Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 30, pp 30561–30574 | Cite as

Risk assessment of groundwater environmental contamination: a case study of a karst site for the construction of a fossil power plant

  • Fuming Liu
  • Shuping YiEmail author
  • Haiyi Ma
  • Junyi Huang
  • Yukun Tang
  • Jianbo Qin
  • Wan-huan Zhou
Water Environment Protection and Contamination Treatment

Abstract

This paper presents a demonstration of an integrated risk assessment and site investigation for groundwater contamination through a case study, in which the geologic and hydrogeological feature of the site and the blueprint of the fossil power plant (FPP) were closely analyzed. Predictions for groundwater contamination in case of accidents were performed by groundwater modeling system (GMS) and modular three-dimensional multispecies transport model (MT3DMS). Results indicate that the studied site area presents a semi-isolated hydrogeological unit with multiplicity in stratum lithology, the main aquifers at the site are consisted of the filled karst development layer with a thickness between 6.0 and 40.0 m. The poor permeability of the vadose zone at the FPP significantly restricted the infiltration of contaminants through the vadose zone to the subsurface. The limited influence of rarely isotropic porous karstified carbonate rocks on the groundwater flow system premised the simulate scenarios of plume migration. Analysis of the present groundwater chemistry manifested that that the groundwater at the site and the local area are of the HCO3–Ca, HCO3, and SO4–Ca types. A few of the water samples were contaminated by coliform bacteria and ammonia nitrogen as a result of the local cultivation. Prediction results indicate that the impact of normal construction and operation processes on the groundwater environment is negligible. However, groundwater may be partly contaminated within a certain period in the area of leakage from the diesel tanks, the industrial wastewater pool, and the cooling tower water tank in case of accidents. On a positive note, none of the plumes would reach the local sensitive areas for groundwater using. Finally, an anti-seepage scheme and a monitoring program are proposed to safeguard the groundwater protection. The integrated method of the site investigation and risk assessment used in this case study can facilitate the protection of groundwater for the construction of large-scale industrial project.

Keywords

Groundwater contamination Integrated site investigation Risk assessment Solute transport Karst hydrogeology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Shenzhen Municipal Science and Technology Innovation Committee through project Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Soil and Groundwater Pollution Control (No. ZDSY20150831141712549) and Shenzhen fundamental research project (JCYJ20150831142213741). Partial funding has also been supported by Shenzhen Peacock Plan (No. KQTD2016022619584022).

References

  1. Anand RR, Aspandiar MF, Noble RRP (2016) A review of metal transfer mechanisms through transported cover with emphasis on the vadose zone within the Australian regolith. Ore Geol Rev 73:394–416.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2015.06.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arias-Estévez M, López-Periago E, Martínez-Carballo E, Simal-Gándara J, Mejuto J-C, García-Río L (2008) The mobility and degradation of pesticides in soils and the pollution of groundwater resources. Agric Ecosyst Environ 123(4):247–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Calò F, Parise M (2009) Waste management and problems of groundwater pollution in karst environments in the context of a post-conflict scenario: the case of Mostar (Bosnia Herzegovina). Habitat Int 33(1):63–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2008.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandra S, Saxena T, Nehra S, Mohan MK (2016) Quality assessment of supplied drinking water in Jaipur city, India, using PCR-based approach. Environ Earth Sci 75(2):153.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4809-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dai Z, Samper J (2004) Inverse problem of multicomponent reactive chemical transport in porous media: formulation and applications. Water Resour Res 40:294–295.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003248
  6. Ducci D, Masi GD, Priscoli GD (2008) Contamination risk of the Alburni karst system (southern Italy). Eng Geol 99(3-4):109–120.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2007.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Feinstein DT, Guo W (2004) STANMOD: a suite of windows-based programs for evaluating solute transport. Groundwater 42(4):482–487.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02615.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernández-Cruz T, Martínez-Carballo E, Simal-Gándara J (2017) Perspective on pre- and post-natal agro-food exposure to persistent organic pollutants and their effects on quality of life. Environ Int 100:79–101.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ford D, Williams PW (2007) Karst hydrogeology and geomorphology. Karst hydrogeology and geomorphology. Wiley.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118684986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goss MJ, Ehlers W, Unc A (2010) The role of lysimeters in the development of our understanding of processes in the vadose zone relevant to contamination of groundwater aquifers. Phys Chem Earth 35(15-18):913–926.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2010.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grima J, Luque-Espinar JA, Mejía JA, Rodríguez R (2015) Methodological approach for the analysis of groundwater quality in the framework of the groundwater directive. Environ Earth Sci 74:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4472-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gurdak JJ, Qi SL (2012) Vulnerability of recently recharged groundwater in principal [corrected] aquifers of the United States to nitrate contamination. Environ Sci Technol 46(11):6004–6012.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es300688b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gutiérrez F, Parise M, Waele JD, Jourde H (2014) A review on natural and human-induced geohazards and impacts in karst. Earth Sci Rev 138:61–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Idris AN, Aris AZ, Praveena SM, Suratman S, Tawnie I, Samsuddin MKN, Sefei A (2016) Hydrogeochemistry characteristics in Kampong Salang, Tioman Island, Pahang, Malaysia. Materials Science and Engineering Conference Series, pp 012065.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/136/1/012065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaufmann G, Braun J (1999) Karst aquifer evolution in fractured, porous rocks. J Hydrol 35:3223–3238.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.10.049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Khaleel R (2007) Impact assessment of existing vadose zone contamination at the Hanford site SX tank farm. Vadose Zone J 6(4):935–945.  https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2006.0176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lacey R (2016) The characteristic flow equation: a tool for engineers and scientists. Geotext Geomembr 44(4):534–548.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li J, Li X, Lv N, Yang Y, Xi B, Li M, Bai S, Liu D (2015) Quantitative assessment of groundwater pollution intensity on typical contaminated sites in China using grey relational analysis and numerical simulation. Environ Earth Sci 74(5):3955–3968.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3980-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li J, Yang Y, Huan H, Li M, Xi B, Lv N, Wu Y, Xie Y, Li X, Yang J (2016a) Method for screening prevention and control measures and technologies based on groundwater pollution intensity assessment. Sci Total Environ 551-552:143–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li P, Li X, Meng X, Li M, Zhang Y (2016b) Appraising groundwater quality and health risks from contamination in a semiarid region of Northwest China. Exposure and Health 8(3):361-379.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12403-016-0205-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li P, Tian R, Xue C, Wu J (2017) Progress, opportunities, and key fields for groundwater quality research under the impacts of human activities in China with a special focus on western China. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(15):13224–13234.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8753-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marín AI, Andreo B, Mudarra M (2010) Importance of evaluating karst features in contamination vulnerability and groundwater protection assessment of carbonate aquifers. The case study of Alta Cadena (southern Spain). Z Geomorphol 54(2):179–194(16).  https://doi.org/10.1127/0372-8854/2010/0054S2-0010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayer AS, Kelley CT, Miller CT (2002) Optimal design for problems involving flow and transport phenomena in saturated subsurface systems. Adv Water Resour 25(8-12):1233–1256.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00054-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1988) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model. United States: Department of the Interior, Reston, VA (US).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(86)90106-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mejías M, Renard P, Glenz D (2009) Hydraulic testing of low-permeability formations: a case study in the granite of Cadalso de los Vidrios, Spain. Eng Geol 107(3-4):88–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.05.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Parise M, Closson D, Gutiérrez F, Stevanović Z (2015a) Anticipating and managing engineering problems in the complex karst environment. Environ Earth Sci 74(12):7823–7835.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-4647-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parise M, Ravbar N, Živanović V, Mikszewski A, Kresic N, Mádl-Szőnyi J, Kukurić N (2015b) Hazards in karst and managing water resources quality, karst aquifers—characterization and engineering. Springer, pp 601–687.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12850-4_17 Google Scholar
  28. Pfunt H, Houben G, Himmelsbach T (2016) Numerical modeling of fracking fluid migration through fault zones and fractures in the north German Basin. Hydrogeol J 24:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-016-1418-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Samper J, Yang C, Zheng L, Montenegro L, Xu T, Dai Z, Zhang G, Lu C, S. M. (2012) CORE2D V4: A code for water flow, heat and solute transport, geochemical reactions, and microbial processes. In: Zhang F, Yeh G-T, and Parker JC (eds) Groundwater Reactive Transport Models. Bentham Open E-Books, pp 160–185.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-016-1464-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shan M, Zhang S (2012) Research and practice on interface management in large-scale industrial construction project. Appl Mech Mater 174-177:3387–3392.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.174-177.3387 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Soltanian MR, Sun A, Dai Z (2017) Reactive transport in the complex heterogeneous alluvial aquifer of Fortymile Wash, Nevada. Chemosphere 179:379–386.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.03.136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stuart M, Lapworth D, Crane E, Hart A (2012) Review of risk from potential emerging contaminants in UK groundwater. Sci Total Environ 416:1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.11.072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wachniew P, Zurek AJ, Stumpp C, Gemitzi A, Gargini A, Filippini M, Rozanski K, Meeks J, Kvaerner J, Witczak S (2016) Towards operational methods for the assessment of intrinsic groundwater vulnerability: a review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Sciences and Technology (9), 00-00.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2016.1160816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Waltham AC, Fookes PG (2011) Engineering classification of karst ground conditions. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 36:101–118.  https://doi.org/10.1144/1470-9236/2002-33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wong KW, Yap CK, Nulit R, Hamzah MS, Chen SK, Wan HC, Karami A, Al-Shami SA (2017) Effects of anthropogenic activities on the heavy metal levels in the clams and sediments in a tropical river. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(1):116–134.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7951-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Worthington S, Ford D, Beddows P (2001) Characteristics of porosity and permeability enhancement in unconfined carbonate aquifers due to the development of dissolutional channel systems. Present state and future trends of karst studies. UNESCO, 1, 13-29Google Scholar
  37. Yeh WW-G (2015) Review: optimization methods for groundwater modeling and management. Hydrogeol J 23(6):1051–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-015-1260-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yi SP, Ma H, Wang H (2012a) A preliminary study on the transport behavior for a potential disposal site of LILW in southern china. Progress in environmental science and engineering (Iceesd 2011), Pts 1-5, 356-360, 1445-1453.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.356-360.1445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yi S, Samper J, Naves A, Soler JM (2012b) Identifiability of diffusion and retention parameters of anionic tracers from the diffusion and retention (DR) experiment. J Hydrol Sci 446-447:70-76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.04.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zech A, Arnold S, Schneider C, Attinger S (2015) Estimating parameters of aquifer heterogeneity using pumping tests—implications for field applications. Adv Water Resour 83:137–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2015.05.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang B, Li G, Cheng P, Yeh TCJ, Hong M (2016) Landfill risk assessment on groundwater based on vulnerability and pollution index. Water Resour Manag 30(4):1465–1480.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1233-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zheng C, Bennett GD (2002) Applied contaminant transport modeling, 2. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Soil and Groundwater Pollution ControlShenzhenChina
  2. 2.School of Environmental Science and EngineeringSouthern University of Science and TechnologyShenzhenChina
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversity of MacauMacauChina
  4. 4.Guangdong Electric Power Design InstituteChina Energy Engineering Group Co., Ltd.GuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations