massachusetts stormwater technology evaluation program evaluating stormwater bmps spring 2013 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Program Evaluating Stormwater BMPs Spring 2013 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Program Evaluating Stormwater BMPs Spring 2013

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 59

Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Program Evaluating Stormwater BMPs Spring 2013 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 150 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Program Evaluating Stormwater BMPs Spring 2013' - tarak


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
massachusetts stormwater technology evaluation program evaluating stormwater bmps spring 2013
Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation ProgramEvaluating Stormwater BMPsSpring 2013
constructed wetlands
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
  • Cost: marginally higher than wet ponds

http://www.txnpsbook.org, 2002

Source: MassDEP, 2008. Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook

extended detention basins
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

water quality swales
Water Quality Swales
  • Removal Efficiency:
    • 65-805 average
    • 70% MassDEP TSS Removal Credit
  • Key Features:
    • Higher pollutant removal rates than drainage channels
    • Transport peak runoff and provide some infiltration
  • Maintenance: low to moderate
  • Cost: low to moderate

http://www.txnpsbook.org, 2002

Source: MassDEP, 2008. Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook

deep sump catch basins
Deep Sump Catch Basins
  • Removal Efficiency:
    • 9-35% average
    • 25% MassDEP TSS Removal Credit
  • Design Features:
    • Debris removal
    • Pretreatment
  • Maintenance: moderate to high
  • Cost: low to high

Source: MassDEP, 2008. Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook

innovative bmps media filtration
Innovative BMPs – Media Filtration
  • Removal Efficiency:
    • 50-80% average
    • Design rate: case by case evaluation
  • Design Features:
    • small area
    • Oil and Grease control
  • Maintenance: moderate
  • Cost: moderate

Stormwater Management Inc, 2002

Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass

innovative bmps hydrodynamic
Innovative BMPs - Hydrodynamic
  • Removal Efficiency:
    • No treatment to 35%
    • Design rate: case by case evaluation
  • Design Features:
    • small area
    • Oil and Grease control
  • Maintenance: moderate
  • Cost: moderate

Vortechs Inc, 2002

tarp technology acceptance reciprocity program
TARP- Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Program
  • 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

CA

IL

MA

MD

NJ

NY

PA

VA

TX

performance verification tarp
Performance Verification - TARP
  • Storm 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

performance verification tarp1
Performance Verification - TARP
  • Stormwater 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.
is there enough data
Is There Enough Data?

Field Studies

  • 15+ storms
  • 15 inches of rainfall

Lab Studies

  • 15 test runs
are the data representative
Are the Data Representative?
  • Weather conditions
  • Topography, land use
  • Soils, sediments
are the data representative weather flows
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%
slide28

Particle size: mean < 100 microns; distribution 55% sand, 40% silt, 5% clay

Influent concentration 100 – 300 mg/l

Are the Data Representative? Sediment

slide33

Are Results Accurate, Repeatable?

  • Quality Control tests, data
  • Standardized methods
slide36

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

Summary – what to look for

slide41

BMPPerformance Comparison Table

Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass

mastep rating system
MASTEP Rating System

Category 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

higher rating does not mean better performance
Higher rating does NOT mean better performance

MASTEP evaluates

quality ofperformance DATA

NOT

BMP Performance Results

slide51

BMPPerformance Comparison Table

Massachusetts Stormwater Technology Evaluation Project, UMass

slide54

Lab vs. Field Tests

  • Lab
  • Relatively inexpensive
  • Standardized – best for comparing 2 BMPs
  • “Ideal” conditions, not real world – simplified
  • Short term
  • Field
  • Real world. Problems are encountered
  • Can’t control conditions
  • Expensive
  • Long Duration
contact
Contact

Jerry Schoen

MASTEP Project Manager

Blaisdell House

UMass

Amherst MA 01003

413-545-5532

jschoen@cns.umass.edu

Massachusetts

Stormwater Technology

Evaluation Project

www.mastep.net

slide58

“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
two ways to approve or deny the use of proprietary stormwater bmps
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.