Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 64, Issue 2, pp 483–495 | Cite as

An initial screening tool for water resource contamination due to development in the Olympic Park 2012 site, London

  • A. P. Marchant
  • V. J. Banks
  • K. Royse
  • S. P. Quigley
  • G. P. Wealthall
Original Article

Abstract

Groundwater is the primary source of potable water in southeast England. Its protection in urban environments is of paramount importance. Following a scoping study the British Geological Survey (BGS) established a project to develop an initial screening tool (IST) to assist the planning community in the assessment of the potential risk to ground and surface waters from contaminants mobilised as a consequence of redevelopment. The tool has been designed in the context of the source-pathway-receptor paradigm that informs Part IIa of the UK Environmental Protection Act (1990). Building on the work of previous screening tools and in particular ConSEPT, a BGS contaminated site evaluation and prioritisation tool, the IST incorporates significant refinements to scoring methodologies and takes the prioritisation approach into the 3-D environment. Implemented as a customised GIS application and utilising surfaces extracted from 3-D geological modelling, the tool collates and interrogates a range of geoscientific information, including contaminant scale, geological, historic land use, groundwater level and hydrogeological domain data. The IST facilitates the ranking of various proposed development scenarios through a semi-quantitative assessment of contamination potential, via a number of pollutant linkages, providing planners with reports on the type, spatial distribution and hazards associated with potential contaminant sources within their area. To achieve this, a range of evaluation factors applied to the sources, pathways and receptors are scored through a combination of spatial and attribute queries, then assessed on the basis of potential linkages. The initial research area selected for the application of the IST was the Olympic Park site, London.

Keywords

Contaminated land Part IIa of the Environmental Protection Act (1990) Screening tool Groundwater Surface water GIS 

References

  1. Aller L, Bennett T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1987) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating ground water pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. NWWA/EPA Series. EPA-600/2-87-035Google Scholar
  2. Ander EL, Quigley S, Lawley RS, Marchant AP, Smith BM Brown MJ, Fiorini E, Hooker PJ (2003) ConSEPT: an integrated GIS methodology for the prioritisation of potentially contaminated land (issue 1.0). British Geological Survey, IR/03/025c, 132 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Canter LW, Knox RC, Fairchild DM (1987) Ground water quality protection. Lewis Publishers, Inc., 562 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Environment Agency (2002) Potential contaminants for the assessment of land. CLR 8, Environment Agency, BristolGoogle Scholar
  5. Department of the Environment (1995) Prioritisation and categorisation procedure for sites which may be contaminated. CLR 6Google Scholar
  6. Edmonds CN (1983) Towards the prediction of subsidence risk upon the Chalk outcrop. Q J Eng Geol Lond 16:261–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edmonds CN, Green CP, Higginbottom IE (1987) Subsidence hazard prediction for limestone terrains as applied to the English Cretaceous Chalk. In: Culshaw MG, Bell FG, Cripps JC, O’ Hara M (eds) Planning and engineering geology, vol 4. The Geological Society, London, pp 283–293Google Scholar
  8. Ellison RA (2004) Geology of London. Special Memoir for 1: 50000 Geological sheets 256 (North London), 257 (Romford), 270 (South London) and 271 (Dartford) (England and Wales). British Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  9. Environment Agency (2001) Piling and penetrative round improvement methods on land affected by contamination: guidance on pollution prevention,s NC/99/73Google Scholar
  10. Gilman J (2003) Tools for the job. Environ Health J, pp 104–196Google Scholar
  11. Hutchinson RN (1989) Possible late Quaternary pingo remnants in central London. Nature 284:253–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lelliott M, Bridge DMcC, Kessler H, Price SJ, Seymour KJ (2006) The application of 3D geological modelling to aquifer recharge assessments in an urban environment. Q J Eng3D geological modelling to aquifer Geol Hydrogeol 39(3):293–302Google Scholar
  13. Lloyd T, Foster S, Morris BHllK, Robinson R, Aldous P, Hart A (1998) Chapter 4: Assessment of contamination risk for ground water resources. In: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Department of Health. Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies. Third Report of the Group of Experts chaired by Prof. I. Bouchier, pp 26–42Google Scholar
  14. MacDonald AM, Allen DJ (2001) Aquifer properties of the Chalk of England. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 34(4):371–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Marsland PA, Carey MA (1999) Methodology for the derivation of remedial targets for soil and groundwater to protect water resources. Environment Agency Research and Development Publication 20, 89 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. McMillan AA, Powell JH (1999) BGS Rock Classification Scheme Volume 4. Classification of artificial (man-made) ground and natural superficial deposits—applications to geological maps and datasets in the UK. BGS Research Report RR99-04Google Scholar
  17. McMillan AA, Heathcote JA, Klinck BA, Shepley MG, Jackson CP, Degnan PJ (2000) Hydrogeological characterization of the onshore Quaternary sediments at Sellafield using the concept of domains. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 33:301–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ó Dochartaigh BÉ, MacDonald AM, Griffiths KJ, Lilly A, DeGroote J, Chilton PJ, Hughes AG (2009) Assessing the effectiveness of Scotland’s groundwater nitrate monitoring network. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 40(4):293–406Google Scholar
  19. Price SJ, Burke HF, Terrington RL, Reeves HJ, Boon DP, Scheib AJ (2010) The 3D characterisation of the zone of human interaction and the sustainable use of underground space in urban and peri-urban environments: case studies from the UK: In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen gesellschaft fur geowissenschaften, vol 161 pt/no 2 (2010) pp 219–235 ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Royse KR (2005) Can sustainable development be achieved when geoscience issues are ignored? In: 4th global conference: environmental justice and global citizenship ‘environment, sustainability and technology’Google Scholar
  21. Royse KR, Price S, Entwistle D, Lelliott M, Terrington R (2005) Thames Gateway Pilot Study, results: is there a need for Urban Geoscience in the Gateway? British Geological Survey, 35 ppGoogle Scholar
  22. Royse K, Rutter H, Entwisle D (2009) Property attribution of 3D geological models in the Thames Gateway, London : new ways of visualising geoscientific information. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68 (1):1–16. doi: 10.1007/s10064-008-0171-0
  23. Sumbler MG (1996) British regional geology: London and the Thames Valley, 4th edn. London HMSO, 173 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Waters CN, Price SJ, Hawkins MP, Marchant AP, Fiorini E, Brown SE, Tye AM, Fleming C, Davies J, Schofield DI, Barclay WJ, Garcia-Bajo M (2006) A background to urban geoscience studies in Swansea-Neath-Port Talbot area. British Geological Survey Internal Report, IR/05/073R, 80 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Weinreb B, Hibbert C (1983) The London encyclopaedia. Macmillan Reference Books, USA, p 1060Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Geological Survey - NERC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. P. Marchant
    • 1
  • V. J. Banks
    • 1
  • K. Royse
    • 1
  • S. P. Quigley
    • 1
  • G. P. Wealthall
    • 1
  1. 1.British Geological SurveyKingsley Dunham CentreNicker Hill, Keyworth, Nr NottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations