Environmental Geology

, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 571–582 | Cite as

Potential for localized groundwater contamination in a porous pavement parking lot setting in Rhode Island

  • Thomas B. Boving
  • Mark H. Stolt
  • Janelle Augenstern
  • Brian Brosnan
Original Article

Abstract

The control of polluted surface runoff and the assessment of possible impacts on groundwater is a concern at the local and regional scale. On this background, a study investigates possible impacts of organic and inorganic pollutants (including bacteria) originating from a permeable asphalt parking lot on the water quality immediately beneath it. The functioning of the permeable pavement, including clogging and restricted vertical percolation, was also evaluated. Four nested sample ports (shallow and deep) were installed below low- and high-traffic areas, including one port outside the parking lot. At least initially there was a good hydraulic connection between the parking surface and the shallow sample ports. The presence of a geotextile layer at the base of the parking lot structure, however, was identified in lab tests as one factor restricting vertical percolation to the deeper ports. Clogging of the permeable surface was most pronounced in heavy traffic areas and below snow pile storage areas. Corroborated by high electric conductivity and chloride measurements, sand brought in by cars during winter was the principal cause for clogging. No bacteria or BOD were found in percolating water. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were present at concentrations near minimum detection limit. Nutrients (nitrate and phosphate) were being leached into the ground via the permeable parking lot surface at annual flux rates of 0.45–0.84 g/m2/year. A multi-species tracer test demonstrated a retention capacity of the permeable parking lot structure of >90% for metals and 27% for nutrients, respectively.

Keywords

Permeable pavement Non-point source pollution Ground water quality Treatment Runoff 

References

  1. Baladés EA (1992) Evaluation des flux de pollution transitant dans un type de solution compensatoire. Conférence Novatech, Lyon 189–190:66–75Google Scholar
  2. Borst M, Selvakumar A (2003) Particle-associated microorganisms in storm water runoff. Water Res 37:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boving TB (2002) Chemical retention capacity of a newly constructed roadway runoff retention pond system. URI Transport. Cent., Kingston, RI, p 65Google Scholar
  4. Cahill T, Adams M, Marm C (2005) Stormwater Management with Porous Pavements. Gov. Engin., March-April 2005, pp 14–19, http://www.govengr.com
  5. Colbeck SC (1978) Physical aspects of water flow through snow. Adv Hydrosci 11:165–206Google Scholar
  6. Davis AP, Shokouhian M, Ni S (2001) Loadings of lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc in urban runoff from specific sources. Chemosphere 44(5):997–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dannecker W, Schöder B, Stechmann H (1990) Organic and inorganic substances in highway tunnel exhaust air. Sci Tot Env 93:293–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dempsey B, Swisher D (2003) Evaluation of porous pavement and infiltration in Centre County, PA. In: World water and environmental resources congress 2003. 2003. Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Dickerman, DC (1984) Aquifer tests in the stratified drift, Chipuxet River basin, Rhode Island. US Geol. Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 83-4231, p 39Google Scholar
  10. Eaton AD, Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE (eds) (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th edn. Am. Pub. Health Assoc., Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoffman CD, Latimer JS, Mills GL, Quinn JG (1982) Petroleum hydrocarbons in urban runoff from a commercial land use area. J Water Pollut Control 11:1517–1525Google Scholar
  12. Howard KWF, Beck PJ (1993) Hydrogeochemical Implications of groundwater contamination by road De-Icing chemicals. J Contam Hydro 12:245–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Latimer JS, Mills GL, Hoffman EJ, Quinn JG (1986) Treatment of solids and petroleum hydrocarbons in storm runoff with an on-site detention basin. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 36:548–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Legret M, Colandini V, Le Marc C (1996) Effects of a porous pavement with reservoir structure on the quality of runoff water and soil. Sci Tot Env 189–190:335–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Legret M, Colandini V (1999) Efffects of a porous pavement with reservoir structure on runoff water: water quality and fate of heavy metals. Water Sci Technol 39:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Legret M, Nicollet M, Miloda P, Colandini V, Raimbault G (1999) Simulation of heavy metal pollution from stormwater infiltration through a porous pavement with reservoir structure. Water Sci Technol 39:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindesy G, Roberts L, Page W (1992) Inspection and maintenance of infiltration facilities. J Soil Wat Conserv 11–12:481–486Google Scholar
  18. McNally C, DeProspo Philo L, Boving TB (2005) Porous pavement and groundwater quality technical bulletin. In: University of Rhode Island cooperative extension, Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials, p 9, available at http://www.uri.edu/ce/wq
  19. Mahler BJ, van Metre PC, Bashara TJ, Wilson JT, Johns DA (2005) Parking lot sealcoats: an unrecognized source of urban polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ Sci Technol 39(15):5560–5566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maruya KA, Reisebrough RW, Horne AJ (1996) Partitioning of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons between sediments from San Francisco Bay and their porewaters. Environ Sci Technol 30(10):2942–2947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meyer P, Singhal N (2004) Pervious pavement: a literature review. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland, p 67Google Scholar
  22. Millar S, Flinker P, Claytor R (2005) The urban environmental design manual. Rhode Island Department, Environmental Management, p 95Google Scholar
  23. Motelay-Massei A, Garban B, Tiphagne-Larcher K, Chevreuil M, Ollivon D (2006) Mass balance for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the urban watershed of Le Havre (France): transport and fate of PAHs from the atmosphere to the outlet. Water Res 40(10):1995–2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pitt R, Clark S, Parmer K (1994) Protection of Groundwater from Intentional and nonintentional stormwater infiltration. US Environ. Prot. Agency, EPA/600/SR-94/051. PB94-165354AS, Storm and Combined Sewer Program, Cincinnati, OH, p 187Google Scholar
  25. Pitt R, Maestre A, Morquecho R (2004) The national stormwater quality database (NSQD, version 1.1), available at http://www.eng.ua.edu/∼rpitt/Research/ms4/mainms4.shtml
  26. Ranchet J, Penaud F, Le Grand R, Constant A, Obry P, Soudieu B (1993) Comparaison d’une chaussée pavée et d’une chaussée drainante du point de vue de leur comportement hydraulique et de leur impact sur la dépollution des eaux de pluie. Bull liaison Lab des Ponts et Chaussées 188:67–71Google Scholar
  27. Rhode Island Department of Transportation (2000) Design study report for the conceptual and final design of the stormdrain retrofit demonstration project (I-95, Route 10, Route 6 & I-295). Providence, p 122Google Scholar
  28. Sansalone JJ, Buchberger SG (1997) Partitioning and first flush of metals in Urban Roadway stormwater. J Environ Eng 123(2):134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schiff K, Sutula M (2004) Organophosphorous pesticides in storm-water runoff form southern California (USA). Environ Toxicol Chem 23:1815–1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sorme L, Lagerkvist R (2002) Sources of heavy metals in urban wastewater in Stockholm. Sci Total Environ 298:131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stolt MH (1998) Soils affected by aeolian processes in Rhode Island. In: Murray DP (ed) Guidebook to field trips in Rhode Island and adjacent regions of Connecticut and Massachusetts. Department of Geology, Kingston, RI pp A6-1–A6-12Google Scholar
  32. Stotz G, Krauth K (1994) The pollution of effluents from pervious pavements of an experimental highway section: first results. Sci Total Environ 189–190:465–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thelen E, Grover W, Hoiberg A, Haigh T (1972) Investigation of porous pavements for Urban Runoff Control. US EPA Water Pollution Control Research Series, 11034 DUY, p 156Google Scholar
  34. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1983) Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, vol 1, Final Report. NTIS PB84-185552, p 200Google Scholar
  35. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1999) Storm water technology fact sheet porous pavement. office of water, Washington, DC, EPA 832-F-99-023, September 1999, p 6Google Scholar
  36. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002) National primary drinking water regulations. In: 2002 CFR Title 20, vol. 19, Part 141Google Scholar
  37. Urish DW, Spizucoco WJ (1991) Chipuxet aquifer: Characteristics, usage, and management considerations. University of Rhode Island, Department of Civil Environmental Engineering, p 31Google Scholar
  38. Wilde FD (1994) Geochemistry and factors affecting ground water quality at three stormwater –management sited in Maryland. Report of Investigation no. 59. Department of Natural Resources Maryland Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  39. Vaze J, Chiew FHS (2002) Experimental study of pollutant accumulation on an urban road surface. Urban Water 4:379–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas B. Boving
    • 1
  • Mark H. Stolt
    • 2
  • Janelle Augenstern
    • 1
  • Brian Brosnan
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeosciencesUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA
  3. 3.Beta Group, Inc.LincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations