From: Shalom M. Mandaville []
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 4:08 PM
To: 'Tony Blouin'
Subject: RE: Papermill, Kearney, Morris, and Russell Lakes; several cumulative enquiries I am receiving

Attachments: epa99017.PDF; pitt.pdf

No problem at all! URLs provided as usual!


Two PDF documents are included here. If you find any info, I would appreciate copies.


By the way, we had discussed these several times when I was on the HWAB and made, ummm, atleast 3 or 4 detailed submissions.


Preamble: Just the way I talk with you scores of times (inclusive of my detailed voice_mails), I do it worldwide, now and then, as well; mostly North America, some even by long-distance, ofcourse!


So I don’t keep notes all the time and don’t forget, I am doing it mostly for interest and not as a `paid consultant'! I just do it as I find the energy + interest! Stormwater treatment has been literally `bugging me’ long before I was an environmental activist, dating back to the 1970s (yes that long)!


But I will share with you the info that comes to my mind right now as follows and I will as usual number them, I to XIII, so that there is no confusion of different aspects (if I think of more, I will let you know in the future as always): ---



[I] My web page on treatment of stormwater runoff (and I am sure you know about this as I had cited this on numerous occasions) but I keep updating/upgrading only when/if I have received some solid info (


You can see how contradictory certain things are there but I will not change them since those ARE THE RESULTS and published conclusions!


Constructed wetlands are given prominence there since there is a tremendous amount of info on them, all available to anyone!


For a somewhat extensive bibliography on constructed wetlands, see and I realise I am contradicting myself by promoting them (hahaha)!


But I am not really promoting them, just indulging in an `open discussion’, sort of!


BUT WELL DESIGNED CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS MAY BE A COMPROMISE (since the WWTPs below will be costly with perpetual O&M) BUT SEE THE SIZES REQUIRED IN RELATIONSHIP TO UPSTREAM CATCHMENT AREA IN THE CASE OF MINNESOTA (which allegedly has similar weather patterns to us); see the info on the McCarrons Treatment Facility System:--- (it seemed to do well when  it was assessed)!



[II] The leadership shown by the City of Nepean, Ontario (I had given some info on this to Gerry Isenor of Dillon, Inc., when he consulted me w.r.t the HRM’s WRMS exactly on October 24, 2001!


See brief info in and they originally designed it to remove fecal coliforms in STORMWATER. I also read somewhere that they recently started adding alum to remove TP as well and it appears the outflow is into a lake or so! I don’t have any more info on this.


But this is a municipally operated WWTP that I was alluding to, as an example! I had mentioned it to Renee as well!


[III] Attached is an email I received from Prof. Robert Pitt who is/was a Professor of Civil/Environmental Engineering in Alabama and who has been cited in many civil/environmental engineering publications.


I was referred to him by another well cited professor at Ottawa or somewhere in Ontario (can’t recall this man’s name).


You can see from his email his cautions re large treatment devices based on hydraulics and settlement theory.



[IV] An idea of `settlement requirements’ can be obtained from a Table of various particle sizes in another web page, (the Table from USEPA re typical urban street pollutants) together with the settlement times based on particle size in another Table, Welch’s famous limnology text (



[V] I understand plants, by themselves, do not remove most `urban stressors’; some are indeed taken up by root systems, but most are removed by a combination of `ADSOPRTION TO CLAY PARTICLES’ and some may be taken up indeed by the root system of plants, but the latter also pre-supposes that there is sufficient DETENTION TIME, i.e., a water molecule has to be `detained’ for a long time; for clay-size particles/pollutants, it is a whopping 230 days just to settle one (1) foot in still water!



[VI] I have numerous literature (mostly papers and handbook types) with me; they are quite a large bundle which I read (or peeked through) over the last decade and a half, on and off!



[VII] Also attached here is an USEPA document on treatment tanks which were highly touted by consultants and industry not long ago. See the shortcomings for yourself!



[VIII] For a summary overview of the shortcomings, see Maintenance (, and for the Shortcomings of urban detention ponds, see



[IX] On Stormceptor and my correspondence, see



[X] On CDS and my correspondence, see



[XI] On Vortechnics, see



[XII] On relative efficiency of the above 3 in-situ devices, see


And on the Estimated Net Mass Reduction in Stormwater Constituents, see (and that is assuming perpetual maintenance as recommended by the manufacturer)!



[XIII] Re Marvin Silver, you can talk with him directly re the failure of his constructed wetland for the Airport Authority! This ain't a secret and I thought you knew about it when we once discussed (maybe not).


The Airport Authority (allegedly) disconnected it and now uses a standard WWTP with lime application or whatever but this is regarding acid drainage (something tells me you know more about the relatively recent events at the airport than myself)!


Between myself and Peter Shacklock (ex-NRC biologist), we may still have two (2) TV shows (not 100% sure) that we produced with Marvin during 1991 as our valued guest but I doubt they will be of any use to you since at that time we did it especially to PROMOTE CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS (hahahaha, how rapidly things change, huh)! The shows were numbered #131 and #143!!







> -----Original Message-----

> From: Tony Blouin []

> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:37 PM

> To:

> Subject: Re: Papermill, Kearney, Morris, and Russell Lakes; several

> cumulative enquiries I am receiving


> Shalom - I was interested by your comments, particularly this section:


> "I myself promoted constructed (or engineered) wetlands for several years

> but

> the experience down south (especially in the colder areas) has not been

> that

> positive notwithstanding some claims to the contrary except where the

> wetlands are HUGE, like 10% or more of the total upstream catchment

> area)."


> Could you provide the sources for information regarding the experience in

> the (northern) US, so that I can investigate further?


> Thanks very much

> Tony