June 1997 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Letters to the Editor

Dear Estuary,

My surprise and disappointment in seeing an article about storm drain retrofit devices in U.S. EPA's Nonpoint Source News-Notes has been deepened by the re-publication of this information in our own Estuary! Aarrgghh!

The publication of this information in the Bulletin Board Section of April's Estuary is tantamount to free advertising. While the number of these stormwater treatment devices coming on the market has been steadily increasing, the data to-date on the vast majority of these devices is disappointing, and certainly does not live up to the vendor's claims. In fact, the California Stormwater Quality Task Force recently had occasion to review information on oil/water separators and catch basin inserts while working to develop BMP's for retail gasoline stations and concluded "The evidence reviewed...indicated that the effectiveness and efficiency of these...[proposed] BMPs...was insufficient for them to pass peer review and therefore these BMPs cannot be generally recommended for use statewide."

In general, these devices have failed to justify their expense for two reasons: 1) inability to significantly reduce pollutants from the already relatively low concentrations typical in storm water, and/or 2) inability to handle high flows and maintain the integrity of the device's treatment system. Members of the Task Force, BASMAA, and other municipal storm water programs throughout the country are conducting studies on these and other BMPs. If that research shows that a particulal BMP is effective and erfficient, we will be the first to encourage the publication of these findings. In the meantime, I would suggest that the subject deserves a more thorough article on the state of the inexact technology.

~ Geoff Brosseau Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA)

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project