Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006
( with July 2006 revisions to Chapter 4)
CTSW- RT- 06- 167.02.02
Final Report
California Department of Transportation
Division of Environmental Analysis
1120 N Street, Sacramento, California 95814
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Treatment BMP Technology Report consolidates and standardizes information on storm
water quality technologies that are part of the California Department of Transportation’s
( Department’s) BMP identification, and evaluation process described in Section 3.3.2 of the
Storm Water Management Plan ( SWMP). Technologies include the latest innovations in
permanent storm water treatment and control, as well as existing technologies currently in use by
municipal or other states’ Department of Transportation ( DOT) storm water management
programs. 127 fact sheets are included in this report.
To introduce products to the Department, manufacturers and suppliers must contact the New
Product Coordinator at ( 916) 227- 7185. Fact sheets are prepared for each identified technology
and added to the report. Appendix A explains the format and content of the fact sheets found in
Appendices B, C, and D.
Fact sheets in Appendix B summarize information for technologies that are untested and
unapproved by the Department. Appendix B has been substantially expanded in this year’s
report, so that each BMP product has a fact sheet rather than grouping similar BMPs as in
previous reports.
Favorable evaluations of promising BMP technologies can lead to pilot studies to gather cost and
performance data. Fact sheets in Appendix C summarize information for existing and completed
full- scale pilot studies of unapproved technologies. Current studies are described in the Storm
Water Monitoring and BMP Development Status Report ( CTSW- RT- 04- 069.04.05).
If piloted technologies are successful, they may be approved and listed in the Department’s
SWMP to be used according to the BMP implementation procedures. Fact sheets in Appendix D
summarize information for approved BMPs.
Treatment BMP Technology Report
ii April 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... i
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... ... 1
2.0 Identifying New Technology ............................................................................................ 1
2.1 Fact Sheets ................................................................................................................ 1
2.2 Pilot Study Publications .......................................................................................... 2
2.3 Low Impact Development ( LID)............................................................................. 2
3.0 References..................................................................................................................... .... 9
4.0 Index of Treatment BMPs.............................................................................................. 11
Appendix A: BMP Fact Sheet Description and Format........................................................ A- 1
A. 1 BMP Description.................................................................................................. A- 1
A. 2 Constituent Removal ........................................................................................... A- 1
A. 3 Key Design Elements ........................................................................................... A- 3
A. 4 Schematic.............................................................................................................. A- 3
A. 5 Relative Cost Effectiveness.................................................................................. A- 3
A. 6 Issues and Concerns............................................................................................. A- 4
A. 7 BMP Specific Advantages and Constraints....................................................... A- 5
A. 8 Sources .................................................................................................................. A- 5
Appendix B: Technology Fact Sheets...................................................................................... B- 1
Appendix C: Pilot Study Fact Sheets ...................................................................................... C- 1
Appendix D: Caltrans Approved BMPs ................................................................................. D- 1
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Treatment BMP Technology Report consolidates and
standardizes information on technologies that are part of the
Department’s BMP identification, evaluation and approval process
described in Section 3.3.2 of the SWMP ( 1 Caltrans 2003). The BMP
fact sheets in Appendices B and C summarize available design,
construction, performance, and cost information for BMPs considered
for further testing or approval. For comparison, Appendix D fact
sheets report on treatment BMPs approved by the Department.
To introduce products to the Department, manufacturers and suppliers
must contact the New Product Coordinator at ( 916) 227- 7185. Fact
sheets are prepared for identified technologies and added to this
report. The Department reviews the fact sheets to determine if a
BMP warrants further research, which may include full scale pilot
testing.
The Department’s ongoing review of technologies consists of
evaluating the latest innovations in storm water treatment and control,
including technologies used by municipal or Department of
Transportation ( DOT) storm water management programs.
2.0 IDENTIFYING NEW TECHNOLOGY
The Department, with input from universities, consultants, regulators, third parties, and
manufacturers, continually reviews BMP information reported in literature. Manufacturers’
exhibits at professional conferences also provide an opportunity to identify new technologies.
After identification, a fact sheet of the BMP is included in this report.
2.1 Fact Sheets
BMP fact sheets are developed using a standard format to facilitate comparison among BMPs.
Each fact sheet addresses a standard series of topics. This summary information is used to
evaluate the potential applicability of BMPs to the Department. Topics covered include: design
parameters, operations, maintenance, treatment effectiveness, costs, advantages and constraints.
These topics are discussed in Appendix A. Completed BMP fact sheets are presented in
Appendices B, C, and D. Section 4 provides an index of all the BMPs to aid in locating the fact
sheet of a specific BMP.
Fact sheets in Appendix B summarize information for technologies unapproved and untested by
the Department. Appendix B has been substantially expanded in this year’s report. In most
cases, there is a specific fact sheet for each BMP product rather than grouping similar BMPs into
a single fact sheet.
Favorable evaluations of promising BMP technologies can lead to pilot studies to gather cost and
performance data. Fact sheets in Appendix C summarize information for existing and completed
Department- Approved
Treatment BMPs
Austin Sand Filters
Biofiltration ( strips and
swales)
Delaware Sand Filter
Detention Basins
Dry Weather Flow
Diversions
GSRD ( Inclined Screen
and Linear Radial)
Infiltration ( Basins and
Trenches)
Multi- Chambered
Treatment Trains
Traction Sand Traps
Wet Basin
Treatment BMP Technology Report
2 April 2006
full- scale pilot studies of unapproved technologies. Publications on Caltrans Pilot studies are
summarized in Section 2.2.
Successfully piloted technologies may be approved and listed in the Department’s SWMP to be
used according to the BMP implementation procedures also contained in the SWMP. Fact sheets
in Appendix D summarize information for approved BMPs. The Caltrans Storm Water Project
Planning and Design Guide should be consulted for more details on approved BMPs ( 2 Caltrans
2002).
2.2 Pilot Study Publications
Table 2- 1 presents, in alphabetical order, summary information and related publications for the
Department’s completed and existing BMP pilots. Publications cited in this report ( not including
the fact sheets) are found in Section 3 in order of occurrence in this report. The Storm Water
Monitoring and BMP Development Status Report ( CTSW- RT- 04- 069.04.05) describes current
pilot studies in more detail. Current pilots are those in any phase of pilot testing, from project
scoping to final report publication.
2.3 Low Impact Development ( LID)
LID, as it pertains to stormwater management is a design approach that uses a mixture of BMPs
to reduce the load of pollutants to surface waters from developed areas. The primary strategy is
to capture or slow water so that evaporation and infiltration losses reduce the quantity of
stormwater. Many BMPs can be used in, LID such as bioretention, infiltration basins, infiltration
trenches, porous surfaces, swales and strips. The following are several sources for LID designs
using these BMPs:
• www. owp. org
• www. thcahill. com
• www. lowimpactdevelopment. org
TABLE 2- 1. STORM WATER BMP PILOTS
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 3
Study Dist RWQCB Location Status as of Summer 2004 Final Report
Reference No.
Professional
Paper Ref. No.
Alternative
media filters 3 Lahontan Meyers Maintenance Station Fourth year monitoring season
( 03/ 04) draft report is available. 3
Austin Filter
with Alt
Media ( 2)
3 Lahontan
Hwy 50 near Tahoe
Construction complete. Monitoring
began in 03/ 04.
Anticipated
2008.
Paxton Park and Ride Construction complete, no water
quality monitoring. n/ a
Eastern Regional
Maintenance Station
Foothill Maint Station
7 Los Angeles
Termination Park/ Ride
11 San Diego La Costa Park & Ride
SR- 78/ I- 5 Park & Ride
Study complete. 4
5, 6, 7, 8, 9
I- 5 near Mountain Gate
Two seasons of monitoring complete.
Monitoring to continue through the
04/ 05 wet season.
Austin Sand
Filters ( 8)
2 Central Valley
Mt. Shasta Maintenance
Station
Two seasons of monitoring complete.
Monitoring to begin in the 04/ 05 wet
season.
Anticipated
2006. 10
7 Los Angeles Altadena Maintenance
Station Study complete. 4 5, 6, 7, 8
7 Los Angeles 605/ 91 interchange Study complete. 4 5, 6, 7, 8
Biofiltration
Strips ( 3)
11 San Diego Carlsbad Maintenance
Station Study complete. 4 5, 6, 7, 8
Treatment BMP Technology Report
4 April 2006
Study Dist RWQCB Location Status as of Summer 2004 Final Report
Reference No.
Professional
Paper Ref. No.
2 SR- 299 EB PM 26.0
I- 5 SB PM 1.5
3
Central Valley
I- 5 NB PM 13.5
4 San Francisco US- 101 NB PM 15.0
8 Santa Ana SR- 60 EB PM 14.0
11 San Diego I- 5 NB PM 70.4
SR- 91 EB PM 15.0
Biofiltration
Strips: Roadside
Vegetated
Treatment Sites
( RVTS) ( 8)
12 Santa Ana
I- 405 NB PM 2.5
Two years of monitoring complete.
Additional monitoring planned for
2006/ 2007.
11 12, 13
Cerritos Maint Station
I- 5/ I- 605
I- 605/ Carson & Del Amo
7 Los Angeles
I- 605/ SR- 91 Interchange
Melrose Dr./ SR- 78
Biofiltration
Swales ( 6)
11 San Diego
I- 5/ Palomar Airport
Study complete. 4 5, 6, 7, 8
4 San Fran I- 80 Toll Plaza at Oakland Under design. Anticipated
2010
12 Santa Ana SR- 73 Under construction and establishment. Anticipated
2008.
Bioretention ( 3)
4 San Francisco
Bay Between I- 80 and I- 580 Under design. Anticipated
2010
Chemical
addition 3 Lahontan Meyers Maintenance Station Fourth year monitoring season ( 03/ 04)
draft report is available. 3
Compost
StormFilter ™
( CSF) ( 3)
12 San Diego SR- 73 -- various locations Three years of monitoring complete.
Vector monitoring is ongoing. 14
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 5
Study Dist RWQCB Location Status as of Summer 2004 Final Report
Reference No.
Professional
Paper Ref. No.
Constructed
Wetlands 12 Santa Ana or
San Diego
One location along
SR- 73 Project cancelled. n/ a
7 Pacoima I- 210/ East Orcas Ave.
I- 210/ East of Filmore St.
Three years of monitoring complete.
Vector monitoring continues. 4 5, 6, 7, 8
SR- 56
Continuous
Deflection
Separators ( 4)
11 San Diego
SR- 56
Two years water quality monitoring
complete. Monitoring to continue in
following three wet seasons.
Anticipated in
2009.
Delaware Filters 11 San Diego Escondido Maintenance
Station Three years of monitoring complete. 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
7 Los Angeles I- 5/ I- 605
I- 605/ SR91
I- 5/ SR- 56
SR- 78/ I- 5
Detention
Basins-conventional
( 5)
11 San Diego
I- 5/ Manchester Ave.
Three years of monitoring complete. 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 15
Detention Basins
- bypass ( 4) 12 San Diego,
Santa Ana SR- 73 Monitoring to begin in 04/ 05.
Detention Basins
– floating
skimmer ( 4)
12 San Diego SR- 73 Monitoring will begin in 04/ 05 for 3 of
4 basins. Fourth basin under design.
Detention Basins
- inlet ( 2) 12 San Diego SR- 73 Monitoring started in 03/ 04.
Detention Basins
– overflow ( 4) 12 Santa Ana SR- 73 Monitoring to begin in 04/ 05.
Detention Basins
- semi- batch ( 4) 12 San Diego SR- 73 Monitoring to begin in 04/ 05.
Anticipated in
2008.
Treatment BMP Technology Report
6 April 2006
Study Dist RWQCB Location Status as of Summer 2004 Final Report
Reference No.
Professional
Paper Ref. No.
Foothill Maint Station ( a) StreamGuard ® installed. Three years
of monitoring complete.
Foothill Maint Station ( b) FossilFilter ® installed. Three years of
monitoring complete.
Las Flores Maint Station ( a) StreamGuard ® installed. Three years
of monitoring complete.
Las Flores Maint Station ( b) FossilFilter ® installed. Three years of
monitoring complete.
Rosemead Maint Station ( a) StreamGuard ® installed. Three years
of monitoring complete.
Drain Inlet Insert
( 6)
7 Los Angeles
Rosemead Maint Station ( b) FossilFilter ® installed. Three years of
monitoring complete.
4 5, 6, 7, 8, 16
7 Los Angeles I- 210/ Christy ( being
replaced)
Study is complete. Installation
replaced with Inclined screen
configuration # 4.
17
GSRD: Baffle
Box( 2)
7 Los Angeles I- 405/ Leadwell ( being
replaced)
One year monitoring complete
( 02/ 03). One more wet season
monitoring to begin ( 04/ 05).
17
GSRD: Inclined
Screen,
configuration 1
7 Los Angeles SR- 170/ Burbank Study is complete. 17
US- 101/ Gaviota
GSRD: Inclined
Screen Device
configuration 2
( 2)
7 Los Angeles
I- 210/ Orcas
Study is complete. 17
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 7
Study Dist RWQCB Location Status as of Summer 2004 Final Report
Reference No.
Professional
Paper Ref. No.
GSRD: Inclined 7 Los Angeles I- 10/ Halm Study is complete. 17
Screen Device,
Configuration 3
( 2)
12 Santa Ana SR- 73
GSRD on basin 1180R: Construction
complete. Final year of monitoring is
the wet season 2006/ 2007.
Anticipated in
2006.
GSRD: Inclined
Screen,
Configuration 4
7 Los Angeles I- 210/ Christy Study complete. 18
GSRD: Linear I- 5/ Garber
Radial Device,
Configuration 2
( 2) I- 210/ Glenada
Study is complete. 17
GSRD: Linear
Radial Device,
Configuration 1
7 Los Angeles
I- 10/ Rosemead Study is complete. 17
SR- 60/ Garfield
SR- 60/ Garfield
GSRD: Litter
Inlet Deflector
( 3)
7 Los Angeles
SR- 60/ Wilcox
Study is complete. 19
GSRD: Linear
Radial
Configuration
( 3)
7 Los Angeles U. S. 101
Gross solids removal device pilot
study Phase IV, 2004- 2005 CTSW-RT-
05- 130.03.2
20
7 Los Angeles I- 405/ Leadwell
Study complete ( 02/ 03). One more
wet season monitoring to begin
( 04/ 05).
GSRD: V- 18
Screen,
Configuration 1
( 2)
12 Santa Ana SR- 73
GSRD on basin 1085L: One year
monitoring complete ( 02/ 03). One
more wet season monitoring to begin
( 04/ 05).
GSRD: V- 7 Los Angeles SR- 91/ Ardmore Study Complete. 18
Screen,
Configure. 2 ( 2) 12 Santa Ana SR- 73 Study On Going Anticipated in
2009.
Treatment BMP Technology Report
8 April 2006
Study Dist RWQCB Location Status as of Summer 2004 Final Report
Reference No.
Professional
Paper Ref. No.
Infiltration 7 Los Angeles I- 605/ SR91 Study complete.
Basins ( 2) 11 San Diego I- 5/ La Costa Ave. Study complete.
4 5, 22, 6, 7, 8
7 Los Angeles Altadena Maintenance
Infiltration Station ( b) Study complete. 4
Trench ( 2)
11 San Diego Carlsbad Maintenance
Station Study complete. 4
5, 22, 6, 7, 8
Metro Maintenance Station Construction complete. No water
quality monitoring. n/ a
Via Verde Park and Ride Study complete.
Multi- Chamber
Treatment Train
( 3) 7 Los Angeles
Lakewood Park and Ride Study complete.
4 5, 6, 7, 8
Oil/ Water
Separator 7 Los Angeles Alameda Maintenance
Station Study complete. 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 16
Sand filters 3 Lahontan Meyers Maintenance Station Study complete. 23
Sand Traps ( 2) Hwy 50 Echo Summit
3 Lahontan Hwy 50 at Lake Tahoe
Airport
Study complete.
24
Sand Traps with
Filter Fabric ( 4) 3 Lahontan SR- 267 within Tahoe Basin Construction complete. Monitoring
ongoing.
Anticipated
2008.
Storm Filter
( Perlite/
Zeolite)
11 San Diego Kearney Mesa Maintenance
Station
Study complete. Vector monitoring is
ongoing. 4 5, 6, 7, 8
Wet Basin 11 San Diego I- 5/ La Costa Study complete. Vector monitoring is
ongoing. 3 5, 6, 7, 8, 25,
26
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 9
3.0 REFERENCES
1. Caltrans, 2003. Statewide Storm Water Management Plan. May 2003.
CTSW- RT- 03- 008
2. Caltrans, 2002. Storm Water Planning and Design Guide. September 2002.
www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ oppd/ stormwtr/ PPDG- stormwater- 2002. pdf
3. Caltrans, 2005, Caltrans Lake Tahoe Storm Water Small- Scale Pilot Treatment Project,
Fourth Year Report, First Draft. August 2005, CTSW- RT- 05- 129.05.01- D1
4. Caltrans, 2004. BMP Retrofit Pilot Program Final Report. April 2004.
CTSW- RT- 01- 050. www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ env/ stormwater
5. Currier, Brian, et al, January 7- 11, 2001. " California Department of Transportation BMP
Retrofit Pilot Program," presented at Transportation Research Board 8th Annual
Meeting, Washington, D. C.
6. Currier, Brian and Moeller, Glenn, April 16- 19, 2000. " Lessons Learned: The Caltrans
Storm Water Best Management Practice Retrofit Pilot Study," presented at
California Water Environment Association, 72nd Annual Conference, Sacramento,
California.
7. Metzger, Marco, et al, March/ April 2002. " The Dark Side of Stormwater Runoff
Management: Disease Vectors Associated with Structural BMPs," Stormwater
Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2
8. Taylor, Scott, August 12- 15, 2002. " Selection of Best Management Practices for
Retrofit in a Highway Environment," presented at StormCon 2002, San Marco
Island, FL.
9. Barrett, Michael E. and Borroum, J. Steve, May20- 24, 2001. " A Preliminary
Assessment of the Cost, Maintenance Requirements and Performance of Sand
Filters," presented at American Society of Civil Engineers ( ASCE) World Water
& Environmental Resources Congress 2001, Orlando, FL.
10. Larsen, Laura and Alderete, David, July 28- 31, 2003 “ Design and Construction
Experiences With Three Variations Of Austin Style Sand Filters In The
Transportation Environment,” presented at StormCon 2003, San Antonio.
11. Caltrans, 2003. Roadside Vegetated Treatment Sites ( RVTS) Study. Final Report,
November 2003. CTSW- RT- 03- 028.
12. Lantin, Anna and Alderete, David, August 12- 15, 2002. " Effectiveness of Existing
Highway Vegetation as Biofiltration Strips," presented at StormCon 2002, San
Marco Island, FL.
13. Scharff, Misty, et al, Feb 24- 28 2003. “ Evaluation Of Storm Water Treatment By
Vegetated Areas Adjacent To Highways,” presented at IECA, Las Vegas, NV.
Treatment BMP Technology Report
10 April 2006
14. Caltrans, 2003. Compost Stormwater Filter System Monitoring – State Route 73.
June 2003. CTSW- RT- 03- 036.
15. Taylor, Scott M., et al, May 20- 24, 2001. " Assessment of Costs and Benefits of
Detention for Water Quality Enhancement," presented at American Society of
Civil Engineers ( ASCE) World Water & Environmental Resources Congress
2001, Orlando, FL.
16. Othmer, Edward F., Jr., et al, May 20- 24, 2001. " Performance Evaluation of Structural
BMPs: Drain Inlet Inserts ( Fossil Filter and StreamGuard) and Oil/ Water
Separator," presented at American Society of Civil Engineers ( ASCE) World
Water & Environmental Resources Congress 2001, Orlando, FL.
17. Caltrans, 2003, Phase I Gross Solids Removal Devices Pilot Study: 2000- 2002 Final
Report, October 2003. CTSW- RT- 03- 72.31.22
18. Caltrans, 2005, Phase III Gross Solids Removal Devices Pilot Study. 2002- 2005 Final
Report, December 2005. CTSW- RT- 05- 130- 03.1.
19. Caltrans, 2003, Phase IV Gross Solids Removal Device Pilot Study, 2004- 2005, CTSW-RT-
05- 130.03.2.
20. Caltrans, 2001. Caltrans Litter Inlet Deflector Study. August 2001. CTSW- RT- 01- 027.
21. Caltrans, 2003. Phase II Gross Solids Removal Devices Pilot Study: 2001- 2203 Final
Report, November 2003. CTSW- 03- 97.31.22.
22. Currier, Brian, et al, May 20- 24, 2001. " Siting, Design, and Operation of Infiltration
BMPs: A Case Study," presented at American Society of Civil Engineers ( ASCE)
World Water & Environmental Resources Congress 2001, Orlando, FL.
23. Caltrans Lake Tahoe Storm Water Small- Scale Pilot Treatment Project, Phase II Report.
CTSW- RT- 03- 079.31.37
24. Caltrans, June 2003. Tahoe Highway Runoff Characterization and Sand Trap
Effectiveness Studies. 2000- 2003 Monitoring Report. CTSW- RT- 03- 054.36.02.
25. Taylor, Scott and Currier, Brian, 1999. " A Wet Pond as a Storm Water Runoff BMP—
Case Study," Department of Environmental Resources Engineering, Humbolt
State University, Arcata, CA.
26. Taylor, Scott, et al, August 28, 2001. " Stormwater Treatment with a Wet Pond: A Case
Study," presented at American Society of Civil Engineers ( ASCE) Wetland
Engineering and River Restoration Conference, Reno, NV.
27. Caltrans, 2000. Guidance Manual: Stormwater Monitoring Protocols. July 2000.
CTSW- RT- 00- 005
28. Caltrans, 2004. Discharge Characterization Study Report. November 2003. CTSW- RT-
03- 065. www. dot. ca. gov/ hq/ env/ stormwater
Treatment BMP Technology Report
July 2006 11
4.0 INDEX OF TREATMENT BMPS
This list includes both proprietary and non- proprietary BMPs. Proprietary BMPs are listed by
product name, rather than the type of BMP. The page numbers correspond to the location of the
fact sheets in Appendices B, C, and D.
Technology Name Appendix Page No.
Airmaster Aerator B- 13
Alum B- 17
Aqua Control B- 13
Aqua Master B- 13
Aqua- Filter ™ B- 107
Aqua- Gaurd ™ B- 77
Aqua- Swirl B- 129
Areo- Power ® ST1- P3 C- 27
Arkal Filtration B- 125
Austin Sand Filter D- 3
BaySaver ® B- 181
Biocide Fabrics B- 31
Biofiltration Strips D- 5
Biofiltration Swales D- 7
Bioretention C- 3
BioSTORM ™ B- 183
Capture Flow B- 123
CatchAll B- 65
CatchBasin StormFilter ™ B- 113
Chlorination/ Hypochlorite B- 33
ClearWater BMP B- 97
Compost StormFilter ™ ( CSF) C- 15
Constructed Wetland B- 197
Continuous Deflective Separation ™ ( CDS ™ ) C- 25
Treatment BMP Technology Report
12 July 2006
Technology Name Appendix Page No.
Corrugated Pipe-- various suppliers B- 23
CrystalStream ™ B- 185
Cultec Contactor and HVLV ™ B- 151
Curb Inlet Basket B- 41
Delaware Sand Filter D- 9
Detention Basin, Outlet Improvements - Bladder Valve C- 5
Detention Basin, Outlet Improvements - Skimmer C- 7
Detention Basins D- 11
Downstream Defender ™ B- 131
Drain Diaper ™ B- 67
Drain Guard ™ B- 69
DrainPac ™ B- 71
Dry Weather Flow Diversions D- 13
Dual Media Austin Filter C- 13
Dual- Vortex B- 133
EcoSep ® B- 187
Ecosol RSF 100/ GSP B- 43
EcoStorm ® B- 135
Enviro- Drain ® B- 79
Enviropod B- 45
Envirosafe B- 81
Filterra ® B- 15
FloGard Plus B- 47
FossilFilter ™ ( note: old model was tested) C- 9
GAC Columns B- 5
GAC or IX Media With Detention/ Sedimentation BMPs B- 7
GAC Sandwich Filter and Blanket B- 9
Grate Inlet Skimmer Box B- 49
Treatment BMP Technology Report
July 2006 13
Technology Name Appendix Page No.
Gross Pollutant Trap ( GPT) B- 167
GSR Basket ( Mechanically Removed) B- 51
GSRD- V- screen C- 23
GSRD- Baffle Box C- 19
GSRD- Inclined Screen D- 15
GSRD- Linear Radial D- 17
GSRD- Litter Inlet Deflector C- 21
Hancor ® - Storm Water Quality Unit B- 189
Hydro- Cartridge B- 39
Hydro- Kleen ™ B- 83
Hydroscreen B- 99
Inceptor B- 53
Infiltration Basins D- 19
Infiltration Trenches D- 21
Ion Exchange Column B- 11
Kasco Aeration B- 13
Kleerwater ™ B- 191
Linear Bioretention Trench B- 109
Linear Filter Trench B- 111
Linear Infiltration Filter Trench B- 153
Manhole Filter B- 177
Matrix ™ B- 155
Media Filtration System ( CDS) B- 115
Multi- Chambered Treatment Trains ( MCTTs) D- 23
Net Cassette B- 169
Nutrient Separating Baffle Box B- 171
OARS ® Passive Skimmer B- 63
Outlet Improvement B- 27
Treatment BMP Technology Report
14 July 2006
Technology Name Appendix Page No.
Ozone B- 35
Piranha B- 55
Plate and Tube Settlers ( note: similar to MCTT in
Appendix C- 34) B- 29
Polyacrylimide B- 21
Porous Asphalt Pavement B- 179
PSI Separator B- 193
Puristorm B- 117
Rainstore3 B- 157
Raynfiltr ™ B- 85
SeaLife Saver ™ B- 57
Sewer Eco- Collar B- 73
SIFT Filter B- 87
SNOUT ® B- 195
SolarBee B- 13
StormBasin ® B- 89
Stormcell ® B- 159
Stormceptor B- 139
StormChamber ™ B- 161
StormFilter ™ C- 17
Stormgate Separator ™ B- 197
Storm- Klear ™ B- 19
StormPlex ® B- 119
StormScreen ™ B- 173
Stormtech B- 163
StormTrap ™ , DoubleTrap ™ B- 25
StormTreat ™ B- 205
StormVault ™ B- 199
Stream Saver Catch Basin Inserts B- 75
Treatment BMP Technology Report
July 2006 15
Technology Name Appendix Page No.
StreamGuard ™ Passive Skimmer B- 63
StreamGuard ™ C- 11
SuperFlo B- 101
Traction Sand Traps D- 25
Trash Guard TG Series B- 59
TrashTrap ® B- 175
Triton Catch Basin Filter B- 91
Triton Filter B- 93
Triton Trench Drain Filter B- 103
TT3_ REM B- 105
Ultra- Urban Filter B- 95
Ultraviolet B- 37
Unistorm B- 141
V2B1 ™ B- 143
Versicell B- 165
VortCapture ™ B- 145
VortClarex B- 201
Vortechs ™ B- 147
VortFilter ™ B- 121
VortSentry ™ B- 149
Wet Basin D- 27
Wire Catch Basin Insert B- 61
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 A- 1
APPENDIX A: BMP FACT SHEET DESCRIPTION AND FORMAT
Appendix A describes the standard format used for fact sheets to facilitate comparison among the
BMP types. Each fact sheet is divided into a standard series of discussion topics, which are
discussed below.
A. 1 BMP Description
A description of the BMP is presented at the top of each fact sheet. The description provides a
summary of the configuration of the BMP and a general overview of the treatment process, how
the BMP operates, and considerations that need to be addressed to promote maximum treatment
effectiveness and functionality.
A. 2 Constituent Removal
The relative degree each BMP is able to remove selected groups of constituents from storm
water runoff is provided in the fact sheets. The groups of constituents examined were selected
based on the likelihood of occurrence in the Department’s runoff at levels that would require
treatment consideration. The constituent groups, removal efficiency, and confidence levels used
in each fact sheet are discussed below.
A. 2.1 Constituent Groups
Estimates of the technology’s performance removal abilities are made for each of the following
constituent groups:
• Sediment ( Total Suspended Solids [ TSS])
• Nutrients
• Pesticides
• Total Metals
• Dissolved Metal
• Microbiological ( including pathogens)
• Litter
• Biochemical Oxygen Demand ( BOD)
• Total Dissolved Solids ( TDS)
A. 2.2 Constituent Group Removal Efficiency
The fact sheets report relative removal efficiencies for each of the nine general categories of
constituents. This is general guidance as removal efficiencies often depend on the conditions of
the test. Results based on conditions atypical of highway runoff are not included in the fact
sheets. Constituent removal percentages were derived from a review of the literature.
Treatment BMP Technology Report
A- 2 April 2006
Removal efficiencies were assessed in terms of being high, medium or low. Constituent removal
was quantified by first calculating the average removal percentage for all constituents within a
given constituent category. The overall assessment was then defined using the following criteria:
• High: average removal percentage was equal to or greater than 75 percent
• Medium: average removal percentage was between 40 and 75 percent
• Low: average removal percentage was less than or equal to 40 percent
The fact sheets provide notes with additional information regarding how the removal assessment
was assigned to a given BMP.
A. 2.3 Level of Confidence
The level of confidence in the constituent removal data found in the literature depended on the
type and quality of the data. Assessing constituent removal from storm water BMPs is not
precise; water quality monitoring studies have demonstrated the wide variability in water quality
concentrations in storm water runoff. To ensure that data are of the highest quality, storm event
monitoring protocols require that samples be collected according to standard procedures, such as
the Guidance Manual: Stormwater Monitoring Protocols ( 24 Caltrans 2000) or equivalent
procedures. The level of confidence was assessed in terms of being high, medium or low. The
criteria applied for defining the confidence level were:
• High: The information came from either the Department’s research study or a study
that met the Department’s quality assurance and quality control monitoring protocols
and the probability that the influent and effluent concentrations are not actually
different is less than 10% ( p- value < 0.1) and the test conditions were typical of the
Department’s facilities such as having influent concentrations similar to those
summarized in the Caltrans Discharge Characterization Study Report ( 25 Caltrans
2004).
• Medium: Constituent removal rates were established from the results of a scientific
monitoring study or studies conducted independently of equipment manufacturers,
and:
- the BMP technology has a documented history of application for treating storm
water; or
- the treatment process was a “ known” technology for treating other types of
wastewater discharges; or
- the BMP technology provided “ no discharge” to surface waters under design
conditions; constituent removal was assumed to be 100 percent removal although
it was recognized that certain large storm events would not receive treatment.
• Low: Data does not meet the above criteria or the BMP monitoring program used to
quantify the removal percentages and the monitoring protocols applied could not be
substantiated by the literature reviewed.
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 A- 3
A. 3 key design elements
This section identifies important design considerations that have been highlighted by vendors or
discovered through testing. Ancillary facilities are also listed in this section. They are assumed
to be used in conjunction with the technology are also listed in this section. An example would
be including a detention basin downstream of a chemical treatment technology to capture
flocculated particles.
A. 4 Schematic
If appropriate, a schematic figure is provided to depict a typical design plan or cross- section with
major components identified.
A. 5 Relative Cost Effectiveness
This section provides an assessment of cost and pollutant removal effectiveness relative to
detention basins. This section is for general comparisons of overall cost effectiveness and not for
cost effectiveness comparison for treatment of an individual constituent. A detention basin was
chosen because it is a common BMP that has relatively well established cost and performance
information. Relative cost assessments include the cost to build, operate, and maintain each
BMP. Two pieces of information are provided on BMP costs:
• Level of confidence in the available data
• General assessment of the BMP’s overall costs compared to detention basins.
A. 5.1 Level of Confidence
The level of confidence in the costs to build and operate a BMP depends on the type and quantity
of information found in the literature. Use of cost information developed for municipal storm
water programs was not considered to be directly relevant to the Department’s facilities. The
right- of- way costs and construction costs of major highway transportation projects are typically
much greater than the typical suburban street or arterial road that might be constructed by a
municipal public works department. Furthermore, operations and maintenance costs of facilities
along major freeways is typically much more expensive than similar municipal facilities because
of limited access and the need for traffic control. The level of confidence was assessed in terms
of being high, medium or low. The criteria applied for defining the confidence level of the cost
estimates were:
• High: Unit cost information was available from a facility constructed by the
Department or a similar state department of transportation.
• Medium: Cost information was available from several similar facilities constructed
under municipal storm water programs.
• Low: No cost information was available from a similar BMP facility that could be
independently verified. Construction costs were extrapolated from available pricing
information.
Treatment BMP Technology Report
A- 4 April 2006
Figure A- 1. Rating key for
cost effectiveness.
A. 5.2 Cost Effectiveness Assessment
The cost for each BMP was assessed in terms of its equivalent
uniform annual cost ( EUAC) relative to a detention basin.
Effectiveness for each BMP was also assessed in terms of its
overall constituent removal expectations relative to a detention
basin. A four- quadrant system was used as a tool to rate each
BMP ( ie ). One of the four quadrants was colored based on
the rating key.
The cost estimates were defined by first calculating the typical range of costs for constructing or
operating BMPs on a per acre basis. The acres represented the drainage area served by the
BMPs. Operation and maintenance costs were then added based on the BMPs design life. The
EUAC for a particular BMP was estimated and then compared to that of a detention basin. If the
EUAC was higher than a detention basin, then it was marked as a higher cost using the quadrant
rating key.
The benefit of the BMP was evaluated relative to the performance of a typical detention basin. If
the overall constituent removal was greater than that of a detention basin, then the BMP was
marked as having a greater benefit.
A. 6 Issues and Concerns
This section presents issues and concerns to be considered when evaluating the appropriateness
of a BMP for any of the Department’s facilities. This information is divided into two categories:
maintenance and project development. Within each category is a standard set of topics. The
same topics are included in every fact sheet to facilitate comparisons between BMPs.
A. 6.1 Maintenance
• Requirements: Summarizes routine maintenance tasks required to keep the BMP
functional.
• Nuisance Controls: Identifies whether the BMP has the potential to create odors,
breed mosquitoes, or attract pests..
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Identifies the special training required to perform the
maintenance. Identifies specialty equipment.
A. 6.2 Project Development
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Identifies relative space requirements to install the BMP.
• Siting Constraints: Identifies unique siting considerations and limitations, such as soil
types, slope of the land, distance from existing infrastructure or other natural features,
Benefit ↑ Benefit ↑
Cost ↓ Cost ↑
Benefit ↓ Benefit ↓
Cost ↓ Cost ↑
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 A- 5
and regulatory requirements. Common siting constraints such as maintenance access
are not listed.
• Construction: Identifies unique construction precautions and requirements.
A. 7 BMP Specific Advantages and Constraints
This section lists additional advantages and constraints of the BMP that were not covered in the
previous sections. Information presented may include impacts from hydrologic characteristics
and weather conditions in California, experiences from actual installations, and expansion of
particular points discussed in previous sections of the fact sheet.
A. 8 Sources
The fact sheets also include sources of information where appropriate ( e. g., for proprietary
technologies, vendor contact information is provided).
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 1
APPENDIX B: TECHNOLOGY FACT SHEETS
Appendix B presents fact sheets for technologies that have not been pilot tested by the
Department and therefore are not yet approved or rejected. Technology evaluations in the
attached fact sheets are ongoing, and the assessment of these technologies may be revised in
future reports. The evaluations that appear were derived from a review of information that was
frequently limited to manufacturer’s claims. Treatment BMP technologies are presented in the
following order:
Technology Type Available Storm Water Products Page No.
Adsorption/ Ion Exchange
GAC Columns various suppliers B- 5
GAC or IX Media With
Detention/ Sedimentation BMPs various suppliers B- 7
GAC Sandwich Filter and Blanket various suppliers B- 9
Ion Exchange Column various suppliers B- 11
Aeration Systems
Airmaster Aerator B- 13
Aqua Control B- 13
Aqua Master B- 13
Kasco Aeration B- 13
SolarBee B- 13
Bioretention
Filterra ® B- 15
Linear Bioretention Trench B- 109
Chemical Treatment
Alum various suppliers B- 17
Chitosan Storm- KlearTM B- 19
Polyacrylimide various suppliers B- 21
Detention/ Sedimentation
Corrugated Pipe- Below Grade Storage - various suppliers B- 23
StormTrapTM, DoubleTrapTM B- 25
Outlet Improvement Watermann B- 27
Plate and Tube Settlers ( note: similar to MCTT
in Appendix C- 34) various suppliers B- 29
Disinfection
Biocide Fabrics various suppliers B- 31
Chlorination/ Hypochlorite various suppliers B- 33
Ozone various suppliers B- 35
Ultraviolet various suppliers B- 37
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 2 April 2006
Technology Type Available Storm Water Products Page No.
Drain Inlet Inserts
Baffle Boxes Hydro- Cartridge B- 39
Curb Inlet Basket B- 41
Ecosol RSF 100/ GSP B- 43
Enviropod B- 45
FloGard Plus B- 47
Grate Inlet Skimmer Box B- 49
GSR Basket ( Mechanically Removed) B- 51
Inceptor B- 53
Piranha B- 55
SeaLife Saver ™ B- 57
Trash Guard TG Series B- 59
Baskets/ Boxes:
Flow- through baskets are wire catchbaskets that are
installed in storm drains. Their main function is to
catch sediment, litter, and organic debris.
Flow- through boxes are a type of technology that
catch sediment, debris, and organic litter in internal
baskets or bags and remove contaminants by
filtration media ( sorbent). Filtration can vary to suit
the source of contaminants.
Wire Catch Basin Insert B- 61
Enhancements OARS ® Passive Skimmer B- 63
StreamGuardTM Passive Skimmer B- 63
CatchAll B- 65
Drain DiaperTM B- 67
Drain GuardTM B- 69
DrainPacTM B- 71
Sewer Eco- Collar B- 73
Fabric:
Fabric inserts consist of a fabric filter sock installed
under the storm grate to catch oil, grease, sediment,
litter, and debris. The devices are simple,
inexpensive, and easy to install and replace.
Stream Saver Catch Basin Inserts B- 75
Aqua- GaurdTM B- 77
Enviro- Drain ® B- 79
Envirosafe B- 81
Hydro- KleenTM B- 83
RaynfiltrTM B- 85
SIFT Filter B- 87
StormBasin ® B- 89
Triton Catch Basin Filter B- 91
Triton Filter B- 93
Media Filters:
Drain inlet insert media filters use filter media in
various configurations to remove contaminants from
stormwater runoff. The systems are usually easy to
install and maintain. They are installed below the
grate of drain inlets.
Ultra- Urban Filter B- 95
ClearWater BMP B- 97
Hydroscreen B- 99
Screens:
These inserts use screens as the primary mechanism
for solids removal. Screens allow finer material to
pass. SuperFlo B- 101
Trench Drain Insert: Triton Trench Drain Filter B- 103
TT3_ REM B- 105
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 3
Technology Type Available Storm Water Products Page No.
Filtration
Bed LAiqnueaa- rF FilitleterTr MT rench BB-- 111017
CatchBasin StormFilterTM B- 113
Media Filtration System B- 115
Puristorm B- 117
StormPlex ® B- 119
Cartridge/ Canister
VortFilterTM B- 121
Catch Basin Filters Capture Flow B- 123
Disc Arkal Filtration B- 125
Pressure Filters various suppliers B- 127
Hydrodynamic Separators
Aqua- Swirl B- 129
Downstream DefenderTM B- 131
Dual- Vortex B- 133
EcoStorm ® B- 135
EcoStormPlus ® B- 137
Stormceptor B- 139
Unistorm B- 141
V2B1TM B- 143
VortCaptureTM B- 145
VortechsTM B- 147
Hydrodynamic separators are flow- through
structures with a settling or separation unit to remove
sediments and other pollutants that are widely used
in storm water treatment. No outside power source
is required, because, the energy of the flowing water
allows the sediments to efficiently separate.
Depending on the unit, this separation may be by
means of swirl action or indirect filtration.
Source: www. epa. gov
VortSentryTM B- 149
Infiltration
Cultec Contactor and HVLVTM B- 151
Linear Infiltration Filter Trench B- 153
MatrixTM B- 155
Rainstore ® B- 157
Stormcell ® B- 159
StormChamberTM B- 161
Stormtech B- 163
Below Grade
( Trench Backfill Alternatives)
Versicell B- 165
Litter and Debris Removal
Breakaway Bags Gross Pollutant Trap ( GPT) B- 167
Net Cassette B- 169
Nutrient Separating Baffle Box B- 171
StormScreenTM B- 173
Screens
TrashTrap ® B- 175
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 4 April 2006
Technology Type Available Storm Water Products Page No.
Manhole Insert
Basket Box Manhole Filter B- 177
Porous Surfaces
Porous Asphalt Pavement B- 179
Water Quality Inlets ( Oil/ Water Separators)
BaySaver ® B- 181
BioSTORMTM B- 183
CrystalStreamTM B- 185
EcoSep ® B- 187
Hancor ® - Storm Water Quality Unit B- 189
KleerwaterTM B- 191
PSI Separator B- 193
SNOUT ® B- 195
Stormgate SeparatorTM B- 197
StormVaultTM B- 199
Water quality inlets ( WQIs), also commonly called
oil/ grit separators or oil/ water separators, consist of a
series of chambers that promote sedimentation of
coarse materials and separation of free oil ( as
opposed to emulsified or dissolved oil) from storm
water. Most WQIs also contain screens to help
retain larger or floating debris, and many of the
newer designs also include a coalescing unit that
helps to promote oil/ water separation. WQIs
typically capture only the first portion of runoff for
treatment and are generally used for pretreatment
before discharging to other best management
practices ( BMPs).
Source:
www. epa. gov
VortClarex B- 201
Wetland Systems
Constructed Wetland non- proprietary B- 203
StormTreat Wetland Systems StormTreatTM B- 205
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Adsorption/ Ion Exchange -- Granular Activated Carbon Columns
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 5
Description:
Granulated Activated Carbon ( GAC) adsorption is
typically used to remove volatile organic compounds
( VOCs) in water for potable uses. In addition to a removal
efficiency greater than 99% for VOCs, it is also effective
for treatment of synthetic organic chemicals. With GAC
treatment, contaminated water passes through a column of
GAC where organic compounds are removed by
adsorption onto the carbon granule surface. Once the
carbon can no longer adsorb pollutants from the water, it
must be regenerated or replaced with fresh new carbon.
Two types of designs are commonly employed for GAC:
the pressurized contactor unit and the gravity- flow unit
( which is similar to the gravity media filter). For storm
water application, a GAC canister could be placed at the
outlet of a detention basin, and the basin effluent would be
allowed to flow through it by gravity. Though typically
designed for pressurized flow, the GAC system can be
designed to operate by gravity. Performance of the GAC
canister at a sedimentation pond outlet will depend highly
on the performance of the pretreatment. The sedimentation
pond will also provide flow equalization to the GAC
canisters.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• No performance data encountered in field
demonstrations or in literature.
Key Design Elements:
1. Absorption media type and depth
2. Container and hydraulic system
Ancillary Facilities
Requires pretreatment such as a detention/ sedimentation
BMP.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Cost includes cost of pretreatment.
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Absorption/ Ion Exchange -- Granular Activated Carbon Columns
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 6 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: The mechanical equipment needs to
be maintained. Spent GAC will have to be replaced
or regenerated periodically.
• Nuisance Control: Standing water will occur when
column is clogged.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Requires training for
inspection and maintenance of GAC canister.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Small footprint if the
pretreatment ( e. g. sedimentation BMP) is pre-existing.
Total system has large space
requirements.
• Siting Constraints: High head requirement.
• Construction: No unique requirements identified.
Advantages:
• Compact system at the detention basin outlet.
• Reduces pesticides.
• Consistent effluent quality.
• Can be retrofitted to existing detention basins with
sufficient downstream head
Constraints:
• Potential clogging of the GAC if pretreatment does
not remove enough suspended solids, oil and grease.
• Spent GAC has the potential of being considered a
hazardous material and will need to be disposed of
properly.
• The carbon must be shipped off- site for
regeneration or disposal by a licensed company.
One option would be to dispose of the spent GAC
and replace it with new GAC. Regeneration of the
GAC onsite is considered to be technically
unfeasible and cost prohibitive. Another is to
replace regenerated GAC cylinders and regenerate
spent cylinders at an off- site location, which is
commonly done by small- scale commercial and
industrial users.
• GAC may promote considerable microbial growth
on the carbon surface.
• Disinfection prior to GAC adsorption is not viable
since the GAC removes disinfectants.
Sources:
• Evans, Max. Mailed Correspondence. Oil or Gas
Recovery from Parking Areas. Culligan Water.
• Macpherson, John. Phone Conversation. GAC
Quilted Blanket Filter. The IT Group, ( 425) 486-
5515 ext. 232.
• McMillen, Brent. Faxed document. Activated
Carbon Contaminants and Costs. CPL Carbon Link
Corporation.
• Nitchman, Craig. Faxed Document. Carbon Usage
Rate. Calgon Carbon Corporation.
• Wilburn, Tom. Phone Conversation. GAC Quilted
Blanket Filter Production. D. R. Shannon
Company, ( 800) 255- 1032
• Mercado, Shery or Jimmy Lam. GAC Stormwater
Application. Calgon Carbon Corporation.
www. calgoncarbon. com
• Jaubert, Michael. GAC Cost Estimates. Waterlink
Barnebey Sutcliffe: Pur Air Division
www. waterlink. com
• Mercado, Shery and Jimmy Lam. Activated
Charcoal Cloth. Calgon Carbon Corporation.
www. calgoncarbon. com/ product/ charcoalcloth. htm
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• Wanielista, M. P., et al. Evaluation of the
Stormwater Treatment Facility at the Lake Angel
Detention Pond, Orange County, Florida. Florida
State Department of Transportation and University
of Central Florida, Gainesville. June 1991.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Adsorption/ Ion Exchange - GAC or IX Media With Detention/ Sedimentation BMPs
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 7
Description:
Influent storm water could be mixed with granular
activated carbon ( GAC), ion exchange ( IX) resin or both at
the inlet of a detention basin or a sedimentation chamber
preceding a sand filter. A structure can be installed at the
inlet flow distribution system of a sedimentation basin for
mixing. As the storm water enters the mixing chamber
tank, it comes in contact with GAC and IX. After mixing,
the storm water flows to the sedimentation basin. The
GAC and IX is in suspension with the storm water until it
settles with other solids in the sedimentation tank. As an
alternative, the detention pond influent storm water could
flow over a bag or sack filled with GAC or IX resin, or
both. These sacks could be placed in detention pond inlets
or other structures.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• No performance data encountered in literature.
• Removal efficiency approximated for a combination
of IX and GAC
• Suspended solids and other constituents attached to
the solids settle out in the pond. Heavy metals that
are not dissolved but attached to particles might be
removed with the settled solids.
Key Design Elements:
1. Media type and dosing rate
2. Media feed and storage systems
Ancillary Facilities
Sedimentation and/ or filtration facilities downstream.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Cost includes cost of pretreatment.
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Adsorption/ Ion Exchange - GAC or IX Media With Detention/ Sedimentation BMPs
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 8 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Maintenance of filtration chamber is
similar to the Austin sand filter. Also needs
replacement of spent GAC/ IX powder and
maintenance of the media dosing system. The
replacement frequency of the GAC/ IX powder
would depend on storm water flow and constituent
concentrations. The replacement will be easier for
the option using a bag than for the option using
powder.
• Nuisance Control: Standing water will occur when
filter is clogged.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Requires training for
inspection and maintenance of the media dosing
system and filtration chamber.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Likely high for this
three chambered system.
• Siting Constraints: High head requirement.
• Construction: No unique requirements identified.
Advantages:
• This BMP will enhance removal of dissolved
constituents compared to detention basins or sand
filters.
Constraints:
• The GAC/ IX powder will accumulate in the
sedimentation chamber unless the design is such
that the influent flows over a GAC/ IX bag.
• Powder media may cause frequent clogging of filter.
Sources:
• Mercado, Shery or Jimmy Lam. GAC Stormwater
Application. Calgon Carbon Corporation,
www. calgoncarbon. com
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• None identified.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Adsorption/ Ion Exchange -- GAC Sandwich Filter and Blanket
Treatment BMP Technology Report B- 9
April 2006
Description:
To help remove organics from storm water, GAC has been
proposed to be added to the treatment train of existing or
proposed sand filters. A GAC layer could supplement the
current sand media filter and would act as both a filtering
media and adsorption layer. This option would require a
detention pond upstream of the filter to provide sufficient
pretreatment. One approach to consider is the GAC
Sandwich Filter from Calgon Carbon Corporation ( patent-pending),
which removes a broad spectrum of pesticides
and herbicides. This vendor claims to improve the
effectiveness of slow sand filters by using a layer of GAC
between two layers of sand. The system retains the
advantages of traditional slow sand filtration while
incorporating GAC’s ability to remove organic
compounds. Existing slow sand filters can be used for
retrofit applications, which eliminates the need for a major
capital investment and substantially reduces the time
required to install GAC facilities.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• Nitrate and nitrite levels may actually increase due
to nitrification.
• Performance data from Lake Angel Detention Pond
in Orange County ( University of Central Florida
and State DOT, June 1991).
Key Design Elements:
1. Adsorption media type and depth
2. Sand specifications and depth
Ancillary Facilities
Upstream sedimentation facilities required.
Normally the GAC layer would be used in conjunction
with a sand filter.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Cost includes cost of pretreatment.
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Adsorption/ Ion Exchange – GAC Sandwich Filter and Blanket
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 10 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Routine maintenance may include
periodic sediment and debris removal as well as
spent GAC disposal/ regeneration. Layered media
may complicate maintenance.
• Nuisance Control: Standing water will occur when
filter is clogged.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Requires training for
GAC removal/ replacement and sand
removal/ replacement.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Space requirements are
relatively high for sedimentation basin and sand
filter.
• Siting Constraints: Similar to full sedimentation
Austin sand filters ( about 1.2 meter minimum head
requirement).
• Construction: No unique requirements identified.
Advantages:
• The GAC layer will act as both an adsorption layer
and a filtering media. This option will provide
removal of some organic constituents.
• Can be retrofitted to existing sand filters.
Constraints:
• Frequent clogging and short bedlife.
• Bacterial growth.
• Spent GAC may be a hazardous waste.
Sources:
• Mercado, Shery or Jimmy Lam. GAC Stormwater
Application. Calgon Carbon Corporation.,
wwwcalgoncarbon. com
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• GAC has already been used as a media filter to treat
storm water during a study in Florida ( University of
Central Florida and State Department of
Transportation, June 1991). This study describes
the use of GAC filer beds in series to reduce the
potential concentration of total trihalomethane at the
Lake Angel Detention Pond in Orange County. The
pond accepted runoff from an interstate highway
and a commercial area.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Adsorption/ Ion Exchange - Ion Exchange Column
Treatment BMP Technology Report B- 11
April 2006
Description:
Ion exchange ( IX) is a sorption process whereby a medium
such as a resin removes one ion from a solution and
replaces it with another. Resins are comprised of fixed
ionic groups that are balanced by counter- ions of opposite
charge to maintain electro neutrality. These counter- ions
exchange with the ions in solution. As water passes
through the resin bed in a storm water treatment system,
contaminant ions in the water are exchanged with ions on
the resin surface, thus removing the contaminant ions from
the water and concentrating them on the resin. The resin is
frequently regenerated to remove the contaminant from the
resin surface and replenish the resin with the original
exchange ion. A sedimentation basin and possibly a media
filter will be needed in front of the resin bed to remove
particles and prevent clogging of the IX resin. A media
filter may also be necessary after the sedimentation basin
and in front of the IX resin. The IX resin could either be
placed in pressure vessels or in a canister at the pond
outlet.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• No performance data encountered in field
demonstrations or in literature.
Key Design Elements:
1. Ion exchange resin type, size, and depth
2. Container and hydraulic system
Ancillary Facilities
Requires pretreatment such as a detention/ sedimentation
BMP.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Cost includes cost of pretreatment.
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Adsorption/ Ion Exchange - Ion Exchange Column
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 12 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Resin must be periodically inspected.
Spent resin or regenerant brines must be removed
and disposed of properly. Measures must be taken
to make sure that the resins do not dry out during
dry season. Mechanical equipment must be
maintained. Because of the constraints, on- site
regeneration is not considered feasible. The IX resin
must be shipped off- site for regeneration or disposal
by a licensed company.
• Nuisance Control: Standing water will occur when
column is clogged.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Requires training for
inspection and maintenance of ion exchange column
and handling and disposal of waste products.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Small footprint if the
pretreatment ( e. g. sedimentation BMP) is pre- existing.
Total system has large space requirements.
• Siting Constraints: High head requirement.
• Construction: No unique requirements identified.
Advantages:
• They provide a compact system at the detention
basin outlet.
• Removal of dissolved pollutants.
Constraints:
• Potential clogging of the resin if pretreatment does
not remove enough suspended solids, oil and grease.
• Exhausted IX has potential to be considered a
hazardous material and will need to be disposed of
properly.
• IX resins could dry out if not kept wet.
• May require monitoring to determine when the IX
unit should be replaced.
Sources:
• Monat, J. Synergies Between Ultrafiltration & Ion
Exchange. http:// www. kochmembrane. com/
technical_ info/ separation. htm. April 2000.
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• Clifford, D. A., Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Houston,
Texas, Water Quality and Treatment: A Handbook
of Community Water Supplies 4th edition, 1990.
• Montgomery, James M, Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Water Treatment Principles and Design, 1985.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Aeration Systems
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 13
Description:
Aeration raises dissolved oxygen levels in water. This can
be used in conjunction with wet basins to allow BOD
removal while minimizing depression of dissolved oxygen
levels. It is not a stand- alone stormwater technology;
therefore all available types of aeration are addressed in
this fact sheet:
Waterfalls
Fountains
Aerators
Circulators
Diffusers
Propellers
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• Removal of BOD is dependent on several
parameters including retention time, temperature,
and power/ size of the aeration system.
Source: Kasco Marine, INC.
Key Design Elements:
1. Power requirements
2. Dissolved oxygen requirements
3. Basin Size
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and
Level- of- Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Aeration Systems
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 14 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Varies by type of aeration.
• Nuisance Control: Ponds that have permanent
standing water need mosquito controls.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Training needed for
timers, operation system, power supply operation,
and mechanical system maintenance..
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: None- used within a
wet pond.
• Siting Constraints: Requires power.
• Construction: No unique requirements identified.
Advantages:
• Can be aesthetically pleasing and increase public
acceptance of the storm water treatment systems.
Constraints:
• Limited pollutant removal
Sources:
• Airmaster Aerator, Turbo,
www. airmasteraerator. com
• Aqua Control Inc., www. aquacontrol. com
• Aqua Master ® , www. aquamasterfountains. com
• Kasco ® Aeration, www. kascomarine. com
• SolarBee, www. solarbee. com
• Stamford Scientific International, Inc., MicrogenTM,
www. stamfordscientific. com
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• None identified for storm water applications.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Bioretention Filterra ®
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 15
Description:
Filterra ® is a modular bioretention system that has been
used in urban areas as an alternative to traditional curb-side
landscape plantings. It functions similarly to non-proprietary
designs.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
∙ Testing by University of Virginia ( Dr. Shaw Yu).
Source: www. americastusa. com
Key Design Elements:
1. Size
2. Vegetation
3. Underground drain system
4. Ponding depth
5. Drainage area
6. Flow capacity
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Bioretention Filterra ®
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 16 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Vegetation management is required.
• Nuisance Control: The bioretention facility may
promote mosquito breeding if clogged.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: No special
requirements identified.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Space requirements are
relatively high to accommodate shallow water
quality storage depths.
• Siting Constraints: May need supplemental
irrigation in dry areas, depending on plant selection.
Large head requirement.
• Construction: Vegetation establishment period may
be required.
Advantages:
• Pollutant removal effectiveness is typically high,
accomplished primarily by physical filtration of
particulates through the soil profile; and adsorption
of constituents by the soil.
• It can provide an aesthetic vegetated appearance.
• Reduces water discharge by soil retention and
evapotransporation.
Constraints:
• May not be appropriate along highways where
safety considerations preclude use ofplantings that
obscure sight lines.
• In areas with prolonged dry periods, maintenance of
trees, shrubs and grass between rainfalls may
require irrigation.
• If located along a shoulder or median, maintenance
activities may require traffic control
Sources:
• Americast, Filterra ® , www. americastusa. com
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• University of Virginia, Dr. Shaw Yu performed a
two- year research study on the pollutant removal
efficiency of the filter soil/ plant media,
www. americastusa. com/ filterra. html
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Chemical Treatment- Alum
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 17
Description:
Adding chemical coagulants to storm water influent is one
way to remove more sediment and associated contaminants
in a detention basin. For alum ( Al2( SO4) 318H2O), the
aluminum hydroxide precipitate, Al( OH) 3, forms a floc
that attracts and absorbs colloidal particles, thus clarifying
the treatment water. Removal of additional dissolved
phosphorus occurs. Alum can be injected into major storm
sewer lines on a flow- weighted basis during rain events.
When added to runoff, alum forms non- toxic precipitates
that combine with phosphorus, suspended solids and heavy
metals, causing them to be rapidly removed from the
treated water. In a typical alum storm water treatment
system, the coagulant is injected into the storm water by a
variable- speed chemical metering pump on a flow-weighted
basis so the same dose is added regardless of the
storm sewer discharge rate.
Since Al+ 3 can be toxic to aquatic life, floc formation takes
approximately 45 to 60 seconds and should be complete
before treated storm water is discharged to receiving water.
Alum injection locations must be carefully selected to
allow at least 60 seconds of travel time after alum is added
to the storm water and before discharge to the watershed.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Key Design Elements:
1. Chemical dose
2. Chemical feed and storage facilities
3. Mixing Facilities
Ancillary Facilities
Detention basin must be provided downstream to capture
flocculated particles.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Cost includes cost of sedimentation.
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Chemical Treatment- Alum
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 18 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Mechanical equipment must be
inspected and maintained on a regular basis. Sludge
might need to be removed periodically.
• Nuisance Control: Depends on type of BMP it is used
with.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Crews must be trained
to maintain chemical addition system.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Small footprint for
chemical addition system, but downstream detention
requirement increases footprint.
• Siting Constraints: May require access to electricity
and be large enough for a central housing unit and
storage tank. Need enough head for mixing.
• Construction: No unique requirements identified.
Advantages:
• The observed accumulation rate of alum floc in
sediments of receiving waters is low due to floc
consolidation over time and incorporation of alum floc
into existing sediment.
• Alum treatment achieves high nutrient, heavy metal
and fecal coliform removals.
• Dry alum sludge has chemical characteristics suitable
for general land application or in agricultural sites.
• Construction costs for alum storm water treatment
feed systems are largely independent of the drainage
area to be treated and depend primarily upon the
number of outfalls to be retrofitted.
Constraints:
• The pH must be maintained within a range of 5.5 to
7.5 to prevent formation of Al+ 3, which has toxic
effects on aquatic life.
• Sludge removal frequency and method will have to be
studied.
• Alum forms voluminous metal hydroxides that are
very difficult to dewater.
• Safety issues related to the chemical storage facility
need to be considered.
• Appropriate mixing must be provided at the point of
chemical addition.
• Optimum alum dose may vary with each storm.
Sources: None identified.
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• Harper, H. H., et al. Alum Treatment of Stormwater:
The First Ten Years Environmental Research &
Design. 1997.
• Harper, H. H., et al. Alum Treatment of Stormwater
Runoff: An Innovative BMP for Urban Runoff
Problems. Environmental Research & Design, Inc.
1996.
• Harper, H. H., et al. “ An Assessment of An In- Line
Alum Injection Facility Used To Treat Stormwater
Runoff in Pinellas County, Florida.” Sixth Biennial
Stormwater Research and Watershed Management
Conference. September 14, 1999.
• Harper, H. H., et al. “ The Evaluation & Design of an
Alum Stormwater Treatment System to Improve
Water Quality in Lake Maggiore in St. Petersburg,
Florida.” Fifth Biennial Storm water Research
Conference. Nov 5 to 7, 1997.
• Harper, H. H., et al. “ Removal of Microbial
Indicators from Stormwater Using Sand Filtration,
Wet Detention, & Alum Treatment Best Management
Practices.” Sixth Biennial Stormwater Research and
Watershed Management Conference. September 14,
1999.
• Harper, H. H, “ Long- Term Performance Evaluation
of the Alum Stormwater Treatment System at Lake
Ella, Florida.” Final Report Submitted to the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation, Project
WM339. December 1990.
• Price, F. A. & D. R. Yonge. Enhancing Containment
Removal in Stormwater Detention Basins by
Coagulation. Washington State University:
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
• Yonge, D. & F. Price. Stormwater Contaminant
Removal by Chemicals: Enhancing Contaminant
Removal in Stormwater Detention Basins by
Coagulation. Research Project T9234- 11. Washington
State Department of Transportation ( WSDOT). April
1995.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Chemical Treatment -- Chitosan Storm- KlearTM
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 19
Description:
Adding chemical coagulants to storm water influent is one
way to remove more sediment and associated contaminants
and nutrients in a detention Basin ( DB) without physically
modifying the basin. Several coagulants have been
developed for this application such as chitosan.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• Do not leave chitosan submerged in water when not
in use as the chitosan will continue to dissolve.
• Nutrient removal efficiency is based on phosphorus
but not nitrogen.
• Constituent removal efficiencies assume use with a
detention basin.
Source: www. naturalsitesolutions. com
Key Design Elements:
1. Dosing rate
2. Flow variation
3. Detention time
Ancillary Facilities
Detention basin must be provided downstream to capture
flocculated particles.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Cost includes cost of sedimentation or filtration.
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Chemical Treatment -- Chitosan Storm- KlearTM
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 20 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Difficult to predict. The frequency of
inspection depends upon the loading rate. Increased
inspection frequency over detention basins. Access
to the chemical storage facility will be needed for
deliveries.
• Nuisance Control: Depends on type of BMP it is used
with.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Depends on type of
BMP it is used with; training required for inspection
and replacement of Gel- Floc.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Small footprint for
chemical addition system, but downstream BMP
requirement increases footprint.
• Siting Constraints: Need enough head for mixing.
• Construction: No unique requirements identified.
Advantages:
• May decrease the size of detention basins.
• Increases performance of detention basins.
Constraints:
• Storm- Klear is designed to treat specific flow rates
and quantities of storm water, evaluation of the site is
essential to fit the site with the correct number of
units.
• Chitosan effectively treats runoff containing a pH
between 6.5 and 8.5. If pH is outside this range, the
storm water will need to be neutralized before the
chitosan.
• Inspection and maintenance increases are unknown.
• Consistent dosing for a variety of flows may be
difficult.
Sources:
• Natural Site Solutions, www. naturalsitesolutions. com
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• none identified
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Chemical Treatment – Polyacrylimide
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 21
Description:
Adding chemical coagulants to storm water influent is one
way to remove more sediment and associated contaminants
and nutrients in a detention basin. Polyacrylamide ( PAM)
is one of several water- soluble coagulants that have
demonstrated proficiency at reducing soil erosion when
added at low concentrations to irrigation water. This
reduction is accomplished by improving the stability of
soil aggregates and flocculating suspended solids. When
added to storm water, PAM reduces sediments,
phosphorus, and pesticides. PAM could be used in a gel
log or composite block placed in a basket or nylon mesh
bag.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• No performance data encountered in field
demonstrations.
Key Design Elements:
1. Chemical dose
2. Delivery and storage system
3. Mixing facilities
Ancillary Facilities
Detention basin must be provided downstream to capture
flocculated particles.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Chemical Treatment – Polyacrylimide
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 22 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Mechanical equipment must be
inspected and maintained on a regular basis. Sludge
might need to be removed periodically. After each
storm the sedimentation basin and the dosing systems
should be inspected. The sedimentation basin would
need to be cleaned when necessary. The dosing
system should be recharged with PAM or
PAM/ CaCO3 composite mixture when there is no
residual gel.
• Nuisance Control: Depends on type of BMP it is
used with.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Staff and equipment
necessary to replenish PAM supply. Depends on
type of BMP it is used with; training required for
inspection and replacement of PAM.
Project Development:
• Right of Way Requirements: Small footprint for
chemical addition system, but downstream BMP
requirement increases footprint.
• Siting Constraints: Need enough head for mixing.
• Construction: No unique requirements identified.
Advantages:
• Effective dose for anionic PAM is 3 to 50 times less
than inorganic flocculants such as alum and ferric
chlorides.
• Treating storm water with PAM does not require
power or mechanical dosing equipment.
• Anionic PAM produces a large, stable floc, which
settles much more rapidly than floc generated from
voluminous metal hydroxides that are very difficult to
dewater.
• PAM works over a very wide range of pH values,
while inorganic flocculants are pH- sensitive and must
be adjusted to be effective. Inorganic flocculants
consume alkalinity and lower system pH, while PAM
has a negligible effect on system pH.
• When collected, pond sediments may be used as road
fill or taken to disposal sites where excavated ( clean)
soils are usually deposited. These options assume that
the concentrations of metals and other contaminants
associated with sediments are low enough to be
disposed of in these conditions.
Constraints:
• Consistent dosing for a variety of flows may be
difficult. PAM dissolves very slowly before reaching
full hydration and activation. Polymer activation is
also a critical step that requires appropriate mixing.
PAM must be added to storm water where turbulence
is high enough to simulate a rapid- mix system.
• Aqueous PAM concentrations are limited to about 3%
active ingredient because viscosity increases so
rapidly.
• An odorless, free- flowing crystalline called
acrylamide ( AMD) is a chemical intermediate in the
production and synthesis of PAM. AMD is regulated
under National Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
CFR 141.32( e)( 23). To ensure compliance, it will be
necessary to estimate AMD concentrations in the pond
effluent and in the groundwater at sites where
infiltration occurs.
Sources:
• Applied Polymer Systems, INC. Floc Log ® ,
www. siltstop. com
• PAM Research Project Washington State Department
of Transportation ( WSDOT).
www. wsdot. wa. gov/ eesc/ environmental/ pam. htm.
April 2000.
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• McElhiney M. & Osterli P. An Integrated Approach
for Water Quality: The PAM Connection, West
Stanislaus HUA, CA, Managing Irrigation- Induced
Erosion and Infiltration with Polyacrylamide.
University of Idaho Miscellaneous Publication
No. 101- 96, 1996.
• Solka R. E & Lentz R. D. A PAM Primer: A brief
history of PAM- related issues, Managing Irrigation-
Induced Erosion and Infiltration with Polyacrylamide.
University of Idaho Miscellaneous Publication
No. 101- 96, 1996.
• Washington State Department Of Transportation
( WSDOT). “ Polyacrylamide ( PAM) for Soil Erosion
& Flocculation of Stormwater Detention Ponds at
Highway Construction Sites.” WSDOT High Runoff
Manual, Section 4.4: WSDOT Experimental BMP-Quality
Assurance/ Quality Control Plan. WAC 173-
270- 030.6. a.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Detention/ Sedimentation - Below Grade Storage Corrugated Pipe
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 23
Description:
Below grade storage are storm water detention systems
using subsurface piping. Detained water can be reused or
drained to the storm sewer or surface drainage.
Corrugated pipe systems accomplish capture volume by
interconnecting plastic or metal corrugated pipe.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• Performance may be similar to detention basins
depending on the outlet structure and storage size.
Load removal may be less due to lack of infiltration.
Source:
www. epa. gov/ region1/ assistance/ ceitts/ stormwater/ techs/ adssyste
ms. html
Key Design Elements:
1. Cover requirements
2. Storage capacity
3. Class V injection well determination if designed to
infiltrate
4. Filter fabric or equivalent to prevent migration of fines
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
.
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Detention/ Sedimentation - Below Grade Storage Corrugated Pipe
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 24 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Unknown frequency. Sediment
removal may require confined space entry.
• Nuisance Control: System may be difficult to
completely drain.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Likely vactor
equipment with the ability to clean horizontal lines.
Equipment and training needed for confined space
entry.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Large area
requirements, but area above storage system can be
used if constructed properly.
• Siting Constraints: A minimum cover requirement
in a non- traffic installation site is 12” ( top of pipe to
the top of grade). If traffic is present with a flexible
pavement the minimum cover is 12” ( top of pipe to
the bottom of bituminous) for a pipe up to 36” in
diameter, and 24” ( top of pipe to the bottom of
bituminous) for a pipe of 42”- 60” in diameter. If
traffic is present with a rigid pavement the
minimum cover is 36” ( top of pipe to top of
pavement) for a pipe up to 36” in diameter, and 24”
( top of pipe to top of pavement) for a pipe of 42”-
60” in diameter. Buried systems may be difficult to
drain completely. Not feasible for high
groundwater areas.
• Construction: Proper compaction and backfill
required to support overhead loading.
Advantages:
• May use area above storage system.
• No aesthetic impact.
Constraints:
• Difficult to inspect and maintain because it is
buried.
• Standing water may create mosquito habitat.
• High construction cost.
Sources:
• Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., www. ads-pipe.
com
• Baughman Tile Co., www. baughmantile. com
• Contech Construction Products Inc.
www. contech- cpi. com
• Lane- Enterprises, www. lane- enterprises. com
• U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
www. epa. gov/ region1/ assistance/ ceitts/ stormwater/ t
echs/ adssystems. html
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• none identified
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Detention/ Sedimentation - Below Grade Storage StormTrapTM, DoubleTrapTM
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 25
Description:
Below grade storage are storm water detention systems
using subsurface piping. Detained water can be reused or
drained to the storm sewer or surface drainage.
StormTrapTM is a modular system designed to support
overhead loads.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• Performance may be similar to detention basins
depending on the outlet structure and storage size.
Load removal may be less due to lack of infiltration.
Source:
www. stormtrap. com
Key Design Elements:
1. Cover requirements
2. Storage capacity
3. Class V injection well determination if designed to
infiltrate
4. Filter fabric or equivalent to prevent migration of fines
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
.
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Detention/ Sedimentation - Below Grade Storage StormTrapTM, DoubleTrapTM
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 26 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Unknown frequency. Sediment
removal may require confined space entry.
• Nuisance Control: System may be difficult to
completely drain.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Most likely vactor
equipment with the ability to clean horizontal lines.
Equipment and training needed for confined space
entry.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Large area
requirements, but area above storage system can be
used if constructed properly.
• Siting Constraints: Not feasible for high
groundwater areas.
• Construction: Proper compaction required to
support overhead loading.
Advantages:
• May use area above storage system.
• No aesthetic impact.
Constraints:
• Difficult to inspect and maintain because it is
buried.
• High construction costs.
• Standing water may create mosquito habitat.
• Buried systems may be difficult to assure complete
draining.
Sources:
• StormTrapTM, DoubleTrapTM, www. stormtrap. com
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• None identified.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Detention Basin, Outlet Improvement Watermann
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 27
Description:
The Watermann is an outlet improvement for detention
basins. It sits inside a 48” perforated section of pipe. It is
secured in the wall of the outlet control structure and is
grouted into place inside and outside of the outlet control
structure in order to prevent leaking. Underneath the
Watermann is a concrete or gravel base. The Watermann
is completely exposed for inspection and maintenance.
Surrounding the perforated section pipe is # 4 stone which
is used as added filtration for the water before entering the
Watermann. Inside the structure, attached to the
Watermann, is a removable end cap where the water
quality orifice is drilled in the invert of the cap. As
stormwater enters the pond it travels to the outlet control
structure, through the # 4 stone and the perforated section
of pipe into the Watermann and out of the water quality
orifice.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• No water quality monitoring studies have been
conducted to evaluate the treatment effectiveness of
the Watermann.
• No increase in performance is expected over current
outlet designs.
• Performance based on detention basin ( Fact D- 11)
Key Design Elements:
1. Device used to treat the first 1.2” of rainfall in
Extended Dry Detention Ponds
2. Completely exposed to easy inspection and
maintenance
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
N. A. N. A.
Notes:
• Cost and performance expected to be roughly
equivalent to current Caltrans designs.
• Range of unit cost: :$ 350
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency
and Level- of- Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Detention Basin, Outlet Improvements Watermann
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 28 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: None identified. None beyond
normal detention basin.
• Nuisance Control: None beyond normal detention
basin.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: No special
requirements identified.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Equivalent to detention
basin.
• Siting Constraints: None identified. Equivalent to
detention basin.
• Construction: No special requirements identified.
Advantages:
• Potentially increases surface area for water intake.
• Potentially increases flow direction.
• Potentially increases cleanout availability.
• Potentially increases ease of
inspection/ maintenance.
Constraints:
• None Identified
Sources:
• www. watermannwaterquality. com/ index. htm
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
none
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Detention/ Sedimentation - Plate and Tube Settlers
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 29
Description:
Improving sedimentation in the first chamber of an Austin
filter or in a concrete detention basin can be achieved by
installing plate or tube settlers in this chamber.
Sedimentation of aqueous suspensions is accelerated by
decreasing the distance particles must fall prior to removal.
This can be achieved by making the basin shallower, but
this is limited by practical aspects. One approach is to
provide parallel plates or inclined tubes that permit solids
to reach the plate or tube after only short distances of
settling.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• Removal efficiencies assumed plate and tube
settlers used in conjunction with a detention basin.
• No performance data encountered in field
demonstrations.
• The tube or plate settlers will enhance the
sedimentation of fine particles.
• The Multi- Chambered Treatment Train ( MCTT)
includes a sedimentation chamber with tube settlers.
Key Design Elements:
1. Effective overflow rate ( for sizing the sedimentation
chamber)
2. Size and mounting of plates or tubes
3. Sludge collection and removal facilities
Ancillary Facilities
Necessary installed in a sedimentation basin that may or
may not precede a filter.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Detention/ Sedimentation - Plate and Tube Settlers
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 30 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Cleaning and maintenance of the
plate or tube settlers may require removing the plate
settler structure. Litter may get trapped in the tube
settler structure.
• Nuisance Control: None identified if designed to
gravity drain.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: May require
confined space training and equipment required to
remove settlers.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Similar to detention
basins - less area may be required due to enhanced
settling.
• Siting Constraints: Similar to detention basins.
• Construction: No unique requirements identified.
Advantages:
• Enhances particle removal of
detention/ sedimentation BMPs.
Constraints:
• Maintenance is more difficult than an open basin.
• Water must be introduced so that it flows through
the settlers.
Sources:
• None identified.
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• Harper, H. H., et al. “ Performance Evaluation of
Dry Detention Stormwater Management Systems.”
Sixth Biennial Stormwater Research Watershed
Management Conference. September 1999.
• High- Rate Sedimentation, WWF Plan Project
Number 4.19. EPA Urban Watershed Management
Branch. http:// www. epa. gov/ ednnrmrl/ projects/
control/ high. htm. April 2000.
• James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc,
Water Treatment Principles and Design. 1985.
• Keblin, Michael, et al. Effectiveness of Permanent
Highway Runoff Controls: Sedimentation/ Filtration
Systems. October 1997.
• Meinholtz, T. L., et al. Screening/ Floatation
Treatment of Combined Sewer Outflows, Volume
II: Full- Scale Operation Racine, Wisconsin. EPA-
600/ 2- 79- 106a. Aug 1979.
• Pitt, R., et al. Stormwater Treatment at Critical
Areas, Vol. 1: The Multi- Chambered Treatment
Train. Cincinnati: US EPA. 1997.
• Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, Scoping
Study, Retrofit Pilot Program, Caltrans District 11.
February 1998.
• United States Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration, Office of Environmental
Planning: Evaluation and Management of Highway
Runoff Water Quality, Washington, DC. June 1996.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Disinfection – Biocide Fabrics
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 31
Description:
Biocide fabrics are a form of antimicrobial filtration
media, typically incorporated into the stormwater
treatment devices like Drain Inlet Inserts. During low
flow conditions, biocide filtration may be added to post
construction stormwater systems to control bacterial
pollutants. The woven or pressed media has an
antimicrobial element that kills bacteria while the fabric
filters out course sediment. In the case of X- TEX- AM ( as
shown) an antimicrobial nano- structure with covalent
bonding is woven into the fibers, which kill off single cell
organisms.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• The microbial reductions reported by the
manufacturer require much longer contact time than
allowed by current use of filter fabrics in
stormwater control.
Source: www. spillcontainment. com/ index. htm
Key Design Elements:
1. Proprietary design
2. Media Type
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Disinfection – Biocide Fabrics
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 32 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Unknown replacement frequency.
• Nuisance Control: None identified.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: None identified.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: None identified.
• Siting Constraints: None identified.
• Construction: None identified.
Advantages:
• Natural process that disinfects without chemicals.
• Low maintenance requirements.
• Suitable for retrofit to existing facilities.
Constraints:
• No chemical residual for continued disinfection.
• Debris and sediment may exceed filter capacity
depending on design.
• Requires long contact time ( hours).
Sources:
• Ultra- Tech International, Inc., X- Tex- Am,
www. attitudetechnology. com
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• None identified
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Disinfection – Chlorination/ Hypochlorite
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 33
Description:
This technology consists of chemical disinfection of storm
water using hypochlorous acid solution. The product of
concentration ( C) and contact time ( t) may be adjusted to
achieve various levels of disinfection as defined by the
U. S. EPA. This process has proven successful for many
years at inactivating pathogens and other microbial
contaminants in drinking water and wastewater. The
hypochlorous solution is to be injected at the end of the
pipe before the baffled contact chamber or existing
sedimentation basin. A chemical storage tank and chemical
feed system capable of adjusting feed based on pipe flow
is required. Hypochlorous acid dosing sufficient to
achieve the desired Ct value is necessary. A contact
chamber will be designed to achieve desired Ct value at
high flows. Chlorine residual will be monitored.
Dechlorination may be needed prior to discharge to
receiving waters.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• No long- term water quality monitoring studies have
been conducted to evaluate treatment effectiveness
for storm water.
• Some organics may be converted to other ( possibly
more harmful) products.
Key Design Elements:
1. Chlorine dose and contact time ( Ct)
2. Chemical feed and storage facilities
3. Mixing facilities
Ancillary Facilities
Pretreatment to remove particles is required to achieve
reliable disinfection. This will normally require
sedimentation and filtration facilities upstream. Contact
time must be provided in a contact basin of sedimentation
basin downstream. Dechlorination system.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Disinfection – Chlorination/ Hypochlorite
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 34 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Mechanical equipment must be
maintained. Chemicals must be replenished.
• Nuisance Control: None identified.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Trained staff is
required for mechanical equipment maintenance.
Requires flow measurement device designed for a
large range of flow conditions.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Space requirements
will depend on size of contact chamber needed to
accommodate design flow. Pretreatment space
requirement may be high.
• Siting Constraints: Restricted to sites with available
power.
• Construction: May have start- up and testing
requirements.
Advantages:
• Specific use guidelines available and proven
effectiveness on microbial contaminants.
• Insect vectors not an issue with chlorinated water.
Constraints:
• Harmful to receiving water biota.
• Formation of disinfection by- products ( DBPs).
• Pre- treatment ( e. g., removal of suspended solids)
required.
• Requires special handling procedures and chemical
storage tank on site.
• Substantial excavation is needed.
• May require special permitting and discharge water
quality monitoring.
• May result in unnatural looking conditions.
Sources:
• www. jajagroup. com
• www. ionics. com
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• None available.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Disinfection – Ozone
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 35
Description:
Ozone is used in water treatment for disinfection and
oxidation. An ozone treatment system has four basic
components: a gas feed system, an ozone generator, an
ozone contactor, and an off- gas destruction system. The
gas feed system provides a clean, dry source of oxygen to
the generator. The ozone contactor transfers the ozone- rich
gas into the water to be treated, and provides contact time
for disinfection ( or other reactions). The final process step,
off- gas destruction, is required as ozone is toxic in the
concentration present in the off- gas. A quench chamber to
remove ozone residual in solution may also be added to the
treatment train.
The ozone feed system uses air, high purity oxygen, or a
mixture of the two. Ozone systems are most applicable for
continuous flow. For wet weather intermittent flow, a
water sensor will be needed to start the ozone generator,
but the first flush of the runoff would not be treated unless
an equalization/ storage basin is provided.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• The bacterial loads in the water upon leaving the
contact chamber ( City of Malibu, California
Bioxide Technology) have been reduced to
allowable U. S. EPA “ recreational use” limits.
Key Design Elements:
1. Ozone dose and contact time ( Ct)
2. Gas feed and ozone production equipment
3. Contact facilities
4. Quench tank
Ancillary Facilities
Pretreatment to remove particles is required to achieve
reliable disinfection. This will normally require
sedimentation and filtration facilities upstream. Contact
time must be provided in a contact basin of sedimentation
basin downstream.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Disinfection – Ozone
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 36 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Generators should be checked daily
when in operation. Manual start- up of the ozone
generator is preferable since it needs to be purged
before each start- up. Filters and desiccant in air
preparation systems should be changed
periodically.
• Nuisance Control: None identified.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: The ozone system
operation is to be performed by an operator with a
water treatment background. Maintenance on the
generators requires skilled technicians. This work
can also be done by the equipment manufacturer if
trained maintenance staff is not available.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Space requirements
will depend on size of contract chamber needed to
accommodate design flow. Pretreatment space
requirement may be high.
• Siting Constraints: Restricted to sites with available
power.
• Construction: Avoid sediments in the contact
chamber during construction. May have start- up
and testing requirements.
Advantages:
• Ozone is a strong disinfectant and has a limited
number of by- products.
• Low doses are required to complete disinfection.
• The process does not provide residual ozone
concentration in the treated effluent. This will then
minimize the impact on the receiving watershed.
• Even though ozone systems are complex, using
highly technical instruments, the process is highly
automated and very reliable.
Constraints:
• The ozone must be produced on site because it
cannot be stored.
• Ozonation technology has a very high energy
requirement.
• Some ozonation by- products may be harmful to the
receiving water.
• In the presence of many compounds commonly
encountered in water treatment, ozone
decomposition forms hydroxyl free radicals.
• Ozone escaping to atmosphere may contribute to air
pollution problems.
• The ozone diffusers can easily be damaged by
debris and sediments. The pre- treatment step will
have to remove most of the sediments as well as the
oil and grease.
Sources:
• EPA Guidance Manual, Alternative Disinfectants
and Oxidants, April 1999.
• Bioxide Corporation, Vanguard Stormwater
Treatment System, www. bioxide. com/ water. htm.
• PCI- Wedeco Environmental Technologies, Inc. One
Fairfield Crescent, West Caldwell, NJ 07006.
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• The City of Malibu, California, approved the use of
Bioxide’s technology to treat their runoff before it
reaches the lagoon near the beach for a “ dry- flow”
run.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Disinfection – Ultraviolet
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 37
Description:
Ultraviolet ( UV) light disinfects water by altering the
genetic material ( DNA) in the cells so bacteria, viruses and
other microorganisms can no longer reproduce or infect.
In UV disinfection systems, the light is produced by
germicidal lamps ( 200 to 300 nanometers) enclosed in a
pressure vessel or submerged in a water channel. As the
water flows past the UV lamps, the microorganisms are
exposed to a lethal dose of UV energy. The UV dose is
the product of the light intensity and contact time.
The UV disinfection treatment is an in- line device
downstream of another treatment process. Potential
applications could be downstream of a BMP such as a
multiple chamber treatment train ( MCTT); sedimentation
basin or media filter.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• Efficiency does not include required pretreatment.
• Removal efficiency depends on the UV dose
applied to storm water.
• Factors affecting disinfection efficiency by UV light
include: turbidity or suspended solids in the water,
light- absorbing characteristics of the water, flow
distribution across the UV lamps, contact time of
water with UV light.
• Presence of some compounds in the storm water
may reduce UV efficiency such as: dissolved or
suspended matter may shield microorganisms from
UV radiation; high turbidity of surface water can
impact disinfection efficiency. Some chemical
substances can decrease UV transmission. Color
also reduces transmission within a UV contactor.
Key Design Elements:
1. Light intensity and contact time
2. Hydraulic system for moving water past lamps
3. Facilities for cleaning lamps
Ancillary Facilities
Pretreatment to remove particles is required to achieve
reliable disinfection. This will normally require
sedimentation and filtration facilities upstream.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Disinfection – Ultraviolet
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 38 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: Each lamp must be cleaned
periodically – typically every two weeks for
wastewater discharges, but probably less frequently
for intermittent storm water discharges. Pumps
must be maintained.
• Nuisance Control: None identified.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: Highly trained staff
is required for mechanical equipment maintenance.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: May be compact, but
pretreatment space requirement may be high.
• Siting Constraints: Restricted to sites with available
nearby power.
• Construction: Significant start- up and testing
requirements.
Advantages:
• Natural process that disinfects without chemicals.
• Low maintenance requirements.
• Automated operations and controls.
• Compact system, small footprint compared to other
disinfection technologies.
• Suitable for retrofit to existing facilities.
• No impact on other processes following UV
treatment.
• UV disinfection can meet water quality standards
that have stringent requirements for total and fecal
coliform ( from 2 to 200 MPN/ 100ml) without
generating disinfection by- products ( DBPs) or
handling chemicals.
Constraints:
• No chemical residual for continued disinfection.
• Pretreatment requirement may be substantial.
• Clumping microorganism and turbidity can impact
disinfection by harboring pathogens in the
aggregates.
• Specific design parameters vary for individual
waters ( UV transmittance).
• Under certain conditions, some organisms are
capable of repairing damaged DNA and reverting
back to an active state to reproduce again
( photoreactivation). This can be minimized by
shielding the process stream or limiting the
exposure of disinfected water to sunlight
immediately following disinfection.
• Organic and inorganic fouling usually occurs on UV
lamp sleeves. Inorganic fouling, which is related to
the high temperature of the lamp, is the most
difficult to clean because inorganics such as iron
and manganese bind to the quartz sleeve.
• High power requirement.
Sources:
• Hanovia Ltd, www. hanovia. com
• PCI- Wedeco Environmental Technologies, Inc. One
Fairfield Crescent, West Caldwell, NJ 07006
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
• Barrett, M. E. & J. F. Malina Jr. Stormwater
Disinfection Research Work Plan. Center for
Research in Water Resources: University of Texas,
Austin. June 1999.
• EPA Guidance Manual, Alternative Disinfectants
and Oxidants. April 1999.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Drain Inlet Inserts -- Baffle Boxes Hydro- Cartridge
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 39
Description:
The Hydro- Cartridge is a box with baffles that force water
to flow upwards before it is discharged. The unit is
fabricated with flanges that rest on the recess of the drain
inlet. Complete in- line design requires flood flows to pass
through the insert where pollutants are retained.
A modified version of this insert allows water to drain out
the bottom between storms. It is called the Hydro-
Cartridge Plus. It uses a float system to close the bottom
of the insert during flow conditions. There are no known
installations of this model.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• Removal efficiency based on laboratory tests using
ground silica ( Sil- co- sil 106) ( CIWMB, 2005).
• Laboratory tests using street sweepings resulted in 5
to 60 percent removal of TSS ( Morgan, et. al.,
2004).
Media
Pillow
Outlet
Weir
Internal Baffle
Water Line
Key Design Elements:
1. Provision for overflow or bypass to avoid flooding
when the insert is full or clogged.
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Drain Inlet Inserts -- Baffle Boxes Hydro- Cartridge
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 40 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: If there is high solids loading ( often
caused by vegetation within the drainage area),
frequent inspection and maintenance is required.
• Nuisance Control: Holds a permanent pool of water
so vector monitoring may be required.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: The larger units
generally requires removal of sediment from the
device with a vacuum truck.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Installed within a
storm water inlet.
• Siting Constraints: Requires a grated drop inlet.
• Construction: A watertight installation of the
product is important to capture low flows.
Advantages:
• The devices can be installed relatively easily in new
and existing facilities without structural modification.
Constraints:
• Holds standing water.
• High flows may flush accumulated material.
• If located along a shoulder or median, maintenance
activities may require traffic control.
• Capacity ( size of basket) is constrained by the size
of the drain inlet to be retrofitted.
• Debris and litter may exceed drain inlet insert
capacity.
Sources:
• Advanced Aquatic Products Int’l, Inc.,
www. hydro- cartridge. com
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
∙ Edwards, Findlay, Kristofor Brye, Robert Morgan,
and Steven Burian. “ Evaluation of Stormwater
Catchbasin Inserts for Transportation Facilities.” In
Proceedings of Transportation Research Board
2004 Annual Meeting. January 11- 15, 2004.
Washington D. C. 2004.
∙ California Integrated Waste Management Board
Used Oil Demonstration Grant by CSUS Office of
Water Programs. “ Laboratory Evaluation of Four
Storm Drain Inlet Filters for Oil Removal,” April
2005.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Drain Inlet Inserts -- Baskets/ Boxes Curb Inlet Basket ( CIB)
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 41
Description:
The Curb Inlet Basket is attached to the sidewall of the
drain inlet. An oil boom may be added. Flood flow
bypass occurs by overtopping the basket.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
Source: www. suntreetech. com
Key Design Elements:
1. Proprietary devices
2. Hydraulic capacity and pollutant storage capacity
3. Provision for overflow or bypass to avoid flooding
when the insert is full or clogged
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
Fine Screen
Side & Bottom
for Collecting
Sediment
Coarse Screen
Up High for
Foliage and Liter
Storm Boom
for Collecting
Hyrdocarbons
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Drain Inlet Inserts -- Baskets/ Boxes Curb Inlet Basket ( CIB)
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 42 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: If there is high solids loading ( often
caused by vegetation within the drainage area),
frequent inspection and maintenance is required.
• Nuisance Control: None identified.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: No special
requirements identified.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Installed within a
storm water inlet.
• Siting Constraints: Requires a curb inlet.
• Construction: Attached to sidewalls required, not a
“ drop in” device. A watertight installation of the
product is important to capture low flows.
Advantages:
• There is a range of sizes that can be retrofitted to
storm drain requirements. They are easy to install
and clean. Maintenance can be simple and quick.
Adsorption booms can be attached.
Constraints:
• Debris and litter may exceed drain inlet insert
capacity.
• Capacity ( size of basket) is constrained by the size
of the drain inlet to be retrofitted.
• If located along a shoulder or median, maintenance
activities may require traffic control.
Sources:
• Suntree Technologies Inc.,
www. suntreetech. com/ catalog1/ page6. html
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
∙ None identified.
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Drain Inlet Inserts -- Baskets/ Boxes EcosolTM
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 43
Description:
The EcosolTM Rapid Stormwater Filtration ( RSF) uses a
basket to separate debris from stormwater. The basket is
attached to weir splash plates that attach to the side walls
of the drain inlet. Flood flow bypass is accomplished by
overtopping the basket.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• Limited to trapping material 1.5mm and greater
( www. ecosol. com. au).
Source: EcosolTM Wastewater Filtration Systems
Key Design Elements:
1. Proprietary devices
2. Hydraulic capacity and pollutant storage capacity
3. Provision for overflow or bypass to avoid flooding
when the insert is full or clogged
Cost Effectiveness Relative too Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
Curb Area
RSF 100
Filter
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Drain Inlet Inserts -- Baskets/ Boxes EcosolTM
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 44 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: If there is high solids loading ( often
caused by vegetation within the drainage area),
frequent inspection and maintenance is required.
• Nuisance Control: None identified.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: No special
requirements identified.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Installed within a
storm water inlet.
• Siting Constraints: Requires a grated curb or drop
inlet.
• Construction: Attached to sidewalls required, not a
“ drop in” device. A watertight installation of the
product is important to capture low flows.
Advantages:
• There is a range of sizes that can be retrofitted to
storm drain requirements. They are easy to install
and clean. Maintenance can be simple and quick.
Adsorption booms can be attached.
Constraints:
• Debris and litter may exceed drain inlet insert
capacity.
• Capacity ( size of basket) is constrained by the size
of the drain inlet to be retrofitted.
• If located along a shoulder or median, maintenance
activities may require traffic control.
Sources:
• EcosolTM Wastewater Filtration Systems,
www. ecosol. com. au
• www. sydneycoastalcouncils. com. au/ stormwater/ SWFeb
2002. htm
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
∙ www. uprct. nsw. gov. au/ cleanstreams/ results. htm
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Drain Inlet Inserts -- Baskets/ Boxes EnviropodTM
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 45
Description:
EnviropodTM is a lined basket attached to the side walls of
a drain inlet. Flood flow bypass is accomplished by
overtopping the basket.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• One installation at the Caltrans Kearny Mesa
maintenance station is being monitored by the
manufacturer.
• Installations throughout Australia and New
Zealand.
• Report by the manufacturer indicates an average of
78% removal of TSS ( EnviropodTM Filter Wairau Rd
Trail).
Source: www. ingalenviro. com
Key Design Elements:
1. Proprietary devices
2. Hydraulic capacity and pollutant storage capacity
3. Provision for overflow or bypass to avoid flooding
when the insert is full or clogged
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Drain Inlet Inserts -- Baskets/ Boxes EnviropodTM
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 46 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: If there is high solids loading ( often
caused by vegetation within the drainage area),
frequent inspection and maintenance is required.
• Nuisance Control: None identified.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: No special
requirements identified.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Installed within a
storm water inlet.
• Siting Constraints: Requires a grated drop inlet.
• Construction: A watertight installation of the
product is important to capture low flows.
Advantages:
• There is a range of sizes that can be retrofitted to
storm drain requirements. They are easy to install
and clean. Maintenance can be simple and quick.
Adsorption booms can be attached.
Constraints:
• Debris and litter may exceed drain inlet insert
capacity.
• Capacity ( size of basket) is constrained by the size
of the drain inlet to be retrofitted.
• If located along a shoulder or median, maintenance
activities may require traffic control.
Sources:
• Ingal Environmental Services,
www. ingalenviro. com/ enviropod. asp
Literature Sources of Performance Demonstrations:
∙ EnviropodTM Filter Wairau Rd Trail,
http:// www. ingalenviro. com/ enviropod. asp
∙ Evaluation of ENVIROPOD stormwater treatment
units, www. ingalenviro. com/ enviropod. asp
BMP Fact Sheet Page 1 of 2
Drain Inlet Inserts -- Baskets/ Boxes FloGard Plus
Treatment BMP Technology Report
April 2006 B- 47
Support
Basket
Liner
Fossil
Rock
Pouch
Bypass
Slot
Description:
The FloGard Plus is a basket system that is attached to
splash plates that rests on the recess of a drain inlet. The
basket is lined with fabric mesh. Oil absorbing pillows can
be placed in the basket. Flood flow bypass is
accomplished by overtopping the basket and flowing under
the splash plates.
Constituent Removal:
Constituent Group Removal
Efficiency
Level- of-
Confidence
Total Suspended Solids
Nutrients
Pesticides
Total Metals
Dissolved Metals
Microbiological
Litter
BOD
TDS
Notes:
• Removal efficiency based on laboratory tests using
ground silica ( Sil- co- sil 106) ( CIWMB, 2005).
• Testing by City of Los Angeles by data collection
was incomplete.
Source: www. kristar. com
Key Design Elements:
1. Proprietary devices
2. Hydraulic capacity and pollutant storage capacity
3. Provision for overflow or bypass to avoid flooding
when the insert is full or clogged
Cost Effectiveness Relative to Detention Basins:
Cost
Effectiveness
Level- of-
Confidence
Benefit 􀃇 Benefit 􀃇
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Benefit 􀃈 Benefit 􀃈
Cost 􀃈 Cost 􀃇
Rating Key for Cost
Effectiveness Relative to
Detention Basins
High Medium Low
Rating Key for Constituent
Removal Efficiency and Level-of-
Confidence
BMP Fact Sheet Page 2 of 2
Drain Inlet Inserts -- Baskets/ Boxes FloGard Plus
Treatment BMP Technology Report
B- 48 April 2006
Issues and Concerns:
Maintenance:
• Requirements: If there is high solids loading ( often
caused by vegetation within the drainage area),
frequent inspection and maintenance is required.
• Nuisance Control: None identified.
• Specialty Training/ Equipment: No special
requirements identified.
Project Development:
• Right- of- Way Requirements: Installed within a
storm water inlet.
• Siting Constraints: Requires a grated drop inlet.
• Construction: A watertight installation of the
product is important to capture low flows.
Advantages:
• There is a range of sizes that can be retrofitted to
storm drain requirements. They are easy to install
and clean. Maintenance can be simple and quick.
Adsorption booms can be attached.
Constraints:
• Debris and litter may exceed drain inlet insert
capacity.
• Capacity ( size of basket) is constrained by the size
of the drain inlet to be retrofitted.
• If located along a shoulder or median, maintenance
activities may require traffic control.
Sources:
• KriStar Enterprises,
http:// kri