Applying the DRASTIC model: A review of county-scale maps

Abstract

The potential for contamination of ground water has become an issue of great concern to citizens and government alike, especially in the last decade. Numerous methods for assessing ground water vulnerability to contamination have been proposed and used. These methods include field-scale deterministic models that predict the rate of migration and fate of specific chemicals, and regional models that attempt to show general trends of ground-water vulnerability to contamination. To address regional ground-water vulnerability, a model may focus on characteristics of the soil, the geologic materials at and above the unconfined water table, or on the larger part of the geologic framework containing aquifers. A model's focus significantly affects the characteristics and, therefore, the utility of maps produced by the model. For example, a model focusing on the soil or vadose zone cannot adequately characterize the contamination potential of confined aquifers. The most commonly-used method for regional assessment of ground-water vulnerability is called "DRASTIC," an acronym for the seven factors that comprise the model. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded the development of the DRASTIC model, and used it as an assessment tool in their National Pesticide Survey (USEPA, 1992). In that Survey and in other assessments of contamination potential from application of agricultural chemicals, the pesticide version of DRASTIC is used; it differs from the standard DRASTIC model only in the degree of weighting applied to the seven factors. The DRASTIC model was developed by a committee of technical advisors who used the consensus approach to specify the relative significance of each factor. DRASTIC was designed primarily as a regional tool for prioritization, or screening, to indicate those areas (of at least 100 acres in size) which are generally more sensitive to contamination and, therefore, in need of more detailed mapping and evaluation or monitoring. The committee also intended DRASTIC to support decisions on allocation of scarce monitoring or remediation resources, and to serve as an educational tool. A detailed user's manual for the DRASTIC model (Aller and others, 1987) provides descriptions of common hydrogeologic settings across the United States and expected values for the seven factors; with this information and a specified "weight" or multiplier applied to each factor, DRASTIC scores can be calculated for each setting, and a map of these DRASTIC scores generated. The authors of this model intended it to be sufficiently objective and straightforward that it could be effectively used by persons with but a rudimentary knowledge of hydrogeologic principles. By adjusting the factor values for actual or interpreted local conditions a more knowledgeable person should be able to produce a somewhat more realistic and, therefore, reliable map of ground water vulnerability than by using the expected values for a given hydrogeologic setting. Other models for evaluating regional ground-water vulnerability have been developed; of importance to this report are models developed by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), and a joint effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the ISGS. All of these models, as well as DRASTIC, can only estimate the relative potential for contamination, either with a numerical scheme or a hierarchy of contamination potential map units. The model developed by WDNR (Schmidt, 1987) is based on a numerical scheme. It was used to generate a statewide contamination susceptibility map of Wisconsin (Schmidt and Kessler, 1987); Schmidt (1987) defines ground water contamination susceptibility as the "ease with which water (and, presumably, accompanying contaminants) at the surface can reach the water table." The model is not limited to aquifers, but rather considers all unconfined ground water whether in sandy surface aquifers or low-permeability glacial till. Ground water in confined aquifers is not addressed. Contamination susceptibility is estimated by a factor-weighting scheme similar in concept to DRASTIC. The factors (soil texture, surficial deposits, depth to the water table, bedrock type, and glacial drift thickness) are assigned an arbitrary value based on perceived importance. These numbers are then weighted and summed to produce the contamination susceptibility score. This model is compared and contrasted with other models elsewhere in this report. In contrast, the ISGS method avoids the use of a numerical system to rate the relative potential for contamination, and instead orders the map units in a hierarchy from relatively low to relatively high contamination potential. Also in contrast to the two models described above, the ISGS model relies solely on the textural character of the geologic framework to a specified depth. For example, a statewide map (Berg and others, 1984, scale 1:500,000) addresses land burial of wastes, and shows the contamination potential of aquifers within geologic units in the upper 50 feet. Another ISGS map (Keefer and Berg, 1990) addresses the contamination of major, economically important aquifers, and therefore evaluates contamination potential to greater depths (to greater than 300 feet). In general, the ISGS contamination potential maps evaluate aquifers, and do not evaluate potential for contamination of ground water at the unconfined water table in geologic units that are not aquifers (for example, in glacial till or finegrained lake sediments). With the cooperation of the ISGS, I have developed a model (Seller and Berg, in press) for the regional assessment of aquifer contamination potential that is based on ISGS techniques, adapted to a broader map area where detailed information may be unavailable. This model was used to generate a map of aquifer contamination potential for an area encompassing parts of five states near southern Lake Michigan and Lake Erie; the model and map are currently being refined and evaluated.