3LEAN\ WATTCTI POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES 11020 FAL 03/71
Evaluation of Storm Standby Tanks
Columbus, Ohio
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • WATER QUALITY OFFICE
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Reports describe the results and progress
in the control and abatement of pollution of our Nation's waters. They provide
a central source of information on the research, development and demonstration
activities of the Water Quality Office of the Environmental Protection Agency,
through in-house research and grants and contracts with the Federal, State
and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial organizations.
Triplicate tear-out abstract cards are placed inside the back cover to facili-
tate information retrieval. Space is provided on the card for the user's
accession number and for additional key words. The abstracts utilize the
WRSIC system.
Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research Reports should be
directed to the Head, Project Reports System, Planning and Resources Office,
Research and Development, Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 20242.
Previously issued reports
Program:
on the Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution Control
11034 FKL 07/70
11022 DMU 07/70
11024 EJC 07/70
11020 — 08/70
11022 DMU 08/70
11023 — 08/70
11023 FIX 08/70
11024 EXF 08/70
11023 FOB 09/70
11024 FKJ 10/70
11024 EJC 10/70
11023
11023
11024
11020
11022
— 12/70
DZF 06/70
EJC 01/71
03/71
12/70
FAQ
EFF
11022 EFF 01/71
11022 DPP 10/70
11024 EQG 03/71
Storm Water Pollution from Urban Land Activity
Combined Sewer Regulator Overflow Facilities
Selected Urban Storm Water Abstracts, July 1968 -
June 1970
Combined Sewer Overflow Seminar Papers
Combined Sewer Regulation and Management - A Manual of
Practice
Retention Basin Control of Combined Sewer Overflows
Conceptual Engineering Report - Kingman Lake Project
Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Alternatives -
Washington, D.C.
Chemical Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows
In-Sewer Fixed Screening of Combined Sewer Overflows
Selected Urban Storm Water Abstracts, First Quarterly
Issue
Urban Storm Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution
Ultrasonic Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflows
Selected Urban Runoff Abstracts, Second Quarterly Issue
Dispatchinq System for Control of Combined Sewer Losses
Prevention and Correction of Excessive Infiltration and
Inflow into Sewer Systems - A Manual of Practice
Control of Infiltration and Inflow into Sewer Systems
Combined Sewer Temporary Underwater Storage Facility
Storm Water Problems and Control in Sanitary Sewers -
Oakland and Berkeley, California
To be continued on inside back cover.
For sale bj tlic Supmntendent of Documents, I s (iincin
Washington, D.C '20W2 - Viicc $1.50
Lieut Piinting Office
-------
Evaluation of Storm Standby Tanks
Columbus, Ohio
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
by
Dodson, Kinney and Lindblom
5 East Long Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Program No. 11020 FAL
March 1971
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
The Whittier Street Storm Standby Tanks, completed in 1932, were designed
to provide partial treatment to waste water from combined sewage flows.
By 1965 complaints from nearby residents about odor resulting from accu-
mulation and removal of sludge in the tanks became numerous. To overcome
this problem, the City modified the tanks in 1967 and 1968. The main
modifications consisted of moving scrapers and sludge pumps to carry
sludge from sumps in the tanks to the O.S.I.S. downstream of the Whittier
Street Plant.
Samples of influent and effluent were obtained, and laboratory tests
made for twenty-four (24) storm periods consisting of 67 composite
samples between May 1968 and June 1969, to evaluate the effectiveness
of the modified storm standby tanks.
Reductions in concentrations of total suspended solids from 15 to 45 per-
cent can be expected with the detention time being from 20 to 180 minutes.
The expected effluent concentrations range from 50 to 230 mg/1.
Similar reductions can be expected for settleable solids, the ranges
being from 20 to over 80 percent with the detention time being between
20 and 180 minutes. The effluent values vary from 0.3 to 1.55 ml/1.
The expected reductions in B.O.D. concentrations range from 15 to 35
percent with the detention time varying from 20 to 180 minutes. The
expected effluent values are between 35 and 100 mg/1.
The expected improvement of dissolved oxygen ranges from 8 percent
with an influent value of 70 percent saturation to 200 percent with
an influent value of 10 percent saturation.
Inasmuch as the tanks do not operate during dry weather flow periods
when stream pollution problems are greatest, they cannot be considered
as making a major contribution to pollution abatement. However, the
tanks do improve the quality of the storm waste water passing through
the tanks significantly but this usually occurs when stream flows are
decidedly greater than the dry weather flow and when the quality of
the stream flows are not particularly bad.
As known, indirect benefits from the long term usage of the system
would exist in the reduced amount of load applied to the stream, even
at a time when the stream could handle such load. However, the scope
of this study was not intended to evaluate this obvious benefit.
This report is submitted in fulfillment of a grant from the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration to the City of Columbus, Ohio,
and was designated as Program No. 11020 FAL. The Federal Agency was
later known as the Federal Water Quality Administration and the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office.
Key Words: Combined sewers, Regulator stations, Storm standby tanks,
Combined wastewater quality, Sedimentation, Solids removal,
B.O.D. removal, D.O. improvement.
ni
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
II RECOMMENDATIONS
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Project
Scope of Project
Project Objectives
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
Olentangy-Scioto Intercepting Sewer
Storm Standby Tanks
Regulator Stations
INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT FOR PROJECT
General
Recording Rainfall Gages
Water Level Recorders
Sampling Facilities
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
General
LABORATORY TESTING
Tests Needed for Evaluation Program
Laboratory Facilities Utilized
Storms Selected for Analysis
ANALYSIS OF LABORATORY TESTS
General
Preliminary Analysis of Laboratory Tests
Scope of Detailed Analyses
Total Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Settleable Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (B.O.D.)
Dissolved Oxygen
Ether Solubles
Quality of Scioto River Flov?
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
APPENDIX A - RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
1
5
7
8
9
13
13
19
23
23
23
24
27
29
29
30
31
32
32
36
38
41
43
45
46
46
99
101
v
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Watershed Map 11
2 Site Plan for Storm Standby Tank Facilities 15
3 Sectional Plan Through Substructures in Vicinity of
Control House 16
4 Sections Through Control Works 17
5 Plan and Sections of Modified Tanks 18
6 Plan and Sections of Regulator Station 21
7 Sketch of Sampling Facilities Installation 22
8 Hydrological Relationships to Concentrations of Solids,
Storm 14 49
9 Hydrological Relationships to Concentrations of Solids,
Storm 15 51
10 Hydrological Relationships to Concentrations of Solids,
Storm 16 53
11 Hydrological Relationships to Concentrations of Solids,
Storm 18 54
12 Hydrological Relationships to Concentrations of Solids,
Storm 19 55
13 Hydrological Relationships to Concentrations of Solids,
Storm 23 56
14 Hydrological Relationships to Concentrations of Solids,
Storm 24 57
15 Hydrological Relationships to B.O.D. and Dissolved Oxygen,
Storm 14 59
16 Hydrological Relationships to B.O.D. and Dissolved Oxygen,
Storm 15 61
17 Hydrological Relationships to B.O.D. and Dissolved Oxygen,
Storm 16 63
18 Hydrological Relationships to B.O.D. and Dissolved Oxygen,
Storm 18 64
vii
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No.
19 Hydrological Relationships to B.O.D. and Dissolved Oxygen,
Storm 19 65
20 Hydrological Relationships to B.O.D. and Dissolved Oxygen,
Storm 23 66
21 Hydrological Relationships to B.O.D. and Dissolved Oxygen,
Storm 24 67
22 Flow through Tanks vs. Detention Time 69
23 Total Suspended Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group I, Influent 70
24 Total Suspended Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group II, Influent 71
25 Total Suspended Solids Removal vs. Detention Time, Group I 72
26 Total Suspended Solids Removal vs. Detention Time, Group II 73
27 Total Suspended Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group I, Effluent 74
28 Total Suspended Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group II, Effluent 75
29 Total Dissolved Solids vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow, Group I 76
30 Total Dissolved Solids vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow, Group II 77
31 Total Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group I, Influent 78
32 Total Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group II, Influent 79
33 Total Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group I, Effluent 80
34 Total Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group II, Effluent 81
35 Settleable Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group I, Influent 82
vin
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No.
36 Settleable Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group II, Influent 83
37 Settleable Solids Removal vs. Detention Time, Group I 84
38 Settleable Solids Removal vs. Detention Time, Group II 85
39 Settleable Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group I, Effluent 86
40 Settleable Solids Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group II, Effluent 87
41 B.O.D. Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group I, Influent 88
42 B.O.D. Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group II, Influent 89
43 B.O.D. Removal vs. Detention Time, Group I 90
44 B.O.D. Removal vs. Detention Time, Group II 91
45 B.O.D. Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group I, Effluent 92
46 B.O.D. Concentration vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow
Group II, Effluent 93
47 D.O. Saturation vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow, Group A, Influent 94
48 D.O. Saturation vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow, Group B, Influent 95
49 Improvement in D.O. Saturation vs. D.O. Saturation of
Influent 96
50 D.O. Saturation vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow," Group3 A, Effluent 97
51 D.O. Saturation vs. Total O.S.I.S. Flow, Group B, Effluent 98
ix
-------
TABLES
Table Page
1 Pertinent Data and Laboratory Results for Selected Storms 33
2 Actual and Expected Concentrations for Composite Samples
for Groups I and II 39
3A Dissolved Oxygen Data for Group A 47
3B Dissolved Oxygen Data for Group B 48
-------
SECTION I
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The present dry weather flow in the O.S.I.S. at the Whittier Street
Storm Standby Tanks is about 35 MGD. Original plans called for the
tanks to go into operation when the flow reached about 68 MGD.
However, since a considerable combined sewage flow also enters the
O.S.I.S. downstream of the Whittier Street Plant, it sometimes be-
comes necessary to reduce the flow in the O.S.I.S. passing the
Whittier Street facility to avoid overloading the treatment plant,
when the total flow at the Jackson Pike Plant is as low as 70 MGD.
Utilizing the Whittier Street Tanks to the fullest extent possible
is certainly preferable to dumping combined sewage flow directly
into the Scioto River. During the period of the study, hourly peak
flows as great as 1030 MGD occurred at the storm standby tanks and
average 8-hour flows were as much as 395 MGD.
Concentrations of the waste water in the O.S.I.S. vary considerably.
with the great variations in flows. The magnitude of flow and the
shape of the hydrograph for a storm were found to have a bearing on
the concentration of influent. Therefore, analyses of the laboratory
test results were divided into two groups for the solids and B.O.D.
tests. Group I consisted of all samples taken in the first 8-hour
period and in periods when peak and secondary peak flows occurred.
All other samples made up Group II when the flows in the O.S.I.S.
were receding.
Concentrations of total suspended solids, settleable solids and B.O.D.
are definitely greater for Group I samples. For total solids the con-
centrations are greater for Group II when the flows are of lesser
magnitude. The dilution of sanitary waste for Group I samples is much
greater than for Group II samples but the total solids carried by the
storm water for Group I samples resulting from the flushing action
during the early part of the storm offsets this dilution to some extent.
After the flushing action has ended the concentrations of total solids
generally decreases for a short period indicating that the waste water
contains a substantial amount of storm water, including some infiltra-
tion. As the flows decrease further, the concentrations of total solids
generally increase considerably, but these concentrations are still less
than the values pertinent to dry weather flow. The fact that the total
suspended solids and settleable solids have greater concentrations in
the Group I samples is due principally to the sands and similar material
flushed into the combined sewers.
Investigations revealed that the dissolved oxygen content of the O.S.I.S.
waste water depended as much on its temperature as the magnitude of the
O.S.I.S. flow. Consequently, the dissolved oxygen samples were divided
into two groups - Group A consisting of samples having temperatures
below 15° C and Group B being the samples with temperatures over 15° C.
The percent saturation of dissolved oxygen increases as the temperature
decreases and the flow increases.
-------
The effectiveness of the tanks in reducing the concentrations of solids
and B.O.D. was not consistent for all samples tested. However, definite
patterns were developed with the available data under various rates of
flow in the O.S.I.S. and flow passing through the tanks.
The expected mean reductions in total suspended solids for Group I periods
vary from 70 mg/1 (195-125) with an O.S.I.S. flow of 80 MGD to 30 mg/1
(280-250) with a flow of 400 MGD all of which is passed through the tanks.
Expressed as percentages, these are reductions of 36 and 11 percent,
respectively, for flows of 80 and 400 MGD. For Group II samples, reduc-
tions range from 40 mg/1 for an O.S.I.S. flow of 80 MGD to 12 mg/1 for a
flow of 200 MGD, or 33 and 19 percent reductions, respectively.
The reductions in total solids would consist of only those reductions ob-
tained in total suspended solids because very little if any reductions
can be expected from the dissolved solids in the waste water passing
through the tanks.
Settleable solids effluent concentrations which can be expected during
Group I periods vary from 0.8 ml/1 for an O.S.I.S. flow of 80 MGD to
195 ml/1 for a flow of 400 MGD passing through the tanks, resulting in
reductions of 63 to 17 percent, respectively. For the Group II periods
the range in reductions is from 59 percent for a flow of 80 MGD to 26
percent for a flow of 200 MGD.
The reductions in B.O.D. concentrations to be expected for the Group I
periods are similar to those for the total suspended solids, varying
from 33 percent to 13 percent for flows of 80 MGD and 400 MGD, respec-
tively, and have effluent concentrations from 112 to 45 mg/1. However,
the reductions which can be expected for the Group II periods are within
a rather narrow range - 27 to 16 percent for flow of 80 and 200 MGD,
respectively. The effluent values are 77 and 40 mg/1 for the two flows.
The expected improvements in dissolved oxygen in percent saturations for
the Group A periods vary from 20 percent (55% - 35%) for an O.S.I.S. flow
of 80 MGD to 10 percent (707, - 60%) for a flow of 200 MGD, all of which
is passed through the tanks. These are improvements of approximately 55
and 15 percent, respectively, of influent values. For Group B samples,
the expected improvements vary from 20 percent (30% - 10%) for an O.S.I.S.
flow of 80 MGD to 15 percent (55% - 40%) for a flow of 200 MGD, or approxi-
mately 200 and 40 percent improvements, respectively. Ten samples in the
25 periods in Group B had effluent concentrations of less than 50 percent
saturation of dissolved oxygen, whereas only one sample in 25 periods for
Group A had an effluent concentration less than 50 percent saturation.
Greater reductions in concentrations of solids and B.O.D. for portions
of the O.S.I.S. flow at the tanks could be realized by reducing the
amount of the flow passing through the tanks. This can be accomplished
by keeping the regulator gates open to pass at least the dry weather rate
of flow (35 MGD) and/or opening the emergency gates. However, passing
35 MGD down the O.S.I.S. would result in more of the combined sewage from
the west side of Columbus being dumped directly into the river to avoid
-------
overloading the Jackson Pike Plant. By-passing the flow through the
emergency gates directly into the Scioto River would not be advisable
except during periods when the magnitude of flow in the river is
decidedly above normal to assure greater dilution of the waste water.
The traveling sludge scrapers and sludge removal pumps have enabled
the tanks to operate more effectively by constantly moving the sludge
to sumps and thence pumping it to the O.S.I.S. These operations have
alleviated to a great extent the odor problem associated with the tanks
before they were modified. Sludge accumulated to considerable depths
and then was hosed out after the tanks were emptied at the end of the
storm runoff. Most of the complaints about odor were received when the
tanks were being cleaned to ready them for the next storm. The contin-
uous movement of sludge to the O.S.I.S. has not overloaded the Jackson
Pike Plant and has eliminated dumping large quantities of sludge into
the O.S.I.S. in a short period of time.
The primary project objective of this study, namely, the determination
of the effectiveness of storm standby tanks to improve the quality of
waste water and thereby decrease the pollution problem of the Scioto
River was attained. Substantial reductions in concentrations of solids
and B.O.D. can be expected by operation of the modified standby tanks.
Similarly, operation of the tanks can be expected to provide considerable
improvement in the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen, particularly
at times when the rates of flow in the Scioto River are low.
Based upon the analyses of data collected for the study, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
1. During periods when the storm standby tanks are in operation a
substantial amount of total suspended solids and settleable solids,
particularly in the Group I periods, is contained in the storm water
portion of the total O.S.I.S. flow.
2. The storm standby tank facilities reduce significantly the solids
and B.O.D. in the waste water in storm runoff periods. The extent of
reduction is dependent to a large extent on the magnitude of flow in the
O.S.I.S. Furthermore, greater reduction in solids and B.O.D. can be
expected when influent concentrations and temperatures are higher.
3. The improvement of dissolved oxygen resulting from passage of the
waste water through the tanks is very substantial during the periods
when the influent values are low.
4. Somewhat further improvement in effluent quality would be attained
if the regulator gates could be opened sufficiently to pass twice the
dry weather flow (70 MGD); the length of operation time would be
shortened also.
5. Construction of two additional tanks as contemplated at the time of
design of the original facilities (about 1930) would further improve the
-------
quality of effluent discharging into the Scioto River by increasing deten-
tion times, and/or by decreasing the number of times and the volume of
waste water passed through the emergency gates directly into the Scioto
River during high intensity storms. This improvement in quality of
effluent during such storms would usually be at a time when the flow in
the river would be much greater than its dry weather flow and its quality
significantly better than its quality during dry weather conditions.
Therefore, the construction of additional storm standby tanks, probably
could not be economically justified.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
With the Jackson Pike Waste Treatment Plant limited in the volume of
flow which it can handle, from the Olentangy-Scioto Intercepting Sewer
upstream of the Whittier Street Storm Standby Tanks, all flow in excess
of the limited volume (often 10 MGD) will have to be passed through the
tanks, except in rare instances when it will be necessary to open the
emergency gates to avoid overflow of the tanks. Since some reduction
in concentrations of solids and B.O.D., and in improvement of dissolved
oxygen is obtained even at higher rates of flow, it is recommended that
all flow up to the point where overflow of the tanks would occur, be
passed through the tanks.
The construction of two additional tanks considered in the original
design is not recommended because of the limited benefits which would
be derived therefrom.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Project
The City of Columbus is burdened with a problem which is common to a great
number of growing metropolitan areas in the United States situated along
rivers having watersheds of significant size. In its early days of
development, waste and storm waters of Columbus were carried directly
to the Olentangy and Scioto Rivers in combined sewers. Pollution of
streams was not the serious and growing problem that it is today.
Except during low flow periods in the Scioto River, natural recovery
from pollution of the stream due to discharges from combined sewers
has been attained to date within a reasonable distance downstream of
the last outlet of the sewer systems.
When the first sewage treatment plant (Jackson Pike Waste Treatment
Plant) to serve Columbus was completed in 1908, the construction of
separate sanitary and storm sewers had already become a policy; however,
it was necessary to carry the flow of most of the combined sewers to
the treatment plant for economic reasons. Construction of separate
sewer systems for all the area being served by combined sewers is now
far more costly than it would have been at that time.
About 50 years ago, officials of the City of Columbus began to recog-
nize that the treatment plant capacity was not adequate to handle the
peak loads which occurred during periods of storm runoff and that the
problem would become more serious with the continued growth of the
city. Since no action had been taken by 1927, the Ohio Department of
Health ordered the city "to install such works or means as may be neces-
sary to correct and prevent pollution of the Scioto River and Alum
Creek." The Olentangy River joins the Scioto River immediately upstream
of the business district of the city. Alum Creek is a tributary of Big
Walnut Creek whose confluence with the Scioto River is a short distance
south of Franklin County.
The measures taken by the city to comply with the above order were
completed in 1932 and are described fully in the American Society of
Civil Engineer Transactions for 1934, Paper No. 1887, Page 1295.
Briefly, the facilities pertinent to studies presented in this report
which were constructed are:
1. Olentangy-Scioto Intercepting Sewer (referred to hereafter as
O.S.I.S.) to intercept sewage and large volumes of storm water from
combined sewers in the Intercepting Sewer District north of Whittier
Street.
2. South Side Intercepting Sewer to intercept sewage and large volumes
of storm water from combined sewers in the Intercepting Sewer District
-------
south of Whittier Street and carry it to the O.S.I.S. immediately above
the storm standby tanks at Whittier Street.
3. Regulator chambers to control the flow from combined sewers to the
O.S.I.S. and the South Side Intercepting Sewer.
4. Storm Standby Tanks at Whittier Street to give partial treatment by
sedimentation during storm periods to flows in the O.S.I.S., in excess
of controlled amounts passed to the sewage treatment plant.
The Storm Standby Tanks were designed to be adequate to meet estimated
1945 conditions and with provisions for extension to be adequate for
estimated 1960 conditions. The regulator stations were each designed
for capacities to handle estimated flows for 1960. The average daily
flow passing through the Jackson Pike Waste Treatment Plant in 1945 was
40 MGD or 11 MGD less than was estimated in Paper 1887. In 1960 the
average daily flow was 82 MGD or 2 MGD more than was originally estimated
for that year. Unfortunately, there were no instruments at the Whittier
Street Plant to record the time and depth of flow in the O.S.I.S. Conse-
quently, estimated flows at that location cannot be calculated. Based on
watershed areas and flows at the Jackson Pike Plant, the average daily
flow of the O.S.I.S. at Whittier Street was less than the design flow for
1945 and not much greater than the design flow for 1960.
No action has been taken to construct additional tanks as recommended in
the original study. Since the tanks had no provision for moving the
sludge in the tanks to sumps and returned to the O.S.I.S. downstream of
the storm standby tanks during the storm periods, the accumulation of
sludge in the tanks often became so great, particularly in the late winter
and spring months, that removal was a serious problem. The equipment
provided for the removal of the sludge consisted only of a standard piece
of fire-fighting equipment known as a "cellar pipe" mounted on a movable
carriage which ran on rails set in the wall copings. When deposits of
sludge became significant, the flushing of the sludge back into the
O.S.I.S. utilizing the equipment became a difficult and slow operation.
It was so ineffective that complaints of offensive odors received from
the south side area increased rapidly over the years and it became nec-
essary to modify the tanks to assure removal of the sludge more promptly.
This report describes and presents the results of a Federal Water Quality
Administration sponsored project to determine the effectiveness of the
modified Whittier Street Storm Standby Tanks.
Scope of Project
The character of the problem confronted (determining the effectiveness
of the present storm standby tanks) encompasses several separate but
related investigations in the collection and evaluation of data. Begin-
ning with the rainfall, which is the cause of the tanks going into
-------
operation, it is necessary to supplement the United States Weather
Bureau precipitation gages in the area to establish the amount of
rainfall required to cause storm runoff to overflow at regulator
stations and go directly into the river, and to place the storm standby
tanks into operation. Rainfall data are also useful, together with
other data, in computing the frequency with which the tanks are utilized
and thus determine whether additional tanks would be desirable. Informa-
tion is also needed on the amount of flow in the O.S.I.S. at Whittier
Street when the tanks are in operation, the amount of flow passing
through the tanks and thence into the Scioto River, and flow which is
being bypassed to the river at typical regulator stations. Such data
are pertinent to analysis of results of laboratory tests made of in-
fluent and effluent samples. Consequently, water level recorders are
needed for the O.S.I.S. at Whittier Street, for the storm standby tanks,
and typical regulator stations.
To achieve the prime objective of the study, of course, necessitates
the sampling and testing of influent and effluent at the storm standby
tanks under varying conditions. Therefore, it was necessary to install
the required piping and pumping equipment to carry the influent and
effluent to a common point where samples could be obtained conveniently
and stored properly for delivery to the laboratory. Actual sampling
operations were undertaken as soon as possible after the tanks went
into operation during various storm periods. Personnel of the Jackson
Pike Treatment Plant advised representatives of the contractor for this
study as soon as the control panel at the plant for the Whittier Street
Station showed that the inlet gates to the tanks had opened.
Project Objectives
The prime objective of the study is to determine the effectiveness of
the modified storm standby tanks in diminishing the pollution of the
Scioto River downstream of those facilities. If the study finds that
the tanks produce sufficient improvement in the quality of the waste
water, further studies might be justified to ascertain the economic
feasibility of the construction of an additional tank or tanks as con-
templated in the original plans for the storm standby tanks. Findings
of the study may be helpful to other cities seeking a solution to the
same problem of having to process or bypass waste water from combined
sewers during periods of storm runoff.
-------
LEGEND
COMBINED SEWER AREA
OSIS WATERSHED UPSTREAM
OF WHITTIER STREET PLANT
000 200O 0 40OO
I I
SCALE IN FEET
WATERSHED UPSTREAM OF
JACKSON PIKE WASTE WATER
TREATMENT PLANT
COMBINED SEWER
SAi'llTAPY SEV/ER
RAIN GAGE STATION
SOUTHERLY WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
FIGURE
WATERSHED MAP
-------
SECTION IV
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
Olentangy-Scioto Intercepting Sewer
The Olentangy-Scioto Intercepting Sewer (O.S.I.S.) extends from the
Jackson Pike Waste Treatment Plant to Orchard Lane about nine miles
north of Whittier Street Storm Standby Tanks. As shown on Figure 1,
the O.S.I.S. above Whittier Street serves combined sewer areas east of
the Olentangy and Scioto Rivers, and sanitary sewers in an extensive
area west of the Olentangy River and north of Fifth Avenue and in a
smaller area east of the Scioto River south of Whittier Street. Also,
it will be noted in Figure 1 that the Main Intercepting Sewer is con-
nected to the O.S.I.S. at its upper extremity (Orchard Lane) to permit
any overload of the Main Intercepting Sewer to overflow into the
O.S.I.S. The South Side Intercepting Sewer joins the O.S.I.S. just
upstream of the Whittier Street Tanks. This sewer picks up the sanitary
flow from one area served by separate sewers and from two areas served
by combined sewers. Between the Jackson Pike Plant and the Whittier
Street Tanks, the O.S.I.S. receives combined sewage from the west section
of Columbus during storm periods. Although the sanitary and storm sewers
are distinctly separate in most of the area, the two systems are inter-
connected at two locations as they approach the O.S.I.S. One inter-
connection is immediately west of Interstate Route 71 and about 5,000
feet south of Whittier Street and the other is at a gate chamber along
the O.S.I.S. and west of the other interconnection. The design capacity
of the O.S.I.S. at the tanks is 487 MGD. When the storm standby tanks
were designed, it was assumed that twice the dry weather flow at Whittier
Street (or 84 MGD by 1960) would be carried in the O.S.I.S., leaving
403 MGD to be passed through the tanks. Under this situation, the deten-
tion period for storm water would be about 15 minutes.
During the periods of sampling for this study, the average rate of flow
for any 8-hour period in the O.S.I.S. at the tanks reached a maximum rate
of 395 MGD, of which only 10 MGD was continuing in the O.S.I.S. down-
stream of the tanks. The flows from other trunk sewers entering the
O.S.I.S. downstream of the tanks limit the flows which can be carried
past the tanks. During average intensity storms much less than the
design flow (84 MGD) can be carried past the tanks. The extent to which
the regulator gates of the O.S.I.S. are open at Whittier Street Station,
is controlled by operators at the Jackson Pike Plant who must consider
the flow picked up by the O.S.I.S. between Whittier Street and the Plant.
Many times during the sampling periods for this study both regulator gates
were essentially closed, with only 10 MGD being carried on to the Jackson
Pike Plant. At those times all remaining flows in the O.S.I.S. above
Whittier Street were being passed through the tanks and emergency gates
as described hereafter.
Storm Standby Tanks
The Storm Standby Tanks at Whittier Street (see Figure 2) were designed
to provide partial treatment by sedimentation to storm sewage flows in
13
-------
excess of flows passed on to the Jackson Pike Plant. The primary function;
of the tanks was to remove as much heavy suspended solids and floating
materials as possible from the waste water passing through the tanks
prior to discharge of the effluent into the Scioto River.
The original design of the three tanks provided for six times the average
dry weather flow estimated for 1945, or 204 MGD, to pass through the
tanks. A detention period for this rate of flow would be 30 minutes.
Two times the average dry weather flow, or 68 MGD, would be carried past
the tanks in the O.S.I.S. to the Jackson Pike Plant. For estimated 1960
conditions, twice the average dry weather flow, or 84 MGD, would be dis-
charged through the O.S.I.S. to the Jackson Pike Plant and 252 MGD would
pass through the tanks with a detention period of about 24 minutes. With
the modified tanks the detention periods for the estimated 1945 and 1960
conditions are 27 and 22 minutes, respectively.
Modification of the original construction was made in the latter part of
1966 and in 1967. Modifications made were all pertinent to the prompt
removal of sludge from the tanks. Whereas the original construction pro-
vided a number of lateral drains running from each side to a single longi-
tudinal drain extending from the far end of the tank to the drain gate at
the O.S.I.S., the modified tanks have valleys, or troughs, running paral-
lel to, and about one-fourth the width of the tank, from each side thereof.
The valleys, in turn, slope from the endwalls of the tank to sumps located
63 feet (or about one-third the length of the tank) from the influent end.
A traveling scraper in each tank moves the sludge slowly from one end to
the sumps and then from the other end to the sumps. Each sump is of re-
verse pyramidal shape, with each side being 8 feet at the floor of the
tank and 2 feet at a depth of about 4 feet below the bottom of the tank.
The sludge collected in the sumps is then pumped to a collector pipe which
carries it to a manhole over the Alum Creek Intercepting Sewer, east of
the Control House, where it is carried to the O.S.I.S. downstream of the
regulator gates.
The original construction provided for flushing the sludge out of the
tanks after they have been emptied of all liquid and the inlet gates
closed. The sludge left the tank by way of the lateral and longitudinal
drains, and the drain gates to the O.S.I.S. upstream of the Control House.-
As stated early in this report, the equipment used for flushing the tanks,
as originally built, consisted merely of using a "cellar pipe" and fire
hose mounted on a movable carriage on the side walls of the tanks. In
contrast, each modified tank has four 6-inch spray headers running the
length of the tanks, one on each side wall and two, four feet apart,
along the centerline of the tank.
Some of the major items indicating operating conditions at the Whittier
Street Storm Standby Tanks are recorded at the Jackson Pike Treatment
Plant, namely, the water levels in the O.S.I.S. immediately above and
below the regulator gates, and in the outlet channel to the river imme-
diately below the storm overflow tanks, and the depth of flow over the
tank weir. Other phases of the operation are shown at the Jackson Pike
Plant by indicators, or indicating lights. Indicators show the extent
to which the regulator gates are opened. Lights show whether other gates
are open or closed (emergency gates, storm overflow gates and shut-off
gates) and whether each of the tanks is, or is not, operating.
14
-------
8-,
CO
UJ
o
2
CD
I
O
z
cr
o
en
_
CL
UJ
CJ
LU
cc
Z)
o
15
-------
SM
1
?F=E
£l
|i
2'
/c^yxx/^'^j
a g
3)Bg )3|}no A3U33J8UJ3
Q | |S8tBO»aunoX
LJ,-^^
,. saieo joje|n3aa
saiegHO-jnqs g
•W'VDDDDfr
UJ
V)
o
X
o
or
o
o
2
O
CO
UJ
£E
ID
I-
O
ID
cr
i-
co
CD
CO
X
o
^
o
cc
X
o
LJ
CO
pv/
ro
LU
cr
r>
o
16
-------
o
1*8
Isgj
en V
Tank No. 1
r?
or
o
o
CC
o
o
i
o
D
O
DC
I
UJ
en
LJ
CE
D
O
•17
-------
O
UJ
O
O
U.
O
I-
o
UJ
o
z
<
•z,
IO
UJ
o:
o
LL
-------
There are two regulator gates, each 42 inches by 72 inches, in the
O.S.I.S. at the Control House for the Whittier Street Storm Standby
Tanks which control the volume of flow to the Jackson Pike Plant.
These gates are now operated normally from the treatment plant, although
they can be operated at the Whittier Street Station. Prior to modifica-
tion of the tanks they operated automatically, opening and closing with
the change in water level in the O.S.I.S. below the gates. These gates
were operated manually at the Whittier Street Plant several times during
sampling operations but were never fully opened. Another control
utilized during the study was the operation of the three emergency
gates, each 48 inches by 84 inches. Normally, these gates are opened
only when the river stage is so high that it would cause the tanks to
be inundated; and the shut-off gates, storm-overflow gates, and the
inlet drain gates of the tanks are closed. The emergency gates were
opened for limited periods for purposes of this study to regulate depth
of flow over the tank weirs and thus control the detention period.
Operation of the Storm Standby Tanks begins when the O.S.I.S. stage
reaches Elevation 707.0 feet above mean sea level (m.s.l.), or about
0.4 foot above the elevation of the tank overflow weirs, and will
continue in an open position until the O.S.I.S. stage drops to Eleva-
tion 702.0 feet (m.s.l.). The invert elevation of the inlet gates is
698.85 feet (m.s.l.) and the top elevation is 702.85 feet (m.s.l.).
The invert and inside top elevations of the O.S.I.S. at the tanks are
691.35 and 708.35 feet (m.s.l.), respectively. About a 0.2 inch rain-
fall over the combined sewer area must occur to place the storm standby
tanks into operation.
The general features of the storm standby tank facilities are shown in
Figures 3, 4 and 5. Any details desired can be obtained from the
previously referenced study for the original tanks.
Regulator Stations
There are 16 regulator stations (also referred to as regulator chambers)
on the O.S.I.S. between Hudson Street and Whittier Street. Dry weather
flow from the combined sewers passes through these regulator stations
to the O.S.I.S. For storm periods, the operation of sluice gates in the
station can be used to limit the volume of flow which will be passed to
the O.S.I.S., with the excess accumulating and rising in the station
until it overflows the weirs and then is carried to the river. The
sluice gates at all stations are set to pass a predetermined maximum
flow into the O.S.I.S. to eliminate manual operation during storm
periods, which would be hazardous. Sometimes the regulator stations
have been filled to the ceiling of the chamber. Figure 6 represents a
more or less typical regulator station, except for the superstructure
which was added by Ohio State University and is used by the Water Re-
source Department of the school.
19
-------
Regulator stations were designed to limit the average number of storm
overflows to the river to not more than 4 per year for stations in the
central part of the city, and not more than 8 per year for stations
north and south of the central business section. The original design
study indicates that 4 overflows per year would result from rainfalls
of 0.9 inch in 1/2 hour, 0.4 inch in 1 hour, and 0.6 inch in 2 hours;
and that rainfalls of 0.7 inch in 1/2 hour, 0.3 inch in 1 hour, and 0.4
inch in 2 hours would produce 8 overflows per year. Technical Paper
No. 40 (Frequency Atlas of the United States), prepared by the U. S.
Weather Bureau, shows the 1 year frequency for rainfall in the Columbus
area to be 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 inches, respectively, for durations of 1/2,
1 and 2 hours. In the period July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969 overflows to
the river occurred 16 times at the Indianola Regulator Station located on
the University Campus and 14 times at the Spruce Street Station on the
fringe of the commercial district of Columbus. Six overflows at the In-
dianola Station and 4 at the Spruce Street Station occurred within 24
hours of another overflow and were in the same overall storms. On that
basis, the number of overflows for the above year period would be ten for
each station. An annual rainfall almost three inches above normal
occurred at the downtown Weather Bureau Station during this period and
probably was responsible in part for the excessive number of overflows.
However, the principal cause is the reduction in sluice gate opening
which controls the amount of flow into the O.S.I.S. For the period of
this study for which gage records were kept, the least rainfall recorded
to place the regulator stations in operation was 0.4 inch for the Indian-
ola Station in a two-hour period and 0.5 inch for the Spruce Street
Station, also in a two-hour period.
More detailed descriptions of the existing facilities outlined above can
be found in the American Society of Civil Engineer's transactions pre-
viously mentioned.
20
-------
________ , f^T —
K'-0"x 8-0"
SECTION
_ ^INVERT MAIN STORM OVERFLOW CHANNEL
SECTION l-l
INDIANOLA
REGULATOR CHAMBER
CITY DATUM: 0 = 680.35 (M.S.L.)
PLAN AND SECTIONS OF REGULATOR STATION
21
-------
g
i-
£
CO
CO
loJ
O
2
CL
5
<
UJ
is:
CO
LJ
o:
22
-------
SECTION V
INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT FOR PROJECT
General
Some of the instruments needed for the study were available and were
used. Other existing instruments were considered but rejected because
it was believed that the results from them were not sufficiently accurate.
Recording Rainfall Gages
When the study was initiated only two official recording rainfall
gages were in operation in, or close to, the watershed, namely, the
U.S. Weather Bureau Station at the Federal Building in downtown Columbus
and a gage on the grounds of the Ohio State University Farm on the west
bank of the Olentangy River opposite the main campus. Another recording
gage was located on the University Campus at the Water Resources Building
but was not operative at the time. These three gages do not give satis-
factory coverage of the watershed for the combined sewer areas. Although
flows from sanitary sewers outside the combined sewer area enter the
O.S.I.S. (and probably carry some storm water from illegal connections),
it was not considered necessary to have enough gages to cover the entire
watershed above the Whittier Street Storm Standby Tanks. Four recording
rainfall gages were installed at Fire Stations (see Figure 1), which
together with the three existing gages were considered adequate to
provide a reasonable basis for determining the intensity and volume of
rainfall over the watershed of the O.S.I.S. The weighted rainfall over
the O.S.I.S. watershed for each storm during which sampling operations
were under way was determined by the Thiessen Method.
The four additional gages obtained for this study were Stevens Precipi-
tation Recorders, Type Q6, having a capacity of 12 inches with an 8-day
spring-driven clock. The four gages, plus the Water Resource gage, were
maintained on a weekly basis by the contractor from May 1968 through
October 1969. Arrangements were made with the National Weather Records
Center at Ashville, North Carolina, to receive on a monthly basis copies
of weekly charts or hourly tabulations of rainfall for the U.S. Weather
Bureau gage and the University Farm gage.
Water Level Recorders
Facilities were installed in the modification of the storm standby tanks
to record the water level in the O.S.I.S. upstream and downstream of the
regulator gates, and in the river chamber of the control house, by means
of pressure devices. Similar facilities were installed to record the
water level in the storm standby tanks. Although these recorders are
sufficiently accurate to provide the operators at the Jackson Pike Treat-
ment Plant sufficient information to determine the necessary operation of
23
-------
various gates at the Whittier Street Station, it was believed that the
usual float type recorders were needed to provide more accurate records.
Two water level recorders were installed in the O.S.I.S. upstream of
Tank No. 3, requiring the drilling of holes through the roof of the sewer.
One was about 90 feet upstream of the tanks and the other about 200 feet
farther upstream. Stevens Type F recorders were mounted on steel plates
welded around the top of 6-inch steel pipe used for a float well extend-
ing from 5 feet above to 4 feet below the top of the O.S.I.S. This
permitted recording water levels in the O.S.I.S. as low as Elevation
706.2, or 0.8 foot below the level when the tanks go into operation
However, the gage records did not prove to be useful because the differ-
ence in water levels at the two gages was insignificant. Total flows in
the O.S.I.S. were established by the summation of the flows going past
the regulator gate, or gates, over the weirs of the tanks and when used,
past one or more emergency gates.
The same type water level recorders were provided for each of the storm
standby tanks (see Figure 2). They were placed on steel stands supported
by the baffle wall located about 3 feet from the overflow weirs at the
end of the tanks. Six-inch steel pipe used for float wells extended to
Elevation 706.5 or about 0.1 foot below the top of the overflow weirs.
Only two regulator stations were suitable for installation of water level
recorders because all others were located in streets or sidewalks where
above-ground installations were impracticable. Installations using the
same type recorders were made at the Indianola Regulator Station on the
Ohio State University Campus and at the Spruce Street Station located
within a small open area created by the construction of the north leg of
the Innerbelt. The installations were similar to the installations for
the O.S.I.S. at the Whittier Street Plant.
All of the gages at the Whittier Street Station have gage scales of 1:5
(smallest divisions 0.05 foot and 2 hours), having a water level range
of 5 feet. The gages at the regulator stations have gage scales of 1:10
(smallest divisions of 0.10 foot and 2 hours), having a water level range
of 10 feet. All gages had 8-day spring-driven clocks, and were maintained
on a weekly basis throughout the study period.
Sampling Facilities
A sketch of the locations of facilities for sampling the flow in the
O.S.I.S. and the flow from the storm standby tanks is presented in
Figure 7. The most practical and economical location for obtaining
samples of influent to the tanks is from a room in the Control House
adjacent to the O.S.I.S. The room is reached from the Tool Room and
has a floor elevation of 710.18 feet (m.s.l.). The centerline of the
2-inch pipe into the O.S.I.S. was installed at Elevation 701.85, which
is 3.0 feet above the invert of intake gates to the tanks but 5.15 feet
below the elevation at which the intake gates open and the tanks go into
24
-------
operation. The elevation of the intake pipe is about one foot above
the invert of the Emergency Gates and about 11 feet above the invert of
the Regulator Gates and the O.S.I.S.
The intake for the effluent sampling was located about 5 feet east of
the Control House on the north side of the overflow conduit, and about
185 feet downstream of the southernmost end of the storm standby tanks.
Construction of a manhole was necessary for housing a pump and motor.
The invert elevation of the storm overflow conduit at the intake is
about 696.5- feet (m.s.l.) with the centerline of the intake pipe at
Elevation 696.6± (m.s.1.).
Non-clog pumps were installed for each intake, a horizontal for the
influent line and a vertical for the effluent. Two-inch steel pipes
were installed from the pumps to two 50-gallon tanks placed in the
Tool Room. Controls for operating the pumps were installed near the
tanks. Drains for the tank were connected to a floor drain leading
to the O.S.I.S.
A refrigerator was placed in the Tool Room to store the composite
samples until delivery to the testing laboratory.
25
-------
SECTION VI
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
General
Prior to initiation of the project, the type of samples to be obtained,
the data to be recorded, and the tests to be made at the site; and the
laboratory tests to be made, were established by representatives of
Federal Water Quality Administration and the Department of Public
Service of the City of Columbus. Also established was the time interval
between sampling and the period over which a composite sample would be
collected. The manner in which the sampling was accomplished and data
recorded at the site is outlined below.
Samples for laboratory analysis were composited over an 8-hour period.
For the first period samples were obtained every 30 minutes, for the
second and third periods, every hour, and for all periods thereafter in
any storm, every two hours. This schedule was followed until Storm 18
when the time interval for the fourth and succeeding periods was reduced
to one hour, and again for all storms after Storm 21 when the time
interval for all periods was one hour. Samples were obtained for two
laboratories for Storms 18 through 21 and Storm 25; and for three lab-
oratories for Storms 22, 23, and 24.
Prior to taking samples, the pumps for the influent and effluent lines
were started and allowed to discharge waste water into and out of the
barrels for at least five minutes. A long wood stopper was then placed
in the drain of the tank and the tank allowed to fill to about the
three-quarter point. A bucket sample was then taken from the top third
of the waste water. When the tank is filling the waste water is con-
stantly moving rather rapidly due to the quantity of flow being dumped
at a high velocity. Immediately upon removing the bucket, a thermometer
was placed in the sample and a 4-ounce bottle for dissolved oxygen tests
filled (except for allowance for fixing solutions) by submerging all
except a portion of its mouth, being careful to avoid air entrainment.
Between three-fourths and one inch of fixing solution was then injected
into the bottle and a glass stopper placed in its throat. After marking
the sample number on the bottle, the temperature was then recorded. The
pH recorder was then checked (the buffer solution replaced if necessary),
the probe placed in the waste water, the pH read and recorded. The sample
remaining in the bucket was then gently stirred and a half pint sample
for 30-minute sampling periods, one pint for one-hour and one quart for
2-hour sampling periods poured into a gallon jug and placed in the re-
frigerator immediately. This procedure was followed for both the influent
and effluent samples.
Between sampling operations, the water level recorders on the O.S.I.S.
and the tanks were checked to determine if they were operating properly.
Likewise, operation of the sludge scraper for each tank was observed and
the status recorded as "operating" or "stopped," recording the time when
27
-------
not operating. The opening of each regulator gate as indicated on the
dial on the gate stand was checked at one-half hour intervals and any
changed recorded.
In order to obtain more data on the effectiveness of the storm standby
tanks when detention periods were longer, the emergency gates were
operated a number of times for short periods to decrease the volume
passing through the tanks. This, of course, is an operation which should
be done only when the flow is of such great magnitude that it could not
pass through the tanks without overtopping its walls. Under present
conditions at the Jackson Pike Plant, it is considered better to bypass
excess flows through the Whittier Street tanks to the river than to
open the regulator gates and overload the plant.
28
-------
SECTION VII
LABORATORY TESTING
Tests Needed for Evaluation Program
As stated in the previous section of this report, the laboratory tests
needed to evaluate the operation of the tanks were established by the
Federal Water Quality Administration, together with representatives of
the City of Columbus. The following tests were made (or computed) for
each composite sample obtained: total solids, total volatile solids,
total fixed solids, total suspended solids, total suspended volatile
solids, total suspended fixed solids, settleable solids, ether solubles,
biochemical oxygen demand (5 days at 20° C.), and coli (MPN).
Tests for the dissolved oxygen content of each sample taken at the
specified intervals in the eight-hour period were also made. The
results of the eight individual tests on samples were then averaged to
give the average dissolved oxygen for the eight-hour period. For each
dissolved oxygen sample the laboratory computed the dissolved oxygen to
saturation and the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen.
No changes in the kinds of laboratory tests to be made were considered
until Storm 14 (January 17-19, 1969) when the coli (MPN) test was dis-
continued. All influent and effluent samples had strong concentrations
of coli (MPN), indicating that passing the waste water through the
tanks had little, if any, effect on reducing the concentrations.
Laboratory Facilities Utilized
The magnitude of the laboratory work envisioned at the beginning of the
program, and that which actually was performed, was anticipated by both
the City and State Officials. These agencies believed that they could not
make all the required laboratory tests without neglecting their regular
routine work, because they did not have sufficient qualified help to
take on the extra work load. Consequently, it was necessary to resort
to having the laboratory testing done by a commercial organization,
preferably one in the metropolitan Columbus area so samples might be
taken to the laboratory as soon as practicable after they were obtained.
The Columbus Water and Chemical Testing Laboratory, in Columbus, was
selected as one which would be able to do the type of work required,
inasmuch as it had, and was performing similar work for communities in
central Ohio. The firm has been approved by the Department of Health,
State of Ohio, for doing this type of work. Testing is done according
to Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Waste Water.
29
-------
Storms Selected for Analysis
Sampling was done during 24 different storms, however, some were for very
short periods of tank operation—less than four hours. Since sampling
operations began shortly after the construction modifications had been
completed, a number of occasions were experienced when the modified tank
facilities were not operating properly necessitating adjustments in the
mechanical and electrical equipment. The sludge scrapers were out of
order a considerable portion of the time and at other times intake gates
to some of the tanks would not open. Therefore, it was considered ad-
visable to limit the evaluation of the laboratory data to Storms 9
through 24 (actually Storm 24 was sampled as two storms, because sampling
was stopped with completion of period 24-5 due to falling depth over
tank weirs and to the fact that no rain had occurred for 12 hours;
however, it started to rain again 6 hours later and sampling was resumed
2 hours afterwards and the period designated 25-1 then, is now designated
24-7).
Duplicate samples were obtained for five storms (18, 19, 20, 21, and 25)
with tests for the extra sample being performed by the State Health De-
partment .
Triplicate samples were taken for three storms (22, 23, and 24) with the
third sample being tested by the City of Columbus, Jackson Pike Waste
Treatment Laboratory. The results of all laboratory testing are presented
in Appendix A.
30
-------
SECTION VIII
ANALYSIS OF LABORATORY TESTS
General
Prior to analysis and evaluation of the results of the laboratory tests
for this study, the characteristics of the normal dry weather flow of
the O.S.I.S. were established to provide a guide to the reasonableness
of influent concentrations of the O.S.I.S. waste water samples during
storm periods. Based on the 1969 record, the normal dry weather flow
(71 MGD) at the Jackson Pike Waste Treatment Plant had the following
ranges of concentrations:
Total solids 800 - 950 mg/1
Total suspended solids 200 - 350 mg/1
Settleable solids (estimated) 2.0 - 3.5 ml/1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (hereafter
noted as B.O.D.) 150 - 300 mg/1
The range of concentrations for settleable solids is based on the re-
lationship of Total Suspended Solids to Settleable Solids as determined
by laboratory tests (see page 41).
The concentrations at the Whittier Street Storm Standby Tanks for the
dry weather flow (35 MGD) are considered to be the same as at the Jackson
Pike Plant. The developments within the watershed above Jackson Pike
Plant as a whole and that of the O.S.I.S. above Whittier Street are
essentially the same, indicating concentrations for dry weather flow
should be of reasonably like magnitude. Under the prevailing City
policy, all industrial plants are required to treat industrial wastes
before discharging them into the public sewer system. The results of
laboratory tests of the O.S.I.S. waste water before it enters the tank
reflect the dilution from storm runoff both from the standpoint of in-
tensity and volume of precipitation. It can be expected that at the
start of the storm period, the storm water portion of the O.S.I.S. flow
will have a fairly large concentration of solids due to the flushing
action resulting from surface runoff in built-up areas to storm sewer
inlets. In the middle of a storm, less solids are likely to be in the
storm water, and several hours after rainfall has stopped, solids of
storm water usually have decreased very much and the continuing storm
water portion of the total O.S.I.S. flow is probably infiltration from
foundation drains and trunk sewers. However, the concentrations of
O.S.I.S. flow as a whole will be substantially less than that for the
normal dry weather flow. As storm runoff subsides, flows at Whittier
Street decrease considerably and concentrations increase until the flow
has dropped to about 100 MGD when concentrations tend to approach dry
31
-------
weather flow conditions, except for total suspended solids which remain,
in most cases, at a level of about 100 mg/1 less than the values for the
normal flow.
Preliminary Analysis of Laboratory Tests
Table 1 Page 33 presents pertinent data for all storms having 3 or more
8-hour periods, together with the results of laboratory tests for total
solids, total suspended solids, settleable solids, B.O.D., and dissolved
oxygen. Figures 8 to 21 inclusive show the same data graphically.
Certain general relationships can be noted between the flow in the O.S.I.S.
and the influent concentrations for total solids, total suspended solids,
settleable solids and B.O.D. After the peak flow of a storm or after
secondary peak flows, total solids generally tend to become more concen-
trated but are still less concentrated than the total solids in dry
weather flow periods. When the flow in a period succeeding the peak flow
drops decidedly, the total suspended solids and settleable solids con-
centrations are much less. After this sharp drop, concentrations increase
generally with a decrease in O.S.I.S. flow but do not in most instances
reach the concentration recorded at the peak flow periods. The concentra-
tion pattern for the B.O.D. influent samples also show generally an
increase with a decrease in O.S.I.S. flow. With respect to the effluent
concentrations for the various tests, the pattern or trends are not so
obvious because another factor, "detention time," is involved.
Some of the concentrations shown for tests are not compatible with the
results of other tests from the same composite sample or with results of
the tests for its opposing sample (influent or effluent). These differ-
ences stand out very clearly in the charts referred to subsequently in
the discussions of the detailed analyses of the tests. The specific
reason for each case in which a laboratory test result is out of line
cannot be established with absolute authority. An error in making or
recording the results of the test, or in the sampling operation by placing
some samples in the wrong jug, or by not getting a truly representative
sample from the bucket appear to be the only plausible reasons for the
non-conformance of those results to the expected results. Such cases are
relatively few. They will be discussed later in the pertinent detailed
analyses.
Scope of Detailed Analyses
Based on the preliminary analysis it appeared advisable to divide the
test results into two groups because of the wide range in values. One
group (designated Group I) consists of 8-hour periods during which, or
immediately prior thereto, substantial rainfall occurred and the storm
water portion of the O.S.I.S. flow is primarily surface runoff. Flows in
these periods are usually of considerable magnitude. Retarded storm run-
off (temporary storage in sewers), infiltration and illegal connections
32
-------
w
1
£
1
H
W
W
as
w
M
H
H
1
8
w
a
ui
u
CO
OS
s
12
IND LABORATORY RI
$
A
H
Z
g
S
w
• w
O nj
. en
a
**
m
g d
4J O
(0
H CQ
4J
c
0>
I w
4J •
c c/J
01
r-J .
LM H
U-l
«
R
C •
O C
•H i-l
4J S
C N~'
4j U
41 S
Q -r4
H
• 4->
°.£
**
01
3 Jo
JJ ->-J .
§>'
>i
U *-l •
B ^ W
U S tn
| „•
£ ".
5^
w
t:
la
a
5 S
8*
r-l
[U
W
• 4)
-:3
u
<
r-l
r-« T>
rt o
H-J C -^
•^ V
S °-
r4 »
5£
M
CU 00
TJ
O
M
0)
PLT
•o
C
nj a\
•>£>
4> O
4J —-I
(3
s
)J
o •
AJ O
« 55
r-< i-t m in
r^- r- m in
O m o O
O O r^ u
CN i-t o M
H
\O vD CM O
CM CO QO \D
CM
^- -* VD in
OO CM CM <&
(M
^0 \o *d- ro
§000
m CM CM
in r-t o O
CM CTi ,-( O
CM i-J .-1
>3- O -^ ^
t-j en ^- r-
in u^ vo vo
""
o
CJv
o m i i
•d- O O O
o o
00
^j-
i i i i
-J -J- -* >t
Oi^^csimO^OCMco room o\£>(N^otN CM c-4coin ^vCinO--( o ^D in •— •
(U ^
t- c
\omoor— ^O\DO"I^- cncMCsi c^d~ ^D -^ 1/1 oow
O^n-J^O^OOO .-IOO .-I ,-< O O O ^-iOr-(O r-i ^i o O'-'r-Cr-JO ^-i O O O -HO
rH
a i
e •
cO O
w
r_( CM r-l i-t r-l r-l fM i-ICM CM^-i ^-1 r-l i-H t-4 r-< C •-
(0 Tj
c
P-, C «
tfl -r-l B
m-Jim-.
(0 jj j-i >;
•rJ CO CO O
.C U 4J
C i— i C i— I O
•rJ M r-t -H
« s
60 * U-j a)
C * C JH
,-i --40
f-i dQ
a >, ai -r-i
•^inin m^om coin^o^om coino-^t CM ^t »-* ininin • i
3 C •
O 4-J O Q
z no.
c/i « O
OOOOOOOOO OOO -st- -d" ON m m ^DOr-r-- m ON a-, Oi-tr-ajo mm'-iCN •
ooO^DCMCM^OvOO oOaocM Or^incoco m^fOiO ininO\ r^mr-^m oic-Jr-Jm WT3CQ
4_1 0) .-
to w
o X *o
intnc7\ocr>'^inf*1ir-» co •— i CM OOino>o coninco r-- vo i— < Oinvcoovc \ocNno"i *u^r-i
... .... ... . . . . e to o
o
-X t-i (U
CX rH
.Q
« "O tO
inOmi^-cTNooaNr^o min^D roo^or-co fOi-ir-4OrH-j- o-j-o-j- coSrH
(MOr><-l'-< ,-lr-l rHfO e*> f-* r-l i-l .-1 r-l (Nl— (CM CMr-l^-lTrOiJ
•-< 3 4J
l-i 01
C^ 3 W
o
OOc-JO-J-CMO-d-vO oooo m a\cM ncMoo'-' j^rHi
cncMoor^oocnr^c^cM O'-'CM J-P^CMO^CO -d^omo ONCMCM m-^-ONOo I-I^O^J-OQ bo1*-' .
\o^oincM-i-inin\or^ -j- \£> •*& r~- cnm^o co-J-in^^ inun^oaD 3(-it/]
0 QJ .
r- > CO
jn o
4J
0 CN COCOON CT>vt
(r>op^i-CMOOT-< iiii co i i i F--II cAiiitiiiii C U-J i— i
. . . . r-t CO (0
O OOOOO 4-i
QJ 13 O
co a) E-I
* * i g 1 '.
-K -)c •)< * * * * atjjt/i
j=; « .
4J E-l
0 &0
c
CO H ..
CT> CO i— I tfi
aootr>a\ooOr- ir-i t<3 oococr-ONCT. oncnm o-Jrof ua-c
cMCMCMCNnnrocnco OOCJNCTN ^-i^-<_jr-(r-i co^o^iT' i— < i— i r-i r\ir\)tNtNf\irMrs)f\fojr>j i — (So
(0
•r-l
>
O CO CD
r-iCMrorx.coc^ r-itNco r-i CM m >* tn T-(CNro<* r-iCMcn i-JCNmi-i cu ^
1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 AJ -0
-------
(foundation drains) to the sewer system are the principal components
of Group II storm period flows, which are in most instances of lesser
magnitude than Group I flows. However, these Group II periods having
the higher rates of flow could fall within or close to the Group I
parameters. Storm period 23-2 for example, could be in either group
but it fits Group I parameters better.
When tests were made by more than one laboratory the average concen-
tration for the test was normally accepted. Exceptions have been made
where the results were not agreeing very closely. Only two of the
three test results were averaged when one was clearly out of line, and
only one of two when the other test result did not fall within the
range to be expected. For Storms 9 through 17 when only one laboratory
was testing, a number of results were outside the range to be expected
or not compatible with other tests of the same sample. All of these
exceptions are discussed later under one or more of the tests.
Detailed analyses of all laboratory test results for Storms 9 through
24 were made with the view of establishing parameters and means of
concentration as related to the magnitude of the O.S.I.S. flow with
consideration of the effect of detention time on effluent concentra-
tions. Analyses were made of total solids, total dissolved solids,
total suspended solids, settleable solids, B.O.D., and dissolved oxygen.
For each group, influent concentrations of all composite samples are
plotted against the total 8-hour average flow of the O.S.I.S. for the
period when the sample was taken. The period of the day when the com-
posite sample was taken and the average temperature of individual
samples comprising the composite sample are distinguished by symbols.
In order to present comparable information for effluent concentrations,
the quantity of flow by-passing the tanks by continuing in the O.S.I.S.
and the quantity of flow passing through the emergency gates must be
considered because both factors affect the length of the detention
period.
Since the length of the detention time has much to do with the removal
of concentrations of solids and B.O.D. of the influent, removal (in
percent) versus detention time (in minutes) curves were developed.
Parameter curves were drawn encompassing the majority of plotted points
derived from the actual influent and effluent values, giving more weight
to periods in which the influent values were greater and ignoring those
with negative removal values and other points falling far from the
pattern of plotted points. The mean percent removal curves were drawn
half-way between the parameter curves.
It is evident that for the same magnitude of flow in the O.S.I.S.,
different detention times can be established by limiting the flow
through the tanks. The extent of expected reduction in concentrations
can be increased or decreased with an increase or decrease in detention
time. There is no direct manner in which these two factors can be used
to show the relationship of effluent concentration to the O.S.I.S. flow.
35
-------
Consequently, the mean influent and the mean percent removal curves for
the pertinent test in a Group have been used to establish a mean effluent
concentration curve, which can be expected, for the detention time and
the bypass flow applicable to the period for the pair of samples. The
manner in which this has been done is best explained by reference to
Figure 25, Total Suspended Solids Removal; Figure 22, rating curve for
Flow through Tanks versus Detention Time; and Figure 27, Total Suspended
Solids Concentration, Effluent, versus Total Flow in O.S.I.S., under
several conditions of bypassing part of the O.S.I.S. flows around the
tanks. The first step is to plot the mean influent curve for total sus-
pended solids shown on Figure 23 on the last-mentioned curve above.
Assume the tanks do not go into operation until the O.S.I.S. flow exceeds
35 MGD when the regulator gates are closed and all flow is passed through
the tanks. Figure 23 indicates an influent concentration of 275 mg/1 and
Figure 22 shows a detention time of 145 minutes for a flow of 35 MGD.
Figure 25 indicates that the mean removal of total suspended solids at
such detention time is 48 percent which results in an expected effluent
concentration of 143 mg/1. This value is plotted on Figure 27 and repre-
sents the effluent value for a flow in the O.S.I.S. of 35 MGD, all of
which is going through the tank. For another example of how the curves
are derived, assume the O.S.I.S. flow is 200 MGD and all is passed through
the tanks, the detention time is 27 minutes, and the percent removal to
be expected is 20 percent, resulting in an expected effluent concentration
of 138 mg/1 (807o of the influent value of 172). Now assume that the total
flow of the O.S.I.S. again is 200 MGD, but that 100 MGD is to be bypassed,
the detention time is 54 minutes and the expected percent removal is 32.
The expected effluent concentration is then 68% of 172, or 117 mg/1. The
extent to which actual values for effluent concentrations vary considerably
from the expected values is discussed below for each type of test. The
actual effluent values are plotted on the figures showing the expected
effluent concentrations.
Total Suspended Solids
It has been stated earlier in this section that the concentration of total
suspended solids in the dry weather flow of the O.S.I.S. ranges between
200 and 350 mg/1. For Storms 9 through 24 the laboratory tests of in-
fluent samples show a range in values from 96 to 334 mg/1 for Group I,
and 45 to 144 mg/1 for Group II samples. The higher concentrations occur
when the flows in the O.S.I.S. are over 200 MGD and all are in Group I.
The test results for total suspended solids for all composite influent
samples in Group I are shown in Figure 23 and for Group II in Figure 24.
The general trend of concentrations in Group I samples is to decrease as
O.S.I.S. flow increases to about 160 MGD and then to increase as the flow
in the O.S.I.S. increases. This phenomenon indicates the storm water re-
sulting from the high intensity rainfall contains a substantial amount of
total suspended solids. The time of the day in which the sample is taken
appears to have no significant effect on the total suspended solid con-
centrations. The parameters shown in Figure 23 were established by
36
-------
55 minutes (see Figure 25), resulting in abnormally low effluent concen-
tration. The ninth sample (24-1) had a concentration of only 42 mg/1,
which is not much outside of any reasonable limit of the expected mean
value.
Only four of the 26 composite samples in Group II had concentrations over
40 mg/1 greater or less than the expected mean effluent concentrations.
Three of these samples have effluent concentrations greater than values
for corresponding influent concentrations. The fourth sample has a con-
centration greater than the expected mean influent concentrations. Table 2
presents the expected concentrations and actual concentrations for all the
samples tested for Storms 9 through 24.
Total Solids
Dissolved solids have been considered even though no removals are ex-
pected, by passing waste water through the tanks, because more consistent
results can be obtained regarding determination of expected effluent con-
centrations for total solids by taking an indirect approach. It will be
noted on Table 2, that actual influent and effluent concentrations of
dissolved solids for several samples are far from being essentially the
same, and others are not within the range of values to be expected normally.
Therefore, the computed dissolved solids values for each influent and the
corresponding effluent sample were averaged and used in establishing the
mean curve and parameters for dissolved solids curves for each group of
samples, see Figures 29 and 30.
The mean dissolved solids curves for Groups I and II samples were then
plotted on Figures 33 and 34, which show total solids concentrations
versus total O.S.I.S. flow and designated Group I and Group II effluent
samples. On Figures 31 and 32, two mean total solids influent concentra-
tion versus total flow in O.S.I.S. are shown for each group. Values of
concentration for total solids tests in Storm 15 have not been used in
establishing the parameters because six of nine samples are not in the
range to be expected for the pertinent flows. One curve is based directly
on the values determined by laboratory tests for total solids, and the
other on the summation of the concentration for the mean dissolved solids
curve cited above and the mean influent concentration curve for total sus-
pended solids (Figures 23 and 24). For each Group the latter curve was
plotted on the appropriate effluent sample figure referred to above and
is designated mean influent total solids. The mean effluent curves for
total suspended solids are then superimposed on the mean dissolved solid
curves to establish effluent curves for total solids.
Five samples, excluding Storm 15 samples, fall outside parameters which
have values 751" mg/1 from the mean influent curve for Group I (see
Figure 31). Two samples (10-1 and 11) are only slightly beyond the
limits, 2 and 13 mg/1. Sample 24-1 has a total solids value of only
354 mg/1 which is considerably less than can be expected. The other two
samples (19-1 and 24-4) have rather high total solids concentrations -
153 and 149 mg/1 greater than the mean total solids values. Both have
total dissolved solids greater than the expected values.
38
-------
beginning at 200 and 350 mg/1 and decreasing to 50 mg/1 either side of
the mean influent curve, encompassing all but a few of the plotted values.
The sample for the 19-1 Storm Period was taken when the flow in the
O.S.I.S. had an hourly peak flow of 960 MGD and an average flow for the
period of 361 MGD. Consequently, the concentration was probably affected
by the flushing action resulting from an intense runoff from a rainfall
of 1.15 inches prior to the start of the period and 0.3 inch during
period. The sampling period for Storm 20 began over 12 hours after the
tanks started to fill. Since no rainfall was recorded immediately before,
and only a minor amount during the period, the period could be classed
with the Group II periods and would fall within the parameters for that
group. Other values plotted outside the parameters do not appear to
have any specific reason for being greater (15-1) or less (24-1 and 24-2)
than expected concentrations. It might be noted that the 24-1 period
occurred on a Sunday evening when concentrations are expected to be low
and 24-2 between midnight on Sunday to 8 A.M. on Monday.
Figure 24 shows the influent concentrations versus the total O.S.I.S.
flow for Group II samples. It will be noted that concentrations decrease
following a Group I sample and then increase with a decrease in O.S.I.S.
flow. Since little or no rainfall has occurred in most periods for
Group II, the sanitary waste becomes a larger proportion, and the solids
in the storm water probably a lesser part of the total waste water as
the O.S.I.S. flow decreases. Figure 24 shows how the mean influent of
Group I recedes into the mean influent for Group II values. The general
trends are essentially the same for all the three time periods of the
day, even though samples for the midnight to 8 A.M. period have lower
concentrations. The parameters of the influent, of course, are the same
as for Group I.
Effluent concentrations which can be expected for Group I and Group II
samples and the actual values are shown on Figures 27 and 28. Obviously
the curves indicating the concentrations to be expected with various
flows being by-passed around the tank follow more or less the shapes of
the influent curves for Groups I and II. These effluent curves are mean
curves and parameters somewhat less than 50 mg/1 (parameters for the in-
fluent) would be applicable. Of the 24 composite effluent samples in
Group I, the concentrations determined by the laboratory for nine samples
were between 41 and 91 mg/1 greater or less than the expected mean
effluent concentrations. Four of these samples (13, 14-1, 15-2, and
16-1) were taken when the temperature of the waste water was low (less
than 10° C). Consequently, the efficiency of settling of solids can
be expected to be less. All had effluent values even greater than the
expected mean influent concentrations for the Group I samples. The
effluent concentration for Storm 19-1 is 62 mg/1 higher than the expected
value and is believed directly due to its unusually high influent con-
centration (79 mg/1 higher than the expected value). Two of the samples
(24-2 and 24-7) had greater than average removals than could be expected
for the detention times pertinent to the samples. Sample 10-1 had an
exceptionally high percentage of removal (59%) for a detention time of
37
-------
S "h
Wu
S «
gwfa|
I \ *2-,2«J2£2Jir^iSio£iS333223
d ^ o o o
u| E ^ °° ^
H ---. O O u">
< e1 ^< ° 2
ol ^ L-, 1A O
XI ^ O i-* CO
" --- OOOOOO
<| if 2°°2^p;^
| S O O O C
3C5OOOOOC
^33SE
3_rf^Tknc^(NMu
I. S
3 . ^
-------
In Group II, Total Solids influent (see Figure 32), four samples ex-
cluding Storm 15 samples, have concentrations outside the parameters.
Three samples (12-2, 16-2, and 21-2) have total solids concentrations
of 440 mg/1 or less, which of course are far from normal values to be
expected, particularly for the relatively low flows in the O.S.I.S.
The other sample, 19-4, has a total solids concentration of 708 mg/1
which is substantially above normal.
Table 2 and Figures 33 and 34 show that there are a number of samples
which have effluent concentrations of total solids which depart from
expected concentrations (75^" mg/1) considerably. In Group I, there
are 8 samples that fall outside the parameters. The concentrations for
10-1, 12-1, 17, 21-1, and 24-1 ranging from 322 to 376 mg/1 appear to
be appreciabely below the normal to be expected. If the differences
between the average and expected concentrations for total dissolved
solids are considered, all values would fall within the parameters.
The actual total solids values of effluent are believed to be low for
all five samples. On the other hand, for Samples 19-1, 20, and 24-4,
the values are believed to be high by the same reasoning - difference
between total dissolved solids by averages and by expected values.
Group II Samples 10-2, 12-2, 14-2, and 21-2 appear to have lower con-
centrations than can normally be expected. As in Group I the differences
between the average total dissolved solids and the expected dissolved
solids applied to the total solids effluent values determined by the
laboratory would bring all four samples within the parameters. Similar
treatment to Sample 19-4 which has a higher than normal concentration
would give like results.
It will be noted in Table 2 that total dissolved solids are substan-
tially greater for Group II samples than for Group I, with its much
greater dilution of sanitary wastes. The effect which this fact has
on the effluent concentrations for total solids is offset somewhat by
the lesser concentrations of total suspended solids effluent for
Group II samples.
Settleable Solids
The normal range of concentrations of waste water in the O.S.I.S. for
dry weather flow is estimated to be from 2.0 to 3.5 ml/1, and is based
on the plotted relationship between the influent concentrations of
settleable solids and of total suspended solids for the sampling periods
for Storm 9 through 24. The linear relationship between the settleable
solids and total suspended solids has a ratio of 1 to 100. Results of
laboratory tests of samples for Storm 9 through 24 show a concentration
as low as 0.1 ml/1 and a maximum of 3.0 ml/1. The majority of the
concentrations lie between 1.0 and 2.5 ml/1. The lowest influent con-
centration (Storm 16-2) occurred during the period having a low intensity
rain prior to the sampling period. (See Figure 10). Furthermore, the
41
-------
composite was collected from late Saturday evening to early Sunday morning
when dry weather flow concentrations were expected to be the lowest during
the week. The highest influent concentration (Storm 18-2) was taken
during a period of high intensity rainfall. (See Figure 11).
Figures 35 and 36 show the relationship of settleable solids influent
concentrations to flow in the O.S.I.S. for Groups I and II, respectively,
for all influent samples taken in Storms 9 through 24. The trend of con-
centration versus O.S.I.S. flow for Group I is much the same as that for
Total Suspended Solids with decreasing concentration from the smaller
flow to moderate flows and then increasing concentrations as the flow
becomes greater. The parameters of the influent curve at a flow of 35 MGD
was assumed to be 2.0 and 3.5 ml/1 for both groups, decreasing to 0.6 ml/1
at a flow of 60 MGD and retaining such parameters to the maximum flow
pertinent to the Group. Only the results of two tests fell outside the
parameters established for influent concentration for Group I samples,
namely, 24-1 and 24-2. Sample 24-1 was obtained in the third 8-hour
period on Sunday. The results of the test of this sample by the Columbus
Water and Chemical Testing Laboratory were a concentration of 1.3 ml/1,
very close to the lower parameter curve. The concentration for 24-2
appears to be low compared to the concentrations of the Total Suspended
Solids. Generally, the concentrations were greater when the temperatures
were under 15° C.
The influent concentration for Group II samples generally decreased with
an increase in O.S.I.S. flow and the mean influent curve for Group I
recedes into the similar curve for Group II as occurred for the Total
Suspended Solids mean curve for Group II. For the same, or nearly the
same, flow in the O.S.I.S. the concentrations are greater when the tem-
perature is above 15° C. There are several tests results which fall out-
side the parameters (0.6 ml/1 each side of the mean) established for
Group II concentrations. The greatest departure from the mean curve is
Sample 19-3 which has a concentration of 2.5 ml/1 (average of State, and
Columbus Water and Chemical Testing Laboratory results) or 1.4 ml/1
greater than the mean value. The State value for this sample was 2.0 ml/1
which would make it only 0.3 ml/1 beyond the upper parameter. Similarly,
for Sample 24-9 the average of the State and the Columbus Water and Chemi-
cal Testing Laboratory value is 2.35, or 1.15 ml/1 greater than the mean
value value, but the concentration determined by the latter laboratory
was 1.9 ml/1 or 0.4 ml/1 outside the upper parameter. With respect to
the Sample 22-2 average concentration, there is no apparent reason for
its departure from the expected value (all three laboratories had very
different results - 1.0 by State, 0.3 by the City and 0.6 by the Columbus
Water and Chemical Testing Laboratory). Samples 12-2, 16-2, and 16-3
were all taken on Sundays when concentrations can be expected to be less
but not to the extent shown. Other samples falling outside the param-
eters are 15-6, 15-8, and 24-5. Either an error in making or recording
the results of those tests, or failure to obtain a truly representative
sample for this test are possible causes for points falling out of line.
42
-------
Effluent concentrations which can be expected for any flow in the
0,5.1.5. with various magnitudes of flow bypassing the tanks are
shown on Figures 39 and 40 for Groups I and II, respectively.
Figure 39 shows that if no flow is bypassed, the expected effluent
concentration for Group I would be 0.5 ml/1 at a flow of 35 MGD in the
O.S.I.S. and about 1.5 ml/1 for a flow of 320 MGD with 100 MGD bypassing
the tanks. Similar expected effluent concentration for various flows
for different magnitude of flows bypassing the tanks can be determined
from Figure 39. Several actual effluent values plot above the mean
influent curve. Reference to Figures 35 and 36, curves for Groups I
and II influent samples, show that all were at or outside the curve
for the upper parameter. Table 2 indicates that only 7 expected
effluent values differed by more than 0.4 ml/1 from the actual test
results; they were for samples 10-1 and 14-1 in Group I, and 10-2,
14-2, 15-6, 19-3, and 24-3 in Group II. The laboratory results for
Samples 10-1, 15-6, 19-3, and 24-3 are not compatible with the con-
centrations for corresponding total suspended solids. Effluent
concentration for Sample 14-1 is greater than the mean influent
concentration. There is no apparent reason for the more than normal
difference between the expected and actual concentrations for Samples
10-2 and 14-2.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (B.O.D.)
As shown on Figure 41 the normal range of concentrations of waste
water in the O.S.I.S. for dry weather flow ranges from 150 to 300 mg/1.
For Storms 9 through 24, the range of concentrations for influent varies
from 25 mg/1 to 320 mgl. About 80 percent of the actual influent values
were 70 mg/1 or greater.
The relationship of B.O.D. influent concentration to magnitude of
O.S.I.S. flows are shown on Figures 41 and 42 for Groups I and II
samples, respectively. For Group I samples, concentration decreased
with an increase in flow rapidly from low flows to moderate flows and
then decreased slowly as the O.S.I.S. flow increased. The trend is the
same for all samples regardless of the time of day the samples were
taken. Lesser concentrations for comparable flows generally prevail
when the temperatures are 15° C or more. The parameter limits for the
plotted values are plus or minus 30 mg/1 above the mean influent curve
for Group I. Concentrations for seven samples (10-1, 11, 15-1, 15-2, 15-3,
15-4, and 24-1) fall outside of the parameters. Values of concentra-
tion for B.O.D. tests in Storm 15 have not been used in establishing
the parameter, because seven of nine periods in the Storm (Groups I and
II) are not in the range to be expected for the pertinent flows. The
concentration for Sample 10-1 is far greater than can be expected, and
Sample 11 has a concentration somewhat higher than would be expected.
Either the samples tested were not representative or errors were made
in the laboratory testing and/or recording. The low value for 24-1
may be due in part to the fact that it was for the evening period on
Sunday when concentrations are lower.
43
-------
Influent concentrations for Group II samples decrease rapidly with an
increase in O.S.I.S. flow. The parameter limits are the same as for
Group I. The transition between Group I and Group II mean curves is
between flows of 150 and 250 MGD. The concentrations for samples taken
between midnight and 8 A.M. in seven of eight samples were less than the
values shown on the mean influent curve for Group II. In most instances
concentrations are greater when the temperature of the waste water is
under 15° C. Concentrations for five samples fall outside of the param-
eters established, namely, 14-2, 14-4, 24-5, 24-8, and 24-10. The
concentration of 320 mg/1 for Sample 14-4 is believed to be twice its
actual value and probably results from a mathematical error. A similar
statement could be applied to Sample 24-8 which appears to be half its
expected value because Sample 24-9 with a lesser flow had a concentration
of 111 mg/1. Likewise, Sample 24-10 whould have a concentration of one-
half of the laboratory value to be in line with 24-9, the preceding sample.
Others falling outside the parameters were samples taken between midnight
and 8 A.M. when concentrations are lower.
Curves for effluent concentration to be expected for varying flows in
the O.S.I.S. at different quantities of flows being bypassed around the
tanks are shown on Figure 45 and 46 for Groups I and II samples, respec-
tively. The effluent curves have the same general trend as the influent
curves for the corresponding group. All of the effluent curves represent
mean values for the magnitude of bypass indicated. Based on the param-
eters for influent concentration, samples having actual effluent concen-
tration approaching 30 - mg/1 of the expected values would be considered
as conforming to the expected concentration. Table 2 indicates that
three samples (11, 12-1, and 14-1) fall outside of the established param-
eters for Group I samples; and six samples (10-2, 14-2, 18-5, 19-2, 24-8,
and 24-10) are outside of the parameters for Group II, exclusive of
periods in Storm 15.
In Group I all exceptions have effluent values greater than the mean
influent values. Moreover, two of the three samples had effluent con-
centrations greater than the corresponding influent concentrations (11
and 14-1). Again it appears that faulty sampling procedures or poor
laboratory work was the cause of such results, because in the case of
Sample 11 there was a detention time of 74 minutes for a flow of 73 MGD
through the tanks.
Only one sample (18-5) in Group II had an effluent concentration greater
than that for the influent. Sample 24-10 as plotted and shown on Table 2
represents the average of two values and has an effluent value of 151 mg/1;
the State concentrations for the influent and effluent are 153 and 132
mg/1, respectively. Both effluent values appear to be too high. Two
samples (19-2 and 24-8) had effluent concentrations (21 and 16 mg/1) much
lower than could be expected. The other two samples (10-2 and 14-2) have
effluent values which appear high considering the long detention times
involved (174 and 62 minutes).
44
-------
Dissolved Oxygen
A preliminary review of the data on dissolved oxygen points out clearly
that the magnitude of flow in the O.S.I.S. and the temperature of the
waste water are the most important factors in determing the concentra-
tion (or percent saturated) of dissolved oxygen for influent. As the
flow increases and the temperature of the waste water decreases, the
quality of the dissolved oxygen improves. The principal factors in
the improvement of effluent are the influent concentration (or percent
saturation) of dissolved oxygen, the temperature, and the magnitude of
flow passing through the tanks. The turbulence of flow in the outlet
channel resulting from flows passing over the tank weirs is believed
to provide the major aeration for the waste water, and, therefore, is
considered to be an important factor in the improvement of the effluent
quality of dissolved oxygen. It will be noted from Tables 3A and 3B
that the percentage of improvement in dissolved oxygen is very con-
siderable for those periods having extended detention times. However,
the extent to which the detention time should be credited for the im-
provement is problematical, because long detention periods occur at
low flow periods when the dissolved oxygen concentration of the influent
is low and tendency for improvement is greater.
In analyzing the data, it was considered advisable to segregate samples
into two groups based on temperature rather than being based strictly
on flow conditions as was done for all the preceding analyses. One
group ("A") would contain all samples having temperatures of less than
15° Centigrade and the other group ("B") would contain all samples
having temperatures greater than 15° C. In plotting the value of each
sample, the samples designated Group I for other analyses are differen-
tiated from those for Group II by symbol (see Figures 47 to 51 inclusive).
The value for each sample is the average of the values for all individual
samples in an 8-hour period. Relationships were established for each
group between percent saturation of dissolved oxygen and flow in the
O.S.I.S. and also between the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen
of the influent and the percent improvement of dissolved oxygen. The
mean curves developed for these two relationships were used as described
later to determine the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen of the
effluent to be expected. Percent saturation of dissolved oxygen was
used instead of dissolved oxygen in mg/1 because percent saturation
takes into account the temperature effect. Also, better curves for
mean influent and effluent were developed using percent saturation.
It will be noted in Figures 47 and 48 that the percent saturation of
dissolved oxygen of the influent increases rapidly as the flow in the
O.S.I.S. increases to a rate of approximately 180 MGD when the tem-
perature of the waste water is below 15° C and at a more constant rate
for temperatures higher than 15° C. The general cycle for storms having
several 8-hour periods is for the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen
to increase to a peak at or shortly after the initial peak flow and
remain high for the next period or two even though the magnitude of flow
in the O.S.I.S. drops off and thereafter becomes less with a further de-
crease in the flow. When secondary peaks occur, such as 15-4 and 24-7,
greater percents of saturation of dissolved oxygen are again experienced.
Most of the actual values plot relatively close to the mean influent curves.
45
-------
In order to relate effluent values to O.S.I.S. flows a curve was developed
showing the relationship of the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen of
the influent to the percent improvement of the percent saturation of dis-
solved oxygen. The plotted points represent the actual laboratory results
and the curve the mean expected improvement. (See Figure 49).
Mean effluent curves of expected values were then developed using the per-
cent improvement pertinent to the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen
and adding it to the mean influent curve values (Figures 47 and 48) for the
appropriate percent saturation of dissolved oxygen to establish effluent
curves. For example, as shown on Figure 49, the mean percent improvement
expected for influent having a percent saturation of dissolved oxygen of
45 percent is 30 percent. Figure 47 shows that the mean influent curves
for such saturation occur at flows of 121 and 82 MGD, respectively, for the
ascending and receding curves. Points for both effluent curves are plotted
having values of 58.5 (45 + 30% of 45) percent saturation for the ascending
and receding curves. The expected mean improvement in percent saturation
of dissolved oxygen ranges from 8 percent at 70 percent saturation to 200
percent at 10 percent saturation. Laboratory tests showed a range in im-
provement of 1100 percent at a 3 percent saturation down to 4 percent with
an influent having a 63 percent saturation.
Ether Solubles
Reference to Appendix A, particularly to those pages pertinent to Storms
18 through 24 when tests were being made by two or three laboratories,
indicates that for the majority of sample periods the results of the labora-
tory tests were not in agreement either for influent or effluent concentra-
tions. During those storms, concentrations of influent samples varied from
8 to 85 mg/1 for the Columbus Water and Chemical Testing Laboratory tests,
0.8 to 47 mg/1 for the State tests, and 12 to 54 mg/1 for the City tests and
effluent concentration variations were from 5 to 92, 2 to 50, and 8 to 32 mg/1,
respectively, for the three laboratories. It appears that no patterns com-
parable to those developed for other tests could be developed.
Quality of Scioto River Flow
During the study, samples of Scioto River flow were obtained and tested by
the City of Columbus upstream and downstream of the Whittier Street Tanks.
Seven samples were taken during periods when sampling was being done for
O.S.I.S. flows being passed through the tanks. Only dissolved oxygen tests
were made of the river flow. When the flow was lowest in the river (280 MGD),
the percent saturation of dissolved oxygen was 107 at Mound Street (upstream),
115 at Frank Road (downstream), and 45 for the effluent from the tanks. The
flow in the O.S.I.S. at that time was 84 MGD. The discharge of a significant
amount of waste water with a lower percent saturation of dissolved oxygen
into the river at the Whittier Street Tanks was apparently offset by an in-
crease in percent saturation in the river flow resulting from aeration of
the stream flow in its passage over the Greenlawn Dam (about a ~1\ foot drop).
46
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DATA
GROUP A (Temperature less than 15° C)
Storm
No.
11
12-1
12-2
13
14-1
14-2
14-3
14-4
15-1
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5
15-6
15-7
15-8
15-9
16-1
16-2
16-3
17
18-2
18-3
18-4
18-5
Total
O.S.I.S,
Flow
MOD
101
136
70
151
203
115
79
59
110
385
161
287
212
227
192
142
134
200
108
99
105
383
139
135
114
Deten-
, tlon
Time
Min.
74
56
174
38
28
62
82
216
76
17
61
28
27
25
30
41
44
28
55
62
98
30
42
48
55
Dissolved
Temper-
ature
°C
11.5
10.6
13.2
9.1
8.3
10.0
12.0
13.0
10.3
9.9
11.6
10.9
11.0
11.6
12.0
12.0
12.6'
9.1
10.7
11.6
12.4
13.9
13.9
13.9
14.1
Oxygen
Infl.
mg/1
5.5
5.5
2.9
6.2
7.3
7.6
5.1
4.2
4.8
6.4
5.3
7.4
7.5
8.1
6.6
6.6
6.2
6.7
6.9
5.9
3.9
5.7
6.2
6.6
5.3
Effl.
mg/1
7.0
6.3
5.2
7.7
8.4
8.1
5.8
5.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
8.0
8.3
8.7
7.1
7.8
7.9
7.3
8.1
7.1
6.5
6.9
7.4
6.8
6.4
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation
Influent
Act.
7.
50
48.5
27
53
62
67
47
39
42
55.5
48
67
68
74
61
60.5
58
58
61.5
54
37.5
55
59.5
63
50.5
Exp.
7.
35.5
49
36
52
59
57.5
43
22
40
65
54
65
65
65
65
62.5
61
59
55
52
37.5
65
62
61.5
57
Effluent
Act.
7,
62.5
56
48
66
71
71
53.5
55
60
65
65.5
72
75
79.5
65.5
72
73
63.5
70
65
59
66.5
71.5
65.5
62
Exp.
%
53
61
53
63
67.5
67
57
45
55.5
71.5
64
71.5
71.5
71.5
71.5
70.5
70
67.5
65
63
54
71.5
70
70
66.5
Improvement
Act.
7.
25
15
77
24
15
6
14
40
42
17
36
8
11
7
8
19
26
9
14
20
57
21
20
4
23
Exp.
%
51
24
50
21
14
20
34
105
40
10.5
19
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
12
13
14
18
21
46
10.5
12
12.5
16
47
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DISSOLVED OXYGEN DATA
GROUP B (Temperature greater than 15° C)
Total
Storm O.S.I.S,
No.
9
10-1
10-2
18-1
19-1
19-2
19-3
19-4
20
21-1
21-2
22-1
22-2
23-1
23-2
23-3
24-1
24-2
24-3
24-4
24-5
24-7
24-8
24-9
24-10
Flow
MGD
104
109
81
208
361
131
126
114
210
107
85
135
64
225
215
87
136
395
160
208
loo
367
137
110
90
Deten-
, tion
Time
Min.
74
55
174
31
19
49
47
58
27
80
117
58
225
38
69
70
49
32
36
31
68
25
44
71
115
Dissolved
Temper-
ature
°C
16.1
15.1
17.0
16.3
17.9
16.6
17.3
17.1
17.8
19.7
19.0
18.5
20.6
20.9
20.1
21.2
21.3
19.6
19.6
21.1
19.6
21.1
19.1
20.2
20.9
Oxygen
Infl.
mg/1
2.0
4.0
1.6
3.4
3.7
5.1
3.9
3.9
4.3
0.6
2.1
2.1
0,3
2.1
4.3
0.9
0.8
5.0
4.9
4.6
4.1
4.6
5.2
3.6
1.9
Effl.
mg/1
4.1
5.8
2.3
5.1
5.0
6.3
5.4
5.0
5,5
3.3
4,5
4.4
3.2
3.5
5.8
3.0
3.0
6.1
5.9
5.4
5.3
5.7
6.2
4.6
2.7
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation
Influent
Act.
%
19.5
39.5
16
34
38.5
52
40
40
44,5
6
22
21.5
3
23.5
47-
10.5
8.5
53.5
53
51
44
54
55
39
21
Exp.
%
11
39
13
30
46.5
47
45.5
41
50
12
15
17.5
5
32
50
16
17.5
50
50
50
32.5
50
48
39
20
Effluent
Act.
7.
41.5
56
23.5
50.5
52
64
55.5
51
57.5
35.5
48
45.5
35
38.5
64
33.5
35
65.5
64
59
57
63
66
50.5
30.5
Exp.
%
31
54
35
50.5
60
59
58.5
55.5
61.5
32.5
40
40.5
18
52
61.5
42
40.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
51
61.5
60
54
44
Improvement
Act.
%
114
42
47
49
35
23
39
28
29
485
120
112
1100
65
37
225
318
22
21
16
30
17
20
30
46
Exp.
%
190
42
170
68
28
27
30
38
23
180
150
135
260
61
23
145
135
23
23
23
60
23
26
42
116
Table 3B
48
-------
17-
o
o
o
z
700
600
500
400
o 300
ui
o
z
111
S5 200
3
100
•JAN 18,1969
-JAN. 19,
N 6 RM. MT 6A.M. N 6PM. MT 6A.M, N 6RM. MT
0.0
FIGURE 8
SSS&8SEND
HYDROLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
TO CONCENTRATIONS OF SOLIDS
49
0.5
1.0
1.5
o
z
&
z
2.0
2.5
4.0 ±
E
I
CO
2.0 9
o
CO
0.0 \f.
800
600
Q
IS
5
I
I
400
CO
CO
c>
200
STORM 14
-------
a Ow mou s iso nvioi
if)
I:
J _l-
' ^
i;
t
&*
\
L
JST
x
O
CO
O
CO
O
UJ
O
O
O
CO
a.
CO
tE
_J
O
O
o
o:
o
a:
o
i-
co
UJ
cr
o
i/6uj_sanos
-------
•FEB. 8, 1969
FEB.9,1969-
10
MT 6A.M. N 6RM. MT 6A.M. N 6P.M. MT 6A.M N
700
CT
f 600
o
_i
co 500
_j
o
I- 400
o
o 300
hJ
O
Z
111
w 200
(O
_i
£ 100
e
0
V™
L.
T
L.
j"8*--
.v
''
\
%
^
s
\
Sssi\t
^
•7
M !»•
LEG EN Q
>»e>«ie*fr
rk.
epft
•u^
«— «_
.ueisr
MMJUJk/"*— -
/T.S.
CT.S.S
^SET.l
•^~- *-!_
1.
-,
u u
0.5 53
o
1.0
z
'•5 3
z
2.0 K
2.5
40 ^
E
I
2.0 9
o
CO
0.0 ^
CO
800
Q
0
S
60O
O
u_
400
CO
CO
ci
200_,
O
1-
0
FIGURE 10
HYDROLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
TO CONCENTRATIONS OF SOLIDS
53
STORM 16
-------
-* APRIL 18,1969 »-M APRIL 19,1969-
20
MT 6A.M. N 6 RM. MT 6A.M. N 6P.M. MT 6A.M. N
700
e»
E
l
o
_i
O
600
500
o
<
s
400
300
ol
co 200
CO
100
m
•SCT.S
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
o
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5 l!
2.0
2.5
4.0 i
E
I
v>
2.0 2
_i
o
to
0.0
uj
tn
800
600
400
d
2OO
i*
O
HYDROLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
TO CONCENTRATIONS OF SOLIDS
FIGURE II 54 STORM 18
-------
I
o
_i
o
700
600
500
I- 400
Q
z
<3
Q 300
LJ
O
UJ
5> 200
100
MAY 8, 1969
MAY 9, 1969
10
MT 6A.M N 6P.M. Ml. 6A.M. N 6P.M. MT 6A.M
\
'*'K
x>
LEGEND
T.S.
T.S.S.
SETS.
00
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
o
tr
4.0 ^
E
I
v>
2.0 9
0.0
800
600
Q
O
2
O
400 .
c/i
to
O
200
HYDROLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
TO CONCENTRATIONS OF SOLIDS
FIGURE 12 55 STORM 19
-------
N
700
•^
e»
E 600
CO
9
_i
co 500
_i
O
1- 400
o
z
0 300
UJ
o
z
UJ
S> 200
CO
2 100
e
0
1 ? to
6 RM. M
L
r
S_
S
T.
T 6 A.M. h
v
U
i
*
i
"
f
• — - — ..
~— —
\
J
•
/
f >
^s>
~,
V-
u^«
13, 196
J 6
^
-^^.
= M. M'
T.S.
ts.s.
SET.S.
LEG
.
r 6A.M. N
END
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
"~~^
4, 1969 *|
6RM. M
To.o
0.5 to
o
z
1.0
z
1.5 d
i2
z
2.0 ^
2.5
4.0 ±
E
1
CO
2n ^
O
CO
0.0 [j
CO
800
Q'
0
5
600
O
U.
400 .
en
CO
d
200_,
O
FIGURE 13
HYDROLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
TO CONCENTRATIONS OF SOLIDS
56
STORM 23
-------
moid siso ivioi
CVI
a:
o
UJ
cr
i/6uj_sanos ivioi QNV aaaN3dsns
-------
t
10 0
* 80
1 6°
X
O
S 40
o
to 2 0
0
00
300
^ 200
£
o
C> 100
CD
0
1
g 6 RM. MT 6A.M. N 6PM MF 6A.M N 6PM M
"^
f
~*~
^
J\
r-r-1 t
J" •":
—„
«**'•"" ;.v.
•
;
"*^l^H
•**.wui+u.
i*x!!N^:
v-'Si-xiifii?
:
s\~.
/
r^-w.
, r~^nrr
/
J^"!nlu
.0^
EFR
-------
-
....
_
0.0
0.5 [2
o
z
1.0
z
1.5 Ij
£
2.0 ^
2.5
800
ci
0
S
600
0
u.
400 .
c/i
O
200_,
O
o
HYDROLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
TO B.O.D. & DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FIGURE 15 59 STORM 14
-------
S3HONI
aow woid siso ivioi
o
uQ_
i
f
1
j
:
•-.v
A
;.. !»IL ;
E;ii.
i.
in
2
ce
o
i-
co
1VS%-N30AXO Q3ATOSSIQ
I/6UJ- Q 0 8
SSOLVED OXYGEN
TO B.O D a
ATIONSHIPS
cc
_J
<
o
o *
o
o
cc
o
I
(0
UJ
cc
o
-------
[«
FEB 8,1969
— FE39.I969 — 4*
10 0
80
60
>-
X
o
S 40
20
00
300
200
E
i
Q
0 100
CD
ETK
"•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•!
.£«».
- I0
MT 6AM N 6PM MT 6AM N 6PM MT 6AM. N
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
fi
Z
800
600
400 .
CO
O
200
IS
o
HYDROLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
TO B.O.D. a DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FIGURE 17 •'•> STORM 16
-------
-APRIL 18, 1969
-APRIL 19,1969
to
10 O
8 0
6 0
I
z
o
X
o
R 4 0
2 0
00
300
"5, 200
E
i
Q
O 100
CD
"1
h
L
EFR
INF.
20
MT 6A.M. N 6PM. MT 6AM. N 6P.M. MT 6AM N
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
O
z
cr
800
600
400
CO
O
200
HYDROLOGIGAL RELATIONSHIPS
TO B.O.D. a DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FIGURE 18 64 STORM 18
-------
M
10 0
H
w 80
z
u 6 0
0
X
o
S 40
o
w 2 0
a
00
300
^ 200
E
i
a
0 100
CD
0
T 6/
LH
MAY 8,1969
\M N 6
-1
y{
i
's
i
i
i
t
RM M
r
^
ft.
"**«.
m
H.
T 6A M h
^SJiiji':*
:!*il7*W
IllilS
11
(I-J.;.;.;-. *™
SiiL .
IP
3, 1969
J 6
:j:
*"*—.««:
•f",n ;;j;
PM M
*»*?"
t'T'TVi-X-I
vX;X;X;X*X
m
sllwll!
• 1 0
T 6A.M T
f»
EFF.
JNF.
INF.
EFF.
^
si
0.0
0.5 (/>
o
z
1.0
z
1.5 =j
2
z
2.0 "
2.5
800
ci
0
5
600
O
u.
400 .
to
c>
200_j
o
o
HYDROLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
TO B.O.D. a DISSOLVED OXYGEN
FIGURE 19 65
STORM 19
-------
12-
*•-« JUNE 13,1969
—JUNE 14, 1969
N
10 0
5
w 80
5?
i
z
w 60
0
>-
X
o
2 40
>
_i
0
£ 20
o
00
300
^ 200
E
i
ci
o 100
m
0
6P.M. Ml 6AM N 6PM. MT 6A.M. N 6PM M
L
r
i
tvi__,
s
^
U
"1
*•!
1
I
1
I,
«"!,,
/
/
'/
' " "-r
" .
V
J
T "riViS*;*?**
yv
/ X
r< r* ";
I
l^J
lr*-
. -,
\
N
\
\
** "**"^
•»_ ....
—
EFF.
JNF.
INF.
fFF.
1
0.0
0.5 [2
o
z
1.0
z
1.5 ll
2
z
<
2.0 a
2.5
800
Q
0
5
600
O
_i
u.
400 .
w
-------
i;
31 10
D
Jl
5 z
jj
Z
T S
to
X
2
7> 10
£>
7|
O
iJ
Z
(0
t-
2
J). (O
D
r,
5 z
U
z
? S
ID
£
3
T>
y
E
o £
U)
H
5
CL
J ^
R
\T
y z
u
z
D
S3HDNI Nl lIVJNIVb
> 10 O m O
) O - —
-------
o
oo
o
10
o
10
O
10
o
CM
UJ
5
I-
cn O
o u r-
- z UJ
O V)
8 zz
cr
x
i-
o
o
in
o
CM
CM
CM
o:
O
o
oo
o
o
o
(O
rO
O
CM
ro
C
00
CM
O
o
CM
O
ID
O
CM
O
CO
-Jo
o
Q9W Nl S>1NV1 n«Hl MOld
-------
u.
|/6ui Nl NOI1VH1N30NOD SQI10S Q3QN3dSnS 1V101
-------
|/6uj
NOIlVaiN30NOO SOHOS Q3QN3dSnS IViOl
71
-------
% Nl 1VAOW3U SQinOS Q3QN3dSnS "IVlOi
72
-------
o o
IO PJ
NI nvAow3d sonos QBQNBdsns ivioi
73
-------
I/Bui Nl NOI1VH1N3DNOO SQHOS a3QN3dSnS 1V101
74
-------
NOIl\/yiN3DNOO SQHOS Q3QN3dSnS
7=)
-------
NI sanos Q3Anossm ivioi
7C
-------
I/BUI MI sanos a3Anossia ivioi
77
-------
l/Buj MI NOIlVdlN30NOO SOI10S "IV101
78
-------
NOIlVdiN30NOD SQHOS 1V101
79
-------
I/Bui MI NOIlVdiN30NOO SQHOS 1VJ.01
80
-------
l/fiiu MI NOliVyiN3DNOO SQHOS HV101
81
-------
Ml NOIiVyiN30NOO SOROS 3H8V3nil3S
82
-------
Nl NOIiVaiN3DNOO SQHQS 318V31113S
83
-------
% Nl
84
SOHOS 3"I9V3H113S
-------
% NI 1VAOW3M sonos 3-iav3~iii3s
85
-------
UJ
o
<
or
UJ
^
<
oc
i-
UJ
o
o
_i
">
^9
o _|
^S
o LU
i- -I
ffi
<
LJ
UJ
o
U-
Nl NOI1VM1N30NOO SQHOS 318V31113S
86
-------
o
Nl NOLLVHiN30NOO SOHOS 318V3H113S
87
-------
l/fiuu MI NOIlVdlN30NOO Q CT8
88
-------
I/Bui Ml NOIlVdlN3DNOO
89
-------
o
o
o
0)
o
00
o
% Nl
o
ro
O
(M
'Q'O'Q
90
-------
o
o
o
en
o
oo
o
to
-IVAOW3H
91
o
ro
O
CM
-------
Nl NOIiVdlN30NOO '(TO 8
92
-------
Cvi
|/6ui Ml NOIlVyiN30NOD 'Q'O'Q
93
-------
% NI Nonvanivs
94
-------
% Nl NOIlVdniVS 'O'Q
95
-------
1000
GROUP A 8 B
o
2
<
tr
I
q
ci
FIGURE 49
25 30 35 40 45 50
D.O. SATURATION OF INFLUENT IN %
IMPROVEMENT IN D.O. SATURATION
VS. D.O. SATURATION OF INFLUENT
96
-------
% NI Nouvanivs 'oa
Q7
-------
% NI NOiivaruvs 'o-a
96
-------
SECTION IX
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The contractor is greatly indebted to the following organizations and
individuals for their assistance and cooperation during the studies
for this report.
Federal Water Quality Administration
Mr. Robert L. Feder, Project Officer
Mr. W. A. Rosenkranz, Chief, Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution
Control Branch
Ohio Department of Health
Mr. George Eagle, Chief Engineer
City of Columbus
Mr. Warren J. Cremean, Public Service Director
Mr. C. E. Bischoff, Assistant Service Director
Mr. Carl W. Schoene, Chief Engineer, Division of Sewage and Drainage
Mr. Thomas W. Cooper, Sewage Plant Coordinator
Mr. Ray Klingbeil, Plant Manager
Mr. Morgan Cochran, Chief Chemist
All Jackson Pike Waste Treatment Plant Operators who promptly
advised the contractor when the tanks would go into operation
Columbus Water and Chemical Testing Laboratory
Mr. F. J. Mclntyre
99
-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TQ SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
No. 1
May 9,1968 Thurs
1:45 PM-3:45 PM
1/2 Hour
No. 2
May 11,1968 Sat.
11:15 AM-10:45 PM
1/2 Hour
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Notes for all sheets:
Influent
508
190
318
148
92
56
Effluent
400
114
286
80
46
34
Insufficient Sample
32
71,600
320
17.7
3.3
34.1
7.4
No. 3
May 16,
9
71,600
120
17.5
4.4
45.2
7.8
1968 Thurs
8:30 AM-10:30 AM
1/2 Hour
Influent
492
198
294
152
72
80
1.5
16
71,600
80
18.0
5.0
57.0
7.5
Effluent
382
154
228
80
34
46
0.2
4
71,600
35
18.0
6.2
64.7
7.4
Influent
504
174
330
126
80
46
2.0
28
71,600
270
16.4
4.3
43.5
7.7
No. 4
Effluent
458
114
344
106
52
54
1.4
23
71,600
60
16.3
5.0
58.3
7.7
May 18,1968 Sat.
8:00 AM-3
1/2 Hour
Influent
464
298
166
94
64
30
1.6
17
71,600
80
15.8
4.0
39.9
7.6
:30 PM
Effluent
392
150
242
54
36
18
0.3
18
71,600
12.5
15.4
6.1
60.3
7.6
Values under Composite Sample and Dissolved Oxygen are in
milligrams per liter, except where otherwise shown
Values for D.O., D.O. "I, Saturated, Temperature, and pH
are average of all samples in period
103
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
No. 5-1
May 23,1968 Thurs
8:30 AM-4:30 PM
1/2 Hour
No. 5-2
May 23&24,1968 Th&Fr
5rOO PM-8:00 AM
1 Hour
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. % Saturated
pH Value
Influent
436
166
270
158
76
82
2.2
26
71,600
160
15.3
5.2
52.2
7.3
No. 5-3
May 24,
10:00 A
2 Hour
Influent
650
258
392
286
58
228
2.5
12
71,600
180
16.6
5.4
55.5
7.4
Effluent
402
132
270
160
68
92
2.4
18
71,600
62.5
15.3
5.1
51.3
7.3
1968 Fri
.M.-4:00 PM
Effluent
640
260
380
82
62
20
2.0
10
71,600
38
16.6
6.1
62.6
7.4
Influent
528
180
348
114
56
58
1.3
2
71,600
160
16.0
6.6
66.6
7.4
No. 5-4
May 24,
6 PM-12
2 Hour
Influent
700
296
404
84
64
20
1.7
27
71,600
140
17.0
4.6
47.2
7.5
Effluent
512
184
328
118
38
80
1.0
2
71,600
27.5
16.0
6.7
67.3
7.35
1968 Fri
:00 M
Effluent
734
326
408
56
50
6
1.4
6
71,600
24
17.0
5.6
57.5
7.4
104
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
No. 5-5
May 25, 1968 Sat.
2:00 AM-8:00 AM
2 Hours
No. 5-6
May 25, 1968 Sat.
10:00 AM-4:00 PM
2 Hours
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. % Saturated
pH Value
Influent
706
286
420
62
44
18
1.4
6
71,600
80
16.2
5.8
59.1
7.4
No. 5-7
May 25,
Effluent
696
262
434
52
38
14
0.6
4
71,600
28
16.2
6.7
68.1
7.5
1968 Sat.
6:00 PM-12:00 M
2 Hours
Influent
764
258
506
122
100
22
2.0
21
71,600
140
17.7
3.8
40.2
7.4
Effluent
714
254
460
68
56
12
0.4
15
71,600
66
17.9
4.5
47.0
7.4
Influent
774
274
500
122
86
36
2.1
20
71,600
80
16.9
4.9
49.9
7.5
No. 5-8
May 26,
Effluent
746
274
472
58
50
8
0.6
9
71,600
36
16.9
5.5
56.6
7.5
1968 Sun.
2:00 AM-6:00 AM
2 Hours
Influent
808
364
444
78
68
10
1.8
18
71,600
60
17.2
2.8
28.8
7.3
Effluent
770
312
458
52
44
8
Trace
14
71,600
46
17.2
3.7
37.8
7.4
105
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
No. 6-1
May 28, 1968 Tues
3:00 PM-9:00 PM
2 Hours
No. 6-2
May 28&29,1968 Tu&Wed.
11:00 PM-5:00 AM
2 Hours
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. 7, Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. % Saturated
pH Value
Influent
708
236
472
102
88
14
2.4
11
71,600
100
17.0
4.5
46.2
7.7
No. 6-3
May 29,
Effluent
696
230
466
82
70
12
1.8
8
71,600
62
17.0
5.2
53.5
7.4
1968 Wed.
7:00 AM- 1:00 PM
2 hours
Influent
774
284
490
81
54
27
1.5
12
71,600
180
17.0
4.6
47.6
7.4
Effluent
774
310
464
86
64
22
1.8
12
71,600
50
17.0
5.5
56.8
7.4
Influent
698
220
478
122
96
26
2.2
3
71,600
60
17.0
4.2
43.1
7.2
No. 7
Effluent
714
246
468
82
64
18
2.0
10
71,600
46
17.0
5.3
54.9
7.3
July 19&20,1968 Fr&Sat
11:00 PM-12:30 AM
1/2 Hour
Influent
426
148
278
244
72
172
2.0
19
71,600
100
24.4
3.2
37.1
6.9
Effluent
426
140
286
218
72
146
1.5
15
71,600
52
24.7
3.6
43.3
7.0
106
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
No. 8
Aug 7,1968 Wed.
5:00 PM-6-.30 PM
1/2 Hour
No. 9
Nov 7&8,1968 Th&Fr
2:30 PM-1:00 AM
1/2 Hour
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Influent
342
128
214
86
50
36
0.3
2
71,600
40
26.0
1.9
22.5
7.35
No. 10-1
Effluent
304
102
202
84
58
26
0.4
3
71,600
65
26.0
3.25
39.5
7.35
Nov 16,1968 Sat.
9:30 AM-5
1/2 Hour
Influent
458
154
304
128
52
76
2.1
21
71,600
250
15.1
4.0
39.5
7.3
:00 PM
Effluent
376
112
264
52
22
30
0.1
12
71,600
115
14.6
5.8
56.2
7.3
Influent
498
236
262
154
102
52
1.4
22
71,600
125
16.1
2.0
19.4
7.2
No. 10-
Nov 16,
Effluent
520
276
244
134
78
56
0.7
14
71,600
100
16.2
4.1
41.5
7.2
2
1968 Sat.
6:00 PM-9:00 PM
1 Hour
Influent
568
196
372
90
58
32
1.5
10
71,600
140
17.0
1.6
15.9
7.2
Effluent
480
140
340
108
78
30
1.0
10
71,600
120
16.9
2.3
23.5
7.2
107
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
No. 11
Dec 19,1968 Thurs
10:00 AM-3:30 PM
1/2 Hour
No. 12-1
Dec 22,1968 Sun.
2:30 PM-10:00 PM
1/2 Hour
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. 7» Sat ur dated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
Coli (MPN)
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. 7» Saturated
pH Value
Influent
648
292
356
195
108
87
1.5
32.8
71,600
185
11.5
5.5
50.2
7.3
No. 12-2
Dec 22&23
11:00 PM-
1 Hour
Influent
432
132
300
72
56
16
0.6
16.4
71,600
80
13.2
2.9
27.1
7.1
Effluent
518
204
314
120
86
34
0.3
16.0
71,600
200
11.7
7.0
62.6
7.4
,1968 Sun.
1:00 AM
Effluent
350
88
262
40
26
14
Trace
5.6
71,600
60
12.0
5.2
47.9
7.2
Influent
442
208
234
138
74
64
2.3
22.4
71,600
130
10.6
5.45
48.4
7.0
No. 13
Effluent
350
140
210
112
44
68
0.4
13.6
71,600
125
10.0
6.3
55.7
7.0
Dec 27,1968 Fri
4:00 PM-6
1/2 Hour
Influent
460
206
254
194
102
92
2.0
20.8
71,600
100
9.1
6.2
53.3
7.1
:30 PM
Effluent
412
162
250
186
82
104
1.3
16.0
71,600
90
8.3
7.7
66.1
7.3
108
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
No. 14-1 No. 14-2
Jan 17&18.1969 Fri&Sat. Jan 18,1969 Sat.
8:30 PM-4:00 AM 5:00 AM-12:00 N
1/2 Hour 1 Hour
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. 7, Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. 7, Saturated
pH Value
Influent
514
250
264
222
104
118
2.5
16.0
100
8.3
7.3
61.8
7.0
No. 14-
Jan 18,
Effluent
480
240
240
226
98
128
2.0
16.8
120
8.3
8.3
71.1
7.0
3
1969 Sat.
1:00 PM-8:00 PM
1 Hour
Influent
644
290
354
114
84
30
2.0
22.8
120
12.0
5.1
46.9
7.1
Effluent
614
278
336
82
58
24
0.7
19.2
90
12.1
5.8
53.3
7.1
Influent
536
220
316
94
46
48
1.1
8.4
130
10.0
7.6
66.8
7.0
No. 14-4
Jan 18&19
Effluent
448
148
300
86
54
32
1.0
10.4
105
9.8
8.0
70.7
7.0
,1969 Sat.&Sun
10:00 PM-4:00 AM
2 Hours
Influent
676
264
412
108
100
8
2.0
26.0
320
13.0
4.2
39.2
7.1
Effluent
572
150
422
60
48
12
Trace
16.4
90
12.5
5.9
54.9
7.1
109
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
No. 15-1
Jan 28, 1969 Tues
4:00 PM-11:30 PM
1/2 Hour
No. 15-2
Jan 29, 1969 Wed.
12:30 AM-7:30 AM
1/2 Hour
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.P. 7» Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. % Saturated
pH Value
Influent
630
268
362
250
136
114
2.5
30.0
180
10.3
4.8
42.3
6.9
No. 15-3
Effluent
502
180
322
132
62
70
0.6
16.0
100
9.5
6.9
60.2
7.0
Jan 29,1969 Wed.
8:30 AM-
1/2 Hour
Influent
582
216
366
152
92
60
1.9
25.6
160
11.6
5.3
48.2
7.1
3:30 PM
Effluent
598
226
372
100
56
44
1.0
10.8
60
11.2
7.3
65.5
6.8
Influent
620
108
512
300
100
200
2.5
28.0
100
9.9
6.4
55.6
7.1
No. 15-4
Effluent
462
298
164
278
180
98
1.5
17.2
120
9.8
7.5
65.3
7.1
Jan 29,1969 Wed.
4:30 PM-
2 Hours
Influent
270
164
106
176
76
100
2.0
17.2
120
10.9
7.4
66.8
7.0
10:30 PM
Effluent
428
178
250
192
60
132
1.0
15.2
40
10.8
8.0
71.9
7.1
110
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
No. 15-5
Jan 30,1969 Thurs
12:30 AM-6:30 AM
2 Hours
No. 15-6
Jan 30,1969 Thurs
8:30 AM-2: 30 PM
2 Hours
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. 7, Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days (? 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. 7o Saturated
pH Value
Influent
484
70
414
90
76
14
0.9
14.2
120
11.0
7.5
67.8
7.2
No. 15-
Jan 30,
Effluent
518
252
266
150
46
104
0.7
5.6
40
11.0
8.3
75.1
7.0
7
1969 Thurs
4:30 PM-10:30 PM
2 Hours
Influent
570
264
306
96
70
26
0.5
17.6
200
12.0
6.6
60.9
7.0
Effluent
772
416
366
104
46
58
0.6
16.8
190
12.0
7.1
65.5
7.2
Influent
532
236
296
82
54
28
1.6
7.2
40
11.6
8.1
74.1
7.2
No. 15-8
Effluent
530
232
298
84
56
28
1.6
10.8
60
11.8
8.7
80.0
6.9
Jan 31,1969 Fri
12:30 AM-6:30 AM
2 Hours
Influent
694
300
394
76
62
14
0.3
13.2
260
12.0
6.6
60.5
7.2
Effluent
628
254
374
72
62
10
0.3
8.8
130
12.0
7.8
71.9
7.3
111
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
No. 15-9
Jan 31,1969 Fri
8:30 AM-2:30 PM
2 Hours
No. 16-1
Feb 8&9,1969 Sat.&Sun.
6:00 PM-1:30 AM
1/2 Hour
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Influent
726
312
414
100
76
24
0.7
18.4
200
12.6
6.2
58.0
7.2
No. 16-2
Effluent
686
260
426
76
62
14
0.4
14.4
130
12.5
7.9
73.2
7.4
Feb 9,1969 Sun.
2:00 AM-
1 Hour
Influent
410
118
292
52
26
26
0.1
6.4
80.0
10.7
6.9
61.6
6.7
9:00 AM
Effluent
578
182
396
58
28
30
0.2
8.0
40.0
10.7
8.1
70.1
6.8
Influent
408
178
230
156
52
104
1.3
12.4
80.0
9.1
6.7
58.1
6.7
No. 16-3
Effluent
444
192
252
208
88
120
1.3
13.2
60.0
9.1
7.3
63.4
6.8
Feb 9,1969 Sun.
10:00 AM-
1 Hour
Influent
620
204
416
68
40
28
0.2
17.2
120.0
11.6
5.9
53.9
7.2
5:00 PM
Effluent
598
190
408
44
22
22
0.2
14
40.0
11.6
7.1
64.7
7,3
112
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm No. 17
Date March 24, 1969 Mon
Sampling Period 9:00 AM-4:30 PM
Sampling Interval 1/2 Hour
Composite Sample Influent Effluent
Total Solids 588 362
Volatile Solids 228 76
Fixed Solids 360 286
Total Suspended Solids 214 116
Volatile Solids 128 70
Fixed Solids 86 46
Settleable Solids (ml/1) 2.2 0.5
Ether Soluble 30 16
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C 160 80
B.O.D. on Settled Sample 120 70
Temperature (°C) 12.4 11.8
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) 3.9 6.5
D.O. % Saturated 37.7 59.2
pH Value 7.3 7.4
113
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
No. 18-1
April 18, 1969 Fri
7:30 AM-3:00 PM
1/2 Hour
Influent
Effluent
CW&CTL State Ave.
CW&CTL State Ave.
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
440
160
280
156
92
64
2.0
12
140
80
16.2
3.4
33.9
6.9
451
108
343
120
80
40
2.
5
68
-
_
-
-
-
445
134
311
138
86
52
0 2.0
8.5
104
-
_
-
-
-
No. 18-2
April 18
4:00 PM-
1 Hour
396
178
218
120
68
52
1.2
38
50
40
16.2
5.1
50.4
7.0
, 1969 Fri
11:00 PM
406
94
312
180
28
152
1.3
2
47
-
_
-
-
-
401
136
265
150
48
102
1.3
20.0
48.0
-
_
-
-
-
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 day @ 20° C
B.O.D. Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Influent
CW&CTL State Ave.
538 409.5 474
224 136 180
314 273.5 294
322 292 307
122 64 93
200 228 214
3.0 3.0 3.0
16 18 17.0
100 47 74
40
13.9
5.7
54.9
6.9
Effluent
CW&CTL State Ave.
438 438 438
210 87 148
228 351 290
212 280 246
86 36 61
126 244 185
1.2 1.7 1.5
15 35 25.0
80 34 57
30
14.1
6.9
66.4
6.9
114
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
No. 18-3
April 19, 1969 Sat.
12:00 AM-7:00 AM
1 Hour
Influent
Effluent
CW&CTL
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
532
198
334
48
44
4
0.
12
80
30
13.
6.
59.
7.
4
9
2
5
1
State
519
77
442
88
12
76
0.75
9
37
-
-
-
-
-
No
Ave.
525
137
388
68
28
40
0.6
10.5
59
-
-
-
-
-
. 18-4
April 19,
CW&CTL
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. 7o Saturated
pH Value
624
290
334
66
58
8
0.
15
120
100
13.
6.
63.
7.
3
9
6
2
3
8:
1
Influent
State
555
125
430
86
30
56
1.6
54
51
-
-
-
-
-
00 AM- 3:
Hour
CW&CTL
550
262
288
54
40
14
0
11
30
20
13
7
71
7
1969
00 PM
.7
.9
.4
.5
.2
Sat,
State
536
104
432
62
17
45
1.0
32
32
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
543
183
360
58
28
30
0.
21.
31
-
-
-
-
-
9
5
Effluent
Ave.
590
208
382
76
44
32
1.0
34.5
85
-
-
-
-
-
CW&CTL
646
276
370
72
58
14
0
13
80
60
13
6
65
7
.1
.8
.8
.6
.3
State
563
120
443
90
32
58
1.0
50
49
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
605
198
407
81
45
36
0.
31.
60
-
-
-
-
-
6
5
115
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
No. 18-5
April 19, 1969 Sat.
4:00 PM-11:00 PM
1 Hour
Influent
Effluent
CW&CTL
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. % Saturated
pH Value
544
208
336
70
62
8
0.
8
100
50
14.
5.
50.
7.
3
1
3
6
2
State
532
125
407
108
36
72
1.8
47
69
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
538
166
372
89
49
40
1.1
27.5
85
-
-
-
-
-
CW&CTL
548
202
346
82
66
16
0.1
5
160
70
14.1
6.4
62.0
7.3
State
545
131
414
100
36
64
1.7
16
71
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
546
166
380
91
51
40
0.
10.
116
-
-
-
-
-
9
5
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
'pH Value
No. 19-1
May 8&9, 1969 Thurs & Fri
6:00 PM-1:00 AM
1/2 Hour
Influent
Effluent
CW&CTL State Ave.
CW&CTL State Ave.
682 613 648
230 140 185
452 473 463
358 310 334
132 25 79
226 285 255
2.1 2.5 2.3
14 5.6 9.8
70 42 56
30
17.9
3.7
38.7
6.8
602 489 546
218 101 160
384 388 386
254 300 277
104 75 90
150 225 187
1.3 1.4 1.4
10 3.6 6.8
50 29 40
30
17.9
5.0
52.2
6.8
116
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
No. 19-2
May 9, 1969 Fri
2:00 AM-9: 00 AM
1 Hour
Influent
Effluent
CW&CTL
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. 7o Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
606
254
352
96
52
44
1.
8.
50
30
16.
5.
51.
6.
5
4
6
1
8
7
State
610
147
463
136
24
112
1.2
4.4
29
-
-
-
-
-
No
Ave.
608
200
408
116
38
78
1.4
6.4
40
-
-
-
-
-
. 19-3
May 9, 1969
CW&CTL
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
642
242
400
134
104
30
3.
25.
120
45
17.
3.
39.
6.
0
6
3
9
7
9
10
1
Influent
State
672
186
486
154
66
88
2.0
5.6
74
-
-
-
-
-
:00 AM-5:
Hour
Ave.
657
214
443
144
85
59
2.5
15.6
97
-
_
-
-
-
CW&CTL
526
180
346
84
62
22
0.
8.
25
20
16.
6.
63.
6.
Fri
7
4
5
3
8
9
State
547
110
437
64
11
53
0.8
6.4
16
-
-
-
-
-
Ave
537
145
392
74
37
37
0
7
21
-
-
-
-
-
•
.8
.4
00 PM
CW&CTL
556
172
384
84
54
30
1.
17.
80
70
17.
5.
55.
6.
8
6
4
4
4
9
Effluent
State
619
150
469
118
40
78
0.9
6.4
60
-
-
-
-
-
Ave
588
161
427
101
47
54
1
12
70
-
_
-
-
-
•
.35
.0
117
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
19-4
May 9&10, 1969 Fri & Sat.
6:00 PM-1:00 AM
1 Hour
Influent
Effluent
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
CW&CTL
694
224
470
116
86
30
2.0
24.8
140
120
17.1
3.9
39.7
6.6
State
722
185
537
152
68
84
1.6
7.2
73
-
_
-
-
-
Ave.
708
205
503
134
77
57
1.8
16.0
107
-
_
-
-
-
No. 20
CW&CTL
666
222
444
92
74
18
0.4
18.8
85
80
17.1
5.0
50.8
6.7
State
666
152
514
102
24
78
0.45
2.8
53
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
666
187
479
97
49
48
0.4
10.8
69
-
-
-
-
-
May 19, 1969 Mon
9:00 AM-4:
1/2 Hour
30 PM
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Influent
Effluent
CW&CTL State Ave.
CW&CTL State Ave.
508
204
304
100
64
36
1.
19.
70
40
17.
4.
44.
7.
5
2
8
3
3
1
529
131
398
120
65
55
1.7
7.6
61
-
_
-
-
-
519
168
351
110
65
45
1.6
13.4
66
-
_
_
-
_
478
176
302
92
48
44
0.
6.
45
15
17.
5.
57.
7.
9
8
7
5
3
1
552
127
425
105
60
45
1.5
6.8
46
-
_
-
-
-
515
151
364
98
54
44
1.
6.
46
-
_
-
-
-
2
8
118
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Samp1e
No. 21-1
June 2, 1969 Mon
2:00 PM-9:30 PM
1/2 Hour
Influent
Effluent
CW&CTL
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
488
150
338
128
90
38
1.
40
150
130
19.
0.
6.
7.
3
7
6
1
0
State
555
184
371
128
60
68
1.5
21
84
-
-
-
-
-
No
Ave.
522
167
355
128
75
53
1.4
30.5
117
-
-
-
-
-
. 21-
June 2,
CW&CTL
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
420
126
294
114
68
46
1.
25
90
90
19.
2.
21.
6.
0
0
1
8
9
10
1
Influent
State
460
153
307
130
50
80
1.4
16
59
-
_
-
-
-
CW&CTL
336
96
240
78
58
20
1.
31
80
35
19.
3.
35.
7.
2
1969 Mon
0
3
3
6
0
State
374
114
260
84
26
58
0.6
24
46
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
355
105
250
81
42
39
0.
27.
63
-
-
-
-
-
8
5
:30 PM-12:30 AM
Hour
Ave.
440
140
300
122
59
63
1.2
20.5
75
-
-
-
-
-
CW&CTL
416
116
300
108
52
56
0.
21
80
80
19.
4.
47.
7.
3
0
5
9
0
Effluent
State
440
128
312
88
36
52
0.9
20
41
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
428
122
306
98
44
54
0.
20.
61
-
-
-
-
-
6
5
119
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
No. 22-1
June 5, 1969 Thurs
9:30 AM-4:30 PM
1 Hour
Influent
Effluent
CW&
CTL State
Ave.
CW&
CTL State
Ave.
528 521 533 527
396 138 235 256
132 383 298 271
364 402 392 386
120 104 165 130
244 298 227 256
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D., Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
144
82
62
1
24
110
50
18
2
21
7
.5
.5
.1
.4
.0
158
64
94
1.5
22
84
-
-
-
-
-
139
71
68
1
14
97
-
-
-
-
-
147
72
75
.8 1.
20.
97
-
-
-
-
-
No. 22-
June 5 ,
80
50
30
6 0.7
0 13
80
40
18
4
45
7
2
1969
5:30 PM-12:30
1 Hour
.0
.4
.3
.1
114
36
78
0.8
24
45
-
-
-
-
-
90
44
46
0.3
22
62
-
-
-
-
-
95
43
52
0.
19.
62
-
-
-
-
-
6
7
Thurs
AM
Influent
CW&
CTL
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D., Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D. 0. % Saturated
pH Value
630
204
426
88
74
14
0
30
120
100
20
0
2
7
.6
.6
.3
.8
.1
State
662
163
499
94
64
30
1.0
27
142
-
-
-
-
-
Cit
664
260
404
80
59
21
0
12
119
-
-
-
-
-
y Ave.
652
209
443
87
66
21
.3 0.
23.
127
-
-
-
-
-
Effluent
CW&
CTL
554
194
360
72
52
20
6 0
0 28
95
65
20
3
34
7
.1
.0
.2
.6
.1
State
574
142
432
88
36
52
0.5
27
71
-
-
-
-
-
City
560
190
370
62
44
18
0.1
16
101
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
563
175
388
74
44
30
0.
23.
89
-
-
-
-
-
2
7
120
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
No. 23-1
June 12&13,1969 Thurs&Fri
10:00 PM-5:00 AM
1 Hour
Influent Effluent
CW&
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D., Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. 70 Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D., Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
* Average of CW&CTL and
CTL
386
130
256
160
84
76
1.
56
40
20
20.
2.
23.
6.
8
9
1
4
5
State
389
191
198
166
46
120
1.4
6.8
52
-
_
-
-
-
Cit
400
154
246
157
69
88
1
32
74
-
-
-
-
-
y Ave.
392
158
234
161
66
95
.9 1.7
44.0*
55
-
-
-
-
-
No. 23-2
June 13,
6:00 AM-1
1 Hour
CW&
CTL
324
106
218
124
64
60
1.
39
30
30
21.
3.
38.
6.
1969
0
1
5
6
5
State
342
81
261
126
26
100
1.4
56
40
-
-
-
-
-
City
362
162
200
128
52
76
1.2
13
56
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
343
116
227
126
47
79
1.
26.
42
-
-
-
-
-
2
0*
Fri
:00 PM
Influent
CW&
CTL
490
184
306
150
76
74
1.
31
40
40
20.
4.
46.
6.
City
5
1
3
8
9
State
528
136
392
132
38
94
1.8
4.0
57
-
_
-
-
-
Cit
560
226
334
158
75
83
1
32
81
-
_
-
-
-
y Ave.
526
182
344
147
63
84
.6 1.6
31.5*
59
-
_
-
-
-
CW&
CTL
420
154
266
118
48
70
0.
27
20
20
19.
5.
63.
7.
8
9
8
9
0
Effluent
State
386
85
301
120
30
90
1.1
6.4
42
-
_
-
-
-
City
414
169
245
129
50
79
1.3
25
53
-
_
-
-
-
Ave.
407
136
271
123
43
80
1.
26.
38
-
_
-
-
-
1
0*
values
121
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
No. 23-3
June 13, 1969 Fri
2:00 PM-9:00 PM
1 Hour
Influent
Effluent
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D., Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. 70 Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. , Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. 70 Saturated
pH Value
CW&
CTL
594
176
418
90
70
20
0.
55
120
100
21.
0.
10.
6.
9
2
9
3
8
State
615
154
461
62
40
22
1.5
0.8
86
-
-
-
-
-
City
667
223
444
96
70
26
1.0
22
90
-
-
-
-
-
No
Ave.
625
184
441
83
60
23
1.1
38.5
99
-
-
-
-
-
. 24-1
June 22,
4:
1
30 PM-
Hour
CW&
CTL
590
196
394
66
54
12
0.
** 86
88
88
21.
3.
33.
6.
1969
11:30
Influent
CW&
CTL
258
126
132
106
74
32
1.
25
90
70
21.
0.
8.
6.
3
3
8
4
3
State
352
94
258
80
22
58
1.0
8.4
61
-
_
-
-
-
City
356
76
280
103
60
43
0.9
20
59
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
354*
85*
269*
96
52
44
1.1
22.5
70
-
-
-
-
-
CW&
CTL
256
144
112
68
42
26
0.
•** 20
65
25
21.
3.
35.
6.
_ state
653
179
474
94
60
34
3 0.5
5.2
62
-
1
0
5
9
Sun.
PM
City
637
185
452
76
53
23
0.3
8
75
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
627
187
440
79
56
23
0.4
47 . 0**
75
-
-
-
-
-
Effluent
State
313
82
231
74
20
54
8 0.7
9.2
57
-
4
0
1
4
City
332
134
198
76
50
26
0.4
12
46
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
322*
108*
214*
73
37
36
0.6
16 **
56
-
-
-
-
-
*Average of State and City Values
** Average of CW&CTL and City Values
122
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
No. 24-2
June 23, 1969 Mon
12:30 AM-7:30 AM
1 Hour
Influent
Effluent
CW&
CTL
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D., Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Comp o site Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D., Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
414
206
208
110
38
72
1.
34
60
30
19.
5.
53.
6,
6
6
0
5
6
State
426
86
340
210
74
136
1.5
10
45
-
-
-
_
-
City
488
118
370
212
74
138
1.5
41
49
-
-
-
-
-
No
Ave.
443
137
306
211*
74*
137*
1.5
37. 5#
51
-
_
-
_
-
. 24-3
June 23,
8:
1
30 AM- 3
Hour
CW&
CTL
352
144
208
138
72
66
1.1
14
45
20
19.7
6.1
65.4
6.7
State
366
80
286
146
22
124
1.3
72
30
-
_
-
_
-
City
417
108
309
163
56
107
1.0
30
34
-
_
-
_
-
Ave.
378
111
267
149
50
99
1.1
22. 0#
36
-
_
-
-
-
1969 Mon
:30 PM
Influent
CW&
CTL
582
182
400
96
62
34
1.
32
100
30
19.
4.
53.
7.
State
City
609 1132
8
7
9
1
2
101
508
146
46
100
2.0
7.2
73
-
_
-
-
-
786
346
86
57
29
1.1
15
55
-
_
-
-
-
Ave.
596**
142**
454**
109
55
54
1.6
23. 5#
76
-
_
-
_
-
CW&
CTL
552
152
400
70
54
16
1.3
18
45
45
19.7
5.9
64.3
7.2
Effluent
State
567
97
470
94
22
72
1.8
14.8
63
-
_
_
_
-
City
601
229
372
74
46
28
1.3
14
56
-
_
-
_
-
Ave.
573
159
414
79
40
39
1.5
15. 5#
55
-
_
_
_
-
* Average of State and City values
** Average of CW&CTL and
# Aver^crp of ru&r.TT. anH (
State
Mt-w
\rs
values
1 1 1 1 £> Q
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
No. 24-4
June 23, 1969 Mon
4:30 PM-11:30 PM
1 Hour
Influent
Effluent
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D., Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. 7» Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D., Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
CW&
CTL
538
142
396
182
84
98
1.9
21
60
40
21.1
4.6
51.2
7.2
CW&
State
623
118
505
236
50
186
2.0
9.6
68
-
-
-
-
-
City
665
318
347
227
80
147
1.6
54
70
-
-
-
-
-
No
Ave.
609
193
416
215
71
144
1.8
37.5**
66
-
-
-
-
-
. 24-5
CTL
500
116
384
172
60
112
1
17
60
40
20
5
59
7
June 24, 1969
12
I
:30 AM- 7
Hour
:30
.4
.9
.4
.3
.2
State
583
105
478
154
36
118
1.9
11.6
56
-
-
-
-
-
City
624
239
385
177
65
112
1.4
32
60
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
569
153
416
168
54
114
1.
24.
59
-
-
-
-
-
6
5**
Tues
AM
Influent
CW&
CTL
560
254
306
18
12
6
0.6
60
60
30
19.6
4.1
44.1
7.1
Effluent
CW&
State
578
116
462
48
19
29
1.0
10.8
42
-
_
-
-
-
City
668
318
350
48
32
16
0.2
19
45
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
602
229
373
48*
26*
22*
0.6
39.5**
49
-
_
-
-
-
CTL
572
260
310
12
10
2
0
58
45
25
19
5
57
7
.4
.7
.3
.2
.2
State
554
104
450
51
20
31
1.1
10.4
32
-
-
-
-
-
City
644
272
372
52
34
18
0.1
11
46
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
590
212
378
51*
27*
24*
0.
34.
41
-
-
-
-
-
5
5**
* Average of State and City values
** Average of CW&DTL and City values
124
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
No. 24-7
June 24, 1969 Tues
4:30 PM-11:30 PM
1 Hour
Influent
Effluent
CW&CTL State Ave.
CW&CTL State Ave.
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Samplind Period
Sampling Interval
490
170
320
236
88
148
1.5
8
30
30
21.1
4.6
53.8
7.2
535 513 400 459
110 140 150 94
425 373 250 365
178 207 150 162
34 61 44 26
144 146 106 136
1.8 1.65
11.6 8.0*
39 35
-
-
-
-
-
No. 24-8
June 25, 1969
12:30 AM-7:30
1 Hour
0.9 1.9
6 9.6
30 30
15
21.1
5.7
63.0
7.3
Wed.
AM
430
122
308
156
35
121
1.4
6.0*
350
-
-
-
-
-
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
* CW&CTL Values only
Influent
Effluent
CW&CTL State Ave.
CW&CTL State Ave.
576
202
374
52
26
26
0.5
85
30
30
19.1
5.2
55.2
7.4
547
98
449
38
15
23
1.9
13.2
19
-
_
_
-
_
562
150
412
45
21
24
1.2
85.0*
25
-
_
_
_
_
556
164
392
42
18
24
0.3
76
15
10
19.1
6.2
66.2
7.3
450
180
270
47
16
31
1.0
11.2
17
-
_
_
_
_
503
172
331
45
17
28
0.65
76.0*
16
-
_
_
_
_
125
-------
WHITTIER STREET STORM STANDBY TANKS
DATA PERTINENT TO SAMPLING AND RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTS
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
No. 24-9
June 25, 1969 Wed.
8:30 AM-3:30 PM
1 Hour
Influent
Effluent
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
Storm
Date
Sampling Period
Sampling Interval
Composite Sample
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Solids
Fixed Solids
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Ether Soluble
B.O.D. 5 days @ 20° C
B.O.D. on Settled Sample
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.)
D.O. % Saturated
pH Value
CW&CTL
634
284
350
88
78
10
1.9
82
130
110
20.2
3.6
38.9
7.3
State
661
137
524
118
70
48
2.8
12.4
92
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
648
211
437
103
74
29
2.35
82.0*
111
-
-
-
-
-
CW&CTL
594
260
334
54
48
6
0.4
92
85
55
20.2
4.6
50.4
7.3
State
930
389
541
80
44
36
0.5
8.0
64
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
594*
260*
334*
67
46
21
0.45
92.0*
75
-
-
-
-
-
No. 24-10
June 25,
CW&CTL
652
254
398
134
128
6
1.4
35
150
140
20.9
1.9
20.9
7.2
4:
1
Influent
State
709
183
526
146
100
46
2.5
20
153
-
_
-
-
-
1969 Wed
.
30 PM-11:30 PM
Hour
Ave.
681
219
462
140
114
26
1.95
35 . 0*
152
-
_
-
-
-
CW&CTL
658
252
406
82
76
6
0.2
50
170
130
21.0
2.7
30.3
7.2
Effluent
State
679
166
513
82
56
26
0.8
19.6
132
-
-
-
-
-
Ave.
669
209
460
82
66
16
0.5
50.0*
151
-
-
-
-
-
*CW&CTL Value only
126
-------
^ | Accex&ion Number
2
Subject Field &-, Group
0 5D
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
_LJ
Organization
Dodson, Kinney and Lindblom, Consulting Engineers
Title
EVALUATION OF STORM STANDBY TANKS
10
Author(s)
Lindblom, C. T.
16
Project Designation
11020 FAL
O1
22
Citation
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
Waste water treatment, Sedimentation, Aeration, Sewage effluent
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
Combined sewers, Regulator stations, Storm standby tanks, Combined wastewater
quality, Solids removal, B.O.D. removal, D.O. improvement
27
Abstract
The operation of three storm standby tanks contiguous to an intercepting sewer
which serves both combined sewers and sanitary sewers was investigated to determine
the effectiveness of the tanks in improving the quality of the wastewater prior to
its discharge into the river. Based on influent and effluent sampling data collected
during the study period, storm standby tank facilities reduce sign.ificantly concentration
of solids and B.O.D. in the wastewater in storm runoff periods. The extent of reduction
is dependent to a major degree on the detention time of flow passing through the tanks.
Improvement of dissolved oxygen resulting from passage of wastewater through the tanks
is very substantial, especially during periods when the dissolved oxygen content of the
influent is low. Since improvement in water quality of effluent from the tanks would
normally occur when volume of flow in the receiving river is above average and when
its quality can be expected to be reasonably good, it is concluded that the tanks would
contribute to pollution abatement only to a minor degree. However, some benefits would
result from the reduced load applied to the stream, even at a time when the river could
handle such load. (Lindblom, DKL)
Abstractor
C. T. Lindblom
Institution
Dodson ? Kinney and Lindblom
W R 102 (REV JULY 1 9 C 9 )
WR5I C
SEND TO Y^ATEP RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON D C 20340
U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1971 O-422-3U
-------
Continued from inside front cover
11022 — 08/67
11023 — 09/67
11020 — 12/67
11023 — 05/68
11031 — 08/68
11030 DNS 01/69
11020 DIM 06/69
11020 DES 06/69
11020 — 06/69
11020 EXV 07/69
11020 DIG 08/69
11023 DPI 08/69
11020 DGZ 10/69
11020 EKO 10/69
11020 — 10/69
11024 FKN 11/69
11020
11000
DWF 12/69
— 01/70
11020 FKI 01/70
11024
11023
DDK 02/70
FDD 03/70
11024 DMS 05/70
11023
11024
EVO 06/70
— 06/70
Phase I - Feasibility of a Periodic Flushing System for
Combined Sewer Cleaning
Demonstrate Feasibility of the Use of Ultrasonic Filtration
in Treating the Overflows from Combined and/or Storm Sewers
Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows, 1967
(WP-20-11)
Feasibility of a Stabilization-Retention Basin in Lake Erie
at Cleveland, Ohio
The Beneficial Use of Storm Water
Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff, (WP-20-15)
Improved Sealants for Infiltration Control, (WP-20-18)
Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff Abstracts, (WP-20-21)
Sewer Infiltration Reduction by Zone Pumping, (DAST-9)
Strainer/Filter Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows,
(WP-20-16)
Polymers for Sewer Flow Control, (WP-20-22)
Rapid-Flow Filter for Sewer Overflows
Design of a Combined Sewer Fluidic Regulator, (DAST-13)
Combined Sewer Separation Using Pressure Sewers, (ORD-4)
Crazed Resin Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflows, (DAST-4)
Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows •
Bucyrus, Ohio, (DAST-32)
Control of Pollution by Underwater Storage
Storm and Combined Sewer Demonstration Projects -
January 1970
Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer
Overflows, (WP-20-17)
Proposed Combined Sewer Control by
Rotary Vibratory Fine Screening of
(DAST-5)
Engineering Investigation of Sewer
Roanoke, Virginia
Microstraining and Disinfection of
Electrode Potential
Combined Sewer Overflows,
Overflow Problem -
Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Technology
------- |