1、API PUBLXLbb9 94 m 0732290 0543952 b9T m Results of a Retail Gasoline Outlet And Commercial Parking Lot Storm Water Runoff Study This study was funded by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and the American Petroleum Institute API PUBLICATION 1669 DECEMBER 1994 American Petroleum Institu
2、te 1220 L Street. Northwest rT Washington, D.C. 20005 Results of a Retail Gasoline Outlet And Commercial Parking Lot Storm Water Runoff Study Manufacturing, Distribution and Marketing Department API PUBLICATION 1669 DECEMBER 1994 American Petroleum Institute API PUBLrLbb9 94 m 0732270 0543954 462 m
3、SPECIAL NOTES 1. API PUBLICATIONS NECESSARILY ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF A GENERAL NATURE. WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED. 2. API IS NOT UNDERTAKING TO MEET THE DUTIES OF EMPLOYERS, MANU- FACTURERS, OR SUPPLIERS TO WARN AND PROPER
4、LY TRAIN AND EQUIP THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND OTHERS EXPOSED, CONCERNING HEALTH AND SAFEY RISKS AND PRECAUTIONS, NOR UNDERTAKING THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS. 3. INFORMATION CONCERNING SAFETY AND HEALTH RISKS AND PROPER TIONS SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM THE EMPLOYER, THE MANUFACTURER
5、OR SUPPLIER OF THAT MATERIAL, OR THE MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET. 4. NOTHING CONTAINED IN ANY API PUBLICATION IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS PRECAUTIONS WITH RESPECT TO PARTICULAR MATERIALS AND CONDI- GRANTING ANY RIGHT, BY IMPLICATION OR OTHERWISE, FOR THE MANU- FACTURE, SALE, OR USE OF ANY METHOD, APPARATUS
6、, OR PRODUCT COV- ERED BY LETTERS PATENT. NEITHER SHOULD ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ITY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LETTERS PATENT. THE PUBLICATION BE CONSTRUED AS INSURING ANYONE AGAINST LIABIL- 5. GENERALLY, API STANDARDS ARE REVIEWED AND REVISED, REAF- FIRMED, OR WITHDRAWN AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS. SOMETIMES
7、 A ONE- TIME EXTENSION OF UP TO TWO YEARS WILL BE ADDED TO THIS REVIEW TER ITS PUBLICATION DATE AS AN OPERATIVE API STANDARD OR, WHERE AN EXTENSION HAS BEEN GRANTED, UPON REPUBLICATION. STATUS OF THE CYCLE. THIS PUBLICATION WILL NO LONGER BE IN EFFECT FIVE YEARS AF- PUBLICATION CAN BE ASCERTAINED FR
8、OM THE API AUTHORING DEPART- MENT TELEPHONE (202) 682-8000. A CATALOG OF API PUBLICATIONS AND MATERIALS IS PUBLISHED ANNUALLY AND UPDATED QUARTERLY BY API, 1220 L STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005. Copyright O 1994 American Petroleum institute i API PUBL*lbb9 94 0732290 0543955 3T9 M FOREWORD API
9、 publications may be used by anyone desiring to do so. Every effort has been made by the Institute to assure the accuracy and reliability of the data contained in them; however, the Institute makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection with this pub- lication and hereby expressly d
10、isclaims any liability or responsibility for loss or damage re- sulting from its use or for the violation of any federal, state, or municipal regulation with which this publication may conflict. Suggested revisions are invited and should be submitted to the director of the Manufac- turing, Distribut
11、ion and Marketing Department, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. . 111 API PUBL*lbb9 94 0732290 054L5b 235 m 0 E OM ATR IX TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY 11 1.0 INTRODUCTION . 1 1.1 Objective 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Other Studies . 3 1.3.1 Sacramento County
12、s Action Plan Demonstration Project 3 1.3.2 National Urban Runoff Program . 4 2.0 WSPNAPI PART I AND PART II STORM WATER RUNOFF STUDIES . 5 2.1 Literature Search 5 2.2 Selection of RGOs and Test Sites 6 2.3 Selection of Parking Lots and Test Sites . 7 2.4 Testing Methodology . 7 2.5 Sampling Procedu
13、res . 9 2.6 Analytical Testing 9 2.7 Quality Assurance and Quality Control 9 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . 10 3.1 Analytical Results . 10 3.2 Data Comparisons 11 Comparison of Results from RGO Pump Islands and Driveways 12 Comparison of Results from RGOs, Parking Lots, and NURP 12 3.2.1 3.2.2 4.0 CON
14、CLUSIONS . 13 5.0 REFERENCES 14 1 API PUBL*Lbb9 94 0732270 0541757 171 GEOMATRIX EXECUTTVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of a two-part study of constituents present in simulated storm water runoff fiom six retail gasoline outlets (RGs) and four commercial parking lots. The objective of th
15、e study is to characterize storm water runoff from RGs and to compare the results with runoff from commercial parking lots and published urban “background“ values. The study was funded by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and the American Petroleum Institute (API). The study demonstrat
16、es that for the constituents analyzed, median event mean concentrations (EMCs) in storm water runoff fiom normally operated and maintained RGOs are no higher than those in runoff fiom commercial parking lots. Additionally, median EMCs of total suspended solids, copper, lead, and zinc in runoff from
17、RGs and parking lots are no higher than background levels present in urban runoff as established by the National Urban Runoff Program. Furthermore, there are no significant differences in median EMCs in runoff from RGO pump islands and driveways for the constituents analyzed. These results indicate
18、that fiieling activities at normally operated and maintained RGOs do not contribute additional significant concentrations of measured constituents in storm water runof In 1987, Section 402(p) was added to the Clean Water Act to establish a framework for addressing storm water discharges under the Na
19、tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) progrm. Storm water discharges from commercial facilities, such as RGOs and parking lots, are not included under the initial regulations. However, regulations are to be promulgated that are expected to increase the number and types of dischargers
20、 required to obtain NPDES permit coverage for storm water discharges. EPA, in a report to Congress PA, 1993), identified several business categories that are not currently regulated by NPDES permits. Automotive service facilities, including RGOs, are included on EPAs list of potential Phase II permi
21、ttees. 11 m GEOMATRIX RESULTS OF A RETAIL GASOLINE OUTLET AND COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT STORM WATER RUNOFF STUDY 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a two-part study of simulated storm water runoff fiom six retail gasoline outlets (RGOs) and four commercial parking lots. Part I was con
22、ducted by Hart Crowser, Inc. (Hart Crowser) and characterized simulated storm water runoff from five RGOs. Part II was conducted by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Geomatrix) and characterized simulated storm water runoff from four commercial parking lots and one RG. The study was fiinded by the Wester
23、n States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and the American Petroleum Institute (MI). 1.1 Objective The objective of this study is to characterize storm water runoff from RGOs and to compare the results with runoff fiom commercial parking lots and published urban “background“ values. 1.2 Background In 19
24、72, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act or CWA) was amended to provide that any discharge of pollutants from a point source to Waters of the United States is effectively prohibited unless it is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syste
25、m (“DES) permit. As more signiticant sources of water poilution were brought under control, the impact of pollutants in storm water became more noticeable. Water quality studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s identified urban runoff as a source of pollution. In response to these studies, the 1987
26、amendments to the Water Quality Act added Section 402(p). This section established a comprehensive two- phased approach for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to follow in addressing storm ZOlS2498WSPA 1 - API PUBL*:Lbb9 94 0732290 0543959 T44 9 GEOMATRIX water discharges. Five types of
27、storm water discharges are covered under the Phase I program. Dischargers within these five categories, listed below, were required to obtain permit coverage before October 1, 1992: A discharge for which a pennit has been issued prior to February 4, 1987; A discharge associated with industrial activ
28、ities; A discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer system serving a population of 250,000 or more; A discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer system serving a population of 100,000 or more, but less than 250,000; or A storm water discharge determined by the EPA Administrator or the Stat
29、e to contribute to a violation of a water quality standard or to be a significant contributor of pollutants to the waters of the United States. Discharges from commercial facilities, such as RGOs and parking lots, are not included under the Phase I regulations. However, Phase II regulations to be pr
30、omulgated are expected to increase the numbers and types of dischargers that are required to obtain NPDES permit coverage for storm water discharges. EPA, in a draft Phase II report to Congress PA, 1999, identified several business categories that are not currently regulated by NPDES permits. Automo
31、tive senrice facilities, including RGs, are included on EPAs list of potential Phase II permittees. It should be noted that, according to the EPA draft Phase II report, the list of potential permittees was created using limited reliable data on storm water problems associated with Phase II sources n
32、ationwide. In order to provide data regarding storm water runoff from potential Phase II facilities, WSPA and API commissioned this study. 2 API PUBL*lbb9 94 W 0732290 0541bO 766 GE0 M ATR IX 1.3 Other Studies This study utilized the results from a recently published RGO runoff study titled Action P
33、lan Demonstration Project, Demonstration of Gasoline Fueling Station Best Management Practices, Phase I Report (September, 1993), prepared by Unbe h every 15 minutes during the 45 minute test e One composite sample from the runoffpumped into the 55-gallon drum. In addition to these samples, a backgr
34、ound sample of the on-site water supply was collected at the point of discharge from the simulated rainfall application apparatus, and a duplicate oil and grease sample was collected at each test site. Samples were obtained using cleaned sampling equipment and were placed into laboratory-supplied an
35、d certified “clean“ samplinc containers. Collected samples were labeled, placed on ice in a cooler, and maintained under proper chain-of-custody procedures. A trip blank sample was included in each of the sample coolers used for this study. 2.6 Analytical Testing GTEL Environmental Laboratories, a s
36、tate-certified analytical laboratory located in Torrance, California analyzed samples from RGOs 1 through 5. Del Mar Analytical, a state-certified laboratory located in Imine, California analyzed samples from RGO 6 and all four parking lots. Laboratory analyses were conducted in accordance with appr
37、opriate EPA methods. The constituents, analytical test methods, and detection limits used for the WSPNAPI study are listed in Table 4. 2.7 Both parts of the WSPA/API study described herein developed and implemented field and laboratory quality assurancekpality control (QMQC) procedures. Field QNQC i
38、ncludes following strict sampling protocols as specified in the project work plans and standard operating procedures. These Quality Assurance and Quality Control 20 LLS2498iWSPA 9 API PUBL+lbb9 94 O732290 054l9b7 010 9 m GEOMATRIX procedures include an evaluation of cross-contamination through the a
39、nalysis of trip blanks. Laboratory QNQC addressed the following: b Accuracy (analysis of matrix spike recoveries on each batch of samples and regular analysis of certified samples) b Precision (analysis of matrix spike duplicates) Contamination (analysis of method and filter blanks) Holding Time (sp
40、ecified holding times associated with each chemical method) b Certified Methods of Analysis (EPA or State certified methods of analysis) . 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The following sections present the results of the WSPNAPI simulated runoff study and provide sumaries of analytical data from Sacramen
41、to Countys Action Plan Demonstration Project and NURP. Also presented are data plots that provide comparisons between the pump islands and driveway RGO results and between RGOs, parking lots, and NURP. 3.1 Analytical Results The analytical results of simulated runoff samples collected fiom RGOs as p
42、art of this study are summarized in Tables 5a and 5b. These tables present the results of both the Part I study conducted by Hart Crowser (RGOs 1 through 5) and the Part II study conducted by Geomatrix (RG 6). Tables 6a and 6b summarize the results of laboratory analyses of simulated runoff samples
43、from commercial parking lots. Tables 7 and 8, respectively, summarize the results from Sacramento Countys Action Plan Demonstration Project and median concentrations reported in NURP. 10 API PUBL*lbb9 94 0732270 0543768 T57 W 3.2 Data Comparisons This report compares analytical data from the WSPNAPI
44、 RGs and parking lots, the Action Plan Demonstration Project, and NURP using a series of box plots, Figures 3 through 24. Box plots are a simple and useful method of data comparison because they effectively describe the characteristics of single groups of data and reveal differences between groups.
45、The components of a typical box plot are presented on Figure 2. Shown on this figure are the 25th m GE OM ATR I X Whisker -4 75th Percentile 50th Porcenfila (mrdlan) 25lh Percantile -JA inimum Figure 2. Components of a Typical Box Plot and 75th percentiles of the data, which form the top and bottom
46、of the box. Therefore, by definition, 25 percent of the data have a value equal to or less than the bottom line of the box, and 75 percent have a value equal to or less than the top of the box. The middle horizontal line within the box is the median, or 50th percentile (one-half of the data values a
47、re equal to or less than the median, and one-half are equal to or greater). Lines (called whiskers) extend vertically from the top and bottom of each box to the maximum and minimum data values. In many cases, the boxes shown on Figures 3 through 24 are collapsed into a single horizontai line without
48、 a whisker extending to the minimum value. The principal reason for the shape of these plots is the presence of a large number of non-detect values in the data set. When this occurs, a single horizontal line is drawn at the detection limit, and the whisker and box segments below the reporting limit
49、are masked. Although Hart Crowser and Geomatrix collected and analyzed both discrete and composite samples for this study, only the composite results are used for comparison purposes in this report. Composite results are normally considered more meaningfl than individual discrete results when evaluating pollutant loading in storm water discharges. It should be noted that the composite sampling 201S1498WSPA 11 API PUBL*lbbS 74 0732290 054Lb9 993 m GE OM ATR I X methodology used for the WSPNAPI study is equivalent to the event mean concentration (EMC) repor
copyright@ 2008-2019 麦多课文库（www.mydoc123.com）网站版权所有
备案/许可证编号：苏ICP备17064731号-1