June 2005
05/21/WQPC-WWF
EPA 600/R-05/085
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Stormwater Source Area Treatment
Device
Practical Best Management of Georgia, Inc.
CrystalStream™ Water Quality Vault
Model 1056
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device
Practical Best Management of Georgia, Inc.
CrystalStream™ Water Quality Vault, Model 1056
Prepared by:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raymond Frederick, Project Officer
ETV Water Quality Protection Center
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey
June 2005
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE:
APPLICATION:
TECHNOLOGY NAME:
TEST LOCATION:
COMPANY:
ADDRESS:
WEB SITE:
EMAIL:
STORMWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND ROADWAY POLLUTANT
TREATMENT
CRYSTALSTREAM™ WATER QUALITY VAULT
MODEL 1056
GRIFFIN, GEORGIA
PRACTICAL BEST MANAGEMENT OF GEORGIA, INC.
1960-C Parker Court
Stone Mountain, Georgia 30087
http://www.crystalstream.com
johnmoll@crystalstream.com
PHONE: (800)748-6945
FAX: (770)979-6954
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), operates
the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), one of six centers under Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program. The WQPC recently evaluated the performance of the CrystalStream™
Water Quality Vault, Model 1056 (CrystalStream) distributed by Practical Best Management of Georgia,
Inc. (PBM). The system was installed in a city-owned right-of-way near downtown Griffin, Georgia.
The testing organization (TO) was Paragon Consulting Group (PCG) of Griffin, Georgia.
EPA created ETV to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies
through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV program is to
further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-
effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer-reviewed data on
technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of
environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder groups, which
consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing
test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
05/25/WQPC-WWF
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-i
June 2005
-------
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following description of the CrystalStream was provided by the vendor and does not represent
verified information.
The CrystalStream is a device that removes trash, debris, and larger particulates from stormwater. The
device consists of a reservoir, trash basket, oil collection buckets, baffles, and adsorbents, enclosed in a
pre-cast concrete vault.
The CrystalStream works on the principle that things less dense than water float and things more dense
than water sink. The device remains full of water at all times. A reservoir spans the device from side to
side and nearly to the bottom, blocking flow from going directly to the outlet. Incoming storm water
flows through a fine mesh in the trash basket, capturing floating debris and vegetative matter. The bottom
of the trash basket lies above the standing water elevation in the CrystalStream, preventing the debris
from becoming waterlogged, decomposing, and sinking to the bottom of the tank. The water passes
around baffles, slowing and spreading the flow, allowing sediments to settle and hydrocarbons to float on
the water surface and into a hydrocarbon reservoir. As the water rises out of the unit in the outlet
chamber it passes through a 3/4-inch thick coconut fiber filter, designed to remove smaller floating or
suspended materials.
The vendor claims that the CrystalStream installed at the Griffin, Georgia site was designed to receive
runoff from the drainage area up to a flow rate of 17.5 cfs (7,850 gpm), and can collect as much as 800 Ib
of material per acre of drainage basin every year.
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Methods and Procedures
The test methods and procedures used during the study are described in the Environmental Technology
Verification Test Plan For Practical Best Management CrystalStream™ Water Quality Vault, TEA-21
Project Area, City of Griffin, Spalding County, Georgia, (NSF, June 2003). The CrystalStream treats
runoff collected from a drainage basin slightly larger than four acres.
Verification testing consisted of collecting data during a minimum of 15 qualified events that met the
following criteria:
• The total rainfall depth for the event, measured at the site, was 0.2 in. (5 mm) or greater;
• Flow through the treatment device was successfully measured and recorded over the duration of
the runoff period;
• A flow-proportional composite sample was successfully collected for both the influent and
effluent over the duration of the runoff event;
• Each composite sample was comprised of a minimum of five aliquots, including at least two
aliquots on the rising limb of the runoff hydrograph, at least one aliquot near the peak, and at least
two aliquots on the falling limb of the runoff hydrograph; and
• There was a minimum of six hours between qualified sampling events.
Automated sample monitoring and collection devices were installed and programmed to collect composite
samples from the influent, the treated effluent, and the untreated bypass during qualified flow events. In
addition to the flow and analytical data, operation and maintenance (O&M) data were recorded. Samples
were analyzed for sediments (total suspended solids [TSS] and suspended solids concentration [SSC]) and
nutrients (total nitrate, total nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen [TKN], and total phosphorus). The SSC
analysis included a "sand-silt" split which quantified the percentage of the sample's sediment particles
greater than and less than 62.5 (im.
05/25/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. June 2005
VS-ii
-------
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
A total of 15 qualified storm events were sampled over a 17-month time period.
Test Results
The precipitation data for the qualified storm events are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Rainfall Data Summary
Event
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Start
Date
3/26/03
5/5/03
1/25/04
4/13/04
4/26/04
4/30/04
6/25/04
6/28/04
6/30/04
7/12/04
7/17/04
7/25/04
8/5/04
8/12/04
8/21/04
Start
Time
19:55
0:45
1:25
19:25
11:15
21:05
13:25
22:40
19:25
14:45
15:00
21:40
18:55
1:20
15:40
Rainfall
Amount
(inches)
0.36
0.49
0.25
0.89
0.21
0.78
0.27
0.45
1.12
0.34
0.27
0.77
0.63
0.49
0.23
Rainfall
Duration
(hr:min)
2:40
1:15
4:15
9:25
3:50
8:15
6:20
2:25
3:05
0:30
0:20
4:25
0:50
2:50
1:15
Runoff
Volume
(gal)1
13,800
32,900
2,890
20,240
10,600
16,600
4,265
9,730
44,800
9,040
9,700
22,400
15,400
17,100
5,870
1 Runoff volume was measured at the outlet monitoring point.
Refer to the verification report for an explanation of the
rationale for utilizing the volume data from the outlet
monitoring point
The monitoring results were evaluated using event mean concentration (EMC) and sum of loads (SOL)
comparisons. The EMC or efficiency ratio comparison evaluates treatment efficiency on a percentage
basis by dividing the effluent concentration by the influent concentration and multiplying the quotient by
100. The efficiency ratio was calculated for each analytical parameter and each individual storm event.
The SOL comparison evaluates the treatment efficiency on a percentage basis by comparing the sum of
the influent and effluent loads (the product of multiplying the parameter concentration by the precipitation
volume) for all 15 storm events. The calculation is made by subtracting the quotient of the total effluent
load divided by the total influent load from one, and multiplying by 100. SOL results can be summarized
on an overall basis since the loading calculation takes into account both the concentration and volume of
runoff from each event. The analytical data ranges, EMC range, and SOL reduction values are shown in
Table 2.
05/25/WQPC-WWF
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-iii
June 2005
-------
Table 2. Analytical Data, EMC Range, and SOL Reduction Results
Parameter
TSS
ssc
Total nitrite2
Total nitrate
TKN
Total phosphorus
Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L as N
mg/L as N
mg/L as N
mg/L as P
Inlet
Range
12
38
<0.01
0.09
0.6
0.02
- 190
- 4,400
- 0.03
- 0.66
- 2.4
- 0.58
Outlet
Range
12 -
33 -
<0.01 -
0.07 -
0.5 -
0.08 -
140
200
0.02
0.7
2.0
0.3
EMC
Range
(%)
-120
-41
-100
-90
-14
-600
- 68
- 98
- 83
- 50
- 44
- 76
SOL
Reduction
r/o)1
21
89
50
25
13
40
1. SOL reductions were calculated using outlet flow volumes for inlet and outlet flow data.
2. Total nitrite inlet and outlet concentrations were close to or below method detection limits, so the EMC and
SOL reduction may not be indicative of the actual CrystalStream nitrite treatment capabilities.
A "sand-silt split" analysis on samples submitted for SSC analysis when adequate sample volume was
collected. The analysis identified that the runoff entering the CrystalStream contained a proportion of
coarse sediment ranging from 17.8 to 93.9%, while the outlet contained a proportion of coarse sediment
ranging from 6.20 to 33.1%. The sand-silt split and SSC concentration data were used to recalculate the
SOL, which showed that the CrystalStream achieved a 98% SOL reduction of sand and a 34% SOL
reduction of silt.
System Operation
The device was delivered and placed by PBM into an excavation prepared by a site contractor. A PBM
employee was on site to supervise the installation. According to the vendor, it is PBM policy to provide
delivery and crane services, and to provide a PBM representative on site to assure proper installation.
The device was shipped fully assembled and operational. The site contractor attached the pipes and back-
filled the installation site.
Debris accumulated in the CrystalStream's trash basket to the point where it caused water to back up to a
level of 16 to 20 in. in the 24-in. inlet pipe during ten of the eleven qualified events in which it was
installed. The basket was removed by the TO during events 3 through 6, and during these events, the
backup did not occur. The debris accumulating in the trash basket restricted flow into the vault.
Inspections conducted by the TO and vendor identified items such as roofing shingles, leaves, twigs,
trash, rocks, concrete, and sediment in the trash basket. The CrystalStream can operate without the trash
basket in place, but the vendor notes this could decrease removal efficiencies.
PBM recommends that the CrystalStream be inspected every 90 days, and maintained every 180 days or
as site conditions warrant. PBM offers inspection and maintenance as part of its service. PBM conducted
the inspection and maintenance of the CrystalStream installed at Griffin, and computed the mass of
material retained in the vault per acre of drainage basin per year. Their findings are summarized in the
vendor comments section of the verification report.
A sample of the retained solids was collected and analyzed for toxicity characteristic leachate procedure
(TCLP) metals and was determined to be non-hazardous.
05/25/WQPC-WWF
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-iv
June 2005
-------
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
NSF personnel completed a technical systems audit during testing to ensure that the testing was in
compliance with the test plan. NSF also completed a data quality audit of at least 10% of the test data to
ensure that the reported data represented the data generated during testing. In addition to QA/QC audits
performed by NSF, EPA personnel conducted an audit of NSF's QA Management Program.
Original signed by Original signed by
Sally Gutierrez September 2, 2005 Thomas Stevens September 7, 2005
Sally Gutierrez Date Thomas G. Stevens, P.E. Date
Acting Director Project Manager
National Risk Management Laboratory Water Quality Protection Center
Office of Research and Development NSF International
United States Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed
or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will
always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable
federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade names, or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products. This report is not an NSF
Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the ETV Verification Protocol, Stormwater Source Area Treatment Technologies Draft
4.1, March 2002, the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF Report Number
05/25/WQPC-WWF) are available from:
ETV Water Quality Protection Center Program Manager (hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
NSF website: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
Appendices are not included in the verification report, but are available from NSF upon request.
05/25/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. June 2005
VS-v
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and
Development has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under a
Cooperative Agreement. The Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), operating under the
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, supported this verification effort. This
document has been peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF and EPA and recommended for public
release. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation by the EPA for use, nor does it constitute certification by NSF.
-------
Foreword
The following is the final report on an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) test
performed for NSF International (NSF) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The verification test for the Practical Best Management of Georgia, Inc.
Crystal Stream™ Model 1056 Water Quality Vault was conducted at a testing site in Griffin,
Georgia, maintained by the City of Griffin Public Works and Stormwater Department.
The EPA is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources.
Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural
systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing
data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants
affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental
problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and
providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
11
-------
Contents
Verification Statement VS-i
Notice i
Foreword ii
Contents iii
Figures iv
Tables iv
Abbreviations and Acronyms v
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 1
1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2
1.2.2 Verification Organization 2
1.2.3 Testing Organization 3
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratories 4
1.2.5 Vendor 5
1.2.6 Verification Testing Site 5
Chapter 2 Technology Description 6
2.1 Treatment System Description 6
2.2 Product Specifications 7
2.3 Operation and Maintenance 7
2.4 Technology Application and Limitations 7
2.5 Performance Claim 8
Chapter 3 Test Site Description 9
3.1 Location and Land Use 9
3.2 Contaminant Sources and Site Maintenance 9
3.3 Stormwater Conveyance System and Receiving Water 10
3.4 Rainfall and Peak Flow Calculations 11
3.5 CrystalStream Installation 12
Chapter 4 Sampling Procedures and Analytical Methods 13
4.1 Sampling Locations 13
4.1.1 Inlet 13
4.1.2 Outlet 13
4.1.3 Rain Gauge 13
4.2 Monitoring Equipment 13
4.3 Constituents Analyzed 14
4.4 Sampling Schedule 14
4.5 Field Procedures for Sample Handling and Preservation 15
Chapter 5 Monitoring Results and Discussion 16
5.1 Rainfall Data 16
5.2 Monitoring Results: Performance Parameters 17
5.2.1 Concentration Efficiency Ratio 17
5.2.2 Sum of Loads 20
5.3 Particle Size Distribution 24
Chapter 6 QA/QC Results and Summary 25
6.1 Laboratory/Analytical Data QA/QC 25
in
-------
6.1.1 Bias (Field Blanks) 25
6.1.2 Replicates (Precision) 25
6.1.3 Accuracy 27
6.1.4 Representativeness 28
6.1.5 Completeness 29
Chapter 7 Operations and Maintenance Activities 30
7.1 System Operation 30
7.2 System Maintenance 30
7.2.1 Waste Characterization 30
Chapter 8 References 33
Appendices 34
A CrystalStream Design and O&M Guidelines 34
B Verification Test Plan 34
C Event Hydrographs and Rain Distribution 34
D Analytical Data Reports with QC 34
Figures
Figure 2-1. Schematic drawing of the CrystalStream 6
Figure 3-1. As-built drawing for the CrystalStream installation 10
Figure 3-2. Drainage basin map for the CrystalStream installation 11
Tables
Table 4-1. Constituent List for Water Quality Monitoring 14
Table 5-1. Summary of Events Monitored for Verification Testing 17
Table 5-2. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Sediment Parameters 18
Table 5-3. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Nutrients 19
Table 5-4. Sum of Loads Results Calculated Using Various Flow Volumes 21
Table 5-5. Sediment Sum of Loads Results (Using Outlet Flow Data) 21
Table 5-6. Nutrients Sum of Loads Results 23
Table 5-7. Particle Size Distribution Analysis Results 24
Table 6-1. Field Blank Analytical Data Summary 25
Table 6-2. Field Duplicate Sample Relative% Difference Data Summary 26
Table 6-3. Laboratory Duplicate Sample Relative% Difference Data Summary 27
Table 6-4. Laboratory MS/MSD Data Summary 28
Table 6-5. Laboratory Control Sample Data Summary 28
Table 7-1. Operation and Maintenance During Verification Testing 32
Table 7-2. TCLP Results for Cleanout Solids 30
IV
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AST
BMP
cfs
EPA
ETV
ft2
ft3
gal
gpm
hr
in.
kg
L
Ib
NRMRL
mg/L
mm
min
N
NSF
O&M
P
PBM
PCG
psi
QA
QC
SOL
SOP
ssc
TCLP
TKN
TO
TSS
USGS
VO
WQPC
yr
Analytical Services, Inc.
Best management practice
Cubic feet per second
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Square feet
Cubic feet
Gallon
Gallon per minute
Hour
Inch
Kilogram
Liters
Pound
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Milligram per liter
millimeters
minute
Nitrogen
NSF International
Operations and maintenance
Phosphorus
Practical Best Management of Georgia, Inc.
Paragon Consulting Group
Pounds per square inch
Quality assurance
Quality control
Sum of loads
Standard Operating Procedure
Suspended solids concentration
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Testing Organization (Paragon Consulting Group)
Total suspended solids
United States Geological Survey
Verification Organization (NSF)
Water Quality Protection Center
year
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved
environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information.
The goal of the ETV program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating
the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve
this goal by providing high quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those
involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder
groups, which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full
participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of
innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders,
conducting field or laboratory (as appropriate) testing, collecting and analyzing data, and
preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous
quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and
that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the EPA, operates the Water Quality Protection
Center (WQPC). The WQPC evaluated the performance of the Practical Best Management of
Georgia, Inc. Crystal Stream™ Model 1056 Water Quality Vault (Crystal Stream), a stormwater
treatment device designed to remove trash, debris, and large particulate from wet weather runoff.
It is important to note that verification of the equipment does not mean that the equipment is
"certified" by NSF or "accepted" by EPA. Rather, it recognizes that the performance of the
equipment has been determined and verified by these organizations for those conditions tested by
the Testing Organization (TO).
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the CrystalStream was a cooperative effort among the following participants:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• NSF International
• Paragon Consulting Group, Inc. (PCG)
• Analytical Services, Inc. (ASI)
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) Sediment Laboratory
• Practical Best Management of Georgia, Inc. (PBM)
The following is a brief description of each ETV participant and their roles and responsibilities.
-------
7.2.7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA Office of Research and Development, through the Urban Watershed Branch, Water
Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL), provides administrative, technical, and quality assurance guidance and oversight on
all ETV Water Quality Protection Center activities. In addition, EPA provides financial support
for operation of the Center and partial support for the cost of testing for this verification.
EPA was responsible for the following:
• Review and approval of the test plan;
• Review and approval of verification report;
• Review and approval of verification statement; and
• Post verification report and statement on the EPA website.
The key EPA contact for this program is:
Mr. Ray Frederick, ETV WQPC Project Officer
(732)321-6627
email: Frederick.Ray@epamail.epa.gov
USEPA, NRMRL
Urban Watershed Management Research Laboratory
2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104)
Edison, New Jersey 08837-3679
7.2.2 Verification Organization
NSF is the verification organization (VO) administering the WQPC in partnership with EPA.
NSF is a not-for-profit testing and certification organization dedicated to public health, safety,
and protection of the environment. Founded in 1946 and located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, NSF
has been instrumental in development of consensus standards for the protection of public health
and the environment. NSF also provides testing and certification services to ensure that products
bearing the NSF name, logo and/or mark meet those standards.
NSF personnel provided technical oversight of the verification process. NSF provided review of
the test plan and was responsible for the preparation of the verification report. NSF contracted
with Scherger Associates to provide technical advice and to assist with preparation of the
verification report. NSF's responsibilities as the VO include:
• Review and comment on the test plan;
• Review quality systems of all parties involved with the TO, and qualify the TO;
• Oversee TO activities related to the technology evaluation and associated laboratory testing;
• Conduct an on-site audit of test procedures;
• Provide quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review and support for the TO;
-------
• Oversee the development of the verification report and verification statement; and,
• Coordinate with EPA to approve the verification report and verification statement.
Key contacts at NSF are:
Mr. Thomas Stevens, P.E. Mr. Patrick Davison
Program Manager Project Coordinator
(734) 769-5347 (734)913-5719
email: stevenst@nsf.org email: davison@nsf.org
NSF International
789 North Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
(734) 769-8010
Mr. Dale A. Scherger, P.E., Technical Consultant
(734)213-8150
email: daleres@aol.com
Scherger Associates
3017 Rumsey Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
1.2.3 Testing Organization
The TO for the verification testing was Paragon Consulting Group, Inc. (PCG) of Griffin,
Georgia (PCG). The TO was responsible for ensuring that the testing location and conditions
allowed for the verification testing to meet its stated objectives. The TO prepared the test plan;
oversaw the testing; and managed the data generated by the testing. TO employees set test
conditions, and measured and recorded data during the testing. The TO's Project Manager
provided project oversight.
PCG had primary responsibility for all verification testing, including:
• Coordinate all testing and observations of the CrystalStream in accordance with the test plan;
• Contract with the analytical laboratory, contractors and any other sub-contractors necessary
for implementation of the test plan;
• Provide needed logistical support to the sub-consultants, as well as establishing a
communication network, and scheduling and coordinating the activities for the verification
testing; and
• Manage data generated during the verification testing.
-------
The key personnel and contacts for the TO are:
Ms. Courtney J. Nolan, P.E., Project Manager
(770)412-7700
email: cnol an@pcgeng. com
Mr. Brian DeLony, Project Engineer
(770)412-7700
email: bdelony@pcgeng.com
Paragon Consulting Group
118 North Expressway
Griffin, Georgia 30223
1.2.4 Analytical Laboratories
Analytical Services, Inc. (AST), located in Norcross, Georgia, analyzed the samples collected
during the verification test.
The key AST contact is:
Ms. Christin Ford
(770) 734-4200
email: cford@ASI.com
Analytical Services, Inc.
110 Technology Parkway
Norcross, Georgia 30092
USGS Kentucky District Sediment Laboratory analyzed the suspended sediment concentration
(SSC) samples.
The key USGS laboratory contact is:
Ms. Elizabeth A. Shreve, Laboratory Chief
(502)493-1916
email: eashreve@usgs.gov
United States Geological Survey, Water Resources Division
Northeastern Region, Kentucky District Sediment Laboratory
9818 Bluegrass Parkway
Louisville, Kentucky 40299
-------
7.2.5 Vendor
Practical Best Management of Georgia, Inc. (PBM) of Stone Mountain, Georgia, is the vendor of
the Crystal Stream, and was responsible for supplying a field-ready system. Vendor
responsibilities include:
• Provide the technology and ancillary equipment required for the verification testing;
• Provide technical support during the installation and operation of the technology;
• Provide descriptive details about the capabilities and intended function of the technology;
• Review and approve the test plan; and
• Review and comment on the draft verification report and draft verification statement.
The key contact for PBM is:
Mr. John Moll, Design Engineering Chief
(770)979-6516
email: johnmoll@crystalstream.com
Practical Best Management of Georgia, Inc.
1960-C Parker Court
Stone Mountain, Georgia 30087
1.2.6 Verification Testing Site
The Crystal Stream was located within right-of-way on the west side of Fifth Street in Griffin,
Georgia. A private contractor, Site Engineering, Inc, installed the system.
The key contact for City of Griffin Public Works and Stormwater Department is:
Mr. Brant Keller, Ph.D., Director
(770) 229-6424
email: bkeller@citvofgriffm.com
Public Works and Stormwater Department
City of Griffin
134 North Hill Street
Griffin, Georgia 30224
-------
Chapter 2
Technology Description
The following technology description was supplied by the vendor and does not represent verified
information.
2.1 Treatment System Description
The CrystalStream is a device that removes trash, debris, and larger particulates from
stormwater. The device consists of a reservoir, trash basket, oil collection buckets, baffles, and
adsorbents, enclosed in a pre-cast concrete vault. A schematic of the CrystalStream is in
Figure 2-1.
OIL AND HYDROCARBON RESERVOIR
FIBER MESH FILTER
I itfWW^'V ii^^^H
TRASH BASKET
SEDIMENTCHAMBER
Figure 2-1. Schematic drawing of the CrystalStream.
The CrystalStream works on the principle that objects less dense than water float and objects
more dense than water sink. The device remains full of water at all times. A reservoir spans the
device from side to side and nearly to the bottom, blocking flow from going directly to the outlet.
Incoming storm water flows through a fine mesh in the trash basket, capturing floating debris
and vegetative matter. The bottom of the trash basket lies above the standing water elevation in
the CrystalStream, preventing the debris from becoming waterlogged, decomposing, and sinking.
The water passes around baffles, slowing and spreading the flow and allowing hydrocarbons
present in stormwater to float on the water surface. As the water level rises, the hydrocarbon
sheen flows over the edge of the hydrocarbon reservoir and the water flows under the reservoir to
the outflow pipe. The hydrocarbon reservoir provides 625 gal of emergency spill protection. As
the water rises out of the unit in the outlet chamber it passes through a 3/4-in. thick coconut fiber
filter, designed to remove smaller floating or suspended materials.
-------
2.2 Product Specifications
Crystal Stream Model 1056:
• Housing - Pre-cast concrete vault
• Dimensions - 10 ft long, 5 ft wide, 7 ft deep (vault retains water at a depth of 3.9 ft)
• Peak Hydraulic Treatment Capacity - 17.5 cfs
• Sediment Storage - 2.0 yd3
2.3 Operation and Maintenance
According to PBM, the device is inspected every 90 days, and maintenance is performed on an
as-needed basis (typically every six months). Maintenance consists of dewatering the reservoir
and removing solids from the trash basket and reservoir, either by hand or by using a pump. The
cleaning frequency may be increased or decreased according to demand. The device is accessed
through a locked steel diamond-tread plate in three hinged pieces. The centerpiece is two feet
wide, and the two hinged lid sections are 4.5 ft wide. Each lid section lifts from the piped side of
the device, allowing complete access to the Crystal Stream for maintenance.
2.4 Technology Application and Limitations
The CrystalStream is flexible in terms of the flow it can treat. By varying the holding the tank,
trash basket, and hydrocarbon reservoir size, the treatment capacity can be modified to
accommodate runoff from various size watersheds. The CrystalStream can be used to treat
stormwater runoff in a wide variety of sites throughout the United States. For jurisdictional
authorities, the system offers high levels of solids and debris removal and improved water
quality. The CrystalStream may be used for development, roadways, ultra urban sites, and
specialized applications. Typical development applications include parking lots, commercial and
industrial sites, and high-density and single-family housing. Typical development applications
also include maintenance, transportation and port facilities. Because the device typically has 0.1
to 0.2 ft of fall across the vault, it is ideal for retrofits.
The CrystalStream is a gross pollutant trap. Gross pollutant traps are utilized for the control of
litter, trash, debris, coarse sediments and some oils. These gross pollutants are removed by
physical separation and are transported by conveyance systems as bed load, suspended load, or
floatables. Screening systems are not recommended for removal of fine sediments, although
finer particles attached to larger particles would be removed. Additionally, absorbent inserts
should be considered to capture entrained petroleum hydrocarbons.
-------
2.5 Performance Claim
The Crystal Stream's performance for pollutant removal is dependent upon site conditions,
sediment loading, particle size distribution, and environmental variables. PBM claims a unit
with a screen will collect paper goods, metals and plastics. The CrystalStream installed at the
Griffin, Georgia site was designed to receive runoff from the drainage area up to a flow rate of
17.5 cfs (7,850 gpm), and can collect as much as 200 Ib of material per acre of drainage basin
every 90 days.
-------
Chapter 3
Test Site Description
3.1 Location and Land Use
The Crystal Stream is located at 84° 15' 16.8480" latitude 33° 14' 47.4360" longitude. These
coordinates are based on Arcview's Geographic Information System (GIS) utilizing state plane
coordinates. Figure 3-1 is an as-built schematic of the test site and stormwater conveyance
system. The stormwater enters the existing catch basin and flows via pipe approximately 110 ft
east to the Crystal Stream. The stormwater exits the CrystalStream and flows via pipe
approximately 85 ft to Grape Creek. The property where the device is installed is located within
the Taylor Street right-of-way at the Oak Hill Cemetery, which is owned by the City of Griffin.
Figure 3-2 identifies the drainage basin, the location of the unit, and the contours of the area.
The drainage basin consists of approximately 4.05 acres, based on Arcview GIS coordinates.
The basin consists of a storm sewer system with catch basins. No detention ponds are located
upstream of the CrystalStream. None of the stormwater runoff from the drainage basin was
pretreated prior to entering the CrystalStream.
The majority of the drainage basin consists of the cemetery property, paved roadways and
parking areas. The drainage basin and surrounding area's land use is mixed, with residential,
commercial, and light industrial development. No major storage or use of hazardous materials or
chemicals exists in the drainage basin. Moderate to heavy traffic volume runs along Taylor
Street.
The nearest receiving water is Grape Creek, which is located approximately 85 ft east of the
CrystalStream outlet. All stormwater generated from Highway 16 is carried via pipe flow to
Grape Creek.
Griffin has many local ordinances to aide in stormwater management improvement and
implementation of pollution control measures. Ordinances include establishment of the
Stormwater Utility, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, buffer width, and land disturbance
requirements. The ordinances are included in Attachment D of the test plan.
3.2 Contaminant Sources and Site Maintenance
The main pollutant sources within the drainage basin are created by vehicular traffic, typical
urban land use, and atmospheric deposition. Trash and debris accumulate on the surface and
enter the stormwater system through large openings in the street inlets, sized to accommodate the
large storm flows that can occur in this part of Georgia. The storm sewer catch basins do not
have sumps. There are no other stormwater best management practices (BMPs) within the
drainage area.
-------
CB J-5
TOP MH S99.65
INV OUT B93.65
INV IN 535.2$
OIL/GRIT SEPARATOR
TOP 395,41
INV OUT 331.10
INV IN 691.16
JE J-4
-------
Figure 3-2. Drainage basin map for the CrystalStream installation.
3.4 Rainfall and Peak Flow Calculations
The rainfall amounts for the one-, two-, ten-, and twenty-five year storms for the drainage basin
are presented in Table 3-1. Table 3-2 presents the intensities in inches per hour calculated for the
given rainfall depths. These data were utilized to generate the peak flows shown in Table 3-3.
Table 3-4 presents the peak flow calculated using the time of concentration for the drainage
basin.
Griffin requires that all storm drain systems be designed to accommodate the 25-yr storm. A
7.38-min time of concentration was determined for the basin, generating a peak runoff of
21.68 cfs for the 25-yr storm event. The rational method was used to calculate the peak flows for
the device, since the drainage basin is just over four acres. The rationale for these calculations
was discussed in the test plan.
11
-------
Table 3-1. Rainfall Depth (in.)
Duration 1-yr
30min 0.53
1 hr 0.72
2hr 1.00
12 hr 1.80
24 hr 1.68
2-yr
1.19
1.61
2.00
3.12
3.36
10-yr
1.81
2.40
2.98
4.44
4.80
25-yr
2.10
2.77
3.46
5.16
5.52
Source: NOAA, 2000
Table 3-2. Intensities (inches/hour)
Duration 1-yr 2-yr 10-yr 25-yr
30 min.
Ihr
2hr
12 hr
24 hr
Table 3-3. Peak Flow
Duration
30 min
Ihr
2hr
12 hr
24 hr
Table 3-4. Peak Flow
Duration
7.38 min
1.05
0.72
0.50
0.15
0.07
Calculations
1-yr
2.84
2.00
1.35
0.30
0.19
Calculations
1-yr
8.39
2.38
1.61
1.00
0.26
0.14
(cfs)
2-yr
6.44
4.36
2.71
0.70
0.38
(cfs) Using
2-yr
12.20
3.61
2.40
1.49
0.37
0.20
10-yr
9.77
6.49
4.03
1.00
0.54
4.20
2.77
1.73
0.43
0.23
25-yr
11.37
7.50
4.68
1.16
0.62
Time of Concentration
10-yr
18.67
25-yr
21.68
3.5 CrystalStream Installation
The device was delivered and placed by PBM into an excavation prepared by a site contractor.
A PBM employee was on site to supervise the installation. PBM's policy is to provide delivery
and crane services, to provide a representative on site to assure safe installation, and to ensure
that the device is properly leveled. The device was shipped fully assembled and operational.
The site contractor attached the pipes, and back-filled the installation site.
12
-------
Chapter 4
Sampling Procedures and Analytical Methods
Descriptions of the sampling locations and methods used during verification testing are
summarized in this section. The test plan presents the details on the approach used to verify the
Crystal Stream. This plan, Environmental Technology Verification Test Plan For Practical Best
Management CrystalStream™ Water Quality Vault, TEA-21 Project Area, City of Griffin,
Spalding County, Georgia, NSF, June 2003, is presented in Appendix B with all attachments.
An overview of the key procedures used for this verification is presented below.
4.1 Sampling Locations
Two locations in the test site storm sewer system were selected as sampling and monitoring sites
to determine the treatment capability of the CrystalStream.
4.1.1 Inlet
This sampling and monitoring site was selected to characterize the untreated stormwater from the
drainage basin. A velocity/stage meter and sampler suction tubing were located in the inlet pipe,
upstream from the CrystalStream so that potential backwater effects of the treatment device
would not affect the velocity measurements.
4.1.2 Outlet
This sampling and monitoring site was selected to characterize the stormwater treated by the
CrystalStream. A velocity/stage meter and sampler suction tubing, connected to the automated
sampling equipment, were located in the pipe downstream from the CrystalStream.
4.1.3 Rain Gauge
A rain gauge was located adjacent to the drainage area at the inlet sampling station to monitor
the amount of precipitation from storm events. The data were also used to characterize the
events to determine if they met the requirements for a qualified storm event.
4.2 Monitoring Equipment
The specific equipment used for monitoring flow, sampling water quality, and measuring rainfall
for the upstream and downstream monitoring points is listed below:
• Sampler: American Sigma 900MAX automatic sampler with DTU II data logger;
• Sample Containers: Eight 1.9-L polyethylene bottles;
• Flow Monitors: American Sigma Area/Velocity Flow Monitors; and
• Rain Gauge: American Sigma Tipping Bucket Model 2149.
13
-------
4.3 Constituents Analyzed
The list of constituents analyzed in the stormwater samples is shown in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Constituent List for Water Quality Monitoring
Method
Reporting Detection
Parameter Units Limit Method1
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Suspended sediment
concentration (SSC)
Total phosphorus
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrate and nitrite nitrogen
Sand-silt split
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L as P
mg/L as N
mg/L as N
NA
5
0.5
0.016
0.10
0.02
NA
EPA 160.2
ASTMD3977-97
SM 4500-P B, E
EPA 35 1.3
EPA 9056
Fishman et al
1 EPA: EPA Methods and Guidance for the Analysis of Water procedures; ASTM: American
Society of Testing and Materials procedures; SM: Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater procedures; Fishman et al.: Approved Inorganic and Organic
Methods for the Analysis of Water and Fluvial Sediment procedures; NA: Not applicable.
4.4 Sampling Schedule
The monitoring equipment was installed in August 2002. From September 2002 through March
2003, several trial events were monitored and the equipment tested and calibrated. Verification
testing began in March 2003, and ended in August 2004. As defined in the test plan, "qualified"
storm events met the following criteria:
• The total rainfall depth for the event, measured at the site rain gauge, was 0.2 in. (5 mm)
or greater.
• Flow through the treatment device was successfully measured and recorded over the
duration of the runoff period.
• A flow-proportional composite sample was successfully collected for both the influent
and outlet over the duration of the runoff event.
• Each composite sample collected was comprised of a minimum of five aliquots,
including at least two aliquots on the rising limb of the runoff hydrograph, at least one
aliquot near the peak, and at least two aliquots on the falling limb.
• There was a minimum of six hours between qualified sampling events.
14
-------
4.5 Field Procedures for Sample Handling and Preservation
Water samples were collected with Sigma automatic samplers programmed to collect aliquots
during each sample cycle. A peristaltic pump on the sampler pumped water from the sampling
location through Teflon™-lined sample tubing to the pump head where water passed through
silicone tubing and into the sample collection bottles. Samples were split and capped and
removed from the sampler after the event by PCG personnel. Samples were preserved per
method requirements and analyzed within the holding times allowed by the methods. Particle
size and SSC samples were shipped to the USGS sediment laboratory for analysis. All other
samples were shipped to AST for analysis. Custody was maintained according to the laboratory's
sample handling procedures. To establish the necessary documentation to trace sample
possession from the time of collection, field forms and lab forms (see Attachment G of the test
plan) were completed and accompanied each sample.
15
-------
Chapter 5
Monitoring Results and Discussion
Precipitation and stormwater flow records were evaluated to verify that the storm events met the
qualified event requirements. The qualified event data is summarized in this chapter. The
monitoring results related to contaminant reduction for the qualified events are reported in two
formats:
1. Efficiency ratio comparison, which evaluates the effectiveness of the system on an
event mean concentration (EMC) basis.
2. Sum of loads (SOL) comparison, which evaluates the effectiveness of the system on a
constituent mass (concentration times volume) basis.
5.1 Rainfall Data
Detailed information on each storm's runoff hydrograph and the rain depth distribution over the
event period are included in Appendix C. The sample collection starting times for the inlet and
outlet samples, as well as the number of sample aliquots collected, varied from event to event.
The samplers were activated when the respective velocity meters sensed flow in the pipes.
Table 5-1 summarizes the storm data for the qualified events. The CrystalStream has no
bypasses or overflow, so the measured inlet and outlet volumes should be the same. Both the
inlet and outlet flow monitors were calibrated regularly, and both appeared to be functioning
properly throughout the testing.
However, a significant discrepancy was observed between the inlet and outlet flows during most
storm events. During the first six events, the trash basket located at the head of the
CrystalStream was not installed in the system. For these events, there were three where the inlet
meter recorded higher flows and three where the outlet recorded higher flows. Over the
remaining nine events, the inlet consistently recorded higher flows. The installation of the trash
basket (see Section 7.1 for additional information) on June 10, 2004 may have contributed to
this, as water levels in the 24-inch inlet pipe were recorded as high as 16 to 20 in. during the final
nine events. Such depths are much higher than would be expected in a 24-inch sewer pipe
containing rainfall from a drainage basin of this size. Prior to the trash basket installation the
maximum water level in the inlet pipe was 1.6 to 4.1 in. This supports the conclusion that a
backwater condition was being created in the later events, likely due to the presence of the trash
basket. The flow monitor manufacturer advises installing monitors in locations with backwater,
turbulent, or surcharge conditions may result in erroneous readings. Backwater conditions were
not observed in the outlet pipe, therefore, the outlet runoff volume was considered to be more
accurate than the inlet flow volume.
16
-------
Table 5-1. Summary of Events Monitored for Verification Testing
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Start
Date
3/26/03
5/5/03
1/25/04
4/13/04
4/26/04
4/30/04
6/25/04
6/28/04
6/30/04
7/12/04
7/17/04
7/25/04
8/5/04
8/12/04
8/21/04
Start
Time
19:55
0:45
1:25
19:25
11:15
21:05
13:25
22:40
19:25
14:45
15:00
21:40
18:55
1:20
15:40
End
Date
3/26/03
5/5/03
1/25/04
4/14/04
4/26/04
5/1/04
6/25/04
6/29/04
6/30/04
7/12/04
7/17/04
7/26/04
8/5/04
8/12/04
8/21/04
End
Time
22:35
2:00
5:40
4:50
15:05
5:20
19:45
1:05
22:30
15:15
15:20
2:05
19:45
4:10
16:55
Rainfall
Amount
(in.)
0.36
0.49
0.25
0.89
0.21
0.78
0.27
0.45
1.12
0.34
0.27
0.77
0.63
0.49
0.23
Rainfall
Duration
(hr:min)
2:40
1:15
4:15
9:25
3:50
8:15
6:20
2:25
3:05
0:30
0:20
4:25
0:50
2:50
1:15
Inlet Inlet Peak Outlet
Runoff Discharge Runoff
Volume Rate Volume
(gal) (gpm) (gal)
22,700
39,000
8,120
15,900
9,330
9,630
20,600
26,600
68,500
17,500
14,190
34,900
33,900
37,400
20,200
409
1,750
126
700
319
341
1,720
2,100
1,900
1,080
1,110
1,220
1,270
2,600
1,770
13,800
32,900
2,890
20,240
10,600
16,600
4,260
9,730
44,800
9,040
9,700
22,400
15,400
17,100
5,870
Outlet
Peak
Discharge
Rate
(gpm)
227
1,313
40
950
360
417
311
866
1,530
534
1,040
729
790
1,000
571
5.2 Monitoring Results: Performance Parameters
5.2.1 Concentration Efficiency Ratio
The concentration efficiency ratio reflects the treatment capability of the device using the event
mean concentration (EMC) data obtained for each runoff event. The concentration efficiency
ratios are calculated by:
Efficiency ratio = 100 x (l-[EMCoutiet/EMCiniet])
(5-1)
The inlet and outlet sample concentrations and calculated efficiency ratios are summarized by
analytical parameter categories: sediments (TSS and SSC); and nutrients (total phosphorus,
TKN, nitrates, and nitrites).
Sediments: The inlet and outlet sample concentrations and calculated efficiency ratios for TSS
and SSC are summarized in Table 5-2. The TSS inlet concentrations ranged from 12 to 190
mg/L the outlet concentrations ranged from 12 to 140 mg/L, and the efficiency ratio ranged from
-120 to 68%. The SSC inlet concentrations ranged 38 to 4,400 mg/L, the outlet concentrations
ranged from 33 to 200 mg/L, and the efficiency ratio ranged from -41 to 98%.
17
-------
Table 5-2. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Sediment Parameters
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Date
3/26/03
5/5/03
1/25/04
4/13/04
4/26/04
4/30/04
6/25/04
6/28/04
6/30/04
7/12/04
7/17/04
7/25/04
8/5/04
8/12/04
8/21/04
Inlet
(mg/L)
12
30
32
190
34
46
99
59
16
56
64
100
60
24
50
TSS
Outlet
(mg/L)
12
36
29
140
61
30
92
50
14
64
70
54
22
52
16
Removal
(%)
0
-20
9.4
26
-79
35
7.1
15
13
-14
-9.4
48
63
-120
68
Inlet
(mg/L)
140
4,400
97
160
240
160
140
210
38
220
110
180
1,200
320
240
ssc
Outlet
(mg/L)
200
100
NA1
120
140
91
110
55
34
82
78
52
33
74
61
Removal
(%)
-41
98
ND
24
42
41
24
73
11
63
31
71
97
77
74
NA1: Not analyzed; sample integrity compromised during transit.
ND: Not determined.
The results show a large difference between inlet TSS and SSC concentrations. In many events
where both parameters are analyzed, inlet SSC concentrations were higher than the equivalent
TSS concentration. Both the TSS and SSC analytical parameters measure sediment
concentrations in water; however, the TSS analytical procedure requires the analyst to draw an
aliquot from the sample container, while the SSC procedure requires use of the entire contents of
the sample container. If a sample contains a high concentration of settleable (large particle size)
solids, acquiring a representative aliquot from the sample container is very difficult. Therefore a
disproportionate amount of the settled solids may be left in the container, and the reported TSS
concentration would be lower than SSC. Particle size distribution is discussed further in
Section 5.3.
Nutrients: The inlet and outlet sample concentrations and calculated efficiency ratios are
summarized in Table 5-3. The TKN inlet concentration ranged from 0.6 to 2.4 mg/L (as N), and
the EMC ranged from -14 to 44%. The total phosphorus inlet concentration ranged from 0.02 to
0.58 mg/L (as P), and the EMC ranged from -600 to 76%. Total nitrate inlet concentrations
ranged from 0.09 to 0.66 mg/L (as N), and the EMC ranged from -90 to 50%. Total nitrite inlet
and outlet concentrations were near or below method detection limits, such that a minor
difference in concentration could result in a very significant calculated percent removal
difference. This should be taken into consideration if using the EMC data to project the
Crystal Stream's actual nitrite treatment capability.
18
-------
Table 5-3. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Nutrients
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Date
3/26/03
5/5/03
1/25/04
4/13/04
4/26/04
4/30/04
6/25/04
6/28/04
6/30/04
7/12/04
7/17/04
7/25/04
8/5/04
8/12/04
8/21/04
Inlet
(mg/L)
1.1
1.3
1.3
2.4
1.4
0.6
2.3
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.5
2.0
2.1
0.6
1.4
TKN
Outlet
(mg/L)
1.2
1.4
1.2
2.0
1.6
0.5
1.3
1.1
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.2
0.6
1.0
Removal
(%)
-9.1
-7.7
7.7
17
-14
17
44
8.3
10
7.1
0.0
30
43
0
29
Total Phosphorus
Inlet Outlet Removal
(mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
0.02
0.58
0.22
0.30
0.21
0.10
0.17
0.10
0.31
0.29
0.20
0.23
0.26
0.12
0.23
0.14
0.14
0.19
0.25
0.19
0.11
0.15
0.08
0.24
0.19
0.17
0.10
0.08
0.12
0.13
-600
76
14
17
9.5
-10
12
20
23
35
15
57
69
0
44
Total Nitrate
Inlet Outlet Removal
(mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
0.49
0.20
0.29
0.36
0.21
NA1
NA1
0.35
0.09
0.32
0.66
0.36
0.61
0.35
0.41
0.65
0.10
0.55
0.36
0.19
NA1
NA1
0.21
0.07
0.26
0.43
0.25
0.33
0.18
0.24
-33
50
-90
0
9.5
ND
ND
40
22
19
35
31
46
49
42
Inlet
(mg/L)
0.02
NA1
0.01
0.02
0.02
NA1
NA1
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.03
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.03
Total Nitrite
Outlet Removal
(mg/L) (%)
0.02
NA1
0.02
<0.01
0.02
NA1
NA1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0
ND
-100
75
0
ND
ND
ND
ND
75
83
ND
75
ND
33
NA1: Not analyzed due to expiration of hold time.
ND: Not determinable.
Values in boldface text represent results where one-half the method detection limit was substituted for values below detection limits to calculate EMC.
19
-------
5.2.2 Sum of Loads
The sum of loads (SOL) is the sum of the% load reduction efficiencies for all the events, and
provides a measure of the overall performance efficiency for the events sampled during the
monitoring period. The load reduction efficiency is calculated using the following equation:
% Load Reduction Efficiency = 100 x (1 - (A/B)) (5-2)
where:
A = Sum of Outlet Load = (Outlet EMCi)(Flow Volumei) +
(Outlet EMC2)(Flow Volume2) + (Outlet EMCn)(Flow Volumen)
B = Sum of Inlet Load = (Inlet EMCi)(Flow Volumei) +
(Inlet EMC2)(Flow Volume2) + (Inlet EMCn)(Flow Volumen)
n = number of qualified sampling events
As shown in Equation 5-2, the sum of loads (SOL) is calculated using flow volume data. Ideally,
the SOL would be calculated by multiplying the inlet EMC by the inlet volume and the outlet
EMC by the outlet volume. As discussed in Section 5.1, a large discrepancy was observed in the
inlet and outlet flow volume, such that use of both the inlet and outlet volume data in the SOL
calculations would skew the results. To demonstrate the impact of using different volume
calculations at each location, three possible combinations of the SOL results are presented in
Table 5-4:
• using inlet volumes to calculate both inlet and outlet loads;
• using outlet volumes to calculate inlet and outlet loads; and
• using inlet volumes for inlet SOL and outlet volumes for outlet SOL.
The data demonstrate that using either the inlet or outlet volume as representative of the total
flow through the Crystal Stream had little impact on the resulting SOL calculations. Using inlet
volumes for inlet SOL and outlet volumes for outlet SOL resulted in a greater SOL removal
efficiency, but the increased removal efficiency percentage is based on the total inlet volume (for
all 15 events) being 61% greater than the total outlet volume.
As indicated in Section 5.1, the inlet flow monitoring station was impacted by backwater
conditions. Therefore, the outlet flow rates and calculated volumes were considered to be more
representative of the actual flow through the system than the inlet volume. Subsequently, the
calculation of the SOL for the Crystal Stream uses the outlet volumes.
20
-------
Table 5-4. Sum of Loads Results Calculated Using Various Flow Volumes
Flow
Location
Inlet Only
Outlet Only
Inlet and Outlet1
SOL Removal Efficiency (%)
TSS
18
21
45
ssc
90
89
93
TKN
17
13
47
Phosphorus
40
39
60
Nitrate
25
27
56
Nitrite
45
48
62
1 Inlet and outlet SOL reduction efficiencies are higher than inlet only and outlet only due to the sum of the
total inlet water volume for all 15 events being substantially higher than the sum of the outlet volume.
Sediment: Table 5-5 summarizes results for the SOL calculations for TSS and SSC using the
outlet flow volume. The SOL analyses indicate a TSS reduction of 21% and SSC reduction of
89%.
Table 5-5. Sediment Sum of Loads Results (Using Outlet Flow Data)
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Outlet Runoff
Date Volume (gal)
3/26/03
5/5/03
1/25/04
4/13/04
4/26/04
4/30/04
6/25/04
6/28/04
6/30/04
7/12/04
7/17/04
7/25/04
8/5/04
8/12/04
8/21/04
13,800
32,900
2,890
20,240
10,600
16,600
4,270
9,730
44,800
9,040
9,700
22,400
15,400
17,100
5,870
Sum of the Loads
Removal
Efficiency (%)
TSS
Inlet
(Ib)
1.4
8.2
0.8
32
3.0
6.4
3.5
4.8
6.0
4.2
5.2
19
7.7
3.4
2.4
108
Loading
Outlet
(Ib)
1
10
1
24
5
4
3
4
5
5
6
10
3
7
1
89
21
SSC Loading
Inlet
(Ib)
16
1,200
NA
26
21
21
5
17
14
17
9
33
150
46
12
1,610
Outlet
(Ib)
22
28
NA
20
12
13
4
4
13
6
6
10
4
11
3
157
89
SSC SOL (Excluding Event 2)
Removal Efficiency (%)
387
129
67
NA: Not analyzed; sample integrity compromised during transit.
21
-------
The SSC data are heavily influenced by one event (event 2), when the inlet SSC concentration
(4,400 mg/L) was significantly higher than the typical inlet SSC concentration range for the
other events (38 - 1,200 mg/L) and the outlet SSC concentration (103 mg/L). The sample
collection and handling procedures were consistently followed throughout the duration of the
project. There is no valid reason to reject these data other than the data not following a trend
established by the other events. When the SOL is recalculated eliminating this event, the SSC
reduction decreases from 89 to 67%.
Nutrients: The SOL data for nutrients are summarized in Table 5-6. The total phosphorus load
was reduced by 40%, nitrate was reduced by 25%, TKN was reduced by 13%. The calculated
nitrite SOL is 50%; however, as discussed in Section 5.2.1, the nitrite inlet and outlet
concentrations being near or below the method detection limits should be taken into
consideration in projecting the CrystalStream's actual nitrite treatment capability.
22
-------
Table 5-6. Nutrients Sum of Loads Results
TK~N
Outlet Runoff
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Date
3/26/03
5/5/03
1/25/04
4/13/04
4/26/04
4/30/04
6/25/04
6/28/04
6/30/04
7/12/04
7/17/04
7/25/04
8/5/04
8/12/04
8/21/04
Volume
(gal)
13,800
32,900
2,890
20,240
10,600
16,600
4,270
9,730
44,800
9,040
9,700
22,400
15,400
17,100
5,870
Sum of the Loads
Removal
Efficiency (%)
Inlet
db)
0.13
0.36
0.03
0.40
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.37
0.11
0.12
0.37
0.27
0.09
0.07
2.7
Loading
Outlet
Ob)
0.14
0.38
0.03
0.34
0.14
0.07
0.05
0.09
0.34
0.10
0.12
0.26
0.15
0.09
0.05
2.3
13
Phosphorus Loading
Inlet
Ob)
0.002
0.16
0.005
0.051
0.019
0.014
0.006
0.008
0.12
0.022
0.016
0.043
0.033
0.017
0.011
0.52
Outlet
Ob)
0.016
0.038
0.005
0.042
0.017
0.015
0.005
0.006
0.090
0.014
0.014
0.019
0.010
0.017
0.006
0.32
40
Nitrate Loading
Inlet
db)
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.02
NA
NA
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.02
0.55
Outlet
db)
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.02
NA
NA
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.42
25
Nitrite Loading
Inlet
db)
0.0023
NA
0.0002
0.0034
0.0018
NA
NA
ND
ND
0.0015
0.0024
ND
0.0026
ND
0.0015
0.016
Outlet
Ob)
0.0023
NA
0.0005
0.0008
0.0018
NA
NA
ND
ND
0.0004
0.0004
ND
0.0006
ND
0.0010
0.009
45
NA: Not analyzed due to expiration of hold time.
ND: Not determined because both inlet and outlet samples were below detection limits.
Values in boldface text represent results where one-half the method detection limit was substituted for values below detection limits.
23
-------
5.3 Particle Size Distribution
Particle size distribution analysis was conducted as part of the SSC analysis by the USGS
laboratory. The SSC method includes a "sand/silt split" analysis determining the percentage of
sediment (by weight) larger than 62.5 jim (defined as sand) and less than 62 jim (defined as silt).
The particle size distribution results are summarized in Table 5-7. In each event where particle
size analysis was conducted, the outlet samples had a higher percentage of particles in the silt
category (<62.5 jim) than the equivalent inlet sample, indicating that the CrystalStream removed
a higher proportion of larger particles.
The SOL can be recalculated for SSC concentrations and "sand/silt split" data to determine the
proportion of sand and silt removed during treatment. This evaluation shows that the majority of
the sediment removed by the CrystalStream was of the larger particle size.
Table 5-7. Particle Size Distribution Analysis Results
Sand (>62.5 um)
Event
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Date
3/26/03
5/5/03
1/25/04
4/13/04
4/26/04
4/30/04
6/25/04
6/28/04
6/30/04
7/12/04
7/17/04
7/25/04
8/5/04
8/12/04
8/21/04
Inlet
(%)
47.7
93.9
32.9
17.8
22.3
39.1
28
60.8
38.5
68.6
33.7
74.1
90.7
77.6
72.6
Outlet
(%)
6.8
33.1
NA
7.1
10.7
9.5
6.2
6.8
21.9
19.7
11.0
23.8
9.1
9.2
7.4
Silt (<62.5 urn)
Inlet
(%)
52.3
6.1
67.1
82.2
77.7
60.9
72.0
39.2
61.5
31.4
66.3
25.9
9.3
22.4
27.4
Outlet
(%)
93.2
66.9
NA
92.9
89.3
90.5
93.8
93.2
78.1
80.3
89.0
76.2
90.9
90.8
92.6
Sum of the loads
Removal
efficiency (%)
Sand SOL
Inlet
(Ib)
7.6
1,140
NA
4.7
4.7
8.4
1.4
10.1
5.5
11.4
3.1
24.5
136.5
35.4
8.3
1,400
Outlet
(Ib)
1.5
9.4
NA
1.4
1.3
1.2
0.2
0.3
2.8
1.2
0.7
2.3
0.4
1.0
0.2
24
98
Silt SOL
Inlet
(Ib)
8.3
74
NA
22
17
13
3.7
6.5
8.7
5.2
6.1
8.6
14
10
3.2
200
Outlet
(Ib)
21
19
NA
19
11
11
3.6
4.2
9.9
5.0
5.6
7.4
3.9
9.6
2.8
133
34
NA: Not analyzed; sample integrity compromised during transit.
24
-------
Chapter 6
QA/QC Results and Summary
The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in the test plan identified critical measurements and
established several QA/QC objectives. The verification test procedures and data collection
followed the QAPP. QA/QC summary results are reported in this chapter, and the full laboratory
QA/QC results and supporting documents are presented in Appendix D.
6.1 Laboratory/Analytical Data QA/QC
6.1.1 Bias (Field Blanks)
Field blanks were collected at both the inlet and outlet samplers to evaluate the potential for
sample contamination through the automatic sampler, sample collection bottles, splitters, and
filtering devices. The field blank was collected on May 9, 2003, allowing PCG to review the
results early in the monitoring schedule.
Results for the field blanks are shown in Table 6-1. The data identified detectable concentrations
of TKN in the inlet sample, and TKN and phosphorus in the outlet sample. TSS and nitrate-
nitrite nitrogen concentrations were below detection limits in both the inlet and outlet samples.
After reviewing the analytical data, the TO hypothesized that the TKN and phosphorous
contribution could have resulted from incomplete rinsing of the sample containers. On July 25,
2003, the TO repeated decontamination procedures and collected additional samples to analyze
for those constituents identified during the May sampling event. The data showed that the
decontamination procedures were successful in reducing TKN and phosphorus concentrations to
below detectable limits. These results show a good level of contaminant control in the field
procedures was achieved.
Table 6-1. Field Blank Analytical Data Summary
May 9. 2003 July 25. 2003
Parameter Units Inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet
Nitrate-nitrite nitrogen
Phosphorus
TKN
TSS
mg/L as N
mg/L as P
mg/L as N
mg/L
<0.1
<0.02
1.4
<5
<0.1
0.5
0.17
<5
NA
NA
<0.4
NA
NA
<0.02
<0.4
NA
NA: Not analyzed
6.1.2 Replicates (Precision)
Precision measurements were performed by the collection and analysis of duplicate samples.
The relative percent difference (RPD) recorded from the sample analyses was calculated to
evaluate precision. RPD is calculated using the following formula:
25
-------
%RPD = I lXl_X2l\ x 100% t6'1)
x
where:
xi = Concentration of compound in sample
x_2 = Concentration of compound in duplicate
x = Mean value of xi and X2
Field precision: Field duplicates were collected to monitor the overall precision of the sample
collection procedures. Duplicate inlet and outlet samples were collected during three different
storm events to evaluate precision in the sampling process and analysis. The duplicate samples
were processed, delivered to the laboratory, and analyzed in the same manner as the regular
samples. Summaries of the field duplicate data are presented in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Field Duplicate Sample Relative Percent Difference Data Summary
Event 1 (3/26/03) Event 7 (6/25/04) Event 12 (7/25/04)
Parameter
Nitrite
Nitrate
Phosphorus
TKN
TSS
ssc
Units
mg/L as N
mg/L as N
mg/L as P
mg/L as N
mg/L
mg/L
Rep la
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
0.02
0.02
0.49
0.65
0.02
0.14
NA
NA
12
12
NA
NA
Replb
0.02
0.03
0.49
0.65
0.03
0.03
NA
NA
59
82
NA
NA
RPD Rep2a
0
40
0
0
40
129
ND
ND
132
149
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.17
0.15
2.3
1.3
99
92
143
109
Rep2b
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.17
0.15
1.5
1.2
101
93
185
103
RPD
ND
ND
ND
ND
0
0
42
8
2
1
26
6
Rep 3a
<0.01
<0.01
0.36
0.25
0.23
0.1
2
1.4
104
54
NA
NA
Rep3b
<0.01
<0.01
0.36
0.28
0.21
0.09
1.9
1.3
48
40
NA
NA
RPD
0
0
0
11
9
11
5
7
74
30
ND
ND
NA: Not analyzed
ND: Not determinable
Nitrate and Nitrite: The outlet RPD nitrite result for event 1 is outside the target limit, but the
values are low and close to the detection limit. All other samples showed good precision.
TSS and SSC: The SSC RPD result was within targeted limits. Three of the six TSS samples
were within the target limits. The large differences in TSS RPD results were attributed to the
inherent variability of stormwater sampling and the propensity of larger sediment particles to
rapidly fall out of suspension. This makes it difficult for the analyst to collect two representative
sample aliquots from a sample container.
26
-------
Phosphorus: Similar to the outlet RPD nitrite result, the inlet phosphorus RPD for event 1 is
outside the target limit, but the values are low and close to the detection limit. The outlet
phosphorus RPD result exceeded the 30% limit. Phosphorus compounds tend to attach to
sediment particles, resulting in a difficulty similar to TSS.
Laboratory precision: AST analyzed duplicate samples from aliquots drawn from the same
sample container as part of their QA/QC program. Summaries of the laboratory duplicate data
are presented in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3. Laboratory Duplicate Sample Relative% Difference Data Summary
Average Maximum Minimum Standard Objective
Parameter Count (%) (%) (%) Deviation (%)
Nitrite
Nitrate
Phosphorus
TKN
TSS
26
26
30
30
30
4
8
3
9
20
67
172
12
18
96
0
0
0
0
0
13
34
4
6
28
25
25
25
25
30
The data show that laboratory precision was generally maintained throughout the course of the
verification project, with the exception of one nitrate sample and TSS samples.
The TSS data showed lower precision, with some of the precision data outside the RPD limits
established in the test plan. For many TSS samples, the data were skewed by low and non-
detected concentrations. In addition to sample duplicates, the laboratories analyzed laboratory
control samples as part of the ongoing analysis process. The laboratory control samples were
reviewed, and all methods were found to be in control (within established laboratory precision
limits). Laboratory procedures, calibrations, and data were audited and found to be in
accordance with the published methods and good laboratory practice.
The field and analytical precision data combined suggest that the solids load and larger particle
sizes in the inlet samples are the likely cause of poor precision, and apart from the field sample
splitting procedures for inlet samples, the verification program maintained high precision. The
inlet samples tended to have higher sediment concentrations, and sediments have a tendency to
rapidly settle out of suspension, which contributed to the inlet sample precision issue.
6.1.3 Accuracy
Method accuracy was determined and monitored using a combination of matrix spike/matrix
spike duplicates (MS/MSD) and laboratory control samples (known concentration in blank
water). The MS/MSD data are evaluated by calculating the deviation from perfect recovery
(100%), while laboratory control data are evaluated by calculating the absolute value of
deviation from the laboratory control concentration. Accuracy was in control throughout the
27
-------
verification test. Tables 6-4 and 6-5 summarize the matrix spikes and lab control sample
recovery data, respectively.
Table 6-4. Laboratory MS/MSD Data Summary
Parameter
Nitrite
Nitrate
Phosphorus
TKN
TSS
Count
26
26
30
30
30
Average
103
100
105
89
96
Maximum
108
112
111
108
118
Minimum
93
91
95
65
52
Standard
Deviation
3.7
5.6
4.3
10
13
Target
Range
75-
75-
80-
75-
75-
125
125
120
125
125
The balance used for TSS analyses was calibrated routinely with weights that were NIST
traceable. The laboratory maintained calibration records. The temperature of the drying oven
was also monitored using a thermometer that was calibrated with an NIST traceable
thermometer.
Table 6-5. Laboratory Control Sample Data Summary
Parameter
Nitrite
Nitrate
Phosphorus
TKN
TSS
Count
26
26
30
30
30
Average
103
98
106
92
95
Maximum
109
106
108
110
121
Minimum
97
93
100
77
0
Standard
Deviation
3.7
3.7
2.2
8.2
19
Target
Range
97-
88-
91 -
67-
89-
112
107
115
126
109
6.1.4 Representativeness
The field procedures were designed to ensure that representative samples were collected of both
inlet and outlet stormwater. Field duplicate samples and supervisor oversight provided assurance
that procedures were being followed. The challenge in sampling stormwater is obtaining
representative samples. The data indicated that while individual sample variability might occur,
the long-term trend in the data was representative of the concentrations in the stormwater, and
redundant methods of evaluating key constituent loadings in the stormwater were utilized to
compensate for the variability of the laboratory data.
28
-------
The laboratories used standard analytical methods, with written SOPs for each method, to
provide a consistent approach to all analyses. Sample handling, storage, and analytical
methodology were reviewed to verify that standard procedures were being followed. The use of
standard methodology, supported by proper quality control information and audits, ensured that
the analytical data were representative of actual stormwater conditions.
6.1.5 Completeness
Completeness is a measure of the number of valid samples and measurements that are obtained
during a test period. Completeness will be measured by tracking the number of valid data results
against the specified requirements of the test plan.
Completeness will be calculated by the following equation:
Percent Completeness =(V7T)xlOO% (6-3)
where:
V = Number of measurements that are valid.
T = Total number of measurements planned in the test.
The goal for this data quality objective was to achieve minimum 80% completeness for flow and
analytical data. The data quality objective was exceeded, with discrepancies noted below:
• The flow data is 100% complete for all of the monitored events.
• Two sets of nitrate and nitrite samples (from events 6 and 7) were not analyzed by the
analytical laboratory because the 48-hr hold times had been exceeded.
• The outlet SSC sample from event 3 was not analyzed because the sample integrity was
compromised during transit.
These issues are appropriately flagged in the analytical reports and the data used in the final
evaluation of the Crystal Stream.
29
-------
Chapter 7
Operations and Maintenance Activities
7.1 System Operation
Once installed, the Crystal Stream requires minimal operational input, apart from inspection and
cleaning.
As stated in Section 5.1, debris accumulated in the Crystal Stream's trash basket to the point
where it caused water to back up to a level of 16 to 20 in. in the 24-in. inlet pipe during ten of the
eleven qualified events in which the trash basket was installed. The basket was removed by the
TO during events 3 through 6, and backup did not occur during event 1 although the basket was
installed.
The trash basket is the first treatment process after the inlet pipe (see Figure 2-1), and is designed
to trap trash and debris. As debris accumulated in the trash basket, it restricted flow into the
vault. Inspections conducted by the TO and vendor identified items such as roofing shingles,
leaves, twigs, trash, rocks, concrete, and sediment in the trash basket. The Crystal Stream can
operate without the trash basket in place, but the vendor notes this could decrease removal
efficiencies.
7.2 System Maintenance
PBM recommends scheduling inspection every 90 days, and maintenance activities once every
six months, or as needed. An inspection consists of visually inspecting the unit, and determining
the need for major maintenance. A major maintenance consists of removing accumulated
sediment and water from the vault, and replacing the coconut fiber mesh. PBM indicates that the
sedimentation rate is the primary factor for determining maintenance frequency, and that a
maintenance schedule should be based on site-specific sedimentation conditions.
PBM offers inspection and maintenance as part of its service. PBM conducted the inspection
and maintenance of the CrystalStream installed at Griffin, under the supervision of the TO. As
part of this service, PBM maintains records noting the volume of material removed and other
relevant observations. The vendor's data is summarized in Chapter 8.
7.2.1 Waste Characterization
Samples collected by the TO of the solids removed from the vault during the December 1, 2004
maintenance event were sent to the laboratory for TCLP metals analysis. These results shown in
Table 7-1 indicate that any metals present in the solids were not teachable and the sediment was
not hazardous. Therefore, it could be disposed of in a standard Subtitle D solid waste landfill or
other appropriate disposal location.
30
-------
Table 7-1. TCLP Results for Cleanout Solids
Regulatory Hazardous
Parameter TCLP Result (mg/L) Waste Limit (mg/L)
Arsenic <0.2 5.0
Barium 0.5 100
Cadmium <0.01 1.0
Chromium <0.01 5.0
Copper 0.04 NA
Lead 0.6 5.0
Mercury <0.002 0.2
Nickel 0.05 NA
Selenium <0.2 LO
NA: Not applicable
-------
Chapter 8
Vendor-Supplied Information
The information and data contained in this section of the report is provided by the technology
vendor, PBM, and has not verified by the Testing Organization or the Verification
Organization.
As stated in Section 7.2, PBM recommends scheduling inspection every 90 days, and
maintenance activities once every six months, or as needed. PBM offers inspection and
maintenance as part of its service. PBM conducted the inspection and maintenance of the
CrystalStream installed at Griffin, under the supervision of the TO. As part of this service, PBM
maintains records noting the volume of material removed and other relevant observations.
Table 8-1 summarizes PBM cleaning and inspection observations during the verification study.
Table 8-1. Operation and Maintenance During Verification Testing
Service
Date
6/15/02
7/15/02
7/28/02
9/23/02
9/29/02
12/14/02
1/4/03
4/12/03
8/19/03
11/11/03
12/23/03
4/1/04
6/2/04
6/10/04
1 1/30/04
Actual Sediment
Service Sediment Estimate Trash Sediment
Type Depth (in) (in) (ft3) Weight1 (Ib)
Cleaning
Inspection
Cleaning
Inspection
Cleaning
Inspection
Cleaning
Cleaning
Cleaning
Inspection
Cleaning
Inspection
Cleaning
Repair (re-install
Cleaning
5
6
6
6
5
13
12
5
8
1
4
5
6
trash basket)
7
Total
24
0
25
0
15
10
12
10
8
6
11
8
6
~
14
Total:
(Ib/acre/yr):
2,290
~
2,750
~
2,290
~
5,500
2,290
3,700
~
1,800
~
2,800
~
3,200
26,620
2,590
Trash
Weight2
(Ib)
240
0
250
0
150
100
120
100
80
60
110
80
60
~
140
1,490
145
Coconut
Fiber3
(Ib)
42
0
48
~
36
~
40
32
40
~
40
~
40
~
40
358
35
Total
Weight
(Ib)
2,570
~
3,050
~
2,480
~
5,660
2,420
3,790
~
1,980
~
2,850
~
3,390
28,200
2,750
Sediment dry weight was determined by measuring 30 pound wet samples for wet volume and weight, and for
dry volume and weight, then establishing an adjustment ratio. For this site, the dry weight was estimated at 110
pounds per cubic foot measured in situ.
Trash volumes were estimated in the field, and three complete samples were collected, stored, and examined.
The average dry weight was computed for typical trash. Two samples had large quantities rocks, glass bottles,
and metal from cars. This material was discarded and not weighed. The intent was to try and include only
"normal" trash and debris.
After the 4/12/2003 cleaning, the fiber filter was no longer kept for weighing at PBM. The final four weights
were estimates.
32
-------
Chapter 9
References
1. APHA, AWWA, and WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 19th ed. Washington, DC, 1995.
2. Fishman, M. J., Raese, J. W., Gerlitz, C. N., Husband, R. A., U.S. Geological Survey.
Approved Inorganic and Organic Methods for the Analysis of Water and Fluvial Sediment,
1954-94, USGS OFR 94-351, 1994.
3. NO AA (2000) Technical Paper No. 40 Rainfall Frequency A tlas of the United States.
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Technical Paper No. 40
Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States. Washington, DC, 2000.
5. NSF International and Paragon Consulting Group. Environmental Technology Verification
Test Plan for Practical Best Management CrystalStream™ Oil/Grit Separator, Model 1056,
TEA-21 Project AreaCity of Griffin, Spalding County, Georgia. June 2003.
6. NSF International. ETV Verification Protocol Stormwater Source Area Treatment
Technologies. U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program; EPA/NSF Wet-
weather Flow Technologies Pilot. March 2002 (v. 4.1).
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methods and Guidance for Analysis of
Water, EPA 821-C-99-008, Office of Water, Washington, DC, 1999.
33
-------
Appendices
A CrystalStream Design and O&M Guidelines
B Verification Test Plan
C Event Hydrographs and Rain Distribution
D Analytical Data Reports with QC
34
------- |