FILTERRA BIORETENTION SYSTEMS

Transcription

1 FILTERRA BIORETENTION SYSTEMS Advancing Bioretention Media to Enhance Bacteria Removal from Stormwater Runoff Presented by: Larry Coffman Whitepaper authored by: Mindy Ruby and Robert Kelly

2

3 Presentation Overview Background on Bioretention Development of Advanced Bioretention Media Bacteria Monitoring Lab Test Field Monitoring Conclusions Filterra / Bacterra P.G County, MD Guidance Larry Coffman

4 What is Bioretention? Filtering stormwater runoff through a terrestrial aerobic (upland) plant / soil / microbe complex to remove pollutants through a variety of physical, chemical and biological processes. Bioretention Advancements: High flow rate system for optimum performance. Filterra s goal is to advance and optimize the use of bioretention s physical, chemical and biological pollutant removal mechanisms.

5 City of Portland, OR Low Flow - 1 to 3 / Hour Soaker Sand / Municipal Compost Ocean City, MD High Flow / Hour Filterra Coarse Sand / Organics

6 BMP PERFORMANCE COMPARISON Pollutant Biofilter Effluent Media Filter Effluent Filterra Effluent Units TSS mg/l TP mg/l Dissolved Cu Dissolved Zn µg/l µg/l High flow rate system works just as well as low flow rate system *International BMP Database

7 Pollutant Removal Mechanisms Physical / Chemical / Biological System Components Mulch Coarse Sand Pore Space Surface Area Complex Organics Microbes Biofilm Plants Ecological Structure Processes Sedimentation Filtration Adsorption Instantaneous Absorption Cation Exchange Capacity Microbial Action (aerobic / anaerobic) decomposition / nitrification / denitrification Plant Uptake Sequester Nutrients / Carbon / Metals Evaporation / Volatilization

8 Urban Applications

9 Filterra Advancements Filterra allows for less problems caused by older design standards - Optimize Performance & Flow Rates - Standardize Easy Design / Construction - Media Standards - Robust / Reliable Performance - Target TSS,P, N, Heavy Metals, O&G & Bacteria - Low Cost - Easy Maintenance - Aesthetics

10 Littleton MA / Long Lake Retrofit

11

12 Long Lake

13

14

15

16 Typical number of beach closures before /yr. Typical number of beach closers after 2004 < 1 /yr. Kate Hodges, Director Parks, Recreation & Community Education

17 Why Care about Bacteria Removal? Over 4000 water bodies listed on EPA s 303(d) list as impaired for fecal coliform Health hazards Often makes beach closures necessary

18 Pilot Scale Protocol Apparatus same depth and configuration Analysis Method EPA approved method Frequency of testing Number of tests Source of bacteria Sampling procedure Bypass and non-bypass flows Influent (3) and effluent Effluent taken after 50 ml for small volumes and after 3,785 ml (1 gal)

19 HACH Method 8368 using A-1 Medium Broth

20 Percent Rem oval (% ) The Effect of Volume on Percent Bacteria Removal by the Bacterra TM Media Blend 1. Low volume, low intensity produces greater removal efficiencies 2. Increase efficiency by increasing filter surface area Volume (ml)

21 The Effect of Influent Concentration on the Percent Bacteria Removal by the Bacterra TM Media Blend Percent Removal 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90, ,000 Influent Concentration (MPN) Good removal at both low and high concentrations

22 The Effect of Time on the Percent Bacteria Removal by the Bacterra TM Media Blend 100% 90% Maturation Percent Removal 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 1. Maturation period 2. Efficiency stabilizes 0% 10/30/ % 11/13/ /27/ /11/2006 1/8/2007 2/12/2007 2/26/2007 3/12/2007 Date

23 What did we learn? % Removal vs. Volume Bigger system equals better removal % Removal vs. Concentration Good removal at both low and high concentrations % Removal vs. Time Maturation period of about 4 events Stable after maturation period

24 Removal Mechanisms Sorption 1 Filtration 1 Organic Matter 1 Biofilm 1 Temperature 1 ph 1 Flow Rate 1 Predators 2 Ciliate CEC Slime on bacteria Many removal mechanisms Combination of all plays a big factor Flagellate Amoeba 1 Rusciano and Obrupta research Rutgers University, NJ 2 Dr. Allen Davis 2007 LID Conference proceedings Photos: Nematode Rotifer

25 How did we develop a field protocol? Apparatus (Same design with enhanced bacteria removal blend) So CA (Marina del Rey) installation Installed to meet bacteria TMDL Testing began in spring of 2007 Collection third party lab Analysis Method Bacteria: SM 9221 E, Colilert, Enterolert TSS: SM 2540 D Heavy Metals: EPA 200.8m Frequency of testing Sampling procedure

26 California

27 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% The Effect of Time on the Percent E.coli Removal by the Bacterra TM Media Blend (Field Findings) Initial Start Up = 4 storm events 1. Maturation period 2. Efficiency stabilizes 3. 92% - 99% removal during normal operation 11/30/2007 1/6/2008 1/23/2008 1/27/2008 2/3/2008 2/24/ /15/ /15/2008 1/23/2009 2/5/2009 2/5/2009 2/9/2009 2/13/2009 2/13/2009 2/16/ /14/ /7/ /7/2009 1/18/2010 1/22/2010 1/22/2010 2/5/ /20/ /20/2010 Date 2/11/2007 4/20/2007 Percent Removal (%)

28 The Effect of Influent Concentration on Fecal Coliform Removal by the Bacteria Blend 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% Percent Removal 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% Good removal at both high and low concentrations 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0 100, , , , , , , , ,000 Influent Values (MPN)

29 Table 1: Bacterra Media Blend Influent and Effluent Bacteria Levels and Associated Percent Removal Values for Individual Samples Fecal Coliform (MPN) E. coli. (MPN) Sample Date Influent Effluent % Removal Influent Effluent % Removal 1/23/ ,000 1, % 19, % 1/23/ ,000 1, % >24,196 1,145 >95.3% 1/27/ , % 17, % 1/27/ , % >24, >99.4% 2/3/ , % >24, >98.7% 2/3/ , % >24, >98.9% 2/24/2008 >160, >99.9% >24, >99.9% 2/24/ , % >24, >99.9% 12/15/ ,000 2, % 86, % 12/15/ ,000 4, % 51, % 12/15/ ,000 5, % 48, % 1/23/ , % 1,187, % 1/23/ , % 435, % 1/23/ , % 980, % 2/5/ ,000 1, % 61, % 2/5/ , % 18, % 2/5/ , % 32, % 2/9/ ,000 1, % 72,700 3, % 2/9/ , % 81,640 3, % 2/9/ ,000 2, % 67,700 1, % 2/13/ ,000 3, % 92,080 1, % 2/13/ ,000 1, % 98,040 1, % 2/13/ , % 86, % 2/16/ ,000 17, % 241,960 1, % 2/16/ ,000 1, % 198, % 10/14/ , % 155, % 10/14/ , % 198, % 10/14/ , % 241, % 12/7/ , % 117, % 12/7/ , % 98, % 12/7/ , % 68, % 1/22/ ,000 1, % 285,100 < % 1/22/ , % 214,300 < % 1/22/ , % 143, % 2/5/ ,000 2, % 109, % 2/5/ ,000 5, % 172, % 2/5/ ,000 5, % 193, % 10/20/2010 1,600,000 1, % 167, % 10/20/ ,000 30, % 71,700 2, % 10/20/ ,000 5, % 39,900 3, %

30 Bacterra Media Blend Influent and Effluent Enterococcus Levels and Associated Percent Removal Values for Individual Samples Sample Date Influent Effluent Percent Removal 12/15/2008 3, % 12/15/2008 7, % 12/15/2008 5, % 1/23/ ,500 1, % 1/23/ , % 1/23/ , % 2/5/2009 9,100 2, % 2/5/2009 1, % 2/5/ ,390 1, % 2/9/ , % 2/9/ , % 2/9/ , % 2/13/ , % 2/13/ , % 2/13/ , % 2/16/ ,360 1, % 2/16/ , % 10/14/ , % 10/14/ , % 10/14/ , % 12/7/ , % 12/7/ , % 12/7/ , % 1/18/ ,630 15, % 1/18/ ,960 11, % 1/18/ ,360 2, % 1/22/ , % 1/22/2010 7, % 1/22/ , % 2/5/2010 4, % 2/5/2010 6, % 2/5/2010 6, % 10/20/ , %

31 Field Findings % Removal vs. Concentration Good removal even at higher concentrations % Removal vs. Time Maturation period of 4 storm events will not have major affect over lifetime of system Stable after maturation period Median bacteria removal 99% after maturation for E. coli, Fecal coliform and Enterococcus Median TSS removal of 92% Design issues (environmental conditions)

32 Media Filtration Bacteria Removal Comparison Bacterra TM Media Blend: 98.5% fecal/e.coli and 93% Enterococcus Peat-Sand Filter - Fecal Coliform: 90% (Galli, 1990) Bioretention Fecal Coliform: 90% (Davis 1993) Bioretention Fecal Coliform: 71% (Hunt 2006) Bioretention Fecal Coliform: 88% (Rusciano & Obropta 2006)

33 Other Case Studies Land Use Landfill, VA Beach Public School, Richmond Problem to Solve bacteria at geese hotspot, clean beaches Demonstration site Whidbey Island, Washington Address bacteria shellfish standard

34 Conclusions Real world field results show: Maturation Period (about 4 events) E. coli, Fecal Removal and Enterococcus Removal at 99% median removal Excellent effluent quality Performs as good or better than conventional bioretention

35 Questions? Mindy Ruby, Filterra R&D Manager Phone: See third-party published Bacterra Whitepaper at