EPA-670/2-75-010
May 1975
Environmental Protection Technology Series
fF^^I^W-W
* ** V * * *" -• \a " % \
-------
EPA-670/2-75-010
May 1975
MULTI-PURPOSE COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW TREATMENT FACILITY
MOUNT CLEMENS, MICHIGAN
By
Vijaysinh U. Mahida
Frank J. DeDecker
Spalding, DeDecker § Associates, Inc.
Madison Heights, Michigan 48071
Project No. 11023 FAR
Program Element No. 1BB034
PROJECT OFFICER
Richard Field
Storm and Combined Sewer Section (Edison, N.J.)
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
mil
-------
REVIEW NOTICE
The National Environmental Research Center -
Cincinnati has reviewed this report and approved
its publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or com-
mercial products constitute endorsement or recom-
mendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Man and his environment must be protected from the adverse effects of
pesticides, radiation, noise and other forms of pollution, and the unwise
management of solid waste. Efforts to protect the environment require a
focus that recognizes the interplay between the components of our physical
environment -- air, water, and land. The National Environmental Research
Centers provide this multi-disciplinary focus through programs engaged in
41 studies on the effect of environmental contaminants on
man and the biosphere, and
• a search for ways to prevent contamination and to recycle
valuable resources.
The "Multi-purpose Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Facility Mount
Clemens, Michigan" Demonstration Project brings into focus the beneficial
uses of stormwater thereby attempting to meet the second objective as well
as the intent of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (Public Law 92-500, 92nd Congress) under title II - Grants for
Construction of Treatment Works, Section 201. (f) which states as follows:
"The Administrator (of the Environmental Protection Agency) shall
encourage waste treatment management which combines 'open space'
and recreational considerations with such management."
A.W. Breidenbach, Ph.D.
Director
National Environmental
Research Center, Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Combined sewer overflows from 212 acres within the City of Mount
Clemens were conveyed to a treatment-park site. The overflows
received initial treatment (settling and surface aeration) in a
retention basin. Further treatment consisted of microstraining,
disinfection, surface aeration in a series of lakelets, and
filtration.
The annual existing overflow of 2180 cu ft/acre-inch of rainfall had
SS of 50 Ibs/acre-inch and BODr of 20 Ibs/acre-inch. Treatment reduced
the annual pollution load by 90 percent.
The final lake sampling data has demonstrated that all water quality
parameters for fishing, boating, and/or lawn sprinkling -- except
the toxic and deleterious substances parameters, which were not
studied -- were met. Very limited investigations were undertaken
in the area of recreation, open space, and transitional land use.
Treatment of combined sewer overflows was found to be more cost-
effective than separation of an existing combined sewer system.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project No. 11023 FAR
by the City of Mount Clemens, Michigan, under the partial sponsor-
ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed
as of August 1973.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables viii
Acknowledgements ix
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 9
III Introduction 13
IV Pre-Construction Studies 26
V Facility Design and Construction 41
VI Post Construction Studies 66
VII Comparison with a Separation Program for Project Area 88
VIII Open Space, Recreation, and Transitional Land Use 93
IX Epilogue - General Discussion on the Mount Clemens 100
Concept
X References 121
XI List of Publications 123
XII Glossary 124
XIII Appendices 126
v
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Mount Clemens Concept for Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment 14
2 Mount Clemens Proposed Treatment-Park Facility 16
3 Regional Location Map 17
4 Vicinity Map 18
5 Central Business District 18
6 Combined Sewer Overflow Point Locations 21
7 Demonstration Project Service Area and Treatment-Park Site 22
8 Rain Gauge Station 25
9 Modified Diversion and Overflow Structure 28
10 Spruce Street Drain Diversion Chamber 29
11 Spruce Street Drain Sampler 29
12 Clemens Street Drain Sampler 30
13 Clemens Street Drain; Suspended Solids Concentration vs. Time 37
14 Spruce Street Drain: Suspended Solids Concentration vs. Time 38
15 Clemens Street Drain: BOD5 Concentration vs. Time 39
16 Spruce Street Drain: BOD^ Concentration vs. Time 40
17 Demonstration Facility Flow Diagram 42
18 Treatment Facility Site Plan 44
19 Spruce Street Drain Overflow Chamber 47
20 Combined Sewer Overflow Pump Station Plan 48
21 Combined Sewer Overflow Pump Station 49
22 Combined Sewer Pump Installation 50
vi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
23 Logic Diagram for Automatic Flow Proportioned Sampler 52
24 Lakelet No. 1 (During Construction) 54
25 Lakelet No. 1 Prior to Start-up 56
26 Floating Outlet Lakelet No. 1 57
27 Process Building Layout 58
28 Microstrainer 59
29 Disinfection System 61
30 Sand Filter 64
31 Control Panel 64
32 Clemens Street Overflow Structure (During Construction) 69
33 Cascade Inlet-Initial Flow 71
34 Lakelet No. 1 In Operation 72
35 Lakelet No. 1 Aerator Initial Freeze 73
36 Lakelet No. 1 Aerator with Ice Accumulation 75
37 Lakelet No. 2 at Influent Location 77
38 Process Efficiency, BOD Concentration vs. Time 82
39 Process Efficiency, Suspended Solids Concentration vs. Time 83
40 Lakelet No. 3 Recreation 94
41 General Zoning Map 96
42 Aerial View of Site Viewing West 98
43 Aerial View of Site Viewing East 99
44 General City-wide Collection System Plan 103
45 Flow Diagram for Retention and Treatment Facilities 105
VI1
-------
TABLES
No.
Page
1 Selected Rainfall Data from Southeast Michigan Network 24
Stations
2 Combined Sewer Overflow Characteristics 33
3 Overflow Event Identifications for Figures 13 35
through 16
4 Process Design Parameters 45
5 Common Values of Chlorine Requirements 60
6 Construction Cost Breakdown 65
7 List of Project Sampling Locations 67
8 Sampling Program and Analysis 68
9 Operation and Maintenance Costs 79
10 Statistical Analysis of Post-Construction Studies 80
Sampling Data
11 Annual BOD5 and SS Removal with the Mount Clemens Concept 84
12 Selected Water Quality Standards and Lakelet 3 Attributes 87
13 Basis for Cost Estimate for Separation by Installation 90
of Sanitary Sewers
14 Basis for Cost Estimate for Separation by Installation 91
of Storm Sewers
15 Recreation Standards from Selected Areas 97
16 City of Mount Clemens Programed Parks and Recreation 98
Facilities
17 Cost Analysis; Separation vs. Collection and Treatment 101
18 Design Basis - Mount Clemens City-wide Project 107
19 Operation and Maintenance Costs - Mount Clemens City-wide 115
Project
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the foresight and willingness
of the City Manager, Edwin Whedon, P.E., the Mayor and the Commissioners
of the City of Mount Clemens, to sponsor the Demonstration Project. The
assistance and cooperation of the Superintendent of the Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant, James Van Havermaat, P.E., in conscientiously operating the
facility is also cordially acknowledged.
The authors also wish to acknowledge the active support of the U.S." Environ-
mental Protection Agency's Project Officers Laurence B. O'Leary, P.E.,
Robert M. Buckley, P.E., and Richard Field, P.E.
Further, the authors wish to thank William H. Rosenkranz, P.E. Chief,
and Francis Condon, P.E. Project Officer of the Municipal Technology
Branch of the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. for
their continued interest and guidance as well as the staff of the Michigan
Water Resources Commission for their encouragement and cooperation in
processing this project and its subsequent study.
The authors are grateful to the Michigan Section of the American Consulting
Engineers Council (ACEC) for having awarded this Demonstration Project the
'Grand Conceptor' engineering excellence award, and to the ACEC/USA for
having awarded the 'Honor Award' during the ACEC 1971 Engineering Excellence
Awards competition.
The authors are appreciative of the efforts of Ms. Candice Meyer for the
careful preparation and review of the manuscript.
IX
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1. The concept of collection and treatment of combined sewer over-
flows is a feasible, more efficient, and a better cost effec-
tive alternative than separation of an existing combined sewer
system.
The collection and treatment of overflows from the Mount Clemens
study area of 212 acres reduced the annual pollution load as
follows:
a) 94 to 96 percent of removal of suspended solids (SS)
b) 92 to 96 percent removal of BOD5
If separation of the combined sewer system had been undertaken,
the annual pollutional load would have been reduced as follows:
a) 35 percent removal of SS
b) 88 percent removal of BOD^
The annual cost of collection and treatment of combined sewer
overflows from the study area was $100,000 whereas the annual cost
of separation of the combined sewer system would have been
$185,000.
2. The treatment-park concept provides for the acquisition of land
for use as a combined sewer overflow treatment facility with
incidental use for open space, recreation and transitional land
use area.
The treatment-park concept seems most feasible because of the
multipurpose, cost-effective use of public funds.
-------
TECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS - General
1. The average annual rainfall of 30 inches in the 212 acres combined
sewer service area would produce an annual overflow volume of
13,852,000 cu ft, assuming 60 percent of the rainfall is expected
to go through the sewer system. The remaining 40 percent of the
rainfall would either percolate into the ground, evaporate, or
produce runoff directly to the Clinton River. The annual over-
flow volume contributed by the combined sewer system can be ex-
pressed as 2180 cu ft/acre-inch of rainfall.
2. The pre-construction studies indicated that the annual overflows
would contain 302,500 Ibs of SS and 121,000 Ibs of BOD5. These
values can be expressed as 1427 Ibs/acre/year or 50 Ibs/acre-inch
of rainfall for SS and as 570 Ibs/acre/year or 20 Ibs/acre-inch of
rainfall for BOD5, These loadings are based on overflow quality
having an average SS of 350 mg/1 and BOD5 of 140 mg/1. It should
be noted that the pre-construction data is composed of "dry year"
data.
3. The post-construction studies indicate that the combined sewer
overflow collection and treatment facility would reduce the annual
pollution to the receiving stream to 12,100 Ibs of SS and 5,200
Ibs of BOD5. These values can be expressed as 60 Ibs/acre/year or
2 Ibs/acre-inch of rainfall for SS and 25 Ibs/acre/year or 1
Ib/acre-inch of rainfall for BOD5. These loadings are based on
the treated overflow quality having a flow weighted average SS of
239 mg/1 with a 95 percent confidence level of +83 mg/1 and an average
BOD5 mg/1 of 75 mg/1 with a 95 percent confidence level of +25 mg/1.
4. The treatment facility final effluent had a flow weighted average SS
of 14 mg/1 with a 95 percent confidence level of +2 mg/1, and an
average BOD5 of 6 mg/1 with a 95 percent confidence level of +_mg/l.
5. The post-construction studies indicate that there is a 94 to 96
percent reduction in SS and a 92 to 96 percent reduction in BOD5,
depending upon whether the pre-construction or post-construction
period overflow quality is used in the computations.
6. The Mount Clemens treatment concept evaluation indicates that it
is a feasible and reliable concept. Lakelet No. 3 sampling data
(Table 12) has demonstrated the capability of the treatment
concept to acceptably renovate combined sewer overflows for
fishing and boating and for lawn sprinkling. All water quality
parameters, except the toxic and deleterious substances parameter
(not studied), were met.
-------
Comparison of the annual cost of collection and treatment facility
for combined sewer overflows ($100,000) and the annual cost for
separation ($185,000) within the 212 acres service area suggests
there is annual savings of $85,000 or $400 per acre of service
area. The cost of the collection and treatment facility (total
project cost) for combined sewer overflows was $758,000 or $3,600
per acre of service area. Assuming a 30 year, 6 percent bond issue,
the annual retirement cost would have been $55,000. The annual
operation and maintenance cost was estimated at $45,000. A
separation program by constructing new storm sewers would have
cost $2,544,000, or $12,000 per acre. Separation by constructing
new sanitary sewers would have cost approximately $24,000 per acre.
Assuming a 30 year, 6 percent bond issue, the annual retirement
cost for constructing storm sewers would have been $185,000. All
costs are based on 1973 ENR Construction Cost Index of 1800.
The city-wide collection and treatment facility (presently under
construction) to serve a combined sewer area of 1471 acres is ex-
pected to cost $15,000,000 or $10,000 per acre of service area.
Assuming a 30 year, 6 percent bond issue, the annual retirement cost
would be $1,090,000. The annual operation and maintenance cost is
estimated to be $171,000 ($171 per million gallons or $1.28 per 1000
cu ft). Of this cost, about 80 percent is attributable to the Re-
tention Basin. Separation would have cost approximately $22,000,000
or $15,000 per acre. The higher separation costs are due to con-
struction adversities expected in "downtown" business areas. All
costs are based on 1973 ENR Construction Cost Index of 1800.
TECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS - Operation
Note: The following conclusions are the outcome of operating the EPA
Demonstration Project.
1. The combined sewer overflow rate and volume monitoring methods
used during the pre-construction studies (utilizing magnetic
flow meters) did not perform satisfactorily. The flow meters
were not capable of handling highly varying surges encountered.
2. The combined sewer overflow samplers did not perform satisfactorily.
Large particulate matter, pieces of cloth, and debris blocked, at
times, the sample tubes.
The samplers were designed to operate during periods of overflow
when the rate exceeded 0.5 cfs. This eliminated a certain number
of samples during low intensity storms.
-------
3. The U-trough and drop manhole method for intercepting combined
sewer overflows operated satisfactorily and efficiently.
4. The combined sewage overflow pump station had electrode controls,
which had to be kept clean for proper pump actuation. This
became a regular maintenance procedure.
5. Winter operation of the floating aerators proved to be a difficult
problem. The icing up of the aerator motor made the aerator
unstable. When this situation was permitted to continue, the
aerator soon would become exceedingly top heavy and would capsize.
Summer operation of the aerators presented only one problem. The
aerators in Lakelet No. 1 (Retention Basin) would tend to collect
pieces of cloth, weeds, and other such foreign material and wrap
it around either the impeller or the erosion plate which resulted
in restricting the intake. This would put an extra load on the
motor which would sometimes overload the aerator enough to shut it
down.
6. If Lakelet No. 1 (Retention Basin) were to be operated on a
long term basis, some method of sludge removal would be
required. At the end of the one year study period, an average
9 inches of sludge accumulation was observed on the bottom of
the lakelet. This amounts to 28,144 cu ft or 133 cu ft/acre/year.
The Demonstration Facility was not intended to incorporate sludge
removal.
7. The periodic operation of Lakelet No. 1 (sedimentation, aeration,
etc.) and the occasional occurrence of oils in the combined
sewer overflows indicated that the microstrainer is not suited
in the Mount Clemens treatment concept.
8. Chlorination studies were initially proposed to be run for the
purpose of evaluating chlorine dioxide as a better alternative
for treating combined sewer overflows as compared to standard
chlorine gas disinfection. Chlorine gas studies were run and a
sufficient quantity of data was collected pertaining to dosing
rates, costs and amounts of residual chlorine achieved. However,
due to a lack of rainfall during the study period, a sufficient
quantity of data was not collected for the chlorine dioxide
studies to allow for any conclusive evaluation of the two alter-
natives. The future city-wide project proposed the use of
chlorine dioxide as a method of disinfection such that further
studies can be performed.
-------
The sand filter functioned very well during the entire study
period. The most noteworthy factor concerning the application
of a sand filter for this project was that the unit could be
discontinued from service for any period of time and then re-
started with no special maintenance procedures being required.
Such is not the case, for example, with a microstrainer which
requires extensive cleaning of the screens when it is taken out
of service.
10. Algae was present in the lake system in excessive quantities
during the study year. It is our conclusion that phosphorus re-
moval be incorporated in the Mount Clemens treatment-park concept.
11. Turbidity was observed in the lakes system. The lakes system was
lined with clay; stone lining was deleted for cost saving. It is
our assertion that stone lining is necessary to reduce turbidity.
12. During the one year study period less than 20 percent of the
storms occurred during a regular, 8 hour day shift. This indicated
that automation of the treatment facility is a necessity. Auto-
mation less than 100 percent would have required a 3 shift per day
type of operation.
Automation of the treatment facility was estimated to cost $40,000.
If the facility would not have been automated, the personnel costs
would have been $62,900 instead of $32,900.
13. The annual cost of operation and maintenance during the study
year was $45,000. This cost includes only the operation of
the facility, as no park facility was developed at the time.
This project was operated by city personnel from the adjacent
sewage treatment plant. This situation provided operating
personnel for the project as they were needed, but one operator
was assigned full time.
The city-wide project (under construction) for treatment of
combined sewer overflows is based on the city conveying its
dry weather flow sanitary sewage to the regional system. The
combined sewer overflow facility would be staffed by full time
personnel.
-------
TECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS - Design Procedures
Note: The following conclusions are the outcome of experience gained
during the design of the EPA Demonstration Project and the
city-wide project.
The Demonstration Project had 3 lakelets, an aerated Lakelet No. 1
acting as a retention basin, Lakelet No. 2, and an aerated Lakelet
No. 3. The total minimum detention time was 16 days and the total
maximum detention time was 19 days, at 1 mgd flow rate. The City-
Wide Project has an aerated retention basin and 3 lakelets - an
aerated Lakelet No. 1, partially aerated Lakelet No. 2, and
Lakelet No. 3. Prior to aeration and retention the storm flows
will go through a series of three sedimentation resuspension
chambers (SRC). The total minimum detention time proposed
is 8.6 days and the maximum detention time is 12.4 days, at
4 mgd flow rate. The final effluent from the lakes system
is expected to be as good as in the Demonstration Project,
in spite of increasing the flow rate from 1 to 4 mgd, due to the
additional aeration provided.
The total aeration provided in the Demonstration Project was for
10.8 days. The total aeration provided in the city-wide project
is for 9.5 days minimum and 11.3 days maximum. It should be
noted that the proposed aeration in Lakelet No. 1 would reduce
BOD5 from 50 mg/1 to 10 mg/1.
1. An important part of the design process is an analysis of the
rainfall-runoff relationship. The frequency and intensity of
storms, basin characteristics, design storm, and occurrences
of additional storms before the design storm is dewatered, are
some of the considerations in the analysis.
2. An existing sewer system investigation is necessary to produce
information concerning the actual watershed service area, the
degree of separation within the area, the extent of deterioration
of the sewer structures, and the probable capacities within the
combined sewer system. This information is crucial in the de-
tailed design of interceptors and retention and treatment facilities.
-------
3 The U-trough and drop manhole method for intercepting combined
sewer overflows is feasible and efficient. By constructing the
U-trough and drop manhole such that the overflows would be inter-
cepted ahead of the existing diversion chambers, the diversion
chambers can be left alone to divert the dry weather flow and
remain as an emergency overflow outlet in case of a combined
sewer overflow pump station failure.
The U-trough should be sized to carry only the desired peak dry
weather flow in order to minimize the surcharge to be conveyed
to the dry weather flow disposal system. An adjustable weir on
the U-trough permits control of the surcharge, and the weir
height can be easily field adjusted.
The hydraulic gradient of the combined sewer overflow interceptor
should be below the top edge of the U-trough. Thus only the
maximum capacity of the U-trough would be conveyed to the dry
weather flow disposal system.
4. Direct measurement of rate and volume of overflows pumped into
the retention basin is better than an indirect measurement
(monitoring the water level in the basin and recording pumpage
out).
The flow proportioned sampler used during the Demonstration Project
was improved upon in the city-wide project by providing 3 composite
sample jars. The sampler deposits samples collected diring the
first period (adjustable, 0-4 hours) in the first sample jar. The
sampler deposits samples collected during the next period (adjust-
able, 0-12 hours) in the second jar. The sampler deposits the
rest of the samples in the third jar.
The sampling pump in the city-wide project is provided with a
macerating unit which macerates the combined sewage and reduces
organic and inorganic solids to a size that enables them to be
pumped by the sample pump. The macerating unit has the capability
of being rotated counterclockwise to permit unclogging.
-------
7.
The sedimentation-resuspension chambers, proposed under the
city-wide project, were designed to provide a minumum of 30 minutes
ot settling time. The peak overflow design rate is 0.0058 fps
(3760 gpd/sq ft or 1.77 mm/sec). Assuming specific gravity of 1 2
the peak rate is expected to settle solids 0.15 mm and greater. ' '
Thus the SRC have the design capability to settle out nearly 90
percent of settleable solids.
Upon cessation of any inflow, the settled material is to be re-
suspended by means of a series of dual ejector units which utilizes
torced air and high pressure water jets to create a turbulent
mixing effect.
The contents of the SRC can then be conveyed directly to the dry
weather flow disposal system.
Depending upon whether the Mount Clemens treatment concept or
the treatment-park concept is used, sand filters may or may not
be needed. If sand filters are needed, they should be placed
between the clarifier and the flow-through-type first lakelet
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1 The alternative of collection and treatment of combined sewer
overflows should be investigated as a viable alternative to
separation of an existing combined sewer system because it is
a feasible, more efficient, and a better cost-effective alter-
native.
2 General application of the treatment-park concept, as proposed
in Mount Clemens, is recommended because of the multi-purpose and
cost-effective use of public funds.
3. The combined sewer overflows should initially be conveyed to
sedimentation-resuspension chambers (SRC) and then to an
aerated retention basin. The settled material in the SRC should
be resuspended -- preferably without the use of external water --
and discharged directly to the dry weather flow disposal system.
The aerated retention basin should include a clarifier to remove
phosphorus. The phosphorus-laden sludge should also be removed
directly to the dry weather flow disposal system. The effluent
from the clarifier can then be conveyed to a separately located
lakes system for further treatment and multi-purpose uses.
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Tests should be conducted for toxic and deleterious substances in
Lakelet No. 3. Such tests should confirm the acceptability of the
use of the renovated overflows for recreation. (This program is
proposed to be conducted by the City of Mount Clemens under its
city-wide project.)
2. Continue chlorine dioxide studies for more conclusive information.
(This program is proposed to be conducted by the City of Mount
Clemens under its city-wide project.)
3. Fully automate the combined sewer overflow treatment facility.
The operation and maintenance staff required for the facility can
then be reduced to a regular 8-hour-day-shift basis.
-------
4. Develop improved methods for monitoring existing combined sewer
overflows.
5. Develop improved methods for preventing icing problems of floating
aerators.
6. Review the Technical Conclusion (outlined in Section I) as a
guide or check-list to develop the design for a specific combined
sewer overflow project.
7. The combined sewer overflow interceptors should be designed for
stormwater runoff using a 5 to 10 year storm recurrence interval.
The extra capacity in the interceptor, over that which might be
capable of delivery by the collection system, would be available
as an outlet for the future installation of additional relief
storm sewers.
8. For basins that are not complex and have generally 200 acres or
less, it is recommended that the design storm runoff be analyzed by the
Rational Method. For basins in excess of 200 acres, a modified
Rational Method should be used.
9. In spite of 90 percent settling expected to occur in the SRC,
there will most likely be some fine particulate material carried
over into the retention basin. This material may settle in the
retention basin and, upon the dewatering of the retention basin,
produce an odoriferous condition. It is therefore deemed neces-
sary to provide a flushing system for use in removing the settled
material from the retention basin.
10. The capacity of the retention basin should be based on the
analysis of rainfall records and mass diagrams. The in-system
storage possibility provided by the combined sewer overflow
interceptor should be considered in the design of the retention
basin storage. The mass diagram assists in determining the
most reasonable combination of retention basin capacity, dewater-
ing rate, and the number of emergency overflows permitted from
the retention basin.
The determination of an appropriate dewatering rate should take
into consideration an economical stormwater treatment facility
(including a possible phosphorus removal process unit) rate
in relation to a rate that would dewater the retention basin
in sufficient time to provide retention capacity for the next
rainstorm.
10
-------
Following the determination of the most favorable capacity and
dewatering rate for the retention basin, the final layout can then
be designed, including the supplemental systems for aeration,
disinfection, and flushing.
It should be noted that the primary function of the retention
basin is to capture and retain combined sewer overflows. The
treatment aspect of the retention facility is secondary. It
behooves the design engineer to take maximum advantage of the
detention time in a retention basin. The Demonstration Project
aerated retention basin (Lakelet No.l) permitted 80 percent
BOD5 removal within 4 days of detention time. The provision
of mechanical aeration in the receiving-retention basin -- as an
extremely efficacious location for initiating the satisfaction
of total BOD --is considered, therefore, one of the more important
features of the Mount Clemens concept. Under full retention basin
conditions, it is anticipated that it would take about 8 days to
completely dewater the retention basin. Even when only partially
filled, the time is usually abundant to be conducive toward
stabilization. The retention basin should be open to the
atmosphere; this is not only more appropriate for maximum oxygen
transfer, but is substantially less expensive than an enclosed
basin. However, land availability and value must be considered
in the determination of whether the basin can be left open or
whether it must be enclosed to allow use of the land area above
the basin.
11. All flows discharging directly to the river from the retention
basin in Mount Clemens are to be disinfected in a chlorination
basin prior to discharge. The chlorination facility was incor-
porated as a means of meeting specific requirements set forth by
the State of Michigan. However, the true cost effectiveness^of
incorporating chlorination facilities at a retention basin site
is worthy of further study and evaluation considering: (1) the
high degree of sedimentation which is expected in the SRC and
retention basin, (2) the aeration of the overflows in the
retention basin during the filling period and (3) the frequency
of the overflows from the retention basin to the receiving stream.
11
-------
12. Algae was present in the lake system in excessive quantities during
the Demonstration Project studies. A phosphorus removal mechanism
must be incorporated in the treatment of the overflows at some
location between the retention basin and the lake system. A
clarifier, receiving flows from the retention basin, would permit
phosphorus removal. The sludge from the clarifier could be
discharged to the dry weather flow disposal system.
The city-wide project for Mount Clemens contemplates the use of
the existing clarifiers for potential phosphorus removal. Moreover,
it is planned to investigate the use of various substances --
including the use of water supply filtration plant waste sludge
(another current disposal problem) -- for phosphorus removal in
order to economically remove enough phosphorus from the process
water to reduce the algae growth in the recreation lake.
13. A flow-through type, three lake system should be provided for the
final treatment of combined sewer overflows. The first lake
should be isolated and provided with submerged aeration. The sub-
merged aeration would eliminate winter maintenance problems, maxi-
mize the treatment efficiency, and help produce a high quality
effluent that would not be detrimental to fishing and boating
activities. The second lake would act as a transition and polishing
lake. The third lake would be used for limited recreational acti-
vities. Submerged aeration may be advisable in the third lake to
insure that a high dissolved oxygen concentration would be main-
tained. Submerged aeration is also safer if people were to use
the lake.
Based on our experience with combined sewer overflows and with
aerated flow-through lagoons, we would suggest that a lake system
be designed to provide 7 to 10 days detention time and have a
depth of about 10 feet.
12
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In a letter dated September 30, 1966, the "Division of Facilities Demon-
stration Grants", of the "Federal Water Pollution Control Administration",
now a part of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, put
forth an appeal to consulting engineers throughout the country to utilize
the available grants to "demonstrate and evaluate new or improved methods
of controlling pollution from combined sewers or storm water discharges."
As municipal planning and engineering consultants, Spalding, DeDecker §
Associates, Inc. had been seriously studying the problem of combined sewer
overflows prior to receiving the aforementioned letter. Hence, on October 14,
1966, the firm submitted an application to demonstrate a
new concept for the treatment of combined sewer overflows. It had occurred
to Spalding-DeDecker that the multiplicity of Federal Grants-in-aid pro-
grams (such as "Open Space," "Recreation," "Water Pollution Abatement" and
"Air Pollution Neutralization") aimed at curing some of the nation1s urban
ills, could be combined into a single project which could fulfill the
hopes of all such programs and incidentally result in a conservation
oriented model viewed as the prototype for a more economical solution
of the combined sewer overflow problem. Moreover, water in the form of
ponds, or lakelets, is a universally welcomed amenity for any park or
open-space setting.
The City of Mount Clemens, being a typical American City of approximately
20,000 residents and having a combined sewer system, was solicited as
a sponsor for the demonstration of the concept as a means of solving its
combined sewer overflow problem. Subsequently on June 7, 1967, the City
of Mount Clemens passed a resolution to authorize the filing of an
application for a Facilities Demonstration Grant to study the Multi-
purposed Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Facility concept.
In the meantime, the State of Michigan Water Resources Commission was in
the process of citing the City of Mount Clemens for pollution of the Clinton
River which culminated in the execution, on November 16, 1967, of a
"Stipulation", or agreement, between the City and the Water Resources
Commission. The "Stipulation" was concerned with both dry-weather flows
and wet-weather flows; however, this report is concerned only with the wet-
weather flow problem, i.e., combined sewer overflows.
With regard to combined sewer overflows, the "Stipulation" called for the
submission of a report on or before June 1, 1968, construction plans and
specifications by January 1, 1970, and construction to be completed by
June 1, 1972. Work done in fulfillment of the "Stipulation" has to date
resulted in the development of this report and the initiation of construc-
tion of a City-wide Combined Sewer Overflow Renovation Project as described
later in this report.
13
-------
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this project was to investigate and evaluate the concept
of treating combined sewer overflows in a city treatment-park facility
capable of providing recreational benefits, open space, and providing
a buffer or transitional zone between residential, commercial, and
industrial areas of a city as a more desirable alternative to a sewer
separation program. Figure 1 illustrates this general concept.
THE MOUNT CLEMENS CONCEPT
• POLLUTION ABATEMENT
COLLECTION 8 TREATMENT C=> • RECREATION
for COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS] . QPEN SPACE
[ IN A TREATMENT- PARK SITE J
FIGURE 1. MOUNT CLEMENS CONCEPT FOR COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW TREATMENT
The scope of the project was altered somewhat during the course of work
in order to best achieve the main purpose, i.e., to demonstrate the
feasibility of the Mount Clemens Concept. The actual investigations
performed developed from the initially proposed specific objectives as
described below:
1. "Collect data on the combined sewer overflows and on the
affected reach of the Clinton River."
2. "Collect data on the rainfall intensities, frequencies of
occurrence, runoff, and combined sewer overflows." This
objective was met only in part. Specifically, during the
design and construction of the demonstration facility, two
sewer districts were monitored to ascertain the volume and
pollutional content of the overflows which occurred during
that time period. These studies supplied some baseline
data for use during the treatment process evaluation.
3. "Design and construct a collection and treatment facility
for the combined sewer overflows, as outlined in the concept."
The entire City could not be included in the demonstration of
the concept so only the two sewer districts nearest the project
14
-------
site were studied. The two districts (the Spruce Street Drain
and the Clemens Street Drain) served an area of 212 acres.
This was considered to be sufficient for the demonstration
of the concept feasibility.
4. "Operate the treatment facility to evaluate the performance
of each process step, as well as the total process." The
cost of operation and maintenance of the facility was studied
for the purpose of extrapolating costs for any new facilities
of this nature as well as to evaluate the total cost of this
project as compared to a sewer separation program.
5. "Compare cost of collection and treatment of combined sewer
overflows versus cost of a sewer separation program." A
detailed sewer separation program and cost estimate was pre-
pared for the service area of the project in order to compare
the multi-purpose concept as an efficient and economical
alternative for the abatement of the pollution problem caused
by combined sewer overflows.
6. "Study the recreational benefits, the public reaction towards
storm water renovation, and the effect of a city park-treatment
facility as an open space and a transitional buffer zone."
Only very limited investigations were undertaken in the area
of recreation, open space, and transitional land use. The
park facilities were not developed.
7. "Submit Project Report to the Environmental Protection Agency."
The Mount Clemens concept physically developed into a Treatment-Park Facility
as illustrated in Figure 2.
In addition to the above described objectives, the design basis for the
city-wide combined sewer overflow collection and treatment facility is pre-
sented with estimated operation and maintenance costs plus suggestions for
applying the concept in other cities.
STUDY AREA
City of Mount Clemens
The City of Mount Clemens is located in Southeastern Michigan approximately
27 miles (center to center) northeast of the City of Detroit. This por-
tion of the state is rapidly developing as an urban area. The Clinton
River, which now receives all of the wastewater (treated dry-weather flow
and untreated combined sewer overflows) from Mount Clemens, runs through
the center of the City which is located approximately 6 miles upstream
from the mouth of the river. Figure 3 shows the location of the City of
Mount Clemens with respect to Detroit and the surrounding area. Figure 4
shows the location of the Clinton River Drainage Basin in the State of
Michigan.
15
-------
fee
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
COLLECTION 8 TREATMENT FACILITY
MOUNT CLEMENS, MICHISAN
AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ASftfCY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
^5* -
FIGURE 2. MOUNT CLEMENS PROPOSED TREATMENT-PARK FACILITY
The early stages of history in Mount Clemens began when it was incor-
porated as a village in 1837. There was a steady growth in commercial
and residential development and in 1879 Mount Clemens changed from a
village to a city status. All utilities, such as streets, water mains,
and sewers were constructed as needed and kept pace with other growth
in the City. For practical and economic reasons at the time, most of
the sewers were built as a combined sewer system, discharging directly to
the Clinton River.
Mount Clemens has now approached a stage of maturity with respect to
population growth. The 1970 Federal Census revealed a population of
20,476, with the ultimate capacity of the land being about 26,000 people.
The only major changes visible in the City would be the result of the
demolition of existing older residential buildings in favor of construction
of new multi-family and/or office buildings. Figure 5 shows a portion of
the central business district with surrounding residential areas near the
river.
The land uses within the City in 1965 were approximately 9% industrial,
5% commercial, 38% residential, with the remaining portions being public,
transportation, and vacant areas. Residential and commercial develop-
ments are expected to increase these respective percentages of land used
in the near future.
Mount Clemens covers an area of 3.58 square miles and has about 65 miles
of sewers, 90 percent of which are of the combined type. The combined
16
-------
CITY OF MOUNT CLEMENS
FIGURE 3. REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
17
-------
U. S. ARMY
FIGURE 4. VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 5. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
18
-------
sewage overflows occur at 24 locations within the City along a 3 mile
reach of the Clinton River. Figure 6 shows the location of the Combined
sewage overflow points within the City. The majority of the combined
sewers within the City are capable of draining storm water at a design
rate equivalent to a present day "two-year storm". The design-flow/dwf
ratio of the dry-weather-flow interceptors is approximately three times
the dry weather flow.
The City of Mount Clemens supplies an average of 9.7 MGD of water to the
city consumers which include some consumers in the surrounding townships.
The City now purchases approximately 40% of this water supply from the
City of Detroit while the balance is processed by the City's water fil-
tration plant which obtains its water from Lake St. Clair.
The City's trickling filter wastewater treatment plant treats an average
of 4.3 MGD. With the City's population of 20,476 (1970 Census) and the
incidence of moderate industry, the estimated flow to the treatment plant
would normally be expected to be 3 to 3.5 MGD, hence the surplus above
this amount suggests a slightly higher than normal infiltration. A
limited inspection of the sewer system has shown this to be the case.
The Clinton River
The Clinton River covers a distance of approximately 65 miles from its
headwaters to the mouth. The basin is approximately 32 miles long and
36 miles wide, measured at the longest and widest parts. The total drain-
age area in the basin is approximately 760 square miles which includes
portions of Macomb, St. Clair, and Oakland Counties.
The U.S. Geological Survey Gaging Station at Mount Clemens has been in
service since 1934 and has recorded a maximum flow of 21,200 cfs with an
average flow of 468 cfs. The augmented 7 day drought flow at Mount Clemens
(10 year frequency), which includes the major point discharges within the
Clinton River Basin, is 165 cfs.
The Clinton River (from Pontiac to the mouth and the Red Run Basin) receive;
the discharges of treated effluent from 25 municipal and private sources,
15 of which contribute no significant oxygen consuming load. Typically the
industries are engaged in general manufacturing, machinery operations,
production of paper, and painting of steel parts. Wastes include toxic
metals, soluble oil, BOD, solids, aid heat from cooling water. However,
many of these treatment plants are now being phased out of existence in
favor of a regional wastewater collection and treatment system for sanitary
sewage.
"The Clinton River has a limited number of water related recreational
facilities. The reach between Mt. Clemens and the mouth has boat launch-
ing ramps and docking berths. The main reason for this lack of facilities
is the fact that most of the stream is too small for boat traffic. Water
pollution has also had a detrimental effect on boating activity. Pollution
for most practical purposes, has eliminated fishing and swimming in the
main stem of the Clinton River."!
19
-------
Climate
"The climate of the City of Mount Clemens is somewhat modified by the
Great Lakes which warm the air in the winter .and cool it in the summer.
This climate is typical of the entire lower Great Lakes area and can be
generalized as having a wide seasonal temperature variation, many storms,
and a relatively constant yearly precipitation distribution. In the
winter, this precipitation is usually in the form of snow.
The mean yearly temperature is about 50°F, while the mean winter and summer
temperatures are about 35°F and 65°F, respectively.
There is an average yearly precipitation of 30 inches within the Clinton
River basin."1
References 1, 2, 3 and 4 contain detailed data from the subject area
pertaining to flooding, water quality, physical conditions, etc., and
should be referred to if further information is desired.
Project Site
Since the entire City could not be included in the Demonstration Project,
the two sewer districts closest to the project site were chosen for the
demonstration of the concept. The service areas for these two sewer dis-
tricts covered 212 acres within the City, plus some partially developed
areas outside of the City. These areas were predominently residential
in nature, but limited commercial areas were also present.
The two sewer districts (the Clemens St. Drain and the Spruce St. Drain)
were intercepted within the project site as described elsewhere in this
report. The project site location is shown with respect to the City on
Figure 6.
Figure 7 shows the two sewer service areas which were intercepted for the
project. The Clemens Street Drain is a 29" x 51" box sewer servicing
about 137 acres within the City. The Spruce Street Drain is a 42" sewer
which serves an area of 75 acres within the City and conveys wastewater
through the adjoining Clinton Township before re-entering the City prior to
discharge into the Clinton River. The drainage area of the Spruce Street
Drain which was outside the City limits had no substantial effect on this
project.
Both the Clemens Street Drain and the Spruce Street Drain were initially
designed as combined sewers discharging directly into the Clinton River.
Then, after the trickling filter sewage treatment plant was constructed,
the dry weather flows were intercepted and conveyed to the plant. Not
until the construction of the Demonstration facility was the wet weather
flow prevented from discharging to the river.
20
-------
- .
CUflfOfl TVVf tv^CO^B CO
MICHtGAf^
A - COMBINED SEWAGE OVERFLOW POINT
CT - DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 6. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW POINT LOCATIONS
21
-------
RAIN GAUGE
LOCATION
//
SCALE I IN.= 1000 FT.
SPRUCE ST. DRAIN SERVICE AREA
:::::. CLEMENS ST. DRAIN SERVICE AREA
TREATMENT-PARK SITE
0 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW SAMPLING LOCATION
^ RIVER SAMPLING LOCATION
FIGURE 7. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT SERVICE AREA AND TREATMENT-PARK SITE
22
-------
Rain Gauging Station
The rainfall data utilized in this study was obtained from an official
rain gauge station of the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments,
otherwise known as SEMCOG. This rain gauge is a 12" Universal model and
is operated according to National Weather Service guidelines. This
particular rain gauge is part of a Southeast Michigan Network which
consists of some 75 official rain gauges in the Detroit metropolitan
area. The rain gauge data is processed monthly by the Michigan Weather
Service office of the Michigan Department of Agriculture for SEMCOG.
SEMCOG then distributes this information to all subscribing personnel
or agencies in the Detroit metropolitan area.
The Mount Clemens rain gauge, officially referred to as station M-02, is
located at the Mount Clemens Sewage Treatment Plant as shown in Figure 7.
The operation of the Universal Rain Gauge, as pictured on location in
Figure 8, is as follows. Rain or snow enters the rain gauge through a
12" cylindrical opening at the top of the rain gauge and is collected in
a bucket. The weight of the bucket is continuously monitored and recorded
through the use of a strip chart recorder. Thus, the recorded increase
in weight of the bucket over any period of time can be readily converted
to inches of rainfall.
The Michigan Weather Service office collects the rainfall record graphs
monthly and from them derives tables illustrating precipitation per hour.
The Michigan Weather Service office also records precipitation on a daily
and monthly basis for each rain gauge and produces maps of the Detroit
metropolitan area illustrating monthly total precipitations for each
station at their locations. Finally, the Michigan Weather Service office
produces an annual summary of precipitation for the Southeast Michigan
Network which contains maps of the Detroit metropolitan area showing total
annual precipitation for each station at their locations, maximum pre-
cipitation for various time intervals for each station, reasons for various
rain gauge failures, and a brief report. The original rain gauge graphs
are stored in the Michigan Weather Service office of the Michigan Department
of Agriculture in East Lansing.
The ideal location for the rain gauge would have been a position near the
center of the total service area. (The service area can be seen on Figure 7).
However, the rain gauge at the treatment plant, being in operation for a
long period of time and being adjacent to the service area, was considered
sufficient for the purposes of this report. The distance of the farthest
point within the service area from the rain gauge was 5700 feet.
There were no substantial differences between the rainfall characteristics
of the Mount Clemens rain gauge station and the other rain gauge stations
in the Southeast Michigan Network during the pre-construction period.
Table 1 shows the average total annual precipitation for all of the reporting
rain gauge stations in the Southeast Michigan Network. The Table also in-
cludes Mount Clemens' total annual precipitation for 1970 and 1971. For
1970, Mount Clemens recorded a rainfall near the average of the total annual
23
-------
precipitation for the Southeast Michigan Network. The year 1971 was a
relatively "dry" year in southeastern Michigan with Mount Clemens report-*
ing one of the lowest total annual precipitations in the region. The
data for the Mount Clemens rain gauge station pertaining to hourly, daily,
and monthly precipitation totals, as well as maximum precipitation for
various time intervals, is consistent with data for the other rain gauge
stations in the Southeast Michigan Network.
TABLE 1. SELECTED RAINFALL DATA FROM SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN NETWORK
STATIONS (inches)
Year
1970
1971
Southeast
Michigan
average
annual
precip.
26.16
22.03
Mount
Clemens
annual
precip.
25.93
17.90
Remarks
54% of stations reported
total annual precip.
between 23.0 § 27.0 in.
67% of stations reported
total annual precip.
between 20.0 & 24.0 in.
The post-construction study period lasted from April 15, 1972 through
April 15, 1973. During this study period the Mount Clemens rain gauge
station recorded 23.93 inches of precipitation. During this same period
of time, the Shook Road Treatment Plant rain gauge station, located 3 miles
south of the Mount Clemens rain gauge station, recorded 22.43 inches of
total precipitation. Also, for this same period, the Metropolitan Beach
main gauge station, located 4 miles southeast of the Mount Clemens rain
gauge station, recorded 21.49 inches of precipitation. The differences
between the rainfall characteristics of the Mount Clemens rain gauge
station and the other rain gauge stations in the Southeast Michigan Network
for the post-construction study period were not substantial.
24
-------
FIGURE 8. RAIN GAUGE STATION
25
-------
SECTION IV
PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES
OBJECTIVES
Pre-construction studies were initiated to indicate conditions which
prevailed before the Demonstration Facility was placed into operation.
The studies were performed from April 1, 1970 to September 30, 1971.
Initially, these studies were to include the following:
. Monitoring combined sewer overflows for rate and volume
at three existing overflow chambers, two of which were to be
relieved by the construction of the Demonstration Facility.
. Collection and analysis of combined sewer overflow samples
from these three locations.
. Collection and analysis of grab samples from the Clinton
River at upstream and downstream (from project site)
locations during any weather and storm conditions.
. Investigation of rainfall-runoff relationships -- only
limited data were collected.
All of these objectives were substantially met except for the rainfall-
runoff relationship investigations. Such investigations were impossible
to accomplish due to the unusually dry year which occurred during this
time period of the study. The average annual rainfall for the Clinton
River Basin is approximately 30 inches while the actual rainfall experienced
during the years of 1970 and 1971 were, again, 25.93 inches and 17.90 inches
respectively. As a result of the low rainfall plus initial operational
malfunctions, the quantity of rainfall and runoff data collected was
not considered to be sufficient to allow for conclusive results.
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
Three combined sewer overflow structures were modified to meet the objectives
of the pre-construction studies. These structures were as follows:
Clemens Street Drain Overflow Structure.
Spruce Street Drain Overflow Structure.
Sewage Treatment Plant Influent Overflow Structure.
These monitoring locations were designated as sampling points 1, 2, 3
respectively as shown on Figure 7.
The modifications to the existing overflow structures included the replace-
ment of the flap gate in the flap gate chamber with a check valve plus the
26
-------
installation of a magnetic flow meter for collecting rate and volume
data. Figure 9 shows the layout of a typical overflow structure as
modified for use in this project.
Magnetic Flow Meter and Check Valve
The 20 in. diameter magnetic flow meters were designed to be capable of
operating submerged under a maximum head of 10 feet and to show a positive
zero reading during conditions when they were not in use. The flow signal
transmitting unit sent a 4-20 milliamp signal to be recorded in the
sewage treatment plant. Figure 10 shows the Spruce Street Drain Diver-
sion Chamber with the signal wire connection to the magnetic flow meter.
A 20 in. diameter horizontal swing check valve was used to prevent river
water from flowing into the sewer system. Each structure was thus restricted
from its original dimension to a 20 in. diameter discharge. This design
provided the most accurate monitoring for intermediate flows.
Automatic Samplers (Serco)
Each of the three overflow structures was equipped with an automatic sampler
that was bolted to the top of the structures. The samplers were set up to
collect 24 individual samples at 15 minute intervals during an overflow.
The two samplers located at the Clemens Street Overflow Structure and the
Spruce Street Overflow Structure were automatically activated by a 0.5 cfs
flow through the magnetic flow meter. The third sampler, located at the
sewage treatment plant influent overflow structure, was activated by a
level control switch.
The samplers were designed to have the 24, 16-ounce sampler bottles
evacuated by a vacuum pump to an evacuation of 27 in. of mercury. Sample
tubes were extended to a point near the bottom of the diversion chambers
such that, when an overflow was occurring, the evacuated bottles would
draw a representative grab sample of combined ^ewer overflow upon the
timed release of a pinched sample tube. Figure 10 shows the Spruce Street
Drain Diversion Chamber with the sample tubes extending down along one
side of the magnetic flow meter.
The automatic samplers stored the individual samples in a cooling com-
partment which kept the samples at a 4°C temperature. The refrigeration
compartment and the control compartment of the Spruce Street overflow
samplers can be seen in Figure 11.
Each sampler was secured to the top of its respective overflow chamber
and was made as vandal proof as possible. The transmitting unit was
fastened to the side of each sampler to make it readily accessible.
Figure 12 shows the Clemens Street Drain sampling and transmitting unit.
The signals from the Clemens Street Drain Overflow Structure were trans-
mitted over telephone wires while the signals from the other two structures
were transmitted through buried wires since these structures were within
the project site.
-------
DRY WEATHER
FLOW SIGNAL —
— —
*
COMBINED
__S£WAGE
TO
RIVER
Y
TO S.TP
,*••'
„"; ',"*•*'
FLOW
~. n
X
DIVERSK
N
CH
x
^1
AME
TO S.TP
1
1
1
!
)N
ER
A
1
I
SEWAGE
X* MAGNETIC FLOW METER
Y = HORIZONTAL CHECK VALVE
PLAN
.FLOW SIGNAL TO SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
COMBINED
SEWAGE
SECTION A-A
ELEVATION
DRY WEATHER FLOW
OUTLET TO SIR
FIGURE 9. MODIFIED DIVERSION AND OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
28
-------
FIGURE 10. SPRUCE STREET DRAIN DIVERSION CHAMBER
FIGURE 11. SPRUCE STREET DRAIN SAMPLER
29
-------
FIGURE 12. CLEMENS STREET DRAIN SAMPLER
OPERATION
The pre-construction sampling program was performed from April 1, 1970 to
September 29, 1971, and the results are presented in Tables A-l and A-2
of the appendix.
The start up of the Clemens Street Drain overflow monitoring station was
initially a problem because of excessive resistance incurred in the
telephone wires between the overflow structure and the recorder in the
treatment plant. The excessive resistance prevented a sufficient signal
from reaching the recorder. This problem was corrected after appropriate
modifications were made to the transmitting unit.
Efficient automatic sampling of raw sewage has always been a problem
predominantly due to inconsistencies of the wastewater. The sampling of
combined sewer overflows presented a similar problem during the study for
this project. Large particulate matter, pieces of cloth, and debris had
the tendency to block the sample tubes during the suction cycle for a
set of samples. This was the most common reason why several of the sets
of samples presented in the appendix are incomplete.
30
-------
The automatic samplers worked only during periods of overflow from the
project service area when the rate exceeded 0.5 cfs. This eliminated
a certain number of samples from being captured during low intensity-
storms. Moreover, during this portion of the project, one peculiarity
of the Mount Clemens sewer system which affected the study was discovered.
When the initial surcharge from storm water runoff was in the system and
being conveyed from outside of the service area to the sewage treatment
plant, some overflow structures would allow a discharge to go to the
river before others would. These structures, which discharged overflows
to the river, relieved the main plant influent line to the extent that a
maximum surcharge from the two project service areas would flow to the
plant instead of discharging to the river. It was determined that a rain-
fall intensity of 0.09 in./hr for 20 minutes was required to produce a
0.5 cfs overflow.
The existing overflow structure which was designed to relieve the sewage
treatment plant influent line was found to exist at an elevation high
enough such that it never functioned. The other overflow structures
throughout the City were capable of completely relieving the main plant
influent line during each overflow occurrence. Thus, no sampling data
was ever obtained from this structure during pre- or post-construction
studies.
Rainfall data were analyzed for the pre-construction period to determine
the number of overflows which should have occurred. The analysis was
based on the assumption that for an hour of rainfall, the entire service
area for each sewer district would contribute to the overflow. Thus, the
amount of rainfall in excess of 0.02 in./hr (the quantity which would surcharge
to the treatment plant) for Clemens Street Drain would contribute to an
overflow. Similarly, the amount of rainfall in excess of 0.05 in./hr (the
quantity which would surcharge to the treatment plant) from Spruce Street
would contribute to an overflow. For analysis purposes, it was arbitrarily
assumed that a gap equal to or greater than 4 hours in the hourly rainfall
records would constitute the initiation of a separate storm.
The analysis resulted in the "theoretical" number of overflows from the
Clemens Street Drain amounting to 115, and for Spruce Street Drain the
resulting number was 72. The number of overflows for the first 12 months
of the study period "theoretically" amounted to 86 and 53 for the Clemens
Street and Spruce Street Drains respectively.
The monitoring facilities recorded 33 overflow occurrences during the pre-
construction period. For the first 12 months of the study 29 of the
overflows were experienced, while during the remaining 6 months only
5 overflows were monitored.
The large discrepancy between the number of theoretical and monitored
overflows probably resulted from two circumstances. First, the monitoring
equipment occasionally malfunctioned which obviously produced some gaps
in the data. Secondly, during short, low intensity storms, the runoff
coefficient would be less than 0.5 because initially the ground is dry, and
would absorb a great deal of the rainfall.
31
-------
The number of overflows which were initially predicted to be monitored
during a one year period was 40, or an average of 3.3 overflows per month.
The 29 overflows monitored over the first 12 months averaged only 2.4
overflows per month. The 18 month average was only 1.9 overflows per
month.
The total rainfall for the 18 month period was 34.30 inches which is
less than the average 48.80 inches of rainfall for similar 18 month
periods between 1969 and 1974.
31 overflow events were monitored at the Clemens Street Drain sampling
point. Out of the 31 events, only 21 of them had suspended solids and
5-day BOD data and out of these 21, only 11 had rate/volume data.
24 overflow events were monitored at the Spruce Street Drain sampling
location. Out of the 24 events, 14 had suspended solids and 5-day BOD
data and out of these 14, only 7 had rate/volume data.
EVALUATION
Of the total number of actual storms causing overflows, no data of any
sort were collected on approximately 20% of them due to operational
failures of some sort. There were also instances when overflows did
occur, but were of such small magnitude that the automatic sampler was
not actuated and/or the recorder did not record a dependable reading.
These factors along with the low rainfall during this period resulted
in the deletion of the rainfall runoff investigations and the limited
analysis of the overflow characteristics.
The combined sewer overflow rate and volume monitoring methods used during
the pre-construction studies are not recommended for future projects. More
sophisticated procedures are required for the accurate measuring of the
widely varying rate and volume characteristics of combined sewer overflows.
"...Conventional rate-of-flow meters have been developed
mainly for relatively steady-state irrigational, streanv
and sanitary flows and not for the highly varying surges
encountered in storm and combined sewers..." 5
The concept of monitoring combined sewer overflows by capturing a series
of grab samples throughout each overflow event is strongly recommended.
This type of sampling system will indicate the drastic changes in composi-
tion which the wastewater experiences during typical overflow events.
However, investigations should be performed to develop a failsafe method
of obtaining these samples without the interference of debris and other
foreign material in the wastewater.
Of the 33 overflows that were monitored during the pre-construction studies,
14 of them are summarized in Table 2. These 14 overflows were selected as
having the most complete data. The overflow data presented in these two
tables includes the total quantity of reliable rate and volume data collected.
32
-------
TABLE 2. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CHARACTERISTICS
Date of
overflow,
mo/day/yr
12/19/70
1/3-4/71
2/4-5/71
2/17/71
2/18-19/71
W 2/19-20/71
2/22/71
3/6-7/71
3/13/71
3/19/71
5/19/71
5/24/71
6/13/71
Total
precip. ,
inches
Duration
of storm,
hours
(melting snow)
0.27
1.32
0.21
0.18
0.34
0.50
0.52
9
12
8
6
8
10
16
(melting snow)
0.15
0.35
0.25
0.26
9
4
17
4
Service
district
Spruce
Clemens
Spruce
Clemens
Spruce
Clemens
Spruce
Clemens
Spruce
Clemens
Spruce
Clemens
Spruce
Clemens
Spruce
Clemens
Spruce
Clemens
Clemens
Spruce
Clemens
Clemens
Theoretical
volume of
overflow ,
cu . f t .
-
32,822
3,267
331,208
147,015
29,838
1,634
47,742
6,534
56,693
6,534
113,387
40,838
74,597
4,901
-
11,935
80,564
27,770
32,822
65,645
Recorded
volume of
overflow,
cu . f t .
21,248
177,065
19,730
215,513.
184,142
103,204
24,283
115,350
50,084
511,982
237,772
67,793
24,283
98,145
14,165
13,356
21,046
14,166
24,284
34,402
5,059
23,272
Recorded
duration of
overflow,
hours
4.2
9.1
5.0
15.0
22.0
6.1
4.2
7.0
8.0
16.0
- 16.0
7.1
8.7
13.4
9.3
4.0
3.0
4.7
3.8
3.0
2.0
2.5
Recorded
peak flow
rate, cfs
2.5
9.4
1.5
9.1
2.2
8.1
1.6
5.7
9.6
9.0
1.8
9.6
0.9
8.2
0.7
5.3
2.0
5.2
4.5
3.5
5.1
9.0
Initial
SS, mg/1
336
736
584
44
328
568
308
276
212
-
368
340
300
160_
424
396
232
568
644
Average
SS, mg/1
382
616
420
202
294
334
394
233
246
-
516
548
289
288
286
387
287
430
344
No. of
Samples
10
20
19
8
14
18
22
23
20
19
17
20
19
12
11
10
2
14
Initial
BOD5
mg/1
124
258
264
37
139
171
100
110
150
-
59
32
74
53
117
206
140
276
249
Average
BOD5
mg/1
101
190
155
44
216
102
131
81
115
-
46
52
91
64
89
140
128
231
179
No. of
samples
10
20
19
8
14
18
22
23
20
19
17
20
19
12
11
10
2
14
-------
This^table shows the duration of the rainfall and the accumulated precip-
itation (in inches of rainfall) for each particular rainfall which caused
an overflow. The rainfall data were obtained from the rain gaging station
at the wastewater treatment plant. The duration, volume, and peak flow
rate for the overflows were determined from the strip charts as recorded
from the magnetic flow meters. The suspended solids and BOD5 values were
determined from analyses done on the time sequenced grab samples collected
during-the course of each overflow.
Comparison of the recorded volumes versus the theoretical volumes of
overflow did not show good correlation. Several circumstances could
have contributed to the inconsistent results. Note first, that each time
the recorded overflow volume exceeded the theoretical overflow volume
the overflow event took place during a winter month. Hence the imper-
viousness was most likely more than 0.6 and the incidence of snow melting
probably also contributed greatly.
The calculation for the theoretical volume of overflow was based on a total
accumulation which did not take into account the effect of surcharge during
long, low intensity storms. For example on 5/24/71, rainfall accumulated
to 0.^5 inches for a 17 hour duration storm. For four non-consecutive
one-hour periods, the intensity was 0.01 in./hr, one hour had a 0.02 in./'hr
intensity, while other one hour intensities were 0.05, 0.04, 0.05, and 0 O7
The lower intensity periods would thus surcharge to the treatment'plant
and not cause an overflow.
The runoff coefficient of 0.6, which was assumed to be the average value
for total runoff, seems to be questionable. The fact that this coefficient
varies with respect to different circumstances (such as frozen ground and
longer duration storms) makes the direct calculations of runoff volumes as
performed for this report, not realistic. An in depth investigation would
be required to ascertain an accurate time function runoff coefficient for
this area. Investigations have been performed for similar areas in other
parts of the country to develop accurate runoff coefficients. Also the
limited data which is available from this study is not sufficient for con-
clusive results. Further calculations and analysis in this area was therefore
considered to be beyond the scope of this report.
It was considered to be most beneficial to present a general overview of
the available sampling data from the two sewer districts. Thus the
concentrations of BOD5 and SS were plotted for each overflow point using
the most complete sets of sampling data available. These graphs are
shown in Figures 13 through 16. Table 2 identifies the plotted overflow
events for each figure.
The suspended solids concentrations from each overflow structure generally
varied between 75 rag/1 and 900 mg/1. Also, each structure showed peaks
approaching 1200 mg/1.
The BOD5 concentrations from each overflow structure generally varied between
50 mg/1 and 250 mg/1 with peaks occurring at a concentration of approxi-
mately 300 mg/1.
34
-------
TABLE 3. OVERFLOW EVENT IDENTIFICATIONS FOR FIGURES 13 THROUGH 16
Date of
overflow,
mo/day/yr
4/2/70
6/11/70
6/18/70
6/24/70
12/19/70
2/4/71
2/17/71
2/18/71
2/22/71
3/6/71
3/13/71
3/19/71
Accumulated
rainfall,
inches
1.44
0.65
0.49
0.35
(snow melt)
1.60
0.18
0.05
0.55
0.74
(snow melt)
0.27
Overflow event identification numbers
Fig. 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Fig. 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Fig. 15
1
2
'
3
4
5
6
7
8
Fig. 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
By observation, the graphs show n£ apparent regularities (other thai
general ranges of concentration) from which conclusive statements could
be derived. A sophisticated approach incorporating an abundance of
data would thus be required for the thorough analysis of combined sewer
overflow characteristics.
An estimated annual loadings contributed by the service area to the
receiving stream was calculated. The arithmetic mean of the total
quantity of available data was used in this calculation. The average
concentration of BODs was thus found to be 140 mg/1 and for SS the
concentration was determined to be 350 mg/1.
The annual runoff from the service area, assuming an average annual rainfall
of 30 inches, would be as follows:
(30 inches/year)(0.6 runoff coefficient)(212 acres)(43560 sq ft/acre)/
(12 inches/foot) = 13,852,080 cu ft/year or 5.6 cu ft/acre inch runoff.
The annual loading of SS from the service area would be:
(350 mg/1)(62.4 lbs/ft3)(13,852,080 cu ft/year)/106 = 302,529 Ibs/year,
or 1427 Ibs/acre/year or 79 Ibs/acre inch runoff.
35
-------
The annual loading of BOD5 from the service area would be:
(140 mg/l)(62.4 Ibs/ft3)(13,852,080 cu ft/year)/lO* = 121,011 Ibs/year
or 570 Ibs/acre/year or 32 Ibs/acre inch runoff.
Several comprehensive studies have been performed by others to determine
rainfall-runoff relationships regarding combined sewer overflows.6,7
The BOD5 and SS loadings from the Mount Clemens demonstration facility
service area compare favorably with those in the referenced reports.
River sampling data were collected throughout the pre-construction studies,
This data is presented in Appendix C, Table C-l. This data was used along
with the data obtained during the post-construction studies to evaluate
the effect of overflows on river quality. The evaluation is discussed
in Section VI of this report.
36
-------
FIGURE 13. CLEMENS STREET DRAIN
1200
1000 —
C/5
Q
_l
O
CO
O
UJ
O
z
UJ
Q.
V)
ID
800
600 —
400 —
200 —
12345
HOURS AFTER START OF OVERFLOW
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION
VS
TIME
37
-------
FIGURE 14. SPRUCE STREET DRAIN
1200
1000 —
o»
E
o
V)
O
LJ
O
z
LJ
Q_
800 —
600
400
200
12345
HOURS AFTER START OF OVERFLOW
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION
VS
TIME
38
-------
FIGURE 15. CLEMENS STREET DRAIN
600
500 —
in
o
O
CD
400 —
300 —
200 —
100 —
12345
HOURS AFTER START OF OVERFLOW
BOD5 CONCENTRATION
VS
TIME
39
-------
FIGURE 16. SPRUCE STREET DRAIN
600
500 —
in
Q
O
CO
400
300 —
200 —
100
"2345
HOURS AFTER START OF OVERFLOW
BOD5 CONCENTRATION
VS
TIME
40
-------
SECTION V
FACILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
CONCEPT
The design of the demonstration facility was based on the concept of a
Multi-purpose Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Facility. This basic
concept materialized into a treatment facility that would be intermixed
with an open reservation of park land area having ponds, or lakelets,
containing a renovated water of sufficient quality to be acceptable for
limited recreational purposes. Moreover, it was contemplated that some
of the renovated process water could be used to satisfy the moisture demands
of the park greenery while incidentally satisfying part of its nutrient
demand.
There are several factors which tend toward making a combined sewer over-
flow wastewater more susceptive for use in this concept as compared to using
a dry-weather-flow wastewater which are as follows:
In this particular area's climate, rainstorms occur inter-
mittently during the summer, and they occur very infrequently
during the winter. This factor allows some of the treatment
units to be completely retired during the winter months.
Moreover, it could allow some of the treatment units to be
placed in an outside unsheltered area without the need for
protection from freezing. On the other hand, regular sewage
(or dry-weather-flow) occurs inexorably both winter and
summer and becomes much more difficult to handle during the
winter months because of the continuous flow and continued
bio-chemical oxygen demand under the ice cover of the lakes
in the winter time.
Upon removal of the settleable material from a combined sewer
overflow, especially during the earlier part of any storm, the
storm water can be readily partially renovated by aeration
during its extended containment period in a retention basin,
prior to its release to a lake system.
Rain water, properly controlled, is a valuable resource which
should be conserved and used as an urban asset rather than a
liability.
The treatment process design is illustrated in the flow diagram shown on
Figure 17. This figure also indicates the sampling locations which were
used during the post-construction studies.
The treatment facility was designed to provide treatment to the overflows
by means of a series of aerated lakelets with intermediate microstraining,
disinfection, and high-rate pressure filtration prior to discharge into
the Clinton River.
41
-------
m
FLOW DIAGRAM
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
101
COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW
ac
QJ
o
(6)1 MGD
CHLORINE-CHLORINE DIOXIDE
• DISINFECTION 8 ODOR CONTROL
I MGD
LAKELET N2 2
• NATURAL SURFACE AERATION
• PHOTOSYNTHETIC OXYGENATION
(8)1 MGD
LAKELET N* 3
• MECHANICAL a NATURAL SURFACE AERATION
• PHOTOSYNTHETIC OXYGENATION
(9)1 MGD
PRESSURE FILTER
• HIGH RATE SAND FILTRATION
• SUSPENDED SOLIDS 8 BOD REMOVAL
•ALGAE (PHOSPHOROUS-NITROGEN) REMOVAL
CLINTON RIVER
FIGURE 17. DEMONSTRATION FACILITY FLOW DIAGRAM
42
-------
The area adjacent to the wastewater treatment plant was chosen as the
project site for the following reasons:
the area was easily accessible by the treatment plant staff.
two combined sewer districts could be intercepted within this
project site.
the area was an unsightly dump which needed to be cleaned up
and restored to usefulness.
The treatment facility site plan is shown on Figure 18. By studying this
site plan with the help of the flow diagram (Figure 17) the process des-
cription can be followed.
TREATMENT PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN
The design of major process units was based on the design parameters pre-
sented in Table 4. The following process unit descriptions show how each
unit was designed for application in the Mount Clemens concept.
Overflow Chambers
The overflow chambers on the Clemens Street and the Spruce Street Drains
were designed to intercept the combined sewer overflows while allowing
dry-weather flows to flow through for treatment at the existing trickling
filter sewage treatment plant.
Figure 19 shows the overflow structure as designed for the Spruce Street
Drain. (This particular structure included the pump screen which prevented
large solids from damaging the storm water pumps in the combined sewer
overflow pump station.) The troughs for each structure were 12 inches
wide. Each would carry a surcharge of approximately 3 cfs to the treat-
ment plant before and during the course of an overflow. Primarily however,
the troughs were designed to convey the dry-weather flow plus a minimum
surcharge to the treatment plant.
The overflow structures were designed to intercept the maximum capacity of
the combined sewers. Thus, the only circumstance which would create an
overflow to the river would be the result of the interceptor's refusal
to accept flows from the overflow structure. In such an event, the excess
overflows would be discharged to the river and be monitored by the mag-
netic flow meters and automatic samplers which were already in place to
establish baseline data from the pre-construction period.
Interceptors
Interceptors conveyed overflows to the combined sewer overflow pump station
for pumping into Lakelet No. 1. The maximum anticipated rate of flow was deter-
mined, for design purposes, by the rational method, as indicated in
Table 4. It was determined that the Mount Clemens combined sewers were
originally designed for approximately a two year storm. A two year storm
would result in a rainfall intensity (I) equal to 1 in./hr at 55 minutes
43
-------
LAKELET BOTTOM ELEVATIONS 575.00
LAKELET NO. 28 NO. 3 WATER
LAKELET NO. I WATER LEVELS 578 - 592
TREATMENT FACILITY
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 18
-------
TABLE 4. PROCESS DESIGN PARAMETERS
Item
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Process unit
Clemens Street Drain
Spruce Street Drain
Combined sewer over-
flow interceptor
Combined sewer over-
flow pump station
Lakelet No. 1
Aerators
Outlet
Pump station no. 1
Microstrainer
Chlorination
Chlorine dioxide
Lakelet No. 2
Lakelet No. 3
Pump station no. 2
Design parameter
Existing- (29"x52"
box sewer, 60 cfs) .
Existing- (42" sewer,
40 cfs) .
Rational method,
Q=CIA.
Rational method,
Q=CIA.
1.5" rainfall accu-
mulation, runoff
coefficient = 0.6,
1 to 4 days deten-
tion.
3.1 Ibs 02/hr.
1 mgd floating
outlet.
1 mgd.
10 gpm/ft2; 1 mgd.
10 mg/1 maximum
dosage.
Generation from sod-
ium chlorite.
8 days detention, 10
feet deep.
7 days detention, 9
feet deep.
1 mgd.
Remarks
Serves 137 acres
within the city.
Serves 75 acres
within the city.
1=1 in./hr @ 55 min
C=0.5, runoff coeff.
3 pumps - 2 @ 18,000
gpm, 1 @ 9,000 gpm;
100 cfs peak.
1.5 acres, 0.75 mil-
lion cubic feet.
(2) -20 hp floating
aerators .
Submerged intake
leaves scum in
Lakelet No. 1.
Controlled by Lakelet
No. 1 water level.
6 ft diameter drum.
0-100 ppd chlori-
nator supplied.
Sufficient data for
comparison was not
collected on C102.
2.8 acres, 1.1 mil-
lion cubic feet.
2.3 acres, 0.93 mil-
lion cubic feet.
Lowhead pump for
recirculation
through micro-
strainer, high head
for sand filter.
45
-------
TABLE 4 (continued). PROCESS DESIGN PARAMETERS
Item
no.
15
Process unit
Sand filter
Design parameter
15 gpm/ft2
Remarks
2-stage pressure
filter, 2-stage
backwash with
filtered water.
time of concentration. For the project area of 212 acres under study, the
runoff coefficient was assumed to be 0.5. Thus the maximum anticipated
rate of flow, or runoff, was determined to be 106 cfs.
In checking the capacities of the two sewers which were to be intercepted
it was found that the Clemens Street Drain was 29" x 51" and had a maxi-
mum capacity of 60 cfs, the Spruce Street Drain was 42" in diameter and
had a maximum capacity of 40 cfs.
Not all of the combined sewage would overflow and consequently the rate
of runoff minus the surcharged flow continuing on into the sanitary sewer
system gave the maximum rate of overflow. The maximum rate of overflow
was determined to be approximately 100 cfs or 45,000 gpm.
Combined Sewer Overflow Pump Station
The combined sewer overflow pump station was designed to handle the
maximum rate of overflow (100 cfs or 45,000 gpm) as described above.
The pump station pumping capacity increased in increments of 9,000 gpm
(20 cfs). In order to do this, the station was equipped with three pumps
as shown in Figure 20. Pump number one had a 9,000 gpm capacity while
pumps two and three each had an 18,000 gpm capacity. The pumps were
controlled by electrodes sensing the rising level in the wet well.
The electrodes were set at such an elevation as to allow the use of a
portion of the 60" interceptor as additional wet well volume. Figure
21 shows a sectional view of the pump station including connections from
the wastewater treatment plant effluent line plus the wastewater treat-
ment plant influent line. These connections were included for operational
flexibility. Figure 22 shows the installation of the propeller type pump.
The combined sewer overflows discharged from the pump station into a 48"
pipe that siphoned the overflows into Lakelet No. 1.
Automatic Flow Proportioned Sampler (N-Con Systems)
The combined sewer overflow pump station included a sampling point
(No. 4) as shown on Figure 17. An automatic flow proportioned composite
sampler was used to obtain baseline data for the treatment evaluation
portion of this report.
The sampler received flows from the pump discharge pipes for the time the
pumps were in operation. A 1 1/2" PVC pipe conveyed the combined sewer
46
-------
COMBINED
SEWAGE
\ COMBINED
1 SEWAGE OVERFLOW
U-TROUGH
12" U-TROUGH
TO COMBINED SEWAGE OVERFLOW
PUMP STATION
DRY WEATHER FLOW
TO S.T.P
PUMP SCREEN
SECTION A-A
SPRUCE STREET DRAIN
OVERFLOW CHAMBER
FIGURE 19
47
-------
GRATING FOR
ACCESS
DISCHARGE
CHAMBER
WETWELL
ACCESS
ELECTRODE
HOLDER
PUMP
DISCHARGE
I. 75 HP PUMP
2. 150 H.P PUMP
3. 150 HP PUMP
PUMP STATION DISCHARGE
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
PUMP STATION PLAN
FIGURE 20
48
-------
COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW INTERCEPTOR
STORMWATER PUMP
FLOW
PROPORTIONED
SAMPLER -\
ELECTRODE
HOLDER \
30"
,c
GRATING FOR ACCESS
PUMP STATION
DISCHARGE
TO LAKELET N*.l
:;Q si
CONNECTION TO
ST.P EFFLUENT
CONNECTION TO
ST.P INFLUENT
t^
COMBINED
SECTION ELEVATION
FIGURE 21
SEWER
OVERFLOW
PUMP STATION
49
-------
FIGURE 22. COMBINED SEWER PUMP INSTALLATION
50
-------
overflow samples through the flow proportioned sampler which dipped up
samples at a rate proportional to the quantity of wastewater being
pumped at the time.
The sampler was located out-of-doors in a weather protected enclosure.
The composite sample was held in a 5 gallon polyethylene container
located in a refrigerated compartment.
The rate at which the sample dipper operated was controlled by the status
of the pumps in the pump station as depicted in the control logic diagram
shown in Figure 23. The output signals from the pulser that drive the
pulse counter are always out of phase with each other. The pulse operates
continuously. The pulser output is one pulse for each 9000 gal. of the
total of the three pumps delivery.
Lakelet No. 1
Lakelet No. 1 covers an area of 1.5 acres with a volume of 0.75 million
cubic feet. The accumulated volume of overflow was determined, for design
purposes, by assuming that storms giving rise to a 1.5 inch accumulation
would be collected. The runoff coefficient for the accumulated flow
was taken as 0.6 and therefore the volume of overflow was determined
to be 0.69 million cubic feet.
The runoff coefficient of 0.6 was used in this calculation as opposed
to 0.5 as used previously on the basis that with a longer time of
concentration, the percent of runoff would increase as the ground
becomes more saturated. The lakelet was thus initially sized as
follows:
(1.5 in.)(0.6 runoff coeff.)(l ft)
12 in.
(212 acres)(43,560 sq ft/acre) = 692,604 cu ft,
say 0.69 m cu ft.
It was considered desirable to increase the retention capacity incrementally
to a value of 0.75 m cu ft. This increased capacity permitted the existence
of a minimum depth of water (approximately 3 feet) in the lakelet. (The
maximum depth was 17 feet.) The minimum depth had two basic functions:
first, it negated the effect of groundwater pressure on the lakelet bottom
such that the bottom would not be adversely affected; and second, the
water would cover any possible accumulation of sludge in the bottom of
the lakelet and would prevent odors from occurring.
The resulting capacity of Lakelet No. 1 provided retention for a storm
giving rise to an average intensity of 0.38 in./hr for 4 hours. Any
accumulated rainfall exceeding this amount would thus exceed the capacity
of Lakelet No. 1 and cause an overflow into Lakelet No. 2. The storm
frequency associated with this intensity and duration would be approxi-
mately a 2-year storm, based on "Probability Rainfall Frequency Curves"
from the City of Detroit, Michigan. The probability curves were worked
up from rainfall records of 1896 through 1942 by the City of Detroit.
51
-------
115 V 60 l
^
f — —
1 1 ~
FUSED
MAIN
SWITCH
1
TIME-FLOW
OFF
SWITCH
On
ISJ
PULSER
ONE PULSE PER
MINUTE OUTPUT=
9000 GAL. PER
PULSE. SIGNAL
FROM 18000 GPM
PUMP
TWO PULSES PER
MINUTE OUTPUT=
9000 GAL. PER
PULSE. SIGNAL
FROM 18000 GPM
PUMP
TWO PULSES PER
MINUTE OUTPUT=
9000 GAL. PER
PULSE. SIGNAL
FROM 18000 GPM
PUMP
r
I
1
I
1
J
I
1
~~~
PULSER
COUNTER
TIME DELAY
SAMPLE
SIZE
TIMER
SAMPLER
ACTUATION
FIGURE 23. LOGIC DIAGRAM FOR AUTOMATIC FLOW PROPORTIONED SAMPLER
-------
If the capacity of the lakelet were exceeded, the excess would overflow
into Lakelet No. 2 directly. Lakelet No.'s 1 and 2, plus the channel,
each were designed to receive an extra two feet of water when Lakelet
No. 1 capacity was exceeded. The extra two feet of capacity amounted
to 0.5 m cu ft. Thus, the maximum capacity for capturing any overflow
occurrence would be 1.19 m cu ft.
The operation of Lakelet No. 1 provided a 24 hour aeration and settling
period for captured overflows prior to their uniform withdrawal, at a
1 mgd rate, for further treatment. The lakelet thus provided a varied
average retention period (for different overflow occurrences) from
1 day to approximately 4 days. The maximum average detention time is
calculated assuming that the entire lakelet would be dewatered as follows:
1 day + (0.75 m cu ft)(7.48 gal./cu ft) (1 mgd) = 3.8 day
2
Hence, as the volume flowing into Lakelet No. 1 from any rainfall occur-
rence approaches zero, the minimum average detention time would be
reduced to 1 day.
The lakelet was supplied with continuous aeration by mechanical floating
aerators and was obscured from public view by high banks. The lakelet
acted as a receiving and holding reservoir and, with its 1 to 4 day
average detention time, allowed for slow treatment (settling and aeration)
and uniform discharge between storms.
The combined sewer overflows entered the lakelet through a cascade inlet
which was designed for some aeration and anti-erosion protection. This
structure can be seen in Figure 24.
Aeration
The lakelet was supplied with two floating aerators that were moored to
the banks as shown on the site plan, Figure 18. The aerators were
designed to ride the surface level of the lakelet and provide continuous
aeration and mixing. The aerators were positioned over 20' x 20' con-
crete slabs for anti-erosion protection when the lakelet was at a low
level.
Floating aerators were chosen for this application because of the fill
and draw operation of Lakelet No. 1. Diffused aeration could not be as
effectively controlled in this application for optimum efficiency at all
times. Also, even though aerobic digestion of accumulated sludge would
have resulted from diffused aeration, sedimentation in the lakelet
would have become impossible.
The relationship between the rate of oxygen demand and the rate of
oxygen transfer (by means of aeration equipment) was not a completely
finite problem due to three phenomena. One, the volume of water in
Lakelet No. 1 was almost continously changing, two, the BOD was con-
tinuously changing, and three, the probable existence of an anaerobic
layer at the bottom of the lakelet all resulted in widely varying oxygen
53
-------
fet* :V>*i^i*bi
FIGURE 24. LAKELET NO. 1 DURING CONSTRUCTION
demand characteristics within the lakelet. Therefore, some basic
assumptions were required.
It was assumed (and it was later confirmed) that as long as a relatively
high dissolved oxygen (DO) content was maintained in the upper three
feet of water from which the wastewater was drawn, an acceptable treat-
ment performance would be experienced. The floating aerators were
therefore designed to provide mixing in the upper layer of the lakelet
and to supply sufficient oxygenation to maintain the relatively high DO
level required.
The aerators were designed to provide aeration to a full lakelet
(0.75 m cu ft) for an average detention time of 3.8 days assuming
an average 6005 concentration of combined sewer overflows entering
the lakelet to be 100 mg/1. (The 100 mg/1 was the initially assumed
influent concentration which was used prior to the availability of pre-
construction sampling data.)
It was hence determined that the maximum oxygen uptake would be approxi-
mately 44 Ibs 02/hr. The rate of oxygen transfer was calculated as follows:
Rs = Ra (Csw-C1)1.024t-20 x 0
9.17
where R = rate of oxygen transfer to wastewater, Ibs 02/hp-hr
Ra = rate of oxygen transfer under standard test conditions,
Ibs 02/hp-hr
54
-------
Csw = saturation value of wastewater at operating temperature,
mg/1
GI = concentration level of DO (residual), mg/1
t = operating temperature, °C
9 = ratio of oxygen transfer to wastewater to that of water.
Therefore, assuming t = 10°C (50°F):
Rs = 5.16(11.0-1.5)0.79 x 0.9
9.17
Rs = 2.32 Ibs 02/hp-hr.
The aerator requirement becomes:
44 Ibs 02/hr = 18.96 hp use: 20 hp.
2.32 Ibs 02/hp-hr
Two 20 hp aerators were therefore selected, both of which could supply
more than 45 pounds of oxygen per hour, on the basis that one would
always be available as a standby in the event of a malfunction in the
other. The aerators used were of a type which pumped water from beneath
the surface of the lakelet and discharged it radially at the surface with
a high velocity impingement pattern.
The aerators were equipped with anti-erosion plates which supplied extra
protection from erosion of the bottom and also supplied a support stand
for the aerators to rest on when the lakelet was empty (see Figure 25).
Floating Outlet
The lakelet effluent was withdrawn through the floating outlet (the
intake suspended just below the surface) shown on Figure 26 . This
type of outlet was used in order to allow the drainage of the lakelet
from below any surface scum layer and above the bottom sludge mass. A
bottom drain was also supplied for maintenance purposes. The withdrawal
of combined sewer overflows from Lakelet No. 1 was at a controlled rate
of 1 mgd.
It was estimated that the 1 mgd flow rate would normally empty the
lakelet in sufficient time to provide capacity for the next overflow
occurrence.
Lakelet No. 1 can be seen as it looked prior to start-up in Figure 25.
This figure includes the cascade inlet, aerators, and a portion of the
floating outlet. Note that Lakelet No. 2 cannot be seen wrapping around
the far side of Lakelet No. 1 due to the high banks of Lakelet No. 1.
These banks effectively obscured Lakelet No. 1 from view from the sur-
rounding area which was intended to aesthetically enhance the entire site.
55
-------
FIGURE 25. LAKELET NO. 1 PRIOR TO START-UP
Pump Station No. 1
Pump station no. 1 was a typical two pump package sewage pump station
with each low head pump capable of delivering 1 mgd to the process building.
The flow control system for this pump station was located in the process
building (See Figure 27) such that it could be used with both pump station
no. 1 and pump station no. 2 as described in this report.
A bubbler system was installed in pump station no. 1 for the purpose of
controlling the pumps and indicating and recording Lakelet No. 1 water
level. The indicator-recorder and the on-off-automatic switches for the
pumps were located on the control panel in the process building.
Flow Control Unit
Two identical flow control units were installed in the process building;
one for controlling flows entering the microstrainer and one for controlling
flows from the sand filter effluent discharge.
56
-------
8" SUCTION
HOSE
PLAN
I 1/2"X 2'
SLOT
ADJUSTABLE SWIVEL
PIPE HANGER
ELEVATION - END
FLOATING OUTLET
LAKELET N*I
FIGURE 26. FLOATING OUTLET LAKELET NO. 1
Each flow control system consisted of a magnetic flow meter, integral
converter and a tight shut-off butterfly control valve complete with
integral electric motor operator and a rate setting controller. The
system was capable of repeatable control with an average accuracy of ±3%
over a 12:1 range.
The flow meters had polyurethane liners and stainless steel electrodes
which were suitable for ultrasonic cleaning and, for maintenance purposes,
the electrodes could be replaced without disassembling the meter body.
The butterfly valves were operated directly from the output of the con-
troller. Each valve contained a solid state signal converter with
adjustments for stroking the valve over the best operating range. The
motor operator was burnout proof with an "auto-off-open-off-close" switch
for local control.
The controller received the flow signal from the signal converter located
on the magnetic flow meter and produced an output signal to the valve
positioner to maintain the desired flow rate. The controller had a
manual-automatic-station and valve position gauge with a 9" tape scale
indicator.
57
-------
BACKWASH
TO ST.P.
SAMPLE
REFRIGERATORS
LAKELET 3
EFFLUENT
A-LAKELET I
EFFLUENT
- LAKELET 2
INFLUENT
PROCESS BUILDING LAYOUT
FIGURE 27. PROCESS BUILDING LAYOUT
^Microstrainer (Zurn Industries)
The microstrainer was located in the process building and was designed
to receive flows primarily from Lakelet No. 1. However, Lakelet No. 3
flows were diverted through the microstrainer during periods of re-
circulation when Lakelet No. 1 was not being emptied. The design flow
was 1 mgd as previously discussed.
The microstrainer design was somewhat conservative since the quality of
Lakelet No. 1 effluent could not be estimated beforehand. The suspended
solids concentration in the microstrainer influent was expected to vary
because of the variable level in Lakelet No. 1. Hence, the opinion was
reached that the microstrainer should be installed with a 60 micron
screen which could later be changed to a smaller size if necessary.
58
-------
The hydraulic loading was designed for 10 gal/ft^/min, which is near the
middle of the microstrainer hydraulic loading range. This criteria re-
sulted in a microstrainer with a 6' diameter by 6' long drum that would
operate approximately 60% submerged.
The filter wash water was taken from the effluent side of the mesh within
the tank such that no external water source was required. The water
was pumped at 36 gpm and 40 psig by a vertical turbine type pump.
A hooded ultra-violet light covered the entire length of the drum to
prevent algae growths or scum build-up from occurring.
Figure 28 shows the microstrainer as installed in the process building.
The spray hood, backwash pump, driving mechanism and effluent piping
can be readily observed in this photo. Some changes were made concerning
the unit such as the attachment of an automatic sampling unit to the
microstrainer as depicted in Figure 27.
Disinfection
The chlorine-chlorine dioxide system was designed to produce data for the
evaluation of the effectiveness of using chlorine and chlorine dioxide
FIGURE 28. MICROSTRAINER
59
-------
as disinfecting agents. Please note however, that the chlorine dioxide
investigations could not be completed in the time allowed for operation
of the project and thus were deleted and left for future study.
The chlorine-chlorite process was used for generating chlorine dioxide
during this project. The basic reaction is:
2 NaC102 + C12
2 C102 + 2 NaCl
Thus, 1.34 pounds of pure sodium chlorite (NaC102) will react with
0.5 pounds of chlorine (C12) to produce 1.0 pound of chlorine dioxide
(C102).
Since chlorine dioxide is more potent than chlorine gas, the chlorine
ejector, chlorinator, and gas supply system was designed to deliver
chlorine gas according to the maximum expected chlorine demand.
Chlorine requirements vary with the type of wastewater and the degree
of treatment the wastewater has received prior to chlorination. As
noted by WPCF Manual of Practice No. 11, "Operation of Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants", common values for chlorine dosage will be in the ranges
shown in Table 5.^
TABLE 5. COMMON VALUES OF CHLORINE REQUIREMENTS (mg/1)
Type of Sewage
Demand
Raw sewage (fresh to stale)
(septic)
Settled sewage (fresh to stale)
(septic)
Trickling filter effluent (normal)
(poor)
Activated sludge effluent (normal)
(poor)
6-12
12-25
5-10
12-40
3-5
5-10
2-4
5-8
The quality of Lakelet No. 1 effluent could not be pre-determined. How-
ever, the chlorine demand was estimated to be, based on Table 5, in the
range of 5 to 10 mg/1 of chlorine. Therefore, the chlorine-chlorine dioxide
system that was furnished included a 0-100 PPD chlorinator, remote ejector,
booster pump for ejector supply, remote meter and rate valve, chlorine
dioxide generator, sodium chlorite pump, 55 gal. storage drum with angle
iron stand, corporation stop diffuser, and piping of both PVC and wrought
iron. Most of these components of the disinfection system can be seen
as installed in the process building in Figure 29.
60
-------
Sfedrr
Sfe'** -
FIGURE 29. DISINFECTION SYSTEM
The chlorinator was furnished with a gas inlet heater, gas filter, pro-
tected gas pressure gauge, automatic tight shutoff valve, and an excess
vacuum shutoff valve.
The booster pump supplied treated effluent to the chlorinator ejector
at a 10 gpm flow rate and 60 feet TDH with a 3 foot suction lift.
The chlorine dioxide generator was a wall mounted glass reactor with
porcelain rasching rings. The sodium chlorite solution pump was a dia-
phragm type positive displacement duplex metering pump with a 30 gallon
per hour peak capacity.
Chlorine Supply System
The chlorine supply system included a pressure reducing valve, chlorine
gas flow transmitter, recorder, and totalizer. The chlorine flow recorder
was mounted on the Control Panel in the process building. The chlorine
pressure reducing valve was a self-actuated, diaphragm type, and was mounted
directly on the pipeline without additional support. The chlorine flow
transmitter was an integral orifice, differential pressure transmitter
(force-balance type). The chlorine flow recorder was an all solid state
recorder with a 4", 30 day strip chart and a contactless feedback system.
The chlorine flow totalizer was an electronic integrator with a 6 digit
non-resettable counter.
61
-------
Lakelet No. 2
Flows entered Lakelet No. 2 through a vertical standing inlet pipe which
discharged the treated overflows at the minimum Lakelet No. 2 water
elevation.
Lakelet No. 2 had a 0.1% bottom slope toward the lakelet drain and 1
vertical to 2 horizontal side slopes from the bottom to the high water
elevation. 1 vertical to 4 horizontal side slopes were constructed
from the high water elevation to the appropriate site grade. The lakelet
was constructed with a 17" clay liner for the prevention of exfiltration.
The lakelet had a 1.1 m cu ft capacity and covered 2.8 acres. It sup-
plied 8 days detention time at the normal 1 mgd flow rate and was
designed to provide initial chlorine contact time for the overflows
plus natural surface aeration and photosynthetic oxygenation.
The lakelet emptied into the channel which conveyed the treated over-
flows to Lakelet No. 3. The channel was 25 feet wide and 5 feet deep and
created a transportation barrier between the park side of the site and
the existing sewage treatment plant side of the site.
Lakelet No. 3
Lakelet No. 3 had a 0.93 m cu ft capacity and covered an area of 2.3
acres. It provide 7 days detention time at the 1 mgd rate and also
provided oxygenation by natural and mechanical surface aeration plus
photosynthetic oxygenation.
The mechanical surface aerator used in Lakelet No. 3 was identical to
those used in Lakelet No. 1. This aerator was supplied as a safety factor
in case Lakelet No. 1 overflowed into Lakelet No. 2 and created too large
an oxygen demand for the natural surface aeration arid photosynthetic
oxygenation to meet. The aeration capacity of the aerator was designed
to be equal to the aeration capacity of those aerators used in Lakelet
No. 1 primarily as a convenience factor.
Pump Station No. 2
Lakelet No. 3 could be emptied only through pump station no. 2, a three
pump package sewage pump station. The pump station contained two high
head pumps for delivering flows to the sand filters and one low head pump
for delivering flows to the microstrainer for recirculation.
The pump station was also equipped with a bubbler system to indicate the
Lakelet No. 3 water level. The indicator-recorder for the bubbler system
was located on the control panel in the process building.
Pressure Sand Filter (Baker Filtration)
The water from Lakelet No. 3 was pumped by pump station no. 2 onto the
pressure sand filter, located in the process building, prior to discharge
62
-------
into the Clinton River. The sand filter was an automatic high-rate two
stage series type pressure sand filter.
The filter was designed to receive flows through the first tank, which
had a coarse sand media, and then through the second tank, which had
a somewhat finer media. The filter tanks were backwashed by using
water filtered through one tank to backwash the other.
«
The design flow rate for this sand filter was 15 gpm/ftz. Each filter
tank was 90 inches in diameter with a side shell height of 54 inches.
The filter media consisted of uniformly graded silica sand 30" deep
which was free from limestone and clay. The primary filter contained
media of effective size 0.45 mm and the secondary filter contained media
of effective size 0.30 mm; both media grades had a uniformity co-efficient
not greater than 1.4. A support grade Garnet Sand 3" deep of effective
size 1.45 mm was provided in both the primary and the secondary filters.
The filtration rate was controlled by a flow control unit located on
the filter effluent line as previously described. The backwash flow
rate was controlled by an orifice type flow controller set at 665 gpm.
The sand filter was set up to operate automatically during the course of
the project. The bubbler system in pump station no. 2 sensed the Lakelet
No. 3 water level which controlled the automatic start and stop of the
high head pumps in the pump station. The sand filter backwash system was
actuated by either a preset time delay (typically 8 hours) or an inordinate
pressure drop (typically 58 feet of water) between the filter influent and
filter effluent lines.
The flow pattern through the filter was controlled by a series of pneu-
matic cylinder actuated butterfly valves. The valve sequence was
controlled by pneumatic time delay relays and timers located in the
sand filter control panel.
Figure 30 shows the sand filter as installed in the process building.
The vertical pipe on the far right of the photo conveyed the filter
backwash to the sewage treatment plant.
Control Panel
Figure 31 shows the control panel as installed in the process building.
The control panel was installed with three strip chart recorders, two
flow controllers, three flow totalizers, and the various control switches
required to manually operate the facility.
One strip chart recorder was used to record the variation of Lakelet No. 1
and Lakelet No. 3 water levels, one recorded the pumpage from Lakelet Nos.
1 and 3, and the other recorder kept track of the chlorine gas flow. The
flows from the lakelets and the chlorine tanks were also totalized on
the control panel.
The two flow controllers were normally set at 1 mgd (700 ± gpm), but could
be varied from 100 gpm to 900 gpm.
63
-------
13NVd 10H1NOD
fefeft fefeft
ft ft ft ft
•^••^•1
ft ft
A A
A A
^ 4*1
QNVS '02
-------
The three surface aerators had push button start and stop buttons while
the remaining controls were hand-off-automatic switches.
Automation of Treatment Facility
All process equipment including pump stations was designed to operate
automatically once the combined sewer overflows reached the combined
sewer overflow pump station.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
The total construction cost of this facility was broken down into grant
eligible and grant non-eligible costs. The grant non-eligible costs
were those which did not pertain to the treatment facility such as the
interceptors, overflow chambers, etc. Table 6 shows the breakdown of the
construction costs. These costs do not include those for engineering,
legal, administrative, land acquisition, bonding, and contingencies.
TABLE 6. CONSTRUCTION COST BREAKDOWN
Items
Section A
(pre- construction
monitoring facilities)
Section B
(project construction)
Contract 1A
(interceptors, over-
flow chambers,
drainage)
Contract IB
(lakelet excavation,
grading)
Contract 2
(process equipment^
building modifica-
tions)
Total
Construction
cost
$ 58,995.00
226,872.70
166,320.00
249,715.60
$701,903.30
Eligible
$ 58,995.00
162,391.00
166,320.00
249,715.60
$637,421.60
Non-eligible
$ 64,481.70
$ 64,481.71?
aAlthough Contract 2 was a lump sum contract, the following itemized breakdown
might be of assistance:
$89,780
Overflow Pump Sta. $43,000
Automatic Sampler 3,600
Aerators 16,000
Microstrainer 23,600
Pressure Filter
C12-C102 (incl.
instrumentation)
Electrical Work
23,000
50,735.60
65
-------
SECTION VI
POST CONSTRUCTION STUDIES
OBJECTIVES
The post-construction studies were performed between July 20, 1972 and
April 15, 1973. The post-construction studies aimed at demonstrating
the concept of treating combined sewer overflows in a Treatment-Park
Site to provide pollution abatement, recreation, and open space, and
incidentally to utilize some of the process water for irrigation purposes
Specifically, the studies were conducted in the following areas:
. Treatment of combined sewer overflows
. Effect of overflows on river quality
. Recreation at Treatment-Park Site
. Park facility
. Boating and fishing
. Open space and transitional land use
. Treatment of overflows vs. separation program
. Multi-benefit uses of public funds
As the sufficiency of the treatment affects the acceptability of the lakes
(or process water) for use in a spray irrigation system and use as a
recreation facility, a major emphasis during the course of the studies
was placed on the evaluation of the proposed treatment concept. Each
unit process was carefully observed with this purpose in mind.
The sampling program was designed to produce sufficient data for the
evaluation of unit processes and treatment efficiencies. The sampling
locations were designated as shown in Table 7.
Table 8 shows the sampling program and analyses to be performed at each
location. The sampling frequency was limited since the existing
personnel at the sewage treatment plant were to operate this facility.
These procedures were set up primarily as guidelines for the operating
personnel with deviations from the schedule to be initiated by the research
staff when warranted by the project status. All data collected during this
sampling program is presented in the appendix. Samples were analysed
according to "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water including Bottom Sediments and Sludges".9
The planned recreational facilities at the treatment-park site were to
be scenic walks, park benches, and picnic areas. Limited water-oriented
sports in Lakelet No. 3 and in part of Lakelet No. 2 were proposed to
include small boat sailing, canoeing, and fishing. The discussion of
this study area can be found in Section VIII of this report.
66
-------
TABLE 7. LIST OF PROJECT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Sampling
location
Overflow
Treatment -
Park Site
Clinton
River
Point
designation
1, 2, 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A
B
Description
Overflows discharged directly to
the Clinton River (magnetic flow
meters and automatic samplers)
Combined Sewage Overflow Pump Station
(automatic flow-proportioned
sampler)
Lakelet 1 Effluent - Microstrainer
Influent
Microstrainer Effluent - Lakelet 2
Influent
Lakelet 2
Lakelet 2 Effluent
Lakelet 3 Effluent
Sand Filter Effluent prior to dis-
charge to the Clinton River
Immediately Upstream of the Reach
Affected by the Demonstration
Project
Immediately Downstream of the Reach
Affected by the Demonstration
Project
FACILITY UNITS OPERATION EVALUATION
This section of the report deals with unit operations and their evaluation
with respect to operational efficiency. Those facility units which
performed as predicted are not discussed in this section. Only those
units which are considered to warrant mention are discussed.
Overflow Chambers
The U-trough method for intercepting combined sewer overflows proved to
be an efficient and economical approach to the collection problem.
Figure 32 shows the Clemens Street overflow structure during a peak
dry weather flow condition. If a rainfall had occurred at this time,
the U-trough would have overflowed into the interceptor allowing only
a minimum surcharge to be conveyed to the treatment plant.
67
-------
TABLE 8. SAMPLING PROGRAM AND ANALYSES
Flow Condition
Storm
Recirculation thru
Microstrainer
Recirculation Bypassing
Microstrainer
Sampling Techniques
Composite Sample
(Flow Proportioned)
Composite Sample
(One/24 Hrs.)
Grab Sample
(One/4 Hrs.)
Grab Sample
(One/24 Hrs.)
Grab Sample
(2 to 3/Week)
Analysis
SS
VSS
pH
P04
NOs-N
NH3-N
BOD
Total Coliforms
Fecal Coliforms
Oil
DO
C12
1
X
X
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
2
X
X
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
3
X
X
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
4
X
X
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
5
X
X
X
X
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
G
6
X
X
X
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
7
X
X
X
X
G
G
G
G
8
X
X
X
X
X
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
G
G
G
9
X
X
X
X
X
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
G
G
G
10
X
X
X
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
G
G
G
G
A
X
X
X
X
X
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
B
X
X
X
X
X
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
C - Composite Sample
G - Grab Sample
68
-------
FIGURE 32. CLEMENS STREET OVERFLOW STRUCTURE
(DURING CONSTRUCTION)
By constructing the U-trough and drop manhole such that the overflows
would be intercepted ahead of the existing diversion chambers, the
diversion chambers could be left alone to divert the dry weather flow
to the Sewage Treatment Plant and remain as an emergency overflow outlet
in case of a combined sewage overflow pump station failure. It is believed
that the overflow chambers were used once during post-construction studies
when a power failure knocked out the site electrical supply including the
main pump station. Without power to the site, the overflows to the river
could not be monitored.
In designing a U-trough for this application, two basic considerations
are suggested. First, the U-trough should be sized to carry only the
peak dry weather flow in order to minimize the surcharge to be conveyed
to the sewage treatment plant. Secondly, the hydraulic gradient of the
combined sewage overflow interceptor should be below the top edge of the
U-trough since, when this condition exists, only the maximum capacity of
the U-trough will be conveyed to the sewage treatment plant during design
conditions.
69
-------
Combined Sewage Overflow Pump Station
A "two year" design storm was experienced over the service area during
the course of the project, but the full 100 cfs capacity of the pump station
was not required for handling the flows. This seemed to indicate that
the run-off coefficient of 0.5 was somewhat conservative. No mechanism
was provided for monitoring the volume of overflows pumped into Lakelet
No. 1 other than monitoring the water level of Lakelet No. 1 and record-
ing the pumpage out. Future research projects however should provide
direct measurement capability.
Problems did occasionally occur with the electrode controls when grease
and other foreign materials worked their way inside the galvanized pipe
and adhered to the electrodes. The electrodes then had to be removed and
cleaned because of proper pump actuation being fouled by the foreign
material which either caused starting the pumps too soon or not starting
them at all. When the electrodes were kept clean, no problems occurred,
hence, this became a regular maintenance procedure. In the city-wide
project discussed in Section IX, the main pump station will have the
bubbler system for pump actuation.
Flow Proportioned Sampler
Minor problems were experienced during the operation of this sampler when
the weir box effluent pipe was found to be too small to handle the flows
and thus the unit spilled an excessive sample into the sample container.
Clogging of sample pipes was a recurrent problem which could not be solved
due to the inconsistent characteristics of the liquid being sampled.
Therefore, continuous checking and periodic cleaning of the sample lines
were necessary.
Cascade Inlet
The cascade inlet structure of Lakelet No. 1 proved to be very worthwhile
As shown on Figure 33, the cascade inlet effectively dissipated the
velocity of the wastewater entering Lakelet No. 1 and supplied some
aeration. A small amount of erosion was seen around the perimeter of
the structure which indicated that excessive erosion of the clay liner
around the inlet would have caused a major problem if such a structure
had not been incorporated.
Aerators
Lakelet No. 1 was designed to be the major treatment unit of the facility.
Therefore, it was important that all processes within the lakelet be kept
in full operation at all times.
The control sequence was set up to maximize dissolved oxygen concentrations
and mixing of the upper layers of water. The north aerator (the one
closest to the floating outlet) was shut off during the dewatering oper-
ation to allow for maximum settling to occur prior to discharge through
the floating outlet. Both aerators were in operation during the collection
70
-------
FIGURE 33. CASCADE INLET - INITIAL FLOW
(filling) operation and the 1 day detention time prior to initiation of
dewatering in order to facilitate mixing and to insure that no stagnant
areas developed. Figure 34 shows both aerators of Lakelet No. 1 in
operation.
Each aerator was found to be capable of supplying sufficient aeration to
the collected wastewater as indicated by the dissolved oxygen concen-
tration determinations run on samples from the microstrainer influent^
sampling location. These concentrations were consistently near a maximum
value.
Winter operation of the aerators in Lakelet No. 1 proved to be a difficult
maintenance problem. It was not originally planned to run the aerators
during the winter, but the plant personnel gained some valuable experience
in attempting to keep them operational. Generally, the project was shut
down during the winter months, due to the lack of overflows for treatment,
and the Lakelet No. 1 was maintained at a minimum level.
When a winter overflow did occur, the lakelet filled and the aerators
operated automatically as designed. The problem condition came into
71
-------
FIGURE 34. LAKELET NO. 1 IN OPERATION
reel
rat
ee
tire
when the temperature dropped below freezing before the dewatering
ion could empty the lakelet. Thus, the lakelet would start to freeze
the aerators could not keep the water surface from freezing over the
lakelet. Figure 35 shows one of the aerators operating as the
;'iet was £^ezing in around it. This figure also shows the floating
U.-t in the ice. However, it was found that the intake, which was
er.il inches under the surface, was open so the ice was not a problem
e. The water being pumped by the aerator created substantial wave
•n>ii near the aerator which tended to pile up the ice, as seen in the
. like appearance of the ice adjacent to the water.
next circumstance which occurred was the icing up of the aerator.
tine mist that was formed by the aeration operation would freeze and
re to the motor casing of the aerator. This situation was extremely
icdi since it made the already somewhat top heavy aerator even more
able. If this situation were permitted to continue, the aerator soon
ci become exceedingly top heavy and would capsize. This did occur with
Lakelet No. 3 aerator.
72
-------
113
M
UJ
IX
o
H
o
z;
H
OJ
LO
K)
tu
a:
73
-------
Figure 36 shows one of the aerators as it was icing up. Note that the
ice accumulation on the aerator impaired the ability of the aerator to
throw water into the air. This condition substantially reduces the
aeration and mixing capacity of the aerator.
On one occasion the aerators in Lakelet No. 1 did freeze while the lakelet
was approximately half full. Upon continuing the dewatering of the
lakelet, the mooring cables were also pulled loose from the sheet pile
anchors.
No foolproof method has been found to prevent the icing of aerators during
winter operation. Moreover, it is questionable whether winter aeration
is actually required for combined sewer overflow retention facilities.
The high DO levels naturally present during cold periods may be suf-
ficient to prevent odors from occurring. Also, the rate of biological
activity for treatment in this temperature range suggests that sedimen-
tation be the only Lakelet No. 1 function strived for during winter
operations.
Summer operation of the aerators presented only one problem. The aerators
in Lakelet No. 1 would tend to collect pieces of cloth, weeds, and other
such foreign material and wrap it around either the impeller or the erosion
plate which resulted in restricting the intake. This would put an extra
load on the motor which would sometimes overload the aerator enough to
make it shut down. This problem was handled by the installation of
reversing switches for each aerator which enabled the operator to easily
unplug the aerators.
Lakelet No. 1
If Lakelet No. 1 were to be operated on a long term basis, some method for
sludge removal would be required. At the end of the study period for this
project, an average 9 inches of sludge accumulation was observed on the
bottom of the lakelet. Anaerobic (and some aerobic) decomposition of the
sludge mass was occurring as expected and the rate of increase in volume
of the sludge mass, it was estimated, would have warranted a sludge
removal operation on an annual basis.
Hydrographs were not constructed for Lakelet No. 1 to see when the retention
capacity would be exceeded. Investigations in this area were left for
the city wide project. However, from operating records, the capacity in
Lakelet No. 1 was sufficient to capture each rainfall occurrence. The
lakelet did overflow into Lakelet No. 2 due to a tremendous inflow of
river water into the system. This overflow seemed to have no ill effects
on the performance of Lakelet Nos. 2 and 3.
Regarding DO levels in the lakelet, near maximum concentrations were found
to be present at all times. The samples were taken at the microstrainer
influent which means that the DO levels at the submerged outlet were con-
sistently high. A DO profile was never performed for the lakelet; however,
the presence of the sludge mass on the bottom would suggest anaerobic
conditions at lower levels.
74
-------
FIGURE 36. LAKELET NO. 1 AERATOR WITH ICE ACCUMULATION
-------
Microstrainer
The 60 micron screens were kept in operation until mid-September 1972
when it was decided that the removals achieved by this unit were not
satisfactory, as indicated by the data presented in Appendix B-l. At
that time, 20 micron screens were installed on the microstrainer in an
attempt to produce more significant removals with the unit. The screens
were a molded plastic panel with 20 micron screen apertures.
Several operational problems were experienced with the microstrainer after
installation of the 20 micron screens. Of major concern was the fact that
the microstrainer could no longer handle the 1 mgd flow rate and the
removal efficiency of the unit was not significantly increased.
The backwash pump was capable of producing a backwash water pressure of
only 40 psi. While this pressure was sufficient to drive the trapped
particulate material out of the 60 micron screens it was not sufficient
to do so for the 20 micron screens. The 20 micron panels would thus tend
to blind and prevent the full 1 mgd flow rate from being processed. This
situation would then create a larger than normal differential across the
screens which would tend to blind the screens even more.
Moreover, oil entering the microstrainer from Lakelet No. 1 also produced
a serious problem when the 20 micron screens were in use. When a certain
quantity of oil was pumped onto the microstrainer, the screens would
immediately blind and the influent would begin to bypass. The only way
to clear the screens was to take the unit out of service and wash the
screen with an industrial strength detergent by means of a high pressure
sprayer.
The automatic bypass within the microstrainer was not designed for 100%
capacity. The microstrainer studies indicate however that 100% bypass
capacity should be incorporated in the design.
The general operation of Lakelet No. 1 (sedimentation, aeration, etc.) and
the occasional occurrence of oils in the lakelet effluent would indicate
that this is not an appropriate application for a microstrainer. However,
the inability of the microstrainer to perform an acceptable function had
no detrimental effects on the project. The higher than anticipated degree
of solids removal in Lakelet No. 1 produced a Lakelet No. 2 influent of
high quality as originally predicted.
Chlorination
It was considered much more economical to install the booster pump and use
process water instead of potable water, for chlorination purposes. The
periodic cleaning of the coarse screen filter on the booster pump intake
was not thought to be a difficult, or time consuming, maintenance chore.
76
-------
Chlorination studies were initially proposed to be run for the purpose of
evaluating chlorine dioxide as a better alternative for treating combined
sewer overflows as compared to standard chlorine gas disinfection. Chlorine
gas studies were run and a sufficient quantity of data was collected per-
taining to dosing rates, costs and amounts of residual chlorine achieved.
However, due to a lack of rainfall during the study period, a sufficient
quantity of data was not collected for the chlorine dioxide studies to
allow for any conclusive evaluation of the two alternatives. The future
city-wide project proposes the use of chlorine dioxide as a method of dis-
infection such that further studies can be performed.
Lakelet Nos. 2 and 5
Figure 37 shows Lakelet No. 2 at the influent location.
FIGURE 37. LAKELET 2 AT INFLUENT LOCATION
The lakelets were clay lined for the purpose of preventing exfiltration.
The lakelets retained the water but the clay caused a significant amount
of turbidity. "This situation could have been rectified by the installation
of a crushed stone lining; which incidentally was a part of the original
design but was omitted because of the limited budget.
77
-------
Sand Filter
The sand filter functioned very well during the entire project. The
quality of effluent from the filter was consistent (see Appendix B-l)
and no major operational problems occurred.
The most noteworthy factor concerning the application of a sand filter
for this project was that the unit could be discontinued from service
for any period of time and then restarted with no special maintenance
procedures being required. Such is not the case, for example, with a
microstrainer which requires extensive cleaning of the screens when it
is taken out of service.
Automation of Treatment Facility
During the one year study period less than 20 percent of the storms
occurred during a regular, 8 hour day shift. This indicates that
automation of the treatment facility is a necessity. Automation less
than 100 percent would have required a 3 shift per day type of operation.
Cost of Operation
The cost of operating and maintaining this facility was broken down into
five categories and recorded for the period of April 15, 1973 to April 15,
1974. This cost thus represents a one year total operational cost for
the combined sewer overflow collection and treatment facility. This cost
includes only the operation of the treatment facility, as no park facility,
as described elsewhere in this report, was developed at the time. We
believe this cost would not have changed by 10 percent if the 'study
year1 would have been different, i.e. if more or less number of over-
flows had occurred.
This project was operated by city personnel from the adjacent sewage
treatment plant. This situation provided operating personnel for the
project as they were needed, but usually one operator was assigned to
the project full time. The costs for personnel as shown in Table 9 are
therefore based on an average time spent on the project by each attendant
for the one year period. The costs shown in Table 9 indicate the total
amount spent on each item for the one year period.
Automation of the treatment facility was estimated to cost $40,000.
If the facility would not have been automated, the personnel costs
would have been $62,900 instead of $32,900.
Projected operation and maintenance costs for the city wide project are
presented in section IX of this report. The projection is based on a full
scale operation where partial costs such as the 1/2 superintendent would
not be possible.
78
-------
TABLE 9. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Item
Cost (S)
Personnel
(includes fringe benefits)
. 1 1/2 operators
1/2 superintendent
Operation 5 Maintenance
(other than personnel)
. materials, parts
Chemicals
(chlorine)
Laboratory Supplies
Power
(electricity)
TOTAL
21,QUO
11,900
7,500
1,300
1,200
2,100
$45,000
TREATMENT CONCEPT EVALUATION
Post-construction studies were performed from April 15, 1972 to April 15,
1973; and during this period, the facility was in full operation a major-
ity of the time. The facility was shut down once during a repair oper-
ation of a dike failure between Lakelets 1 and 2 (an old abandoned pipe
was discovered) and again during the repair of damaged underground
electrical wiring. It was felt that these two shut downs did not
significantly interfere with the project study program.
Statistical Analysis of Data
The post-construction studies sampling data is given in Table B-l. The
post-construction operations, the river sampling data, and the rainfall
data are given in Tables B-2, C-l, and C-2 respectively.
The sampling data in Table B-l was statistically analyzed, and the
analysis is given in Table 10. The parameters chosen were SS, VSS,
BOD5, P04-P, and NH3-N. Lakelet No. 1 influent (Sampling Location
No. 4) had a flow weighted mean SS value of 239 mg/1 with 95% confidence
level of ±83 mg/1. The mean BODs was 75 mg/1 with 95 percent confidence
level of ±25 mg/1. The final effluent (Sampling Location No. 10) had
a mean SS value of 14 mg/1 with 95 percent confidence level of ±2 mg/1.
The mean 6005 was 6 mg/1 with 95 percent confidence level of ±1 mg/1.
Figures 38 and 39 show the treatment efficiency for BOD5 and SS
respectively, as a function of the detention time through the lakes
system. Both figures indicate that there is practically no improvement
in the effluent quality after a detention time of approximately 12 days.
79
-------
TABLE 10. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA (mg/1)
00
o
Location
4
5
6
8
Parameter
SS
VSS
BOD5
P04-P
NH3-N
SS
VSS
BOD5
P04-P
NH3-N
SS
VSS
BOD5
P04-P
NH3-N
SS
VSS
BOD5
P04-P
NH3-N
Count
37
37
35
36
37
157
158
151
154
157
157
157
152
154
156
32
32
30
32
32
Minimum
20
10
11
0.3
0.2
10
1
2
0.2
0.5
3
0
1
0.2
0.5
2
1
1
1.0
0.9
Maximum
1024
288
420
9.8
33.0
288
101
87
16.0
32.0
286
56
65
15.5
30.0
59
25
14
5.9
14.5
Mean
239
79
75
3.4
8.6
57
18
16
2.7
7.5
48
14
14
2.5
7.2
26
8
6
2.4
5.4
Standard
deviation
256
73
74
1.9
7.2
50
12
12
1.5
5.2
47
9
11
1.5
5.0
17
5
3
0.9
2.7
95% confidence
levels
239±83
79+24
75±25
3.4+0.6
8.6±2.3
57±8
18±2
16+2
2.7+0.2
7.5+0.8
48+7
14+1
14+2
2.5+0.2
7.2+0.8
26+6
8+2
6+1
2.4+0.3
5.4+0.9
-------
TABLE 10 f continued!. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA (mg/1)
Location
9
10
5*
6*
Parameter
SS
VSS
BOD5
P04-P
NH3-N
SS
VSS
BOD5
P04-P
NH3-N
SS
VSS
BOD5
P04-P
NH3-N
SS
VSS
BOD5
P04-P,
NH3-N
Count
38
38
31
38
37
38
38
31
38
37
56
56
57
55
57
57
57
57
54
57
Minimum
8
2
2
0.4
2.0
2
1
1
0.4
0.5
6
1
1
0.3
0.1
6
1
1
0.2
0.1
Maximum
48
15
16
8.8
16.0
42
11
15
6.6
13.0
127
44
67
8.9
13.0
106
30
42
7.8
13.0
Mean
23
6
6
2.5
6.9
14
5
6
2.2
5.7
27
9
14
3.7
4.2
22
8
11
3.3
4.1
Standard
deviation
11
3
4
1.5
3.6
7
2
4
1.2
2.9
23
7
12
2.3
2.2
19
6
10
2.2
2.2
95% confidence
levels
23+3
6±1
6+1
2.5+0.5
6.9±1.1
14+2
5±1
6+1
2.2+0.4
5.7+1.0
27+6
9+2
14+3
3.7+0.6
4.2+0.6
22+5
8±2
11±3
3.3+0.6
4.1+0.6
-------
00
ro
100
FIGURE 38
PROCESS EFFICIENCY
BOD CONCENTRATION
VS
TIME
-95% CONFIDENCE LEVELS
AERATION
SAND FILTRATION
AERATION
o—S
Lake No. 1
Lake No. 2
Lake No. 3
12
19
Detention Time-Days
-------
250
to
to
00
200
FIGURE 39
PROCESS EFFICIENCY
SS CONCENTRATION
VS
TIME
150
100 —
50 —
95% CONFIDENCE LEVELS
AERATION
SAND FILTRATION
0 —
Lake No. 1
12
Detention Time-Days
-------
f•''•>!• thv.- project service area of 212 acres, the total influent BOD5
and SS loadings to the lakes system were calculated assuming the same
amount of annual runoff volume (13,852,000 cu ft) during the pre-
c;:u.stru. tion studies. The influent 6005 and SS values used were
"5 mg/1 and 239 mg/1 respectively, observed during the post-construction
studies. Total influent loadings, based on 6005 and SS values of
MO ing/i and 350 mg/1 respectively observed during the pre-construction
studies, are composed in Table 11.
TABLE 11. ANNUAL BOD^ AND SS REMOVAL WITH MOUNT CLEMENS CONCEPT
Parameter
BOD5
SS
Annual influent
loadings3-
Ibs/acre/yr
570b
305C
1427b
974C
Annual effluent
loadingsa
Ibs/acre/yr
24
57
Removal
percentage
96t>
92C
96b
94C
aAnnuaJ influent and effluent loadings are based on the pre-
construction period annual runoff volume
"Pre-construction period sampling data
cPost-construction period sampling data
The BOD5 and SS loadings discharged to the Clinton River were calculated
based on the same amount of annual runoff volume (13,852,000 cu ft).
These loadings are shown in Table 11.
Table 11 indicates that there is a 92 to 96 percent reduction in BOD5
and a 94 to 96 percent reduction in SS, depending upon the pre-construction
or post-construction period overflow quality.
The Dissolved Oxygen (DO) concentrations in Lakelet No. 3 (Table B-l,
Sampling Location 9) were consistently near the maximum value. The
DO tests were performed on Sand Filter influent which originated from
approximately one foot above the bottom of Lakelet No. 3. These
results indicate that a favorable DO concentration was present through-
out the lakelet.
The pH of the water in Lakelet No. 3 was always within 6.7 and 7.9,
which is an acceptable range of values.
One major concern during the operation of the lakes system was the
large quantity of algae experienced in Lakelet Nos. 2 and 3. The
quantity was sufficient, at times, to produce a definite green tint
to the water. Algae was expected in the lakes and was intended to be
removed by the Sand Filter during the recirculation cycle. However,
•during the course of the study, it was found that the Sand Filter
could not remove the algae. It is considered necessary that a more
84
-------
effective method for algae removal was required, or phosphorus removal
be incorporated into the treatment process of any future facility
prior to flow to the lakes system.
The Clinton River sampling data (Table C-l) indicated that the lakes
system effluent with or without sand filtration was of a higher
quality than the river. The average flow in the river is 468 cfs and
the effluent flow was 1.5 cfs. Hence, the effluent could not improve Tin
river quality by dilution. This would still be the case during a 7 rU>y,
augmented drought flow (10 year frequency) of 165 cfs. However, it
should be noted that the Demonstration Facility did improve the river
quality in that it removed 90 percent of the annual pollutional load
on the river from combined sewer overflows originating from the service
area of 212 acres.
At the end of the one year study period, an average 9 inches of sludge
was observed on the bottom of Lakelet No. 1. This amounts to 28,144
cu ft or 133 cu ft/acre/yr. The Demonstration Facility was not intended
to incorporate sludge removal. However, for a permanent facility, some
method of sludge removal would be required.
During the fall of 1972 near record high water levels were being ap-
aproached in the Great Lakes which caused a rise in water elevation in
the Clinton River, which, in turn, created inflow problems in the city's
combined sewer system. The improper functioning of the flap gates
allowed the river to enter the system which resulted in the total flow
exceeding the pumping capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. This
situation caused a diluted wastewater to overflow into the Demonstration
Project. This produced combined sewer overflow data (Table B-l) when
no rainfall had occurred. The lakes system influent had 800$ and SS
of 75 mg/1 and 239 tng/1 respectively, whereas the overflow quality
during the pre-construction period had 6005 and SS of 140 mg/1 and
350 mg/1. This situation has been compared in Table II while discuss-
ing the annual BOD5 and SS removal with the Mount Clemens concept. It
is our conclusion that the Mount Clemens concept can remove a minimum
of 90 percent of the pollutional load from combined sewer areas.
Comparison with Water Quality Standards
As previously described, the development of the multi-purpose concept
included the use of Lakelet No. 3 as a recreational facility involving
fishing and boating and also the use of some of the process-water fox-
lawn sprinkling. For these to be acceptable uses, the water quality
of the Lakelet, must conform to certain minimum standards.
The State of Michigan has listed general water quality standards for
the following water uses:
85
-------
A. WATER SUPPLY
(1) Domestic
(2) Industrial
B. RECREATION
(1) Total Body Contact
(2) Partial Body Contact
C. FISH, WILDLIFE AND OTHER AQUATIC LIFE
D. AGRICULTURAL
E. COMMERCIAL
The general standards are listed under the following parameters:
(1) COLIFORM GROUP
(2) DISSOLVED OXYGEN
(3) SUSPENDED, COLLOIDAL &
SETTLEABLE MATERIAL
(4) RESIDUES
(5) TOXIC & DELETERIOUS
SUBSTANCES
(6) TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
(7) NUTRIENTS
(8) TASTE & ODOR PRODUCING
SUBSTANCES
(9) TEMPERATURE
(10) HYDROGEN ION
(11) RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
The standards which were considered most important in relation to the
multi-purpose use of Lakelet 3 are indicated in Table 12 along with
the respective data obtained for Lakelet 3. Based upon these results,
it is felt that the studies conducted under the Demonstration Project
for the Mount Clemens Collection and Treatment facility have demon-
strated the capability of this treatment concept to acceptably
renovate combined sewer overflows for the multi-purpose uses as pro-
posed. However, it should be noted that toxic and deleterious sub-
stances (which might affect the use of fish as food) were not studied,
and it is recommended that additional studies be undertaken if the pro-
duction of fish as food (as opposed to the sport of "catch and release")
is a desired aspect of similar projects. It should also be noted that
phosphorus removal appears necessary to meet fully the nutrient standard,
A monitoring program should be established. The combined sewer service
areas should be checked for sources of toxic and deleterious substances.
Control chemicals for the treatment system such as algacides should
also be checked for such properties.
86
-------
TABLE 12. SELECTED WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND LAKELET 5 ATTRIBUTES
PARAMETER
Fecal coliforra
Group (MPN/
100 ml)
Dissolved oxy-
gen (mg/1)
SS (mg/1)
Toxic § Dele-
serious
substances
Nutrients
(mg/1)
Hydrogen Ion
(pH)
MICHIGAN WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
PARTIAL BODY CONTACT
(Fishing- Boating)
Not more than 1000
Average daily not less
than 5
No single sample less
than 4
No objectionable
turbidity, color
or deposits
No injurious
amounts
Limit to prevent
stimulation of
algae, weeds §
slimes
6.5 to 8.8, but
uniform within
0.5 unit
FISH, WILDLIFE
(Growth $ Propagation)
Not more than 1000
No objectionable
turbidity, color
or deposits
*
Limit to prevent
stimulation of
algae, weeds $
slimes
6.5 to 8.8, but
uniform within
1.0 unit
SPRAY IRRIGATION
Not more than 1000
Not less than 3
No objectionable
turbidity, color
or deposits [100]
No injurious
amounts
Uniform within
0.5 unit
LAKELET
NO. 3
RESULTS
Less than
20
More than
6.0
Average
of 23
Not studied
P04 in
terms of
P=l to 5
Ave. 2.2
6.7 to 7.9
00
*Not to exceed 1/10 of the 96-hour median tolerance limit obtained from continuous flow bio-
assays where the dilution water and toxicant are continuously renewed except that other
application factors may be used in specific cases when justified on the basis cf available
evidence and approved by the appropriate agency.
-------
SECTION VII
COMPARISON WITH A SEPARATION PROGRAM
FOR PROJECT AREA
Separation of combined sewage can be achieved (presently with State
approval) by the construction of either new sanitary sewers to receive
the dry weather flow using the existing combined sewers to receive the
storm water flow, or by construction of new storm sewers to receive the
storm flow using the existing combined sewers to receive only the dry
weather flow. Several characteristics of any combined sewer system
must be considered in the selection, not only of new sanitary sewer vs
new storm sewers, but, in fact, in the very decision as to whether, or
not, to separate at all. For instance, the usual extended age of com-
bined sewer systems, typically constructed with joints which are cur-
rently unacceptable for use in sanitary sewers (conducive to high infil-
tration), would tend to discourage its use as a sanitary sewer. On the
other hand, the lack of adequate capacity based on currently acceptable
standards for use as storm sewers might tend to discourage the use of
the combined sewer as a storm sewer.
Moreover, there are certain economic aspects which must be weighed in the
overall decision about "separation". A location in a "downtown" congested
area, sometimes with narrow streets having two or three sewers already in
existence, can substantially increase construction costs. Furthermore,
significant inconvenience to the public at large by virtue of interference
with traffic, is sometimes considered intolerable.
It is also worthy of noticing at this time that total "separation" may
not achieve the desired goal of adequately reducing the pollutional impact
on the receiving stream.
"Runoff from street surfaces is generally highly contaminated.
In fact, it is similar in many respects to sanitary sewage.
Calculations based on a hypothetical but typical U.S. city
indicate that the runoff from the first hour of a moderate-to-
heavy storm (brief peaks to at least 1/2 inch per hour) would
contribute considerably more pollutional load than would the
same city's sanitary sewage during the same period of time. . ."1°
Separation By Sanitary Sewer Construction
"Separation" by construction of sanitary sewers would involve the instal-
lation of a new sanitary sewer below the elevation of the existing combined
sewer in order to allow the reconnection of existing building service con-
nections to the new sewer. The new sewer must generally be located near
the old sewer but care must be taken not to disturb the existing sewer
during construction because the existing sewer must be saved for use as
a storm drain. The new sanitary sewer must, of course, then be extended
to the nearest available sanitary sewer outlet. The existing sewer (now
a storm sewer) must be sealed off from all sanitary sewer connections
88
-------
and perhaps an investigation may be necessary (by means of a closed
circuit television device) to make sure that this is accomplished. Any
existing overflow devices must be modified to allow the flow of the storm
water to discharge directly to the receiving stream. This type of
separation program may yet contain some bad features. For instance, some
rain water downspouts may be connected to the building service connections
which would have a much more adverse affect on a sanitary sewer system
than it did when it was a combined sewer system. Foundation drains
connected to the building service connections may also have a similar
undesirable affect. To achieve the disconnection of all sources of
storm water and/or ground water would be an enormous, if not impossible,
task.
The basis for the estimate of construction cost for the installation of a
new sanitary sewer system in the demonstration project service area is
presented in Table 13.
The total cost of separation by the construction of new sanitary sewers
was not developed, however, since it was determined that the average
cost per lineal foot was almost double the cost of separation achieved
by the installation of new storm sewers, the discussion of which follows
immediately.
Separation By Storm Sewer Construction
"Separation" by means of the construction of new storm sewers was found
to be a much more economical method (not counting the effect of infil-
tration) than by the installation of new sanitary sewers. As mentioned
above, upon the installation of the new storm sewer, the existing
combined sewer would continue to be used for dry weather flow, therefore,
it is imperative to eliminate the introduction of all rain water or ground
water into the existing system.
Among the problems accompanying this type of solution to the separation
problem is the fact that the existing combined sewer (now a sanitary
sewer) is grossly oversized for the sanitary sewage flow resulting in
extremely low velocities which will cause excessive settling of suspended
solids material in the sewers. On the other hand, construction of new
storm sewers may be very desirable in some areas where additional capacity
is necessary to alleviate possible local flooding conditions.
The cost of construction of new storm sewers is less than that of sani-
tary sewers primarily because of two items. (1) The storm sewers can
usually be constructed at shallower depths -since it is not necessary
to intercept building service connections. (2) The disconnection and
reconnection of building service leads to a new sanitary sewer is a very
substantial cost item.
The basis for cost estimate for separation by the installation of storm
sewers is indicated in Table 14, On this basis, a construction cost
estimate for a separation program for each street in the project service
area was developed. As in the development of total project cost for all
89
-------
TABLE 13. BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATE FOR SEPARATION BY INSTALLATION OF
Item
Pipe material
Bedding
Sand backfill
Excavation (labor -equipment)
Pavement removal § replacement
Manholes
Lead connections
Sub-total
30%b
Total project unit cost
Cost per lineal foota
In concrete
pavement streets
$ 2.80
0.60
10.00
6.60
16.00
2.50
21.50
$60.00
18.00
$78.00
In bituminous
pavement streets
$ 2.80
0.60
10.00
6.60
7.50
2.50
20.00
$50.00
15.00
$65.00
aBased on 1973 construction; ENR Construction Cost Index of 1800
^Allowance for contingencies, engineering, inspection, legal,
bonding, administration, and capitalized interest.
other construction, there was included a 30% allowance on top of con-
struction costs to cover items such as contingencies, engineering, in-
spection, legal, bonding, administration, and capitalized interest. The
resultant average cost per acre in the two project service areas amounted
to approximately $12,000 per acre. Please note, however, that this
service area is predominately residential in nature and it is estimated
that the total project cost in an urban area containing a "downtown" or
central business district would be approximately $15,000 per acre.
Economic Comparison of Separation vs Collection and Treatment
The total cost for separation in the project service area was estimated to
be $2,544,000. For comparison purposes, it was assumed that such a separa-
tion program would have a life of about thirty years before it might be
considered outmoded. Moreover, a project of this nature would most likely
be funded by means of a bond issue which would be repaid over the same
thirty year time span and having a 6% interest rate. These considerations
result in an annual cost of approximately $185,000.
90
-------
TABLE 14. BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATE FOR SEPARATION BY INSTALLATION OF
STORM SEWERS
Sewer
size,
in.
12
15
18
21
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
Cost per lineal £oota
Concrete
pavement
$19.50
20.00
20.50
32.50
33.00
36.00
44.50
50.00
55.00
Bituminous
pavement
$15.50
16.00
16.50
23.00
24.00
26.50
35.00
43.00
48.50
Tunnel
construction
$110.00
125.00
150.00
175.00
200.00
210.00
225.00
aBased on 1973 construction; ENR Construction Cost Index of 1800
The total cost for the collection and treatment facility (for combined
sewer overflows) for this project service area could not be precisely
evaluated. The extenuating circumstances causing this are twofold:
1. Operation and maintenance costs of the facility may be extremely
variable over the 30-year comparison period
2. The entire 24 acre site was purchased for use as a park site as
well as for use as part of the treatment process.
However, for purposes of comparison, we have assumed a constant operation
and maintenance cost equal to the current annual cost of $45,000. More-
over, it was assumed that only about 10 acres of the total site was
91
-------
necessary as a portion of the treatment facility. Furthermore, the cost
of the 10 acre site was included as part of the capital 'cost even though
land would not normally be considered "lost" and, in fact, may appreciate
in value over the 30 year time period rather than depreciate.
It was assumed that the cost of the 10 acre treatment facility site was
$50,000. While this cost may appear low, the Mount Clemens site primarily
consisted of a sanitary landfill which substantially increased the con-
struction cost of the treatment facility.
The total project cost for construction of the demonstration project was
$758,000. Assuming the same 30 year life and bond issue, the annual cost
would be $55,000. The annual cost of operation and maintenance was
$45,000 resulting in a total annual cost of approximately $100,000.
Thus, the comparison between the annual cost of a separation program and
the annual cost of a collection and treatment facility shows that there
would be an approximate savings of $85,000 per year by the selection of
the collection and treatment facility alternative.
Storm Water Pollution
If a combined sewer system is separated by constructing new storm sewers,
these storm sewers would convey the surface runoff to the receiving
stream.
Assuming the pre-construction period annual runoff volume of 13,852,000
cu ft, the annual runoff would contain 196,200 Ibs of SS and 14,700 Ibs
of BOD5. These values can be expressed as 925 Ibs/acre/year or 30
Ibs/acre-inch of rainfall for SS and as 70 Ibs/acre/year or 2 Ibs/acre-
inch of rainfall for BOD5> These loadings are based on storm water
quality having an average SS of 227 mg/1 and BOD5 of 17 mg/1.11
92
-------
SECTION VIII
OPEN SPACE, RECREATION, AND TRANSITIONAL LAND USE
No money was available for construction of the park facilities during
the study of the concept, hence, the actual use of the park facilities
and the accompanying study of the possible merits of spray irrigation
were impossible to evaluate within the time available for completion of
this study. Therefore, a literature review was conducted to produce
information to be correlated with lakelet sampling data for evaluating
the potential for future use of the water orientated recreational aspects
of the facility.
"Water is a focal point of outdoor recreation. Most people
seeking outdoor recreation want water--to sit by, to swim
and to fish in, to ski across, to dive under and to run their
boats over. Swimming is now one of the most popular outdoor
activities and is likely to be the most popular of all by the
turn of the century. Boating and fishing are among the top
ten activities. Camping, picnicking, and hiking, also high
on the list, are more attractive near water sites."1
As our recreational lands and waters become more difficult to acquire, it
becomes ever more important to identify possible new areas, especially
in a congested urbanized area.
This section of the report deals with the multi-purpose benefits poten-
tially achievable from a Combined Sewer Overflow Collection and Treatment
Facility. Although several aspects of this multi-purpose facility were
not able to be developed and tested during the course of the project, the
discussion presented herein attempts to communicate what is envisioned as
the concept's development potential in the provision of open space and
recreation, and as an acceptable transitional land use area.
The reason for providing open space and recreational land areas are manifold.
The percentage of participants engaging in specific activities will usually
increase as increased opportunities produce increased demand. A con-
tinuing enlargement of this percentage will be experienced because of
the increase in leisure time which is expected in the future.
The insecurity and tension of city life can bring city dwellers to a
state of a ixiety or depression from which they seek escape. For these
and other reasons the city dweller frequently turns to forms of recreation
that give emotional release from whatever in his life situation he finds
disagreeable. In addition to the value which recreation has for the health
and contentment of families, there is evidence in support of the contention
that recreational and open space areas, properly located, planned, and
maintained, have a beneficial effect on land and real estate values.
To further list the multitude of reasons for incorporating open space,
93
-------
recreation, and transitional land areas within an urban environment would
only repeat what has been often said by many authorities.
It is apparent that American communities are significantly deficient in
these areas due to ill-planned land uses. Presently, either excessive
land values render it too expensive to allot adequate open space and
recreational land areas or existing open space is consumed by expanding
industrial or commercial enterprises.
While keeping all of the above mentioned attitudes in mind, the Treatment-
Park Concept was thus developed for the purpose of achieving the greatest
benefits from a publicly funded project.
Figure 2, again shows the proposed development plan for the treatment-park
site. The recreational activities proposed during the summer months
consist of canoeing, small boat sailing, fishing, picnicking, and scenic
walks. During the winter months, ice skating would be the most probable
activity.
These types of activities would hopefully result in a family oriented
park. Vigorous physical activities (basketball, football, etc.) were
not contemplated (though not discouraged) since the percentage of the
total public who would become involved in a strenuous type of recrea-
tional activity would be small. However, as indicated in Figure 40,
when the sewage treatment plant personnel and the consulting engineering
staff got together on a brisk winter day, an enjoyable and invigorating
afternoon on Lakelet No. 3 was had by all.
FIGURE 40. LAKELET NO. 3 RECREATION
94
-------
The treatment-park site was constructed adjacent to the existing sewage
treatment plant as previously discussed. In addition to the aforementioned
reasons for so doing, was the fact that the location was ideally situated
to allow development of a park site which would serve as a buffer zone
between imminent commercial developments and existing residential areas.
As seen on the general zoning map in Figure 41, the area immediately north
of the site is an existing residential area and the land immediately south
is zoned commercial.
The facility's location also enhances the recreational area distribution
within the City. This can also be seen in Figure 41. It should be noted
that the area zoned open space in the northwest corner of the City also
incorporates a county complex and other public facilities and is not actually
set aside for an outdoor recreational area. "Shadyside Park," located
next to the spillway on the southeast side of the City, is the only other
large park facility within the City which is not in some way associated
with a school facility. Therefore, the location of the treatment-park
site, with respect to the rest of the City, tended to increase its value
as a park site.
Table 15 indicates typical values for planning recreational developments
for various types of uses. A commonly recognized standard for recreational
open space in urban areas is one acre for every hundred persons. The
City of Mount Clemens has set this standard as its goal for open space
in its general development plan dated June 20, 1970. However, the one
acre for every hundred persons standard will be extremely difficult for
the City to achieve since, as indicated in Table 16, the City's ultimate
present capability for park and recreation development (without additional
purchase or condemnation) is only 155 acres. Thus, the programed develop-
ment provides only 0.78 acres per one hundred persons, including the
treatment-park site. This reaffirms the importance of utilizing the
Treatment-Park Concept as an effective means for supplying additional open
space and recreation.
Figures 42 and 43 show the project site during the post-construction study
period. Figure 42 shows the treatment park with the central business
district in the background. The open space immediately south of the
site is awaiting a development and the area west of the site is anti-
cipated to accept a new high rise building. Figure 43 shows the site
and the land usage looking east including the race track, expressway,
and a commercial area in the adjoining township. Figure 43 also shows
the open area south of the river where a new retention basin for com-
bined sewer overflows is proposed as discussed elsewhere in this report.
A study of Figures 42 and 43 would indicate the favorable location of
the treatment-park site as a public facility development for the purposes
of supplying open space, recreation, and transitional land use areas.
The cost analysis for a multi-purpose facility of this type is extremely
difficult due to certain overlapping and intangible items inherent in
the facilities. For example, if open space were the only consideration
for land to be provided between two subdivisions, recreation would surely
become an incidental benefit.
95
-------
LEGEND
OPEN SPACE HZ
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRY
FIGURE 41. GENERAL ZONING MAP
96
-------
TABLE 15. RECREATION STANDARDS FROM SELECTED AREAS
(Acres per 1,000 population)
Source
Comprehensive Plan for
Wisconsin, Outdoor
Rec., 1966
Baltimore Regional
Planning Council
Northeast Illinois Planning
Commission, 1962
Lake County, Illinois
1966
National Association County
Officials, 1967
Detroit Regional Planning
Commission
Milwaukee County Park
System
Regional Plan Association
of New York
Planning Commission of
Lackawana, 1963
Connecticut Dept. of
Agriculture and
Natural Resources, 1966
New Jersey Dept.
Conservation and
Economic Development
National Recreation and
Park Association, 1965
Genesee County, Michigan
Local
10
4.5
10
10
10
10
10
County
15
15
10
10
15
15
Regional
15
15
10
10
15
10
State and
Open Lands
25
15
80
Total
25
44.5
40
30
30
40
115
12 acres or 5% of Co.
7
10
5
10
15
9
20
10
15
45
10
20
65
67
30
34
90
20
97
-------
TABLE 16. CITY OF MOUNT CLEMENS PROGRAMED
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Facility
Existing park sites
Playgrounds as part of school facilities
Proposed new facilities
(including treatment -park site)
Total
Acreage
86.7
33.1
35.5
155.2
The initial cost for such facilities as these would be, of course, the
actual purchase of the land. This cost will be dictated by local land
values which would vary depending on the competition, that is, whether
the land would have become industrial, commercial, or residential areas.
Further costs would include development, operation, and maintenance
costs and a long term cost could be the loss of tax revenue from the land.
A benefit to cost analysis would entail estimating an individual dollar
value for each portion of the facility. In addition to the open space,
recreation, and transition land use portions, some of the more intangible
benefits should be included in the evaluation such as a possible increase
in local land values. Then, each portion must be evaluated concerning its
individual significance to the particular project as a whole.
FIGURE 42. AERIAL VIEW OF SITE VIEWING WEST
98
-------
<£>
T1
I
m
73
m
o
•n
H
m
m
m
>
co
-------
SECTION IX
EPILOGUE-GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE MOUNT CLEMENS CONCEPT
The City of Mount Clemens was, as previously mentioned, originally solicited
as the sponsor for the demonstration of the multi-purpose concept for use
in solving its combined sewer overflow problem. Hence, with the success-
ful demonstration of the concept, the City has undertaken the development
of a Wastewater Collection System and Multi-Purpose Treatment Facility
project aimed at "reducing the frequency, magnitude, and polluting content
of overflows of combined sewage, industrial wastes, and storm water from the
City's sewer system to the Clinton River", as required in the Stipulation
between the Water Resources Commission and the City of Mount Clemens dated
November 16, 1967.
It is therefore the purpose of this section to present the city-wide project
as it was proposed to the City and to also suggest general design procedures
for universal application of this concept. These general design procedures
were the product of the demonstration project studies and of the experience
gained in designing the major City facility, including the ensuing work in
obtaining approvals for a State construction permit and a Federal Construction
Grant.
CITY WIDE PROJECT FOR MOUNT CLEMENS
It was recommended that a substantial portion of the City (1500 acres out
of a total of 2100 acres) remain "unseparated" and that a combined sewage
interceptor be installed to collect the overflows and convey them to a
retention basin, the contents of which would be withdrawn at a slow uniform
rate for further treatment. For the remaining portions of the City (600
acres out of a total of 2100 acres) it was recommended that "Separation",
by constructing new collecting sanitary and/or storm sewers, would better
serve the integrity of a total waste treatment works system. This Plan
is outlined in Figure 44, General City Wide Collection System Plan.
The City of Mount Clemens was divided into 5 areas described as follows:
Area 1 - From Northern City limits to the Clinton River, and from
the treatment plant to Grand Trunk Railroad.
Area 2 - Southeast portion of the City.
Area~ 3 - Southwest portion of the City, south of the Clinton River
and the area north of the river from South Wilson Blvd. to
Barbara St.
Area 4 - Area around West Breitmeyer Place.
Area 5 - From Northern City limits to the Clinton River and from
Grand Trunk Railroad to Western City limits.
100
-------
A cost analysis has indicated that:
(i) Areas 1,2, and 3 should remain "unseparated" except for the
small northern most portion of Area 1, where new storm and
sanitary sewers are recommended, and that a better alternative
is to collect and treat the combined sewer overflows.
(ii) Areas 4 and 5 should be separated; Area 4 by constructing
storm sewers, and Area 5 by constructing sanitary sewers and
some storm sewers.
A summary of this analysis is shown in Table 17.
TABLE 17. COST ANALYSIS; SEPARATION VS COLLECTION & TREATMENT
Priority
Area
1
2
3
4
5
TOTAL
Acres
1002
179
290
53
565
2089*
Cost/acre
separation
($)
15,000
15,000
15,000
10,000
2,500
-
Cost/acre
collection §
treatment
($±)
9,260
4,290
6,740
10,750
3,750
-
Minimum cost
for area
($)
9,276,000
768,000
1,956,000
560,000
1,440,000
14,000,000
*This area does not include portions of the city already separated.
ENR CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX: 1850
Operational Description
The collection and treatment scheme for the city-wide project is indicated
on the Flow Diagram shown on Figure 45. The design basis is indicated in
Table 18 and discussed separately immediately following this subsection. The
project involves the interception of overflows (5-year storm) from combined
sewers at various locations throughout the City and conveying them by
gravity to the wet well of the combined sewer overflow main pump station
at the retention basin site. The overflows will be lifted into a discharge
well of the station after which they will flow through the sedimentation-
resuspension chambers (hereafter called the SRC). The overflows will then
discharge into an aerated retention basin.
The SRC consists of three individual sedimentation tanks in series through
which the wastewater is conveyed prior to discharging into the retention
101
-------
basin. The SRC is designed to provide settling of a. substantial portion
of the suspended material during the inflow period. Upon cessation of
any inflow, the settled material is to be resuspended by means of a
series of dual ejector units which utilizes forced air and high pressure
water jets to create a turbulent mixing effect. The contents of the
SRC are then conveyed to the treatment facility.
The retention basin will receive the overflows and provide aeration from
floating aerators. At times when the retention basin capacity is ex-
ceeded (5-year storm), the excess will overflow into the chlorination
basin thence discharge to the Clinton River. The retention facility
provides a minimum of 3 hours detention while providing sedimentation,
aeration, and disinfection. It is expected that the settled, aerated,
and chlorinated emergency overflows from the retention basin will have
no adverse impact on the Clinton River.
The wastewater is to be withdrawn from the retention basin site at a
controlled 4 mgd rate and conveyed to the existing Demonstration Project
site for treatment. The selection of the 4 mgd rate is discussed under
the subsection 'Design Basis'.
A flushing system has been provided for cleaning the probable accumulation
of sludge in the bottom of the retention basin and the SRC. The system
incorporates jet flushing nozzles located around the perimeter of the
retention basin, the dual ejector units for the SRC, plus fire hose con-
nections to the flushing system for SRC and discharge well cleaning.
The City of Mount Clemens has elected to adopt the Macomb County-Detroit
Metro Water Department (DMWD) Regional System as its method of dry-
weather-flow sanitary sewage disposal, and the City intends to connect
to this system when it is made available to the City. The DMWD Inter-
ceptor is expected to be completed in the early summer of 1976.
Therefore, since the existing wastewater treatment plant will be phased
out of service, both the primary and secondary settling tanks will be
modified to receive flows from the retention basin site. These units are
to be used to remove the settled material which will have been captured
and resuspended by the SRC. Moreover, future chemical additions for
phosphate removal will occur at this location. The sludge from the
settling tanks will be disposed of by means of the regional DMWD
sanitary sewage disposal system.
The existing chlorination chamber will be utilized to insure that no
pathogenic organisms are discharged into the lakelet system.
High rate pressure sand filtration was proposed as the next unit process
for the purpose of polishing the chemically treated wastewater prior to
discharge into Lakelet 1. It was felt that this unit process would have
produced an extremely high quality water for flow into Lakelet 1.
102
-------
CITY OF MOUNT CLEMENS
MACOMB COUNTY. MICHIGAN
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
AND
TREATMENT FACILITY
ICWMC IMTEUCCPT
go oo
FIGURE 44. GENERAL CITY-WIDE COLLECTION SYSTEM PLAN
-------
SOI
o
c
0
° s
1
m
H
m
~z.
H
O
m
m
o
-------
However, due to a cut-back in the availability of Federal-State Grant
funds, this unit was deleted from the presently proposed project. The
deleted unit can be added at a later date if required.
The water will then enter Lakelet 1 which is to be converted from an
aerated receiving retention basin to an aerated "flow-through"_treat-
ment lakelet. The water will then continue through the remaining
lakelet system by gravity and is to be filtered through high-rate
pressure sand filters prior to discharge to the Clinton River.
The Retention Basin (including the SRC and chlorination basin) has a
32 million gallon storage capacity. The 4 mgd pumping rate to the
treatment facility will therefore dewater the retention basin (when
full) in 8 days (thereby supplying an average of 4 day detention time).
The existing clarifier at the sewage treatment plant will provide
adequate solids removal at the 4 mgd rate and the lake system will
supply about 5 days detention time. The Treatment-Park Site has been
designated by the City for development as a Recreational Facility.
Continued sampling of Lakelet 3 water quality will be performed to
monitor its acceptability for recreational use and potential use for
watering of the park greenery. Also, an application will be processed
through the State of Michigan, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
for the purpose of obtaining fish (Bass and Bluegill) to stock Lakelet 3.
The growth and reproduction of these fish should be further studied to
indicate the adaptability of fishing and fish production to the total
concept.
Design Basis
The design basis for the city-wide project evolved mainly from the exper-
ience gained during the Demonstration Project studies, and is summarized
in Table 18 for easy reference. The following discussion on the various
wastewater facilities or process units, wherever necessary, is intended
to explain the authors' views.
Existing Combined Sewers and the proposed Combined Sewer Overflow Interceptor
Our studies have shown that the existing combined sewers have the capa-
city for a present day 2-year storm. The proposed interceptor is
designed for a 5-year storm using the Rational Method. Due to the 2-year
capacity of the existing sewers, ponding occurs during storms exceeding
the 2-year storm. The City has a storm sewer construction program for
flood relief in the combined sewer service area. The relief sewers would
discharge into the proposed combined sewer overflow interceptor. Thus,
ultimately, the combined sewer system would be able to handle the 5-year
storm.
The tunnel portion of the proposed combined sewer overflow interceptor is
designed at a constant grade of 0.02 percent. Surcharge is assumed to
provide 400 cfs capacity at 0.55 percent hydraulic gradient slope.
Each of the 19 overflow structures to the Clinton River would be main-
tained for emergency use in case of the combined sewer overflow main
106
-------
Item-
no.
TABLE 18. DESIGN BASIS - MOUNT CLEMENS CITY-WIDE PROJECT
Wastewater facility
or process unit
Existing combined
sewers and inter-
ceptors
Combined interceptor
Main pump station
Sedimentation-Re-
suspension
chambers (SRC)
SRC resuspension
Retention basin
Retention basin-
aeration
Chlorination basin
Design basis
+2-year storm
Rational method,
Q=CIA. 'Detroit
Curve' for 5-year
storm 1= 129.9
tc+21.2
Peak flow 428 cfs.
Peak settling velocity
0.0058 ft/sec
Ejector units - forced
air and water
Storage developed for
mass diagram study
of 10 years of rain-
fall data; 3 over-
flows from basin per
year
170% of required aera-
tion capacity due to
restricted zone of
influence
20 min detention time
@ 200 mgd
Remarks
Service area ±1400 acres
9 ft tunnel; designed to receive
additional flows generated by
the City's proposed sewer relief
program
5 pumps 8 35,000 gpm, 38,000 gpm
with surcharge
64 ft x 1074 ft x 10.5 ft deep
(3 bay); minm. detention time
30 min
20 units per bay
102 acre-ft; 5-year storm would
exceed retention capacity
5-20 h.p. floating aerators, 2.32
Ibs 02/hp-hr
2.8 mgal capacity
-------
o
00
Item
no.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
TABLE 18 (continued).
Wastewater facility
or process unit
Chlorinator (for
emergency over-
flows to river)
Flushing system
Retention basin and
SRC-dewatering
Grit chamber (exist-
ing)
Clarifier
Sludge
Chlorination at the
Sand filtration
DESIGN BASIS - MOUNT CLEMENS CITY-WIDE PROJECT
Design basis
5 mg/1 dosage rate
Hydrants around SRC; fire
nozzles around reten-
tion basin
4 mgd rate - maxm. 5 mgd
1 fps
3 hrs detention time @
4 mgd; provide floc-
culation
Discharge to existing
sanitary sewer and
ultimately to the
regional system
Chlorine or chlorine-
dioxide; 15 min de-
tention time @ peak
hourly rate
15 gpm/ft2
Remarks
8000 Ibs/day capacity; liquid
feed system; automatic additive
rate system in conjunction
with the 5 main pumps
Front end loader required for
retention basin
2 pumps @ 2100-3500 gpm control-
lable rate
Future point of addition for
chemicals
Modify existing primary and second-
ary clarifiers to flow in parallel
Monitor sludge density and volume
Utilize existing chlorination basin
and injection system
4-1.0 mgd pressure filters in
parallel, backwash automatically
one at a time
-------
TABLE 18 (continued). DESIGN BASIS - MOUNT CLEMENS CITY-WIDE PROJECT
Item
no.
Wastewater facility
or process unit
Design basis
Remarks
17
Lakelet No. 1
1.2 acres with 3.8
mgal capacity
Provide 0.95 days detention at 4 mgd
rate; mechanical aeration is
proposed to reduce BODr from 50
mg/1 to 10 mg/1
18
Lakelet No. 2
2.8 acres with 8.2
mgal capacity
Provide 2.05 day detention time at
4 mgd rate
19
Lakelet No. 3
2.3 acres with 6.9
mgal capacity
Provide 1.73 days detention time at
4 mgd rate
20
Lakelet No. 3
aeration
o
<£>
Available for use if
lake tends toward
an anaerobic con-
dition due to
algae die off or
spring thaw of
ice cover
May also be used as an oxygen supply
for the fish in the winter
21
Sand filtration
15 gpm/ft2
4-1.0 mgd pressure filters in parallel,
backwash automatically one at a time
22
Recirculation
During summer, lakes'
recirculation pro-
posed through the
filtration units
(Item 21) for alga
removal. Winter
recirculation pro-
posed by pumping
directly from
Lakelet No. 3 to
Lakelet No. 1.
-------
TABLE 18 (continued). DESIGN BASIS - MOUNT CLEMENS CITY-WIDE PROJECT
Item
no.
Wastewater facility
or process unit
Design basis
Remarks
23
Instrumentation and
control
Monitor and operate the
retention basin and
lakelet treatment
facilities
Automatic
24
Emergency outlet
from retention
basin bypassing
lakes system to
regional system
4 mgd
Outlet provided in case the lakes
system is temporarily 'down1.
-------
pump station at the retention basin site failed. However, each structure
would have a new flap gate to keep the river water out of the sewer
system. For the next 10 to 15 years, at the end of which the relief
sewer program is expected to be completed, overflows at these
structures are not expected.
Investigation was made to consider eliminating the existing 19 overflow
structures in favor of a single overflow chamber at the main pump sta-
tion. The interceptor at the main pump station is below the river and
the head loss through the tunnel would cause flows to back up in the
basements.
The overflow chambers were designed with U-trough similar to those
designed for the Demonstration Project with one exception. The weir
height on the U-trough was adjustable such that the amount of flow
which would surcharge to the dry-weather flow disposal system could
be easily field adjusted.
The in-system storage possibility, provided by the combined sewer overflow
tunnel interceptor, has been considered in the design of the storage
required for combined sewer overflows.
Main Pump Station at the Retention Basin Site
The peak rate of flow was calculated using the Rational Method because
of its simplicity and general acceptance. The Detroit 5-year rainfall
intensity curve utilized time of concentration of 132 min. The runoff
coefficient assumed was 0.5.
The surcharge that would occur in the interceptor tunnel would increase
the level in the pump station wetwell, and thus decrease the static lift.
Hence the maximum capacity of the pump station was calculated to be
428 cfs. When the relief sewers are constructed, and when the interceptor
flow exceeds the pump station capacity, it is expected that the capacity
of the station would be increased.
Only one source of power (electrical) has been provided. Detroit Edison
expects good reliability, i.e. equal to or better than one, 2-hour outage
in 3 years. If power failure occurs, the interceptor system would fill
up and some overflows may occur at the existing overflow structures,
after storage in the combined sewer overflow interceptor has been filled
ij[ it rains when the outage occurs.
Sedimentation-Resuspension Chambers (SRC)
Reference 13, p. 122 states:
"Suspended solids consist generally of between 70% and 90% settleable
solids in both sewage systems".
Reference 6, p.49 states:
"60 percent to 70 percent of BOD and Suspended Solids could be removed
with 30 minutes of settling time".
Ill
-------
Reference 14, p.14 states:
"settleable solids are of the particle size equal to or greater than
0.18 mm assuming a specific gravity of 1.2".
SRC were designed to provide a minimum of 30 min. of settling time. The
peak overflow rate was 0.0058 fps or 3760 gpd/sq ft or 1.77 mm/sec.
Assuming specific gravity of 1,2, the peak rate is expected to settle
solids 0.15 mm and greater. Thus the SRC have the capability to settle
out nearly 90 to 100% of settleable solids.
Resuspension and emptying has been explained earlier under subsection
'Operational Description'.
Retention Basin
The retention basin storage was initially computed, utilizing the pro-
cedure used to size Lakelet No. 1 in the Demonstration Project with
two exceptions. For the city-wide project it was assumed that storms
giving rise to a 1.0 inch accumulation would be collected (instead of
1.5 inch accumulation in the Demonstration Project). Further the runoff
coefficient was increased to 0.8.
The retention basin storage was next determined from a mass diagram
study of 10 years of rainfall data. The analysis involved plotting 10
years of rainfall records on mass diagrams and determining the most
reasonable combination of retention capacity, dewatering rate, and
number of emergency overflows from the retention basin to the river.
Assuming a retention basin capacity, the dewatering rate was varied to
determine the number of overflows per year.
The 32 million gallon retention basin has a maximum emptying period of
7.6 days when full.
For aeration and odor control, it was assumed that the incoming BODS
would be 75 mg/1. The required aeration equipment capacity was calcu-
lated, utilizing the procedure used in the Demonstration Project.
An emergency overflow weir and a controlled outlet to the river have
been provided from the chlorination chamber of the retention basin.
Chlorination Basin
It is expected that the maximum duration of an emergency overflow from
the retention basin to the Clinton River would be 4 hours. During an
overflow condition, the expected pumping rate would be 200 mgd.
Assuming a dosing rate of 5 mg/1, the capacity of the chlorinator
worked out to be 8000 Ibs/day. It is expected that the chlorine con-
sumption per emergency overflow would be 1400 Ibs.
112
-------
Flushing System
The water supply for washing down the SRC is from the chlorination
basin, the retention basin, or the river. The water supply for wash-
ing down the retention basin is from the chlorination basin or the
river.
Sludge Disposal
The resuspended, aerobic sludge from the SRC is settled out in
the clarifier at the treatment-park site. Provision has been made
for adding flocculating chemicals and phosphorus removal chemicals
(if required) prior to settling. The sludge from the clarifier would
be conveyed to the existing sanitary sewer and ultimately to the DMWD
regional system.
The monitoring system, consisting of a density meter and flow meter,
would control the amount of sludge from the combined sewer overflow
collection and treatment facility being delivered to the regional
system. Laboratory testing would determine the quality of the sludge.
Assuming 1000 million gallons of overflows (4 mgd for 250 days) per year
would be treated, the settled solids (70% of 300 mg/1 SS) would amount
to 1,751,400 Ibs/year or 1359 Ibs/acre/year.
Final Effluent Criteria
The Michigan Water Resources Commission has established the following
effluent criteria for the discharge of the treated combined sewer over-
flows to the Clinton River:
a. BODs = 10 mg/1 as an average with no single values to exceed
15 mg/1.
b. Suspended Solids = 15 mg/1 as an average with no single values
to exceed 25 mg/1.
c. Oil (Hexane Soluble) = 10 mg/1 or no visible film.
d. Coliform = 1000 organisms/100 ml of sample.
e. Phosphorus removal = provisions must be made for chemical
additions should such a requirement eventually become
necessary.
Lakes System
The Demonstration Project had 3 lakelets, an aerated Lakelet No. 1
acting as a retention basin, Lakelet No. 2, and an aerated Lakelet
No. 3. The total minimum detention time was 16 days and the total
maximum detention time was 19 days, at 1 mgd flow rate. The city-wide
project has an aerated Retention Basin and 3 lakelets, an aerated
Lakelet No. 1, partially aerated Lakelet No. 2, and Lakelet No. 3.
The total minimum detention time proposed is 8.6 days and the maximum
detention time is 12.4 days, at 4 mgd flow rate. The final effluent
113
-------
from the lakes system is expected to be the s^me, inspite of increas-
ing the flow rate from 1 to 4 mgd, due to additional aeration provided.
The total aeration provided in the Demonstration Project was for 10.8
days. The total aeration period provided in the city-wide project is for
9.5 days minimum and 11.3 days maximum.
It should be noted that the proposed aeration in Lakelet No. 1 would
reduce BOD5 from 50 mg/1 to 10 mg/1.
Construction Costs
The construction of the city-wide project has been planned as follows:
Phase I - i) Construction of the combined sewer overflow
interceptor tunnel (Contract C-l)
ii) Installation of flap gates and manhole covers
at 19 overflow structures (Contract C-2)
iii) Construction of the retention basin including
the main pump station (Contract B)
Phase II - i) Modifications to the Demonstration Project lakes
system, and modifications to the dry-weather
sanitary wastewater treatment plant being
abandoned in favor of the regional system
(Contract A)
ii) Combined sewer overflow interceptors to convey
overflows to the tunnel interceptor (Contract D)
iii) Sanitary and storm sewers (Contract E)
Phase I is under construction and Phase II is planned for 1975/76.
Construction costs (actual bids received) breakdown for Phase I
is as follows:
Contract Bid Amount ($)
C-l 5,985,000
C-2 57,600
B 4,585,000
TOTAL 10,627,600
Construction of Phase II is estimated to cost $2,400,000.
The total project costs (to include engineering, legal, fiscal,
administrative, and property and easement acquisition) are estimated
to be 125% of the construction costs.
114
-------
TABLE 19. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS-MOUNT CLEMENS
CITY-WIDE PROJECT
Item
Personnel
(includes fringe benefits)
. 1 superintendent
, 1 mechanic
. 5 operator/technicians @ $11,500
. shift differential
. overtime
. part-time help
Personnel
Operation & Maintenance
(other than personnel)
. materials, parts
. equipment maintenance
. vehicles (trucks, loader)
. uniforms, laundry
. misc. contractual services
. mechanical supplies, tools
. building maintenance
Operation & Maintenance (other than personnel)
Supplies
. chlorine § $3.50 per million gallons
. phosphorus removal 3 $15 per million gallons
. oil, lubricants
. laboratory supplies
. custodial services and supplies
Supplies
'ower (Retention Basin & Lakes System) - annual average
Seating
Capital Outlay
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
Cost ($)
20,000
12,500
57,500
3,500
5,000
2,500
99,000
8,500
6,000
5,000
2,500
1,000
250
500
23,750
3,500
16,000
600
1,500
500
22,100
18,500
800
5,000
1,500
170,650
115
-------
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The estimated annual operation and maintenance costs for the city-
wide project are shown in Table 19.
Assuming that the retention basin is operated approximately 250 days
in a year, and the dewatering rate is 4 mgd, the cost of treatment
amounts to $171 per million gallons, or $1.28 per 1000 cu ft.
SUGGESTED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND/OR PROCEDURES
It is our intention here to recommend a general concept for application
in future combined sewer overflow renovation projects. This general
concept (collection and treatment of combined sewer overflows for the
multi-purpose use of both the treatment facility and the renovated waste-
water) must be adapted to suit each specific situation by the designing
engineer. The general planning, design considerations and/or procedures,
as suggested hereafter, include some of the most significant concerns
for the optimum application of the Mount Clemens Concept. It is not our
intention to provide a design manual.
Rainfall-Runoff Analysis
An important part of the design process is an analysis of the rainfall-
runoff relationship. The frequency and intensity of storms, basin
characteristics, design storm, and occurrences of additional storms
before the design storm is over, are some of the considerations in the
analysis. References 15 and 16 are excellent studies to review.
Collection System
An existing sewer system investigation should be performed to produce
information concerning the actual watershed service area, the degree of
separation within the area, the extent of deterioration of the sewer
structures, and the probable capacities within the combined sewer system.
This information is crucial in the detailed design of interceptors and
retention and treatment facilities. Moreover, if infiltration is found
to be excessive, a sewer rehabilitation program may become justified in
order to reduce dry weather flows.
Many existing combined sewer systems will be found to have limited
storm drainage capacity. If local basement flooding is a problem, it
is recommended that ponding in the streets be considered to help pre-
vent the combined sewage from backing up into basements.
The combined sewer overflow interceptors should be designed for storm
water runoff using a 5 to 10 year storm recurrence interval. The
extra capacity in the interceptor, over that which might be capable
of delivery by the collection system, would be available as an outlet
for the future installation of additional relief storm sewers.
116
-------
The existing overflow structures, which allow discharge to the
watercourse, should normally be maintained in service. The design
basis for the capacity of any lift station proposed for the pumpage
of storm water should be consistent with the interceptor design; that
is, the peak pumping capacity should be equal to, or greater than,
the maximum capacity of the interceptors.
For basins that are not complex and have generally 200 acres or less,
it is recommended that the design storm runoff be analyzed by the
Rational Method. Even though this method has frequently come under
academic criticism for its simplicity, no other practical drainage
design method has been evolved to a level of general acceptance by
the practicing engineer. The Rational Method properly understood and
applied can produce satisfactory results for urban storm sewer design.
The greatest drawback to the Rational Method is that it normally pro-
vides only one point on the runoff hydrograph. When the basins become
complex and where subbasins come together, the Rational Method will
tend to overestimate the actual flow, which results in oversizing drain-
age facilities. Another disadvantage of the Rational Method is that
with typical design procedures one normally assumes that all of the
design flow is collected at the design point and that there is no
"carry over water" running overland to the next design point. However,
this is not the fault of the Rational Method, but of the design pro-
cedure. There must be some modification to the Rational Method, or
another type of analysis used, when analyzing an existing system that is
underdesigned or when analyzing the effects of a major storm on a
system designed for the minor storm.*° A modified Rational Method is
discussed in Reference 17.
Sedimentation Resuspension Chambers
Sedimentation Resuspension Chambers (SRC) are suggested for use in the
removal of settleable solids from the combined sewage prior to its
overflow into the Retention Basin.
After a storm has subsided, the settled material in the SRC would be re-
suspended for conveyance directly to the dry weather flow disposal system
or with the retained wastewater to the dry weather flow disposal system.
Aerated Retention Basin
Many considerations must be taken into account in order to adequately
and economically size a retention basin-.
Initially, the storage capacity of the receiving retention basin is
designed to hold a designated runoff volume from the facility service
area. The service area runoff characteristics should be carefully
examined. In our Mount Clemens' project, this volume was based on a
1 inch rainfall over the service area, but assumed that 80% of the
volume would reach the sewer system. We recommend, howeve , that 60%
of the volume should be considered. Final design of the retention
117
-------
basin should be based on the analysis of rainfall records on mass dia-
grams and determining the most reasonable combination of retention
basin capacity, dewatering rate, and the number of emergency overflows
from the retention basin. Reference 11, Chapter 7 - Combined Sewer
Overflow Pollution Control Facilities, gives an example of the mass
diagram technique utilized in the design of a retention basin.
The determination of an appropriate dewatering rate should be viewed
in relationship with the proposed storm water treatment facility
(including a possible phosphorus removal process unit) rate and which
would dewater the retention basin in sufficient time to provide
retention capacity for the next rainstorm.
Following the determination of the most favorable capacity and dewater-
ing rate for the retention basin, the final layout can then be designed,
including the supplemental systems for aeration, disinfection, and
flushing.
It should be noted that the primary function of the retention basin
is to capture and retain combined sewer overflows. The treatment
aspect of the retention facility is secondary. It behooves the design
engineer to take maximum advantage of the detention time in a retention
basin. The provision of mechanical aeration in the receiving-retention
basin as an extremely efficacious location for initiating the satis-
faction of total BOD is considered, therefore, one of the more important
features of the Mount Clemens concept. Under full retention basin
conditions, it is anticipated that it would take about 8 days to
completely dewater the average retention basin. Even when only par-
tially filled, the time is usually abundant to be conducive toward
stabilization. The retention basin should be open to the atmosphere
which is not only more appropriate for maximum oxygen transfer, but is
substantially less expensive than an enclosed basin. However, land
availability and value must be considered in the determination of
whether the basin can be left open or whether it must be enclosed to
allow use of the land area above the basin.
All flows discharging directly to the river from the retention basin
in Mount Clemens are to be disinfected in a chlorination basin prior to
discharge. The chlorination facility was incorporated as a means of
meeting specific requirements set forth by the State of Michigan.
However, the true cost effectiveness of incorporating chlorination
facilities at a retention basin site is worthy of further study and
evaluation considering: (1) the high degree of sedimentation which is
expected in the SRC and retention basin, (2) the aeration of the
overflows in the retention basin during the filling period and (3) the
frequency of the overflows from the retention basin to the receiving
stream.
Relatively efficient settling is expected to occur in the SRC but there
will most likely be some fine particulate material carry over into the
118
-------
retention basin. This material may settle in the retention basin and,
upon the dewatering of the retention basin, produce an odoriferous
condition. It is therefore deemed necessary to provide a flushing
system for use in removing the settled material from the retention
basin.
Clarifier
Algae was present in the lake system in excessive quantities during the
Demonstration Project studies. It is our recommendation, therefore, that
a phosphorus removal mechanism be incorporated during the treatment of
the overflows at some location between the retention basin and the lake
system. It is suggested that a clarifier, receiving flows from the
retention basin would most economically supply this function. The
sludge from the clarifier could be discharged to the dry-weather flow
disposal system, but consideration should be given to the utilization
of the phosphorus-laden sludge as a potentially valuable resource.
The city-wide project for Mount Clemens contemplates the use of the
existing clarifiers for potential phosphorus removal. Moreover, it
is planned to investigate the use of various substances, including the
use of water supply filtration plant waste sludge (another current
disposal problem), for phosphorus removal in order to economically
remove enough phosphorus from the process water to reduce the algae
growth in the recreation lake.
Lake System
It is recommended that a three lake system be provided for the final
treatment of combined sewer overflows. The first lake should be iso-
lated and provided with submerged aeration. The submerged aeration
will eliminate winter maintenance problems and moreover, maximize the
treatment efficiency and help produce a high quality effluent that
would not be detrimental to fishing and boating activities. The second
lake would act as a transition and polishing lake. The third lake
would be used for limited recreational activities. Submerged aeration
may be advisable in the third lake to insure that a high dissolved
oxygen concentration would be maintained. Submerged aeration is also
safer if people were to use the lake.
Based on our experience with combined sewer overflows and with aerated
flow through lagoons we would suggest that a lake system be designed to
provide 7 to 10 days detention time and have a depth of about 10 feet.
Park Site
We strongly recommend the development of a park site which would incor-
porate the final lake of the treatment facility for recreational purposes.
Moreover, we would recommend that a maximum amount of the processed water
be used to water the park greenery and to promote verdurous conditions
in possible neighboring facilities such as golf courses. However, we
are not, at this time, recommending the use of the process effluent
for irrigation of vegetation which is meant for human consumption.
119
-------
We feel that the multi-purpose aspects of such a facility is an
important economic consideration and adds significantly to a total
water quality management program.
Additional Suggestions
The DMWD has recently completed a study based upon eighteen months of
operation of the sewer monitoring and remote control system. The study
recommends telemetered advanced warning of rainfall, sewer monitoring,
remote control system, and in-system storage. These recommendations
(wherever it is appropriate to utilize them) together with the Mount
Clemens Concept should be considered as a feasible alternative for
the combined sewer- overflow problem.
120
-------
SECTION X
REFERENCES
1. Report on Water Pollution in the Lake Erie Basin, Clinton River Area,
Part I, Water Quality (preliminary draft report). Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration. Grosse He, Michigan. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior. October 1966. 70p.
2. Flood Plain Information Report, Clinton River, Michigan, Main River
and Main Branch in Macomb County. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Detroit, Michigan. August 1964. 8p.
3. Water Quality Segment Reports. Johnson and Anderson, Inc. State of
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Commission.
July 1973.
4. Interim Water Quality Management Plan for the Southeast Michigan Metro-
politan-Regional Area. Water Development Services Division. State of
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Commission.
March 1972. 83p.
5. Field R., and J.A. Lager. Counter Measures for Pollution from Over-
flows the State of the Art. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. (Presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the
New York Water Pollution Control Association, New York. January 20-
23, 1974.) 25p.
6. Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus,
Ohio. Burgess and Nipple, Limited. Washington, D.C. 20242. 11024 FKN.
U.S. Department of the Interior Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration. November 1969. 197p.
7. Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution Sources and Abatement, Atlanta,
Georgia. Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc. Washington, D.C. 20242.
11024 ELB. Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Office.
January 1971. 181p.
8. Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants. Prepared under the direction
of the Committee on Sewage and Industrial Waste Practice by the Sub-
committee on Operation of Sewage Plants. Washington, D.C. WPCF MOP11.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1961 (reprinted 1964). 178p.
9. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater Including
Bottom Sediments and Sludges (thirteenth edition). American Public
Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution
Control Federation. New York, New York. American Public Health
Association, Inc. 1971. 769p.
10. Sartor, J.D., and G.B. Boyd. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface
Contaminants. Washington, D.C. 20402. EPA-R2-72-081. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Office of Research and Monitoring. November
1972. 235p.
121
-------
11. Water Quality Management Plan for Southeastern Michigan Basin. Hubbell,
Roth $ Clark, Inc. Water Resources Commission, Department of Natural
Resources, Michigan. 1974.
12. Outdoor Recreation for America. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission. January 1962.
13. Burm, R.J., D.F. Krawczyk, and G.L. Harlow. Chemical and Physical Com-
parison of Combined and Separate Sewer Discharges. Journal, Water
Pollution Control Federation. 40_(1): 112-126, January 1968.
14. The Swirl Concentrator as a Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator Facility.
American Public Works Association. Office of Research and Monitoring,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA-
R2-72-008. September 1972. P.14.
15. Lager, John A., Edwin E. Pyatt, and Robert P. Shubinski. Storm Water
Management Model. Metcalf S Eddy, University of Florida, and Water
Resources Engineers, Inc. Water Quality Office, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 20460. 11024DOC07/71. July 1971
352p. 7
16. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Wright-Mclaughlin Engineers.
Denver Regional Council of Governments. Denver, Colorado 80216
March, 1969.
17. Pagan, A.R. Rational Formula Needs Change and Uniformity in Practical
Application. Water $ Sewage Works. 1_19_(10) : 92-94, October, 1972.
Additional References Consulted
18. Gallion, A.B., S. Eisner. The Urban Pattern-City Planning and Design
(2nd edition). Princeton, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1963. 435p.
19. Meyer, H.D., and C.K. Brightbill. Recreation - A Guide to its Organ-
ization. Englewood Cliff, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1956.
20. Clinton River - Recreation Potentials. Macomb County Drain Commission
Mount Clemens, Michigan. January 1967.
21. Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Report, Macomb County, Michigan.
Macomb County Planning Commission and Macomb County Parks and Recreation
Commission. P-263. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1971.
91p.
22. Study and Report on Abatement of Pollution of Red Run Drain. Hubbell,
Roth $ Clark, Inc. Twelve Towns Relief Drains District, Oakland County
Michigan. September 1969. 39p.
23. Official Pollution Control Plan, Spalding, DeDecker § Associates, Inc.
City of Mount Clemens, Michigan. September 1971.
24. 1971 Annual Financial Report. City of Mount Clemens, Mount Clemens,
Michigan. June 1971.
122
-------
SECTION XI
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
As a result of this Demonstration Project the following publications have
been produced:
1. Mahida, Vijaysinh U. Combined Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facility Mount Clemens, Michigan. (Paper presented at the 44th Annual
Meeting of the Water Pollution Control Federation, San Francisco.
October 10-13, 1971.) lOp.
2. Manual of Operation and Maintenance - Combined Wastewater and Collection
Facility, City of Mount Clemens, Michigan. Spalding, DeDecker 5 Assoc.,
Inc., Madison Heights, Michigan. April 1972. 26p.
3. Mahida, Vijaysinh U., F.J. DeDecker. Project Engineering Report -
Wastewater Collection System and Treatment Facility, City of
Mount Clemens, Michigan. Spalding, DeDecker $ Assoc., Inc.,
Madison Heights, Michigan. July 1973. 22p.
123
-------
SECTION XII
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Five day biochemical oxygen demand
cfs Cubic feet per second
C12 Chlorine
coli. Coliform
cu ft Cubic feet
DO Dissolved oxygen
dwf Dry-weather-flow (A term used in conjunction
with combined sewers which describes the
flow of sanitary sewage and industrial wastes
at a time when storm water runoff is not
entering the combined sewer)
°C Degrees Centigrade
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
fps Feet per second
ft Feet
gal Gallons
gpd Gallons per day
gpm Gallons per minute
Ibs Pounds
mgd Million gallons per day
mg/1 Milligrams per liter
ml Milliliters
min Minutes
NH^-N Ammonia in terms of nitrogen
124
-------
pH Hydrogen ion concentration
P04-P Phosphate in terms of phosphorus
PPD Pounds per day
rpm Revolutions per minute
sec Seconds
SRC Sedimentation-Resuspension Chambers
SS Suspended Solids
sq ft Square feet
temp Temperature
VSS Volatile suspended solids
125
-------
SECTION XIII
APPENDICES
PAGE NO.
A. Pre-Construction Studies
Table A-l: Clemens Street Drain 134
Overflow Sampling Data
Table A-2: Spruce Street Drain 150
Overflow Sampling Data
B. Post Construction Studies
Table B-l: Sampling Data 162
Table B-2: Operations 190
C. River Sampling and Rainfall Data
Table C-l: River Sampling Data 194
Table C-2: Rainfall Data 205
126
-------
TABLE A-l PRF-rONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLI G DATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
4/1/70
4/2/70
Time
of
sample,
hr*
.25
.50
.75
1.00
1.25
l.SO
1.75
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
4.00
4.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
SS,
mg/1
332
204
284
248
492
96
208
229
112
348
80
140
288
268
520
95
344
326
324
379
421
410
392
VSS,
mg/1
120
116
88
120
304
48
44
40
68
216
68
112
104
220
192
47
107
95
86
108
127
128
100
BODc,
mg/1
95
30
65
50
90
90
65
75
90
P04-P,
mg/1
NH3-N,
mg/1
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
pH
6.7
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.9
7.0
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
*Hours after start of overflow.
127
-------
TABLE A-l
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
4/2/70
4/20/70
(continu d) . P RE -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Time
of
sample,
hr*
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
SS,
mg/1
344
300
328
252
268
120
172
196
236
284
260
280
252
316
40
458
20
116
130
162
104
136
108
94
284
VSS,
mg/1
132
120
124
96
132
52
96
68
84
80
92
104
60
80
16
300
18
60
66
86
38
56
42
52
234
BOD5,
rag/1
85
60
70
60
55
50
40
60
85
80
50
45
60
65
40
160
220
165
100
105
135
210
225
160
125
P04-P
mg/1
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
2.7
0.2
NH3-N
mg/1
3.5
4.5
6.5
7.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
12.5
2.S
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
pH
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.0
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
*Hours after start of overflow.
128
-------
TABLE A 1 frmiTiTiiim PRF-fONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
4/20/70
5/15/70
6/11/70
Time
of
sample,
hr*
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
0.25
1.00
1.50
1.75
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
0.25
1.0
SS,
mg/1
98
58
86
106
838
548
144
106
528
1176
VSS,
mg/1
48
24
70
84
556
362
100
68
392
488
BODr,
mg/1
185
105
160
125
145
190
245
200
110
20
100
110
125
150
105
195
232
297
P04-P,
mg/1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.5
1.5
8.1
7.5
4.7
2.4
2.9
1.9
2.4
7.5
2.4
4.7
3.3
3.6
H3-N,
mg/1
2.0
3.5
2.5
5.0
3.0
3.5
6.0
3.0
16.4
14.0
19.5
15.0
14.5
17.5
5.5
9.0
10.0
3.0
5.0
6.5
03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
PH
6.4
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.3
7.0
6.8
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.2
6.3
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
ATA
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
•Hours after start of overflow.
129
-------
TABLE A-l
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
6/11/70
6/18/70
(continu d) . PRE -CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING nATA
of
sample,
hr*
1.75
2.50
3.00
4.00
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.50
5.75
6.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
l.SO
1.75
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3. SO
3.75
4.00
4.25
SS,
mg/1
1100
384
392
216
312
308
656
928
952
688
684
400
300
536 .
60
444
360
252
284
88
208
96
vss,
mg/1
564
168
80
272
284
300
552
372
152
113
136
92
92
80
28
76
40
28
44
16
40
20
BOD,,
mg/1
227
129
138
120
109
124
127
168
163
147
315
133
100
70
53
100
53
105
40
45
68
65
15
30
90
P04-P
mg/1
3.2
2.0
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.4
NH3-N
mg/1
12.0
23.0
8.0
6.0
10.0
5.5
5.0
6.0
27.0
11.5
NOj-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
pH
6.4
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.5
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
*Hours after start of overflow.
130
-------
TABLE A 1 (contiTi'i--') PRF-rONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING ATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
6/18/70
6/24/70
6/26/70
7/8/70
7/12/70
7/20/70
Time
of
sample,
hr*
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
0.25
.50
.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.50
2.00
SS,
mg/1
76
160
116
88
80
88
84
160
760
192
528
496
408
340
328
576
656
vss,
mg/1
20
48
28
24
16
30
24
792
468
124
196
264
192
172
152
388
436
BOD5,
mg/l
30
35
45
23
83
70
53
261
231
93
88
89
67
223
215
285
325
172
134
355
300
P04-P,
mg/1
1.7
0.9
8.1
6.4
NH3-N,
mg/1
19.5
15.5
3.5
4.9
03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
pH
6.5
6.7
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.3
7.0
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
*Hours after start of overflow.
131
-------
TABLE A-l
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
7/20/70
7/29/70
8/19/70
(continu d) . PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVFRFI.OW SAMPT TMH DATA
of
sample,
hr*
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3. 75
4.00
4.25
4.75
5.25
0.50
1.00
1.25
1.50
2.25
2.75
0.75
1.50
2.25
3.00
3.75
4.50
5.25
6.00
SS,
mg/1
528
416
160
476
228
992
804
664
200
440
384
244
132
192
vss,
mg/1
244
196
100
276
124
468
328
236
92
172
140
74
44
128
BODS,
mg/1
228
128
233
143
95
115
120
245
263
P04-P
mg/1
3.5
2.5
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.4
3.1
5.6
NH3-N
mg/1
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
6.0
9.0
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
pH
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.3
Total
coli .
xlOS/
100ml
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
*Hours after start of overflow.
132
-------
TABLE A 1 (-ont<«»«n PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING ATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
9/18/70
9/27/70
1/4/71
"overflow
caused
by
melting
snow
Time
of
sample,
hr*
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.25
3.75
4.25
4.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.50
1.00
1.75
2.23
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
5.75
SS,
mg/1
636
348
236
444
40
172
156
264
184
80
72
164
192
736
684
768
262
708
900
796
640
608
584
292
VSS,
mg/1
260
144
100
124
24
52
44
76
40
20
32
88
96
452
392
440
84
400
528
448
368
312
204
104
BOD5,
mg/1
258
269
272
257
261
281
275
263
254
230
147
P04-P,
mg/1
0.2
0.5
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.3
2.3
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.3
8.9
6.1
7.8
5.2
4.0
5.1
4.7
4.3
4.8
4.7
2.7
H,-N,
mg/1
4.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
10.5
6.0
10.9
10.9
10.4
8.3
4.7
' 5.4
5.2
3.4
4.3
3.9
3.5
03-N,
mg/1
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
l.S
4.7
Oil,
mg/1
42.1
39.0
38.4
PH
6.9
7.0
7.0
6.8
7.5
7.3
7.6
7.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.7
7.0
6.9
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
0.07
0.21
0.17
0.06
0.14
0.09
0.21
0.22
0.04
0.06
0.09
0.34
0.42
151
76
49
91
36
58
32
34
39
10
recai
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
0.09
0.04
0.12
0.24
0.16
0.12
0.09
0.12
0.13
0.02
0.01
0.14
0.22
107
102
83
53
33
6.7
86
52
50
53
19
*Hours after start of overflow.
133
-------
TABLE A-l
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
1/4/71
1/4/71
•Second
set of
samples
(continu d). PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN nVFPFIOW SAMPT TW nAT«
of
sample,
hr*
6.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.75
2.00
2.25
SS,
mg/1
268
308
336
496
256
1064
1020
588
1000
VSS,
mg/1
80
164
208
392
196
964
936
448
828
BODS>
mg/I
117
96
91
114
100
100
146
122
153
P04-P,
mg/1
3.2
3.6
2.6
2.7
3.1
2.4
2.9
2.4
3.6
NH3-N,
mg/1
3.3
S.8
5.2
3.9
3.8
4.7
3.8
4.8
6.2
NO,-N,
mg/1
5.7
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
Oil,
mg/1
38.5
33.8
29.6
pH
7.0
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.8
" Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
392
336
336
224
238
252
182
238
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
13
1
8
4
4
4
6
S
5
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 177,065 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 9.1 hrs
2/4/71
0.25
1.00
1.25
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.75
6.00
44
48
164
564
340
352
64
44
32
32
28
324
180
180
48
36
37
23
157
60
67
7
1.0
1.0
3.2
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
11.8
24.9
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.3
6.4
6.5
21
24
49
58
41
66
56
32
4
5
5
61
25
38
3
9
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 215,513 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 15.0 hrs
2/17/71
O.SO
0.75
568
480
324
260
171
162
5.2
3.9
6.0
4.5
*Hours after start of overflow.
7.0
7.0
130
180
40
30
134
-------
TABLE A-l (continued! . PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
2/17/71
Time
of
sample,
hr*
1.00
1.25
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.75
4.00
4.25
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
SS,
mg/1
548
452
380
404
106
880
36
320
308
264
376
196
180
176
176
168
VSS,
mg/1
308
244
204
164
24
608
20
156
100
68
164
40
44
48
60
68
BOD.,
mg/1
160
139
132
114
53
172
60
92
65
67
90
64
75
82
58
73
P04-P,
mg/1
4.0
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.1
3.1
3.7
2.6
2.2
1.4
1.6
1.6
2.3
1.9
2.0
2.1
NH3-N,
mg/1
6.0
5.0
4.5
3.5
0.5
5.5
8.0
4.0
3.0
7.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
2.5
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
168.0
151.9
103.0
pH
6.3
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.4
7.0
6.6
6.2
6.2
6.3
6.2
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.1
SAMPLING DATA
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
170
160
100
140
160
280
150
620
390
200
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
0.2
20
10
20
60
ISO
730
430
160
Recorded Volume of Overflow - 103,204 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow • 6.1 hrs
2/18/71
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
276
264
272
240
280
308
288
140
96
84
92
106
128
136
110
99
86
77
76
95
60
4.4
2.8
2.0
2.7
2.4
3.7
1.9
6.S
6.0
6.0
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
88.8
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.7
*Hours after start of overflow.
135
-------
TABLE A-l
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
2/18/71
(continu d) . PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPT.TNK OATA
of
sample,
hr*
2.00
2.25
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
SS,
mg/1
320
316
292
244
216
216
164
180
164
168
332
140
156
136
152
240
VSS,
mg/1
112
124
116
104
92
108
64
76
64
68
196
60
80
60
64
92
BODr,
mg/1
47
57
82
76
73
82
63
49
75
72
135
82
84
82
84
126
P04-P,
mg/1
1.7
1.7
1.6
2.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.6
1.1
2.4
NH3-N,
mg/1
3.5
3.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
7.0
NO,-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
142.9
137.1
88.0
66.7
pH
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.7
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 115,350 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 8.0 hrs
2/19/71 Recorded Volume of Overflow = 511,982 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 16.0 hrs
2/22/71
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
368
284
240
156
96
84
96
64
59
24
10
24
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.8
2.5
3.0
4.5
4.0
*Hours after start of overflow.
6.7
6.4
6.7
6.7
2
136
-------
TABLE A-l (rnni-imiedl. PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
2/22/71
Time
of
sample,
hr*
1.25
1.75
2.00
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.75
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
SS,
mg/1
204
308
932
560
488
716
888
584
572
724
652
584
584
516
448
VSS,
mg/1
68
124
312
200
132
192
300
120
132
144
128
128
96
96
104
BODc,
mg/1
26
69
134
67
49
56
94
32
26
26
34
49
38
31
26
P04-P,
mg/1
0.6
4.7
4.7
1.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.2
1.6
0.9
1.6
1.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
NH3-N,
mg/1
4.0
8.5
9.0
2.5
l.S
5.0
2.0
7.0
4.0
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
185.5
164.5
92.5
56.5
pH
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
SAMPLING DATA
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
1
40
13
4
3
3
t-ecai
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
100
100
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 67,793 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 7.1 hrs
3/6/71
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
300
396
524
428
296
376
344
240
104
152
236
188
132
164
152
100
74
97
169
145
103
113
112
89
2.0
2.4
2.9
3.2
2.1
2.9
2.5
1.7
3.5
2.5
2.5
8.5
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.5
6.0
5.9
6.0
5.9
£.0
6.0
6.0
6.1
300
280
160
160
10
*Hours after start of overflow.
137
-------
TABLE A-l
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
3/6/71
(continued) . PRE -CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Time
of
sample,
hr*
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
SS,
mg/1
296
220
196
148
172
148
204
408
320
296
296
172
vss,
mg/1
136
84
72
60
84
72
92
236
128
120
124
76
BOD5,
mg/1
107
79
51
46
41
78
51
145
89
63
99
72
P04-P,
mg/1
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
2.0
1.5
1.5
3.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.0
NH3-N,
mg/1
S.O
3.5
5.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
3.5
4.0
5.0
3.5
3.5
1.5
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
pH
6.2
6.1
6.2
6.1
6.2
6.5
6.4
6.1
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
250
390
170
220
230
340
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
10
10
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 93,086 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 10.1 hrs
3/7/71 Recorded Volume of Overflow = 5,059 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 3.3 hrs
3/13/71
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
424
404
396
308
360
284
276
244
148
124
132
104
124
88
84
68
117
112
122
122
116
101
110
83
5.7
3.8
3.2
2.8
3.5
3.2
6.7
3.9
7.5
6.5
6.5
8.0
4.0
7.0
9.5
9.0
6.6
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.5
90
180
90
50
60
170
130
140
54
43
18
28
49
41
34
220
*Hours after start of overflow.
138
-------
TARtF A-l (continued^. PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
3/13/71
Time
of
sample,
hr*
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
SS,
mg/1
224
192
168
148
VSS,
mg/1
64
56
56
48
BOD5,
mg/1
80
71
75
75
P04-P.
mg/1
6.1
7.0
3.7
3.9
NH3-N,
mg/1
9.0
10.0
9.0
11.0
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
PH
6.1
6.5
6.6
6.6
SAMPLING DATA
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
550
410
320
fecai
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
500
172
500
56
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 13,356 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 4.0 hrs
3/19/71
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
396
492
576
148
368
384
400
324
364
412
396
212
244
232
56
124
120
126
88
96
100
88
206
225
197
98
130
128
120
103
107
114
114
6.5
5.7
3.7
3.6
3.3
3.5
2.8
2.4
2.4
2.7
10.5
7.5
8.0
6.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
S.S
7.0
6.8
6.7
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
13
6
9
6
7
5
8
2
1
3
30
54
53
38
25
27
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 14,166 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow - 4.7 hours
5/19/71
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
1.75
232
444
408
280
308
84
148
172
120
112
140
154
229
192
126
2.1
4.5
4.4
3.7
3.4
6.0
6.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.7
6.0
6.2
6.1
6.2
6.0
200
460
370
460
590
40
170
110
80
100
*Hours after start of overflow.
139
-------
TABLE A-l
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
5/19/71
[continued) . PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Time
of
sample,
hr*
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
SS,
mg/1
352
232
220
240
160
VSS,
mg/1
172
76
68
104
68
BODj,
mg/1
112
97
75
80
80
P04-P,
mg/1
2.6
3.0
2.4
4.3
4.0
NH3-N,
mg/1
3.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
N03-N,
mg/1
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Oil,
mg/1
pH
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.2
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
320
230
350
170
230
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
70
10
150
90
110
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 24,284 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 3.8 hrs
5/24/71
0.50
0.75
568
292
452
220
276
187
6.5
4.5
5.3
4.8
0.9
0
6.8
6.7
20
70
50
30
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 5,059 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 2.0 hrs
6/2/71
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
612
488
396
120
196
132
136
84
96
96
116
92
64
396
268
196
52
60
48
40
4
48
64
44
60
16
253
250
219
109
139
89
80
71
74
68
93
78
63
10.4
6.S
4.9
2.3
2.6
1.3
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.7
0.9
0.8
6.5
4.5
4.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.4
,2.2
1.5
3.0
2.4
4.8
2.6
4.£
4.1
4.7
4.3
6.3
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.3
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.5
270
180
90
60
30
130
20
110
90
50
20
20
50
*Hours after start of overflow.
140
-------
TABLE A-l (continued). PRE -CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
6/2/71
6/13/71
Time
of
sample,
hr*
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.75
2.25
3.00
3.25
3.50
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
SS,
mg/1
68
76
72
88
44
644
320
336
848
592
540
284
372
192
144
136
232
64
124
VSS,
mg/1
16
36
40
4
4
364
204
180
488
292
284
148
176
52
44
44
120
44
56
BODc,
mg/I
63
58
64
76
73
249
215
267
269
226
204
165
158
116
169
114
110
124
128
P04-P,
mg/1
0.6
0.9
0.5
1.2
0.6
5.6
5.4
4.4
5.2
3.6
3.4
1.9
2.0
2.3
1.5
1.7
1.2
2.0
1.3
NH3-N,
mg/1
6.5
6.5
6.5
7.0
5.0
5.5
8.5
7.0
5.0
S.O
2.5
4.0
4.S
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
10.0
4.0
N03-N,
mg/1
4.7
4.8
4.3
4.4
4.4
8.4
6.2
6.4
10.1
10.3
8.8
8.5
8.8
9.9
7.2
7.2
6.5
3.3
5.5
Oil,
mg/1
PH
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.7
6.7
5.9
6.3
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.5
6.2
6.4
6.3
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.4
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
10
30
130
120
190
170
10
40
20
20
20
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
10
20
60
70
70
100
240
410
70
40
180
70
80
160
100
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 23,272 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 2.5 hrs
9/28/71
0.25
0.50
0.75
520
276
172
312
140
76
125
830
530
2.1
2.1
1.6
44.5
34.0
33.0
1.0
0
0
7.1
6.7
6.9
1500
1500
700
*Hours after start of overflow.
141
-------
TABLE A-l (continued). PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES CLEMENS STREET DRAIN
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
9/28/71
Time
of
sample,
hr*
1.00
1.75
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.50
4.75
SS,
mg/1
188
188
200
472
148
88
216
80
60
VSS,
mg/1
92
80
104
464
108
76
164
76
52
BODS,
mg/1
570
480
480
480
34
200
172
159
169
164
169
160
P04-P,
mg/1
1.3
1.1
1.7
1.4
20.0
20.0
22.0
22.0
24.0
9.0
12.0
NH3-N,
mg/1
15.0
10.5
7.0
7.0
11.0
16.0
15.5
16.0
48.0
48.0
26.0
N03-N,
mg/1
0.6
0
0
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
Oil,
mg/1
PH
7.0
6.7
6.7
6.4
6.7
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.0
7.1
7.1
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
1000
800
1000
400
1800
TNTC**
6000
6300
5700
7600
TNTC
TNTC
*Hours after start of overflow
**Too numerous to count
142
-------
TABLE A-2. PRE -CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
4/2/70
4/28/70
Time
of
sample,
hr*
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.2S
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
4.25
SS,
mg/1
536
520
332
140
728
500
204
352
468
VSS,
mg/1
184
508
228
96
220
460
120
172
BOD,,
mg/1
165
135
255
143
155
110
123
108
113
88
90
65
58
P04-P,
mg/1
2.5
1.0
0.8
1.2
2.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
2.2
1.4
1.7
3.5
2.6
2.4
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.2
3.8
2.8
NH3-N,
mg/1
17.5
19.5
15.0
14.0
15.5
10.0
9.0
5.5
5.7
4.5
4.6
4.0
16.2
18.5
14.0
9.0
5.7
15.0
14.0
3.0
4.5
4.0
5.5
3.0
12.5
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
PH
6.0
7.0
7.0
7.3
7.6
7.9
8.0
6.3
5.2
5.9
6.8
6.4
5.9 _
6.0
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.8
6.7
6.6
7.0
7.1
6.6
6.8
7.1
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
*Hours after start of overflow.
143
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued). PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
4/28/70
"Overflow
caused
by
melting
snow.
6/18/70
6/24/70
Time
of
sample,
hr*
5.50
5.75
6.00
0.25
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.25
2.75
3.25
3.75
4.00
4.50
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
SS,
mg/1
184
60
40
268
1472
2140
220
284
272
340
112
68
144
164
244
260
260
716
832
620
VSS,
mg/1
64
12
2
52
384
28
56
112
80
116
36
24
24
36
72
204
184
504
340
252
BOD5,
mg/1
200
160
180
82
55
73
60
123
195
50
107
64
95
48
66
55
58
178
170
231
216
246
240
P04-P,
mg/1
1.2
0.8
0.3
7.8
9.8
8.1
8.5
4.3
3.6
9.3
6.0
4.7
2.9
7.3
2.4
7.8
9.8
8.1
NH,-N,
mg/1
14.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
5.0
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
PH
7.3
6.9
7.0
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2 •
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.3
6.3
6.5
6.7
6.4
6.6
6.7
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
"Hours after start of overflow.
144
-------
TABLE A- 2 (continued) . PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
6/24/70
6/26/70
7/8/70
7/12/70
Time
of
sample,
hr*
2.50
3.00
3.25
3.75
4.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.25
2.50
1.00
1.25
1.50
0.50
1.00
1.25
1.50
2. 25
2.75
SS,
mg/1
680
576
580
308
648
116
80
148
212
188
188 ,
352
160
144
180
312
256
VSS,
mg/1
568
456
332
208
260
72
60
88
136
116
108
224
92
92
132
200
176
BOD5,
mg/1
179
174
194
105
98
196
218
214
185
155
183
102
195
93
P04-P,
mg/1
6.3
5.2
2.7
NH3-N,
mg/1
5.0
4.5
6.0
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
pH
6.0
6.8
6.5
6.3
6.8
7.3
6.9
6.4
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
*Hours after start of overflow.
145
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued). PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
7/20/70
8/19/70
9/18/70
Time
of
sample,
hr*
0.50
2.00
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.75
4.00
4. 25
4.75
5.25
1.50
2.00
2.25
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.25
3.50
4.00
SS,
mg/1
352
1108
276
384
336
327
177
235
232 .
549
521
1212
764
200
624
392
244
2948
1504
1280
756
1408
488
VSS,
mg/1
232
740
124
188
170
166
76
128
100
364
334
540
216
120
424
260
144
920
468
332
248
948
184
BOD5,
mg/1
87
44
54
84
57
41
39
65
35
P04-P,
mg/1
2.7
2.8
3.0
1.7
2.1
0.8
O.S
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.8
4.5
2.4
2.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.7
O.S
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.6
NH3-N,
mg/1
10.0
12.5
9.0
14.0
12.5
3.0
2.5
0
0
4.0
2.5
3.0
2.0
2.5
5.0
1.5
0.5
3.5
7.0
3.0
2.0
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
pH
6.8
7.0
7.1
7.2
6.9
7.0
6.5
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.0
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.8
7.0
7.3
7.1
7.5
6.6
7.0
7.0
7.4
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
.07
.09
.16
.14
.21
.27
.01
.12
.16
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
.0060
.0020
.0050
.0010
.0130
.0070
.0190
.0220
.0160
*Hours after start of overflow.
146
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued) : PRE -CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING
Sampling
date,
mo/dax/yr
9/27/70
11/3/70
12/19/70
Time
of
sample,
hr*
2.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.50
5.75
0.50
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.50
3.75
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
3.25
3.75
4.00
4.25
SS,
mg/1
644
288
300
212
496
60
408
340
452
480
756
628
336
636
420
320
284
248
436
260
452
432
VSS,
mg/1 „
164
58
72
58
136
32
228
240
236
220
412
292
328
472
284
204
200
160
300
180
348
340
BODc,
mg/1
233
223
209
201
188
200
124
129
128
111
87
81
85
89
76
100
P04-P,
mg/1
7.2
2.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
2.0
3.1
3.3
3.0
4.7
7.5
3.4
4.3
3.4
3.0
3.8
4.2
3.4
3.1
3.9
3.1
NH3-N,
mg/1
12.0
2.5
2.0
10.5
13.5
6.0
14.0
7.5
9.0
8.5
7.0
6.0
10.0
11.5
13.5
10.0
8.5
6.0
7.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
N03-N,
mg/1
1.6
2.2
2.8
1.9
2.0
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.8
Oil,
mg/1
pH
6.3
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.0
7.4
7.2
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.6
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
.12
.09
.17
.24
.06
.05
240
280
340
520
160
730
DATA
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
.0170
.0060
.0050
.0090
.0140
440
260
170
100
200
100
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 21,248 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 4.2 hrs
*Hours after start of overflow.
147
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued) . PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
1/4/71
1/4/71
Second
Set
Time
of
sample,
hr*
1.25
1.75
2.00
2.50
2.75
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.50
2.75
ss,
mg/1
584
764
748
804
772
640
572
452
412
444
260
220
236
216
192
200
152
156
156
VSS,
mg/1
376
448
420
452
320
380
296
228
208
244
92
64
84
88
84
88
64
68
72
BODS,
mg/1
264
229
229
229
234
230
211
181
153
137
97
111
84
88
80
91
93
88
121
P04-P,
mg/1
7.2
7.2
6.1
4.9
4.5
4.3
3.8
3.3
3.4
3.4
6.7
4.0
4.7
4.4
3.7
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.3
NH3-N,
mg/1
8.9
7.7
6.6
4.8
5.3
4.6
3.6
4.4
3.7
4.2
1.2
3.7
4.3
4.0
4.8
4.7
4.2
S.6
4.7
N03-N,
mg/1
1.6
1.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.2
2.2
2.8
3.0
3.4
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
Oil,
mg/1
37.8
28.0
28.0
26.1
PH
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.1
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.8
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
73
66
69
73
37
47
44
23
28
350
224
294
168
308
434
266
420
322
Fecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
151
66
67
75
31
30
44
52
47
3
6
15
12
7
7
5
3
5
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 19,730 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 5.0 hrs
2/4/71
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
328
228
260
308
220
156
164
200
139
159
229
172
3.0
2.2
2.0
1.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.3
7
120
210
150
1
79
28
32
*Hours after start of overflow.
148
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued). PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
2/4/71
Time
of
sample,
hr*
1.25
1.50
1.75
3.00
3.25
3.75
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
SS,
mg/1
256
220
224
208
420
464
640
316
156
88
VSS,
mg/1
156
104
84
28
304
288
176
228
120
64
BOD5,
mg/I
189
190
194
322
313
271
283
267
203
94
P04-P,
mg/1
1.7
1.4
1.3
4.3
4.3
5.2
4.0
4.2
0.6
NH3-N,
mg/1
0.5
1.0
0.5
7.5
11.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
O.S
2.0
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
11.3
24.9
PH
6.3
6.3
6.2
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
300
100
102
200
300
300
400
156
300
200
DATA
Fecal
coli.
xioV
100ml
46
29
31
78
86
115
108
92
84
58
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 184,147 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 22 hrs
2/17/71
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.25
3.50
3.75
308
412
336
444
352
492
392
328
416
644
568
436
352
348
196
244
228
229
200
240
204
184
200
308
248
164
120
116
100
171
141
153
131
139
104
197
188
185
226
118
104
112
5.9
5.2
3.8
4.2
3.0
3.8
• 3.0
2.7
3.2
4.7
3.0
2.9
2.3
2.1
11.0
10.0
6.0
6.5
5.0
5.5
4.5
3.5
4.0
5.0
3.0
4.0
5.5
4.5
143.6
174.5
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.3
140
100
40
80
110
120
120
100
80
100
60
70
150
40
20
40
30
30
30
50
'Hours after start of overflow.
149
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued). PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
2/17/71
Time
of
sample,
hr*
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
SS,
mg/1
320
272
428
888
328
168
352
VSS,
mg/1
100
80
272
132
92
112
132
BOD5,
mg/1
125
83
156
89
93
67
89
115
P04-P,
mg/1
2.8
2.4
2.0
2.7
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
NH3-N,
mg/1
4.5
6.0
3.5
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.5
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
47.4
44.8
PH
6.3
6.4
6.3
6.4
6.2
6.2
6.4
6.4
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
100
80
140
160
100
Fecal
coli.
xioV
100ml
10
20
10
90
80
Volume of Overflow =
Duration of Overflow =
24,283 cu ft
4.2 hrs
2/18/71
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
212
180
308
328
428
476
416
288
268
184
226
212
228
188
172
116
88
136
148
160
204
124
92
116
68
108
100
100
72
60
150
139
133
124
141
140
110
115
148
110
118
87
108
114
85
80
6.5
5.2
4.4
3.7
3.2
3.1
1.9
2.2
2.0
2.4
1.7
1.7
3.2
2.0
2.0
1.8
12.5
10.5
6.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
3.5
4.0
4.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
65.0
99.1
132.3
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.7
*Hours after start of overflow.
150
-------
TARI.F A-2 (continued! . PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
2/18/71
Time
of
sample,
hr*
5.00
5.25
5.75
6.00
SS,
mg/1
220
104
212
176
VSS,
mg/1
72
84
72
92
BOD5,
mg/1
88
86
85
144
P04-P,
mg/1
1.8
2.0
1.6
5.7
NH3-N,
mg/1
1.0
2.0
2.5
14.0
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
107.6
pH
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.8
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
DATA
:ecal
coli.
xlO4/
100ml
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 50,084 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 8.0 hrs
2/19/71 Recorded Volume of Overflow = 237,772 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 16.0 hrs
2/22/71
0.50
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.25
4.50
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
340
284
220
208
232
980
624
920
1184
528
608
752
800
576
400
388
88
80
64
64
76
200
160
228
248
116
136
156
160
108
92
64
32
23
20
24
24
106
89
92
124
73
41
42
49
48
33
39
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
4.7
2.9
2.4
2.8
1.9
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.3
0.8
1.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
5.0
12.0
8.0
7.5
7.5
6.0
7.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
162.7
166.2
7.5
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.8
6.7
6.7
7.0
6.9
6.8
7.1
6.8
7.3
7.1
7.1
6.9
1
2
2
8
1
2
*Hours after start of overflow.
151
-------
TABLE A-2 (continued). PRE-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
2/22/71
Time
of
sample,
hr*
6.00
SS,
mg/1
272
VSS,
mg/1
32
BOD5,
mg/1
24
P04-P,
mg/1
0.5
NH3-N,
mg/1
6.5
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil
mg/1
141. S
pH
7.0
Total
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
Fecal
coli .
xlO4/
100ml
3/6/71
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 24,283 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 8.7 hrs
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.7S
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
160
420
296
376
820
240
380
284
252
280
284
256
160
248
232
272
112
168
228
44
136
104
120
144
92
152
116
92
120
120
96
60
36
88
104
52
72
124
53
120
86
84
180
59
71
62
55
62
55
40
34
46
39
49
18
38
62
2.4
2.9
2.8
2.7
3.5
1.8
2.0
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.4
0.6
0.9
9.0
8.0
10.0
8.0
7.5
5.0
5.5
5.5
7.0
7.0
6.5
7.5
5.5
5.5
4.5
6.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
5.8
6.0
5.9
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.1
6.2
6.0
S.9
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.1
IS
15
9
14
15
13
7
12
6
6
18
100
100
100
100
100
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 11,130 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 8.7 hrs
*Hours after start of overflow.
152
-------
TABLE A - fcontinucdl ppF-rrtN«Tn»fTTnN STUDIES SPRUCE STREET DRAIN OVERFLOW SAMPLING
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
Time
of
sample,
hr*
SS,
mg/1
VSS,
mg/1
BODr,
mg/1
P04-P,
mg/1
NH,-N,
mg/1
N03-N,
mg/1
Oil,
mg/1
pH
coli.
xlO5/
100ml
DATA
coli.
xlO*/
100ml
3/7/71
Recorded Volume of Overflow = 3,035 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 0.6 hr
3/13/71 Recorded Volume of Overflow = 21,046 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow = 3.0 hr
5/19/71 Recorded Volume of Overflow - 34,402 cu ft
Recorded Duration of Overflow « 3.0 hr
•Hours after start of overflow.
153
-------
TABLE B-l. POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
KEY
Sampling
location
no- Sampling location description
4 Combined sewer overflow pump station discharge
5 Microstrainer influent
6 Microstrainer effluent
7 Midpoint of Lakelet No. 2
8 Effluent from Lakelet No. 2
9 Sand Filter Influent
10 Sand Filter Effluent
An asterisk after the sampling date, e.g. 12/26/72*, indicates that the
wastewater was recirculated from Lakelet No. 3 to Lakelet No 2 with
or without passing through the microstrainer, during prolonged dry
periods. & y
154
-------
TABLE B-l. POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
8/10/72
8/11/72
8/12/72
8/13/72
8/14/72
8/15/72
8/16/72
8/17/72
Sampling
Location
5
6
7
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
4
5
6
8
5
6
7
9
10
SS,
mg/1
26
22
27
26
26
9
48
48
38
38
586
40
40
136
45
34
45
21
21
11
11
vss,
mg/1
12
10
12
11
25
6
9
9
8
7
102
24
22
22
16
12
14
8
8
3
3
BOD5,
mg/1
10
8
12
12
13
12
8
8
8
3
60
6
6
38
6
5
10
5
5
3
3
P04-P,
mg/1
2.3
2.2
3.3
3.1
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.2
0.2
0.2
2.5
2.2
1.9
0.9
2.4
2.4
1.7
3.5
3.5
1.4
1.4
NH3-N,
mg/1
18.5
18.5
23.5
23.5
10.0
10.0
6.0
6.0
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.9
6.5
6.5
2.0
2.0
PH
7.4
/.b
7.5
y.s
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.6
6.8
7.4
7.4
7.1
/.li
7.4
7.2
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.4
DO,
mg/1
7.1
7.6
C12,
mg/1
0.8
Total
Coli./
100ml
0
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
171
0
Temp . ,
°F
-------
en
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
8/18/72
8/20/72
8/21/72
8/22/72
8/23/72
8/24/72
TABLE B-l (continued). POST -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Location
5
6
8
9
10
5
6
9
10
5
6
8
9
10
5
6
9
10
9
10
4
5
6
7
SS,
mg/1
22
18
58
12
5
27
22
16
4
50
14
9
9
9
36
31
10
3
8
6
200
10
6
VSS,
mg/1
10
8
15
3
1
10
8
5
2
14
2
3
3
3
14
14
2
1
4
4
84
5
0
BOD5,
mg/1
6
5
4
3
3
5
5
3
3
86
12
12
P04-P,
mg/1
0.8
0.6
1.5
0.4
0.4
2.4
2.4
1.1
1.1
2.0
2.0
1.8
0.9
0.9
2.2
1.7
1.6
1.5
2.4
2.2
0.9
0.5
0.5
NH3-N,
mg/1
7.0
7.0
6.2
3.8
2.0
9.5
9.5
4.2
2.5
9.0
8.5
6.4
4.5
2.8
7.5
7.5
5.0
5.0
8.5
5.0
9.0
5.2
5.2
PH
7.5
7.5
7.0
7.8
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.0
6.9
7.6
7.7
7.4
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.8
7.5
7.8
7.6
7.1
7.0
6.9
DO,
mg/1
8.0
9.1
8.8
6.3
9.8
Clo,
mg/1
2.0
Total
Coli./
100ml
21
0
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
5
0
Temp.
°F
-------
Ol
TABLE B 1 f continued! . POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
8/25/72
8/26/72
8/27/72
8/28/72
8/29/72
8/30/72
8/31/72
9/1/72
9/2/72
Sampling
Location
5
6
7
8
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
5
6
8
5
6
4
5
6
5
6
5
6
SS,
mg/1
2
38
38
13
13
382
41
41
14
8
6
33
33
59
19
16
16
20
19
VSS,
mg/1
1
12
10
9
8
276
18
18
9
4
4
17
14
33
9
9
7
7
11
10
BOD,,
mg/1
10
9
6
2
2
28
28
102
17
16
48
48
4
12
10
43
9
8
8
8
8
8
P04-P,
mg/1
2.4
1.2
1.7
1.5
2.9
2.9
7.8
3.2
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.2
3.9
3.9
4.4
3.8
3.4
2.9
2.8
3.7
3.7
NH3-N,
mg/1
6.3
3.8
4.0
3.3
8.5
7.5
7.0
8.5
8.5
4.3
8.5
8.0
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.0
1.0
3.5
3.5
PH
.5
.6
.3
.6
7.7
7.6
7 .7
7.3
7.6
7.6
6.6
7.0
7.0
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.0
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.3
DO,
mg/1
6.9
6.5
6.3
Cl7,
mg/1
1.3
Total
Coli./
100ml
0
0
0
hecai
Coli./
100ml
0
0
0
Temp . ,
°F
-------
tn
00
TABLE B-l (continued). POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
9/3/72
9/4/72
9/5/72
9/6/72
9/7/72
9/8/72
9/9/72
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
9
10
5
6
7
9
10
5
6
9
10
SS,
mg/1
20
17
19
19
22
17
22
22
20
20
13
6
72
46
23
11
31
29
13
13
VSS,
mg/1
11
8
7
7
12
9
13
13
11
11
4
2
12
6
5
3
11
10
9
3
BOD5,
mg/1
9
9
51
48
14
11
6
5
3
3
3
2
P04-P,
rag/1
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.7
3.2
3.7
3.7
3.3
3.1
1.6
1.6
2.4
1.8
1.6
1.6
2.4
1.8
1.4
1.2
NH3-N,
mg/1
0.9
0.9
11.5
10.5
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.5
17.5
16.0
13.0
15.0
12.5
16.0
13.0
15.0
12.5
12.0
7.5
PH
7.4
7.1
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.2
6.8
6.7
6.2
6.5
6.8
6.7
6.2
6.5
6.8
6.7
DO,
mg/1
8.3
Cl?,
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
76
Temp . ,
°F
-------
TART.F R-l (rrmrimificn. POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
9/10/72
9/11/72
9/12/72
9/13/72
9/14/72
9/15/72
9/16/72
9/17/72
Sampling
Location
4
5
6
9
10
5
6
9
10
5
6
4
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
SS,
mg/1
30
20
33
18
31
30
29
14
35
35
1024
96
87
30
30
20
18
18
18
20
20
vss,
mg/1
6
7
6
4
13
10
6
4
8
5
190
24
21
12
12
10
9
10
10
10
8
BOD5,
mg/1
235
9
9
12
12
8
5
3
3
5
4
27
11
11
11
10
10
9
11
11
10
9
P04-P,
mg/1
4.2
3.9
2.7
2.7
3.5
3.2
2.8
2.0
2.7
2.7
2.9
3.2
2.5
5.3
5.1
1.0
1.0
3.1
3.1
NHVN,
mg/1
21.5
18.0
6.0
5.0
9.0
9.0
5.0
0.5
8.0
8.0
0.5
5.5
3.0
7.4
6.8
5.3
5.3
6.2
6.2
6.4
6.4
pH
6.9
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.4
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.2
y.b
7.5
'I.I
DO,
mg/1
C12>
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
-------
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
9/18/72
9/19/72
9/20/72
10/2/72
10/4/72
10/5/72
10/6/72
10/7/72
TABLE B-l (continued) . POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Location
4
5
6
5
6
9
10
5
6
9
10
4
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
5
6
SS,
mg/1
72
27
26
19
19
21
15
21
21
16
7
198
44
38
24
20
31
23
23
24
20
VSS,
mg/1
24
10
9
5
5
4
4
9
9
5
3
81
1
1
14
11
16
10
10
14
11
BOD,,
mg/1
60
10
9
10
6
2
1
4
38
2
2
14
13
32
14
14
10
10
P04-P,
mg/1
3.7
4.0
3.8
2.9
2.4
2.6
2.5
3.9
3.3
3.0
2.6
2.1
2.9
2.9
2.5
2.5
5.1
3.6
2.4
3.5
3.0
NH3-N,
mg/1
9.0
7.2
7.2
6.0
6.0
5.5
4.5
7.0
6.6
4.2
3.2
7.0
9.0
9.0
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
7.7
7.2
pH
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.9
7.5
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
DO,
mg/1
7.0
8.1
Clo,
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
-------
TAPI.P R-1 (rnntinuedl. POST -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES SAMP ING DAT
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
10/8/72
10/9/72
10/10/72
10/13/72
10/14/72
10/15/72
10/16/72
10/17/72
10/18/72
Sampling
Location
4
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
SS,
mg/1
60
15
3
27
17
20
25
17
40
32
42
32
35
35
74
50
43
31
51
52
52
VSS,
mg/1
46
12
1
16
11
14
15
10
16
13
12
11
16
10
16
12
12
11
21
21
10
BOD5,
mg/1
75
17
15
18
13
25
11
11
8
8
2
2
8
7
3
3
3
2
25
6
6
P04-P,
mg/1
3.8
2.9
2.6
3.5
3.0
5.7
4.8
4.3
5.6
4.4
1.4
1.4
4.4
4.3
3.2
3.0
2.4
2.4
0.3
3.6
3.6
NH3-N,
mg/1
11.0
9.0
9.0
12.0
12.0
26.0
11.0
11.0
10.5
10.5
13.0
12.0
13.5
13.5
15.0
15.0
32.0
26.5
12.5
2.0
2.0
pH
.3
.3
.4
7.4
7.5
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.5
6.8
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.9
DO,
mg/1
C12,
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
i
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
-------
o\
TABLE B-l (continued). POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
10/19/72
10/20/72
10/21/72
10/22/72
10/23/72
10/24/72
Sampling
Location
4
5
6
7
4
5
6
7
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5
6
9
10
SS,
mg/1
56
48
48
43
30
23
10
22
15
146
18
14
24
42
42
27
27
45
27
vss,
mg/1
12
14
10
16
14
10
9
9
10
9
29
7
5
14
9
9
12
12
11
10
BOD5,
mg/1
15
8
8
67
16
16
21
14
11
11
102
15
1
11
16
15
12
8
7
7
P04-P,
mg/1
4.4
1.2
0.6
3.5
3.3
3.3
5.0
5.0
2.9
2.6
2.1
3.5
5.1
5.1
2.9
2.1
2.8
2.8
NH3-N,
mg/1
16.5
11.5
11.5
14.5
15.5
15.5
13.0
14.0
10.0
9.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
7.0
4.7
3.7
3.0
3.0
7.0
5.5
PH
7.2
6.9
7.3
6.9
7.2
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.7
7.6
6.6
7.5
7.5
.4
.4
.6
•7
. /
DO,
mg/1
10.0
4.5
1.6
4.9
6.9
ci?,
mg/1
5.0
3.0
0.1
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp.,
°F
54
52
-------
TABLE B-l (r«n^T»i«H). POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
10/25/72
10/26/72
10/27/72
10/28/72
10/29/72
Sampling
Location
5
6
9
10
5
6
9
10
5
6
9
10
5
6
9
10
5
6
7
8
SS,
mg/1
21
21
32
9
20
16
33
13
20
17
30
11
33
24
34
9
33
28
20
VSS,
mg/1
10
10
9
3
13
11
15
11
10
8
8
5
15
10
8
3
18
14
9
BODc,
mg/1
6
6
2
2
4
4
3
1
5
5
2
2
5
5
4
2
12
11
5
P04-P,
mg/1
2.0
1.6
4.2
3.8
1.7
1.7
8.8
6.6
2.7
2.7
5.2
4.5
3.1
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.8
2.6
NH3-N,
mg/1
5.5
5.5
14.5
12.5
5.5
5.5
2.8
2.5
4.5
4.5
6.0
6.0
1.1
1.1
5.0
pH
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.4
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.0
DO,
mg/1
5.2
6.6
ci2,
mg/1
1.0
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp. ,
°F_
53
52
-------
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
10/30/72
10/31/72
11/1/72
11/2/72
11/3/72
11/4/72
TABLE B-l (continued). POST -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Location
5
6
4
5
6
4
5
6
4
5
6
5
6
7
8
9
10
4
5
6
9
10
SS,
mg/1
25
25
196
20
20
112
23
18
27
38
26
42
32
6
34
14
26
25
16
26
11
VSS,
mg/1
11
10
71
13
13
28
13
10
18
27
15
24
18
5
8
5
18
13
12
8
5
BOD,,
mg/1
10
10
67
11
11
120
15
14
67
20
5
16
16
9
8
8
60
13
12
7
7
P04-P,
mg/1
2.2
1.3
4.3
2.8
2.7
1.7
2.0
1.6
3.1
3.3
2.8
3.4
3.3
2.9
5.6
3.8
3.1
5.2
5.2
2.4
2.4
NH3-N,
mg/1
5.5
5.5
7.5
5.5
5.5
8.5
10.0
10.0
6.0
7.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
7.0
3.2
2.0
9.5
5.5
5.5
7.0
7.0
PH
7.0
6.7
7.4
7.2
7.2
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.7
7.1
.0
.1
.9
.9
DO,
mg/1
4.6
9.3
9.3
C12,
mg/1
0.10
Total
Coli./
100ml
0
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
4800
o
Temp . ,
°F
54
-------
On
TART.F R-1 IV on tinned! . POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
11/5/72
11/6/72
11/7/72
11/8/72
11/9/72
11/12/72
Sampling
Location
5
6
7
8
9
10
5
6
7
4
5
6
8
5
6
8
9
10
5
6
9
10
4
5
6
SS,
mg/1
25
17
16
38
13
28
24
166
50
50
36
30
28
16
10
31
28
16
2
22
42
35
VSS,
mg/1
11
6
6
11
4
12
11
80
27
25
25
16
14
5
5
16
13
3
2
10
14
14
BOD5,
mg/1
14
12
5
8
7
15
14
95
19
16
8
14
14
7
7
10
10
5
3
18
8
8
P04-P,
mg/1
3.8
3.0
3.2
2.3
2.2
4.7
4.5
3.7
4.2
3.6
3.0
3.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.1
3.1
2.4
2.4
NH3-N,
mg/1
6.5
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
6.5
9.0
6.0
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.0
6.0
5.5
4.0
3.5
13.5
9.0
9.0
7.0
6.5
PH
6.9
''.O
6.8
7.0
6.9
7.3
7.5
7.2
DO,
mg/1
6.2
6.8
8.5
8.7
7.3
7.6
C12,
mg/1
4.0
3.0
Total
Coli./
100ml
0
2120
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
0
230
122
Temp . ,
°F
54
50
54
-------
TABLE B-l (continued). POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
11/13/72
11/14/72
11/16/72
11/17/72
11/18/72
11/19/72
flm
1
Sampling
Location
5
6
4
5
6
9
10
5
6
8
9
10
5
6
9
10
5
6
7
9
10
SS,
mg/1
48
35
38
47
24
26
18
26
25
20
14
14
28
22
18
18
23
10
16
8
VSS,
mg/1
18
12
20
20
12
6
6
12
10
7
6
6
15
10
8
5
10
6
5
4
BOD5,
mg/1
13
12
30
17
11
5
3
17
7
4
3
2
15
11
10
6
4
4
P04-P,
mg/1
4.4
3.6
3.4
4.6
4.6
2.5
1.7
2.7
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.3
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.5
NH3-N,
mg/1
7.5
7.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
13.0
10.5
5.5
5.0
13.0
6.5
6.5
7.0
6.5
6.5
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.5
pH
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.6
7.7
7.2
6.5
6.6
7.2
6.5
6.5
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
.9
.9
DO,
mg/1
6.6
Cl?,
mg/1
4.0
Total
Coli./
100ml
860
TNTCa
Fecal
Coli./
lOOml
14
540
Temp . ,
°F
44
-------
TAPT.F P-1 (>rmtinii*rf). POST -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
11/20/72
11/21/72
11/22/72
11/23/72
11/24/72
11/25/72
11/26/72
Sampling
Location
5
6
8
9
10
4
5
6
9
10
5
6
9
10
5
6
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
SS,
mg/1
50
10
12
11
10
99
60
25
24
18
46
31
48
20
90
42
45
36
23
23
98
27
27
vss,
mg/1
18
5
8
4
4
51
19
7
4
4
17
16
11
6
24
9
12
12
8
8
50
5
5
BOD5,
mg/1
11
8
4
7
5
80
11
8
7
5
10
10
13
8
13
12
10
10
5
5
68
7
7
P04-P,
mg/1
2.4
1.6
1.3
1.7
1.7
2.4
3.0
2.4
1.8
1.0
2.6
2.6
2.9
1.2
2.4
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.4
2.0
1.0
O.S
NH3-N,
mg/1
7.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
5.5
9.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
6.0
9.0
9.0
7.5
7.5
5.5
5.5
7.0
7.0
6.5
pH
6.6
b.8
6.7
6.8
6.8
7.2
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.8
7.0
v.u
6.8
6.4
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.9
7.0
DO,
mg/1
5.9
Clo,
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
20
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
2
Temp . ,
°F
42
-------
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
11/27/72
11/28/72
11/29/72
11/30/72
12/2/72
12/3/72
12/4/72
12/5/72
12/6/72
12/8/72
TABLE B-l (continued) . POST -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
5
6
8
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
8
5
6
4
5
6
9
10
SS,
mg/1
44
31
63
16
20
20
16
25
25
54
15
28
25
93
70
3
114
98
231
100
64
43
26
VSS,
mg/1
12
8
13
9
8
8
6
6
6
44
14
7
7
28
21
1
27
21
91
29
23
10
5
BOD5,
mg/1
16
15
14
14
16
2
8
34
33
87
65
12
10
14
14
4
4
P04-P,
mg/1
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.3
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.0
2.2
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.5
2.5
2.4
1.8
1.7
2.3
1.4
NH3-N,
mg/1
10.0
10.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
2.2
2.2
6.0
6.0
2.4
5.5
5.0
17.5
16.0
16.0
8.5
8.5
PH
6.4
6.6
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.1
6.7
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
DO,
rag/1
9.3
C12,
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
2
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
0
Temp . ,
°F
35
-------
TABLE B-l ("continued! . POST -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
12/9/72
12/14/72
12/15/72
12/16/72
12/17/72
12/18/72
12/19/72
12/20/72
12/21/72
12/22/72
Sampling
Location
9
10
5
6
4
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
SS,
mg/1
22
22
72
50
168
26
26
28
28
32
26
22
17
15
15
59
20
30
30
47
47
VSS,
mg/1
4
4
22
18
54
17
17
16
14
19
11
9
6
10
10
32
10
15
15
16
16
BOD5,
mg/1
33
30
11
28
28
16
16
16
16
20
15
17
17
28
22
21
21
22
20
P04-P,
mg/1
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.2
2.9
1.7
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.3
2.4
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.0
NH3-N,
mg/1
6.0
6.0
5.5
5.0
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
5.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
7.5
6.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
6.5
7.0
7.0
pH
7.1
7.2
6.6
6.6
6.8
6.7
6.8
6.2
6.3
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
DO,
mg/1
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
-------
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
12/23/72
,
12/24/72
12/25/72
12/26/72*
12/27/72*
12/28/72*
12/29/72*
12/30/72*
12/31/72
TAB E B-l (continued) . POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
SS,
mg/1
40
40
118
83
422
190
190
41
32
24
24
28
28
24
24
29
29
014
63
63
vss,
mg/1
11
11
34
21
112
56
56
8
2
8
8
7
7
10
10
6
6
288
26
26
BOD,,
mg/1
16
16
34
26
420
38
38
28
28
19
19
11
6
16
16
18
16
16
15
P04-P,
mg/1
1.9
1.9
16.0
15.5
2.0
1.1
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.1
1.6
1.6
6.1
0.8
0.8
NH3-N,
mg/1
6.4
6.4
8.5
7.5
33.0
32.0
30.0
13.0
13.0
5.5
5.5
7.0
7.0
5.5
5.5
7.0
6.0
7.0
3.5
3.0
pH
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.9
DO,
mg/1
Cl?,
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
-------
TABLE B-l (continued!. POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
1/1/73
1/2/73
1/3/73
1/4/73
1/5/73
1/6/73
1/7/73
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
5
6
9
10
5
6
9
10
5
6
9
10
5
6
9
10
5
6
9
10
SS,
mg/1
66
65
45
45
74
52
21-
18
68
68
20
16
57
57
19
14
75
41
18
16
38
28
18
18
VSS,
mg/1
15
15
14
14
14
7
4
4
16
15
9
8
10
10
5
5
21
8
6
6
12
9
9
9
BOD5,
mg/1
13
11
17
15
19
15
13
13
11
8
11
11
15
14
9
9
27
11
8
6
22
15
12
11
P04-P,
mg/1
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.3
1.8
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.7
NH3-N,
mg/1
4.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
6.0
6.0
2.5
2.5
5.5
5.5
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
pH
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
DO,
mg/1
C12,
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
-------
N)
TABLE B-l (continued). POST- CONSTRUCT ION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
1/8/73
1/9/73
1/10/73*
1/11/73
1/12/73
1/13/73
1/14/73*
1/15/73*
1/16/73*
1/17/73*
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
SS,
mg/1
40
32
31
31
24
24
46
37
32
32
26
26
29
19
19
19
16
15
20
17
VSS,
mg/1
11
11
10
4
7
7
15
12
13
13
10
10
8
3
6
6
6
5
6
5
BODc,
mg/1
15
14
15
13
11
9
23
20
15
12
23
19
10
10
16
13
10
8
24
17
P04-P,
mg/1
0.8
0.8
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.1
8.1
7.5
NH3-N,
mg/1
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
pH
7.0
7.0
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
DO,
mg/1
C12,
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
-------
TARIF. R-l (continued^. POST -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
1/18/73*
1/19/73*
1/20/73*
1/21/73*
1/22/73*
1/23/73*
1/24/73*
1/25/73*
1/26/73*
1/27/73*
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
7
8
5
6
5
6
SS,
mg/1
17
12
16
14
14
11
17
14
29
23
11
11
33
33
7
7
7
14
10
12
10
VSS,
mg/1
7
6
6
6
3
3
5
4
6
6
2
2
15
15
4
4
2
8
6
6
4
BODc,
mg/1
13
10
24
10
4
3
67
42
18
18
16
16
33
33
8
8
3
11
6
.
P04-P,
mg/1
6 5
6.5
5.2
5.2
5.7
5.7
7.5
7.5
6.1
6.1
5.6
0.7
5.4
5.2
5.4
5.4
5.9
4.2
4.2
2.9
2.9
NH3-N,
mg/1
3.5
3.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.5
9.0
9.0
5.0
5.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
pH
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.5
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.7
DO,
mg/1
8.2
8.8
Cl,,
mg/1
3.0
Total
Coli./
100ml
0
0
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
0
0
Temp . ,
°F
33
-------
TABLE B-l (continued). POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
1/28/73*
1/29/73*
1/30/73*
1/31/73*
2/1/73*
2/2/73*
2/3/73*
2/4/73*
2/5/73*
2/6/73*
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
5
6
SS,
mg/1
20
15
10
10
7
7
12
6
8
8
10
10
7
7
8
8
222
11
11
11
9
vss,
mg/1
6
4
4
3
5
5
5
2
6
5
5
5
2
2
5
5
80
5
4
6
6
BOD5,
mg/1
7
6
_
-
2
2
8
4
6
-
13
11
9
8
8
8
27
7
5
4
P04-P,
mg/1
4.4
4.4
6.5
6.5
8.9
6.3
6.5
6.5
5.7
5.7
4.9
4.0
6.1
5.6
5.4
5.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.7
0.7
NH3-N,
mg/1
2.0
1.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2;5
2.5
7.0
6.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.0
2.0
PH
6.7
6.6
6.9
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.0
DO,
mg/1
C12,
mg/1
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
-------
TABLE B 1 (rnntinnpd) . POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
2/8/73*
2/9/73*
2/10/73*
2/11/73*
2/12/73*
2/13/73
2/14/73*
2/15/73*
2/16/73*
2/17/73*
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
SS,
mg/1
45
45
33
33
127
106
71
32
84
84
80
66
34
20
6
6
6
6
12
12
VSS,
mg/1
17
17
11
11
44
22
30
30
27
27
24
17
10
10
4
4
3
2
5
3
BOD5,
mg/1
41
35
41
40
12
4
35
35
40
40
31
30
8
5
8
6
7
7
4
4
P04-P,
mg/1
6.1
6.1
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.3
7.8
7.8
8.1
7.5
7.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
NH3-N,
mg/1
6.0
5.5
2.5
2.5
1.6
1.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
6.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
pH
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.0
6.9
7.0
DO,
mg/1
mg^l
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
-------
ON
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
2/18/73*
2/19/73*
2/20/73*
2/21/73
2/22/73
2/23/73
2/24/73
2/25/73
2/26/73
TABLE B-l (continued) . POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
4
5
6
8
5
6
5
6
SS,
mg/1
24
24
20
16
17
14
16
16
175
86
101
81
411
122
107
29
92
92
67
67
VSS,
rag/1
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
59
44
45
36
166
55
44
13
42
42
37
37
BOD5,
mg/1
8
3
4
2
6
2
7
7
48
38
42
37
188
58
48
4
48
41
41
38
P04-P,
mg/1
1.7
1.7
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.8
3.8
3.7
3.2
3.2
9.8
3.6
3.6
2.9
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.0
NH3-N,
mg/1
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
0.1
0.1
2.5
2.5
13.5
13.0
17.5
17.5
24.0
13.5
13.5
14.5
13.5
13.5
13.5
13.0
pH
6.7
6.8
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.0
6.8
6.8
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
DO,
rag/1
9.5
cu,
mg/1
4.0
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
36
-------
TABLE B-l (continued). POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
2/27/73
2/28/73*
3/1/73
3/2/73
3/3/73
3/4/73
3/5/73
3/6/73
3/7/73
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
4
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
7
SS,
mg/1
42
42
18
10
66
49
128
115
138
132
83
71
678
74
166
150
30
560
133
127
VSS,
mg/1
24
24
8
4
34
26
47
41
42
42
30
24
212
41
34
34
9
156
28
28
BOD5,
mg/1
36
33
12
10
46
43
43
29
32
29
24
24
66
34
18
18
4
55
18
15
P04-P,
mg/1
3.7
3.7
2.7
2.2
2.6
2.5
4.3
4.0
5.4
4.9
5.6
5.5
4.9
2.8
3.1
3.0
2.5
4.2
2.8
2.6
NH3-N,
mg/1
14.0
14.0
5.5
5.0
11.5
11.5
12.5
12.5
13.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
6.0
3.5
4.0
4.0
pH
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.8
6.8
DO,
mg/1
9.5
9.1
7.2
C12,
mg/1
0.1
0.2
0.1
Total
Coli./
100ml
0
0
0
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
0
0
0
Temp . ,
°F
43
41
41
-------
00
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
3/8/73
3/9/73
3/10/73
3/11/73
3/12/73
3/13/73
3/14/73
TABLE B-l (continued). POST -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Location
5
6
7
8
5
6
4
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
7
5
6
5
6
7
8
5
6
SS,
mg/1
99
95
50
97
88
556
94
89
54
208
205
175
96
80
178
154
38
146
143
VSS,
mg/1
16
16
6
25
25
168
16
11
10
56
40
32
10
7
26
22
2
22
22
BOD5,
mg/1
14
13
3
5
5
70
12
8
2
49
8
8
8
8
7
6
1
11
11
P04-P,
mg/1
3.1
2.8
3.1
2.6
2.6
3.8
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.4
2.5
1.8
1.4
NH3-N,
mg/1
3.0
2.5
5.5
5.0
5.0
1.5
4.0
4.0
6.0
0.2
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
11.5
11.5
4.0
6.0
6.0
pH
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.0
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.2
6.9
7.2
7.3
DO,
mg/1
8.2
9.0
9.5
9.8
Clo,
mg/1
3.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
Total
Coli./
100ml
0
0
280
0
0
0
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
0
0
0
0
0
0
Temp . ,
°F
44
54
54
48
46
-------
TABLE B-l f continued! . POST -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
3/15/73
3/16/73
3/17/73
3/18/73
3/19/73
3/20/73
3/21/73
3/22/73
3/23/73
Sampling
Location
5
6
7
8
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
7
8
5
6
7
8
4
5
6
7
8
SS,
mg/1
172
172
52
215
215
288
262
286
286
144
144
59
135
135
52
329
70
70
41
VSS,
mg/1
26
26
8
22
22
28
24
34
34
20
15
12
14
14
8
155
12
12
12
BOD5,
mg/1
8
8
3
7
7
14
9
13
12
11
11
7
13
13
9
32
21
20
14
P04-P,
mg/1
2.4
1.8
2.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.4
2.3
1.1
1.1
2.0
3.0
2.8
3.1
4.0
3.1
2.8
1.8
NH3-N,
mg/1
3.0
3.0
7.0
2.5
2.5
1.8
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
.4.0
3.5
3.5
4.5
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
PH
7.3
7.3
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.1
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
DO,
mg/1
10.1
9.8
10.3
12.0
9.0
9.5
C12,
mg/1
1.0
1.0
0.1
2.0
0.1
Total
Coli./
100ml
0
0
0
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
0
0
0
11
Temp. ,
°F
48
49
38
37
35
35
36
35
to
-------
00
o
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
3/24/73
3/25/73
3/26/73
3/27/73*
3/28/73*
3/29/73*
3/30/73*
3/31/73
TABLE B-l (continued). POST -CONSTRUCT I ON STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
7
8
5
6
7
8
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
SS,
mg/1
124
97
110
23
34
121
92
26
63
48
16
14
8
8
8
38
17
VSS,
rag/1
27
18
101
22
12
27
16
6
12
8
1
1
8
8
4
13
6
BOD5,
mg/1
9
9
9
9
4
10
10
3
7
3
4
2
8
8
_
-
23
21
P04-P,
mg/1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.1
2.2
2.1
1.4
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
4.4
4.3
NH3-N,
mg/1
3.5
3.5
6.0
6.0
3.0
5.5
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
7.0
7.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
2.5
2.5
pH
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
DO,
mg/1
10.0
9.4
10.2
ci?.
mg/1
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.1
Total
Coli./
100ml
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
44
42
45
43
-------
TARI.F. B-l (-continued^ . POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
rao/day/yr
4/1/73
4/2/73
4/3/73
4/4/73
4/5/73*
4/6/73*
4/7/73*
4/8/73*
Sampling
Location
4
5
6
7
8
5
6
5
6
5
6
7
8
5
6
5
6
7
8
5
6
5
6
7
8
SS,
mg/1
106
36
17
19
58
41
86
47
124
124
16
78
78
78
46
20
59
35
50
31
18
vss,
mg/1
36
17
13
7
18
6
16
6
16
14
3
10
10
13
6
8
20
12
20
18
11
BOD,,
mg/1
58
15
13
7
15
15
11
8
13
13
6
9
7
7
7
3
11
10
11
8
4
P04-P,
mg/1
2.3
1.6
1.4
1.8
2.5
2.0
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.0
2.4
NH3-N,
mg/1
3.0
2.5
2.5
5.5
6.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
4.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.8
4.0
4.0
2.5
2.5
3.0
pH
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
DO,
mg/1
8.6
10.2
8.2
9.8
8.5
9.5
Clo,
mg/1
0.1
2.0
0.1
1.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
Total
Coli./
100ml
2280
170
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
17
4
Temp . ,
°F
51
50
47
45
48
48
47
46
-------
TABLE B-l (continued). POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
Date,
mo/day/yr
4/9/73*
4/10/73*
4/11/73*
4/12/73*
4/13/73*
4/14/73*
4/15/73*
Sampling
Location
5
6
5
6
7
8
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
5
6
7
8
SS,
mg/1
33
23
25
25
20
25
17
19
15
16
16
8
6
18
6
10
vss,
mg/1
12
10
15
IS
8
10
10
15
14
11
10
6
5
15
5
8
BOD
mg/1
6
6
9
9
3
5
5
6
5
7
5
9
8
11
11
9
P04-P,
mg/1
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.0
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.4
2.2
NH3-N,
mg/1
2.5
2.5
6.0
6.0
6.5
2.5
2.5
9.0
9.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
3.5
pH
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.8
6.8
DO,
mg/1
10.6
Cl?,
mg/1
0.1
2.0
Total
Coli./
100ml
0
0
Fecal
Coli./
100ml
0
0
Temp . ,
°F
44
43
51
50
00
-------
OO
CM
TSRIP R.7 POST rnNKTRiimnN STIIDTFS DPFRATTONS
Period
Date
beginning,
mo/day/yr
7/20/72
7/28/72
Date
ending,
mo/day/yr
7/27/72
8/1/72
8/2/72
8/3/72
8/14/72
8/16/72
8/23/72
9/1/72
9/7/72
9/12/72
9/18/72
9/22/72
10/6/72
10/23/72
10/25/72
10/29/72
11/2/72
8/13/72
8/15/72
8/22/72
8/31/72
9/6/72
9/11/72
9/17/72
9/21/72
10/5/72-
10/22/72
10/24/72
10/28/72
11/1/72
11/5/72
Unit operations
Lake 1
aerators ,
N.
X
X
X
X
s.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f-H
4t
t/5
a.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K
V
in
o
h
o
• H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
00
Date
beginning,
mo/day/yr
11/6/72
11/10/72
Date
ending,
mo/day/yr
11/9/72
11/15/72
11/16/72
11/17/72
11/22/72
11/24/72
11/27/72
11/29/72
12/2/72
12/7/72
12/10/72
12/13/72
12/18/72
12/21/72
12/26/72
11/21/72
11/23/72
11/26/72
11/28/72
12/1/72
12/6/72
12/9/72
12/12/72
12/17/72
12/20/72
12/25/72
12/30/72
12/31/72
1/1/73
1/2/73
TABLE B-2 (continued). POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES OPERATIONS
Lake 1
aerators ,
N.
X
X
X
X
X
X
S.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
*
in
CL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
fe
2
o
.H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0)
jchlori
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
o
t-4
z
*
J
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
05
0.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Filter
X
X
h
•H
h
(2
X
X
X
(M
a
o
t-
X
X
X
Lake 1
depth
range,
ft.
12-13
11-13
13
9-13
8-9
6-9
11
10-11
7-9
6-11
8-10
7-9
8-9
P.S. #1
pumpage
gpm
600
90
380
410
400
410
260
300
580
500
SOO
500
C12
usage,
Ibs/day
90
75
60
60
45
45
45
50
50
SO
50
50
P.S. #2
pumpage,
gpm
500
410
SOO
Remarks
11/9/72-Sand filter break-
down (butterfly valve
shattered)
11/14/72-Sand filter back
in operation
Recirculation
Microstrainer backwash
pump failure
Lakelet No. 1 level recorder
breakdown
Recirculation
12/18/72-Lakelet No. 3 aerator
capsized
Lakelet No. 1 full
-------
00
On
Perio
Date
beginning,
1/3/73
1/8/73
TABLE B-2 (continued") . POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES OPERATIONS r
d
Date
ending,
mo/day/yr
1/7/73
1/9/73
1/10/73
1/11/73
1/14/73
2/6/73
2/8/73
2/11/73
1/13/73
2/5/73
2/7/73
2/10/73
2/12/73
2/13/73
2/14/73
2/15/73
2/21/73
2/24/73
2/20/73
2/23/73
2/27/73
2/28/73
3/1/73
3/3/73
3/2/73
3/4/73
3/5/73
Lake 1
aerators,
N. S.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ul
rH
«
&.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Microstr. £
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chlorine [=
M
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CM
O
u
n)
2
1^
CD
<
to
_]
rsi
*
Ul
a.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Filter
X
^
a>
>
H
^
O
£-
X
TT~
111
^
CO
_1
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lake 1
depth
range,
ft.
8-9
8
7
3-7
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4-6
5
4
5
5
5
P.S. #1
pumpage ,
gpm
500
500
191
200
200
150
170
260
C12
usage,
Ibs/day
50
50
50
50
50
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
P.S. #2
pump age,
gpm
510
375
350
200
200
200
200
150
Remarks
Recirculation
Recirculation
Recirculation
Lakelet No. 1 aerators
frozen
Recirculation
Lakelet No. 1 aerators
frozen
Recirculation
-------
981
-fx
1— '
O
X
X
X
X
-J
in
N)
O
UJ
NJ
I— i
W
N)
O
X
X
£t
OJ
I—*
ID
1st
O
0
X
X
X
X
£>.
o
o
NJ
0
O-t
t-*
OO
c/i
I
CL
O
w
--N.
Ov
•^
--J
O4
w
1— •
*^J
--J
U4
X
X
X
X
1
^1
tn
--J
o
O4
o
04
•^
H-1
-x.
-vl
Ul
E
«
*-i
n
rf -
Z
3
(-1
?
a cr
o re
^w o
CL H- (U
W 3 rf
x 3 re
^^ H-
X 3
>1 «
g
\ 3 0
U *" rt
x 3 re
^~w
X -
H
(u
Z re t-1
• 4 (0
rt re
en o
• M t-
P.S. #1
Microstr.
Chlorine
NaC102
L. 3 Aer.
P.S. #2
Filter
To river
To Lake 2
4 D. f
rt 3 •« ?r
• OQ rt re
re 3-
* i— '
•a -a
« J en
T3 T3 •
3 t»
og %
re i—
o- C c
w w n u
•v. » >-• rl
O.OQ N) U
p> re
•< -
•a -a
9M w
" •
3 P
og =
C
tn
C O3
o n
3 o
•» 3
^ rt
13 H*
D a
^ £•
rt ^— '
T3
O
H
n
o
C/l
H
33
T
D
cn
H
3
ES OPERATI
i
en
-------
00
•-J
TABLE C-l. RIVER SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date ,
4/2/70
Storm
4/15/70
5/5/70
5/22/70
6/10/70
6/18/70
7/2/70
7/15/70
7/28/70
Sampling
location3
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
SS,
mg/1
15
8
16
14
28
22
39
21
22
15
19
21
43
35
24
36
26
24
VSS,
mg/1
7
4
8
6
16
9
23
7
15
4
8
10
16
11
12
17
10
8
BOD5,
mg/1
7
9
12
8
16
12
13
18
14
8
9
11
11
13
10
16
8
7
pH
7.0
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.2
6.9
7.1
7.1
7.1
6.9
7.7
6.8
7.1
8.0
8.6
P04-P,
mg/1
0.5
0.7
2.7
2.9
1.2
0.8
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.2
2.7
NH3-N,
mg/1
12.0
10.5
1.0
2.0
0.5
0.3
0.4
1.2
0.4
2.0
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0
DO,
mg/1
7.8
9.7
8.4
9.6
8.4
8.5
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.5
8.4
8.2
4.2
9.4
7.4
7.7
8.5
9.0
coli.
xlO3/
100ml
23
47
1
6
15
24
6
1
12
19
10
coli.
xlO/
100ml
Temp . ,
°F
42
42
57
57
64
64
67
67
73
73
85
85
78
78
79
79
aSampling location A = Up stream location
Sampling location B = Down stream location
-------
00
00
Sampling
date ,
mo/day/yr
7/29/70
Storm
7/31/70
Storm
8/11/70
8/17/70
8/23/70
Storm
8/29/70
Storm
8/31/70
9/4/70
9/10/70
Sampling
location3
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
SS,
mg/1
19
200
47
22
43
44
11
15
22
23
14
10
14
8
24
26
34
17
VSS,
mg/1
5
81
9
9
20
14
9
12
10
9
9
8
6
7
6
6
7
9
TABLE C-l (continued). RIVER SAMPLING DATA
BODS,
mg/1
13
13
10
11
12
19
3
17
6
6
7
4
6
3
PH
7.7
6.5
7.1
6.9
6.8
7.5
7.0
7.2
7.3
7.6-
7.8
7.8
8.0
7.8
7.4
7.5
6.6
6.9
P04-P,
mg/1
0.5
4.9
4.7
3.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.7
O.S
0.3
0.2
2.3
0.2
NH3-N,
mg/1
1.5
10.5
0.6
2.0
0.5
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
2.5
3.5
4.5
3.5
0.5
0.5
4.3
4.0
DO,
mg/1
8.0
8.5
7.2
7.8
6.7
6.5
6.4
6.1
6.0
6.2
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.6
7.8
7.6
7.0
7.1
Total
coli .
xlO3/
100ml
26
14
21
34
19
IS
12
17
10
6
3
12
1
5
Sampling location A = Up stream location
Fecal
coli.
xlO/
100ml
3
17
7
13
Temp . ,
°F
82
82
84
84
84
82
83
83
78
78
79
79
74
74
70
70
Sampling location B = Down stream location
-------
00
TABLE C-l (continued) . RIVER SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date ,
9/16/70
9/21/70
Storm
9/23/70
9/26/70
9/29/70
10/6/70
10/12/70
10/18/70
10/20/70
Sampling
location a
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
SS,
mg/1
102
35
109
103
60
106
14
40
27
182
153
31
13
vss,
mg/1
64
9
17
16
11
26
4
18
21
26
27
21
7
BOD5,
mg/1
14
4
13
13
11
8
13
15
12
15
6
11
12
10
13
11
10
12
PH
6.0
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.6
6.8
7.8
8.4
7.6
7.8
7.5
7.7
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.3
6.8
7.0
P04-P,
mg/1
2.0
0-4
0.5
0.5
6.6
6.8
2.0
3.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.9
NH3-N,
mg/1
10.2
0.8
10.5
14.0
10.0
11.0
2.0
3.5
6.0
3.5
2.3
2.6
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
0.5
2.0
DO,
mg/1
7.2
7.4
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.2
6.9
7.0
6.8
7.0
Total
coli .
x!03/
100ml
12
15
24
38
32
26
15
24
14
28
17
21
14
27
28
28
11
27
coli.
xlO/
100ml
13
17
60
130
4
22
32
14
9
20
Temp . ,
°F
70
70
69
69
70
70
70
70
70
70
68
68
57
57
64
64
aSampling location A = Up stream location
Sampling location B = Down stream location
-------
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
10/24/70
10/30/70
1/3/70
11/10/70
11/19/70
12/15/70
4/1/71
4/8/71
4/12/71
Sampling
location3
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
SS,
mg/1
78
33
41
16
34
60
37
41
67
57
7
9
10
8
17
14
VSS,
mg/1
25
19
32
6
17
36
23
31
33
37
4
5
5
4
4
4
TABLE C-l (continued) . RIVER SAMPLING DATA
BOD5)
mg/1
12
10
11
12
12
13
13
14
10
10
15
15
4
6
4
4
PH
7.0
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.2
6.6
6.9
7.3
7.3
P04-P,
mg/1
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.9
2.1
2.6
0.4
0.2
1.0
1.2
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.1
NH3-N,
mg/1
0.5
1.0
l.S
0-5
1.0
10.5
6.0
4.0
6.0
3.5
2.8
3.5
7.0
6.0
1.0
2.0
Sampling location A = Up stream location
Sampling location B = Down stream location
DO,
mg/1
7.7
7.7
Total
coli.
xlO3/
100ml
35
48
21
34
10
21
2
7
18
9
3
0
2
2
4
2
Fecal
coli.
xlO/
100ml
14
23
8
37
6
18
6
23
14
0
11
11
12
24
Temp.,
°F
43
43
52
52
-------
TABLE C-l (continued). RIVER SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date ,
4/16/71
4/22/71
4/28/71
5/3/71
5/10/71
5/18/71
5/20/71
5/24/71
6/2/71
Sampling
location21
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
SS,
mg/1
16
18
29
21
12
12
9
12
34
34
39
27
20
12
24
16
19
37
VSS,
mg/1
4
4
4
6
5
6
4
6
21
9
10
12
10
8
8
8
3
2
BODr,
mg/1
4
6
6
10
4
8
6
16
20
7
14
9
8
9
14
5
pH
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.7
8.1
6.9
7.1
6.8
7.0
6.8
6.8
P04-P,
mg/1
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.6
2.1
1.1
0.8
0.2
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.2
NH3-N,
mg/1
4.0
5.0
5.3
5.6
14.5
19.0
1.5
4.3
3.5
2.5
0.5
0.5
2.0
1.5
2.1
1.0
6.5
5.5
DO,
mg/1
5.6
5.4
7.6
7.6
6.2
3.2
6.0
5.9
9.1
9.8
0.5
1.7
0.3
1.7
7.5
7.1
coli.
xlO3/
100ml
7.8
15.0
6.4
8.2
6.6
9.8
4.3
5.1
6.7
2.3
2.1
0.1
1.7
0.7
5.6
1.0
8.0
0.5
coli.
xlO/
100ml
23
50
57
76
106
108
23
46
78
78
33
4
17
60
100
10
121
3
Temp . ,
°F
50
50
55
55
50
50
52
52
62
62
66
66
66
66
66
66
62
62
aSampling location A = Up stream location
Sampling location B = Down stream location
-------
• ...
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
6/7/71
6/11/71
6/18/71
6/23/71
6/30/71
7/14/71
8/4/71
8/10/71
8/26/71
Sampling
location3
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
SS,
mg/1
24
19
32
54
17
28
24
23
28
20
12
30
20
20
19
34
19
24
VSS,
mg/1
10
12
9
8
11
11
7
7
9
8
7
8
2
1
2
2
7
4
TABLE C-l (continued). RIVER SAMPLING DATA
BOD.,
rag/I
4
5
15
8
6
3
8
7
11
6
3
3
3
40
4
3
pH
7.8
8.4
7.0
7.3
6.2
7.2
7.4
7.8
7.2
7.9
6.7
6.9
7.8
7.9
7.3
7.4
7.0
7.4
P04-P,
mg/1
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
NHj-N,
mg/1
6.0
S.5
1.2
0.2
2.5
5.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
4.2
3.8
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.3
Sampling location A = Up stream location
Sampling location B = Down stream location
"Too numerous to count
DO,
mg/1
5.0
6.8
5.6
8.7
7.6
7.9
7.6
6.8
5.7
6.5
8.1
8.8
8.1
7.9
6.6
7.2
Total
coli.
xlO3/
100ml
4
0.1
TNTCb
8
TNTC
3
TNTC
0.2
4
0.2
TNTC
0.5
130
300
300
1200
130
Fecal
coli.
xlO/
100ml
10
9
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
41
TNTC
8
TNTC
4
TNTC
23
IS
8
42
6
110
28
Temp.,
73
73
68
68
73
73
-------
TABLE C-l (continued)
Sampling
date ,
9/7/71
9/16/71
9/20/71
7/12/72
7/13/72
7/26/72
7/27/72
7/30/72
8/10/72
Sampling
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
SS,
mg/1
20
19
25
39
45
33
4
5
19
20
17
17
26
26
15
18
10
8
vss,
mg/1
6
7
9
12
15
7
?
2
8
11
11
16
9
6
5
4
6
4
BODc,
mg/1
21
4
4
4
3
7
3
21
18
16
50
PH
7.2
7.5
7.5
7.8
7.4
7.6
8.1
8.4
8.0
8.2
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.2
8.4
7.8
7.9
RIVER SAMPLING DATA
P04-P,
mg/1
0.2
0.1
1.1
0.8
0.4
0-1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.7
1.0
0.1
0.1
NH3-N,
mg/1
0.4
o.i
0.1
0.1
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.6
DO,
mg/1
7.3
7.9
6.2
6.8
7.0
7.3
12.1
11.0
10.1
9.7
8.8
7.4
8.3
8.7
6.6
6.7
Total
coli .
xlO3/
100ml
60
0
70
40
TNTCb
380
10
40
50
80
130
180
40
70
10
30
Fecal
coli.
xlO/
100ml
12
5
13
10
TNTC
20
1
2
3
2
~)
L
6
70
6
5
3
3.0
4.0
Temp . ,
°F
79
79
76
76
78
78
79
79
74
Sampling location A = Up stream location
Sampling location B = Down stream location
bToo numerous to count
-------
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
8/13/72
8/14/72
8/24/72
8/29/72
8/31/72
9/1/72
9/4/72
9/5/72
9/7/72
Sampling
location a
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
SS,
mg/1
14
12
9
8
72
62
25
26
19
16
25
21
25
26
17
22
VSS,
mg/1
6
2
2
4
10
8
13
9
6
4
8
8
5
1
4
5
TABLE C-l (continued). RIVER SAMPF.TNn DATA
BOD5,
mg/1
5
3
4
3
7
5
1
1
3
3
5
4
17
16
pH
7.8
8.0
6.9
7.4
7.3
7.3
8.1
8.4
7.6
7.8
P04-P,
mg/1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
1.0
1.1
NH3-N,
mg/1
0.6
0.1
2.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
Campling location A = Up stream location
Sampling location B = Down stream location
DO,
mg/1
9.0
8.7
7.8
8.4
4.0
3.9
8.1
8.0
9.0
9.3
6.9
6.7
Total
coli.
xlO3/
100ml
0
0.2
0.21
0.34
34.0
17.2
0.240
0.250
0.520
0.740
0.740
0.470
0.760
Fecal
coli .
xlO/
100ml
0
4.0
5.6
4.6
304.0
468.0
24.0
25.0
51.0
62.0
62.0
51.0
17.2
18.5
Temp . ,
°p
-------
to
VI
TABLE C-l (continued) . RIVER SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date,
mo/day/yr
9/8/72
9/11/72
9/13/72
9/15/72
9/16/72
9/18/72
9/20/72
9/26/72
9/29/72
Sampling
location3
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
—
SS,
mg/1
25
18
11
2
41
28
32
55
19
28
37
30
29
51
56
26
VSS,
mg/1
3
4
2
2
12
3
7
10
7
10
7
5
9
11
12
5
BOD5,
mg/1
8
6
3
3
18
7
18
7
8
8
3
3
2
1
pH
7.3
7.5
7.0
7.5
6.9
7.1
6.7
6.9
7.5
7.2
7.9
7.7
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.2
P04-P,
mg/1
1.0
0.8
2.8
1.3
4.7
6.5
4.0
3.1
1.0
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.2
NH3-N,
mg/1
3.8
3.8
0.5
0.4
4.4
3.6
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.1
0.6
0.1
DO,
mg/1
7.0
7.6
3.3
3.3
7.8
8.4
2.1
1.7
2.5
2.6
6.2
6.4
6.6
coli.
xlO3/
100ml
0.870
0
0.250
0.160
0.360
0.040
0.500
1.890
0
0.200
coli.
xlO/
100ml
0
11.5
11.0
10.2
3.8
41.6
45.6
38.4
80.8
28.4
36.0
8.5
0
11.0
Temp . ,
°F
62
62
69
69
70
69
70
71
70
68
64
64
Sampling location A = Up stream location
Sampling location B = Down stream location
-------
ON
Sampling
date ,
mo/day/yr
10/2/72
10/6/72
10/7/72
10/11/72
10/17/72
10/20/72
10/21/72
10/24/72
10/29/72
aSampling lo
Sampling lo
Sampling
location3
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
SS,
mg/1
18
29
21
18
11
26
19
21
12
22
6
5
24
34
23
30
VSS,
rag/1
4
6
3
2
5
7
4
S
1
3
1
0
3
3
9
9
TABLE C-l (continued) . RIVER SAMPLING DATA
BOD5,
mg/1
2
2
4
6
29
16
2
1
2
1
4
3
4
4
3
4
PH
7.1
7.2
6.2
6.8
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
6.4
6.8
6.4
6.9
7.1
7.4
7.1
6.4
7.6
7.7
P04-P,
mg/1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
1.8
0.8
O.S
0.3
O.S
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
NH3-N,
mg/1
1.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.5
0.1
9.0
9.0
1.0
2.5
1.5
3.5
1.0
2.0
0.2
0.2
cation A = Up stream location
cation B = Down stream location
DO,
rag/1
6.6
6.8
6.2
6.1
7.0
7.3
7.4
7.7
7.8
8.2
9.0
9.5
9.0
9.4
7.8
8.7
7.4
7.7
Total
coli.
xlO3/
100ml
0
Fecal
coli.
xlO/
100ml
0
4.0
15.6
16.0
75.0
5.4
8.9
Temp . ,
°P
62
62
62
62
60
60
59
59
51
51
48
48
49
49
52
52
50
50
-------
TABLE C-l f continued} . RIVER SAMPLING DATA
Sampling
date , •
mo/day/yr
11/1/72
11/3/72
11/6/72
11/8/72
11/13/72
11/15/72
11/18/72
11/20/72
11/27/72
Sampling
location a
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
SS,
mg/1
8
10
6
12
16
27
10
12
16
20
20
10
4
16
14
20
24
VSS,
mg/1
4
2
4
2
3
10
11
2
4
3
3
4
2
4
6
2
5
BOD5,
mg/1
3
3
2
3
6
4
4
11
3
3
7
6
22
5
2
3
3
4
pH
6.8
6.8
7.4
7.4
6.1
6.1
6.5
6.5
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
P04-P,
mg/1
0.4
0.4
2.7
2.3
4.4
3.5
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.5
NH3-N,
mg/1
2.1
2.5
0.5
0.6
2.0
1.0
2.1
2.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
0.7
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.4
DO,
mg/1
8.3
7.8
5.7
6.1
6.6
2.6
. 8.1
8.1
9.0
9.2
8.3
8.5
8.8
9.0
8.6
9.0
coli.
xlO3/
100ml
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
12.600
15.800
coli.
xlO/
100ml
TNTCb
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
87.0
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
Temp. ,
°F
50
50
50
50
52
44
44
40
40
43
43
42
42
40
40
aSampling location A = Up stream location
Sampling location B = Down stream location
t>Too numerous to count
-------
TABLE C-2. PRE/POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES RAINFALL DATA
Date
mo/day/yr
4/1/70
4/2/70
4/13/70
4/19/70
4/20/70
4/21/70
4/24/70
5/1/70
5/4/70
5/6/70
5/8/70
5/12/70
5/13/70
5/14/70
5/15/70
5/16/70
5/22/70
5/23/70
5/24/70
5/25/70
5/31/70
6/1/70
Precip. ,
inches
0.32
1.02
0.05
0.40
0.37
0.23
0.09
0.15
T
T
0.03
0.25
0.25
0.69
0.65
0.10
0.15
0.16
0.42
0.48
0.03
0.06
Date,
mo/day/yr
6/2/70
6/3/70
6/4/70
6/5/70
6/6/70
6/11/70
6/14/70
6/15/70
6/17/70
6/18/70
6/21/70
6/22/70
6/24/70
6/26/70
6/27/70
6/28/70
6/29/70
6/30/70
7/3/70
7/4/70
7/8/70
7/9/70
Precip. ,
inches
0.10
0.03
T
T
T
0.65
0.07
T
1.51
0.45
0.05
T
0.37
0.30
T
0.08
0.05
T
0.12
0.08
0.36
0.04
198
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued). PRE/POST
(4/4/70-9/28/71
-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES RAINFALL DATA
7/20/72-4/15/73)
Date
mo/day/yr
7/10/70
7/12/70
7/13/70
7/14/70
7/19/70
7/20/70
7/23/70
7/28/70
7/29/70
7/30/70
7/31/70
8/2/70
8/3/70
8/19/70
8/22/70
8/29/70
8/30/70
9/3/70
9/5/70
9/6/70
9/13/70
9/14/70
Precip. ,
inches
0.07
0.30
0.04
0.19
0.38
0.27
0.08
0.03
0.72
0.15
0.26
0.01
0.09
0.72
0.16
0.35
0.07
0.09
T
0.04
0.01
0.12
Date,
mo/day/yr
9/15/70
9/17/70
9/18/70
9/22/70
9/23/70
9/26/70
9/28/70
9/30/70
10/10/70
10/12/70
10/13/70
10/14/70
10/20/70
10/21/70
10/28/70
10/29/70
10/30/70
11/1/70
11/2/70
11/3/70
11/4/70
11/5/70
Precip. ,
inches
0.37
0.84
0.50
0.21
0.04
0.77
0.01
T
0.07
0.17
0.15
0.29
0.36
0.04
0.01
0.21
0.02
0.16
0.56
0.28
0.18
T
199
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued) . PRE/POST
(4/4/70-9/28/71
CONSTRUCTION STUDIES
7/20/72-4/15/731
RAINFALL DATA
Date
mo/day/yr
11/6/70
11/9/70
11/10/70
11/14/70
11/15/70
11/20/70
11/21/70
11/22/70
11/27/70
11/28/70
11/29/70
12/3/70
12/4/70
12/5/70
12/6/70
12/10/70
12/11/70
12/12/70
12/13/70
12/16/70
12/17/70
12/19/70
Precip. ,
inches
T
0.14
0.04
0.24
0.01
0.53
T
T
0.36
0.18
0.16
0.28
T
T
T
0.06
0.55
0.12
0.08
0.23
0.02
0.03
Date,
mo/day/yr
12/22/70
12/23/70
12/25/70
12/26/70
12/30/70
1/3/71
1/4/71
1/17/71
1/22/71
1/26/71
1/29/71
2/3/71
2/4/71
2/5/71
2/11/71
2/12/71
2/17/71
2/18/71
2/19/71
2/20/71
2/22/71
2/23/71
Precip. ,
inches
0.07
0.06
0.03
0.07
T
0.16
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.10
0.05
1.06
0.29
0.07
0.16
0.21
0.11
0.48
0.03
0.51
0.05
200
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued). PRE/POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES RAINFALL DATA
C4/4/70-9/28/71 § 7/20/72-4/15/73)
Date
mo/day/yr
2/26/71
2/27/71
3/4/71
3/5/71
3/6/71
3/7/71
3/10/71
3/11/71
3/15/71
3/18/71
3/19/71
3/20/71
3/21/71
3/22/71
3/23/71
4/1/71
4/4/71
4/12/71
4/13/71
4/17/71
4/19/71
4/22/71
Precip. ,
inches
0.02
0.03
T
0.04
0.40
0.13
0.20
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.20
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.10
0.16
T
0.03
0.14
0.09
T
T
Date,
mo/day/yr
4/27/71
5/1/71
5/5/71
5/12/71
5/19/71
5/24/71
5/25/71
6/1/71
6/2/71
6/4/71
6/6/71
6/13/71
6/19/71
6/20/71
6/22/71
6/26/71
7/5/71
7/17/71
7/19/71
7/22/71
7/26/71
7/30/71
Precip. ,
inches
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.35
0.25
0.02
0.23
0.23
T
0.10
0.26
T
0.01
T
0.12
0.74
0.04
T
T
0.22
0.88
201
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued). PRE/POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES RAINFALL DATA
Date
mo/day/yr
7/31/71
8/3/71
8/4/71
8/10/71
8/14/71
8/19/71
8/21/71
8/22/71
8/24/71
8/25/71
8/26/71
8/27/71
9/4/71
9/6/71
9/11/71
9/14/71
9/19/71
9/20/71
9/21/71
9/22/71
9/24/71
9/25/71
Precip. ,
inches
0.01
T
T
0.19
T
T
0.02
0.20
T
0.05
1.34
0.31
0.22
0.15
T
T
T
0.81
T
T
T
0.06
Date,
mo/day/yr
9/26/71
9/27/71
Precip. ,
inches
0.10
0.41
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD
7/18/72
7/19/72
7/21/72
7/23/72
7/26/72
7/27/72
8/1/72
8/2/72
8/6/72
8/7/72
8/8/72
8/13/72
8/14/72
8/16/72
8/17/72
8/19/72
8/22/72
1.69
T
0.35
0.01
0.10
0.12
0.58
0.65
0.03
0.15
0.23
T
1.03
0.09
0.02
0.03
0.35
202
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued). PRE/POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES RAINFALL DATA
Date
mo/day/yr _
8/23/72
8/24/72
8/26/72
9/2/72
9/8/72
9/11/72
9/13/72
9/17/72 .
9/18/72
9/24/72
9/25/72
9/26/72
9/27/72
9/29/72
9/30/72
10/15/72
10/16/72
10/21/72
10/22/72
10/23/72
10/28/72
10/29/72
Precip., II Date,
inches mo/day/yr
0.09
0.16
0.20
0.20
1.13
0.03
0.71
0.03
0.19
0.05
0.11
0.29
T
0.38
0.20
0.02
0.01
0.44
1.27
0.59
0.42
10/31/72
11/1/72
11/2/72
11/3/72
11/4/72
11/7/72
11/8/72
11/11/72
11/13/72
11/14/72
11/15/72
11/19/72
11/20/72
11/25/72
11/26/72
11/29/72
12/1/72
12/4/72
12/6/72
12/8/72
12/10/72
0.17 1 12/12/72
>recip. ,
inches
T
0.05
0.40
0.01
0.01
0.56
0.14
0.03
0.41
0.44
0.03
0.19
0.06
0.26
0.38
T
0.08
0.16
0.51
0.18
0.01
1.21
203
-------
TABLE C-2 (continued). PRE/POST-CONSTRUCTION STUDIES RAINFALL DATA
mo/day/yr
12/13/72
12/15/72
12/19/72
12/20/72
12/26/72
12/29/72
12/30/72
1/3/73
1/22/73
1/23/73
1/24/73
1/28/73
1/29/73
1/31/73
2/1/73
Z/2/73
2/7/73
2/8/73
2/14/73
2/15/73
2/20/73
2/21/73
Precip . ,
inches
0.03
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.09
0.36
0.42
0.64
0.63
0.01
T
0.06
T
T
0.09
0.35
0.13
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.02
0.17
Date,
mo/day/yr
2/22/73
2/23/73
2/25/73
2/26/73
3/5/73
3/7/73
3/9/73
3/W73
3/11/73
3/14/73
3/16/73
3/17/73
3/28/73
3/29/73
3/31/73
4/1/73
4/2/73
4/9/73
Precip. ,
inches
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.51
0.14
0.04
0.02
0.83
1.11
0.10
0.80
0.05
0.54
0.21
0.19
0.03
0.36
204
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT
(Please read Instructions on the reverse
DATA
before completing)
. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
REPORT NO.
EPA-670/2-75-010
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
1ULTI-PURPOSE COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW TREATMENT
'AGILITY, MOUNT CLEMENS, MICHIGAN
AUTHOR(S)
/ijaysinh U. Mahida and Frank J. DeDecker
PERFORMING ORG -\NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
]ity of Mount Clemens
L Crocker Boulevard
fount Clemens, Michigan 48043
!. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
National Environmental Research Center
Dffice of Research and Development
J.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Zincinnati, Ohio 45268
5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
. REPORT DATE
•lay 1975: Issuing Date
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB034: ROAP 21-ASY; TASK 149
11. &«SCK&*JflKGRANT NO.
11023 FAR
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
5. ABSTRACT
Combined sewer overflows from 212 acres within the City of Mount Clemens were conveyed
to a treatment-park site. The overflows received initial treatment (settling and
surface ferationTin a retention basin. Further treatment consisted of nucrostraining,
disinfection Surface aeration in a series of lakelets, and filtration The annual
existing over-flow of 2180 cu ft/acre-inch of rainfall had SS of 50 Ibs/acre-inch and
BOD5 of 20 Ibs/acre-inch. Treatment reduced the annual pollution load by 90 percent.
The final lake sampling data has demonstrated that all water quality parameters for
Sshiig boating, and/or lawn sprinkling-except the toxic and deleterious substances
parameters which were not studied-were met. Very limited investigations were under-
taken in he area of recreation, open space, and transitional land use. Treatment of
combined sewer overflows was found to be more cost-effective than separation of an
existing combined sewer system. This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project
No 11023 FAR by the City of Mount Clemens, Michigan, under the partial sponsorship of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed as of August 19/6.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
lost comparison, Water quality,
^Filtration, Sewers, *Chlorine,
"Surface water runoff, *Water
supply, *Water conservation,
"Overflows, ^Recreational facil-
ities, Contaminants, Standards,
Storage, *Disinfection, *Chlori-
lation, *Combined sewers
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
'ater pollution control, *Micro-
straining, *Combined sewer overflow,
*Storm runoff, *Pollutants removal,
*BOD removal, *Wastewater treatment,
Urban water management, Multi-purpos<
treatment, Chlorine dioxide, Mount
Clemens (Michigan), Stormwater reuse,
Cost-benefit analysis, *Rainfall-
runoff relationships
c. COSATI Field/Group
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
iPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)'
UNCLASSIFIED
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
13B
21. NO. OF PAGES
215
22. PRICE
205
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-657-593/5385 Region No. 5-11
------- |