August 2005
05/22/WQPC-WWF
EPA/600/R-05/138
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Stormwater Source Area Treatment
Device
Stormwater Management, Inc.
TM
CatchBasin StormFilter
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ETV ET V ET
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device
Stormwater Management, Inc.
'j
CatchBasin StormFilter
TM
Prepared for:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Prepared by:
EOT
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raymond Frederick, Project Officer
ETV Water Quality Protection Center
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey 08837
August 2005
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
TEST LOCATION:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEB SITE:
EMAIL:
STORMWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND ROADWAY POLLUTANT
TREATMENT
THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
CATCHBASIN STORMFILTER
ST. CLAIR SHORES, MICHIGAN
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, INC.
12021-B NE Airport Way
Portland, Oregon 97220
http://www.stormwaterinc.com
mail@stormwaterinc.com
PHONE: (800)548-4667
FAX: (503)240-9553
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), operates
the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), one of six centers under the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program. The WQPC recently evaluated the performance of the CatchBasin
StormFilter (CBSF) manufactured by Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI), of Portland, Oregon. The
CBSF was installed at the St. Clair Shores Department of Public Works (DPW) yard in St. Clair Shores,
Michigan. Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT) of Detroit, Michigan performed the
testing.
The ETV program was created to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and
more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer-
reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting,
purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder groups, which
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing
test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
05/22/WQPC-WWF
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-i
August 2005
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following description of the CBSF was provided by the vendor and does not represent verified
information.
The four-cartridge CBSF consists of a storm grate and filter chamber inlet bay, flow spreader, cartridge
bay, overflow baffle, and outlet bay, housed in a 10.25 ft by 2 ft steel vault. The inlet bay serves as a grit
chamber and provides for flow transition into the cartridge bay. The flow spreader traps floatables, oil,
and surface scum. This StormFilter was designed to treat stormwater with a maximum flow rate of
60 gpm. Flows greater than the maximum flow rate would pass the overflow baffle to the discharge pipe,
bypassing the filter media.
The CBSF contains filter cartridges filled with SMFs CSF filter media (an organic granular media made
from composted deciduous leaves), which is designed to remove sediments, metals, and other stormwater
pollutants from wet weather runoff. Water in the cartridge bay infiltrates the filter media into a tube in
the center of the filter cartridge. When the center tube fills, a float valve opens and a check valve on top
of the filter cartridge closes, creating a siphon that draws water through the filter media. The filtered
water drains into a manifold under the filter cartridges and to the outlet bay, where it exits the system
through the discharge pipe. The system resets when the cartridge bay is drained and the siphon is broken.
The CBSF is equipped with an overflow weir designed to bypass flows exceeding the peak hydraulic
treatment capacity and prevent catch basin backup and surface flooding. The bypass flow is discharged
through the outlet pipe along with the treated water.
The vendor claims that a single StormFilter cartridge configured to treat flows at 15 gpm using a coarse
perlite media was shown to have a TSS removal efficiency of 79% (with 95% confidence limits of 78%
and 80%) for a sandy loam material comprised of 55% sand, 45% silt, 5% clay (USDA) by mass, in
laboratory studies using simulated stormwater, and can also remove metals and oil and grease from wet-
weather flows. The vendor did not provide specific claims for the removal efficiency of the CSF media,
used in this verification. Further detail about the specific vendor claims appears in the verification report.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Methods and Procedures
The test methods and procedures used during the study are described in the Test Plan for Stormwater
Management, Inc. Storm Filter, November 5, 2002. The CBSF received runoff collected from an
impervious 0.16-acre portion of the DPW yard, where uncovered stockpiles of sand, gravel, construction
debris and excavated aggregate consisting of sand, silt, topsoil and clay, are maintained. Southeast
Michigan receives an annual average of nearly 37 in. of precipitation, and experiences warm to hot
summers and cold, snowy winters.
Verification testing consisted of collecting data during a minimum of 15 qualified events that met the
following criteria:
The total rainfall depth for the event, measured at the site, was 0.2 in. (5 mm) or greater (snow
fall and snow melt events did not qualify);
Flow through the treatment device was successfully measured and recorded over the duration of
the runoff period;
A flow-proportional composite sample was successfully collected for both the influent and
effluent over the duration of the runoff event;
Each composite sample was comprised of a minimum of five aliquots, including at least two
aliquots on the rising limb of the runoff hydrograph, at least one aliquot near the peak, and at least
two aliquots on the falling limb of the runoff hydrograph; and
There was a minimum of six hours between qualified sampling events.
05/22/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2005
VS-ii
-------
Automated monitoring and sample collection devices were installed to collect composite samples from
the influent and effluent during qualified flow events. Additional influent and effluent sample ports were
also installed so that discrete samples could be collected by manually actuating peristaltic pumps to
collect samples for hydrocarbon analysis. In addition to the flow and analytical data, operation and
maintenance (O&M) data were recorded. Samples were analyzed for the following parameters:
Sediments Metals Hydrocarbons
total suspended solids total and dissolved total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH),
(TSS) cadmium, lead, gasoline-range organics (GRO) and diesel-
suspended sediment copper and zinc range organics (DRO)
concentration (SSC) polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
Verification testing of the CBSF lasted approximately 13 months, with four months off during the winter
of 2004. Sixteen storm events were successfully sampled. However, due to problems with the automated
sampling equipment in 2003, ECT collected flow-weighted aliquots for all analyses by manually
actuating the peristaltic pump for events 1 through 6 and event 8. During remobilization in the spring of
2004, ECT and SMI debugged the automated sampling equipment, and for all subsequent events, samples
for sediment and metals analyses were collected with the automated sampling equipment.
Test Results
The ETV protocol and test plan do not specify maximum sediment concentration in stormwater, nor did
SMI's literature specify a maximum sustained concentration for their stormwater treatment devices to
function effectively. However, the vendor, TO, and VO recognized that the sediment loadings in this
drainage basin were atypical, and exceeded a concentration and mass loading range in which a valid
measure of the removal performance of the CBSF could be conducted. According to the vendor, the four-
cartridge CBSF has a maximum sediment storage capacity of 27 ft3 or 200 gal in the sump, plus a
maximum of 100 Ib in the cartridges (25 Ib per cartridge). The influent calculated sum of loads (SOL)
mass for TSS and SSC was approximately 2,000 Ib for all events. Based on SOL calculations, the
sediment loadings for qualified events likely exceeded the CBSF sediment capacity after only a few
events.
The precipitation data for the rain events are summarized in Table 1. The peak runoff intensity exceeded
the CBSF peak hydraulic treatment capacity of 60 gpm during 10 of the 16 events, which means that a
portion of the flow bypassed the filtering process during these events. During high flow conditions, the
effluent includes both filtered and unfiltered water, so these values do not represent the performance of
the system under designed flow conditions. Recorded flow volumes were substantially higher than
predicted using the rational method, especially during events with higher peak discharge rates.
The monitoring results were evaluated using event mean concentration (EMC) and SOL comparisons.
The EMC or efficiency ratio comparison evaluates treatment efficiency on a percentage basis by dividing
the effluent concentration by the influent concentration and multiplying the quotient by 100. The
efficiency ratio was calculated for each analytical parameter and each individual storm event. The SOL
comparison evaluates the treatment efficiency on a percentage basis by comparing the sum of the influent
and effluent loads (the product of multiplying the parameter concentration by the precipitation volume)
for all storm events. The calculation is made by subtracting the quotient of the total effluent load divided
by the total influent load from one, and multiplying by 100. SOL results can be summarized on an overall
basis since the loading calculation takes into account both the concentration and volume of runoff from
each event. The analytical data ranges, EMC range, and SOL reduction values are shown in Table 2.
05/22/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2005
VS-iii
-------
Table 1. Rainfall Data Summary
Rainfall
Event Start Start Amount
Number Date Time (in.)
1 9/22/03 7:40 0.31
2 9/26/03 23:50 0.26
3 10/14/03 11:14 0.68
4 11/18/03 7:50 0.44
5 11/24/03 4:09 0.33
6 12/10/03 14:05 0.75
7 12/23/03 3:34 0.42
8 12/29/03 8:25 0.31
9 1/1/04 21:51 0.20
10 5/10/04 22:26 0.29
11 5/23/04 18:45 1.39
12 6/10/04 13:09 0.28
13 7/7/04 15:12 0.30
14 7/14/04 16:25 0.18
15 8/28/04 7:21 0.52
16 10/23/04 19:25 0.21
Rainfall
Duration
(hr:min)
1:45
2:00
6:30
17:45
10:45
7:45
10:30
7:45
2:30
3:30
3:45
2:30
1:45
0:45
2:45
4:30
Runoff
Volume
(gal)
2,990
1,510
2,950
4,940
17,900
19,800
11,200
2,270
868
4,450
22,500
5,030
3,700
3,330
10,100
3,970
Peak Discharge
Rate (gpm)
196
44
41
13
99
85
85
9
10
273
335
171
274
175
223
39
Table 2. Analytical Data, EMC Range, and SOL Reduction Results
Influent
Parameter Units Range
TSS mg/L 1,100-5,200
SSC mg/L 930-9,100
Total cadmium l^g/L 0.6-44
Total copper ug/L 6.0 - 390
Total lead ug/L 15-580
Total zinc ug/L 72 - 1,800
Dissolved cadmium1 ug/L <0.2 - 2.0
Dissolved copper1 ug/L <1.0-35
Dissolved lead1 ug/L <1 .0 - 49
Dissolved zinc1 ug/L <2.0 - 200
TPH-GRO ug/L < 1 00 - < 1 00
TPH-DRO mg/L <0.001-52
PAH2 ug/L <1. 0-7.5
Effluent
Range
570-8,600
700 - 12,000
O.2-7.6
6.6-250
3.2-200
24- 1,100
O.2-1.8
<1.0-120
<1.0-80
<2.0-170
<100-<100
O.001- 19
<1.0-3.6
EMC Range
(%)
-120-63
-44 - 53
-41-87
-64 - 42
-47 - 79
-82 - 70
-9-10
-3,400-31
-560-33
-3,400 - 69
NC
-41-93
52-81
SOL Reduction
(%)
11
9.2
52
20
20
29
-20
-34
-0.44
-3.9
NC
62
64
1. Negative EMC values for dissolved metals were skewed by non-detected concentrations in the influent
sample and detected concentrations in the paired effluent sample.2. Ten of 17 PAH compounds were
detected only during events 4, 12, and 14. PAH SOL reduction calculated from sum of all detected
PAH compounds during these three events.
NC: Not calculated.
05/22/WQPC-WWF
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-iv
August 2005
-------
In spite of the excessive sediment loadings, the sediment SOL data were further evaluated to assess the
performance impacts of maintenance activities and events where bypass did not occur. This data
indicated a 34% TSS SOL reduction for the first three events following maintenance, as compared to a
3.1% reduction for all other events. Furthermore, the data indicated a 40% SSC SOL reduction for events
where bypass did not occur, compared to a 1.5% reduction for events where bypass occurred.
System Operation
The StormFilter was installed by DPW personnel, under the supervision of ECT. The installation took
approximately two days. No major problems with the CBSF were noted during installation; however,
pipe scaling and blockage downstream of the CBSF was detected after the CBSF was installed.
Addressing this issue delayed the start of verification testing.
The CBSF was cleaned and equipped with new filter cartridges prior to the start of verification and in the
spring of 2004, before verification resumed after winter demobilization, and at the end of verification.
The CBSF vaults are easily accessible from the ground surface, which makes cartridge replacement and
sediment removal easy. According to the vendor, spent filter cartridges weigh approximately 250 Ib each,
and, if mishandled, can cause damage to the PVC under-drain manifold in the vault.
The CBSF's PVC under-drain manifold was not fully assembled when it was delivered to the DPW, and
became disassembled during the shakedown period. The TO dry fit the manifold components when
verification testing began. The first two events were sampled with the manifold either partially
disassembled or dry fit but not sealed. When SMI was informed of this condition, they responded by
sending a repair technician to the DPW to properly assemble and seal the manifold.
Vendor Comments
The vendor included a chapter in the verification report asserting that the data were collected from filters
that were severely impacted by exceedingly high solids loads, sampled in a completely occluded
condition, and that the sediment loadings and concentrations experienced at the site were substantially
higher than the range they would recommend for usage of the CBSF without site controls or pretreatment.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
NSF personnel completed a technical systems audit during testing to ensure that the testing was in
compliance with the test plan. NSF also completed a data quality audit of at least 10% of the test data to
ensure that the reported data represented the data generated during testing. In addition to QA/QC audits
performed by NSF, EPA personnel conducted an audit of NSF's QA Management Program.
05/22/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2005
VS-v
-------
Original signed by: Original signed by:
Sally Gutierrez 10/3/05 Robert Ferguson 10/5/05
Sally Gutierrez Date Robert Ferguson Date
Director Vice President
National Risk Management Laboratory Water Systems
Office of Research and Development NSF International
United States Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed
or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will
always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable
federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade names, or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products. This report is not an NSF
Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the ETV Verification Protocol, Stormwater Source Area Treatment Technologies Draft
4.1, March 2002, the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF Report Number
05/22/WQPC-WWF) are available from:
ETV Water Quality Protection Center Program Manager (hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
NSF website: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
Appendices are not included in the verification report, but are available from NSF upon request.
05/22/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. August 2005
VS-vi
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through its Office of Research and
Development, has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under a
Cooperative Agreement. The Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), operating under the
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, supported this verification effort. This
document has been peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF and EPA and recommended for public
release. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation by the EPA for use, nor does it constitute certification by NSF.
-------
Foreword
The following is the final report on an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) test
performed for NSF International (NSF) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The verification test for the Stormwater Management, Inc. CatchBasin StormFilter
Treatment System was conducted at the City of St. Clair Shores Department of Public Works
(DPW) facility located in St. Clair Shores, Michigan.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and
private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems by:
developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
11
-------
Contents
Verification Statement VS-i
Notice i
Foreword ii
Contents iii
Tables iv
Figures v
Acronyms and Abbreviations vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations vi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 1
1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2
1.2.2 NSF - Verification Organization 2
1.2.3 Testing Organization 3
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratory 4
1.2.5 Technology Vendor 4
1.2.6 ETV Test Site 5
Chapter 2 Technology Description 6
2.1 Technology Description 6
2.2 Product Specifications: 7
2.3 Filtration Process 7
2.4 Technology Application and Limitations 8
2.5 Vendor Claims 8
2.5.1 TSS 9
2.5.2 Metals 9
2.5.3 Oil and Grease 9
Chapter 3 Test Site Description 10
3.1 Location and Land Use 10
3.2 Contaminant Sources and Site Maintenance 12
3.3 Stormwater Conveyance System 13
3.4 Rainfall and Peak Flow Calculations 13
3.5 Local Meteorological Conditions 15
Chapter 4 Sampling Procedures and Analytical Methods 16
4.1 Sampling Locations 16
4.1.1 Influent 16
4.1.2 Effluent 17
4.2 Monitoring Equipment 17
4.3 Contaminant Constituents Analyzed 17
4.4 Sampling Schedule 17
4.5 Field Procedures for Sample Preservation and Handling 20
4.5.1 Automatic Samples 21
4.5.2 Manual Samples 21
Chapter 5 Monitoring Results and Discussion 22
5.1 Performance Parameters 22
5.1.1 Concentration Efficiency Ratio 22
in
-------
5.1.2 Sum of Loads 28
5.2 Particle Size Distribution 34
Chapter 6 QA/QC Results and Summary 36
6.1 Laboratory Analytical Data QA/QC 36
6.1.1 Bias (Field Blanks) 36
6.1.2 Replicates (Precision) 37
6.1.3 Accuracy 41
6.1.4 Representativeness 42
6.1.5 Completeness 43
6.2 Flow Measurement Calibration 43
6.2.1 Flow Pacing 43
6.2.2 Inlet - Outlet Volume Comparison 44
Chapter 7 Operation and Maintenance Activities 45
7.1 System Operation and Maintenance 45
7.2 Retained Solids Analysis 46
7.3 System Schedule of Activities 47
Chapters Vendor-Supplied Information 48
8.1 Sediment Loading Analysis 49
Appendices 51
Glossary 52
References 54
Tables
Table 4-1. Constituent List for Water Quality Monitoring 18
Table 4-2. Summary of Events Monitored for Verification Testing 19
Table 4-3. Rainfall Summary for Monitored Events 20
Table 5-1. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Sediment Parameters 23
Table 5-2. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Total Metals 25
Table 5-3. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Dissolved Metals 26
Table 5-4. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for TPH-DRO 27
Table 5-5. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for PAH Compounds 28
Table 5-6. Sediment Sum of Loads Results - All Qualified Events 29
Table 5-7. Sediment Sum of Loads Results - Analysis of Site Conditions 30
Table 5-8. Total Metals Sum of Loads Results 31
Table 5-9. Dissolved Metals Sum of Loads Results 32
Table 5-10. TPH-DRO Sum of Loads Results 33
Table 5-11. PAH Sum of Loads Results 34
Table 5-12. Particle Size Distribution Analysis Results 35
Table 6-1. Field Blank Analytical Data Summary 36
Table 6-2. Field Duplicate Sample RPD Data Summary 39
Table 6-3. Laboratory MS/MSD Data Summary 41
Table 6-4. Laboratory Control Sample Data Summary 42
Table 7-1. Operation and Maintenance During Verification Testing 45
Table 7-2. Estimated Dry Mass of Retained Solids in CBSF 47
Table 8-1. Estimated Sediment Loading Results 49
IV
-------
Figures
Figure 2-1. Schematic drawing of a single-cartridge CatchBasin StormFilter 6
Figure 2-2. Schematic drawing of a StormFilter cartridge 8
Figure 3-1. Test site location 10
Figure 3-2. Test site 11
Figure 3-3. CBSF drainage area condition 2003 12
Figure 3-4. CBSF drainage area condition 2005 13
Figure 3-5. Stormwater conveyance system condition 14
Figure 4-1. Sheet flow collector 16
Figure 8-1. St. Clair Shores SMI CBSF cartridge solids loading capacity versus time 50
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BMP
CBSF
cfs
CSF
DPW
DRO
ECT
EMC
EPA
ETV
ft2
ft3
g
gal
gpm
GRO
in.
L
Ib
LOD
LOQ
mg
mg/L
mL
NRMRL
NSF
NIST
O&M
PAH
psi
QA
QC
RTD
RTI
SMI
ssc
SOL
SOP
TO
TSS
USGS
VO
WQPC
Best management practice
Catch Basin StormFilter
Cubic feet per second
CSF leaf media
Department of Public Works
Diesel-range organic compounds
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
Event mean concentration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Square feet
Cubic feet
Gram
Gallon
Gallon per minute
Gasoline-range organic compounds
Inch
Liter
Pound
Limit of detection
Limit of quantification
Milligram
Milligram per liter (ppm)
Milliliter
Microgram per liter (ppb)
Micron
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF International
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Operations and maintenance
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Pounds per square inch
Quality assurance
Quality control
Rapid transfer device
RTI Laboratories, Inc.
Stormwater Management, Inc.
Suspended sediment concentration
Sum of loads
Standard operating procedure
Testing organization (ECT)
Total suspended solids
United States Geological Survey
Verification organization (NSF)
Water Quality Protection Center
VI
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved
environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.
The ETV Program's goal is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the
acceptance and use of innovative, improved, and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to
achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer-reviewed data on technology performance to
those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental
technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder
groups that consist of buyers, vendor organizations, consulting engineers, and regulators; and the
full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of
innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders,
conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing
peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality
assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the
results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF) operates the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC) in cooperation
with EPA. The WQPC evaluated the performance of the Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI)
CatchBasin StormFilter (CBSF), a stormwater treatment device designed to remove sediments
from wet weather runoff.
It is important to note that verification of this equipment does not mean that the equipment is
"certified" by NSF or "accepted" by EPA. EPA and NSF make no expressed or implied
warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will
always operate as verified. Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance
under specific, predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures.
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the CBSF was a cooperative effort among the following participants:
NSF
EPA
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT)
RTI Laboratories, Inc. (RTI)
SMI
The following is a brief description of each ETV participant and its roles and responsibilities.
-------
1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA Office of Research and Development, through the Urban Watershed Branch, Water
Supply and Water Resources Division, NRMRL, provides administrative, technical, and QA
guidance and oversight on all ETV WQPC activities. EPA reviewed and approved each phase of
the verification project. EPA provides financial support for the operation of the Center and
provided partial support for the cost for this verification test.
EPA's responsibilities with respect to this verification test included:
verification test plan review and approval;
verification report review and approval; and
verification statement review and approval.
The key EPA contact for this program is:
Mr. Ray Frederick, ETV WQPC Project Officer
(732) 321-6627 email: Frederick.Ray@epamail.epa.gov
U.S. EPA, NRMRL
Urban Watershed Management Research Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
Edison, New Jersey 08837-3679
1.2.2 NSF - Verification Organization
The WQPC is administered through a cooperative agreement between EPA and NSF. NSF is a
not-for-profit testing and certification organization dedicated to public health, safety, and
protection of the environment. Founded in 1946 and located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, NSF has
been instrumental in the development of consensus standards for the protection of public health
and the environment. NSF also provides testing and certification services to ensure that products
bearing the NSF name, logo and/or mark meet those standards.
NSF personnel provided technical oversight throughout the verification process. NSF also
provided review of the test plan and this verification report.
NSF's responsibilities as the verification organization (VO) included:
reviewing and commenting on the test plan;
coordinating with peer reviewers to review and comment on the test plan;
coordinating with the EPA Project Officer and the technology vendor to approve the test
plan prior to initiation of verification testing;
reviewing the quality systems of all parties involved with the testing organization (TO),
and subsequently, qualify the TO;
overseeing the technology evaluation and associated laboratory testing;
conducting an on-site audit of test procedures;
-------
providing quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review and support for the TO;
overseeing the development of a verification report and verification statement; and
coordinating with EPA to approve the verification report and verification statement.
Key contacts at NSF for the VO are:
Mr. Thomas Stevens, P.E. Program Manager
(734) 769-5347 email: stevenst@nsf.org
Mr. Patrick Davison, Project Coordinator
(734) 913-5719 email: davison@nsf.org
Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator
(734) 827-6821 email: mroush@nsf.org
NSF International
789 Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
1.2.3 Testing Organization
The TO for the verification test was Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc. (ECT) of
Detroit, Michigan. ECT's Project Manager provided project oversight. ECT's responsibilities
included:
ensuring that the testing location and conditions allowed for the verification test to meet
its stated objectives;
preparing the test plan;
overseeing the verification test in accordance with the test plan;
scheduling and coordinating activities for the test participants, including establishing a
communication network and providing logistical and technical support as needed;
collecting, managing, evaluating, interpreting and reporting the test data and the
performance of the technology;
resolving any quality concerns encountered during the test; and
reporting all findings to the VO.
The key personnel and contacts for ECT are:
Ms. Annette DeMaria, Project Manager
(313)963-6600 email: ademaria@ectinc.com
Ms. Olivia Olsztyn-Budry, Field Manager
(313)963-6600 email: oolsztyn@ectinc.com
-------
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
719 Griswold Street, Suite 520
Detroit, Michigan 48226
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratory
RTI Laboratories, Inc. (RTI), located in Livonia, Michigan, analyzed the stormwater samples for
the parameters identified in the test plan and arranged for sample pickup from the test site.
The key analytical laboratory contacts are:
Mr. David Vesey, Project Manager
(734) 422-8000 email: dvesev@rtilab.com
Mr. Lloyd Kaufman, Quality Assurance Officer
(734) 422-8000 email: lkaufman@rtilab.com
RTI Laboratories, Inc.
31628Glendale Ave.
Livonia, Michigan 48150
1.2.5 Technology Vendor
SMI, of Portland, Oregon, is the vendor of the CBSF. SMI was responsible for supplying a field-
ready CBSF and making sure that the equipment was properly installed and operated during the
verification test. SMI was also responsible for providing technical support, and was available
during the verification test to provide technical assistance as needed.
Specific responsibilities of the vendor during the verification period included:
initiating the application for ETV testing;
providing input regarding the verification testing objectives to be incorporated into the
test plan;
providing complete, field-ready equipment and the O&M manual(s) typically provided
with the technology (including instructions on installation, startup, operation, and
maintenance) for verification testing;
providing any existing relevant performance data for the technology;
providing assistance to the TO on the operation and monitoring of the technology during
the verification testing, and logistical and technical support, as required;
reviewing and approving the site-specific test plan;
reviewing and commenting on the verification report; and
providing funding for verification testing.
-------
The key contact for SMI is:
Mr. James Lenhart, P.E. Senior Vice President
(800) 548-4667 email: jiml@stormwaterinc.com
Storm water Management, Inc.
12021-BNE Airport Way
Portland, Oregon 97220
1.2.6 ETV Test Site
The CBSF was installed at the City of St. Clair Shores Department of Public Works (DPW)
facility in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. DPW personnel installed and maintained the CBSF system
with assistance and supervision from ECT.
The key contact for the City of St. Clair Shores DPW is:
Mr. John Chastain, Sewer Department Supervisor
(586)445-5363 email: johnc@scsmi.net
City of St. Clair Shores Department of Public Works
19600 Pleasant Street
St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48080
-------
Chapter 2
Technology Description
The following technology description data was supplied by the vendor and does not represent
verified information.
2.1 Technology Description
The CBSF is a device designed to remove stormwater pollutants from wet-weather flows. A
schematic of a single-cartridge CBSF is shown in Figure 2-1. The CBSF comes in configurations
ranging from one to four cartridges. The verified CBSF was configured with four cartridges. The
four-cartridge CBSF consists of a sumped inlet chamber, four filter cartridges in two separate
cartridge bays, and an overflow weir, all housed in a steel catch basin structure. All of the CBSF
configurations operate on the same basic principle. Runoff enters the sumped inlet chamber
through a catch basin grate by sheet flow from a paved surface. The inlet chamber is equipped
with an internal baffle designed to trap debris and floating oil and grease, and an overflow weir.
While in the inlet chamber, heavier solids are allowed to settle through a port between the baffle
and the overflow weir. Once in the cartridge chamber, polluted water ponds and percolates
horizontally through the media in the filter cartridges. Treated water collects in the cartridge's
center tube. From there, the treated water is directed by an under-drain manifold to the outlet
pipe on the downstream side of the overflow weir and is discharged to the outlet pipe.
HL'ER CHAMBER INLET
GRATE AND FRAME
CONCRETE COLLUR
FILTER CHAMBER COVER
SLOPiD
DIVERTER PLATE
SCUM BAFFLE
OVERFLOW
OVERFLOW WEIR
CLEANOIT OPENING
IN WEIR WITH
HOLE * THREADED P.UG -
CARTRIDGE
SUPPORT BEAMS (2
SUMP
FILTER CHAMBER OUTLET
OUT I FT PIPF -
Figure 2-1. Schematic drawing of a single-cartridge CatchBasin StormFilter.
-------
2.2 Product Specifications:
Four-cartridge CBSF:
Housing - steel vault
Dimensions - 10.25 ft long, 2 ft wide, 3.75 ft deep
Peak hydraulic treatment capacity - 60 gpm (0.13 cfs), or 15 gpm per cartridge
Bypass capacity - 448 gpm (1 cfs)
Debris storage capacity - 1 yd3 or 200 gal in the cartridge chamber, and 4 ft3 or 28 gal in
the inlet bay
StormFilter cartridge sediment capacity - 25 Ib per cartridge (dry solids)
2.3 Filtration Process
The filtration process works by percolating stormwater through a series of filter cartridges filled
with a filter media. SMI determines the type of filter media to be used based on site-specific
water quality characteristics. For the DPW site, SMI selected CSF leaf media, which is
manufactured using a feedstock of deciduous leaves collected by the City of Portland, Oregon.
SMI composts the leaves into mature stable humus, which is then processed into an organic
granular media, which can be used to remove suspended sediments, oil and grease, and soluble
metals. A diagram identifying the filter cartridge components is shown in Figure 2-2.
Stormwater enters the cartridge bay from the inlet. After entering the cartridge bay, the
stormwater elevation rises and enters into the cartridge through openings in the bottom of the
cartridge. Air in the cartridge is displaced by the water and purged from beneath the filter hood
through a one-way check valve located on top of the cartridge. The water infiltrates through the
filter media and into the center tube. Once the center tube fills with water, a float valve opens
and the water in the center tube flows into the under-drain manifold, located beneath the filter
cartridge. This causes the check valve to close, initiating a siphon that draws stormwater through
the filter. The siphon continues until the water surface elevation drops to the elevation of the
hood's scrubbing regulators. When the water drains, the float valve closes and the system resets.
The CBSF is equipped with an overflow weir designed to bypass flows exceeding the peak
hydraulic treatment capacity and prevent catch basin backup and surface flooding. The bypass
flow is discharged through the outlet pipe along with the treated water.
-------
CHECK WOVE
FLOAT
FILTER MEDIA
CENTER TUBE
FLOAT SEWT
SCRUBBING REGULATORS
UNDER-ORAIN MANIFOLD
HOOD
CHJTEH SCREEN
OPnONALSECQNCWRY
FILTER MEDIA
FILTERED WATEH
UNDER-DRAIN MANIFOLD .
CAST INTO WULT FLOOR
VAULT FLOOR
Figure 2-2. Schematic drawing of a StormFilter cartridge.
2.4 Technology Application and Limitations
CBSF systems are flexible in terms of the flows they can treat. By varying the cartridge bay size
and number of filter cartridges, the treatment capacity of a CBSF can be modified to
accommodate runoff from a range of watershed sizes.
CBSF systems treatment capabilities, both in terms of flow and sediment capacity, are limited by
the number of filter cartridges incorporated into a particular unit. Each filter cartridge is designed
with a flow rate of 15 gpm and a dry sediment capacity of 25 Ib. Flows exceeding the filter
cartridge's flow capacity bypass the filter cartridges and discharge directly to the outlet. The
four-cartridge CBSF has a maximum bypass flow rate of 1 cfs (448 gpm), and the cartridge bays
can retain one cubic yard of sediment.
2.5 Vendor Claims
SMI recognizes that stormwater treatment is a function of influent concentration and, in the case
of sediment removal, particle size distribution. The performance claims for the CBSF installed at
the DPW site were based on a flow rate of 15 gpm per cartridge.
-------
2.5.1 TSS
In 2002, a New Jersey corporation verified Stormwater Management for Advanced Technology
for specific TSS performance claims associated with laboratory investigations.
A single StormFilter cartridge configured to threat flows at 15 gpm using a coarse perlite media
was shown to have a TSS removal efficiency of 79% with a 95% confidence limits of 78% and
80% respectively for a sandy loam material comprised of 55% sand, 45% silt, 5% clay (USDA)
by mass, in laboratory studies using simulated Stormwater.
When treating a 15 gpm flow, a StormFilter cartridge filled with CSF leaf media was shown to
have a TSS removal efficiency of 73% with a 95% confidence limits of 68% and 79%,
respectively, based on an evaluation of field and laboratory data.
2.5.2 Metals
The CSF media also acts as a chemical filter to remove dissolved ionic pollutants such as heavy
metals, including lead, copper, and zinc. The mechanism of cation exchange is provided by
humic substances, which are a product of the aerobic biological activity during the composing
process. Heavy metal removal rates vary upon concentration and can be up to 95% total metal
removal.
A single StormFilter cartridge with CSF media operating at 15 gpm should typically remove 33
to 54% of dissolved zinc for concentrations between 0.2 and 1.0 mg/L, and has the ability to
remove dissolved copper through cation exchange but has not been quantified for a specific
claim. Dissolved copper concentrations typically range from 0.003 to 0.02 mg/L and
performance should be in the range of 25 to 50% removal. Dissolved lead concentrations had
not been quantified but could be expected to have similar results as dissolved copper.
2.5.3 Oil and Grease
The high organic carbon content of the CSF media facilitates removal of oil and grease as well as
some other organic compounds. When the oil and grease loadings are less than 25 mg/L, the
system performs best, with a measured removal rate of 40 to 70%. Oil and grease concentrations
that exceed 15 mg/L on a consistent basis may need to incorporate additional oil and grease
control measures to aid removal and protect media longevity.
In tests done by SMI, the sorbent cartridge hood cover material absorbed up to 10 times its own
weight in petroleum product. The cover itself weighs about a half of a pound and the dimensions
are the same as the cartridge standard hood. Through testing with SAE 10W-40 motor oil, the
hood cover absorbed up to five pounds of oil, and would not release captured oil after saturation.
-------
Chapter 3
Test Site Description
3.1 Location and Land Use
The CBSF was installed in the City of St. Clair Shores DPW yard located at 19700 Pleasant
Street in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. The test site is shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. The drainage
area to the CBSF is utilized by DPW personnel as an uncovered stockpile area and transfer
station, where piles of sand, gravel, concrete, asphalt and sediment are located. The sediment
piles consisted of materials excavated as part of DPW maintenance projects, such as sidewalk
and sewer repair, that were not used as backfill. The sediment consisted primarily of clay, with
small amounts of sand, gravel, topsoil, vegetation, and construction debris. The size and
composition of the stockpiles varied throughout the test period. Prior to installation of the
StormFilter, a sand pile was located directly adjacent to the installation site, as noted in the test
plan. This sand pile was later replaced with a sediment pile. The sediment pile was present
throughout the remainder of the test period.
Catch Basin StormFilter
Figure 3-1. Test site location.
10
-------
1*VORAINAOE AREA
LEGEND
D CATCH BASIN
O MANHOLE
STORM LINE
0 DOWN SPOUT
PERVIOUS - GRASS
PERVIOUS - NO VEGETATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 2S SO 100
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-2. Test site.
11
-------
The CBSF received runoff from approximately 0.16 acres of impervious surface west of DPW
Building 1. The decking of Interstate Highway 94, on the DPW's western property boundary, is
recessed below the DPW site's ground surface, so highway runoff does not impact the DPW site.
The drainage area determination was based on the following information and assumptions:
the site plan, based on a survey conducted by the DPW and TO, which provided
information that was used for sizing purposes;
the adjacent on-site storm drains were capable of capturing all the flow in their respective
drainage areas, forming a hydrologic barrier; and
on-site sewer collection system would allow for unrestricted flow.
3.2 Contaminant Sources and Site Maintenance
The main pollutant sources within the drainage area are created by the stockpiles (as shown in
Figures 3-3 and 3-4), vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition. Traffic volume, consisting
primarily of employee vehicles, city vehicles, earth-moving equipment, and dump trucks, is
moderate. Dump trucks are used to haul material to and from the DPW yard. Heavy machinery,
such as front-end loaders, are used to handle and maintain the stockpiles.
:fe^ ' Jftr.
Sediment Pile
- - - T^^^->;p^gP^>^jSr--'/^.-j: t« JT
Inlet to Catch Basin
Storm Filter
Figure 3-3. CBSF drainage area condition 2003.
Site activities, including handling the stockpiles, and loading and unloading dump trucks,
contributed to a high proportion of dust and silt to settle on impervious surfaces within the runoff
area. The stockpiles are not covered with tarps, and are exposed to environmental conditions. In
spite of regular street sweeping and catch basin cleaning performed by DPW personnel, the dusty
conditions were observed during most site visits.
12
-------
Inlet to Catch Basin
Storm Filter
Figure 3-4. CBSF drainage area condition 2005.
3.3 Stormwater Conveyance System
The entire drainage area is served by a storm sewer collection system, which discharges to the
Nine Mile Drain. The Nine Mile Drain flows east to the Eight-and-a-Half Mile Relief Drain,
which discharges to the Detroit Water and Sewage Department wastewater treatment plant.
During heavy rain events, Stormwater is redirected to the Chapaton Retention Basin, and if the
capacity of the basin is exceeded, the Stormwater is discharged to Lake St. Clair.
The pipes that make up the sewer collection system on site are heavily scaled, as shown in
Figure 3-5. A downstream portion of the sewer pipe was replaced prior to testing to address
frequent pipe flooding and backwater effects observed during the shakedown phase. Backwater
effects were not observed during the verification testing.
3.4 Rainfall and Peak Flow Calculations
The rainfall amounts for the one-, two-, and ten-year storms for the drainage area are presented
in Table 3-1. The protocol specifies that 6-month data be included, however, these data were not
available. Table 3-2 presents the intensities in inches per hour calculated for the given rainfall
depths. These data were utilized to generate the peak flows shown in Table 3-3. The rational
method was used to calculate the peak flows for the StormFilter. The rationale for these
calculations was discussed in the test plan.
13
-------
Catch Basin StormFilter Effluent
Pipe Flow Monitoring Location
Depth Only
Sewer Collection
System Pipe Scaling
Figure 3-5. Stormwater conveyance system condition.
Table 3-1. Rainfall Depth (inches)
Duration
1-yr
2-yr
10-yr
30 min
1 hr
2hr
12 hr
24 hr
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.8
2.1
1.0
1.2
1.4
2.2
2.4
1.4
1.8
2.1
3.0
3.2
Source: U.S. Weather Bureau, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
States for Duration from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods
from 1 to 100 Years", Technical Paper No. 40, 1961.
Table 3-2. Intensities (inches/hour)
Duration
1-yr
2-yr
10-yr
30 min
Ihr
2hr
12 hr
24 hr
1.6
1.0
0.60
0.15
0.088
2.0
1.2
0.70
0.18
0.10
2.8
1.8
1.1
0.25
0.13
14
-------
Table 3-3. Peak Flow Calculations (cfs)
Duration 1-yr 2-yr 10-yr
30 min
Ihr
2hr
12 hr
24 hr
0.23
0.14
0.09
0.02
0.01
0.29
0.17
0.10
0.03
0.01
0.40
0.26
0.16
0.04
0.02
3.5 Local Meteorological Conditions
The test plan includes summary temperature and precipitation data from the National Weather
Service. The climate of southeast Michigan is typically continental with some modification by
the Great Lakes. Southeast Michigan experiences cold, snowy winters, and warm to hot
summers. Average annual precipitation is approximately 37 in., with an average annual snowfall
of 39 in. Temperatures range from a normal low in January of 17.8°F and a normal high of
83.4°F in July (NOAA 2005)
Weather patterns generally move from west to east across southeast Michigan. However, due to
the proximity of the City of St. Clair Shores to Lake St. Clair, rain events tend to split just west
of the city and proceeded north and south of the DPW yard. This phenomenon was observed by
the TO throughout the ETV test and resulted in several mobilizations to the site during which
insufficient rainfall was measured.
15
-------
Chapter 4
Sampling Procedures and Analytical Methods
The objective of this program was to collect stormwater runoff prior to treatment by the CBSF
and to collect effluent from the CBSF to verify the efficiency of the equipment. In order to
accomplish this, two sampling locations were established and automatic and manual sampling
methods were employed. Descriptions of the sampling locations and methods used during
verification testing are summarized in the following section. Equipment specifications, test site
descriptions, testing requirements, sampling procedures, and analytical methods were detailed in
the Test Plan for Stormwater Management, Inc. Storm Filter, November 5, 2004 (Appendix A).
4.1 Sampling Locations
Two sampling locations were established to assess the treatment capability of the CBSF.
4.1.1 Influent
The influent sampling and monitoring site was selected to characterize the untreated stormwater
from the drainage area entering the CBSF. Influent samples were collected using a sheet flow
collector, manufactured and supplied by SMI, that fit over the entire inlet on the catch basin lip,
below the catch basin grate (Figure 4-la). Water flowed through the grate and was funneled
through the insert. The sheet flow collector was equipped with suction strainers connected to the
influent autosampler and manual sampler tubing. The influent sample strainer was located in the
PVC outlet of the sheet flow collector (Figure 4-lb). A small weir was built into the sheet flow
collector's outlet pipe to allow runoff to build up to a level sufficient to sample. The sheet flow
collector's outlet pipe was cleaned out before the start of each rain event.
(a) Side view (b) Underside view
Figure 4-1. Sheet flow collector.
16
-------
4.1.2 Effluent
The effluent sampling and monitoring site was selected to characterize the water exiting the
CBSF. As specified in Section 2.3, the CBSF is equipped with an overflow weir designed to
bypass flows exceeding the peak hydraulic treatment capacity. Both treated and bypass flows are
discharged to a single outlet pipe. Therefore, the effluent sampling site sampled both the treated
and any bypassed stormwater exiting the CBSF. The effluent sampling site was located in the
outlet bay of the CBSF, immediately upstream of the 8-in. outlet pipe at the level of the invert of
the outlet pipe. The automatic and manual effluent sample strainers were suspended in the outlet
bay, not installed in the outlet pipe, so that they would not sample material that may have
accumulated in the outlet pipe, and to avoid possible cross-contamination during backwater
conditions. The effluent sampling location collected a composite sample consisting of both
treated effluent and untreated bypass water coming from the CBSF system, as both water streams
were discharged to the same outlet pipe.
4.2 Monitoring Equipment
The specific equipment used for monitoring flow, sampling water quality, and measuring rainfall
included:
influent and effluent automatic samplers: ISCO 6712 Portable Samplers;
rain gauge: ISCO 675 Logging Rain Gage; and
flow monitor: ISCO 730 Bubbler Flow Meter (replaced by the ISCO 4230 Bubbler Flow
Meter for sampling conducted in 2004).
The ISCO 730 Bubbler Flow Module was replaced with an ISCO 4230 Bubbler Flow Meter
during remobilization in the spring of 2004. The ISCO 4230 allowed for more programming
options, which reduced the number of unqualified events due to equipment communication
problems. The ISCO 730 and 4230 Bubbler Flow Meters measure flow using the same basic
technology.
4.3 Contaminant Constituents Analyzed
The list of constituents analyzed in the stormwater samples is shown in Table 4-1.
4.4 Sampling Schedule
The CBSF was installed on April 11, 2003. Verification testing began in July 2003 with the first
event capture in September 2003. December 2003 was unseasonably warm, which allowed for
sampling through January 1, 2004, after which time sampling was suspended until May 2004.
Sampling was completed in October 2004. Table 4-2 summarizes the sample collection data
from the storm events. These storm events met the requirements of a "qualified event," as
defined in the test plan:
1. The total rainfall depth for the event, measured at the site rain gauge, was 0.2 in. (5 mm)
or greater (snow fall and snow melt events did not qualify).
17
-------
2. Flow through the treatment device was successfully measured and recorded over the
duration of the runoff period.
3. A flow-proportional composite sample was successfully collected for both the influent
and effluent over the duration of the runoff event.
4. Each composite sample collected consisted of a minimum of five aliquots, including at
least two aliquots on the rising limb of the runoff hydrograph, at least one aliquot near the
peak, and at least two aliquots on the falling limb of the runoff hydrograph.
5. There was a minimum of six hours between qualified sampling events.
Table 4-1. Constituent List for Water Quality Monitoring
Pollutant
category
Sediment
Metals
Petroleum
hydrocarbons
Required constituents
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Suspended sediment
concentration (SSC)
Total zinc
Dissolved zinc
Total lead
Dissolved lead
Total copper
Dissolved copper
Total cadmium
Dissolved cadmium
Total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH)
Laboratory method1
EPA 160.2
ASTM D3977-97 (b)
EPA 200. 8 or 6020
EPA 200.8 or 6020
EPA 200. 8 or 6020
EPA 200.8 or 6020
EPA 200.8 or 6020
EPA 200. 8 or 6020
EPA 200.8 or 6020
EPA 200. 8 or 6020
TPH as GRO+DRO
(8015M8260+8015M8270)
Method
Detection
limit
1.2mg/L
5mg/L
2.5 Mg/L
2.5 Mg/L
0.8 jig/L
0.8 ng/L
0.9 ng/L
0.9 ng/L
0.11 ng/L
0.11 jig/L
0.05 (ig/L
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH):
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
EPA 8270
1.2jig/L
1.2jig/L
1.3 ng/L
1.4jig/L
1.4jig/L
1.4jig/L
1.6jig/L
1.4jig/L
1.3 ng/L
1.6jig/L
1.3 ng/L
1.3 ng/L
1.6jig/L
l.ljig/L
1.3 ng/L
1.4ng/L
1. EPA, 1979; Standard Methods, 1986; and SW-846, 1996
18
-------
Table 4-2. Summary of Events Monitored for Verification Testing
Event
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Event
date
9/22/03
9/26/03
10/14/03
11/18/03
1 1/24/03
12/10/03
12/23/03
12/29/03
1/1/04
5/10/04
5/23/04
6/10/04
7/7/04
7/14/04
8/28/04
10/23/04
Influent
Start End
time time
7:40
23:50
11:14
7:50
4:09
14:05
3:34
8:25
21:51
22:26
18:45
13:09
15:12
16:25
7:21
19:25
9:25
1:55
14:50
21:18
9:08
19:15
11:20
23:26
23:49
0:15
23:10
13:42
16:54
18:01
9:38
23:38
Effluent
Start End
time time
7:42
0:22
11:20
7:54
4:11
14:12
3:55
8:32
22:08
22:26
18:45
13:12
15:14
16:26
7:22
19:31
9:30
2:06
14:54
21:20
9:12
19:20
11:53
23:29
0:51
0:15
23:10
13:41
16:55
18:21
9:43
0:03
Manual/auto
no. of
aliquots1
9/0
8/0
8/0
8/0
9/0
6/0
7/16
10/0
0/7
0/19
0/33
5/17
8/10
7/14
6/25
10/18
1. Refer to Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 for information on automatic and manual aliquot collection.
Table 4-3 summarizes the storm data for the qualified events. Detailed information on each
storm's runoff hydrograph and the rain depth distribution over the event period are included in
Appendix B. The starting times for the collection of the influent and effluent samples varied
from event to event, in addition to the number of sample aliquots collected. Both autosamplers
were activated when the bubbler meter sensed flow in the outlet pipe. The peak runoff intensity
exceeded the CBSF peak hydraulic treatment capacity of 60 gpm during 10 of the 16 events,
which means that a portion of the flow bypassed the filtering process.
The recorded flow volumes were several times higher than the flow volumes that should have
been observed, given the site characteristics. A 0.16 acre site with 90% imperviousness would
generate a calculated rainfall flow volume of approximately 39 gal for each 0.01 in. of rain that
fell on the drainage area. The actual volume of rain recorded by the flow monitor ranged from
1.1 to 13 times higher than the calculated flow volume from event to event, and the sum of
recorded flow for all events was 4.3 times higher than the sum of calculated flow. In general,
storms with higher peak intensities exhibited the highest degree of variance between the recorded
flow and the calculated flow. It is possible that the flow monitor read flows higher than actual
during intense storm events, or there may have been situations where rain falling outside the
anticipated drainage basin flowed to the CBSF.
19
-------
Table 4-3. Rainfall Summary for Monitored Events
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Date
9/22/03
9/26/03
10/14/03
11/18/03
1 1/24/03
12/10/03
12/23/03
12/29/03
1/1/04
5/10/04
5/23/04
6/10/04
7/7/04
7/14/04
8/28/04
10/23/04
Rainfall
Amount
(inches)
0.31
0.26
0.68
0.44
0.33
0.75
0.42
0.31
0.201
0.29
1.39
0.28
0.30
0.18
0.52
0.21
Rainfall
Duration
(hnmin)
1:45
2:00
6:30
17:45
10:45
7:45
10:30
7:45
2:30
3:30
3:45
2:30
1:45
0:45
2:45
4:30
Runoff Peak Runoff
Volume Intensity
(gal) (gpm)2
2,990
1,510
2,950
4,940
17,900
19,800
11,200
2,270
868
4,450
22,500
5,030
3,700
3,330
10,100
3,970
196
44
41
13
99
85
85
9
10
273
335
171
274
175
223
39
1. According to the ISCO rain gauge, 0.15 in of rain fell on 1/1/04. A plastic rain gauge
on site, which had been emptied during the set-up activities for the anticipated event,
measured over 0.20 in of rain, and other gauges were used to verify the amount of rain
that fell in the area, so the TO is confident that the result obtained by the plastic gauge
is accurate.
2. Peak runoff intensities that exceeded the CBSF peak treatment capacity are shown in
boldface text.
4.5 Field Procedures for Sample Preservation and Handling
Data gathered by the autosamplers, flow meters and rain gage were accessible by the TO
personnel by means of directly downloading the information to a computer, via a Rapid Transfer
Device (RTD), manufactured by ISCO. The TO collected samples while inspection and sampler
maintenance activities were performed by the TO and DPW personnel.
At the end of each qualified rain event, the sample aliquots were capped and removed from the
sampler by TO personnel. Samples were split on site into the appropriate laboratory containers
using a Teflon cone splitter. Samples were preserved per method requirements and analyzed
within the holding times allowed by the methods.
20
-------
The samples were either retained in the custody of the TO and delivered directly to the
laboratory, or were picked up by laboratory representatives and relinquished to the laboratory
sample custodian(s). Custody was maintained according to the laboratory's sample handling
procedures. Chain-of-custody (COCs) forms were completed and accompanied each sample to
establish the necessary documentation to trace sample possession from the time of collection.
4.5.1 A utomatic Samples
Automatic samples were collected with ISCO autosamplers. Sampling equipment was stored
above grade and across the street from where the CBSF was installed. Two ISCO Automatic
Samplers and one ISCO Bubbler Flow Monitor were housed in a locked shed located next to an
untested catch basin, across from the CBSF. This untested catch basin provided access to the
CBSF from across the street, without interfering with the DPW's operations. A peristaltic pump
on the sampler pumped water from the sampling location through Teflon-lined tubing and into
the pump head where water passed through approximately three feet of silicone tubing and into
one of twenty-four 350 mL sample collection bottles. The tubing extended into the untested
catch basin, through a 12-in. concrete sewer pipe and manhole located in the center of the road,
and finally through the 8-in. CBSF outlet pipe, where the tubing connected to the sample intake
points. One autosampler was dedicated to sampling the influent while the other was dedicated to
sampling the effluent stream. TO staff members were on site during rain events to ensure that the
equipment was functioning properly and to collect manual samples in conjunction with the
automatic sampling.
4.5.2 Manual Samples
Adjacent to the autosampler influent and effluent sample strainers were identical manual influent
and effluent sample strainers. The manual monitoring points allowed for grab samples for total
petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) gasoline-range organics (GRO), diesel-range organics (DRO), and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) analysis to be collected with a peristaltic pump directly
into the appropriate sample container. The manual sampling procedure was used to collect flow-
weighted composite samples (using the flow and volume data indicated by the flow meter) for
events sampled in 2003, due to issues associated with the operation of the autosamplers. As with
the autosampler arrangement, manual samples were collected from the CBSF's influent and
effluent collection points through Teflon pump tubing and peristaltic pumps operated by the
TO personnel. The manual sample collection tubing exited the CBSF through the sheet flow
collector. The manual samples were capped and numbered in order of their collection. The time
of collection was recorded for all manual samples.
21
-------
Chapter 5
Monitoring Results and Discussion
The monitoring results related to contaminant reduction over the verification test period are
reported in two formats:
1. Efficiency ratio comparison, which evaluates the effectiveness of the system on an
event mean concentration (EMC) basis.
2. Sum of loads comparison, which evaluates the effectiveness of the system on a
constituent mass (concentration times volume) basis.
The test plan required that a suite of analytical parameters, including solids, organics, and metals,
be tested to evaluate the vendor's performance claims. The laboratory analytical reports are
included in Appendix C.
5.1 Performance Parameters
5.1.1 Concentration Efficiency Ratio
The concentration efficiency ratio reflects the treatment capability of the device using the event
mean concentration (EMC) data obtained for each runoff event. The concentration efficiency
ratios are calculated by:
Efficiency ratio (ER) = 100 x (l-[EMCeffluent/EMCinflUent]) (5-1)
The influent and effluent sample concentrations and calculated efficiency ratios are summarized
by analytical categories: sediments (TSS and SSC); organics (TPH and PAH); and metals (total
and dissolved cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc).
Sediments: The ETV protocol and test plan do not specify maximum sediment concentration in
stormwater, nor did SMFs literature specify a maximum concentration for their stormwater
treatment devices to function effectively. However, during the data review after testing was
complete, the vendor, TO, and VO recognized that the mass and concentration of sediment
loadings in this drainage basin, attributed primarily to the soil stockpiles and site activities,
exceeded the capacity of the CBSF, making a valid measure of the sediment removal
performance of the CBSF difficult to obtain. This is explained further in Section 5.1.2 and
Chapter 7. However, the data is presented for informational purposes.
The influent and effluent sample concentrations and calculated efficiency ratios for sediment
parameters are summarized in Table 5-1. The TSS inlet concentrations ranged from 1,100 to
5,200 mg/L; the outlet concentrations ranged from 570 to 8,600 mg/L; and the efficiency ratio
ranged from -120 to 63 percent. The SSC inlet concentrations ranged 930 to 9,100 mg/L; the
outlet concentrations ranged from 700 to 12,000 mg/L; and the efficiency ratio ranged from -44
to 53 percent.
22
-------
Table 5-1. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Sediment Parameters
Event No. Date
TSS SSC
Influent Effluent Efficiency Influent Effluent Efficiency
(mg/L) (mg/L) Ratio (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) Ratio (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
9/22/03
9/26/03
10/14/03
11/18/03
1 1/24/03
12/10/03
12/23/03
12/29/03
1/1/04
5/10/04
5/23/04
6/10/04
7/7/04
7/14/04
8/28/04
10/23/04
3,000
2,600
2,500
3,200
1,100
1,100
4,100
2,000
5,200
1,700
1,500
2,300
3,400
4,000
2,000
1,500
2,900
2,900
1,400
3,300
840
1,300
3,500
1,900
3,000
2,200
570
1,900
4,000
8,600
1,200
1,000
3.7
-8.3
43
-1.9
25
-12
14
5.4
42
-31
63
17
-17
-120
41
33
2,900
2,600
2,500
3,900
930
1,000
3,700
1,800
5,000
1,600
1,600
2,200
3,700
9,100
2,000
3,000
2,800
2,800
1,200
2,200
700
1,200
3,400
1,700
2,800
2,300
1,600
1,600
4,000
12,000
1,000
1,400
3.4
-7.7
52
44
25
-20
8.1
5.6
44
-44
0
27
-8.1
-32
50
53
Both the TSS and SSC analyses measure sediment concentrations in water; however, the TSS
analytical procedure requires the analyst to draw an aliquot from the sample container, while the
SSC procedure uses the entire contents of the sample container. If a sample contains a high
concentration of solids of a large particle size, acquiring a representative aliquot from the sample
container for TSS analysis is very difficult. Therefore, there is a higher probability that a
disproportionate amount of the settled solids will be left in the container during TSS analysis,
and that the reported TSS concentration will be lower than the SSC concentration. Conversely,
similar TSS and SSC concentrations indicate that the sediment loadings in the sample probably
contains a high proportion of solids of a small particle size. Most of the influent TSS and SSC
concentrations were similar, so the sediment loadings appeared to be of a small particle size.
The data show that, with the exception of event 2, a positive SSC efficiency ratio was achieved
when the peak runoff intensity (Table 4-3) did not exceed the peak treatment capacity of the
CBSF, while the efficiency ratio was negative for about half of the events where the peak runoff
intensity exceeded the peak treatment capacity. This is further evidence that the CBSF was
undersized for this particular drainage basin.
23
-------
Total Metals: Since the CBSF was loaded with sediments, the ability of the CBSF to treat total
metal constituents was diminished. The inlet and outlet sample concentrations and calculated
efficiency ratios for total metals are summarized in Table 5-2. The total cadmium inlet
concentration ranged from 0.6 to 44 |ig/L, and the efficiency ratio ranged from -41 to 87 percent.
The total lead inlet concentration ranged from 15 to 580 |ig/L and the efficiency ratio ranged
from -47 to 79 percent. The total copper inlet concentration ranged from 6 to 390 |ig/L, and the
efficiency ratio ranged from -64 to 42 percent. The total zinc inlet concentration ranged from 72
to 1,800 |ig/L, and the efficiency ratio ranged from -82 to 70 percent.
Dissolved Metals: Since the CBSF was loaded with sediments, the ability of the CBSF to treat
total metal constituents was diminished. The inlet and outlet sample concentrations and
calculated efficiency ratios for dissolved metals are summarized in Table 5-3. Several dissolved
metals concentration sample pairs exhibited influent concentrations close to the detection limits.
When this occurred, the calculated efficiency ratio percentage exhibited a disproportionately
high negative value. The dissolved cadmium inlet concentration ranged from <0.2 to 2 |ig/L, and
the efficiency ratio ranged from -9 to 10 percent. The dissolved lead inlet concentration ranged
from <1.0 to 80 |ig/L and the efficiency ratio ranged from -560 to 33 percent. The dissolved
copper inlet concentration ranged from <1.0 to 35 |ig/L, and the efficiency ratio ranged from
-3,400 to 31 percent. The dissolved zinc inlet concentration ranged from <2.0 to 200 |ig/L, and
the efficiency ratio ranged from -3,400 to 69 percent.
24
-------
Table 5-2. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Total Metals
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Total Cadmium
Influent Effluent Efficiency
(Hg/L) (ng/L) Ratio (%)
2.8
0.6
1.8
6.7
1.4
1.5
3.8
2.5
6.0
0.8
0.6
2.9
3.5
1.4
2.9
44
2.3
0.62
1.3
4.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
2.4
3.9
<0.2
<0.2
2.3
3.2
0.86
4.1
7.6
18
-3
28
37
21
20
71
4
35
87
83
21
9
39
-41
83
Influent
(Hg/L)
87
48
130
580
79
89
220
130
300
68
15
83
120
28
77
120
Total Lead
Effluent Efficiency
(Hg/L) Ratio (%)
91
59
88
370
60
82
200
130
170
100
3.2
87
97
39
44
83
-5
-23
32
36
24
8
9
0
43
-47
79
-5
19
-39
43
31
Total Copper
Influent Effluent Efficiency
(Hg/L) (jig/L) Ratio (%)
40
15
31
390
80
140
220
100
200
39
16
46
68
6.0
42
64
36
16
31
240
75
81
200
120
250
64
13
53
61
6.6
33
50
10
-7
0
38
6
42
9
-20
-25
-64
19
-15
10
-10
21
22
Influent
(Hg/L)
170
72
160
1,800
450
610
930
320
800
170
80
390
520
190
320
390
Total Zinc
Effluent
(Hg/L)
170
74
160
1,100
360
280
720
360
590
310
24
390
480
230
230
340
Efficiency
Ratio (%)
0
-3
0
39
20
54
23
-13
26
-82
70
0
8
-21
28
13
Values in boldface text represent results where one-half the method detection limit was substituted for values below detection limits to calculate EMC.
25
-------
Table 5-3. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Dissolved Metals
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Dissolved Cadmium
Influent Effluent Efficiency
(jig/L) (ng/L) Ratio (%)
2.0
O.2
0.2
1.1
0.2
O.2
0.2
O.2
0.2
O.2
0.2
O.2
O.2
0.2
O.2
0.2
1.8
0.3
0.2
1.2
0.2
O.2
0.2
O.2
0.2
O.2
0.2
O.2
0.7
0.2
O.2
0.2
10
ND
ND
-9
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Dissolved Lead
Influent Effluent Efficiency
Oig/L) (ng/L) Ratio (%)
80 80
<1.0 11
2.9 19
49 42
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
1.0 6.6
8.2 5.5
<1.0 1.9
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 1.4
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
0
ND
-560
14
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-560
33
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Dissolved Copper
Influent Effluent Efficiency
Oig/L) (ng/L) Ratio (%)
35
8.0
21
33
9.0
26
12
19
13
12
16
6.9
1.4
2.5
<1.0
<1.0
34
11
17
43
8.6
18
14
16
12
16
13
9.9
49
20
<1.0
120
3
-38
19
-30
4
31
-17
16
8
-33
19
-43
-3,400
-700
ND
ND
Dissolved Zinc
Influent Effluent Efficiency
Oig/L) (ng/L) Ratio (%)
170
13
25
200
13
13
41
5.3
4.6
<2.0
43
4.3
2.6
10
3.2
<2.0
170
36
100
170
14
15
23
5.8
5.7
31
28
3.4
90
35
<2.0
<2.0
0
-180
-300
15
-8
-15
44
-9
-24
ND
35
21
-3,400
-250
69
ND
ND: Not determinable.
Values in boldface text represent results where one-half the method detection limit was substituted for values below detection limits to calculate EMC.
26
-------
TPH: Since the CBSF was loaded with sediments, the ability of the CBSF to treat hydrocarbons
was diminished. The inlet and outlet sample concentrations and calculated efficiency ratios are
summarized in Table 5-4. TPH-GRO results were below detection limits for all events.
TPH-DRO inlet concentration ranged from <0.001 to 52 mg/L, and the efficiency ratio ranged
from -41 to 93 percent.
Table 5-4. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for TPH-DRO
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Influent
(mg/L)
<0.001
<0.001
52
2.1
0.98
0.41
21
2.0
NA
NA
NA
0.31
<0.001
0.71
0.29
<0.001
Effluent
(mg/L)
<0.001
<0.002
19
0.73
0.57
0.58
6.8
2.5
NA
NA
NA
0.40
<0.001
<0.001
0.22
<0.001
Efficiency
Ratio (%)
ND
ND
63
65
42
-41
68
-25
ND
ND
ND
-29
ND
93
24
ND
All TPH-GRO concentrations were below detection limits
NA: Not analyzed due to low sample volume
ND: Not determinable
Values in boldface text represent results where one-half the
method detection limit was substituted for values below detection
limits to calculate EMC.
PAH: Since the CBSF was loaded with sediments, the ability of the CBSF to treat hydrocarbons
was diminished. The inlet and outlet sample concentrations and calculated efficiency ratios for
detected PAH compounds are summarized in Table 5-5. Some PAH compounds were detected in
low concentrations during three events, and not detected during the other events. When PAH
compounds were detected, the efficiency ratios ranged from 52 to 81 percent.
27
-------
Table 5-5. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for PAH Compounds
Event 4 (11/18/03) Event 12 (6/10/04) Event 14 (7/14/04)
Influent Effluent Efficiency Influent Effluent Efficiency Influent Effluent Efficiency
Qig/L) Qig/L) Ratio (%) Qig/L) Qig/L) Ratio (%) Qig/L) Qig/L) Ratio (%)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
<1.0 <1
<1.0 <1
<1.0 <1
<1.0 <1
1.3 <1
<1.0 <1
2.6 <1
<1.0 <1
2 <1
2 <1
.0 ND <1.0 <1
.0 ND <1.0 <1
.0 ND <1.0 <1
.0 ND <1.0 <1
.0 62 <1.0 <1
.0 ND <1.0 <1
.0 81 <1.0 <1
.0 ND 1.4 <1
.0 75 <1.0 <1
.0 75 <1.0 <1
.0 ND
.0 ND
.0 ND
.0 ND
.0 ND
.0 ND
.0 ND
.0 64
.0 ND
.0 ND
2.3 <1.0
1.7 <1.0
1.5 <1.0
1.6 <1.0
2.7 1.2
5.4 2.4
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
1.3 <1.0
7.5 3.6
78
71
67
69
56
56
ND
ND
62
52
Values in boldface text represent results where one-half the method detection limit was substituted for values below
detection limits to calculate EMC.
5.1.2 Sum of Loads
The sum of loads (SOL) is the sum of the percent load reduction efficiencies for all the events,
and provides a measure of the overall performance efficiency for the events sampled during the
monitoring period. The load reduction efficiency is calculated using the following equation:
% Load Reduction Efficiency = 100 x (1 - (A / B))
(5-2)
Where:
A = Sum of Effluent Load = (Effluent EMCi)(Flow Volumei) + (Effluent EMC2)
(Flow Volume2) + (Effluent EMCn)(Flow Volumen)
B = Sum of Influent Load = (Influent EMCi)(Flow Volumei) + (Effluent EMC2)
(Flow Volume2) + (Effluent EMCn)(Flow Volumen)
n = number of qualified sampling events
Sediment: The SOL data for sediments are summarized in Table 5-6. As noted in Section 5.1.1,
the vendor, TO and VO recognize that the sediment loadings exceed the treatment capacities of
the CBSF, therefore a valid measure of the sediment removal performance of the CBSF could
not be conducted.
28
-------
Table 5-6. Sediment Sum of Loads Results - All Qualified Events
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Sum of the
Date
9/22/03
9/26/03
10/14/03
11/18/03
1 1/24/03
12/10/03
12/23/03
12/29/03
1/1/04
5/10/04
5/23/04
6/10/04
7/7/04
7/14/04
8/28/04
10/23/04
Loads
Runoff
Volume
(gal)
2,990
1,510
2,950
4,940
17,900
19,800
11,200
2,270
868
4,450
22,500
5,030
3,700
3,330
10,100
3,970
SOL Efficiency (%)
TSS
Influent Effluent
(Ib) (Ib)
74.5
33.2
60.5
133
166
188
385
38.6
37.3
61.6
285
97.3
105
111
164
49.6
1,990
11
71.8
36.0
34.4
135
125
211
330
36.5
21.6
80.9
107
80.5
122
240
98
33.8
1,760
SSC
Influent Effluent
(Ib) (Ib)
72.3
32.7
61.5
161
139
165
345
34.1
36.2
59.4
300
92.3
114
253
168
99.3
2,130
9.2
69.8
35.2
29.5
90.6
104
198
317
32.2
20.3
85.3
300
67.1
123
333
84.2
46.3
1,940
According to the vendor, the four-cartridge CBSF has a maximum sediment storage capacity of
27 ft3 or 200 gal in the sump, plus a maximum of 100 Ib in the cartridges (25 Ib per cartridge).
Based on SOL calculations, the sediment loadings for qualified events could have exceeded the
CBSF sediment capacity after only a few events. Furthermore, since not every rain event was a
qualified event, the CBSF experienced loadings during the verification period in excess of the
qualified event loadings. For example, a 1.27-in. rain event occurred on September 19, 2003,
after maintenance and filter cartridge replacement, but before the first qualified rain event. Had
this storm been a qualified event, it would have had the second highest rainfall depth of the
evaluation (behind event 11, with 1.39 in.), and could have contributed a sediment loading to the
CBSF similar to that of event 11 (285 Ib of TSS; and 300 Ib of SSC).
The sediment SOL data can be further evaluated to examine a number of different scenarios,
such as events following major maintenance activities, and events where bypass conditions
occurred. This data is summarized in Table 5-7, and shows that maintenance activities are
necessary to maintain higher TSS SOL efficiencies, and selecting a site with peak flows below
the hydraulic capacity is important to achieve higher SSC SOL efficiencies.
29
-------
Table 5-7. Sediment Sum of Loads Results - Analysis of Site Conditions
SOL Efficiency (%)
Condition TSS SSC
All events 11 9.2
First two events following maintenance
(events 3, 4, 10, and 11)
Events under established conditions
(all events except 3,4, 10, and 11)
Events where 60-gpm hydraulic treatment
capacity was not exceeded (see Table 4-3)
Events where 60-gpm hydraulic treatment
capacity was exceeded (see Table 4-3)
Metals: The SOL data for total metals are summarized in Table 5-8 and dissolved metals in
Table 5-9. Due to the low concentrations of total and dissolved metals in the stormwater, the
metal masses are expressed in grams. The CBSF achieved a total metals reduction 20 to 52%, but
achieved negligible removal efficiency for dissolved metals. In general, the dissolved metals
concentrations in both the influent and effluent samples were very low. For dissolved cadmium,
in particular, most concentrations were below detection limits, and the net sum of loads
amounted to approximately 0.05 g in both the influent and effluent.
TPH-DRO: The SOL data for TPH-DRO are summarized in Table 5-10. The CBSF achieved a
62% removal efficiency, which is consistent with SMFs claim of 40 to 70% oil and grease
removal.
PAH compounds: As noted in Section 5.1.1 PAH compounds were detected in low
concentrations during three events, and not detected in the remaining 13 events. Due to the low
concentrations of PAH compounds in the stormwater, the constituent masses are expressed in
milligrams. The CBSF achieved a 56 to 81% removal efficiency range for detected PAH
compounds, and a net PAH removal efficiency of 64% for all detected PAH compounds, which
is consistent with or exceeds SMFs claim of 40 to 70% oil and grease removal.
30
-------
Table 5-8. Total Metals Sum of Loads Results
Runoff
Event Volume
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Sum
SOL
Date
9/22/03
9/26/03
10/14/03
11/18/03
1 1/24/03
12/10/03
12/23/03
12/29/03
1/1/04
5/10/04
5/23/04
6/10/04
7/7/04
7/14/04
8/28/04
10/23/04
of the Loads
Efficiency (%)
(gal)
2,990
1,510
2,950
4,940
17,900
19,800
11,200
2,270
868
4,450
22,500
5,030
3,700
3,330
10,100
3,970
Total
Cadmium
Influent Effluent
(g)
0.032
0.003
0.020
0.125
0.095
0.112
0.161
0.021
0.020
0.013
0.050
0.055
0.049
0.018
0.111
0.661
1.55
(g)
0.026
0.004
0.015
0.079
0.075
0.090
0.047
0.021
0.013
0.002
0.009
0.044
0.045
0.011
0.157
0.114
0.748
52
Total
Influent
(g)
0.98
0.27
1.45
10.8
5.35
6.67
9.33
1.12
0.99
1.15
1.28
1.58
1.68
0.35
2.94
1.80
47.8
Lead
Effluent
(g)
1.03
0.34
0.98
6.92
4.07
6.15
8.48
1.12
0.56
1.68
0.27
1.66
1.36
0.49
1.68
1.25
38.0
Total
Influent
(g)
0.453
0.086
0.346
7.29
5.42
10.5
9.33
0.859
0.657
0.657
1.36
0.876
0.952
0.076
1.61
0.962
41.4
20
Copper
Effluent
(g)
0.407
0.091
0.346
4.49
5.08
6.07
8.48
1.03
0.821
1.08
1.11
1.01
0.854
0.083
1.26
0.751
33.0
20
Total
Influent
(g)
1.92
0.412
1.79
33.7
30.5
45.7
39.4
2.75
2.63
2.86
6.81
7.43
7.28
2.39
12.2
5.86
204
Zinc
Effluent
(g)
1.92
0.423
1.79
20.6
24.4
21.0
30.5
3.09
1.94
5.22
2.04
7.43
6.72
2.90
8.79
5.11
144
29
Values in boldface text represent results where one-half the method detection limit was substituted for values below detection
limits to calculate SOL.
-------
Table 5-9. Dissolved Metals Sum of Loads Results
Event
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Sum
SOL
Date
9/22/03
9/26/03
10/14/03
11/18/03
1 1/24/03
12/10/03
12/23/03
12/29/03
1/1/04
5/10/04
5/23/04
6/10/04
7/7/04
7/14/04
8/28/04
10/23/04
of the Loads
Runoff
Volume
(gal)
2,990
1,510
2,950
4,940
17,900
19,800
11,200
2,270
868
4,450
22,500
5,030
3,700
3,330
10,100
3,970
Efficiency (%)
Dissolved
Influent
(g)
0.023
0.0006
ND
0.021
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.001
ND
ND
ND
0.045
Cadmium
Effluent
(g)
0.020
0.0015
ND
0.022
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0098
ND
ND
ND
0.054
-20
Dissolved
Lead
Influent Effluent
(g)
0.905
0.003
0.032
0.916
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.017
0.698
0.010
ND
0.006
ND
ND
2.59
-0.44
(g)
0.905
0.063
0.212
0.785
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.111
0.468
0.036
ND
0.018
ND
ND
2.60
Dissolved
Influent
(g)
0.396
0.046
0.234
0.617
0.610
1.95
0.509
0.163
0.043
0.202
1.36
0.131
0.020
0.032
0.019
0.008
6.34
Copper
Effluent
(g)
0.385
0.063
0.190
0.804
0.583
1.35
0.593
0.137
0.039
0.269
1.11
0.188
0.686
0.252
0.019
1.803
8.47
-34
Dissolved
Zinc
Influent Effluent
(g)
1.92
0.074
0.279
3.74
0.881
0.97
1.74
0.046
0.015
0.017
3.66
0.082
0.036
0.126
0.122
ND
13.7
-3.9
(g)
1.92
0.206
1.12
3.179
0.949
1.12
0.975
0.050
0.019
0.522
2.38
0.065
1.26
0.441
0.038
ND
14.2
Values in boldface text represent results where one-half the method detection limit was substituted for values below detection
limits to calculate SOL.
32
-------
Table 5-10. TPH-DRO Sum of Loads Results
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Sum of the
Date
9/22/03
9/26/03
10/14/03
11/18/03
1 1/24/03
12/10/03
12/23/03
12/29/03
1/1/04
5/10/04
5/23/04
6/10/04
7/7/04
7/14/04
8/28/04
10/23/04
Loads
Runoff
Volume
(gal)
2,990
1,510
2,950
4,940
17,900
19,800
11,200
2,270
868
4,450
22,500
5,030
3,700
3,330
10,100
3,970
Influent
(Ib)
ND
ND
1.3
0.086
0.15
0.068
2.0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
0.0
ND
0.020
0.024
ND
3.6
SOL Efficiency (%)
Effluent
(Ib)
ND
ND
0.47
0.030
0.09
0.10
0.63
0.0
NA
NA
NA
0.0
ND
0.00001
0.019
ND
1.4
62
33
-------
Table 5-11. PAH Sum of Loads Results
Compound
Rainfall Volume (gal)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Location
Influent (mg)
Effluent (mg)
Influent (mg)
Effluent (mg)
Influent (mg)
Effluent (mg)
Influent (mg)
Effluent (mg)
Influent (mg)
Effluent (mg)
Influent (mg)
Effluent (mg)
Influent (mg)
Effluent (mg)
Influent (mg)
Effluent (mg)
Influent (mg)
Effluent (mg)
Influent (mg)
Effluent (mg)
Event Number (Date)
4 (11/18/03) 12 (6/10/04) 14
4,940
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
24
9.3
ND
ND
49
9.3
ND
ND
37
9.3
37
9.3
5,030
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
27
9.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
(7/14/04)
3,330
29
6.3
21
6.3
19
6.3
20
6.3
34
15
68
30
ND
ND
ND
ND
16
6.3
95
45
Sum of
Loads
(mg)
29
6
21
6.3
19
6.3
20
6.3
58
24
68
30
49
9.3
27
10
54
16
130
55
Removal
Efficiency
(%)
78
71
67
69
58
56
81
64
71
58
Values in boldface text represent results where one-half the method detection limit was substituted for values below
detection limits to calculate SOL.
5.2 Particle Size Distribution
The information and data contained in this section of the report is provided by the technology
vendor, SMI, and has not verified by the Testing Organization or the Verification
Organization.
Particle size distribution analyses were conducted on samples collected and analyzed by the
vendor on solids retained in the inlet/outlet and cartridge bays. The sample collection took place
on April 10 and December 10, 2004, and coincided with CBSF maintenance activities, when VO,
TO, and vendor personnel were present on the site. The hydrometer and sieve analysis (Gee and
Bauder, 1986) was used to perform the particle size distribution analysis. Samples were collected
from one of the soil piles close to the CBSF, while the other samples were collected from the
solids retained in the CBSF after water was decanted from the retained sediments. The data,
34
-------
enclosed in Appendix D, is summarized in Table 5-12. Based on the particle size distribution
similarity for the three samples collected on December 10, the vendor concluded that the soil pile
was a primary source of material retained by the CBSF.
Table 5-12. Particle Size Distribution Analysis Results
Date
4/10/04
12/10/04
12/10/04
12/10/04
Sample
location
Cartridge bay
Soil pile
Inlet/outlet bay
Cartridge bay
Particle size distribution
(by mass)
17% sand, 50% silt, 33% clay
50% sand, 25% silt, 25% clay
55% sand, 20% silt, 25% clay
25% sand, 33% silt, 40% clay
Bulk density,
Soil texture wet (lb/ft3)
silty clay loam
sandy clay loam
sandy clay loam
clay loam
ND
ND
95.6
74.1
ND: Not determined.
35
-------
Chapter 6
QA/QC Results and Summary
The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in the test plan identified critical measurements and
established several QA/QC objectives. The verification test procedures and data collection were
conducted in accordance with the QAPP. QA/QC summary results are reported in this section,
and the full laboratory QA/QC results and supporting documents are presented in Appendix B.
6.1 Laboratory Analytical Data QA/QC
6.1.1 Bias (Field Blanks)
Field blanks were collected on three separate occasions to evaluate the potential for sample
contamination throughout the verification process, including automatic sampler, sample-
collection bottles, splitters, and filtering devices. Distilled water was used for the first blank.
After the results were found to have elevated metals concentrations, the blank water was
switched to deionized water to eliminate the possibility that the distilled water contained trace
metals concentrations. Deionized water was pumped through the automatic sampler, and was
collected in sample bottles. These samples were processed and analyzed in the same manner as
event samples. The field blanks were collected on 10/14/03 (between events 2 and 3), 11/19/03
(between events 4 and 5), and 7/15/04 (between events 13 and 14).
Results for the field blanks are shown in Table 6-1. All but twelve analyses were below the limits
of detection (LOD), and all but fifteen analyses were below the limit of quantification (LOQ).
These results show that an acceptable level of contaminant control in field procedures was
achieved.
Table 6-1. Field Blank Analytical Data Summary
Sampling Date
Parameter Units 10/20/03 11/19/03 07/15/04
TSS
ssc
Total cadmium
Total lead
Total copper
Total zinc
Dissolved cadmium
Dissolved lead
Dissolved copper
Dissolved zinc
GRO
DRO
mg/L
mg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
pg/L
1
19
<0.2
3.5
<1.0
10
<0.2
<1.0
<1.0
6.7
<100
3,300
<1
<1
<0.2
<1
1.4
8.3
<0.2
<1.0
<1.0
5.7
<100
600
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
20
ND
ND
ND
16
ND
ND
ND: Not detected.
36
-------
Table 6-1. Field Blank Analytical Data Summary - continued
10/20/03 11/19/03 07/15/04
Parameter Units Influent Influent Influent
Acenaphthene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Acenaphthylene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Anthracene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Benzo(a)anthracene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Benzo(a)pyrene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Benzo(b)fluoranthene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Benzo(ghi)Perylene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Benzo(k)fluoranthene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Chrysene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Fluoranthene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Fluorene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
2-Methylnaphthalene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Naphthalene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Phenanthrene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
Pyrene Mg/L <1.2 <1.2 ND
ND: Not detected.
6.1.2 Replicates (Precision)
Precision measurements were performed by the collection and analysis of duplicate samples.
Field duplicates were collected to monitor the overall precision of the sample collection and
laboratory analyses. Duplicate inlet and outlet samples were collected during three different
storm events to evaluate precision in the sampling processes. The duplicate samples were
processed, delivered to the laboratory, and analyzed in the same manner as the regular samples.
Relative percent difference (RPD) between the analytical results for the test samples and those
for the duplicate samples was calculated to evaluate precision. RPD is calculated using the
following formula:
%RPD =
x
where:
AII = Concentration of compound in sample
Ai2 = Concentration of compound in duplicate
A: = Mean value of AH and Ai2
37
-------
Three field duplicates were analyzed, and are summarized in Table 6-2. Overall, the results show
good duplication. Below is a discussion of the results from selected parameters.
TSS and SSC: All duplicates were within the target limits.
Metals: For dissolved metals, five samples had a high RPD (low precision) and seven samples
had low RPD (high precision). Most of the total metals results were within the target limits. In
two instances where the RPD was above the target limit, the results were obtained for the
effluent duplicate, where concentrations were typically lower than influent concentrations.
TPH- GRO and DRO: All results were below the target limit for both parameters. However, in
most cases during the sampling period, GRO was not detected and DRO was detected in very
few cases.
PAH: All results were below the target limit for both parameters. However, constituents of the
PAHs were not detected for most events. In addition, for the last duplicate sampling round, not
enough volume was captured for processing of PAHs.
38
-------
Table 6-2. Field Duplicate Sample RPD Data Summary
October 14, 2003
December 29, 2003
May 10, 2004
Parameter
TSS
ssc
Total
Cadmium
Total
Lead
Total
Copper
Total
Zinc
Dissolved
Cadmium
Dissolved
Lead
Dissolved
Copper
Dissolved
Zinc
TPH-GRO
TPH-DRO
Unit
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Mg/L
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Repl
2,460
1,400
2,500
1,200
1.8
1.3
130
88
31
31
160
160
0.1
0.1
2.9
19
21
17
25
100
50
50
52,000
19,000
Rep 2
-
1,430
2,300
-
-
1.2
-
85
-
30
-
170
0.1
-
8.5
-
15
-
77
-
-
50
-
16,000
RPD (%)
-
2
8
-
-
8
-
3
-
3
-
6
0
-
98
-
33
-
102
-
-
0
-
17
Repl
2,040
1,930
1,800
1,700
2.5
2.4
130
130
100
120
320
360
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
19
16
5.3
5.8
50
50
2,000
2,500
Rep 2
-
1,770
-
2,200
-
2.2
-
120
-
160
-
340
-
0.1
-
0.5
-
18
-
7.7
50
-
1,800
-
RPD (%)
-
9
-
26
-
9
-
8
-
29
-
6
-
0
-
0
-
12
-
28
0
-
11
-
Repl
1,660
2,180
1,600
2,300
0.78
0.1
68
100
39
64
170
310
0.1
0.1
1
6.6
12
16
1
31
50
50
55
55
Rep 2
1,590
-
1,600
-
-
1.4
-
91
-
55
-
280
-
0.1
-
8.1
-
18
-
8
-
55
-
55
RPD (%)
4
-
0
-
-
173
-
9
-
15
-
10
-
0
-
20
-
12
-
118
-
10
-
0
Values in boldface text represent results where one-half the method detection limit was substituted for values below detection limits to calculate RPD.
39
-------
Table 6-2. Field Duplicate Sample Relative Percent Difference Data Summary - continued
October 14, 2003 December 29, 2003
Parameter Unit
Acenaphthene Mg/L
(ig/L
Acenaphthylene Mg/L
(ig/L
Anthracene Mg/L
jig/L
Benzo(a)anthracene (ig/L
(ig/L
Benzo(a)pyrene (ig/L
(ig/L
Benzo(b)fluoranthene Mg/L
(ig/L
Benzo(ghi)Perylene Mg/L
(ig/L
Benzo(k)fluoranthene Mg/L
(ig/L
Chrysene Mg/L
(ig/L
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene Mg/L
(ig/L
Fluoranthene Mg/L
(ig/L
Fluorene Mg/L
(ig/L
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene (ig/L
(ig/L
2-Methylnaphthalene Mg/L
(ig/L
Naphthalene Mg/L
(ig/L
Phenanthrene Mg/L
(ig/L
Pyrene Mg/L
(ig/L
Repl
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Influent <1.0
Effluent <1.0
Rep 2 RPD (%) Rep 1
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
<1.0
<1.0 0 <1.0
Rep 2 RPD (%)
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
0
<1.0
40
-------
6.1.3 Accuracy
Method accuracy was determined and monitored using a combination of matrix spike/matrix
spike duplicates (MS/MSD) and laboratory control samples (known concentration in blank
water). The MS/MSD data are evaluated by calculating the deviation from perfect recovery
(100%) and measuring possible interferences with recovery due to sample matrix. Laboratory
control data are evaluated by calculating the deviation from the laboratory control concentration.
Accuracy was in control throughout the verification test. Tables 6-3 and 6-4 summarize the
matrix spikes and lab control sample recovery data, respectively.
Table 6-3. Laboratory MS/MSD Data Summary
Average Maximum Minimum Std. Dev. Range
Parameter Count (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)Perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total cadmium
Total lead
Total copper
Total zinc
Dissolved cadmium
Dissolved lead
Dissolved copper
Dissolved zinc
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
6
85.0
79.8
79.2
107
101
106
97.0
101
116
100
103
86.6
105.3
80.8
89.1
95.9
102
101
93.8
98.4
103
103
99.2
105
94
84
80.8
126
112
117
113
112
126
113
124
89.2
117
82.8
91.2
125
111
110
109
114
112
110
115
113
56
74.6
77.6
91.2
88.8
91.6
84.4
91.6
104
88.4
85.2
84.4
94
79.2
87.2
64
91.4
85.5
81.5
70.5
85.5
90
90
90
15.2
4.22
1.46
18.7
12.3
13.3
12.7
10.3
11.0
12.0
18.0
2.20
11.9
1.57
1.65
23.9
6.80
8.66
8.74
13.9
9.86
7.67
8.60
8.61
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
70-130
75-125
75-126
75-127
75-128
75-129
75-130
75-131
75-132
41
-------
Table 6-4. Laboratory Control Sample Data Summary
Parameter
Count
Average Maximum Minimum Std. Dev.
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)Perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3 -cd)pyrene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total cadmium
Total lead
Total copper
Total zinc
Dissolved cadmium
Dissolved lead
Dissolved copper
Dissolved zinc
TSS
12
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
12
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
85.3
84.9
86.4
112
101
107
107
101
115
106
105
94.2
109
92.1
94.3
87.1
103
103
97.0
106
99.5
98.5
93.5
97.3
100
115.00
96.4
102
124
107
116
121
107
126
121
120
113
120
106
104
116
111
110
105
111
104
102
104
104
106
54.0
70.8
70.8
98.8
84.4
92.0
82.0
88.0
105
89.2
92.4
80.4
93.2
80.1
77.6
56.0
97.1
96.1
92.0
100
96.0
92.0
84.0
90.0
98.2
20.6
11.6
14.4
11.6
9.35
9.74
15.8
7.64
9.37
11.6
13.1
12.5
9.68
12.4
10.9
18.5
5.58
5.60
6.28
4.57
3.42
4.73
9.98
5.74
3.29
6.1.4 Representativeness
The field procedures were designed to ensure that representative samples were collected of both
influent and effluent stormwater. Field duplicate samples and supervisor oversight provided
assurance that procedures were being followed. The challenge in sampling stormwater is
obtaining representative samples. The data indicated that while individual sample variability
might occur, the long-term trend in the data was representative of the concentrations in the
stormwater, and repeatable methods of evaluating key constituent loadings in the stormwater
were utilized to compensate for the variability of the laboratory data.
The laboratory used standard analytical methods, with written SOPs for each method, to provide
a consistent approach to all analyses. Sample handling, storage, and analytical methodology were
reviewed to verify that standard procedures were being followed. The use of standard
42
-------
methodology, supported by proper quality control information and audits, ensured that the
analytical data were representative of actual stormwater conditions.
To obtain representativeness of the sub-samples (aliquots) necessary to analyze the various
parameters from the event sample, a cone splitter was used. Because the site was located near
municipal stockpiles of dirt, it was suspected that the sediment levels in the sample water would
be very high. The churn splitter, which is typically used in this application, has limited accuracy
when splitting samples high in sediment. According to the USGS Office of Water Quality
National Field Manual, a churn splitter is accurate for splitting samples with a suspended
sediment concentration up to 1,000 mg/L. The cone splitter can be used for suspended sediment
concentrations up to 10,000 mg/L. For this reason, the cone splitter, which has a higher accuracy
for sample splitting with high sediment loads, was selected.
6.1.5 Completeness
The flow data and analytical records for the verification study are 100% complete. However,
hydrocarbon (TPH and PAH) was not conducted during three events (9, 10 and 11) due to
insufficient sample volume.
RTI did not achieve the GRO and DRO detection limits originally specified in the test plan. RTI
was concerned that reporting values at the detection limits requested by the test plan would
increase the likelihood that interferences and instrumentation error could result in false positive
reports being reported.
6.2 Flow Measurement Calibration
The flow was calibrated by TO field crews checking the depth of water in the pipe and
correlating it to the value reported by the flow meter. The ISCO 4230 and 730 Bubbler Flow
Meters used in the testing measure only the depth of water, so a weir plate was used as a primary
calibration device for the flow meters. The primary device was calibrated by the manufacturer
(ISCO) at the factory. ISCO also provided information regarding the relationships between
depths of water and flow, which were programmed into the sampling equipment. To calibrate the
depth, field crews measured the depth of water behind the primary device to ensure that the flow
meter was reading the same depth. This was done prior to the start of rain at every other event.
At no time was there a difference in the depth of water of more than 0.1 inch.
6.2.1 Flow Pacing
During 2003, the TO used an ISCO 730 Bubbler Flow Meter to pace the samplers. The flow
meter was programmed to read the flow at the CBSF and, based on a series of pulses, dictated
when the influent sampler collected samples. The effluent sampler was also programmed to
collect a sample based on pulses coming from the influent sampler. This should have led to an
influent sample being collected first, followed by the collection of an effluent sample. However
samples in the effluent sampler were not being properly collected. Even after assistance from the
manufacturer, it was determined that the use of the 730 Bubbler in this configuration would not
work.
43
-------
To remedy this, the 730 Bubbler was replaced with a stand-alone ISCO 4230 Bubbler flow
meter. Each sampler was directly connected to the flow meter and the effluent sampler was
programmed to run on a 50-gal delay from the influent sampler. Once the equipment was
changed, there were very few disqualified events because of equipment problems.
However, for event 12, on June 10, 2004, the flow pacing was inaccurate. According to the
report collected by the flow meter, effluent aliquots 19 through 24 were collected at the same
time or one to two minutes prior to the influent samples. It is believed that this was because the
samplers were collecting samples every one to two minutes and the flow rate was high enough
that the sampler collection process did not catch up with the program's command to collect a
sample.
Prior to collecting a sample, the sampler runs through a purge and rinse cycle. This cycle can last
from approximately 30 to 60 seconds, depending upon the length of suction line. The influent
suction line was 53 ft and the effluent suction line was 43 ft. This difference in length most likely
caused a very slight increase in time for the purge, rinse and collection cycle for the influent
sampler, as compared to the effluent sampler. This difference may have caused the effluent
sampler to complete its collection process slightly faster than the influent sampler, allowing the
effluent sampler to start the collection process for the next sample before the influent had
completed the collection process for the previous sample. The flow rate and the difference in
tubing lengths, is expected to explain why the effluent samples were collected before the influent
samples during event 12.
6.2.2 Inlet- Outlet Volume Comparison
The CBSF is an offline system. For this project, the only influent water was surface runoff that
entered the CBSF through the storm grate. It was assumed that the volume entering the storm
grate was the same as that leaving the CBSF. Therefore, only one flow meter, installed at the
outlet, was used. The CBSF unit retains a certain volume of water between events, but since this
retained volume is essentially constant between events, the net runoff volume into the unit
should equal the net runoff volume exiting the unit.
44
-------
Chapter 7
Operation and Maintenance Activities
7.1 System Operation and Maintenance
Installation of the CBSF was completed in April 2003. During summer 2003, the system was
placed into operation and adjustments to the system were completed, ETV monitoring began in
September 2003. A summary of the O&M activities for the CBSF during the test, including the
activity completed and the personnel time and cost to complete the activity, is summarized in
Table 7-1.
Table 7-1. Operation and Maintenance During Verification Testing
Date
Activity
Personnel Time/Cost
April 11, 2003 CBSF was installed.
Sept. 10, 2003 CBSF major maintenance. The cartridges were replaced
and the sediment was removed from the CBSF. A total
of 13 in. from the central chamber and 17 in. from the
cartridge chambers of sediment were removed. Once the
sediment was removed, it was evident that the PVC
manifold piping was disconnected. ECT staff dry-fit the
manifold and replaced the cartridges.
ECT contacted SMI regarding the cloudiness of the
effluent sample, indicating the manifold may be leaking.
SMI came on site on 10/1/03 to inspect and repair the
PVC manifold. The chambers were opened and the
cartridges removed. SMI staff used PVC glue to repair
the PVC manifold.
Nov. 21, 2003 Several events were disqualified because insufficient
volume was collected in the effluent sampler. SMI
installed the automatic effluent strainer, located at the
invert of the CBSF outlet. During the rain events, field
crews determined that the strainer was not submerged in
the flow. To ameliorate this, a tubing elbow was
installed to angle the strainer downward in the effluent
bay of the CBSF.
Sept 28 through
Oct. 1, 2003
ECT: 1 staff, 1 day
SCS DPW: 3-5 staff, 2
days
ECT: 2 staff, 1 day
SCS DPW: 2 staff, 1
day
ECT: 2 staff, 1 day
SMI: 1 staff, 1 day
ECT: 2 staff, 1 day
45
-------
Table 7-1. Operation and Maintenance During Verification Testing - continued
Date Activity Personnel Time/Cost
Jan. 13,2004 Decommission of sampling equipment for the winter ECT: 1 staff, 1 day
began with the removal of tubing and influent tray.
Jan. 19,2004 Decommission of sampling equipment continued with the ECT: 1 staff, 1 day
removal of flow meter and automatic samplers. All SCS DPW: 2 staff, 1
equipment was stored in the SCS DPW storage facility. day
April 6, 2004 Inspection of CBSF prior to sampling commencement. It ECT: 2 staff, 1 day
was determined by ECT and NSF that a major NSF: 1 staff, 1 day
maintenance was needed, based on sediment
measurements.
April 10, 2004 Major maintenance of the CBSF was performed. The old ECT: 2 staff, 1 day
cartridges were removed and the unit was cleaned using a NSF: 1 staff, 1 day
vacuum truck and water from the SCS DPW. New SMI: 2 staff, 1 day
cartridges were installed and the unit was set up for SCS DPW: 3 staff, 1
sampling, including autosampler programming and day
calibrating, and changing the sample tubing.
Dec. 8-10, 2004 Site was decommissioned and all sampling equipment was ECT: 2 staff, 2 days
removed.
Dec. 10, 2004 Final major maintenance performed on the CBSF. ECT: 1 staff, 1 day
Cartridges were removed and sediment removed. Caps SMI: 1 staff, 1 day
were placed on the PVC manifold because new cartridges NSF: 2 staff, 1 day
were not installed. The PVC manifold was cracked by a SCS DPW: 2 staff, 1
DPW employee mishandling a spent filter cartridge. day
7.2 Retained Solids Analysis
Based on the measurements of the 43% retained solids in the CBSF recorded by the VO, and the
bulk density analyses conducted by the vendor's laboratory, an estimate of the dry mass of
retained solids inside the CBSF at the time of the two maintenance activities can be made, and
are summarized in Table 7-2. The calculated mass of retained solids shows that the CBSF had
retained substantially more sediment than its rated specification of 100 Ib and one cubic yard of
sediment.
46
-------
Table 7-2. Estimated Dry Mass of Retained Solids in CBSF
Description
April 10, 2004
Left cartridge chamber
Right cartridge chamber
Inlet/outlet chamber
Total
December 10, 2004
Left cartridge chamber
Right cartridge chamber
Inlet/outlet chamber
Total
Sediment
depth (in)
16
13
28
11
9
26
Calculated dry
volume (ft3)
49
40
55
144
40
28
51
119
Calculated dry
mass (Ib)
3,700
3,000
5.300
12,000
2,500
2,100
4.900
9,500
7.3 System Schedule of Activities
Between April when the CBSF was installed and September when the first sampling occurred,
the drain pipes downstream of the CBSF became blocked. Although the CBSF did not discharge
directly to this drain, the flow meter used for the CBSF verification test was installed in a
manhole that was part of the blocked drain, causing flooding conditions in the manhole where
the flow meter was located. These conditions led to inaccurate flow measurement. The DPW
cleared the blockage in early September. Once the testing started, sampling crews mobilized 28
times, successfully sampling a total of 17 rain events. Of the mobilizations that did not result in a
qualified event, five were due to equipment problems, and six were due to an insufficient rain
depth. Temperature gradients associated with the cooler air over Lake St. Clair appeared to
redirect rain events to the north or south of the DPW. This had not been expected to happen at
the beginning of the project, but was evident through observation of the TO.
47
-------
Chapter 8
Vendor-Supplied Information
The information and data contained in this section of the report is provided by the technology
vendor, SMI, and has not verified by the Testing Organization or the Verification
Organization.
The testing performed on the SMI CBSF located at the City of St. Clair Shores Department of
Public Works Yard was conducted under conditions that lie outside any performance claim or
operational envelope for the CBSF. Due to the inherent property of filter occlusion as the solids
load to a filter exceeds the capacity of the filter, the filter will cease to function until maintenance
or replacement occurs. The results obtained from the testing at St. Clair Shores Department of
Public Works Yard represents data collected from filters that were severely impacted by
exceedingly high solids loads, sampled in a completely occluded condition. To support the above
statements we present the following supporting points:
The test plan states that the material stored on the site would be sand, asphalt or concrete, or
a concrete sand mix. In reality, what was stored was a sandy clay loam (see Section 5.2). The
finer particle-size material caused the filter media to become clogged and blind more rapidly
than a more coarse sediment would have caused.
SMI originally sized the four-cartridge CBSF for this drainage area on the assumption that
the soil piles would not significantly contribute sediments into the drainage area, based on
Figure 4-1 in the test plan (Appendix A).
At times, mounds of soil were piled immediately adjacent to the CBSF with heavy equipment
operating directly on top of and around the CBSF, causing excavated material to directly
enter the inlet bay through the surface grate (see Figures 3-3 and 3-4).
For "typical" stormwater, the TSS concentrations published in literature are on the order of
100 mg/L, whereas the TSS concentrations for this project are consistently in the thousands
of mg/L, with a maximum of 5,200 mg/L and an average of 3,000 mg/L. Such TSS
concentrations are not representative of typical stormwater runoff and are outside the bounds
of any usage that SMI recommends for the CBSF. SMI attempts to make it clear that this
technology is not appropriate for an erosion control situation or other heavy sediment
conditions similar to the situation at this site.
A cartridge solids load analysis by SMI indicates that, due to the extreme solids loading
conditions induced by the piles of excavated materials, the filters would have required on the
order of 50 maintenance cycles during the monitoring period (see Section 8.1).
Of the 16 storms sampled, 10 have flows in excess of the system design flow, further
exacerbating the issue with flows to bypass the filtration system. Additionally, during intense
storm events, it appears that the CBSF was receiving a contribution of stormwater from
outside the originally-specified drainage area, and operating in excess of the design flow.
48
-------
In conclusion, SMI believes that this project does not represent a meaningful evaluation of the
CBSF. However, SMI understands that there is a risk taken when working with multiple
variables beyond the scope or control of the investigation that have significant influence on the
results.
8.1 Sediment Loading Analysis
The objective of this analysis is to estimate the cumulative influent solids load, cumulative
cartridge loading capacity, and number of maintenances required based on the 25-lb rated
capacity of the StormFilter cartridge during each of the sampling periods after maintenance of
the four cartridge CBSF system installed at the St. Clair Shores DPW yard.
The following steps were used to analyze the rate at which sediment was loaded into the CBSF,
which is summarized in Table 8-1 and graphically in Figure 8-1:
1. Determine the relationship of rainfall to runoff for periods between maintenance events
(April 10 and December 10, 2004), using TSS data collected by the VO;
2. Produce cumulative runoff for storms greater than 0.2 in., including storms that were not
sampled, using rainfall data collected by nearby rainfall stations maintained by the
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, which would provide a reasonable estimate
for the total rain that fell at the test site;
3. Calculate the average influent TSS influent concentration for the qualified storm events,
using data collected by the VO;
4. Calculate daily influent solids load, using calculated average TSS and daily cumulative
runoff volume;
5. Calculate the daily CBSF mass loading, using a 90% runoff rate, an estimated CBSF pre-
treatment efficiency of 10%, and a StormFilter cartridge treatment efficiency of 50%; and
6. Determine cumulative influent solids load, cumulative cartridge loading capacity, and
number maintenances required for each of the testing.
Table 8-1. Estimated Sediment Loading Results
Date range
Description
Cumulative precipitation (in)
Cumulative influent solids load (Ib)
Cumulative cartridge loading capacity (%)
Determined number of maintenances required
Number of events sampled prior to first required maintenance
9/03 to 4/04
18.7
16,900
2,500
25
0
5/04 to 11/04
37.3
34,000
2,600
26
0
49
-------
Cumulative SMI CBSF Cartridge Solids Load
Storm Event Capture Design Loading Capacity Of SMI CBSF
2800%
2700%
2600%
2500%
2400%
2300%
2200%
2100%
2000%
1900%
1800%
1700%
1600%
1500%
1400%
1300%
1200%
1100%
1000%
900%
800%
700%
600%
500%
400%
300%
200%
100%
0% i
Sep-03
i 8/28/2004
1/1/2004
"? 2/29/2003
12/23/2003
12/10/2003
11/24/2003
11/18/2003
> 6/10/2004
5/23/2004
10/14/2003
Major Maintenance Performed
9/27/2003
i 9/22/2003
i 5/10/2004
-r- 2800
-- 2700
-- 2600
10/23/200! 2500
-- 2400
-- 2300
-- 2200
-- 2100
-- 2000
-- 1900
-- 1800
-- 1700
-- 1600
-- 1500
-- 1400
-- 1300
-- 1200
-- 1100
-- 1000
-- 900
-- 800
-- 700
-- 600
-- 500
-- 400
-- 300
-- 200
100
i-L o
Oct-03 Dec-03 Jan-04 Mar-04 May-04 Jun-04 Aug-04 Oct-04
Time (month-yy)
Nov-04
Figure 8-1. St. Clair Shores SMI CBSF cartridge solids loading capacity versus time.
The calculated cumulative CBSF cartridge solids loads for both periods prior to the sampling of
the first storm event during each period was calculated to be 400 Ib for the first period and 420 Ib
for the second period. The rated solids loading capacity of each StormFilter cartridge is 25 Ib,
thus the capacity for the four-cartridge CBSF is 100 Ib. Therefore, each qualified event
contributed a mass loading that was four times greater than the rated capacity of the CBSF.
These calculations were made without taking into account the loading that might have taken
place on a daily basis due to dry weather activities in and around the CBSF.
50
-------
Appendices
A Test Plan
B Event Hydrographs and Rain Distribution
C Analytical Data Reports
D Vendor-Supplied Analytical Data
51
-------
Glossary
Accuracy - a measure of the closeness of an individual measurement or the average of a number
of measurements to the true value and includes random error and systematic error.
Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process that causes errors in one
direction.
Comparability - a qualitative term that expresses confidence that two data sets can contribute to
a common analysis and interpolation.
Completeness - a quantitative term that expresses confidence that all necessary data have been
included.
Precision - a measure of the agreement between replicate measurements of the same property
made under similar conditions.
Protocol - a written document that clearly states the objectives, goals, scope and procedures for
the study. A protocol shall be used for reference during Vendor participation in the verification
testing program.
Quality Assurance Project Plan - a written document that describes the implementation of
quality assurance and quality control activities during the life cycle of the project.
Residuals - the waste streams, excluding final effluent, which are retained by or discharged
from the technology.
Representativeness - a measure of the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a
characteristic of a population parameter at a sampling point, a process condition, or
environmental condition.
Wet-Weather Flows Stakeholder Advisory Group - a group of individuals consisting of any
or all of the following: buyers and users of in drain removal and other technologies, developers
and Vendors, consulting engineers, the finance and export communities, and permit writers and
regulators.
Standard Operating Procedure - a written document containing specific procedures and
protocols to ensure that quality assurance requirements are maintained.
Technology Panel - a group of individuals with expertise and knowledge of stormwater
treatment technologies.
Testing Organization - an independent organization qualified by the Verification Organization
to conduct studies and testing of mercury amalgam removal technologies in accordance with
protocols and Test planans.
Vendor - a business that assembles or sells treatment equipment.
52
-------
Verification - to establish evidence on the performance of in drain treatment technologies under
specific conditions, following a predetermined study protocol(s) and Test planan(s).
Verification Organization - an organization qualified by USEPA to verify environmental
technologies and to issue Verification Statements and Verification Reports.
Verification Report - a written document containing all raw and analyzed data, all QA/QC data
sheets, descriptions of all collected data, a detailed description of all procedures and methods
used in the verification testing, and all QA/QC results. The Test planan(s) shall be included as
part of this document.
Verification Statement - a document that summarizes the Verification Report reviewed and
approved and signed by USEPA and NSF.
Verification Test planan - A written document prepared to describe the procedures for
conducting a test or study according to the verification protocol requirements for the application
of in drain treatment technology. At a minimum, the Test planan shall include detailed
instructions for sample and data collection, sample handling and preservation, precision,
accuracy, goals, and quality assurance and quality control requirements relevant to the
technology and application.
53
-------
References
1. Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J. W. Particle Size Analysis. In A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of Soil
Analysis: Part 1Physical and Mineralogical Methods (2nd ed) (pp. 383-411). Madison,
Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America.
2. NSF International and Earth Tech, Inc. Test Plan for the Verification of Stormwater
Management, Inc. StormFilter* Treatment System Using ZPG Filter Media, "Riverwalk
Site"Milwaukee, Wisconsin. March 22, 2004.
3. NSF International. ETV Verification Protocol Stormwater Source Area Treatment
Technologies. U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program; EPA/NSF Wet-
Weather Flow Technologies Pilot. March 2002 (v. 4.1).
4. USGS - Office of Water Quality. National Field Manual: Composites and Subsamples;
USGS, Water Resources.
5. USGS Office of Water Quality. Technical Memorandum 97.06.
6. U.S. Weather Bureau, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Duration from 30
Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years, Technical Paper No. 40, 1961.
7. National Weather Service Forecast Office; Detroit/Pontiac. http://www.crh.noaa.gov. January
7, 2005.
8. Patterson, J.W. Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology, 2ed. Butterworth Publishers,
Boston. 1985.
54
------- |