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
------- |