January-February 2001

  • 1
  • 2

Polymer Use and Testing for Erosion and Sediment Control on Construction Sites

Tested in the soggy La Niña weather conditions of the Pacific Northwest, chemical polymers promise a cost-effective, safe way to prevent soil erosion and remove suspended sediments from construction-site runoff.

Article Tools

Create a Link to this Article

Additional Article Content

By David Jenkins, Ed Molash, Stacey Rush, Scott Tobiason

Comments

In the Pacific Northwest, wet weather conditions often shorten the summer construction season and increase project duration. To comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and prevent adverse environmental effects, construction during the wet season (October through April) requires effective site management to prevent sediments from entering surface waters. Erosion prevention best management practices (BMPs) are usually more effective and less expensive than BMPs that remove sediment from runoff after it has been mobilized.

Though generally useful for removing the coarser sediments, sediment control BMPs simply do not work well enough to reduce turbidity to meet the highly restrictive water-quality standards of Washington state. Suspended silt and clay-size particles cloud water clarity, resulting in turbidity that can be present for many hours or even days after coarser sediments have settled or otherwise been trapped.

With silts and clays present in most Pacific Northwest soils, any construction job - regardless of size - has the potential to create turbid runoff and, even with considerable BMPs, risks exceeding Washington's strict turbidity standard. According to state regulations (WAC 173-201A), discharges must not raise turbidity by more than 5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) or 10% above background in lakes and Class AA and Class A streams (the vast majority of the numerous water bodies in western Washington). Few other states have such a numerical standard for turbidity. Fines of up to $10,000 per day of noncompliance are possible (RCW 90.48). Several years ago, penalties for erosion control violations and damage to a nearby salmon stream amounted to $65,000 for a commercial development in the region (Bremerton Sun, 1996).

Even with properly implemented erosion prevention BMPs, construction sites can easily mobilize finer particles that can escape sedimentation facilities. Given that the sedimentation process is rarely optimal and highly limited in capturing the fine silts and clay-size particles (5-10 microns) responsible for turbidity, two needs are apparent: (1) the importance of erosion prevention and (2) improved sediment controls.

Typical silt fences are capable of trapping only sands and coarse silts, particles larger than about 125 microns (for example, in a silt fence with an apparent opening size of 100). Regional guidelines call for conventional sedimentation ponds to be designed to remove particles only as small as 20 microns (medium silts) (Washington Department of Ecology, 1992; King County, 1998). To provide even more treatment, some have overdesigned these ponds to remove even smaller particles down to 10 microns (fine silts), resulting in a threefold increase in net volume requirements. Doing so uses more project area and escalates project costs while providing marginal improvements in sediment trapping. Importantly, these larger ponds provide no safeguard against potential turbidity standard exceedances. Once suspended, fine silt and clay particles readily pass through conventional sedimentation facilities and contribute turbidity in runoff, illustrating a "technology gap" in the ability to effectively meet turbidity standards.

Chemical polymers promise a cost-effective, safe means of closing this gap by preventing soil erosion in the first place and by removing suspended sediments from construction-site runoff. Domestic water supplies and agriculture have used numerous polymers for water and soil treatment in the past few decades (Azzam, 1980; Roa, 1996). In Washington, several agencies and private industries have also investigated polymers as treatment BMPs on construction projects (Minton, 1999). Recent tests in the region have included treating soils directly with polyacrylamide (PAM) and treating runoff in batch systems using a conventional water treatment polymer. Other means of treating runoff with PAM using simple, passive, self-dosing systems hold promise and are currently being tested in the area.

These polymers have a high capacity to bind with soils and suspended particles. In a soil application, PAM aggregates soil particles, increasing pore space and infiltration capacity and resulting in reduced runoff. These larger particle aggregates are less susceptible to raindrop and scour erosion, thus reducing the potential to mobilize sediments. In water-treatment applications, polymers coagulate suspended particles, improving flocculation and increasing sedimentation rates.

Many types of water and soil treatment polymers exist, including PAM, polyamines, and aluminum-chloride polymers. PAMs are classified according to their molecular weight, and ionic charge or ionicity is categorized as anionic, cationic, or nonionic. PAMs are available in solid, granular, liquid, or emulsion forms. The literature indicates that anionic PAMs of higher molecular weight, such as Chemco 9107GD and 9836A, provide the best results and present little concern for toxicity (Sojka and Lentz, 1996). Effective doses of anionic PAM for water and soil treatment are generally an order of magnitude or more below toxic concentrations. The polyaluminum-chloride­based Cat-Floc 2953 presents certain yet tractable safety, handling, and pH control issues but has relatively low toxicity to aquatic life (Calgon Corporation, 1997). Other polymers may be suitable as coagulants for domestic water treatment, but their greater toxicity to aquatic organisms precludes their use in surface-water discharges (Betz Laboratories, 1995). The polymers discussed here conform to National Sanitation Foundation Standard 60 for use in drinking-water treatment.

Thurston County Test Facility

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) constructed an erosion control test facility along SR 8 in western Thurston County, WA, approximately 16 mi. due west of Olympia. Test objectives were to evaluate the optimum dosing method and PAM application rates for preventing erosion to exposed soils as evaluated through runoff turbidity data. The WSDOT SR 8 test site is located on the western flank of the Black Hills, a low mountain range due south of the Olympic Mountains and formed from Pleistocene-era basalt deposits. Test plots used onsite soils classified as Godfrey silt loam (hydrologic soil group C) consisting of 77% sand, 16% silt, and 7% clay (23% fines). Jar tests showed that these soils produce moderate turbidity (150-350 NTUs) under the low-intensity rainfall conditions typical in the area. The area's rainfall is characterized by long-duration, low-intensity storms. Average annual rainfall at the WSDOT SR 8 test site ranges from 55 to 60 in. with 8-10 in. of snowfall. A full-time weather station at the site recorded hourly weather observations during the study period.

In the eight aboveground test plots, loose soil was contained in 4-ft.-long x 2-ft.-wide x 6-in.-deep wood-frame boxes. Runoff was diverted to sampling containers via a 45º V-notch weir and funnel. The boxes were placed on a 3.5:1 slope with a north-facing aspect. Holes drilled along the bottom of the downgrade end of each box allowed infiltrated water to escape, preventing waterlogging of the soil profile. The soil surfaces in each of the boxes were treated with different soil stabilizers, primarily different concentrations of PAM. Stormwater runoff from each box was then analyzed to measure the product's ability to reduce erosion as indicated by turbidity in the runoff.

The PAM used in these tests was Chemco 9836A granular anionic polyacrylamide, which was chosen primarily because of its extensive use in agriculture and its excellent performance in verification tests conducted by the US Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service in Kimberly, ID (Sojka and Lentz, 1996). Another product, Vanson Chitosan, an effective water treatment flocculant manufactured from crab shells and squid pens, was also applied, but only at a single concentration. Table 1 lists the soil treatments and application rates.

Table: 1. Soil Treatments & Application Rates at WSDOT SR 8 Test Site
Test Box #Treatment TypeConc. (mg/l)Equivalent Application Rate,
kg/ha (lb./ac.)
1Dry PAM0.84 grams11.2 (10.00)
2Chitosan800.74 (0.66)
3Wet PAM2001.33 (1.19)
4Wet PAM1200.82 (0.72)
5Wet PAM800.74 (0.66)
6Wet PAM400.37 (0.33)
7Wet PAM100.09 (0.08)
8Controlnonenone

In the dry application, the PAM was mixed with approximately 3 oz. of sand to aid visual observation and applied using a saltshaker type of apparatus. In the wet applications, treatments were sprayed using a conventional hand-pumped spray applicator. A total treatment solution of 0.1 gal. was sufficient to wet the entire soil surface, resulting in an equivalent volumetric application of approximately 720 gal./ac. It is important to note that the soil surface was wetted, not saturated. The degree of saturation might be an important variable for applying PAM to exposed soil but was not evaluated in this round of tests.

Construction-Site PAM Testing

The WSDOT NW region staff applied similar PAM (Chemco 9107GD) to soils on three highway construction sites in the Puget Sound region: SR 202 Ames Lake Road, SR 5 Stanwood Weigh Station, and SR 5 Ash Way Park and Ride. The objectives were twofold: to demonstrate the effectiveness of PAM in preventing erosion and to explore simple application methods. Potential PAM effectiveness, or "baseline," was first tested simply by sprinkling water on PAM-dosed site soils in small boxes and then measuring turbidity in the runoff. Full-scale applications then used granular PAM that was first dissolved in water in 5-gal. buckets, then poured into a conventional water truck that was subsequently filled. PAM mixtures were then pumped through a hose and sprayed onto site soils.

Advertisement

Five soil treatments were tested in October 1998 through January 1999: untreated, hydromulch and seed only, PAM only, PAM plus hydromulch and seed, and PAM plus straw mulch. Test sites were 0.4, 11.8, and 13.5 ac. and had 6:1 to 3:1 cut and/or fill slopes of 100-400 ft. long on south and northwest aspects. Soils had 14-38% fines (silts and clays). Slopes were track walked, leaving cleat impressions parallel to contours prior to PAM application. Other conventional BMPs were used and in such a manner that they would not influence the areas tested. PAM was applied at a concentration of 120 mg/l at the rate of 1 lb./ac., which volumetrically is 1,000 gal./ac.

Runoff samples from test areas were collected passively in simple plastic containers or plastic-lined trenches placed parallel to grade at the toe of slopes. Five to 10 storms were sampled in the October 1998 through January 1999 period. Turbidity was measured with a Hach turbidimeter.

Next Page >
  • 1
  • 2

What Do You Think?

Post a Comment

Be the first to tell us what you think!

Post a Comment

Not a subscriber? Sign Up
 
 
*  
 




 

Get Erosion Control E-mail Updates!

Get weekly news and updates through our Erosion Control e-mail newsletter!