14th ANNUAL EPA REGION 6 MS4 STORM WATER CONFERENCE

TXDOT’S MS4 PROGRAM: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

A brief description of the evolution of TxDOT’s program, highlights on current initiatives, and future direction

By: Supalak (Sue)Rogers, P. G. Environmental Affairs Division

Texas Department of Transportation

TOPICS TxDOT’s MS4 Program Managing the program Current initiatives Future direction AOTS PFC PAM CCTV Inspection

TXDOT’S

TxDOT’s right-of-way within MS4 regulated areas Not a single State-wide Permit Each district hold both Phase I permit and/or

Phase II permit, as required by EPA/TCEQ Each District manages its own permit

requirements including permit application and fees ENV assists districts to be in compliance with

the permit requirements

TxDOT MS4 in 1990 -2000

TxDOT has 25 districts

13 Phase I Permits 11 co-

permittees

2 individual permits

…and they all have different requirements…..

TxDOT MS4 in 2000-2012

Only 10 districts co-permit with the Cities on Phase I permits

Two districts hold combined Phase I & Phase II permits

One district holds individual permit

22 districts hold Phase II permits

…some requirements in Phase I are the same requirements in Phase II..

THE PROGRAM

Storm Water Management Plans (SWMPs) Designs roads that meet environmental rules and safety. Incorporates everyday activities such as maintenance,

inspections, street sweeping, litter pick-up, mowing. Utilizes methods and products that meet current TxDOT

specifications. Control erosion and sediment with TxDOT’s standardized

BMPs and specifications. IDDE program

MANAGING THE PROGRAM (CONT.)

Educate the Public Don’t Mess with Texas School book covers TEX & DOT coloring books Brochures, flyers Posters, tattoos Storm drain markers Wild flowers seeds TxDOT Publication for Kids

(http://www.txdot.gov/txdot_library/publications/for_kids.htm)

MANAGING THE PROGRAM (CONT.)

Train Employees and Contractors Training and refresher classes such as

Erosion and Sediment Control, Spill Prevention, etc.

Preconstruction meetings Website

Provide Publications and tools (manuals, field guides, posters, rain gauges)

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/ENV/training.htm

MANAGING THE PROGRAM (CONT.)

Dispose of motor oil, used oil, hazardous waste properly Utilize Facility Spill Prevention, Control and

Counter Measure (SPCC) plans. Implement TxDOT SW3P Utilize Storm Water Advisory Team (SWAT) Map outfalls & perform illicit discharge inspections

EXAMPLE OF TXDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS

150 Blading (erosion control) 160 Topsoil 161 Compost 162 Sodding for erosion control 164 Seeding for erosion control 168 Vegetative watering 169 Soil retention blankets 192 Landscape planting 193 Landscape establishment 204 Sprinkling (dust control) 314 Emulsion (erosion control) 459 Gabions

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/business/specifications.htm:

EXAMPLE OF TXDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS

506 Temporary Erosion, Sedimentation, and Environmental Controls

506.2a Rock filter dams 506.2b Pipe slope drains 506.2c Baled hay 506.2d Paved flumes 506.2e Construction exits 506.2f Embankment 506.2i Sandbags 506.2j Silt fence

734 Litter removal

735 Debris removal

738 Cleaning & Sweeping Highways

Estimates of BMP Costs from March 2011 to March 2012

BMP Estimate

$4,417,253.50

Compost $6,663,967.29

Plantings $4,516,823.14

Seeding for erosion control $6,395,891.79

Wild Flower Seeding $637,896.74

Riprap $53,903,597.87

Sodding for erosion control

Rock filter dams

Construction exits $2,059,668.84

Gabions and mattresses $7,055,115.72

Soil retention blankets $2,022,990.30

$4,779,029.11

Topsoil $7,531,300.54

CURRENT

Master SWMP template Phase I & II annual report modules MS4 Training through TxDOT I-way Public Education and Public Awareness through

Don’t Mess with Texas (DMWT) program EMS –construction site inspection check list Database information resources (COMPASS)

CURRENT INITIATIVES (CONT.)

MS4 PSA – “Clean Roads Lead to Clean Water” MS4 webpage

(http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/stormwater.htm ) Advanced Outfall Tracking System (AOTS) Permeable Friction Course (PFC) Polyacrylamide (PAM) coagulation study CCTV Inspection

DIRECTION

EPA & TCEQ categorizes TxDOT as a Level 2,

non-traditional MS4 (NtMS4) operator in Phase II permit renewal TxDOT plans to obtain a state-wide Phase II

NtMS4 Permit and brings all of the Phase I permits into this state-wide permit Standardized NtMS4 permit for TxDOT State-wide MS4 database

Utilize Don’t Mess With Texas Program, Street Sweeping, and Litter collection Programs in lieu of Floatables Program Utilize TxDOT specific-IDDE program in lieu of

WWS Utilize PFC where needed Continue Transportation Research Projects Work with TCEQ to improve Texas Water

Quality

DIRECTION (CONT.)

ADVANCED OUTFALL TRACKING SYSTEM (AOTS)

WHAT IS AOTS?

A GIS application with a central database that holds field-collected spatial data associated with mapped outfalls.

System uses to track compliance with the MS4 Permit requirements such as mapping, IDDE, DWS

Compilation of reports and storm sewer outfall maps Detect and report illicit discharges that occur within

TxDOT’s MS4 permitted areas including third party/off-site dischargers

Access via internal storage system and through a Bing map web application

Currently, the system is only available for use by TxDOT

AOTS APPLICATION

AOTS APPLICATION – BING MAP

AOTS APPLICATION –REPORTING

PERMEABLE FRICTION COURSE – PFC TXDOT SPEC 342

[OPEN GRADED FRICTION COURSE –OGFC]

• Overlay of porous asphalt placed on top of regular pavement

Permeable Friction Course (PFC)

• Water drains through the pavement rather than across it

Permeable Friction Course

Conventional Asphalt

Bituminous Binder

Fine Aggregate

Coarse Aggregate

PFC COMPOSITION

ACKNOWLEDGED SAFETY AND NOISE BENEFITS

Reduce splash and spray Reduced tendency to hydroplane Improved visibility Better traction characteristics Quieter TCEQ approved BMP to be used over Edwards

Aquifer

SPLASH AND SPRAY

Conventional Asphalt PFC

WHERE IS PFC?

TSS TEMPORAL TREND

PAIRED SAMPLES – TX2

050

100150200250300350400450

3/11

/200

7

3/13

/200

7

3/26

/200

7

4/25

/200

7

4/30

/200

7

5/3/

2007

5/16

/200

7

5/24

/200

7

6/4/

2007

7/20

/200

7

10/2

2/20

07

11/2

6/20

07

12/1

2/20

07

3/18

/200

8

4/18

/200

8

TSS (

mg/

L)

Date

PFC

Conventional

WATER QUALITY AT TX2

Constituent Conventional Asphalt PFC Reduction

% p-value

TSS 148 18 88 <0.000

Total P 0.15 0.05 63 0.006

Total Copper 30 13 57 <0.000

D. Copper 6.3 9.0 -44 0.015

Total Lead 11 1.3 88 <0.000

Total Zinc 130 21 84 <0.000

Dissolved Zinc 18 11 40 0.043

COMPARISON OF TX, NC, CA DATA

32

WATER QUALITY BENEFITS

33

SOURCE OF WATER QUALITY BENEFITS

Reduced splash and spray minimizes washing of pollutants from vehicle undercarriage and engine compartment (source control)

Reduced transport of pollutants on the road surface (migration control)

Filtration, settling, and sorption within PFC (treatment control)

PERMEABLE FRICTION SUMMARY

Runoff from PFC is much cleaner than that from conventional pavement for particulate associated pollutants

Widely used solely for safety and noise benefits Does not provide volume reduction Ideal method to retrofit existing highways for

water quality Approved by TCEQ for BMP install over Edwards

Aquifer zones

Improve water quality

COMMON QUESTIONS

Previous bad experiences – Early mix designs (OGFC) prone to failure because of draindown.

Maintenance – Typically none in the US, varies in Europe

Cost – Slightly more due to higher quality aggregate Freeze/Thaw – 5 year study in Indiana indicated

pavement condition comparable to conventional pavement

Snow/Ice – Requires more frequent application of deicers

TXDOT PFC

Specification Item 342 Extensive use in 2004 6.3% increase in 2007 8.1 % increase in 2010 May 2011 to May 2012 was 261,072 tons

= 549 miles of 12-foot lane roadway

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/business/specifications.htm

MORE PFC INFO AT: Eck, Bradley, Winston, R., and Hunt, W., Barrett, M., Water quality of drainage from permeable friction course, American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 2, pp. 174 – 181, February 2012

Klenzendorf, J.B., Eck, B.J., Charbeneau, R. J., and Barrett, M., Quantifying the behavior of porous asphalt overlays with respect to drainage hydraulics and runoff water quality, Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, pp. 99-111, February 2012.

Eck, Bradley, Barrett, M., and Charbeneau, Randall, Coupled surface-subsurface model for simulating drainage from permeable friction course highways, American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 138, No. 1, pp. 13-22, January 2012

PFC slides provided by Michael Barrett, Ph. D, P.E. mbarrett@mail.utexas.edu

REDUCING TURBIDITY OF CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF: COAGULATION WITH POLYACRYLAMIDE

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate turbidity reduction of various polymers using soils characteristic of Texas Identify factors affecting effectiveness Investigate the impact of dose strength Provide data to EPA for rule

development

SOIL SAMPLES

Sample pH

Ca (mg Ca / kg Soil)

Mg (mg Mg / kg soil)

CECa (meq / 100g)

Organic Matter

(%) Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

183ANBC 8.2 4618 149 24.9 1.1 28 36 36

College Station 9.28 3956 231 22.2 1.6 38 40 22

W Loop 8.3 3222 434 20.7 0.7 52 28 20

127 Lub 7.8 2066 509 16.6 0.7 58 22 20

Hearne I 4.8 1195 371 17.8 1.5 18 30 52

Hearne II 7.8 569 64 3.5 0.2 86 6 8

E. Texas 5.0 621 134 7.4 0.5 60 12 28

a Cation exchange capacity Soil properties obtained by Midwest Laboratories, Inc.

POLYMERS

PAM Type Molecular Weight (Mg mol-1)

Charge Density (%)

SF N300 15 Neutral A 110 10-12 16 A 130 10-12 33 A 150 10-12 50

A 110 HMW 10-14 16 Cyanamer P-21 0.200 10

APS #705 NA NA StormKlear NA NA

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.01 0.1 1 10

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Dose (mg/L)

Init Turbidity

Control

Threshold

P-21

A-110

A-110 HMW

EFFECT OF PAM MOLECULAR WGT

PAM A-110 VS. SOIL TYPE

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00

Turb

idity

(NT

U)

Dose (mg/L)

E Texas (621)

Hearne I (1195)

Hearne II (569)

C Station (3956)

183ANBC (4618)

Wloop (3222)

127Lub (2066)

Threshold

COMPARISON OF ANIONIC PAM (WLOOP)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.01 0.1 1 10

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Dose (mg/L)

Init Turbidity

Control

Threshold

SF N300

A-110

A-150

COMPARISON OF OTHER POLYMERS

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Turb

idity

(NTU

)

Dose (mg/L)

Init Turbidity

Control

Threshold

SF N300

LMW SF N300

APS #705

Chitosan

EFFECT OF CHARGE DENSITY

Sample Dose

(mg/L) Charge Density

Final Turbidity

(NTU)

Zeta Potential (mV)

Control - - 1355 -17

SFN300 10 Neutral 181 -15

A-110 2 16 185 -18

A-130 1 33 280 -29

A-150 2 50 373 -30

APS #705 10 NA 50 -14

StormKlear 10 NA 32 -1

WHAT WE LEARNED…

As anionic charge density decreases, effectiveness increases

Low molecular weight anionic PAM is less effective Anionic PAM has limited effective range of

concentrations Best performing polymers were neutral or positively

charged Concentrations of chitosan and APS approach toxic

levels at the high end of effective range

DATA NEEDS

Develop standard test for measuring polymer concentrations in the water column

Determine the amount of polymer remaining in the water column after sedimentation

Review neutral and cationic polymer toxicity information

Review effect of sediment and dissolved organic matter on toxicity of polymers in receiving waters

ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION USING CCTV INSPECTION:

IDDE USING CCTV INSPECTION Locate and eliminate illicit discharges and

improper disposal to the MS4 Screening points based on previous inspection

results, complaints, physical evidence, or other factors Investigate on-site and within the state ROW If illicit discharge is identified, trace the flow

upstream to the extent of state property Typically illicit discharges, other than spills,

originate from adjacent MS4’s

IDDE USING CCTV INSPECTION, CONT.

When above ground methods of ID/IC do not conclusively detect a potential illicit discharger or connection, TxDOT may employ closed circuit television (CCTV) for detection

CCTV allows TxDOT to view every inch of the pipeline to detect: Laterals with illicit discharges Illicit connections not previously shown on plans Blockages and debris in pipes Condition of pipes Possible infiltration

IDDE USING CCTV INSPECTION, CONT. Preliminary Considerations/Activities Include: Obtaining and Reviewing As-Built Drawings Is it a TxDOT pipe, connection from adjacent

MS4 Determining the Best Entry Point Can not always enter from the outfall

Traffic Control Safety of worker and traveling public

Pipe Cleaning Often needed for camera to travel

IDDE USING CCTV INSPECTION, CONT. Data Format PACP – Pipeline Assessment Certification Program Program developed by NASSCO - National

Association of Sewer Service Companies Provides unified abbreviations and codes so that

logs and records can be used/reviewed/understood by others

Eliminates confusion and saves time Enables standard data exchange format Provide consistency of reporting/descriptions of

defects

IDDE USING CCTV INSPECTION, CONT.

Benefits Locating Illicit Discharges As camera travels in pipe linear feet is recorded TxDOT is able to walk-off linear feet to detect

potential source of discharge Locating Illicit Connections Can verify if connection was made through permit

or not Pipe Condition Separations, cracks, holes, failures

Pipe Blockages Can promote growth of unwanted discharges

IDDE USING CCTV INSPECTION, CONT.

Example of CCTV Inspection Flooding occurring under freeway

underpass Multiple Hydro-Jet cleanings did not

resolve CCTV inspections indicated a line

blockage Line blockage was removed Flooding mitigated

Questions?

Contact information Supalak (Sue) Rogers Don Hill 512.416.2661 512.416.3009 Supalak.Rogers@TXDOT.GOV Don.Hill@TXDOT.GOV