performance evaluation report of the stormtreat stormwater … · 2018. 9. 12. · stormtreat®...

StormTreat® Performance Evaluation Report By the UNH Stormwater Center-March 2013

!

!!

!Performance!Evaluation!Report!of!the!StormTreat!

Stormwater!Control!Measure!!!

Submitted!to!!

StormTreat!Systems!INC.!!!

!March!2013!

!!

Prepared!by!!!!

!James!J.!Houle,!CPSWQ!Program!Manager,!!

Phone:!603"767"[email protected]!!

!!!

Timothy!A.!Puls,!EIT!Site!Facility!Manager!Phone:!603"862"[email protected]!

!!

!Thomas!P.!Ballestero,!PE,!PhD!Director,!!

Principal!Investigator!Phone:!603"862"1405!

[email protected]!!

!!

Robert!M.!Roseen,!PE.,!PhD.!Former!Director,!UNHSC!

!! !!!!!

!!!


2

Final Performance Evaluation Report on the StormTreat Stormwater Control Measure – March 2013 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center

!

Table!of!Contents!1.0! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY!________________________________________________! 4!

2.0! INTRODUCTION!_______________________________________________________! 4!

3.0! TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION! _________________________________________! 5!

3.1 STS Configuration and Sizing!______________________________________________________! 6!

3.2 Reference TSS Information!________________________________________________________! 9!

4.0 INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASURING TECHNIQUES! _____________________! 10!4.1 Flow!_________________________________________________________________________! 10!

4.2 Other Measurements!____________________________________________________________! 10!

4.3 Water Quality Analysis!__________________________________________________________! 11!

5.0 TEST PROCEDURES!_____________________________________________________! 11!5.1 Rainfall Collection and Measurement!_______________________________________________! 11!

5.2 Field Sampling Procedures! _______________________________________________________! 11!

6.0 DATA EVALUATION!_____________________________________________________! 12!

7.0 RESULTS!_______________________________________________________________! 13!7.1 Event Mean Concentrations (EMC), Removal Efficiencies (RE) and Statistics! ______________! 14!

7.2 Additional Performance Evaluation – Enterococci!_____________________________________! 20!

7.3 Additional Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring!______________________________________! 21!

8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS!__________________________________________! 22! !! !! !


3

!!

LIST!OF!FIGURES!!

Figure!1:!Site!plan!view!of!the!University!of!New!Hampshire!field!research!facility!prior!to!STS!installation.!_______!6!Figure!2:!Plan!view!of!StormTreat!Systems!treatment!device!at!UNHSC.!Influent!and!effluent!monitoring!/!sampling!locations!identified!as!well!as!major!system!components.!______________________________________________!7!Figure!3:!Plan!view!of!flow!diversion!structure.!_______________________________________________________!8!Figure!4:!Plan!view!of!detention!chamber.!Flow!diversion!structure!is!to!the!left.!____________________________!8!Figure!5:!Plan!view!of!valve!chamber!and!StormTreat!units.!Detention!chamber!is!to!the!left.! _________________!9!Figure!6:!Total!Suspended!Solids!(TSS)!for!varied!land!uses!and!at!the!UNH!Stormwater!Center!(UNHSC);!(Source:!National!Stormwater!Quality!Database,!2005!,!UNHSC,!2007)! _________________________________________!10!Figure!7:!Monitored!Storm!Summary.!!Total!influent!and!effluent!volumes!are!plotted!in!gallons!on!the!left!vertical!axis.!Rainfall!depths!are!plotted!in!inches!on!the!right!vertical!axis.!Dates!for!each!of!the!20!monitored!events!are!aligned.!_____________________________________________________________________________________!13!Figure!8:!Total!Suspended!Solids!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!19!storm!events.! _________________________________________________________________!16!Figure!9:!Suspended!Sediment!Concentration!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!19!storm!events.!__________________________________________________________!16!Figure!10:!Total!Petroleum!Hydrocarbons"Diesel!Range!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!3!storm!events.! _______________________________________________!17!Figure!11:!Total!Zinc!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!16!storm!events.!________________________________________________________________________________!17!Figure!12:!Nitrate!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!11!storm!events.!________________________________________________________________________________!18!Figure!13:!Total!Kjeldahl!Nitrogen!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!17!storm!events.! _________________________________________________________________!18!Figure!14:!Total!Nitrogen!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!17!storm!events.!______________________________________________________________________________!19!Figure!15:!Total!Phosphorus!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!20!storm!events.!___________________________________________________________________________!19!Figure!16:!Enterococci!concentrations!from!influent!and!effluent!sample!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!7!storm!events.!________________________________________________________________________________!20!

!!!!

LIST!OF!TABLES!Table!1:!Laboratory!analytical!methods!and!detection!limits!for!each!analyte.!.........................................................!11!Table!2:!Rainfall"Runoff!event!characteristics!for!20!storm!events.!............................................................................!14!Table!3:!Simple!statistics!summarizing!each!of!the!parameters!over!the!monitoring!period......................................!15!Table!4:!Simple!statistics!summary!of!Enterococci!results!over!monitoring!period.!....................................................!20!Table!5:!Average!effluent!real"time!water!quality!parameters!for!each!sampled!storm!event.!.................................!21!!!!!


4

Final Performance Evaluation Report on the StormTreat Stormwater Control Measure – March 2013 The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center !1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center (UNHSC) has completed a sixteen month field verification study of StormTreat Systems stormwater control measure. Monitoring took place from April 2011 through July 2012 at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center’s (UNHSC) main field facility in Durham, NH. The evaluated StormTreat system was designed by StormTreat Systems Inc. and DeLuca-Hoffman Associates Inc., in association with UNHSC. The treatment area includes direct rainfall over one acre of impervious pavement drained by a conventional catch basin and piping network. The system is designed to treat the water quality volume (WQV), a one-inch rainfall event over a 24 hour period. Rainfall runoff is designed to flow into a subsurface reservoir consisting of large diameter HPDE pipes. Runoff filters through the StormTreat system at an average rate of 2.0 gallons per minute (gpm) regulated by an outlet orifice control. Non-design stormwater runoff is diverted through an upstream flow splitter bypass resulting in the StormTreat system being hydraulically configured in what is termed an “offline” manner. The overall project objective was to evaluate performance with respect to influent and effluent water quantity and water quality. Water quantity was monitored at the influent, effluent, and bypass locations as well as local rainfall at 5-minute intervals throughout each sampled event. A contract laboratory analyzed water quality samples for the following parameters: sediment (TSS and SSC), petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel range (TPH-D), metals (total zinc – TZn), and nutrients (TP, ortho-P, TN, TKN, DIN – NO3, NO2, NH3). Monitored real-time water quality parameters included dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, and pH recorded at 5-minute intervals. Prior to initiation of the performance evaluation study an additional project study was conducted to verify the design flow rate and, if necessary, optimize the effluent flow rate to achieve greater treatment performance. The two installed STS tanks were set at different flow rates of 2 and 0.5 gallons per minute and grab samples were taken across 6 storm events. The results of the flow study validated that no statistically significant difference in treatment performance was evident with respect to TSS and TP. Therefore STS decided to move forward with testing the system set at an average effluent flow rate of 2gpm. 2.0 INTRODUCTION Under an agreement from StormTreat Systems Inc., field verification testing of a StormTreat Systems stormwater control measure (hereafter referred to as “STS”) was conducted at the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, Durham NH. Testing consisted of determining the water quality performance for the following parameters:

! Total Suspended Sediment (TSS) ! Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC)


5

! Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons-Diesel Range (TPH-D) ! Total Zinc (TZn) ! Nitrogen as Nitrate (DIN) ! Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) ! Total Nitrogen (TN) ! Total Phosphorus (TP) ! Enterococci

Efficiency tests were conducted under normalized conditions at various ambient rainfall intensities, flow rates, and pollutant concentrations; all important variables reflective of natural field performance conditions. This report reflects analyses performed from April 2011 through July 2012. During this time period there were 20 monitored rainfall runoff events. While 20 storms were monitored in total not all analytes have datasets totaling 20 storms; this is due in part to detectable limits of the analytical methods used and the quality assurance protocols that govern post processing of the data. The STS treatment unit is one of 10 devices that are currently configured and tested in parallel. Performance testing of the STS treatment unit included monitoring of the influent (upstream of the detention structure) and effluent locations (downstream of the system). Monitoring locations are identified in Figure 2. All treatment strategies were uniformly sized to target a water quality volume (WQV), or a water quality flow (WQF). A WQV is a rainfall-runoff depth equivalent to 90% of the annual rainfall events, where a WQF is a unit peak discharged from the regional WQV. Under the parallel and uniformly sized configuration, a normalized performance evaluation is possible because different treatment strategies of the same scale receive runoff from events of the same duration, intensity, peak flow, volume, antecedent dry period, and pollutant loading. Primary funding for the fundamental UNHSC program has been provided by the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The UNHSC is housed within the Environmental Research Group (ERG) at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) in Durham, New Hampshire. !3.0 TEST FACILITY DESCRIPTION The UNHSC studies stormwater-related water quality and quantity issues. The Stormwater Center’s field facility is designed to evaluate and verify the performance of stormwater management devices and technologies in a parallel, event normalized setting. Ten different management systems, including the STS device, are currently undergoing side-by-side comparison testing under strictly monitored natural conditions (Figure 1).


6

!Figure 1: Site plan view of the University of New Hampshire field research facility prior to STS installation.

!The research facility was designed to function as a field testing site for numerous, uniformly sized, isolated, parallel treatment systems. Rainfall-runoff is evenly divided at the head of the facility in a distribution box, designed with the floor slightly higher than the outlet invert elevations to allow for particulate scour into the pipe network. Effluent from all systems is piped into a central sampling gallery, where system sampling and flow monitoring occurs. The parallel configuration normalizes the treatment processes for event and watershed-loading variations such that system performances may be directly compared to each other. The testing facility is located on the perimeter of a 9-acre commuter parking lot at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. The parking lot is standard dense mix asphalt that was installed in 1996, and is used to near capacity throughout the academic year. The sub-catchment area is large enough to generate substantial runoff, which is gravity fed to the parallel treatment processes. The parking lot is curbed and entirely impervious. Activity is a combination of passenger vehicles and routine bus traffic. The runoff time of concentration for the conventional parking lot is 22 minutes, with slopes ranging from 1.5-2.5%. The area is subject to frequent plowing, salting, and sanding during the winter months. Literature reviews indicate that total suspended sediment concentrations are above or equal to national norms for commercial parking lot runoff (refer to Section 3.2 and Figure 6 of this report). The climatology of the area is characterized as a coastal, cool temperate forest. Average annual precipitation is 44 inches that is nearly uniformly distributed throughout the year, with average monthly precipitation of 3.7 inches ±0.5. The mean annual temperature is 48°F, with the average low in January at 15.8°F, and the average high in July at 82°F. !

3.1 STS Configuration and Sizing The StormTreat system at UNHSC was designed to meet research objectives as well as space requirements at the Stormwater Center Field Facility. See Figure 2 for a plan view of the system design. The evaluated STS control measure was tested in an offline configuration allowing for flows up to the design flow to be routed through the treatment device. Flow that exceeds the

StormTreat®

By the UNH

WQF andrunoff fira 2 foot dfeet belowthe diverundergrofoot diamthese pip27,152 gbringing reduced funits of won each iThroughochamber dischargesamplingeffluent p !

Figure 2

® Performance EH Stormwater Ce

d/or WQV isrst enters thedeep sump aw the top of

rsion structuround storage meter HDPE pes is 1,257 callons). Floflow back infrom a 12 inwhich only Uinfluent and out the moniat a rate reg

e at a rate ofg location is points are id

: Plan view ofsa

Evaluation Reporenter-March 201

s diverted are flow diversnd an overfl

f the detentiore through a pipes. Thespipes that ar

cubic feet (9w exits the dnto a single p

nch to a 4 incUnit #2 was effluent pipeitoring perio

gulated by anf 2 gallons pealso housed

dentified on F

f StormTreat Sampling locati

rt 13

round the devsion structurlow weir, Figon chamber t

12 inch diamse pipes comre each 25 fe,400 gallonsdetention chpipe and intoch pipe that levaluated due for each ST

od flow was n orifice conter minute whin the valve

Figure 2.

Systems treatmions identified

vice at the fle, which congure 3. The to allow for meter manifo

mprise the deeet long, Figs) equal to onamber throuo the valve cleads to the Suring this stuTS unit givindirected throtrol structurehen the STS

e chamber. M

ment device ad as well as ma

!

flow diversionsists of a 4 crest of the freeboard w

fold that splitetention chamgure 4. The tne third of th

ugh another 1chamber, FigSTS unit. Inudy. The vang the abilityough Unit #2e. Orifice si

S unit was haMonitoring l

at UNHSC. Infajor system co

on structure. foot diameteoverflow w

within the systs flow evenmber consisttotal storagehe WQV (3,12 inch diamgure 5. Heren Figure 5 thalve chamberty to direct fl2 and then bizing was dealf full. The locations for

fluent and efflomponents.

Untreated er manhole weir was set 0stem. Flowsnly into ting of four,e capacity in 630 cubic fe

meter manifoe pipe size ishere are two r has ball valows as needack to the va

esigned to effluent

r influent and

luent monitor

7

with 0.5 s exit

4

eet or old s STS lves

ded. alve

d

ring /

StormTreat®

By the UNH


Figure 4


Figur

: Plan view of

rt 13

re 3: Plan view

f detention cha

w of flow diver

amber. Flow d

rsion structure

diversion stru

e. !

cture is to thee left.

8

StormTreat®

By the UNH

F

!The STSmedia anflow studPerforma2011.

3.2 Refer Comparihighway lots and rcommercland uses!


igure 5: Plan

was installend constructidy was conduance evaluati

rence TSS I

sons of TSSpollutant co

residential ucial parking s (National S


view of valve

ed in Septemion related inucted to evaion of one S

Information

concentratiooncentrationsses. The datlots and is w

Stormwater Q

rt 13

chamber and

mber 2010 annfluences. Aaluate systemTS tank set

n

ons for varies tend to be ta collected f

within the ranQuality Data

StormTreat u

nd allowed a After the starm performanc

at a design f

ed land uses twice the mefrom the UNnge of typicaabase, 2005;

units. Detentio

two month rtup period, ace based on flow rate of 2

are presenteean concentr

NH facility isal concentrat UNHSC 20

on chamber is

startup perioa four montheffluent flow2gpm comm

ed in Figure ration measus within the ntions observ

007).

s to the left. !

od to flush oh preliminarw rate.

menced in Ap

6. Urban ured for parknational norm

ved for a rang

9

out ry

pril

king m for ge of

StormTreat®

By the UNH

Figure 6: T(Source: N

4.0 INST

4.1 Flow Influent fTeledyneISCO 67combinatyield flow

4.2 Othe Temperamulti-parflows butthroughooperated

1 Pitt, R. E.version 1.1)2 UNHSC, RHampshire,


Total SuspendNational Storm

TRUMENTA

w

flows were me ISCO 750 A12 Automattion with a 6ws.

er Measurem

ature, pH, Sprameter sondt are not incl

out the projecby UNHSC

, Maestre, A., an)." USEPA OfficRoseen, R., T. BCooperative Ins


ded Solids (TSmwater Qualit

ATION AN

monitored usArea Velocied Samplers

6 inch Thelm

ments

pecific Condudes. These pluded under ct period acc.

nd Center for Wace of Water, WasBallestero, and Hstitute for Coasta

rt 13

SS) for varied ty Database, 2

ND MEASU

sing Teledynity probes. Es accompanie

mar compoun

uctivity, andparameters athis contrac

cording to a

atershed Protectshington, D.C.

Houle, J. (2007). al and Estuarine

land uses and20051 , UNHSC

!RING TEC

ne ISCO 671Effluent flowed by Teledynd weir with

d Dissolved Oare monitoredt. Calibratioquality assu

ion. (2005) "The

"UNH StormwaEnvironmental

d at the UNH SC, 20072)

CHNIQUES

12 Automatew depths weryne ISCO 73

h laboratory d

Oxygen werd real-time fons for all in

urance projec

e National Storm

ater Center 2007Technology, Du

Stormwater C

ed Samplers re measured 30 Bubbler Fdeveloped ra

re collected bfor the influenstrumentatioct plan maint

mwater Quality D

7 Annual Report.urham, NH.

Center (UNHS

accompanieusing Teled

Flow Modulating curves

by YSI 600Xent and effluon are calibrtained and

Database (NSQD

." University of

10

SC);

ed by dyne les in to

XL uent rated

D,

New


11

4.3 Water Quality Analysis Samples were processed and analyzed by an EPA and National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) certified laboratory using the standard methodologies outlined in Table 1. !

Table 1: Laboratory analytical methods and detection limits for each analyte.

Analyte Analytical Method Sample Detection Limit (mg/L)

Method Detection Limit (mg/L)a

Total Suspended Solids SM 2540 D Variable, 1-2 0.4 Suspended Sediment Concentration

ASTM D-3977 Variable, 1-2 1

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons –Diesel Range

EPA 8015B Variable ! 0.35 0.1-3.0

Zinc in water EPA 200.7 0.01 0.001-0.05 Nitrate/Nitrite in water EPA 300.0A 0.1 0.008 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ASTM 3590-02A 0.5 0.5 Total Nitrogen SM 4500NH3 0.5 0.5 Total Phosphorus EPA 365.3 0.01 0.008 Enterococci EPA 1106.1 Variable 10 cfu aMethod detection limit is different than sample detection limit which will often be higher as they are based on sample volume available for analyses.

!5.0 TEST PROCEDURES

5.1 Rainfall Collection and Measurement Rainfall depth is monitored with an ISCO 674 Rain Gauge installed within 100 feet of the STS and connected to an ISCO 6712 Automated Sampler. The rain gauge is mounted inside a steel cylinder with an 8 inch diameter screened opening on top to collect rain yet keep out debris. Collected rain is funneled to a tipping bucket mechanism that is mounted on a center pivot. The tipping bucket has two identical chambers on each side of the center pivot. When 0.01 inch of rain is collected in one chamber the bucket tips, dumps out the water, and the other chamber begins to fill. Each time the bucket tips a magnet passes over an electrical switch sending a pulse to the ISCO 6712 which in turn records a rainfall depth of 0.01 inch. This process continues throughout the duration of the rainfall event.

5.2 Field Sampling Procedures Composite samples were taken from influent and effluent waters by automated samplers. Automatic samplers are programmed to sample 100 milliliter aliquots at flow weighted intervals into twenty-four 1 liter containers allowing for a maximum of 240 samplers per event. The sampling program is designed to ensure adequate coverage of the storm event and adjusted to accommodate seasonal fluctuations in rainfall patterns. Rejection criteria included minimum rainfall depth of 0.1 inches and 10 aliquots per sampling event. Influent time of concentration is approximately 22 minutes. Effluent time of concentrations vary for each storm and are


12

dependent on rainfall intensity, a higher initial intensity equates to a shorter time of concentration. All samples are stored in thermostatically controlled conditions at 39°F until processed. One Liter disposable LDPE sample bags are used to assure clean, non-contaminated sample containers. Full storm composites are generated using a United States Geological Survey (USGS) Dekaport Cone Sample Splitter. Composite samples are sealed and labeled with a unique, water proof, adhesive bar code that corresponds with a field identification code containing information relating to the stormwater treatment unit and date of sampling. Records are kept that correlate sample bar code with sample time, date, flow, and other real time water quality parameters. Detailed written and electronic records are kept identifying the date, time, and unique bar code and field identification numbers. This begins the chain-of-custody record that accompanies each sample to track handling and transportation throughout the sampling process. All analyses and procedures comply with the Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership (TARP), and the Technology Acceptance Protocol – Ecology (TAPE) guidelines to the maximum extent possible. We operate under a detailed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) which is available on request. 6.0 DATA EVALUATION Data analyses cover a range of approaches including:

! evaluation of storm characteristics ! evaluation of event mean concentrations ! normalized performance efficiencies

Storm characteristics such as total depth of rainfall, peak intensity, total storm volume, antecedent dry period, among others are collected for each storm event. Results for all storms sampled are presented in Table 2.

Event mean concentrations (EMC’s) are a parameter used to represent the flow-proportional average concentration of a given water quality parameter for a storm event. It is defined as the total constituent mass divided by the total runoff volume. When combined with flow measurement data, the EMC can be used to estimate the pollutant loading from a given storm. Most of the EMC data collected during this study were based upon direct measurement from flow-weighted composite samples. Due to the variability of precipitation events and resultant runoff conditions, the sample trigger conditions and flow-weighted sample pacing were variable and adjusted on a storm by storm basis according to the most up-to-date precipitation forecasts. EMCs are compared for each pollutant parameter using simple statistics. The data provides a basis to evaluate the primary study question; i.e., to discern whether the STS unit has served to produce observable (and perhaps statistically significant) improvement in water quality and reduction in peak flow.


13

The range of statistical analyses presented reveals a range of performance trends. Efficiency Ratio (ER) analysis was performed on the final dataset. For many performance datasets for stormwater treatment systems, the ER is a stable estimation of overall treatment performance as it minimizes the impact of low concentration values, or relatively clean storms with low influent EMCs. Whereas Removal Efficiencies (RE) reflect treatment unit performance on a storm by storm basis, ERs weight all storms equally and reflect overall influent and effluent averages across the entire data set. REs are presented as both an average and median of aggregate storm values. In general aggregate median RE values are more reliable in highly variable, non-normally distributed datasets such as those experienced in stormwater treatment unit performance studies. A review of REs on a per event basis, ERs for the entire period of monitoring, and EMCs per event will reveal the measured performance variations attributable to season, flow, concentration, and other factors. 7.0 RESULTS Results presented below for the STS represent data collected over 15 months of monitoring conducted at the UNHSC field facility. The total influent and effluent storm volumes in gallons are plotted along with total rainfall depths in Figure 7. Table 2 displays rainfall event characteristics for the 20 monitored storm events including influent and effluent peak flow, antecedent dry period, and season. The data set reflects rainfall across all seasons and covers a wide range of rainfall characteristics. Storms ranged in size from low intensity to high intensity, small volume to large volume.

Figure 7: Monitored Storm Summary. Total influent and effluent volumes are plotted in gallons on the left vertical axis. Rainfall depths are plotted in inches on the right vertical axis. Dates for each of the 20 monitored events are aligned.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

May-11 Aug-11 Nov-11 Feb-12 Jun-12

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

May-11 Jun-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Nov-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Apr-12 Jun-12 Jul-12

Precipitation (in)To

tal V

olum

e (g

al)

Total Storm Volume and Rainfall Depth

Rainfall Influent Effluent


14

Table 2: Rainfall-Runoff event characteristics for 20 storm events.

!

7.1 Event Mean Concentrations (EMC), Removal Efficiencies (RE) and Statistics Influent and effluent EMC and RE values are presented in Figure 8 through Figure 15 for each storm for the eight pollutants across all monitored storm events. These time series plots show performance for individual storm events as well as seasonal and annual trends. When EMC results are below detection limit (BDL) a value of half the detection limit (DL) is used for statistical purposes. No consistently accepted methodology for representing BDL values in stormwater treatment system effluent currently exists especially with respect to systems that detain a large volume of runoff and exhibit a longer effluent hydrograph than influent waters. Where detection limits are low enough (< 1 mg/L for TSS) the conventional statistical approach of using 0.5 x DL (D.R. Helsel, and R.M. Hirsch, 2002) is adequate. This method provides a more conservative measure than simply inserting a value of zero for BDL results. Table 3 summarizes each parameter over the monitoring period using simple statistics to present performance outcomes. Statistics include:

! n = number of storms evaluated for each parameter ! mean = average EMC of all monitored events ! DL = detection limit ! ER = efficiency ratio which is the percent difference between the influent and effluent

mean EMC values ! AVG RE = average removal efficiency of all monitored events ! Median RE = median removal efficiency of all monitored events ! SD = standard deviation of EMC values ! Cv = coefficient of variation which is the ratio of EMC SD to mean EMC. This gives the

level of variability in the data set. The lower the Cv the more consistent the values in the data set.

Bypass

Depth (in)

Peak Intensity

(in/hr)

Peak Flow (gpm)

Total Volume

(gal)

Peak Flow (gpm)

Total Volume

(gal)

Total Volume

(gal)5/18/2011 960 0.71 0.60 473 33,974 3.3 12,257 8,833 0.5 Spring6/11/2011 1,595 1.12 0.60 551 80,425 3.3 13,316 7,729 1 Spring6/18/2011 240 0.15 1.44 203 2,507 3.0 6,126 118 5 Spring6/22/2011 950 0.65 0.48 124 14,261 3.3 8,539 0 3 Summer7/13/2011 260 0.28 1.20 634 8,660 3.8 8,229 385 6 Summer8/6/2011 780 0.54 0.48 310 33,580 4.4 5,882 0 4 Summer8/15/2011 1,310 1.94 0.60 394 112,037 5.0 15,114 12,831 5 Summer8/21/2011 535 0.19 0.60 378 11,536 3.3 6,098 0 5 Summer9/6/2011 1,960 1.12 0.48 401 52,117 6.6 15,996 3,644 8 Summer9/22/2011 1,875 0.39 0.48 415 22,055 1.7 4,910 0 13 Summer9/29/2011 1,980 0.51 0.60 417 23,409 3.4 7,453 4,286 4 Fall

11/10/2011 600 0.99 0.84 720 37,721 3.3 10,876 7,534 10 Fall11/30/2011 275 0.63 0.48 387 29,377 3.6 9,397 0 6 Fall1/23/2012 805 0.19 0.24 149 29,730 2.0 2,125 0 5 Winter1/26/2012 1,100 1.08 0.36 273 28,536 3.8 6,235 4,895 3 Winter4/22/2012 2,110 2.32 0.48 351 50,835 4.2 14,628 28,594 27 Spring5/15/2012 385 0.51 0.72 424 12,845 3.6 17,131 8 4 Spring6/2/2012 1,180 2.49 1.20 1037 100,321 5.5 10,899 10,526 10 Spring6/22/2012 1,470 0.71 2.40 1428 41,080 3.2 12,914 3,104 8 Summer7/26/2012 815 0.31 1.08 370 15,029 2.7 6,492 163 2 Summer

Rainfall EffluentInfluent

DateStorm

Duration (min)

Antecedent Dry Period

(days)Season


15

Table 3: Simple statistics summarizing each of the parameters over the monitoring period.

Pollutant Statistic Influent Effluent Pollutant Statistic Influent Effluentn 24 24 n 14 14

mean 79 4 mean 0.23 0.41DL 1.0 1.0 DL 0.10 0.10ER 95% ER "78%

AVG!RE 89% AVG!RE "132%Median!RE 93% Median!RE "80%

SD 150 4 SD 0.15 0.15Cv 1.89 0.99 Cv 0.67 0.37n 23 23 n 22 22

mean 63 2 mean 0.85 0.65DL 1.0 1.0 DL 0.50 0.50ER 96% ER 24%

AVG!RE 91% AVG!RE 21%Median!RE 96% Median!RE 23%

SD 83 2 SD 0.39 0.25Cv 1.32 0.96 Cv 0.46 0.39n 4 4 n 22 22

mean 608 165 mean 1.00 0.95DL 325 310 DL 0.50 0.50ER 73% ER 5%


SD 283 0 SD 0.48 0.41Cv 0.47 0 Cv 0.48 0.43n 20 21 n 25 25

mean 0.03 0.01 mean 0.07 0.03DL 0.01 0.01 DL 0.01 0.01ER 52% ER 53%


SD 0.02 0.02 SD 0.04 0.02Cv 0.72 1.67 Cv 0.61 0.61

Note: n = number of storms; DL = detection limit; ER = eff iciency ratio; AVG RE = average removal eff iciency; SD = standard deviation; Cv = coeff icient of variation

DIN!(mg/l)

TKN!(mg/l)

TN!(mg/l)

TP!(mg/l)

TSS!(mg/l)

SSC!(mg/l)

TPH"D!(ug/l)

TZn!(mg/l)


16

Figure 8: Total!Suspended!Solids!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!19!storm!events.!!!

Figure 9: Suspended!Sediment!Concentration!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!19!storm!events.!

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Feb-11 Jun-11 Sep-11 Dec-11 Apr-12 Jul-12 Oct-12

Rem

oval EfficiencyTo

tal S

uspe

nded

Sol

ids

(mg/

l)StormTreat Performance Monitoring--TSS

Influent Effluent RE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Rem

oval EfficiencySu

spen

ded

Sedi

men

t Con

cent

ratio

n(m

g/l)

StormTreat Performance Monitoring--SSC



17

Figure 10:!Total!Petroleum!Hydrocarbons"Diesel!Range!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!3!storm!events.!

Figure 11: Total!Zinc!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!16!storm!events.!

!!

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Rem

oval EfficiencyTo

tal P

etro

leum

Hyd

roca

rbon

s -D

iese

l R

ange

(ug/

l)StormTreat Performance Monitoring--TPH-D


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12


Rem

oval EfficiencyTota

l Zin

c (m

g/l)

StormTreat Performance Monitoring--TZn



18

Figure 12: Nitrate!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!11!storm!events.!

!

Figure 13:!Total!Kjeldahl!Nitrogen!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!17!storm!events.!

!

-450%

-400%

-350%

-300%

-250%

-200%

-150%

-100%

-50%

0%

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9


Rem

oval EfficiencyN

itrat

e (m

g/l)

StormTreat Performance Monitoring--NO3


-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8


Rem

oval EfficiencyTo

tal K

jeld

ahl N

itrog

en (m

g/l)

StormTreat Performance Monitoring--TKN



19

Figure 14: Total!Nitrogen!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!17!storm!events.

Figure 15: Total!Phosphorus!Event!Mean!Concentrations!at!influent!and!effluent!locations!and!Removal!Efficiencies!for!20!storm!events.!

!

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0


Rem

oval EfficiencyTota

l Nitr

ogen

(mg/

l)StormTreat Performance Monitoring--TN


-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25


Rem

oval EfficiencyTo

tal P

hosp

horu

s (m

g/l)

StormTreat Performance Monitoring--TP



20

7.2 Additional Performance Evaluation – Enterococci UNHSC conducted performance evaluation of the STS with respect to bacteria removals. This testing was in conjunction with a separately funded project and is additional to the contracted scope of work for this performance evaluation. Results are presented here purely in an informational context. Influent and effluent samples were sent to an outside lab and analyzed for E. coli, Fecal Coliform (FC), and Enterococci. Only Enterococci data is presented here as the E. coli and FC data was too inconsistent to draw any meaningful conclusions from. A times series plot with removal efficiencies for each event is presented in Figure 16 and statistics are presented in Table 4. !

Figure 16: Enterococci concentrations from influent and effluent sample locations and Removal Efficiencies

for 7 storm events.

Table 4: Simple statistics summary of Enterococci results over monitoring period.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

1

10

100

1000

Apr"11 Jun"11 Jul"11 Sep"11 Nov"11 Dec"11

Removal!Efficiency

Concen

tration!(cfu/100ml)

StormTreat!Performance!Monitoring!"" Enterococci

Influent Effluent %RE

Pollutant Statistic Influent Effluentn 7 7

mean 499 84DL 10 10ER 83%

AVG!RE 81%Median!RE 88%

SD 297 97Cv 0.60 1.16

Enterococci!(cfu/100ml)


21

7.3 Additional Real-Time Water Quality Monitoring Water quality parameters were recorded throughout the monitoring period using an YSI 600XL multi-parameter probe. Parameters include specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature. Table 5 lists the average effluent values over the duration of each sampled storm event with summary statistics for all monitored events.

Table 5: Average effluent real-time water quality parameters for each sampled storm event.

DateSpecific!

Conductivity!(µS/cm)

Dissolved!Oxygen!(mg/l)

pH Temperature!(°F)

5/18/2011 963 9.5 6.4 52.66/11/2011 946 3.8 6.3 62.26/18/2011 1,510 2.7 6.4 63.76/22/2011 939 5.4 6.4 63.87/13/2011 1,119 2.4 6.4 68.48/6/2011 254 3.4 6.1 71.6

8/15/2011 117 4.2 5.8 69.38/21/2011 219 2.6 5.9 70.29/6/2011 242 4.3 6.0 67.4

9/22/2011 307 4.2 6.1 65.69/29/2011 284 4.5 6.0 66.2

11/10/2011 1,382 7.4 6.5 53.011/30/2011 1,142 9.1 6.6 50.51/23/2012 3,907 14.0 6.4 36.91/26/2012 2,178 4.1 6.5 36.44/22/2012 864 9.2 6.5 50.85/15/2012 1,390 7.7 6.5 57.16/2/2012 771 6.3 6.3 60.4

6/22/2012 1,061 2.5 6.3 69.17/26/2012 503 2.6 6.0 70.2

n 20 20 20 20Average 1,005 5.5 6.3 60.3Median 943 4.3 6.3 63.8St!Dev 844.9 3.0 0.2 10.3

Coefficient!of!Variation 0.841 0.547 0.035 0.171

Average!Real"Time!Water!Quality!Parameters!


22

!8.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The STS performed well for total suspended solids (TSS) and suspended sediment concentration (SSC) removal. In all cases, TSS and SSC effluent concentrations border the sample detection limit throughout the 15 month monitoring period. As with other studied systems total petroleum hydrocarbons – diesel range (TPH-D) and total zinc (TZn) removals tend to be equitable with sediment removals. Influent loading for TPH-D in this study was very inconsistent with levels commonly below detectable limits making conclusions difficult. TZn removals were high with effluent values consistently bordering the detection limit with little fluctuation evidenced by a low standard deviation of 0.005. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen levels (NO2, NO3, NH3) show a pattern of export which may be associated with a lack of unit processes effectively targeting dissolved nitrogen species. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) shows modest removals. As there is seldom measurable levels of ammonia in stormwater runoff, TKN represents the organic fraction of nitrogen species. Total nitrogen removal efficiencies (TN = DIN + TKN) are flat with influent and effluent means equal: meaning that while nitrogen may be changing oxidative states in-situ, there is little to no mass reduction over the monitoring period. Total phosphorus (TP) reductions in the STS system demonstrate a high capacity to sorb phosphorus. The relatively low influent concentrations, mean of 0.07mg/l, coupled with an efficiency ratio 53% is indicative of strong treatment performance. Phosphorus sorptive capacity in stormwater management systems is typically not unlimited. Once sorptive capacity is reached, breakthrough occurs and systems can begin to leach, or pass through phosphorus. Biological unit processes can regenerate sorptive capacity in filter media. Additional analyses may reveal the time to phosphorus breakthrough for the STS treatment practice. Finally, while the number of sampled events for enterococci is small (n=7) the STS shows great promise for bacterial removals RE median of 88%. Bacteria removals are often of great concern for coastal watershed and the ability to reduce indicator colonies is a positive result.

performance evaluation report of the stormtreat stormwater … · 2018. 9. 12. · stormtreat®...

Documents