11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Designing a state of the art drainage system: Challenges at Dublin Airports proposed new runway
W. Schlter1*, S. Dempsey2, Crona Sheehan2
1

White Young Green, Apex Business Centre, Blackthorn Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18 2 P.H. McCarthy & White Young Green, Nutgrove Office Park, Nutgrove Avenue, Rathfarnham, Dublin 14 *Corresponding author, e-mail wolfram.schluter@wyg.com

ABSTRACT
The development of a new runway and taxiway system at Dublin Airport has the potential to influence both the quality and quantity of surface water runoff from the airport. The additional paved areas have a potential to increase peak runoff rates and can therefore increase downstream flood risks. In addition, operational activities such as de-icing chemicals used on both aircraft and paved surfaces have a significant potential to adversely impact water quality. In line with the aims of the Water Framework Directive and new environmental and development policies such as the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS), the principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) have been incorporated into the design of the drainage systems for the Dublin Airport Runway. The surface water drainage system for the new runway and taxiways will distinguish and separate contaminated water from clean water. The separation will be facilitated by an automated control system using an online BOD monitor as well as manual control. Under normal conditions, surface water runoff will be conveyed into attenuation tanks, prior to discharge to the receiving water, when the monitor detects flows with BOD levels greater than 3mg/l the runoff will be conveyed to a separate polluted water holding tank. As a failsafe, all flows would be manually diverted to the polluted water holding tank for the first two runoff events following any de-icing activities. This will ensure that the greater quantity of potential contamination would be captured regardless of the performance of the sensors and the possibility of the greatest environmental risk would thus be avoided..

KEYWORDS
Sustainable drainage, de-icing, water quality monitoring, maintaining greenfield runoff rates.

INTRODUCTION
The development of a new runway and taxiway system at Dublin Airport has the potential to influence both the quality and quantity of surface water runoff from the airport. The additional paved areas will increase peak runoff rates and can increase downstream flood risks. In addition, operational activities such as de-icing chemicals used on both aircraft and paved surfaces have a significant potential to adversely impact water quality. As a result, the development requires a surface water management plan. Site Location The lands at Dublin Airport straddle several river catchments consisting of the Ward River Catchment, the Sluice River Catchment and its tributaries the Forrest Little Stream, the Wad

Schlter et al.

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 Stream and Kealys Stream, the Santry River Catchment and the Mayne River Catchment. Figure 1 provides an overview of the river catchments at Dublin Airport.

Figure 1: River Catchments at Dublin Airport The proposed new runway site is located within subcatchments of the Forrest Little Stream (Sluice River) and Ward Rivers and crosses a number of tributaries of these rivers which will have to be culverted or diverted. The Ward River subcatchment portion of the site is currently 2 Designing a state of the art drainage system: Challenges at Dublin Airports proposed new runway

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 not developed. The Forrest Little subcatchment receives runoff from the hangers, stands, runways and taxiways to the north of the existing airport complex. Water Quality The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines the River Water Quality by biological and physico-chemical analysis. The biological river quality classification system (Biotic Index) is a complex assessment of the bio-diversity of a river system. Biological monitoring generally indicates the effect of organic pollutants such as sewage and agricultural wastes and may also determine the effect of toxic pollution. Biological monitoring is a good indicator of the long-term effects of water pollution. Physico-chemical monitoring involves the determination of the concentrations of various substances present in a water body e.g. ammonia (which may indicate water polluted by sewage matter) and heavy metals (which may result from industrial pollution) etc. The physical nature of the water body is determined using parameters such as dissolved oxygen, pH and suspended solids among others. Physicochemical monitoring is an indication of recently occurring pollution events. It is considered beneficial to monitor biologically, physically and chemically in order to establish an overall picture of true water quality. EPAs classification system uses the following five categories: High Status, Good Status, Moderate Status, Poor Status and Bad Status. At present the biological water quality of the Mayne and Santry Rivers are sampled by the EPA at their downstream limits and both are consistently classified as being of Poor Status. The Ward River is sampled at three locations from its headwaters to its outlet to the Broadmeadow River, two sites are of Poor Status and one of Bad Status. The Sluice River is not sampled as part of this programme. The chemical water quality of the watercourses within the airport complex is monitored by the Dublin Airport Authority and monitoring results indicate the occasional impact of the airports snow and ice control activities and aircraft maintenance activities in the vicinity of the hangers on the Forest Little Stream

CURRENT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AT DUBLIN AIRPORT

The water quality objectives for the receiving watercourses, established by the Dublin Airport Pollution Control Committee in agreement with the regulating authority Fingal County Council (FCC), are summarised in Table1. These quality objectives are consistent with Irish and EU legislation and are designed to protect Salmonid waters. The more stringent BOD level for the Ward is set in recognition of the presence of a known sea trout and salmon run into this river. Table 1: Water Quality Objectives Parameter BOD (mg/l) Ammonia (mg/l N) Total P (mg/l P) pH
Notes: 1. 2. 3. Forest Little Stream target BOD is 5mg/l in winter (October to April) and 3mg/l in summer (May to September). Ward Stream target BOD is 3 mg/L regardless of season 20 mg/l target is for pipes, based on the Royal Commission Standard

Guideline Objective 31,52 or 203 1-4 1 6-9

Schlter et al.

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 The Dublin Airport Environmental Management System documents the procedures for monitoring watercourses at the Airport. Currently samples are taken from 28 monitoring stations located on the 6 watercourses draining the airport on a monthly basis and analysed for the following parameters; BOD5, COD, TOC, Ammonia, Total Phosphorous, Orthophosphate, pH and Glycol (when required). In addition, samples may also be taken at any of the designated locations at any time in response to specific events or special needs e.g. de/anti-icing activities or spillage events. The results of this monitoring programme are reviewed and assessed by the Dublin Airport Environment Department and the monitoring programme is updated on a regular basis with new parameters included or alternative monitoring sites identified. The process for the installation of continuous on-stream on-line surface water monitors for the airport as a whole is currently underway by the Environment Department. While water quality in the watercourses generally meets the specified quality objectives, samples taken immediately after de-icing events showed occasionally elevated BOD levels (ranging from <2 to 325 mg/l). However, it must be noted that high levels of BOD are also detected from samples taken on dates not related to de-icing events, suggesting that other random events/activities are contributing to stream water contamination. The Forest Little Stream which will receive drainage from the eastern portion of the proposed new runway currently exhibits generally good water quality. Runways and Taxiways De-icing / Anti-icing and Snow Clearance Dublin Airport enjoys a relatively mild climate and on average experiences only 1 or 2 nights of snow and 3-4 nights of frost per year. Snow and ice present an obvious hazard to the safe manoeuvring of aircraft, in particular during landing and take-off. Chemical de-icing and anti-icing products are routinely used to control ice on manoeuvring areas at all the airports in Western Europe. The agents presently used at Dublin Airport are Urea and Potassium Acetate (Safegrip). As a general rule urea is used as a de-icing and anti-icing material on all apron areas. Runways and taxiways are treated with Potassium Acetate due to its speed of operation and its superior environmental traits. In emergency circumstances only, urea may be used as a deicing agent on runways and taxiways. The use of urea on apron areas is to be phased out by winter 2005/2006. Urea is applied to the apron in the form of solid prills. The urea prills are spread from a specialist vehicle which is capable of releasing the prills uniformly via a speed related distributor and applies a wetting agent prior to release to activate the de-icing agents on reaching the ground. Urea is essentially an ammonia based compound. Potassium acetate (eg Safegrip) is a water-soluble de-icing fluid. It is applied to the runways and taxiways via a boom towed sprayer which ensures that the potassium acetate is applied only to the paved areas and that wind effects are not significant. Currently procedures are in place to monitor the surface water quality within twelve hours of initial pavement anti-/de-icing operations, and then again within 24 hours of the first sample. Potential Water Quality Impacts from de-icing chemicals The effects of anti-icing / de-icing chemicals on surface water systems is well known and each type exhibits different biochemical oxygen demands (BOD) thereby causing stress to fish and plants. The oxygen depletion of different de-icing/anti-icing chemicals is set out in Table 2. 4 Designing a state of the art drainage system: Challenges at Dublin Airports proposed new runway

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

Table 2: BOD Details De-icing Material Potassium Acetate1 Urea2 Ethylene Glycol Propylene Glycol (e.g. Kilfrost ABC-3) Notes:
1. 2.

BOD5 O2/g 0.18 0.21 0..44 1.04

MSDS for Kilfrost and Safegrip The use of Urea is to be phased out by 2005/2006

In addition to its high BOD, Urea decomposes to ammonia which is harmful to aquatic life. A number of chemicals have been introduced which are more environmentally friendly and have a more limited impact on the surface water systems. Examples of these chemicals are potassium acetate and potassium formate which are fast acting in removing ice and yet exert less pressure on surface water systems than other chemical types such as glycol. Dublin Airport no longer uses glycol for runway de-icing purposes and has replaced this chemical with potassium acetate since 1990. The questionable medium to long term future of urea as an anti-icing/de-icing chemical, in other airports has led to a search for alternatives and whilst acetate prills have recently become available difficulties in storage, handling and supply mean these are not yet widely adopted at airports.

PROPOSED SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM

The proposed surface water drainage network is designed to separate runoff from pavement and grassed areas thereby providing an effective reduction in the volume of water at risk of pollution. To achieve this, the drainage is divided into four separate networks, one draining the runway and taxiway pavements and three to drain the grassed areas (western, central and eastern land drain networks). The pavement drainage system will consist of slot drains or gullies located along either side of the runway and to the southern side of taxiways. These will discharge to a network of collector pipes. The collector pipes will convey flows to a petrol/oil interceptor and then be directed to either the polluted water holding tank or a flow attenuation tank, depending on the chemical composition of the flow. The paved area drainage system will also be fitted with fuel/oil interceptors that will be placed prior to the attenuation tanks and the polluted water holding tanks. These interceptors will help improve the quality of runoff under normal conditions as well as providing storage for any major spills. The polluted water holding tanks can also provide failsafe storage for spillages or discharges in emergencies, if the capacity of the fuel/oil interceptors is exceeded. The grassed area drainage networks will comprise a network of filter drains with perforated carrier pipes along their invert. The filter drains will be sized so that they will contribute to storage of runoff which will help maintain greenfield runoff rates and reduce surface ponding / flooding as far as practicable. This configuration will also encourage subsurface infiltration and help maintain the hydrologic cycle. Figure 2 provides an overview of the drainage schematic, which was developed to provide a maximum protection to the receiving watercourse. The online quality monitoring is of major importance to this strategy and this is proposed to consist of a BOD analyser, which will Schlter et al. 5

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 provide continuous monitoring of runoff from paved areas. If monitoring shows that surface water is contaminated, it will be automatically and immediately diverted to the Polluted Water Holding Tank. As a failsafe it is also proposed that all flows will be manually diverted to the polluted water holding tank for the first two-runoff events following any de-icing activities. Polluted runoff is then attenuated via the polluted water holding tanks and released to the local foul sewer network at greenfield runoff rates. If monitoring shows that surface water is unpolluted, it will be released to the Forest Little stream at the allowable discharge rate.
Unpaved area drainage Paved area drainage

Attenuation of flows to Greenfield runoff rates

Oil Separation (Class 1)

Watercourse

Attenuation of flows to Greenfield runoff rates

Not contaminated

Online quality monitoring

Contaminated Polluted Water Holding Tank

Dispose to foul sewer

Figure 2: Surface Water Drainage Strategy Schematic Covered storage tanks were preferred to the lower cost stormwater holding ponds in order to reduce the risk of attracting wintering birds and wildlife to the area which would potentially cause increased risk of bird strikes with aircraft. All tanks (both attenuation and polluted water holding tanks) would be designed to allow easy access so that water can be readily sampled and water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen, BOD etc. can be monitored. A number of alternatives were considered for treatment and disposal of the contaminated water. However, given the relatively low number of frost nights at Dublin Airport and the low frequency of pavement de-icing it is considered that the best solution is to dispose directly to sewer. The alternative solution providing an onsite treatment facility is not considered further at this stage primarily due to the initial capital and ongoing operational and maintenance costs for relatively infrequent usage. BOD Analyser BOD online analysers allow for a rapid, continuous and reliable analysis of oxygen demands. Given the very low detection limits required (as low as 3mg/l for discharges to the Forest Little Stream in summer) it is considered that the BOD Isco-STIP monitoring instruments manufactured by Envitech would be most suitable. These online analysers generate BOD data 6 Designing a state of the art drainage system: Challenges at Dublin Airports proposed new runway

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 with a lag time of only 3 to 15 minutes and can be set for detection limits ranging from 0 to 100,000 mg/l BOD. The analysers have been used for numerous airports throughout the UK (Gatwick, East Midlands, Stanstead, Manchester, Birmingham and Heathrow) and are considered the best product for this type of application (Grenner & Pickering, 2002). Case studies at a variety of UK airports have demonstrated that the analysers real-time data correlates well with the five-day BOD5 laboratory results, even at very low levels of BOD. The analysers include programmable concentration alarms which allow for high levels of contamination (in this case levels equal to or greater than the specified objective level) to be detected quickly and reliably. These would be linked to diversion devices to redirect flow to the polluted water holding tanks or prompt for an appropriate response and action from duty personnel (Grenner & Pickering, 2002). The key benefits of the BOD analysers are the low maintenance and operational costs, excellent correlation to the BOD5, when reliable lab analysis can be obtained, and a rapid response in minutes. Thereby, providing a valuable control tool to optimise storage capacity and ensure consent discharges to receiving waters are maintained. Catchment Alteration The proposed development is contained within the Ward and Sluice River Catchments (see Figure 1). Discussions with the Eastern Region Fisheries Board (ERFB) have indicated that the Ward River is a sensitive salmon and trout habitat and as a result the ERFB require that no runoff from any paved surfaces is discharged into to the Ward River Catchment. The preferred drainage configuration is therefore to direct all runoff from paved surfaces to the Forest Little Stream / Sluice River thus increasing its catchment by approximately 1%. To offset potential flooding issues associated with the increase in catchment area of the Sluice River and increase in runoff as a result of the increase in paved area, runoff will be attenuated to greenfield run-off rates. Greenfield runoff calculations are based on the surface area of the runway that lies within the Sluice Catchment only; i.e. the allowable runoff from the new area which straddles both the Ward and Sluice catchments will be limited to the equivalent run-off from the Sluice River catchment only. Estimation of Greenfield Runoff Rates The Institute of Hydrology Report 124 Flood estimation for small catchments (Marshall & Bayliss, 1994) allows greenfield runoff to be estimated using Qbar based on site conditions. Qbar, corresponds to a 2.3 Year return period and this is factored up using growth curves for Dublin in accordance with Bruen and Gebre (2005) to estimate the 30 Year and 100 Year greenfield runoff rate. This method is also recommended in CIRIA Guide C697, The SUDS Manual (2007). The greenfield runoff rate is defined as the rate of site discharge in the undeveloped condition and this should be maintained in the developed site condition via the provision of storage and flow controls (CIRIA, 2007). The Western network of the grassed area is 9.6ha and located within the Ward River Catchment, which results in a greenfield runoff rate of 0.023m3/s. The Central and Eastern network have a combined grassed area of 40.4ha and discharge to the Sluice River Catchment and this is associated with a greenfield runoff rate of 0.083m3/s. The paved area is 54.3 ha and 35.6ha are located within the Sluice River Catchment, resulting in a greenfield runoff rate of 0.075m3/s.

Schlter et al.

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 Network Design Infoworks Collection System (CS) was used to design the stormwater drainage network and determine the required pipe diameters and attenuation tank sizes for the paved areas as well as the grassed areas. The design parameters were adopted from the model used for the Greater Dublin Strategic Design Study (2005), which was carried out for the whole Greater Dublin, including the area of Dublin Airport. The proposed drainage system is separated into four drainage networks that consist of paved area (54.3ha), eastern grassed area (33.84 ha), central grassed areas (6.54 ha) and western grassed area (9.69 ha). The calculated greenfield annual maximum runoff rate per hectare was then set as the throttle rate at the outlet to the Forest Little Stream. Any flow greater than the throttle rates will be attenuated in the tanks provided. The required attenuation is achieved, with peak outlet discharges limited to 0.194m3/s for the proposed development. Table 3 provides details of the proposed attenuation tank. Table 3: Attenuation Tank Details Catchment Invert Level Depth of Tank [-] [mAD] [mAD] Paved Area 58.8 3.5 Base Area [m2] 3,000 Storage Volume [m3] 10,500

The attenuation achieved in the networks during the 100 year return period storm event is illustrated in Figure 3 which compares flow hydrographs at the inlet and outlet of the attenuation tank for the 100 Year return period
Discharge from Run way Drainage Attenuated to Greenfield Runoff 100 Year Return Period

9 8 7 /s]
3

6 5 4 3 2 1

Flow [m

0 00:00 02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 02:00 Time [hh:mm] Inflow to A ttenuation Tank Disc harge from A ttenuation Tank

Greenfield runoff rate 0.193 m3/s

Figure 3: Paved area attenuation for 100 year return period Operational Procedures A range of operational procedures are proposed as part of the new drainage system and these consist of:

Designing a state of the art drainage system: Challenges at Dublin Airports proposed new runway

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008 Implementing a programme to review chemical usage to phase in the use of more environmentally friendly chemicals, practices and application equipment. Ensuring that a drainage plan of the site is maintained and kept updated; this should include treatment facilities, storage capacities, sampling points and locations of discharges of local watercourses, soakaways and sewerage systems. This is available for the existing network and the details of the new development will be added. Developing clear contingency plans and procedures in case of an incident likely to cause pollution and making them readily accessible in all areas where an incident may occur. These should be based around the airport drainage and building/runway layout plans, and be readily available to the licensing agencies and emergency services, this is dealt with by the existing Dublin Airport Pollution Control Committee.

CONCLUSION
The primary threat to water quality as a result of the proposed development will arise from application of de-icing chemicals which is undertaken following snow or frost events. A surface water runoff collection system has been designed for the new runway to cater for the 100 year return period storm event. This system will separate land and pavement drainage. To limit the risk of downstream flooding, the pavement drainage will be conveyed to an attenuation storage tank prior to controlled discharge to the Forest Little Stream. The attenuation tank will be designed to ensure that greenfield runoff rates are maintained. In recognition of the fact that a portion of the paved area that would have originally drained to the Ward River catchment will now be directed to the Sluice River Catchment, the maximum allowable outflow rate is based on greenfield runoff calculations for the portion of the runway that falls into the Sluice river catchment only. A separate polluted water holding tank will be included in the pavement drainage system to capture flows contaminated with materials such as de-icing chemicals. Runoff from the paved areas will be continuously monitored via an online BOD analyser. If monitoring shows the surface water is contaminated, then it will be automatically and immediately diverted to the polluted water holding tank. As a failsafe, all flows will be manually diverted to the polluted water holding tank for the first two-runoff events following any de-icing activities. A surface water quality and quantity monitoring program will be put in place by Dublin Airport to demonstrate compliance with discharge consent standards at the site of the proposed new runway. It is considered that all the above provisions will ensure that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on either water quality or flows in water courses / river catchments adjacent to the development.

Schlter et al.

11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the following individuals without whom this work would not have been possible: Aidan Fidgeon (Dublin Airport Authority), Matthew Pollard (RPS Consulting Engineers) and Aidan Harney (RPS Consulting Engineers) .

REFERENCES
Bruen M. and Gebre F. (2005) An investigation of the Flood Studies Report ungauged catchmnet method for Mid-Eastern Ireland and Dublin. Centre for Water Resources Research. University College Dublin. CIRIA, Construction Industry Research and Information Association (2007). The SUDS Manual. Report C697, London, SW1P 3AU. GDSDS (2005): Greater Dublin Drainage Strategy. Environmental Management Policy. Dublin City Council. (http://www.dublincity.ie/shaping_the_city/environment/drainage_services/greater_dublin_strategic_dr ainage_study/environmental_management_policy.asp accessed 04.01.2007) Grenner, C., Pickering, J., (2002) Using the STIP BIOX 1010 to Monitor Airport Run-Off (Envitech June 2002) Marschall D. and Bayliss A. C. (1994). Flood estimation for small catchments. Institute of Hydrology report No. 124, Wallingford, UK

10 system:

Designing a state of the art drainage Challenges at Dublin Airports proposed new runway