You are on page 1of 77

THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING REPORT PREPARED AS A PART OF THE INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ON THE M.Sc.

WATER RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT COURSE BY Junaid Patel FOR Atkins Consultants Ltd.

The Impact of Highway Runoff on Water Quality Downstream of a Highway Outfall September 2004
The material in this report was prepared as part of the M.Sc. course in Water Resources Technology and Management and should not be published without the permission of The University of Birmingham and Atkins Consultants Ltd. The University of Birmingham accepts no responsibility for the statements made in this document.

Industrial Project

Table of Contents

Table of Contents
GLOSSARY OF TERMS__________________________________________ 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY__________________________________________ 5 1. 2. 3. INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________ 9 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ____________________________________ 11 LITERATURE REVIEW ______________________________________ 12 3.1. CONSTITUENTS OF POLLUTANTS IN HIGHWAY RUNOFF ______________ 12 Sediments _________________________________________ 12 Hydrocarbons_______________________________________ 12 Metals ____________________________________________ 12 Other Compounds ___________________________________ 13

3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.2.

SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS IN HIGHWAY RUNOFF __________________ 14 Vehicles ___________________________________________ 14 Existing Installations__________________________________ 14 Atmospheric deposition _______________________________ 14 Accidental Spillage___________________________________ 15 Highway Maintenance ________________________________ 15

3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.2.4. 3.2.5. 3.3.

FACTORS AFFECTING HIGHWAY RUNOFF QUALITY _________________ 16 Traffic Flow (AADT) __________________________________ 16 Climate and Local Land Use ___________________________ 16 Precipitations Characteristics___________________________ 17

3.3.1. 3.3.2. 3.3.3. 3.4.

EFFECTS OF HIGHWAY RUNOFF ______________________________ 18 Sediments _________________________________________ 19 Metals ____________________________________________ 19 Hydrocarbons_______________________________________ 19 Other Compounds ___________________________________ 20

3.4.1. 3.4.2. 3.4.3. 3.4.4. 3.5.

CONTROL OF HIGHWAY RUNOFF ______________________________ 21 Source Control ______________________________________ 21 Sustainable (urban) Drainage Systems (SuDS)_____________ 21

3.5.1. 3.5.2. 3.6.

CURRENT LEGISLATION AND PRACTICE _________________________ 22 Environment Agency and Water Quality Assessment ________ 22 Highways Agency Environmental Assessment _____________ 23 2

3.6.1. 3.6.2.

Industrial Project 4.

Table of Contents

METHODOLOGY___________________________________________ 24 4.1. TASK 1: BUILDING THE DATABASE _____________________________ 24 Data Manipulation ___________________________________ 26 Effect of Traffic Flow >30,000 on Pollutant Loadings _________ 28

4.1.1. 4.1.2. 4.2.

TASK 2: RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS __________ 29 Upstream Concentrations _____________________________ 31

4.2.1. 4.3.

TASK 3: ACCOUNTING FOR DISSOLVED OXYGEN __________________ 33 Streeter-Phelps Equation ______________________________ 35

4.3.1. 4.4.

TASK 4: APPLYING THE METHODOLOGY _________________________ 39 DMRB Examples ____________________________________ 39 Area 10 Examples ___________________________________ 43 Sensitivity Analysis___________________________________ 50

4.4.1. 4.4.2. 4.4.3. 5.

CRITICAL REVIEW OF DMRB ASSESSMENT ___________________ 56 5.1. 5.2. CURRENT ASSESSMENT ____________________________________ 56 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ___________________________________ 57 Rainfall Characteristics and Antecedent Dry Period__________ 57 Pollutant Build up and Wash Off ________________________ 59 Relationship between Traffic Flow and Pollutant Loading _____ 61 Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) _____________________ 63

5.2.1. 5.2.2. 5.2.3. 5.2.4. 6. 7. 8. 9.

CONCLUSIONS____________________________________________ 64 RECOMMENDATIONS ______________________________________ 66 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ____________________________________ 68 REFERENCES_____________________________________________ 69

10. APPENDIX ________________________________________________ 73

3

d.RO DMRB DO DWS EA EMC EQO EQS FIS GQA NH3 NH4+ NH4-N RE RO RQO SuDS UID Highways Agency region in the North-West Antecedent Dry Period Percentile Annual Average Daily Traffic Biochemical Oxygen Demand Chemical Oxygen Demand Combined Sewer Overflow Concentration background.Industrial Project Glossary of Terms Glossary of Terms Area 10 ADP %ile AADT BOD COD CSO Cb. downstream and runoff respectively Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Dissolved Oxygen Drinking water standard Environment Agency Event Mean Concentration Environmental Quality Objective Environmental Quality Standard Fundamental Intermittent Standards General Quality Assessment Un-ionised ammonia Ionised ammonia/ammonium Ammoniacal Nitrogen River Ecology Runoff River Quality Objectives Sustainable urban Drainage Systems Unsatisfactory Intermittent Discharge 4 .

The intermediate stage involves calculating spillage risk and the water quality downstream of the discharge for copper and zinc. COD. Aims and Objectives The aim of this project is to expand the assessment of pollutants in highway runoff as recommended in the DMRB (11. The current state of knowledge in predicting the polluting potential of highway runoff in the UK is summarised in CIRIA report 142 (1994). iron (Fe). This has been reproduced in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB 11. NH4-N and hydrocarbons. The DMRB assessment is currently based on zinc and copper. consideration of the following additional parameters has been suggested: • • • • Other heavy metals such as cadmium (Cd). chromium (Cr). AADT). cobalt (Co). and nickel (Ni). To extend the DMRB assessment. The methodology centres on the loading rates of pollutants compiled in CIRIA report 142 from studies performed in the 70s and 80s. 1994) which relates unit loading (kg/ha/yr) of a specific determinand to traffic flow (annual average daily traffic. manganese (Mn). The Highways Agency has a right to discharge runoff from roads to watercourses. lead (Pb).10) stage 2 assessment of routine pollutants for surface waters.000. More precise understanding of loading rates for determinands where AADT >30. determinands thought to occur in dangerous (excessive) concentrations in highway runoff.3. Much of this refinement centres on Table 5. Dissolved Oxygen (DO). The Environment Agency has a statutory duty to protect and monitor water quality. CIRIA.1 (pg 107.Industrial Project Executive Summary Executive Summary Introduction It has been recognised that runoff from roads can have a negative impact on the water environment. 5 .10) which recommends a three stage approach for the environmental assessment. Other compounds such as: Total Suspended Solids.3. but not do not have the right to pollute them. The loading rates are used in the methodology to perform a mass balance to provide the concentration of a specific determinand downstream of a highway outfall.

23 1.54 0.20 0. Failure is defined as exceedance of the corresponding EQS.Industrial Project Methodology and Key Results Executive Summary Table 5. 1994).50 0.32 0.19 11.74 6.22 0. A summary of key results implementing the expanded methodology is given in the table below for DMRB examples sites in the North West (Area 10).50 0.42 0.5 8.50 0.69 Table 1: Summary table indicating EQS failure for a number of examples.39 1.50 0. Red shading indicates failure.62 0.66 0.50 0.66 1.88 1.15 4.12 4.10 0.54 0.94 1.67 3.51 0.61 0.56 0.50 0.47 0.68 0.50 0.49 0.30 1.65 2.75 1.51 4. 6 .86 2. Loading rates have been derived from current literature (post CIRIA 142.36 0.15 3. preliminary values achieved are encouraging.35 0.25 1.66 1.86 2.03 4.51 0.50 0.36 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.27 3.50 0.51 0. The CIRIA methodology has been applied in order to evaluate the DO concentration downstream of an outfall.42 1. The CIRIA methodology has been implemented using the new loading rates and corresponding EQSs to identify priority pollutants. as corresponding values occur elsewhere in the literature.21 3.57 1.50 0. Near M60 Jn5 M60 Jn12 M4 Jn18 Haslingden 0.48 1.73 0.71 2.31 2.53 0. Ratio of downstream concentration to corresponding EQS DMRB Examples Determinand Lead Chromium Nickel Cadmium Iron Total Suspended Solids COD BOD NH4-N Hydrocarbons 1 2 3 Highways Agency Area 10 examples Langwood River Worsley River Brook Mersey Brook Boyd A 56. In addition a novel method of evaluating DO downstream has been implemented accounting for the time varying nature and dependency on BOD of DO.41 0.34 2.09 2.41 2.38 0.1 from CIRIA report 142 has been successfully expanded to accommodate the additional determinands except for manganese and cobalt.50 0.

NH4-N 5. However. Iron • • Similarly. 7 . current literature suggests that the relationship between pollutant loading and traffic flow is a tenuous one.e. BOD 6. Nickel and cadmium have been shown to occur in concentrations which do not exceed corresponding EQSs. those which occur in concentrations in highway runoff which consistently exceed thresholds set for fisheries protection. These preliminary findings indicate that the DMRB water quality assessment should be expanded to accommodate these additional determinands. COD 4. In descending order of priority: 1. The CIRIA methodology has been shown to be inappropriate for the evaluation of DO downstream of an outfall. a linear relationship between pollutant loading rates and traffic flow (AADT) has been assumed for all determinands in order to follow the CIRIA methodology. In this study. It is suggested that each determinand has a varying dependence on traffic flow and this should be taken into account in subsequent investigations. i. The most significant factor influencing downstream failure of EQSs resulting from outfall discharge has been shown to be the size of the road catchment in comparison to the flow in the receiving water. Hydrocarbons 2. Total Suspended Solids 3.Industrial Project Conclusions Executive Summary In this study the following determinands have been identified as priority pollutants. for the hardness related pollutants Lead and Chromium have been found to occur in excessive concentrations. A novel method for the evaluation of DO downstream of an outfall (which accounts for the time variant nature of DO and its dependency on BOD) has been presented and implemented successfully.

g. An integrated approach for all UIDs has been suggested however it is appreciated that such an approach would lead to a departure from the CIRIA methodology. Highway discharge can result in high-load. and land use have been shown to affect pollutant loading rates. which can have a disproportionate impact on river ecology. Additional refinements of the CIRIA methodology have been suggested regarding: • • • • Rainfall characteristics Pollutant build-up Relationship between Traffic Flow and Pollutant Loading Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) It is appreciated that although some suggestions can be incorporated into CIRIA methodology others may lead to a departure from the CIRIA methodology. Furthermore. short-duration events. data is required for UK studies as climate. This must be updated in order for the assessment to be consistent. EQSs for fisheries protection have been used for all determinands except for hydrocarbons where a DWS has been used. region. Highway runoff has therefore been discussed in terms of unsatisfactory intermittent discharges (UIDs) because of the similarities with other UIDs (e. In particular. More data is required in the highway runoff database specifically for the following determinands: manganese. 8 .Industrial Project Recommendations Executive Summary In this study preliminary results for pollutant loading rates have been presented based on world wide studies. nickel and iron. CSOs). cobalt. to expand the use of EQSs it is suggested that a tiered approach is implemented in the DMRB stage 2 assessment so that a river is not only defined by its RE class but also its drinking water category and habitats category.

0 4.0 4.0 4.5 Table 2: “Table 5.0 Zinc Soluble 0.0 0.0 2. Introduction It has been recognised that runoff from roads can have a negative impact on the water environment (CIRIA Report 142.2 0.0 2. Pollutant load (kg/ha/yr) Traffic Flow (AADT) Total Solids COD (kg O2) NH4-N Copper Total Soluble <5000 5000-15000 15000-30000 >30000 2500 5000 7000 10 000 250 400 550 700 4.4 0.4 1. Pollution control is implemented by means of discharge consents which dictate the quality and quantity of a specific discharge.1 (reproduced below) presents loading rates which vary with traffic flow for various pollutants.2 0.4 1.1: Typical pollutant build up rates. Table 5.1: typical pollutant build up rates” (pg 107.3 0. This has been reproduced in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB 11.10) which recommends a three stage approach for the environmental assessment for the routine runoff of a new highway. The methodology centres on the loading rates of pollutants compiled in CIRIA 142 (table 5. 1994). The intermediate stage of assessment involves calculating the probability of spillage and water quality downstream of the discharge.7 1. however they may be applied in exceptional circumstances for a site specific discharge.5 1. 1980). Discharge consents are not normally applied to highway drainage (Highways Act. 1994) from studies performed in the late 70s to the early 90s.0 5. CIRIA 142) 9 . The Environment Agency has a statutory duty for the protection and monitoring of water quality in England and Wales.3. pg 107.0 0.2 Total 0. The current state of knowledge in predicting the polluting potential of highway runoff in the UK is summarised in CIRIA report 142.Industrial Project Introduction 1.0 3.

This calculation is currently only performed for copper and zinc. 1993) thresholds to observe whether or not the downstream concentrations have exceeded the RE values. The details of the information required (and the sources) to perform the calculation are given below.10 Annex III) to calculate the concentration of a specific determinand downstream. kg) Flowd= Flow+ Runoff (Q. or retrofitting an outfall to an old highway. m3/d) (Wallingford Pollutant Loading (Table 5. The upstream flow (duration) and concentration. Once the downstream concentrations are calculated they are compared to the River Ecosystem (RE) Classification (HMSO. m3/s → m3/d) (Regulator) Upstream Concentration (Cb) (k. The pollutant build up rate. This method has been implemented to represent the worst case scenario resulting from the introduction of a highway outfall. as these metals are considered potentially ecologically significant at the range of concentration present in runoff. Flow (95 %ile) (Q. this solution ignores the time variant nature of the actual event.3. m3/d) Downstream Concentration (Cd) (kg/ m3 → mg/l) (Calculated) Figure1: Information required to calculate downstream concentration of pollutant.Industrial Project Introduction The loading rates are used to perform a mass balance (DMRB 11. If the RE values have been exceeded a more detailed water quality assessment is required. By implementing a mass balance calculation.1) (M. mg/l →kg/ m3) (Regulator) Runoff = Rainfall x Percentage runoff x Catchment area (Q. 10 . This method therefore requires a number of initial (simplifying) assumptions with respect to the: • • • Precipitation characteristics. The stage 2 assessment is therefore intended to be an estimate of the worse case scenario that may arise from the introduction of a new highway with outfall.

iron (Fe). A database must be compiled to introduce relevant threshold values or equivalent environmental quality standards (EQS) for the above mentioned determinands. Other compounds such as: Total Suspended Solids. or implementation of a novel method which is of suitable complexity for the DMRB (Stage 2) assessment. The findings will be discussed and recommendations on the refinements are to be made. To extend the DMRB assessment. cobalt (Co). To perform this extension of the current protocol the following tasks must be completed: 1. A database must be compiled from recent studies (post CIRIA 142. lead (Pb).1 (pg 107. The revised methodology will be implemented on specific outfalls in the Highways Agency Area 10 (North West). Much of this refinement centres on Table 5. consideration of the following additional parameters has been suggested: • • • • Other heavy metals such as cadmium (Cd).3.Industrial Project Aims and Objectives 2. Aims and Objectives The aim of this project is to refine the assessment of pollutants in highway runoff as recommended in the DMRB (11. NH4-N and hydrocarbons.10) Stage 2 assessment of routine pollutants for surface waters. 2. 1994) to include the above mentioned additional determinand loading rates with corresponding traffic flows. manganese (Mn). Dissolved Oxygen. CIRIA. chromium (Cr). COD. 4. More precise understanding of loading rates for determinands where AADT >30. The DMRB assessment is currently based on zinc and copper concentrations downstream of highway outfalls.000. and nickel (Ni). This may require investigation into current practice worldwide. 1994) which relates unit loading (kg/ha/yr) of a specific determinand to traffic density (AADT). 3. A methodology to account for dissolved oxygen must be produced. This will involve investigating standards beyond the current remit of the river ecosystem (RE) classification. 11 .

Hydrocarbons Thousands of hydrocarbon species occur in highway runoff.1. 3. 12 .1. and can also occur as compounds or complexes. studies have generally concentrated on highly toxic metals or metals which are known to occur at concentrations which could potentially have an ecological impact. These studies generally include copper. Sediments Sediments or settleable solids occur in highway runoff. iron. Metals can exist in a number of forms: dissolved. 2000). cadmium and lead. Poly nuclear/cyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) derived from unburned fuel have a higher affinity for sediments than other hydrocarbons. 3. Metals Like hydrocarbons a vast array of metals occur in highway runoff. often referred to as particulate-bound metal elements PME (Yuan et al. 3. Hydrocarbons are a reference to organic compounds containing only carbon and hydrogen derived from the petrochemical industry (CIRIA 142. organic and inert material (Pontier et al. 2003). zinc. the following categories have been devised to classify the pollutants into groups which shall be referred to in this report. Literature Review 3. These fines play an important role in transport processes for hydrocarbons and metals. They are often categorised by particle size into coarse and fines (> or < 63µm respectively). Approximately 70% of hydrocarbons are associated with sediments. particle bound.1.1. each with different properties and toxicities therefore some authors prefer the category name “oils and grease” (Mitchell et al. 2004).1. 1994).2. Constituents of Pollutants in Highway Runoff A vast number of specific pollutants occur within highway runoff. 2001). more recently exotic metals such as the platinum group elements have been investigated (Whiteley.Industrial Project Literature Review 3.3. Highway sediments consist predominantly of fines which can further subdivided into clay.

persistent organic pollutants. organics (BOD and COD). These compounds and complexes can be dissolved or particulate and have a wide variety of effects on the environment.1.4. salts. Other Compounds Literature Review A number of studies have observed the pollutant loads from a variety of different substances.Industrial Project 3. A summary of these “others compounds” follows: pathogens. herbicides and pesticides. nutrients including nitrogen and ammoniacal nitrogen. which do not fall into the above categories. 13 . phosphorous.

g. Accidental. Legret 1999). This is confirmed in Davis’ (2000) study in which both wet and dry deposition have been considered in the total pollutant loading of urban and rural highways. Vehicles Vehicles have been cited as the major contributors to highway pollutant build up in non-urban settings (Davis et al. Atmospheric deposition Atmospheric deposition can contribute a significant amount to the pollutant load in highway runoff. Engine leakage (and un-combusted fuel) is the major source of hydrocarbons (Sansalone et al. 3. Such installations can contribute significantly to the pollutant load from highway runoff. Kim et al (1999) have shown that this deposition has a strong seasonal and anthropogenic component. application of de-icing salts).2. Chronic effects (e. Vehicular component wear is a source of iron. Legret et al (1999) found that galvanized safety barriers were the main source of zinc in highway runoff.3. Engine wear is a source of aluminium and copper. • • • • Sources of Pollutants in Highway Runoff The sources of pollution can be broadly categorised into: Temporary (e. 2000).2.g. 14 . chromium and zinc.Industrial Project Literature Review 3. Seasonal (e. Tyre wear is a source of zinc and cadmium.1. highway maintenance). this can occur during storms or as a dustfall during dry periods (Barrett et al. 3.g. signs and other objects which are integral to the highway network.g. Existing Installations These include permanent fixtures such as lighting posts.2. safety barriers.2. 1996). hazardous (chemical) spillage). tyre wear) (Sansalone 1996. 3. 1995).2. Brake wear is a major source of copper. acute effects (e.

4. The following practices have associated environmental impacts: • • • De-icing Roadside vegetation control Construction activities (re-surfacing etc.Industrial Project 3. Accidental Spillage Literature Review Accidental spillage is a source of pollutants in the UK. to highway runoff. However if spillage pollutants reach a watercourse this will result in a high-intensity short-duration pollution event. nickel. 15 . Such methods contribute to BOD loading and pollutants.10). Highway Maintenance A number of highway maintenance practices can contribute to the pollutant load in highway runoff. is achieved using mechanical cutting methods in conjunction with herbicides in order to reduce intensive labour. which are listed in the Dangerous Substances Act (76/464/EEC). 1994). Such a spillage event is usually contained because of the efficiency of the emergency services (DMRB 11.2. Construction works on highways are generally associated with the production of dissolved and particulate solids. this usually has associated chemicals including: iron. which can have a major impact on river ecology. In addition the use of heavy plant can introduce hydrocarbons in highway runoff (Preene et al).3. zinc. Vegetation control on road side verges etc.2. The majority (70%) of these events involve the spillage of hydrocarbons.) De-icing salts are used in the winter months in the UK to prevent icing of roads.5. chromium and cyanide (CIRIA 142. Sodium chloride is usually used for de-icing. 3. lead.

3. it is appreciated (DMRB 11.. 1990). which relates traffic flow to pollutant loading for specific determinands.3. Factors Affecting Highway Runoff Quality Traffic Flow (AADT) CIRIA report 142 identifies traffic flow (AADT) as the major factor in pollutant loading.3. Climate and Local Land Use Local land use has been identified as an important factor in influencing pollutant build up (Driscoll et al. which show weak or insignificant correlation between traffic flow and pollutant build up. More recently Kayhanian (2003) in a comprehensive 4-year study based in California has unequivocally concluded that “No simple linear relationship exists between highway runoff pollutant…and AADT”.2.Industrial Project Literature Review 3. 3.3. This is confirmed in table 5. which has been developed for world wide sites including sites from the UK.3. In fact several authors have reported findings. 16 . Mitchell et al (2000) has presented a tiered approach to land use categories. Wong (1997) has presented eight land use categories with specific corresponding impervious surface area and runoff coefficients.5) that traffic flow may not be the only factor contributing to pollutant loading.1.10. Such variations are significant in countries with extreme winter conditions which require the use of studded tyres and excessive de-icing salts (Backstrom et al. However. 3. 2003). including determinands which are know to be associated with vehicle deposition. However such a categorisation may not be well suited in the UK. Seasonal variations have been suggested as a factor in variation of highway runoff quality. This has lead to a categorisation of sites under investigation according to surrounding land use.1 (pg 107) of the report.

1996). the following must be taken into account: • • • antecedent dry period rainfall intensity and duration runoff volume Road surface material has also been identified as a factor in highway runoff quality. 17 . Precipitations Characteristics Literature Review Precipitation characteristics have been identified as a factor in highway runoff quality. porous surfaces techniques are being implemented and have been shown to improve highway runoff quality by retention of fine particles (Pagotto et al. Therefore. Surface types include concrete and asphalt.Industrial Project 3. It is thought that low intensity rainfall which does not develop into sheet flow on the highway surface will not provide the minimum shear stress for sediment transport and therefore will not result in the “first flush” (Sansalone et al... increasingly. The first flush phenomenon has been widely reported in the literature. 2000).3.3. specific studies suggest that precipitation characteristics influence the observation of this effect. However. when considering highway runoff quality and loading.

The results are obtained by developing a “microcosm” environment and subjecting the species to varying concentrations of a pollutant. 2000). The new scheme is based on macro-invertebrate communities which are susceptible to pollutants which occur infrequently or in trace concentrations and which may be missed by chemical sampling. which aims at achieving “good status” of all surface and groundwaters. A common indicator used to measure the impact of pollutants is the LC50 notation. which indicates the time for which a specific concentration was maintained. recreational users and the water environment. Thresholds are developed for chronic and acute toxicity and no observable effects. When considering the effects of highway runoff the type and size of the receiving water course. it must be stated that studies of pollutant toxicity are in their early stages and data concerning specific pollutants is limited.4. the ability for dispersion and ecological diversity all determine the potential effects of highway runoff. it is usually preceded with a duration. River ecology will be used as the main indicator in determining “good water” status. Makepeace et al (1995) and more recently Beasley (2002) have presented the most extensive review of the impact of pollutants on macroinvertebrates in urban watercourses. This results in a spectrum of impairment for specific species. for macroinvertebrates and fish for varying pHs and hardness. However. which represents the lethal concentration at which 50% mortality is observed.Industrial Project Literature Review 3. The issue of water status of rivers has become increasingly important with the introduction of the Water Framework Directive (WFD. specifically river ecology. (strength or potency) of a specific pollutant must be considered for its selection as a determinand to characterise highway runoff quality. Effects of Highway Runoff Highway runoff has the potential to degrade surface and groundwater sources. 18 . The toxicity. which can have a detrimental impact on drinking water abstraction.

2. and subsequently affects higher orders of species within the food chain. and therefore modifies the fine balance of river ecology. In addition inert sediments can cause smothering and suffocation of macroinvertebrates on the river bed. Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons may give rise to surface sheens. Ni). Organic sediments have an associated oxygen demand. 3.4. Metals can be grouped into those which are highly toxic and are included in the List I substances (determinands to be considered in this investigation include Cd) in the Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC) and must be eliminated. Clay and other inert sediments can cause turbidity.1. Sediments Literature Review The role of sediments as a medium for transporting pollutants has been described (see section 3. In addition hydrocarbons contribute to the oxygen demand and therefore cause DO levels to drop. Each determinand (pollutant) has a range of effects on river ecology depending on additional factors such as pH. some hydrocarbons have similar effects to those described for metals. 2002). As a general rule metals become increasingly toxic in the following order: Zn<Cu<Pb<Ni<Cd<Hg (Mitchell et al I).Industrial Project 3. Metals Metals in highway runoff limit the development of macroinvertebrate communities by interfering with biological mechanisms such as growth rate.1. which in turn inhibits visual feeders. enzyme activity and reproduction (Beasley et al. and metals which are less toxic (List II) and must be minimised (determinands to be considered in this investigation include Cr.1). This interference occurs at the bottom of the food chain. and fin rot in fish (Mitchell et al.4.4. gill abrasion. temperature etc. which is detrimental to all aerobic species. 2000).. which limit oxygen transfer. Pb.3. 19 . Furthermore. 3. reduce light penetration and photosynthesis of (oxygen producing) aquatic plants. hardness.

In the case of ammoniacal nitrogen an additional risk exists because of its ease of oxidation.1.Industrial Project 3. enabling rapid depletion of DO and the resulting nitrogen can result in eutrophication.4 have a variety of effects which include: (1) oxygen demand and therefore oxygen depletion and (2) biological interference of organism at the macroinvertebrate level. Other Compounds Literature Review Other compounds as listed in section 3. 20 .4.4.

Trapped sediments can be incorporated into the soil and assimilated by the vegetation. The implementation of source control to reduce source pollution would no doubt be difficult. Although the design and capability of constructed wetlands are well documented the Highways Agency is not convinced that reed beds provide a universal solution (Wilson. In the case of herbicide and deicing salt application the Highways Agency have more direct influence. Control of Highway Runoff Source Control Source control is a method in which alternate modes of transportation and car pooling are examples of steps which can be taken in reducing the pollutants at source. Constructed wetlands consist of shallow ponds which contain a high proportion of vegetation (reeds). and wetlands all improve highway runoff quality significantly achieving >70% removal of key pollutants (Sansalone et al. C522. Sustainable (urban) Drainage Systems (SuDS) The control of pollutants in highway runoff has been addressed in a number of CIRIA reports (C142.5. 1999). Swales are linear grassed drainage features. treatment by detention and treatment by filtration.Industrial Project Literature Review 3. 3.5. Recent study suggests that the use of grass swale drainage. The implementation of sustainable (urban) drainage systems (SuDS) to minimise the impact of pollutants from road runoff. which can be designed to provide a number of functions: conveyance. however it is currently being discussed indirectly in a bid to reduce traffic on motorways and inner cities. 3. C523 and C609). 1999). source control is therefore a more realistic option.1. Wetland vegetation is suitable for the biological removal of a number of pollutants. infiltration basins. infiltration. A number of SuDS techniques have developed for a number of situations.5. however swales and constructed wetlands are the two main techniques used in conjunction with highways. 21 . have also been suggested to accompany the conventional systems such as gully pots and oil separators.2.

which dictate the quality and quantity of a specific discharge. 1994) which include additional chemical standards including Copper and Zinc.Industrial Project Literature Review 3. Pollution control is implemented by means of discharge consents.6. 1991). However they may be applied in exceptional circumstances for a site specific discharge. The existence of such macro-invertebrate communities depends on the geomorphology of the river and therefore biological quality is described by the difference between observed and expected taxa (species group) for the water under natural conditions. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). which takes into account factors such as geomorphology. This is based on the size and types of macro-invertebrate populations which exist in a particular watercourse. Current Legislation and Practice The Environment Agency has a statutory duty for the protection and monitoring of water quality in England and Wales (Water Resources Act. the use of which has been declining since the early 1990’s.6. The 22 . and Ammonia (NH3) taken monthly over a 3-year period. 1980). Since the collation of these studies there is an awareness that further study is required especially with regard to lead and cadmium build up rates. 3. Discharge consents are not normally applied to highway drainage (Highways Act. The GQA has been extended to determine the biological (ecological) quality of a watercourse. With regard to highway pollution Copper and Zinc have generally been deemed as the only heavy metals to cause environmental impact due to the concentrations found in road runoff. Environment Agency and Water Quality Assessment Currently the EA assesses water quality according to the general quality assessment (GQA) which is based on samples (chemical) of dissolved oxygen (DO). The expected state is predicted using RIVPACS (River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification). CIRIA report 142 has presented a complete review of studies for build up rates of pollutants on roads in relation to annual average daily traffic (AADT).1. Future improvements in water quality are dictated by water quality objectives (WQO) according to the River Ecosystem (RE) Classification (HMSO.

The stage 2 assessment should identify the likely impacts on water quality and fisheries including calculations for probability of spillage and water quality downstream of the discharge (Annex 3 DMRB). This scoring system is weighted in favour of species which are pollution sensitive. EQI standards have been implemented in the GQA assessment to define water quality in the original GQA river grades a to e. The BMWP score is divided by the number of observed taxa to provide the ASPT (average score per taxon) which is a stable and reliable index of organic pollution. 2002).Industrial Project Literature Review observed taxa are converted into a score using the BWMP (Biological Monitoring Working Party) system.6. Highways Agency Environmental Assessment Currently the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) recommends three stages of environmental assessment. this should include a desktop study to provide an appreciation of the water quality constraints and consequences resulting from a new or improved road. Initially. 23 . These observed ASPT scores are expressed as a fraction of the RIVPACS ASPT score to give Ecological Quality Indices (EQIs) where the maximum value a river can take is unity representing very good water quality. Finally. Their potential impacts should be evaluated in detail using specialist mathematical modelling. representing very good to poor quality (EA. presence of these species is therefore an indication that the water quality is good.2. the stage 3 assessment should identify individual discharges. 3.

such studies were therefore not included as this data was required to build the traffic flow-loading rate relationship. i. impervious area. • A major obstacle in producing the database was that highway runoff is usually monitored with equipment which measures concentrations (mg/l).1. and the runoff coefficient. 24 . These obstacles are given below: • Studies were not relevant to the UK. Where this data was available it was recorded in the database. This presented a number of obstacles in accepting studies into the database. These values are then used to “back estimate” the source loadings (kg/ha/yr) with knowledge of the runoff volume. Surrounding land use for studies varied. study sites may not represent UK conditions especially in terms of antecedent dry period.Industrial Project Methodology 4. however. Task 1: Building the Database This initial stage involved developing a database.e. external to Europe and therefore different environmental regulations were in place. which may have had an impact on the loading rates suggested in such studies. which could be used to extract values from recent studies to develop a relationship between traffic volume (AADT) and loading rate (kg/ha/yr) for a specific determinand. Where this information was given loading rates could be calculated. Methodology 4. in the majority of studies event mean concentration (EMCs) have been used as the descriptive unit of choice for highway runoff quality as this is measured on site. • • Type of highway was also recorded in the database as this has been shown to have an impact on highway runoff quality. • In terms of hydrology. this was recorded in the database as this has been shown to be a significant influencing factor in highway runoff quality. • Traffic flow data was not always available.

1997). A 1 year study in Japan of a single site including all metals required (see section 2) and organics.5 year study in Queensland Australia of 3 sites in urban. It should be noted that cobalt loading rates were not presented in any of the studies and only one result of manganese loading rates was found in a single study (Shinya et al. Table 3: Profiles of studies including in the database.Industrial Project Methodology The studies which met the above criteria were entered into a database which contained the following information: • • • • • • • • • • Author Year of study Location of study Duration of study Site description including local land use Road surface type Traffic flow: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Determinands measured in study Rainfall data if given Additional Notes The study profiles included in the database are given below: Author (s) Barret et al (1996) Wu et al (1996) Legret et al (1999) Drapper et al (1999) Shinya et al (1997) Study Profile Results from a 2 year study of 3 sites in Austin. Water quality monitoring (1 year) from 3 sites in North Carolina. A Long Term water quality monitoring study of 6 sites in the UK. and residential settings. WRc (2002) an exhaustive list of metals. Texas (Mo Pac Express Way). A 1 year study (1995-1996) of a single motorway site in Northern France. Determinands included some heavy metals and organics. herbicides. Determinands included heavy metals and organics. A 1. hydrocarbons and organics was investigated.. In total 17 separate sites were included in the 25 .

4 1. Note 2 the R value indicates weak (no) correlation. Outliers were removed initially. as EMC values are more often quoted.6 0.8 Copper Loading (kg/Ha/yr) 1. 2000 have presented a database with 160 studies) however. Shinya et al. as has been mentioned before.. not all the data from the studies was accepted to form a relationship between traffic flow and pollutant loading. difficulty was encountered in finding (or calculating) loading rates (kg/ha/yr). Relationship Between AADT and Copper Loading Rate 1. some studies (pg 61.2 1 0. present loading rates for an AADT of 75.000 80. consequently it was found that these outliers may belong to a specific study which was anomalous throughout e. In addition.000 40. this may seem small in comparison to other databases which have been compiled (Mitchell et al.1. 2002) recognised that certain sites were anomalous. The relationship between AADT and loading rate (copper) is given below prior to.000 AADT Figure 1: Relationship between loading rate and AADT prior to removal of outliers. WRc.000 which is remarkably low in comparison to other sites with similar AADT for all determinands.1.8 0. these were also removed. This was because including all the data usually resulted in a scatter plot with little correlation (see Figure 1).000 100.g. Data Manipulation The data of pollutant loading and traffic flow was used in order to produce a relationship between the variables.2 0 0 20.6 1.0062 2 Outliers Identified by WRc Shinya et al 60.Industrial Project Methodology database.000 26 . and after removal of anomalous values. R = 0. 4. Even though all studies in the database may have met the initial criteria.4 0.

000 80.04 3.28 2.000 0.95 to be “significant”.31 0.94 0.000 2 Methodology 100.Industrial Project Relationship Between AADT and Copper Loading Rate 0.73 0.3 0. a relationship between the variables exists (Clarke.21 Only one measurement was found for this determinand No data was collated for this determinand 6 9 5 4 10 0.415 0.999 1.989 Table 4: Significance of relationships derived for individual determinands.000 2 Figure 2: Relationship between loading rate and AADT after removal of outliers. The R value now indicates “significant” correlation. 1983) .4 0.7 0.000 40.56 0.000 AADT 60.62 0.2 0.000 0.7 0.999 1.4 3.5 R = 0.45 0. The established convention recognises a value >0.996 0.1 0 0 20.47 4.766 0. 27 .e.6 Copper Loading (kg/Ha/yr) 0.15 0.2 4.8 0.4 2.73 1. A summary table providing statistics indicating significance of individual relationships for each determinand is given below: Sample Number (n) 6 5 5 5 3 Determinand Lead (Pb) Chromium (Cr) Nickel (Ni) Cadmium (Cd) Iron (Fe) Manganese (Mn) Cobalt Total Suspended Solids COD BOD NH4-N Hydrocarbons R 2 t=r n−2 1− r2 Significance 0.91 0.08 3.7485 0.72 0. i.999 0.

01 3.000 0.20 0.15 0.1 (CIRIA.09 0.08 0.01 7.07 0. 4.2) which will cover the effect of traffic flow >30.08 0.0 Total Suspended Solids 600 700 850 1250 COD 250 350 550 1100 BOD 30 40 55 85 NH4-N 1 4 9 20 Hydrocarbons 5 10 15 25 Table 5: Table 5.f.08 0.0 - >30. Pollutant Load (kg/ha/yr) AADT 5000-15.015 15.000 15. 1994) extended for additional determinands. The above results are encouraging as corresponding values are observed for determinands presented in CIRIA report 142 (COD.15 0.000-30. Other approaches to characterise pollutant loading will be discussed in later sections (5.30 0. Table 2).005 1. 28 .3.000 on pollutant loading.0 - Determinand Lead (Pb) Chromium (Cr) Nickel (Ni) Cadmium (Cd) Iron (Fe) Manganese (Mn) Cobalt <5000 0.07 0.2.45 0. The use of traffic flow (AADT) as the primary variable in pollutant loading is far from ideal but has been implemented in order to follow the CIRIA 142 report methodology.1.1Traffic Flow (AADT)).0 0. Effect of Traffic Flow >30.08 0.Industrial Project Methodology The derived linear relationships were then used to construct the updated “table 5.000 on Pollutant Loadings The relationship between traffic flow and pollutant loading is at most a tenuous one (see section 3.1” for the additional determinands (see Table 5 below).000 0. NH4-N c.

(2000) and the WRc (2002). List 2b is further subdivided into freshwaters. chromium and nickel occur in list 2b of dangerous substances related to hardness. however thresholds for many determinands do not exist (or have not been determined) for the RE classification.Agence RMC Not required (Agence RMC) Not required (Russian River Authority) France . The table below provides the source from which the relevant EQSs have been taken. Lead. 29 .2. Therefore threshold values have been taken from elsewhere. the discharge of which must be prevented. which are suitable for salmonid and cyprinid fisheries which correspond to RE 1/2 and RE 3/4 objectives respectively. This directive aims to prevent and minimise the discharge of dangerous substances to water. this problem has been recognised by Mitchell et al. Cadmium occurs in the list 1 of dangerous substances. nickel.Industrial Project Methodology 4. the discharge of which must be minimised. Task 2: Relevant Environmental Quality Standards Currently the DMRB assessment includes Environmental Quality Standards (EQSs) from the River Ecosystem (RE) classification (see Appendix). and cadmium have been taken from the Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC). These determinands therefore were simply placed in the RE classification system.Agence RMC France .Agence RMC Original RE Classification Original RE Classification Original RE Classification Surface water intended for Abstraction of Drinking Hydrocarbons Water Directive (Russian River Authority) Table 6: Source of Environmental Quality Standards EQSs for lead. estuary and marine water. Determinand Lead (Pb) Chromium (Cr) Nickel (Ni) Cadmium (Cd) Iron (Fe) Manganese (Mn) Cobalt Total Suspended Solids COD BOD DO NH4-N Source Dangerous Substances Directive Dangerous Substances Directive Dangerous Substances Directive Dangerous Substances Directive France . chromium. EQSs (limits) have been set for freshwater.

The Agence RMC have determined EQSs for determinands unavailable in the RE classification system (Chocat. as this directive has significantly different aims from the RE classification system. COD. 1997). which is France’s equivalent to the Environment Agency. EQSs for Manganese and Cobalt were not required because loading rates were unobtainable (see previous section) and therefore the downstream levels of Manganese and Cobalt could not be calculated. The total ammonia EQS was most appropriate for comparison with NH4-N. imperative value for drinking water category 1(DW2) has been related to RE2/RE3. in addition this directive has completely different categories of water quality based on the water treatment system being implemented. This poses a complication. watercourses (and corresponding EQSs) are subdivided into regions and industrial pasts. because the Freshwater Fish Directive (EC. Total Suspended Solids and COD were taken from the Agence RMC (Agence de l'eau Rhône Méditerranée & Corse). It is appreciate that this situation is far from ideal.Industrial Project Methodology EQSs for Iron. however the only other standard found was that of from Russia’s fisheries protection which indicates a value of 0. The Agence RMC river classification system is similar to the RE classification system. In order to use this value the imperative value for drinking water category 1(DW1) has been related to RE1. For UK rivers Agence de l'eau Artois-Picardie region was chosen as this was the most appropriate description of rivers in the UK. BOD and NH4-N EQSs were taken from the original RE classification system. The hydrocarbon EQS has been taken from the Surface Water Intended for Abstraction of Drinking Water Directive (75/440/EEC). imperative value for drinking water category 1(DW3) has been related to RE4. 1978) offers only qualitative advice. In addition.05mg/l which is equal to the DW1 value which indicates that these values are of the correct magnitude (this issue will be discussed in a later section). 30 .

It may also be of interest to vary this factor to observe variations in downstream water quality.5 times the relevant EQS should be used (where information from the regulator is unavailable). In fact. 31 . application of the relevant (E)QS should be the key issue. Upstream Concentrations With regards to the background values (upstream concentrations) of the determinands the CIRIA report has suggested that 0.2. (E)QSs can be found from a number of different sources each with a different aim. 4. the DMRB assessment requires knowledge of the River Class alone and not of the drinking water category. This will therefore be the method implemented in this report. The extended RE classification EQSs can be found in Table 7 below.1.Industrial Project Methodology Furthermore.

2 25 40 0.25 0.Industrial Project Methodology Class Hardness mg/l CaCo3 Lead Annual Average (µg/l) 4 10 10 20 20 20 4 10 10 20 20 20 20 125 125 250 250 250 20 125 125 250 250 250 - Chromium Annual Average (µg/l) Nickel Annual Average (µg/l) Cadmium (µg/l) Iron (mg/l) Manganese (mg/l) Cobalt (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) COD (mg/l) 90 percentile Hydrocarbons Annual Average (mg/l) RE 1 RE 2 RE3 RE 4 RE5 <50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 >250 <50 50<H<100 100-150 150-200 200-250 >250 <50 50<H<100 100-150 150-200 200-250 >250 <50 50<H<100 100-150 150-200 200-250 >250 - 5 50 10 100 5 0.2 25 >80 - 32 .5 0.1 0.01 20 150 20 150 50 200 50 200 150 50 175 100 5 1.5 0.01 200 150 200 150 250 200 250 200 150 50 175 100 5 >1.5 0.05 25 25 0.5 0.5 >0.01 200 150 200 150 250 200 250 200 Table 7: RE classification extended for additional determinands 25 20 0.01 20 150 20 150 50 200 50 200 5 50 10 100 5 1 0.

This value must be converted to mg/l by calculating the DO saturation (mg/l) using an empirical relationship. a weaker inverse relation between DO and salinity exists. Temperature (salinity and altitude) of river. gas transfer coefficient. Task 3: Accounting for Dissolved Oxygen Accounting for dissolved oxygen (DO) presents a unique problem because DO is not a pollutant. any additional DO from highway runoff (rainwater) has a positive impact on river quality. During daylight hours of summer months the rate of photosynthesis can be such that the DO can become supersaturated. Performing a mass balance of DO will result in the instantaneous DO concentration immediately downstream of the outfall (assuming instantaneous complete mixing). presence of BOD). unlike the other determinands being considered in this report. Furthermore.Industrial Project Methodology 4. DO in rivers therefore has a diurnal component. A number of empirical relationships exist which relate DO saturation with temperature. size of droplets. DO in rivers occurs due to photosynthesis of plants and oxygen transfer from the atmosphere (affected by turbulence). 33 . salinity and atmospheric pressure (altitude). initial DO concentration and time of exposure all have an impact on the final DO concentration in rainwater as described by Dalton’s/Henry’s Law. A strong inverse relationship exists between DO and temperature. Background DO levels can be obtained from the GQA scheme data which is available from the EA in terms of %DO saturation. DO concentration in rainwater.3. does not build up on roads and is a time dependent determinand depending on local environment (e. DO in rainwater is more complicated. DO is a function of temperature. (salinity and altitude). and a positive relationship between DO and atmospheric pressure exists. Such a mass balance requires the following information (and assumptions) to determine the initial DO conditions: • • • Background DO levels in upstream river.g.

the effect of BOD (loading on roads) on the highway runoff before it is discharged at the outfall has not been considered. Given these initial conditions. 1996). it becomes clear that performing a mass balance for DO will result in an increase of DO downstream of the outfall regardless of the DO concentration upstream (unless supersaturated conditions are prevalent upstream). due to presence of a highly chemically oxidative substance.Industrial Project Methodology The main independent variable for DO in water is temperature. this will be assumed to be 10 °C for all subsequent initial calculations for simplicity. 34 . To simplify the problem further. Qualitatively. The outfall discharge therefore has a beneficial effect on the river quality downstream in terms of DO. rainwater will be considered to be saturated at the ambient temperature. In this brief assessment. This can be easily proven by implementing Henry’s/Dalton’s Laws. it is unlikely that this will have a significant impact on the DO as the time of concentration for the impervious surfaces being drained is usually very short (~minutes. Sansalone et al. The only exception would be if a highly a fast chemical oxidation demand is exerted. and are therefore saturated with DO.. rainwater droplets have a high surface area to volume ratio (SA:V) and are exposed to the atmosphere for a significant length of time.

3. The result therefore cannot be compared easily with RE standards or other conventional standards. 1998). Dt = DO deficit at time t. The constants can be assumed or derived from current literature. k1= BOD reaction constant k2= reaeration constant Implementing Streeter-Phelps poses a number of obstacles: • • Constants required to perform the analysis are unknown. The solution of Streeter-Phelps results in the variation of DO with time of travel.. 2001) and would have a significant impact on DO.. The Streeter-Phelps (1925) equation can be used as a first order tool to model the impact of BOD on DO as a spatially variant problem for a steady input (Jubb et al. the constants could be manipulated to represent the worse case scenario.1. 35 . 1998). This would not be possible if Streeter-Phelps was implemented as the variation of DO with time is calculated. Such an evaluation would require a process to model the effect of BOD on DO with time. The issue of intermittent discharges and their resulting impacts has been discussed extensively in the Urban Pollution Management Manual ([UPMM] FWR. may be considered beyond the remit of the stage 2 DMRB assessment. Currently the DMRB assessment compares downstream determinand concentration with percentile standards from the RE classification system. and would not correspond to the level of complexity applied to the other determinands. This method. although useful in understanding the spatial variant nature of DO in the river. Streeter-Phelps Equation Methodology The previous evaluation does not consider the effect of BOD on DO downstream of the discharge although BOD concentrations in highway runoff are significant (Pitt et al. Dt = k1 La [10 −k1t − 10 −k2t ] + Da 10 −k2t k 2 − k1 Equation 1: Streeter Phelps-Equation La = Ultimate BOD at t =0 Da = DO deficit at t =0.Industrial Project 4.

In addition.5 24 hours 6.0 Sustained Duration 6 hours 5.0 4.0 4. however the pollutant make up of the effluents (CSOs.e. short-duration events.5 5. 1998) for salmonid population i. It can be argued that highway discharges are similar in terms of their intermittent nature. implementation of FIS on highway discharges introduces a unique way of integrating the evaluation of intermittent events.Industrial Project Methodology The UPMM recognised the need for wet weather standards. These standards are expressed in terms of concentrationduration thresholds. which can have a disproportionate impact on river ecology. The UPMM has suggested the use of Fundamental Intermittent Standards (FIS see Table 8) to overcome the problem of measuring such complex intermittent events. highway discharge) will no doubt be different. particularly for CSOs which discharge during wet weather and are characterised as being highload. 36 . The implementation of FIS in this evaluation would introduce a means by which the result of the Streeter-Phelps equation could be compared. FIS introduces a more pertinent question about how highway discharge should be assessed. with permissible return-periods.0 5. Furthermore.0 Table 8: Fundamental Intermittent Standards ({UPMM}.5 5. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) Return Period 1 hour 1month 3 month 1 year 5. FIS are directly related to the characteristics of events which impact on river ecosystems. this will be discussed in a later section. RE1/RE2 river.5 4. FWR.

4 (day-1) 36 mg/l (Pitt et al. the DO sag curve can be used to compare against the FIS standards. The values have been used for demonstration purposes only.Industrial Project Methodology An example of implementation of Streeter-Phelps with FIS is given for a river with the following properties.1 (day-1) 0. River Class DO upstream DO saturation k1 k1 La RE2 70% saturation 10 mg/l 0.. this is shown in the table below (the red shading indicates failure). 2001) Worse case scenario Da Occurrence 3 mg/l Once a month Table 9: Values required to calculate DO sag curve (Streeter – Phleps) The characteristic DO sag caused by the oxidation of BOD can be seen in the graph below. Variation of Dissolved Oxygen with Time 8 7 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 Time (days) 3 4 Figure 3: characteristic sag curve defined by the Streeter-Phelps Equation Once calculated. 37 .

It is appreciated that Streeter Phelps is an over simplification of the interaction between DO and BOD.g. 38 . However.5 24 hours 6.5 4. red shading indicates DO failure.5 5. and ignores a number of other important factors which impact on DO e.0 4.0 Table 10: DO failure of a river compared with FIS.5 5.0 Sustained Duration 6 hours 5.0 5. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/l) Return Period 1 hour 1month 3 month 1 year 5.0 4. photosynthesis. the principal remains that a method (of suitable complexity to the CIRIA methodology) should be implemented in order to understand the variation of DO with time which can be compared to standards that are designed for intermittent events.Industrial Project Methodology In this example the DO was found to be lower than the 6 of the 9 limits set for an RE 2 river.

Task 4: Applying the Methodology DMRB Examples The methodology described in the previous sections for the additional determinands (except DO) has been implemented for examples 1-3 given in the DMRB (Annex III.3. The downstream pollutant concentration. The results of implementing the CIRIA 142 methodology on the additional determinands for the DMRB examples are given in the table below (Table 12).4. Example 1 2 3 River Class Q95 low flow (m3/s) Average hardness (mg/l) Antecedent dry period Rainfall (mm) Run off coefficient AADT on motorway AADT on exit slip road AADT on entry slip road Impervious area of Motorway (ha) Impervious area of slip road (ha) RE2 0. The initial conditions (key values) for the three examples are given below. 4. 11. With the above information.5 2000 2500 6.1. Table 7 was then used to compare the downstream concentration with the relevant derived EQSs.000 120.011 97 5 13 0.00 0 18. Table 5 was used to calculate the downstream concentrations of the additional determinands.45 0. relevant EQS and the ratio of these two values are given for all determinands in order to provide an indication of the magnitude by which a specific EQS has been breached.063 65 5 11 0.16 RE2 0.Industrial Project Methodology 4.016 610 5 11 0. 39 .000 Table 11: Initial conditions for DMRB examples.000 40.8 0 0 30.10).4.5 0 0 11.25 0 RE1 0.

017 0.15 0. the red shading indicates failure.657 2 Downstream Concentration (D mg/l) 0.026 0.036 0.86 52.88 2.01 0.1 0.Industrial Project Methodology DMRB Examples 1 Downstream Concentration (D mg/l) 0.56 1.348 25 25 4 0.74 71.6 0.536 2.19 121.05 0.09 1.6 0.31 2.038 0.12 1.214 8.002 0.15 4.01 0.003 1.731 4.51 1.969 44.338 25 25 4 0.002 0.005 1 Ratio (D:EQS) 4.86 4.2 4.62 1.913 37.367 0.01 0.42 0.011 0.75 EQS (mg/l) 0.57 1.920 0.34 11.1 0.2 0.838 25 25 4 0.750 Downstream Concentration (D mg/l) 0.405 1.66 EQS Ratio (mg/l) (D:EQS) 0.2 2.023 0.044 0.01 0.2 2.36 0.005 1 1.69 Table 12: Results of implementing the CIRIA 142 methodology for the additional determinands.931 3 Determinand Pb Cr Ni Cd Fe Total Suspended Solids COD BOD NH4-N hydrocarbons EQS Ratio (mg/l) (D:EQS) 0.42 2.23 3. 40 .440 0.50 0.10 0.083 0.5 2.49 1.6 0.48 0.66 0.41 1.02 0.38 0.668 0.024 0.03 6.005 0.006 5.617 71.

Industrial Project

Methodology

It can be seen from the above table (Table 12) that the EQSs have been exceeded for the majority of the determinands. The following determinands exceed the EQSs consistently for all examples: • • • • • • Lead Total Suspended Solids COD BOD NH4-N Hydrocarbons

The most alarming result is that the lead EQS (which is a list 2b dangerous substance) has been exceeded.

The chromium (list 2b hardness related dangerous substance) EQS has been exceeded for example 2 and 3, both of which have low hardness values (97, 65 respectively). Whereas for example 1 the corresponding EQS has not been exceeded as the hardness value (610) is much higher, therefore the corresponding EQS is higher and harder to exceed.

The Iron EQS has been exceeded for example 2 and 3 both of which have traffic flows (AADT) >30,000, it has not been exceeded for example 1 for which the AADT< 30,000.

The hydrocarbon EQS has consistently been exceeded by a significant amount (average of ~7.5 times EQS) for all examples.

The Nickel EQS has not been exceeded for a single example, the ratio deviates negatively away from the background value i.e less than 0.5. This indicates that the highway runoff is a source of dilution for this determinand as the concentration in the highway runoff must be significantly less than the EQS.

41

Industrial Project

Methodology

Example 2 performs the worst from the three examples, the same number of EQSs have been exceeded for example 3, however the magnitude by which they have been exceeded for example 2 is greater for all determinands. This is due to the combination of the following factors: • • • low river flow (Q95). high traffic loading (AADT). low hardness values.

This effect could have been made worse by implementing a reduced rainfall (and runoff coefficient), which would have result in reduced dilution of the pollutants.

42

Industrial Project 4.4.2. Area 10 Examples

Methodology

This section includes the location, description, key values, and results for 3 sites taken from the Area 10 region for which stage 2 assessments have already been completed (Atkins, 2004). In addition a single example from the Area 2 (West Midlands) region has been included. Langwood Brook Langwood Brook is a tributary of the River Irwell. This outfall drains a section of the A56 trunk road near Haslingden into the Langwood Brook. The land surrounding the outfall is rural and agricultural. Langwood Brook is of “Good” quality and its water quality objective is RE 2. Previous study has found (Atkins, 2004) that no mitigation measures are required for routine discharge, however measures should be in place to protect against accidental spillage. The location catchment plan and photographs of the outfall are given below.

Langwood Brook

Figure 4: Location and catchment plan of Langwood Brook outfall

The outfall discharging into Langwood Brook, a milky water colour was noted.

43

2004) which drain sections of the M60 and A5103 (south Manchester. These outfalls are considered High Risk (URS.Industrial Project River Mersey Methodology The River Mersey is of “fair” quality and its water quality objective is RE 4. areas with extremely high traffic flows into the River Mersey. Two outfalls have been considered in a previous report (Atkins. The location map is given below. 2004) has found that no mitigation measures are required for routine discharge. The black shading indicates the catchment being drained to the River Mersey. 2000). Previous study (Atkins. The location and catchment plan are given below. 44 . however measures should be in place to protect against accidental spillage. junction 5). Figure 5: Location map of catchment which discharges to River Mersey.

The outfall being considered drains sections of the M60 (west Manchester. Figure 6: Location map of catchment which discharges to Worsley Brook.Industrial Project Worsley Brook Methodology Worsley Brook flows to the Manchester Ship Canal. The location map is given below. a significant film was observed on the water surface. 45 . Figure 7: Outfall with screen. junction 12) into Worsley Brook. it is of “fair” quality and its water quality objective is RE 4. however measures should be in place to protect against accidental spillage. 2000). open channel carrying discharge to Worley Brook. Previous study has found (Atkins. along with photographs of the outfall and the open channel leading to Worsley Brook. This outfall is considered High Risk (URS. 2004) that no mitigation measures are required for routine discharge. The land surrounding the outfall is residential.

This outfall drains a section of the M4 (Junction 18) into the River Boyd. 2000). The River Boyd is of “good” quality and its water quality objective is RE 2. 2002) which involved a DMRB stage 3 assessment of outfalls considered High Risk in a previous report (URS. The report concluded that mitigation measures for the discharge of pollution are required in the form of petrol interceptors and constructed wetland. 46 .Industrial Project River Boyd Methodology This example has been taken from an Area 2 report (Atkins.

1 2.006 150 5 5.7 108.6 39.75 mm which is significantly less than other values used.7 71.700 0 2085 10. area of embankment and cuttings are included in these examples.200 5360 14. This is because this was taken from a stage 3 assessment and the Wallingford procedure was not implemented as suggested by CIRIA 142.735 150 5 12 0.204 85 5 12 0.44 16.200 107.03 198 5 9 0.5 (CIRIA 142). this part of the catchment contributes additional diluting potential to the runoff and the runoff coefficient of these areas was set at 0. The value of rainfall used for the River Boyd catchment outfall is 5.4.75 0.000 0 0 8.300 18.600 0 22.7 0 RE 4 0.7 117.9 RE 4 3.1DMRB Examples).05 Table 13: Key values required for water quality calculation downstream of outfall. This value was taken directly from rain gauge data and was presented as “mean rainfall on the day following a dry period”.7 41.7 rather than the suggested value of 0.Industrial Project Methodology The key values required for implementation of the CIRIA methodology are given in the following table: Example Langwood Brook A56 Near Haslingden River Mersey M60 Jn 5 Worsley Brook M60 Jn 12 River Boyd M4 Jn 18 River Class Q95 low flow (m3/s) Average hardness (mg/l) Antecedent dry period Rainfall (mm) Run off coefficient AADT on motorway 1 AADT on motorway 2 AADT on entry slip road Impervious area of Motorway (ha) Area of embankment and cuttings RE 2 0. 47 .4. In addition. Calculations were performed as described in earlier sections (4.6 RE 2 0. Notice that in these examples the runoff coefficient was set at 0.

064 0.020 0.169 40.001 1.66 0.32 0.122 25 25 4 0.035 1.150 0.36 0.02 0.51 0.30 1.063 0.68 0.053 0.2 0.788 25.50 0.248 0.5 1 2.005 1.01 0.982 1.530 13.50 0.73 0.41 0.033 0.51 0.20 3.976 5.385 52.52 0.27 91.513 25 80 8 2.5 1 0.67 25 4 0.274 25 80 8 2.072 0. the red shading indicates failure for the corresponding EQS.50 0.5 0.25 1.6 0.000 3.50 0.50 0.005 1 0.65 2.50 0.35 0.50 0.862 0.71 0.022 2.50 0.029 0.002 1.010 0.2 0.212 0.122 6.010 0.47 0.39 1.301 0.756 0.94 Table 14: Results of implementing the CIRIA 142 methodology for the additional determinands on outfalls in the Area 10 (2) region.376 1.125 0.075 0.002 0.21 Total Suspended Solids COD BOD NH4-N Hydrocarbons 13.125 0.005 0.50 0.500 0.766 53.22 0.100 0.059 0.51 55.005 1 3.15 0.074 0.603 0.54 0.014 0.200 0.5 8.50 0.150 0.50 0.269 4. 48 .509 0.20 0.61 13.50 0.60 0.059 0.002 0.15 0.Industrial Project Methodology Results Area 10 (2) examples Langwood Brook (A 56 Near Haslingden) River Mersey (M60 Junction 5) Worsley Brook (M60 Junction 12) River Boyd (M60 Junction 18) Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Ratio EQS EQS Ratio EQS Ratio EQS Ratio Determinand Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration (mg/l) (D:EQS) (mg/l) (D:EQS) (mg/l) (D:EQS) (mg/l) (D:EQS) (D mg/l) (D mg/l) (D mg/l) (D mg/l) Pb Cr Ni Cd Fe 0.53 0.005 1.54 0.

moderate hardness and a very low Q95 value. This example appears to be a candidate for EQS failure for the majority of determinands because of the low Q95 value. The concentration of the remaining determinands (Pb. This result is due to the fact that the Q95 value is significant (in comparison to the DMRB examples) and therefore represents a bigger proportion of the downstream flow once runoff is taken into account. In addition. indicating that the runoff provides a source of dilution. The chromium and NH4-N concentration downstream is observed to deviate toward the EQS. Worsley Brook is observed to fail the Total Suspended Solids and Hydrocarbon EQSs. indicating that highway runoff is a source of dilution for these determinands. The River Mersey does not exceed a single EQS. The River Boyd is observed to fail the majority of EQSs. The chromium EQS is hardness related. the dilution potential is reduced further because of the low rainfall value taken from the stage 3 assessment. COD and BOD. however small deviations from the background levels are observed for the following determinands: Lead. 49 . Langwood Brook does not exceed a single EQS. Deviations toward failure are observed for Iron. however the low river quality (RE 4) and the high hardness value results in high EQS values. Total Suspended Solids. Cr. which increases the value of the hardness related EQSs. (DMRB examples) the EQSs have not been exceeded for the majority of the determinands. for three out of the four examples. the hardness value is quite large. COD and Hydrocarbons. Small deviations are observed for Total Suspended Solids and Hydrocarbons. This result is due the low river quality (RE 4) which results in high targets (which can be passed easily) and the large Q95 value as observed for Langwood Brook. This example is similar to the DMRB examples as it exhibits good river quality. In addition. Cd and NH4-N) downstream are observed to fall below the background value. This combination results in multiple failures of corresponding EQSs.Industrial Project Methodology It can be seen from the above table that in contrast to Table 12. Ni. Nickel and Cadmium concentrations are observed to reduce downstream. if the hardness is reduced (<100) then this EQS is also exceeded.

1 m3/s). the pollutant levels tend towards zero. Catchment size.95 still results in the majority of the determinands exceeding their respective EQSs.e. therefore simplifying the analysis. Low rainfall (i.e. Low hardness values (<100mg/l). DMRB example 2 was chosen as it had no slip roads or embankments. the following factors must be considered when evaluating the polluting potential of highway runoff: • • • Runoff coefficient. Likewise. a runoff coefficient of 0. The analysis was achieved by changing single variables whilst all other variables remained the same.Industrial Project 4. low dilution). mass build up remains the same). The results of this analysis are given in the Appendix (Figure 16 . A sensitivity analysis was therefore carried out on DMRB example 2 to understand the impact of these different factors quantitatively. above 4 times the corresponding EQS. a number of factors can affect the downstream water quality. It can be shown that as the volume of runoff increases indefinitely (for a set catchment area i. It is observed that at 20 mm rainfall (high single storm event) the downstream pollutant values of hydrocarbons.4. In addition. It is observed (Figure 13. watercourses which are at risk of exceeding these preliminary EQSs are characterised by the following: • • • • Good quality rivers (RE 2 and above). Figure 14) that as the total rainfall (or runoff coefficient) is increased the pollutant levels (expressed as ratio of the EQS) downstream decrease. This is expected as the increased runoff is a source of dilution for the pollutants. Sensitivity Analysis Methodology In summary. TSS and lead are still high.Figure 18). Traffic flow AADT. The non-linear nature of the relationship is caused by the proportional representation of volume in the mass balance calculation.3. Low Q95 values (<0. 50 . Clearly.

Again.45 m3/s. the downstream pollutant concentration (although the same absolute value) decreases as a ratio of the relevant EQS.e. These pollutants will be referred to as priority pollutants.000). 51 . failure depends on the distribution of standards per hardness bin. (Figure 15) the downstream pollutant concentration decreases. for hardness related determinands. the general relationship exists that as RE class (or hardness) increases. which occur in high concentrations in highway runoff.Industrial Project Methodology In addition. Table 15) provide the concentrations of the determinands in highway runoff in comparison to the RE classification EQSs. which exceed EQS in highway runoff have the potential to exceed EQSs downstream of an outfall. as this depends on how the EQS has been defined and the distribution of values throughout the RE classification system. EQS ratio <1). These pollutants. In this example. Furthermore. as the absolute EQS value increases. depending on the catchment size or volume of runoff in comparison with the background flow. Figure 17 and Figure 18 show how failure of single EQS is not always intuitive. However. this value is just enough to bring all the determinands below the corresponding EQS (i. when the low flow (Q95) is increased. The concentrations are catchment area independent as both mass loading and volume of runoff are proportional to area. The analysis described indicates the need to characterise the determinands in terms of their concentrations in highway runoff with comparison to RE standards in order to determine which determinands are categorically pollutants. this is expected as the increase in volume represents an increase in absolute mass (M = C x V) of the determinand. these are given for a 10mm rainfall event (AADT>30. when the flow is increased to ~0. The graph and table given below (Figure 8. the absolute concentrations are given in the table below (Table 16). in comparison to the absolute mass available in runoff.

05 6.150.000).99 0.44 0.11 0.85 Table 16: Absolute concentrations of determinands in highway runoff for a 10mm rainfall event (AADT>30.15 0.23 <50 50100 100.22 0.16 2.3 8.000) RE 1 / RE 2 Hardness Determinand Pb Cr 30.Industrial Project Methodology Relationship between Highway runoff pollutant concentration (expressed as a ratio to corresponding EQS) and river class.21 0.3 5.22 4.8 12.21 0.15 0.041 0.05 6.82 6.022 0.15 0.33 12.22 0.49 0.150.16 0.16 0.82 0.000) Determinand Concentration in highway Runoff (mg/l) Pb Cr Ni Cd Fe TSS COD BOD NH4-N Hydrocarbons 0.16 6.11 Ni Table 15: Concentrations of hardness related determinands in highway runoff (expressed as a ratio of corresponding EQS) for a 10mm rainfall event (AADT>30.49 0.15 0.200>250 150 200 250 0.004 4.16 0.11 0.11 2.44 0.16 0. 137 40 Fe TSS Ratio {Runoff:EQS} concentration 30 COD 20 BOD NH4-N 10 Hydro carbons 0 RE 1 RE 2 RE 3 RE 4 Cd River Class Figure 8: Concentrations of determinands in highway runoff (expressed as a ratio of corresponding EQS) for a 10mm rainfall event (AADT>30.11 0.49 0.99 0.48 6.27 0.123 0. 52 .11 343 301 23.200>250 150 200 250 <50 50100 RE 3 / RE 4 100.

Hydrocarbons 2. as it is not possible for nickel concentration to exceed the relevant EQS downstream of an outfall. It must be appreciated that these are not definite but preliminary findings as these results are based on varying and in some cases limited amounts of data available in the literature (see Table 3 and Table 4). Failure is dependent on catchment size.Industrial Project Methodology It is observed from Figure 8 that the order of priority pollutants in terms of the magnitude by which they exceed corresponding EQSs in descending order are as follows: 1. Lead 2. Chromium The nickel concentration in highway runoff does not exceed the relevant EQS for all RE classes (<0. this concentration does not indicate whether a specific location will fail. BOD 6. This analysis is useful in identifying priority pollutants which exceed corresponding EQSs in highway runoff. 53 . NH4-N 5.44 EQS throughout RE classes) and is therefore not a priority pollutant. It is appreciated that hydrocarbon EQS is actually a DWS. Total Suspended Solids 3.82 EQS throughout RE classes) and is therefore not a priority pollutant. which determines the absolute mass loading and volume of runoff. for hardness related determinand the order is as follows (Table 15): 1. Likewise. COD 4. as has been explained earlier. However. Iron The cadmium concentration in highway runoff does not exceed the relevant EQS for all RE classes (0. as it is not possible for cadmium concentration to exceed the relevant EQS downstream of an outfall.

as the background mass (Mb) becomes the dominant component of the river flow. the extremes are given here: When catchment area is small. This situation can be seen in the River Mersey and Langwood brook examples where VRO<<Vb. It is observed that when VRO:Vb >0. where VRO ˜ Vb. the downstream concentration is approximately equal to the background values for all determinands. The intermediate situation can be seen in all the DMRB. i. however CRO remains the same as it is catchment area independent. then as VRO ? 0.e. VRO = Vb. plots or tables must be produced for the complete RE classifications. The use of this index has been provided graphically (Figure 9) for DMRB example 2. however CRO remains the same as it is catchment area independent. Therefore Cd? Cb. hardness and rainfall events.e. the catchment size has been increased whilst all other variables remain the same.5 EQS Vb = Q95 Mb = Cb x Vb MRO = mass loading VRO = Volume Run off CRO= M/VRO Cd Methodology = Downstream Concentration Vd = Vb+ VRO A range of situations exist.e. then as VRO ? ∞ . those which exceed corresponding EQSs in highway runoff). Of course to implement this index. the downstream concentration tend toward the highway runoff concentrations.Industrial Project In terms of the mass balance calculation: Cb= 0. VRO<<Vb. M ? ∞. 54 . Worsley brook. In contrast. Although this is an obvious result of mass balance calculations the ratio of runoff volume to upstream volume (VRO:Vb) can be used as a simple index to identify whether a specific catchment site will fail. when the catchment is large i. Therefore Cd? C RO. as the highway runoff volume becomes the dominant component of the river flow. MRO ? 0. for varying AADTs.2 then failure is observed for all determinands identified as priority pollutants (i. and the River Boyd examples.

this index can be used with limited knowledge of the site only. DMRB 1 RE class VRO:Vb No.8 1 Ratio {runoff:river} Volume Figure 9: Use of VRO : Vb index for DMRB example 2.003 0 RE 2 0. quick indication of whether a site is likely to fail.2 0.26 6 RE 2 0. of failures DMRB 2 Langwood River Worsley DMRB brook River Boyd Mersey Brook 3 A56 Near M4 Jn 18 M60 Jn 5 M60 Jn 12 Haslingden RE 1 0.75 7 RE 2 0. It is clear from these results that this index gives a good.001 0 RE 4 0.49 8 RE 4 0. COD BOD NH4-N Hydro carbons The VRO : Vb index has been implemented for all the examples in this study and are shown in the table below (Table 17). In addition. 55 .6 0.50 2 RE 2 0. Q95 and catchment area are required all other factors can be assumed for a simple assessment to identify high risk sites.Industrial Project Methodology Relationship between the ratio of runoff volume and river flow to downstream pollutant concentration (expressed as ratio of EQS) 14 Ratio {Downstream:EQS} concentration 12 10 8 6 TSS Pb Cr Cd Ni Fe 4 2 0 0 0.77 8 Table 17: Use of index VRO : Vb to indicating as VRO : Vb increases so does the number of failures.4 0.

Relationship between AADT and pollutant loading is linear. 95%ile flow represents 95%ile concentration. Regional precipitation characteristics.Industrial Project Critical Review of DMRB Assessment 5. 56 .1. Summer 1-year 24 hour storm. Fixed runoff coefficient. Total pollutant wash off. Linear pollutant build up. Current Assessment The DMRB assessment introduces a simple solution to a complex time variant problem in order to provide an understanding of the worse case scenario of the impact of highway on water quality when designing highways and associated drainage systems. Critical Review of DMRB Assessment 5. It is recommended that these assumptions require updating to reflect changes in opinion suggested in the literature. This has been achieved by implementing a number of simplifying assumptions: • • • • • • • • Fixed antecedent dry period.

if this rainfall event occurred in summer there would be low flows in the receiving waters for dilution. Furthermore. however the simplifying assumptions It is proposed that the current DMRB assessment should be updated so that should be changed. In fact the principal document (CIRIA 142. duration storm and return period. 1 year storm for all UK regions. summer storms are usually preceded by significant dry periods which allow pollutant build up. which is simply a weighted average of previous rainfall events. In addition the Wallingford procedure has been updated by the Flood Estimation Handbook (Institute of Hydrology. this procedure considers the 24-hr. Sansalone et al (1996) have found this value to be 0. For a simple assessment therefore a single value of rainfall is required which represents the least volume which produces highway runoff i. 1994) recognised that the assumptions made were simplistic and another method of water quality assessments is suggested (Appendix A. 5. CIRIA 142 suggested the use of the Wallingford procedure to characterise the rainfall. this would require additional (rainfall gauged) information which may not be ideal for a simple assessment. 1999) which recommends guidance in order to construct design storms considering rainfall: profile. Again.2.1. This procedure is simple to implement however it yields quite large values of rainfall ~10mm which may not represent the most concentrate scenario for highway runoff. The FEH also offers guidance on calculating rainfall following an antecedent dry period. this can be generalised as a short duration rainfall and therefore small dilution volume. In addition.Industrial Project Critical Review of DMRB Assessment 5. level of Proposed Assessment complexity remains the same.25mm in the USA. CIRIA 142.2. However. Rainfall Characteristics and Antecedent Dry Period CIRIA report 142 recognised the characteristics of a storm which represented the worse case scenario (pp107). However this is beyond the complexity required for the DMRB stage 2 water quality assessment.e. 1994). whilst Atkins have suggested that the value is 57 . exceeds infiltration capacity (depression storage).

Such data is available from the FEH (CD-ROM) for individual areas (T-year D-hour.Industrial Project Critical Review of DMRB Assessment 1. Rather than setting arbitrary values based on exceedance of infiltration capacity alone these could be combined with return periods. Once the rainfall depth is decided upon it could be checked to see whether this corresponds to a realistic return period i. MT-Dh) the FSR relationships are given below for illustrative purposes only.e. 6 month and 1 year return periods need only be considered. However.2mm (in the UK) before highway runoff is achieved. adapted from NERC Flood studies Report (1975) 6 months 1 year 2 years 10 years 100 years 1000 years 58 . asphalt etc.) and these figures require further confirmation. Clearly infiltration capacity is dependant on highway type (concrete. Relationship between Rainfall and duration of rainfall for various return periods (FSR) 50 45 40 Rainfall (mm) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Duration (mins) Figure 10: Relationship between Rainfall and duration for Silsoe. these values do suggest that a much smaller value than that suggested by the Wallingford procedure could be implemented to represent the worse case scenario.

dP/dt = The rate of accumulation (m/ l2/t) P0 P k = Constant rate of deposition = Load on catchment (m/ l2 ) = The rate constant of load removal by any number of processes (1/t) This equation can be solved to give: Pt = P0 (1 − e − kt ) Equation 3: Solution to Equation 2 This solution has several implications: • • Pollutant build up has limits on roads because of removal processes other than rainfall. wind) which indicate a maximum value or “loading capacity” of pollutants on highway surfaces.g.Industrial Project 5. atmosphere etc. an example is given below.2. Critical Review of DMRB Assessment Pollutant Build up and Wash Off The CIRIA guidance indicates the use of linear build up of pollutants on highways with time.2.) Removal is a function of pollutant available dP = P0 − kP dt Equation 2: Pollutant build up model. Most models are constructed by solving a simple first order differential equation. 59 . linearly and indefinitely. A number of models have therefore been proposed which account for the removal of pollutants by processes other than rainfall (e. However the problem with this assumption is that as the antecedent dry period increases so does the pollutant build up. Initial conditions: • • Rate of pollutant accumulation is assisted by (constant) deposition (cars. Changing antecedent dry period has a completely different impact to the linear build up model assumed in CIRIA 142. This offers a simple and effective way of understanding pollutant build up. by implementing pollutant loading rates.

Sansalone et al (1996) have shown that the time variant nature of pollutant wash off is strongly related to the hydrology of the event. However this would require knowledge of the loading capacity (P0) and the removal constant (k). Relationship between pollutant build up and time for linear and exponential models 30 Pollutant build up (m/l2) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (days) Figure 11: Impact of model choice on pollutant loading. variation above or below the assumed 5 day antecedent period can have a significant impact on the value of pollutant loading. It is therefore suggested that such a technique should be considered for implementation with the CIRIA methodology. 6 7 8 9 10 exponential linear Most models implemented in the literature are an extension of the model described above. Wash off models need not be considered as these are time variant solutions which is beyond the remit of CIRIA methodology. This example shows that although both models give the same value at 5 days. Total washoff should therefore be assumed per rainfall event. Yuan et al (2000) has had exceptional success in the implementation of this technique for the prediction of heavy metal loading on highways.Industrial Project Critical Review of DMRB Assessment It can be seen from the figure below (Figure 11) that variations in the time or antecedent dry period could potentially have a significant impact on the value of pollutant loading achieved. 60 . However it should be noted that the first flush phenomenon which has been widely reported in the literature is not always observed.

This is a possible approach for future study however the number of co-dependant variables should be minimised. or more radically be neglected all together. again these could be integrated with traffic flow data. 61 . once identified the statistical significance of these variables was calculated and incorporated into the wider model each with independent coefficients.Industrial Project 5.3. i. This stance could be justified given the recent findings in the literature. If determinand loading rates are dependant on a number of unrelated factors then a method is required to account for these different factors.e.g.2. only the top three most influential variables should be considered in order to simplify the problem.2).3. 1% to dry deposition etc.1. It has been shown that sources of pollutants are varied and determinand specific (see section 3. Davis et al (2000) have attributed determinand occurrence to different sources by proportion e.2.1 and 4. 17% of zinc in urban runoff can be attributed to vehicles.2 Climate and Local Land Use). This study identified a number of “casual” variables (nine in total) which can affect pollutant build up. However the problems associated with this assumption have been discussed (see 3. This issue has been addressed by Irish et al (1998) who has suggested the use of a multiple linear regression model to understand the factors which influence pollutant build up. Another approach would be to consider land use categories (see 3. Sources of Pollutants in Highway Runoff) and that each determinand loading rate has a varying dependence on traffic flow.3. 45% from roof tops. Critical Review of DMRB Assessment Relationship between Traffic Flow and Pollutant Loading In this study a linear relationship between traffic flow and pollutant loading has been assumed in order to follow the CIRIA methodology.

Introducing a “stochastic” component has not appeared in the literature. Randall et al. 2000. Pollutant Loading Traffic flow (AADT) Figure 12: Diagram representing stochastic component on deterministic background. A number of mathematical operations are available to apply this stochastic component. however implementation could prove quite difficult in reporting results.e. An illustration of this approach is given below. and y intercept ? 0 62 .Industrial Project Critical Review of DMRB Assessment If these approaches appear too far a departure from the CIRIA methodology then a softer approach could be implemented by introducing: • • a background value (i. 1998). 1998) and seems to be a simple logical solution to account for “other” factors. Implementing a background value has been discussed (Irish et al. Such an approach could be justified from observations of measured data. the strength of this stochastic component could be varied to match measured data. This value (c) can be manipulated along with the gradient (m) of the linear relationship to best fit current data in order to best represent the dependency of highway runoff on traffic flow. This would imply that there remains a correlation with traffic flow however for the same inputs a different (but similar) output is given. however complete stochastic approaches to highway runoff modelling has been discussed (Mitchell et al. y intercept (c) ? 0) which accounted for “other” non traffic flow related factors a random “stochastic” component on to the deterministic background.

including different land use categories. Critical Review of DMRB Assessment Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) Much of the discussion thus far has surrounded the problems with the implementation of loading rates (build up. wash off etc. ~200 of these in Europe of these 71 were from the UK. Mitchell et al. M ∫ C (t )Q (t )dt EMC = = V ∫ Q(t )dt Equation 4: Definition of Event Mean Concentration More interestingly is the fact that a number of authors have reported that EMCs do not vary significantly between sites with similar land uses and are best treated as a log-normally distributed random variable. However most authors now present event mean concentrations (EMC. however it should be noted this found for all sites i. 63 .e. defined below).Industrial Project 5. (Randall et al. 2000). Mean EMC values can therefore be used to address long term loads whilst median (or higher percentiles) can be used to address acute loads as has been performed in Mitchell’s study. 1998. if not all studies measure the variation of concentration (of determinand) and flow (of runoff) with time. If loading rates are presented they are derived from these measurements and “back projected” onto the highway catchment. however the majority. This would result in a highly simplified methodology if only UK motorways were to be considered. This offers increased simplicity as assumptions are not required about the highway surface in order to derive loading rates. and measurements are presented with minimal manipulation. This study concluded that EMCs were log-normally distributed. This study considered 160 separate urban stormwater quality studies which addresses ~700 catchments.2.4. The use of EMCs relates to the previous section in that traffic flow can be neglected as a factor influencing EMCs whilst land use would be chosen as the dominant factor.).

e. those which occur in dangerous concentrations in highway runoff and consistently exceed thresholds set for fisheries protection.Industrial Project Conclusions 6. In this study the following determinands have been identified as priority pollutants. Total Suspended Solids 3. Initial implementation of this index is encouraging as it benefits from a limited amount of input data required for any particular site. In descending order of priority: 1. Once a determinand has been identified as a priority pollutant. Iron • • Similarly. Nickel and cadmium have been shown to occur in concentrations which are not dangerous in terms of the RE classification. where many outfalls are considered. Hydrocarbons 2.1 from CIRIA report 142 has been successfully expanded to accommodate the additional determinands except for manganese and cobalt. for the hardness related pollutants: Lead and Chromium have been found to occur in excessive concentrations. Conclusions Table 5. These preliminary findings indicate that the DMRB water quality assessment should be expanded to accommodate these additional determinands. The CIRIA methodology has been implemented using the new loading rates to identify priority pollutants. the use of the VRO:Vb index has been suggested as a quick and simple indication of whether a site is at risk of exceeding corresponding EQSs. Loading rates achieved are encouraging. Such an index may be useful in a stage 1 assessment. BOD 6. as corresponding values occur in CIRIA report 142. NH4-N 5. 64 . i. COD 4.

65 . current literature suggests that the relationship between these variables is at most a tenuous one. a linear relationship between pollutant loading rates and traffic flow (AADT) has been assumed for all determinands in order to follow the CIRIA methodology. Initial results are encouraging. Implementation of DO into the DMRB stage 2 water quality assessment is therefore open to discussion. At this stage it is suggested that each determinand has a varying dependence on traffic flow and this should be taken into account in subsequent investigations. This solution was found to be inappropriate for DO. The level of complexity for evaluation of DO may be beyond the remit of the DMRB stage 2 assessment. FIS). and does not account for the time variant nature of DO and its dependency on BOD. The time variant nature of DO and dependency on BOD must be accounted for. In this study. as this results in higher DO downstream of an outfall. However. However. it is appreciated that: • • • The model is highly simplistic and requires a number of assumptions. the routine is relatively simple and has been implemented successfully. Evaluation of DO was therefore developed by implementing a simple first order model (Streeter-Phelps: which accounts for the time variant nature of DO and its dependency on BOD) and EQSs developed for intermittent discharges (specifically for CSOs.Industrial Project Conclusions Evaluation of DO downstream of an outfall has been performed by applying a mass balance calculation as for the other determinands.

1.Industrial Project Recommendations 7. and habitats category etc.) without the return period. the France Agence RMC EQSs have (justifiably) been implemented where Environment Agency EQSs have been unavailable. 66 . The use and benefits of EMCs has been discussed (see section 5.). This would require prior knowledge of the site in question in terms of its drinking water and habitats category (SSSI status etc. However it is appreciated that implementation of EMCs would lead to a departure from the CIRIA methodology. In this investigation EQSs for fisheries protection have been used for all determinands except for hydrocarbons where DWSs have been used. In addition. Cobalt. data is required for UK studies as climate. These are similar to standards developed in the UPMM (1994) (see section 4.2. In particular. Increasingly lethal concentration (LC50 – 24hr) standards are becoming available for individual species these too could be implemented for site specific species. implementing this value should be considered as many more investigations are available which implement this value.3 Factors Affecting Highway Runoff) and data from studies external to the UK may not be suitable. region. However. which would be suitable for an intermittent evaluation of highway discharge. This must be updated in order for the assessment to be consistent if possible. To expand the use of EQSs it is suggested that a tiered approach is implemented in the DMRB stage 2 assessment so that a river is not only defined by its RE class but also its drinking water category.3. if and when EQSs for these additional determinands do emerge for the UK they should be implemented. If the current CIRIA methodology of water quality assessment is to be pursued for the additional determinands then more data is required in the database specifically for the following determinands: Manganese.4). Recommendations In this study preliminary results for pollutant loading rates have been presented based on world wide studies. and land use have been shown to affect pollutant loading rates (see 3. Nickel and Iron.

1993) as a regulatory instrument. short-duration events. storm water tanks and other specific waste water discharges.e. Such an approach has been shown to be possible in this report (see section 4.2 Proposed Assessment) centred on improvements that could be made to the CIRIA methodology without departing too far from the original methodology. It may therefore be argued that an integrated approach is required for all intermittent discharges i. The EU have introduced the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD. This directive includes steps to improve unsatisfactory intermittent discharges (UIDs).Industrial Project Recommendations Much of the previous section (5. however. However the complete methodology could be open to debate depending on how highway discharges are defined. As such discharges result in highload. 67 .3. It is generally understood that this directive was implemented to limit discharges from CSOs. Intermittent EQSs exist for DO and ammonia currently. Highway runoff is not waste water in the original sense but highway runoff can most definitely result in an unsatisfactory discharge as has been shown in this report. since the implementation of the WFD and the growing importance of river ecology becoming more widely understood it is expected that more intermittent EQS will be developed. including highway discharges.1). requiring member states to limit pollution to all watercourses. which can have a disproportionate impact on river ecology.

Shamseldin.W.J.R. good will and patience throughout this investigation. West for his perseverance with my constant questioning. R. D. 68 . Coates and Prof. Dr.E.Industrial Project Acknowledgements 8. Thanks also go to Dr A. many thanks go to Dr J. Jason Kirby for their enthusiastic supervision. Knight. L. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Olivier Drieu and Dr. Dr. Martin. In addition.

de l’hydrologie urbaine et de CIRIA Report 142 (1994). Malina Jr. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems – best practice manual CIRIA Report 609 (2004). Barret M. Centre for Research in Water Resources.J. J.1295-1302..F...J. Karlsson S. Irish Jr.E. Reviewing the impact of metals and PAHson macroinvertebrates in urban watercourses. CIRIA Report 522 (2000). Barret M.E.E. Barret M. structural and water quality advice 69 .R. Kneale P. References WSAtkins (2002): Highways agency area 2. Collins E. 343-350..(1998): Characterisation of highway runoff in Austin Texas area. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. Control of Pollution from Highway Drainage Discharges. Chapman D 1992. Water Science & Technology.758. Fox K.. Sheperd W. 343-366. Charbeneau R. Water Quality Assessments -A guide to the use of biota. Speciation of Heavy Metals in Road Runoff and Roadside Total Deposition.2nd Edition.Hydraulic. Boxall J.L. (1997): Encycolopedie l’assainissementt. Hakansson K. Zuber R. Kneale P (2002).. Allard B. 7 (2) 221-233.J. 70 (7). Ref: 4595004.. Nilsson U.(1998): A review and evaluation of literature pertaining to the highway runoff and construction... Water Environment Research. stage 3 outfalls and soakaways study water quality assessment. Chocat B. Backstrom M. Changes in water quality parameters due to in sewer processes. Guymer I. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 2. Progress in Physical Geography 26.design manual for England and Wales CIRIA Report 523 (2001).. Bealsey G. (1998): Evaluation of methods for estimating stormwater pollutant loads. (2003).C. (2003). Charbeneau R. 124 (2) 131-137. Online Report 95-5.D. Science of the Total Environment 147. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. sediments and water in environmental monitoring. pp236-270. Sustainable Drainage Systems. Malina Jr.F. J. Charbeneau R. B.Industrial Project References 9. 47 (7-8). Lavoiser TEC &DOC.. (2003): Investigating the Influence of Heavy metals on macroinvertebrate assemblages using partial canonical correspondence analysis. UNESCO/WHO. Bealsey G.

603 . (1998). Barret M. Charbeneau R.. Highways Agency. ISBN 0 948540 94 X). (2000).. (1983). Hulme P. Department of Transport. Drapper D. Shokouhian M.. Williams P. Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway Stormwater Runoff.: Use of Regression Models for Analysing Highway Storm-Water Loads. and zinc in urban runoff from specific sources.gov. Shelley P.F.http://www. FOUNDATION FOR WATER RESEARCH (1998). 126 (4) 313-320.3. 70 . Office of Research and Development Report No. Chemosphere. Jubb S.environment.J.agency.. Cooke D. 997-1009. Malina Jr. Driscoll E. and Strecker E. Davis A. B. 44. HMSO (1991): Water Resources Act 1991 (c. Federal Highways Administration. EC (1978): EC Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC). Tomlinson R. Journal of Environmental Engineering.P.pdf EC (1976): Dangerous Substances Directive (76/464/EEC). 124 (10).W. copper. Irish Jr..uk/commondata/105385/bio_metho d_09_03_559881..E. J. Guymer I and Martin J. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (1993.L.M.D. (1999): Flood Estimation Handbook. Ni S. A Basic Course in Statistics. EA (2002): On-line Publication..General Quality Assessment of rivers – biology.Industrial Project References Clarke G. UPM 2nd ed: FWR. (2000): Pollutant Concentrations in road runoff: Southeast Queensland case study.10: “Water Quality and Drainage”. Amended 1998) 11. 57) HMSO (1996): The Surface Waters (Abstraction for Drinking Water) (Classification) Regulations 1996. HMSO (1994): The Surface Waters (River Ecosystem) (Classification) Regulations 1994 Statutory Instrument 1994 No. (1990). Statutory Rule 1996 No.. The Urban Pollution Management Manual. cadmium. Loading estimates of lead. Considering the impact of intermittent discharges when modelling overflows.. Second Edition Edward Arnold Publishing. Water Science and Technology Vol 38 No 10 pp 23–30 © IWA Publishing. Journal of Environmental Engineering. FWHA-RD-88009.E. 1057 HMSO (1980): The Highways Act Institute of Hydrology.

Suverkropp C. The Journal 17. Borroum S.. Water Resources 34 (18). Singh A. Preene M. Le Cloiric P. (1994). 59-64. (2000) EPSRC Mitchell G. Pagotto C. Lockyer J. Pontier H. McDonald A. Science of the Total Environment. Konishi T.E. May E. The concentration. 319 pp 215-224. The Science of the Total Environment. Sci.. 235. Water Science & Technology.39(2). Jounal of Environmental Engineering. copper. Sansalone JJ. Williams J.. (2001): Symposium on the pollution of water sources from road runoff. 47 (7-8).. (1999): Evaluation of pollutants loadings in the runoff waters from a major rural highway. Lockyer J... Tsuruho K. Sansalone JJ. (1999) In-situ performance of a passive treatment system for metal source control.. Fregusson J. 189/190 pp 331-378. “The Quality of Urban Stormwater in Britain and Europe: Database and Recommended Values For Strategic Planning Models”. 193-200.. Legret M. 975. Tel Aviv University. 71 . pp.B. 4446-4454.V. Kim N.. (2003): Evaluation of Factors influencing diffusion of pollutant loads in urban highway runoff.. (2004): Progressive changes in water and sediment quality in a wetland system for control of highway runoff. Shinya M. Pitt R..D.. (2003): Impact of Annual Average Daily Traffic on Highway Runoff Pollutant Concentrations. McDonald A. Santhalingan S. (2000) EPSRC Pagotto C. Tech. Wat. Brassington R. (2000). and zinc in the atmosphere of an urban environment. (1999): Highway Drainage Systems. Comparison of the Hydraulic and Quality of Highway Runoff Water According to the Type of Pavement. 227-232.Industrial Project References Kayhanian M. 143-150. N1. Legret M. 144 179-189. Ishikawa M. Sci lecture papers series ISSN 1353114X. Mitchell G. S G Buchberger. distribution and sources of cadmium...129 (11). lead... The Science of the Total Environment. Fractionation of heavy metals in pavement runoff. “Pollution Hazard from Urban Nonpoint Sources: A GIS Model to Support Strategic Environmental Planning in the UK”. (2003): Potential impacts from civil engineering works. The Science of the Total Environment. S R Al-Abed (1996).

Tsuchinaga T. Public Health Bulletin No.. United States Public Health Service. Wong KM.B. (1997).L. (1998): Characterisation and pollutant loading estimation for highway runoff. A study of Pollution and Natural Purification of the Ohio River. Wrc Ref:UC 6037. 317. III. (2000): Charecterisation of heavy meatls and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban highway runoff.D.W. 123(8) 737-745 72 . Evett J. 210-208. Wong K.. Strecker EW. Yamada Y.J. Rh) concentrations in road dusts and road side soils from Perth. Streeter H. (2001): A preliminary model for predicting heavy metal contaminant loading form an urban catchment.J.B. GIS to Estimate Stormwater Pollutant Mass Loadings. URS Thorburn Colquhuon.. WRc. Oldham C. (2003): Anthropogenic Platinum group elements (Pt. Highways Agency. The Science of the Total Environment. Identification of Outfalls Posting a Pollution Risk. Kitano M.. 2000. 124(7) 584-592...S. Stenstrom MK.M... Treasury Department.. Water Research Centre (2002): Long term monitoring of pollution fro highway runoff: final report. 42 (7-8).. Murray F. (1997): GIS to Estimate Stormwater Pollutant Mass Loadings. Allen C. 123(8) 737-745 Wu J.. Pd. Western Australia.K.. Yuan Y. Hall K. 299-307. Journal of Environmental Engineering. Ishikawa M.. The Science of the Total Environment. (1925).. 266. Whitley J. 146... (1999): Pollution from highway runoff: the Highways Agency approach. 18.W. Water Science & Technology. Sci lecture papers series ISSN 1353114X. Journal of Environmental Engineering. and Phelps E.. Strenstrom M. Strecker E.. Factors Concerned in the Oxidation and Reaeration. 121-135 Wilson P.Industrial Project References Shinya M. Saunders W.

021 6.0 .9. Appendix Class Dissolved Oxygen (percentage saturation) 10 percentile <10 RE1 80 2.3 0.5 0.0 10-50 50<H<100 >100 <10 RE4 50 8 2.5 6.0 .Industrial Project Appendix 10.9.9.0 10-50 50<H<100 >100 RE5 20 15 9 Table 18: River Ecosystem Classification 5 22 40 112 5 22 40 112 5 22 40 112 5 22 40 112 2000 2000 300 1000 500 300 1000 30 200 300 500 30 300 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/l) 90 percentile Total Ammonia (mgN/l) 90 percentile Un-ionised Ammonia (mgN/l) 95 percentile pH lower limit as 5 percentile upper limit as 95 percentile Hardness mg/l CaCo3 Dissolved Copper * (µg/l) 95 percentile Total Zinc * (µg/l) 95 percentile 73 .0 10-50 50-100 >100 <10 RE2 70 4 0.6 0.25 0.0 10-50 50<H<100 >100 <10 RE3 60 6 1.021 6.0 .0 .021 6.9.

2 0.6 0.Industrial Project Appendix Relation ship between dowstream pollutant concentration and rainfall (mm) Pb 20 18 Ratio {Downstream:EQS} concentration 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 Rainfall (mm) 15 20 Hydro carbons TSS COD BOD NH4-N Cd Ni Fe Cr Figure 13 Relationship between the of runoff coefficient and downstream pollutant concentration (expressed as ratio of EQS) Pb 20 Ratio {Downstream:EQS} concentration 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Cr Ni Cd Fe TSS COD BOD NH4-N Runoff Coefficient Figure 14 Hydro carbons 74 .8 1.

5 Low flow: Q95 (m3/s) NH4-N Hydro carbons Figure 15 Relationship between downstream pollutant concentration (expressed as a ratio to corresponding EQS) and low flow (Q95) 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 <5000 5000-15000 15000-30000 >30000 Pb Cr Ni Cd Fe TSS COD BOD NH4-N Hydro carbons Ratio {Downstream:EQS} concentration Annual Average Traffic Flow Figure 16 75 .4 0.Industrial Project Appendix Relationship between downstream pollutant concentration (expressed as a ratio to corresponding EQS) and low flow (Q95) 5 11.3 0.74 Pb Cr Ratio {Downstream:EQS concentration} 4 Cd Ni Fe 3 2 TSS COD 1 BOD 0 0 0.2 0.1 0.

1 11.74 11.Industrial Project Appendix Relationship between downstream pollutant concentration and RE class of watercourse 5 Ratio {Downstream:EQS} concentration 46.74 Pb Cr 4 Cd Ni Fe 3 2 TSS COD 1 BOD NH4-N 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Hydro carbons RE class (1-4) Figure 17 Relationship between downstream pollutant concentration (expressed as a ratio to corresponding EQS) and hardness 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 <50 50-100 100-150 150-200 200-250 Ratio {Downstream:EQS} concentration Pb Cr Ni Hardness (mg/l CaCO3) Figure 18 76 .10 46.

Industrial Project Appendix Relationship between the ratio of runoff volume and river flow to downstream pollutant concentration (expressed as ratio of EQS) 25 Ratio {Downstream:EQS} concentration 20 Cd Pb Cr 15 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ratio {runoff:river} Volume Ni Fe TSS COD BOD NH4-N Hydro carbons Figure 19 77 .