2FCST f)

Technical Report No. 153 Category ~~E, 03-C, 04-A, 06-B

REPORT DOCUMENTATION FORMWATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTERUniversity of Hawal I at Manoa

9Grant Agency

SNo. ofPages viii + 36

6

May 1983

6No. of 17NO. ofTables 4 Fiqures

"ReportDate

Water Quality of AirportStorm Runoff

1ReportNumber

3Title

BAuthor (.s)

Dr. Gordon L. DuganMs. Elizabeth Christakos-Comack

Office of Water Policy,U.S. Department of the Interior

lOGrant/Contract No.14-34-0001-1113; A-086-HI

1 1 Descriptors: "Storm runoff, *Water supply, *Water quality standards, Watersampling, Pollutant identification, Nonpoint pollution source, Heavy metals,HawaiiIdentifiers: *Honolulu International Airport, General Lyman Field, KahuluiAirport, Keahole Airport, Lihue Airport

IIZAbstract (Purpose, method, results, conclusions)

The quality of natural and induced storm water runoff from severalsmaller public airports in Hawaii (air traffic volume of approximately 130to over 350 airplanes/day) was compared to results from the previous Phase Istudy of the Honolulu International Airport that handles daily nearly 900airplanes. The mean annual rainfall of these airports ranges from approxi­mately 381 rom (15 in.) to nearly 3 251 rom (128 in.). Two basic storm qual­ity monitoring schemes were incorporated: the wet season and the dry season.The wet-season monitoring involved collecting storm runoff samples from pavedsurfaces during and following rainfall events at a specific airport. Thedry-season monitoring scheme consisted of enclosing a 0.25-m2 (2.69-ft 2

)

area, applying deionized water, and then collecting the wash water, leachedchemicals, and sediments by a hand bilge pump. As was the case for the stormrunoff quality from the previous study of the Honolulu International Airport,the runoff from the smaller airports also contained mercury and turbiditythat significantly exceeded the primary drinking water regulations, whileconcentrations of phenol and carbon chloroform extract definitely indicatedthat petroleum-derived products would be too high (and expensive to remove)for consideration as an alternate drinking water supply. However, the water,if collected and stored, could serve as a source of subpotable water.

2540 Dole Street, Holmes Hall 283 • Honolulu, Hawaii· U.S.A.

WATER QUALITY OF AIRPORT STORM RUNOFFPHASE II

Gordon L. Dugan

Technical Report No. 153

May 1983

Research Project Technical Completion Reportfor

Quality Considerations for Use of Airport Storm Water Runoff as anAlternate Water Supply~ Phase r and II

Project A-Q86-HIGrant Agreement No.: 14-34-0001~1113

Principal Investigators: Michael J. ChunGordon L. Dugan

Prepared forUN I TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE I.NTER lOR

The work upon which this report is based was supported in part by federalfunds provided by the United States Department of the Interior, as autho­rized under the Water Research and Development Act of 1978, as amended.

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCIi CENTERUn ivers i ty of Hawa i i at Manoa

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

AUTHOR:

Dr. Gordon L. DuganProfessor of Civil EngineeringDepartment of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa2540 Dole StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96822

Contents of this publication do not necessarily reflectthe views and policies of the Office of Water Researchand Technology, U. S. Department of the Interior, nordoes mention of trade names or conunercial products con­stitute their endorsement or recommendation for use bythe U. S. Government.

$4.00/copyChecks payable to: Research Corporation, University of Hawaii

Mail to: University of Hawaii at ManoaWater Resources Research Center2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall 283Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

Tel.: ($08) 948-7847 or -7848

ABSTRACT

The quality of natuPal and induced storm water runoff from several

smaller public airports in Hawa.i'i (air traffic volume of approximately 130

to over 350 airplanes per day) was corrrpared to results from the previous

Phase I study of the Honolulu International Airport that handles daily

nearly 900 airplanes. The mean annual rainfall at these airports ranges

from approximately 381 mrn (15 in.) to nearly 3 251 mrn (128 in.). Two basic

storm quality monitoring schemes were incorporated, the wet season and the

dry season. The wet season monitoring involved collecting storm runoff

samples from paved surfaces during and following rainfall events at a spe­

cific airport. The dry season monitoring scheme consisted of enclosing a

0.25-m 2 (2.69-ft 2) area, applying deionized water, and then collecting the

wash water, leached chemicals, and sediments by a hand bilge pump. As was

the case for the storm runoff quality from the previous study of the Hono­

lulu International Airport, the runoff from the smaller airports also con­

tained mercury and turbidity that significantly exceeded the primary

drinking water regulations, while concentrations of phenol and carbon chlo­

roform extract definitely indicated that petroleum-derived products would

be too high-and expensive to remove-for consideration as an alternate

drinking water supply. However, the water, if collected and stored, could

serve as a source of subpotable water.

vii

CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF PHASE I RESULTS..

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA .

ABSTRACT. • . .

INTRODUCTI ON. .

PURPOSE AND SCOPE . .

Honolulu InternationalGeneral Lyman Field..Keahole Airport..Kahului Airport.Lihue Airport ..

Airport

v

1

2

2

5

5

8

8

9

. . . . . 10

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGYWet-Season Monitoring.Dry-Season Monitoring..

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...Dry-Season Monitoring.Wet-Season Monitoring.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

REFERENCES.

APPENDICES.

Figures

11

1213

1418

19

20

22

23

25

1. General Location of Project Airport, State of Hawaili 62. Map of Honolulu International Airport, O'ahu, Hawaili. . 73. Map of General Lyman Field, Hilo, Hawaili . . . . . . . . . 94. Map of Keahole Airport, Kona, HawaPi . . .. ..... 105. Map of Kahului Airport, Maui. . . . . . . 116. Map of Lihue Airport, Kauali. . . . . . 12

viii

Tables

1. Approximate Direct Nautical DistanceBetween State of Hawaii Airports ..

2. Water Quality of Storm Runoff at Airportsin Hawaiii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Results of Dry-Season Washing Sequence atAirports in Hawaili .

4. Theoretical Required Depth of Rainfall to Meet DrinkingWater Quality Regulations Based on Dry-Season WashingSequence Results at Airports in Hawaii ...•.....

6

16

17

21

INTRODUCTION

The concern with obtaining adequate supplies of water because of the

continuing depletion of water resources in many areas of the United States

clearly emphasizes the need for the development of additional water supplies

and/or the conservation of existing water supplies. The collection of storm

runoff that is normally channeled for direct disposal can be an additional

or supplemental source of water for areas experiencing water shortages.

Rooftop catchment of rainfall into cisterns in water-short areas has been

long practiced as a source for potable water. However, even though interest

has been expressed in utilizing storm runoff from other fairly impervious

surfaces, existing knowledge on the methodology and the quality of this

water is quite limited.

The long-term development of freshwater resources in insular island

environments, such as the Hawaiian Islands and similar Pacific areas, is

limited to the recoverable portion of precipitation, principally rainfall.

Limited use of desalination is practiced, but the increasing cost of energy

eliminates any consideration of large-scale use as well as the transporting

of fresh water by ships.

The large, nearly impervious surface area required for airport facil­

ities provides a very practical means of collecting rainfall which could

be potentially used for potable and nonpotable water sources. Such a sys­

tem is presently being employed on Majuro and Kwajalein atolls of the

Marshall Islands, Micronesia (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1970), and even

on the U.S. Navy-operated Midway Island. The value of a large airport

surface area, on a small sized island or atoll, or even in a general water­

shortage area is obvious. However, the actual quality of storm runoff from

airport surfaces has evidently only been minimally studied and/or published.

An airport easily accessible to the University of Hawaii's Water

Resources Research Center (WRRC) in Honolulu that could be used to ascer­

tain the quality of storm runoff from airport surfaces is the 1.133 x 10 7 m2

(2800 acre) Honolulu International Airport, which has an average daily air

traffic of 934 planes for the years 1980 through 1982 (Dept. of Transpor­

tation 1981a, 1982). In addition, the Honolulu International Airport is

located in the area of the Pearl Harbor groundwater basin which has already

reached its sustainable yield. The water used by this airport is presently

2

ohtained from this basin.

The previous Phase I portion of this project studied the quality of

storm runoff from the Honolulu International Airport. A summary of Phase I

results, which was reported in a WRRC Technical Report (Christakos-Comack

and Dugan 1982), is presented in a subsequent section.

Basically, the project results of Phase I clearly showed that some con­

stituent concentrations of the Honolulu International Airport storm runoff

were too high for potable use (~otably total dissolved solids, turbidity,

mercury, grease and oil, and phenol), unless expensive, highly technical

treatment was utilized resulting in a total cost of around four times the

present cost of municipal water. The major water quality pollutional param­

eters appeared to be associated with petroleum-derived products which were

assumed to be by products of the extensive air traffic.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

Inasmuch as the air traffic at the Honolulu International Airport was

apparently too extensive to produce potable quality storm runoff, it was

decided to conduct the same type of study at some of the lesser air traffic

airports on the outer islands of Hawaii. A variety of different annual

rainfall quantities, in comparison to the Honolulu International Airport,

would also be encountered.

The project goals of Phase II are to characterize the quality of storm

runoff at selected outer island airports by principally using the Primary

and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (DOH 1977; U.S. EPA 1979) as guide­

lines. The outer island airports selected for the study were General Lyman

Field and Keahole airports, Hawaii Island; Kahului Airport, Maui; and Lihue

Airport, Kaua'i. The storm runoff quality results of the outer island air­

ports will be compared to the Honolulu International Airport.

SUMMARY OF PHASE I RESULTS

The Phase I (Christakos-Comack and Dugan 1982) report attempted to

characterize the quality of natural and storm-induced runoff from the Hono­

lulu International Airport by incorporating two different monitoring

3

schemes, the wet season and the dry season. The wet-season monitoring

scheme consisted of collecting stormwater samples during and following rain­

fall events at established sites along the airport's existing drainage sys­

tem, starting with the upstream site at the Terminal Building where the

aircrafts are serviced and fueled. The dry-season monitoring schemes con­

sisted of enclosing a 1.0-m2 (10.8-ft 2) area on the paved area section near

selected wet-season sites, applying deionized water in the enclosed area to

wash out the leachable contaminants, and then collecting the water, leached

chemicals, and sediments, by using a heavy-duty vacuum cleaner.

A total of 10 wet-season samples were collected at 8 sample sites, and

6 dry-season washing samples were obtained adjacent to 5 wet-season sampling

sites. As a guideline for water quality evaluation, analysis following

those specified in the Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations were

selected in addition to some analytical parameters used in nonpoint pollu­

tion monitoring. Inasmuch as the wet-season sampling sites were situated

along an existing drainage path starting near the Terminal Building, the

water quality contaminates of upstream stations are also included in the

samples from the downstream sites. A tabulation of the water quality

results for the wet-season and dry-season for Phase I is presented in Ap­

pendix Tables B.1 and B.2, respectively.

From the results of the wet-season monitoring, the volume of rainfall

for the 10 events did not appear to have any apparent effect on constituent

concentration, with the exception of grease and oil. In general, the dry­

season monitoring results did not show any particular trend with respect to

position along the drainage path. The time of sampling did, however, ap­

pear to have an influence of the dry-season monitoring results, The grease

and oil results (a nonpoint and/or wastewater parameter, rather than a

potable water parameter but which would exceed the extensive organic chemi­

cal analysis series required by the Primary Drinking Water Regulations)

showed a general decreasing trend in concentration along the drainage path,

starting at the Terminal Building. A simple regression analysis relating

the concentration of grease and oil, distance between sample sites, drain­

age area of each sample site, rainfall volume, and antecedent dry periods

was conducted. Although the quantity of data are limited, notable rela­

tionships were apparent between the parameters, thus showing that the

grease and oil loads are higher at the upstream sampling sites where the

4

aircrafts are fueled and serviced.

The constituents which exceeded the Primary Drinking Water Regulations

were mercury, and turbidity, while pH, manganese, and total dissolved solids

at times exceeded the secondary regulations. The secondary constituents

could be easily treated to levels below the recommended limit by typical

surface water treatment processes. However, the primary constituents that

exceeded the limit require highly technical treatment processes because of

their magnitude. The median phenol value was 0.167 mg/~, compared to the

recommended maximum allowable limit of 0.001 mg/~ that was set in the 1962

U.S. Public Health Services Drinking Water Standards (Public Health Service

1962). The concentration of phenol is not presently utilized in the Primary

Drinking Water Regulations since it would be already included in with the

organic chemical analysis series. However, the phenol test is a much sim­

pler and more economical test for quality survey purposes. Phenol is a

reflection of the high grease and oil concentration, which produced a high

value of 97 mg/~ and a median of 68 mg/~. Mercury has a high value of 5.5

times the maximum limit, while turbidity exceeded the 1.0 NTU limit with a

11-NTU median and a 13-NTU high. Turbidity is a reflection of the signif­

icant suspended solids values, which had a median concentration of 60 mg/~

and a high of 187 mg/~.

A treatment scheme, involving high technology processes, was formulated

to treat the airport storm runoff to potable levels. However, the cost of

such a system to treat the projected 3,41 x 10 6 m3 (900 mil gal) of airport

runoff to potable quality was estimated to be $0.84/1000 ~ ($3.16/1000 gal)

which is nearly four times the present cost of municipal water to the air­

port. In addition, any projected treatment scheme would have to be tested

under laboratory and/or pilot plant conditions to ensure that the desired

treatment goals can be consistently met. It appears that with the incorpo­

ration of an equalization pond, storm runoff can be safely used with possi­

bly minor treatment for subpotable uses. The cost of an equalization basin

is projected to be less than one-half the present cost of municipal water

to the airport. The use of a high percentage of the reclaimed runoff water

would help relieve the draft on the highly exploited Pearl Harbor ground­

water basin, where the airport is situated.

From the foregoing, it is apparent that the combined relatively low

annual rainfall (approximately 508 mm [20 in.]) at the Honolulu Inter-

5

national Airport and an average daily air traffic volume of over 900 planes

produces a contaminant load that is too high to consider the storm runoff

for potable uses. However, using the water for subpotable uses appears

practical if an equalization basin is installed. The quality of the water

can be enhanced if drainage from the Terminal Building were eliminated--an

approximate area of only 10% of the airport's paved surfaces.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

The five major airports that were studied in Phase II include: Hono­

lulu International Airport, O'ahu; General Lyman Field, Hilo, Hawai'i;

Kahului Airport, Maui; Lihue Airport, Kaua'i.

The general locations of these airports within the state of Hawaii are

shown in Figure 1 and the approximate nautical distance (for air navigation)

between the airports is shown in Table 1. The quantity of rainfall re­

ceived at each of the airports ranges from approximately 400 mm (15.7 in.)

to 3 246 mm (127.81 in.) as can be observed in Appendix Table A.l. However,

the annual temperature ranges around 23 to 25°C (73.4-77°F) for the airport

locations.

Honolulu International Airport

The Honolulu International Airport, situated on the southern coast of

the island of O'ahu, is bounded by Kamehameha Highway on the north and the

Pacific Ocean on the south (Fig. 2). The ground slopes from an elevation

of 7.3 m (24 ft)(MSL) along the highway to 1.5 m (5 ft) along the shoreline,

which results in a gradual slope of less than 1%. Runoff is generated from

11.33 x 106 m2 (2800 acres) of paved, landscaped, and nonlandscaped surfaces.

Of this area, the paved portion amounts to 34.4%, the nonlandscaped 58.3%,

and the landscaped 7.3% (Park Engineering, Inc. 1980). The runoff presently

drains into three different receiving waters: Ke'ehi Lagoon, Marine Pond,

and the coastal waters off the reef runway.

The average daily air traffic, which includes military, private, and

commercial aircraft for 1980, 1981, and 1982 was respectively 1026, 930,

and 846 (Dept. of Transportation 1981a, 1982). The number of groundcrew

vehicles total approximately 300.**R. Peru 1981: personal communication.

6

1600 15,0

220

GLihue~ Airport

N,"HAU KAUA'I

'58 0 15T O 1550

220

21 0

~HU

HonoluluInternotionolAirport

MOLOKA',

l::::::::::::;/ Kahu1ui

~irport

'" MAUlLANA" V

~KAHO'OLAWE

21 0

200

o 20 40 ..i1t1Ii" II i '

o 20 40 kilo""t.,.

1600 1590 1!l8°

KeaholeAirport

15TO

Figure 1. General location of project airport, state of Hawai'i

TABLE 1. APPROXIMATE DIRECT NAUTICAL DISTANCEBETWEEN STATE OF HAWAI I AIRPORTS 1

Airports

GeneralHonolulu Lyman Keahole Kahului Lihue

Field 5-------------------(10 m)---------------------

3.334

1.333

4.223

1.037

1.963

5.204

3.500 2.611 1.648 1.685

1.037 1.963 5.204

1.333 4.223

3.334

3.500

2.611

1.648

1.685

Honolulu

General Lyman Field

Keahole

Kahului

Lihue

NOTE: ft x 0.3048 = m.IModified table obtained from p. 5 of reference (DOT 1981b). Conver­sion based on the U.S. officially accepted international unit of 1.0nautical mile x 6076.115 = 1 852 m.

HONOLULU INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORT

Figure 2. Map of Honolulu International Airport, O'ahu, Hawai'i

Sand Island

"-.J

8

The long-term (since 1947) mean annual rainfall at the Honolulu Inter­

national Airport's U.S. Weather Bureau Station is 584.45 mm (23.01 in.)

(App. Table A.l). However, most of the airport's surfaces are closer to the

ocean than the location of the weather station; thus, the average quantity

of rainfall actually falling on the airport should be less than the weather

station value since the quantity of rainfall decreases toward the ocean.

The long-term isohyet of 500.38 mm (19.7 in.) cuts through the approximate

middle of the airport; thus, for all practical purposes the 500-mm value is

assumed to be the long-term representative value (Meisner and Schroeder 1979).

The daily rainfall at the airport for January through July 1982, which covers

the Phase II period, is presented in Appendix Table A.2.

The location of the 8 sampling sites used in Phase I and their descrip­

tive locations are presented respectively in Appendix Figure B.l, and Appen­

dix Table B.3. For comparison purposes, one of the mid-quality sampling

stations (No.4) was sampled during Phase II.

General Lyman Field

General Lyman Field is located on the outskirts of Hilo on the eastern

portion of Hawaii Island (Fig. 3), the largest island in the state. The

city of Hilo, with a population of approximately 36,000 is the most populous

city of the island of Hawaii's 93,000 residents (Dept. of Planning and Eco­

nomic Development 1980).

The long-term average annual rainfall at the airport is 3 246.37 mm

(127.81 in.) (App. Table A.l), which is from 2.9 to over 7 times the quantity

of rainfall received at the other airports studied. The daily rainfall for

the January through July 1982 period is shown in Appendix Table A.3.

The elevation of the airport is listed as 11.3 m (37 ft) (MSL) (Dept. of

Transportation 1981b), and the average daily air traffic for 1980, 1981, and

1982 was respectively 137, 146, and 131 (Dept. of Transportation 1981a, 1982).

Keahole Airport

The location of the Keahole Airport in the North Kona District on the

island of Hawaii (Fig. 4) is acknowledged to be within the lowest rainfall

area of the populated Hawaiian Islands. Unfortunately, prior to 1982, only

three years of complete annual rainfall data are available (App. Table A.l).

9

Air TaliTerminal

...>....::>:I:

"'-'..oz..'"

GENERAL LYMAN FIELD

~==~=====:::::-;:::=======:l26~===::!)~I=====~J(~=:::;-;:====~

A OF~~::!~~~~Tlerminol

Bldg.

Figure 3. Map of General Lyman Field, Hilo, Hawaili

As indicated on the long-term isohyetal map the airport is close to the 400

mm (15.7 in.) isohyet (Meisner and Schroeder 1979). Rainfall for the Janu­

ary through July 1982 period is tabulated in Appendix Table A.4.

The average daily air traffic for 1980, 1981, and 1982 was respectively

179, 158, and 142 (Dept. of Transportation 1981a, 1982). The elevation of

the airport is 13.1 m (43 ft) (MSL) (Pept. of Transportation 1981b).

Kahului Airport

The Kahului Airport, located on the northern mid-point of Maui (Fig.

5), is situated near the ocean, as are the other airports studied, at an

elevation of 16.15 m (53 ft) (MSL) (Dept. of Transportation 1981b). The

island of Maui, with a population of over 63,000, is the second largest of

the Hawaiian Islands (PPED 1980). The average daily air traffic at the

10

Terminal

Small Actl./ Parkin\!

/

17

~

a:::0ll.a:::<t

0W..J0:r<tW Alie

156°02'30"--- ;.;.,:.~----__,19·.5'

Figure 4. Map of Keahole Airport, Kona, Hawai1i

airport was 305, 282, and 308 for the respective years 1980, 1981, and 1982

(Dept. of Transportation 1981a, 1982).

The relatively dry conditions encountered in the vicinity of the air­

port are reflected in the long-term average annual rainfall value of 473.2

mm (18.63 in.) as shown in Appendix Table A.1. The daily rainfall at the

airport for the January through July 1982 period is presented in Appendix

Table A.5.

Lihue Airport

The Lihue Airport is on the eastern side of Kaua'i (Fig. 6), the geo­

logically oldest of the populated Hawaiian Islands. The island's population

is approximately 40,000 (OPED 1980). The average daily air traffic for the

1980. 1981, and 1982 period was respectively 172, 163, and 179 (Dept. of

Transportation 1981a, 1982). The airport is situated at an elevation of

45.4 m (149 ft) (MSL) (Dept. of Transportation 1981b).

In the approximate center of Kaua'i is Mount Waialeale, recognized as

11

156-25'30"20°55'

30"

Figure 5. Map of Kahului Airport, Maui

having the highest recorded average annual rainfall in the world (12 344 mm

[486 in.] (DPED 1980). The long-term average annual rainfall at the air­

port is 1 112 mm (43.81 in.) shown in Appendix Table A.1. The daily rain­

fall for the January through July 1982 period is presented in Appendix Table

A.6.

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

To compare storm runoff quality data collected at the outer island air­

ports to the same data that was previously collected at the Honolulu Inter­

national Airport during Phase I, the wet-season and dry-season monitoring

methods were utilized, even though the actual data for Phase II was col­

lected in May, June, and July, which are considered dry months. Because of

the uncertainty of being able to collect storm runoff at the outer island

12

LIHUE AIRPORT

Tower andRatatinq Beacon

159°20' 30"21°59'

~o"

TerminalBldq.

Freiqht --#-<.01Bldq.

HANAMAULU

Figure 6. Map of Lihue Airport, Kauati

airports, especially during the normal drier period of the year, help was

sought from the personnel at these airports for the collection of storm run­

off samples. Without their help the collection of natural storm water run­

off at the outer island airports would not have been practical,

Wet-Season Monitoring

Wet-season monitoring (natural storm runoff) for Phase II consisted of

delivering ice chests filled with sampling containers and preservatives, if

required, to each of the outer islands airports that were being studied

(General Lyman Field, Hilo; Keahole Airport, Kona; Kahului Airport, Maui;

Lihue Airport, Kauati) and instructing personnel of the collection and ship­

ping procedures. The personnel at these airports proved very cooperative

and agreed to collect storm water runoff from the paved airports surfaces

if rainfall occurred during normal waking hours.

Once the samples were collected the airport personnel were instructed

to place the samples in an ice chest filled with ice, ship it back to Hono-

13

lulu of the next available airplane, and call WRRC. Someone from WRRC would

then be waiting at the airport and return the samples to the Sanitary Engi­

neering/WRRC Laboratory at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Because time

is a critical factor analysis of the samples would immediately begin and

the others properly refrigerated and analyzed as soon as time permitted.

The preservation, storage and analysis followed as close as possible those

procedures outlined in Standard Methods (APHA, AWWA, and WPCF 1980).

Dry-Season Monitoring

The basic method of collecting dry-season (induced storm runoff) sam­

ples during Phase II at the outer island airports followed the same general

procedure as was practiced during Phase I, except that the enclosed collec­

tion area was smaller, less deionized water utilized, and a hand pump rather

than an electric vacuum cleaner was used. The modifications were necessary

because of the logistics of transporting large volumes of deionized water,

an electric vacuum cleaner, and an auxiliary power unit for the vacuum

cleaner.

The procedure utilized during Phase II consisted of strip caulking the

edges of a 0.5 m (1.64 ft) square wooden frame (a 1.0 m [3.28 ft] square

frame was used during Phase I) and pressing in unto the paved surfaces to

prevent water leakage. A total of 4 ~ (1.06 gal) of deionized was poured

into the frame and the surface was manually scrubbed with a brush in order

to simulate the forces of rainfall. The volume was increased to 5-~ (1.32

gal) for the one wet-season monitoring event at the Honolulu International

Airport during Phase II. In contrast, during Phase I, enough deionized

water was added in order to enable the collection of 0.019 m3 (5 gal) of

wash water by the vacuum cleaner, however, the enclosed frame area was four

times larger.

Once the deionized water was added and the surface scrubbed, the water

was then collected with a hand-bilge pump and transferred into suitable

containers (for the particular analyses) with preservatives added if nec­

essary. The collected samples were placed in ice chests, packed in ice,

and shipped back to the Sanitary Engineering/WRRC Laboratory in Honolulu

for analysis. The time interval between sample collection and the initia­

tion of time-critical analysis did not exceed 6-hr, which is within the

holding limits for the analysis being performed. All collection, preser-

14

vation, storage, and analytical procedures were according to Standard

Methods (APHA, AWWA, and WPCF 1980).

This method differs from most methods of collecting street surface

contaminants, as other techniques typically use dry sweepings to collect

the solids and dust components from the surfaces, Because of the heavy

metals, as well as the high grease and oil levels on the surfaces? the

typical dry collection was not feasible.

The analytical results of the dry-season monitoring methods were ex­

pressed in terms of mass loadings (kg/m 2 [lb.ft 2]), which is the same pro­

cedure used during Phase I.

The procedure used to convert to mass loading is

1 d ' (mg) _ concentration (mg/~) x volume of deionized watermass oa lng 2 - 'h' f ( 2) I' d ( 3)m area Wlt ln rame m app le m

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The water quality aspects of the airport storm runoff involves nonpoint

source waste loadings that are associated with not only the runoff itself,

b'lt the accumulation of pollutants over the contributing airport runoff sur­

faces. Potential pollutants, consisting of individual and/or sorbed contam­

inants, accumulate on the catchment surfaces. Theoretically, the amount of

accumulation is directly related to the antecedent dry period, if other fac­

tors remain relatively stable, The contaminants include chemicals being

sorbed to sediment which are typically heterogeneous dust, oil, debris, and

degraded pavement. These surface contaminants may be picked up directly

and/or the sediments dislodged from the surface as a result of sufficient

rainfall (to create runoff), and an undefined portion of the chemical con­

taminants may be absorbed by the runoff water. The airport asphaltic sur­

face will at first sorb some moisture, while a certain fraction will evapo­

rate, before a sufficient volume of rainfall will act as a driving force to

remove the contaminants from the surface. Studies in the past have shown

weak correlations between antecedent dry periods and contaminant levels

(Bedient, Lambert, and Springer 1980; U.S. EPA 1980).

Fortunately, two rainfall events were each collected for General Lyman

Field, Hilo, and Lihue Airport, Kaua'i, and one for Keahole Airport; however

a storm runoff sample was not taken at Kahului Airport on Maui. The analyt-

15

ical results of the storm runoff samples are shown in Table 2. The results

of the dry-season monitoring at the outer island airports and at one loca­

tion at the Honolulu International Airport are presented in Table 3. For

comparison purposes the median analytical values of the Phase I study at the

Honolulu International Airport are also included in Tables 2 and 3.

The general assumption is that the dry-season procedure of saturating

and scrubbing the enclosed 0.25 m2 (~.69 ft 2) surface area with deionized

water and then collecting the wash water with a hand pump would remove a

greater quantity of the surface contaminants than the wet-season monitoring

method of just collecting the runoff. This would be especially true for

sediment type particles. It is acknowledged though that the vacuum cleaner

collection method used in Phase I was probably more efficient in wash water

removal than the hand pump, but the difference is not considered particularly

significant.

The load unit of the dry-season monitoring (mg/m 2) (except for turbid­

ity, expressed as NTU) is notably convenient, inasmuch as each 1.0 mm

(0.0039-m) of wash water divided into the load unit theoretically equals

mg/~. It is recognized that a portion of the wash water is sorbed by the

surface and held in place by various physical forces, which is analogous to

the specific yield/specific retention concept when dry soil is saturated with

water and then allowed to drain freely. A certain portion of the applied

water (specific retention) will not drain freely. It is assumed that the

lower the depth of wash water the more invalid the procedure becomes; how­

ever, the minimum critical depth necessary to approach the maximum potential

concentration is not known at this time and would probably change with each

given situation.

Also shown in Table 2 (analytical results of storm water runoff) are

the maximum limits for the Primary (DOH 1981) and Secondary (U.S. EPA 1979)

Drinking Water Regulations. In addition two constituents (carbon chloroform

extract and phenol) that were included in the 1962 Public Health Drinking

Water Standards (PHS 1962) and hardness are also shown in Table 2. The con­

stituents in Tables 2 and 3 were also used in Phase I except that carbon

chloroform extract replaced grease and oil in Phase II.

The Primary Drinking Water Regulations were formulated to protect pub­

lic health and, as such, were mandated by the federal government through

each particular state's own laws. Although the Secondary Drinking Water

....0\

TABLE 2. WATER QUALI TV OF STORM RUNOFF AT AIRPORTS IN HAWA III

tN0 3 -N only.fMonthly average.§Recommended limits in U.S. Publ ic HealthService (1962) Drinking Water Standards.

DRINKING LOCATION

WATER Keahole HonoluluPARAMETER STANDARDS General Lyman Field Ai rport Lihue Airport International

Ai rport

(max. limits) 5/19/82 6/28/82 5/10/81 5/17/82 7/7/82 Median1g81 ~c

PRIMARyl

Ra i nfa 11 (mm) ---- 8.4 21.6 ";~ 3.6 10.9 1.54----Chromium 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 ND 0.001 0.04Lead 0.05 ND ND ND ND ND 0.006Mercury 0.002 0.008 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.008Nitrite + Nitrate-N 10.0t 1 .2 2.0 6.6 9.0 4.0 2.8Turbidity (NTU) 1'1' 5 3 1.0 12 1.5 11

SECONDARy 2

Chloride 250 25 20 25 49 25 69Copper 1 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05Iron 0.3 0.43 0.23 0.27 0.18 0.15 0.19Manganese 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.05Su lfate 250 45 16 68 36 90 33Total Dissolved Solids 500 100 140 120 90 60 499Zinc 5 0.05 0.03 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.40

Carbon Chloroform Extract 0.2§ -- 7.5 -- -- - --Hardness as CaC0 3 ---- 21 20 15 22 9 69Phenol 0.001 § 0.080 0.020 0.019 0.042 0.037 0.167

. .NOTE: All values in mg/£ except as noted otherWise .

1.0 mm x 0.03937 = in.ND = Non-detectable.

1 DOH (1981).2U.S. EPA (1979).*See Christakos-Comack and Dugan (1982).

TABLE 3. RESULTS OF DRY-SEASON WASHING SEQUENCE AT AIRPORTS IN HAWAIIII h

GENERAL LYMAN FIELO KEAHOLE AI RPORT KAHULUI AI RPORT LIHUE AI RPORTHONOLULU

INTERNATI ONAL(7/22/82) (617/82) (717/82 (6/21/82)AI RPORTtPARAMETER

(7/28/82) MedianSite (Fig. 3) Site (Fig. 4) Site (Fig. 5) Site (Fig. 6)

Si te 4 ValuesI II III Median I II III Median I II III fled; an I II III Median (Fig. 2) 1981

PRIMARY

Chromium 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 NO NO NO NO 1.00 ----Lead NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 0.08Mercury 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.064 0.080 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.096 0.096 NO 0.096 0.064 0,064 0.064 0.064 0.080 ----N02 + NO, N NO 6.4 NO NO 43.2 43.2 40.0 43.2 112 96 112 112 6.4 NO NO NO 60 83Turbidity 5 5 5 5 9.5 12 7 9.5 11 10 II II 6 6 8 6 25 --

SECONOARY

Chloride 304 320 336 320 400 432 416 416 80 96 80 80 240 304 160 240 460 1126Copper 0.32 0·32 0.32 O. 3~ 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0 .• 6 0.16 0.8 3.8I ron 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.3 4 4 4 4 0·3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 5.0 39. IManganese 0·32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0·32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 1.0 1.0SuI fat~ 560 560 560 560 688 704 784 704 320 320 320 320 880 800 784 800 900 752Total Oiss. Solids 800 960 960 960 1456 976 1600 1456 880 960 1120 960 960 960 880 960 13500 5615Zinc 0.48 0.62' 0.62 0.62 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.72 1.60 1.92 2.40 1.92 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 12.80 4.5

ChIaro. Extract --- --- 86.4 86.4 61.8 --- --- 61.8 93.6 --- --- 93.6 --- 91.4 --- 91.4 362.0 ----Hardness as CaCO, 320 320 320 320 188 288 288 288 176 176 176 176 320 320 320 320 500 1260Phenol 0.480 0.480 0·320 0.480 0.128 0.144 0.112 0.128 0.704 0.640 0.656 0.656 0.432 0.416 1.416 0.416 3.340 3.0

NOTE: All values in mg/m L except turbidity.NOTE: Refer to Fig. 1 for site locations.NOTE: NO· Non-detectable.*Volume of water sampled. 4.0 t; theoretical depth for the 0.25 m2 sealed frame. 16 mm.tVa)""" of water sampled = 5.0 t; theoretical depth for the 0.25 m2 sealed frame = 16 mm.

.....'-.J

18

nol and carbon chloroform extract definitely indicated that petroleum-derived

products would be too high (and expensive to remove) for consideration as

an alternate drinking water supply. The actual values for the various sta­

tions where the storm runoff was collected at the Honolulu International

Airport and the dates of collection, during Phase I, are presented in Ap­

pendix Table B.l.

The quality of the storm runoff at the lesser air traffic outer island

airports of Phase II is obviously much better than the corresponding values

at the greater air traffic volume Honolulu International Airport during the

Phase I study. The much higher phenol and turbidity values are particularly

noteworthy. As shown in Table 2 the chromium limit was equaled for the

Keahole Airport sample and the iron limit was exceeded in one of the samples

from General Lyman Field. The low lead concentrations at the outer island

airports are essentially insignificant, as evidenced by all of them being

nondetectable.

The storm runoff is much fresher at the outer island airports as shown

in the chloride, total dissolved solids, and hardness values. No particular

correlation was observed between the volume of air traffic, rainfall, and

antecedent dry periods at the outer island airports for the natural storm

runoff during the Phase II study (Table 2); however, the few limited samples

that were collected do not lend themselves to any particular form of statis­

tical analysis.

Dry-Season Monitoring

The results of the dry-season monitoring of the outer island airports

and sampling site 4 of the Honolulu International Airport (refer to App.

Fig. B.l, App. Table B.3 for location) during Phase II, together with the

corresponding median values during Phase I, are shown in Table 3. It can be

readily observed that the carbon chloroform extract, phenol, and total dis­

solved solids values at the Honolulu International Airport are significantly

higher than at the outer island airports during Phase II. The individual

dry-season monitoring constitutent values of the Phse I study at the Hono­

lulu International Airport are shown in Appendix Table B.2.

In an effort to be able to better evaluate the constitutent concentra­

tion generated during the dry-season monitoring, the load values of Table

3 (mg/m2 ) were divided by the Drinking Water Regulations limits (mg/~) to

19

Regulations are for the protection of public welfare, the maximum limits are

only recommendations by the federal government and it is up to the indivi­

dual states to adopt these regulations. The exceeding of these standards,

except for very high values, results mainly in aesthetic problems. The

water may not look, taste, or smell desirable when these limits are exceeded

but the water should not be detrimental to health.

In general, the secondary regulations are followed by most of the

drinking water supply entities, as if they were actually set by law. For

this project, significant constituent representatives from the Primary and

Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, along with the previous mentioned car­

bon chloroform extract and phenol from the 1962 Public Health Drinking Water

Standards (PHS 1962), and hardness which has not set limits, are evaluated.

The 1962 Public Health.Service Drinking Water Standards actually, by law,

only applied to interstate transport of waters, but most water supply agen­

cies essentially accepted them as binding. The relatively recent Primary

(DOH 1981) and Secondary (U.S. EPA 1979) Drinking Water Regulations super­

sede the 1962 Public Health Drinking Water Standards.

The relatively simple tests for carbon chloroform extract and phenol

concentrations that are used in the 1962 Public Health Service Drinking Water

Standards (PHS) 1962) have been replaced by a relatively extensive and expen­

sive series of tests for organic chemicals in the Primary Drinking Water Re­

gulations (Dept. of Health 1981). However, for convenience and ease for a

survey type study, both these simpler tests were utilized.

The carbon chloroform test is a general test to determine the presence

of "organic gunk" in the water, but the specific type of organic material is

not identified. Limiting the concentration of phenol in drinking water sup­

plies is important because if the oxidant chlorine is added to a potable

water supply (typically for disinfection purposes and sometimes odor control)

high in phenol, and undesirable taste in the water will usually result.

Concentrations of carbon chloroform extract and phenol are readily associ­

ated with petroleum-derived products.

Wet-Season Monitoring

As can be observed in Table 2, which also includes the median values

from the Phase I study, the mercury and turbidity values significantly ex­

ceeded the Primary Drinking Water Regulations, while concentrations of phe-

20

produce a theoretical effective (after water loss sorption, physical bond­

ing, evaporation) depth (rom), assuming deionized quality rainwater. A hard­

ness value of 50 mg/i as CaC0 3 was assumed for calculation purposes since

hardness does not have a set limit. Since a correlation between dilution

water and turbidity was not known, no attempt was made to include turbidity

for comparison purposes in Table 4.

Although a minimum effective depth of wash water (induced rainfall) is

not know, it is interesting that the individual constituents of Table 2 and

4 appeared to generally follow the same trends in both natural storm runoff

and induced runoff. It is particularly noted that. the high storm runoff

quality values (Table 2) generally required the greater effective depth of

deionized water (Table 4) to meet the given drunking water regulation. The

same general correlation true for the constituents with lower concentrations.

Most notable are the very high depths (mm) of water (over a given area which

would be volume) that are required for the carbon chloroform extract and

phenol, particularly for the Phase II sample at the Honolulu International

Airport. The effect of the petroleum-derived product's influence in the

operation of the airports, based on the carbon chloroform extract and phenol

values, is quite apparent, as well as the greater air traffic, as evidenced

by the results at the Honolulu International Airport.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The quality of natural and induced storm runoff, in terms of potable

water quality, at four outer island airports (air traffic volume of approx­

imately 130 to over 350 airplanes/day) was compared to results from the

previous Phase I study (conducted during the 1982) of the Honolulu Inter­

national Airport that handles daily nearly 900 (1982) airplanes. The Phase

II study of the outer island airports also included induced storm water

sampling at the Honolulu International Airport. The outer island airports

that were studied during Phase II were General Lyman Field, Hilo, Hawai'i;

Keahole Airport, Kona, Hawai'i, Kahului Airport, Maui; and Lihue Airport,

Kaua'i. The mean annual rainfall at these airports range from 3 246.37 rom

(127.81 in.) for General Lyman Field down to 473.2 rom (18.63 in.) (App. Table

A.1) for Kahului Airport with Keahole Airport probably being (no long-term

rainfall records available) around 400 rnrn (15.7 in.), according to isohyetal

TABLE 4. THEORETICAL REQUIRED DEPTH OF RAINFALL TO MEET DRINKING WATER QUALITYREGULATIONS BASED ON DRY-SEASON WASHING SEQUENCE RESULTS AT AIRPORTS IN HAWAI I

DRINKING LOCATION

WATER General Keahole Kahului Lihue Honolulu

PARAMETER REGULATIONS Lyman Airport Airport Airport InternationalField Airport

(max. limits) (7/22/82) (6/7 /82) (7/7 /82) (6/21/82) (7/28/82) Median1981t

PRIMARY

Chromium 0.05 12.8 16.0 12.8 ND 20 ---Lead 0.05 ND ND ND ND ND 1.6Mercury 0.002 32 38.5 48 32 40 ---Nitrite + Nitrate-N 10.0 ND 4.3 11 .2 ND 6 8.3

SECONDARY

Chloride 250 1.3 1.7 ' 0.3 1.0 1.8 4.5Copper 1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 3.8Iron 0.3 17.7 13.3 1 8 16.7 130.3Manganese 0.05 6.4 3.2 6.4 3.2 20 20Sulfate 250 2.2 2,8 1.3 3.2 3.6 3.0Total Dissolved Solids 500 1.9 2.9 1.9 1.9 27.0 11.2Zinc 5 0.1 0.5 0.4 <0.1 2.6 0.9

Carbon Chloroform Extract O. tf 432 309 468 457 1810 ----Hardness as CaC0 3 50§ 6.4 5.8 3.5 6.4 10 25.2Phenol 0.001'1' 480 128 656 416 3340 3000

... . . - -- ---NOTE: ND = Non-detectable.NOTE: Assuming deionized quality, and rounded-off to nearest 0.1 mm.tChristakos-Comack and Dugan (1982).fRecommended limits in U.S. Public Health Service (1962) "Drinking Water Standards".§Arbitrary assumed value for desirable hardness quality.

tvf-'

22

maps by Meisner and Schroeder (1979).

The same general monitoring technique and constituent types that were

used in the Phase I study of the Honolulu International Airport were also

used for the Phase II study of outer island airports. The Phase II study

was initiated inasmuch as the very high petroleum-derived products that were

found in the natural and induced storm runoff samples from the Honolulu

International Airport (Phase I) were surmised to be possibly related to its

high volume of air traffic. Thus, it seemed reasonable to study these same

parameters at lower air traffic volume airports.

Following the same basic procedure used in the Phase I study, two basic

storm water quality monitoring schemes were incorporated: The wet-season

(natural runoff), and the dry-season (induced runoff). The.wet-season moni­

toring involved collecting storm water samples (by airport personnel in

Phase II) from the four outer island airports studied. The dry-season moni­

toring scheme consisted of enclosing a O~2S-m2 (2.69-ft 2) area, applying

deionized water, and then collecting the wash water, leached chemicals, and

sediments by a hand-bilge pump.

As was the case with the results from the wet-season and the dry-season

monitoring schemes of the Honolulu International Airport during Phase I, the

results of the natural and induced storm runoff from the smaller outer

island airports also contained mercury and turbidity that significantly

exceeded the primary drinking water regulations, while concentrations of

phenol and carbon chloroform extract definitely indicated that petroleum­

derived products would be too high (and expensive to remove) for consider­

ation as an alternate drinking water supply. However, the water, if col­

lected and stored, could serve as a source of subpotable water and water

for the irrigation of certain vegetation if the boron concentration, which

was not determined during the study, is not too high.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special appreciation is extended to Owen Miyamoto, Chief of the Airport

Division, Department of Transportation, State of Hawaii, for his overall

support in conducting the study at the Honolulu International Airport and

the outer island airports. Appreciation is also extended to each of the

23

outer island airport managers for their cooperation and also to their per­

sonnel who collected the storm runoff samples and shipped them to Honolulu:

Airport Manager Frank Kamahele and airport employee Joe Borges, General

Lyman Field, Hilo; former Airport Manager Jon Sakamoto and airport employees

Mr. Ernest Tanaka and Chester Wagner, Keahole Airport, Kona; Airport Manager

Thomas F. Hanchett, Kahului Airport; and Airport Manager R.W. Foster, Lihue

Airport; and to Robert Peru, Honolulu International Airport Ramp Control

Supervisor, and his personnel who arranged and provided acces to the air­

port runway. Special recognition is extended to Elizabeth Christakos-Comack,

who was employeed on the project after her graduation with a Master of Sci­

ence Degree in Civil Engineering, for her work in preparing for the wet­

season monitoring, conducting the water quality analysis on both the natu­

ral and induced storm runoff samples, and supervising the collection of the

dry-season (induced) storm water monitoring samples. Appreciation is also

extended to Henry K. Gee and Edwin T. Murabayashi, Water Resources Research

Center staff personnel and Daniel J. Dugan, student helper, for their assis­

tance with the dry-season sampling procedure.

REFERENCES

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, andWater Pollution Control Federation. 1980. Standard methods for theexamination of water and waste water. 15th ed. Washington, D.C.:APHA, AWWA, and WPCF.

Bedient, P.B.; Lambert, J.L.; and Springer, N.K. 1980. Stormwater pollu­tant load runoff relationships. J. Water Pottut. Controt Fed. 52(9):2394-2404.

Christakos-Comack, E. and G.L. Dugan. 1982. Water quatity of airportstorm runoff, Tech. Rep. No. 144, Water Resources Research Center,University of Hawaii, Honolulu, viii + 30 p.

Department of Health. 1981. Potable water systems. Chap. 20, Title II,Administrative Rules, State of Hawaii

Department of Planning and Economic Development. 1980. The State of Hawaiidata book: A statisticat abstract. State of Hawaii.

Department of Transportation. 1981a, 1982. Airport operations. Statis- ..tical printout of the type of aircraft services to the state of Hawa11airports. Airports Division, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96819.

Department of Transportation. 1981b. Airport directory and ftying safety ..manuat. 11th ed. Airports Division, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawa1196819.

Majuro Airfield and related facili­Section 15201, Engineering District,

24

Meisner, B., and Schroeder, T.A. 1979. "Isohyetal maps". Maps preparedfor the Division of Water and Land Development, Department of Landand Natural Resources, State of Hawaii.

National Weather Bureau. 1982. "Climatogical data, Hawaii," NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Park Engineering, Inc. 1980. Honolulu International Airport and environsmaster plan study, Task 6.2, Drainage analysis, Part I. Honolulu,Hawaii.

Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking water standards. Public HealthService Publication No. 956 U.S. Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers. 1970.ties, Phase II; basis of design.Honolulu, Hawaii.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. NationaZ secondary drinkingwater reguZations. E.P.A. 570/9-76-000.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Sediment, pollutant, relation­ships in runoff from selected agricultural, suburban, and urban water­sheds: A statistical summary. PB 80-158-108, pg. 1-40.

25

APPENDIX CONTENTSFigure

B.1. Location of Sampling Sites atHonolulu International Airport. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Tables

A.l. Annual Rainfall Records at Project Airports,State of Hawaii, 1942-1981..........•.•....... 27

A.2. Daily Rainfall Records, Honolulu InternationalAirport, Olahu, January-July 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

A.3. Daily Rainfall Records, General Lyman Field,Hila, Hawaili, January-July 1982. . . .. 29

A.4. Daily Rainfall Records, Keahole Airport,Kona, Hawai Ii, January-July 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

A.5.

A.6.

Daily Rainfall Records, KahuluiAirport, Maui, January-July 1982.

Daily Rainfall Records, LihueAirport, Kauali, January-July 1982 .

31

32

27

APPENDIX TABLE A.l. ANNUAL RAINFALL RECORDS AT PROJECT AIRPORTS,STATE OF HAWAI I, 1942-1981

General Keahole Kahului Lihue Honolulu

Year Lyman Airport2 Ai rport3 Ai rport ll Int.Field l Ai rport5

--------------------------(in.)-------------------------

1942 138.99 19.52 72.131943 106.71 19.18 51 . 161944 136.94 20.13 54.341945 114.65 10.83 45.651946 147.56 17.78 61.571947 140.93 9.06 42.16 10.681948 151 .84 19.96 52.64 19.761949 113.05 11 . 11 57.41 25.201950 139.15 36.12 43.54 31.681951 150.06 22.60 56.18 39.731952 120.65 0.23 27.66 10.651953 89.68 7.03 21 . 15 9.971954 162.33 58.01 27.301955 123.45 21 .60 55.68 37.861956 168.36 15.16 56.94 21.231957 139.34 15.48 47.19 24.221958 105.95 16.26 26.25 35.021959 117.82 21.25 36.90 14. 141960 146.80 10.94 42.01 12.071961 1] 9.70 19.93 34.89 14.261962 71.45 12.63 56.76 13.581963 124.75 20.05 41 .20 37.911964 166.44 10.02 51. 75 20.121965 127.29 30.91 57.97 42.781966 124.01 12.49 40.68 23. 181967 ]54.00 32.70 53.28 34.341968 ]34.] 4 34.73 68.89 37.261969 173.23 25.21 34.17 22.501970 153.98 18.61 39.18 15.491971 140.69 20.13 49.62 26.641972 98.85 16.25 15.71 43.54 26.941973 107.97 8.37 10.27 35.27 14.241974 112.92 18.68 45.60 24.021975 99.93 13.74 35.52 24.391976 114.67 12.83 32.83 12.901977 90.38 11 .50 40.34 12.361978 119.09 19. 15 39. 11 25.051979 158.77 26.82 37.09 16.931980 127.74 27.87 54.64 26.901981 89.91 7.82 12.85 38.14 13.41

Record Mean 127.81 18.63 43.81 23.01

SOURCE: Data obtained from U.S. National Weather Bureau (1982) eli rna to 109-ical Data Hawaii, except for Keahole Airport which was from openfiles of Div. of Water and Land Development, DLNR, State of Hawaii.

NOTE: in. x 25.4 = mm.lState Key No. 84, USWB No. 1492; 2S tate Key No. 68.13! 3S tate Key No. 398,

USWB No. 2572; State Key No. 1020.1, USWB No. 5580; State Key No. 703,USWB No. 1919.

28

APPENDIX TABLE A.2. DAILY RAINFALL RECORDS, HONOLULU INTERNATIONALAIRPORT, O'AHU, JANUARY-JULY 1982

Day Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July---------------------------(in.)---------------------------

1 0.21 T 0.022 1.86 0.06 T;~ 0.28 T T3 T 0.704 T 0.06 0.305 0.12 0.01 0.156 0.72 T 0.01 0.02 T 0.03 T7 0.83 T 0.43 0.04 T8 0.18 0.02 T9 0.01 T T T T

10 0.84 0.37 0.0111 T 0.39 0.21 0.0112 0.08 1.26 0.01 T13 T 0.10 T 0.0114 0.6715 1.04 O. 11 0.0116 T 0.09 0.0217 0.15 0.34 0.03 0.0518 0.09 0.35 0.01 0.0319 1. 18 0.54 0.0220 2.64 0.25 0.0721 3.10 0.09 T 0.01 T22 0.06 0.02 T 0.0123 T 0.28 0.0924 0.06 0.09 0.08 T T25 0.15 0.05 T T26 T 0.01 T T T27 0.02 T 0.02 0.02 T28 T 0.05 T T T29 0.03 0.01 T30 O. 11 0.01 T 0.0431 0.09 0.03

Total 12.82 2.16 3.73 1.28 0.13 0.25 0.20

SOURCE: Data obtained from open files of Division of Water and LandDevelopment, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Stateof Hawai i.

NOTE: Hawaii State Key No. 703; U.S. Weather Bureau Index No. 1919.NOTE: in. x 25.4 = mm.;':Trace.

29

APPENDIX TABLE A.3. DAILY RAINFALL RECORDS, GENERAL LYMAN FIELD,HILO, HAWAIII, JANUARY-JULY 1982

Day Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July----------------------------(in.)----------------------------

1 0.09 5.86 1.38 0.14 0.00 0.592 0.87 o. 18 0.19 T 0.973 0.46 0.26 0.05 0.64 0.744 T* 0.40 0.03 T 0.725 O. 11 T 0.01 0.616 T 0.03 0.53 0.02 0.187 0.02 T 0.06 0.01 . 0.20 0.05 0.538 0.06 0.25 O. 11 0.04 0.499 0.01 T 0.41 0.46 0.12 0.34 0.61

10 T 1.86 0.01 0.31 O. 11 0.7211 0.12 0.31 0.03 0.86 T 0.6112 2.03 0.06 0.12 0.03 0.6213 3.26 0.44 0.06 0.23 0.2114 1.59 0.24 0.02 0.08 0.9915 0.11 0.76 0.06 0.02 T 0.9316 0.41 2.08 1.25 0.07 0.04 5.6517 0.07 0.01 3.32 1.93 1. 12 1.63 1. 5018 o. 14 0.04 0.01 0.97 0.43 1.03 0.5319 o. 19 0.33 0.01 0.1320 0.34 1.02 1. 21 0.17 T o. 1821 1. 91 0.01 T o. 17 0.28 2.0622 3.81 0.02 1.04 0.44· 0.09 0.7623 0.01 0.21 7.53 0.12 O. 12 3.5624 0.01 o. 17 0.49 0.78 0.25 T25 1.67 T 0.08 0.02 0.07 T26 1.92 0.00 0.04 0.34 0.20 0.0627 3.10 0.29 0.87 0.47 0.09 0.1728 0.21 0.37 1. 58 0.48 0.19 0.85 0.0729 0.15 0.35 0.13 0.13 0.50 0.3830 0.17 2.74 0.23 0.69 0.23 0.0631 4.20 T 4.19

Total 13.58 1.35 48.20 12.00 6.89 6.03 28.59

SOURCE: Data obtained from open files of Division of Water and LandDevelopment, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Stateof Hawa i i .

NOTE: Hawai i State Key No. 87; U.S. Weather Bureau Index No. 1492.NOTE: in. x 25.4 = mm.1'Trace.

30

APPENDIX TABLE A.4. DAllY RAINFAll RECORDS, KEAHOlE AIRPORT,KONA, HAWAIII, JANUARY-JULY 1982

Day Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July------------------------------(in.)----------------------------.

1 0.02 T T2 0.0834 0.055 p~ 0.056 0.017 0.018 0.22 0.679 0.22

10 T11 0.66 0.1812 0.41 T 0.0413 O. 15 O. 1114 0.07 0.15 0.2615 1. 13 0.86 0.131617 0.59 T18 0.2519 0.27 0.04 0.3620 0.05 0.0121 0.17 0.4922 2.28 0.2523 0.0124 0.1625 0.35 0.0326 0.032728 0.6829 0.5430 0.2231 0.16 o. 13

Total 5.45 0.10 1.83 0.94 1. 41 2.15 0.47

SOURCE: Data obtained from open files of Division of Water and land Devel-opment, Department of land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii.

NOTE: Hawai i State Key No. 68.13.NOTE: in. x 25.4 = mm.:"Trace.

31

APPENDIX TABLE A.5, DAILY RAINFALL RECORDS, KAHULUIAIRPORT, MAUl, JANUARY-JULY 1982

Day Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July-----------------------------(in.)-~----------------------------

1 0.00 0.11 0.49 T2 p't 0.28 0.29 0.253 0.04 T 0.07 0.034 T5 0.50 T6 T 0.03 T7 2.43 0.07 T T8 0.75 0.02 0.03 1.029 0.04 0.27 T T 0.05

10 0.83 0.01 T T11 0.02 1.06 0.3812 1. 10 T13 0.04 0.50 0.33 0.0814 0.60 0.03 0.0115 0.03 T 0.0316 0.03 0.0317 0.03 0.7018 0.05 1.02 0.0119 T20 0.09 O. 17 0.30 T21 2.20 0.20 0.01 T22 0.95 T 0.07 T 0.0723 0.03 0.08 9.1424 T T 0.01 T25 1. 16 0.07 T 0.01 T26 T 0.03 T 0.0827 0.01 0.29 T 0.15 T 0.0228 T T T 0.13 0.0429 0.01 0.01 0.03 T T30 0.07 0.64 0.03 0.13 0.0131 0.07 0.08

Total 8.12 3.77 5.20 3.26 0.14 0.22 0.64

SOURCE: Data obtained from open files of Division of Water and Land Devel-opment, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii.

NOTE: Hawai i State Key No. 398; U.S. Weather Bureau Index No. 2572.NOTE: in. x 25.4 = mm.~'tTrace.

32

APPENDIX TABLE A.6. DAILY RAINFALL RECORDS, LIHUEAIRPORT, KAUA'I, JANUARY-JULY 1982

Day Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July----------------------------(in.)---------------------------

1 0.11 0.81 0.09 T 0.04 0.102 0.09 0.09 0.30 0.41 T 0.013 0'.01 0.02 T 0.074 T 0.01 T 0.01 0.055 0.49 0.13 T 0.03 0.05 0.13 0.066 1.06 T* 0.02 0.43 0.15 0.307 0.02 0.01 3.07 1.90 0.438 T 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.049 0.60 O. 11 0.10 0.08

10 0.02 1.84 0.06 T T 0.0111 0.86 0.39 0.17 0.14 0.01 0.1612 0.18 0.16 0.60 0.05 T13 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.2914 0.19 0.15 1.82 0.02 0.00 0.1415 0.24 T 0.36 T T 0.0616 0.52 0.20 T 0.57 0.12 0.2517 0.14 0.05 O. 12 0.02 0.14 0.04 0.0418 0.06 T 0.10 0.43 0.01 0.1419 2.70 0.26 0.04 0.1620 3.15 0.28 0.22 0.09 T 0.23 T21 3.97 0.02 0.50 0.04 0.43 T22 0.01 T 0.01 0.05 0.01 o. 17 T23 0.20 0.41 O. 11 0.07 0.02 T 0.0524 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.04 0.1225 T 0.31 0.05 0.03 T 0.0626 0.03 0.04 0.0227 0.03 0.43 0.03 T 0.10 0.1028 0.03 0.00 0.80 T 0.12 0.0229 T 0.23 0.01 0.25 O. 1230 0.02 1.68 0.01 0.16 0.0631 1. 70 0.04 0.02

Total 14.08 5.04 10.56 4.88 3.63 2.02 2.72

SOURCE: Data obtained from open files of Division of Water and LandDevelopment, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Stateof Hawai i.

NOTE: Hawaii State Key No. 1020.1; U.S. Weather Bureau Index No. 5580.NOTE: in. x 25.4 = mm.*Trace.

./

L: i:::\, ,

""/'; ...,'

i'" ,,: ..... '.

./

...-IV/t? '/,

Cr f';. ~~i;

. '.. (:".

./

..... ;.

..

N ../'

ts

I / ~",,/,. I I '8 I " •

, ./

: f!~ .....;,.. ....,!,-: :i :'J' :':

:'('-I'0- ,I '1.-.'0', ... , .- . ,

r \I

1/".~_.

I\"~

~.J' ..".'_"--f.. . I,. ,

f ----r). L"~'" .1.' , .

..." -'il J _~. . ,... ..' .' ..' ~• 'r-::..~:. '. j !f~~:;' ~~. ~, ~. '.......

;~ ., ..• ---.-.-----r----

• I ./ ~I . I I.~,.... . I fl I (r"/x

• I I I ~. :", ~I'. ~ ~I

..

• I. ....... • ::. •

'i. 1,_ I ~

r:( ~,,/J. . --"r . I.

I.. :.J

'.,

."

rI .. ,

I I 1/ -<---: r---'~ \ '/I \ \\" )::. ,;;

/' ~\"I'Ill .....

. \\' \\ I.. 11... I\ / II

I

;--. ' I,- .

Appendix Figure B.1. Location of sampling sites atHonolulu International Airport <.t'I

<.t'I

APPENDIX TABLE B.l. WATER QUALITY OF STORM RUNOFF, HONOLULU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, HAWAIII <.N.;.

PARAMETER

DRINKING 1/22/81 2/11/81 2/24/81 3/28/81 6(30/81 7/11(81 7(24(81 7(24/81 8/04/81 8/30/81WATER Site*

STANDARDS 7 8 6 5 5 4 3 2 4 1(Max. Limits) -----------------------------------------{mg/l)t----------------------------------------

MEDIAN

5005

6.5-8.5250

1..~ 0.5cl::~ 0.38 0.05~ 150

1.54

26.05.00.1670.040.0060.008

112.85.4

690.050.1610.190.05

33

4990.40

60113200.15

690.300.018

68

0.30

5.4

0.0060.0098

7S

0.070.1610.150.05

71

5010.55

9387

0.29

5.2

0.1750.19

55

0.0080.011

11

78

4980.24

8799

0.30

96.55.2

97

0.040.1600.250.02

35

4500.36

60128

0.18

0.004

0.400.050

82

30

112.2

5.3550.02

5100.13

60120

0.003

0.250.32

45

113.94.9

600.02

5050.36

15896

90.09

820.200.015

65

0.20

0.01856

14

0.0040.00693.36.0

600.04

4460.13

187105

110.11

69

0.20

59

0.030.0060.007

103.45.4

1230.07

13

6300.44

18155

150.10

670.30

20

0.090.05

30

0.040.0070.011

112.35.6

69

4820.57

16157

340.21

0.190.09

0.040.006

0.29.0.016

13.5

132.55.6

800.05

5150.55

39130

240.18

0.190.01

0.01914.3

0.040.0080.006

123.0

5.9950.05

3.3 4.8 4.1 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.15 0.15 14.9 1.27

26 25.5 26 26 25 24 24 26 25 265.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.7 5.0 4.4

0.155 --- 0.180 0.222 0.167 0.1600.030.005

4570.64

27103230.22

40.01)10.050.050.0021

a::Q.

-~~

Rainfall (mm)

Temperature (OC)Dissolved OxygenPhenolChromIumLeadMercuryTurbidity (NTU)Nltrlte+Nltrate NpHCh lor! deCopperSurfactantsIronManganeseSulfateTotal Dissolved

SolidsZinc

Suspended SolidsCODBODsBODs/CODHardness as CaC0 3

Total POrthophosphate PGrease and allNOTE I 1.0Tn.· 2S~1i mm.*Refer to Figure 3 for location.tExcept for pH and as noted otherwise.lDOH (1981)2U.S. EPA (1979).

APPENDIX TABLE B.2. RESULTS OF DRY-SEASON WASHING SEQUENCE AT HONOLULU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, HAWAIII

PARAMETER

6/29/81 7/07/81 7/24/81 7/24/81 8/31/81 8/31/81Site*

343 1 5 8------------------------------(mg/m2

)------------------------------

MEDIAN

Sulfate

Manganese

~Pheno1

L

~ Lead

:t Nitrite + Nitrate N

Ch lori de

Copper

SurfactantsL

~I Ironc:8Q)

VI

Total Dissolved Solids

Zinc

Suspended Solids

COD

Hardness as CaCO

Total P

Orthophosphate P

Grease & Oi 1

2.9

0.07

63

1128

8.3

34.2

1.0

312

837324.4

3520

19731260

3.9

1055

2. 1

0.06

732

1123

4.0

47.4

1.0

845

58596.6

2973

1807

3.8

2.8

1226

3.4

0.73

39

3.5

0.5

571

2.4

11332261

2.5

0.9

543

4.2

0.09

122

3.9

3.0

46.9

0.9

6595420

7.8

1084

5.9

1831

3. 1

O. 19

3.8

2.4

39.12.0

1518

4834

1.0

1567

4.9

1035

2.9

0.07

83

3.4

3.3

32.7

1660

5615

2.4

1094

2466

0.7

1030

3.0

0.08

83

1126

3.8

3.0

39.11.0

752

5615

4.5

1350

2117

1260

3.8

2.8

1141

NOTE: 1.0 lb/ft 2 = 4.883 X 10 3 mg/m2 •

*Refer to App. Fig. 6.1. for location.VICJ1

36

APPENDIX TABLE B,.3. StTE LOCATI ON OF HONOLULUINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT*

Site Distance DescriptionNo. (m)

111 Terminal area, aircraft gate;loading, maintenance

2 221 Taxiway, center; aircrafttraffic and groundcrew traffic

3 291 Taxiway prior to runway; heavyair traffic

4 333 Taxiway prior to runway; heavyair traffic

5 485 Tax iway pr ior to runway; heavyair traffic

6 596 Sma 11 aircraft taxiway; lightair traffic

7 680 Sma 11 aircraft taxiway; 1ightair traffic

8 957 Sma 11 aircraft taxiway, firestation; 1ight air traffic

NOTE: 1.0 m = 3.281 ft.*Refer to App. Fig. 6.1.