how sqid proprietors can exaggerate stormwater treatment ... · 12 29 9 69% 0.040 0.005 88% 0.800...

www.oceanprotect.com.au

Ocean Protect webinar

19 August 2020

Michael Wicks

How SQID proprietors can exaggerate

stormwater treatment performance claims

via SQIDEP


Background - SQIDEP

Key issues

Does it really matter?

Where to from here ?


What is SQIDEP?

The development

The consultation process

More rigorous scientific outcome ?


❖ http://stormwaterqueensland.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SQ-SQIDEP-Submission-Final.pdf

❖ https://stormwaternsw.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Stormwater-NSW-Comments-and-Advice-on-SQIDEP.pdf

http://stormwaterqueensland.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/SQ-SQIDEP-Submission-Final.pdf

https://stormwaternsw.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Stormwater-NSW-Comments-and-Advice-on-SQIDEP.pdf


Key issues:

o No need for non-sequential events,

enabling ‘cherry picking’ of data

o No minimum requirement for dissolved

inorganic nitrogen

o No minimum performance standards


Key issues (cont’d)

o No minimum performance standard

o Inconsistencies & difficulties with

current practice


Cherry picking example #1

o One site … two published articles


2015 Published Data 2018 Published Data

o Same Site

o Same Technology

o Missing and Different Data


Cherry picking example #2

o Field-scale monitoring

o 26 storm events

o ~2 years

Technology ID & Storm Event Date

Water Quality Results

TSS Total P TN

Influent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L) CRE (%)Influent (mg/L)

Effluent (mg/L)

CRE (%)Influent (mg/L)

Effluent (mg/L)

CRE (%)

1 36 13 64% 0.080 0.040 50% 1.730 0.860 50%

2 13 2.5 81% 0.060 0.040 33% 1.560 0.300 81%

3 19 8 58% 0.170 0.050 71% 3.330 2.270 32%

4 22 6 73% 0.160 0.070 56% 2.370 1.820 23%

5 60 12 80% 0.130 0.005 96% 2.930 1.330 55%

6 31 10 68% 0.070 0.040 43% 1.510 1.120 26%

7 22 15 32% 0.110 0.070 36% 1.870 2.260 -21%

8 15 2.5 83% 0.070 0.060 14% 1.660 1.160 30%

9 52 10 81% 0.120 0.040 67% 0.900 0.310 66%

10 15 8 47% 0.060 0.020 67% 1.350 1.020 24%

11 51 8 84% 0.190 0.050 74% 1.660 0.920 45%

12 29 9 69% 0.040 0.005 88% 0.800 0.520 35%

13 16 2.5 84% 0.050 0.005 90% 0.850 0.500 41%

14 30 6 80% 0.070 0.010 86% 0.750 0.270 64%

15 26 2.5 90% 0.130 0.020 85% 1.810 0.500 72%

16 36 10 72% 0.060 0.020 67% 1.420 0.600 58%

17 90 2.5 97% 0.120 0.005 96% 0.660 0.290 56%

18 138 41 70% 0.760 0.040 95% 4.180 1.450 65%

19 92 11 88% 0.290 0.050 83% 3.000 2.140 29%

20 98 36 63% 0.160 0.070 56% 1.520 1.140 25%

21 13.75 2.5 82% 0.080 0.067 17% 0.875 0.607 31%

22 37 2.5 93% 0.680 0.040 94% 1.310 2.140 -63%

23 39 2.5 94% 0.150 0.020 87% 0.580 0.390 33%

24 52 8 85% 0.120 0.030 75% 0.940 0.610 35%

25 8 2.5 69% 0.010 0.005 50% 0.260 0.110 58%

26 15 2.5 83% 0.040 0.005 88% 0.860 0.380 56%


TSS TP TN

All qualifying data for FT study

Number of Storm Events 26 26 26

Mean influent (mg/L) 40.6 0.153 1.565

Mean effluent (mg/L) 9.1 0.034 0.962

Median CRE 80.4% 72.1% 38.1%

ER 77.6% 78.0% 38.5%

SQIDEP V1.3 (including cherry picking of best 15 for TN removal)




Median CRE 80.8% 84.6% 56.1%

ER 79.8% 83.8% 58.0%

50% increased

efficiency via

SQIDEP


DIN and The Nitrogen Cycle

❖ Always easier to remove Particulate vs. Soluble


Dissolved Inorganic

Nitrogen (DIN)

Removal PathwaysCation Exchange Anion

Exchange

De-Nitrification by

Biological Processes

Expensive ca. $45,000/t of media

Time!

Mainly Particulate


Example ‘real world’ SQID monitoring data

Same filter, same media

ca. 2x Flow Rate 1x Flow Rate

TSS TP TN

All data SF study #1




Median CRE 90.0% 78.3% 59.2%

TSS TP TN

All data SF study #2




Median CRE 90.2% 76.1% 36.7%

15% DIN 46% DIN


Water Quality & Flow Rate


Example laboratory test to NJCAT

Protocol of a filter

https://www.climateincorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Climate-

Hydrosystem-Quality-Assurance-Plan.pdf

https://www.climateincorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Climate-Hydrosystem-Quality-Assurance-Plan.pdf


TSS

All Data at 2.25L/s Treatable Flow Rate

Number of Samples 3

Mean influent (mg/L) 188.0

Mean effluent (mg/L) 63.3

Median CRE 65.9%

ER 66.3%

All Data at 1.1L/s Treatable Flow Rate

Number of Samples 10

Mean influent (mg/L) 266.2

Mean effluent (mg/L) 48.2

Median CRE 81.8%

ER 81.9%

19% increased efficiency


Verification & Governance

Conflicts of interest declaration (& management ?)

Appropriate validation framework

o Scoring/weighting system

o Disclosure of reporting to competitors

o Thorough grievance process

Verification statements

Verification Validity Period and “Grandfathering”


How SQID proprietors can exaggerate stormwater treatment

performance claims via SQIDEP

‘Cherry pick’ data

o Best 15 events ?

o Non-sequential events

o Low influent DIN

o Exploit lack of minimum standards

Get SQIDEP verification now


Does it really matter ?

100

63

42

3225

20 1710

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Qu

anti

ty o

f C

artr

idge

s

Total Nitrogen Removal Efficiency in Generic Node (%)

Impact of TN Removal Increase on Cartridge Quantity


But, really ……


Where to from here ?

http://stormwaterqueensland.asn.au/way-forward-sqidep/


But I can’t wait what can I do now?


Ask for the data (with no distribution

restrictions)

o Storm sequence log

o Individual storm reports

o Chain of custodies

o Lab reports

Ask for conflicts of interest

declarations from all personnel

involved (e.g. peer reviewers)


Follow one of the leading regulators in the

country for a period of 1-2 years

An interim solution?


THANK YOU Michael Wicks

0409 361 589

[email protected]


1300 354 722

how sqid proprietors can exaggerate stormwater treatment ... · 12 29 9 69% 0.040 0.005 88% 0.800...

Documents