How To Guide Final v2

HOW TO GUIDE:
APPLYING THE CIRIA

SUDS MANUAL (C753)
SIMPLE INDEX APPROACH
TO PROPRIETARY/
MANUFACTURED STORMWATER
TREATMENT DEVICES
HOW TO GUIDE: APPLYING THE CIRIA SUDS MANUAL (C753) SIMPLE INDEX APPROACH TO PROPRIETARY / MANUFACTURED
STORMWATER TREATMENT DEVICES
CONTENTS
Scope 5
Executive Summary 6
Section 1: Protecting the Water Environment from Pollution 9
Section 2: Test Protocols 9
Section 3: Use of Manufactured Stormwater Treatment

Devices within a SuDS Management Train 14
Section 4: Using Test Results to Select the Right Device for each Design 17
Section 4.1: Flow Rates 17
Section 4.2: Sediment Removal and Retention 20
Section 4.3: Metals Removal and Retention 22
Section 4.4: Liquid Hydrocarbon Removal and Retention 23
Section 5: Comparison of Laboratory Derived Mitigation

Indices with Field Trials 25
Section 6: Application of the Mitigation Indices in the SIA 27
Section 6.1: Unit Selection and Scaling 27
Section 7: Design Considerations 28
Section 8: Other Risk Based Design Methods 30
Links to Supporting Material 31
References 31
Appendix A: Test Methods 32
A1: British Water Assessment of MTDs Designed to

Treat Surface Water Runoff (BW CoP) 32
A2: Procedure for Obtaining Verification of a Stormwater MTD from New

Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT) 33
A3: National Technical Approval Granted by the German Institute of

Building Technology (DIBt) 34
Appendix B: Rainfall Data and Conversions 35
Appendix C: Liquid Hydrocarbon / Light Oil Removal Efficiencies 36
Appendix D: SIA Mitigation Index Derivation from NJCAT 40
D1: Example Calculation 40
D2: Conclusion 43
Appendix E: SIA Mitigation Index Derivation from DIBt 44
E1: Example Calculation for TSS Mitigation Index 44
E2: Example Calculation for Hydrocarbon Mitigation Index 49
E3: Example Calculation for Metals Mitigation Index 53
E4: Conclusion 58
TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Test Protocols 11
Table 2: Use of Manufactured Stormwater Treatment

Devices within a SuDS Management Train 14
Table 3: Steps inAssessing a SuDS Management Train 16
Table 4: Test Flow-rates to Assess Capture Efficiency

for the Typical Sub-annual Rainfall Volume Percentile 18
Table 5: Summary of Typical Concentrations of Pollutants

and Stormwater Sediments 22
Table 6: Order of Magnitude of Mitigation Provided during

the Site Trials Recorded in the US BMP Database 25
Table 7: Comparison of the Median Effluent Values Recorded

in the US BMP Database for the Different Device Types against the
Environmental Standards Provided in Annex 1 of Chapter 26 of C753 26
Table D.1: Summary of NJCAT Test Data for an MTD 40
Table D.2: BW CoP Test Conditions 40
Table E.1: Summary of DIBt Test Data for a Sediment Capture 44
Table E.2: BW CoP Test Sediment Conditions 44
Table E.3: DIBt Test Data for Hydrocarbons 49
Table E.4: Summary of DIBt Test Data for a Metals Capture 53
Table E.5: BW CoP Metals Testing Conditions 53
CHARTS
Chart 1: Comparison of Sediment Gradation for the BW
CoP, NJCAT and DIBt Test Protocols, Benchmarked against
the ISO14688-1 Soil Classifications 13
Chart 2: Distribution of Annual Rainfall in England and Test

flow-rates in the BW CoP 19
Chart 3: PSD of Sediments in Runoff and Road Sweepings 20
Chart 4: Dissolved and Particulate Phases of Various Contaminants 22
Chart B.1: Flow-rates Comparison for each Test Method 35

5
THIS GUIDE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY

THE BRITISH WATER SUSTAINABLE WATER MANAGEMENT FOCUS GROUP
SCOPE
This document only applies to Manufactured Treatment Devices (MTDs) designed
for the treatment of stormwater (not simply attenuation or conveyance devices)
that have been tested in accordance with one of the protocols detailed in
Section 2. The guide defines a process and consistent data set that allows
manufacturers to provide mitigation indices for use in The SuDS Manual Simple
Index Approach (SIA) as defined in The SuDS Manual (C753) (Woods Ballard, et
al., 2015)- Section 26.7. The requirements of the The SuDS Manual (C753) takes
precedence over this document. For more detailed risk assessments, advice
from the approving authority and manufacturer should be sought.
Where site constraints preclude surface-based or landscaped water

management systems, then MTDs may be appropriate. MTDs can also be
considered complementary to landscaped features, reducing pollutant levels in
the runoff, and protecting the amenity and/or biodiversity functionality of the
wider SuDS scheme. Under these conditions, manufactured systems can offer
specific benefits in facilitating the delivery of some of the SuDS design criteria
on a site-wide basis, as functionality can be tailored to pollution control, safety,
access, or maintenance requirements. With proprietary treatment systems,
interception and attenuation will usually need to be delivered separately using
either surface or subsurface systems. Also, amenity and biodiversity criteria will
need to be considered as defined in The SuDS Manual (C753) - Section 14.1.
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY when evaluating performance for field

monitored BMPs, controlled laboratory
Proprietary (or manufactured) treatment testing of manufactured devices removes
systems are devices that remove specified this inherent variability and allows for
pollutants from surface water runoff. They an accurate representation of device
are recognised as treatment systems in performance via a percentage removal
design guides, such as The SuDS Manual measure. This guidance document
(C753) (Woods Ballard, et al., 2015) and analyses some UK and internationally
SuDS for Roads (Pittner and Allerton, recognised certification test methods
2009), where they can be used as part and describes how to convert the
of a treatment train that also provides results from these into SuDS Mitigation
interception. In the Design Manual for Indices. Checks have been made back
Roads and Bridges (DMRB HD33/16) they to the US BMP database to verify that
can be used on their own or as part of a the percentage removal performance
treatment train for water quality. measure shown is consistent with the field
measured performance demonstrated.
These design manuals will often
recommend the use of supporting Box 1 shows a summary of the steps
evidence through a recognised testing to be taken in deriving and applying
or verification programme to demonstrate Mitigation Indices for use with the SIA in
the effectiveness of a proprietary the selection and sizing of a Manufactured
(or manufactured) treatment device. Treatment Device (MTD). The following
This document is intended to help method makes the assumption that the
designers and specifiers to interpret principles and design protocols set out
results from the main recognised UK in the SuDS Manual have been followed
and international test methods or (i.e., master planning has maximised the
verification programmes at the time use of surface features for treatment, as
of publication and apply these to the well as conveyance and attenuation) and
Simple Index Approach (SIA) as defined interception is also provided to manage
within Chapter 26 of The SuDS Manual the initial depth of rainfall. Where an
(C753). MTD has been identified as a preferable
option and/or in support of surface-based
The SIA was derived from work originally treatment measures, and where the SIA
carried out at Middlesex University, which is an acceptable design method (Table
is summarised in Annex 5 of Chapter 26 of 4.3 of The SuDS Manual (C753)), then the
C753. This work was supplemented by the method in Box 1 may be used.
authors of C753 through comparison of
the anticipated “irreducible concentration”
or “achievable efficiency” of a given
component to the target environmental
quality standard of the receiving water
environment for a given contaminant.
The “irreducible concentration” essentially
defines a practical limit to the effluent
quality that can be achieved via any given
Best Management Practice (BMP).
Whilst this is a practical approach

that reduces the statistical variability
7
BOX 1: SuDS MITIGATION INDICES FOR MTDs

Step 1 – Allocate suitable pollution hazard indices for the proposed land use.
Pollution hazard indices are presented in Table 26.2 of the SuDS manual. Indices range from 0 to 1.
Step 2 – Select SuDS/MTD with a total pollution mitigation index that equals or exceeds the pollution hazard index.
Total SuDS mitigation index ≥ pollution hazard index (per contaminant type)
Where the mitigation index of a single component is insufficient, two (or more) components in series will be required, where:
Total SuDS mitigation index = Mitigation index of first component + 0.5 (mitigation index of second component)
CONTAMINANTS/POLLUTANTS:
Mitigation indices for MTDs should be declared according to the British Water Code of Practice (BW CoP). The basis on which
they are derived is as follows:
Total Suspended Solids Index (TSS) (See Section 4.2)

Under the BW CoP the TSS mitigation index is derived directly from the TSS test protocol or by using the calculated
net annual removal of TSS from other recognised test protocols for TSS removal.
Use of internationally recognised testing, certification or verification programmes is acceptable (see Section 2), but it will be
necessary to correct the net annual removal efficiencies declared under these to UK rainfall patterns and convert to a TSS
Mitigation Index.
The test methods presented in Section 2 consider sediment particle sizes and concentrations considered to be a
representative of typical contamination in surface water runoff from developed areas.
Test methods that only consider a narrow spectrum of Particle Size Distribution (PSD) should not be used to derive a TSS
Mitigation Index, but can be used for more detailed analyses where the PSD of sediment in the run-off is known
Metals (Section 4.3)

Under the BW CoP the Metals mitigation index is derived directly from the test protocol for copper and zinc or by
using the net annual removal efficiencies for dissolved metals and particulate metals and converted directly to a
Metals Mitigation Index.
The BW CoP only directly assesses dissolved metals removal & retention, but metals exist in runoff in both dissolved and
particulate fractions. To derive a SuDS Mitigation Index for Total Metals the removal efficiency under the certification method
is derived as follows:
TOTAL Metal reduction = Particulate fraction reduction + Dissolved fraction reduction
Where:
Particulate fraction reduction = Sediment removal efficiency x Particulate fraction
Dissolved fraction reduction = Dissolved metal removal efficiency x Dissolved fraction
Use of internationally recognised declared testing, certification or verification programmes is acceptable, but it will be
necessary to correct the net annual removal efficiencies under these to UK rainfall patterns and convert to a Metals
Mitigation Index.
Hydrocarbons (Section 4.4)

Under the BW CoP a liquid (free phase) Hydrocarbons Mitigation Index is established according to BS EN 858-1:2002
test protocols. Alternatively, a total hydrocarbon Mitigation Index may be calculated from the sum of the net annual
removal rate for both liquid and particulate phases.
Hydrocarbons exist in surface water runoff in many forms, including free phase (liquid), particulate bound and emulsified,
but the SIA only considers free phase and particulate bound hydrocarbons. The BW CoP does not cover hydrocarbon
removal, but liquid hydrocarbon removal efficiency can be assessed under BS EN 858-1:2002.
A composite Hydrocarbon SuDS Mitigation Index is derived as follows:

COMPOSITE Hydrocarbon reduction = Particulate fraction reduction + Free Phase fraction reduction
Continued.
Where:
Particulate fraction reduction = Sediment removal efficiency x Particulate fraction
Free Phase fraction reduction = Free Phase hydrocarbon removal efficiency x Free Phase fraction
Use of internationally recognised testing, certification or verification programmes is acceptable, but it will be necessary
to correct the net annual removal efficiencies declared under these to UK rainfall patterns and convert to a Hydrocarbon
Mitigation Index
Unit sizing and flow-rate capacity (Section 4.1)

Use the declared flow-rate or drained area from the BW CoP to select an appropriate device and unit size for the
drained area required.
8
BOX 1: SuDS MITIGATION INDICES FOR MTDs

Treatment flow-rate and drained area for a given device is stated on the BW CoP assessment record. Use of an alternative
internationally recognised testing, certification or verification programme is acceptable. The claimed treatment flow-rate
may be converted to drained area by assuming a 27mm/hr rainfall intensity (Q=CiA), which is the typical peak annual rainfall
intensity in England. Performance claims are related to annual rainfall distributions so flow-rates or drained areas above
manufacturer’s specifications will typically result in reduced pollutant removal rates or pollutant washout. NB: Flow-rates and
drained areas will increase with unit size, and it is up to the designer to select the appropriate capacity unit.
Step 3 – Where the discharge is to protected surface waters or groundwater, consider the need for a more
precautionary approach
Reference to local planning documentation should be considered to identify any additional protection requirements due to
habitat conservation or areas with environmental designations, such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) sites.
In England and Wales additional treatment components must be provided where discharge is to protected surface waters or
groundwater. This provides an additional level of protection in the event of an unexpected pollution event, system failure or
poor system performance.
9
SECTION 1.
PROTECTING THE WATER ENVIRONMENT
FROM POLLUTION
Chapter 4 and Chapter 26 of The SuDS Manual (C753) both provide information about
the sources of pollution in surface water runoff, the risks to the aquatic environment
presented by these contaminants and the general approaches to water quality risk
management. Annex 1 of Chapter 26 of C753 provides an outline of the typical
contaminants in urban runoff and their potential toxicity. These values were used as
the basis for the definition of the pollution hazard indices used in the Simple Index
Approach (SIA) (see Table 26.2 of C753) and the SIA Tool developed by HR Wallingford
on behalf of the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA):
There are other, more complex risk assessment methods, such as those also covered
in Chapter 26 of C753 and in Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB HD33/16)
HD45. These methodologies are outside the scope of this guidance document and
advice should be sought from the approving / adopting body (where relevant) and
supplier.
SECTION 2.
TEST PROTOCOLS
Whilst there is currently no British, European or International Standard that applies to
proprietary (or manufactured) devices for the treatment of surface water run-off, there
are now a number of recognised testing methods both in the UK and internationally.
Whilst these have often been developed independently of each other, there are
noticeable similarities across them.
Some of the most widely recognised are specifically referenced in this guide:
British Water Assessment of MTDs Designed to Treat Surface Water Runoff – BW CoP
(see Appendix A1)
New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology - NJACT Verification Programe
(see Appendix A2)
National Technical Approval Granted by the German Institute of Building Technology/
Deutsches Institut für Bautecknik - DiBt (Appendix A3)
Separator Systems for Light Liquids (e.g., oil and petrol) – BS EN 858 (Appendix A4)
These test methods are summarised in Table 1, and discussed fully in the relevant
appendices. BS EN 858-1:2002 is not included in Table 1, as testing of free phase
hydrocarbons is not directly covered in the BW CoP. Chart 1 also contains a comparison
of the sediments used to represent typical urban Total Suspended Solids (TSS) size
distributions in the test protocols.
The NJCAT testing protocols are designed to assess the annual capture rate of
sediments from runoff in a typical urban setting. This is in recognition that the majority
of pollutants in runoff will be associated with the sediments (rather than dissolved).
The annual sediment capture performance required to gain NJCAT approval is 50% for
sedimentation (settling) systems and 80% for filter systems.
10
The German DIBt testing protocol is a stringent approval protocol for treating runoff in
high-risk scenarios. The focus is primarily on reducing pollutant loads from metal roofs
and highly trafficked road runoff, which is partly related to German building practices.
The DIBt requirements are only applied for areas with > 300 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
and where the discharge is infiltrated to groundwater. The test protocol assesses annual
capture rate of sediment, dissolved metals and hydrocarbons, where the approval
requirements are:
- Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—92%

- Zinc—70%
- Copper—80%
- Total petroleum hydrocarbons—80%
DIBt approval limits systems to a maximum connected (drained) area of 2,000 m2

and stipulates the installation and maintenance processes. In recognition of this a
‘stormwater fee’ (tax) is applied on the local residents for the upkeep of DIBt approved
systems. Where stormwater runoff is not infiltrated into the groundwater, more general
conditions apply under the federal regulations for stormwater treatment (DWA A102)
which require decentralised SuDS devices to remove at least 50% of particles less than
63 µm in size from stormwater runoff. This is similar to the requirements of the NJCAT
protocol, and more representative of a typical urban scenario, where stormwater is
discharged to a receiving water body.
This guidance is not intended to be all encompassing as it is recognised that there are
an increasing number of test methods being developed or in use around the world.
Use of other methodologies to evaluate the performance of proprietary or MTDs
should follow the principles set out here where practical.
11
Table 1: Summary of Test Protocols
PROTOCOL BW CoP NJCAT (US) DIBt (Germany)

Enforcement Voluntary Required for New Jersey; Recognised & Mandatory in Germany
required or advisory by other US States
Applicable Devices Various treatment devices as covered in C753 Separate test methods for: Filtration systems for drained areas of up to
Chapter 14 • Hydrodynamic Sedimentation 2000m² and prior to discharge to earth or
• Filtration Systems groundwaters
Quality Assurance Witnessed by a United Kingdom Accreditation Tests at independent facility or supervised by Testing must be carried out at an approved
Services (UKAS) accredited expert at an accredited person 3rd party laboratory
manufacturer facilities or suitable 3rd party
laboratory
Sediment Capture Assessed? Yes (optional) Yes (mandatory) Yes (mandatory)
Sediment Retention Assessed? Yes (optional) Yes (mandatory) Yes (mandatory)
Sediment Particle Size Distribution (PSD) 2 to 400 microns 2 to 1000 microns 2 to 400 microns
for removal efficiency D 50 = 63 microns D50 = 75 microns D 50 = 63 microns
Sediment Particle Size Distribution (PSD) 2 to 400 microns 50 to 1000 microns 2 to 400 microns
for retention efficiency D 50 = 63 microns D50 = 200 microns D 50 = 63 microns
Sediment influent load (mg/l) 200 200 Based off 50 g/m² of connected area size:
seen to be approximately equal to the
annual load
Background Sediment concentration (mg/l) ≤20 ≤20 n/a
Sediment Pass / Fail Criteria None – informative only Hydrodynamic Separator Devices (HDS) must >92% retention
achieve a minimum net annual 50% TSS
reduction; all HDS results are rounded down to
50%
Filtration devices must achieve a minimum net
annual 80% TSS removal; all Filtration device
results are rounded down to 80%
Metals Capture Assessed? Yes – Dissolved metals (Copper & Zinc) No Yes – Dissolved metals (Copper & Zinc)
(optional) (mandatory)
12
PROTOCOL BW CoP NJCAT (US) DIBt (Germany)

Metals Retention Assessed? Yes No Yes
Metals influent load (mg/m²) Copper – 15.5 n/a Copper – 15.5

Zinc – 135 Zinc – 135
Metals Pass / Fail Criteria None – informative only n/a Effluent concentrations:
Copper ≤ 144 µg/l (80% retention)
Zinc ≤ 1875 µg/l (70% retention)
Hydrocarbons Retention Assessed? No No Yes (mandatory)
Hydrocarbons test fluid n/a n/a Heating oil to Deutsches Institut für Normung
(DIN) 51603
Hydrocarbon influent load n/a n/a 1.0 mg/l
Hydrocarbon Pass / Fail Criteria n/a n/a Effluent concentration ≤ 20% of 0.68 g/m2 of
connected area
Treatment Flow Rates A mean flow rate resulting from a 1 Maximum Treatment Flow Rate (MTFR), n/a.
year 15-minute (M1:15) rainfall event which is defined as the highest flow rate that Performance is declared based on the
(determined by HR Wallingford as 27 mm/hr can be conveyed through the device while maximum connected area that can be
as an appropriate UK average) for a stated both achieving a performance claim based treated.
catchment area shall be declared by the on the TSS removal efficiency testing and,
manufacturer as the device Treatment Flow for filtration systems, allowing for sufficient
Rate (TFR). operational longevity.
Typical Rainfall Intensity for Treatment A mean flow rate resulting from a 1 Weighted efficiency determined based 3 test flow rates are determined based on the
Design year 15-minute (M1:15) rainfall event on typical annual New Jersey rainfall connected area and each represent 1/3 of the
(determined by HR Wallingford as 27 mm/hr characteristics annual rainfall run-off for Germany: 2.5l/s/ha,
as an appropriate UK average) for a stated 6l/s/ha and 25l/s/ha. An exceedance test at
catchment area shall be declared by the 100 l/s/ha is applied to test for retention of
manufacturer as the device TFR. captured material under heavy rainfall
Maximum Flow Rate (Hydraulic Capacity) Capability to safely pass a maximum A Maximum Hydraulic Flow Rate (MHFR) An exceedance test at 100 l/s/ha is applied to
capacity flow rate equivalent to a 1:30 year is also declared for HDS devices, which is test for retention of captured material under
rainfall event (90mm/hr), utilising bypass as defined as the highest flow rate that can heavy rainfall
appropriate be conveyed through the device with a
manufacturer specified head loss.
13
Chart 1 Comparison of sediment gradation for the BW CoP, NJCAT and DIBt
Test Protocols, benchmarked against the ISO14688-1 Soil Classifications.
(Note: the BW CoP and DIBt sediment gradations are identical)
Coarse
Clay Fine Silt Med. Silt Coarse Silt Fine Sand Med. Sand Sand
100
KEY
90 NJDEP
BW CoP/DiBt
80
70
Percent finer than (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000
Particle size (microns)
14
SECTION 3.
USE OF MANUFACTURED STORMWATER TREATMENT
DEVICES WITHIN A SuDS MANAGEMENT TRAIN
The following represents general guidance on the most appropriate location for
manufactured devices within a SuDS Management Train (Table 2). This guidance is not
considered comprehensive and the design for each site should be considered based on
local factors such as pollution sources, topography, rainfall, existing infrastructure and
services, and space constraints. Where in doubt, advice from the manufacturer on the
most appropriate device and location should be sought, for consideration by the design
engineer.
In addition, consideration should be given to the physical treatment mechanisms

used when selecting manufactured treatment devices. A list of popular treatment
mechanisms is as follows:
Settling: Suitable for removal of denser, readily settable sediments and trash. Removal
rate decreases with increasing flow-rate.
Floatation: Suitable for removal of less dense (specific gravity < 1.0) readily floatable
oils and trash. Removal rate decreases with increasing flow-rate.
Filtration: Physical interception, capable of removing smaller particles and trash.

Removal rate stays relatively constant at all flows, but the restrictive nature of
filters limits flow-rate capacity and results in larger, more costly systems. Additional
maintenance is also incurred due to media replacement requirements.
Adsorption: Generally used to remove pollutants, such as heavy metals, through

adhesion to a solid media. Adsorption reactions are time dependent, so removal rate
generally decreases with increasing flow-rate. Adsorption media can also provide
filtration capabilities, so has similar (or greater) cost and maintenance implications.
Physical treatment mechanisms are also present in green infrastructure systems, and
their capability to remove pollutants reflected in observed performance. For example,
a detention basin provides settling and has an expected mitigation index of 0.5 for TSS,
whereas a bioretention system provides filtration and adsorption and has an expected
mitigation index of 0.8 for TSS (CIRIA C753 Table 26.2). Test standards for manufactured
devices set similar expectations for settling and filtration.
The US NJCAT protocol and German federal regulations for stormwater treatment (DWA
A102) both require 50% annual load reduction of TSS when settling is applied as the
treatment mechanism. US NJCAT and German DIBt approvals for filters require 80% and
92% removal of TSS respectively.
It is desirable to use MTDs upstream of large storage structures, such as ponds,

to prevent pollutant loads accumulating. Though they can sometimes be included
downstream of flow control devices, it is suggested that this is in agreement with the
product manufacturer and where appropriate apply the following:
Read and use in conjunction with Table 14.1 and Table 26.7 of The SuDS Manual
(C753). Proprietary systems, vegetative & other SuDS components can be used
independently or collectively as part of an overall Management Train.
15
Sediment removal devices should be at the top of the system to protect

downstream devices from sedimentation and because sediment will always settle
out at the first opportunity.
Stormwater filters should always be downstream of a sediment removal device to
reduce the frequency of blockage.
Spillage containment devices must always be installed upstream of vegetative devices
to prevent contamination of devices with spilled pollutants.
Table 2: Use of Manufactured Stormwater Treatment Devices within a SuDS Management Train
COMPONENT INTERCEPTION 1 CLOSE TO SOURCE SECOND TERTIARY

/ PRIMARY TREATMENT TREATMENT2
2
TREATMENT2
Proprietary Yes4 Yes Yes No
Bioretention /
Biofiltration
Treatment Yes4 Yes5 No No
Channels
Hydrodynamic No Yes Yes3 No
or Vortex
Separators
Proprietary No Yes5 Yes5 Yes5
Filtration
Systems
Oil Separators No Yes5 Yes5 No
Multi-Process Dependant on the nature of the system and the individual
elements combined to create the multi-process system
NOTES:
1. The prevention of runoff from the site for the majority of small (frequent) rainfall events is called interception and is a vital part
of treatment design that should be incorporated into many SuDS designs. Interception components are also normally a treatment
component.
2. “Primary”, “Secondary” and “Tertiary” treatment defined as per the The SuDS Manual (C753), noting that the definitions here are
different from conventional wastewater / water treatment.
3. Primary treatment mechanism is sedimentation; therefore, these components will generally be at their most effective when used
as the first treatment stage.
4. Where volume reduction through filter media, soil, or vegetation (where applicable) can be demonstrated or where used as part
of an infiltration system.
5. These remove coarse sediments, but their use for this purpose could have implications with respect to maintenance
requirements. Coarse sediment should be removed upstream unless they are specifically designed to retain sediment as
a separate part of the component. See also Box 1.
The steps taken in assessing a SuDS Management Train that incorporates MTDs, in
accordance with the SIA design process are shown in Table 3 Steps in assessing a SuDS
Management Train . This also contains, a simple example and supporting information to
demonstrate the process being applied.
16
Table 3 Steps in assessing a SuDS Management Train
STEP SUPPORTING INFORMATION EXAMPLE

Review C753 Section 26.7. Consider Given the residential development with a drained
Determine if catchment risks and suitability of area of 1ha, with easily categorised land use and no
SIA approach is SIA method. For high-risk scenarios, the additional hazards, the SIA approach is valid. This
appropriate for ‘risk screening’, ‘detailed risk assessment’, will be considered to be discharging to a surface
managing or ‘process-based modelling’ approach water body with no additional sensitivity factors.
pollution risks may be required.
NB: Drained area will be less than or equal to the
actual site area.
Review C753 Section 26.7.1 to establish For a residential development the following hazards
Determine suitable hazard indices for discharges to indices would apply (low hazard level):
appropriate hazard surface water bodies or see alternative table
TSS = 0.5
indices for site for groundwater discharges if required.
Metals = 0.4
conditions based
Hydrocarbons = 0.4
on land.
Total SuDS mitigation index ≥ pollution Check BW CoP tested devices list online and
hazard index manufacturers datasheets to select an appropriate
MTD or combination of SuDS devices to give suitable
Total SuDS mitigation index = mitigation
mitigation indices:
index1 + 0.5 mitigation index2
Select MTD and/
Mitigation index check:
or other treatment Example of MTD mitigation indices:
approaches to TSS = 0.5 POLLUTANT HAZARD MITIGATION DESIGN
satisfy pollution Metals = 0.4 INDEX INDEX CHECK
hazard indices. Hydrocarbons = 0.8 TSS 0.5 0.5 OK

Metal 0.4 0.4 OK
Hydrocarbons 0.4 0.8 OK
Select a suitable unit capacity from For 1 ha site, a 2.4 m diameter unit would be
manufacturers’ equipment range. required from the example table.
Example of MTD sizing table:

UNIT TREATMENT DRAINABLE HYDRAULIC
Size MTD for
SIZE CAPACITY AREA CAPACITY
required drained
(M) (L/S) (HA) (L/S)
area or peak annual
1.2 30 0.4 120
flow-rate from BW
CoP test results. 1.8 69 0.92 270
2.4 121 1.63 480
3.0 190 2.64 750
Peak flow-rate requirements are generally Assuming a peak rainfall intensity of 90 mm/hr (250
dictated by the requirement to pass a l/s/ha) for a 15min 1:30 yr event, the flow-rate can
15min 1:30yr event. This must be checked be derived from (where C=1 for impervious):
against the manufacturer’s datasheet.
Example of MTD sizing table: Q = CiA

Ensure peak 250 l /s = 1 x 250 l/s/ha x 1 ha
hydraulic capacity UNIT TREATMENT DRAINABLE HYDRAULIC
SIZE CAPACITY AREA CAPACITY
of unit is sufficient
(M) (L/S) (HA) (L/S) Examining the design table demonstrates the
if using an online
configuration. 1.2 30 0.4 120 proposed 2.4m MTD unit has sufficient hydraulic
1.8 69 0.92 270 capacity to pass a 1:30yr event and is suitable for
an online design scenario.
2.4 121 1.63 480
3.0 190 2.64 750
17
SECTION 4. Design and testing flow rates (Table

4) were derived from a specially
USING TEST RESULTS TO commissioned report by HR Wallingford
SELECT THE RIGHT DEVICE Ltd. based on actual English rainfall
data provided to HR Wallingford by the
FOR EACH DESIGN Environment Agency (EA).
Section 1, Annex 1 to Chapter 26 of The
Rainfall rates between 0 – 40 mm/hr were
SuDS Manual (C753) provides information
found to be similar between the regions
relating to the typical pollutant load arising
investigated, with typical annual rainfall
from urban surfaces. It also recognises
occurring below 27mm/hr. As 27mm/hr
that the pollutant concentrations will
was found to be the typical annual peak
be variable across individual sites and
intensity (e.g., 1 year, 15-minute rainfall
dependent on the land usage.
event), this can be used as the standard
The MTD must be selected by the value used to derive the required.
designer, based on the required
TSS (or other pollutant) water quality
target and flow-rate handling capacity.
SECTION 4.1.
FLOW RATES
It is best practice to size the MTD
installation so that the design flow of
the unit is equal to the runoff from the
peak annual rainfall intensity (e.g., 1 year,
15-minute rainfall event). This makes
MTDs less sensitive to local rainfall
variations, as the majority of runoff occurs
at low flow-rates, below the operating limit
of the MTD.
The BW CoP (BW CoP for the Assessment

of MTDs Designed to Treat Surface Water
Runoff) testing is aimed at determining
three functional requirements related to
incoming flow-rate:
1. Typical pollutant capture efficiency

for frequent, sub-annual rainfall events
(<27mm/hr).
2. Sediment retention capability for
up to 1:2-year rainfall without washout
(40 mm/hr).
3. Capability to safely pass a maximum
capacity flow rate equivalent to a 1:30 year
rainfall event without flooding (90 mm/hr).
18
Table 4 Test flow-rates to assess capture efficiency for the typical sub-annual rainfall volume percentile
RAINFALL RAINFALL VOLUME RAINFALL INTENSITY

VOLUME PERCENTILE (%) QUARTILE (%) L/S/HA (MM/HR)
12.5 0 – 25 5 (1.7 mm/hr)
37.5 25 – 50 10 (3.6 mm/hr)
62.5 50 – 75 15 (5.3 mm/hr)
87.5 75 – 100 31.5 (11.3 mm/hr)
100 - 75 (27 mm/hr)
Treatment Flow Rate (TFR).
Selection and sizing of an MTD should be based on the following treatment flow-rate
requirement derived from the rational method:
Q = CIA
Where Q is the treatment flow-rate of the device, C is the runoff coefficient, I is the
rainfall intensity (in this case 75 l/s/ha or 27mm/hr), and A is the drained area in ha.
19
The correlation of these test flow-rates against the average English rainfall distribution is
shown in Chart 2 (McPherson, 2019). Rainfall intensities below 2mm/hr are discounted from
analysis due to the negligible amount of runoff that is generated in this rainfall intensity range.
100%
KEY
90% England average

2mm/hr < i <
40mm/hr
80%
British Water CoP
70%
Cumulative rainfall (%)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
Chart 2 Distribution of annual rainfall in England and test flow-rates in the BW CoP.
These flow-rates and rainfall distributions are used in the next section to derive the
net annual removal rate and mitigations indices for each pollutant.
An example of how the peak annual rainfall intensity (27mm/hr) may be applied to
calculate the treatment flow-rate from the drained area is shown in Box 2.
BOX 2: Example Flow-Rate Calculation

Determine the required MTD treatment flow-rate from a drained area of
1.25ha with a typical peak annual rainfall intensity.
Typical peak annual rainfall (e.g., 1 year, 15-minute rainfall event) for England is
given as 27mm/hr (75 l/s/ha) in the BW CoP.
Calculating the runoff rate from Q=CiA (with an example runoff coefficient of C=0.8)
gives the following:
Q = 0.8 x 75 l/s/ha x 1.25 ha = 75 l/s
Therefore, in this example the required treatment flow-rate of the MTD is ≥ 75 l/s.
20
SECTION 4.2: road runoff and road sweepings. The

SEDIMENT REMOVAL road sweepings generally contain a
coarser distribution of sediment with the
& RETENTION mass-median particle size (D50) values
Table 26.8 in Annex 1 of Chapter 26 from ranging between 250 and 1200 microns.
the SuDS Manual (C753) shows a mean In comparison, the sediments carried in
sediment concentration ranging from 50.4 runoff had D50 values between 80 and
mg/l for industrial / commercial sites to 250 microns.
244 mg/l for trunk roads and motorways.
The Water Research centre (WRc) / EA
The sediment load used for the NJCAT &
highway runoff study is particularly
New Jersey Department of Environmental
relevant as the data set is specific to the
Protection (NJDEP) tests are 200 mg/l (or
UK meteorological, construction and
above), which is at the higher end of the
environmental conditions.
loading rates that would be anticipated
from general development scenarios. The United States Geological Survey
For devices with a primary treatment (USGS) data set is an update of an original
mechanism of sedimentation, the PSD will 1972 study by the US Environmental
also be important as it affects the settling Protection Agency (US EPA) that was then
rate of the particles. used as the basis of the test sediment
used in the NJCAT test methodology.
Chart 3 shows the median PSDs obtained
from a number of studies that sampled
100
KEY
90
USGS (2011)
80 - Highway runoff
WRC/EA (2003)
70
- Highway runoff
60 Sartor & Boyd (1972)

- Road sweepings
Finer %
50
Zanders (2005)
40 - Road sweepings
Morgan (2013)
30
- Road sweepings
20
10
0
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (microns)
Chart 3 PSD of sediments in runoff and road sweepings
Comparison of the road runoff samples, with the test sediments used in the methods
described in Section 2, shows that the test methods use PSDs with finer particles (or
smaller D50 values). As larger / heavier particles will settle more readily than lighter
/ smaller particles the efficiencies shown by the tests detailed above are likely to
underpredict performance for removal of sediment from road runoff.
It is therefore considered that the test methods outlined above are fully representative
of the sediment loading and particle size distribution typically seen on UK developments.
21
Net annual performance is the pollutant removal rate of an MTD or SuDS component
over a typical annual period. This can be calculated from the runoff rate distribution
from a site and a pollutant removal rate of a device. This calculation weights importance
of the MTD performance at a given flow rate by the volume of flow that will be
generated at this flow-rate (due to the rainfall distribution).
Σ
n
µAnnual = (V i – Vi – 1 ) * µi
Vn
i1
Where:
µ is the TSS removal rate at a given flow-rate
V is the cumulative runoff volume at a given runoff rate (percentile)
i is a given runoff rate (percentile)
For the SIA, the net annual sediment removal efficiency declared under the BW
CoP and convert directly to a TSS Mitigation Index.
BOX 3: Example TSS Mitigation Index Calculation

Net annual removal is state as an output of the BW CoP evaluation process.
In the case of the BW CoP the test flow-rates have been selected to relate directly to
English rainfall distributions and allow the net-annual removal efficiency to be derived
from the following relationship, which also considers the contribution of pollutant
washout (see BW CoP for full details):
Mout = Vfr 1 C1 + Vfr 2 C2 + Vfr 3 C3 + Vfr 4 C4 + Vfr 5 C5
M
out Total mass of non-retained sediment, in mg
V
fr 1 Supply volume for test flow rate "n", in 1

Cn Averaged sediment concentration in discharge for test flow rate "n", in mg/1
Capture and retention efficiency is then calculated as a percentage by
Mout
µ= 1 – –––––– .100
Min
Min Total input mass, in mg, of sediment delivered over all test flow-rates
For example, a sediment removal efficiency of 55% declared under the BW CoP
Assessment method can be converted directly to a TSS Mitigation Index of 0.55.
This mitigation index will apply assuming that the device is sized based on the
declared TFR.
Use of the NJCAT or DIBt methodologies will require the performance to be adjusted
to suit UK rainfall. Use of other methods and, especially, narrow spectrum PSDs (such
as OK-110, which is commonly used in some US territories) are a representative of the
materials commonly found in typical stormwater runoff. Tests carried out on narrow
spectrum PSDs can, however, still be useful and applicable for more detailed design
methods where the precise PSD of the sediment for any given site has been assessed
(see Section 7).
22
SECTION 4.3:
METALS REMOVAL AND RETENTION
Chart 4 below shows the percentage of different pollutant types associated with the
dissolved and particulate fractions in Stormwater runoff. The values are derived from
Wilson, Bray & Cooper (2004), Colwill, Peters & Perry (1984) and Crabtree, Dempsey,
Moy, Song & Brown (2008). The values show that, with the exception of Nitrogen, an
excess of 70% of the total mass of priority pollutants are associated with the particulate
material carried within the flow.
100%
90% KEY
80%
% Pollutant Mass
70% Dissolved
60% Particulate
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
us
nc
ad
er
n
on
ge
pp
or
Zi
Le
PA
rb
ro
ph
Co
ca
it
os
N
ro
Ph
yd
H
Chart 4 Dissolved and Particulate Phases of various contaminants
Of particular interest here are the metals, of which 75% to 90% are associated with
the particulate material and 25% to 10% are dissolved.
In the UK it can be considered best practice to assume that 75% of the metals are
associated with the particulate phase in the runoff. Where a high proportion of metals
may be present, specific mitigation indices should be derived on a case-by-case basis.
Typical concentrations of the different pollutants of stormwater sediments are

presented by Stone & Marsalek (1996) and Bathi, Pit & Clark (2012). These values are
summarised in Table 5 and are consistent with those found in Morgan, Johnston, Gill,
Collins & Osei (2013) which demonstrates their validity for use in the UK. The pollutant
concentrations for metals show an affinity for smaller sediment particles, typically
showing double the concentration for particles in the <63 micron range as compared to
the 63-150 micron range.
Table 5 Summary of typical concentrations of pollutants and stormwater sediments
POLLUTANTS PARTICLE SIZE (MICRONS)

(MG/KG)
<63 63-250 250-500 500-2000 TOTAL
Copper (Cu) 152 86 76 68 382
Zinc (Zn) 407 250 347 350 1354
Lead (Pb) 305 124 120 122 671
Cadmium (Cd) 2.4 1.1 0.9 0.8 5.2
Ave Cu & Zn 279.5 168 211.5 209 868
Ave All 216.6 115.3 136 135.2 603.1

23
The BW CoP and DIBt test methods only directly measure the removal of the dissolved metal
fraction. In order to provide a mitigation index applicable to total metals it is necessary to
consider both the dissolved and particulate fraction.
The calculation of the metals mitigation index for a particular device can therefore be
calculated as follows (with a worked example shown in Box 4):
Total Metals reduction = Particulate fraction reduction + Dissolved fraction reduction

Where:
Particulate fraction reduction = Net annual sediment removal efficiency x Particulate
fraction
Dissolved fraction reduction = Net annual dissolved metal removal efficiency x Dissolved
fraction
Note that for devices tested under the DIBt and NJCAT method, correction of the annual
efficiencies to reflect UK rainfall will be required (see Sections 4.1. & 4.2.).
BOX 4: Example Metals Mitigation Index Calculations

TOTAL Metal reduction = Particulate fraction reduction + Dissolved fraction
reduction
For example, a hydrodynamic / vortex separator might be expected to remove 50% of TSS but would not be expected to
remove any dissolved metals.
Therefore, the metal mitigation index for a separator would be as follows:
Particulate fraction reduction = 50% x 75% = 0.375
Dissolved fraction reduction = 0% x 25% = 0
Total Metals Mitigation Index = 0.375 + 0 = 0.375
Whereas a filtration device might be expected to remove 80% of TSS and might achieve dissolved metals efficiencies of 90%
in the BW CoP testing.
Therefore, the metal mitigation index for a filtration device could be as follows:
Dissolved fraction reduction = 90% x 25% = 0.225
Total Metals Mitigation Index = 0.6 + 0.225 = 0.825
The NJCAT test method may be used to derive the particulate fraction reduction but does
not cover dissolved metal removal. Therefore, the dissolved metal removal efficiency for
devices tested under this method would have to be assumed as being zero, unless valid
justification or evidence of higher dissolved pollutant removals can be provided.
SECTION 4.4:
LIQUID HYDROCARBON REMOVAL AND RETENTION
Testing of free phase hydrocarbons is not covered in the BW CoP or NJCAT but can be
assessed under BS EN 858-1:2002 or DIBt.
It should be noted that BS EN 858-1:2002 is primarily targeted at the control of

accidental or deliberate spillage events and so applies an influent oil load of 5ml
per litre of water. This often equates to very high influent concentrations (in
the order of magnitude of thousands of mg/l). Annex 1 of Chapter 26 from the
SuDS Manual (C753) states that typical concentrations of hydrocarbons arising
from everyday activities are only around 2-5 mg/l for residential areas, 5-25 mg/l
for general urban areas and of the order of 200 mg/l for main roads. If liquid
24
hydrocarbons pose a significant environmental risk or liquid hydrocarbon spills

are anticipated, designers should refer to Pollution Prevention Guidance 3 (see
Appendix C). The guidance would likely take precedence to the SIA, depending on
local planning requirements.
The hydrocarbon hazard factor used in the SIA was assumed by the authors to represent the
level of hydrocarbon-based pollutants present both in liquid / free-phase form and sorbed to
suspended solids.
Dissolved, emulsified or saponified hydrocarbons are not considered within the SIA.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a pollutant of particular concern to

environmental regulators and have a high affinity to the solid phase (see Chart 4). PAHs
are therefore generally associated with sediments in the runoff and their removal will be
strongly related to the TSS removal performance of the device / component.
Whilst the The SuDS Manual (C753) does not provide definitive information about
the relative proportions of liquid to particulate hydrocarbons, an earlier Construction
Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) report, C609, references studies
that have shown that up to 70% of the hydrocarbons from rural roads are attached to
particles, rising to between 83% and 98% for urban areas. These percentages consider
normal operating conditions only. Where there is a significant risk of spills of liquid
hydrocarbons, the use of a petrol interceptor/ oil separator may be required.
Similarly, for metals, the calculation of the composite hydrocarbon mitigation index for a
particular device can be calculated as follows (with a worked example shown in Box 5):
Composite Hydrocarbon reduction = Particulate fraction reduction + Liquid fraction

reduction
Particulate fraction reduction = Net annual sediment removal efficiency x Particulate
fraction
Liquid (free phase) fraction reduction = Net annual liquid (free phase) hydrocarbon
removal efficiency x Liquid (free phase) fraction
For devices assessed under the DIBt method, the net annual removal efficiency can be
converted to a liquid hydrocarbon mitigation index but would need to be corrected to
account for the differences in the German and UK rainfall intensities.
BOX 5: Example Hydrocarbon Mitigation Index Calculations

TOTAL Hydrocarbon reduction = Particulate fraction reduction + Liquid
fraction reduction
For example, a hydrodynamic / vortex separator might be expected to remove 50% of TSS and might also be expected
to remove 80% of free phase hydrocarbons.
Therefore, the composite hydrocarbon mitigation index for a separator in an urban area would be as follows:
Free Phase fraction reduction = 80% x 10% = 0.08
Composite Hydrocarbons Mitigation Index = 0.45 + 0.08 = 0.53
Whereas a filtration device might be expected to remove 80% of TSS and might also achieve free phase hydrocarbon
efficiencies of 80%.
Therefore, the composite hydrocarbon mitigation index for a filtration device in an urban area would be as follows:
Free phase fraction reduction = 80% x 10% = 0.08

Composite Hydrocarbons Mitigation Index = 0.72 + 0.08 = 0.8
25
SECTION 5: detailed in this document are applicable

to real-life scenarios a comparison was
COMPARISON OF made back to the US BMP database.
LABORATORY DERIVED Whilst the US BMP database does not
record hydrocarbon removal performance,
MITIGATION INDICES it does contain information on TSS and
WITH FIELD TRIALS Metal (both dissolved and total metals)
removal. Table 6 provides an outline
It is recognised that laboratory testing guidance of the order of magnitude
provides a controlled environment, of mitigation that was provided during
which enables devices to be tested in a the site trials recorded in the US BMP
consistent manner and therefore also database. This should be taken as
provides ease of comparison of the informative only as, whilst individual
relative performances of different devices. devices may conform with one of the
However, in the real world, there are broad categories identified, they may
often additional variable factors that are have distinctive features that provide an
introduced. In order to sense check that enhanced level of pollution mitigation.
the laboratory derived mitigation indices
Table 6 Order of magnitude of mitigation provided during the site trials recorded in the US BMP database
DEVICE CATEGORY TSS MITIGATION INDEX METALS MITIGATION INDEX

Biological Filtration 0.83 0.661
Filtration 0.56 0.272 TO 0.381
Inlet Inserts 0.36 0.342
Multi-Process Systems 0.96 0.712 TO 0.911
Oil / Grit Separators 0.45 0.232
Physical Separators 0.83 0.712
with Volume Reduction
1) Based on Zinc as a metals indicator

2) Based on Copper as a metals indicator
Further comparison of the median effluent values recorded in the US BMP Database for
the different device types against the Environmental standards provided in Annex 1 of
Chapter 26 of C753 (Table 7), demonstrate that these devices can be expected to reduce
concentration levels in many cases far beyond the desired environmental standard.
26
Table 7 Comparison of the median effluent values recorded in the US BMP Database for the different
device types against the Environmental Standards provided in Annex 1 of Chapter 26 of C753
DEVICE TSS MEDIAN COPPER MEDIAN ZINC MEDIAN

CATEGORY EFFLUENT EFFLUENT EFFLUENT
(mg/L) 95% (µg/L) 95% (µg/L) 95%
CONFIDENCE CONFIDENCE CONFIDENCE
INTERVAL INTERVAL INTERVAL
Biological Filtration 3.5 N/A 91.4
Filtration 14.2 4.7 30.6
Inlet Inserts 32.9 14.2 122.3
Multi-Process Systems 4.5 7.74 16.8
Oil / Grit Separators 37.3 11.95 84.61
Physical Separators 7.1 N/A 23.23
with Volume Reduction
SELECTED ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STANDARDS

Surface Waters 25 8 62.5
Mean level in minimally 19 12 57
impaired ponds
27
SECTION 6. at varying proprietary device model sizes,

the following scaling protocols should
APPLICATION OF THE be applied.
MITIGATION INDICES
Settling device efficacy is governed by
IN THE SIA the ratio of the internal velocities within
a system and the settling velocity of
When determined in conjunction with this
the material being captured. To ensure
guidance, the manufacturer / supplier
appropriate device performance, scaling
must provide / declare the following:
should be based on the horizontal
Mitigation index
footprint of the device (commonly termed
Appropriate unit sizing
‘surface loading-rate’ or ‘surface overflow
Test methodology used
rate’). That is to say, if all geometric
measurements of a device are doubled,
SECTION 6.1. the resulting cross-sectional area will be
UNIT SELECTION AND SCALING four times as large, allowing a four-fold
increase in treatment flow-rate for a given
All known proprietary treatment systems
SIA index. This scaling is illustrated in the
either operate through settling or filtration
table below:
(and sorption) mechanisms. To ensure
similar performance indices are achieved
UNIT SIZE (GEOMETRY SCALE) UNIT AREA UNIT FLOW-RATE

1X 1X 1X
2X 4X 4X
3X 9X 9X
4X 16X 16X
Filter systems can provide both physical interception of particles and sorption
processes. To ensure the efficacy of these mechanisms are similar at all device sizes,
both the flow velocity through the filter and the flow contact time of the filter should
remain similar. This is achieved by scaling filter components based on surface-loading
rate, similar to settling devices, with the exception that the filter depth should (typically)
remain constant across all unit sizes to give a constant contact time. This also prevents
unduly increasing system head loss with increased filter depths.
Where a manufacturer does not conform to these scaling protocols, the manufacturer
should provide test results for multiple unit sizes to verify alternative scaling protocols.
28
SECTION 7. rates than those indicated above by

reducing the flow rate into the device.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Similarly, where the receiving system is
less sensitive or where the risks arising
When these manufactured devices are
from the land use are lower, then higher
being included in a SuDS Management
flows can be passed through the device.
Train, there are several design
Whilst this would result in a lower removal
considerations that must be taken into
efficiency, this would be acceptable based
account. The designer will need to gather
on the lowered risk factors.
the necessary information to consider
these aspects of the scheme, and to Exceedance Flows and Re-Entrainment
understand the interaction between (wash-out protection):
the manufactured devices and any Proprietary devices will often be
other devices in the Management Train, manufactured with an internal bypass
including vegetative devices. function. The test methods summarised
in Section 2.1 and detailed in Appendix
Maintenance Intervals:
A, all include a direct assessment of the
The maintenance interval for a particular
performance of the tested device under
device is determined by the pollutant
high flow conditions, representative of
load arising from the catchment, pollutant
high intensity storm events. Many devices
capture efficiency, pollutant storage
with an internal bypass can, therefore, be
capacity and pollutant retention efficiency.
located either online or offline.
For separators, this will often be a simple
calculation. For filters, loss of filtration Where internally bypassed devices are
capacity due to clogging as well as loss of placed online, then hydraulic checks
sorption may need to be considered. The should be carried out to ensure that the
longevity of filters is sometimes explicitly device has sufficient capacity to bypass
covered within the test protocols. The the peak flows anticipated without
inspection and maintenance intervals will an unacceptable head loss (or risk of
be specified by the designer of the SuDS flooding). The bypass flow rate should
system (based on advice from the supplier be checked to ensure that sufficient
of MTDs). dilution is achieved to continue to provide
effective protection of the receiving
Treatment Flow Rates (TFR):
environment.
The devices will each have a declared
TFR associated with each treatment For devices without an internal bypass
efficiency. It is essential that the expected (or those internally bypassed, but placed
TFR from the development matches offline), an external bypass structure
that for the device which achieves the should be included to prevent flows
required treatment efficiency. If the above the hydraulic capacity (or retention
flow rate reaching a device is too high, flow rate) of the device from entering the
then treatment efficiencies will be device. Checks should be made to ensure
compromised. that the dilution effects at the bypass
flow rate are sufficient to continue
For devices that rely wholly or partly
providing effective protection to the
on a gravity-based separation process,
receiving water environment.
the hydraulic loading rate will have a
significant influence on the removal
efficiency of the device. It will often
be possible to provide higher removal
29
Characteristics of receiving water body:

Characteristics of the receiving waters,
particularly surface water bodies, should
be taken into consideration. An example
of this can be found within DMRB LA
113 where the dilution and dispersion
effects are factored into the Highways
England Water Risk Assessment Tool
(HEWRAT) model. For other developments,
the receiving water may have Statutory
protection or may be particularly
sensitive by virtue of its size, its flow or
the species that live in it. In these cases,
additional treatment devices may need
to be included in the design, and advice
should be sought from the environmental
regulator. Statutory protections include
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
and Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
for groundwater and protected surface
waters. However, waterbodies may be
sensitive simply because the flow in
them is low and/or seasonal and there
will be little dilution for the stormwater
discharge. In any of these cases, and
where local protections are applied,
additional treatment may be required
before the discharge can be made.
30
SECTION 8. sediment bound states. The degree to

which the pollutants partition between
OTHER RISK BASED particle-bound and dissolved varies
DESIGN METHODS significantly across contaminants
(even across the same broad pollutant
For higher risk developments, where the group – i.e., different metals will behave
SIA is not appropriate (see Table 26.1 differently). Similarly, the affinity of
of C753), the following aspects will need contaminants with particles across the
consideration to characterise the runoff PSD will vary significantly with metals
(where practical and feasible), in order to generally tending to be associated with
carry out more detailed risk assessments finer particles and PAHs generally tending
or process-based modelling: to be associated with larger particles.
Where specific contaminants are known
Particle Size Distribution (PSD):
to exist within the runoff, then process
It is important to check that the influent
based modelling can help to determine
PSD used for performance declaration
the individual reduction factors that can
is similar to that expected from the
be achieved.
development. If it is not, the treatment
efficiency results cannot apply directly,
Rainfall & pollutographs:
and alterations may have to be made.
Box 4.2 in Chapter 4 of C753 provides
The PSDs for all three test methods
some guidance on how pollutant loads
outlined in this document are considered
can change over time during storm events.
to be relevant for urban stormwater in
Where the catchment hydraulic response
the UK so this will only be important
and type of pollutant loading are known,
where the influent is unusual in some
then it will sometimes be possible to
way; for example, contaminated with
design and locate treatment components
high proportions of clay or arising from
to ensure that peak loads are captured;
industrial facilities.
potentially allowing less polluted flows to
Sediment Load: bypass some or all of the treatment train
It is important to check that the sediment (dependent upon the risk and sensitivity
load in the stormwater runoff is going to of the receiving environment).
be similar to that used in the test protocol.
If it is not, adjustments to the expected
treatment efficiency might have to be
made. For example, a stormwater filter
will perform well if the influent contains
low levels of sediment but may perform
less well if sediment levels are too high.
Table 21.2 of the The SuDS Manual (C753)
provides an indication of the worst-
case sediment loading anticipated from
different land uses.
Pollution Partitioning and Distribution:

As noted in Section 4.3, many
contaminants such as metals and
hydrocarbons may be present in surface
water run-off in liquid, dissolved and
31
LINKS TO SUPPORTING MATERIAL

CIRIA The SuDS Manual (C753) https://www.ciria.org/Memberships/The_SuDS_Manual_C753_Chapters.aspx
SIA Tool https://www.susdrain.org/resources/SuDS_Manual.html
US BMP Database https://bmpdatabase.org/
British Water Assessment of MTDs Designed to Treat Surface Water Runoff

https://www.britishwater.co.uk/page/Publications
Procedure for Obtaining Verification of a Stormwater MTD from New Jersey

Corporation for Advanced Technology (NJCAT) https://www.njstormwater.org/treatment.html
NJ Stormwater Management Rules (N.J.A.C. 7.8) https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/rules/njac7_8.pdf
Best Management Practice (BMP) https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f8dbde10268ab224c895ad7

t/5fbd3992378d9213a92c43d/1606236571807/2007_FAQPercentRemoval.pdf
Guidance on Pollution Prevention for Businesses https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pollution

prevention-for-businesses
SuDS for Roads http://www.scotsnet.org.uk/documents/SudsforRoads.pdf
REFERENCES
Bathi, J. R., Pit, R. E., & Clark, E. S. (2012). Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Urban
Stream Sediments. Advances.
Colwill, D., Peters, C., & Perry, R. (1984). Water Quality of Motorway Runoff
Supplementary Report 823. TRRL.
Crabtree, B., Dempsey, P., Moy, F., Song, M., & Brown, C. (2008). Improved determination
of pollutants in highway runoff – phase 2. Report No.: UC7697. Swindon: WRc.
McPherson, N. (2019). Characterisation of rainfall data for the design of SuDS in
England. School of Water, Energy And Environment. MSc Thesis. Cranfield
University.
Morgan, D., Johnston , P., Gill , L., Collins , P., & Osei , K. (2013). Event-based
characterisation of surface water runoff from an urban residential sewer
separation scheme. 7th International Conference on Sewer Processes and
Networks. Sheffield, UK.: IWA.
Pittner, C., & Allteron, G., (2009). SuDS for Roads. Edinburgh: WSP.
Stone, M., & Marsalek, J. (1996). Trace metal composition and speciation in street
sediment: Sault Ste. Marie, Canada. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution Volume 87,
149-169.
Wilson, S., Bray, R., & Cooper, P. (2004). Sustainable drainage systems. Hydraulic,
structural and water quality advice (C609B). London: CIRIA.
Woods Ballard, B., Wilson, S., Udale Clarke, H., Illman, S., Scott, T., Ashley, R., & Kellagher,
R. (2015). The SuDS Manual. London: CIRIA.
32
APPENDIX A: the surface water drainage system.
TEST METHODS The BW CoP does not consider

manufacturing quality, installation
A1: BRITISH WATER ASSESSMENT requirements or maintenance
OF MTDs DESIGNED TO TREAT requirements.
SURFACE WATER RUNOFF Applicable Devices:
(BW CoP) The BW CoP was written to enable a
variety of different types of Proprietary or
This BW CoP was developed by a group MTDs such as those covered in Chapter 14
of British Water members, with part of of The SuDS Manual (C753), to be tested.
the project delivered by HR Wallingford, Tests for filtration systems may be carried
under contract to British Water. It is out on representative samples / sections.
available to download for free here. The
BW CoP was published in 2017 and is the Quality Assurance:
test protocol that was identified as being The tests may be completed by the
under development in Section 14.5 and in manufacturer or at a commercially
Chapter 26 of SuDS Manual (C753). available testing facility. In either case, the
test must be witnessed by an approved
A number of international protocols UKAS accredited third-party who can verify
(including both NJCAT and DIBt) were the completion of the test in accordance
evaluated by the authors during the with the BW CoP. The UKAS accreditation
development of the BW CoP, who had must be held in an appropriate related
prior experience of verifying products area of competence but does not have
through various protocols in a variety to specifically cover witnessing of the
of countries. BW CoP.
Scope: Pollutants covered:
The BW CoP is a voluntary test method The BW CoP defines test methods
designed to allow the manufacturers for the evaluation of Sediment and
of devices designed to remove Dissolved Metals capture and retention.
anthropogenic pollutants from rainfall For sediment, the removal efficiency is
dependent surface water runoff to assessed under a range of flow rates
calculate and declare pollution risk and retention is assessed under high flow
reduction factors including mitigation conditions. For dissolved metals, removal
indices in accordance with The SuDS is assessed at a range of flow rates and
Manual (C753). retention takes into account the influence
It specifically excludes devices designed of road salts.
to remove free-phase hydrocarbons from Manufacturers are free to test devices for
surface water run-off as these should be either Sediment or Dissolved Metals or
tested separately in accordance with for both Sediment and Dissolved Metals.
BS EN 858-1.
The removal efficiency performance is
It does not cover devices designed to stated as an arithmetic average of the
treat domestic sewage, trade effluent or four test flow rates.
other runoff, caused by washing activities
and does not consider the impact of
firefighting water or foam runoff into
33
Flow Rates: Applicable Devices:

Input flow rates for testing are derived There are separate test protocols for
from a specially commissioned report by HDS devices (also sometimes known as
HR Wallingford based on actual UK rainfall Vortex Separators or Vortex Grit Traps)
data provided to HR Wallingford by the EA. and Filtration devices.
A mean flow rate resulting from a 1 Tests are carried out on full scale,
year 15-minute (M1:15) rainfall event commercially available devices. For
(determined by HR Wallingford as 27 mm/ filtration devices that consist of multiple
hr as an appropriate UK average) for a cartridges or modular filter components,
stated catchment area shall be declared by tests may be carried out on a single
the manufacturer as the device TFR. This cartridge / component as long as it is
originates from the requirement for the representative of the complete system.
treatment device to treat all rainfall events
with a sub-annual rainfall intensity. Quality Assurance:
The verification process is administered
A2: PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING by NJCAT, who will appoint a Technical
Expert to assess the quality of data
VERIFICATION OF A STORMWATER submitted by applicants or independent
MTD FROM NEW JERSEY 3rd parties. Tests must either be carried
CORPORATION FOR ADVANCED out at an independent facility or at the
TECHNOLOGY (NJCAT) manufacturer’s facility under direct
supervision of an independent 3rd
The NJCAT administer the verification of MTDs party observer.
based on laboratory and analytical tests prior
to approval of MTDs by the NJDEP. Details Verifications are internally checked
of the verification and approval process, and approved by NJCAT Executive or
along with a full list of verified and approved Technical Director and peer reviewed by
products can be found on the State of New a review panel consisting of 20 persons
Jersey’s Department of Environmental experienced and learned in the science
Protection Treatment Webpage. of stormwater treatment.
The information contained below is Pollutants Covered:

based on the protocols as published The test protocols cover TSS removal
on January 25, 2013. and retention only.
For separators, a minimum 50% weighted
Scope: annual TSS removal efficiency must
It is mandatory for a MTD to be verified by be achieved.
NJCAT and then certified by NJDEP, if that MTD Separators with a TSS removal efficiency
is to be used to treat surface water run-off for >50% will have the results rounded
new major developments (any development down to 50%.
that provides for ultimately disturbing more For filtration devices, a minimum 80%
than 1 acre of land or increases impervious weighted annual TSS removal efficiency
surface by one-quarter acre or more). must be achieved.
Filtration systems with a TSS removal
MTDs that have not been NJCAT verified and
efficiency >80% will have the results
NJDEP certified may only be used for smaller
rounded down to 80%.
developments or developments exempt from
See flow rate section below for further
New Jersey’s Stormwater Management
information on the weighting factors.
Rule.
34
Flow Rates: Quality Assurance:

Test flow rates are defined in respect of the The tests have to be carried out at an
MTFR, which is defined as the highest flow rate independent DIBt approved laboratory and
that can be conveyed through the device while the results are inspected by an independent
both achieving a performance claim based assessor at, or nominated by, the DIBt.
on the TSS removal efficiency testing and,
for filtration systems, allowing for sufficient Pollutants Covered:
operational longevity. The test protocols cover the removal of
Removal efficiency is presented as an Sediments, Dissolved Metals and Liquid
annualised weighted efficiency based on Hydrocarbons.
multiple tests both below and above the MTFR. Pass / fail criteria are applied to all three
The weighting factors are based on the total pollutant groups:
volume of annual runoff in an average year
For Sediments, an overall retention
in New Jersey.
(removal efficiency) of 92% must be
A MHFR is also declared for HDS devices,
achieved, with no single part inspection
which is defined as the highest flow rate
showing a lower efficiency than 84%.
that can be conveyed through the device
For Dissolved Metals, a minimum
with a specified head loss.
retention (removal efficiency) of 70%
for Zinc and 80% for Copper must
A3: NATIONAL TECHNICAL be achieved. Retention of dissolved
APPROVAL GRANTED BY metals under the influence of road
THE GERMAN INSTITUTE OF salts is also assessed and the test is
BUILDING TECHNOLOGY (DIBt) deemed to be successful if the
averaged total concentration across
A mandatory requirement under German all tests does not exceed double the
building regulations. The summary table in permissible runoff concentration in
Section 2.1 and the following information, the removal efficiency tests.
relates to the test method as issued in For Liquid Hydrocarbons, an overall
February 2011. retention (removal efficiency) of 80%
must be achieved, with no single
Scope: sample showing a removal efficiency
The approval principles apply to wastewater of less than 60%.
treatment plants for the treatment of
rainwater drainage from motor vehicle traffic Flow Rates:
areas containing mineral oil where rainwater Removal efficiency for the devices is tested
run-off is treated in such a way that the run- at 2.5 l/s/ha, 6 l/s/ha and 25 l/s/ha. These
off may drain off into the ground and ground flow rates are deemed to each represent 1/3
water. Installation of treatment devices is of the annual rainfall run-off for Germany.
mandated in Category 2 areas (>300 Annual For sediments and liquid hydrocarbons,
Average Daily Traffic - AADT). The assessment an exceedance flow rate of 100 l/s/ha is
protocol is applicable to connected areas up then also applied to assess for wash-out
to 2,000m². for previously captured materials under
the influence of heavy rainfall events.
Applicable Devices: Performance is then stated in terms of
Widely used for filtration systems. The test the maximum connected area that can be
principles are sometimes also applied to treated by the device, whilst achieving the
other types of treatment device, such as pass / fail criteria as opposed to being stated
hydrodynamic separators, but the approval in flow rate terms.
itself will not apply as these types of system
are not typically able to meet the pass criteria.
35
APPENDIX B: annual performance and adjusted to

account for washout occurring for a
RAINFALL DATA 15min 1:2yr event. Severity of rainfall
& CONVERSIONS distributions is between the NJCAT
and DIBt specifications.
Test flow-rates for alternative MTD approval
and certification standards vary due to DIBt: Flow-rates are derived directly
regional meteorological differences, and from German rainfall data. Pollutant
differences between MTD evaluation removal rate is based on typical annual
philosophies, as discussed above. The performance and adjusted to account
alternative test methods recognised through for washout occurring for 4x times the
the BW CoP are the German DIBt standard design flow-rate. The effect of washout
and the US NJDEP standard NJCAT. No direct is limited to 50% of the overall washout
conversion from these standards is possible, load in the final performance
but the test methods are considered valid and calculation. No correction of non-runoff
appropriate by the BW CoP. The laboratory generating rainfall is included. The
results from these test methods may be used flow-distribution is the least challenging
in accordance with the BW CoP to derive when compared to the other test
pollutant removal rates and calculate a final standards.
performance figure.
NJDEP / NJCAT: Flow-rates are derived
A brief comparison and discussion of directly from the state of New Jersey's
the flow-rates used for each test method (US) rainfall data. Pollutant removal rate
are listed below and presented visually is based on typical annual performance
in Chart B.1 according to the local and adjusted to account for washout
rainfall distributions: occurring for 125% times the design
flow-rate. The effect of washout is
BW CoP: Flow-rates are derived limited to 10% of the overall
directly from English rainfall data. washout load in the final performance
This is adjusted to remove low rainfall calculation. The NJCAT flow-rate
intensities, which would not normally distribution is the most challenging,
produce significant runoff. Pollutant with higher flow-rates being assessed
removal rate is based on typical over the design range of the MTD.
140%
KEY
120% BW CoP
NJCAT
100%
DIBt
Cumulative Volume
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Rainfall or Runoff Intensity (mm/hr)
Chart B.1 Flow-rates comparison for each test method

36
APPENDIX C: areas where goods vehicles are

parked or manoeuvred
LIQUID HYDROCARBON vehicle maintenance areas
/ LIGHT OIL REMOVAL roads
industrial sites where oil is stored
EFFICIENCIES or used
The UK has adopted a two-part European refuelling facilities
Standard (BS EN 858-1:2002 and BS EN any other site with a risk of
858-2:2003) for the design, use, selection, oil contamination.
installation, operation, and maintenance
PPG3 also recognises that the use of
of oil separators. BS EN 858-1:2002
SuDS, as defined within C753 (so inclusive
covers the design, performance, and
of proprietary treatment systems) may be
testing, marking and quality control. BS
used as an alternative to an oil separator
EN 858-2:2003 covers the selection of
on some sites or that an oil separator
nominal size, installation, operation and
can be used as part of an overall SuDS
maintenance.
scheme.
The Construction Products Regulations
Whilst PPG3 has been withdrawn in
require that new prefabricated separators
England, guidance on pollution prevention
(made off site and then installed) must
for businesses is available on GOV.UK
satisfy certain essential requirements.
here and is broadly consistent with PPG3.
Demonstration of fulfilment of these
requirements is generally provided
through compliance with the mandated
clauses of BS EN 858-1.
Scope:
BS EN 858-1 covers the following areas:
Materials
Water tightness and joints
Structural Stability
Labelling and marking
Determination of Nominal Size
and Class (Oil removal)
Determination of Storage Volumes
(Oil and Sediment)
Closure devices
PPG3 on the Use and design of oil

separators in surface water drainage
provides guidance on the typical areas
where an oil separator should be used
in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales.
These sites include:
car parks typically larger than 800m2
in area or for 50 or more car
parking spaces
smaller car parks discharging to a
sensitive environment
37
IS THERE A RISK OF OIL CONTAMINATING

THE DRAINAGE FROM THE SITE?
YES YES YES YES NO
Risk of infrequent Risk of regular Drainage will also Fuel oils are Very low risk of oil
light contamination contamination of contain dissolved delivered to and contamination
and potential for surface water run oils, detergents or dispensed on site e.g. roof water
small spills only off with oil and/ degreasers such as e.g. retail fuel
e.g. car park or risk of larger vehicle wash water forecourts
spills e.g. vehicle and trade effluents
maintenance e.g. industrial
YES
area, Goods sites
Vehicle parking YES
or vehicle
Source control
manoeuvring5
SUDS must be
considered and
incorporated YES
where suitable Separator not
YES
required
If not suitable YES
By-pass separator Full retention Trade effluents Full retention Clean water should
with alarm separator with must be directed 'forecourt' not be passed
required. alarm required. to the foul sewer.1 separator with through the
Class 1 if discharge It may need to alarm required. separator unless
Class 1 if discharge
to surface water2,3 pass through the size of the
to surface water2 Class 1 if discharge
Class 2 if discharge a separator to unit is increased
to surface water2
to foul sewer.1 Class 2 if discharge remove free oils accordingly
to foul sewer1 before discharge Class 1 or 2 if
to sewer. discharge to foul
sewer1, 4
Source control
SUDS should be
The use of SUDS should be considered at all sites and they should be incorporated where suitable. considered where
SUDS can be used to polish the effluent from these separators before it enters the environment.6 possible
NOTES TO ACCOMPANY THE FLOWCHART

1. You must seek prior permission from your local sewer provider before you decide which separator to install and before you make
any discharge.
2. You must seek prior permission from us before you decide which separator to install.
3. In this case, if it is considered that there is a low risk of pollution a source control SUDS scheme may be appropriate.
4. In certain circumstances, the sewer provider may require a Class 1 separator for discharges to sewer to prevent explosive
atmospheres from being generated.
5. Drainage from higher risk areas such as vehicle maintenance yards and goods vehicle parking areas should be connected to foul
sewer in preference to surface water.
6. In certain circumstances, a separator may be one of the devices used in the SUDS scheme.
38
Applicable Devices:
BS EN858:1-2002 is specific to devices designed to separate light liquids, i.e., petrol
interceptors / oil separators from water by means of gravity and / or coalescence.
However, the test methodology can be applied to surface water treatment devices in
order for manufacturers to be able to declare an equivalent performance. It should be
noted that surface water treatment devices can only be classified as petrol interceptors
/ oil separators if they meet all of the requirements of BS EN 858.There are two classes
of separator defined under the standard:
CLASS MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE CONTENT TYPICAL SEPARATING TECHNIQUE

OF RESIDUAL OIL a MG/L (FOR EXAMPLE)
I 5.0 Coalescing separators
II 100 Gravity separators
a
When tested in accordance with 8.3.3.1 and samples being analysed for their
hydrocarbon content using infrared spectroscopy in accordance with A.2 and A.3.
It should be noted that BS EN 858-1:2002 is primarily targeted at the control of

accidental or deliberate spillage events and so applies an influent oil load of 5ml per
litre of water. This often equates to very high influent concentrations (in the order of
magnitude of thousands of mg/l).
Quality Assurance:
As these systems fall under the Construction Products Regulations, the manufacturer
or agent established in the European Economic Area (EEA) shall prepare and retain
a declaration of conformity which authorises the affixing of Conformité Européene
(CE) marking. Evaluation of conformity is therefore a mandatory requirement, and it is
recommended that this should be undertaken by a 3rd party (i.e., regular factory audits
/ inspections and witnessing of type testing). (CE) marking for the European Union and
The UKCA (UK Conformity Assessed) marking for goods being placed on the market in
Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland).
Pollutants Covered:
BS EN 858-1:2002 only covers the removal of liquid hydrocarbons (e.g., oil and petrol). It
defines oils as “a light liquid with a density no greater than 0.95 g/cm³, which is actually
or practically insoluble and unsaponifiable”. Dissolved or sediment bound hydrocarbons
are not covered within BS EN 858-1:2002.
The standard does not apply to stable emulsions, solutions of light liquids and water,
grease and oils of vegetable and animal origin.
Whilst BS EN858-1:2002 states that a sediment storage capacity must be provided

within the device, it does not cover testing or performance evaluation relating to
sediment removal or retention efficiency.
However, some of the units on the UK market have additional sediment storage capacity
and can retain over 5m3 of sediment. Theoretically, an oil separator could be tested for
sediment removal using the BW CoPractice in order to publish mitigation indices for TSS
alongside those for hydrocarbons.
39
Flow Rates:
Within the two classes, there are two types of system based on incoming and outgoing
flows:
Full retention units which are generally sized to fully treat all of the flow generated
by a 65mm/hr rainfall intensity event.
Bypass separators, which are generally sized to treat all flows generated by rainfall
events of up to 6.5mm/hr.
The choice of separator is generally related to the risk associated with spillage events.
A Nominal Size (NS) or Nominal Size before Bypass (NSB) is declared as the highest flow
rate at which the Class I or Class II effluent standard is achieved.
For example:
an NS 10 Class I Full Retention Separator will achieve an effluent concentration
<5mg/l for all flow rates up to and including 10 l/s. Higher flows should not be
connected.
an NSB 10 Class II Bypass Separator will achieve an effluent concentration <100mg/l
for all flow rates up to and including 10 l/s. Higher flows will bypass.
Class 1 oil separators will be expected to achieve an effluent level of less than 5mg/l of
oil under standard test conditions.
Class 2 oil separators will be expected to achieve an effluent level of less than 100mg/l
of oil under standard test conditions.
Annex 1 of Chapter 26 of The SuDS Manual (C753) states that, under normal conditions,
oil levels for urban catchments in the UK are typically 2-5 mg/l for residential areas,
5-25mg/l for general areas and 200 mg/l for main roads (Mitchell, 2005).
Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to expect the following free phase hydrocarbon

mitigation indices:
Class 1 oil separators (or devices shown to provide an equivalent performance) = 0.8
to 0.975 (based on a reduction level under normal conditions from 25 mg/l or 200
mg/l down to <5mg/l)
Class 2 oil separators (or devices shown to provide an equivalent performance) = 0
to 0.5 (based on a reduction level under normal conditions from 200 mg/l down to
100 mg/l).
It is important to note that these devices will still also provide critical environmental
protection for spillage events.
40
APPENDIX D: D1 EXAMPLE CALCULATION

SIA MITIGATION INDEX An example extract of the NJCAT test
DERIVATION FROM NJCAT data for a MTD is shown in Table D.1.
The treatment device in Table D.1. has
This document demonstrates derivation a design flow-rate (100%) of 0.89cfs or
of the BW CoP performance data and SIA 25.2l/s and provides sediment removal
mitigation index for a MTD from NJCAT through settling. This table is used as
test data. The BW CoP performance data a basis for the SIA mitigation index
and SIA mitigation index is calculated by derivation. The BW CoP test flow-rates
correlating the NJCAT MTFR to the UK and number of flow volume exchanges
peak annual rainfall and interpolating the required for each test are shown in
performance values required for the BW Table D.2.
CoP calculation.
Table D.1: Summary of NJCAT test data for an MTD
ANNUALIZED WEIGHTED TSS REMOVAL AT 0.90 CFS

% MTFR MEAN ACTUAL % MEASURED ANNUAL WEIGHTED
FLOW RATE MTFR REMOVAL WEIGHTING REMOVAL
TESTED EFFICIENCY FACTOR EFFICIENCY
(CFS)
25% 0.23 25.6% 61.8% 0.25 15.45%
50% 0.45 50.0% 54.8% 0.3 16.44%
75% 0.66 73.3% 53.5% 0.2 10.70%
100% 0.89 98.9% 50.2% 0.15 7.53%
125% 1.14 126.7% 46.2% 0.1 4.62%
WEIGHTED ANNUALIZED TSS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 54.74%
Table D.2: BW CoP test conditions
ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FLOW-RATE L/S/HA MINIMUM NUMBER OF

SUBJECT ORDER (MM/HR) VOLUME EXCHANGES
PARTICLE 1 5 (1.7mm/hr) 10
CAPTURE
2 10 (3.6mm/hr) 10
3 15 (5.3mm/hr) 10
4 31.5 (11.3mm/hr) 10
PARTICLE 5 110 l/s/ha (1:2 year 20
RETENTION 15 minute event
40mm/hr)
41
The following steps detail the process for deriving device performance values that
correlate to the BW CoP flow-rates from the NJCAT test data listed in Table D.1:
1. The 100% MTFR (Maximum Treatment Flow Rate) for NJCAT is first correlated to
the 1:1 yr 15min rainfall intensity of 27mm/hr (or 75l/s/ha) to adjust the
performance expectations to align with UK rainfall distributions.
This gives the following range of rainfall intensities against the NJCAT MTFR values:
NJCAT RAINFALL NJCAT DERIVED BW DATA

MTFR (MM/HR.) MEASURED CoP REMOVAL SOURCE
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY (%)
EFFICIENCY (%)
25% 6.75 61.8 -
50% 13.5 54.8 -
75% 20.25 53.5 -
100% 27 50.2 50.2% 100% MTFR
125% 33.75 46.2 -
2. Measured removal efficiencies from NJCAT should then be linearly interpolated to

match the BW CoP rainfall intensities:

EFFICIENCY (%)
25% 6.75 61.8 -
- 11.3* - 57.1 Interpolated
50% 13.5 54.8 -
75% 20.25 53.5 -
100% 27 50.2 50.2 100% MTFR
125% 33.75 46.2 -
*BW CoP test flow-rate
The calculation followed in this step is:
54.8 – 61.8
–––––––––---------- * (11.3 – 6.75) + 61.8 = 57.1
13.5 – 6.75
42
3. Where performance data is not available and cannot be linearly interpolated (i.e.,
at the lower flow-rate range) the 25% MTFR performance value should be used.
The 25% MTFR performance is selected for lower flow-rates as a conservative
measure so as not to overestimate device performance:

EFFICIENCY (%)
1.7* - 61.8 25% MTFR
3.6* - 61.8 25% MTFR
5.3* - 61.8 25% MTFR
25% 6.75 61.8 -
11.3* - 57.1 Interpolated
50% 13.5 54.8 -
75% 20.25 53.5 -
100% 27 50.2 50.2 100% MTFR
125% 33.75 46.2 -
*BW CoP test flow-rate
4. The particle retention efficiency is then taken from the scour concentration measured
in the NJCAT test. In this example case a value of 7mg/l is used, but the NJCAT test
protocol allows up to a 20mg/l washout rate.
5. The annual TSS removal rate (µTSS) can then be calculated from the derived BW CoP
performance values and the washout rate according the to the following equation:
µTSS = Mout
1 – ––––-
Min
Min is the input mass over all flow-rates tested. In this case the calculation can be
simplified by weighting the input concentrations by the number of volume exchanges
during the test:
Min = R 1 * V * C1 + R2 * V * C2 + R3 * V * C3 + R4 * V * C4 + R5 * V * C5
Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Assessment 3 Assessment 4 Assessment 5
Min = 10V * 200 mg.l--1 + 10V * 200 mg.l--1 + 10V * 200 mg.l--1 + 10V * 200 mg.l--1
Assessment 1 Assessment 2 Assessment 3 Assessment 4
+ 20V * 0 mg.l--1 = 8,000mg.l--1.V

Assessment 5
43
Where: V is the fluid volume of the treatment device

R n is the number of volume exchanges during each assessment.
(40 for the minimum requirements of the BW CoP).
C n is the inlet concentration for sediment addition (200 mg/l as specified in the
BW CoP for assessments 1-4)
Mout is the total mass lost by the system for capture and particle retention tests. In this
case the calculation can be simplified by weighting the outlet concentrations by the input
flow volume exchanges during the test
Mout = R 1 * V * C1 + R2 * V * C2 + R3 * V * C3 + R4 * V * C4 + R5 * V * C5
Mout = 10V * 200 mg.l--1 * (1 _ 0.618) + 10V * 200 mg.l--1 * (1 _ 0.618) +

Assessment 1 Assessment 2
10V * 200 mg.l--1 * (1 _ 0.618) + 10V * 200 mg.l--1 * (1 _ 0.571) + 20V * 7 mg.l--1 = 3290mg.l--1.V
Assessment 3 Assessment 4 Assessment 5
So, the final BW CoP removal performance rating is:
µ CoP = 3290mg.l--1.V
1 – –––––––––-------------- = 58.9%
8000mg.l--1.V
If a negative μTSS is recorded it should be considered 0%.
D2 CONCLUSION
The example above shows that for an NJCAT removal rating of 54.74% and a scour
rate of 7mg/l, the derived BW CoP performance rating is 58.9%. This is a slightly higher
performance value than the NJCAT testing and is expected due to the lower rainfall intensity
distributions in the UK.
The BW CoP rating is translated directly into an SIA mitigation index, resulting in a TSS
mitigation index for this device of 0.59.
The treatment device in this example calculation has a treatment flow-rate of 25.2 l.s--1
resulting in an allowable connected area of 0.34 ha (25.2 l.s--1 / 75 l.s--1.ha--1).
Where this supporting calculation is not available for a treatment device, the NJCAT
performance rating may be used as the SIA rating directly, as this is considered a
conservative design approach.
44
APPENDIX E: E1 EXAMPLE CALCULATION

SIA MITIGATION INDEX FOR TSS MITIGATION INDEX
DERIVATION FROM DIBt An example extract of the DIBt TSS test
data for a manufactured treatment
This document demonstrates derivation device is shown in Table E.1. This device
of the BW CoP performance data and SIA is a hybrid system that uses both
mitigation indices for a manufactured sedimentation and filtration to remove
treatment device from DIBt test data. sediments, liquid hydrocarbons, and
The BW CoP performance data and dissolved metals from the flow. The BW
SIA mitigation index is calculated by CoP test flow-rates and number of flow
interpolating the DIBt performance values volume exchanges required for each test
to flow-rates required for the BW CoP are shown in Table E.2.
calculation. The BW CoP performance
values represent a predicted annual
pollutant removal rate for conditions in
England and Wales.
Table E.1: Summary of DIBt test data for a sediment capture
TEST PART RAINFALL FLOW ADDITION VOLUME DURATION DISCHARGE OF TSS PERMISSIBLE
INTENSITY IN IN L/S OF TSS IN L IN MIN TSS
L/(S X HA) IN KG IN G IN % DISCHARGE
RATE IN %
1 2,5 0.15 15,0 4.320 480 123 0,8 ≤ 16,0
2 6,0 0,36 10,0 4.320 200 296 3,0 ≤ 16,0
3 25,0 1,5 5,0 4.320 48 367 7,3 ≤ 16,0
4 100 6,0 0 5.400 15 933 -
Total 30 18.360 1.253 4,2 ≤ 8,0
Table E.2: BW CoP test sediment conditions

PARTICLE 1 5 (1.7mm/hr) 10
CAPTURE
2 10 (3.6mm/hr) 10
3 15 (5.3mm/hr) 10
4 31.5 (11.3mm/hr) 10
PARTICLE 5 110 l/s/ha (1:2 year 20
RETENTION 15 minute event
40mm/hr)
45
correlate to the BW CoP flow-rates from the DIBt test data listed in Table E.1.:
1. The data required for the derivations is extracted from Table E.1 and
summarised below:
FLOW RATE DIBt % DERIVED

(L/S/HA) TSS IN BW COP
DISCHARGE % TSS IN
DISCHARGE
0 0 -
2.5 0.8 -
6 3 -
25 7.3 -
100% (2.8mg/l)* -
*Calculated from discharge mass and flow
volume
2. Measured removal efficiencies from the DIBt testing should then be linearly
interpolated (or linearly extrapolated in the case of 31.5 l/s/ha) to match the BW CoP
rainfall intensities:
i) For 5 l/s/ha:
3–0.8
6–2.5 * (5 – 2.5) + 0.8 = 2.4%
ii) For 10 l/s/ha:
7.3–3
25–6 * (10 – 6) + 3 = 3.9%
iii) For 15 l/s/ha:
7.3–3
25–6 * (15 – 6) + 3 = 5.0%
iv) For 31.5 l/s/ha:
7.3–3
25–6 * (31.5 – 6) + 7.3 = 8.8%
46
FLOW RATE DIBt % DERIVED FLOW RATE DIBt % DERIVED

(L/S/HA) TSS IN BW COP (L/S/HA) TSS IN BW COP
DISCHARGE % TSS IN DISCHARGE % TSS IN
DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
0 0 - 0 0 -
2.5 0.8 - 2.5 0.8 -
5 - 2.4 5 - 2.4
6 3 - 6 3 -
10 - 3.9 10 - 3.9
15 - 5.0 15 - 5.0
25 7.3 - 25 7.3 -
31.5 - 8.8 31.5 - 8.8
100 (172mg/l)* - 100 (172mg/l)* -

DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
0 0 - 0 0 -
2.5 0.8 - 2.5 0.8 -
5 - 2.4 5 - 2.4
6 3 - 6 3 -
10 - 3.9 10 - 3.9
15 - 5.0 15 - 5.0
25 7.3 - 25 7.3 -
31.5 - 8.8 31.5 - 8.8
100 (172mg/l)* - 100 (172mg/l)* -
47
3. For the washout flow of 110 l/s/ha the 100 l/s/ha concentration measured in the DIBt
test shall be used. In this example, a value of 172mg/l is used. The DIBt test protocol
allows up to an 8% cumulative washout mass across all tests.

(L/S/HA) TSS IN BW COP
DISCHARGE % TSS IN
DISCHARGE
0 0 -
2.5 0.8 -
5 - 2.4
6 3 -
10 - 3.9
15 - 5.0
25 7.3 -
31.5 - 8.8
100 (172mg/l) -
110 (172mg/l)
4. The annual TSS removal rate (µTSS) can then be calculated from the derived BW CoP
performance values and the washout rate according the to the following equation:
µTSS = Mout
1 – ––––-
Min
Min is the input mass over all five flow-rates tested in the BW CoP assessment process.
In this case the calculation can be simplified by weighting the input concentrations by
the number of volume exchanges during the test:
Min = R 1 * V * Cin1 + R2 * V * Cin2 + R3 * V * Cin3 + R4 * V * Cin4 + R5 * V * Cin5


Cinn is the inlet concentration for sediment addition (200 mg/l as specified
in the BW CoP for assessments 1-4)
48
In this example Min is:
Min = 10V * 200 mg.l--1 + 10V * 200 mg.l--1 + 10V * 200 mg.l--1 + 10V * 200 mg.l--1
+ 20V * 0 mg.l--1 = 8,000mg.l--1.V

Assessment 5
case the calculation can be simplified by weighting the outlet concentrations by the
input flow volume exchanges during each test:
M out = R 1 * V * Cout1 + R2 * V * Cout2 + R3 * V * Cout3 + R4 * V * Cout4 + R5 * V * Cout5

Where: Coutn is the outlet concentration of TSS, derived from multiplying the inlet
flow volume by the average outlet concentration for each flow-rate tested,
apart from in the case of assessment 5 where the concentration value
is used directly.
In this example Min is given by:
Mout = 10V * (200 mg.l--1 * 0.024) + 10V * (200 mg.l--1 * 0.039) + 10V * (200 mg.l--1 * 0.050)
+ 10V * (200 mg.l--1 * 0.088) + 20V * 172 mg.l--1 = 3850mg.l--1.V

So, the final BW CoP performance rating for TSS removal is:
µ TSS = 3842mg.l--1.V
1 – –––––––––-------------- = 52.0%
8000mg.l--1.V
If a negative μTSS is recorded it should be considered 0%.

49
E2 EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR HYDROCARBON MITIGATION INDEX

The hydrocarbon mitigation index is calculated in a similar manner to the TSS mitigation
in the previous section. An example extract of the DIBt hydrocarbon test data for a
manufactured treatment device is shown in Table E.3.
Table E.3: DIBt test data for hydrocarbons
TEST PART RAINFALL FLOW HYDRO- VOLUME DURATION SAMPLE DISCHARGE PERMISSIBLE
INTENSITY IN L/S CARBONS IN L IN MIN IN G
IN IN G IN MG/L IN G
L/(S X HA)
1 2,5 0.15 136 3.150 350 1a < 0,1 < 0,315 54,4
1b < 0,1 < 0,315 54,4
2 6,0 0,36 136 3.150 146 2a < 0,1 < 0,315 54,4
2b < 0,1 < 0,315 54,4
3 25,0 1,5 136 3.150 35 3a < 0,1 < 0,315 54,4
3b < 0,1 < 0,315 54,4
4 100 6,0 0 5.400 15 4a < 0,1 < 0,540 -
4b < 0,1 < 0,540 -
Total 408 14.850 < 2,97 81,6
* Where measured values are below the detection limit, the detection limit is used.
correlate to the BW CoP flow-rates from the DIBt test data listed in Table E.3. and
flow-rates remain the same as in Table E.2:
1. The data required for the derivations is extracted from Table E.3. and
summarised below:

(L/S/HA) HC IN BW COP
DISCHARGE % HC IN
DISCHARGE
0 0 -
2.5 0.23 -
6 0.23 -
25 0.23 -
100% (0.1mg/l)* -
* Detection limit used where accurate
measurement is not possible (0.315g /
136g * 100 = 0.23%)
50
2. Measured removal efficiencies from the DIBt test should then be linearly interpolated
(or linearly extrapolated in the case of 31.5 l/s/ha) to match the BW CoP rainfall
intensities:
v) For 5 l/s/ha:
0.23–0.23
6–2.5 * (5 – 2.5) + 0.23 = 0.23%
vi) For 10 l/s/ha:
0.23–0.23
6–2.5 * (10 – 6) + 0.23 = 0.23%
vii) For 15 l/s/ha:
0.23–0.23
6–2.5 * (15 – 6) + 0.23 = 0.23%
viii) For 31.5 l/s/ha:
0.23–0.23
6–2.5 * (31.5 – 6) + 0.23 = 0.23%

DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
0 0 - 0 0 -
2.5 0.23 - 2.5 0.23 -
5 - 0.23 5 - 0.23
6 0.23 - 6 0.23 -
10 - 0.23 10 - 0.23
15 - 0.23 15 - 0.23
25 0.23 - 25 0.23 -
31.5 - 0.23 31.5 - 0.23
100 (0.1mg/l)* - 100 (0.1mg/l)* -
51
FLOW RATE DIBt % IN DERIVED FLOW RATE DIBt % IN DERIVED

(L/S/HA) DISCHARGE BW COP (L/S/HA) DISCHARGE BW COP
% IN % IN
DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
0 0 - 0 0 -
2.5 0.23 - 2.5 0.23 -
5 - 0.23 5 - 0.23
6 0.23 - 6 0.23 -
10 - 0.23 10 - 0.23
15 - 0.23 15 - 0.23
25 0.23 - 25 0.23 -
31.5 - 0.23 31.5 - 0.23
100 (0.1mg/l)* - 100 (0.1mg/l)* -
3. For the washout flow of 110 l/s/ha the 100 l/s/ha concentration measured in the DIBt
test shall be used. In this example a value of 0.1mg/l is used. The DIBt test protocol
allows up to an 20% cumulative washout mass across all tests.
FLOW RATE DIBt % IN DERIVED

(L/S/HA) DISCHARGE BW COP
% IN
DISCHARGE
0 0.23 -
2.5 0.23 -
5 - 0.23
6 0.23 -
10 - 0.23
15 - 0.23
25 0.23 -
31.5 - 0.23
100 (0.1mg/l) -
110 (0.1mg/l)
4. The annual hydrocarbon removal rate (µHC) can then be calculated from the derived
BW CoP performance values and the washout rate according the to the following
equation:
µHC = Mout
1 – ––––-
Min
52
Min is the input mass over all five flow-rates tested. In this case the calculation can be
during the test:
M in = R 1 * V * Cin1 + R2 * V * Cin2 + R3 * V * Cin3 + R4 * V * Cin4 + R5 * V * Cin5


Cinn is the inlet concentration for hydrocarbon addition
In this example Min is:
Min = 10V * 43.2 mg.l--1 + 10V * 43.2 mg.l--1 + 10V * 43.2 mg.l--1 + 10V * 43.2 mg.l--1
+ 20V * 0 mg.l--1 = 1728mg.l--1.V

Assessment 5
Mout = R 1 * V * Cout1 + R2 * V * Cout2 + R3 * V * Cout3 + R4 * V * Cout4 + R5 * V * Cout5

Where: Coutn is the outlet concentration of hydrocarbons, derived from multiplying the
inlet flow volume by the average outlet concentration for each flow-rate tested,
apart from in the case of assessment 5 where the concentration value is
used directly.
In this example Mout is:
Mout = 10V * (43.2 mg.l--1 * 0.0023) + 10V * (43.2 mg.l--1 * 0.0023) +

10V * (43.2 mg.l--1 * 0.0023) + 10V * (43.2 mg.l--1 * 0.0023) + 20V * 0.1 mg.l--1 = 6mg.l--1.V
53
So, the final BW CoP performance rating for hydrocarbon removal is:
µHC = 6mg.l--1.V
1 – –––––––––-------------- = 99.7%
1728mg.l--1.V
If a negative μHC is recorded it should be considered 0%.
E3 EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR METALS MITIGATION INDEX

The metals mitigation index is calculated in a similar manner to the TSS mitigation in the
previous section, with the exception that rather than a washout test, a remobilisation
test due to road salting is performed for the 5th assessment (Table E.5.). The average
removal rate for zinc and copper is used as a proxy for all other metals. It should be
noted that this test only evaluates removal performance of dissolved metals and needs
to be combined with the solid phase to give a removal performance for total metals.
An example extract of the DIBt metals test data for a manufactured treatment device is
shown in Table E.4. (data in Table E.5. has been scaled to full-scale performance values
from the model data, which was a 1:100 test sample).
Table E.4: Summary of DIBt test data for a metals capture
TEST PART RAINFALL FLOW ADDITION VOLUME DURATION DISCHARGE DISCHARGE

INTENSITY IN IN L/MIN OF IN L IN MIN Zn IN MG/L Cu IN MG/L
L/(S X HA)
1 2,5 0,500 6.25 mg/l Zn 240 480 0.128 0.005

0.72 mg/l Cu
2 6,0 1,200 6.25 mg/l Zn 240 200 0.88 0.005

0.72 mg/l Cu
3 25,0 5,000 6.25 mg/l Zn 240 48 0.693 0.005

0.72 mg/l Cu
Total 720
* Where measured values are below the detection limit, the detection limit is used.
Table E.5: BW CoP metals testing conditions

METALS 1 5 (1.7mm/hr) 10
CAPTURE
2 10 (3.6mm/hr) 10
3 15 (5.3mm/hr) 10
4 31.5 (11.3mm/hr) 10
METALS 5 10 (3.6mm/hr) 10
RETENTION
54
correlate to the BW CoP flow-rates from the DIBt test data listed in Table E.4.
1. The data required for the derivation is extracted from Table E.4. and
summarised below:
FLOW RATE DIBt Zn DIBt Cu DERIVED DERIVED

(L/S/HA) % IN % IN BW COP BW COP
DISCHARGE DISCHARGE Zn % IN Cu % IN
DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
0 0 0 - -
2.5 2.0 0.7 - -
6 14.1 0.7 - -
25 11.1 0.7 - -
2. Measured removal efficiencies from the DIBt test should then be linearly
interpolated (or linearly extrapolated in the case of 31.5 l/s/ha) to match
the BW CoP rainfall intensities:
ix) For 5 l/s/ha:
14.1–2.0 0.7–0.7
Zn: 6–2.5 * (5 – 2.5) + 2 = 10.6% Cu: 6–2.5 * (5 – 2.5) + 0.7 = 0.7%
x) For 10 l/s/ha:
11.1–14.1 0.7–0.7
Zn: 25–6 * (10 – 6) + 14.1 = 13.5% Cu: 25–6 * (10 – 6) + 0.7 = 0.7%
xi) For 15 l/s/ha:
11.1–14.1 0.7–0.7
Zn: 25–6 * (15 – 6) + 14.1 = 12.7% Cu: 25–6 * (15 – 6) + 0.7 = 0.7%
xii) For 31.5 l/s/ha:
11.1–14.1 0.7–0.7
Zn: 25–6 * (31.5 – 6) + 14.1 = 10.1% Cu: 25–6 * (31.5 – 6) + 0.7 = 0.7%
55

DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
0 0 0 - -
2.5 2.0 0.7 - -
5 - - 10.6 0.7
6 14.1 0.7 - -
10 - - 13.5 0.7
15 - - 12.7 0.7
25 11.1 0.7 - -
31.5 - - 10.1 0.7
3. For the metal retention under the influence of salt influence, the value measured
for 25 l/s/ha from the DIBt test shall be used.

DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
0 0 0 - -
2.5 2.0 0.7 - -
5 - - 10.6 0.7
6 14.1 0.7 - -
10 - - 13.5 0.7
15 - - 12.7 0.7
25 11.1 0.7 - -
31.5 - - 10.1 0.7
Remobilisation 0.077mg/l 0.005mg/l 0.077mg/l 0.005mg/l
56
1. The annual dissolved metals removal rate (µMetals) can then be calculated from the
derived
2. BW CoP performance values and for zinc (µZn) and copper (µCu) according to the
following equation:
µMetals = µ Zn + µCu
1 – –––-------------
2
µZn = Mout
1 – ––––-
Min
µCu = Mout
1 – ––––-
Min
Min is the input mass over all four flow-rates tested. In this case the calculation can be
during the test:
M in = R 1 * V * Cin1 + R2 * V * Cin2 + R3 * V * Cin3 + R4 * V * Cin4 + R5 * V * Cin5


Cinn is the inlet concentration for metal addition
For zinc this becomes:
+ 10V * 0 mg.l--1 = 250mg.l--1.V

Assessment 5
For copper this becomes:
+ 10V * 0 mg.l--1 = 28.8mg.l--1.V

Assessment 5
57
Mout = R 1 * V * Cout1 + R2 * V * Cout2 + R3 * V * Cout3 + R4 * V * Cout4 + R5 * V * Cout5

Where: Coutn is the outlet metal concentration, derived from multiplying the
inlet flow volume by the outlet concentrations for each flow-rate tested.
For zinc this becomes:
Mout = 10V * (6.25 mg.l--1 * 0.106) + 10V * (6.25 mg.l--1 * 0.135) +

10V * (6.25 mg.l--1 * 0.127) + 10V * (6.25 mg.l--1 * 0.101) + 10V * 0.077 = 30.07mg.l--1.V
For copper this becomes:
Mout = 10V * (0.72 mg.l--1 * 0.007) + 10V * (0.71 mg.l--1 * 0.007) +

10V * (0.72 mg.l--1 * 0.007) + 10V * (0.72 mg.l--1 * 0.007) + 10V * 0.005 = 0.252mg.l--1.V
So, the final BW CoP performance rating for the metals removal are:
30.07mg.l--1.V 0.252mg.l--1.V
µ Zn = 1 – –––––––----------- = 88.0% µCu = 1 – –––––––----------- = 99.1%
250mg.l .V
--1
28.8mg.l .V
--1
µMetals = 88.0 + 99.1

-––––--–––----------- = 93.6%
2
If a negative μMetals is recorded it should be considered 0%.

58
E4 CONCLUSION
The example calculations above show that from the DIBt test data the following BW CoP
removal rates are derived:
µTSS = 52%
µHC = 99.7%
µMetals = 93.6%
The BW CoP removal rates are translated directly into SIA mitigation indices, resulting
in a TSS and hydrocarbon index of 0.52 and 0.997 respectively. The metals removal rate
only relates to the dissolved fraction and therefore must be combined with the solid
removal rate, as described in section 4.3 to calculate the SIA mitigation index for total
metals.
The treatment device in this example calculation has a treatment flow-rate of 6 l.s-1
resulting in an allowable connected area of 0.08 ha (6 l.s-1 / 75 l.s-1.ha-1, where 75 l/s/
ha is the peak annual rainfall rate, equivalent to 27 mm/hr).
59
OTHER SOURCES OF EHSNI: Environment and Heritage Service Northern Ireland
INFORMATION US EPA: US Environmental Protection Agency
HEWRAT: Highways England Water Risk Assessment Tool

1. British Water's list of Accredited Service Technicians can be
HDS: Hydrodynamic Separator Devices
viewed at:
https://www.britishwater.co.uk/page/ MHFR: Maximum Hydraulic Flow Rate
ListofAccreditedServiceTechnicians
MTD: Manufactured Treatment Device
2. Other British Water publications available at
www.britishwater.co.uk are: MTFR: Maximum Treatment Flow Rate
A. Code of Practice: Guide to the Installation of Sewage
NJCAT: New Jersey Corporation for Advanced Technology
Treatment Systems
B. Code of Practice: Guide to Desludging Sewage Treatment NJDEP: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Systems
NS: Nominal Size
C. Code of Practice: Flows and Loads 4
D. Code of Practice: Maintenance and Servicing by NSB: Nominal Size before Bypass
British Water Accredited Technicians
PSD: Particle Size Distribution
GLOSSARY: PPG3: Pollution Prevention Guidance 3
PAHs: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

ADT: Average Daily Traffic
SEPA: Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
BMP: Best Management Practice
SIA: Simple Index Approach
BW CoP: British Water Code of Practice
SSSI: Site of Special Scientific Interest
CE: Conformité Européene
SPZs: Source Protection Zones
CIRIA: Construction Industry Research and Information
Association SuDS: Sustainable Drainage Systems
DMRB: Design Manual for Roads and Bridges TFR: Treatment Flow Rate
DIBt: Deutsches Institut für Bautechnik TSS: Total Suspended Solids
DIN: Deutsches Institut für Normung UKAS: United Kingdom Accreditation Service
EA: Environment Agency USGS: United States Geological Survey
EEA: European Economic Area WRc: Water Research Centre

60
CONTRIBUTORS
Provides a broad range of surface water Stormwater Shepherds is an
management systems designed to provide international not-for-profit committed
the optimum solution in storm water to restoring health to our waterways.
control and sustainable drainage systems. Stop urban and plastic pollution!
Global company who provide advanced

SDS identifies and delivers engineering
products, services and expertise to help
solutions that enable global water
municipal, industrial and construction
infrastructure to operate sustainably
customers to improve the way they
and to its maximum efficiency potential.
process, treat and manage water.
Innovyze is a global leader in building Polypipe is one of Europe's largest

innovative, industry-leading software manufacturers of piping systems, water
for the water industry for over 35 years, and climate management systems,
helping customers meet their financial delivering engineered solutions that
and environmental targets. enable a sustainable built environment.
British Water would like to thank the following people

for their contribution as authors of this guide:
David Smoker, ACO

Daniel Jarman, Hydro International
Jessica Jefferys, Innovyze
Jo Bradley, SDS and Stormwater Shepherds
Stuart Ramella, Polypipe
Publishing date: BW COP: January/22

Copyright British Water 2022
This document has been reviewed and is deemed to be in line with CIRIA C753 The SuDS Manual.
The British Water ‘How to guide’ working group are grateful to Bridget Woods Ballard, HR Wallingford, Steve Wilson,
Environmental Protection Group and Mark Goodger Caerphilly County Borough Council for the valuable
input and contribution as reviewers of this code of practice.
Please note the following statement by British Water:
Subject as stated below, no responsibility, duty of care or liability whatsoever (whether in contract or tort or otherwise
including, but not limited to, negligence) is or will be accepted by British Water, its officers, employees, agents or
members to any user of this guidance or any other person in connection with or in relation to this guidance. Subject
as stated below, British Water, its officers, employees, agents and members do not accept any responsibility or liability
for any loss or damage caused to any person who acts or refrains from acting as a result of anything contained in
or omitted from this guidance or in reliance on the provisions of or material in this guidance, whether such loss or
damage is caused by negligence or otherwise.
Nothing in this disclaimer shall be construed as excluding or limiting the liability of British Water or any of its officers,
employees, agents or members for death or personal injury resulting from the negligence of such persons or for
fraud. This guidance does not constitute legal, technical or other advice and it should not be regarded as such. Anyone
requiring advice on any of the matters referred to in this guidance, including on how to ensure compliance with any
relevant legal or regulatory requirements, should consult their legal or other appropriate professional advisers.
Nothing in this guidance is intended to be or should be construed as advice on the merits of, or a recommendation in
relation to, any particular product or product provider and no representation is made that any member of British Water
operates or will operate in accordance with this guidance. Each part of this disclaimer shall be construed as a separate
and severable part, and if one or more parts is held to be invalid, unlawful or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining
parts shall remain in full force and effect.
We champion collaboration,
channel innovation and
promote future thinking.
FOLLOW US FOR THE LATEST NEWS
www.linkedin.com/company/british-water
#bwconnect
#bwnetworking www.twitter.com/British_Water
www.britishwater.co.uk YouTube, British Water

How To Guide Final v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

How To Guide Final v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HOW TO GUIDE:

APPLYING THE CIRIA

Section 1: Protecting the Water Environment from Pollution 9

Section 2: Test Protocols 9

Section 3: Use of Manufactured Stormwater Treatment

Section 4.1: Flow Rates 17

Section 4.2: Sediment Removal and Retention 20

Section 4.3: Metals Removal and Retention 22

Section 4.4: Liquid Hydrocarbon Removal and Retention 23

Section 5: Comparison of Laboratory Derived Mitigation

Section 6: Application of the Mitigation Indices in the SIA 27

Section 6.1: Unit Selection and Scaling 27

Section 7: Design Considerations 28

Section 8: Other Risk Based Design Methods 30

Links to Supporting Material 31

Appendix A: Test Methods 32

A1: British Water Assessment of MTDs Designed to

A2: Procedure for Obtaining Verification of a Stormwater MTD from New

A3: National Technical Approval Granted by the German Institute of

Appendix B: Rainfall Data and Conversions 35

Appendix C: Liquid Hydrocarbon / Light Oil Removal Efficiencies 36

Appendix D: SIA Mitigation Index Derivation from NJCAT 40

D1: Example Calculation 40

Appendix E: SIA Mitigation Index Derivation from DIBt 44

E1: Example Calculation for TSS Mitigation Index 44

E2: Example Calculation for Hydrocarbon Mitigation Index 49

E3: Example Calculation for Metals Mitigation Index 53

Table 2: Use of Manufactured Stormwater Treatment

Table 3: Steps inAssessing a SuDS Management Train 16

Table 4: Test Flow-rates to Assess Capture Efficiency

Table 5: Summary of Typical Concentrations of Pollutants

Table 6: Order of Magnitude of Mitigation Provided during

Table 7: Comparison of the Median Effluent Values Recorded

Table D.1: Summary of NJCAT Test Data for an MTD 40

Table D.2: BW CoP Test Conditions 40

Table E.1: Summary of DIBt Test Data for a Sediment Capture 44

Table E.2: BW CoP Test Sediment Conditions 44

Table E.3: DIBt Test Data for Hydrocarbons 49

Table E.4: Summary of DIBt Test Data for a Metals Capture 53

Table E.5: BW CoP Metals Testing Conditions 53

Chart 2: Distribution of Annual Rainfall in England and Test

Chart 3: PSD of Sediments in Runoff and Road Sweepings 20

Chart 4: Dissolved and Particulate Phases of Various Contaminants 22

Chart B.1: Flow-rates Comparison for each Test Method 35

THIS GUIDE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY

Where site constraints preclude surface-based or landscaped water

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY when evaluating performance for field

Whilst this is a practical approach

BOX 1: SuDS MITIGATION INDICES FOR MTDs

Total Suspended Solids Index (TSS) (See Section 4.2)

Metals (Section 4.3)

TOTAL Metal reduction = Particulate fraction reduction + Dissolved fraction reduction

Hydrocarbons (Section 4.4)

A composite Hydrocarbon SuDS Mitigation Index is derived as follows:

Unit sizing and flow-rate capacity (Section 4.1)

BOX 1: SuDS MITIGATION INDICES FOR MTDs

- Total Suspended Solids (TSS)—92%

DIBt approval limits systems to a maximum connected (drained) area of 2,000 m2

Table 1: Summary of Test Protocols

PROTOCOL BW CoP NJCAT (US) DIBt (Germany)

Sediment Capture Assessed? Yes (optional) Yes (mandatory) Yes (mandatory)

Sediment Retention Assessed? Yes (optional) Yes (mandatory) Yes (mandatory)

Background Sediment concentration (mg/l) ≤20 ≤20 n/a