Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Program Evaluating Stormwater BMPs Spring 2013. Constructed Wetlands. Removal Efficiency: 65-80% average 80% MassDEP TSS Removal Credit Key Features: Large area Peak flow control Biological treatment Maintenance: low to moderate - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Program
Evaluating Stormwater BMPsSpring 2013
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
Constructed WetlandsRemoval Efficiency:
65-80% average80% MassDEP TSS Removal Credit
Key Features:Large areaPeak flow controlBiological treatment
Maintenance: low to moderateCost: marginally higher than wet ponds
Source: MassDEP, 2008. Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook
http://www.txnpsbook.org, 2002
www.mastep.net
Extended Detention Basins• TSS Removal Efficiency:
• 60-80% average• 50% MassDEP TSS Removal Credit
• Key Features:• Large area• Peak flow control
• Maintenance: low• Cost: low to • moderate
Source: MassDEP, 2008. Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook
www.mastep.net
Water Quality SwalesRemoval Efficiency:
65-805 average70% MassDEP TSS Removal
CreditKey Features:
Higher pollutant removal rates than drainage channels
Transport peak runoff and provide some infiltration
Maintenance: low to moderateCost: low to moderate
http://www.txnpsbook.org, 2002
Source: MassDEP, 2008. Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook
www.mastep.net
Deep Sump Catch BasinsRemoval Efficiency:
9-35% average25% MassDEP TSS
Removal CreditDesign Features:
Debris removalPretreatment
Maintenance: moderate to high
Cost: low to highSource: MassDEP, 2008. Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook
www.mastep.net
Innovative BMPs – Media Filtration
Removal Efficiency:50-80% averageDesign rate: case by
case evaluationDesign Features:
small areaOil and Grease
controlMaintenance: moderateCost: moderate
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
Stormwater Management Inc, 2002
www.mastep.net
Innovative BMPs - HydrodynamicRemoval Efficiency:
No treatment to 35%Design rate: case by
case evaluationDesign Features:
small areaOil and Grease
controlMaintenance: moderateCost: moderate
Vortechs Inc, 2002
www.mastep.net
Address technology review and approval barriers in policy and regulations;
Accept the performance tests and data from partner’s review to reduce subsequent review and approval time;
Use the Protocol for state-led initiatives, grants, and verification or certification programs; and
Share technology information with potential users in the public and private sectors using existing state supported programs
CAILMAMDNJNYPAVATX
TARP- Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Program
www.mastep.net
Performance Verification - TARPStorm Event Criteria to Sample
• More than 0.1 inch of total rainfall.• A minimum inter-event period of 6 hours, where cessation
of flow from the system begins the inter-event period.• Obtain flow-weighted composite samples covering a
minimum of 70 % of the total storm flow, including as much of the first 20 % of the storm as possible.
• A minimum of 10 water quality samples (i.e., 10 influent and 10 effluent samples) should be collected per storm event.
Determining a Representative Data Set• At least 50 % of the total annual rainfall must be sampled,
for a minimum of 15 inches of precipitation and at least 15, but preferably 20, storms.
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Performance Verification - TARPStormwater Sampling Locations
Sampling locations for stormwater BMPs should be taken at inlet and outlet.
Sampling Methods Programmable automatic flow samplers with
continuous flow measurements should be used • Grab samples used for: pH, temperature, cyanide, total phenols, residual chlorine, oil and grease, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), E coli, total coliform, fecal coliform and streptococci, and enterococci.
• Stormwater Flow Measurement Methods• Primary and secondary flow measurement devices are
required.
www.mastep.net
Is There Enough Data?Field Studies
15+ storms
15 inches of rainfall
Lab Studies
15 test runs
www.mastep.net
Are the Data Representative?
Weather conditions
Topography, land use
Soils, sediments
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Are the Data Representative?, Weather, Flows
• Multiple samples per event
• Field Studies: must include high flow/intensity storms• Consecutive storms• Sample all year
• Lab Studies: Flow rates: 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
Particle size: mean < 100 microns; distribution 55% sand, 40% silt, 5% clay
Influent concentration 100 – 300 mg/l
Are the Data Representative? Sediment
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
Impact of Particle Size on PerformanceU.S. Silica particle size distributions
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0
Particle Size (mm)
Per
cent
Fin
er (%
)
F-95 OK-110 Sil-Co-Sil 106
www.mastep.net
Impact of Particle Size on Performance
www.mastep.net
Quality Control tests, data
Standardized methods
Are Results Accurate, Repeatable?
www.mastep.net
Innovative BMPs - Advanced Sedimentation
Rinker Inc, 2002
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
Summary – what to look for
15 storm events
15 inches rain. 50% annual average.
Particle size: mean < 100 microns - distribution: 55% sand, 40% silt, 5% clay
Influent concentration: 100 – 300 mg/l
Flows: range, up to 125% design capacity.
Scour tests
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
BMP Performance Comparison Table
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
MASTEP Rating SystemCategory 0: MASTEP has not yet reviewed
performance data for this technology. Category 1: TARP-compliant field study or
equivalent lab study data available for this product
Cat. 2: Sound field or lab study data available – some caveats
Cat. 3: Data of moderate scientific validity exists – significant caveats
Cat. 4: Reliable performance lacking
www.mastep.net
Higher rating does NOT mean better performance
MASTEP evaluates
quality of performance DATA
NOTBMP Performance Results
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
BMP Performance Comparison Table
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Lab vs. Field TestsLab• Relatively inexpensive• Standardized – best for comparing 2 BMPs• “Ideal” conditions, not real world – simplified• Short termField• Real world. Problems are encountered• Can’t control conditions• Expensive• Long Duration
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass
www.mastep.net
Contact
Jerry Schoen MASTEP Project ManagerBlaisdell House UMass Amherst MA [email protected]
Massachusetts Stormwater TechnologyEvaluation Project
www.mastep.net
www.mastep.net
“The effectiveness of Proprietary BMPs varies with the size of the unit, flow requirements, and specific site conditions. The UMass Stormwater Technologies Clearinghouse database evaluates the quality of proprietary BMP effectiveness studies. MassDEP urges Conservation Commissions to use this database when verifying the effectiveness of Proprietary BMPs: www.mastep.net”
-Excerpt from MA Stormwater Handbook Volume 2 Chapter 4
www.mastep.net
Two Ways to Approve or Deny the Use of Proprietary Stormwater BMPs
1. MassDEP has reviewed the performance of a technology as determined by TARP or STEP and assigned a TSS removal efficiency.
If the conditions under which it is proposed to be used are similar to those in the performance testing, presume that the proprietary BMP achieves the assigned TSS removal rate.
Look at sizing, flow and site conditions. 2. Issuing Authority makes a case-by-case assessment of a
specific proposed use of a proprietary technology at a particular site and assigns a TSS removal efficiency.
Proponent must submit reports or studies showing effectiveness of BMP.
MassDEP strongly recommends using UMass Stormwater Technologies Clearinghouse database to ensure that reports and studies are of high quality (www.mastep.net).
Look at sizing, flow and site conditions. For ultra-urban and constrained sites, proprietary BMPs may
be the best choice.
