Environmental Technology
Verification Report
of the
Low-Cost Stormwater BMP Study
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
of the
Low-Cost Stormwater BMP Study
Abstract
This Technology
Verification report describes the nature and scope of an environmental
evaluation of catchbasin inserts manufactured by AbTech
Industries, AquaSheild, Inc., GeoMarine,
Inc., and PacTec, Inc. The information contained in this report
represents data that were collected in a laboratory study. The study was limited in scope and therefore the
information contained within this report should be combined with other
evaluations to understand the total capabilities of the inserts. The data as summarized within this Evaluation
Report are being made available and distributed to federal, state, and local
governmental regulators and to the stormwater treatment community. The goal of this report is to provide users
and purchasers of the inserts with information they need to make more informed
decisions about catchbasin inserts and their stormwater discharge.
Acknowledgements
The Civil
Engineering Research Foundation (CERF) and the
Reviewers:
Larry Jiang, Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF)
Brian Rustia, Civil Engineering Research Foundation (CERF)
Robert
Technology Panel Members
Greg Boettcher, Public Works Director,
Eric Dunn,
Kristofor Brye,
Asst. Professor,
We also express
appreciation to those companies that assisted by providing equipment for
completion of the research. Those
companies include: Instrument and Supply Inc. of Hot Springs, AR, Geotechnical
Marine Corp, Key West, FL, AbTech Industries,
Scottsdale, AZ, AquaShield, Inc.
Finally, the
project would not have been possible with out the support of the funding
agencies. Funding for this project came
from the
FHWA contract Manager: Charles Kotch (202-366-4256)
FHWA Contract Adm. Manager: Bill Kaufmann (202-366-4201)
Disclaimer
The information
in this document has been funded in part by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) under the Storm Water Evaluation Component of the FHWA’s
Pooled Fund Project (DTFH61-02-X-00010) with the Civil Engineering Research
Foundation’s (CERF)
Verification Statement
Civil
Engineering Research Foundation’s Verification Statement
for
the Low-Cost Stormwater BMP Study
Technology
Type: Stormwater Treatment Technology
Application: Catchbasin
Insert Stormwater Treatment
Technology
Name: Catchbasin Insert BMPs
Company: AbTech, Industries
Address:
Phone: 800-545-8999
URL: http://www.abtechindustries.com/
Company: PacTec, Inc.
Address:
Phone: 800-272-2832
URL: http://www.drainpac.com/
Company: GeoTechnical Marine Corp.
Advanced
Aquatic Products International, Inc.
Address: 1107
Phone: 305-292-3070
URL: http://www.Hydro-Cartridge.com
Company: AquaShield, Inc.
Address:
Phone: 423-870-8888
URL: http://aquashieldinc.com/
Program
Operation
The CERF Evaluation Program, in
partnership with a panel of experts, objectively and systematically documents
the performance of commercial-ready technologies. Together, with the full participation of the
technology developer, they develop plans, conduct tests, collect and analyze
data, and report findings. Verifications
are conducted according to a rigorous workplan and
established protocols for quality assurance.
CERF’s Evaluation Program acts as an objective
third-party evaluation service.
Technology
Description
The technology treatment processes used
in catchbasin inserts include: screening, sedimentation, absorption, and
floatation depending on the manufacturer.
Trash and debris are removed by screening, sediment is removed by
sedimentation, whereas, oils, organic chemicals, and hydrocarbons are removed
by floatation and absorption.
Evaluation
Description
The primary objective of the evaluation
of catchbasin inserts was to perform well-defined laboratory tests to provide
performance data on each manufacturer’s equipment. The data is summarized with this Evaluation
Report are being made available for distribution to federal, state, local
environmental regulators and to the stormwater treatment community. The goal of this report is to provide potential
users and purchasers of catchbasin inserts with this information so that they
can make informed decision about using catchbasin inserts in their communities.
Availability of Verification Statement and Report
Copies of the public Verification Statement and Verification Report for the Low-Cost Stormwater BMP Study are available from the following:
Civil Engineering Research Foundation
Web site: http://www.cerf.org/evtec/EVAL/Unofark.htm
Contents
1.3 Summary/Overview of Test Program
2.8
Sampling Location and Frequency
3.0 Evaluation
Project Results
List of Tables
Table
1. Accumulated solids analysis from the
WAC Parking Lot inserts.
Table
2. Zinc removal efficiency.
Table
3. Quoted cost of inserts.
Table
4. Average pollutant removal
percentages.
List
of Figures
Figure
1. Schematic of pilot scale setup.
Figure
2. Side view of pilot scale set up.
Figure
3. Top view of simulated catchbasin.
Figure
4. AbTech Industries catchbasin insert.
Figure
5. AquaShield catchbasin insert.
Figure
6. DrainPac catchbasin insert.
Figure
7. HydroCartridge catchbasin insert.
Figure
8. TSS removal efficiency.
Figure
9. TPH removal efficiency.
Acronyms and
Abbreviations
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
CERF Civil Engineering Research Foundation
EvTEC Environmental
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Check
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UofA
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
WAC
cm centimeter
ft foot
gpm gallons per minute
ha hectare
in inch
kg kilogram
lb pound
m3/s cubic meter per second
mm millimeter
mg/L milligram per liter
Technical
Evaluation Panel Key Contacts
Technology: Low Cost Stormwater Best Management Practices
Greg
Boettcher
Public
Works Director,
Eric Dunn, Stormwater
Engineer
Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality
Kristofor Brye
Asst.
Professor,
CERF
Staff:
William
E. Kirksey, P.E.
Director
Larry
Jiang
Project Manager
EvTec assemble the Technical Evaluation Panel Composed of representatives from the user community, academia, and the private sector. The panel oversaw the development and execution of the EvTEC Evaluation Plan and the preparation of this Verification Report. The Technical Evaluation Panel, with the cooperation and assistance of the applicants, identified specific project goals pertaining to the technology
This
verification report describes the nature and scope of an environmental
evaluation of catchbasin inserts manufactured by four different companies: AbTech Industries, GeoTechnical Marine
Corp., AquaShield, Inc., PacTec,
Inc. The inserts are manufactured to be
retrofitted into existing catchbasins in order to remove sediment,
hydrocarbons, metals, nutrients, and debris from stormwater runoff.
The evaluation
process and the creation of this report was overseen and coordinated by the
The inserts
were evaluated using a prototype catchbasin and in existing parking lot catchbasins.
In the prototype catchbasin, a synthetic stormwater was passed through the
inserts and the pollutant removal effectiveness was determined at a high flowrate.
Operational requirements of the inserts were monitored for six months in
catchbasin located in parking lots in
The goal of
this report is to provide users and purchasers of catchbasin inserts with
information needed to make informed decisions about the inserts.
Stormwater
characteristics vary from area to area; but, EPA (2001) listed the target
pollutants for treatment with catchbasin inserts as litter and debris, solids
(both coarse and suspended), and oil and grease (EPA, 2001). Other
pollutants are of concern in stormwater are metals (zinc, copper, lead),
nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), and pathogens. The pollutant removal mechanisms of
catchbasin inserts are: screening, sedimentation, flotation, and
absorption. Debris and large particles
are removed by screening; smaller particles and sediment along with associated
hydrocarbons, metals, nutrients, and pathogens are removed by settling; and
hydrocarbons that are not associated with sediment are removed by absorption.
The goal of
this project was to evaluate the pollutant removal efficiency of catchbasin
inserts treating a flowrate that would be experienced
due to a 30-minute SCS Type II storm with pollutant concentrations that are
typical for parking lots. In addition,
the inserts were evaluated for operational problems. The pollutants that were of concern were:
suspended solids, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and a representative metal
(zinc).
The Department
of Civil/Environmental Engineering at the
Suspended
solids analytical tests were conducted by
The four inserts
were evaluated under field conditions and in pilot scale tests. The field observations were conducted in two
parking lots in
There were two
field observation sites, the first site is the Walton Arts Center (WAC) Parking
Lot , which provides parking for special events, parking for small businesses
(restaurants, bars, and shops), and overflow parking for the University of
Arkansas. The second site is the
The WAC Parking
Lot is paved with asphaltic concrete, has no
significant run-on, and has area drop inlets to direct runoff to the stormwater
collection system. The contributing area
to each inlet was approximately 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres) with about 90 percent pavement
and 10 percent green space. Grate and
frames for the drop inlets are
The UofA Maintenance Yard is paved with asphaltic
concrete, has no run-on, and has area drop inlets to direct runoff to the
stormwater collection system. The
contributing area to each inlet was approximately 0.14 hectares (0.35 acres) with
about 60 percent pavement and 40 percent roof top. Grate and frames for the drop inlets are constructed
of steel pipe and angles. The inserts
were placed in the lot and observed for seven months (mid-March through
October).
The purpose of
conducting the simulator study was to test the inserts under controlled
conditions. So a simulator was
constructed that would:
·
provide
a known volume and flow rate of water,
·
provide
known pollutant concentrations,
·
allow
collection of samples from different tests under near identical conditions,
thus allowing for comparison between tests, and allow collection of samples in
accordance with a set schedule.
The flow rate
selected for the testing was 0.013 to 0.014 m3/s (200 to 215 gpm). This flow rate
was selected because it would be comparable to the average flow rate for a 30 minute
storm on the 0.1 ha (0.25 acre) lot as computed by the SCS method. Ten test runs were made on each of the four inserts.
Pollutant
concentrations of 225 mg/l TSS and 31 mg/l TPH were selected as typical for
stormwater from parking lots based on studies by Novotny and Olem (1994), the ICBIC (1995), and Woodward-Clyde (1998). City of
A schematic of
the pilot scale set up is shown in Figure 1 and a picture of the pilot scale
setup is shown in Figure 2. The simulated catch basin consisted of a wooden
frame 122 cm square (48 in) and 122 cm (48 in) high. Into this frame, a 76.2 cm x 71.1 cm (30 in x
28 in) hole was cut representing the catch basin frame. The platform was coated with fiberglass to
prevent sorption of oil and grease by the wooden frame.
The water was
distributed around the periphery of the catch basin in a 5.08-cm (2-in)
manifold with 1.3 cm (0.5 in) orifices at 2.54 cm (1.0 in) centers (see Figure 3). The water ran a short distance over a
platform on the simulator, then fell over the edge of the catch basin into the
insert. This distribution system allowed
the system to simulate weir flow into the insert and also allowed for maximum use
of the insert material for treatment of the waste.
Figure 1.
Schematic of pilot scale setup.
Figure 2.
Side view of pilot scale set up.
Figure 3.
Top view of simulated catchbasin.
The AbTech insert is constructed from high strength corrugated
plastic. There are two parts to the AbTech insert, a plastic flange that rested on the catchbasin
frame, and the insert that hangs about four inches below the flange (Figure 4). Inside the insert, a plastic mesh covers the
sides and bottom. An absorbent material is
contained between the wire mesh and the sides or bottom of the insert. After falling through the grate, the water
flows directly through the insert and then is discharged from the bottom of the
insert. Water ponds in the insert to a
point where the available head in the insert is enough to push water through
the absorbent material to discharge out the bottom. When flow is higher than the insert could
treat, then water bypasses the insert by overflowing between the top of the
insert and the plastic flange.
Treatment
processes used in the AbTech insert are screening,
sedimentation, and absorption. The plastic
mesh on the inside of the insert provides screening. Between this mesh and the sides, and between
the mesh and the bottom of the insert is an absorbent material that provides
for oil and grease absorption. The
insert used in the test was 63.5 cm (25 in) deep and the water surface area at
the top of the insert unit was 2090 cm2 (2.25 ft2).
Figure 4.
AbTech Industries
catchbasin insert.
The AquaShield insert is constructed from stainless steel and
high-density polyethylene (HDPE).
Stainless steel forms the flange used for hanging the insert from the
catch basin frame and supports the insert that is hung below the flange (Figure
5). In the insert, there is an upper
compartment that provides for settling. A slotted plug divides the upper and lower
compartments and provides straining of stormwater as it flows through the
insert. The lower compartment contains
an absorbent pillow for oil and grease absorption.
Water enters
through the catch basin grate and into the top of the insert then flows through
the slotted plug, into the upper compartment of the insert. Water ponds in the upper compartment to a
point that the available head is enough to push the water through the slotted
plug and the absorbent pillow to discharge out the bottom. When the flowrate is
higher than the unit could treat, water bypasses the lower compartment by
flowing out of ports around the periphery of the insert. A metal collar inside of the upper
compartment prevents bypass of water from the entrance directly to the overflow
ports. This collar forms a baffle that
forces water downward first, then back up to the overflow.
Treatment
processes used in the AquaShield insert are
straining, sedimentation, and absorption.
The slotted plug that separates the upper compartment from the lower
compartment provides straining. Settling
occurs in the upper compartment.
Absorption of oil and grease was accomplished by the absorbent pillow,
which is filled with a patented cellulose material. The AquaShield
insert was 46 cm (18.1 in) deep and the surface area at the top of the insert
was 1642 cm2 (1.77 ft2)
Figure 5.
AquaShield catchbasin
insert.
The DrainPac insert is constructed of metal frame to which a
plastic mesh is suspended. The metal
collar can be constructed to set on the catchbasin frame or to be attached to
the catchbasin walls. Set inside of the
plastic mesh, a bag filter is placed provide both straining and absorption
(Figure 6). Water flows into the insert
through the catch basin grate and into the top of the insert. Water flows through the bag filter and then is
discharged out of the bottom of the insert.
Water ponds in the insert to a point where the available head was enough
to push the water through the filter bag.
When the flowrate was higher than could be
forced through the filter bag then water bypasses the insert by flowing out of
four overflow tubes.
Treatment
processes used in the DrainPac insert are straining,
sedimentation, and absorption. The bag
filter provides straining and absorption.
Settling occurs within the filter bag volume. The DrainPac insert
tested was 50.8 cm (20 in) deep and the water surface area at the throat of the
insert was 3,123 cm2 (3.36 ft2)
Figure 6. DrainPac catchbasin
insert.
The HydroCartridge insert is a single unit constructed from
fiberglass that is hung from the catchbasin frame on flanges molded into the
insert (Figure 7). Water flows through
the catch basin grate and into the top of the insert. From there, all water was forced to flow to
the bottom of the insert, then backed up in annular space on two sides where it
discharged from the insert over horizontal weirs on each side of the
insert. The discharge over the weirs
caused water to stand in the insert at all times; but, the company can provide for
the insert to drain between storms.
Treatment
processes used in the HydroCartridge insert were
sedimentation, flotation, and absorption.
Sediment and coarse particles with settling velocities greater than the
upward velocity in the annular space will settle out. An absorbent sock suspended in the throat of
the insert absorbed oil and grease. HydroCartridge’s absorbent is a patented material labeled “Rubberizer™.” The
insert tested was 96.5 cm (38 in) deep and the surface area at the throat of
the insert of 3690 cm2 (3.98 ft2).
Figure 7.
HydroCartridge catchbasin
insert.
Analysis for total suspended
solids (TSS) was conducted in accordance with Standard Methods 2554 D (APHA,
1998). For total petroleum hydrocarbons
(TPH) EPA Method 0418.1 (EPA, 1983b) was used in the analysis. Dissolved zinc samples were analyzed with a SPECTRO
Model D ICP Atomic Emission Spectrometer (
Influent grab samples
were collected at the top of the pilot scale simulator where water entered the
insert. Effluent grab samples were
collected below the insert and above the effluent collection pan. The heaviest stream of effluent flow was used
as the sampling point. Influent samples
were taken at 2, 15, 17, and 30-minutes during each test. The results of the influent tests were
averaged for a single influent value. Effluent
samples were taken at 5, 10, 20, and 25-minute.
The results of the effluent samples were also averaged for a single
effluent value.
Installation
of the inserts was a simple process and involved lifting the grate, cleaning
the frame, setting the insert into the frame, and replacing the grate. At the WAC Parking Lot, the grates were heavy
enough to require utilization of a backhoe to lift the grate and to replace it
after the insert was installed. Therefore,
heavy grates would add to the insert maintenance cost because of the need to
have a piece of equipment and an operator each time an insert was cleaned. At the UofA Maintenance
Yard, the grates were light enough to lift by hand.
The
total rainfall in
Very little
material accumulated in the inserts during the observation period. The lack of accumulation of material was
likely due to the almost totally impervious nature of the drainage areas. There was essentially no run-on onto the
site; therefore, the only sediment available to the inserts was that which fell
off of vehicles in the parking lot. It
was noted that the water flowing into the catchbasins WAC Parking Lot was clear. Stormwater runoff was not observed at the
maintenance yard.
The material
captured by the inserts at the
Table 1.
Accumulated solids analysis from the WAC Parking Lot inserts.
|
Insert |
Sediment Volume, cm3 |
Sieve Size (mm) % Retained |
||||
|
|
|
4.75
|
2.36
|
1.19
|
0.60
|
<0.60
|
|
AquaShield |
100 |
17.6 |
22.7 |
14.5 |
13.7 |
31.5 |
|
AbTech |
150 |
38.9 |
20.2 |
16.5 |
12.4 |
11.9 |
|
HydroCartridge |
40 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
DrainPac |
190 |
8.5 |
9.3 |
12.9 |
15.8 |
53.5 |
The
results from the field test show 67.7% of particles captured were larger than
0.6 mm diameter. Using Stoke’s equation, and an idealized catch basin insert with
a throat water surface area of 3000 cm2 (1.27 ft2) and a
flow rate of 0.013 m3/s (200 gpm) it was
calculated that particles larger than 0.3 mm and some fraction of smaller
particles should be removed. This
calculation compared favorably with the results given above. The turbulence in the working inserts made
them less than idealized settling basins; therefore, causing smaller particles to
not be captured. The material captured
during the five-month testing period at the
Maintenance
problems encountered in with the inserts included:
· The AquaShield insert filter tray was unseated during most storms and had to be reset by manipulating it with a metal rod through the grate.
· The HydroCartridge insert was quickly filled with sand from equipment washing at the UofA Maintenance Yard and had to be removed because of flooding problems reported by the maintenance staff. The insert was not reinstalled.
· The DrainPac insert unintentionally had a frontend loader bucket load of dirt dumped into it at the UofA Maintenance Yard; but, only partially filled it, so the insert was left in place, but the material captured was not considered representative of stormwater pollutants.
·
The AbTech insert at
the WAC Parking Lot had a lot of leafy debris from one storm but the debris had
washed out a week later after another storm.
Some of these problems should not be construed as related to these particular inserts; because, each installation or incident was not similarly tested on all inserts. These problems did indicate:
· Public works staff should be educated on the water quality issues related to operation of stormwater BMPs.
· The inserts did captured material from accidental spills and therefore indicates that inserts were effective in preventing accidental spills of sediment.
· Debris (leaves, paper, etc.) might dry out between storms and may wash out of inserts during subsequent storms.
· Inserts must be cleaned according to specific site conditions.
3.2 Pilot Scale Tests
Hydraulic
capacity testing of the inserts with clean water indicated that DrainPac, HydroCartridge, and AbTech all had initial capacities in excess of 0.015 m3/s
(240 gpm). The
initial hydraulic capacity of the AquaShield insert was
0.00038 m3/s (6 gpm) without bypassing
flow. During pollutant removal
efficiency testing, the hydraulic capacity of the DrainPac
and AbTech inserts decreased from a capacity greater
than 0.015 m3/s (240 gpm) to less than 0.013
m3/s (200 gpm).
Total suspended
solids percent removal for the inserts varied significantly as shown in Figure
8, where the box plots show the 25th and 75th percentile
value. The whiskers are at the 5th
and 95 percentile.
Figure 8.
TSS removal efficiency.
Regression analysis of TSS removal efficiency as a function of surface area did show a trend of increasing efficiency with increased surface area. For the available surface area, the AbTech insert performed better than the other inserts; due probably to the fact unlike the other inserts, water flows downward through the AbTech insert and out the bottom.
Another approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the inserts for TSS removal was to look at the trend in removal efficiency with respect to the amount of water filtered. If there was a significant trend, then the slope of that trend would indicate how long the insert could perform before it had to be replaced. During the ten test runs, the TSS removal efficiency of the AquaShield insert decreased from 20 percent to 3 percent, the TSS removal efficiency of the DrainPac insert decreased from 54 percent to 4 percent; whereas, the TSS removal efficiency for the AbTech and HydroCartridge inserts did not change.
The TPH removal
efficiency for the inserts was somewhat more consistent than the TSS removal
efficiency as shown in Figure 9, where the box plots show the 25th
and 75th percentile value. The
whiskers are at the 5th and 95 percentile.
Figure 9.
TPH removal efficiency.
After removal of five outliers from the TPH data set, 14 of the 76 tests exhibited negative removal efficiency. This could have been caused from adsorption of diesel onto sediment particles and clumping of these particles. Any one sample could have a higher or lower concentration of these clumps which could be cause the influent concentration to be higher than the average influent concentration and/or the effluent concentration to be lower than the average effluent concentration.
None of the inserts tested exhibited any trend in TPH
removal with respect to the volume filtered.
Because the
synthetic stormwater was not spiked with zinc, the average concentration of
dissolved zinc in the influent samples was only 0.03 mg/l. The results of the zinc tests are presented
here (Table 2), but because of the very low concentrations, those results are
not considered indicative of the performance of the inserts. None of the inserts exhibited any trends in
removal efficiency related to the amount of water filtered. Fourteen of the 80 tests resulted in negative
removal efficiencies for dissolved zinc.
The most likely causes of negative removal are the same as for the TPH
sampling.
Table 2. Zinc removal efficiency.
|
Insert |
Mean Percent Removal |
|
AbTech |
39.9 |
|
AquaShield |
0.0 |
|
DrainPac |
-6.4 |
|
HydroCartridge |
47.8 |
The pH of the
simulated stormwater was in the range of 6 to 8 and any change in pH between
influent and effluent was insignificant.
3.3 Laboratory QA/QC Summary
The QA/QC for
this project included the following:
There were no
instances that analytical results were outside method QC acceptance criteria.
The
pollutant removal efficiency of four commercially available catch basin inserts
was tested for TSS, TPH, and dissolved zinc.
The inserts tested included AbTech Industries
Ultra Urban Filter, AquaShield Incorporated’s AquaShield insert, PacTec
Incorporated’s DrainPac, and Geotechnical Marine
Corporation’s HydroCartridge. Field observations and pilot scale tests were
conducted. Pilot scale tests were
conducted at flow rates of 0.013 to 0.014 m3/s (200 to 215 gpm) and concentrations of 225 mg/l for TSS and 31 mg/l for
TPH.
4.1 Maintenance and Cost
Two general
operational problems of catchbasin inserts were discovered during the testing:
1) the potential for plugging if the inserts are overloaded with sediment, and
2) the potential for debris to dry between storms and flush out in a subsequent
storm. Little can be done affordably to
solve the second problem; but, the first problem could be solved by appropriate
training and maintenance.
Maintenance of
inserts is fairly simple provided the inlet grate can be lifted by manpower and
power equipment is available for vacuuming the accumulated sediment and debris from
the insert. A city or other entity
considering catch basin inserts as a component of its stormwater management
system should consider the maintenance requirements as well as the initial
costs.
Education of
citizens and city employees regarding illegal dumping of pollutants into storm
drains would decrease maintenance requirements and help avoid plugging and the
subsequent flooding that may follow. In
addition, a regular schedule of inspection and cleaning could result in more
effective removal of debris.
Two operational
problems that were particular to the current design of two inserts were
discovered during testing: 1) due to an large accidental spill of sediment, the
HydrCartridge insert plugged and caused localized
flooding, and 2) the slotted center plug of the AquaShield
insert could become dislodged and flip if the catchbasin becomes flooded or
surcharged.
The quoted cost
as of January 2003, without shipping, of each of the four inserts are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3.
Quoted cost of inserts.
|
Insert |
Quoted Price |
|
AbTech Ultra |
$590 |
|
AquaShield™ |
$1,200 |
|
DrainPac™ |
$500 |
|
HydroCartridge™ |
$1000 |
4.2 Pollutant Removal
Under the controlled pilot test conditions, the inserts were able to achieve average total suspended solids and total petroleum hydrocarbon removal as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Average pollutant removal percentages.
|
Insert |
Average TSS Removal (% ) |
Average TPH Removal (% ) |
|
AbTech Ultra |
45 |
11 |
|
AquaShield™ |
10 |
16 |
|
DrainPac™ |
22 |
10 |
|
HydroCartridge™ |
40 |
15 |
4.3 Summary
For the pollutants (gradation and concentration) and the relatively high flowrates tested in this evaluation, the pollutant removal efficiencies determined in this study were moderate to low and were lower than determined in some previous evaluations (ICBIC, 1995; Woodward-Clyde, 1998; EPA, 1999; CEPA, 2000; Creech Engineers, 2001). Maintenance problems were encountered with some of the inserts and some of the observation locations, which could cause flooding, release of captured debris, decrease in pollutant capture, and mosquito breeding. In addition, due to this work and other findings, some of the manufacturers have made modification in their inserts to improve operation and pollutant removal capabilities. Selection of inserts should take into account many factors; such as, flowrate, pollutants, pollutant concentration, sediment gradation, maintenance requirement, and the current design of the inserts.
APHA.
(1998). Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water And Wastewater, 20th. Edition. American Public Health Association,
Creech Engineers. (2001). “Pollutant
Removal Testing for a Suntree Technologies Grate
Inlet Skimmer Box.”
CEPA (2000).
“Evaluation of the AquaShield Filtration System
(Model SD-100, Series 576).” Environmental Technology Certification Program. California
Environmental Protection Agency available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/CalCert/. Accessed
EPA. (1983a). “Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program. Vol. 1. Final Report.” U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Planning Division,
EPA. (1983b).
“Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.” Document EPA 600/4-79-020,
EPA. (1999).
“Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Stormwater BMPs.” Document EPA-821-12-99-012,
EPA. (2001). “Catch Basins/Catch Basin
Inserts, Post-construction Stormwater Management in New Development and
Redevelopment.” U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management,
ICBIC.
(1995). “Evaluation of
Commercially-Available Catch Basin Inserts for the Treatment of Stormwater
Runoff from Developed Sites.”
Interagency Catch Basin Insert Committee for
Morgan,
Robert. A. (2003). An Evaluation of the
Urban Stormwater Pollutant Removal Efficiency of Catch Basin Inserts.
Master’s Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
NWS.
(2003). “Local Climatological Data.”
National Weather Service Forecast Office,
Novotny, V. and Olem,
H. (1994). Water Quality, Prevention, Identification and Management of
Diffuse Pollution. Van
Woodward-Clyde (1998).
Appendix
4: HydroCartridge Data
Appendix 1: AbTech
Data
|
Sample # |
TSS (mg/l) |
Turbidity (NTU) |
TPH (mg/l) |
Zinc (mg/l) |
|
|
I |
100 |
176.6 |
45.2 |
8.13 |
0.0282 |
|
E |
105 |
90.2 |
31.7 |
5.47 |
0.0104 |
|
E |
110 |
84.7 |
34.1 |
6.11 |
0.0073 |
|
I |
115 |
280.3 |
32.5 |
9.32 |
0.0177 |
|
E |
120 |
125.0 |
29.9 |
6.98 |
0.012 |
|
E |
125 |
105.9 |
37.4 |
10.37 |
0.0141 |
|
I |
200 |
275.3 |
35.5 |
10.71 |
0.0402 |
|
E |
205 |
99.7 |
40 |
13.19 |
0.0192 |
|
E |
210 |
232.6 |
43.7 |
19.26 |
0.0145 |
|
I |
215 |
297.7 |
39.9 |
13.98 |
0.0274 |
|
E |
220 |
111.7 |
33.9 |
12.34 |
0.01 |
|
E |
225 |
115.7 |
41.8 |
5.97 |
0.0123 |
|
E |
226 |
91.5 |
|
7.43 |
0.0223 |
|
I |
300 |
253.2 |
43.65 |
11 |
0.0166 |
|
E |
305 |
177.3 |
42.2 |
9.31 |
0.0205 |
|
E |
310 |
175.5 |
|
11.7 |
0.0185 |
|
I |
315 |
288.4 |
43.2 |
10.37 |
0.0233 |
|
E |
320 |
190.9 |
37.3 |
9.77 |
0.0123 |
|
E |
325 |
96.5 |
39 |
12.98 |
0.0095 |
|
I |
400 |
285.5 |
53.05 |
17.53 |
0.0334 |
|
E |
405 |
175.8 |
40.4 |
13.83 |
0.0178 |
|
E |
410 |
77.2 |
46.1 |
15.43 |
0.0225 |
|
I |
415 |
295.6 |
45.95 |
19 |
0.0421 |
|
E |
420 |
230.3 |
41.7 |
15 |
0.0297 |
|
E |
425 |
167.4 |
42.8 |
16.04 |
0.0109 |
|
E |
426 |
145.1 |
|
14.07 |
0.0229 |
|
I |
500 |
247.0 |
48.15 |
17.63 |
0.0296 |
|
E |
505 |
177.9 |
38.8 |
15 |
0.0051 |
|
E |
510 |
193.6 |
47.1 |
13.94 |
0.0125 |
|
I |
515 |
271.3 |
42.95 |
17.14 |
0.0268 |
|
E |
520 |
166.8 |
41.4 |
14.65 |
0.01 |
|
E |
525 |
157.1 |
37.4 |
11.95 |
0.0068 |
|
I |
600 |
196.4 |
45.15 |
16.39 |
0.0314 |
|
E |
605 |
187.6 |
43.5 |
11.98 |
0.0208 |
|
E |
610 |
162.3 |
38.1 |
13.76 |
0.0134 |
|
I |
615 |
214.2 |
40.4 |
14.26 |
0.0214 |
|
E |
620 |
184.9 |
34.8 |
11.87 |
0.0159 |
|
E |
625 |
156.8 |
38.4 |
13.4 |
0.0191 |
|
E |
626 |
169.7 |
|
14.36 |
0.0129 |
|
I |
700 |
291.1 |
37.5 |
12 |
0.0216 |
|
E |
705 |
132.3 |
39.8 |
14.15 |
0.0094 |
|
E |
710 |
136.0 |
33.7 |
13.33 |
0.0136 |
|
I |
715 |
272.0 |
42.3 |
19 |
0.0207 |
|
E |
720 |
162.5 |
37.6 |
15.21 |
0.0232 |
|
E |
725 |
163.9 |
42.4 |
17.87 |
0.0156 |
|
I |
800 |
300.6 |
39.3 |
18.67 |
0.0254 |
|
E |
805 |
168.0 |
35.4 |
17.34 |
0.0179 |
|
E |
810 |
163.4 |
43.7 |
16.17 |
0.0198 |
|
I |
815 |
344.4 |
45.6 |
20.67 |
0.0211 |
|
E |
820 |
205.9 |
34.7 |
17.14 |
0.0248 |
|
E |
825 |
163.6 |
43.6 |
17.85 |
0.0082 |
|
E |
826 |
191.6 |
|
16.12 |
0.0111 |
|
I |
900 |
277.6 |
31.5 |
9.24 |
0.0033 |
|
E |
905 |
193.1 |
29.3 |
8.44 |
0.0119 |
|
E |
910 |
102.2 |
35.3 |
7.76 |
0.0124 |
|
I |
915 |
344.7 |
30.4 |
6.78 |
0.0334 |
|
E |
920 |
159.6 |
22.5 |
17.87 |
0.0102 |
|
E |
925 |
148.7 |
30 |
5.22 |
0.0138 |
|
I |
1000 |
320.7 |
33.15 |
9.77 |
0.0158 |
|
E |
1005 |
143.9 |
25.1 |
12.07 |
0.0103 |
|
E |
1010 |
75.4 |
28.9 |
11.7 |
0.0162 |
|
I |
1015 |
321.4 |
20.8 |
14.55 |
0.0202 |
|
E |
1020 |
133.6 |
25.9 |
14.79 |
0.0171 |
|
E |
1025 |
160.1 |
25.2 |
12.06 |
0.0109 |
|
E |
1026 |
158.2 |
|
15.5 |
0.0118 |
Numbering scheme for samples
I = influent sample
E = effluent sample
XXYY = XXth.
test run, YYth. minute after start of run. For instance, E 1210 is an effluent sample
taken from the 12th. test run, 10 minutes after initiation of the
sampling run.
Appendix 2: AquaShield
Data
|
Sample # |
TSS (mg/l) |
Turbidity (NTU) |
TPH (mg/l) |
Zinc (mg/l) |
|
|
I |
100 |
389.3 |
33.15 |
5.7 |
0.0372 |
|
E |
105 |
204.3 |
24.5 |
7.14 |
0.014 |
|
E |
110 |
197.8 |
28.3 |
5.65 |
0.0304 |
|
I |
115 |
328.7 |
28.55 |
12.16 |
0.0236 |
|
E |
120 |
166.4 |
24.8 |
9.19 |
0.0159 |
|
E |
125 |
161.3 |
29.2 |
8.68 |
0.0172 |
|
I |
200 |
448.0 |
31.3 |
10.9 |
0.0204 |
|
E |
205 |
485.1 |
28.3 |
8.48 |
0.1388 |
|
E |
210 |
146.7 |
28.5 |
8.59 |
0.0222 |
|
I |
215 |
400.9 |
29.35 |
13.87 |
0.0272 |
|
E |
220 |
282.3 |
27.5 |
10.62 |
0.0417 |
|
E |
225 |
194.4 |
20.5 |
12.88 |
0.0318 |
|
E |
226 |
155.6 |
|
11.33 |
0.0463 |
|
I |
300 |
410.4 |
23.8 |
9.56 |
0.0322 |
|
E |
305 |
184.7 |
25.9 |
13.94 |
0.0372 |
|
E |
310 |
241.0 |
29 |
13.29 |
0.0553 |
|
I |
315 |
421.9 |
29.2 |
13.3 |
0.0476 |
|
E |
320 |
175.0 |
30.2 |
11.5 |
0.0368 |
|
E |
325 |
158.4 |
26 |
10.81 |
0.0055 |
|
I |
400 |
377.5 |
27.95 |
11.56 |
0.0397 |
|
E |
405 |
133.9 |
28 |
12.02 |
0.0162 |
|
E |
410 |
150.9 |
27.7 |
12.95 |
0.013 |
|
I |
415 |
339.1 |
28.6 |
12.84 |
0.0241 |
|
E |
420 |
178.4 |
26.6 |
11.93 |
0.015 |
|
E |
425 |
195.4 |
25.8 |
14.23 |
0.0233 |
|
E |
426 |
256.1 |
|
|
0.0265 |
|
I |
500 |
447.5 |
28.65 |
15.09 |
0.0493 |
|
E |
505 |
84.6 |
20 |
15.39 |
0.0086 |
|
E |
510 |
147.9 |
29.9 |
16.72 |
0 |
|
I |
515 |
512.8 |
27.8 |
17.56 |
0.0305 |
|
E |
520 |
214.3 |
25.9 |
|
0.0253 |
|
E |
525 |
174.8 |
24 |
13.73 |
0.0102 |
|
I |
600 |
408.6 |
26.3 |
14.71 |
0.0134 |
|
E |
605 |
214.1 |
24.6 |
12.03 |
0.0518 |
|
E |
610 |
184.1 |
32.1 |
11.56 |
0.0186 |
|
I |
615 |
514.1 |
32.3 |
18.73 |
0.0245 |
|
E |
620 |
232.8 |
25.9 |
11.38 |
0 |
|
E |
625 |
216.7 |
33.7 |
11.56 |
0.023 |
|
E |
626 |
197.2 |
|
14.22 |
0.0178 |
|
I |
700 |
376.3 |
28.55 |
13.04 |
0.0174 |
|
E |
705 |
190.8 |
27.5 |
12.32 |
0.012 |
|
E |
710 |
206.5 |
24.2 |
11.46 |
0.0054 |
|
I |
715 |
344.6 |
32.55 |
13.84 |
0.0117 |
|
E |
720 |
264.5 |
29.7 |
6.56 |
0.0111 |
|
E |
725 |
193.4 |
27.3 |
12.1 |
0.0022 |
|
I |
800 |
290.1 |
32.1 |
13.2 |
0 |
|
E |
805 |
172.1 |
28.5 |
12.86 |
0.0044 |
|
E |
810 |
211.4 |
30.4 |
15.35 |
0.0509 |
|
I |
815 |
394.0 |
31.45 |
18.77 |
0.0167 |
|
E |
820 |
180.6 |
26.5 |
14.25 |
0.009 |
|
E |
825 |
176.9 |
26 |
16.9 |
0.0136 |
|
E |
826 |
162.4 |
|
14.64 |
0.0182 |
|
I |
900 |
348.0 |
29.7 |
12.51 |
0.0186 |
|
E |
905 |
225.3 |
23.4 |
13.03 |
0.0186 |
|
E |
910 |
183.2 |
31.1 |
12.84 |
0.0124 |
|
I |
915 |
318.7 |
30.5 |
14.1 |
0.0269 |
|
E |
920 |
234.3 |
28.8 |
11.58 |
0.0205 |
|
E |
925 |
184.6 |
29.4 |
12.77 |
0.008 |
|
I |
1000 |
471.0 |
28.05 |
16.48 |
0.0178 |
|
E |
1005 |
168.2 |
28 |
13.9 |
0.0253 |
|
E |
1010 |
184.9 |
29.6 |
13.01 |
0.0103 |
|
I |
1015 |
349.6 |
31.15 |
19.66 |
0.0209 |
|
E |
1020 |
180.9 |
25.6 |
10.25 |
0.0084 |
|
E |
1025 |
226.3 |
34 |
16.04 |
0.0122 |
|
E |
1026 |
187.7 |
|
13.98 |
0.0053 |
Numbering scheme for samples
I = influent sample
E = effluent sample
XXYY = XXth.
test run, YYth. minute after start of run. For instance, E 1210 is an effluent sample taken from the 12th.
test run, 10 minutes after initiation of the sampling run.
Appendix
3: DrainPac
Data
|
Sample # |
TSS (mg/l) |
Turbidity (NTU) |
TPH (mg/l) |
Zinc (mg/l) |
|
|
I |
600 |
81.5 |
22.1 |
3.39 |
0.005 |
|
E |
602 |
123.4 |
11.9 |
4.35 |
0.0342 |
|
E |
605 |
92.5 |
16.9 |
1 |
0.0499 |
|
E |
610 |
66.3 |
17.6 |
5.29 |
0.0186 |
|
I |
615 |
324.3 |
|||