This document summarizes a study on monitoring a novel highway runoff treatment system. Laboratory column tests showed that certain materials like BOF slag and goethite soil can remove over 30% of heavy metals from runoff. A field facility was set up to test these materials' performance on capturing and treating runoff. Preliminary field results showed the system could intercept over 260,000L of runoff and melt water from storms. Water quality monitoring of the underdrains is ongoing to assess pollutant removal rates under real-world conditions. Further testing is still needed to better understand the system's adsorption properties and ability to attenuate peak runoff flows.

1. M0nitoring and Analysis of a Novel Highway
Runoff Treatment System for Application in
Salt Vulnerable Areas
By: Bill Trenouth, M.Sc., EIT
1
And B. Gharabaghi, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Doctoral Candidate, Water Resources Engineering, University of Guelph
M.A.Sc., Water Resource Engineering, University of Guelph (2011)
TSWCS Conference
July 28th, 2014

2. Outline
 Background
 Objectives
 Laboratory Testing
 Site Description
 Field Facility
 Preliminary Results
 Next Steps
 Acknowledgements
2

3. Some Context
 In May 2000, the contamination of a
municipal water supply in Walkerton, Ontario
led to an E.coli outbreak in which
approximately 5,000 became ill and 7 people
died

4. The Outcome
 The tragedy led to a Provincial Enquiry into
the issue, and a number of recommendations
were made.
 The Government of Ontario promised to not only
protect municipal drinking water sources, but
also to make Ontario’s drinking water the safest
in the world

5. Highway Threat Assessment
 Between rain or melt events, pollutants
tend to accumulate on road surfaces,
including:
 Sediment
 Chromium
 Cadmium
 Copper
 Zinc
 Nickel
 Chlorides
5

6.  Concentrations of these pollutants are a
function of:
 Average annual daily traffic (AADT)
 Duration between wash off events (ADD)
6
Quality of the vehicles on the road
Joo‐Hyon Kang et al., 2006

7. 7
 5M tonnes of road salt applied annually in
Canada (EC, 2007)
 1.1M tonnes in Ontario alone (1998)
 Number is roughly double that in the U.S.
 Private contractors tend to apply salt at a
density that is 4X greater than public
agencies
 Application excess is
in response to liability issues
 Total contribution
remains unquantified

8. 8
4.3 x

9. Guidelines
9
 The US EPA has set chronic and acute toxicity
thresholds for chlorides which are 230 mg/L and
860 mg/L respectively (EPA, 1988)
 More recently, the CCME (2011) has introduced
its own guidelines for chlorides in surface
waters:
Long-Term
(Chronic) Exposure
Short-Term (Acute)
Exposure
120 mg Cl
-
/L 640 mg Cl
-
/L

10. Regulations
10
 Aesthetic chloride ion concentration (taste)
objectives for Ontario drinking water are 250
mg/L Cl‐
 Exceedances of this have already been detected in
urban wellfields in the Waterloo area (Bester et al.,
2006)

11. Implications
 Chemically‐induced meromixis
 Death of aquatic organisms
 Groundwater concentrations of Cl‐ in excess
of 1,600mg/L found in Pickering
 Greatly exceeds Ontario drinking water guidelines
 Exceeds 96h LC50 for some amphibians
11

12. Kilgour and Associates, 2009
12

13. Implications
13
 Our research group has collected streamside
chloride ion concentrations in excess of
5,700 mg/L in urban areas
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
12/2/2010
12/22/2010
1/11/2011
1/31/2011
2/20/2011
3/12/2011
Cl-Concentration(mg/L)
Chloride Ion Concentration (Gordon Rd; Winter
2010-2011)
Gordon Rd
Objective

14. 14
Room for
Improvement?

15. Objectives
15
Using bench‐scale tests, assess the adsorption
capability of several media at removing
common highway pollutants
Using continuous monitoring techniques, assess
the performance of the installed field system at
capturing, detaining and attenuating the
movement of multiple pollutants
Assess the imperviousness and longevity of
several liners under normal field conditions,
and quantify their effectiveness at protecting
groundwater

16. Screening & Laboratory Testing
 Based on a review of the literature, multiple
candidate materials were tested:
16

17. Column and Shaker Tests
 Laboratory shaker tests to screen candidate
material
 Column and drip testing for successful
materials
17

18. Column Construction
 Design based on research objectives and
details available in the literature (e.g.
Safadoust et al., 2011; Starrett et al., 1996)
18

19. Sensor Calibration
19
(S1) y = 596.93x
R² = 0.999
(S2) y = 607.13x
R² = 0.999
(S3) y = 599.1x
R² = 0.999
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NaClConcentration(mg/L)
SpecificConductivity (mS/cm)
Conductivity Sensor Calibration
S1
S2
S3
Linear(S1)
Linear(S2)
Linear(S3)

21. Valve Calibration
21
y = 1.3581x0.51
R² = 0.991
y = 0.6902x0.46
R² = 0.998
y = 0.2073x0.45
R² = 0.997
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25
Flow(L/s)
HeadPressure(m)
Ball Valve Rating Curves: Various Apertures
(Multi-Stage)
132 Degress
145 Degrees
157 Degrees

22. Preliminary Results

23. Preliminary Results – Objective 1
 The heavy metals removal results were
satisfactory for a number of the evaluated
materials:
23
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
BOF SLAG 30G IRON STOCKPILE 30G RED SAND 30G GOETHITE SOIL 30G
RemovalEfficiency
Sample
HeavyMetals Removal Results
Chromium (Cr)-Total Cobalt (Co)-Total Copper(Cu)-Total Lead (Pb)-Total Nickel (Ni)-Total Zinc (Zn)-Total

24. Preliminary Results – Objective 1
 For chlorides:
24
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000
PercentReduction(%)
Salt Concentration (mg/L)
Comparison of Conductivity Reduction
forSix Materials (48 Hour Test)
Comparison of Conductivity Reduction for
Five Materials (48 Hour Test)

25. 25
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ChlorideIonConc.(mg/L)
Bottle #
Chloride Removal for Amendment 5
InitialChloride Ion Conc.
Final Chloride Conc. (Pre-Filter)
Final Chloride Conc. (Post-Filter
Preliminary Results – Objective 1

26. Field Facility – Objective 2
 Upscaling from the Laboratory to the Field
 Peak dampening from diffusion, storage & adsorption
 Testing of Various Liners
 Sub‐surface Leak Detection
26

27. 27

28. 28

29. www.guelphmtowaterquality.com

30. Melt Water Capture and Treatment
Storm Event Winter Event
Precipitation
Depth (mm)
Total Event
Precipitation
Volume (L)
Total Event Runoff
Volume Intercepted by the
Liner System (L)Start Date End Date
31/Oct/13 3/Nov/13 11.4 27,360 34,364
6/Nov/13 7/Nov/13 13.8 33,120 8,143
20/Dec/14 22/Dec/14 45.3 108,720 15,607
11/Jan/14 15/Jan/14 19.5 46,800 49,223
31/Jan/14 31/Jan/14 0.0 - 904
2/Feb/14 3/Feb/14 15.3 36,720 3,246
20/Feb/14 24/Feb/14 17.4 41,760 28,378
7/Mar/14 15/Mar/14 6.6 15,840 88,659
18/Mar/14 22/Mar/14 1.6 3,840 27,996
28/Mar/14 29/Mar/14 4.5 10,800 7,760
TOTAL 135.4 324,960 264,280
 Compacted Clay allows for upwelling
from seasonal water table

31. Water Quantity
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
1/10/2014 12:00 1/12/2014 0:00 1/13/2014 12:00 1/15/2014 0:00
Flow(lps)
Date and Time
Melt Model
Cumulative Underdrains

32. Water Quality – Objective 3

33. Next Steps
 Initial results are promising, but further
testing is required. This includes the data
collected on heavy metals at the field site
 More information is needed about the
elasticity of the system, as well as the
adsorption/desorption parameters
33

34. Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following
partners for their support:
 Ontario Ministry of Transportation
 Filtrexx Canada
34

35. Thank youBill Trenouth, Ph.D. Candidate, EIT
School of Engineering,
University of Guelph
wtrenout@uoguelph.ca
35