University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 2005 Storm Water Best Management Practices Evaluation, Testing and Technology Transfer New England Stormwater Technology Workshop June 14, 2005 Eric Winkler Ph.D. University of Massachusetts – Amherst
Mar 27, 2015
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 20051
Storm Water Best Management Practices
Evaluation, Testing and Technology Transfer
New England Stormwater Technology WorkshopJune 14, 2005
Eric Winkler Ph.D. University of Massachusetts – Amherst
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 20052
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
University of Massachusetts
at Amherst
MA Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project
S319 Non-Point Source Pollution Program
www.mastep.net
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 20053
Factors Affecting Stormwater Sampling
Rainfall and pollutants
Sampling challenges Site-related issues Solids sampling Particle size issues Technology design
limits
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 20054
Regional Rainfall Differences
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 20055
Recurrence vs. Precipitation Depth
Boston MA - Logan Airport1920 - 1999 Daily Precipitation Frequency
4158
14131150
455541363 348254 216164
286 191185 74 27 17 5 3 2 1
42
56
6873
7882
85 88 90 9295 97 99 99 100 100 100100 100100
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Precipitation (inches)
Nu
mb
er
of
Even
ts
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 Perc
en
t of T
ota
l Even
ts
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 20056
Sampling Criteria:Pollutant Load Decreases Over
Event
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 20057
Sample Composition
Sampling location is key Avoid bed load sampling –
sampling at the bottom of the collection or piping network
Ensure sample is mixed by sampling one or more locations along pipe cross section that best represent all of the flow
Potential bias in performance efficiency
Pollutant specific sampling techniques Solids sampling may be
affected by inlet velocity of sampling equipment
Want samples to reflect the load in all flow
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 20058
Particle Size Issues
Removal efficiencies can vary greatly with particle size distribution (PSD)
Poorly graded solids scheme can exaggerate performance claims
Well-graded distributions present the most accurate performance data
Sample volume must be considered in order to collect for PSD
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 20059
-75%-55%-35%-15%5%
45%65%85%
0 50 100 150 200 250
Evaluating TSS Removal RatesBased on ConcentrationR
em
oval Effi
ciency
(%
)
Influent Concentration (mg/L)
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200510
Detail of Data Generation and Acquisition Requirements
(Quality Assurance Project Plan)
1. Sampling process design (experimental design)2. Sampling method requirements3. Sample handling and custody requirements4. Analytical methods requirements5. Quality control requirements6. Instrument/equipment testing, inspection, and maintenance
requirements7. Instrument calibration and frequency8. Inspection/acceptance requirements for supplies and
consumables9. Data acquisition requirements (non-direct measurements)10. Data management
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200511
Protocol Minimum Criteria Identifying Qualifying Storm Event
(Section 3.3.1.2 and Section 3.3.1.3, TARP Tier II Protocol)
Minimum rainfall event depth is 0.1 inch.
Minimum inter-event duration of 6 hours
(duration beginning a cessation of flow to unit).
Base flow should not be sampled.
Identification of qualifying event needs to
verify flow to the unit and rainfall
concurrently.TARP: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/techservices/tarp/
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200512
Qualifying Event Sample TARP Tier II Protocol Criteria
10 water quality samples per event 10 influent and 10 effluent If composite - 2 composites, 5 sub-
samples
Data for flow rate and flow volumeAt least 50% of the total annual
rainfall CA – monitor 80-90% of rainfall.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200513
Qualifying Event Sample (continued)
Preferably 20 storms, 15 minimum
Sampling over the course of a full year of sampling to account for seasonal variation
Compositing flow-weighted samples cover at least 70% of storm flow (and as much of the first 20% as possible)
Examples of variation within TARP community: PA - Temporary BMPs sized using 2 year event
NJ – Water Quality design based on volume from a 1.25 inch event.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200514
Efficiency Ratio (ER)TARP Protocol Recommended
Method
Where Event Mean Concentration (EMC):
V=volume of flow during period in=total number of events C=average concentration associated with period jm=number of events measured
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200515
Efficiency Ratio Interpretation
EMCs weight all storms equally. Most useful when loads are directly proportional to the
relative magnitude of the storm – accuracy varies with BMP type.
Minimizes impacts of smaller/cleaner storms. Allows for use of data where portions of data are missing –
would not significantly effect the average EMC.
• Can apply log normalization to avoid equal weighting of events.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200516
Variation in Performance Values
Removal Efficiencies for all Events:
Removal Efficiency by Efficiency Ratio:57%
Removal Efficiency by Summation of Loads:44%
Removal Efficiency by Regression of Loads:40%
Removal Efficiency by Efficiency of Individual Storm Events:
59%
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200517
System Efficiency v. Unit Efficiency
BMP 1 BMP2 BMP3
(Unit) 10% 25% 80%
(Removal) 10% 22.5% 54%
(Passing) 90% 67.5% 13.5%
System Efficiency = 10% + 22.5% + 54% = 86.5%
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200518
System Efficiency v. Unit Efficiency
BMP 1 BMP2 BMP3
(Unit) 10% 25% 70%
(Removal) 10% 22.5% 47.25%
(Passing) 90% 67.5% 20.25%
System Efficiency = 10% + 22.5% + 47.25% = 79.75%
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200519
Stormwater Database ProjectWWW.MASTEP.NET
Project Goal: Provide technology transfer information about innovative stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) to MADEP, conservation commissions, local officials, and other BMP users to help them make appropriate technology implementation decisions.
Project Scope of Work: Needs survey, develop searchable database, develop screening tool, evaluate 30-40 technologies, provide fact sheets for TARP Tier II qualified technologies.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200520
Category 0 Technology entry is in process or incomplete.
Category 1 There is sufficient reliable data on this technology to be able to provide a scientifically valid evaluation
Category 2 Studies are underway that offer promise for reliable data in the near future
Category 3 There is insufficient reliable data with which to evaluate this technology
Stormwater Database Entry Protocol
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200521
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200522
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, © 200523
Contact:
Eric Winkler, Ph.D.University of Massachusetts [email protected]
MASTEP – www.mastep.net
NSF International – www.nsf.org
International Stormwater BMP Database – www.bmpdatbase.org
WA Dep. of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech
New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (CAT) – www.njcat.org
Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV) - www.epa.gov/etv
Resources: