Klingbeil & Buss, 2002. Groundwater Protection in the Time of Foot and Mouth Disease. Hydrogeological Risk Assessment at Proposed “Burn and Bury” Sites.

Groundwater Protection in the Time of
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)
-
Hydrogeological Risk Assessments at
Proposed “Burn and Bury” Sites
Ralf Klingbeil & Steve Buss

Acknowledgement
 Environment Agency
Upper Severn Area, Shrewsbury
– Tony Jenkins, Alistair Hoare, Sue Waters,
Kevin Voyce, Fiona Dixon, Sarah Gaskill,
Jeremy Dowling, Anna Jeffcoat, Mike
George
and all other hydrogeology team members
14 May, 2002 Environmental Simulations International

The Damage

The Damage
Damage in the UK:
 3 939 000 animals slaughtered for disease control
– 3 188 000 sheep (8% of stock), 601 000 cattle (7%), 147 000
pigs (2%), 2 000 goats, 1 000 deer and 300 other animals
 2 044 000 slaughtered under Livestock Welfare Scheme
– 1 584 000 sheep, 167 000 cattle and 290 000 pigs
 £3.1 bn (4.6 bn €) as compensation to farmers
and for slaughtering and carcass removal
 £2.7 - 3.2 bn (4.0 - 4.7 bn €) to tourism industry

Outline of FMD Presentation
 Groundwater in the UK
 Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)
 FMD Impact for the Environment
esp. Water Resources
 Qualitative Risk Assessments
Hypothetical Case Study
 Quantitative Risk Assessments

Structure of
Environment Agency
 Head Office Bristol
 8 National Centres
 8 Regions
 26 Areas
set up on the basis of
surface water
catchment areas

Structure of
Environment Agency
 Midlands Region - 4 Areas:
– Upper Severn, Shrewsbury
– Lower Severn, Tewkesbury
– Upper Trent, Lichfield
– Lower Trent, Nottingham
STAFFORDSHIRE
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
DERBYSHIRE
LEICESTERSHIRE
WARWICKSHIRE
HEREFORDSHIRE
SHROPSHIRE
GLOUCESTERSHIRE
WORCESTERSHIRE

Groundwater in the UK
 Principal UK aquifers:
Cretaceous chalk & Permo-Triassic sandstone
 UK surface water reservoirs contain
2500 million cubic metres
 Top 20 m of the two principal UK aquifers store
approx. 20 times the volume stored in all the UK
surface reservoirs
 Top 20 m of UK’s Permo-Triassic sandstone aquifer
stores 36 000 million cubic metres

Principal Aquifers
 Distribution of
Principal
Aquifers in the
UK and Ireland

Groundwater in Shropshire
 Principal aquifer: Permo-Triassic sandstone
 Wind blown & river deposited sands
205 to 283 million years old
 Thickness ranges <10 to 2500 m
 Area 810 km2
 Average assessed recharge
92 mm/y = 74.8 x 106 m3/y

Groundwater in Shropshire
 Outcrop of
Permo-
Triassic
Sandstone
in
Shropshire

Groundwater Vulnerability
 High Vulnerability
– Thin soil
– Aquifer outcrop
– High permeability
aquifer
– Fractured/karstic
aquifer
– Shallow water table
 Low Vulnerability
– Thick soil
– Aquifer covered by
alluvium or clay
– Low permeability
aquifer
– Intergranular aquifer
– Deep water table

Vulnerability Classification
Geological Classes
Major Aquifer
Minor Aquifer
Non-Aquifer
Soil Classes
High (H) 1, 2, 3, U
Low
High (H) 1, 2, 3, U
Low
Drift

Groundwater Vulnerability
Major - High
Major - Intermediate
Major - Low
Minor
Non Aquifer
Groundwater Vulnerability Maps
53 Groundwater
Vulnerability
Maps cover
England and
Wales at 1:100 000

Source Protection Zones SPZs

FMD: National Picture
 First case at Brentwood,
Essex, SE England
on February 20, 2001
 Outbreak peak around
30 March 2001,
at 50 new cases per day
 2030 confirmed cases nationally
at Sept 30, 2001
 Geographical variation of cases

National Confirmed FMD Cases
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
12-Mar-01
14-Mar-01
16-Mar-01
18-Mar-01
20-Mar-01
22-Mar-01
24-Mar-01
26-Mar-01
28-Mar-01
30-Mar-01
1-Apr-01
3-Apr-01
5-Apr-01
7-Apr-01
9-Apr-01
11-Apr-01
13-Apr-01
15-Apr-01
17-Apr-01
19-Apr-01
21-Apr-01
23-Apr-01
25-Apr-01
27-Apr-01
29-Apr-01
Numberofcases
National Confirmed
FMD Cases

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Anglesey
Berkshire
Borders
Cheshire
CoDurham
Cornwall
Cumbria
Derbyshire
Devon
Dumfries&Galloway
Essex
Glamorgan
Gloucestershire
Herefordshire
Kent
Lancashire
Leicestershire
Monmouthshire
Northants
Northumberland
NorthYorkshire
Oxfordshire
Powys
Shropshire
Somerset
Staffordshire
Tyne&Wear
Warwickshire
WestYorkshire
Wiltshire
Worcestershire
Confirmed FMD Cases
by County

Implications
for the Environment
 Risk of
– Transmission of pathogens
– Transmission of BSE prions
 Groundwater and surface water pollution
from products of
– carcass decay
– fire accelerants and burning products
– disinfectants (lagoons and land spreading)
 Air pollution
Environmental Risk from Carcass Disposal

Implications
for Water Resources
 Infected Premises (IPs, confirmed cases)
 Dangerous Contacts (DCs)
 Slaughtered on Suspicion (SOS,
precautionary cull, suspected cases)
 Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme
Types of FMD case for Risk Assessment

Implications
for Water Resources
 Rendering
 Incineration
 Burial in Landfill
 Burning on Farm
 Burial on Farm
 Mass Burning / Burial
Hierarchy of Options for Carcass Disposal
Commercial
Landfill
16%
Mass Burial
14%
Burning or
Burial on
Farm
48%
Rendering
22%

Landfill Disposal
To Add Some Perspective
 Overall 95 000 t of carcasses have
been disposed to commercial landfills
during the FMD disease 2001
 Daily landfill inputs from other sources
amount to 280 000 t over the whole
country

FMD in Upper Severn Area
 First case at Felindre, February 28, 2001
 83 confirmed cases
 118 dangerous contacts, precautionary &
welfare culls, suspected and others
 111 potential strategic sites
 312 risk assessments
 3 hour turnaround
Status in May 2001:

FMD in Upper Severn Area

Risk Assessment Data
 Ordnance Survey maps
 Geological maps 1:50k, 1:10k
 British Geological Survey (BGS) borehole logs
 Hydrogeology, soils, Groundwater Vulnerability maps
 Topography and site elevation
 Groundwater abstraction licenses and
licence exempt abstractions
 Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
 Groundwater flow direction, depth to groundwater
 Groundwater Quality data & Contaminated Land sites
 Surface water features, conservation sites

Risk Assessment Data
Reference No.
FMD outbreak
Site Name NGR
BGS map 1:50k Sheet No.
BGS map 1:10k Sheet No.
Geology
BGS borehole logs
Solid Drift and SOIL MAP
Vulnerability
map
Sheet No. Aquifer Vulnerability Site elevation (m AOD)
Groundwater Management Unit Unit Classification
Existing 32(3) file? SGS area?
Licence No Distance (m) Use Quantity Borehole detailsLicences
Domestic wells?
SPZ (Fax to water company??) NSA
Groundwater flow direction (contour maps, observation boreholes etc.) Depth to groundwater (contour maps, observation boreholes etc.)
Groundwater quality ( see spreadsheet) Contaminated land (see spreadsheet)
Surface water features/ field drainage and conservation sites

Consultation and Liaison
 Environment Protection, Conservation
 Environmental Health Officer
 Regional Headquarters, National Groundwater
& Contaminated Land Centre
 Environment Agency Hydrogeology Team
 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
(MAFF),
today: Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
 Army, Ministry of Defence (MoD)

Considerations for
Decision Making
 Cattle born before
1 Aug 1996
– cannot be buried at all and
must be burnt (BSE risk)
– can only be burnt on pyres of
up to 1000 carcasses (BSE risk)
 Carcasses must not be buried
without burning in Source
Protection Zones (SPZs)
– Carcasses may be burnt &
buried in SPZ III if the water
level is at least 25 m bgl
 Every disposal location
should have a distance of
– 250 m to a licensed
abstraction well, borehole or
spring and
– 50 m to a water course
 If the water level is not
known trial pitting has to
take place

Burning:
A Typical Pyre of 300 Cows
 A typical pyre contains
– 175 t coal
– 380 railway sleepers
– 250 pallets
– 4 t straw
– 2250 l diesel
 Such a pyre may
– Release body fluids, disinfectant and excess liquid fuel
– Emit particles, SO2, NO2, PAHs, dioxins, PCBs and others
– Leave 15 t of carcass ash and 45 t of other ash for
disposal
– Create leachate containing K, Na, SO4, Cl

Burial:
Hazards to Groundwater
 Body fluids may be released
– 16 m³/1000 sheep, 17 m³/1000 cows within 2 months
 Leachate may contain
– Up to 2 000 mg NH4/l
– Up to 100 000 mg COD/l
– Pathogens (Escherichia coli 0157, Campylobacter,
Salmonella, Letospira)
– Protozoa (Cryptosporidium, Giardia)
 Leachate from cattle born before 01 Aug 1996 may
contain BSE prions
 Most degradation will take place between 5 to 10 years
BUT leachate may be released for up to 20 years

Recommendations to
MAFF/DEFRA
 Conditions for disposal based on the Water Code
– 250 m from groundwater sources
– 50 m from watercourses and springs
not used for potable supply
– 10 m from field drains
– no standing water in excavations
 Care with fire accelerants
 Map showing preferred disposal location

Hypothetical Case Study:
Location

Water Resources

Source Protection Zones

Major / Minor Aquifers

Recommended Disposal

Quantitative
Risk Assessment
needed for:
 mass burial sites
 burn and burial sites
with BSE risk (only
with clear human
consumption target)
 viable targets
(i.e. wells, springs
downstream)

Contaminated Land
Conceptual Models

Contaminated Land
Risk Assessments
 The Environment Agency tiered methodology
– Source - Pathway - Receptor approach
– Tier 1: Soil concentrations
– Tier 2: Pore water concentrations
– Tier 3: Groundwater concentrations using
analytical modelling methods
– Tier 4: Groundwater concentrations with
numerical modelling methods
Environment Agency, 1999:
Methodology for the Derivation of Remedial Targets for Soil and Groundwater to Protect Water Resources.
Environment Agency R&D Publication 20

Contaminated Land - UK
Remedial Target Methodology
Increasingrelianceon
attenuation>>>>>>>
Attenuation, multiple pathways,
heterogeneity, more complex models
4
Attenuation in the unsaturated and
saturated zones using simple
analytical models and pathway
3
Dilution in receiving water body2
Comparison of contaminant source
with target concentration
1
ConsidersTier

Risk Assessment Model:
RAM software tool
 Source - Pathway - Receptor concept
 Consistent with UK tiered methodology
 Pre-configured models
for Tiers 1 - 3
 Complex, site-specific
conceptual models for
Tier 4 assessments

Risk Assessment Model:
Example Model
Tier 2, soil source
Source Pathway Receptor
Hydrogeological Unit Pathway Node

Mass Burial Site
Quantitative
Risk Assessment
Source:
 700 000 sheep, some pigs,
young cattle, alpacas
 1 sheep (0.066 t) contains:
0.13 % Cl, 4.5 % N,
35 % carbon
Pathways:
 Landfill engineering (some trenches) --> weathered
Lias mudrocks --> sandy drift layer --> springs
 Landfill engineering (some trenches) --> thin boulder
clay --> fissured limestone --> beck
Receptors:
 small stream (beck)
 line of springs

Quantitative
Risk Assessment
RAM Control Worksheet
Sources -->
Pathways -->
Receptors -->

Quantitative
Risk Assessment
RAM Water Balance Sheet
Infiltration -->
Hydraulic
Control -->
Effective Head
Gradient -->
Conductance and
Darcy Flux -->

Quantitative
Risk Assessment
RAM Results
 95 %ile Break
Through Curve
 Exponential
Declining
Source
 Advection
Dispersion
Retardation
No Decay

Overall Impact on
Surface and Groundwater
 Over 200 water pollution incidents were reported
– 3 of these were classified as
“causing serious damage”
 Few impacts on surface and groundwater
disposal of carcasses or ash
– 2 water supplies were temporarily interrupted
– at 2 private water supplies microbial contamination
was related to burial activity
 No significant impact on soils

Further Work
 Groundwater Regulations
Authorisations
– disposals of ash and carcasses
– spreading of disinfectant
 Advice on disinfectant lagoon location
 Retrospective Risk Assessments

Further Work

Resume - Outlook
 Environmental impacts have been short-term and
localised; much smaller than day-to-day impact of
current farming practices.
 Hydrogeological understanding played a major part
in the risk assessments for the protection of water
and environment.
 The available methods for risk assessment were
efficient and successful.
 The largest environmental impact is likely to be
due to restructuring of the farming industry as a
consequence. We hope that it will be beneficial.

The end

Klingbeil & Buss, 2002. Groundwater Protection in the Time of Foot and Mouth Disease. Hydrogeological Risk Assessment at Proposed “Burn and Bury” Sites.

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Klingbeil & Buss, 2002. Groundwater Protection in the Time of Foot and Mouth Disease. Hydrogeological Risk Assessment at Proposed “Burn and Bury” Sites.

Ähnlich wie Klingbeil & Buss, 2002. Groundwater Protection in the Time of Foot and Mouth Disease. Hydrogeological Risk Assessment at Proposed “Burn and Bury” Sites. (20)

Mehr von BGR - Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Germany

Mehr von BGR - Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Germany (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Klingbeil & Buss, 2002. Groundwater Protection in the Time of Foot and Mouth Disease. Hydrogeological Risk Assessment at Proposed “Burn and Bury” Sites.