903978001
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
A WATER QUALITY MODELLING STUDY
OF THE
DELAWARE ESTUARY
January 1978
Technical Report No. 62
Annapolis Field Office
Region III
Environmental Protection Agency
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION-III 6th and Walnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
-------
EPA 903/9-78-001
Annapolis Field Office
Region III
Environmental Protection Agency
A WATER QUALITY MODELLING STUDY
OF THE
DELAWARE ESTUARY
Technical Report No. 62
January 1978
Leo J. Clark
Robert B. Ambrose, Jr.
Rachel C. Grain
-------
This report has been reviewed by Region III, EPA, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents neces-
sarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
n
-------
ABSTRACT
Recent data acquisition, analysis, and mathematical modelling
studies were undertaken to improve the understanding of water quality
interactions, particularly as they impact DO, in the Delaware
Estuary. A version of the Dynamic Estuary Model, after undergoing
considerable modification, was applied in an iterative process of
hypothesis formation and testing. Both model parameters and model
structure were updated and improved through this process until five
intensive data sets gathered in the estuary between 1968 and 1976 were
satisfactorily simulated. The major processes treated in this study
were the advection and dispersion of salinity and dye tracers, nitrif-
ication, carbonaceous oxidation, sediment oxygen demand, reaeration,
algal photosynthesis and respiration, and denitrification. The major
product of this study is a calibrated and verified "real time" hydraulic
and water quality model of the Delaware Estuary between Trenton and
Listen Point. Among the conclusions of general importance are: (1)
algae exert a variable, but generally positive influence on the DO
budget; (2) non-linear reactions (such as denitrification and reduction
of effective sediment oxygen demand) become significant when DO levels
drop below 2 mg/1; and (3) nitrification, wfn'ch experiences inhibition
in a zone around Philadelphia, and sediment oxygen demand rival car-
bonaceous oxidation as DO sinks throughout much of the estuary. One
implication of this study is that earlier forecasts of DO improvements
with a simpler, linear model were somewhat optimistic.
i i i
-------
FOREWORD
In all probability, the Delaware Estuary has been the
subject of more modelling studies during the past two decades
than any other estuarine water body in the United States.
While it is hoped that the modelling study documented in this
report will help advance the state-of-the-art, recognition should
also be given to these early pioneering efforts, since they pro-
vided a solid foundation upon which one could build. Without
them, and similar attempts at model application elsewhere, this
report would not have materialized. It is encouraging that
mathematical modelling techniques are gaining increased acceptance
and legitimacy by water quality managers, since they represent a
valuable tool to assist in the decision making process. Used with
intelligence, mathematical models can help frame relevant options
with greater precision and explore the implications of alternate
decisions with greater objectivity than methods available in the
not too distant past. It is toward this end that our efforts are
ultimately directed.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT n n "*
FOREWORD iv
LIST OF FIGURES v11
LIST OF TABLES xv
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1-1
A. Scope of Study 1-1
B. History of the Dynamic Estuary Model 1-4
C. Theory 1-6
1. Network Properties 1-6
2. Hydraulic Model 1-12
3. Quality Model 1-19
II MAJOR MODEL MODIFICATIONS PERFORMED AT AFO II-l
A. Hydraulic Model II-1
B. Quality Model II-l
1. Advection 11-2
2. Dispersion 11-3
3. Seaward Boundary Transfers 11-4
4. Reaction Kinetics 11-5
5. Constituent Numbering 11-9
6. Varying Waste Inputs 11-10
7. Output 11-12
III MODEL APPLICATION TO THE DELAWARE ESTUARY III-l
A. Overview III-l
B. Compilation of Data Base 111-2
1. State of Delaware II1-2
2. AFO III-2
3. 1975 and 1976 Co-Op Studies (208 Program) III-3
-------
C. Establishment of Model Network 111-5
D. Calibration of Hydraulic Model III-8
E. Calibration and Verification of Quality Model 111-11
1. Chloride Simulations III-ll
2. Dye Simulations 111-15
3. Dissolved Oxygen Budget 111-38
a) Introduction 111-38
b) Description of Data 111-39
July 1974 111-41
October 1973 II1-48
August 1975 111-54
July - September 1968 111-66
July 1976 111-86
c) Quality Model Construction III-101
Initial Formulation III-101
Second Formulation III-104
Third Formulation III-104
Fourth Formulation III-105
Fifth Formulation 111-105
Sixth Formulation III-106
d) Comparison of Model Predictions
With Observed Data III-109
e) Discussion of Reaction Rates III-131
F. Sensitivity Analysis III-144
IV FUTURE STUDIES AND AREAS OF MODEL REFINEMENT IV-1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1-1 Fish Tank Analogy for Link-Node Model Network 1-8
1-2 2-D Network with Branching Channels 1-11
III-l Mathematical Modelling Network, Delaware Estuary II1-6
III-2 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, May
1970 (11,000 cfs) - Chlorides 111-17
111-3 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
May 7-22, 1968 (12,300 cfs) - Chlorides 111-18
111-4 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, July 6 -
August 1, 1967 (5,600 cfs) - Chlorides 111-19
II1-5 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, Oct. 8 -
Nov. 6, 1969 (4,800 cfs) - Chlorides 111-20
III-6 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, July 10 -
Oct. 20, 1964 (2,450 cfs) - Chlorides 111-21
III-7 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, July 23,
1974 - Dye II1-24
III-8 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, July 24,
1974 - Dye II1-25
III-9 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, July 25,
1974 - Dye II1-26
111-10 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, July 26,
1974 - Dye II1-27
III-ll Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, July 27,
1974 - Dye 111-28
111-12 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, July 29,
1974 - Dye 111-29
111-13 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, July 30,
1974 - Dye II1-30
111-14 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, July 31,
1974 - Dye 111-31
111-15 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles, Aug. 1,
1974 - Dye 111-32
vii
-------
Number Page
111-16
111-17
111-18
111-19
111-20
111-21
111-22
111-23
111-24
111-25
111-26
111-27
111-28
111-29
111-30
111-31
111-32
Observed and Predicted Spatial
1974 - Dye
Observed and Predicted Spatial
1974 - Dye
Observed and Predicted Spatial
1974 - Dye
Observed and Predicted Spatial
1974 - Dye
Observed and Predicted Spatial
1974 - Dye
Water
- DO
Water
- NORG
Water
-NH3
Water
- N02
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
+ N03
Water Quality
- Chloro. a^
Water
- DO
Water
- NORG
Water
- NH3
Water
- N02
Water
10,100
Water
10,100
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
+ N03
Quality
cfs) -
Quality
cfs) -
Water Quality
10,100 cfs) -
Data,
Data,
Data,
Data,
Data,
Data,
Data,
Data,
Data,
Data,
DO
Data,
DO
Data,
NORG
July
July
July
July
July
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
22-31,
22-31 ,
22-31,
22-31,
22-29,
15-17,
15-17,
15-17,
15-17,
6-13,
1-4, 1
6-13,
Prof i 1 es
Profiles
Profiles
Profiles
Profiles
1
1
1
974
974
974
1974
1
1
1
1
1
974
973
973
973
973
1975
(3
(3
(3
(3
(3
(4
(4
(4
(4
(6,
, Aug. 2,
, Aug. 5,
, Aug. 6,
, Aug. 8,
, Aug. 12,
,900
,910
,910
,910
,910
,020
,020
,020
,020
200-
cfs)
cfs)
cfs)
cfs)
cfs)
cfs)
cfs)
cfs)
cfs)
975 (6,200-
1975
(6,
200-
111-33
111-34
111-35
111-36
111-37
111-43
111-44
111-45
111-46
111-47
111-50
111-51
111-52
111-53
111-57
111-58
111-59
vm
-------
Number
111-33
111-34
111-35
111-36
111-37
111-38
111-39
111-40
111-41
111-42
111-43
111-44
111-45
111-46
111-47
111-48
111-49
Water Quality Data, Aug. 6-13, 1975 (6,200-
10,100 cfs) - NH3
Water Quality Data, Aug. 6-13, 1975 (6,200-
10,100 cfs) - N02 + N03
Water Quality Data, Aug. 1-4, 1975 (6,200-
10,100 cfs) - NORG
Water Quality Data, Aug. 1-4, 1975 (6,200-
10,100 cfs) - NH3
Water Quality Data, Aug. 1-4, 1975 (6,200-
10,100 cfs) - N02 + N03
Water Quality Data, Aug. 1-13, 1975 (6,200-
10,100 cfs) - Chloro. a^
Temperature, Flow, Chlorophyll Data, July-
September 1968
Water Quality Data, July 25-Aug. 8, 1968
(4,800 cfs) - DO
Water Quality Data, July 31-Aug. 19, 1968
(4,800 cfs) - DO
Water Quality Data, Aug. 22-Sept. 5, 1968
(3,900 cfs) - DO
Water Quality Data, July 25-Aug. 8, 1968
(4,800 cfs) - NORG
Water Quality Data, July 25-Aug. 8, 1968
(4,800 cfs) - NH3
Water Quality Data, July 25-Aug. 8, 1968
(4,800 cfs) - N02 + N03
Water Quality Data, July 31-Aug. 19, 1968
(4,800 cfs) - NORG
Water Quality Data, July 31-Aug. 19, 1968
(4,800 cfs) - NH3
Water Quality Data, July 31-Aug. 19, 1968
(4,800 cfs) - N02 + N03
Water Quality Data, Aug. 22-Sept. 5, 1968
(3,900 cfs) - NORG
Page
111-60
111-61
111-62
111-63
111-64
111-65
111-69
111-70
111-71
111-72
111-73
111-74
111-75
111-76
1 1 1-77-
111-78
111-79
ix
-------
Number
111-50
111-51
111-52
111-53
111-54
111-55
111-56
111-57
111-58
111-59
111-60
111-61
111-62
111-63
111-64
111-65
111-66
Water Quality
(3,900 cfs) -
Water Quality
(3,900 cfs) -
Water Quality
(5,000-15,000
Water Quality
(4,800 cfs) -
Water Quality
(4,800 cfs) -
Water Quality
(3,900 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Water Quality
(7,500 cfs) -
Data, Aug. 22-Sept. 5, 1968
NH3
Data, Aug. 22-Sept. 5, 1968
N02 + N03
Data, July 3-16, 1968
cfs) - Chloro. a_
Data, July 25-Aug. 8, 1968
Chloro. a_
Data, July 31-Aug. 19, 1968
Chloro. a_
Data, Aug. 22-Sept. 9, 1968
Chloro. a_
Data, July 12-16, 1976
DO
Data, July 1
DO
Data, July 1
NORG
Data, July 1
Data, July 1
N02 + N03
Data, July 1
NORG
Data, July 1
NH3
Data, July 1
N02 + N03
Data, July 1
Chloro. a_
Data, July 1
Chloro. a_
Data, July 1
Secchi Disc
9-23,
2-16,
2-16,
2-16,
9-23,
9-23,
9-23,
2-15,
9-23,
2-16,
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
1976
Page
111-80
111-81
1 1 1-82
111-83
111-84
111-85
111-89
111-90
111-91
111-92
111-93
111-94
111-95
111-96
111-97
111-98
111-99
-------
Number Page
II1-67 Water Quality Data, July 19-23, 1976
(7,500 cfs) - Secchi Disc 111-100
II1-68 First Formulation, Initial Structure -
Delaware Estuary Model II1-102
111-69 Final Structure, Delaware Estuary Model III-108
111-70 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July 1974 (3,900 cfs) - DO III-112
II1-71 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July 1974 (3,900 cfs) - Nitrogen Series III-113
111-72 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
Oct. 1973 (3,900 cfs) - DO III-114
111-73 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
Oct. 1973 (3,900 cfs) - Nitrogen Series III-115
111-74 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
Aug. 1975 (7,880 cfs)(HWS) - DO III-116
111-75 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
Aug. 1975 (7,880 cfs)(LWS) - DO III-117
111-76 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
Aug. 1975 (7,880 cfs)(HWS) - Nitrogen Series III-118
111-77 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
Aug. 1975 (7,880 cfs)(LWS) - Nitrogen Series III-119
111-78 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July - August 1968 (4,800 cfs)(HWS) - DO III-120
111-79 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July - August 1968 (4,800 cfs)(LWS) - DO III-121
111-80 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July - August 1968 (4,800 cfs)(HWS) -
Nitrogen Series III-122
II1-81 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July - August 1968 (4,800 cfs)(LWS) -
Nitrogen Series 111-123
111-82 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
August - September 1968 (3,900 cfs)(LWS) - DO III-124
XI
-------
Number Page
111-83 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
August - September 1968 (3,900 cfs)(LWS)
- Nitrogen Series II1-125
111-84 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July,17 - Sept. 4, 1968 (3,900-4,800 cfs) - DO III-126
111-85 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July 12-16, 1976 (7,900 cfs)(LWS) - DO III-127
111-86 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July 19-23, 1976 (7,900 cfs)(HWS) - DO III-128
111-87 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July 12-16, 1976 (7,900 cfs)(LWS)-Nitrogen Series III-129
111-88 Observed and Predicted Spatial Profiles,
July 19-23, 1976 (7,900 cfs)(HWS)-Nitrogen Series III-130
111-89 Nitrification Inhibition Pattern Based Upon
Modelling Studies III-136
111-90 Sediment Oxygen Demand Rates 111-141
111-91 Relationship Between Turbidity and Secchi
Disk, July 1974 III-143
111-92 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO
Model - Temperature (Linear Region) III-147
111-93 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO
Model - Temperature (Non-Linear Region) III-148
111-94 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO
Model - Inflow (Linear Region) III-149
111-95 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO
Model - Inflow (Non-Linear Region) III-150
111-96 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO
Model - Reaeratlon (Linear Reg1on)(Church1ll Eq.) III-151
111-97 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO
Model - Reaeratlon (Linear Reg1on)(USGS Eq,) III-152
111-98 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO
Model - Reaeratlon (Non-Linear Region)
(Churchill Eq.) III-153
-------
Number Page
111-99 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO
Model - Reaeration (Non-Linear Region)
(USGS Eq.) III-154
I11-100 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO
Model - CBOD, Oxidation Rate (Linear Region) III-155
III-101 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO
Model - CBOD, Oxidation Rate (Non-Linear Region) III-156
II1-102 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Nitrification Rates + 100% (Linear Region) III-157
III-103 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Uninhibited Nitrification Rates (Linear Region) III-158
111-104 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Nitrification Rates + 100% (Non-Linear Region) 111-159
III-105 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Uninhibited Nitrification Rates (Non-Linear
Region) II1-160
III-106 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Intermediate SOD Rate (Linear Region) III-161
III-107 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Background SOD Rate (Linear Region) III-162
III-108 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- No SOD Rate (Linear Region) II1-163
III-109 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- SOD Rate (Non-Linear Region) III-164
III-110 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Denitrification Rates (Non-Linear Region) III-165
Ill-Ill Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Photosynthesis Rate (Linear Region) III-166
III-112 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Photosynthesis Rate (Non-Linear Region) III-167
III-113 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Respiration Rates (Linear Region) III-168
xm
-------
Number Page
III-114 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Respiration Rates (Non-Linear Region) III-169
III-115 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Euphotic Depth (Linear Region) III-170
III-116 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Euphotic Depth (Non-Linear Region) III-171
III-117 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Algal Densities (Linear Region) III-172
III-118 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Algal Densities (Non-Linear Region) III-173
III-119 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Algal Densities - Bloom Condition III-174
III-120 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Photosynthesis Rate - Bloom Condition III-175
III-121 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Respiration Rates - Bloom Condition II1-176
III-122 Sensitivity Analysis, Delaware Estuary DO Model
- Euphotic Depth - Bloom Condition III-177
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
III-l Comparison of USC&GS Tidal Data and Hydraulic
Model Predictions 111-9
III-2 Final Manning Roughness Coefficients, Delaware
Estuary Hydraulic Model 111-10
III-3 Advection Factors and Dispersion Coefficients,
OEM's Initial Chloride Calibration (Flow =
11,000 cfs) 111-12
III-4 Dispersion Coefficient (C^) vs Flow,
Delaware Estuary Model 111-16
III-5 Description of Reaction Rates for Delaware
Estuary Water Quality Model I11-131
xv
-------
ERRATA SHEET
A WATER QUALITY MODELLING STUDY
OF THE
DELAWARE ESTUARY
January 1978
Technical Report No. 62
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
Annapolis Field Office
k = frictional resistance coefficient
(k = gn2/2.208 R 4/3)
1-12 Last sentence through line 9, page 1-13 should read:
The term on the left hand side of Equation (1)
represents local acceleration which results from
the unsteady motion of fluid particles. The first
term on the right hand side represents convective
or field acceleration created by the physical
(linear or rotational) deformation of fluid particles
with respect to space. Both of these terms correspond
to the inertia! forces, and can be derived by Newton's
Second Law which states that
'-" I
Since the velocity is both time and space dependent,
the following identity relating total and partial
derivatives can be applied
Hr
This translates to
du_ _ au /9u\ dx
dt ~ at lax~;
where u = - . The second term
-------
'(2)
ERRATA SHEET
Last Paragraph should read:
The varying waste input section now reads varying
waste flows and concentrations from the same card.
For each junction
11-12 The last two paragraphs should read:
Under the new system, each output table is specified,
including the quality cycle number, the high or low
slack indicator, and the plotting option, It must be
determined external to the model when a given slack
water occurs at the seaward boundary.
The tidal cycle summary printouts tabulated in
subroutine QUALEX have been alerted so that the
summaries can cover any specified time interval.
Printer plotting routines have been added which will
provide profile plots of all slack water tables and
time history plots at specified model nodes.
III-106 First new paragraph, fifth line: "reasonable"
should read "reasonably".
-------
1-1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. SCOPE OF STUDY
The free-flowing Delaware River water spills over the fall
line at Trenton, New Jersey into its tidally influenced estuary.
Subjected to vigorous ebb and flood tidal currents, this fresh
water slowly makes its way past the large metropolitan center of
Philadelphia-Camden-Chester where thousands of tons of municipal
sewage and industrial wastewater degrade it dramatically. Widening
into a broad, brackish estuary near Wilmington, its pollutants are
being assimilated and diluted even as the estuary receives new
wastewater loads. The water's salinity increases rapidly as the
estuary merges into the Delaware Bay near Liston Point, some 90
miles in distance and 1 to 3 months in time below the fall line at
Trenton.
The water quality problem of particular concern in the
estuary has been low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations between
late spring and early fall when temperatures are elevated.
Dissolved oxygen is an important indicator of general water quality.
High DO levels permit the existence of a diversity of life forms and
hence are generally associated with healthy and stable aquatic
environments. Low DO levels, on the other hand, often result from
abnormally high organic pollution levels 1n a body of water, and can
upset or totally destroy the natural clean water aquatic communities.
The high diversity of these communities 1s usually reduced, leading
-------
1-2
to a precarious or unstable balance with the changing aquatic
environment. If low DO levels persist or worsen, whole communities
can be replaced by less desirable pollution tolerant families, such
as tubificid or sludge worms. High quality fish having economic
and recreational value, such as bass or perch, are first replaced
by lesser quality fish, such as carp; finally as DO levels plunge
much below 3 mg/1, no species of fish will remain viable. Summer
DO concentrations in the Delaware Estuary often remain below 3 mg/1
between the Ben Franklin Bridge at Philadelphia and the Delaware
Memorial Bridge at Wilmington. Minimum daily DO concentrations
immediately below Philadelphia are frequently less than 1.0 mg/1
during the summer.
The three primary goals guiding this study were (1) to
better understand and define the significant mechanisms affecting the
water quality behavior of the estuary, (2) to provide a more reliable
deterministic tool for accurately predicting the effects of alternative
waste control strategies on the estuary's water quality; and (3) to
establish a sound data and knowledge base which would be a valuable
reference for planning future water quality studies. Major emphasis
was placed on defining those factors which affect dissolved oxygen,
due to its widespread acceptance as a water quality standard by
planning and regulatory agencies in the Delaware Basin.
This report documents the modifications to the Dynamic
Estuary Model performed by the Annapolis Field Office (AFO) and the
subsequent application of tfie revised, .fliodel to the Delaware Estuary.
-------
1-3
The final tangible results of this work are the calibrated and verified
hydraulic and water quality models DYNHYD2T and DYNDELA. These mathe-
matical computer models are now available for use in further studies of
the water quality of the estuary, including forecasts of the water
quality response to hypothetical wastewater control strategies. A user's
manual will provide the details necessary for operating the models.
Ongoing tests and studies with these models will be documented in future
technical papers and reports.
-------
1-4
B. HISTORY OF THE DYNAMIC ESTUARY MODEL
The Dynamic Estuary Model (DEM) was originally
developed during the mid 1960's by Water Resources Engineers,
a consultant engineering firm located in Walnut Creek,
California, under contract to the Division of Water Supply and
Pollution Control, U. S. Public Health Service [1]. The
principal individuals associated with the development of this
model were Drs. Gerald Orlob and Robert Shubinski. Estuarine
modelling was still in its infancy at that point in time, and
the DEM was innovative in considering a "real time" computerized
tidal solution of the hydrodynamic behavior of estuaries.
Prior to the development of the DEM, the few estuary models
already in existence relied on a net flow or plug flow analysis
and attempted to reproduce tidal effects through the inclusion
of an artificial dispersion coefficient. Since these models
were non-tidal in nature, the time step for computations was
normally equal to the tidal period (12.5 hrs.) or, for
convenience, one day, and consequently they could not handle short
term pertubations in water quality.
The DEM was initially applied to the Sacramento-San
Joaqirin Delta area in California [1]. Other early applications
were to the Sulsun, San Pablo and San Francisco Bays [2], [3].
The DEM was first brought to the attention of the Annapolis
Field Office (AFO) by Mr, Kenneth Feigner. Mr. Feigner was the
USPHS project officer during the early developmental and
-------
1-5
application studies in California and was the author of the
basic model documentation report [4]. Staff at AFO (with the
assistance of Mr. Feigner) tested the model rigorously and
performed extensive modifications to the reaction kinetics in
the quality program during its multi-year application to the
Potomac Estuary [5], [6], [7]. The Potomac study was primarily
directed towards refining the model's ability to treat nutrient
cycles (including uptake by phytoplankton) and towards
incorporating algal effects within the DO budget. In addition,
the DEM was also applied to the upper Chesapeake Bay during
1972-73 for the development of allowable nutrient loadings
from the Susquehanna Basin and the Baltimore Metropolitan
Area [8].
-------
1-6
C. THEORY
The DEM consists of two separate but interrelated
components: (1) a hydraulic program, dealing with water motion,
and (2) a quality program, dealing with mass transport and
chemical and biological reactions. The hydraulic program
predicts water movement by solving the equations of momentum and
continuity, while the quality program predicts the movement,
buildup, and decay of water-borne material by solving the
conservation of mass equations. The numerical solution of the
hydraulic and mass equations is accomplished on the same
network, which represents the geometrical configuration of the
estuary. The following sections will discuss in detail the
network and the equations used in the hydraulic and quality
models.
1. NETWORK PROPERTIES
The DEM utilizes a channel-junction (sometimes
called a link-node) network approach, whereby, either through
branching or looping, the pertinent hydraulic and mass balance
equations are applied to uniform segments of the estuary and then
solved in a sequential fashion. The model can accommodate a
range of time and space scales suitable to the dynamic and
physical characteristics of a particular estuary.
Two analogies which are useful in better
understanding the channel-junction network concept and its
application to an estuary are (1) a series of pots connected
-------
1-7
by hoses, and (2) a partitioned irregular fish tank. In the
first case, the pots are analogous to model junctions while
the hoses are analogous to model channels. "Tidal currents"
are created by raising one of the end pots, thereby creating
water movement through the series of pots. The hoses serve
as transport media where physical characteristics governing the
movement of water are defined. The pots serve as receptacles
for the fluid transported where the addition of pollutants and
their dilution, decay, and chemical and/or biological
transformation are defined. The rhythmical raising and lowering
of the pot at one end of the series is analogous to the input
of a tidal wave at the seaward boundary of the model. The
difference in elevation of the water surface is the primary
hydraulic driving force in the pot-hose analogy, the DEM,
and an estuary subject to tidal action such as the Delaware.
The second analogy is that of a long irregular
fish tank, divided internally into sections or "junctions" by
many glass partitions, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. Water is
poured into various junctions (representing fresh water inflow
and wastewater discharge); water is removed from other
junctions (representing river water diversion). The water is
stirred until well mixed. The partitions are then lifted
simultaneously, allowing waves to travel through the tank.
The configuration of the fish tank confines water movement along
pre-determined paths, or "channels". After a short time interval,
-------
^"T^^
I/I
i_ / 1
71! !
r "
/ 1
/ i
i t
1 ]M
1
Fish tank with partitions,
1
f — __
e.
2
i
> ' 7
3
i
\ ' ^
4
i
\ ' f
5
> ' €
6
> /
7
1 €
junctions
. channel s
Channels describe the geometry
of the fish tank; junctions
describe the volumes of water
separated by partitions.
Water is poured into some
junctions (representing fresh
water inflow, wastewater inflow,
or flooding tide) and removed
from other junctions (representing
river water withdrawal or ebbing
tide).
^•^
o
-— .
o
^••^
o
^^•B
l~»
o
o
^•^
c
•»M
5
^^
a
••».
o
c
s
.•••l
0
>_
o
The volume of water in each
junction is well mixed.
Partitions are removed; fluid
travels as waves moving through
channels. When partitions are
reinserted, Step 1 begins again.
FISH TANK ANALOGY FOR
LINK-NODE MODEL NETWORK
Figure 1-1
-------
1-9
the partitions are re-inserted, more water is poured into or
drained from the junctions, and the process is repeated.
The channels provide for fluid motion. They
function as transfer units between the junctions. The tidal
wave, river flow and wastewater flow are all propagated from
their initial points by means of the channels. The junctions
function as mass and volume containers. As Figure 1-1 shows,
the fish tank, as a whole, is irregular; each channel, however,
has a rectangular shape depending on the configuration of the
area it represents. The junctions, since they occupy the same
space as half of two neighboring channels, will (usually) be
rectangular except where branching or looping channels are
employed. Since the geometry of the river itself varies
continuously, the more channels in the model, the more closely
the model will approximate the river.
The linear nature of the model implies certain
restrictions, which are easily understood by reference to the
fish tank analogy. The model cannot handle flows normal to the
x-axis. The acceleration caused by a sloping channel or by
wind or Coriolis forces must be negligible. The analogy of the
fish tank is, however, overly restricted in that it does not
conserve momentum from one period of flow to the next, while the
DEM does. The fish tank and the model also differ in that the
fish tank is fully three dimensional, while the model is essentially
one dimensional. The model does take width and depth into
-------
1-10
account by entering them as functions: width as a function of
longitudinal distance along the river (distance along the
x-axis) and depth as a function of distance and time.
Nevertheless, the equations and their results are one dimensional.
For a given channel or junction, the model outputs one set of
results: one flow, one wave height, one DO prediction, one
BOD prediction, etc. A pseudo-two-dimensional effect can be
achieved by branching more than two channels from a single
junction (see Figure 1-2). This is done by subdividing the
river into smaller parts, which yields greater accuracy and
precision in the results, but not true two dimensionality
since the equations used are still in a one dimensional form.
A three dimensional effect might be similarly achieved, though
with considerably more difficulty, since problems arise concerning
interaction between different vertical layers.
The more stratified a body of water is either
vertically or horizontally, the more difficult and complicated
the modelling problem becomes for the DEM. Shallow bodies of
water, such as the California deltas and bays or the Delaware
Estuary, with little vertical stratification and with the
primary flow linearly along the axis of the river, are most
suited to this model.
-------
2-D NETWORK WITH BRANCHING CHANNELS
FIGURE 1-2
-------
1-12
2. HYDRAULIC MODEL
The basic task of the hydraulic model is to solve
the equations describing the propagation of a long wave through
a shallow water system, while conserving both momentum and
volume. The two equations involved are:
w- - S - -g f£
and
3H _ 1 30
!¥' 'F ' 3x
where:
u = velocity along the x-axis
t = time
x = distance along the x-axis
k = frictional resistance coefficient
(k = gn2/2.208'RV3)
n = Manning's roughness coefficient
R = hydraulic radius
g = gravitational acceleration
H = height of the wave (above arbitrary datum)
b = mean channel width
Q = flow
Equation (1) is associated with the channels and
is the equation of motion expressed in a one dimensional form
where velocity along the x-axis replaces the flow. The first
term on the right hand side represents flow convergence or
-------
1-13
divergence: for a given quantity of water in motion, its
velocity will vary with the cross-sectional area of the channel
through which it flows. Convergence and divergence depend
directly on the water velocity and the change of the cross-
sectional area along the river, such that ^ = -u ( -^ ) ( ^
Since the cross-sectional area is entered in the model in terms
of distance along the x-axis, then A = f(x) and, consequently,
|£- are known. Multiplying |£ by this known |£ gives the |£
shown in equation 1 (|£ = |Jx |£). The second term
represents the frictional resistance: the greater the velocity,
the greater will be the friction. The absolute value sign
ensures that the resistance opposes the direction of flow.
Perhaps the most elusive network input is the Manning roughness
coefficient, n, upon which k depends. Since this parameter is
virtually undefinable, even through empirical methods, it
serves as a "knob" to turn in order to achieve a satisfactory
agreement between the actual and predicted tidal data. The
third term represents gravitational acceleration: the greater
difference in the water surface elevations, the greater will be
the gravitational force exerted. The negative signs on the
right hand side of the equation result from the sign convention
governing flow in the channels. Flow is defined as positive in
the positive x direction, that is, in the direction of the
channels which (in the Delaware model) are numbered uj^he
river from Artificial Island (channel 9) to Trenton (Kwnnel 84).
-------
1-14
Channels 1 through 8 are located in the C&D Canal.
Equation (2), the equation of continuity, is used
to compute the water surface elevations after appropriate flow
transfers are made and is associated with the junction elements
of the network. The height of the wave is inversely proportional
to the width of the channel for a given flow. Likewise, for a
given channel width, the height will vary as a function of
the flow.
Equations (1) and (2) must be converted to
finite difference forms before they can be used in the model.
They therefore become:
Au. Au. AH-j
IT- -ui AXT -k>iK -9 AXT (3>
At " b.Ax.
J J
where i indicates the channel and j the junction in question.
ZQ. is used instead of AQ. since there will
J J
usually be several different flows to be considered (waste
discharges, accretions, transfers, diversions, etc.). At
this point, the equations are now tractable only if there is
no branching in the model. If there is branching, the
velocity gradient ui can no longer be used in the form
Ax.
i+1 uiBP since there may be several i+1 channels.
Vl "
-------
1-15
Equation (2) can be used to solve this problem:
M= . 1 . 23. (2)
at b 3x v '
. 9H__ -3 (uA)
D * 3t " 3x
- - « - *
2M. - k id. U 3A
3X ~ ~ A 3t " A 3X
In finite difference form:
AU. b. AH. u. AA.
_ L = ,1 _ L - -i _ L
AXI$ AT At AT AXI
(AH. /At and AA./Ax. are computed from the predicted water
surface elevations of the junction at both ends of the channel i)
Substituting (5) in Equation (3):
AU. b. AH. u.2 AA. AH.
- --- --
To solve equations (6) and (4) everything except
Au./At and AH. /At must have assigned values. River geometry is
entered in the model as discretely varying constants. A value
for b. and AX. (or their product, surface area) is entered for
J J
each junction and a value for AX., (length), b.. (width), A., (cross
sectional area) or d.. (depth), and k. (roughness) for each
channel. At the beginning of the run, values for channel velocity
and water surface elevations at the junctions must be entered to start
-------
1-16
the solution procedure (initial conditions). All waste
discharges, flow diversions or accretions, tidal height
variations, and tributary flows must also be specified
(boundary conditions). The equations are then solved,
using a modified Runge-Kutta procedure. A step by step
solution of equations (6) and (4) proceeds as follows:
(1) The mean velocity for each channel is
predicted for the middle of the next time
interval using the values of channel
velocities and cross-sectional areas and
the junction heads at the beginning of the
time interval.
(2) The flow in each channel at the middle of
next time interval is computed based on the
above velocity and the cross-sectional area
at the beginning of the interval.
(3) The head at each junction at the middle of
the next time interval is predicted based on
the above predicted flows.
(4) The cross-sectional area of each channel is
adjusted to the middle of the next time
interval based on the above predicted heads.
(5) The mean velocity for each channel is
predicted for the end of the next time
interval using the values of channel
velocities and cross-sectional areas and
junction heads at the middle of the interval.
(6) Steps (2), (3), and (4) are repeated for the
end of the time interval. Computation
proceeds through a specified number of At
time intervals.
The solution will converge, for a given set of boundary
conditions, to a dynamic equilibrium condition wherein the
velocities and flows in each channel and the heads at each
junction repeat themselves at intervals equal to the period
-------
1-17
of the tide imposed at the seaward boundary of the system.
The time required for this convergence will vary from about
1 to 4 tidal periods, depending on the accuracy of the initial
conditions.
When applying the model, the tide and flow
should be relatively steady over the time period being modelled.
The model's predictions are based on the original constant
freshwater flow and tidal characteristics, since it is expensive
to simulate a transient condition having significantly varying
flow or tidal characteristics.
The tidal wave at the seaward boundary is
described by a series of coefficients, A.. These coefficients
J
are obtained from the equation:
Y = Ai + A2 sin (wt) + A3 sin (2o>t) + A^ sin (Scot) + (7)
A5 cos (wt) + A6 cos (2cot) + A7 cos (Scot)
where: w = 12.5 hrs.
The coefficients A! through A7 are actually solved in a special
harmonic analysis program requiring tidal heights as a
function of time as input, which must be run once for every
hydraulic pattern of interest, such as spring tide, neap tide,
or average tide. The tidal data should be referenced to some
convenient datum such as mean sea level (MSL).
The selection of the computational time step
is an important consideration since stability must be
maintained throughout the solution process. Its length is
-------
1-18
dictated by the refinement of the network in accordance with the
stability criterion given below:
X1 1 (cij ± Un.) At
where: x.j = channel length
a.j = wave celerity (\rgy)
U. = tidal velocity
At = time step
As can be seen, the more detailed the model network, the shorter
the time step and vice versa. Normally, a time step on the
order of a few minutes is sufficient for most applications;
however, one must pay special attention to the physical
configuration of an estuary when deciding upon the network
design and the associated time step.
Physical data pertaining to the individual
channel and junction elements must be obtained either from
navigation charts or from actual field measurements. This
data is extremely important for both the hydraulic and quality
components and should be estimated with some degree of accuracy.
The specific parameters that must be defined are as follows:
Channel Elements
1) Length
2) Width
3) Cross-Sectional Area
4) Hydraulic Radius (depth)
5) Frictional Resistance Coefficient
-------
1-19
Junction Elements
1) Surface Area
2) Volume
3) Inflows/Outflows
3. QUALITY MODEL
The task of the quality model is to solve the
equations describing the movement, decay and transformation
of material in a water system by performing a mass balance
(conservation of mass) at each junction element during each
time step of the solution. The quality model utilizes the
identical network employed in the hydraulic model and requires
the hydrodynamic solution, which is extracted and stored onto
magnetic tape, as input. Five constituents, either conservative
or non-conservative, can be handled simultaneously. The com-
putational time step must be a whole multiple of the time step
used in the hydraulic program and evenly divisible into the
tidal period. A time step between 1/2 hour and 2 hours will
suffice for most applications.
The quality component is concerned with
constituents that are introduced to or already contained in
the water in either a dissolved or particulate form, such
as salinity, dissolved oxygen, BOD, algae, and nutrients (i.e.,
nitrogen or phosphorus species). The concentration of
such a constituent at any point along the river will be modified
by the following processes: advection, diffusion, longitudinal
-------
1-20
dispersion, decay, reaeration, exportation and importation.
These processes will be discussed below.
ADVECTION
When a constituent enters the water with a given
concentration c, the tidal wave and river flow will cause it
to be carried up'or down the river at the same velocity at
which the water itself moves (disregarding for the moment the
effects of diffusion). The greater the constituent's
concentration, of course, the more of it will be transported.
Thus, the basic transport equation for advection is:
Ta = u * c (8)
where: T = advective transport of a given mass through a
unit area in a unit time (mass/area/time)
u = velocity
c = the concentration of the constituent with respect
to the water in which it is carried
Applying this equation to a control volume and shrinking it to
infinitesimal size will yield the following one dimensional
concentration equation:
Multiplying both sides by A*6x will yield the following mass
equation:
^ mi *"\A
111= M A l£ fix MQ\
3t u rt 8x OX UUJ
-------
1-21
which describes the instantaneous advection of mass at cross-
section A. In finite difference form, the equation becomes:
At
= Vl
, A1 Cj
(11)
where j is the junction under consideration and i+1 and i refer
to the upstream and downstream channels, respectively. This
difference equation describes the net advection of mass into or
out of the control volume (or model junction j) during the
interval At. Even in this form, however, the equation can still
be troublesome to use in the model for reasons discussed below.
NUMERICAL MIXING
At every quality time step, some portion of the
concentration must be advanced one unit: that is, one junction,
forward. Thus, in the drawing below, part of the concentration
in junction 1 will advance to the center of junction 2 in the
first time step; likewise, some of the concentration in junction
2 will advance to the center of junction 3 in time step 2, and
so on.
junction 1
This occurs because the model assumes the complete mixing
within each junction of any mass entering that junction. In
reality, however, the concentration in junction 1 at time step
1 may only advance to the boundary between junctions 1 and 2.
-------
1-22
In other words, while the model concentrations must move in
unit steps whose distance is dictated by the junction sizes,
the real concentrations are not so constrained. The effect
of this unit motion is called numerical mixing.
Model
Real
o
(O
•!->
c
O)
o
c
o
o
junction 1
junction 2
1—*
distance
.x»-v
C(ti)
C(t2)
Certain adjustments must be made in order to insure that the
discrepancy between model and river will not be large and will
not accumulate because of numerical mixing problems.
The greatest difficulty will arise when there is a
high concentration gradient between two junctions. If GI is
much greater than c2 then the error involved in advancing ca
one unit step ahead to junction 2 will be numerically large.
The solution is to choose a Ci or concentration in the advected
water, which is in between the "actual" values of GI and c2.
The early modelling studies by Feigner [4] showed that, for the
San Francisco Bay System, acceptable values for d can be
-------
1-23
achieved by the Quarter Point Method:
c* = (3d + c2)/4
where c* = the concentration substituted in the model for Ci.
This method also appeared to work satisfactorily in the Potomac,
with the exception of salinity, which exhibited steeper
concentration gradients and necessitated the use of a Third
Point Method:
c* = (2ci + c2)/3
The Upper Chesapeake Bay model, on the other hand, was able to
utilize the actual upstream concentrations for advection
purposes with no apparent problems. With the proper
substitution, the advection equation becomes:
^J- • AH1 UH1 c'* - A1 U1 c>*
where Ci* represents the upstream concentration entering the
junction and c2* represents the concentration leaving the
junction. Since the model will actually calculate the
individual accretions and depletions separately, the advection
equation used is:
^L = A u c* (13)
LONGITUDINAL DISPERSION
The velocity of a river varies laterally and
vertically. These variations result in longitudinal dispersion,
by which constituents in the center of the river move forward
faster than those at the side or bottom. Because the model is
-------
1-24
one-dimensional in form, this phenomenon cannot be directly
accounted for in the model. However, it so happens that the
effects of numerical mixing accidentally produce a somewhat
similar effect, although it is only partially controllable.
Therefore, c* may also be manipulated to help compensate for
the effects of longitudinal dispersion. In addition, the
turbulent (or eddy) diffusion coefficient, discussed in the
next section, can be manipulated to encompass the effects of
longitudinal dispersion.
Side
lateral
Side
vertical
Bottom
-------
1-25
TURBULENT DIFFUSION
In a calm body of water, molecular diffusion will
slowly operate to bring constituents from regions of high
concentrations to regions of low concentrations. In turbulent
bodies of water, however, this relatively slow process can be
neglected, and only the effects of turbulent diffusion need to
be considered. Turbulent diffusion, the stirring or mixing of
the water by eddy currents due to tidal action or some other
energy field such as density gradients, is essentially a
complex form of advection, which must at present be treated as
a separate process since the velocities and directions of the
eddy currents are not yet predictable. The transport equation
for turbulent diffusion is:
Td - Kd || (14)
where Td is the transport by turbulent diffusion through a unit
area in a unit time, Kd is an empirically determined coefficient
which describes the rate of transfer (dimensions Iength2/time)
and 3c/3x is the concentration gradient over the space scale.
Applying this equation to a control volume and shrinking it to
infinitesimal size will yield a partial differential equation
describing the time rate of change of a constituent's
concentration due to turbulent or eddy diffusion:
-------
1-26
Multiplying this equation by a volumetric term, A6x, yields a
differential equation which relates turbulent diffusion at
cross-section A on a mass flux basis.
£ • "d * £ " (16)
Again, converting the mass transfer equation to finite difference
form and expressing distance in terms of a channel element's
length results in:
Af Ac Ac
where j is the junction under consideration, i+1 and i refer to
the upstream and downstream channels, respectively, and Aci+1 and
AC. are the concentration differences along the upstream and down-
stream channels, respectively. This difference equation describes
the net dispersion of mass into or out of the control volume (or
model junction j) during the interval At.
The DEM does not utilize K. directly but rather computes
this rate based upon a simplification of the energy dissipation
relationship and a spatial approximation of the eddy size [4].
The actual equation employed by the model is as follows:
Kd = ci* |u |R (18)
where c^ is a dimensionless diffusion coefficient assumed to be
constant, u is mean channel velocity, and R is the hydraulic radius
of the channel .
-------
1-27
DECAY
Both conservative (such as salinity) and non-conservative
(such as DO or BOD) constituents may be considered in the quality
program. For non-conservative constituents, a further mechanism,
decay, must be considered.
For the first order decay process, the quantity of a
constituent that decays is a function of (1) the amount of the con-
stituent that is present and (2) its decay rate constant, which
at times must be determined empirically. Expressed in differential
form, the first order equation for decay is:
= -K C (19)
where K equals the rate constant and c the constituent's
concentration. The negative sign indicates that this is a
process of decay and not growth. Unlike the other equations so
far discussed, this one may be easily and usefully integrated:
Ct = CQe-K (t ' to) (20)
where C equals concentration at time zero (t ). This expression
o o
is then converted to a difference form for a junction element (j)
and time step At.
*Cj,t • Ct - Ct-l • Ct-lfe"""-1) <2'>
and then to a mass equation by multiplying both sides by the
volume:
AMn • i/.j.
-jS-L . V Ct., <.-ttt - 1) (22)
-------
1-28
where AMn . equals total mass decayed in junction j during the
u>j
time step At, and Ct_-j equals initial concentration in junction j
and V. equals junction volume.
ij
RE AERATION
Dissolved oxygen is involved in a fifth process,
namely, reaeration. This formula, similar to the formula for
decay, is:
BT = -KDD (23)
where D = DO deficit (saturation DO minus actual DO) and KQ =
reaeration rate (I/time). The mass equation is:
AMR .
-A?11'^ Dj,t-l VJ «2*>
where AMD ^ equals mass of oxygen added in time step At to junction
K, j
j by reaeration and D. . , equals initial dissolved oxygen deficit
j » t- 1
in junction j.
IMPORT AND EXPORT
The final method by which the concentration in a junction
may be changed is by import (tributary inflow, waste discharge,
etc.) or export (industrial or municipal use, etc.). The equation
for this is:
AM .
where AM equals total mass of constituent added (or subtracted)
from the junction in time At. Q equals separate inflows (or
X/
outflows) to junction j during time At. For exportation, the
-------
1-29
concentration c is taken to be that in junction j at time t-1,
J6
while for importation, the concentration of the inflow must be
specified.
SOLUTION OF MASS BALANCE EQUATION
Combining the previous equations which describe the
various processes governing mass transport and distribution
yields the following:
^i- AMa,.i+AMK,.i*AMD,j +AMR,j + AMe,j (26)
At At
where ANK represents the change in mass occurring in junction j
-------
1-30
2) All constituent masses are transported via
advection and dispersion.
3) Non-conservative constituent masses are decayed.
The reaeration equation for dissolved oxygen is
applied here.
4) Wastewater loads and other inflows are added.
5) Water diversions are subtracted.
6) Steps 1-5 are repeated for every junction and
channel as necessary.
7) Steps 1-6 are repeated for each quality time
step.
All reaction rates must be entered as constants, but they
are corrected for temperature and time step internally. It should
also be noted that a mathematical discrepancy exists in the quality
program in that certain equations retain their "differential" or
finite difference form while others are of an integrated form.
While this does present certain programming problems, no errors
in the final solution are introduced.
-------
II-l
II. MAJOR MODEL MODIFICATIONS PERFORMED BY AFO
A. HYDRAULIC MODEL
The hydraulic model described in the preceding chapter
underwent a single modification before it was applied to the
Delaware Estuary. That modification, the ability to input two
separate and independent tidal waves, was precipitated by the
uncertain effects, particularly in terms of the hydrodynamics, that
the C&D Canal exerts in the lower portion of the Delaware. The
western end of the canal is primarily driven by the Chesapeake tides,
hence the need for two inputs. Two sets of coefficients, one
describing the Delaware wave and the other describing the Chesapeake
wave, must be generated by applying the harmonic regression analysis
to a set of data describing tidal elevation versus time. Tidal
elevations should be referenced to a common datum such as local mean
sea level. Junction 1 accepts the Chesapeake wave and junction 2
the Delaware wave in the present program.
B. QUALITY MODEL
The modifications performed to the quality model by AFO
can be grouped into two categories: (1) those pertaining to the
basic transport mechanisms, i.e., advection and dispersion as well
as seaward boundary transfers which are directly related to trans-
port of mass through the model network and (2) those expanding
the various reaction kinetics by mathematical formulations and
enhancing the flexibility of the model to consider a myriad of com-
binations with a minimum amount of effort directed towards
-------
II-2
reprogramming and redefining input parameters. The former group
of changes was necessitated by the location of the seaward boundary
in the model and the salinity characteristics that this region of
the estuary exhibits. Unfortunately, it was not feasible to extend
the model network to the ocean thereby eliminating much of the
problem. The second group of changes was done primarily to ease tasks
associated with a potentially complex calibration/verification.
1. ADVECTION
The very steep salinity concentration gradient which
exists in the Delaware Estuary near the model's seaward boundary
greatly accentuated the stability and numerical mixing problems in
the model. There was a tendency for the "stacking up" of mass to
occur in particular junctions during either the ebb or flood phase
of the tide. Obviously, this caused the model to produce erroneous
predictions. One of the things which was done to overcome these
problems was to alter the method by which advective mass transfers
were computed. The C* value, or the concentration of the advected
water (see previous chapter), was not assumed constant;
program changes were made to allow for spatial variation of this
term. Moreover, another option was introduced in the model that
would permit two values of C* to be read in for each channel element;
one would apply to the ebbing phase of the tide and the other,
which may or may not be different, would apply when a flooding tide
occurred. It is difficult if not impossible to explain, in a
physical sense, why C* will or should vary either with time or
-------
II-3
space. Attempts were made to relate C* to a combination of factors
such as tidal velocity, channel length, concentration gradients
and other physical characteristics, but nothing conclusive ever
evolved from this exercise. One thing is certain: while none of
the advective methods contained in the original model documentation
report [4] worked for the Delaware, the spatially varied and intra-
tidal cycle varied C* computations did produce the first major
breakthrough in minimizing both the stability problems and the
numerical mixing, which had prevented solution accuracy. The
reduction of numerical mixing could be deduced by the fact that
the model was now predicting a much steeper concentration gradient,
similar to observed gradients.
2. DISPERSION
The coefficient used to compute mass transfers
through the turbulent dispersion process, C^, was required to be
a constant in the original model. This did not appear to be real-
istic in the Delaware and consequently a modification was performed
to permit C^ to vary spatially. Unlike the estimation of the ad-
vection concentration, C*, the justification of varying dispersion
rates can be explained in the physical sense. It is a well known
fact that high salinity gradients produce density currents [9],
[10], [11], which constitute a further driving force for dispersion.
Practically all previous modelling studies with the DEM have indicated
this phenomenon in high salinity areas and have required adjustments
to the magnitude of dispersion. Through the use of a spatially
-------
II-4
varying C^ term, it was possible to relate dispersion to salinity
and achieve a more realistic representation of an actual process
which is usually quite significant.
3. SEAWARD BOUNDARY TRANSFERS
There was an inherent problem in the original OEM's
handling of the seaward boundary which contributed to the problems
discussed under advection. Although this contribution was restricted
to only a couple of junctions adjacent to the seaward boundary, it
was in these particular junctions where most of the advective
problems were arising. The basic defects in the original DEM were
(1) the boundary concentration over the entire tidal cycle, assuming
that it varied, was virtually unknown but had to be specified, and
(2) these concentrations could not be varied on an inter-tidal
cycle or long-term basis. This created the situation where the user
had to surmise what the final results would be before he started.
Additional flexibility was added to the model's pro-
cedure for transferring mass across the seaward boundary in the
Delaware Estuary (the Chesapeake Bay boundary was excluded since
it was not critical) by eliminating restrictions on concentration
variations. During the ebb portion of the tidal cycle, the con-
centration predicted to be in the seaward junction of the model net-
work was used as the actual concentration of the water advected
across the boundary and out of the system. During a flooding tide,
the concentration of the incoming water was incremented between
the minimum value achieved at the end of the preceding ebb tide
-------
II-5
and a maximum value, CINMAX, which should theoretically occur at
the very end of flood. Checks were made within the program to
determine when ebb tide ends and when flood tide ends so that
appropriate strategies could be followed. The value assigned to
CINMAX can also be temporally varied in any fashion to reproduce
the actual observed intrusion process occurring during the simu-
lation period.
As can be seen, the method by which seaward boundary
transfers are made is truly dynamic in nature and logical, since
it more accurately represents what is actually taking place in
the prototype. The model's ability to predict salinity distributions
in the Delaware, and especially to achieve the tremendous intra-
tidal cycle fluctuations that normally occur near the seaward
boundary based upon several observations, was greatly enhanced by
this modification to the DEM.
4. REACTION KINETICS
The original version of the DEM could handle five
separate constituents which were either conservative or nonconserv-
ative (first order decay). However, with the exception of BOD-DO,
none of the constituents could be coupled to one another mathe-
matically. This effort was to modify the program so that (1)
constituents could be linked in any conceivable fashion, (2) a
more complete representation of the DO budget including photo-
synthesis and respiration by phytoplankton could be included, and
(3) reactions other than first order could be specified if the
-------
II-6
data so warranted. Besides addressing the above items to a satis-
factory degree, it was imperative that the model retain as much
of its flexibility as possible and be general enough to treat
most foreseeable situations.
A unique "linear matrix" type of solution was employed
in the model to accommodate the coupling of constituents. Any con-
stituent(s) may be decayed through first order kinetics and the
portion decayed may be transferred to any other desired constituent;
a mass conversion coefficient can be applied so that the units of
mass are compatible. In no case will the conservation of mass
theory be violated. An ideal example of the possible constituent
couplings is nitrification, or the conversion of ammonia nitrogen
to nitrate nitrogen. Nutrient uptake by phytoplankton would be
another example where a mass conversion factor to equate the two
is necessary. In short, any depletion or accretion of material
including any transfer associated with first order reactions may be
considered in the model for any constituent given the proper spec-
ification of input coefficients.
The other major modification to the program involved
the addition of several function operators to the basic mass
balance equation. A brief description of these is given below:
FUNC1 Reaeration (three separate
formulations)
FUNC2 Sediment (or Benthic) Oxygen Demand
FUNC3 Algal photosynthesis as related to model's
predicted chlorophyll concentrations
-------
II-7
FUNC4 Algal respiration as related to
model's predicted chlorophyll
concentrations
FUNC5 Algal photosynthesis as related to
user-specified chlorophyll concentrations
FUNC6 Algal respiration as related to user-
specified chlorophyll concentrations
FUNC7 n order reaction kinetics where
n f 1
FUNC8 Uptake of ammonia nitrogen by algae
FUNC9 Uptake of phosphorus by algae
FUNC10 Any additional first order reaction -
& 11 i.e., settling
FUNC12 Denitrification rate linked to DO.
As can be seen, these function operators provide a
diverse array of reactions, all of which strengthen the model's
capability to treat DO and nutrient budgets. Specifying a non-zero
value for a particular function operator activates that reaction
and requires the input of a rate and other relevant information.
It is important to note that all reaction rates may be varied
spatially by reading in separate values for different groups of
junctions numbered sequentially. This demonstrates an extremely
significant improvement in the model's usefulness, since it is
highly doubtful that rates such as benthic oxygen demand, nitrifi-
cation, and algal death would be constant over an 80 mile stretch
of estuary. Appropriate temperature corrections are also performed
on all rates internally.
-------
II-8
Three formulations for the reaeration rate have
been employed in the model. The O'Connor-Dobbins Equation, the
Churchill Equation, or the USGS (Langbein) Equation can be used
to compute a reaeration rate for each channel at each quality
time step. If desired, constant reaeration rates can also be
read in directly at the junctions. If an equation is used, the
reaeration rate for a junction having multiple channels is computed
by prorating the individual channel rates according to the magni-
tude of the flow in each channel during the time step. Other
methods for computing reaeration rates can be inserted into the
program without much difficulty.
Another modification to the DEM affecting reaction
kinetics involved adding a variable temperature option. New temper-
atures can be read at desired intervals along with the time period,
in quality cycles, that each temperature is applied. When a new
temperature value is read, all reaction rates (except higher-order
rates) will be corrected for this temperature before utilizing them
in the mass balance equation.* The convenience of this option will
become apparent when longer, inter-seasonal runs are considered.
Final modifications to the reaction linkages and feed-
back (non-linear in some instances) systems in the model were
performed as a result of model testing during the DO calibration and
verification phase. Literature material proved helpful during this
* If a simulation requires the specification of chlorophyll con-
centrations and euphotic depths, these can also be varied by
reading in new values whenever the temperature is changed.
-------
II-9
endeavor. The most notable of these modifications involved (1) the
inclusion of localized settling of organic material (Org N & BOD)
which is handled by FUNC10 and PUNCH according to first order
kinetics; (2) the feedback of predicted DO concentrations on the
denitrification rate (FUNC12) and the subsequent replenishment of
oxygen through the reduction of the NO^ molecule; and (3) the
attenuation of the sediment oxygen demand rate when the DO falls
below the 2.0 mg/1 level. A further discussion of the modifi-
cations specific to the DO model is presented in the next chapter.
5. CONSTITUENT NUMBERING
Several options have been included in the quality
model to permit a considerable degree of flexibility in assigning
actual constituents to the constituent numbers utilized by the
program. The basic purpose of these options was to create the
ability to simultaneously consider in a single model run several
of the same constituents, each having a different reaction rate
or some other distinctive characteristic, without having to repunch
the entire set of junction cards. The junction cards contain
initial and waste load concentrations for each constituent. It
became evident at the outset of the model calibration study that
this ability would substantially reduce the number of runs (and the
cost) required to intelligently appraise the various reaction
rates on an individual basis.
Each of the options added to the model are briefly
described below:
-------
11-10
Option 1 Constituent numbers 1 through 5
in the model represent the first
water quality parameter.
Option 2 Constituent 1 in the model repre-
sents one parameter; other con-
stituents between 2 and 5 represent
the second parameter.
Option 3 Constituent 1 in the model represents
one parameter, constituent 2 another
parameter. Constituents 3 through 5
represent the third parameter.
Option 4 Constituents 1, 2 and 3 in the model
each represents a different parameter.
The fourth parameter is assigned to
constituents 4 and 5.
Option 5 Similar to option 3 but the parameter
treated as constituent 5 is also
assigned to constituents 3 and 4.
Option 3 sets constituents 4 and 5
equal to constituent 3.
Option 6 Each constituent in the model
represents a different water quality
parameter. Normally used for DO program.
6. VARYING WASTE INPUTS
The model as originally programmed allowed constant
waste loadings only. In its application to the Potomac Estuary,
reprogramming allowed one varying waste source. A proper analysis
of the Delaware Estuary, however, required the ability to consider
multiple varying waste sources for at least three reasons:
(1) There are numerous major waste sources whose
varying loadings could affect stream quality significantly; daily
flow periodicities in sewage treatment plants, for example, could
be important.
-------
11-11
(2) An understanding of stream quality changes
during spring and fall fish migrations was desired; these periods
are characterized by regular changes in tributary loadings (for
both flow and quality) and in sewage loadings (mainly quality).
(3) An understanding of stream quality response
to such transient loadings as stormwater runoff was desired;
these loadings are characterized by rapid changes in both flow and
quality.
The reprogrammed varying waste load section, then,
had to be flexible enough to allow periodic, long-term transient,
and spike loadings. Furthermore, changes in the quantity of waste
flows had to be independent of changes in quality.
The varying waste input section is divided into two
logically similar subsections which treat varying waste flows and
varying waste concentrations. For each junction with a varying
input, the flow periodicity and number of flow increments per
period are first required. For a sewage flow that changes hourly
over a daily cycle, for example, the periodicity is 24 hours and
the number of flow increments is 24. For a spike load (such as
stormwater) in the middle of a simulation, the periodicity is set
equal to the length of the run, and the number of flow increments
is three (before, during and after). The program then reads the
flow rate and duration for each flow increment. Next, the varying
quality subsection reads in the quality periodicity, number of
quality increments, and quality levels and durations for the
-------
11-12
junction. All varying waste parameters are stored in arrays and
recalled when necessary throughout the simulation period.
7. OUTPUT
It will be noticed in the following chapter that all
comparisons of model and observed data apply when a slack water
tidal condition occurred. All historical water quality data pre-
sented in this report were collected during a particular slack
tide. Knowing the precise tidal condition during data collection
eases considerably some of the problems associated with model
verification. The original printout options did not lend themselves
to the situation where output is required at numerous consecutive
cycles for different groups of junctions. In essence, this repre-
sents the following of a slack tide up the estuary. Consequently,
a modification was made to the model's printout section.
Under the new system the total number of printout
cycles is specified along with the junction numbers to be printed
out for each cycle and the particular slack tide being represented.
It must be determined, external of the model, when a given slack
water occurs at each junction, which is dependent upon starting
conditions, and then translated to computational cycle numbers
used in the model. In this manner no extraneous printout is
obtained.
The tidal cycle summary printouts tabulated in
Subroutine QUALEX have not been altered.
-------
11-13
The Annapolis Field Office will prepare and publish a complete
users manual for the basic model described in this report, with
some updated streamlining. The manual, as presently envisioned,
will enumerate the various input data and format requirements,
output options and examples as well as a rudimentary coverage of
the program logic and operation.
-------
III-l
III. MODEL APPLICATION TO THE DELAWARE ESTUARY
A. OVERVIEW
The application of the Dynamic Estuary Model to the
Delaware Estuary involved the following five major steps:
(1) compilation of the data base, (2) establishment of the model
network, (3) calibration of the hydraulic model, (4) calibration
and verification of the quality model, and (5) definition of the
model's sensitivity to various parameters. Steps (2) through
(5) were accomplished in order, while step (1) required continuous
updating throughout the model application. These five steps are
discussed in sections B through F of this chapter.
Although these general steps are followed in most studies
utilizing the DEM, the scope of each step and its relationship to
the others depends on the overall goals of the study. The basic
structure of the quality model which evolved in Step (4) was
predicated on the three primary goals enunciated in Chapter I:
(1) to better understand and define the significant mechanisms
affecting the water quality behavior of the estuary; (2) to
provide a more reliable deterministic tool for accurately pre-
dicting the effects of alternative waste control strategies on
the estuary's water quality; and (3) to establish a sound data
and knowledge base which would be a valuable reference for
planning future studies. Emphasis was placed on those interactions
affecting dissolved oxygen, due to its widespread acceptance as a
-------
III-2
water quality standard by planning and regulatory agencies in the
Delaware Basin. Although the DO budget was the ultimate aim, this
study also stressed the crucial importance of first defining the
water movement and the resulting basic transport mechanisms
through careful application of the hydraulic model and the quality
model to salinity and dye tracer data.
B. COMPILATION OF DATA BASE
The single most important data need for this study was
water quality. Three primary sources of water quality sampling
data were utilized during different phases of the modelling study.
1. State of Delaware
Periodic slack water runs up the Delaware
Estuary between Reedy Island and Fieldsboro, N. J. have been per-
formed by the State of Delaware under contract to the Delaware
River Basin Commission (DRBC) since 1967. Salinity, nitrogen and
DO data collected during some of these surveys, when conditions
approached steady-state, were used for model calibration and
verification.
2. AFO
Starting in late 1972, AFO has been conducting
a considerable amount of sampling in the Delaware Estuary between
Artificial Island and Trenton. Both intensive surveys, comprised of
several slack water longitudinal runs interspersed with transect
sampling or other special studies, and individual runs
up the estuary have been performed several times during the past
-------
III-3
five years. In terms of mathematical model application, the intensive
data, normally collected within a week's period, is exceptionally
valuable if representative of steady-state conditions. Various fractions
of nitrogen and phosphorus were analyzed during all surveys, along with
DO, BOD5, Chlorophyll a_, and light penetration (Secchi Disk). Occa-
sionally, long term carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand, heavy
metals, and other parameters of concern were measured in the
laboratory.
In addition to this water quality monitoring, AFO
performed a special dye study in July-August, 1974, for estimating
dispersion, dilution and transport characteristics of the Delaware
Estuary in the vicinity of Philadelphia. Dye was released continually
at a rate of 1.4 Ibs/hr or 25 ppb over a four day period (8 complete
tidal cycles) via the outfall pipe at the City of Philadelphia's
N.E. wastewater treatment plant. Three weeks of monitoring were
conducted in order to track the dye cloud's movement laterally,
vertically, and longitudinally over time.
3. 1975 and 1976 Co-Op Studies (208 Program)
Two very intensive, two week monitoring programs
were initiated by DRBC for the purpose of calibrating and verifying
either a one or two dimensional model. These surveys were conducted
during moderate flow, high-temperature periods in August 1975 and
July 1976. Major participants included AFO, the City of Philadelphia,
and the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Numerous
slack water runs were made from Artificial Island to Trenton, N. J.
-------
III-4
with three boats running abreast as far as Torresdale, Pa. In
addition, a considerable amount of transect sampling was included
in the 1975 survey. Sampling of significant tributary inflows and
waste discharges was conducted during both surveys. Composite
samples were collected at the Trenton water supply intake to establish
input loadings to the estuary from the upper Delaware Basin. Among
the laboratory analyses were BODs, BOD20, DO, NHa, TKN, NCh, Mb,
TPOtt, inorg P, chlorophyll a_, fecal coliform, total solids, sus-
pended solids, turbidity, and chlorides.
After water quality, the most important data needs were
municipal and industrial wastewater loads, tidal conditions, and
freshwater inflows. Data pertaining to tides and flows were obtained
from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey and the U.S. Geological
Survey, respectively. A strenuous effort was made to determine waste-
water loadings, particularly from the most significant sources.
Nevertheless, many of the individual water quality data sets lacked
complete information on wastewater flows and pollutant concentrations.
In lieu of wastewater data taken during the water quality surveys,
wastewater loads had to be estimated from NPDES and Corps of Engineers
permit applications, water and waste quality reports, self-monitoring
reports, and special surveys by state and federal agencies. The
August 1975 and July 1976 co-op surveys were the only exceptions,
where some data were obtained at every major wastewater source while
estuary sampling was underway.
-------
III-5
As might be expected, the quality and completeness of
wastewater data varied among waste dischargers and over time. Recent
data from all dischargers tended to be more complete (particularly
the flow rates) due to the self-monitoring requirements of the NPDES
program. An additional report documenting all of the recent waste-
water analyses and trends is planned by AFO for the near future. A
summary of wastewater loadings used for the model simulations of the
five data sets in this report is tabulated in the Appendix.
C. ESTABLISHMENT OF MODEL NETWORK
A network comprised of 76 junctions and 82 channels was
designed for the Delaware Estuary between Trenton, N. J. and Listen
Point, Delaware, a distance of about 80 statute miles. A map con-
taining the network is shown in Figure III-l. The network includes
not only the main stem of the Delaware, but the entire C&D Canal
and the major tidal tributaries as well. Excepting areas where
large islands occur, the configuration of the network can be classi-
fied as one-dimensional. A hydraulic time step of 5 minutes and
a quality time step of 30 minutes are used when running the model
with this network.
Caution was exercised in designing the network grid so that
the actual channels which convey most of the flow in the prototype
are well represented in the model. Channel elements were oriented
to minimize the variations in their widths and depths and to keep
their lengths relatively uniform and compatible with the stability
criteria relationship shown in Chapter I. For the most part, channel
lengths ranged between 1 and 3 miles.
-------
If.
-------
III-7
Although any geometrical design can be employed for the
junction elements, the one-dimensionality of this network dictated
primarily a rectangular type of grid pattern. In general, a sampling
station corresponded to about every other junction, which is adequate
coverage for most model verification studies. A diagram showing the
relative position of sampling station, model junctions, bridges and
other landmarks, major waste sources, etc., is included in the Appendix.
All of the required physical data for this network were
obtained from the most currently available sets of USC&6S navigation
charts.
-------
III-8
D. CALIBRATION OF HYDRAULIC MODEL
Several simulations were made with the hydraulic model in an
attempt to reproduce the actual tidal wave movement in the Delaware
under an average flow condition. The only variable that was altered during
these runs was the Manning channel roughness coefficient, which
controlled energy losses and thus influenced both the speed of the
wave and the tidal ranges. The waves imposed at the seaward boundaries
of the model were typical for the areas, based upon one year of tidal
records.
The results of the final calibration run, along with actual
prototype data for most USC&GS tidal prediction stations are shown
In Table III-l. Included in this table are both tidal range data
and phasing data which indicate times of high and low water as
referenced to Listen Pt., the seaward boundary of the model on the
Delaware. An examination of the data shown in Table III-l reveals
that the model does indeed simulate fairly accurately the tidal
wave motion in the Delaware Estuary. Actual and predicted tidal
velocities at various locations in the estuary were not included in
the table because of limited data, but some comparisons were made and
they did appear acceptable. The final roughness coefficients are
shown 1n Table II1-2.
-------
Table III-l
III-9
Comparison of USC&GS Tidal Data and Hydraulic Model Predictions
Delaware Estuary
Station
Model
Junction
Ranges
Actual Predicted
(feet)
Phasing*
Actual Predicted
H.W. L.W. H.W. L.W.
(min)
Trenton
Bordentown
Florence
Bristol
Torresdale
Philadelphia,
Bridesburg
Philadelphia,
Pier 11
Gloucester City
Schuylkill River
@ Fairmount Br.
Schuylkill River
& Point Breeze
Fort Miff Tin
Billingsport
Chester
Oldmans Pt.
Christina River
New Castle
Reedy Pt.
C&D Canal
§ Biddle Pt.
C&D Canal
@ Summit Br.
C&D Canal
75
72
69
68
60
56
51
49
47
54
44
43
36
32
25
23
13
9
6&7
4&5
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
3.
2.
8
7
6
5
2
0
9
8
8
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
1
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
2
.6
.8
.6
.5
.1
.0
.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.6
.6
.6
.6
.4
.4
.4
.4
.5
+304
+301
+299
+289
+258
+226
+200
+187
+194
+179
+171
+161
+141
+118
+106
+ 85
+ 55
+ 50
+ 21
- 20
+381
+360
+350
+336
+302
+268
+240
+227
+236
+220
+210
+200
+180
+153
+135
+108
+ 59
+ 60
+ 04
- 53
+280
+275
+265
+260
+235
+205
+190
+180
+180
+170
+160
+150
+130
+100
+ 85
+ 70
+ 40
+ 35
+ 30
-25
+375
+360
+340
+330
+295
+265
+245
+240
+245
+235
+220
+210
+180
+145
+125
+110
+ 50
+ 35
+ 5
-40
@ Chesapeake City
* Referenced to Listen Pt.
-------
111-10
Table III-2
Final Manning Roughness Coefficients
Delaware Estuary Hydraulic Model
Channels River Mile Manning
1 -
15 -
18 -
28 -
33 -
37 -
63 -
73 -
14
17
27
32
36
62
72
82
87
74
74
64
64
54
28
13
- 74
- 74 (trib)
- 64
- 64 (trib)
- 54
- 28
- 13
- 0
0.010
0.015
0.010
0.015
0.016
0.020
0.035
0.040
-------
III-ll
E. CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION OF QUALITY MODEL
1. Chloride Simulations
The chloride Ion 1s a conservative substance which Is ad-
vected and dispersed upstream from the ocean. It is a convenient
measure of salinity and 1s used interchangeably with that parameter.
Five separate and independent data sets were used to calibrate and
verify the Delaware model for chloride movement. Of special importance
was the confirmation that the transport modifications discussed in
Chapter II could, in fact, handle the steep salinity wedge observed
in the Delaware, and the proper estimation of input coefficients
would permit the model to be predictive rather than descriptive.
Three different flow conditions were considered 1n order to develop
a relationship between chloride concentrations, which are a function
of freshwater flow, and dispersion coefficients. The fact that
chloride data were not available downstream from Reedy Island created
a problem when specifying conditions at the model's seaward boundary,
which is located 5 miles downstream from Reedy Island. Extrapolations
had to be performed based upon observed local gradients during each
simulation period.
Initially, a data set representing approximately an
average flow condition (11,000 cfs) was selected for model calibration
(all flows here refer to the freshwater flow at Trenton). The time
period was May 14-28, 1970, when flow was extremely steady. Numerous
runs with different assumptions were performed to analyze model
sensitivity and thus to acquire insight on model behavior. The
-------
111-12
following table exhibits the advection factors (C*) and dispersion
coefficients (C4) used in the final calibration run for 11,000 cfs;
the results of the calibration are shown in Figure III-2.
TABLE II1-3
Advection Factors and Dispersion Coefficients
OEM's Initial Chloride Calibration
(Flow = 11,000 cfs)
River
Channel Mile C* (Flood) C* (Ebb) Ci,
1 1.0 0 20
2 1.0 0 30
3 1.0 0 40
4 1.0 0 50
5 1.0 0 60
6 1.0 0 70
7 1.0 0 80
8 1.0 0 90
9 83 .6 0 100
10 80 .33 0 50
11 77 .3 0 10
12 1.0 .33 10
13 .2 0 10
14 .2 0 10
15 .501
16 .501
17 .501
18 .5 0 10
19 .5 0 10
20 74 .5 .1 10
21 .5 0 10
22 .5 0 10
23 .5 0 10
24 72 .5 .25 10
25 69 .67 .33 1
26-82 67-1 .67 .33 1
-------
111-13
The agreement between observed and predicted high
water salinity profiles is surprisingly good, considering the
initial difficulties in maintaining both stability and accuracy of
the solution. As can be seen, predicted gradients were extremely
steep except for the network between junctions 13 and 20, a highly
variable and hydraulically complex area near the C&D Canal. The
low water profile, which is not shown in the figure, appeared to be
very reasonable, based upon other data sets; this indicated that
tidal transport and seaward boundary transfers were functioning
properly in the model.
Data collected during a comparable flow period (12,000 cfs)
were used to verify the advective and dispersive inputs shown in the
table above. The results from this verification simulation of the
May 7-22, 1968, chlorides movement are shown in Figure III-3. Again,
a satisfactory agreement was obtained, even though the concentration
gradients were more severe here than in the data set used for
calibration.
The second condition investigated was characteristic
of a typical late summer - early fall Delaware hydrograph when flow
rates average about 5,000 cfs. It was apparent that the greater
salinity intrusion under this lower flow condition would necessitate
a dramatic increase in the dispersion coefficients. The original
advection factors were, however, left intact since there was no valid
justification for changing them. The revised dispersion coefficients
yielded by the final calibration run (5,600 cfs - July 6 to August 1,
1967} are presented below for the major channeV elements in the model
-------
111-14
network. The model predictions are shown in Figure III-4 along with
observed data.
Channel River Mile d,
9
10
11
20
24
25
26
27
33
34
35 and above
83
80
77
74
72
69
67
64
62
60
58-1
100
100
100
75
50
25
25
25
10
10
1
The next model run was to verify the advection factors
and the dispersion values used in the 5,600 cfs calibration run. The
observed data represented a steady state period between October 8 and
November 6, 1969. The freshwater flow during this period was about
4.800 cfs. The excellent agreement between observed and predicted
data exhibited in Figure III-5 indicated that the model was capable
of accurately forecasting the salinity intrusion process during a
representative low flow situation. It is interesting to note that
the calibration was performed with low slack data whereas the verifi-
cation used high slack data. This demonstrates the versatility of
the model in considering significantly varying situations.
The third verification data set represented an extremely
low flow period which occurred between July and October 1964. In fact,
the 2,400 cfs at that time represented one of the lowest sustained flow
periods on record. The salinity profiles at the beginning and end of
this time period were obtained from a DRBC report [12]. The primary
reason for attempting another verification was to dispel any doubts
-------
111-15
about whether the model was "predictive" or "descriptive." Up until
this point either position could have been argued since the dispersion
coefficients were not defined a priori. In this case, however, an
estimation of the applicable dispersion coefficients for 2,400 cfs was
made based upon the values required for the two higher flow conditions.
This extrapolative approach would thereby subject the model to a true
test of its predictiveness. The flow-dispersion coefficient relationship
used for this verification analysis is presented in Table III-4; it has
been subsequently programmed into the model. The model results based
upon this set of dispersion coefficients are shown in Figure III-6 along
with observed data. An inspection of these salinity profiles will reveal
the excellent response of the model in predicting prototype behavior
when salinity intrusion rates were at a maximum. It is believed that
this favorable agreement, along with others previously discussed, repre-
sented a good model^verification for salinity subject to the limitations
of the data base and the model's seaward boundary location.
2. Dye Simulations
Data collected during and after the July 1974 dye release
at the Philadelphia N.E. wastewater treatment plant (see III.B.2) pro-
vided a valuable opportunity to assess the model's advection and
dispersion inputs in a predominately freshwater region of the estuary.
These transport parameters, of course, could not be adequately validated
through the salinity simulation studies discussed in the above section.
This dye data was considered to be even more valuable because of unique
distinctions associated with this tracer. Dye is quasiconservative and,
unlike salinity, will be advected and dispersed primarily in a down-
stream direction; due to a common point source, dye should closely
-------
111-16
approximate the mixing and transport characteristics of the wastewater
itself.
Table III-4
Dispersion Coefficient (CiJ vs Flow
Delaware Estuary Model
Flow (cfs x 1000)
River
Mile
Channel
83
80
77
74
72
69
67
64
62
60
58
55
53
50
48
46
43
40
38
36
33
31
29
27
28
9
10
11
20
24
25
26
27
33
34
35
36
37
39
43
47
48
52
53
55
56
59
61
63
64
11-12 10-11
100 100
50 75
10 25
10 10
10 10
1 1
9-10 8-9
100 100
100 100
50 75
25 50
10 25
1 10
1
7-8
100
100
75
50
25
25
10
1
6-7
100
100
100
75
50
25
25
10
1
5-6
100
100
100
75
50
25
25
25
10
10
1
4-5
100
100
100
75
50
25
25
25
25
10
10
10
1
3-4
100
100
100
75
50
25
25
25
25
25
10
10
10
10
1
2-3
100
100
100
75
50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
i-;
101
10(
10(
71
5(
2!
2!
2!
21
2E
2£
25
25
25
25
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
MAY 1970
TEMPERATURE
FLOW
ll.OOOcfs
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORIDES
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
6000-
5000
4000-
3000
2000-
1000
O 0
MAY 14, DATA AND MODEL
MAY 28.DATA }HS
MAY 28, MODEL PREDICTION
10
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
SO
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
MAY. 1968
TEMPERATURE
FLOW
12.300 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORIDES
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
$
m
e
*
OJ
WILMINGTON
MAY 7 , DATA AND MODEL
MAY 22. DATA
MAY 22 . MODEL PREDICTION
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
75
80
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 6-AUG. 1.1967
TEMPERATURE
FLOW
5.600 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORIDES
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
6000-
5000
4000-
3000-
2000
1000
o
a
JULY 6. DATA AND MODEL
AUG. I , DATA
AUG. I . MODEL PREDICTION
LS
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
65
70
75
80
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
OCT. 8-NOV. 6 . 1969
TEMPERATURE
FLOW
4.800 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORIDES
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
§
m
B
01
WILMINGTON
OCT. 8. DATA AND MODEL
NOV. 6. DATA }HS
NOV. 6. MODEL PREDICTION
10 15 20 25 3O 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 10-OCT. 20. 1964
TEMPERATURE
FLOW
2.450 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORIDES
TRENTON
BRISTOL
6000
5000
4000
e»
E
.3000
2000J
1000
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
JULY 10. DATA AND MODEL
OCT. 20 . DATA | H S
OCT. 20. MODEL PREDICTION)
-------
111-22
Four separate hydrodynamlc solutions, each representing a
discrete flow between 3,900 cfs and 8,800 cfs, were required for the
dye simulation. The appropriate sets of dispersion coefficients from
Table II1-4 were used, as well as a theoretical first order dye loss
rate computed from a mass balance of field data. This loss rate was
estimated to be 0.02/day. Other than the inclusion of a loss rate,
the original model employed for salinity was left intact, including
all inputs relative to advection. The results of this dye simulation
and the actual dye distributions observed in the Delaware Estuary
during the study period are presented in Figures III-7 through III-
20. Both profiles correspond to either a high or low water slack
condition as indicated. Since the model is based on a real time
system, the predictions closely approximate the particular time
period represented by the different data sets. It should be noted
that appropriate corrections were made to some of the measured
concentrations, especially during the initial few days of the study,
to reflect significant differences between mid-channel values and
those representative of the entire cross-section. These differences
were identified by extensive transect sampling which was interspersed
with the longitudinal monitoring of the dye cloud. Prior to the dye
injection, a sampling run was made to define background concentrations
throughout the study area. These concentrations were normally quite
low (£ 0.1 ppb) but were nevertheless taken into account when analyzing
the dye data for model verification purposes.
-------
111-23
An examination of the observed and predicted dye data
indicated that, in general, the model satisfactorily reproduced the
basic transport of the dye cloud, as evidenced by the close agreement
in spatial position, the bell-shaped characteristics, and the magnitude
and location of the peak concentrations. A few significant discrepancies
did occur with the dye peaks during the early phase of the study when
some of the field data appeared questionable. Mixing problems or
unrepresentative sampling points may have partially accounted for this
problem. Considering the independence of the dye data and the fact that
no manipulations were performed to the model, it is believed that a
successful verification of the advective and dispersive transport
mechanisms was achieved.
-------
TRENTON
o.
a.
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
O 0
i
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
TIME PERIOD
JULY 23
1974
BRISTOL
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
WILMINGTON
MODEL PREDICTION
OBSERVED DATA
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60 65
70
75 80
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
JULY 24
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
WILMINGTON
a
a
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
5
H
I
o>
MODEL PREDICTION]
OBSERVED DATA ) L
30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
r
60
65
T
70
T
75
80
-------
TRENTON
0.8
0.7
0.6-
0.5
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
O 0
I °
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 25
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
CHESTER WILMINGTON
MODEL PREDICTION) LS
OBSERVED DATA )
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60 65 70 75 80
-------
TRENTON
0.8-
0.7-
0.6-
0.5
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
i
m
a
_^
o
-r
5
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 26
1974
BRISTOL
T
IO
T
15
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
WILMINGTON
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
r
60
65
T
70
T
75
80
-------
TRENTON
0.7
0.6
0.5
o.
Q.
0.4
0.3-
0.2
0.1-
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 27
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cf s
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
WILMINGTON
MODEL PREDICTION) H -
OBSERVED DATA )
10 15 20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60 65 70 75 80
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
JULY 29
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
WILMINGTON
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
Q.
Q.
0.2-
0.1-
MODEL PREDICTION
OBSERVED DATA
HS
—I—
60
—r—
65
—T—
75
i
n
S
I
rvj
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 SO 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
70
80
-------
TRENTON
-Q
a
a.
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
o o
£ o
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 30
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 efs
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
MODEL PREDICTION
OBSERVED DATA
HS
B
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
0.8-
0.7-
0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
o o
§ o
rn
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 3 I
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
8850 cf*
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
MODEL PREDICTION) HS
OBSERVED DATA '
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
65 70 75 80
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
Q.
a
0.2-
0.1 J
TIME PERIOD
AUG. I
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
8850 cf s
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
WILMINGTON
MODEL PREDICTION ( H s
OBSERVED DATA (
PI
B
10
15
20
—i—
25
1 1 1 1 1 i
30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
AUG. 2
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
8850 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
0.4-
0.3-
0.2H
0.1-
5 O
i o
I
O)
MODEL PREDICTION) HS
OBSERVED DATA >
T
10
'T-
IS
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
AUG. 5
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
6600 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
WILMINGTON
a
a
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
MODEL PREDICTION
OBSERVED DATA
LS
0
i
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
AUG. 6
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
6600 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
WILMINGTON
0.4-
0.3-
0.2H
0.1-
MODEL PREDICTION 1 , s
OBSERVED DATA '
i
m
10
—I—
15
20
—I—
25
30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
00
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
AUG. 8
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfs
CHESTER
o.
a
0.3
0.2
0.1-
O
c
TO
m
i
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
AUG. I 2
1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfs
a
a
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
0 0
i
n
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
DYE
WILMINGTON
MODEL PREDICTION
OBSERVED DATA
HS
B
ro
o
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
111-38
3. Dissolved Oxygen Budget
a) Introduction
Special emphasis was placed on modelling the dissolved
oxygen budget, due to its widespread acceptance as a water quality
standard. Because of its important role in affecting DO levels in
rivers, and particularly estuaries, considerable attention was directed
towards the major components of the nitrogen cycle. The majority of
the previous models applied to the Delaware Estuary made no attempt
to model specific nitrogen fractions, but rather treated nitrogen solely
in terms of oxygen demand associated with nitrification.
The strategy followed in the model formulation and
calibration studies was essentially one of starting simple, and then
progressing in complexity when the data analysis phase so dictated.
It could be described by the following three step algorithm:
Step 1 Begin with a relatively simple model which
includes the principal reactions affecting
DO; utilize this approach, along with rates
bounded by ranges determined from a literature
search, to "explain" the results of a historical
water quality data set.
Step 2 Test the tentatively calibrated model for other
reactions known or suspected to occur based upon
comparison of observed data trends with simulation
results; include new reactions in a restructured
model to better "explain" the historical data.
-------
111-39
This step of restructuring and recalibrating
the model should be repeated, keeping in mind
the limitations of the available field and
literature data, until adequate confidence
in the model's "prowess" is attained commen-
surate with the goals of the study.
Step 3 Utilize additional independent data sets to
verify that the model is indeed satisfactorily
recreating what is taking place in the proto-
type for a variety of conditions totally
unrelated to the original data set(s) used
for calibration purposes.
b) Description of Data
Five independent sets of water quality data were analyzed
during the course of this modelling study. Their source and basic
content were described in Section B of this chapter. Data sets col-
lected during July 1974 and October 1973 were used extensively for
model construction and calibration, with the exception of algal effects;
algal photosynthesis and respiration were addressed in the August 1975
data set, where their effects became prominent. The fourth and fifth
data sets, covering the periods July - September 1968 and July 1976,
respectively, were used strictly for model verification. The primary
criteria that determined which data sets were selected for model
simulations were (1) the degree to which steady state conditions
prevailed, (2) the intensiveness and completeness of the data, including
wastewater information, and (3) the representation of different
-------
111-40
hydraulic, thermal, chemical or biological conditions to increase
the predictive power of the model.
The first major step in data analysis (and a necessary
prelude to modelling) is a thorough examination of currently available
data in search of common trends and important variations. The fol-
lowing is a summary of the five data sets eventually used in this
study.
-------
111-41
July. 1974
Four high water slack sampling runs were made up the mid-channel
of the Delaware Estuary on July 22, 24, 29 and 31, 1974. During
this period the estuary was warm with a relatively steady flow -
27°C i0.9°C* and 3906 +. 290* cfs at Trenton (disregarding a high
flow of8,7.40.cfs on July 31). The daily longitudinal profiles for
DO, the nitrogen series, and chlorophyll a^ are plotted in Figures
111-21, 111-22-24, and 111-25, respectively.
The four DO profiles exhibit common significant trends.
There is a steady decline from saturation levels at Trenton to
about 3 mg/1 below Bristol. This "Bristol sag" is followed by a
1 mg/1 recovery in the vicinity of Torresdale. Beginning near
Philadelphia's N.E. STP, DO levels decline rapidly to between 1/2
and 1 mg/1 below the Walt Whitman Bridge. These conditions persist
down to Chester, where a gradual recovery begins. DO concentrations
finally reach 5 mg/1 below Pea Patch Island near Reedy Point.
The nitrogen profiles also show common trends. The decline in
ammonia levels accompanied by similar increases in nitrate strongly
indicates nitrification above and below Philadelphia. The rapid
buildup of ammonia at Philadelphia might result from an inhibition
of nitrification due to the "shock effect" of high organic loading,
low DO, or other unknown toxic pollutants. Finally, a slow decay
* Mean ±S.D.
-------
111-42
of nitrates can be discerned below Wilmington where the masking
effects of nitrification are not present. Organic nitrogen concen-
trations are fairly stable throughout most of the estuary with some
decline occurring in the lower reach.
Chlorophyll a_ levels were somewhat variable but almost ex-
clusively less than 50 yg/1, a value normally associated with a
bloom threshold. Maximum concentrations were measured downstream
of Philadelphia.
-------
TRENTON
12.0-
10.0-
8.0-
6.0-
4.0-
2.0-
TIME PERIOD
JULY 1974
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
27* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
JULY 22 >
JULY 24
JULY 29
JULY 31
O
TO
m
10
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60 65 70 75 SO
ro
-------
TRENTON
1.2-
1.0-
0.8-
1*0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0-
TIME PERIOD
JULY, 1974
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
27* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
39 I 0 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG
WILMINGTON
JULY 22
JULY 24
JULY 29
JULY 31
HS
ro
PO
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60 65 70 75 80
-------
TRENTON
1,4-
1.2-
IJO-
I
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0-
O
37
m
H
TIME PERIOD
JULY, 1974
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
27* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3910 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NH
WILMINGTON
JULY 22
JULY 24
JULY 29
JULY 3 I
HS
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
TRENTON
3.2-
2.8-
2.4-
2.0-
1.6-
1.2-
0.8-
0.4-
Ci
i o.o-
i
ro
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY. 1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
391 0 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
N02 +, NO3
CHESTER WILMINGTON
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
70 75 80
-------
TRENTON
70-
60-
50-
40-
Ol
a.
30-
20-
10-
•30
n
m
i
i\>
in
N
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY . 1974
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
39IOcfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S),
CHLORO. 2.
WILMINGTON
JULY 22 )
JULY 2 9 ) HS
A A ,
I \ ' \
—"
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
II1-48
October, 1973
Two high water slack sampling runs on October 15 and 17 accompanied
by two transect sampling runs on the 16th and 18th comprised the
Oc'tober, 1973 data set. This was a relatively steady period, with
temperatures declining from 20°-19°, and flows averaging 4020 cfs at
Trenton. Water quality parameters analyzed were the same as for the
July, 1974 data set. During both transect runs, surface and bottom
samples were taken near the east and west banks in addition to the
mid-channel at ten different stations between Torresdale and Reedy
Point. This transect sampling data, which was intended to show
whether mid-channel surface water samples were representative of the
entire cross-sectional water column, is still undergoing analysts
along with other-'data, of a sJtmilar nature. Pertinent findings
will be included in a future document. Mid-channel surface samples
were taken at every station during the two high slack runs. The
resulting longitudinal profiles for DO and the nitrogen series are
plotted in Figures 111-26 through 111-29.
The two DO profiles show a steady decline from saturation levels
at Trenton to around 5 mg/1 just above Philadelphia. No "Bristol
sag" is evident. Near Philadelphia's NE STP, DO levels drop rapidly,
reaching a minimum of 1 - 1.5 mg/1 just below the Walt Whitman Bridge.
A gradual recovery, beginning Immediately, is Interrupted by a
secondary sag below Chester. From 2.5 mg/1, oxygen levels improve
quickly below Wilmington.
-------
111-49
The nitrogen profiles exhibit the same trends as the July 1974
data. The most prominent difference is the increase in magnitude
and duration of the ammonia buildup at and below Philadelphia.
These high ammonia levels could be caused by larger waste loadings
or by longer inhibition of the nitrification process due to the
low ambient water temperature. Based on the two data sets described
thus far, it does not appear that low DO levels (i.e., <1.0 mg/1)
directly reduce nitrification rates.
Unfortunately, a complete set of chlorophyll a_ data was not
obtained during this survey, although some measurements were made in
the critical zone between Marcus Hook and Wilmington. Levels were
again in the sub-bloom category (20 - 40 yg/1) with an observable
difference between the two individual sampling runs.
-------
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
OCT. 1973
BRISTOL
11.0
10.0
9X)-
8.0
7jO-
5<0
4JO
3X>
2.0
IX)
i °
10
r*i
0
I
ro
o>
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
18-20' C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4020cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
OCT. 15) HS
OCT. I?) HS
i i i i i i i i i i
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
O
c
•x
m
H
1.2-
1.0-
0.8-
"0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
TIME PERIOD
OCT. . 1973
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
18-20* C
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG
WILMINGTON
OCT. 15)
OCT. 17)
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
OCT. 1973
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
18-20* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4020 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
NH,
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
m
a
ro
o>
OCT. 15)
OCT. 17) HS
10
15 20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
65 70 75 80
-------
TRENTON
3.2-
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.6-
1.2-
0.8-
0.4-
O
c
m
a
ro
10
0.0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
OCT. . 1973
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
18 - 20' C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
402 Ocf*
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NO2 + NO3
WILMINGTON
OCT. 15
OCT. 17
10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
70 75 80
-------
111-54
August, 1975
Perhaps the most comprehensive data set from the Delaware
Estuary was gathered between July 31 and August 18, 1975 for the
purpose of calibrating a future two-dimensional water quality
model. Under the auspices of DRBC, field crews from AFO, USGS,
the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the City
of Philadelphia sampled 32 water quality stations between Listen
Point and Trenton, as well as the major municipal and Industrial
waste discharges within this reach. Both high and low slack water
surface samples were taken from the east bank, mid-channel and
west bank of the estuary between Listen Point and Torresdale,
and from the mid-channel the rest of the way to Trenton. In
addition, transect samples were taken from the same locations on
alternate days. Several laboratories, including those of AFO,
the State of Delaware, and the City of Philadelphia, contributed to
sample analyses. A detailed evaluation of this voluminous body of
data has not been accomplished at this writing, in part due to the
lengthy process of data quality assurance required in a comprehensive
survey with many participants.
The Delaware River at Trenton experienced declining flows through-
out the survey, averaging 8330 +_ 1080 cfs from July 31 - August 10
and 5870 +_ 290 cfs from August 11 - 18. Water temperatures during the
period averaged about 27°C. The longitudinal DO, nitrogen and
chlorophyll a_ profiles are presented in Figures 111-30 through 111-38
and constitute the data collected and analyzed by AFO. This partial
-------
111-55
data set was intended to be used for the initial verification analysis
of the one dimensional water quality model presented in this report.
The four low water and two high water DO profiles follow the
same trends, but exhibit considerable scatter in some areas of the
estuary, particularly near Philadelphia. The gradual decline from
saturation levels at Trenton to 4 mg/1 at Philadelphia's NE STP shows
no sign of a sag and recovery near Bristol, possibly demonstrating the
effects of a higher than normal summer flow condition. The DO levels
drop off more quickly through Philadelphia, reaching a minimum of about
1.5 mg/1 near the mouth of the Schuylkill River. Recovery is unusually
fast, with DO levels exceeding 5.0 mg/1 above Wilmington and remaining
near that level down to Listen Point. This rapid DO recovery is probably
the result of a large phytoplankton bloom which produced high chlorophyll
^concentrations between Philadelphia and Wilmington.
Although the nitrogen profiles exhibit the same characteristics as in
previous data sets, the spatial trends are less pronounced. The buildup
of ammonia levels at and below Philadelphia does not reach 0.8 mg/1,
and the subsequent decline is gradual. An increase in nitrates below
Philadelphia generally matches the decline in ammonia in terms of
magnitude and position. Both this area and that above Philadelphia
show evidence of nitrification. The organic nitrogen median profile
is characteristically flat, ranging between 0.4 and 0.6 mg/1. Individual
profiles are more variable, but exhtbit no discernible trends.
-------
111-56
Particular attention should be paid to the chlorophyll a_
profiles shown 1n Figure riI-38, since they differ so greatly
from the levels encountered in either July, 1974 or October,
1973. Maximum chlorophyll ^concentrations between 100 and 200
yg/1 were measured 1n the estuary between Philadelphia and Wilmington
during much of the study period. Spatial gradients were rather abrupt
both above and below the centroid of the bloom. Daily profiles, while
showing the same general trends, were extremely variable, possibly
because algal blooms normally occur as discrete patches rather than
as a uniform mixture, thereby increasing sampling uncertainty. The Impact of
this algal bloom on DO concentrations became quite apparent during the
initial attempt to verify the model with this data set. That effort
was unsuccessful because the effects of algae were not considered,
and the speedy DO recovery could not be simulated with existing
mechanisms in the model. A vivid quantification of these algal
effects on the predicted DO distributions is depicted in the sensitivity
analysis section of this chapter.
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG. , 1975
TEMPERATURE
2TC
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
TRENTON
AUG. 6 >
AUG. 8 !
AUG.
AUG. 13 t
30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
70
75
80
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
AUG. .1975
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27*C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
6200 -
10,100 efs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
B
i
I I
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 8O
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
AUG., 1975
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
a
n
0
i
PARAMETER (S)
NORG
WILMINGTON
AUG. 6 >
AUG. 8 I
AUG. II
AUG. 13.
LS
-i-
5
10
15
T-
20
T
25
30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
-------
TRENTON
1.2-
0.8-
TIME PERIOD
AUG. 1975
BRISTOL
AUG. 6 -\
AUG. 8 l
AUG. II i
AUG. I3j
LS
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
6200 -
10,100 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NH3
WILMINGTON
IS
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
(*>
-------
TRENTON
c
TO
n
H
i
w
2.0
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
' 1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0.0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG. . 1975
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
6200-
10.100 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NO2 + NO3
WILMINGTON
AUG. 6
AUG. 8
AUG. II
AUG. 13 )
LS
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
AUG. . 1975
BRISTOL
0.2-
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
6200-
10.100 cfs
CHESTER
AUG I
AUG 4
HS
PARAMETER (S)
NORG
WILMINGTON
\ ^.-Z
O
c
73
B
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
in
-------
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
AUG. . 1975
BRISTOL
I .0-
0.8-
^ 0.6-
o>
E 0.4-
0.2-
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
6200-
10.100 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NH,
WILMINGTON
AUG
AUG
' ' 1
. 4 5
HS
c
TO
n
i
u>
en
10 15 20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
65
70 75 80
-------
TRENTON
O
c
3)
I
Co
-J
2.0-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
' 1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0.0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG. . 1975
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
6200-
10,100 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER IS)
NO2 + NO3
WILMINGTON
AUG I
AUG
i)
HS
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
c
TO
i
CJ
CD
160-
150-
140-
130-
120-
110-
100-
90-
t
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20
I OH
0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG. . 1975
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27* C
PHILADELPHIA
6200-
10.100 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORO. a.
WILMINGTON
AUG I
AUG 4
AUG 6
AUG 8
AUG II
HS
HS
LS
LS
LS
AUG 13 LS
205
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
111-66
July - September, 1968
In some respects, this data set offered more value than the
others because of its relatively long duration. The fact that
both non-bloom and varying algal bloom conditions were represented
made it particularly appealing from the standpoint of model
verification. Weekly, or in some cases, semi-weekly slack water runs
extending from Reedy Island to Fieldsboro, N. J. were performed by
the State of Delaware from July 3 to September 9. Unfortunately,
the early non-algae phase of the study had very limited value
because of the transient nature of the hydrograph and the difficulty
associated with conducting a meaningful simulation of such a condition.
Figure 111-39 presents the variability of temperature, flow, and
chlorophyll ^concentrations for the entire study period.
The individual DO profiles for the two significant algal bloom
periods, July 26 - August 17 and August 18 - September 6, are shown
in Figures 111-40 through 111-42. For the sake of convenience, low
water slack and high water slack data are presented on separate
graphs. As can be seen, definite similarities exist among these
profiles with regards to minimum DO concentrations and the basic
configuration of the sag. The spatial displacement of the profiles
from one slack to the other can be easily identified. One disturbing
feature of these profiles is the lengthy and relatively constant DO
minimum, a phenomenon that is seldom experienced. It appears that
the sampling procedure prevented the DO concentrations from going
below about 1.0 mg/1, as though the introduction of a residual amount
-------
111-67
of oxygen to the sample, either through pumping or filling the con-
tainer^ was taking place. Data collected by the City of Philadelphia
during the same period showed many DO values approaching or actually
reaching zero. This data will be presented 1n the next section 1n
conjunction with the model verification study.
Plots of the nitrogen series data for the same time periods are
presented In Figures II1-43 through II1-51 for both high water and
low water conditions. The relatively small amount of scatter among
the Individual data points within both periods enhance their value
for model simulation studies. Examination of the nitrogen profiles
reveals that the same basic trends depicted in the other data sets
are further corroborated by this 1968 data. Differences between
one period and the next relate primarily to concentration levels
rather than spatial trends; whether these differences in the In-
organic nitrogen concentrations can be attributed to existing algal
levels is uncertain because of discrepancies in the data itself.
Maximum chlorophyll a_ data for the duration of this 1968 study
are presented 1n Figure 111-39. Individual profiles for each sampling
date within the three separate periods can be seen 1n Figures 111-52
through II1-55. To summarize, the period from July 3 to July 25 was
of low algal intensity but very transitory; the following period from
July 26 to August 17 contained maximum algal blooms with chlorophyll
a_ levels ranging between TOO and 150 yg/1; the last period between
August 18 and September 6 exhibited a continued but somewhat lower
bloom condition, with maximum chlorophyll a_ levels ranging between 70 -
-------
111-68
100 yg/1. In all three cases, chlorophyll a_ peaked in the
Philadelphia to Marcus Hook reach.
-------
35-
30-
TEMPERATURE , FLOW,CHLOROPHYLL DATA
JULY-SEPTEMBER ,1968 , DELAWARE ESTUARY
25-
Z3
a
TO
m
a
i
(•»
-------
O
c
TO
i
A
o
TRENTON
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG., 1968
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
28'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
JUL 25
AUG 6 j LS
AUG 8
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60 65 70 75 80
-------
TIME PERIOD
JULY. AUG..IS68
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
28* C
FLOW
4800 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
Z!
O
C
TO
m
N
I
TRENTON
9-1
8
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
JUL 3 I
AUG 14 } HS
AUG 19
WILMINGTON
10
—i—
15
i
20
1 i
25
i
30
i
35
40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
i
70
i
75
80
-------
O
ft
B
i
A
ro
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
AUG., SEPT.. 1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900cfs
CHESTER
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
AUG. 22
AUG. 26 } LS
SEPT. 5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAJLROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG.,1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
28'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG
WILMINGTON
1.4-
1.2-
1.0-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
JUL 25 '
AUG 6
AUG 8 ,
LS
c
TO
m
B
i
,0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
TRENTON
2.0-
1.6-
t.2-
0.8-
0.4-
O
0.0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG., 1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
28'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NH -a
WILMINGTON
•O
Y 25)
1. 6
5. 8 )
JULY 25'
AUG. 6 I LS
AUG.
m 0
10 15 20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60 65 70 75 80
-------
TRENTON
3.2-
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2-
0.8-
0.4-
o
PI
0
in
o.o
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG..1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
28'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
CHESTER
4.45
NO
WILMINGTON
•O
3.8
NO
JULY 25
AUG. 6 \ LS
AUG. 8
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
3.2-
2.8
2.41
2.0
r 1.6-
1.2-
0.8
0.4
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG. ,1968
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
28* C
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG
WILMINGTON
0.0
i
>
o>
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG., 1968
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
28'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NH,
WILMINGTON
2.O-
1.6-
1.2-
0.8-
O.4-
O
C 0.0-
m O
0
i
JULY 31
AUG. 14} HS
AUG. 19.
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
TRENTON
3.2-
2.8-
2.4-
2.0-
1.2
0.8-
0.4 n
Cl
i
m
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG.,1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
28'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
480O cfs
PARAMETER (S)
CHESTER
NO
WILMINGTON
NO
4.07
JULY 31 )
AUG. 14 | HS
AUG. 19 )
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60 65 70 75 80
o>
-------
TRENTON
3.2-
2.8-
2.4-
2.0-
1.6-1
1.2-
0.8-
0.4-
0.0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG., SEPT.,1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG
WILMINGTON
i
65
i
4^
-------
TRENTON
2.O-
1.6-
1.2-
0.8-
0.4-
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG. .SEPT.. 1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NH
WILMINGTON
o
c 0.0
m 0
0
i
AUG. 22
SEPT. 6 J LS
SEPT. 5
\
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
TRENTON
3.2-
2.8-
2.4-
2.0-
1.6
1.2-
0.8-
0.4
0.0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG. .SEPT..1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900cfs
PARAMETER (S)
NO.
NO
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
AUG. 22 ]
SEPT. 6 [ LS
SEPT. 5 )
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
in
-------
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
JULY . 1968
BRISTOL
O
c
TO
m
H
I
60-
50-
40-
20-
10-
0
JULY 3 HS
JULY 9 LS
JULY 16 LS
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
25 - 28* C
PHILADELPHIA
5000-
15,000 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORO. o_
WILMINGTON
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
160-
150-
140-
130-
120-
110-
100-
90-
S'SO-
k
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG.. 1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
26' C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORO. i.
WILMINGTON
JULY 25
AUG. 6
AUG. 8
LS
i
60
i
65
N
i
01
—i 1 i i i i i i i i
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
160-
150-
140-
130-
120-
110-
100-
90-
O
=0
m
B
i
o>
70-
60-
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG., 1968
BRISTOL
/I
/\
I
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
2S*C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfi
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORO. a.
WILMINGTON
— JULY 31 )
— AUG. 14 ) HS
AUG. 19 )
\
\
\
\
\
\
10
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
IOO-
90-
80-
7O-
60-
O
TO
m
H
in
w»
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
TIME PERIOD
AUG. .SEPT.. 1968
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
27* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORO. OL
WILMINGTON
— AUG. 22
— AUG. 26
— SEPT. 5
— SEPT. 9
LS
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
111-86
July. 1976
This survey was conducted during a two week period in July, 1976
and was designed for the purpose of verifying a future two-dimensional
model. The product of the Technical Advisory Committee, Delaware
Estuary 208 Planning Program, it was conceptually similar to the
1975 survey and involved the same participants. The major difference
was the exclusion of transect sampling. The same 32 water quality
stations were sampled between Listen Point and Trenton during six slack
water runs. In the reach below Torresdale three boats ran abreast, sampling
along both shorelines as well as the mid-channel. The mid-channel data
collected by AFO personnel will be presented in this report for model
verification purposes. In addition to the estuary monitoring, sampling
was conducted at the major municipal and industrial waste discharges
and the larger tributary inputs.
The Delaware River flow at Trenton was moderate and steady, averaging about
7,500 cfs. Water temperatures during the period were also steady and
averaged about 25°C. The longitudinal DO profiles observed during
each of the slack water runs are shown in Figures 111-56 and 111-57.
The first figure contains the three low water slack sampling results,
while the second shows similar data for high water slack conditions.
The effects of tidal excursion are quite evident. The actual shapes
of the profiles closely resemble those presented previously for
different time periods. Major DO depressions to 2.0 mg/1 or less
occurred in the vicinity of Philadelphia, followed by a gradual but
steady recovery downstream of Chester. The three low slack runs were
-------
111-87
quite consistent, with maximum DO concentration differences of
about 1.0 mg/1. The variability in the high slack data, however,
was much greater, particularly towards the end of the period.
As with the case of DO, the major nitrogen fractions monitored
during the July, 1976 time period generally showed consistent
patterns with previously described data sets. These data are
presented in Figures 111-58 through 111-63. Organic nitrogen was
least variable, with a buildup from about 0.4 mg/1 to 0.6 mg/1
beginning at Philadelphia. Ammonia nitrogen again experienced a
substantial reduction above and below Philadelphia as a result of
nitrification. Maximum concentrations were about 0.6 mg/1 during
both slack conditions, which is less than some other data sets have
indicated. In one instance (high slack data) this level was unex-
pectedly attained below Trenton. The observed ammonia concentrations
were very consistent within each week of the sampling period. The
spatial variation of nitrate nitrogen, the most abundant form through-
out the estuary, mimicked other data sets in showing an almost
uninterrupted but continual rise between Trenton and Wilmington. Con-
centrations increased from about 0.8 mg/1 to over 2.0 mg/1. The
greatest rate of increase occurred below Philadelphia where nitrification
appeared most prominent, as corroborated by the rapidly declining
ammonia levels. Even allowing for nitrification, however, there
existed a surplus of nitrates near Wilmington, indicating the pos-
sibility of major external sources along this reach of the estuary.
Figures 111-64 and 111-65 present the longitudinal chlorophyll
a_ profiles for the six individual sampling runs. During both weeks
-------
111-88
of the study a sizeable algae bloom was observed in the vicinity of
Torresdale, Pennsylvania and Beverly, New Jersey, as demonstrated
by the high chlorophyll
-------
TRENTON
10.0-
8.0-
6.0-
4.0-
2.0-
O
73
a>
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY, 1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7500 cfs
CHESTER
JULY I 2)
JULY 14 > LS
JULY 16)
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
10.0-
8.0-
6.0-
4.0-
2.0-
O
TO
n
H
i
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY, 1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7500 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
JULY I 9
JULY 2 I
JULY 23
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
JULY. 1976
BRISTOL
O
7)
m
&
i
in
oo
1.2-
1.0-
.8-
.6
.4
.2
0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
25* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7500 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG
WILMINGTON
JULY I 2
JULY 14 } LS
JULY 16
10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
JULY. 1976
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
25'C
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NH3
WILMINGTON
1.0-
.8
\ -6
01
E .4-
Z3 -2-
I 0
m
H
-------
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
JULY. 1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7500 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
CHESTER
NO
WILMINGTON
NO
2.4-
2.0
1.6-
0.4
i 0.0
m
&
i
at
o
JULY 12
JULY I4{ LS
JULY 16
—i—
60
1 i
80
—r-
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
65
70
75
-------
o
73
m
&
i
er>
TRENTON
1.2-
1.0-
.8-
.4-
.2-
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY, 1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7500 cf*
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG
WILMINGTON
JULY I 9
JULY 21 } HS
JULY 23
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
JULY. 1976
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
25* C
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NH3
WILMINGTON
O
73
m
H
a>
ro
1.0
.8
.r- .6
.4
•2-1
0
01
E
JULY 19'
JULY 2 I \ HS
JULY 23J
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
O
m
i
o>
2.4-
2.0
1.6-
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY. 1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7500cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NO + NO
WILMINGTON
JULY 19)
JULY 3 I I HS
JULY 23/
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
7O
75
80
-------
TRENTON
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY , 1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25'C
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORO. a.
WILMINGTON
JULY 12)
JULY 14) L S
JULY 15)
10
15
20
i
O)
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
60
-------
TRENTON
TIME PERIOD
JULY , 1976
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
25* C
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
CHLORO. 3.
WILMINGTON
JULY 19
JULY 21 i
JULY 23
HS
10 IS 20
i
o>
o>
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
u
u
z
o
70
I
Ol
O>
TRENTON
100-
90
80-
70-
60
50
40-
30
20
10
0
TIME PERIOD
JULY, 1976
BRISTOL
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
25'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7500 cfs
CHESTER
JULY 12
JULY 14 J LS
JULY 16
PARAMETER (S)
SECCHI DISC
WILMINGTON
10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
IOO
90
80i
70
60
LJ
5 50
z
- 40-
30-
20
D 10
^
5 0
WATER QUALITY DATA
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY, 1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7500 cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
SECCHI DISC
WILMINGTON
JULY 19'
JULY 21 } HS
JULY 23.
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
III-101
c) Quality Model Construction
A detailed discussion of the quality model's
structure was presented in Chapter II. Many of the reactions
and constituent linkages contained in the model were formulated
prior to the Delaware calibration study with the remainder being
necessitated through this calibration process. To implement our
philosophy of beginning simple, a decision had to be made concerning
which of the model's functional options should be included in the
preliminary analysis. Previous studies of the Delaware Estuary
had shown the necessity of considering, 1n some fashion, the
oxidation of both carbonaceous and nitrogenous material 1n the
water column and 1n the bottom sediments. A description of the
sequential model formulations that were pursued during the course
of this study follows:
Initial Formulation
Figure 111-68 is a schematic diagram outlining
the constituent linkages and reactions employed in the initial
model. Total carbonaceous material oxidized in the water column
was represented by a single parameter, CBOD, coupled to DO in a
linear reaction. The problems inherent in this traditional
formulation, such as the imprecision of the BOD test, the uncertainty
in defining the relationship between 5-day and ultimate first stage
demands, and the uncertainty in projecting decay rates were
recognized, but were considered less troublesome than trying to
model either COD or TOC as an oxygen demand source.
-------
FIRST FORMULATION, INITIAL STRUCTURE
DELAWARE ESTUARY MODEL
c
TO
B
at
oo
A
1 f
/R4rx
» x. ^™"\ N w
NORG., Rl NH3 V NO,
p. * p? * A 3
Kl H^ R3
?
C BOD D.O. -
P4 AR6 P5 * * ?R8
V^CARBOlT/ A/U)
^ORGANIC " DIM N ^^J£
OYNDEL 6
WATER QUALITY INTERACTIONS
KEY:
A
UJ
CC
X
a.
t/)
O
15
^
MASS TRANSFER
INFORMATION TRANSFER
1 1 f^RAMETER MODELLED
O DESCRIPTIVE INPUT
TO MODEL
(W) WASTE SOURCE
§ TEMPERATURE
UNDEFINED
0 NATURAL SOURCE OR
SINK
-------
III-103
The treatment of the nitrogen cycle can be
represented either by the decay of a single parameter, NBOD, or
by a set of multi-stage consecutive reactions. The latter option
was chosen because previous studies had demonstrated the crucial
importance of nitrification on the DO resources of the estuary. The
two oxidized forms of nitrogen, N02 and N03, were combined in the
model because the nitrite fraction is extremely transitory, and
separate laboratory analyses are not normally performed. Both
theory and previous studies show the NH3 -> N02 step to be rate
limiting to the overall nitrification process. All forms of organic
nitrogen were represented by a single parameter. No attempt was
made to distinguish between the dissolved and particulate fractions,
since data of this type were not available. The decomposition of
organic nitrogen (including hydrolysis) to ammonia was treated as
a first order reaction in the model. Although no attempt was made
to model algal growth dynamics in this study, a nitrate loss rate
indicative of algal uptake was included in this initial model
formulation.
The oxidation of carbonaceous and nitrogenous
material in the sediments is a well documented problem in the
Delaware Estuary. Unfortunately, adequate data to permit the
explicit modelling of sediment dynamics do not exist. In fact,
good "in situ" measurements of a gross oxygen demand rate at
various locations in the Delaware were just recently obtained.
Sediment oxygen demand (SOD) is represented in the model as a
zeroth order decay of DO and is input as an areal term.
-------
III-104
Finally, the process of reaeration was represented
by the O'Connor-Dobbins formula; although two other formulas are
available in the model, this was considered more appropriate for
large bodies of water.
Second Formulation
The consecutive reactions comprising the nitrogen
cycle in the original formulation were expanded to include a
feedback loop between nitrate nitrogen and organic nitrogen. This
last reaction, which completes the primary nitrogen cycle circuit,
was intended to represent the biological uptake and conversion of
nitrate to algal cellular material (organic N). The new nitrogen
series feedback model was recalibrated and its importance was
reflected in the altered nitrogen profiles, and decay parameters.
Third Formulation
The second formulation of the nitrogen model
implied that total nitrogen behaved conservatively. To test this
assumption, a mass balance was performed using the model
predictions of total nitrogen for two data sets as compared to
actual field data. A significant loss of nitrogen was found to
occur in the vicinity of major waste sources, especially when DO
concentrations were less than 1 mg/1. Consequently, two sinks for
nitrogen were added to the model structure: (1) settling of
organic nitrogen near major waste inputs, and (2) denitrification
(N03 -> N2 gas) in low DO waters. These additions substantially
improved the predictions of the total nitrogen distribution
-------
III-105
as well as the N02 + NOa distribution.
Fourth Formulation
The third formulation of the nitrogen model was
coupled to the original DO - CBOD model with the addition of a
comparable settling rate for CBOD near major waste outfalls and
the predicted DO profile provided by this formulation was compared
to observed July 1974 data. It was believed that the basic shape
and magnitude of the DO sag, particularly its flatness, could best be
explained by certain non-linear feedback effects which have been
observed by others under low DO conditions [13], [14], [15], [16].
The first change was a modification of the sediment
oxygen demand when predicted DO levels were less than 2.0 mg/1,
such that the effective demand varies as the DO raised to the
0.45 power [15]. The second change was linking denitrification to
DO and CBOD so that the oxygen in nitrite and nitrate was made
available to the active decomposing bacteria [17]. Again, this
newly structured model was capable of simulating more closely the
original data set (July 1974) used for calibration.
Fifth Formulation
It is known that temperature significantly effects
most biological and chemical reaction rates. The next revision
to the model involved the application of temperature correction
factors to permit obtaining the various reaction rates at
temperatures other than the 27°C that existed during the July, 1974
period. This revision required the considerable utilization of
-------
III-106
literature material since no actual field data were available. The
result was a second model calibration using a data set collected
during October 1973 when the temperature was 20°C.
Sixth Formulation
Previous modelling studies of the Delaware Estuary
have assumed no net addition or depletion of DO due to algal
photosynthesis and respiration. The July 1974 and October 1973
data sets containing relatively low, non-bloom chlorophyll a_
values were described reasonable well by the model without
consideration of photosynthesis and respiration. When the model
was tested against the August 1975 data, however, significant
discrepancies between predicted and observed DO were noted in an
area affected by a large algae bloom (chlorophyll a_> 100 yg/1).
Further evidence of algal effects on the DO budget in the Delaware
Estuary has been compiled from the US6S monitor near the Ben
Franklin Bridge. A 24 hour cycle in 1954 exhibited summer DO
values having an amplitude of 0.4 mg/1, with the minimum occurring
near dawn, and the maximum in the mid-afternoon. Unfortunately,
corresponding chlorophyll data were not available.
To investigate the implications of phytoplankton
concentrations on the DO levels in the estuary, reasonable values
for photosynthesis and respiration rates were bracketed in a
literature search, including data AFO generated for the Potomac
Estuary. These rates were then incorporated in the model and
linked to the observed chlorophyll a_, temperature, euphotic depth
-------
III-107
(estimated from Secchi Disk and turbidity observations), and
photoperiod. Calibration of the P and R rates was performed on
the August 1975 data set. These rates were subsequently used to
recalibrate the 1973 and 1974 data sets after being adjusted by
(1) a temperature correction factor found in the literature, and
(2) by observed chlorophyll levels during those surveys. Both
adjustments are computed internally.
It should again be emphasized that this was not
meant to be a predictive model of algal growth dynamics.
Chlorophyll was handled strictly as an external forcing function.
The final model structure is illustrated in Figure 111-69.
-------
FINAL STRUCTURE
DELAWARE ESTUARY MODEL
-* *' x >
R2
KEY:
s
O)
(O
O
0
MASS TRANSFER
INFORMATION TRANSFER
PARAMETER MODELLED
DESCRIPTIVE INPUT
TO MODEL
(yj) WASTE SOURCE
8 TEMPERATURE
UNDEFINED
NATURAL SOURCE OR
SINK
-------
III-109
d) Comparison of Model Predictions with Observed Data
The ultimate test of a model's predictive ability
lies in its relative success in reproducing the basic processes
and mechanisms influencing the prototype. A widely accepted
method of gauging and assessing the confidence one can place in a
model's predictions involves simulating several historical
conditions and comparing model predictions with observed data.
If a favorable comparison results, the model can be considered
either calibrated or verified depending upon the amount and
independence of the observed data and the degree to which model
inputs are "fixed". Normally, a visual inspection combined with
engineering judgement will suffice, although some modellers have
attempted to add more objectivity through the use of statistical
tests.
As discussed previously, three independent sets of
data were used to calibrate the model for the nitrogen cycle and
DO. Complications arising from algal effects necessitated a
greater effort being directed towards the calibration phase,
particularly in terms of DO, than originally planned. A fourth
data set comprised of two separate periods, and a fifth data set
collected in July 1976 were used strictly for the purpose of
model verification. Under this situation, all model inputs were
determined a priori. Figures 111-70 through 111-77 present
observed data and corresponding model predictions for calibration,
whereas Figures 111-78 through 111-88 present similar data for
-------
m-no
verification. Because this model is a real time system, care had
to be taken in selecting output times which nearly coincided with
the particular slack water tide of the observed data.
All of the calibration and verification runs
utilized a simulation period of greater than 16 days in order to
achieve the steady state theoretically represented by the
observed data. It was determined from model runs having longer
durations, made to investigate transient sensitivity response,
that a two-to-three week simulation period was indeed sufficient
to approximate steady state conditions for both the nitrogen and
DO distributions, assuming reasonable initial conditions were
specified.
Each of the figures cited above contain a similar
format for presenting the observed and predicted data. The
observed data are depicted by a bar indicating the range in data.
Predicted data, on the other hand, are shown as a continuous
profile drawn from model output at each junction. Two different
predicted DO profiles are presented for each data set, representing
the occurrence of slack water near the beginning and near the end
of the photoperiod. Since the actual sampling runs normally
started at the lower end of the estuary in early or mid-morning,
the lower profile should be of greater value when interpreting
the data. Inspection of the observed and predicted Org N, NH3,
N02 + N03 and DO profiles reveals a favorable comparison in every
-------
Ill-Ill
case with respect to the spatial gradients and trends, the
magnitude and position of critical peaks and valleys, and,
perhaps most importantly, the configuration of the DO sag.
Because of the apparent anomaly in the 1968
dissolved oxygen data in Figures 111-78, 111-79 and 111-82, a
comparison of the overall range in model predictions with an
extensive body of DO data collected by the Philadelphia Water
Department and USGS during this same period is shown in Figure 111-84.
This highlights the model's ability to accommodate different classes
of data sets (non-slack water and continuous monitor, respectively)
and to predict the dramatic DO variability encountered in the field
due to both the tidal cycle and, when large algal levels persist,
the diurnal cycle.
The final verification exercise, illustrated in
Figures 111-85 through 111-88, was based on the most recent intensive
data set available - July 1976. While the DO profiles show
acceptable agreement, some significant discrepancies in the observed
and predicted NH3 and NOs values are evident. It appears that an
increase in the nitrification rates from earlier data sets would
achieve a better comparison below Philadelphia. This may indicate
either a random or a systematic change from the basic nitrification
inhibition hypothesis developed from older data sets and described
in the next section. The acquisition and analysis of additional
summer data is necessary to more fully assess nitrification
inhibition patterns and trends in the Delaware Estuary.
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY.1974
TEMPERATURE
27" C
FLOW
3900 cf»
PARAMETER (S)
OXD.
O
7)
m
TRENTON
BRISTOL
10
9
8
7 •
N
01
O
Q
-I—
15
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
—I—
25
—I—
35
—I—
45
—I—
50
-1—
55
—I—
60
—I—
65
—1—
75
IO
20
30 35 40
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
70
80
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY,1974
TEMPERATURE
2TC
FLOW
3900 cfs
PARAMETER (S)
NORG ,
TRENTON
3.04
2.0
£
CM
O
1.0
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
o>
J 1.0
ro
I
Z
I I I
O
cr
O
73
m
a
•=: 1.0-
rt+ i i
0+
0
—I—
60
-T-
5
10
15 20
—I—
25
—1—
30
—1—
40
—I—
45
35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
65
70 75 80
-------
o
TO
m
H
TRENTON
11.0
10.0-
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
^T 6.0-
O 5.0-
o
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1.0-
0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
OCT. 1973
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
I 9 - 20* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900cfs
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
3.0-
2.0-
£
O
2
0
2.0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
TIME PERIOD
OCT. 1973
BRISTOL
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TEMPERATURE
19-20* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfa
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG . NH3 , NO2 +• I
WILMINGTON
-s ,.o^
0
1.0
-n O
— oc
I i
m
i
-j
T
I I
10 15 20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60 65 70 75 80
-------
o
30
(*1
H
I
o
o
TRENTON
II-
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
I-
0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG. 1975
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7880 cfs
HWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
0:0.
WILMINGTON
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
o
33
m
i
-j
U>
TRENTON
10
9
8
7
x 6
en
E 5
O
Q 4
2
I •
0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG., 1975
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27' C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7880 cfs
LWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
o>
J
f
E
-n O
I i
n
&
i
10 15 20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70 75 80
-------
o>
_£
0*
z
-------
o
TO
n
a
o>
TRENTON
x
o>
6
O
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2^
I
0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG.,1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
28* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfs
HWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
oo.
WILMINGTON
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
i
m
0
O
O 4
3
2H
I
0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY. AUG.. 1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
28" C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cf*
LWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
0.0.
WILMINGTON
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
o>
E
o"
z
rvj
O
Z
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TRENTON
3.0-
2.0-
1.0-
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG..1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
28' C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfs
HWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG . NH3 . NO2 + I
WILMINGTON
o
H
00
o
10
T
15
T
20
T
25
r
30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
TRENTON
3.0
I" 2.0-
1.0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY, AUG. ,1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
28* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
4800 cfs
LWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG , NH . NO +
WILMINGTON
•0
y>
m
o>
10
IS
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
£
O
Q
c
XI
m
CO
ro
TRENTON
-r
5
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG.. SEPT..1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27' C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfs
LWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
10
T"
15
T
20
25
30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
75
80
-------
TRENTON
z
+
i1
3.0
2.0-
1.0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
AUG.. SEPT..1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
2T C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
3900 cfs
LWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG , NH3 . NO2 + I
WILMINGTON
*.
en
z
1.0-
-i 0
* §
i *
rn
o>
(*»
10
15
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
O
73
m
i
CD
TRENTON
10-
9
8-
7 -
- 6
en
E 5
O
0 4.
3-
2
I •
0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 17 -SEPTA. 1968
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
27 - 28' C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
3900 efs
4800 cfs
10
CHESTER WILMINGTON
DATA TAKEN BY PHILA. WATER DEPT.
WITHOUT REFERENCE TO TIDE : RANGE
MODEL PREDICTIONS OF MIN. AND MAX.
DO EXPECTED OVER BOTH TIDAL AND
DIURNAL CYCLES DURING THIS PERIOD
OF TIME
I USGS CONTINUOUS MONITOR DATAtRANGE
15
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
65
70
75
80
-------
0
3)
m
00
in
o
0
TRENTON
10
9
8
7
6
4-
3-
2 -
I -
0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 12-16 ,1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7900 cfs
LWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
c
30
m
H
I
oo
o>
TRENTON
10
9
8
7
o>
6 5
4
3
2
I -
0
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 19-23,1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25'C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
79OO cfs
HWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
D.O.
WILMINGTON
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
SO
-------
o
c
33
m
B
CD
00
TRENTON
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 19-23.1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25* C
PHILADELPHIA
FLOW
7900 cf,
HWS
CHESTER
PARAMETER (S)
NORG. NH3, N02+
WILMINGTON
80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
o
a
I
OB
o>
E
<\J
o
X
o>
CO
Z
o>
J
O
-------
o
c
i
o>
0»
CM
O
z
V.
o>
J
fO
I
z
TRENTON
1.8-
1.5-
1.0-
.5-
0
•6H
.4
.2-1
0
o>
-S .4H
o
cr
O
.2-
OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SPATIAL PROFILES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
JULY 12-16.1976
BRISTOL
TEMPERATURE
25'C
FLOW
7900 cfs
LWS
PARAMETER (S)
Tt
II
10
,
15
20
1
30
1
35
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75 80
-------
III-131
e) Discussion of Reaction Rates
Without a doubt, the most crucial and difficult
aspect of applying and verifying a water quality model is the
proper selection of reaction rates and other coefficients,
particularly those which produce considerable sensitivity to the
model's predictions. In most instances they cannot be defined
in-situ, and attempts to quantitate them through laboratory
experiments leave a lot to be desired since a highly controlled
lab environment can seldom duplicate the complex and dynamic
processes in a real world situation. Moreover, the problem of
reaction rates is obviously compounded when the study area is
influenced by tidal action. Normally, the only recourses
available are to utilize the model itself to "force fit" a given
condition through an iterative process, or to rely on literature
data.
Figure 111-69 illustrates the various interactions
employed by the final version of the Delaware Estuary model and
provides a symbol which designates the rate associated with each
interaction. Table III-5 describes these rates in further detail
along with the actual values assigned in the model. The reactions
contained in the model represent physical (R2, R7, R8), chemical
(Rl), and biochemical (Rl, R3, R4, R5, R6, R9, RIO, Rll) processes
whose importance have already been recognized and identified.
Most of the temperature correction factors shown in the table were
obtained from the literature. Others were estimated during
-------
TABLE III-5
Description of Reaction Rates
for
Delaware Estuary Water Quality Model
Reaction
Rl - hydrolysis
Tfirst order)
Products
org
Rate
Value(s)
(20°C)
0.07/day
Temp. Corr.
Factor (0)
1.047
Comments
Assumed to be spatially constant.
R2 - settling
Tfirst order)
Norg * Sed1ment
0.07 - 0.15/day
1.00
Higher value assumed in vicinity of
major outfalls where solids content
is great. Also reflects settling
of algae.
R3 - nitrification
Tfirst order)
NH3 + DO •> N02
N02 + DO ->• N03
0.02 + 0.20/day
1.08
Rate spatially varied. Shock
effects of heavy organic and other
industrial pollutants from Phila.
Metro Area inhibits reaction.
Recovery to pre-inhibition rate
dependent on temperature (hypothesis).
R4_ - biological uptake
(first order)
R5 - denitrification
Tffon-linear feedback)
R6 - Carbonaceous BOD
Hecay (first order)
N03 ->• N
org
N03 + CBOD ->• N02
C02
N02 +• CBOD •* N2
C02
CBOD + DO ->• C02
0.02/day
0 + 0.28/day
0.18 & 0.23/day
1.16
1.12
1.047
Spatially constant. Mediated by all
autotrophic organisms including algae.
Reaction provides source of oxygen.
Rate dependent upon ambient DO
concentrations as follows: DO > 1.0,
R5 = 0, 1.0 > DO > 0.2, R5 = 0 - 0.12
0.2 > DO >. 0.0, R5 = 0.12 - 0.28
Spatially varied to reflect major
organic inputs. Lower value applied
above Phila.; higher value below.
-------
TABLE III-5 - continued
Reaction
Products
Rate
Value(s)
(20°C)
Temp. Corr.
Factor (0)
Comments
R7 - settling
"Tfirst order)
CBOD •+• Sediment
0.02 & 0.07/day
1.00
Higher value applies near major
outfalls to account for increased
solids deposition (contributes to
SOD).
Rd - reaeration
02 ->• DO
0.10 - 0.29/day
(Average)
1.026
O'Connor-Dobbins Formulation,
recalculated every time step.
R9_ - sediment oxygen
demand (non-linear
feedback)
DO -»• Sediment
0.5* 2.7
gr/m2/day
1.05
Rate spatially varied and attenuated
when DO < 2.0 mg/1 according to the
expression (DO/2.0)0-"5; highest
rates found around Philadelphia.
RIO - respiration
(zeroth order)
Rll - photosynthesis
(Zeroth order)
DO ->- C02
light
C02 ->- DO
0.017 mg02
/yg chloro/day
0.079 mg02
/ug chloro/day
1.085
1.085
Effective rate dependent upon chloro
concentration; can be varied spatially
to reflect different species of algae,
if required data exists.
Effective rate dependent upon chloro
concentration; can be varied spatially
to reflect different species of algae
if required data exists.
R12 - Euphotic depth*
(average range)
3-12 ft.
* Not a reaction rate itself, but included because of its important effects on one - Rll
Varies spatially and with time; low in
areas affected by salinity wedge
(usually Wilmington and below); this depth
represents 99!5 light penetration, and is
estimated from Secchi Disk & turbidity
measurements in accordance with literature
relationships. Visual correlations also
performed.
-------
III-134
calibration studies. Some clarification and elaboration of the
data presented in Table II1-5 follows.
There are several mechanisms by which organic N
can be converted to ammonia N, including both chemical and
biological, but the principal one assumed in this study was
hydroloysis. Thomann and others have considered it as a first
order reaction [18]. Settling of the organic N fraction in a
particulate form (i.e., sewage solids and algal cells) is known
to occur but actual rates are not well documented. Areas of the
estuary where particulate organic N was thought to be exceptionally
high were assumed to be more greatly affected by this deposition
process, hence the rationale for spatially varying the rate R2.
Had better data been available, it would also have been possible
to vary this rate over the tidal cycle to permit the major
deposition to occur at or near slack water tide when settling
velocities are greatest. A similar logic was applied to the
settling of CBOD material, although smaller rates were assumed for
this process. It was believed that the settling of algae would
have a much more dominant role as a sink for organic N then it
would as a sink for CBOD. The rates used for R7, therefore, pertain
primarily to the settling of sewage solids in the vicinity of the
major wastewater discharges.
Nitrification is an extremely difficult reaction to
assess because of the uncertainty surrounding the behavior of the
nitrifying bacteria Nitrosomonous and Nitrobacter as well as the
-------
III-135
lack of quantitative information relative to their existing
populations. It was evident early in this modelling study that
the nitrification reaction did not proceed at the same rate
throughout the estuary. In fact, a zone of inhibition was strongly
suggested by the observed ammonia distributions and by attempts to
reproduce the data with existing waste loads. An hypothesis was
established that attributed the inhibition of nitrification to the
shock effects of heavy organic and industrial pollutant loading
experienced in the Philadelphia area. It was hypothesized that
the areal extent of this inhibition zone was directly related to
temperature and its effects on the repopulation of bacterial
organisms. Figure 111-89 presents the relationship between
temperature and inhibition zone programmed into the model. While
this hypothesis has not been adequately confirmed with actual field
data, which it should, it did seem plausible to Dr. Thomas Tuffey,
a nitrification expert, who performed independent studies in the
Delaware Estuary, and it is somewhat supported by other literature
studies. Subsequent to this work, Bob Tiedemann at Rutgers
University, completed a masters thesis concerning nitrification in
the Delaware Estuary [19]. Nitrifier data taken during 1975 and
1976 basically supported the patterns predicted by this hypothesis.
Unfortunately, this hypothesis, as it presently stands, adds an
element of descriptiveness rather than predictiveness to the model.
It should further be noted that a spatially variable first order
reaction was assumed for nitrification as others have done,
-------
NITRIFICATION INHIBITION PATTERN BASED UPON MODELLING STUDIES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
TIME PERIOD
TEMPERATURE
FLOW
PARAMETER (S)
TRENTON BRISTOL PHILADELPHIA CHESTER WILMINGTON
30-
2Q-
d 9
28-
27-
26-
25-
24-
a 23-
2
UJ
t- 22-
21-
20-
19-
18
17
-n 16
O
*— i e
i is
m (
—r
72
0.04
72
1
> i
V J
71 68
0.06
71 68
2
f *
67 58
,
UPSTREAM
ZONE
OF
MAXIMUM
NITRIFICATION
0.20
67 58
3
57 51 50 44 43* * REFERS TO MODEL NODES
1
51 50 44 43
1
50 49 43 42
50 49 43 42
49 48 42 41
49 48 38 37
ZONE • ZONE DOWNSTREAM
OF 49 48 OF 36 35 ZONE
MAXIMUM ' RECOVERY . OF
INHIBITION 48 47 ' 36 35 MAXIMUM
1 NITRIFICATION
48 47 34 33
1
44 43 33 32
ciQcT r\onc"Q
0.02 44 43 0.06 32 31 0.20 •*- ^|llbDl """cc
INI 1 K. KA I to
43 42 30 29 (day"1 . base e)
'
43 42 24 23
57 42 41 23 22
4 37 36 5 22 20 6
It
35 I3|I2
i 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
f MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
a>
(O
-------
III-137
although this is probably an over-simplification to some
extent.
Biological uptake of nitrate nitrogen was
considered as a first order reaction with a constant rate and
was assumed to be mediated by all autotrophic organisms. A
similar method was employed in the Potomac Estuary model with
reasonable success. Recent studies reported in the literature,
however, have underscored the appropriateness of Michaelis-Menton
kinetics to represent both nutrient uptake and algal growth
dynamics. This non-linear reaction, with its rate related to
substrate conditions, should prove valuable for future modelling
endeavors in the Delaware Estuary.
A substantial reach of the estuary experiences
very low DO levels on a fairly consistent basis during the summer.
Although this condition did not appear to inhibit the nitrification
process, it was reasonable to expect areas of denitrification.
Indeed the observed data seemed to support the occurrence of
denitrification since total nitrogen was not behaving
conservatively. Therefore, a non-linear feedback was incorporated
in the model so that denitrification was "turned on" when DO
dropped below 1.0 mg/1 and the rate increased in a two-step
linear fashion to a maximum value (0.28 mg/1) corresponding to a
DO of 0.0 mg/1. The following formulations were employed for this
purpose:
-------
III-138
1.0 > DO > 0.2 :
0.12
Denit. Rate (20°C) = 0.12 + ( Q %-^Q ) . (DO - 0.2)
0.2 > DO > 0.0 :
Denit. Rate (20°C) = 0.28 - ( °'2Q"g'12) • (DO)
It was further assumed that the oxygen molecule disassociated
during the denitrification process would contribute to the
bacterial stabilization of the carbonaceous organic material
present in the system.
The deoxygenation rate for carbonaceous BOD was
initially estimated from trial model runs and then compared to
literature values including those derived from earlier Delaware
studies. Two rates were ultimately arrive at - the lower
(0.18/day) applied to the relatively clean portion of the estuary
upstream from Philadelphia and the higher (0.23/day) applied to
the more polluted segments. This approach agreed with the
concept of the reaction and the tendency of organisms to adjust
to a given "food" supply. The actual rates compared favorably
to the literature, although they were substantially lower than
those used by DECS (0.45/day). It should be pointed out, however,
that DECS used a comparatively low SOD rate which might have
compensated somewhat for the high oxygen requirements of the CBOD
reaction. The classical correction factor (1.047) was used to
convert R6 to temperatures other than 20°C.
-------
III-139
The basic uninhibited sediment oxygen demand (SOD)
rates were initially estimated from a combination of data collected
by the DECS Staff and the EPA National Field Investigations
Center (NFIC) Cincinnati, Ohio. This latter effort, performed
during the summer of 1974, was intended to provide in situ
oxygen uptake measurements using a benthic respirometer at about
10 stations between Trenton and the C&D Canal. Because of
equipment problems and serious limitations in the respirometer
(the unit was designed for lake use and not estuaries having
strong tidal currents), however, no such data was obtained.
Instead, samples of the bottom sediment had to be collected and
transported to the NFIC laboratory for uptake analyses. The
results of this study, after adjusting for earlier organic bottom
cover information, were used for the original model calibration
and verification attempts and are depicted in Figure 111-90.
During the summer of 1976, staff at AFO designed
and constructed two benthic respirotneters for use in relatively
shallow areas of the Delaware Estuary (i.e., depth <20 feet).
These units were constructed out of sheet metal and have the shape
of a pyramid with a base composed of horizontal and vertical
stabilizing flanges. An internal stirring mechanism and DO probe
were provided to obtain concentration measurements. The
respirometer is positioned (sealed) in the bottom mud manually by
means of a long pole that attaches to a fitting on the apex of the
pyramid. The base area of the respirometer is 4 square feet and
-------
III-140
its volume is 27.6 litres.
Twelve stations were selected between Trenton and
Marcus Hook for in situ benthic oxygen uptake measurements. With
the exception of the upper three, two measurements were obtained
at each station, one along the Pennsylvania shore and the other
along the New Jersey shore at depths ranging from 5-20 feet. The
results of each measurement are shown in Figure 111-90 along with
the actual SOD rates used in the model. All of the data have been
corrected to 20°C. The SOD rates were computed by subtracting
the (small) respiration rate in the water column from the measured
initial slope of the DO concentration vs time relationship inside
the respirometer, where a constant negative slope normally
occurred for the first 30 to 60 minutes of the test. No attempt
was made to either define or include the anaerobic process
contributing to a stabilization of the bottom muds, but rather to
isolate the impact of the top few centimeters, where aerobic
conditions would normally exist, on the oxygen resources of the
overlying water. A non-linear feedback was incorporated in the
model to consider the effects of low DO concentrations
(i.e., <2.0 mg/1) on the reduction of the SOD rate [16]. The
expression used for this purpose was essentially from the
literature and is shown in Table II1-5.
Specific studies to define algal photosynthesis
and respiration rates in the Delaware Estuary have not been
performed and considerable reliance had to be placed on the
-------
SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND RATES
DELAWARE ESTUARY
6.0 -i
5.0-
LAB MEASURED SOD RATE
CORRECTED FOR BOTTOM
COVER AND TO 20'C (6 = 1.065)
'976 FIELD MEASURED SOD
RATE CORRECTED TO 20*C BY
BOTTOM T (9=1.065)
MODEL INPUT SOD (20'C)
4.0-
>»
0
•v
^.
N
£ 3.0
0
Q
0>
a.o-
1.0-
-n
O
C n
30 OH
n (
B
1
to
O
)
@
_@ _
((
v!
-T^ 1
5 10
1 !
i fp
\ \ J kk/
^
! , ,_
15 20 25
Q (L) PA. SIDE
/JN (g) N.J. SIDE
© CENTER OF CHANNEL
__ — - -,
i (\\
1 ^=^ X MEASUREMENT TAKEN IN MUD
| FLAT ALONG SHORE NOT
©
/p"V
(5) 03J
^SfTN /~\
/D^
1 — - T ? - - - i i i i i i i T
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
III-142
literature again [20]. [21]» [22]- Fortunately, AFO had
conducted studies of this nature in the Potomac Estuary and the
rates derived there served as a convenient starting point for
estimating P and R rates for the Delaware. As can be seen in the
table, both rates were a function of the chlorophyll a_ concentrations,
which had to be known a priori. The respiration rate was
practically identical to that used in the Potomac, but the
photosynthesis rate underwent some change to reflect the findings
reported in the literature. It should be noted that these rates
were intended to apply to an entire algal community rather than to
specific species.
Respiration was assumed to occur throughout the
day and over the entire water column whereas photosynthesis was
limited to the daylight period (12 hours) and the euphotic depth.
The euphotic depth C\% of ambient radiant energy) was taken to be
3 times the Secchi Disk measurement [23]. A relationship was
established between Secchi Disk and turbidity based upon observed
data collected during some of the water quality surveys. This
relationship, which is presented in Figure 111-91, was used for
certain data sets where turbidity but no light extinction
measurements were available.
-------
o
c
70
m
-------
III-144
F. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The importance of an adequate and meaningful sensitivity
analysis to indicate where field and laboratory resources could
best be allocated for improving the reliability and confidence
one might have in a model's predictions should be underscored.
This is particularly true when either large sums of money or
major water quality management decisions are riding on the outcome
of modelling studies, which is happening with increased frequency.
Model sensitivity has, unfortunately, often been neglected or
just glossed over in studies where the consequences of such action
could have had profound implications.
Since the model described in this report contained
non-linear components, sensitivity results could take on connotations
different from the usual linear analysis. Therefore, care had
to be exercised in the design of a streamlined but useful
sensitivity study. Model runs were performed to determine the
sensitivity of the following rates and other inputs.
1. Physical
a) Temperature (1 change)
b) Inflow (1 change)
c) Reaeration - R8 (3 different formulations)
2. Biological
a) BOD Decay - R6 (1 change)
b) Nitrification - R3 (2 changes)
c) SOD - R9 (2 changes)
-------
III-145
d) Denitn'fication - R5 (2 changes)
e) Photosynthesis - Rll (1 change)
f) Respiration - RIO (1 change)
g) Euphotic Depth - R12 (1 change)
h) Algal Densities (chlorophyll a_
concentration) (2 changes)
A few comments regarding the sensitivity analysis are in
order. The basic approach taken was to alter the various inputs
used for the original model calibration and verification efforts
to new but reasonable values one at a time. Unfortunately, the
sensitivity runs did not reflect the latest estimates of SOD rates
since they were all made prior to the existence of the new benthic
respirometer discussed in the previous section. This should not,
however, significantly effect the degree of sensitivity indicated
for any of the parameters, including SOD itself. In many
instances only one change of value was assumed which would provide
a meaningful comparison of model results for identifying
sensitivity. In others, two or even three changes were made where
available options, uncertainty, or the suspected implications so
dictated. Each of the above rates was checked for sensitivity under
both linear and non-linear conditions. The July 1974 data set
calibration served to test sensitivity in the non-linear regime;
a hypothetical October incorporating waste loads that would
ensure DO levels greater than 2.0 mg/1, the breakpoint for non-linear
feedbacks, served to test sensitivity in the linear region. Algal
-------
III-146
sensitivity was subjected to additional studies. In addition to
determining sensitivity of algal related rates for a typical level
of algae when linearity and non-linearity existed, special runs
were made to indicate the net effects of the algal levels themselves,
including the large algae bloom that was experienced during August
1975. The total impact of that bloom on predicted DO concentrations
is dramatic, as can be seen in Figure III-119. Additional sensi-
tivity runs related to that high bloom condition, when P and R rates
had a more pronounced effect, were also performed. Finally, some of
the rates associated with the nitrogen cycle were not included in
this sensitivity analysis, due to the lack of sensitivity on the
resultant DO profiles that they exhibited when tested in conjunction
with model calibration studies.
The following figures portray the results of the
sensitivity analysis. The different inputs utilized in the model
for each sensitivity run are shown on the graphs. No attempt was
made to either quantify or compare the degree of sensitivity
associated with every parameter tested but rather to allow the
readers to draw their own conclusions.
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
MODEL INPUT VARIED
TEMPERATURE
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
TEMPERATURE = 18
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
TEMPERATURE = 20
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
O
c
TO
m
0
i
-------
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
BASE CONDITION MODEL INPUT VARIED
NON-LINEAR TEMPERATURE
JULY . 1974
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-8O
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
TEMPERATURE = 27
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
TEMPERATURE = 29
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
c
7)
m
H
10
15
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65 70 75 80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
MODEL INPUT VARIED
FLOW
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
FLOW = 6600 cfs
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
FLOW = 4800 cfs
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
10
9
8
7
x •
o>
4
3-
2-
O
c
a)
m
B
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
BASE CONDITION MODEL INPUT VARIED RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
NON-LINEAR
JULY . 1974
FLOW
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
FLOW = 3900 cfs
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
FLOW = 2450 cfs
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
10
9
o
c
71
m
0
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
MODEL INPUT VARIED
REAERATION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
0-80 O'CONNOR - DOBBINS EQUATION
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
CHURCHILL EQUATION
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
o
;o
m
&
i
(£>
O)
T
10
-r
15
20
~T
30
r
45
25 30 35 40 45 50
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
MODEL INPUT VARIED
REAERATION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
0-80 O'CONNOR-DOBBINS EQUATION
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
USGS EQUATION
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
jo
m
B
i
-------
BASE CONDITION MODEL INPUT VARIED
NON-LINEAR REAERATION
JULY . 1974
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
0-80 O'CONNOR - DOBBINS EQUATION
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
CHURCHILL EQUATION
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
O
1=1
i
ID
CD
5 10 15
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION MODEL INPUT VARIED
NON-LINEAR REAERATION
JULY ,1974
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
O'CONNOR - DOBBINS EQUATION
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
U S G S EQUATION
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
O
c
73
m
B
i
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
CBOD , OXIDATION RATE
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0-27.5 . 0.18
MILE 27.5-80 . 0.23
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0-80 , 0.33
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
10
9
8
7
TO
m
a
o
O
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
NON-LINEAR
JULY . 1974
MODEL INPUT VARIED
CBOD . OXIDATION RATE
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0-27.5 . 0.18
MILE 27.5-80 . 0.23
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0-80 . 0.33
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
TO
m
B
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
NITRIFICATION RATES
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0-5
MILE 5-14
MILE 14-27
MILE 27-47
MILE 47-67
.04
.06
.20
.02
.06
MILE 67-80 , .20
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 5 , .08
MILE 5 - 14 , .1 2
MILE 14 - 27 . .40
MILE 27-47 . .04
MILE 47-67 . .1 2
MILE 67-80 . .40
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
30
m
o
IV)
10
15
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
NITRIFICATION RATES
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0-5
MILE 5-14
MILE 14-27
MILE 27-47
MILE 47-67
.04
.06
.20
.02
.06
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 27-67 . 20
MILE 67-80 , .20
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
O
c
TO
m
B
i
o
GJ
10
9
8H
7
6
5
4
3
2
I H
o
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
BASE CONDITION
NON-LINEAR
JULY . 1974
MODEL INPUT VARIED
NITRIFICATION RATES
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 5 , .04
MILE 5 - 14 . .06
MILE 14-27 . .20
MILE 27-37 . .02
MILE 37-47 . .06
MILE 47-80 , .20
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 5 , .08
MILE 5 - 14 . .1 2
MILE 14 - 27 , .40
MILE 27-37 . .04
MILE 37-47 , .1 2
MILE 47-80 . .40
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
o
TO
m
&
i
10
9
8
7
B 5
O
Q 4H
3
2
I
0
i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
NON-LINEAR
JULY , 1974
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
NITRIFICATION RATES
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 5 . .04
MILE 5 - 14 , .06
MILE 14- 27 , .20
MILE 27-37 . .02
MILE 37-47 . .06
MILE 47-80 . .20
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 27-47 . .20
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
o
c
m
a
I
o
in
10
-r
15
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
r
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
SOD RATE
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 16 , 1.0
MILE 16 - 23 . 0.5
MILE 23-25 ,1.2
MILE 25-38 . 2.2
MILE 38-60 , 2.9
MILE 60-80 .1.3
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 16 , 1.00
MILE 16 - 23 . 0.75
MILE 23-25 . I. 10
MILE 25-38 , 1.60
MILE 38-60 , 1.95
MILE 60-80 ,1.15
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
o>
6
o
c
o>
10-
9
8
7
5-
4
3H
2
I H
o
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
SOD RATE
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
16-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 16 , 1.0
MILE 16-23 , 0.5
MILE 23-25 . 1.2
MILE 25-38 . 2.2
MILE 38-60 . 2.9
MILE 6O-80 ,1.3
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 16-80 , 1.0
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
10
9
8
7
o
c
a>
m
H
4
3
2
I
0
—1—
10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
SOD RATE
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 16 . 1.0
MILE 16 - 23 . 0.5
MILE 23-25. 1.2
MILE 25-38 . 2.2
MILE 38-60 . 2.9
MILE 60-80 .1.3
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - SO . 0.0
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
IO
9
8
7
O
c
JO
m
o
OB
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
NON -LINEAR
JULY , 1974
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
SOD RATE
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
16-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 16 . 1.0
MILE 16- 23 . 0.5
MILE 23-25 .1.2
MILE 25-38 , 2.2
MILE 38-60 . 2.9
MILE 60-80 . 1.3
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 . I .0
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
2]
O
c
7>
m
o
-------
BASE CONDITION
NON-LINEAR
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
DENITRIFICATION RATES
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
36-46
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MAXIMUM RATE = 0.28
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MAXIMUM RATE = 0.0
JULY , 1974
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
o
c
7>
m
I
o
o
o
10
9
8
7
6
5
4-
3-
2
i H
o
MAXIMUM RATE = 0.56 day
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
PHOTOSYNTHESIS RATE
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE O -80 ,0.14
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 . 0.16
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
y>
m
B
10-
9
8
7
—• ft
o>
6 5
O
O 4
3
2
I
0
10
—r-
15
—i—
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
NON -LINEAR
JULY , 1974
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
PHOTOSYNTHESIS RATE
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0-80 .0.14
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 -80 .0.16
MILE 0-80 ,0.12
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
O
c
33
m
10
9
8
7
x 6
9
6 5
O
Q 4
3
2
I
0
—i—
10
—i—
15
20
—i—
25
30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60 65 70 75 80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
RESPIRATION RATES
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0 -80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 , .026
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 , .03
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
10
9
8-
7-
=- 6-
5-
4-
3-
2-
o»
o
TO
m
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
u»
-------
BASE CONDITION
NON-LINEAR
JULY . 1974
MODEL INPUT VARIED
RESPIRATION RATES
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 , .026
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 , .0 3
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
O
c
B
10
9
8
7
o>
6
4
3
2H
I
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65 70 75 80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
EUPHOTIC DEPTH
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 23 . 9.0
MILE 23-50 . 10.0
MILE 50-70 . 7.7
MILE 70-80 . 5.0
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 23 . 13.5
MILE 23-50 . 15.0
MILE 50-70 . 11.5
MILE 70-80 . 7.5
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
O
c
JO
r*i
I
tn
10
9
8
7
x «
o»
6 5
O
O 4
3
2
I
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
NON-LINEAR
JULY . 1974
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
EUPHOTIC DEPTH
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 16 , 10.0
MILE 16-50 ,12.0
MILE 50-60 , 9.0
MILE 60-80 , 5.5
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 16 , 15.0
MILE 16-50 .18.0
MILE 50-60 , 13.5
MILE 60-80 , 8.3
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
10
9
8
7
X 6
Q»
6 5
O
O 4
3
2
O
c
30
PI
H
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
HYPOTHETICAL
OCTOBER
LINEAR REGION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
ALGAL DENSITIES
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0 -80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 25 , 10
MILE 25-38 . 20
MILE 38-65 . 35
MILE 65-80 . 45
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 . 0
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
10
9
6
7
O
c
73
C*l
I
^J
4
3
2
I •
0
0600. NO ALGAE
0600
10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
NON-LINEAR
JULY.1974
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
ALGAL DENSITIES
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 25 . 15
MILE 25-38 . 25
MILE 38-60 , 35
MILE 60-80 , 30
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 , 0
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
IO
9-1
8
O
•33
m
B
4
3H
2
I H
o
IO
15
—i—
20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
AUGUST, 1975
BLOOM CONDITION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
ALGAL DENSITIES
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0-16
MILE 16-35
MILE 35-43
MILE 43-48
MILE 48-55
MILE 55-58
MILE 58-68
MILE 68-80
15.0
12.5
50
125
140
125
75
25
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 . 0
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
O
c
7>
m
10
9
8
7
o»
6
4
3-
2
I
0
*-!830
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
AUGUST,1975
BLOOM CONDITION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
PHOTOSYNTHESIS RATE
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 . .079
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 . .090
MILE 0 - 80 , .068
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
O
c
TO
ro
o
10
0
8
7
x «
o>
4
3H
2
I H
o
10 IS 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
65
70
75
80
-------
BASE CONDITION
AUGUST. 1975
BLOOM CONDITION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
RESPIRATION RATES
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 80 . .015
NEW VALUE (DASHED LiNE)
MILE 0 - 80 , .017
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
o
TO
r*i
H
i
r\>
10
9
8
7
e 5
O
0 4
3
2
I
0
-r—
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
-------
BASE CONDITION
AUGUST,1975
BLOOM CONDITION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DELAWARE ESTUARY D.O. MODEL
MODEL INPUT VARIED
EUPHOTIC DEPTH
RIVER MILEAGE AFFECTED
0-80
ORIGINAL VALUE (SOLID LINE)
MILE 0 - 16 , 9.0
MILE 16-25 , 8.0
MILE 25-57 ,10.0
MILE 57-70 . 8.0
MILE 70-80 ,5.5
NEW VALUE (DASHED LINE)
MILE 0-16. 13.5
MILE 16-25 ,12.0
MILE 25-57 ,15.0
MILE 57- 70 ,12.0
MILE 70-80 . 8.3
TRENTON
BRISTOL
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
WILMINGTON
10
9
8
7
o»
E
O
O
O
c
ro
ro
4-
3-
2
I H
o
—i—
65
—i—
70
10
—I—-
IS
—i—
20
—i—
30
—i—
35
—i—
50
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
MILES BELOW TRENTON RAILROAD BRIDGE
60
75
80
-------
IV-1
IV. FUTURE STUDIES AND AREAS OF MODEL REFINEMENT
Four distinct areas where future studies should be directed
in the Delaware Estuary are enumerated below. If these studies
are implemented and prove to be successful, it is believed that
the predictive capability via mathematical modelling should be
greatly enhanced in many respects.
1) The refinement of certain biological rates is
perhaps the most important area to study. Of particular
importance is the nitrification rate and the hypothesis currently
adopted that governs the inhibition characteristics of this
reaction. The revelation experienced with the 1976 data set in
terms of an apparent reduction in nitrification inhibition
exemplifies the need for this study. Other rates in the model
which should undergo further refinement because of their particular
importance are those for photosynthesis, respiration, and SOD.
2) The development and application of a model capable
of addressing phytoplankton production and its relationship to
nutrient cycles and the DO budget is strongly suggested by data
simulation and sensitivity studies in the present study.
3) The refinement of the model's advection and
dispersion components to more accurately represent these
processes as they occur in a real system and to minimize numerical
problems associated with the solution techniques would be
desirable.
-------
IV-2
4) The development and utilization of a two
dimensional network with this model would be useful to better
assess the water quality impact of storm water and other shock
loads as well as to improve the predictive resolution in the
lateral plane where such gradients are known or suspected.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A study such as this requires the cooperation of many individuals
and institutions. Data needs in particular are too intensive to be
handled by one field office, or even one agency. The Delaware River
Basin Commission (DRBC), with the assistance of the State of Delaware's
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, has
compiled a very detailed water quality data base which dates to 1967.
The City of Philadelphia maintains a less comprehensive but quite
useful estuary monitoring program dating from 1949. The United
States Geological Survey (USGS) is not only responsible for the vital
discharge data from tributaries, but also several continuous water
quality monitors in the estuary. The necessary physical data describing
the estuary came from the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey.
A special body of data was generated by the "208" program under
the supervision of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
Two comprehensive and intensive water quality and wastewater data
sets required the cooperation of all members of the Technical Ad-
visory Committee to the 208 program—the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Resources, the City of Philadelphia Water Department, USGS, and
DRBC, along with the Annapolis Field Office.
In addition to these government agencies, we would like to
specially acknowledge the numerous industries and municipalities
-------
along the estuary who provided valuable data characterizing their
wastewater discharges both through the NPDES self-monitoring
program and their own separate monitoring programs.
Finally, many individuals gave us valuable advice, technical
assistance and independent perspectives. Deserving special mention
are those persons representing the various agencies comprising the
Technical Advisory Committee, including Dr. Robert Shubinski and
Dick Schmaltz with Water Resources Engineers. Dr. Ken Young of GKY
Associates also provided helpful advice. Dr. Thomas Tuffey, formerly
at Rutgers University, and Bob Tiedemann, a former graduate student
at Rutgers, gave us valuable outside perspective on the process of
nitrification in the Delaware Estuary.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Water Resources Engineers, Inc., "A Water Quality Model of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," Report to the U.S. Public Health
Service, Region IX, June 1965.
2. Water Resources Engineers, Inc., "A Hydraulic Water Quality
Model of Suisun and San Pablo Bays," Report to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Southwest Region, March 1966.
3. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, "San Joaquin
Master Drain - Effects on Water Quality of San Francisco Bay
and Delta," January 1967.
4. Feigner, K. and Howard S. Harris, "Documentation Report," FWQA,
"Dynamic Estuary Model," FWQA, U. S. Department of the Interior,
July 1970.
5. Clark, L. J. and Kenneth D. Feigner, "Mathematical Model Studies
of Water Quality in the Potomac Estuary," Annapolis Field Office
Technical Report 33, Region III, Environmental Protection Agency,
March 1972.
6. Jaworski, N. A., Leo J. Clark, and Kenneth D. Feigner, "A Water
Resource - Water Supply Study of the Potomac Estuary," Annapolis
Field Office Technical Report 35, Region III, Environmental
Protection Agency, April 1971.
7. Clark, L. J. and Norbert A. Jaworski, "Nutrient Transport and
Dissolved Oxygen Budget Studies in the Potomac Estuary,"
Annapolis Field Office Technical Report 37, Region III, Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1972.
8. Clark, L. J., Daniel K. Donnelly and Orterio Villa, Jr., "Summary
and Conclusions from the forthcoming Technical Report 56, Nutrient
Enrichment and Control Requirements in the Upper Chesapeake Bay,"
Annapolis Field Office, Region III, Environmental Protection Agency,
August 1973.
9. Dailey, J. E. and Donald R. F. Harleman, "Numerical Model for the
Prediction of Transient Water Quality in Estuary Networks,"
Report No. 158, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, October 1972.
10. Harleman, D. R. F., "One Dimensional Mathematical Models in State-
of-the-Art of Estuary Models" by Tracor, Inc. (under contract to
FWQA), 1971.
-------
11. Thatcher, M. L. and D. R. F. Harleman, "A Mathematical Model for
the Prediction of Unsteady Salinity Intrusion in Estuaries,"
Technical Report No. 144, Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory, Department
of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
February 1972.
12. Delaware River Basin Commission, "Final Progress Report - Delaware
Estuary and Bay Water Quality Sampling and Mathematical Modeling
Project," Trenton, New Jersey, May 1970.
13. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, "Effects of
Polluting Discharges on the Thames Estuary," Water Pollution
Research Technical Paper No. 11, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
London, 1964.
14. Thomann, R. V., D. J. O'Connor, and D. M. DiToro, "Effect of
Nitrification on the DO of Streams and Estuaries." Notes for
Manhattan College Summer Institute, 1975.
15. Thomann, R. V., "Systems Analysis and Water Quality Management."
Copyright 1972 by Environmental Science Services, Division of ERA.
16. McDonnell, A. J. and S. D. Hall, "Effect of Environmental Factors on
Benthal Oxygen Uptake," Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 41, No. 8, Part 2, August 1969.
17. Thomann, R. V., D. J. O'Connor, and D. M. DiToro, "Modelling of
the Nitrogen and Algal Cycles in Estuaries."(Presented at the
Fifth International Water Pollution Research Conference, San
Francisco, California, July 1970.)
18. O'Connor, D. J., R. V. Thomann and D. M. DiToro, "Dynamic Water
Quality Forecasting and Management." Prepared for Office of
Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.
19. Tiedemann, R. B., "A Study of Nitrification in the Delaware River
Estuary," The Graduate School of Rutgers University, New Brunswick,
N. J., June 1977.
20. Williams, R. B. and M. B. Murdoch, "Phytoplankton Production and
Chlorophyll Concentration in the Beaufort Channel, North Carolina,"
Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 11, No. 1, January 1966.
21. Flemer, D. A., and J. Olmon, "Daylight Incubator Estimates of
Primary Production in the Mouth of the Patuxent River, Maryland,"
Chesapeake Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 1971.
-------
22. DiToro, D. M., "Algae and Dissolved Oxygen," Notes for Manhattan
College Summer Institute, 1975.
23. Holmes, R. W., "The Secchi Disk in Turbid Coastal Waters,"
Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 15, No. 5, September 1970.
-------
APPENDIX
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
****** HX »*«««**»«« « »»*»»«IU( »«»««*»«*)(» »*««»)l»»«Jl »*«»»»» »«J>»»I( »)>»»«)< »«»»»«*«»« »«M»«»»»» «»»»»»»»«(< »»»» «J(*«»»»«**JI««»»1> »«»»•(»»«»» *»•»)(«
'SECTION 3 UATE8 QUALITY INPUTS
SUMMARY OF POINT SOURCE INPUTS
SIMULATION PERIOD : JULY 1 e - 23 > 1976
CONSTITUENT 1 IS NORG CHG/L).
CONSTITUENT 2 IS NH3 (HG/L)
CONSTITUENT 3 IS N03
CONSTITUENT 4 IS CBOD (MG/L)
CONSTITUENT 5 IS DO (HG/L)
MUNICIPAL AND IM1USTRIAL WASTEWATER AND TRIBUTARY INFLOW BY NODE
INPUT NAME OF TYPE OF
NODE DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
14 SALEHCTY MUN
. WODE TOTAL
17 SALEM TRIB
NODE TOTAL
21 GFTTYOIL IND
. NODE TOTAL
22 AMOCO 1*0
NODE TOTAL
23 PFNNSVLF MUM
«*«<)<** FLOW
MSD
1
-2.801
1
-2.391
1
1
1
-3.031
1
1
-0«6^l
1
1
1
-0.911
1
1
* X *»:« * 1! |
CF3 1
1
1
-4.341
1
-4.341
1
-3.701
1
-3.701
1
-12.401
1
-12.401
1
-O.v3l
1
-0.931
1
-1 .391
1
UNADJUSTED CONC
CUNST1 COOST2
1
2.101
1.001
I
I
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
1
20.001
1 .001
1
1
1
1.001-
1 .001
1
1
t
12.001-
1 .001
1
1
8.501
1 .001
1
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
1
37.301
1.001
1
1
1
17.001
1.001
1
1
1
29.001
1.COI
(MG/L)
COASTS
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
1
0.901
1 .001
1
1
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
1
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
+ ADJ. FACTORS 1
CONST4 CONST5I
i
48.00 5.301
1.45 1.001
1
1
1
S.50 0.0 1
1.45 1.001
1
1
1
11.001 3.001
1.901 1.001
1 1
1 1
1 1
134.201 0.0 1
1.901 1.001
1 1
1 1
1 1
129.701 0.0 1
1 .45 I 1 .001
1 1
ADJUSTED INPUT
COMST1 CONST2
o.os
0.05
0.0
0.0
1 .34
1.34
0.01
0.01
0.09
1
1
0.201
1
0.201
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
2.491
1
2.491
1
0.091
1
0.091
1
0.221
1
LOADS
COH6T3
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
0.061
1
0.061
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
- 1000 LB/OAY. I
CONST4 COMST5I
1
1
1.631
1
1.631
. it _
1
0.161
1
0.161
1
3.931
1
3.931
1
1.281
1
1.281
1
1 .41 I
1
1
0.121
1
0*121
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
0.201
1
0.201
t
0.0 1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
-------
NODE TOTAL
24
24
24
24
24
?5
25
29
30
31
31
33
33
33
DPCHAM8R INO
ICI 1 INO
ICI 7 IND
ICI 8 INO
ICI 13 IND
NODE TOTAL
UPENSNCK MUN
WLMINGTN HUN
•NODE TOTAL
CHRISTNA TRIG
.AODE TOTAL
BRANDYWN TRI9
'NODE TOTAL
PFNS6ROV .MtIN
OPEOGMOR INO
NODE TOTAL
OLOKANS TRI3
ALLDCHEM IND
PHOENIX IND
1 -
1
-100.001
t
1
-2.601
1
1
-1 .;1 0 I
I
1
-3.101
1
I
-04.901
I
1
1
-3*501
1
i
-70*501
1
1
1
1
-143*391
1
1
1 -
1
*i*
-304.971
1
1
1
-0.301
1
1
-S.QOI
1
1
1 -
i
-31.T6I
1
I
-24 .4 Ot
1
1
-11 .001
1
I
1 .
1
-1 .391
-155.001
1
1
-4.031
1
1
-1.701
1
1
-C.16I
I
1
-1.391
-162.281
1
-0.781
1
-100,281
1
-110.051
t
-230.001
1
-230.001
-472.701
1
-472.701
1
-0.471
1
-12.401
1
-12.871
I
-48.301
1
t
-37.821
1
1
-17.051
t
t
5.001
1.001
1
1.301
1.001
1
1.501
1.001
1
0.701
1.001-
t
21.001
1.001
1
1
1
0.0 t
1 .001
t
7.001
1.031
1
t
1
1.001
1.001
1
1
I
0.84f
1.001
1
t
t
0.0 1
1.001
1
1.00*^
1 .001
1
I
1
1 .001
1 .001
1
1.201
1.001
1
1.091
1.001
1
1
1
1
i
1
12.001 13.001
1.001 1.001
1 i
0.201 1.801
1.001 1.001
1 1
0.2012040.001
1.001 1.001
1 1
0.201 1.801
1.001 1.001
1 1
72.001 0.901
1.001 1.001
1 1
1 1
1 1
0.0 1
1.001
1
13.001
1.001
1
1
1
0.231
1.001
1
>
0.061
1.001
1
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.301
1.001
1
1
1
0.141
1 .001
I
1.501
1.001
1
2.51 1
1.001
1
i
0.0 1
1.001
1
2.301
1.001
t
1
I
1.521
1.001
1
t
1
2.091
1.001
1
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1.901
1 .001
t
1
1
1.241
1.001
i
2.001
1.001
1
1.971
1.001
1
1
1
1
' )
102.201
1 .45 I
i
31.001
1.451
1
24.001
1.451
1
50.001
1.451
1
500.001
1.451
1
1
1
128.101
1.451
1
16.001
1 .45 1
1
1
1
4.501
1 .451
1
1
1
9.601
1.45 1
1
1
1
25.601
1.45 1
1
4.001
1.901
1
1
1
3.401
1 .45 1
1
9.001
1.901
1
3.801
1.901
1
i
i
1
4.001
1.001
1
4.001
1.001
1
5.001
1.001
1
6.001
1.001
1
1.001
1*001
1
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
4.001
1.001
1
1
1
4.001
1.001
1
1
1
/
8.201
1.001
1
1
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
5.001
1 .001
I
1
1
5.001
1.001
1
2.001
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1 -
1
0.091
1
4.171
1
1
0.041
1
1
0.01 I
I
1
0.001
1
1
0.161
1
4.381
1
0.0 1
1
1
4.121
1
4.121
1
1 .241
1
1.24 1
1
2.14 1
1
2.141
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.071
1
0.071
1
0.261
1
1
0.241
1
1
0.101
1
1
0.221
1
10.021
1
1
0.001
1
0.001
1
1
0.001
1
1
0.541
1
10.561
1
0.0 1
1
1
7.651
1
7.651
1
0.281
1
0.281
v c-
1
0.151
0.151
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.021
1
0.021
1
0.041
I
1
0.31 1
1
1
0.231
1
—— 1
1
0.0 1
1
10.851
1
1
0.041
1
18.731
1
0.001
1
1
0.011
29.631
1
0.0 1
1
t
1.351
1
1 .351
1
1 .881
1
1.881
1
5.321
1
5.321
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.131
1
0.131
1
0.321
0.41 1
1
1
0.181
1
i — I
1
1.41 1
1
123.691
1
1
0.981
1
1
0.321
1
1
0.061
1
1
5.451
1
130.491
1
0.781
1
13.651
1
14.431
1
8.081
1
8.081
35.431
1
35.431
1
0.091
1
i
0.511
I
0.601
X. .
1
1.281
1
1
3.481
1
1
0.661
1
0.0 I
1
3.341
1
0.091
1
0.051
1
1
o.ori
i
i
0.011
1
3.481
'•
1
0.0 I
1
1
2.351
1
2.351
1
4.95 1
1
4.951
20.871
1
20.871
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.331
1
0.331
1
1.301
1
1
0.411
1
0.0 1
1
VA-J
-------
.NODE TOTAL
I -103.171
I 0.601 0.571 0.911 5.431 1.7TI
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
36
36
36
36
38
39
40
40
CHESTER NUN
HARCUSHK NUN
BP 2D1 INO
BP 101 INO
BP 002 INO
FNC IKD
HONSANTO IND
SUNOIL 1 IND
NODE TOTAL
CHESTER TRTB
SCOTT 2 INO
SCOTT 3 INO
SCOTT 4 INO
..NODE TOTAL
RIOLEY TRIB
rNODE TOTAL
UCARBIOE IND
.*ODF TOTAL
DARBY TRIE
COCA .HUN
-8. "801
1
1
-0^601
1
1
-2 O. 0 1
1
1
-74.001
1
1
-33.001
1
1
-2*501
1
1
-1 .801
1
1
-74.001
1
1
1
-25.81 1
1
1
-6.701
1
1
-7 « 0 I
1
1
-3*901
1
t
1 -
1
-645 'U
1
1
1 •
1
-2*601
1
1
1 •
1
-13.C6I
1
1
-a. ooi
i
i
-13.641
1
1
-0.931
1
i
-3.41 1
1
1
-114.701
1
-58.901
1
1
-3.881
1
t
-2.791
1
t
-114.701
1
1
-312.941
1
-40.001
1
1
-10.391
1
1
-11.631
1
1
-6.051
i
- |
-68.05 1
1
-10.201
1
1
-10.201
1
-4.031
1
|
-4.031
1
-2?«OOI
1
1
-12.401
4.80f
1.001
1
22.921
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1'
1.001
1.001
1
1.001
1.001
1
1 .301
1.001
1
25.001
1.001
1
2.50k
1 .00 I
I
t
1.001
1.001
1
7.001
1.031
t
9.001
1.-OOI
|
8.001
1.001
1
t
1
1.071
1.001
1
1
1
1 .901
1 .001
1
1
1
1 .001
1 .001
1
2.031
1.001
15.601
1.001
1
15.981
1 .001
1
3.001
1.001
I
0.301
1.001
1
0.401
1.001
1
0.201
1.001
1
44.001
1.001
1
2.901
1.001
1
1
0.301
1.0CI
1
0.201
1.001
1
0.101
1.001
1
0.171
1.001
1
1
1
0.501
1.001
1
1
1
13.91 1
1 .001
1
1
1
1.201
1 .001
1
20.001
1.001
1.101
1.001
1
2.001
1.001
1
0.501
1.001
1
2.501
1.001
I
2.501
1.001
1
2.801
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
2.801
1.001
1
1
6.301
1.001
I
2.401
1.001
|
2.001
1.001
1
2.201
1.001
1
1
1
2.591
1*001
1
1
1
3.901
1 .001
1
1
1
2.201
1.001
1
0.801
1.001
143.001
1.451
1
137.701
1.451
1
30.001
1.901
1
7.001
1.901
1
5.001
1.901
1
114.001
1.451
1
187.001
1.901
t
32.001
1.901
1
2.701
1.45 1
1
137.001
1.90 I
1
100.001
1.90 1
1
121.001
1.901
1
1
1
2.301
1.45 1
1
1
22.401
1 .90!
I
3.701
1.451
1
50.001
1.45 j
1.001
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
4.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
4.001
1.001
1
6.001
1.001
1
1.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
8.001
1.001
1
7.001
1.001
1
7.001
1.001
I
7.001
1.001
1
1
7.401
1.031
1
1
2.501
1 .001
1
3.001
1 .001
1
3.001
1.001
I
0.351
1
1
0.121
1
1
0.061
1
1
0.621
1
1
0.321
1
1
0.031
1
1
0.381
1
1
1.54 1
1
3.401
1
0.221
1
1
0.391
1
1
0.561
1
1
0.261
1
1.431
1
0.061
1
0.061
1
0.04 1
|
0.04 1
1
0.151
1
1
0.131
1
1.151
1
1
0.081
1
1
0.061
1
1
0.191
1
1
0.131
1
I
0.001
1
1
0.661
1
1
1.791
1
4.051
1
0.061
1
1
0.011
1
1
0.011
1
1
0.011
1
0.091
1
0.031
1
0.031
1
0.301
1
w*«- _ I
0.301
1
0.181
1
1
1.341
1
0.081
1
1
0.01 1
1
1
0.01 1
1
1
1.541
1
1
0.791
1
1
0.061
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
1.731
1
4.221
— u
1
1.361
1
1
0.131
1
1
0.131
1
1
0.071
1
1.691
** •
1
0.14 1
1
0.141
— it f
1
0.081
1
0.081
1
0.331
1
1
0.051
1
15.231
1
1
1.001
1
1
1.051
1
1
8.211
1
1
3.01 1
1
1
3.45 1
1
1
5.341
1
1
37.55 1
1
74.851
1
0.841
1
1
14.561
1
1
1 1 . 89 1
1
1
7.481
1
34.781
1
0.181
1
0.181
1
0.921
1
_— — — 1
0.921
1
0.81 1
1
1
4.841
I
0.071
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.071
1
1
1.851
1
1
1.271
1
1
0.131
1
1
0.021
1
1
1.851
1
5 .26 1
1
1.721
1
1
0.391
1
1
0.441
1
1
0.231
I
2.781
1
0.411
'
0.41 1
1
0.051
1
0.051
1
0.451
1
1
0.201
-------
40 ORBYCRSA MUN
40 MUKNPATS MUN
40 TINICUM MUN
NODE TOTAL
_'A
42 OPRPAUNO INO
42 HURCULES IND
"MODE TOTAL
.--V £ — '- 1
43 6LOSTRCO NUN
43 PAULSBRO MUN
43 MOBILCP1 IND
43 MOBILNY2 INO
43 M08ILIM3 IND
43 SHELL INO
43 OLINCHF.M IND
43 MANTUA TRI9
NODE TOTAL
44 PHILA Sy MUN
44 VOOOBURY MUN
44 NAT PARK MUN
NODE TOTAL
1 1 I
-11.101 1 3.001 21.70
1 -17.21 1 1 .001 1 .00
1 1 1
-5.001 1 2.001 12.00
1 -7.751 1.001 1.00
1 1 1
i.a i .1 0.3 i o.o
1 0.0 1 1.001 1.00
i i i
1 -65.351 t
~ T _
-15.001 1 2.001 5.00
1 -23.251 1.00J 1.00
I 1 1
-O."60l 1 0.0 1 0.0
1 -0.931 1.001 1.00
I 1 1
1 -24.181 1
-11..40I t 2.401 5.70
! -17.671 1.001 1.00
I 1 1
-1.301 1 0.0 1 26.93
1 -2.021 1.001 1.00
1 III
-13.3CI 1 2.001 0.0 1
1 -20.611 1.0DI 1.001
1 III
-4.701 1 1.251 2.501
1 -7.281 1.001 1.001
1 111
-4.301 1 0.0 1 29.001
1 -6.671 1.001 1.001
1 III
-1.901 1 19.191 3.711
1 -2.941 1.001 1.001
1 III
-17.'40I 1 0.0 1 2.061
1 -26.971 1.001 1.001
1 1 1 1
-7.101 1 0.0 1 5.061
1 -11.001 1.001 1.001
1 1 f I
1 -95.161 1 1
-140.001 1 5. 001 6.201
1 -217.001 1.001 1.001
1 III
-1.901 t 0.0 1 1.241
1 -2.941 1.001 1.001
1 III
-0.601 1 0.0 1 3.71 1
1 -0.931 1.001 1.001
1 III
1 -220*871 1- 1
1 1 1 1
1 1.901 32.001 3.001
1 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.28
1 1 1
5.80 20.001 2.601
1.00 1.451 1.001 0.08
1 1
0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1
1.00 1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1
1 1 0.65
- _-_ t 3 . .
22.001 31.001 6.001
1.001 1.901 1.001 0.25
1 1
0.0 5.101 0.0 1
1.00 1.901 1.001 0.0
1 1
1 1 0.25
54801 9.001 5.001
1.001 1.451 1.001 0.23
1 1 1
0.0 1 64.001 0.0 1
1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1 1
6.001 8.001 5.001
1.001 1.901 1.001 0.22
1 1 1
10.151 14.701 3.801
1.001 1.901 1.001 0.05
1 1 1
0.0 1 76.001 0.0 1
1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0
1 1 1
0.0 1 29.301 0.0 1
1.001 1.901 1.001 0.30
1 1 1
0.0 1 3.3CI 0.0 1
1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0
1 1 1
0.681 4.701 0.0 1
1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1 1
1 1 1 0.80
0.611 44.001 4.001
1.001 1.451 1.001 5.84
1 1 1
0.0 1 85.401 0.0 1
1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1 1
0.0 1 64.001 0.0 1
1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1 1
1 1 1 5.841
1
1
2.011 0.18
1
1
0.501 0.24
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
4.031 0.80
1
0.631 2.75
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
0.631 2.75
1
0.541 0.55
1
1
0.291 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.67
1
1
0.101 0.40
1
1
1.041 0.0
1
1
0.061 0.0
1
1
0.301 0.0
1
1
0.301 0.04
1
2.631 1.66
1
7.241 0.71
1
1
0.021 0.0
1
1
0.021 0.0
1
-; «. | — :;.= —
7.281 0.71
I
1
4.301 0.28
1
1
1.211 0.1T
I
I
0.0 1 0.0
1
11.161 1.04
1
7.371 0.75
1
1
0.051 0.0
1
1
7.421 0.75
a .
1
1.241 0.48
1
1
1.01 1 0.0
1
1
1.691 O.S'6
1
1
1.101 0.15
1
1
5.181 0.0
1
1
0.881 0.0
1
1
0.911 0.0
1
1
0.401 0.0
1
1
12.411 1.18
1
74.551 4.67
1
1
1.961 0.0
1
1
0.461 0.0
1
1 -—
76.981 4.671
-------
-9
45 GULF OIL IND
45 ARCO SPL INO
45 ARCO NYD IND
45 ARCO UPL INO
NODE TOTAL
•*- -- - i
47 SCHUYLKL TRTB
.NODE TOTAL
48 GLOSTRCY HUN
48 BELLMAilR HUN
48 SROKLAVN HUk
48 MTEPHRAH HUN
48 NJ ZINC INO
48 TEXACO IND
48 BIGTIMBR TPIB
KODE TOTAL
49 PHILA SE HUN
49 CAHDEN H 1UN
49 MCAND4F8 INO
49 HARSKOU IND
49 6AF IND
-9.201
1 -14.42
|
-3 .5 0 1
1 -5*43
I
-2 .2 0 1
1 -3*41
I
-O.'10l
1 -0.16
1
1 _
1 -23.40
-370.071
1 -1350.00
1
I_ _
1 -1350.00
-3.COI
1 -4.65
I
0.0 1
1 0.0
1
0.0 1
1 0.0
1
0.0 1
1 0.0
1
-4.001
1 -6.20
1
-4.401
1 -6.82
1
-45.161
1 -70.00
1
1 -87.67
-131 .'001
1 -203.05
1
-Zi.031
1 -40.30
1
-1 .301
i -2.02
1
-0.601
I -0.93
1
-11.001
I -17.05
I
i
2. 80t 1.901 12.001 18.001 4.601
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.22
1 1 I 1 1
2.401 0.401 3.901 S.OOI -6.001
1.00k 1.001 1.001 1.901 -1.001 0.07
1 1 1 1 1
2.001 0.401 0.701 64.001 1.601
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.04
1 1 1 1 i
2.001 3.001 0.501 8.001 3.001
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.00
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0.33
0.151 0.041 2.251 2.601 8.001
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 1.09
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1.09
S.OOI 14.001 0.0 1 54.001 0.0 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.13
1 1 1 1 1
0.0 1 0.0 1 3.0 1 0.0 t 0.0 1
1.001 ',.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0
I 1 i 1 1
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1 1 1 1
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1 1 1 1
1.501 0.501 0.0 1 7.001 2.001
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.05
1 1 1 1 1
1.601 0.0 1 4.701 10.001 5.001
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.06
1 1 1 1 1
1.801 0.841 1.701 5.001 5.601
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.68
1 1 t 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0.91
6.001 2.101 1.401 89.001 4.001
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 6.56
II II
16.COI 10.001 0.0 150.001 1.001
1.001 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 3.47
II II
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 256.101 0.0 1
1.001 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.0
II II
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 123.101 0.0 1
1.001 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.0
II II
1.861 0.0 1 0.0 23.001 0.0 1
1.001 1.001 1.00 1.901 1.001 0.17
11 II
ii ii
1
0.151 0.93
1
1
0.011 0.11
1
1
0.011 0.01
1
1
0.001 0.00
1
0.171 1.06
1
0.291 16.36
1
0.291 16.36
1
0.351 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.0 t 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.021 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.17
1
1
0.321 0.64
1
~ — i ' -
0.681 0.81
1
2.301 1.53
1
1
2.174 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
_-- i — -—— —
2.65
0.28
2.23
0.01
5.18
27.41
27.41
1.96
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.44
0.70
2.73
5.84
141.11
47.20
4.03
0.93
4.01
1
0.361
0.18
0.03
0.00
0.56
58.16
58.16
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.07
O.T8
2.T1
2.3-6
4.37
0.22
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
K'ODE TOTAL
-263.34 I
I 10«20I 4.471 1.531 197.281 4.391
50
51
51
52
54
54
55
55
55
56
57
57
58
NEWTON TRIB
..NODE TOTAL
AMSTAR 1 !ND
AMSTAR 3 INI
.NODE TOTAL
NATSUGAR I NO
NODE TOTAL
CAMQEN N MUN
COOPER TRIB
>NODF TOTAL
PHIL A NE Mi.lN
PENSAUKN MUN
GEORGPAC IND
NODE TOTAL
FRANKFRT TRI3
J»ODE TOTAL
MTLAUREL MUN
PENSAUKN TRIB
•NODE TOTAL
PALMYRA HUN
-3*871 I
1 -6.001
1 1
1 -6.001
-1.901 1
1 -2.941
1 1
-23.601 1
1 -36.581
1 1
1 -39.521
-15.801 1
1 -24.491
1 I
1 -24.491
-3.2DI 1
I -4.96t
1 1
-28.391 1
1 -44.001
1 1
1 -43.961
-172.031 I
I -266.60!
i I
-4 ."20 I I
1 -6.511
1 1
-O.SOl 1
1 -1.241
1
-274.351
-6.45 1
-10.001
1
-10.001
V
0.0 1
0.0 1
1
-11.61 I
-18.001
1
1 -18.001
-0.401 1
1 -0.621
4.20 1
1 .001
t
1
1 .601
1.001
1
1.201
1 .00 1
t
1
2.001
1.001
i
1
12.001
1 .00 t
I
1.801
1.001
1
1
3.001
1 .001
1
7.001
1.001
1
6.001
1.001
1
1
1.001
1 .00!
1
I
3.0 1
1.001
1
1.-50I
1.001
1
1
4.90 +
1.001
1.051
1 .001
0.50
1.00
0.40
1.00
0.301
1 .001
1
1
25.001
1 .001
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
9.901
1 .001
1
17.001
1.00 1
1
0.101
1.001
1
1
1.321
1 .001
1
1
0.0 1
1.00 1
1
2.001
1.001
1
1
32.401
1.001
1.301
1 .001
1 .60
1.00
1.60
1.00
0.701
1 .001
1
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
1.301
1.00 I
I
1
0.501
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.101
1.001
1
1
2.001
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1.00 1
1
1.701
1.001
1
1
3.501
1.001
l
1.701
1 .451
1
1
3.001
1 .45 1
1
3.301
1.45 1
1
1
5.001
1 .451
t
1
108.001
1 .45 t
1
6.001
' 1.45 1
1
1
65.001
1 .451
1
162.001
1.451
1
503.001
1.45 i
I
1
6.901
1.451
1
1
0.0 t
1.45 1
1
6.401
1.451
1
1
47.601
1.451
2.701
1 .001
1
1
3.601
1.001
1
3.501
1.001
1
1
2.001
1 .001
1
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
4.401
1.001
1
2.601
1 .001
t
0.0 1
1.001
1
1.001
1.001
1
1
3.401
1 .001
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
3.501
1.001
1
0.14 1
1
0.14 I
1
0.031
1
1
0.24 1
1
0.261
1
0.261
1
0.261
1
0.321
1
1
0.431
t
0.75 1
1
11.491
1
1
0.251
1
1
0.041
1
11.771
1
0.051
0.05 1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.151
1
0.151
1
0.021
1
0.031
1
0.031
1
0.011
1
1
0.081
1
0.091
1
0.041
1
0.041
1
0.671
1
1
0.711
1
1.381
1
14.21 1
1
1
0.601
1
1
o.oot
1
14.811
, »
1
0.071
1
0.071
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.191
i
0.191
1
0.11 I
I
0.041
1
0.041
1
0.031
1
1
0.321
1
0.34 1
1
0.091
1
0.091
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.31 1
1
0.31 1
1
0.721
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.001
1
0.721
1
0.11 1
1
0.11 1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.164
1
0.161
I
0*01 1
. ; 4
1
0.081
1
0.081
1
0.071
1
0.941
1
1.01 1
1
0.961
1
0.961
1
4.181
1
2.061
1
6.241
>
1
135.31 1
1
1
8.231
1
1
4.871
1
148.41 1
» .
t
0.541
1
0.541
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.901
1
0.901
1
0.231
- ,
0.091
1
0.091
0.061
1
O.T69I
1
0*751
0.261
1
0.761
1
0.0 1
1
1.041
1
1.041
3.731
I
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.01 1
3.741
1
0.181
1
0.181
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.291
0.291
e
1
O.OTI
-------
59
59
60
61
61
64
61
65
65
66
66
66
66
,-*OOE TOTAL
CINAMNSN MUN
PENYPACK TRIE
-NODE TOTAL
POQUESNG TRIB
NODE TOTAL
VLING3RO MUN
RANCOCAS TRIB
.'HOOF TOTAL
BRLINGTN MUN
TENNECO IND
NODE TOTAL
FALLSTWP MUN
NESHAMNY TRIB
NODE TOTAL
BRSTLBRO MUN
3RSTLT.WP MUN
ROHM«HAS IND
OTRSASNK TRIB
.NODE TOTAL
1 1
)i
1
\ \
-2.001
1
1
-3.231
1
1
1
1
-3.231
J
1
1
-1 .901
1
1
-154.841
1
1
1
-1.201
1
1
-1 .701
1
1
1
1
I
-2. "601
1
1
-100.261
1
I
"
1
-1.701
1
1
-1 .701
1
1
-1 .0 a i
i
i
-6.451
1
1
1
1
-0.621
1
-3.101
1
1
-5.001
1
-3.101
1
-5.001
1
_ _ _ 1
-5.001
1
-2.941
1
1
-240»OOI
1
-242.94 I
1
-1 .861
t
1
-2.0?l
1
-3.881
1
-4.031
1
1
-155.401
I
t
-159.431
1
-?. «6?t
1
\
-2.631
I
1
-1 .551
1
1
-10.001
-T6.82I
8.00
1.00
1 .00
1.00
1.001
1.031
1
1
1.241
1.001
1
1.201-
1 .001-
\r
1
9.001
1 .001
1
6.001
1.001
1
1
14.39
1 .00 »
1
1 .041
1.001
1
1
1
4.001
1 .001
1
12.001
1.001
1
a. ooi
1 .001
t
0.0 1
1 .001
1
1
1
1
16.001
1 .001
1
0.101
1.001
1
1
C.10I
1.00 J
1
1
1
1
0.0 1
1 .OCI
t
0.201
1.001
1
4.001
1 .001
I
18.001
1.001
1
1
2.321
1.001
1
0.121
1.001
i
1
8.001
1 .001
1
15.001
1 .001
1
0.101
1.001
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
1
1
1
0.0
1.00
3.20
1.00
3. 20!
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
1 .40 t
1.00 1
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
3.101
1.001
1
I
11 .14 1
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
2.801
1 .001
1
0,501
1 .001
1
0.401
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
1
30.001
1 .45 1
1
1 .001
1.45 I
1
1
1 .001
1.451
1
t
38.401
1 .45 1
1
3.501
1 .45 1
1
1
150.001
1 .451
1
34.501
1 .45!
1
1
9.601
1.45 1
1
1.701
1.45 I
I
1
42.001
1 .451
1
20.001
1 .45!
1
22.001
1 .45 1
1
12.301
1 .451
1
1
1
1
3.001
1.001
1
10.401
1 .001
1
1
10.401
1.001
1
1
0.0 i
1 .001
1
7.001
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
3.301
1 .001
1
t
0.0 1
1.001
1
8.301
1.001
1
1
7.001
1 .001
I
2.001
1 .001
1
5.001
1 .001
0.0
1 .00
1
0.021
1
0.131
1
1
0.031
1
0.161
1
0.031
— — — |
0.031
1
0.021
i
1
1.551
1
•" — 1
1.571
1
0.091
1
1
0.071
1
w ___ 1
0.161
1
0.31 1
1
1
0.871
1
i
1 .181
1
0.061
1
1
0.1 71
1
1
0.071
1
1
0.0 1
1
«_— 1
0.291
1
0.11 1
1
0.271
1
1
0.001
1
0.271
1
0.001
1
_— _ 1
0.001
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.261
1
~ "* — 1
0.261
1
0.041
1
1
0.201
1
_ ~ — _ 1
0.241
1
0.051
1
1
0.101
1
' 1
0.151
1
0.11 1
1
1
0.211
1
1
0.001
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.331
1
0.01 I
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.091
1
0.091
1
0.091
1
. i— 1 .
0.091
1
0.0 1
1
1
1.81 1
1
- - i
1.81 I
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.031
1
0.031
1
0.24 1
1
1
2.51 1
1
i
2.751
1
0.04 1
1
1
0.01 1
1
1
0.001
1
1
0.0 1
1
__ 1
0.051
1
0.231
1
0.731
1
1
0.041
1
0.771
1
0.041
1
- _ — .— 1
0.041
1
0.881
1
1
6.561
1
" — 1
7.441
|
2.181
1
1
0.541
1
-— — __ 1
2.721
1
0.301
1
1
2.061
1
2.361
1
0.861
1
1
0.41 1
1
1
0.271
1
1
0.961
1
- — ._ — , t
2.501
1
O.OTI
1
0.05 1
1
1
0.2BI
1
- I
0.331
1
0*281
_ _ _ 1
0.381
1
0.0 1
1
1
9.051
1
" ~ I
9.0SI
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.041
1
_— •_— I
0.041
1
0.0 1
1
1
6.95 1
1
i
6.951
1
0.101
1
1
0.031
1
1
O.OAI
1
I
0.0 1
1
^ 1
0.171
-------
69 FLORENCE NUN
69 LURBUCKS HUN
69 BRIPARCH IND
69 MARTINS TRI3
NODE TOTAL
•it
71 USSRODNL IND
71 USSTRKTP IND
NODE TOTAL
72 BORDENTN HUN
MODE TOTAL
73 HAMILTON MUN
73 CROSUICK TRIB
NODE TOTAL
75 TRENTON MUN
• NODE TOTAL
76 MORRISVL HUN
76 'ASSNPINK TRI3
NODE TOTAL
-Ot60l
1
I
-7 ..9 01
1
-3. 201
1
1
-54431
1
1
1
-7.001
I
1
-61.301
1
1
1
\
-1 iOni
1
I
I
-S.60I
1
1
-40*651
1
1
1
-19.TJOI
I
1
1
-3*701
1
I
-65.81 1
1
1
1
1
-0.931
1
1
-12.25 I
1
-4.961
1
I
-a»soi
i
-26.63 I
1
-10.851
1
1
-95.02 1
t
-105.871
1
-1.551
1
-1.551
t
-13.331
1
>
-63.001
1
-76.331
1
-29»45I
1
-29.451
1
-5 . 73 1
1
1
-102.001
1
-107.731
3.711 11. Ul 0.0 64 .001 5.001 II II
1.001 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.021 0.061 0.0 0.461 0.031
1 1 1 1 1 II
5.001 20.00 0.5G 18.001 3.601 II II
1.001 1.00 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.331 1.321 0.03 1.721 0.241
V 1 II I)
22.291 0.37 0.0 12.801 0.0 II II
1.001 1.00 1.00 1.451 1.00 0.60I 0.011 0.0 0.501 0*0 1
1 1 II II
0.0 1 0.0 0.0 3.601 0.0 II II
1.001 1.00 1.00 1.451 1.00 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.241 0*0 1
1 1 II II
< 1 0.941 1.381 0.03 2.921 0 .25 1
1.001 2. SCI 1.201 2.001 6.001 II II
1.301 1.001 1.001 0.0 I 1.001 0.061 0.161 0.07 0.0 I 0.351
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1.001 2.301 1.501 2.001 5.001 II II
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1*001 0.511 1.181 0*77 1.481 2.5*61
II 1 1 1 1 II
II II 0.571 1.341 0.84 1.481 2.911
3.601 14.601 0.0 43.301 5.001 II II
1.001 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.031 0.121 0.0 0.581 0.041
1 1 1 1 1 II
1 1 1 0.031 0.121 0.0 0.581 0.041
5*001- 25.00 3.001 18.001 4.001 II II
1.001 1.00 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.361 1.791 0.22 1.871 0.291
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
0.801 0.14 1.241 3.001 7.001 II II
1.001 1.00 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.271 0.051 0.42 1.481 2.371
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1 III 0.631 1.841 0.64 3.351 2.661
6.001 45.00 0.0 1 90.001 1.001 1 1 II
1.001 1.00 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.951 7.141 0.0 20.701 0.1*1
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1 III 0.951 7.141 0.0 20.701 0.161
1.001 31.501 1.811 18.001 7.401 II II
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.031 0.971 0.06 0.811 0.231
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
0.801 0.671 2.401 3.001 7.201 II II
1.001 1.00) 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.441 0.371 1.32 2. 39 1 3.951
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1 1 1 1 1 0.471 1.341 1.37 3.201 4.181
-------
SUHHAJJY OF DISCHARGE LOADS BY ZONE AND TYPE
INPUT
ZONE
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
TYPE OF
DISCHARGE
HUN
IND
TRIB
•ZONE TOTAL
HUN
IND
TRIB
iZONE TOTAL
HUN
IND
TRIS
rZONE TOTAL
HUN
IND
TRIP
>ZONE TOTAL
HUN
IND
TRIB
.ZONE TOTAL
NUH3ER OF
DISCHARGES
0.
3.
1.
1.
12.
5.
8.
25.
7.
7.
4.
18.
15.
?3.
6.
tit
5.
10.
4.
19.
ADJUSTED INfiUt
CO-XST1 CuNST2
0.3
0.0
11 *61
n.^i
2*501
1.301
3.T 91
6.991
22.-1CI
0*74!
0.76I
23.601
7.1 61
5.451
2091
H.81I
4.26)
6.1 41
3.641
1 4 iO 3 1
Q.O 1
0.0 1
2.501
2.9CM
12.084
1 .5>H
0 .73-1
14.411
20.051
0.131
1 .on
21 .191
13.541
5.461
1 .131
20.131
8.07-1
13.701
0.471
22.24.1
LOADS - 1000 LB/OAY
CONST3 CONST4 CONST.5
0.0 I 0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0
29.031 156.321 385.62
29.031 156.321 385.62
0.601 31.511 1.16
0.871 2.791 2.99
6.231 13*761 22.88
7.701 48.061 27.02
2.261 33%.26t 8.34
0.431 15.811 1.02
0.621 3.581 1.60
3.321 355.651 10.96
1.831 107.771 5.81
9.601 116.981 8.57
18.871 32.381 62.85
30.301 257.131 77.23
1.351 17.561 2.48
JO. 401 140.361 4.43
7.531 44.961 27.13
39.281 202.871 34.03
INPUT
CONST1
0.0 1
0.0 1
100.001
16.341
35.821
18.571
45.61 1
9.831
93.651
3.121
3.231
33.221
48.351
36.831
14.321
20.851
30.351
43.731
25.921
19.751
LOADS -
CONST2
0.0 1
0.0 1
100.001
3.591
83.361
10.731
5*41 1
17.81 1
94 .64 1
0.601
4.771
26.191
67.11 1
27.04 1
5.851
24.94 1
36.281
61 .591
2.131
27.481
PERCENT
CONST3
0.0 t
0.0 1
100.001
26.481
7.751
11.351
80.891
7.031
68.161
13.071
18.771
3.031
6.031
31.691
62.281
27.641
3.451
77.401
19.161
35.831
OF rONE
CONST 4
0.0 1
0.0 1
100.001
15.331
65.561
$.801
Z8.64 1
4.711
94 .5,5 1
4.451
1 .01 I
34.871
41.91 1
4-5.491
12.591
25.21 I
8.661
69.181
22.161
19.891
BY UPE
CONSI5
0.0
0.0
100.00
72.10
4.28
11.05
84.67
5.05
76.08
9.38
14.64
2.05
7.S2
11.10
81 .38
14.44
7.28
13.00
79.72
6.36
. _ , <
.GRAND TOTAL
107.
71 .'03 80.91 109.62 1020.03 534.86
-------
** K»)Hlll.«l( •*»»»»*»» « »*»*»KMJl»» «»*«»» »tl< «*«*»»***»»»»«»« »«Jt«»»«*»«*«*«»ll)l« »»*»»»««»* »»«»»»«»»»»•»»«« «»»«*<( »«»«M»JI» »»»»»« 1(11 »«»»»»»»»»»
SECTION 4 -WATER QUALITY BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
»«»» *«*-«*«« »*«»»»* »»»**»*»»»»*»xi>i»»iiit***»jt*x»»»***JtJt*»*»*****»<>*-*»**»**»x*»ii »******»»»»***** »**-*** *i(il»»«j(«i (MG/L) (MG/L) (M6/L>
1 2400 0.30 0.30 1>00 2.00 7.00
NODE 2 ! LISTON PT t DELAWARE
' CINMAX i PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
STA'flT DURATION CONSI1 CONST2 CONST3 CONST4 CONSTS
CY.CLE (CYCLES) (HG/LX (ME/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L>
1 2400 0>20 0.10 1.60 1.50 6*00
UPSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
NODE 76 RECJEVES VARYING LOADS FROM DELAWARE (RIVR)
FLOU PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
START DURATION PLOW
CYCLE tCYCLES) CCFS)
1 2400 -7880.00
OUAL PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
START DURATION CONST.1 CONSTZ CONST3 CONST4 CONSI5
OICLE (C-1CLE&> CH6/1.)
-------
n »
•e-e»*»»-p-e*e»o4U4UJi»iu>JOJOii»JUJu*rjr
>-> -. • -• _k-..» .,-iU - •_.-!-.--> - J . - - - - i "-" " S
ioooooo-v|NO-i^*>*ei-Cn^.^—k-»*ji-».Cj j^* ft
m x
z x
Jit
) p» -sj fr 3D *
ocaaoooa 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ^(^
OC'JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOCJOOOOOO 2 ^
r^rJw^r^txjtxjpj^f\jr>j^^^^T*w»^.rtT«^^^^^^^^^^^^tp*-fc-*-*-»--*-»-»-»-*-*-»-i.-k-* zS
, _ ^ ._._.._ ^
r-
i i i i t i i i ( t t i i o
_*_»_*-*_> _»-! _* _» w ^AA z"
* O O O D » I > I *~*~fc~*OOO^^O^-sl'OO^ ijl OJ -kO^UIU*J-*-*-*—*-*-^-*-^ PI *H
• *k" •»•••-••»••»••» r*
«
*
X «
•< X
o *
• *
-*->-»-»^rvjrj/vrvrurJ—i x
J5
O X
l-l «
<= *
V> K
«
IK
C *
r\J-»U'ir\J-'*v/ICKOO'NjO»*-n^64fV)O~*tOODl/J£*I^O'l'1£'L*J'VOf\>->*rOOOI>*^O'U1£'>l'J-* OMC
o>
m
o
z
X
o
T:
-<
o
m
>•
o
r>
X
X
I
90
C
c~?*^«»^OJOtirfOJU4OJOJOJirfi»Ji>jrui>ji\>r\>rjror\>i\)r
z
z
TJ
C
>OOOL*IO^OOOOOI\>OOOOOOOOOOOV/1OOOOOOO _
• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••c
oaoooouoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooc
INF
ui «i «- *• «> ». *• t- e- w e- 01 w u w w w M r
CHANNELS E
OOOIN>OOOOOini\)OOQOOC3OOOOGOIVU'JOOinO#-OOOOOt/1«-UJOOOOOOOOGOO 7DX
Z X
x
X
t- *
(= X
Z X
n »
•H X
lOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MX
O X
z *
-------
rsJ t\) nj
oooooooooooocDoaoooooooaoooooooooooo
oooooooaooaoaaoooooooooooocicjooooLJOO
i i i t i i i i lit iii i i ii
-j-xi--j-si.-*-*o-Nj(co -j -\i ^j o
t
i
l
Oo
1 OJ
aooooaoaoaooooooaoooaooocaoooo
-»oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
00 -sl^l-J
OOOOOOOO UiOoJO-»
O*O*»O>V/1 W
oooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo
ooaoooooaooaaoi
-------
SECTION 3 rfATER QUALITY INPUTS
*»»»»» »»«««««»*«»»»»»»»)«»»«»*»»»»»***M««»»)(«»k»«»«)(»M»M««K»»»»««M»»«»)(»«»»M»«l()(»)(M»»»»«)<»»»l(»«)(»)ti(«»»»»)(»»»»»«»«)l»»»)l«)tM»«*»«i(«*»«»
SUMMARY OF POINT SOURCE INPUTS
SIMULATION PERIOD : AUGUST 1 - 15 > 1975
CONSTITUENT 1 IS NORG (MG/L)
CONSTITUENT 2 IS NH3 (MG/L)
CONSTITUENT 3 IS N03 (MG/L)
CONST.ITUENT 4 IS CBOD (MG/L)
CONSTITUENT 5 IS DO (MG/L)
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL xASTEWATER AND TRIBUTARY INFLOW BY NODE
INPUT NAME OF TYPC OF
NODE DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
14 SALEMCTY MUN
NODE TOTAL
17 SALEM TRIB
NODE TOTAL
21 GFTTYOU I«*D
NODE TOTAL
22 AMOCO I NO
NODE TOTAL
23 PFNNSVLE MUN
*»«»*«« FLOk *»««>(**l UNADJUSTED CONC (MG/L)
160 CFa 1 CONST1 CCNST2 CONST3
I I I
-2.80I 1 2.101 8.50
I -4.341 1.0CU 1.00
1 1 1
1 -4.341 1
-2.391 I C.O I 0.0
1 -3.?OI 1.001 1.00
i I t
I -3.7CI (
-9. 3PI 1 42.521 86.12
I -13.951 1.001 1 oGO
1 1
1 -1 •?.??. I
-0.6CI i 1.00 17.00
1 -0.931 1.00 1.00
I I
I -O.-T'l
O.C
1.00
0.0
1.0C
8.10
1 .00
0.0
1.00
-C.9ai I 12.001 29.001 O.C
1 -1.391 1.001 1.001 1.00
I III
+ ADJ. FACTORS 1 ADJUSTED INPUT LOADS
CONST4 CONST51 CONST1 CONST2 CONST3
48.00
1 .45
5.50
1 .45
16.30
1 .9D
134.20
1 .90
1
5.301
1.001 0.05
1
1 0.05
0.0 1
1.001 0.0
1
1 0.0
1.201
1.001 3.19
1
1 3.19
0.0 1
1.001 0.01
1
1 0.01
1
1
0.201 0.0
1
0.201 0.0
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
6.471 0.61
1
6.471 0.61
I
0.09I 0.0
I
0.091 0.0
129,701 0.0 1 1 1
1.451 1.001 0.091 0.221 0.0
1 1 1 1
- 1000 LB/DAY 1
CONST4 CONST5I
1 1
1 1
1.631 0.121
1 1
1.631 0.121
1 1
0.161 0.0 1
1 1
0.161 0.0 1
1 1
2.331 0.091
1 >
2.331 0.091
1 1
1.281 0.0 1
1 1
1.281 0.0 1
1 1
1.41 1 0.0 1
1 1
-------
24
24
21
24
24
25
25
29
30
31
31
33
33
33
NODE TOTAL
DPCHAMBR INO
Id 1 I NO
ICI 3 I NO
I f I 4 It'D
If 7 IND
NODE TOTAL
UPENSNCK MUN
WLMINGTN MUN
hOOE TOTAL
CHRISTNA TRI3
KODE TOTAL
BRANDYWN TRI3
NODE TOTAL
PENSGROV MUN
DPEDGMOR IND
NODE TOTAL
OLDMANS TRI3
ALLDCHEM IND
PHOENIX INO
1
1
-93.401
|
1
-7.201
1
|
-1.30 I
i
1
-0.401
1
1
-1 .00!
1
[
1
1
-0.501
1
1
-63 .50 i
1
1
-148.391
1
1
1
1
-304.971
1
1
-
1
-0.301
1
1
-11 ."60 I
I
I
I
-31 .1 61
I
I
-?5 .801
1
1
-11 .001
1
1
1 ~
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-1.391 1 1 1 1 i 0.091 0.221 0.0 1 1.411 0.0 1
1 3.501 12.701 23.251 77.601 6.001 1 1 1 1 1
-144.771 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 2.731 9.901 18.131 87.721 4.681
1 1 1 1 1 1 III!
1 1.631 1.441 4.521 104.801 4.501 till
-3.411 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.03 0.031 0.081 2.791 0.081
III II III!
I 1.171 0.161 2.15 53.001 5.101 1 1 1 1
-2.C2I 1.001 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.01 O.OCI 0.02I 1.381 0.061
III II III!
1 0.561 0.271 1.39 58.201 5.901 III!
-0.62! 1.001 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.281 0.021
III II 1 1 1 1
1 16.321 S3. 181 100.00 789.001 0.0 1 1 1 1 1
-1.551 1.001 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.14 0.69I 0.83I 9. 55! 0.0 1
III II 1 1 1 1
i i i i i — — i • i'~i~i
1 || || 1 1 1 1
-152.361 11 II 2.92 10.621 19.071 101.721 4.841
1 C.O 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 12S.10I 0.0 1 III!
-0.781 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.781 0.0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 6.6UI 8.901 0.901 44.301 5.201 1 1 1 1
-93.761 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 3.33 4.491 0.451 32.441 2.631
1 1 1 I 1 1 III!
— — — — 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ — — « «_....! ^ 1 _ 1 1
-94.551 1 1 I 1 1 3.33 4.491 0.451 33.211 2.631
1 1.0GI 0.23! 1.521 4.501 4.001 III!
-23C.OOI 1.031 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 1.24 0.281 1.881 8.081 4.951
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 -• 1 1 1 1
-23G.OOI 1 1 1 1 1 1.24 0.281 1.881 8.081 4.951
1 0.341 0.061 2.091 9.601 ,8.201 III!
-i72.701 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 2.14 0.151 5.321 35.431 20.371
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-472*701 1 1 1 1 1 2.14 0.151 5.321 35.431 20.871
1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 25.601 0.0 1 1 1 1 1
-0.471 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.091 0.0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 till
1 2.061 0.411 1.651 4.301 0.0 1 1 1 1 1
-17. fgl 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.20 0.041 0.161 0.791 0.0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-16. Ul 1 1 1 1 1 0.20 0.041 0.161 0.881 0.0 1
1 1.001 0.141 1.241 3.401 5.001 1 1 1 1
-48.301 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.26 0.041 0.321 1.281 1.301
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1.491 4.641 4.131 15.001 0.601 III!
-39.991 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.41 1.001 0.901 6.141 0.131
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1.091 2.511 1.971 3.801 0.0 1 III!
-17.051 1.091 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.301 0.10 0.23I 0.181 0.661 0.0 1
1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1
1 i i i i i 1 _ 1 1 i
-------
NODE TOTAL
I -1D5.34I
r
I 0.771
1>27I 1.401 8.081 1.431
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
36
36
36
36
38
39
40
40
CHESTER MUN
MAKCUSHK MUN
BP 201 INO
BP 101 INO
RP 002 IND
FMC !NO
MONSANTO 'NO
SUNOIL 1 INO
NODE TOTAL
CHESTER TRI5
SCOTT 2 IND
SCCTT 3 IND
SCOTT 4 INO
NODE TOTAL
RIDLEY TRI3
NODE TOTAL
UCAR8IDF INO
HCTE TOTAL
DARBY TRIB
CDCA MUN
-9.20!
1
1
-0*601
1
1
-2.401
1
1
-77.POI
1
1
-39.001
1
1
-3.201
1
1
-1 .401
1
|
-33.301
1
1
1
-53.031
1
1
-4i6QI
1
1
-8.301
1
1
-3*501
1
1
"
1
-6<58l
1
1
~
1
-2.601
1
1
1 -
I
-3S.32I
1
1
-9.701
1
-14.26
-0.93
-3.72
-119.35
-60.45
-4.96
-2.17
-136.87
-342.70
-62.20
-7.13
-12.87
-5.43
-107.62
-10.20
-10.20
-4.C3
-4. 03
-59.40
-15.041
0.0 1
1.001
1
22.971
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.741
1.001
1
13.57J
1.301
1
11.001
1 .TO I
1
1
1 .071
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
0.3 1
1.001
1
II
1
1
1 .071
1.001
1
It
1
1
1.901
1 .00 1
1
t
1
1 .521
1.001
1
7.301
1 .CCI
7.961
1.001
1
15.931
1.0CI
I
1.12 1
1.001
1
0.201
1.001
1
0.161
1.001
1
0.741
1.001
t
1.861
1.001
1
2.341
1 .00!
1
1
0.501
1.001
|
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
0.501
1 .001
1
1
13.91 I
1.001
1
1
0.80 1
1.001
1
13.931
1 .00 I
1.721 34.201
1.001 1.451
1 1
2.001 137.701
1.001 1.451
1 1
0.901 36.501
1.001 1.901
1 1
2.021 11.201
1.001 1.901
1 1
1.961 11.701
1.001 1.901
1 1
3.71 1 140.001
1.001 1.451
1 1
0.0 13586.001
1.001 1.901
1 1
2.241 3C.OOI
1.001 1.901
1 1
II
1
1 1
2.591 2.301
1.001 1.451
1 1
1.81 1 91.001
1.001 1.501
1 1
1.381 88.001
1 .00 1 1 .90 I
1 1
1.811 83.001
1.001 1.901
1 1
)i
1
1 1
2.591 2.301
1.001 1.451
1 1
||
1
1 1
3.901 22.401
LOCI 1.901
1 1
1 1
1 1
2.001 2.401
1.001 1.451
t 1
1.01 1 37.501
1 .00 1 1 .45 1
5.401
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
2.401
1.001
1
6.901
1.001
1
5.001
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1 .301
1
5.001
1 .00!
I
1
1
7.401
' 1.001
1
7.101
1.001
1
8.701
1.001
1
6.801
1 .001
1
1
7.401
1 .001
1
1
2.501
1 .001
1
1
1
5.201
1.001
1
6.901
1 .00!
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.121
1
I
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
i
i
0.0 1
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.221
1
1
3.11 1
1
8.461
1
0.471
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
I
0.0 1
1
0.471
I
0.061
1
0.061
1
0.04 1
1
0.04 1
1
0.491
1
1
0.591
1
0.611
1
1
0.081
I
1
0.021
1
1
0.131
I
1
0.051
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.021
1
1
1.721
2.661
i
0.221
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
t
"• ~ 1
0.221
1
0.031
1
0.031
1
0.301
1
0.301
1
0.261
1
1
1 .131
1 1
0.131 9.381
1
1
0.01 1.001
1
1
0.02 1.391
1
1
1.30 13.681
1
1
0.64 7.241
1
1
0.10 5.421
1
1
0.0 79.621
1
1
1.65 42.011
1
3.85 159.731
1
1.15 1.481
1
1
0.07 6.641
1
1
0.13 11.581
1
1
0.051 4.611
1 1
1_ |
1.401 24.301
1 1
0.141 0.181
1 1
_ _ _i ______ i
0.141 0.181
1 1
0.081 0.921
t 1
II
0.081 0.921
1 1
0.641 1.11 I
1 1
1 1
0.081 4.401
1
0.41 1
1
I
0.0 1
t
1
0.051
1
1
4.431
1
1
1 .631
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
3.691
1
10.21 1
1
3.281
1
1
0.271
1
1
0.601
1
1
0.201
1
_ — _ 1
4.351
1
Q.4TI
1
— •_«— I
0.411
|
0.051
1
0.051
1
1.661
1
1
Q.56I
-------
40 DRBYCRSA MUN
40 MUKNPATS MUN
4T TINICUH MUN
•r,ODF. TOTAL
42 DPRPAUMO I ND
42 HFRCULES I ND
NOTE TOTAL
43 GLCSTRCO MUN
43 P«ULSBRO MUN
43 M03ILCP1 INO
43 MOBILNY2 INO
43 MOBILIil3 IND
43 SHELL INO
43 OLINCHEM INO
43 MANTUA TRI3
.NODE TOTAL
44 PHILA SU MUN
44 UCODBURY MUN
44 NAT PARK MUN
NODE TOTAL
-17.30
-5.70
CrC
-14.20
-3.60
-6.50
-1 «3P
-7.20
-4.73
-4.30
-1.90
-17.40
-7.10
-173. DO
-1.90
-O."60
I 111
I 1 0.931 10.121 1.76
-26.32! 1.00 1.001 1.00
I 1
1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0
-8.341 1.00 1.001 1.00
1 1
1 J.O 0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1 1.00 1.001 1.00
1 1
1 1
-110.0?! I
1 1.101 37.101 15.20
-22.01 I 1.001 1.00 1 1.00
1 1 1
1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0
-0.931 1.001 1.001 1.00
I I I
1 I I
-22.94! I I
I 0.0 I 3.711 3.71
-10.031 1.001 LOCI 1.00
1 1 1
1 0.0 1 26.931 0.0
-2.021 1 .001 1 .00 1 1 .00
1 1 1
i 2.901 4.301 Q.90
-11.161 1.001 1.001 1.00
1 1 1
1 1.251 2.501 10.15
-7.281 1.001 1.001 1.00
I 1 1
I 0.0 1 29.001 0.0
-6.671 1.001 1.001 1.00
1 1 1
1 19.191 3.711 0.0
-2.941 1.001 1.001 1.00
1 1 1
1 0.0 1 2.061 0.0
-26.971 1.001 1.001 1.00
! I I
1 0.0 1 5.061 0.6S
-11.001 1.001 1.001 1.00
I 1 1
1 1 1
-7S.11I I 1
1 3.301 1.801 0.25
-268.151 1.001 1.001 1.00
1 1
1 0.0 1 1.24 0.0
-2.941 1.001 1.00 1.00
I 1
1 0.0 1 3.71 0.0
-0.92I 1.031 1.00 1.00
1 1
-272.021 1
1 1 1
1 6.501 7.001
1 1 .45 1 1 .00 I 0.14
I 1 1
1 0.0 1 0.0 1
1 1.451 1*001 0.0
1 1 1
1 0.0 1 0.0 1
1 1 .45 I 1 .001 0.0
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1.22
1 10.801 0.0 1
1 1.901 1.001 0.13
1 1 1
1 5.101 0.0 1
1 1.901 1.001 Q.O
1 1 1
1 1 1 0.13
1 3.801 0.0 1
1 1.451 1.001 0.0
1 i 1
1 64.001 0.0 1
1 1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1 1
37.401 1.401
1.901 1.001 0.17
I 1
14.701 3.801
1.901 1.001 0.05
I 1
76.001 0.0 1
1.901 1.001 0.0
1 1
29.301 0.0 I
1.901 1.001 0.30
1 1
3.301 0.0 1
1.901 1.001 0.0
1 1
4.701 0.0 1
1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1
1 1
1 1 0.53
50.001 0.0 1
1.451 1.001 11.99
1 1
85.401 0.0 1
1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1
64.001 0.0 1
1.451 1.001 0.0
1 1
1 t 11.99
1
1
1.461 0.25
1
I
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
2.851 0.98
1
4.401 1.80
1
1
0.0 1 Q.O
1
1 -
4.401 1.80
1
0.201 0.20
1
1
0.291 0.0
1
1
0.261 0.05
1
1
0.101 0.40
1
1
1.041 0.0
1
1
0.061 0.0
1
1
0.301 0.0
1
1
0.301 0.04
1
2.551 0.69
1
2.601 0.36
I
1
0.021 0.0
1
1
0.021 0.0
2.641 0.361
1
1
1.361 1.01
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
6.881 3.23
1
2.431 0.0
1
1
0.051 Q.O
1
2.481 0.0
I
0.301 0.0
1
1
1.011 0.0
1
1
4.271 0.08
1
1
1.101 0.15
I
1
5.181 0.0
1
1
0.881 0.0
1
1
0.911 0.0
1
1
0.401 0.0
1
14.051 0.23
1
104.691 Q.Q
1
1
1.961 0.0
1
1
0.461 0.0
107.121 0.0
-------
45 GULF OIL I NO
45 ARCO SPL INO
45 ARCO NYD I NO
45 ARCO UPL IND
NODE TOTAL
47 SCHUYLKL TR13
NODE TOTAL
48 GLOSTRCY HUN
48 8ELLMAWR M'JN
48 BPOKLAWN MUN
48 MTEPHRAM MUN
48 NJ ZINC IND
48 TEXACO IND
4R PIGTTMBS TRI?
KODF TOTAL
49 PHILA SE MUN
49 OMDEN M MUN
49 MCAND4FP IND
49 HAR3H3Y IND
49 GAP IND
-10.40
-2.70
-1 .43
-0.10
-1329.03
-2.50
0.0
0.0
o.c
-11 ,i1
-4*53
-3.87
-125. CO
-21.93
-1 .30
-Oi6D
-11.03
1 1 0.0 1 2.491 1.511 4.10) 6.20
1 -16.121 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.00
1 1 > 1 1 1
1 1 0.0 1 34.441 0.0 1 34.601 7.70
1 -4.181 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.00
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 0.0 1 0.321 1.151 40.001 2.30
1 -2.171 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.00
1 1 1 I 1 1
1 1 0.3 1 3.971 0.491 5.501 4.70
1 -0.161 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.00
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 -22.631 1 1 1 1
1 1 0.631 0.081 1.981 3.401 6.20
1 -2060.001 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.00
1 1 1 1 1 1
\ 1 1 1 1 1
1 -2060.001 till
1 1 2.901 15.901 2.071 18.601 0.0
1 -3.881 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.00
1 1 1 1 1
1 0.0 I 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.00
1 1 1 1 1
1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.00
1 1 I 1 1
t 0.3 1 0.0 I 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.00
I 1 1 1 1
1 2.271 11.761 1.441 32.601 0.0
-17.941 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.00
1 I I 1 1
1 1.S9I 10.081 0.801 76.801 0.0
-6.981 1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.00
t 1 1 1 t
1 4.201 1.051 1.301 1.701 2.70
-6.001 1.QDI 1.CCI 1.001 1.451 1.00
1 I I I I
-34.331 1 1 1 1
1 7.271 1.S8I 0.551 120.001 0.0
-193.751 1.0GI 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.00
11 11
1 15.541 7.05 0.0 1 226.001 0.0
-33.941 1.001 1.00 1.001 1.451 1.00
II II
I 0.3 1 0.0 0.0 1 256.101 0.0
-2.021 1.301 1.00 1.001 1.451 1.00
II II
1 0.0 I 0.0 3.0 I 128.101 0.0
-0.931 1.011 1.00 1.031 1.451 1.00
II II
1 1.361 0.0 0.0 1 23.001 0.0
-17.051 1.001 1.00 1.001 1.901 1.00
II II
1 i i i
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.66
6*66
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.22
0.06
0.14
3.48
7.59
2.90
0.0
0.0
0.17
1
0.221 0.13
1
1
0.781 0.0
1
1
0.001 0.01
1
1
0.001 0.00
1
1.001 0.14
1
0.891 21.96
I
0.891 21.96
1
0.331 0.04
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
1.141 0.14
1
1
0.381 0.03
1
1
0.031 0.04
1
_-...__ _ 1 —. — — . —
1.881 0.25
1
1.651 0.57
I
I
1.291 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
_-: 1
1 1
0.681 0.541
1
1
1.481 0.17
1
1
0.891 0.03
1
1
0.011 0.00
1
3.051 0.74
1
54.691 68.78
1
54.691 68.78
1
0.561 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
0.0 1 Q.O
1
1
0.0 1 0.0
1
1
6.001 0.0
1
1
5.481 0 .0
I
1
0.081 0.09
1
I_
12.121 0.09
1
181.541 0.0
1
1
59.901 0.0
1
1
4.031 0.0
1
1
0.931 0.0
1
1
A. 011 0.0
1
-------
.NODE TOTAL
-247*691
10.65 I
2.941 0.571 250.421
0.0
SO NEWTON TRIE
.NODE TOTAL
51 AMSTAR 1 IND
51 AMSTAR 3 IND
NODE TOTAL
52 NATSUGAR IND
.NODE TOTAL
54 CAMOEN N HUN
54 COOPER TRIE
. NOPE TOTAL
55 PHILA NE MUM
55 PFNSAUKN HUN
55 GFORGPAC IND
NOPE TOTAL
56 FRANKFRT TRIB
.NODE TOTAL
57 MTLAUtEL MUM
57 PEKSAUKN TRIB
NODE TOTAL
58 PALMYRA HUN
-3.871
1
1
I
-23."60I
-2.091
1
1
1
-1Sm70l
1
1
1
-3.901
1
1
-43.E71
1
1
1
-193. COI
I
I
-3.6QI
1
1
-1 .901
1
1
1
-6.451
1
I
t
0.0 t
I
1
-8.771
1
1
1
-0.401
1
1
-6.001
t
-6.301
1
-36.581
1
1
-3.101
1
-39.681
I
-24.331
1
-24.331
-6.051
1
1
-S8.QOI
1
-74.041
1
-308.451
1
1
-5.581
1
I
-2.941
1
-316.971
1
-10.001
-10.001
1
0.0 1
1
1
-13.601
1
-13.601
1
-0.621
4.201 1.051 1.301 1.701 2.701 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.141 0.031 0.041 0.081 0.091
1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0.141 0.031 0.041 0.081 3.09»
0.0 1 0.331 1.671 5.001 6.301 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 1 0.071 0.331 1.431 1.241
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.0 1 0.371 1.741 6.201 5.401 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 1 0.011 0.031 0.151 0.091
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 III 0.0 1 0.071 0.361 1.581 1.331
0.0 1 0.18 1.271 8.601 7.501 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.00 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 1 0.021 0.171 1.631 0.981
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 III 0.0 1 0.021 0.171 1.631 0.981
6.191 23.521 15.171 92.001 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.201 0.771 0.491 4.341 0.0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.601 1.761 1.001 5.501 6.701 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.221 0.641 0.371 2.921 2.451
1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0.421 1.411 0.861 7.261 2.451
11.601 5.201 0.171 51.001 2.001 1 1 1 1 I
1.001 1.011 1.001 1.451 1.001 19.271 8.641 0.281 122.831 3.321
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6.171 18.501 4.501 69.301 0.0 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.00 0.191 0.561 0.141 3.021 0*0 1
1 1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1
1.301 2.301 0.901 222.001 0.0 1 1 1 1 1
1.301 1.001 1.001 1.451 1*00 0.021 0.041 0.011 5.101 0.0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 19.471 9.231 0.431 130.961 3.321
1.001 1.321 2.001 6.901 3.401 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.051 0.071 0.111 0.541 0.181
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
III 1 0.051 0.071 0.111 0.541 0.181
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.GOI 1.321 2.001 6.90 3.401 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 0.071 0.101 0.151 0.731 0.251
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
III 1 3*071 0*101 0*15 t 0*731 0*251
4.90) 72.401 3.501 47.60 3.501 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 0.021 0.111 0.011 0.231 0.011
-------
•NODE TOTAL
~.._. ._ -s -1 _ *
59 CINAMNSN MUN
59 PENYPACK TRI3
-NODE TOTAL
60 POQUESNG TRI3
NODE TOTAL
-. . i
61 ULIN63RO MUN
61 RANCCCAS TRIB
NODE TOTAL
64 BRLINGTN MUN
64 TFNNECO INO
-NODE TOTAL
65 FALLSTUP MUN
65 NESHAMNY TRI9
*CDE TOTAL
66 BRSTLPRO MUN
66 BRSTLTUP MUN
66 POHM4HAS I NO
66 OTR4ASNK TRr?
•NODE TOTAL 1
1
1
-1 i60l
1
1
-3.231
t
1
1
-3.231
1
[
-1.901
1
1
-112.9TI
1
1
I
".0 1
1
1
-1.701
1
I
1
-2.401
1
1
-100.261
1
1
1
-2.101
I
1
-?.3CI
I
1
-1 i20i
1
-6.45 1
I
1
1
'
-0.621
-2.4M
I
1
-5.001
1
-7.461
-5.001
-5.001
1
-2.941
1
1
-175. OCI
1
-177.94 I
0.0 1
1
I
-2.021
1
-2.021
1
-4.??l
1
1
-155.401
1
-159.43 t
1
-3.261
1
1
-3.571
1
1
- 1 . £6 1
1
1
-10.001
1
-'S.6bl
t t t 1 1 1 1 1 1
ill 1 0.021 0.111 0.011 0.231 O.Otl
4.601 22.001 0.0 1 30.00 5.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001- 1.COI 1.001 1.45 1.001 0.061 0.291 0.0 1 0.581 0.071
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.0GI Q.10I 3.201 1.00 10.401 1 1 1 1 1
1.COI 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 0.031 0.001 0.091 0.041 0.281
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
ill 1 0.091 0.301 0.091 0.621 0*351
LOCI 0.101 3.201 1.00 10.401 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 3.031 0.001 0.091 0.041 0.281
til 1 1 1 1 1 1
III 1 0.031 0.001 0.091 0.041 0.281
1.241 0.0 1 0.0 1 38.40 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 0.021 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.881 0.0 1
III 1 > 1 1 1 1
1.331 0.141 1.241 3.80 4.901 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 1.251 0.131 1.171 5.191 4.621
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
111 1 1.271 0.131 1.171 6.081 4.621
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.QOI 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
6.001 18.001 3.101 34.50 ^.301 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 0.071 0.201 0.031 0.541 0.041
III 1 1 1 1 1 1
III 1 0.071 0.201 0.031 0.541 0.041
14.391 2.321 11.141 9.601 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.311 0.051 0.241 0.301 0.0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.041 0.121 3.001 1.701 8.3CI 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 O.S7I 0.101 2.511 2.061 6*951
t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1.181 0.151 2.751 2.361 6.951
21.371 6.491 4.601 13. OCI 5.301 1 1 1 1 1
1.031 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.371 0.111 0.081 0.331 0.111
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3.711 G.O 1 1.391 3.2PI 0.0 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.00 0.071 0.0 1 0.031 0.091 0.0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.981 0.491 0.101 30.03! 1.7.1 1 1 1 1 1
1.COI 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.00 0.011 O.GOI 0.001 0.441 0.021
III! 1 1 1 1 1
3.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 12.301 0.0 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.00 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.961 0*0 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 0.461 0.121 0.111 1.821 0.131
-------
69
69
69
69
71
71
72
7?
73
75
76
76
LURSUCKS MUN
FLORFNCF MUN
PATPARCH IND
MARTINS TFIB
NODE TOTAL
USSTRMTP INO
USSRODML IND
NODE TOTAL
BGRDENTN MUN
NODE TOTAL
HAMILTON MUN
CROSWICK TPIB
NODE TOTAL
TRENTON MUN
NODE TOTAL
MORRTSVL MUN
ASSNPINK TRI3
NODE TOTAL
-S«->DI
I
I
-0.-60I
I
I
-3.2QI
1
1
-5.431
1
1
1
1
1
-7?. 301
1
1
3.0 1
1
1
1
1
1
-1 .001
t
1
1
I
1
-9iOOI
1
1
-40.651
1
1
1
1
-19.301
1
1
1
-3.901
I
1
-65.81 I
1
1
-
1
1
-13.181
I
I
-O.°3l
1
1
-4.961
1
1
-&.50I
1
_ _ _ — I
-27.561
1
-50.071
1
1
0.0 1
1
-50.071
1
-1.551
1
-1.55t
1
-13.95 I
I
1
-6T.30I
________ I
-76.95 1
1
-29.91 1
1
_ — — _ f
-2?. 91 1
1
-6.051
1
1
-102.001
1
-108.041
9.291
1.00 I
t
3.71 I
1 .om
i
22.291
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1.001
>
1
1 .741
1.001
3.0
1.00
3.601
1 .COI
1
|
1
1
8.001
1.001
1
0.8CI
1 .001
1
1
0.901
1.0CI
1
1
1.001
1 .001
1
0.601
1 .001
I
1
49.521
1.001
1
11.141
1.001
1
0.371
1 .001
1
o.n i
1.001
i
t
2.441
1.00 1
1
0.0 1
1.001
I
14.601
1 .001
1
1
26.601
1.001
1
0.141
1 .001
1
1
14.901
1.001
1
1
31.501
1.001
1
C.67I
1 .001
I
1
0.621
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
1.901
1.00 1
1
O.C 1
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
12.001
1.001
1
1.241
1.001
1
0.761
1.001
1
1
1
1.81 1
1.QOI
I
2.401
1.001
1
42.701
1.45 1
1
64.00 1
1.45 1
1
12.801
1.45 1
1
3.60 1
1.45 I
I
1
3.401
1.45 1
1
0.0 1
0.0 1
1
1
48.301
1 .451
1
1
11.901
1.45 t
1
3.0CI
1.451
1
1
40.00 1
1.45 1
1
1
18.001
1.45 1
1
3.00t
1 .451
t
1
5.001
1 .301
1
5.001
1.00
0.0
1.00
0.0
1.00
5.001
1.001
0.0
1.00
5.001
1 .001
1
1
5.001
1 .001
1
7.001
1 .001
1
*
1
1.601
1.001
1
\ •
1
7.401
1.001
1
7.201
1 .001
1
1 "
1
1
0.661
1
t
0.02 1
1
1
0.60 1
1
t
0.0 1
1
_ 1
1 .271
1
0.471
1
1
0.0 1
1
~ •"• 1
0.471
1
3.031
1
____ — 1
0.031
1
0.601
1
1
3.271
1
0.871
1
0.141
1
0.14 1
1
0.031
1
1
0.44 1
1
1 .
3.471
1
3.51 1
1
t
0.061
1
1
0.01 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
3.58)
1
0.661
1
|
0.0 1
1
Q.66I
1
0.121
1
0.121
1
2.001
1
1
0.051
1
2.051
1
2.401
1
1 .
2.401
1
1 .031
1
1
0.371
1
1.391
1
0.041
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
_ _ —I
0.04 1
1
0.51 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
0.51 1
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
0.901
1
1
0.421
1
1.321
1
0.121
1
1 -
0.121
1
0.061
1
1
1 .321
1
1 _
1.331
1
4.391
1
1
0.461
1
1
0.501
1
1
0.241
1
5.591
1
1.331
|
1
0.0 1
1
1 .331
1
0.581
1
1
0.581
1
1.301
1
1
1.481
1
2.771
1
9.341
1
| -
9.341
1
0.851
1
1
2.391
1
3.241
1
0.351
1
1
0.031
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
0.381
1
1.351
1
1
0.0 1
1
1.351
1
0.04 1
1
0.041
I
0.381
1
1
2.371
1
2.751
1
0.261
1
1
0.261
1
0.241
1
1
3.951
1
1
4.201
-------
SUMMARY CF DISCHARGE LOADS BY ZONE AND TYPE
INPUT
ZONE
1
1
1
2
2
2
t
T
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
TYPE OF
DISCHARGE
MUN
IND
TRIR
•;ZONE TOTAL
MUN
I NO
TR'R
ZONE TOTAL
MUN
IND
TRI"
iZONE TOTAL
MUN
IND
TRI3
fZONE TOTAL
MUN
INO
TRI3
ZONE TOTAL
NUM3rR OF
PISCHARGES
n.
0.
1 .
1.
12.
S.
3.
25.
7.
7»
4.
18.
15.
23.
6.
44.
13.
4.
19.
1 ADJUSTFG INPUT
1 CONST 1 CJNST2 <
I 0.0
1 O.C
1 17.4"
1 17.401
1 2.331
1 1 .141
1 2.591
1 30.151
1 3.1 ?!
I 0.4^1
1 7.811
1 33.031
1 3.471
1 6.SJI
1 13.931
0.0 »
0.0 1
3,391
3.391
9.571
0.871
0.651
1 1 .0 9 I
13.CCI
j »1 31
Q.<551
13.981
6.74 1
10.94-1
1.731
19,41 1
4.91 I
16.451
0.471
LOADS
C.O
0.0
43.71
43.71
1 .481
C.551
5.591
7.61 I
1.5C!
0.341
0.6ol
2.701
1.031
6.61 1
23.931
31.671
0.451
20.921
7.531
23.9,31
- 1000 LB/OAY
COSST4 CONST5
0.0 ! 0.0
0.0 1 0.0
92.291 360.69
92.291 360.69
19.121 1.47
2. SOI 1.40
12.401 18.45
34.321 21.33
371.871 3.33
17.291 2.31
4.271 2.97
393.431 8.62
125.121 1.93
202.461 11.90
57.941 74.21
335.531 88.09
36.341 2.75
112.921 5.C5
44.961 27.13
194.221 34.93
INPUT
CONST1
0.0
0.0
100. OP
17.661
36.601
17.931
45.461
6.45 1
97.811
0.621
1 .57!
31 .23!
42.94)
31 .05!
26.011
30.471
24.92!
48.971
26.101
14.141
LOADS - PERCENT
CONST2 CONST3
0.0 1 0.0
0.0 1 0.3
100.001 100.00
4.731 38.14
86.291 19.391
7.821 7.181
5.891 73.431
15.471 6.641
93.011 55.481
0.941 19.971
6.051 24.551
19.501 2.351
34.741 3.421
56.371 20.871
8.891 75.711
27.071 27.641
20.61 I 1.571
77.411 72.391
1.991 26.341
33.231 25.221
OF ZONE
CONST4
0.0 1
0.0 1
100*001
8.391
55.701
8.171
36.131
3.121
94.521
4.391
1 .091
35.771
32.461
52.511
15.031
35.05
18.71
58.14
23.15
17.661
BY T.YPE
CONSIS
0.0
0.0
100.00
70.22
6.91
6.57
86.52
4.15
38.67
26.84
34.48
1 .68
2.25
13.51
84.24
17.15
7.87
14.47
77.66
6.80
GRAND TOTAL
107.
93i53 71.71 114.59 1399.78 513.66
-------
XXXXXXXXXXX)tXMJH*XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*tXX)«*X'XXXX*X*XXJlX*X*XX)«»XXX»IXXXXXX)«XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXItX)«XXXX.XXXXXX XX XXJt X X XXXX ft X XXXXXXXXXXN
SECTION 4 MATER QUALITY BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
XX XXXXJfcXX* XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX1«XXXXXX,XX*1*XX** *XJt* XK**XXXXXXtfKXXXXXKKK«KXXXXXKKXttXKXXXXftXKKXXXXKKXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXMKKKXK«*XXttKXKXXttX1i1l
SFAyARO BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
NC06 1 ! COURTHOUSE PT , MARYLAND
1 CIN1 ' PERIOD = 2100 CYCLES
STAliT
CYCLE
1
START
CYCLE
iUKATION
CCYCLES)
2400
i
DURATION
(CYCLES)
CONST1
CMG/L)
0.30
NGQE 2 >
CINMAX >
CONST1
(MG/L)
CONST2
(MG/L)
0.30
LISTON PT
PERIOD =
CONST2
(MG/L)
CONST3
(MG/L)
1 .00
j DELAWARE
2400 CYCLES
CONST3"
(MG/L)
CONST4
(MG/L)
1.00
CONSTA
(MG/L)
CONST5
(MG/L)
7.00
CONST5
(MG/L)
2400
0.32
0.12
1 .40
1.50
5.50
UPSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
NODE 76 RECIEVES VARYING LOADS FROM DELAWARE (RIVft)
FLOW PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
START
CYCLE
DURATION FLOW
(CYCLES) (CFS)
START
CYCLE
1 2400 -7880.00
OUAL PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
DERATION CONST1 CONST2 CONST3 CONST4 CON3T5
(CYCLE:.) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L)
1
851
350
1550
0.41
0.41
0.08
0.08
1.03
1.14
2.17
2.17
8.50
7.20
-------
o
X
• » • »*•»•**••••••*•»*•»•««•••••»•»*•»••»•••»*••* -H
X
• «••»••••***«•**•*•••••••«•••••*•«•*•***••••••• -H
X
O T ' 3 O Q O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O J3 O O O O :j O 1-3 O O O J '"D O O O 'O O O O O O O O O :* ~>
OOOOOCJOOOCJOOOOOOCjUOOOCjOOOOOOOOv^OOOCJOOOOOOCDOCJOOO -^JT
Vl L z rn
Jk -i Jk ' ' ' A A A Ik Jk Jk ' AA1 _>
«. J'i"1.•*, ^ »?«••• r •'»J • *J ••'••••*'•••»•• •••IT •'••••••*•• i*"
X
o
c
o
w
I
ro I I
O ( I I I ^ ~ I *.
OvIVOOo*^—*O —* ^"
-jaa o*-a OOOOOMO-OO oouorooooooooooaovioaaooooooaoooooo
OOOOCJOOOOOOOOOOOOCJOOOtJCJCJOOOOOOOOOCDOOOOOOOoOOOOO K.
I I
ooocjoooocjoooooaooooooooooooooooaooooooooooooooo x
• •»*•• ••••••»••«••••••••••••••*•••••••*••••••*• fl
r>
n -H
z
m a
r >•
o-»oo-si-gc>OP--*-k'OO^jo^'Ji oo o oo ^t o wrorj-ko o* -» r\> m
o
-n
f>
x
^
2.
a
x
>>
c
~ _
ooooooooowooaooooooooaotaaoooaoooo-ooooooaoooaoooa
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaooooooooooooo
O
|
o
-------
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
14994.
10662.
10662.
10662.
T1995.
11995.
8996.
T1995.
10329,
'6771.
8096.
11995.
7997.
.9674.
9007.
9674.
9674.
9674.
' 9007.
9007.
9017.
9508.
•6731 .
9508.
11009.
7839.
7839.
9674.
T0842.
T2009.
9007.
'6005.
' 7506.
8000.
'8000.
3998.
7"5 0.
611 .
5C 5 •
3887.
28T2.
167.
2^7?.
238?.
1400.
3C-0.
3165.
2499.
3195.
300.
2474.
2752.
241 9.
600.
2863.
2391.
1890.
334.
1640.
130?.
862.
874.
1362.
1334.
141 8.
1362.
334.
1473.
1168.
S62.
39676.
9224.
10215.
7346.
36115.
660 OS.
2119.
65651 .
76207.
19081 .
2091 .
74005.
30571.
65797.
3453.
5289?.
5S386.
47327.
9?62.
49229.
44320.
3?949.
4623.
37847.
31421 .
14330.
140C4.
31621 .
32490.
29466.
22853.
3833.
2T5M .
16973.
9652.
O.G20
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
1.020
C.020
0.020
0»020
n.020
P. 020
0*020
0.035
0.035 •
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035'
0.035
0.035
0.035
H.035
C.040
0.340
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.040
-10650.69
-2067.88
-2Q67.64
-2367.23
-8582.41
-3582.29
0.01
-8582.15
-8532.17
-943.65
-31 .97
-7633.55
-916.71
-3295.45
-13.98
-8231.66
-8281 .88
-8282.13
-174.87
-3107.45
-8107.51
-t107.66
-159.87
-7948.16
-6300.30
-1548.29
-1648.41
-7946.96
-794B.75
-7943.03
-7946.87
-64.13
-7331 .72
-738G.84
-7380.27
22.4
12.3
16.7
13.2
22.2
23.3
12.7
28,2
26.4
13.6
7.0
23.4
12.2
20.6
11 .5
21 .4
21 .2
19.6
13.8
17.2
13.5
20.6
13.9
23.1
24.0
16.6
16.8
23.2
24.4
20.3
16.3
11 .5
14.6
14.5
11 .2
43
44
45
46
44
43
49
49
51
52
53
52
53
55
56
56
58
59
60
SO
62
63
64
04
66
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
72
74
75
44
45
46
47
43
49
50
51
53
54
55
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
45
66
68
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
S*
56
57
58
59
60
61
«
63
64
65
66
67
6?
69
70
71
7?
73
74
75
76
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
-32.0
-255.0
0.0
-14.0
0.0
P.O
0.0
-175.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-160.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.a
-64.3
0.0
0.0
-7880.3
0.51
0.52
0.52
0.53
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.55
0.56
0.56
0.59
0.61
0.64
0.64
0.67
3.69
0.71
0.71
0.73
0.73
0.74
0.77
0.79
0.83
0.88
0.88
0.92
0.98
1.18
52
53
54
55
56
57
53
59
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
73
72
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
53
54
0
56
57
58
0
60
62
0
64
65
66
0
63
69
70
0
72
74
74
76
77
78
79
0
81
32
0
0
55
0
0
59
60
0
61
63
0
0
0
67
0
0
0
71
0
73
0
75
0
0
0
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
XXXXXXkXXXXXXX*XXX XXXXXXXX.XJ
-------
24
24
25
25
25
29
30
31
31
33
33
33
34
34
NODE TOTAL
_ *. . ,
I C I 1 I NO
DPCHAHBR I NO
. NODE TOTAL
DPCARNEY I NO
UPENSNCK HUN
ULMINGTN HUN
NODE TOTAL
',.1,.
CHRISTNA TRI3
.NODE TOTAL
BRANDYJJN TRI8
NODE TOTAL
PENSGROV HUN
DPEDGHOR INO
NODE TOTAL
*. t
OLOHANS TRJB
ALLDCHEH IND
PHOENIX IND
.NODE TOTAL
CHESTER HUN
HARCUSHK HUN
1
-9iOOI
1
1
-126.001
1
t
1
. '. :
-1 .901
1
I
-0 *5 0 1
1
1
-80.001
1
I
-67.101
1
1
I
-123.681
>
1
1
-0.301
1
1
-1»30I
1
1
1
-19.351
1
1
-32.001
1
1
-11. '001
1
1
1
,\
-9*001
1
-Oi60l
-0.931
1
-13.951
1
1
-195.301
1
-209.251
1
-2.941
1
1
-0.781
t
1
-124.001
1
-127.721
-104-»OOI
I
-104.001
1
-191.701
1
-191 .701
-0.471
1
1
-2.021
1
-2.481
1
-30.001
1
1
-49.601
1
1
-17.051
t
-96.65 1
1
-13.951
1
1
I
3.20*
1.001
1
3.901
1 .001
I
1
2.5DJ
1 .001
1
5.301
1 .001
1
6.601
1.00f
1
1
0.501
1.001
1
1
0.701
1.001
1
I
7.401
1.001
1
1.901
1.001-
t
1
1.001
1.001
1
1.501
1.001
0.901
1.001
1
1
0.901
1.001
44.60k
1
1.701
1.001
1
22.801
1.001
1
1
63.101
1.001
I
26.501
1 .001
1
34.401
1.001
1
1
0.101
1.001
0.20
1.00
7.401
1 .001
1
1.901
1.001
1
1
0.101
1 .00!
1
4.501
1.001
0.0
1.00
8.001
1.001
1
14.901
1
18.601
1.001
1
8.401
1 .00 1
1
1
1.601
1 .001
t
0.0 1
1 .001
1
0.301
1 .001
1
1
1 .801
1.001
t
1
2.001
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
13.001
1.001
1
1
1.201
1 .001
1
2.401
1 .001
1
0.501
1.001
1
1
3.201
1.001
1
1.901
1
100.60 1
1 .45 1
1
142.601
1 .451
1
1
368.901
1 .45 1
1
128.101
1.451
1
97.401
1 .45 1
1
1
2.101
1.45 I
1
1
3.401
1.451
1
1
51.201
1 .451
1
6.401
1.901
1
1
3.401
1 .45!
1
19.701
1 .901
i
3.801
1 .901
1
1
86.501
1.45 1
1
122.901
1
5.001
1 .001
t
6.001
1.001
1
1
2.001
1 .001
1
2.001
1 .001
t
3.001
1 .001
1
1
7.001
1.001
1
1
7.001
1.001
1
1
2.001
1.001
1
5.001
1.001
1
1
5.001
1.001
1
1.001
1.001
1
3.001
1 .001
1
1
5.001
1 .001
1
3.001
i
0.081
1
0.241
1
1
4.10 1
1
4.341
ft
1
0.04 1
1
1
0.021
1
1
4.41 1
1
4.471
1
0.281
1
0.281
1
0.721
1
0.721
1
0.021
1
1
0.021
1
0.04 1
1
0.1 61
1
1
0.401
1
1
0.081
0.641
1
0.071
1
1
0.201
1
0.131
1
1
23.981
1
24.111
1
1.001
1
1
0.111
1
1
22.971
1
24.081
1
0.061
1
0.061
1
0.21 1
1
0.211
1
0.021
1
1
0.021
1
0.041
1
0.021
1
1
1.201
1
1
0.0 1
1.221
1
0.601
1
1
1
0.0 1
it i
1
1.401
1
1
8.831
1
10.231
1
0.031
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.201
1
0.231
1
1.01 1
1
1.01 1
1
2.061
1
2.061
1
0.0 1
1
0.141
1
0.141
1
0.191
0.641
1
1
0.051
1
0.881
1
0.241
1
1
1
1 .301
1
10.961
1
1
217.461
1
228.421
8.481
1
1
0.781
1
1
94.301
1
103.561
1
1.71 1
1
1.71 1
1
5.091
1
5.091
1
0.191
1
1
0.131
1
0.321
1
0.801
1
1
10.001
1
1
0.661
1
11.461
1
9.421
1
1
1
0.021
1
0*381
1
1
6.3TI
6.691
1
0.031
1
1
0.011
1
1
2.001
2*041
1
3.921
1
3.921
7.231
7.231
0.011
1
0.051
0.0*61
0.811
1
1
0*271
1
0.281
1.3SI
1
0.381
1
-------
34
34
34
34
36
36
36
36
39
40
40
40
40
40
42
42
BP 201 IND
FMC INO
MONSANTO IND
SUNOIL 1 IND
NODE TOTAL
CHFSTER TRIB
SCOTT 2 INO
SCOTT 3 INO
SCOTT 4 INO
>*ODE TOTAL
UCARBIDE INO
KOBE TOTAL
COCA HUN
DARBY TRIB
DRBYCRSA MUN
MUKNPATS HUN
TINICUN MUN
NODE TOTAL
DPRPAUNO INO
HURCULES INO
1
1
-117.001
1
1
-2.001
1
I
-1.601
|
1
-81*501
1
1
1
-31*611
I
1
-4.601
1
1
-8.301
1
1
-3 *7 0 1
1
1
1
-2*601
1
1
1
-10*00!
1
1
-15.461
1
1
-17.301
1
1
-5.801
1
1
-0.6C1
1
1
1
ELfl
-16.301
1
1
-0*601
1
-0.931
1
I
-181 .351
I
I
-3.101
1
t
-2.481
1
1
-126*331
I
-328.141
1
-49.001
1
1
-7.131
1
1
-12.871
1
1
-5*731
1
-74.731
1
-4.031
1
-4.031
1
-15.501
1
1
-24.00 1
1
I
-26.821
1
1
-a. 991
1
1
-0.931
1
-76.231
1
-35.261
1
1
-0.931
1.001
t
0.401
1.001
1-
1*201
1.00*
4
12.001
1.001
1
10.401
1.001
i
1
1.101
1 .001
1
0.901
1*001
1
0.901
1.001
1
0.901
1.001
I
4 .60 I
1 .001
t
6.501
1.001
1
3.301
1.001
1
0.901
1.001
1
2.701
1.301
I
5.601
1 .001
1
1
0.701
1.001
1
0.0 I
1.001
1.001
1
0.701
1.001
1
1.201
1.001
1
6.701
1.001
1
7.101
1.001
1
1
0.901
1.001
1
0.901
1 .001
1
0.901
1.001
1
0.901
1.001
1
1
13.801
1.001
1
1
10.201
1.001
1
7.701
1.001
1
4.001
1.001
1
36.501
1.001
1
11.101
1 .001
1
1
72.001
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1.001
1
2.201
1 .001
1
3.701
1.001
1
1.451
1
14.301
1.901
|
281.601
1*451
1
1.9012172.001
1.001
1
1 .901
1.001
1
1
2.001
1.001
1
2.301
1.001
1
2.301
1.001
1
2.301
1.001
1
18.401
1.001
1
1
3.101
1.001
I
2.301
1*001
1
2.001
1.001
1
6.201
1.001
1
3.701
1 .001
1
i
•
1
10.001
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1.901
1
49.001
1.901
1
1
9.70J
1 .45 1
1
61.201
1.901
1
89.801
1.901
1
103.601
1.901
1
1
22.201
1.901
1
1
41 .901
1.451
1
2.401
1.45
2.40
1.45
15.70
1.45
12.80
1.45
36.001
1.901
1
5.101
1.901
1.001
1
5.001
1 .001
1
3.001
1.001
1
2.001
1*001
1
5*001
1 .001
1
1
7.401
1 .001
1
7.101
1 .001
1
8.701
1 .001
1
6.801
1.001
1
1
2.501
1 .001
1
1
7*001
1.001
1
5*001
1*001
1
7.001
1.001
1
5*001
1*001
1
5.001
1 .001
1
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.031
1.001
0.221
1
1
0.391
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.161
1
1
7.071
1
7.941
1
0.291
1
1
0.031
1
1
0.061
1
1
0.031
1
0.41 1
1
0.101
1
0.101
1
0.541
1
1
0.431
1
1
0.131
1
1
0.131
1
1
0.031
1
1.261
1
0.101
1
1
0.0 1
0.071
1
1
0.681
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.091
1
1
4.831
1
6*301
i
0*241
1
. 1
0.031
1
1
0.061
1
1
0.031
1
0.361
1
0.301
1
0.301
1
0.851
1
1
1.001
1
1
0.581
1
1
1.771
1
|
0.061
1
1
4.251
1
9.801
1
1
0.0 1
0.011
1
1
2.15 1
1
1
0.061
i
1
0.031
1
1
1.291
1
3.781
1
0.531
1
1
0.091
1
1
0.161
1
1
0.071
1
— : |
0.85 1
1
0.401
1
0.401
1
0.261
1
1
0*301
1
1
0.291
1
1
0.301
1
1
0.021
1
1
1.161
1
1.361
1
1
0.0 1
0.891
1
1
26.531
1
1
6.821
1
1
55.11 1
1
1
63.331
1
162.11 1
1
3.71 1
1
1
4.461
1
1
11.821
1
1
6.081
1
26.081
1
0.921
1
0.921
|
5.071
1
1
0.451
1
1
0.501
1
1
1.101
1
1
0.091
1
7.221
1
9.31 I
I
I
0.05 I
0.021
4*88
0.05
0.03
3.40
3.75
1.95
0*27
0.60
0.21
3.04
0*0-5
0.05
0.58
0.65
1.01
0.24
0.03
2.51
0.41
0.02I
-------
NODE TOTAL
43 GLOSTECU 1UN
43 PAULSBRO HUN
43 MANTUA TRI3
43 OLINCHEH INC
43 MOBILCP1 INO
43 SHELL IND
.NODE TOTAL
44 PKILA SU MUN
£4 UOOOBURY HUN
44 NAT PARK MUN
44 GULFOIL3 I NO
44 GULFOIL2 INO
44 SULFOIL1 IND
44 TEXACO INO
.NODE TOTAL
45 ARCO SPL INO
45 ARCO NYD INO
45 ARCO UPL IND
:AODE TOTAL
1
1
1
-9.001
1
1
-1.301
1
1
-7.101
1
1
-17*401
I
1
-25*001
1
1
-1*901
1
1
1
1
-147.001
1
1
-1*901
1
1
-0*601
1
1
-14.001
1
1
-0.301
1
1
-5.901
1
1
-4 .0 0 1
I
1
. 1 -
1
-3.101
1
1
-1.501
. 1
1
-0 .'1 0 1
1
1
I -
1
1
-26.191
)
-13.951
1
|
-2.021
1
1
-11.001
1
1
-26.971
1
1
-38.751
1
t
-2.941
1
1
-95.631
1
-227.851
1
1
-2.941
1
1
-0.931
1
1
-21.701
1
1
-0.471
1
1
-9.151
1
1
-6.201
1
•'- 1
-269.231
1
-4.81 1
1
1
-2.321
I
I
-0.161
1
-.7.281
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1 1 1 1 1 0.10 9.801 1.36 9.351 0.421
2.801 12.901 3.701 26.601 5.001 1 1 1
1.001- 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.21 0.971 0.28 2.901 0.381
t 1 1 1 1 1 II
0.0 1 26.901 0.0 1 64.001 3.101 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 0.291 0.0 1.011 0.031
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
11.801 4.201 0.701 3.001 5.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.70 0.251 0.04 0.261 0.301
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
2.801 1.401 0.0 1 2.201 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.41 0.201 0.0 0.611 0.441
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
2.031 9.101 0.601 55.101 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.42 1.901 0.13 21.851 O.'63l
1 1 I 1 1 1 II
11.70k 3.701 0.601 20.501 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.19 0.061 0.01 0.621 0*051
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1. 1 1 1 1 1.92 3.671 0.45 27.231 1.811
7.701 5.301 2.501 64.401 2.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 9.45 6.501 3.07 114. 57! 2.451
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1.201 0.0 1 0.0 1 85.401 3.001 1 1 1
1.301 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.02 0.0 1 0.0 1.961 0.051
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
0.0 1 3.701 0.0 1 64.001 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 0.021 0.0 0.461 0.021
4 1 1 1 1 1 II
0.0 1 0.0 I 0.0 1 7.701 6.001 1 I I
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1.711 0.701
1 I 1 1 1 1 II
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 24.001 6.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.111 0*021
t 1 1 t 1 1 II
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 2.001 6.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.191 0*301
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
3.001 10.501 0.801 70.401 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.10 0.351 0-.03 4.471 0.101
t 1 1 1 1 1 II
1 1 1 1 I ~ — — . 1 _ ^^_ _ __ 1 — . _ — 1
1 1 1 1 1 9.57 6.871 3.09 123.481 3.631
0.0 1 25.101 0.0 1 108.201 3*001 1 I 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0 0.651 0.0 5*321 0*081
1 III 1 II
0*0 1 0.0 0.0 1 39.901 3.GOI 1 1 1
1.001 1.00 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.951 0.041
1 III 1 II
0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 6.001 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.00 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.011 0.001
1 III 1 II
1 III 0.0 0*651 0*0 6*281 0*121
-------
47 SCHUYLKL TRIB
'NODE TOTAL
~« . *
48 BIGTIHBR TRIB
48 8ELLHAUR NUN
48 SROKLAUN NUN
48 HTEPHRAH HUN
NODE TOTAL
« •. .•
49 CAHDEN H MUN
49 PHILA SE HUN
49 HCANDXFR IKO
49 HARSHOU I NO
49 6AF IND
49 NJ ZINC IND
.'.NODE TOTAL
SO GLOSTRCT HUN
..NODE TOTAL
51 AHSTAR 1 I NO
NODE TOTAL
._=,» . *
52 NATSUGAR IND
.NODE TOTAL
r
54 COOPER TRIB 1
-431 .941
1
1
t
1
, 4,
-3.871
I
1
-1 .901
1
1
-1.301
1
1
-1.301
1
1
1
-36.001
1
1
-123.001
1
1
-1.301
1
1
-0*601
1
1
-11.001
1
1
-11 *50I
I
1
1
-2.5DI
1
1
I
1
1
-12.001
1
I
1
-18. ,101
1
1
|
1
1
-23.391
-747.00
-747.00
-6.00
-2.94
-2.02
-2.02
-12.98
-55.80
-190.65
-2.02
-0.93
-17.05
-17.82
-264. 27
-3.88
-3.88
-18.60
__ __ ,_ _
-18.60
-28.06
-28.06
1.701
1 .001
1
t
t
B
1.001
1.001
1
4.301
1 .00 t*
|
2.80*
1.001
t
3.701-
1.001
t
IT
6.301
1.001-
1
8.701
1.00
0.0
1 .00
Q.O
1 .001
I
2.001
1 .001
I
2.301
1.001
1
1
6.2
-------
54
55
55
55
58
61
61
64
65
65
66
66
66
66
CAHDEN N MUN
NODE TOTAL
PHILA NF MUN
GEORGPAC IND
PENSAUKN MUN
-•NODE TOTAL
PALMYRA MUN
.NODE TOTAL
RANCOCAS TRIB
WLING3RO MUN
NODE TOTAL
TENNECO INO
NODE TOTAL
NESHAMNY TRIB
FALLSTUP MUN
NODE TOTAL
OTRSASNK TRIP
BRSTLBRO MUN
BPSTLTWP MUN
ROHMSHAS INQ
I
1
-3. '6 01
1
1
1
-189.001
1
1
-1.901
1
1
-3 «6 0 1
t
1
-0.601
1
1
'
-53.061
1
1
-1.901
1
I
|
-1 .30!
I
i
1
-28.391
1
1
-2.601
1
1
1
-6.4? 1
1
-1.301
1
-2.601
1
-3.8CI
1
-44.001
1
1
-5.531
1
-49.581
1
-292.9SI
1
-2.941
1
-5.581
1
-301.471
1
-0.931
-0.931
1
-90.001
1
1
-2.94 1
1
-92.94 I
1
-2.021
1
-2.021
f
-44.001
1
-4.031
1
-48.03 1
-10.001
1
1
-2.021
1
1
-4.031
1
1
-5.891
1 .00 (
1
3.001
1.00)
1
1
3.401
1.00t
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1.501
1.00*
1
1
3.701
1 .001
1
1
2.101
1.001
1
3.101
1.301
k
1
6.501
1.GOI
1
1
3.401
1.001
1
1 .40!
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1 .001
t
9.301
1.001
1
3.701
1.001
1
0.301
1.001
1 .001
1
20.001
1 .001
1
1
8.901
1.001
0.0
1 .03
0.0
1 .00
20.401
1.001
1
1
1.201
1.001
1
1 1.801
1 .00!
1
1
17.601
1.001
1
1
1.301
1.001
1
3.701
1.001
1
i
0.0 1
1 .001
13.901
1.001
1
10.701
1.001
1
9.501
1.001
1 .001
1
7.201
1.001
1
0.701
1.001
0.0
1.00
0.0
1 .00
1.901
1 .001
1
1
2.101
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
2.801
1.001
1
1
6.501
1.001
1
11 .101
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1 .001
I
4.601
1.001
1
1 .40!
1.001
1
0.101
1 .00 1
1 .451
1
90.001
1.45 1
1
I
46.901
1 .45 1
1
768.001
1 .451
1
192.001
1 .45 1
1
1
25.601
1 .451
1
1
10.001
1 .45 1
1
42.701
1 .45 I
t
1
34.601
1.45 1
1
1
2.601
1 .45 1
1
6.701
1.45 t
1
1
3.001
1 .451
1
6.401
1 .45 1
1
6.701
1 .45 1
1
39.401
1.45 1
1 .001
1
2.001
1.001
1
1
2.001
1 .001
1
3.00J
1 .001
1
3.001
1 .001
1
1
3.501
1 .001
1
1
5.001
1.001
3.00
1.00
3.001
1.001
' 1
1
8.301
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
5.001
1 .001
t
6.301
1 .001
t
3.001
1.001
2.001
1.001
0.14 1
1
1
0.091
1
0.231
1
13.251
t
t
0.0 1
1
1
0.05 1
1
13.301
1
Q.02I
1
0.021
1.021
1
1
0.05 1
t
1.071
1
0.071
1
0.071
1
0.81 1
1
1
0.031
1
0.84 1
1
0.0 1
t
1
0.10 1
1
1
0.081
1
1
0.01 1
0.091
1
1
0.601
1
0.701
1
14.041
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
14.041
1
0.101
1
0.101
1
0.581
1
t
0.191
t
0.771
1
0.191
1
0.191
1
0.31 1
1
1
0.081
1
0.391
1
0.0 1
t
1
0.151
1
1
0.231
1
t
0.301
0.31 1
1
1
0.221
0.521
1
1.101
1
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
1.101
i
0.011
1
0.01 I
1
1.021
1
1
0.0 1
t
1.021
1
0.031
1
0.031
1
1.54 1
1
1
0.241
1
1.781
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.05 1
1
0.031
1
1
0.001
2.401
1
3.921
1
6.331
1
107.281
1
1
17.661
1
1
8.371
1
133.31 1
0.191
1
0.191
7.031
1
1
0.981
1
8.01 1
1
0.541
1
0.541
1
0.891
1
1
0.21 1
1
1.101
i a. ...
1
0.231
1
1
0.101
1
1
0.21 1
1
1
1.81 1
1.591
1
0.0-61
1 .-65 1
1
3.T6I
i
O.OSI
1
1
0.091
1
3.291
1
O.OZI
1
0.021
1
2.421
1
1
0.05 1
1
2.471
1
0.031
1
0.031
1.971
1
1
0.071
1
2.031
1
0.271
1
0.071
0.071
1
0.061
-------
. NODE TOTAL
69 MARTINS TRI3
69 LURBUCKS MUN
69 FLORENCE HUN
69 PATPARCH INO
NODE TOTAL
71 US STEEL INO
NODE TOTAL
72 BOROENTN MUN
•NODE TOTAL
73 CROSMICK TRIB
73 HAMILTON MUN
NODE TOTAL
75 TRENTON MUN
.hODE TOTAL
76 ASSNPINK TRIB
76 MORRISVL MUN
.NODE TOTAL
,
-5416
-7.50
-0460
-3. "20
- * i.
-72.9QI
1
1
i
i ,-t
-1-.30I
1
1
I
" ' i
-21.94 1
1
1
-9»00l
1
1
1
-184501
1
1
1
-45.161
1
1
-3. 901
1
1
1
1
-21.931
1
-8.001
1
1
-11.631
1
1
-0.931
1
1
-4.961
1
-25.51 1
I
-112.991
1
-112.991
1
-2.021
1
-2.021
1
-34.001
1
1
-13.951
1
-47.951
1
-28*681
1
-28.631
1
-70.001
1
-6.051
)
-7-6.041
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
II II 0.191 0.681 0.081 2.361 0.471
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 3.801 5.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001- 1.001 1.00 1.4SI 1.001 0.0 1 'O.O 1 0.0 1 0.241 0*221
!> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8.801 14.401 0.0 32.001 3.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 0*551 0.901 0.0 1 2.901 0.191
II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4.001 22.001 0.0 55.001 3.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.021 0.111 0.0 1 0.40) 0*021
II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
26.001 8.901 0.0 43.501 3.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001- 1.001 1.00 1.451 1.001 0.691 0.241 0.0 1 1.681 0.081
II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
hi II 1.271 1.251 0.0 1 5.231 0.501
1.701 2.401 1.901 3.401 5.0CI 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 1.031 1.461 1.161 3.001 3.041
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1.031 1.461 1.161 3.001 3.041
2.301 11.101 0.901 38.101 3.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.031 0.121 0.011 0.601 0*031
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0.031 0.121 0.011 0.601 0.031
1.201 2.901 2.001 3.801 7.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.221 0*531 0.371 1.011 1.281
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2.801 11.331 1.101 11.901 3.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001' 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.211 0.851 0.081 1*301 0*231
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 0.431 1.381 0.451 2.311 1.5tl
4.20 40.201 1.201 77.701 2.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.00 1*001 1.001 1.451 1.301 0*65) 6.21) 0.191 17.40! 0*311
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 0*651 6.211 0.191 17.401 0.311
0.801 0.701 2*401 3*001 7.201 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.301 0.261 0.901 1.641 2.711
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.0 31.501 1.801 18.001 7.401 1 1 1 1 1
1.00 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 1 1.031 0.061 0.851 0.241
111)111)1
1 1 1 1 0*301 1*291 0*961 2*491 2.951
-------
OF DISCHARGE LOADS BY ZONE AND TYPE
INPUT
ZONE
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
TYPE OF
DISCHARGE
NUN
IND
TRI8
JZONE TOTAL
HUN
I NO
TRIB
:.ZONF TOTAL
HUN
IND
TRIB
tZONE TOTAL
HUN
I NO
TRIB
»ZONP TOTAL
HUN
IND
TRIB
•ZONE TOTAL
NUHBER OF
DISCHARGES
0.
0.
1.
1.
m.
4.
6.
20.
7.
7.
1.
15.
14.
20.
5.
39.
5.
4*
17.
ADJUSTED INP.UT
Ca«3T1 COJ»ST2
O.t) 1
0.0 1
12.601
12.601
1..72I
1.811
2.341
-, — *— ~— — i
5. 871
24.361
0*401
0*141
24.91 I
10.941
9*081
3.291
28.301
4.531
10.271
1*161
1 * .tl 2 1
0.0 1
G.O 1
2.10-1
2.10I
9.861
2.191
1.0SI
13.741
24.291
3.101
0 .0 91
27.491
12.261
19.001
4.731
35 .99-1
23.501
0.261
63.31-1
LOADS
COMST3
0.0 I
0*0 1
21.001
21.001
0*661
1.191
3.831
, I
5.681
2.801
0.131
0.311
3.241
4.491
5.771
8.951
19.21 I
3.201
16.801
3.271
20.271
- 1000 LB/DAY
CONST4 COKST5
0.0 I
0.0 1
91 .361
91.361
24.951
7.041
11.041
43.D3I
388.881
46.201
2.401
437.481
133.781
220.251
395.61 I
98.191
280.921
7.761
386. 861
0*0
0.0
176.41
176.41
1.26
3.22
8.87
13.35
7.37
2.29
1 .59
11.25
5.29
12.26
31.14
48.69
2*16
24.15
12.08
38.39
INPUT
CONST1
0.0 1
0.0 I
100.001
U»37I
29.301
30.791
39.911
6.701
97.81 t
1.621
0.571
28*401
38.651
32.071
29.281
32.271
28.601
64.131
7.271
18*261
LOADS - PERCENT
CONST2 CONST3
0.0 1 0.0 1
0.0 1 0.0 1
100.001 100*001
1*471 30*261
71*801 11. SSI
15*941 20*961
12*261 67*461
9.631 8*181
88*361 86.351
11*291 4.151
0.341 9.5 11
19*271 4.671
34*051 23.371
52.801 30.021
13.151 46.601
25.231 27.681
37.121 0*991
62.441 82.901
0*441 16.121
44.391 29.211
OF 'ZONE BY TYPE
CONST4 CONST5
0.0 1 0.0
0*0 1 0*0
100.001 100.00
6.751 61.24
57.981 9.42
16.361 24*12
25*661 66*47
3.181 4.63
63*391 65*50
10*561 20*38
0.551 14.12
32.301 3.90
35.081 10.86
55.671 25.18
9.251 63*95
29.211 16.90
25*381 5*62
72.611 62*91
2*01 1 31*48
28.571 13.32
.GRAND TOTAL
9?.
S7..70 142.64- 69.40 1354.36 288.08
-------
KX*KX«*XXXXXXX*XXX XXHXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-X.X X X * «X * XXJtX X_X X »»X KUtX »» XX » X XX XX XX.HX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX MX XKXX »» *X *X X X *« XX XXXX»X ** X» XXXX XX MX Kit XX XXK» »
SECTION 4 -4IATER QUALITY BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
iixxxxxuxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx.xx xxxxxxxKx
««»*»« »»»«*».««»**«»»»« »x«»JiJi xxxx »»x»»» »x»» xx»«xxx»»»x«x*»xxx »xx»xxjl» xx xx»x«xj<»xxxxxxr»»
SEAnARD BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
STAfiT
CW-LE
NODE 1 : COURTHOUSE PT , MARYLAND
' CIN1 ' PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
DURATION
tCYCLES)
CONSI1
(HS/L)
.CONST2
(MG/L)
CONST3
(MS/L)
CONST*
(H6/L)
CONST5
CMG/L)
2400
0.30
0.30
1.00
1.00
7.00
START
CYCLf
NODE 2 : LISTON PT , DELAWARE
' CINHAX i PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
DURATION
(CYCLES)
CONST1
(MG/L)
CONST2
(N6/L)
CONST3
(MG/L)
CONSTft
(MG/L)
CONST5
(MG/L)
2400
0.32 C.12 1.40 1.50 5.50
UPSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
NODE 76 RECIEVES VARYING LOADS FROM DELAWARE (RIVR)
FLOW PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
START DURATION FLOW
CYCLE (CYCLES) (CFS)
1 2400 -3900.00
OUAL PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
START DURATION CONST1 CONST2 CONST3 CONST4 CONST5
C-Y.CLE (CYCLES) (MG/D (MG/D (MG/D (MG/D (MG/D
2400
0.60 0.10 1.00 4.35 8.40
-------
oooo**ooooooojo^ooooo&roaooooaooooovnaoaooooooaooooac3 r* x
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaooooooo
ooaoooooooooaoooaooaoooooooooooooooooooaooooooo x
CT
C
o
X
c
a
T3
C
t-i IK
Z *
-------
ooooooooooooooooooooo o o oa o o a o
aoooooooooooooooooooooooooaaa
h- r- r-
aooooooo
in in tn in in
-o ^> -a -o
r- r*- r«- r*- h- K r»- aoao
oo <* o *~
ill K
ooaoooooooooooraoooooooraooooo
oroc. ooociooaooaoac'aoooooooaoocooooooo
-------
SECTION ? yATSR QUALITY INPUTS
XXXXXX*XXXXXXXXXXXX«XXXXXXXXXX»X«XXX«XXXC*XXXXX,X«X « » XX X* XX X X XX X X X* XX X X X X X X X X XX X X XX XX X X » X X XX XX XX X X X X X X X X X X XX XXX*.* X X X XX X X « X XX X* XX XXX*
SUMMARY OF POINT SOURCE INPUTS
SI-MULATION PERIOD : OCTOBER 1 21 , 1973
CONSTITUENT 1 IS NORG CMG/L)
CONSTITUENT 2 IS NH3 (MG/L)
CONSTITUENT 3 IS N03
-------
24
24
25
25
25
29
30
31
31
33
33
33
34
34
. NODE TOTAL
DPCHAMBR INO
ICI 1 INO
NODE TOTAL
OPCARNEr INO
UPENSNCK MUN
ULMINGTN MUN
-NODE TOTAL
CHRISTNA TRI8
NODE TOTAL
BRANDYWN TRIE
NODE TOTAL
PENSGROV MUN
DPEDGMOR INP
NODE TOTAL
OLDMANS TRIB
ALLDCHEM INO
PHOENIX INO
NODE TOTAL
..L, i
CHESTER MUN
MARCUSHK MUN
1 1
1 -0.931
-113*001 t
1 -182.901
1 1
-5.201 1
1 -8.061
1 1
| 1
1 -190.961
-2*401 »
1 -3.721
1 1
-0 45 0 1 i
1 -0.781
! 1
-63.001 1
1 -105.401
t 1
1 -109.901
-92.261 1
1 -143. 001
1 I
1 -143.001
-172.901 I
1 -268.001
1 1
1 -268.001
-D.3CI »
1 -0.471
1 1
-23.2CI 1
1 -35 . 96 t
1 1
1 -26.421
-?5.81I I
1 -40.001
1 1
-72.TOI 1
1 -49.601
1 1
-11.001 1
1 -17.051
1 t
1 -106.651
-9.401 1
1 -14.571
1 1
-0.601 1
l
t
4.201
1.001
I
5 .60 1
1.031
1
I
1
6.901
1 .001
1
5.301
1.001
t
9.001
1.00k
1
1
0.504
1 .001
1
t
0.701
1 .00 1
1
1
7.401
1.001
1
1.501
1.001
1
t
1.001
1.001
1
1 .801
1 .001
I
0.901
i.aoi
i
t
a. soi
1.001
i
44.601
1
1
25.401
1.001
3.001
1.001
1
1
1
19. SOI
1.001
1
26.5CI
1.001
1
30.001
1 .001
1
0.101
1.001
1
1
0.201
1.001
t
'
7.401
1.001
I
5.201
1.001
1
1
0.101
1.001
2.601
1.001
0.0
1.00
7.601
1.001
14.901
i
1
0.601
1.001
1
32.501
1.001
1
1
9.901
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.301
1.001
1
1
1.801
1.001
1
2.001
1.001
I
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
9.501
1.001
1
1.201
1.001
2.801
1.001
1
0.501
1.001
1
3.601
1.001
1.901
i
152.301
1.451
4
278.601
1.451
1
324.501
1.451
128.101
1.451
1
109.201
1.451
1
2.101
1.451
1
3.401
1.451
1
1
51.201
1.45 1
1
201.201
1.901
1
1
3.431
1.451
15.001
1.901
1
3.801
1.901
1
85.401
1.451
1
122.901
i
1
6.001
1.001
1
5.001
1.001
1
1
2.001
1.001
1
2.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
7.001
1.001
1
7.001
1.001
1
1
2.001
1.001
1
2.0GI
1.001
1
1
9.001
1.001
1
1 .00!
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
S.OOI
1 .001
1
3.001
0.081
1
4.14 1
1
1
0.24 1
1
4.381
1
0.141
t
1
0.021
1
1
5.11 1
1
5.271
0.391
1
0.391
1
1.01 1
1
1.01 1
1
0.021
1
1
0.291
1
0.31 1
1
0.221
1
1
0.481
1
1
O.OSI
1
0.781
1
0.061
1
1
0.201
1
25.021
1
1
0.131
1
25.151
1
0.391
1
1
0.111
1
1
17.031
1
t7.53l
1
0.081
1
0.081
1
0.291
1
0.291
1
0.021
1
1
1.01 I
1
1.031
1
0.021
1
1
0.691
1
1
0.0 1
1
0.721
1
0.601
1
1
0.0 1
1
0.591
1
1
1.41 1
1
2.001
1
0.201
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.171
1
0.371
1
1 .391
1.391
2.891
1
2.891
1
0.0 1
1
1
1.841
1
1.841
1
0.261
1
1
0.751
1
1
0.05 1
1
1.051
1
0.281
1
1
1.301
1
217.501
I
1
17.531
1
235.041
1
9.431
1
1
0.781
1
1
89.871
1
100.071
1
2.341
1
2.341
1
7.11 1
1
7.11 1
1
0.191
1
1
74.031
1
74.21 I
1
1.061
1
1
7.61 1
1
1
0.661
1
9.341
1
9.721
1
1
0.021
5.9tl
1
1
0.221
1
|
6.131
1
0.041
1
1
0.01 1
1
1
1.701
1
1.751
1
5.391
5.391
1
10.101
1
1 0 .1 0 1
O.OTI
0.391
1
0.391
1
1.941
1
1
0.271
1
0.281
2.481
1
0.391
1
-------
34 BP 201 INO
34 FHC IND
34 MONSANTO INO
34 SUNOIL 1 IND
•NODE TOTAL
36 SCOTT 2 INO
36 SCOTT 4 INO
36 CHESTER TRIE
36 SCOTT 3 IND
NODE TOTAL
39 UCARBIDE IND
NODE TOTAL
40 DARBY TRI?
40 CDCA HUN
40 DRBYCRSA MUN
40 MUKNPATS MUN
40 TINICUM MUN
•NODE TOTAL
42 DPRPAUNO IND
42 HURCULES IND
I
I
-11 3. no i
i
i
-2.COI
1
1
-1 .'501
I
I
-S3.COI
1
1
1
-4e43l
1
1
-4.401
1
1
-31*61 t
1
1
-7.701
1
1
1
1
-2.531
1
1
1
1
-15.481
1
1
-9.001
1
1
-39.301
1
1
-5i80l
1
1
-OW60I
1
1
1
1
-5 2. "001
1
1
-0«'63I
I
-0.931
1
|
-1 75.15 1
1
1
-3.101
1
1
-2.321
1
-105.40 1
1
1
-301.471
1
-6.821
1
1
-6.821
1
1
-49.001
1
1
-11.941
1
-74.571
1
-4.031
1
1
-4.031
1
-24.00i
1
1
-13.95 1
1
|
-60.921
1
1
-fa. 991
1
1
-0.931
1
1
-108.781
1
-ao.601
i
i
-0.931
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.221 0.071 0.01 0.891 0.021
t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2.501 6.001 3.601 50.101 5.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 2.361 5.661 3. 40 89.781 4*72
1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1
1.20t 1.201 6.001 60.001 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.021 0.021 0.10 1.451 0.05
t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
12.801 7.201 1.6012037.001 2.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.161 0.091 0.02 48.461 0.03
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12.501 6.201 2.201 47.601 5.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 7.091 3.521 1.25 51.331 2.84
1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1
t 1 1 1 1 9.921 9.961 S.06 201.631 8.04
.... ^ * i , » . *
0.901 0.901 2.301 49.601 7.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.031 0.031 0.08 3.461 0.26
t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.901 0.901 2.301 89.901 7.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.031 0.031 0.08 6.271 0.26
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1.101 0.901 2.001 9.701 7.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.291 0.241 0.53 3.711 1.85
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.90k 0.901 2.301 65.401 8.001 II 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.061 0.061 0.15 7.991 0.51
1111111 1
|, 1 1 1 1 0.411 0.361 0.84 21.431 2.88
- • . - i
4.601 13.801 18.401 22.201 2.501 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.101 0.301 0.40 0.921 0.05
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(III! 0.101 0.301 0.40 0.921 0.05
. . , .. . / - *._....
3.301 7.701 2.301 2.401 7.001 1 1 1
1.00k 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.431 1.001 0.30 0.451 0.90
t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7.301 14.601 3.201 49.301 7.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.551 1.101 0.24 5.371 0.53
k 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.901 3.601 2.001 2*101 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.301 1.181 0.66 1.001 0.98
1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1
2.701 36.501 6.201 15.701 5.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.131 1.771 0.30 1.101 0.24
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5.60fr 11.101 3.701 12.801 5.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.031 0.061 0.02 0.091 0*03
t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
k 1 1 1 I 1.431 5.101 1.51 8.011 2.68
1.401 46.101 7.001 94.501 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.611 20.011 3.04 77.931 1.30
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 5.101 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.051 0.021
-------
'NODE TOTAL
43 GLOST8CO MUN
43 PAULSBRO MUN
43 MANTUA TRIB
43 OLINCHEM I NO
43 MOBILCP1 IND
43 SHELL INO
*or>F TOTAL
44 GULFOIL2 IND
44 GULFOIL1 INO
44 PHIL/I sw HUN
44 WOODBURY MUN
44 NATPARK MUN
44 GULFOIL3 INO
44 TFXACO IND
NODE TOTAL
45 ARCO SPL TND
45 ARCO NYO IND
45 ARCO KPL IND
-.NODE TOTAL
1
1
1
-7i50l
I
1
-1 .301
1
1
-9.6 SI
1
1
-17.451
|
1
-25.COI
i
1
-1..90I
1
1
1
-0.301
1
1
-5.901
1
1
-140.001
1
1
-1 .9'jl
I
I
-Q«60!
I
1
-14.P1I
1
1
-4.301
1
1
t
i
-•W13I
1
I
-1 *5CI
1
1
-0.101
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-81 .531
1
-11.631
1
1
-2.021
1
1
-15.00)
1
1
-26.971
1
1
-36.75 1
i
1
-2.941
I
-97.301
1
-0.471
i
1
-9.15 I
I
1
-217.001
1
1
-2 €,941
1
1
-0.931
i
1
-21 .701
1
1
-6.671
1
1
-253.85 1
1
-4.61 1
1
t
-2.321
i
1
-0.1 61
1
-7.281
1
1
t
0.301
1 .001
|
0.0 t
1.001
1
11.801
1.00)
1
2.801-
1.001
1
2.031
1.001
1
11 .701
1.001
I
'
0.0 1
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
9.901
1 .001
1
3.0 1
1 .00 1
I
3 . 70 1
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1 eOOl
1
7.801
1.001
1
1
0.3 1
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
c • a i
1 .001
i
t
i
)
i
i
11.201
1.001
1
26.901
1.001
1
4.201
1.001
1
1 .401
1 .001
1
9.101
1.001
1
3.701
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
8.6CI
1 .00!
1
0.0 1
1.001
I
3.701
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
18.401
1.001
1
1
1
25.101
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1.00 1
1
1
1
t
1 1
t 1
t 1
1.601 14.401
1.001 1.451
1 1
0.0 1 64.001
1.001 1.451
1 1
0.701 3.001
1.00) 1.451
1 1
0.0 1 2.101
1.001 1.901
1 1
0.701 55.101
1.001 1.901
i 1
0.601 20.501
1.001 1.901
1 1
1|
1
1 1
Q.O 1 24.001
1.001 1.901
| |
0.0 1 2.001
1.001 1.901
1 1
2.601 64.701
1.001 1.451
I 1
Q.O 1 C.C 1
1.001 1.451
t 1
0.0 t 64.001
1 .00! 1 .45 1
1 1
0.0 i 7.701
1.001 1.901
1 1
18.901 30.701
1.001 1.901
1 1
1 |
1 1
0.0 1 108.201
1.001 1.901
1 1
0.0 I 39.901
1.001 1.901
1 1
0.0 1 6.001
1.001 1.901
1 1
Ii
1
1 1
1
1
5.001
1.001
1
5.001
1.001
1
5.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1 .301
1
3.001
1 .001
1
1
6.001
1.001
1
6.001
1.001
1
2.001
1.001
1
3.001
1 .001
1
3.001
1 .001
t
6.001
1 .001
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
3.001
1 .001
1
3.001
1 .001
1
3.001
1 .001
1
1
0.61
0.02
0.0
0.95
0.41
0.42
0.19
1.98
0.0
0.0
11 .57
0.0
0.02
0.0
0.28
11 .87
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
20.01 1
1
0.701
1
1
0.291
1
1
0.341
1
1
0.201
1
1
1.901
1
1
0.061
1
3.491
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
10.051
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.661
1
10.731
1
0.651
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
0.65 1
3.04
0.10
0.0
0.06
0.0
0.15
0.01
0.31
0.0
0.0
3.04
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.68
3.72
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
77.98
1.31
1.01
0.35
0.58
21.85
0.62
25.71
0.11
G.19
109.63
0.0
0.46
1.71
2.09
1 14.20
5.32
0.95
0.01
6.28
1
1.321
1
0.31 I
I
I
0*03!
I
1
0.401
1
1
0.441
1
1
0.631
1
1
0.051
1
1*861
1
0.021
1
1
0.301
1
1
2.341
1
1
0.051
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.701
1
1
0.111
1
3.521
|
0.081
1
|
0.041
1
1
0.001
1
0.121
-------
47
48
48
48
48
49
49
49
49
49
49
50
51
52
SCHUYLKL TRIB
•NODE TOTAL
BIGTIHBR TRIB
BELLMAUR MUN
BROKLAUN MUN
MTEPHRAM MUN
..MODE TOTAL
'if -T i_4 '.
CAMDEN M MUN
PHILA SE MUN
MCAND«FR INO
HARSHOU IND
GAF IND
NJ ZINC IND
,*ODE TOTAL
GLOSTRCY MUN
VNODE TOTAL
-Mi4 ft_i ' • • -
AMSTAR 1 IND
^NODE TOTAL
NATSUGAR IND
fHODE TOTAL
-"Q3.'23I 1
-140C.OOI
i
-1400.001
-5.81 1
-9.001
1
-1.90 1
-2.941
i
-1.30 i
-2.C2I
1
-1.30 1
-Z.Q2I
1
1 -15.981
-33.001 1
1 -i6.50l
I I
-110.001 1
1 -184.451
1 1
-1.3PI I
1 -2.021
1 1
-Oi60l 1
1 -0.931
1 1
-11.001 1
1 -17.051
1 1
-11.501 t
1 -17.821
1 1
1 -268.771
»
-2ifOI 1
1 -3.381
1 1
1 -3.831
-12*001 1
1 -1S.60I
1 I
1 -18.601
-18.TOI I
1 -28.061
1 1
1 -28.061
j.aoi
1.001
i
1
1 .001
1.001
1
6.201
1 .001
1
2. SOI
1 .001
1
9.30>
1 .001
1
1
8.001
1.001
1
S.7C1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
0.0 t
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
t
1
6.201
1 .001
1
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
1
0.0 1
1 .001
i
0.801
1.001
1
. 1
1.001
1.001
1
16.701
1.001
I
13.001
1 .001
1
13.001
1.001
1
1
20.001
1.001
1
2.2GI
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
49.001
1.001
1
1
17.701
1.001
1
1.101
1.001
1
G.O 1
1.001
1
!
2*001 S.5CI
1.001 1.451
1 1
I i
t •
1 1
1.301 1.701
1.001 1.451
1 1
8.001 37.101
1.001 1.451
1 |
0.901 0.0 1
1.001 1.451
1 1
0.901 38.401
1.001 1.451
1 1
II
1
1 1
0.0 1 227.701
1.0QI 1.451
1 1
1.001 95.701
1*001 1.451
1 1
0.0 1 148.601
1*001 1.451
1 1
0.0 1 352.801
1*001 1.451
1 1
0.0 1 152.901
1.001 1.901
1 1
0.0 1 19.801
1.001 1.901
1 1
11
I
1 1
1.001 134*201
1.001 1.451
1
1
G.O 1 13*00
1.001 1.45
1
1
0.0 1 25.901
1.001 1.451
1 1
||
I
1 1
7.001
1.001
1
1
1
1
5.031
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
'
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1 .00!
I
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
'
3.001
1 .001
1
1
5.001
1.001
1
1
7.501
1.001
1
1
1 1
6.Q31 6.03t
6.03
0.05
0.10
0.03
3.10
0.28
2.00
8.64
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.64
0.13
0.13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
6.031
1
0.051
1
1
0.261
1
1
0.141
1
1
0.141
1
1
0.601
t
5.01 1
1
1
2.191
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 I
1
1
4.701
1
11.901
1
0.371
1
0.371
1
0.111
1
1 -
0.111
t
0.0 1
-i-— — 1
0.0 1
1 1
15.081 60.121
15.08
0.06
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.21
0.0
0.99
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.99
0.02
0.02
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
60.121
1
0.121
1
1
0.85 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.601
1
— 1
1.581
1
82.671
1
1
137.831
1
1
2.341
1
1
2.561
1
1
26.671
1
1
3.61 1
1
1
255.691
1
4.061
1
4.061
1
1.891
1
1.891
I
5.671
1
1 -
5.671
1
52.771
1
52.771
1
0.241
1
1
0.05 1
1
i
0.031
1
1
0.031
1
1
0.361
1
0.75 1
I
1
2.981
1
1
0.031
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.2BI
1
1
0.291
1
1
4.34 1
1
0.061
1
1
0.061
1
0.501
1
1
0.501
1
1.131
1
1.131
54 COOPER TRIB I
-14 n 9 I
I 0.601 0.301 2.001 7.001 7.001
-------
54
55
55
55
58
61
61
64
65
65
66
66
66
CAMDEN N HUN
MODE TOTAL
PHILA NE HUN
GEURGPAC IND
P ENS A UK N HUN
'NODE TOTAL
W _.'i_ '« k
PALMYRA HUN
IMOOE TOTAL
-a* ... .
RANCOCAS TRIB
WLINGBRO MUN
NODE TOTAL
TENNECO IND
."NODE TOTAL
NESHAHNY TRIB
FALLSTWP MUN
.NODE TOTAL
<. ... ...,
OTR4ASNK TRIB
BRSTLTUP MUN
ROHHJHAS IND
NODE TOTAL
1
1
-3."6CI
1
1
1
-191.001
1
-1.9CI
1
1
-3*601
1
1
1
-O."60l
1
1
1
-75i48l
1
1
-1 ."901
1
1
1
-1 .30!
I
1
I
'' 4
-5 6*77 1
!
-?.tt>ni
I
I
I
-6.451
1
-2i6?1
1
1
-1 .?0i
1
1
1
-22.001
1
t
-5.S81
1
-27.561
1
-235.231
1
1
-?,94I
1
1
J5.58l
1
-293.721
1
-0.931
-0.931
1
-117.001
1
1
-2.941
-119.941
1
-2.021
-2,0?.l
1
-SE.:C i
1
-4.031
1
-9?. 031
1
-10. CO!
I
I
-4.031
1
1
-2.631
1
-16»66l
1 .001
1
3*00 1
1 .00 v
1
1-
S.731
1.001
O.C 1
1.00 1
i^
i.sa»
1.001
t
i
3.701
1.001
1
I
2,301
1 .00!
1
7.4CI
1.001
1
t
6.501
1 .001
1
1
1 .40 t
1 .001
1
0.901
1 .001
t
1
0.0 1
1.001.
1
3.701
1.001
1
0.701
1.001
i
1
1.001
1
20.0CI
1.001
1
1
14.101
1.001
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
0.0 1
1 .001
1
1
20.401
1.001
1
1
1.001
1.001
1
18.001
1.001
1
1
17.601
1 .001
1
0.601
1 .001
1
0.901
1 .00!
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
10.701
1.001
1
1 .401
1.001
1
1.001
1
7.701
1.001
1
1
0.801
1.001
0.0
1 .CO
0.0
1.00
1.901
1.001
1.90
1.00
0.0
1.00
2.801
1.001
1
1
2.701
1 .001
t
11.101
1.001
1
i
0.0 1
1 .001
1
1 .401
1.001
1
0.701
1.001
1
1
1.451
1
90.001
1 .451
1
1
83.401
1.45 1
1
117.601
1 .45 1
1
192.001
1 .45 1
t
1
25.601
1.451
1
1
10.001
1.451
1
55.701
1.451
1
1
34.601
1 .451
1
1
4.201
1 .451
1
23.201
1 .451
1
1
3.001
1.451
1
6.701
1.45
14.10
1.45
1.001
1
2.001
1 .001
1
1
2.001
1.001
1
3.001
1 .001
1
3.001
1.001
1
i
3.501
1.001
1
1
9.001
1.001
3.001
1.001
1
1
3.001
1 .001
1
1
9.001
1 .001
1
4.001
1 .001
1
1
5.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
2.001
1.001
1
1
0.071
1
1
0.091
1
0.16 I
1
13.361
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.05 1
1
13.41 1
1
0.02 1
1
0.021
1
1.261
1
0.121
1
1 .381
1
0.071
1
0.071
1
0.661
1
0.021
1
0.681
0.0 1
1
1
0.081
1
1
0.01 1
1
0.091
0.041
1
1
0.601
1
0.641
1
21.651
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
21.651
1
0.101
1
0.101
1
0.631
1
>
0.291
1
0.921
1
0.191
1
0.191
1
0.281
1
1
0.021
1
0.301
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.231
1
t
0.021
1
0.251
0.241
1
1
0.231
1
"• ~ 1
0.471
1
1.231
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
1.231
t
0.01 1
1
0.01 1
1
1.201
1
1
0.0 1
1
1.201
1
0.031
1
0.031
1
1.281
1
1
0.241
1
1.521
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.031
1
1
0.01 1
1
0.041
1.201
1
1
3.921
t
5.121
1
185.721
1
1
2.701
1
1
8.371
1
196.791
1
0.191
1
0.191
1
9.141
1
1
1.281
1
10.421
1
0.541
1
0.54 1
1
2.891
1
0.731
1
3.621
1
0.231
1
1
0.21 1
1
1
0.291
1
0.741
0.831
1
0.061
1
0*891
1
3*071
1
1
0*051
1
1
0*091
1
3.21 1
1
0.021
1
0.021
1
5.671
1
1
0.051
1
5*721
1
0*031
1
0.031
1
4*761
1
0.091
4.351
1
0.271
1
0.071
1
1
0.031
0.361
-------
69 MARTINS TRIB
69 LURBUCKS HUN
69 FLORENCE NUN
69 PATPARCH IND
'NODE TOTAL
'•: _ ^fl.* . _ AJL ' " _ _
71 US STEEL INO
HOPE TOTAL
j.. t .
72 BOROENTN HUN
.AODE TOTAL
73 CROSHICK TRIB
73 HAMILTON MUN
.•NODE TOTAL
£.» , i - . —^ —
75 TRENTON MUN
•NODE TOTAL
*?• t i -' ,i ,
76 MQRRISVL MUN
76 ASSNPINK TRIB
r.NODE TOTAL
-5.16
-S.OO
-0.60
-?• 70
-72.90
i 1 1 1 1 1 I |
26.001 8.901 0.0 43.501 3.001 till)
1.001 1.001 1.00 1.45 1.001 0.691 0.241 0*0 1 1.681 0*081
II 1 1 1 1 1 I
1 1 1 1.261 1.451 0.091 6.091 0*601
1.701 2.401 1.901 3.40 5.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 1*031 1*461 1.161 3.001 3.041
III 1 1 1 1 1 I
III 1 1.031 1.461 1.161 3.001 3*041
2.301 11.101 0.901 38.101 3.001 1 1 1 I I
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.031 0.121 0.011 0*601 0.031
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 "l
1 1 1 1 1 0.031 0.121 0.011 0.601 0.031
1.201 0.101 1.001 6.101 10.001 1 1 1 1 I
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.451 0.041 0.381 3.331 3*771
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1
2.801 11.301 1.101 11.901 3.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.211 0.851 0.081 1.301 0*231
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0.661 0.891 0.461 4.631 3.991
4.201 59.901 1.201 74.70t 2 '.001 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.651 9.301 0.191 16.821 0.3TI
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 > 1 0.651 9.301 0.191 16.821 0.3TI
Q.O 1 31.501 1.801 18.001 7.401 1 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 1 1.031 0.061 0.851 0.241
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.801 0.701 2.401 3.001 11.001 1 1 1 1 I
1.001 1.0CI 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.341 0.301 1.031 1.871 4*741
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0.341 1.331 1.091 2.721 4.981
-------
SUMMAHY OF DISCHAKeE LOADS BY ZONE AND TYPE
JHPUT
ZONE
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
6
5
5
5
TYPE OF
DISCHAUGE
HUN
I NO
TRIB
.(ZONE TOTAL
.i .. ....
NUN
IND
TRIB
JfZONE TOTAL
I. .t f
HUN
IND
TRIB
tZONE TOTAL
HUN
IND
TRIB
(ZONE TOTAL
A" r •
HUN
JND
TRIB
»ZONE TOTAL
- »• "«
NUHBCT OF
DISCHARGES
0*
Q.
1.
1.
9.
4.
6.
19.
7.
7.
1.
15.
14.
20.
5.
39.
5.
8.
4.
17.
ADJUSTED IN-fiUT
COWST1 CONST2
0*0 1
O.t) 1
104501
10*501
i "
1 i6SI
1 t81l
2.7?l
6.71 1
24 .2 9 1
0.0 1
Q.-07I
24.361
13.121
11*751
7.7^1
32.631
5*281
23.91 1
1 .61 I
30.801
<•'
O.C H
0.0 -1
8.4 01
B.40-1
17.041
1 .91 1
1.251
16.21 1
29.921
4.3LI
0404-1
34.774
16.281
33,191
7.65.1
57,221
17.561
43.69-1
0.391
61 .64.1
LOADS - 1000 LB/DAY
CONST3 CONST4 CONST5
0.0 0*0 1
0.0 0.0 1
21.00 91.361
21.00 91.361
0.701 25.95»
1.201 5.521
3.891 17.701
5.731 49.171
2.481 422.761
0.0 1 45.451
0.241 1.201
2.721 469.41 1
4.791 132.041
9.351 321 .061
16.021 64.761
30.171 517.851
0.171 93.761
11.011 342.711
4.531 10.691
15.711 447.161
0.0
0.0
231.02
231.02
1.22
3.18
19.01
23.42
,7.03
2.29
0.83
10.15
5.04
12.37
56.17
73.59
1.85
22.55
17.63
42.03
INPUT
CONST1
0.0 1
0.0 1
100.001
10.051
27.021
29.151
43.831
5.941
99.711
0.0 1
0.291
23.31 I
40.221
36.021
23.751
31.221
17.151
77.621
5.231
29.471
LOADS - PERCENT
CONST2 CONST3
0.0 0.0 1
0.0 0.0 1
100.00 100.001
4.71 27.861
80.491 12.031
11.781 20.701
7.741 67.271
9.091 7.671
86.051 91.291
13.841 0.0 1
0.101 . 8.71 1
19.511 3.611
28.621 15.381
58.001 31.001
13.371 53.111
32.101 40.021
28.491 1.031
70.881 70.081
0.631 28*341
34.581 20*841
OF >ZONE
CONST4
0.0 1
0*0 )
100.001
5.801
52.771
1T.22I
3%. 001
3.121
90.061
9.681
0.261
29.801
25.501
62.001
12.501
32.881
20.971
76.641
2.391
28.391
BY TYPE
CONST5
0*0
0.0
100.00
60.76
5.23
13*59
81*18
6*16
69*26
22.58
8.17
2.67
6.85
16.82
76.33
19.35
4.40
53*66
41 .94
11.05
-BRAND TOTAL
91.
104.49 178.24 75.38 1574.95 380.21
-------
KKHHXItltXXXX* »».««»» K**«»*«»M*»» *»«»»»»»»«»«*«*»«,«*»*»***» «»*M « K *»»**»»»»»*»«* «M »*»»«»** »»«M*H **«* X« »» XX XX K X X XX *Jl-» X » XXX X « X « XX XXXX XMjl*
•SECTION 4 .HATER QUALITY BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
KXXXXX11XXXXXXX* XXX XXXXXXXXX>XX»XXX»*K**»*XXXX)HtX *»X»*XXX *-X*»XX»XX*»»XXX.XX»X»X»*»XXX*XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*XXXXX*»X»JtXXX*XX»XXXX»XXX*»»*
SEAWARD BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
NODC 1 : COURTHOUSE PT , MARYLAND
' CIN1 ' PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
START
CYCLE
DURA.TION
(CYCLES)
CGNST1
CONST2
CM6/L)
CONST3
CMS/L)
CONSTt
(MG/L)
CONST5
(MG/L)
2400
0.30
0.30
1 .00
1 .00
7.00
NODE 2 : LISTON PT , DELAWARE
1 CINMAX ' PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
START
CYOLE
1
•701
DURATION
(CYCLES)
720
1700
CONST1
(MS/0
0.40
0.32
CONST2
CMG/L)
0.20
0.20
CONST3
(MG/L)
2.00
2.00
CONST4
(MG/L)
1.50
1.50
CONST5
(MG/L)
7.00
7.80
UPSTREAK BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
NODE 76 RECIEVES VARYING LOADS FROM DELAWARE (RIVR)
FLOW PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
START
CYCLE
DURATION FLOW
CCYCLES) (CFS)
START
CYCLE
1 2400 -3900.00
«3UAL.PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
DURATION CONST1 CONST2 CONST3 CONST4 CONST5
(CYCLES) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L)
2400
0.50
0.40
1.00
2.90 11.00
-------
UJ
o
ioooooooooooo<
IOOOOOOOOOOOOO
o-
CtL
UJ
H-
2
2: z
o <
*™. X
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaoooo
i i
ooooooooooaooraoooooaoooooQOoooooooooooooooooooo
-J OOOOOOOOOOi
i
f\i 1/1
i i
-------
-sj*"-jv/ic*-*\o*"nc>* v/i v/t ru ru ro
oooooooooooooooooooaoooacJCJoooooooao
O O- O* -si -A
ooo**oooaoooooaov^oooi>
oooooaoooaoooooocjoooooo u o o o o ci
oooooooo OOODOOOODOOOOOO o o o o o o
o^O^*^v/iLnwi^j«tn^/iuiLflt.rtui\^iw^Crtuif>>p-**t-*-*^^**t--p*t^^
OO— »>O-Nj-v|W)P-L*J WMMMMINi— *OO*OOO-«l
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO OOOOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOaOQOOOQQOQ
-------
SECTION 3 WATEK QUALITY INPUTS
»«»M»»».»*»»«»»*»»)I M «»«*» X * »X X «« ft* •*»H,»XX«K*X »«***»»«* It ***««* XX*K X X X*«XJIX XX *XXXXXXX»XXXXXXXXXXX««XXItXltXXXXXXK*X.«MXX«ll*X«XXXMXXXXXItllX
SUMMARY OF POINT SOURCE INPUTS
SIMULATION PERIOD : JULY 12-SEPT 5. 1968
CONSTITUENT 1 IS NORG
CONSTITUENT 3 IS N03 (H6/L)
CONSTITUENT 4 IS CBOD CMG/L)
CONSTITUENT 5 IS DO
-------
24
24
25
25
25
29
30
31
31
33
33
33
34
34
NODE TOTAL
DPCHAMBR
ICI 1
NODE TOTAL
DPCARNEY
UPENSNCK
WLMINGTN
NODE TOTAL
CHRISTNA
•NODE TOTAL
BRANDYWN
NODE TOTAL
PENSGROV
DPEDGMOR
NODE TOTAL
OLOMANS
ALLDCHEM
PHOENIX
. NODE TOTAL
CHESTER
HARCUSHK
I NO
IND
IND
MUN
MUN
TRIB
TRIB
HUN
I NO
TRIB
IND
IND
HUN
MUN
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
t
1
1
1
I
-113.001
1
1
-5.731
I
I
-2.4 Cl
1
1
-0*501
!
1
-si.oni
i
i
i
-92.261
1
-172.90
1
-0.331
1
1
-23.201
1
1
s ,
-25 ..81 1
1
-32.0CI
1
t
-11.CQI
1
1
-9*401
1
-0.601
1
-Q.93I
1
-182.901
1
1
-8.061
1
-190.96 I
1
-i.7il
1
-0.781
1
1
-105.401
1
-109.901
1
-143.001
1
-147.001
1
-263.001
1
-268.001
1
-0.471
I
1
-35.961
1
-315.421
1
-40.001
I
1
-49.601
1
1
-17.051
1
-106.651
1
-14»57I
1
t
i
1
4.201
1.0Q 1
1
5.6C 1
1 .on t
i
i
6.90t
1 .001
i
5.30 I
1 .001
1
9.001
1.001
I
1
0.501
1 .001
1
1
0.701
1.001
1
I
7.401
1.001
1
1.501
1.001
I
1
1.001
1.001
1
1 .SOI
1.001
i
0.901
1.001
1
I
0.801
1.001
1
44.601
1
25.401
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
19.501
1.001
26.50 1
1 .001
1
30.001
1 .001
1
1
0.101
1 .001
1
1
0.201
1.001
1
1
7.401
1.001
t
5.201
1.001
1
0.101
1.001
1
2.601
1.001
t
0.0 1
1.001
7.601
1.001
1
14.901
1
0.601
1.001
1
32.501
1.00 I
1
I
9.90 1
1.001
t
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.301
1 .001
1
1
1.801
1.001
1
1
2.001
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
9.501
1.001
1
1
1.201
1.00 1
1
2.801
1.0GI
1
0.501
1.001
1
1
3.601
1*001
1
1 .90!
1
50.701
1.45 1
1
278.601
1.45 1
1
I
841.70 1
1.451
1
385.701
1.451
1
64.301
1 .451
1
1
2.101
1 .45 1
1
1
3.401
1.451
1
268.801
1.45 1
1
19*701
1.901
1
1
3.401
1.45 1
1
20.101
1.90 1
1
0.701
1.901
1
1
11.101
1.45 1
1
186.301
1
6.001
1.001
1
5.001
1.001
1
1
2.001
1 .001
1
2.001
1 »OOI
1
3.001
1 .001
1
1
7.001
1 .001
1
1
7.001
1.001
1
1
2.001
1.001
1
2.001
1.001
1
1
9.001
1.001
1
1 .00!
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
5.001
1.001
1
3.001
0.081
1
4.14 1
1
1
0.24 1
1
4.381
1
0.141
1
0.021
1
1
5.11 I
1
5.271
1
0.391
1
0.391
1
1.01 1
1
1.01 1
1
0.021
1
1
0.291
1
0.31 1
1
0.221
1
1
0.481
1
1
0.081
1
0.781
1
0.061
1
1
0.201
1
25.021
1
1
0.131
1
25.151
1
0.391
1
1
0.111
1
1
17.031
1
17.531
1
0.081
1
0.081
1
0.291
1
0.291
1
0.021
1
1
1.011
1
1 .031
1
0.021
1
1
0.691
1
1
0.0 1
1
0.721
I
0.601
1
1
0.0 1
1
0.591
1
1
1.41 1
1
2.001
1
0*201
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.171
1
0.371
1
1 .391
1
1.391
1
2.891
1
2.891
1
0.0 1
1
1
1.84 I
1
1 .841
1
0.261
1
1
0.75 1
1
1
0.05 1
1
1.05 1
1
0.281
1
1
0.491
1
72.41 1
1
1
17.531
1
89.941
1
24*451
1
1
2.331
1
1
52.921
1
79.701
1
2.341
1
2.341
1
7.111
1
7.11 1
1
0.981
1
1
7.251
1
8.221
1
1.061
t
1
10.201
1
0.121
1
11.381
1
1.261
1
1
0.021
1
5.91 1
1
0.221
1
6.131
0*041
0 .01 1
1
1.701
1
1.751
1
5.391
1
5.391
1
10.101
1
10.101
1
0.01 1
1
1
0*391
1
0.391
1
1.941
1
1
0.271
1
1
0.281
1
2.481
1
0.391
1
1
-------
34
34
34
34
36
36
39
40
40
40
40
40
4?
42
43
BP 201 I«(0
FHC I NO
MONSANTO IND
SUNOIL 1 IND
NODE TOTAL
CHESTER TRJB
SCOTT 3 IND
NODE TOTAL
UCARBIDE IND
MODE TOTAL
DAREY TRIB
COCA MUN
ORBYCRSA MUN
MUKNPATS MUN
TINICUM MUN
NODE TOTAL
DPRPAUNO IND
HURCULES IND
NODE TOTAL
6LOSTRCO MI/N
1
1
-113.COI
1
I
-2.001
1
1
-1*501
1
1
-63.001
1
1
1 -
1
-31.611
1
1
-7,701
t
1
1
-2 «"6 0 1
1
1
1
1
-15.481
1
1
-9.001
I
1
-39.301
1
1
-5.801
1
i
-0*631
1
1
1
-52.001
1
1
-0.601
1
1
1
1
-7*531
1
-0.931
-175.15
-3.10
-2.32
-105.40
-301.471
1
-49.001
1
1
-11.941
1
— • 1
-60.931
1
-4.C3I
1
• 1
-4.031
1
-24.001
1
1
-12.951
1
1
-60.921
1
1
-8.991
1
1
-0.931
I
1
-10S,78i
1
-80.601
1
1
-0.931
1
1
-81 .531
1
-11.631
1.001
1
2.501
1.001
1
1.201
1.001
1
12.801
1.001
1
12.50>
1.001
1
1
1
1.101
1.00t
1
0.901
1.001
1
4
1
4.601
1.001
1
1
1
3.301
1.001
I
7.301'
1 .001
1
0.901
1.001-
1
2.701
1.001
1
5.601
1 .001
1
1
1
1.401
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
1
0.30(
1 .001
1.001
1
6.001
1.001
1
1.201
1.001
1
7.201
1.001
1
6.201
1.001
1
1
0.901
1.001
1
0.901
1.001
1
1
1
13.801
1.001
1
1
1
7.701
1 .001
1
14.601
1 .001
1
3.601
1.001
1
36.501
1.001
1
11.101
1.001
1
1
1
46.101
1 .001
0.0
1.00
11.201
1 .001
1.001
1
3.601
1.001
i
6.001
1.001
1
1.45 1
f
50.101
1.901
1
138.601
1.451
1
1.6011693.001
1.001
1
2.201
1.001
1
1
1
2.001
1.00 1
1
2.301
1.001
1
1
1
18.40 1
1.001
1
1
1
2.30 1
1 .001
1
3.201
1.001
1
2.001
1.00 1
1
6.201
1.001
1
3.701
1.001
1
1
1
7.001
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.00 1
1
1
1
1.601
1.001
1'.90I
1
0.101
1.901
1
1
i
9.701
1.45 1
1
124.901
1.901
1
1
1
22.201
1.901
1
1
1
2.40 1
1 .451
|
49.301
1 .45 1
1
10.301
1.45 1
|
22.601
1.45 1
1
10.401
1.45 1
1
1
122.40J
1.901
1
321 .901
1.90 1
1
1
1
14.401
1 .451
1.001
1
5.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
2.001
1.001
1
5.001
1.001
1
t
1
7.001
1.001
1
8.001
1.001
1
i
2.501
1.001
1
1
7.001
1 .001
1
7.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
5.001
1 .001
1
5.001
1.00
3.00
1.00
3.00
1.00
5.001
1 .001
0.221
1
1
2.361
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.161
1
1
7.091
1
9.921
1
0.291
1
1
0.061
1
0.351
1
0.10 1
1
0.101
1
0.431
1
|
0.55 1
1
1
0.301
1
1
0.131
1
1
0.031
1
1.431
1
0.61 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.61 1
1
0.021
0.071
1
1
5.661
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.091
1
1
3.521
1
9.961
1
0.241
1
1
0.061
1
0.301
1
0.301
1
0.301
1
1 .001
1
1
1.101
1
1
1.181
1
1
1.771
1
1
0.061
1
5.101
1
20.01 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
20.011
1
0.701
0.01 1
1
t
3.401
1
1
0.101
1
1
0.021
1
1
1.25 I
1
5.061
1
0.531
1
1
0.151
1
0.681
- *
1
0.401
1
0.401
1
0.301
1
1
0.241
1
1
0.661
1
1
0.301
1
1
0.021
1
1.51 1
1
3.04 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
3.041
1
0.101
1.351
1
1
89.781
1
1
3.351
1
1
40.271
1
1
0.11 1
1
136.131
1
3.71 1
1
1
15.251
1
18.961
1
0.921
1
0.921
1
0.451
1
1
5.371
1
1
4.901
1
1
1.591
1
1
0.081
1
12.331
1
100.941
1
1
3.061
1
104.001
1
1.31 1
0.021
1
1
4.721
1
1
0.051
1
1
0.031
1
1
2.841
1
8.041
1
1.851
1
1
0.51 1
2.361
1
0.051
— *— 1
0.051
1
0.901
1
1
0.531
1
1
0.981
1
1
0.241
1
1
0.031
1
1
2.681
1
1.301
1
1
0.021
1
1.321
1
0.3TI
-------
43 PAULSBRO HUN
43 MANTUA TRIB
43 OLINCHEH INO
43 HOBILCP1 IND
43 SHFLL INO
NODE TOTAL
44 PHILA SW HUN
44 MOODBURY HUN
44 NAT PARK HUN
44 GULFOIL3 IND
44 TEXACO INO
NODE TOTAL
f. i _
45 ARCO SPL IND
45 ARCO NYD IND
45 ARCO UPL IND
•NODE TOTAL
*.-. ' .- i: • . .
47 SCHUYLKL TRIB
NODE TOTAL
ILA l_i 1 .
48 BIGTIHBR TRIB
48 BELLHAWR HUN
1
-1.301
1
1
-9.681
1
t
-17.401
1
1
-25.001
1
1
-1*931
1
1
1
1
1
. j A _. ..
-140.001
1
1
-1.901
1
1
-0.601
1
1
-14*001
1
1
-4»30I
i
1
1
'it
-3.no i
i
i
-1 *5 0 1
1
1
-0.101
1
1
1
I
1
f»
-933.231
1
1
1
1
-5«81 1
1
1
-1.901
1
1
1
1
-2*021
1
1
-15.001
1
1
-26.971
1
1
-38.751
1
1
-2.941
1
-97.301
1
-217.001
1
1
-2.941
1
1
-0.931
1
1
-21.701
1
1
-6.671
1
-249(241
a
1
-4.81 1
1
1
-2.321
1
1
-0.161
-7.281
^
1
-1400.001
1
-UOO.OOI
1
-9.001
1
1
-2.941
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
0.0 1 26.901 0.0 I 105.601 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 0.291 0.0 1.661 0*031
1 1 t 1 1 1 II
11*801 4.201 0.701 390.001 5.001 1 II
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.95 0.341 0*06 45*681 0*401
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
2*301 1*401 0*0 1 2.101 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.41 0.201 0.0 0.581 0.441
1 I I 1 I 1 ||
2.001 9.101 0.701 110.801 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.42 1.901 0.15 43.931 0*631
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
11.701 3.701 0.601 439.801 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1*001 0.19 0.061 0.01 13.251 0.051
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1 1 1 1 1 1.98 3.491 0.31 106.411 1*861
9*901- 8.601 2.601 85.101 2.001 1 1 I
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 11.57 10.051 3.04 144.191 2.341
V 1 1 1 1 1 ||
0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 127.701 3.001 1 1 |
1*001 1*001 1*001 1.451 1.001 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 2.941 0.051
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
3*701 3.701 0.0 1 179.501 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.02 0.021 0.0 1.301 0.021
1 1 1 1 1 I ||
0.0 f 0.0 1 0.0 1 15S.5QI 6.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 34.521 0.701
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
7.801 18.401 18.901 96.801 3.001 1 1 I
1.001 1.001 1*001 1(901 1.001 0(28 0.661 0.68 6.601 0*111
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
» 1 1 1 1 11.87 10.731 3.72 189.561 3.211
• * • . t , . .*
0.0 1 2S.10I 0.0 I 108.201 3.001 1 1 I
1.001 1.001 1*001 1.901 1.001 0.0 0*651 0.0 5.321 0.081
1 III 1 ||
0.0 1 0*0 0.0 1 39.901 3.001 1 I I
1.001 1.00 1.001 1.901 1.001 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.951 0.041
1 III 1 ||
0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 6.001 3.001 1 1 1
1.001 1.00 1.001 1.901 1.001 Q.Q 0.0 1 0.0 0.011 0*001
1 III 1 II
1 III 0.0 0.651 0*0 6.281 0.121
O.dOl 0.801 2.001 5.501 7.001 1 1 I
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 6.03 6.031 15*08 60.121 52.771
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1 1 1 1 1 6.03 6.031 15.08 60.121 52*771
1.001 1.001 1.301 1.701 5.001 1 1 1
1(001 1*001 1.001 1*451 1*001 0(05 0*051 0*06 0*121 0*241
1 1 1 1 1 1 II
6(201 16*701 8(001 47(501 3.001 1 1 1
1(001 1(001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.101 0.261 0.131 1.091 0*051
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------
48
48
49
49
49
49
49
49
SO
51
52
54
54
55
55
BROKLAUN HUN
HTEPHRAH HUN
.NODE TOTAL
W. t. ft j
CANDEN H HUN
PHILA SE HUN
MCAK04FB INO
HARSHOH INO
GAP IND
NJ ZINC INO
KODE TOTAL
6LQSTRCY HUN
NODE TOTAL
AHSTAR 1 INO
.NODE TOTAL
NATSUGAR IND
.NODE TOTAL
COOPER TRIS
CAHDEN N HUN
NODE TOTAL
PNILA NE HUN
CEORGPAC IND
-1i30l
1
1
-1«3QI
I
1
1
-30.001
1
1
-119.001
1
1
-1.301
1
1
-Oi60»
1
1
-11.COI
1
1
-11i50l
1
1
1
-2.501
1
1
1
-134001
1
1
1
-13.101
1
1
I
-14..19I
I
I
-3i60l
I
1
1
-184.001
1
1
-1 .901
1
-Z.02I
1
>
-2.021
1
-t5.98l
1
-46.501
1
1
-184.45 »
1
(
-2.021
i
-0.931
1
i
-17.051
1
1
-17.821
t
-268.771
1
-3.831
1
-3.881
1
-13.601
1
-16.601
1
-28.061
t
-28.061
1
-22.001
1
1
-5.581
1
-27. SSI
1
-285.201
t
1
2. 80t
1.001
(
9.301
1.001
1
1
8.001
1.001
i
3.701
1.001
0.0
1.00
0.0
1.00
0.0
1.00
0.0
1.00
6.201
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.00k
1
i
0.0 i
1.001
1
I
0.604
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
k
t
o.?ai
1.001
i
0.0 1
13.001
1.001
13.001
1.001
1
20.001
1.001
1
2.201
1.001
0.0
1.00
0.0
1.00
0.0
1.00
49.00
1.00
17.701
1.001
t
t
1.101
1.001
i
1
0.0 1
1.001
i
1
0.301
1.001
1
20.001
1.001
1
14.101
1.001
1
0.0 i
0.90)
1 .001
1
0.901
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1.00t
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
O.G 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 t
1.001
t
1
1.001
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1
0.0 i
1.001
1
1
2.001
1.001
k
7.701
1.001
0.80
1.00
0.0
56.80)
1 .451
1
36.101
1.451
1
1
197.501
1.451
t
92.101
1.451
1
358.501
1 .451
1
538.601
1.451
1
152.901
1.901
1
24.101
1.901
1
1
44.801
1.451
1
t
13.001
1.451
1
1
52.901
1.451
1
1
7.001
1.451
1
132.201
1.451
t
1
73.501
1.45 1
1
197.101
3*001
1.001
1
3.001
1.00k
)
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1 .001
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
3.001
1.001
t
1
S.OOI
1.001
1
1
7.501
1.001
1
1
7.001
1.001
1
2.00k
1.001
1
1
2.001
1.00k
1
3.00k
1
0.031
I
t
0.10k
0.28k
1
2.001
1
1
8.64 1
k
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
k
0.0 1
k
10.64 i
1
0.131
1
0.13k
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
k
0.0 1
)
0.0 1
1
0.071
1
1
0.091
1
0.161
1
13.36k
1
k
k
0.141
1
1
0.14k
1
0.601
k
5.011
1
1
2.191
1
1
0.0 k
k
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
4.70k
1
11.901
1
0.371
1
0.371
1
0.111
1
0.111
k
0.0 1
0.0 1
1
0.041
1
k
0.601
t
0.641
1
21.65k
1
1
0.01 1
1
0.011
1
0.21 1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.991
k
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
0.0 1
1
0.991
1
0.021
1
0.02k
1
0.0 1
k
0.0 1
k
Q.O k
1
0.0 1
1
0.241
1
k
0.231
t
0.47k
1
1.23k
1
1
k
0.891
1
1
0.571
k
2.671
1
71.711
1
1
132.65k
1
1
5.64k
k
1
3.911
1
k
26.671
1
1
4.40k
k
244.971
1
1.361
1
1.361
1
1.89k
1
1.891
11.59k
1
11.591
1
1.201
k
k
S.76I
k
6.96k
1
163.681
1
k
0.031
1
0.031
1
0.361
0.751
k
1
2.98k
1
1
0.03k
1
0.021
1
1
0.281
1
k
0.29k
k
4.341
0.061
1
0.061
1
0.501
k
O.SOI
k
1.13k
1
1.13k
k
0.831
1
0*061
0.89k
3.071
1
-------
55
58
61
61
64
65
65
66
66
66
69
69
69
69
PENSAUKN MUN
NODE TOTAL
PALMYRA MUN
NODE TOTAL
RANCOCAS TRIB
ULINSBRO HUN
NODE TOTAL
TENNECO IND
.NODE TOTAL
NESHAHNY TRI8
FALLSTUP MUN
.MODE TOTAL
OTfUASNK TRIB
BRSTLTUP NUN
ROHM4HAS IND
-HOPE TOTAL
MARTINS TRIE
L MR BUCKS MUN
FLORENCE HUN
PATPARCH IND
1
I
-3.601
i
1
1
-0 ."6 0 1
1
1
1
-75*481
1
1
-1i90l
I
1
1
-1.301
1
1
1
-56*771
1
1
-2*601
1
I
1
.. V
-6.4 SI
1
1
-2*601
t
1
-1.701
1
1
1
-5 ..161
1
1
-8.001
1
I
-Oi60l
1
1
-3.201
1
-2.941
1
1
-5.581
1
-293.721
t
-0.931
1
-0.931
1
-117.001
I
1
-2.941
1
-119.941
1
-2.021
1
-2.021
1
-88.00!
1
1
-4.031
1
-92.031
I
-10.001
1
1
-4.031
1
i
-2.631
t
-T6.66I
. .* *i
1
-8.001
1
1
-12.401
t
I
-0.931
1
1
-4.961
1.001
1
1 .50 i
1.001
1
1
3.701
I.OOfr
t
t
2.001-
1.001
I
7.401
1 .00 I
1
t
6.50k
1.00k
i
1
1*401
1.001
1
0.901
1.00t
i
1
0.0 t
1.001
1
3.70J
1.001
}
0.701
1.001
i
t
0.0 t
1.001
1
8.201
1*001
V
4.001
1.001
1
26.004
1.001
1.001
0.0
1.00
20.40
1.00
1.001
1.001
1
18.001
1.001
t
t
17.601
1.0Q1
1
1
0*601
1.001
1
0.901
1.001
t
. 1
0.0 1
1.00)
I
10.701
1*001
1
1.401
1.001
1
i
0.0 1
1.001
16.501
1.001
t
22.001
1.001
8.901
1 .001
1.00
0.0
1.00
1.901
1.001
1.90
1.00
0.0
1.00
2.801
1.001
1
1
2.701
1.001
1
11.101
1.001
1
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
1*401
1.001
1
0.701
1*001
1
0*0 1
1.001
1
1.301
1.001
1
0.0 1
1.001
1
0.0 1
1*001
1.45 1
I
87.301
1.45 1
1
1
91.201
1.45 1
1
1
10.001
1.451
1
44.901
1.45 1
1
1
231.201
1.451
1
1
4.201
1 .45 I
1
1.901
1 .451
t
1
3.001
1.451
1
13*401
1.451
1
97.501
1.451
1
1
3.801
1.45 1
I
30.501
1.451
i
0.901
1.451
1
32.301
1.45t
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
3.501
1.001
1
1
9.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
3.001
1.001
1
1
9.001
1 .001
1
4.001
1.001
t
1
5.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
2.001
1.001
1
1
7.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1.001
1
3.001
1 .00!
0.0 I
I
I
0.05 I
I
13.41 1
1
0.021
1
0.021
1
1.261
1
1
0.121
1
1 .381
1
0.071
1
0.071
1
0.661
1
1
0.021
1
0.68 1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.081
1
1
0.01 1
0.091
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.551
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.691
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
21.651
1
0.101
1
0.101
0.631
1
0.291
1
0.921
1
0.191
1
0*191
1
0*281
1
1
0*021
1
0*301
1
0*0 1
1
1
0*231
1
0.021
1
0.251
1
0.0 1
1
1.101
1
1
0.111
1
1
0.241
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
1
1.231
1
0.01 1
1
0.01 1
1
1.201
1
1
0.0 1
1
1.201
1
0.031
1
0*031
jt
1
1 .281
1
1
0.241
t
1*521
1
0*0 1
1
1
0*031
1
1
0*01 I
1
0.041
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.091
1
1
0.0 1
1
1
0.0 1
4.531
1
1
3.801
1
172.01 1
1
0.661
1
0.661
1
9.141
1
1
1.031
1
10.171
1
3.641
1
3*641
1
2.891
1
1
0.061
1
2*95 1
1
0.23)
1
1
0.421
1
1
2.011
1
2.661
1
0.241
1
1
2.951
1
1
0*01 1
1
1
1*251
0.051
1
1
0.091
3.21 1
1
0.021
1
0.021
1
5.671
1
0.051
1
_ i
5.721
1
0.031
1
0*031
1
4*261
1
0.091
1
4*351
1
0*271
0*071
0*031
0.361
1
0.301
1
0.201
1
1
0.021
1
1
0.081
-------
NODE TOTAL
.... .>
. 71 US STEEL INO
NODE TOTAL
^j, — «*.___
72 BORDENTN HUN
NODE TOTAL
*..- _•• , f
73 CROSWICK TRn
73 HAMILTON MUN
-NODE TOTAL
v ,. . i
75 TRENTON MUN
rHODE TOTAL
76 MORRISVL MUN
76 ASSNPINK TRIB
JtODE TOTAL
1
1
-72.901
1
1
1
-1.301
1
1
1
-45.161
1
1
-9.001
1
1
1
-18*601
1
1
1
-3.901
1
1
-51i61 I
1
I
1
1
-36.291
1
-112.991
-112.991
1
-2.021
I
-2.021
1
-70.001
1
1
-13.951
1
-83.95 1
1
-2b.83l
1
-28.831
-6.05 1
1
1
-60.001
1
-66.041
III 1 III!
Ill 1 1.26 1.451 0.091 4.451 O.'60l
1.701 2.401 1.901 4.50 5.001 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.45 1.001 1.03 1.461 1.161 3.971 3.041
II 1 III!
1 1 1 1.03 1.461 1.161 3.971 3.041
2.80 11.101 0.901 15.401 3.001 III!
1.00 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.03 0.121 0.011 0.241 0.031
1 1 1 1 III!
1 1 1 1 0.03 0.121 0.011 0.241 0.031
1.201 0.101 1.001 6.101 10.001 1 1 1 1
1.001- 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.45 0.041 0.381 3.331 3.771
1 1 1 1 1 III!
2.301 11.301 1.101 21.101 3.001 III!
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.21 0.851 0.081 2.301 0.231
1 1 1 t 1 III!
1 1 1 1 1 0.66 0.891 0.461 5.631 3.991
4.201 59.901 1.201 49.401 2.001 III!
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.65 9.301 0.191 11.121 0.311
t 1 1 1 1 III!
1 1 1 1 1 0.65 9.301 0.191 11.121 0.311
0.0 t 31.501 1.801 12.201 7.401 till
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.0 1.031 0.061 0.581 0.241
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1
0. SOI 0.701 2.401 3.001 11.001 1 1 1 1
1.001 1.001 1.001 1.451 1.001 0.34 0.301 1.031 1.871 4.741
t 1 1 1 1 III!
t 1 1 1 1 0.34 1.331 1.091 2.451 4.981
-------
SUMMARY OF DISCHARGE LOADS BY ZONE AND TYPE
INPUT
ZONE
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
&
U
4
5
5
5
TYPE OF
DISCHARGE
MUN
IND
TRIB
.VZONE TOTAL
HUN
IND
TRIB
fZONE TOJAL
MUN
IND
TRIB
• ZONE TOTAL
HUN
IND
TRIB
iZONE TOTAL
« i — tt i.
HUN
I NO
TRIB
tZONE TOTAL
NUMBER OF
DISCHARGES
0.
o.
1 •
1.
9.
5.
7.
21.
7.
7.
1 .
15.
U.
15.
4.
33.
5.
8.
4.
17.
ADJUSTED IW.UT
COKLST1 CQNST2
0.0 1
0.0 1
10*501
104501
l <.
1.691
1.871
3.01!
6*561
24 .2 9 1
0.0 1
0.071
24.361
1 3 .'1 2 1
11 .631
7.461
32.71 1
5.231
23. '9 11
1.r61 1
30.901
0.0 1
0*0 -1
2. 104
2.101
13.041
1 .97)
1.491
16.501
29.921
4.81 1
O.C4I
34.77.1
16.381
33.071
7.41 1
56.86-1
17.56*1
43.691
0.391
61 .644
LOADS - 1000 LB/DAY
CONST3 CONST4 CONST5
0.0 1 0.0 1
0.0 1 0.0 1
16.801 91.361
16.801 91.361
0.701 18.711
1.341 26.121
4.421 21.411
6.451 66.241
2.481 379.61 1
0.0 1 58.631
0.241 1.201
2.721 439.441
4.791 168.501
9.041 343.601-
15.491 106.371
29.321 618.471
0.171 58.691
11.011 149.671
4.531 10*691
15.711 219.051
0.0
0*0
168.01
168.01
1*22
3.70
20.85
25.78
7.03
2.29
0.83
10.15
5.04
11.04 •
54.32
70.40
1.85
22.55
17.63
42.03
INPUT
CONST1
0.0 1
0.0 1
100.001
10.061
25.591
28.481
45.931
6.281
99.71 1
0.0 1
0.291
23.331
40.741
36.101
23.161
30.85 1
17.151
77.621
5.231
29.491
LOADS - PERCENT
CONST2 CONST3
0.0 1 0.0 1
0.0 1 0.0 1
100.001 100.001
1.221 23.661
79.041 10.771
11.921- 20.331
9.041 68.401
9.601 9.091
86.051 91.291
13.841 0.0 1
0.101 8.711
20.231 3.831
28.811 16.341
58.161 30.821
13.041 52.841
33.081 41.291
28.491 1.081
70.881 70.081
0.631 28.841
35.861 22.131
OF ZONE
CONST4
0.0 1
0.0 1
100*001
6.371
28.251
39.431
32.331
4.621
86.381
13.341
0.271
30*631
\ i
27.241
55.561
17.201
43.11 1
26.791
68.331
4.881
15.271
BY TYPE
CON£T5
0.0
0.0
100.00
53.10
4.75
14.34
80.91
8.15
69.26
22.58
8.17
3.21
7.16
15.68
77.16
22.25
4.40
53.66
41*94
13.28
- "
GRAND TOTAL
104.43 171.87 71.01 1434.56 316.33
-------
XXXXXXJIXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXKX»XXKX«XXXXXXXXXXXXX«XXX.XXXXXXXKttXX«XXXKXXXXX»KX.XXXXXXXXXXXXKXKXXXKXXilXX.«XXX,X»XKXXXXXXXIk»MXIIIt«XMX«XXXXXK*llltll
/SECTION 4 UATEK QUALITY BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
KXXXXXfcXXXXXXKXXXX X XX XXXX XJt X X X XX X X X *X,X XXXXX«X»X.XXXXX*X*«.X.XX*XKXXXXXXXXXXXXKXXXXltXXXXXXXXXXXXXKXXXXXXlfXXXXXXX*IUIIIXKIt»XXIMtX*XXXXX«*JI»
SEAWARD BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
NODE 1 : COURTHOUSE PI , MARYLAND
' CIN1 ' PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
START
CYCLE
DURATION
(CYCLES)
CONSTT
DELAWARE
• CINMAX ' PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
DURATION
(CYCLES)
CONST1
(MG/L>
CONST2
CONST3
(MG/L>
CONST4
(MS/L)
CONST5
CMG/L)
2400
0.70
0.30
1.30
1.50
5.50
UPSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
NODE 76 RECIEVES VARYING LOADS FROM DELAWARE (RIVR)
FLOW PcRIOD = 2400 CYCLES
START
CYCLE
DURATION FLOW
(CYCLES) tCFS)
START
CYCLE
1 2400 -3900.00
QUAL PERIOD = 2400 CYCLES
DURATION
(CYCLES)
CONST1
CMS/D
CONST2
(HG/L>
CONST3
(M6/L)
CONST4
tMG/L>
CONST5
(HG/L)
2400
O.SO
0.10
0.80
4.35
8.00
-------
SECTION 5
SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC INPUTS
*illl»»»»JI« MX »«»**»» XXXXX«XHHXX«XX«KX*XX*«X*X*X*ltXX«X«*»*«X*X«XXXXKXXXKXX*XXXXXKXXXXItX«X»XXXXXXXX*XK«XXXXXNXXXXXiUIX**IMIl»«*XXMK*»»lll«
JUNCTION HEAD AND HYO. RADIUS AKO IT-SECTIONAL AREA OF CHANNELS ARE AT MEAN TIDE **
CHAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
. .LENGTH
<. 7000 .
11000.
11000.
T1000.
'11000.
11000.
T1000.
15679.
14994.
r14994.
.14994.
1T995.
19326.
7330.
8996.
..8996.
8996.
.13661.
8996.
L13661.
110662.
.9663.
10996.
T3994.
13661 .
:11995.
11995.
9330.
.9330.
9330.
c-9330.
.9330.
711995.
•11995.
S11 995 .
J3328.
-•C1995.
T0662.
.1T995.
7330.
7330.
'6331 .
.'11995.
8996.
6331.
.T1995.
?t1995.
WIDTH
2400.
850.
650.
600.
60Pt
600.
600.
600.
12995.
11829.
7700.
4500.
1700.
7600.
1000.
4332.
5331.
380 C.
5600.
3400.
6000.
4900.
7600.
3900.
8996.
8274.
6942.
1000.
722.
389.
278.
389.
8163.
7441.
6997.
5720.
4054.
3887.
4332.
2443.
2100.
2600.
4942.
300.
1944.
2388.
3499.
ARFA
31042.
24479.
18647.
17093.
T6918.
137S8.
12384.
11039.
212742.
1 83011.
119235.
78133.
11956.
68399.
8622.
327 ?6.
40389.
53787.
25845.
70398.
45839.
418016.
983?7.
66887.
149.854.
146746.
14-5752.
143^3.
7506.
3S95.
2-289.
2239.
14.8T60.
12*240.
114339,
114952.
90971.
61885.
85987.
T5894.
18473.
29988.
97486.
1799.
13392.
28789.
77940.
CHAtiNfcL
f ANNI-NG
0.010
0.010
0.010
D.010
0.010
P.01C
0.010'
3.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
r.oio
0.010
0.010 '
o.ots
O.OT5
P. 91.5'
0.010
n.oro
0.010
0.010
0.010
O.OTO
o.oro
0.010 •
0.010
C.01C
o.ots -~
O.OTS
O.OTS
o.ots-
o.ots
0.0 T6
0.016
0.0 T6
O.OT6
0.020
0.020.
0.020,
0.020
0.020
0.020'
0.020
0.020-
0.020
0.020
0.020
DA IA «
NET KLOW
1539.43
1539.41
1539.43
1539.40
1539.41
153',. 38
1539.39
1539.39
-13197.96
-13198.80
-16448.20
1539.33
3249.09
5736.47
-16.39
-16.17
-15.61
6690.48
9001.87
-27337.84
6690.38
9001 .70
6690.25
-18336.19
-11646.09
-11646.25
-11646.41
-760.04
-262.06
-262 «fi 7
-262.05
-517.98
-10866^51
-10366.80
-10366.88
-10867.02
-11728.44
910.37
-11645.45
910.35
910.36
-24.01
-10711.02
-60.01
36.03
36.07
-10710.95
XXXXNXXXftXKKKNXXKXttXXftcKXXXXXX
HYO. RADIUS JUNC. AT ENDS
12.9
28.8
23.7
28.5
23.2
22.9
20.6
13.4
16.4
15.5
15.5
17.4.
7.Q
9.1
8.6
7.6
7.6
14.2
4.3
20.7
7.6
9.8
12.9
17.2
16.7
17.7
21.0
14.3
10.4
9.2
3.2
5.8
18.2
17.2
1-6.3
20.1
22.4
16.4
19.8
6.4
8.8
11.5
18.7
6.0
6.9
12.1
22.3
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2
11
12
10
12
13
14
15
16
13
14
13
1R
19
21
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26
25
31
32
33
34
34
36
35
37
38
38
39
39
41
42
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
13
14
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
20
22
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
35
38
37
38
39
42
40
41
43
43
JUNC. INFLOW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-15.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-262.0
-518.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-49.0
0.0
-83.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-60.0
0.0
0.0
-24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-2067.0
HEAD CHANNELS ENTERING JUNCTION
0.10
-0.07
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.09
-0.03
0.01
0.09
0.10
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.1 1
0.14
0.14
0.21
0.21
0.24
0.25
0.26
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.2%
0.29
0.29
0.32
0.35
0.37
0.38
0.40
0.43
0.43
0.44
0.41
0.48
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.52
1
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
38
37
40
39
42
44
45
43
46
48
49
50
51
0
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
10
11
12
14
16
17
0
21
22
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
0
0
34
35
36
37
40
39
41
41
44
0
46
47
47
49
50
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
14
15
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
25
0
0
33
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
42
45
0
0
0
48
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
> t\> ui r\> w -» r\> r
ooooujooooooooooooooooaaoooooooooo^o
-sJ-J->l-Nl-*-»O*->IIOQCoOOJCOOOOo 00|->J I
HJ«ONO'C10>*Cr«U>Jv£)-»-»-»—» -A t>j (\> PvJ | M %O O i ^
e-^fr-^fr-^o^vooo-sjopODCW-ko-AWw^
• ••••*••••• ••••••••••••••• •••
aaooaooooQooooaoooooooooooooo
-»oooooooooa ooooooooooooooo o o o
» ->i -4 -j a* <> o» a* wi
OOOOOOOOUIOWO-fcOOO-JOOO W -* O O *O O
ooooooooooo ooooooooooooooo o o o
ooooooooooo ooaoooooooooooo ooa
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-903/9-78-001
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
"A Water Quality Modelling Study of the
Delaware Estuary"
7. AUTHOR(S)
Leo J. Clark, Robert B. Ambrose, Jr., and
Rachel C. Crain
}. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Annapolis Field Office, Region III
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Annapolis Science Center
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
same
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
January 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Technical Report 62
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
2BA644
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
In-housei final
14. SPONSORfNG AGENCY CODE
EPA/ 903/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Recent data acquisition, analysis, and mathematical modelling studies were under-
:aken to improve the understanding of water quality interactions, particularly as they
impact DO, in the Delaware Estuary. A version of the Dynamic Estuary Model, after
jndergoing considerable modification, was applied in an iterative process of hypothesis
'ormation and testing. Both model parameters and model structure were updated and
improved through this process until five intensive data sets gathered in the estuary
>etween 1968 and 1976 were satisfactorily simulated. The major processes treated in
;his study were the advection and dispersion of salinity and dye tracers, nitrification,
:arbonaceous oxidation, sediment oxygen demand, reaeration, algal photosynthesis and
aspiration, and denitrification. The major product of this study is a calibrated and
verified "real time" hydraulic and water quality model of the Delaware Estuary between
Trenton and Listen Point. Among the conclusions of general importance are: (1) algae
;xert a variable, but generally positive influence on the DO budget; (2) non-linear
^actions (such as denitrification and reduction of effective sediment oxygen demand)
jecome significant when DO levels drop below 2 mg/1; and (3) nitrification, which ex-
jeriences inhibition in a zone around Philadelphia, and sediment oxygen demand rival
:arbonaceous oxidation as DO sinks throughout much of the estuary. One implication of
;his study is that earlier forecasts of DO improvements with a simpler, linear model
vere somewhat optimistic.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Sedimentation oxygen demand
Nitrification Dissolved oxygen
Photosynthesis Salt water
Respiration intrusion
Biochemical oxygen demand
Estuaries
Mathematical models
SinuilaHnn
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Denitrification
Delaware Estuary
Estuarine dissolved
oxygen budget
Non-linear mathematical
model
Estuary water Quality moc
Water quality simulation
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
nclassif ipd
c. COS AT I Field/Group
el
21. NO. OF PAGES
307
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
Insert the EPA report number as it appears on the cover of the publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed prominently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller
type or otherwise subordinate it to main title. When a report is prepared in more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include subtitle for the specific title.
5. REPORT DATE
Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected (e.g., datf of issue, date of
approval, date of preparation, etc.).
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Leave blank.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Give name(s) in conventional order (John R. Doe, J. Robert Doe, etc.). List author's affiliation if it differs from the performing organi-
zation.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code. List no more than two levels of an organizational hirearchy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
Use the program element number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate numbers may be included in parentheses.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Include ZIP code.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Indicate interim final, etc., and if applicable, dates covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with, Translation of, Presented at conference of,
To be published in, Supersedes, Supplements, etc.
16. ABSTRACT
Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant information contained in the report. If the report contains a
significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
(a) DESCRIPTORS - Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms that identify the major
concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as index entries for cataloging.
(b) IDENTIFIERS AND OPEN-ENDED TERMS - Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c) COSATI FIELD GROUP - Field and group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List. Since the ma-
jority of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the Primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be specific discipline, area of human
endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group assignments that will follow
the primary posting(s).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Release Unlimited." Cite any availability to
the public, with address and price.
19. &20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit classified reports to the National Technical Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
Insert the total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but exclude distribution list, if any.
22. PRICE
Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) (Rtverw)
------- |