Fifth Biennial Stormwater Research Conference November 5- 7, 1997

STORMWATER SEDIMENTS: HAZARDOUS WASTE OR DIRTY DIRT -

AN UPDATE

John H. Cox, Environmental Specialist and Eric H. Livingston, Environmental Administrator'Florida Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Facilities 2600 Blairstone Road,Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

ABSTRACT

At the Southwest Florida Water Management District's 1995 Annual Stormwater ResearchConference, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) presented a paper thatsummarized existing data on the characteristics of stoneware sediments. The availability of data wassparse and not easily correlated due to differences in sampling methods used by the various studies.The paper recommended that more sediment and debris samples be collected from stormwater BMPsserving various land uses from all parts of the state. A major objective was to increase our databaseand get a better understanding of the need to test stormwater sediments before disposal.

As a follow-up, this report summarizes the results of a recently completed cooperative monitoringeffort between FDEP and local government stormwater programs around the state. The studycompares the level of pollutants in sediment and debris from 87 treatment systems and backgroundsamples of native soils collected by each of 14 participating entities. The assessment provides anevaluation of in place sediment, as well as, the chemical and physical properties of sediment andstreet surface contaminants following removal and stock piling. The report enumerates and lists thefrequency of detection for fifty-three (53) pollutants detected in concentrations greater than minimumdetection limits. Several problematic pollutants occurred from among approximately 168 organic andinorganic parameters. Contrary to expected results, land use and BMP category were unpredictableand, not well correlated with the percentage exceedance rate of screening criteria.

INTRODUCTION

Stormwater pollutants include a wide variety of substances that accumulate on pervious andimpervious surfaces between storms, and are transported by the next rainfall. These contaminantsinclude heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, and many types of organic chemicals.Concern over the pollution potential associated with urban runoff has led to unofficial requirementsthat the residue deposited by these sources be taken to lined landfills. Analternate proposed by some municipalities is use as clean fill and as a soil amendment similar tocomposted domestic waste. Motivating factors include local initiatives to reduce the volume of solidwaste and recognition of desirable characteristics such as the nutrient and organic content

11

of these materials. The result has been the imposition of extensive and therefore expensive testingrequirements for stormwater maintenance entities seeking to comply with environmental concerns. InOctober of 1995, FDEP completed a literature study that summarized existing data on thecharacteristics of stormwater sediments deposited in stormwater systems throughout Florida. Theavailability of data was sparse and not easily correlated due to differences in sampling methods usedby the various studies. With the aid of USEPA we were recently able to add to the body ofinformation regarding stormwater sediment characteristics. Via the "319" Nonpoint SourceManagement Grant Program, in October 1996, FDEP and the Florida Association of StormwaterUtilities were able to organize a cooperative study. This paper presents the results of that follow-up

effort and hopefully provides a more accurate picture of the actual waste stream. Fourteen (14) citiesand counties participated, collecting sediment and debris from a variety of treatment systems andbackground samples of native soils.

MATERIALS, AND METHODS

Previous studies have primarily involved characterization of in place stormwater residualssubsequent to maintenance. This assessment addresses both in place sediment and the chemical andphysical properties of sediment and street surface contaminants following removal and stock piling.The material in these piles is highly variable in consistency ranging from relatively unconsolidatedsoupy muck to compacted clay. Due to time and budget constraints, it was important to characterizethese materials by analysis of as few samples as possible. Participants collected composite samplesformulated from 3 to 7 individual aliquots at each site. A significant amount of best professionaljudgment was necessary on the part of the local sampling teams to ensure the collection of samplealiquots that would accurately reflect the characteristics of the entire facility or stock pile. Asexpected, the volume of stormwater sediment and associated debris in these stock piles was oftenextremely large or of a consistency such that sample collection proved to be very difficult. Wheneverpossible, each participant collected a background sample of native soil for analysis along withsamples from stormwater treatment facilities. Each background sample was analyzed for the samearray of parameters as the stormwater sediment for comparative purposes. The samples collected ateach location were preserved on ice and immediately sent to the FDEP Central Laboratory inTallahassee for analysis. Each sample was examined for its physical characteristics relative toparticle size distribution in six (6) categories ranging from fine silt and clay to coarse sands. Inaddition the organic matter content of samples was evaluated via the total organic carbon (TOC)concentration. The samples were tested for a total of one hundred and twenty-eight (128) pollutants.These were distributed among two groups: Inorganics Metals- 7, Organics CL. Pesticides andPCB's-26, Volatile Organics-34, Semi-Volatile PAH's Phthalates and Phenolic Compounds-60, andTotal Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Half of the stormwater sediment samples collectedwithin each of the local areas were tested using TCLP procedures for the forty (40) RCRA HazardousWaste parameters routinely tested at the FDEP State Lab. There was a total of 44 sites tested in thismanner. Sediment

12

leachability, the potential for adsorbed pollutants to be released to runoff or rainfall that infiltrates theground, was also evaluated via the TCLP procedure. To preserve the sample leaching characteristicsas much as possible, there was no particle reduction or grinding attempted on any sample. Instead, allsamples were vigorously stirred and subsampled with efforts to reproduce an aliquot that wasreflective of the original sample. The laboratory conducted approximately 24,000 analyses during thecourse of the study. As requested, each participant in the study provided information concerning thepredominant land use class associated with the facilities. Previous studies indicated that land useintensity influences both the varieties of pollutants contained in stormwater sediment as well as theconcentration of contaminants. The participants examined a total of eight land use classes. The totalnumber of sites in each class is shown in parenthesis.

1) Single Family Residential (2 1) 2) Commercial and Services (14) 3) Light Industrial Areas andMaintenance Facilities (14) 4) Roads and Highways (08) 5) Mixed Residential & Commercial (24)6) High Density Residential (02) 7) Institutional - Offices and Hospitals, etc. (03) 8) Recreation Golf Course (O 1)

The samples were also classified in terms of the BMP or type of maintenance operation they wereassociated with. The categories and number of sites examined included:

1) Wet Detention Facilities (14) 2) Retention Ponds (12) 3) Roadside Swales and Road Shoulders(08) 4) Dry Detention & Filter (04) 5) Vactor Truck Residuals (01) 6) Street

Sweeping Residue (I 1) 7) Sediment Sumps/Forebays @ Inlets (04) 8) Screens and Weirs @ Inlets (02)9) Catch Basins and Stormsewer Sediment in place (08) 10) Canals Spoil & Ditches (07) 11) Lake or CanalBottom Sediments in place (I 5) 12) Filter Sand (O1)

The distribution of samples was not even over the land use or BMP categories. Each participantdetermined the type of residuals they wished to have examined. Because of staff and time restrictionssome participants elected to test as few as four systems. The City of Clearwater sampled a high offourteen sites. Participants showed particular concerned relative to residuals associated withmaintenance of canals and lakes followed by wet detention ponds and retention facilities. Participantsalso showed moderate interest in street sweeper and vactor truck residue, roadside swales, and roadshoulder areas. The allowable limits and screening level criteria associated with various federal andstate rules that may affect the disposal of stormwater sediment was used to evaluate and rank eachland use and BMP category in terms the potential to be problematic for stormwater facility operationand maintenance entities. These screening criteria were also utilized in the previous evaluation. Theywere, however, updated with more recent information as appropriate. The following is a briefdiscussion of the applicability of the various criteria used to evaluate stormwater sediments. 1.Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)RCRA requires generators of hazardous wastes to monitor and manage them in accordance withspecified procedures. In nearly all cases concerning stormwater sediments, the reason that they couldbe classified as hazardous wastes is because they contain listed chemicals that could exhibit toxicityif highly contaminated.

13

2. Chapter 62-640. FAC, Domestic Wastewater Residuals:

This rule establishes standards and criteria for the management and disposal of domestic wastewaterresiduals, also known as sludge or biosolids. The most relevant part of the rule with respect toapplicability to disposal of stormwater sediments is Section 62-640.800 which establishes criteriafor land reclamation with domestic wastewater residuals. 3. Chapter 62-770, FAC, PetroleumContamination Site cleaned CriteriaThis rule establishes petroleum or petroleum product contamination cleanup criteria. The rule applies9 .only to petroleum contaminated soils at cleanup sites. These standards are often indirectly appliedto stormwater sediments when these materials are to be land spread, used as clean fill, or are beingdisposed of in C&D landfills 4. Florida Preliminary Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines(MacDonald, 1994) These sediment evaluation guidelines identify two break points in concentration;a threshold effects level (TEL) and a probable effects level (PEL), that have low to high probabilitiesof being associated with adverse biological effects. The guidelines may be used by the Department ona case by case basis to evaluate the potential for stormwater residuals to exert localized effects onbenthic species in the vicinity of outfalls associated with sediment disposal sites.

RESULTS

AR samples examined contained detectable levels of some constituents. The background sites withthe exception of those submitted by the City of Hialeah in Dade County, contained lower levels andsubstantially fewer contaminants than found in stormwater sediments. Six of the fifteen backgroundsites show values of some parameters above soil cleanup criteria. As expected most of theexceedances involve detectable levels of Arsenic. A high value of 3.1 ppm was seen in theTallahassee area soils. Background exceedances above Florida Sediment Quality AssessmentGuidelines (SQAGS) low level effects screening criteria also known as the threshold effects level(TEL) occurred at two of the fifteen sites, both in the Hialeah vicinity. In this area the soils containdetectable levels of a variety of pollutants including the metals Cd, Cr, Cu, and Pb and five PAH'S.These pollutants are normally automobile related, and have been identified in higher concentrations

indirectly proportional to distance from roadway surfaces. Since the City of Hialeah is located in thecenter of one of the most urbanized areas of Florida it is not surprising that background conditionsshow increased pollutants over the other sites examined. The results are probably related to anincreased level of atmospheric deposition near the roadway where these samples were collected.Roughly, only 10% of the test results exceeded the limits of detection. Table - I is a list of thepollutants found in detectable concentrations at the eighty seven (87) stormwater sediment sitesexamined. Fifty three (53) pollutants were found in concentrations that exceeded minimum detectionlimits (MDLs). Similar to previous studies however, several traffic related metals (i.e., Cr., Pb., andZn.) were found at virtually all sites.. As a group, these inorganic pollutants were the most oftendetected constituents in stormwater sediments.

14

Table 1 - Percent Frequency and Pollutants Found at Detectable Levels inStormwater Sediments

PARAMETERS DETECTED >MDL -TOTAL SITES FREQUENCY %Chromium 87 100Lead 87 100Zinc 87 100Copper 82 94Cadmium 63 72Nickel 58 67Arsenic 56 64Organic CompoundsTRPH 78 90Chlordane 71 82Pyrene 56 64Benzo(b)fluoranthene 53 61Fluoranthene 52 60Chrysene 47 54DDE-p,p' 47 54Benzo(a)pyrene 43 49Benzo(a)anthracene 42 48Phenanthrene 41 47E~enzo(k)fluoranthene 38 44DDD-p,p' 34 39Benzo(g,h,i)pezylene 34 39"Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene" 33 38PCB-1260 26 30DDT-p,p' 21 24Toluene 13 15Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 13 15Dieldrin 11 13Butyl benzyl phthalate 11 13Anthracene 10 12Fluorene 9 .10"Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene" 9 10PCB-1248 8 9Di-n-octyl phthalate 7 8Xylenes (total) 6 7PCB-1254 5 6Gamma-BHC 4 5Toxaphene 4 5Acenaphthene 3 3Ethylbenzene 3 3Dimethyl phthalate 2 2Heptachlor Epoxide, 2 2Delta-BHC 1 11,4-Dichlorobenzene I I

RCRAITCLP Leachability Test (44 SITES)Lead TCLP TRP 35 80Chromium TCLP TRP 11 25Lead TCLP ICP 11 25Chromium TCLP ICP 7 16

Toluene TCLP VOC 5 11m,p-Cresols TCLP 4 9Arsenic TCLP TRP 4 9Cadmium TCLP TRP 4 9Arsenic TCLP ICP 2 4Cadmium TCLP 1CP 1 2Xylenes (total) TCLP VOC 1 2

15

Results Relative to Screening Level Criteria

Similar to results from our previous study, the Florida Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (SQAG's)represent the most frequently exceeded screening criteria. However, these (349) exceedances represent only1.4% of the total records. The heavy metal lead was the most frequently detected inorganic pollutant in excessof SQAG screening level criteria at 40% of the sites. However all seven metals evaluated were shown to exceedTEL values on occasion. Copper, Zinc and Cadmium were also shown to be somewhat problematic withpercentage exceedance rates of 22%, 14% and I I% respectively.

In contrast to results from our previous literature study, the most problematic pollutant category found instormwater sediments relative to either SQAG's or Soil Cleanup Criteria were organic contaminants. Thepesticide Chlordane exceeded the TEL screening level at all sites (82%) where it was detected. Most values(i.e., all but 2) were in excess of probable effects levels (PELs). Likewise, several traffic related PAH's werealso shown to exceed SQAG criteria more often than their inorganic counterparts. Pyrene led the way. Thiscompound was found in excess of TEL values at 61 % of the sites examined. Fluoranthene, Benzo a pyrene,Chrysene and Phenanthrene followed closely with exceedance rates of 54%, 52%, 49% and 46%. Relative toSoil Cleanup Target Levels the contaminant most frequently in excess of limits was Arsenic at 50 of 87(57%)of the sites evaluated. This element was found in the National Urban Runoff Program QaW) studiesconducted by USEPA during the 1980's at relatively low levels and frequencies. The only other inorganiccontaminant found in excess of these limits was Lead. This parameter was only rarely detected above thescreening criteria at 3 of 87 sites, all located in Dade County. Values measured at these sites also exceed WasteWater Residuals limits for application without site management constraints. One of the three sites exceededmaximum allowable Pb concentrations for land application of biosolids with site management.

Organic contaminants were not found to exceed "Clean Soil" criteria as frequently as arsenic. However, threePAH compounds (Benzo-a-pyrene, Benzo-b-fluoranthene and Benzo-a- anthracene) exceeded these screeninglevel criteria at frequencies ranging from 48 to 20 percent respectively. TR.PL-I values were also found toexceed criteria over 36% of sites. The primary sources of these semi-volatile organic compounds are by-products of incomplete combustion, gasoline and oil leaking on parking lots and roadways, and illicit dischargeof vehicle lubricants.The data examined during the 1995 study failed to show any values that would be considered Hazardousrelative to the RCRA Solid Waste screening criteria. Similarly, the results of the TCLP/RCRA evaluationconducted for this study indicate that only three (3) of the thirty six (36) organic pollutants tested for weredetected at levels in excess of MDL'S. These

consisted of two volatile compounds (Toluene and Total Xylenes) and one semi-volatile (m,p- Cresols). Noneof the samples contained organics in excess of RCRA criteria. All of the four inorganic TCLP metals (As, Cd,Cr, and Pb) that were tested for in this study were detected at levels in excess of minimum detection limits atmultiple sites. Cadmium was the least frequently detected heavy metal while Lead was the most frequentlydetected inorganic TCLP constituent (80%) followed by Chromium (32%) and Arsenic (I 1%). By far the

most problematic pollutant identified was Lead. It was found at low to moderate levels in a majority of thesediments tested. At an industrial site in Dade County, three related samples

16

show extremely high levels of total lead in the sediment tested. TCLP test were requested and run onone of these samples. The results show levels of approximately 10 mg/l Pb in the extract solution.This level is double the hazardous waste limit for this constituent.

Stormwater Residuals Characteristics by BMP Type and Landuse Classification: Similar to the 1995 study we also examined the data relative to it's origin in terms of BMP categoryand associated Landuse. Similar to previous studies wet detention ponds and in- place sediments incanals and lakes represented the facilities (BMP's) and sediment maintenance categories of mostinterest to participants. Contrary to the earlier study results the number of pollutants identified and theaverage concentration is similar between these Landuse and BMP categories. The exception wouldbe a few landuse and maintenance categories associated with systems such as sand filters, drydetention ponds and vactor track waste as well as high density residential landuse that were sampledby only a few participants. These systems show unexpected very low levels of pollutants as well asnumbers of constituents at detectable concentration in stormwater sediment. The low pollutionpotential of these facilities is likely the result of the extreme difference in sample number comparedto the other BMP categories however. A ranking of the twelve BMP and eight Landuse categories isshown on Figure I and 2 that follow. The ranking procedure used is based on the decimal percentagescore of the sum of total exceedances associated with each category compared to the total number ofexceedances possible. The maximum number possible is the number of sites in each BMP or Landclass times the total number of parameters evaluated (i.e., 94) in association with the five screeningcriteria. The decimal score multiplied by I 00 is equivalent to the mean percentage exceedance rateassociated with each practice and land use class. As may be seen, based on this procedure the meanrate of exceedance would vary from a high of 18 percent for in place catch basins and stormwatersediments to a minimum of 0 percent associated with sand filter spent media. Relative to the eightland use categories examined the high rate was slightly lower. Institutional lands ranked first in thisrespect with an 13 percent rate while the low category was a I percent score associated with highdensity residential. Rankings for several Land Use categories were higher than would have beenexpected based on the theory that sediment quality follows the same hierarchy as runoff loading rates.Most notable in this respect was institutional land which ranked first ahead of commercial, industrial,and highway facilities. The single golf course related sampling site also ranked surprisingly higher,scoring in the middle of the categories examined. Several BMP's on the other hand show the oppositeanomaly. That is, facilities such as sand filters which are generally regarded among the mostproficient techniques for the removal of metals, PAH'S, pesticides and other organic compoundsfailed to show anything more than minor accumulations of these constituents. Both BMP's and Landuse categories that were sample infrequently (i.e., 4 sites or less) tended to rank either much higher ormuch lower than would be expected based on historical treatment efficiency and loading ratecharacterization studies. Much more data is needed in order to make comparisons and effectivelycharacterize sediment quality associated with these stormwater residuals.

1 7

Figure I - Land Use Ranking

The reader is cautioned that the relative potential for problems associated with sediment disposalwould not necessarily follow the hierarchy based on this ranking procedure. Added weight was notgiven to exceedances associated with RCRA limits. Material contaminated to these levels, albeitlimited in scope, would certainly be considerably more problematic and deserving of precaution thanthose which exceed numerous clean soil target levels or sediment quality assessment guidelines.

Figure 2 - Stormwater BMP Ranking

18

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Existing data on the characteristics of stormwater sediments deposited in stormwater systemsthroughout Florida is sparse and not easily correlated due to differences in sampling methods used bythe various studies. The primary goal of this study was to collect more sediment and debris samplesfrom stormwater BMPs serving various land uses from all parts of the state to increase our databaseand get a better understanding of the need to test stormwater sediments before disposal. A majorhypothesis based on previous research results, which we hoped to be able to evaluate, was thatfacilities serving more intense uses are likely to be more contaminated than low intensity land usefacilities. It was hoped that land use screening would prove to be a useful tool to derive variablemonitoring and potential disposal options. In this manner, the testing frequency and handlingrequirements for the largest part of these materials could be relaxed without sacrificing environmentaland direct exposure protection concerns. The results of this effort has led to several interesting and tosome extent unexpected findings. Monitoring results do not show any signs of significant differencesby land usecategory. Large differences in monitoring frequency however, made comparisons between land usecategories and BMP's difficult. Infrequently sampled facilities produced highly variable results andcaused rankings to be extreme in both directions. The question as to whether these materials wan-antextreme concern is more close to being answered. In most cases these residuals are not "hazardouswaste". However, the material is contaminated well beyond levels associated with the rawstormwater itself with a wide array inorganic and organic pollutants. Disposal without properprecautions (i.e., wise site selection, runoff control, and application limits) would not berecommended regardless of the source of the residue at this time. Levels of several metals, PAH'S,and chlorinated pesticides such as chlordane routinely exceed criteria published in DEP rulespertinent to soil cleanup of petroleum contaminated sites and sediment quality assessment guidelines.These screening criteria currently constitute the best available information for evaluating potentialenvironmental risk associated with the disposal of sediment at locations other than landfills.Based on results of the previous literature survey conducted by the Department and this project thefollowing recommendations are offered relative to the disposal and testing of stormwater generatedresiduals: I Stormwater sediments should be disposed of by taking them to a permitted lined landfilland using them for landfill cover. In general, such disposal should not require characterization of thesediments except perhaps on an infrequent basis. Sediment from BMPs serving industrial/businessareas, fuel transfer facilities and equipment maintenance yards where poor house keeping andevidence of excessive contamination is obvious should be screened for toxicity relative to RCRAcriteria. The use of holding areas where the latter are kept separate from other stormwater residualswould allow testing levels to be minimal and provide better protection against inadvertent unlawfuldisposal of highly contaminated sediment.2 If it is preferable to dispose of stormwater sediments in an unlined landfill, a borrow pit or vialand application, then the sediments need to be tested to assure that they meet the Clean Soil Criteriaspecified in Chapter 62-770, FAC. Based on our current data base,

19

concentrations of arsenic, lead and several PAH's can be expected to exceed the Clean Soil Criteria.Yousef et.al. (I 99 1) recommended that sediments accumulating in wet detention ponds be removedevery 25 years based on sediment accumulation rates. However, data collected by Fernandez andHutchinson (I 992) indicates that both the types of contaminants and their concentration in a wetdetention system are likely to increase with age. More data are needed to develop guidelines on thefrequency of removing sediments from wet detention systems, especially when considering the landuse draining to the system. While much maligned in most studies of BMP treatment efficiency, the

performance of catch basin s and street sweeping based on the strength of the residuals examinedduring this study appears to be better than we would have projected. These BMP's ranked first andsecond respectively- in terms of the percent exceedance rate of various screening criteria used in thisevaluation .Their use as source controls and treatment devices would be highly recommended basedon these results. However, it should be stressed that these results also point to their primary failing.The effectiveness of these controls, or the lack thereof, is dependent on frequency of cleaning.Conventional practice has resulted in poor performance as measured in the past. There currently areno state rules and programs that pertain directly to the disposal of stormwater sediments. Often timeshowever rules developed for the control of other problems are indirectly applied when owners. ofstormwater treatment facilities elect to elicit approval to dispose of these materials in a moreuncontrolled manner than at a lined landfill. Clean Soil Target Levels and Sediment QualityAssessment Guidelines are the two most commonly applied screening criteria applied by theDepartment in these instances. There is a need to determine specific criteria to apply to stormwatersediments when land application and use as clean fill are the preferred use for these materials.

LITERATURE CITED

Fernandez, M. and C. B. Hutchinson. 1993. "Hydrogeology and Chemical Quality of Water andBottom Sediment at Three Stormwater Detention Ponds, Pinellas County, Florida." WRI Report 92-4139, USGS Tallahassee, Florida.

Harper, H. H. 1993. "Evaluation of Sediment Loadings From the Dolphin Cove Outfall,Hypoluxo, Florida." Environmental Research & Design, Inc., Orlando, Florida.

Livingston, E. H. and J. H. Cox. 1995. - "Stormwater Sediments: Hazardous Waste or Dirty Dirt?"Proceedings of the 4th Biennial Stormwater Research Conference. Published by Southwest FloridaWater Management District, Brooksville, Florida.

Livingston, R. J. and S. E. McGlynn 1994. "Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Lakes of LeonCounty", Center for Aquatic Research and Resource Management, Florida State University,Tallahassee, Florida.

20

MacDonald, D. D. 1994. "Development and Evaluation of Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines."Final report submitted to the FDEP Sediment Research Group, Tallahassee, Florida, by MacDonaldEnvironmental Sciences, Ltd., Ladysmith, British Columbia.

Tonner-Navarro L. and S. M. Roberts. 1997. Technical Report: Development of Soil Cleanup TargetLevels (SCTLS) for Chapter 62-770, FAC Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology,University of Florida, Gainesville. Prepared for the Division of Waste Management, FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. "Assessment and Remediation of ContaminatedSediments (ARCS) Program Guidance Document". Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago,Illinois. EPA 905-B94-002.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Results of the National Urban Runoff Program(NURP). Volume I - Final Report. U. S. EPA, Washington D.C.

Yousef, Y. A., L. Y. Lin, J. V. Sloat and K. Y. Kaye. 1991. "Maintenance Guidelines forAccumulated Sediments in Retention/Detention Ponds Receiving Highway Runoff'. Final reportsubmitted by the University of Central Florida, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering tothe Florida. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Environment and Environmental Research.Document No. FL-ER-47-9 1.

21

APPENDIX STORMWATER SEDIMENT DATA SUMMARIES

1. Table A-l. Characteristics of Stormwater Sediments in Florida BMPs.

2. Table A-2. The Effect of Land Use on Trace Metal Concentrations in StormwaterBMP Sediments.

3. Table A-3. Comparison of Sediment Trace Metals Concentrations in VariousStormwater BMPs.

4. Table A-4. Concentrations of Trace Metals in the Top 1 Inch, Top O-4 Inches, andTop O-8 Inches of Stormwater BMP Sediments.

5. Table A-5. Concentration of Organic Priority Pollutants in Stormwater BMPSediments.

6. Table A-6. Mean Trace Metal Concentration in Roadside Soils as a Function ofDistance from the Edge of Pavement.

7. Table A-7. Extraction of Heavy Metals and Organic Compounds from the TopLayer of Detention Pond Sediments Using TCLP

1 5

TABLE A-2

THE EFFECT OF LAND USE ON TRACE METALCONCENTRATIONS IN STORMWATER BMP SEDIMENTS

ppm. ug dry wt.)

Pb ! Zn29.2 29.998.5 59.0

32 22.2256 206.1

110.2 150.9

351.6 1 176.1

676.8 298.4

No.Obs.Land Use (Sites) Cd Cr Cu Ni

Residential 75 (3)* 2.1 17.4 9.1 8.0(S.F.) 77 (5) 1.9 98.4 11.7 8.0

Residential 15 (l)* 1.2 3.2 21.2 7.2(M-F.) 16 (2) 3.1 220.6 26.6 7.2

Commercial 17 2.3 14.2 26.3 6.4

Mixed 2.7 14.8 26.1 4comm/Res.

z

300 2800

1500 10,000mg/kg mg/kg

mg/kg) I 1 41.6 1 160 108 1 42.8

NA= not analyzed or tested for in the selected references.(a) Site located in Auckland NZ. Pacific Steel Corp. (Ref. Leersnyder 1993)(b) USEPA Part 503 Standards for the Use or Disposal of Biosolids (ie., Sewage

Sludge).* First row is data from sites excluding data from Fernandez and Hutchinson (1993),

-second row includes this data.

2 2

TABLE A-3

COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT TRACE METALSCONCENTRATIONS IN VARIOUS STORMWATER BMPs

(ppm. ug dry wt.1

Cr

4 1 3Dry Retention 1 NA 200 100Pond :1,

Detention 430 3.6 83.3 25.6 13.1 227 50.3Basin (Wet) (21)

Grassed Swale 9 5.5 69.7 89.5 35.6 1060 497.3d r y (3)

Grass Swale(1)

1.6 8.4 14.6 6.0 438.6 112.6(wet)

Exfiltration 2 ~ 3.0 14.5 8.0 NA 80.0 80.0Trench (1)

NA= not analvzed or tested for in the selected references. II

NA 1 200 / 100 11

13.1 1 227 ( 150:; I/

35.6 1 1060 1 497.3 //

6.0 1 438.6 1 112.6 //

NA 1 80.0 1 80.0 //

CU Ni Pb

TABLE A-4

CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE METALS IN THE TOP 1 INCH,TOP 04 INCHES, AND TOP O-8 INCHESOF STORMWATER BMP SEDIMENTS

SITENAME(Reference)

MF Res. SF Res. Comm. HW* Hwy. Swalesunknown Greenview Pnd Intl. Mkt. PI. FDOT Pds Harper1988

Harper1988 Yousef 1990 Harper 1988 Yousef 1990 USGS 1989(No. Ohs.)

C d

SF Res.Essex PointHarper 1988

(6)

Cr

(15) 48 4 (9/161) (319)

1.2 2.3 2.9 15.0 5.5

0.9 2.7 1.8 7.4 3.5

0.3 ND 1.1 ND ND

21.2 9.5 12.2 61.0 69.7

9.8 I 8.7 I 11.3 28.5 I 51.3

6.2 ND 8.9 ND ND

9.0 3.2 11.8 6.8 28.0 89.5cu

7.5 1.8 7.0 4.7 10.6 77.4

7.3 1.4 ND 3.4 ND ND

3.0 7.2 8.0 6.4 52.0 35.6Ni

2.5 3.8 4.7 5.1 33.9 20.9

2.0 2.7 ND 6.3 ND ND

13.8 32.0 34.2 46.0 374.0 1060Pb

11.2 14.0 17.7 31.5 141.9 653.5

9.9 9.3 ND 22.8 ND ND

11.6 22.2 31.0 127.0 161.0 497.3Zn

6.9 13.3 12.4 68.5 48.4 269.0

5.7 10.4 ND 36.8 ND ND

VD = Not determined for the soil profile listed due to insufficient data.

24

TABLE A-5

CONCENTRATION OF ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTSSTORMWATER BMP SEDIMENTS

Site Name(Reference)

Lake Ella Clear-water Largo Pond Detention LakeHall LakeTallahassee Pond Pond Det Pond TtLscawiI.ia

Tahahassee (SS-1)

Livingston USGS USGS 1993 Rushton Livingston CDM Inc.1994 1993 1993 1994 1993

BMP (type) UrbanLake

WetI

Wet WetDetention Detention Detention

Land Use Comm/Res SF Res. MF Res. HwylOff. Comm. Comm.

Sediment Concentration (ppm dry wt.)

a= acenaphtheneb = acenaphtbylenec = anthracened = benz(a)anthracenee = benzo(a)pyrenef=chryseneg=diienz(a,h)anthraceneh = fluoranthenei = fluorenej =tmetbyinaphthaIenek= naphtbaiene1 = phenanthrenem = pyrene

SQAGs ug/kg)TEL/PEL

2000(1) 320(h) 1.69001) 37(1)

69(m) 58(i) 8.859(k) 57(m)

880(1) 1.097(m)

200(m)

a = 6.71188.9 c = 46.91245 d = 74.81693 e = 88.81763 f = 1081846g = 6.221135 h = 11311494 i = 21.21144 j = 20.21201 k = 34.613911 = 86.7/544 m = 15311398

Notes: (a) = Total Volatile Organic Aromatics (benzene, toluene, xylems, +ethylbeuzene)(b) =Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons.(c) = Polynuciear AromaticHydrocarbons (Total of the thirteen low molecular weight and high molecular weight aromatic comwunds listed\.

25

TABLE A-6

MEAN TRACE METAL CONCENTRATION IN ROADSIDESOILS AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE FROM

THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT(Ref. Wanielista 1978)

Total Metals Soil Profile Edge of swales (6M-18) Percentage(mg/kg) dry wt.1 Layer Pavement From Hwy. Reduction (%)

Cr. o-5 cm. 12.1 19.3 -6015-20 cm. 14.5 7.6 +48

Pb O-5 cm. 822.5 365.5 +5615-20 cm. 62.5 18.4 +71

Zn 65 cm. 73.7 86.1 -1715-20 cm. 36.1 64.7 -79

Note: A reduction between soil profiles indicates that metals are relatively immobile andnot readily subject to downward movement and losses via leaching. A positive percentagereduction indicates that metals content is decreasing with distance from pavement.Negative numbers are indications that the metals are more mobile and that a relativelyhigher percent of these constituents in runoff is dissolved and less associated withparticulates. These pollutants are consequently more disbursed and will tend to showgreater levels of accumulation in swales where runoff is more concentrated.

26

TABLE A-7

EXTRACTION OF HEAVY METALS AND ORGANIC COMPOUNDSFROM THE TOP LAYER OF DETENTION POND SEDIMENTS

USING TCLP

27

TABLE 7 (cont.)

28

TABLE 7 (cont.)

TlWX*“volatiles”

I’RPH=4430msntsdry

wt.

(CMD Inc.1993)

Benzene

carbonTetrachloride

Chlorobeuzene

50 u 500 0.25 u

50 u 500 0.25 u

50 u loo;ooo 0.25 u

MEK (2Butanone) 100 u 200,000 0.50 u

Vinyl Chloride 100 u 200 0.50 u

1,2 Dicbloroethane 50 u 500 0.25 U

1,l Dichloroethylene 50 u 700 0.25 U

Tetrachloroethylene 50 u 700 0.25 U

Trichloroethylene 5ou 500 0.25 U

Cblorofoml 50 u 600 0.25 U

Notes:

(a) Toxicity limits listed in Fed rule 40 CFR Ch. 1 Section 261.24 (7-l-94). Soilscontaminated beyond these limits must be handled as hazardous waste.

“n/a” indicates that toxic limits are not applicable to this element or compound.“NA” indicates not analyzed.“U” indicates the compound was analyzed for but was not detected. The value precedingthe symbol is the detection limit for that compound based on the dilution and the samplesmoisture content.

3 0