The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-09-17 Planning Board Supplemental Materials (118) 199 Newbury Street, Suite 115 ● Danvers, MA 01923 ● 978.777.7250 ● fax 978.777.8650 ● www.lynnfieldeng.com August 29, 2013 Town of North Andover Planning Board 1600 Osgood Street Building 20, Suite 2-36 North Andover, MA 01845 Attention: Ms. Judy Tymon, Planner and Town of North Andover Conservation Department 1600 Osgood Street Suite 2035 North Andover, MA 01845 Attention: Ms. Jennifer Hughes, Conservation Administrator Subject: Response to Comments Proposed Pentucket Bank at the Butcher Boy Marketplace 1077 Osgood Street LEI Job No. 480-70 Dear Ms. Tymon and Ms. Hughes: This correspondence has been prepared on behalf of Angus Realty Corporation North Andover, MA in response to correspondence received dated August 14, 2013 from Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E. Eggleston Environmental Sudbury, MA regarding the stormwater management system review for the proposed Pentucket Bank at Butcher Boy Marketplace 1077 Osgood Street North Andover. 1. As noted in my previous comments and those from Tom Maguire of DEP, the subsurface detention basin is not an acceptable water quality BMP, it merely provides attenuation of runoff flows. The revised plan reflects this fact and instead calls for treating the water quality volume through a Contech Stormfilter unit. The Stormfilter is a proprietary media filter and, per Chapter 4 of the Stormwater Handbook, can be an acceptable form of treatment where LID or traditional BMPs are not suitable, and where adequate documentation of the proposed BMP’s effectiveness and design parameters is provided. However, such devices are not appropriate for terminal treatment for runoff from Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs) or discharges near or to Critical Areas. Since the project site as a whole is a LUHPPL and further since the DEP Handbook does require that consideration be given to the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques for managing stormwater I would encourage the Applicants to look at alternative means of providing treatment, such as a lined biofiltration system. If the proposal to use the proprietary media filter is to be advanced, the necessary documentation will need to be submitted, including design information Ms. Judy Tymon and Ms. Jennifer Hughes August 29, 2013 Town of North Andover Page 2 of 4 K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\01_Tymon J and Hughes J_082913_let_resp Eggleston Aug.doc demonstrating that the units have been sized to handle the water quality volume (flow equivalent) and that the system has been designed to deliver that flow to the units. Response: Lynnfield Engineering, Inc. (LEI) evaluated the use of traditional LID and BMP’s to treat stormwater at the site. Due to design limitations such as existing site grades, horizontal and vertical location of the existing parking area, elevations of the existing Butcher Boy Marketplace stormwater management system piping, limited open space outside the buffer zone to the Lake and a desire to limit disturbances within the project area, the use of the ConTech Stormfilters Units was the selected design element to provide the required treatment. The Stormfilter Units selected are an approved BMP for Land Uses with Higher Pollutant Loads as detailed in the MassDEP Stormwater Handbook Volume 1, Chapter 1, Page 14. As previously discussed, the stormwater from the site discharges outside the watershed of the Town’s water supply and the project does not have a discharge near or to an ORW or Surface Water Source. The peak inflow per cartridge is 2.05 gpm/square feet, therefore the flow per cartridge is 10 gpm. LEI has proposed three cartridges which can treat 30 gpm or 0.07 cfs. We have attached the following documents: Page 14, Volume 1, Chapter 1 of the MADEP Stormwater Regulations; MASTEP Technology Review for the StormFilter; New Jersey DEP approved TSS removal rating dated August 31, 2011; and NJCAT Technology Verification dated January 2007. The indicated documents are presented in Attachment No. 2. 2. The water quality volume calculations should also be revised to document that the water quality volume (flow equivalent) is being treated in the proposed treatment structures, e.g. the CDS units and Stormfilter. Storage in the subsurface detention systems toward meeting the water quality volume. Response: A Supplemental Water Quality Analysis was completed to model the flow diversion weirs in proposed manholes 2, 4, 8 and 9. The analysis demonstrates that the proposed diversion manholes convey all stormwater to the proposed water quality structures prior to overtopping the diversion weirs for storm events of 1.71” or less. The water quality structures will treat 2,446 cubic feet of stormwater in the 1.71” storm, which is 2.9 times greater than the required water quality volume of 839 cubic feet. The CDS Stormfilter can treat 30 gallons per minute: the peak flow to the Stormfilter in the 1.71” storm is 0.05 cfs (22.4 gpm). The Supplemental Water Quality Analysis for the 1.71” storm is presented in Attachment No. 3. Refer to nodes for PDMH2, PDMH4, PDMH8 and PDMH9 for the flow diversion manholes. The node for PDMH8 is the diversion manhole before the CDS Stormfilter. 3. The HydroCAD analysis does not account for the overflow weirs in the outlet control structures PDMH3 and PDMH5. Response: The outlet control structures are modeled within the detention basin pond nodes for detention basins A and B. The elevation of the overflow weirs were set above the 100 year flood elevation to ensure the primary orifices could effectively pass the 100 year storm. 4. The HydroCAD analysis also does not account for the splitting of flows through the water quality structures, and it is difficult to see how the water quality volume (flow equivalent) is going to be effectively diverted through the treatment structures and that the water quality structures will be bypassed during high flows. The reach chart on Sheet C-6 shows the pipes to PWQ1 and PWQ2 as 12 inches and does not identify the size of the overflow lines. In addition, the Ms. Judy Tymon and Ms. Jennifer Hughes August 29, 2013 Town of North Andover Page 3 of 4 K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\01_Tymon J and Hughes J_082913_let_resp Eggleston Aug.doc diversion drain manhole detail on Sheet C-11 shows the “overflow weirs” to be between 0.36 inches and 3.6 inches high; this is hardly sufficient height to effectively split the flow, especially if there is any sort of turbulence. Response: A Supplemental Water Quality Analysis has been completed to include the flow diversion weirs in proposed manholes 2, 4, 8 and 9. Weir elevations have been revised on Drawing C-11. The bypass pipe elevation in manholes 2 and 4 upstream of the CDS units has been set 6” above the primary outlet to the CDS unit. This configuration passes all storms up to the 2 year storm event before runoff begins to pass through the bypass pipe. The bypass weirs in manholes 8 and 9 upstream of the Stormfilter have been set at 2” above the primary outlet to the Stormfilter. This configuration conveys all stormwater to the Stormfilter for storms of 1.71” or less. The Stormfilters treat 30 gallons per minute, so the stormwater management system was designed to maximize the amount of runoff directed to the Stormfilter while maintaining a flow rate below the effective treatment flow. The rate of runoff conveyed to the Stormfilter in the 1.71” storm event is 0.05 cfs, which is equivalent to 22.4 gpm. The Stormfilter will treat 2,446 cubic feet of runoff which is 2.9 times greater than the required water quality volume of 839 cubic feet. The stormwater management system has been designed to maximize the amount of stormwater treatment through the various stormwater management controls. The detention basins have been designed with a low flow orifice to slowly release runoff to the Stormfilter in order to treat more runoff than the required water quality volume. The low flow orifices release water at rates of 0.01 cfs and 0.005 cfs from detention basins A and B respectively. While the low flow orifices cause the underground detention systems to be larger than required for controlling peak rate of runoff, they are a key component in the treatment train and ensure that the Stormfilter receives runoff in a controlled manner below the effective flow rate. 5. It is not clear why the roof drain overflows cannot discharge directly to the subsurface detention basins, thereby improving the overall effectiveness of the CDS pretreatment units. Otherwise the roof drain connections need to be shown on the diversion manhole details. Response: Roof drywell A has been revised to discharge directly to detention system A. It is not possible to discharge roof drywell B directly to detention system B due to pipe conflicts. The CDS units have been sized to treat all the impervious areas, including the roof area: therefore, the effectiveness of the CDS unit will not be compromised. 6. The revised plan includes compensatory recharge for the increased impervious area to be provided in the existing Butcher Boy parking lot in an area outside of the Zone A. The plan calls for taking two existing catchbasins offline, replacing them with deep sump hooded structures, and directing the flow through an isolator row for pretreatment before infiltration, therefore it also provides a net improvement by reducing the volume of untreated runoff leaving the existing site. Response: Statement of Fact. No response required. Ms. Judy Tymon and Ms. Jennifer Hughes August 29, 2013 Town of North Andover Page 4 of 4 K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\01_Tymon J and Hughes J_082913_let_resp Eggleston Aug.doc 7. I have been contacted by a representative of Pentucket Bank regarding the proposed use of coated metal roofing on the bank building. While my understanding is that the primary concern is with (uncoated) galvanized metal and copper roofing, the DEP Handbook does specifically prohibit infiltration of runoff from any metal roof in a Critical Area. I don’t have the expertise to determine whether a specific product meets the intent of this prohibition, therefore I recommend that the applicants pursue the issue with the Massachusetts DEP (e.g. through Tom Maguire) to get a determination of whether the proposed product is acceptable. Response: The proposed bank structure has not been designed. The applicant will accept as a permit condition that no metal roofing be utilized on the building. 8. The O&M Budget should include periodic replacement of the Stormfilter media cartridges as is called for in the manufacturer’s maintenance guidelines. Response: Comment noted: The requested information has been incorporated in the revised O&M Plan. A revised O&M Plan is presented in Attachment No. 4. 9. Catchbasins and hydrodynamic separator units should be cleaned a minimum of once per year, not just based on inspections. Response: Comment noted: The requested information has been incorporated in the revised O&M Plan. A revised O&M Plan is presented in Attachment No. 4. 10. The O&M Plan should specifically include inspections and maintenance of the Isolator Row. Access to the isolator row to perform such inspections/ maintenance is also needed. Response: Comment noted: The requested information has been incorporated in the revised O&M Plan. A revised O&M Plan is presented in Attachment No. 4. 11. The O&M plan should include a simple figure (not design plans) clearly showing the locations of all BMP structures to be maintained on the Butcher Boy site. Response: Comment noted: A revised figure has been provided which clearly depicts all stormwater structures and BMP’s If you have any questions or desire any additional information regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 978.777.7250 Ext. 12. Respectfully Submitted, Lynnfield Engineering, Inc. Richard Barthelmes, P.E. enclosures c: Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E. Eggleston Environmental Alan Yameen, Angus Realty Corporation both with enclosures ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Correspondence Eggleston Environmental 32 Old Framingham Rd Unit 29 Sudbury MA 01776 tel 508.259.1137 fax 866.820.7840 August 14, 2013 North Andover Planning Board 1600 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Judy Tymon, Town Planner North Andover Conservation Commission 1600 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Attn: Jennifer Hughes, Conservation Coordinator RE: Butcher Boy Marketplace, 1077 Osgood Street Stormwater Management Review Dear Ms. Tymon, Ms. Hughes and Board Members: Per your request, I have reviewed the August 2, 2013 Response to Comments and revised plans and calculations submitted by Lynnfield Engineering for the proposed Pentucket Bank at the Butcher Boy Marketplace (1077 Osgood Street), with respect to stormwater management. My comments on the revised submittal are summarized below: 1. As noted in my previous comments and those from Tom Maguire of DEP, the subsurface detention basin is not an acceptable water quality BMP, it merely provides attenuation of runoff flows. The revised plan reflects this fact and instead calls for treating the water quality volume through a Contech Stormfilter unit. The Stormfilter is a proprietary media filter and, per Chapter 4 of the Stormwater Handbook, can be an acceptable form of treatment where LID or traditional BMPs are not suitable, and where adequate documentation of the proposed BMP’s effectiveness and design parameters is provided. However, such devices are not appropriate for terminal treatment for runoff from Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs) or discharges near or to Critical Areas. Since the project site as a whole is a LUHPPL and further since the DEP Handbook does require that consideration be given to the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques for managing stormwater I would encourage the Applicants to look at alternative means of providing treatment, such as a lined biofiltration system. If the proposal to use the proprietary media filter is to be advanced, the necessary documentation will need to be submitted, including design information demonstrating that the units have been sized to handle the water quality volume (flow equivalent) and that the system has been designed to deliver that flow to the units. 2. The water quality volume calculations should also be revised to document that the water quality volume (flow equivalent) is being treated in the proposed treatment Butcher Boy Marketplace, Stormwater Review 2 August 14, 2013 structures, e.g. the CDS units and Stormfilter. Storage in the subsurface detention systems toward meeting the water quality volume. 3. The HydroCAD analysis does not account for the overflow weirs in the outlet control structures PDMH3 and PDMH5. 4. The HydroCAD analysis also does not account for the splitting of flows through the water quality structures, and it is difficult to see how the water quality volume (flow equivalent) is going to be effectively diverted through the treatment structures and that the water quality structures will be bypassed during high flows. The reach chart on Sheet C-6 shows the pipes to PWQ1 and PWQ2 as 12 inches and does not identify the size of the overflow lines. In addition, the diversion drain manhole detail on Sheet C-11 shows the “overflow weirs” to be between 0.36 inches and 3.6 inches high; this is hardly sufficient height to effectively split the flow, especially if there is any sort of turbulence. 5. It is not clear why the roof drain overflows cannot discharge directly to the subsurface detention basins, thereby improving the overall effectiveness of the CDS pretreatment units. Otherwise the roof drain connections need to be shown on the diversion manhole details. 6. The revised plan includes compensatory recharge for the increased impervious area to be provided in the existing Butcher Boy parking lot in an area outside of the Zone A. The plan calls for taking two existing catchbasins offline, replacing them with deep sump hooded structures, and directing the flow through an isolator row for pretreatment before infiltration, therefore it also provides a net improvement by reducing the volume of untreated runoff leaving the existing site. 7. I have been contacted by a representative of Pentucket Bank regarding the proposed use of coated metal roofing on the bank building. While my understanding is that the primary concern is with (uncoated) galvanized metal and copper roofing, the DEP Handbook does specifically prohibit infiltration of runoff from any metal roof in a Critical Area. I don’t have the expertise to determine whether a specific product meets the intent of this prohibition, therefore I recommend that the applicants pursue the issue with the Massachusetts DEP (e.g. through Tom Maguire) to get a determination of whether the proposed product is acceptable. 8. The O&M Budget should include periodic replacement of the Stormfilter media cartridges as is called for in the manufacturer’s maintenance guidelines. 9. Catchbasins and hydrodynamic separator units should be cleaned a minimum of once per year, not just based on inspections. Butcher Boy Marketplace, Stormwater Review 3 August 14, 2013 10. The O&M Plan should specifically include inspections and maintenance of the Isolator Row. Access to the isolator row to perform such inspections/maintenance is also needed. 11. The O&M plan should include a simple figure (not design plans) clearly showing the locations of all BMP structures to be maintained on the Butcher Boy site. Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to assist the North Andover Conservation Commission and Planning Board with the review of this project, and hope that this information is suitable for your needs. Please feel free to contact me if you or the applicants have any questions regarding the issues addressed herein. Sincerely, EGGLESTON ENVIRONMENTAL Lisa D. Eggleston, P.E. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 • Table LUHPPL Standard 5 Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook • State of New Jersey MTD Field Test Certification • UMASS Amherst MASTEP Technology Review • NJCAT Technology Verification Stormwater Management Stormfilter Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Volume 1: Overview of Massachusetts Stormwater Standards Chapter 1 Page 14 Best Management Practices for Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (Standard 5) • Discharges from certain land uses with higher potential pollutant loads may be subject to additional requirements including the need to obtain an individual or general discharge permit pursuant to the MA Clean Waters Act or Federal Clean Water Act. • All proponents must implement source control and pollution prevention. • All BMPs shall be designed in accordance with specifications and sizing methodologies in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Volumes 2 and 3. • The required water quality volume equals 1 inch times the total impervious area of the post-development site. • Many land uses have the potential to generate higher potential pollutant loads of oil and grease. These land uses include, without limitation, industrial machinery and equipment and railroad equipment maintenance, log storage and sorting yards, aircraft maintenance areas, railroad yards, fueling stations, vehicle maintenance and repair, construction businesses, paving, heavy equipment storage and/or maintenance, the storage of petroleum products, high-intensity-use parking lots, and fleet storage areas. To treat the runoff from such land uses, the following BMPs must be used to pretreat the runoff prior to discharge to an infiltration structure: an oil grit separator, a sand filter, organic filter, filtering bioretention area, or equivalent. • At least 44% TSS removal is required prior to discharge to an infiltration device. • Until they complete the STEP or TARP verification process outlined in Volume 2, proprietary BMPs may not be used as a terminal treatment device for runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads. For purposes of this requirement, subsurface structures, even those that have a storage chamber that has been manufactured are not considered propriety BMPs, since the treatment occurs in the soil below the structure, not in the structure. Pretreatment Deep Sump Catch Basin Oil Grit Separator Proprietary Separators: See Volume 2 Chapter 4 Sediment Forebays Vegetated Filter Strip (must be lined) Treatment Sand Filters, Organic Filters, Proprietary Media Filters, Wet Basins, Filtering Bioretention Areas, and Extended Dry Detention Basins must be lined and sealed unless at least 44% of TSS has been removed prior to discharge to the BMP. Filtering Bioretention Areas including rain gardens Constructed Stormwater Wetlands Dry Water Quality Swales Extended Dry Detention Basins Gravel Wetlands Proprietary Media Filter. (Does not include catch basin inserts) (Proprietary Media Filters may be used for terminal treatment for runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads, only if verified for such use by the TARP or STEP process. See Volume 2.) Sand /Organic Filters Wet Basins Infiltration Exfiltrating Bioretention Areas including rain garden Infiltration Basins Infiltration Trenches Leaching Catch Basins Subsurface Structures Table LUHPPL. Standard 5 Derek Berg 200 Enterprise Drive Scarborough, ME 04074 Re: MTD Field Test Certification for the Stormwater Management StormFilter by CONTECH Construction Products, Inc. Effective Date: September 1, 2011 Expiration Date: December 1, 2016 TSS Removal Rate: 80% Dear Mr. Berg: The Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:8 allow the use of manufactured treatment devices (MTDs) for compliance with the design and performance standards provided that the pollutant removal rates have been verified by New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology, NJCAT, and certified by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The certification process was revised through the "Transition for Manufactured Treatment Devices," dated July 15, 2011. NJDEP has determined that Stormwater Management StormFilter by CONTECH Construction Products, Inc. is consistent with the criteria under B. Manufactured Treatment Devices with Field Certifications. Therefore, NJDEP certifies the use of the Stormwater Management StormFilter by CONTECH Construction Products, Inc. using a perlite media with an 80% TSS removal rate, provided that the project design is consistent with the following conditions: 1. The various cartridge heights and associated water quality peak capacities shall be sized for the peak flow of the New Jersey Water Quality Design Storm per N.J.A.C. 7:8-5. 2. The peak inflow of the Water Quality Design Storm is limited to 2.05gpm/ft2. The maximum inflow area per cartridge is limited to the impervious area as shown in Table 1. New Jersey is an Equal Opportunely Employer. Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable n. L 3 ,$tate of Ntia JErug DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CHRIS CHRISTIE 401-02B BOB MARTIN Governor Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control Commissioner Division of Water Quality KIM GUADAGNO Post Office Box 420 Lt. Governor Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0420 609-633-7021 Fax: 609-777-0432 http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/bnpc home.hun August 31, 2011 Derek Berg 200 Enterprise Drive Scarborough, ME 04074 Re: MTD Field Test Certification for the Stormwater Management StormFilter by CONTECH Construction Products, Inc. Effective Date: September 1, 2011 Expiration Date: December 1, 2016 TSS Removal Rate: 80% Dear Mr. Berg: The Stormwater Management Rules at N.J.A.C. 7:8 allow the use of manufactured treatment devices (MTDs) for compliance with the design and performance standards provided that the pollutant removal rates have been verified by New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology, NJCAT, and certified by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). The certification process was revised through the "Transition for Manufactured Treatment Devices," dated July 15, 2011. NJDEP has determined that Stormwater Management StormFilter by CONTECH Construction Products, Inc. is consistent with the criteria under B. Manufactured Treatment Devices with Field Certifications. Therefore, NJDEP certifies the use of the Stormwater Management StormFilter by CONTECH Construction Products, Inc. using a perlite media with an 80% TSS removal rate, provided that the project design is consistent with the following conditions: 1. The various cartridge heights and associated water quality peak capacities shall be sized for the peak flow of the New Jersey Water Quality Design Storm per N.J.A.C. 7:8-5. 2. The peak inflow of the Water Quality Design Storm is limited to 2.05gpm/ft2. The maximum inflow area per cartridge is limited to the impervious area as shown in Table 1. New Jersey is an Equal Opportunely Employer. Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable Table 1 Cartridge :Height (in). 12 18 27 Sediment load. Capacity @ 2gpm/ft2 Obs) 22 34 51 Maximum Allowable Inflow Area (acres). 0.11. 0.17 0.255 3. The system must be designed to ensure that the draindown time for the Water Quality Design Storm does not exceed thirty-six (36) hours. 4. The Stormwater Management StormFilter cartridges must provide a minimum sediment load capacity for the various cartridge heights as shown in Table 1. 5. The Stormwater Management StormFilter is certified as an off-line system. Any flow above the New Jersey Water Quality Design Storm must be bypassed around the system. 6. This certification does not extend to the enhanced removal rates under N.J.A.C. 7:8 — 5.5 through the addition of settling chambers (such as hydrodynamic separators) or media filtration practices (such as a sand filter). 7. The maintenance plan for the sites using this device shall incorporate at a minimum, the maintenance requirements for the Stormwater Management StormFilter shown attached. In addition to the attached, any project with a Stormwater BMP subject to the Stormwater Management Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:8, must include a detailed maintenance plan. The detailed maintenance plan must include all of the items identified in Stormwater Management Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.8. Such items include, but are not limited to, the list of inspection and maintenance equipment and tools, specific corrective and preventative maintenance tasks, indication of problems in the system, and training of maintenance personnel. Additional information can be found in Chapter 8: Maintenance of the New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Manual. NJDEP anticipates proposing further adjustments to this process through the readoption of the Stormwater Management Rules. Additional information regarding the implementation of the Stormwater Management Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:8, are available at www.njstormwater.org. If you have any questions regarding the above information, please contact Ms. Sandra Blick of my office at (609) 633-7021. Sincerely, Ed Frankel, P.P., Acting Bureau Chief Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control C: Richard S. Magee, NJCAT Chron file StormFilter Inspection and Maintenance Procedures wi LVLY A4��11�/ Maintenance Guidelines The primary purpose of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® is to filter out and prevent pollutants from entering our waterways. Like any effective filtration system, periodically these pollutants must be removed to restore the StormFilter to its full efficiency and effectiveness. Maintenance requirements and frequency are dependent on the pollutant load characteristics of each site. Maintenance activities may be required in the event of a chemical spill or due to excessive sediment loading from site erosion or extreme storms. It is a good practice to inspect the system after major storm events. Maintenance Procedures Although there are likely many effective maintenance options, we believe the following procedure is efficient and can be implemented using common equipment and existing maintenance protocols. A two step procedure is recommended as follows: I. Inspection Inspection of the vault interior to determine the need for maintenance. 2. Maintenance Cartridge replacement Sediment removal Inspection and Maintenance Timing At least one scheduled inspection should take place per year with maintenance following as warranted. First, an inspection should be done before the winter season. During the inspection the need for maintenance should be determined and, if disposal during maintenance will be required, samples of the accumulated sediments and media should be obtained. Second, if warranted, a maintenance (replacement of the filter cartridges and removal of accumulated sediments) should be performed during periods of dry weather. In addition to these two activities, it is important to check the condition of the StormFilter unit after major storms for potential damage caused by high flows and for high sediment accumulation that may be caused by localized erosion in the drainage area. It may be necessary to adjust the inspection/ maintenance schedule depending on the actual operating conditions encountered by the system. In general, inspection activities can be conducted at any time, and maintenance should occur, if warranted, in late summer to early fall when flows into the system are not likely to be present. Maintenance Frequency The primary factor controlling timing of maintenance of the StormFilter is sediment loading. A properly functioning system will remove solids from water by trapping particulates in the porous structure of the filter media inside the cartridges. The flow through the system will naturally decrease as more and more particulates are trapped. Eventually the flow through the cartridges will be low enough to require replacement. It may be possible to extend the usable span of the cartridges by removing sediment from upstream trapping devices on a routine as -needed basis in order to prevent material from being re -suspended and discharged to the StormFilter treatment system. Site conditions greatly influence maintenance requirements. StormFilter units located in areas with erosion or active construction may need to be inspected and maintained more often than those with fully stabilized surface conditions. The maintenance frequency may be adjusted as additional monitoring information becomes available during the inspection program. Areas that develop known problems should be inspected more frequently than areas that demonstrate no problems, particularly after major storms. Ultimately, inspection and maintenance activities should be scheduled based on the historic records and characteristics of an individual StormFilter system or site. It is recommended that the site owner develop a database to properly manage StormFilter inspection and maintenance programs. Prior to the development of the maintenance database, the following maintenance frequencies should be followed: Inspection One time per year After major storms Maintenance As needed, based on results of inspection (The average maintenance lifecycle is approximately 1-3 years) Per Regulatory requirement In the event of a chemical spill Frequencies should be updated as required. The recommended initial frequency for inspection is one time per year. StormFilter units should be inspected after major storms. Sediment removal and cartridge replacement on an as needed basis is recommended unless site conditions warrant. Once an understanding of site characteristics has been established, maintenance may not be needed for one to three years, but inspection is warranted and recommended annually. Inspection Procedures The primary goal of an inspection is to assess the condition of the cartridges relative to the level of visual sediment loading as it relates to decreased treatment capacity. It may be desirable to conduct this inspection during a storm to observe the relative flow through the filter cartridges. If the submerged cartridges are severely plugged, then typically large amounts of sediments will be present and very little flow will be discharged from the drainage pipes. If this is the case, then maintenance is warranted and the cartridges need to be replaced. Warning: In the case of a spill, the worker should abort inspection activities until the proper guidance is obtained. Notify the local hazard control agency and CONTECH Stormwater Solutions immediately. To conduct an inspection: Important: Inspection should"be performed by a person who is familiar with the operation and configuration of the Storm Filter treatment unit' 1. If applicable, setup safety equipment to protect and notify surrounding vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 2. Visually inspect the external condition of the unit and take notes concerning defects/problems. 3. Open the access portals to the vault and allow the system vent. 4. Without entering the vault, visually inspect the inside of the unit, and note accumulations of liquids and solids. 5. Be sure to record the level of sediment build-up on the floor of the vault, in the forebay, and on top of the cartridges. If flow is occurring, note the flowbf water per drainage pipe. Record all observations. Digital pictures are valuable for historical documentation. 6. Close and fasten the access portals. 7. Remove safety equipment. 8. If appropriate, make notes about the local drainage area relative to ongoing construction, erosion problems, or high loading of other materials to the system. 9. Discuss conditions that suggest maintenance and make decision as to weather or not maintenance is needed. Maintenance Decision Tree The need for maintenance is Typically based on results of the inspection. The following Maintenance Decision Tree should be used as a general guide. (Other factors, such as Regulatory Requirements, may need to be considered) 1. Sediment loading on the vault floor. - _a. If >4" of accumulated sediment, maintenance is required. 2. Sediment loading on top of the cartridge. a. If > 1/4" of accumulation, maintenance is required. 3. Submerged cartridges. If >4" of static water in the cartridge bay for more that 24 hours after end of rain event, maintenance is required. 4. Plugged media. a. If pore space between media granules is absent, maintenance is required. 5. Bypass condition. a. If inspection is conducted during an average rain fall event and StormFilter remains in bypass condition (water over the internal outlet baffle wall or submerged cartridges), maintenance is required. 6. Hazardous material release. a. If hazardous material release (automotive fluids or other) is reported, maintenance is required. 7. Pronounced scum line. a. If pronounced scum line (say ? 1/4" thick) is present above top cap, maintenance is required. 8. Calendar Lifecycle. a. If system has not been maintained for 3 years maintenance is required. Assumptions • No rainfall for 24 hours or more • No upstream detention (at least not draining into StormFilter) • Structure is online • Outlet pipe is clear of obstruction • Construction bypass is plugged Maintenance Depending on the configuration of the particular system, maintenance personnel will be required to enter the vault to perform the maintenance. Important: If vault entry is required, OSHA rules for confined space entry must be followed. Filter cartridge replacement should occur during dry weather. It maybe necessary to plug the filter inlet pipe if base flows is occurring. Replacement cartridges can be delivered to the site or customers facility. Information concerning how to obtain the replacement cartridges is available from CONTECH Stormwater Solutions. Warning: In the case of a spill, the maintenance personnel should abort maintenance activities until the proper guidance is obtained. Notify the local hazard control agency and CONTECH Stormwater Solutions immediately. To conduct cartridge replacement and sediment removal maintenance: 1. If applicable, set up safety equipment to protect maintenance personnel and pedestrians from site hazards. 2. Visually inspect the external condition of the unit and take notes concerning defects/problems. 3. Open the doors (access portals) to the vault and allow the system to vent. 4. Without entering the vault, give the inside of the unit, including components, a general condition inspection. 5. Make notes about the external and internal condition of the vault. Give particular attention to recording the level of sediment build-up on the floor of the vault, in the forebay, and on top of the internal components. 6. Using appropriate equipment offload the replacement cartridges (up to 150 lbs. each) and set aside. 7. Remove used cartridges from the vault using one of the following methods: Method 1: A. This activity will require that maintenance personnel enter the vault to remove the cartridges from the under drain manifold and place them under the vault opening for lifting (removal). Unscrew (counterclockwise rotations) each filter cartridge from the underdrain connector. Roll the loose cartridge, on edge, to a convenient spot beneath the vault access. Using appropriate hoisting equipment, attach a cable from the boom, crane, or tripod to the loose cartridge. Contact CONTECH Stormwater Solutions for suggested attachment devices. B. Remove the used cartridges (up to 250 lbs. each) from the vault. Important: Care must bevsed to' avoid daihagingthe, cartridges during removal and installation: The cost of repairingcomponentsdaht aged during maintenance wilt be the responsibility of the owner unless CONTECH Stormwater Solutions performs.the maintenance activities and damage is not related to discharges to the system. C. Set the used cartridge aside or load onto the hauling truck. D. Continue steps a through c until all cartridges have been removed. Method 2: A. Enter the vault using appropriate confined space protocols. B. Unscrew the cartridge cap. C. Remove the cartridge hood screws (3) hood and float. D. At location under structure access, tip the cartridge on its side. Important; Note that cartridges containing media other than the leaf media require unscrewing from their threaded connectors. Take care not to damage the manifold connectors. This connector should remain installed in the manifold and capped if necessary. D. Empty the cartridge onto the vault floor. Reassemble the empty cartridge. E. Set the empty, used cartridge aside or load onto the .hauling truck. Continue steps a through e until all cartridges have been removed. 8. Remove accumulated sediment from the floor of the vault and from the forebay. This can most effectively be accomplished by use of a vacuum truck. 9. Once the sediments are removed, assess the condition of the vault and the condition of the connectors. The connectors are short sections of 2 -inch schedule 40 PVC, or threaded schedule 80 PVC that should protrude about 1" above the floor of the vault. Lightly wash down the vault interior. a. If desired, apply a light coating of FDA approved silicon lube to the outside of the exposed portion of the connectors. This ensures a watertight connection between the cartridge and the drainage pipe. b. Replace any damaged connectors. 10. Using the vacuum truck boom, crane, or tripod, lower and install the new cartridges. Once again, take care not to damage connections. 11. Close and fasten the door. 12. Remove safety equipment. 13. Finally, dispose of the accumulated materials in accordance with applicable regulations. Make arrangements to return the used empty cartridges to CONTECH Stormwater Solutions. Related Maintenance activities - Performed on an as -needed basis StormFilter units are often just one of many structures in a more comprehensive stormwater drainage and treatment system. In order for maintenance of the StormFilter to be successful, it is imperative that all other components be properly maintained. The maintenance/repair of upstream facilities should be carried out prior to StormFilter maintenance activities. In addition to considering upstream facilities, it is also important to correct any problems identified in the drainage area. Drainage area concerns may include: erosion problems, heavy oil loading, and discharges of inappropriate materials. RECY PAPERED Material Disposal The accumulated sediment found in stormwater treatment and conveyance systems must be handled and disposed of in accordance with regulatory protocols. It is possible for sediments to contain measurable concentrations of heavy metals and organic chemicals (such as pesticides and petroleum products). Areas with the greatest potential for high pollutant loading include industrial areas and heavily traveled roads. Sediments and water must be disposed of in accordance with all applicable waste disposal regulations. When scheduling maintenance, consideration must be made for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes. This typically requires coordination with a local landfill for solid waste disposal. For liquid waste disposal a number of options are available including a municipal vacuum truck decant facility, local waste water treatment plant or on-site treatment and discharge. OONTM 800.925.5240 co ntechstormwater. co m Support • Drawings and specifications are available at contechstormwater.com. • Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. ©2007 CONTECH stormwater Solutions CONTECH Construction Products Inc. provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. CONTECH's portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater and earth stabilization products. For information on other CONTECH division offerings, visit contech-cpi.com or call 800.338.1122 Nothing in this catalog should be construed as an expressed warranty or an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. See the CONTECH standard quotation or acknowledgement for applicable warranties and othenterms and conditions of sale. i en ort Date: Personnel: Location: System Size: System Type: Vault ❑ Cast -In -Place ❑ Linear Catch Basin ❑ Manhole ❑ Other ❑ Sediment Thickness in Forebay: Date: Sediment Depth on Vault Floor: Structural Damage: Estimated Flow from Drainage Pipes (if available): - Cartridges Submerged: Yes ❑ No ❑ Depth of Standing Water: Storm Filter Maintenance Activities (check off if done and give description) ❑ Trash and Debris Removal: ❑ Minor Structural Repairs: ❑ Drainage Area Report Excessive Oil Loading: Yes ❑ No ❑ Source: Sediment Accumulation on Pavement: Yes ❑ No ❑ Source: - Erosion of Landscaped Areas: Yes ❑ No ❑ Source: - Items Needing Further Work: - - Owners should contact the local public works department residuals. and inquire about how the department disposes of their street waste Other Comments: - Review the condition reports from the previous inspection visits. Date: Personnel: Location: System Size: _ System Type: Vault ❑ Cast -In -Place ❑ List Safety Procedures and Equipment Used: System observations Months in Service: Oil in forebay: Sediment Depth in Forebay Sediment Depth on Vault Floor: Structural Damage: Drainage Area Report Excessive Oil Loading: Sediment Accumulation on Pavement Erosion of Landscaped Areas: =nceRep6it!'"' ` No ❑ i Linear Catch Basin ❑ Manhole ❑ Other ❑ I Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Source: Yes ❑ No ❑ Source: Yes ❑ No ❑ Source: StormFilter Cartridge Replacement Maintenance Activities Remove Trash and Debris: Yes ❑ No ❑ Details: Replace Cartridges: Yes ❑ No ❑ Details: Sediment Removed: Yes ❑ No ❑ Details: Quantity of Sediment Removed (estimate?): Minor Structural Repairs: Yes ❑ No ❑ Details: Residuals (debris, sediment) Disposal Methods:__. Notes StormFilter Inspection and Maintenance Procedures In addition to these two activities, it is important to check the condition of the StormFilter unit after major storms for potential damage caused by high flows and for high sediment accumulation that may be caused by localized erosion in the drainage area. It may be necessary to adjust the inspection/ maintenance schedule depending on the actual operating conditions encountered by the system. In general, inspection activities can be conducted at any time, and maintenance should occur, if warranted, in late summer to early fall when flows into the system are not likely to be present. Maintenance Frequency The primary factor controlling timing of maintenance of the StormFilter is sediment loading. A properly functioning system will remove solids from water by trapping particulates in the porous structure of the filter media inside the cartridges. The flow through the system will naturally decrease as more and more particulates are trapped. Eventually the flow through the cartridges will be low enough to require replacement. It may be possible to extend the usable span of the cartridges by removing sediment from upstream trapping devices on a routine as-needed basis in order to prevent material from being re-suspended and discharged to the StormFilter treatment system. Site conditions greatly influence maintenance requirements. StormFilter units located in areas with erosion or active construction may need to be inspected and maintained more often than those with fully stabilized surface conditions. The maintenance frequency may be adjusted as additional monitoring information becomes available during the inspection program. Areas that develop known problems should be inspected more frequently than areas that demonstrate no problems, particularly after major storms. Ultimately, inspection and maintenance activities should be scheduled based on the historic records and characteristics of an individual StormFilter system or site. It is recommended that the site owner develop a database to properly manage StormFilter inspection and maintenance programs. Prior to the development of the maintenance database, the following maintenance frequencies should be followed: Inspection One time per year After major storms Maintenance As needed, based on results of inspection (The average maintenance lifecycle is approximately 1-3 years) Per Regulatory requirement In the event of a chemical spill Frequencies should be updated as required. The recommended initial frequency for inspection is one time per year. StormFilter units should be inspected after major storms. 2 3 Maintenance Guidelines The primary purpose of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® is to filter out and prevent pollutants from entering our waterways. Like any effective filtration system, periodically these pollutants must be removed to restore the StormFilter to its full efficiency and effectiveness. Maintenance requirements and frequency are dependent on the pollutant load characteristics of each site. Maintenance activities may be required in the event of a chemical spill or due to excessive sediment loading from site erosion or extreme storms. It is a good practice to inspect the system after major storm events. Maintenance Procedures Although there are likely many effective maintenance options, we believe the following procedure is efficient and can be implemented using common equipment and existing maintenance protocols. A two step procedure is recommended as follows: 1. Inspection Inspection of the vault interior to determine the need for maintenance. 2. Maintenance Cartridge replacement Sediment removal Inspection and Maintenance Timing At least one scheduled inspection should take place per year with maintenance following as warranted. First, an inspection should be done before the winter season. During the inspection the need for maintenance should be determined and, if disposal during maintenance will be required, samples of the accumulated sediments and media should be obtained. Second, if warranted, a maintenance (replacement of the filter cartridges and removal of accumulated sediments) should be performed during periods of dry weather. 2 3 Sediment removal and cartridge replacement on an as needed basis is recommended unless site conditions warrant. Once an understanding of site characteristics has been established, maintenance may not be needed for one to three years, but inspection is warranted and recommended annually. Inspection Procedures The primary goal of an inspection is to assess the condition of the cartridges relative to the level of visual sediment loading as it relates to decreased treatment capacity. It may be desirable to conduct this inspection during a storm to observe the relative flow through the filter cartridges. If the submerged cartridges are severely plugged, then typically large amounts of sediments will be present and very little flow will be discharged from the drainage pipes. If this is the case, then maintenance is warranted and the cartridges need to be replaced. Warning: In the case of a spill, the worker should abort inspection activities until the proper guidance is obtained. Notify the local hazard control agency and CONTECH Construction Products immediately. To conduct an inspection: Important: Inspection should be performed by a person who is familiar with the operation and configuration of the StormFilter treatment unit. 1. If applicable, set up safety equipment to protect and notify surrounding vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 2. Visually inspect the external condition of the unit and take notes concerning defects/problems. 3. Open the access portals to the vault and allow the system vent. 4. Without entering the vault, visually inspect the inside of the unit, and note accumulations of liquids and solids. 5. Be sure to record the level of sediment build-up on the floor of the vault, in the forebay, and on top of the cartridges. If flow is occurring, note the flow of water per drainage pipe. Record all observations. Digital pictures are valuable for historical documentation. 6. Close and fasten the access portals. 7. Remove safety equipment. 8. If appropriate, make notes about the local drainage area relative to ongoing construction, erosion problems, or high loading of other materials to the system. 9. Discuss conditions that suggest maintenance and make decision as to weather or not maintenance is needed. Maintenance Decision Tree The need for maintenance is typically based on results of the inspection. The following Maintenance Decision Tree should be used as a general guide. (Other factors, such as Regulatory Requirements, may need to be considered) 1. Sediment loading on the vault floor. a. If >4” of accumulated sediment, maintenance is required. 2. Sediment loading on top of the cartridge. a. If >1/4” of accumulation, maintenance is required. 3. Submerged cartridges. a. If >4” of static water in the cartridge bay for more that 24 hours after end of rain event, maintenance is required. 4. Plugged media. a. If pore space between media granules is absent, maintenance is required. 5. Bypass condition. a. If inspection is conducted during an average rain fall event and StormFilter remains in bypass condition (water over the internal outlet baffle wall or submerged cartridges), maintenance is required. 6. Hazardous material release. a. If hazardous material release (automotive fluids or other) is reported, maintenance is required. 7. Pronounced scum line. a. If pronounced scum line (say ≥ 1/4” thick) is present above top cap, maintenance is required. 8. Calendar Lifecycle. a. If system has not been maintained for 3 years maintenance is required. Important: Note that cartridges containing leaf media (CSF) do not require unscrewing from their connectors. Take care not to damage the manifold connectors. This connector should remain installed in the manifold and could be capped during the maintenance activity to prevent sediments from entering the underdrain manifold. B. Remove the used cartridges (up to 250 lbs. each) from the vault. Important: Care must be used to avoid damaging the cartridges during removal and installation. The cost of repairing components damaged during maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner unless CONTECH Construction Products performs the maintenance activities and damage is not related to discharges to the system. C. Set the used cartridge aside or load onto the hauling truck. D. Continue steps a through c until all cartridges have been removed. Method 2: A. Enter the vault using appropriate confined space protocols. B. Unscrew the cartridge cap. C. Remove the cartridge hood screws (3) hood and float. D. At location under structure access, tip the cartridge on its side. 4 5 Assumptions • No rainfall for 24 hours or more • No upstream detention (at least not draining into StormFilter) • Structure is online • Outlet pipe is clear of obstruction • Construction bypass is plugged Maintenance Depending on the configuration of the particular system, maintenance personnel will be required to enter the vault to perform the maintenance. Important: If vault entry is required, OSHA rules for confined space entry must be followed. Filter cartridge replacement should occur during dry weather. It may be necessary to plug the filter inlet pipe if base flows is occurring. Replacement cartridges can be delivered to the site or customers facility. Information concerning how to obtain the replacement cartridges is available from CONTECH Construction Products. Warning: In the case of a spill, the maintenance personnel should abort maintenance activities until the proper guidance is obtained. Notify the local hazard control agency and CONTECH Construction Products immediately. To conduct cartridge replacement and sediment removal maintenance: 1. If applicable, set up safety equipment to protect maintenance personnel and pedestrians from site hazards. 2. Visually inspect the external condition of the unit and take notes concerning defects/problems. 3. Open the doors (access portals) to the vault and allow the system to vent. 4. Without entering the vault, give the inside of the unit, including components, a general condition inspection. 5. Make notes about the external and internal condition of the vault. Give particular attention to recording the level of sediment build-up on the floor of the vault, in the forebay, and on top of the internal components. 6. Using appropriate equipment offload the replacement cartridges (up to 150 lbs. each) and set aside. 7. Remove used cartridges from the vault using one of the following methods: Method 1: A. This activity will require that maintenance personnel enter the vault to remove the cartridges from the under drain manifold and place them under the vault opening for lifting (removal). Unscrew (counterclockwise rotations) each filter cartridge from the underdrain connector. Roll the loose cartridge, on edge, to a convenient spot beneath the vault access. Using appropriate hoisting equipment, attach a cable from the boom, crane, or tripod to the loose cartridge. Contact CONTECH Construction Products for suggested attachment devices. 4 5 Important: Note that cartridges containing media other than the leaf media require unscrewing from their threaded connectors. Take care not to damage the manifold connectors. This connector should remain installed in the manifold and capped if necessary. D. Empty the cartridge onto the vault floor. Reassemble the empty cartridge. E. Set the empty, used cartridge aside or load onto the hauling truck. F. Continue steps a through e until all cartridges have been removed. 8. Remove accumulated sediment from the floor of the vault and from the forebay. This can most effectively be accomplished by use of a vacuum truck. 9. Once the sediments are removed, assess the condition of the vault and the condition of the connectors. The connectors are short sections of 2-inch schedule 40 PVC, or threaded schedule 80 PVC that should protrude about 1” above the floor of the vault. Lightly wash down the vault interior. a. Replace any damaged connectors. 10. Using the vacuum truck boom, crane, or tripod, lower and install the new cartridges. Once again, take care not to damage connections. 11. Close and fasten the door. 12. Remove safety equipment. 13. Finally, dispose of the accumulated materials in accordance with applicable regulations. Make arrangements to return the used empty cartridges to CONTECH Construction Products. Related Maintenance Activities - Performed on an as-needed basis StormFilter units are often just one of many structures in a more comprehensive stormwater drainage and treatment system. In order for maintenance of the StormFilter to be successful, it is imperative that all other components be properly maintained. The maintenance/repair of upstream facilities should be carried out prior to StormFilter maintenance activities. In addition to considering upstream facilities, it is also important to correct any problems identified in the drainage area. Drainage area concerns may include: erosion problems, heavy oil loading, and discharges of inappropriate materials. Material Disposal The accumulated sediment found in stormwater treatment and conveyance systems must be handled and disposed of in accordance with regulatory protocols. It is possible for sediments to contain measurable concentrations of heavy metals and organic chemicals (such as pesticides and petroleum products). Areas with the greatest potential for high pollutant loading include industrial areas and heavily traveled roads. Sediments and water must be disposed of in accordance with all applicable waste disposal regulations. When scheduling maintenance, consideration must be made for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes. This typically requires coordination with a local landfill for solid waste disposal. For liquid waste disposal a number of options are available including a municipal vacuum truck decant facility, local waste water treatment plant or on-site treatment and discharge. 800.338.1122 www.contech-cpi.com Support • Drawings and specifications are available at contechstormwater.com. • Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. ©2009 CONTECH Construction Products Inc. CONTECH Construction Products Inc. provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. CONTECH’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater and earth stabilization products. For information on other CONTECH division offerings, visit contech-cpi.com or call 800.338.1122 Nothing in this catalog should be construed as an expressed warranty or an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. See the CONTECH standard quotation or acknowledgement for applicable warranties and other terms and conditions of sale. The product(s) described may be protected by one or more of the following US patents: 5,322,629; 5,624,576; 5,707,527; 5,759,415; 5,788,848; 5,985,157; 6,027,639; 6,350,374; 6,406,218; 6,641,720; 6,511,595; 6,649,048; 6,991,114; 6,998,038; 7,186,058; related foreign patents or other patents pending. Inspection Report Date: —————————————Personnel: ———————————————————————————————————— Location: ————————————System Size: ——————————————————————————————————— System Type: Vault Cast-In-Place Linear Catch Basin Manhole Other Sediment Thickness in Forebay: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Sediment Depth on Vault Floor: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Structural Damage: ———————————————————————————————————————————————— Estimated Flow from Drainage Pipes (if available): ———————————————————————————————————— Cartridges Submerged: Yes No Depth of Standing Water: —————————————————————— StormFilter Maintenance Activities (check off if done and give description) Trash and Debris Removal: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Minor Structural Repairs: ———————————————————————————————————————————— Drainage Area Report ————————————————————————————————————————————— Excessive Oil Loading: Yes No Source: ——————————————————————— Sediment Accumulation on Pavement: Yes No Source: ——————————————————————— Erosion of Landscaped Areas: Yes No Source: ——————————————————————— Items Needing Further Work: ———————————————————————————————————————————— Owners should contact the local public works department and inquire about how the department disposes of their street waste residuals. Other Comments: ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Date: Review the condition reports from the previous inspection visits. StormFilter Maintenance Report Date: —————————————Personnel: ———————————————————————————————————— Location: ————————————System Size: ——————————————————————————————————— System Type: Vault Cast-In-Place Linear Catch Basin Manhole Other List Safety Procedures and Equipment Used: —————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— System Observations Months in Service: Oil in Forebay: Yes No Sediment Depth in Forebay: ————————————————————————————————————————————— Sediment Depth on Vault Floor: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Structural Damage: ———————————————————————————————————————————————— Drainage Area Report Excessive Oil Loading: Yes No Source: ————————————————————————— Sediment Accumulation on Pavement: Yes No Source: ————————————————————————— Erosion of Landscaped Areas: Yes No Source: ————————————————————————— StormFilter Cartridge Replacement Maintenance Activities Remove Trash and Debris: Yes No Details: —————————————————————————— Replace Cartridges: Yes No Details: —————————————————————————— Sediment Removed: Yes No Details: —————————————————————————— Quantity of Sediment Removed (estimate?): Minor Structural Repairs: Yes No Details: ————————————————————————— Residuals (debris, sediment) Disposal Methods: —————————————————————————————————————— Notes: —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Water Resources Research Center Page 1 University of Massachusetts – Amherst 1/25/2008 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AT AMHERST Water Resources Research Center Blaisdell House, UMass 310 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003 MASTEP Technology Review Massachusetts Stormwater Evaluation Project (413) 545-5532 (413) 545-2304 FAX www.mastep.net Technology Name: Stormwater Management StormFilter® Studies Reviewed: NJCAT Technology Verification Stormwater Management Stormfilter®, Contech Stormwater Solutions Inc. 2007; NJCAT Technology Verification Stormwater Management, Inc., 2002; Environmental Technology Verification Report - Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device – The Stormwater Management StormFilter® using Perlite Filter Media, 2005; Environmental Technology Verification Report - Stormwater Source Area Treatment Device – The Stormwater Management StormFilter® using ZPG Filter Media, 2004; St. Clair Shores Catch Basin Insert Evaluation Project, 2005. Date: January 9, 2008 Reviewer: Jerry Schoen Rating: 1 Brief rationale for rating: This rating is based on the 2007 NJCAT study; it is for TSS and SSC only. The study did not quite monitor 50% average annual rainfall (43% monitored), and used an unfortunately small sample size to calculate particle size distribution. Otherwise, this was a sound, robust study that monitored 16 storms and 17.13” of precipitation over an 18 month period. Study design, methods and results are all well documented and essentially in accordance with TARP Tier II field protocols. The 80% sediment removal rate reported is considered valid under the conditions encountered. Other Comments: • Performance data for metals and nutrients did not meet TARP criteria in any of the studies, generally because of an insufficient number of samples. However, the collective results from these several studies provide a reasonable basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the Stormfilter in removing sediments, metals and nutrients. • Several different filter media were tested in the various studies The Stormwater Management Stormfilter has received: • Final Certification by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2007); • Verification from the Environmental Technology Verification program for the Stormfilter using Perlite media (2004); • Verification from the ETV program for the Stormfilter using ZPG media (2004); • General Use Level Determination from the Washington State Department of Ecology, for Basic TSS Treatment for the Stormfilter using ZPG filter media, (2005). • See table of removal efficiencies achieved from different studies, next page Center For Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Page 2 University of Massachusetts – Amherst February 11, 1999 Stormwater Management Stormfilter removal efficiencies achieved in different studies. Numbers are given as % removal efficiency. These numbers are provided for illustration purposes only. A direct comparison between different studies is not advised, due to differences in study methods and conditions encountered. See study report summaries and details for more information. ETV 2004 Milwaukee ETV 2005 Griffin GA NJ 2007 NJ * 2002 Coarse Perlite NJ* 2002 Fine- coarse P St Clair Shores study** Filter Media used ZPG Perlite Coarse Perlite Fine- coarse Perlite CSF Leaf litter MASTEP Study rating 2 2 1: TSS , SSC 2: others 3 3 3 TSS 46 80 (ER) 77 (SOL) 79 71 6 (ER) 11.4 (SOL) SSC 92 84 (ER) 80 (SOL) 13 (ER) 9.2 (SOL) Zinc 64 52 42 29 Lead 64 37 68 20 Copper 59 34 34 20 Cadmium 70 52 Nitrate 36 Nitrite -13 TKN 24 DPhos 42 TP 50 * = Lab study. Otherwise, field study ** St. Clair Shores study conducted on 4-cartridge catch basin insert configuration ER = Efficiency Ratio method. SOL = Summation Of Loads method. NJCAT TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STORMFILTER® CONTECH STORMWATER SOLUTIONS Inc. January 2007 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 4 1.1 NJCAT Program 4 1.2 Interim Certification 5 1.3 Applicant Profile 5 1.4 Key Contacts 6 2. Stormwater Management StormFilter® 7 3. Technology System Evaluation: Project Plan 10 3.1 Introduction 10 3.2 Site and System Description 10 3.3 Sampling Methods 12 3.4 Particle Size Distribution and Residual Solids Assessment Methods 15 3.5 Data Verification and Validation 16 4. Technology System Performance 16 4.1 Performance Measured Relative to Interim Certified Performance Claim 16 4.2 Suspended Solids Representativeness 20 4.3 System Hydraulics 23 4.4 Laboratory Mass Loading of Cartridge 23 4.5 Field Mass Loading of Cartridge and Maintenance 23 5. Performance Claim Verification 24 6. Net Environmental Benefit 26 7. References 27 Appendices Appendix A: Individual Storm Events Appendix B: Regression of EMC Analyses Appendix C: Residuals Analysis Appendix D: Monthly Rainfall Data 3 List of Tables Table 1. Analytical methods for analytical parameters of interest. 14 Table 2. Instances of contaminant detection in equipment rinsate blank and equipment field blank samples. Shaded Blank Types indicate the use of distilled water of a known quality as opposed to deionized water. 15 Table 3. Results of reconciliation of the storm events observed as part of the Greenville Yards StormFilter Field Evaluation Project. 17 Table 4. Summarized performance for Greenville Yards StormFilter. Refer to Table 1 for acronym definitions. 18 Table 5. Measured flow rate vs. design for bypass events 23 Table 6. System loading per maintenance event 24 List of Figures Figure 1. The Precast StormFilter 8 Figure 2. Aerial view of the portion of Greenville Yards being studied. Drainage area outlined 11 Figure 3. Greenville Yards StormFilter #6 (SF#6) 12 Figure 4. Significant influent relationships between solid analytes for Greenville Yards site. Refer to Table 1 for acronym definitions. Grouped solid and dashed lines illustrate linear regression and 95% confidence intervals. 19 Figure 5. Average and target PSD analyses within USDA Textural Triangle 22 Figure 6. Regression analysis of the observed SSC data. 25 Figure 7. Regression analysis of the observed TSS data. 25 Figure 8. Statistics for the claim and observations presented as normal probability density functions. 26 Figure 9. Distribution of the total mass of contaminants found within Greenville Yards StormFilter over the course of the study. These percentages do not directly indicate overall performance afforded by either the settling or filtering aspect of the StormFilter. 27 4 1. Introduction 1.1 New Jersey Corporation for Advance technology (NJCAT) Program NJCAT is a not-for-profit corporation to promote in New Jersey the retention and growth of technology-based businesses in emerging fields such as environmental and energy technologies. NJCAT provides innovators with the regulatory, commercial, technological and financial assistance required to bring their ideas to market successfully. Specifically, NJCAT functions to: • Advance policy strategies and regulatory mechanisms to promote technology commercialization; • Identify, evaluate, and recommend specific technologies for which the regulatory and commercialization process should be facilitated; • Facilitate funding and commercial relationships/alliances to bring new technologies to market and new business to the state; and • Assist in the identification of markets and applications for commercialized technologies. The technology verification program specifically encourages collaboration between vendors and users of technology. Through this program, teams of academic and business professionals are formed to implement a comprehensive evaluation of vendor specific performance claims. Thus, suppliers have the competitive edge of an independent third party confirmation of claims. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:1D-134 et seq. (Energy and Environmental Technology Verification Program) the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and NJCAT have established a Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA) whereby NJCAT performs the technology verification review and NJDEP certifies that the technology meets the regulatory intent and that there is a net beneficial environmental effect of the technology. In addition, NJDEP/NJCAT work in conjunction to develop expedited or more efficient timeframes for review and decision-making of permits or approvals associated with the verified/certified technology. The PPA also requires that: • The NJDEP shall enter into reciprocal environmental technology agreements concerning the evaluation and verification protocols with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, other local required or national environmental agencies, entities or groups in other states and New Jersey for the purpose of encouraging and permitting the reciprocal acceptance of technology data and information concerning the evaluation and verification of energy and environmental technologies; and • The NJDEP shall work closely with the State Treasurer to include in State bid specifications, as deemed appropriate by the State Treasurer, any technology verified under the Energy and Environment Technology Verification Program. 5 1.2 Interim Certification The Stormwater Management StormFilter® (StormFilter) is a Best Management Practice (BMP) designed to meet federal, state, and local requirements for treating stormwater runoff in compliance with the Clean Water Act. The StormFilter is typically comprised of a vault that houses rechargeable, media-filled, filter cartridges. Stormwater from storm drains is percolated through these media-filled cartridges, which trap particulates and remove pollutants such as suspended solids, metals, and nutrients. Once filtered through the media, the treated stormwater is directed to a collection pipe or discharged to an open channel drainage way. (See Section 2 for additional description of the technology.) Originally developed in 1995, the StormFilter technology has been subject to continuous improvement, with three patents covering the siphonic design used today by the over 2,000 cartridges installed in New Jersey (as of June 2006). CONTECH® Stormwater Solutions, Inc. (CONTECH) began the process of obtaining product approval in the State of New Jersey in 2001 by seeking verification by the New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT). The initial application did not contain a performance claim, prompting extensive laboratory evaluation of an individual StormFilter cartridge configured with perlite media and operating at a design cartridge filtration rate of 15 gal/min (57 L/min). This testing yielded substantive performance claims for a material with a sandy loam texture (CONTECH, 2001), identified by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) as the benchmark for stormwater suspended solids within their jurisdiction (NJDEP, 2006). This laboratory evaluation (21 runoff simulations at influent concentrations ranging from non-detect to 300 mg/L) was verified by NJCAT in June, 2002 and used to support a Conditional Interim Certification issued on September 20, 2002 by NJDEP (NJDEP 2002). The performance claim verified was as follows: “The StormFilter cartridge at 15 gallons per minute (gpm) using a coarse perlite media has been shown to have a TSS removal efficiency of 79% with 95% confidence limits of 78% and 80%, respectively for a sandy loam comprised of 55% sand, 40% silt, 5% clay (USDA) in laboratory studies using simulated storm water (Claim 1).” A major condition of Conditional Interim Certification by the NJDEP is the execution of a field trial conducted in accordance with TARP (2003) and NJDEP (2006) to verify performance relative to the certified claims. Accordingly, a Project Plan for field verification testing was completed in accordance with the applicable protocols and accepted in June 2004, resulting in the commencement of monitoring activities. In December 2004, Conditional Interim Certification was extended based upon demonstrable project progress. 1.3 Applicant Profile CONTECH offers a range of stormwater treatment products including filtration, hydrodynamic separation, volumetric separation, detention/retention, screening, oil/water separation, and flow control technologies. A knowledgeable team of 200 professionals across the U.S. provide the engineering and customer service support to determine a project’s most appropriate stormwater treatment system that meets the requirements of the relevant permitting jurisdiction. 6 At CONTECH’s state-of-the-art laboratories, engineers and scientists conduct ongoing research to further the understanding of non-point source pollution and develop practical product solutions. CONTECH helps its customers achieve their water quality goals by providing treatment technologies that remove a variety of pollutants from stormwater runoff. These stormwater treatment products are specifically designed to meet federal, state, and local regulations. Former CONTECH subsidiaries Vortechnics (2004) and Stormwater Management, Inc. (2005) combined to form Stormwater360 (2006), and later became CONTECH Stormwater Solutions, Inc. a division of CONTECH Construction Products Inc. In December 2006, CDS Technologies, Inc. was added into CONTECH Stormwater Solutions product offerings. CONTECH Stormwater Solutions has four primary regional offices that service their customers. Ohio (Headquarters) Maryland 9025 Centre Pointe Drive, Suite 400 521 Progress Drive, Suite H West Chester, OH 45069 Lithicum, MD 21090 800-395-0608 866-740-3318 Maine Oregon California 200 Enterprise Drive 12021-B NE Airport Way 16360 S. Monterey Rd, Suite 250 Scarborough, ME 04074 Portland, OR 97220 Morgan Hill, CA 95037 877-907-8676 800-548-4667 800-469-7162 The managers of CONTECH Stormwater Solutions, Inc. are Rick Stepien – President, James Lenhart – Chief Technical Officer, and Tom Slabe – Vice President of Marketing. 1.4 Key Contacts Rhea Weinberg Brekke Executive Director NJ Corporation for Advanced Technology c/o New Jersey EcoComplex 1200 Florence Columbus Road Bordentown, NJ 08505 609-499-3600 ext. 227 rwbrekke@njcat.org Richard S. Magee, Sc.D., P.E., BCEE Technical Director NJ Corporation for Advanced Technology 15 Vultee Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 973-822-1425 973-879-3056 cell rsmagee@rcn.com Sean Darcy Regional Regulatory Manager CONTECH Stormwater Solutions, Inc. 12021-B NE Airport Way Portland, OR 97220 800-548-4667 darcys@contech-cpi.com Ravi Patraju Bureau of Sustainable Communities & Innovative Technologies Division of Science, Research & Technology NJ Department of Environmental Protection 401 East State Street Trenton, NJ 08625-0409 609-292-0125 ravi.patraju@dep.state.nj.us 7 Jim Lenhart, P.E. Chief Technology Officer CONTECH Stormwater Solutions, Inc. 12021-B NE Airport Way Portland, OR 97220 800-548-4667 lenhartj@contech-cpi.com 2. The Stormwater Management StormFilter® In 1990 Congress established deadlines and priorities for EPA to require permits for discharges of storm water that is not mixed or contaminated with household or industrial wastewater. Phase I regulations established that a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit is required for storm water discharge from municipalities with a separate storm sewer system that serves a population greater than 100,000 and certain defined industrial activities. To receive a NPDES permit, the municipality or specific industry has to develop a storm water management plan and identify BMPs for storm water treatment and discharge. Best Management Practices are measures, systems, processes or controls that reduce pollutants at the source to prevent the pollution of storm water runoff discharge from the site. Phase II storm water discharges include all discharges composed entirely of storm water, except those specifically classified as Phase I discharge. Phase II regulations are currently in draft form for review. CONTECH has developed an innovative storm water treatment system, the StormFilter to meet the requirements of the NPDES. The StormFilter is a passive, flow through, storm water filtration system, improving the quality of storm water runoff by removing non point source pollutants, including total suspended solids (TSS), oil and grease, soluble metals, nutrients, organics, and trash and debris. It has been installed to treat storm water runoff from a wide variety of sites including retail and commercial developments, residential streets, urban roadways, freeways and industrial sites such as shipyards, foundries, etc. The StormFilter is typically comprised of a vault that houses rechargeable, media-filled filter cartridges. A typical StormFilter configuration is shown in Figure 1. Storm water from storm drains is percolated through media-filled cartridges, which removes particulates and adsorbs materials such as dissolved metals and hydrocarbons. Surface scum, floating oil and grease are also removed. After passing through the filter media, the storm water flows into a collection pipe or discharges to an open channel drainage way. Inherent in the design of the StormFilter is the ability to control the individual cartridge flow rate with an orifice disk placed at the base of the cartridge. The maximum flow rate through each cartridge can be adjusted to between 5 and 15 gpm. 8 Figure 1 The Precast StormFilter The StormFilter is sized to treat the peak flow of a design storm as it passes through the system. The peak flow is determined by calculations based on the contributing watershed hydrology and using a design storm magnitude. The design storm is usually based on the requirements set by the local regulatory agency. The particular size of a StormFilter is determined by the number of filter cartridges required to treat the peak water flow. The StormFilter is offered in multiple configurations: precast, high flow, catch basin, curb inlet, linear, volume, and corrugated metal pipe form. All configurations use pre-manufactured units to ease the design and installation process. (1) Precast System Vaults and manholes are used to treat end-of-pipe flow from small and medium sized sites. These units typically arrive on site fully assembled. The contractor places the unit, lid and risers, and then connects the inlet and outlet. Cartridges arrive installed inside the unit. Until construction is completed, stormwater is diverted around the filtration bay through the construction bypass lines. When the site is stabilized plugs are placed in the construction bypass lines and the filtration unit is “on-line”. (2) High Flow Structures consist of large precast components which are designed for easy assembly on site and treat end of pipe flow from large sites. For very large sites this configuration can be cast-in- place. Similar to the Precast System, cartridges are installed when the vault is completed and construction by-pass is used during construction. If the system is too big to accommodate construction by-pass the cartridges are not installed until the site is stabilized. 9 (3) Catch Basin – Provides a low cost, low drop, point-of-entry configuration that treats sheet flow from small sites or drainages. This configuration uses the drop from the inlet grate to the conveyance pipe to drive the StormFilter cartridges. Cartridges arrive installed and the unit is put “on-line” by removing a 4” drain plug when construction is completed. (4) Curb-Inlet – Provides a low drop, point of entry configuration that allows curb inlet openings three to ten feet long. Uses the drop from the curb inlet to the conveyance pipe to drive the StormFilter cartridges. The cartridges arrive installed and the transfer opening from the inlet to the filtration bay is blocked. When construction is complete the transfer opening is un- blocked and the system is “on-line”. (5) Volume – Meets volume-based stormwater treatment regulations by capturing and treating site-specific Water Quality Volume (WQv). StormFilter cartridges provide treatment of the WQv and the structure can be sized to capture all, or a portion, of the WQv. Installation of the Volume StormFilter is similar to the Precast and High Flow systems, depending on the size. (6) DryWell – Manhole based drywells (also called injection wells and underground injection control - UICs) contain StormFilter cartridges to treat stormwater in the upper portion before it is released into the perforated lower section for infiltration. This configuration can be employed for new construction or to retrofit existing drywells. For new construction, a solid concrete manhole unit containing pre-installed cartridges is placed on perforated rise sections. The retrofit unit is comprised of aluminum decking that can fit through a 24” man-way and assembled in an existing drywell. The cartridges are installed on top of the deck. Any perforations above the deck are filled with grout. In addition to the most common configurations, the StormFilter can be provided in Linear, DownSpout, and Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) configurations. The typical precast StormFilter unit is composed of three bays: the inlet bay, the filtration bay, and the outlet bay. Storm water first enters the inlet bay of the StormFilter vault. Storm water is then directed through the flow spreader, which traps floatables, oils, and surface scum, and over the energy dissipater into the filtration bay. Once in the filtration bay, the storm water begins to pond and percolates horizontally through the media contained in the cartridges. After passing through the media, the treated water in each cartridge collects in the cartridge’s center tube from where it is directed into the outlet bay by an under-drain manifold. The treated water in the outlet bay is then discharged through the single outlet pipe to a collection pipe or an open channel drainage way. Depending on site characteristics, some systems are equipped with high and/or low flow bypasses. High flow bypasses are installed when the calculated peak storm event generates a flow that overcomes the overflow capacity or design capacity of the system. Base flow bypasses are sometimes installed to prevent continuous inflows caused by groundwater seepage, which usually does not require treatment. The StormFilter cartridge is the central treatment device within the system. The cartridges are filled with various media depending on the site's runoff. Removal associated with the cartridge is 10 promoted through four mechanisms: physical straining, ion exchange, adsorption, and precipitation. Physical straining through the media promotes solids removal by trapping solids within interstitial spaces throughout the filtration media. Depending on the media used, dissolved pollutant removal is either associated with ion exchange, adsorption or precipitation reactions. Ion exchange involves the displacement of ions within the filtration media by ions in the influent stream. The process used by the StormFilter is cation exchange where calcium, magnesium and sodium ions within the filtration media are displaced by ions such as copper, zinc and lead. Adsorption is a surface reaction where a pollutant is fixed to the filtration media as the pollutant crosses the media's surface. These reactions are usually promoted by polar interactions between the media and the pollutant. In other words, the media may be slightly negative where the pollutant is slightly positive. The interaction is similar to a magnet and occurs primarily at the media's surface. Precipitation reactions also occur within the filtration media's structure. This involves the exchange, or sharing, of electrons between atoms and molecules to form a solid on the media's surface. In a sense, salts are formed on the media due to the electron interaction. 3. Technology System Evaluation: Project Plan 3.1 Introduction As part of a performance assessment of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® (StormFilter) in the State of New Jersey, a system using perlite media, installed at Greenville Yards, Jersey City, NJ, was evaluated. This StormFilter system treats stormwater runoff draining from a parking lot and commercial loading dock area. For research purposes, the removal characteristics of the system with respect to solids, metals, and nutrients was simultaneously assessed. This project was managed by CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Inc. (CONTECH) in cooperation with the site owner and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Independent oversight of all aspects of the project was provided by Dr. Qizhong Guo of Rutgers University. Sample handling services were provided by Sovereign Consulting Inc. of Parsippany, NJ, and analytical work was conducted by Chemtech of Mountainside, NJ, and North Creek Analytical of Beaverton, OR. 3.2 Site and System Description Drainage Area Greenville Yards is a commercial warehouse complex consisting of warehouse space and associated offices, roadways, and cargo docks located at 19 Colony Rd., Jersey City, NJ (Lat: 40.6825532, Long: -74.087318). The entire complex covers a 50-ac brownfield redevelopment site in Jersey City, NJ adjacent to NY harbor. An aerial photo of the portion of the complex used for the study is shown in Figure 2. Stormwater from this complex is generated by over 10-ac of 11 pavement (roof runoff remains untreated) and ultimately drains to the New York harbor. As a regional boat, rail, and truck shipping hub, this complex sees constant activity and receives constant traffic. The StormFilter System Stormwater treatment for Greenville Yards is provided by 10 Vault and Catch Basin StormFilters installed during redevelopment. These installations were allowed by NJDEP under the Conditional Interim Certification of the StormFilter due to the need to install a system for local performance evaluation. Each system is designed in an off-line configuration with respect to the stormwater conveyance system. Each StormFilter system operates independently, and the StormFilter used for monitoring will be referred to as StormFilter #6 (SF#6) SF#6 is installed along the SW edge of the property as indicated in Figure 2. The vault was set below grade and was integrated into the landscaping along the property boundary as shown in Figure 3. SF#6 consists of an 8-ft x 18-ft precast StormFilter vault designed for 27 perlite-media cartridges and configured for a per-cartridge filtration rate of 15 gal/min (57 L/min). The system is designed with a StormGate high flow bypass located upstream of the StormFilter to divert flows larger than the design flow and prevent internal bypass of the StormFilter. As configured, this system is designed to treat a water quality flow rate (treatment flow rate) of 0.90 cfs based upon the 2001 NJDEP 1.25-in/2-hr design storm (the then existing regulation) and 2.00 acres of impermeable surfaces with a composite runoff coefficient of 0.72. Figure 2. Aerial view of the portion of Greenville Yards being studied. Drainage area is outlined. Jersey City Bayonne SF#6 Cargo Docks Warehouse Employee Parking 12 Figure 3. Greenville Yards StormFilter #6 (SF#6). 3.3 Sampling Methods The equipment and sampling techniques used for this study are in accordance with a Project Plan (CONTECH, 2004a) developed by CONTECH in consultation with NJDEP and NJCAT under the TARP Tier II Stormwater Protocol and the New Jersey Tier II requirements (TARP, 2003; NJDEP, 2006). CONTECH personnel were responsible for the installation, operation, and maintenance of the sampling equipment. Sovereign Consulting, Inc. was utilized for sample retrieval, system reset, and sample submittal activities. Water sample processing and analysis was performed by Chemtech and solids sample analysis was performed by North Creek Analytical. A general overview of the methodology is provided. Sampling Equipment Specifications and Installation A mobile monitoring unit (MMU) was provided, installed, maintained, and operated by CONTECH for sampling purposes. The MMU is a towable, fully enclosed, self-contained stormwater monitoring system specially designed and built by CONTECH for remote, extended- deployment stormwater monitoring. The design allows for remote control of sampling equipment, eliminates confined space entry requirements, and streamlines the sample pickup and data collection process. The MMU is shown in Figure 3 as it was installed on-site for the entirety of the study. Influent and effluent samples were collected using individual ISCO 6712 Portable Automated Samplers configured for standard, individual, round, wide-mouth sample bottles with HDPE bottles in the 1 through 10 position for discrete sample collection and amber glass bottles in the 11 and 12 positions for field composite sample collection. The samplers were connected to individual 12V DC, deep cycle power supplies recharged by a solar panel. Each sampler had SF#6 Access Manholes StormGate Access Manhole Monitoring Equipment Installation 13 individual ISCO 750 Area Velocity Flow Modules with Low Profile Area Velocity Flow Sensors for the purpose of sample pacing and flow analysis. Each sampler also had an ISCO SPA 1489 Digital Cell Phone Modem System to allow for remote communication and data access. The sample intake from each automated sampler pump was connected to a stainless steel sample strainer (9/16” diameter, 6” length, with multiple ¼” openings) via a length of 3/8” ID Acutech Duality FEP/LDPE tubing. Sample strainers and flow probes were mounted to the invert of the influent/effluent pipes using low profile stainless steel spring rings. Sampling lines between the MMU and the sample points were armored and carefully installed to minimize the risk of sample line contamination through the avoidance of dips and to maximize suction line velocity (>2 ft/s) by avoiding extraneous line length, excessive bends, and kinks. Bypass hydraulics were analyzed at 1 to 5-min intervals using both an ISCO 4110 Ultrasonic Level Logger and the flow depth measurement provided by the influent flow module. Internal overflow conditions were monitored using an Overflow Detection System (ODS) consisting of a float switch oriented to “CLOSE” at the crest of the downstream weir wall and state logger. Rainfall was analyzed with a 0.01-in resolution with a Texas Electronics TR-4 tipping bucket- type rain gauge. Sampling Equipment Operation Flow, level, and precipitation measurement equipment collected continuous data. Samplers were programmed to enable the sampling program after a minimum flow rate condition of >5 gpm was met. Once enabled, the equipment collected samples on a volume-paced basis allowing the specified pacing volume to pass before taking a sample. Sample Collection Program The sample collection program input into each automated sampler was a two-part program developed to: 1) maximize the number of discrete samples (aliquots); 2) maximize the coverage of the precipitation event while at the same time maximizing aliquot volume; and 3) allow the collection of field composite samples for hydrocarbon analysis. Influent and effluent sample collection programs were configured to capture a composite sample consisting of 450-mL aliquots spread between up to 10, 1-L HDPE bottles (discrete composite), and two individual, 1- L composite samples consisting of 50-mL aliquots collected within amber glass bottles (in-situ composite). Due to the variability among precipitation events and stormwater conveyance systems, the sample pacing and sample initiation specifications were variable on a continuous basis and determined in consultation with the most up-to-date precipitation forecasts. Sample Retrieval and Analysis Upon collection of samples following a precipitation event, CONTECH personnel remotely communicated with the automated sampling equipment to confirm sample collection and dispatch personnel from Sovereign to retrieve the samples and reset the automated sampling equipment. Samples were delivered to the Analytical Laboratory by Sovereign using cold transport and accompanied by chain-of-custody documentation. 14 At the direction of CONTECH personnel, discrete composite sample bottles were combined by the Analytical Laboratory to create bulk influent and effluent composite samples through identification of those bottles best representing the precipitation event based upon the hydrograph. Subsamples of the bulk influent and effluent composite samples to be used for analysis were created using an 8-L or 14-L (depending on number of samples), polyethylene Scienceware Churn Sample Splitter (churn splitter). Analytical methods used for this study are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Analytical methods for analytical parameters of interest. Parameter Analytical Method Water Solids Total Solids EPA 160.3 (modified) X Susp. Sediment Conc. (SSC) ASTM D3977 X Tot. Susp. Solids (TSS) EPA 160.2 X Tot. Vol. Susp. Solids (TVSS) SM2540E X SSC <500-um 500-um Filtration + ASTM D3977X TVSS <500-um 500-um Filtration + SM2540E X Total Cadmium EPA 200.8 X X Total Copper EPA 200.8 X X Total Zinc EPA 200.8 X X Total Lead EPA 200.8 X X Total Phosphorus EPA 365.1 X X Nitrate/Nitrite-N EPA 353.2 X Total Kjeldahl-N EPA 351.2 X X Hardness SM 2340B X Oil and Grease EPA 413.1 X X TPH (with cleanup) EPA 8015/3630 X Particle Size Distribution CONTECH PE-SP18 X Percent Solids NCA SOP X Quality Control As per the Project Plan, the following quality control samples were used to assess the quality of both field sampling and analytical activities: equipment rinsate blanks, equipment field blanks, method blank, and duplicate analysis. Sample processing blank samples were not taken. Except for solids analyses that employ the use of whole sample volume (SSC), all method blanks and duplicate analyses were handled by the analytical laboratory as per New Jersey certification requirements. Since solids analyses that employ the use of whole sample volume (SSC) consume the entire sample volume, dedicated duplicate samples were prepared (replicates) and analyzed to allow the assessment of analytical accuracy. Analytical duplicate analysis results (Dup. RPD) for all results are provided alongside the presentation of raw data in Appendix A. The results of equipment rinsate blanks, equipment blanks, and sample processing blanks are shown in Table 2 accompanied by associated decisions and action items for instances of detection. 15 Table 2. Instances of contaminant detection in equipment rinsate blank and equipment field blank samples. Shaded Blank Types indicate the use of distilled water of a known quality as opposed to deionized water. Date Blank Type Detections Level (mg/L) Action % of Sample Pairs Affected 5/4/04 Rinsate Total Cd 0.00458 None since subsequent stormwater samples returned ND at a lower level 0 3/22/05 Field Total Cu 0.0040 Disqualify Total Cu results ≤0.02 mg/L for events since last QC Blank 17 4/29/05 Rinsate Total Zn 0.0075 Disqualify Total Zn results ≤ 0.0375 mg/L for events up to next QC Blank 0 10/17/05 Field Total Cd Total Zn 0.00058 0.0148 Disqualify Total Zn results ≤0.0740 mg/L for events since last QC Blank; no action for Total Cd since subsequent stormwater samples returned ND at a lower level 0 (Cd) 0 (Zn) 2/28/06 Field Total Pb Total Zn 0.0035 0.0247 Disqualify Total Zn results ≤0.1235 mg/L for events since last QC Blank; Disqualify Total Pb results ≤0.0175 mg/L for events since last QC Blank 50 (Pb) 38 (Zn) 3.4 Particle Size Distribution and Residual Solids Assessment Methods The quantity and quality of the solids captured by the system were assessed in preparation for the two system maintenances that occurred during the project as well as at the end of the monitoring phase of the project (Shown in Appendix D). This procedure involved the following activities: 1) the removal of the StormFilter cartridges and selection of a cartridge for solids content and media analysis (filtered material); 2) the careful estimation of the residual solids found inside of the system and outside of the cartridges (settled material); and 3) the methodical collection of a large (20-L to 30-L), composite sample of the residual solids for analysis. The StormFilter cartridge selected for the assessment was analyzed using direct methods as much as possible. The cartridge was first allowed to drip-dry, and the media was then emptied into shallow, tared trays for compositing and drying. Upon the stabilization of the moisture content of the media, the trays were weighed and representative samples were collected for analysis according to Table 1. This data was then used to represent the dry mass of contaminants contained within all of the cartridges. A measurement of dry bulk-density of the used media was also collected and compared to the typical dry bulk density of unused media to determine the dry mass of solids retained by the filters. The composite sample of the residual solids was homogenized by hand and representatively sampled for analysis. Samples were submitted for the analytes shown in Table 1. Data for this material was used in conjunction with the volume of residual solids removed from the system in order to determine the dry mass of contaminants contained within the residual solids. Calculations Most of the data collected during the study were based upon direct measurement. Some reported values, such as event coverage and the percentage of runoff treated are based upon calculated values. Coverage was calculated by multiplying the number of sample aliquots representing the influent or effluent of a storm event by the volume used to pace the sample collection program and expressing this value as a percentage of the total influent or effluent volume recorded by the flow meter. Percentage of runoff treated was calculated by solving the weir-flow equation for 16 the StormGate using the bypass flow depth measurements and expressing the treated volume (StormFilter influent volume) as a percentage of the total volume (treated and bypassed). 3.5 Data Verification and Validation Data corresponding to the 16 storm events (a total of 17.13 inches of rainfall) covered by this report were captured over an eighteen-month monitoring period between July of 2004 and December of 2005. Of these 16 storm events, data verification and validation did not lead to the outright disqualification of any events due to obvious monitoring, handling, or analytical errors, or the substantial exceedance of the design operating parameters. Thus all 16 storm events were deemed acceptable for qualification through reconciliation with the data quality objectives (DQOs) of the project. However, some instances were encountered that suggested the disqualification or separation of select analytical results from the data set. Some monitoring error was encountered in the form of equipment contamination as discussed in the Quality Control section. This suggests the disqualification of a portion of the total metals data according to Table 2. Disqualification of either an influent or effluent result resulted in the elimination of the paired data from the final data set. Some data were also deemed to be very unusual and thus atypical with respect to the majority of the data. This was observed for Total Phosphorus results. Event GYS071204 demonstrated influent and effluent Total Phosphorus EMCs that were almost an order of magnitude larger than those of other events, and thus also atypical of the majority of the data. The Total Phosphorus data in question from this event is deemed to be an outlier and thus separated from the data set used for performance summarization. The DQOs presented in the Project Plan and used throughout the project were based directly upon NJDEP (2006) and the NJDEP interpretation of TARP (2003), and are provided in Table 3. All but two of the events qualified according to strict interpretation of all of the DQOs. Considering the very small margin separating these two events from full qualification, they were deemed qualified based upon the best professional judgment of the project team. 4. Technology System Performance 4.1 Performance Measured Relative to Interim Certified Performance Claim Since many methods for summarizing performance exist, and since performance summarization is a critical part of this study, a detailed discussion of the methods employed to summarize system performance for this study is warranted. Analytes with a statistically significant relationship between influent and effluent event mean concentrations (EMCs) (α<0.05: >95% probability of true relationship) were determined according to the parametric Regression of EMC method; analytes that did not yield a statistically significant (α<0.05) relationship between influent and effluent EMCs were determined as “aggregate pollutant loading reduction” (WADOE, 2002 method #2), using the influent flow data to determine runoff volume, and accompanied by a nonparametric test of significance. 17 Table 3. Results of reconciliation of the storm events observed as part of the Greenville Yards StormFilter Field Evaluation Project Ev e n t D e p t h ( i n ) [m i n i m u m 0 . 1 0 ] An t e c e d e n t D r y P e r i o d ( h r ) [m i n i m u m 6 - h r s < 0 . 0 4 - i n ] Nu m b e r o f A l i q u o t s [m i n i m u m o f 6 ( I n f : E f f ) ] Av g . S F V o l . C o v e r a g e ( n e a r e s t 1 0 % ) [m i n i m u m o f 60 ( I n f : E f f ) ] Qu a l i f i c a t i o n b a s e d u p o n B e s t Pr o f e s s i o n a l J u d g e m e n t SF I n f l u e n t V o l u m e ( g a l ) Pe r c e n t T r e a t e d ( n e a r e s t 1 0 % ) [v e r s u s t o t a l ] Pe a k O p e r a t i n g R a t e ( % ) [% o f e f f l u e n t d e s i g n Q ] Av e r a g e I n t e n s i t y ( i n / h r ) In f l u e n t S S C E M C ( m g / L ) Ef f l u e n t S S C E M C ( m g / L ) In f l u e n t T S S E M C ( m g / L ) Ef f l u e n t T S S E M C ( m g / L ) GYS0712040.131449:12>90 9 3678100490.171821915021 GYS0714040.98487:590 9 1338240650.4958137010 GYS0811040.4624018:2090 9 1156680310.142802624028 GYS0814040.722418:1660 9 25208100410.148298515 GYS0831040.192645:670 9 7186100370.1046291420100 GYS0908040.392416:13>90 9 1169280330.201991914 GYS0917042.40489:1290 9 1229520500.80961310018 GYS1209040.72246:860 9 18848>90100.10235234 GYS0430050.797212:6>90 9 25546100440.101158 4 GYS0606050.62728:17>90 9 996590400.2377276221 GYS1022051.7320720:1080 9 31270801000.275475814 GYS1024052.442414:22>90 9 44620100530.1712 5 12 4 GYS1109050.6833612:1180 9 14244>90600.2396239322 GYS1129052.0612020:790 9 5233460880.3442 5 31 4 GYS1215051.839620:1860 9 7258580440.1729132814 GYS1225050.9922216:13>90 9 37137>90560.1220 5 19 4 Sum17.13---------16391556--------------------- Median0.768413:1290---16546>90470.1756116014 shading= DQO met inversion = analytical MRL substituted for ND value Event ID Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)Other Event Characteristics Appendix A details system performance on an individual storm basis (discrete removal efficiency) using the Washington State Department of Ecology “individual storm reduction in pollutant concentration” method (WADOE, 2002 method #1)—the performance of the system over the course of a single storm event based upon EMC. It is important to note that it is generally accepted that discrete removal efficiencies should not be used for performance summarization by arithmetic averaging, as these efficiencies have been shown to be both sensitive to analytical error and susceptible to negative bias (USEPA, 2002). Hydrograph and rainfall data from the events are also shown in Appendix A. Both parametric (Regression of EMC) and non-parametric (Aggregate Load Reduction) performance statistics for the performance of the Greenville Yards StormFilter are provided in Table 4. Results of parametric testing shown in Appendix B and Table 4 indicate significant (α<0.05) removal of SSC, TVSS, SSC<500-um, TVSS<500-um, and TSS. 18 Ta b l e 4 . S u m m a r i z e d p e r f o r m a n c e f o r G r e e n v i l l e Y a r d s S t or m F i l t e r . R e f e r t o T a b l e 1 f o r a c r o n y m d e f i n i t i o n s SS C 1 6 1 1 . 0 t o 4 6 2 5 6 . 0 8 4 * * * 8 0 t o 8 8 1 0 . 7 5 . 6 0 t o 1 5 . 9 8 0 R TV S S 1 0 1 0 . 0 t o 4 2 0 3 1 . 0 9 3 * * 8 9 t o 9 6 9 . 2 0 4 . 1 9 t o 1 4 . 2 7 8 R SS C < 5 0 0 - u m 1 3 6 . 0 0 t o 1 7 0 2 6 . 0 8 9 * * * 8 4 t o 9 4 9 . 5 5 6 . 7 6 t o 1 2 . 3 6 8 R TV S S < 5 0 0 - u m 7 1 2 . 0 t o 1 3 0 2 9 . 0 - - - - - - t o - - - - - - - - - t o - - - 7 6 R TS S 1 6 8 . 0 0 t o 4 2 0 6 0 . 0 8 0 * * * 7 6 t o 8 4 1 2 . 8 8 . 0 5 t o 1 7 . 6 7 7 R ** * = P < 0 . 0 0 1 ** = 0 . 0 1 > P > 0 . 0 0 1 * = 0 . 0 5 > P > 0 . 0 1 bo l d = e q u i v a l e n t t o n o n - d e t e c t -- - = u n d e t e r m i n a b l e d u e t o i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a q u a n t i t y R = r e m o v a l i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 5 % l e v e l o r l e s s ~ = n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e A = a d d i t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 5 % l e v e l o r l e s s An a l y t e n Ra n g e o f I n f l u e n t EM C s ( m g / L ) Me d i a n In f l u e n t EM C (m g / L ) Mean Removal Efficiency Estimate (%)One-Tailed Sign Test* (H0=H1=0.5) Re g r e s s i o n o f E M C A g g r e g a t e L o a d R e d u c t i o n Me a n Re m o v a l Ef f i c i e n c y Es t i m a t e (% ) 95 % C o n f i d e n c e In t e r v a l f o r t h e M e a n Re m o v a l E f f i c i e n c y Es t i m a t e ( % ) Me d i a n Ef f l u e n t EM C Es t i m a t e (m g / L ) 95 % C o n f i d e n c e In t e r v a l f o r t h e Me d i a n E f f l u e n t E M C Es t i m a t e ( m g / L ) 19 In order to summarize the performance of the system with regard to effluent water quality, median influent EMC values for analytes with statistically significant (P<0.05) Regression of EMC analyses were used with their respective regression equations to estimate median effluent water quality. Results are shown in Table 4. This approach is similar to the Effluent Probability Method recommended by EPA (2002) in that it focuses on median water quality as a measure of performance. The use of the median is most appropriate for stormwater quality data since it is largely influence by climactic events that occur with unequal frequency (not normally distributed). Estimated rather than empirical median values were used in order to provide the statistics necessary for confidence intervals. Influent Suspended Solids Characteristics Since suspended solids is the most popular analyte for stormwater BMP performance evaluation and comparison, the influent suspended solids data was analyzed in order to characterize the suspended solids associated with the study. As shown in Figure 4, regression analysis of different influent suspended solids analytes revealed consistent relationships. Comparison of total to volatile suspended solids concentrations reveals that approximately 45% of influent solids are composed of combustible materials that are assumed to be organic in nature. Comparison of influent SSC and SSC<500-um indicates that roughly 80% of the solids captured within the influent samples are less than 500-um in size by mass. Influent SSC EMC (mg/L) 050100150200 In f l u e n t T V S S E M C ( m g / L ) 0 50 100 150 200 y = 0.44x - 2.3 Significance: P <0.001 Influent SSC<500-um EMC (mg/L) 050100150200 In f l u e n t T V S S < 5 0 0 - u m E M C ( m g / L ) 0 50 100 150 200 Influent SSC EMC (mg/L) 050100150200 In f l u e n t S S C < 5 0 0 - u m E M C ( m g / L ) 0 50 100 150 200 y =0.47x + 3.9 Significance: P < 0.001 y =0.77x - 11 Significance: P < 0.001 Figure 4. Significant influent relationships between solid analytes for Greenville Yards site. Refer to Table 1 for acronym definitions. Grouped solid and dashed lines illustrate linear regression and 95% confidence intervals. These analyses do not include solids data for events GYS081104 and GYS083104. These events demonstrated the two highest influent solids EMCs, of which >80% was volatile compared to the 45% volatile content reflected by the majority of the data. Due to both the extreme solids concentrations and the extreme volatile content demonstrated by these two samples, they were deemed to be outliers and thus separated from the data set used to characterize influent solids characteristics. Assessment of the mass of materials captured by the StormFilter as a whole over the course of the monitoring period revealed a net capture and retention of 2750 lbs (1248 kg) of material. 11% of this material was found inside of the cartridges and 89% was found outside of the cartridges in the inlet bay and on the floor of the cartridge bay. 20 4.2 Suspended Solids Representativeness Two methods were employed to satisfy the amended site selection requirements of the TARP Tier II Protocol and the New Jersey Tier II requirements: 1) The Reconstructed Influent PSD Analysis Method (RIPSD); and 2) The Coulter Counter PSD Analysis Method. The following is a brief overview of each of the methods. Reconstructed Influent PSD Analysis Method The RIPSD represents the average influent PSD over the course of an operating cycle (CONTECH, 2005). The average influent PSD is determined by a mass weighted PSD based on material that settled in the inlet and cartridge bays, material that was captured by the filter cartridge and the system SSC removal performance as observed through intensive monitoring. The RIPSD approach to determining the average influent PSD incorporates mass balance theory and PSDs associated with the different components of the mass balance. Influent solids are distributed among settled solids in the vault, solids retained by the filter cartridges, and solids leaving the system via effluent. The characteristics of the solids retained by the filter cartridges, the settled solids mass and the PSD corresponding to the settled solids are discerned from the analysis of a used filter cartridge and samples of material that settled in the inlet and cartridge bays which were collected during system maintenance. The dry solids mass of the used cartridge media was compared to the dry mass of a fresh cartridge media to estimate the mass of solids captured by each filter cartridge. The settled dry solids mass was determined using measurements of settled material bulk density and moisture content, depth of settled material in the system, and area available for settling. The PSDs of the settled material were determined using the hydrometer and sieve wet method particle size analysis. Based on laboratory testing observations, the PSD of solids captured by the perlite filter cartridge were estimated to be within the silt range and the PSD of solids contained in the effluent were estimated to span the clay and lower silt ranges (CONTECH, 2004b). The mass associated with the effluent solids was calculated through application of the observed removal efficiency, as determined by the sum of settled solids and solids retained by the cartridges. Coulter Counter PSD Analysis Method The Coulter Counter PSD analysis method consists of using a device called a coulter counter which is considered a true particle counter. A solution containing an electrolyte is passed through an aperture which is bridged by an electrical current. As the particle travels through the aperture, a voltage spike occurs which is proportional to the particle volume. Influent and effluent composite samples from storm events occurring on 10/22/2005, 10/24/2005, 12/15/2005, and 12/25/2005 were submitted for analysis to Robert Pitt, P.E. DEE, Ph.D at The University of Alabama College of Engineering. The samples were shipped from Chemtech, the certified Analytical Lab who prepared and analyzed the entire captured storm event samples associated with the Greenville Yards Industrial Park Stormwater Management StormFilter Field Evaluation, to the University of Alabama to be analyzed using the Coulter Counter Method. The samples were analyzed for particle size distributions over the overall range from about 0.45 µm to >1500 µm. The different size range subcategories for particulates that were examined were >1500 µm, 0.6 µm to 240 µm and about 240 µm to 1500 µm. The smallest 21 particulate solids range was analyzed using the Coulter Counter, Multi-Sizer III using three different aperture tubes (30 µm aperture tube for particles between 0.6 µm and 18 µm; 100 µm aperture tube for particles between 2 and 60 µm; and 400 µm tube for particles between 8 and 240 µm). Each of the aperture tubes used in the Coulter Counter examined several hundred discrete particle size ranges. The results from each tube were integrated using Coulter software to produce an overall particle size distribution between about 0.6 and 240 µm. This Coulter Counter information was then integrated with the data from the other subcategories to produce the overall particle size distribution. The samples were split into two equal portions using a USGS/Dekaport cone splitter. Before splitting the samples, the samples were screened using a 1,500 µm mesh screen to remove any large debris that could clog the splitter and would not be well split in the device. The material captured on the screen was washed off, dried and weighed to determine the weight fraction of this largest material. One of the split samples was used for the Coulter Counter analyses and for particulate solids. The other split sample was used to determine the particulate solids captured on a 250 µm sieve. The amount of material captured on the sieves and filters was determined by drying and weighing the sieves and filters before and after filtering, and determining the weight gain. The actual amount of sample used for these measurements was determined after filtering by measuring the filtrate water volume with a graduated cylinder. The volumes were not measured before the filtering to preserve sample integrity. Results The results of the RIPSD analysis for three operating cycles (Samples were taken 1/26/05, 7/26/05, and 2/28/06) revealed an average d50 of 97 µm. The average particle size distribution was comprised of 59% sand, 34% silt, and 7% clay. This is very close to the 55%, 40% and 5% distribution corresponding to the performance claim and the NJDEP benchmark. The PSD of all three samples provided an indication of a fairly consistent distribution. As per the USDA textural triangle, all three samples analyzed along with the target PSD specified by NJDEP are classified as a sandy loam. The results of the Coulter Counter influent PSD analysis revealed an average d50 of 13 µm. The average particle size distribution was comprised of 15% sand, 68% silt, and 18% clay. The PSD of all four samples provided an indication of a fairly inconsistent distribution. As per the USDA textural triangle three of the samples analyzed were classified as a silt loam and one as clay loam. The results of the Coulter Counter effluent PSD analysis revealed an average d50 of 24 µm. The average particle size distribution was comprised of 22% sand, 67% silt, and 11% clay. The PSD of all four samples provided an indication of a fairly inconsistent distribution. As per the USDA textural triangle three of the samples analyzed were classified as a silt loam and one as a loam. Discussion The RIPSD analysis method is considered a less precise method that yields conservative results skewed more towards a coarser particle size distribution. Samples taken represent an entire operating cycle as opposed to an individual storm event. The Coulter Counter analysis method is considered a more precise method that yields results skewed more towards a finer particle size distribution. The samples taken represent an individual storm event and are less representative of 22 an entire operating cycle, unless samples are from a statistically significant number of storm events during an operating cycle. The more permanent feature of soil texture is the most suitable qualitative reference which must be relied upon to reach a conclusion. The specified target PSD (NJDEP) is classified as a sandy loam. The more conservative of the two approaches taken, the RIPSD, achieved a result that was also classified as a sandy loam. Both the influent and effluent samples analyzed using the Coulter Counter PSD Analysis Method produced results classifying the samples collected as a silt loam, a much finer texture than the specified target PSD. By employing both PSD analysis methods, a range in which the influent PSD would most likely be located can be defined as seen in Figure 5. With a lack of statistically significant data and standard methodology, the most robust and fundamental descriptor, texture, should be employed. The dynamic characteristics of soil such as organic matter content, soil structure, and water and nutrient holding capacity are known to have strong relationships to texture (USDA-NRCS, 2005). That being said, texture demonstrates that the amended site selection requirements as noted by NJDEP (2006) have been satisfied on the most fundamental level as seen in Figure 5. Sand GYS Sediment Textures (RIPSD and Coulter Counter Average) % Silt 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Clay 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % Sand 0102030405060708090100 GYSA Average GYSB Average Reconstructed Average Target PSD (NJDEP) Clay Sandy Clay Silty Clay Clay Loam Silty Clay Loam Sandy Clay Loam Loam Silt Loam Silt Sandy Loam Loamy Sand Source: Brady, N. C., & Weil, R. R. (1999). The Nature and Properties of Soil (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Figure 5. Average and Target PSD analyses within USDA Textural Triangle. 23 4.3 System Hydraulics The StormFilter was designed to treat a water quality flow rate of 405 gpm. The peak water quality flow rates of 12 of 16 storm events were at or below the design flow rate. Table 5 shows significant bypass occurred during four intense storm events. Field flow measurements contain a margin of error of +/- 20% per flow probe. The StormFilter system was able meet a treated discharge of 75% or greater for three of the four intense storm events. This demonstrates that the StormFilter system can match influent flow conditions for lower-than-design storm events and can meet design flow conditions for intense storm events. Appendix A contains additional information on each individual storm event. Table 5. Measured flow rate* vs. design for bypass events Storm ID Measured Peak Influent (gpm) Measured Peak Effluent Treated (gpm) Design (gpm) Treated vs. Design (%) Peak Bypass (gpm) GYS 07140468126440565%2800 GYS 09170417630240575%3000 GYS 102205377406405100%545 GYS 11290536235740588%1477 * Field flow measurements contain a +/- 20% margin of error 4.4 Laboratory Mass Loading of Cartridge Cartridge scale tests were conducted in the laboratory (CONTECH, 1999) evaluating the StormFilter system using a cartridge operating at 14 gpm with perlite media. Loading was evaluated using a palatine silt loam (37% sand, 60% silt, 3% clay) and demonstrated that approximately 22 pounds (10 kg) per cartridge was removed before a significant decrease in the flow rate occurred. CONTECH uses 22 pounds per cartridge as a design guideline in their Product Design Manual (version 4.2) even though subsequent field studies have shown a higher sediment loading per cartridge. 4.5 Field Mass Loading of Cartridge and Maintenance Maintenance was performed three times on the StormFilter during the 18-month monitoring period (January 26, 2005, July 26, 2005, and February 28, 2006). An on-site rain gauge measured a total of approximately 103 inches of rainfall during this period (Appendix D). The StormFilter system design predicted the capacity to retain approximately 594 lbs (269 kg) of sediment per maintenance interval for an annual average precipitation year of 40 inches. The evaluation period occurred during a time period where the measured cumulative precipitation was 172% of the historical annual precipitation. The mass of materials captured by the StormFilter over the course of the monitoring period revealed a net capture and retention of 2751 lbs (1248 kg) of material. Table 6 shows the mass of materials captured and the cumulative measured precipitation per maintenance event. Eleven 24 percent (11%) of this material was retained inside of the cartridges and 89% was found outside of the cartridges in the inlet bay and on the floor of the cartridge bay. Thus the StormFilter system with 27 perlite-filled media cartridges operating at 15 gpm per cartridge was able to remove an average of 34 lbs/cartridge (sandy loam texture) per maintenance cycle. Table 6. System loading per maintenance event Maintenance Event Settled (lbs) Filtered (lbs) Measured Total (lbs) Design (lbs) Measured vs. Design (%) Cumulative Measured Rainfall (in) 1/26/2005794115908594153%50 7/26/20051027771105594186%18a 2/28/2006626115739594124%35 Total 244730627511782103 Average 816102917594154%34 42.5b Per cartridge 3043422 a 57 day rain gauge data gap b Average (n=2) without using 7/26/2005 cumulative measured rainfall 5. Performance Claim Verification In accordance with the NJCAT certification process, the performance of SF#6 is intended to be measured relative to a certified performance claim, specifically “Claim 1” of the “Conditional Interim Certification Findings” issued by NJDEP on September 20, 2002 (NJDEP, 2002). This claim is based upon an empirical study of StormFilter performance and utilizes Regression of EMC analysis to summarize performance. To compensate for the difference in error between laboratory and field testing conditions, the standard error associated with Claim 1 was adjusted during the project planning phase to reflect the lower precision associated with field performance evaluations. The resulting performance claim (presented in the Project Plan as the Field Claim) for the determination of NJCAT certification was 79% efficiency with a standard error∗ of 6% (α=0.05) for the removal of sandy loam suspended solids comprised of 55% sand, 40% silt, and 5% clay (USDA). For direct comparison with the performance claim, the data was analyzed and subject to Regression of EMC analysis as shown in Figures 6 and 7. As per NJDEP (2006) both TSS and SSC data were analyzed. Both analyses demonstrate a linear relationship between influent and effluent suspended solids EMCs that is significant at the >99.9% confidence level, indicating that the regression statistics can be used for the direct comparison of the field test observations to the performance claim. ∗ The standard error of a statistic (such as the mean) can also be referred to as the standard deviation. 25 Influent SSC EMC (mg/L) 0100200300400500 Ef f l u e n t S S C E M C ( m g / L ) 0 100 200 Regression Equation: y = 0.1594x + 1.792 ANOVA Source of Variation df SS MS F Explained 1 5548.0 5548.0 67.871*** Unexplained 14 1144.4 81.744 Total 15 6692.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF COEFFICIENTS Coeff. Std. Error t y0=1.7919 2.9328 0.61100ns a=0.15964 0.019378 8.2384*** * = 0.01 < P < 0.05 ** = 0.001 < P < 0.01 ***= P < 0.001 Figure 6. Regression analysis of the observed SSC data. Influent TSS EMC (mg/L) 0100200300400500 Ef f l u e n t T S S E M C ( m g / L ) 0 100 200 Regression Equation: y = 0.2006x + 0.7807 ANOVA Source of Variation df SS MS F Explained 1 6924.8 6924.8 94.201*** Unexplained 14 1029.1 73.510 Total 15 7953.9 SIGNIFICANCE OF COEFFICIENTS Coeff. Std. Error t y0=0.78071 2.8197 0.27687ns a=0.20064 0.020672 9.7057*** * = 0.01 < P < 0.05 ** = 0.001 < P < 0.01 ***= P < 0.001 Figure 7. Regression analysis of the observed TSS data. The regression statistics suggest a mean TSS removal efficiency of 80% with a standard error of 2.1%, and a mean SSC removal efficiency of 84% with a standard error of 1.9%. As discussed in the Project Plan, two-tailed hypothesis testing should be used to compare the observations to the Field Claim. Presented in Figure 8 are normal distributions calculated using the regression statistics corresponding to the observations and the performance claim. Based upon the observation that the mean performance of SF#6 is still within the 95% confidence limits of the mean removal efficiency of the performance claim, there is no significant difference between the performance of SF#6 and that corresponding to the performance claim. 26 Efficiency 0.50.60.70.80.91.0 Fr e q u e n c y o f O b s e r v a t i o n ( % ) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Claimed 95% Confidence Limits for Claim Observed-SSC Observed-TSS Figure 8. Statistics for the claim and the observations presented as normal probability density functions. Conclusion The Greenville Yards StormFilter system field test has demonstrated that: The Stormwater Management StormFilter® system operating at a specific flow rate of 2.05 gpm/ft2 per cartridge (15 gpm, 57 l/m) using perlite media has demonstrated a TSS (EPA Method 160.2) removal efficiency of 80% with 95% confidence limits of 76% and 84% for a sandy loam texture sediment (or finer) in the field using the NJDEP TARP/Tier II Protocol. 6. Net Environmental Benefit The StormFilter requires no input of raw material, has no moving parts other than a float within the cartridge that moves up and down to engage the siphon, and therefore uses no water or energy other than that provided by stormwater runoff. During the 18-month monitoring period the mass of materials captured and retained by the StormFilter was 2750 lbs. This material would otherwise have been released to the environment during stormwater runoff. Chemical analysis of the residual solids and used media confirmed the removal and retention of chemical contaminants such as metals and hydrocarbons as suggested by removal performance calculations (Appendix B). Though not observed in interpretation of the water quality data, residual solids analysis suggested some degree of nutrient removal as well. As shown in Figure 9, generally 80% of the contaminant load removed by the system was found outside of the cartridges. Particle size distributions and analytical results for the residuals removed from the StormFilter at the end of the monitoring period are provided in Appendix C. 27 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Total Solids (dry) Total Cu Total Zn Total Cd Total Pb Total P Total N Diesel Range Organics Heavy Oil Range Hydrocarbons Oil and Grease Total Mass Settled Filtered Figure 9. Distribution of the total mass of contaminants found within Greenville Yards StormFilter over the course of the study. These percentages do not directly indicate overall performance afforded by either the settling or filtering aspect of the StormFilter. 7. References CONTECH Stormwater Solutions, Inc. (1999). Sediment Loading on a Perlite Filled StormFilter Cartridge. Portland, Oregon. Author. CONTECH Stormwater Solutions Inc. (2004a). Stormwater Management StormFilter Field Evaluation Project Plan: Greenville Yards Industrial Park. Portland, Oregon: Author. CONTECH Stormwater Solutions, Inc. (2004b). The role of settling within the Stormwater Management StormFilter® System (Document PE-E050). Portland, Oregon: Author. CONTECH Stormwater Solutions, Inc. (2005). Standard Operation Procedure: Estimation of Influent Particle Size Distribution (Document PE-SP18). Portland, Oregon: Author New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (2002). Conditional Interim Certification Findings. Trenton, New Jersey: Author. Available online: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/bscit/SFCondCert.pdf New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). (2006). New Jersey Tier II Stormwater Test Requirements—Amendments to TARP Tier II Protocol. Trenton, New Jersey: Author. Available online: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/bscit/NJStormwater_TierII.pdf Technology Acceptance and Reciprocity Partnership (TARP). (2003). The Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership Protocol for Stormwater Best Management Practice Demonstrations. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Author. Available online: 28 http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/pollprev/techservices/tarp/pdffiles/Tier2protocol.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002). Urban Stormwater BMP Performance Monitoring: A Guidance Manual for Meeting the National Stormwater BMP Database Requirements (EPA-821-B-02-001). Washington, D.C.: Author. Available Online: http://epa.gov/waterscience/stormwater/montcomplete.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). (n.d.) 2005 National Soil Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. Retrieved June 8, 2006 from http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/. Washington State Department of Ecology (WADOE). (2002). Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies: Technology Assessment Protocol—Ecology (Publication Number 02-10-037). Olympia, Washington: Author. Available Online: http//www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0210037.pdf 29 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL STORM REPORTS 30 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 07/12/04 Date of Last Maintenance: 06/16/04 Antecedent Conditions: 6 days since last rain event Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.13 Peak Flow, (gpm): 143 SF Influent, 197 SF Effluent, 0 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 3678 SF Influent, 4910 SF Effluent, 0 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): >90 Influent, >90 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 7/12/2004 5:00 7/12/2004 6:00 7/12/2004 7:00 7/12/2004 8:00 7/12/2004 9:00 7/12/2004 10:00 7/12/2004 11:00 7/12/2004 12:00 7/12/2004 13:00 7/12/2004 14:00 7/12/2004 15:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN:9SSC 18219.050.01%90% EFF:12TVSS 90ND1020%89% SSC (<500µm)15621.050.01%87% TVSS (<500µm)88ND1020%89% TSS 150214.009.1%86% Hardness 87751.0020%undeterminable Total P 1.5901.4900.011.77%6% TKN2.5402.430 1.0041.3%undeterminable NO3-NO21.7102.5100.55 0%release Total CdNDND0.000571.0%undeterminable Total Cr0.01610.00380.0005213.5%76% Total Cu0.07210.03660.0009780.8%undeterminable Total Pb0.04900.01340.00250.2%73% Total Zn0.7470.4840.001615.7%35% Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. Reviewed and accepted by NJCAT. 31 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 07/14/04 Date of Last Maintenance: 06/16/04 Antecedent Conditions: 2 days since last rain event Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.98 Peak Flow, (gpm): 681 SF Influent, 264 SF Effluent, 2800 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 13382 SF Influent, 9164 SF Effluent, 17000 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): 90 Influent, 90 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 480 510 540 570 600 630 660 690 720 750 780 810 7/14/2004 14:00 7/14/2004 15:00 7/14/2004 16:00 7/14/2004 17:00 7/14/2004 18:00 7/14/2004 19:00 7/14/2004 20:00 7/14/2004 21:00 7/14/2004 22:00 7/14/2004 23:00 7/15/2004 0:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.68 0.72 0.76 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken Design Q SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 7SSC 58.013.0 5 0.02%78% EFF: 5TVSS 20ND1020%50% SSC (<500µm)36.07.0 5 0.02%81% TVSS (<500µm)12ND1020%undeterminable TSS 71104.0020%86% O&G 8.000105.001.6%release TPH NDND1.0020%undeterminable Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. No overflow detected within system during entire event. Only enough sample volume collected to perform solids analysis. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. Reviewed and accepted by NJCAT. 32 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 08/11/04 Date of Last Maintenance: 06/16/04 Antecedent Conditions: 10 days since last rain event Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.46 Peak Flow, (gpm): 237 SF Influent, 124 SF Effluent, 110 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 11566 SF Influent, 13477 SF Effluent, 2200 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): 90 Influent, 90 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 8/11/2004 13:00 8/11/2004 14:00 8/11/2004 15:00 8/11/2004 16:00 8/11/2004 17:00 8/11/2004 18:00 8/11/2004 19:00 8/11/2004 20:00 8/11/2004 21:00 8/11/2004 22:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMC Effluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 18SSC 28026.0515%91% EFF: 20TVSS 240101020%96% SSC (<500µm)17023.0515%86% TVSS (<500µm)130ND1020%92% TSS 240284.006.9%88% Hardness 56481.0020%undeterminable Total P 0.1500.2000.010%release TKN1.4701.550 1.004.8%release NO3-NO2NDND0.55 20%undeterminable Total CdNDND0.00057 20%undeterminable Total Cr0.01380.00320.000525.5%77% Total Cu0.07640.03130.000972.0%59% Total Pb0.05950.01920.0025200.0%undeterminable Total Zn0.7120.4630.00163.4%35% Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. Reviewed and accepted by NJCAT. 33 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 08/14/04 Date of Last Maintenance: 06/16/04 Antecedent Conditions: 1 day since last rain event Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.72 Peak Flow, (gpm): 157 SF Influent, 168 SF Effluent, 0 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 25208 SF Influent, 16146 SF Effluent, 0 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): 50 Influent, 70 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 8/14/2004 21:00 8/14/2004 22:00 8/14/2004 23:00 8/15/2004 0:00 8/15/2004 1:00 8/15/2004 2:00 8/15/2004 3:00 8/15/2004 4:00 8/15/2004 5:00 8/15/2004 6:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken Design Q SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 18 SSC 82.09.05.007.6%89% EFF: 16 TVSS 40ND10.020%75% SSC (<500µm)125.05.007.6%58% TVSS (<500µm)37.0ND10.020%73% TSS 85154.002.4%82% Hardness 28281.0020%undeterminable Total P 0.1800.2700.015.4%release TKN1.7601.290 1.004.8%27% NO3-NO2 NDND0.55 20%undeterminable Total Cd 0.0010.000890.00057 1.4%11% Total Cr 0.00560.00180.00052 16.9%68% Total Cu 0.03660.02060.00097 0.9%44% Total Pb0.02190.00770.0025 1.8%65% Total Zn0.5440.2850.0016 2.5%48% Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. Reviewed and accepted by NJCAT. 34 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 08/31/04 Date of Last Maintenance: 06/16/04 Antecedent Conditions: 11 days since last rain event, 0.71” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.19 Peak Flow, (gpm): 112 SF Influent, 149 SF Effluent, 0 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 7186 SF Influent, 8265 SF Effluent, 0 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): 70 Influent, 70 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 8/31/2004 3:00 8/31/2004 4:00 8/31/2004 5:00 8/31/2004 6:00 8/31/2004 7:00 8/31/2004 8:00 8/31/2004 9:00 8/31/2004 10:00 8/31/2004 11:00 8/31/2004 12:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 5 SSC 46291.0511.9%80% EFF: 6 TVSS 420461020%89% TSS 4201004.001.9%76% Oil and Grease25175.00 1.05%32% TPH2.240ND1.00 1.70%55% Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. Reviewed and accepted by NJCAT. 35 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 09/08/04 Date of Last Maintenance: 06/16/04 Antecedent Conditions: 1 days since last rain event, 0.12” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.39 Peak Flow, (gpm): 166 SF Influent, 133 SF Effluent, 280 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 11692 SF Influent, 9388 SF Effluent, 2900 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): >90 Influent, >90 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 9/8/2004 11:00 9/8/2004 12:00 9/8/2004 13:00 9/8/2004 14:00 9/8/2004 15:00 9/8/2004 16:00 9/8/2004 17:00 9/8/2004 18:00 9/8/2004 19:00 9/8/2004 20:00 9/8/2004 21:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 16 SSC 19.09.0527%53% EFF: 13 TVSS NDND1020%undeterminable SSC (<500µm)15.08.0527%47% TVSS (<500µm)NDND1020%undeterminable TSS 19144.005.1%26% Hardness 19201.0020%undeterminable Total P NDND0.010.0%undeterminable TKN2.0402.640 1.0020%release NO3-NO2 NDND0.55 20%undeterminable Total Cd NDND0.00057 0.1%undeterminable Total Cu 0.0120.00610.00097 0.4%49% Total Pb0.00930.00490.0025 0.6%47% Total Zn0.1630.1240.0016 2.0%24% Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. Reviewed and accepted by NJCAT. 36 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 09/17/04 Date of Last Maintenance: 06/16/04 Antecedent Conditions: 2 days since last rain event, 0.47” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 2.40 Peak Flow, (gpm): 176 SF Influent, SF 302 Effluent, 3000 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 12295 SF Influent, 15802 SF Effluent, 70000 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): 90 Influent, 90 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 9/17/200 4 22:00 9/17/200 4 23:00 9/18/200 4 0:00 9/18/200 4 1:00 9/18/200 4 2:00 9/18/200 4 3:00 9/18/200 4 4:00 9/18/200 4 5:00 9/18/200 4 6:00 9/18/200 4 7:00 9/18/200 4 8:00 9/18/200 4 9:00 9/18/200 4 10:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 9 SSC 96.013.05.08.70%86% EFF: 12 TVSS 32ND1020%69% SSC (<500µm)51.013.05.08.70%75% TVSS (<500µm)18ND1020%44% TSS 100184.0020%82% Hardness 34381.0020%undeterminable Total Cd NDND0.000570.20%undeterminable Total Cu 0.02720.0090.000970.00%67% Total Pb0.0211ND0.00250.30%88% Total Zn0.5460.1800.00160.30%67% Oil and Grease12105.00 3.77%17% TPHNDND1.00 1.83%undeterminable Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. Reviewed and accepted by NJCAT. 37 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 12/09/04 Date of Last Maintenance: 06/16/04 Antecedent Conditions: 1 days since last rain event, 0.18” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.72 Peak Flow, (gpm): 70 SF Influent, 42 SF Effluent, 30 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 18848 SF Influent, 8564 SF Effluent, 740 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): 50 Influent, 70 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 12/9/04 16:00 12/9/04 17:00 12/9/04 18:00 12/9/04 19:00 12/9/04 20:00 12/9/04 21:00 12/9/04 22:00 12/9/04 23:00 12/10/04 0:00 12/10/04 1:00 12/10/04 2:00 12/10/04 3:00 12/10/04 4:00 12/10/04 5:00 12/10/04 6:00 12/10/04 7:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 6 SSC 23.0ND5.020%78% EFF: 8 TVSS NDND1020%undeterminable SSC (<500µm)NDND5.020%undeterminable TVSS (<500µm)NDND1020%undeterminable TSS 23ND4.00020%83% Oil and Grease18105.0 4.7%44% TPH7.9006.6005.0 6.0%16% Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. Pacing rate doubled to allow for coverage based on previous IN and EFF Q relationships. 38 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 04/30/2005 Date of Last Maintenance: 01/27/2005 Antecedent Conditions: 3 days since last rain event, 0.51? Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.79 Peak Flow, (gpm): 157 SF Influent, 180 SF Effluent, 0 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 25546 SF Influent, 10880 SF Effluent, 0 SG Bypass Coverage (nearest 10%): 80 Influent, >90 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 4/30/05 5:00 4/30/05 7:00 4/30/05 9:00 4/30/05 11:00 4/30/05 13:00 4/30/05 15:00 4/30/05 17:00 4/30/05 19:00 4/30/05 21:00 4/30/05 23:00 5/1/05 1:00 5/1/05 3:00 5/1/05 5:00 5/1/05 7:00 5/1/05 9:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 12 SSC 11.05.05.020%55% EFF: 6 TVSS NDND1020%undeterminable SSC (<500µm)8.07.05.020%undeterminable TVSS (<500µm)NDND1020%undeterminable TSS 8.000ND4.00013.3%50% Hardness 16141.00020%undeterminable Total P 0.1100.1000.0100%9% TKNNDND 0.50020%undeterminable NO3-NO2 0.632ND0.550 0.4%13% Total Cd NDND0.00052 1.9%undeterminable Total Cu 0.00740.00480.0013 0.6%35% Total PbNDND0.0016 1.9%undeterminable Total Zn0.1260.07840.00048 8%38% Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. 39 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 06/06/2005 Date of Last Maintenance: 01/27/2005 Antecedent Conditions: 3 days since last rain event, 0.69” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.62 Peak Flow, (gpm): 154 SF Influent, 161 SF Effluent , 48 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 9965 SF Influent, 20800 SF Effluent , 910 SG Bypass Coverage (nearest 10%): >90 Influent, >90 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 6/6/05 12:00 6/6/05 13:00 6/6/05 14:00 6/6/05 15:00 6/6/05 16:00 6/6/05 17:00 6/6/05 18:00 6/6/05 19:00 6/6/05 20:00 6/6/05 21:00 6/6/05 22:00 6/6/05 23:00 6/7/05 0:00 6/7/05 1:00 6/7/05 2:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 8 SSC 77.027.05.08.7%65% EFF: 17 TVSS 20ND1020%50% SSC (<500µm)65.022.05.08.7%66% TVSS (<500µm)18ND1020%44% TSS 62214.00020%66% Hardness 23281.00020%undeterminable Total P 0.1200.2200.0100%release TKN0.8531.010 0.5005.3%release NO3-NO2 ND0.6720.550 20%undeterminable Total Cd NDND0.00052 0.6%undeterminable Total Cu 0.0190.0170.0013 13.3%undeterminable Total Pb0.00700.00500.0016 0.0%29% Total Zn0.1860.1820.00048 1.0%2% Oil and Grease116.0005.00 1.7%45% TPH6.100ND5.00 4.5%18% Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. Suspected time sync issue between SG and influent/effluent hydrographs. 40 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 10/22/05 Date of Last Maintenance: 7/26/05 Antecedent Conditions: 8.6 days since last rain event, 5.83” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 1.73 Peak Flow, (gpm): 377 SF Influent, 406 SF Effluent, 545 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 31270 SF Influent, SF 30305 Effluent, 7504 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): >90 Influent, 70 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 10/22/2005 3:00 10/22/2005 5:00 10/22/2005 7:00 10/22/2005 9:00 10/22/2005 11:00 10/22/2005 13:00 10/22/2005 15:00 10/22/2005 17:00 10/22/2005 19:00 10/22/2005 21:00 10/22/2005 23:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 20 SSC 54.007.005.0012%87% EFF: 10 TVSS 14.00ND10.0020%29% SSC (<500µm)12.009.005.0012%25% TVSS (<500µm)NDND 10.00 20%undeterminable TSS 58.0014.004.006.9%76% Total P NDND0.0100%undeterminable TKN NDND5.0020%undeterminable NO3-NO2 NDND0.55020%undeterminable Hardness 16.5915.070.0620%undeterminable Total Cd NDND0.000520.8%undeterminable Total Cu 0.01910.01720.00132.0%10% Total Pb0.00340.00400.00162.7%release Total Zn0.1050.08560.000471.1%18% Oil and Grease8.6005.1005.00 3.7%41% TPH6ND5.00 4.7%17% Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. 41 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 10/24/05 Date of Last Maintenance: 7/26/05 Antecedent Conditions: 2 days since last rain event, 1.73” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 2.44 Peak Flow, (gpm): 273 SF Influent, 215 SF Effluent, 0 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 44620 SF Influent, 68180 SF Effluent, 0 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): 90 Influent, >90 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 10/24/05 18:00 10/24/05 20:00 10/24/05 22:00 10/25/05 0:00 10/25/05 2:00 10/25/05 4:00 10/25/05 6:00 10/25/05 8:00 10/25/05 10:00 10/25/05 12:00 10/25/05 14:00 10/25/05 16:00 10/25/05 18:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 14 SSC 12.00ND5.0029%58% EFF: 22 TVSS NDND10.0020%undeterminable SSC (<500µm)6.00ND5.0029%undeterminable TVSS (<500µm)NDND10.0020%undeterminable TSS 12.00ND4.00020%67% Total P NDND0.0100%undeterminable TKN NDND2.00020%undeterminable NO3-NO2 NDND0.55020%undeterminable Hardness 11.4011.960.0620%undeterminable Total Cd NDND0.00052 0.1%undeterminable Total Cu 0.01340.01140.0013 0.4%15% Total Pb0.00720.00440.0016 0.7%39% Total Zn0.06720.04740.00047 0.6%29% Oil and Grease9.2005.0005.00 10.2%46% TPHNTND5.00 5.7%--- Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. 42 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 11/09/05 Date of Last Maintenance: 7/26/05 Antecedent Conditions: 14 days since last rain event, 0.05” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.68 Peak Flow, (gpm): 302 SF Influent, 245 SF Effluent, 48 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 14244 SF Influent, 15263 SF Effluent, 262 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): 80 Influent, 70 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 11/9/05 15:00 11/9/05 16:00 11/9/05 17:00 11/9/05 18:00 11/9/05 19:00 11/9/05 20:00 11/9/05 21:00 11/9/05 22:00 11/9/05 23:00 11/10/05 0:00 11/10/05 1:00 11/10/05 2:00 11/10/05 3:00 11/10/05 4:00 11/10/05 5:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 12 SSC 96.0023.005.002%76% EFF: 11 TVSS 30.00ND10.0020%67% SSC (<500µm)49.020.005.002%59% TVSS (<500µm)29.00ND10.0020%66% TSS 93.0022.004.0000%76% Total P 0.070ND0.0100%86% TKN NDND0.5000%undeterminable NO3-NO2 0.6330.7350.5503.1%release Hardness 19.4916.710.0720%undeterminable Total Cd NDND 0.000520.8%undeterminable Total Cu 0.01110.0083 0.00130.0%25% Total Pb0.00460.0020 0.00161.2%57% Total Zn0.1710.122 0.000470.3%29% Oil and Grease13.0014.005.00 9.9%undeterminable TPH7.5008.4005.00 5.1%release Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. 43 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 11/29/05 Date of Last Maintenance: 7/26/05 Antecedent Conditions: 5 days since last rain event, 0.03” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 2.06” Peak Flow, (gpm): 362 SF Influent, 357 SF Effluent, 1477 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 52334 SF Influent, 42415 SF Effluent, 30355 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): 80 Influent, > 90 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 11/29/05 19:00 11/29/05 20:00 11/29/05 21:00 11/29/05 22:00 11/29/05 23:00 11/30/05 0:00 11/30/05 1:00 11/30/05 2:00 11/30/05 3:00 11/30/05 4:00 11/30/05 5:00 11/30/05 6:00 11/30/05 7:00 11/30/05 8:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 20 SSC 42.00ND5.0019%88% EFF: 7 TVSS 10.00ND10.0020%undeterminable SSC (<500µm)26.00ND5.0019%81% TVSS (<500µm)NDND10.0020%undeterminable TSS 31.00ND4.00020%87% Total P 0.0600.0500.0100%17% TKN NDND0.50020%undeterminable NO3-NO2 NDND0.55020%undeterminable Hardness 14.369.360.0720%35% Total Cd NDND 0.00032713.0%undeterminable Total Cu NDND 0.0036400.4%undeterminable Total Pb0.005760ND 0.0021800.2%62% Total Zn0.1430.0474 0.0006114.8%67% Oil and GreaseNTNT--------- TPHNTNT--------- Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. 44 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 12/15/05 Date of Last Maintenance: 07/26/05 Antecedent Conditions: 4 days since last rain event, 0.05” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 1.83” Peak Flow, (gpm): 230 SF Influent, 177 SF Effluent, 225 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 72585 SF Influent, 52696 SF Effluent, 17631 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): 60 Influent, 70 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 12/15/05 21:00 12/15/05 22:00 12/15/05 23:00 12/16/05 0:00 12/16/05 1:00 12/16/05 2:00 12/16/05 3:00 12/16/05 4:00 12/16/05 5:00 12/16/05 6:00 12/16/05 7:00 12/16/05 8:00 12/16/05 9:00 12/16/05 10:00 12/16/05 11:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 20 SSC 29.0013.005.003.5%55% EFF: 18 TVSS NDND10.0020%undeterminable SSC (<500µm)22.0010.005.003.5%55% TVSS (<500µm)NDND10.0020%undeterminable TSS 28.0014.004.0015.4%50% Total P NDND0.0120%undeterminable TKN NDND0.5020%undeterminable NO3-NO2 NDND0.5520%undeterminable Hardness 12.8115.700.0720%release Total Cd NDND 0.0003270.7%undeterminable Total Cu 0.0042100.004880 0.0036400.7%release Total Pb0.0026500.002920 0.0021800.7%release Total Zn0.09360.108 0.0006110.5%release Oil and Grease12.00ND5.00 11.0%58% TPHNDND5.00 5.2%undeterminable Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. Pacing rate doubled to allow for coverage based on previous IN and EFF Q relationships. 45 General Information Site: Greenville Yards, (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8 x 18, Fine Perlite, 27 cartridges, 15 gpm Event Date: 12/25/05 Date of Last Maintenance: 7/26/05 Antecedent Conditions: 9 days since last rain event, 1.83” Hydrology Total Precipitation (in): 0.99” Peak Flow, (gpm): 298 SF Influent, 226 SF Effluent, 223 SG Bypass Total Runoff Volume (gal): 37137 SF Influent, 32668 SF Effluent, 1950 SG Bypass SF Vol. Coverage (nearest 10%): >90 Influent, >90 Effluent Event Hydrograph 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300 315 330 345 360 375 390 405 12/25/05 13:00 12/25/05 14:00 12/25/05 15:00 12/25/05 16:00 12/25/05 17:00 12/25/05 18:00 12/25/05 19:00 12/25/05 20:00 12/25/05 21:00 12/25/05 22:00 12/25/05 23:00 12/26/05 0:00 12/26/05 1:00 Time (date hh:mm) Q ( g p m ) 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.52 0.56 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.70 0.74 0.78 0.81 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 In t e n s i t y ( i n / 1 5 - m i n ) Influent Q Effluent Q Influent Sample Taken Effluent Sample Taken SG Q/10 Precipitation Analytical Number of Aliquots:Influent EMCEffluent EMCRDLDup. RPD IN: 16 SSC 20.00ND5.0016%75% EFF: 13 TVSS NDND10.0020%undeterminable SSC (<500µm)NDND5.0016%undeterminable TVSS (<500µm)NDND10.0020%undeterminable TSS 19.00ND4.005.1%79% Total P NDND0.0100%undeterminable TKN NDND0.50020%undeterminable NO3-NO2 NDND0.55020%undeterminable Hardness 10.8710.260.0720%undeterminable Total Cd NDND 0.0003270.2%undeterminable Total Cu 0.01180.005150 0.0036400.1%56% Total Pb0.0049700.003250 0.0021800.3%35% Total Zn0.1210.0812 0.0006110.6%33% Oil and Grease6.000ND5.00 7.7%17% TPHNDND5.00 5.8%undeterminable Parameter Discrete Removal Efficiency Concentrations (mg/L) Notes Shaded RPD values defaulted to 20% standard due to QC complications. SSC Dup. RPD based upon replicate influent sample for SSC. 46 APPENDIX B: REGRESSION OF EMC ANALYSIS 47 Results of parametric testing shown in Figures A-D and Table A indicate significant (α<0.05) removal of SSC, TVSS, SSC<500-um, TVSS<500-um, TSS, Hardness, Total Cu, Total Pb, Total Zn, and Oil and Grease; marginal performance for Total Phosphorus; and significant (α<0.05) release of NO2/NO3. Performance with regard to TKN and Total Cd could not be confidently assessed due to insufficient data quantity/quality or insufficient quantity of detectable concentrations. Influent TSS EMC (mg/L) 0100200300400500 Ef f l u e n t T S S E M C ( m g / L ) 0 100 200 300 400 500 Influent SSC<500-um EMC (mg/L) 0100200 Ef f l u e n t S S C < 5 0 0 - u m E M C ( m g / L ) 0 100 200 Influent TVSS<500-um EMC (mg/L) 0100200 Ef f l u e n t T V S S < 5 0 0 - u m E M C ( m g / L ) 0 100 200 Influent SSC EMC (mg/L) 0100200300400500 Ef f l u e n t S S C E M C ( m g / L ) 0 100 200 300 400 500 Influent TVSS EMC (mg/L) 0100200300400500 Ef f l u e n t T V S S E M C ( m g / L ) 0 100 200 300 400 500 y = 0.11x + 6.8 Significance: P < 0.001 y = 0.16x + 1.8 Significance: P < 0.001 y = 0.20x + 0.78 Significance: P < 0.001 Absolute Removal Relationship Not Significant y = 0.073x + 6.9 Significance: P < 0.01 Figure A. Regression analysis of the influent and effluent relationships between solid analytes for the Greenville Yards StormFilter Evaluation. Refer to Table 1 for acronym definitions. Grouped solid and dashed lines illustrate linear regression and 95% confidence intervals. Influent TKN EMC (mg/L) 0123 Ef f l u e n t T K N E M C ( m g / L ) 0 1 2 3 Influent Total Phosphorus EMC (mg/L) 0.00.10.20.30.40.5 Ef f l u e n t T o t a l P h o s p h o r u s E M C ( m g / L ) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 y = 2.1x - 0.098 Significance: P < 0.01 Influent NO2/NO3 EMC (mg/L) 0123 Ef f l u e n t N O 2 / N O 3 E M C ( m g / L ) 0 1 2 3 y = 1.7x - 0.36 Significance: P < 0.01 Not Significant Figure B. Regression analysis of the influent and effluent relationships between nutrient analytes for the Greenville Yards StormFilter Evaluation. Refer to Table 1 for acronym definitions. Grouped solid and dashed lines illustrate linear regression and 95% confidence intervals. 48 Influent Total Pb EMC (mg/L) 0.000.020.040.060.080.10 Ef f l u e n t T o t a l P b E M C ( m g / L ) 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 Influent Total Cu EMC (mg/L) 0.000.020.040.060.080.10 Ef f l u e n t T o t a l C u E M C ( m g / L ) 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 Influent Total Cd EMC (mg/L) 0.0000.0020.0040.0060.0080.010 Ef f l u e n t T o t a l C d E M C ( m g / L ) 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 Influent Total Zn EMC (mg/L) 0.00.20.40.60.81.0 Ef f l u e n t T o t a l Z n E M C ( m g / L ) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Influent Total Cr EMC (mg/L) 0.000.010.02 Ef f l u e n t T o t a l C r E M C ( m g / L ) 0.00 0.01 0.02 Influent Hardness EMC (mg/L) 020406080100 Ef f l u e n t H a r d n e s s E M C ( m g / L ) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Not Significant y = 0.40x + 0.0048 Significance: P < 0.001 Not Significant y = 0.54x + 0.025 Significance: P < 0.01 y = 0.27x + 0.0012 Significance: P < 0.001 y = 0.85x + 2.7 Significance: P < 0.001 Figure C. Regression analysis of the influent and effluent relationships between metal analytes for the Greenville Yards StormFilter Evaluation. Refer to Table 1 for acronym definitions. Grouped solid and dashed lines illustrate linear regression and 95% confidence intervals. Influent Oil and Grease EMC (mg/L) 0102030 Ef f l u e n t O i l a n d G r e a s e E M C ( m g / L ) 0 10 20 30 y = 0.59x + 1.5 Significance: P < 0.01 Figure D. Regression analysis of the influent and effluent relationships between hydrocarbon analytes for the Greenville Yards StormFilter Evaluation. Refer to Table 1 for acronym definitions. Grouped solid and dashed lines illustrate linear regression and 95% confidence intervals. 49 Ta b l e A . S u m m a r i z e d p e r f o r m a n c e f o r G r e e n v i l l e Y a r d s S t or m F i l t e r . R e f e r t o T a b l e 1 f o r a c r o n y m d e f i n i t i o n s SS C 1 6 1 1 . 0 t o 4 6 2 5 6 . 0 8 4 * * * 8 0 t o 8 8 1 0 . 7 5 . 6 0 t o 1 5 . 9 8 0 R TV S S 1 0 1 0 . 0 t o 4 2 0 3 1 . 0 9 3 * * 8 9 t o 9 6 9 . 2 0 4 . 1 9 t o 1 4 . 2 7 8 R SS C < 5 0 0 - u m 1 3 6 . 0 0 t o 1 7 0 2 6 . 0 8 9 * * * 8 4 t o 9 4 9 . 5 5 6 . 7 6 t o 1 2 . 3 6 8 R TV S S < 5 0 0 - u m 7 1 2 . 0 t o 1 3 0 2 9 . 0 - - - - - - t o - - - - - - - - - t o - - - 7 6 R TS S 1 6 8 . 0 0 t o 4 2 0 6 0 . 0 8 0 * * * 7 6 t o 8 4 1 2 . 8 8 . 0 5 t o 1 7 . 6 7 7 R Ha r d n e s s 1 3 1 0 . 8 7 t o 8 7 . 0 0 1 9 . 0 0 1 5 * * * 5 t o 2 6 1 8 . 7 7 1 6 . 4 6 t o 2 1 . 0 8 - - - ~ To t a l P 6 0 . 0 6 0 t o 0 . 1 8 0 . 1 1 5 - 1 0 8 * * - 2 2 8 t o 1 1 0 . 1 4 2 0 . 0 9 2 t o 0 . 1 9 2 - - - ~ TK N 5 0 . 8 5 3 t o 2 . 5 4 1 . 7 6 - - - - - - t o - - - - - - - - - t o - - - - - - ~ NO 2 / N O 3 4 0. 5 5 0 to 1 . 7 1 0 . 6 3 3 - 6 7 * * - 1 2 7 t o - 7 0 . 7 0 1 0 . 3 7 8 t o 1 . 0 2 - - - - - - To t a l C d 1 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 t o 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 - - - - - - - - - t o - - - - - - - - - t o - - - - - - - - - To t a l C u 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 2 1 t o 0 . 0 7 6 4 0 . 0 1 6 2 6 0 * * * 4 9 t o 7 0 0 . 0 1 1 3 0 . 0 0 8 4 5 t o 0 . 0 1 4 2 3 4 R To t a l P b 6 0 . 0 0 7 0 0 t o 0 . 0 5 9 5 0 . 0 2 1 5 7 3 * * 5 7 t o 8 9 0 . 0 0 7 0 3 0 . 0 0 3 7 8 t o 0 . 0 1 0 3 6 8 R To t a l Z n 8 0 . 1 2 6 t o 0 . 7 4 7 0 . 3 6 5 4 6 * * 2 1 t o 7 1 0 . 2 2 1 0 . 1 5 9 t o 0 . 2 8 3 4 2 R Oi l a n d G r e a s e 1 0 6 . 0 t o 2 5 1 2 4 1 * * 1 t o 8 1 8 . 3 6 . 1 t o 1 0 - - - ~ ** * = P < 0 . 0 0 1 ** = 0 . 0 1 > P > 0 . 0 0 1 * = 0 . 0 5 > P > 0 . 0 1 bo l d = e q u i v a l e n t t o n o n - d e t e c t -- - = u n d e t e r m i n a b l e d u e t o i n s u f f i c i e n t d a t a q u a n t i t y R = r e m o v a l i s s i gni f i c a n t a t t h e 5 % l e v e l o r l e s s ~= n o s i gni f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e An a l yte n Ra n g e o f I n f l u e n t EM C s ( m g / L ) Me d i a n In f l u e n t EM C (m g / L ) Mean Removal Efficiency Estimate (%)One-Tailed Sign Test* (H0=H1=0.5) Re gre s s i o n o f E M C A ggregate Load Reduction Me a n Re m o v a l Ef f i c i e n c y Es t i m a t e (% ) 95 % C o n f i d e n c e In t e r v a l f o r t h e M e a n Re m o v a l E f f i c i e n c y Es t i m a t e ( % ) Me d i a n Ef f l u e n t EM C Es t i m a t e (m g / L ) 95 % C o n f i d e n c e In t e r v a l f o r t h e Me d i a n E f f l u e n t E M C Es t i m a t e ( m g / L ) 50 APPENDIX C: RESIDUALS ANALYSIS 51 General Information Site: Greenville Yards (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8’x18’, Fine Perlite media, 27 cartridges @ 15 gpm per cartridge Date of Maintenance: 1/26/05 Date of Previous Maintenance: 6/15/04 Reconstructed Influent Particle Size Distribution Total Solids: Sandy Loam (53% Sand, 38% Silt, 9% Clay) Particle Diameter (um) 1101001000 Pe r c e n t F i n e r 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CLAY SILTSAND Retained Material Analytical Results units SettledFilteredTotal Total Solids (dry)kg36051.7412 Total Cu g69.632.1102 Total Zn g12001911390 Total Cd g1.030.1431.17 Total Pb g51.630.281.8 Total P g305302608 Total N kg1.750.9172.66 Diesel Range Organics kg11.61.8713.5 Heavy Oil Range Hydrocarbons kg14.81.6916.5 Oil & Grease kg24.72.8627.6 Mass Retained by StormFilter SystemParameter Notes Refer to PE-SP18 for method information. 52 General Information Site: Greenville Yards (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8’x18’, Fine Perlite media, 27 cartridges @ 15 gpm per cartridge Date of Maintenance: 7/26/05 Date of Previous Maintenance: 1/26/05 Reconstructed Influent Particle Size Distribution Total Solids: Sandy Loam (66% Sand, 29% Silt, 5% Clay) Particle Diameter (um) 1101001000 Pe r c e n t F i n e r 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CLAY SILTSAND Retained Material Analytical Results units SettledFilteredTotal Total Solids (dry)kg46635.1501 Total Cu g11329.9143 Total Zn g7602661030 Total Cd g1.860.5582.42 Total Pb g85.532.5118.0 Total P g9953351330 Total N kg1.200.5681.77 Diesel Range Organics kg9.310.85010.2 Heavy Oil Range Hydrocarbons kg 11.81.58 13.4 Oil & Grease kg 17.12.08 19.2 Mass Retained by StormFilter SystemParameter Notes Refer to PE-SP18 for method information. 53 General Information Site: Greenville Yards (3683), Jersey City, NJ System Description: 8’x18’, Fine Perlite media, 27 cartridges @ 15 gpm per cartridge Date of Maintenance: 2/28/06 Date of Previous Maintenance: 7/26/05 Reconstructed Influent Particle Size Distribution Total Solids: Sandy Loam (59% Sand, 36% Silt, 5% Clay) Particle Diameter (um) 1101001000 Pe r c e n t F i n e r 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CLAY SILTSAND Retained Material Analytical Results units SettledFilteredTotal Total Solids (dry)kg28451.3335 Total Cu g79.527.3107 Total Zn g10402691310 Total Cd g1.040.08371.12 Total Pb g58.524.083 Total P g440180620 Total N kg0.8010.5651.37 Diesel Range Organics kg5.080.8455.9 Heavy Oil Range Hydrocarbons kg 11.22.49 13.7 Oil & Grease kg 12.22.33 14.5 Mass Retained by StormFilter SystemParameter Notes Refer to PE-SP18 for method information. Of the settled solids, 5% by mass is greater than 2 mm. 54 APPENDIX D: MONTHLY RAINFALL DATA 55 -R e f e r e n c e d a t e s c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a w e e k ( M o n d a y ) . -C u m u l a t i v e r e c o r d e d r a i n f a l l l i s t e d a b o v e e a c h m o n t h . -S i g n i f i c a n t m e t e r o l o g i c a l e v e n t s i n d i c a t e d b e l o w e a c h m o n t h . Oc t o b e r 2 0 0 4 1. 0 1 " 10 / 4 / 2 0 0 4 1 0 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 4 1 0 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 4 1 0 / 2 5 / 2 0 0 4 1 1 / 1 / 2 0 0 4 Au g u s t 2 0 0 4 4. 9 5 " 8/ 2 / 2 0 0 4 8 / 9 / 2 0 0 4 8 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 4 8 / 2 3 / 2 0 0 4 8 / 3 0 / 2 0 0 4 Hu r r i c a n e Ch a r l e y GYS081104 GYS081404 GYS083104 Ju l y 2 0 0 4 10 . 0 7 " 7/ 5 / 2 0 0 4 7 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 4 7 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 4 7 / 2 6 / 2 0 0 4 GYS071204 GYS071404 Ju n e 2 0 0 4 4. 0 1 " 6/ 7 / 2 0 0 4 6 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 4 6 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 4 6 / 2 8 / 2 0 0 4 15-min Precipitation Depth (in) 0. 0 1 0. 1 110 Project Kickoff Meeting Monitoring Initiated Se p t e m b e r 2 0 0 4 14 . 4 0 " 9/ 6 / 2 0 0 4 9 / 1 3 / 2 0 0 4 9 / 2 0 / 2 0 0 4 9 / 2 7 / 2 0 0 4 15-min Precipitation Depth (in) 0. 0 1 0. 1 110 Sa m p l e d Hu r r i c a n e Fr a n c i s Hu r r i c a n e Iv a n Hu r r i c a n e Je a n n e GYS090804 GYS091704 No v e m b e r 2 0 0 4 5. 9 1 " 11 / 8 / 2 0 0 4 1 1 / 1 5 / 2 0 0 4 1 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 0 4 1 1 / 2 9 / 2 0 0 4 SAMPLERS DISABLED:SENSOR ERROR 56 Ap r i l 2 0 0 5 5. 5 3 " 4/ 4 / 2 0 0 5 4 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 5 4 / 1 8 / 2 0 0 5 4 / 2 5 / 2 0 0 5 De c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 4. 3 5 " 12 / 6 / 2 0 0 4 1 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 0 4 1 2 / 2 0 / 2 0 0 4 1 2 / 2 7 / 2 0 0 4 15-min Precipitation Depth (in) 0. 0 1 0. 1 110 Sa m p l e d Ja n u a r y 2 0 0 5 4. 8 6 " 1/ 3 / 2 0 0 5 1 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 5 1 / 1 7 / 2 0 0 5 1 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 5 1 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 5 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 0 5 2. 9 3 " 2/ 7 / 2 0 0 5 2 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 5 2 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 5 2 / 2 8 / 2 0 0 5 Ma y 2 0 0 5 1. 8 4 " 5/ 2 / 2 0 0 5 5 / 9 / 2 0 0 5 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 5 5 / 2 3 / 2 0 0 5 5 / 3 0 / 2 0 0 5 -R e f e r e n c e d a t e s c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a w e e k ( M o n d a y ) -C u m u l a t i v e r e c o r d e d r a i n f a l l l i s t e d a b o v e e a c h m o n t h ( m a y i n c l u d e a n u n k n o w n p o r t i o n o f s n o w f a l l ) -S i g n i f i c a n t m e t e r o l o g i c a l e v e n t s i n d i c a t e d b e l o w e a c h m o n t h . -S o m e i n s i g n i f i c a n t g a p s i n t h e p r e c i p i t a t i o n r e c o r d e x i s t . - d e n o t e s S n o w s t o r m ( h t t p : / / c l i m a t e . r u t g e r s . e d u / s t a t e c l i m / ? s e c t i o n = m e n u & t a r g e t = w i n t 0 4 0 5 s n o w t o t a l s ) 7 Ma r c h 2 0 0 5 6. 1 1 " 3/ 7 / 2 0 0 5 3 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 5 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 5 3 / 2 8 / 2 0 0 5 15-min Precipitation Depth (in) 0. 0 1 0. 1 110 77 7 7 La s t S n o w s t o r m of W i n t e r 77 7 7 7 GYS120904 7 Fi r s t S n o w s t o r m of W i n t e r 7777 GYS043005 RAIN GAUGE DATA GAP RAIN GAUGE DATA GAP RAIN GAUGE DATA GAP SA M P L E R S DI S A B L E D : MA N I F O L D R E P A I R RAIN GAUGE DATA GAP System Maintained SA M P L E R S DI S A B L E D : SE N S O R E R R O R 57 Ju n e 2 0 0 5 1. 3 1 " 6/ 6 / 2 0 0 5 6 / 1 3 / 2 0 0 5 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 0 5 6 / 2 7 / 2 0 0 5 15-min Precipitation Depth (in) 0. 0 1 0. 1 110 Sa m p l e d Ju l y 2 0 0 5 0. 1 5 " 7/ 4 / 2 0 0 5 7 / 1 1 / 2 0 0 5 7 / 1 8 / 20 0 5 7 / 2 5 / 2 0 0 5 8 / 1 / 2 0 0 5 Au g u s t 2 0 0 5 1. 2 2 " 8/ 8 / 2 0 0 5 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 0 5 8 / 2 2 / 2 0 0 5 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 0 5 Se p t e m b e r 2 0 0 5 0. 3 6 " 9/ 5 / 2 0 0 5 9 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 5 9/ 1 9 / 2 0 0 5 9 / 2 6 / 2 0 0 5 15-min Precipitation Depth (in) 0. 0 1 0. 1 110 Oc t o b e r 2 0 0 5 15 . 4 1 " 10 / 3 / 2 0 0 5 1 0 / 1 0 / 2 0 0 5 1 0 / 1 7 / 2 0 0 5 1 0 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 5 1 0 / 3 1 / 2 0 0 5 No v e m b e r 2 0 0 5 5. 6 0 " 11 / 7 / 2 0 0 5 1 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 0 5 1 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 0 5 1 1 / 2 8 / 2 0 0 5 GYS060605 -R e f e r e n c e d a t e s c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a w e e k ( M o n d a y ) -S i g n i f i c a n t m e t e r o l o g i c a l e v e n t s i n d i c a t e d b e l o w e a c h m o n t h . -S o m e i n s i g n i f i c a n t g a p s i n t h e p r e c i p i t a t i o n r e c o r d e x i s t . SA M P L E R S DI S A B L E D : SY S T E M M A I N T E N A N C E RE Q U I R E D RAIN GAUGE DATA GAP RA I N G A U G E D A T A G A P System Maintained Su b t r o p i c a l De p r e s s i o n 2 2 Hu r r i c a n e Wi l m a GYS102205 GYS102405 GYS110905 GYS112905 58 De c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 4. 4 7 " 12 / 5 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 / 1 9 / 2 0 0 5 1 2 / 2 6 / 2 0 0 5 15-min Precipitation Depth (in) 0. 0 1 0. 1 110 Ja n u a r y 2 0 0 6 6. 6 3 " 1/ 2 / 2 0 0 6 1 / 9 / 2 0 0 6 1 / 1 6 / 2 0 0 6 1 / 2 3 / 2 0 0 6 1 / 3 0 / 2 0 0 6 Fe b r u a r y 2 0 0 5 1. 4 1 " 2/ 6 / 2 0 0 6 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 0 6 2 / 2 0 / 2 0 0 6 2 / 2 7 / 2 0 0 6 -R e f e r e n c e d a t e s c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a w e e k ( M o n d a y ) -C u m u l a t i v e r e c o r d e d r a i n f a l l l i s t e d a b o v e e a c h m o n t h ( m a y i n c l u d e a n u n k n o w n p o r t i o n o f s n o w f a l l ) -S i g n i f i c a n t m e t e r o l o g i c a l e v e n t s i n d i c a t e d b e l o w e a c h m o n t h . -S o m e i n s i g n i f i c a n t g a p s i n t h e p r e c i p i t a t i o n r e c o r d e x i s t . - d e n o t e s S n o w s t o r m ( h t t p : / / c l i m a t e . r u t g e r s . e d u / s t a t e c l i m / ? s e c t i o n = m e n u & % 2 0 t a r g e t = w i n t 0 5 0 6 s n o w t o t a l s # 1 2 - 9 - 0 5 ) 7 77 7 Fi r s t S n o w s t o r m of W i n t e r GYS121505 GYS122505 77 7 7 Residual Solids Samples Taken SA M P L E R S D I S A B L E D F O R T H E W I N T E R ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Supplemental Water Quality Analysis Supplemental Water Quality Analysis Butcher Boy Marketplace 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, Massachusetts August 29, 2013 Owner/Applicant: Angus Realty Corporation 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Civil Engineer: Lynnfield Engineering, Inc. 199 Newbury Street, Suite 115 Danvers, MA 01923 Prepared For: North Andover Planning Board North Andover Conservation Commission Water Quality Analysis Butcher Boy Markets 1077 Osgood Street, North Andover, MA. 13 1P DP #2 - Overland Flow to Route 133 2P Portion of Roof Area 3P Portion of Roof Area 4P Flow to PCB 11 5P Flow to PCB 14 6P Flow to Detention Basin B 7P Flow to PCB 10 8P Flow to PCB 12 9P Flow to CB3 10P Flow to CB2 11P Flow to CB1 1R Flow to DP #1 - CB#1 12P Roof Drywell A 13P Roof Drywell B 14P Det Basin A 15P Det Basin B CB2CB CB2 CB3CB CB3 CDS SF CB CDS Storm Filter DMH1 CB PDMH 1 DMH2 CB PDMH 2 DMH4 CB PDMH 4 DMH7 CB PDMH7 DMH8 CB PDMH8 DMH9 CB DMH 9 PCB 10 CB PCB 10 PCB 11 CB PCB 11 PCB 12 CB PCB 12 PCB 13 CB PCB 13 PCB 14 CB PCB 14 WQI1 CB PWQI #1 WQI2 CB PWQI #2 Routing Diagram for PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey, Printed 8/28/2013 HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1P: DP #2 - Overland Flow to Route 133 Runoff=0.16 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume=858 cf, Depth=0.22" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 20,00073Woods, Fair, HSG C 25,85274>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 45,85274Weighted Average 45,852100.00% Pervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Overland Flow Subcatchment 1P: DP #2 - Overland Flow to Route 133 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=45,852 sf Runoff Volume=858 cf Runoff Depth=0.22" Tc=6.0 min CN=74 0.16 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2P: Portion of Roof Area Runoff=0.10 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=326 cf, Depth=1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 2,62998Roofs, HSG C 2,629100.00% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Over Roof Flow Subcatchment 2P: Portion of Roof Area Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=2,629 sf Runoff Volume=326 cf Runoff Depth=1.49" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 0.10 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 3P: Portion of Roof Area Runoff=0.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=268 cf, Depth=1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 2,16298Roofs, HSG C 2,162100.00% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Over Roof Flow Subcatchment 3P: Portion of Roof Area Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=2,162 sf Runoff Volume=268 cf Runoff Depth=1.49" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 0.08 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 4P: Flow to PCB 11 Runoff=0.10 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=327 cf, Depth=1.13" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 2,82598Paved parking, HSG C 65074>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3,47594Weighted Average 65018.71% Pervious Area 2,82581.29% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Overland Flow Subcatchment 4P: Flow to PCB 11 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.11 0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=3,475 sf Runoff Volume=327 cf Runoff Depth=1.13" Tc=6.0 min CN=94 0.10 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 5P: Flow to PCB 14 Runoff=0.33 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,096 cf, Depth=1.39" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 9,25798Paved parking, HSG C 22074>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 9,47797Weighted Average 2202.32% Pervious Area 9,25797.68% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Overland Flow Subcatchment 5P: Flow to PCB 14 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=9,477 sf Runoff Volume=1,096 cf Runoff Depth=1.39" Tc=6.0 min CN=97 0.33 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6P: Flow to Detention Basin B Runoff=0.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=446 cf, Depth=1.29" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 3,85598Paved parking, HSG C 27774>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 4,13296Weighted Average 2776.70% Pervious Area 3,85593.30% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Overland Flow Subcatchment 6P: Flow to Detention Basin B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=4,132 sf Runoff Volume=446 cf Runoff Depth=1.29" Tc=6.0 min CN=96 0.14 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 7P: Flow to PCB 10 Runoff=0.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=273 cf, Depth=1.21" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 2,41598Paved parking, HSG C 30074>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,71595Weighted Average 30011.05% Pervious Area 2,41588.95% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Overland Flow Subcatchment 7P: Flow to PCB 10 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=2,715 sf Runoff Volume=273 cf Runoff Depth=1.21" Tc=6.0 min CN=95 0.08 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 8P: Flow to PCB 12 Runoff=0.06 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=196 cf, Depth=1.05" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 44774>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1,79298Paved parking, HSG C 2,23993Weighted Average 44719.96% Pervious Area 1,79280.04% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Overland Flow Subcatchment 8P: Flow to PCB 12 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=2,239 sf Runoff Volume=196 cf Runoff Depth=1.05" Tc=6.0 min CN=93 0.06 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 9P: Flow to CB3 Runoff=0.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,502 cf, Depth=1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 12,12098Paved parking, HSG C 12,120100.00% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Overland Flow Subcatchment 9P: Flow to CB3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=12,120 sf Runoff Volume=1,502 cf Runoff Depth=1.49" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 0.44 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 10P: Flow to CB2 Runoff=0.28 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=952 cf, Depth=1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 15074>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 7,53298Paved parking, HSG C 7,68298Weighted Average 1501.95% Pervious Area 7,53298.05% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Overland Flow Subcatchment 10P: Flow to CB2 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=7,682 sf Runoff Volume=952 cf Runoff Depth=1.49" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 0.28 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 11P: Flow to CB1 Runoff=0.52 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,770 cf, Depth=1.49" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Area (sf)CNDescription 20074>75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 14,07798Paved parking, HSG C 14,27798Weighted Average 2001.40% Pervious Area 14,07798.60% Impervious Area TcLengthSlopeVelocityCapacityDescription (min)(feet)(ft/ft)(ft/sec)(cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry, Overland Flow Subcatchment 11P: Flow to CB1 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71" Runoff Area=14,277 sf Runoff Volume=1,770 cf Runoff Depth=1.49" Tc=6.0 min CN=98 0.52 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 1R: Flow to DP #1 - CB#1 Inflow Area =60,908 sf,96.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.31" Inflow=1.25 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=6,670 cf Outflow=1.25 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=6,670 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach 1R: Flow to DP #1 - CB#1 Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=60,908 sf 1.25 cfs1.25 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 12P: Roof Drywell A Inflow Area =2,162 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.49" Inflow=0.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=268 cf Outflow=0.00 cfs @ 13.82 hrs, Volume=268 cf, Atten= 94%, Lag= 103.9 min Discarded=0.00 cfs @ 7.85 hrs, Volume=241 cf Primary=0.00 cfs @ 13.82 hrs, Volume=27 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 132.52' @ 13.82 hrs Surf.Area= 192 sf Storage= 168 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 1,133.3 min calculated for 268 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1,134.2 min ( 1,905.8 - 771.6 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description #1A131.00'143 cf 11.50'W x 16.68'L x 2.33'H Field A 448 cf Overall - 91 cf Embedded = 356 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A131.50'91 cf ADS_StormTech SC-310 x 6 Inside #1 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 2.07 sf x 3 rows 234 cfTotal Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Discarded131.00'0.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area #2Primary132.50'4.0" Round Culvert X 2.00 L= 25.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 132.50' / 132.00' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010, Flow Area= 0.09 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 7.85 hrs HW=131.02' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 13.82 hrs HW=132.52' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.00 cfs @ 0.53 fps) Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 12P: Roof Drywell A Inflow Outflow Discarded Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Inflow Area=2,162 sf Peak Elev=132.52' Storage=168 cf 0.08 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.00 cfs0.00 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 13P: Roof Drywell B Inflow Area =2,629 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.49" Inflow=0.10 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=326 cf Outflow=0.02 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume=326 cf, Atten= 77%, Lag= 24.3 min Discarded=0.00 cfs @ 7.35 hrs, Volume=245 cf Primary=0.02 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume=81 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 132.87' @ 12.49 hrs Surf.Area= 192 sf Storage= 173 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 962.1 min calculated for 326 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 961.9 min ( 1,733.5 - 771.6 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description #1A131.30'143 cf 11.50'W x 16.68'L x 2.33'H Field A 448 cf Overall - 91 cf Embedded = 356 cf x 40.0% Voids #2A131.80'91 cf ADS_StormTech SC-310 x 6 Inside #1 Effective Size= 28.9"W x 16.0"H => 2.07 sf x 7.12'L = 14.7 cf Overall Size= 34.0"W x 16.0"H x 7.56'L with 0.44' Overlap Row Length Adjustment= +0.44' x 2.07 sf x 3 rows 234 cfTotal Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Discarded131.30'0.270 in/hr Exfiltration over Horizontal area #2Primary132.80'4.0" Round Culvert X 2.00 L= 17.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 132.80' / 132.10' S= 0.0412 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.09 sf Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 7.35 hrs HW=131.32' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.00 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 12.49 hrs HW=132.86' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.02 cfs @ 0.87 fps) Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 13P: Roof Drywell B Inflow Outflow Discarded Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Inflow Area=2,629 sf Peak Elev=132.87' Storage=173 cf 0.10 cfs 0.02 cfs 0.00 cfs 0.02 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 14P: Det Basin A Inflow Area =17,829 sf,93.44% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.16" Inflow=0.52 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,723 cf Outflow=0.04 cfs @ 13.06 hrs, Volume=1,723 cf, Atten= 91%, Lag= 58.5 min Primary=0.04 cfs @ 13.06 hrs, Volume=1,723 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 131.00' @ 13.06 hrs Surf.Area= 3,036 sf Storage= 971 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 719.5 min calculated for 1,722 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 720.4 min ( 1,514.1 - 793.7 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description #1A130.30'0 cf 46.00'W x 66.00'L x 2.00'H Field A 6,072 cf Overall - 3,107 cf Embedded = 2,965 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A130.30'3,107 cf CMP_Round 24 x 45 Inside #1 Effective Size= 24.0"W x 24.0"H => 3.14 sf x 20.00'L = 62.9 cf Overall Size= 24.0"W x 24.0"H x 20.00'L 44.00' Header x 3.14 sf x 2 = 276.7 cf Inside 3,107 cfTotal Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Device 4130.30'0.7" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #2Device 4130.90'7.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3Device 4131.30'5.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4Primary130.00'12.0" Round Culvert L= 72.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 130.00' / 129.65' S= 0.0049 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 13.06 hrs HW=131.00' (Free Discharge) 4=Culvert (Passes 0.04 cfs of 2.11 cfs potential flow) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.01 cfs @ 4.03 fps) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.03 cfs @ 1.08 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 14P: Det Basin A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=17,829 sf Peak Elev=131.00' Storage=971 cf 0.52 cfs 0.04 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 15P: Det Basin B Inflow Area =9,000 sf,91.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.96" Inflow=0.20 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=723 cf Outflow=0.01 cfs @ 14.75 hrs, Volume=723 cf, Atten= 94%, Lag= 159.8 min Primary=0.01 cfs @ 14.75 hrs, Volume=723 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 131.25' @ 14.75 hrs Surf.Area= 2,015 sf Storage= 456 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 867.8 min calculated for 723 cf (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 868.6 min ( 1,674.5 - 805.9 ) VolumeInvertAvail.StorageStorage Description #1A130.70'0 cf 31.00'W x 65.00'L x 1.50'H Field A 3,023 cf Overall - 1,368 cf Embedded = 1,655 cf x 0.0% Voids #2A130.70'1,368 cf CMP_Round 18 x 36 Inside #1 Effective Size= 18.0"W x 18.0"H => 1.76 sf x 20.00'L = 35.2 cf Overall Size= 18.0"W x 18.0"H x 20.00'L 29.00' Header x 1.76 sf x 2 = 102.0 cf Inside 1,368 cfTotal Available Storage Storage Group A created with Chamber Wizard DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary130.60'12.0" Round Culvert L= 64.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 130.60' / 129.70' S= 0.0141 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2Device 1130.70'0.5" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #3Device 1131.20'5.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #4Device 1131.50'4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate X 2.00 C= 0.600 Primary OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 14.75 hrs HW=131.25' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.01 cfs of 1.18 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.00 cfs @ 3.58 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.01 cfs @ 0.78 fps) 4=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 15P: Det Basin B Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.22 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Inflow Area=9,000 sf Peak Elev=131.25' Storage=456 cf 0.20 cfs 0.01 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond CB2: CB2 Inflow Area =19,802 sf,99.24% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.49" Inflow=0.72 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=2,454 cf Outflow=0.72 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=2,454 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.72 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=2,454 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 129.38' @ 12.09 hrs DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary129.00'15.0" Round Culvert L= 78.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 129.00' / 128.10' S= 0.0115 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.70 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=129.37' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.70 cfs @ 3.43 fps) Pond CB2: CB2 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=19,802 sf Peak Elev=129.38' 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=78.0' S=0.0115 '/' 0.72 cfs0.72 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond CB3: CB3 Inflow Area =12,120 sf,100.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.49" Inflow=0.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,502 cf Outflow=0.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,502 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.44 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,502 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 130.10' @ 12.09 hrs DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary129.80'15.0" Round Culvert L= 75.0' RCP, groove end projecting, Ke= 0.200 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 129.80' / 129.00' S= 0.0107 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.43 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=130.09' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.43 cfs @ 2.93 fps) Pond CB3: CB3 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Inflow Area=12,120 sf Peak Elev=130.10' 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=75.0' S=0.0107 '/' 0.44 cfs0.44 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond CDS SF: CDS Storm Filter Inflow Area =26,829 sf,92.94% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.09" Inflow=0.05 cfs @ 13.84 hrs, Volume=2,446 cf Outflow=0.05 cfs @ 13.84 hrs, Volume=2,446 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.05 cfs @ 13.84 hrs, Volume=2,446 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 127.82' @ 13.84 hrs DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary127.70'12.0" Round Culvert L= 22.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 127.70' / 127.26' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.05 cfs @ 13.84 hrs HW=127.82' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.05 cfs @ 0.94 fps) Pond CDS SF: CDS Storm Filter Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Inflow Area=26,829 sf Peak Elev=127.82' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=22.0' S=0.0200 '/' 0.05 cfs0.05 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond DMH1: PDMH 1 Inflow Area =6,190 sf,84.65% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.16" Inflow=0.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=600 cf Outflow=0.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=600 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=600 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 131.50' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 134.50' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary131.25'12.0" Round Culvert L= 77.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 131.25' / 130.87' S= 0.0049 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.18 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=131.50' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.18 cfs @ 1.83 fps) Pond DMH1: PDMH 1 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Inflow Area=6,190 sf Peak Elev=131.50' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.013 L=77.0' S=0.0049 '/' 0.19 cfs0.19 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond DMH2: PDMH 2 Inflow Area =15,667 sf,92.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.30" Inflow=0.52 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,696 cf Outflow=0.52 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,696 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.52 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,696 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 131.34' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 135.20' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary130.90'12.0" Round Culvert L= 10.0' CPP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 130.90' / 130.85' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2Primary131.40'4.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=0.50 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=131.33' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.50 cfs @ 2.27 fps) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond DMH2: PDMH 2 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=15,667 sf Peak Elev=131.34' 0.52 cfs0.52 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond DMH4: PDMH 4 Inflow Area =9,000 sf,91.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.96" Inflow=0.20 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=723 cf Outflow=0.20 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=723 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.20 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=723 cf Secondary=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 132.24' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 134.70' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary132.00'12.0" Round Culvert L= 6.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 132.00' / 131.85' S= 0.0250 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.009, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2Secondary132.60'4.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=132.24' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.19 cfs @ 1.32 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=132.00' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond DMH4: PDMH 4 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.22 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Inflow Area=9,000 sf Peak Elev=132.24' 0.20 cfs0.20 cfs0.20 cfs 0.00 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond DMH7: PDMH7 Inflow=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0 cf Outflow=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 129.10' @ 0.00 hrs DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary129.10'15.0" Round Culvert L= 55.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 129.10' / 128.55' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010, Flow Area= 1.23 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=129.10' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond DMH7: PDMH7 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Peak Elev=129.10' 15.0" Round Culvert n=0.010 L=55.0' S=0.0100 '/' 0.00 cfs0.00 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond DMH8: PDMH8 Inflow Area =26,829 sf,92.94% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.09" Inflow=0.05 cfs @ 13.84 hrs, Volume=2,446 cf Outflow=0.05 cfs @ 13.84 hrs, Volume=2,446 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.05 cfs @ 13.84 hrs, Volume=2,446 cf Secondary=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 129.81' @ 13.84 hrs Flood Elev= 134.00' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary129.65'6.0" Round Culvert L= 3.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 129.65' / 129.62' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010, Flow Area= 0.20 sf #2Secondary129.81'5.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=0.05 cfs @ 13.84 hrs HW=129.81' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.05 cfs @ 1.43 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=129.65' (Free Discharge) 2=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond DMH8: PDMH8 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Inflow Area=26,829 sf Peak Elev=129.81' 0.05 cfs0.05 cfs0.05 cfs 0.00 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond DMH9: DMH 9 Inflow Area =9,000 sf,91.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.96" Inflow=0.01 cfs @ 14.75 hrs, Volume=723 cf Outflow=0.01 cfs @ 14.75 hrs, Volume=723 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.01 cfs @ 14.75 hrs, Volume=723 cf Secondary=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 130.57' @ 14.75 hrs Flood Elev= 134.50' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Secondary130.66'5.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 #2Primary130.50'6.0" Round Culvert L= 146.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 130.50' / 129.77' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.20 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 14.75 hrs HW=130.57' (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.01 cfs @ 1.02 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=130.50' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) Pond DMH9: DMH 9 Inflow Outflow Primary Secondary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.014 0.013 0.012 0.011 0.01 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 Inflow Area=9,000 sf Peak Elev=130.57' 0.01 cfs0.01 cfs0.01 cfs 0.00 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond PCB 10: PCB 10 Inflow Area =2,715 sf,88.95% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.21" Inflow=0.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=273 cf Outflow=0.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=273 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=273 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 131.76' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 133.00' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary131.60'12.0" Round Culvert L= 37.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 131.60' / 131.25' S= 0.0095 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.009, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.08 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=131.76' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.08 cfs @ 1.06 fps) Pond PCB 10: PCB 10 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Inflow Area=2,715 sf Peak Elev=131.76' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.009 L=37.0' S=0.0095 '/' 0.08 cfs0.08 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond PCB 11: PCB 11 Inflow Area =3,475 sf,81.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.13" Inflow=0.10 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=327 cf Outflow=0.10 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=327 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.10 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=327 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 131.72' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 133.10' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary131.55'12.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 131.55' / 131.35' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.009, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.10 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=131.72' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.10 cfs @ 1.11 fps) Pond PCB 11: PCB 11 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.11 0.105 0.1 0.095 0.09 0.085 0.08 0.075 0.07 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Inflow Area=3,475 sf Peak Elev=131.72' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.009 L=20.0' S=0.0100 '/' 0.10 cfs0.10 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond PCB 12: PCB 12 Inflow Area =2,239 sf,80.04% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.05" Inflow=0.06 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=196 cf Outflow=0.06 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=196 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.06 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=196 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 132.56' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 132.30' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary132.43'12.0" Round Culvert L= 66.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 132.43' / 132.10' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.009, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.06 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=132.56' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.06 cfs @ 0.98 fps) Pond PCB 12: PCB 12 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.065 0.06 0.055 0.05 0.045 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Inflow Area=2,239 sf Peak Elev=132.56' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.009 L=66.0' S=0.0050 '/' 0.06 cfs0.06 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond PCB 13: PCB 13 Inflow Area =4,132 sf,93.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.29" Inflow=0.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=446 cf Outflow=0.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=446 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.14 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=446 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 132.40' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 133.40' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary132.20'12.0" Round Culvert L= 5.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 132.20' / 132.10' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.009, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.13 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=132.40' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.13 cfs @ 1.20 fps) Pond PCB 13: PCB 13 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Inflow Area=4,132 sf Peak Elev=132.40' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.009 L=5.0' S=0.0200 '/' 0.14 cfs0.14 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond PCB 14: PCB 14 Inflow Area =9,477 sf,97.68% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.39" Inflow=0.33 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,096 cf Outflow=0.33 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,096 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.33 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,096 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 132.32' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 132.70' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary132.00'12.0" Round Culvert L= 22.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 132.00' / 131.56' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.009, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.32 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=132.32' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Inlet Controls 0.32 cfs @ 1.51 fps) Pond PCB 14: PCB 14 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Inflow Area=9,477 sf Peak Elev=132.32' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.009 L=22.0' S=0.0200 '/' 0.33 cfs0.33 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond WQI1: PWQI #1 Inflow Area =15,667 sf,92.53% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.30" Inflow=0.52 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,696 cf Outflow=0.52 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,696 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.52 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=1,696 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 131.27' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 135.40' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary130.82'12.0" Round Culvert L= 2.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 130.82' / 130.78' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.50 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=131.26' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.50 cfs @ 2.22 fps) Pond WQI1: PWQI #1 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=15,667 sf Peak Elev=131.27' 12.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=2.0' S=0.0200 '/' 0.52 cfs0.52 cfs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=1.71"PROPOSED Butcher Boy Water Quality Flow 8-29-13 Printed 8/28/2013Prepared by Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey HydroCAD® 10.00 s/n 06609 © 2013 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond WQI2: PWQI #2 Inflow Area =9,000 sf,91.96% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.96" Inflow=0.20 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=723 cf Outflow=0.20 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=723 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary=0.20 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume=723 cf Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 131.03' @ 12.09 hrs Flood Elev= 134.80' DeviceRouting InvertOutlet Devices #1Primary130.75'10.0" Round Culvert L= 2.0' CPP, projecting, no headwall, Ke= 0.900 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 130.75' / 130.71' S= 0.0200 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.011, Flow Area= 0.55 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.19 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=131.02' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.19 cfs @ 1.86 fps) Pond WQI2: PWQI #2 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.22 0.21 0.2 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Inflow Area=9,000 sf Peak Elev=131.03' 10.0" Round Culvert n=0.011 L=2.0' S=0.0200 '/' 0.20 cfs0.20 cfs ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Inspection and Maintenance Plan INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BUTCHER BOY MARKETPLACE 1077 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS Prepared for: Angus Realty Corporation 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Prepared by: Lynnfield Engineering, Inc. 199 Newbury Street Suite 115 Danvers, Massachusetts 01923 August 27, 2013 -i- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\14_toc.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: GENERAL 1 1.1 General 1.2 Inspections and Maintenance of Stormwater BMPs 1 2 TABLES 1 Operation and Maintenance Budget FIGURES C-3 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan C-5 Site Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan ATTACHMENTS 1 Stormwater Inspection Report Form and Site Inspection Checklist 2 Stormwater Chambers Operation and Maintenance Guidelines CDS Inspection and Maintenance Guide APPENDICES A Emergency Response Plan -ii- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\14_toc.doc This page has intentionally been left blank. -1- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\15_txt.doc SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1. GENERAL The Butcher Boy Marketplace site consists of an approximate nine acre parcel of land. The parcel is zoned General Business District per the Zoning Bylaw Town of North Andover last amended May 2004. The site is bound northerly by residential property; easterly by underdeveloped woodlands, and a residential home; southerly by Great Pond Road (State Route 133), and Lake Cochichewick; and, westerly by Osgood Street (State Route 125). The site is occupied by Butcher Boy Marketplace, a retail mall, and associated parking lot areas. The site is located within the Zone A to the Town’s Public Water Supply Lake Cochichewick. The Owner will be responsible for maintenance and implementation of this Inspection and Maintenance Plan. This Inspection and Maintenance Plan will be implemented for the entire Butcher Boy Marketplace Property. This Plan has been prepared to present Inspection and Maintenance measures to be implemented at the site to minimize potential impacts to the public water supply. An Emergency Response Plan has been prepared to handle potential releases at the site. A copy of the plan is presented in Appendix A. Figure No. 1 presents a plan of stormwater management system’s Best Management Practices (BMPs). Owner Angus Realty Corporation 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Telephone: 978.688.1511 Facility Contact (Site Operation and Maintenance) Alan Yameen Angus Realty Corporation 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Telephone: 978.688.1511 Engineer Richard Barthelmes, P.E. Lynnfield Engineering, Inc. 199 Newbury Street Suite 115 Danvers, MA 01923 Telephone: 978.777.7250 -2- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\15_txt.doc 1.2 INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF STORMWATER BMPS Deep Sump Catch basins Deep sump catchbasins shall be inspected four times per year for the first year. If the depth of sediment is not greater than two feet during the first year of inspection then the inspections shall be performed once per year. The catch basins shall be cleaned once the depth of sediment reaches two feet which is one half the sump depths or at a minimum annually. Vacuum trucks are preferred due to their effectiveness and they are less likely to damage the oil/grease hood. Cleaning will be completed at a minimum annually. Hydrodynamic Separator Units Units shall be inspected four times per year for the first year. After the first year the unit needs to be inspected once per year. Inspections should be performed with a “sludge judge” to measure the oil depth, if any, and the sediment depth. Cleaning is required when the sediment depth reaches 75% of the storage capacity of the unit or at a minimum annually. Cleaning must be performed with a vacuum truck. Attachment No. 2 presents the manufacturer inspection/maintenance guide for the units. Detention System The detention system shall be inspected four times per year for the first year. After the first year, the units shall be inspected annually. The detention system is equipped with inspection ports or manholes to visibly observe the bottom of the system. Visible observations shall be made of the bottom of bed for ponding water, debris or sediment, inspection of the inlet and outlet to ensure they are free from debris and sediment and that there are no other obstructions; inspection of the structural integrity of the units from above ground settlement or by observations from the ports/manholes. If the depth of sediment observed exceeds 3”, the affected chamber should be cleaned with high pressure water in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance guidelines. Maintenance shall be completed at a minimum annually. A copy of the manufacturer’s Operation and Maintenance Guidelines is presented in Attachment No. 2. Roof Dry Well The dry well system shall be inspected four times per year for the first year. After the first year, the dry wells shall be inspected annually. The dry well is equipped with inspection ports or manholes to visibly observe the bottom of the system. Visible observations shall be made of the bottom of bed for ponding water, debris or sediment; and inspection of the structural integrity of the units from above ground settlement or by observations from the ports/manholes. If the depth of sediment observed exceeds 3”, the affected dry well should be cleaned with high pressure water in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance guidelines. Maintenance shall be completed in accordance with the manufacturer’s suggested maintenance schedule or at a minimum annually. A copy of the manufacturer’s Operation and Maintenance Guidelines is presented in Attachment No. 2. Infiltration System The infiltration system shall be inspected four times per year for the first year. After the first year, the units shall be inspected annually. The infiltration system is equipped with inspection ports or manholes to visibly observe the bottom of the system. Visible -3- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\15_txt.doc observations shall be made of the bottom of bed for ponding water, debris or sediment, inspection of the inlet and outlet to ensure they are free from debris and sediment and that there are no other obstructions; inspection of the structural integrity of the units from above ground settlement or by observations from the ports/manholes. If the depth of sediment observed exceeds 3”, the affected area should be cleaned with high pressure water in accordance with the manufacturer’s maintenance guidelines. Maintenance shall be completed at a minimum annually. A copy of the manufacturer’s Operation and Maintenance Guidelines is presented in Attachment No. 2. Storm Filter Stormwater filter system shall be inspected four times per year for the first year. After the first year, the filter shall be inspected annually. Visible observations shall be made of the filter for plugging. Based on the visible inspection, maintenance of the filter will be completed if any of the following conditions are observed: >4” accumulated on the vault floor; >¼” sediment accumulated on top of the filter cartridge; plugged filter media; and/or bypassing of the filter is occurring. A copy of the manufacturer’s Operation and Maintenance Guidelines is presented in Attachment No. 2, Inspection and Maintenance Procedures. Isolator Row Units shall be inspected four times per year for the first year. After the first year the unit needs to be inspected once per year. Cleaning is required when a sediment depth of 3” is observed throughout the length of the isolator row of the storage capacity of the unit or at a minimum annually. Cleaning must be performed with a vacuum truck. Attachment No. 2 presents the manufacturer inspection/maintenance guide for the units. Maintenance of Landscaped Areas Landscaped and grass areas immediately adjacent to the proposed parking areas and buildings shall be mowed as required. Grass clippings shall be directed away from the stormwater systems. Fertilizers or pesticides shall not be used with grassed and landscaped areas. Pavement Maintenance Paved areas of the site shall be inspected on a regular basis and cleaned of accumulated sand and debris. At a minimum, paved areas shall be cleaned on an annual basis. Pavement cleaning shall be performed by a qualified contractor and all material removed transported off site for disposal. Paved areas of the site shall be swept on an annual basis. Snow Removal/Storage Snow from the proposed parking lot area will be stockpiled within designated areas or transported offsite by the snow removal contractor. No stockpiling or storage of snow from paved areas of the site is to be performed along Great Pond Road. Deicing chemicals are not to be utilized on the site. In compliance with the existing deed restrictions, pesticides, fertilizers and other chemical shall not be used on the site. Debris and Litter Removal -4- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\15_txt.doc Trash may collect potentially causing clogging of the facilities. All litter and debris should be collected and removed from the site on a regular basis. Vehicle Washing Washing of vehicles is prohibited on the site. Operation and Maintenance Budget Operation and maintenance costs at the site includes third-party inspections, cleaning of catch basins and separator units and sweeping of the parking lot areas, Table No. 1 presents a summary of anticipated costs in the first year of operation following construction of the site. Inspections and cleaning of catch basins and separator units at the site may be reduced to annually based on the findings of the first year inspections completed. K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\16_Tab 1_O&M Budget.docx TABLE NO. 1 Operation and Maintenance Budget Butcher Boy Marketplace North Andover, MA Third Party Inspections(1) (4) $1,200 Annual Parking Lot Sweeping 500 Replacement Stormfilter Media Cartridges Catch Basin and Stormwater Management Structures Cleaning(1) (4) 17,500 2,000 $21,200 10% Contingency 2,120 Total Estimated Annual Cost $23,320 (1)Inspection and cleaning frequency may be reduced to annually after year one based on the findings of stormwater inspections completed. FIGURES K:\480-60\Cad\Drawings\Consult\Eaglebrook_082913\8-29-13 Overall BMP.dwg, 8/30/2013 2:14:27 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Stormwater Inspection Report Form and Site Inspection Checklist K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\20_Stormwater Inspection Report Date/Time: Weather: Last Inspection: Inspector: Description Sediment Depth (in.)Presence of oil/debris (Y/N)Comments Butcher Boy Marketplace North Andover, MA Stormwater Inspection Report K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\21_Site Inspection Checklist Inspected by: Date: A. Landscaped Areas 1.No debris, accumulated trash or litter, or grass or snow dumping 2.Proper signage in place for snow dumping 3.Evidence of erosion, siltation, or sedimentation B.Exterior Lot Area 1.Overall lot appearance satisfactory - free of accumulated litter, debris, and sand C.Drainage System 1.Stormceptor units being inspected and cleaned as needed, or at least once annually (records on file) 2.Catch basins and stormwater conveyances/discharges being inspected quarterly, and cleaned as needed or at least annually 3.Detention system being inspected and cleaned as needed or at least annually 4.Infiltration system being inspected and cleaned as needed or at least annually 5.Storm filters being inspected and cleaned as needed or at least annually 6.Insulator Rows being inspected and cleaned as needed or at least annually 7.Evidence of erosion, sand or debris, structural malfunction or damage 8.Catch basins free of accumulated debris, sediment, defects, and oily sheens D.Trash Management 1.Evidence of illegal, "midnight", dumping 2.Compactors/dumpsters and surrounding areas clean with no eivdence of leakage or spills/litter at dumpster, compactor and loading dock Explanation of Discrepancies (if necessary) North Andover, MA Site Inspection Checklist Butcher Boy Marketplace ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Contech StormFilter Inspection and Maintenance Procedures Storwmater Chambers Operation and Maintenance Guidelines StormTech Chamber System Maintenance Guidelines StormTech Isolator Row Operations and Maintenance Manual StormFilter Inspection and Maintenance Procedures In addition to these two activities, it is important to check the condition of the StormFilter unit after major storms for potential damage caused by high flows and for high sediment accumulation that may be caused by localized erosion in the drainage area. It may be necessary to adjust the inspection/ maintenance schedule depending on the actual operating conditions encountered by the system. In general, inspection activities can be conducted at any time, and maintenance should occur, if warranted, in late summer to early fall when flows into the system are not likely to be present. Maintenance Frequency The primary factor controlling timing of maintenance of the StormFilter is sediment loading. A properly functioning system will remove solids from water by trapping particulates in the porous structure of the filter media inside the cartridges. The flow through the system will naturally decrease as more and more particulates are trapped. Eventually the flow through the cartridges will be low enough to require replacement. It may be possible to extend the usable span of the cartridges by removing sediment from upstream trapping devices on a routine as-needed basis in order to prevent material from being re-suspended and discharged to the StormFilter treatment system. Site conditions greatly influence maintenance requirements. StormFilter units located in areas with erosion or active construction may need to be inspected and maintained more often than those with fully stabilized surface conditions. The maintenance frequency may be adjusted as additional monitoring information becomes available during the inspection program. Areas that develop known problems should be inspected more frequently than areas that demonstrate no problems, particularly after major storms. Ultimately, inspection and maintenance activities should be scheduled based on the historic records and characteristics of an individual StormFilter system or site. It is recommended that the site owner develop a database to properly manage StormFilter inspection and maintenance programs. Prior to the development of the maintenance database, the following maintenance frequencies should be followed: Inspection One time per year After major storms Maintenance As needed, based on results of inspection (The average maintenance lifecycle is approximately 1-3 years) Per Regulatory requirement In the event of a chemical spill Frequencies should be updated as required. The recommended initial frequency for inspection is one time per year. StormFilter units should be inspected after major storms. 2 3 Maintenance Guidelines The primary purpose of the Stormwater Management StormFilter® is to filter out and prevent pollutants from entering our waterways. Like any effective filtration system, periodically these pollutants must be removed to restore the StormFilter to its full efficiency and effectiveness. Maintenance requirements and frequency are dependent on the pollutant load characteristics of each site. Maintenance activities may be required in the event of a chemical spill or due to excessive sediment loading from site erosion or extreme storms. It is a good practice to inspect the system after major storm events. Maintenance Procedures Although there are likely many effective maintenance options, we believe the following procedure is efficient and can be implemented using common equipment and existing maintenance protocols. A two step procedure is recommended as follows: 1. Inspection Inspection of the vault interior to determine the need for maintenance. 2. Maintenance Cartridge replacement Sediment removal Inspection and Maintenance Timing At least one scheduled inspection should take place per year with maintenance following as warranted. First, an inspection should be done before the winter season. During the inspection the need for maintenance should be determined and, if disposal during maintenance will be required, samples of the accumulated sediments and media should be obtained. Second, if warranted, a maintenance (replacement of the filter cartridges and removal of accumulated sediments) should be performed during periods of dry weather. 2 3 Sediment removal and cartridge replacement on an as needed basis is recommended unless site conditions warrant. Once an understanding of site characteristics has been established, maintenance may not be needed for one to three years, but inspection is warranted and recommended annually. Inspection Procedures The primary goal of an inspection is to assess the condition of the cartridges relative to the level of visual sediment loading as it relates to decreased treatment capacity. It may be desirable to conduct this inspection during a storm to observe the relative flow through the filter cartridges. If the submerged cartridges are severely plugged, then typically large amounts of sediments will be present and very little flow will be discharged from the drainage pipes. If this is the case, then maintenance is warranted and the cartridges need to be replaced. Warning: In the case of a spill, the worker should abort inspection activities until the proper guidance is obtained. Notify the local hazard control agency and CONTECH Construction Products immediately. To conduct an inspection: Important: Inspection should be performed by a person who is familiar with the operation and configuration of the StormFilter treatment unit. 1. If applicable, set up safety equipment to protect and notify surrounding vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 2. Visually inspect the external condition of the unit and take notes concerning defects/problems. 3. Open the access portals to the vault and allow the system vent. 4. Without entering the vault, visually inspect the inside of the unit, and note accumulations of liquids and solids. 5. Be sure to record the level of sediment build-up on the floor of the vault, in the forebay, and on top of the cartridges. If flow is occurring, note the flow of water per drainage pipe. Record all observations. Digital pictures are valuable for historical documentation. 6. Close and fasten the access portals. 7. Remove safety equipment. 8. If appropriate, make notes about the local drainage area relative to ongoing construction, erosion problems, or high loading of other materials to the system. 9. Discuss conditions that suggest maintenance and make decision as to weather or not maintenance is needed. Maintenance Decision Tree The need for maintenance is typically based on results of the inspection. The following Maintenance Decision Tree should be used as a general guide. (Other factors, such as Regulatory Requirements, may need to be considered) 1. Sediment loading on the vault floor. a. If >4” of accumulated sediment, maintenance is required. 2. Sediment loading on top of the cartridge. a. If >1/4” of accumulation, maintenance is required. 3. Submerged cartridges. a. If >4” of static water in the cartridge bay for more that 24 hours after end of rain event, maintenance is required. 4. Plugged media. a. If pore space between media granules is absent, maintenance is required. 5. Bypass condition. a. If inspection is conducted during an average rain fall event and StormFilter remains in bypass condition (water over the internal outlet baffle wall or submerged cartridges), maintenance is required. 6. Hazardous material release. a. If hazardous material release (automotive fluids or other) is reported, maintenance is required. 7. Pronounced scum line. a. If pronounced scum line (say ≥ 1/4” thick) is present above top cap, maintenance is required. 8. Calendar Lifecycle. a. If system has not been maintained for 3 years maintenance is required. Important: Note that cartridges containing leaf media (CSF) do not require unscrewing from their connectors. Take care not to damage the manifold connectors. This connector should remain installed in the manifold and could be capped during the maintenance activity to prevent sediments from entering the underdrain manifold. B. Remove the used cartridges (up to 250 lbs. each) from the vault. Important: Care must be used to avoid damaging the cartridges during removal and installation. The cost of repairing components damaged during maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner unless CONTECH Construction Products performs the maintenance activities and damage is not related to discharges to the system. C. Set the used cartridge aside or load onto the hauling truck. D. Continue steps a through c until all cartridges have been removed. Method 2: A. Enter the vault using appropriate confined space protocols. B. Unscrew the cartridge cap. C. Remove the cartridge hood screws (3) hood and float. D. At location under structure access, tip the cartridge on its side. 4 5 Assumptions • No rainfall for 24 hours or more • No upstream detention (at least not draining into StormFilter) • Structure is online • Outlet pipe is clear of obstruction • Construction bypass is plugged Maintenance Depending on the configuration of the particular system, maintenance personnel will be required to enter the vault to perform the maintenance. Important: If vault entry is required, OSHA rules for confined space entry must be followed. Filter cartridge replacement should occur during dry weather. It may be necessary to plug the filter inlet pipe if base flows is occurring. Replacement cartridges can be delivered to the site or customers facility. Information concerning how to obtain the replacement cartridges is available from CONTECH Construction Products. Warning: In the case of a spill, the maintenance personnel should abort maintenance activities until the proper guidance is obtained. Notify the local hazard control agency and CONTECH Construction Products immediately. To conduct cartridge replacement and sediment removal maintenance: 1. If applicable, set up safety equipment to protect maintenance personnel and pedestrians from site hazards. 2. Visually inspect the external condition of the unit and take notes concerning defects/problems. 3. Open the doors (access portals) to the vault and allow the system to vent. 4. Without entering the vault, give the inside of the unit, including components, a general condition inspection. 5. Make notes about the external and internal condition of the vault. Give particular attention to recording the level of sediment build-up on the floor of the vault, in the forebay, and on top of the internal components. 6. Using appropriate equipment offload the replacement cartridges (up to 150 lbs. each) and set aside. 7. Remove used cartridges from the vault using one of the following methods: Method 1: A. This activity will require that maintenance personnel enter the vault to remove the cartridges from the under drain manifold and place them under the vault opening for lifting (removal). Unscrew (counterclockwise rotations) each filter cartridge from the underdrain connector. Roll the loose cartridge, on edge, to a convenient spot beneath the vault access. Using appropriate hoisting equipment, attach a cable from the boom, crane, or tripod to the loose cartridge. Contact CONTECH Construction Products for suggested attachment devices. 4 5 Important: Note that cartridges containing media other than the leaf media require unscrewing from their threaded connectors. Take care not to damage the manifold connectors. This connector should remain installed in the manifold and capped if necessary. D. Empty the cartridge onto the vault floor. Reassemble the empty cartridge. E. Set the empty, used cartridge aside or load onto the hauling truck. F. Continue steps a through e until all cartridges have been removed. 8. Remove accumulated sediment from the floor of the vault and from the forebay. This can most effectively be accomplished by use of a vacuum truck. 9. Once the sediments are removed, assess the condition of the vault and the condition of the connectors. The connectors are short sections of 2-inch schedule 40 PVC, or threaded schedule 80 PVC that should protrude about 1” above the floor of the vault. Lightly wash down the vault interior. a. Replace any damaged connectors. 10. Using the vacuum truck boom, crane, or tripod, lower and install the new cartridges. Once again, take care not to damage connections. 11. Close and fasten the door. 12. Remove safety equipment. 13. Finally, dispose of the accumulated materials in accordance with applicable regulations. Make arrangements to return the used empty cartridges to CONTECH Construction Products. Related Maintenance Activities - Performed on an as-needed basis StormFilter units are often just one of many structures in a more comprehensive stormwater drainage and treatment system. In order for maintenance of the StormFilter to be successful, it is imperative that all other components be properly maintained. The maintenance/repair of upstream facilities should be carried out prior to StormFilter maintenance activities. In addition to considering upstream facilities, it is also important to correct any problems identified in the drainage area. Drainage area concerns may include: erosion problems, heavy oil loading, and discharges of inappropriate materials. Material Disposal The accumulated sediment found in stormwater treatment and conveyance systems must be handled and disposed of in accordance with regulatory protocols. It is possible for sediments to contain measurable concentrations of heavy metals and organic chemicals (such as pesticides and petroleum products). Areas with the greatest potential for high pollutant loading include industrial areas and heavily traveled roads. Sediments and water must be disposed of in accordance with all applicable waste disposal regulations. When scheduling maintenance, consideration must be made for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes. This typically requires coordination with a local landfill for solid waste disposal. For liquid waste disposal a number of options are available including a municipal vacuum truck decant facility, local waste water treatment plant or on-site treatment and discharge. 800.338.1122 www.contech-cpi.com Support • Drawings and specifications are available at contechstormwater.com. • Site-specific design support is available from our engineers. ©2009 CONTECH Construction Products Inc. CONTECH Construction Products Inc. provides site solutions for the civil engineering industry. CONTECH’s portfolio includes bridges, drainage, sanitary sewer, stormwater and earth stabilization products. For information on other CONTECH division offerings, visit contech-cpi.com or call 800.338.1122 Nothing in this catalog should be construed as an expressed warranty or an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose. See the CONTECH standard quotation or acknowledgement for applicable warranties and other terms and conditions of sale. The product(s) described may be protected by one or more of the following US patents: 5,322,629; 5,624,576; 5,707,527; 5,759,415; 5,788,848; 5,985,157; 6,027,639; 6,350,374; 6,406,218; 6,641,720; 6,511,595; 6,649,048; 6,991,114; 6,998,038; 7,186,058; related foreign patents or other patents pending. Inspection Report Date: —————————————Personnel: ———————————————————————————————————— Location: ————————————System Size: ——————————————————————————————————— System Type: Vault Cast-In-Place Linear Catch Basin Manhole Other Sediment Thickness in Forebay: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Sediment Depth on Vault Floor: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Structural Damage: ———————————————————————————————————————————————— Estimated Flow from Drainage Pipes (if available): ———————————————————————————————————— Cartridges Submerged: Yes No Depth of Standing Water: —————————————————————— StormFilter Maintenance Activities (check off if done and give description) Trash and Debris Removal: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Minor Structural Repairs: ———————————————————————————————————————————— Drainage Area Report ————————————————————————————————————————————— Excessive Oil Loading: Yes No Source: ——————————————————————— Sediment Accumulation on Pavement: Yes No Source: ——————————————————————— Erosion of Landscaped Areas: Yes No Source: ——————————————————————— Items Needing Further Work: ———————————————————————————————————————————— Owners should contact the local public works department and inquire about how the department disposes of their street waste residuals. Other Comments: ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Date: Review the condition reports from the previous inspection visits. StormFilter Maintenance Report Date: —————————————Personnel: ———————————————————————————————————— Location: ————————————System Size: ——————————————————————————————————— System Type: Vault Cast-In-Place Linear Catch Basin Manhole Other List Safety Procedures and Equipment Used: —————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— System Observations Months in Service: Oil in Forebay: Yes No Sediment Depth in Forebay: ————————————————————————————————————————————— Sediment Depth on Vault Floor: ——————————————————————————————————————————— Structural Damage: ———————————————————————————————————————————————— Drainage Area Report Excessive Oil Loading: Yes No Source: ————————————————————————— Sediment Accumulation on Pavement: Yes No Source: ————————————————————————— Erosion of Landscaped Areas: Yes No Source: ————————————————————————— StormFilter Cartridge Replacement Maintenance Activities Remove Trash and Debris: Yes No Details: —————————————————————————— Replace Cartridges: Yes No Details: —————————————————————————— Sediment Removed: Yes No Details: —————————————————————————— Quantity of Sediment Removed (estimate?): Minor Structural Repairs: Yes No Details: ————————————————————————— Residuals (debris, sediment) Disposal Methods: —————————————————————————————————————— Notes: —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— APPENDIX A Emergency Response Plan EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN BUTCHER BOY MARKETPLACE 1077 OSGOOD STREET NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS Prepared For: Angus Realty Corporation 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Prepared By: Lynnfield Engineering, Inc. 199 Newbury Street, Suite 115 Danvers, Massachusetts 01923 March 15, 2013 Revised June 26, 2013 Revised August 2, 2013 Revised August 27, 2013 -i- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\27_toc.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS EMERGENCY CONTACTS SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose 1 SECTION 2: GENERAL FACILITY INFORMATION 3 2.1 Facility Description (40 CFR 112.7(a)(3)) 2.1.1 Location and Activities 3 3 SECTION 3: DISCHARGE RESPONSE 5 3.1 Response to a Minor Discharge 3.2 Response to a Major Discharge 3.3 Waste Disposal 3.4 Discharge Notification 3.5 Cleanup Contractors and Equipment Suppliers 6 7 8 8 9 TABLES 1 Emergency Contacts 5 APPENDICES A Discharge Notification Form and Agency Notification Standard Report -ii- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\27_toc.doc This page has intentionally been left blank. K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\28_tab_emergency contacts.doc EMERGENCY CONTACTS Designated person responsible for emergency response: Facility Response Coordinator – Alan Yameen 978.688.1511 General Manager – Dave Barry 978.688.1511 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Town of North Andover Fire Department 978.688.9590 or 911 Town of North Andover Water & Sewer Department 978.685.0950 Massachusetts State Police (Andover Barracks) 978.475.3800 MADEP Emergency Response Center 888.304.1133 MADEP Oil Remediation and Compliance Bureau 888.304.1133 National Response Center (U.S. Coast Guard) 800.424.8802 MADEP 617.292.5500 USEPA, Region 1 617.223.7265 Local Hospital: Lawrence General Hospital 1 General Street Lawrence, MA 01842 978.683.4000 or 911 Poison Control Center 800.442.6305 Emergency Response Contractors: CYN Environmental Services, Inc. 800.622.6365 ENPRO Services, Inc. 800.966.1102 CHEMTREC Emergency 800.424.9300 K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\28_tab_emergency contacts.doc This page has intentionally been left blank. -1- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\29_txt.doc SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The purpose of this Emergency Response Plan (ERP) is to describe measures to be implemented at the Butcher Boy Marketplace to prevent oil or hazardous material discharges from occurring, and to prepare Butcher Boy Marketplace to respond in a safe, effective, and timely manner to mitigate the impacts of a discharge. PURPOSE This ERP Plan is used as a tool to communicate practices on preventing and responding to discharges with employees, as a guide to facility inspections, and as a resource during emergency response. -2- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\29_txt.doc This page has intentionally been left blank. -3- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\29_txt.doc SECTION 2 GENERAL FACILITY INFORMATION Name: Butcher Boy Marketplace Address: 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 978.688.1511 Type: Retail Shopping Mall Owner/Operator: Angus Realty 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 Primary contact: Alan Yameen, Facility Response Coordinator 978.688.1511 2.1 2.1.1 FACILITY DESCRIPTION (40 CFR 112.7(A)(3)) Location and Activities The Angus Realty Corporation site consists of an approximate 9 acre site occupied by a 29,934 square foot (SF) retail building and associated parking lot areas. The parcel is zoned General Business District per the Zoning Bylaw Town of North Andover last amended May 2004. The site is bound northerly by residential property; easterly by underdeveloped woodlands, and a residential home; southerly by Great Pond Road (State Route 133), and Lake Cochichewick; and, westerly by Osgood Street (State Route 125). The site is occupied by Butcher Boy Marketplace, a retail mall, and associated parking lot areas. The site is located within the Zone A to the Town’s Public Water Supply Lake Cochichewick. -4- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\29_txt.doc This page has intentionally been left blank. -5- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\29_txt.doc SECTION 3 DISCHARGE RESPONSE The uncontrolled discharge of oil to groundwater, surface water, or soil is prohibited by State and possibly federal laws. Immediate action must be taken to control, contain, and recover discharged product. In general, the following steps are taken: • Eliminate potential spark sources; • If possible and safe to do so, identify and shut down source of the discharge to stop the flow; • Contain the discharge with sorbents, berms, fences, trenches, sandbags, or other material; • Plug drain pipes downgradient from the spill to contain spilled material; • Contact the Facility Response Coordinator or his alternate; • Contact regulatory authorities and the response organization; and, • Collect and dispose of recovered products according to regulation. For the purpose of establishing appropriate response procedures, this ERP Plan classifies discharges as either “minor” or “major,” depending on the volume and characteristics of the material released. Table No. 1 presents a list of Emergency Contacts. The list should be posted at prominent locations throughout the facility. If material is released outside the containment areas, it is critical that the material is accurately identified and appropriate control measures are taken in the safest possible manner. Consult the MSDSs file in the Facility office. TABLE No. 1: Emergency Contacts Designated person responsible for emergency response activities: Facility Response Coordinator – Alan Yameen 978.688.1511 General Manager – Dave Barry 978.688.1511 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Town of North Andover Fire Department 978.688.9590 or 911 Town of North Andover Water & Sewer Department 978.685.0950 Massachusetts State Police (Andover Barracks) 978.475.3800 -6- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\29_txt.doc MassDEP Emergency Response Center 888.304.1133 MassDEP Oil Remediation and Compliance Bureau 888.304.1133 National Response Center (U.S. Coast Guard) 800.424.8802 MassDEP 617.292.5000 USEPA, Region 1 617.223.7265 Local Hospital: Lawrence General Hospital 1 General Street Lawrence, MA 01842 978.683.4000 or 911 Poison Control Center 800.442.6305 Emergency Response Contractor: CYN Environmental Services, Inc. 800.622.6365 ENPRO Services, Inc. 800.966.1102 CHEMTREC Emergency 800.424.9300 3.1 A “minor” discharge is defined as one that poses no significant harm (or threat) to human health and safety or to the environment. Minor discharges are generally those where: RESPONSE TO A MINOR DISCHARGE • The quantity of product discharged is small (e.g., may i nvolve less than 10 gallons of oil or gasoline); • Discharged material is easily stopped and controlled at the time of the discharge; • Discharge is localized near the source; • Discharged material is not likely to reach water; • There is little risk to human health or safety; and, • There is little risk of fire or explosion. Minor discharges can usually be cleaned up by Butcher Boy Marketplace personnel. The following guidelines apply: • Immediately notify the Facility Response Coordinator; • Under the direction of the Facility Response Coordinator, contain the discharge with discharge response materials and equipment. Place discharge debris in properly labeled waste containers; -7- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\29_txt.doc • Inspect stormwater management system catch basins, manholes and Stormceptor units to insure they are free of debris and/or contaminants; • Cleaning of the Stormceptor units shall be completed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Refer to Owner’s Manual presented in the Inspection and Maintenance Plan; • The Facility Response Coordinator will complete the Discharge Notification Form presented in Appendix A; and, • If the discharge involves more than 10 gallons of gasoline or diesel fuel, the Facility Response Coordinator will notify the MassDEP Emergency Response Center at 888.304.1133. 3.2 RESPONSE TO A MAJOR DISCHARGE A “major” discharge is defined as one that cannot be safely controlled or cleaned up by facility personnel, such as when: • The discharge is large enough to spread beyond the immediate discharge area; • The discharged material enters water; • The discharge requires special equipment or training to clean up; • The discharged material poses a hazard to human health or safety; or, • There is a danger of fire or explosion. In the event of a major discharge, the following guidelines apply: • All workers must immediately evacuate the discharge site via the designated exit routes and move to the designated staging areas at a safe distance from the discharge. Exit routes are included on the facility diagram and posted in the maintenance building, in the office building, and on the outside wall of the outside shed that contains the spill response equipment; • If the Facility Response Coordinator is not present at the facility, the senior on- site person notifies the Facility Response Coordinator of the discharge and has authority to initiate notification and response. Certain notifications are dependent on the circumstances and type of discharge. If a discharge reaches a sanitary sewer, the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) will be notified immediately. A discharge that threatens Lake Cochichewick will require immediate notification to the Town Department of Public Works; • The Facility Response Coordinator (or senior on-site person) must call for medical assistance if workers are injured; • The Facility Response Coordinator (or senior on-site person) must notify the Fire Department or Police Department; • The Facility Response Coordinator (or senior on-site person) must call the spill response and cleanup contractors listed in the Emergency Contacts list presented at the front of this Plan; • The Facility Response Coordinator (or senior on-site person) must immediately contact the MassDEP Emergency Response Center (888.304.1133) and the National Response Center (888-424-8802); • The Facility Response Coordinator (or senior on-site person) must record the call on the Discharge Notification Form in Appendix A; • The Facility Response Coordinator (or senior on-site person) coordinates cleanup and obtains assistance from a cleanup contractor or other response organization as necessary; and -8- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\29_txt.doc • The Facility Response Coordinator (or senior onsite person) shall inspect all components of the stormwater management system including manholes, catchbasins and Stormceptor units to insure that they are free of debris and contaminants and are functioning properly; and • Cleaning of the Stormceptor units shall be performed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Refer to the Owner’s Manual presented in the Inspection and Maintenance Plan. If the Facility Response Coordinator is not available at the time of the discharge, then the next highest person in seniority assumes responsibility for coordinating response activities. 3.3 Wastes resulting from a minor discharge response will be containerized in impervious bags, drums, or buckets. The Facility Response Coordinator will characterize the waste for proper disposal and ensure that it is removed from the facility by a licensed waste hauler within two weeks. Wastes resulting from a major discharge response will be removed and disposed of by a cleanup contractor. WASTE DISPOSAL 3.4 Any size discharge (i.e., one that creates a sheen, emulsion, or sludge) that affects or threatens to affect navigable waters or adjoining shorelines must be reported immediately to the National Response Center (1-800-424-8802). The Center is staffed 24-hours a day. DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION The person reporting the discharge must provide the following information: • Name, location, organization, and telephone number; • Name and address of the party responsible for the incident; • Date and time of the incident; • Location of the incident; • Source and cause of the release or discharge; • Types of material(s) released or discharged; • Quantity of materials released or discharged; • Danger or threat posed by the release or discharge; • Number and types of injuries (if any); • Media affected or threatened by the discharge (i.e., water, land, air); • Weather conditions at the incident location; and, • Any other information that may help emergency personnel respond to the incident. Contact information for reporting a discharge to the appropriate authorities is listed on the Emergency Contacts sheet at the front of this Plan and is also posted in prominent locations throughout the facility. -9- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\29_txt.doc In addition to the above reporting, 40 CFR 112.4 requires that information be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator and the appropriate State agency in charge of oil pollution control activities whenever the facility discharges (as defined in 40 CFR 112.1(b)) more than 1,000 gallons of oil in a single event, or discharges (as defined in 40 CFR 112.1(b)) more than 42 gallons of oil in each of two discharge incidents within a 12-month period. The following information must be submitted to the EPA Regional Administrator and to MassDEP within 60 days: • Name of the facility; • Name of the owner/operator; • Location of the facility; • Maximum storage or handling capacity and normal daily throughput; • Corrective action and countermeasures taken, including a description of equipment repairs and replacements; • Description of facility, including maps, flow diagrams, and topographical maps; • Cause of the discharge(s) to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines, including a failure analysis of the system and subsystem in which the failure occurred; • Additional preventive measures taken or contemplated to minimize possibility of recurrence, and, • Other pertinent information requested by the Regional Administrator. An Agency Notification Standard Report Form and Discharge Notification Form for submitting discharge information to the EPA Regional Administrator and to MassDEP is attached. 3.5 Contact information for specialized spill response and cleanup contractors are provided in Table No. 1. These contractors have the necessary equipment to respond to a discharge of oil at Butcher Boy Marketplace. CLEANUP CONTRACTORS AND EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS -10- K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\29_txt.doc This page has intentionally been left blank. APPENDIX A Discharge Notification Form and Agency Notification Standard Report Page 1 of 4 K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\31_Discharge Notification Form and agency Notification Standard Report.doc Discharge Notification Form Part A: Discharge Information General information when reporting a spill to outside authorities: Name: Butcher Boy Marketplace Address: 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Telephone: 978.688.1511 Owner/Operator: Angus Realty 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Primary Contact: Alan Yameen, Facility Response Coordinator Work: 978.688.1511 Type of oil: Discharge Date and Time: Quantity released: Discovery Date and Time: Quantity released to a water body: Discharge Duration: Location/Source: Actions taken to stop, remove, and mitigate impacts of the discharge: Affected media: air water soil storm water sewer/POTW dike/berm/oil-water separator other: _________________________ Notification person: Telephone contact: Business: 24-hr: Nature of discharges, environmental/health effects, and damages: Injuries, fatalities or evacuation required? Page 2 of 4 K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\31_Discharge Notification Form and agency Notification Standard Report.doc Part B: Notification Checklist Date and time Name of person receiving call Discharge in any amount Alan Yameen, Facility Response Coordinator 978.688.1511 Discharge in amount exceeding 25 gallons Local Fire Department 978.688.9590 or 911 MassDEP Hazardous Materials and Waste Spills 888.304.1133 Discharge in any amount and affecting (or threatening to affect) a water body Local Fire Department 978.688.9590 or 911 Town of North Andover Water & Sewer Department 978.685.0950 or 911 MassDEP Hazardous Materials and Waste Spills 888.304.1133 National Response Center 800.424.8802 CHEMTREC Emergency 800.424.9300 Page 3 of 4 K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\31_Discharge Notification Form and agency Notification Standard Report.doc Agency Notification Standard Report Information contained in this report, and any supporting documentation, must be submitted to the EPA Region 1 Regional Administrator, and to MassDEP, within 60 days of the qualifying discharge incident. Facility: Butcher Boy Marketplace Owner/operator: Angus Realty 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Name of person filing report: Location: 1077 Osgood Street North Andover, MA 01845 Maximum storage capacity: Daily throughput: Nature of qualifying incident(s): Discharge to navigable waters or adjoining shorelines exceeding 1,000 gallons Second discharge exceeding 42 gallons within a 12-month period. Description of facility (attach maps, flow diagrams, and topographical maps): K:\480-70\Reports\082913_Eggleston Response\31_Discharge Notification Form and agency Notification Standard Report.doc Cause of the discharge(s), including a failure analysis of the system and subsystems in which the failure occurred: Corrective actions and countermeasures taken, including a description of equipment repairs and replacements: Additional preventive measures taken or contemplated to minimize possibility of recurrence: Other pertinent information: