United States Off ice of 430-9-83-001
Environmental Protection Water Program Operations
A9encV Washington DC 20460
»EPA Addendum to
1982 Needs Survey:
Cost Estimates
for Control of
Combined Sewer Discharge
to Marine Bays and Estuaries
-------
ADDENDUM TO
THE 1932 NEEDS SURVEY
COST ESTIMATES
FOR CONTROL OF
COMBINED SEWER DISCHARGE
TO MARINE BAYS AND ESTUARIES
March 1, 1983
Prepared by:
Priority ana Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595
Facility Requirements Division
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 382-7251
-------
-------
i TO THE 1382 NEEDS SURVEY
COST ESTIMATES FOK CONTROL OF
wOridlNEO SEUEK DISCHARGE TO
MARINE BAYS AND ESTUARIES
i. PUKPOSE MQ SCOPE
Tin's report is suomitted in compliance with Amendment 29 of the
Conference Report on the FY 1983 Appropriations for HUD and Independent
Agencies \Conference Report No. 92-549, Public Law 97-272): This
legislation also appropriated $30 million for control of combined sewer
overflows iCSOs) affecting marine waters. The separate marine CSO fund
rfds autnorizea in section 201(n)[2] of the Clean Water Act, enacted as a
part of tne t-iunicipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments
of 1961(P.L. 97-117). Section 201(n)(2) states in part that:
"...the Administrator snail have available...funds...to address
water quality problems of marine bays and estuaries subject to
lower levels of water quality due to the impacts of discharges
from combined storm water and sanitary sewer overflows from
adjacent uroan complexes..."
T.iis report is presented as an addendum to the 1982 Needs Survey
suomitted to Congress on December 31, 1982. The 1982 Needs Survey
considered all categories of need for construction of publicly-owned
wascewater treatment facilities including all Category V (CSO) needs on a
Stdte-Dy-State Dasis. This addendum, extracted entirely from the 1982
,-
-------
Tne Construction Grant Regulation requires the Administrator to
estaolisn priorities for project applications with demonstrated water
quality benefits based upon tne following criteria:
(1) Extent of water use benefits that would result, including
swimming and shell fishing;
U) Relationship of water quality improvements to project costs; and
(3) National or regional significance.
EPA will soon publish procedural and technical guidance on marine CSO
applications and the demonstration of water quality benefits.
Tne dollar needs for each facility and supporting information are
reported in this addendum. Included are data related to the combined
sewer system such as total area, population served, and the name of the
municipality. Also provided is information on the receiving water such
as tne type of receiving water, the receiving water name, and the most
stringent receiving water use objective.
All cost estimates reported here are expressed in January 1982
dollars.
-------
il. f«ATIu;;AL 5UHMARY OF NEEDS FOR CONTROL OF POTENTIAL MARINE CSO
DISCHARGE
Seventeen States have a total of 115 combined sewer facilities
affecting the tidal waters of bays and estuaries that are potentially
marine. A CSO facility is defined as existing treatment works tributary
to an area served by combined sewers designed to transport both
stormwater and sanitary sewage. The total 115 CSO facilities serve
16.6 million people, 526,000 acres of urban land, and 1,869 overflow
points. Tne CSO control needs for these facilities total about
$11.6 billion.
Taole A presents a national summary of State needs for control of
potential marine CSO's; the total number of CSO points, combined sewer
area and 19<30 population served in each State; and the total Category Y
needs.
Nationally, only 10 percent of all CSO facilities affect potential
marine Days and estuaries. However, these facilities account for about
31 percent of total Category V needs and 38 percent of the total
population served by combined sewers. Three States (Massachusetts, New
Jersey, and New York) have estimated marine CSO pollution control needs
greater than SI oil!ion eacn.
Figure 1 illustrates the geographic distribution of the subject
comoined sewer facilities, while Figure 2 illustrates the geographic
distribution of their CSO pollution abatement needs (in dollars).
-------
Table A
NATIONAL SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CSO POLLUTION CONTROL NEEDS FOR MARINE BAYS AND ESTUARIES
State
Alaska
California
Connecticut
Do lav/a re
Uiscrict of Columbia
Georgia
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
iJew York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Virginia
Washington
U.S. TOTALS 1
Number
ot
CSU Points
2
31
225
53
!39
1
128
14
201
12
266
3^2
12
207
88
.1
1-J7
,8 09
Number of
Combi ned
Sewer Systems
2
1
9
4
1
1
17
1
13
3
25
18
2
2
3
o
10
115
Combined
Sewer Area
(acres)
324
15,660
16,706
8,426
14,713
135
20,809
330
44,033
3,039
101,413
203,269
1,320
47,513
9,544
11,364
27,377
525,975
1980
Population
Served
4,860
473,000
311,064
88,668
489,093
18,210
133,240
2,100
1,285,890
34,080
1,634,202
9,226,386
5,796
1,962,102
220,550
417,815
246,862
16,553,918
Total Needs Estimate
(in Thousands; January 1982 Dollars)
$ 18,388
460,600
581,211
290,836
68,119
4,492
385,228
5,023
1,140,045
62,606
1,706,576
5,270,712*
16,951
804,015
279,200
208,562
289,715
11,592,279
•*,-.
State of iJew York estimate includes an adjustment of $2.2 billion in the total Category V needs estimates
to $7-8 bil
-------
I////.
AK,
FIGURE 1. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF POTENTIAL MARINE CSO FACILITIES
-------
AK//
NJ
$1.7066
NOTE: All needs expressed
in millions of January
1982 dollars.
FIGURE 2. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATED POTENTIAL MARINE CSO CONTROL NEEDS
-------
i.i. FAwU*TY ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL MARINE CSO CONTROL NEEDS
A. introduction
THIS section presents the CSO pollution control needs for each of
tne 115 facilities potentially affecting marine bays and estuaries. The
facility estimates and supporting data are grouped by State in alphabetical
order and are reported in Tables 1 througn 17 in Appendix A.
The needs estimates for about 92 percent (106 facilities) of the
potential marine CSO facilities were developed using an automated needs
estimation.program. This program is summarized briefly in Appendix B of
tnis addendum and described fully in Appendix A of the 1982 Needs Survey
Report to Congress. Estimates for tne remaining 8 percent (9 facilities)
were taken from an available facilities plan or similar documents listed in
Appendix C.
B. Facility Estimates
The first tai< in developing tne facility needs estimate was to
determine wnicn of 1,084 combined sewer facilities in the United States
uiscnarge to potential marine bays and estuaries. This was accomplished in
a tnree-step procedure. First, the 1982 Needs Survey inventory of combined
sewers was searched to identify all facilities which discharge to tidally
influenced Days and estuaries. Second, the 1982 Needs Survey stream use
aata was searcned to determine wnicn CSO areas were classified as tidal or
marine oy tne State Water Quality standards. Finally, each facility with
an uncertain classification was located on a USGS Hydrologic Unit Map. Map
inspection indicated wnether the receiving water is influenced by ocean
tides. Appropriate corrections then were made to the 1982 Needs Survey
data file. This procedure resulted in the identification of 17 States
naviny 115 CSO facilities affecting tidal bays and estuaries that are
potentially marine.
Tne taules in Appendix A are presented in two parts. Part A reports
tne location of the facility, the characteristics of the comoined sewer
service area as well as the estimated CSO control needs, and the basis for
tnat estimate. Also reported in Part A is the general type of receiving
water ana the receiving water name.
Eden facility appearing in Part A of Tables 1 through 17 is described
as follows:
i. Autnority/Facility Number. The authority/facility serving the
combined sewer system.
2. Au tnori ty/Fac i1i ty Name. The official name of the authority with
major responsioility for operation of tne combined sewer system.
s-we
system is iocatea.
-------
4< lonioined Sewer Area. The area (in acres) served directly by the
combined sewer system.
'J- Comoined Sewer Population. Total number of people residing in
tne area drained directly by the combined sewer system.
°- Receiving Water Type. Physical classification of the receiving
water according to general characteristics. Possible types are
estuary /bay or ocean. Freshwater systems' (i.e., streams and
lakes) are not included in these tables.
7. Receiving Water Name. Name of major receiving water which is
subject to periodic combined sewer overflow.
3. Needs. Estimated capital needs for CSO control in thousands of
January 1982 dollars. These estimates are total remaining needs
and include an allowance for planning and design as well as
construction. The development of these needs estimates is
discussed in Appendix B.
Part B of the tables presents details of the basis of estimates and
tne generic receiving water use. This information is provided because it
was used in tne needs estimation program. The estimation procedure
involved four general steps: (1) identification of the major water body
segment receiving CSOs in a metropolitan area; (2) identification of the
State designated stream use classification(s) for the segment; (3)
matcnin-j of each State stream use to a generic stream use; and (4)
estimation of the level of CSO control needed to maintain the stream use.
Eden designated item appearing in Part B of Tables 1 through 17 is
defined as follows:
1 • Ajznori ty/Faci 1 i ty Numoer. Same as Part A.
^- basis of Estimate. Each Category V needs estimate is based
either on a facilities plan or on the Category V needs estimation
program (NEP). The needs estimation program estimates the cost
of CSO control necessary to protect the State designated
receiving water use and compares this cost to the alternative
cost of sewer separation. The least cost alternative is then
selected. The six possible basis of estimate are defined as
follows:
i. *es*he*1cs - V.'E?
b. Public Health - ME?
c. Fish and Wil-di-ife - NEP
-------
a. Recreation - fJEF
e. Sewer Separation - MEP
Facility Plan
3. Limiting Generic Use. Tin's is tne general description of the
most stringent, receiving water use which controls the required
level of CSU pollution control. The generic use is a function of
the official State-designated Water Quality Standards.
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE TABLES WITH FACILITY ESTIMATES OF
POTENTIAL MARINE CSO NEEDS
-------
I'AKT A
-ir / i ACILITY
hllNtlEH MAKE
NEEDS SUUVEY
ALASKA
BSTIIIATt OK NAhlNE CSO COHTHUL HEEDS
CITY HAflK CODIIINED SEWEH
AHtA (AC.) POPULATION
0^-1,102-001 .IIINEAU, 1)0 l(OUl, II UK
02-012^-OUI l.HtLOVA, C1TT 01-
ST ATI TOTALS
JUNEAU
CORDOVA
32U
M
U,BOU
60
321
4,860
flikCII I, IVbJ
TAULL 1
HtCtlVIKG UiTKU
HAflt
TYPE
EST/UAY UASTIHEAO
EST/BAY PRIHCE WILLIAM SOUMU
(1 1000)
Jb, tbl
i'n
IB.JUU
PAKI 8
AUIMOKlTV/FAClLlTY
NUMbtK
02-oio<;-ooi
DESIGNATED RECEH/IMG WATER USE L 8ASIS OF NEfcOS ESTIMATE
BASIS UF ESTIMATE LIMITING GENbHIC USE
RECKtATIUN - NcP
KECKrATlQN - NcP
SHELLFI SH PROTECTION
SHELLFISH PROTECTION
-------
AUTHORITY / FUCILITK
NAHI:
o«. 20 12-002
STAlK 'I01ALS
C1T1
HKliUS SUHVBt
CALlKumilA
KSTlfUTK Of IUU1HE CSO COHTHOL KKBUi
---- COBBINED StMtB ----
AhK» (AC.) POPULATION
Clt.Cu
MtANClSCU
IS,660
1^.660
M7J.OOO
173,000
rUMCM 1, 141* J
TAULE 2
HKCKJVIMU
TTPE HANI!
KST/bAT SJ.M fHAMClSCU DAI
(t 1000)
460.600
460.60U
PAKT
Y/l^A
NUMdEK
RECEIVING WATfcR OSfc t BASIS OF NttOS ESTIMATE
bASIS UP ESTIMATE LIMITING GENiRIC USE
FACILITY PLAN
SHELLFISH PKOreCTICN
-------
HAMCll 1. I'Jo I
3
MlTllillil TY
lei.Hi I It
0
a-
()•
0'
0
0-
I)'
0-
0
- 0 1 '.0
-0 ) /O
-01. '11
-Oil 10
-o%i iu
-li) »0
- 1010
-1 1 10
- l.'bO
001
001
001
001
001
00 1
001
001
00 1
KA-.-1UTY
MAUL
IH.KIHf ClTlf
in
KlUIILEfOUN TOWN
MM HAVtN LITY 01
SOII WALK '1UUN OF
NliliWltll Cl'llf OK
poiiTLAHt TOWN in-
1.111 LKil Cl I* L.K
N(,MR
IIN 11)1. El'tl1111
OfcHBi
IIAUrKOMl)
tllUULKTOWH
MKW IUVKN
NOUWil.K
(IOIIUICII
COHTLAND
.SUr.LTOH
COMMKCTJCUT
UK M All INK CSO COHTHOL NfcKbS
CUHUIMEO SKULK
AML» (AC.) F01-ULAT1UM
J, JUO
300
2,992
H'M
3,6bU
i2b
1,000
21
9 BO
bo, OOo
11,000
110,000
0.011
ai, 300
15,800
23,000
ISO
0,800
EbT/UAY
EST/b».T
EST/ttA»
EST/BAY
EST/BAV
EST/BAY
E^T/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
HtCUVIiG MATLK
TTPE NKlt .
UK1UUEPOHT
HUUSITUIIIC H
CONHKCTICUT U
CONNECTICUT UIVtK
MEW IIAVBM HAUbUb
NUHUALK HAKUOU
THANES U
CONNECTICUT UlltU
HOUSATOHIC R1VLB
(I 1000)
I 14,000
1 I.VjU
171, JO^:
JJ.bub
16,706
311,061
r-AHT b
AUfMOKlIY/FACILI TV
uLceiviNG wAitR
BASIS Ot- fcSIIMAlt
c UASIS OF Nttus e
LIMllIN'i GtNfcRIC USE
Ov-Ol^O-001
t.V-OJYu-OiM
GV —u o^» I — Ool
P9-OBJ 1-OJl
Ll-001
.o-OOl
u-OOl
u-OJl
(,-Odl
FACILITY PLAN
(UCHtAIION - Hif
RECKEAIION - NEP
HtCKbATION - NfcP
RfcCKEAIIUN - NfcP
KcCRtATION - NbP
KcCKtAflON - NtP
REC8EAT1ON - Hcf
KECKEAIION - NtH
SHELLF1SH
SHELLFISH
FULL bODY
SHELLFISH
SHELLF1 SH
SHtLLFI Srt
SHELLFISH
SHELLFI SH
PHOTECIIUN
PROTECTION
PKOTECT10N
CONTACT (HfcC.I
PROTECUON
PROTtCTION
PROTECTION
PROTECTION
PROTECTION
-------
I'AHT A
MITHOMI T« / IHCIHTY
-nlBltt:lt NAWt
»0-<>00')-IH>1 .BAK.KI, Cii't oh
Ki-^1017-001 iiLKOHo crrr of
10-..01M-001 , Klltb ^tULUAGK ^»^
10^,10 <•/-<> 01 >ILnINuT,,M U !• C f
1.TBTI ItiTAI.b
19112 NEtUS SUkVKY
DELAMAUE
KSTIfUTK OF flAfllNL' CSO COHTMOL MtKOS
C1T» I4M1V CunuIMtO SEMtH
AhEA (AC.) POPULATION
bKAKollU
niLfoRn
LE«Eb
WILNIHGTOM
2HQ
310
yoO
6 . 9 J6
U.M2I>
60O
n.ubo
2.b20
80.36B
88,660
HiHCM 1.
TAbLL 4
NAHE
KST/BAT MiNTICOKI: K IV til
rbr/BAY IUSPILLIOM Hittb
KST/BA» LEWIS BtHOBOTH CAHAL
tST/DAY BUAMDYWIIIE CkttK
|t 10OO)
> -411
d'ni
10.'-*^
26-*! Jib
290. bJt,
HAKf U
OtSlONAIED RfcCtlVINO WAIcK Uic t 3ASIi Oh N£tl)i, fcbllMATE
LIMITING GENEKIC ust
10-OUOV-OOl
10-001 /-OOl
SEPARATION - NEf
KEChtAIION - NfcP
SEWcK SfcPAKAJlUN - NtP
KE^REATION - Nfcp
SHtLLFIiH PROftCllUN
SMcLLFISH PROTECTION
iHELLHiri PKOItCTION
SHELLhlifi PROTECTION
-------
•ill nil>l, I TY / K.U 1LI I'Y
* II .111 Ml NAfU
CITY NAfll-
II o>nl 1- <>Ul
if:. n:
I' t-NVIh ..I.UV-
I'jii^ MH i<:; SUKV tr
L'Jl''!- "f LD i. ii mil A
UP flAMNl C^O" CONTHoL
---- COnUlNbD SKWKK ----
(AC.) I'UPULATION
it.y u
m, 71J
LII 1.
TiULt ft
U HATtll
TYI'K
f^T/BAt I'OTudAC UlYLlC
(t
ou, 1 19
CD. Hi
i DtSIGNATcJ KtCclVlNG WAI iK USi. (. dAMb Oh NEtUS tSTlMAlt
AJlnUKlI»/f ACIL1TY BASIS Ul- fcMIHAIE LIMITING GtNtHfC
1l-OJ.1-Oul
FAClLIIlf PLAN
AOUATIC FISH L
(G6U.I
-------
SUUVLY
AllTIIGKlTY / FACILITY
Mil ,111 Hi NMIK
SAVANNAH, CJTY oh
iTAI't TOTALS
KSTirtATr Of flAHINt CSU CONTUOL NKtDS
CITY MAIH ---- COBUIKKb StWKH ----
(kC.| I'Ol'ULtTIOIl
SAVANNAH
U'j
135
1U.210
IB, 2 10
HAkCU I,
TtbLt «
NKCKlVINo. MATltt
TYPK MARE •
EST/BAY VKKHU* hlYtK
(» 100U)
cn
AUIHJKJ TY/l-ACIL I 1 Y
NUMDtK
13-C
PAKT b OtSluNATtD KECtlVING WATtK USfc t 8ASIS Of NEEDS ESTIMATE
U«SIi OF fcSUMATt LIMITING GENERIC USE
KUiiLlC HcALTH - NEP
RAW DOMESTIC MATER SUPPLY
-------
tUTIIOHl TY / FACILITY
I'A, Id A
I'll** NF.EOS .SURVEY
fljmre
EVT1HATI OK BAKltlYT^O CONTROL HttDS
CITY NAI1K
HAkCH 1,
TAULE 7
NUItltn
2-1 0002-001
2 3 0001-001
.'3 0007-001
23 00 15-001
2 J O017-001
2 3 00:>i>-001
23 0021-001
2 3 0022-001
2 3 OOlo-OOl
23 0051-001
2 3 O0b6-O01
2 3-0097-001
2 301 12-001
23 01 13-001
2 J 01 ld-001
23 012o-ti01
23 0117-001
VT A'l I. TiiTA LS
N A f. K
POM TLA HI) I'WU
SOUTH I'OltTLANU CITY
HlUbtfOHl), CITY uF
WESTBHOOK I>WD
SACO CITY Oh
OAK MAHROU TOWN OF
BATH CITY OF
BELFAST PHD
KENNhllUNK StWfcW CIST
flACHIAi. TOWU OF
HOCK LAS Li CITY OF
6ASTPOHT CITY OF
CALAIS CITY OF
CAHDEN TOWN OF
FALHOUTII TOW1I OF
KITTKHY, TOWN OF
rilOHASTON TOKN OF
PORTLAND
SOUTH PORTLAND
BIKUL'FOHU
WES TB HOOK
BAR IIAai'OH
BELFAST
KENNEBIINK
HACIIIAS
uOCKLAMlj CITY OF
EASTPORT
CALAIS
CAHD£N
HLHOUTII
RITTEBT
THOH ASTON
AHLA (AC.)
1.77S
2,521
^.000
162
770
765
1, /OO
100
IbO
250
619
5. 120
650
77
110
32
20,809
POPULATION
5U,OOu
11,000
12,000
3,500
7,500
2,775
9,500
600
5,000
3.000
6,675
1.500
3,000
1,000
310
1,100
750
133,210
TYPE
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
tST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
IECEIVINC UATEfc
NAnt
CASCO BAY
CASCO .BAY
SACO BIVEM
PHESUHPSCOT B
SACO BIVER
FBENCllnAH BAY
KENNEbeC ESTUARY
ATLANTIC OCEAM
HOUSAH BIYtB
HACHIAS B1YKB
BOCKLAMD UABBOB
COBSCOUK BAY
ST CHOIX B
PUOBSCOT BAT
CASCO BAY
PISCATAQOA B
ST GEORGE HIKLH
• teuL.
|> 1000)
113, ai7
35^09
11,520
15,123
10.396
29.171
2.621
S.711
5.371
12.B1U
13. 177
16.059
3.391
1.217
1.292
91B
385, 22b
f AKI b
NUMtitR
DES10NA1EO KtCcItflNG MAI ER USc t bASIS OF NEtOS ESTIMATE
dASIS UF ESTIMATE LIMITING GENERIC USE
i-ijOi 1-031
23-OOil-Ool
-------
I'AKT A
AlirllUIUTf / t ACILITlf
Niinitt.it NAHK
( AHbUIUut l
C1TI NAME
CAHUHII>UE
StIIIVRJ
nAIHfLAMl)
Of lUhlME CSO CONTUOL MKKD5
CuHUINtD SEUKH
AHb'A (AC.) POPULATION
SI'Al't
330
330
2,100
I. 100
MifcCU 1,
TAbLt B
k EC LI VI Hu HATtB
Ttl'E NAHt
tST/blT CHOPTAUK
KKELlb
(» 1000)
CO
PART t»
AUTnOKITV/FAClLlIY
NUMdtK
DESIGNATED RbCtlVlNG WATtR USfc C BASIS Of NEfcUS ESTIMATE
BASIS OF ESTIMATE LIMITING GENERIC USt
RECREATION - NEP
SHELLFISH PROTECTIUN
-------
A
2 -t_
2',-
2'.-
2:.-
2'.-
2;,-
2 !>-
iiTHithl I'Y
NllrlllLH
10 JU-001
1034-0 111
iOio-ooi
10 72-0 1)1
>u7:>-oui
iUVO-001
>0 91-0 O1
1101-001
I105-001
11 It. -001
IJ2U-001
1231-001
ToTAI b
I'AHT »
/ I ACILITY
NA.1t
1 YNK CITY OK
IIAV fl.SU LL CITY OK
lAWUCNCt CITY oh
HEW ULUFOKD CITY OF
..LOUCKSTKK LITY 01
HULL TOW* OF
< IflbttlDGe CITY or
1 ALL B1VEH CITY Of
liHESUUHY TuUN OF
CHELSEA CITY OF
liHOOKLIBE TOWN Ut
nCTIO DIST COHB
OltEHVILLE CITY OF
1'J»iJ HIEUi MJIIVKY
HAiiSACIIUbLTTS
ESTIHATE
CITY MAHK
LYNN
IIAVEHtllLL
LAWUtNCfc
NEW BEDFOHD
uLOUCKSTKH
HULL
CAHUKIDGE
FALL HIVEH
AHESbUHY
CHELSEA
bHOOKLlNE
BOSTON
SOtlEIIVlLLE
OK IUI11NK
AMLA (
5
J
14
1
3
3
17
1
11
CSO CONTHOL Ntt
ConUINbl) SEHkK
AC.) I-01'ULAl
,570 514.
,000 11,
,200 IS.
.500 101.
300 15.
233 1,
. 1«9 55.
.BIO 92.
500 8.
.217 30.
.190 5fa.
,017 692.
,217 60.
,03J
,,«,
US
ION
ooo
600
000
000
500
500
000
600
BOO
600
200
200
890
TYPE
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
tST/BAY
EST/BAY
tST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
EST/BAY
ftAUOl 1. 1
TibLE 9
HARE
LYNN HAUUOOH
HthHIIUCK fUVEU
SPICKETT BI»EK
BU2ZAHDS HAY
GLOUCESTER HAkBOfe
nASSACHOSETTS BAY
CI1AHLES 8
MOUNT UGPt'BAY
HEMHIHACK KIVEB
HYSTIC H
CHARLES H
BOSTON HA&BOH
HYSTIC R
1U)
NEEDS
(t 1000)
1 1,000
120.' 505
126. 7B9
12.100
6, BIB
162^965
1b,a29
21.307
330^000
21.307
1. 110,
015
AUTHJK1TY/FACIL1TY
NOHUtH
:-001
-001
25-OOA0-001
2b-00/2-OOl
5-001
J-Ojl
1-001
i5-01ul-U01
25-01o5-031
25-Olio-uol
b-001
i-001
RECEIVING ^ATEK OSfc fc BASIS Of NEEUS ESTIMATE
UASIS Ur ESTIMATE LIMITING GENERIC USE
FACILITY PLAN
KECKEATIUN - Nlir
HEcrtEAUUN - NEF
KECREAT10N - NEi>
KECREAIIQN - MEP
KcCKEAII()N - NEf
FISH L MlLOLlFt - NtP
RECKEAIION - N6P
RECREATION - NEP
FISH t WILDLIFE - NEP
FISH C MILOLlrE - NtP
FACILITY PLAN
FISH C MILOLlFc - NEH
RtCREATlON IGtN.)
SHELLFISH PROTECTION
SHELLFISH PROTECTION
SHELLFISH PROTECTION
FULL ttOOY CONTACT tREC.I
SHELLFISH PROTECTION
AUOAI1C FISri t WILDLIFE CGEN.I
SHELLFISH PROTECTION
SHELLFISH PROTECTION
AUUATIC FISH C WILDLIFE tGfcN.I
AQUATIC FISH t WILDLIFE iGEN.)
AOUAIIC FISH t WILDLIFE (GEN.I
AQUATIC FISH t WILDLIFE (GEN.I
-------
3 i .1071,-oul
I I .1(111 l-ODl
J I tiO'Hi-OUl
jTA'll TOTALS
/ KAC1LIIV
NAIU:
I.IL'ltll UuAUIl Lit- Jt.Ll
I'OHTb MOUTH CITY oK
.OHtHSUllHTII CITY of
CITY
I9HJ MKEOS SUNVEY
HKW IIAHPSIIIHK
ESTIMATE OK HAMTNl CSO CONTHOL lltEDii
COnillNtO SEWEH
AHti (AC.) POPULATION
IXtTKII
POIITSBOUTII
SOU
1. 389
1. 150
3.039
V.OtlO
lb.000
9,000
34.0UO
NAMCII I. IV.u
liULt to
MATtH
TYPE MARE
CbT/UAY SOUAHSCUTT
esr/BAY PISCATAUU*
KST/bAT SALNUN FALLS
(* IOUO)
f\)
O
HART ti OcSIGNAIcO RECEIVING WATER USE I BASIS Uh NEEOS ESTIMATE
AUlMLlRlTV/FAULIT* BASIi OP ESTIMATE: LIMITING GENERIC USE
3J-CCbi-OJl
JH-OOSK.-OCH
HtCKEATION - NtP
RtCRtAlIUN - NEC
HcCREAIION - NfcP
SHELLFISH PROTECTION
VlELLFlSrl PROTECTION
SHdLLFISH PROTECTION
-------
Mil IIOHITY
NlinUtK
1H~ loUS-OU 1
.11- nm<*-0i) i
i M- Ull>_>-00 1
1 M- 111 90-001
3i-ii n-ooi
3M-i i b8-ooi
3i- 1 u.b-oo;
au- i 1*5-001
31-1 1U7-OOI
3 1- 1 1 'JO -001
31-1.; .12-001
3i-l.< J5-001
3l-IV45-t>01
3i-iv->s-oo:'
3 t~\J 66-001
31-11 16-002
31-Kt 21-001
3'l- 1321-002
3 t- U21-OOJ
3'4-|J'>6-OOI
J1-IM25-001
3'I-|117-O01
J1-l1->3-001
3'1-| UKS CITY BAYONNE
CtllTEUKT BOHO Of
ci I CK:,J i/t PAHK BOku
E NEWAIIK UOHU UK
EI-.JICWATE U BGHO OK
El 1 ZABETII CITY Of
GurTt)Nbt:nu TOWN ut
IIAIIHISON TOWN Of
HlillGKEN CITY
T>
NtilClll UkdCKh TW1'
PtilTH ABOOY CITY Of
UkloM CITY SA
WU-.IIAWKEN TWP
Ml .T NY HUN STP
Jt.ilSKY CITY SA-tAST
MbU BRUNSWICK CITY
CAR I B
tins KEEiin suit
HEW JEMhtY
KSTIflATK OK BAHINt CSO
•BI BANCtt 1.
TibLt 11
CONTHOL NEEDS
CITY M&Mt COIIDIMED SEWKII ui/r-hiufyr u i t-vu
AHtA (AC.) I'OruLATIOM TYPE MAKE
LITTLE fEKHY 20,Sb1
.It hit T CITY 6.582
KtWAUK 2b.781
UAIIUAY q 15
UAYONNE 2.iOO
CAHTE8ET 1,662
currsiut PIMK itob
LAST MEUAHK 59
tDGEWATKII Oia
ELIZABETH 1,118
bUTTLUOKHU |QM
HAUUISOK 1,016
HOUOKEH 1)00
SOUTH KEAHNT 1,476
LINDEN 945
MtWAlIK 11,»-liVO-UJl
3s-l22<;-OJl
J-.-1235-Odl
3<.-l<:-.l>-O()l
3-i-12bs-OJi!
i'.- l^oo-OO I
3<.-13lo-0.>2
j'>-li2'i-'jji
j^-l j2^-ou<;
3^-1 3^*1 -OJJ
3<,-13^fc-011
3<.-I
1,706.576 >-•
-------
I'lll.' Nt:tl).S ^UhVK
neu Y( 1'uOI-OOI
.16 2001-O01
,»6 2»01- 00'.
K, ?OOI-00<.
36 21)01-00 /
J6- 2n01--00o
.16 2001-00-1
16- 2001-0 10
36 2001-011
36-2001-0 12
36- 2001-01 i
)6- 2001-01'!
J6- 3002-001
36 3n 19-001
3«.- 3056-001
36-3117-001
SI A'JE TOTAL!.
/ t kC I LITY
NAfll.
UliKKAII »!'
ttllKEAU OK
tl.lKUf.0 oK
H./HhAU OK
HI! It KAU OK
BUREAU OK
UHKEAU OK
UllHEAU OK
bilhtll) OK
UiiUEAU OK
BUHK.AU Of
BIIHL'&U OK
UIIUEAU Ot
bllllEAU OK
Bl A CON
['..IICIIKttl':.
cl'IY N A fH
WPC UbU YOHK
UI'C HUNTS POINT
UPC UI'T Ull A^'lOllIA
UI'C NUU YOIIK
UPC NEW YOHK
UPC UP1 UK BHOOKLYN
WTC UIT UK BROOKLYN
UPC UPT UK SVATEN ISLAND
UPC LP'l Uh BIIOOKLYN
UPC DPT Ull LHoOKLTN
UPC UPT WH OUt^bNS
UPC HtW TOHK
WPC NEW YUHK
WPC NEW YOBK
UCACON
It CITY OK POUGIIKkEPSIE
NIKIlUhull CITY OK NtWflOKC
Y..NKE1CJ DP
W YOMKEKS
__ _ _ — t'i\ MH I M
L f\ *. t U fc- L.
^-WnillBii^t^ _r t. • t. II
AKK.A (AC.) POPULATION
16, 719
17, BOO
16,100
15,960
23,132
5,700
3,500
15,000
11,200
12,610
16,300
6,015
21.913
5.500
3,100
2,300
2, 110
2.300
203,269
HART U DESIGNATED KhCtlVING WATER
AOIHOK1 IV/FAclL 11 Y
NOMutH
>6-20Ol-J(H
J6-2001-J02
36-^001-003
36-2001-00^,
3o-2uoi-ao3
.»6-20f l-03o
36-2OO1-JO7
J6-2001-008
36-^^0 1-J09
J6-
-------
AUTHORITY
NUllllKK
I -1)0711 -001
STA1-- 1UTAI.S
FACILITY
MAHK
» uub HA If CITY 01-
N OK TH UB»D CITY <
CIVY
NKEOS SUH»KT
ISTIBATt Of tIARItlE CSO COMTWUL NtEDS
---- conumto stuKR ----
(»C.| PUPULITIOK
COOli UAY CITY
NORTH MEND
1 10
910
1,320
2.2K3
i.,796
HA HUH 1, 196 j
TABLL 13
HtCLIVIMU WATCH
TYPE
EST/IUI
EST/DAY
COOS BAY
COOS BAT
Kttbi
(» 1UOO)
PAHT o
AUllUKllY/t-AClLlfY
NUMDtK
tl-OUV't-COl
RtCcIVlNG MAIER USt C bASIS W N660S tSTlMAIE
BASli OF tSIIHATE LIMITING GENERIC USE
KECKtATIUN - NEP
SfcMtR iEPAKAIION - NfcP
FULL BODY CONTACT (REC.I
FULL BODY CONTACT (REC.I
-------
PAhT A
/ FACILITY
HAMS
1-KMHSTLVANlA
ESTIMATE OK (1AK1NE CSO CONTROL NKEDS
Cin MANF COdblNtU SEMEB
AUtA (AC.) POPULATION
HA yell 1, 19bJ
TAOLt 14
<( 2-OHH2-00 I
M2-O09M-001
STATL 1OTALS
LI LCOItA
PlIILAOCLPHIA WI'C U1V
CIIL^Ttll
I'll I LA DELI'HI A
1.913
4t>.bOU
MV.tlJ
1.926.170
1.962.102
TTPK
EST/BAT
EST/bAI
HtCtlflKG B»TtB
»LHt
DKLAMAit kl¥ tliTUAUI
DELAHABE HI ft*
(» 10UO)
2i,39^
778.623
BOM, 011,
fAKT b
AUfriUKlIY/FAC1L1 IY
NUMbtK
W -OudJ-OJl
OESJGMAltD KbCelVING WATfcR USE C BASIS OH NEEDS ESTIMATE
UASIi OF tSUMATb LIMITING GENERIC USfc
FISH L rflUULlf-L - NEP
FISH t WlLbLIFE - NEP
HARM MATEK FISHERY
WARM WATER FISHERY
-------
»n mom 1»
NII mi i H
'I 'I -Oil I'i -Oil I
'l II (11120-001
'i 'i o,IJ2 -00 I
if A I h TOT* 1 '.
NAUli
N i NIOKI LIT* or
I'kUTUCKfcT
HMII1»(.AN. liA'
I'lIU' NEHIS SUIIVEY
Mlolib I SLA Mil
KSTlNATt Uf""flAHlNK CUO COMTHOL Mh'tUS
ClinUINb'O SEMIiH
I.I.KA (AC.) HOI'ULATIOH
Nt KI'OHT
PAMTUCKKT
l'Ki)Vl DtMCt
U
J.291
y, ;>
io,oou
77.000
11 1.550
220,550
HA Ml II 1, l'«. I
TAbLL IS
HtCKIVIMi; WITKU
TTHK
KST/UAY NtVPOKT lUHI.uUH
EST/BAY BLACKSTOHl: U
tST/8»Y 1'HOVIUtHCt U
Xltbl,
(t 1000)
1J./OU
11'(,0uo
m /.uuu
ro
en
ust t
rv
NUrltJLK
L>F tSJJMATt
ot- NEEDS ESTIMATE
LlNIIINl, UtNtKIC
PLAN
rACILIfV CLAN
FAC1L1IY fLAN
HULL BUOY CUNTACI IRcC.t
SHtLLFlSN PROTECTION
SHELLFISH PROTECTION
-------
— a » 3
.10 » ^ »
JO j r* ~
*t o » « »
JJ — a f 3
a o IN —
a
o
-S
S 4l
-I -1
a a
VI
2
a
-1 14 i
3 w 3
O z
u —
a —
OS'
3 U
o u «
.a a u
C E H
« < O
.
f. I- H
'.I « VI
i" VI
M 3
w M
z I- a
o a x
c a <
— i X
•.1
A.
U O
a **
26
I 2
ta* UJ
I- U
LU O
2
•-U Z
2 -"
31
-J
< JJ
I »-
<
*j r
2 -•
••• ^
> vi
<
i/i
a -
2
O
x u u
'JJ UJ
C9 » te
o o
r a x
vi a. i
• X
— 2
2
O T O
O O O
I I I
O O C
I t I
- = - ^ C. p
e c o o — ?•
ft S* J", f.
-------
AilTIIOHI TT
I-AC)L1T»
-> I dU IU-Ol)l
b ( ttOllO-001
b » oiuo-ooi
b 3 - ») 1 1') -0 01
b J -OUl
b J-i)71b-001
b 1-J920-001
b 3-0990-001
STI.TIJ TOTALS
I'AKT A
AMkCltUTEj liU'l' I". W.
IlKI. LTHI.MAn , CITT Of
IILAINb M/.rtH f. bgWhH
IIHEtlEIITON, CITT OK
•.DNtlNDS 1'WU
ni>yui;.B, CITT or
HAHTSVlLLt, CITT Of
.-.KTHO-StATTLE
.>LTI)l-U., CITT OF
I'OHT ANGELLS.CITY Of
CITY MAn^
I'll!. NEED!) SUUVET
MA.'.lll NuTON
EbTlKATE OK NAH1NE CSO CONTUOL NEEDS
COMBINED SEHEH
A lit A (AC.) POPULATION
HLLLlM<;ifkn
HLAINE WA 9U230
liKkHENTON
LDrtUHlC,
HAHYSVILLE
SEATTLE
VI ANGELES
rUKCII 1,
TAbLt 17
ISbJ
122
1.101
300
1,932
2,100
333
320
19,000
1.280
289
9IU
3,998
U11
9,616
21,600
1.000
1,300
19b,000
6,500
6,116
EST/BAT
EST/BAT
EST/OAY
EST/BAT
EST/BAT
EST/BAT
EST/BAT
EST/BAT
EST/BAT
EST/BA T
UECLlVlMt, MATE*
TJPE NAHt
uutnts ciuxntu
DELLIHUIIAH BAT
UHATTON IIAbBOM
PUUET SOUND
HJiiKT SOUND
CHEIIALIS RIVEU
EUEI SLOUGH
PUGET SOUND ET. AL.
BUDD INLET
ST OF JUAN DL TUCA
27.377
216,862
t. JUO
J3.0^7
19. Jbl
i.b7l
G.SbM
112,000
2b,7b!«
B.002
289,71b
l^AKf
AOlHtJRlIY/FACILiTY
NUMUtR
RECEIVING WATfcM USE t OASIS OF NEEDS ESTIMATE
OASIS OF tSIIMATE LIMITING GENERIC USE
t>3-O030-001
M-ooei-oai
53-Olou-OOl
53-0115-001
43-Ujc.i-O'Jl
53-077&-U02
RECftEATIUN - NtP
SEWtft SEPARATION - NEP
StwtR SEPARATION - NEP
HECKCATION - NEP
RECREATION - N6P
SL^fc* SEPARATION - NEP
RECREATION - NEP
FACILITY PLAN
RECREATION - NEP
KECRcATION - NcH
SH6LLFI SM
SHELLFISH
SHELLFISH
SHELLFISH
SHELLFISH
SH6LLF1 SH
SHELLFISH
SHELLFISH
SH6LLFI SH
SHcLLFISn
PROTECTION
PROIEC new
PROTECTION
PROTECTION
PROTECTION
PROTECTION
PROTECTION
PROTECTION
PROTECTION
PROTECTION
-------
28
APPENDIX B
DEVELOPMENT OF 1982 CSO NEEDS ESTIMATE
-------
29
APPENDIX B
DEVELOPMENT OF 1982 CSO NEEDS ESTIMATE
A. Introduction
A detailed discussion of the procedure, assumptions, and methods
used to develop Category V needs estimates is reported in Appendix A of
tue 13J2 heeds Survey report. This section summarizes the material
presented in the main report including a discussion of the technologies
considered in development of tne Category Y needs estimates.
If an adequate facility plan estimate was available for a given
facility, tnis estimate was used as the basis for establishing Category Y
neeus. Otherwise, Category V needs were established based on one of four
control levels. The control level chosen was a function of the
designated receiving water use for the receiving segment. The rare
exception occurred when the estimated cost of sewer separation was less
chan tne cost of the selected control level. In this case, the Category V
needs for that facility were based on the cost of sewer separation. Both
we control levels and the associated water use objectives are:
Level of Control Generic Stream Use
Aesthetics Navigation
Agricultural Water Supply
Industrial Water Supply
Puolic Health Domestic Water Supply
Partial Body Contact Recreation
Noncontact Recreation
Fisn and Wildlife Warmwater Fisheries
Coldwater Fisheries
General Fish and Wildlife
Recreation General Recreation
Full Body Contact Recreation
Shellfish Protection
The pollutant removal objectives and technologies used to develop
Y cost estimates for the four levels of control are described as
follows:
1. Aesthetics. The objectives of the Aesthetics level of
tc.itrc1 2^ tc -srncve 'lea tables, coarse debris, and
40 percent of the annual BOD and SS load generated by a
combined sewer system. The Aesthetics level is considers-
tiie minimum level of control.
-------
30
s level cost estimates are based on a least cost
ioptimum) mix of combined sewer flushing and a storage/treatment
system utilizing physical/cnemical treatment.
i. Puplic riealtn. The objective of the Public Health level of
control is to remove 90 percent of the annual fecal coliform load
generated oy a combined sewer system.
Category Y Puolic Health level cost estimates are based on an
optimum combination of CSO storage with pumping and chlorination
of the discharge sized to capture and kill 90 percent of the
fecal coliform bacteria generated by the combined sewer system.
Tnis level of control will also result in significant reductions
in annual BOD and SS loads due to the sedimentation achieved in
tne storage facility.
3. Fi^sn and Wildlife. The objective of tne Fish and Wildlife level
of control is to achieve and maintain a fishery in the receiving
water. This level of control is based on removal of BOD and SS
whicn may vary from 4U to 90 percent depending on the dry-weather
pollutant contribution as well as background receiving water
quality.
Tne needs estimate is based on a mix of CSO control technologies
as determined by an automated optimization procedure which
accounts for site-specific conditions. Control technologies
considered include streetsweeping, combined sewer flushing, and
storage/treatment systems. The treatment options include five
different levels of physical/chemical treatment as well as four
different alternatives for modification, expansion, and upgrade
of existing biological wastewater treatment plants. The
optimization procedure selects the least costly combination of
tne above technologies that will achieve the desired degree of
CSu pollution control.
4. Recreation. The objective of the Recreation level of control is
to provide receiving water quality suitable for full body contact
recreation as well as for a viable fishery. In addition to the
pollutants removed for Fish and Wildlife, the Recreation level
will provide for a 95 percent reduction in fecal coliform
bacteria generated by the combined sewer system.
Cdte9ory V Recreation level cost estimates are based on an
optimum combination of storage and treatment sized to capture and
kill 95 percent of the annual CSO fecal coliform load. The
crca^eri* jpc;o;i u5cG is int $aiiic as cne treatment option
selected for Fish and Wildlife. This ensures that BOD and SS
removals required for fish ana wildlife protection will also be
ootdinea at tne Recreation level.
-------
31
3. CSO Control Technologies
As discussed briefly above, a wide range of CSO control
tecnnologies are considered in estimating Category V needs. These
technologies can be classified as Best Management Practices (BMP) or
structural controls. BMPs are characterized by low capital costs and
nign operation and maintenance costs. The BMPs considered in the 1982
r^eds Survey include streetsweeping and combined sewer flushing. In both
cases pollutants are removed from the combined sewer watershed and are,
mere fore, unavailable for washoff to the receiving water during
rainfall/runoff events.
The structural CSO controls considered are wet-weather
treatment systems which are required to collect the CSO at individual
overflow points and to transport the intercepted flow to central storage
facilities. Cost estimates for CSO storage include an allowance for
aeration and for facilitating cleanout during dry weather.
Treatment options considered in the Category V needs
estimating procedure include construction of new physical/chemical
treatment facilities designed to treat CSO only, and modification,
expansion, and/or upgrade of existing dry-weather biological treatment
facilities designed to treat both dry-weather flow and CSO. A total of
nine different treatment levels are considered. The first five levels
are pnysical/chemical treatment systems and the remaining four levels are
various dry-weather treatment system modifications. A summary of CSO
control technologies considered in development of Category V needs
estimates by level of control is summarized in Table B.
Grant applicants for the separate marine CSO correction fund
are not limited to the CSO control technologies evaluated in the 1982
Needs Survey estimation of CSO control needs. A detailed study of site
specific factors may recommend more appropriate and cost-effective
technologies.
-------
Table B
SUMMARY OF CSO CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
USED TO CALCULATE NEEDS
Level of
Control Technology
Aesthetics
Public lied I ih
Fish and Wi Idlife
Recreation
Sewer Separation
Streetsweeping
X
Sewer
Flushing
X
X
Storage
X
X
X
X
Treatment^
X
X
X
X
Wet-Weather
Interceptors
X
X
X
X
Sewer
Separation
1 Treatment options include construction of new physical/chemical treatment facilities designed to treat CSO
only anwirl concentrators, and high rate filtration. High rate filtration, the sewer flushing
equipment, and die swirl concentrator are newly emerging CSO control technologies.
-------
APPENDIX C
AVAILABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING
POTENTIAL MARINE CSO NEEDS ESTIMATES
-------
APPENDIX C
AVAILABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING POTENTIALLY
MARINE CSO WEEDS ESTIMATES
H. Boston, Massachusetts
1. Kaufman, Herbert L. and Lai, Fu-hsiung. 1980. "Review of
Alternatives for Evaluation of Sewer Flushing, Dorchester
' Area-Boston," EPA 600/2-3.0-118.
2. McGinn, Josepn M. 1978. "Analysis of Urban Stormwater
Runoff and Combined Sev/er Overflows in the Boston
Metropolitan Area,1 Metropolitan Area Planning Council.
3. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1975. "Wastewater Engineering and
Management Plan for Boston Harbor-Eastern Massachusetts
Metropolitan Area, EMMA Study, Technical Vol. 7 Combined
Sewer Overflow Regulation," for Metropolitan District
Commission.
4. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1976. "Wastewater Engineering and
Management Plan for Boston Harbor-Eastern Massachusetts
Metropolitan Area, EMMA Study, Main Report," for
Metropolitan District Commission.
5. Proceedings, Third Session, Conference in the Matter of
Pollution of the Navigable Waters of Boston Harbor and its
Tributaries -Massachusetts, Environmental Protection Agency.
October 1971.
3. Bridgeport, Connecticut
Watermation, Inc., and Kasper & Associates. 1973. "Facility
r-lan, City of Bridgeport, Connecticut Wastewater Collection and
Treatment Facilities," for the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
«. ,'tewport, Rhode Island
Metcalf & Eddy, December 29, 1971 ."Summary Report, City of
Newport, RI". Facility plan initiated by RI 4/24/74.
Ron 'Ajcoff of CH2M Hill was contact.
-------
35
' City of Philadelphia,
Sewer Overflow Control," for Philadelphia Water
uepartment, Water Pollution Control Division.
Providence. Rhode Island
i. Anderson-Nichols and Co., Inc., and Waterman Engineering
to., iy//. Combined Sewer Management Report, City of
Proviaence, Rhode Island, Study of Sewerage Improvements."
2. Anderson-Nichols and Co., Inc., and Waterman Engineering
X0;' ]'^7S- .steP ] Facilities Plan Engineering Report,
«ity or Providence, Rhode Island."
3. CE Maguire, Inc., 1932. "Engineering Study and
Environmental Inforriation Document f~r r-^^e^ c=',v=»*
Overflow No. 2 in Providence, Rhode Island/1 Draft' Report
to the riarragansett Say Water Quality Management District
uommi ssion.
1' Galli and Hayden, Harding and Buchanan, 1332.
ary Design Report, Volume I Pollution Abatement
Project vomined Sewer Overflow No. 9, City of Providence
-------
36
rt. ban Francisco, California
1. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1980. "Wastewater Program Overview
for the City and County of San Francisco, California,"
white Plains, U.Y., January.
2. City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public
Works, and J. 8. Gilbert & Associates, 1975. "-Overview
Facilities Plan, August 1975, San Francisco Master Plan
Wastewater Management."
3. City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public
Works, 1971. "San Francisco Master Plan for Wastewater
Management," September 15, 1971.
4. State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water
Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (2), 1975.
"Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin (2)."
Parts I and II, April.
I. Seattle, Washington
1. Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers. January 1979.
"Combined Sewer Overflow Control Program," for Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle.
I. "City of Seattle Department of Engineering Final Facility
Plan for Sewage Collection System Modification." February
1980.
J. Washington, D.C.
1. CHZM Hill-Williams and Sneladia. "Infiltration/Inflow
Analysis. Anacostia Main Interceptor Drainage Basin."
District of Columbia, Department of Environmental Services.
October 1973.
2. Hetcalf and Eddy, Engineers. "Reconnaissance Study of
Combined Sewer Overflows and Storm Sewer Discharges."
District of Columbia Department of Environmental Services,
Engineering and Construction Administration. March 1973.
3. Northern Virginia Planning District Cojmission ?nd the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.' ~
"Washington f-Tetropolitan Area Urban Runoff Demonstration
Project Grant Application to EPA." Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments Water Resources Planning Board.
-------
37
O'Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc. ."Tas< 2 Report:
Uterdture ana Data Base Review. Phase I Combined Sewer
Overflow Study, Potomac Anacostia Interceptor System."
Department of Environmental Services, Government of the
District of Columbia. May 1978.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement
Alternatives, Washington, D.C." Water Quality Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. August 1970.
Roy F. Weston, Inc. "Conceptual Engineering Report-Kingman
Lake Project." Federal Water Quality Administration,
Department of the Interior. August 1970.
------- |