United States
                Environmental Protection
                Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Wastewater Management
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/625/K-94/003
TJulyl994
&EPA        Seminars
                Combined Sewer Overflow
                Control

                August 15-16,1994—Boston, MA
                August 18-19, 1994—Portland, OR
                August 30-31,1994—Pittsburgh, PA
                September 1-2,1994—Chicago, IL
                September 26-27,1994—East Brunswick, NJ

-------
                                                EPA/625/K-94/003
                                                July 1994
               Seminars


Combined Sewer Overflow Control
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
        77 West Jackson Boulevard, '12th Floor
        Chicago, !L  60604-3590
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Office of Research and Development
       Office of Wastewater Management
              Washington, DC
                                          Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
Notice
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy.
Mention  of  trade names  or  commercial products does  not constitute endorsement by  EPA  or
recommendation for use.

-------
Table of Contents
Speaker Biographies	1



Overview of the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Policy	3



Overview of the Nine Minimum Control Measures	11



Overview of the Long Term Control Plan	19



Overview of CSO Permitting	31



CSO Monitoring and Modeling Guidance Manual	39



Monitoring/Modeling Aspects of CSO Control Programs	47



Monitoring for CSO Control Programs	49



Modeling CSO Runoff and Overflows	57



Modeling CSO Receiving Water Impacts	73



Case Study—Modeling Runoff/Receiving Water	85



Case Study—Floatables Monitoring	137



Monitoring and Modeling of the Metropolitan Boston CSO System	161



Performance Goals and Design of CSO Controls	169



CSO Treatment for Floatables Control	179



In-System Controls/In-Line Storage	191



Off-Line Near-Surface Storage/Sedimentation	205



Deep Tunnel Storage	213



Coarse Screening	227



Swirl/Vortex Technologies	233



Disinfection	243



Costs for CSO Control Technologies	255

-------
Speaker Biographies
David R.  Bingham
Mr. Bingham has a B.S. in civil engineering from Northeastern University, an M.S. in civil engineering from
the University of Massachusetts, and an  M.B.A.  from  Worcester  Polytechnic  Institute. A registered
professional  engineer  in Massachusetts,  Connecticut, Maine,  and  Ohio,  he has  worked  in  the
environmental engineering field as an engineer and manager for 20 years.
Mr. Bingham has been  employed  by Metcalf &  Eddy for  17 years, currently  as  vice president.  He
specializes  in executing projects involving combined sewer overflow and stormwater  management,
monitoring, modeling and engineering, point and nonpoint source evaluations, environmental assessment,
feasibility studies and engineering design. Currently, he leads the master planning for CSO abatement for
the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. Mr. Bingham has coauthored several guidance manuals
and handbooks for EPA on combined sewer overflow and stormwater management.

Eugene D. Driscoll	

Mr. Driscoll has  a B.C.E. (Bachelor of Civil  Engineering) degree from Manhattan College and an M.S. in
sanitary engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  He has more than 35 years of
experience in water and wastewater treatment, receiving water impact analysis, and the performance of
pollutant control  systems. A major focus of his current work experience is related to stormwater and CSO
issues, including the characterization of the water quality and loadings of stormwater discharges, the water
quality impacts they cause in receiving water systems, and the design basis and performance of control
measures.
Mr. Driscoll  is currently  employed  by HydroQual,  Inc.,  as an associate and senior  project manager.
Current work activity includes assistance to several industrial clients in addressing stormwater pollution
issues, assessment of water quality impacts and mitigation measures for a large proposed development,
and technical support to EPA on CSO  control.  He  has authored approximately 50 technical papers,
guidance manuals, and conference presentations.

Jonathan  B. Golden	

Mr. Golden  has B.S. in  civil engineering from the University of New Hampshire and an M.S. in  civil
engineering  from Northeastern  University. He has 15 years of experience  in  planning, design,  and
construction  management of wastewater collection, treatment, and residuals management facilities.
Mr. Golden  is currently  employed  by Metcalf &  Eddy as a project manager.  In addition to  ongoing
wastewater treatment projects, he is providing assistance to EPA with the CSO Needs Survey, CSO policy
support, and the writing of the "Guidance Document for the Preparation of Long-Term CSO Control Plans."

John A. Mueller	

Professor Mueller received a B.S. degree in civil engineering from Manhattan College and M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees from Lehigh University. Since  1967 he has taught at Manhattan College  in the Civil Engineering
and Environmental Engineering departments.
A staff member of HydroQual, Inc., since 1968, Dr. Mueller has been associated with  the prediction of the
impact of waste discharges on natural water systems for the past 26 years. He received the Horner Award
from the  American Society of Civil  Engineers in  1992 for a coauthored paper on PCBs in the Hudson
River. With  Dr.  Thomann he coauthored the text, "Principles of Water Quality  Modeling  and  Control"
(1987).
                                            -1-

-------
Daniel J. Murray, Jr.
Mr. Murray earned a B.S. in civil engineering from Merrimack College and an M.S. in civil engineering from
Northeastern University. He is an environmental engineer with EPA's Office of Research and Development
at the Center for Environmental Research Information (CERI) in Cincinnati, OH. His areas of expertise
include  combined  sewer overflow and  urban  stormwater management and  control;  environmental
monitoring and assessment; and control of toxic discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plants.

Mr. Murray began his career with EPA in 1977, working in both Region V and Region I until  1987. In 1987,
he began working for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) in Boston. For the MWRA,
he managed the industrial pretreatment inspection program and was senior program manager for CSO
facilities planning. In 1990, he returned to EPA to take his current position at CERI.

Mr. Murray is a registered professional engineer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of
Ohio. He is an active member of the Ohio Water Environment Association, serving on CSO and industrial
waste committees.

Donald E. Walker	

Mr. Walker has a B.S. in civil engineering and an  M.S. in environmental engineering from Northeastern
University, as well  as a B.A. in environmental studies from Middlebury College. He has  eight years of
experience with Metcalf & Eddy in the planning, design,  and  construction management  of wastewater
collection systems and treatment plants, including facilities for the control of combined sewer overflows.
Mr. Walker is currently  employed by Metcalf & Eddy as a project engineer. He is currently working on
developing and evaluating comprehensive long-term CSO control strategies as part of the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority's Master Planning and CSO Facilities Planning Program. He was a coauthor of
the EPA "Manual: Combined Sewer Overflow Control" and has coauthored papers on the Newport, Rhode
Island,  Washington Street CSO Facility, published in the Journal of the New England Water Pollution
Control Association and Public Works.
                                                 -2-

-------
          Overview of  the
        CSO  Control Policy
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  Office of Wastewater Management

V
                Objectives
       • Background information on CSOs

       • CSO Control Policy development

       • Key CSO Control Policy principles

       • Roles and responsibilities in CSO
         Control Policy implementation
              CSO Facts
       CSOs only occur in CSSs

       Typically during wet weather
       when CSSs are overloaded

       Combination of domestic
       sewage, industrial and
       commercial wastewater, and
       stormwater runoff
                                            -3-

-------
            CSS Facts
  • 1,100 CSSs with approximately
    15,000 overflow points
  • 85% of CSSs located in 11 states
  • Serve 43 million people
          CSO Impacts
    • Beach closings
    • Restrictions on shellfishing
    • Waterbody impairments
CSOs:  Point Source  Discharges
   Requirements of Clean Water Act:
        • Technology-based
        • Water quality-based
                                          -4-

-------
/"

    National CSO Control  Costs

         • $41 billion

         • Major consideration in
           decision-making process
i
      1989  CSO  Control  Strategy


         • Made CSOs a high priority

         • Contained 3 fundamental
           environmental goals

         • Required States to develop
           strategies

         * Implementation did not meet
           expectations
   CSO  Policy Development  Process


     • Intended to accelerate implementation

     • Involved stakeholders

     • Formal negotiations
       (July - September 1992)

     • Framework document

     • Draft Policy (January 1993)

     • Final Policy (April 1994)
                                              -5-

-------
Key  Stakeholders in Negotiated Policy Dialogue

 Municipal Groups
     Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
     CSO Partnership
     National League o( Cities (NLC)
     American Public Works Association (APWA)

 Environmental Organizations
     Natural Resources Defense Council (NflDC)
     Environmental Defense Fund (EOF)
     Safely Treating Our Pollution (STOP)
     Center for Marine Conservation (CMC)
     Lower James River Association

 Others
     Nat Assoc of Flood and Slormwater Mgmt Agencies (NAFSMA)
     Assoc of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Admin (ASIWPCA)
     Water Environment Federation (WEF)
     Key  CSO  Policy  Principles
       • Clear levels of control

       • Flexibility to consider site-
         specificity and determine cost-
         effective approaches

       • Phased implementation to reflect
         environmental priorities and
         financial capability

       • Coordination of review of WOS
         and CSO long-term control plans
     Roles  and Responsibilities:
   	Communities	

    Plan and implement CSO controls:

         •  Nine Minimum Controls

         •  Long-Term Control Plan
                                                       -6-

-------
Nine  Minimum  Control  Measures

   1. Proper operation and maintenance
   2. Maximum use of collection system for storage
   3. Review of pretreatment requirements
   4. Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment
   5. Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather
   6. Control of solid and floatable materials
   7. Pollution prevention
   8. Public notification
   9. Monitoring of CSO impacts and efficacy of controls
           Elements of  LTCP

    1. Characterization, Monitoring, and Modeling
    2. Public Participation and Agency Interaction
    3. Consideration of Sensitive Areas
    4. Evaluation of Alternatives
    5. Cost/Performance Considerations
    6. Operational Plan
    7. Maximizing Treatment at the POTW
    8. Implementation Schedule
    9. Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program
     Roles and Responsibilities:
               Communities

    Evaluate a range of alternatives:
      * Presumption Approach - Select specified
        level of control, presumed to meet WQS
           i  Four overflow events not receiving treatment
           ii. 85% capture tor treatment or elimination
           iii. Eliminate or remove pollutant mass equal to ii.
      * Demonstration Approach - Select approach
        shown to meet WQS
                                                        -7-

-------
  Roles  and  Responsibilities:
 NPDES Permitting  Authorities


   Issue Permits:

     •  Phase I

        •  Implement and document NMC
        •  Develop LTCP

     •  Phase II

        •  Continue NMC implementation
        •  Implement LTCP
 Roles and Responsibilities:
        WQS Authorities


 Evaluate WQS:

     • Coordinate review with LTCP
       development process

     • Review and revise WQS

       • More explicitly define recreational
         and aquatic life uses
         • Partial use
         • Seasonal use
       • WQS variance
       • Site-specific criteria for pollutants
   Roles and  Responsibilities:
NPDES Enforcement  Authorities
  • CSO requirements enforced
    through permits or other enforceable
    mechanisms

  • Schedules for compliance
    will be incorporated into enforceable
    mechanisms

  • Dry weather overflow enforcement
                                           -8-

-------
    CSO  Policy  Implementation
        •  Measures of success
        •  CSO guidance
        •  Outreach
         EPA  CSO  Guidance
Outdance lor Nine Minimum Control
Measures
Guidance lor Long-term Control Plan
Guidance tor Permit Writers
Guidance lor Screening and Ranking
Funding Options Guidance
Monitoring and Modeling Guidance
Guidance lor Financial Capability
Assessments
Water Quality Standards • Questions end
Answers
     Draft released May 1994
     Draft released May 1994
     Draft released May 1994
     Draft released May 1994
     Draft released May 1994
     Draft expected Fall 1994
     Draft expected Fall 1994

     Draft expected Fall 1994
        EPA CSO Outreach
  Location
Boston, MA
Portland, OR
Pittsburgh, PA
Chicago, IL
East Brunswick, NJ
       Date
August 15-16,1994
August 18-19,1994
August 30-31,1994
Sept. 1 -2,1994
Sept. 26-27,1994
                                                    -9-

-------
         Overview of the
Nine Minimum Control Measures
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Wastewater Management
             Objectives
       • NMC characteristics
       • Process for selecting and
         implementing NMC
       • NMC documentation
         requirements
       • Purpose of each NMC
             CSO Policy	
      Phase I
       • Implement and document NMC
       • Develop LTCP
      Phase II
       • Continue NMC implementation
       • Implement LTCP
                                       -11-

-------
'     NMC and LTCP Characteristics    *
        NMC
          •  Meet technology-based
            requirements of CWA
          •  Do not require extensive studies
          •  Do not require major engineering
            design/construction
        LTCP
            Meet water quality-based
            requirements of CWA
            Requires detailed engineering
            studies
            Requires significant construction
            activity
     NMC Implementation Activities

     • Assess options for each
       minimum control

     • Implement selected options

     • Document implementation
       within 2 years (by January 1997)

     • Continue NMC during LTCP
         Five-Step NMC Process
                •  Evaluate

                •  Select

                •  Implement

                •  Document

                •  Report
                                               -12-

-------
   Documentation Requirements
     •  Evaluation of options for each NMC
     •  Selection of control measures
     •  Implementation of selected measures
     •  Plan for implementation of control
       measures not yet implemented
     •  Effectiveness of the NMC
 Nine Minimum Control Measures
1.  Proper operation and maintenance
2.  Maximum use of collection system for storage
3.  Review of pretreatment requirements
4.  Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment
5.  Prohibition of CSOs during dry weather
6.  Control of solid and floatable materials
7.  Pollution prevention
8.  Public notification
9.  Monitoring of CSO impacts and efficacy of controls
 Monitor to Effectively Characterize CSO
Impacts and the Efficacy of CSO Controls

   Examples:
     * Identify CSS and overflow locations,
       receiving waters and uses
     • Maintain record of overflow occurrences,
       including volume, duration, and pollutant
       loadings
     • Monitor and report water quality impacts
       from CSOs
     • Monitor and report shellfish bed closures
       and swimming restrictions
     • Establish baseline conditions
                                                    -13-

-------
 Proper Operation and Regular Maintenance
        Programs for the CSS and CSOs
       Examples:
         •  Routine maintenance/cleaning of
            sewer system and outfalls
         •  Regular inspection of regulators
            and overflow devices
         •  Develop O & M reporting and
            recordkeeping system
         •  Develop training program
         •  Periodic review/revision of 0 & M program
       Maximum Use of the Collection
             System for Storage
    Examples:
       • Adjust regulator settings
       • Maintain and repair tide gates
       • Upgrade/adjust pump operation
         at lift stations
       • Remove solids/debris in collection system
       • Disconnect roof leaders
       • Optimize use of inflatable dams
         and real-time controls
     Review and Modification of Pretreatment        \
Requirements to Assure CSO Impacts Are Minimized
     Examples:
          • Inventory industrial discharges
          • Assess the significance
            of industrial discharges
          • Evaluate feasible modifications
                                                      -14-

-------
          Maximization of Flow

      to the POTW for Treatment


    Examples:

      •  Review design criteria and operation data
         to establish maximum flow rate

      •  Adjust regulator settings and pump station
         pumping rates

      •  Identify on-site treatment facilities
         for storage of wet weather flows

      •  Prohibit septage discharges
         during storm events
          Prohibition of CSOs

          During Dry Weather


        Identify DWO location

        Identify cause of DWO

        O & M problems:  take immediate
        actions

        Design problems: develop and
        implement plans to eliminate
        all dry weather events
        Prom
        ofD'
uptly notify permitting authority
WO
    Control of Solid and Floatable
	Materials in CSOs	


      Examples:

        • Remove solids and floatables
          before discharge

        • Remove floatables from surface
          of receiving water

        • Implement source controls
                                                  -15-

-------
         Pollution Prevention
    Examples:
      • Initiate public education program
      • Undertake anti-litter campaign
      • Institute BMPs
      • Develop used oil recycle program
      • Promote pollution prevention
        in commercial/industrial establishments
        (pollution prevention plan)
Public Notification to Ensure That the Public
  Receives Adequate Notification of CSO
      Occurrences and CSO Impacts
      Examples:
        • Post signs at affected areas,
          public places
        • Announce use restrictions
          on TV, radio, newspapers
        • Maintain telephone hotline
               Conclusion	
          Meet technology-based
          requirements
          Site-specific considerations
          Cost effective
          Innovative
                                                 -16-

-------
  Combined Sewer Overflows:

        Guidance for
Nine Minimum Control Measures
                                   -17-

-------
          Overview of the
     Long Term Control Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
              Objectives
     •    LTCP characteristics

     •    Key elements of LTCP

     •    Process for development
          and implementation of LTCP
   Four Key CSO Policy Principles
     •  Clear levels of control

     •  Flexibility to consider site-
        specificity and determine
        cost-effective approaches

     •  Phased implementation to reflect
        environmental priorities and
        financial capability

     •  Coordination of review of WQS
        and  CSO long-term control plans
                                              -19-

-------
            CSO Policy
   Phase I
    •   Implement and document NMC
    •   Develop LTCP
   Phase II
    •   Continue NMC Implementation
   LTCP Development Process

        •  Objectives
        •  Initial Activities
        •  Timeframe
     Three Phases of LTCP
Development and Implementation
  •  Data Collection and Analysis
  •  Alternative Development and
     Evaluation
  •  Selection and Implementation
                                        -20-

-------
 Data Collection and Analysis


    •    Two-step process


         •  Initial characterization

         •  LTCP characterization
 Data Collection and Analysis
           (continued)


• Initial characterization

  •    Rainfall analyses
  •    Initial CSS characterization
  •    Receiving water description

• LTCP characterization

  •    Additional CSS characterization
  •    Monitoring
  •    Modeling
 Development and Evaluation

	of Alternatives	


  • Range of alternatives

  • Presumption and demonstration
    approaches

  • Requirements of the CWA
                                          -21-

-------
   Selection and Implementation
       • Selection
       • Incorporation into permit
         or other enforceable
         mechanism
       • Implementation
       Key Elements of  LTCP
1. Characterization, Monitoring, and Modeling
2. Public Participation and Agency Interaction
3. Consideration of Sensitive Areas
4. Evaluation of Alternatives
5. Cost/Performance Considerations
6. Operational Plan
7. Maximizing Treatment at the POTW
8. Implementation  Schedule
9. Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring Program
  1.  Characterization, Monitoring,
            and Modeling
       •   Monitoring
       •   NMC
       •   Available  models
       •   Permitting authorities
                                                -22-

-------
          2.  Public Participation
         and Agency Interaction
            Establish and maintain
            communication

            Public participation

            Agency interaction

            •  Monitoring/modeling plan
            •  was
r
  3.  Consideration of Sensitive Areas
       Highest priority


       Examples

         Outstanding National Resource Waters
         National Marine Sanctuaries
         Threatened or endangered species
         Primary contact recreation
         Drinking water intakes
         Shellfish beds
r                                      \
      4. Evaluation of Alternatives
       • Presumption approach

       • Demonstration approach

       • Reasonable range of alternatives

       • Water quality-based
         requirements of the CWA
                                                -23-

-------
     Presumption Approach
Levels of control which  may be
presumed to meet WQS:
  i.   Four overflow events not
      receiving treatment
  ii.   85% capture for treatment
      or elimination
  iii.  Eliminate or remove pollutant
      mass equivalent to ii.
    Presumption Approach
            (continued)
Minimum level of treatment
  •    Primary clarification or equivalent
  •    Solids and floatables  disposal
  •    Disinfection of effluent
   Demonstration Approach
  Must meet all of following criteria:
       Meet WQS
       Remaining CSOs do not preclude
       attainment of designated use
   iii.  Maximum pollution reduction
       benefits reasonably attainable
   iv.  Allow cost-effective expansion
  Other considerations
                                              -24-

-------
  5. Cost/Performance Considerations


    • Estimated costs vs., expected
      performance for each alternative
          Knee of the Curve
V    -"•"
          6. Operational Plan
      • Modify NMC operation and
        maintenance program
                                         -25-

-------
                            -92-
                      Number of Impacts per Year
m
                                                        O
                                                        m
                                                        v>
                                                        v>
                                                        O
                                                        33
                                                        m
                                                        m
7s

-------
   7.  Maximizing Treatment at POTW
          •   Full utilization
          •   EPA regulations
'    8. Implementation Schedule     ^
          •  Phased schedule
          •  Sensitive areas
          •  Financial capability
          •  Other considerations
r
   9. Post-Construction Compliance
  	Monitoring Program	
        • Determine effectiveness
        • Verify compliance
        • Re-evaluate and update
                                          -27-

-------
   Special Considerations
       Small System
       Current Efforts
Small System Considerations
 • Populations <75,000
 • Permitting authorities' discretion
 • Minimum elements of LTCP
 Small System Considerations
          (continued)
 Minimum elements:
      • Compliance with NMC
      • Sensitive areas
      • Monitoring program
      • Public participation
                                        -28-

-------
'    Integration of Current Efforts      ^
      • Completed and meet WQS

      • Existing permit or enforcement
        order

      • Completed and do not
        meet WQS
              Conclusion
       •  Coordinated planning effort

       •  Four key principles

         • Clear levels of control
         • Flexibility
         • Phased implementation
         • Review and revise WQS, as
          appropriate

       •  Meet water quality-based
         requirements of CWA
      Combined Sewer Overflows:

              Guidance for
        Long Term Control Plan
                                           -29-

-------
 Overview of CSO Permitting
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Waatewater Management
              Objectives
      • Describe CSO policy from a
        permitting  perspective

      • Describe what and when CSO
        conditions will be In permits

      • Review CSO Guidance  for
        Permit Writers
CSO Control Policy Permitting Requirements
         *+mi mm, met*
                                              -31-

-------
CSO   Control  Policy   Permitting   Requirements
TIME
NPDES PERMIT
REQUIREMENT

Years after Phase 1 Permit Issuance
Phase 1
Phase II
Post Phase II
A. Technology-Based
NMC, at a minimum
NMC, at a minimum
 NMC, at a minimum
B. Water Quality-Based
Narrative
Narrative + performance-based
standards
 Narrative + performance-
 based standards + numeric
 WQ-based effluent limits
 (as appropriate)
C. Monitoring
Characterization, monitoring,
and modeling of CSS
Monitoring to evaluate WQ
impacts
Monitoring to determine
effectiveness of CSO controls
Post-construction compliance
monitoring
D. Reporting
Documentation of NMC
implementation
Interim LTCP deliverables
Implementation of
CSO controls
Post-construction compliance
monitoring reporting
E. Special Considerations
Prohibition of DWO
Development of LTCP
Prohibition of DWO           - Prohibition of DWOs
LTCP implementation schedule   • Reopener clause for
Reopener clause for WQS       WQS violations
violations
Sensitive area reassessment
                                                                                       Permitting-3
                                                                                       EPA/OWM

-------
 Incorporation of CSO Conditions
	Into NPDES Permits	
       • Mechanics
       • Timing
       • Interagency coordination
       • Previous or ongoing CSO
         control efforts
       • Small CSSs
       Effluent Limitations
       A.  Technology-based
       B.  Water quality-based
 A. Technology-Based Standards
     Phase I
       •  Implementation of NMC
       •  Other
     Phase
         Continued NMC implementation
         Other
                                        -33-

-------
        Example Permit  Language

 	for  Pollution  Prevention	


  [General]

       The permittee shall Implement » pollution prevention program
  focused on reducing (he Impact of CSOs on receiving waters.  The
  permtttee the.!! keep records to document pollution prevention
  Implementation activities

  [Site Specific]

  Thli program shall Include:

     I.  Conducting street sweeping and catch basin modification*
        or cleaning at a frequency that will prevent large
        accumulations of pollutants »nd debris, but no less than
        (specify a minimum frequency]

     If. Conducting a public education program that Informs
        the public of the permittee's local Taws that prohibit
        littering and the use of phosphate-containing
        detergents and pesticides

     ill Instituting an oil recycling program
B. Water  Quality-Based Standards



      Phase  I

          •  Narrative

      Phase  II

          •  Narrative
          •  Performance-based standards

      Post-Phase II

          •  Narrative
          •  Performance-based standards
          •  Numeric effluent limits, as appropriate
      Performance-Based  Criteria


  •  Average  of [x] overflow events
     per year

  •  Capture for treatment or elimination
     at least [x] percent of volume

  •  Eliminate or remove mass  of pollutants
     for [x] percent  of volume
                                                            -34-

-------
 C.  Monitoring and  Modeling     ^
          Requirements


• Characterize the CSS

• Determine CSO quality

• Determine receiving water baseline

• Characterize CSO impacts

• Evaluate  CSO control alternatives

• Determine efficacy of CSO controls

• Conduct  compliance monitoring
 D.  Reporting Requirements
   Phase I
       •  NMC documentation
       •  LTCP interim deliverables
       •  LTCP submission
       •  Monitoring results

   Phase  II

       •  Implementation of CSO controls
       •  Monitoring results

   Post-Phase II

       •  Monitoring results
     E. Special  Conditions
Phase I
      DWO prohibition
      LTCP development
      LTCP interim deliverable submissions
Phase II
     DWO prohibition
     Implementation schedule
     CSO-related bypass
     Sensitive area reassessment
     Reopener clause
                                            -35-

-------
CSO Control  Policy Permitting Requirements
         •M MM*"** CSS
             Conclusion
   •   Phased permitting process
       •  Phase I - NMC implementation
         and LTCP development
       •  Phase II - Continued NMC
         Implementation and LTCP Implementation
   •   CSO conditions
       •  Incorporated Into NPDES permits
       •  Reflect alto specificity
       •  Developed through Interaction with
         appropriate agencies and public
    Combined Sewer Overflows:
    Guidance for  Permit Writers
     •  Clarifies policy
     •  Explains expectations for
        permittees
     •  Provides  example permit
        language
                                                 -36-

-------
CSO   Control  Policy   Permitting   Requirements
TIME
NPDES PERMIT
REQUIREMENT

Years after Phase 1 Permit Issuance
Phase 1
Phase II
Post Phase II
A. Technology-Based
NMC, at a minimum
NMC, at a minimum
 NMC, at a minimum
B. Water Quality-Based
Narrative
Narrative + performance-based
standards
 Narrative + performance-
 based standards + numeric
 WQ-based effluent limits
 (as appropriate)
C. Monitoring
Characterization, monitoring,
and modeling of CSS
Monitoring to evaluate WQ
impacts
Monitoring to determine
effectiveness of CSO controls
Post-construction compliance
monitoring
D. Reporting
Documentation of NMC
implementation
Interim LTCP deliverables
Implementation of
CSO controls
Post-construction compliance
monitoring reporting
E. Special Considerations
Prohibition of DWO
Development of LTCP
Prohibition of DWO
LTCP implementation schedule
Reopener clause for WQS
violations
Sensitive area reassessment
Prohibition of DWOs
Reopener clause for
WQS violations
                                                                                        Pertnitting-13
                                                                                        EPA/OWM

-------
                 CSO Monitoring mil Modtllng Qulatncu Minuil
     CSO Monitoring and
             Modeling
       Guidance Manual
           O1fle« of Wnlmnttr Minigtrrunt
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 CSO Monitoring indModtllng Ouldtna Mtnuil

             CSO Policy

   Policy to be applied based on
   understanding of individual CSSs and
   Impacts
    • Developed recognizing site-specific nature of
      CSSs
    • Flexible
    • Includes approach based on CSS operating
      characteristics (Presumption)
    • Allows water-quality based approach
      (Demonstration)
                 CSO Monitoring indModiling OulUfnaMtnutl
CSS Characterization Under the
                Policy
 • Data generated will be used for
   multiple purposes
 • Long-term continuous program
                                          -39-

-------
                  CSO UonUoring md HottUng OuMne* Utruml
CSS Characterization Under the
           Policy (continued)

 • Characterization data used in many
   aspects of the Policy
    • Nine Minimum Controls (NMCs)
      • Implementation
      • Evaluation
    • LTCP Development
    • Coordination of WQS review and revision
    • WQS Compliance
                  CSO Monitoring md UodKttg GuMvw* MvxMl

 Uses of Characterization Data

 • Understand CSS
    • Hydraulic response
    • CSS water quality
 • Plan operational improvements
 • Plan, evaluate and design control
   alternatives
    • CSStreatability
                  CSO Monitoring ml Uod*ltig OuUtac* Utnuml
 Uses of Characterization Data
                (continued)

 • Understand receiving water impacts
    • Baseline condition
    • CSO impacts vs other sources
    • Habitat impacts
    • Long-term water quality
    • Measures of success
                                         A.
                                             -40-

-------
                  CSO MonHortng OTdHodMtog OvkUnct Umta
        Purpose of Manual
  Communicate EPA's general expectations
  for monitoring and modeling efforts
  Present techniques to evaluate CSS
  responses to wet (and dry) weather
  Communicate methods to evaluate CSS
  Impacts on receiving waters
  Provide sources for additional guidance on
  characterization
                  CSO Uonltortng vx/Motto/tig Ovfchno* «tanu>/

         Manual Approach

• Present methods for determining the
  necessary:
    • Number of samples
    • Frequency of sampling
    • Need for modeling
• Use of examples rather than prescriptive
  values
• Provide references to technical procedures
                  CSO UenHorlnf tnd Mmfetttf Gufctew* Umu*l

          Manual Outline

  1.0    Introduction
  2.0    CSS Characterization Process
  3.0    Monitoring Plan
  4.0    CSS Monitoring
  5.0    Receiving Water Monitoring
  6.0    Modeling Plan
  7.0    CSS Modeling
  8.0    Receiving Water Modeling
  9.0    Data Interpretation
                                             -41-

-------
                  CSO Monitoring md Modttog Outturn MVHMI
   2.0  CSS Characterization
               Process

• Preliminary CSS Investigation
   • Review historical data
   • Perform limited field study
   • Identify data gaps
• Monitoring and modeling plan
• Rainfall monitoring
• CSS and receiving water monitoring
                  CSO Monitoring vxl MocMtof GuMww* MVXM/
   2.0  CSS Characterization
       Process  (continued)

  CSS modeling
   • Flow
   • WQ
  Receiving water modeling
  Interpret data (throughout)
   • Hydraulic response
   • Pollutant concentration, loads
   • CSS impact on receiving waters
                  CSO Monitoring tnd Madtlhg GuMmnce Mmal

       3.0  Monitoring Plan

   Establishing goals, data quality objectives
   CSS, receiving water monitoring
    • Flow monitoring, WQ sampling
    • Monitoring locations
    • Storms, duration
    • WQ parameters
   Rainfall monitoring
                                            -42-

-------
                    CSO Manltorlnt mi M«M»>0 Ouktano* Itanm/

        4.0  CSS Monitoring

• Objectives
    • Capture representative storms, locations
    • Determine operation of regulating structures
    • Determine variability of CSS water quality
    • Provide data to calibrate and validate CSS
      model
                    CSO Uonllorlns tni Hadtlhg OuMMM Mvxx/

5.0 Receiving Water Monitoring

•  Complexity of receiving water dynamics
    • Seasonal variation
    • Diurnal variation
    • Mixing phenomena
    • Sediment effects
•  Understanding effect of upstream loads
    • Point sources
    • Non-point sources
                   CSO UcnUorlng tnd UoOtllng Ouldmte* Htnu*l

         6.0  Modeling Plan

   Uses of modeling
    • Extrapolate monitoring data to periods and
      locations not directly monitored
    • Predict performance of CSO controls
    • Predict frequency, duration and severity of
      water quality Impacts of CSOs
    • Understand downstream and long-term
      effects of CSO discharges
    • Focus future monitoring efforts
                                               -43-

-------
                   CSO Monitoring md Htxtelhg Ouldanc* Mmal

   6.0 Modeling Plan  (continued)

  What level of effort is appropriate?
    • Balance monitoring and modeling efforts
    • Match complexity of model to complexity of
      CSS and Information needs
    • Balance modeling (and monitoring) effort
      with expense of planning and implementing
      CSO controls
                   CSO Monitoring ml Hodtlhg Ouldmet Hmtufl

         7.0 CSS Modeling

• Screening, simplified approaches
• Use of rainfall data
    • Continuous long-term data
    • Event data
    • Design data
• How to choose a model
    • SWMM
    • Others
• Calibration and validation
                   CSO Monitoring tnd Uoatttng Outomct Umnaa

 8.0 Receiving Water Modeling

• Timing of receiving water, CSS flows
• Water quality kinetics
    • dissolved oxygen
    • nutrients
• Future or hypothetical conditions
• Effect of other pollutant sources such as
  the POTW or stormwater
                                               -44-

-------
                  CSO Monitoring and Modeling Guidance Manual

      9.0 Data Interpretation

• Questions to be answered
    • CSS response to rainfall
    • Dry weather flows
    • Tidal, backflow effects
    • Regulator operation
    • Pollutant loads, concentration
    • Receiving water impacts
                  CSO Monitoring ind Modeling Guidance Manual

Prediction of CSO Performance

• Presumption approach
• Demonstration approach
                                           -45-

-------
Monitoring/Modeling Aspects of
    CSO Control Programs
• Purpose and necessity
« General discussion of pertinent
  aspects
   • CSO monitoring programs
   • Modeling CSOs
     • Runoff/overflow (land side)
     • Receiving water (water quality impacts)
                   _
Monitoring/Modeling Aspects of
  CSO Control Programs (
• Case study - Paedergat Basin, New York
   • Monitoring, modeling, control assessment
   • Conventional pollutants: BOD/DO,
     TSS, coliform

• Case study - New York City floatables
   • Monitoring, modeling, source
     assessment, and loads
Monitoring/Modeling Aspects of
  CSO Control Programs
• Performance Goals
  • Relating performance goals for CSO
    programs
      to
  • Design criteria for control units
• CSO treatment for floatables control
  • Identify technologies
  • Assessment of alternatives from case study
                                      -47-

-------
/"
    Monitoring for CSO Control
   	Programs	
      I. Establish CSO Quality
     II. Establish System Hydraulics
        • Rainfall—flows—overflows
     III. Characterize Receiving
        Water Effects
        • Impact of CSOs
        • Water quality versus standards
    Monitoring for CSO Control
          Programs (continued)

    IV.  Define Treatability Factors
        •  Soluble versus paniculate
        •  Settling velocities
        •  First-flush characterization
      1. Establish CSO Quality

   • Check for other possible data sources
      • Urban runoff (separate sewers)
      • Special studies in area
      • POTW monitoring programs
   • POTW influent data
      • Provides long record
      • Segregate wet versus dry period data
      • Mass balance—runoff versus DWF
      • Supplement limited sewer sample data
                                         -49-

-------
I.  Establish CSO Quality

   • Sewer sampling
      • Establish data needs
       • Number of locations
       • Interceptor versus overflow
       • Grabs versus composites
      • Representative samples
       • Number of events
       • Capture heavy solids
       • Large conduits
I.  Establish CSO Quality
• Data analysis/interpretation
  • Results will be variable
  • Probabilistic analysis will be useful
  • Correlations — storm properties/other
 Probability Distributions of
   BOD and TSS Red Hook
-
BOD
(man.)

j

Red Hook



- .,"-



_^



^
.,,!.,.


- »



TSS -
(mgfl.)







s



X"


'•'• " 	 '••
s"



Probability Probability

See the following page for full-scale image. \
                                      -50-

-------
      1000
O)
E
o
O
CD
       100
        10
         _ i i IMIIII  i  i i nun
              RED  HOOK
                        00
                          0000°
                      0°
           i i ii urn _ I  I I mill
l - 1 — 1
                                1   1  1
                                          1   1   1
                                                   rf*»°
        0.1       IV  u      10   20       50       BO   90
                                  PROBABILITY
                               gg     99.9
1UUU

^J
\
CD
.§. 100
en
en
»-

10
_ i i limn i i i linn
-
-
_
" 000°°°
o o
1 1 II 	
1 1 1


000°
Ooo°°°
|0

1 1 1
1 1 1

0°°°°
/°°°


1 1 1
— linn i i i — mini i i -
I
0
X" ;
-
-
_
N- BO
	 1 1 1 "Hill 1 1
        0.1
                           10   20       50       BO   BO
                                                               99      99.9
                                  PROBABILITY


               PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS OF BOD AND TSS RED HOOK
                                 -51-

-------
II.  Establish System Hydraulics

 • Runoff versus rainfall
    • Key analysis to rain—long-term record
      USGS gage in general area
    • Local rain gages for individual events
      used for model calibration
    • Rain/runoff ratio
      • Establish Rv, % imperv, other model
       parameters
      • Variable—appropriate analysis required
       individual events versus overall average
       .  Establish System
       Hydraulics
    • Dry weather flow
       • Magnitude
       • Variability (diurnal, weekly,
         seasonal)
    • Regulator— design/operation
       • Rates that produce overflows
       • Adjustability
                                      A
 III.  Characterize Receiving
 	Water Effects	

 • Variation in space and time
     • Space
       • Proximity to overflows at use areas (e.g.,
        beaches)
     • Time
       • Wet weather versus dry
       • Seasonal—stream f tow
       • Tide stage
     • Guide model structure and application
                                          -52-

-------
III.  Characterize Receiving
    Water Effects (continued)

• Influence of CSO discharges
    • Assessment of CSO impact (type,
     severity)
    • Information for model calibration
• Background/other sources
    • Relative influence of CSO
    • Ability of CSO control to attain
     standards
   IV.  Define Treatability
	Factors	

 • Soluble versus particulate
   fractions
    • Sedimentation operates on
      particulates
    • Information for pollutants to be
      controlled
IV. Define Treatability Factors
              (Continued)

• Settling velocities
   • Controls performance—design
     criteria
   • Variable
     • By site
     • By storm
   • Test apparatus and procedure
     (see figure)
                                      -53-

-------
CSO Settling Velocity—Typical Test
  Equipment and Sample Results
     Slmpltag
     pprtftyp)
     r

     1

     1
"4- Sample 500 mL
 ButUrfly v.lv.

 - PtaclglMt cyllndvr

                          Pere.ntequ.lorgn>.t.r
  Typical Settling Columns
     IV.  Define Treatability
                     (Continued)
    Settling velocities (continued)
     m Analysis/interpretation of test results
       (see figure)
        • Distribution: range of settling velocities
        • % total with specific average values
     • Translate to treatment unit design
       parameters (see figure)
     Effect of Particle Settling
 Velocity and Hydraulic Loading
Rate on TSS  Removal Efficiency
       Sedimentation Basin
                           Swirl Concentrator
    Partlcto Mttlfrio v*loettv (Nhr)
                         Pvttoto MttUng vtfoctty (Whr)
                                           -54-

-------
  IV.  Define Treatability

        FaCtOrS  (Continued)

 First-flush characterization
  • Issue—is large percent of load in
    small percent flow
  • System characteristics will
    determine
     • Some retained in interceptor
     • Some diluted by different arrival
      times at regulator in large systems
  IV.  Define Treatability

        FaCtOrS (Continued)

 First-flush characterization (continued)
  m Local sampling necessary
     • In overflow, not interceptor
     • Adequate number of
      • Locations
      • Storm events
     • Grab samples at intervals following
      start of overflow (see figure)
   First-Flush Assessment
Newtown Creek Sewershed  10 Regulators/8 Storms 65 Site Events
   BOD
   (mg/L)
        Sanitary c e 129 mg/L
        Storni c = 10 mg/L
                       P
            Hours from start of storm
                                         -55-

-------
          Modeling CSO
      Runoff and Overflows

      I. Objectives
        • Purpose
        • Need for model
      II. Model Selection
        • SWMM
        • Other—including simplified,
          desktop
                                  A
      Modeling CSO Runoff and
                     (Continued)
   III. Analysis Mode
      • Definitions—event, continuous
      • Uses—event mode
      • Uses—continuous mode
   IV. Calibration
r
      Modeling CSO Runoff and
                     (Continued)
       V. Issues/Constraints
          • Time period analyzed
          • Simplifications
          • CSO quality
          • Surcharged pipes
                                   -57-

-------
    I.  Objectives—Runoff/CSO
               Modeling

      1.  Purpose
      • Determine system flows
          • Key locations (e.g., regulators)
          • Different rainfall conditions
      • Estimate pollutant loads from
        CSOs
r                                      \
    I.  Objectives— Runoff/CSO
                       (Continued)
    2.  Need for model analysis
    • Combined sewer systems are complex
       • Layout
       • Hydraulics (DWF and runoff)
    • Rainfall is variable
    • Need to extrapolate limited monitoring data
    • Examine multiple control alternatives
         II.  Model Selection

     1. SWMM
     • Usual choice—basic runoff model
       • Designed for urban sewer systems
       • Wide use and experience
     • Runoff block
       • Converts rainfall to flows in CSS
         • Meteorological data
         • Drainage area characteristics
       • Quality of runoff
                                         -58-

-------
 II.  Model Selection
(Continued)
• Transport block
    • Routes all flows (runoff and DWF)
    • Determines overflows at regulators
• Other model blocks
    • Extran—for lines that surcharge
    • Storage/treatment—effect of control
    • Receiving water (stream)
 II.  Model Selection
(Continued)
      2.  Other models
      • Comprehensive models
         • Some are available
         • Experience/familiarity
         • Suitable for study area
 II.  Model Selection
(Continued)
• Simplified models
   • May be necessary/adequate for some
     projections
      • Large/complex areas
      • Analysis of long time periods
      • Evaluate overall effect of storage/treatment
      • Evaluate design/planning issues (e.g., pump-out
       time for storage)
   • Use SWMM to develop reliable site-specific
     estimates for simple model inputs
      • Runoff coefficient
                                          -59-

-------
       III.  Analysis  Mode
 1. Definitions
 • Event mode
    • Single storm event (duration hours)
 • Continuous mode
    • Sequence of storm events
    • Duration (weeks, months, years)
 • SWMM operates in either mode; often
   uses both
  III.  Analysis Mode
  2. Uses — event analysis
  • Calibration effort — compare with
    individual monitored events
     • Sewer flows/overflows
     • Receiving water model — streams
  • Hydraulic analysis — examine effect of
    regulator settings/design alternatives
     • Upstream flooding
     • Overflow quantity
  III.  Analysis Mode (continued)

• Design storm—project overflow loads
  for tidal receiving water analysis
   • For component analysis
   • For comparison with water quality
     standards
• Individual events loads—for stream
  receiving water analysis
   • Multiple individual events
                                          -60-

-------
  III.  Analysis Mode (continued)

3. Uses—continuous analysis

• Calibration effort
   • Tidal waters—mixing and
     dispersion cause "holdover" of
     water quality effects
   • Comparison of impacts on water
     quality standards based on monthly
     averages
  III.  Analysis Mode (continued)

• Assessment of control options
   • Storage/treatment based on
     long-term effect
   • Optimization of storage/treatment

• Estimating input parameters for
  simplified models
   • Based on long-term average values
         IV.  Calibration


 1.  Calibration method (flow)

 • Monitor rainfall (local rain gage)
    • Long-term USWS gage in general area,
     OK for projections
    • Local gage data for individual events
 • Monitor flows in sewer
    • Upstream of regulator(s)—for runoff
    • Overflows for regulator operation
                                      -61-

-------
     IV.  Calibration
(Continued)
   Adjust model parameters for best
   match of computed versus
   observed flows
   Monitor quality (sewer or overflow)
    • Calibrate as for flow (possible)
    • Analyze to define separate
      characterization of CSO quality
      (preferred)
     IV.  Calibration
(Continued)
2. Calibration parameters
• SWMM inputs
   Drainage area                   200-2,000 acre
   Land slope                    .001 - .200
   Percent imperviousness             45% - 72%
   Mannings roughness (impervious area)    .014
   Mannings roughness (pervious area)     .20
   Norton parameters: too             .3 in./hr
               fo              3.0 inThr
               a              .00115 sec-'
   Depression storage (impervious area)     .007 - .120
   Depression storage (pervious area)      .1
   Evaporation                    .1 in./day
     IV.  Calibration
(Continued)
     Sensitivity analysis
      • Examine influence of
        uncertain values
      • % impervious—usually
        principal adjustment factor
                                           -62-

-------
     IV.  Calibration (continued)


3. Calibration procedure

• Illustrated by the four figures that follow
• Adjust model parameters for
    • Total want volume for monitored storm*
      • Individually
      • Total lor location
    • Stations
      • Upitratm (ntabllih runoff pvammri)
      • Overflow (*ttibll*h regulator operation)
    • Attempte to match ahort-term fluctuations and peaks
     not usually productive
System Wet Weather Flows
      Observed volume (mg)
                           Observed volume (mg)
Combined  Sewer Overflows
      Observed volume {mg)
                           OtaMrved volume (mg)
                                           -63-

-------
     Observed vs. Computed
Upstream Flow at Regulator OH4
Flow
(mgd)
Flow
(mgd)
                        Rain .40 In.
      March 18,1991 (hr)
                          March 23,1991 (hr)
 Observed vs. Computed Upstream
   Flow at Regulator OH4 (continued)
Flow
(mad)
 Flow
 (mgd)
      Aprll13,1991(hr)
                          April 15,1991 (hr)
     V.  Issues/Constraints

 1. Time period analyzed
 • Computer memory/run time/time period
   • Complex systems
      • Many regulators
      • Many monitoring nodes
   • Long-term SWMM analysis may not be feasible
     for many systems
 • Use rain data analysis to select appropriate
  short-term periods for use in SWMM
                                        -64-

-------
V.  Issues/Constraints
                                 (continued)
 • Some analyses may require long-term analysis
    • When a design storm is not appropriate
    • Average control level
    • Storage/treatment optimization
    • Some receiving water impacts and
      comparison with water quality standards
 • Apply simple models
    • Use SWMM outputs to guide parameter
      estimates
    • Example schematics (next two figures)
  Rainfall - Runoff Model Flow Balance
[See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
 Rainfall - Runoff Model Mass Balance
 See the following page(s) for full-scale image. I
                                            -65-

-------
ON
ON
                     RAINFALL.
                        Ri
                     AREA ( A)
COMBINED 1C )
SEPARATE (S)
                                    °CSS

                                    Qsw: cvRi
                                  DRY WEATHER FLOW(DWF)
                                  COMBINED SYSTEM (CS)
                                  STORM WATER ( SW)
                                   STORM DRAIN (SO)
                 QSO=CVR.(A)(%S)/IOO
                                                        OUTFALL
                                                         (CSO)
                                                                              OTHERWISE QSTps H.C.
HYDRAULIC
 CAPACITY
  (H.C.)
                                                                STP
                                         RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODEL
                                             FLOW BALANCE

-------
    RAINFALL
       R
                                         COWF: BOD: 130 mq/ I
                                                 = I00mq/l

                                              TOTAL COLIF.= l07No./IOOml
                    Osw = C«R; (A) (%C)/IOO
                                                            °STPI(W + °sw
                                                                 OTHERWISE 0STP = H.C
                                             REGULATOR
                 DRY WEATHER FLOW (DwF)
                 COMBINED SYSTEM ICS)
                 STORM WATER (SW)
                                        HYDRAULIC
                                         CAPACITY
                                           (H.C
COMBINED 1C )
SEPARATE IS)
                   STORM DRAIN (SD)
                                                      O«,n= Ors - H.C.
                                                      COUT= CR°RO
                                         OUTFALL
                                          (CSO)
QSD= CvRi(A)(%S)/IOO
                       RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODEL
                            MASS BALANCE

-------
V.  Issues/Constraints (continued)



  2.  Simplifications—often
     necessary, commonly done

  • Spatial aggregation
     • Average parameters for large
      areas based on land use, sewer
      layout, etc.
V.  Issues/Constraints (continued)


• Collection system simplifications

   • Eliminate transport block

   • Assign SWMM outputs from runoff
     block to regulator/overflow point
     • No sewer constraints
     • Travel time short

   • Illustrative example (next three
     figures)
   Major Sewer Schematic
 See r/ie following page for full-scale image.
                                      -68-

-------
23rd Ava •
81st. St
(Bulkheoded)
               12"
               Combined
               Sewer
                                               66* Combined
    12'	
    Combined
    Sewer
        Combined Sewers
                         Combined
                          Sewer
                            12'
	30"
 Combined
    Sewer
                  36"
                  Storm
                  Sewer
12' 22" 22' Combined









30' Storm
Sewer
82nd St •
Stlllwdl Ave. , 	 [9
(Bulkheoded) / L
ra /
18" Sanitary r .
«« AyB V Combined
Sewer
j£ 	

1 » 30" *

Combined o « J2! 	 »>
Sewer
f
54" Storm Sewer .«
(Rec. Combined) 12°
^\^ Sewer

\
12"
Combined ""
__ AV
-• Highland Ave.
C • W11th St.
(Bi
[ac]
P (Operational)

J8C|

Ave.







Combined
Sewers

T


1

0 W11th St
(Bulkheoded)




I


I ^S^









2" }





102 -Storm


AVM V
MVO. V
Pump
Station













2"1





2" 1





?•





Sewer (Rec. Co








1 >
80" Storm




* 	 18" Combined

12' C
Sev
mblned)


Ave U •
Lake St
                                                                                                    Lake St •
                                                                                                        T
                                       84'
                                       Combined
                                       Sewer
                                                                                                                               108"
                                                                                                                               Storm
                                                                                                                               Sewer
                                                                  90" Storm Sewer
                                                                  (Rec. Combined)
                                            ^60"
                                                                      Storm Sewer  J
                                                                                           108' Storm Sewer .
                                                                                    228* Sewer
                                                                                    .  fe
Stniwell
Ave.
                                                                                                   -126* Storm Sewer
                                           MAJOR  SEWER SCHEMATIC

-------
    SWMM Model Subareas
  SWMM Model Subareas
 New Jersey
                          Atltnllc Ocem
V.  Issues/Constraints
                               (continued)
3.  CSO quality
• High variation and poor correlation
   • With time
      • Hourly
      • Event-to-event
   • In space
      • Sewer locations
      • Different overflows
• Define typical pollutant concentrations
   • Appropriate data analysis (usually statistical)
   • Pooled data
   • Apply representative values to all overflows
                                          -70-

-------



                                               \»l Ji-*l—! -^••^•'••^iit 1 M !' M r A' it « ''i






                SEWER SYS (48") £$,g|
                4S st* \ \ X\vv // ///fixl  1>
'^J /  H^QBCDOLlUl^^^   1
    ^~-.c   \     ~—	            i
                  SWMM MODEL SUBAREAS

-------
     Modeling CSO Receiving
           Water Impacts

       I. Objectives
       II. Overview of Model Analysis
      III. Model Elements
         • Selection factors
         • Inputs
         • Transport
         • Kinetics
r
     Modeling CSO Receiving
       Water Impacts (continued)
   IV. Calibration
      • Sensitivity analysis
   V. Component Analysis
   VI. Projections
      • Select design condition
      • Evaluate alternatives
      • Compare with water quality standards
       I.  Objectives of Water
          Quality Modeling	
     Define cause and effect relationships
      • Pollutant inputs
      • Water quality impacts
     Determine importance of pollutant inputs
      • Wastewater treatment plants
      • CSO/storm drainage
      • Tributaries
      • Other
                                      -73-

-------
     I.  Objectives of Water
   Quality Modeling
   • Assess required reduction of
     pollutant inputs
      • Compliance with existing standards
      • Compliance with alternate standards
   • Test effect of control alternatives
      • Detention facilities
      • Treatment processes
      • Relocation of overflows
II. Receiving Water Model Overview

Transport
Tidal
>VokjrMflux«*
• Diffusion co«ff
•T/S
•Etavatlon
Stream*
•Flow/toga
• Vatocfty



Runoff Model

F&dDiU
WQ monttarlng
Special t**tt
Stdlnwrt
BOO (uttfMm)


j ,


-c
Adjuttment
Kbwtfc rMCtlon
ratn
• BO WOO
•R«MT«k)n
• AlgM growth
• ColHorm dl»ofl
• SolkJ* Mttllng

1
•*.
CSO - kMd*, flam
IOttw - k»di, Horn
kllti*! condttton*
Boundary conditions


C«Mbr«rfon
Comparison with
ObSMVSd
• CBOD
• Dtssorwd
oxygwi



SemMvtty
Amtyflt
* Component MMlyib
by »oorc* crttwb
• Kkitffc rMCtlan
ratM
• Swflm«nt o«Yflwi
d«m«nd
• Photo* ynthMh
t
Projection
•S*toctk>nof
d*«tgn condWon
•ScTMnlng
•lt«nitiv*«
• CBOD iwductkvi
plwi

      III.  Model Elements

  1. Model selection factors
  • Nature of system
     • Tidal versus advective
     • Simple versus complex
     • Water quality problem/pollutants
     • Other factors (algae/DO, sediment)
                                       -74-

-------
III. Model Elements (continued)

  • Analysis mode/time scale
    • Event/continuous
    • Water quality standards
      •Geometric mean
      • Maximum/minimum
      • Percent exceedance
III. Model Elements (continued)

• Spatial scale
   • Number and location of areas
    of interest
    • Overflow points
    • Use areas (e.g., beaches)
• Relation to monitoring
  program design
                   Locations of
                   Aggregated
                   Model CSOs
                      See the
                    following page
                    for full-scale
                      image.
                                 -75-

-------
                     Nxy  r CS°4
                     r\ /  • CSO3

                     /  /CSO2

                     W^
LOCATIONS OF AGGREGATED MODEL CSOs
               -76-

-------
   III.  Model Elements (continued)

     2.  Model inputs
     • Loads and flows
         • CSO discharges
         • Point sources
         • Other sources
          • Separate storm sewers
          • Upstream inputs (PS/NPS)
   III.  Model Elements
   •  Background water quality
       • Initial and boundary conditions
   •  Transport structure
       • Hydrodynamic conditions
   •  Inputs versus data available
       • Guide monitoring program design
       • Base model selection on data
        available
Outer Harbor Water Quality Classifications and Sampling Locations
   See the following page for full-scale image.
                                         -77-

-------
oo
                          Class SA-Shellflsh
                          Class SB-Swimming
                          Class l-Flshing
                          Class SD-Rsh Passage
                                                                                   BROOKLYN
                                                      Port Richmond
                                                           STATEN
                                                           ISLAND
T6
GO  °T4
                                               RARITAN BAY
                                                                                                 O Tributary Sampling Stations
                                                                                                 D Open Water Sampling Stations
                                                                                                 A Beach Sampling Stations
                                                                                                 • STP
                                                                                                        50'
                                                                             7400'
                                   Outer Harbor Water Quality Classifications and Sampling Locations

-------
  III.  Model Elements
   3.  Transport
   • ONLY unique aspect of CSO
     monitoring and modeling effort
   • Marine (tidal) waters
       • Circulation pattern
         • Drogues, salinity
       • Volume fluxes
       • Diffusion coefficient
       • Elevation
  III.  Model Elements (continued)

 •  Rivers (advective)
     •  Flow/stage
     •  Velocities
 •  All other monitoring/modeling guidance
    and case study features are independent
    of water body type
     •  CSO loads and flows (SWMM)
     •  Calibration
     •  Component analysis
     •  Projection and comparisons
  III.  Model Elements (continued)

4. Kinetics
• Rate coefficients define chemical/biological
  reactions in receiving water
   • Consumption of DO
      • Carbonaceous BOD
      • Ammonia
   • Algal production and consumption
   • Reaeration
   • Sedimentation of particulates
   • Coliform die-off
   • Sediment reactions
      • Sediment oxygen demand (SOD)
                                           -79-

-------
  III.  Model Elements
(Continued)
 • Model—must include processes
    significant in water body
     • e.g., algae or sediment effects
      on DO
 • Assignment of parameter values
     • Literature and experience
     • Special tests
     • Calibration of model
     IV.  Model Calibration

 • Procedure—adjust model inputs so
   outputs match observed water quality
    • Kinetic rate coefficients
    • Loads and flows (within uncertainty)
 • Dry weather calibration
    • Dry weather monitoring data set
    • Avoid uncertainty with CSO values
    • Set kinetic rate coefficients
 IV.  Model Calibration (continued)
• Wet weather calibration
   • Streams—for individual events (five or six)
   • Tidal—for a sequence (month)
   • Strategy
     • Coliform—peaks and attenuation rate
     • BOD/DO—overall level of BOD/DO
• Sensitivity analysis
   • In association with calibration
   • Input/kinetic parameters with large impact
                                         -80-

-------
   V.  Component Analysis

   • Purpose
       • Information and guidance
         for CSO control program
       • Relative significance of
         •Locations that contribute
          significant pollutant loads
         •Sources of pollutants
   V.  Component Analysis
                (Continued)
 •  Procedure
     • Run calibrated model with all inputs "zeroed-
       out," other than selected condition
     • Multiple runs required
     • Summarize and display results
 •  Examples
     • Coliforms at two beaches versus CSO
       locations
     • Load sources versus DO depletion at three
       receiving water locations
    Component of Total Coliform
     South Beach for           Manhattan Beach for
    12 Hours After Storm         12 Hours After Storm
                Oakwood 0.3%
                 Pt. Richmond
                   Owl» Head
                   11.1%
> y««r n*urn rainfall, 2.54 Inch for 6 hour.. March 27,19M
                                         -81-

-------
 DO Component Analysis
        NEWTCWIN CHEEK  BATTERY
      VI. Projections
• Select design conditions
   • Analyze rain data—select
    design condition(s) for
    projections
   • Select condition that will
    permit assessment of
    compliance with water quality
    standards
  VI.  Projections
    Examples
    • Storm with x year return
    • Summer storm with x year
      return
    • Summer month with x year
      total rain
                                 -82-

-------
   Hyetographs Used for CSO Impact
           Studies on Beaches
K
10tth
of Inch
M
t
Day* (July, 1989)
Rainfall 5.6 In.
-
: 	 Ml 	 ,l


,,l
D«y»
-
I :




,i
Design CondHlons tor 5.8 In. Rainfall Month
   Hyetographs Used for CSO Impact
       Studies on  Beaches (continued)
Inches
1.20
1.00
0.00
an
040
OilO
0.00
3 year return storm
2.54 In.






1
II
1 -
I I - -
23458
Hours

r                  _^

       VI.  Projections (continued)

    • Evaluate Alternatives
       • Modify input loads to reflect changes
         produced by controls
         • Flow/concentration/load reduction
         • Number of overflows
       • Compare changes
         • Loads
         • Receiving water quality
         • Compliance with standards
                                           -83-

-------
   VI.  Projections (continued)

  • Compare with water
    quality standards
      • Average and percent
       exceedance
      • Maximum or minimum
          Total Coliform
10,000


1,000


 100


  10


10,000

 1,000

  100

  10
                        DOH
                        Guideline
            90% Reduction
Ocean Parkway
Manhattan Beach
      Jamaica Bay CSO reduction plan: 3 year return storm    Hour>
                                     -84-

-------
  NYC Department of
     Environmental
       Protection

Paerdegat Basin Water Quality Facility Plan
  Modeling of Loads and Water Quality
            by
        HydroQual, Inc.
Location of
 Paerdegat
   Basin
Study Area
        Landside
     Runoff/Loading
        Modeling
                            -85-

-------
          N
                                 Paerdegat
                                 Tributary
                                 Area
Stater.
Island
       Lower Boy
                                         Atlantic Ocean
            Location of Paerdegat Basin Study Area
                                    -86-

-------
Paerdegat Basin Tributary Area
              Regulator drainage boundary
   Location of Sewer System Flow
   and Quality Sampling Stations
                          See the
                         following
                       page(s) for full-
                        scale image.
  Rainfall History for Selected
    Paerdegat Storm Events
Rainfall
On.)

^-•^ 1 i 1 i i i i i i i i i i
0.30 '
.? ' 	 ftk. . .
0.0 8.0 1E.O 24.0
0.30 -
0.20 •
010 -.. rwv, 	

i i i i i i i i i i
1O-3-86
Total rainfall = 050
32.0 40.0 46.0
10-26-86
Total rainfall = 0.36
0.0 8.0 16 0 24.0 32.0 40.0 40.0
Time from start of storm day (hr)
                                   -87-

-------
                                                                                    -Regulator Drainage Boundary
                                                                                                                                60" and greater Sewers
oo
OD
          Legend:
            O- Regulator, Diversion and Tide Gate
            • • Regulator, Diversion
            ®- Overflow (Combined Sewer Reliefs)
            O- Tipping Location
            ——Trunk Sewers 60"and greater
            	Drainage Area Boundaries
         2000
                         20OO
                  Feet
                                                                                                                                                          Sform Sewer   
-------
oo
       Inset
         Legend:

           A-CSO Water Quality
              Sampling Sites
           A- Flow Meter Sites
           O~ Regulator, Diversion and
              Tide Gate
           0- Regulator, Diversion
           ®- Overflow (Combined Sewer
              Reliefs)
           f)* Tipping Location
         2000
                 SCOlf:

                  o
                 Feet
                         20OO
Inset
See Top
Left Corner
                               Location of Sewer System Flow and Quality Sampling Stations

-------
  Rainfall History for Selected
 Paerdegat Storm Events



Rainfal





0.30
OJ2Q
0.10
0
0.30
0.20
0.10
0


11*86
Tot.! r.lnf.lU 0.81
". , . 	 JHTHTk. ........."
0 8.0 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 «
_ 11-1846
fVfL Tol.lr.lnl.il = 1.34
"l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (llllnL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l"
0 8.0 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 «
Time from start of storm day (hr)



LO


.0

  Regulator 6
Observed CSO
   Pollutant
Concentrations
(November 18,1986)
 See the following
  page(s) for full-
   scale image.
- ' \

I I
1
\
. \ — *
-»-M '

    Paerdegat Basin Sewer
       Sampling Surveys
 Event Date
            if Stations  Start Time (hr) Duration (hr)
 1    10/03/86
 2    10/26/86
      4
      2
      2
11/05/86  4
11/18/86  4
1915
1615
2115
2200
2000
 8.8
 7.0
10.0
 9.5
 9.5
                                     -90-

-------


^-?
O>


W
•o
I— 1
o
en




3
D)
E
in
•o
o
CD



^
i—!
E
0
O
>.
c
o.
-E-
E
C-
0
•IH
r-l
O
O


250

200

150

100

50

0

-

	

—




6.0
250

200
150

100


50

0

-


	


_


6.0
10 8


10 7


10 6

10°

10*
i
^
~
j*
E
i
—
5
E
—

6.0


i 1 1 1
0
0 11-18-86 -
0 °
—
0
o
0
—
CPOOQO gQ
1 1 ^1 1










14.0 22.0 30.0 38. 0 46.0

1 1 1 1
11-18-86 -
_
0
0 —
0

0 —
0
1 1 °QoooooQa0o9o00 |










14.0 22.0 30.0 38.0 46.0

1 1 1 1 I
0 —
o 11-18-86 ~
cP =
00 =
0 0 =
° °0 OOo 1
0 COO =
oo —
0 =
^
1 1 ° 1 1











14.0 22.0 30.0 36.0 46.0
Time (hours)
Regulator 6 Observed CSO Pollutant Concentrations
              (November 18, 1986)
                      -91-

-------
   Observed Concentrations
             TSS (mg/L)
            BODJmg/L)  T Coll (1WlOOmL)
Type  
-------
    (A) Runoff  Module  Subcatchment Conceptualization
                 Regulator 3
                                                               Subcatchment
    Regulator 4
Combined Sewers
                                                                   Regulator
                                                                   Drainage
                                                                   Boundary
    (B) Transport Module Conduit and Manhole Conceptualization
                                                               Subcatchment
      Regulator 4
               Molt-
                Odd numbers are devices
                (inlets, regulators).
                Even numbers are conduits
                                                                     1200
             Runoff and Transport Model Segmentations
               for Regulator 3 and 4 Drainage Systems
                                   -93-

-------
 Hydraulic Capacities of Paerdegat
     Drainage Basin Regulators
Eastern Coney Island Regulators (MGD)
RIP Study Calculation
Regulator 1
Regulator 2
Regulator 3
Regulator 4
Regulator 6
107.8
79.5
49.6
0.0
40.7
147.0
80.7
4.1
74.0
43.3
 Hydraulic Capacities of Paerdegat
Drainage Basin Regulators (continued)
       Eastern Owls Head Regulators'

                 RIP Study
   Regulator 8
   Regulator 8A
   Regulator 8B
   Tipper
              Calculation
10.8
NA
NA
NA
14.2
77.6
68.8
40.1
   NA = not available
   •Storm flow is diverted into Paerdegat Basin drainage area
Coney Island Water Pollution Control Plant Daily
       and Weekly Influent Fluctuations
    (A) Typical Daily Cofwy Illand WPCP hiftMnt Diurnal Fluctuation
                                               -94-

-------
0
U-
in
Q
o
m
U)
a
0
in
a:
o
u_
o
cj
3:
o
u.
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
0
.50
.00
.50
.00
.50
.00
N
.50
.00
.50
.00
.50
.00
N
.50
.00
.50
.00
.50
.00
N
.50
.00
.50
.00
.50
.00
N
.50
.00
.50
.00
.50
on
(A)
1
—
1
MID
IGHT
1
Typical Daily Coney Island WPCP Influent Diurnal Fluctuations
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l l l l l l
___ _ y ^--^
1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

NOON MID
NIGHT
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1
1 1 ( 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
MID
IGHT
1
_~-^.
MID
IGHT
1

NOON MID
NIGHT
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
^-^•""' ~^~~-
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1

NOON MID
NIGHT
1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f
f ^- ^_ 	
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
MID
IGHT
(B)

NOON MID
NIGHT
Typical Weekly Coney Island WPCP Influent Fluctuations
l l l i l l l
l l 1 1 1 1 1

SUN WON TUE WED THU FBI SAT SUN
A/ off:
Vertical Axis Represents Normalized Multipliers.
Coney Island Water Pollution Control Plant
 Daily  and Weekly Influent Fluctuations
                   -95-

-------
      Dry Weather Sanitary
    Sewage Concentrations
         Sanftafy Sewage Concentntfona
     Aulgntd          Flushing
     PaevSeoaf   Coney Wand Biy Facility    	
     Sewer iyefem M Study   Planning Study  Range
         Dry WeaMier Paerdegat
          SanrSanpHng
                                  Avenge
BOO,   102      10:

15
- 100
10
" 50 .

11/20/86
Obearved-B
SWMM Mod.H
r
_n
m
Illnl 	 rfim
- 150
- 100

50

t 2 3 t e Total " 1 2 3 4 6 Total "
Regulators Regulator*
                                          -96-

-------
100

~ 76
•D
0)
e
*- 60
"»
^»
(3
d »
Q
1




—

1
J

1





V«


8.0 14.0 88.0
100

^-. 76
TJ
Dl
-" 60

O


1
-



__
-


to
*

• i
• .i
i
e
B.O 14.0 28.0
100

^ 78
TJ
O)
e
~ BO
o
1 —01

D
I
I

1 1
METER HI _



—

^
V««» i





LEGEND-'
o METER DATA

	 MANNING FLOW
r>uiiii ncei n Te
30.0 36.0 46.0
«no
1 I
METER H2 __
^_
\
1
'

v"^ 	 -,

76
60


26
n
1 1— 1 1
u METER H5
K'
u- 1

1/1"
M
, J, ^-^-







30.0 38.0 46.0 B.O 14.0 B8.0 30.0 38.0 48.0
onn
1 I
Data-, METER H3 _
m



~ SWMM 4,
Model — '
1 J
e
flur\
^


I
B.O 14.0 88.0
200

~ 160
r>
O)
~ ' 100
3:
o
Bl "

1



^_


-
I ^

1

A A
^
'"

10*
«

B.O 14.0 82.0
TIME
0
,
^°
I •••
\^t 	 ^j —

160
100



D
1 1 1 1
l^i METER HB _
f-T«
i ML
• *Y
J BV^" 	
i i ^4- 	 ^> —







30.0 38.0 48.0 6.0 14.0 82.0 30.0 38.0 46.0
m o
1 1
METER H4 _



!L
•

^»n.-~»-. +^—

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0
«.fl
i i i i
o,. METER H7 -

. —

_ _ ,
4
fl
, J , M^.t ,









30.0 38.0 46.0 B.O 14.0 82.0 30.0 36.0 48.0
(hours) TIME (hours)
Computed and Observed Paerdegat Sewer System Flows
                (November 18, 1986)
                        -97-

-------
Comparison of Observed and Computed CSO
Pollutant Concentrations (November 18,1986)
Sold.
t"*4
250
200
150
100
50
0

fii
BOO,
(mgtLl
250
200
150
100
SO
Regulator 6
: in :
o at a MO 110 MO M
Tim* (hr) Thiw (hr)
CoMorm
(mpnf
loo nt)
10*
10'
10"
10*
10*
1
Ltgtnd
Orta »
HKMM —
i TV
i .:
0 M.t MO
Tlm«(hr)
 See f/ie following page for full-scale image.
       Calculated Basin
      Pollutant Loadings
Event 4' Pollutant Loadings

Source
Regulator 1
Regulator 2
Regulator 3
Regulator 4
Regulator 6
CSO
SW
Basin
Wet DA
(acres)
3,247
1,383
165
356
1.030
6,181
_277
6,558
Volume
(MG)
89
36
4
10
_22
169
19
188
BOO,
(100 111)
312
151
8
25
122
615
_!£.
631
res
croo »;
808
386
17
61
_321
1,593
32
1,626
T. Coll
(10"ORG)
361
185
15
38
111
716
29
745
•Event 4 - 11/18/86, 1.34 In. of rainfall
  Paerdegat Basin Rainfall and
       CSO/Storm Overflow
              10,000
            SuaptndMJ
            •olhto (ft>)
    ,01  01  1.0
    Ralnf*llvo
-------
Regulator 4 Regulator 2 Regulator 6
250

Cj 20°
\^
O!
j= 150
03 100
LJ
•rt
0 50
CO
o

~ c ~


_ —
0
J -
— 0 —
0
- o -
o Txro-
0










1
_ ^
0

0
0
o
/

0
~ 00
89rP'
T°











r~"i
0

— —
0
~™ ~~
0
- 0 —
1










1B.O £6.0 34.0 IB. 0 26.0 34.0 IB. 0 26.0 34.0
250

200
O) 150
in 10°
T>
O
m so

o

-
-
__ _
\ r^
_ 00 _
0
oOr0pOnB6








1
-
-
_ 	
V\__
v-l
_ 0 —
0
6*0053860








1
-
-
_ „_

- in
°o 1
°oitDCCFiv5B








18.0 26.0 34.0 1B.O 26.0 34.0 18.0 26.0 34.0
— IP"
r-l
E
O
O 7
•rt 10 7


CL -
3 io6

E

H-
•fH
o 10 •*
s g

» —
— —

s do =

z V ° ^:
a ^2^_0 =
S o H
- oo —

K S
— o —

















~ ~
~ —
— ~


S \ —
Z \Q o —
n ^°--^/ s

- °o oo o E
~" 0 "^
i 1
~ 0, —
1
















— =
— o —



— P 0 —
~ \ ° ^
as O^xi s
— 0^000^ —
— o E
~ 0
i I
— o , —
1















0
18.0 26.0 34.0 16.0 26.0 34.0 1B.O 26.0 34.0
Time (hours) Time (hours) Time (hours)
Legend:
o — Data

i J _ J- 1


Comparison of Observed and Computed CSO
         Pollutant Concentrations
           (November 18, 1986)
                  -99-

-------
             Water
            Quality
           Modeling
 Paerdegat
  Basin
Compliance
   With
  Water
  Quality
 Standards
                    (A) OitiotvKt Oxygtn
(B) Tottl CotHotm Btcttrlt
               Mot*1M4to1M*M
  Location of Paerdegat Basin
       Sampling Stations
                                   -100-

-------
 TO
 03
 CD
 -^
 Q.
 CD
(Q
 0)
 (-(•

 00
o
o
3
o
CD
0)
i-+
CD
•n

D

Q>
r-f
QJ
D
Q.
O)
to o
00 ^
10
00
O)


cu
CO
CD
T3
f^t
CD


CT
CD
n
D
m
T3
 -
o
            01
            3
            •
           to
                           Percent of Locations not Complying with NYS  DEC Standards
                        O1
                        O
-g
ui
O
o
                  =•.=.&
                  O 3,0
      I- o
      ° 3
      o
      3

        o
        Q

        O
        O
 O
 •n

 3

 CO
 o
 o
 -4-
 (D
ro
01
-j
01
o
o
                                           0   a.
                                           = ». g"
                                           O 3jJ
             03-

             S ° CD
             ° o 01
             5'° a-
             3 OD"1
                                              CO

                                              H
                                              o
                    O
                    O^

                    —*
                    o
                    -^

                    3

                    CD
                    Q
                    O
ui
o
o
o
                                                                                            O
                                                                                            5
                         Q -• 2
                                                                                   03
                                                                             >


                                                                             O
                                                                                                                             o>
                                                                                                                             Q.
                                                                                                                 o>

-------
 Paerdegat Basin Water Quality
       Model Segmentation
 Wet Weather Salinity Profiles of
  Paerdegat Basin (June, 1987)
Depth
    0 «  10  IS  20  26  o  « 10 16 20
                Salinity (ppt)
 See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
  Wet Weather Stratified Water
          Quality Model
           Wot WMther Surltce Loading Mode)


         CSOLoad _.
              1 Dffrwnilcnil WQ Model
          1 S*Hfng*nd
-------
            FEET
                                                      40,
                                                           CANARSIE
                                                       '     POL
                                                      42
Paerdegat  Basin Water Quality Model Segmetation

-------
Q.

-------
   Dissolved Oxygen Kinetics
      Sediment Interactions
   (A) Generalized Water Column-Sediment Interactions

           Mract
        i
         Settling
                          column
 Sediment

Interactions
   (Continued)
                (B) Sediment Biochemical Reactions
                      tx:
                                       -105-

-------
 Computed
    and
 Observed
 Paerdegat
 Basin Tidal
   Stage
(September 8 to 12,
    1986)
                       I Head of Basin
 Computed
    and
 Observed
 Paerdegat
 Basin Tidal
  Velocity
(September 8 to 12,
    1986)
               0 1,00
               *
                 ...
                 0,00
                 -0,80
                 -1.00
                             1  1  1  1
                           Time (hours)
 Computed and Observed Paerdegat
      Basin Dye Concentrations
           (September 8 to 12,1986)
                        See the following
                       page(s) for full-scale
                             image.
                                          -106-

-------
                  Head of Basin
          I    I   I    I       I   I

o
9)
a>
O)
en
a
a
T3
7.00
                 Middle of Basin
                    48      72

                  Time (hours)
                                  96
    Note:
      Time 0.0 hour = Midnight September 8, 1986
                                        120
                                                    1.



                                                    0.


                                                    0.



                                                   -0.



                                                   -1.
    1,
in

^   0.
                                                o
                                                -2  -o
                                                o>
                                                                            Station A
                                                       -1.00
                                                    1



                                                    0



                                                    0



                                                   -0



                                                   -1
                                                        .00



                                                        .50



                                                        .00



                                                        .50



                                                        .00
       /I
           \\

          Flood
                                                              Ebb
                                                                        48
                                                                           72     96


                                                                            Station C
                                                                                             120
                                                                               I    I
                                                                    Model-
                                                                  I   I    I   I
                                                                                    Data
                                                                                       I
                                                                 24
                                                                        48
                                                                           72     96


                                                                            Station E
                                                                                             120
                                II
                                                             24     48     72     96
                                                                   Time ( hours)
                                         120
          Computed and Observed Paerdegat Basin Tidal Stage and Velocity
                                (September 8 to 12, 1986)

-------
                                         STATION A
o
00
Q>
><
Q
             10
             10
             10 •
             10'
     10'
               -1 -
                               46
                             72      96      120

                                STATION B
10 v
             10
             10'
     10'
     10'
               -1
          24     48     72     96     120

                           STATION C
             10l
             10
               -1
                        I    I   I    I   I    I   I    I
                        24      48      72     96     120
                            Time ( hours}
                                                                  10'
                                                                  10'
                                                                  10'
                                                                                              STATION D
                                                                  10
                                                                  10
                                                                  10V
                                                                  10'
                                                                  10v
                                                                  10
                                                                    -1
                                                                             24
                                                                             72      96     120

                                                                                STATION E
                                                                         J	I
                                                                               I	I
                                                                                     J	I
                                                                            24      48      72
                                                                                 Time (hours)
                                                                                         96
                                                                                                120
                                                                  Note-
                                                                    Time 0.0 hour - Midnight September 8, 1986
                                                                    Dye Release at II AM September 8,1986
                                                                    at High Water
                      Computed and Observed Paerdegat  Basin Dye Concentrations
                                          (September 8 to 12,1986)

-------
 Comparison
 of Computed
 and Observed
  Paerdegat
 Basin Salinity
 (November 18 to 22,
     1986)
|(A) Spatial Comparison |
I "
£
5



MOV 1B«j»

. . "" . 1
Mum* from buuw*oi*-^=-:
T,_,^.,
i"*'^'
T\mt tk*,rt]
  Sediment
   Oxygen
  Demand in
  Paerdegat
    Basin
Mgiitiil'{|,Kl«) "0 Hi../-*/*.,)
I:
i .
*lSl»tJglDUtr,iut,M«flOO
k
W*-*.. ,.
B) T*npef
-------
    (A) Spatial Comparison
20.0
10.0
0.0
C
' — 90.0
O.
a.
" 20.0
C 10.0
o
<" 0.0
<
90.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
I
90.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
90.0
a.
a. 20.0
— 10.0
c
1 •••
90.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1 1 1 1 1
NOV. IB (nr.16-18)
1 1 1 1 1
2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 121
*" *~~3 — NoVTl9 (hr. 8-1B)
^-Model
i i i i i
2000 4000 6000 MOO 10000 IK
1 1 t 1 1
J I « I * 	 » 	
NOV. 20 (hr. e-16)
2000 4000 WOO WOO 10000 12(
Distance from Bulkhead (feet )
(B) Temporal C

STATION A (NODE 1)
1 I 1 1
) 25 SO 75 100 1
1 1 1 1
Z STATION B (NODE SI
Jodel
iiit
) 25 50 75 100 1
I I I I
£~ STATION C (NODE 8)
^- Data
20.0
10.0
0.0
00 (
90.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
100 (
Let
I
00
ampari
90.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
a
90.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
a
Le
Mr
i i r ~r 	 1 	
* — t— I » T
1 Niv. «l (hr. 8-16)
^-Data
i i i i f

2000 4000 6000 MOO 10000 12000
1 1 1 1 1
t * T • • » 	 * 	
NOV. 22 (hr. 8-16)

2000 4000 6000 MOO 10000 12000
Distance from Bulkhead (feet)
Tend-'
Observed data depth
and time average and range
Moue i
son
i i i i
*"" ' STATlONiD INODE 10)
1 I 1 1

) 25 50 75 100 125
* ' "BiE ^-L^*s ' Tl ' rT
^~^y STATIONlE (NODE 14)
1 1 1 1

9 25 W 75 100 125
Time ( hours)
genet-
Observed data depth average
and range
— Model
' * BO 75 loo 128 Time 0.0hour= Midnight 11/18/86
T ime ( hours)
Comparison of Computed and Observed
     Paerdegat Basin Salinity
    (November 18 to 22, 1986)
               -110-

-------
         (A) Paerdegat Basin Water
  1,000,000
1  100,000

o
o
c
a.

E


E
k.
o
o
o
10,000
     1,000
      100
               December, 1986
            K = 1.4 /day
            B
Station A

Wet Weather

(Dark Incubation)
              I     I     I    I
                             l\	I
                   2345

                    Time (days )
                                                     (B) 20%-26th Ward Effluent/

                                                         Jamaica Bay Water
                                                 1,000
                                                 H

-------
 Comparison of Computed and Observed
 Paerdegat Basin Total Coliform Bacteria
              (Dry Weather)

See the
following
page(s) for
full-scale
image.




1 "*
1 "'
~ JO*
o
0 «,«
10 '
0
|(A) August 26, 1986 1
1 , , ',--, 	 1
\ MoiH)
[ 1
|
BOO WOO MOO MOO UOOO 18
DtoUnoe team Butkhwl (toM)




wo
 Comparison of
 Computed and
   Observed
Paerdegat Basin
 Total Coliform
    Bacteria
  (November 18 to
    22,1986)
                                 wii«r.»*.iti.i turn/**
    Comparison of Computed and Observed
Paerdegat Basin Dissolved Oxygen Constituents
               (Dry Weather)
                 DittenCi fr>»> BUlkMit
                                           -112-

-------
               (A) August 26, 1986
E
o
o
v.
c
Q.
E

E
i_
o
o
O
10
10
     10
     10
     10
              2000    4000    6000    BOOO    10000   12000
                (B) October 21, 1986
 E
O
O
 E
 k_
 o
 o
 o
     101
10'
     10'
     10'
     10'
     10s
     10'
              2000    4000    6000    8000    10000

                  Distance from Bulkhead  (feet)
                                             12000
        Comparison of Computed and Observed
       Paerdegat Basin Total Coliform  Bacteria
                   (Dry Weather)
                        -113-

-------
10'
10*
10'
"E n>
O 10'
10'
\ <
C
Q. 10'
E 10-
O 104
H—
10'
5 »'
— 10'
2
o
|_ 10'
10'
10'
10'
10*
10'
{
10'
10'
10"
^~- 10'
O 10*
Total Coliform (mpn/
(A) Spatial Comparison
in'
• i i i i r I
j NOV IB Hir.l6-lB) |
I j
f^^^^^ /—Model {
2000 4000 6000 BOOO 10000 12
\ j N«V. 19 (hr. B-16)
= — Data
- i i it i :
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12
1 t 1 1 t 1 1
I T T NOV. 20 (hr. B-16) jj
i i ' i i i I
I I
2000 4000 6000 BOOO 10000 12
Distance from Bulkhead (feet)
(B) Temporal C
! 1 1 i I |
j STATION A (NODE 1) ^
! I
! !
1 1 t 1
25 SO 75 100 1
| 1 1 1 1 !
1 STATION B (NODE 5) |
j !
i i
25 50 75 100 1
{ 1 1 1 1 j
| T STATION C (NODE 8) |
" ^— Mod? 1 I
= i t i i =
10'
10"
10'
10'
10*
10'
>00
10'
10'
10*
10'
10'
10*
10'
100 1
Le.
00
ompari
10 '
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
10'
>5 C
10'
10'
10'
10'
10*
10'
>s
Le
}

1 I 1 1 1 1 1
I T NCV. 21 (hr. B-16) |
L 1 1 ? i ..._.. f
I [ ] 1 !
i 	 I

) 2000 4000 6000 BOOO 10000 12000
j 1 1 II 1 j
i NOV. 22 thr. B-16) j
*- J T ! , T !
f I I i i -J j
i i

) 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 12000
Distance from Bufkhead (feet)
j cfid-
. Observed data depth average
and time average and range
	 Model
son
1 T T STATIONtO (NODE 10) \
m xtir~" — T— [ni -5>-»— J
= / I i
j^J |
~ 1 1 II-

25 50 75 100 125
! 1 1 1 1 1
| iT STATIONTE (NODE 14) \
1 !

25 50 75 100 125
Time ( hours)
gend:
,0bserved data depth average
and range
	 Model
25 50 75 100 125 NOtC:
Time (hours) Time 0.0 hour= Midnight 11/18/86
 Comparison of Computed and Observed
Paerdegat Basin Total Coliform Bacteria
     (November 18 to 22, 1986)
                -114-

-------
        (A) August 26, 1986
Sulfide(mg/L) D.O. (mg/L) CBOD5(mg/L) Sulfide (mg/L) D.O. (mg/L) CBOD5
?r!»-.» o~»».SB pu,S5S b b b b b ° !° ?• - • ? ~ ? «
° B — a ° •
2000 4000 '6000 MOO 10000 IK
Hr 7.8-19.8 (0700-20001-
D.O. Saturation
2000 4000 6000 MOO 10000 121
Hr 7.8-19.8 (0700-2000)
g
r .r-Model
2000 4000 6000 MOO 10000 12
Distance from Bulkhead (feet )
(B) October 21,
	 1 	 1 	 r i i
*• 6.7-17.2 (0700-1800)
a 9 9 • • 9 9
> 2000 4000 6000 MOO 10000 121
Hr 6.7-17.2 (0700-1800)-
1 •!• ^*s— Data
i i i i i
) 2000 4000 MOO MOO 10000 121
1 t 1 1 I
Hr 6.7-17.2 (0700-1800)
| E ...o
0.00
00
2.00
i -1
+ CT 1-°°
CM £
O ^ o.so
Z
0.00
wo
Le
\
)00
986
2.00
0 ,-, 1.50
'c -I
00
2.00
O ^ 0.60
Z
0.00
x»
Le
<
	 L
.

2000 4000 MOO MOO 10000 12000
Hr 7.8-19.8 (0700-2000)
l - -t 	 • 	 •
• 	 °i i i | I

9 2000 4000 MOO MOO 10000 12000
Distance from Bulkhead (feet)
gend-
Observed data depth
and time average and range
- — Model
Hr 6.7-17.2 (0700-1800)
« e „
t •
1 1 i I I

2000 4000 6000 MOO 10000 12000
Hr 6.7-17.2 (0700-1800)
I 1 1 I 1

9 2000 4000 6000 MOO 10000 12000
Distance from Bulkhead (feet)
gend:
[Observed data depth
1 and time average and range
	 Model
9 2000 4000 MOO MOO 10000 12000
Distance from Bulkhead (feet)
   Comparison of Computed and Observed
Paerdegat  Basin Dissolved Oxygen Constituents
               (Dry Weather)
                    -115-

-------
  Comparison of
  Computed and
    Observed
 Paerdegat Basin
Suspended Solids
  Concentrations
(November 18 to 22, 1986)
                                  ri*M 0 OtWii" UM«I«M U/lt/M
  Comparison of
  Computed and
    Observed
 Paerdegat Basin
      BOD5
  Concentrations
  (November 18 to 22,
       1986)
. ~
I :
,l
s •
s -
I (A) SpMM CompvKon |

r^C^-
DMfene* tr»n •uM*«d (l«t 1
•.i " * * "* *"'* .
Oltnnn fr** l*lliM«< (t*i> 1
iTOkMrM(MI««>P»
^vrttmatnfiir^roa*
	 KoMI
f (B) Temporal Comparison |
A ~
•^h 	
•-. ^ 3.ta
Tim (lM«n)
TltM (lltlirt} thH OOM*'< KMKIfMt II/4I/M
 Comparison of
 Computed and
    Observed
 Paerdegat Basin
Dissolved Oxygen
 Concentrations
   (November 18 to
     22, 1986)
                         | (A) Spawl Comparbon |
                                              -116-

-------
          (A) Spatial Comparison
78
BO
a
5 •
o>
E too
•o n
1 »
•o
V 25
•o
5
a
V)
3 100
CO
75
BO
25
0
I
100
75
50
25
_1 o
\ (
01
g too
•o ™
£
TJ
a> 25
•0
c
a> o
a. o
w
= 100
75
BO
£9
0
1 i 1 1 1
NOV. 18 (hr. 16-181
: 	 	 ?. .
9 2000 4000 6000 MOO 10000 121
1 1 . 1 1 1
NOV. 19 (hr. B-1B)
/-Model
; /
1 I] J-pJ 	 ,-i 	 1-, 	 r
) 2000 4000 6000 1000 10000 1*
NOV. 20 (hr-. B-16)
I I 1 I I
2000 4000 WOO 6000 10000 IK
Distance from Bulkhead (feel )
(B) Temporal Co
STATION A (NODE 1)
	 J ^? I . }»* »«S
25 50 75 100 1,
STATION B (NODE 5)
(*• , ',. ,,*. ,.!.-"
25 BO 75 100 I!
I I I 1
STATION C (NODE B)
i — Model
K.
I «!h. «*i «i*
25 BO 78 100 12
Time ( hours)
7S
80
29
0
goo
100
78
M
25
0
>00 1
Le
(
00
mparis<
100
75
SO
25
0
S 1
100
76
SO
25
0
« 0
Le
}
Nt
5
1 1 1 1 1
NOV. 21 (hr. B-16)
.r-Data -1
i 	 I, — ^4 	 ri-^ 	 r

1 2000 4000 8000 WOO 10000 12000
1 1 1 1 1
NOV. 22 (hr. 8-16)
T I, J- , I | I ,

2000 4000 8000 (000 10000 12000
Distance from Bulkhead (feet)
gend:
.Observed data depth
and time average and range
	 Model
jn
i i i i
STATION 0 (NODE 10)
y— Data
. /W . | .,i. 	 p-I^ 	 [T,* 	

25 80 75 100 125
I I 1 T 	
STATION E (NODE 14)
• /^^T-^-^ri^-M*—

2S 60 78 100 155
Timt (hours )
ffenef-
( Observed data depth average
and range
— Model
yff-
Time 0.0hour= Midnight 11/18/86
     Comparison of Computed and Observed
Paerdegat Basin Suspended Solids Concentrations
           (November 18 to 22, 1986)
                    -117-

-------
    (A) Spatial Comparison
15.0
10.0
9.0
0.0
m 20.0
_J
^ 19.0
0>
^ 10.0
s ...
O
CD o.o
20.0
19.0
10.0
E.O
0.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
„ 20.0
	 . 10. 0
in
O 8.0
o
0.0
20.0
16.0
10.0
8.0
0.0
'- "T-
« 0
- "T" — 1 ' 	 1 	 1 "- "
NOV. IB (hr. 16-18)
} 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 12
1
NOV. 19 (hr. 8-16)
/ — Model
-4-J-- ? ,
) 2000 4000 WOO 6000 10000 !»
1
•l
1 1 1 1
NOV. 20 (hr. B-16)
• 1 • i * «i i
) 2000 4000 6000 MOO 100OO 12<
Distance from Bulkhead (feet )
(B) Temporal Co
-

STATION A (NODE 1)
v 	 •
— 1 1 1 • •
9 a 60 79 100 1
-
9 2
~— 1
9 t
i i r
STATION B (NODE 5)
/-Model
5 SO 75 100 1
1 I 1
STATION C (MODE 6)
l\ -
•».» i • • • I'M i • • , —
6 SO 78 100 1
Time ( hours)
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
00
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
KW
Le
(.
00
mparis<
20.0
15.0
10.0
9.0
0.0
>5
20.0
19.0
10.0
9.0
0.0
"5
U
N
a
NOV. Zl (hr. 8-16)
.^Dato
/
* 	 *i 	 u i i r~i *~, r~

) 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 12000
NOV. Z2 (nr. 6-161

2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 12000
Distance from Bulkhead (feet)
gend--
.Observed data depth
and time average and range
	 Model
Dn
i i i i
STATION D (NODE 10)
• i • -.^ »^ | wflV | op I'OB ™"

> 25 80 78, 100 129
1 1 1 1
STATION E (NODE 14)
^-Data
•_Ac .. \-^j

) 29 50 78 (00 125
Time (hours )
Q9fld:
I Observed data depth average
T and range
	 Model
ote-
Time 0.0hour= Midnight 11/18/86
Comparison of Computed and Observed
Paerdegat Basin BOD5 Concentrations
      (November I8to 22, 1986)
              -118-

-------
          (A)  Spatial Comparison

.0
.0
.0
.0
,0


_

I



, ' I •

_
1 1 1 1 1
10.0
B.O
B.O
4.0
2.0
0.0
	 	 	 NOV. 21 (hr.
T T T H
i •• 1 * i 1
_
_
iiii
8-16) 	

.
_
_
1

O1
E
c

o>
>,
X
O
T)
fl>
—
O
IA
W
^^
0 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000

» II
10.0

6.0
6.0
4.0
t.o
0.0
	 	 	 NOV. 19 (hr. 8-16)
D 0 Soturotion
Y T IT 	
^- Model
-
f t i t t
0 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000

)9 n
120




-
_
-

120


10.0
B.O
B.O
4.0
2.0
C 0
	 	 	 NOV. 22 (hr. 8-151-
._ ,1 11-
— i i i i *
B
_
_
i i i i i
-:
-
_
_


10.0
6.0
1.0
4.0
t.o
6.0
1 II
	 	 J 	 NOV.
f , |T
i i i i
i
.
i i i

20 (hr.
I
L


i

8-16) 	
_
-


I
                                0   2000  4000  0000   BOOO   10000  12000
                                  Distance from Bulkhead (feel)


                               Legend-'

                                Tobserved data depth
                                T and time average and range

                                	Model
0   £000  4000  6000   6000  10000  12000
   Distance from Bulkhead (feet )
           (B) Temporal Comparison
5
c
«
o>
>t
X
O
TJ
OJ
O
in
in
10.0
6.0
B.O
4.0
t.o
0.0
12.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
1.0
e.o
i
STATION A (HOOF 1)
i ^-Model
) 25 SO 70 100 i

T 	
1 1 1 1
10.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
n <
12.0
10.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
E.O
1 11 1

III)
) S3 60 73 100 12


-^^-^-^
a 80 75 100 129 0 M SO 70 100 «
Time (hours )
10.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
	 	 	 STATION C

1 ^F" 	 l"l **
''-Data
i i i
(NODE 8) 	

p- Bii
-
i
     26    80    76    100    125
         Time ( hours)
 Tobserved data depth average
 Yand range

 	Model
Note-
  Time 0.0hour= Midnight  11/18/86
    Comparison of Computed and Observed
Paerdegat Basin Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
             (November 18 to 22, 1986)
                       -119-

-------
 Comparison of
 Computed and
   Observed
 Paerdegat Basin
Dissolved Oxygen
 Concentrations
   (October 3 to
    7,1986)
           Evaluation
                 of
          Engineering
          Alternatives
 Calculated CSO
and Storm Inputs
  to Paerdegat
     Basin
(3.8 in. Design Rainfall
     Month)
!  •
                                      -120-

-------
        (A) Spatial Comparison
10.0
B 0
6.0
4.0
,-» 2.0
t "
E 12 0
c 10.0
g. ••'
?
0 4.0
•o
0 2.0
2 °°
f>
5 «••
10.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
—~ 2.0
-1 o.o
*
E 12.0
c 10.0
z "
^ 4.0
& 2-0
* 00
°
n
-
10.0
(.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
(
	 1 — - T- T — r1 — T.
OCT. 3 (hr. 16-18)
1 1
,11111
> 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 12
1 1 1 1 1
OCT. 4 (hr. 8-16)
O.O. So>uro»ion
I I L^-f 	 ^ -^ Model -
I 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 IK
OCT. 5 (hr. B-1BI
T
1^^ 1 1 1 1 1
10 0
6.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
JOO
12 0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
00 <
Le
}
OCT. B (hr. 8-18)
'\^r^^\ , :

) 2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 12000
1 1 1 1 1
OCT. 7 (hr. 8-16)
I i-""! 1^
i^^*^ J-^ — Data
i i i i i

2000 4000 6000 6000 10000 12000
Distance from Bulkhead (feet)
genet:
.Observed data depth
and time average and range
	 Model
POOO 4000 6000 6000 10000 12000
Distance from Bulkhead (feet )
(B) Temporal Comparison
» n
fill
STATION A (NODE 1)
1. 25 SO 75 100 1
STATION 8 (NODE 51
1 25 50 75 100 1
STATION C (NODE 8)
/—Model ,T
25 80 75 100 1
Time ( hours)
10.0
6 0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
!S 1
10.0
e.o
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
IS t
La
<
N
>5
i i i i
STATION D (NODE 101

25 50 75 100 123
STATION E (NODE 14)
1 1 I I

25 60 75 100 125
Time (hours )
gttntf-
[Observed data depth average
i and range
— Model
7/tf-"
Time 0.0 hour = Midnight 10/3/86
   Comparison of Computed and Observed
Paerdegat Basin Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
          (October 3 to 7, 1986)
                    -121-

-------
Calculated CSO
   and Storm
     Inputs
 to Paerdegat
     Basin
  (5.6 in. Design
  Rainfall Month)
I -
\
   Calculated Coliform Concentrations
              No Treatment
     |(A) 3.8 inch Rainfall Month [
   i:::
 See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
    Calculated Coliform Concentrations
            No Treatment (continued)
   5ee ffte following page(s) for full-scale image.
                                             -122-

-------
1 00

O.BO
««^
C
22 0.60

C 0.40
•ri
ID
CC 0.20

0 00
125

CD
2:
~ 75
0>
E 50
*o 25
^
0
50000

40000
S
d 30000


in 20000
CD
o
m 10000

0
100000

60000
•— -
2 BOOOO
*-*
in 40000
tn
*~ 20000
0
10 16

1 10 15
^E
10 14
S 10 13
•4-
S 10 12
o
0 10 «



1 I 1



_

_


	

1 1 1

i i f r
-

—

-


III!

1 1 1
	

_





„

I 1 1

I 1 f 1
_„

_



„
1 } 1

1 1 1 1
I
•
1
I
-III
7-








X
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
x1






X
X
x
X
X
X






_
x
x
X
X
x
X
X





Cxi
x
X
x
X
x
X
X
x
X
x





X
-21


1 ] 1










1 1 1 1

1 1 1







1 1 1

(III










t 1 1

1 1 1







1 1 1

1 1 1



1 1 1
5 7-











y-
z.
t









&












ft









ft


x
X
£
X
X
-3


1 1










1

1 1







1

1










1 1

1 1







1

1



1
3 E





x*
X
x
iX
X
X
x
X
X
x




X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
X


__
X
X

^
x
_x

X
x
x
X
x

F*"
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
^
X
X
x
X
x

X
X
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
-














































1






t £








c?
x

x
x
x
X
x






X
X
X
X
x
x
X






x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
x



pi
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
X
x
X
x


X



-:
D<

111 III







f^l
fxj
LXl ^1
1 1 r^J 1x4 CM 1 pfl 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1





ra
txj
1 | IPd rfa 1 1

111 ill!






X
x
X
X
1 1 1 ^ rK 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 {




x
x
X
x
X
x
x
1 1 1 1 x ph 1 1

1 1 1 1 I 1
x
x
x x
^ ^

J 8-6 B-7 8-8 8-10 8
ate (1977)


x*
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
x

1
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
c^





X
x










— -
X
X
X
X
x
x
X
x
x
^


?
^
X
1
-1


1 1 1 I
.^


—

_

_"_
F3 Pd ~
t^J LXJ
H 1 Pd 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-

-

-

pj
IRI 1 IpHI 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 III
	






I
0 _
t5*n ixi
IMI 1 ltd III

T r r i i~i ~r T
—

_^

_
p-3
3 ~
lE^i I l^ ill

i i i i T T r rs
1 1 •
^ X =
•i x =
< s
xx g
^ § I
l
-------
3.00
2.50
*•— 2 00
-i-<
~ 1.50
I 1.00
11 0.50
0.00
400
CD 300
0) 200
E
3
o
0
100000
80000
.0
£2 60000
g 40000
O
m 20000
0
200000
160000
S 120000
to 80000
*"" 40000
0
10"
i 10 15
e 10 14
£ 10 13
5 10 ia
5 10 "

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 ! I 1 i 1 1 1
	

-
1 1
I
s
1
1 1 1 1 1 t».l M 1 EH 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
X*
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X

1 1 1 1 1 1
	

-
1 1 1 tn 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-
-
1 |

s
1.
>


1 1 1 1 1 1
?»
^
x


11 111 III II (I

0
i ra i i i i i t i i f




1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-
—
1 1 1 L, 1 1

II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
_
-
1 I
^
1
X

1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7"
rx
x
x
X
x
X
X
x
x

x
x
X
x
x
X
x
x
1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
X
x
x
X


1 1 1 1 fcnl 1

1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1
—
-
-

X
X


1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F*
x
xj
X
x
x1
x
x
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
t 1 ^ I i I I i 1 i t )
^
X*
X
x;
x
X"
X1
x
x
X"
X"
—
-
1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1

I 1 >
I
i
i
5
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
$
j _LJJ L jyj j
X
X
>
.X
x
x
x
x
i 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I
Cx]
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
x
1 1 < 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1
;?"
X
X
x
X
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
X
X
x
I I I I I I I a
1
Z I
^ !
X ~~"
^ •
1 1 1 1.21 1 -
8-4 8-10 8-12 - 6-15 B-25 8-30















Date (1957)
Calculated CSO and Storm Inputs to Paerdegat Basin
          (5.6 inch Design Rainfall Month)
                      -124-

-------
    10
-   106
o   10'
I   10"
^   10'
f   „•
E   1C1
       (A) 3.8 inch  Rainfall   Month
     7  Heed of Paerdegat Basin - Station Ik	
_     0      4      8     12     16     20     24
1^   1()7  Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
                                                        10

                                                        106

                                                        10 =

                                                        10 "

                                                        103

                                                        102

                                                        10'
                                                             ?   Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station »
                                                     32   0.1   1     10 20  SO   BO 90    99  99.9

                                                        107  Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
                                                             0.1  1     10 20   50   BO 90     99  99 9
                                                                        Percent  of  Time
                                                                      Less Than Standard
   (B) 5.6 inch   Rainfall   Month
 .7   Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A

     *
e
fe
   0      4     B      12     IE     20     24
107   Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - station £
                         12     16     20     24

                           Time (days)
                                                            10

                                                            106

                                                            10 5

                                                            10-

                                                            103

                                                            102
                                                             7  Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A
                                               28     32
0.1  1    10 20   50   BO 90     99

7   Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
                                                                                          99.9
                                                            1C
                                                            10
                                                                                  —  —  _!
                                                              0.1   1     10 20   SO   80 90    99  99.9

                                                                        Percent of Time
                                                                      Less  Than Standard
                    Calculated Coliform Concentrations
                                     No Treatment
                                            -125-

-------
Calculated Total Coliform Concentrations 20 MG
               In-line Storage
                               PtrctHt el Ti
                               L*II Tntn St»n
See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
 Calculated Paerdegat Basin Long-Term Total Coliform
           Bacteria and CSO Removal
 See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
       Calculated Dissolved Oxygen
       Concentrations No Treatment
[See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
                                              -126-

-------
      (A) 3.8 inch  Rainfall  Month

     7  Heat) of Paerdegat Basin - StetioriA	
   50

   10'
   10'
3  •"•
    -5
"-•   10
    ioe

•s   »'-
z   «4
"   103
    10!
    10'
        Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
                ^
^
                         12     16     20    24     26     32
V
V!
  0.1   1     10 20  50   SO 90    99  39.5

IO7   H°ytn of Peerflegat Basin - Station E


ID6


IO5


   !
                         12     16     20     24     2B     31  1Q2


                          Time  (days)                      10'
                                                             0.1  i     10 20   SO   BO 90    99  99.9

                                                                       Percent  of  Time
                                                                     Less Than Standard
      (B) 5.6 inch  Rainfall   Month

   ln7  Head of Paerdeoat Basin - Station A
    .6
o
o
    10

    IO5

    IO4

    10*
•«  io7  Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
                          Time  (days)
                            10

                            io6

                            ID5

                            10'

                            10 3

                            10*

                            10'
                                                            7  Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A
                   8      12     16     20     24     2B     32
                         12     IE     20     24     SB     32
                                                             0.1   1     10 20  SO   BO 90    99  99.9

                                                             7   Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
                                                             0.1   1     10 20  SO   BO 90    99  99.9

                                                                       Percent  of  T:me
                                                                     Less  Than Standard
                Calculated Total Coliform Concentrations
                                20 MG In-Line Storage
                                            -127-

-------
 (A) Total  Coliform  Removal  and  Storage  Volume
   100
o

cu
n

£
£.
O
 O
 tn
 u
  c.
  u
  u

  Q)
  CL
    80
    60
    40
    20
         Inline
         Storage
No Disinfection
                                   60
                                             eo
                                                       100
                  Total Storage Volume  (MB)
                     (Inline Plus Offline)
  (B) Calculated  Total  Coliform  Concentration ft CSO  Removal
                      Head of Paerdegat Basin
                     20     40     60     60     100
                     Mouth of Paerdegat Basin
          "^  100
                     20     40     60     60     100
                     Mouth of Paerdegat Basin
                                             100
                 Percent  CSO Coliform  Removal
Calculated Paerdegat Basin Long Term Total Coliform
             Bacteria and CSO Removal
                          -128-

-------
   8.0


   6.0
     (A)  3.8 inch  Rainfall   Month

       Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A
~  2 0

c

en  0.0
                               -/L
                                                         B n  Head of Paeraegat Basin - Station A
                                                         2.0
                       12    16     20     24     28     32
                                                           0.1  1    10 20   SO   BO 90    99  99 3
                                                         8 P  Kl°"th °.t..f'aer'le°'t .BaSln."
                       12    16     SO     24     £8     32
                         Time (days)
                                                         2.0.
                                                         o.o
                                                           0.1  1    10 20   50   60 90    99  99.9


                                                                    Percent of Time
                                                                   Less Than Standard
     (B)  5.6 inch   Rainfall  Month

   e 0  Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A


   6.0.
c
01
Ol
   4.0



   £.0


   0.0
     0     4     6     12     16     20

   B 0  Mouth of PaerdeflBt Basin - Station E
Z  <-0.
   2.0.
                       12     16     20


                         Time (days)
                                                         8 0 Heed of Paerdegat Basin - Station A
                                                          E.O
                                                         2.0
                                          24     20    32
                                                           0.1   1     10 20  50   BO 90     99  99.9


                                                          B n  Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
                                          24     28    32
                                                         2.0
                                                           0.1   1     10 20   SO  60 90    99  99.9


                                                                     Percent  of Time
                                                                   Less Than Standard
                Calculated Dissolved Oxygen  Concentrations
                                   No Treatment
                                         -129-

-------
       Calculated Dissolved Oxygen
   Concentrations 20 MG In-line Storage
         .8 inch Rainfall Month
       •"" " »•""«« *»!• • *
              tjffrmam^M
See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
Calculated Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 20
     	MG In-line Storage (continued)	
     |(B) 5.6 inch Rainfall Month]
       •*aj-t mriyt ».i. - tt.ti^, .
 See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
  Calculated Paerdegat Basin Long-Term
    Dissolved Oxygen and CSO Removal
                            (B) omiiM Dluolved Oxygw
                             ConcwIrMlon «cx) CSO Hemov.l
 | (A) BOO Removal and Storage Volume |
         fotil Storiat VolJM (MB)
          (Inlini Plu* ortlln*!
 See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
                                                 -130-

-------
     (A) 3.8  inch   Rainfall  Month

       Head of Paerdeeat Basin - Station A	
                                                         B 0  head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A
c
03
o  0.0
°  .   Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E

T3   ' ^
   0.0
                 B     12    16    20    21     2B     32
                                                         6.0.
                  B     12    16    20     24     2B     32


                         Time  (days)
                                                          0.1   1     10 20  50   80 90    99  99
                                                          Oil    10 20   50   60 SO    99  99.9


                                                                    Percent of  Time
                                                                   Less  Than Standard
     (B) 5.6 inch   Rainfall   Month
c
a)
CD
e.o



e.o


4.0


s.o


0.0
  I


e.o


E.O


4.0


2.0


0
       Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A
Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
                                                           n  Head of Pacrdepat Basin ~ Station A
                                                         6.0.
                                                         2.0.
          8     12    16    20     24     2B     32
                                                          0.1  1    10  20   SO   60 90    99  99 9


                                                         B n  *°ut>' °.t..''BerIleP°.t .B°sin ~ Station E
                        12     16     SO     24     28     32
                         Time (days)
                                                          0.1   1    10 20   SO   80 90    99  99.9


                                                                    Percent of Time
                                                                   Less  Than Standard
                 Calculated Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
                               20 MG In-Line Storage
                                          -131-

-------
     (A)  BOD   Removal and   Storage  Volume
      100
                                                      100
                    Total  Storage Volume (MB)
                      (Inline Plus Offline)

(B) Calculated  Dissolved  Oxygen  Concentration  8 CSO  Removal
          CD ;
          0>
          o
          * c
              . —» B0
                60
                       Head of Paerdegat Basin
                       20
                             40
                                  so
                                        BO
                                             100
                       Mouth of Paerdegat Basin
                                        eo
                                             100
                     Percent  CSO 6005 Removal
 Calculated Paerdegat Basin Long Term Dissolved Oxygen
                   and CSO Removal
                          -132-

-------
         Recommended
                  Plan
    Calculated Coliform Concentrations 20 MG In-line
   Storage/30 MG Off-line Storage (With Disinfection)
  See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
Calculated Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 20 MG In-line
  Storage/30 MG Off-line Storage (Volume Capture Only)
     I (A) 3.8 Inch Rainfall Month |
 See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
                                            -133-

-------
Calculated Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 20 MG
       In-line Storage/30 MG Off-line Storage
         (Volume Capture Only) (Continued)
                               LHI nun ttmcM-0
See the following page for full-scale image.
                                                   -134-

-------
(A
10'
- IO6
E 10 =
1 »•
^ IO3
f 50'
E 10'
h «
"*- 7
.rt 10 7
3 »e
" 10 =
ro
t: »'
" 10'
10*
10 '
(
(
107
- io6
o '°5
1 »"
^ ,0«
I 10 =
e io1
fe '
5 ,0»
3 w6
ri IO5
(D
£ »*
" 10'
10!
IO1
c
) 3.8 inch Rainfall Month
Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A
I— i ,...•• |
I \
1 h ^ \\ h \h f 1 h \ •
K^\^\J^VlN\
4 B 12 16 20 24 2B 3
Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
7 \
L _A_ ft- M _ fl(X r-J\ jv ft J
>JvJv ^^w ^ ^i
} 4 B 12 16 20 24 28 3
Time (days)
B) 5.6 inch Rainfall Month
Head of Peerdegat Basin - Station A
1 1 h h f> \
kK^V ^Jv
> 4 B 12 16 20 24 28 3
Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
\
1 A K l\ 11 f\ I
!- -t — -D 4-1 	 ,1V |J\ _j
I^J ^~wj ^ ^'Wwvwwwv' ^J ^ :
4 8 12 16 20 24 28 3
Time (days)
IO7
IO6
IO5
10"
IO3
108
10 '
2 °
m7
io6
10 =
10'
103
2 10S
10 i
0
IO7
IO6
10 5
10"
10S
102
10 «
2 °
1C7
10 6
,0 =
,0<
10s
2 102
10 »
0
Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A

1 ^

^
m 1
!
^^^ !
|
!
!
11 10 20 50 80 90 99 99
Mouth of Poerdegat Basin - Station E
I
, — — ^
- ~?

"""" ' —""I
L 	 	 !
|
!
11 10 20 SO 60 90 99 99
Percent of Time
Less Than Standard
Head of Paerdegat Basin - station A
! 	 " ' ••""" ' • •
: 	 ,/

/
!
!
./ \
y i
i
9
.9
11 10 20 50 80 90 99 99.9
Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
!
I

y
!
/^i\
!
11 10 20 SO BO 90 99 99
Percent of Time
Less Than Standard
.9
Calculated Coliform Concentrations 20 MG In-Line
Storage/30 MG Off-Line Storage (with disinfection)
                    -135-

-------
   (A) 3.8  inch  Rainfall   Month
                                                               Peerdeaat Basin - Station t
Dl
E
   B n  Heaa of Paeroegat Basin - Station A
                                                      0 0
     0     4     B     12     IE    20    24     28     32   °-1  1    10 20  50  B0 9°   99  99 9

   B n  Mouth o» Peeroegat Basin - Station E	Moutn of Paepaegat Basin - station  £
                                                      6.0
                6     12     IE    20    24     2S     32
                       Time (days)
                                                       0.1  1    10 20  50  BO 90    99  99.9

                                                                Percent  of Time
                                                               Less  Than Standard
   (B)  5.6  inch  Rainfall  Month
       Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A
     0      4     B     12     16     20    24

   B 0  Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
   0.0
                      12     16     20     24

                       Time  (days)
                                                      B n  Head of Paerdegat Basin - Station A
                                                      2.0
 0.1   1    10 80   50   60 90    99  99.9

e g  Mouth of Paerdegat Basin - Station E
                                             28    32
                                                        0.1  1     10 20   SO   BO 90    99 99.9

                                                                 Percent of Time
                                                               Less Than Standard
        Calculated Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 20 MG In-Line
            Storage/30 MG Off-Line Storage (Volume capture only)
                                          -136-

-------
    NYC Department of Environmental Protection

            City-Wide
       Floatables Study
             HydroQual, Inc.
    City-Wide Floatables Study

     • Engineering studies were
       performed to evaluate:
        • Sources of floatables
        • Environmental impacts
        • Transport from sources to
          receptor areas
        • Potential controls
r

       Sources of Floatables

    • Municipal sewer system:
       • CSOs
       • Storm sewers
       • WPCPs
    • Solid waste handling system:
       • Fresh Kills Landfill
       • Marine transfer stations
       • Refuse barging
                                      -137-

-------
Sources of Floatables
(Continued)
       • Other sources:
          • Illegal disposal
          • Recreational boating
          • Tributary inflow
          • Derelict piers
          • Decaying boats
          • Private carters
          • Dredging
          • Sludge dumping
 Combined
    Sewer
Outfalls and
   WPCPs
See the following
 page(s) for full-
  scale image.
  Landfills,
   Marine
  Transfer
Stations, and
 Solid Waste
  Handlers
See the following
 page(s) for full-
  scale image.
                                      -138-

-------
Combined Sewer Outfalls and WPCPs
                -139-

-------
Landfills, Marine Transfer Stations and Solid Waste Handlers
                        -140-

-------
Combined Sewer Overflows

 •  Sampling conducted of 26 CSO/storm
    sewers in 1990 and 1991 in New York and
    New Jersey
 •  Sampling method consisted of netting and
    booming at a distance from outfall
 •  Analyses consisted of:
     • Quantification
     • Characterization
     • Size distribution analysis
  CSO/Stormwater Monitoring
              Program

 • 26 sites with booms installed
    • 16 CSO, 4 CSO/SW, 6 SW
 • 9 sites - flow or wave damage, vandalism,
   no yield, high river stage
 • Flotation boom with either 1/2" mesh net
   or 4' deep solid rubber curtain
 • 1 to 14 events/site
 • November 1989 to November 1991
 • 35,915 floatable items retrieved
     CSO/
  Stormwater
  Monitoring
  Locations -
  1990-1991
See the following
  page for full-
  scale image.
                                        -141-

-------
LEGEND;
      CSO/Stormwater
      CSO
      SW
           CSO/Stormwater Monitoring Locations -1990-1991
                          -142-

-------
 Combined Sewer Overflows
• CSO floatables resemble
  street litter
• Items found in CSO
  consist of:
     Food packaging
     Plastic utensils
     Plastic straws
     Polystyrene pieces
     Cigarette butts
     Drink containers
     Plastic vials
                            Plastics
            Polystyrei
                            Paper
 CSO/Stormwater Material Size Analysis for
  Combined 1990 and 1991 Sampling Data
 of . _
total
Items
     i) Size Distribution]
•
       Rack size (In.)
                               Rack size (In.)
      Impacts of Floatables

  • Shoreline washups
     • Create aesthetic impairments
     • Washup of medical/sanitary items causes
       beach closing
  • Slicks of floatables in harbor
  • Vessel damage
     • Propeller damage
     • Intake into cooling system
  • Biological harm
     • Ingestion/entanglement
                                              -143-

-------
Floatables
  Study
 Shoreline
  Survey
 Locations
     Spatial Variation of Washup Density
    Summer 1990 Floatables Project Data
UH
dmtty _
1.000ft) _
-


ShoralbiM South 
-------
     N
w-
                                               Key to Shoreline Areas
                                       New York

                                   1. Powell Cove
                                   2. Orchard Beach
                                   3. Sands Point Park
                                   4. South Beach
                                   5. Midland Beach Park
                                   6. Great Kills
                                   7. Wolfe's Pond Park
                                   8. Coney Island
                                   9. FbrtTilden
                                  10. Rockaway Beach
                                  11. Atlantic Beach
                                  12. Lido Beach
                                  13. Jones Beach
                                  14. Gilgo Beach
17.
18.
       New Jersey

15. Hudson River
16. Woodbridge
    Ideal Beach
    Sandy Hook-Bay
19. Sandy Hook-Point
20. Sandy Hook - Ocean
    Long Branch
    Belmar
    Point Pleasant
    Lavallette
    Island Beach State Park
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
                            Roatables Study Shoreline Survey Locations
                                      -145-

-------
1,800
1,600
1,400
0 1,200
Si 1,000
1
'w
§ 800
Q
£
| 600

400

200
0

: Shorelines South
~r
-
_^


— .


- 1
a
1
55
•5
CD
1

— 1 1

•



' _ Tj
-80 -60













•


>--•••<
•40


j












<





,



}
a
( (2420)







•



•'
A
I



.<








/
/
/
>
£
a)
*









I
\ .
\
\
<

-20 0
Distance from Battery (mi)











•


>XK
tfl






. ,







i
<
i •







>
•


Shorelines East :









>


•
'-<
20



-:
-
-


—


a
(L
CO
c
^


(
I"—....
-



-
i
1,800 1,800
1,600 1,600
1,400 1,400
1,200 1,200
1,000 1,000


800 800


600 600

400 400

200 200
0

Shore
-
-
-

•
—

: j.
r §
: co
: «
i I
'. "3
^ **
.
dines








1
fl]
CO
^D
» 0

<

North :
—_
*
-:
:
;
—
~
'-
~
;


;

1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000


800


600

400

200
0
40 60 0 10 20 30

 Spatial Variation of Washup Density
Summer 1990 Roatables Project Data

-------
 Floatables
Study Open
   Water
  Trawling
 Locations
 Floatables Densities in Harbor Open Water Trawls
    (September 1989 through September 1990)
a) Upper Net             b) Lower Net
                      i-
See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
Characterization of Items Found in Harbor Open
  Water Trawls in Both Upper and Lower Nets
  (September 1989 through September 1990)
             a) Major Categories
            Other (5 8%;

     Polystyrene (6.7%)
                             Plastics (87.5%)
                                             -147-

-------
                                  Westchester
                                     County
                                Marine Parkway
                                    Bridge
Outerbridge
 Crossing
Floatables Study Open Water Trawling Locations

         -148-

-------
        (a) Upper Net
 O
     35
     30
     25
~
"o


I


O
o>
«_  20
    15
    10
           Arthur Kill   Arthur Kill   Arthur Kill
           Outer Br.
           Crossing
                      Fresh
                       Kills
Goethals
 Bridge
                                          Hudson
                                           River
 79th. St.      The
Boat Basin   Narrows
Clason
 Point
           Manne
            Pkwy.
       (b) Lower Net
    20
    15
    10
z
0>
          Outer Br.     Fresh
          Crossing      Kills
                              Goethals    79th. St.
                               Bridge    Boat Basin
                    K, Tne
                    Narrows
Clason
 Point
          Marine
           Pkwy.
                       Floatables Densities in Harbor Open Water Trawls
                          (Sept. 1989 through Sept. 1990)
                                      -149-

-------
Characterization of Items Found in Harbor Open
  Water Trawls in Both Upper and Lower Nets
(September 1989 through September 1990) (Continued)

      b) Ten Most Frequently Occurring Items
         Item
                             Percentage of
                             All Items
         Pieces of plastic bags        47.0
         Plastic candy/food wrappers    18.2
         Plastic straws              5.9
         Plastic bags - other           5.2
         Plastic caps and lids          3.5
         Polystyrene pieces           3.0
         Polystyrene cups            2.5
         Plastic-other              2.6
         Pieces of wood             1.4
         Plastic soda bottles           1.0
         Total                   90.3
         Transport Studies

 • Drifter bottle releases
     • 18,300 returnable bottles released
     • 82 releases from 24 sites in New York/New
       Jersey Harbor
     • 23.7% returned
 • Satellite trackable drogue releases
     • 63 releases from 7 sites
     • 4 to 8 positions/day for 60 days
 • Development of a floatables trajectory model
 Spatial Distribution of Recovered Drifters
      by Percent of Number Recovered
    a) Sandy Hook - Rockaway Transect Releases
                                                  -150-

-------
 Spatial Distribution of Recovered Drifters
 by Percent of Number Recovered (continued)
           b) Releases at the Battery
            •as?
  Recovery Zones of Drogues Deployed at
     Sandy Hook - Rockaway Transect
Stranding Area vs. Wind for Drogues Released at
      Sandy Hook - Rockaway Transect
         a) Resultant Winds Toward N-NE
                                           -151-

-------
Stranding Area vs. Wind for Drogues Released at
   Sandy Hook-Rockaway Transect (Continued)
              b) Summary All Winds
      Droomlft
       onNvw
          Waihupa
                            Droguw Transported
                              to N.Y. Big W
                              (no washup*}
          Phase I  -  Results
 • Shoreline washup materials consist of trash
   and wood
 • Trash washed ashore resembles street litter
 • Sanitary items comprise 1% of items washed
   ashore
 • Syringes comprise 0.1% of items washed
   ashore
 • Illegal disposal responsible for washup of
   medical debris in 1987,1988, and 1991
    Phase I -  Results (continued)
   Fleatables Sources
     • Trash/Debris
       • CSO/Stormwater
       • Recreational boating
       • Solid waste handling
     • Wood
       • Decaying pier*
     • Tires
       • Illegal disposal
Floatables Loadings
  Items/month (million)
                                               -152-

-------
Drainage Areas
 of Floatables
  Model Land
     Runoff
   Segments
    CSO/Stormwater Yield Coefficient
              Correlations
    FtoatablM
     yWd
     (Itema/
    acre-Inch)
                         if1
         •) NYC DOS SMM UHr Rating
                           b) PofjuMton Owwjty
                          t1.MOpwpkfe.ur.inil.)
 See the following page for full-scale image.
Monthly Loadings of Floatables From CSOs/Stormwater
Rtglon
New York
New Jersey



Manhattan
Bronx
Brooklyn
Queens
Stiten Island
Paasalc
Bergen
Hudson
Essex
Union
Middlesex
Monrnouth
Somerset
New York City
Total
% New Yor* City
% New Jersey
DnlntgtAnt
(Aunt)
15,048
27,305
45,549
69,143
37,864
9,003
82,756
29,435
49,314
51,303
114,018
71,047
3,786
194,909
409,732
604,641
32
68
Number of
FlatutriM
(Html/Month)
194,775
273,711
479,335
224,805
24,276
8,921
38,254
97,160
64,601
25,202
80,008
23,227
9,138
1,196,902
346,511
1,543,413
78
22
                                             -153-

-------
     100,.
I    lot
0)
c.
u
<
•v.
(0


-------
    General
 Locations and
    Relative
 Magnitudes of
  Loadings of
 Floatables in the
 Vicinity of Fresh
  Kills Landfill
 Orthogonal Curvilinear Grid of NY Bight
     Hydrodynamic Model (ECOM-3D)
NY Bight OSSM
  Grid System
   (80 x 96)
                                        -155-

-------
  Relative Speed With Regression Curve and
     Relative Direction vs. Wind Speed for
             Satellite Drogue Tests
IMI
RftMht*

unt
w*



^





^j-
X



»,u.

^-•-




«*.».i»,wii™
F''"l

^-=-;

>=—


•)i




llroctton

4U


















,


















Wtod *pMd (knota) w^,d «p»»d (knott)
   Comparison of Actual and Predicted Trajectories of
                 Drogues 1101-1103
                 .... .*•»--»-"-
  See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
Comparison of Predicted Trajectory of Drifter Bottles With Actual Recovery Zones
         Release 23,9/4/90; Sandy Hook-Rockaway Transect
  See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
                                                   -156-

-------
   Comparison of Actual and  Predicted Trajectories
                     of Drogues 1101-1103
Ox
             (a)
Drogue 1101

O  5  10 milM
       (c)
                                                      Drogue 1103

                                                        &  10mles
                74.10 74.0O 73.9O 73.BO 73.7O 73.6O 73.50 73.40 73.3O
                                      40.15
                                        74.10 74.00 73.90 73.8O 73.7O 73.6O 73.5O 73.4O 73.3O
                                                Legend:
                                                	 Actual Trajectory

                                                — — Predicted Trajectory

                                                   2C- region
                                                John F. Kennedy Airport
                                            Of
                                                      r
                 10 74.OO 73.90 73 SO 73.7O 73 
-------
 Comparison of Predicted Trajectory of Drifter Bottles With Actual
                              Recovery Zones
         Release 23, 9/4/90; Sandy Hook-Rockaway Transect
00
              4O.65
              4O.55
              40.45
              4O.35
              40.25
              40.15
                74.1O
   Legend:

   Model: 2 days
    trajectory  ® ^

    2c - raoion!	i

   Drifters

    % of total recovered
    shown

   Number of Drifters

    released 500
    recovered 305


-i	1	1	1	
                      74.0O   73.90   73.80
                                                     Days After Release
                                                   0 05 1 15 ^ 25 3 35 4
                                                     Winds at JFK Airport
                                                             10 mi
                                               _!	1	1	1	1	L-
                                      73.7O   73.6O    73.5O   73.4O   73.3O

-------
   Calibration of Harbor Hydrodynamic and Particle
  Trajectory Models Using Drifter Bottles Recovered
Along Staten Island Beaches After Three Deployments
               of 200 Bottles Each


Nun**'*
ol
partfdai
MM
?
1-M PJD Augu*t 9, IBM
M J% Racovwy

A ;/ fl-r
Tim
~
I*
wo
K
• (da
Ratoma at tha N*row» Rataaw at Rarttvi Rlw Mou
12.40 pm.Auguct 10, 1990 11 30 »m Augutt 10, 1990
520% fl*cov«y
-•-;

^0 IX) 1.0 i.O 40 M 6.0 7
ys) - after midnight Augu

no
m
, i
>t».
480% Rtcovory
.— HiX«-
™oov«yr-*t)
* noavwd
0 1*0 14 SJ3 AO SJ> i.0 T
990
«h


                                                   -159-

-------
     Monitoring and
     Modeling of the
  Metropolitan Boston
       CSO System
  CSO Monitoring Program
          Objectives

 • System characterization and
  understanding
 • Model calibration and verification
 • Minimum control (maximize in-
  system storage and flow to POTW)
  evaluation
CSO Metering Program Coverage

             Number of    Quantification
Ana            Outfall$  Full  Partial  None

Ea*t Boston          11    7    2     i
Charleitown           3120
Boston-Charles River       6240
North End/Fort Point Channel   10    4    4     2
South Boston          4220
Dorchester           12    4  	7_  	1_
Total, Boston         46    20   21     5
Total, Cambridge        11    9    2     0
Total, Somerville         9522
Total, Chelsea          4202
MWRA Charles River       7601
MWRA CSO Facilities       4301
Grand Total          81    45   25    11
                                  -161-

-------
Example of Full Flow Quantification
     Metering Site - CAM 003
 PLAN VIEW
                  PRORLE VIEW
 Example of Overflow Frequency/Duration
and Tidal Effect Metering System - BOS 081
   PLAN VIEW
                 Tldegate
                To Interceptor
    To Interceptor
                   Tldegtte
  Frequency of Overflows at
            BOS 003
Rainfall Interval
(inches)
0-0.1
0.1-0.25
0.25-0.5
0.5-1.0
>1.0
Number of
Rainfall Events
27
13
18
8
5
Number of
Overflows
1
7
13
7
5
                                   -162-

-------
Rainfall vs. Overflow Volume at BOS 003
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
Average 1-*
Rainfall 16
Depth 1'4
(inches) 1J
v ' 1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

D Storm Event
5/31-6/1
D

'_ 8/17-18
13 6/5-6
D
8/9 9»
n D D
. D8/16-17
- 7/31-8/1 7/9 8/116/27
ff n Q Q
9p
0123
Overflow Quantity (mg)
 Peak Intensity vs. Overflow Volume
            at BOS 003




Peak
Rainfall
Intensity
(in fht \
\





0.6
o.s

0.4

0.3

0.2
0.1
o
Q Storm Event
8/17-18
a
6/27
D 6/5^ 5/31-6/1
- Q on8'11
7/31-8/1 n 87/0
Q UpQ7/9
Q 8/16-17
8/9
-f
0123
Overflow Quantity (mg)
     CSO System Modeling
 	Objectives	
  • Minimum control evaluations
  • CSO control alternative evaluations
  • I/I and interceptor project evaluations
    and impacts on CSO alternatives
  • impact of upstream collection system
    performance on WWTP
  • System operations and analysis
    support tool
                                     -163-

-------
     CSO System Model
       Characteristics
    • SWMM RUNOFF and
     EXTRAN
    • All hydraulic structures
    • Over 3,000 conduits and
     2,500 nodes
    • Linkage to system
     database/GIS
 Schematic of
Outfall BOS 088
& 089 (Fox Point
 CSO Facility)
   See the
 following page
 for full-scale
   image.
    Overflow at BOS 017
16
14
12
10
Flow,
cfs •
6
4
2
0
Exlran Flow Measured Flow tide

-^




\
_


,____




/'












CSO Volume
~ M*HUTMl • D 90 mg
Pr«) feted *0 77 mg




1
1 i

\





A
'^i






(1
Bf

x^

^
1
1
1

^ •
\
I


H"





1










-















v^.







^-'






'
-




^.-n

—



Time, Hours
                                 -164-

-------
  Schematic of
Outfall BOS 088
& 089 (Fox Point
  CSO Facility)
                                              To Dorchester
                                              Interceptor
                                             96" X 120" CS
24" OF 24" X 30 CS
  Savin Hill Ave.
                      U.S. COMBINED   »
                      SYSTEM SEE PARK ST.
                      ON BOS 090 SYSTEM
                   Dorchester Interceptor

                   Regulator

                   Tidegate

                   Outfall
                                    TO OF  Dorchester
                                    BOS 090  Interceptor

-------
  Flow Upstream of BOS 019
    Ertran Flow   Mnsured Flow
    02 4  6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
              Time, Hours
     Overflow at BOS 076
       Ertran Flow  Manured Flow
Flow in North Metropolitan Sewer
60
50
40
Flow,
cfs M
20
10
0
Ertran Flow Measured Flow





,'





























^





NX




/
,J
HI



^

T


r
.if





X




/
/




^





v





1







I





s








3 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 JO 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Time, Hours
                                   -166-

-------
               CSO Model Results
  Southern Dorchester Bay Receiving Water Segment
                 Design Storm Results
                                Annutl Simulation Results

Outfit)
BOS 086
BOS 069








BOS 090








Regulator
FOX PT Q/F
RE-088-1
HE-066-7
RE-OB8-11
RE-OBS-15
RE-068-18
HE-068-20
RE-OB8-22
RE-08S-27
FOX PT Facility
RE-090-1
RE-090-4
RE-090-6
RE-090-1 2
R.E-090-14
OF-106
OF-224
CO MM PT Facility
3-Uonth Storm
CSO Volume (MG)
0.00
000
000
107
022
000
000
001
000
340
000
000
000
000
006
000
000
377
1-Y»*r Storm
CSO Volume (MG)
0.00
0.00
000
3,65
136
0.00
000
1.26
000
11.94
0.00
000
006
000
102
0.00
010
782
CSO Volume
(MG)
001
000
0.29
1593
2.19
018
019
035
0.12
5772
0.10
009
0.74
0.25
406
000
066
11059
Actuations
(*/yr)
1
0
6
20
16
2
4
6
2
as
2
2
4
3
13
0
13
86
Total CSO Volume
 CSO Volume vs. Rainfall-Typical Data











CSO
Volume
(MG)







180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
50
40
30
20
10
p Storm Event Q



D






' D
a

° a a

rrrtrnpS 	

















0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Rain Depth (inches)
     Frequency Distribution of
              CSO Volume
            100

             90

             80

             70

             60
       Percent 50
       of Total
       Volume
             30
              0.0 0.2 0.4 0.60.8 1.0 121.4 1.61.8 2.0 2.2
                 Rain Depth Exceeded (inches)
                                              -167-

-------
 Flows for
   Future
  Planned
Conditions-
Typical Year
   Flow
 Frequency
Distribution
  -Typical
   Year
                      Percent Leit Than
       System Flow Balance
T*iM Parted: Typical Vaar
RAINFALL
A. Rainfall Oaplh (Inehae)
B. Rainfall Duration (how)
C RilnVolumtlnCSOCommunHias(HG}
WTEHCEPTOR SYSTEM
E Upatraam Infiltration (MO)
F Upatraam Inflow (MG>
CSO SYSTEM
Q- CSO ATM Sanitary WaMawatar (MO)
K. CSO AnH mtlltratton (HG)
1 CSOArMStonnwatarRunon{MG)
(antaring tyttam upatrtam of regulators)
J TWal Inflow (MG)
K.CSO Volume (MQ)
TOTAL FLOWS
L ftowtoWwTP(MG)
U ParcantCombkwdSvwaoaCapturad
Briatty
Condtttor*
43.1
•09
44,400
51,100
4,090
17,110
25,010
5,770
3.250
141, tOO
H
Futon Pawnad
Condition*
43.1
•09
4«,400
49,990
3.MO
17,110
25,010
fi,«40
0
1,040
137,400
•9
                                     -168-

-------
           Performance Goals and
           Design of CSO Controls

     Goals: may be determined from
      • Receiving water analysis (define reductions required)
      • Presumption approach (per EPA CSO policy)
     Design CSO control units: based on a selected
      • Hydraulic condition (e.g., design storm)
      • CSO quallty/treatablllty
     Gap:  need to translate
      • Goals which are general
          to
      • Specific parameters for design (flow rate,
        storage volume)
           Performance  Goals

     1. Percent capture: a specified percentage of total
      wet weather flow or CSO
       • Captured by STORAGE DEVICE and returned
         to POTW for treatment
       • Treated (versus bypassed) by TREATMENT
         DEVICE and discharged
     2. Overflow frequency:  number of events per year-
      discharge untreated CSOs
       • Overflow events for a STORAGE DEVICE
       • Bypass events for a TREATMENT DEVICE
       (These two goals are Interrelated; specifying one
       will determine the other.)
r
    Performance Goals (continued)

    3. Treatment level: a specified reduction in mass
      loading of a pollutant of concern—either on a
      system-wide basis or for specific outfalls
       • Water quality based—from a receiving
         water model
       e Technology based—commonly "equivalent of
         primary treatment"
       • Treatment level achieved will depend on:
          • Percentage of total flow that receives
            treatment
          • Removal efficiency of the control unlt(s)
                                                   -169-

-------
  Performance Goals
(Continued)
4. First flush:  capture/treat a smaller
   proportion of the total volume determined to
   contain a major fraction of the pollutant load
    • May reduce STORAGE requirements
    • Site-specific—so must establish via monitoring
5. Knee of the curve:  final design is influenced
   by cost-effectiveness considerations
    • Increasing size/cost—increasingly marginal
      performance
   (These two goals represent site-specific
   variation/refinement to Goals 1 through 3.)
   Translating a Performance Goal to a
 Specific Design Basis for a Control Unit

 • Detailed design:  based on selected
   •  Design storage volume and/or
   •  Design treatment capacity, peak rates
 • Model (e.g., SWMM)
   •  Design capacity versus performance level
   •  Event model for critical hydraulic aspects
   •  Continuous model for long-term/annual
      control level
       • Variability—storm-to-storm, wet versus
        dry years
   Translating a Performance Goal to a
 Specific Design Basis for a Control Unit
                  (Continued)
•  Model constraints
    • Level of effort, computer resources for SWMM
      use argues against use in screening
      alternatives
    • Use simplified methods for screening
    • Use SWMM for confirmation/refinement
•  Screening analysis options
    • Simple version of SWMM model
      • Reducing spatial detail is possible
      • Restricting time period analyzed is inappropriate
    • Analysis of rain data
                                               -170-

-------
 Rainfall Screening  Analysis

 • Uses of rainfall screening tool
   • First-order (ballpark) estimate of control
    unit sizing
     •Approximate performance versus design
      capacity relationships
   • Guide detailed model analysis to most
    appropriate condition (or range) to
    examine in detail
   • Help guide the interpretation/extrapolation
    of modeling results
 Rainfall Screening Analysis
                 (Continued)

• Advantages
    •  Long-term (40+ years) records readily available
      (USWS)
    •  Develop a good overview of a highly variable situation
    •  Limited effort/resources required
    •  Results are generalized—can be applied to any
      sewershed
• Limitations
    •  Analysis based on rainfall—not runoff or
      combined flow
    •  Must ultimately use information from site model
      to convert to physical design requirements
      for CSO controls
         Rainfall Screening
            Analysis Input
               Hourly Rain Gage Record (from USWS)
         , , .  I I i I I I I ! '.  . | : I ! I
     Rain
   (1/100 In.)
                                             -171-

-------
V

/"
            Rainfall Screening
          Analysis Input (c
               Convert to Storm "Event" File (e.g., with SYNOP)
         Rainfall Screening Analysis

PROCEDURE
STORAGE PERFORMANCE
from
STORM EVENT FILE
1 GENERATE.*. "EVENT" fib
front Hourly flata Record
2 COUNT - wwito with VOL
• NumtMr of Overflow.
3 AOD-MMMvolunM
and Compare with Total
Volum*
• P«rc*nt Captur*

Ho ft


:
a
*

«i HOUI
1 71 1
Tl
J
£
»

mtilp b4twMfi pcrionnHK* of CSO storagt and
•tonn »b» uMd M design basl*— pcrcont capture.
  I    See the following page(s) for full-scale image.
                                             -172-

-------
-J
UJ
       Rainfall Screening Analysis
PROCEDURE
for estimating
STORAGE PERFORMANCE
from
STORM EVENT FILE
1 GENERATE an "EVENT" file
from Hourly Rain Record
2 COUNT - events with VOL
Larger Than a Selected Size
= Number of Overflows
3 ADD - excess volumes
and Compare with Total
Volume
= Percent Capture

DUR-
ATION
No. DATE HOUR (hrs)
1 1 1 1 /78 18 8
2 1 / 8 /78 13 29
3 1 / 13/78 7 21
4 1/14 /78 12 6
5 1 / 17 /78 9 21
6 1/19 17% 20 21
7 1 / 25 /78 5 26
8 2 1 6 /7S 3 25
9 2 M3 178 21 17
10 2 M8 /78 12 8
11 2 / 25 /78 4 2
12 3/3 /78 10 12
13 3/14 /78 15 3
14 3 116 178 21 13
15 3/21 /78 23 4
16 3/24 /78 1 8
17 3/26 /78 2 33
18 4 / 5 /78 1 2
19 4(6 /78 19 16
20 4 / 11 /78 21 3
21 4/19 /78 8 14
22 4/20 /78 4 3
23 4/20 /78 17 1
24 5/4 /78 19 36
25 5 / 8 /78 17 18

VOLUME
(inch)
0.22
0.80
1.30
0.06
1.64
1.94
1.80
1.48
0.56
0.15
0.07
0.75
0.20
0.57
0.16
0.12
2.78
0.16
0.22
0.18
1.97
0.06
0.01
0.48
0.64

AVG MAX
INTEN INTEN DELTA
(in/hr) (in/hr) (hrs)
0.03 0.05
0.03 0.14 173.5
0.06 0.26 110.0
0.01 0.01 21.5
0.08 0.26 76.5
0.09 0.27 59.0
0.07 0.34 131,5
0.06 0.16 285.5
0.03 0.09 182.0
0.02 0,03 106.5
0,04 0,06 157.0
0.06 0.10 155.0
0,07 0.15 264.5
0.04 0.13 49.0
0.04 0.06 127.5
0.02 0.02 52.0
0.08 0.69 61.5
0.08 0.13 223.5
0.01 0.03 49.0
0.06 0.10 115.5
0.14 0.38 184.5
0.02 0.04 14.5
0.01 0.01 12.0
0.01 0.07 355.5
0.04 0.09 85.0



-------
     Design Storm Size vs.
   Percent Capture-Storage
% Captured
100



00



80



70



60



50



40



30
•

s
. 1
» ;
• 1
' i :
•
— ..
*»,.
m
.
•
:
i
;
'— i
i
!


1
j
i
j
:
™ •
i
i
1
1
1
l|
J f
* 1
r * i

|
|
II
--f j-...n.
1 *
i *
'44
!n
it
j :
s |
— ;™t"
i j
: :
i 1
t j
r 1
s
t
i
i
11
*
J
1 !
!
i •
! •
! i
f
1

i I
.H ..-j.,...
il


.



< .^
...
4
1
—

'—
;j|
I ' 1
! |
i
1
• {
a l
" !
1
i
| i
i i
j j
! !
MM!
it::
1 i i S
; • i •
"J" i" I--T-J-—
! i i s
MM
i
il
I i 1
1 1
1 1

'




„„..


t ; ; :
MM
• : • i
MM
1


* t ' ' I
[
'













t J t
i i !
i t l •
; i {
=> Newark NJ
* Portland ME
• Portland OF
• Louisville K
o Chicago IL
« Atlanta GA
! i : :•
i ! j
! i 1
1 1 i ?


'

1
il
t t
1 l
1
j
»*
. 	 !
».

_
,_

! 1
i
(
1
!
s
1
t
t
t
t
1
1
i i
....Li...
1 1
1 1
'"• " •
             0.5
                          3.5
                   1   1.5   2   2.5   3

                   Design Storm Size (in.)

Figure 3.1 Approximate relationship between performance of CSO storage and
        storm size used as design basis—percent capture.

-------
     Design Storm Size vs.
       Overflows per Year
±£-:--4----- + Z
iq:::^::^:
!•• : = = : : as* = ^ =
Awrage M = £^i:S;


±:::x:::::
1 L

- . - 4" 	 fcrthn*
WE -
CM
Loutavll*KY
^E^:£H= Chlo.90IL !

' i

II li
" " Deslgn'Storm Slze*(ln.)' '
storm »te» UMd •* dacign baste— number of overflows










*
storage sod
Rainfall Screening Analysis
              (Continued)

• Limitations—storage performance
  estimates
   • Storage analysis based on always
     empty basin
   • Delays in emptying will reduce
     performance
     • By about 5 percentage points for each
      72 hours
   • Can wait to refine performance estimate
     with detailed model analysis
    Effect of Emptying Time
          0.6   1    1 8    2

             Design storm size (in.)
                                      -175-

-------
 Rainfall Screening Analysis
               (Continued)

   m Can expand simple method to
     account for emptying rate
     • Example: plot shows effect of
      operating rule
       a. Wait 6 hours—subsidence of infiltration
        flows
       b. Drain at rate that will empty a full tank in
         3 and 6 days
         -Determined by flow rates POTW can accept
 Rainfall Screening Analysis
               (Continued)

9 Application for treatment units
   • Design is based on flow rates and/or
    peak flow
     • Sedimentation basins, swirl/vortex
   • Bypass excessive flow rates to avoid
    serious performance degradation
   • Analyze hour record versus event file
 Rainfall Screening Analysis
               (Continued)
 • Output that can be developed for
   design guidance shown by
   following table
 • Limitations
    • Analysis based on rainfall intensity
      (inJhr) not flow rate
    • System hydraulics will attenuate peaks
    • Results tend to be conservative
                                       -176-

-------
    Analysis of Intensities From Hourly Record
      Atlanta, GA Rainfall (Gage #90451)  42-Year Record
|   See the following page for full-scale image.
   Rainfall  Screening  Analysis
                    (Continued)

  • Summary
     • A simple, low-resource method for developing
      an overview on a long-term basis
     • Final determination by appropriate model
      analysis to properly reflect site-specific
      conditions
     • Permit efficient use of available resources by
      helping to focus model effort
     • Results are generalized—watershed Inches of
      rain. Convert on site-specific basis to physical
      size/rate—based on area, Impervlousness,
      conveyance capacity, etc.
                                                 -177-

-------
oo
                                                 ANALYSIS OF INTENSITIES FROM HOURLY RECORD
                                                            ATLANTA GA. RAINFALL   (Gage # 90451)

                                                                          42 year record
INTENSITY
in/hr
0.05
0.10
AVERAGE 0.20
for 0.30
1 YEAR 0.40

0.50

0.60
average rain vol 0.70
48.8 0.85
inch /year 1.00
1.15
1.25
No. Storm Events
with 1 or more hours
having a greater
Intensity
63.8
52.8
34.2
22.9
15.8

10.8

7.0
4.8
2.8
2.0
1.4
1.0
Number of Storm Events during which the intensity
is exceeded for the indicated duration (hours)
1 hr 2 hr 3 hr 4 hr 5 hr 6 hr > 6 hr
20.5 14.6 8.5 5.7 4.0 2.7 7.3
24.0 12.1 6.4 3.6 2.0 1.6 3.1
20.9 7.8 2.9 1.3 0.5 0.4 0.4
16.6 4.5 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1
13.0 2.0 0.6 0.1 0.1

9.2 1.4 0.2 -

6.4 0.6 0.05 -
4.5 0.3
2.6 0.1
2.0 0.05 -----
1.4 0.02 -----
0.9 0.02 -----















Amount to Treatment
volume % of
inch total
18.4 37.7
27.4 56.2
36.7 75.1
41 .2 84.5
43.8 89.8

45.5 93.1

46.5 95.3
47.2 96.6
47.8 97.8
48.1 98.6
48.4 99.1
48.5 99.4
                                         If the rain volumes associated with all portions of flows that are equal or less than the listed intensity
                                         are delivered to a treatment unit - - -
                                         the quantity (and % of the total) listed - will receive treatment at efficiency characteristic of the unit.

-------
   CSO Treatment for
   Floatables Control

Issues
 • Aesthetic (public health, navigation)
 • Ingestion and entanglement — fish,
   birds
 • Regulatory (states, EPA policy)
Control technologies
Case study examples

Floatable Control
Technologies







Screens
Containment booms
Nets
Catch basin design
Street sweeping
Source control
Skimmer boats
^^

      Static Screens
  Combined Sewer







T 	 ,


"Xpverfl
Weir
  f Discharge

PLAN VIEW
                            Discharge

                       Overflow Weir
                                    -179-

-------
      Static Screens
       (Continued)
  Discharge
                                      Combined Sewer
                                      Overflow
                              Discharge
Nets
              Nylon Net
                                       Combined Sewer
                                       Outfall
                Floatable Baffle
                         PLAN VIEW
              Nets
(Continued)
             Side Curtain Pontoons
     Nylon Net
                    Side Curtain

                 SIDE ELEVATION
                                                 -180-

-------
 Catch Basin Modifications
Curl
 Catch Basin Modifications
           (Continued)
                        Removable
          Booms
Combined Sewer Boom
/ Outfall ^X"
A. y. 	 — \ ./^ .A Flotation
MV T — t Collar
nTETscharge I 1 /
[ J nn I/
^— ( ! — ^
V - '—4\ Ditcharge
Pilings f >*** • .
Combined Sewer Outfall
PLAN VIEW SECTION A-A
Boom


                             -181-

-------
         Booms
(Continued)
Anchor-—**"!
      PLAN VIEW
                         SECTION A-A
 Booms
 (Continued)
 Schematic of Skimmer Vessel
    Off-loading
    conveyor
                              Conveyor
                              wlnoy
     Propulsion
     unit        Side View
                                     -182-

-------
 Schematic of Skimmer Vessel
             (Continued)
 Off-loading
                         Pick-up
                   Pontoon   conveyor
         inglne       ^Pontoon
              Top View
                           wings
   Abatement Alternatives

• Long-term CSO abatement
   • Storage tanks/tunnels
   • End-of-pipe controls
• Other abatement measures
   • Public education/product reformulation
   • Street cleaning
   • Catch basin controls
   • Interim in-basin containment
       City-Wide
 Floatables  Study
                                  -183-

-------
           Street Cleaning
    Objectives
     • Develop relationship between street
       litter ratings (SLRs) and quantity of
       litter on streets/sidewalks
     • Evaluate impact of enhanced street
       cleaning on SLRs and on quantity of
       litter
     • Determine costs of enhanced street
       cleaning
     Street Cleaning (continued)


•  Monitoring Program
    • Selection basis: SLR, borough, landuse, cleanliness,
      catch basin locations
    • Procedure: collect floatables from streets and
      sidewalks after SLRs were assigned
    • Blockfaces with normal cleaning practices
       • 90 blockfaces surveyed (June -August 1993)
       • 924 sample! analyzed
    • Blockfaces with enhanced cleaning
       • 15 Necklaces (May - August 1993, summer 1994)
       • 390 samples analyzed (1993)
    • Lab analyses: Kern counts, weights, surface areas,
      material composition, bulk volume, 47 Hem
      characterizations
  Number of Floatable Items vs.
          Street Litter Rating
   Number
    Items/
    foot of
    curb
             1.1 1.2  1.3 1.4 1.S  1.6 1.7  1.«

                     Street litter rating
                                                 -184-

-------
Street Litter Ratings for Enhanced
            Cleaning Area
    Percent of "'
   observations
    Percent Of
    otaannttlona
                   Enhanced Cloning — Level 1
                      (May + July 1W3)
                   Street scorecard Interval
Street Litter Ratings for Enhanced
        Cleaning Area
                    Enhanced Cleaning — Level 2
                      (Jui» + AuguM1M3)
    Pwcvnt of 4).
   obMrvitfom M.
                  StrMt scoracard Inttrvtl
     Catch  Basin Controls

  Objectives
   • Quantify amounts of floatables entering
     sewer system from catch basin pits
   • Determine capture efficiency of catch
     basin under present and modified
     conditions
   • Determine the effect of catch basin
     cleaning frequency on catch basin yield
   • Estimate costs of modifications and
     increased cleaning
                                            -185-

-------
Catch  Basin Controls
         (Continued)
• Monitoring
    • Selection based on borough, landuse, cleanliness
    • 30 catch basins in normal cleaning areas; twice/month,
      summer 1993
    • 8 catch basins In enhanced cleaning areas; weekly
      sampling, summers of 1993 and 1994
    • Lab analyses: item counts, weights, bulk volume,
      surface areas
    • Approximately 8 locations, capture efficiency
      determined using artificial trash
    • Effects of hood, grates, grit level evaluated
    • 16 sites (weekly, monthly, 3 months, 6 months cleaning
      frequency) sample twice/month, 6 months duration,
      April-November 1994
      Side
  Elevations
    of NYC
   Standard
     Catch
    Basins
     A)Type 1
   (has curb piece)
L»g.l grxto or «
-------
    Side
 Elevations
   of NYC
  Standard
    Catch
   Basins
    (Continued)
     C) Type 3
   (with curb piece)
(without curb piece optional)
        Standard Gratings
                        I—II—IC3CJI—II—II—II—I
    Ridged surface
          Planar surface
          (bicycle-safe)
   Standard Cast Iron Hood
              Hood to be flush with
              Inside face of wall        5- 5-
                       -T    PQ
    Front elevation
     of hood
Section of hood
  in place
Rear elevation of
 hood in place
                                         -187-

-------
     Schematic of Catch Basin
          Basket Installation
              storm
                            Baakel detain
                            13' x 13- CTOM Mellon
                            36'long
                            1/8" perforated CM twttom ptele
                            1' x1' sted mgb comers
                            1/4- gUvmbwl mwh, tower 18"
                            1/2" galvanlnd nwch. upp«r 18'
                               21.7 pound.
Fraction of Floatable Items Entering Sewers in Catch
  Basin Efficiency Test of 10/28/93 - by Item Type
    Sottoim

     to i
I





srs
• •tut*
*••*»



T
}
• C*n
MWn
M





MHM
MMf



T
f




I
f











|


I
I

,





}
A





¥ttn«4
Httih*
»Ja**
Mm

1

tvM
Md
A

r

                   Kern type
  Pilot Level Containment Program

         • Jamaica Bay
         • Four locations
             • Paerdegat Basin
             • Hendrix Creek
             • Bergen Basin
             • Thurston Basin
         • Methods
             • Oil booms
             • Skimmer vessels
                                            -188-

-------
    Pilot Level Containment Program
                  (Continued)

      • Start-up: May 1993 (18 month
        duration)
      • Collect information on
         • Amount of trash
         • Trash off-loading
         • Vessel maintenance
         • Costs
f

   Trash Skimmer Operational Data

    • 2 vessels-June to September 1993
    • Jamaica Bay containment sites
    • 618 hours in operational/nonoperational
      tasks
       • 122 site cleanings
       • 15,020 Ib of floatable trash removed
    9 62% of time in operational tasks (skimming,
      transit, offloading)
   Trash Skimmer Operational Data
                  (Continued)
    • Average speed in transit 6.1 mph
    • Average fuel consumption 0.93 mpg
    • Skimming efficiency
       • 75.3 Ib/hour skimming
       • 39.3 Ib/operational hour
                                           -189-

-------
Interim Booming/Skimming Locations
 Containment
 sites:
  • Zone 1:  4 sites
  • Zone 2:  8 sites
  • Zone 3:  8 sites
                                      -190-

-------
 In-System Controls/
     In-Line Storage
                In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage

         Introduction

   Definitions
   Examples of in-system strategies
   Implementation considerations
   Regulators
    • Types
    • Controls
   Examples of technology application
                In-System Controls/ln-Llne Storage

	Definitions	

 Optimize collection system storage and
 conveyance capacity, and treatment capacity
 atPOTW
 Readily implementable, cost-effective
 approach to reduce CSOs
 Reduce overflows by conveying more flow to
 the POTW
 Feasible if sufficient capacity available in
 collection system, POTW
                                     -191-

-------
                In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
   In-System  Strategies

• Collection system inspection and
  maintenance
• Tidegate maintenance and repair
• Reduction of surface inflow
• Adjustment of regulator settings
• Enlargement of undersized pipes to
  eliminate flow restrictions
                 In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
 In-System Strategies (continued)

i In-system flow diversions through
 existing system interconnections
> Adjustment and/or upgrade of
 pumping station operations
» Partial separation of storm drain
 connections from combined sewers
> Infiltration removal
                 In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage

    Implementation Issues

• System characterization required
  prior to developing and implementing
  in-system controls
   • Data collection, flow monitoring,
     modeling
• Typically implemented with relatively
  little design engineering and at low
  cost
                                       -192-

-------
                  In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
Implementation Issues (continued)

 • Potential disadvantages:
    • Increased risk of basement or street
      flooding
    • Increased opportunity for sediment
      deposition
    • Higher cost associated with increased
      maintenance
    • Increased risk of wet weather impacts
      on POTW
                   In-System Controla/ln-Une Storage
            Regulators

• Control flow entering an interceptor from
  an upstream combined system
• Provide an overflow relief point (the
  CSO) for flows in excess of interceptor
  capacity
• Regulators fall into two broad
  categories:
   • Static
   • Mechanical
                  In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
       Regulators (continued)

   Static regulators
   • No moving parts; once set, usually
     not readily adjustable:
       •  Side weirs
       •  Transverse weirs
       •  Restricted outlets
       •  Vortex valves
       •  Swirl concentrators (flow
         regulators/solids concentrators)
                                           -193-

-------
Typical Diversion  Regulators
                              Overflow
                              outlet.
               sOverr)ow outlet
               to receiving water
       Side weir
                            Interceptor sewer
Transverse weir
  with orifice
    Typical Diversion Regulators
               (Continued)
                    Interceptor

              High outlet regulator
                  In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
        Regulators (continued)

  Vortex valves
 • Dry weather flows pass without
   restriction, but higher flows
   controlled by vortex throttling
   action
 • Can be used in place of orifice or
   restricted outlet
                                         -194-

-------
                     Example of a
                     Vortex Valve
                  In-System Controls/1 n-Line Storage
       Regulators (continued)

Vortex valves

• Advantages of vortex valves vs.
  standard orifices:
   • Discharge opening on vortex valve is
     larger than opening on standard orifice
     sized for the same discharge rate,
     reducing risk of blockage
   • Discharge from vortex valve less
     sensitive to variations in upstream head
     than standard orifice
       Regulators
                  In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
Mechanical regulators

• Adjustable, and may respond to
  variations in local flow conditions, or be
  controlled through remote telemetry
  system:
   • Float-controlled gates
   • Tilting plate regulators
   • Inflatable dams
   • Motor-operated or hydraulic gates
                                          -195-

-------
      Typical CSO Regulators
  Mechanized
  regulator
               Stop disk
                Combined i

      Tipping plate regulator
  Typical
    CSO
Regulators
  (Continued)
                  In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
       Regulators (continued)

Inflatable dams
• Reinforced rubberized fabric device,
  forms a broad-crested weir when fully
  inflated
• When deflated, dam collapses to take
  form of the conduit in which it is
  installed
• Can be positioned to restrict flow in an
  outfall conduit or combined sewer trunk
                                       -196-

-------
                   In-System Controls/In-Line Storage
       Regulators (continued)

Inflatable dams
• Can act as regulator by preventing
  diversion of flow to an outfall until
  depth of flow exceeds crest of dam

• Controlled by local or remote, flow
  or level sensing devices
     Example of an Inflatable Dam
                             Receiving
                     To interceptor  water
                   In-System Controls/In-Line Storage
        Reg u I ato rs (continued)

 Motor- or hydraulically operated sluice gates
 • Typically respond to local or remote flow or
   level sensing devices
 • Normally closed gates can be located on
   overflow pipes to prevent overflows
 • Normally open gates can be positioned to
   throttle flows to the interceptor to prevent
   surcharging
 • Well suited for use in conjunction with real-
   time control systems
                                           -197-

-------
 Example of a Motor-Operated Gate Regulator
                   In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage

    Other In-System Devices

Elastomeric tide gates
• Prevent receiving water from flowing back through
  the outfall and regulator and into the conveyance
  system
• An alternative to traditional flap-gate style tide
  gates
• Designed to avoid maintenance problems
  associated with flap gates
• Designed to close tightly around objects that might
  otherwise prevent a flap gate from closing
                   In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
      Regulator Controls

     Static regulators
     • By definition, not capable of
       dynamic control
     • Modifications to weir
       elevations or orifice
       dimensions can generally be
       achieved at low cost
                                           -198-

-------
                   In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
  Regulator Controls (continued)

  Local dynamic regulator control
  •  Most appropriate where a regulator would
    not influence or be influenced by another
    regulator
  •  More advanced local control systems
    feature electronic flow or water level
    monitoring devices
  •  Float-controlled mechanical gates often
    not reliable
                   In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage

  Regulator Controls,
System-wide real-time control (RTC)

• Integrated control of regulators, outfall
  gates, and pump station operations
• Typical control features:
   • Sensors to detect flow, water level,
     rainfall, and/or pollutant concentration
   • Circuitry and software to drive the control
     mechanisms (usually gates)
                   In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
  Regulator Controls
 System-wide real-time control (RTC)

 • Typical control features:
    • Rainfall and/or runoff forecasting
      software running in real time
    • Computer acting as both data logger and
      controller
    • Telemetry equipment for communication
      of data among multiple regulators
                                          -199-

-------
                In-System Controla/ln-Lino Storage
 Regulator Controls (continued)

System-wide real-time control (RTC)
• Control strategy based on RTC must
  identify the control system constraints
  and evaluate alternatives for
  developing the optimum strategy within
  those constraints
                In-Syatem Controla/ln-Llna Storage
 Regulator Controls (continued)
 System-wide real-time control (RTC)
 • Examples of constraints include:
    • Capacities of interceptor and trunk
      sewers, storage facilities, and POTW
    • Rainfall runoff forecast models
    • Data acquisition system
    • Computer hardware and software
    • Control timestep
    • Equipment malfunction
                In-Systam Controls/ln-Lina Storage
  Examples of Technology
          Application

MWRA-
system optimization plans
                                      -200-

-------
                In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
         MWRA SOPs	
 Objectives
  • Reduce CSO discharge
    frequency/volume
  • Relocate CSOs to less sensitive
    areas
  • Bulkhead CSOs where possible
  • Reduce operational problems
                In-System Controls/ln-Llne Storage
         MWRA SOPs	

   Objectives (continued)
     m Mitigate potential for flooding
     • Control sediment deposition
     • Improve system operational
      efficiency and flexibility
                In-System Controls/ln-Llne Storage
         MWRA SOPs	

• Projects to attain  SOP objectives
   • Downstream improvements impacting
     multiple regulators
   • Maximize use of existing interceptor
     capacity
   • Improve regulators with operational
     problems
   • In-system storage opportunities
   • Flow transfer opportunities
                                      -201-

-------
                   In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage

           MWRA SOPs	

   • SOP methodology
       • Prepare outfall schematics
       • Identify hydraulically related
        subsystems
       • Assemble existing information on
        regulators
       • Perform hydraulic evaluations using
        SWMM/EXTRAN
       • Develop SOPs
Schematic
 of Outfall
 BOS 084
                                    SSSr
                   In-System Controls/ln-Line Storage
            MWRA  SOPs
• Results
     Recommended SOPs in 139 locations in
     four communities
     Predicted reduction of 10.9 MG (25
     percent) for 3-month, 24-hour storm
     Cost $4 million, includes construction
     and postconstruction monitoring
                                         -202-

-------
                  12'x 15"CS
             15'x18"CS      8THST.
SOUTH
BOSTON
INTERCEPTOR
12" CS-
              12"CS    12"x15'CS
                                                                 E  7THST
                                             12'x 16'CS
                                                              RE 084-6
           RE 084-3
                        12" SAN
                                                              O
12'SAN
. 36' x 54' CS ,*
COLUMBIA RD
© TIDEGATE
O REGULATOR
• MANHOLE
5— CONDUIT CONTINUES
UPSTREAM
1 — UPSTREAM TERMINUS
OF CONDUIT



CO
O
8
, c :
)
)

\
«i
)




                                 OF BOS 084
                           FIGURE 3.  SCHEMATIC OF OUTFALL BOS 084
             TO SOUTH BOSTON
             INTERCEPTOR
             VIA RE 083-1
                                                    MH 9112'SAN/-

                                                       «    »  S
                                         -203-

-------
                 In-System Controlsfln-Line Storage
  Examples of Technology
                      (Continued)
Seattle - real-time control
 • Operated since 1973, provides integrated,
   remote control of pump stations and
   regulators
 • 1990 study showed improvement to RTC
   more cost-effective than additional
   storage facilites
 • Hydrologic model predicts flow 6 hr
   ahead
                 In-System Controlsfln-Line Storage

   Examples of Technology
                      (Continued)
 Seattle - real-time control (continued)
  m Supervisory control and data aquisition
   (SCADA) system collects data on current
   conditions
  • Optimal flow routing strategy computed,
   then executed through SCADA
                                        -204-

-------
 Off-Line Near-Surface
Storage/Sedimentation
       Off-Line Near-Surface
   Storage/Sedimentation

• Store and/or treat flows diverted
  from combined sewers
• "Near-surface" vs. "deep tunnel"
• In combination with coarse
  screening, floatables control, and
  disinfection
                   Storage/Sedimentation
      Process Theory

    Four operating phases:
     • Fill
     • Dynamic settling
     • Quiescent settling
     • Draw
                               -205-

-------
                    Storage/Sedimentation
    Process Design	
• Sizing to provide a specified
  minimum treatment level
• Sizing to meet water quality
  standards
• Sizing to capture first flush
• Sizing to reduce the number
  of overflow events
  Typical Overflow Rates for
    Primary Settling Tanks
Overflow Rate
Source
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
1991; U.S. EPA, 1975b


WEF, 1992


Great Lakes-Upper
Mississippi River
Board, 1978
Condition
Primary treatment
followed by secondary:
Average flow
Peak flow
All units in service:
Maximum day flow
Peak flow
Larger area of:
Average flow
Peak hour flow
rrflnf/d


32-48
80-120

49
81
41
61
gpd/ff


800-1,200
2,000-3,000

1,200
2,000
1,000
1,500
Process Design
                 Tank volume
                  QP = Peak influent flow rate
                  QE = Peak effluent flow rate
                  Q, = Average flow rate
              Time
                                   -206-

-------
    Process Design (continued)
  • Particles with settling velocity > Vc
    removed when:
      Vc = Q/A = overflow rate
  • For particle velocity Vp < Vc, fraction
    removed Xr is:
    Depth and detention time related by:
         _   depth
                 ^
           detention time
                         Storage/Sedimentation
           Process Flow
  • Typical arrangement includes:
     • Regulator
     • Bar screen
     • Settling tank(s)
     • Disinfection
     • Outfall
Flow Schematic for Newport, Rhode Island,
     Washington Street CSO Facility
                             See the
                          following page
                           for full-scale
                             image.
                                        -207-

-------
to
o
oo
   Flow  Schematic for Newport,  Rhode Island,
            Washington  Street CSO Facility
  60" Effluent
  Conduit (To Outfall)
t  (Narragansett Bay)
Dewatering
Sluice Gate
     Tide Gate
     Effluent
     Screw
     Pumps
  /-
  /
             V
                      Effluent Launder
          \ ^ ^> ^»» ^
          y/ss
          Effluent Lift Station
             72" Storm Drain
      Dry
      Weather
      Barrel
   Wet
   Weath
   Barrel
               DWF to
        Influent
        Control Gate
         Diversion  Long Wharf
         Manhole   Pump Station
            60" Influent Sewer
     72" Storm
     Drain
                    Weir
                     30" Overflow Bypass
                                                 Operations Building
                                                       Dewatering
                                         Infiltration
                                         to WPCP
                                    Mechanical
                                    (Catenary Type
                                    Bar Screens)
                                     Dewatering System
                                     Chlorine Solution

                                     Flow Direction
                                   CS Sluice Gate

                                   E—3 Slide Gate

-------
                      Storage/Sedimentation
      Design Details	

 Influent flow:
  • Overflow from remote regulator
    conveyed to CSO facility by
    influent conduit
  • Overflow from sanitary wetwell
  • Influent vs. effluent pumping
                      Storage/Sedimentation
  Design Details (continued)

Influent gates:
 • Prevent dry weather flow from
   entering facility
 • Control the rate of wet weather flow
 • Protect the facility from flooding or
   activating during equipment failure
   or regular maintenance
                      Storage/Sedimentation
  Design Details (continued)

 • Flow distribution:
    • Sequential filling
    • Tank equalization prior to
      overflow
 • Tank geometry:
    • Length-to-width ratio in the range
      of 3:1 to 5:1
    • Sidewater depth in the range of 10
      ft to 15 ft
                                      -209-

-------
                             Storage/Sedimentation
        Design Details (continued)

    • Floors are typically sloped
       • Sloped to collection trough
       • Sloped back to dewatering drawoff
    • Influent baffles to dissipate energy
      and to minimize short circuiting
    • Effluent baffles for floatables
      control
       Plan and Sections for a Typical Rectangular
            Storage/Sedimentation Facility
             I Solid* collection trough r Sluk* o«t* and Iwffta
V

/"
                             Storage/Sedimentation
         Design Details (continued)


       • Flushing systems:
           • Header-mounted spray nozzles
           • High-pressure, manually
            controlled monitor nozzles
           • Tipping flushers
                                             -210-

-------
       Tipping Flusher
    Tipping flusher
                      Storage/Sedimentation
  Design Details (continued)

Tank dewatering systems:
 • Return to collection system by
   gravity or pumping
 • Rapid dewatering and solids
   stripping pumps
 • Sequential dewatering with motor-
   operated or hydraulic valves
 • Timing issues
                      Storage/Sedimentation
  Design Details (continued)

• Ventilation and odor control
   • Control condensation/corrosion
   • Wet scrubbers
   • Activated carbon adsorbtion
                                     -211-

-------
                          Storage/Sedimentation
   System Controls and Operation

    • Automatic facility activation triggered by
      flow sensing
    • Pump controls must respond to rapid
      changes in flow
       • Provide overflow relief for protection
         from flooding
    • Facility dewatering
       • Automatic vs. manual control
       • Grit handling
                          Storage/Sedimentation
         Process Variations

    • Upstream or downstream static
      screens
    • Aeration/mixing of stored volumes
    • Flow balance method using
      in-receiving water storage
    • In-line storage tanks
r
                          Storage/Sedimentation
      Technology Application

        • Newport, Rhode Island,
          Washington Street
          CSO Facility
                                         -212-

-------
Deep Tunnel Storage
                    Deep Tunnel Storage
	Introduction	
 Alternative to near-surface
 storage/treatment facilities
 Relatively large volumes can be
 stored and conveyed with little
 disturbance to surface features
 Feasibility of deep tunneling must
 be established through
 geotechnical investigations
                    Deep Tunnel Storage
    Deep Tunnel System
        Components
   • Regulators
   • Consolidation conduits
   • Coarse screening and
    grit removal
   • Vertical dropshafts
   • Air separation chambers
                                 -213-

-------
                         Deep Tunnel Storage
       Deep Tunnel System
       Components (Continued)


   • Tunnel

   • Access, vent, and work shafts

   • Dewatering pump station

   • Odor control systems
Schematic of CSO Storage Tunnel System
 See the following
    page for
 full-scale image.
                         Deep Tunnel Storage

   Consolidation Conduits

 Factors in evaluating use of near-
 surface consolidation conduits:

 • Potential disruptions during construction
 • Cost of consolidation conduits vs. multiple
   dropshafts
 • Impacts of near-surface soil conditions on
   construction methods
 • Impacts of subsurface geology on tunnel
   construction methods and tunnel routing
                                        -214-

-------
    Schematic of CSO  Storage Tunnel System
to
                                                Access Cover
                                                                     Scrubber
                                                                     Discharge
      Combined     vi
      Sewer    Diversion*.
      Overflow / structured
     /"Conduit  J	X1
                                                      Drop Shaft
                                                      Cover
 Extreme
 Event
f Overflow
                                                     Air Recirculation
                                                     Shaft
                                                             Screening
                                                             Shaft ^ =ff¥f
                                                             Screening
                                                             Chamber
                                           Access/Vent
                                           Shaft Cover
                             To Receiving
                               Water
                               Door Contr
                               System
                                  Connecting
                                  Tunnel
Weather
Overflow
                      Consolidation
                      Conduit
                     Deaeration
                     Chamber
                                  Access/Vent
                                  Shaft
                                                        scharge to
                                                       eadworks
Equipment
Ingress/Egress
Shaft
   Pump-out
 -  Station
/_ Chamber
                                                          Storage Tunnel

-------
                         Deep Tunnel Storage

  Consolidation Conduits
  • Sized based on peak flows for CSO
    control design condition
  • Relief points must be provided for
    flows to the consolidation conduits
    in excess of the design storm peak
    flow
  • Storage volume in consolidation
    conduits can be significant
                         Deep Tunnel Storage

Coarse Screening and Grit Removal


 • Coarse screens and grit sumps can
   be located just before the dewatering
   pump station, usually a low point in
   the tunnel system
 • Depending on number of dropshafts,
   coarse screening equipment can also
   be located at downstream end of the
   consolidation conduits
                         Deep Tunnel Storage

      Vertical Dropshafts

   Function of the vertical dropshaft:
    • Deliver flow from the near-surface
      conveyance system to the deep
      tunnel system
    • Dissipate as much energy in the
      flow as possible
    • Provide means to remove air
      entrained in the flow
                                        -216-

-------
                           Deep Tunnel Storage
     Vertical Dropshafts (continued)

        • Dropshafts have three
          basic components:
           • Inlet structure
           • Vertical shaft barrel
           • Bottom chamber
                           Deep Tunnel Storage
     Vertical Dropshafts (continued)

   • Dropshaft design is influenced by one or
     more of the following factors:
      • Flow capacity
      • Depth
      • Variable discharge
      • Impact on dropshaft floor
      • Entrained air
      • Headless in the dropshaft
      • Surge relief
r
                           Deep Tunnel Storage
     Vertical Dropshafts (continued)

     • Four common dropshaft types
       include:
        • Drop manholes
        • Vortex dropshafts
        • Morning Glory
        • Direct drop air entraining type
                                         -217-

-------
                        Deep Tunnel Storage
  Vertical Dropshafts
• Drop manholes:
   • Used in near-surface conveyance
     systems to drop flow from a higher
     sewer into a lower sewer
   • Minimize turbulence that would
     otherwise promote release of
     sewage gas and erosion of manhole
   • Suitable for drops up to 70 feet
                        Deep Tunnel Storage

  Vertical Dropshafts (continued)

 • Vortex dropshafts:
    • Five types of tangential
      configurations developed include:
      • Circular
      • Scroll
      • Spiral
      • Tangential
      • Siphon ic
  Examples of Tangential Inlet
          Configuration
   Circular
Scroll
Spiral
                                      -218-

-------
 Examples of Tangential Inlet
      Configuration (continued)
                              Siphon
      Tangential
                 Approach j ^
                 Ch.nn.1  •'
                  Drop.li .ft
Siphonic
                        Deep Tunnel Storage
 Vertical Dropshafts (continued)

 • Vortex dropshafts (Continued):
    m Hydraulic studies indicate spiral
     and tangential inlets perform best
    • Minimal air entrainment and
     significant energy dissipation
    • Headloss is significant
                        Deep Tunnel Storage
 Vertical Dropshafts (continued)

9 Direct drop air entraining type:
   • Entrained air acts as cushion,
    absorbing energy at bottom of shaft
   • Requires air separation chamber
    with venting system
   • Two variations were developed for
    Chicago TARP system
                                       -219-

-------
TheE-15
Dropshaft
       The D-4 Dropshaft
            Section A-A
                            Section B-B
                         Deep Tunnel Storage
             Tunnels
• Sizing and routing of deep storage
  tunnels is a complex process
• Determine storage volume required to
  meet control goal
• Develop and evaluate variations in
  tunnel diameter, length, route, depth,
  and construction methods that meet
  required storage and conveyance needs
                                        -220-

-------
                              Deep Tunnel Storage

                         (Continued)
  • Factors in developing sizing and
     route alternatives:
      • Subsurface conditions
      • Excavation method
      • Consolidation conduit layout
      • Potential operating strategies
                              Deep Tunnel Storage

                        (Continued)

• Subsurface conditions:
   • Evaluate feasibility of deep tunneling
   • Identify the most appropriate tunneling techniques
   • Factors affecting selection of tunnel route and
    construction method:
      • Depth to bedrock
      • Rock strength
      • Discontinuities and weaknesses in the rock structure
      • Ground-water conditions
      • Presence of hazardous materials
                              Deep Tunnel Storage

                        (Continued)
  • Methods for deep rock tunnel
     excavation:
      • Tunnel boring machines (TBMs)
      • Rock header machines
      a Drill-and-blast methods
                                                -221-

-------
       Cutting Cycle for a Typical
         Tunnel Boring Machine
"""A

Htn 	
— •
— H

H
ffc
[ >
. 	 .
1™™
Hydriultt
Thrust
CyllTHUri - Cunlns
-
I
f1
S ™™




— „
ri-
¥"!_

=-^E

^_
^bl=IMR»l=IP«a»«»p«la«F<»WHJ=l
r Step r.
[ Start of boring cycle.
i Machine clamped, rear
[ support legs retracted.
a Step 2
[ End of boring cycle.
I Machine clamped, head
• extended, rear support
1 1 legs retracted.

       Cutting Cycle for a Typical
    Tunnel Boring Machine (continued)
                           Step 3.
                           Start of reset cycle.
                           Machine undamped,
                           rear support legs
                           extended.


                           Step 4.
                           End of reset cycle.
                           Machine undamped, head
                           retracted. Machine now
                           ready for clamping and
                           beginning boring cycle.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Deep Tunnel
              Excavation Methods
Method  Advantages
Disadvantages
TBM    • Rapid excavation to
         final tunnel diameter
         and grade
        • Disturbance of
         surrounding rock
         minimized
        • Well suited for long
         reaches of constant
         cross section
• Cutting face can become
  jammed where high rock
  stresses create "squeezing"
  condition
• Usually long lead times
  required to fabricate new
  machines (use of
  reconditioned machines can
  reduce lead time)
• Usually not economical if
  multiple tunnel diameters are
  required
                                                     -222-

-------
Advantages and Disadvantages of Deep Tunnel
        Excavation Methods (Continued)
Method Advantages
Rock- 0 one machine can
header excavate different
machines tunnal rliamotprs
Disadvantages
• Rate of advancement is
lower than for TBMs
        • Typically lower lead
         times for delivery than
         TBMs
        • If tunneling conditions
         change, machine can be
         easily withdrawn to
         allow use of drill-and-
         blast methods
                 depends more on
                 operator skill and rock
                 fracture patterns
               • Cannot typically apply
                 as much force to rock
                 as TBMs
Advantages and Disadvantages of Deep Tunnel
        Excavation Methods (Continued)
 Method    Advantages
                 Disadvantages
 Drill-and-
 blast
 methods
• Can be used in
 most rock
 conditions
• Relatively slow
 rate of advance
• Higher potential
 for damage to
 surrounding rock
 during blasting
                              Deep Tunnel Storage
          Access, Vent, and
	Work Shafts	

 • Work and access shafts:
    • Required to move personnel,
      equipment, and materials in and out
      of the tunnel during construction
      and once tunnels are operational
    • Size of construction work shafts
      dictated by size of excavation
      machinery used
                                                -223-

-------
                      Deep Tunnel Storage
       Access, Vent, and
      WOrk ShaftS (Continued)

 • Vent shafts:
    • Provide for passive movement
     of air in and out of tunnel
     during filling and dewatering
    • May be provided with odor
     control
                      Deep Tunnel Storage
 Dewatering Pump Station

• Typically located at downstream
  end of tunnel system
• May be dedicated to tunnel
  system or integral to POTW
  sanitary influent pumping station
• Should include coarse screening
  facilities if not present at
  upstream locations
Tunnel System Dewatering Pump Station
                                    -224-

-------
                          Deep Tunnel Storage

  Tunnel System Operation


 • Simple operating strategy:
    • System is allowed to fill with no
      restrictions at the dropshafts until
      the tunnels, dropshafts, and
      consolidation conduits are filled
      and an overflow occurs
                          Deep Tunnel Storage

Tunnel System Operation
  • Operating strategy based on prioritizing
    areas served by the system:
     • Higher priority Is assigned to a dropshaft
      serving an area with a more sensitive
      receiving water
     • Flows to a dropshaft of low priority are
      throttled to allow Inflow from a higher
      priority shaft
     • Real-time control system can be used to
      operate the throttling gates
                          Deep Tunnel Storage
            Examples	


            • Chicago

            • Rochester

            • Milwaukee
                                         -225-

-------
                 Deep Tunnel Storage
Near-Surface Conduits

     • Open cut
     • Microtunneling
     • Pipe jacking
                             -226-

-------
 Coarse Screening
                       Coarse Screening
       Introduction

Bar screens are traditionally located
at headworks of POTW to protect
downstream equipment and provide
floatables removal
For CSO applications:
 • Protect equipment at CSO facilities
 • Provide "minimum control" level of
   floatables control at end of pipe
                       Coarse Screening
   Introduction (continued)
 Types of bar screens:
  • Trash racks
  • Manually cleaned bar screens
  • Mechanically cleaned screens
                                  -227-

-------
                            Coarse Screening
      Process Description

    Trash racks:
     • Typically 1.5-in. to 3-in. clear
       spacing between bars
     • Intended to remove large objects
       (e.g., timber planks, stumps)
     • May be followed by bar screens
       with smaller clear spacing
                            Coarse Screening
 Process Description
  Manually cleaned bar screens:
    • 1-in. to 2-in. clear spacing between bars
    • Bars set 30 degrees to 45 degrees from
     vertical
    • Screenings are manually raked onto a
     perforated plate for drainage before
     disposal
    • Commonly used in bypass channels for
     mechanically cleaned bar screens
                                       N
                            Coarse Screening
 Process Description (continued)

• Mechanically cleaned bar screens:
   • 0.25-in. to 1-in. clear spacing between
     bars
   • Bars set 0 degrees to 30 degrees from
     vertical
   • Electrically driven rake mechanism
     either continuously or periodically
     removes material entrained in bar screen
                                         -228-

-------
                              Coarse Screening
    Process Description (continued)

     • Common types of mechanically
       cleaned bar screens:
        • Chain driven with front or back
          cleaning
        • Reciprocating rake
        • Catenary
        • Continuous
                             Coarse Screening
           Process Design

       • Hydraulic considerations
       • Equipment details
       • Solids handling
       • Process flow
r
                             Coarse Screening
       Process Design (continued)
    • Hydraulic considerations:
        • Approach velocity should be at least
         1.25ft/s
        • Velocity through bars should be less
         than 3 ft/s
        • Provide means to handle solids
         deposited in screenings channel
        • Provide standby bar screen
                                         -229-

-------
                        Coarse Screening
  Process Design (continued)

  Equipment details:
   • Bar spacing of 0.5-in. to 1.0-in.
    common for mechanically cleaned
    screens at CSO control facilities
   • Operator safety
   • Exposure rating
   • Disposal of screenings
                         Coarse Screening
  Process Design (continued)

 Solids handling:
  • Quantities of screenings removed
   at CSO facilities are highly variable:
    • Configuration of the combined
     system
    • Time of year
    • Interval between storms
                         Coarse Screening
  Process Design (continued)

m Average CSO screening loads:
  • 0.5 to 11 cf/MG
  • Peaking factors 2:1 to 20:1
  • Bulk density 40 to 70 Ib/cf
                                    -230-

-------
                       Coarse Screening
   Process Design (continued)

   * Examples of CSO screenings
     handling methods
     •Newport, Rhode Island,
      Washington Street
     •MWRA Cottage Farm
     •MWRA Prison Point
                       Coarse Screening
System Controls and Operation

 • Manual start/stop
 • Automatic start/stop on timer
 • Automatic start/stop on
   differential head
                       Coarse Screening
     Process Variations
      • Horizontal screens
      • End of pipe netting
                                 -231-

-------
          Swirl/Vortex
         Technologies
                       Swirl/Vortex Technologies
	Process Theory	
 • Compact flow throttling and solids
   separation devices
 • Focus on three common configurations:
    • EPA swirl concentrator
    • Fluidsep™ vortex separator
    • Storm King™ hydrodynamic separator
 • Each design seeks to optimize the
   liquid/solid separation process
                       Swirl/Vortex Technologies
    Process Theory
   Flow is directed around the perimeter of a
   cylindrical shell, creating a swirling, vortex
   flow pattern
   Swirling action throttles flow
   Solids are concentrated and discharged
   through an outlet in underflow
   Clarified supernatant discharged through
   top of unit
   Floatables are captured by baffles, carried
   out in underflow when unit drains
                                          -233-

-------
                       Swirl/Vortex Technologies
     Process Theory (continued)

 • Solids separation by gravity,
   tangential breakaway, and drag
   forces
 • Inner and outer swirl creates long
   path for particles
 • Performance depends on hydraulic
   throughput and settling
   characteristics of the solids
       EPA Swirl Concentrator
            Plan and Elevation
 To Interceptor
 OutMpfpe
            Plan Elevation — Floor Are
                Row detector
                                Flow
                               iMtoctor
 EPA Swirl
Concentrator
 Isometric
   View
                                        -234-

-------
Fluidsep™
 Vortex
Separator
Liquid
Flow Pattern
  Storm King™  Hydrodynamic Separator
  Support frame.


  Baffle plate
                          Concrete chamber
            _ Foul outlet
            * pipe to sanitary sewer
                       Swirl/Vortex Technologies
         Process Design
  • Designs based on scale-up of
    empirical data from experiments
    on model systems
  • Configuration and dimensions
    optimized for a given set of
    conditions (flow, solids)
                                         -235-

-------
                         Swirl/Vortex Technologies

    ProcGSS Design (continued)

EPA swirl concentrator
• Based on studies with synthetic waste,
  solids removal performance was correlated
  with flow and ratio of swirl chamber diameter
  to inlet diameter
  Design curves are available that relate
  discharge to D2/Di for a range of inlet
  diameters and desired settleable solids
  Intended to be in-line flow regulator and not
  necessarily to remove lighter solids
        EPA Swirl Concentrator
             Plan and Elevation
 To interceptor
            Plan Elevation — Floor Area
                 Flow deflector
                                    Flow
                                   deflector
Settling
Velocity
Profiles of
Sanitary
Wastewaters
See the
following
page for
full-scale
image.










*•

«
PartM**
Mtlng
v.hK«r
(on/Me)




J-"


	



il
*
\

7



-.:
X*
Ml

(-


0 >
I
-?
,•*

7^"
4
/
»
V*
Rff
—^
*—
A
•nM
-j.

/
/
KalP
htdly
•Me
5r^

•7

4

n
rlldi
HIT

•A


tt


Wll
^-

/
=#i
f-i
f\


H«l
^--
?J


^
vr
Fren

^B
r-7
fa
i-

5\

diea


"*^=
ww


^>«id««ri)
__ 	


                                             -236-

-------
        Settling
        Velocity
      Profiles of
   Combined and
        Sanitary
    Waste waters
to
Ui
-J
    20.0





    10.5


     5.0
     1.0
                                   0.5
Particles
Settling
Velocity
(cm/sec)
                                    0.1 -*
                                   .05
                                   .01
U.S. EPA Swirl Concentrator
Solids Basis of Design
Upper Curve = Inorganic Grit
Lower Curve = Organic Settleable
       Solids
S.G. Upper = 2.65
S.G. Lower = 1.2
                                          Sagmaw, Ml
                                          (Weber)
               (heavy commercial
                                          Philadelphia, PA
                                                                         Boston, MA
                                                                         (residential)
                                                                 Burlington
                                                                 VT
                                                              San Francisco, CA
                                            20  30   40 50 60  70  80  90   100
                                                   % of Particles with Settling
                                                  Velocity Less Than Stated Value

-------
                         Swirl/Vortex Technologies

    Process Design (continued)


Fluidsep™ vortex separator
• Proprietary design process
• Design based on site-specific solids settling
  distribution, flow rate, and predicted
  performance
• Curves developed for predicted removal
  efficiency vs. flow for given vessel geometries,
  based on actual solids settling distribution
• D/H ratios range from 0.5 to 3.0
                         Swirl/Vortex Technologies

    Process  Design (continued)

Storm King™ hydrodynamic separator
•  Proprietary design process
•  Design based on solids settling velocity
   profile of CSO to be treated
•  Given influent flow rate and the distribution
   of solids, manufacturer provides a unit
   sized on an optimal overflow rate for the
   range of solids to be removed
                         Swirl/Vortex Technotogies

     Process Design (continued)

General hydraulic considerations

• Must consider system hydraulics to select,
  size, or configure a swirl/vortex unit
• Determine acceptable level that influent
  sewer can be surcharged
    • Set elevation of unit with respect to influent
      sewer
• If available head is minimal, consider:
    • Modification of unit geometry
    • Pump underflow
                                             -238-

-------
Head vs. Discharge per Linear Foot of Weir
       Length for a Circular Weir
3
2
Hud-
Fool
(cm)
1
0
/
X"

_^^"
x<^



I f
CFS 1 2 » 4 5
Ift 28 56 « 1« 1»
Dtocturp p«r Lhrar Fool (30.5 cm)
                      Swirl/Vortex Technologies

          Process Flow


   • Off-line, stand alone
   • Off-line, with storage tank
   • In-line, stand alone or with
     storage tank
      Layouts for Swirl/Vortex
            Installations
         Emergency overflow

        M-
                              Diversion
                              weir
                                        -239-

-------
Layouts for Swirl/Vortex Installations
                (Continued)
             Storage/sedimentation
            ' tank
Layouts for Swirl/Vortex Installations
                (Continued)
Layouts for Swirl/Vortex Installations
               (Continued)
               ™^
      Storage/sedimentation  I
      tank overflow     ^\
                      P
^
                                           -240-

-------
                     Swirl/Vortex Technologies

Performance Considerations

 • Performance influenced primarily by
   solids settling characteristics and
   flow rate
 • Difficult to obtain data to evaluate
   performance
 • Performance must account for
   removal due to flow diversion as well
   as removal due to solids separation
                      Swirl/Vortex Technologies

         Design  Details

  • EPA swirl concentrator sized
    around
     • Inlet diameter, D1
     • Vessel diameter, D2
  • FluidsepTttnd Storm KingT*ized
    by manufacturer
                      Swirl/Vortex Technologies

     Design Details
    Chamber construction typically
    of concrete, some with
    stainless steel or painted
    carbon steel
    Interior baffles, flow deflectors
    constructed of steel
                                      -241-

-------
                     Swirl/Vortex Technologies

    Design Details (continued)

 • Inlet pipe at shallow slope to minimize
   turbulence, yet maintain velocity
 • Use gate or vortex valve on the foul
   sewer discharge to control the
   underflow
 • Provision for washdown
 • Evaluate open tank vs. grating vs.
   domed covers
                     Swirl/Vortex Technologies

System Controls and Operation

 • No moving parts, operation
   governed by hydraulics
 • Automatic control of upstream
   regulators, mechanically cleaned
   bar screens, upstream or
   downstream pumping systems,
   and disinfection systems
                     Swirl/Vortex Technologies

      Process Variations

   • Piloted as a degritter, a primary
     separator, and for treatment of
     erosion runoff
   • Swirl degritters effective in
     removing grit-sized particles
   * Degritter has conical bottom
     hopper for grit with no capability
     to regulate flow
                                      -242-

-------
         Disinfection
                              Disinfection

          Introduction

• Common goal of CSO control strategies
• Focus on chlorination with liquid
  sodium hypochlorite
• Other methods:
   • Gaseous chlorine
   • Chlorine dioxide
   • Ultraviolet radiation
   • Ozone
        Process Theory
                              Disinfection
• Effectiveness is measured in terms of
  reduction in bacterial concentration
• In CSOs, chlorine demand from bacteria
  and other substances
• Use laboratory studies or pilot testing
  to determine chlorine demand
                                         -243-

-------
                                   Disinfection

     Process Theory (continued)

 • Collins model:
   Y, = Y0 (1 + 0.23 C t)-3
 Where:
   Yt = Bacterial concentration after time t
       (mpn/100mL)
   Y0 = Original bacterial concentration (mpn/100 mL)
   C  = Chlorine residual after time t (mg/L)
   t  = Contact time (min)
 • Modified model for low values of Ct
Graphical Representations of Log Y/Y0 vs. Log Ct
                   Regression
                   Curve
                      n * Slope
               UogCt
              Arithmetic Plot of Y / Y =	
                            b
                                 - = lOforCt b
                                   Disinfection

     Process Theory (continued)

 • Disinfection capability of chlorine species
   depends on physical contact between
   chlorine-containing molecules and bacteria
 • Adequate mixing important to ensure
   dispersion of chlorine solution in the flow
 • The parameter "GT," equal to the product of
   the velocity gradient and the contact time, is
   key to disinfection efficiency at low contact
   times
                                               -244-

-------
                                Disinfection
     Process Theory
  • Velocity gradient, G, is measure of
    mixing intensity
   where: G  = Mean velocity gradient (sea1)
        P  = Power requirement (ft x Ib/sec)
        H  = Absolute viscosity (Ib x sec/ft2)
        V  = Mixing chamber volume (ft3)
 Relationship Between GT and Bacterial Kill
  Log  5
Reduction
 of Fecal 4
 Conform
     3
     Process Theory
                                 Disinfection
     Disinfecting CSOs challenging due
     to limited contact time available
     CSOs can have higher solids
     concentrations than POTW
     secondary effluent
     Lack of space for separate plug-
     flow contact chambers
                                           -245-

-------
                                Disinfection
    Process Theory (continued)

   High-rate disinfection
   • High-rate disinfection seeks to
     achieve high bacterial kills at lower
     contact times
   • High-rate disinfection uses:
      • Increased mixing intensity
      • Increased disinfectant dosage
      • Chemicals with higher oxidation rates
        than chlorine
                                Disinfection
         Process Design
  • Sizing of equipment based on
     required dose rate and
     expected flow
  • Permit requirements may
     specify maximum dosing
     capacity or maximum allowable
     bacteria concentration
    Process Design (c0ntinu'Sectlon

• Y, = Y0 (1 + 0.23 C t)-3
• Knowns:
  Yt = Required effluent bacterial concentration
      (mpn/100 mL)
  Yo = Average influent bacterial concentration
      (mpn/100mL)
  t = Minimum contact time (min)
• Solve Collins model for:
  C = Chlorine residual concentration after time t
      (mg/L)
• Allow for immediate chlorine demand and die away
  demand during contact time to estimate dosage
                                           -246-

-------
                              Disinfection
    Process Design (continued)

    Use pilot studies on actual
    combined flow to size disinfectant
    dosing system
    Pilot studies can evaluate high-rate
    disinfection techniques (increasing
    mixing intensity, alternative
    chemicals)
    Collins model can provide basis for
    designing pilot tests
          Process Flow
                              Disinfection
    • Liquid sodium hypochlorite
      usually introduced at the
      upstream end of storage/
      sedimentation or other
      treatment facility
    • Additional dosing downstream
      of storage or at relief overflows
Flow Schematic for Newport, Rhode Island,
     Washington Street CSO Facility
                                         -247-

-------
oo
   Flow Schematic for Newport, Rhode  Island,
            Washington Street CSO Facility	
               60" Effluent
               Conduit (To Outfall)
             t (Narragansett Bay)

             — /     Effluent Launder
      Dewaterlng
      Sluice Gate
            Operations Building
     Tide Gate
     Effluent
     Screw
     Pumps
          \ ^  ^> ~ ^
          y///
          Effluent Lin Station
             72" Storm Drain
      Dry
      Weather
      Barrel
                                                     Dewatering
                                Infiltration
                                to WPCP
                           Mechanical
                           (Catenary Type
                           Bar Screens)
   Wet
   Weath
   Barrel
      DWF to
Influent
Control Gate
Diversion  Long Wharf
Manhole  Pump Station
    60" Influent Sewer
     72" Storm
     Drain
                   Weir
                    30" Overflow Bypass
                            Dewatering System
                            Chlorine Solution

                            Flow Direction
                          Bl Sluice Gate

                          E—3 Slide Gate

-------
          Design Details
                                Disinfection
   Typical system components:
  • Storage tanks
  • Metering pumps
  • Dilution water supply
  • Piping and valves
  • Diffuser
  • Chlorine residual analyzer
Schematic of Typical Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite System
HI
SoUnoW Roumm *
„,»*, vCCuL**^— i
Wfttr^"^ (0-20OPMJ
8up"'y ST""
(-ttsr-) 1 f |
1 "~1 ' V
o*""0" oL, f
Ball Valve
nxxMortUMMrhg r CIS Ui« to «hM
mpKo.1 / ^ Coltetto, Box
T /I 7 T
J l\':,'^,-am ..^.l""
1 — T -f~ |^ Lin.*
~™~^^" 1 Ztwtr
MlmSUtle
— w-%
»^ ^

      Design Details
                                Disinfection
 Storage tanks
 • Tank size based on usage, solution
   strength
 • Solution strengths 10 percent to 15
   percent
    • Higher strength, more rapid deterioration
 • Must meet safety codes
                                            -249-

-------
     Design Details
                               Disinfection
  Metering pumps
  • Low capacity positive displacement
    diaphragm pump
  • Pacing of feed in proportion to flow
  Dilution water
  • Used as carrier to ensure reasonable
    flow velocity
  • Maintain velocity of 2 fps to diffuser
Schematic of Typical Liquid Sodium Hypochlorite System
                  HypochhMlt* Mcurfng
                  Pump No. 1
 DUton
 W.ttr^-
 SOU*!
O-JL.UA**.
(0 - 20 GPM)
Calibration
Stand Pip* V p
=n ^ °
dlum Hypochtorit«\ §
Storage Tank J m
1 1 it '
\ / -*
Drain /
Ban Valv*



Ulaatkm
Mmpanw
T t
i
Bk-

| 	 | t-~ |f
	 ^ J


-*


_^
      Design Details
                               Disinfection
    Diffuser
    • Design for proper dispersion
      and mixing of solution to the
      CSO flow
    • Can use in-channel and in-pipe
      diffuser arrangements
                                          -250-

-------
     Typical  Diffusers Used To Inject
               Chlorine Solution
   Injector  ^^.Jr       Injector


  a) Single Injector for small pipe        b) Dual Injector lor small pipe
    Typical Diffusers Used To Inject Chlorine
                 Solution (Continued)
 4 In chtarhM
 •oiutkm piping
        Inwrt connection
 c) Across-the-pipe diftuser tor
  pipes larger than 3 ft In diameter
                        d) Diffuser system for large conduits
    Typical Diffusers Used To Inject Chlorine
                 Solution (Continued)
         r Chlorine solution
Typical _
oiHuMr
•#•
 e) Single acron-the-channel
  dlffuser
                             3 or 4 In.
                             chlorine >okitioii line
                             PVC or
                        Hote
             Water level     clamp*
            !;;•=•; • •£•:      (typlc.1)
                                        ',>"
                          Minimum I     Typical dlffuur
                          submergence    nozzle for
                          1.5 n         1.5 to. hot*
                       f) Typical hanglng-nozzle-type chlorine
                        diftuser tor open channels
                                                            -251-

-------
    Design Details (continued)

 Chlorine Residual Analyzer
 • Account for higher solids
   in CSOs
 • Intermittent operation
                            Disinfection
                            Disinfection
System Control and Operation

• Automatic activation by simple
  controls such as mercury float
  switches or interlock with pumps
• Chlorine residual analyzer can be
  used for dose control and residual
  monitoring
• Monitor solution strength
   • Decomposition may be significant over
     extended storage periods
                             Disinfection
      Process Variation
 • Dechlorination to reduce chlorine
   toxicity
 • Liquid sodium bisulfite—storage
   and feed system similar to liquid
   sodium hypochlorite
 • Compound loop control
                                      -252-

-------
                           Disinfection
     Process Variation
Ultraviolet radiation
• Low pressure lamps for high-
  quality wastewater
• Medium pressure lamps for low-
  quality wastewater
• Pilot studies for CSO application
                                   -253-

-------
  Costs for CSO Control
        Technologies
     Dan Murray, U.S. EPA-CERI
          Cincinnati, Ohio
     Construction Costs
• Cost relationships presented
  reflect:
   • Comprehensive cost assessments
    • Data from facility plans
   • Individual site studies
   • Considerable variability in cost for
    treatment facilities of similar type
    and design capacity
                                  -255-

-------
Cost relationships are useful
for:
 • Developing preliminary
   budgetary estimates
 • Providing a basis for comparing
   different technologies
 • Characterizing the economic
   sensitivity in relation to various
   design alternatives
CSO control costs are influenced
most by design flow rate/storage
volume
 • Treatment-based controls; design
   based on flow rate usually
   expressed in million gallons per
   day (MGD)
 • Storage-based controls; design
   based on storage volume or storm
   size usually expressed in million
   gallons (MG)
 Extrapolating from POTW costs may
 be used to refine CSO control cost
 estimates, but use with caution
  m POTWs: costs based on average daily
   flows
  • CSOs: costs based on peak flow or
   storage volume
 Differences in the relationships
 between peak and average flows and
 translation to design parameters
 should be considered
                                     -256-

-------
 Cost relationships presented
 (construction cost vs. design
 capacity) reflect:
   • Basic structure
   • Ancillary equipment
     • Grates
     • Valves
     • Conduits
   • Associated pumping included for
    some, but not all facilities evaluated
• Cost relationships presented
  do nor include:
   • Land acquisition
   • Engineering, legal, fiscal, and
     administrative services
   • Contingencies
   • Construction loan interest
  (Except for screening facilities, where
  these costs could not be isolated and
  extracted)
        Swirl Concentrators
               ENR = 4,800
                  10       100
                 Dmlgn Flow (MOD)
              0.176 Q0-*11   3 to 300 MO
                                  1,000
                                         -257-

-------
Sedimentation and Chemical Treatment
                   ENR = 4,500
 Construction
   Cost    1
   (SM)
                      10        100
                    Design Flow (MOD)

                 0.211 QotM   1 toSOOMG
                                        1,000
Screens
ENR = 4,800
100
10
Construction
Cost 1
<$M)
0.1
0.01

T
.]
i
i
K
t!
?!
1

'."H-l I \\"l
;"~"t 1 T i |i||
• ; i !"1 I \\\t
*ii*
i I ill i i i i
•eft
Hi
-.. : .1
-•'[{>
U*ir^i
. .' 2


t'-~-
M
\\i
T'T
T"


""^ f
- (f
:'- f

i
I
• i

!!li
'i
tfi
-_...|t ._rj 3.3
': t j-li fit
1 10 100
Design Flow (MGD)
0.072 0°*" 0.8 to 200 MG

1,000
               Disinfection
                    ENR = 4,500
  Construction
    Cost    1
    ($M)
         0.01
                       10        1UU
                     Design Row (MGO)

                  0.121 Q""    1 I0200MG
                                               -258-

-------
         Off-Line Storage
           Surface Storage
              ENR = 4,800
      1,000
 Construction
   Cost
   (SM)
             1     10    100
               Storage Volume (MG)
             3.637 VM!«  0.15 to 30 MG
                           1,000
         Off-Line Storage
            Deep Tunnels
              ENR = 4,800
1,000
100
Construction
Cost
<$M) 1fl
1







0.1


r

- ~~













	
*"<






n#n



-fj
I

d^
3:




fei
fr



iU


if-:





— 4=-
X"




In















1 10 100 1,000
Storage Volume (MG)
4.982 V"16 1.8 to 2,000 MG
Operation and Maintenance
         (O&M) Costs
                                     -259-

-------
    • O&M costs are very difficult
      to predict due to the
      intermittent nature of CSOs
    • Therefore, O&M costs are a
      function of:
       • Number of overflows/facility
        activations
       • Design capacity
  • O&M costs are highly site specific
  • O&M costs include:
     • Energy consumption
     • Labor requirements
     • Residuals disposal
     • Equipment maintenance
  • All related costs are a function of
    facility use
r                               \
   O&M Costs for CSO Controls
100
Annual
O&M
Costs
($1,000) 10
1

ENR - 4,500
:- -• -r : T • ^ -^. • .: •
: — z :.:;..u .:..
-- - 	
~r:_tJli"j: ":.?.?:"
. . 	 . 	

_ • " '- ^ ' . . i -' • ± h
' '. . * " ". " '

i 	 ii „::_ ™:
	 i 	 ^^
•i^«


:" • .1^
'J ' .1"
*<,
..-_::;.£ \-i~i.;

• 10O/F«vents/yr 1
. 30 Off «vents/yr 1
1 10 100
Design Flow (MGD)
                                    -260-

-------
O&M Costs for CSO Controls
              (Continued)
100
Annual
O&M
Costs
($1,000) 10
1

_ . ^ _ _„ . j~ . _„„„. -'-^•^
- DISINFECTION — ; r"4,
ENR.4.&M . , i-^Uj^
~™ "~E-_~_I .r<._£.:n 3~cj %~- ~ ~ T:~:^J^rr z .r r~i-
	 -'—I- 	 -S^Si

ji^— ,.
~~ nr^n : r_i— ~ i~
• 	 ;-- - -•—•
^fK^fr^ii-^

	 I 	 ^ -, 	 ^-,^M
	 -— — -
-JJJ —••'•-

— i.-_ni.
	 ; 	
:.^i.™_"L.L.Z-
. ___4 -! i-
1 10 100
Design Flow (MGD)

O&M Costs for CSO Controls
              (Continued)
       100

   Annual
   O&M
   Costs
   ($1,000) 10
            SEDIMENTATION
          CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
          	.	 ENR.MM..
                  100        1,000
                Design Flow (MGD)
                                      -261-
                                               •U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 994-55 2-92 7

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago,  II  60604-3590

-------