GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER INTERACTIONS AWRA SUMMER SPECIALTY CONFERENCE 2002

JULY 1-3 GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER INTERACTIONS AWRA SUMMER SPECIALTY CONFERENCE 2002 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL FROM STORMWATER INFILTRATION Robert Pitt, Shirley Clark, and Richard Field1 ABSTRACT: Prior to urbanization, ground water recharge resulted from infiltration of precipitation through pervious surfaces, including grasslands and woods. This infiltrating water was relatively uncontaminated. With urbanization, the permeable soil suiface area through which recharge by infiltration could occur was reduced. This resulted in much less ground water recharge and greatly increased surface runoff. In addition, the waters available for recharge generally carried increased quantities of pollutants. With urbanization, new sources of ground water recharge also occurred, including recharge from domestic septic tanks, percolation basins and industrial waste injection wells, and from agricultural and residential irrigation. This paper presents information collected as part of a multi-year research project sponsored by the U.S. EPA and addresses potential ground water problems associated with stormwater infiltration. Several categories of constituents are discussed that are known to affect ground water quality: nutrients, pesticides, other organics, pathogens, metals, and salts and other dissolved minerals. The intention of this paper is to identlfy known stormwater contaminants as to their potential to contaminant ground water and to provide guidance for their control to minimize this contamination potential. KEY TERMS: ground water; stormwater; contamination potential. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This paper summarizes an EPAfunded research project (Pitt, et al. 1994 and 1996) that developed a framework to identify stormwater pollutants that may potentially contaminate urban ground waters. The methodology included a review of published literature documenting observed ground water quality problems associated with pollutants found in urban stormwater. A parallel evaluation was also made examining the characteristics of urban stormwater (presence and forms), the mobility of urban stormwater pollutants in the vadose zone, and the treatability and disposal options of stormwater that could affect ground water contamination during intentional and unintentional infiltration. One of the best overall urban runoff control strategies may be to encourage infiltration of stormwater to replace the natural infiltration capacity lost through urbanization. This significantly reduces the volume of runoff discharged to surface waters, including pollutants. This strategy also improves ground water conditions by reducing the lowering rate of urban water tables. Exfiltration from ground water into local streams during dry periods can also substantially improve surface water biological conditions. The EPA (1983) concluded, as part of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), that stormwater can be safely infiltrated to ground water, if done carefully. Issues that must be considered include a knowledge of pollutant concentrations from different areas, pollutant removals in the vadose zone, and necessary pretreatment that may be needed before infiltration. Unfortunately, some stormwaters from urban areas may be badly polluted. These waters may pose a potential threat to both surface and subsurface receiving waters. In order to protect these receiving water resources, treatment before discharge is likely needed. The EPA report summarizes urban runoff quality and compared this data to other information pertaining to observed ground water contamination. This enabled lrespectively, Professor, University of Alabama, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0205, Phone: (205) 348-2684, email: rpitt@coe.ena.ua.edu; Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-4440; and Program Leader, Wet-Weather Flow Management Program, Urban Watershed Management Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Edison, NJ 08837. 73

the identification of specific contaminants which may need treatment to protect grousd waters. Many studies have investigated stormwater quality. Unfortunately, the analytical results reported have not included all of the pollutants that are likely to cause the greatest concern in ground water. Urban runoff is comprised of many different flow types. These include dry weather base flows, stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and snowmelt. The relative magnitudes of these discharges vary considerably, based on a number of factors. Season (especially cold versus warm weather) and land use have been identified as important factors affecting base flow and stormwater runoff quality. The EPA report summarizes runoff quality for these different flow phases and land uses, along with summaries of observations of source area flows contributing to these combined discharges. This information can be used to identify the best stormwater source candidates for infiltration and associated ground water recharge, and which stormwater sources should be avoided when considering infiltration. An annotated bibliography of about 200 references was prepared and is also included in the report appendix. GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL Table 1 is a summary of the pollutants found in stormwater that may cause ground water contamination problems for various reasons. This table does not consider the risk associated with using ground water contaminated with these pollutants. Causes of concern include high mobility (low sorption potential) in the vadose zone, high abundance (high concentrations and high detection frequencies) in stormwater, and high soluble fractions (small fraction associated with particulates which would have little removal potential using conventional stormwater sedimentation controls) in the stormwater. The contamination potential is the lowest rating of the influencing factors. As an example, if no pretreatment was to be used before percolation through surface soils, the mobility and abundance criteria are most important. If a compound was mobile, but was in low abundance (such as for VOCs), then the ground water contamination potential would be low. However, if the compound was mobile and was also in high abundance (such as for sodium chloride, in certain conditions), then the ground water contamination potential would be high. If sedimentation pretreatment was to be used before infiltration, then much of the pollutants will likely be removed before infiltration. In this case, all three influencing factors (mobility, abundance in stormwater, and soluble fraction) would be considered important. As an example, chlordane would have a low contamination potential with sedimentation pretreatment, while it would have a moderate contamination potential if no pretreatment was used. In addition, if subsurface infiltratiodinjection was used instead of surface percolation, the compounds would most likely be more mobile, making the abundance criteria the most important, with some regard given to the filterable fraction information for operational considerations. This table is only appropriate for initial estimates of contamination potential because of the simplifjmg assumptions made, such as the likely worst case mobility conditions for sandy soils having low organic content. If the soil was clayey and had a high organic content, then most of the organic compounds would be less mobile than shown on this table. The abundance and filterable fraction information is generally applicable for warm weather stormwater runoff at residential and commercial area outfalls. The concentrations and detection frequencies would likely be greater for critical source areas (especially vehicle service areas) and critical land uses (especially manufacturing industrial areas). The stormwater pollutants of most concern (those that may have the greatest adverse impacts on ground waters) include: nutrients: nitrate has a low to moderate ground water contamination potential for both surface percolation and subsurface infiltratiodinjection practices because of its relatively low concentrations found in most stormwaters. However, if the stormwater nitrate concentration was high, then the ground water contamination potential would also likely be high. pesticides: lindane and chlordane have moderate ground water contamination potentials for surface percolation practices (with no pretreatment) and for subsurface injection (with minimal pretreatment). The ground water contamination potentials for both of these compounds would likely be substantially reduced with adequate sedimentation pretreatment. Pesticides have been mostly found in urban runoff from residential areas, especially in dry-weather flows associated with landscaping irrigation runoff. - 74

~ a, Table 1. Ground water Contamination Potential for Stormwater Pollutants 0 other organics: 1,3-dichlorobenzene may have a high ground water contamination potential for subsurface infiltratiodinjection (with minimal pretreatment). However, it would likely have a lower ground water contamination potential for most surface percolation practices because of its relatively strong sorption to vadose zone soils. Both pyrene and fluoranthene would also likely have high ground water contamination potentials for subsurface infiltratiodinjection practices, but lower contamination potentials for surface percolation practices, because of their more limited mobility through the unsaturated (vadose) zone. Others (including benzo(a)anthracene, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, pentachlorophenol, and phenanthrene) may also have moderate ground water contamination potentials, if surface percolation with no pretreatment, or subsurface injectiodinfiltration is used. These compounds would have low ground water contamination potentials if surface infiltration was used with sedimentation pretreatment. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may also have high ground water contamination potentials if present in the stormwater (likely for some industrial and commercial facilities and vehicle service establishments). The other organic compounds 75

~ ~ are mostly found in industrial areas. The phthalates are found in all areas. The PAHs ake also-found in runoff from all areas, but they are in higher concentrations and occur more frequently in industrial areas. 0 pathogens: enteroviruses likely have a high ground water contamination potential for all percolation practices and subsurface infiltratiodinjection practices, depending on their presence in stormwater (likely if contaminated with sanitary sewage). Other pathogens, including Shigella, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and various protozoa, would also have high ground water contamination potentials if subsurface infiltratiodinjection practices are used without disinfection. If disinfection (especially by chlorine or ozone) is used, then disinfection byproducts (such as trihalomethanes or ozonated bromides) would have high ground water contamination potentials. Pathogens are most likely associated with sanitary sewage contamination of storm drainage systems, but several bacterial pathogens are commonly found in surface runoff in residential areas. 0 heavy metals: nickel and zinc would likely have high ground water contamination potentials if subsurface infiltratiodinjection was used. Chromium and lead would have moderate ground water contamination potentials for subsurface infdtratiodinjection practices. All metals would likely have low ground water contamination potentials if surface infiltration was used with sedimentation pretreatment. Zinc is mostly found in roof runoff and other areas where galvanized metal comes into contact with rainwater. 0 salts: chloride would likely have a high ground water contamination potential in northern areas where road salts are used for traffic safety, irrespective of the pretreatment, infiltration or percolation practice used. Salts are at their greatest concentrations in snowmelt and early spring runoff in northern areas. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS It has been suggested that, with a reasonable degree of site-specific design considerations to compensate for soil characteristics, infiltration can be very effective in controlling both urban runoff quality and quantity problems (EPA 1983). This strategy encourages infiltration of urban runoff to replace the natural infiltration capacity lost through urbanization and to use the natural filtering and sorption capacity of soils to remove pollutants. However, potential ground water contamination through infiltration of some types of urban runoff requires some restrictions. Infiltration of urban runoff having potentially high concentrations of pollutants that may pollute ground water requires adequate pretreatment, or the diversion of these waters away from infiltration devices. The following general guidelines for the infiltration of stormwater and other storm drainage effluent are recommended in the absence of comprehensive site-specific evaluations: 0 Dry-weather storm drainage effluent should be diverted from infiltration devices because of its probable high concentrations of soluble heavy metals, pesticides, and pathogenic microorganisms. 0 Combined sewage overflows should be diverted from infiltration devices because of their poor water quality, especially high pathogenic microorganism concentrations, and high clogging potential. 0 Snowmelt runoff should be diverted from infiltration devices because of its potential for having high concentrations of soluble salts. 0 Runoff from manufacturing industrial areas should be diverted from infiltration devices because of its potential for having high concentrations of soluble toxicants. 0 Construction site runoff must be diverted from stormwater infiltration devices (especially subsurface devices) because of its high suspended solids concentrations which would quickly clog infiltration devices. 0 Runoff from other critical source areas, such as vehicle service facilities and large parking areas, should at least receive adequate pretreatment to eliminate their ground water contamination potential before infiltration. Runoff from residential areas (the largest component of urban runoff in most cities) is generally the least polluted urban runoff flow and should be considered for infiltration. Very little treatment of residential area stormwater runoff should be needed before infiltration, especially if surface infiltration is through the 76

use of grass swares. If subsurface infiltration (French drains, infiltration trenches, dry wells, etc.) is used, then some pretreatment may be needed, such as by using grass filter strips, or other surface filtration devices. All other runoff should include pretreatment using sedimentation processes before infiltration, to both minimize ground water contamination and to prolong the life of the infiltration device (if needed). This pretreatment can take the form of grass filters, sediment sumps, wet detention ponds, etc., depending on the runoff volume to be treated and other site specific factors. Pollution prevention can also play an important role in minimizing ground water contamination problems, including reducing the use of galvanized metals, pesticides, and fertilizers in critical areas. The use of specialized treatment devices can also play an important role in treating runoff from critical source areas before these more contaminated flows commingle with cleaner runoff from other areas. Sophisticated treatment schemes, especially the use of chemical processes or disinfection, may not be warranted, except in special cases, especially considering the potential of forming harmful treatment by-products (such as THMs and soluble aluminum). Recommended Stormwater Quality Monitoring to Evaluate Potential Ground Water Contamination Most stormwater quality monitoring has not been adequate to completely evaluate ground water contamination potential. The following list shows the parameters that are recommended to be monitored if stormwater contamination potential needs to be considered, or infiltration devices are to be used. Other analyses are appropriate for additional monitoring objectives (such as evaluating surface water problems). In addition, all phases of urban runoff should be sampled, including stormwater runoff, dry-weather flows, and snowmelt. 0 Contamination potential: - Nutrients (especially nitrates) - Salts (especially chloride) - VOCs (if expected in the runoff, such as from manufacturing industrial or vehicle service areas, could screen for VOCs with purgable organic carbon, POC, analyses) - Pathogens (especially enteroviruses, if possible, along with other pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Shigella, and pathogenic protozoa) - Bromide and total organic carbon, TOC (to estimate disinfection by-product generation potential, if disinfection by either chlorination or ozone is being considered) - Pesticides, in both filterable and total sample components (especially lindane and chlordane) - Other organics, in both filterable and total sample components (especially 1,3 dichlorobenzene, pyrene, fluoranthene, benzo (a) anthracene, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, pentachlorophenol, and phenanthrene) - Heavy metals, in both filterable and total sample components (especially chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc) 0 Operational considerations: - Sodium, calcium, and magnesium (to calculate the sodium adsorption ratio to predict clogging of clay soils) - Suspended solids (to determine the need for sedimentation pretreatment to prevent clogging) Additional Ground Water Contamination Research in Urban Areas Additional EPA-funded urban area research has been conducted by this research team in recent years that is applicable to evaluating and reducing potential ground water contamination potentials associated with stormwater infiltration. This newer work has included studies that have developed and tested controls that can be used at critical source areas for the treatment of stormwater before infiltration (Clark and Pitt 77

1999; Pitt, et al. 1999a). Another area of our current research is investigating modifications that occur to urban soils with development, and the associated effects on natural infiltration (Pitt, et al. 199913; plus another paper included in this conference proceedings). Obviously, this important area of interest requires much more study, especially as the use of stormwater infiltration may likely increase with increasing stormwater regulation. Similarly, more research is needed to show how infiltration can be safely conducted to allow this important management option to be better utilized in areas that are currently hesitant to use these practices. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is based on an EPAfunded report (Pitt, et al. 1994) that was submitted in partial fulfillment of cooperative agreement no. CR 819573 under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Richard Field, Chief of the Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution Control Program, EPA, was the Project Officer for this project. He was assisted by Michael Brown and Bill Vilkelis. Helpful comments from the project and report reviewers are also gratefully acknowledged. An updated version of this EPA report was published by Ann Arbor Press (Pitt, et al. 1996) that incorporated several newer ground water studies conducted in urban areas by the USGS. The principal author s participation on a National Research Council committee (Ground Water Recharge Committee 1994) was also extremely helpful in formulating the information for this EPA report and this summary paper. Many graduate and undergraduate students also helped with this research project and their efforts are gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES Clark, S. and R. Pitt, 1999. Stormwater Treatment at Critical Areas, Vol. 3: Evaluation of Filtration Media for Stormwater Treatment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPA/600/R-00/016, Cincinnati, Ohio. 442 Pgs. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Water Planning Division, PB 84-185552, Washington, D.C. Ground Water Recharge Committee, 1994. Ground Water Recharge using Waters of Impaired Quality. ISBN 0-309-05142-8. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 284 pages. Pitt, R., S. Clark, and K. Parmer, 1994. Protection of Ground water from Intentional and Nonintentional Storm wa ter Infilta tion. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, E PA/6OO/SR- 9410 5 1. PB94-165 3 54AS, Storm and Combined Sewer Program, Cincinnati, Ohio. 187 pgs. Pitt, R., S. Clark, R. Field, and K. Parmer, 1996. Ground water Contamination from Stormwater. ISBN 1-57504-015-8. Ann Arbor Press, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan. 219 pages. Pitt, R., B. Robertson, P. Barron, A. Ayyoubi, and S. Clark, 1999a. Stormwater Treatment at Criticalheas: The Multi-Chambered Treatment Train (MCTT,). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wet Weather Flow Management Program, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPA/600/R-99/017. Cincinnati, Ohio. 505 pgs. Pitt, R., J. Lantrip, R. Harrison, C. Henry, and D. Hue, 1999b. Infiltration through Disturbed Urban Soils and Compost-Amended Sod Effects on Runoff Quality and Quantity. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. EPA 600/R-00/016. Cincinnati, Ohio. 231 pgs. 78