Catchment initiatives and retrofits

Prior to understanding diffuse pollution and its impact on baseline water quality in an urban/industrialised catchment, even environmental regulators were often inclined to dismiss minor sources on an individual site. A common error is comparing runoff to, for example, a process effluent or a chemical spill, instead of comparing runoff quality with river quality. Catchment scale engagement initiatives are often needed to highlight the collective impact of many premises, at each of which only minor contamination may have been recognised and ignored in isolation from wider perspectives.

9.6 CONCLUSIONS

There is a broad international consensus now on best management practices to capture diffuse source pollutants and these play a major role in stormwater management for wider purposes too. The successful implementation of measures depends on adoption of a clear strategy, with clear objectives that can be set out

Drainage infrastructure for industrial and commercial premises 131 in early consultations between architects, developers, planners and environmental regulators, whether for new build or retrofit.

All new and redeveloped industrial estates and premises should be planned and designed with provision for the following:

• Bund walls and other housekeeping measures at oil, chemical and other potential pollutant storage installations, and canopies over loading-unloading areas to exclude rainfall runoff and allow recovery of spilled material in sealed sumps.

• A location at the rear of premises, for connecting potentially polluting drainage to foul sewer (subject to prior agreement of the drainage authority).

Runoff from vehicle wash-bays, refuelling areas, oil and chemical storage areas and areas where potentially polluting material is handled should be directed to sewer after pre-agreement.

For drainage infrastructure:

• SUDS source control features at each of the premises on an industrial estate.

• Open drainage systems such as swales for conveyance of runoff from each of the premises to downstream control features.

• A retention pond or stormwater wetland should be the end-of-system final control, prior to discharge to watercourse. A modular arrangement has benefits for incident management.

• Features should be designed with contingency planning in mind too, as part of accident management (including oil, chemical and other spills and leaks, and fires).

• An inspection chamber, including provision to isolate outflow, should be the final part of a drainage system on each of the premises on an estate, if it is to be described as an industrial or commercial estate.

• Silt traps and/or oil interceptors should be provided where occupancy by a business with high-risk characteristics requires that.

• Retrofit programmes in dense developments should not ignore the potential benefits of commercial stormwater treatment technology, especially on a site-by-site basis (polluter pays principle).

An integrated, multiple benefits philosophy is essential to maximise benefits for industry and commerce, for developers and local agencies, and for the environment.

If provision is made for landscape quality, access or overview by staff and visitors, and habitat creation – the broad span of benefits from multifunctional landscape features implicit in the SUDS concept – the infrastructure will contribute to well-being and creating attractive places to work, as well as drainage and pollution prevention functions. Last but not least, the potential well-being benefits of green infrastructure for management, employees and contractors on industrial and commercial premises should not be overlooked.

9.7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to Neil Campbell and Andrew Hemingway for comments on drafts of this paper. All photographs are copyright Brian J. D’Arcy, unless otherwise credited.

REFERENCES

Arias L., Grimade J.-C. and Bertrand-Krajewski J.-L. (2016). First Results of Hydrological Performances of Three Different Green Roofs. Novatech Abstracts, Lyon, France, p. 77.

Boogaard F. C., Lucke T., Sommer H., De Beer J., van de Giesen N. C. and van de Ven F. H. M. (2014).

Lessons Learned from Over Two Decades of Global Swale Use. 13th International Conference on Urban Drainage, 7–12 September 2014, Sarawak, Malaysia.

Campbell N., D’Arcy B., Frost A., Novotny V. and Sansom A. (2004). Diffuse Pollution: An Introduction to the Problems and Solutions. IWA Publishing, London. ISBN: 1 900222 53 1.

Campbell N. S. and D’Arcy B. J. (2016). Controlling uncertainties – SUDS in a box? Blog, http://www.

enviroexperience.co.uk

Casal-Campos C., Jefferies C. and Perales Momparler S. (2012). Selecting SUDS in the Valencia Region of Spain. Published March 2012, 7 (1) wpt2012001, DOI: 10.2166/wpt.2012.001.

CIRIA (2015). The SuDS Manual. CIRIA, London C753, 968pp. www.ciria.org, ISBN:

978-0-86017-760-9.

D’Arcy B. J. and Bayes C. D. (1995). Industrial Estates: A Problem. In Pratt C. (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the Standing Conference on Stormwater Source Control. School of The Built Environment, Coventry University, Coventry. ISBN 0 905949 33 1.

D’Arcy B. J., Rosenqvist T., Mitchell G., Kellagher R. and Billett S. (2007). Restoration challenges for urban watercourses. Water Science & Technology, 55(3), 1–7.

Dunnett N. and Kingsbury N. (2008). Planting Green Roofs and Living Walls. Timber Press, Portland Oregon, and London UK. ISBN 13: 978-0-88192-911-9.

Ellis J. B., Deutsch J.-C., Mouchel J.-M., Scholes L. and Revitt D. M. (2004). Multicriteria decision approaches to support sustainable drainage options for the treatment of highway and urban runoff. Science of the Total Environment 334–335, 251–260.

Ellis J. B., Revitt M. and Lundy L. (2013). Behaviour of Selected Emerging Pollutants in Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). Novatch, Lyon, France.

Harper E. (1987). Environmental Impact – the role of the water authorities in the UK. In: Fires Involving Pesticides – The Rhine Incident, Proceedings of a Seminar in York, 25/26 September 1987, British Agrochemicals Association, Peterborough, UK, pp. 36–45.

Heal K., Scholz M., Wilby N. and Homer B. (2005). The Caw Burn SUDS: Performance of a Settlement Pond/Wetland SUDS Retrofit. Proceedings of Third National Conference on Sustainable Drainage, 20–21 June 2005, Coventry University. ISBN: 1 84600 007 6.

Horner R. R., Skupien J. J., Livingston E. H. and Shaver H. E. (1994). Fundamentals of Urban Runoff Management: Technical and Institutional Issues. Terence Institute, Washington DC.

Hreggviosdottir H. and Arnadottir H. (2016). Urridaholt neighbourhood Iceland – Sustainable drainage solutions interwoven in the urban pattern – a co-operative approach.

Ibanez M. (2015). Characterisation of Water Pollution Problems and Solutions from Industrial Estates – East Tullos burn, MSc dissertation, University of Abertay, Aberdeen (Scotland), September 2015, Dundee, UK.

International Stormwater BMP Database (2016). www.bmpdatabase.org (accessed 8 August 2016) Leroy M.-C., Marcotte S., Le Derf F., Legras M., Moncond’huy V. and Portet-Koltalo (2016). Runoff

Treatment by Roadside Swales: Soil and Plants Improvements. Novatech Abstracts, Lyon, France, p. 223.

Drainage infrastructure for industrial and commercial premises 133

Napier F., Jefferies C., Heal K. V., Fogg P., D’Arcy B. J. and Clarke R. (2009). Evidence of traffic-related pollutant control in soil-based Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). Water Science and Technology, 60(1), 221–30.

Porter E. (1973). Pollution in Four Industrialised Estuaries. The RCoEP, HMSO, London.

Schueler T. R., Kumble P. A. and Heraty M. A. (1992). A Current Assessment of Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Council of Governments, Washington DC.

Stahre P. (2006). Sustainability in Urban Storm Drainage, Planning and Examples. Svenskt Vatten, Malmo, Sweden. ISBN: 91-85159-20-4.

UNEP (1997). The Environmental Management of Industrial Estates, UNEP IE Technical Report No.

39, United Nations Environment Programme, Industry and Environment. ISBN: 92-807-1652-2.

© IWA Publishing 2017. Wealth Creation without Pollution: Designing for Industry, Ecobusiness Parks and Industrial Estates

Brian D’Arcy, Lee-Hyung Kim, Marla Maniquiz-Redillas doi: 10.2166/9781780408330_135

Marla C. Maniquiz-Redillas and Lee-Hyung Kim

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Kongju National University, Cheonan, Chungnamdo, Korea (Email: marlcmani@kongju.

ac.kr, leehyung@kongju.ac.kr)

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Roads, parking lots and other transport-related impervious surfaces are both hydrological and ecological disturbances. Stormwater discharges from these land uses can cause adverse effects and lead to significant degradation of environmental values of the urban aquatic ecosystems into which they discharge. The effects can be significant from physical changes in streams due to hydrological impacts, through to deposition of contaminants into ecosystems or groundwater. The impacts have historically been more easily seen in heavily industrialized countries, where large rivers have been severely impacted.

The importance of stormwater management in industrial sites is recognized worldwide since the range and quantity of contaminants present in discharged stormwater is typically higher than other land uses. Typical substances present in industrial sites include acids, alkalis, degradable organic residues, detergents, disinfectants, dyes, engine coolants, fertilizers, fuel, lubricants, metal solutions, pharmaceuticals, salts, poisons and solvents. Stormwater runoff from roofs, parking lots, driveways, exterior materials storage and process areas should be effectively managed to avoid flooding and contamination risks especially when stored toxic chemicals are flushed off-site or washed off during rainfall events and discharged to receiving waterbodies. All risks should be considered, from the

Chapter 10

Low impact development