Advertisement

Investigating and Remediating Contaminated Karst Aquifers

  • Malcolm S. FieldEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Karst Science book series (AKS)

Abstract

Subsurface investigations of contaminated karst aquifers are generally regarded as extremely difficult. The difficulty not only is partly a result of the significant heterogeneity and anisotropy created by the existence of open and plugged ramiform conduit systems, but is also a result of the existence of an overlying epikarst. Even more intractable is the effective remediation of contaminated karst aquifers for basically the same reasons. The difficulties associated with investigating and remediating karst aquifers are further exacerbated when situated in areas with complex folding and faulting of strata. Couple the specifics of various contaminant types of varying degrees of reactivities, densities, and miscibilities (e.g., VOCs, LNAPLs, DNAPLs) with the complexities typical of karst terranes and the limitations of comprehensive karst investigations and effective remediation techniques quickly become evident. Typical remediation techniques, such as pump-and-treat operations, in situ thermal treatments, in situ chemical oxidation, bioremediation, and monitored natural attenuation all exhibit significantly reduced performances relative to other types of aquifers. Partially in recognition of the challenges associated with specific contaminant types and groundwater investigations and remediation techniques when applied to contaminated karst terranes the U.S. EPA developed the concept of a TI (Technical Impracticability) waiver in which remediation below MCLs (maximum contaminant levels) may not be required. Very few TI waivers have ever been issued, however, and obtaining a TI waiver is quite formidable. Remediation down to MCLs is a desirable goal, but the vagaries of karst terranes fully justify the concept of a TI waiver at some complex sites.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to Dr. Ellen Herman for inviting me to be a presenter at the special meeting, Karst, Groundwater Contamination, and Public Health: Moving Beyond Case Studies, held on January 27–30, 2016 in San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA. I also want to thank Dr. William White for review and comments on my manuscript. Lastly, I want to acknowledge Dorothy Vesper of West Virginia University for the photo that appears in Fig. 4, an anonymous individual for the photos that appear in Figs. 6, 7, and 9, and Dave Hunt of the Ohio EPA for the photos that appear in Fig. 11.

References

  1. Crawford, N.C. 1984. Toxic and explosive fumes rising from carbonate aquifers: A hazard for residents of sinkhole plains. In Proceedings of the first multidisciplinary conference on sinkholes, Orlando, Florida, ed. B.F. Beck, 297–304. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Dawson, G., and S. Golian. 2001. A proposed strategy for restoration of contaminated ground water. IN WM’01 conference, Tucson, Ariz.Google Scholar
  3. Even, H.I., M. Margaritz, and R. Gerson. 1986. Timing the transport of water through the upper vadose zone in a karstic system above a cave in Israel. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 11: 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Field, M.S. 2002. A lexicon of cave and karst terminology with special reference to environmental karst hydrology. Technical Report EPA/600/R-02/003 and EPA/600/CR-02/003. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  5. Fleming, R., J. McLellan, D. Alves, D. Hilborn, K. Pintar, and M. MacAlpine. 1997. Cryptosporidium in livestock, manure storages, and surface waters in Ontario. Technical Report. Toronto: Ontario Federation of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  6. Górecki, T., and J. Namieśnik. 2000. Passive sampling. Trends in Analytic Chemistry 21 (4): 276–291. doi: 10.1016/S0165-9936(02)00407-7.
  7. Hribar, C. 2010. Understanding concentrated animal feeding operations and their impact on communities. Technical Report. Bowling Green, Ohio: National Association of Local Boards of Health.Google Scholar
  8. Huling, S.G. 1989. Superfund groundwater issue: Facilitated transport. Technical Report EPA/540/4-89/003, Superfund Technology Support Center for Ground Water, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, OK. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/facilitated_transport.pdf.
  9. Kot, A., B. Zabiegala, and J. Namieśsnik. 2000. Passive sampling for long-term monitoring of organic pollutants in water. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 19 (7): 446–459. doi: 10.1016/S0165-9936(99)00223-X.
  10. Kresic, N., and Mikszewski. 2013. Hydrogeological conceptual models: Data analysis and visualization. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  11. Lange, I.G., A. Daxenberger, B. Schiffer, H. Witters, D. Ibarreta, and H.H.D. Meyer. 2002. Sex hormones originating from different livestock production systems: Fate and potential disrupting activity in the environment. Analytica Chimica Acta 473 (1–2): 27–37. doi: 10.1016/S0003-2670(02)00748-1.
  12. Liu Shan, Guang-Guo Ying, Li-Jun Zhou, Rui-Quan Zhang, Zhi-Feng Chen, and Hua-Jie Lai. 2012. Steroids in a typical swine farm and their release into the environment. Water Research 46: 3754–3768. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.04.006.
  13. Liu Xueping, Wenfeng Zhang, Yuanan Hu, Erdan Hu, Xiande Xie, Wang Lingling, and Cheng Hefa. 2015. Arsenic pollution of agricultural soils by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Chemosphere 119: 273–281. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.06.067.
  14. Morales, V.L. 2011. Facilitated transport of groundwater contaminants in the vadose zone: colloids and preferential flow paths. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 158 p.Google Scholar
  15. Quinlan, J.F. 1978. Types of karst, with emphasis on cover beds in their classification and development. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas, Austin, Tex.Google Scholar
  16. Quinlan, J.F. 1989. Ground-water monitoring in karst terranes: Recommended protocols and implicit assumptions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA/600/X-89/050. Las Vegas, Nev.: Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory.Google Scholar
  17. Quinlan, J.F., and E.C. Alexander Jr. 1987. How often should samples be taken at relevant locations for reliable monitoring of pollutants from an agricultural, waste disposal, or spill site in a karst terrane? A first approximation. In Multidisciplinary conference on sinkholes and environmental impacts of karst, proceedings, ed. B.F. Beck, 277–293. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.Google Scholar
  18. Quinlan, J.F., P.L. Smart, G.M. Schindel, E.C. Alexander Jr., A.J. Edwards, and A.R. Smith. 1991. Recommended administrative/regulatory definition of karst aquifer, principles of classification of carbonate aquifers, practical evaluation of vulnerability of karst aquifers, and determination of optimum sampling frequency at springs. In Proceedings of the third conference on hydrogeology, ecology, monitoring, and management of ground water in karst terranes, ed. J.F. Quinlan, 573–635. Dublin, Ohio: National Ground Water Association.Google Scholar
  19. Reimus, P.W. 1995. The use of synthetic colloids in tracer transport experiments in saturated rock fractures. Technical Report No. LA-1304-T. N. Mex.: Los Alamos National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  20. Schwarz, K., T. Gocht, and P. Grathwohl. 2011. Transport of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in highly vulnerable karst systems. Environmental Pollution 159: 133–139. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.09.026.
  21. Shore, L.S., and A. Pruden, A. 2009. Introduction. In Hormones and pharmaceuticals generated by concentrated animal feeding operations: Emerging topics in ecotoxicology, ed. L.S. Shore, and A. Pruden. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. USEAC (United States Army Environmental Center). 2002. Guidance to site managers at army installations: Groundwater evaluation and development of remediation strategies where aquifer restoration may be technically impracticable. Emeryville, Calif.: Malcolm Pirnie Inc.Google Scholar
  23. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Guidance for evaluating the technical impracticability of ground-water restoration. Interim Final, Directive 9234.2-25, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Clarification of OSWER’s 1995 technical impracticability waiver policy. OSWER Directive #9355.5-32, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  25. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Summary of technical impracticability waivers at national priorities list sites. Report with General Technical Impracticability Site Information Sheets, OSWER Directive 9230.2-24, Washington, D.C. http://www.epa/superfund/health/index.htm. Accessed 14 Nov 2011.
  26. Vik, B., K.E. Sylta, and A. Skauge. 2012. Connectivity in vuggy carbonates, new experimental methods and applications. Transport in Porous Media 93 (3): 561–575.  10.1007/s11242-012-9969-0.
  27. Vrana, B., G.A. Mills, I.J. Allan, E. Dominiak, K. Svensson, J. Knutsson, G. Morrison, and R. Greenwood. 2005. Passive sampling techniques for monitoring pollutants in water. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 24 (10): 845–868.  10.1016/j.trac.2005.06.006.
  28. Waltham, T., F.G. Bell, and M.G. Culshaw. 2005. Sinkholes and subsidence: Karst and cavernous rocks in engineering and construction. New York: Springer-Praxis.Google Scholar
  29. White, W.B. 2011. The Quinlan classification of karst: How has it held up? Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 43 (5): 167. http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2011AM/finalprogram/abstract_190484.htm.
  30. Wolf, W.J., and C.J. Haugh. 2001. Preliminary conceptual models of chlorinated-solvent accumulation in karst aquifers In U.S. geological survey karst interest group proceedings, ed. E. Kunianski. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Center for Environmental Assessment (8623P)WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations