The Stormwater Management Stormfilter

Revised Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report Northwest Container Services – Tacoma Facility 1801 Taylor Way Tacoma, Washington 98409 Pierce County

Site Operator: Northwest Container Services, Inc. Permit Number: WAR126969 Permit Type: Industrial Stormwater General Permit

Prepared by: PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. 415 W 6th Street, Suite 601 Vancouver, Washington 98660

Revised: December 13, 2018 PBS Project 17635.007

415 W 6TH STREET, SUITE 601 VANCOUVER, WA 98660 360.695.3488 MAIN 866.727.0140 FAX PBSUSA.COM Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, 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...... 3 3.1 Water Quality Characterization ...... 3 3.2 Hydrologic Analysis ...... 4 3.3 Treatment Alternatives ...... 4 3.3.1 Alternative 1 ...... 5 3.3.2 Alternative 2 ...... 5 3.4 Treatment Alternatives Expected Performance ...... 5 3.5 Preliminary Cost Estimates...... 7 4 PROPOSED STORMWATER TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS ...... 8 4.1 Selected Treatment BMP and Sizing Calculations ...... 8 4.2 Treatment Process and Operation ...... 8 4.3 Use of Chemicals in the Treatment Process ...... 9 4.4 Expected Treatment Performance...... 9 4.5 Oil and Grease...... 10 5 CERTIFICATION BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ...... 11

Revised: December 13, 2018 i PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington

Supporting Data TABLES Table 1: Water Quality Characterization of NW Container Tacoma Stormwater (Q2 2013–Q4 2018) Table 2. Investigatory Sample Results Table 3. Selected Design Flow Rates for Basin 1 Table 4. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Alternative 1 Table 5. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Alternative 2 Table 6: Treatment Technology Preliminary Cost Estimates Table 7. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for the Proposed Basin 1 Treatment System

FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Map Figure 3. Plan View: Proposed Basin 1 Treatment System Figure 4. Flow Diagram: Proposed Basin 1 Treatment System

APPENDICES Appendix A: Investigatory Sample Results Field Forms Laboratory Analysis Reports

Appendix B: Western Washington Hydrology Model Results

Appendix C: Conceptual Designs for Basin 1 Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Appendix D: Detailed Cost Estimates Alternative 1: Two-Stage Contech StormFilter Alternative 2: Enhanced Media Filtration System

Appendix E: 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

Revised: December 13, 2018 ii PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, 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

Revised: December 13, 2018 iii PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington

General Information

Name of Facility: Northwest Container Services – Tacoma Facility Location of Facility: 1801 Taylor Way Tacoma, Washington 98409

Type of Facility: Transportation, Storage, and Handling of Intermodal Containers Primary SIC Code 4731 (Arrangement of Transportation of Freight and Cargo) Primary NAICS 488510 (Freight Transportation Arrangement)

Type of Permit: Industrial Stormwater – General Permit Permit Number: WAR126969 County: Pierce County

Site Area: 305,216 square feet (7.01 acres) Impervious Area: 284,149 square feet (6.52 acres)

Chief Official: Gary Cardwell Title: Division Vice President

Site Contact Name: Bob Sherwood Site Contact Title: District Manager Telephone Number: 253.272.3134 Fax Number: 253.838.3745

Revised: December 13, 2018 iv PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, 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, Inc. (NWCS), Tacoma facility in Tacoma, Washington (facility). The facility is operated by NWCS. The facility operates under coverage of an Industrial Stormwater General Permit (ISGP or Permit) issued by the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Permit was first issued on May 16, 2013, and reissued on December 3, 2014.

In 2017, the facility triggered a Level 3 corrective action for total zinc per Permit Section 8.D at sample location OF1. It also triggered a Level 2 corrective action for turbidity per Permit Section S8.C at OF1; however, NWCS elected to install a Level 3 corrective action for turbidity in lieu of a Level 2 corrective action at OF1 as well. Therefore, this engineering report was written to address stormwater treatment measures that will address both total zinc and turbidity for Drainage Basin 1. 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.

NWCS submitted a permit modification request to Ecology to extend the Level 3 deadline by one year. Ecology initially denied the permit modification request on April 24, 2018. However, the facility was granted an Administrative Order on August 27, 2018, for a modification of permit coverage pertaining to a Level 2 and Level 3 time extension (extension). Therefore, the treatment BMP(s) must be installed and operational on or before September 30, 2019.

The extension required the facility to collect additional samples to identify the speciation of zinc in stormwater. The data collected was used to identify and determine the media required to treat facility stormwater for zinc. The extension also required that a revised Engineering Report be submitted for Ecology’s review and approval by December 15, 2018. More information regarding the zinc speciation is included in section 3.1 of this report.

Revised: December 13, 2018 1 PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington

2 FACILITY ASSESSMENT Included in this section is a summary of the facility operations as well as a description of the existing surface water drainage.

2.1 Facility Description The facility is located at 1801 Taylor Way (47o 16’ 25” N latitude; 122o 23’ 10” W longitude) in Tacoma, Washington, and is located within the Port of Tacoma. Land use surrounding the facility is predominately industrial, with industrial properties bordering the site to the east and west, Taylor Way to the south, and the Hylebos Waterway to the north. 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 7.0 acres in size, and the majority of the site is impervious. Impervious surfaces consist of pavement and building rooftops. The only pervious surface is a small stretch of gravel ballast rock around the railroad tracks along the western property boundary, which occupies approximately seven percent of the facility area.

The NWCS Tacoma facility is an intermodal container facility. The facility is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and is operated by NWCS. Containers are moved 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 for moving containers between trucks and trains. The facility consists of a main yard alongside a double set of railroad tracks. The main yard is used to move and store containers, perform maintenance, store maintenance supplies, park vehicles, and to house office buildings. A small entry gatehouse is located near the southeast corner of the site.

2.2 Surface Water Drainage The NWCS Tacoma yard consists of one drainage basin: Basin 1. Stormwater runoff from the site enters the stormwater system through a series of 19 catch basins located throughout the yard. Stormwater is conveyed by gravity through the site drainage system to a single consolidated point (manhole) in the northeast quadrant of the site. From here, stormwater flows into a BaySaver Technologies BayFilter underground stormwater treatment structure (BayFilter vault). The treatment structure consists of 14 stormwater Enhanced Media Cartridges (EMCs). The current treatment BMPs used at the facility are catch basin inserts with secondary filter inserts containing zeolite pouches, the BayFilter vault, and a zeolite pouch in the outlet chamber of the BayFilter vault.

The manhole directly downstream (north) of the BayFilter vault serves as the sample point (OF1) for Basin 1. The outlet of the BayFilter vault gravity flows to the site’s stormwater outfall to the Hylebos Waterway, which ultimately discharges into Commencement Bay of the Puget Sound. Figure 2 details the general configuration of the stormwater system, catch basin IDs, drainage basin boundaries, and the location of the existing treatment system.

Revised: December 13, 2018 2 PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, 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 preliminary cost estimates 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 by S8.D.3.a.ii of the Permit.

3.1 Water Quality Characterization Stormwater samples have been collected from the facility’s sample point and analyzed for permit-required analytes from the second quarter of 2013 to present. Table 1 presents average concentrations of the parameters analyzed as required by the Permit.

Table 1: Water Quality Characterization of NW Container Tacoma Stormwater (Q2 2013–Q4 2018) Basin Total Zinc (μg/L) Turbidity (NTU)

1 216 16 Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark. μg/L: micrograms per liter

As required by the extension, the facility has collected additional stormwater samples upstream of the existing treatment system (sample ID: UTS) to identify the speciation of zinc in stormwater. These samples were submitted under chain of custody for total zinc, dissolved zinc, and total suspended solids (TSS) analysis. Observation for oil sheen and field measurement of turbidity was also performed. The facility experienced unusually dry weather in early fall 2018, which limited sample collection opportunities. Due to limited rainfall, laboratory data has been received for three samples to date. The results from the samples are included in Table 2 below, and the field forms and laboratory reports can be found in Appendix A.

Table 2. Investigatory Sample Results

Zinc Oil Sample Sample Turbidity TSS Sample Sheen Location Date Total Dissolved % (NTU) (mg/L) (μg/L) (μg/L) Dissolved (Yes/No) 1 9/14/2018 177 152 85.9% No 8.0 <5.00

UTS 2 10/5/2018 265 221 83.4% No 28.9 17

3 11/28/2018 336 264 78.6% No 36.5 11 Notes:

Based on results of the investigatory samples, it can be concluded that approximately 80 percent of the zinc in site stormwater is in the dissolved form. The low TSS results support this finding, indicating that the zinc is dissolved in the stormwater and not attached to solid particles, or is present as very fine particulate (<0.45 micrometers [μm]).

Revised: December 13, 2018 3 PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington

3.2 Hydrologic Analysis The hydrologic analysis performed was in accordance with the criteria and guidelines set forth by the City of Tacoma’s Stormwater Management Manual and the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). Section 3.1.2 of Volume 5 of the City of Tacoma’s Stormwater Management Manual requires that treatment facilities not preceded by an equalization or storage basin aresized to receive and treat the water quality design “flow rate at or below 91 percent of the runoff volume, as estimated by the [Western Washington Hydrology Model]” (WWHM). 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 runoff model. The WWHM is a continuous simulation hydrologic model developed and approved by Ecology and was used to size the stormwater treatment systems in both alternatives for the facility. The WWHM used 60 years of precipitation data from the National Weather Service’s Tacoma S 36th Street rain gauge station (A2143) in Pierce County, Washington. Precipitation data from this rain gauge were imported into the model to represent the 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 were 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 and offline water quality flow rates for the two flow scenarios for Basin 1 are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Selected Design Flow Rates for Basin 1 Offline Water Quality Online Water Quality Selected Design Flow Flow Rate (gpm) Flow Rate (gpm) Rate Offline water quality 248.7 432.3 flow rate Note: gpm = gallons per minute

The offline water quality flow rate was used to size both alternatives because the bypassed flow will include peaks of large storm events that are not representative of typical stormwater discharges from the site. The WWHM output results are included in Appendix B.

3.3 Treatment Alternatives A total of two alternatives were considered for the facility. Alternative 1 evaluated a two-stage Contech StormFilter cartridge vault treatment system to treat the stormwater flow, whereas Alternative 2 evaluated an enhanced media-bed filtration system to treat the stormwater flow. Appendix C provides conceptual designs for the proposed treatment alternatives. Each alternative includes treatment of all the offline water quality flow rate for Basin 1. Treated stormwater would then be discharged to the existing storm system. Each treatment system was sized based on the offline water quality flowrate of 248.7 gallons per minute (gpm).

Revised: December 13, 2018 4 PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington

3.3.1 Alternative 1 The existing BayFilter vault would be repurposed into a pre-settling chamber to allow for gross removal of solids. From there, stormwater would flow by gravity into a centralized pump station, where it would be pumped to a subgrade treatment train. Stormwater would be pumped to a two-stage Contech StormFilter cartridge treatment system in subgrade vaults. A two-stage system was chosen as the projected removal efficiency in a single-stage system was insufficient to meet the benchmarks at the anticipated loading. Thus, it was determined that two 8-foot by 16-foot Contech StormFilter vaults would be needed, and each vault would be fitted with 33 18-inch-tall media cartridges to treat the design flow rate. 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 removing and disposing of the BayFilter internal EMC cartridges and piping, 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 underground treatment system, installing a new gravity overflow bypass pipe from the treatment system to the new sampling manhole, and installing the new sampling manhole in the existing storm system. This would include pavement sawcutting and removal; trenching; excavation for and installation of the pipes, manholes, 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.

3.3.2 Alternative 2 The existing BayFilter vault would be repurposed into a pump station, where it would be pumped to an aboveground surge tank. From the surge tank, stormwater would be pumped at a continuous flow rate to an aboveground StormwaterRx Aquip media filtration system with a maximum flow capacity of 300 gpm.

Site work would include removing and disposing of the BayFilter internal EMC cartridges and piping, 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 aboveground treatment system, installing a new gravity flow pipe from the treatment system to the new sampling manhole, and installing the new sampling manhole in the existing storm system. This would include pavement sawcutting and removal; trenching; excavation for and installation of the pipes, manholes, 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.

3.4 Treatment Alternatives Expected Performance The treatment technologies selected for the facility 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 Permit 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 evaluated to determine a technology’s ability to meet treatment performance goals are 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

Revised: December 13, 2018 5 PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington 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: x GULD for Contech StormFilter as basic treatment for TSS x CULD for proprietary media filtration system as basic treatment for TSS and enhanced treatment for dissolved zinc

TSS removal data was available for the Contech StormFilter cartridge treatment system from the TAPE program, as well as TSS and dissolved zinc removal data for the proprietary media filtration system. No total zinc removal data was available for either 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 removal for the StormFilter system.

In some instances, either only TSS or only dissolved zinc 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.

Treatment performance for total zinc versus dissolved zinc is also expected to be similar, although a portion of the total zinc can be expected to be removed as TSS and turbidity are removed. Dissolved (or soluble) metals speciation analyses were recently performed, and results indicate that the dissolved fraction is approximately 80 percent of the total zinc concentration. However, to be conservative in this estimate, PBS used a correlation factor of 1.5 to estimate total zinc removal when only dissolved zinc removal data was available.

Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the projected pollutant concentration and net total pollutant removal for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, respectively.

Table 4. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Alternative 1 Parameter Average Influent Projected Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration Total Zinc 216 82.4% 38.1 (μg/L) Turbidity 16 76.0% 3.8 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark.

Revised: December 13, 2018 6 PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington

Table 5. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for Alternative 2 Parameter Average Influent Projected Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration Total Zinc 216 51.0% 105.7 (μg/L) Turbidity 16 65.3% 5.6 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark.

3.5 Preliminary Cost Estimates Table 6 provides the estimated preliminary capital and annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for each alternative. 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 (including replacement media), and disposal of solids generated by or accumulated within the treatment system. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix D.

Table 6: Treatment Technology Preliminary Cost Estimates Construction Non-Construction Total Capital Annual O&M Alternative Costs Costs1 Costs2 Costs3 1. Treatment: Two-Stage $530,000 $335,000 $865,000 $21,600 Contech StormFilter 2. Treatment: Enhanced $535,000 $335,000 $870,000 $34,400 Media Filtration System Notes: 1. Non-construction costs include construction management, general and administrative expenses, contractor profit, overhead, engineering, and permitting. 2. Capital costs were rounded up to the nearest $5,000. 3. Annual operation and maintenance costs were rounded to the nearest $100.

The total capital costs for Alternative 1 and 2 are very similar, with Alternative 1 capital costs being slightly less than Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative 2 is the most expensive option when considering annual O&M costs and the treatment system would be aboveground. Due to these differences, NWCS and PBS identified Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative. While both alternatives have similar capital costs, Alternative 1 has lower O&M costs and can be installed underground, which would preserve operational space for the facility. Other advantages include that it is simple to operate and does not require the use of chemicals.

Revised: December 13, 2018 7 PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington

4 PROPOSED STORMWATER TREATMENT 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 Alternative 1 was selected as the treatment BMP for the Level 3 corrective action in Basin 1. Stormwater will be treated in a subgrade, two-stage Contech StormFilter filtration system. Using the offline flow rate of 248.7 gpm, two 8-foot by 16-foot Contech StormFilter vaults will be installed in series. 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 treatment system: x A hydraulic loading rate of 1 gpm per square foot of media surface area for treatment in the Contech StormFilter cartridge treatment unit. Additionally, for cartridges with an effective cartridge height of 18 inches, the cartridge flow rate will not exceed 7.5 gpm per cartridge.

For Basin 1, two 8-foot by 16-foot Contech StormFilter vaults will be installed in series, and each vault will contain 33 18-inch-tall media cartridges. This equates to a cartridge flow rate of 7.5 gpm per cartridge. Contech StormFilter vaults are sized based on the number of cartridges needed to attain the required treatment flow rate. Each cartridge filters water radially, and treated water is discharged through a central outlet pipe. The pipe has an internal floating valve; as water reaches the top of the float, buoyant forces pull the float free and allow filtered water to drain into the discharge piping. After the storm event, a standing water level remains under the cartridge hood and the water continues to filter through the cartridges via a siphon until the level drops below the bottom of the cartridge hood, thereby breaking the siphon. This maintains a constant flow rate through the cartridge media. Increasing the vault size and number of cartridges will increase the flow rate that can be treated. While this would reduce the overall mass load of pollutants discharged, it does not reduce pollutant concentrations. Permit benchmarks are concentration-based; therefore in order to meet benchmarks, two-stage media filtration using two equal-size Contech StormFilter systems is necessary.

Each Contech StormFilter requires approximately 2.5 feet of hydraulic head to operate. Due to the shallow existing drainage system, a lift station will be installed upstream of the treatment system. The 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 Currently, stormwater collected throughout Basin 1 flows to an existing manhole that discharges to the existing BayFilter vault. In the proposed treatment system, the outlet of the existing BayFilter vault will discharge into a lift station and be routed into the Contech treatment system. The existing BayFilter cartridges and manifold piping will be removed, but the vault will remain to provide settling and storage volume. A new manhole will be installed downstream of the treatment system that will act as the new sample point (OF1) for Basin 1.

The Basin 1 treatment system requires 56 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 Basin 1 provides approximately 6 inches of hydraulic drop from the existing treatment system to the discharge point. This is not sufficient for operation of the treatment system. A pump station shall be used to lift the stormwater to an elevation that will provide the hydraulic drop required for the treatment system. This pump station is included as part of the proposed stormwater system improvements.

Revised: December 13, 2018 8 PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington

The first Contech StormFilter unit will be preceded by a pump station. The existing BayFilter vault will be repurposed into a settling and storage vault. The discharge from the existing BayFilter vault will be modified and rerouted to the new pump station located to the west. Stormwater collected throughout Basin 1 would enter the 6-foot-diameter by 13-foot-deep wet well. Stormwater from the wet well would be pumped by one of two 5-horsepower (hp) Vaughn SE4K 4-inch submersible chopper pumps via a 4-inch force main pipe to a manhole upstream of the first Contech StormFilter unit. Each pump will be sized to pump a maximum fixed flow of approximately 250 gpm at a total dynamic head of 14.75 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 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 repurposed BayFilter vault to the sampling manhole via an existing overflow pipe. The Basin 1 pump station will include an outdoor-rated control panel enclosure and floats to control when the pumps are turned on and off. The control panel will be located aboveground and protected by bollards.

Discharge piping in the 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 4-inch force main, and the force main will discharge to the manhole just upstream of the first Contech StormFilter unit. From this point onward, stormwater will flow by gravity. Stormwater will flow through 12-inch piping. Stormwater will flow from the manhole to the first of two StormFilter treatment vaults. Each StormFilter vault will contain 33 18- inch-tall cartridges. The first vault will contain ZPG media, and the second vault will contain zeolite media. Treated stormwater will be discharged from the second treatment vault and flow through the sampling manhole prior to discharge to the existing 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.

Figure 3 provides the plan view of the proposed stormwater improvements for Level 3 corrective action in Basin 1. Figure 4 provides the treatment process flow diagram for the proposed stormwater improvements in Basin 1.

4.3 Use of Chemicals in the Treatment Process The Permit 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 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 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

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.

Revised: December 13, 2018 9 PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington cartridges using ZPG media.2 NSF International (NSF) teamed with the US 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 zinc removal data. The average zinc influent concentration was 406 micrograms per liter (μg/L), and the average effluent concentration was 135 μg/L. The corresponding average percent removal was 58 percent. The influent total zinc concentrations from this facility are similar to the range of concentrations historically observed at the facility. Therefore, the range of removal is expected to be similar as well. Appendix E provides the results from these studies.

Table 7 presents the projected pollutant reductions for the Basin 1 proposed treatment system. Using the total zinc 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 7. Summary of Projected Pollutant Reduction for the Proposed Basin 1 Treatment System Parameter Average Influent Projected Pollutant Projected Pollutant (unit of measure) Concentration Removal (%) Concentration Total Zinc 216 82.4% 38.1 (μg/L) Turbidity 16 76.0% 3.8 (NTU) Note: Bold results indicate the pollutant concentration exceeded the statewide benchmark.

4.5 Oil and Grease While the facility has not had an exceedance of the diesel range total petroleum hydrocarbons benchmark in its compliance history or an observed oil sheen during a stormwater sample collection event, oil and grease treatment must be considered in this engineering report. Oil absorbent will be placed within the fabric filter insert in each catch basin throughout the facility. Oil absorbent socks are also placed inside catch basins in heavy traffic areas of the site. Furthermore, additional booms may be installed in the repurposed BayFilter vault if needed to skim trapped oil off the surface.

If a spill were to occur on site and it were to enter the stormwater system, it could be contained in the pump station by manually switching off the pump controls. If the spill occurred when a storm event was not active, the spill would be contained within the stormwater system on site. If a spill were to occur on site during an active storm event, multiple spill kits and spill response materials are present throughout the facility to allow for timely response to the spill. In either scenario, deactivating the pump will protect the filter media from oil contamination. The facility implements a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan and all oil handling personnel receive annual spill response training.

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 US Environmental Protection Agency. Publication #04/17/WQPC-WWF. July 2004.

Revised: December 13, 2018 10 PBS Project 17635.007 Level 3 Stormwater Treatment Engineering Report 1801 Taylor Way Northwest Container Services, Inc. Tacoma, Washington

5 CERTIFICATION BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER The undersigned registered professional engineer (PE) is familiar with the current engineering report requirements set forth in the Industrial Stormwater General Permit issued by the State of Washington Department of Ecology to satisfy the requirements of a Level 3 corrective action. The PE attests that the necessary treatment BMPs that are suited to remove turbidity and total zinc from stormwater runoff with the goal of attaining the benchmark values specified under Section 5 of the Permit, were selected in consultation with the PE.

Name: Sean Hanrahan, PE

Registration Number: 50726

State: Washington

Title, Company: Environmental Engineer PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc.

Date: 12/13/2018

Revised: December 13, 2018 11 PBS Project 17635.007

Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Map Figure 3. Plan View: Proposed Drainage Basin 1 Treatment System Figure 4. Flow Diagram: Proposed Drainage Basin 1 Treatment System

CAD Plot Date/Time: 12/13/2018 12:37:44 PM asta Billings-Bec

PROJECT LOCATION ures\Figure 1.dwg Layout Tab: User: Sh MAP VICINITY

SOURCE: USGS TACOMA NORTH WA UADRANGLE 1994, PHOTO REVISED 1993. oma\Stormwater Treatment\Reports\Engineering Report\12.2018\Fig

SEATTLE SITE OLYMPIA SCALE: 1" = 2,000'

VANCOUVER 0' 1,000' 2,000' 4,000' WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR: NORTHWEST CONTAINER SERVICES, INC DEC 2018 VICINITY MAP 17635.007 1801 TAYOR WAY FIGURE TACOMA, WASHINGTON 1 Filename: L:\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17635_NWCS-Tac Filename: Vancouver, WA 98660 PBS Engineering and Environmental Inc. 314 W 15th Street 360.695.3488 pbsusa.com

Billings-Bec CAD Plot Date/Time: 12/13/2018 12:41:32 PM CAD Plot Date/Time: Billings-Bec * A-2 A-3 A-4 D-1

A-1

TAYLOR WAY * G-1

G-1

T-1 T * * * ures\Figure 2.dwg Layout Tab: SITE MAP User: Shasta ures\Figure 2.dwg Layout Tab: MAP User: SITE

HYLEBOS WATERWAY oma\Stormwater Treatment\Reports\Engineering Report\12.2018\Fig

A-1

A-2

A-3 PROJECT A-4 17635.007 * D-1 DATE T G-1 APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1" = 80' DEC 2018 T-1 FIGURE 0 40' 80' 160' 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: L:\Projects\17000\17600-17699\17635_NWCS-Tac Filename:

Appendix A Investigatory Sampling Results Field Forms Laboratory Analysis Reports

3600 Fremont Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98103 T: (206) 352-3790 F: (206) 352-7178 [email protected] PBS Engineering & Environmental Sean Hanrahan 2517 Eastlake Ave, E #100 Seattle, WA 98102

RE: NWCS Tacoma Work Order Number: 1809201

September 21, 2018

Attention Sean Hanrahan:

Fremont Analytical, Inc. received 1 sample(s) on 9/14/2018 for the analyses presented in the following report. Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D This report consists of the following:

- Case Narrative - Analytical Results - Applicable Quality Control Summary Reports - Chain of Custody

All analyses were performed consistent with the Quality Assurance program of Fremont Analytical, Inc. Please contact the laboratory if you should have any questions about the results.

Thank you for using Fremont Analytical.

Sincerely,

Chelsea Ward Project Manager

DoD/ELAP Certification #L17-135, ISO/IEC 17025:2005 ORELAP Certification: WA 100009-007 (NELAP Recognized)

Original www.fremontanalytical.com Page 1 of 11 Date: 09/21/2018

CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Work Order Sample Summary Project: NWCS Tacoma Work Order: 1809201

Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Date/Time Collected Date/Time Received 1809201-001 UTS 09/14/2018 10:52 AM 09/14/2018 12:36 PM

Original Note: If no "Time Collected" is supplied, a default of 12:00AM is assigned Page 2 of 11 Case Narrative WO#: 1809201 Date: 9/21/2018

CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NWCS Tacoma

I. SAMPLE RECEIPT: Samples receipt information is recorded on the attached Sample Receipt Checklist.

II. GENERAL REPORTING COMMENTS: Results are reported on a wet weight basis unless dry-weight correction is denoted in the units field on the analytical report ("mg/kg-dry" or "ug/kg-dry").

Matrix Spike (MS) and MS Duplicate (MSD) samples are tested from an analytical batch of "like" matrix to check for possible matrix effect. The MS and MSD will provide site specific matrix data only for those samples which are spiked by the laboratory. The sample chosen for spike purposes may or may not have been a sample submitted in this sample delivery group. The validity of the analytical procedures for which data is reported in this analytical report is determined by the Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) and the Method Blank (MB). The LCS and the MB are processed with the samples and the MS/MSD to ensure method criteria are achieved throughout the entire analytical process.

III. ANALYSES AND EXCEPTIONS: Exceptions associated with this report will be footnoted in the analytical results page(s) or the quality control summary page(s) and/or noted below.

Original Page 3 of 11 Qualifiers & Acronyms WO#: 1809201 Date Reported: 9/21/2018

Qualifiers:

* - Flagged value is not within established control limits B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank D - Dilution was required E - Value above quantitation range H - Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded I - Analyte with an internal standard that does not meet established acceptance criteria J - Analyte detected below Reporting Limit N - Tentatively Identified Compound (TIC) Q - Analyte with an initial or continuing calibration that does not meet established acceptance criteria (<20%RSD, <20% Drift or minimum RRF) S - Spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit R - High relative percent difference observed

Acronyms:

%Rec - Percent Recovery CCB - Continued Calibration Blank CCV - Continued Calibration Verification DF - Dilution Factor HEM - Hexane Extractable Material ICV - Initial Calibration Verification LCS/LCSD - Laboratory Control Sample / Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate MB or MBLANK - Method Blank MDL - Method Detection Limit MS/MSD - Matrix Spike / Matrix Spike Duplicate PDS - Post Digestion Spike Ref Val - Reference Value RL - Reporting Limit RPD - Relative Percent Difference SD - Serial Dilution SGT - Silica Gel Treatment SPK - Spike Surr - Surrogate

Original www.fremontanalytical.com

Page 4 of 11 Analytical Report

Work Order: 1809201 Date Reported: 9/21/2018

Client: PBS Engineering & Environmental Collection Date: 9/14/2018 10:52:00 AM Project: NWCS Tacoma Lab ID: 1809201-001 Matrix: Stormwater Client Sample ID: UTS Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Date Analyzed

Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Batch ID: 21956 Analyst: WC

Zinc 152 2.50 μg/L 1 9/17/2018 8:32:11 PM

Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Batch ID: 21974 Analyst: WC

Zinc 177 2.50 μg/L 1 9/19/2018 2:08:25 PM

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D Batch ID: R46283 Analyst: KT

Total Suspended Solids ND 5.00 mg/L 1 9/18/2018 1:58:00 PM

Original Page 5 of 11 Date: 9/21/2018

Work Order: 1809201 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NWCS Tacoma Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D

Sample ID MB-R46283 SampType: MBLK Units: mg/L Prep Date: 9/18/2018 RunNo: 46283 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: R46283 Analysis Date: 9/18/2018 SeqNo: 897788

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids ND 5.00

Sample ID LCS-R46283 SampType: LCS Units: mg/L Prep Date: 9/18/2018 RunNo: 46283 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: R46283 Analysis Date: 9/18/2018 SeqNo: 897789

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids 248 10.0 300.0 0 82.7 65 135

Sample ID 1809141-001ADUP SampType: DUP Units: mg/L Prep Date: 9/18/2018 RunNo: 46283 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R46283 Analysis Date: 9/18/2018 SeqNo: 897791

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids 95.0 5.00 99.00 4.12 30

Sample ID 1809229-001BDUP SampType: DUP Units: mg/L Prep Date: 9/18/2018 RunNo: 46283 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R46283 Analysis Date: 9/18/2018 SeqNo: 897810

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids 10.0 5.00 10.00 0 30

Page 6 of 11 Original Date: 9/21/2018

Work Order: 1809201 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NWCS Tacoma Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8

Sample ID MB-21956 SampType: MBLK Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/17/2018 RunNo: 46286 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 21956 Analysis Date: 9/17/2018 SeqNo: 897899

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50

Sample ID LCS-21956 SampType: LCS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/17/2018 RunNo: 46286 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 21956 Analysis Date: 9/17/2018 SeqNo: 897900

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 93.2 2.50 100.0 0 93.2 85 115

Sample ID 1809137-001BDUP SampType: DUP Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/17/2018 RunNo: 46286 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 21956 Analysis Date: 9/17/2018 SeqNo: 897902

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50 2.936 35.6 30

Sample ID 1809137-001BMS SampType: MS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/17/2018 RunNo: 46286 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 21956 Analysis Date: 9/17/2018 SeqNo: 897905

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 476 2.50 500.0 2.936 94.7 70 130

Sample ID 1809137-001BMSD SampType: MSD Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/17/2018 RunNo: 46286 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 21956 Analysis Date: 9/17/2018 SeqNo: 897906

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 515 2.50 500.0 2.936 102 70 130 476.3 7.81 30

Page 7 of 11 Original Date: 9/21/2018

Work Order: 1809201 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NWCS Tacoma Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8

Sample ID MB-21935FB SampType: MBLK Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/17/2018 RunNo: 46286 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 21956 Analysis Date: 9/17/2018 SeqNo: 897926

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50

Page 8 of 11 Original Date: 9/21/2018

Work Order: 1809201 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NWCS Tacoma Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8

Sample ID MB-21974 SampType: MBLK Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/18/2018 RunNo: 46327 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 21974 Analysis Date: 9/19/2018 SeqNo: 899113

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50

Sample ID LCS-21974 SampType: LCS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/18/2018 RunNo: 46327 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 21974 Analysis Date: 9/19/2018 SeqNo: 899114

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 100 2.50 100.0 0 100 85 115

Sample ID 1809215-005ADUP SampType: DUP Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/18/2018 RunNo: 46327 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 21974 Analysis Date: 9/19/2018 SeqNo: 899116

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 9.36 2.50 11.02 16.2 30

Sample ID 1809215-005AMS SampType: MS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/18/2018 RunNo: 46327 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 21974 Analysis Date: 9/19/2018 SeqNo: 899117

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 476 2.50 500.0 11.02 93.0 70 130

Sample ID 1809215-005AMSD SampType: MSD Units: μg/L Prep Date: 9/18/2018 RunNo: 46327 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 21974 Analysis Date: 9/19/2018 SeqNo: 899118

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 482 2.50 500.0 11.02 94.2 70 130 475.9 1.24 30

Page 9 of 11 Original Sample Log-In Check List

Client Name: PBS Work Order Number: 1809201 Logged by: Clare Griggs Date Received: 9/14/2018 12:36:00 PM

Chain of Custody 1. Is Chain of Custody complete? Yes No Not Present 2. How was the sample delivered? Client

4. Shipping container/cooler in good condition? Yes No 5. Custody Seals present on shipping container/cooler? Yes No Not Required (Refer to comments for Custody Seals not intact) 6. Was an attempt made to cool the samples? Yes No NA

7. Were all items received at a temperature of >0°C to 10.0°C * Yes No NA

8. Sample(s) in proper container(s)? Yes No 9. Sufficient sample volume for indicated test(s)? Yes No 10. Are samples properly preserved? Yes No 11. Was preservative added to bottles? Yes No NA

12. Is there headspace in the VOA vials? Yes No NA 13. Did all samples containers arrive in good condition(unbroken)? Yes No 14. Does paperwork match bottle labels? Yes No

15. Are matrices correctly identified on Chain of Custody? Yes No 16. Is it clear what analyses were requested? Yes No 17. Were all holding times able to be met? Yes No

Special Handling (if applicable) 18. Was client notified of all discrepancies with this order? Yes No NA

Person Notified: Date By Whom: Via: eMail Phone Fax In Person Regarding: Client Instructions:

19. Additional remarks:

Item Information Item # Temp ºC Cooler 3.1 Sample 5.9 Temp Blank 4.9

* Note: PageDoD/ELAP 1 of 1and TNI require items to be received at 4°C +/- 2°C Original Page 10 of 11 Page 11 of 11

3600 Fremont Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98103 T: (206) 352-3790 F: (206) 352-7178 [email protected] PBS Engineering & Environmental Sean Hanrahan 2517 Eastlake Ave, E #100 Seattle, WA 98102

RE: NWCS Tacoma Work Order Number: 1810145

October 15, 2018

Attention Sean Hanrahan:

Fremont Analytical, Inc. received 1 sample(s) on 10/5/2018 for the analyses presented in the following report. Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D

This report consists of the following:

- Case Narrative - Analytical Results - Applicable Quality Control Summary Reports - Chain of Custody

All analyses were performed consistent with the Quality Assurance program of Fremont Analytical, Inc. Please contact the laboratory if you should have any questions about the results.

Thank you for using Fremont Analytical.

Sincerely,

Chelsea Ward Project Manager

DoD/ELAP Certification #L17-135, ISO/IEC 17025:2005 ORELAP Certification: WA 100009-007 (NELAP Recognized)

Original www.fremontanalytical.com Page 1 of 12 Date: 10/15/2018

CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Work Order Sample Summary Project: NWCS Tacoma Work Order: 1810145

Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Date/Time Collected Date/Time Received 1810145-001 UTS 10/05/2018 2:40 PM 10/05/2018 4:44 PM

Original Note: If no "Time Collected" is supplied, a default of 12:00AM is assigned Page 2 of 12 Case Narrative WO#: 1810145 Date: 10/15/2018

CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NWCS Tacoma

I. SAMPLE RECEIPT: Samples receipt information is recorded on the attached Sample Receipt Checklist.

II. GENERAL REPORTING COMMENTS: Results are reported on a wet weight basis unless dry-weight correction is denoted in the units field on the analytical report ("mg/kg-dry" or "ug/kg-dry").

III. ANALYSES AND EXCEPTIONS: Exceptions associated with this report will be footnoted in the analytical results page(s) or the quality control summary page(s) and/or noted below.

Original Page 3 of 12 Qualifiers & Acronyms WO#: 1810145 Date Reported: 10/15/2018

Qualifiers:

Acronyms:

Original www.fremontanalytical.com Page 4 of 12 Analytical Report

Work Order: 1810145 Date Reported: 10/15/2018

Client: PBS Engineering & Environmental Collection Date: 10/5/2018 2:40:00 PM Project: NWCS Tacoma Lab ID: 1810145-001 Matrix: Stormwater Client Sample ID: UTS Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Date Analyzed

Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Batch ID: 22229 Analyst: WC

Zinc 221 2.50 μg/L 1 10/9/2018 11:31:48 AM

Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Batch ID: 22231 Analyst: WC

Zinc 265 2.50 μg/L 1 10/9/2018 1:53:33 PM

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D Batch ID: R46788 Analyst: GM

Total Suspended Solids 17.0 5.00 mg/L 1 10/5/2018 4:40:00 PM

Original Page 5 of 12 Analytical Report

Work Order: 1810145 Date Reported: 10/15/2018

Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Batch ID: 22229 Analyst: WC

Zinc 221 0.475 μg/L 1 10/9/2018 11:31:48 AM

Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Batch ID: 22231 Analyst: WC

Zinc 265 0.475 μg/L 1 10/9/2018 1:53:33 PM

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D Batch ID: R46788 Analyst: GM

Total Suspended Solids 17.0 3.00 mg/L 1 10/5/2018 4:40:00 PM

Original Page 6 of 12 Date: 10/15/2018

Work Order: 1810145 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NWCS Tacoma Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D

Sample ID MB-R46788 SampType: MBLK Units: mg/L Prep Date: 10/5/2018 RunNo: 46788 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: R46788 Analysis Date: 10/5/2018 SeqNo: 910404

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids ND 5.00

Sample ID LCS-R46788 SampType: LCS Units: mg/L Prep Date: 10/5/2018 RunNo: 46788 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: R46788 Analysis Date: 10/5/2018 SeqNo: 910405

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids 226 5.00 300.0 0 75.3 65 135

Sample ID 1810134-001CDUP SampType: DUP Units: mg/L Prep Date: 10/5/2018 RunNo: 46788 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R46788 Analysis Date: 10/5/2018 SeqNo: 910407

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids 17.0 5.00 20.00 16.2 30

Sample ID 1810140-001BDUP SampType: DUP Units: mg/L Prep Date: 10/5/2018 RunNo: 46788 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R46788 Analysis Date: 10/5/2018 SeqNo: 910417

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids 14.0 5.00 11.00 24.0 30

Original Page 7 of 12 Date: 10/15/2018

Work Order: 1810145 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NWCS Tacoma Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8

Sample ID MB-22229 SampType: MBLK Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46805 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 22229 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910443

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50

Sample ID LCS-22229 SampType: LCS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46805 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 22229 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910444

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 96.6 2.50 100.0 0 96.6 85 115

Sample ID 1810089-001ADUP SampType: DUP Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46805 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22229 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910446

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50 3.138 200 30 R NOTES: E - Estimated value. The amount exceeds the linear working range of the instrument.

Sample ID 1810089-001AMS SampType: MS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46805 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22229 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910447

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 514 2.50 500.0 3.138 102 70 130 NOTES: S - Outlying spike recovery(ies) observed. A duplicate analysis was performed and recovered within range. E - Estimated value. The amount exceeds the linear working range of the instrument.

Sample ID 1810089-001AMSD SampType: MSD Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46805 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22229 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910448

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 490 2.50 500.0 3.138 97.3 70 130 513.5 4.75 30

Original Page 8 of 12 Date: 10/15/2018

Work Order: 1810145 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NWCS Tacoma Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8

Sample ID 1810089-001AMSD SampType: MSD Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46805 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22229 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910448

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

NOTES: E - Estimated value. The amount exceeds the linear working range of the instrument.

Sample ID MB-22215FB SampType: MBLK Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46805 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 22229 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910453

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50 NOTES: Filter Blank

Original Page 9 of 12 Date: 10/15/2018

Work Order: 1810145 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NWCS Tacoma Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8

Sample ID MB-22231 SampType: MBLK Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46814 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 22231 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910617

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50

Sample ID LCS-22231 SampType: LCS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46814 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 22231 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910618

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 98.9 2.50 100.0 0 98.9 85 115

Sample ID 1810140-001ADUP SampType: DUP Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46814 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22231 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910620

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 184 2.50 176.6 3.90 30

Sample ID 1810140-001AMS SampType: MS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46814 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22231 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910621

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 648 2.50 500.0 176.6 94.4 70 130

Sample ID 1810140-001AMSD SampType: MSD Units: μg/L Prep Date: 10/9/2018 RunNo: 46814 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22231 Analysis Date: 10/9/2018 SeqNo: 910624

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 687 2.50 500.0 176.6 102 70 130 648.5 5.83 30

Original Page 10 of 12 Sample Log-In Check List

Client Name: PBS Work Order Number: 1810145

Logged by: Clare Griggs Date Received: 10/5/2018 4:44:00 PM

Chain of Custody 1. Is Chain of Custody complete? Yes No Not Present 2. How was the sample delivered? Client

7. Were all items received at a temperature of >0°C to 10.0°C * Yes No NA

8. Sample(s) in proper container(s)? Yes No 9. Sufficient sample volume for indicated test(s)? Yes No 10. Are samples properly preserved? Yes No 11. Was preservative added to bottles? Yes No NA

12. Is there headspace in the VOA vials? Yes No NA 13. Did all samples containers arrive in good condition(unbroken)? Yes No 14. Does paperwork match bottle labels? Yes No

15. Are matrices correctly identified on Chain of Custody? Yes No 16. Is it clear what analyses were requested? Yes No 17. Were all holding times able to be met? Yes No

Special Handling (if applicable) 18. Was client notified of all discrepancies with this order? Yes No NA

Person Notified: Date By Whom: Via: eMail Phone Fax In Person Regarding: Client Instructions:

19. Additional remarks:

Item Information Item # Temp ºC Cooler 1.9 Sample 3.5 Temp Blank 3.4

* Note: PageDoD/ELAP 1 of 1and TNI require items to be received at 4°C +/- 2°C Original Page 11 of 12 Page 12 of 12

3600 Fremont Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98103 T: (206) 352-3790 F: (206) 352-7178 [email protected] PBS Engineering & Environmental Sean Hanrahan 2517 Eastlake Ave, E #100 Seattle, WA 98102

RE: NW Container Services Work Order Number: 1811424

December 06, 2018

Attention Sean Hanrahan:

Fremont Analytical, Inc. received 1 sample(s) on 11/29/2018 for the analyses presented in the following report. Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D

This report consists of the following:

- Case Narrative - Analytical Results - Applicable Quality Control Summary Reports - Chain of Custody

All analyses were performed consistent with the Quality Assurance program of Fremont Analytical, Inc. Please contact the laboratory if you should have any questions about the results.

Thank you for using Fremont Analytical.

Sincerely,

CC: Matt Breuer Chelsea Ward Shasta Billings-Beck Project Manager

DoD/ELAP Certification #L17-135, ISO/IEC 17025:2005 ORELAP Certification: WA 100009-007 (NELAP Recognized)

Original www.fremontanalytical.com Page 1 of 11 Date: 12/06/2018

CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Work Order Sample Summary Project: NW Container Services Work Order: 1811424

Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Date/Time Collected Date/Time Received 1811424-001 UTS 11/28/2018 4:25 PM 11/29/2018 11:20 AM

Original Note: If no "Time Collected" is supplied, a default of 12:00AM is assigned Page 2 of 11 Case Narrative WO#: 1811424 Date: 12/6/2018

CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NW Container Services

I. SAMPLE RECEIPT: Samples receipt information is recorded on the attached Sample Receipt Checklist.

II. GENERAL REPORTING COMMENTS: Results are reported on a wet weight basis unless dry-weight correction is denoted in the units field on the analytical report ("mg/kg-dry" or "ug/kg-dry").

III. ANALYSES AND EXCEPTIONS: Exceptions associated with this report will be footnoted in the analytical results page(s) or the quality control summary page(s) and/or noted below.

Original Page 3 of 11 Qualifiers & Acronyms WO#: 1811424 Date Reported: 12/6/2018

Qualifiers:

Acronyms:

Original www.fremontanalytical.com Page 4 of 11 Analytical Report

Work Order: 1811424 Date Reported: 12/6/2018

Client: PBS Engineering & Environmental Collection Date: 11/28/2018 4:25:00 PM Project: NW Container Services Lab ID: 1811424-001 Matrix: Water Client Sample ID: UTS Analyses Result RL Qual Units DF Date Analyzed

Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Batch ID: 22790 Analyst: WC

Zinc 264 2.50 μg/L 1 11/30/2018 10:56:34 AM

Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8 Batch ID: 22823 Analyst: WC

Zinc 336 2.50 μg/L 1 12/4/2018 2:56:10 PM

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D Batch ID: R48035 Analyst: GM

Total Suspended Solids 11.0 5.00 mg/L 1 12/3/2018 12:22:56 PM

Original Page 5 of 11 Date: 12/6/2018

Work Order: 1811424 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NW Container Services Total Suspended Solids (TSS) by SM 2540D

Sample ID MB-R48035 SampType: MBLK Units: mg/L Prep Date: 12/3/2018 RunNo: 48035 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: R48035 Analysis Date: 12/3/2018 SeqNo: 938094

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids ND 5.00

Sample ID LCS-R48035 SampType: LCS Units: mg/L Prep Date: 12/3/2018 RunNo: 48035 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: R48035 Analysis Date: 12/3/2018 SeqNo: 938095

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids 302 5.00 300.0 0 101 65 135

Sample ID 1811413-001BDUP SampType: DUP Units: mg/L Prep Date: 12/3/2018 RunNo: 48035 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R48035 Analysis Date: 12/3/2018 SeqNo: 938097

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids ND 5.00 0 30

Sample ID 1812001-001ADUP SampType: DUP Units: mg/L Prep Date: 12/3/2018 RunNo: 48035 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: R48035 Analysis Date: 12/3/2018 SeqNo: 938112

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Total Suspended Solids 49.0 5.00 40.00 20.2 30

Original Page 6 of 11 Date: 12/6/2018

Work Order: 1811424 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NW Container Services Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8

Sample ID MB-22790 SampType: MBLK Units: μg/L Prep Date: 11/30/2018 RunNo: 47984 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 22790 Analysis Date: 11/30/2018 SeqNo: 937057

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50

Sample ID LCS-22790 SampType: LCS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 11/30/2018 RunNo: 47984 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 22790 Analysis Date: 11/30/2018 SeqNo: 937058

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 99.0 2.50 100.0 0 99.0 85 115

Sample ID 1811338-001BDUP SampType: DUP Units: μg/L Prep Date: 11/30/2018 RunNo: 47984 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22790 Analysis Date: 11/30/2018 SeqNo: 937060

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 43.9 2.50 42.99 2.02 30

Sample ID 1811338-001BMS SampType: MS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 11/30/2018 RunNo: 47984 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22790 Analysis Date: 11/30/2018 SeqNo: 937061

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 554 2.50 500.0 42.99 102 70 130

Sample ID 1811338-001BMSD SampType: MSD Units: μg/L Prep Date: 11/30/2018 RunNo: 47984 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22790 Analysis Date: 11/30/2018 SeqNo: 937062

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 566 2.50 500.0 42.99 105 70 130 553.6 2.21 30

Original Page 7 of 11 Date: 12/6/2018

Work Order: 1811424 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NW Container Services Dissolved Metals by EPA Method 200.8

Sample ID MB-22770FB SampType: MBLK Units: μg/L Prep Date: 11/30/2018 RunNo: 47984 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 22790 Analysis Date: 11/30/2018 SeqNo: 937072

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50 NOTES: Filter Blank

Original Page 8 of 11 Date: 12/6/2018

Work Order: 1811424 QC SUMMARY REPORT CLIENT: PBS Engineering & Environmental Project: NW Container Services Total Metals by EPA Method 200.8

Sample ID MB-22823 SampType: MBLK Units: μg/L Prep Date: 12/4/2018 RunNo: 48073 Client ID: MBLKW Batch ID: 22823 Analysis Date: 12/4/2018 SeqNo: 938876

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc ND 2.50

Sample ID LCS-22823 SampType: LCS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 12/4/2018 RunNo: 48073 Client ID: LCSW Batch ID: 22823 Analysis Date: 12/4/2018 SeqNo: 938877

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 105 2.50 100.0 0 105 85 115

Sample ID 1812002-001EDUP SampType: DUP Units: μg/L Prep Date: 12/4/2018 RunNo: 48073 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22823 Analysis Date: 12/4/2018 SeqNo: 938879

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 79.5 2.50 78.18 1.62 30

Sample ID 1812002-001EMS SampType: MS Units: μg/L Prep Date: 12/4/2018 RunNo: 48073 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22823 Analysis Date: 12/4/2018 SeqNo: 938880

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 575 2.50 500.0 78.18 99.4 70 130

Sample ID 1812002-001EMSD SampType: MSD Units: μg/L Prep Date: 12/4/2018 RunNo: 48073 Client ID: BATCH Batch ID: 22823 Analysis Date: 12/4/2018 SeqNo: 938881

Analyte Result RL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual

Zinc 615 2.50 500.0 78.18 107 70 130 575.4 6.68 30

Original Page 9 of 11 Sample Log-In Check List

Client Name: PBS Work Order Number: 1811424

Logged by: Brianna Barnes Date Received: 11/29/2018 11:20:00 AM

Chain of Custody 1. Is Chain of Custody complete? Yes No Not Present 2. How was the sample delivered? Client

7. Were all items received at a temperature of >0°C to 10.0°C * Yes No NA

8. Sample(s) in proper container(s)? Yes No 9. Sufficient sample volume for indicated test(s)? Yes No 10. Are samples properly preserved? Yes No 11. Was preservative added to bottles? Yes No NA HNO3 added to 001B. 12. Is there headspace in the VOA vials? Yes No NA 13. Did all samples containers arrive in good condition(unbroken)? Yes No 14. Does paperwork match bottle labels? Yes No

15. Are matrices correctly identified on Chain of Custody? Yes No 16. Is it clear what analyses were requested? Yes No 17. Were all holding times able to be met? Yes No

Special Handling (if applicable) 18. Was client notified of all discrepancies with this order? Yes No NA

Person Notified: Date By Whom: Via: eMail Phone Fax In Person Regarding: Client Instructions:

19. Additional remarks:

Item Information Item # Temp ºC Cooler 2.5 Sample 2.1

* Note: PageDoD/ELAP 1 of 1and TNI require items to be received at 4°C +/- 2°C Original Page 10 of 11 Page 11 of 11

Appendix B Western Washington Hydrology Model

WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT ______

Project Name: 17635.004_Flow Calcs Site Name: Site Address: City : Report Date: 5/15/2018 Gage : Data Start : 10/01/1901 Data End : 09/30/2059 Precip Scale: 1.00 Version Date: 2018/03/08 Version : 4.2.14 ______

Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year ______

High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year ______

PREDEVELOPED LAND USE

Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No

GroundWater: No

Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Mod .49

Pervious Total 0.49

Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 6.52

Impervious Total 6.52

Basin Total 7.01

______

Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater

______

MITIGATED LAND USE

Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No

GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Mod .49

Pervious Total 0.49

Impervious Land Use acre DRIVEWAYS FLAT 6.52

Impervious Total 6.52

Basin Total 7.01

______

Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater

______

ANALYSIS RESULTS

Stream Protection Duration

______

Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.49 Total Impervious Area:6.52 ______

Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.49 Total Impervious Area:6.52 ______

Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 2.307285 5 year 3.105531 10 year 3.686916 25 year 4.48396 50 year 5.124592 100 year 5.806715

Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 ______

Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1902 2.703 2.703 1903 2.997 2.997 1904 3.488 3.488 1905 1.529 1.529 1906 1.702 1.702 1907 2.321 2.321 1908 1.889 1.889 1909 2.307 2.307 1910 2.221 2.221 1911 2.509 2.509 1912 4.274 4.274 1913 1.788 1.788 1914 7.641 7.641 1915 1.550 1.550 1916 2.879 2.879 1917 1.087 1.087 1918 2.304 2.304 1919 1.424 1.424 1920 1.911 1.911 1921 1.633 1.633 1922 2.588 2.588 1923 1.784 1.784 1924 3.331 3.331 1925 1.400 1.400 1926 2.710 2.710 1927 2.210 2.210 1928 1.654 1.654 1929 3.313 3.313 1930 3.428 3.428 1931 1.664 1.664 1932 1.799 1.799 1933 1.776 1.776 1934 2.948 2.948 1935 1.520 1.520 1936 2.148 2.148 1937 3.163 3.163 1938 1.552 1.552 1939 1.949 1.949 1940 3.435 3.435 1941 3.391 3.391 1942 2.602 2.602 1943 2.549 2.549 1944 3.695 3.695 1945 2.764 2.764 1946 2.175 2.175 1947 1.671 1.671 1948 2.308 2.308 1949 3.541 3.541 1950 2.001 2.001 1951 3.028 3.028 1952 3.523 3.523 1953 3.249 3.249 1954 1.879 1.879 1955 1.730 1.730 1956 1.705 1.705 1957 1.856 1.856 1958 2.340 2.340 1959 2.350 2.350 1960 1.826 1.826 1961 5.278 5.278 1962 2.247 2.247 1963 1.658 1.658 1964 4.925 4.925 1965 2.191 2.191 1966 1.818 1.818 1967 2.585 2.585 1968 2.150 2.150 1969 1.942 1.942 1970 2.230 2.230 1971 2.164 2.164 1972 7.172 7.172 1973 4.066 4.066 1974 2.975 2.975 1975 3.148 3.148 1976 3.321 3.321 1977 1.397 1.397 1978 2.416 2.416 1979 2.493 2.493 1980 2.449 2.449 1981 2.300 2.300 1982 1.876 1.876 1983 2.567 2.567 1984 2.554 2.554 1985 2.933 2.933 1986 1.471 1.471 1987 2.550 2.550 1988 1.533 1.533 1989 1.400 1.400 1990 1.864 1.864 1991 2.786 2.786 1992 2.611 2.611 1993 2.985 2.985 1994 2.070 2.070 1995 1.599 1.599 1996 2.164 2.164 1997 1.924 1.924 1998 2.308 2.308 1999 2.462 2.462 2000 2.186 2.186 2001 1.735 1.735 2002 3.262 3.262 2003 1.857 1.857 2004 2.773 2.773 2005 5.298 5.298 2006 2.476 2.476 2007 2.797 2.797 2008 2.295 2.295 2009 1.739 1.739 2010 2.246 2.246 2011 2.349 2.349 2012 2.199 2.199 2013 2.092 2.092 2014 1.989 1.989 2015 3.448 3.448 2016 2.089 2.089 2017 3.369 3.369 2018 2.071 2.071 2019 3.078 3.078 2020 2.482 2.482 2021 2.079 2.079 2022 3.513 3.513 2023 4.311 4.311 2024 4.768 4.768 2025 2.244 2.244 2026 2.469 2.469 2027 2.750 2.750 2028 1.076 1.076 2029 1.790 1.790 2030 3.543 3.543 2031 1.119 1.119 2032 1.885 1.885 2033 2.367 2.367 2034 1.853 1.853 2035 2.337 2.337 2036 1.851 1.851 2037 2.489 2.489 2038 2.423 2.423 2039 4.750 4.750 2040 1.872 1.872 2041 2.379 2.379 2042 2.721 2.721 2043 3.010 3.010 2044 2.084 2.084 2045 1.690 1.690 2046 1.873 1.873 2047 2.290 2.290 2048 1.888 1.888 2049 2.803 2.803 2050 2.114 2.114 2051 3.009 3.009 2052 2.246 2.246 2053 1.910 1.910 2054 3.917 3.917 2055 2.319 2.319 2056 2.998 2.998 2057 1.471 1.471 2058 2.817 2.817 2059 3.513 3.513 ______

Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 7.6405 7.6405 2 7.1721 7.1721 3 5.2984 5.2984 4 5.2777 5.2777 5 4.9251 4.9251 6 4.7679 4.7679 7 4.7500 4.7500 8 4.3112 4.3112 9 4.2740 4.2740 10 4.0664 4.0664 11 3.9165 3.9165 12 3.6947 3.6947 13 3.5430 3.5430 14 3.5408 3.5408 15 3.5235 3.5235 16 3.5131 3.5131 17 3.5127 3.5127 18 3.4881 3.4881 19 3.4485 3.4485 20 3.4347 3.4347 21 3.4278 3.4278 22 3.3913 3.3913 23 3.3694 3.3694 24 3.3310 3.3310 25 3.3215 3.3215 26 3.3134 3.3134 27 3.2620 3.2620 28 3.2488 3.2488 29 3.1630 3.1630 30 3.1478 3.1478 31 3.0778 3.0778 32 3.0277 3.0277 33 3.0097 3.0097 34 3.0094 3.0094 35 2.9980 2.9980 36 2.9974 2.9974 37 2.9850 2.9850 38 2.9746 2.9746 39 2.9481 2.9481 40 2.9333 2.9333 41 2.8792 2.8792 42 2.8168 2.8168 43 2.8032 2.8032 44 2.7972 2.7972 45 2.7863 2.7863 46 2.7734 2.7734 47 2.7644 2.7644 48 2.7500 2.7500 49 2.7211 2.7211 50 2.7105 2.7105 51 2.7030 2.7030 52 2.6108 2.6108 53 2.6023 2.6023 54 2.5877 2.5877 55 2.5846 2.5846 56 2.5673 2.5673 57 2.5545 2.5545 58 2.5497 2.5497 59 2.5487 2.5487 60 2.5094 2.5094 61 2.4928 2.4928 62 2.4893 2.4893 63 2.4816 2.4816 64 2.4758 2.4758 65 2.4687 2.4687 66 2.4617 2.4617 67 2.4487 2.4487 68 2.4232 2.4232 69 2.4158 2.4158 70 2.3786 2.3786 71 2.3671 2.3671 72 2.3502 2.3502 73 2.3489 2.3489 74 2.3396 2.3396 75 2.3375 2.3375 76 2.3210 2.3210 77 2.3195 2.3195 78 2.3078 2.3078 79 2.3077 2.3077 80 2.3069 2.3069 81 2.3038 2.3038 82 2.3002 2.3002 83 2.2951 2.2951 84 2.2899 2.2899 85 2.2473 2.2473 86 2.2462 2.2462 87 2.2459 2.2459 88 2.2435 2.2435 89 2.2302 2.2302 90 2.2205 2.2205 91 2.2101 2.2101 92 2.1994 2.1994 93 2.1914 2.1914 94 2.1855 2.1855 95 2.1750 2.1750 96 2.1643 2.1643 97 2.1640 2.1640 98 2.1502 2.1502 99 2.1478 2.1478 100 2.1142 2.1142 101 2.0924 2.0924 102 2.0888 2.0888 103 2.0839 2.0839 104 2.0791 2.0791 105 2.0705 2.0705 106 2.0704 2.0704 107 2.0012 2.0012 108 1.9889 1.9889 109 1.9488 1.9488 110 1.9424 1.9424 111 1.9244 1.9244 112 1.9107 1.9107 113 1.9099 1.9099 114 1.8889 1.8889 115 1.8883 1.8883 116 1.8849 1.8849 117 1.8794 1.8794 118 1.8763 1.8763 119 1.8726 1.8726 120 1.8717 1.8717 121 1.8640 1.8640 122 1.8568 1.8568 123 1.8559 1.8559 124 1.8533 1.8533 125 1.8513 1.8513 126 1.8263 1.8263 127 1.8181 1.8181 128 1.7987 1.7987 129 1.7897 1.7897 130 1.7881 1.7881 131 1.7836 1.7836 132 1.7761 1.7761 133 1.7391 1.7391 134 1.7354 1.7354 135 1.7299 1.7299 136 1.7055 1.7055 137 1.7018 1.7018 138 1.6897 1.6897 139 1.6709 1.6709 140 1.6644 1.6644 141 1.6583 1.6583 142 1.6545 1.6545 143 1.6328 1.6328 144 1.5989 1.5989 145 1.5523 1.5523 146 1.5505 1.5505 147 1.5327 1.5327 148 1.5287 1.5287 149 1.5196 1.5196 150 1.4713 1.4713 151 1.4708 1.4708 152 1.4239 1.4239 153 1.4004 1.4004 154 1.4003 1.4003 155 1.3968 1.3968 156 1.1186 1.1186 157 1.0865 1.0865 158 1.0761 1.0761 ______

Stream Protection Duration POC #1 The Facility PASSED

The Facility PASSED.

Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 1.1536 4724 4724 100 Pass 1.1938 4186 4186 100 Pass 1.2339 3668 3668 100 Pass 1.2740 3247 3247 100 Pass 1.3141 2891 2891 100 Pass 1.3542 2593 2593 100 Pass 1.3943 2338 2338 100 Pass 1.4344 2090 2090 100 Pass 1.4745 1900 1900 100 Pass 1.5146 1695 1695 100 Pass 1.5547 1516 1516 100 Pass 1.5949 1379 1379 100 Pass 1.6350 1249 1249 100 Pass 1.6751 1123 1123 100 Pass 1.7152 1030 1030 100 Pass 1.7553 940 940 100 Pass 1.7954 852 852 100 Pass 1.8355 780 780 100 Pass 1.8756 715 715 100 Pass 1.9157 643 643 100 Pass 1.9559 589 589 100 Pass 1.9960 536 536 100 Pass 2.0361 494 494 100 Pass 2.0762 451 451 100 Pass 2.1163 416 416 100 Pass 2.1564 375 375 100 Pass 2.1965 341 341 100 Pass 2.2366 319 319 100 Pass 2.2767 289 289 100 Pass 2.3168 265 265 100 Pass 2.3570 239 239 100 Pass 2.3971 220 220 100 Pass 2.4372 195 195 100 Pass 2.4773 187 187 100 Pass 2.5174 169 169 100 Pass 2.5575 157 157 100 Pass 2.5976 142 142 100 Pass 2.6377 132 132 100 Pass 2.6778 125 125 100 Pass 2.7180 119 119 100 Pass 2.7581 113 113 100 Pass 2.7982 104 104 100 Pass 2.8383 95 95 100 Pass 2.8784 90 90 100 Pass 2.9185 84 84 100 Pass 2.9586 81 81 100 Pass 2.9987 70 70 100 Pass 3.0388 65 65 100 Pass 3.0790 62 62 100 Pass 3.1191 61 61 100 Pass 3.1592 58 58 100 Pass 3.1993 57 57 100 Pass 3.2394 55 55 100 Pass 3.2795 52 52 100 Pass 3.3196 50 50 100 Pass 3.3597 47 47 100 Pass 3.3998 42 42 100 Pass 3.4399 40 40 100 Pass 3.4801 38 38 100 Pass 3.5202 34 34 100 Pass 3.5603 30 30 100 Pass 3.6004 29 29 100 Pass 3.6405 28 28 100 Pass 3.6806 28 28 100 Pass 3.7207 27 27 100 Pass 3.7608 27 27 100 Pass 3.8009 26 26 100 Pass 3.8411 26 26 100 Pass 3.8812 25 25 100 Pass 3.9213 24 24 100 Pass 3.9614 23 23 100 Pass 4.0015 22 22 100 Pass 4.0416 20 20 100 Pass 4.0817 19 19 100 Pass 4.1218 18 18 100 Pass 4.1619 18 18 100 Pass 4.2020 17 17 100 Pass 4.2422 16 16 100 Pass 4.2823 15 15 100 Pass 4.3224 14 14 100 Pass 4.3625 14 14 100 Pass 4.4026 14 14 100 Pass 4.4427 14 14 100 Pass 4.4828 14 14 100 Pass 4.5229 13 13 100 Pass 4.5630 13 13 100 Pass 4.6032 13 13 100 Pass 4.6433 13 13 100 Pass 4.6834 12 12 100 Pass 4.7235 12 12 100 Pass 4.7636 11 11 100 Pass 4.8037 10 10 100 Pass 4.8438 10 10 100 Pass 4.8839 10 10 100 Pass 4.9240 10 10 100 Pass 4.9641 9 9 100 Pass 5.0043 9 9 100 Pass 5.0444 9 9 100 Pass 5.0845 8 8 100 Pass 5.1246 7 7 100 Pass ______

______

Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0.7139 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.9632 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.9632 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.5541 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.5541 cfs. ______

LID Report

LID Technique Used for Total Volume Volume Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volume Volume Volume Water Quality Treatment Facility (ac-ft.) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft) (ac-ft) Credit Total Volume Infiltrated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Passed

______

Perlnd and Implnd Changes No changes have been made. ______

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. 2005-2018; All Rights Reserved.

Appendix C Conceptual Designs for Basin 1 Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Appendix D Detailed Cost Estimates Alternative 1: Two-Stage Contech StormFilter Alternative 2: Enhanced Media Filtration System

/HYHO6WRUPZDWHU7UHDWPHQW(QJLQHHULQJ5HSRUW 7D\ORU:D\ 1RUWKZHVW&RQWDLQHU6HUYLFHV,QF 7DFRPD:DVKLQJRQ

(QJLQHHU V2SLQLRQRI&RQVWUXFWLRQ&RVWV35(/,0,1$5< 1RUWKZHVW&RQWDLQHU6HUYLFHV7DFRPD $OWHUQDWLYH7ZRVWDJH&RQWHFK6WRUP)LOWHU 'DWH'HFHPEHU 3UHSDUHG%\7D\ORU)RUG(,7 &KHFNHG%\6KDVWD%LOOLQJV%HFN3(6HDQ+DQUDKDQ3( 'HVFULSWLRQ 5HTXLUHG 8QLW 8QLW &RVW 6XEWRWDO&RVW

&216758&7,21(67,0$7(

,WHP*HQHUDO 0RELOL]DWLRQ?'HPRELOL]DWLRQ 6LWH:RUN /6 (URVLRQ&RQWURO /6 8WLOLW\/RFDWH6HUYLFH /6 6KRULQJ /6 &RQVWUXFWLRQ)HQFLQJDQG6LJQDJH /6 &RQVWUXFWLRQ/D\RXW /6 6XEWRWDO

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

,WHP6LWH:RUN 6DZFXW$VSKDOW /) $VSKDOW5HSDYLQJ 6< ([FDYDWLRQDQG'LVSRVDORI6RLOVIRU3XPS6WDWLRQ0DQKROHVDQG&RQWHFK8QLWV,QVW &< 'LVSRVDORIILOWHUVSLSLQJHWFIURP%D\)LOWHUYDXOW ($ 7UHQFKLQJIRU(OHFWULFDO /) &UDQHIRU6WRUP)LOWHU9DXOWV3ODFHPHQW '$< 9DXOW,QVWDOODWLRQ /6 FRQFUHWHILOOHGEROODUGV ($ 3XPS(TXLSPHQW,QVWDOODWLRQDQG3OXPELQJ /6 0LQXV*UDYHO%HGGLQJIRU0DQKROHVDQG&RQWHFK(TXLSPHQW 7RQ 6XEWRWDO

6XEWRWDO(TXLSPHQW0DWHULDOVDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ/DERU

$'',7,21$/%8'*(7,7(06

$//2:$1&(6 $GGLWLRQDO%XGJHWIRU%LG3HULRGDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ6XSSRUW /6 'HZDWHULQJ /6 3HUPLW)HHV 8WLOLW\&KDUJHV /6 )LQDO6:333XSGDWH /6 :DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH6DOHV7D[ RI ,QGLUHFWV &RQVWUXFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW* $&RQWUDFWRU3URILW RI

5HYLVHG'HFHPEHU 3%63URMHFW /HYHO6WRUPZDWHU7UHDWPHQW(QJLQHHULQJ5HSRUW 7D\ORU:D\ 1RUWKZHVW&RQWDLQHU6HUYLFHV,QF 7DFRPD:DVKLQJRQ

(QJLQHHU V2SLQLRQRI&RQVWUXFWLRQ&RVWV35(/,0,1$5< 1RUWKZHVW&RQWDLQHU6HUYLFHV,QF7DFRPD)DFLOLW\ $OWHUQDWLYH(QKDQFHG0HGLD)LOWUDWLRQ6\VWHP 'DWH'HFHPEHU 3UHSDUHG%\7D\ORU)RUG(,7 &KHFNHG%\6KDVWD%LOOLQJV%HFN3(6HDQ+DQUDKDQ3( 'HVFULSWLRQ 5HTXLUHG 8QLW 8QLW &RVW 6XEWRWDO&RVW

&216758&7,21(67,0$7(

,WHP*HQHUDO 0RELOL]DWLRQ?'HPRELOL]DWLRQ 6:DQG6LWH:RUN /6 (URVLRQ&RQWURO /6 8WLOLW\/RFDWH6HUYLFH /6 6KRULQJ /6 &RQVWUXFWLRQ)HQFLQJDQG6LJQDJH /6 &RQVWUXFWLRQ/D\RXW /6 6XEWRWDO

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

,WHP6LWH:RUN 6DZFXWDVSKDOW /) $VSKDOWUHSDYLQJWKLFN 6< ([FDYDWLRQDQG'LVSRVDORI6RLOVIRU3XPS6WDWLRQDQG0DQKROHV &< 'LVSRVDORIILOWHUVSLSLQJHWFIURP%D\)LOWHUYDXOW ($ 7UHQFKLQJIRU(OHFWULFDO /) &UDQHIRU3ODFHPHQWRI)LOWUDWLRQ8QLW '$< 3URSULHWDU\0HGLD)LOWUDWLRQWUHDWPHQWXQLW,QVWDOODWLRQ /6 FRQFUHWHILOOHGEROODUGV ($ 3XPS(TXLSPHQW,QVWDOODWLRQDQG3OXPELQJ /6 &RQFUHWH7DQN3DG /6 0LQXV*UDYHO%HGGLQJIRU0DQKROHVDQG7DQN3DG 7RQ 6XEWRWDO

6XEWRWDO(TXLSPHQW0DWHULDOVDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ/DERU

$'',7,21$/%8'*(7,7(06

$//2:$1&(6 $GGLWLRQDO%XGJHWIRU%LG3HULRGDQG&RQVWUXFWLRQ6XSSRUW /6 'HZDWHULQJ /6 3HUPLW)HHV 8WLOLW\&KDUJHV /6 )LQDO6:333XSGDWH /6 6\VWHPVWDUWXS +5 :DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH6DOHV7D[ RI ,QGLUHFWV &RQVWUXFWLRQ0DQDJHPHQW* $&RQWUDFWRU3URILW RI Total: Additional Construction Budget Items $ 163,852

6XEWRWDO $OO&RQVWUXFWLRQ &RQWLQJHQF\ Total Construction: $ 870,638

,WHP2SHUDWLRQ 0DLQWHQDQFH

6XEWRWDO $OO2 0 &RQWLQJHQF\ Total Operation & Maintenance (Yearly): $ 34,418

5HYLVHG'HFHPEHU 3%63URMHFW

Appendix E 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.

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

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

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

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).

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.

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) 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:

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

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 Technologyҏ 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: x 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); x Flow through the treatment device was successfully measured and recorded over the duration of the runoff period; x A flow-proportional composite sample was successfully collected for both the influent and effluent over the duration of the runoff event; x 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 x 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 x total suspended solids (TSS) x total and x total and x chemical oxygen x total dissolved solids (TDS) dissolved dissolved demand (COD) x suspended sediment cadmium, lead, phosphorus x dissolved chloride concentration (SSC) copper and zinc x total calcium and x 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 Pg/L Microgram per liter (ppb) Pm 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:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NSF International U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (WSLH) USGS Sediment Laboratory Earth Tech, Inc. Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI)

1 The following is a brief description of each ETV participant and their roles and responsibilities.

1.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA Office of Research and Development, through the Urban Watershed Branch, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), provides administrative, technical, and quality assurance guidance and oversight on all ETV Water Quality Protection Center activities. In addition, EPA provides financial support for operation of the Center and partial support for the cost of testing for this verification.

The key EPA contact for this program is:

Mr. Ray Frederick, ETV WQPC Project Officer (732) 321-6627 email: [email protected]

U.S. EPA, NRMRL Urban Watershed Management Research Laboratory 2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104) Edison, New Jersey 08837-3679

1.2.2 Verification Organization

NSF is the verification organization (VO) administering the WQPC in partnership with EPA. NSF is a not-for-profit testing and certification organization dedicated to public health, safety, and protection of the environment. Founded in 1946 and located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, NSF has been instrumental in development of consensus standards for the protection of public health and the environment. NSF also provides testing and certification services to ensure that products bearing the NSF name, logo and/or mark meet those standards.

NSF personnel provided technical oversight of the verification process. NSF also provided review of the verification test plan (VTP) and this verification report. NSF’s responsibilities as the VO include:

x Review and comment on the VTP; x Review quality systems of all parties involved with the TO, and qualify the TO; x Oversee TO activities related to the technology evaluation and associated laboratory testing; x Conduct an on-site audit of test procedures; x Provide quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review and support for the TO; x Oversee the development of the verification report and verification statement; and, x Coordinate with EPA to approve the verification report and verification statement.

2 Key contacts at NSF are:

Mr. Thomas Stevens, Program Manager Mr. Patrick Davison, Project Coordinator (734) 769-5347 (734) 913-5719 email: [email protected] email: [email protected]

NSF International 789 North Dixboro Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 (734) 769-8010

1.2.3 Testing Organization

The TO for the verification testing was Earth Tech, Inc. of Madison, Wisconsin (Earth Tech), which was assisted by the U.S. Geological Service (USGS), located in Middleton, Wisconsin. USGS provided testing equipment, helped to define field procedures, conducted the field testing, coordinated with the analytical laboratories, and conducted initial data analyses.

The TO provided all needed logistical support, established a communications network, and scheduled and coordinated activities of all participants. The TO was responsible for ensuring that the testing location and conditions allowed for the verification testing to meet its stated objectives. The TO prepared the VTP; oversaw the testing; and managed, evaluated, interpreted and reported on the data generated by the testing, as well as evaluated and reported on the performance of the technology. TO employees set test conditions, and measured and recorded data during the testing. The TO’s Project Manager provided project oversight.

The key personnel and contacts for the TO are:

Earth Tech, Inc.:

Mr. Jim Bachhuber P.H. (608) 828-8121 email: [email protected]

Earth Tech, Inc. 1210 Fourier Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53717

United States Geologic Survey:

Ms. Judy Horwatich (608) 821-3874 email: [email protected]

3 USGS 8505 Research Way Middleton, Wisconsin 53562

1.2.4 Analytical Laboratories

The Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (WSLH), located in Madison, Wisconsin, analyzed the stormwater samples for the parameters identified in the VTP, except for suspended sediment concentration and particle size. The USGS Sediment Laboratory, located in Iowa City, Iowa, performed the suspended sediment concentration separations and particle size analyses.

The key analytical laboratory contacts are:

Mr. George Bowman Ms. Pam Smith (608) 224-6279 (319) 358-3602 email: [email protected] email: [email protected]

WSLH USGS Sediment Laboratory 2601 Agriculture Drive Federal Building Room 269 Madison, Wisconsin 53718 400 South Clinton Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240

1.2.5 Vendor

Stormwater Management, Inc. (SMI) of Portland, Oregon, is the vendor of the StormFilter, and was responsible for supplying a field-ready system. SMI was also responsible for providing technical support, and was available during the tests to provide technical assistance as needed.

The key contact for SMI is:

Mr. James Lenhart, P.E. (800) 548-5667 email: [email protected]

Stormwater Management, Inc. 12021-B NE Airport Way Portland, Oregon 97220

1.2.6 Verification Testing Site

The StormFilter was installed in a parking lot under Interstate 794 on the east side of the Milwaukee River in downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The StormFilter treated storm water collected from the decking of Interstate 794. The unit was installed in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), which is the current owner/operator of the system.

4 The key contact for WisDOT is:

Mr. Robert Pearson (608) 266-7980 email: [email protected]

Bureau of Environment Wisconsin Department of Transportation 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, Room 451 Madison, Wisconsin 53707

5 Chapter 2 Technology Description

The following technology description data was supplied by the vendor and does not represent verified information.

2.1 Treatment System Description

The Stormwater Management StormFilter® using ZPG Media (StormFilter) is designed to remove sediments, metals, and other roadway pollutants from stormwater. The StormFilter device under test was designed to treat storm water with a maximum flow rate of 0.29 cubic feet per second (cfs). The unit consisted of an inlet bay, flow spreader, cartridge bay, an overflow baffle, and outlet bay, all housed in a 12 ft by 6 ft pre-cast concrete vault. A 2 ft by 6 ft inlet bay served as a grit chamber and provided for flow transition into the 7.4 ft by 6 ft cartridge bay. The flow spreader provided for the trapping of floatables, oil, and surface scum. The unit also included nine filter cartridges filled with ZPG filter media (a mixture of zeolite, perlite, and granular activated carbon), installed inline with the storm drain lines. The cartridge bay provided for sediment storage of 0.87 cubic yards. A schematic of the StormFilter and a detail of the filter cartridge are shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-2.

Figure 2-1. Schematic drawing of a typical StormFilter system.

Additional equipment specifications, test site descriptions, testing requirements, sampling procedures, and analytical methods were detailed in the Test Plan for the Verification of the StormFilter® Treatment System using ZPG Media, “Riverwalk” Site, Version 4.3. The verification test plan (VTP) is included in Appendix A.

6 2.2 Filtration Process

The filtration process works by percolating storm water through a series of filter cartridges filled with ZPG media, which is a mixture of zeolite, perlite, and granular activated carbon. The filter media traps particulates and adsorbs materials such as suspended solids and petroleum hydrocarbons. The media will also trap pollutants such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and metals that commonly bind to sediment particulates. A diagram identifying the filter cartridge components is shown in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2. Schematic drawing of a StormFilter cartridge.

Storm water enters the cartridge bay through the flow spreader, where it ponds. Air in the cartridge is displaced by the water and purged from beneath the filter hood through the one-way check valve located on top of the cap. The water infiltrates through the filter media and into the center tube. Once the center tube fills with water, a float valve opens and the water in the center tube flows into the under-drain manifold, located beneath the filter cartridge. This causes the check valve to close, initiating a siphon that draws storm water through the filter. The siphon continues until the water surface elevation drops to the elevation of the hood’s scrubbing regulators. When the water drains, the float valve closes and the system resets.

7 The StormFilter is equipped with an overflow baffle designed to bypass flows and prevent catch basin backup and surface flooding. The bypass flow is discharged through the outlet pipe along with the treated water.

2.3 Technology Application and Limitations

StormFilter Treatment Systems are flexible in terms of the flow it can treat. By varying the holding tank size, and number of filter cartridges, the treatment capacity can be modified to accommodate runoff from various size watersheds. The filtration systems can be designed to receive runoff from all rainstorm events, or they can be designed with a high flow bypass system.

The StormFilter installed at the Riverwalk site was designed to receive all the runoff from the drainage area.

2.4 Performance Claim

SMI recognizes that stormwater treatment is a function of influent concentration and particle size distribution in the case of sediment removal. The performance claims for the StormFilter unit installed at the Riverwalk site are summarized in Table 2-1. SMI does not provide any additional removal claims for constituents other than those specified in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1. StormFilter Performance Claims

Removal Efficiency Range Constituent (Percent) Total suspended solids (TSS) 50 – 85 Total phosphorus 30 – 45 Dissolved phosphorus Negligible Total zinc 30 – 60 Dissolved zinc 20 – 40 Total copper 30 – 60 Dissolved copper 20 – 40

8 Chapter 3 Test Site Description

3.1 Location and Land Use

The StormFilter system is located in a municipal parking lot beneath an elevated freeway (I-794) and just east of the Milwaukee River, in downtown Milwaukee Wisconsin. The parking lot is located is just west of Water Street, between Clybourn Street and St. Paul Avenue. Figure 3-1 shows the location of the test site, and Figure 3-2 details the drainage area.

Test Site

I-794 an g

Milwaukee I-43 River Milwaukee Harbor – Lake Michi Milwaukee Harbor – Lake

Figure 3-1. Location of test site.

The StormFilter receives runoff from 0.187 acres of the eastbound highway surface of Interstate 794. Surface inlets on the highway collect the runoff and convey the water to the treatment device via downspouts from the deck surface to beneath the parking lot below the highway deck, as shown in Figure 3-3. The drainage area determination was based on the following information and assumptions:

1. WisDOT design plans for Interstate 794 dated 1966 (scale: 1 inch equals 20 feet) and rehabilitation plans dated 1994; 2. The assumption that resurfacing the deck did not change the basic slope or relative drainage area to each inlet; and 3. The assumption that adjacent storm drains were capable of capturing all the flow in their respective drainage areas, forming a hydrologic barrier.

The drainage site is not impacted by surrounding land uses due to its elevated highway decking.

9 Milwaukee River

StormFilter Drainage Area

I-794 Eastbound Lanes

Figure 3-2. Drainage area detail.

Inlet to StormFilter

Figure 3-3. StormFilter drainage area condition.

3.2 Contaminant Sources and Site Maintenance

The main pollutant sources within the drainage area are created by vehicular traffic, atmospheric deposition, and, winter salt applications that are applied as conditions require.

10 The storm sewer catch basins do not have sumps. Conventional (mechanical) street sweeping is done on a monthly basis in the summer months (June through August). There are no other stormwater best management practices (BMPs) within the drainage area.

3.3 Stormwater Conveyance System

The entire drainage area is served by a storm sewer collection system. Before installation of the StormFilter system, the drainage area discharged storm water directly to the Milwaukee River through the system under the parking lot.

The highway deck is about 15 feet above the parking lot. Thus, the storm sewer conveyance system drops vertically through an 8-inch pipe to a point below the parking lot surface, then travels about 6.5 feet horizontally to the inlet monitoring (flow and quality) site, and another two feet to the StormFilter. The StormFilter outlet is connected to an 8-inch pipe that discharges without further treatment to the Milwaukee River.

3.4 Water Quality/Water Resources

Stormwater from the site is discharged directly to the Milwaukee River, just upstream of the mouth to Milwaukee Harbor, and then into Lake Michigan. The river and harbor have had a history of severe water quality impacts from various sources including contaminated river sediments, urban non-point source runoff, rural non-point sources (higher upstream in the watershed), and point source discharges. The water quality in the river suffers from low dissolved oxygen, high nutrient, metals, bacteria levels, and toxic contamination.

Most of the urban communities within the Milwaukee River watershed, including the City of Milwaukee, are under the State of Wisconsin stormwater permitting program (NR 216). This program meets or exceeds the requirements of EPA’s Phase I stormwater regulations.

3.5 Local Meteorological Conditions

The VTP (Appendix A) includes summary temperature and precipitation data from the National Weather Service station from the Mitchell Field Airport in Milwaukee. The statistical rainfalls for a series of recurrence and duration precipitation events are presented in the VTP (Hull et al., 1992). The climate of Milwaukee, and in Wisconsin in general, is typically continental with some modification by Lakes Michigan and Superior. Milwaukee experiences cold snowy winters, and warm to hot summers. Average annual precipitation is approximately 33 inches, with an average annual snowfall of 50.3 inches.

11 Chapter 4 Sampling Procedures and Analytical Methods

Descriptions of the sampling locations and methods used during verification testing are summarized in this section. Additional detail may be found in the VTP (Appendix A).

4.1 Sampling Locations

Two locations in the test site storm sewer system were selected as sampling and monitoring sites to determine the treatment capability of the StormFilter.

4.1.1 Site 1 - Influent

This sampling and monitoring site was selected to characterize the untreated stormwater from the entire drainage area. A velocity/stage meter and sampler suction tubing were located in the influent pipe, upstream from the StormFilter so that potential backwater effects of the treatment device would not affect the velocity measurements. The monitoring station (Figure 4-1) and test equipment (Figure 4-2 and 4-3) are shown below.

Figure 4-1. View of monitoring station.

4.1.2 Site 2 - Treated Effluent

This sampling and monitoring site was selected to characterize the stormwater treated by the StormFilter. A velocity/stage meter and sampler suction tubing, connected to the automated sampling equipment, were located in an eight-inch diameter plastic pipe downstream from the StormFilter.

12 Figure 4-2. View of ISCO samplers.

Figure 4-3. View of datalogger.

4.1.3 Other Monitoring Locations

In addition to the two sampling and monitoring sites, a water-level recording device was installed in the StormFilter vault. The data from this device were used to verify the occurrence of bypass conditions.

A rain gauge was located adjacent to the drainage area to monitor the depth of precipitation from storm events. The data were used to characterize the events to determine if they met the requirements for a qualified storm event. The rain gauge is shown in Figure 4-4.

13 Figure 4-4. View of rain gauge.

4.2 Monitoring Equipment

The specific equipment used for monitoring flow, sampling water quality, and measuring rainfall is listed in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Field Monitoring Equipment

Rain StormFilter Equipment Site 1 Site 2 Gauge Vault Water ISCO 3700 refrigerated ISCO 3700 refrigerated Quality automatic sampler (4, automatic sampler (4, Sampler 10 L sample bottles) 10 L sample bottles) Velocity Marsh-McBirney Marsh-McBirney Measurement Velocity Meter Model Velocity Meter Model 270 270 Stage Meter Marsh-McBirney Marsh-McBirney Campbell Velocity Meter Model Velocity Meter Model Scientific Inc. 270 270 SWD1 Datalogger Campbell Scientific Campbell Scientific Campbell Inc. CR10X datalogger Inc. CR10X datalogger Scientific Inc. CR10X datalogger Rain Gauge Rain-O- Matic

14 4.3 Contaminant Constituents Analyzed

The list of constituents analyzed in the stormwater samples is shown in Table 4-2. The vendor’s performance claim addresses reductions of sediments, nutrients (total phosphorus) and heavy metals from the runoff water.

Table 4-2. Constituent List for Water Quality Monitoring

Reporting Limit of Limit of Parameter Units Detection Quantification Method1 Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L 50 167 SM 2540C Total suspended solids (TSS) mg/L 2 7 EPA 160.2 Total phosphorus mg/L as P 0.005 0.016 EPA 365.1 Suspended sediment mg/L 0.1 0.5 ASTM D3977-97 concentration (SSC) Total calcium mg/L 0.2 0.7 EPA 200.7 Total copper Pg/L 1 3 SM 3113B Dissolved copper Pg/L 1 3 SM 3113B Total magnesium mg/L 0.2 0.7 EPA 200.7 Dissolved zinc Pg/L 16 50 EPA 200.7 Total zinc Pg/L 16 50 EPA 200.7 Dissolved phosphorus mg/L as P 0.005 0.016 EPA 365.1 Dissolved cadmium Pg/L 6 20 EPA 200.7 Total cadmium Pg/L 6 20 EPA 200.7 Total lead Pg/L 31 100 EPA 200.7 Dissolved lead Pg/L 31 100 EPA 200.7 Dissolved chloride mg/L 0.6 2 EPA 325.2 Chemical oxygen demand mg/L 9 28 ASTM D1252-88(B) (COD) Sand-silt split NA NA NA Fishman et al. Five point sedigraph NA NA NA Fishman et al. Sand fractionation NA NA NA Fishman et al.

1 EPA: EPA Methods and Guidance for the Analysis of Water procedures; SM: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (19th edition) procedures; ASTM: American Society of Testing and Materials procedures; Fishman et al.: Approved Inorganic and Organic Methods for the Analysis of Water and Fluvial Sediment procedures.

15 4.4 Sampling Schedule

USGS personnel installed the monitoring equipment under a contract with the WDNR.

The monitoring equipment was installed in the December of 2001. In March through May 2002, several trial events were monitored and the equipment tested and calibrated. Verification testing began in June 2002, and ended in November 2003. Table 4-3 summarizes the sample collection data from the storm events. These storm events met the requirements of a “qualified event,” as defined in the VTP:

1. The total rainfall depth for the event, measured at the site rain gauge, was 0.2 inches (5 mm) or greater (snow fall and snow melt events did not qualify).

2. Flow through the treatment device was successfully measured and recorded over the duration of the runoff period.

3. A flow-proportional composite sample was successfully collected for both the influent and effluent over the duration of the runoff event.

4. Each composite sample collected was comprised of a minimum of five aliquots, including at least two aliquots on the rising limb of the runoff hydrograph, at least one aliquot near the peak, and at least two aliquots on the falling limb of the runoff hydrograph.

5. There was a minimum of six hours between qualified sampling events.

Table 4-4 summarizes the storm data for the qualified events. Detailed information on each storm’s runoff hydrograph and the rain depth distribution over the event period are included in Appendix B.

The sample collection starting times for the influent and effluent samples, as well as the number of sample aliquots collected, varied from event to event. The influent sampler was activated when the influent velocity meter sensed flow in the pipe. The effluent sampler was activated when the filtration process discharged treated effluent.

Twenty events are reported in this verification, as shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4. At the onset of the monitoring program, the site was not monitored under the ETV program. Both TSS and SSC were being analyzed, but due to budgetary concerns, TSS was discontinued and not sampled for five events (events 3 through 7). Once the monitoring program was entered into the ETV program, the TSS parameter was reinstated, and the monitoring program was extended so that TSS and SSC data was collected for 15 events. The extension of the verification program resulted in the collection of flow data for 20 events and analytical data for other parameters for 15 or more events.

16 Table 4-3. Summary of Events Monitored for Verification Testing

Inlet Sampling Point (Site 1) Outlet Sampling Point (Site 2) Event Start Start End End No. of Start Start End End No. of Number Date Time Date Time Aliquots Date Time Date Time Aliquots 1 6/21/02 6:54 6/21/02 7:40 7 6/21/02 6:57 6/21/02 7:34 7 2 7/8/02 21:21 7/8/02 23:41 29 7/8/02 21:24 7/8/02 23:26 29 3 8/21/02 20:12 8/22/02 12:37 30 8/21/02 20:27 8/22/02 12:21 16 4 9/2/02 5:25 9/2/02 9:48 21 9/2/02 5:30 9/2/02 9:12 24 5 9/18/02 5:31 9/18/02 10:25 10 9/18/02 5:54 9/18/02 10:49 8 6 9/29/02 2:52 9/29/02 9:27 9 9/29/02 3:19 9/29/02 9:33 16 7 12/18/02 1:19 12/18/02 6:02 18 12/18/02 1:44 12/18/02 6:05 9 8 4/19/03 5:56 4/19/03 15:55 18 4/19/03 6:04 4/19/03 15:57 15 9 5/4/03 21:28 5/5/03 7:18 23 5/4/03 21:35 5/5/03 7:18 26 10 5/30/03 19:00 5/30/03 23:22 13 5/30/03 19:05 5/30/03 23:59 15 11 6/8/03 3:30 6/8/03 14:55 14 6/8/03 3:32 6/8/03 15:10 20 12 6/27/03 17:32 6/28/03 11:01 18 6/27/03 17:43 6/28/03 11:34 22 13 7/4/03 7:27 7/6/03 9:47 19 7/4/03 7:30 7/6/03 10:26 26 14 7/8/03 9:52 7/8/03 13:45 8 7/8/03 9:59 7/8/03 14:06 11 15 9/12/03 15:35 9/12/03 17:31 8 9/12/03 16:12 9/12/03 18:23 7 16 9/14/03 5:34 9/14/03 12:05 15 9/14/03 6:11 9/14/03 12:10 11 17 9/22/03 2:29 9/22/03 4:54 8 9/22/03 2:36 9/22/03 4:35 13 18 10/14/03 1:11 10/14/03 3:21 15 10/14/03 1:25 10/14/03 3:34 10 19 10/24/03 16:59 10/24/03 21:49 20 10/24/03 17:10 10/24/03 22:19 20 20 11/4/03 15:58 11/4/03 19:20 10 11/4/03 16:18 11/4/03 19:48 14

17 Table 4-4. Rainfall Summary for Monitored Events

Peak Rainfall Rainfall Runoff Discharge Event Start Start End Amount Duration Volume Rate Number Date Time End Date Time (inches) (hr:min) (ft3)1 (gpm)1 1 6/21/02 6:54 6/21/02 7:17 0.52 0:23 420 447 2 7/8/02 21:16 7/8/02 23:20 1.5 2:04 1,610 651 3 8/21/02 20:08 8/22/02 12:07 1.7 15:59 1,620 671 4 9/2/02 5:24 9/2/02 8:48 1.2 3:24 1,180 164 5 9/18/02 5:25 9/18/02 10:19 0.37 4:54 350 136 6 9/29/02 0:49 9/29/02 8:43 0.74 7:54 730 70.9 7 12/18/02 1:18 12/18/02 5:05 0.37 3:47 300 61.0 8 4/19/03 5:39 4/19/03 15:39 0.55 10:00 340 96.9 9 5/4/03 21:21 5/5/03 9:05 0.90 11:44 540 73.2 10 5/30/03 18:55 5/30/03 23:01 0.54 4:06 320 83.9 11 6/8/03 3:26 6/8/03 14:35 0.62 11:09 450 140 12 6/27/03 17:30 6/28/03 10:55 0.57 13:25 460 107 13 7/4/03 7:25 7/6/03 10:08 0.53 40:43 550 143 14 7/8/03 9:49 7/8/03 13:26 0.33 3:37 260 62.8 15 9/12/03 15:33 9/12/03 17:28 0.22 1:55 150 21.5 16 9/14/03 5:22 9/14/03 11:57 0.47 6:35 340 264 17 9/22/03 2:28 9/22/03 4:37 0.27 2:09 270 104 18 10/14/03 1:03 10/14/03 3:10 0.25 2:07 220 56.5 19 10/24/03 16:46 10/24/03 11:53 0.71 15:07 410 75.8 20 11/4/03 16:14 11/4/03 18:23 0.60 2:09 560 906

1 Runoff volume and peak discharge volume measured at the outlet monitoring point.

4.5 Field Procedures for Sample Handling and Preservation

Data gathered by the on-site datalogger were accessible to USGS personnel by means of a modem and phone-line hookup. USGS personnel collected samples and performed a system inspection after storm events.

Water samples were collected with ISCO automatic samplers programmed to collect one-liter aliquots during each sample cycle. A peristaltic pump on the sampler pumped water from the sampling location through Teflon™-lined sample tubing to the pump head where water passed through approximately three feet of silicone tubing and into one of four 10-liter sample collection bottles. Samples were capped and removed from the sampler after the event by the WisDOT or USGS personnel depending upon the schedule of the staff. The samples were forwarded to USGS personnel if the WisDOT personnel collected them. The samples were then transported to the USGS field office in Madison, Wisconsin, where they were split into multiple

18 aliquots using a 20-liter Teflon-lined churn splitter. When more than 20 liters (two 10-liter sample collection bottles) of sample were collected by the autosamplers, the contents of the two full sample containers would be poured into the churn, a portion of the sample in the churn would be discarded, and a proportional volume from the third sample container would be poured into the churn. The analytical laboratories provided sample bottles. Samples were preserved per method requirements and analyzed within the holding times allowed by the methods. Particle size and SSC samples were shipped to the USGS sediment laboratory in Iowa City, Iowa (after event 2, SSC samples were analyzed at WSLH). All other samples were hand-delivered to WSLH.

The samples were maintained in the custody of the sample collectors, delivered directly to the laboratory, and relinquished to the laboratory sample custodian(s). Custody was maintained according to the laboratory’s sample handling procedures. To establish the necessary documentation to trace sample possession from the time of collection, field forms and lab forms (see Appendix B of the VTP) were completed and accompanied each sample.

19 Chapter 5 Monitoring Results and Discussion

The monitoring results related to contaminant reduction over the events are reported in two formats:

1. Efficiency ratio comparison, which evaluates the effectiveness of the system on an event mean concentration (EMC) basis.

2. Sum of loads (SOL) comparison, which evaluates the effectiveness of the system on a constituent mass (concentration times volume) basis.

The StormFilter is designed to remove suspended solids from wet-weather flows. The VTP required that a suite of analytical parameters, including solids, metals, and nutrients, be evaluated because of the vendor’s performance claim.

5.1 Monitoring Results: Performance Parameters

5.1.1 Concentration Efficiency Ratio

The concentration efficiency ratio reflects the treatment capability of the device using the event mean concentration (EMC) data obtained for each runoff event. The concentration efficiency ratios are calculated by:

Efficiency ratio = 100 u (1-[EMCeffluent/EMCinfluent]) (5-1)

The influent and effluent sample concentrations and calculated efficiency ratios are summarized by analytical parameter categories: sediments (TSS, SSC, and TDS); nutrients (total and dissolved phosphorus); metals (total and dissolved copper, total and dissolved zinc, total lead and total cadmium); and water quality parameters (COD, dissolved chloride, total calcium and total magnesium). The water quality parameters were not specified in the vendors’ performance claim and were monitored for other reasons outside the scope of the ETV program.

Sediments: The influent and effluent sample concentrations and calculated efficiency ratios for sediment parameters are summarized in Table 5-1. As discussed in Section 4.4, TSS analysis was not conducted on the samples collected from events 3 through 7. The TSS inlet concentrations ranged from 29 to 780 mg/L the outlet concentrations ranged from 20 to 380 mg/L, and the efficiency ratio ranged from -33 to 95 percent. The SSC inlet concentrations ranged 51 to 5,600 mg/L, the outlet concentrations ranged from 12 to 370 mg/L, and the efficiency ratio ranged from 3 to 99 percent.

20 Table 5-1. Monitoring Results and Efficiency Ratios for Sediment Parameters

TSS SSC TDS Event Rainfall Inlet Outlet Reduction Inlet Outlet Reduction Inlet Outlet Reduction No. (in) (mg/L) (mg/L) (Percent) (mg/L) (mg/L) (Percent) (mg/L) (mg/L) (Percent) 11 0.52 71 83 -17 370 63 83 <50 <50 - 21 1.5 51 28 45 310 20 94 <50 <50 - 3 1.7 NA NA - 65 19 71 <50 <50 - 4 1.2 NA NA - 320 13 96 39 38 3 5 0.37 NA NA - 120 43 64 NA NA - 6 0.74 NA NA - 140 12 91 <50 <50 - 7 0.37 NA NA - 770 130 83 600 4,200 -600 8 0.55 780 380 51 5,600 370 93 520 720 -38 9 0.90 73 34 53 830 34 96 78 90 -15 10 0.54 110 70 36 1,300 68 95 66 130 -91 11 0.62 60 40 33 420 40 90 <50 76 - 12 0.57 77 46 40 370 47 87 90 160 -80 13 0.53 29 30 -3 51 32 37 60 110 -83 14 0.33 57 24 58 74 23 69 82 110 -34 15 0.22 700 36 95 3,800 29 99 210 190 10 16 0.47 50 49 2 410 49 88 <50 60 - 17 0.27 37 31 16 480 21 96 50 80 -60 18 0.25 35 20 43 410 21 95 50 74 -48 19 0.71 67 36 46 420 33 92 <50 60 - 20 0.60 55 73 -33 100 97 3 <50 <50 -

1 SSC analyzed at USGS Sediment Laboratory; all other parameters analyzed at WSLH NA: Not Analyzed