Test Plan for the Verification of
Downstream Defender®
"Madison Water Utility Administration Building Site"
Madison, Wisconsin
EPA Environmental Technology
Verification Program
September 30, 2005
Prepared for: NSF International
Ann Arbor, Ml
Prepared by: Earth Tech Inc.
Madison, Wl
In Cooperation with: Hydro International
U.S. Geological Survey
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
-------
VERIFICATION TEST PLAN
DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER®
Madison Water Utility Administration Building Site, Madison, Wisconsin
September, 2005
For
EPA/NSF Environmental Technology Verification Program
Water Quality Protection Center
Original signed by
Lisa Glennon October 4, 2005
Lisa Glennon
Hydro International
94 Hutchins Drive
Portland, Maine 04102
207-756-6200
Original signed by
James A. Bachhuber October 4, 2005
Jim Bachhuber, P.H
Earth Tech, Inc.
1210 Fourier Drive
Madison, Wisconsin 53717
608-828-8121
Original signed by
Thomas Stevens September 29, 2005
Thomas Stevens
Manager, Water Quality Protection Center
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
734-769-5347
Original signed by
Ray M. Frederick September 30, 2005
Raymond Frederick
Project Officer
Water Quality Protection Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NRMRL
2890 Woodbridge Ave. (MS-104)
Edison, New Jersey 08837
732-321-6627
-------
Contents
Signature Page ii
Contents iii
Tables vi
Figures vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview of the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program 1
1.2 Purpose of the Verification Test Plan 1
1.3 Overview and Objectives of the Test Plan 2
1.4 Verification Test Plan Outline 2
1.5 Verification Test Plan Preparation Process 2
Chapter2 Roles and Responsibilities of Participants 3
Chapters Description of Source Control Technology 5
3.1 Technology Description (generic) 5
3.2 Technology Desciption (site specific) 9
3.3 Operation and Maintenance 13
3.4 Performance Claims 14
3.4.1 Total Suspended Solids 14
3.4.2 Metals and Nutrients 16
3.4.3 Hydrocarbons 16
3.4.4 Floatables 16
Chapter 4 Site Description 17
4.1 Location and Land Use 17
4.2 Pollutant Sources and Site Maintenance 17
4.3 Stormwater Conveyance System 20
4.4 Water Quality/Water Resources 20
4.5 Local Meteorological Conditions 20
Chapters Monitoring Plan 25
5.1 Selection of Sampling Locations 25
5.2 Pollutant Constituent Selection 25
5.3 Sampling Schedule 25
5.4 Water Quality Data Collection Methods 26
5.4.1 Monitoring Equipment 26
5.4.2 Placement of Sample Intake Line 27
5.4.3 Number of Aliquots Per Event 27
5.4.4 Estimated Total Number of Samples 28
5.4.5 Sample Handling 29
5.4.6 Sampler Maintenance 29
5.4.7 Field Sheets 29
5.5 Flow Measurement Methods 29
5.5.1 Monitoring Equipment 29
5.5.2 Flow Measurement Calibration 29
5.5.3 Flow Equipment Maintenance 30
5.6 Automated Data Recording 30
5.7 Precipitation Measurement 30
in
-------
5.8 Additional Monitoring 30
Chapter 6 Quality Assurance Project Plan 31
6.1 General Requirements 31
6.2 Data Quality Indicators 31
6.2.1 Precision 31
6.2.2 Accuracy 32
6.2.3 Comparability 33
6.2.4 Representativeness 33
6.2.5 Completeness 34
6.3 Field Quality Assurance 34
6.3.1 Field Blanks 35
6.3.2 Duplicates 35
6.4 Equipment Maintenance and Calibration 35
6.5 Laboratory Quality Assurance 35
6.6 Quality Control Procedures 36
6.6.1 Field Blanks 37
6.6.2 Replicates 37
6.6.3 Precipitation Measurement 37
6.6.4 Flow Measurement 37
6.7 Shipment to Laboratory 37
6.8 Sampling Equipment Cleaning Procedures 38
6.9 General QA/QC Documentation and Reviews 38
6.9.1 Quality Assurance Reports 38
6.9.2 Quality Assurance Assessments 39
Chapter? Data Management and Accessibility 40
7.1 Data Storage Systems 40
7.2 Data Corrections 40
7.3 Accessibility 40
Chapters Data Analysis and Reporting 41
8.1 Verification Report 41
8.2 Methods for Evaluating Source Technology 41
8.2.1 Efficiency Ratio 41
8.2.2 Sum of Loads 41
8.3 Results of QA/QC Analysis 42
8.4 Presentation of Results 42
8.4.1 Event Mean Concentration 42
8.4.2 Sum of Loads 43
8.4.3 Particle Size Distribution 43
8.4.4 Rainfall Data 44
8.4.5 Flow Data 44
8.4.6 Verification Statement 44
8.4.7 Appendices 45
Chapter 9 Field Safety and Security 46
9.1 Confined Space Entry Protocol 46
9.2 Field First Aid Equipment 46
9.3 Protection Against Vandalism 46
9.4 Notification Process in Case of Injury 46
IV
-------
9.5 Site Access 46
References 47
Glossary 49
Appendices 51
A Downstream Defender® Product Design Manual 51
B Example of Lab Field Sheet 51
C ISCO 2150 Area Velocity Flow Meter O&M Manual (Available from NSF International or
Earth Tech) 51
D ISCO 3700 Sampler O&M Manual (Available from NSF International or Earth Tech).... 51
-------
Tables
Table 2-1. Participant Roles and Responsibilities 3
Table 3-1. Downstream Pollutant Storage 14
Table 4-1. Drainage Area Land Use 15
Table 4-2. Temperature Summary 19
Table 4-3. Precipitation Summary 20
Table 4-4. Design Storm Data, "Area 8" 21
Table 4-5. Peak Flow Calculations for Project Area Runoff 22
Table 4-6. Percent Flow Volume Bypassed 22
Table 6-1. Accuracy and Precision Objectives 31
Table 6-2. Constituent List Limits of Detection and Analytical Methods 35
Table 8-1. Example of Data Summary Event Mean Concentration 41
Table 8-2. Example of Data Summary Sum of Loads 42
Table 8-3. Example of Particle Size Distribution Results 43
Figures
Figure 3-1. Downstream Defender®- interior view 5
Figure 3-2. Downstream Defender®- submerged inlet 7
Figure 3-3. Downstream Defender®- internal components 8
Figure 3-4. Elevation View of the Downstream Defender® 10
Figure 3-5. General Arrangement of the Downstream Defender® 11
Figure 3-6. Plan View of the Downstream Defender® 12
Figure 3-7: Particle Size Distribution for ME DOT Road Sand and F-110 Silica Sand 15
Figure 3-8: Removal Efficiencies for Differing Sediment Gradations at 15° C 15
Figure 4-1. Site Location 16
Figure 4-2. Site Map with Drainage Area 17
Figure 4-3. Distribution of Average Annual Precipitation for Madison 21
Figure 5-1. Schematic Diagram of Monitoring Station 25
Figure 5-2. Example of Aliquot Distribution over a Hydrograph 27
VI
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BMP
°C
cfs
DQI
DOT
EMC
EPA
ETV
°F
ft2
ft3
g
gal
gpm
hr
in.
kg
L
Ib
NRMRL
mg/L
NSF
NIST
O&M
psi
QA
QC
SSC
SOL
SOP
IDS
TO
TP
TSS
USGS
VA
VO
VSS
WDNR
WQPC
WSLH
Best Management Practice
Degrees Celsius
Cubic feet per second
Data quality indicators
Department of Transportation
Event mean concentration
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Degrees Fahrenheit
Square foot (feet)
Cubic feet
Gram
Gallon
Gallon per minute
Hour
Inch or inches
Kilogram
Liter
Pound
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Microgram per liter
Micron
Milligram per liter
Milliliter
NSF International
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Operations and maintenance
Pounds per square inch
Quality assurance
Quality control
Suspended sediment concentration
Sum of loads
Standard Operating Procedure
Total dissolved solids
Testing Organization
Total phosphorus
Total suspended solids
United States Geological Survey
Visual accumulator
Verification Organization (NSF)
Volatile suspended solids
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Water Quality Protection Center
Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene
VII
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Overview of the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) instituted an Environmental
Technology Verification Program (ETV) to verify the performance of innovative technical
solutions to various problems that threaten human health or the environment. EPA's Office of
Research and Development manages the ETV program. ETV verifies commercial-ready, private
sector technologies designed for environmental protection. This plan describes the testing of a
pollution control technology (defined as "source control") for uncontrolled stormwater discharge.
"Source control technologies" are defined as pollution control devices that treat stormwater
pollution before the stormwater enters a public conveyance system.
The ETV program has developed verification testing protocols and approaches that serve as
templates for conducting verification tests for various technologies. The goal of the verification
testing process is to generate high quality data for verification of equipment performance.
The ETV Program is made up of six Centers, one of which is the Water Quality Protection
Center (WQPC). The WQPC focuses on technologies addressing wet weather flows, source
water protection, and homeland security issues. The WQPC also includes the verification
testing of decentralized wastewater treatment systems that are installed at locations without
access to wastewater collection treatment systems and that provide protection for groundwater
and surface water sources.
NSF International (NSF) is the verification partner with EPA for operation of the WQPC, which is
managed by the EPA Urban Watershed Branch, Water Supply and Resources Division, located
in Edison, New Jersey. The role of NSF is to provide technical and administrative leadership in
conducting the testing.
It is important to note that verification of the equipment does not mean that the equipment is
"certified" or "approved" by NSF or EPA. Instead, the verification testing projects are a formal
mechanism by which the performance of equipment can be determined by these two agencies,
culminating in the issuance of a verification statement and report by NSF and EPA.
1.2 Purpose of the Verification Test Plan
This test plan provides a full description of the proposed monitoring program for the
Downstream Defender®. The vendor for the Downstream Defender® is Hydro International of
Portland, Maine. It is written based upon the ETV Verification Protocol Stormwater Source Area
Treatment Technologies (Draft 4.0).
The results of the monitoring effort will be analyzed, documented and reported to NSF and EPA.
It is understood that the results are intended for use by the EPA to post on an ETV web site for
access by professionals in the field of stormwater pollution control.
-------
1.3 Overview and Objectives of the Test Plan
A 6-foot diameter Downstream Defender® was installed in the parking lot of the Madison Water
Utility Administration Building in Madison, Wisconsin, in a cooperative effort with the National
Sanitation Foundation, Cities in the Waukesha Permit Group, United States Geological Survey
(USGS), Wsconsin Department of Natural Resources (WNDR), and the City of Madison. The
system receives surface runoff from the parking lot, small landscaped areas and rooftop. The
system was installed expressly for the purpose of testing the effectiveness of the treatment
system in capturing nonpoint source pollution from the drainage area.
Total influent, treated effluent, and total effluent stormwater volumes and constituent
concentrations will be measured. . The field testing organization (TO) is Earth Tech, Inc. of
Madison, Wsconsin. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is conducting the field
monitoring under a contract with the WDNR. The USGS will provide the results of the monitoring
to the TO to prepare the verification report. Event mean concentrations, together with the mass
of sediment captured within the device and event pollutant loads from the monitoring points will
be calculated and compared to assess the sediment control efficiency of the system.
Performance estimates will be based on net load reduction over the monitoring period (not
individual storm performance).
1.4 Verification Test Plan Outline
This test plan addresses the following topics:
• Roles and responsibilities of participants;
• Description of the source control technology;
• Site conditions;
• Monitoring plan;
• Quality assurance plan;
• Data management;
• Data analysis and reporting; and
• Field safety and security.
1.5 Verification Test Plan Preparation Process
This plan was developed by Earth Tech Inc. using information provided by the City of Madison
Water Utility, USGS, WDNR, the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, and Hydro
International.
-------
Chapter 2
Roles and Responsibilities of Participants
Table 2-1 identifies each party (public and private) involved in verification testing of the
Downstream Defender® at the Madison Water Utility Administration Building site in Madison,
Wisconsin, and describes their respective roles, responsibilities, and contact people.
Table 2-1. Participant Roles and Responsibilities
Agency/Company Contact Person(s)
Role/Responsibility
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA)
NSF International
Madison Water
Utility
United States
Geologic Survey
(USGS)
Ray Frederick
USEPA/NRMRL,
MS-104, Urban Watershed
Branch, Water Supply and Water
Resources Division
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
(732)-321-6627
frederick.ray@epa.gov
Thomas Stevens
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48113
(734) 769-5347
fax: (734)769-5195
stevenst@nsf.org
Alan Larson
119 East Olin Avenue
Madison, Wl 53713
608-266-4651
allarson@madisonwater.org
Judy Horwatich
8505 Research Way
Middleton, Wl 53562
(608) 821-3874
jawierl@usgs.gov
Agency with primary responsibility for
overall ETV program. The EPA's
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory provides administrative,
technical, and quality assurance
guidance and oversight on all WQPC
activities. The EPA has review and
approval over the Test Plan,
verification report, and the verification
statement. EPA also posts the
verification report and statement on
the EPA website.
NSF is the EPA's verification partner
in the WQPC. Advisor and reviewer
for all aspects of monitoring project.
Oversight of Quality Assurance.
Approve final Test Plan and
verification report. Prepare/
disseminate verification statement.
Primary representative of owner.
Maintenance will be conducted by City
of Madison Engineering Department.
The USGS is responsible for
conducting the monitoring project.
Judy Horwatich is the primary contact
and responsible person for the field
components of the testing project
including: field procedures, QC/QA,
coordination with laboratory, data
analysis, and reporting.
-------
Agency/Company Contact Person(s)
Role/Responsibility
Wisconsin
Department of
Natural Resources
(WDNR)
Wisconsin State
Laboratory of
Hygiene (WSLH)
Hydro International
Earth Tech, Inc.
Roger Bannerman
101 South Webster
Madison, Wl 53705
(608) 266-9278
banner@dnr.state.wi.us
George Bowman
2601 Agriculture Drive
Madison, Wl 53718
(608) 224-6278
gtb@mail.slh.wisc.edu
Lisa Glennon
94 Hutchins Drive
Portland, ME 04102
Phone: (207) 756-6200
Fax: (207) 756-6212
lglennon@hil-tech.com
Jim Bachhuberor
Jennifer Hurlebaus
1210 Fourier Drive, Suite 100
Madison, Wl 53717
(608) 836-9800
fax: (608) 836-9767
iim.bachhuber@earthtech.com
jennifer.hurlebaus@earthtech.com
Advisor and reviewer for monitoring
procedures, data analysis, and
reporting. Also serves on NSF ETV
Technology Panel. The WDNR is also
partially funding the monitoring project
under contract with USGS.
Primary responsibility for analyzing
the collected stormwater samples for
parameters identified in monitoring
plan. Provide information on sample
handling, preservation, and chain of
custody procedures. Certifications for
this laboratory are provided in Chapter
6.
Vendor of the treatment technology.
Primary contact for technical issues
regarding the treatment equipment,
function, capabilities, and
maintenance needs. Review and
approval of the Test Plan. Hydro
International will also review and
comment on the draft verification
report and Verification Statement.
Provide partial funding for monitoring
project.
Earth Tech is the TO. Primary contact
for overall testing program. Advisor on
testing plan development and
monitoring equipment installation.
Earth Tech will prepare the verification
report utilizing data results provided
by the USGS.
-------
Chapter 3
Description of Source Control Technology
3.1 Technology Description (generic)
The information provided in this section was provided by the vendor and has not been verified
by the TO. The information is a generic description of the product being tested and is not
specific to the Madison Water Utility site.
The Downstream Defender® is an advanced hydrodynamic vortex separator designed to
remove settleable solids (and their associated pollutants), oil, and floatables from stormwater
runoff. Its flow-modifying internal components have been developed from extensive full-scale
testing, computational fluid dynamics modeling and over thirty years of hydrodynamic
separation experience in wastewater, combined sewer, and stormwater applications. The
internal components distinguish the Downstream Defender® from simple swirl-type devices and
conventional oil/grit separators by minimizing turbulence and headlosses, enhancing separation,
and preventing re-suspension of previously stored pollutants.
The Downstream Defender® has no moving parts and no external power requirements. It
consists of a cylindrical concrete vessel, with plastic internal components and a 304 stainless
steel support frame and connecting hardware. The concrete vessel is a standard precast
cylindrical manhole with a tangential inlet pipe installed below ground. Two ports at ground
level provide access for inspection and clean out of stored floatables and sediment. The
internal components consist of two concentric hollow cylinders (the dip plate and center shaft),
an inverted cone (the center cone), a benching skirt, and a floatables lid. The Downstream
Defender's® key components are illustrated in Figure 3-1.
Access Ports
Support Frame -
Dip Plate —
Tangential Inlet
Center Shaft
Center Cone
Benching Skirt
Floatables Lid
Outlet Pipe
Pipe Coupling
Floatables Storage
Sediment Storage
Concrete Manhole
Figure 3-1. Downstream Defender® interior view (generic depiction).
-------
The Downstream Defender® is self-activating, and operates on simple fluid dynamics. The
geometry of the internal components and placement of the inlet and outlet pipes are designed to
direct the flow in a pre-determined path through the vessel.
Stormwater is introduced tangentially into the side of the vessel, initially spiraling around the
perimeter in the outer annular space between the dip plate cylinder and manhole wall. Oil and
floatables rise to the water surface and are trapped by the dip plate in the outer annular space.
As the flow continues to rotate about the vertical axis, it travels down towards the bottom of the
dip plate. Low energy vortex motion directs sediment toward the center and base of the vessel.
Flow passes under the dip plate and up through the inner annular space, between the dip plate
and center shaft, as a narrower spiraling column rotating at a slower velocity than the outer
downward flow.
The outlet of the Downstream Defender® is a single central discharge from the top water level in
the inner annulus. Discharging from the inner annulus forces each fluid element to pass
through a long spiral path from the inlet, downward through the outer annulus, then upward
through the inner annulus before it can be released. This increases the retention time for the
separation of settleable solids and floatables.
The Downstream Defender® is designed to collect accumulated pollutants outside the treatment
flow path. This prevents re-entrainment into the effluent during major storms or surcharge
conditions. Furthermore, removal and retention efficiencies are maintained because pollutants
such as sediment, floatables, and oils accumulate between clean-outs and are collected and
stored in isolated storage zones over a period of several months.
A section view of the Downstream Defender® is shown in Figure 3-2 to illustrate isolated
pollutant storage locations and the purpose of the offset inlet and outlet inverts. The
Downstream Defender® is designed with a submerged inlet. The crown of the inlet pipe where it
connects to the unit is at the same elevation as the invert of the outlet pipe. The outlet pipe
invert is placed on the hydraulic profile to maintain a static water level in the Downstream
Defender® equal to the invert elevation of the outlet pipe. During a storm event, the submerged
inlet introduces flow below the unit's static water surface, forcing floatables to rise into the outer
annular region between the dip plate and concrete manhole. Submerging the inlet aids in
stabilizing the flow regime over the unit's entire flow range. This enhances the removal
efficiency and prevents re-suspension and washout (re-entrainment) of previously stored
pollutants.
Headlosses of the Downstream Defender® are primarily a function of the inlet pipe diameter.
The larger the inlet pipe diameter, the lower the headlosses. Headlosses can be decreased by
increasing the inlet pipe diameter up to the diameter of the outlet pipe.
-------
Isolated Oil Storage
Isolated Sediment Storage Sun
Figure 3-2. Downstream Defender submerged inlet and isolated pollutant storage
locations.
As the rotating flow spirals downward in the outer annular space, the benching skirt directs
sediment toward the center and base of the vessel where it is collected in the sediment storage
facility, beneath the vortex chamber. The center cone protects stored sediment and redirects
the main flow upwards and inwards under the dip plate into the inner annular space. The dip
plate is located at the shear zone (the interface between the outer downward circulation and the
inner upward circulation where a marked difference in velocities encourages solids separation.)
A floatables lid covers the effluent area in the inner annular space between the dip plate and
center shaft to keep oil and floatables stored in the outer annulus separate from the treated
effluent. Figure 3-3 summarizes how the internal components of the Downstream Defender®
address storing pollutants within the same vessel without compromising removal efficiencies
due to re-suspension and/or washout (re-entrainment).
-------
the floatables lid
the dip plate cylinder
the center cone redirects the main flow upward
into the inner annular space and prevents re-
suspension of sediment by sheltering the sediment
storage sump below.
the benching skirt
Figure 3-3. Downstream Defender®- internal components.
The Downstream Defender® can be used in the following applications:
• New developments and retrofits;
• Construction sites;
• Streets and roadways;
• Parking lots;
• Vehicle maintenance wash-down yards;
• Industrial and commercial facilities;
• Wetlands protection; and
• Pre-treatment for filter and other polishing systems.
The unit should be installed in a location that is easily accessible for a maintenance vehicle,
preferably in a flat area close to a roadway or parking area.
-------
3.2 Technology Desciption (site specific)
Specific information on the Downstream Defender® installed at the test site is presented in this
section. All pipe sizes were measured by Earth Tech and USGS at an inspection trip on June
22, 2005. All pipe diameters are inside diameters. The field measured pipe diameters do not
always match the sizes shown on Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6. These differences may be for the
following reasons:
1) some field measurements were very difficult to obtain because of the location
of the pipe. The field measurements should be considered ±0.5 in.;
2) the pipes' shapes may be deflected during the construction process and round
pipes are now slightly difference in shape; or
3) the size pipe installed was not the same as the pipe size shown in the
drawings.
A 6-ft diameter Downstream Defender® was installed at the Madison Water Utility site in the fall
of 2004. Two clean out/access ports at grade level are located above the Downstream
Defender®. A flow diversion structure is located approximately 13 ft north of the Downstream
Defender®. Flow from the drainage area is received to the diversion structure through a 13.5-in.
PVC inlet pipe. The Downstream Defender® has a 12-in. PVC inlet pipe and a 16.5-in. PVC
outlet pipe. A weir in the diversion manhole has a crest elevation approximately 14 in. above
the invert of the inlet pipe. The outlet pipe from the diversion manhole to the site's wet detention
pond is 13 in. in diameter.
Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6 detail the planned design for the Downstream Defender® at the
Madison Water Utility site. The pipe diameters shown on the drawings are not consistent with
diameters measured in the field. Elevations on the device and the inlet and outlet pipes have
not been field verified. Elevations and principal dimensions will be field verified prior to
commencement of monitoring.
-------
DEFENDER PIPE CONNECTIONS:
1. RECOMMEND RCP OR PVC OVERFLOW PIPE.
2. LARGE DIAMETER COUPLING REQUIRED TO CONNECT OVERFLOW PIPE TO OVERFLOW PIPE STUB.
OVERFLOW PIPE STUB DIMENSIONS: O.D.= 1fl 11/16*, 1.0.= IB V16"- S™B LENGTH-6*
3. INLET PIPE ENTERS UNIT TANGENT TO INSIDE OF DEFENDER MANHOLE.
CUT PIPE OFF AT JO1 ANGLE. (SEE INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.)
4. GROUT INLET AND OVERFLOW PIPES WRH NON-SHRINK GROUT TO ENSURE A WATERTIGHT CONNECTION.
RIM EL. 854.00 (ESTIMATED)
TOP OF STRUCT. 852.75
RIM EL. 853.9 (BY SURVEY)
•SUMP EL. 843.35
DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER
INTERNAL COMPONENTS
NOT SHOWN
•SUMP ELEVATION MAY VARY SLIGHTLY
FROM THE ELEVATION SHOWN BY THIS
DRAWING. USE THE INVERT OF THE
OVERFLOW PIPE STUB AS A REFERENCE
WHEN SETTING THE MANHOLE.
Rev| By [Date
«RJ 18/27/0
Date
08/27/04
Drawn by
WRJ
Checked Prod.
SUBMITTAL
Description
Scale
3/8"= 1 '0"
Checked Eng.
Approved by
Title
6-FT DIA.
DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER
Madison Water Utility
Madison, Wl
ELEVATION VIEW
Hydro
International <*,.
94 Hutchins Drive
Portland, Maine 04102
tel: (207) 756-6200
fax: (207) 756-6212
email: hiltech@hil-tech.com
©2KU
ffy wamnty mod* by Hydra lrrt«matla™l mily opf>J!M to tho»» tUrni wpp4M by It Hyd™ kiunxrtjwwl do** not ooeiet and ttprMly diKlalrni any
(or th« oartomonoo ttwwrf) d«^gn*d. butt. nmnvfochinri or wpplhd try any thlrt-porty. Hydra humaUonol ha* a pofley of eortlnuoui product dMJopnmt and nHmm th« ric^rt to onwid ttw i
any of Tfal preduebi or «?urpm«nt trt pny tim«r Hydfq InUrDottantf fxprmty dlKlalmi flny nobflrty fflr tht pwf«TTHAH of Hi oqufpnw* (or any port thwwr] uwd or modi •gbJBct to amdWvw wWda of th»
oondMaM Mt forth In Hydra brtwiwtJang 'p dwlgn nwafnoottotw. Hydro IrrtanKrthHHl OWTM tta copyright In and to thli drawing, whlcft h MfponMl In unrfdMUM. and all hibndwj ndpUnti of th« drawing, by ttwjr
UM ttwrMf. ogrM to hold ttw drmlng ki oonfldflno* ond not to u» ft for arty purpoH othw than far MUCH K Ma aupeOA] and not nenduc*. In whol* or In part. th« dnmlnq or any of th« •qufanwit or
Dnictun* owcud Bwdn. rithout prior nfjtoi piniiWon of tydro Intenotlanal.
CAD Ref: GA3
Project No. 2003-00495
Drawing No. GA3 Rev.
Figure 3-4. Elevation View of the Downstream Defender, Madison, Wl
10
-------
_LEDGER ANGLE (TYP)
/ (BY HYDRO)
12" INLET PIPE
(BY OTHERS)
EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
FLCATABLES LID W/ VENT
(BY HYDRO)
SUPPORT FRAME
(BY HYDRO)
CENTER SHAFT AND CONE
(BY HYDRO)
The stormwater tn
in the chart below
capacities as folio1
atment unit shall adhere to the hydraulic paromete
and provide the removal efficiencies and storage
Performance obiec
•es: To
at least 80% of particles with specific
gravity of 2.65 based on a particle size gradation similar to typical D.O.T.
road sand having greater thon 20% of all particles finer than 300 microns.
Additionally, the treatment chamber must be capable of removing greater
than 50% of oil particles in the range of 300-425 microns at the peak
treatment flow rate listed below.
Frequent storm flow: 5 cfs
Peak treatment fiow: 8.0 cfs
Sediment Storage capacity: 2.1 Cu. yd.
Continuous Oil storage capacity: 230 Gal.
Sediment shall be stored in a zone that is isolated from the moin flow path
and protected from reintrainment by a benching skirt.
18" OVERFLOW PIPE
(BY OTHERS)
BENCHING SKIRT
(BY HYDRO)
!" l.D. CONCRETE MANHOLE
(LID NOT SHOWN)
(BY CONCRETE SUPPLIER)
HYDRAULIC PARAMETERS
NLET PIPE 0-12"
OVERFLOW PIPE 0 = 18"
OVERFLOW PJPE SLOPE=0.40%
MANNING COEFFICIENTS.01 3
DESIGN STORM FLOW-3 cfs
LPIPE COUPLING
(BY OTHERS)
18" OVERFLOW PIPE STUB
(BY HYDRO)
SUPPORT FRAME
(BY HYDRO)
PIPE COUPLING
(BY OTHERS)
_ACCESS COVER
(SEE PLAN VIEW DWG GA2
FOR ORIENTATION)
OVERFLOW PIPE
(BY OTHERS)
DEPTH OF FLOW IN
OVERFLOW PIPE AT 3 cfs
ESTIMATED HEADLOSS *
AT 3 cfs
8.5
5.0
INCHES
INCHES
HEADLOSS IS DEFINED AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATIC WATER
LEVEL AT THE INLET OF THE DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER TO THE KREE
WATER SURFACE IN THE OVERFLOW PIPE, ASSUMING FREE DISCHARGE.
OVERFLOW PIPE STUB
(BY HYDRO)
12" INLET PIPE
(BY OTHERS)
CENTER SHAFT AND CONE
(BY HYDRO)
BENCHING SKIRT _
(BY HYDRO)
72" l.D. CONCRETE MANHOLE-
(BY CONCRETE SUPPLIER)
DISTANCES MEASURED FROM THE
SUMP ARE MINIMUMS. ACTUAL SUMP
DEPTHS MAY VARY. CONTACT HYDRO
INTERNATIONAL FOR SUMP DEPTH
SPECIFIC TO YOUR INSTALLATION.
Rev By Dote
JRJ 3B/27/Q. SUBMITTAL
Date
08/27/04
Drawn by
MRJ
Checked Prod.
Description
Scale
1/4"= TO"
Checked Encj
Approved by
Title
6-FT DIA.
DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER
Madison Water Utility
Administration Bldg.
Madison, W
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
Hydro
International
94 Hutchins Drive
Portland, Maine 041C
tel: (207) 756-6203
fax: (207) 756- 62l|2
email: hiltech@hil —tech
Figure 3-5. General Arrangement of the Downstream Defender®, Madison, Wl.
11
-------
Flow Monitoring at B, C, D
Water Quality Sampling at B, C, E
FROM CBMH |fj
R=854.00
IE IN/OUT - 849.0(SURVEO
PROP. WEIR WALL
(BY OTHERS)
DOWNSTREAM
DEFENDER
24' CLEANOUT/ACCESS COVER
PROP 5'0
DIVERSION MANHOLE
(BY OTHERS)
*,.-**, m»l« by Hrfr* tnWmritond orty <*,*- to •**•**» WM by 1. H^a ^
®WCJ any eT to praduda or •qu^rwnt at wty Hrn& H^re krUm«th
Date
08/27/04
Drawn by
MRJ
08/27/0-
Rev By Date
Checked Prod.
SUBMITTAL
Description
Scale
3/8 =1'0"
Checked Eng.
Approved by
Title
6-FT DIA.
DOWNSTREAM DEFENDER
Madison Water Utility
Madison, Wl
PLAN VIEW
Hydro'
International
94 Hutchins Drive
Portland, Maine 04102
tel: (207) 756-6200
fax:(207)756-6212
email: hiltech@hil-tech.com
fh»* cr
ttH ^H
Mt fort* In Hy*« W*m*tto«#f • OMtan •PMMMUOM. Hydro liKMimU^ui o*fM tha Mpy
f. MTM to noM ttw dTVrirq h oonffahum end not fa UM k fer afv pfrpc** 6*h*r tfk*n
< Jtud HnrJf.. .maul prtor «mn ,....m. of n)*. I I igj^1^
ho. c p*, rf ^*«iu. p^M ***«« ^^T^rgl
MrfcnTMne* *f It* K)ulpnwrt (or wry port VwwlO uMd a- mada »uh)«H: to candHm ouWd« of ttM
end to thta droving. «t>k*i b aupplM hi cenfldme*, and all tal*nd*d r*clpl»nri «| th* dml-M, by ttw*
:h » «. •t^TJ md iMt r^njjms*. r. «foU «r ]-, port, th* drnhg *r «iy of 1h« «4.^mMt or
CAD Ref: GA2
Project No. 2003-00495
Drawing No. GA2 Rev.
Figure 3-6. Plan View of the Downstream Defender®, Madison, Wl.
12
-------
3.3 Operation and Maintenance
Hydro International provided the following guidance and information on the operation and
maintenance of the system.
The Downstream Defender® operates on simple fluid hydraulics. It is self-activating, has no
moving parts, no external power requirement and is fabricated with durable non-corrosive
components. Therefore, no procedures are required to operate the unit and maintenance is
limited to monitoring accumulations of stored pollutants and periodic clean-outs. The
Downstream Defender® has been designed to allow for easy and safe access for
inspection/monitoring and clean-out procedures. Entry into the unit or removal of the internal
components is not necessary for maintenance so that safety concerns related to confined-
space-entry are avoided.
The internal components of the Downstream Defender® have been designed to protect the oil,
floatables and sediment storage volumes so that treatment capacities are not reduced as
pollutants accumulate between clean-outs. Additionally, the Downstream Defender® is
designed and installed into the storm drain system so that the vessel remains wet between
storm events. Oil and floatables are stored on the water surface in the outer annulus separate
from the sediment storage volume in the sump of the unit providing the option for separate oil
immobilization, removal and disposal (such as the use of absorbent pads). Since the
oil/floatables and sediment storage volumes are isolated from the active separation region, the
potential for re-suspension and washout of stored pollutants between clean-outs is minimized.
Keeping the unit wet also prevents stored sediment from solidifying in the base of the unit. The
clean-out procedure becomes much more difficult and labor intensive if a stormwater treatment
system allows fine sediment to dry-out and consolidate. When this occurs, clean-out crews
must enter the chamber and manually remove the sediment; a labor intensive operation in a
potentially hazardous environment.
A sump-vacuum is used to remove captured sediment and floatables. Access ports are located
in the top of the manhole. The floatables access port is above the area between the concrete
manhole wall and the dip plate. The sediment removal access port is located directly over the
hollow center shaft. The frequency of the sump vacuum procedure is determined in the field
after installation. During the first year of operation, the unit should be inspected every six
months to determine the rate of sediment and floatables accumulation. A simple probe can be
used to determine the level of solids in the sediment storage facility. This information can be
recorded in maintenance logs to establish a routine maintenance schedule. Maximum pollutant
storage capacities are provided in Table 3-1. To prevent floatables and oils from entering the
sediment sump storage volume, it is recommended that oil and floatables are removed prior to
removing sediment.
13
-------
Table 3-1 Downstream Defender® Pollutant Storage Capacities and Maximum Clean-out
Depths
Unit
Diameter
(ft)
4
6
8
10
Total Oil
Storage
(gal)
70
230
525
1,050
Oil Clean-
Out Depth
(in.)
< 16
<23
<33
<42
Total Sediment
Storage
(gal)
141
424
939
1,760
Sediment Clean-
Out Depth
(in.)
< 18
<24
<30
<36
Total Volume
Removed
(gal)
384
1,240
2,890
5,550
Maintenance records will be maintained during testing and included in the verification report. A
copy of the inspection report is attached as Appendix A.
3.4 Performance Claims
This section was prepared by Hydro International.
The following are performance claims made by Hydro International regarding the Downstream
Defender® stormwater quality treatment unit installed at the Madison Water Utility Administration
Building Site in Madison, Wl.
The Downstream Defender® is designed to remove and prevent washout (re-entrainment) of
settleable solids and floatables from stormwater runoff. In addition, with proper maintenance,
treatment capacities are not reduced as pollutants accumulate between clean-outs.
3.4.1 Total Suspended Solids
The 6-ft Downstream Defender® installed at the Madison Water Utility Administration Building
Site is designed to remove settleable solids from stormwater runoff. Generally, the removal
efficiency of the Downstream Defender® decreases with increasing flow rates, finer particles and
cooler water temperatures. For runoff at 15 C°, the Downstream Defender® will remove over
80% of settleable solids with a specific gravity of 2.65 with a particle size distribution similar to
Maine DOT road sand (see Figure 3-7) at flow rates up to 3 cfs (see Figure 3-8). Hydro
International defines "settleable sediment" as particles greater than 62 urn in size.
Performance of the Downstream Defender®, in terms of sediment removals, depends on the
incoming flow rate, particle size distribution, specific gravity and runoff temperature. Figure 3-7
shows two example particle size distributions (for Maine DOT road sand and F-110 silica sand).
14
-------
100 1000 10000
PARTICLE SIZE (MICRONS)
Figure 3.7 Particle Size Distribution for ME DOT Road Sand and F-110 Silica Sand.
The range of removals for the particle size distributions shown in Figure 3.7 at different flow
rates for a water temperature of 15 °C is shown in Figure 3.8.
100%
< 60%
o
LLJ
ce
o
a:
LU
0.
40% -
20% -
0%
FLOW RATE (cfs)
Figure 3.8 Removal Efficiencies for Differing Sediment Gradations at 15 °C.
15
-------
3.4.2 Metals and Nutrients
Significant levels of metals and nutrients have been detected in the sediment removed by the
Downstream Defender® during tests conducted at other locations. Removal of metals and
nutrients depends on the portion of these contaminants that are attached to the particulates.
Therefore, no specific removal claims are made.
3.4.3 Hydrocarbons
Even though the Downstream Defender® is designed to treat petroleum hydrocarbons in
stormwater, Hydro International did not make specific performance claims for petroleum
hydrocarbons to be verified by ETV testing, and this test plan will not include provisions to verify
the Downstream Defender® hydrocarbon treatment capability.
3.4.4 Floatables
Up to 100% floatables removal has been observed visually in the Downstream Defender®.
However, the ETV protocol has no provisions for monitoring floatables. Therefore, no specific
performance claims are made.
16
-------
Chapter 4
Site Description
4.1 Location and Land Use
The Downstream Defender® is located in the parking lot at the Madison Water Utility
Administration Building at 119 EastOlin Avenue in Madison, Wisconsin. The latitude and
longitude coordinates are 43° 3'9" N and 89° 22'55" W. The device receives direct stormwater
runoff from the parking lot and rooftops through a storm sewer collection system. Figure 4-1
shows the location of the test site.
The Madison Water Utility Building grounds cover about 5.5 acres. Figure 4-2 shows the site
conditions with the drainage area and storm sewer collection system delineated. The drainage
area tributary to the device is 1.9 acres in size. Table 4-1 shows a breakout of the land uses
within the drainage area.
Table 4-1. Drainage Area Land Use
Area (acres)
Walkways/
Sidewalks
0.08
Parking
Lot/ Road
1.05
Building
(Roof)
0.49
Landscape
0.29
Total Area
1.91
The property adjacent to the Madison Water Utility (to the west) is a City of Madison recycling
facility with outside storage of yard and brush waste. Currently, drainage from this site enters
the Madison Water Utility parking lot and may into the monitored system. The City of Madison
will construct a speed bump diversion to keep this runoff from entering the monitored area. This
diversion will also prevent yard waste from entering into the monitored system.
4.2 Pollutant Sources and Site Maintenance
The main pollutant sources within the drainage area are created by vehicular traffic, rooftop
drainage, atmospheric deposition, and, winter sand or rock salt that is applied as conditions
require.
The storm sewer catch basins do not have sumps. There are no other stormwater best
management practice (BMP) devices within the drainage area.
17
-------
ite Boundary
FIGURE 4-1
Site Location
Madison Water Utility
Downstream Defender Site
Madison, Wl
€) EarthTech
18
-------
Ill
LU
Z
_l
o
Detention Pond
Data from Survey on 9/22/2005
Structure
Inlet 11
Inlet 10
Inlet 9
Inlets
Inlets
Inlet 4
Inlets
Outlet
Rim Elevation
852.83
853.31
853.15
853.98
853.82
853.76
853.78
na
Invert Elevation"
850.73
850.66
850.28
850.06
849.77
849.59
849.00
848.75
Invert of outlet pipe from manhole
Legend
• Inlet
_ Outlet
,_ Dowistregm
J Defender
Property Line
^ Stcrm Sevtr
(Drainage Bcundary to
Downstream Defender
Detention Pond
| B.I Id r ID
Landscape
Sidewalk
35946 July20D5
FIGURE 4-2
Site Map and Drainage Area
Madison Water Utility
Downstream Defender Site
Madison.Wl
© EarthTech
19
-------
4.3 Stormwater Conveyance System
The site is drained by a storm sewer collection system. An 18 in. storm sewer runs along the
north edge of the site, collects runoff from part of the main building, parking lot and landscaped
areas, and discharges to Wingra Creek. The storm sewer system consists of 12- and 15-in.
diameter concrete pipe. The storm sewer collects stormwater from the buildings and parking lot
and conveys it to the Downstream Defender®. From the Downstream Defender®, the treated
stormwater (and bypass flow) enters a wet detention pond (located at the Water Utility property)
and subsequently to the city's storm sewer system.
The storm sewer collection system that conveys stormwater to the Downstream Defender® and
the bypass structure, was surveyed on September 22, 2005 by Earth Tech. Surface elevations
and pipe invert elevations for the inlets were measured. Measurements were also taken at the
flow diversion manhole of the Downstream Defender®. The City of Madison provided
benchmark elevations on the site. The benchmark used for the survey was located on the top
of the fire hydrant on the west edge of the site and it has an elevation of 856.47 ft. The survey
results are shown on Figures 3-4, 3-5, and 4-2.
4.4 Water Quality/Water Resources
The receiving water of the site's runoff is Wingra Creek, which is a tributary to Lake Monona.
Wingra Creek is on the WDNR 303(d) impaired waters list. Wingra Creek's impairments are
aquatic toxicity and contaminated sediment.
Most of the urban communities within the Yahara watershed including the City of Madison are
under the State of Wisconsin stormwater permitting program (NR 216). This program meets or
exceeds the requirements of EPA's Phase I stormwater regulations.
4.5 Local Meteorological Conditions
Madison, Wisconsin has the typical continental climate of interior North America with a large
annual temperature range and with frequent short period temperature changes. Madison
experiences cold snowy winters, and warm to hot summers. Average annual precipitation is
approximately 33 in., with an average annual snowfall of 44 in. Summary temperature and
precipitation data from the Madison area are presented below in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. These data
are from the National Weather Service station from the Dane County Regional Airport in
Madison, Wisconsin. Figure 4-3 shows the average monthly distribution of precipitation by
month for Madison. This figure shows that approximately 37% (12.31 in.) of the annual
precipitation occurs during the summer months (June, July, and August). Table 4-4 presents the
statistical rainfalls for a series of recurrence and duration precipitation events. This data is from
Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the Midwest; Huff and Angel; 1992.
20
-------
Table 4-2. Temperature Summary, National Weather Service Station (Station 474961
Madison WSO Airport)
High
Month Mean °F
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Seasonal
Annual
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
28.6
33.5
41.6
53.1
65.2
72.0
78.1
77.9
65.7
59.8
46.1
31.3
Year
1990
1998
1973
1955
1977
1995
1955
1947
1948
1947
2001
1998
Low
Mean0 F
3.7
11.7
18.4
39.5
50.2
59.5
67.1
62.0
56.7
43.4
27.1
10.8
Year
1977
1979
1960
1950
1967
1969
1967
1967
1993
1987
1959
1983
1-Day
Max °F Date
56
64
82
94
93
101
104
102
99
90
76
64
1/31/1989
2/25/2000
3/31/1981
4/22/1980
5/1/1952
6/20/1988
7/10/1976
8/16/1988
9/1/1953
10/6/1963
11/3/1964
12/5/2001
1-Day
Min°F
-37
-29
-29
0
19
31
36
35
25
13
-11
-25
Date
1/30/1951
2/3/1996
3/1/1962
4/7/1982
5/1/1978
6/10/1972
7/6/1965
8/29/1965
9/29/1949
10/30/1988
11/30/1947
12/19/1983
Summaries:
49.9
28.2
52.3
74.6
52.8
1998
1998
1977
1995
1953
43
12.8
40.5
65.1
43.3
1972
1977
1960
1967
1976
104
64
94
104
99
7/10/1976
12/5/1901
4/22/1980
7/10/1976
9/1/1953
-37
-37
-29
31
-11
1/30/1951
1/30/1951
3/1/1962
6/10/1972
11/30/1947
21
-------
Table 4-3. Precipitation Summary, National Weather Service Station (Station 474961
Madison WSO Airport)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Seasonal
Annual
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
High
(in.)
2.53
2.77
5.46
7.11
9.63
9.95
10.93
9.49
9.22
5.63
5.13
4.09
Year
1996
1953
1998
1973
2000
1978
1950
1980
1965
1984
1985
1987
Low
(in.)
0.14
0.06
0.28
0.96
0.64
0.81
1.38
0.7
0.11
0.06
0.11
0.25
Year
1981
1995
1978
1946
1981
1973
1946
1948
1979
1952
1976
1960
1-Day
Max (in.)
1.15
1.61
2.78
1.91
3.64
4.51
3.89
3.4
2.7
2.78
2.3
2.19
Date
1/26/1974
2/27/1948
3/30/1998
4/28/1975
5/23/1966
6/17/1996
7/3/1975
8/2/2001
9/12/1961
10/18/1984
11/1/1971
12/3/1990
Summaries:
43.34
6.44
17.42
21.58
15.61
1993
1983
1973
1993
1961
21.08
1.45
4.36
4.83
2.1
1976
1961
1994
1976
1976
4.51
2.19
3.64
4.51
2.78
6/17/1996
12/3/1990
5/23/1966
6/17/1996
10/18/1984
22
-------
Madison Average Total Monthly Precipiation
£ 3 -
c
o
'5.
'o
1 2
1 -
0.5 -
1 I 1
I 1
I 1
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
Month of Year
Data from the Wisconsin State Climatology Office
DEC
Figure 4-3. Distribution of average annual precipitation for Madison.
Table 4-4. Design Storm Data, "Area 8" (South Central Wisconsin - Madison)
Rainfall Amount (in.)1
Duration:
SOmin
1 hr
2hr
6hr
12 hr
24 hr
2-month
0.46
0.58
0.71
0.93
1.08
1.24
6-month
0.67
0.86
1.05
1.37
1.59
1.82
1 -year
0.83
1.06
1.30
1.69
1.96
2.25
2-year
1.03
1.31
1.61
2.09
2.42
2.78
1 0-year
1.55
1.97
2.44
3.15
3.65
4.20
1. Source: Table 9 for Area 8; Huff and Angel 1992
4.6 Hydrology of the Site
The Downstream Defender® installed at the Madison Water Utility site was sized to treat flows
up to 3 cfs. The system includes an upstream diversion chamber with a bulkhead set at an
elevation to by-pass flows in excess of 3 cfs.
Peak flows from the project site under various precipitation conditions were calculated using XP
SWMM Runoff methodology. The peak flow results are shown on Table 4-5. The reported flows
are the runoff from the drainage area.
23
-------
Table 4-5. Peak Flow Calculations for Project Area Runoff
Peak Flow Calculations (cfs)
Duration
30 min
1 hr
2hr
6hr
12 hr
24 hr
2-month
0.82
0.77
0.59
0.39
0.28
0.21
6-month
1.84
1.63
1.21
0.82
0.48
0.34
1 -year
2.75
2.30
1.87
1.17
0.63
0.43
2-year
3.99
3.21
2.76
1.61
0.82
0.55
1 0-year
7.56
6.31
5.31
2.82
1.31
0.85
Note: Shaded results indicate flows greater than 3 cfs.
Based on the information provided by Hydro International, bypassing occurs when flows reach
3 cfs. The SWMM model was built to account for the Downstream Defender® treating 3 cfs and
the rest of the flow going over the bulkhead. Table 4-6 shows the percentage of the flow
volume that bypasses the Downstream Defender® according to the modeling conducted.
Table 4-6. Percent Flow Volume Bypassed
Flow Volume Bypass Calculations1
Duration:
30 min
1 hr
2hr
6hr
12 hr
24 hr
2-month 6-month 1-year 2-year
6%
1%
__
__
__
~
1 0-year
31%
23%
11%
~
~
~
1. Information based on bypassing occurring at flows greater than 3 cfs.
24
-------
Chapter 5
Monitoring Plan
5.1 Selection of Sampling Locations
Flow and water quality will be monitored to determine the changes in water quality that occurs
due to treatment by the Downstream Defender®. The locations of the monitoring sites are
designated as A through E on Figure 3-6. Flow monitoring will occur at location B (inlet pipe to
Downstream Defender®); C (outlet pipe from Downstream Defender®) and D (outlet pipe from
flow splitter box). Flow measurement at site A was considered but rejected due to predicted
excessively turbulent flow conditions.
Water quality sampling will be conducted at locations B, C, and E. For sample site E, the
sample line will be placed on the upstream side of the bulkhead, about one inch below the top.
This location was selected to provide enough water covering the sampling tube to collect a
sample. A pressure transducer located in the flow diversion structure (upstream from the
bulkhead) will activate the sampler at E when the stage exceeds the sampler tube elevation.
When the sampler at E is activated, a flow weighted sample will be taken when the runoff
volume at D exceeds the volume at B by a pre-determined value. Every time this pre-
determined volume is exceeded during the course of an event, a sample will be taken at E. This
method will be evaluated during the initial sampling period and modified if necessary.
5.2 Pollutant Constituent Selection
The constituents to be analyzed as part of verification include:
• Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC)
• Total suspended solids (TSS)
• Particle Size Distribution
• Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)
• Temperature (measured by the auto sampler)
The Vendor's sediment removal claims are based on "Maine DOT road sand" and "F110 silica
sand" with a specific particle size distribution, specific gravity and concentration, (see Section
3.4.1) This verification test will not verify the Downstream Defender's® performance relative to
Maine DOT road sand. This test will verify the performance of the Downstream Defender®
relative to the stormwater sediment characteristics found at the test site.
Where applicable, the Verification Report will correlate the performance claims based on Maine
DOT road sand and F110 silica sand to the particle size distribution of sediment taken from the
influent, effluent and sump of the test unit.
5.3 Sampling Schedule
The monitoring effort will begin in September or October of 2005. A continuous-recording flow
gauging station will be installed to monitor discharge. Automatic samplers will collect water
quality samples (see below for details). Fifteen qualified runoff events with will be sampled. For
a rainfall event to be considered a qualified sampling event, the following conditions must be
met:
25
-------
• The total rainfall depth for the event, measured at the site, shall be 0.2 in. (5 mm) or
greater;
• Flow through the treatment device and bypass shall be successfully measured and
recorded over the duration of the runoff period;
• A flow-proportional composite sample shall be successfully collected for both the
influent and effluent over the duration of the runoff event; and a sample will be taken at
the outlet of the system if bypassing occurs.
• Each composite sample collected shall comprise of a minimum of five aliquots
including at least two aliquots in 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. The samplers will be programmed, based on a flow-weighted
measurement, to capture as many aliquots as possible throughout the event; and
• There shall be a minimum of six hours between qualified sampling events. That is,
there shall be a minimum of six hours between the termination of measured effluent
during one event and the start of measured influent to the stormwater technology
during the subsequent rainfall event.
The water quality and discharge data collected will be used to calculate mass loadings for the
various constituents going into and out of the Downstream Defender®. These mass loadings will
be used to calculate efficiencies of the Downstream Defender® at removing and retaining
sediment.
5.4 Water Quality Data Collection Methods
The USGS is the primary responsible party for collecting samples. Monitoring flow and water
quality will be conducted using completely automated techniques to minimize labor and errors
inherent in manual sampling techniques. Flow will be monitored on a continuous basis, and
samples for water quality analysis will be collected during runoff events.
During the initial period of monitoring (or "shake down period"), the equipment will be checked
for proper functioning and sampling. It is very likely that the first several events will not be
acceptable as "qualifying" events because of equipment adjustments. Also during this period,
the sampler intake lines will be inspected by USGS to make sure they are not inundated with
sediment or other debris.
Also, prior to the monitoring period, the storm sewer system the flow splitting box, and the
Downstream Defender® will be inspected and sediment, oils, floatables and other gross
pollutants will be cleaned out.
5.4.1 Monitoring Equipment
A monitoring system will be installed to monitor temperature and flow and collect water quality
samples automatically during runoff events. The monitoring system will be designed to monitor
locations as described in Section 5.1. Figure 5-1 shows a schematic layout of a generic
monitoring station. The following equipment will be used:
• One Campbell Scientific CR10X datalogger-serves as the station controller;
• One Campbell Scientific COM200 modem and telephone for external communications;
• Three ISCO 2150 flow meters;
• Three ISCO 3700 refrigerated automatic water-quality samplers each equipped with:
26
-------
Four 10-L sample collection bottles;
Peristaltic pump; and,
- Teflon™ lined sample collection tubing.
One Design Analysis H-310 Pressure Transducer and Temperature Probe
One Design Analysis H340SPI tipping bucket rain gauge. SDI-12 output
^USGS
Datalogger - controls
station functions,
triggers samples and
stores stream level,
water temperature, rain
gauge and sampler data
science for a changing world
Tipping bucket
trigger sampler
Modem for remote
access to data
Storage Module -
data backup
system
Refrigerated Automatic
Water-Quality Sampler
possible configurations
24 1-liter bottles
8 2-liter glass bottles
4 10-liter glass bottles
12 Volt Battery
Velocity Meter
Monitoring Station Schematic
Figure 5-1. Schematic diagram of monitoring station instrumentation.
5.4.2 Placement of Sample Intake Line
Location of the intake line for sampling points B and C (Figure 3-6) is critical in order to obtain a
representative sample of the stormwater. The sampling intake tube is located about one inch
above the invert of the pipe. The location of the intake line at E is described in Section 5.1.
5.4.3 Number of Aliquots Per Event
Automatic samplers can be programmed to collect samples based on time, stream stage or
flow. For this project, samples will be collected based on flow. Sample frequency increases or
decreases to reflect the magnitude of flow. Sampling frequency will be a maximum at peak flow
increasing the likelihood of collecting samples at or near this time. Sampling with respect to flow
27
-------
allows for compositing sub-samples throughout the hydrograph (Figure 5-2). This compositing
allows for the calculation of a single flow-weighted average concentration for each event.
3000-
CO
2500-
2000-
1500-
1000-
500-
O Flow composite subsample
12:00 PM Jun7, 93
02:00 PM Jun 7, 93
04:00 PM Jun 7, 93
06:00 PM Jun 7, 93
Figure 5-2. Example of aliquot distribution over a hydrograph.
The number of aliquots per event will depend on the volume of each individual event. The
monitoring station will be programmed to collect a sub-sample for a predefined volume of flow.
Larger volume events will collect a larger number of sub-samples than smaller volume events.
The volume between sub-samples will be determined such that a minimum of five one-liter
aliquots will be collected for each event. Also, five liters is the minimum volume of sample
required to meet the volume requirements for laboratory analysis of the parameter list. The auto
sampler has the capacity to collect a maximum of 40 one-liter aliquots.
A large volume of sample is required to conduct particle size distribution analyses. When ten
liters or more of sample are collected, the sample will be analyzed for particle size distribution
analysis. This will likely occur only during large storm events.
5.4.4 Estimated Total Number of Samples
Based on the proposed sampling schedule, an estimated total of 50 samples will be analyzed
for the sediment constituent. This includes one inlet and one outlet sample for each of the 15
storm events, one system outlet sample for 7 storm events (estimated) when bypassing occurs,
plus seven replicate samples and six blank samples.
Sediment samples will be taken two (2) times over the course of monitoring program from the
sump of the Downstream Defender®:
1. During the Fall 2005 season prior to initial clean-out,
2. At the end of the Winter 2005-2006 season, and
3. At the end of the Spring 2006 season.
28
-------
The samples will be analyzed for specific gravity, particle size distribution and volatile solids
fraction. The final sump cleanout and analysis is described in Section 5.8.
5.4.5 Sample Handling
Water samples will be collected with automatic samplers. A peristaltic pump on the sampler will
pump water from the sampling location through Teflon™ lined sample tubing to the pump head
where the water will pass through about three feet of silicone tubing and deposited in one of four
10-L sample collection bottles. Samples will be capped and removed from the sampler after the
event by USGS personnel. The samples will be transported to the USGS field office in Madison,
Wisconsin where they will be split into multiple bottles for analysis using a 20-L Teflon™-lined
Churn Splitter. All bottles will be rinsed with sample water, filled, capped and then chilled. Water
chemistry samples will be delivered by hand in iced coolers to the WSLH.
5.4.6 Sampler Maintenance
The sampler will be checked to ensure that it is functioning properly after each event. The
volume per aliquot will be evaluated. Sample bottles will be cleaned after each sampling event
as outlined in the QA/QC section.
5.4.7 Field Sheets
A field sheet will be filled out during each site visit for documentation of the field monitoring
activities. All activities during the site visit will be recorded. Field sheets (sample retrieval log
sheets) will be filled out each time that samples are collected after an event.
5.5 Flow Measurement Methods
Accurate measurement of water level and subsequent calculation of flow will depend on the
physical characteristics of the inlet and outlet monitoring sites. The standardized methods
employed by the USGS in water-quality sampling and flow monitoring will allow for reliably
consistent data for each site.
The site will have an electronic datalogger programmed to initiate water level and precipitation
measurements. To track the rapidly changing flows the datalogger will be programmed to take
measurements every 60 seconds.
5.5.1 Monitoring Equipment
A monitoring system will be installed at each water quality sampling site to collect velocity data
also. The following equipment will be used:
• One pressure transducer measures water levels at the bulkhead to determine if bypass
has occurred.
• One velocity meter at the inlet and outlet of the system. The velocity meter is about one
foot upstream from the sample intake line.
5.5.2 Flow Measurement Calibration
29
-------
Calibration techniques include utilization of dye/dilution, an area/velocity meter, or volumetric
measurements. The area-velocity measurements will be verified by either dye/dilution or
volumetric measurements. The water level measurement will be checked with manual
measurements.
5.5.3 Flow Equipment Maintenance
The velocity meter will be inspected visually and debris will be removed when necessary. The
amount of debris removal required will be documented in the operation and maintenance (O&M)
portion of the verification report. This will also be documented in the O&M portion of the
verification report.
5.6 Automated Data Recording
Continuous monitoring data will be recorded using the internal memory of the datalogger and a
backup storage module. In the event of a datalogger failure, the storage module contains
nonvolatile memory to minimize loss of data. Data from the past day will be transferred each
morning during dry conditions and every six hours during event periods via modem to a USGS
computer and uploaded into a USGS database as described in the "Data Management and
Accessibility" section.
5.7 Precipitation Measurement
Rainfall will be measured with a tipping bucket rain gage and recorded by the datalogger.
Rainfall data is recorded every 60 seconds. To insure that the rain gage is functioning properly,
it will be calibrated with a volumetric rain calibrator at the beginning and the end of the
monitoring period. Also, the total rain depths will be checked after each event by comparing to
nearby rainfall data from USGS and/or other weather service sites.
5.8 Additional Monitoring
At the end of the monitoring period, the Downstream Defender® sump will be cleaned out and
estimates of the amount of material retained in the will be made. The material will be removed
from the sump and dried. The dry material will be weighed. Where feasible particle size
analysis, specific gravity of the captured sediment and volatile solids fraction will be determined.
30
-------
Chapter 6
Quality Assurance Project Plan
6.1 General Requirements
This quality assurance project plan (QAPP) specifies the procedures that will be followed to
ensure the validity of test data and their use as the basis for equipment performance
verification. This protocol establishes minimum requirements for the collection and analysis of
certain QA/QC samples. This QAPP addresses the activities of Earth Tech, USGS and WSLH in
verification testing.
The objective of QA/QC is to ensure that strict methods and procedures are followed during
sampling and analysis so that the data obtained are valid for use in the verification of a
technology. In addition, QA/QC ensures that the conditions under which data is obtained, will be
properly recorded so as to be directly linked to the data. This information may be needed should
a question arise as to the data validity.
6.2 Data Quality Indicators
Several Data Quality Indicators (DQIs) have been identified as key factors in assessing the
quality of data and in supporting the verification process. These indicators include:
• Precision
• Accuracy
• Representativeness
• Comparability
• Completeness
Each DQI is described below and the goals for each DQI are specified. Performance
measurements will be verified using statistical analysis of the data for the quantitative DQI's of
precision and accuracy. If any QA objective is not met during the tests, an investigation of the
causes will be initiated. Corrective action will be taken as needed to resolve the difficulties. Data
failing to meet any of the QA objectives will be flagged in the verification report, and a full
discussion of the issues impacting the QA objectives will be presented.
6.2.1 Precision
Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurement and
provides an estimate of random error. Analytical precision is a measurement of how far an
individual measurement may deviate from a mean of replicate measurements. Precision is
evaluated from analysis of field and laboratory duplicates and spiked duplicates. The standard
deviation (SD), relative standard deviation (RSD), relative percent difference (RPD), or range
(absolute difference) methods used to quantify precision. Relative percent difference is
calculated by the following formula:
(\Xl- X2\]
%RPD = - x 100% ,K „
\ x ) (°-1)
where:
AII = Concentration of compound in sample
x_2 = Concentration of compound in duplicate
A; = Mean value of AH and Ai2
31
-------
Field duplicates will be collected of both influent and effluent samples. The field duplicates will
be collected a minimum of three times during the test. The laboratory will run duplicate samples
as part of the laboratory QA program. Duplicates are analyzed on a frequency of one duplicate
for every ten samples analyzed. The data quality objective for precision is based on the type of
analysis performed. Table 6-1 shows the laboratory precision that has been established for
each analytical method.
6.2.2 Accuracy
Accuracy is defined for water quality analyses as the difference between the measured value or
calculated sample value and the true value of the sample. Spiking a sample matrix with a known
amount of a constituent and measuring the recovery obtained in the analysis is a method of
determining accuracy. Using laboratory performance samples with a known concentration in a
specific matrix can also monitor the accuracy of an analytical method for measuring a
constituent in a given matrix. Accuracy is usually expressed as the percent recovery of a
compound from a sample. The following equation will be used to calculate Percent Recovery:
Percent Recovery = [(AT - Aj) / As] x 100% (6-2)
where:
AT = Total amount measured in the spiked sample
Aj = Amount measured in the un-spiked sample
As = Spiked amount added to the sample
During the verification test, the laboratory will run matrix spike samples at frequency of one
spiked sample for every 10 samples analyzed. The laboratory will also analyze liquid samples of
known concentration as lab control samples. The accuracy objectives by parameter or method
are shown in Table 6-1.
32
-------
Table 6-1. Accuracy and Precision Objectives
~^. . Precision Accuracy
Constituent ._, .. ._, *
(Percent) (Percent)
TSS 30 75-1253
VSS 30 75-1253
SSC ND ND
1 Laboratory-Based Precision. Note: Laboratory precision may also be
evaluated based on absolute difference between duplicate
measurements when concentrations are low. For data quality
objective purposes, the absolute difference may not be larger than
twice the method detection limit.
2 Laboratory Based Accuracy
3 Based on recovery of quality control sample
ND not determined
6.2.3 Comparability
Comparability will be achieved by using consistent and standardized sampling and analytical
methods. All analyses will be performed using EPA or other published methods as listed in the
analytical section. Any deviations from these methods will be fully described and reported as
part of the QA report for the data. Comparability will also be achieved by using National Institute
of Standards (NIST) traceable standards including the use of traceable measuring devices for
volume and weight. All standards used in the analytical testing will be traceable to verified
standards through the purchase of verifiable standards, and maintaining a standards logbook for
all dilutions and preparation of working standards. Comparability will be monitored through
QA/QC audits and review of the test procedures used and the traceability of all reference
materials used in the laboratory.
6.2.4 Representativeness
Representativeness is the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a
characteristic population, parameter at a sampling point, a process condition, or an
environmental condition. The test plan design calls for composite samples of influent and
effluent to be collected and then analyzed as flow-weighted composites. The sampling locations
for the samples are designed for easy access and are directly attached to the pipes that carry
the raw stormwater, or treated stormwater. This design will help ensure that a representative
sample of the flow is obtained in each composite sample bottle. The sample handling procedure
includes a thorough mixing of the composite container prior to pouring the samples into the
individual containers via means of a churn or cone splitter. The laboratory will follow set
procedures (in accordance with good laboratory practice) for thorough mixing of any samples
prior to sub-sampling in order to ensure that samples are homogenous and representative of the
whole sample.
The Downstream Defender® will be operated in a manner consistent with the supplied O&M
manual, so that the operating conditions will be representative of a normal installation and
operation for this equipment.
33
-------
Representativeness will be monitored through QA/QC audits (both field and laboratory),
including review of the laboratory procedures for sample handling and storage, review and
observation of the sample collection, and review of the operating logs maintained at the test
site. At least one field and one lab audit will be performed by the Verification Organization or
their representative
Obtaining representative samples for stormwater is fundamentally a difficult challenge, and
attention to details during sample collection, handling and analysis are required. Proper system
design, sampler selection, flow meter selection, location of inlet tube, mixing sample container
handling, and splitting will help maximize the representativeness of stormwater samples.
6.2.5 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 in the test plan.
Completeness will be calculated by the following equation:
Completeness =(V/T)xlOO% (6-3)
where:
V = number of valid measurements
T = total number of measurements planned in the test
The goal for this data quality objective will be to achieve minimum 85% completeness for
samples scheduled in the test plan.
6.3 Field Quality Assurance
Sampling procedures are defined in Chapter 5. The sampling schedule was developed to
provide a sample that is representative of the seasonal and meteorological conditions of the
site.
Efforts will be made to maintain high sampling efficiency by providing sampling personnel with
written procedures and training to assure the samples are properly collected, handled, and
transported to the lab.
Sampling and flow measurement equipment will be calibrated and maintained in accordance to
manufacturer's recommendations. Refer to Appendix D for sampler operation and maintenance
procedures and Appendix C for flow meter operation and maintenance procedures information.
All sampling equipment will be decontaminated prior to use. Decontamination procedures
consist of scrubbing the composite bottles with Liqui-Nox™ and rinsing with deionized water
prior to use. Bottles will then be rinsed with five percent hydrochloric acid solution followed by
three rinses of deionized water. Following sample collection, clean composite bottles will be
placed in the sampler, and the used bottles will be brought back to the USGS office for
decontamination.
34
-------
The sample bottles will be obtained from the sampler, placed in a cooler with ice, and shipped to
the appropriate laboratory for analysis. USGS will split the sample using a churn or cone splitter
into appropriate sample containers for its analyses. The samples will be maintained in the
custody of the sample collectors, delivered directly to the laboratory and relinquished to the
laboratory sample custodian(s). Custody will be 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 Appendix B) will be filled out and will accompany each
sample. Field forms will record date and time of sample collection, number of samples, and
personnel conducting the sample collection. Samples will not be left unattended unless placed
in a secure and sealed container with the field forms inside the container. When received by
WSLH, the field forms and sample bottles receive a bar code sticker, which identifies the
sample, date, time, and verifies receipt by the laboratory.
6.3.1 Field Blanks
Field blanks are necessary to evaluate whether contamination is introduced during field
sampling activities. A minimum of two rounds of field blanks will be conducted. Field blanks will
be collected before the initial runoff event, or at the earliest time possible by passing deionized
water through the samplers. The samples will be delivered to the laboratory as "blinds" with the
first sampling event samples. The second set of field blanks will be conducted at or near the
midpoint of the testing (between event numbers 7 and 8) by following the same procedure.
6.3.2 Duplicates
Field duplicates are used to assess variability attributable to collection handling, shipping,
storage and/or laboratory handling and analysis. Duplicates for composite sampling will be
obtained by splitting a composite sample of adequate volume into two separate samples.
A minimum of three rounds of field duplicates will be conducted. Two of the three rounds will
sample the inlet and outlet locations only. The other round of field duplicates will sample at all
three locations: inlet, outlet, and system outlet. Field duplicates will be obtained:
• During the initial runoff event, or at the earliest time possible;
• At or near the mid point of the testing (between event numbers 7 and 8 if adequate
volume is available);
• During one of the last three sampling events.
6.4 Equipment Maintenance and Calibration
The samplers, flow meters, and rain gauge will be calibrated, inspected and cleaned according
to the manufacturer's specifications. Refer to Appendix C for the flow meter operation and
maintenance manual and Appendix D for the sampler operation and maintenance manual.
6.5 Laboratory Quality Assurance
Comparability of the data is achieved by using standardized analytical techniques and reporting
the data in professionally accepted units for concentrations, flow, and loadings. For this study,
each lab will test the precision of the analyses and the precision will be expressed in terms of
35
-------
standard deviation calculated from replicate samples. The accuracy of the analyses used for
this study will be based on statistical analysis of spiked sample testing results.
Each laboratory has internal procedures in place to minimize the chances of laboratory
personnel mishandling samples resulting in loss of data.
All analyses will be performed at the WSLH, which is a full service environmental laboratory with
the following certifications:
• Water Microbiology. EPA certification # 105-000415.
• State Laboratory Certification (NR 149). The full list of certified constituents can be
found on the following web site: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/lc/
• National Laboratory Accreditation Program. The full list of certified constituents can be
found on the following web site: http://www.slh.wisc.edu/ehd/sections.html
• EPA Certification. The full list of certified constituents can be found on the following
web site: http://www.slh.wisc.edu/ehd/sections.html
The WSLH routinely participate in USGS and EPA quality assurance programs. All analyses will
be done using standard methods (APHA, 1995; EPA, 1983; EPA, 1991; EPA, 1995; Fishman,
M.J.; and others).
Analytical methodologies and detection limits for each constituent to be analyzed are
summarized in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Constituent List Limits of Detection and Analytical Methods
Parameter Units nLitmi*.Of n U?r °I- Method1
Detection Quantification
TSS mg/L 2 7 EPA 160.2
VSS mg/L 2 7 EPA 160.2
SSC - - - ASTM D3977-97 A&B
References:
1. Burton, Jr., GA and R.E. Pitt. 2002.
p .. . o- Stormwater Effects Handbook: A
b - - - Toolbox for Watershed Managers;
2. ASTM D3977-C
1 EPA, 1979, SM (Standard Methods), 1986, and SW(SW846, 1996)
6.6 Quality Control Procedures
Sources of variability and bias introduced by sample collection and stream flow measurement
affect the interpretation of concentration data and calculated constituent loads. The following are
quality-assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures that apply to the sampling of water
chemistry and to the measurement of stream flow and precipitation. Standard USGS QA/QC
methods and definitions for sample collection are published in Wide et al, 1999.
36
-------
6.6.1 Field Blanks
Any sampling or analytical source of contamination will be well documented and minimized
using field and laboratory blank samples on a regular basis. A total of two field blanks will be
collected at each site to evaluate contamination in the entire sampling process, which includes
all equipment (automatic sampler, sample-collection bottles, and splitters), filtering procedures,
and analytical procedures. "Milli-Q" reagent water will be pumped through the automatic
sampler and processed and analyzed in the same manner as event samples will be processed.
The first field blank will be collected at the initial storm. This will allow results at the earliest
possible time in the monitoring schedule to make adjustments if necessary. The next field blank
will be taken at the mid point of the sampling schedule (event 7 or 8).
6.6.2 Replicates
During the monitoring period, three replicate samples from the inlet and outlet monitoring points
and one replicate sample from the system outlet will be collected to evaluate precision in the
sampling process and analysis. The samples will be taken from the composite sample collected
at each site for each event and split into two separate samples. They will be processed,
delivered to the laboratory, and analyzed in the same manner as the regular samples. Variability
in results from a series of these replicates will give an indication of precision in the process. The
first replicate will be collected at the initial event. This will allow results at the earliest possible
time in the monitoring schedule to make adjustments if necessary. The next replicate will be
taken at the mid point of the sampling schedule (event 7 or 8).
6.6.3 Precipitation Measurement
The tipping bucket rain gauge will be calibrated for accuracy prior to field installation and at the
end of the project. Event rainfall depths will be compared to data from other nearby rainfall
gauges on a regular basis to insure proper rainfall measurement. Periodically the rain gauge will
be checked for debris and cleaned if necessary.
6.6.4 Flow Measurement
The methods used by the USGS have many inherent processes that ensure accuracy in flow
measurement. Comprehensive descriptions of USGS flow measurement techniques can be
found in Rantz and others (1982, vol. 1 and 2). For this project, ISCO 2150 area-velocity meters
are used to measure velocity and water level in the storm sewer at the three locations (inlet,
outlet, and system outlet). The water level will be measured manually and compared to values
recorded in the datalogger. Values in the datalogger will be adjusted when necessary.
6.7 Shipment to Laboratory
Samples are shipped in coolers with wet ice to keep transit temperatures between 0 and 4 °C.
Holding/transit time between sampling and analysis will not exceed published standards in
keeping with the certified laboratory's QA/QC requirements, and will generally be less than 24
hours. All preservation requirements are set by the certified laboratory's QA/QC requirements.
Date and time of sample collection and test setup and arrival temperature are recorded.
Appropriate field forms, logs, and sheets are completed on site at the time of sample collection.
All entries shall be written in waterproof ink, signed and dated. The analytical laboratory is the
ultimate destination and repository for samples. To assure that data produced from the analysis
37
-------
of such samples are scientifically defensible, it is incumbent on laboratory personnel to maintain
complete documentation of sample receipt and analytical processing until such time as a final
analytical report has been produced.
6.8 Sampling Equipment Cleaning Procedures
Sample collection and processing equipment, such as equipment and field collection bottles
used for collecting and processing water samples are glass bottles, soaked in phosphate-free
detergent solution, scrubbed with a bottle brush, rinsed with tap water, rinsed with deionized
water two times, rinsed with a five percent hydrochloric acid solution, rinsed with deionized
water three times, and air dried before use. This same procedure will be used to clean the
sample splitters between samples except that they will not be air dried.
Automatic samplers are run through a rinsing cycle before each sample is collected. The
sequence of events for each sampling cycle is as follows:
1. The sample tubing is purged;
2. The pump draws stream water into the sample tubing to a point just before the pump
head;
3. The sample tubing is purged again (at this point, the rinse cycle is complete); and,
4. The sub-sample is collected. See the procedures outlined in Section 6.6.1 for the QA of
the automatic sampler.
6.9 General QA/QC Documentation and Reviews
All QA/QC results will be tabulated to represent results. Where problems are identified, these
data will be highlighted.
QA samples will be reviewed when they are returned from the lab by the USGS and corrective
actions will be implemented immediately if results warrant changes to procedures. QA problems
and corrective actions will be summarized in progress reports and the verification report.
6.9.1 Quality Assurance Reports
Quality Assurance Reports will be included as part of the verification report. The Quality
Assurance Reports shall include findings, results, and any corrective measures conducted as
outlined in the QA/QC section. The reports will consist of QA/QC reports from the laboratories,
maintenance records, and written documentation maintained throughout the testing period.
The laboratory will report all results with all associated QC data. The results will include all
volume and weight measurements for the samples, field blank results, method blanks, spike and
spike duplicate results, results of standard check samples and special QC samples, and
appropriate calibration results. All work will be performed within the established QA/QC protocol
as outlined in the laboratory SOPs and the laboratory QA/QC Plan. Methods must be either
EPA approved methods or from Standard Methods, 20th edition. All QA/QC including accuracy,
precision, calibrations frequency and evaluation must meet the minimum EPA requirements.
Any deviations from the standard test procedures or difficulties encountered during the analyses
will be documented and reported with the data.
38
-------
6.9.2 Quality Assurance Assessments
At least one field audit will be conducted by the VO (NSF WQPC Manager, NSF QA/QC staff or
designee) during the test. The audit(s) will be to observe the sample collection procedures being
used, to observe operation of the unit, condition of the test site, and to review the field
logbook(s). A written report will be prepared by the auditor and submitted to the NSF QA/QC
Officer and the WQPC Manager. At least one lab audit will be performed by the VO to observe
sample receipt, handling, storage, and to confirm proper analytical methods, QA/QC procedures
and calibrations are being used.
The WSLH has assessment programs that include internal and external audits, quality reports to
management, and other internal checks are part of the system used to ensure that the QA/QC
procedures are being implemented and maintained. The assessment procedures will be part of
the QA/QC program, and will be followed during the time the analytical work is being performed
for the verification test.
Field related activities encountered by USGS during sampling trips that could require corrective
action should be noted and forwarded to the TO. This would include problems with sample
collection, labeling, and improper entries or missed entries in logbooks, or operational problems.
The primary person responsible for monitoring these activities will be Jim Bachhuber, with
external audits by NSF-designated staff. If a problem occurs, the problem will be noted in the
field logbook and the TO will notify NSF, and the vendor in the case of unit operating issues.
The problem, once identified, will be corrected. If a change in field protocol related to sample
collection or handling is needed, the change will be approved by the VO. All corrective action
will be thoroughly documented and discussed in the verification report.
The laboratories will take corrective action whenever:
• There is a non-conformance with sample receiving or handling procedures;
• The QA/QC data indicates any analysis is out of the established control limits;
• Audit findings indicate a problem has occurred; or
• Data reporting or calculations are determined to be incorrect.
The WSLH has a corrective action plan as part of the laboratory QA/QC Manual. These
procedures will be followed, including notifying the laboratory QA/QC Manager and the TO. All
corrective action will be thoroughly documented and reported to the TO. All data impacted by a
correction will be so noted and a discussion of the problem and corrective action will be included
with the data report.
All corrective actions, either in the field or in the laboratory, will be reported to the VO Project
Coordinator. The VO will review the cause of the problem and the corrective action taken by the
TO. The review will include consideration of the impact of the problem on the integrity of the
test, and a determination will be made if the test can continue or if additional action is needed.
Additional action could include adding additional days to the test period, re-starting the test at
day one, or other appropriate action as determined by the VO. The VO will respond, in writing,
to any notification of corrective action within twenty-four hours of being notified of the problem.
This response can be to continue the testing, cease testing until further notice, or other
appropriate communication regarding the problem.
39
-------
Chapter 7
Data Management and Accessibility
Stream flow data across the United States are currently being collected by the USGS for more
than 7,000 stations. More than 4,000 of these stations have telephone or satellite
communications for transmittal of data to USGS. All data from these monitoring stations is being
stored in the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database. NWIS also contains
historical stream flow or water quality data for more than 19,000 locations in the United States.
This is the primary database system used by the USGS, and is instrumental in the processing of
final data records. NWIS will be the primary repository for the physical (stream flow,
precipitation) and water quality data collected during this project.
7.1 Data Storage Systems
Continuous monitoring data (water level and precipitation) is initially stored in the internal
memory of the datalogger. A USGS computer retrieves the data via modem on a daily basis
during nonevent periods and every six hours during event periods. The data is uploaded directly
into NWIS at this time. Graphs of the past seven days of provisional data for these stations are
available to the public through the web. Examples of these graphs can be found at the following
website: http://wi.waterdata.usqs.qov/nwis/current?type=flow
Data from WSLH are downloaded automatically through the Internet using automated file
transfer programs. These data are then processed and entered into the NWIS database.
7.2 Data Corrections
Water level and precipitation data will be processed using field calibration and verification data.
Manual water level measurements will be compared to measurements recorded by the
datalogger. Corrections will be applied if needed. After water level corrections have been made,
final values for flow will be calculated using the established water level-flow relationship.
Rain gauge calibration measurements will be used to apply corrections to precipitation data.
The measured precipitation depths will be multiplied by a simple ratio between the true
calibration volume and the measured calibration volume to determine the final precipitation.
Water quality data will be used directly from values reported by the laboratories.
7.3 Accessibility
All original data will be stored in the NWIS database and will be available upon request. This
data will include constituent concentrations, storm flow volumes, event precipitation depth and
duration, and constituent loadings for all three monitoring sites.
40
-------
Chapter 8
Data Analysis and Reporting
8.1 Verification Report
Earth Tech will be responsible for producing the verification report. The report will follow the
format and requirements of the ETV program as described in this chapter. The USGS will
conduct the data analyses, including event mean concentrations, and loading calculations, from
the monitoring sites. These calculations will be forwarded to Earth Tech for incorporation into
the report. The verification report will initially be reviewed by NSF and EPA, and then forwarded
to Hydro International., for comment, before finalizing the document. The verification report will
include the following major sections:
• Introduction
• Executive Summary
• Description and Identification of Product Tested
• Procedures and Methods Used in Testing
• Results and Discussion
• References
• Appendices, including raw and analyzed test data.
8.2 Methods for Evaluating Source Technology
Completion of the monitoring will result in a comprehensive database documenting constituent
loadings, concentrations, and storm flow for each event at each of the two sites. This data will
be used in determining the effectiveness of the system. Results from the upstream site (Site 1),
and the downstream site (Site 2) will be compared to determine differences in loading to the
receiving storm sewer. The effectiveness will be analyzed based on the approaches described
below.
8.2.1 Efficiency Ratio
The first method is an efficiency ratio (ER) based on the average event-mean concentrations
(EMCs). The average of the outlet concentrations is compared to the inlet concentrations. The
EMC for the monitoring period will be based on the flow weighted EMC's for each event.
ER = 100 x (1 -(outlet EMC)/(inlet EMC)) (8-1)
8.2.2 Sum of Loads
The second method is called the sum of loads (SOL). The pollutant removal efficiency of the
source area device is based on comparing the sum of the treated and total (treated plus bypass)
outlet loads to the sum of the inlet loads. The SOL analysis will be conducted for the parameter
list; plus a calculation of the particles above and below the sand/silt split (62.5 urn).
SOL = 100 x (l-(sum of the outlet loads)/(sum of the inlet loads)) (8-2)
The locations of the flow and water quality sampling tubes were selected to calculate loads
relevant to the sum of loads calculations (refer to Figure 3-6):
41
-------
The Downstream Defender® inlet load will be calculated using the following equation:
SOL = (event volume at B) x (EMC at B) (8-3)
The Downstream Defender® outlet load will be calculated using the following equation:
SOL = (event volume at C) x (EMC at C) (8-4)
The bypass load not treated by Downstream Defender® will be calculated using the following
equation:
SOL = ((event volume at D) - (event volume at B)) x (EMC at E) (8-5)
8.3 Results of QA/QC Analysis
The results from the field and laboratory duplicates will be summarized and presented in
summary tables in the report. Laboratory data for accuracy (spiked sample and control sample
results) will be summarized and presented in the report as well. All individual analytical precision
and accuracy results from the qualified events will be included with the raw data in the appendix
of report.
Any corrective actions required during sample collection and any analyses not meeting the data
quality objectives (Table 6.2) will be discussed in narrative form in the report. Analytical data not
meeting the QC objectives will be flagged and discussed in the QC section of the final report.
This discussion will address any impact these flagged data set(s) may have on the overall
results for event mean concentration and the sum of the load calculations.
8.4 Presentation of Results
The verification report will include at least the following tables:
8.4.1 Event Mean Concentration
The EMC data will be reported as shown in Table 8-1, and will be completed for each monitored
constituent.
42
-------
Table 8-1. Example of Data Summary - Event Mean Concentration
Fvpnt
Start End RaSl
Event Date/ Date/ * *
T. T. Depth
Time Time ...
(in i
V"-l
Event
1
Event
2
Event
3
Event
4
Event
5.. .15
Maximum
Hourly
Rainfall
Intensity
(in./hr)
Runoff Runoff EMC: Constituent 1 EMC: Constituent 2
Volume Volume (mg/l unless (mg/l unless
Through Bypassing otherwise noted) otherwise noted)
Device (ft3) Device (ft3) inlet Outlet Inlet Outlet
8.4.2 Sum of Loads
The sum of loads data will be reported as shown in Table 8-2 and will be completed for each
monitored constituent.
Table 8-2. Example of Data Summary - Sum of Loads
Event
Inlet Load
Outlet Load
1
2
3
4
5- 15
Total
Load Reduction
Efficiency (Percent)1
Sum of Events Sum of Events
1. Load Reduction Efficiency = 100 * [1-(Sum(OLi...i5)/Sum (ILi...i5))]
8.4.3 Particle Size Distribution
The results of this analysis should be presented by "percent of total particle mass" by particle
size categories. As an example, the Milwaukee NURP Volume I Report (Bannerman et al, 1984)
uses the following particle size categories:
• < 0.025 mm
• 0.025 to 0.038 mm
• 0.0380 to 0.063 mm
• 0.0630 to 0.125 mm
• 0.125 to 0.250 mm
• > 0.250 mm
43
-------
The particle size distribution will be reported as shown in Table 8-3.
Table 8-3. Example of Particle Size Distribution Results
Particle Raw Stormwater (Site 1) Treated Stormwater (Site 2)
Size Mean Std. Max. Min. Mean Std. Max. Min.
(Mm) (%) Dev. (%) (%) (%) Dev.
Sediment in Downstream
Particle Defender® Sump (Site 3)
Size Mean Std. Max. Min.
(Mm) (%) Dev.
8.4.4 Rainfall Data
The verification report will include rainfall hyetographs for each measured rainfall during the
monitoring period. The hyetographs shall show rainfall amounts for the minimum increment of
time recorded by the gauge and a cumulative rainfall curve.
8.4.5 Flow Data
For each qualified sampling event, a runoff hydrograph (flow [cfs] vs. time) shall be developed
using the flow data collected at either the inlet and/or the outlet of the treatment technology over
the duration of the sampling event. In addition to the flow, the hydrograph shall show the starting
and ending point of the rainfall event, and the points at which water quality sample collection
started and ended.
Flow data from one monitoring location (either inlet or outlet) will be used to represent each
storm. This flow data will also be used for calculating all of the pollutant loads (inlet and outlet)
for each storm. The selection of which data to use (inlet or outlet) will be based on the review of
the flow records to determine which monitoring location provides the best overall data for a
given event.
8.4.6 Verification Statement
NSF and EPA shall prepare a verification statement that briefly summarizes the verification
report for issuance to the vendor. The verification statement shall provide a brief description of
the testing conducted and a synopsis of the performance results. The statement is intended to
provide verified vendors a tool by which to promote the strengths and benefits of their product.
44
-------
8.4.7 Appendices
At a minimum, the verification report appendices will include:
• Downstream Defender® Test Plan and Appendices
• Raw data in a tabulated (spreadsheet) format
• QA/QC reports, along with corrective actions, if any
• Downstream Defender® O&M Manual
45
-------
Chapter 9
Field Safety and Security
9.1 Confined Space Entry Protocol
All personnel that will be entering a confined space situation for this project will be required to
be certified in confined space entry protocol and will be required to follow this protocol as
defined by the American National Standards Institute.
9.2 Field First Aid Equipment
All vehicles used to service the monitoring site will be equipped with USGS-approved first aid
kits.
9.3 Protection Against Vandalism
Monitoring sites in an urban setting are at risk from vandalism. All equipment will be secured
with heavy-duty lock systems to avoid equipment damage from vandalism. The outside of all
structures will be washed of aesthetic vandalism in a prompt manner.
9.4 Notification Process in Case of Injury
Project personnel will carry health service cards and information sufficient for notification of a
family member or friend and the USGS project manager in case of injury.
9.5 Site Access
The USGS and WDNR will develop a site access protocol with owner/operator of the site
parking lot. The protocol will specify access points, parking space, notification procedures, and
other logistics relative to the field monitoring activities.
46
-------
References
1. APHA, AWWA, and WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1998. Washington, D.C.
2. Huff, F. A., Angel, J. R. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the Midwest, Midwestern Climate
Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Illinois State Water
Survey, Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources. Bulletin 71, 1992.
3. 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.
4. NSF International. ETV Verification Protocol Stormwater Source Area Treatment
Technologies (v. 4.1). U.S. EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program;
EPA/NSF Wet-Weather Flow Technologies Pilot. March 2002. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
5. NSF International. ETV Water Quality Protection Center Quality Management Plan,
2003. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
6. Personal Communications: Lisa Glennon; Hydro International; Portland, ME. (several
communications in January through July, 2005)
7. Rantz, S. E. et. al. Measurement and Computation of Streamflow, USGS Water Supply
Paper 2175, 1982. Washington, D.C.
8. United States Environmental Protection Agency: Environmental Technology Verification
Program - Quality and Management Plan (1995 - 2000), USEPA/600/R-03/021, 2002.
Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio.
9. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methods and Guidance for Analysis of
Water, EPA 821-C-99-008, 1999. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
10. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes, Revised March 1983, EPA 600/4-79-020. Washington, D.C.
11. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods 3rd ed - 4 vols., November 1986, Final Update MB
and Proposed Update III, January 1995. Washington, D.C.
12. United States Environmental Protection Agency: USEPA Guidance for Quality
Assurance Project Plans, USEPA QA/G-5, USEPA/600/R-98-018, 1998. Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
13. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for the Data Quality
Objectives Process, USEPA QA/G-4, USEPA/600/R-96-055, 1996. Office of Research
and Development, Washington D.C.
47
-------
14. Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., eds., September 1999,
Collection of water samples: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations, book 9, chap. A4, accessed 9/1/05 at http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A4/
48
-------
Glossary
Accuracy - a measure of the closeness of an individual measurement or the average of a
number of measurements to the true value and includes random error and systematic error.
Bias - the systematic or persistent distortion of a measurement process that causes errors in
one direction.
Comparability - a qualitative term that expresses confidence that two data sets can contribute
to a common analysis and interpolation.
Completeness - a quantitative term that expresses confidence that all necessary data have
been included.
Precision - a measure of the agreement between replicate measurements of the same property
made under similar conditions.
Protocol - a written document that clearly states the objectives, goals, scope and procedures
for the study. A protocol shall be used for reference during Vendor participation in the
verification testing program.
Quality Assurance Project Plan - a written document that describes the implementation of
quality assurance and quality control activities during the life cycle of the project.
Residuals - the waste streams, excluding final effluent, which are retained by or discharged
from the technology.
Representativeness - a measure of the degree to which data accurately and precisely
represent a characteristic of a population parameter at a sampling point, a process condition, or
environmental condition.
Source Control Technology - pollution control devices that treat stormwater pollution before
the stormwater enters a public conveyance system.
Stakeholder Advisory Group - a group of individuals consisting of any or all of the following:
buyers and users of in drain removal and other technologies, developers and Vendors,
consulting engineers, the finance and export communities, and permit writers and regulators.
Standard Operating Procedure - a written document containing specific procedures and
protocols to ensure that quality assurance requirements are maintained.
Technology Panel - a group of individuals with expertise and knowledge of stormwater
treatment technologies.
Testing Organization - an independent organization qualified by the Verification Organization
to conduct studies and testing of mercury amalgam removal technologies in accordance with
protocols and Test Plans.
Vendor - a business that assembles or sells treatment equipment.
49
-------
Verification - to establish evidence on the performance of in drain treatment technologies
under specific conditions, following a predetermined study protocol(s) and Test Plan(s).
Verification Organization - an organization qualified by USEPA to verify environmental
technologies and to issue Verification Statements and Verification Reports.
Verification Report - a written document containing all raw and analyzed data, all QA/QC data
sheets, descriptions of all collected data, a detailed description of all procedures and methods
used in the verification testing, and all QA/QC results. The Test Plan(s) shall be included as part
of this document.
Verification Statement - a document reviewed and approved and signed by EPA and NSF that
summarizes the Verification Report.
Verification Test Plan -A written document prepared to describe the procedures for
conducting a test or study according to the verification protocol requirements for the application
of in drain treatment technology. At a minimum, the Test Plan shall include detailed instructions
for sample and data collection, sample handling and preservation, precision, accuracy, goals,
and quality assurance and quality control requirements relevant to the technology and
application.
50
-------
Appendices
A Downstream Defender® Product Design Manual
B Example of Lab Field Sheet
C ISCO 2150 Area Velocity Flow Meter O&M Manual (Available from NSF International or
Earth Tech)
D ISCO 3700 Sampler O&M Manual (Available from NSF International or Earth Tech)
51
------- |