A detailed investigation of contamination by chlorinated solvents of the Chalk Aquifer underlying the towns of Luton and Dunstable was undertaken to assess the extent, causes and mechanisms of pollution. The research programme incorporated land‐use surveys, regional groundwater surveys, monitoring of groundwater abstraction points and aquifer profiling by means of the drilling of observation boreholes, the analysis of the recovered core material and the depth sampling of these and other boreholes.
Low‐level solvent contamination of the Chalk Aquifer was found to be widespread with ‘hotspots’of higher concentrations. At the drilling sites, both the saturated and unsaturated zones were contaminated with solvents, although free product was not observed. The presence of an additional contaminant, oil, at some sites was noted to influence the distribution of solvents within the aquifer.
Clean‐up of the aquifer is not a practical option, and treatment of the groundwater at the abstraction points has been adopted.
Summary
An examination has been made of groundwater related problems experienced in the Forest of Dean since abandonment of the major collieries in 1965. Careful planning prior to abandonment of collieries can reduce the number of poor quality discharges, and so substantially limit surface water pollution. Small-scale mining activity continuing after major colleries have been abandoned can have a serious hydrogeological effect by removal of
in situ
coal from drainage barriers designed to promote free drainage of the mines. In association with the deterioration of lined river channels which retard surface water infiltration, this disruption of subsurface can result in a drainage significant loss of summer base-flow from surface rivers.
Two case histories show that safe disposal of wastes to voids in mined Coal Measures aquifers is possible. Prediction of the hydrogeological behaviour of the mined aquifer is, however, difficult because of the possibility of unrecorded workings, random collapse and associated ponding, and uncertainty over the hydrological behaviour of the coal barriers. Direct investigation of the groundwater flow regime using boreholes and water tracing techniques is recommended.
The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) Bill 1994 authorizes the construction, maintenance and operation of a high speed rail link between St Pancras in London and Folkstone in Kent. Furthermore, the Bill makes identical provision for widening works associated with the A2 at Cobham and the M2 in Kent between junctions 1 and 4. The publication of the Bill raised a number of very serious issues affecting the responsibilities of both the Statutory Water Undertakers and those of the Environment Agency (the Agency). Furthermore, the Bill failed to define suitable mitigation measures that would reduce the risk of public groundwater supply contamination, introduced by the construction and operation of the CTRL, to within tolerable limits.This paper explores how both the Promoters of this major transportation link and the water companies sought protective provisions utilizing the Agency's Groundwater Protection Policy and risk assessment methodologies in order to define the potential for groundwater contamination. This process culminated in the Statutory Water Undertakers presenting evidence at the All Party Parliamentary Select Committee in order to demonstrate the necessity for suitable protective measures. Furthermore, this paper assesses the current status of the Agency's Groundwater Protection Policy in the light of this major test of resolve and the apparent paradox of Statutory Duties for both the Agency and Statutory Water Undertakers with regard to groundwater contamination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.