B.M.

PERFECT

October 30, 2016

W. Cully Hession
Professor of Biological Systems Engineering
204 Seitz Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24060

Dear Dr. Hession,

Enclosed is the requested Technology Review for Retrofitting Drop Inlets. This technology
review covers specifications of current technology that uses best management practices to
remove pollutants to improve water quality. The review of the current technology provides a
basis for an effective design to filtrate storm runoff before entering into the main waterway. In
addition, the technology review also includes brainstorming session results, challenges
encountered and plans to address these challenges, project timeline for key tasks, and team
member responsibilities and accomplishments.

Sincerely,

Dina Huynh Connor Brogan Dalia Rakha

Enclosure: Technology Review
Retrofitting Drop Inlets
Technology Review
BSE 4125 Comprehensive Design Project
30 October 2016
---
Team B.M. Perfect
Connor Brogan
Dalia Rakha
Dina Huynh
Introduction
To meet the needs of an expanding global population, humans have relied heavily on the
development of cities and surrounding residential areas to provide for industrial manufacturing,
commercial business, and housing. Over the past twenty years, it has been estimated that the
amount of urban area across the Earth has increased from 1.6 to 3%. This seemingly insignificant
statistic actually describes a large shift in planet wide land use, with the conversion of 2 million
square kilometers to urban area, producing nearly seven hundred thousand square kilometers of
impervious surface area (Liu et al., 2014). The main issue with this landscape alteration is
stormwater: as water precipitates from the atmosphere, it falls on these hard surfaces and is
forced to runoff rather than infiltrate to the soil below. Urban stormwater systems were thus
developed to counteract these surface flows to prevent flooding or ponding (Bedient et al., 2012).
Since 1990, the design of stormwater systems has been largely controlled by municipal
separate storm sewer systems (MS4). However, such infrastructure is no longer geared towards
just flood protection. Instead, under the Clean Water Act, these systems now require a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to additionally control water quality,
reducing pollutant outflow coming from large communities (EPA, 2016). As water pools and
flows over impervious urban surfaces, it collects a variety of contaminants en route to the nearby
drainage structures. Most stormwater systems are linked directly to local streams and channels,
so this runoff often carries large loads of pollutants into the waterways (Brinkman et al., 1985).
The harmful substances found in urban runoff vary based on the surrounding land use,
vehicular traffic, and construction projects. Nevertheless, multiple studies have been conducted
in an attempt to improve city discharge water quality and have identified a few common
contaminants: sediment, heavy metals, nutrients, organic toxins, and pathogens. These pollutants
usually erodes off local construction sites, roadways, or other impervious areas and stem from
soil, pet wastes, fertilizers, or automobile discharge (Brinkman et al., 1985). Typically,
stormwater is laden with nitrogen and phosphorus, which can fuel eutrophication and algae
growth in discharge channels (Lee and Bang, 2000). Impervious surface runoff, too, often
contains high concentration of dissolved and suspended toxic metals, particularly copper,
chromium, and zinc (Bannerman et al., 1993). The organic contaminant variety is usually
specific to the site, but often results from vehicle fluids and lubricants (Brinkman et al., 1985).
Finally, increased pathogen content is usually associated with stormwater due to the collection
and concentration of both animal and human fecal indicator species (Bannerman et al. 1993).
To limit the ecologic impacts of these pollutants, a large number of municipal systems
have incorporated Best Management Practices (BMPs) in their stormwater network. Nutrients,
metal content, pathogens, sediment, and organic pollutants can be removed from water by
passing it through a biotic filter, settling the contaminants and promoting nutrient uptake. These
systems take advantage of such natural processes, slowing the flow of water to promote key
contaminant removal or storage (Jurries, 2003). Due to the high volume of water that can pass
through an inlet in a given storm, BMPs cannot be built to target the entirety of runoff passing
through a drainage area. Instead, they target the first half inch of rainfall (about the 90% storm)
known as the first flush (DEQ, Module 4). The vast majority of pollutants are captured within
this small amount of runoff, including up to 80% of the phosphorus, nitrogen, and heavy metal
content leaving roadways (Lee et al., 2002).
Runoff pollutants are typically concentrated in paved areas frequently accessed by
vehicles, particularly parking lots and roadways (Brinkman et al., 1985). One common method
of draining such spaces is to channel the discharge into drop inlets, where water is simply
allowed to flow into a manhole through a grate in the pavement (VDOT, 2016). These inlets are
often used in curbless lots, highways, and compacted fields and experience high inflow velocities
and contaminant concentrations. Due to the push for water quality improvements by MS4
programs and the prevalence of stormwater contaminants in urban systems, this team was tasked
with creating a structure capable of retrofitting existing drop inlets to target and reduce runoff
contaminant levels. The design for such a device could mimic existing BMPs and use a
combination of specialized media, vegetation, and microbial processes to reduce nutrient, metal,
pathogen and sediment levels in the water. This paper, rather than defining the project design,
intends to summarize the range of existing technologies that could gear future design research
and development. By reviewing pertinent patents and studies, it is hoped that relevant standards
and existing solutions can be revamped to fit the constraints presented by stormwater pollutants
and drop inlets.
Technology Review
A popular BMP used to dissipate runoff pollutant concentrations is bioretention. These
cells are usually just dug out of the ground and filled with an organic, permeable media mix.
Water flows in through the surface, percolates downward, and eventually flows out through a
discharge pipe at the bottom (Bioretention, 2011). They cost around $7000 a year (averaged) to
maintain and are occasionally vegetated to promote additional nutrient uptake (Roy-Poirier et al.,
2010). Like many BMPs, bioretention systems rely heavily on natural processes to reduce
contaminant discharges. As stormwater is captured by the cell, it is slowed sufficiently by the
matrix to begin depositing suspended solids, reducing pathogen and sediments loads (Roy-
Poirier et al., 2010). The organic material within the cell additionally helps to fuel microbial
uptake of nutrients and further cuts dissolved metal loads via complexation pathways (Lacy,
2009). In fact, these cells typically reduce pathogen, sediment, and heavy metal loads by about
90%, although efficiencies can vary from site to site (Roy-Poirier et al., 2010). Bioretention, too,
has been shown to achieve high (past 90%) removal of organic pollutants through the use of
biotic degradation volatilization, and filtration (Lacy, 2009; Roy-Poirier et al., 2010).
Like many non-proprietary BMPs, bioretention cells function in a way that permit for
ease of sizing and construction. The underlying media formulation and area requirements are
based off simple calculations and standards. To help stormwater engineers utilize these systems,
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) put together a standard from which
a bioretention cell can be formulated. The specifications propose two unique systems based
primarily on filtration media depth: level 1 and level 2 designs. Cells created under the level 1
plan estimate over 50% reduction in total nitrogen and phosphorus loadings, while those under
the level 2 plan predict near 90% (Bioretention, 2011).
Under the VADEQ standards, bioretention cells are only recommended for drainage areas
less than 2.5 acres. Since most drop inlets drain single sections of parking lots, it is unlikely the
pollutant reduction device will ever need to account for a drainage outside of this range making
bioretention a suitable fit for this projects needs. Based on the design level, it is additionally
suggested that the cell contain a minimum of 2-3 feet of filtration media (6 feet is ideal)
(Bioretention, 2011). This standard sets a limitation on the inlets to be retrofitted. The depth of a
drop inlet is entirely dependent on the area they drain and any flows they receive from up-
gradient (VDOT, 2016). An inlet draining a small paved lot (such as that besides Saunders Hall),
for instance, are relatively shallow, built to be about 1-2 feet below the surface. Bioretention
cells do a good job at reliably reducing metal, nutrient, sediment, and organic contaminants, but
for this design to mimic their effects the device would be inappropriate for smaller inlets; a
minimum manhole depth may be required.
One of the main components of bioretention design, however, is the computation of the
required surface area. The standard is set as the quotient of the treatment volume (first flush
inflow) and the storage depth, which in turn is a function of the cell media. To function at
reported efficiencies, the BMP must be designed at this geometry to fully receive incoming
waters and prevent untreated outflow (Bioretention, 2011). If bioretention is to be used in this
project, these standard dimensions set another limitation on the inlets selected for retrofitting.
Due to the small cross sectional area of manholes, the device may have to be built at a deeper
media depth than suggested to sufficiently treat incoming flows. This would further narrow down
the range of applicable inlets described above, but would still be dependent on drainage area.
The last part of bioretention standards critical to the design of this project is the
recommended soil media. According to the VADEQ standards, these cells typically need a mix
of sands (85 to 88% of media volume), soil fines (8 to 12%), and organic matter (3-5%). The
suggested ratios coincide nicely with the objectives of this project: the sand will slow down and
filter the treatment volume without flooding the cell, the soil fines will provide retention
capabilities and surface area for adsorption, and the organic material will help to complex metals
and promote microbial nutrient uptake. These materials additionally are easy to handle and light
enough to not cause significant maintenance/installation concern. The project is constrained,
however, by the storage and mulch layers suggested by the Virginia BMP standards
(Bioretention, 2011). It is recommended that the bottom of the cell be lined with 12 to 18 inches
of gravel and the surface covered by 2-3 inches of mulch. These materials further benefit the
design by preventing washout and providing additional filtration, but make the cell more difficult
to work with in the setting of a drop inlet (Jang et al., 2005). Gravel has a relatively high density
and the bottom layer will add a large amount of weight to the final design. Mulch presents a near
opposite problem; it is less dense than water and will float in ponded scenarios (The Mulch
Store, 2015). The device created for improving inlet water quality must then be designed in such
a way to incorporate the gravel without being impractically cumbersome and hold the mulch in
place during high intensity storms.
 Due to the limitations imposed by bioretention cells in a drop inlet setting, it is important
to expand possible design avenues to multiple water quality BMPs. For instance, another popular
structure to capture and treat stormwater flows is a dry swale. They bare a resemblance to
bioretention cells, but are usually built at a much shallower depth improving their use in
compacted urban soils along roadways and sidewalks (Dry Swale, 2011). In essence, they
function in the same manner: water collects into the swale, percolates through the media, and is
discharged after it exits the soil matrix. These structures, too, rely heavily on natural processes
like filtration, uptake, volatilization, and complexation.
It is important to note, however, that dry swales are typically less effective than
bioretention cells. Again, they can be built to two levels of design based on the depth of media,
but the nutrient removal efficiencies only range from about 52-76% (Dry Swale, 2011). They do,
however, slow water flow to a sufficient manner to bolster sedimentation and complexation
processes, leading to near 80-90% removal of heavy metals and suspended sediments (Winer,
2000). Their design is similar to that of a retention cell, containing a 9-18 inch gravel storage
layer above a drainage pipe, an overlying layer of filter media, and a light cover layer of
carbonaceous material (recommended as soil, rather than mulch). In fact, the media composition
still consists of 80-85% sand, 8-12% fines, and 3-5% organic material. But, in these structures
the suggested media depth is 3 ft, with an acceptable range of 18 24 inches. In drop inlets,
these depths (added with the gravel storage layers) allow for a designed device to be useful in a
much wider range of manhole. In addition, the soil cover layer removes the constraint imposed
by floating materials, removing some maintenance associated with the support structure.
However, these structures are not a perfect analog for this project. The required surface area for
these cells is identical to that for bioretention (treatment volume/storage) so these standards still
impose size restrictions on the inlets to be retrofitted (Dry Swale, 2011).
Another BMP that contributes to filtering out nutrients and sediment is a Filterra, owned
by ConTech. The design of the Filterra system is very similar to that of a bioretention cell.
Filterra is popular because they work well under both high volume and high pollutant conditions.
The stormwater filtration unit is a concrete container filled with an engineered filter media layer
and 3-inch layer of mulch. The system is designed in a way to support a lone tree planted within
it. The media thus not only captures and stores critical nutrients for the tree, but also filters
pollutants through sedimentation and immobilization (Contech Filterra, 2016). These
contaminants are broken down and incorporated into microbial and root biomass inside the
concrete cell. However, like many BMPs, the Filterra cannot handle small, high intensity storms.
To prevent flooding during such a storm, a downstream inlet structure is installed in each system
so that pooling water can bypass the Filterra and straight into the underdrain (Contech Filterra,
2016).
Based on the Virginia Stormwater BMP ClearingHouse Proprietary BMP statistics, the
Filterra has a 50% event mean concentration percent total phosphorous removal efficiency
(VWRRC). In addition, based on the Filterra site, the Filterra has an 85% total suspended solids
removal rate, a 70% phosphorous removal rate, a 43% nitrogen removal rate, a 93% oil and
grease removal rate, and in between 40-60% rate on heavy metals (Contech Filterra, 2016). The
larger sediments are removed as the water bypasses the mulch whereas the heavy metals and
nutrients are removed through chemical reactions and uptake with the organic material, tree, and
soil.
As is the case for bioretention, Filterra design is analogous for this project because the
media and mulch are key factors to infiltrating water yet filtering high level of pollutants before
this water is discharged to the closest reservoir. In addition, the maintenance of the Filterra is
easy and inexpensive. Depending on precipitation levels of area, upkeep is performed 1-2 times
a year and typically consists of checking vegetation health and replacing the mulch layer
(Contech Filterra, 2016).
Another alternative BMP that is suited for underground treatment is the FLEXSTORM
PURE catch basin inserts. The inlet filters basin is inserted below inlet grates to collect trash,
litter, leaves, small particles, oil and grease. The basin is constructed of a stainless steel and mesh
netting that allows for placement in any drainage structure and collection for trash, litter, leaves,
and small particles. However, some structures have an additional boom that allows oil to be
absorbed around the perimeter of the filter. FLEXSTORM offers different add-ons to remove
oils and hydrocarbons. A few include: Adsorb-it Filter fabric with small pore sizes that are able
to pass water while effectively collecting oil, grease, fuel, and hydrocarbons; Cleartex
Rubberizer pouch which contains an Adsorb-it liner to absorb hydrocarbons; and oil boom, a 3
diameter absorbent that lines the top perimeter of a filter bag (FLeXstorm, 2016).
Based on the FlexStorm Inlet Filter Specification, the filter bags has an 80% removal
efficiency of street sweep-size particles (FLeXstorm, 2016). The add-ons have up to a 97% total
petroleum hydrocarbon efficiency rate (FLeXstorm, 2016). This design is parallel to this project
because of the structural design. The stainless steel frame can be adjusted to fit any size drainage
area and would serve as a solid foundation for the basis of this projects support structure. In
addition, the included mesh netting that filters stormwater can withstand heavy amounts of
pollutant collection and water flow, which could serve as a valuable asset for this project. In
addition, the filter catch basin insert removes vehicle pollutants that are discharged onto parking
lot pavements. If such a filter could be resized for this project, it could serve as a valuable, easy-
to-maintain addition to the water quality control device.
The hydrodynamic separator serves as another current BMP from which this design can
build upon. Otherwise known as the Continuous Deflective Separation system (CDS), this
system works to separate and filter trash, debris, sediment, and hydrocarbons from stormwater
sources (Contech CDS, 2016). More specifically, trash includes cans, wrappers, cigarettes, and
all other large materials that are washed into drains. In contrast, debris encompasses organic
matter like leaves and twigs that are also easily captured in rain events. Often, pathogens and
nutrients like phosphorous adsorb to the surface of sediment particles, making filtration of
sediments a main removal process for many different pollutants. Hydrocarbons end up in
stormwater as a result of gasoline and oil that has pooled or collected in parking lots. The CDS
system targets all of these common contaminants, preventing their washout into downstream
water sources.
The CDS is placed underneath a storm drain system and includes multiple parts within
one main structure. It works by including a number of inlet structures for storm water into the
main system. These can include up to three pipes to increase the level of collection within a
given area (Contech CDS, 2014). After entering the system, the stormwater is guided into the
unit separation chamber, which is cylindrical in shape. Here, the water swirls quickly and
continuously, creating a vortex within the chamber. Trash and debris are trapped in the inside of
the whirlpool due to the centripetal forces and their higher weights while fines are pushed to the
outside. The chamber is lined with an indirect screen filter that continuously deflects particles
from sticking to the sides (hence the name CDS). Thus trash and debris are not only trapped in
the chamber, but specifically held in the center. Sediment is allowed to escape the main chamber,
only to settle into a slump at the bottom of the structure separate from the chamber. Both types of
solids remain until maintenance is performed on the entire system, during which they are
removed by a vacuum truck. A baffle wall separates oils (a form of hydrocarbons) from the
flowing water, which then exits through an outlet pipe. During high intensity storms, water
bypasses the separation chamber and exit to avoid flooding (Contech CDS, 2016).
This system serves as an excellent model for this design project. The underlying design
calculations such as those for hydraulic flow rate, Rational Rainfall Method, and hydraulic
capacity will serve as examples for this project to provide baseline values for inlet/device sizing
(Contech CDS, 2014). In addition, the emergency bypass system for high intensity rainfall events
as well as the maintenance schedule can be used as design standards. As both sediment and trash
are main priority contaminants for this project, the CDS structure can be analyzed and compared
to design results.
A unique design structure that can be analyzed for this project is the BayFilter by
BaySaver Technology LLC. Unlike most stormwater filters, this design treats water flowing
upwards. The BayFilter is placed at the bottom of existing manholes and has two inlet pipes at
the base of the structure. Stormwater enters these pipes and by hydrostatic head flows upwards
through a number of cartridges (ADS, 2016). Each cartridge is filled with a silica and sand media
combination and then spiral wrapped with filter fabric (ADS, 2009). As the water rises, it is
filtered through each cartridge and the sediments are collected along the fabric. Each system
contains at least ten cells, making water movement easy and fast (ADS, 2009). Once water levels
reach the top of the cartridge, flow is directed towards the center pipe which transports the clean
water down through the entire system into an outlet pipe at the bottom of the structure. This also
serves as an emergency bypass for when flows are too intense, as there is an additional inlet pipe
at the very top of the structure. In this way, when levels are that high, water can enter the inlet
pipe at the top and flow straight through the outlet pipe. Once water levels drop, the remaining
water in the cartridges also fall out of the system. This serves as a natural backwashing system in
addition, and allows for a longer life for the entire structure. The sediments are washed out with
the backwash water and fall out of the inlet pipes into the manhole ground (ADS, 2016).
Each cartridge is able to withstand 30 gallons per minute of stormwater runoff, so the
smallest BayFilter can withstand a total of 300 gallons per minute with ten cartridges (ADS,
2009). As flooding is a major concern for this design project, the BayFilter cartridges can serve
as models to ensure that the filter is able to withstand such high flows. In addition, a system that
sits on the bottom of the manhole allows weight to no longer be an issue, as no part of the grate
will be holding the design up. In turn, this permits more head space for incoming stormwater.
The BayFilters mechanism for backwashing should further influence the project inlet water
quality control device. Through this process, maintenance of the entire system would be very
limited. As sediments are also a focus in this design project, the ratio of sand and silica used in
the media can also be analyzed. For this particular project, however, there would need to be
additional treatment processes added for trash and debris, as well as nutrients.
Summary and Conclusion
In summary, there are a number of available stormwater treatment designs that can be
built upon. Most focus on removing sediment from incoming water sources, which results in the
removal of a number of pathogens, nutrients, and chemicals that sorb to particulate surfaces.
Some designs additionally removed trash and debris that would otherwise clog filtration systems.
Systems, like the Filterra and BayFilter, are structures that are installed into existing manholes
and drains. Others, like bioretention ponds and dry swales, are engineered separate from other
structures and require a lot of space. Sediment removal methods varied between each system as
well to serve its unique purpose. For designs like Filterra and BayFilter, a carefully engineered
media was used. Water is forced to percolate through each individual layer and sediments are
collected within the media while water flows through the pores. The hydro dynamic separator
had a unique structure that used no media, but rather used the water velocity and a deflective
filter wall to keep solids in separate compartments. Maintenance for each individual system also
varied. The number of times a year it is necessary to clean out the filter or remove the collected
solids is a necessary design constraint, as it must be reasonably expected. Thus, each design had
a unique way of treating stormwater that can be analyzed and built upon in this design project.
There are a few specific goals this project hopes to achieve, and from these, each of the
models listed in this review can be analyzed for their relevancy in achieving these objectives.
The main purpose of this project is to improve the quality of water from stormwater runoff to
prevent contamination of downstream water sources. The focus pollutants were determined to be
sediments (which often carry a number of other contaminants), metals, and nutrients. Thus,
treatment processes will need to include a filtering or sedimentation system and a low nutrient
carbon source that can remove nitrogen and fuel denitrification. The detention time should be as
long as possible to allow these reactions to occur within the structure and maximize their
efficacy. It is critical that the design of the system can be used in existing drop inlet structures
with minimal modification or flow alteration. In order to create a design that will perfectly fit the
inlet, a model inlet will be chosen from those around campus. This will ensure the sizing and
depth is standard. The design must be able to treat stormwater, but it must also prevent flooding
from occurring. Looking at these design models, it is clear that an emergency spillway must be
added to the design structure in case of high intensity storms. Finally, maintenance frequency
and ease must be taken into account. From designs like the hydro dynamic separator, it is clear
that using a vacuum truck would be possible if there was a specific compartment holding the
solids. If a filter or media is used, they will need to be backwashed and a portion of the media
may need to be removed on a regular basis to ensure the efficiency is as high as possible.
From each of these unique designs, the inlet group can pick and choose aspects that will
fulfill these goals and result in a structure that is easy to maintain, prevents flooding, and is
effective in removing main pollutants from stormwater runoff.
References
ADS. (2016). Bayfilter. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.
ads-pipe.com/en/product.asp?page=bayfilter
ADS. (2009). BayFilter: The Exact System Needed for Large and Small Sites. Advanced
Drainage Systems, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.ads-
pipe.com/pdf/en/BayFilter_Brochure_(10653)_04-10.pdf
Bannerman, R. T., Owen, D. W., Dodds, R. B., and Hornewer, N. J. (1993). Sources of
pollutants in Wisconsin stormwater. Wat. Sci. Tech. 28(3-5): 241-259.
Bedient, P. B., Huber, W. C., and Vieux, B. E. (2012). Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis. 5th
ed. Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bioretention. (2011). 1.9-Virginia DEQ stormwater design specification no. 9: Bioretention.
Virginia, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Brinkman, W. L. F. (1985). Urban stormwater pollutants: Sources and loadings. GeoJounal.
11(3): 277-283.
Contech. (2016). CDS Stormwater Treatment. Contech Engineered Solutions LLC. Retrieved
from http://www.conteches.com/products/stormwater-management/treatment/cds
Contech. (2014). CDS Guide: Operation, Design, Performance, and Maintenance. Contech
Engineered Solutions LLC. Retrieved from http://www.conteches.com/DesktopModules/
Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?command=core_download&entryid=12889&languag
e=en-US&PortalId=0&TabId=144
Contech. (2016) Filterra Biofiltration. Contech Engineered Solutions. Retrieved from
http://www.conteches.com/products/stormwater-management/biofiltration-
bioretention/filterra
Dry Swales. (2011). 1.9-Virginia DEQ stormwater design specification no. 10: Dry Swales.
Virginia, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
FLeXstorm. (2016) Filter Bags. FLeXstorm Inlet Filters. Retrieved from
http://www.inletfilters.com/products/flexstorm-filter-bags
Jang, A., Youngwoo, S., and Bishop, P. L. (2005). The removal of heavy metals in urban runoff
by sorption on mulch. Environ. Pollut. 133: 117-127. DOI:10.1016/j.envpol.2004.05.020
Jurries, D. 2003. Biofilters (bioswales, vegetative buffers, and constructed wetlands) for storm
water discharge pollution removal. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
Retrieved from http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/stormwater/docs/nwr/biofilters.pdf
Lacy, S. 2009. The fate of heavy metals in highway stormwater runoff: The characterization of a
bioretention basin in the Midwest. University of Kansas. Retrieved from
https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/4454/Lacy_ku_0099M_10207_DA
TA_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Lee, J. H. and Bang, K. W. (2000). Characterization of urban stormwater runoff. Water Res.
34(6): 1773-1780.
Liu, Z., Chunyang, H., Zhou, Y., and Wu, J. (2014). How much of the worlds land has been
urbanized, really? A hierarchical framework for avoiding confusion. Landscape Ecol.
DOI: 10.1007/s10980-014-0034-y
Roy-Poirier, A., Champagne, P., and Filion, Y. (2010). Review of bioretention system research
and design: Past, present, and future. J. Environ. Eng. 136: 878-889. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000227
VWRRC. (2013) Proprietary BMPs. Virginia Water Resources Research Center. Retrieved from
http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/swc/ProprietaryBMPs.html
The Mulch Store. (2015). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from
http://www.mulchstoremn.com/faq.html
US Department of Environmental Quality. Module 4: The Virginia runoff reduction method.
Retrieved from http://www.deq.virginia.gov/portals/0/deq/connectwithdeq/training
/swm/planreviewswm_pg_module4.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Stormwater discharges from municipal sources.
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-municipal-sources#
overview
Virginia Department of Transportation. 2016. Chapter 9 Storm Drains. Retrieved from
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/locdes/drainagemanual/drain-manual-
chapter-09.pdf
Winer, R. (2000). National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment
Practices. 2nd ed. Ellicott City, Maryland: Center for Watershed Protection.
Appendix 1: Potential Design Solutions
Goal: Create a small retention device within the inlet with the following key characteristics:
Overlying carbonaceous material layer to prevent weed growth and encourage microbial
processes, metal uptake, and organic material adsorption
Many options for the specific material:
Industrial standard is mulch
Better adsorption with the use of materials primarily used in research:
Biochar, anthracite coal, coconut fiber rolls are prime examples
Appropriate filter media to remove sediment, metals, and pathogens
Industrial standards for dry swales and BMPs create ideal mixes for sediment
removal
High volume of sand with a smaller percentage of fines to promote infiltration
rather than retention to decrease the likelihood of flooding
Add organic material to encourage metal complexation and microbial activity
Compost is readily available around agricultural areas and has been linked
to high losses in total solids from stormwater flows through swales
Use a coarse base layer to prevent material washout
Standard BMPs use gravel for this purpose, but weight reduction could be
achieved for the design by using expanded slate or shale
Support the device with installed metal frame within the inlet
FLEXSTORMs metal support structure could be adapted
Device could be hung in a high tensile strength fishing net or chicken wire
Contain the cell within a rigid boundary
Use a heavy-duty plastic container to contain the media and prevent inlet clogging
Channel incoming flows through the device
Using the first flush could reduce the overall flows entering the device
Create and emergency spillway to permit high flows to exit the inlet quickly
Ensure that the device does not hinder the flood regulation intent of the
stormwater infrastructure it occupies
Appendix 2: Challenges encountered and plans to address
There are a number of challenges that need to be addressed in order for this design to be
effective, easy to maintain, and able to fit into existing storm drains. The first main challenge is
that of size. In order to capture all incoming water, the filter must fully line the drain opening.
The depth from the grate to the pipe must be taken into account when designing inside the
manhole. These challenges will be addressed by choosing one specific drain to serve as models.
This drain will reflect the size and depth that will be suitable for the design. Although this
criteria limits the scope of the design, it will make the process more realistic and applicable.
The second challenge faced is that of choosing and treating specific contaminants. This
design must be applicable in parking lots and grassy areas in order for it to be most effective in
treating all kinds of stormwater runoff. It is therefore necessary for a set of pollutants to be
chosen in order to design treatment processes. Based on the current systems, it was decided that
nutrients and sediment should be the focus of the design filter, as removing sediments ensures
the removal of phosphorous (which adsorbs to the surface) as well as any pathogens. Therefore
the device will attempt to have a long detention time to allow for sediment settling and a carbon
material that will allow for the denitrification of the wastewater.
The third challenge that must be addressed in this design process is that of possible
flooding. While the purpose of this system is to treat stormwater runoff, it is also necessary to
prevent ponding and flooding of the drainage area. Therefore, the infiltration rates of each media
must be analyzed to determine what is best fit for the filter. It will be necessary to include an
emergency drainage system in case of severe weather conditions. In this way, excess water will
bypass the filtration step and immediately drain. Testing each kind of design to under the typical
10 year storm flow rate will determine whether or not the design is feasible.
Finally, maintenance is a critical aspect of the design process. The cleaning frequency for
the filter in order for it to continue to be efficient will need to be taken into consideration. This
will be addressed by analyzing current BMP maintenance practices and timelines (such as that of
Filterra) and then basing this designs maintenance on those standards. The filter itself must
therefore be easy to remove and clean. The depths of each media level and the overall saturated
weight of the filter must be taken into consideration when designing the filter.
Appendix 3: Project Timeline for Key Tasks
Appendix D: Team Member & Partner Responsibilities and Accomplishments
There are three members of Team B.M.Perfect. The work is equally distributed between the
three members: Dina Huynh, Dalia Rakha, and Connor Brogan. Each member is required to do
their own research on specific topics each week. These topics are then discussed and shared
during the weekly team meetings. The goal of everyone doing their own research is so that
everyone is on the same page and understand the same concepts that are necessary to develop the
design. During the team meetings and advisor meetings, Dina is the designated note taker. Team
member responsibilities are the same and are listed below. Overall, everyone contributes to each
assignment with their thoughts, ideas, and research.

For this specific assignment the tasks were assigned as listed below.