Metals Background Report Table of Contents
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
R. Pitt November 21, 2009 Metals Background Report - Sources of Metals in Watersheds - Table of Contents 1.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS APPLIED TO SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY .................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 METALS CONCENTRATIONS AT OUTFALLS 008 AND 009 AT SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY COMPARED TO OTHER LAND USES .................................. 10 3.0 POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINANTS ............................................................. 34 3.1 Pollutant Strengths of Stormwater Particulates and Sources of Contaminants ................... 40 3.1.1 Background Soils Concentrations Compared to Current Site Permit Limits .......... 51 3.2 Fingerprinting Potential Watershed Metal Sources ............................................................ 52 4.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 56 APPENDIX A: NATIONAL STORMWATER QUALITY DATABASE METALS DATA ....... 1 A.1. Observations .......................................................................................................................... 5 A.2. Land Use and Geographical Region Analyses .................................................................... 11 A.3. Observed Heavy Metals for Different Land Uses ............................................................... 13 A.3.1. Particulate Strength Data for Different Land Used from National MS4 Data ........ 13 A.4. Stormwater Heavy Metals and Land Use Relationships as Described in the Literature ..... 31 APPENDIX B: SOURCES OF URBAN STORMWATER HEAVY METALS ........................... 1 B.1. Chemical Quality of Rocks and Soils ................................................................................... 1 B.2. Atmospheric Sources of Urban Runoff Pollutants ................................................................ 4 B.3. Street Dust and Dirt Pollutant Sources .................................................................................. 8 B.4. Source Area Sheetflow and Particulate Quality Observations during Urban Mass Balance Studies 10 B.4.1. Early Source Area Particulate Quality Observations .............................................. 10 B.4.2. Early Warm Weather Sheetflow Quality Observations .......................................... 12 B.4.3. Source Area Sheetflow Observations during Mass Balance Studies in Birmingham, AL ............................................................................................................................ 17 B.4.4. Source Area Sheetflow Pollutant Concentrations during Wisconsin Urban Area Mass Balance Studies .............................................................................................. 21 B.4.5. Roof Runoff ............................................................................................................. 28 B.4.6. Highway and other Roadway Runoff ...................................................................... 32 B.4.7. Treated Wood .......................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX C: EROSION, WASHOFF, AND TRANSPORT OF STORMWATER POLLUTANTS FROM SOURCE AREAS TO RECEIVING WATERS ............................ 1 C.1. Erosion Losses of Watershed Soils ....................................................................................... 1 C.2. Erosion Potential and Sediment Transport at Santa Susana Field Laboratory ...................... 4 C.2.1. Sediment Transport ................................................................................................... 7 C.2.2. Slope Protection ........................................................................................................ 8 1 C.3. Transport of Particulates in Drainage Systems ..................................................................... 8 C.3.1. Scour of Previously Deposited Materials ................................................................ 10 C.3.2. Erodibility of Previously Settled Material after Consolidation ............................... 11 2 1.0 Summary and Conclusions Applied to Santa Susana Field Laboratory The purpose of this report is to examine likely “background” sources and concentrations of metals in stormwater runoff at The Boeing Company’s (Boeing) Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), located in the Simi Hills near the Los Angeles/Ventura County line, with focus on NPDES stormwater monitoring Outfalls 008 and 009, and to a lesser extent, Outfalls 001 and 002 (using data collected between August 2004 and March 2009). “Background” is defined here as stormwater runoff conditions that would be expected at natural, undisturbed reference watersheds with similar geology, rainfall, sediment yields, and other key characteristics to the SSFL site. Metal concentrations from typical urban runoff are also discussed. The intended use of this information is for comparison with runoff quality at the SSFL as well as with the SSFL NPDES permit limits1, for submittal to Regional Board NPDES staff for their consideration. An important aspect of likely background metal concentration descriptions is an understanding of the sources of the contaminants of interest. If the sources are natural or uncontrollable, such as uncontaminated soils or atmospheric deposition from regional sources, these should also be recognized. Stormwater heavy metals have long been investigated as important pollutants discharged to urban receiving waters. The effects of metals on urban water resources and the environment, especially through contaminated stream sediments and effects on the benthos, are summarized by Burton and Pitt (2001) and Burton, et al. (2000), amongst others. Appropriate interest is therefore directed towards identifying the sources of these urban heavy metals and their treatability. This paper reviews SSFL stormwater metal characteristics, mostly as reported by the SSFL stormwater outfall monitoring, as well as regional (e.g., published data from the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project [SCCWRP] and Los Angeles County) and nationwide (e.g., the National Stormwater Quality Database [Pitt, et al. 2009]) stormwater monitoring data. Heavy metals in stormwater originate from several sources, including natural soil components, rainfall and dry atmospheric deposition from regional activities, and local activities taking place in the land uses in the watershed. There is substantial information describing these different sources and activities, but there is much confusion and misunderstanding concerning how the metals from these different sources move through the system and contribute to outfall discharges. Some of this supporting information is therefore also presented in appendices to this report. 1 The terms “permit limits” and “benchmarks” are used interchangeably throughout this report because the SSFL NPDES permit threshold values are currently benchmarks for some outfalls and effluent limits for others. This report is not intended to be a regulatory guidance or compliance assessment document. It is a technical study that compares these NPDES permit threshold values, along with SSFL stormwater discharge monitoring data, to stormwater quality monitoring results from various nationwide and regional studies, for the purpose of addressing key issues related to the problem of defining “background” levels in stormwater. 3 The following are the major conclusions from this evaluation of site metal conditions, pertaining to typical background conditions and sources of the heavy metals at the SSFL watersheds draining to Outfalls 008 and 009. 1) Metal concentrations at SSFL Outfalls 008 and 009 compared to other land uses: The metals with the most frequent exceedances2 of the current permit limits at the SSFL 008 and 009 outfalls include lead, mercury, and copper. Antimony, nickel, thallium, and zinc have no measured concentrations above these benchmarks. Cadmium was measured above its benchmark value once in 30 total observations at outfall 009 and at no time in 19 observations at outfall 008. In all cases, except for mercury, the percentage of historic concentrations above current SSFL benchmarks at Outfall 008 and 009 are less than, or the same, as the lowest exceedance percentages shown for any of the NSQD (National Stormwater Quality Database) land uses. Also, the mercury median and average values for the detected site data are less than the median and average concentrations contained in the NSQD for any land use category, including open space. Data from a 2007 SCCWRP study showed that the regional wet weather metals concentrations in the creeks studied within natural watersheds were significantly less than the values obtained from the regional developed watersheds. The natural area stormwater metals concentrations were generally one order of magnitude lower compared to the concentrations from the developed areas (with the exception of TSS). The SCCWRP monitoring sites within these natural watersheds were between 700 and 2,300 acres, while SSFL Outfall 1, 2, 8, and 9 watersheds were 603, 914, 62, and 536 acres, respectively. SSFL outfall metal concentrations were comparable to the concentrations measured at these undeveloped watersheds. SCCWRP researchers also noted that the California Toxic Rules (CTR) criteria were originally based on dissolved concentrations and that the rule includes a simple conversion procedure to estimate applicable total concentrations. However, the