Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services–Seattle Intermodal Yard 635 South Edmunds Street Seattle, Washington King County
Site Operator: Northwest Container Services, Inc Permit Number: WAR-301360 Permit Type: Industrial Stormwater General Permit
Prepared by: PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. 415 W 6th Street, Suite 601 Vancouver, Washington 98660
May 11, 2018 PBS Project 17645.005
415 W 6 TH STREET, SUITE 601 VANCOUVER, WA 98660 3 60. 695. 3488 MAIN 866.727.0140 FAX PBSUSA.COM Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Industrial Stormwater General Permit S8.D.3.a References ...... iii General Information ...... iv 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 FACILITY ASSESSMENT ...... 2 2.1 Facility Description ...... 2 2.2 Surface Water Drainage ...... 2 3 TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION...... 4 3.1 Water Quality Characterization ...... 4 3.2 Hydrologic Analysis ...... 4 3.3 Treatment Alternatives ...... 5 3.3.1 Alternatives 1.A, 1.B, and 1.C ...... 5 3.3.2 Alternative 1.D ...... 6 3.3.3 Alternative 1.E ...... 6 3.3.4 Alternative 1.F ...... 7 3.3.5 Alternative 2.A ...... 7 3.3.6 Alternative 2.B ...... 7 3.3.7 Alternative 2.C ...... 8 3.4 Treatment Alternative Expected Performance ...... 8 3.5 Estimated Preliminary Cost Estimates ...... 12 4 PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS ...... 15 4.1 Selected Treatment BMP and Sizing Calculations ...... 15 4.2 Treatment Process and Operation ...... 15 4.3 Use of Chemicals in the Treatment Process ...... 16 4.4 Expected Treatment Performance...... 16 5 CERTIFICATION BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ...... 19
May 11, 2018 i PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
SUPPORTING DATA TABLES Table 1: Water Quality Characterization of Seattle Intermodal Yard Stormwater (Q3 2015 - Q2 2017) Table 2. Selected Design Flow Rates for Drainage Basin 1 and 2 Table 3. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.A Table 4. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.B Table 5. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.C Table 6. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.D Table 7. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.E Table 8. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.F Table 9. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 2 Alternative 2.A Table 10. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 2 Alternative 2.B Table 11. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 2 Alternative 2.C Table 12. Treatment Technology Estimated Preliminary Cost Estimates Table 13. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for the Proposed Drainage Basin 1 Treatment System Table 14. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for the Proposed Drainage Basin 2 Treatment System
FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Map: South Rail Strip Figure 3. Site Map: Main Yard Figure 4. Site Map: North Rail Strip North of Snoqualmie Figure 5. Site Map: North Rail Strip South of Industrial Way Figure 6. Plan View: Proposed Drainage Basin 1 Treatment System Figure 7. Plan View: Proposed Drainage Basin 2 Treatment System Figure 8. Flow Diagram: Proposed Drainage Basin 1 Treatment System Figure 9. Flow Diagram: Proposed Drainage Basin 2 Treatment System
APPENDICES Appendix A: Conceptual Designs for Drainage Basin 1 Alternatives Appendix B: Conceptual Designs for Drainage Basin 2 Alternatives Appendix C: Western Washington Hydrology Model Results Appendix D: Contech Provided Studies
©2018 PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc.
May 11, 2018 ii PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
Industrial Stormwater General Permit S8.D.3.a References
S8.D.3.a The Engineering Report must include: Report Section
i. Brief summary of the treatment alternatives considered and why the proposed option was Sections 3.3, 3.4, and selected. Include cost estimates of ongoing operation and maintenance, including disposal of 3.5 any spent media;
ii. The basic design data, including characterization of stormwater influent, and sizing Sections 3.1, 3.2, and calculations of the treatment units; 4.1
iii. A description of the treatment process and operation, including a flow diagram; Section 4.2
iv. The amount and kind of chemicals used in the treatment process, if any. Note: use of Section 4.3 stormwater treatment chemicals requires submittal of Request for Chemical Treatment Form;
v. Results to be expected from the treatment process including the predicted stormwater Sections 3.4 and 4.4 discharge characteristics;
vi. A statement, expressing sound engineering justification through the use of pilot plant data, results from similar installations, and/or scientific evidence that the proposed treatment is Section 4.4 and 5 reasonably expected to meet the permit benchmarks; and
vii. Certification by a licensed professional engineer. Section 5
May 11, 2018 iii PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
General Information
Name of Facility: Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard
Location of Facility: 635 South Edmunds Street Seattle, Washington 98108
Type of Facility: Intermodal Container Transfer Station Primary SIC Code 4013 (Railroad Switching and Terminal Establishments) Secondary SIC Code: 4731 (Arrangement of Transportation of Freight and Cargo) Primary NAICS 488210 (Support Activities for Rail Transportation) Secondary NAICS 488510 (Freight Transportation Arrangement)
Type of Permit: Industrial Stormwater – General Permit Permit Number: WAR-301360 County: King County
Site Area: 620,400 square feet (14.2 acres) Impervious Area: 620,400 square feet (14.2 acres)
Chief Official: Gary Cardwell Title: Division Vice President
Site Contact Name: Nate Beffert Site Contact Title: Rail Manager Telephone Number: 206.903.1985 Fax Number: 206.903.1986
May 11, 2018 iv PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
1 INTRODUCTION PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. (PBS) has prepared this engineering report to present the selection and design of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) at the Northwest Container Services—Seattle Intermodal Yard (Facility) in Seattle, Washington. The Facility is operated by Northwest Container Services, Inc. (NW Container). The Facility was issued an Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISGP or Permit) by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) on November 1, 2013, and was reissued the permit on December 31, 2014.
In 2016, the Facility triggered a Level 3 corrective action for turbidity per ISGP Section S8.D at sample location SP2. It also triggered a Level 2 corrective action for total copper and total zinc per ISGP Section S8.C at SP2; however, NW Container elected to install a Level 3 corrective action that would address turbidity as well as total copper and zinc in lieu of installing a Level 2 corrective action at SP2. NW Container requested and was granted a Level 3 extension from Ecology, meaning that the Level 3 corrective action must be installed and fully implemented at SP2 by September 30, 2018.
In 2017, the Facility triggered a Level 3 corrective action for total zinc per ISGP Section S8.D at sample location SP1. It also triggered a Level 2 corrective action for turbidity and total copper per ISGP Section S8.C at SP1; however, NW Container elected to install a Level 3 corrective action in lieu of a Level 2 corrective action at SP1 as well. Therefore, this engineering report was written to address stormwater treatment measures that will address all parameters of concern (turbidity, total copper, and total zinc) for both drainage basins (Basin 1 and Basin 2). This engineering report is consistent with the requirements set forth in S8.D.3.a of the Level 3 corrective action condition of the Permit.
May 11, 2018 1 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
2 FACILITY ASSESSMENT Included in this section is a summary of Facility operations as well as a description of the existing surface water drainage.
2.1 Facility Description The Facility is located at 635 South Edmunds Street (47o 33’ 37” N latitude; 122o 19’ 35” W longitude) in Seattle, Washington. Land use surrounding the Facility is predominately industrial, including a multi-track railyard and port facilities to the west. Figure 1 shows the general location of the Facility in relation to surrounding properties, transportation routes, surface waters, and other relevant features. The Facility is approximately 14.2 acres in size, all of which is impervious. Impervious surfaces at the Facility consist of pavement or building rooftops.
The Northwest Container Services—Seattle Intermodal Yard is a transfer station for intermodal containers. The Facility is open Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm and is operated by NW Container. Containers are transferred between trucks and trains and vice versa. A small number of containers are routinely stored at the site, including a stock of refrigerated containers (i.e., “reefers”).
The Facility operates forklifts and container reach stackers (i.e., “stackers”) for moving containers and transferring them between trucks and trains. The Facility consists of a main yard and a long strip of pavement alongside a double set of railroad tracks. The long strip of pavement is used by the stacker operators to transfer containers. The main yard is used to store containers, perform maintenance, store maintenance supplies, park vehicles, and to house an office building. A small entry gatehouse is located near the north end of the rail strip at the Industrial Way entrance and another one is located near the east entrance from Edmunds Street.
2.2 Surface Water Drainage The Seattle Intermodal Yard is divided into two stormwater drainage basins: Drainage Basin 1 and Drainage Basin 2. Stormwater that falls within Drainage Basin 1 enters the storm system through approximately 280 linear feet of trench drain from the south, catch basins serving the main operations yard, and 1,400 linear feet of trench drain from the north. Additionally, high groundwater beneath the south rail track may be collected in 800 linear feet of underdrain pipe, which ties into the Drainage Basin 1 stormwater system. Water collected in the main yard and south rail strip is detained in an underground detention gallery before being pumped north to a manhole near the southern end of the north rail strip. This manhole will be referred to as the collection manhole throughout this report. Stormwater from the north rail strip also drains into the collection manhole. From this point onward in the system, all stormwater flows by gravity. Stormwater flows through a series of manholes and discharges into a 60-inch diameter publicly owned stormwater main that crosses the property in an east to west direction, lining up approximately with South Snoqualmie Street. The discharge point from this basin is where the site drainage pipes tie into the 60-inch diameter public main. The sample point (Sample Point 1 or SP1) is a manhole located just south of the discharge point.
Stormwater that falls within Drainage Basin 2 is collected by approximately 780 feet of trench drain in the northernmost portion of the property. The stormwater collected by this segment of trench drain flows by gravity to the north and is discharged to an 84-inch diameter publicly owned stormwater main located beneath South Industrial Way. The public stormwater collection system flows from east to west. The sample point (Sample Point 2 or SP2) for this basin is the manhole located in the northeast corner of the driveway entrance to the property from South Industrial Way. The discharge point from this basin is where the site stormwater system ties into the public stormwater collection system under South Industrial Way.
May 11, 2018 2 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
Stormwater from the Facility flows through the public stormwater system to the west and ultimately discharges to the Duwamish Waterway at Outfall Number 001. This outfall is described as “Duwamish Waterway 47 33 37/122 20 40,” and is located at latitude 47.560278 and longitude -122.344444.
The current treatment BMPs used in Drainage Basin 1 are catch basin inserts, trench drains with zeolite-filled filters, and an oil/water separator (OWS). In Drainage Basin 2, BMPs are zeolite-filled filters deployed in trench drains. Figures 2 through 5 detail the general configuration of the existing stormwater system, catch basin and trench drain IDs, drainage basin boundaries, and location of the existing treatment BMPs. Figure 2 represents the south rail strip, Figure 3 represents the main yard, and Figures 4 and 5 depict the northern rail strip section of the property.
May 11, 2018 3 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
3 TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION This section presents the treatment alternatives evaluation for the Level 3 corrective action. Included in this section is a summary of the treatment alternatives considered and their corresponding capital and ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs as required in S8.D.3.a.i of the Permit. This section also presents the hydrologic analysis and water quality characterization used to size and select the treatment alternatives as required in S8.D.3.a.ii of the Permit.
3.1 Water Quality Characterization Stormwater samples have been collected from the Facility’s two sample points and analyzed for permit- required analytes from the first quarter of 2014 to present. However, since the third quarter of 2015 the Facility has received increased traffic due to higher freight volumes and the consolidation of operations from another NW Container facility that closed. These site changes detrimentally impacted water quality in both drainage basins. Stormwater samples from the third quarter of 2015 to present most closely reflect current conditions at the Facility. Table 1 presents average concentrations of the parameters analyzed as required by the Permit from the third quarter of 2015 to second quarter of 2018 for Drainage Basins 1 and 2.
Table 1: Water Quality Characterization of Seattle Intermodal Yard Stormwater (Q3 2015–Q2 2018) Drainage Total Copper Total Zinc Turbidity TSS (mg/L) Basin (µg/L) (µg/L) (NTU) 1 18.6 358.7 35.5 53.1
2 10.0 110.7 27.3 28.7 Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
3.2 Hydrologic Analysis The hydrologic analysis performed was in accordance with the criteria and guidelines set forth by the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). Section 4.1.2 of Volume 5 of the SWMMWW requires that stormwater treatment facilities are sized to treat at least 91 percent of the runoff volume as estimated by an approved continuous simulation hydrologic model. The Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM) is a continuous simulation hydrologic model developed and approved by Ecology and was used to size the stormwater treatment systems for the Facility. The WWHM used 60 years of precipitation data from the National Weather Service’s Seattle-Tacoma International Airport rain gauge station (KSEA) in King County, Washington. Precipitation data from this rain gauge was imported into the model to represent local historical rainfall.
The WWHM evaluates both pre- and post-development scenarios where changes in the contributing pervious and impervious areas from the predevelopment scenario are compared to the post development scenario. None of the treatment alternatives considered were expected to change the existing pervious and impervious conditions of the facility; therefore, the impervious and pervious contributing areas in pre- and post- development scenarios were the same.
The water quality analysis tool of the WWHM was used to estimate the design flow rate or water quality flow rate that corresponds to treating 91 percent of the runoff volume. The water quality analysis tool used the simulated precipitation data and a surface area characterization to estimate the water quality flow rate. Water quality flow rates are estimated for offline and online facilities. An offline facility is sized to receive and treat the water quality design flow rate to the applicable performance goal, and the higher incremental portion of flow rates are bypassed around the treatment facility. Online facilities are sized to convey flow rates in excess of the design flow rate provided that a net pollutant reduction is maintained. The WWHM-estimated online
May 11, 2018 4 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington and offline water quality flow rates for the two flow scenarios for Drainage Basin 1 and the sole flow scenario in Drainage Basin 2 are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Selected Design Flow Rates for Drainage Basin 1 and 2
Existing Offline Water Online Water Drainage Selected Design Alternative Pumped Flow Quality Flow Quality Flow Basin Flow Rate Rate (gpm) Rate (gpm) Rate (gpm)
Existing pumped 1.A, 1.B, and 1.C Basin 1 485 145 255 flow rate
Offline water 1.D, 1.E, and 1.F Basin 1 N/A 245 430 quality flow rate
Offline water 2.A, 2.B, and 2.C Basin 2 N/A 66 115 quality flow rate
Note: gpm = gallons per minute
The flows entering the treatment systems for Alternatives 1.A, 1.B, and 1.C in Drainage Basin 1 will be pumped and are not subject to variation; therefore, the fixed flow rate from the existing pump station was used to size these alternatives. The offline water quality flow rates were used to size Drainage Basin 1 Alternatives 1.D, 1.E, and 1.F and all Drainage Basin 2 alternatives because the bypassed flows will include peaks of large storm events that are not representative of typical stormwater discharges from the site. The WWHM output results are presented in Appendix C.
3.3 Treatment Alternatives A total of six alternatives were considered for Drainage Basin 1 and three alternatives were considered for Drainage Basin 2. For Drainage Basin 1, two different flow configurations were considered: treating a portion of the flow and treating the total flow. Alternatives 1.A, 1.B, and 1.C considered treating the portion of the Drainage Basin 1 stormwater flow that enters the pump station from the main yard and south rail strip (flow is generated from approximately 60 percent of the Drainage Basin 1 area). Alternatives 1.D, 1.E, and 1.F considered treating runoff generated throughout all of Drainage Basin 1. For Drainage Basin 2, Alternatives 2.A, 2.B, and 2.C considered treating runoff generated throughout all of Drainage Basin 2. A summary of each alternative is included below. Appendix A includes conceptual designs for the proposed treatment alternatives in Drainage Basin 1 and Appendix B includes conceptual designs for the proposed treatment alternatives in Drainage Basin 2.
3.3.1 Alternatives 1.A, 1.B, and 1.C Alternatives 1.A, 1.B, and 1.C included treatment of a portion of site stormwater that falls on the main yard and south rail strip, approximately 60 percent of Drainage Basin 1 flow. The goal of these alternatives was to utilize existing pump infrastructure and avoid the need to install a new pump station. Treated stormwater would be comingled with untreated stormwater from the north rail strip, approximately 40 percent of Drainage Basin 1 flow, at the collection manhole, and comingled stormwater would be discharged to the municipal storm system. The treatment system was sized based on the fixed flow rate from the existing pump station: 485 gallons per minute (gpm). The water quality flow rate corresponding to 60 percent of the Drainage Basin 1 area was not used as it was decided that the existing pump station would be reused.
Three technologies were evaluated to treat stormwater under these alternatives:
May 11, 2018 5 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
• Alternative 1A: Contech CDS hydrodynamic separators followed by two-stage StormFilter cartridge treatment. • Alternative 1B: Chemical precipitation and rapid sand filtration in a media bed. • Alternative 1C: Chitosan enhanced sand filtration (CESF) system using pressure sand filters.
Available performance data for these treatment systems was evaluated (see Section 3.4). It was determined early in the evaluation that only treating a portion of the Drainage Basin 1 stormwater flow and comingling that with the remainder of untreated stormwater would not provide enough treatment. That is, comingled stormwater was not projected to meet the statewide benchmark for zinc given the achievable removal of the treatment technologies considered. Therefore, cost estimates were not developed for these alternatives.
3.3.2 Alternative 1.D Alternative 1.D included treatment of all of the Drainage Basin 1 flow. Treated stormwater would then be discharged to the municipal storm system. The treatment system was sized based on the offline water quality flow rate of 245 gpm.
Stormwater would be collected in a centralized pump station and pumped to a subgrade treatment train. Stormwater would be pumped to a Contech Vortechs 1000 hydrodynamic separator for pretreatment followed by a two-stage Contech StormFilter cartridge treatment system in subgrade vaults. Due to the stormwater contaminants loading, it was determined that two 8-foot by 11-foot Contech StormFilter vaults would be needed, and each vault would be fitted with 22 27-inch tall media cartridges. At Contech’s recommendation, the cartridges in the first vault would be filled with ZPG media, and the cartridges in the second vault would be filled with zeolite media.
Site work would include installing a centrally located pump station with a gravity overflow to the new sampling manhole, routing the pumped flow to the treatment system location, installing the pretreatment and treatment systems, installing a new gravity flow pipe from the treatment system to the new sampling manhole, and connecting the new sampling manhole to the municipal storm system. This would include pavement sawcutting and removal; trenching; excavation for and installation of the pipes, manholes, pretreatment system, and treatment system vaults; electrical supply and controls for the pumps; and repaving. Preliminary costs were developed for this alternative and can be found in Section 3.5.
3.3.3 Alternative 1.E Alternative 1.E included treatment of all of the Drainage Basin 1 flow. Treated stormwater would then be discharged to the municipal storm system. The treatment system was sized based on the offline water quality flow rate of 245 gpm.
Stormwater would be collected in a centralized pump station and pumped to an aboveground treatment system. Stormwater would be chemically treated with a coagulant and flocculant then discharged to four 8- foot by 20-foot by 8-foot tall aboveground settling tanks. Following settling, stormwater would overflow into two 8-foot by 20-foot by 8-foot tall aboveground sand filters.
Site work would include installing a centrally located pump station with a gravity overflow to the new sampling manhole, routing the pumped flow to the treatment system location, installing the treatment system, installing a new gravity flow pipe from the treatment system to the new sampling manhole, and connecting the new sampling manhole to the municipal storm system. This would include pavement sawcutting and removal, trenching, excavation and installation of the pipes and manholes, electrical supply
May 11, 2018 6 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington and controls for the pumps, installation of the aboveground treatment system, and repaving. Preliminary costs were developed for this alternative and can be found in Section 3.5.
3.3.4 Alternative 1.F Alternative 1.F included treatment of all of the Drainage Basin 1 flow. Treated stormwater would then be discharged to the municipal storm system. The treatment system was sized based on the offline water quality flow rate of 245 gpm.
Stormwater would be collected in a centralized pump station and pumped to an aboveground stormwater surge tank. From the surge tank, stormwater would be pumped at a continuous flow rate to an aboveground CESF treatment system with a maximum flow capacity of 300 gpm.
Site work would include installing a centrally located pump station with a gravity overflow to the new sampling manhole, routing the pumped flow to the new surge tank location, installing the aboveground treatment system, installing a new gravity flow pipe from the treatment system to the new sampling manhole, and connecting the new sampling manhole to the municipal storm system. This would include pavement sawcutting and removal, trenching, excavation and installation of the manholes, electrical supply and controls for the pumps and treatment system, installation of the treatment system, and repaving. Preliminary costs were developed for this alternative and can be found in Section 3.5.
3.3.5 Alternative 2.A Alternative 2.A included treatment of all of the Drainage Basin 2 flow. Treated stormwater would then be discharged to the municipal storm system. The treatment system was sized based on the offline water quality flow rate of 66 gpm.
Stormwater would be collected in a centralized pump station and pumped to a subgrade treatment train. Stormwater would be pumped to a Contech Vortechs 1000 hydrodynamic separator for pretreatment followed by a Contech StormFilter cartridge treatment system in a subgrade vault. Due to the stormwater contaminants loading, it was determined that one 8-foot by 6-foot Contech StormFilter vault would be needed, and the vault would be fitted with six 27-inch tall zeolite filled cartridges.
Site work would include installing a centrally located pump station with a gravity overflow to the existing sampling manhole, routing the pumped flow to the treatment system location, installing the pretreatment and treatment systems, and installing a new gravity flow pipe from the treatment system to the existing sampling manhole. This would include pavement sawcutting and removal; trenching; excavation for and installation of the pipes, manholes, pretreatment system, and treatment system vaults; electrical supply and controls for the pumps; and repaving. Preliminary costs were developed for this alternative and can be found in Section 3.5.
3.3.6 Alternative 2.B Alternative 2.B included treatment of all of the Drainage Basin 2 flow. Treated stormwater would then be discharged to the municipal storm system. The treatment system was sized based on the offline water quality flow rate of 66 gpm.
Stormwater would be collected in a centralized pump station and pumped to an aboveground treatment system. Stormwater would be chemically treated with a coagulant and flocculant prior to discharging to two 8-foot by 20-foot by 8-foot tall aboveground settling tanks. Following settling, stormwater would overflow into two 8-foot by 20-foot by 8-foot tall aboveground sand filters.
May 11, 2018 7 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
Site work would include installing a centrally located pump station with a gravity overflow to the existing sampling manhole, routing the pumped flow to the treatment system location, installing the treatment system, and installing a new gravity flow pipe from the treatment system to the existing sampling manhole. This would include pavement sawcutting and removal; trenching, excavation, and installation of the pipes and manholes; installation of the treatment system; electrical supply and controls for the pumps; and repaving. Preliminary costs were developed for this alternative and can be found in Section 3.5.
3.3.7 Alternative 2.C Alternative 2.C included treatment of all of the Drainage Basin 2 flow. Treated stormwater would then be discharged to the municipal storm system. The treatment system was sized based on the offline water quality flow rate of 66 gpm.
Stormwater would be collected in a centralized pump station and pumped to an aboveground stormwater surge tank. From the surge tank, stormwater would be pumped at a continuous flow rate to an aboveground CESF treatment system with a maximum flow capacity of 100 gpm.
Site work would include installing a centrally located pump station with a gravity overflow to the existing sampling manhole, routing the pumped flow to the new surge tank location, installing the treatment system, and installing a new gravity flow pipe from the treatment system to the existing sampling manhole. This would include pavement sawcutting and removal; trenching, excavation, and installation of the pipes and manholes; installation of the treatment system; electrical supply and controls for the pumps and treatment system; and repaving. Preliminary costs were developed for this alternative and can be found in Section 3.5.
3.4 Treatment Alternative Expected Performance The treatment technologies selected for Drainage Basins 1 and 2 have either been assessed for performance through the Technology Assessment Protocol—Ecology (TAPE) program or have been implemented at similar industrial facilities and are successfully meeting ISGP benchmarks. The TAPE program provides a peer- reviewed certification process for emerging stormwater treatment technologies. As part of the TAPE certification process, laboratory and field tests are performed on these technologies and the findings from these experiments are made available to the public. Findings are evaluated to determine the technology’s ability to meet treatment performance goals outlined in Volume 5 of the SWMMWW.
Ecology will certify a treatment technology for Pilot Use Level Designation (PULD) if it successfully meets one or more performance goals during laboratory tests and Conditional Use Level Designation (CULD) if it meets one or more performance goals during both laboratory and field tests. Once a technology receives a PULD and CULD, Ecology allows the technology to be installed and operated in the state of Washington where the technology can receive a final General Use Level Designation (GULD) certification based on performance data of the full-scale system in operation. A summary of the designations Ecology has provided for the technologies considered are listed below: • GULD for Contech CDS and Vortechs systems as pretreatment for total suspended solids (TSS). • GULD for Contech StormFilter using ZPG Media as basic treatment for TSS. • GULD for CESF system for treatment of turbidity in construction stormwater.
TSS removal data was available for the Contech CDS, Vortechs, and StormFilter cartridge treatment system using ZPG media from the TAPE program, as well as turbidity removal data for the CESF system. No copper or zinc removal data was available for any of the above treatment technologies from the TAPE program. In order to calculate expected treatment system capabilities, manufacturer-provided historic treatment system performance data from similar facilities was used to determine average expected treatment system pollutant
May 11, 2018 8 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington removal. In some instances, either only TSS or turbidity removal data was available. For the technologies evaluated in this study, treatment performance for TSS versus turbidity is generally expected to be similar. However, the two parameters are not equivalent and in PBS’ experience treatment performance for turbidity is more difficult to accurately quantify due to the variety of water quality characteristics that can influence this measurement. Therefore, where only TSS removal data was available, PBS used a correlation factor of 1.5 to estimate turbidity removal. For example, for a predicted TSS removal of 50 percent, an estimated turbidity removal of 33 percent was used.
Ecology has not provided certification under the TAPE program for treatment by coagulation/flocculation with rapid gravity sand filtration but does list sand filter vaults as an approved filtration treatment facility in Chapter 8 of Volume 5 of the SWMMWW. In the SWMMWW, Ecology expects sand filter vaults to meet performance goals for TSS treatment, which will be further enhanced by this proposed application that includes chemical treatment and settling upstream of gravity sand filtration. However, it should be noted that the removal efficiency of flocculation aided settling depends on influent water characteristics as well as the specific flocculant used and dosage rate. The treatment systems proposed in Alternatives 1.B, 1.E, and 2.B are similar to CESF treatment in that the same chemicals and a sand filter would be used. The one difference is that a gravity sand filter would be used as opposed to a pressurized sand filter in a CESF system. Therefore, due to the lack of projected removal efficiencies in the TAPE program and treatment system similarities, the CESF treatment efficiencies were reduced by 25 percent in order to estimate projected treatment system performance in Alternatives 1.B, 1.E, and 2.B.
Alternatives 1.A, 1.B, and 1.C propose to treat runoff from approximately 60 percent of the contributing Drainage Basin 1 area. The TSS, total zinc, total copper, and turbidity concentrations of the stormwater post treatment and comingling with untreated flow were determined by using a weighted calculation that accounted for the percentage of Drainage Basin 1 area that was treated. Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5 summarize the projected pollutant concentration and net total pollutant removal for Alternatives 1.A, 1.B, and 1.C, respectively.
Table 3. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.A Parameter Portion of Projected Projected Pollutant Concentration Total (unit of Runoff Pollutant Treated Untreated Pollutant Total Basin measure) Treated (%) Removal (%) Portion Portion Removal (%) TSS 60% 99.2% 0.30 35.5 14.4 59.5% (mg/L) Total Zinc 60% 82.4% 63.3 358.7 181.4 49.4% (µg/L) Total Copper 60% 74.0% 4.83 18.6 10.3 44.4% (µg/L) Turbidity 60% 84.0% 8.50 53.1 26.3 50.4% (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
May 11, 2018 9 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
Table 4. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.B Parameter Portion of Projected Projected Pollutant Concentration Total (unit of Runoff Pollutant Treated Untreated Pollutant Total Basin measure) Treated (%) Removal (%) Portion Portion Removal (%) TSS 60% 74.6% 9.01 35.5 19.6 44.8% (mg/L) Total Zinc 60% 70.2% 107.0 358.7 207.7 42.1% (µg/L) Total Copper 60% 66.7% 6.17 18.6 11.1 40.0% (µg/L) Turbidity 60% 74.6% 13.47 53.1 29.3 44.8% (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
Table 5. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.C Parameter Portion of Projected Projected Pollutant Concentration Total (unit of Runoff Pollutant Treated Untreated Pollutant Total Basin measure) Treated (%) Removal (%) Portion Portion Removal (%) TSS 60% 99.5% 0.18 35.5 14.3 59.7% (mg/L) Total Zinc 60% 93.6% 23.1 358.7 157.3 56.1% (µg/L) Total Copper 60% 89.0% 2.05 18.6 8.6 53.4% (µg/L) Turbidity 60% 99.5% 0.27 53.1 21.4 59.7% (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
Alternatives 1.D, 1.E, and 1.F propose to treat runoff from all of Drainage Basin 1. Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 summarize the projected pollutant concentration and net total pollutant removal for Alternatives 1.D, 1.E, and 1.F, respectively.
Table 6. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.D
Parameter Average Influent Projected Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration TSS 35.5 99.7% 0.1 (mg/L) Total Zinc 358.7 82.4% 63.3 (µg/L) Total Copper 18.6 74.0% 4.8 (µg/L) Turbidity 53.1 88.8% 5.9 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
May 11, 2018 10 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
Table 7. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.E
Parameter Average Influent Projected Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration TSS 35.5 74.6% 9.0 (mg/L) Total Zinc 358.7 70.2% 107.0 (µg/L) Total Copper 18.6 66.7% 6.2 (µg/L) Turbidity 53.1 74.6% 13.5 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
Table 8. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 1 Alternative 1.F
Parameter Average Influent Projected Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration TSS 35.5 99.5% 0.2 (mg/L) Total Zinc 358.7 93.6% 23.1 (µg/L) Total Copper 18.6 89.0% 2.0 (µg/L) Turbidity 53.1 99.5% 0.3 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
Alternatives 2.A, 2.B, and 2.C propose to treat runoff from all of Drainage Basin 2. Table 9, Table 10, and Table 11 summarize the projected pollutant concentration and net total pollutant removal for Alternatives 2.A, 2.B, and 2.C, respectively.
Table 9. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 2 Alternative 2.A
Parameter Average Influent Projected Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration TSS 27.3 97.4% 0.7 (mg/L) Total Zinc 110.7 58.0% 46.5 (µg/L) Total Copper 10.0 49.0% 5.1 (µg/L) Turbidity 28.7 77.1% 6.6 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
May 11, 2018 11 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
Table 10. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 2 Alternative 2.B
Parameter Average Influent Projected Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration TSS 27.3 74.6% 6.9 (mg/L) Total Zinc 110.7 70.2% 33.0 (µg/L) Total Copper 10.0 66.7% 3.3 (µg/L) Turbidity 28.7 74.6% 7.3 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
Table 11. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Drainage Basin 2 Alternative 2.C
Parameter Average Influent Projected Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration TSS 27.3 99.5% 0.1 (mg/L) Total Zinc 110.7 93.6% 7.1 (µg/L) Total Copper 10.0 89.0% 1.1 (µg/L) Turbidity 28.7 99.5% 0.1 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
3.5 Estimated Preliminary Cost Estimates Table 12 provides the estimated preliminary capital and annual O&M costs for each alternative, with the exception of Alternatives 1.A, 1.B, and 1.C which were deemed inadequate to meet treatment objectives. Capital costs include both construction and non-construction related costs. Engineering, contractor selection support, permitting, construction-period engineering support, and contingency funds are included in the non- construction related costs. O&M costs include labor that may be needed to operate the treatment system, purchase of any required consumables, and disposal of solids generated by or accumulated within the treatment system.
May 11, 2018 12 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
Table 12. Treatment Technology Estimated Preliminary Cost Estimates
Non- Construction Total Capital Annual Alternative Construction Costs Costs2 O&M Costs3 Costs1
1.D Pretreatment: Contech Vortechs Treatment: Two-stage Contech $435,000 $290,000 $725,000 $11,300 StormFilter with ZPG and zeolite media
1.E Treatment: Coagulant and $250,000 $220,000 $470,000 $30,400 flocculant dosing, settling basins, rapid gravity sand filtration
1.F Treatment: 300 gpm CESF $405,000 $275,000 $680,000 $29,600 system
2.A Pretreatment: Contech Vortechs $145,000 $175,000 $320,000 $7,400 Treatment: Contech StormFilter with zeolite media
2.B Treatment: Coagulant and $110,000 $150,000 $260,000 $21,800 flocculant dosing, settling basins, rapid gravity sand filtration
2.C Treatment: 100 gpm CESF $280,000 $215,000 $495,000 $21,000 system
Notes: 1. Non-construction costs include construction management, general and administrative expenses, contractor profit, overhead, mechanical and electrical work, dewatering, engineering, permitting, and survey work. 2. Capital costs were rounded up to the nearest $5,000. 3. Annual operation and maintenance costs were rounded to the nearest $100.
For Drainage Basin 1, Alternative 1.F is the most expensive option when considering both capital and annual O&M costs. The equipment cost for the CESF 300 gpm model and the extensive site modifications required to route all Drainage Basin 1 stormwater to the treatment system are the primary factors in this alternative’s high cost. Alternative 1.E presents the lowest capital cost because no proprietary treatment equipment would be purchased. However, the treatment system would be aboveground and would require more hands-on operation than Alternative 1.D.
May 11, 2018 13 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
For Drainage Basin 2, Alternative 2.C is also the most expensive option which is primarily due to the equipment cost of the CESF 100 gpm model. Alternative 2.B presents the lowest capital cost, but would be aboveground and would require more hands-on operation than Alternative 2.A.
NW Container and PBS identified Alternative 1.D as the preferred alternative for Drainage Basin 1 and Alternative 2.A as the preferred alternative for Drainage Basin 2. Facility operators desire to have the same type of treatment system in both drainage basins for consistency and familiarity by the operators. These alternatives have the lowest O&M costs and are both predicted to provide adequate treatment to achieve permit benchmarks. Other advantages include that they are simple to operate, do not require the use of chemicals, and will be installed underground to preserve operational space for the facility.
May 11, 2018 14 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
4 PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS This section presents the design of the preferred treatment alternative selected for the Level 3 corrective action.
4.1 Selected Treatment BMP and Sizing Calculations Alternatives 1.D and 2.A were selected as the treatment BMPs for the Level 3 corrective actions in Drainage Basins 1 and 2, respectively. Stormwater will be pretreated in subgrade Contech Vortechs hydrodynamic separators and treated in subgrade Contech StormFilter filtration systems. Initially, cartridges will be filled with ZPG and zeolite media. As part of Ecology’s findings from the TAPE studies, they have recommended the following hydraulic loading rates for the pretreatment and treatment systems: • A hydraulic loading rate of 35 gpm per square foot (sf) of grit chamber area for pretreatment in the Contech Vortechs unit, and • A hydraulic loading rate of 1 gpm per sf of media surface area for treatment in the Contech StormFilter cartridge treatment unit. Additionally, for cartridges with an effective cartridge height of 27 inches, the cartridge flow rate will not exceed 11.3 gpm per cartridge.
Using the offline water quality flow rate of 245 gpm for Drainage Basin 1 and 66 gpm for Drainage Basin 2, a Contech Vortechs 1000 would provide pretreatment for each flow. The Contech Vortechs 1000 has a 3-foot diameter grit chamber and can treat a maximum of 0.55 cubic feet per second, or approximately 247 gpm. For Drainage Basin 1, two 8-foot by 11-foot Contech StormFilter vaults will be installed in series, and each vault will contain 22 27-inch tall media cartridges. This equates to a cartridge flow rate of 11.1 gpm per cartridge. For Drainage Basin 2, one 8-foot by 6-foot Contech StormFilter vault will be installed with 6 27-inch tall media cartridges. This equates to a cartridge flow rate of 11 gpm per cartridge.
Each Contech StormFilter requires approximately 3 feet of hydraulic head to operate. Due to the shallow existing drainage system, a lift station will be installed in each drainage basin upstream of the treatment systems. Each lift station will consist of a duplex pump system controlled by floats, with a high-flow gravity bypass for peak events in excess of the design flow rate.
4.2 Treatment Process and Operation The Drainage Basin 1 treatment system requires 100 inches of hydraulic drop and the Drainage Basin 2 treatment system requires 39 inches of hydraulic drop to ensure solids are adequately settled in the pretreatment chamber and metals and solids are removed in the treatment system. The existing stormwater collection system in Drainage Basin 1 provides 41.4 inches of hydraulic drop from the existing collection manhole to the discharge point. The existing stormwater collection system in Drainage Basin 2 provides 5.2 inches of hydraulic drop in the area where the treatment system is to be installed. Neither of these is sufficient for operation of the treatment systems. Pump stations shall be used in each basin to lift the stormwater to an elevation that will provide the hydraulic drops required for each treatment system and are included as part of the proposed stormwater system improvements.
Each Contech Vortechs unit will be preceded by a pump station. In Drainage Basin 1, the outlet of the existing sampling manhole will be modified and rerouted to the new pump station located to the northwest. Stormwater collected throughout Drainage Basin 1 would enter the 6-foot diameter by 14-foot deep wet well. Stormwater from the wet well would be pumped by one of two 5-horsepower (hp) Vaughn SE3F 3-inch submersible chopper pumps via a 3-inch force main pipe to a manhole upstream of the Contech Vortechs unit. Each pump will be sized to pump a maximum fixed flow of approximately 130 gpm and a total dynamic head of 11 feet. The pumps will operate alternately on a duty cycle. Both pumps will be operating to handle the design treatment flow rate. Stormwater flows in excess of the design flow rate will bypass the treatment
May 11, 2018 15 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington system and discharge from the wet well to the sampling manhole via a 24-inch overflow pipe. The Drainage Basin 1 pump station will include an outdoor rated control panel enclosure and floats to control when the pumps are turned on and off.
In Drainage Basin 2, a new manhole will be installed upstream of the existing sampling manhole. Stormwater collected throughout Drainage Basin 2 would enter the 6-foot diameter by 14-foot deep wet well. Stormwater from the wet well would be pumped by one of two 4/10 horsepower (hp) Myers ME40 1 ½-inch submersible pumps via a 3-inch force main pipe to a manhole upstream of the Contech Vortechs unit. Each pump will be sized to pump a maximum fixed flow of approximately 69 gpm and a total dynamic head of 10.5 feet. The pumps will operate alternately on a duty cycle. Each pump is sized to independently handle the design flow rate and only one pump will operate at a time. The second pump is intended for redundancy of operation. In the event that the first pump fails, the second back-up pump can continue to supply water to the treatment system until repairs can be made. Stormwater flows in excess of the design flow rate will bypass the treatment system and discharge from the wet well to the sampling manhole via a 12-inch overflow pipe. The Drainage Basin 2 pump station will include an outdoor rated control panel enclosure and floats to control when the pumps are turned on and off.
Discharge piping in each wet well will include check valves and plug valves. Check valves will prevent stormwater from flowing in the wrong direction and recirculating through the wet well when only one pump is running. Plug valves will allow for pump isolation during maintenance activities. Stormwater from the discharge of each pump will combine in a tee fitting and discharge into a single 3-inch force main, and the force main will discharge to the manhole just upstream of the pretreatment Contech Vortechs unit. From this point onward, stormwater will flow by gravity. Stormwater will flow through 12-inch piping in Drainage Basin 1 and 6-inch piping in Drainage Basin 2. Stormwater will flow from the manhole to the Vortechs unit for pretreatment. Following the Vortechs unit, stormwater will flow into the StormFilter treatment vault. Drainage Basin 1 will include two StormFilter vaults each containing 22 27-inch tall cartridges. The first vault will contain ZPG media and the second vault will contain zeolite media. Drainage Basin 2 will include one StormFilter vault containing 6 27-inch tall cartridges filled with zeolite media. Treated stormwater will be discharged from the treatment vault and flow through the sampling manhole prior to discharge to the municipal storm sewer system. Treatment effluent and peak storm bypass stormwater are routed through the same sampling manhole in each basin to ensure a representative sample can be collected during routine stormwater monitoring.
Figures 6 and 7 provide plan views of the proposed stormwater improvements for Level 3 corrective action in Drainage Basins 1 and 2, respectively. Figures 8 and 9 provide the treatment process flow diagram for the proposed stormwater improvements in Drainage Basins 1 and 2, respectively.
4.3 Use of Chemicals in the Treatment Process The ISGP requires that the amount and kind of any chemicals used in the proposed treatment process are described in the engineering report for the Level 3 corrective action. The proposed treatment BMP for the Facility does not use any treatment chemicals.
4.4 Expected Treatment Performance Expected TSS removal in the Contech Vortechs pretreatment unit was obtained from the TAPE program. No metals or turbidity removal information was available, however the TSS percent reduction was used to estimate turbidity removal as well by dividing TSS reduction by a correlation factor of 1.5.
Contech provided results from a pilot study performed in a laboratory as well as field tests performed on a full-scale system installed in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In the pilot study, seven different simulations were
May 11, 2018 16 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington performed in a controlled, laboratory environment to determine TSS and turbidity removal capabilities. Results indicated that the StormFilter cartridge using ZPG media provided a mean TSS reduction of 87 percent and a 51 percent mean decrease in turbidity.1 The field tests were performed at the “Riverwalk” site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to determine the sediment, metals, and nutrients removal capabilities of StormFilter cartridges using ZPG media.2 NSF International (NSF) teamed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate the performance of the StormFilter using ZPG filter media. A total of 20 precipitation events were sampled over the course of the study. Of those, 17 events produced copper and zinc removal data. Average zinc and copper influent concentrations were 406 and 104 micrograms per liter (µg/L), respectively, and effluent concentrations were 135 and 35 µg/L, respectively. The corresponding average percent removals were 58 and 49 percent, respectively. The influent total zinc concentrations from this facility are similar to the range of concentrations historically observed at NW Container. Therefore, the range of removal is expected the be similar as well. Appendix D provides the results from these studies.
Table 13 and Table 14 present the projected pollutant reductions for the Drainage Basin 1 and Drainage Basin 2 proposed treatment systems, respectively. Using the TSS, total zinc, total copper, and turbidity removals presented in the TAPE results as well as the Contech-provided studies, the proposed treatment systems are projected to reduce pollutant concentrations to below the benchmarks.
Table 13. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for the Proposed Drainage Basin 1 Treatment System
Parameter Average Influent Net Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration TSS 35.5 99.7% 0.1 (mg/L) Total Zinc 358.7 82.4% 63.3 (µg/L) Total Copper 18.6 74.0% 4.8 (µg/L) Turbidity 53.1 88.8% 5.9 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
1 Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® for the removal of SIL-CO-SIL 106, a standardized silica product: ZPGTM StormFilter cartridge at 28 L/min (7.5 gpm). Contech Stormwater Solutions Product Evaluation. Publication #PE- E062. April 11, 2006. 2 Environmental Technology Verification Report, Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device, The Stormwater Management StormFilter® using ZPG Filter Media. NSF International, under a cooperative agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Publication #04/17/WQPC-WWF. July 2004.
May 11, 2018 17 PBS Project 17645.005
Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Seattle Intermodal Yard Northwest Container Services, Inc. Seattle, Washington
Table 14. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for the Proposed Drainage Basin 2 Treatment System
Parameter Average Influent Net Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration TSS 27.3 97.4% 0.7 (mg/L) Total Zinc 110.7 58.0% 46.5 (µg/L) Total Copper 10.0 49.0% 5.1 (µg/L) Turbidity 28.7 77.1% 6.6 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark or impairment effluent limit
May 11, 2018 18 PBS Project 17645.005
FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Map : South Rail Strip Figure 3. Site Map : Main Yard Figure 4. Site Map : North Rail Strip North of Snoqualmie Figure 5. North Rail Strip South of Industrial Way Figure 6. Plan View : Proposed Drainage Basin 1 Treatment System Figure 7. Plan View : Proposed Drainage Basin 2 Treatment System Figure 8. Flow Diagram : Proposed Drainage Basin 1 Treatment System Figure 9. Flow Diagram : Proposed Drainage Basin 2 Treatment System
6/16/2017 11:13:46 AM
PROJECTLOCATION CAD Plot Date/Time: Jim Blanco User: FIG 1 Layout Tab:
SOURCE: USGS SEATTLE SOUTH E, WA QUADRANGLE 1983, PHOTO REVISED 1978.
SITE
SEATTLE OLYMPIA SCALE: 1" = 2,000'
VANCOUVER 0' 1,000' 2,000' 4,000' WASHINGTON
\\pbsenv.lan\l\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17645_NWCS-Seattle\DWGs\17645.004_Figure 1_JUNE2017.dwg JUNE 2017 VICINITY MAP 17645.004 NORTHWEST CONTAINER STORAGE FIGURE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1 Filename: 4412 SW Corbett Avenue PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. 503.248.1939 pbsusa.com Portland, OR 97239
BASIN 1 6/16/2017 11:08:15 AM 6/16/2017 CAD Plot Date/Time: Plot Date/Time: CAD Jim Blanco User: User: 2 Layout Tab: Layout
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 80'
0 40' 80' 160'
LEGEND
PROJECT 17645.004
LEGEND DATE JUNE 2017
\\pbsenv.lan\l\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17645_NWCS-Seattle\DWGs\17645.004_Figure 2-5_JUNE2017.dwg \\pbsenv.lan\l\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17645_NWCS-Seattle\DWGs\17645.004_Figure FIGURE KEYPLAN 2 Full Size Sheet Format Is 11x17; If Printed Size Is Not 11x17, Then This Sheet Format Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Is Not Accurate. PREPARED FOR: NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC Filename: Filename: BASIN 1 Vancouver, WA 98660 314 W 15th Street 360.695.3488 PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. pbsusa.com
BASIN 1 6/16/2017 12:15:05 PM 6/16/2017 CAD Plot Date/Time: Plot Date/Time: CAD Jim Blanco User: User: 3 Layout Tab: Layout
BASIN 1
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 80'
0 40' 80' 160'
LEGEND
PROJECT 17645.004
LEGEND DATE JUNE 2017
\\pbsenv.lan\l\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17645_NWCS-Seattle\DWGs\17645.004_Figures 2-5_JUNE2017.dwg \\pbsenv.lan\l\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17645_NWCS-Seattle\DWGs\17645.004_Figures FIGURE KEYPLAN 3 Full Size Sheet Format Is 11x17; If Printed Size Is Not 11x17, Then This Sheet Format Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Is Not Accurate. PREPARED FOR: NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC Filename: Filename: Vancouver, WA 98660 314 W 15th Street 360.695.3488 PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. pbsusa.com 6/16/2017 11:03:53 AM 6/16/2017
BASIN 1 BASIN 2 CAD Plot Date/Time: Plot Date/Time: CAD Jim Blanco User: User: 4 Layout Tab: Layout
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 80'
0 40' 80' 160'
LEGEND
PROJECT 17645.004
LEGEND DATE JUNE 2017
\\pbsenv.lan\l\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17645_NWCS-Seattle\DWGs\17645.004_Figures 2-5.dwg \\pbsenv.lan\l\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17645_NWCS-Seattle\DWGs\17645.004_Figures FIGURE KEYPLAN 4 Full Size Sheet Format Is 11x17; If Printed Size Is Not 11x17, Then This Sheet Format Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Is Not Accurate. PREPARED FOR: NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC Filename: Filename: Vancouver, WA 98660 314 W 15th Street 360.695.3488 PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. pbsusa.com 6/16/2017 12:21:52 PM 6/16/2017 CAD Plot Date/Time: Plot Date/Time: CAD Jim Blanco User: User: 5
BASIN 2 Layout Tab: Layout
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 80'
0 40' 80' 160'
LEGEND
PROJECT 17645.004
LEGEND DATE JUNE 2017
\\pbsenv.lan\l\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17645_NWCS-Seattle\DWGs\17645.004_Figures 2-5_JUNE2017.dwg \\pbsenv.lan\l\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17645_NWCS-Seattle\DWGs\17645.004_Figures FIGURE KEYPLAN 5 Full Size Sheet Format Is 11x17; If Printed Size Is Not 11x17, Then This Sheet Format Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Is Not Accurate. PREPARED FOR: NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC Filename: Filename:
APPENDIX A Conceptual Designs for Drainage Basin 1 Alternatives Alternative 1.A Alternative 1.B Alternative 1.C Alternative 1.D Alternative 1.E Alternative 1.F
Vancouver, WA 98660 314 W 15th Street 360.695.3488 pbsusa.com PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET ______NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. BASIN 1 ALTERNATIVE 1A: CONTECH CDS UNIT + STORMFILTER
R
Know what's
LEGEND EX. STORMWATER LINE EX. STORMWATER FORCE MAIN DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
EX. STORMWATER CATCH BASINS Scale 1" = 20 ' EX. STORMWATER MANHOLES 0 10 20 40 DESIGNED: PROPOSED STORMWATER LINE TLF PROPOSED STORMWATER FORCE MAIN CHECKED: DAS PROPOSED STORMWATER MANHOLES DATE: STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION AUGUST 2017 KEY PLAN SHEET ID
Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Size Is Not 22x34, Then This Sheet Format Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Is Not Accurate. 1A Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Not 22x34, Then This Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Accurate.
Know what's NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. AUGUST 2017 1A PBS Engineering and DESIGNED: CHECKED: SHEET ID Environmental Inc. DATE: BASIN 1 ALTERNATIVE 1A: CONTECH CDS UNIT + STORMFILTER DETAIL DAS TLF ______314 W 15th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 360.695.3488
R 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET pbsusa.com SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Not 22x34, Then This Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Accurate. 0 Scale 1" = 20 40 40 ' 80 LEGEND STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION PROPOSED STORMWATER MANHOLES PROPOSED STORMWATER FORCE MAIN PROPOSED STORMWATER LINE EX. STORMWATER MANHOLES EX. STORMWATER CATCH BASINS DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY EX. STORMWATER FORCE MAIN EX. STORMWATER LINE KEY PLAN
Know what's NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. AUGUST 2017 1B PBS Engineering and DESIGNED: CHECKED: SHEET ID Environmental Inc. DATE: BASIN 1 ALTERNATIVE 1B: GRAVITY SAND FILTRATION DAS TLF ______314 W 15th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 360.695.3488
R 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET pbsusa.com SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Not 22x34, Then This Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Accurate. SETTLING TANK SETTLING SITE STORMWATER RUNOFF FILTER TANK SAND BED COAGULANT/FLOCCULENT INJECTION EXISTING EXISTING (SAMPLE STATION POINT 1) BASINS OUTLET CATCH PUMP BOX SETTLING FILTER TANK SAND BED SETTLING TANK
Know what's NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. AUGUST 2017 1B PBS Engineering and DESIGNED: CHECKED: SHEET ID Environmental Inc. DATE: BASIN 1 ALTERNATIVE 1B: GRAVITY SAND FILTRATION DETAIL DAS TLF ______314 W 15th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 360.695.3488
R 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET pbsusa.com SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Filename: L:\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17645_NWCS-Seattle\Treatment System\Reports\Engineering Report\AppA_DB1 Conceptual Designs\17645_Basin 1 Alt 1A-1C.dwg Layout Tab: ALT. 1C User: Shasta Billings-Beck CAD Plot Date/Time: 5/2/2018 2:30:42 PM Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Not 22x34, Then This Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Accurate. 0 Scale 1" = 20 40 40 ' 80 LEGEND PROPOSED STORMWATER MANHOLES STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION PROPOSED STORMWATER FORCE MAIN PROPOSED STORMWATER LINE EX. STORMWATER MANHOLES EX. STORMWATER CATCH BASINS DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY EX. STORMWATER FORCE MAIN EX. STORMWATER LINE KEY PLAN
Know what's NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. 1C AUGUST 2017 PBS Engineering and DESIGNED: CHECKED: SHEET ID Environmental Inc. DATE: BASIN 1 ALTERNATIVE 1C: CESF TREATMENT SYSTEM DAS TLF ______314 W 15th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 360.695.3488
R 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET pbsusa.com SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Vancouver, WA 98660 314 W 15th Street 360.695.3488 pbsusa.com PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET ______NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. BASIN 1 ALTERNATIVE 1D: CONTECH VORTECHS UNIT + STORMFILTER
R
Know what's
LEGEND EX. STORMWATER LINE EX. STORMWATER FORCE MAIN DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
EX. STORMWATER CATCH BASINS Scale 1" = 30 ' EX. STORMWATER MANHOLES DESIGNED: 0 15 30 60 PROPOSED STORMWATER LINE TLF PROPOSED STORMWATER FORCE MAIN CHECKED: DAS PROPOSED STORMWATER MANHOLES DATE: STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION AUGUST 2017 KEY PLAN SHEET ID
Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Size Is Not 22x34, Then This Sheet Format Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Is Not Accurate. 1D Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Not 22x34, Then This Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Accurate.
Know what's NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. 1D AUGUST 2017 PBS Engineering and DESIGNED: CHECKED: SHEET ID Environmental Inc. DATE: BASIN 1 ALTERNATIVE 1D: VORTECHS UNIT + STORMFILTER DETAIL DAS TLF ______314 W 15th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 360.695.3488
R 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET pbsusa.com SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Vancouver, WA 98660 314 W 15th Street 360.695.3488 pbsusa.com PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET ______BASIN 1 ALTERNATIVE 1E: GRAVITY SAND FILTRATION NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC.
R
Know what's
LEGEND EX. STORMWATER LINE EX. STORMWATER FORCE MAIN DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
Scale 1" = 30 ' EX. STORMWATER CATCH BASINS EX. STORMWATER MANHOLES 0 15 30 60 DESIGNED: PROPOSED STORMWATER LINE TLF PROPOSED STORMWATER FORCE MAIN CHECKED: DAS PROPOSED STORMWATER MANHOLES DATE: STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION AUGUST 2017 KEY PLAN SHEET ID
Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Size Is Not 22x34, Then This Sheet Format Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Is Not Accurate. 1E Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Not 22x34, Then This Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Accurate. SETTLING TANK SETTLING SITE STORMWATER RUNOFF FILTER TANK SAND COAGULANT/FLOCCULENT BED PROPOSED INJECTION EXISTING (SAMPLE STATION POINT 1) BASINS OUTLET CATCH PUMP BOX SETTLING FILTER TANK SAND BED SETTLING TANK NEW SAMPLE PIPING FROM STATION TO PROPOSED MANHOLE BYPASS POINT PUMP
Know what's NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. AUGUST 2017 1E PBS Engineering and DESIGNED: CHECKED: SHEET ID Environmental Inc. DATE: BASIN 1 ALTERNATIVE 1E: GRAVITY SAND FILTRATION DETAIL DAS TLF ______314 W 15th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 360.695.3488
R 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET pbsusa.com SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Vancouver, WA 98660 314 W 15th Street 360.695.3488 pbsusa.com PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET ______BASIN 1 ALTERNATIVE 1F:CESF TREATMENT SYSTEM NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC.
R
Know what's
LEGEND EX. STORMWATER LINE EX. STORMWATER FORCE MAIN DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
Scale 1" = 30 ' EX. STORMWATER CATCH BASINS EX. STORMWATER MANHOLES 0 15 30 60 DESIGNED: PROPOSED STORMWATER LINE TLF PROPOSED STORMWATER FORCE MAIN CHECKED: DAS PROPOSED STORMWATER MANHOLES DATE: STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION AUGUST 2017 KEY PLAN SHEET ID
Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Size Is Not 22x34, Then This Sheet Format Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Is Not Accurate. 1F
APPENDIX B Conceptual Designs for Drainage Basin 2 Alternatives Alternative 2.A Alternative 2.B Alternative 2.C
Vancouver, WA 98660 314 W 15th Street 360.695.3488 pbsusa.com PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET ______NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. BASIN 2 ALTERNATIVE 2A: CONTECH VORTECHS UNIT + STORMFILTER
R
Know what's
LEGEND EX. STORMWATER LINE EX. STORMWATER FORCE MAIN DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
EX. STORMWATER CATCH BASINS Scale 1" = 20 ' EX. STORMWATER MANHOLES 0 10 20 40 DESIGNED: PROPOSED STORMWATER LINE TLF PROPOSED STORMWATER FORCE MAIN CHECKED: DAS PROPOSED STORMWATER MANHOLES DATE: STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION AUGUST 2017 KEY PLAN SHEET ID
Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Size Is Not 22x34, Then This Sheet Format Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Is Not Accurate. 2A Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Not 22x34, Then This Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Accurate.
Know what's NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. AUGUST 2017 2A PBS Engineering and DESIGNED: CHECKED: SHEET ID Environmental Inc. DATE: BASIN 2 ALTERNATIVE 2A: VORTECHS UNIT + STORMFILTER DETAIL DAS TLF ______314 W 15th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 360.695.3488
R 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET pbsusa.com SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Not 22x34, Then This Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Accurate. 0 Scale 1" = 10 20 20 ' 40 LEGEND PROPOSED STORMWATER MANHOLES STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION PROPOSED STORMWATER FORCE MAIN PROPOSED STORMWATER LINE EX. STORMWATER MANHOLES EX. STORMWATER CATCH BASINS DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY EX. STORMWATER FORCE MAIN EX. STORMWATER LINE KEY PLAN
S. INDUSTRIAL WAY
Know what's NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. AUGUST 2017 2B PBS Engineering and DESIGNED: CHECKED: SHEET ID Environmental Inc. DATE: BASIN 2 ALTERNATIVE 2B: GRAVITY SAND FILTRATION DAS TLF ______314 W 15th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 360.695.3488
R 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET pbsusa.com SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Not 22x34, Then This Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Accurate. SETTLING SITE STORMWATER RUNOFF FILTER TANK SAND BED COAGULANT/FLOCCULENT PROPOSED INJECTION EXISTING (SAMPLE STATION POINT 2) BASINS OUTLET CATCH PUMP BOX SETTLING FILTER TANK SAND BED PIPING FROM STATION TO PROPOSED MANHOLE SAMPLE BYPASS POINT PUMP
Know what's NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. AUGUST 2017 2B PBS Engineering and DESIGNED: CHECKED: SHEET ID Environmental Inc. DATE: BASIN 2 ALTERNATIVE 2B: GRAVITY SAND FILTRATION DETAIL DAS TLF ______314 W 15th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 360.695.3488
R 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET pbsusa.com SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Full Size Sheet Format Is 22x34; If Printed Not 22x34, Then This Has Been Modified & Indicated Drawing Scale Accurate. 0 Scale 1" = 10 20 20 ' 40 LEGEND STORMWATER RUNOFF FLOW DIRECTION PROPOSED STORMWATER MANHOLES EX. STORMWATER MANHOLES EX. STORMWATER CATCH BASINS PROPOSED STORMWATER FORCE MAIN PROPOSED STORMWATER LINE DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY EX. STORMWATER FORCE MAIN EX. STORMWATER LINE KEY PLAN
S. INDUSTRIAL WAY
Know what's NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC. 2C AUGUST 2017 PBS Engineering and DESIGNED: CHECKED: SHEET ID Environmental Inc. DATE: BASIN 2 ALTERNATIVE 2C: CESF TREATMENT SYSTEM DAS TLF ______314 W 15th Street Vancouver, WA 98660 360.695.3488
R 635 SOUTH EDMUNDS STREET pbsusa.com SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
APPENDIX C Western Washington Hydrology Model Results
WWHM2012
PROJECT REPORT General Model Information Project Name: 17645_NWCS Flow Calcs Site Name: Site Address: City: Report Date: 6/22/2017 Gage: Seatac Data Start: 1948/10/01 Data End: 2009/09/30 Timestep: 15 Minute Precip Scale: 1.00 Version Date: 2016/02/25 Version: 4.2.12
POC Thresholds
Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Year
Low Flow Threshold for POC2: 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC2: 50 Year
Low Flow Threshold for POC3:DRAFT50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC3: 50 Year
Low Flow Threshold for POC4: 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC4: 50 Year
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:36 PM Page 2 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use
Basin 1 Alt 1 Treated Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.88
Pervious Total 0.88
Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 3.58
Impervious Total 3.58
Basin Total 4.46
Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:36 PM Page 3 Basin 1 Alt 1 Untreated Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.51
Pervious Total 0.51
Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 2.4
Impervious Total 2.4
Basin Total 2.91
Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:36 PM Page 4 Basin 1 Alt 2 Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 1.38
Pervious Total 1.38
Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 6
Impervious Total 6
Basin Total 7.38
Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:36 PM Page 5 Basin 2 Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.3
Pervious Total 0.3
Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 1.6
Impervious Total 1.6
Basin Total 1.9
Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:36 PM Page 6 Mitigated Land Use
Basin 1 Alt 1 Treated Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.88
Pervious Total 0.88
Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 3.58
Impervious Total 3.58
Basin Total 4.46
Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Sand Filter 1 Sand Filter 1
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 7 Basin 1 Alt 1 Untreated Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.51
Pervious Total 0.51
Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 2.4
Impervious Total 2.4
Basin Total 2.91
Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 8 Basin 1 Alt 2 Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 1.38
Pervious Total 1.38
Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 6
Impervious Total 6
Basin Total 7.38
Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Sand Filter 2 Sand Filter 2
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 9 Basin 2 Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.3
Pervious Total 0.3
Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 1.6
Impervious Total 1.6
Basin Total 1.9
Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Sand Filter 3 Sand Filter 3
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 10 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 11 Mitigated Routing
Sand Filter 1 Bottom Length: 20.00 ft. Bottom Width: 8.00 ft. Depth: 8 ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0 To 1 Side slope 4: 0 To 1 Filtration On Hydraulic conductivity: 288.9 Depth of filter medium: 2 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 628.16 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 1.65 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 629.81 Percent Infiltrated: 99.74 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Orifice 1 Diameter: 8 in. Elevation:0.5 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0889 0.003 DRAFT0.000 0.000 1.117 0.1778 0.003 0.000 0.000 1.165 0.2667 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.212 0.3556 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.260 0.4444 0.003 0.001 0.000 1.307 0.5333 0.003 0.002 0.317 1.355 0.6222 0.003 0.002 0.607 1.402 0.7111 0.003 0.002 0.798 1.450 0.8000 0.003 0.002 0.951 1.498 0.8889 0.003 0.003 1.083 1.545 0.9778 0.003 0.003 1.200 1.593 1.0667 0.003 0.003 1.307 1.640 1.1556 0.003 0.004 1.406 1.688 1.2444 0.003 0.004 1.498 1.735 1.3333 0.003 0.004 1.585 1.783 1.4222 0.003 0.005 1.667 1.830 1.5111 0.003 0.005 1.746 1.878 1.6000 0.003 0.005 1.821 1.926 1.6889 0.003 0.006 1.893 1.973 1.7778 0.003 0.006 1.963 2.021 1.8667 0.003 0.006 2.030 2.068 1.9556 0.003 0.007 2.095 2.116 2.0444 0.003 0.007 2.158 2.163 2.1333 0.003 0.007 2.219 2.211 2.2222 0.003 0.008 2.279 2.258 2.3111 0.003 0.008 2.337 2.306
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 12 2.4000 0.003 0.008 2.394 2.354 2.4889 0.003 0.009 2.449 2.401 2.5778 0.003 0.009 2.503 2.449 2.6667 0.003 0.009 2.556 2.496 2.7556 0.003 0.010 2.608 2.544 2.8444 0.003 0.010 2.659 2.591 2.9333 0.003 0.010 2.709 2.639 3.0222 0.003 0.011 2.828 2.686 3.1111 0.003 0.011 3.591 2.734 3.2000 0.003 0.011 4.740 2.782 3.2889 0.003 0.012 6.139 2.829 3.3778 0.003 0.012 7.691 2.877 3.4667 0.003 0.012 9.299 2.924 3.5556 0.003 0.013 10.86 2.972 3.6444 0.003 0.013 12.28 3.019 3.7333 0.003 0.013 13.50 3.067 3.8222 0.003 0.014 14.45 3.114 3.9111 0.003 0.014 15.16 3.162 4.0000 0.003 0.014 15.84 3.210 4.0889 0.003 0.015 16.43 3.257 4.1778 0.003 0.015 17.00 3.305 4.2667 0.003 0.015 17.55 3.352 4.3556 0.003 0.016 18.07 3.400 4.4444 0.003 0.016 18.59 3.447 4.5333 0.003 0.016 19.08 3.495 4.6222 0.003 0.017 19.57 3.542 4.7111 0.003 0.017 20.04 3.590 4.8000 0.003 0.017 20.50 3.638 4.8889 0.003 0.018 20.95 3.685 4.9778 0.003 0.018 21.39 3.733 5.0667 0.003 0.018 21.82 3.780 5.1556 0.003 0.018 22.24 3.828 5.2444 0.003 0.019 22.65 3.875 5.3333 0.003 DRAFT0.019 23.06 3.923 5.4222 0.003 0.019 23.46 3.970 5.5111 0.003 0.020 23.85 4.018 5.6000 0.003 0.020 24.23 4.066 5.6889 0.003 0.020 24.61 4.113 5.7778 0.003 0.021 24.98 4.161 5.8667 0.003 0.021 25.35 4.208 5.9556 0.003 0.021 25.71 4.256 6.0444 0.003 0.022 26.07 4.303 6.1333 0.003 0.022 26.42 4.351 6.2222 0.003 0.022 26.77 4.398 6.3111 0.003 0.023 27.11 4.446 6.4000 0.003 0.023 27.44 4.494 6.4889 0.003 0.023 27.78 4.541 6.5778 0.003 0.024 28.11 4.589 6.6667 0.003 0.024 28.43 4.636 6.7556 0.003 0.024 28.75 4.684 6.8444 0.003 0.025 29.07 4.731 6.9333 0.003 0.025 29.39 4.779 7.0222 0.003 0.025 29.70 4.826 7.1111 0.003 0.026 30.01 4.874 7.2000 0.003 0.026 30.31 4.922 7.2889 0.003 0.026 30.61 4.969 7.3778 0.003 0.027 30.91 5.017 7.4667 0.003 0.027 31.21 5.064
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 13 7.5556 0.003 0.027 31.50 5.112 7.6444 0.003 0.028 31.79 5.159 7.7333 0.003 0.028 32.08 5.207 7.8222 0.003 0.028 32.36 5.254 7.9111 0.003 0.029 32.64 5.302 8.0000 0.003 0.029 32.92 5.350 8.0889 0.003 0.029 33.20 5.397
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 14 Sand Filter 2 Bottom Length: 20.00 ft. Bottom Width: 8.00 ft. Depth: 8 ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0 To 1 Side slope 4: 0 To 1 Filtration On Hydraulic conductivity: 145.8 Depth of filter medium: 2 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 987.977 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 63.282 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 1051.259 Percent Infiltrated: 93.98 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Orifice 1 Diameter: 8 in. Elevation:0.5 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0889 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.564 0.1778 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.588 0.2667 0.003 DRAFT0.001 0.000 0.612 0.3556 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.636 0.4444 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.660 0.5333 0.003 0.002 0.317 0.684 0.6222 0.003 0.002 0.607 0.708 0.7111 0.003 0.002 0.798 0.732 0.8000 0.003 0.002 0.951 0.756 0.8889 0.003 0.003 1.083 0.780 0.9778 0.003 0.003 1.200 0.804 1.0667 0.003 0.003 1.307 0.828 1.1556 0.003 0.004 1.406 0.852 1.2444 0.003 0.004 1.498 0.876 1.3333 0.003 0.004 1.585 0.900 1.4222 0.003 0.005 1.667 0.924 1.5111 0.003 0.005 1.746 0.948 1.6000 0.003 0.005 1.821 0.972 1.6889 0.003 0.006 1.893 0.996 1.7778 0.003 0.006 1.963 1.020 1.8667 0.003 0.006 2.030 1.044 1.9556 0.003 0.007 2.095 1.068 2.0444 0.003 0.007 2.158 1.092 2.1333 0.003 0.007 2.219 1.116 2.2222 0.003 0.008 2.279 1.140 2.3111 0.003 0.008 2.337 1.164 2.4000 0.003 0.008 2.394 1.188 2.4889 0.003 0.009 2.449 1.212
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 15 2.5778 0.003 0.009 2.503 1.236 2.6667 0.003 0.009 2.556 1.260 2.7556 0.003 0.010 2.608 1.284 2.8444 0.003 0.010 2.659 1.308 2.9333 0.003 0.010 2.709 1.332 3.0222 0.003 0.011 2.828 1.356 3.1111 0.003 0.011 3.591 1.380 3.2000 0.003 0.011 4.740 1.404 3.2889 0.003 0.012 6.139 1.428 3.3778 0.003 0.012 7.691 1.452 3.4667 0.003 0.012 9.299 1.476 3.5556 0.003 0.013 10.86 1.500 3.6444 0.003 0.013 12.28 1.524 3.7333 0.003 0.013 13.50 1.548 3.8222 0.003 0.014 14.45 1.572 3.9111 0.003 0.014 15.16 1.596 4.0000 0.003 0.014 15.84 1.620 4.0889 0.003 0.015 16.43 1.644 4.1778 0.003 0.015 17.00 1.668 4.2667 0.003 0.015 17.55 1.692 4.3556 0.003 0.016 18.07 1.716 4.4444 0.003 0.016 18.59 1.740 4.5333 0.003 0.016 19.08 1.764 4.6222 0.003 0.017 19.57 1.788 4.7111 0.003 0.017 20.04 1.812 4.8000 0.003 0.017 20.50 1.836 4.8889 0.003 0.018 20.95 1.860 4.9778 0.003 0.018 21.39 1.884 5.0667 0.003 0.018 21.82 1.908 5.1556 0.003 0.018 22.24 1.932 5.2444 0.003 0.019 22.65 1.956 5.3333 0.003 0.019 23.06 1.980 5.4222 0.003 0.019 23.46 2.004 5.5111 0.003 DRAFT0.020 23.85 2.028 5.6000 0.003 0.020 24.23 2.052 5.6889 0.003 0.020 24.61 2.076 5.7778 0.003 0.021 24.98 2.100 5.8667 0.003 0.021 25.35 2.124 5.9556 0.003 0.021 25.71 2.148 6.0444 0.003 0.022 26.07 2.172 6.1333 0.003 0.022 26.42 2.196 6.2222 0.003 0.022 26.77 2.220 6.3111 0.003 0.023 27.11 2.244 6.4000 0.003 0.023 27.44 2.268 6.4889 0.003 0.023 27.78 2.292 6.5778 0.003 0.024 28.11 2.316 6.6667 0.003 0.024 28.43 2.340 6.7556 0.003 0.024 28.75 2.364 6.8444 0.003 0.025 29.07 2.388 6.9333 0.003 0.025 29.39 2.412 7.0222 0.003 0.025 29.70 2.436 7.1111 0.003 0.026 30.01 2.460 7.2000 0.003 0.026 30.31 2.484 7.2889 0.003 0.026 30.61 2.508 7.3778 0.003 0.027 30.91 2.532 7.4667 0.003 0.027 31.21 2.556 7.5556 0.003 0.027 31.50 2.580 7.6444 0.003 0.028 31.79 2.604
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 16 7.7333 0.003 0.028 32.08 2.628 7.8222 0.003 0.028 32.36 2.652 7.9111 0.003 0.029 32.64 2.676 8.0000 0.003 0.029 32.92 2.700 8.0889 0.003 0.029 33.20 2.724
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 17 Sand Filter 3 Bottom Length: 20.00 ft. Bottom Width: 8.00 ft. Depth: 8 ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0 To 1 Side slope 4: 0 To 1 Filtration On Hydraulic conductivity: 37.8 Depth of filter medium: 2 Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 257.869 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 17.056 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 274.925 Percent Infiltrated: 93.8 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 3 ft. Riser Diameter: 24 in. Orifice 1 Diameter: 8 in. Elevation:0.5 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Sand Filter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0889 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.146 0.1778 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.152 0.2667 0.003 DRAFT0.001 0.000 0.158 0.3556 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.164 0.4444 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.171 0.5333 0.003 0.002 0.317 0.177 0.6222 0.003 0.002 0.607 0.183 0.7111 0.003 0.002 0.798 0.189 0.8000 0.003 0.002 0.951 0.196 0.8889 0.003 0.003 1.083 0.202 0.9778 0.003 0.003 1.200 0.208 1.0667 0.003 0.003 1.307 0.214 1.1556 0.003 0.004 1.406 0.220 1.2444 0.003 0.004 1.498 0.227 1.3333 0.003 0.004 1.585 0.233 1.4222 0.003 0.005 1.667 0.239 1.5111 0.003 0.005 1.746 0.245 1.6000 0.003 0.005 1.821 0.252 1.6889 0.003 0.006 1.893 0.258 1.7778 0.003 0.006 1.963 0.264 1.8667 0.003 0.006 2.030 0.270 1.9556 0.003 0.007 2.095 0.276 2.0444 0.003 0.007 2.158 0.283 2.1333 0.003 0.007 2.219 0.289 2.2222 0.003 0.008 2.279 0.295 2.3111 0.003 0.008 2.337 0.301 2.4000 0.003 0.008 2.394 0.308 2.4889 0.003 0.009 2.449 0.314
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:37 PM Page 18 2.5778 0.003 0.009 2.503 0.320 2.6667 0.003 0.009 2.556 0.326 2.7556 0.003 0.010 2.608 0.332 2.8444 0.003 0.010 2.659 0.339 2.9333 0.003 0.010 2.709 0.345 3.0222 0.003 0.011 2.828 0.351 3.1111 0.003 0.011 3.591 0.357 3.2000 0.003 0.011 4.740 0.364 3.2889 0.003 0.012 6.139 0.370 3.3778 0.003 0.012 7.691 0.376 3.4667 0.003 0.012 9.299 0.382 3.5556 0.003 0.013 10.86 0.388 3.6444 0.003 0.013 12.28 0.395 3.7333 0.003 0.013 13.50 0.401 3.8222 0.003 0.014 14.45 0.407 3.9111 0.003 0.014 15.16 0.413 4.0000 0.003 0.014 15.84 0.420 4.0889 0.003 0.015 16.43 0.426 4.1778 0.003 0.015 17.00 0.432 4.2667 0.003 0.015 17.55 0.438 4.3556 0.003 0.016 18.07 0.444 4.4444 0.003 0.016 18.59 0.451 4.5333 0.003 0.016 19.08 0.457 4.6222 0.003 0.017 19.57 0.463 4.7111 0.003 0.017 20.04 0.469 4.8000 0.003 0.017 20.50 0.476 4.8889 0.003 0.018 20.95 0.482 4.9778 0.003 0.018 21.39 0.488 5.0667 0.003 0.018 21.82 0.494 5.1556 0.003 0.018 22.24 0.500 5.2444 0.003 0.019 22.65 0.507 5.3333 0.003 0.019 23.06 0.513 5.4222 0.003 0.019 23.46 0.519 5.5111 0.003 DRAFT0.020 23.85 0.525 5.6000 0.003 0.020 24.23 0.532 5.6889 0.003 0.020 24.61 0.538 5.7778 0.003 0.021 24.98 0.544 5.8667 0.003 0.021 25.35 0.550 5.9556 0.003 0.021 25.71 0.556 6.0444 0.003 0.022 26.07 0.563 6.1333 0.003 0.022 26.42 0.569 6.2222 0.003 0.022 26.77 0.575 6.3111 0.003 0.023 27.11 0.581 6.4000 0.003 0.023 27.44 0.588 6.4889 0.003 0.023 27.78 0.594 6.5778 0.003 0.024 28.11 0.600 6.6667 0.003 0.024 28.43 0.606 6.7556 0.003 0.024 28.75 0.612 6.8444 0.003 0.025 29.07 0.619 6.9333 0.003 0.025 29.39 0.625 7.0222 0.003 0.025 29.70 0.631 7.1111 0.003 0.026 30.01 0.637 7.2000 0.003 0.026 30.31 0.644 7.2889 0.003 0.026 30.61 0.650 7.3778 0.003 0.027 30.91 0.656 7.4667 0.003 0.027 31.21 0.662 7.5556 0.003 0.027 31.50 0.668 7.6444 0.003 0.028 31.79 0.675
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:38 PM Page 19 7.7333 0.003 0.028 32.08 0.681 7.8222 0.003 0.028 32.36 0.687 7.9111 0.003 0.029 32.64 0.693 8.0000 0.003 0.029 32.92 0.700 8.0889 0.003 0.029 33.20 0.706
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:38 PM Page 20 Analysis Results POC 1
+ Predeveloped x Mitigated
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 0.88 Total Impervious Area: 3.58
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 0.88 Total Impervious Area: 3.58
Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.421128 5 year 1.815193 10 year 2.085243 25 year DRAFT2.437908 50 year 2.70943 100 year 2.98884
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.421128 5 year 1.815193 10 year 2.085243 25 year 2.437908 50 year 2.70943 100 year 2.98884
Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 1.896 1.896 1950 1.931 1.931 1951 1.181 1.181 1952 0.992 0.992 1953 1.072 1.072 1954 1.157 1.157 1955 1.299 1.299 1956 1.282 1.282 1957 1.489 1.489 1958 1.165 1.165
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:01:38 PM Page 21 1959 1.157 1.157 1960 1.220 1.220 1961 1.262 1.262 1962 1.064 1.064 1963 1.221 1.221 1964 1.151 1.151 1965 1.543 1.543 1966 0.999 0.999 1967 1.732 1.732 1968 1.972 1.972 1969 1.403 1.403 1970 1.326 1.326 1971 1.583 1.583 1972 1.706 1.706 1973 0.948 0.948 1974 1.462 1.462 1975 1.595 1.595 1976 1.131 1.131 1977 1.162 1.162 1978 1.427 1.427 1979 1.960 1.960 1980 1.920 1.920 1981 1.477 1.477 1982 2.121 2.121 1983 1.669 1.669 1984 1.074 1.074 1985 1.478 1.478 1986 1.257 1.257 1987 1.931 1.931 1988 1.155 1.155 1989 1.444 1.444 1990 2.763 2.763 1991 2.150 2.150 1992 1.064 DRAFT1.064 1993 0.905 0.905 1994 0.964 0.964 1995 1.304 1.304 1996 1.452 1.452 1997 1.392 1.392 1998 1.353 1.353 1999 2.886 2.886 2000 1.413 1.413 2001 1.499 1.499 2002 1.862 1.862 2003 1.447 1.447 2004 2.686 2.686 2005 1.231 1.231 2006 1.099 1.099 2007 2.524 2.524 2008 2.111 2.111 2009 1.767 1.767
Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 2.8855 2.8855 2 2.7632 2.7632 3 2.6865 2.6865
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:03:46 PM Page 22 4 2.5245 2.5245 5 2.1497 2.1497 6 2.1211 2.1211 7 2.1111 2.1111 8 1.9722 1.9722 9 1.9598 1.9598 10 1.9313 1.9313 11 1.9306 1.9306 12 1.9198 1.9198 13 1.8955 1.8955 14 1.8617 1.8617 15 1.7666 1.7666 16 1.7322 1.7322 17 1.7064 1.7064 18 1.6687 1.6687 19 1.5946 1.5946 20 1.5827 1.5827 21 1.5428 1.5428 22 1.4992 1.4992 23 1.4889 1.4889 24 1.4779 1.4779 25 1.4771 1.4771 26 1.4619 1.4619 27 1.4520 1.4520 28 1.4468 1.4468 29 1.4441 1.4441 30 1.4274 1.4274 31 1.4134 1.4134 32 1.4031 1.4031 33 1.3925 1.3925 34 1.3535 1.3535 35 1.3263 1.3263 36 1.3044 1.3044 37 1.2988 DRAFT1.2988 38 1.2816 1.2816 39 1.2616 1.2616 40 1.2569 1.2569 41 1.2311 1.2311 42 1.2214 1.2214 43 1.2200 1.2200 44 1.1814 1.1814 45 1.1648 1.1648 46 1.1624 1.1624 47 1.1574 1.1574 48 1.1568 1.1568 49 1.1547 1.1547 50 1.1510 1.1510 51 1.1314 1.1314 52 1.0995 1.0995 53 1.0740 1.0740 54 1.0718 1.0718 55 1.0644 1.0644 56 1.0639 1.0639 57 0.9987 0.9987 58 0.9921 0.9921 59 0.9636 0.9636 60 0.9484 0.9484 61 0.9048 0.9048
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:03:46 PM Page 23
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:03:46 PM Page 24 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.7106 1718 1718 100 Pass 0.7308 1574 1574 100 Pass 0.7509 1428 1428 100 Pass 0.7711 1274 1274 100 Pass 0.7913 1146 1146 100 Pass 0.8115 1050 1050 100 Pass 0.8317 961 961 100 Pass 0.8519 883 883 100 Pass 0.8721 806 806 100 Pass 0.8923 737 737 100 Pass 0.9125 677 677 100 Pass 0.9327 628 628 100 Pass 0.9529 576 576 100 Pass 0.9730 536 536 100 Pass 0.9932 503 503 100 Pass 1.0134 458 458 100 Pass 1.0336 421 421 100 Pass 1.0538 393 393 100 Pass 1.0740 368 368 100 Pass 1.0942 351 351 100 Pass 1.1144 320 320 100 Pass 1.1346 303 303 100 Pass 1.1548 275 275 100 Pass 1.1749 260 260 100 Pass 1.1951 240 240 100 Pass 1.2153 225 225 100 Pass 1.2355 208 208 100 Pass 1.2557 199 DRAFT199 100 Pass 1.2759 184 184 100 Pass 1.2961 171 171 100 Pass 1.3163 161 161 100 Pass 1.3365 149 149 100 Pass 1.3567 144 144 100 Pass 1.3769 131 131 100 Pass 1.3970 123 123 100 Pass 1.4172 116 116 100 Pass 1.4374 112 112 100 Pass 1.4576 102 102 100 Pass 1.4778 99 99 100 Pass 1.4980 90 90 100 Pass 1.5182 82 82 100 Pass 1.5384 82 82 100 Pass 1.5586 79 79 100 Pass 1.5788 78 78 100 Pass 1.5989 73 73 100 Pass 1.6191 68 68 100 Pass 1.6393 64 64 100 Pass 1.6595 62 62 100 Pass 1.6797 58 58 100 Pass 1.6999 56 56 100 Pass 1.7201 51 51 100 Pass 1.7403 49 49 100 Pass 1.7605 48 48 100 Pass
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:03:46 PM Page 25 1.7807 45 45 100 Pass 1.8009 41 41 100 Pass 1.8210 40 40 100 Pass 1.8412 38 38 100 Pass 1.8614 35 35 100 Pass 1.8816 31 31 100 Pass 1.9018 29 29 100 Pass 1.9220 27 27 100 Pass 1.9422 23 23 100 Pass 1.9624 22 22 100 Pass 1.9826 20 20 100 Pass 2.0028 17 17 100 Pass 2.0230 16 16 100 Pass 2.0431 16 16 100 Pass 2.0633 15 15 100 Pass 2.0835 13 13 100 Pass 2.1037 12 12 100 Pass 2.1239 10 10 100 Pass 2.1441 9 9 100 Pass 2.1643 8 8 100 Pass 2.1845 8 8 100 Pass 2.2047 8 8 100 Pass 2.2249 8 8 100 Pass 2.2450 8 8 100 Pass 2.2652 8 8 100 Pass 2.2854 8 8 100 Pass 2.3056 8 8 100 Pass 2.3258 8 8 100 Pass 2.3460 8 8 100 Pass 2.3662 8 8 100 Pass 2.3864 7 7 100 Pass 2.4066 7 7 100 Pass 2.4268 7 7 100 Pass 2.4470 7 DRAFT7 100 Pass 2.4671 6 6 100 Pass 2.4873 6 6 100 Pass 2.5075 6 6 100 Pass 2.5277 5 5 100 Pass 2.5479 5 5 100 Pass 2.5681 4 4 100 Pass 2.5883 4 4 100 Pass 2.6085 4 4 100 Pass 2.6287 4 4 100 Pass 2.6489 3 3 100 Pass 2.6690 3 3 100 Pass 2.6892 2 2 100 Pass 2.7094 2 2 100 Pass
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:03:46 PM Page 26 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0.4668 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.5754 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.5754 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.324 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.324 cfs.
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:03:46 PM Page 27 LID Report
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:03:46 PM Page 28 POC 2
+ Predeveloped x Mitigated
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area: 0.51 Total Impervious Area: 2.4
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area: 0.51 Total Impervious Area: 2.4
Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.947624 5 year 1.20852 10 year 1.387097 25 year 1.620086 50 year 1.799322 100 year DRAFT1.983645
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.947624 5 year 1.20852 10 year 1.387097 25 year 1.620086 50 year 1.799322 100 year 1.983645
Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 1.259 1.259 1950 1.292 1.292 1951 0.785 0.785 1952 0.664 0.664 1953 0.718 0.718 1954 0.772 0.772 1955 0.867 0.867 1956 0.855 0.855 1957 0.990 0.990 1958 0.778 0.778 1959 0.775 0.775
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:08:37 PM Page 29 1960 0.810 0.810 1961 0.840 0.840 1962 0.712 0.712 1963 0.813 0.813 1964 0.769 0.769 1965 1.026 1.026 1966 0.667 0.667 1967 1.155 1.155 1968 1.315 1.315 1969 0.933 0.933 1970 0.884 0.884 1971 1.055 1.055 1972 1.131 1.131 1973 0.636 0.636 1974 0.973 0.973 1975 1.069 1.069 1976 0.753 0.753 1977 0.779 0.779 1978 0.956 0.956 1979 1.312 1.312 1980 1.271 1.271 1981 0.986 0.986 1982 1.412 1.412 1983 1.116 1.116 1984 0.716 0.716 1985 0.986 0.986 1986 0.840 0.840 1987 1.292 1.292 1988 0.774 0.774 1989 0.968 0.968 1990 1.822 1.822 1991 1.422 1.422 1992 0.709 0.709 1993 0.605 DRAFT0.605 1994 0.646 0.646 1995 0.871 0.871 1996 0.964 0.964 1997 0.926 0.926 1998 0.905 0.905 1999 1.919 1.919 2000 0.942 0.942 2001 1.004 1.004 2002 1.236 1.236 2003 0.961 0.961 2004 1.787 1.787 2005 0.819 0.819 2006 0.730 0.730 2007 1.678 1.678 2008 1.397 1.397 2009 1.184 1.184
Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 1.9185 1.9185 2 1.8223 1.8223 3 1.7873 1.7873 4 1.6784 1.6784
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:10:53 PM Page 30 5 1.4224 1.4224 6 1.4120 1.4120 7 1.3969 1.3969 8 1.3152 1.3152 9 1.3124 1.3124 10 1.2924 1.2924 11 1.2922 1.2922 12 1.2710 1.2710 13 1.2591 1.2591 14 1.2360 1.2360 15 1.1841 1.1841 16 1.1554 1.1554 17 1.1312 1.1312 18 1.1158 1.1158 19 1.0689 1.0689 20 1.0550 1.0550 21 1.0256 1.0256 22 1.0035 1.0035 23 0.9905 0.9905 24 0.9858 0.9858 25 0.9856 0.9856 26 0.9729 0.9729 27 0.9681 0.9681 28 0.9638 0.9638 29 0.9605 0.9605 30 0.9562 0.9562 31 0.9417 0.9417 32 0.9329 0.9329 33 0.9257 0.9257 34 0.9048 0.9048 35 0.8842 0.8842 36 0.8708 0.8708 37 0.8670 0.8670 38 0.8553 DRAFT0.8553 39 0.8405 0.8405 40 0.8402 0.8402 41 0.8188 0.8188 42 0.8134 0.8134 43 0.8101 0.8101 44 0.7850 0.7850 45 0.7791 0.7791 46 0.7780 0.7780 47 0.7755 0.7755 48 0.7741 0.7741 49 0.7716 0.7716 50 0.7688 0.7688 51 0.7530 0.7530 52 0.7302 0.7302 53 0.7175 0.7175 54 0.7162 0.7162 55 0.7118 0.7118 56 0.7095 0.7095 57 0.6667 0.6667 58 0.6642 0.6642 59 0.6460 0.6460 60 0.6358 0.6358 61 0.6048 0.6048
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:10:53 PM Page 31 DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:10:53 PM Page 32 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.4738 1737 1737 100 Pass 0.4872 1587 1587 100 Pass 0.5006 1438 1438 100 Pass 0.5140 1287 1287 100 Pass 0.5274 1159 1159 100 Pass 0.5408 1054 1054 100 Pass 0.5541 965 965 100 Pass 0.5675 895 895 100 Pass 0.5809 822 822 100 Pass 0.5943 748 748 100 Pass 0.6077 682 682 100 Pass 0.6211 631 631 100 Pass 0.6345 584 584 100 Pass 0.6479 545 545 100 Pass 0.6613 508 508 100 Pass 0.6746 461 461 100 Pass 0.6880 424 424 100 Pass 0.7014 396 396 100 Pass 0.7148 368 368 100 Pass 0.7282 352 352 100 Pass 0.7416 325 325 100 Pass 0.7550 304 304 100 Pass 0.7684 280 280 100 Pass 0.7818 260 260 100 Pass 0.7951 244 244 100 Pass 0.8085 226 226 100 Pass 0.8219 212 212 100 Pass 0.8353 200 DRAFT200 100 Pass 0.8487 186 186 100 Pass 0.8621 173 173 100 Pass 0.8755 161 161 100 Pass 0.8889 150 150 100 Pass 0.9023 145 145 100 Pass 0.9156 133 133 100 Pass 0.9290 124 124 100 Pass 0.9424 117 117 100 Pass 0.9558 113 113 100 Pass 0.9692 103 103 100 Pass 0.9826 99 99 100 Pass 0.9960 90 90 100 Pass 1.0094 83 83 100 Pass 1.0228 82 82 100 Pass 1.0361 79 79 100 Pass 1.0495 78 78 100 Pass 1.0629 73 73 100 Pass 1.0763 69 69 100 Pass 1.0897 63 63 100 Pass 1.1031 61 61 100 Pass 1.1165 58 58 100 Pass 1.1299 56 56 100 Pass 1.1433 51 51 100 Pass 1.1567 50 50 100 Pass 1.1700 48 48 100 Pass
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:10:54 PM Page 33 1.1834 47 47 100 Pass 1.1968 42 42 100 Pass 1.2102 40 40 100 Pass 1.2236 38 38 100 Pass 1.2370 36 36 100 Pass 1.2504 32 32 100 Pass 1.2638 29 29 100 Pass 1.2772 27 27 100 Pass 1.2905 25 25 100 Pass 1.3039 23 23 100 Pass 1.3173 19 19 100 Pass 1.3307 16 16 100 Pass 1.3441 16 16 100 Pass 1.3575 16 16 100 Pass 1.3709 15 15 100 Pass 1.3843 13 13 100 Pass 1.3977 11 11 100 Pass 1.4110 10 10 100 Pass 1.4244 8 8 100 Pass 1.4378 8 8 100 Pass 1.4512 8 8 100 Pass 1.4646 8 8 100 Pass 1.4780 8 8 100 Pass 1.4914 8 8 100 Pass 1.5048 8 8 100 Pass 1.5182 8 8 100 Pass 1.5315 8 8 100 Pass 1.5449 8 8 100 Pass 1.5583 8 8 100 Pass 1.5717 8 8 100 Pass 1.5851 7 7 100 Pass 1.5985 7 7 100 Pass 1.6119 7 7 100 Pass 1.6253 6 DRAFT6 100 Pass 1.6387 6 6 100 Pass 1.6520 6 6 100 Pass 1.6654 6 6 100 Pass 1.6788 6 6 100 Pass 1.6922 5 5 100 Pass 1.7056 4 4 100 Pass 1.7190 4 4 100 Pass 1.7324 4 4 100 Pass 1.7458 4 4 100 Pass 1.7592 3 3 100 Pass 1.7725 3 3 100 Pass 1.7859 3 3 100 Pass 1.7993 2 2 100 Pass
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:10:54 PM Page 34 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #2 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs.
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:10:54 PM Page 35 LID Report
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:10:54 PM Page 36 POC 3
+ Predeveloped x Mitigated
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area: 1.38 Total Impervious Area: 6
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #3 Total Pervious Area: 1.38 Total Impervious Area: 6
Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 2.375717 5 year 3.032273 10 year 3.481955 25 year 4.068945 50 year 4.520706 100 year DRAFT4.985448
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #3 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 2.375717 5 year 3.032273 10 year 3.481955 25 year 4.068945 50 year 4.520706 100 year 4.985448
Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #3 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 3.163 3.163 1950 3.234 3.234 1951 1.972 1.972 1952 1.662 1.662 1953 1.795 1.795 1954 1.935 1.935 1955 2.172 2.172 1956 2.143 2.143 1957 2.486 2.486 1958 1.949 1.949 1959 1.939 1.939
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:10:56 PM Page 37 1960 2.035 2.035 1961 2.108 2.108 1962 1.782 1.782 1963 2.041 2.041 1964 1.924 1.924 1965 2.575 2.575 1966 1.670 1.670 1967 2.896 2.896 1968 3.297 3.297 1969 2.342 2.342 1970 2.217 2.217 1971 2.645 2.645 1972 2.845 2.845 1973 1.590 1.590 1974 2.442 2.442 1975 2.672 2.672 1976 1.890 1.890 1977 1.948 1.948 1978 2.392 2.392 1979 3.283 3.283 1980 3.199 3.199 1981 2.470 2.470 1982 3.543 3.543 1983 2.793 2.793 1984 1.796 1.796 1985 2.471 2.471 1986 2.104 2.104 1987 3.234 3.234 1988 1.935 1.935 1989 2.420 2.420 1990 4.595 4.595 1991 3.581 3.581 1992 1.779 1.779 1993 1.514 DRAFT1.514 1994 1.615 1.615 1995 2.182 2.182 1996 2.422 2.422 1997 2.325 2.325 1998 2.265 2.265 1999 4.817 4.817 2000 2.362 2.362 2001 2.511 2.511 2002 3.106 3.106 2003 2.414 2.414 2004 4.486 4.486 2005 2.056 2.056 2006 1.835 1.835 2007 4.214 4.214 2008 3.516 3.516 2009 2.961 2.961
Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #3 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 4.8172 4.8172 2 4.5953 4.5953 3 4.4862 4.4862 4 4.2144 4.2144
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:13:03 PM Page 38 5 3.5806 3.5806 6 3.5430 3.5430 7 3.5164 3.5164 8 3.2971 3.2971 9 3.2828 3.2828 10 3.2338 3.2338 11 3.2335 3.2335 12 3.1986 3.1986 13 3.1631 3.1631 14 3.1058 3.1058 15 2.9606 2.9606 16 2.8961 2.8961 17 2.8447 2.8447 18 2.7933 2.7933 19 2.6724 2.6724 20 2.6455 2.6455 21 2.5753 2.5753 22 2.5109 2.5109 23 2.4862 2.4862 24 2.4710 2.4710 25 2.4701 2.4701 26 2.4417 2.4417 27 2.4221 2.4221 28 2.4203 2.4203 29 2.4136 2.4136 30 2.3915 2.3915 31 2.3619 2.3619 32 2.3424 2.3424 33 2.3245 2.3245 34 2.2653 2.2653 35 2.2170 2.2170 36 2.1818 2.1818 37 2.1724 2.1724 38 2.1433 DRAFT2.1433 39 2.1078 2.1078 40 2.1041 2.1041 41 2.0556 2.0556 42 2.0406 2.0406 43 2.0355 2.0355 44 1.9716 1.9716 45 1.9488 1.9488 46 1.9479 1.9479 47 1.9387 1.9387 48 1.9353 1.9353 49 1.9346 1.9346 50 1.9242 1.9242 51 1.8897 1.8897 52 1.8345 1.8345 53 1.7955 1.7955 54 1.7952 1.7952 55 1.7818 1.7818 56 1.7786 1.7786 57 1.6705 1.6705 58 1.6616 1.6616 59 1.6150 1.6150 60 1.5895 1.5895 61 1.5144 1.5144
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:13:03 PM Page 39 DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:13:03 PM Page 40 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 1.1879 1726 1726 100 Pass 1.2215 1579 1579 100 Pass 1.2552 1423 1423 100 Pass 1.2889 1278 1278 100 Pass 1.3225 1151 1151 100 Pass 1.3562 1050 1050 100 Pass 1.3898 964 964 100 Pass 1.4235 886 886 100 Pass 1.4572 812 812 100 Pass 1.4908 742 742 100 Pass 1.5245 680 680 100 Pass 1.5582 627 627 100 Pass 1.5918 579 579 100 Pass 1.6255 539 539 100 Pass 1.6592 505 505 100 Pass 1.6928 461 461 100 Pass 1.7265 422 422 100 Pass 1.7602 394 394 100 Pass 1.7938 367 367 100 Pass 1.8275 352 352 100 Pass 1.8612 322 322 100 Pass 1.8948 302 302 100 Pass 1.9285 276 276 100 Pass 1.9622 260 260 100 Pass 1.9958 243 243 100 Pass 2.0295 225 225 100 Pass 2.0632 209 209 100 Pass 2.0968 200 DRAFT200 100 Pass 2.1305 184 184 100 Pass 2.1641 173 173 100 Pass 2.1978 162 162 100 Pass 2.2315 148 148 100 Pass 2.2651 145 145 100 Pass 2.2988 134 134 100 Pass 2.3325 124 124 100 Pass 2.3661 116 116 100 Pass 2.3998 112 112 100 Pass 2.4335 102 102 100 Pass 2.4671 100 100 100 Pass 2.5008 90 90 100 Pass 2.5345 82 82 100 Pass 2.5681 82 82 100 Pass 2.6018 79 79 100 Pass 2.6355 78 78 100 Pass 2.6691 73 73 100 Pass 2.7028 69 69 100 Pass 2.7365 63 63 100 Pass 2.7701 61 61 100 Pass 2.8038 58 58 100 Pass 2.8374 56 56 100 Pass 2.8711 51 51 100 Pass 2.9048 49 49 100 Pass 2.9384 48 48 100 Pass
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:13:03 PM Page 41 2.9721 45 45 100 Pass 3.0058 41 41 100 Pass 3.0394 40 40 100 Pass 3.0731 37 37 100 Pass 3.1068 34 34 100 Pass 3.1404 31 31 100 Pass 3.1741 29 29 100 Pass 3.2078 27 27 100 Pass 3.2414 23 23 100 Pass 3.2751 23 23 100 Pass 3.3088 20 20 100 Pass 3.3424 16 16 100 Pass 3.3761 16 16 100 Pass 3.4098 16 16 100 Pass 3.4434 15 15 100 Pass 3.4771 13 13 100 Pass 3.5108 12 12 100 Pass 3.5444 9 9 100 Pass 3.5781 9 9 100 Pass 3.6117 8 8 100 Pass 3.6454 8 8 100 Pass 3.6791 8 8 100 Pass 3.7127 8 8 100 Pass 3.7464 8 8 100 Pass 3.7801 8 8 100 Pass 3.8137 8 8 100 Pass 3.8474 8 8 100 Pass 3.8811 8 8 100 Pass 3.9147 8 8 100 Pass 3.9484 8 8 100 Pass 3.9821 7 7 100 Pass 4.0157 7 7 100 Pass 4.0494 7 7 100 Pass 4.0831 7 DRAFT7 100 Pass 4.1167 6 6 100 Pass 4.1504 6 6 100 Pass 4.1841 6 6 100 Pass 4.2177 5 5 100 Pass 4.2514 5 5 100 Pass 4.2851 4 4 100 Pass 4.3187 4 4 100 Pass 4.3524 4 4 100 Pass 4.3860 4 4 100 Pass 4.4197 3 3 100 Pass 4.4534 3 3 100 Pass 4.4870 2 2 100 Pass 4.5207 2 2 100 Pass
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:13:03 PM Page 42 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #3 On-line facility volume: 0.7802 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.9653 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.9653 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.5434 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.5434 cfs.
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:13:04 PM Page 43 LID Report
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:13:04 PM Page 44 POC 4
+ Predeveloped x Mitigated
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #4 Total Pervious Area: 0.3 Total Impervious Area: 1.6
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #4 Total Pervious Area: 0.3 Total Impervious Area: 1.6
Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #4 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.629219 5 year 0.80151 10 year 0.919333 25 year 1.072948 50 year 1.191048 100 year DRAFT1.312441
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #4 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.629219 5 year 0.80151 10 year 0.919333 25 year 1.072948 50 year 1.191048 100 year 1.312441
Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #4 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.834 0.834 1950 0.861 0.861 1951 0.520 0.520 1952 0.442 0.442 1953 0.478 0.478 1954 0.512 0.512 1955 0.576 0.576 1956 0.568 0.568 1957 0.657 0.657 1958 0.517 0.517 1959 0.517 0.517
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:13:05 PM Page 45 1960 0.536 0.536 1961 0.557 0.557 1962 0.474 0.474 1963 0.540 0.540 1964 0.512 0.512 1965 0.679 0.679 1966 0.443 0.443 1967 0.767 0.767 1968 0.873 0.873 1969 0.618 0.618 1970 0.587 0.587 1971 0.700 0.700 1972 0.748 0.748 1973 0.424 0.424 1974 0.645 0.645 1975 0.713 0.713 1976 0.499 0.499 1977 0.519 0.519 1978 0.637 0.637 1979 0.874 0.874 1980 0.839 0.839 1981 0.655 0.655 1982 0.936 0.936 1983 0.742 0.742 1984 0.476 0.476 1985 0.655 0.655 1986 0.559 0.559 1987 0.860 0.860 1988 0.516 0.516 1989 0.645 0.645 1990 1.200 1.200 1991 0.939 0.939 1992 0.471 0.471 1993 0.402 DRAFT0.402 1994 0.431 0.431 1995 0.579 0.579 1996 0.638 0.638 1997 0.613 0.613 1998 0.602 0.602 1999 1.271 1.271 2000 0.625 0.625 2001 0.668 0.668 2002 0.818 0.818 2003 0.636 0.636 2004 1.185 1.185 2005 0.543 0.543 2006 0.483 0.483 2007 1.112 1.112 2008 0.922 0.922 2009 0.789 0.789
Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #4 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 1.2711 1.2711 2 1.1999 1.1999 3 1.1847 1.1847 4 1.1119 1.1119
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:07 PM Page 46 5 0.9389 0.9389 6 0.9363 0.9363 7 0.9221 0.9221 8 0.8742 0.8742 9 0.8733 0.8733 10 0.8607 0.8607 11 0.8602 0.8602 12 0.8393 0.8393 13 0.8336 0.8336 14 0.8180 0.8180 15 0.7893 0.7893 16 0.7673 0.7673 17 0.7477 0.7477 18 0.7424 0.7424 19 0.7126 0.7126 20 0.7003 0.7003 21 0.6794 0.6794 22 0.6683 0.6683 23 0.6565 0.6565 24 0.6548 0.6548 25 0.6547 0.6547 26 0.6454 0.6454 27 0.6451 0.6451 28 0.6377 0.6377 29 0.6371 0.6371 30 0.6356 0.6356 31 0.6249 0.6249 32 0.6180 0.6180 33 0.6133 0.6133 34 0.6019 0.6019 35 0.5870 0.5870 36 0.5788 0.5788 37 0.5762 0.5762 38 0.5682 DRAFT0.5682 39 0.5593 0.5593 40 0.5573 0.5573 41 0.5426 0.5426 42 0.5395 0.5395 43 0.5362 0.5362 44 0.5198 0.5198 45 0.5193 0.5193 46 0.5173 0.5173 47 0.5170 0.5170 48 0.5161 0.5161 49 0.5122 0.5122 50 0.5121 0.5121 51 0.4993 0.4993 52 0.4833 0.4833 53 0.4779 0.4779 54 0.4756 0.4756 55 0.4737 0.4737 56 0.4711 0.4711 57 0.4431 0.4431 58 0.4423 0.4423 59 0.4307 0.4307 60 0.4238 0.4238 61 0.4024 0.4024
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:07 PM Page 47 DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:07 PM Page 48 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.3146 1755 1755 100 Pass 0.3235 1595 1595 100 Pass 0.3323 1445 1445 100 Pass 0.3412 1288 1288 100 Pass 0.3500 1166 1166 100 Pass 0.3589 1068 1068 100 Pass 0.3677 975 975 100 Pass 0.3766 900 900 100 Pass 0.3854 823 823 100 Pass 0.3943 750 750 100 Pass 0.4031 682 682 100 Pass 0.4120 641 641 100 Pass 0.4208 592 592 100 Pass 0.4297 552 552 100 Pass 0.4386 514 514 100 Pass 0.4474 465 465 100 Pass 0.4563 430 430 100 Pass 0.4651 398 398 100 Pass 0.4740 374 374 100 Pass 0.4828 354 354 100 Pass 0.4917 328 328 100 Pass 0.5005 304 304 100 Pass 0.5094 284 284 100 Pass 0.5182 261 261 100 Pass 0.5271 245 245 100 Pass 0.5359 228 228 100 Pass 0.5448 213 213 100 Pass 0.5536 202 DRAFT202 100 Pass 0.5625 188 188 100 Pass 0.5713 174 174 100 Pass 0.5802 162 162 100 Pass 0.5890 150 150 100 Pass 0.5979 145 145 100 Pass 0.6068 136 136 100 Pass 0.6156 125 125 100 Pass 0.6245 118 118 100 Pass 0.6333 112 112 100 Pass 0.6422 105 105 100 Pass 0.6510 99 99 100 Pass 0.6599 92 92 100 Pass 0.6687 85 85 100 Pass 0.6776 82 82 100 Pass 0.6864 79 79 100 Pass 0.6953 78 78 100 Pass 0.7041 72 72 100 Pass 0.7130 69 69 100 Pass 0.7218 63 63 100 Pass 0.7307 61 61 100 Pass 0.7395 59 59 100 Pass 0.7484 54 54 100 Pass 0.7573 52 52 100 Pass 0.7661 51 51 100 Pass 0.7750 48 48 100 Pass
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:07 PM Page 49 0.7838 46 46 100 Pass 0.7927 42 42 100 Pass 0.8015 40 40 100 Pass 0.8104 38 38 100 Pass 0.8192 35 35 100 Pass 0.8281 32 32 100 Pass 0.8369 29 29 100 Pass 0.8458 27 27 100 Pass 0.8546 25 25 100 Pass 0.8635 23 23 100 Pass 0.8723 21 21 100 Pass 0.8812 16 16 100 Pass 0.8900 16 16 100 Pass 0.8989 16 16 100 Pass 0.9078 14 14 100 Pass 0.9166 12 12 100 Pass 0.9255 11 11 100 Pass 0.9343 10 10 100 Pass 0.9432 8 8 100 Pass 0.9520 8 8 100 Pass 0.9609 8 8 100 Pass 0.9697 8 8 100 Pass 0.9786 8 8 100 Pass 0.9874 8 8 100 Pass 0.9963 8 8 100 Pass 1.0051 8 8 100 Pass 1.0140 8 8 100 Pass 1.0228 8 8 100 Pass 1.0317 8 8 100 Pass 1.0405 8 8 100 Pass 1.0494 8 8 100 Pass 1.0583 7 7 100 Pass 1.0671 6 6 100 Pass 1.0760 6 DRAFT6 100 Pass 1.0848 6 6 100 Pass 1.0937 6 6 100 Pass 1.1025 6 6 100 Pass 1.1114 6 6 100 Pass 1.1202 5 5 100 Pass 1.1291 5 5 100 Pass 1.1379 4 4 100 Pass 1.1468 4 4 100 Pass 1.1556 4 4 100 Pass 1.1645 3 3 100 Pass 1.1733 3 3 100 Pass 1.1822 3 3 100 Pass 1.1910 2 2 100 Pass
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:08 PM Page 50 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #4 On-line facility volume: 0.2061 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.2574 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.2574 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.1452 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.1452 cfs.
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:08 PM Page 51 LID Report
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:08 PM Page 52 Model Default Modifications
Total of 0 changes have been made.
PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made.
IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made.
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:10 PM Page 53 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:10 PM Page 54 Mitigated Schematic
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:12 PM Page 55 Predeveloped UCI File RUN
GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL
FILES
OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 16 IMPLND 5 COPY 501 COPY 502 COPY 503 COPY 504 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 DISPLY 3 DISPLY 4 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 DRAFT # - #<------Title------>***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 Alt 1 Treated MAX 1 2 30 9 2 Basin 1 Alt 1 Untreated MAX 1 2 31 9 3 Basin 1 Alt 2 MAX 1 2 32 9 4 Basin 2 MAX 1 2 33 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 502 1 1 503 1 1 504 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:14 PM Page 56 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER***
ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
PWAT-PARM1
PWAT-PARM2
PWAT-PARM3
PWAT-STATE1 DRAFT
END PERLND
IMPLND GEN-INFO
ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
IWAT-PARM1
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:14 PM Page 57
IWAT-PARM2
IWAT-PARM3
IWAT-STATE1
END IMPLND
SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK ***
******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC
NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> ***
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> ***
RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES***
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:14 PM Page 58 ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1
HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><------><------><------><------><------><------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES
SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES
EXT SOURCES <-Volume->
END EXT SOURCES
EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume->
MASS-LINK
MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13
MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15
END MASS-LINK
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 59
END RUN
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 60 Mitigated UCI File RUN
GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL
FILES
OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 16 IMPLND 5 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 2 RCHRES 3 COPY 501 COPY 502 COPY 503 COPY 504 DISPLY 1 DISPLY 2 DISPLY 3 DISPLY 4 END INGRP DRAFT END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<------Title------>***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 Alt 1 Treated MAX 1 2 30 9 2 Basin 1 Alt 1 Untreated MAX 1 2 31 9 3 Basin 1 Alt 2 MAX 1 2 32 9 4 Basin 2 MAX 1 2 33 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 502 1 1 503 1 1 504 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 61
ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
PWAT-PARM1
PWAT-PARM2
PWAT-PARM3
PWAT-STATE1
END PERLND
IMPLND GEN-INFO
ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 62 END PRINT-INFO
IWAT-PARM1
IWAT-PARM2
IWAT-PARM3
IWAT-STATE1
END IMPLND
SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK ***
******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC
NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> ***
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 63
<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> ***
RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** 1 Sand Filter 1 2 1 1 1 28 0 1 2 Sand Filter 2 2 1 1 1 28 0 1 3 Sand Filter 3 2 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES***
ACTIVITY
PRINT-INFO
HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 DRAFT 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1
HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><------><------><------><------><------><------> *** 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2 2 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3 3 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> 1 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES
SPEC-ACTIONS END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 1 91 5 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.003673 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 64 0.088889 0.003673 0.000326 0.000000 1.117556 0.177778 0.003673 0.000653 0.000000 1.165111 0.266667 0.003673 0.000979 0.000000 1.212667 0.355556 0.003673 0.001306 0.000000 1.260222 0.444444 0.003673 0.001632 0.000000 1.307778 0.533333 0.003673 0.001959 0.317087 1.355333 0.622222 0.003673 0.002285 0.607175 1.402889 0.711111 0.003673 0.002612 0.797984 1.450444 0.800000 0.003673 0.002938 0.951260 1.498000 0.888889 0.003673 0.003265 1.083057 1.545556 0.977778 0.003673 0.003591 1.200471 1.593111 1.066667 0.003673 0.003918 1.307382 1.640667 1.155556 0.003673 0.004244 1.406188 1.688222 1.244444 0.003673 0.004571 1.498493 1.735778 1.333333 0.003673 0.004897 1.585434 1.783333 1.422222 0.003673 0.005224 1.667848 1.830889 1.511111 0.003673 0.005550 1.746378 1.878444 1.600000 0.003673 0.005877 1.821525 1.926000 1.688889 0.003673 0.006203 1.893692 1.973556 1.777778 0.003673 0.006530 1.963208 2.021111 1.866667 0.003673 0.006856 2.030346 2.068667 1.955556 0.003673 0.007183 2.095333 2.116222 2.044444 0.003673 0.007509 2.158365 2.163778 2.133333 0.003673 0.007836 2.219607 2.211333 2.222222 0.003673 0.008162 2.279204 2.258889 2.311111 0.003673 0.008489 2.337283 2.306444 2.400000 0.003673 0.008815 2.393952 2.354000 2.488889 0.003673 0.009142 2.449311 2.401556 2.577778 0.003673 0.009468 2.503446 2.449111 2.666667 0.003673 0.009795 2.556435 2.496667 2.755556 0.003673 0.010121 2.608348 2.544222 2.844444 0.003673 0.010448 2.659247 2.591778 2.933333 0.003673 0.010774 2.709190 2.639333 3.022222 0.003673 0.011101 2.828558 2.686889 3.111111 0.003673 0.011427 3.591181 2.734444 3.200000 0.003673 0.011754 4.740457 2.782000 3.288889 0.003673 0.012080 6.139734 2.829556 3.377778 0.003673 0.012407 7.691664 2.877111 3.466667 0.003673 0.012733 9.298982 2.924667 3.555556 0.003673 0.013060DRAFT 10.86242 2.972222 3.644444 0.003673 0.013386 12.28825 3.019778 3.733333 0.003673 0.013713 13.50062 3.067333 3.822222 0.003673 0.014039 14.45723 3.114889 3.911111 0.003673 0.014366 15.16752 3.162444 4.000000 0.003673 0.014692 15.84769 3.210000 4.088889 0.003673 0.015019 16.43671 3.257556 4.177778 0.003673 0.015345 17.00327 3.305111 4.266667 0.003673 0.015672 17.54984 3.352667 4.355556 0.003673 0.015998 18.07846 3.400222 4.444444 0.003673 0.016325 18.59084 3.447778 4.533333 0.003673 0.016651 19.08843 3.495333 4.622222 0.003673 0.016978 19.57247 3.542889 4.711111 0.003673 0.017304 20.04405 3.590444 4.800000 0.003673 0.017631 20.50410 3.638000 4.888889 0.003673 0.017957 20.95346 3.685556 4.977778 0.003673 0.018284 21.39285 3.733111 5.066667 0.003673 0.018610 21.82292 3.780667 5.155556 0.003673 0.018937 22.24426 3.828222 5.244444 0.003673 0.019263 22.65739 3.875778 5.333333 0.003673 0.019590 23.06279 3.923333 5.422222 0.003673 0.019916 23.46087 3.970889 5.511111 0.003673 0.020243 23.85204 4.018444 5.600000 0.003673 0.020569 24.23665 4.066000 5.688889 0.003673 0.020896 24.61502 4.113556 5.777778 0.003673 0.021222 24.98745 4.161111 5.866667 0.003673 0.021549 25.35423 4.208667 5.955556 0.003673 0.021875 25.71560 4.256222 6.044444 0.003673 0.022202 26.07180 4.303778 6.133333 0.003673 0.022528 26.42305 4.351333 6.222222 0.003673 0.022855 26.76956 4.398889
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 65 6.311111 0.003673 0.023181 27.11151 4.446444 6.400000 0.003673 0.023508 27.44909 4.494000 6.488889 0.003673 0.023834 27.78246 4.541556 6.577778 0.003673 0.024161 28.11177 4.589111 6.666667 0.003673 0.024487 28.43718 4.636667 6.755556 0.003673 0.024814 28.75881 4.684222 6.844444 0.003673 0.025140 29.07681 4.731778 6.933333 0.003673 0.025467 29.39129 4.779333 7.022222 0.003673 0.025793 29.70237 4.826889 7.111111 0.003673 0.026120 30.01016 4.874444 7.200000 0.003673 0.026446 30.31476 4.922000 7.288889 0.003673 0.026773 30.61628 4.969556 7.377778 0.003673 0.027099 30.91479 5.017111 7.466667 0.003673 0.027426 31.21040 5.064667 7.555556 0.003673 0.027752 31.50318 5.112222 7.644444 0.003673 0.028079 31.79323 5.159778 7.733333 0.003673 0.028405 32.08060 5.207333 7.822222 0.003673 0.028732 32.36539 5.254889 7.911111 0.003673 0.029058 32.64765 5.302444 8.000000 0.003673 0.029385 32.92745 5.350000 END FTABLE 1 FTABLE 2 91 5 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.003673 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.088889 0.003673 0.000326 0.000000 0.564000 0.177778 0.003673 0.000653 0.000000 0.588000 0.266667 0.003673 0.000979 0.000000 0.612000 0.355556 0.003673 0.001306 0.000000 0.636000 0.444444 0.003673 0.001632 0.000000 0.660000 0.533333 0.003673 0.001959 0.317087 0.684000 0.622222 0.003673 0.002285 0.607175 0.708000 0.711111 0.003673 0.002612 0.797984 0.732000 0.800000 0.003673 0.002938 0.951260 0.756000 0.888889 0.003673 0.003265 1.083057 0.780000 0.977778 0.003673 0.003591 1.200471 0.804000 1.066667 0.003673 0.003918 1.307382 0.828000 1.155556 0.003673 0.004244 1.406188 0.852000 1.244444 0.003673 0.004571DRAFT 1.498493 0.876000 1.333333 0.003673 0.004897 1.585434 0.900000 1.422222 0.003673 0.005224 1.667848 0.924000 1.511111 0.003673 0.005550 1.746378 0.948000 1.600000 0.003673 0.005877 1.821525 0.972000 1.688889 0.003673 0.006203 1.893692 0.996000 1.777778 0.003673 0.006530 1.963208 1.020000 1.866667 0.003673 0.006856 2.030346 1.044000 1.955556 0.003673 0.007183 2.095333 1.068000 2.044444 0.003673 0.007509 2.158365 1.092000 2.133333 0.003673 0.007836 2.219607 1.116000 2.222222 0.003673 0.008162 2.279204 1.140000 2.311111 0.003673 0.008489 2.337283 1.164000 2.400000 0.003673 0.008815 2.393952 1.188000 2.488889 0.003673 0.009142 2.449311 1.212000 2.577778 0.003673 0.009468 2.503446 1.236000 2.666667 0.003673 0.009795 2.556435 1.260000 2.755556 0.003673 0.010121 2.608348 1.284000 2.844444 0.003673 0.010448 2.659247 1.308000 2.933333 0.003673 0.010774 2.709190 1.332000 3.022222 0.003673 0.011101 2.828558 1.356000 3.111111 0.003673 0.011427 3.591181 1.380000 3.200000 0.003673 0.011754 4.740457 1.404000 3.288889 0.003673 0.012080 6.139734 1.428000 3.377778 0.003673 0.012407 7.691664 1.452000 3.466667 0.003673 0.012733 9.298982 1.476000 3.555556 0.003673 0.013060 10.86242 1.500000 3.644444 0.003673 0.013386 12.28825 1.524000 3.733333 0.003673 0.013713 13.50062 1.548000 3.822222 0.003673 0.014039 14.45723 1.572000 3.911111 0.003673 0.014366 15.16752 1.596000
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 66 4.000000 0.003673 0.014692 15.84769 1.620000 4.088889 0.003673 0.015019 16.43671 1.644000 4.177778 0.003673 0.015345 17.00327 1.668000 4.266667 0.003673 0.015672 17.54984 1.692000 4.355556 0.003673 0.015998 18.07846 1.716000 4.444444 0.003673 0.016325 18.59084 1.740000 4.533333 0.003673 0.016651 19.08843 1.764000 4.622222 0.003673 0.016978 19.57247 1.788000 4.711111 0.003673 0.017304 20.04405 1.812000 4.800000 0.003673 0.017631 20.50410 1.836000 4.888889 0.003673 0.017957 20.95346 1.860000 4.977778 0.003673 0.018284 21.39285 1.884000 5.066667 0.003673 0.018610 21.82292 1.908000 5.155556 0.003673 0.018937 22.24426 1.932000 5.244444 0.003673 0.019263 22.65739 1.956000 5.333333 0.003673 0.019590 23.06279 1.980000 5.422222 0.003673 0.019916 23.46087 2.004000 5.511111 0.003673 0.020243 23.85204 2.028000 5.600000 0.003673 0.020569 24.23665 2.052000 5.688889 0.003673 0.020896 24.61502 2.076000 5.777778 0.003673 0.021222 24.98745 2.100000 5.866667 0.003673 0.021549 25.35423 2.124000 5.955556 0.003673 0.021875 25.71560 2.148000 6.044444 0.003673 0.022202 26.07180 2.172000 6.133333 0.003673 0.022528 26.42305 2.196000 6.222222 0.003673 0.022855 26.76956 2.220000 6.311111 0.003673 0.023181 27.11151 2.244000 6.400000 0.003673 0.023508 27.44909 2.268000 6.488889 0.003673 0.023834 27.78246 2.292000 6.577778 0.003673 0.024161 28.11177 2.316000 6.666667 0.003673 0.024487 28.43718 2.340000 6.755556 0.003673 0.024814 28.75881 2.364000 6.844444 0.003673 0.025140 29.07681 2.388000 6.933333 0.003673 0.025467 29.39129 2.412000 7.022222 0.003673 0.025793 29.70237 2.436000 7.111111 0.003673 0.026120 30.01016 2.460000 7.200000 0.003673 0.026446 30.31476 2.484000 7.288889 0.003673 0.026773 30.61628 2.508000 7.377778 0.003673 0.027099 30.91479 2.532000 7.466667 0.003673 0.027426DRAFT 31.21040 2.556000 7.555556 0.003673 0.027752 31.50318 2.580000 7.644444 0.003673 0.028079 31.79323 2.604000 7.733333 0.003673 0.028405 32.08060 2.628000 7.822222 0.003673 0.028732 32.36539 2.652000 7.911111 0.003673 0.029058 32.64765 2.676000 8.000000 0.003673 0.029385 32.92745 2.700000 END FTABLE 2 FTABLE 3 91 5 Depth Area Volume Outflow1 Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0.003673 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.088889 0.003673 0.000326 0.000000 0.146222 0.177778 0.003673 0.000653 0.000000 0.152444 0.266667 0.003673 0.000979 0.000000 0.158667 0.355556 0.003673 0.001306 0.000000 0.164889 0.444444 0.003673 0.001632 0.000000 0.171111 0.533333 0.003673 0.001959 0.317087 0.177333 0.622222 0.003673 0.002285 0.607175 0.183556 0.711111 0.003673 0.002612 0.797984 0.189778 0.800000 0.003673 0.002938 0.951260 0.196000 0.888889 0.003673 0.003265 1.083057 0.202222 0.977778 0.003673 0.003591 1.200471 0.208444 1.066667 0.003673 0.003918 1.307382 0.214667 1.155556 0.003673 0.004244 1.406188 0.220889 1.244444 0.003673 0.004571 1.498493 0.227111 1.333333 0.003673 0.004897 1.585434 0.233333 1.422222 0.003673 0.005224 1.667848 0.239556 1.511111 0.003673 0.005550 1.746378 0.245778 1.600000 0.003673 0.005877 1.821525 0.252000
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 67 1.688889 0.003673 0.006203 1.893692 0.258222 1.777778 0.003673 0.006530 1.963208 0.264444 1.866667 0.003673 0.006856 2.030346 0.270667 1.955556 0.003673 0.007183 2.095333 0.276889 2.044444 0.003673 0.007509 2.158365 0.283111 2.133333 0.003673 0.007836 2.219607 0.289333 2.222222 0.003673 0.008162 2.279204 0.295556 2.311111 0.003673 0.008489 2.337283 0.301778 2.400000 0.003673 0.008815 2.393952 0.308000 2.488889 0.003673 0.009142 2.449311 0.314222 2.577778 0.003673 0.009468 2.503446 0.320444 2.666667 0.003673 0.009795 2.556435 0.326667 2.755556 0.003673 0.010121 2.608348 0.332889 2.844444 0.003673 0.010448 2.659247 0.339111 2.933333 0.003673 0.010774 2.709190 0.345333 3.022222 0.003673 0.011101 2.828558 0.351556 3.111111 0.003673 0.011427 3.591181 0.357778 3.200000 0.003673 0.011754 4.740457 0.364000 3.288889 0.003673 0.012080 6.139734 0.370222 3.377778 0.003673 0.012407 7.691664 0.376444 3.466667 0.003673 0.012733 9.298982 0.382667 3.555556 0.003673 0.013060 10.86242 0.388889 3.644444 0.003673 0.013386 12.28825 0.395111 3.733333 0.003673 0.013713 13.50062 0.401333 3.822222 0.003673 0.014039 14.45723 0.407556 3.911111 0.003673 0.014366 15.16752 0.413778 4.000000 0.003673 0.014692 15.84769 0.420000 4.088889 0.003673 0.015019 16.43671 0.426222 4.177778 0.003673 0.015345 17.00327 0.432444 4.266667 0.003673 0.015672 17.54984 0.438667 4.355556 0.003673 0.015998 18.07846 0.444889 4.444444 0.003673 0.016325 18.59084 0.451111 4.533333 0.003673 0.016651 19.08843 0.457333 4.622222 0.003673 0.016978 19.57247 0.463556 4.711111 0.003673 0.017304 20.04405 0.469778 4.800000 0.003673 0.017631 20.50410 0.476000 4.888889 0.003673 0.017957 20.95346 0.482222 4.977778 0.003673 0.018284 21.39285 0.488444 5.066667 0.003673 0.018610 21.82292 0.494667 5.155556 0.003673 0.018937DRAFT 22.24426 0.500889 5.244444 0.003673 0.019263 22.65739 0.507111 5.333333 0.003673 0.019590 23.06279 0.513333 5.422222 0.003673 0.019916 23.46087 0.519556 5.511111 0.003673 0.020243 23.85204 0.525778 5.600000 0.003673 0.020569 24.23665 0.532000 5.688889 0.003673 0.020896 24.61502 0.538222 5.777778 0.003673 0.021222 24.98745 0.544444 5.866667 0.003673 0.021549 25.35423 0.550667 5.955556 0.003673 0.021875 25.71560 0.556889 6.044444 0.003673 0.022202 26.07180 0.563111 6.133333 0.003673 0.022528 26.42305 0.569333 6.222222 0.003673 0.022855 26.76956 0.575556 6.311111 0.003673 0.023181 27.11151 0.581778 6.400000 0.003673 0.023508 27.44909 0.588000 6.488889 0.003673 0.023834 27.78246 0.594222 6.577778 0.003673 0.024161 28.11177 0.600444 6.666667 0.003673 0.024487 28.43718 0.606667 6.755556 0.003673 0.024814 28.75881 0.612889 6.844444 0.003673 0.025140 29.07681 0.619111 6.933333 0.003673 0.025467 29.39129 0.625333 7.022222 0.003673 0.025793 29.70237 0.631556 7.111111 0.003673 0.026120 30.01016 0.637778 7.200000 0.003673 0.026446 30.31476 0.644000 7.288889 0.003673 0.026773 30.61628 0.650222 7.377778 0.003673 0.027099 30.91479 0.656444 7.466667 0.003673 0.027426 31.21040 0.662667 7.555556 0.003673 0.027752 31.50318 0.668889 7.644444 0.003673 0.028079 31.79323 0.675111 7.733333 0.003673 0.028405 32.08060 0.681333 7.822222 0.003673 0.028732 32.36539 0.687556
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 68 7.911111 0.003673 0.029058 32.64765 0.693778 8.000000 0.003673 0.029385 32.92745 0.700000 END FTABLE 3 END FTABLES
EXT SOURCES <-Volume->
END EXT SOURCES
EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume->
MASS-LINK
MASS-LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 3
MASS-LINK 5 DRAFT IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS-LINK 5
MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12
MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13
MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15
END MASS-LINK
END RUN
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 69 Predeveloped HSPF Message File
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:15 PM Page 70 Mitigated HSPF Message File
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:16 PM Page 71 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2017; All Rights Reserved.
Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com
DRAFT
17645_NWCS Flow Calcs 6/22/2017 4:15:16 PM Page 72
APPENDIX D Contech Provided Studies Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter for the Removal of SIL-CO-SIL® 106, a standardized silica product: ZPGTM StormFilter cartridge at 28 L/min (7.5 gpm) Environmental Technology Verification Report, Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device, The Stormwater Management StormFilter® Using ZPG Filter Media
Product Evaluation
Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® for the removal of SIL-CO-SIL® 106, a standardized silica product: ZPG™ StormFilter cartridge at 28 L/min (7.5 gpm)
Overview A Stormwater Management StormFilter® (StormFilter) ZPG™ cartridge was tested to assess its ability to remove total suspended solids (TSS) and decrease turbidity from simulated stormwater. Under controlled conditions, 7 runoff simulations (sims) were performed using influent TSS with a silt texture (20% sand, 80% silt, 0% clay), variable event mean concentrations (EMCs) between 0 and 300 mg/L, and a filtration rate of 28 L/min (7.5 gpm) (100% design, per cartridge, operating rate for this configuration). The mean TSS (silt) removal efficiency for this StormFilter cartridge configuration was determined using regression statistics and found to be 87% (P=0.05: L1=86%, L2=89%) over the range of influent EMCs tested. Turbidity data was also collected and indicated that this StormFilter cartridge configuration was capable of a 51% (P=0.05: L1=47%, L2=55%) mean decrease in turbidity.
Introduction The goal of testing the ZPG™ StormFilter cartridge was to determine its TSS and turbidity removal performance given a standardized commercial product as the contaminant surrogate. Utilizing a standardized contaminant surrogate eliminates contaminant characteristics as a variable, thereby providing opportunities to compare StormFilter performance with that of other StormFilter configurations or treatment systems tested using the same contaminant surrogate. To assure the comparability of this experiment with other StormFilter performance evaluations, the methodology used for this experiment is identical to that used in previous cartridge-scale StormFilter evaluations for solids removal (Stormwater360, 2002; SMI, 2002a).
Procedure Media A StormFilter ZPG™ cartridge was used for this experiment. This specific type of cartridge contains ZPG™ multipurpose media, a proprietary blend of organic and inorganic media (as per Stormwater360 product specifications). ZPG™ media is effective in the removal of solids, metals and organic chemicals. Prior to testing, the ZPG™ StormFilter cartridge used for testing was flushed so as to remove the residual dust within the media left over from the cartridge production process, as well as to allow the media to approach a typical, wet operating condition. Individual, ~400-L, tap water flushes were performed according to the operation segment of the procedure section. Flushing was ceased after eight flushes, at which point the effluent TSS EMC had decreased to 8.8 mg/L from an initial value of 218 mg/L.
©2004 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions PE-E062 1 of 9 contechstormwater.com 4/11/06 GPT
Contaminant A commercial ground silica product, SIL-CO-SIL® 106 (SCS 106), was used as the surrogate for TSS. This product is manufactured by the US Silica Company∗ and the sample used for testing originated from the Mill Creek, OK plant. SCS 106 has a uniform specific gravity of 2.65 and is specified by the State of Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE) for the laboratory evaluation of stormwater treatment technologies (WADOE, 2002) for TSS removal. An average particle size distribution is shown in Figure 1, revealing a silt texture (USDA scale) consisting of 20% sand, 80% silt, and 0% clay-sized particles (Stormwater360, 2002). Based upon a 400-L influent volume, target TSS EMCs were determined for each planned contaminated simulation and associated masses of contaminant were placed in 1-L HDPE bottles of tap water--one bottle of concentrate per planned contaminated simulation. Target TSS EMCs were distributed between 0 and 300 mg/L. The order in which they were used was randomly selected using random number techniques so as not to bias the performance results. The SCS 106 concentrates were given the opportunity to hydrate prior to experimentation so as to promote the disintegration of any aggregate particles that may have been present. The concentrates were then left out at room temperature and periodically shaken to encourage the dissolution of any aggregates.
CLAY SILT SAND 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 % Finer (by mass) 0.2 0.1 0.0 1 10 100
Particle Size (um) Figure 1. Particle size distribution for SCS 106. Sand/silt/clay fractions according to USDA definitions are approximately 20%, 80%, and 0% for SCS 106, indicating that the texture corresponds to a silt material. Test Apparatus The typical precast StormFilter system is composed of three bays: the inlet bay, the filtration bay, and the outlet bay. Stormwater first enters the inlet bay of the StormFilter vault through the inlet pipe. Stormwater in the inlet bay is then directed through the flow spreader, which traps some floatables, oils, and surface scum, and over the energy dissipator into the filtration bay where treatment takes place. Once in the filtration bay, the stormwater begins to
∗U.S. Silica Company, P.O. Box 187, Berkeley Springs, WV 25411; (800) 243-7500; www.u-s-silica.com
2
pond and percolate horizontally through the media contained in the StormFilter cartridges. After passing through the media, the treated water in each cartridge collects in the cartridge’s center tube from where it is directed into the outlet bay by an under-drain manifold. The treated water in the outlet bay is then discharged through the single outlet pipe to a collection pipe or to an open channel drainage way. The test apparatus used for this experiment simulates the filtration bay component of a full-scale StormFilter system, including the energy dissipator. Since the design of full-scale StormFilter systems varies, and since the operation of a full-scale system in the laboratory environment would require very large volumes of water, the use of the most common components among all of the possible designs, the StormFilter cartridge and the associated volume of filtration bay area, were selected so as to provide a very conservative estimate of StormFilter performance. Unlike chemical removal testing, suspended solids removal testing is challenging due to the relatively large, dense, insoluble nature of the contaminant. Care must be taken to maintain the suspension of solids within the influent and effluent reservoirs, maintain the suspension of solids within the conveyance system, avoid the fouling of flow metering devices, avoid the destruction of individual solids by the pumping system, and avoid the destruction of the pumping system by the solids. Mixer Flow Meter (Recirculation) Delivery Manifold
Influent Tank Test Tank StormFilter Cartridge
Mixer
3-way (Recirculation)
Ball Valve Energy Effluent Dissipator Pump Tank
Under Drain Manifold
Pump
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the cartridge-scale test apparatus. Arrows indicate flow pathways. Dashed arrows indicate recirculation pathways employed during influent and effluent sampling. The apparatus used for this experiment was carefully designed to meet these challenges. Figure 2 demonstrates the layout of the test apparatus. Influent and effluent storage is provided by individual 950-L (250 gallon), conical bottom polyethylene tanks (Chem- Tainer). The conical bottom design ensures full drainage of the tanks, in addition to the movement of all solids out of the tanks. Four, evenly-spaced, vertically-oriented baffles, measuring 91 x 8 x 1-cm (36 x 3 x 0.5-in) (L x W x Thickness), affixed to the sidewalls of the influent and effluent tank prevent a mixer-induced vortex. Suspension of solids within the tanks is maintained by individual, 1/2-hp, electric propeller mixers with stainless steel mixing assemblies (J.L. Wingert, B-3-TE-PRP/316). The propeller design maximizes the vertical circulation of solids within the tank and ensures the homogeneity of the mixture. Magnetic drive pumps (Little Giant, TE-6-MD-HC) are used to transfer the influent, and also to re-circulate
3
water through the underlying manifolds of both tanks during sampling so as to eliminate any possibility of sediment accumulation in the manifolds. Influent is carried from the influent tank by the magnetic drive pump plumbed with 25- mm (1-in) PVC hose into a PVC intake manifold below the influent tank and discharging into a delivery manifold of 25-mm PVC pipe. Despite the associated head loss, 25-mm diameter hose and pipe are used to ensure high flow velocities that maintain the suspension of solids during transfer. A 25-mm, 3-way, side-control, ball valve used for flow control assures very high flow velocities in the intake manifold, allows some degree of re-circulation back into the reservoir, and allows the high power pump to operate relatively unrestricted. Discharge from the delivery manifold into the 56 x 56 x 62-cm (22 x 22 x 24.5-in) (L x W x H) polypropylene StormFilter cartridge test tank is by discharge into the tank-mounted energy dissipater, which consists of a vertical length of 76-mm (3-in) PVC pipe with an open bottom and multiple 3-mm (0.125-in) wide horizontal slots along its entire length. The energy dissipater is a typical component of a StormFilter system and is used to minimize the re-suspension of settled material within the test tank by restricting turbulence to the region within the dissipater. Discharge from the StormFilter cartridge test tank into the effluent tank is through free discharge from the under-drain manifold component of the test tank positioned over the top of the effluent tank. Flow into the StormFilter cartridge test tank is controlled by the 3-way ball valve placed between the pump and the delivery manifold, and flow is monitored with a paddle-wheel type electronic flow meter (GF Signet, Rotor-X Low Flow) coupled with a flow transmitter with totalizer (GF Signet, Processpro). Operation The operational procedure consisted of performing multiple runoff simulations (sims) using the same StormFilter cartridge test tank and apparatus described in the Test Apparatus section above. Sims proceeded as follows. The influent tank was filled with ~400-L of tap water, and the predetermined contaminant concentrate was added to the influent tank. The influent tank was then mixed thoroughly with the mechanical mixer while influent was re-circulated through the underlying manifold and allowed to equilibrate for 5 to 10 minutes before sampling. Following influent sample collection, a portion of flow was redirected to the test tank energy dissipator via the delivery manifold through adjustment of the 3-way valve. Flow rate was controlled through periodic adjustment of the 3-way valve so as to maintain a constant flow rate reading of 28 L/min ± 2 L/min (7.5 gpm ± 0.5 gpm). Mixing and re-circulation of the effluent reservoir was started towards the end of a sim to allow effluent equilibration prior to sample collection. The influent pump was operated until as much of the influent had been pumped from the influent reservoir and underlying manifold as was possible, at which point the influent pump was shut down and the StormFilter cartridge test tank was allowed to drain. Once the float valve within the StormFilter cartridge closed, effluent was sampled and the total sim volume reported by the totalizer was recorded. Sampling Composite samples of influent and effluent were collected for TSS and turbidity analysis. One set of samples was collected for TSS analysis by North Creek Analytical (NCA), Beaverton, OR, and an additional set was collected for internal turbidity analysis. For this document, a set is defined as a collection of influent and effluent sample pairs corresponding to a specific sim. Sample handling was performed in accordance with standard handling techniques. All samples to be tested for TSS were promptly refrigerated following collection. Samples were shipped to the laboratory in coolers, accompanied by ice-packs and chain-of-custody documentation for analysis within seven days. NCA performed TSS analysis according to
4
ASTM method D3977, which is essentially the same as the “whole-sample” variation of EPA method 160.2 (SMI, 2002b). Samples were extracted with a 1-L PE, 1.2-m ladle using a sweeping motion across and through the center of the reservoir. Six 1-L grab samples were collected in an 8-L churn sample splitter (Bel-Art Products) for composite sample extraction according to manufacturer instructions. Care was taken to transfer all solids from the ladle through quick emptying of the ladle while using a swirling motion. The churn splitter was used to dispense approximately 250- mL of composite sample into 250-mL (8-oz) HDPE bottles for TSS analysis and an additional 500-mL composite sample was dispensed to a 1-L (32-oz) HDPE bottle for turbidity analysis. The sampling ladle and churn splitter were subject to a high-pressure wash between uses. Internal Analysis Turbidity, a measure of the light-dispersing characteristics of a fluid, was measured using a bench-top turbidimeter (LaMotte Model 2020). The sample was swirled in its bottle immediately before pouring a subsample to the turbidimeter tube. The tube was wiped clean of moisture using lint-free wipes and then swirled, taking care to prevent bubbles in the sample and to maintain a clean tube surface, prior to insertion into the turbidimeter. The turbidimeter tube was rinsed with deionized water between each use. Results TSS removal and turbidity results are shown in Table 1. The discrete efficiencies, efficiencies of individual pairs of associated influent and effluent TSS EMCs, suggest an increase with increasing influent TSS EMC. A similar trend is evident for the generally increasing turbidity reduction contrasted to increasing average influent turbidity.
Table 1. Summary of influent and effluent TSS EMCs and turbidity along with TSS removal and turbidity decrease results shown according to increasing influent TSS EMC.
Discrete TSS Average Average Discrete Influent Effluent Sim Removal Influent Effluent Turbidity TSS EMC TSS EMC Sim Volume Efficiency Turbidity Turbidity Decrease (mg/L) (mg/L) (L) (%) (NTU) (NTU) (%) ND (4.00) 7.09 addition 0.45 2.3 addition 7 401 25.4 14.2 44.1 4.1 5.4 addition 4 398 49.1 17.0 65.4 8.8 7.7 12.5 6 397 107 21.1 80.3 17 10.2 40.0 1 393 144 28.2 80.4 25 15 40.0 2 396 188 33.2 82.3 35 19 45.7 5 393 292 45.5 84.4 53 29 45.3 3 389
Discussion Quality Control For TSS analysis, Method Blank and Duplicate quality control samples are typically used to measure bias and precision. Method Blank results as reported by the analytical laboratory were non-detect (<4 mg/L) for the four sets of analyses that comprised the data set shown in Table 1. Unfortunately, since the “whole-sample” nature of ASTM method D3977 involves the use of the entire sample volume, none of the sample volume is left over for traditional Duplicate analysis. Thus dedicated Duplicate samples were collected for 2 of the 14 TSS analyses (14% duplicates) and are displayed in Table 2. The results of the Method Blank and Duplicate analyses demonstrate an acceptable level of bias and precision according to SMI (2002c).
5
Table 2. Summary of Quality Control results.
Official Duplicate Relative Sim Influent/Effluent Result Result Percent (I or E) (mg/L) (mg/L) Difference (%) 2 I 144 143 0.7 2 E 28.2 29.0 2.8
TSS and Turbidity Removal Performance Evaluation The graphed results of the external TSS analysis, displayed in Figure 3, show a regressed removal efficiency of 87% (P=0.05: L1=86%, L2=89%), which is calculated by subtracting the regression coefficient (slope) from 1. Based upon an analysis of variance (ANOVA), the regression is significant at the P<0.001 level (<0.1% probability of no correlation between influent and effluent TSS EMC’s). Coupled with y-intercept and regression coefficients that are both significant at the P<0.001 levels, this signals a good fit of the data points to the regression equation, which is visually supported by the tight 95% confidence intervals. At P<0.001, the confidence in the TSS EMC removal performance estimate is within the 0.05 limit considered by SMI (2002d) to indicate a valid estimate.
200 ANOVA Source of Variation df SS MS F Explained 1 987.3 987.3 303.8*** Unexplained 5 16.25 3.2495 Total 6 1003.5 150 SIGNIFICANCE OF COEFFICIENTS Coeff. Std. Error t y0=9.193 1.078 8.527*** a=0.1259 0.0072 17.43*** 100 * = 0.01 < P < 0.05 ** = 0.001 < P < 0.01 ***= P < 0.001
Effluent TSS EMC (mg/L) TSS Effluent 50
Regression Equation: y = 0.13x + 9.19 r2 = 0.984 0 0 100 200 300 Influent TSS EMC (mg/L) Figure 3. Regression analysis applied to the TSS data associated with the estimation of the SCS 106 TSS removal efficiency of the ZPG™ StormFilter cartridge at 28 L/min. The solid line is the regression. The dotted lines signify the lower and upper 95% confidence intervals. ANOVA indicates a significant (P<0.001) linear relationship between influent and effluent TSS EMC. The decrease in turbidity associated with the ZPG™ cartridge test is less than the reduction of TSS. The mean turbidity reduction, shown in Figure 4, was observed to be 51% (P=0.05: L1=47%, L2=55%) based upon regression analysis that is significant at the P<0.001 level. The y-intercept and regression coefficients, significant at the P<0.01 and P<0.001 levels, respectively, provide ample confidence in the observed relationship.
6
35 ANOVA Source of Variation df SS MS F 30 Explained 1 500.6 500.6 893.0*** Unexplained 5 2.803 0.561 Total 6 503.4
25 SIGNIFICANCE OF COEFFICIENTS Coeff. Std. Error t y0=2.675 0.4378 6.111** a=0.4874 0.0163 29.88*** 20 * = 0.01 < P < 0.05 ** = 0.001 < P < 0.01 15 ***= P < 0.001
10 Effluent Turbidity (NTU) Turbidity Effluent
5 Regression Equation: y = 0.49x + 2.68 r2 = 0.994 0 0 102030405060
Influent Turbidity (NTU) Figure 4. SCS 106 turbidity reduction by the ZPG™ StormFilter cartridge at 28 L/min. The solid line is the regression. The dotted lines signify the upper and lower 95% confidence intervals. ANOVA indicates a significant (P<0.001) linear relationship between influent and effluent turbidity.
TSS Removal Performance with Regard to Particle Size Based upon the particle size distribution presented in Figure 1, SCS 106 consists primarily of silt-sized silica particles (80% by mass between 2 and 50 microns). Combined with the TSS removal estimate of 87% (by mass) demonstrated in Figure 3, some qualitative inferences concerning the particle size specific removal efficiency of the system can be made. Assuming that larger particles are preferentially removed over smaller particles, it could be said that the system under review removed particles down to the 6 micron level since, conservatively, 87% (by mass) of SCS 106 is composed of silica particles larger than 6 microns. Since it is likely that some particles smaller than 6 microns were retained and some particles larger than 6 microns were lost by the system, the efficiency of the system under review with regard to particle size is probably best represented by a size range. With this in mind, a better qualitative statement with regard to the particle size removal efficiency of the system under review would be that it is capable of removing silica particles in the vicinity of 10 microns.
Conclusions The tests utilizing SCS 106 as a contaminant generated results for the assessment of the silt TSS and turbidity removal efficiency of the ZPG™ StormFilter cartridge. The use of a standardized contaminant surrogate allows the results from laboratory evaluations of the TSS removal performance of stormwater treatment systems to be easily compared. In summary:
7
1. A ZPG™ StormFilter cartridge test unit, operating at 28 L/min, and subject to TSS with a silt texture (20% sand, 80% silt, and 0% clay by mass) originating from SCS 106 provides a mean TSS removal efficiency of 87% (P=0.05: L1=86%, L2=89%); 2. A ZPG™ StormFilter cartridge test unit, operating at 28 L/min, and subject to TSS with a silt texture (20% sand, 80% silt, and 0% clay by mass) originating from SCS 106 provides a mean turbidity reduction of 51% (P=0.05: L1=47%, L2=55%); 3. A ZPG™ StormFilter cartridge test unit, operating at 28 L/min is effective on silica particles down to the 10 micron size range;
It is important to emphasize that these conclusions reflect laboratory-based testing performed under controlled conditions. Field conditions are notoriously variable with regard to TSS characteristics and sampling methods, and comparison of this experiment to field-derived data will be accordingly affected. Laboratory studies are beneficial for the evaluation of system performance potential as part of the product development or system comparison process.
Stormwater360, Stormwater Management Inc, and Vortechnics Inc. are now CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Inc.
References Stormwater360. (2002). Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® cartridge for the removal of SIL-CO-SIL 106, a synthetically graded sand material: Coarse/fine perlite StormFilter cartridge at 28 L/min (7.5 gpm). (Report No. PD-02-003.1). Portland, Oregon: Author.
Stormwater Management Inc (SMI). (2002a). Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® cartridge for the removal of SIL-CO-SIL 106, a synthetically graded sand material: Coarse perlite StormFilter cartridge at 28 L/min (7.5 gpm). (Report No. PD-02-002.1). Portland, Oregon: Author.
Stormwater Management Inc. (2002b). Influence of analytical method, data summarization method, and particle size on total suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiency (Report No. PD- 02-006.1). Portland, Oregon: Author.
Stormwater Management Inc (SMI). (2002c). Stormwater Management StormFilter Quality Assurance Project Plan. Portland, Oregon: Author.
Stormwater Management Inc. (2002d). Performance Summarization Guidelines (SMI PD-02- 001.0). Portland, OR: Author.
State of Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE). (2002, October). Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies: Technology Assessment Protocol— Ecology (WADOE Publication No. 02-10-037). Retrieved November 11, 2002, from: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech/02-10-037%20TAPE.pdf
8
Revision Summary PE-E062 Document rebranded.
PE-E061 Document number changed; document rebranded; no substantial changes.
PD-04-006.0 Original
July 2004 04/17/WQPC-WWF EPA/600/R-04/125
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device
The Stormwater Management StormFilter Using ZPG Filter Media
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: STORMWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION: SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND ROADWAY POLLUTANT TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY NAME: THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STORMFILTER® USING ZPG FILTER MEDIA TEST LOCATION: MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN COMPANY: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, INC. ADDRESS: 12021-B NE Airport Way PHONE: (800) 548-4667 Portland, Oregon 97220 FAX: (503) 240-9553 WEB SITE: http://www.stormwaterinc.com EMAIL: mail@ stormwaterinc.com
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the EPA, operates the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), one of six centers under ETV. The WQPC recently evaluated the performance of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® (StormFilter) using ZPG filter media manufactured by Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI). The system was installed at the “Riverwalk” site in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Earth Tech, Inc. and the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) performed the testing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer- reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies. ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholder groups, which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
04/17/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. July 2004 VS-i TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION The following description of the StormFilter was provided by the vendor and does not represent verified information. The StormFilter installed at the Riverwalk site consists of an inlet bay, flow spreader, cartridge bay, overflow baffle, and outlet bay, housed in a 12 foot by 6 foot pre-cast concrete vault. The inlet bay serves as a grit chamber and provides for flow transition into the cartridge bay. The flow spreader traps floatables, oil, and surface scum. This StormFilter was designed to treat stormwater with a maximum flow rate of 0.29 cubic feet per second (cfs). Flows greater than the maximum flow rate would pass the overflow baffle to the discharge pipe, bypassing the filter media. The StormFilter contains filter cartridges filled with ZPG filter media (a mixture of zeolite, perlite, and granular activated carbon), which are designed to remove sediments, metals, and stormwater pollutants from wet weather runoff. Water in the cartridge bay infiltrates the filter media into a tube in the center of the filter cartridge. When the center tube fills, a float valve opens and a check valve on top of the filter cartridge closes, creating a siphon that draws water through the filter media. The filtered water drains into a manifold under the filter cartridges and to the outlet bay, where it exits the system through the discharge pipe. The system resets when the cartridge bay is drained and the siphon is broken. The vendor claims that the treatment system can remove 50 to 85 percent of the suspended solids in stormwater, along with removal of total phosphorus, total and dissolved zinc, and total and dissolved copper in ranges from 20 to 60 percent. VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION Methods and Procedures The test methods and procedures used during the study are described in the Test Plan for Verification of Stormwater Management, Inc. StormFilter® Treatment System Using ZPG Media, “Riverwalk Site,” Milwaukee, Wisconsin (NSF International and Earth Tech, March 2004) (VTP). The StormFilter treats runoff collected from a 0.19-acre portion of the eastbound highway surface of Interstate 794. Milwaukee receives an average of nearly 33 inches of precipitation, approximately 31 percent of which occurs during the summer months. Verification testing consisted of collecting data during a minimum of 15 qualified events that met the following criteria: • The total rainfall depth for the event, measured at the site, was 0.2 inches (5 mm) or greater (snow fall and snow melt events do not qualify); • Flow through the treatment device was successfully measured and recorded over the duration of the runoff period; • A flow-proportional composite sample was successfully collected for both the influent and effluent over the duration of the runoff event; • Each composite sample was comprised of a minimum of five aliquots, including at least two aliquots on the rising limb of the runoff hydrograph, at least one aliquot near the peak, and at least two aliquots on the falling limb of the runoff hydrograph; and • There was a minimum of six hours between qualified sampling events. Automated sample monitoring and collection devices were installed and programmed to collect composite samples from the influent, the treated effluent, and the untreated bypass during qualified flow events. In addition to the flow and analytical data, operation and maintenance (O&M) data were recorded. Samples were analyzed for the following parameters:
04/17/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. July 2004 VS-ii
Sediments Metals Nutrients Water Quality Parameters • total suspended solids (TSS) • total and • total and • chemical oxygen • total dissolved solids (TDS) dissolved dissolved demand (COD) • suspended sediment cadmium, lead, phosphorus • dissolved chloride concentration (SSC) copper and zinc • total calcium and • particle size analysis magnesium VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE Verification testing of the StormFilter lasted approximately 16 months, and coincided with testing conducted by USGS and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. A total of 20 storm events were sampled. Conditions during certain storm events prevented sampling for some parameters. However, samples were successfully taken and analyzed for all parameters for at least 15 of the 20 total storm events. Test Results The precipitation data for the 20 rain events are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Rainfall Data Summary Peak Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Discharge Event Start Start Amount Duration Volume Rate Number Date Time (inches) (hr:min) (ft3)1 (gpm)1 1 6/21/02 6:54 0.52 0:23 420 447 2 7/8/02 21:16 1.5 2:04 1,610 651 3 8/21/02 20:08 1.7 15:59 1,620 671 4 9/2/02 5:24 1.2 3:24 1,180 164 5 9/18/02 5:25 0.37 4:54 350 136 6 9/29/02 0:49 0.74 7:54 730 70.9 7 12/18/02 1:18 0.37 3:47 300 61.0 8 4/19/03 5:39 0.55 10:00 340 96.9 9 5/4/03 21:21 0.90 11:44 540 73.2 10 5/30/03 18:55 0.54 4:06 320 83.9 11 6/8/03 3:26 0.62 11:09 450 140 12 6/27/03 17:30 0.57 13:25 460 107 13 7/4/03 7:25 0.53 40:43 550 143 14 7/8/03 9:49 0.33 3:37 260 62.8 15 9/12/03 15:33 0.22 1:55 150 21.5 16 9/14/03 5:22 0.47 6:35 340 264 17 9/22/03 2:28 0.27 2:09 270 104 18 10/14/03 1:03 0.25 2:07 220 56.5 19 10/24/03 16:46 0.71 15:07 410 75.8 20 11/4/03 16:14 0.60 2:09 560 906 1 Runoff volume and peak discharge volume was measured at the outlet monitoring point.
04/17/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. July 2004 VS-iii
The monitoring results were evaluated using event mean concentration (EMC) and sum of loads (SOL) comparisons. The EMC or efficiency ratio comparison evaluates treatment efficiency on a percentage basis by dividing the effluent concentration by the influent concentration and multiplying the quotient by 100. The efficiency ratio was calculated for each analytical parameter and each individual storm event. The SOL comparison evaluates the treatment efficiency on a percentage basis by comparing the sum of the influent and effluent loads (the product of multiplying the parameter concentration by the precipitation volume) for all 15 storm events. The calculation is made by subtracting the quotient of the total effluent load divided by the total influent load from one, and multiplying by 100. SOL results can be summarized on an overall basis since the loading calculation takes into account both the concentration and volume of runoff from each event. The analytical data ranges, EMC range, and SOL reduction values are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Analytical Data, EMC Range, and SOL Reduction Results
SOL
Inlet Outlet EMC Range Reduction Parameter1 Units Range Range (percent) (percent) TSS mg/L 29 – 780 20 – 380 -33 – 95 46 SSC mg/L 51 – 5,600 12 – 370 3 – 99 92 TDS mg/L <50 – 600 <50 – 4,2002 -600 – 10 -1702 Total phosphorus mg/L as P 0.05 – 0.63 0.03 – 0.30 0 – 70 38 Dissolved phosphorus mg/L as P 0.01 – 0.20 0.01 – 0.19 -35 – 38 6 Total magnesium mg/L 4.0 – 174 1.1 – 26 53 – 96 85 Total calcium mg/L 9.4 – 430 4.0 – 68 26 – 93 79 Total copper µg/L 15 – 440 7.0 – 140 8.3 – 96 59 Total lead µg/L <31 – 280 <31 – 94 33 – 91 64 Total zinc µg/L 77 – 1,400 28 – 540 20 – 89 64 Dissolved copper µg/L <5 – 58 <5 – 42 -47 – 64 16 Dissolved zinc µg/L 26 – 360 16 – 160 -86 – 56 17 COD mg/L 18 – 320 17 – 190 -91 – 47 16 Dissolved chloride mg/L 3.2 – 470 3.3 – 2,6002 -740 – 24 -2422 1 Total and dissolved cadmium and dissolved lead concentrations were below method detection limits for every storm event. 2 Dissolved chloride and TDS results were heavily influenced by a December storm event when road salt was applied to melt snow and ice. Based on the SOL evaluation method, the TSS reductions nearly met the vendor’s performance claim, while SSC reductions exceeded the vendor’s performance claim of 50 to 85 percent solids reduction. The StormFilter also met or exceeded the performance claim for total and dissolved phosphorus, total copper, and total zinc. The StormFilter did not meet the performance claim for dissolved copper or dissolved zinc, both of which were 20 to 40 percent reduction, and had no performance claims for any other parameters. The TDS and dissolved chloride values were heavily influenced by a single event (December 18, 2002), where high TDS and dissolved chloride concentrations were detected in the effluent. The event was likely influenced by application of road salt on the freeway. When this event is omitted from the SOL calculation, the SOL value is -37 percent for TDS and -31 percent for dissolved chloride.
04/17/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. July 2004 VS-iv Particle size distribution analysis was conducted on samples when adequate sample volume was collected. The analysis identified that the runoff entering the StormFilter contained a large proportion of coarse sediment. The effluent contained a larger proportion of fine sediment, which passed through the pores within the filter cartridges. For example, 20 percent of the sediment in the inlet samples was less than 62.5 µm in size, while 78 percent of the sediment in the outlet samples was less than 62.5 µm in size. System Operation The StormFilter was installed prior to verification testing, so verification of installation procedures on the system was not documented. The StormFilter was cleaned and equipped with new filter cartridges prior to the start of verification. During the verification period, two inspections were conducted as recommended by the manufacturer. Based on visual observations, the inspectors concluded that a major maintenance event, consisting of cleaning the vault and replacing the filter cartridges, was not required. After the verification was complete, a major maintenance event was conducted, and approximately 570 pounds (dry weight) of sediment was removed from the StormFilter’s sediment collection chamber. Quality Assurance/Quality Control NSF personnel completed a technical systems audit during testing to ensure that the testing was in compliance with the test plan. NSF also completed a data quality audit of at least 10 percent of the test data to ensure that the reported data represented the data generated during testing. In addition to QA/QC audits performed by NSF, EPA personnel conducted an audit of NSF's QA Management Program.
Original signed by Original Signed by Lawrence W. Reiter, Ph. D. September 21, 2004 Gordon E. Bellen September 23, 2004 Lawrence W. Reiter, Ph. D. Date Gordon E. Bellen Date Acting Director Vice President National Risk Management Laboratory Research Office of Research and Development NSF International United States Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific, predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products. This report is not an NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned herein. Availability of Supporting Documents Copies of the ETV Verification Protocol, Stormwater Source Area Treatment Technologies Draft 4.1, March 2002, the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF Report Number 04/17/WQPC-WWF) are available from: ETV Water Quality Protection Center Program Manager (hard copy) NSF International P.O. Box 130140 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140 NSF website: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy) EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy) Appendices are not included in the verification report, but are available from NSF upon request.
04/17/WQPC-WWF The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. July 2004 VS-v
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device
The Stormwater Management StormFilter Using ZPG Filter Media
Prepared for: NSF International Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Prepared by Earth Tech Inc. Madison, Wisconsin
With assistance from: United States Geologic Survey (Wisconsin Division) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raymond Frederick, Project Officer ETV Water Quality Protection Center National Risk Management Research Laboratory Water Supply and Water Resources Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Edison, New Jersey
July 2004
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and Development has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under a Cooperative Agreement. The Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC), operating under the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program, supported this verification effort. This document has been peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF and EPA and recommended for public release. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by the EPA for use.
i Foreword
The following is the final report on an Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) test performed for NSF International (NSF) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The verification test for The Stormwater Management StormFilter® using ZPG Media was conducted at a testing site in downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin, maintained by Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation’s land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA’s research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency’s center for investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory’s research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL’s research provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory’s strategic long-term research plan. It is published and made available by EPA’s Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Lawrence W. Reiter, Acting Director National Risk Management Research Laboratory
ii Contents
Verification Statement ...... VS-i Notice...... i Foreword...... ii Contents ...... iii Figures...... iv Tables...... iv Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... vi Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation...... 1 1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities...... 1 1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...... 2 1.2.2 Verification Organization...... 2 1.2.3 Testing Organization...... 3 1.2.4 Analytical Laboratories...... 4 1.2.5 Vendor...... 4 1.2.6 Verification Testing Site...... 4 Chapter 2 Technology Description ...... 6 2.1 Treatment System Description...... 6 2.2 Filtration Process...... 7 2.3 Technology Application and Limitations...... 8 2.4 Performance Claim...... 8 Chapter 3 Test Site Description ...... 9 3.1 Location and Land Use ...... 9 3.2 Contaminant Sources and Site Maintenance...... 10 3.3 Stormwater Conveyance System...... 11 3.4 Water Quality/Water Resources...... 11 3.5 Local Meteorological Conditions...... 11 Chapter 4 Sampling Procedures and Analytical Methods ...... 12 4.1 Sampling Locations...... 12 4.1.1 Site 1 - Influent...... 12 4.1.2 Site 2 - Treated Effluent...... 12 4.1.3 Other Monitoring Locations...... 13 4.2 Monitoring Equipment ...... 14 4.3 Contaminant Constituents Analyzed...... 15 4.4 Sampling Schedule...... 16 4.5 Field Procedures for Sample Handling and Preservation...... 18 Chapter 5 Monitoring Results and Discussion...... 20 5.1 Monitoring Results: Performance Parameters...... 20 5.1.1 Concentration Efficiency Ratio...... 20 5.1.2 Sum of Loads...... 27 5.2 Particle Size Distribution ...... 33 Chapter 6 QA/QC Results and Summary ...... 35 6.1 Laboratory/Analytical Data QA/QC...... 35 6.1.1 Bias (Field Blanks)...... 35 6.1.2 Replicates (Precision)...... 36
iii 6.1.3 Accuracy...... 38 6.1.4 Representativeness ...... 40 6.1.5 Completeness ...... 40 6.2 Flow Measurement Calibration...... 41 6.2.1 Inlet – Outlet Volume Comparison ...... 41 6.2.2 Gauge Height Calibration...... 44 6.2.3 Point Velocity Correction...... 44 6.2.4 Correction for Missing Velocity Data...... 44 Chapter 7 Operations and Maintenance Activities ...... 47 7.1 System Operation and Maintenance...... 47 7.1.1 Major Maintenance Procedure ...... 48 Chapter 8 References ...... 49 Glossary ...... 50 Appendices...... 52 A Verification Test Plan...... 52 B Event Hydrographs and Rain Distribution...... 52 C Analytical Data Reports...... 52
Figures
Figure 2-1. Schematic drawing of a typical StormFilter system...... 6 Figure 2-2. Schematic drawing of a StormFilter cartridge...... 7 Figure 3-1. Location of test site...... 9 Figure 3-2. Drainage area detail...... 10 Figure 3-3. StormFilter drainage area condition...... 10 Figure 4-1. View of monitoring station...... 12 Figure 4-2. View of ISCO samplers...... 13 Figure 4-3. View of datalogger...... 13 Figure 4-4. View of rain gauge...... 14 Figure 6-1. Calibration curves used to correct flow measurements...... 42 Figure 6-2. Event 2 example hydrograph showing period of missing velocity data...... 45
Tables
Table 2-1. StormFilter Performance Claims...... 8 Table 4-1. Field Monitoring Equipment ...... 14 Table 4-2. Constituent List for Water Quality Monitoring...... 15 Table 4-3. Summary of Events Monitored for Verification Testing ...... 17 Table 4-4. Rainfall Summary for Monitored Events ...... 18 Table 5-1. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Sediment Parameters...... 21 Table 5-2. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Nutrient Parameters...... 23 Table 5-3. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Metals...... 24 Table 5-4. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Water Quality Parameters ...... 26 Table 5-5. Sediment Sum of Loads Efficiencies Calculated Using Various Flow Volumes ...... 28 Table 5-6. Sediment Sum of Loads Results...... 29
iv Table 5-7. Nutrient Sum of Loads Results...... 30 Table 5-8. Metals Sum of Loads Results...... 31 Table 5-9. Water Quality Parameter Sum of Loads Results...... 32 Table 5-10. Particle Size Distribution Analysis Results...... 34 Table 6-1. Field Blank Analytical Data Summary...... 35 Table 6-2. Field Duplicate Sample Relative Percent Difference Data Summary...... 37 Table 6-3. Laboratory Duplicate Sample Relative Percent Difference Data Summary ...... 38 Table 6-4. Laboratory MS/MSD Data Summary...... 39 Table 6-5. Laboratory Control Sample Data Summary...... 39 Table 6-6. Comparison of Inlet and Outlet Event Runoff Volumes...... 43 Table 6-7. Gauge Corrections for Flow Measurements at the Inlet...... 44 Table 6-8. Missing Sample Aliquots Due to Missing Inlet Velocity Data ...... 46 Table 7-1. Operation and Maintenance During Verification Testing...... 47
v Abbreviations and Acronyms
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BMP Best Management Practice cfs Cubic feet per second COD Chemical oxygen demand EMC Event mean concentration EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ETV Environmental Technology Verification ft2 Square feet ft3 Cubic feet g Gram gal Gallon gpm Gallon per minute in Inch kg Kilogram L Liters lb Pound LOD Limit of detection LOQ Limit of quantification NRMRL National Risk Management Research Laboratory µg/L Microgram per liter (ppb) µm Micron mg/L Milligram per liter NSF NSF International, formerly known as National Sanitation Foundation NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology O&M Operations and maintenance QA Quality assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality control SMI Stormwater Management, Inc. SSC Suspended sediment concentration SOL Sum of loads SOP Standard Operating Procedure TDS Total dissolved solids TO Testing Organization TP Total phosphorus TSS Total suspended solids USGS United States Geological Survey VA Visual accumulator VO Verification Organization (NSF) VTP Verification test plan WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources WQPC Water Quality Protection Center WisDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation WSLH Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene ZPG ZPG media, a mixture of zeolite, perlite, and granular activated carbon
vi Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV program is to further environmental protection by substantially accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; stakeholders groups, which consist of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory (as appropriate) testing, collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the EPA, operates the Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC). The WQPC evaluated the performance of The Stormwater Management StormFilter® using ZPG Filter Media (StormFilter), a stormwater treatment device designed to remove suspended solids, metals, and other stormwater pollutants from wet weather runoff.
It is important to note that verification of the equipment does not mean that the equipment is “certified” by NSF or “accepted” by EPA. Rather, it recognizes that the performance of the equipment has been determined and verified by these organizations for those conditions tested by the Testing Organization (TO).
1.2 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the StormFilter was a cooperative effort among the following participants: