrans Inc. 1995). It was then suggested that

an off site PCE source existed and that the hydraulic gradient created by the recovery

wells resulted in capture of PCE from off site (GeoTrans Inc. 1995).

2.2 Measured Concentrations of TCE and PCE in Wells G and H

Concentrations of TCE and PCE were first measured in wells G and H in May

1979. Analytical results for 37 water samples from well G and 33 water samples from

well H are available from reports and consultant documents (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC

Inc. 1994; Guswa 2000), as shown on Table 8.

Page 149: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

128

Well G Well H Sample

date TCE (ppb)

PCE (ppb)

Sample date

TCE (ppb)

PCE (ppb)

5/14/791 267 21 5/14/791 118 18 7/24/791 208 10 7/24/791 188 26 7/24/791 236 18 9/26/791 63 9 9/25/791 184 13 5/20/801 102 31 5/20/801 136 26 1/25/811 73 41 7/28/801 140 24 12/2/852 104 270 9/28/801 400 43 12/4/852 71 195 1/25/811 210 36 12/5/852 72 185

11/27/852 91 55 12/6/852 70 170 11/27/852 88 41 12/6/851 ND 5 11/27/852 84 43 12/6/851 108 292 12/4/852 74 57 12/6/851 102 274 12/5/852 77 55 12/6/851 102 241 12/6/852 81 55 12/6/851 88 20 12/6/851 87 41 12/8/852 70 150 12/6/851 91 55 12/11/852 72 129 12/6/851 84 43 12/12/852 53 84 12/6/851 84 165 12/12/852 67 121 12/8/85 83 83 12/16/851 72 129

12/11/852 84 44 12/16/851 53 84 12/12/852 85 41 12/16/851 67 121 12/16/851 84 44 12/17/852 65 97 12/16/851 85 41 12/23/851 51 89 12/17/852 93 -- 12/24/852 66 ND 12/19/852 108 -- 12/24/851 55 94 12/23/851 77 40 12/24/851 55 76 12/23/852 14 41 12/24/851 54 84 12/24/851 82 45 12/24/851 65 ND 12/24/851 85 42 12/24/851 65 97 12/24/851 87 43 12/29/851 57 71 12/24/851 108 ND 1/2/861 57 71 12/24/851 93 ND 1/2/862 59 92 12/29/852 91 41 8/26/911 10 9

1/2/861 91 41 1/3/862 111 48 1/6/861 111 48

8/21/911 60 33 1reported in GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994 2Guswa 2000

Table 8 TCE and PCE analyses for wells G and H

Page 150: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

129

2.2.1 Measured Concentrations of TCE and PCE in Well G

Well G was sampled eight times between 1979 and 1981, then 28 times during the

U.S. Geological Survey 30-day aquifer test in December 1985 to January 1986. The last

reported sample was in August 1991. In the first 14 months after well G was shut off, the

TCE concentration decreased from 267 to 140 ppb, then in September 1980, the highest

concentration of 400 ppb was detected, followed by another decrease to 210 ppb in

January 1981. During the 30-day aquifer test, TCE concentrations increased slightly

overall, with TCE detected between 84 and 91 ppb prior to pumping and 111 ppb just

after pumping ceased. In 1991, 60 ppb TCE was measured in Well G, which was a

slightly lower concentration than those measured during the aquifer test in 1985.

PCE concentrations reported for Well G are not as high as TCE concentrations.

During the period between 1979 and 1981, PCE concentrations increased slightly from

between 10 and 21 ppb to between 36 and 43 ppb. PCE concentrations in samples

collected during the U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test range from less than the

detection limit to 165 ppb, although most samples were between 40 and 57 ppb (the

detection limit for these samples is not reported). In the last reported sample in 1991, the

PCE concentration in well G was 33 ppb.

2.2.2 Measured Concentrations of TCE and PCE in Well H

Concentrations and trends in well H are different than those in well G. For one,

PCE concentrations in well H are higher than in well G. After well H was shut off in

1979, PCE concentrations ranged between 9 and 270 ppb in five samples. During the

U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test in which 27 samples are reported, the PCE

Page 151: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

130

concentration decreased steadily from between 170 and 292 ppb two days after pumping

began to between 71 and 97 ppb just prior to the end of the 30-day test. Some relatively

low values for PCE are reported during the test (5 and 20 ppb) and in two samples PCE

was not detected, but other samples collected on the same day contained between 71 and

97 ppb PCE. PCE concentrations decreased in 1991 and the last reported PCE

concentration for well H is 9 ppb.

The TCE concentrations in well H are lower than at well G. During the period

between 1979 and 1981, TCE concentrations were between 63 and 188 ppb. A slight

decreasing trend in TCE values occurs during the U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test

when TCE concentrations were between 70 and 108 ppb during the first two days of

pumping and decreased to between 57 and 65 ppb in the last 3 days of pumping. The

lowest value of TCE in well H was 10 ppb, which is the last reported value in 1991.

2.3 Contaminant Transport Methodology

The contaminant transport method used in this study was the Hybrid Method of

Characteristics (HMOC) within the MT3DMS model code (Zheng and Wang 1999). In

the HMOC method, advective transport is computed with both forward (MOC) and

backward (MMOC) particle-tracking techniques and hydrodynamic dispersion is

calculated with finite-difference techniques (Zheng and Bennett 2002). The advantage of

using a particle-tracking method over finite-difference methods for advective

contaminant transport is that it produces small numerical errors in this particular

application. The following description of the HMOC method is summarized from Zheng

and Wang (1999).

Page 152: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

131

In the MOC particle tracking method, particles with an assigned initial

concentration are released at source cells. The velocity of a particle during a transport

time-step is determined by a linear, piece-wise method that interpolates velocities within

a cell from the interfacial cell velocities supplied by the flow model. In this linear

method, the velocity field is assumed to be continuous within a cell but not across

interfaces. This results in conservation of mass within each cell. The fourth-order

Runge-Kutta particle tracking method, available in MT3DMS, calculates the velocity of a

particle from four points, the initial particle location, two mid-points, and an end point

location. Four velocity calculations result in a smaller estimated velocity field over the

time step in which the particle is transported. Each trial particle uses a combination of

the velocity field, generated by previous trial particles, and the interfacial velocity. For

my simulations, a central concentration weighting-factor is specified and a Courant

criteria of 0.1 is used.

The calculations presented by Zheng and Wang (1999) to describe the fourth-

order Runge-Kutta method for determining a new particle location (xn+1, yn+1, zn+1) are:

)43211 22

61 kkkkxx nn ++++=+

(4)

)43211 22

61 llllyy nn ++++=+

(5)

)43211 22

61 mmmmzz nn ++++=+

(6)

where

nnnx tzyxtvk ,,,1 ∆= (7)

Page 153: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

132

∆++++∆=

2,

2,

2,

2111

2ttmzlykxtvk nnnn

x

(8)

∆++++∆=

2,

2,

2,

2222

3ttmzlykxtvk nnnn

x

(9)

tmzlykxtvk nnnn

x ∆++++∆= ,,, 3334 (10)

nnny tzyxtvl ,,,1 ∆= (11)

∆++++∆=

2,

2,

2,

2111

2ttmzlykxtvl nnnn

y

(12)

∆++++∆=

2,

2,

2,

2222

3ttmzlykxtvl nnnn

y

(13)

tmzlykxtvl nnnn

y ∆++++∆= ,,, 3334 (14)

nnnz tzyxtvm ,,,1 ∆= (15)

∆++++∆=

2,

2,

2,

2111

2ttmzlykxtvm nnnn

z

(16)

∆++++∆=

2,

2,

2,

22212

3ttmzlykxtvm nnnn

z

(17)

tmzlykxtvm nnnn

z ∆++++∆= ,,, 3334 (18)

The fourth-order Runge-Kutta method diminishes the influence of large grid

spacing. Once the new particle location is determined, the particle is assigned a new

concentration value.

For forward-tracked particles, a new concentration value is computed by the

weighted-volume average concentration of each particle in the cell at the end of each time

step, as given by equation 19

Page 154: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

133

Np

p

npp

Np

Pn

V

CVC

=

=∗ =

1

1 if N > 0p

(19)

where Cn∗ is the new advective concentration of the cell, Np is the pth particle in the cell

and V is the cell volume. The advective concentration can be modified by a weighted-

average with the previous cell concentration, which is then used in the calculation of

concentration change due to dispersion, as calculated by equation 20

)

−−−−

∂∂∂

∆=∆∗∗

∗+

f

nb

f

n

sn

f

s

f

n

RC

RCCC

Rq

xCD

RtC

θρλλ

θθ

θ211

(20)

where ∆Cn+1 is the change in concentration due to dispersion, D is the coefficient of

dispersion, ∆t is the length of the time step, θ is porosity, λx is a decay constant for a

chemical reaction, Rf is the retardation factor, and ρb is the bulk density of the cell. The

change in concentration due to dispersion is added to the advective concentration to

obtain the updated concentration Cn+1 as described by equation 21,

*1 ++ ∆+= nnn CCC (21)

The new concentration in the cell is then used to update the concentration of the particles

by equation 22

1 ++ ∆+= nn

pnp CCC (22)

where the subscript p is used to denote the new and old concentration of the particle, as

opposed to the cell concentration.

The backward particle tracking method (MMOC) is useful in that fewer particles

are required to define the concentration distribution where concentration gradients are

Page 155: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

134

small. For my simulation, a concentration gradient of 5x10-3 is the cutoff value below

which the MMOC method is implemented automatically by the program. This occurs in

areas outside the plumes where concentrations are essentially zero but calculations are

still made. Particles are tracked backward from grid nodes with a new batch of cell-

centered particles for each time step. The concentration of the particle is interpolated

from the surrounding grid nodes, and then is assigned to the original grid node. As with

the MOC procedure, concentration changes due to dispersion are calculated and added to

the final concentration value.

These particle tracking methods produced visually acceptable output with a low

amount of numerical error. The finite-difference the TVD solvers also available in the

MT3DMS transport code, were tested using input from the groundwater flow model.

These methods produced noticeable numerical errors such as spurious and non-

contiguous areas of concentration outside the source area plumes, and unnatural,

polygonally shaped plumes.

One reason the HMOC method offered the best solution is that advection, rather

than dispersion, dominates chemical transport in this particular application. Where this is

the case, numerical error is minimized or eliminated by particle tracking (Zheng and

Bennett 2002). Another reason is that the relatively large grid spacing (up to 15.2 x 15.2

m) resulted in Peclet numbers greater than 2, which is the threshold for a good finite-

difference solution (Anderson and Woessner 1992). Model dispersivity (α) was

increased and grid spacing was decreased in an attempt to decrease Peclet numbers, but

neither of these changes resulted in a visually acceptable solution using finite-difference

or TVD methods. Prommer et al. (2002) found that HMOC methods produced less

Page 156: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

135

numerical dispersion than finite-difference and TVD methods in their application, a result

they attribute to the transient nature of their flow field.

One artifact of the particle tracking method is the random oscillation in

concentration that can occur at a given point over time (Hassan and Mohamed 2003).

Variability in model results was investigated by comparing a number of simulations using

identical transport parameters. The resulting spatial distributions of chemical

concentrations were not significantly different from one simulation to another, but the

time-series concentrations at a fixed point, such as at well G, contained high and low

values that were eliminated when the outputs from multiple simulations were averaged.

Figure 41 is a time-series graph showing the maximum, minimum, and average

concentrations at well G from six separate simulations using identical source conditions.

The average line contains fewer oscillations and its range of TCE values is smaller.

Therefore, I consider the best representation of results in a time-series format from this

model application to be the average of least five separate simulations with identical

parameters. Time-series graphs of simulations presented later are all averages of at least

two and up to 6 simulations, although for the sake of simplicity, the simulations are

referred to as singular results.

Page 157: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

136

Figure 41 Time-series showing the minimum, maximum, and average simulated TCE concentrations at well G for six simulations using one set of transport conditions

One possible disadvantage in using this transport technique is error that can occur

in the mass balance of the simulation. For the Woburn simulations, the mass balance

error is significant immediately after the first contaminant sources are initiated before the

contaminants have moved farther than a few grid blocks from their source cells. This is

an expected behavior (Zheng and Wang 1999) that diminishes as transport progresses and

is not augmented by the addition of new contaminant sources at later transport times.

Page 158: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

137

2.4 Transport Hypotheses

Although there is a considerable amount of data available in reports on the

contamination of the Wells G&H Superfund Site, it is not realistic to select only one set

of input parameters to represent the contaminant history. There is uncertainty in the time

each source property became contaminated, in the source locations, in the concentrations

of contaminants in the source areas, and in the transport parameters of retardation and

dispersivity.

The descriptions of the contamination histories are the basis for the hypotheses

regarding source area concentrations, source locations, and source start times. The

historic water quality data and limited accounts of dumping history are combined with

observations on aerial photographs taken in 1954, 1955, 1956, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1965,

1969, 1970, 1971, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1986, 1987, and 1991, to approximate the

contamination history on each property.

The likely ranges of contaminant transport parameters for each source property

are identified and constitute a number of hypotheses. For example, one hypothesis for

the source start time on the Wildwood property is that the contaminant sources are

present by 1960. Due to uncertainty about the start time, a second hypothesis is that the

contaminant source is present by 1965. A third hypothesis is made regarding the

concentrations of PCE and TCE at the Wildwood sources. A fourth hypothesis is made

concerning the locations of the sources, and a fifth hypothesis is made concerning the Kd

of TCE and PCE. Hypotheses regarding source location, source start-time, source

concentration of both TCE and PCE, and Kd values are made for each property and are

shown on Table 9. Because uncertainty exists about some values of source start time,

Page 159: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

138

source concentrations, and Kd, a range of possible values are proposed, as with the

example of possible source start times for the Wildwood sources given above.

The rationale behind each of these hypotheses is presented below for each site.

Hypotheses regarding values of longitudinal dispersivity and sorption for TCE and PCE

are made for the entire study area and are presented separately following the rationale for

each source property.

Page 160: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

139

Hig

h lo

ngitu

dina

l di

sper

sivi

ty

αL,

αH, α

V

(m)

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

Low

lo

ngitu

dina

l di

sper

sivi

ty

αL,

αH, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.

03

1.

5, 0

.3,

0.03

1.

5, 0

.3,

0.03

1.

5, 0

.3,

0.03

1.

5, 0

.3,

0.03

1.

5, 0

.3,

0.03

1.5,

0.3

, 0.

03

Hig

h K

d TC

E/

PCE

0.28

9/

0.73

5

0.28

9/

0.73

5

0.28

9/

0.73

5

0.28

9/

0.73

5

0.28

9/

0.73

585

0.28

9/

0.73

5

0.28

9/

0.73

5

Mod

erat

e K

d TC

E/

PCE

0.18

8/

0.47

8

0.18

8/

0.47

8

0.18

8/

0.47

8

0.18

8/

0.47

8

0.18

8/

0.47

8

0.18

8/

0.47

8

0.18

8/

0.47

8

Low

K

d TC

E/

PCE

no

sorp

tion

no

sorp

tion

no

sorp

tion

no

sorp

tion

no

sorp

tion

no

sorp

tion

no

sorp

tion

Min

imum

so

urce

co

ncen

tratio

n TC

E/PC

E (p

pb)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ no

ne

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Max

imum

so

urce

co

ncen

tratio

n TC

E/PC

E (p

pb)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Late

st

sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1977

1975

Earli

est

sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

none

1966

1969

Sour

ce lo

catio

n

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter

1st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

and

30 m

sout

h of

W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad

alon

g w

este

rn

prop

erty

bou

ndar

y

Prop

erty

/ Si

te

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a Tabl

e 9

Sum

mar

y of

hyp

othe

ses f

or so

urce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

e, so

urce

con

cent

ratio

n, K

d, an

d di

sper

sivi

ty

Page 161: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

140

Hig

h lo

ngitu

dina

l di

sper

sivi

ty

αL,

αH, α

V

(m)

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

100,

1.0

, 0.

1

Low

lo

ngitu

dina

l di

sper

sivi

ty

αL,

αH, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.

03

1.

5, 0

.3,

0.03

1.

5, 0

.3,

0.03

1.

5, 0

.3,

0.03

1.

5, 0

.3,

0.03

Hig

h K

d TC

E/

PCE

0.28

9/

0.73

5

0.28

9/

0.73

5

0.28

9/

0.73

5

0.28

9/

0.73

5

0.28

9/

0.73

5

Mod

erat

e K

d TC

E/

PCE

0.18

8/

0.47

8

0.18

8/

0.47

8

0.18

8/

0.47

8

0.18

8/

0.47

8

0.18

8/

0.47

8

Low

K

d TC

E/

PCE

no

sorp

tion

no

sorp

tion

no

sorp

tion

no

sorp

tion

no

sorp

tion

Min

imum

so

urce

co

ncen

tratio

n TC

E/PC

E (p

pb)

160,

000/

10

0

3,70

0/

100

9,40

0/

100

400/

20

0

1,00

0/

3,00

0

Max

imum

so

urce

co

ncen

tratio

n TC

E/PC

E (p

pb)

37,0

00/

100

3,70

0/

100

9,40

0/

100

400/

20

0

1,00

0/

4,00

0

Late

st

sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1965

1965

1965

1965

1970

Earli

est

sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1960

1960

1960

1960

1965

Sour

ce lo

catio

n

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 9

(Con

tinue

d)

Prop

erty

/ Si

te

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 162: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

141

2.4.1 Simplifying Assumptions Underlying the Transport Hypotheses

The magnitudes of the contaminant source concentrations reflect the

concentrations measured during site investigations in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. The

highest or most representative concentration of dissolved contaminant was selected from

the monitoring well data summarized by GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. (1994). Source

locations and concentration data are shown on Figures 36 to 40. The chemical processes

occurring at the source locations cannot be fully determined from the limited amount of

available water quality data. However, some reasonable assumptions can be made

concerning the general nature of the contaminant sources.

The first assumption is that residual contamination is present in the source areas

during the time over which the sources are active in the simulations. This condition is

considered likely and is attributed to the magnitude of the TCE and PCE concentrations

relative to their solubilities at UniFirst, Wildwood, and NEP. Finding dissolved

concentrations greater than 1 percent of solubility, more than a decade after the chemicals

were dumped, is an indication of the presence of residual solvent (Feenstra and Guiguer

1996), which is the case at the Wells G&H Superfund Site (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC

Inc. 1994). A concentration equivalent to 1 percent solubility is 11,000 µg/l for TCE and

1,500 µg/l for PCE, based on experimental values at 25°C (Fetter 1999). As shown by

Figures 36 to 40, this threshold for TCE is exceeded at Wildwood and is exceeded for

PCE at UniFirst and NEP.

The second assumption is that the highest concentration ever detected at a

property is probably not the actual maximum concentration present at that site.

Therefore, using the highest measured values for the source properties is a reasonable

Page 163: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

142

approach. Third, the source concentration at each source site is assumed to be constant

over the simulation period during which it is applied. Significant reduction in source

concentrations as a result of remediation efforts at the Wells G&H Superfund Site did not

occur prior to 1985 (US. EPA 1989; GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994; Bair and

Metheny 2002). In the transport model, these constant source concentrations result in a

relatively constant mass flux of contaminant. This is why the total volume of solvent

input at the sources during the simulated period cannot be allowed to exceed the total

volume of solvent estimated to be present in the study area. These assumptions do not

take into account co-solvent effects on solubility or the mass reduction of TCE and PCE

by dehalogenation (Schwarzenbach et al. 1993; Wiedemeier et al. 1999).

To orient the reader, source locations for each property are shown on diagrams of

model layers 1 and 2 (Figure 42). Contaminant source locations are known for each of

the source properties. Previous studies identified the source locations using soil and

groundwater quality data, observations of drums and debris piles, and personal accounts.

Designation of source locations in the model was done using digitized and rectified aerial

photographs and well location overlays on the model grid.

The size of each source is 15.2 x 15.2 m, which is the size of the grid cells in the

source areas. The source cells are all in the two uppermost model layers, where high

concentrations of TCE and PCE are found in monitoring wells.

Page 164: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

143

Figure 42 Location of source cells in the contaminant transport model

Page 165: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

144

2.4.2 Rationale for Hypotheses – W.R. Grace

Four source cells represent the contaminant sources at W.R. Grace. Two source

cells have a start time in 1962, representing the northern disposal area (G-1) and the

earliest southern disposal areas (G-2) prior to building additions. The hypothesized TCE

source concentrations of 8,400 ppb at the northern disposal area and 3,700 ppb at the

southern disposal area are close to the highest measured concentrations of 8,340 and

3,679 ppb, shown on Figure 36 (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). Both of these

sources are in model layer 1. The source near the south entrance for the first building

addition (G-3) becomes active in 1969 with a TCE concentration of 900 ppb, also in layer

1. The buried drum pit (G-4) becomes active in 1974 with a TCE concentration of 2,000

ppb in layer 2. Although model layer 2 represents bedrock materials at the pit location,

the highest concentrations of TCE are detected in the deepest part of the sediments and

upper part of the bedrock, so the deeper source location is appropriate. The source cell

corresponding to the entrance for the second building addition, beginning in 1975, is so

close to the source cell representing the buried drum location that it was unnecessary to

add an additional source cell for the fifth source location. The PCE concentrations used

for the W.R. Grace property, 100 ppb for the disposal areas and 500 ppb for the drum pit,

are far lower than the TCE concentrations and reflect the lower measured concentrations

of PCE. There is little uncertainty in the source start times, source concentrations, and

source locations so only single hypotheses are made for these parameters, listed on Table

9.

Page 166: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

145

2.4.3 Rationale for Hypotheses – UniFirst

The UniFirst source location was identified in the northeast corner of the UniFirst

building as shown on Figure 36. Model cells shown on Figure 42 represent this source.

PCE and TCE are found in both the sediments and bedrock at the UniFirst source.

Therefore, source concentrations are placed in model layers 1 and 2, representing the

entire model thickness at UniFirst.

At UniFirst, PCE is the chemical of most concern and was found in some wells as

pure product (Massachusetts Department of Public Health 1989). Figure 37 shows that a

concentration of 19,000,000 ppb, which exceeds the solubility of PCE, was found near

the PCE storage tank location (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). For this reason,

the hypothesized source concentration of 100,000 ppb is selected. This value is near the

PCE solubility limit. A hypothesized TCE source concentration of 6,700 ppb is much

lower than the measured maximum TCE concentration of 63,000 ppb but is more

representative of dissolved concentrations around the source area. The hypothesized

source concentrations for the UniFirst property represent the high measured

concentrations and no range of TCE or PCE concentrations is proposed. Therefore, the

minimum and maximum concentrations on Table 9 are identical for the UniFirst source

location.

Although only one PCE spill at the site is documented, it is possible that PCE

contamination occurred as early as 1966 (Massachusetts Department of Public Health

1989). The latest hypothesized startup time for the UniFirst source is 1977, coinciding

with the installation of the PCE storage tank.

Page 167: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

146

2.4.4 Rationale for Hypotheses – Olympia

Much less is known about the contaminant source at the Olympia property, where

the only documentation of drums at the source location occurs on aerial photographs

from 1969 and in U.S. EPA documents regarding their discovery and removal in 1985

(U.S. EPA 1989). Two model cells, as shown on Figure 42 represent the location of the

clearing where drums are observed on aerial photographs. TCE and PCE were detected

in shallow monitoring wells completed 1.2 to 2.7 m below the surface of the source area

(GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). Therefore sources are placed in upper model

layers 1 and 2.

A TCE concentration of 3,100 ppb was measured in a shallow monitoring well in

the clearing and represents the largest concentration measured between 1983 and 1993.

This value is used as the hypothesized source concentration for TCE on the Olympia

property (Table 9). A PCE concentration of 45 ppb was measured in the 1980’s and early

1990’s (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). The measured PCE concentration is

represented by the hypothesized concentration of 50 ppb. The hypothesized source

concentrations for the Olympia property represent the high measured concentrations and

no ranges of TCE or PCE concentrations are proposed. Therefore, the minimum and

maximum concentrations on Table 9 are identical for the Olympia source location.

The earliest Olympia source start time is 1969 the first year the drums are visible

on the aerial photographs. It is not known if these drums contained TCE or PCE. If they

did, then it may have been years before solvent leaked from the drums. According to

witnesses and as documented on photographs, the decayed condition of the drums found

in 1985 suggests the drums had been in place for many years (Anne Anderson et al. v.

Page 168: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

147

W.R. Grace & Co. et al., 1986). Due to uncertainty in source start time, a later start time

of 1975 is also hypothesized (Table 9).

2.4.5 Rationale for Hypotheses – Wildwood

Four source locations for TCE and PCE contamination on the Wildwood property

(Figure 42) are proposed that represent locations of debris piles containing drum parts

that are shown on Figure 38. The W-1 source represents debris pile F. The highest

concentration of TCE in monitoring wells at the site of debris pile F is 160,000 ppb. TCE

concentrations of 36,200 and 37,900 ppb were measured in a nearby monitoring well

(GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). Therefore, the maximum hypothesized TCE

source concentration at the W-1 source is 160,000 ppb and the minimum is 37,000 ppb.

Source W-2 (Figure 42) represents debris pile E and is also near the monitoring well

where measured TCE concentrations were 36,200 and 37,900 ppb (GeoTrans Inc. and

RETEC Inc. 1994). I hypothesize that a TCE source concentration of 37,000 ppb

represents the source at debris pile E. A monitoring well downgradient of debris pile D,

contained a maximum TCE concentration of 9,340 ppb (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc.

1994). Source W-3 (Figure 42) represents debris pile D and it is hypothesized that the

TCE source concentration there is 9,400 ppb. Another monitoring well near debris pile D

contained 440,000 ppb TCE, however, this higher concentration probably represents

residual TCE and not dissolved TCE. Source W-4, which represents debris piles A and

B, is near a monitoring well that contained a TCE concentration of 200 ppb (GeoTrans

Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). It is hypothesized that these debris piles are represented by

source W-4 and source concentrations there are 200 ppb TCE.

Page 169: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

148

PCE is not widespread in groundwater at the Wildwood property and has been

below the detection limit in samples from many wells containing high concentrations of

TCE (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). Therefore, representative PCE source

concentrations of 100 ppb are applied to sources W-1, W-2, and W-3, and 20 ppb is

applied to source W-4.

Although the source timing at the Wildwood property is not known exactly, there

is evidence from the tree ring dating (Anne Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al.)

that at least one, if not all of the sources, was present in the early 1960’s. The earliest

hypothesized source start time is 1960, at the beginning of the simulation period. The

latest hypothesized source start time is 1965.

2.4.6 Rationale for Hypotheses – NEP

The NEP source shown on Figure 42 represents the location of the trailer to the

west of the NEP building that was used by Prospect Tool & Die Co. and where PCE is

the primary contaminant in the soil and groundwater. The maximum PCE concentration

measured in a monitoring well at the source is 3,300 ppb (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc.

1994). It is hypothesized that the range of PCE source concentrations is between 3,000

and 4,000 ppb. A TCE source concentration of 1,000 ppb at NEP represents the

maximum measured TCE of 950 ppb (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). A range of

PCE source concentrations is hypothesized for NEP source area (Table 9) because it is

thought that this is the primary source of PCE to well G and that the simulated

concentrations in well G might be sensitive to the source concentration. A similar range

is not selected to represent the TCE source at NEP because it is possible that NEP is not

the primary source of TCE at well G.

Page 170: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

149

The source start time at NEP is not known with certainty, but could be as early as

1965, corresponding to the first appearance of the trailer at the NEP source observed on

aerial photographs. A later start time of 1970 is also hypothesized and might represent a

lag between the trailer installation and the spilling or disposing of solvents on the ground.

2.4.7 Rationale for Hypotheses – Washington Street Source

The Washington Street source shown on Figure 42, represents the location of the

trailer that appears on a 1971 aerial photograph. It is hypothesized that the trailer

location is near the source of PCE measured in monitoring wells at the southern boundary

of the W.R. Grace property and in downgradient monitoring wells west of Washington

Street. One downgradient monitoring well contained 260 ppb (GeoTrans Inc. 1995). It is

possible that higher concentrations exist in the source area. Therefore, the source

concentration hypothesized for the Washington Street source is 500 ppb (Table 9).

Because there is no specific source documented, it is also hypothesis that no additional

source of PCE is present south of W.R. Grace (Table 9). The hypothesized source start

time of 1971 corresponds to the date of the aerial photograph on which the trailer is

observed. The characterization of a PCE source south of the W.R. Grace property does

not imply knowledge of a specific PCE source in that location.

2.4.8 Rationale for Hypotheses of Sorption Coefficients for TCE and PCE

In porous media, organic solvents including TCE and PCE do not commonly

travel at the advective groundwater velocity. Instead, molecules of dissolved organic

solvents are sorbed preferentially onto organic matter in the aquifer matrix and sorb onto

mineral grains due to their polar and hydrophobic nature (Schwarzenbach et al. 1993). In

Page 171: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

150

the transport model, this sorption process is represented by a sorption coefficient (Kd).

Sorption effectively slows the velocity of contaminant transport and is one variable used

in calculating contaminant retardation factors. There are no reported, experimentally

derived values of Kd for TCE and PCE at the Wells G&H Superfund Site, so Kd values

were calculated for use in the model by applying empirical formulas found in the

literature (Schwarzenbach et al. 1993).

Sorption of TCE and PCE is important in these simulations because it

incorporates the uncertainty regarding the site chemistry. Another reason sorption

processes are important is because during the trial, the jury was asked to distinguish

between the arrival times of TCE and PCE emanating from W.R. Grace and Wildwood.

TCE and PCE can be retarded by different amounts (Schwarzenbach et al. 1993) resulting

in different arrival times of each chemical. My goal is to realistically simulate the lag

times, if any, between the arrival of TCE and PCE at wells G and H.

The advective velocity of the groundwater flow model corresponds with velocities

computed using 3H/3He groundwater ages, but for the transport of TCE and PCE, the use

of chemical sorption more realistically addresses the actual chemical transport processes.

It is assumed that the sorption of TCE and PCE depends mostly on the amount of organic

matter in the aquifer (Chiou et al. 1979; Karickhoff et at. 1979). Historically, sediment

samples across the Superfund Site were not analyzed for total organic carbon (TOC).

There are only a handful of analyses available (Table 10) from the more recent

investigations at the Olympia property (Garren 2002). These borings were made in 2002

in the area where the drums were found, as previously described.

Page 172: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

151

Depth (m) Sediment type TOC (mg/kg)

1.8 to 2.4 sand 575 and 10,500

1.8 to 2.4 sand and organics 3,180

1.8 to 2.4 sand 2,070

2.4 to 3.0 sand 663

7.9 to 8.5 gravel 285

7.9 to 8.5 gravel 103

7.9 to 8.5 possibly sand 426

13.4 to 14.0 sand 304

25.6 to 26.2 sand 130

27.1 to 27.7 sand and gravel 400

28.3 to 28.6 sand and gravel 471

Table 10 TOC values measured at the Olympia property (Garren 2002)

At the Olympia property, which overlies the center of the buried valley, material

in the upper few meters contains a high amount of organic matter due to the history of

wetland vegetation (Zeeb 1996). Although localized deposits occur containing up to 9 m

of organic material, in general, the well logs indicate that organic matter is mostly found

in the upper 1 to 2 m in the wetland. The amount of organic matter decreases rapidly

with depth from 10,500 mg/kg TOC in the upper 2.4 m to between 130 and 417 mg/kg

TOC at depths of 25.6 to 28.6 m (Garren 2002). This trend might be a result of the rapid

sedimentation in the valley during glacial retreat (Metheny 1998) when organic matter

may have been less abundant due to the cooler climate. It is assumed that the majority of

the groundwater flowing from upland areas toward the center of the valley does not come

Page 173: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

152

in contact with the peaty and organic-rich sandy deposits until the end of the flow path,

when it discharges into the wetland area. Therefore, sorption of TCE and PCE onto

organic matter is probably not high. Nevertheless, small amounts of organic matter

disseminated throughout the valley-fill deposits may have a substantial impact on the

transport of contaminants.

To account for the lack of sitewide information about the amount of organic

matter or other conditions that affect the retardation of TCE and PCE, a range of sorption

coefficients are hypothesized (Table 9). In light of the low values of TOC measured at

depth below the Olympia property, one assumption is that no reactions occur, thus no

sorption is applied in some simulations.

Sorption coefficients are estimated for both TCE and PCE using the equations of

Schwarzenbach et al. (1993) that calculate partitioning of solvents onto organic matter as

shown by equations 23 and 24

log Kom ≈ + 0.88log Kow – 0.27 (23)

Kd = Komfom (24) where Kom is the partition coefficient of chemical onto organic matter and fom is the

fraction of organic matter equal to twice the fraction of organic carbon (foc)

(Schwarzenbach et al. 1993). Values for octanol-water partition coefficients (log Kow) of

2.88 for PCE and 2.42 for TCE are obtained from of Schwarzenbach et al. (1993). The

foc values calculated from the TOC measurements of the deeper sands and gravels at the

Olympia property are less than 0.001, below the limit for which the calculations of Kom

do not correspond to empirical studies (Allen-King et al. 1996). Therefore, a value of

foc=0.0013 was selected to represent a moderate amount of organic material for which the

Page 174: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

153

Kd could be calculated. This yields a moderate Kd of 0.188 for TCE and 0.478 for PCE.

The highest estimated value of foc=0.002 use in the calculations gives a Kd value for TCE

of 0.289 and 0.735 for PCE. These hypothesized values of moderate and high Kd are

listed on Table 9.

These Kd values are used by the contaminant transport model to internally

calculate retardation factors (Rf), which is part of the transport solution as shown in

equation 20 (Zheng and Wang 1999). Values of Rf are calculated by the equation

bKnRf ρ−+= 11 (25) (Domenico and Schwartz 1990). A bulk density (ρb) of 1.8 g/cc is applied uniformly in

the model and represents typical valley-fill sediment with a porosity of 0.3 and a solids

density of 2.6 g/cc. Porosity values in the model vary from 0.24 to 0.4 for sediments, so

values of Rf are not uniform in the transport model, but depend on the local sediment

type. The ranges of Rf values calculated by the transport model are shown on Table 11.

Page 175: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

154

Value of

estimated Kd for TCE

Ranges of Rf for TCE

Value of estimated Kd

for PCE

Ranges of Rf for PCE

No sorption 1.0 No sorption 1.0

Moderate Kd 0.188 1.7 to 2.4 Moderate Kd

0.478 2.9 to 4.6

High Kd 0.289 2.2 to 3.2 High Kd

0.735 3.9 to 6.5

Table 11 Rf values calculated from estimated Kd and used in Scenarios #1 through #11

These estimated retardation factors for TCE and PCE are not too different from

experimental values from Canadian Forces Base Borden, Ontario, where sediments are

sandy and have relatively low amounts of organic carbon, similar to those at Woburn. At

the Borden site Curtis et al. (1986) estimated a Rf value for PCE of 1.3, based on a foc of

0.0002 and a ρd of 1.81 g/cc, but batch experiments and field-testing site showed higher

retardation factors in the range of 2.7 to 5.9. The higher measured values were attributed

to sorption onto mineral grains and not onto organic matter. In contrast, retardation of

PCE was not observed in the sandy gravel at Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts (Allen-

King et al. 1996). These processes may also occur at the Wells G&H Superfund Site,

therefore, the hypothesized Kd values and their resulting ranges of retardation factors

most likely includes the range of actual values.

An attempt was made to use the method of estimating site retardation factors

described by Rogers (1992), where a time-series of chemical concentrations in

downgradient wells show breakthrough curves as contaminants travel from a source.

Page 176: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

155

Data from for over 35 monitoring wells on the Wells G&H Superfund Site were

examined (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994), but all data sets presented problems

with either an insufficient number of samples over time or a lack of breakthrough-curve

shape. I concluded that this method could not be applied to estimate Rf values for the

study area.

2.4.9 Rationale for Hypotheses of Dispersion

Dispersion is a process by which the velocity of chemicals deviates from the

advective groundwater flow velocity due to heterogeneities in geologic materials and

chemical environments. The portion of a chemical plume that appears to move ahead of

the advective front does so by moving along shorter or faster flow paths (Zheng and

Bennett 2002). This has the effect of decreasing the maximum concentration values and

spreading the plume transverse to the direction of groundwater flow. Dispersion is an

important process in this model because I am concerned not only in the arrival times of

the plumes at wells G and H, but also with the changes in their concentrations during the

simulation period.

In a three-dimensional flow field, DXX, the dispersion in coordinate direction X is

calculated by

vvv

vvD Z

ZY

TX

LXX

222

ααα ++=

(26)

where αL is dispersivity in the longitudinal direction, αH is dispersivity in the horizontal,

transverse direction, αV is dispersivity in the vertical transverse direction, |v| is the

seepage velocity vector, and v(X,Y,V) are scalar components of the seepage velocity vector

(Zheng and Bennett 2002). Dispersivity (α) is a property of the aquifer and is the only

Page 177: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

156

direct user input for calculations of dispersion in the HMOC code (Zheng and Wang

1999). During the simulations, the values of dispersion are recalculated as the flow

velocities change over the simulation periods.

Values of dispersion are dependent on the heterogeneity of the subsurface

materials at a site and the scale at which a site is investigated (Zhang and Brusseau 1999).

Site-specific values of dispersion, typically, are not known. The length of the five source

properties at the Wells G&H Superfund Site, measured along direction of groundwater

flow, was used to estimate the longitudinal dispersivity from reported values of

dispersivity (Gelhar et al. 1985). The corresponding dispersivities range between 1 to

100 m (Gelhar et al. 1985). The smallest hypothesized value of longitudinal dispersivity

(αL) is 1.5 m. I assumed that dispersivity is anisotropic and that transverse dispersivity is

one order of magnitude smaller than αL. For small αL a value of αH, = 0.3 m is proposed.

Dispersivity in the vertical direction is hypothesized to be two orders of magnitude

smaller than αL. For small αL a value of αV = 0.03 m is proposed. The largest

hypothesized value of αL is 100 m, which is accompanied by values of αH = 1.0 m and

αV = 0.1 m.

Page 178: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

157

2.5 Transport Scenarios

Model simulations are made using different combinations of hypothesized

conditions for each property. Each combination of conditions is referred to as a scenario.

Eleven scenarios are used to investigate the hypotheses. Tables 11 to 21 show the

parameters used for the eleven scenarios. Each table represents conditions for six

different simulations; there are three simulations for TCE transport and three simulations

for PCE transport. The reason for this organization is that for each scenario, the source

locations, source concentrations, and source start times are consistent. It is the

hypothesized Kd values for TCE and PCE that are varied within each scenario. Six

simulations are required for simulating TCE and PCE transport using no sorption,

moderate, and high Kd values. Simulations of TCE and PCE transport using no sorption

are designated with the letter A, as in Scenario #1A. Simulations of TCE and PCE

transport using moderate Kd values are designated with the letter B. Simulations of TCE

and PCE transport using high Kd values are designated with the letter C. There are a total

of 66 separate simulations represented by the eleven scenarios; 33 are for TCE

simulations and 33 are for PCE simulations.

2.5.1 Transport Scenario #1

Conditions for Scenario #1 are shown on Table 12. These six simulations

represent the earliest source start times hypothesized for the UniFirst, Olympia,

Wildwood, and NEP sources. The Washington Street source is present. The lowest

hypothesized source concentrations are applied for the NEP source. At Wildwood source

W-1, a moderate TCE concentration of 47,000 ppb is used in the layer 1 cell and the

Page 179: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

158

lowest hypothesized TCE concentration of 37,000 ppb is used in the layer 2 cell. Small

values of longitudinal dispersivity are used for all simulations in Scenario #1. Scenario

#1A simulates these sources using no sorption, Scenario #1B simulates these same source

parameters using the moderate Kd values, and Scenario #1C uses high Kd values under

the same hypothesized source conditions. Scenario #1 is used as the base case scenario.

When parameters for individual properties are changed, as for Scenarios #2 through #10,

the conditions of the remaining properties are the same as those used in Scenario #1.

Table 12 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #1A, #1B, and #1C

Page 180: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

159

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#1C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#1B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#1A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2 1 1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1966

1969

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad a

long

w

este

rn p

rope

rty b

ound

ary

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 12

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues,

and

disp

ersi

vity

val

ues f

or

Scen

ario

s #1A

, #1B

, and

#1C

Page 181: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

160

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#1C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#1B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#1A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

47,0

00/1

00

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/3,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1960

1960

1960

1960

1960

1965

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 12

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 182: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

161

2.5.2 Transport Scenarios #2, #3, and #4

Scenarios #2, #3, and #4 are used to investigate the uncertainty in the source start

time and PCE source concentration at the NEP property. For Scenario #2 (Table 13), the

NEP source is started at the latest hypothesized date of 1970 and the lowest hypothesized

PCE source concentration of 3,000 ppb is used. For Scenario #3 (Table 14), the latest

source start time for NEP is used again, but the PCE source concentration is increased to

the highest hypothesized concentration of 4,000 ppb. In Scenario #4 (Table 15), the

earliest source start time of 1965 and the highest PCE source concentration of 4,000 ppb

are used. These three scenarios result in 18 separate simulations. For each of these

simulations, the lower value of longitudinal dispersivity is used. The source start times

and source concentrations for the other source properties and the Washington Street

source are the same as those used in Scenario #1 (Table 12). Scenarios #2A, #3A, and

#4A investigate the different concentrations and start times for NEP using no sorption.

Scenarios #2B, #3B, and #1C investigate the influence of moderate Kd values on these

hypothesized conditions. Scenarios #2C, #3C, and #4C are simulations using higher Kd

values.

Table 13 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #2A, #2B, and #2C

Table 14 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #3A, #3B, and #3C

Table 15 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #4A, #4B, and #4C

Page 183: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

162

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#2C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#2B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#2A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2 1 1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1966

1969

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad a

long

w

este

rn p

rope

rty b

ound

ary

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 13

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues,

and

disp

ersi

vity

val

ues f

or

Scen

ario

s #2A

, #2B

, and

#2C

Page 184: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

163

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#2C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#2B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#2A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

47,0

00/1

00

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/3,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1960

1960

1960

1960

1960

1970

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 13

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 185: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

164

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#3C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#3B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#3A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2 1 1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1966

1969

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad a

long

w

este

rn p

rope

rty b

ound

ary

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 14

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues,

and

disp

ersi

vity

val

ues f

or

Sce

nario

s #3A

, #3B

, and

#3C

Page 186: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

165

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#3C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#3B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#3A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

47,0

00/1

00

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/4,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1960

1960

1960

1960

1960

1970

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 14

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 187: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

166

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#4C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#4B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#4A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2 1 1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1966

1969

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad a

long

w

este

rn p

rope

rty b

ound

ary

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 15

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues,

and

disp

ersi

vity

val

ues f

or

Scen

ario

s #4A

, #4B

, and

#4C

Page 188: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

167

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#4C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#4B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#4A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

47,0

00/1

00

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/4,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1960

1960

1960

1960

1960

1965

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 15

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 189: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

168

2.5.3 Transport Scenario #5

The hypothesized source start time at Olympia is investigated using Scenario #5

(Table 16). The later hypothesized start time of 1975 is used. The lower value of

longitudinal dispersivity is used for the six separate simulations evaluated in Scenario #5.

Scenario #5A uses no sorption, #5B uses moderate values of Kd, and #5C uses higher

values of Kd. The source start times and source concentrations for the other source

properties and the Washington Street source are the same as those used in Scenario #1

(Table 12).

Table 16 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #5A, #5B, and #5C

Page 190: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

169

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#5C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#5B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#5A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2 1 1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1966

1975

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad a

long

w

este

rn p

rope

rty b

ound

ary

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 16

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues,

and

disp

ersi

vity

val

ues f

or

Scen

ario

s #5A

, #5B

, and

#5C

Page 191: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

170

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#5C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#5B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#5A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

47,0

00/1

00

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/3,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1960

1960

1960

1960

1960

1965

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 16

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 192: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

171

2.5.4 Transport Scenario #6

Scenario #6 (Table 17) is used to investigate the latest hypothesized source start

time at Wildwood of 1965. The Wildwood source concentrations are the same as those

for Scenario #1 (Table 12). The source start times and source concentrations for the other

source properties and the Washington Street source are also the same as those used in

Scenario #1. The lower value of longitudinal dispersivity is used for the six simulations.

As for the previous scenarios, Scenario #6A uses no sorption, #6B uses moderate values

of Kd, and #6C uses higher values of Kd.

Table 17 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #6A, #6B, and #6C

Page 193: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

172

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#6C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#6B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#6A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2 1 1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1966

1969

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad a

long

w

este

rn p

rope

rty b

ound

ary

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 17

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues,

and

disp

ersi

vity

val

ues f

or

Scen

ario

s #6A

, #6B

, and

#6C

Page 194: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

173

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#6C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#6B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#6A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

47,0

00/1

00

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/3,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1965

1965

1965

1965

1965

1965

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 17

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 195: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

174

2.5.5 Transport Scenario #7

The affect of using later source start times for the Olympia (1975), Wildwood

(1965), and NEP (1970) properties is investigated in Scenario #7 (Table 18). These later

source start times for individual sources are simulated together because the combined

influence of the separate plumes cannot be completely predicted by simulating individual

plumes. The lower hypothesized source concentrations for Wildwood and NEP are used

in Scenario #7. The source concentrations used for the Olympia property are the same as

those used for Scenario #1 (Table 12). The source start times and source concentrations

for W.R. Grace and UniFirst properties and the Washington Street source are the same as

those used in Scenario #1. The lower hypothesized values of longitudinal dispersivity are

used in the six simulations. As for the previous scenarios, Scenario #7A applies no

sorption, #7B applies moderate values of Kd, and #7C applies higher Kd values.

Table 18 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #7A, #7B, and #7C

Page 196: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

175

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#7C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#7B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#7A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2 1 1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1977

1975

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad a

long

w

este

rn p

rope

rty b

ound

ary

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 18

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues,

and

disp

ersi

vity

val

ues f

or

Scen

ario

s #7A

, #7B

, and

#7C

Page 197: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

176

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#7C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#7B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#7A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

47,0

00/1

00

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/3,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1965

1965

1965

1965

1965

1970

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 18

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 198: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

177

2.5.6 Transport Scenario #8

Scenario #8 (Table 19) is used to investigate the latest hypothesized source start

time of 1977 at UniFirst. The source start times and source concentrations for the other

properties and the Washington Street source are the same as those used in Scenario #1

(Table 12). The lower value of longitudinal dispersivity is used for the six simulations.

As for the previous scenarios, no sorption is simulated in Scenario #8A, moderate and

higher Kd values are simulated in Scenarios #8B, and #8C, respectively.

Table 19 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #8A, #8B, and #8C

Page 199: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

178

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#8C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#8B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#8A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2 1 1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1977

1969

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad a

long

w

este

rn p

rope

rty b

ound

ary

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 19

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues,

and

disp

ersi

vity

val

ues f

or

Scen

ario

s #8A

, #8B

, and

#8C

Page 200: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

179

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#8C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#8B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#8A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

47,0

00/1

00

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/3,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1960

1960

1960

1960

1960

1965

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 19

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 201: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

180

2.5.7 Transport Scenario #9

The higher source concentration for the Wildwood debris pile F (W-1) source

location is investigated in Scenario #9 (Table 20). The maximum TCE source

concentration of 160,000 ppb is applied to the layer 1 cell at the location of debris pile F

(W-1). The source start times and source concentrations for the other properties and the

Washington Street source are the same as those used in Scenario #1 (Table 12). The

lower value of longitudinal dispersivity is used for the six simulations. As for the

previous scenarios, Scenario #9A uses no sorption, #9B uses moderate values of Kd, and

#9C uses higher values of Kd.

Table 20 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #9A, #9B, and #9C

Page 202: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

181

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#9C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#9B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#9A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2 1 1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1966

1969

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad a

long

w

este

rn p

rope

rty b

ound

ary

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 20

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues a

nd d

ispe

rsiv

ity v

alue

s for

Sc

enar

ios #

9A, #

9B, a

nd #

9C

Page 203: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

182

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#9C

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#9B

K

d TC

E/PC

E

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#9A

K

d TC

E/PC

E

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

160,

000

/100

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/3,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1960

1960

1960

1960

1960

1965

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 20

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 204: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

183

2.5.8 Transport Scenario #10

The source at the Washington Street location is not simulated in Scenario #10

(Table 21) to investigate the spatial distribution of contaminants without this source. The

source start times and source concentrations used for the source properties are the same

as those used in Scenario #1 (Table 12). The lower value of longitudinal dispersivity is

used for the six separate simulations. As for the previous scenarios, Scenario #10A uses

no sorption, #10B uses moderate Kd values, and #10C uses higher Kd values.

Table 21 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #10A, #10B, and #10C

Page 205: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

184

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#10

C

Kd

TCE/

PCE

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#10

B

Kd

TCE/

PCE

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#1

0A

Kd

TCE/

PCE

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ no

ne

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2

none

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

none

1966

1969

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar ro

ad a

long

w

este

rn p

rope

rty b

ound

ary

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 21

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues,

and

disp

ersi

vity

val

ues f

or

Scen

ario

s #10

A, #

10B

, and

#10

C

Page 206: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

185

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

1.5,

0.3

, 0.0

3

Scen

ario

#10

C

Kd

TCE/

PCE

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#10

B

Kd

TCE/

PCE

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#1

0A

Kd

TCE/

PCE

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

41,0

00/1

00

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/3,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1960

1960

1960

1960

1960

1965

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 21

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 207: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

186

2.5.9 Transport Scenario #11

Scenario #11 (Table 22) is used to investigate the influence of the larger value of

longitudinal dispersivity. For reasons described below, the larger hypothesized value of

αL (100 m) could not be applied to this particular model application. Therefore, in

Scenario #11, a larger value of αL is represented by αL = 10 m. Transverse dispersivities

of αH = 1.0 and αV = 0.1 m are used in Scenario #11. The source start times and source

concentrations for the other properties and the Washington Street source for these six

simulations are the same as those used in Scenario #1. As for the previous scenarios,

Scenario #11A uses no sorption, #11B uses moderate values of Kd, and #11C uses higher

values of Kd.

Table 22 Source locations, source start times, model layers, source concentrations, Kd values, and dispersivity values for Scenarios #11A, #11B, and #11C

Page 208: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

187

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

Scen

ario

#11

C

Kd

TCE/

PCE

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

785

0.28

9/0.

785

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#11

B

Kd

TCE/

PCE

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#1

1A

Kd

TCE/

PCE

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

8,40

0/

100

3,70

0/

100

900/

10

0

2,00

0/

500

none

/ 50

0

6,70

0/

100,

000

3,10

0/

50

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 1 1 2 1 1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1962

1962

1969

1974

1971

1966

1969

So

urce

loca

tion

Nor

th e

ntra

nce

(G-1

)

Orig

inal

sout

h en

tranc

e (G

-2)

Sout

h en

tranc

e af

ter 1

st e

ditio

n (G

-3)

Bur

ied

drum

s (G

-4)

45 m

eas

t of W

ashi

ngto

n St

reet

an

d 30

m so

uth

of W

.R. G

race

Nor

thea

st c

orne

r of

Uni

Firs

t bui

ldin

g

Cle

arin

g ne

ar w

ells

O

2 an

d O

3

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

W.R

. Gra

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stre

et

Uni

Firs

t

Oly

mpi

a

Tabl

e 22

Sou

rce

loca

tions

, sou

rce

star

t tim

es, m

odel

laye

rs, s

ourc

e co

ncen

tratio

ns, K

d val

ues,

and

disp

ersi

vity

val

ues f

or

Scen

ario

s #11

A, #

11B

, and

#11

C

Page 209: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

188

Dis

pers

ivity

α

L, α

H, α

V

(m)

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

10, 1

.0, 0

.1

Scen

ario

#11

C

Kd

TCE/

PCE

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

0.28

9/0.

735

Scen

ario

#11

B

Kd

TCE/

PCE

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

0.18

8/0.

478

Scen

ario

#1

1A

Kd

TCE/

PCE

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

no so

rptio

n

Sour

ce

conc

entra

tion

TCE/

PCE

(ppb

)

47,0

00/1

00

37,0

00/1

00

3,70

0/10

0

9,40

0/10

0

400/

200

1,00

0/3,

000

Mod

el

laye

r for

so

urce

ce

ll 1 2 1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

1, 2

Sour

ce

star

t tim

e

1960

1960

1960

1960

1960

1965

So

urce

loca

tion

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile F

(W

-1)

Deb

ris p

ile E

(W

-2)

Deb

ris p

ile D

(W

-3)

Deb

ris p

iles A

and

B

(W-4

)

Trai

ler s

ite

Tabl

e 22

(C

ontin

ued)

Pr

oper

ty/S

ite

Wild

woo

d

NEP

Page 210: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

189

2.6 Methods of Hypothesis Testing

The results of all 66 transport simulations are compared to monitoring well data

and estimates of the solvent volumes present at the source properties. The simulated

concentrations of TCE and PCE in the well G and H cells are compared with measured

concentrations in wells G and H between 1979 and 1986 (Table 8). The simulated

plumes are compared to the distributions of TCE and PCE measured across the site in

monitoring wells in 1985. Upper limits on the likely volume of solvents at each source

property were used as an additional check on the hypothesized source concentrations for

each plausible simulation. These comparisons and analyses support some of the

hypotheses listed on Table 9 and are used to eliminate hypotheses that produce unlikely

results.

2.6.1 Methodology Used in Comparison of Simulated and Measured TCE and PCE Concentrations at Wells G and H

The first test of the transport hypotheses is a comparison of the measured TCE

and PCE concentrations with time-series graphs of the simulated concentrations in wells

G and H. For example, Figure 43 shows the comparison between simulated and

measured TCE concentrations at well G for Scenario #1B (Table 12). In this scenario,

the measured values (data points) are closely matched by the simulated values (solid

line). The simulated concentrations for well G are the values for the 6 x 6 x 3-m model

cell. As previously described, some of the small peaks and troughs in the concentrations

are oscillations that result from the HMOC particle tracking method (Hassan and

Mohamed 2003). The concentrations shown in Figure 43 represent the average TCE

concentrations for each time-step from six separate model simulations of Scenario #1B

Page 211: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

190

(Table 12). A smoother average line is obtained by increasing the number of simulations

used in calculating the average (Hassan and Mohamed 2003).

Figure 43 Time-series of simulated and measured concentrations of TCE in well G for Scenario #1B

Other peaks and troughs correspond to the pumping schedule of well G.

Concentrations decrease when well G is turned off, as in the period between July 1972

and November 1974. Prolonged pumping corresponds to trends of increasing TCE

concentration in well G. For Scenario #1B, the highest simulated concentration (351

ppb) occurs in 1979, near the end of the longest pumping period for both municipal wells.

Page 212: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

191

For a scenario to be considered plausible, time-series concentrations for each of

the six simulations under that scenario must be close to or match the measured

concentrations in wells G and H. If one or more of the simulations do not match, the

scenario is considered unlikely.

2.6.2 Methodology for Comparison of Simulated and Measured TCE and PCE Distributions Using Scenario #1B

A comparison between simulated and measured contaminant distributions is also

used to evaluate the reasonableness of simulation results. The number of measurements

of TCE and PCE in monitoring wells sitewide is larger than the number of samples from

wells G and H. For the year 1985, which represents the last year of the simulation period,

there are 172 samples available for plotting TCE distributions and 171 samples for

plotting PCE distributions. Measured concentrations over the entire year of 1985 are

used for comparison rather than samples collected over a smaller period of time because

there were no sitewide synchronous sampling events in 1985. Many of the monitoring

wells were not yet constructed until mid or late 1985 (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc.

1994). Therefore, a sitewide distribution must represent samples collected over the entire

year. An additional benefit of comparing TCE and PCE distributions sitewide is that the

numerical oscillations in the HMOC solver do not have a visible effect on the overall

simulated distributions.

As an example Figures 44 to 49 show the simulated TCE and PCE plumes in

layers 1 to 6 for Scenario #1B (Table 12) with measured concentrations plotted as

individual data points. The simulated plumes represent the concentration distributions at

the end of 1985, just prior to the startup of wells G and H for the December 1985 aquifer

Page 213: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

192

test. Measured concentrations of TCE and PCE are plotted in the model layers that

correspond to the depths of the monitoring well screens. When well screens cross more

than one model layer, the measured concentration value is assigned to each model layer

crossed by the well screen. For the simulated plume maps, concentration contour

intervals of 5 to 99 ppb, 100 to 999 ppb, 1,000 to 9,999 ppb, and 10,000 to 100,000 ppb

show the simulated distributions.

Page 214: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

193

Figure 44 Simulated TCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured TCE for model layers 1 and 2 based on results from Scenario #1B

Page 215: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

194

Figure 45 Simulated TCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured TCE for model layers 3 and 4 based on results from Scenario #1B

Page 216: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

195

Figure 46 Simulated TCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured TCE for model layers 5 and 6 based on results from Scenario #1B

Page 217: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

196

Figure 47 Simulated PCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured PCE for model layers 1 and 2 based on results from Scenario #1B

Page 218: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

197

Figure 48 Simulated PCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured PCE for model layers 3 and 4 based on results from Scenario #1B

Page 219: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

198

Figure 49 Simulated PCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distributions of measured PCE for model layers 5 and 6 based on results from Scenario #1B

Page 220: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

199

At first, my approach for comparing the simulated and measured values was to

subtract one from the other and then consider the difference, similar to comparing the

difference between simulated and measured heads. This, however, turned out to be

difficult due to the steepness of the concentration gradients. For example, on Figure 44,

the map of TCE distribution in layer 1, a measured value of 180 ppb TCE is

approximately 500 m to the west of the sources at W.R. Grace, within the simulated

concentration field of 5 to 99 ppb. The difference between the measured value of 180

ppb and the simulated concentration field at this location is 157 ppb. The measured TCE

value is 22 m from the location where the matching simulated value in layer 1 is equal to

180 ppb (distances in the vertical direction are not considered). Similarly, the difference

between the measured and simulated concentrations is 2,054 ppb TCE at a point 80 m

west of the W.R. Grace source where the measured concentration is 1,440 ppb. This data

point is also 22 m from the location where the matching simulated TCE value is equal to

1,440 ppb. In each case, the simulated plumes describe the distribution of measured

values within 22 m, but the quantitative evaluation of absolute differences (180 ppb and

2,054 ppb) does not adequately describe these relations.

Perhaps a better approach for assessing the quality of the simulated distributions

is to perform a visual, albeit subjective, evaluation. This method might seem simplistic,

but consider that the simulation period is 26 years and that some of the sources are active

for nearly the entire simulation. The observation that many of these measured values fall

within or very close to their corresponding simulated concentration field is remarkable,

given that the combinations of source start times and source concentrations are estimates

and not known precisely.

Page 221: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

200

2.6.2.1 Comparisons from Scenario #1B at NEP

Although there are only a few measured values of TCE and PCE near NEP for

comparison, the simulated distributions from Scenario #1B approximate the measured

concentrations of TCE and PCE well. The source concentration of TCE is 1,000 ppb and

the PCE source is 3,000 ppb in Scenario #1B (Table 12). The simulated field of 100 to

999 ppb TCE extends up to 250 m downgradient from the source in layer 1 (Figure 44)

and 300 m downgradient from the source in layer 2 (Figure 44), as the TCE plume moves

toward the river. In layer 3 (Figure 45), only a small portion of the TCE plume is above

100 ppb and in layers 4, 5, and 6 (Figures 45 and 46), the TCE emanating from NEP is

less than 100 ppb. The well downgradient from the NEP source in layer 1 (Figure 44)

contains a measured concentration of 33 ppb TCE. Two wells in layer 2 (Figure 44)

contain 25 and 17 ppb. In layer 3 (Figure 45), 33 ppb TCE is reported for one monitoring

well downgradient of NEP. These measured values are all within the simulated 5 to 99

ppb TCE field.

The simulated PCE plume emanating from the source at NEP contains

concentrations within the 1,000 to 3,000 ppb field in layers 1 and 2 (Figure 47) that

persist into layer 3 (Figure 48). In layer 4 (Figure 48), the simulated PCE concentrations

decrease and are between 5 and 99 ppb. The simulated PCE plume remains distinct

enough to show that the plume travels down into layers 5 and 6 (Figure 49) and may

contribute to the PCE detected in monitoring wells to the south of well G.

In this area to the south of well G, the simulated plumes may provide a clue to

uncharacterized sources of TCE and PCE in the aquifer. Reported PCE concentrations in

1985 of 180, 20, and 750 ppb in monitoring wells 400 m to the southwest of NEP and

Page 222: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

201

east of the Wildwood sources in layers 1, 2, and 4, respectively, are much higher than the

simulated concentrations from NEP (Figures 47 and 48). In these same monitoring wells,

reported TCE concentrations in 1985 were 390 ppb in layer 1, 194 ppb in layer 2 (Figure

44), and 370 ppb in layer 4 (Figure 45), which are also well above simulated

concentrations. This may indicate that an additional source of TCE and PCE is present

upgradient from these monitoring wells. Suspected sources classified as OU-1 by U.S.

EPA (2001a) are located close to this area, but have not been fully investigated at the

time of this study.

2.6.2.2 Comparisons from Scenario #1B at Olympia

The plume emanating from the Olympia source area can be compared to only one

monitoring well located 140 m to the southeast of the Olympia property. The measured

TCE concentrations in this well in 1985 were 9 ppb in layer 1 (Figure 44), 31 ppb in layer

3 (Figure 45), and 34 ppb in layer 5 (Figure 46). The monitoring well is outside of, but

very close, to the simulated 5 to 99 ppb field in December 1985 for layers 1 and 3. In

layer 5, the simulated 5 to 99 ppb field is 50 m north of the monitoring well where 34 ppb

TCE was detected. Simulated TCE concentrations in layer 5 (Figure 46) are less than 20

ppb and simulated TCE concentrations in layer 6 are less than 5 ppb.

When well H is pumping, the center of the simulated Olympia plume is located

near this monitoring well. When well H is off, transport of contaminants is to the east.

U.S. EPA contractors investigating the Olympia property in 2002 believe that flow the

flow direction from Olympia southeasterly (Smyth 2003).

The simulated PCE plume at Olympia in December 1985 has a shape similar to

the TCE plume as it moves to the east toward the river, even though the assigned PCE

Page 223: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

202

source concentration at Olympia is 50 ppb, which is much lower than the TCE source

concentration. The simulated PCE plume in layer 1 (Figure 47) moves toward the river

in December 1985. The simulated PCE plumes in layers 2 and 3 (Figures 47 and 48)

appear to flow toward well H. In layer 4 (Figures 45), the length of the simulated PCE

plume (Figure 48) is less than 50 m. The simulated PCE plume within the 5 to 50 ppb

field does not reach layers 5 or 6 (Figure 49).

2.6.2.3 Comparisons from Scenario #1B at Wildwood

In December 1985, the simulated TCE plume traveling from the Wildwood source

areas contains the highest simulated concentrations of TCE across the entire site. Most of

the simulated Wildwood TCE plume travels toward pumping well S46, on the southern

end of the Wildwood property. Well S46 is screened in layer 3. The assigned TCE

source concentrations in Scenario #1B at Wildwood are between 400 and 41,000 ppb.

Simulated TCE concentrations in the 10,000 to 41,000 ppb concentration field occur only

in layers 1 and 2 (Figure 44) and remain fairly close to the source areas. The simulated

TCE plume in layer 3 (Figure 45) has a shape similar to the layer 2 plume, but the

simulated concentrations are lower and within the 1,000 to 9,999 ppb field. However, in

layer 4 (Figure 45) the shape of the simulated TCE plume has a northeastward arm

extending under the river toward well G, which is screened in layer 4, even though

pumping at well G ceased in May 1979. The simulated TCE plume at Wildwood in 1985

also extends northeastward in layers 5 and 6 (Figure 46).

Discrepancies between measured concentrations and the simulated plumes occur

near the source areas because the model does not reproduce some of the natural

variability in the source areas where large and small measured concentrations occur close

Page 224: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

203

together. For example, concentrations between 15 and 440,000 ppb TCE were measured

in shallow monitoring wells in layer 1 (Figure 44) on the Wildwood property and

concentrations between 8 and 160,000 ppb TCE were measured in layer 2 (Figure 44).

This is likely due to the presence of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL). The

model transports contaminants smoothly and does not account for dilute areas as close as

a few grid cells downgradient from the source cells. In addition, the simulated plumes

represent only dissolved concentrations emanating from the source cells. The model

cannot simulate the complexity of DNAPL sources (Pankow and Cherry 1997).

PCE is not detected in most monitoring wells on the Wildwood property and is

less than 100 ppb in all but one monitoring well, which contains 58,000 ppb PCE in layer

1. This large concentration likely represents residual PCE rather than the dissolved

plume (Figure 47). The assigned PCE source concentrations in Scenario #1B at

Wildwood are between 20 and 100 ppb. The simulated PCE plume at the Wildwood

property is within the 5 to 99 ppb field and is more widespread in layers 1 and 2 (Figure

47) where most measured concentrations of PCE occur. In layers 3 and 4 (Figure 48), the

simulated plume is smaller and corresponds to the lower measured concentrations that

range from below the detection limit to 12 ppb. In layer 5 (Figure 49), the wide

distribution of monitoring well samples showing no detected concentrations of PCE is

also outside the simulated 5 to 99 ppb field. One monitoring well in layer 6 (Figure 49)

shows that in 1985, the PCE plume did not yet extend to the base of the valley-fill and no

simulated transport of PCE within the 5 to 99 ppb field occurs in layer 6 in this scenario

(#1B).

Page 225: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

204

2.6.2.4 Comparisons from Scenario #1B at W.R Grace

Compared with the Wildwood property, the December 1985 simulated TCE

distribution at the W.R. Grace property more closely matches the measured distribution

from monitoring wells. This correspondence occurs because the groundwater flow

directions at W.R. Grace are more consistent over time. W.R. Grace is located on the

upland 30 m above the wetland and river. The better-characterized source locations and

source concentrations yield better simulated TCE and PCE distributions also. For

example, upgradient of the source areas, near the simulated 5 ppb plume boundary in

layer 1 (Figure 44), measured TCE concentrations can be low (around 3 to 7 ppb) and

just a few meters closer to the source, measured TCE concentrations are nearly 100 ppb

or more. This steep concentration gradient is simulated fairly well.

Downgradient from the simulated TCE sources at W.R. Grace, the 1,000 to 9,999

ppb field extends about 400 m west in both layers 1 and 2 (Figure 44) and encompasses

monitoring wells with measured TCE concentrations over 1,000 ppb. At one location, a

measured concentration of 2,980 ppb falls only a few meters outside the simulated 1,000

to 9,999 ppb TCE field. Farther downgradient in layers 1 and 2, the simulated 100 to 999

ppb TCE field encompasses measured TCE concentrations between 74 and 321 ppb. The

shape of the simulated 5 to 99 ppb field includes locations where measured TCE

concentrations are between 34 and 95 ppb. The simulated 100 to 999 ppb field from

W.R. Grace extends into layers 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Figures 45 and 46), although this

concentration field is small and remains near well H. This simulated distribution of the

W.R. Grace plume supports the particle tracking analysis presented in Chapter 1.

Page 226: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

205

Particle pathlines from W.R. Grace travel through the area of well H whether or

not well H is pumping and that the partially penetrating well screen causes contaminants

to flow deeper into the aquifer than the bottom of the well screen. This may be the

reason that concentrations of 118 and 108 ppb TCE are measured in monitoring wells in

the center of the valley in layers 4 (Figure 45) and 5 (Figure 46), 5.5 years after the two

municipal wells were shut off.

The simulated source concentrations of PCE at W.R. Grace are 100 and 500 ppb

and the resulting 5 to 99 ppb field extends approximately 600 m downgradient in layer 1,

and 400 m downgradient in layer 2 (Figure 47). Notice that in layer 1, the measured PCE

concentrations in 1985 are between 3 and 97 ppb and are within the limits of the

simulated PCE field. However, in layer 2, measured PCE concentrations downgradient

of W.R. Grace are as high as 900 ppb, much higher than the model produces in any

scenario.

Cursory analytical modeling using the program BIOCHLOR (Newell et al. 2000)

shows that the source area concentrations of PCE at the W.R. Grace property (< 1 to 970

ppb) are not sufficiently high to produce the 259 to 1,100 ppb PCE detected 500 m

downgradient from the W.R. Grace sources. This is the case even when sorption and

dispersion are considered. The BIOCHLOR (Newell et al. 2000) program uses the

Domenico (1987) solution to calculate the concentrations and extent of chlorinated

solvent movement from a source area. The BIOCHLOR (Newell et al. 2000) spreadsheet

is simpler and faster to use than the HMOC (Zheng and Wang 1999) code and is good for

focusing on smaller areas like the W.R. Grace property.

Page 227: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

206

The nearest source of PCE that can contribute concentrations of 1,100 ppb is the

UniFirst property to the north. If bedrock fractures extend southward from UniFirst, as

site investigators suggest (HMM Associates Inc. 1990), then some of the PCE detected

downgradient from the W.R. Grace property could be from UniFirst, if flow in the

bedrock is to the south. Because this model does not simulate flow in discrete bedrock

fractures, this possibility cannot be investigated.

PCE concentrations are also detected in wells to the south of the W.R. Grace

property, where investigators think PCE is emanating from an unreported source

(GeoTrans Inc. 1995), previously described as the Washington Street source. To better

simulate the PCE concentrations south of W.R. Grace, the Washington Street source of

500 ppb PCE is initiated in 1971 in layer 1 (Figure 42) and is included in all scenarios

except Scenario #10 (Table 21). PCE from this source merges with the PCE plume from

W.R. Grace. This broader, combined PCE plume moves southwest, toward the river and

wetland.

2.6.2.5 Comparisons from Scenario #1B at UniFirst

The simulated PCE and TCE plumes at UniFirst are consistent with the results of

the particle tracking analysis, where contaminants from UniFirst move mainly toward the

river. The TCE source concentration for Scenario #1B is 6,700 ppb and the 1,000 to

6,700 ppb field extends 350 m downgradient as narrow or isolated plumes in layer 1

(Figure 44). The 100 to 999 ppb field extends 600-m downgradient in layers 1 through 5

(Figures 44 to 46). The 5 to 99 ppb TCE field is also narrow, but merges to the south

with the simulated W.R. Grace TCE plume in layers 1 to 3 (Figures 44 and 45). The

simulated UniFirst TCE plume does not extend west of the river, a condition that is

Page 228: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

207

consistent with the particle tracking analysis (Figure 31). TCE concentrations in layer 1,

between 19 and 180 ppb, were measured in the UniFirst plume in 1985 (Figure 44).

These monitoring wells appear to be on the margins of the plume and their TCE

concentrations are consistent with the concentrations measured in marginal areas of the

simulated plume. In a monitoring well close to the source cell at UniFirst, a measured

TCE concentration of 16,000 ppb is much higher than the assigned source concentration

and is likely the result of residual DNAPL. The simulated TCE plume distributions in

layers 3, 4, and 5 (Figures 45 and 46) are consistent with the value of 7 ppb measured in a

monitoring well 100 m west of the UniFirst property boundary. The distributions are also

consistent with a value of 74 ppb TCE measured in a monitoring well 250 m farther

downgradient.

As with the widely distributed range of concentrations at the W.R. Grace and

Wildwood source areas, the transport model cannot simulate areas of low concentration

close to the UniFirst source cell. For example, at one location on the UniFirst property

the simulated plume encloses monitoring wells in layers 1 and 2 that contain no detected

TCE in 1985 (Figure 44). In another example, a monitoring well in layer 1 contains no

detected PCE, although 4 ppb are reported for the well in layer 2. Interestingly, a

monitoring well screened over layers 1 to 5 located 80 m to the west of, and nearly

downgradient of the non-detect results, is reported to contain 3,300 ppb PCE and 83 ppb

TCE.

The simulated PCE plume distribution at UniFirst approximates the distribution

and magnitude of measured PCE concentrations. In contrast to the merging TCE plumes

emanating from the UniFirst and W.R. Grace sources, the PCE plumes from these source

Page 229: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

208

areas do not merge in Scenario #1B. This is due to the higher values of Kd used in the

PCE simulation, relative to the Kd values used in the TCE simulation of Scenario #1B.

Simulated PCE from UniFirst extends 600 m downgradient toward the river in layers 1 to

3 (Figures 47 and 48). The highest simulated PCE concentrations (10,000 to 100,000

ppb) remain mostly on the UniFirst property. Intermediate simulated PCE concentrations

of 100 to 9,999 ppb occur within a narrow zone. In layer 1 (Figure 48), along the

southern UniFirst property boundary, a measured concentration of 1,900 ppb PCE is

within the simulated 100 to 999 ppb field and is only a few meters from the simulated

1,000 to 9,999 ppb field. To the north, a measured concentration of 3,300 ppb PCE is

within 10 m of the 1,000 to 9,999 ppb field. Approximately 100 m from the

southwestern edge of the UniFirst property, the 1,000 ppb PCE contour coincides with

the location of a well with a measured concentration of 1,100 ppb PCE. In layer 2, the

simulated 1,000 to 9,999 ppb field is within 10 m of the measured concentration of 7,300

ppb PCE. The westernmost edge of the 5 to 99 ppb field in layers 1, 2, and 3 (Figures 48

and 49) is near a measured concentration of 6 ppb PCE.

Another important feature of the plume shapes in the amount of back-spreading

upgradient from the source cells. The back-spreading of plumes from Scenario #1B,

shown on distribution maps containing source cells (Figures 44 and 47), conforms to the

TCE and PCE concentrations measured in upgradient monitoring wells.

Page 230: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

209

2.7 Results of Hypothesis Testing

The results described below indicate that the most plausible scenarios are

Scenarios #1, #4, and #5, which comprises set of 18 separate simulations. Scenarios #2,

#3, #6, #7, #8, and #9 and their associated hypotheses are eliminated because time-series

concentration graphs do not compare well with those of either well G or well H. Some

simulations of Scenarios #10 and #11 do not compare well with the measured distribution

of either TCE or PCE. When the results of one or more of the six simulations within a

scenario do not match well, the entire scenario is considered unlikely. This allows me to

make general conclusions about the start times and source concentrations. It also does

not initiate a detailed analysis of Kd estimates, for which almost no information is

available to confirm or refute the hypothesized values. Typically, the scenarios that are

eliminated no not match the measured concentrations of TCE and PCE in more than one

simulation.

The primary reason that the eight scenarios are eliminated is to find the set of

contaminant histories that best represent measured historic conditions. As previously

stated, we will never know what the actual history of TCE and PCE concentrations in

wells G and H were prior to May 1979. The set of plausible scenarios identified herein is

a useful tool to use for the further application of these model results presented in Chapter

3.

Page 231: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

210

2.7.1 Scenarios Eliminated by Comparison of TCE and PCE Time-Series Graphs

Simulated concentrations from Scenarios #2, #3, #6, and #7 underestimate the

measured concentrations at Well G and Scenario #11 overestimates the concentrations at

well G. As a result, these scenarios are not considered plausible.

2.7.1.1 Elimination of Scenario #2

Scenarios #2 uses the latest source start time of 1970 for NEP (Table 13). The

later source start time results in simulated time-series concentrations of PCE and TCE

that are lower than the measured PCE concentrations in well G. Figure 50 is the time-

series graph of TCE in well G for Scenarios #2B and #2C using the moderate and higher

values of Kd. The simulated TCE concentrations fall below the 1979 measured

concentrations of TCE in well G by up to 150 ppb. The simulated concentrations of TCE

in well G for Scenario #2A using no sorption matched the measured TCE concentrations

in well G more closely, but because the companion scenarios (#2B and #2C) do not

closely match the measured values, all the simulations for Scenario #2 are considered

unlikely.

Page 232: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

211

Figure 50 TCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #2B, #2C, #3B, and #3C

The simulated PCE concentrations for well G in Scenarios #2A and #2C also fall

below the measured PCE concentrations in well G as shown in the time series graph,

Figure 51. The PCE concentrations for simulations in Scenario #2 using no sorption and

the higher values of Kd fall below the 1979 measured concentrations of PCE in well G by

up to 25 ppb. This difference between measured and simulated PCE concentrations is not

large, however the scenarios considered plausible matched more closely, as shown later.

Page 233: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

212

Figure 51 PCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #2A and #2C

2.7.1.2 Elimination of Scenario #3

Scenario #3 (Table 14) uses the higher PCE source concentration of 4,000 ppb for

the NEP property and a later source start time of 1970. As shown on Figure 50, the later

start time of TCE from the NEP source area results in an underestimate of TCE

concentrations in well G using moderate and high estimates of Kd values in Scenarios

#3B and #3C. For this reason, the six simulations of Scenario #3 are eliminated from the

set of plausible simulations.

Page 234: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

213

2.7.1.3 Elimination of Scenario #6

In Scenario #6 (Table 17), the latest hypothesized source start time of 1965 is

used for the sources on the Wildwood property. TCE time-series concentrations for

simulations in Scenario #6B, using moderate Kd values, and Scenario #6C, using higher

Kd values, are between 50 and 100 ppb lower than the 1979 TCE concentrations

measured in well G, as shown on Figure 52. Therefore, all of the simulations in Scenario

#6 are eliminated.

Figure 52 TCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #6B and #6C

Page 235: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

214

2.7.1.4 Elimination of Scenario #7

The six simulations in Scenario #7 (Table 18) use the latest hypothesized source

start times for the Olympia, Wildwood, and NEP sources. The Olympia source start time

is 1975. The Wildwood source start time is 1965, and the NEP source start time is 1970.

These later start times result in simulated TCE concentrations that are between 50 and

150 ppb lower than the 1979 measured TCE concentrations in well G for values of

moderate and high Kd, as shown on Figure 53. Therefore, the six simulations in Scenario

#7 are eliminated from the set of plausible simulations.

Figure 53 TCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #7B and #7C

Page 236: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

215

2.7.1.5 Elimination of Scenario #8

The latest hypothesized start time of 1977 for the UniFirst source is used in

Scenario #8 (Table 19). When the UniFirst source is initiated in 1977, neither the

simulated PCE nor the TCE from UniFirst arrive at wells G and H before the end of the

simulation in 1986. Therefore, simulations using a UniFirst source start time later than

1966 are not helpful for selecting the plausible scenarios as they do not affect the

resulting concentrations in wells G and H. As previously stated, the PCE from the

UniFirst source likely reaches well H by movement through bedrock fractures which are

not explicitly simulated in the transport model. Therefore, the six simulations of

Scenario #8 are eliminated from the set of plausible simulations.

2.7.1.6 Elimination of Scenario #9

Scenario #9 (Table 20) simulates the highest hypothesized TCE source

concentration of 160,000 ppb in the upper layer at the northern Wildwood source cell

(W-1). The simulated time-series concentrations at well G from the three TCE

simulations of Scenario #9 are all much higher than the TCE concentrations measured at

well G. Figure 54 shows the TCE time-series concentrations from Scenario #9B. Use of

the maximum TCE concentration of 160,000 ppb measured at debris pile F results

simulated concentrations in well G that are 300 ppb higher than the measured TCE

concentrations in 1979. Therefore, this scenario eliminated from the set of plausible

simulations.

Page 237: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

216

Figure 54 TCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenario #9B using a moderate Kd value for 1960 to 1986

2.7.2 Scenarios Eliminated by Comparison with TCE and PCE Distributions

Distributions of TCE and PCE were evaluated for the 30 simulations in Scenarios

#1, #4, #5, #10, and #11, for which the simulated time series appear to match well with

the 1979 measured TCE and PCE concentrations at wells G and H. Scenarios #10 and #9

are eliminated from the set of plausible simulations, as presented below. The PCE plume

at UniFirst used for comparison was simulated separately from the other PCE sources for

the reasons described below.

Page 238: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

217

2.7.2.1 Elimination of Scenario #10

The Washington Street PCE source is not included in Scenario #10 (Table 21).

The distributions of the PCE plumes in layer 1 for Scenario #10 are shown on Figure 55.

The simulated PCE plume issuing from the W.R. Grace sources in layer 1 (Figure 55)

does not extend over areas to the south where 11 ppb PCE is measured in monitoring

wells between the W.R. Grace PCE plume and the NEP PCE plume. This monitoring

well location in within the PCE plume when the Washington Street source is simulated

(Figure 47). The PCE plume distribution without the contribution of the Washington

Street source is less representative of the measured PCE plume distribution. Therefore,

Scenario #10 is eliminated from the set of plausible simulations.

Page 239: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

218

Figure 55 Simulated PCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distribution of measured PCE for model layer 1 based on results from Scenario #10B

Page 240: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

219

2.7.2.2 Elimination of Scenario #11

For Scenario #11 (Table 22) a larger value of longitudinal dispersivity, αL, = 10

m, is used. Anisotropic transverse dispersivity (αH, = 1.0 and αV=0.1 m) is also applied.

Figure 56 shows the simulated distribution of TCE in layer 1 for Scenario #11B using

moderate values of Kd. The back-spreading of TCE at each source area is large compared

with the TCE plume distribution from Scenario #1B presented in Figure 44. At W.R.

Grace, there are enough monitoring wells positioned upgradient of the source cells to

characterize the actual back-spreading of TCE and PCE. When the value of αL = 10 m,

the simulated TCE plume is shown to move 100 m upgradient from the sources beyond

where TCE is detected in monitoring wells. Back-spreading of approximately 100 m also

occurs at the remaining source properties when the value of αL is larger. This excessive

back-spreading occurs even when the higher Kd values are used.

In contrast, the simulated TCE plume on Figure 44, which shows results from

Scenario #1B, conforms well to the TCE concentrations measured in upgradient

monitoring wells, given that the concentrations decrease from 1,000’s to 100’s of ppb in

less than 40 m (or couple of grid cells). The largest hypothesized values of longitudinal

dispersivity (αL = 100 m) could not be investigated because this condition results in

simulations that fail to converge.

Page 241: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

220

Figure 56 Simulated TCE plumes for December 1985 compared to 1985 distribution of measured TCE for model layer 1 based on results from Scenario #11B

Page 242: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

221

2.7.2.3 Removal of UniFirst PCE from Sitewide Simulations

Simulating the UniFirst PCE plume leads to interesting implications about the

actual transport of contaminants from the UniFirst property and about the limitations of

simulating PCE movement from this source location. The simulated shape of the PCE

plume is similar to the pathlines predicted by the transient particle tracking analysis.

Most of the transport is to the west and toward the river. However, as shown on Table 8,

PCE was first measured in wells G and H in May 1979. I suspect the PCE measured in

well H at that time was derived from the UniFirst property and that the PCE traveled

from UniFirst along bedrock fractures that are hydraulically connected to sediments in

the center of the valley near well H. The evidence for this is distribution of high

concentrations of PCE measured in bedrock monitoring wells and in deeper sediment

monitoring wells south of the UniFirst source and west of the W.R. Grace property.

As previously described, the transport model does not simulate fracture flow in

the bedrock, therefore my simulations cannot realistically simulate the measured PCE

concentrations in well H that originate at UniFirst. This has no substantial affect on my

interpretations because the measured amounts of PCE at well H in 1979, after the well

had been pumping for 15 months at its highest rates, range from 9 to 18 ppb. These

concentrations are small compared to the amounts of TCE measured in well H (63 to 188

ppb).

The limitations of the transport model are also evident from simulations of the

UniFirst source. When the estimated value of Kd is high, an area of instability occurs

near the UniFirst source cell that contributes to mass balance errors of approximately 20

percent for the PCE simulations. In addition, inclusion of the UniFirst source in

Page 243: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

222

simulations appears to significantly affect the transport model results. For example,

when contaminant transport from each of the four sources (excluding UniFirst) is

simulated separately, the results can be added together to produce a composite plume.

The composite plume is virtually the same as the plumes resulting from simultaneous

transport from the four source properties. When the UniFirst source is included, the

simulations are not equivalent. For this reason, the UniFirst PCE plume is simulated

separately from the other four source properties. The simulated PCE and TCE plumes

emanating from the UniFirst property do not appear to play a large role in the time-series

concentrations at wells G and H, so the UniFirst PCE source can be removed from the

group simulations and run separately without substantial consequence. Because the

simulated UniFirst PCE plume is similar to the particle tracking results, I conclude that

even with the undesirable amount of numerical error in the transport model results, the

simulated UniFirst plume distribution is a reasonable approximation of PCE transport

over the 26-year simulation period.

2.7.3 Plausible Scenarios

Figure 57 shows the range of TCE concentrations for the simulations in Scenarios

#1, #4, and #5 that best fit the measured data. The monthly TCE concentrations for the

nine separate simulations of Scenarios #1, #4, and #5 were placed in a spreadsheet and

the maximum, minimum and average concentrations for each month are graphed on

Figure 57. The shaded area in Figure 57 represents the maximum and minimum range,

and the dashed line represents the month-by-month average simulated concentration of

TCE for Scenarios #1, #4, and #5. The maximum simulated TCE concentration is 486

ppb in 1978.

Page 244: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

223

Figure 57 TCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #1, #4 and #5 (9 different simulations)

Four TCE analyses from well G in 1979 (Table 8) make a decreasing trend that

occurs after well G is shut off. In all the plausible scenarios, simulated TCE

concentrations predict the decreasing trend in 1979.

An additional experiment was performed to match the TCE concentrations in well

G measured in 1980 and 1981. All of the plausible scenarios underestimate these three

analyses for well G. A simulated month-long stress period was added to Scenario #1

(Table 9). In this simulation, well G was pumped during September 1980 at the rate of

2,650 l/min. I hypothesized that higher plume concentrations in the model, near well G,

could be drawn to the well G cell under short-term pumping. Although the simulated

concentrations at well G increased during the September 1980 pumping period, the

Page 245: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

224

simulated concentrations still underestimated the measured concentrations. A second

explanation for the high measured concentrations may be due the mobilization of TCE

from aquifer materials around the pumping well during sampling. An initial high

concentration upon startup of pumping is commonly observed at sites contaminated with

TCE (Wiedemeier et al. 1999).

The ranges of simulated PCE concentrations for the nine simulations in Scenarios

#1, #4, and #5 match the four PCE analyses measured in well G in 1979 (Figure 58). The

fluctuations of simulated PCE concentrations in well G correspond to the pumping

schedule at well G, similar to the trends in simulated TCE. The maximum simulated

PCE concentration is 81 ppb in 1974.

Figure 58 PCE time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well G for Scenarios #1, #4 and #5 (9 different simulations)

Page 246: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

225

The water quality data collected during the U.S. Geological Survey 30-day

aquifer test are also compared to the simulated TCE and PCE concentrations of Scenarios

#1, #4, and #5, shown on Figure 59. In the model, wells G and H are turned back on at

their aquifer test rates of 2,650 l/min at well G and 1,514 l/min at well H for the last 25

days of the 26-year simulation period. Both measured TCE and PCE concentrations

increase during this pumping period, but the simulated concentrations underestimate

measured concentrations. For well G (Figure 59), simulated TCE concentrations increase

from an average of 17 ppb to an average of 21 ppb. Simulated PCE concentrations

increase from an average of 5 ppb to an average of 20 ppb.

Figure 59 Time-series of simulated and measured concentrations of TCE in well G for Scenario #1B, spanning the U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test in 1985-86

Page 247: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

226

The same time-series comparisons are performed for measured and simulated

TCE and PCE concentrations in well H (Figures 60 and 61). The simulated range of TCE

concentrations from Scenarios #1, #4, and #5 in well H (Figure 60) encompasses all of

the measured TCE values in well H, which was not the case at well G. The maximum

simulated TCE concentration in well H is 358 ppb in 1973. Simulated values of PCE

(Figure 61) are well below the measured values because much of the measured PCE in

well H likely emanates from bedrock fractures to the east, and from the UniFirst source to

the north, which are not included in these simulations, as previously explained.

Therefore, simulated concentrations of PCE at well H were not used in the comparison

analysis. The maximum simulated PCE concentration in well H is 29 ppb in 1982

(Figure 61).

Page 248: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

227

Figure 60 TCE time-series graph of well H, measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations for Scenarios #1, #4 and #5

Page 249: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

228

Figure 61 PCE Time-series of measured concentrations and simulated range of concentrations in well H for Scenarios #1, #4 and #5 (excluding the UniFirst source).

At well H, the changes in increasing and decreasing trends in TCE and PCE

concentration do not correspond to the pumping schedule as at well G. There is a delay

period before simulated TCE concentrations in well H increase during a pumping period.

This is mainly due to the contributions of individual source areas to H, some of which

contribute more when well H is pumping and others contribute more when well H is not

pumping. This phenomenon is described later when individual source areas are

examined.

The water quality data from well H during the U.S. Geological Survey 30-day

aquifer test are also compared to the simulated TCE and PCE concentrations from

Scenarios #1, #4, and #5, (Figure 62). The range in simulated TCE concentrations for

Page 250: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

229

well H during this brief period is between 38 and 130 ppb, and match the range of

measured TCE concentrations (53 to 104 ppb). Two measured values of TCE on

December 6, 1985, fall slightly above the simulated range, but two measured values on

the same day fall within the simulated range. No significant concentrations of PCE are

present in the simulated results for well H during the 30-day aquifer test because the

source at UniFirst, thought to be the primary source of PCE for well H, is not included in

these simulations.

Figure 62 Time-series of simulated and measured concentrations of TCE in well H for Scenarios #1, #4, and #5 spanning the U.S. Geological Survey aquifer test in 1985-86.

Page 251: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

230

The time-series results for PCE do not include the UniFirst source. The foremost

reason for this is that inclusion of the UniFirst source for PCE causes numerical errors at

the higher Kd values, which increases the mass balance error. The second reason for

removing the UniFirst PCE source is because much of the PCE from UniFirst travels into

bedrock fractures that are not explicitly represented in the flow and transport models. As

described in Chapter 1, the bedrock cells are used to allow leakage into sediments from

the bedrock and cannot explicitly represent flow in the fractures. As will be explained

further, the results from Scenarios #1, #4, and #5 are not greatly influenced by the

UniFirst source.

2.7.4 Mass Balance Analysis

The mass balance of TCE and PCE in the simulations and the problems that arise

with the PCE transport simulations of the UniFirst source area provoked a great deal of

thought about what the model could and could not simulate. The selection of the HMOC

solution method is based on my observation that this method, compared to others that I

tried, results in a better representation of the plume distribution that does not exhibit

significant numerical errors in most simulations. However, problems with localized

numerical and mass balance errors occur when the high concentration PCE source at

UniFirst is activated and the higher Kd value is used. The total mass-in minus total mass-

out error is as large as 20 percent. Without the UniFirst source, the mass balance error

for PCE simulations is usually less than 3.3 percent, which I consider acceptable. The

UniFirst source does not have the same effect on the TCE simulations, which have mass

balance errors less than 1.8 percent, even when all the contaminant sources are activated.

Page 252: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

231

Removing the UniFirst PCE source from the sitewide PCE simulations greatly

reduces the numerical errors. The resulting distribution of the PCE plumes is slightly

different, but not substantially so. This observation was tested by adding the December

1985 outputs from simulations of UniFirst-only and sitewide without-UniFirst PCE

sources. The composite plumes were compared to simulated 1985 distributions with the

all PCE sources included. Removing the UniFirst PCE source improves the mass

balance, diminishes numerical dispersion, and does not affect simulated concentrations of

PCE in wells G or H because the bulk of the UniFirst PCE plume does not reach the wells

by 1979. Removing the PCE source from UniFirst improves the model results overall

and does not impact my interpretations.

2.7.5 Simulated Contaminant Volumes

The volumes of TCE and PCE in the simulations are used as to evaluate the

reasonableness of the source concentration hypotheses. The model simulates

contaminant transport in units of mass (micrograms). For comparison purposes, the mass

output from the model is converted into volumes (liters) by using densities of pure TCE

and PCE of 1.464 and 1.623 g/cc, respectively (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and

Physics 2000). Estimates of the actual minimum and maximum TCE and PCE volumes

at the five source areas and the range of simulated TCE and PCE volumes are shown in

Table 23. Drum equivalents (multiples of 55 gallons) are used to relate the simulated

contaminant volumes to the number of drums found on the Olympia and Wildwood

properties and the number of drums reportedly purchased and used by W.R. Grace. The

rationale for the expected or estimated volume of TCE and/or PCE that should be

predicted by the model is presented below.

Page 253: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

232

Property Minimum and maximum volume estimates

Simulated volumes of TCE + PCE

W.R. Grace 21.4 to 625 liters (0.1 to 3.0 drums)

130 to 212 liters (0.6 to 1.0 drums)

UniFirst > 546 liters (> 2.6 drums)

421 to 1,193 liters (2.0 to 5.7 drums)

Olympia < 2,081 liters (< 10.0 drums)

49 to 142 liters (0.2 to 0.7 drums)

Wildwood 755 to 8,330 liters (3.6 to 40 drums)

3,360 to 4,477 liters (16.1 to 21.5 drums)

NEP > 22 liters (0.1 drums)

51 to 84 liters (0.2 to 0.4 drums)

Sitewide (without UniFirst)

3,400 to 11,000 liters (16.3 to 52.8 drums)

3,373 to 5,139 liters (16.2 to 24.7 drums)

Table 23 Comparison of estimated volumes of TCE and PCE with their simulated volumes from Scenarios #1, #4, and #5

The maximum and minimum volume estimates of solvent at each source property

are based on reports from site investigations and Superfund cleanup activities. The best

estimates are for the W.R. Grace property, where the maximum estimated volume of

solvent used is approximately 3 drum volumes or 625 liters (Guswa 2001) and the

minimum estimated volume used is the 21.4 recovered by the pump-and-treat system

between 1993 and 2001 (Bair and Metheny 2002). The range of simulated solvent

volumes from sources at W.R. Grace is between 130 to 212 liters, or between one-half to

one drum of solvent, most of which is TCE. In this instance, one could argue that the

simulated volumes are in good agreement with the estimated volumes. However, I

Page 254: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

233

present these comparisons circumspectly because the transport model does not take into

account biological and chemical reactions and the likelihood that some of the dumped

solvent evaporated before it entered the saturated zone.

The simulated volumes of TCE and PCE for individual source areas are obtained

by simulating each source separately. The sitewide volume includes all source areas,

except UniFirst. The simulated values represent volumes immediately prior to the

December 1985 aquifer test. The concentration at each source cell in the model is

constant once the source is initiated, so the solvent mass entering the model continually

increases over time. The simulated volumes represent sorbed and dissolved volumes, and

not residual DNAPL that might exist. I used these comparisons for order-of-magnitude

assessments and not for calibration purposes and in this light, they agree well.

The volume of solvent at the UniFirst property is at least 546 liters or 2.6 drums

of mostly PCE, which is equivalent to the amount of solvent recovered by the pump-and-

treat facility from 1993 to 2001 (Bair and Metheny 2002). No accurate estimate of the

maximum volume of solvents spilled at UniFirst is proposed here. The simulated range

of 421 to 1,193 liters, or 2.0 to 5.6 drums for the UniFirst property is within an order of

magnitude of my minimum estimate. However, the simulated volume at UniFirst

represents the volume transported in the sediments, whereas, the volume of recovered

solvent is from a well within the bedrock fractures, which are not accurately represented

by the model.

The Olympia property had no operating pump-and-treat facility at the time of this

study, so no measured volumes of solvents are available. Therefore, the volume of the

ten 55-gallon drums found on the property in 1985 (Massachusetts Department of Public

Page 255: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

234

Health 1989) is used as a maximum limit to the solvent volume, or 2,082 liters. It is

likely that the drums were not full of solvent when they were dumped. It is also possible

that the drum debris does not represent all of the dumping at the property. Therefore, this

maximum estimate is not definite. The simulated solvent volume at Olympia, 49 to 142

liters or 0.2 to 0.7 drums, is reasonable.

The Wildwood property has the most widespread source area. The treatment

system at Wildwood has been in operation since 1999 and had removed approximately

755 liters of solvent by 2001 (Bair and Metheny 2002), which is equivalent to about 4

drums of TCE. The estimated maximum solvent volume of 8,330 liters is based on the

42 drum carcasses found in 1985. Approximately 895,400 kg of contaminated soil was

removed from the Wildwood property in 1993 (U.S. EPA 1993) and accounts for some

volume likely emanating from the drums that did not enter the groundwater system. The

simulated volume of TCE and PCE is between 3,360 and 4,477 liters (16.1 and 21.5

drums), which is well within the estimated range, although it is a large volume.

Estimates of dissolved solvent mass at the NEP property are not well constrained,

as no one claimed responsibility for the spillage or came forward to describe the disposal

practices. The evidence of solvent disposal is the contaminated soil and groundwater on

the property. Approximately 230 m3 of contaminated soil was excavated from the NEP

property and 36 kg of VOCs, the equivalent of 22 liters (0.1 drums) of PCE, were

removed by a soil-vapor extraction system (Woodward & Curran 1997; Woodward &

Curran 1999). The range of simulated solvent volume is between 51 and 84 liters, or

about 0.2 to 0.4 drums, which is close to the measured mass of VOCs removed.

Page 256: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

235

The comparisons of solvent volume were made using simulations for Scenarios

#1, #4, and #5. A total of 30 separate simulations were made for each source property to

quantify the volumes for each source. These comparisons of solvent volume at each

source property indicate that the dissolved solvent mass in the transport model is

reasonable.

2.7.6 Model Sensitivity

The comparison of model results to measured values of TCE and PCE, estimated

volumes of solvents, and contaminant distribution maps is a form of history matching

rather than a formal calibration or sensitivity analysis. The purpose of using several

scenarios is to show how the input parameters influence the model results. The use of

scenarios tests model sensitivity to ranges of source concentrations, Kd values, source

start times, and dispersivities. Therefore, the model results presented in the comparison

analyses demonstrate the model sensitivity to changes in the hypothesized parameters.

It may never be possible to know which combination of model input parameters is

closest to actual site conditions because the true histories of the source areas are not

precisely known. Calibration of the transport model would reveal which specific input

values are required to obtain a closer match with measured values of TCE and PCE. This

would involve changing the source term concentrations over time, consideration of the

river as a contaminant source, and inclusion of chemical transformations of the volatile

organics over the 26-year simulation period. Those activities represent a level of

complexity beyond the expectations of this study. The model results do, however, allow

Page 257: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

236

me to answer some basic questions about when the chemicals likely arrived at the

municipal wells and which source areas likely contributed to the TCE and PCE

concentrations measured in the wells.

2.8 Model Results and Individual Source Contributions

After comparing the model results with measured values of TCE and PCE and

establishing that the simulations from Scenarios #1, #4, and #5 represent the most

plausible results, the influence of each contaminant source area on the simulated

concentrations of TCE and PCE in wells G and H was investigated. This brings the study

back to answer the questions asked in the civil trial (Harr 1995). When were wells G and

H likely contaminated? Which source properties contributed to the contamination of the

municipal wells?

The first groundwater samples analyzed for TCE and PCE were collected from

wells G and H in May 1979. The first monitoring wells were installed in the valley

sediments shortly afterward, although it took years to install the monitoring well network

that I used to show TCE and PCE distributions on Figures 44 to 49. Using the transport

model simulations, I can show a set of plausible configurations of the PCE and TCE

distributions for May 1979.

For each plausible scenario, the contribution from each source area to the

concentrations of TCE and PCE at wells G and H is presented on time-series graphs

shown below and the effect of retardation and source start time (in the case of Olympia

and NEP) is described. The arrival of TCE or PCE is defined herein as the first time the

chemical concentration is greater than 5 ppb. This minimum cut-off value helps to

eliminate the lower values that might be, in part, a result of numerical dispersion. It is

Page 258: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

237

important to note that chemical time-series graphs from individual source areas, if added

together, do not exactly reproduce the chemical time-series graph shown in Figure 43.

This is because the graph in Figure 43 represents the average of six simulations of

Scenario #1B and the chemical time-series concentrations on the graphs, presented

below, represent averages of at least two simulations from each source area for each set

of input parameters. The composite results, however, are similar to those in Figure 43

and are useful for determining, in general, when a specific source contributes a

substantial concentration to the municipal wells for a given set of conditions for sorption,

source concentration, and source start-up time.

The time-series graphs are labeled with retardation values like those calculated by

the transport model using the estimated Kd values. This is done because it is easier to

think of sorption effects in terms of a retardation factor than in terms of sorption

coefficients. Table 10 shows the estimated values of Kd and the ranges of Rf values

calculated from them.

2.8.1 Results from Scenario #1B

Figure 63 shows the TCE and PCE contributions to well G from Wildwood, NEP,

Olympia, and W.R. Grace for Scenario #1B where the moderate Rf values are between

1.7 and 2.4 for TCE and between 2.9 to 4.6 for PCE. In this simulation, the Wildwood

source area contributes the largest amount of TCE (up to 225 ppb) to well G. The

simulated concentration of well G is below 200 ppb for most of the simulation. The large

contribution from Wildwood is not surprising, given that the source concentration at

Page 259: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

238

Wildwood is 41,000 ppb for TCE and the source area is close to well G. When the four

source areas at Wildwood are activated in 1960 (as in Scenario #1B), TCE arrives at well

G by late 1966, following nearly one year of continuous pumping at well G.

Page 260: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

239

Figure 63 A) Simulated TCE concentrations at well G from W.R. Grace, Olympia, Wildwood and NEP for Scenario #1B, and B) simulated PCE concentrations at well G

from NEP for Scenario #1B

Page 261: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

240

The contribution of TCE from NEP is small in Scenario #1B and consists of

concentrations near 5 ppb beginning in 1971. TCE from the Olympia source reaches well

G for a short time in mid-1978, but is not consistently at well G above 5 ppb until late

1979, after the wells are shut off, and attains a maximum concentration of 17 ppb.

Similarly, in Scenario #1B, the contribution of TCE from W.R. Grace arrives at well G in

1980, after the well is shut off and reaches a maximum concentration of 11 ppb. The

reason that simulated TCE from the Olympia and W.R. Grace sources reaches the well G

model cell after the well is turned off is demonstrated by the particle pathlines shown in

Figure 34. Particles from W.R. Grace move down into the deepest parts of the aquifer

and then essentially flow through the well G cell under non-pumping conditions on an

upward path to discharge in the river. This flow pattern is unlike those at the Wildwood

and NEP sources, which contribute a maximum amount of TCE to well G only when the

well is pumping. As shown on Table 8, when well G is shut off in 1979, the simulated

and measured TCE concentrations decrease. This is due to the non-pumping pathlines

emanating from NEP and Wildwood (W-1) moving toward the river or toward well S46.

When both wells G and H are pumping, the capture of plumes from NEP and Wildwood

is at a maximum.

NEP is the only contributor of PCE to well G in Scenario #1B. The PCE arrives

in concentrations greater than 5 ppb beginning in late 1970 and reaches a maximum

concentration of 33 ppb, but is mostly between 10 and 20 ppb.

The source area contributions of TCE to well H in Scenario #1B are shown on

Figure 64. In this scenario, TCE does not arrive at well H until late 1974. The initial

source of TCE in well H is Olympia. Contributions of TCE from W.R. Grace begin to

Page 262: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

241

arrive in mid-1975. Notice that the highest concentrations of TCE from Olympia (up to

145 ppb) occur during the final pumping period of well H between 1977 and 1979, but

the maximum concentrations of TCE from W.R. Grace (301 ppb) flow through the well

H cell under non-pumping conditions in 1982 and 1983. The reason for this is that

immediately after pumping ceases at well H, the contribution from Olympia decreases as

the flow from the Olympia source begins to discharge to the river. TCE from W.R.

Grace, however, that already traveled into the deeper portions of the aquifer then flows

upward to the river. Significant concentrations of PCE do not arrive from individual

sources in well H when values of Rf are greater than 1.0, therefore, no graphs of PCE in

well H are shown for Scenario #1B.

Page 263: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

242

Figure 64 Simulated TCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace and Olympia for Scenario #1B

2.8.2 Results from Scenario #1A

The most significant differences among the simulated time-series concentrations

occur when the values of Rf are changed, as opposed the differences that occur when

changes in source start time and source concentrations are made, which are presented

later for Scenarios #4 and #5. Scenario #1B represents moderate chemical retardation,

earliest source starting time at Olympia (1969), and the lower PCE source concentrations

at NEP (3,000 ppb). For Scenarios #1A and #1C the source start times and source area

concentrations remain the same, but the Rf values in Scenario #1C are lower than those in

#1B, and those in Scenario #1C are higher than those in Scenario #1B.

Page 264: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

243

Figures 65A and 65B shows that the contributions of TCE and PCE from the

source areas substantially increases in well G and the arrival of TCE and PCE occurs

earlier when no retardation (Rf=1.0) is used. For well G, Wildwood remains the major

contributor of TCE but the maximum concentration of TCE increases to 404 ppb and

arrives at well G a few months earlier. The arrival of TCE from W.R. Grace occurs in

1968 when no retardation is used. Although TCE concentrations in well G from W.R.

Grace are generally less than 50 ppb, it is briefly as high as 226 ppb when well G is not

pumping in 1972. Occasionally, well G receives TCE contributions of up to 74 ppb from

Olympia beginning in late 1970. TCE from NEP is present in well G briefly in 1971,

1972, 1974, and 1975. PCE from NEP arrives in 1966 when no retardation is used and

reaches a maximum of 50 ppb, but is between 5 and 20 ppb during most of the pumping

periods at well G.

Page 265: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

244

Figure 65 A) Simulated TCE concentrations at well G from W.R. Grace, Olympia, Wildwood and NEP for Scenario #1A, and B) simulated PCE concentrations from NEP

for Scenario #1A

Page 266: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

245

Similarly for well H when no retardation is used, TCE from W.R. Grace arrives

more quickly, in late 1967, as shown on Figure 66A. The maximum contribution from

W.R. Grace to well H (up to 380 ppb) occurs when well H is not pumping in 1973 and

again in 1982. The TCE concentrations in well H decrease during pumping because

water from the river, which is not included as a source of TCE in any model simulations,

dilutes the concentrations of TCE entering the well H cell. However, the total TCE

concentration remains substantial because pumping at well H increases the TCE

contribution from the Olympia source area (up to 176 ppb). UniFirst contributes up to 32

ppb TCE to well H, beginning in 1979, just prior to the wells being shut off. However,

well H receives substantial concentrations of PCE (595 ppb) and TCE from UniFirst only

under conditions of no retardation, otherwise the plumes from UniFirst do not arrive at

well H. W.R. Grace contributes a small quantity of PCE (8 ppb) to the well H cell in

1981 and 1982, after well H is shut off.

Figure 66B shows the maximum PCE contribution from UniFirst (up to 595 ppb)

arrives after well H is shut off. This indicates that the UniFirst plume is drawn down into

the deeper part of the aquifer, similar to the flow paths from W.R. Grace. These

simulated concentrations from the UniFirst source are much higher than the measured

concentrations shown on Figure 54. Clearly, the PCE source concentration of 100,000

ppb hypothesized for UniFirst is too large, if there is no retardation of PCE. However,

this graph demonstrates that even under the condition of no retardation a substantial

portion of the simulated UniFirst plume does not arrive at well H until after the wells are

Page 267: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

246

shut off. When the W.R. Grace, Olympia, NEP, and Wildwood sources of PCE are

simulated together, with no retardation, the highest average concentration in well H is 29

ppb, as shown on Figure 54.

Page 268: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

247

Figure 66 A) Simulated TCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace, UniFirst, and Olympia for Scenario #1A, and B) simulated PCE concentrations at well H from W.R.

Grace and UniFirst for Scenario #1A

Page 269: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

248

2.8.3 Results from Scenario #1C

When the value of Rf is increased to between 2.2 and 3.2 for TCE (Figure 67A)

and between 3.9 and 6.5 for PCE (Figure 67B), as in Scenario #1C, TCE and PCE arrive

at wells G and H later than when lower values of Rf are used. TCE from the Wildwood

source area arrives at well G in 1967, approximately one year later than for the lower

values of Rf. The maximum simulated concentration of TCE in well G increases to 384

ppb, but the concentration in well G is below 150 ppb for most of the simulation. TCE in

well G from the Olympia source area is near 5 ppb and arrives in early 1980, after the

wells are shut off. TCE in concentrations greater than 5 ppb from W.R. Grace do reach

well G for the higher values of Rf used in Scenario #1C. Occasional contributions of

TCE from NEP to well G occur in concentrations up to 12 ppb, beginning in 1974. The

arrival of PCE in well G from NEP occurs in 1974 and is mostly between 8 and 15 ppb.

Page 270: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

249

Figure 67 A) Simulated TCE concentrations at well G from Olympia, Wildwood and NEP for Scenario #1C, and B) simulated PCE concentrations at well G from NEP for

Scenario #1C

Page 271: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

250

At well H, the Scenario #1C simulations with larger values of Rf do not appear to

affect the arrival time of TCE from Olympia, although the maximum simulated

concentration is higher at 235 ppb TCE (Figure 68). The arrival of TCE in well H from

W.R. Grace occurs in late 1978 and the peak concentration of 108 ppb occurs in 1983 and

1984. Compared with the TCE arrival time and peak concentrations from W.R. Grace in

well H from Scenario #1B, the TCE arrival from Scenario #1C is later and the lower peak

occurs at a later time. This is due to the higher Rf used in Scenario #1C. The effects of

the range of Rf values used in Scenario #1 are summarized on Table 24.

Figure 68 Simulated TCE concentrations at well H from Olympia and W.R. Grace for Scenario #1C

Page 272: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

251

Source

Year of TCE arrival at well G

no retardation, moderate Rf, and

high Rf)

Year of PCE arrival at well G (no retardation,

moderate Rf, and high Rf)

Year of TCE arrival at well H

no retardation, moderate Rf, and

high Rf)

Year of PCE arrival at Well H

no retardation, moderate Rf, and

high Rf)

W.R. Grace 1968, 1980, NDSP NDSP 1967, 1975, 1978 NDSP

UniFirst NDSP NDSP NDSP 1972, NDSP, NDSP

Olympia 1971, 1979, 1980 NDSP 1974, 1974, 1974 NDSP

Wildwood 1966, 1966, 1967 NDSP NDSP NDSP

NEP 1971, 1974, 1975 1966, 1970, 1974 NDSP NDSP NDSP = not during simulation period (1960-1986)

Table 24 TCE and PCE arrival times using no retardation, moderate Rf, and high Rf values for Scenario #1

2.8.4 Results from Scenario #4

Scenario #4 incorporates the same ranges of Rf values as Scenario #1, while also

addressing uncertainty in the source area concentration of PCE at NEP. The PCE

contribution from NEP to well G (Figure 69A) increases when the source concentration is

increased from 3,000 to 4,000 ppb. When no retardation is used, a source concentration

of 4,000 ppb PCE yields a concentration at well G between 8 and 25 ppb with occasional

peaks at 40 and 80 ppb. The arrival time of PCE in 1966 in Scenario #4A, is the same as

the arrival time in Scenario #1A, and does not appear to be affected by the increase in

source concentration. Perhaps the difference in source concentration is not large enough

to substantially change the movement of the 5 ppb PCE plume front.

Page 273: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

252

For the moderate set of Rf values (2.9 to 4.6) used in Scenario #4B (Figure 69B),

the increase in source concentration does not change the 1970 arrival time compared to

Scenario #1B, but it does increase the concentration by approximately 5 ppb.

Page 274: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

253

Figure 69 A) Simulated PCE concentrations at well G from NEP for Scenario #4A, and B) simulated PCE concentrations at well G from NEP for Scenario #4B

Page 275: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

254

Figure 70 shows that when Rf values are 3.9 to 6.5 in Scenario #4C, the increase

in source concentration causes an earlier arrival of PCE at well G from NEP in 1972.

This is approximately two years earlier than the arrival of PCE at well G in Scenario #1C.

The concentrations of PCE from NEP in well G also increase by 5 to 10 ppb when the

source concentration and Rf values are increased.

Figure 70 Simulated PCE concentrations at well G from NEP for Scenario #4C

2.8.5 Results from Scenario #5

Changes in the start time of the source on the Olympia property change the TCE

concentrations in wells G and H. Figure 71 shows that when the Olympia source is

started in 1975, as in Scenario #5A, rather than in 1969 (Figure 64), TCE from Olympia

Page 276: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

255

does not arrive in well G until mid-1977, rather than in 1971 as in Scenario #1A. The

lag-time between the source start time at Olympia and the arrival of TCE in well G is two

years for both scenarios. The TCE concentration remains mostly below 20 ppb for both

start times at Olympia. When the Rf values are moderate to high, as in Scenarios #5B

and #5C, TCE does not arrive in well G from Olympia in concentrations greater than 5

ppb.

Figure 71 Simulated TCE concentrations at well G from W.R. Grace, Olympia, Wildwood and NEP for Scenario #5A

The Olympia source contributes more TCE to well H than it does to well G due to

its closer proximity to well H. The change in source starting time from 1969 to 1975

Page 277: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

256

slows the arrival of TCE from Olympia at well H from mid-1974 to mid-1976 when no

retardation is used (Figure 62A). When larger values of Rf are used, TCE from Olympia

arrives at well H around mid- to late 1978 (Figures 72B and 73). In addition, the

concentration at well H from Olympia decreases by about 50 ppb for the later source start

times and larger values of Rf.

Page 278: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

257

Figure 72 A) Simulated TCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace and Olympia for Scenario #5A, and B) simulated TCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace and

Olympia for Scenario #5B

Page 279: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

258

Figure 73 Simulated TCE concentrations at well H from W.R. Grace and Olympia for Scenario #5C

It appears from this analysis that the range in Rf values causes some differences in

TCE and PCE concentrations at wells G and H. However, the chemical time-series

graphs and chemical distributions for these simulations, excluding those for the UniFirst

PCE source using no retardation, are close to the measured values of TCE and PCE in

wells G and H, and the measured spatial distributions posted on Figures 44 to 49.

Some consistencies are observed in these scenarios regardless of the Rf values,

source concentrations, or source start times. One consistency is that the Wildwood

source area contributes the majority of the TCE to well G. Second, the PCE in well G is

Page 280: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

259

likely from the NEP source. It appears that the sources on the Wildwood and NEP

properties contribute mostly to PCE and TCE concentrations in well G. The source areas

on the W.R. Grace property contribute a relatively small amount of TCE to well G.

A third consistency is that the Wildwood source does not contribute substantial

concentrations of TCE to well H, which appears to receive TCE largely from the source

areas on the Olympia and W.R. Grace properties. When well H is pumping, the

concentration of TCE from the Olympia source area increases and the concentration from

the W.R. Grace source area decreases.

2.8.6 Simulated Distributions of TCE and PCE from Scenario #1B for May 1979

The interest in the 1986 civil trial makes the contaminant contributions from the

five source properties, perhaps, the most interesting result of the transport modeling. The

plausible distributions of the TCE and PCE plumes can be simulated for a period of time

when no sitewide measurements are available. The May 1979 simulated distributions of

TCE and PCE in Scenario #1B are presented below and show plausible distributions TCE

and PCE at the time when chemicals were discovered in the municipal wells.

2.8.6.1 TCE Distribution in May 1979

Figures 74 to 79 show the May 1979 TCE distributions for layers 1 to 6. These

plots represent a time when the capture zones of the municipal wells were their largest

because wells G and H had been pumping together for 15 months. The shapes of the TCE

plumes in 1979 differs from their shapes after wells G and H have been turned off for six

years in 1985, as shown in Figures 44 to 49. In layers 1 and 2 (Figure 74), the plumes

from all five source properties are merged at the 5 ppb concentration contour. The 5 to

Page 281: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

260

99 ppb and 100 to 999 ppb TCE fields in layers 1 and 2 are not as extensive as those

depicted in December 1985 (Figure 44). For example, the 100 to 999 ppb concentration

contours from the W.R. Grace and Olympia source areas are not yet merged in 1979 and

the 5 to 99 ppb contours do not extend as far north and south along the river as they do in

December 1985. Once the wells are shut off, discharge of groundwater to the river

enlarges the spatial distribution of TCE and PCE.

In layers 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Figures 75 and 76), the 100 to 999 ppb TCE fields from

the Olympia and Wildwood source areas extend closer to wells G and H in 1979 than

they do in December 1985 (Figures 45 to 46). Conversely, the 100 to 999 ppb TCE fields

from the W.R. Grace and NEP source areas appear to be less extensive in 1979 than in

1985. This is likely due to the effect of wells G and H pulling the western plumes from

Wildwood and Olympia under the river in 1979, whereas those plumes discharge to the

river when the wells are not pumping in December 1985. The 5 to 99 ppb and 100 to 999

ppb TCE fields moving from the UniFirst source area appear to enlarge over time in all

layers between 1979 and 1986.

2.8.6.2 PCE Distribution in May 1979

Figures 77 to 79 show the May 1979 PCE distributions for layers 1 to 6. These

plots represent a time when the capture zones of the municipal pumping were their largest

because wells G and H had been pumping together for 15 months. The shapes of the

PCE plumes in 1979 differ from their shapes in December 1985, after wells G and H had

been turned off for 6 years (Figures 47 to 49). The PCE plumes east of the Aberjona

River do not extend as far in May 1979 as they do in December 1985. This is due to the

shorter transport time. However, the plumes from the Olympia and Wildwood sources

Page 282: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

261

west of the river extend farther toward wells G and H in May 1979 than in December

1985. This is particularly noticeable in layer 4 (Figure 78), where well G is screened.

When wells G and H are pumping, the plumes from the west are drawn under the river

toward the wells.

Page 283: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

262

Figure 74 Simulated TCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 1 and 2 based on Scenario #1B

Page 284: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

263

Figure 75 Simulated TCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 3 and 4 based on Scenario #1B

Page 285: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

264

Figure 76 Simulated TCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 5 and 6 based on Scenario #1B

Page 286: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

265

Figure 77 Simulated PCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 1 and 2 based on Scenario #1B

Page 287: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

266

Figure 78 Simulated PCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 3 and 4 based on Scenario #1B

Page 288: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

267

Figure 79 Simulated PCE plumes for May 1979 for model layers 5 and 6 based on Scenario #1B

Page 289: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

268

The model results from the other plausible scenarios have similar characteristics

but differ mainly in the extent of the 100 to 1,000 ppb concentration fields, which are

larger when no retardation is used and are smaller when higher retardation is used. The

shape of the plumes does not differ significantly because the groundwater flow directions

from the individual source areas are the same for each scenario.

The model results presented thus far include descriptions of the concentrations of

TCE and PCE in wells G and H when the wells are pumping and when they are shut off.

This approach was necessary to present the migration of contaminants to the well field

under pumping and non-pumping stresses. The next chapter considers only the

concentrations of TCE and PCE in wells G and H when they are pumping and addresses

the question of how much TCE and PCE was delivered to Woburn residents according to

a water distribution model constructed by Murphy (1990) for a Massachusetts

Department of Public Health study (Massachusetts Department of Public Health 1997).

2.9 Conclusions

The results of the groundwater flow and contaminant transport models show that

each of the five source properties included in the Wells G&H Superfund Site contributed

to the TCE and PCE contamination of municipal wells G and H at different times and in

different amounts between 1960 and 1986. The scenario approach of simulating

contaminant transport of TCE and PCE using a range of retardation values, source start

times, and source concentrations accounts for the acknowledged uncertainty in these

parameters. The 66 different simulations from seven contaminant transport scenarios that

bracket the uncertainty in the contaminant histories of the W.R. Grace, UniFirst,

Olympia, Wildwood, and NEP properties were compared with measured concentration

Page 290: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

269

values of TCE and PCE in wells G and H and in monitoring wells across the site. These

comparisons resulted in the elimination of four scenarios (#2, #3, #6, and #7) that did not

compare well to the measured values. Scenarios #1, #4, and #5, consisting of 18 different

simulations, do compare well to the measured values and represent a set of plausible

historic transport histories of TCE and PCE at the Wells G&H Superfund Site.

The transport of TCE and PCE in groundwater can be affected by sorption onto

organic matter in an aquifer that is represented by values of Kd in the transport model.

For every configuration of source start times and source concentrations, three simulations

of TCE transport and three of PCE transport are made using 1) no sorption, 2) moderate,

and 3) high values of Kd. PCE and TCE must be simulated separately because PCE tends

to sorb more readily and travels more slowly than TCE. Therefore, Rf values computed

from Kd for TCE range from 1.0 to 3.2 and Rf values for PCE range from 1.0 to 6.5. Low

values of Rf result in faster transport and early arrival times of TCE and PCE in wells G

and H compared, with slower arrival times obtained with higher values of Rf. Faster

contaminant movement tends to result in maximum concentrations at wells G and H that

occur earlier in the simulation period (1960 to 1986). Slower contaminant movement

results in slower arrival of TCE and PCE at wells G and H, and smaller concentrations of

TCE and PCE in wells G and H.

The range of TCE in Well G, simulated in the set of plausible scenarios, is

between < 5 and 486 ppb. The maximum simulated TCE concentration occurs in 1978.

When well G is pumping, simulated concentrations of TCE in well G increase over

several months. The simulated range of PCE is in well G is between < 5 and 81 ppb.

The maximum simulated PCE concentration occurs in 1974. Simulated PCE

Page 291: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

270

concentrations in well G increase when well G is pumping. The earliest arrivals of

simulated TCE and PCE exceeding 5 ppb occur in 1966, two years after well G is put

online.

The range of plausible TCE concentrations in well H is between < 5 ppb and 358

ppb. During pumping, the average simulated TCE concentrations in well H decrease,

then increase after several months. This is mainly due to the pattern of contribution from

individual source areas to H. W.R. Grace sources contribute most of the TCE

concentrations in some simulations when well H is not pumping. When well H is turned

on, the river water dilutes concentrations in well H, until concentrations of TCE traveling

from the Olympia source increase in well H. The earliest arrival of simulated TCE

exceeding 5 ppb in well H occurs in 1967, the same year that well H is put online.

In well H, the simulated range of PCE is between < 5 and 29 ppb, although the

maximum simulated concentration of PCE occurs after the well is turned off in 1979.

PCE concentrations simulated in well H are underestimated because the model does not

account for the PCE migrating from the UniFirst source area within bedrock fractures,

which are not explicitly represented in this flow and transport model. The earliest arrival

of simulated PCE exceeding 5 ppb in well H occurs in 1973.

Comparison of the TCE plume distribution between May 1979 and January 1986

for Scenario #1B shows that after wells G and H are turned off in 1979, the 5 to 99 ppb

and 100 to 999 ppb TCE contours become more widely distributed. TCE becomes more

widely mixed as the plumes travel to the river, rather than to wells G and H. This effect

was also demonstrated with the particle tracking analysis in Chapter 1. The spreading

Page 292: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

271

and mixing of PCE, for Scenario #1B, in the center of the valley, after the wells are

turned off in 1979, does not appear to be as extensive as the spreading and mixing of

TCE. This is due to the higher Rf for PCE in Scenario #1B.

The contaminant transport from each of the five properties is simulated

separately. This shows the likely concentrations of TCE and PCE reaching wells G and

H from each source area.

2.9.1 Conclusions on Contaminant Transport from the Wildwood Property

Based on the three plausible scenarios comprising 18 simulations, it appears that

the major source area of TCE for well G is within the Wildwood property. The source at

Wildwood likely is present prior to 1965. The simulated TCE plume emanating from

Wildwood is drawn toward well G only when well G is pumping. The TCE plume from

Wildwood moves from the top to the bottom of the aquifer in the central portion of the

valley and TCE concentrations exceeding 5 ppb persist there for nearly the entire

simulation. The simulated TCE concentrations in well G from the Wildwood source area

decrease when G is not pumping. Of the four source areas on the Wildwood property, the

northernmost source contributes to TCE contamination in well G. Contaminants from the

remaining three sources remain beneath the Wildwood property and travels to the Riley

Tannery well (S46) that pumps at a constant rate for the entire simulation period. The

arrival time of TCE concentrations greater than 5 ppb in well G from the Wildwood

source occurs between 1966 and 1967.

Page 293: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

272

The Wildwood property is not a major source of PCE to well G because the PCE

concentrations there are relatively low. The small amount of simulated PCE at

Wildwood does not reach well G in concentrations greater than 5 ppb. Plume

concentrations of TCE and PCE greater than 5 ppb from the Wildwood source areas do

not reach well H in any of the plausible simulations.

2.9.2 Conclusions on Contaminant Transport from the NEP Property

The NEP property is the likely source of PCE in well G. The source at NEP

likely started sometime between 1965 and 1970. The earliest arrival time of simulated

PCE in well G occurs in 1966. When higher values of Kd are used, simulated PCE from

NEP does not arrive in well G.

The NEP property is not the major source of TCE to well G because the TCE

concentrations from Wildwood are so much higher compared to those from NEP. The

earliest arrival of TCE concentrations greater than 5 ppb at well G from the NEP occurs

in 1971 and the latest arrival occurs in 1975. NEP does not appear to be a source of

significant TCE or PCE to well H.

2.9.3 Conclusions on Contaminant Transport from the Olympia Property

The major contributor of TCE to well H appears to be from the Olympia source

area. The TCE plume from the Olympia source area is drawn toward well H only when

the well is pumping. When the well is not pumping, the plume from the Olympia source

travels toward the Aberjona River, which lies between Olympia and well H. It is likely

that the source at Olympia was present close to 1970, at the time of the first reported

dumping. When the start time of the Olympia source is 1969, the arrival time of

Page 294: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

273

simulated TCE concentrations greater than 5 ppb in well H from Olympia occurs in 1974.

When the source start time is delayed until 1975, TCE arrives in well H as early as 1975,

or does not reach well H before the end of the simulation in 1986. The Olympia source is

not a major contributor of PCE in well H.

The Olympia source area is shown to contribute to contamination in well G but its

contribution is small compared with that of the Wildwood source area. The arrival time

of simulated TCE concentrations greater than 5 ppb in well G from the Olympia range

from 1971 to 1980. The Olympia source area is not a major source of PCE to wells G or

H because the PCE source concentrations there are relatively small.

2.9.4 Conclusions on Contaminant Transport from the W.R. Grace Property

The source areas on the W.R. Grace property contribute to simulated TCE in well

H. The W.R. Grace source locations and start times are well documented and remain the

same in all scenarios. The arrival time of simulated TCE concentrations greater than 5

ppb at well H from W.R. Grace sources ranges between 1967 and 1978. The W.R. Grace

source does not appear to be a major source of PCE to well H.

The simulated TCE plume reaches well G only when no sorption or moderate Kd

values are used. This occurs between 1968 and 1980. This result does not completely

resolve the issue raised during the civil trial. The opinion of the W.R. Grace expert was

that TCE and PCE did not reach wells G and H before they were turned off in May 1979.

Plausible result from Scenarios #1C, #4C, and #5C, using higher values of Kd, support his

opinion, but the other scenarios do not. These differences in the simulation results are

directly related to the value of Kd. This issue will not be resolved by the contaminant

Page 295: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

274

transport model until the actual values of Kd are known along the flow paths of

contaminants from W.R. Grace to wells G and H. The simulated PCE plume from W.R.

Grace does reach well G in concentrations exceeding 5 ppb.

2.9.4 Conclusions on Contaminant Transport from the UniFirst Property

The source at UniFirst started either some time between 1966 and 1968 or

between 1977 and 1982. The UniFirst source is thought to be the major source of PCE to

well H. The PCE from UniFirst is thought to be traveling through bedrock fractures that

are not explicitly represented in this flow and transport model. Simulations with

moderate to high values of retardation that include the UniFirst PCE contain numerical

errors. Therefore, transport through porous aquifer materials from the UniFirst source is

not represented in simulations with moderate to high retardation factors. When no

retardation is applied, PCE from UniFirst arrives in well H in 1972.

The simulated transport of TCE and PCE in the aquifer also shows mixing of

plumes from different sources in the central aquifer. This mixing, also demonstrated by

the particle tracking analysis, is caused by highly heterogeneous nature the flow system,

the vertical flow gradients produced by pumping wells, and by the river. The values of

longitudinal (αL = 1.5 m) and transverse (αH = 0.3 m, αV = 0.03) dispersivity required to

make the simulated TCE and PCE plume distributions closely match the measured TCE

and PCE distributions model are small compared to values of dispersivity estimated for a

site the size of 1.33 km2.

This contaminant transport model of the Wells G&H Superfund site is the most

complex model of the site thus far. It is used here to demonstrate the likely contaminant

history of wells G and H and the likely sources of TCE and PCE to each municipal well.

Page 296: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

275

CHAPTER 3

ESTIMATION OF TCE + PCE CONCENTRATIONS DELIVERED TO RESIDENCES

In May 1979, municipal wells G and H were found to be contaminated with the

volatile organic chemicals TCE, PCE, 1,2-trans-dichlorothene, and chloroform (Guswa

2000; GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). At that time, residents of Woburn brought

to the attention of the public health scientists the number of childhood leukemia cases in

Woburn (Harr 1995). Over the period between 1979 and 1986, several health studies

were performed to determine if any environmental link existed between the incidence of

ailments, including childhood leukemia, and residents of Woburn (Kotelchuck and Parker

1979; Parker and Rosen 1981; and Cutler et al. 1986). In 1986, Lagakos et al. (1986)

used a water distribution model of Woburn’s municipal water supply to establish

significant dose response relations between the incidence of childhood leukemia and

exposure to water from wells G and H. In a 1997 study (Massachusetts Department of

Public Health 1997), a statistically positive association was found between gestational

exposure to water from wells G and H and the occurrence of childhood leukemia in parts

of Woburn. The study used a matched case-control approach in which the calculated

exposure to wells G and H water at residences of diagnosed cases of childhood leukemia

was compared to the calculated exposures of a control group. The association between

Page 297: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

276

the gestational exposure to wells G and H water and the occurrence of childhood

leukemia suggests that the expected number of 11 Woburn children diagnosed with

leukemia over the period between 1969 and 1997 was less than half of the 24 observed

(Costas et al. 2002).

The water distribution model used in the 1997 follow-up health study calculates

the distribution of water from wells G and H throughout the Woburn municipal water

supply pipelines and estimates the fraction of water from wells G and H delivered to

residences in Woburn (Murphy 1990; Costas et al. 2002). An assumption made in the

health study is that the water from wells G and H was contaminated with chemicals that

cause leukemia (Murphy 1990). It was also assumed that, because the changes in

contaminant concentrations were not known, the wells were “ contaminated to the same

degree during the entire time they were on line “ (Costas et al. 2002). The

Massachusetts Department of Public Health (1997) asserts that the “ most complete

assessment of exposure to water from wells G and H would ideally include the

concentration history of the contaminants delivered to each residence during the active

lifetime of the wells ” . TCE is known to cause health problems, including cancers, it

may affect the toxicity of other chemicals, and it may affect the health of children

differently than adults (U.S. EPA 2001b). The likely history of TCE + PCE delivered to

residences between 1964 and 1979 provided herein, may provide epidemiological

researchers with information for a more complete assessment of the health effects caused

by exposure to water from wells G and H.

The results of the contaminant transport model are used with the results of the

Woburn water distribution model (Murphy 1990) to calculate simulated chemical

Page 298: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

277

concentrations of TCE and PCE from wells G and H distributed by the Woburn water

system to residences across the city. Results of the contaminant transport model indicate

that the concentrations of TCE and PCE in municipal wells G and H vary over time and

that concentrations of TCE and PCE are small early in the operational history of well G,

between 1964 and 1967, and increase later, after well H is brought on-line. As Murphy

(1990) and others (GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994) point out, TCE and PCE are not

the only contaminants at the Wells G&H Superfund Site, but the concentrations of these

chemicals constitute the majority of the VOCs detected in the pumping wells and in

monitoring wells across the site. Therefore, the simulated ranges of TCE + PCE

concentrations represent a portion of the total VOCs pumped by wells G and H

(GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994). Other VOCs present at the site include 1,1-

dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and vinyl chloride (U.S. EPA

1989).

3.1 Water Supply for the City of Woburn

Woburn is one of the few cities in the greater Boston area that maintains its own

water supply. Since 1926, most water supplied to the metropolitan area has been piped

from the 1.6 trillion-liter Quabbin Reservoir in the central region of Massachusetts

(Massachusetts Water Resources Association 2003). Woburn’s first municipal water

supply system was built in 1872 using water from Horn Pond, which lies within the city

limits (Figure 80). By 1885, the system supplied Woburn residences and businesses with

119.2 million liters annually (Darcy 1982).

In 1998, Woburn’s water usage was 22.7 million liters daily and consisted of

groundwater obtained from five of the seven wells around Horn Pond, called A-F and I,

Page 299: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

278

which supplied two thirds of the city's usage (City of Woburn 1998). One third of this

quantity was supplied by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), which

in 2003 served 2.2 million customers of the greater Boston area (City of Woburn 1998;

Massachusetts Water Resources Association 2004).

Page 300: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

279

Figure 80 Map of Woburn showing the locations of Horn Pond and city water supply wells (modified from U.S. Census Bureau 1998; City of Woburn 1998).

Page 301: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

280

Until 1964, Horn Pond and wells tapping the buried valley aquifer underlying it

were the only sources of municipal water (Tarr 1987). Tanneries around Horn Pond

discharged wastes into the pond and, according to historical reports dating back to 1895,

made the water unsanitary and unfit for drinking (Tarr 1987). Complaints from

residential users about the poor quality of their water continued even after chlorination of

the Horn Pond water supply began in 1923 (Tarr 1987). In the 1930's, increased water

demand resulted in the construction of deeper wells at Horn Pond. By the 1950’s

additional demand and the poor quality of water from Horn Pond initiated a search for

alternative local water supplies (Tarr 1987). Rather than purchase water from the

Metropolitan District Commission system, in 1955, Woburn contracted with an

engineering firm to locate alternative supplies. The buried valley aquifer underneath the

Aberjona River and wetlands was identified as a potential source of additional municipal

water supply, even though water quality analyses showed elevated chloride

concentrations that made it less desirable (Tarr 1987). The origin of the high chloride

concentrations was thought to be the tannery operations upstream in the watershed.

In the mid-1950's, Woburn contracted the engineering firm Whitman & Howard

Inc. to identify new sources of drinking water to meet the increasing demands. In a 1958

report, Whitman & Howard recommended that the city improve water quality conditions

at Horn Pond, make arrangements to purchase water from the Metropolitan District

Commission, rehabilitate existing wells, and install new wells around Horn Pond. In

addition, Whitman & Howard Inc. (1958) recommended against using the aquifer in east

Woburn because the groundwater was " too polluted " . Whitman & Howard Inc. (1958)

reported that water samples from collected in 1957 from test holes in the area just north

Page 302: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

281

of I-93 had a musty, boggy odor. Samples from the test well contained chloride,

manganese, and nitrate concentrations of 18, 1.4, and 0.15 mg/l, respectively. However,

in 1963, the east Woburn aquifer was targeted for the construction of new water supply

wells. Water-quality results from several test holes were similar to those in 1957 and

showed 21 mg/l chloride, 0.02 mg/l manganese, 6.4 mg/l nitrate, and a pH of 6.4

(Massachusetts Department of Public Health 1989).

Well G was connected to the Woburn water distribution system in 1964 and well

H was connected in 1967. These wells were used as an auxiliary supply when the level

of Horn Pond was too low or demand increased (Tarr 1987). Figure 24 shows the

intermittent pumping schedule at wells G and H from October to 1964 to May 1979.

3.2 Description of the Water Distribution Model

Two water distribution models of Woburn were constructed for the health studies.

The first water distribution model was constructed by Waldorf and Cleary (1984) and

used by Lagakos et al. (1986) in an earlier assessment of childhood leukemia and other

health conditions in Woburn. In 1986, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Quality Engineering contracted Dr. Peter Murphy, a hydraulic engineer, to construct an

improved water distribution model for the purpose of calculating the percentage of water

from wells G and H that was delivered to residences in Woburn (Murphy 1986). Later,

Murphy revised this model (Murphy 1990) and his revised model was used in a health

study conducted by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (1997). Results of

the health study are also published in Costas et al. (2002).

The water distribution model is a hydraulic model of the city water supply and

distribution system using the computer code NETWK, written and distributed by Utah

Page 303: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

282

State University Professor R.W. Jeppson in association with CH2M-Hill of Corvallis,

Oregon (Murphy 1990). Water distribution models are used to simulate the movement

and mixing of water in a pipeline network. In the model, pipe flow is dependent on the

head at reservoirs (sources of water), the demand (amount of water that leaves the

system), pipeline dimensions, and frictional losses between the pipes and water (Murphy

1990). In the model, mixing of water from different sources, such as wells and

reservoirs, occurs at pipeline intersections.

The water distribution model of the Woburn pipeline network, shown

schematically in Figure 81, represents the configuration of the water distribution system

in 1984 (Murphy 1990). The pipeline network is entirely connected so that a water user

in any area can draw water from anywhere in the network. Wells A2, B, C2, D, E, F, G,

and H are present in the 1984 configuration, in addition to three storage tanks: the

Whispering Hill, Rag Rock, and Zion Hill tanks. The Horn Pond reservoir is a covered,

hilltop holding pond (City of Woburn 1998). The Municipal District Commission

(MDC) source node represents water from the Quabbin reservoir that is supplied to the

system by the MWRA, but this was not used during the period that wells G and H

operated. Other source nodes, shown on Figure 74, represent booster pumps (Murphy

1990).

Page 304: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

283

Figure 81 Water distribution model network showing pipelines, demand nodes, and source nodes corresponding to the system configuration in 1984 (modified from Murphy

1990)

Page 305: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

284

The amount of water entering the water distribution model from well nodes was

estimated from daily pumping records maintained by the city. These pumping records

were used to calculate the monthly percentage of water in the system supplied by wells G

and H (Murphy 1990). Flow from wells at Horn Pond (A2, B, C2, D, and F) is controlled

by throttle valves so pump operators can set the flow rates from these wells. Monthly

average flow rates from wells E, G, and H were calculated by dividing the monthly total

volume pumped by the number of hours each well operated in a month (Murphy 1990).

It should be noted that the pumping rates of wells G and H used in the groundwater flow

model do not come from the water distribution model, but were calculated separately

from the daily records of total volume and number of hours of operation.

For reservoir and tank nodes, the amount of stored water entering the water

distribution system is estimated from water level records (Murphy 1990). The water

levels in the tanks and reservoir fluctuate daily, depending on use. Murphy (1990)

reports that the minimum and maximum fluctuation is roughly ± 20 percent of the

average and that the periods of minimum, maximum, and average demand on these

source nodes are of equal duration. This cyclic fluctuation is included in the water

distribution model (Murphy 1990).

Water leaving the pipeline network for residential, commercial, and industrial use

is represented by user demand nodes. In the model, users are grouped into 54 user

demand areas, or demand nodes, based on their proximity to a source node within the

pipeline network. Residences in an individual user demand area receive water from a

common demand node. The city water bills from 1984 were used to determine the

number of residences on each street (Murphy 1990). Figure 82 shows outlines of the 54

Page 306: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

285

distinct user demand areas that receive water from a common pipe junction in the

pipeline network for the period between 1964 and 1969. Not all Woburn residents have

water meters and records for existing water meters were not available, so an estimated

use of 1,400 liters of water per day per residence was assumed (Murphy 1990). The

boundary between two user demand areas is placed in the middle of the pipe connecting

two pipe junctions. The streets and residences immediately adjacent to a pipe junction

are areas where the model error is the highest, between 20 and 30 percent (Murphy

1990). Some water leaves the actual water distribution system through leaks in pipes,

although the locations and rates of these leaks are not known. These leaks were not

included in the water distribution model (Murphy 1990).

Page 307: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

286

Figure 82 User Demand Areas for the water distribution model representing the period between 1964 to 1969 (modified from Murphy 1990)

Page 308: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

287

In the water distribution model (Murphy 1990), a mass balance between the

source and demand nodes is required. Not only must the supply equal the demand, the

pressure within the system must also be reasonable. The amount of water input is

estimated from well and storage tank data (Murphy 1990). Values of water output are

estimated from residential water use (Murphy 1990). Frictional losses in flow velocity

due to pipeline roughness effects the flow volumes as does pipe length and diameter.

Pipeline dimensions are reasonably well known, so pipeline roughness is the main

parameter used in calibrating the water distribution model (Murphy 1990).

The water distribution model was constructed to calculate the amount of water

delivered to any user demand area in the pipeline network that emanates from a particular

source node (Murphy 1990). The fraction of water at a source node is 100 percent of that

source. As water flows through pipelines to user demand areas, it mixes with water from

other sources at pipe intersection nodes. The water at a pipe intersection is composed of

a fraction of each mixing member. The fractions are determined by the amount of water

flowing through each pipe (Murphy 1990).

The calculations of pipeline flow and source mixing within the water distribution

system were checked first by a calibration to hydraulic heads measured at fire hydrants,

and then validated using measured fluoride concentrations mixing in the system after

input at a single source (Murphy 1990). The values of head calculated by the water

distribution model are calibrated using 1983-84 pressure test data (Murphy 1990). The

average error between the measured and calculated heads is 0.27 m and the RMSE is 1.89

m (Murphy 1990). The model results were also tested against a one-day event, when a

Page 309: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

288

fire hydrant near Washington and Salem streets was allowed to flow. The differences

between the simulated and measured heads had an average error of 0.03 m and a RMSE

of 2.29 m (Murphy 1990).

A validation of the mixing component of the model was done using fluoride

concentrations (Murphy 1990). In the validation field experiment, water entering the

system from MWRA (the MDC node) contained 1.07 ppm fluoride, whereas water from

the Woburn wells contained 0.07 ppm fluoride (Murphy 1990). The mean error between

simulated and measured fluoride concentrations was 0.07 ppm and the RSME was 0.29

ppm (Murphy 1990). Murphy summarizes the validation procedure by stating “ the

[pipeline flow and water mixing] models can predict mixture concentrations with an

average error within 10 percent of the maximum concentration and a [RMSE] of within

30 percent of [the maximum concentration]. ”

Based on the calibration of heads, the fluoride mixing validation experiment, and

spatial analysis of model results, Murphy (1990) concluded that the water distribution

model estimates the boundary of mixing areas to within one node. The boundary areas

are intermediate nodes between areas receiving a fraction of water from wells G and H

and those receiving only water from other sources. The results of the water distribution

model are estimates of the fraction of water from wells G and H that each user demand

area received each month, over the period between October 1964 and May 1979.

Murphy (1990) refers to this fraction as the monthly exposure index and describes it as:

Page 310: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

289

“ the product of the fraction of the month when any contaminated water reached a particular neighborhood [user demand area] and, during that period of the month, the fraction of the water delivered to that neighborhood [user demand area] which came from the contaminated wells. For example if, during half of June, one third of the water at node 40 came from wells G and H, then the exposure index at node 40 for June would be one sixth. ” Results from the water distribution model for a period of drought during October

1966 are shown on Figure 83. At this time, a large region of Woburn received water

from wells G and H because use of the wells near Horn Pond was limited. As Figure 83

shows, delivery of water from wells G and H was highest in east Woburn. During times

when the wells around Horn Pond supplied a larger fraction of water, west Woburn

received no water from wells G and H, whereas user demand areas around wells G and H

received up to 100 percent water from wells G and H (Murphy 1990).

Page 311: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

290

Figure 83 Distribution of wells G and H exposure index for user demand areas during October 1966 calculated by the water distribution model (modified from Murphy 1990)

Page 312: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

291

Two water distribution models are necessary for simulating the entire period from

1964 to 1979, when wells G and H were periodically in use (Murphy 1990). One water

distribution model was used for the period between 1964 and 1969, when little change

occurred to the pipeline network. A second water distribution model was used for the

period from 1970 to 1979, when the pipeline network was expanded to include growth

and new pipelines in northeast Woburn (Murphy 1990). The difference between the two

models is that demand areas 58 and 54 are subdivided to create additional demand areas

56 and 57 (Murphy 1990). Figure 84 shows a diagram of the user demand areas in the

water distribution model for the period from 1970 to 1979.

Page 313: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

292

Figure 84 User demand areas for the water distribution model representing the period from 1970 to 1979 (modified from Murphy 1990)

Page 314: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

293

3.3 Combining Output from the Water Distribution Model with the Simulated Concentrations from the Contaminant Transport Model

The results from the water distribution model are combined with the results from

the contaminant transport model. To accomplish this, monthly contributions of TCE and

PCE are calculated from results of the three plausible scenarios (comprising 18

simulations) using the contaminant transport model. The monthly fraction of wells G and

H water in each user demand area is tabulated in Murphy’s 1990 report. These fractions

were entered into a spreadsheet, along with results from the contaminant transport model,

where additional calculations were performed as described below. The end result is the

computation of ranges of monthly simulated TCE + PCE concentrations from wells G

and H delivered to each user demand area in Woburn from October 1964 to May 1979.

To make these calculations, the source node concentration of TCE and PCE from

wells G and H is computed by multiplying the simulated monthly TCE (or PCE)

concentration from each well by the monthly pumping rate of each well. When added

together and divided by the total pumping rate of both wells, the result is the

concentration of TCE (or PCE) entering the water distribution model at the source node

for wells G and H. This mixing equation is written as follows:

(27)

where QG is the average pumping rate of well G for a given month, QH is the average

pumping rate of well H for a given month, TCEG is the simulated concentration of TCE

from well G for a given month, and TCEH is the simulated concentration of TCE from

well H for a given month. The source node concentrations for TCE and PCE are added

Page 315: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

294

together to produce the TCE + PCE source node concentration. This calculation is

repeated using the six sets of simulated concentrations for the three plausible scenarios.

The time-series graph of TCE + PCE (Figure 85) shows the source node

concentrations from wells G and H, based on the results of the contaminant transport

model for Scenarios #1, #4, and #5. Each of these plausible scenarios contains six

separate simulations, three for TCE and three for PCE. Each simulation uses a different

combination of source start time, source concentration, and retardation factor, as

described in Chapter 2. The range of combined TCE + PCE concentrations for all 18

simulations is plotted showing the minimum, maximum, and average concentrations for

each month from October 1964 to May 1979. Although the contaminant transport model

computes simulated concentrations for each month, the source node concentrations are

calculated only for those months when wells G and H were actually pumping. The

minimum simulated concentrations of TCE + PCE are near zero for the three earliest

pumping periods in 1964, 1966, and 1968 (Figure 85). After 1968, the minimum

simulated TCE + PCE concentrations at the source node are between 10 and 160 ppb.

The maximum simulated concentration of TCE + PCE is 500 ppb, which occurs in early

1978.

Page 316: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

295

Figure 85 Simulated range of TCE + PCE source node concentrations from wells G and H combined using Scenarios #1, #4, and #5 (without the UniFirst PCE source).

To calculate the monthly simulated concentration of TCE + PCE from wells G

and H delivered to each user demand area, the monthly exposure index is multiplied by

the source node concentration using equation 28,

(28)

where the exposure index is the monthly fraction of wells G and H water calculated by

the water distribution model and tabulated in Murphy (1990). The calculated monthly

TCE + PCE concentrations delivered to each user demand area do not include

dehalogenation or volatilization of TCE and PCE, sorption of these chemicals onto the

water distribution pipelines, all of which could decrease the calculated concentrations.

Page 317: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

296

3.4 Estimated Concentrations for Selected User Demand Areas

The likely ranges of historic TCE + PCE concentrations delivered to user demand

areas across Woburn from October 1964 to May 1979 are summarized in Table 25.

Table 25 also lists the number of individual months that the estimated TCE + PCE

concentrations from wells G and H exceed 5 ppb for the minimum, average, and

maximum ranges. The term calendar month means that if wells G and/or H were

pumping in a given month, a value is computed for that month even if the wells were not

operated for the entire month. Therefore, the number of months listed on Table 25 can

only be used to approximate the length of time that simulated TCE + PCE concentrations

from wells G and H exceed 5 ppb. Table 25 also shows maximum simulated TCE + PCE

concentrations for both the 1964 to 1969 and the 1970 to 1979 time periods, which

contain slightly different user demand areas, as previously described. In 15 different user

demand areas in east Woburn, the maximum range of estimated TCE + PCE

concentrations exceeds 5 ppb for as many as 100 months out of the 114 calendar months

that wells G and H pumped. User demand areas that receive no estimated TCE + PCE

contributions from wells G and H are not listed in Table 25.

Page 318: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

297

Table 25 Simulated maximum TCE + PCE concentrations from wells G and H to user demand areas in Woburn during the 114 months that pumping occurred. Maximum

concentrations are calculated from 18 different plausible simulations.

Page 319: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

298

User demand

area1

Number of residences1

Maximum estimated

concentration 1964 to 1969

TCE+PCE (ppb)

Maximum estimated

concentration 1970 to 1979

TCE+PCE (ppb)

Months when estimated minimum TCE+PCE

> 5 ppb

Months when estimated average

TCE+PCE > 5 ppb

Months when estimated maximum TCE+PCE

> 5 ppb 7 423 0 1 0 0 0 8 284 8 10 0 2 8 9 334 2 0 0 0 0 23 325 19 10 0 7 15 24 679 17 10 0 3 12 25 60 21 10 0 5 15 26 551 43 36 20 46 54 32 260 34 40 32 52 71 33 290 87 122 71 93 98 34 232 72 484 50 66 79 35 73 243 336 82 96 100 36 100 262 368 82 96 100 38 18 256 344 82 96 100 39 559 312 484 83 95 100 40 371 168 255 78 92 98 41 112 312 464 83 96 100 42 112 312 484 83 96 100 44 123 312 484 83 96 100 46 157 140 188 68 87 96 47 72 153 136 57 71 78 48 182 224 291 82 96 99 49 72 312 474 83 96 100 50 0 312 474 83 96 100 51 44 312 484 83 96 100 52 111 162 291 79 95 98 53 92 212 291 81 95 99 54 53 312 431 83 96 100 55 0 212 294 81 95 99 56 0 0 440 61 61 63 57 30 0 484 61 61 63 58 70 312 484 83 96 100 61 27 184 294 79 95 98 62 101 43 60 38 67 76 63 111 43 60 38 67 76 64 60 43 86 54 77 84 65 104 43 86 54 77 84 66 219 115 291 78 93 98 67 161 43 86 54 77 84 68 362 43 79 52 77 83 69 132 43 86 54 77 84 70 284 43 86 54 77 84

1- from Murphy (1990)

Table 25

Page 320: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

299

To illustrate the results in Table 25, Figures 86 and 87 show the user demand

areas where the estimated TCE + PCE concentrations from wells G and H greater than 5

ppb are grouped by the number of individual months when concentrations exceed 5 ppb.

The number listed on the figures represents increments of 12 individual months, not

necessarily consecutive months, when estimated TCE + PCE concentrations exceed 5

ppb. The 21 user demand areas in the far east portion of Woburn receive TCE + PCE

from wells G and H greater than 5 ppb for calendar months totaling 5 to 9 years for both

the minimum and maximum estimated TCE + PCE concentration ranges. The largest

estimated TCE + PCE concentrations for any user demand area are between 100 and 484

ppb. Figure 88 is a time-series graph of estimated TCE + PCE concentrations for User

Demand Area 44, which is adjacent to the wells G and H source node. This graph shows

the maximum, minimum, and average estimated TCE + PCE concentrations from wells G

and H. It is an example of one of the user demand areas that receives TCE + PCE for the

longest time. User Demand Areas 33, 46, and 66 (Figures 89, 90, and 91) are farther

from the wells G and H source node but also receive estimated TCE + PCE contributions

from wells G and H for periods ranging from 5 to 9 years. However, the maximum

estimated TCE + PCE concentrations in these three user demand areas range from 100 to

300 ppb, which are smaller concentrations than those estimated for User Demand Area

44.

User demand areas in northeast Woburn receive simulated TCE + PCE

contributions from wells G and H greater than 5 ppb for periods totaling 2 to 7 years

(Figures 86 and 87). The time-series graph of User Demand Area 68 (Figure 92) is

Page 321: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

300

typical of the simulated TCE + PCE concentrations in northeast Woburn. The maximum

estimated TCE + PCE concentrations are less than 100 ppb.

Some user demand areas along the boundary between east and west Woburn

receive TCE + PCE concentrations from wells G and H exceeding 5 ppb for periods

totaling 8 months to 2 years for the maximum estimated TCE + PCE concentration

ranges. Four of these boundary user demand areas receive no simulated TCE + PCE

contributions from wells G and H exceeding 5 ppb for the minimum estimated TCE +

PCE concentration ranges. User Demand Area 25 (Figure 93) receives estimated TCE +

PCE contributions from wells G and H exceeding 5 ppb for 15 individual months when

the maximum estimated concentrations are considered. When minimum estimated

concentrations are considered, User Demand Area 25 does not receive simulated TCE +

PCE concentrations greater than 5 ppb. Time-series graphs for all 40 east Woburn user

demand areas are presented in Appendix A.

Also listed on Table 25 are the number of residences within each user demand

area, as listed by Murphy (1990). Table 25 shows that about 6,900 residences in east

Woburn at some time received contaminated water from wells G and H that likely

contained some TCE and/or PCE exceeding 5 ppb. It is not known how many individuals

this represents or the amount of water the residents consumed.

Page 322: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

301

Figure 86 User demand areas showing the number of individual months when the maximum range of estimated TCE + PCE concentrations from wells G and H is greater

than 5 ppb

Page 323: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

302

Figure 87 User demand areas showing the number of individual months when the minimum range of estimated TCE + PCE concentrations from wells G and H is greater

than 5 ppb

Page 324: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

303

Figure 88 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 44 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18

plausible simulations

Page 325: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

304

Figure 89 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 33 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18

plausible simulations

Page 326: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

305

Figure 90 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 46 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18

plausible simulations

Page 327: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

306

Figure 91 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 66 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18

plausible simulations

Page 328: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

307

Figure 92 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 68 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18

plausible simulations

Page 329: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

308

Figure 93 Computed maximum, minimum, and average ranges of TCE + PCE delivered to User Demand Area 25 from wells G and H between 1964 and 1979, based on 18

plausible simulations

Page 330: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

309

3.5 Conclusions

The combined results of the contaminant transport model and the water

distribution model (Murphy 1990) show that as many as 6,900 residences in Woburn

received contaminated water from wells G and H that likely contained TCE and/or PCE

in concentrations exceeding 5 ppb. It is not known how many individuals this represents.

The residents of east Woburn were more likely to receive higher concentrations of

TCE and PCE over longer periods of time. Results show that TCE + PCE from wells G

and H may have been present in the water distribution system of east Woburn for a

number of months totaling between 5 to 9 years. User demand areas near the wells G and

H source node likely were delivered the highest concentrations of TCE + PCE, ranging

between 100 and 484 ppb, during the last 15 months prior to shutdown of wells G and H

in May 1979.

The maximum estimated TCE + PCE concentrations delivered to User Demand

Areas 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, and 70, in northeast Woburn, may be as much as 86 ppb.

The period of exposure to maximum estimated TCE + PCE concentrations is likely for a

number of months totaling between 2 and 7 years.

The water distribution model shows that User Demand Areas 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9, in

western Woburn, received water from wells G and H for a brief period in 1966.

However, the concentrations of TCE + PCE likely delivered to those areas at that time

did not exceed 5 ppb.

User Demand Areas 8, 24, 25, and 23 are between the areas of east Woburn that

likely received the most TCE + PCE from wells G and H and the areas of west Woburn

that likely received no TCE + PCE. The results indicate that these boundary user demand

Page 331: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

310

areas likely received estimated maximum TCE + PCE concentrations exceeding 5 ppb.

However, minimum estimated concentrations did not exceed 5 ppb.

This study is the first in which a contaminant transport model of the Wells G&H

Superfund Site has been combined with a water distribution model of Woburn to estimate

the TCE and PCE concentrations delivered to residences in the city. The need for public

health scientists to use of these likely concentrations is explained in the Woburn health

studies.

In a childhood leukemia study of Woburn, Costas et al. (2002) used the water

distribution model results, but assumed that water from wells G and H was contaminated

to the same degree for their entire period of operation. The study did not utilize any

contaminant concentration, but only considered exposure to the fraction of water from

wells G and H. Cumulative and average exposure histories used in the heath study

information set would likely change, if the estimated TCE + PCE concentration history

was applied to those variables. The TCE + PCE concentrations are estimated for every

month wells G and H pumped and can be used as variables in assessing the exposure of

mothers during pregnancy. The results show that the concentrations from wells G and H

varied considerably from October 1964 and May 1979.

For example, the water distribution model estimates that User Demand Area 39

obtained 78 percent of its water from well G during November 1964. Results from the 18

plausible transport simulations are used to estimate that zero TCE + PCE was delivered to

User Demand Node 39 in that month. In contrast, a smaller percentage (47 percent) came

from wells G and H in May 1975, but the estimated TCE + PCE concentration was

Page 332: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

311

between 33 and 62 ppb. Therefore, calculated average exposure of pregnant mothers in

User Demand Area 39 would potentially be different over time, and not consistent, as in

the latest study (Costas et al. 2002).

The Costas et al. (2002) childhood leukemia study includes 18 Woburn children

who contracted leukemia. It is from these 18 cases that the association between water

from wells G and H and the incidence of childhood leukemia was established. Future use

of the contaminant transport model results could be used to calculate the statistical

relations between the health of the children in Woburn and their likely exposure to TCE

and PCE.

Page 333: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

312

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

This study addresses the groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the Wells

G&H Superfund Site in detail, yet important questions remain that can be addressed by

additional modeling and/or with additional site information. How does the

dehalogenation of TCE and PCE affect the simulated concentrations in wells G and H

between 1960 and 1986? What are the actual amounts of TOC in the sediments and how

do they affect sorption? How do sorption and volatilization of TCE and PCE in the

pipeline network diminish concentrations delivered to residences in the water distribution

system? What are the fates of contaminants traveling from the Aberjona River and

wetlands into the groundwater flow system?

The fates of TCE and PCE include dehalogenation processes in addition to the

sorption processes considered by the transport hypotheses. The presence of

dehalogenation products of TCE and PCE in monitoring wells across the site (GeoTrans

Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994) is evidence that this geochemical process is occurring.

Dehalogenation effects can be simulated using a decay parameter in the MT3D HMOC

code (Zheng and Wang 1999). Simulated decay of TCE and PCE would have the effect

of decreasing the concentrations, but the degree of actual dehalogenation has not yet been

investigated using the 26-year transient model.

Page 334: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

313

Additional site information about the amount of TOC could be used to refine or

change the hypothesized ranges of Kd. Although much is known about the contaminant

concentrations at the Wells G&H Site, the geochemistry of the entire site has yet to be

fully investigated.

Other chemical processes that would slightly decrease the estimated

concentrations likely delivered to the residences are the volatilization and sorption of

TCE and PCE within the pipeline network of the water distribution system. Public health

scientists using the estimated concentration of TCE + PCE delivered to residences

presented herein, would use those estimates.

During the trial, it was the opinion of the expert for W.R. Grace that river water

was a source of contamination to the municipal wells (Anne Anderson et al. v W.R.

Grace & Co. et al. 1986). The amount of river water reaching the municipal wells is

described in the well screen mixing analysis (Chapter 1). The transport of contaminants

from the Aberjona River to wells G and H can be evaluated using the transport model by

applying source concentrations along the river.

An ecological risk assessment for the Aberjona River, by U.S. EPA (2003), found

some of the highest concentrations of metals in the wetland at the Wells G&H Superfund

Site. Previous studies identified metals such as arsenic, chromium, lead, mercury, and

zinc sorbed onto sediments of the Aberjona River and wetlands near wells G and H

(Knox 1991). A two-dimensional transport and chemical speciation model (Zeeb 1996)

addresses arsenic transport in localized organic sediments near well H, but does not

address transport of arsenic in the entire wetland and river area. It also does not include

the influence of realistic pumping rates and schedules at wells G and H in a transient

Page 335: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

314

simulation. The groundwater flow and transport model herein could be used, with some

modifications, to investigate arsenic transport between the groundwater flow system, the

wetlands and the river.

Page 336: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

315

REFERENCES

Allen-King, R.M., R.W. Gillham, and D.M. Mackay. 1996. Sorption of dissolved

chlorinated solvents to aquifer materials. In: J.F. Pankow and J.A. Cherry eds. Dense Chlorinated Solvents and other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History, Behavior, and Remediation. Waterloo: Waterloo Press.

Alliance Technologies Corp. 1986a. Wells G&H wetlands assessment final report. 25 March, 1986. submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

Alliance Technologies Corp. 1986b. Wells G and H remedial investigation part II. November 1986. submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

Anderson, M.P., and W.W. Woessner 1992. Applied Groundwater Modeling; Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport. New York: Academic Press.

Anne Anderson et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. et al., 628 F. Supplement 1219 (D. Mass. 1986).

ASTM. 1984. Standard method for penetration test and split barrel sampling of soils, D1586. Annual Book of American Society for Testing and Materials Standards. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials Standards.

Aurillo, A.C., R.P. Mason, and H.F. Hemond. 1994. Speciation and fate of arsenic in three lakes of the Aberjona watershed. Environmental Science and Technology 28, no. 4: 577-585.

Bailon, J.L. 1993. Characterization of the physical and engineering properties of the Aberjona wetland sediment. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Bair, E.S., and M.A. Metheny. 2002. Remediation of the Wells G & H Superfund Site, Woburn, Massachusetts. Ground Water 40, no. 6: 657-668.

Barnes, B.S. 1939. The structure of discharge recession curves. Transactions of American Geophysical Union 20: 721-725.

Page 337: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

316

Brainard, E.C. 1990. Groundwater modeling of the Aberjona basin. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Camp, Dresser, & McKee. 1967. Report on Aberjona River. 20, November 1967. Prepared for the Winchester Watershed Committee, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Chiou, C.T., L.J. Peters, and V.H. Freed. 1979. A physical concept of soil-water equilibria for nonionic organic compounds. Science 206, no. 4420: 831-832.

Chute, N. 1959. Glacial geology of the Mystic Lakes-Fresh Pond area, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1061-F.

Cist, D.B. 1999. Ground penetrating radar characterization of geologic structure beneath the Aberjona wetland. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

City of Woburn. 1998. Woburn's water supply; clean and safe, informational pamphlet. Woburn City Hall, Woburn, Massachusetts.

Clark, I., and P. Fritz 1997. Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.

Clarke, W.B., W.J. Jenkins, and Z. Top. 1976. Determination of tritium by mass spectrometric measurement of 3He. International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes 27: 515-522.

Costas, K., R.S. Knorr, and S.K. Condon. 2002. A case-control study of childhood leukemia in Woburn, Massachusetts: the relationship between leukemia incidence and exposure to drinking water. Science of the Total Environment 300,: 23-35.

CRC Press 2000. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Cleveland: CRC Press.

Cutler, J.J., G.S. Parker, S.L. Rosen, P. B., R. Healey, and G.G. Caldwell. 1986. Childhood leukemia in Woburn, Massachusetts. Public Health Report 101, no. 2: 201-205.

Curtis, G.P., P.V. Roberts, and M. Reinhard. 1986. A natural gradient experiment on solute transport in a sand aquifer. 4. Sorption of organic solutes and its influence on mobility. Water Resources Research 22, no. 13: 2059-2067.

Darcy, J. 1982. Land use history a study of chemical wastes at one site in Woburn, Massachusetts. M.S. thesis, Department of History, Bridgewater State College, Bridgewater, Massachusetts.

Page 338: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

317

de Lima, V., and J.C. Olimpio. 1989. Hydrogeology and simulation of ground-water flow at Superfund-site Wells G and H, Woburn, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 89-4059.

DeFeo, F.L. 1971. The establishment and operation of the Aberjona River Committee. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts.

Domenico, P.A. 1987. An analytical model for multidimensional transport of decaying contaminant species. Journal of Hydrology 91: 49-58.

Domenico, P.A., and F.W. Schwartz 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells 2nd ed. St. Paul: The Johnson Division.

Ecology and Environment Inc. 1982. Evaluation of the hydrogeology and groundwater quality of east and north Woburn, Massachusetts, volume I, final report. FIT Project: 25 June 1982, Report 68-01-6056/TDD/F1-8109-02. submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

ENSR Consulting & Engineering. 1993. UniFirst Corp., RD/RA year 1 annual report: groundwater monitoring and capture system performance for the UniFirst site remedial action of the northeast quadrant of the Wells G&H Site, Woburn, Massachusetts. submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

ENSR Consulting & Engineering, and The Johnson Company. 1995. RD/RA year 3 annual report: groundwater monitoring and capture system performance for the UniFirst site, remedial action for the northeast quadrant of the Wells G&H Site, Woburn, Massachusetts. November 1995. submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

Feenstra, S., and N. Guiguer. 1996. Dissolution of dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) in the subsurface. In: J.F. Pankow and J.A. Cherry eds. Dense Chlorinated Solvents and other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History, Behavior, and Remediation. Waterloo: Waterloo Press.

Fetter, C.W. 1999. Contaminant Hydrogeology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry 1979. Groundwater. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

Garren, M. 1998. Personal communication. U.S. EPA Region I.

Garren, M. 2002. Personal communication. U.S. EPA Region I.

Page 339: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

318

Gelhar, L.W., A. Mantoglou, C. Welty, and K.R. Rehfeldt. 1985. A review of field-scale physical solute transport processes in saturated and unsaturated porous media. EPRI EA-4190 Project 2485-5. Electric Power Research Institute.

GeoTrans Inc. 1995. W.R. Grace remedial action Wells G&H Site Woburn, Massachusetts, annual report for October 1, 1994 - September 30, 1995. prepared for W.R. Grace & Co., Connecticut, submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

GeoTrans Inc. and RETEC Inc. 1994. Wells G & H Site central area remedial investigation phase IA report vol. I-III. prepared for Beatrice Corp., UniFirst Corp., and W. R. Grace & Co., Connecticut,. submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

Guswa, J. 2000. Personal communication. GeoTrans Inc.

Guswa, J. 2001. Personal communication. GeoTrans Inc.

Guswa, J. 2003. Personal communication. GeoTrans Inc.

Hansen, B.P., and A.C. Simcox. 1994. Yields of bedrock wells in Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4115.

Harr, J. 1995. A Civil Action. New York: Random House.

Hassan, A.E., and M.M. Mohamed. 2003. On using particle tracking methods to simulate transport in single-column and dual continua porous media. Journal of Hydrology 275, no. 1-4: 242-260.

HMM Associates Inc. 1990. New England Plastics wells G & H hydrogeologic site investigation, prepared for New England Plastics, 310 Salem Street, Woburn. February 1990. submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

Joseph, J.A. 1995. A hydro-geochemical assessment of groundwater flow and arsenic contamination in the Aberjona River sub-basin. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Karickhoff, S.W., D.S. Brown, and T.A. Scott. 1979. Sorption of hydrophobic pollutants on natural sediments. Water Resources Research 13: 241-248.

Kassler and Feuer. 1987. letter to Barbara Newman of U.S. EPA Region I, 27 August, 1987, Boston, Massachusetts.

Kaye, C.A. 1976. Geology and early history of the Boston area of Massachusetts, a bicentennial approach. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1476.

Page 340: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

319

Kaye, C.A. 1982. Bedrock and Quaternary geology of the Boston area, Massachusetts. Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology 5: 25-40.

Kaye, C.A., and E.S. Barghoorn. 1964. Late Quaternary sea-level change and crustal rise at Boston, Massachusetts, with notes on the autocompaction of peat. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 75: 63-80.

Kim, H. 1995. Discharge of volatile organic compounds from a contaminated aquifer and their fate in a stream. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Knox, M.L. 1991. The distribution and depositional history of metals in surface sediments of the Aberjona River watershed. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Kotelchuck, M., and G.S. Parker. 1979. Woburn health data analysis 1969 - 1978 [online]. [cited 25 February, 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.state.ma.us/dph/heha/cau/reports/woburn/woo.htm).

LaForge, L. 1932. Geology of the Boston area, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 839.

Lagakos, S.W., B.J. Wessen, and M. Zelen. 1986. An analysis of contaminated wellwater and heath effects in Woburn. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81, no. 395: 583-614.

MacNish, R.D., and A.D. Randall. 1982. Stratified-drift aquifers in the Susquehanna River Basin, New York. U.S. Geological Survey and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Bulletin 75.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 1989. Appendix D: Health assessment wells G & H site Woburn, Massachusetts [online]. submitted to Office of Health Assessment Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [cited 5 June, 2001]. Available from World Wide Web: (http://WWW.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/wellsgh/wgh_p4b.html).

Massachusetts Department of Public Health. 1997. Woburn childhood leukemia follow-up study, vol. 1, analyses, final report [online]. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Environmental Health Assessment [cited 5 June 2001]. Available from World Wide Web: (www.state.ma.us/dph/beha/cau/reports/woburn/wobleuk2.pdf).

Page 341: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

320

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2000. Superfund hazardous substance basic research program the Aberjona-Mystic Watershed Project [online]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology [cited December 2001]. Available from World Wide Web: (web.mit.edu/cehs/aberjona/index.htm)

Massachusetts Water Resources Association. 2003. The water System [online]. Massachusetts Water Resources Association [cited 20 August 2003]. Available from World Wide Web: (http://ww.mwra.state.ma.us/04water/tml/wat.htm).

McBrearty, D. 1995. Fracture flow as influenced by geologic features in the Aberjona Valley, Massachusetts. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh. 1996. User's documentation for Modflow-96, an update to the U.S. Geological Survey modular finite-difference ground-water flow model. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-D485.

Metcalf & Eddy Inc. and TRC Environmental Corp. 2002. Field sampling plan for pre-design investigation and site characterization; Wells G&H Superfund Site, Operable Unit 1, Olympia Property, Woburn, Massachusetts. February 2002. U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-W6-0042. submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

Metheny, M.A. 1998. Numerical simulation of groundwater flow and advective transport at Woburn, Massachusetts, based on a sedimentological model of glacial and glaciofluvial deposition. M.S. thesis, Department of Geological Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

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 Annual Meeting, Field Guidebook. Boston, Massachusetts: D1-D25.

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. In: H.S. Seo, E. Poeter, C. Zeng and O. Poeter eds. MODFLOW 2001 and Other Modeling Odysseys. vol. II. Golden, Colorado: International Ground Water Modeling Center (IGWMC), Colorado School of Mines, and the U.S. Geological Survey: 783-789.

Meyboom, P. 1961. Estimating ground-water recharge from stream hydrographs. Journal of Geophysical Research 44, no. 4: 1203-1214.

Mulholland, J.W. 1982. Glacial stagnation-zone retreat in New England: bedrock control. Geology 10: 567-571.

Murphy, J.P. 1986. Water distribution in Woburn, Massachusetts. Environmental Institute No. 86-1. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.

Page 342: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

321

Murphy, J.P. 1990. Exposure to Wells G and H in Woburn, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Myette, C.F. 2001. Personal communication. Brown & Caldwell.

Myette, C.F., J.C. Olimpio, and D.G. Johnson. 1987. Area of influence and zone of contribution to Superfund-site Wells G and H, Woburn, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4100.

Myette, C.F., and A.C. Simcox. 1992. Water resources and aquifer yields in the Charles River basin, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 88-4173.

Nance, R.D. 1990. Late Precambrian-early Paleozoic arc-platform transitions in the Avalon Terrane of the Northern Appalachians; review and implications. In: A.D. Socci, J.W. Skehan and G.W. Smith eds. Geology of the composite Avalon terrane of southern New England. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America Special Paper 245.

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. 1994. Superfund Hazardous Substances Basic Research Program. NIH Guide 23, no. 8.

Newell, C., J., J.R. Gonzales, P. Haas, P.T. Clement, and Y. Sun. 2000. BIOCHLOR natural attenuation decision support system, user's manual, ver. 1.0. EPA/600/R-00/008. U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Ada, Oklahoma.

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Climatic Data Center. 2004. NOAA Satellites and Information; National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, for Boston Logan International Airport, Massachusetts [online]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [cited 28 January, 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html).

NUS Corp. 1986. Wells G&H Site remedial investigation report part I, Woburn, Massachusetts. 17 October, 1986, TDD No. F1-8607-07, U.S. EPA Site No. MAD980732168. submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

Pacelle, M. 1986. Contaminated verdict. American Lawyer, December 1986.

Pankow, J.F., and J.A. Cherry 1997. Dense Chlorinated Solvents and Other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History, Behavior, and Remediation. Waterloo: Waterloo Press.

Parker, G.S., and S.L. Rosen. 1981. Woburn: cancer incidence and environmental hazards, 1969-1978. Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.

Page 343: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

322

Pollock, D.W. 1994. User's guide for MODPATH/MODPATH-PLOT, ver. 3: A particle tracking post-processing package for MODFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey finite-difference ground-water flow model. U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report OF 94-464.

Portniaguine, O., and D.K. Solomon. 1998. Parameter estimation using groundwater age and head data, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Water Resources Research 34, no. 4: 637-645.

Prommer, H., D.A. Barry, and G.B. Davis. 2002. Modeling of physical and reactive processes during biodegradation of a hydrocarbon plume under transient groundwater flow conditions. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 59, no. 1-2: 113-131.

Remediation Technologies Inc. 1996. Attachment F, aquifer test report, Wildwood property Wells G&H Superfund Site Woburn, Massachusetts, volume I, technical report, April 1996, prepared for Beatrice Co., Concord, and Hydroanalysis Inc., Acton. submitted to U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

Remediation Technologies Inc. 1998. 100% design drawings, Wildwood Property, Wells G&H Superfund Site, Woburn, Massachusetts, drawing number S-1b, construction layout and limits of clearing. prepared for Beatrice Co., Concord, Massachusetts.

Reynolds, J.E. 1993. Three-dimensional transient groundwater modeling of the Aberjona watershed. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Rogers, L. 1992. History matching to determine the retardation of PCE in ground water. Ground Water 30, no. 1: 50-60.

Rutledge, A.T. 1998. Computer programs for describing the recession of ground-water discharge and for estimating mean ground-water recharge and discharge from streamflow records - update. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4148: 43 pp.

Schwarzenbach, R.P., P.M. Gschwend, and D.M. Imboden 1993. Environmental Organic Chemistry. New York: Wiley & sons Inc.

Sheets, R.A., E.S. Bair, and G.L. Rowe. 1998. Use of 3H/3He ages to evaluate and improve groundwater flow models in a complex buried-valley aquifer. Water Resources Research 34, no. 5: 1077-1089.

Skehan, J.W., and N. Rast. 1990. Pre-Mesozoic evolution of Avalon terranes of southern New England. In: A.D. Socci, J.W. Skehan and G.W. Smith eds. Geology of the Composite Avalon Terrane of Southern New England. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America Special Paper 245

Page 344: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

323

Skehan, J.W., and N. Rast. 1996. Late Proterozoic to Cambrian evolution of the Boston Avalon terrane. In: J.P. Hibbard, C.R. van Staal and P.A. Cawood eds. Current Perspectives in the Appalachian-Caledonian Orogen: Geologic Association of Canada Special Paper 41.

Smyth, A. 2003. Personal communication. TRC Environmental Corp.

Solomon, D.K., S.L. Schiff, R.J. Poreda, and W.B. Clarke. 1993. A validation of the 3H/3He method for determining groundwater recharge. Water Resources Research 29, no. 9: 2951-2962.

Solomon, D.K., R.J. Poreda, P.G. Cook, and A. Hunt. 1995. Site characterization using 3H/3He ground-water ages, Cape Cod, MA. Ground Water 33, no. 6: 988-996.

Solomon, D.K., R.J. Poreda, S.L. Schiff, and J.A. Cherry. 1992. Tritium and helium 3 as groundwater age tracers in the Borden aquifer. Water Resources Research 28, no. 3: 741-755.

Stone, B.D., and H.W. Jr. Borns. 1986. Pleistocene glacial and interglacial stratigraphy of New England, Long Island, and adjacent Georges Band and Gulf of Maine. In: V. Sibrava, Q. Bowen, and G.M. Ridhmond eds. Quaternary Glaciations in the Northern Hemisphere. New York: Pergamon Press.

Szabo, Z., D.E. Rice, L.N. Plummer, S. Busenberg, and D. S. 1996. Age dating of shallow groundwater with chlorofluorocarbons, tritium/helium 3, and flow path analysis, southern New Jersey coastal plain. Water Resources Research 32, no. 4: 1023-1038.

Tarr, J.A. 1987. History of pollution in Woburn, Massachusetts, review of EPA report titled "Wells G & H Site Remedial Investigation Report Part I Woburn, Massachusetts", vol. 2: appendix B. prepared for W.R. Grace & Co. by GeoTrans Inc., Boxborough, Massachusetts.

Touchstone Pictures. 1998. A Civil Action. directed by Steve Zaillian. screenplay by Steve Zaillian.

Toulmin, P. 1964. Bedrock geology of the Salem Quadrangle and Vicinity Massachusetts, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1163-A

Tucker, R.D., P.H. Osberg, and H.N.I. Berry. 2001. The geology of a part of Acadia and the nature of the Acadian orogeny across central and eastern Maine. American Journal of Science 301, no. 3: 205-260.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1998. TIGER/line data [online]. U.S. Census Bureau [cited April 2001]. Available from World Wide Web: (http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapbrouse-tbl).

Page 345: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

324

U.S. EPA. 1989. Record of Decision, Wells G&H Site, Woburn, Massachusetts. EPA MAD980732168. U.S. EPA Region I, Boston, Massachusetts.

U.S. EPA. 1993. Cleanup begins and Wells G&H, one year after landmark New England settlement: Superfund at work - hazardous waste cleanup efforts nationwide. EPA 520-F-92-015, Boston, Massachusetts.

U.S. EPA. 2001a. EPA New England National Priorities List (NPL) Fact Sheet [online]. U.S. EPA [cited 16 December 2001]. Available from World Wide Web: (www.epa.gov/region01/superfund/sites/wellsgh/factsh.html).

U.S. EPA. 2001b. Trichloroethylene health risk assessment: synthesis and characterization (external review draft). EPA/600/P-01/002A. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington D.C.

U.S. EPA. 2003. Aberjona River Study Ecological Risk Assessment [online]. U.S. EPA [cited 20 January, 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: (http://www.epa.gov/ne/superfund/sites/wellsgh/44374.pdf).

U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. Surface-water data for the nation, station no. USGS 01102500 [online]. U.S. Geological Survey [cited 26 January, 2004]. Available from World Wide Web: (waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/sw/discharge).

Vershueren, K. 1983. Handbook of Environmental Data on Organic Chemicals. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Waldorf, H.A., and R.K. Cleary. 1984. Water distribution system, Woburn, Massachusetts, 1964-1979. New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, Boston, Massachusetts.

Warrington, R.A. 1973. Hydraulic survey of the Aberjona River and operation of the Aberjona River Commission. M.S. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts.

Whitman & Howard Inc. 1958. Report on improvements for the city of Woburn water supply to Mayor William Shaughnessy. 6 April, 1958. Woburn town files. U.S. Geological Survey, Marlborough, Massachusetts.

Wick, L.Y., and P.M. Gschwend. 1998. By-products of a former phenol manufacturing site in a small lake adjacent to a Superfund Site in the Aberjona watershed. Environmental Health Perspectives 106, supplement 4: 1069-1074.

Wiedemeier, T.H., H.S. Rifai, C.J. Newell, and J.T. Wilson 1999. Natural Attenuation of Fuels and Chlorinated Solvents in the Subsurface. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Page 346: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

325

Woodhouse, D., P.J. Barosh, E.G. Johnson, C.A. Kaye, H.A. Russell, W.E. Pitt, S.A. Alsup, and K.E. Franz. 1991. Geology of Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists 28, no. 4: 375-512.

Woodward & Curran Inc. 1997. Source control remedial design, project 96032.04, soil vapor extraction and air sparge systems, 100% design. prepared for New England Plastics Corp., Woburn, Massachusetts.

Woodward & Curran Inc. 1999. letter to Mary Garren, U.S. EPA Region I, from Henri Vincent, New England Plastics Corp. November 1999.

Woodward & Curran Inc. 2000. Groundwater monitoring report, New England Plastics Corp., Wells G&H Superfund Site, Woburn, Massachusetts. October 2000. prepared for New England Plastics Corp., Woburn, Massachusetts.

Woodward-Clyde. 1984. Phase II groundwater investigation, J. J. Riley Site Woburn, Massachusetts. prepared for Lowenstein, Sandler, Brochin, Kohl, Fisher, Boylan & Meanor, Roseland, New Jersey.

Yankee Environmental Engineering and Research Services Inc. 1983. Hydrogeologic investigation of the John J. Riley Tanning Company Inc. 228 Salem Street Woburn, Massachusetts.

Zeeb, P. 1996. Piezocone mapping, groundwater monitoring, and flow modeling in a riverine peatland: implications for the transport of arsenic. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Zhang, J. 1997. Nonlinear refraction and reflection traveltime tomography. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Zhang, Z., and M.L. Brusseau. 1999. Nonideal transport of reactive solutes in heterogeneous porous media, 5. Simulating regional-scale behavior of a trichloroethene plume during pump-and-treat remediation. Water Resources Research 35, no. 10: 2921-2935.

Zheng, C., and G.D. Bennett 2002. Applied Contaminant Transport Modeling, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.

Zheng, C., and P.P. Wang. 1999. MT3DMS: a modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model for simulation of advection, dispersion, and chemical reactions of contaminants in groundwater systems. Department of Geological Sciences, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Page 347: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

326

APPENDIX A

TIME-SERIES GRAPHS SHOWING THE MAXIMUM, MINIMUM, AND AVERAGE SIMULATED TCE + PCE CONCENTRATIONS FROM WELLS G AND H TO USER DEMAND AREAS IN WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS BASED ON 18 PLAUSIBLE

SIMULATIONS

Page 348: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

327

The 40 time-series graphs in Appendix A show the combined results of the

contaminant transport model and the Murphy (1990) water distribution model showing

the maximum, minimum, and average simulated TCE + PCE contribution from wells G

and H to user demand areas in east Woburn.

Figure 94 User Demand Area 23

Page 349: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

328

Figure 95 User Demand Area 24

Figure 96 User Demand Area 25

Page 350: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

329

Figure 97 User Demand Area 26

Figure 98 User Demand Area 32

Page 351: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

330

Figure 99 User Demand Area 33

Figure 100 User Demand Area 34

Page 352: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

331

Figure 101 User Demand Area 35

Figure 102 User Demand Area 36

Page 353: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

332

Figure 103 User Demand Area 38

Figure 104 User Demand Area 39

Page 354: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

333

Figure 105 User Demand Area 40

Figure 106 User Demand Area 41

Page 355: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

334

Figure 107 User Demand Area 42

Figure 108 User Demand Area 44

Page 356: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

335

Figure 109 User Demand Area 46

Figure 110 User Demand Area 47

Page 357: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

336

Figure 111 User Demand Area 48

Figure 112 User Demand Area 49

Page 358: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

337

Figure 113 User Demand Area 50

Figure 114 User Demand Area 51

Page 359: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

338

Figure 115 User Demand Area 52

Figure 116 User Demand Area 53

Page 360: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

339

Figure 117 User Demand Area 54

Figure 118 User Demand Area 55

Page 361: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

340

Figure 119 User Demand Area 56

Figure 120 User Demand Area 57

Page 362: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

341

Figure 121 User Demand Area 58

Figure 122 User Demand Area 61

Page 363: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

342

Figure 123 User Demand Area 62

Figure 124 User Demand Area 63

Page 364: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

343

Figure 125 User Demand Area 64

Figure 126 User Demand Area 65

Page 365: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

344

Figure 127 User Demand Area 66

Figure 128 User Demand Area 67

Page 366: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

345

Figure 129 User Demand Area 68

Figure 130 User Demand Area 69

Page 367: EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND CONTAMINANT … · 2013-12-21 · evaluation of groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the wells g&h superfund site, woburn, massachusetts,

346

Figure 131 User Demand Area 70


Recommended