UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
905R82104
WATER DIVISION
230 S DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
JUNE, 1982
FINAL
xvEPA
REPORT ON
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
FACILITIES PLANNING FOR
THE DETROIT WATER
AND SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT
DETROIT MICHIGAN
-------
COVER PHOTO
McNichols Combined Sewer Overflow Gates
located in the City of Detroit, on the
Rouge River. Shown during dry weather.
Constructed in two segments of three
barrels each. Barrels measure 9 feet
3 inches square in the left segment,
and 11 feet by 11 feet 9 inches in
the right segment - each.
-------
REPORT ON COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
FACILITIES PLANNING FOR THE
DETROIT WATER AND SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT
Prepared for the
Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
Prepared By
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jim Novak, Project Manager
and
ESEI, inc.
Peter Swinick, Project Manager
June, 1982
-------
PREFACE
This report on Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) planning summa-
rizes and highlights important aspects of the planning
process. The goal in preparing the report has been to
present information which will allow the reader to clearly
understand the methods and outcomes of the Facility Planner's
analysis so that present and future planners will have a
solid basis from which to begin. The more important method-
ologies have been critiqued so that the reader and future
planners may understand the limits and be aware of of the
implications of the particular method. It must be recognized
that professionals will often choose different specific
methodologies to accomplish a goal. One approach is not
necessarily always correct, and the other incorrect. Certain
methodologies have been identified which seem inappropriate
given the data and the circumstances. Alternatives are
suggested in other places. While not disagreeing with the
methodology, the implications of choosing one approach over
another are explained.
This report is not meant to be all inclusive and duplicating
the Facility Planners' work has been specifically avoided.
For this reason the reader may want to approach the various
central documents in the following order.
1. Executive Summary of Alternative Facilities Interim
Report, (AFIR), June, 1981, Giffels, Black & Veatch
2. Report on the Combined Sewer Overflow Facilities Planning
for the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, ESEI
3. AFIR by Giffels/Black & Veatch
4. Other Documents for Greater Detail
a) CSO Quantity and Quality Report
b) Expanded Chapter 4 of the AFIR (unpublished)
c) Capacity and Capability Report
-------
The Executive Summary of the AFIR provides a short descrip-
tion of the Facility Planner's work and their findings. The
AFIR itself provides a great deal of detail on the alterna-
tives, while not explaining some of the methodologies in as
much detail as this report. On the other hand, this report
contains very little information about the facilities
required for the alternatives but does explain in detail the
procedures used to select and rank the "few best" alterna-
tives. Specifically, we addressed the modeling, the environ-
mental assessment, and the cost/benefit analysis.
For additional, detailed information on specific topics, the
reader is directed to other Facility Planning and EIS docu-
ments.
The Detroit Combined Sewer Overflow planning effort has been
lengthy and at times confusing. It is hoped that the Report
on CSO Facilities Planning for the Detroit Water and Sewerage
Department will give the reader an appreciation for past
planning, a clear understanding for the recent planning, and
a basis for future planning.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Table of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Photographs
List of Acronyms
Reader1s Guide
Introduction
1.1
1.2
Purpose
Scope
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
Planning Area/Service Area
Designations
Planning Entities
AFIR
CSO Report
Historical Perspective
2.1 Original Facilities Plan
2.2 Segmented Facilities Plan
2.3 Final Facilities Plan and EIS
2.4 Suburban Facilities Plan
Wastewater Transport and Treatment Facilities
3.1 Collection System
3.2 Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant
3.2.1 Capacity and Description of Facilities
3.2.2 Capability
3.2.3 Summary
3.3 Sewer Service Area Extensions - Macomb County
3.3.1 General
3.3.2 The Northern Six Townships
3.3.3 Washington, Shelby, & Macomb Townships
3.3.4 Chesterfield Township
3.3.5 Lakeshore Arm
CSO Quantity & Quality
4.1 General
4.2 Watershed & Drainage Basins
4.3 Dry Weather Flows
Page
i
iii
viii
xii
xv
xvi
ixx
1- 1
1- 2
1- 2
1- 2
1- 2
1- 6
2- 1
2- 2
2- 4
2- 6
3- 1
3-15
3-17
3-23
3-32
3-35
3-40
3-41
3-44
4- 1
4- 1
111
-------
4.4
4.5
4.3.1 General
4.3.2 Present & Future Populations
4.3.3 Infiltration & Inflow
4.3.4 Existing & Future Dry Weather Flows
CSO Sampling & Monitoring Program
4.4.1 Monitoring Sites
4.4.2 Quantity Monitoring
4.4.3 Quality Sampling
4.4.4 Sampling & Monitoring Results
CSO Modeling
4.5.1 General
4.5.2 Collection System Model
4.5.2.1 Model Application
4.5.2.2 Model Calibration
4.5.2.3 Characterization of CSO
4.5.3 Detroit Wastewater Treatment
Plant Model
4.5.4 Description of Model Outputs
4- 9
4- 9
4-10
4-15
4-20
4-22
4-26
4-27
4-34
4-36
4-39
4-43
4-36
4-51
4-53
Receiving Stream Water Quality
5.1
5.2
5.3
Water Quality Standards and Beneficial Uses
Water Quality Data Base
5.2.1 Rouge River
5.2.2 Detroit River
Receiving Stream Modeling
5.3.1 General
5.3.2 Rouge River Model
5.3.2.1 QUAL II
5.3.2.1.1 Model Application
5.3.2.1.2 Model Calibration
5.3.2.2 RECEIV II
5.3.2.2.1 Model Application
5.3.2.2.2 Model Calibration
5.3.3 Detroit River Models
5.3.3.1 Encotec Model
5.3.3.1.1 Model Application
5.3.3.1.2 Model Calibration
5- 1
5- 5
5- 5
5- 8
5- 8
5-17
5-18
5-21
5-23
5-24
5-26
5-27
5-39
5-29
5-30
5-37
IV
-------
5.3.3.2 Plume Model 5-38
5.3.3.2.1 Model Application 5-39
5.3.3.2.2 Model Calibration 5-40
5.3.4 Model Initialization Data 5-41
5.3.5 Description of Model Outputs
5.3.5.1 Rouge River 5-48
5.3.5.2 Detroit River 5-51
5.4 Summary of Existing and Projected Water 5-58
Quality
6. Development of Alternatives
6.1 General Least Cost Methodology
6.1.1 Overview 6- 1
6.1.2 Development of Scenarios 6- 5
6.1.3 Production Functions 6- 7
6.1.4 Cost Functions 6-10
6.1.5 Marginal Analysis 6-12
6.1.6 Generation of General Least Cost & 6-23
Specific Control Alternatives
6.2 The Special Cases - FNA & Existing Year 6-26
6.3 Specific CSO Control Alternatives
6.3.1 25 Alternatives 6-33
6.3.2 CSO Facilities Site Selection 6-63
7. Water Quality Improvements 7- 1
8. Evaluation of Alternatives
8.1 General Methodology 8- 1
8.2 Cost/Benefit Analysis 8- 8
8.2.1 Definition of Benefits 8- 8
8.2.2 Determination of Costs 8-11
8.2.3 Allocation of Costs 8-14
8.2.4 Methodology & Rankings 8-23
8.3 Environmental Evaluation
8.3.1 Methodology 8-29
8.3.2 Ranking 8-39
8.4 Implementability Evaluation
8.4.1 Methodology 8-39
8.4.2 Ranking 8-47
v
-------
8.5 Technical Evaluation
8.5.1 Methodology 8-49
8.5.2 Ranking 8-52
8.6 Economic Evaluation
8.6.1 Methodology 8-54
8.6.2 Ranking 8-56
8.7 Selection of Few Best Alternatives 8-60
9. Revision to the Alternatives - June, 1981 9- 1
10. Critique of Modeling & Evaluation Techniques 10- 1
10.1 Water Quality Modeling Critique 10- 1
10.1.1 Rouge River Model Development 10- 2
10.1.2 Model Initialization Data 10- 7
10.1.3 Model Calibration 10- 7
10.1.4 Other Modeling Considerations 10- 8
10.2 Benefit Analysis Critique 10-16
10.2.1 Definition of Benefit 10-16
10.2.2 Optimization 10-19
10.2.3 Value Systems 10-28
10.3 Environmental Evaluation Critique 10-33
10.3.1 General 10-33
10.3.2 FFP Environmental Evaluation System 10-34
10.3.3 FFP Environmental Parameters 10-35
& Measurements
10.3.4 Environmental Assessment Critique 10-41
Survey
11. Recommendations 11- 1
11.1 Alternatives for Evaluation 11- 1
11.2 Modeling Considerations 11- 1
11.3 Assessing Benefits 11- 2
11.4 System Control Center 11- 2
References
Appendices
A Dry Weather Sampling Program Data
B Rouge River Model Initialization Data
C Calculation of Baseline Annual O&M Costs
for FNA & Specific Control Alternatives
VI
-------
D July 6, 1981 Court Resolution of Amended
Consent Judgment Items
E Summary of Public Participation for CSO
Planning
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Description Page No,
1- 1 FFP Consultants and Their Roles 1- 4
2- 1 Current Status of Suburban CSO Facilities 2- 8
Planning
3- 1 DWSD Interceptor Service Areas 3- 4
3- 2 DWWTP Major Facilities 3-18
3- 3 Treatment Plant Component Capacities 3-19
3- 4 DWWTP Liquid Process Capability with 3-24
Total Facilities
3- 5 DWWTP Liquid Process Capability with 3-25
Probable Facilities
3- 6 Summary of DWWTP Capability 3-26
4- 1 Detroit Watershed Data 4- 6
4- 2 Existing & Future Population - Detroit 4-11
River Basin
4- 3 Existing & Future Population - Rouge 4-12
River Basin
4- 4 DWSD Suburban Service Areas Existing 4-13
& Future Population
4- 5 DWSD Service Area Existing & Future 4-14
Populations
4- 6 1980 Existing & Future Projected DWF - 4-16
Detroit River Basin
4- 7 1980 Existing & Future Projected DWF - 4-17
Rouge River Basin
4- 8 Suburban Area 1980 Existing & Future 4-18
Projected DWF
4- 9 Estimated Present & Future DWWTP DWF 4-19
4-10 CSO Monitoring Points 4-21
4-11 Location of CSO Quality Monitoring 4-26
4-12 CSO Sampling Quality Parameters 4-28
Vlll
-------
Table No. Description Page Nc
4-13 Rouge River Overflow Rates 4-30
4-14 Detroit River Overflow Rates 4-31
4-15 Site Event Summary - BOD5 4-33
4-16 Mean CSO Pollutant Concentrations 4-35
4-17 Comparison of Total Volumes for 4-45
Calibration Events
4-18 Comparison of Final Calibration Runoff 4-47
Concentrations & Measured Values
4-19 Calibration of CSO Loadings for All CSO 4-48
Sites Collectively
4-20 Comparison of 1979 & Average Year 4-50
Volumes
4-21 Comparison of 1979 & Average Year 4-52
Quality Loadings
4-22 Five Most Significant CSO Discharges (1979) 4-66
5- 1 Rouge River DO Data - Spring 1979 5-10
5- 2 Rouge River DO Data - Summer 1979 5-11
5- 3 Rouge River DO Data - Fall 1979 5-13
5- 4 Detroit River Background Concentrations 5-40
5- 5 Rouge River Model Initialization Data 5-54
Derived from STORET
5- 6 Detroit River Existing Conditions 5-59
Based on Model Outputs
5- 7 Rouge River Existing Conditions Based 5-60
on Model Outputs
5- 8 Annual CSO Discharges Based on Model 5-60
Outputs
6- 1 Scenario Options 6- 6
6- 2 Percentage BOD Removed 6-18
6- 3 Total Costs 6-18
6- 4 Flow & Capacity Assumptions 6-24
IX
-------
Table No. Description Page No,
6- 5 Estimated Industrial Loadings With 6-26
Pretreatment
6- 6 Pollutant Concentration with Dry 6-27
Weather & Average Annual Flows
6- 7 Alternative Description Summary 6-29
6- 8 Alternatives Detailed Description 6-32
6- 9 Final List of 47 Primary CSO Sites 6-64
6-10 Sites Proposed in the 25 CSO Control 6-66
Alternatives
7- 1 to Rouge River Water Quality by CSO 7- 5
7-10 Alternative
7-11 to Detroit River Water Quality by CSO 7-15
7-21 Alternative
8- 1 Implementability Importance Units 8- 5
8- 2 Implementability RV x IU 8-6
8- 3 CSO Alternative Costs - Rouge River 8-15
Basin
8- 4 CSO Alternative Costs - Detroit River 8-16
Basin
8- 5 Percentage of Total Unit Process Cost 8-17
Allocated Among Parameters for Storage
8- 6 Cost Allocation to Each Parameter for 8-18
Storage
8- 7 Treatment Module B: % of Total Cost 8-19
Allocated
8- 8 Treatment Module E: % of Total Cost 8-19
Allocated
8- 9 Cost Allocation to Each Parameter for 8-20
Treatment Module B
8-10 Percentage of Total Unit Process Cost 8-21
Allocated Among Parameters for
Additional DWWTP Capacity
8-11 Cost Allocation to Each Parameter for 8-22
Additional DWWTP Facilities
x
-------
Table No. Description Page No.
8-12 Benefit/Cost Assessment Computationsr 8-25
8-13 Benefit/Cost Ranking 8-28
8-14 Environmental Parameters & Importance 8-30
8-15 Environmental Ranking Within Eac"h Component 8-40
8-16 Environmental Ranking of Alternatives 8-43
8-17 Implementability Ranking of Alternatives 8-48
8-18 Storage/Treatment Ranking 8-52
8-19 Collection System Ranking 8-53
8-20 Technical Ranking of Alternatives 8-53
8-21 Economic Ranking of Alternatives 8-56
8-22 Economic Ranking Within Each Criterion 8-57
8-23 Overall Ranking of CSO Alternatives 8-61
9- 1 Revisions to Facilities Made for Final AFIR 9- 4
9- 2 Cost Revisions Made for Final AFIR 9- 5
10- 1 Concentration Ranges of Various Parameters in
the Rouge River for FNA and Alternative 19 10-10
10- 2 Concentration Ranges of Various Parameters in
the Route River for FNA and Alternative 10 10-12
10- 3 Rouge River Water Quality 10-13
10- 4 Comparison of Performance Between FNA and
Best Alternatives 10-32
10- 5 Cost/Benefit Values for Dissolved Oxygen 10-25
10- 6 Cost/Benefit Values for Fecal Coliform 10-26
10- 7 Cost/Benefit Values for DO and EC 10-27
10- 8 Comparison of Cost/Benefit Ranking 10-28
10- 9 Cost/Benefit for Three Value Systems 10-30
10-10 Summary of Comments of FFP Environmental
Analysis by Parameter 10-43
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Description Page No,
1- 1 DWSD Service Area & Major Sanitary 1- 3
Districts
3- 1 Major City & Suburban Interceptors 3- 3
& Trunk Sewers in the DWSD Service
Area
3- 2 CSO Locations on the Rouge River 3- 8
3- 3 CSO Locations on the Detroit River 3- 9
3- 4 Treatment Plant Process Schematic 3-20
3- 5 Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-21
3- 6 Recommended Interceptors - Macomb 3-34
Sanitary District
3- 7 Existing DWSD Interceptors Serving 3-36
Macomb County
3- 8 Year 2000 Sewer Service Area - Macomb 3-38
County
4- 1 Basin Boundaries for Detroit and 4- 2
Rouge Rivers in the Planning Area
4- 2 Watershed Boundaries in the Rouge 4- 4
River Basin
4- 3 Watershed Boundaries in the Detroit 4- 5
River Basin
4- 4 Planning Area Subwatersheds 4- 7
4- 5 Suburban Watershed Combined Sewer 4- 8
Areas
4- 6 Monitored CSO Locations on the Rouge 4-23
River
4- 7 Monitored CSO Locations on the Detroit 4-24
River
4- 8 Planning Level Models Interrelationships 4-37
4- 9 Raingage Assignments to Subwatersheds 4-40
4-10 Collection System Model Transport 4-42
Network
XII
-------
Figure No. Description Page No
4-11 to Collection System Model Outputs 4-55
4-16
5- 1 Dissolved Oxygen Profile Stations 5- 9
5- 2 Rouge River 1979 Average Spring 5-14
Dissolved Oxygen
5- 3 Rouge River 1979 Average Summer 5-15
Dissolved Oxygen
5- 4 Rouge River 1979 Average Fall 5-16
Dissolved Oxygen
5- 5 Modeled Portion of the Rouge River 5-19
5- 6 Rouge River Elements and Reaches 5-20
5- 7 RECEIV II With and Without Analytical 5-28
Solution Substitution
5- 8 Detroit River Model Reaches (Encotec 5-31
Model)
5- 9 Plume Model Reaches 5-32
5-10 to Encotech Model Segments for Detroit 5-34
5-12 River
5-13 STORET Data Sample 5-44
5-14 Location of STORET Sampling Stations 5-45
in Rouge River Basin
5-15 Cumulative Frequency Distribution, Rouge 5-50
River, Reach 3, Alternative-1
5-16 Alternative-1, Reach No. 3 DO Frequency 5-52
Distribution
5-17 Alternative-1, Reach No. 3 Percentage 5-53
Time DO Standard is Met and Exceeded
5-18 Detroit River (Encotech) Model Output, 5-55
Reach 2, Alternative 0
5-19 Plume Model Output, Reach 2A, Alterna- 5-56
tive 0
6- 1 Development of Alternatives 6- 2
6- 2 Total Cost Curve 6-14
Kill
-------
Figure No. Description Page No,
6- 3 Marginal Cost Curve 6-16
6- 4 Composite Marginal Cost Curve 6-17
8- 1 Environmental Value Function 8- 3
8- 2 Percent Maximum Benefit vs. Percent 8-26
Maximum Cost
10- 1 QUAL II Input Rates 10- 4
10- 2 RECEIV II Input Rates 10- 6
10- 3 Modeled Portion of Rouge River 10- 9
10- 4 Rouge River CSO Volume, 10-11
Dissolved Oxygen and Fecal Coliform
10- 5 Annual BOD Loadings for CSO's 10-15
10- 6 Rouge River Cost/Benefit Graph 10-22
Dissolved Oxygen Only
10- 7 Rouge River Cost/Benefit Graph 10-23
Fecal Coliform Only
10- 8 Rouge River Cost/Benefit Graph 10-24
Dissolved Oxygen & Fecal Coliform
10- 9 Graph of Three Value Systems 10-31
Dissolved Oxygen & Fecal Coliform
xiv
-------
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo No. Page No
1 McNichols CSO Outfall 3-10
2 Lyndon CSO Outfall With Flap Gate 3-10
3 View of the Rouge River at Lyndon CSO 3-11
4 Chicago CSO Outfall 3-11
5 View of the Rouge River at Tireman 3-12
6 Channelized Portion of the Rouge River 3-12
Showing a Storm Drainage Outfall
7 Another View of the Channelized Portion 3-13
of the Rouge River
8 Baby Creek Outfall 3-13
9 June 11, 1980 Aerial Photo of the DWWTP 3-22
10 Inside the DWWTP Control Room 3-27
11 DWWTP Pump Station No. 1 3-28
12 «Pump Motors in Pump Station No. 1 3-28
13 Bar Screening in the DWWTP Preliminary 3-29
Treatment Complex
14 Grit Collectors in the DWWTP Preliminary 3-29
Treatment Complex
15 DWWTP Aeration Tanks 3-30
16 DWWTP Final Clarifier 3-30
17 Drum Filter Dewatering Sludge 3-31
18 DWWTP Ash Lagoon 3-31
19 Beneficial Uses of the Rouge River 5- 2
20 Beneficial Uses of the Rouge River 5- 2
xv
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFIR
AST
AWT
BCE
BCW
BMP
BOD
BOD5
CAC
CBC
CBOD
CCC
CDF
COM
CEDD
cfs
COSD
CSO
DBE
DBW
DO (D.O.)
DRI
DWF
DWSD
DWWTP
EA
EC
EES
EFSD
EIS
EIU
EPA (US-EPA)
EQR
EVF
Alternative Facilities Interim Report
Advanced Secondary Wastewater Treatment
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Baby Creek East
Baby Creek West
Best Management Practice
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (five day)
Citizens Advisory Committee
Conner and Baby Creek
Carbonaceous Biological Oxygen Demand
Conner Creek Central
Cumulative Distribution Function
Camp Dresser McKee
Community & Economic Development Department
Cubic Feet Per Second
Clinton-Oakland Sanitary District
Combined Sewer Overflow
Dearborn East
Dearborn West
Dissolved Oxygen
Detroit River Interceptor
Dry Weather Flow
Detroit Water & Sewerage Department
Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant
Environmental Assessment
Existing Conditions
Environmental Evaluation System
Evergreen-Farmington Sanitary District
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Impact Unit
The United States Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental & Economic Quality Ranking
Evergreen-Farmington
xvi
-------
EWM
FAR
PC
FCE
FFP
FNA
FP
FR
G/B&V
HCRS
HS
1C
I/I
IJC
IU
JV
LRV
LTI
MDNR
MG
MGD
MPN
MRV
NEWCSD
NI-EA
NI-WA
NMS
NPDES
O&M
0-NWI
OP/EA
P
POMT
PS
RAI
RRM
Northeast Wayne & Southeast Macomb Counr.ies
Farmington
Fecal Coliforra
Fox Creek-East Jefferson
Final Facilities Plan
Future No Action
Facilities Plan
Filterable Residue
Giffels/Black & Veatch
Heritage Conservation & Recreation Service
Hubbel-Southfield
Initial Conditions
Infiltration/Inflow
International Joint Commission
Importance Unit
Joint Venture
Lower Rouge Valley
Limno-Tech, Inc.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Million Gallons
Million Gallons per Day
Most Probable Number
Middle Rouge Valley
Northeast Wayne County Sanitary District
North Interceptor - East Arm
North Interceptor - West Arm
North-Macomb Study
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Operation & Maintenance
Oakwood Northwest Interceptor
Overview Plan with Environmental Assessment
Phosphorus
Polygon Overlay Mapping Technique
Pump Station
Resource Analysts, Inc.
Rouge River North
xvn
-------
RRS
RTE
RV
SCC
SEG
SEMCOG
SEO
SEOCSD
SFP
SFP/EIS
SH&G/H&S
SHPO
SIC
SOD
SS
SSI
SWMM
TP
TSS
TVS
USA
USGS
WCDC
WCDPW
WRT
WTA
WW
WWF
WWI
WWTP
Rouge River South
Rare, Threatened, Endangered
Rating Value
System Control Center
Snell Environmental Group
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Southeast Oakland
Southeast Oakland County Sanitary District
Segmented Facilities Plan
Segmented Facilities Plan Environmental
Impact Statement
Smith, Hinchman & Grylls/Hazen & Sawyer, Inc.
State Historic Preservation Officer
Standard Industrial Classification
Sediment Oxygen Demand
Suspended Solids
Soil Systems, Inc.
Stormwater Management Model
Total Phosphorus
Total Suspended Solids
Total Volitile Solids
Urban Science Applications, Inc.
United States Geological Survey
Wayne County Drain Commission
Wayne County Department of Public Works
Weighted Ranking Technique
Wade Trim & Associates
Wet Weather
Wet Weather Flow
Williams & Works, Inc.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
XVlll
-------
READER'S GUIDE
The Report on the Combined Sewer Overflow Facilities Plannin-j
for the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, referred to as
the CSO Report) is not meant to be an encyclopedic recapitu-
lation of CSO planning in Detroit. The reader is assumed to
have some knowledge of the project and to have access to
other related reports. Some of the sections in this report
are generally informative while others deal directly with
highly technical and complex aspects of the planning. For
this reason, the reader may wish to focus attention on par-
ticular sections of the report in which he or she is most
interested. In order to facilitate the utility of this
report, a preview of each section is given below along with
recommendations on how they might be best approached.
Section 1 - Introduction
This section briefly describes the purposes and scope
of the CSO Report. The Planning Area and Service Area
are described and delineated on maps. Several of the
consultants which participated directly and indirectly
in the CSO planning are listed and their roles defined.
Section 2 - Historical Perspective
A chronological review of events related to Detroit CSO
planning is covered from the original Facilities Plan
initiated in 1966 to the present. Also, an update on
suburban facilities planning related to CSO control is
given.
Section 3 - Wastewater Transport and Treatment Facilities
This section of the report responds to the question,
"What facilities currently exist and how well do they
function?" The collection system is first described in
terms of its basic design as a combined sewer system.
ixx
-------
Major interceptors are delineated and their service
areas defined. All Detroit CSO outfall locations are
identified. Also, the collection system control center
is described. Major liquid process components of the
Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant are described and
their capacities and capabilities are listed in tables.
Several photographs are included in this secton
illustrating the Rouge River at various locations,
combined sewer overflows, and a number of treatment
plant components. Finally, Section 3 contains a dis-
cussion of proposed interceptor extensions into Macomb
County.
Section 4 - CSO Quantity and Quality
The quantity and quality of CSO was determined by a
computer model. This section begins with a description
of how the model was developed and the types of informa-
tion required for input. This is important because a
model is a sophisticated predictive tool but its accur-
acy is only as good as the data used in its development.
Watershed and drainage basins are defined and delin-
eated. The determination of dry weather flow is dis-
cussed. The program of sampling and monitoring the
Detroit collection system is described including
locations, parameters, frequency and results. Finally,
the development, calibration and verification of the
collection system model and the treatment plant model
are discussed in detail. Collection system model output
data detailing CSO flows and pollutant loadings are
given. Please note that the discussion on model develop-
ment is very complex and some background in computer
modeling is necessary in order to fully understand and
comprehend this section.
xx
-------
Section 5 - Receiving Stream Water Quality
Four computer models were used to determine water
quality in the Rouge and Detroit Rivers. The develop-
ment of these models is described in detail including:
1) baseline information such as water quality standards
and beneficial uses,
2) existing water quality data,
3) new data generated by river sampling and monitoring,
and
4) set-up, initialization, calibration and verification
of each of the four stream models.
A description of the model outputs is given as well as a
summary of the "existing" water quality determined by
the models.
The information provided in this section of the report
is crucial to the recommendations given in Section 11 .
However, the discussion of model development is very
complex and for this reason a good working knowledge of
water quality computer models is necessary to obtain a
thorough understanding of this section.
Section 6 - Development of Alternatives
This section describes the Facility Planners' develop-
ment of CSO Control Alternatives. It also was a complex
process involving the formulation of scenarios and
application of a general least-cost methodology. The
reader may find this section difficult to comprehend
unless he or she has had some background in cost-
effectiveness and marginal analysis techniques. The 25
xxi
-------
CSO Control Alternatives, as well as the Future No
Action (FNA) and Existing Condition (EC) are described.
Since the CSO remote storage/treatment sites are inti-
mately associated with the alternatives, the site selec-
tion methodology and its results are also described.
Section 7 - Water Quality Improvements
This section of the report summarizes the water improve-
ments projected by the models for the 25 CSO Control Al-
ternatives plus FNA and EC. The data are presented in
tables rather than text. Although the reader may be over
overwhelmed with numbers at first, we call attention to
Tables 7-1, 7-10, 7-11, and 7-21 first, which provide a
summary of findings for the Rouge River and Detroit
River. Once these are understood, the other tables can
be reviewed for specific findings by parameter and river
reach.
Section 8 - Evaluation of Alternatives
This section of the report discusses in detail the
methodologies and results of the Facility Planners'
evaluation of the 25 CSO Control Alternatives. It was
the objective of these evaluations to rank the alterna-
tives and identify the "few best". The general methodol-
ogy portion describes the generation of numerical
values, weighting factors and rating scores for the
alternatives. Five specific areas of evaluation are
covered and include the cost/benefit analysis, the envi-
ronmental evaluation, the implementability evaluation,
the technical evaluation and the economic evaluation.
By the nature of the methodologies used, they will
appear to be very complex and confusing at times. Exam-
ples are provided in an attempt to clarify certain
concepts; however, understanding will generally require
xxn
-------
careful study and contemplation. The section is Con-
cluded with a summary of the overall ranking of alterna-
tives and identification of the Facility Plans' "few
best".
Section 9 - Revisions to the Alternatives June 1981
Between the publication of the Preliminary AFIR in May,
1981 and the Final AFIR in June, 1981, the Facility
Planner substantially revised the higher control alter-
natives and their costs. In addition, the costs of the
FNA alternative were raised from zero during the evalua-
tions in March, 1981 to an annual cost of $67,850,000 in
the Preliminary AFIR. This section discusses how and
why these costs were changed. The reader should be
aware of these changes in order to avoid confusion when
reviewing the reports.
Section 10 - Evaluation Critique
The evaluation critique is a review of the CSO facil-
ities planning which led up to publication of the Final
AFIR. It concentrates on three areas which are believed
to be particularly important: the Rouge River modeling,
the Cost/Benefit Analysis and the Environmental Evalua-
tion. Understanding of this section is crucial to the
understanding of the recommendations made in Section 11.
The critique is a key section of this report.
Section 11 - Recommendations
This final section of the report outlines recommenda-
tions which address evaluation of CSO alternatives,
modeling considerations, benefit assessment and the
collection system control center. Although Sections 5,
8 and 10 contain supporting information, Section 11 can
stand alone and should be reviewed by every reader.
XXlll
-------
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
The Final Facilities Plan (FFP) was intended to investigate
the magnitude of combined sewer overflow problems in Detroit
and to develop, screen, and select a suitable control alter-
native. This planning was suspended following the prelimin-
ary screening of 25 CSO control alternatives. The screening
identified the consultants' 8 "few best" alternatives. The
Alternative Facilities Interim Report (AFIR) (Giffels/Black
and Veatch, 1981 a) is their summary of the planning which led
to the selection of the "few best".
It is assumed that planning for CSO control facilities will
resume at some future date. Yet, there is much concern that
the progress made by the FFP effort will be lost or misin-
terpreted by future planners due to a lack of full and com-
plete documentation brought about by the abrupt halt of the
planning process. The major purpose of this CSO Report is,
therefore, to facilitate the resumption of CSO facilities
planning in Detroit. Four objectives have been defined to
accomplish this purpose:
1. To provide a review of CSO facilities planning
to date;
2. To discuss the water quality improvements
associated with the AFIR "few best" alternatives;
3. To analyze the limitations of the AFIR study
results, and
4. To provide a conceptual framework for completion
of the CSO planning.
1-1
-------
1.2 Scope
1.2.1 Planning Area/Service Area Delineation
For the purpose of the AFIR and this report, the Planning
Area is defined as the City of Detroit including the Cities
of Hamtramck and Highland Park. The Service Area includes
all or portions of seven sanitary waste disposal districts
and ten cities which have contracts for sewage treatment and
disposal with the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department
(DWSD). Figure 1-1 delineates the Planning Area and Service
Area boundaries.
1.2.2 Planning Entities
During the conduct of the Final Facilities Plan (FFP) several
consultants directly and indirectly contributed to the plan-
ning effort. Many of these were responding to plant process
improvements outlined and approved in the Segmented Facili-
ties Plan (SFP). Others were generating data and information
in response to the Consent Judgment and required for the FFP.
Since a number of these consultants were referred to in the
AFIR and other FFP documents, the following table was
developed to identify all major consultants and their roles
during the FFP.
1.2.3 AFIR
The Alternative Facilities Interim Report (AFIR) was the
final deliverable product of the facilities planning consult-
ants, Giffels/Black & Veatch. It was mandated by the Federal
District Court early in 1981, and was to serve as a stopping
point in the CSO facilities planning program until conditions
were favorable for a completion of the planning and implemen-
tation of a project.
1-2
-------
overflows may contain substantial pollutant loadings which
exceed the assimilative capacities of the receiving waters
(i.e. the river or stream) causing pollution problems which
affect the use of the river waters.
Two major interceptor systems transport sewage and some storm-
water to the DWWTP located near the confluence of the Detroit
and Rouge Rivers. These are the Detroit River Interceptor
(DRI) which runs roughly parallel to the Detroit River, and
the Oakwood-Northwest Interceptor (O-NWI) which runs roughly
parallel to the Rouge River. A third major interceptor, the
North Interceptor-East Arm (NI-EA) has been partially con-
structed and was intended to transport suburban sanitary
sewage flows to the DWWTP. It also has the potential to
transport and store a portion of Detroit's combined sewage.
Beyond the Planning Area, extensions and branches of the two
main interceptors provide sewer service to 75 suburban com-
munities. Figure 3-1 shows the location of interceptors and
major trunk sewers in the Service Area. Table 3-1 lists the
communities served by the largest interceptors.
In addition to pipes, the collection system consists of
various types of regulators, backwater gates, dams, pumping
stations, and CSO outfalls which control the flow of sewage
through and from the system. Regulators are structures
designed to selectively restrict the flow from trunk sewers
into interceptors. Backwater gates prevent river water from
entering the system through CSO outfalls when river elevations
are higher than the outfall elevations. Dams are balloon-like
structures which when inflated, are capable of creating in-
system storage to a depth of about 18 feet. Pumping stations
are used to "lift" wastewater to a higher elevation allowing
it to flow by gravity through the system. Finally, CSO out-
falls are the pipes through which the excess combined sewage
is discharged into the Detroit and Rouge Rivers.
3-2
-------
3. Wastewater Transport and Treatment Facilities
3.1 Collection System
The sewage collection system operated by the City of Detroit
consists of approximately 3,500 miles of lateral, trunk and
interceptor sewers. Within the Planning Area, this system
has been designed to function as both a sanitary sewer system
and a storm sewer system and, therefore, is 100 percent
combined. It is this design that has fostered the pollution
problem which is the subject of this and many other reports.
Although combined sewer systems were once considered to be a
cost-effective approach to both sewage collection and storm
water drainage, they are now obsolete and are no longer
constructed in this country.
Since storm flows require much greater capacity than sewage
flows in order to prevent flooding, the pipes of a combined
system are sized many times larger than would be necessary to
convey sanitary sewage only. Also, since the pipes are
larger, the gradient or slope at which they are laid is less
than that required for a smaller sanitary sewer. During dry
weather when only sanitary sewage is flowing in the system,
the sewage tends to flow at a slower velocity than that
required to keep all the solids suspended in the liquid.
Under these conditions, solids accumulate in the pipes. Fol-
lowing several days of dry weather a rain storm may occur.
This would cause large quantities of water to flow into the
system and scour the accumulated solids from the sewers.
The flow of stormwater is often greater than the system's
capacity to transport it to the treatment plant, therefore,
designed into the system are relief points called diversion
structures which allow the excess sanitary sewage, combined
with stormwater and accumulated solids to overflow into
either the Rouge River or Detroit River. These combined sewer
3-1
-------
o
o
CO
0,
•- J
.Ti M
C C
fa. c
0-
ic
3
CC
JJ
CO
CO
01
JJ
•H
»l-t
u
CO
JJ
c
OJ
to
01
CM
0)
ft.
•o
0) 3
jj o
o «-*
33 fa
t*
C
o
o
•o
c
CC
u
t-l
en
'f-l GO
O 0)
>H
(«• JJ
0) •«•«
W C
to 3
flj E
^j §
03 CJ
JC
~~ u-~Z ™ ^
C_ C jC •> n TO O * "C
u o c o -c
^-t tiC IM «•»< jj i--(
H CD 02 E "3 -O O-'-J
T3
c
» C
T3 en E
07 -H OJ
> X JJ
u K te
tu >,
CO CD
JJ t/} JJ
O D W
to
M-l
CJ
C
vD
j^
tC
0-
c
0)
I— <
<;
iU
O
X
U
>. B
4J
0 u- -u ^' oj
C 5 >^- *~
QJ 4J X AJ
•""* UH c
>,C C tc "-'
X" *H
c *o « = c
c: 3 i—1 oj •-<
^4 — C. £ -c
^- U fc- C
C tr to 3
TO *"4 JJ IS "*-
C -i-i
5 5 -S *® "*
— 3 X CJ
•w QJ iJ -o
a c c -i-1 CD
to ,
O 3 JJ « tc *c
CN C CJ JJ 3
u- a; v. ja jj
< O o tc o eo
•c J^
c c
w
tn JJ
i-i »
QJ C1 C
3 JJ O
a, co »-
to w u
tt) CQ
X a.Dt
U a;
CO CO **-i
JJ O
C X
CO _r* JJ
3U
01 O
JJ ti QJ
9} JZ JS
ce
0. E J=
SO) t)C
JJ 3
CO O
JS (Q J3
•a e
v co n
w c tc
QJ n
« JC CO
JJ CL
(0 »^4
•* 3 *J
Q
X eo jr
JJ 4J JJ
U Q> ^J
a/ c 3
J= O 0>
&- 0 CO
CO
y
in
vO
a;
c
•H
W
tu
JJ
C
QJ
U
u-
o
X
•H
o
C -C
1 J-* tt ^ K
O T) QJ
i i- x c —i a ^ i ce
E ex. ^J D u^ ***• E *r- C C y
C '"^ JJ C 3 3 o J-1 '"^ C
u « — • o QJ 5 £- i-j E
jj^ cc- CJ'C*^ C C ^^ **~i *5
j3 3JJ°" L-JJ we
a,1 i-E otc *- i XEC«
«> co — - occu jj • c *«j tt o »— t
^TJJ ««- co— * .-j tCjj-^ro jj
CC JJto jJtrX jj i-J C «-• D as
•^l T3 > a; 3 C..— c JJ c/: cn jj (— i ^H is.
.H CB ^ o a. o c
•^•^*2tC a,t)W4)OO3'—'tC£ U T3
flj JJ O! " JJ > ±*
QJ
V- 8>— J 3
O CJ £ > -C
CO U-t-4 fet
^j m ^ •— < •«•<
i-t o 3 0) ^
com fie c 3
^j. f^ j Q aj
cr o PC fc*
ac cu-i C 1- 0
03 «8 W 'M Q) O
0) (U *0 £• O
•C > Z H
a O B CJ O S
K 0 « DC C Cr
>> £331'
OEM **
eve
o OD AJ a> fc* w
•^4 4) o] ^* o S
4J b >i*D -u O
Q) CO *PM IM
-J Z iw u
O— . a u »
y ^ w ^ CD c
K QJ U «5J
00— , 3 O
c — > a> o -H •
•»4 tr jj u a
4J Q) C 0> Q)
•- 1 re jj s ii
C 1) w CO C OX
l-i B U -H D JJ
Q) ® a. cc ^i i- co
X f 01 f 3 •" 01
H H to 0 T5 "> 9
ce
IM
u
o
o
"*
s
c
43
«
a>
c
IW
o
X
• H
u
3
QJ
QJ
u
c
W-l
-------
o
u
en
a1
u c
fc- C
c
U- OJ
C — t
P*
3
u
(C
jj
CO
R
•U
•H
•—1
O
CO
U.
jJ
C
a>
CO
0)
t-i
CL.
A
«8
fX
"C
4J O
0 -*
CO t-
Ui
JJ
c
c
o
c
CO
JJ
CJ
••-1
to
•H CD
U JJ
ftj-t-i
JJ C
re 2
3 E
« O
to
3:
IP
a1 1
> a;
-r- AJ
c
u ex
4-i tr
,_
tc «
,y
e o
0 0
•H ec
— **•*
in *r •
3 —
4J t-, _j
C C —
E — -H
E
O OJ
JJ J^
X to tc
i- >-.*j:
"C CO
c
ft) V- J-
£$c
4>S
to to u
JJ
O.-C 4J
4; 4) J=
U C H
4i J=
e o il
•H u o
jj
tn to £L
4>_JJ 4)
O 1-
J= E 4)
CC O JJ
U C
J- X
C to 4' 4J
.— a — jj
c js e r-.
V < *J
to e
1C W C JJ
o o o o
14 JJ U) C
C- to w
4:
• ^ J2 JJ
JJ 1C
•i- C C
—I O t •
..J -H 4 j-
o JJ JJ C
tc tr •— 41
<*, t" < E
^
jj 0
£ C
e i E •
tc o x
y ^
c o
O >,JJ
••< rH C.
'J JJ U
— <— 4)
i^ O.JJ
o E c
V o •*
o
1J JJ
OJ O to
2"§
r-i S "
re to o
U K Z
U 10
U O.-C
to 41 e
,J a o
CO
U-l
CJ
in
^>
es
1
i * . c ^.
] >>t- CX3 C JJ
Cfi r-l ft) -H O CO U.
•H (i, JJ JS H > «
O m to CL.
-J* Cj= -^
1-1 XC 3 J->^
co 4J t-l D 3 JJ -^
CO -H I-. O l-i >
o a - E « o
Cu 8J C Xft,K^
tO C C 'H ^-tw JJ
•H a) >-,.*: tx * t-
c *c to c o-*^ CD
Ui ^ tO -"-" 4J Cu
CD <8 JS O-jr >-*-v
MO ** -H CO CC
w a) *jr e ft. a.
3 .^-< am 3^-^
ft) ffl r-4 .H C O JT
§> to O pH C
jT C H C £ 3
dj > jj 3 o « o
^•HU OtyjJSH
tO Z i— 1 0) O »r*
> -O.H OB-. >
. * u > o
bt cj JJ **-< JJ o. ft)
ttiJJ Eo^Z toec to
T3 E" C
{u tr. tc i
0£ QJ > £ Ol * CC
C W •-' tO •-< JW C.
•« ft. tu j= a flj
c y - c «, c y
•H c a1 a -w «c c
— gj c PC r cu
^ j5 to -f~> u-i ~^-
C to |u O -^ f<> JJ
o: jz cc cr • r
c to oj i *c c o
re x r^ jz jj 2
w-J 1C jj i—i
tr > .,* ,-* £ .H O ft,
••w jj tc D ^ c>£ cc &C cr
*i-f C P C Wi t- 3
" ftj^ «C *C Z JJ — ' Q,1
(J JJ i— ' CC •-* 1C *-
*-wcC (C «OZ Oco
«— i CU "U C O *t-*J
CS t- »- D.J: CL.-C *D J-1
jz re cxw CD c *o •<-»
H uu ic u
c u s: M- a) .-<
*•* CC O JZ TO CC
* t) TO M • • 4J
CO JZ K 05 -f-l
LI JJ f *c 4^ CJ JJ
o; 41 C ™ ' co en
3 •« c n J-' ft
ft) K C -H ec ft)
tr. 1- O *"* u ^
tu *c eyi ••-' co
ft) 3 C O CJ 4> t-3
JJ ft) W tO 00
ec » «-< to O
Ui JJ • lJ J-*
cp P jr p c o
CL C MO O J-> to
* tO b3 C- JJ «— '
E ft) C C-^
•0 0) CJ ft! 01 Cu
C P ,C t-i JJ JZ CO
(p 3 JJ 4) 4) 3^
O JJ W ft}
tj IM >. e . be
(L C t— I O (fi CO
C O-^ 3 C 3
• -t JJ tO C *-> »H ft)
X P O 0) CO
E T3 C « P (0
O ft) Ui ft] J3 -O
tp <-i UJ C C C
It. > -H Iw ft) «H -^4
0 C E ft) J-i jD
C ^ E t- E
tn u 0) 4) tc O
JJ C OJ *J Z t)
« ft) -H jT CO
to to cc C js
c a1 -o «8 JJ
o c jz c: e
O CO -1-* CO CO C *O
x sow
E CC - -CO JJT5
a1 c c re 4>
jj E *H *>-< E ft. ft)
to O cc to O co u
^ t-i W 1- I- JC X
03»Mft P«WO 0>
c
O
JJ
CO — <
u a
o
0 D
o
•*-* 1
C Cv
tn cc
r o
en E£
u jj
o *j— i
-H O
4J JJ
CO 1)
o
X 01 4J
u tc c
TO W 3
JJ O
c to
<0 ftj J3
CO M E
0 0
*E en to
O S
CJ J-.
£! to **~i
*— >
JT O 4>
Jj t— i
C J-**
cc er >
U- |
t X 0 .0 >, ( !
C tc bC C V4 u ft) j
C tl W §"•£ 0 Sw'jJC 3v!*0
gj f-1 -i-l c, C a> t- *i-i w •-* u O
en • •— ' C P X •<-< £ o "^ *"~i C '
ic*D'T- OEU-3OC EJ-I
ft) 3J 3 tf) -^ •« **~"ltJ ft) ft>
Q-U OTOjJcS J-JfC JJ C
tc -CLC.-O O^CCOC
— E CO U C -O X-C CO C E
•ri U VUCACCO3CO ••MO-CO
.^U-^CJ-J ^JJjJjjOfci— t cc 3 -*H
t/ Ot0> CC O O • •!-< C C, 4J
IMQ;JJWIOJ «— i *C V-i O U *O •'^-i
— ftJDQJcofllCOcycc >\U E C O cj
,
to >aJ e
^J to Ui-r OCX
^ CD U ft) ' tO
o arc ec s: DT
-------
c
z
w
z
o
B
I
K
.2
AJ
.*Z ttQ
C
UJ CC
O t— i
(X.
tf.
JJ
tc
JJ
c/r
00
.£
JJ
••"4
,— t
•H
CJ
Q
U.
C
tc
4
a.
"«
Oi
A.
ll
a u.
u
c
o
u
"O
e
CO
jj
.,_i
u
JJ
cr
.H EC
c -, co a. P
to .1-1 tj a,'
•0 0 >
1J CO •<-! O
§r ajle E
di C 11
cc o VJ JJ
E -J >.
u tc jj m
o u O
JJ O S.
EC jj a; £
O-— C
•0 41 J-1 C
CC U -0
a> e c
>- —' co z
w C
cc "J Jf C
jj a' • m
•r* O Qj Ul O
B JJ C > "
CO •-, tl)
ai u K: f
0) t C JJ
« '« o c
M f JJ ;; »
C
0
JJ
CO
"1
4) a
(J •!-) N— ' 4)
X C *JJ .***
i- 4J E 0 «
TO ^} O CC ^J
jj C O—<
• i- Q) — JJ -
e a, pa c c m
TO CV O O 41
C tr J^ (0
c & -c cc —
03 * Lt i-* -f<
-< e - c u >
^ O C-1 **-!
W > O j< -T3
r w "" c- o
c o -"•< MJ.
jj C * JJ to o
C f/> -D U C
*H C C TO £ "O
^-i O TO CX O C
u~~"~"u *
0 en
I 810=^
d ^-> ^ • • •— ' Q. O'^JJ'V
0) -H • -• i *J-* tc 3 !—
MJ e " c u. <*- •- c -^ c
jr o jj •— — tr tc o D u-. a. So cxjt « S
W'^tf: 41 *** HXX"-
4! C-X^1 0) O *J C
•H C SL-O JJ C JJ u • tr
*j>o&j y-ic) TO c •*- Ui 4.
.M^UJJU »— O T5 01 W
• H « Ci'*4OC3 ^JJOJJJT
ftj f t/1 JJ 4> *>" 01 If O 'i-i
jJ>>-> m^cng' (J CN Li LiJJ'O
«j-< a. to rc
t- C •- -H tN ro
pi JJ CO C
CO
0) X-C E
X m 4" •-" •
JJ «fi JJ 4f
O -i-l j3 to JJ
*J O g n
W 0*-4 X
•C JJ O ca a?
JJ OW 0 O
t-i in > tft
> ft) ^- W [L!
'^ "§ tt 4> ft?
• H [? £ * ^
X D 4! C
4) JJ JJ Li «i-l
00 TO co ft/ X
CO C XX JJ
3r S w [-"H
tc ,0
ft) • * CC
C OC S TO "-1
.-^ C ^ W JJ
Xi 'ft TO TO
§Li 00 C- O
3 C 0) O
U
*J
ir.
6 e JJ 1
cc o u a oo
x o - tc *--i c
X-J CJEjJ^-- X» O ODE
Lii-4.H p O C C OJ U
JJ EC O. O.^^ HO be fa.
.H »•(— 1 s_/ a) E— i •
C X 4' X *^ * to *"C
TO «— i 00 Wr E *4J '^^ "O •—* C C
co tica c TO x JJ -1 — ' STO
O 4>'»- H C O O-U-. Li ^
jj m > -H cov^ E c ty «
00 t? £ O O ^ _2
c c^-j- -aojJte
• Hx-v-H tl)'^ ftl-H— OC 3 C
E O t— ••-< CD OOX PC C O* W
TO H- C E -"-< C JJ E »^t
fe^£,23>2S£ E^l^
0) JJ CO -^ TO * Li
4)O » ££CLC> ->«vt».UitO
OOLiJJ CO*O Li*i^JJJJ^ O o-'
LIJJ LI S ^ X J-' U Ui 41 jj
> •>-* &> CC *r^ IT O CX CL. Li CQ O
WO-^fc-- JtL^^-UI JJ
ac
CC -I*
jj J-' O
n -3 | .„ _ I
^ C tp O "«
5,' 3 CJ *^1
tj c aj ^
- tc ^
c <- tc c 01
jj o! a 3
>< U f u
•C 1- * »
CJ TO O
jj u jj XIA.
CC — •-'0,'
00 C *T3 Oi ' --
-- tr a- i- •-<
t— W L- -H 0)
J2 -H JJ *-
o a-- 3 c
L. a1 C.' 41
cr = c -^
— < a/ *-< OC--
^» .es
C L, ftj— '
6 C TO X 4- 3
O « E W W t*-
41 1 2
00 U O
«u L> > y-i M
ft) O O Li X
•fj tc as > jt;
X tc C O
E T 41 O
O cj - CC •
U CO X C CO
TO CD -H c r-
c: e x w _*
CO -^ C "D T3 m
TO ft) JJ ^
^ X Q ft-
JJ 4) JJ O 1C
to S w u o w
03 * T3 W —<
C CD 4) Cfi JJ
C ft) JJ^ •*
O N 4) »-i Li .-i
.^ 5 o) O-H
W —t C l*-< U
g -t-l Li C TO
ft) JJ O TO C U,
jj EJ **-• X O
m o »H -o
x x JJ a^
CR . JJ CO TO JJ
CO *fl *H g C
V Li >— » Li 0)
a) OJ-H 3 o E
S S 0 O *w 00
ty QJ co <— < C U
to co IM y-i .^ co
cc
IM
o
o
*JD
(S
O | ^ JJ T3
•H ^ | CC X C
L. JJ Lf Li T3 00 TO
JJ C 41 •'"' C -H
CO CO PO P2 I-" OJ »
•^ tc 41 EC ***
p TO - *tt JJ
X— i *H jj . O TO
jj o- x v* c co a.
C CO TO O •«-»•—'
3 * C &. w *O
O .* S*— • S TO T3
o i- o TO s: ^
to E_< co f— t u
d ^ i-» co tw
t-< 41 O X'— O JJ
^ N JJ O 3
£j E TO r~* CO W ^~*
x ^ fi. d jj
JJ 0 ft) ^^ O •« Li
cc o ty E 00 LI &.
01 s/1 « PD cc C TO '—-'
jS O 4- X ••J IX
JJ C OC * OD JJ X
3K1S XC dJi O
e/)O K <-* E E C H
u_
c u
C' 0-
c ^-p- c 3 i — t:
•^ft.J-00-t-^C
tr LI -i-* cr u-i ca
"" U *C tr Li uj t>C
cr *f c 41 C C
JJ X T- £ > J- -1-1
Li 0 L, P O C CL
C tr, 3 0 C O E •
4) 4, C JJ C. i
JJ X'r^ > d - JJ
— JJ IQ OL n — c —
Cst O U O •- Li .^4 —
uj a -c — - C JJ O
C d JJ O 'H U O ^
- O 3 C «-< S — '
X-^ 3 Ix X^. C
•-i jj jj O w X O O
•J TO cj CJ . E U .-•
4)— ' 4)1- C
co o. JJ C C: jz we f
Oi o- tr >• O O co *«-i JJ
v* v* *^* TO pt 1^ o- cr, Q.I
Cu CXQ 3 ^— / D. Li E Li
0' 1
J: . L .2 S i
Q> JJ i— ( C 3 c,1 ^
XOW-H C 4.-" H »
S S w E wv?* f**»
X JJ 0) X XC V- « *-<
JJ PC JJ oo xx m w r- o -H
X • 4) -H X O C
OOx-^ M t. Li »H *— ! ' 4 ff
^ ^J .H £ 4) E tM JJ JJ Jj
O ^- — ' 3 S 4: • tn c w
t-t-^-'H Cb 4) Jj C Ui >H X
X «~ * *J ") 01 *iJ 41 QJ O 3
O CO W w fl oj TO
L.-w-' W Oi O Li CO "^
3 3u CftjC-cOtr
« v- cc xZi > o 41 "J o m
O O X -H .i-i c ^ T)
r-i4-»pO Ui UQiJ^'H 4>u C1
CJ&.d414! CXOC C>
C o; TO^ £X^£ o>E LIIM;£
CJ CJ Lii~ijJOTOO
Li E ft) TO ••-' 4' '-> X *-
0) C CD 15 X "U C **^ JJ ^
uit«jXOCoodw*ucocc
4) 6 L. c « ""
£.SSo'§'S-2'£Lio0
o &, a.1*-' 3: M w a) -H jj to
jj tc PM jj 5 i-i o x
•S » Q c* 2 ^ tt x ^^ ^
V. O ft) X*H ft) E "D 41 O »-J
5)Lid4lO^3 JJO «rJ
Li « C O C »-H J
CO Xw* O 4) O W *J^ *<-< CO
XJJ utojjft} LI w -a
CC 3 1C Ll C 4J ?JJr->JJ C
OU anwrj)^ ox 0-HX
cc
U-i
u
f«v.
f\4
X «
Ll -o
oo O
JJ C
C cc
re L. w
to 4) o
5- Ll
X M O
d s *
3 16
O -O
Q O
41 CT S
d a
X3 4' W
TO U3 JJ 4
£2 JE d Li
*~"H O
JJ OX:
CC 4J DJ CT1
tc y
4> -^ 4) 4V
JZ Li « *J
jj jj co d
Li tt O — i
O 'H L, O
Z C t5 PL.
-------
Areas in Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb counties have formed
formal wastewater service districts for the purpose of
collecting and conveying their wastes to the DWSD system.
These wastewater service districts are: Clinton-Oakland
District, Evergreen-Farmington District, Southeast Oakland
County District, Northeast Wayne County Sanitary District,
South Macomb Sanitary District, Rouge Valley Sewage District
and Oakland-Macomb Metro Wastewater Disposal District.
Given the objective of this report to facilitate future CSO
planning, it is believed that a much more extensive and
intensive coordination of the planning efforts in these
districts will be necessary in the future to ensure success-
ful pollution abatement in the Rouge River Basin. As such,
during the preparation of this report, an attempt was made to
determine the present status of CSO facilities and planning
in all the suburban communities connected to the Detroit
system. This information is summarized in Table 2-1 and
should serve as a starting point from which future basin-wide
coordination can begin.
2-7
-------
was agreed that this work would be documented in an interim
report to be called the Alternative Facilities Interim Report
(AFIR). Thereafter, facilities planning would be suspended
until funding and other factors were favorable for resump-
tion.
Under this agreement, no alternative would be proposed for
implementation. Because of this change, there was no longer
a need for the "Piggyback EIS" on the CSO elements of the
planning process. There was a need, however, for a technical
review of the AFIR work and other pertinent facilities
planning activities. It was agreed that the document pre-
pared by the EIS consultant should, as a primary objective,
facilitate the resumption of CSO planning expected to occur
in the future. This CSO Report is that document.
2.4 Suburban Facilities Plans
The planning of CSO control facilities is best carried out as
a basin-wide effort. In Detroit, an early attempt was made
to coordinate with suburban communities which are contracted
with DWSD for sewage treatment. The major objectives of the
facilities planning consultants at that time were to obtain
estimates of present and projected sewage flows, and to
determine the basic characteristics of these flows (eg. san-
itary and combined areas; percentages attributed to domestic,
commercial and industrial sources).
Over 75 individual suburban communities in the area are
served by the DWSD for wastewater conveyance and/or treat-
ment. This system contains over 150 significant industrial
wastewater discharges, 2,000,000 people and approximately
75,000 acres drained by combined sewers. During wet weather,
combined sewage reportedly overflows into the suburban area
surface waters from approximately 70 locations. A general
examination of data by the Facility Planners indicated that
excessive infiltration/inflow exists in some suburban areas.
2-6
-------
Second, CSO control alternatives were developed, screened,
evaluated and ranked. The completion of these phases resulted
in the selection of the few best alternatives for controlling
and treating combined sewer overflows. The third phase was
to evaluate in detail the few best alternatives and recommend
one for implementation. There are no immediate plans to
undertake this third phase.
While the alternatives were being developed, field testing of
the DWWTP revealed its capacity was 800 MGD (million gallons
daily) instead of the original 1,050 MGD estimate. Since
much of the previous planning had assumed 1,050 MGD, this
capacity reduction required substantial reanalysis and a
redefinition of the scope of work for the FFP.
Several other factors also had an effect on the rescoping
effort. First, since it was clear that many of the Consent
Judgement dates could not be met, an Amended Consent Judge-
ment had to be developed. Second, due to fiscal problems at
the state, MDNR had been expressing its desire to radically
scale down the facilities planning effort in Detroit, and,
thus, reduce costs. Third, preliminary modeling showed that
minimal improvement of water quality was being projected for
the Detroit and Rouge Rivers even with the most intensive CSO
alternatives. Fourth, a change in Administration occurred
along with the appointment of a new EPA administrator to
carry out its policies including reductions in the Federal
budget. Among the potential cuts was funding for large scale
CSO projects. And fifth, the City of Detroit also feeling
the fiscal effects of unemployment and economic downturn and
in recognition of the above, was reevaluating its own spend-
ing priorities.
From the negotiations, the parties agreed that the planning
should continue through the definition of the "few best"
alternatives from among the 25 that had been developed. It
2-5
-------
the plant to 1,050 MGD was to serve the projected flov? up to
the year 2000. The West Arm Interceptor was to alleviate some
overflow and capacity problems along the Rouge River and in
Oakland County. It was believed that construction of the
West Arm Interceptor, along with control of industrial dis-
charges and non-point source runoff control would result in a
substantial improvement in water quality in the Rouge River.
The SFP also addressed sludge disposal and air quality prob-
lems. It was determined that upgrading the operation and
maintenance of the existing facilities plus construction of
additional facilities would result in satisfactory handling
of the sludge generated up to the year 2000. However, it was
also pointed out that a wide gap existed between incinerator
operating capacity and design capacity. Because of this, an
Interim Sludge Disposal program was ordered by the Consent
Judgement. Air quality recommendations were developed to
determine means of reducing impacts from incinerator emis-
sions in the vicinity of the treatment plant.
EPA's Environmental Impact Statement on the SFP did not con-
cur with its conclusion that the West Arm Interceptor should
be constructed. The lack of data on the impacts of CSO's in
the Detroit and Rouge Rivers prompted EPA to request a re-
evaluation of the West Arm in the Final facilities Plan.
Other SFP recommendations were found acceptable although sev-
eral special studies were recommended to verify certain spe-
cific conclusions (see SFP/EIS).
2.3 Final Facilities Plan
Among other objectives the Final Facilities Plan was to
investigate all aspects of storing and treating combined
sewer overflow (CSO). A three-phase procedure was adopted to
develop and analyze CSO control alternatives. First, the ex-
tent and magnitude of the problem was roughly determined.
2-4
-------
While the OP/EA was being completed, US-EPA-Region V filed a
civil complaint against MDNR and the City of Detroit under
provisions of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972. EPA based their action on the City's wastewater treat-
ment plant's numerous and continuous violations of the Feder-
al Water Pollution Control Act. EPA cited in their suit
excessive phosphorus discharges affecting water quality in
the Detroit River and the western basin of Lake Erie and the
inability of existing sludge incinerator processes to meet
air quality standards.
On September 9, 1977, MDNR, DWSD and the U.S. EPA entered
into a Consent Judgement which would help to rectify the
wastewater treatment plant problems by allowing approvable
portions of the plan to proceed ahead of the other portions
requiring further study. The Consent Judgement, ordered and
signed in the U.S. District Court for southeast Michigan,
superseded the MDNR Final Order.
The Consent Judgement utilizing information from the Piggy-
back EIS Review called for the completion of present studies
as a Segmented Facilities Plan (SFP) to address upgrading
wastewater treatment and a Final Facilities Plan (FFP) to
address problems associated with dry weather flow treatment
requirements, combined sewer overflow management and all
other required elements of a facilities plan including an
environmental assessment. As a result of this action, all
work which had been underway on the CSO elements of the pro-
gram were now delayed until the FFP.
The resultant SFP recommended that DWSD; 1) construct a
treatment plant capable of treating sustained peak flow of
1,050 million gallons per day (MGD), 2) complete construc-
tion of the North Interceptor-East Arm, and 3) construct a
700 MGD capacity North Interceptor-West Arm. The expansion of
2-3
-------
While the Overview Plan and facilities plan were under
preparation, MDNR issued a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit to the City of Detroit.
This permit specified interim effluent discharge limitations
which DWSD was to meet during planning and construction in
order to comply with PL92-500. DWSD's failure to comply with
the permit's effluent discharge limitations prompted MDNR to
revoke the permit in 1976. Coinciding with the revocation of
the permit, MDNR notified DWSD that the state would impose a
moratorium on new collector sewer construction and connec-
tions. The proposed moratorium was suspended on the basis
that the DWSD comply with MNDR's Final Order which included
five specific conditions. Among these, DWSD agreed to
complete an approvable facilities plan by August 1977 and to
meet state and federal secondary treatment requirements by
December 1979.
In order to comply, DWSD requested federal funding for the
design and construciton of expanded treatment and conveyance
facilities. Since DWSD's facilities plan, rejected by the
State and US-EPA, could result in significant adverse impacts
upon the environment, US-EPA issued a Notice of Intent to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
2.2 Segmented Facilities Plan
In September 1976, under the conditions of MDNR's Final Order
and US-EPA's Notice of Intent, DWSD began their effort to
update the facilities plan and develop an Overview Plan with
Environmental Assessment (OP/EA). In order for the US-EPA
and MDNR to effectively participate in the facilities
planning and decision making process, US-EPA, MDNR and DWSD
entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding" which allowed
for the concurrent preparation of the EIS. This concept is
known as piggybacking. The draft OP/EA was completed in
June, 1977.
2-2
-------
2. Historical Perspective
The CSO program in Detroit evolved as a result of numerous
state, federal and judicial requirements imposed during three
major facilities planning efforts. These are briefly dis-
cussed in the order in which they occurred.
2.1 Original Facilities Plan
Due to inadequate treatment of sewage at the DWWTP, the City
of Detroit entered into an agreement with the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in 1966 to limit the
pollutant level of treatment plant discharges to the Detroit
River. Although treatment thereafter was improved, DWSD was
unable to meet the discharge limits on a continuous basis.
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL92-500)
was enacted. DWSD became subject to Federal water pollution
control regulations. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) administered this act and required DWSD to
improve collection and treatment facilities; to meet Federal
and state water quality standards; to develop areawide waste
treatment management processes; and to construct the facili-
ties necessary for compliance. Federal and state funds were
available to assist DWSD in their efforts to meet these
requirements.
In order to obtain funds, EPA requires grantees to prepare an
approvable facilities plan prior to the design and construc-
tion of any new or updated treatment or collection facili-
ties. In 1974, DWSD began preparation of the original facil-
ities plan which was completed one year later and incorpor-
ated into a draft Overview Plan. Following regulatory
review, the facilities plan was rejected by state and Federal
authorities for not including an environmental assessment and
other required information.
2-1
-------
The AFIR was to report the findings of the CSO facilities
planning effort to date including the determination of the
most cost-effective, environmentally compatible/ technically
feasible, economically sound, and implementable alternatives
from among 25 alternatives originally defined. These were
referred to as the "few best".
1.2.4 CSO Report
The scope of this CSO Report is primarily involved with
understanding the AFIR. This was done through direct inter-
pretation as well as reference to other Final Facilities
Planning documents. Chapters 8, 10 and 11 contain comments
on the AFIR and the Final Facilities Planning activities plus
recommendations regarding future objectives and implementa-
tion steps.
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-1 (Continued)
Soil Systems, Inc.
SSI
The Facility Planner's origine
archaeological subconsultant.
Resource Analysts, Inc.
RAI
The Facility Planner's later
archaeological consultant.
Urban Consultants Inc.
UCI
The Facility Planner's socio-
logical consultant.
Williams and Works, Inc.
WWI
DWSD's Plant Liquid Process
consultant.
Smith, Hinchman & Grylls/
Hazen & Sawyer, Inc.
SH&G/H&S
A joint venture of two engineering
firms which functioned as DWSD's
plant Disinfection Process Con-
sultant.
Snell Environmental Group
SEG
DWSD's Solids Disposal (Site)
consultant.
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-1
FFP CONSULTANTS AND THEIR ROLES
Name, Pseudonyms and Acronyms
Description
Giffels/Black & Veatch
Joint Venture
JV
Facilities Planning Consultant
A joint venture of two engineering
firms; Giffels and Associates
and Black & Veatch.
Responsible for preparation of the
Final Facilities Plan and Consent
Judgement items directly related
thereto including the AFIR.
ESEI, inc.
EcolSciences, inc.
EIS Consultant
A resources management company,
responsible for preparation of the
"Piggy-back" Environmental Impact
Statement, this CSO Report plus
several other position papers and
special reports.
Camp Dresser, McKee
COM
A multidiscipline engineering firm
with two independent functions:
(1) Plant Solids Process Consultant,
and (2) the Lead Consultant (aided
DWSD in the coordination of all
other consultants and subcontrac-
tors) .
Urban Science Applications, Inc.
USA
The Facility Planners modeling
subconsultant.
1-4
-------
10
Treatment
Module
Storage plus
Additional Primary
% BOD REMOVED
FIGURE 6-3
MARGINAL COST CURVE
-------
known as first derivatives of the total cost curves) produce
the marginal cost curves for each parallel option. These
"marginal" curves represent the relationship between the
marginal cost per pound of pollutant removed and the
corresponding level of BOD removed (see Figure 6-3).
The third step is to construct a composite marginal cost
curve for these two parallel options. This composite curve
is simply the total BOD removed by the combination of both
the modules and the storage/additional primary capacity for
each increment in marginal cost. The two marginal cost
curves of Figure 6-3 are summed horizontally, (see Figure
6-4) thereby condensing the two parallel options into a
single equivalent "option". As previously mentioned, all CSO
control alternatives were developed to provide 20, 40, 60, or
75% control. Each of these four levels may be located on
Figure 6-4 along with each level's corresponding composite
marginal cost. The resulting composite marginal costs are
displayed below.
Control Level Composite Marginal Cost ($)
20% 5
40% 14
60% 25
75% 40
The composite marginal costs are the lowest marginal costs
which can achieve the desired level of control given these
control options. Each option should be sized just to the
point where its marginal cost equals the composite marginal
cost. For example, to remove 60% of the BOD, each option
should be used to the point where its marginal cost equals
$25 per percent of BOD removal. At these capacities, both
options together will remove exactly 60% of the BOD.
To find the level of BOD removal for each option, the compos-
ite marginal cost can be located on Figure 6-3. Each option
6-15
-------
, Treatment
Module
CO
o
li
to
o
o
o
Storage plus
Additional Primary
% BOD REMOVED
FIGURE 6*2
TOTAL COST CURVE
-------
average or total cost.) However, at some point our remote
primary treatment module will begin to incur very high mar-
ginal costs since its theoretical limit is about 30% of BOD
removal. If the goal or level of control were 30%, the mar-
ginal cost at the remote module to achieve that last 1% BOD
removal (from 29% to 30%) might be $10.00 per pound. On the
other hand, the DWWTP, with a theoretical BOD removal effi-
ciency of 80%, could have a marginal cost of perhaps only
$2.00 per pound in the 30% control level range. The implica-
tion of these changing marginal costs is that a combination
of the treatment module and increased capacity at the DWWTP
provides the most efficient delivery of pollution removal. A
treatment module would be sized so it removes in the 10%-20%
range (where it has low marginal costs) and the DWWTP would
be expanded to provide the remainder of necessary treatment
(where its marginal costs are lower).
The actual marginal analysis performed by the Facility Plan-
ner for watershed RRS for Scenario II demonstrates exactly
how the general alternatives were developed. All of the data
are from the computer printout while some of the notation has
been changed for easier understanding. The program calculated
derivatives from the production and cost functions to deter-
mine marginal costs. For better understanding, a graphic
technique is used to present the same data and to derive the
same marginal costs. The two methods (mathematical and
graphic) are equivalent.
Total cost curves were generated for BOD removed by remote
treatment modules as well as for BOD removed by remote stor-
age coupled with additional primary capacity at the DWWTP.
Both curves were plotted on the same set of axes (See Figure
6-2).
Next, the instantaneous slopes at various points on each
total cost curve are taken and these values are plotted on a
second graph. The values of these instantaneous slopes (also
6-13
-------
costs in excess of present interceptor capacity were
calculated assuming that the flow was contributed pro-
portionately to the drainage area. Any treatment capacity
deficiencies in the interceptors were estimated by dis-
tributing the required flow rate down the interceptors
based on the percentage of contributing drainage area at
each point. A relief sewer was sized at every point where
the allocated flow rate was greater than the actual in-
terceptor capacity. Costs for these relief sewers were
based upon the capacity deficiency they were sized to
alleviate. These costs were then allocated to every up-
stream watershed based on the drainage area. Sewer costs
were calculated from the collection system cost manual.
5) The cost function of additional primary treatment was
calculated in the same manner as was additional second-
ary. The costs of transporting flow to the plant, con-
struction of additional facilities at the plant, and
treatment of the additional flow through the primary sys-
tem were included in this cost function.
6.1.5 Marginal Analysis
The technique of marginal analysis was used to evaluate the
production and cost functions for each control level for each
scenario for each basin to determine the least cost combina-
tion of control options. The underlying theory is an appli-
cation of microeconomics to wastewater treatment and is well
described by James Heaney and Stephan Nix from the University
of Florida. (Heaney and Nix, 1977) The important concept is
that the most efficient combination of control options will
be achieved when the marginal costs of each option are equal.
For instance, if a remote treatment module can remove the
"next" pound of BOD for $1.00, and the DWWTP's marginal cost
of BOD removal is $1.50, then it will be more efficient to
use the remote module. (Note that we are concerned about the
cost of the marginal or next pound being removed - not the
6-12
-------
flow transported to the DWWTP from each watershed was
calculated and multiplied by the 1978 operation and
maintenance cost per million gallons treated.
2) Storage costs for dewatering to secondary treatment were
based on the costs of building and maintaining the stor-
age facility as well as treating the stored water. The
cost for in-line storage was taken from the segmented
facilities plan (SFP) adjusted for inflation, and the
cost for off-line storage was computed from the unit cost
of storage in the FFT Storage Treatment Design Manual
(Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1979c). The cost to treat the
water was figured by multiplying the volume of stored
water by the unit cost of operation and maintenance at
the existing treatment plant.
3) The costs for remote treatment facilities were computed
for 10, 50, and 100 MGD modules. Costs of construction,
operation and maintenance, power, and chemical supplies
were included. A cost function for each type of treat-
ment facility was developed fitting a curve through these
three points. The unit cost of a 100 MGD module was used
for all treatment facilities greater than 100 MGD.
4) Costs associated with additional secondary treatment at
the DWWTP were associated with construction of additional
facilities required, the costs of transporting flow to
the plant, and the costs of treating the additional flow
through the secondary system. Costs of construction,
O&M, supplies, chemicals and power were estimated for
upgrading the plant's primary capacity by five different
amounts above 805 MGD (the year 2000 maximum day dry
weather flow). A cost function was then obtained by
plotting a curve through those five values. Total costs
for upgrading the existing plant were assigned to the
watersheds based on drainage area. Flow transporting
6-11
-------
secondary, remote treatment facilities, and management
practices. The only management practice which appeared
to be cost-effective in the first level of analysis was
sewer flushing. Sewer flushing operates in series with
storage and treatment, so the production versus cost
functions for storage were calculated to show this. At
each level of sewer flushing, production curves for stor-
age and interception were adjusted to reflect the de-
creased amount of BOD,, available for storage or inter-
ception.
5) Scenario V - sewer separation, a North Interceptor-West
Arm, storage, on-site treatment facilities, and intercep-
tion to the existing plant were all the control options
studied in this scenario.
6.1.4 Cost Function
Costs had to be programmed and computed for every combination
of storage, collection, and treatment of wet weather flow. A
cost was calculated for every level of production for each
control option. These costs were defined as costs incurred
in handling flows above average dry weather flow.
Each control option had to be considered separately, and all
costs of implementation had to be estimated. Costs were
based upon literature values and estimates from the SPP for
operation and maintenance, construction, labor, and
materials. The costs were estimated as follows:
1) The cost computations of interception and treatment of
combined sewage at the existing plant during periods of
wet weather were based on the treatment plant's average
capacity to treat wet weather flow (total capacity minus
dry weather flow). This capacity was allocated to the
eight watersheds based upon drainage area. The volume of
6-10
-------
different amounts of storage. Storage volume varied from
no storage to that which would capture almost all of the
storm runoff generated. Interception to remote treatment
modules was assumed to operate in parallel with storage
and interception to the DWWTP. A production function was
calculated for each treatment module varying in capacity
from zero to almost 100% of the runoff generated.
2) Scenario II - the same interdependent options were con-
sidered here as in Scenario I. Thus, a production
function was calculated in the same manner. Interception
to additional primary capacity at the plant was consid-
ered to be a parallel option, and a separate function was
computed for it. Interception to remote treatment facil-
ities was analyzed as it was in Scenario I.
3) Scenario III - because storage with dewatering to secon-
dary treatment and interception to secondary treatment
are interdependent, the production functions had to
reflects this. Control options considered include inter-
ception to secondary capacity, storage with dewatering to
secondary treatment, and interception to remote treatment
modules. By increasing secondary capacity, less storage
will be necessary and the effectiveness of storage could
be increased because dewatering to treatment between
storms would be faster. Thus, there would be more avail-
able storage capacity at the beginning of each storm.
Production was calculated for a range of storage volumes
with increments of additional treatment capacity. At
each level of control, the combination of extra storage
and secondary capacity with the smallest total cost was
the optimum. The final production versus cost function
for storage and interception to secondary treatment
consists of these optimum points.
4) Scenario IV - included in these alternatives were inter-
ception to the existing plant, storage with dewatering to
6-9
-------
removal efficiency of the DWWTP). This same method of
calculating production was also used for interception to the
secondary or primary portions of the treatment plant during
wet weather, and for interception to treatment modules.
Production functions were defined for each parallel and
serial combination of control options. Options in series
were defined as those where the effluent of one operation was
the influent to the next (i.e. street sweeping and treatment
at the DWWTP). Parallel options were defined as options
where the effluent from one operation was not the influent to
the following operations (i.e. separate treatment at remote
treatment modules or at the DWWTP).
For parallel options, production curve generation made use of
the statistical storm water assessment methodology to predict
long term average fractions of captured volumes. These frac-
tions were then multiplied by the removal efficiencies.
For options, in series, when one control option directly
affects the production of another option, the production
functions must reflect this impact. Most of the management
practices would be good examples of serial control options.
The control options in each scenario had to be carefully
considered to determine if they influenced the production
functions of other options. Whenever control options were
found to be dependent on other options, production curves
were calculated for the options in different combinations.
Production curves were calculated in the following ways for
each of the five scenarios:
1) Scenario I - storage with dewatering to the existing
plant and interception to the existing plant were consid-
ered as interdependent options. A production function
was calculated for a constant rate of interception with
6-8
-------
Each scenario or grouping is a POTENTIAL combination of
options since marginal analysis may eliminate some of the
options for a given watershed at a given control level. For
instance, Scenario II uses the present secondary capacity but
includes the options of 1) additional primary at the DWWTP,
2) remote storage and 3) remote primary treatment modules.
Marginal analysis may show that for a given watershed the
most efficient means of reducing pollution is to use only
additional primary at the DWWTP and not a combination of all
three options.
The least cost combinations of the various options were com-
puted for each scenario at four levels of "production" (i.e.
control) or pollutant removal. The pollutant or parameter
chosen as the most appropriate was BOD, and the four control
levels of 20%, 40%, 60% and 75% were selected so that a range
of control levels would be represented. (Reduction of BOD
beyond 80% becomes prohibitively expensive). The five scen-
arios were analyzed for these four levels of control for each
of the eight watersheds.
6.1.3 Production Functions
In order to perform the marginal analysis which would produce
the least cost combination of control options, production
(i.e. control) and cost functions (or curves) had to be pro-
grammed. For the purpose of alternative generation, produc-
tion was defined as the percentage of B°D5 ultimately
removed from the system by treatment. For example, of the
volume that is captured by storage and transported for sec-
ondary treatment at the DWWTP, 100% of the BOD is removed
from that watershed. Of that 100%, 80% is removed by the
treatmeant plant and the remaining 20% is discharged to
the Detroit River. Therefore, the production of storage (the
control option in this case) is the long term fraction of
captured runoff volume multipled by 0.80 (which is the BOD
6-7
-------
II. Interception to present secondary capacity plus
additional primary capacity during wet weather, with
storage dewatering to existing secondary and remote
treatment modules.
III. Interception to existing and additional secondary
capacity during wet weather, with storage dewatering
to secondary and remote treatment modules.
IV. Interception to existing secondary capacity during
storms with storage dewatering to existing secondary
and remote treatment modules with best management
practices (BMP's).
V. Sewer separation of existing combined sewers, con-
struction of the North Interceptor-West Arm, inter-
ception to existing secondary capacity during wet
weather, remote treatment modules, and storage
dewatering to existing secondary at the DWWTP.
The differences between scenarios are highlighted in the
following table:
TABLE 6-1
Scenario Options
Scenario
I
II
III
IV
V
Storage
X
X
X
X
X
Primary
Treatment
Modules
X
X
X
X
X
Additional
Primary
at
EWWTP
X
X
Additional
Secondary
at DWWTP
and Management
Modules Practices
X
X
Sewer
Separation
and
NI-WA
X
6-6
-------
construction of CSO facilities. Once the sites were known,
interceptor connections could be planned, pump sizes deter-
mined and other details specified. The general control
alternatives now had become specific control alternatives.
These specific control alternatives were then modelled to
determine receiving stream water quality and were analyzed to
determine their probable capital and O&M costs (recall that
literature values for cost, not specific construction cost
estimates, had been used to initiate the alternative develop-
ment process.)
The following sections highlight the development of the scen-
arios, the production and cost functions and the use of mar-
ginal analysis. Special attention also is paid to the gener-
ation of specific control alternatives from general alterna-
tives. For more information on the establishment of runoff
and the determination of CSO loadings, the reader is referred
to a very complete description in the AFIR, Chapter 2.
6.1.2 Development of Scenarios
Once the "desk top" computer model had been calibrated to
predict the BOD loading from each watershed, scenarios or
combinations of control options were necessary as input to
the model. Each scenario is a different combination of in
line storage, off-line storage, primary treatment modules,
additional primary capacity at the DWWTP, additional second-
ary capacity at the DWWTP and at treatment modules, manage-
ment practices, sewer separation and construction of the
North Interceptor-West Arm (NI-WA). Five different scenarios
were conceived which grouped the control options in various
combinations:
I. Interception to existing DWWTP secondary capacity
during wet weather with storage dewatering to exist-
ing secondary capacity and remote treatment modules.
6-5
-------
obtained. This information was used to refine the least cost
methodology and to provide some water quality estimates to
guide further planning.
Simultaneously, costs and removal efficiencies were obtained
from the literature and from the SFP for each control option.
A computer program was developed to accept these costs and
efficiencies for different options and to generate the CSO
loading per watershed for each combination of control
options.
Scenarios were developed to represent potential combinations
of control options (i.e. remote treatment modules and more
secondary treatment at the plant). Finally, a target level of
some pollutant had to be chosen before optimization of con-
trol options could begin. BOD was chosen because of its
direct relationship to dissolved oxygen in the stream, which
is considered to be the most important water quality index of
a stream. The computer program then analyzed the options in
each scenario using the technique of marginal analysis to
determine the most efficient combination of options to
achieve the target levels of BOD reduction. These most
efficient combinations of options became the general least
cost alternatives.
The requirements of the general least cost alternatives were
used to analyze centralized facilities (i.e. one large remote
treatment module to serve three watersheds) and decentralized
facilities (i.e. smaller individual remote treatment modules
for each watershed. This refinement did not change the least
cost capacities or rates; it simply investigated the cost
effectiveness of different geographic locations for
facilities.
Following development of location options for the general
least cost alternatives, specific sites were selected for
6-4
-------
Next, a statistical combined sewer overflow assessment method
developed by Hydroscience, Inc., (U.S. EPA, 1979) was used to
convert rainfall to runoff and to predict the effects of
interception, storage, treatment and various management
practices on runoff and CSO volume. The secondary capacity
of the DWWTP was assumed to be 800 MGD (880 - 80 recycle)
providing 192 MGD of wet weather capacity for the year 2000.
(For dry weather capacity discussion see Section 4.3.4.) The
Facility Planner also took the existing in line storage capa-
cities into account and simplified the collection system to
provide one overflow per watershed. Suburban flows were cal-
culated on a per capita basis.
Prior to the development of alternatives and the generation
of computer models, a PRELIMINARY stream impact analysis was
performed. The results of this preliminary assessment were
used to refine the general least cost methodology and to
establish reasonable ranges of control. The SEM-STORM model
(Water Resources Engineers, Inc., 1977c) was used to simulate
long term loadings. The SEM-STORM model was calibrated using
the long term runoff volumes calculated by the Hydroscience
methodology and average concentrations measured in the CSO
sampling program.
Once SEM-STORM was calibrated, the Broadscale Receiving Water
Simulator (BRWS), which is part of the same Hydroscience
methodology referred to above, was used to estimate water
quality in the Rouge River with one overflow per watershed.
(The reader should not confuse this preliminary water quality
modeling with the planning level modeling described in
Section 5 which was more detailed and came later in the plan-
ning process.) The Encotech Model (developed by the Environ-
mental Control Technology Corporation) estimated water
quality in the Detroit River. By varying the amounts of
storage and treatment in each watershed, preliminary esti-
mates of water quality under different ranges of control were
6-3
-------
Determine Costs and Removal
Efficiencies of Options
Scenarios for Analysis
Choose Target levels of BCD
Control
FI3URE 6-1
DEVELOPMSNT OF ALTERNATIVES
Determine Collection Systen. Character-
istics ,
Simplify Collection System to Provide
One Overflow Point per Watershed
t
Analyze Rainfall, Use SYNOP
t
Estimate Effects of Runoff on CSO's
and System Flows, Use Hydxoscience,
Inc. Methodology
t
Write Computer Program
1)
2)
3)
To Estimate Volumes and Loads
to Both CSO's and System Flows
To Calculate Costs and Removal
Efficiencies at Different
Levels of Control
To Perform Marginal Analysis
Perfenc Preliminary Stream
Impact Analysis
1) Use SEM-STORM to Generate
Loads
2) Use Broadscale Receiving
Water Simulator (BP.HE)
") Use Encotech Model for
Detroit River Water
Suaiity
t
For Each Watershed, For Each Scenario,
For Each Target Level of BOD Control,
Determine the Least Cost Combination
of Control Options (These now are
considered General Least Cost Alter-
natives)
Develop Centralized and Decentralized
Storage Capacities and Treatment Rates
t
Select Specific CSO Sites and Determine
Associated Storage Capacities and Treat-
ment Rates bv site
Determine Other Reouirements Specific to Each Location
{These are now considered Specific Control Alternatives)
t
t
Determine the Probable Capital and O&H
Costs for the Soecific Control Alternatives
Determine the Resulting Water Quality
from each Alternative
-------
6. Development of Alternatives
6.1 General Least Cost Methodology
6.1.1 An Overview
Combined sewer overflows can be remedied through implementa-
tion of many types of control measures. These control op-
tions include remote treatment modules, storage with dewater-
ing to treatment during dry weather, in line storage, sewer
separation, construction of a North Interceptor-West Arm,
interception to centralized treatment facilities, and differ-
ent types of management practices. These various control
options may be used alone or in combination with other
options.
The Facility Planner used computerized marginal analysis
techniques and a simplified representation of the collection
system to determine the most efficient (least cost) combina-
tions of these central options to reduce pollution. Once the
least cost combinations of control options (general least
cost alternatives) were determined, specific control alterna-
tives could be developed by choosing specific sites, capaci-
ties and treatment rates within each watershed. Figure 6-1
illustrates the development of general and specific control
alternatives.
A statistical rainfall analysis program called SYNOP (U.S.
EPA, 1976) was used to analyze hourly rainfall records and
summarize characteristics including duration, intensity, vol-
ume and time between storms for 17 years of record. The year
1965 was chosen as the most representative of the 17 years
for rainfall duration, intensity, volume and the time between
storms. Thus, rainfall from 1965 was used to compute runoff.
6-1
-------
TABLE 5-7
ROUGE RIVER EXISTING CONDITIONS
Based on Model Outputs
Parameter
DO
FC
ss
TP
(mg/1)
(per 100 ml)
(mg/1)
(rag/1)
Standard
5.0
1 ,000
80
0.12
Ave. Annual
Cone.
6.37
1 ,031
25
0.44
Annual Hrs
of Violation
1 ,857
2,377
22
6,584
In addition, the modeling also determined the following
annual discharges to the Detroit and Rouge Rivers:
TABLE 5-8
ANNUAL CSO DISCHARGES
Based on Model Outputs
Parameter Detroit River Rouge River
Gallons of Combined Sewage 10,269,000,000 3,451,000,000
Pounds of Suspended Solids 18,100,000 6,240,000
Pounds of Total Phosphorus 240,100 79,600
Pounds of BOD 6,235,188 2,026,567
The effectiveness of the various alternatives in controlling
the existing future standard violations and pollutant, dis-
charges is discussed in Section 7 of this report. Chapter 10
will discuss the reliability of these and other modeling
outputs.
5-60
-------
Table 5-6 shows the annual average concentrations of 5 model-
ed parameters for the Detroit River. With the exception of
Fecal Coliform, these concentrations are well within the stan-
dards or psuedo-standards.
TABLE 5-6
DETROIT RIVER EXISTING CONDITIONS
Based on Model Outputs
Parameter
DO
FC
SS
TP
Cd
(mg/1)
(per 100 ml)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(ug/1)
Standard
7.0
200
25
0.03
1.2
Ave. Annual Cone.
9.74
328
13.85
0.03
0.44
Annual Hrs
of Violation
0
594
42
239
57
Following the calibration of QUAL II and RECEIV II, the models
were used to assess the existing water quality conditions in
the Rouge River. QUAL II was used to estimate the benthal
demands in each river element using the dissolved oxygen pro-
files previously given in Tables 5-1 through 5-3.
The analysis indicated that benthal demand generally increased
substantially following a CSO event. The demand was observed
to steadily decline following the event to an apparent base
level. It was concluded that the deposition of organic
materials originating from CSO's was the most likely mechanism
for the observed benthal demand increases.
Table 5-7 shows the annual average concentrations of 4 modeled
modeled parameters for the Rouge River. Even though the aver-
ages shown closely match the State water quality standards,
the annual hours of violation indicate substantial pollution
problems.
5-59
-------
5.4 Summary of Existing River Water Quality
The existing water quality in the Detroit River was assessed
with the final Encotech and Plume Models. As discussed in
Section 5.3.3.1.2, the Encotech Model was run for both
steady-state and dynamic conditions. The steady state
modeling effort simulated water quality characteristics in
the entire river. Comparing the results to measured STORET
data at the mouth of the river, the modeling showed that
there are no significant water quality problems in the
Detroit River during dry weather conditions. It was noted
that fecal coliform, BOD, and total phosphorus concentra-
tions tended to be higher on the United States side of the
river. This finding is not unexpected considering the
greater number of point sources and larger urban population
on that side of the river.
Results of the dynamic or wet weather modeling of the river
again showed that there are few water quality problems even
during wet weather conditions. The only significant problem
found was near-shore fecal coliform concentrations. The high
concentrations were a result of DWWTP and CSO discharges and
flows from the Rouge River.
The extent of the fecal coliform problem was further reviewed
with the Plume Model. The Plume Model analysis revealed that
fecal coliform concentrations in the river were related not
only to CSO volume but also to the duration of overflow.
This situation occurs because the background fecal coliform
concentration is so low that any overflow results in a viola-
tion of the instream fecal coliform standard. Accordingly,
the sequencing of overflows has a major impact on water qual-
ity. For example, two overflows which discharge identical
volumes of CSO simultaneously for two hours will cause fewer
hours of violation than if they discharged sequentially for
two hours each (Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981 a).
5-58
-------
As in the Rouge River modeling outputs, the results of model-
ing for the Detroit River are presented as cumulative fre-
quency tables. They also should be interpreted as the
percentage time a particular pollutant parameter is at or
below a specific concentration. Dissolved oxygen values are
an exception and must be read as "equal to or greater than"
the given concentration.
As an example, in the Plume Model output given in Figure 5-19,
the Detroit River concentration of BOD does not exceed 1.56
mg/1 for 95 percent of the values simulated within Reach 2.
Also included in the model outputs is data on the minimum,
maximum and average concentration of the parameter in ques-
tion as well as the number of hours a particular standard is
exceeded. "Hours exceeded" is calculated in the same manner
as the Rouge River Model except that for the Plume Model the
total hours are 1,634 rather than 6,600.
The Detroit River modeling outputs were first released for
review on February 5, 1981 by the Facility Planner (Giffels/
Black & Veatch, 1981c). As with the Rouge River model, these
outputs also contained certain errors which caused unreason-
able results for the Detroit River. Corrections to the ori-
ginal data, refinements and reruns of individual alternatives
were distributed in five updates over the period from Febru-
ary 20, 1981 to April 27, 1981 (Giff els/Black & Veatch,
1981d, 1981e, 1981f, 1981g). Alternatives which were rerun
include: 0, 3, 7, 12, 13, 24 and 25. All alternatives were
rerun for Reach 5 of the Detroit River in the Plume Model.
Alternatives 16, 17, 18 and 19 showed inconsistencies in the
simulated fecal coliform concentrations. These alternatives
were not rerun again, however, because they were not among
the "few best". Alternatives 20 and 21 were management
alternatives (i.e. sewer flushing, improved flow gate opera-
tion, etc.) which could not be modeled but according to the
Facility Planner should have produced results equivalent to
Alternatives 5 and 6.
5-57
-------
& n
c •«
c —
r> o
r- h-
u u
U.' U
1 -)
o o
c e
0. C.
> O
J _l
u.
o
m
z
a
2
tJ
O
2
O
U
I
in
tr
-rH
o
o
I
1C
u
ca
in
u
IL
O
C
n
L. O
O O I
o u
20 <
o - .. u
" C Ul C
>- u >
3 t -
OS H _1
— e < u
c u z a
i- I o: o
ID H HI C
O UJ _J
U t-
2 UJ
O
Ul
c
u.
<
D
(J
•_)
oooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo o
_1 O ^^OOOOOOOOOOOOOO d^-OT
10 X I I
*
X .... . -«
QCfirfii-*-*-*-*-* ^-«rt
j - w ni (v n n n n n n o T o 4 v -o D - «• « o c -o o o^ Q-
ooocjotDDtDomcoasmff-o-o- — -rvrarjtvc^rv o tv o- - N
•^rtpxCDO^cofx^nnno(fM**«^-^ooooooo o^*^o
jO9*CDnor7r4rvrMr^irvrvriiri{rxrvrvrvrviYC^r)irM rif'Onir)
ox I i
oo-
_J —
ui a
u. c
U. t-
— u
O Q
zuinooooooooooooooooooooon
u r
u-'O-o-CDNnnonoooooooooNnnr* — o
r c in >
D 3 o LJ
c r < Q
~ « I-
n n < ui
Q
c
<
o
2
O <
u t-
Q Ul
U
U O
u o
X Ul
U D
in
in a.
c
I «
Ul
u
2
u
2
<
-------
01 CS
CD *T
CO —
t- CO
o o
Z 2
O O
UJ UJ
-3 -3
0 O
ct o:
a a
> to
<* -J
CQ UJ
u.
u_
00
H
I
ID
Q)
IP
o
CO
i
in
O
o
<
o
a
I
o
UJ
I/I
Z
O
a
t-
UJ
O
O
o
a
1
u. Z
O O
Z "
o <
HO >
3 S. I-H
CO « I— OC
MI/I < u>
o: Z >
i- _j a •-»
in < iu ct
"3 I-
Q Z -I I-
Z < «
>- < O
0 a
Z t-
O
UJ
a
3
UJ
s. minrj^Tjnmoi--*- — •-»••'- — ••- — •*- — ••-••-••-»- -~IDCS— n O
O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O
_)O + + + + + + + -f + + + + 4 + + 4-t-t + + 4-f4 +4 + + 4 D
^ *— n I 111 ii I ii t n I it i u i 111 111 ni 111 tit tt t u i UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ LU UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ If)
u*-^ *-coiniD's-rMr\u->r»*-ina>c5r~ — cou>u>?u>cooiin *-r5«"- O in
ujin iniDncNCirjioinin^DtoeNCM'- — oii^minn noioou) O
u.1— rj'-'jCN»-'T'--^O)O)O)O)C)0)Ci>O)O)coeoeoeoisu>tnintf>u~>inmir>'3^'C'<}r'5r}r>r}c'}p>oo ocso o O
_j Mnncotncorjcnopjonrjpjnnoorjpjrjon ninno CM
<(5 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Oinoo -^ «N
o 3
^ r3CNfMCNCMO*CM«OIO(CM««NCMOIOICSCJeNCSCM« WOfV n O
_i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1C O O O
t- 15 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO 6 r>
Z
in — h-tcinci-^'-oo OOin\ i i
t-S CMC4CNCSOiCMCNCMO4CM-ooO OOcs o O
«j tr)O)O)OiO)O)O)O)O)(no)O>(Ocococococooococococo cocacoo O •
~^ O
I/)O OO)0)C710>O)0)O)U)OJO)OO)O)CDO)a)O)O)OO)O)O} O)t^O)O U) Ol
in z «- i CN
<-» O)O — mo)csinininu3iDtot-r~cocoir>Ooc(t^O ninro o O
_j cMrjnncninininminininininincocoiDincoo^u) co to co o O
-^ .... . pj
OC3 coeotococococoaJcocDcocoeocococooiO — --^CNCM iccscoo t-
OS ^^^^^^^
^» '-^•^^^•iinoorjMCMw-- — — OOOOOOO Oco —
_) TJO(CMC>IC
3 D o uj
S Z < Q
i-. i-. a
Z x uj •
f < > H-
£ S < l/>
Q i/>
UJ
O Ul o
a o o
< x uj
O UJ 3
< tn Q.
i- o:
Ui
o
to
o:
3
-------
ity in the river resulting from wet weather conditions (a
total of 1,634 hrs). Because the wet weather periods were
relatively short compared to the total nine month period, and
because there were no residual wet weather water quality
effects following storms, the dry weather data completely
masked the wet weather data. For this reason, it was deter-
mined that the results of the Plume Model would be best
utilized for alternatives analysis rather than the Detroit
River Model.
Another basic difference between the Detroit River Model and
the Plume Model is the physical areas of the Detroit River
which were summarized in the modeling outputs. The Encotech
outputs were summarized for five major reaches in the Detroit
River as shown previously in Figure 5-8. The Plume Model
outputs, however, were summarized for only four major reaches
of the Detroit River as shown in Figure 5-9. The reader
should note that reaches of these two models do not coincide
with one another.
Since only the results from the Plume Model were used for
alternative analyses, outputs from the Plume Model were pre-
sented for all alternatives. Outputs from the Encotech Model
were derived for Alternatives 0, 7, 11, 12 and 18 for compar-
ative purposes only. The two different outputs may be dis-
tinguished, in that the Plume Model outputs are designated by
an "A" after the reach number and the Detroit River Model
outputs lack this distinction.
As previously mentioned, the Plume Model outputs are summa-
tions of only wet weather conditions while the Detroit River
Model outputs are annual summations and include both wet and
dry weather conditions for the nine month period from April
through December. Figures 5-18 and 5-19 are outputs from the
Detroit River (Encotech) and Plume Models respectively for
Alternative 0 (Future No Action) for Reach 2 of the Detroit
River.
5-54
-------
o
o>
co
I
(O
I
10
I
CM
.0
m
UJ
3E
Ul
o
ir
o
Or
CO
Ul
o
UJ
UJ
cc.
.o
CM
_O
o °X
Z UJUJ
UJ UJ
2 CO
UJ —
O
tr
UJ
a.
00
o
oO
o
_1
CD
CO
_1
LJ
U_
U.
O
Ul
O
K.
O
OT
(1/9W) NOIlVdlN30NOO -Q-Q
-------
m
a:
z
Ul
o
oc
UJ
Q.
H T
• J-
o < < Z
u. tiJ UJ
a: o
o
u
a:
(1/9W) NOI1VH1N30NOO O'Q
-------
data for Alternative 1, Reach 3 from Figure 5-15 has been
graphed and is shown in Figure 5-16. Next, determine the
percent of time the standard for DO is exceeded. In this case
the standard for DO is 5 mg/1, therefore, any time the DO
concentration falls below 5 mg/1 the standard has been
exceeded. To determine the percent of time this standard is
exceeded a line is drawn from the standard (5 mg/1) to the
point of intersection with the frequency distribution line
and then from this point a line is drawn perpendicular to the
percent time line to the point of intersection (Figure 5-17).
The point at which the intersection occurs with the percent
time line in this case is the percent of time the standard is
met approximately 58%. From this information the hours
exceeded may be calculated using the following formula:
"Hrs exceeded" = (1.00 - percentile) x 6,600 hrs.
Therefore:
Hrs exceeded = (1.00 - 0.58) x 6,600
= 0.42 x 6,600
= 2,772 hrs.
The reader will note that "hours exceeded" reported in the
output file (Figure 5-15) is 2,764. This variation is
caused by use of the computer estimate of 58.12% in the
Facilities Plan documentation.
5.3.5.2 Detroit River
Modeling of the Detroit River was done through the use of two
separate models, the Plume Model and the Detroit River Model,
Encotech. The Detroit River Model simulated water quality in
the Detroit River resulting from both dry and wet weather
conditions €or the full nine month period from April through
December. The Plume Model however, simulated only water qual-
5-51
-------
Ol CN
CD '(I
CO •—
r- co
o o
2 2
O O
UJ LU
"3 -3
O O
cc cc.
o. a
(9
LD
H
I
in
tr
•H
O
09
I
z
in
Ul
o
<
o
ct
(/I
2
O
<
H-
z
o
cc
o
u. Z
O O •-
•1 I
*
I
ui
_ .
O <
.-. _r
I- D
03 —i t— Of
•-i (/) < Ul
a Z >
>- — i o: •-<
t/> < ui or
« 3 i-
O Z -J uj
Z < »
>- < 3
O O
Z QC
UJ
O
Ul
>
o
ui o
u. a.
t-r UJ
O O
O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O
_JO + + + + + + + + + •(. + + + + + + + + + + •» + + + + + + + in
^ «^ u i in i^j ui QJ ii I m 1 1 1 u i 1 1 1 ti i m ti i uj UJ UJ Ul Ul UJ Ul Ul Ul LU UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ IX?
O"v. t-u>ocNr-u>'*tcNCncNi*-a>cocoiu">--coioiOO OOOJO O •"
uito if)Oc^T-'^cor^or^in^TC3O^u>^Tr5d'*-'-*~OcD ^rmnr^ O co
u.1- c^c<--C)incNO)--pjcN^u)CoeN'- — '-'-'-•^•-"-co •» i »- eo •<-
3 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O
O
U
~* r3(Nr~U)U)Ouiinin'^rjr5cN(N — -^ — OOOOOO OOnco O O
_i — r- — omnOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Orj'-m ininininin^T'C'T-c^'oo n't-- OOTU>Vu>inin«rrjr-f~r~r--u>tN oicMOra O o>
N^ u>u>u>u>u>u>(ou>u>u}iDU>u>ininm*r"?*TT^rT^r CN(~U) in in
rjiitBTr-.incNn^mf^^rjtcininujinTinOto OO^CH
t~Oojinmo)ninmincnor5OO'O"-l«'*"co»- to<;Oa>
........................... I I
eoinOOeof-cNr3Oir>c"jr3OOaic> Tt~tno
I— S. eocO'oeot^f-i>ioiDininTivr>rjr>oJCNCNtNo('-— — cni»-
«^
»
^ r-intnoir'eDtNeoinoOOin'C-Oi'cO'^cNeNton OOtotN o O
_J O)tor-oi(Nt^inrjOO-IDco — cocNeotcinrJoioiajr-icuninin^r COT — CN
Q ^ ........................... I 1
OO CNOTt-lDtOininin^'fftOrjrjOCMCNCNtNMCNCNCNCN — TTT"-
m s — M
(-Ofv^rO)Ot£>*~f^in'T?Otj?'r~T~'~moco lorousv
cnmrjiDOt-eoin — inr-inoOfJOco'-iD'-coiccn ncDTOi
3ui iPiT — oor-eonoinOfsmMtncNcniD'TrV'-o OTt-co
ou. —t-ojncNcOLOr-cvcniDinincN--'- OICNIC
-JUcxiDininincx'-'- in----
u. — -- o o
o:
<
o
o <
Zuj inOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOin 0 05
UJS ........................ uj
o—> cncncor-inriOinOOOOOOOinOi-inncN — o • O ui r-
an- oioioocntnoicocot-icin'Tnrv---- zzui> cr u c
« « a z
2 x uj • <
•- < > t- t-
s s < tn ui
1/1
a
i
-------
the outputs for other alternatives. For specific corrections
and rerun results, the reader should refer to Giffels/Black &
Veatch, 1981e, 1981f, 1981g.
As previously mentioned, the Rouge River modeling data were
presented in the form of cumulative frequency tables. This
method of displaying the data gives the percentage of time a
particular pollutant parameter is at or below a specified
concentration. Cumulative frequency tables are given for
each reach of the Rouge River for each alternative. For
example, Figure 5-15 shows the cumulative frequency distri-
bution for Reach 3 for Alternative 1 (Existing Conditions
Alternative). Looking at the Percent (time) column under
95.0 and then across the same line under the BOD column, the
reader will find the number 6.51 (mg/1). This means that 95
percent of the time in Reach 3 of the Rouge River, the
concentration of BOD is expected to be less than or equal to
6.51 mg/1. The other 5% of the time it is anticipated that
this concentration will be exceeded. For DO the concentra-
tration reported should be read as greater than or equal to
the specified concentration. Again, in this example, 95
percent of the time the DO concentration will be equal to or
greater than 0.45 mg/1.
In addition to the cumulative frequency distributions for
each parameter, information was also presented for the annual
minimums, maximums and averages for each pollutant parameter
as well as the number of hours a particular standard is vio-
lated (exceeded) within a given reach of the Rouge River.
The following example illustrates how the "hours exceeded" is
determined in any given reach of the Rouge River for any of
the 27 alternatives.
Recalling that the models simulate 6,600 hours, the first
step is to graph the cumulative frequency distribution data
points for the pollutant in question. In this example the DO
5-49
-------
5.3.5 Description of Model Outputs
5.3.5.1 Rouge River
For the evaluation of CSO control alternatives, the Rouge
River Model simulated wet and dry weather conditions in the
Rouge River for the nine month period from April through
December, or the equivalent of 6,600 hours. The models
generated 462,000 bits of data for each of the nine para-
meters for each alternative. Although the Rouge River Models
determined the water quality for one kilometer river segments
the data were grouped and summarized for 5 major reaches. The
70 computational elements and the 5 major reaches of the
Rouge River were previously presented in Figure 5-6. The
simulated water quality for each reach per hour was calcu-
lated as the arithmetic average of the concentrations in
every element within a reach for a particular hour. Finally,
to present the results of the modeling data in a manageable
format, the data were summarized in the form of cumulative
frequency tables for each alternative.
Reach 1 in the Rouge River contains no CSOs which were
modelled and thus represents background water quality data.
Reaches 2 through 5 each contain CSOs which were modeled and
therefore reflect the water quality which is affected by
Detroit CSO discharges.
The original outputs from the Rouge River modeling were
distributed in February, 1981 (Giffels/Black & Veatch,
1981d). It was found that these outputs contained certain
errors which were manifested in unreasonable results for some
of the alternatives. Corrections to the original data and
refinements were made. Reruns of individual alternatives
were subsequently distributed in five updates over the period
from February 20, 1981 to April 27, 1981. Alternatives which
were corrected and rerun in their entirety were Alternatives
0, 3, 7, 13, 24, and 25 while specific changes were made in
5-48
-------
fc
K
^^
£•*
CO
1
Q
^
|_i
K
w
Q
i 3 *J "O 1 "1
VJ ^£""1 CTlQa-lJ ^ O
S'Sr^r^iitOoSS
C
•H
rH
8
x:
o
• P— I •
^ •
*s
VJ CO
i2 ^
4J
4-> CO
C 0)
•H
as
(Q ^
4J
fO 0)
TD >-l
O
C s
w o
M QJ
•H S)
t.
CN
CD
4J
g
QJ
CO
CTi
^—
|
to
«
r^
QJ
(Q
pQ
X^
to
rH
0)
M-l
•H
U
»
D
C^
5-47
-------
files, independently selected the dry weather data and cal-
culated the mean concentrations for each headwater element
where data was available. The resulting arithmetic means for
both DO and PC compared very closely with those reported by
the Facility Planner. Contrary to reports of using geometric
means, the arithmetic means were used by the Facility Planner
for PC.
In order to give the reader an appreciation of the initiali-
zation data points for which actual data was available, Table
5-5 shows the concentration calculated by the EIS Consultant
and the value used by the Facility Planner for each data
point for DO and PC. Note that one data point occurs at each
of the 4 headwater elements for each of the 9 modelled
months. Thus, a total of 36 monthly mean concentrations were
required for each parameter to initialize the model. A blank
in the table signifies that no data were available and that
these initialization data points were estimated.
As shown, only 5 of the 36 initializing data points were
supported by actual field data for both DO and PC. Further-
more, as monthly mean concentrations, the values that were
calculated are subject to substantial variance since the
total number of sampling values used to calculate the mean
were in some cases as low as 1.
A complete table of the model initialization data is given in
Appendix B of this report. In addition to the 4 headwater
elements, this table also includes initialization data for
the other major flow and load discharges. These are: the
Evans Ditch, the Bell Branch of the Rouge, the G.M. Diesel
Plant, Ashcroft Sherwood Drain, the four Ford complexes,
Peerless Cement and basin groundwater discharges.
5-46
-------
820"»22 I -V
O 8Z08IS 820325
820(17
820821
820074
U.S.G.S. GAGES
A Sampling Station
Rouge River at Birmingham
Rouge River at Southfield
Evans Ditch at Southfield
Upper Rouge River at Farmington
Rouge River at Detroit
Middle Rouge River near Garden City
Lower Rouge River at Inkster
FIGURE 5-14
LOCATION OF STORE! SAMPLING STATIONS
IN THE ROUGE RIVER BASIN
-------
O
o
fl
in
Ul
C5
Q
•—
c
£0
o
• ez
U> O
• O — O
— z s, uj
• O • - 1/> X
n cr O'Z <. \-
ea o cc co a
i- o uj
< uj a cr . D
O 2 cr LU
• cr > < >
O u; < ur »-< >—
— > :* a cs uj
r-t UJ
to • cr u. >— u,
O o - o -i r
o — uj CO O O O
O o io >- cr — O
cs • D - I- H Z O
O5CNO13 — UJ — O
V CC CM U a «
O -I
19 <
in o
I- X Z
— o
r>
O
o
o
o
uj Z
«
O \- O
o < o
or uj
O Z
• UJ >-
•C 13 <
O
O • C.
CM CO
to — cr c-j
O uj <£
CM • Jt —
O CM O U)
' - <
cr Q
o
o
u
0)
o
M
a.
UJ
ci . Q
UJ
•-> cr uj
UJ
u. &— u_
O - X
o u o
>- cr « O
H I- Z O
i— LJ — o
•_: Q JM
W
0.
ro
I
ID-JQ-J OOOOOOOOO
— o o z ooooooooo
i in te O O
to o O — to O
— o —
•- cr
u>_)ca_l OOOOOOO
— DOS OOOOOOO
u> O u- O
- lO OOOOOOO
noz— coiOiOiO
ui u- ^^ CM T cn co
u. z r- •«• n
Q)
5-1
tT
•H
En
O
tH
U3
I- £
«v ^ »- _l
O — O —
— Z I- (3
O D -3
< C.
U U
O O <
o o o
O CO
in
O O O O O i
O O O O O i
;o o o
o o o
ooooooooo
I I I I I I I I I
8
OOOOOOOO
oO — Or- — Ocn
OoOOOn — in -
ill «-
I-Z OOOOOOO
CVDI--J OOOOOOO
^ZI-O OOOOOOO
O O • D I I I I I I I
< o
o o
r> D < "
O O O
O 03
IT.
O O O O O O O
in o ci O O O
OOOOOOO
en o i
in in v O
CM CN CM — —
OOOOOOOO
ocooo
-O Z
vo < >
O uj o t/)
8oc_iu, cr, cncnaiociOOO
i- u- o cn cn 01 oi o 01 i i i
o z
10 <>
O U.' O
8c —•
»- u.
O O O O O O
o o o o 6 c
C LO LO LO in c
-------
amount of field sampling to initialize the parameter head-
water concentrations. Modeled parameters were dissolved
oxygen (DO), BOD, Suspended Solids, Total Volatile Solids
(TVS), Filterable Residue (FR), Phosphorus, Cadmium, and
Fecal Coliform (FC) bacteria plus flow rates. A review of the
STORET files revealed that (1 ) data were available for very
few sampling periods each of short duration, (2) only a small
amount of data were available for any given element location
and, (3) the STORET locations did not cover all the Rouge
River elements including Element 12, the headwaters reach of
the Upper Branch Rouge. An example of the data obtained from
STORET files is given in Figure 5-13. Figure 5-14 shows the
location of STORET sampling stations in the Rouge River
Basin.
Due to lack of sufficient, available data on the selected
water quality parameters in the Rouge River Basin, the Joint
Venture's approach to initializing the water quality model
was substantially altered. First, from the data that did
exist, the dry weather data was identified. Dry weather was
defined as a period in which rainfall had not occurred for 24
to 48 hours. This was determined from National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration records. Dry weather water quality
data for the headwater elements were then reportedly averaged
by month geometrically for FC and arithmetically for all
other parameters. The results were used to initialize the
model headwater concentrations. When necessary, data from
other sources was sought to supplement the inadequate STORET
data, however, no other data sources were found. In instances
where no information was available, the Facility Planner
estimated the initializing headwater concentrations based on
data measured elsewhere in the Rouge River Basin or in other
river basins believed to be similar.
In order to obtain confirmation of the characteristics of the
initializing data the EIS Consultant obtained the STORET
5-43
-------
concentrations for each of the pollutants to be mode-" lee vere
to be entered as initialization data into the mode' at
elements 1, 12, 39, and 52. Ideally, these data should be
actual measured daily concentrations covering the same length
of time which the model was to simulate water quality.
After the headwaters concentrations were entered, the com-
puter (using the mathematical formulae) would simulate the
movement of water downstream and calculate the changing
parameter concentrations at each element of the river. Where
tributaries of the river converge and where significant point
source discharges occur, the computer combines the two
streams and calculates the resultant concentrations. This
process would continue at each element to the point where the
Rouge River meets the Detroit River.
The calculation of pollutant concentrations in each of the
elements is dependent upon many factors which are included in
the mathematical equations. These factors include settling
rates, stream velocity, chemical reactions, plant growth,
etc. The initial computer simulation was designed to produce
a series of 70 pollutant concentration values (one value for
each element depicted in Figure 5-6) for each of the para-
meters modeled. The initial simulated pollutant concentra-
tion values would then be compared with actual observed data
for various elements of the river to determine how well the
simulation corresponds to real conditions. Adjustments would
then be made in the program to correct inaccuracies. This
process is known as calibrating the model and should continue
until the simulated concentrations closely match the actual
field data for the elements. Ideally, field data should be
available for each parameter for each element simulated. Th s
would ensure that the model was producing results as close as
possible to the actual existing conditions.
Once the model was set up, the Facility Planner had expected
to rely primarily on STORET data supplemented by a limited
5-42
-------
of the planning level modeling. It was assumed that all water
quality parameters were conservative and that CSO penetrated
a set distance regardless of flow at each outfall. The prop-
erties of the river were assumed to be uniform, only remote
sensing data were used for calibration, and the chosen grid
system was relatively coarse and arbitrary (Giffels/Black &
Veatch, 1981a). Each of these assumptions could have contri-
buted to the limited success of the Plume Model calibration
effort.
5.3.4 Model Initialization Data
The proper application of a model to a specific river basin
requires the specification of many inputs. Calibration and
verification of the model requires the comparison of simula-
ted water quality parameters with actual observed data.
Since CSO impacts and baseline water quality were not found
to be a problem in the Detroit River, review and evaluation
efforts were directed towards the Rouge River modeling
effort. This section of the report, therefore, will discuss
the initialization data used for modeling water quality in
the Rouge River.
The Rouge River Models were set up to determine the concen-
trations of eight pollutant parameters plus flow in the Rouge
River for existing conditions and for conditions resulting
from the implementation of the 25 CSO pollution control al-
ternatives. In order to enhance the reader's understanding
of the use and significance of the data required to operate
the Rouge River model, a brief discussion of the model's
operation in very simple terms is necessary.
The Rouge River Models use a set of mathematical equations to
determine changes in and compute the concentration of pollu-
tants in discrete segments of the river. It was set up with
70 elements as shown previously in Figure 5-6. The headwaters
5-41
-------
these parameters and because these extremes would norn.
exist only immediately beyond the outfalls, the most
significant water quality impacts could be determined prior
to influence from other discharges.
5.3.3.2.2 Model Calibration
Calibration of the Plume Model was limited to Events 908 and
909 and was undertaken only at the Lieb CSO outfall. River
quality background concentrations used for the calibration
were as follows:
TABLE 5-4
DETROIT RIVER BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
Parameters Concentration
Fecal Coliform 19.0 counts/100/ml
BOD 1.0 mg/1
Total Suspended Solids 1.0 mg/1
Filterable Residue (Total Dissolved Solids) 95 mg/1
Total Volatile Solids 18 mg/1
Total Phosphate 0.1 mg/1
Conductivity 130 uMHO
Source: USA, 1980c
According to the modeling team (USA, 1980c), filterable resi-
due data were computed from EPA STORET data using the follow-
ing relationship;
Filterable Residue = 0.65 X Conductivity
Calibration plots of predicted versus measured data for
Events 908 and 909 at the Lieb outfall were prepared. Consi-
derable deviations were observed between measured and modeled
data. Reasons for these differences were believed to be a
result of the simplifying assumptions made for the purposes
5-40
-------
based on a model developed to monitor thermal discharge plumes
from power plant cooling water discharges (Stefan and Sulli-
van, 1978). That model assumes that a plume is formed by any
discharge which has little initial momentum. The plume formed
is assumed to be Gaussian in nature (i.e. the plume follows a
curve defined by Gauss' Hypergeometric Equation).
In order to be suitable for modeling a sewage discharge, the
thermal dispersion equation was modified for each parameter
to adequately account for particle settling rates, chemical
adsorption and factors which affect reaction rates of non-
conservative parameters.
5.3.3.2.1 Model Application
In order to analyze the impacts of CSOs on the Detroit River,
a preset grid of 48 points (four points in each of 12 tran-
sects set at one mile intervals) was established covering the
United States side of the river one-quarter the distance
across. Existing plume characteristics in the river were
evaluated using data from the Detroit Edison Rouge River Power
Plant and the DWWTP plumes. River characteristics which were
input to the model included background water quality, river
velocity, river depth, and the turbulent diffusion coeffi-
cients (Ky, Ky "prime"). The diffusion coefficients were
calculated from ERIM (Environmental Research in Michigan)
spectral reflectance data for the Detroit Edison and DWWTP
plumes.
During the model development, the question was raised as to
whether or not it was possible to model selected outfall
plumes independently. After thorough analysis, it was
determined that the plumes could be generated independently
and many parameters were proportionately additive. Tempera-
ture and dissolved oxygen could not be treated in this
manner, however, because only extremes were of interest for
5-39
-------
Collection System Model and the DWWTP Model were ased
directly. However, because the Rouge River Models were not
fully calibrated at the time the Encotech Model was being
calibrated, input from the Rouge River had to be estimated.
Sampling data could not be used because only one data point
was available for each event.
The following method was used to estimate the Rouge River
loading to the Detroit River during storm events.
Approximate flow travel times from the Tireman, Hubbell-
Southfield and Baby Creek outfalls to the mouth of the Rouge
River were estimated (see Figure 3-2). These outfalls were
selected because of their relative size. A flow weighted
concentration was calculated for each parameter using the
Collection System Model flow and quality from these outfalls
and averaged STORET data for the dry weather background
conditions of the river. Generally, these simulated concen-
trations for most of the water quality parameters were much
higher than measured data. However, because there were so
little Rouge River sampling data available for the times when
these outfalls could be influencing the river quality at the
sample stations, it was very difficult to make any meaningful
comparisons. Fecal coliform simulated values were reduced
because their values were higher than any concentrations
actually measured. No adjustments were made to any other
parameters.
The estimated Rouge River loadings and the loadings for the
Collection System and STPSIM2 Models were input to the
Encotech Model for three calibration events. The resultant
findings and changes were not available for review in report
form and are believed to be undocumented.
5.3.3.2 Plume Model
The Plume Model was used to monitor dispersion of CSOs and
discharges from the DWWTP entering the Detroit River. It was
5-38
-------
Several significant problems developed as a result of using
the STORET data. First, several different descriptions and
locations were often given for one STORET sampling location.
This problem required the adjustment or modification of
STORET data in order to achieve consistent results. A second
problem involved the changes in the water quality of Lake St.
Clair as a result of spring and fall "turnover". The water
quality at those times of the year were not accounted for in
either the averages or the quadratic equations used to set
boundary and initial conditions. Also, no STORET data were
collected between December and April and extrapolation of
data into these period was not reliable.
Industrial point sources were identified and located using
MDNR W.I.S.E.R. printouts for sources on the U.S. side and
information from the Internation Joint Commission (IJC)
reports for the Canadian side. Input and output formats were
arranged to be similar to those of the SWMM model.
5.3.3.1.2 Model Calibration
The Encotech Model was used to simulate water quality for
both wet and dry weather periods which consisted of 6,600
hours. The initial calibration utilized a simulated CSO
storm event. These early calibration efforts identified
problems of excessively high dissolved oxygen levels, the
need to vary temperature-dependent water quality parameters,
and the need for an additional model segment.
The modified model was final calibrated for both steady state
and dynamic conditions. The steady state calibration com-
pared model output for BOD, Suspended Solids, Filterable
Residue, and Total Phosphorus with measurements made at the
mouth of the Detroit River. Under dynamic conditions the
model was calibrated using output from the Collection System
Model, the DWWTP Model (STPSIM2), and the Rouge River Model
for Calibration Events 11, 14, 17, and 22. Output from the
5-37
-------
45-48
49-52
UNITED
STATES
56-59
60-63
CANADA
FIGURE 5-12
ENCOTECH MODEL SEGMENTS
IN THE
LOWER DETROIT RIVER
-------
UNITED STATES
CANADA
FIGURE 5-11
ENCOTECH MODEL SEGMENTS
IN THE
MIDDLE DETROIT RIVER
-------
UJ
>
oc
O
o:
H
UJ
O
DC
UJ
OL
Q.
10 2
K CO
(O
UJ
(O
o
UJ
H
UJ
CO
o
o
o
UJ
H
O
O
Ul
-------
so that it could operate either as a steady-state or a dynamic
model.
The list of water quality parameters to be simulated was also
modified. The new parameters were:
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Filterable Residue
Dissolved Oxygen Total Phosphorus
Suspended Solids Cadmium
Total Volatile Solids Fecal Coliform
Another change involved the method for computing dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the Detroit River. The original model
showed that super saturation of oxygen was occurring at the
DWWTP outfall and at the mouth of the Rouge River. Realisti-
cally this is impossible. By substituting a modified algor-
ithm which simulated DO deficit (the difference between
ambient and saturation DO concentration) this problem was
solved.
The last major change involved the splitting of Segment 1 of
the model into two individual segments. This was done in
order to properly distribute the effects of the inflow for
Connor Creek. The new segment was labeled number 74. This new
division of Segment 1 as well as the other 73 segments are
shown in Figures 5-10, 5-11 and 5-12.
STORET data were used to initialize the Encotech model. After
examination of all available parameters, it was determined
that there were no significant seasonal variations in quality
parameters except temperature and temperature dependent para-
meters. For all non-temperature-related parameters, an annual
average concentration was used for initialization. For temp-
erature and dissolved oxygen, quadratic equations were devel-
oped to match these parameters to general trend curves
developed from STORET data collected over most of the year.
5-33
-------
LU
X
O
o>
in
UJ
o
LJ
CC
UJ
LU
-------
LU
O
CD
CO
LU
O
LU
-------
fied to simulate dynamic conditions. The Encotech Mod:! is
capable of simulating the following parameters:
Total Dissolved Solids or Conductivity
Chlorides
Conservative Chemicals
Total Coliform Bacteria
Dissolved Oxygen
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Radioactive Isotopes
Nitrogen Compounds in the NH-j, NO^, N02 Cycle
The original Encotech Model divided the river into 73 seg-
ments. The size, number, and placement of these segments was
based on an examination of available water quality data, loca-
tion of major wastewater inputs, and on the flow pattern of
the river. Upon analyzing this information, it was found that
the Upper Detroit River (Peach Island to Zug Island) was fair-
ly uniform in the concentration of various pertinent para-
meters and contained few waste inputs. Therefore, large
segments were delineated in this area. In the lower river,
large concentration gradients were found and there were many
more waste inputs. Accordingly, more segments were required
across the river and the segments were also much shorter in
length. Segments were normally started on each side of an
island splitting the flow according to available measured
data. Some small islands were included within segments. After
the segments were specified, they were traced on U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce Navigation Charts in order to determine
characteristic widths, lengths, depths and volumes. Flow
routing data came from the U.S. Public Health Service. While
the Encotech Model was completed for the entire river, it was
never verified for the Canadian side.
5.3.3.1.1 Model Application
The Encotech Model was modified in a number of ways for use in
the Detroit facility planning process. This included changes
5-30
-------
compared to the monitored instream data, indicated that the
model was adequately calibrated for planning level alterna-
tives analysis purposes. The modeling consultants attributed
any major differences between modeling and instream sampling
data to be a result of the need to refine the Collection
System Model output (i.e. CSO loadings) and the need to
improve the methods for determining the flows and loads from
Bell Branch, a small tributary of the Rouge River which
contributes flows from urban runoff during wet weather. The
Runoff Block of the Collection System Model was used to
provide time variant flows at Bell Branch for input to RECEIV
II because no monitoring data were available. A detailed
description of calibration methods and results was not avail-
able in report form and may be undocumented.
5.3.3 Detroit River Models
Two models were used for the purpose of evaluating the water
quality impacts to the Detroit River from the DWWTP, Detroit
combined sewer overflows, and outflows from the Rouge River.
The Encotech Model was developed to predict river-wide water
quality in the Detroit River from the Lake St. Clair to Lake
Erie and to determine resultant loadings to Lake Erie. The
Plume Model was used to monitor in detail the dispersion of
the DWWTP, CSO and Rouge River discharges into the Detroit
River. The computational elements of each model were grouped
into five reaches as shown in Figures 5-8 and 5-9. As with
the Rouge River Model, these groupings were done to simplify
data analysis and comparisons.
5.3.3.1 Encotech Model
The Encotech Model was developed by the Environmental Control
Technology Corporation in 1974 to predict water quality in
the Detroit River. It was based on the Steady State Modeling
Program (SSMP) developed by Canale and Nachiappan and modi-
5-29
-------
r
o
o
(6
o
.Q
00
O
O
"(O
10
ot
o: to
5 i
Ul O
^1
<£>
UJ
o:
«^^v -1
.8
o
(1/9W) '00
-------
Second, a subroutine for modeling benthal demand was added to
the model. This routine deposited BOD from an overflow as
sediment uniformly over the first reach downstream from the
outfall. Degradation of benthal demand was not simulated in
RECEIV II. It was not determined whether the model could
also simulate sediment resuspension.
The modeling team also changed the numerical solution tech-
nique to an analytical solution technique because the model
proved unstable at one hour time steps. The instability was
traced to the fact that the residence time in the reaches was
less than one hour. The instability was characterized by
sinusoidal-like fluctuations which generally followed the
pattern of the monitored data, produced the same general cum-
ulative quantity of area beneath the event curve (see Figure
5-7), but also produced large peaks in excess of the
monitored data. In order to alleviate this problem, the size
of the time steps could have been reduced which would have
increased the cost of the modeling, or the analytical
solution techniques could have been substituted. The
analytical solution techniques which were tested included one
which simulated each reach as a plug flow reactor and one
which simulated each reach as a continuous stirred tank
reactor. The plug flow reactor technique was eventually used
in the modeling because it was found to more accurately
reflect actual stream characteristics.
5.3.2.2.2 Model Calibration
RECEIV II was calibrated using the same six events (Events
10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17) that were used to calibrate the Col-
lection System Model (USA, 1980b). Input to the model in-
cluded pre-rainfall dry weather river conditions for flow and
quality as simulated by QUAL II, and the calibrated CSO
loadings from the Collection System Model. According to the
modeling team, results of the model calibration runs, when
5-27
-------
ity and initial velocity of flows and initial concentrations
of quality parameters to be examined from both man-made point
sources and tributary streams. Rainfall data are also requi-
red from a continuous recording source.
The model is capable of producing a summary of concentrations
for each modelled parameter at the end of each time step, on
an hourly basis as well as a daily summary.
5.3.2.2.1 Model Application
The RECEIV II Model was used in the Detroit modeling efforts
to simulate conditions in the Rouge River during and immedi-
ately following a CSO event. Input data to the model inclu-
ded existing river conditions from QUAL II, upstream head-
water flow and water quality data, and CSO data from the
Collection System Model.
The same eight water quality parameters evaluated with the
QUAL II Model were also evaluated with RECEIV II (USA,
1981c). They included:
BOD Filterable Residue
DO Total Phosphorus
Suspended Solids Cadmium
Total Volatile Solids Fecal Coliform
The modeling consultants made several changes to the origi-
nal RECEIV II Model format. First, new subroutines were dev-
oloped to simulate quality parameters not originally included
in the model. Comparing the above list of eight modeled
parameters with the list of 11 parameters in Section 5.3.2.2,
one can see that the new parameters included suspended sol-
ids total volatile solids, and filterable residue.
5-26
-------
Phosphorus Carbonaceous BOD
Coliforms Chlorophyll-a
Ammonia Nitrogen Dissolved Oxygen
Nitrite Nitrogen Salinity
Nitrate Nitrogen One metal ion
Total Nitrogen
Many of the above parameters are chemically or biologically
related and appropriate linkages are included in the model.
Substitutions can be made for some of the above parameters if
the pre-empted parameters are not directly related to or sup-
portive of other remaining parameters.
The model requires that the river system to be analyzed be
broken into a series of nodes and connecting channels or
reaches. Determination of the nodes and channels is governed
by specific rules which are available in the user's manual
(Raytheon Co., 1974). The most important of these rules are
that the system begin and end with a node and that additions
to or removals from the system must take place at a node.
The model allows for designations within the node and channel
network for estuaries, dams, headwaters, and river junctions.
The basic assumption at each node is that the control volume
at the node acts as a "continuously stirred tank reactor".
All parameters throughout the control volume are homogeneous.
Also any changes in any parameter at one point in the control
volume are instantaneously transmitted throughout the control
volume.
A large amount of data is required for model set-up. Data
are generally river dimensions, discharge input parameters,
initial conditions and precipitation data. More specifical-
ly, for river dimensions, the width, the length of each
reach, the water surface and river bed elevations at each
node and horizontal and vertical dimensions of dam spillways
are required. Discharge input parameters include both qual-
5-25
-------
both a 1979 and 1980 sampling program were used in the cali-
bration. The DO and benthal demand calibration of the Rouge
River was an ongoing process for approximately one and one-
half years.
Calibration for the other seven parameters was undertaken
using data from the 1973 Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) Rouge River survey (MDNR, 1974). The aim of
the calibration was to define: 1) industrial point source
loadings; 2) parameter concentrations in groundwater; and 3)
rate constants for non-conservative parameters. Groundwater
quality concentrations predicted by the model were calibrated
by comparing measured parameter changes between two monitor-
ing stations which had no point source contributions between
them. These values were assumed constant throughout the en-
tire modeled portion of the river (USA, 1980a).
Details on the findings, conclusions and changes resulting
from calibration effort were not available for review in
report form and are believed to be undocumented.
5.3.2.2 RECEIV II
RECEIV II, uses the same analytical framework, the same
finite difference approach to the solution of partial,
differential hydraulic and water quality equations; and the
same equation forms as the Receiving Water block of the US-
EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). In addition, it is
designed to be compatible with the output from other SWMM
computational blocks. The basic difference between SWMM
Receiving Water block and RECEIV II is that SWMM was devel-
oped to model storm (high flow) conditions associated with
urban drainage problems while RECEIV II has been geared more
towards low flow conditions required for water quality
planning. RECEIV II was designed to model the following
parameters:
5-24
-------
One major modification included in the QUAL II specifically
for Detroit was a subroutine to model benthal demand mechan-
isms. Included in the subroutine were provisions for inter-
nal calibration of DO profiles. The profiles were used to
establish a base benthal demand. Following an overflow
event, peak benthal demands generated by RECEIV II were added
to the base. The peak was then degraded at a rate of 3000
o
mg/m /day until the base demand was reestablished (USA,
1980a).
In order to improve the operation of the model, the backward
substitution finite difference solution technique was repla-
ced by an analytical solution to a continuously stirred tank
reactor system. This revision was possible because disper-
sion effects were neglected in the Rouge River. The change
improved the operation of the model by eliminating the need
to set a downstream boundary condition and also enabled
greater ease in evaluating specific reaches of interest on
the river (USA, 1979a).
5.3.2.1.2 Model Calibration
The dry weather calibration of the QUAL II Model was a multi-
ple step process which developed as data became available.
The first step began in mid 1979 with the calibration for
flows and velocities. SEMCOG data from November 1976 were
compared with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) measured data
(USA, 1979b). Discrepancies between the flows and veloci-
ties simulated by the model and the measured USGS data were
traced to the use of inaccurate cross sections and river bed
slopes in the SEMCOG QUAL II calibration data. Adjustments
were made in the model to ensure proper flow and velocity
calculations.
Simultaneously, dissolved oxygen profiles developed by the
Facility Planner were being used to internally calibrate the
benthal demand subroutine of the model. Monitored data from
5-23
-------
In addition, benthal demand mechanisms for oxygen uptake wr>:e
incorporated into the model.
The QUAL II Model was used to establish typical monthly in-
cremental flows, rate constants and initial conditions to be
used in the RECEIV II Model as well as to simulate dry
weather flow.
Input data were derived from MDNR, SEMCOG, the Army Corps of
Engineers, EPA STORET, USGS and field data collected by the
Facility Planner. River cross sections were developed from
USGS and Corps of Engineers data in addition to those used by
SEMCOG for the 208 Water Quality Management Plan. These
cross sections are critical to the model as they dictate flow
velocities upon which all other parameters modelled are de-
pendent. Velocities were then calibrated against velocities
measured by the USGS.
For most water quality parameters, a monthly average was
developed from STORET data since data from other sources was
not available or not applicable. These monthly averages were
used as model initialization values. DO and temperature
initialization values were developed from the field data
contained in the Facility Planners' river profiles.
In addition to instream quality, major point sources were
also included in the model. Point source locations were
determined from NPDES discharge permits. Permit information
was generally insufficient for estimating the discharge
loadings since most parameters of interest are not reported
under the NPDES permitting system. In calibrating QUAL II,
it was concluded that most industrial point source loadings
reported were either incorrect or time variant. Volumetric
loadings and other data were, therefore, drawn from the 1973
MDNR survey. Dissolved oxygen levels in the discharges from
these sources were assumed to be of saturation since no data
were available from either the MDNR survey or NPDES operating
reports.
5-22
-------
Secondly, the program is not accurate for extreme flow condi-
tions. During these extreme conditions, channel geometry and
discharge coefficients can change dramatically from those of
mean flow conditions causing erroneous computations.
The QUAL II Model simulates the stream as a series of conti-
nously mixed reaches. Each reach contains several computa-
tional elements. These elements compute parameter inputs and
outputs, interactions, and transport processes. Hydraulic
data, reaction rate coefficients, initial conditions, and
incremental inflow data are constant for all computational
elements within a reach.
The QUAL-II Model requires input data pertaining to the river
hydraulics and water quality parameters. The river hydraulics
include the width and depth of the river channel, the initial
flow velocity and the friction and discharge coefficients of
the river channel. Water quality parameter characteristics
of the existing and influent biomass such as loading,
settling and respiration rates are required. Also included
are rates for reaeration and organic decay. All of these
parameters make the program very useful in predicting oxygen
depletion due to benthal demands.
5.3.2.1.1 Model Applications
The modified QUAL II Model was used to simulate river condi-
tions for the following eight water quality parameters:
BOD
DO
Suspended Solids (SS)
Total Volatile Solids (TVS)
Filterable Residue (Dissolved Solids)
Total Phosphorus
Cadmium
Fecal Coliform (FC)
5-21
-------
-------
WEST
BLOOMFIELO
I"
BLOOM>
FjELD C
IHILL
I
BLOOMFIELD j>
Y~>V/BIR\fcrflNGHAM
NOVI
TFARMINGTON
HILLS
FAgMWSfON
L_
™»TR--#___j___^ LJ___,
NORTHV)lLLE
PLYMOUTH L,
CANTON
•f-
VAN BURAN
iBINGHAM
K----&f--i
EVERLY j
HILLS*
LA7JHRUP\
VILLAGE]
i—
SOUTHFIELD
LIVONIA
j RED-'
j FORD
I
J GARDEN
CITY
(DEARBORN^
HEIGHTS
I
WESTLAND T "" '
u4
INKSTE
T
DETROIT
i
I
-~\ __ >
PEARBORN \
FIGURE 5-5
MODELED PORTION OF THE ROUGE RIVER
-------
The portion of the Rouge River which was evaluated during the
modeling effort is shown in Figure 5-5. For modeling purposes
the river was divided into 70 sections called elements, each
one kilometer in length. Water quality characteristics were
computed within each element. In order to simplify the data
analysis, the 70 elements were grouped into five large
reaches. The elements and reaches are shown in Figure 5-6.
Water quality data from these five reaches were summarized in
the form of cumulative distribution tables.
5.3.2.1 QUAL II
QUAL II was developed by Water Resources Engineers, Inc. to
model stream water quality in dendritic, well-mixed streams.
(Water Resources Engineers, 1977a&b) The model has been
revised several times with the Facility Planners' version
being a modification of QUAL II as used by the Southeast
Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). In addition to
modifications from the SEMCOG version, output formats were
further modified to be compatible with input requirements for
the RECEIV II Model.
The QUAL II Model is capable of predicting variations in up
to 13 parameters (four of which are variable), as shown
below:
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Temperature Algae (as Chlorophyll-a)
Ammonia Nitrite
Nitrate Phosphate
Coliforms One nonconservative constituent
Three conservative constituents
QUAL II has two major limitations. First, simulations are
limited to time periods during which stream flows and input
waste loads in the river basin are essentially constant.
5-18
-------
The following sections discuss the development and applica-
tion of the models used to undertake this modeling effort.
Typical examples of outputs from the models are given plus a
discussion of the problems encountered and areas in which
additional work may be necessary.
5.3.2 Rouge River Model
Three models were originally evaluated for use in the Rouge
River modeling effort. QUAL II was selected for the simula-
tion of long-term dry weather conditions in the river speci-
fically because of its ability to assess dissolved oxygen
depletion due to benthal demands. The pre-rainfall river
conditions simulated by QUAL II were input to a dynamic con-
ditions river model along with CSO loading data generated by
the Collection System Model. The dynamic river model would
then simulate the river conditions during and immediately
following the CSO events.
Two dynamic river models were initially evaluated for possi-
ble use on the Rouge River. The first was the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers WQRRS Model. The second was the RECRIV II Model,
a modification and expansion of the Receiving Water Block of
SWMM developed by the Oceanographic and Environmental Ser-
vices Division of Raytheon Company. Since, it was not
possible to properly modify the WQRRS Model, work on that
model was terminated (USA, 1979c). RECEIV II was ultimately
selected as the dynamic Rouge River Model.
Both QUAL II and RECEIV II were extensively evaluated and
modified for use in the Rouge River modeling effort. Most
modifications involved the inclusions of new water quality
parameters into the models in order to address the speciifc
water quality issues of the Detroit facility planning effort.
Input and output formats were also revised to ease data
transfer and analysis.
5-17
-------
X
(-
o
2
cc
UJ
o
a:
UJ
Qr
05
IT)
LJ
CD
X
O
r*- o
o> uj
"3
^S
w ii! £
ill
1 EQ
U. I
UJ j
CD 3
UJ
CD
CC
UJ
I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(1/9W) N39AXO QBAIOSSIQ
-------
UJ
o
>-
X
o
co O
1 CO
«
ce —
o Ul
H UJ 5
O 2
|S
UJ
^
o:
UJ
(T/9W) N39AXO Q3A10SSIQ
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (MG/L)
— IM Ol *
I [__J I
m
33
o
co o
TJ d
20 O
2 ni
en m
o ^
§5
O (O
o
X
m
TJ
O
m
ui
to
-------
I
I
s
I E i-
in > &
M *~
SO
o) j
CD 03 J
< M <
H D fc
M
V
4-*
tJ
A
5
^-
^
o
^
^
a
CD
V.
r~
K
ctober
in co
vO^vCNmr-Jratf *-
in^mmr-r^-r-o \£>
IT IT) CD
— r-icmcsino^1
in in co
CTI o ^*
VD
*-in«-*--tfincc^r OD
\D^\£>^G>lTlfVU'1 in
in •*-
ecroflOCOtf''-n*- *-
^^fin^f-tcnm \o
m o
infMr-fir^ooincN \o
^Oin^-tfJcoinmin m
^1
»-«irr-^*c:'rnr-o r-
v£f»«r-\aco\cmin tr\
in -.0
^^jr-^CtC^on** in
m w
«-»-(rrafficNinc^\OPtin \0
in
icinr-toeiF'-rnin \c
CD
r-r-^*c^a>
in in m
r-iOChwmfsj«(f'-' o
m^icr^^r^tN^j u>
•O1
'C^O'-^eDTri oo
iniDcnr^O)'^)^1^ vc
in in CD
^vMef'iccoo^ oo
Otf>0^r-CDvDCC\D(^lDPnu> VC
III 1
in N
^icffcC^'^inino *~
^tfjootfjff^r-^r-* r^>
CO
^f^\D^OD*~^f VD
^OtDCOlOCOlD^lD ^
in *•
'-cMminr-xOOir \o
\O\CODMC>OOlf^vO \C
g
*-inoo^-ircocs^ co
ooo^-*-^-r4nj ij
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 0>
oooooooo >
,.
ii
O
y
o\
K
CD
a
K
vo
K
in
a
K
1*1
«M
K
K
O
a
as
ct
^
£
i
in
^
K
m
CN
^
November
r- o •- co
IT 01
CV (N **) 1C O
VO CD O *- Ov
in o\
CN r- tfi r~ r^
m p- co c* t^
in
in co co o CD
m «-
Ch 1C CO C^ CO
^f r- co o^ r*
ro in
o> a co co >-
^» r* r* o c*
in
^r r^ p< o co
in in in
O1 1C O CO CO
*» r» M o co
m o
CD t~ T * O>
^r f* M v en
to
in r- w »- co
n
\o in v es «?
•» r- «- o to
r>
«T 1- CD O M
^ CO -4 M
pH fl)
10 >
-------
•c
01
c
p-4
ft
i ,_
a
o
a.
en
K
CD
K
r-
«
*
K
IT)
«
^
C.
m
CM
a
,_
a.
0
IS
o>
$
r*
*
in
2
m
*
to
^
r*
V
r^
,_
00
m
0)
C*
p*
1
^r
00
^
cc
CO
CO
08-08
September
in in
O IN *T IT. \D *f
IP in
0^ r*- P* m *f CD
CN r in *r> \c ^r
IP, IT. CV
in in o> *" IP IP
(N P*I IP, m ic ^
in r-
"" VDeo n
N « « , N S
""U1I"OV "
in CD
'" ^^^ *
^,^^0, S
f) ro ^ p* in in
in in
m ^r r- vo in in
1C
r- to r- r- r* P*
in *-
co ^ o ex *- ^f o
in \c r* co P* ^~
*, 0 CO - 0 0>
« vo r- or- vc
TT
* VO° "
?}
m P- o o P* «
O O •" M P4 h
1 1 1 1 1 O
CP CT^ ^* ff> 3* ^
o o o o c •<
\c
in
"
cc
T
C4
**
I
in
o
«)
rs*
CO
*
r*
u>
es
in
V
0
*
CO
•t
o
in
5
V
CM
in
p*
10
in
n
»
rs
K)
m
CM
!"•
r*»
a>
*
1
in
o
r-
\£>
p-
^
in
r-
1 Sununer
1 Average
-------
£
(0
X
o o
0!
E
1C
U! £
TO ^
! r- o
i i • • . •
in ro m in
^ « i- o> r- S
UD ^ ^f ci m m
m in
r- <• in <* ^ in
CM
r-» ^" ^ ^ m in
Cf> ^ CO tD ^ CN
r- to in in in to
m m
CN in CN ^r m r-*
««,«,«>* «,
in r*
^- m M T- co m
r- »«« vo »
i i i i i i
in ^-
1- U>« VC «£> *
00
p. wm vo « *
in r^
• • • •
r- n m IT,
in v n ^S1
CO co o m
CO «- M C4
n r«* in in
« IM r> m
rn in CD CM
«r N M m
in
*o ^ en
i • « •
«- IN O *-
\0 ro fO T
ONI- S
l£> ^ 1*1 ^
O 00 1C CO
*„« '
•« o r- o
^ *' *
in 4o •- N El-
•-1 1 1 1 1 § V
p r- r~ p- 2 >
17)0 o o to <
-------
a:
Q,
co
o
I
X
g
8
10
M
Q
a
M
X
I
I
1
I
1
1
|
«
0
D
a
en
0X
CO
tt
p.
K
1C
K
in
a
IT
a
m
CN
K
K
0
a.
0.
§
r.
K
K
s
«
^^
| Spring
„
in
CO
1C
CO
m
o
o
IT
p-
1C
O
in
CO
IT)
1C
1C
r-
vo
^
1C
Oi
1C
_
"^
cc
*-
VC
•"
01
p*
1
01
"
CO
"
VD
p-
m
Zlo
T
VO
cc
1C
00
in
0
CO
in
^
1C
o
in
c
in
1C
1C
p-
IC
r»
VO
01
VD
,-
•"
CO
r-
1C
p-
01
•-
C*
'-
CO
p-
vc
"-
1C
1
in
o
1C
r-
0>
r-
in
o-
v-
en
CO
CO
i
en
in
•er
vc
Oi
^
in
CO
in
CO
in
CO
in
CO
^
CO
in
CO
v
CO
0
CO
f!I
CO
T
CO
CO
1
in
o
or
VO
^
1C
^
p-
co
p*
0>
^
CO
in
CN
in
o-
in
r-
CN
1
in
o
O "^
r^ p-
in n
VD p-
T CS
P- CO
^l1 CN
CO CD
1C
O •
CO CC
in
I •
p-
C VD
VO VD
VO ^
vo r-
in ic
vo r-
cc
1C
^ m
P- 00
CM ^
P- CO
P- VO
P~ CO
m vo
CO CO
CM in
CO CO
VC ft
p. CO
1 1
CO f
P- CO
r-
m
01
'"
Spring
Average
-------
o>
m
UJ
<£>
111
tn
10
10
oo
CO
< o
in
Ul
CO
o
I
CO
UJ
-J
u.
o
a:
a.
UJ
X
o
o
UJ
o
CO
CO
o
-------
Dissolved oxygen data generated from the sampling pro ^am
plus data on other parameters obtained from the STORET r:iles
formed the primary data base for the Rouge River dry weather
model.
5.2.2 Detroit River
Dry weather water quality for the Detroit River was deternin-
ed from a Facility Planner sampling program that invol/ed
boat cruises along three transects in the Detroit River.
Samples were obtained June 6, 1979, September 6, 1979 and
November 9- 10, 1979. Parameters measured during the sampl-
ing program included dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD,-) total suspended solids, total dissolved sol-
ids, total volatile solids, total phosphorus, cadmium, and
fecal coliform.
5.3 Receiving Stream Modeling
5.3.1 General
The receiving stream modeling of the Rouge and Detroit Rivers
had three distinct purposes. First, the models were to show
the long-term baseline quality of the rivers under dry
weather conditions when they were not being affected by com-
bined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges originating from the
City of Detroit. Using field data collected from a number of
sources, the models were modified and calibrated. The cali-
brated models were used to simulate river conditions over a
nine-month period from April to December in order to assess
each river relative to the applicable water quality stan-
dards. The second purpose of the modeling was to determine
the impacts on the rivers from CSO's originating from the
City of Detroit and discharges from the Detroit Wastewater
Treatment Plant (DWWTP) during wet weather conditions. The
third and final purpose of the modeling was to evaluate the
relative water quality improvements expected in the rivers by
implementing various CSO abatement and DWWTP modification
alternatives.
5-8
-------
A dry weather sampling program was conducted for the Rouge
River early in the facilities planning process. This program
involved weekly sampling of nineteen (19) locations on the
Rouge River from May through November, 1979. The sampling
dates were:
May 16 September 5
18 7
22 10
24 20
30 27
June 5 October 1
15 5
20 8
22 11
27 15
18
July 6 22
19
24 November 2
8
August 8 13
17
In addition to the dissolved oxygen concentration, tempera-
ture, conductivity, and velocity were measured at each site.
Sampling points along the Rouge River are shown in Figure
5-1. The dissolved oxygen (DO) data generated from this study
are summarized and presented in Tables 5-1 through 5-3. Aver-
age spring, summer and fall DO concentrations derived from
the data, are shown in Figures 5-2 through 5-4. The complete
set of data generated by the Facility Plan dry weather sampl-
ing program are attached to this report as Appendix A.
During the Rouge River sampling, the United States Geological
Survey was subcontracted to obtain stream flow and water
quality information at four Rouge River points.
5-7
-------
quality data base. The Michigan Department of Natural
Resource's Water Quality Survey of the Rouge River {MDNR,
1974) contributed much of the data currently in the STORET
system. This study, conducted in 1973, reported water
quality from the mouth of the Rouge to the headwaters. All
major branches of the Rouge were sampled during this survey.
On May 17 and 18, 1973, MDNR undertook a preliminary sa np-
ling, to be used in selecting the dry weather water quality
sampling stations. As a result, 35 stations were delineated
and sampled at four hour intervals for a twenty-four hour
period. Following this initial program which took place June
16 - June 18, 1973, seven of the 35 stations were sampled as
part of a monthly monitoring program lasting through
September, 1973.
Parameters monitored during the survey included DO, tempera-
ture, pH, conductivity, BOD, total coliform, fecal coliform,
total phosphorus, soluble orthophosphate, nitrates, ammoni-
um, organic nitrogen, total dissolved solids, total suspended
solids, total solids, turbidity, chloride, chromium, total
copper, total iron, total nickel, total zinc and total lead.
These data were added to the STORET Retrieval System. The
MDNR study also analyzed industrial contributions from five
major industries along the Rouge River.
Additional data is available from SEMCOG (SEMCOG, 1977). This
study analyzed dry weather water quality in the Rouge River
and its tributaries. Parameters analyzed included DO, fecal
coliforms, pH, BOD, chlorophyll-a, total organic nitrogen,
ammonia, total phosphorus, chlorides, lead, iron, turbidity,
suspended solids, total dissolved solids, oil and grease aid
temperature. However, these data were not included in the
development of the dry weather water quality model for the
Rouge.
5-6
-------
Biochemical Oxygen Demand - BOD is primarily a measure of the
organic pollutant strength of a discharge or a stream. Nat-
urally occurring microorganisms in streams will feed on
organic materials, convert them to biologically inert humic
materials and consume oxygen in the process. It is this
microorganism-mediated consumption of oxygen that is referred
to as BOD. Problems occur when contaminant loadings are
excessive. When this occurs oxygen consumption reduces the
dissolved oxygen in the stream to levels below those required
to sustain higher aquatic life forms such as fish. Since BOD
is manifested in terms of depleted dissolved oxygen, there
was no standard or pseudo-standard applied to this parameter.
Total Volatile Solids - TVS is primarily a measure of the
organic fraction of the total solids found in a sample of
water. Like BOD, it is used to help interpret other data,
therefore, no standard or pseudo-standard was defined.
5.2 Water Quality Data Base
Water quality information used to initialize the Rouge and
Detroit River dry weather models was derived by the Facility
Planner from previous studies and from sampling conducted
during the Final Facilities Plan. Water quality is briefly
described in Chapter 4 of the AFIR. It should be noted that
since impact to the Detroit River from CSO's was found in the
AFIR to be relatively minor while the CSO impact to the Rouge
was a problem of much greater significance, the EIS consult-
ants concentrated their efforts on understanding the Rouge
River water quality data. The following subsections
summarize and present the available Rouge River water quality
data, while the Detroit River data is referenced.
5.2.1 Rouge River
The water quality modeling for the Rouge River utilized data
obtained from STORET, the EPA sponsored computerized water
5-5
-------
Phosphorus - As with suspended solids, a pseudo-standara was
established for this parameter. Controlling the concentration
of phosphorus in rivers is essential to maintaining the
waters for public water supply. Additionally, controlling
phosphorus is important in the control of nuisance growths of
aquatic plants which can affect aesthetic qualities, acceler-
ate eutrophication and indirectly lower dissolved oxygen
levels. The pseudo-standard established for the Rouge River
was 0.04 mg/1 and 0.02 mg/1 for the Detroit River.
Fecal Coliforms - The concentration of fecal coliforms in a
stream indicates the probable presence or absence of disease
causing organisms. The presence of disease causing organisms
can affect the following beneficial uses: recreation, because
of the possibility of ingestion or infection during total or
partial body contact; public water supply, because of the
cost of disinfection and the potential for ingestion and in-
fection; and freshwater aquatic life, because of human
consumption of fish and other aquatic organisms. The fecal
coliform standard established by MDNR for the Rouge River is
1000 organisms per 100 milliliters of water and 200 organisms
for 100 milliliters for the Detroit River.
Cadmium - Control of cadmium discharges into waterways is
necessary to maintain public water supplies and freshwater
aquatic life. The levels of cadmium were modeled for the
Detroit River only. The state standard of 1.2 micro-grams
per liter (1.2 ug/1) was adopted for modeling purposes.
Filterable Residue - Sometimes referred to as total dissolved
solids, PR is a measure of the water's dissolved inorganic
and organic substances. They are of primary concern where
water is withdrawn for public water supply due to hardness
and unpalatable taste. Filterable residue can also cause
problems in certain industrial processes and in agriculture.
Pseudostandards were established at 500 and 200 mg/1 for the
Rouge and Detroit Rivers, respectively.
5-4
-------
mance of control alternatives. Later this number was reduced
to eight including dissolved oxygen, total phosphorus, fecal
coliforms, suspended solids, cadmium, biochemical oxygen
demand, filterable residue and total volatile solids. It was
determined that these parameters would adequately reflect (at
a considerable reduction in cost) the overall water quality
conditions.
For the purpose of conducting a cost/benefit analysis of
alternatives, standards or psuedo-standards were defined for
six of the parameters. These are described below:
Dissolved Oxygen - The maintenance of a minimum level of
dissolved oxygen is important to the enhancement of aquatic
life. Additionally, uses such as public water supply and
recreation require levels of dissolved oxygen which prevent
nuisance conditions from developing. The Michigan Department
of Natural Resources set the standards for dissolved oxygen
at 5 milligrams per liter {5 mg/1) for the Rouge River and
6 mg/1 for the Detroit River. The standard for dissolved
oxygen in the Detroit River was to be raised to 7 mg/1. This
concentration, therefore, was used in the commputer modeling
to determine when and how often the standard (i.e. 7 mg/1)
was exceeded.
Suspended Solids - Control of suspended solids is necessary
to prohibit interference with photosynthetic and other bio-
logically essential processes which occur in streams. MDNR
has no established standards for suspended solids in the
Rouge or Detroit River. Therefore, a pseudo-standard was
developed by the Facility Planner for modeling purposes. Thus
the pseudo-standard was developed based on the maintenance of
freshwater aquatic life. The suspended solid pseudo-standard
was set at 80 mg/1 for the Rouge River and 25 mg/1 for the
Detroit River.
5-3
-------
-------
5. Receiving Stream Water Quality
5.1 Water Quality Standards and Beneficial Uses
In order to predict the improvement in water quality result-
ing from any alternative, specific water quality parameters
were selected for use. These parameters became the water
pollution indicators by which all alternatives were compared.
Water quality standards for these parameters may be imposed
by state or local governments or by the Federal government.
They are generally defined in terms of a maximum concentra-
tion (or loading) that a particular pollutant parameter must
not exceed and are established to ensure that the designated
uses of the stream or river will not be jeopardized. Desig-
nated uses of stream and/or rivers are established by either
Federal or State governments.
The State of Michigan has determined the beneficial uses for
both the Rouge and Detroit Rivers as well as the minimum
water quality standards required to maintain these uses. For
the Rouge River the beneficial uses are industrial water
supply, partial body contact recreation (excludes swimming),
warm water fishery, agricultural water (irrigation) and
navigation. Photographs 19 and 20 illustrate some present
uses of the Rouge. The Detroit River has been designated for
cold water fishery, public water supply and total body
contact recreation. Because the Detroit River has designed
beneficial uses which demand a higher level of water quality,
the minimum standards are more stringent than for the Rouge
River. Additionally, the Detroit River is an integral part
of the Great Lakes system and, therefore, is subject to the
same standards as the Great Lakes.
During the early stages of the planning process, ten specific
water quality parameters were identified and suggested by the
Facility Planner for modeling in order to analyze the perfor-
5-1
-------
TABLE 4-22
FIVE MOST SIGNIFICANT CSO DISCHARGES (1979)
Overflow
Hubbell-Southfield
Leib
Connor Creek
McNichols
Freund
Total
Total
Overflow Volume
772 million ft3
662 million ft3
306 million ft3
61 million ft3
121 million ft3
% of Total
Overflow Volume
34
30
13
3
2
82
Rive
Rou }e
Det-oit
Detroit
Ro- ie
Detroit
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980e
When the flows were annualized to the 1965 base rainfall
year, the total CSO volume for the 31 events was 8,308
million ft3 (62,150 million gallons). The five overflows
then represented 62% of the total annualized flow.
4-66
-------
en CM
o
to
Z
o
Z
Z O O
a z «
UJ UJ I—
UJ
0 -I
O u.
E Z
-J
<
O CO
UJ rt
cr cr
o
a
i-
UJ Q.
I- I-
in s
to to o
O
D
O
I
u
t-
3 s
-J —i
UJ O
u. a
u. i-
f-i UJ
o o
£ mcococoococococo(Ocot~t-t-f-r-r-r-t-r~t~i-r- t^ co o r-
O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO
^ v- UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 111 ii I ill it i ill it I i; • ii i 111 i|_i uj uj f 11 i_y n i ii i n i 111 ii i ii i
o^. cor^cMOincMCMcntntniocstnt-cMoicM^icoincMcncM o i- n CM
ujco r-Tv^noncMCM — OcaDcocMf-nOoiOT — O r^woro
3 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO
O
o
O — •—onincNinoTOcMocoinococnf-r-cncoc) r- 10 v «">
O to
cncocoi-i--iDtninin'3-«TT Tr~O)--
UQ. CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM-- — "'-'-'- — '-•^'-'-•^• — ^ — CM ^
0.2 «>. «J W. "^ >". "". « ^. « « ". °. o> en r- t-- u> in in rt n n cs - o O co
Q.
E
era. ic«-r~C)t^cMOii~cor-com^co*TCMr~cooOcoou3 CM^TOJOT
in E
ma. incxr-inncNcM-- — OOOcncncocoi~r~r-u>U)uiio in»-OcM
O O. *~ '*~ *"^"'~**^~*~^~**'~'~^~'~CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM *"tf>*~O
O O.
D 2 ^ ....
coo. rM*~^-*~'~'r*'f"OOO)cncococot—t^i>i£>u3ujinir)in •^mo)'"
_)O CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMOJCMCMCMCM — -^OOCnCncOCacOr- t- CM »-
Z uj in O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O in
UJE • •
^" 111°
Z X to •
l-l < > i-
E S < m
CO
<
O
I
O
o
a
ui
O
CJ
to
Z
o
a.
a
UJ
o
in
Z
CO
ct
ro
o
UJ
ct
a
-------
700H
70 M2
DftV PROJECT NO
GIFFELS PROJECT NO
nd
-P
ti
O
O
in
rH
I
^J1
a;
M
d
tr-
-rH
fe
ETROIT FACILITIES PLAN CS-006
TRANSPORT BLOCK ANALYSIS
ANNUAL CSO SUMMARY
TERNA
C
to t-
O O
•
•
-
•
"
•
•
•
.
•
•
•
-;
<
—
< \
Z
c.
s
-"•>
< in
H a
O -J
r- ^~-
y^»
_j
Z X.
— C3
S S
*^*
-1
XX.
< o
S £
^^
-J
LUX.
< S:
LL>
S
z
o
LO
u
0 E
to 3D
U Z
ic r^ CD
— — -^
444-
LU LU LU
to rv —
o to n
T T 0
CO — —
o o o
r- i— t-
o o o
444
UJ UJ UJ
1C W O
— — in
...
O O O
f- !- O
O O O
444
LU LU LU
O O O
•C -^ CV
. » *
0 O O
Is- *> I—
O O O
444
U.' LU LU
T •«• CV
000
...
O O O
1C O
o in o
r- rv to
T in f-
T •=• o
O
to
o o
in
O
0 Z
to cr —•
u o *
CO 1/3
>- a <
cr < _i
< LU O
u D a
U3 r- e
— V- T- ,» T- .— _
4444 44 4
LU LU LU LU LAI UL( ttj
O o o — a o o
— rv c~ a> o to co
T o in — •? O
ci o rv cv o r> o
.... . . .
OOOO O O O
OOOO O O O
— n o -e O co r-
.... . . .
\n O O) CD or) ct
o o o o . rv ^ i
rv rv rv rv cv rv cv
OOOO O O O
rv o ^ — co TI »-
iii i • • i • • i i • • i i i • i i
iii looi^coiicn— iiii-ii
iii ir^r-iooiiu>t~iti^ii
in o rv rv rv cv «N
<<«i < < << <<<<<
XX-v. X. X XX. X.^X XX
ZZZ ZCNL.oZoi-ZZ'CcnZZZiTZZ
OOr-cntoo o^ --
i i lOOir^CDiorvi i^rvi i I f i I
iii ito*- iininii<^Lniiiicfii
iii looirvcviicvcvtiicvii
LU Z to LU S i; !S
-Jl -. U to Z. Z
OOOO— 1 (-> O- I 10 10 to •-• 1-1 toos< cr u,to
CJCJOOE£ — ^to<_l co ^- O
*~* *^ D tj I v-i* D O ^^
LUUJUJLUOO tO ^- tOLO '
OOOOvOlO OOO< CJOO to
D D D D O O l/> -— ILJUO: Z
Z iotomtoOLOZ-
o c K- i- i- i- >• -crLurXE-JZOOf-o>- —
COCtCCCCCCCOCrCCOCJi-— JtuXX-JZEK
<^OOOO~ Z?
OU-U.u.l-u.Qr>l-5^Cl.u,OtOLOS_IL'>C.
— rvOctoot-cciO — rvo^LOLDr-cocoO^
-ITTTTTT-S'CtrT^TMI'OTJVT-'I^T
r-
•r-
4
LU
•—
rv
co
en
O
t-
o
4
LU
O
in
.
0
CD
O
4
UJ
O
—
.
O
f~
o
4
LU
O
u>
.
O
(C
O
4
LU
O
T
rv
en
d
O
o
,
in
"C
rv
O
—
i • i i
1 ID 1 1
1 0> 1 1
CV
< < <
X. ~-^X
z - z z
O co
O ' C0 I i
i in i i
i rv i i
cz to
UJ -J
> O
- I
C U
*^- t-4
"J Z
O O
0 S to >
O LO ' — CJ
to O O O
O u> i— to
LU o to u
Z 0 c
< Z LU 33 tu
t- tu _i X -J
~ E — Z —
C£ O E LU E
-- -J -J
a n_ IT O i-
r\ n ^r to 13
^ ^r v i M
in i--
— —
4 4
LU UJ
0 O)
tO 5T
co r-
cv rv
0 O
r- f-
0 O
4 4
LU LU
— LO
1C -7
do
r- t^
O O
4 4
LU LU
rv in
to to
. .
0 O
r- r-
O O
4 4
UJ ijj
*- CO
CD •«•
. .
O O
•c IO
O O
4 4
LL) LU
in o
ID O
CO —
CV 0
. .
O O
O 0
o in
. .
CO CV
to "a-
rv cv
OO
O r~
i • •
1 f 0
1 r- CS
rv cv
<
v^_
Z cv co
O O co rv
O i O en cc
1 T
i cv rv
co m z
< to o
^ t-4 •-•
< CC H
— u, <
X *~^ ^
tn tu uo
^^ O
LU o O to Q.
1/7 LO O E
O (J U D
to i£ C.
U LU LU
LU s: LU D
LU LU O CC O
-I O CC O O
•— to co >
E *-~ IL X M
cr LU o <
r- u. c. u- O
r- co O O rv
T ^ TT ^ ^
O tP
cv —
4 4
UJ LU
0 O
- 0
0 0
rv —
d o
1^ O
0 0
4 4
LU LU
O 0
1C O
. .
O O
o «
O 0
4 4
LU LU
r» —
cv —
. .
O O
CO O
O O
44 tO
UJ LU _J
O - <
— in h-
• • o
O O 1-
s
Ul
L-
Ift
O> C7) to
O O
44 tr
tu UJ UJ
O cv z
U> O) K
o in <
— — LU
• • >
o o
UJ
0 O S
in ic
. .
o —
Q CO
cv rv
O O
o> ^-
* • 1
0 - I
0 CO 1
o in
<
s^
T i Z
rv O
o — i
rv r- i
T O 1
LL. U.
U. U.
LU LU
.
cr >
Z t- a
LU i~i
D O LU
-J C 0
u. t- rs
Z LU O
— DC
a. CL G
l- t- l-
3: f >
333
O O C.
— CD O
5 v
^: z z
". CX C.
Z •£.
,'_)_!
< <
>- ^—
c o
H- 1-
•J O
^ T
^' tu
O u;
5 0 CO
O r-
. •- r>
O O O
.iti
j _;
< < J
O O <
LU UJ t-
, u. o
1—
_l 1—
< Z S
i— LU LU
O 3 1-
1— -1 tO
u. >•
to u. in
LU
D O
n 0. to
0 V- 3E
3 0
3
a
to to to
a o o
-j J _i
_i _i _»
< < <
•-!-»-
O O O
H- h- )—
O Cl CJ>
' ^ O
.' •-) tU
.- CV 15
O CO CO
O) to en
o — —
O O O
tr cr _J
'. U. <
t—
O
f-
J H
< Z S
U) UJ
.. t—
J tO
ti- 5-
^ 'i- tO
*~i
j^
- ^r
* O
^
r
-------
O CM
C T
c —
(- O
o
as
O O
Z Z
t- I-
(J 0
UJ UJ
O -3
O O
C K
c. c.
> in
05 -i
U.
O
< Z
i- c.
o s
V- *--
-I
<
O
IB
O
a>
£
O
O
x •—
Z Z^
c.
Z
ex
4 4
UJ UJ
r- ic
•c C)
O LI
*• LQ
4 + 4
UJ UJ UJ
in O en
c r- o
o — CM
r- m co
4+444444 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 44 + 444444 + 4 + 44444
Lji^ujuJUJUJUJl^lJJlJJUJUJUJl^UJllJUUJUJHjuJUJllJUJUJUJU.'LL.'UJUJUJUJ
cooicr-^cMi-~ — OTr^r>otc^Lo^rco--OC7)OjCioc>rjcocM — \n r> o
TO
O O O
+ + +
UJ UJ UJ
O in in
+ +
UJ UJ
CM UJ
O in
CM •«•
ci *t
S OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OO
o o
+ +
UJ UJ
ID IB.
OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OO
r- o
0 O
UJ UJ
IP —
0 O
O O
UJ UJ
v in
r-
o
UJ
r-
0
O
UJ
1—
0
UJ
IB
O
0
UJ
in
o
O
UJ
-
O
O
UJ
r^
0
UJ
o
O
O
u»
in
O
UJ
O
O
O
UJ
IT.
0
UJ
O
o
UJ
^
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
UJUJlJJliJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJ \Jjf UJU^lXfllJUJLUUJUJUJLULUUJLtJuJLlJlJJ
-intnLTinin-cTTTr-e^^vcocnoccoojooajQ^t-t-f-t-
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
UJ LU uJ uj lu 1*1 tij jjj uj ttj uj 14] uj ijJ \jj uj li) uj uj *' * ' ** uj uj uj uj LL! LU '*j uJ
ifl-s-'c-Ti^^^^-cvv^'cvinininininininininuTwoinoin
O
UJ
£
O
O
UJ
LI
O
UJ
o
o
UJ
0
UJ
o
o
UJ
T
O 0
LJ UJ
O O
O O
UJ uj
cy n
OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OO
in m
H 1^5 0 •
1 —><<
T 2. Z Z -• • ._) -^
< Z < in
m in 3 uj t- o
w uj s: in > • o — i
M — O •— •!-«-'
rj 1- O O 1-
& ~;^o §
V — I O O Z
•H _ cr
pL| O t— — 1 UJ
u 0 3 -I • -J
d. Z < Z \
h- in z * *^ O
- Z < Z S
O < * Z
•fi
x o
o v^
i y
*-* A.
CD
i/i •
>_-
uj O
- c c '
s-t, h- L-. «u.
~ LJ t/) D
C Q U 2
r-
0
UJ
in
•—
rv
**
0
O
^
i-
CM
O
in
p
n
CM
O
r--
in
O
in
U
>£
u
oc
UJ
Z
Z
o
u
-
o
^
o
UJ
r^
CM
LO
LO
0
O
^
m
^
CM
O
O
n
^.
r-
^
a
Z
a
y?
C£
O
t—
in
y
O
C
UJ
Z
o
CM
O
**•
0
UJ
O
f^
^~
0
O
O
1C
n
CM
O
in
*~
n
^
n
o
in
CM
0
Z
0
i-
t—
in
c.
z
c.
o
UJ
cr
u.
n
O
0
UJ
n
O
1C
in
O
O
IB
-
CM
O
O
CO
a)
IB
O
in
CM
O
1-
^
in
C-
•s.
a.
^f
UJ
>
cr
<
u.
•c
O
O
UJ
—
cn
o
o
O
0
O
i-
CM
0
0
*~"
in
CM
O)
n
o
n
0
u
_j
-i
o
<
o
i
z
_j
~j
~i
o
u
•s.
t->
o
o
UJ
O
IB
IB
in
O
O
C*3
c-
CM
0
o
IB
._
o •i'c ^* c*3 ^rintDOtncNoconsftor—O
••"OiiniocNr)1^ cs^r*-ootw-r^'t^-toifi'^r*>otoor**Of^O*~*"O)Ln
rx^io)r*-inointr)eooOT~^'^t^'Ofvoc>/in"~'^ incitDifi^rOiOoi
esr»ooin-*--r-C)r»'-*-r*cvcsr---incN^c>i^(a^CT)OO^r-ift
OCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
U?OOOOC5C'5"'C1^'^^'^''ff^'OCOTCOO
nninininLTin'?^-'Trr^''C'c^><^a)'-*-<^cNcscN«NtNcscsc*cvcN
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
* "
cMrjCMCMCMCMcv^^^v^^^^rT^^^^nnnconconncon
OOr^r^rjcoccicOCPiciBCMCMOco^ r}incMOOiB*~*~rjtcic^ O
— int^c-'- — UJCMOcMCMOcncninincn— r-ininirOfMO'TininvT
OOOnCnOlOCMCOCMCM — CMCM — CMC)-
CMCMCMCMCNCMCMOr>OOOOnr30CMCMCMCM«CMfMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM
O
in o
o o in o
in o O o O o m
OO ^~ in inininu
in in z O ooo
o 3 o iu o • o
< in oov-oot-v-O !->->-O m
t- CL OOOm in< i/>i/)_jiui/>OOOUJUJui> OO
t— Z O inmoooco oO'-'UJOinminujujuj.—i. in o
O O-in
— o in o in o — ujoiniinoomZ>-o — cr — ot-t-cr O<<<;ocri-^X<''~CMuJco»-^ ^OOID
Z— r<"OOOinooc£C;IczcoSOu.KO — — > — CMCMSioinZm
aO-CMn^oiBr-oaO-cMo^mipi-ocDO-cMO'riniBr-co
«T»trrT «*-rr'^-^^«'^'^?^^^^^««
(B IB ID
OOO
IU UJ UJ
in in o
n 01 m
»- in ^~
CM — CM
OOO
OOO
*~ Ci 4O
ID V V
CN « Oi
OOO
i p^ |f^ 1^
n r> n
^
^»
Z O i- in
in co —
i ^ •c in
i IB r» f1*
1 CM CM CM
o
in DO
O in in
0 U 0
O in
Z U Z -i
< O ->
Z _! -« UJ
~ uj 1- CO
O cr o c.
c c Z Z
uj o D <
u. Z -3 O
C7> O " CM
O *s ^ ^
(C 19
0 O
UJ UJ
r> o
CO l£
in CM
CM —
O O
O 0
Ol O)
0 O
CM CM
0 O
CM CM
^_ ^
O O
CM r»
OO f
OOO
^T *C
1 •«
o
o
o
<
a
o
v^
u. O
_i in
cr o
o
in cr in
•-« uj o
o o
Z ui >-
a o <
t-l C >
> I _>
— 0 D
_) in in
n T in
*c ^r *c
H
M*
Z
H*
Q
1-
UJ
O
•
O
z
in
6
«~4
^
*5
U
_j
Q.
<;
UJ
U
UJ
O
l/l
2
O
cr
—'
-------
Figure 4-14 (Cont'd)
O&V PROJECT NO: 7009
GIFTELS PROJECT NO: 70142
DETROIT FACILITIES I'LAN CS-006
TRANSPORT CLOCK ANALYSIS
ANNUAL CSO SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE : 0
. P04 CAD
X MIN TOTAL AVG MAX MIN - TOTAL
/L) (MG/L) (LOS) (UG/L) (UG/L) (UG/L) (LOS)
02 1.91 0.1102E*04 9.15 13.10 O.52 0.5569E*O1
02 1.91 0.1035E + 0-1 9.03 13.10 0.52 0.8521E+01
75 2.20 0.1357E-»-06 17.80 27.77 13.95 0.0830E+03
< C3 ... I
Z S CN CN O 1
,__, i
<
*"•* >v
-i •* T in z
uj \ ci ci r-
> (3 ...
< 5 — — -CN i
»-« i
i
~r
U
1- LJ
< £ 0
uj < in
> Z u o
t& tn o
¥ O O l/l
(j tn O Z (J
< — -•
_j s u o s: z
CO CO l/l O
«-^ . >- a < o
in i- cr < j cr
_J — < uj o <
uj O U O CL U
u. *- O S ts r- D —
.— uJ in 3 T? T -c LO
C. C 0 2 1 T « •«
1 1
1 1
1 1
< <
•-X-X
Z Z
O O
i i O O
1 1
1 1
ooo
in to tn
CJ U U
UJ UJ UJ
O O C
OOO
c cr cr
O C CO CD
in
O 1- 1- t-
«;
cr }~ i— ^—
O cr cr cr
— 1 O O O
CN n T m
LO LO in tr
^ -c •<: T
02 1.03 0.6670E*05 11.61 10.12 6,01 0.2062C*03
91 1.78 0.2114E+04 12.10 12.53 11.75 O.HO'IE + 02
i • •
i ^ —
i
<
•v.
Z - n
r- o
1 OV —
1
1
UJ
~1 1.
O -I U
in — — i
o x z
**-* *-*
LU O O
G VI i/l
DUO
cr * o
CD UJ _J
UJ U.
t- cr -
t
I — >-
cr o co
O < 3
o i-- o
ID in LO
T ^ 1
06 1.00 O.2016E+04 13.15 14.20 11.61 0.1393E+02
13 1.76 0.1023E+0'1 13.26 H.2-1 11.31 0.1256E + 02
i > .
1 CN CN
1
<
•-x
Z O n
Cl 01
i — —
i
i
O
to
0 0
O m
tn u O
O L3
Z <
uj ^L —
cr u,1 ~
cr cr o
^ ~*
> i- >
o O -
LO IS IS
T TT T:
0 0
4 4
UJ UJ
t- —
O tn
- O
•«•
P5 C5
0 O
4 4
UJ UJ
in —
0 o
n CN
O O
co r~
r- o
in o
i i • •
1 1 CN CN
1 1
< <
^^ *x^
Z Z u> •*
01 en
i i — —
i i
i i
Z in uj
>-i O i/J
c. X
tn o S <
o'u i ^
in t—
(J O <
< x o
S O O LO
cr i cj
o Z
0 T 0 u)
<>->-_)
*- O UJ O
X ^ 1 Z
t_3 >- I uj
_j ^3 ;
> a. u, o
ov n T: LO
IS LD ^ IB
•C ^ T T
0
4
UJ
O
r-
d
n
i-
n
0
ID
P)
0
4
UJ
CN
1-
PJ
O
O
0
O)
i i i •
i i i —
i i i
< < ^
*^% *^ **^
Z Z Z m
CO
1 1 1 —
1 1 1
1 1 1
2T
3?
<
a
CD
DO--'
in in
0 U O
in
I- t- o
u. u. O
< < >- 1/1
cr cr < u
u u cr
O O < O
Q Q |~ Q
— — — J Z
cj o -
in in s _j
IB r- o 01
l£ tS IB O
• O
u. in *- I
^— • o cr O
^^ •-«
• a) Z
tn u
. OS
o_ o m —
D 1/1 O O
in c O tn
O ui u
Z Z 0
_J h- h- UJ — >
M- M »* cr •-"
2 cr ci o S
^3 Z3 — J
in ex a u. ic
o ^ „ 0 ^.
r- r* r~ t^- r^-
CN —
r~ —
CN O
Ol V
04 —
O —
CN O)
01 n
Ol *""
CN T
0 O
4 4
LU UJ
Ol T
O «*
CN CN
O 0
t- —
Ol Ol
O IB
01 01
1 • •
1 — —
1
<
~-x
Z r- CN
O O co Ol
O l O *- -
l
1
in co Z
< in o
3: ^ r.
< CC (-
— u. <
I~ 1-
1/1 uj in
— o
uj o O in c.
in in o S
o u o 3
in x C.
(J UJ UJ
uj x uJ O
UJ uj D cr O
_i Q a u o
—• in o s
2 >-~ 5 X iC
a uj o <
i^ u. a. u. o
r-~ o ai O <"*
r~ f^ i^ c o
«'}«!«•«
90 2.22 0.1331E*07 19.10 27.77 14.10 O.03O9E+O4
81 0.32 0.6452E+OG 5.77. 0.26 1.07 0.2476E+04
wrr WCATUCD «:Y<:TFM TOTAI <;
. . i
O — 1
t
<
\
U! O Z
O in
p> — i
i
i
u. u.
u. u.
UJ >,-'.•
•
cr >
i- —•
Z t- cr
UJ ^
3 0 LU
_) cr O
ij. K !3
Z uj c.
«- o cr
C. C. 0.
t_ >, _
U ^
^ ^
O L. .1
- Cl O
"C LO
T '-•
OTAL LOS CSO S TOTAL CAD • 0 . 1 / -'. u , ._ ufsc_
OTAL LOS DWWTP EFFLUENT CAD " 0.2<17GE*O4 TOTAL Lr>S
OTAL LBS OWSO SYSTEM TOTAL " 0.-1222E+O-1 TOTAL LOS
H- H >-
O O t£
0 0 0
-* 4 4
Lj UJ UJ
T 01 U)
rv LO i~
Cl tr PJ
CN 1C Cl
OOO
Bit
TT -C -J
0 0 <
i C. J-
0
1-
J 1—
< Z Z
- UJ UJ
— v-
«/i
j- >-
^/i u. tn
UJ
0
^/1
.' ,~ ~f.
S Q
1
^
-------
o CM
o i
c —
r~ o
r~
O O
Z Z
0 O
UJ UJ
-5 -3
O O
c —
c. c.
> UI
< to
H O
O _J
h- *-^
n cv CN
OOO
444
LJ UJ UJ
o t- r~
v — 0
O ""> tf>
CN IN
OO
44
UJ LLJ
o in
00
n o
rx —
ooooo ooooo
-- -tNO-OOOOOOOOO- --- CM — • -- - -- . ---- . --- CN CN - cv
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO
4444444444444444444444T4444T444 + + 44
UJUJUJUJWUJUJUJUJUJUJu;llJuJWuJti/lJlJJllJl^uJU.'lJJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJ UJ UJ UJ
oj^oincoin — CNi-.i--cnOr-Ooi.">i3«-OGioooocN OOCD
in'cco^pr>car-no»PCM^rj'cr-iDip«-c3^o»Ocor>\n rvr^O
ccr^TCNTinr-inoo— niOOO— cNoier-iprjoin O o O
tpr~fSp>«Nor>CN(Ot--oino('-CN— nTO«— — r«r3O4 — c —
ooo'
OiN'fNcoc>Oo
r^toncN'ooe
cvcNon — — rx
oo
oooooooooooooooooooo oo
OO
+ 4
UJ UJ
u —
r- «
TIO
LT CN
oo
Q
U>
u.
- o
s o
to n c
is O O
OOoio— •-c\CNL'>i--f-i-r-r^f~r--inc/>ini,r>incN»-inmi.omu>u>i2i3i» CN — — rv CN
-- —o O en o CN IN — isiBisioisvDipcNOGj — — O^TiT^nrjroorj — n n LI LI
O O
O
<
o
_l T CN CN CN TT
< C3
£ ^> o C} in c*3 n
—r n CN — •
n n
in o en
n i- i~-
> &
< r>
T •c >- o O
— 10 o u> CN
T rv — Oooot-aid'OcNwip'- —
OOL-, o»- — f~r-inor5.r3nc-)r5r3
T - O
ID O O
N — O O —
CN' CV • —
— cvrvrv
in
z >•
Q)
V4
D
tr
-H
Z O
ui
>
I- O O
-> C O
U I- J
< cr <
u. O 3
C. Z
t- to Z
— Z <
c <
i- i—
UJ
Q
OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OO
2
-
S
15 r- — O — •
O CJ> O) "~ ••
*~ O O> CT CT
o
c_
_) CD O U> CD f-
X \ 1C — O CD CN
< o
S S CN CN CN — CN
^ ^ IP O CD CT) ^
-- — in in o en ci
u> r» r- i
en in in *
CN CN
O O
o
t-
CN CN CN CN
,
> C5
< Z
• '-04«N«NtNtNCNCSCNtNr*CNCNC>ltNCNCNtNCMCSCSCNCNCN I CN CN CN O — •"
— «- — CNO" — r>CN —
•£>
X
U
<
J
IS
—.
l/l I
CJ O O
2 H
o <
dr
O O
t- c.
in Z
O
in
O
O S
in D
O 2
U
D cr
UJ -•
C <
u. u.
O
O in
in u
U
to
c —
UJ O
o
in
O
O
in
U
in
O
in
UJ
O t-
U Q
O
t- a o o o m
f- E o in in o o
OO O-«I<O_J • — < in uj a -_i_)O>
u — crujt-ujooxD>-c:cr — — <
Su.~X2—i<"3(JDmoocrcrX
O C. i
2 J
•- o '
K O I
in 2 i
O
in
cj
2
O
O O t-
in in _;
cj CJ —
i O o <
i cr -i X
i o m in
C - cr
: o cr ~
i z o u.
O
in
U
»- O
UJ tn O
uj cj in
£X O
i- cr
in uj H
O O
cr < X
O O
in in
cj O
O O **J uJ
in in uj ID
u o cr cr
H- K-
f- t— in in
in Z
O I i-
X 2. t- m i
i- c
CN UJ CO —
- > — CN
O
O in
in o
O
I- O
UJ >
in o
Z
X <
i- cr
o
in
O u
m
oo>-
m CJ
U2>-
u» in
21-2
o
in o
o in
o o u
inoin
U2U2
< O
>— 2 — ) •-•
O
O
cc
a
u. o
o -J m
in cr cj
cj o
incrin
-I— ujcj
-iOO
uj Z uj>-
ocrO<
— OO
2
D
<
_J
<
LJ
O
OOOOOOOOO
-------
c -c
c —
1- O
r~
0 0
H- 1—
o o
UJ UJ
73 ~3
0 0
c: c:
c. c.
> in
- >-
< -J C
fV) -J < <
[j =L Z S
•-H < S
1 in 0
^ UJ i^ l/l
... 1- O O
0) ~ _) LO
j,! 1 Cj O
<-t *~
^ 01 '
D < cr <
•H L_ o O
fe C- Z
« Z <
O <
cr cc
t- f-
UJ
o
I
0
K
<
UJ
>
<£
<£
O
-i Z
o
IT, t—
LJ O
L_ —
— • LJ
C Q
m
t~ CO
0 -J
. I — N^ •
.
•
3
z —
-. o
s z
^^
1/1
f- —»
-I
X *^
< o
s z
•~*-
•
• «-^
_)
. UJ ^x.
> C3
< S
•
"
"
o
— 1 — .
< in
UJ -HO
> O _)
M * ' | — S— '
t—
< .
Z
tit •
H- • *"""
-J - -J
< 2 ^
E 2
t/>
i/l •*— •»
j
X V^.
S S
. ~— .
_j
LJ v^
< Z
•
•
.
UJ
Z
<
Z
o
in
o
o z
0 Z
u> u r-
OOO
444
UJ UJ UJ
moo
r- c1; t—
— to O
-- — CO
• * ,
OOO
ooo
ooo
OOO)
o r> —
OOO
CM CM O>
...
in in ^r
IS IB O
C"/ O P5
n o co
ID o in
...
o n o
O> C) 1C
•*-•—•—
15 ID O
OOO
444
UJ UJ UJ
ID O ID
10 t- CM
ID in O
— CM —
. .
ooo
ooo
CM CM ^
o 01 —
ID ID in
«-«—«-
ooo
ID in o)
O 0 — 1 1
O O O t 1
L1"! in o
^ <
•v,\
C! O 1C Z Z
o — r-
n o r- i i
r* r~- O I '
CM CM CM 1 1
o
m
0 O
in o
0 in o
O Z o in
in ex *-• o
o o * Z
a 1/1 o <
>- cr < s c;
cr < -i cr o
< LU O < -J
o r- o — CM
555??
r~ u>
0 0
4 4
UJ uj
— CM
O) 01
O CM
*c *-
O O
0 0
O r-
0 CM
— en
O 0
r- —
• .
in n
O) •?
CM —
in r-
- O
o rv
t~ —
T- -f
t~ ID
0 0
4 4
UJ UJ
rv n
ID O
ci in
in —
. .
0 0
O 0
in r>
in —
^ CM
»— *—
O O
i i rv in
1 1 O ID
^3" *~
"^ ^
«s^ K^
Z Z m T
O O 0 CM
i O O ' — o
1 1 CM •-
UJ
_) X
o o o o _i o
in i/i to 1/1 •-« •-«
o u o o z z
^~ %^
UJ UJ LU UJ O O
C3 O C5 O l/l in
O O Q Q O O
CZ C C^ C ^£ O
O D LO CO LU .J
UJ U.
t- i- t- i- a -
in 1/1 1/1 in o in
i
V— 1— V— ^- ^
cr a; c; cr cO a
o o o O < D
in in £ in in o
in in
0 0
4 4
UJ UJ
O is
n CM
i- —
1C ID
. ,
0 O
o o
o; in
o O
•c in
O O
in o
in n
O
in ID
. .
D V
LO ID
IE in
0 0
4 4
UJ UJ
in o
O T
O r>
— O)
0 O
0 0
CM rs
»• *-
^ ^
v^. x^
Z Z o O
us in
1 1 Ifl CM
* i *- O
I I •— —
Z in uj
.-. o in
a x
in O Z <
^^ i/) < _j
O O I£ *-^
in t-
0 0 <
< IL O
li O O m
a i o
o z
O X O UJ
< h- 1- _!
O 13 tt <
— • O LJ O
j. z _j z
O >- -J LU
-J 3 -J
3r Q. u_ O
CD 1C t-D C?
O
4
LU
O
1C
^~
o
o
O
en
CM
0
O
o
.
o
o
o
O)
.
V
1C
in
0
4
UJ
tr
a
CM
«—
.
O
o
CO
0
^>
o
i i I O
i i i r*3
*•
< < <
V, X^ v^
Z Z Z -
1 1 1 CM
I i i O
1 1 1 — •
z
<
c
o o •**
in in
000
in
f— t— O
u. u. o
< < > in
c a < o
o o a
-J — J i Z
O 0 < 0
o o ^ o
X Z — i Z
ISt- 00
ID O l£ CD
u>
O
4
LVJ
r~
^
in
CM
.
O
O
n
CM
in
O
0
.
O
*-
CM
r-
.
O
r~
1C
0
4
UJ
f-
^
1C
n
.
O
0
n
CO
t-
O
O
II 1*1
If 1 O 1
II I O.I
*-
^ ^ ^ ^
S^ V,^ X^ V^
22 2 CT) 2
0 «
i i O i — i
ii » O '
II 1 -- t
2tf :* tr 10
2 uj _i
UJ O > O
u_ i/) »-« a.
^-^ O C? O
. i««
• uj Z
in o O
" o Z m
CL o m *^- o
O in o O
1/1 6' o in i-
O uj O in
Z Z 0 a
_> K y- uj _> X
S cr c o Z uj
D D -> -I
in d. c. u. CP o
^ 1 -J
O CM
n —
.
^^ o
^ LJ o O in ex
i/> i/> o Z
OOOO ^>
in in i: u
(_J O UJ LJ
UJ ^ LU Q
LJ LJ UJ O CT O
_) _i o cr o O
cr LU o <
o t-
O 0
4 4
UJ LJ
CM r-
1- tD
ID O
t-- o
d o
0 0
o n
r- r>
*~ —
O O
0 0)
.
T ^
r- CM
0
in O
1C O
.
ID O
t^ —
*-
0 0
O O
4 4
LJ UJ
O in
o in
c —
o —
. .
O O
0 O
TT CM
d d
in CM
•»-
0 0
CM in
ID LI 1
•*- C*l 1
^r
<
^x
r- IM Z
T ID 1
O CM 1
CM 1
U. U,
u, u.
UJ UJ
. .
tx >
L- *~
Z H a
LJ ^»
3 0 LU
_i a o
u. >- D
Z uj 0
— o c.
e. c. c.
3 ^ '£
s s- «
Of f~ v
t— ^ LJ
— CD O
T ^r
in
_i
<
K
O
1-
z
UJ
t-
in
>-
in
c
UJ
^r
>-
<
UJ
S
t-
UJ
jt
t/i LO in
•a a CD
—i _j _j
.j i _i
-" < <
i— t—
,3 O O
-~ 1— h—
; i-- 0
OOO
+ 44
LJ LJ IK
'S> > O
O ID —
3 O ID
— O r<
OOO
t i •
in in _j
> > <
•—1—1—
o
i—
_l V-
< Z Z
L- LJ LV)
O 3 1—
t- — i in
u, >-
in u, tn
UJ
0 0
to c. in
O 1- S
it O
O
tn i/i tn
3 D a
_>_!_!
_)_!_)
< < <
1-1-1-
o o o
>— 1 — H—
OOO
OOO
-•4-4-
1 . LJ UJ
LO LI —
ID in CM
•? — LO
CM *~ O
d o d
«n in _i
in in <
^-
o
i-
_j ^-
< Z Z
- LU UJ
^ Ij 1—
^ _j in
u. >-
m u^ in
Lf
O
1/1 d. in
01-3:
> C
3;
°
-------
CO CM
C T
r- o
r**
p O
i— >—
o o
UJ UJ
£_ Ci.
> 1/1
tC -1
u,
u.
V
>
1-
O
O
1
2 S£
"H Z >• >•
1 < _) c O
rt -» < <
^ c. Z S
d) in o uj
j_l uj ic in >
?TI *~ ° ° *~
O •-« — J to <
^ O t— — ' uj
u. o r> -i
c. 2 <
1 V* i_
O <
>— f—
UJ U
O ^
FrELS/OLACKfWEATCH
1H01T. Ml
—• UJ
O O
l£) IP CD t£
_J~ O O O O
1— C U) UJ lil U)
O _< c r~ ID T
H -^ IS CO — O
O c LI in
n — CM n
O O O O
3 O O O O
2 ^ O CM •<: CM
Z S — — o in
)
17 o o o o
Z S o t- m co
-- co ^ O O
T- — r>
_i o r- o 10
uj -s, O a O r-
< S in O ID ID
• <**r is co r"" in
15 IS ID (D
._) ~- O O O O
• I— CO UJ UI UJ UJ
D — i o r- O D
. i— x^- o r* — o
• LP O O) 1*3
o o o o
-I O O O O
2 "•>. in ^- in in
-* t~ O 1- —
T
0 ^^
-J O O O O
S Z — CM CD O
— -- — in
_) fM — CM O
«i Z co in o —
»•«• en n — T
0 CSO NAME
M
1 CONNER CK CSO
)2 CONNER CK STORM PUMP 1
3 FREUO PUMP STATION C 1
M FAIRVIEW PUMP STATIC 2
O Z •» T 1 *5
s>
o
UJ
D
N
O
D
•-
m
O
CM
CM
CO
CO
O
o
0
UJ
in
0
O
O
—
0
o
in
in
ID
o
o
<
_«
o
<
o
1
2
_)
_>
UJ
-r
^
0
r-
•—
0
O
in
O
CV
0
in
O
UJ
CO
Q
O
O
-
o
CO
0
in
r>
°o
0
O in
l/> O
O
cc —
LU O
I D
O O
in o
— ct
u. —
^ "^
D I
D
jj
c
ID
T
T
0
O
*~
in
O
-.
CM
r>
0
O
i
*^
0
0
-
o
l*>
o
in
0)
S
O
V/l
2
UJ
-J
UJ
^
DO
•M CM
n o
D O
3 O
rx CJ
O O
f~ r-
r> n
CM CM
S2
0 O
si
CN V"
0 O
o o
CO "•
00
o o
o o
n o
O ID
ss
o
in
O
I-
t-
o
— o
_J in
_J O
C3
Z J
o —
^C "?
C 1
D
—
S
=
-5
O
O
ID
o
D
?
O
r>
ID
0
0
o
o
**
T
in
01
g
0
o
ct
<
o
<
^
boooooooooo'
ocMOtoaa — iCOinOcM
OOOOOOOOOOO(
OOOOOOOOOOO
iscno-nrjcorjooo
OOOOOOOOOOO
DOOOcooooooo
?.S£E§£g°,£-SS
OOOOOOOOOOO
llsiiililli
in cv CM co o
OOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
onocMOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOO
^^^^ocoooooo
•9*C^T(DOQOC2C3ca
inmininiDuiiDiDiciDU)
CO — COOCM— CMCMO— f
OioinSIniDinlnin??
2 JOSEPH-CAMPAU CSO A
3 CHENE CSO *
4 OUOOIS CSO ^
5 ST. AURIN CSO 3
6 ORLEANS CSO 4
7 ORLEANS CSO 4
0 RIOPELLE CSO 4
9 RIVARD CSO 4
0 HASTINGS CSO 4
1 RANDOLPH(OATES) CSO 4
2 DATES CSO 4
^J^^^'C'C'^'C'^'^^
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
"M ID CM o is ~~ r~ o ID co ro m c^ co o ~~
3— — n — oinoiC'TncMCMcML')
30OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
^O'TinOOv-cooooooiSO
oooooooooooooooo
Nr3C\lT-OOOOOO>O)C)O)O>01Ol
*)^V O'C'^'CNC'ICSCVOICNtNCNr^CN
nr-r-cvino — cxir>r~ajrvoor-tn
?582SS*SSPr?££££2
oooooooooooooooo
LU UJ LlJ LU UJ UJ \\f tsj " * UJ '' * UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ
C^O>wOrvti>CWU)O>I OCvLOwlu
oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo
inooi^r^t^ioor-i^tnminininm
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
U O Lf> O O
(OCNVflOM^*C^OOC7>CfiOCl0)C)O)
tPr-i^tDt-r-coooororjnono
" S S S « ° S S S S § ° ° ° £ £
D
in o
o o o o o to
LO in to to o
2O 000
0 • 0
O O 1— >- O Kl— t— D to
into_)ujinoODujujuj> OO
Sc ooucrrcriooovin
OO in
0 0
UJ UJ
0 CM
— in
— in
O 0
0 O
0 O-
0 0
tn in
1C ID
n n
r- v
0 CO
in • ID
O 0
0 0
in in
ic n
O co u>
r- r-
13 LIVERNOIS RLF(DfUGOO
A SCHROEDER CSO 2
5 50LVAY CSO 2
a
o
ffi
Ul
u.
in
»
O
t-
•s.
Nf
tr
V-
tu
0
O
2
in
Z
O
1-
a
c.
*t_
\a
V
*AJ
'}
^f
•<
fi
~^
-------
7000
70142
D&V PROJECT NO
ELS PROJECT NO
00
TOTAL
(LDS)
MIN
MG/L
MAX
MG/L
•C T IP
O O O
444
UJ UJ UJ
in T o
— CD o
•c - O
«- CM •-
o o o
O O -
in in o
O O in
t- r- en
CM CM CM
in T •>? •«
OOOO
4444
«ti HI n I 1 1 1
r- o CM ^-
•r T o i-
Ocor^i?
mcMCMcM
OOOO
ICOJ
ICO
O —
n T
— —
rjcM
CMO
CMCM
oo
cMcs
n n
OO
44
ii I til
m CM
inn
"O
OO
or-
nin
tnO
CMO
n
O
IP
n
n
is
in
CM
f-
cv
O
+
ii i
in
ID
o)
o
in
ic
ID
f~
CM
c* •?
OO
44
ii t nj
cm
r- en
r- •«•
CMCO
7579E*OG
0'124E + OG
O O O O
— n
u5i»
001
icr-
17
05
1
0
16
88
O.aS/OE'Gv, TO AL LOS
0 . 04 2-1 E + OS TOTAL LOS
0. 1099E+07 TOTAL LDS
00
DO
AL
AVE
MG/
o — n
o o O
CM CM CM
TS
-p
c
o
u
(N
r-\
\
•=¥
0)
!-(
0
tJ.
•rH
fo
DETROIT FACILITIES PLAN CS-OOG
TRANSPORT BLOCK ANALYSIS
ANNUAL CSO SUMMARY
ALTERNATIVE : O
BOO
TOTAL
(LOS)
in in r-
O O O
444
UJ UJ UJ
CD IP O>
O) r- O
n CD O!
•c IP o
odd
O O '
P> O
44
44
MA
MG
r- r- o>
CM CM O
r- [~ i
O O
in T
OO
o —
'ntp
O.IP
r~i~-
CMCM
o
us
o>
>c
CM
CM in
tp r-
74
96
CM CM — —
OOOO
"444
UJ UJ tit uj
Oincvui
oin
— in
om
CM CM
OOOO
or-
oin
cMO
ncM
OO
44
uj tif
r-O)
no
IP—
no
OO
— •«•
incM
O
4
co
CM
in
O
4
nt
o>
ci
IP
o>
ntn
OO
44
uj i it
too
o in
oo
3932E+00
5640E + 07
O O O O
moi^O
"
oin
CMO
ocM
CMCM
•
inoiOO'
r-—
enco
tp
co
i.
iin
cno
w »-
r~r-
OCM
oir-
OJCM
- •
coo
oO
90
10
53
0
43
07
50
15
SYSTEM TOTALS
CSO S TOTAL
DWWTP EFFLUENT
DWSD SYSTEM
WET WEATH
in in t/1
CD Q O
_J -I _l
-I _) -I
< < <
I- I— I—
O O O
t- t- (—
r- r- O
O O O
444
UJ UJ UJ
O O v
IP
i IP n
8;
CM CM CT) I t
t- r- t- i i
i i
i O O i en t— i IP t~ i i o — i i ICMI i o i (D i i
I ll-^-ICMCMIICMCMIIICMII ICMII
I I I II I I I I I I I I
o en
o IP
O n i
en — i
i
UJ
•C
O
_/ s
c
in t—
u.- O
u, C
u, »—
— uj
ti O
UJ
2
<
Z
O
in
O S
in 3
U Z
O
in
L? O
c/) O
O in
O Z O
in DC ~
U O * Z
o in o
>- C < D
a < —i or
< ui o <
u o c. u
ta r- o -
•e -e t in i
ujujujuj
OOCQ3D
UJ
_i 0
s z
o^ o
i/> i/i
o u
uj _J in
uj u, u
cc -
Z
Q.
in uj
L> ^
<
I
i U
I
z
o
< ui O
cr u. 10
co *-• o
in • i
u O «
in
o
> o
cc o
> co z u. u.
in o u. u.
*-* »-. Ul UJ
u-u. o
< >-
c <
O cc
O
in fe
O
Z
->oooo c uiiTuJO >-ocr
t— uj _j x i-Jcoccoo CLCXO.
— cr-*
CL u, ID C3 r** r"- u_ CL IA, O D O O
t^* t^ p* r** r^ r* r^* r* co o ^ 10
o o-o
O D -J
O O <
a a i-
o
z s
uj uj
u. >-
io u, in
UJ
u Q
vo c. in
01-3:
S Q
-------
o
CD
n
a
o o
z z
t- I-
o o
UJ LJJ
"3 "3
O O
C CT
c. a
> in
LO ^ -^ - o T o
— in o m CM
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO
4.4T444 + 4-r4444-'4444 + 4 + 4444 + + + -r»4T 444
UJLJLUUJUJUJU.'UJUJUJUJUJUJUJU.'UJUJUJUJUJUJUJUJU.'UJUJUJUJLtJtL.'UJlU LV UJ UJ
<; «r in CM — oiinotN — — cnOoooomon — cvrvujr-oi-iiincv — — o is
OC>IP — r3rvocN'cvncs'rMC.'1~r'>o — c/iocvocvoccro^rTCOQCo^ Cc;r-
in:- — r-oees^ipmcv^cioiscjo — O o C -- ^IDOO^^CICOCV. — ri —
ir.ocviaioin— — LOr^int^oifi — — IB — ^•cv^evtaoipooo^r-in CN — CM
ooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo
^ o
OO
44
UJ UJ
in cv
r~ r»
o is
— o
o d
cv
CD
UJ
u.
Z -v.
— C3
S £
rv T O O O
T n T in in
n O O O O
— LI in m to
CVCVCMCVCVCVCVCS-CVCVCVCVCV
cvcvcvcvoiCNoicvcN
O
O
X
<
00
r- i^
fN
i~i
1
*d*
0)
^_(
P
Cn
•H
IB
O
1
in in
O —
in
Z >- >-
< _j cr
-> < <
o. Z £
< £
uj ^ in.
« U
t- O 0
i— -i in
_i CO O
O
..
UJ
>
*-4
h-
<
_j — o> in n in
LU ^'s, f** IP r^ ** ^
> o
< £ CM CV CV CV CV
— cnoitTin
OOO
IS ^ -5
IB LI in IB in
00000
4 + 4 -r 4
111 t i_i LU ''' UJ
IP in to i— n
O — T CM LO
— LP O O O
— u> o — i—
in in
O O
4 4
LU UJ
cn o
O tr>
n r>
O O
4 4
LU UJ
O O
4 4
UJ UJ
O O
4 4
LU UJ
O O
4 4
LU UJ
O O
4 t
LU LJ
O C
4 4
OOO
•» 4 4
LU LU UJ
000
444
UJ UJ UJ
000
444
UJ UJ UJ
O O
+ 4
UJ UJ
0000
4444
uj uj u; U.'
in 10
O O
4 4-
UJ LU
O IB
OOOOO OO
IT. —
o d
OOO
•5 T
O O
n T
O O
o T
d o
LT> O
d d
— — cv
OOO
cv cv o
OOO
— m —
OOO
cv —
d o
cv o o —
O O O O
\n in
O O
4 4
LJ LU
r- O
cv c
O CD
in cv
n
n
in LO a
O O O
4 +4
n
> r~
' O
CV
OO OOO OO
I
o
u- O O
e. Z
i- in Z
~ o
o
o
a
3. £
> C3
< 2
r> — O o O
in O O I- •c
r~ rj in 03 in
— CM — cv cs
IP
ID
i o o u>
O cs T
m in in
r> M cv
Oicto
in — in in
in T o o>
O O
n r?
OO
^
•^
cnoncncno) — aooonrjcocvcMincvCTTCVcv — — oicOLOOiDC1 — OZ'JioO cv"
i — in^-or5OOOcotPr*iDLP^^^ *~C3^ oiPmintPip^rrvD — — *• o •~r*cvo^in
ipuoin^ooofflt^inirininLninLn^OLncvoOLBiDiDiPtoiPuivBioiB i omm t^f-
Z
I-
<
o
If!
o
in »-
UJ O
O O
a o o t>
o z H- o
a o < <
•-i i- _i
cr < •-
o o i- o. o
in t— in E <
O in 3 u
c. a i
X X Z Z
o u D :* <
a uj _<
cr cr ~« -i
uj uj Q 5* uj
z z D cr _i
Z Z LL. v- U
o o a < u
O CJ LL UL S
O
m
o
o
O tn
in o
U
in
a —
uJ O
Z D
C O
m o
•— cr LU i- LU
u. — Z Z -I
O O
in >-i o
O —i in
-I O
Z LU
LU e
O
UI
a
S i
o < o
in o m '
U i u
O
in
oo
D
om
O
l/l
O
O(-
m<
O
O
a
o
HO (->-HO
ujinooOujuJuj>
O
in
m — o
S ex
en _ i
Z-J
u U O
O u. O
in o O -J in
O in in cr o
ooccrcruouxinoin inczin
r-u. i-i-t- Ln crOZOZ-J — iuu
in i*j v— v— v— in in in o w Z H~ ^ O -J O o
— in in Z Z Luini-Z—'— LJZLU>-
OO OZl-Z-~SDCOU.LUC:?-
— o i- i- a oZJ
Z< — cvujco*~^r ^L>ODuJOD<-*L5O
f-u — — > — cNCN^Lnu~*£inu.S~3O^Jmin
o
O
cc
u
z
6.
O.
-------
c. cv
C T
o —
r- a
f
o a
z z
1— <—
o o
UJ UJ
-J "3
O O
cr cr
c. c.
> in
=c -J
O LJ
l^
u.
k^r
15
.— <*
C7 o
13 o
• i
jj in in
C 0 -
^ in
O Z >- >• _- -i < < C
< S £
rH in o uj <
,— | u v in > _
, ~ 0 « 3
' 1- O O 1- U
*^P _* _J (_/* ^ _
-J D O Z <
fl) *^ cr (j
, O 1 1 UJ
« < cr < i- 3
3 u, o r> -» c
tr c. z < -
4 1- in Z u.
V ~ z <
pL| O <
cr ct
l- K
Ul
O
^
tj
^
UJ
^
*j
/j
^ M
_J Z
•^ .
in t-
LJ O
L- cr
•— L-'
<: o
Z m
— u. O O O O
Z t> • • •
^ o o o o
,— .
x in in D r- 10
< u. ic r> n r-
s o • • •
_ — m O 10
O T O) —
— — r- o
u. 3:
o o
_i
in u. O O O O
(V C . . ,
3 ui O cv — o
o > m o rv m
I o — — n r-
o
in
o in
^-
u. Z
O Ul • • -
> o o rv rs
O Ul — •- O (N
z
D t"- 0 ^ O O t£
3 S *~ tp ^ OO f
o *— • *- •*- if> o
_J *-
U.
UJ
> — — Of- OO o
u. o in c O O v
o •- cv o ^
^-* M —
cv n ^- ^
~ O O O 0
C5 4 4 4
Z UJ UJ u> i l 1 1 ui
S *" O) r> ex i i I i in
O CV — CO I 1 1 1 O
-i r- — in i i i O O i cv
O O O O O O
_i
H" F"~ CO O ^s. ^"v. *''x. "^Nfc O
0— OOOZZZ ZO
t- U. 4 * 4 +
U Ul " * UJ Ul
*-^ in — — in
r- in en i i i i o
co — .r- i i i o O i o
O O O i l i O O l O
UJ
_j
O O O O -I
t> o o o z
UJ Ul Ul Ul UJ O
Z O O O O O in
< tn o o o o o
z oo — — — —
in o CL cr cr a *
in O Z O in ui
O incri-i oi-t->-i-a
oo^Z in(/>inm<_>
C3 m o <
>-cr-
cr<-_ (cocrcrcrcrco
r>
O
4
1 Ul
1 !•-
i ev
l —
O
*v CD
Z 0
4
Ul
O
l —
1 O
o
O m
l/) U
u
z
uJ Z
cr ui
cr a
"t L_
•* r—
tO {£
*3 ^
O
•
o
—
o
0
cv
0
•
O
r*
•
CO
CO
co
o
CN
O
1C
r>"
O
4-
UJ
^
-~
0
m
O
4
UJ
CM
in
—
O
O
to
(J
Q
o
<
1— 1
I
0
^
^
IP
^
1
1
1
1
•^
z
1
1
1
z
a
in
<^-
to
O
^
Q
O
<
(J
*-t
X
u
•>
•»
0
T
0 O
o 6
^ n
r? r>
> .
ic O
O ^
p*
0 O
1C ^
— cv
•
ic in
r- in
t* r»
rv —
CO —
rv r-
^ CN
CN «
O O
4 4
1 Ul UJ
i in in
1 eo I-
> — —
d d
v, h- r~
ZOO
4 4
UJ UJ
t^ ^
I ^" O
t cv rv
t O O
to ui
O f»
I
O Z <
K
0 <
o o in
cr i o
Z
I O uj
t- 1- -J
O cr <
O ui O
Z -J Z
> -J UJ
ai_i_ f "5
U. (JJ
1C 1C 1C
^J •» T
O
d
*-
cv
CO
o
O
O
cv
•
(C
—
cj
—
O
o
cv
CM
o
4
I 1 1 UJ 1
1 1 1 — 1
t i i in i
i i i — i
d
v^-^V^ f» «v.
Z Z Z O Z
4
UJ
cv
l l l O l
i i i n i
i l i O i
s •*
Z 'Z.
< UJ
a u.
o ^
in in
O O O
i/>
H f— O
u. u. O O
< < >- tn in
cr a < o t)
u o cr
_J .j i Z ui
O O ^ O -J
O O t- O —
r r -> z z
in in z ^ in
1C 1C 1C 1C f~
T ^ T; c ^;
O
d
^~
cv
•
1C
I-
f
o
-.
CO
CO
N
•
r^
cv
O r-
d TT
C3
O 1C
d r>
in
n
O
4
1 t UJ 1
i i cv I
1 1 O 1
i O i ^ i
O O
N^ «^ O V.
Z Z 0 Z
4
UJ
r-
i l r- l
i O i m i
i d ! d i
% ex in
Ul _J
O > O
in - I
U ex u
• in Z
in o o
• 'O Z m
ex O in ^^ o
ui 0 O
£• CJ t/) t—
uj O m
Z Z 0 cr
< < Z ul ^3
H- ^ Ul « J ^2
»-« •-« cr •-• Z
c cr O Z ui
o. ex u. ic o
r- r* i~ r* t-*
f ^ ^ ^ i
O O
d d
rv cv
o o
. .
d n
rv
0 0
cv O
• en
• •
*- o
—
O O n r~
O O in O
»— ^
O O ic en
O o o cv
rv 10
— r>
O O
4 4
i r uj uj
i i t- e<>
i i cv in
i O i O — —
O O 0 O
•S. V^ 1C O
Z Z O O
4 4
UJ If*
O ^
i i !-• O
i O i O -- ex
i O i O O O
m CD Z
< l/) O
^ «"t »•*
< a i-
~ u. <
ui uj in
~ O
^ uj O O t/> CL
i/> 10 (J 2
O O U U 3
t/> i/^ ^ ru
O O UJ uv
uj ii; uj D
uj uj UJ O C O
-J -J O C O O
N— t-« i/> QJ ^
S £ « Z X *
f^ f*' U. ^ U. O
r- r- r- r-- c o
•u ^ t •» v i
o O
T O
. ,
r> n
c; o
r~ i~
e^ —
a co
» .
LI CO
« O
r5 o
O 0
•c »i
n n
1C 1C
v>
_i
• • <
CV CV 1-
00 O
K
z
Ul
t-
in
>.
co in in
T in cr
ic in ui
t- r- I
^
UI
cv eo ~3.
0 O l-
C 1C Ul
— — 3c
»- *-
in in
O O
4 4
Ul UJ f
— ^ 1
CV — 1
in in i
00
O O ^.
*~ "~ Z
4 4
Ul U!
1C O
O O <
to to i
O O 1
u. u.
u, u.
Ul Ul
•
\- —
Z t- cr
Ul — •
3 O ui
-i cr a
u. t- 3
Z ui 0
— o tr
a a a
>- t- t-
3 3 S
COO
- en o
T: in
«r ^j
, — . ' — .*— ^
C3 O C5
S 5. Z
O O O
444
Ul Ul UJ
— r> -y
o v co
n — in
. . •
— in IP
v^*%_*^^
u. u. u.
O o ej
e?) CD en
O O O
444-
UJ UJ UJ
en ti in
in r** c"5
o o r~
. . •
— CO CD
B t V
» 3t _l
O O <
_) _; I—
a. u. o
t—
j ^-
< Z S
1— ui uJ
O D K-
t- _i in
u. >-
in u. in
Ul
O O
in a in
IJ 1- 3:
jC O
0
-------
C! tN
c •?
o —
I- O
o o
Z 2
O O
UJ LJJ
-3 -}
O D
c a
a c.
> 1/1
©
£ U
tnotDcNO r~t—o^~cNinr*cs'm—• — — •— — — oin^c-cocN^ CNOCNO — — — cNr«- tc o CN ci ^
u- ^
O O
in u, OOOOO OOOOCOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OO
c cr. • __•
X O — O O — — _,.,.,
o
in
o in
C UJ ....I.................. ... ..
O OuJ — Oi W CM *~ -,- ~- .-nf>j.-v-.^.r>v-v.,-*-,-.v~*..-«..v..^,. „_..,_
O 2
I I
in m O
o *•*
in
2 ;- >- in I—
< -i cr O 2 ^ _
E! 2 £ •• « . o • ^ "• • • • °- L " • •m- •
<£ H S£ h»OOIt>-OOC>'"~^fr*O'^'"~r*^ll?^'lPU3^O'ff'ffO)— Ot^f3OtNOO^3'^U5OlO CN ^ O O —"Irt
in ^ uj < O'— inoip— — — -^0 r^oin*- ^^ ^o* —*-.-*- —ID N — CN •-
ui^:in>_i_io —
t-i CJ •-• D U.
H- O O 1- O
_j co cj 2 < > ^* cNit~cj)mmoocvoomr*o^^'Ooo*"O)f>r^fNvOoij?"~inr5OOjinc>'OO)iJ3^ o>o*~Ov^
•- cr o -~ »• CN — CM — O ocxo *~
u,o3-)O— in— — — CM*- —
c. 2 < -i
K in 2 u.
— 2 <
O <
crcr oooocj txcNon — cv — — — — — — '- — — rMfyfxorv — rv — cNCNCMCMCNCMfMcvra CNr-cir>r«or>wcnooinrvo> — cncxno^ — — cMocMicnto — Or^o i-
"" dddodddododoododooodddddddoooooooooooo oooooo o
-t K
< ^t-r-f-r-r-r-t-J^^^O^Or-ot- tu
O^ OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO2OOO OO O
KU. 4+ + + + +4444444-44444 + 444 + + + 44 + + + + + 4444 444 44
O UJUJUJUJLU UJLUUJUJUJUJllJUJtlJUJUJUJUJUJlJJUJUJUJUJllJUJUJUJUJuJUJUJUJUJUJliJUJ UJUJUJ UJUJ •
inooinco o^?^Tr^omu}oini£^'Ooir)oic>i- — **OI£OOCVCNO— OOOCNICNPS^ *rin o
f^r3mo*~Ooo*"TCMcsr3ooo^oinmr>'~*~^'r*o^~o'T*r3in^mcvicvci>^o i —05 — 005*? 2
dddddddddddoddodododdddddooooooooddoooidodddd "
z
o
X
O
a o o o
y »j<
3 2 t- O
O. O < <
«-!(-_/
2
O
l/>
O
o r
in D
U 2
O O I- C. O
in t— in £ <;
O to 3 o
a D. i
XXX Z
U O 3 S <
a uj _i
cr cz
UJ UJ O > lAJ
2 2 r> a: -i
2 Z UJ — U
o o a < u
U U
O —
• — <
w — <
2 O
> UJ D
olClD
"3 O O
o o
in m
o o
in in
Z Z
< <
cr ct
i o O
tn
UJ
O •-
in <
O o m
in >—
L> m I
o a
o 2 -)
c — o
< >- o
> m 2
-< < <
cr I a:
o
in
u
O
in o
O cr
<
in S
uj o
t- O
< O
to s
2
o
o
in
i O O
i/i in
O U
O U
cr <
O
l/l
o
I-
O UJ
in uJ
o tr
>-
i- i/i
Z
O I
O
o m
i in o
i o
t- o
UJ >
uj _I
cr o
in o
2
I <
f- C
C — ^ < *- CM I
— — > — rv
cr
O
O o uT o
in in o O —i in
O o o in in cr o
in o o u o o
OO>-inoin incrin
in crozoZ-J—iujo
OZl- < O-IOQ
iuint-Z_>--uj2u/>
2l-2-i->uj|-C3CD<
~>- — £ao:oc.u)cr>
T_J
SouOiuOD< — OO
(nin£inu»£"3U-Jinin
OOOOOOOOO
2
o
c.
t.
iU
u
2
IU
O
I/I
Q
cr
-------
Figures 4-11 to 4-16 are examples of the Collection System
Model output data concerning CSO flow, the loadings of eight
CSO quality parameters, and the cumulative frequency distri-
bution of plant influent quality.
As shown in the tables, certain CSO discharges were not
modeled. These are indicated by N/A. CSO discharges which
show zeros and blanks in the information columns were
modeled, but for the 1965 rainfall data did not indicate
overflow. It should be noted that these results were not
intended to duplicate the actual collection system overflows
but rather to simulate the total overflows and loadings into
the Detroit and Rouge Rivers.
Based on the 1979 data model runs, the total combined sewer
overflow volume was 2,246 million cubic feet or 16,800
million gallons. It was found that five CSO sites repre-
sented 82% of the total overflow volume. Table 4-22 lists
the five overflows in their order of significance.
4-54
-------
From the data collected during these periods, reaction rates
were determined and the model was modified to improve its
performance. Three major modifications included 1) steps to
simulate all of the plant's secondary clarifiers as operating
independently, 2) inclusion of a flow splitting routine to
simulate a portion of the plant flow bypassing secondary
treatment during wet weather peak flow conditions, and 3) re-
duction of the model's time step size from 60 to 15 minutes
in order to improve stability. Results of the final calibra-
tion were not available for review.
The calibrated STPSIM2 model was first used to evaluate the
plant's operation for the six events used to calibrate the
Collection System Model. Input commands for STPSIM2 were
modified to accept output from the Collection System Model
as simulated inflow to the plant. Output from the STPSIM 2
was linked to the Detroit River Model in order to simulate
plant discharges and bypasses to the river. Again, the
results of running the six events through STPSIM2 were not
available for review.
4.5.4 Description of Model Outputs
The Collection System Model was used to determine the annual
volume of wastewaters discharged into the Detroit and Rouge
Rivers from each modeled sewer overflow and the volume of
wastewater transported and subsequently treated at the DWWTP.
In addition, the Model simulated and determined the discharge
load of the eight selected pollutant parameters.
The outputs from the Collection System Model were summarized
and forwarded for review to DWSD and the regulatory agencies
on February 5, 1981. Additional results and corrections to
the original data, refinements and model reruns for certain
alternatives were circulated in five updates between February
22, 1981 and April 24, 1981.
4-53
-------
TABLE 4-21
COMPARISON OF 1979 AND AVERAGE YEAR QUALITY LOADINGS
(All loads in Ibs x 10^ unless otherwise noted)
Parameter
BOD
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
Volatile Suspended
Solids
Total Phosphorous
Dissolved Oxygen Deficit
Cadmium
Fecal Coliform
(MPN x 1015)
CSO Volume (MG)
1979
8480
24270
47760
15410
350
1110
2.20
6160
16800
Average Year
5590
18480
32360
11270
243
1110
1 .39
2990
12450
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
4-52
-------
4.5.3 Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant Model
There were two models which formed the Detroit Wastewater
Treatment Plant (DWWTP) Model, the COM Sludge Production
Model and the STPSIM2 Model. The STPSIM 2 Model was used to
simulate the liquid processes of the plant and to predict the
quality of the final effluent discharged to the Detroit
River. The Sludge Production Model was used as part of the
solids handling facility planning and is not discussed
further in this report.
STPSIM2 is a dynamic, deterministic and predictive model. Its
purpose is to predict the final effluent quality of the DWWTP
when the plant is subject to dynamic flows and loadings dur-
ing wet weather. The model takes hourly input data and routes
flows through the grit chambers, primary treatment, secondary
treatment, and chlorination processes. The model calculates
primary effluent quality, secondary effluent quality, final
effluent quality and attainable sludge concentrations and
quantities. Plant recycle flow is derived from clarified
final effluent wastewater and discharged to the raw waste-
water influent. The model is a non-iterative algorithm which
relies on both analytic and finite difference methods to
solve the differential equations which result from mass
balances and individual unit operations.
Calibration of the STPSIM2 model required operating data in
each step of the treatment process. Process biological and
chemical activity was monitored as well as flow and chemical
addition. According to the modeling consultant's August and
September, 1979 monthly reports, two separate 96-hour sampl-
ing programs were undertaken during the summer of 1979. The
two sampling periods spanned periods of high, wet weather
flows. Upsets occurred in the final clarifiers due to heavy
solids loadings and hydraulic stress was noted in the primary
clarifiers.
4-51
-------
TABLE 4-20
COMPARISON OF 1979
AND
AVERAGE YEAR VOLUMES
Total Rainfall Volume:
million cu. ft.
million gallons
inches of rainfall
Total Runoff Volume:
million cu. ft.
million gallons
Runoff/Rainfall (%)
Total CSO Volume:
million cu. ft.
million gallon
Total Plant Plow:
million cu. ft.
million gallons
million gallons/day
Total Plant Dry Weather Plow:
million cu. ft.
million gallonns
million gallons/day
Runoff Volume Processed by Plant:
million cu. ft.
million gallons
CSO/Runoff (%)
Runoff Volume Processed by Plant/Runoff (%)
Average Increase in DWWTP Plow (mgd)
1979* Average Year**
8779
65700
27.5
2791
20900
32
2246
16800
6721
50273
695
6175
46189
638
546
4080
80
20
56
8308
62150
26.0
2765
20680
33
1664
12450
6699
50108
736
5603
41910
615
1096
8200
60
40
121
* 36 events
** 32 events
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
4-50
-------
For 1979, the overflow gates were manually operated. This
was done in order to meet NPDES plant effluent limitations by
overflowing substantial quantities of combined sewage to the
rivers and thus reducing the flow and load to the plant.
Table 4-20 is a comparison of 1979 and average year (1965)
flow quantities produced by the model.
Of interest in this table is the runoff/rainfall ratio of
33%. For an urban area such as Detroit, a higher percentage
(closer to 50%) might be expected. Also of interest are the
differences in overflow volumes and the volumes of runoff
processed by the plant for those two years. Although the
total volume of runoff for the 1979 simulation was only 1
percent greater than the average year, the total overflow in
1979 was 35 percent greater. Conversely, the DWWTP treated
only half the total runoff in 1979 as it did in the 1965 run.
The conclusion based on these results is that operation of
CSO control gates can have a significant influence on flows
which can be diverted from CSO to the DWWTP for treatment.
Table 4-21 was compiled to compare monitored year (1979) to
average year (1965) loads. By calculation, it was found that
all but two parameter loadings varied in direct proportion to
the change in volume of CSO between the two years (_+ 10%).
The two parameters that did not vary proportionately with
volume were fecal coliform and dissolved oxygen deficit.
Fecal coliform values are reasonable when considering the
accuracy of the model and D.O. deficit is typically masked by
dry weather periods accounting for no variation.
Following calibration and simulation, the 1965 output files
(CSO hydrographs and pollutographs) were transferred to the
various river and treatment plant models. Flows and loadings
from the Collection System Model were input to the river
models to predict water quality both during and preceeding
overflow events.
4-49
-------
8
c
0)
0>
14-1
-H
O
<#>
ro "— in I ro in
vo in o ro ro
11+ ll
in
I
X
J
FT"!
1
1
a
EH
M
co
c
rH
0)
s
o
-H
0) 4->
C7> US
i-l -P
"
(N
ro
in
CO
rH T3
-P §
O O
EH P^
VD
o
X
in
•
"~
rH
"X^
g>
"
in
in
en
^0
O
X
V0
*
m
r— I
"X^
gl
K
0^
CN
0
ro
VO
o
X
V£>
•
00
o
o
«- «- o\
ro CN • vo
. • «- o
CN CN T- T-
X
in
vo
o
*~ o o o
x «-«-'-
ro
X
vo
X
ro
vo
X
ro
£
w
M
(^
2
8
u
fc,
o
§
M
EH
K
CD
3
D
•8
4J
(0
E
•rH
JJ
CO
ca
0)
i?
•*
in co
< \
IZJ K
o>
ro
CM
^*
O
X. *~
*Z> X
vo
vo
j
i"n
i
^\
CN
CN
^J*
O
*~
X
ro
vo
rH
^
0
m
^
CN
0
*~
X
CM
1*
O
^~
g-
i
VO
0
X
CN
CO
oo
CT»
4J
(0
CO
VJ
(U
jj
P
g
fd
ex
1
^,
^
(^
rH
m
o
•H
g
(U
1
•H
CQ
W
•D
•H
rH
S
1
c
&
D
cn
'O
•rH
rH
C?
"8
^
rH
O
to
to
•H
O
rH
1
c
fl)
CM
a
OD
rH
O
to
to
•H
D
in
D
O
VJ
o
•&
w
rH -H
4J "5
O (0
EH CJ
F*
Cj
o
•H
rH
o
CJ
rH
s
01
PL4
o
(0
.
to
rH
0)
M-f
M-l
•r-l
4-48
-------
TABLE 4-18
Comparison of Final Calibration Runoff
Concentrations and Measured Values
Parameter
BOD (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
Volatile Suspended
Solids (mg/1)
Total Phosphorous (mg/1)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Cadmium (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform
(MPN/100 ml)
Concentration
Measured (Average) Model
30
94
173
N/A
0.6
6.5
11
2.9 x 105
45
210
239
123
1.9
2.8
14
4.4 x 106
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
4-47
-------
After reducing the dry weather flow values, it became
necessary to raise the pollutant concentrations in the runoff
above the values measured in the field. The average runoff
concentrations for the final model calibration are listed in
Table 4-18. A comparison of the loadings and average concen-
trations between the estimated system-wide values and the
model generated values is shown in Table 4-19. In general the
modeled values are within 7% of the estimated values. Only
the cadmium and fecal coliform values are considerably dif-
ferent than the estimated values. The differences in the
cadmium values are attributable to the lack of monitored data
and the large variability in the data that are available.
The variability in measured fecal coliform concentrations
makes the 45 percent difference between the modeled and
measured values within an acceptable range.
4.5.2.3 Characterization of CSO
Following calibration, the Collection System Model was run
to determine total overflow quantities. Thirty-two events
consisting of rainfall records from April 1 to December 31 ,
1965 were chosen since 1965 was determined by the modelers
to be a "statistically average" rainfall year. The criteria
used for the selection of the average year were annual
volume, inter-event duration and number of storms. For com-
parison, the model was also run for the 36 rainfall events
which occurred between March 29 and December 31, 1979.
The model runs for 1965 and 1979 were based on slightly
different assumptions. Both runs used the calibrated Runoff
block input variables. For 1965, automatic flow level
controls efficiently operated the overflow gates and obtained
substantial inline storage capacity of the DWSD sewerage
system thereby minimizing the amount of CSO. In addition,
the dry weather flow was adjusted for each month based on the
average quantity and quality of flow from 1974 to 1979.
4-46
-------
CO
g
^
[V]
g
1
m
M
i^L J-J
O
fy' pL,
£ 2 o
1 -H
"* CQ JQ
M 3
3
rH
^ -"H
& S
P ~
6
2
H
py*
5*
P
vj
U-l
U-l
Pi
1 1
ns o
iH CO
ft U
rH T3
1
rH
S
c
1
«* - 00 ^P <* t-
CM r> r- oo «— <—
^* ^3* C^ ON CM "^
CM
•* - CO ^ 0> I-
CN r^ ^r ro r^ CN
CN ^* O^ VD LO
CM
m ro ** ^J* CM «—
^J1 f\J &\ V^ i— r~
CM CM CM •<*• CM CM
IT) OO f- «* 00 CM
CM CM CTi OO CTi CM
CM CM CM ^ «— CM
O CM CM CTi VO ON
o> ro o r*-- ON CM
' — ON O ON ON 00
CM r- CM t— r- T-
^^ O^ ^D LO O^ f"***
cr\ ^ o r*- oo co
^— T— CN ^"" ^~ *™~
^^ ViO LO OO ^D y?
vo o> ro vo CM r*
CM CM ON VO '— CM
CM
T- v- r— in CM CM
VO •*!< »— OO ON in
CM CM ON in ro
CM
co in r- r- CM o
CM oo r~ CM CN r^
CN CN 00 O «— CN
CM
^3* CN ^^ CN ^^ ^3*
CN CO ^P VO 00 ^*
CN CN oo cr» ro
o f— CN ^r LO r^
m
CO
in
oo
00
oo
ON
*^
VD
ON
0^
m
*•
1
C^t
r—
T—
2
3
so
in
in
^*
CN
^r
^t
^*
CM
ON
oo
o
o
oo
•H
(0
l>
rH
to
4-)
B
rH
S s
o
2 S
tJ >-i
en >
•H
• i— i nj
(0 OU 4->
4J -H O
(d 4-J 4-*
T3 E
5 ^ ° I*
t3 rH ^1
O U w ' — 1
rH rH O CQ
3 l«-l M-l \
O >4 CO
rH (U 0} rH
S^ c QJ
0 5 IH
rH U-l
Vl >-l
rH CO 0 D
(p >i > O
> en o co
r— CM
4-45
-------
0 Obtaining agreement at the wastewater treatment plant on
the total volume processed by the plant.
0 Obtaining agreement on the total combined sewer overflow
loadings of the eight water quality parameters for the
calibrated events. These included biochemical oxygen
demand, suspended solids, volatile suspended solids,
filterable residue, cadmium, total phosphorus, dissolved
oxygen and fecal coliform.
An iterative solution technique was used to calibrate the
model for flow. The technique compared the monitored flows
from the six outfalls and two pump stations with the flows
generated by the model. Each iteration indicated that the
model's runoff coefficients had to be reduced in order to
reach agreement between the monitored and modeled flows. The
final comparison of total volumes for the calibration events
is shown in Table 4-17.
The final calibration produced flows slightly in excess of
those which were calculated or observed within the system
during each of the six events. The model produced overflow
volumes which were approximately 2.5 percent greater than
calculated from monitoring, and runoff volumes which were
approximately 10.2 percent greater than those calculated.
Plant flow was the only parameter where the model quantity
could be compared to a measured flow. The model produced a
flow 4.0% greater than that observed at the treatment plant.
It should be noted that this magnitude of variation is
reasonable for this model.
Initial quality calibration of the Collection System Model
indicated that loadings to the DWWTP were too high while CSO
loadings were too low. Review of the plant records from 1977
to 1979 showed that average concentrations have decreased
steadily from 1977 to 1979. Accordingly, the dry weather
flows were decreased for each basin to the 1979 average con-
centrations.
4-44
-------
First, industrial dischargers were identified and located
throughout the service area. Plow volumes were based on
actual measured values; however, because quality data were
not available for most industries, concentrations for BOD,
suspended solids, and phosphorus typical of an industry's
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code were used.
Industries were assumed to be discharging at the maximum
pollutant concentration defined in the DWSD industrial
discharge ordinance.
Next, the average dry weather flow for the DWWTP between the
period 1974 to 1979 was distributed to the City of Detroit
and suburban basins according to industrial, domestic, infil-
tration, inflow and unaccounted for sources. Industrial
sources were determined as discussed above. Infiltration and
inflow values were based on measured data. Domestic flow
was allocated according to City of Detroit and suburban pop-
ulations. This information is summarized in Table 4-9
located at the end of Section 4.3.4.
Dry weather flow quality was modeled for BOD, suspended
solids, total phosphorus, volatile suspended solids, filter-
able residue, fecal coliforms, dissolved oxygen and cadmium.
Values for these parameters were available from a number of
sources including DWSD records, the field monitoring program,
a U.S. Public Health Service report, and sampling results of
other cities.
4.5.2.2 Model Calibration
The Collection System Model calibration effort had the
following three objectives:
0 Obtaining agreement at major overflow points for the total
volume discharged during the calibrated events.
4-43
-------
"\
N
v
\
\
1
1
\
\
o
1
— ^
^
IU
\ *
\ W «
\ uo S2
\\ ifc
\\ I-"
\\ oS
UJ
0^
**•" ^
S K
^O
25
UJH
h-UJ
O) Z
-------
suburban dry weather flow; however, according to the AFIR
(Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a) the model variables controll-
ing runoff in these basins were set for zero.
The Transport block sewer network for the City of Detroit was
developed so that several actual overflows were aggregated
and analyzed as a single discharge. This aggregation resulted
in two major problems. First, actual sewer network character-
istics could not be used and "equivalent characteristic"
networks had to be developed. Second, because not all system
outfalls had measured data, it was not possible to aggregate
measured data from several outfalls for comparison with the
aggregated modeled outfalls.
In order to solve this problem, an overflow network was
developed to split flows from single basins into individual
overflow locations. A special flow splitting feature was
added to SWMM to disaggregate overflows to the Detroit River.
The side weir option in SWMM was used to disaggregate over-
flows to the Rouge River. A total of 63 of the City's 81
CSO outfalls were modeled in this manner. Forty-eight of the
modeled outfalls were on the Detroit River, 14 were on the
Rouge River and 1 was located at the DWWTP. Figure 4-10
shows the Planning Level Model transport network.
In place of using the dry weather flow estimating features of
the Transport block, dry weather conditions were input to the
model. There were several reasons for this substitution.
Principally, the facility planning modelers (Urban Science
Applications, Inc.) determined that the calculation tech-
niques and characteristics employed by the model were not
representative of the Detroit system. Also, significant
amounts of measured and calculated quantity and quality data
already existed for dry weather flow in the system. The
following procedure was used to allocate dry weather flow to
the entire DWSD system both within the City of Detroit and
the suburban watersheds.
4-41
-------
d-1
1
— Lf/Xl S
I
10 t J r>-
0 ' 0
UL_ * *
i CJ
^^^B S
•^^B P
1 1
ro
I c.
IO
1
-------
port block or Storage block. It requires input data on
stream size, cross-sectional characteristics, flow stage,
and the background concentrations of quality parameters.
For Detroit the Collection System Model was a modified ver-
sion of the Runoff and Transport blocks of SWMM. Changes
were made to increase the size of the problem the model could
handle, add sewer elements found in the Detroit system, and
improve the model's operating efficiency and data display
capabilities. The fundamental physical principles upon which
the original model was developed were left intact. The
Receiving Water block was not used. The modelers decided to
use Detroit and Rouge River models in lieu of this block.
Overflow pollutographs and hydrographs produced in the
Transport and Storage blocks were transferred directly to the
river models as input data.
4.5.2.1 Model Application
The Collection System Model was developed around the 39 sub-
watersheds discussed in Section 4.2. The average size of
these areas was 2200 acres. The percentage imperviousness for
each area was based on a review of SEMCOG's land use data and
suggested imperviousness from other metropolitan areas.
Six rainfall gages were selected as the sources of rainfall
data. Selection was based on their location across the
planning area and the completenesss of their records. Sub-
watersheds were assigned to the nearest raingage as shown in
Figure 4-9. In the event that one or more raingages were out
of order during the analysis of a particular rainfall period,
subwatersheds were reassigned to the nearest operating gage.
Although the DWSD system receives sanitary sewage flow from
suburban areas, runoff from suburban watersheds was found to
be negligible. Accordingly, the suburban areas were included
in the collection system modeling in order to account for
4-39
-------
entered as hyetographs (rainfall amount versus time pic >)
with the output of this block in the form of inlet hydro-
graphs (water flow over time) at each catchbasin. In
addition to quantity, the Runoff block also routes quality
pollutographs (pollutant loadings over time) to the sewer
system. The model considers such factors as land use, the
frequency of street sweeping, and catchbasin clean-out in
evaluating the quality of the runoff.
The Transport block simulates flow through the sewer (collec-
tion) system. Input data for this block includes size, shape,
slope, condition and location of the sewer system elements;
location of the catchbasin inlet points from the Runoff
block; and the size, capacity, operational characteristics
and location of diversion and overflow structures. Dry
weather sanitary sewage flows can be estimated by the Trans-
port block for each subbasin based on land use, population,
DWWTP flow records, water use and other factors. Measured
process flows may also be directly added at specific points
in the sewer system. This block can also simulate dry
weather infiltration.
The Transport block combines the wet weather flows and pollu-
tant loads from the Runoff block with the system dry weather
flows and routes the hydrographs and pollutographs through
the sewer system. Hydrographs and pollutographs are developed
at all outlet and control points in the system. These data
can be transferred to either the Storage or the Receiving
Water blocks for further analyses.
The Storage block simulates the effects of locating a storage
or treatment facility at any given point or points within the
sewer system. Because many systems do not contain such
facilities, use of this block is optional.
The Receiving Water block is designed to simulate the
behavior of the river in response to loadings from the Trans-
4-38
-------
EXECUTIVE PROGRAM AND DATA BASE
-CTION
r
SYSTEM MODEL
S.W.M.M. - RUNOFF
~1
S.W.M.M.- TRANS PORT
L.
D.W.W.TP MODEL
I
S.W.M.M.- STORAGE
T'
I SJ.RS.I.M. n I
Sludge Produ
I (Not used fcr Water
I ' Quality Modi
;tion Model
ling)
|
.J
ROUGE RIVER MODEL
\ RECEIV. g
.J
PLUME
ENCOTECH
I
[QUAI n
|
FIGURE 4-8
PLANNING LEVEL MODELS INTERRELATIONSHIPS
-------
The Rouge River and Detroit River models each consisted of
two separate water quality modeling programs. For the Rouge
River the QUAL II and RECEIV II models were used. The
Detroit River modeling effort consisted of the Encotech and
Plume Models. The interrelationship between the models is
shown in Figure 4-8. The Collection System and DWWTP Models
are discussed in detail below. The Rouge and Detroit River
models are presented in Section 5.3 of this report.
4.5.2 Collection System Model
This section will outline the data requirements, capabili-
ties, and limitations of each model. Model calibration and
the use of output data will also be discussed. For a more
detailed discussion of each model, the reader is directed to
user's manuals available on each model as well as reports and
monthly progress summaries produced by the Facility Planners.
A modified version of SWMM (Storm Water Management Model) was
used for the modeling of the Detroit collection sewer system.
SWMM was first developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to simulate urban stormwater runoff and sewer
system overflow. The model is capable of predicting both
quantity and quality of overflows from either combined or
separated sewer systems.
Unmodified, the SWMM has four major computational blocks and
two blocks designed to execute and control the simulation.
The computational blocks are: (1) Runoff, (2) Transport, (3)
Storage and (4) Receiving Water. The Runoff block is
designed to determine the quantity of flow entering the sewer
system for a given event. This block requires input data
pertaining to land use, basin sizes, and general terrain
slope of the various subbasins in the study area. It takes
input rainfall event data and routes it as overland flow to
an inlet catchbasin within each subbasin. Rainfall data are
4-36
-------
TABLE 4-16
MEAN CSO POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
Parameter Units
BOD mg/1
TSS mg/1
TDS mg/1
TVS mg/1
Total Phosphorous mg/1
Inorganic Phos. mg/1
Fecal Coliform *
Fecal Streptococci *
Arsenic ug/1
Cadmium ug/1
Total Chromium ug/1
Copper ug/1
Iron ug/1
Lead ug/1
Mercury ug/1
Nickel ug/1
Silver ug/1
Zinc ug/1
Chlorides mg/1
Oil and Grease mg/1
PCB ug/1
Phenols ug/1
TKN mg/1
*1000 organisms/100 ml
All
All
Site
Events
78
169
358
180
5.2
1.2
3330
336
83
32
94
165
2470
252
39
361
34
335
63
132
13.4
15
10.0
Rouge River
Sites
All Events
73
149
357
210
6.2
1.0
5170
505
91
28
79
129
2550
166
34
455
33
222
74
154
17.4
14
6.3
Detroit River
Sites
All Events
85
205
360
131
3.9
1.5
161
49
69
41
129
218
2270
447
45
139
38
555
44
94
2.4
17
17.6
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980e
4-35
-------
An overall summary of grouped data is presented in Tc.jle
4-16. As shown, site events were grouped by river and
system-wide mean concentrations.
4.5 Planning Level Model
4.5.1 General
The magnitude and complexity of the DWSD sewer system made it
necessary to use a number of computer models to facilitate
the CSO planning analysis. The models used to define the
quantity and quality of CSO and to evaluate, screen and rank
CSO control alternatives were developed only to a "Planning
Level" degree of detail to demonstrate the relative differ-
ence in water quality impacts between abatement alternatives.
No effort was made to fine tune the models at this level of
analysis; however, they are of sufficient sophistication that
they could have been adaptable to more detailed analysis had
the CSO abatement facility planning been carried to the
selection of a preferred alternative.
The Planning Level modeling package consisted of four major
components, the Collection System Model, the Rouge River
models, the Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant (DWWTP) Model,
and the Detroit River models. The Collection System Model
was of a modified version of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). This model
was used to simulate runoff from the City of Detroit and the
quantity and quality of loadings to the DWWTP and to the
Detroit and Rouge Rivers. Data generated by SWMM served as
input to the river and treatment plant models.
The DWWTP model was actually two separate models, the STPSIM2
model which simulated the liquid processes of the plant, and
the Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM) Sludge Production Model
which was substituted for the STPSIM2 sludge generation
element.
4-34
-------
TABLE 4-15
SITE EVENT SUMMARY
BOD 5
Summary by
Sites Events
All All
Rouge River All
Detroit River All
All Spring
All Summer
All Fall
Pembroke All
McNichols All
Puritan All
Plymouth All
Tireman All
Hubbell-Southfield All
Baby Creek All
Oakwood PS All
Conner Creek BWG All
Conner Creek PS All
Freund PS All
Fischer All
Leib All
First-Hamilton All
Summit All
Number
of
Site
Events
117
72
45
52
30
35
2
14
6
11
8
20
7
4
4
4
20
8
3
Mean
Concen-
tration
mg/1
358
357
360
359
307
399
130
320
155
278
241
320
771
807
377
309
260
369
319
576
Standard
Deviation
mg/1
293
339
201
197
208
439
39
168
72
221
104
136
759
520
183
115
66
144
176
607
Coefficient
of
Variation
.82
.95
.56
.55
.68
1.10
.30
.53
.46
.79
.43
.43
.98
.64
.49
.37
.25
.39
.55
1.05
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980e
4-33
-------
All CSO water quality information was presented as composite
sample data and has been combined and averaged in a variety
of ways for interpretation. Results from discrete samples
were mathematically time weighted to give an "equivalent
composite" sample. The data were then summarized in several
ways. A time weighted mean concentration was calculated for
every given site event. For a particular event at a CSO
point, these were grouped and averaged to determine a mean of
the time weighted mean concentrations.
The site event data were summarized by site for each of the
parameters. This site event summary also grouped data by
river, by season, and by system-wide concentration for a
particular parameter. An example of this data format is pre-
sented in Table 4-15 for the parameter BOD. Data summaries
for the other parameters are given in Appendix E of Giffels/
Black & Veatch, 1980c.
Standard deviation and coefficient of variation were also
calculated for each time weighted mean concentration. The
standard deviation is a measure of dispersion or the amount
of variation in the data. While this provides us information
on any one mean value it does not allow us to compare the
amount of variation among different parameters at the same
site or the amount of variation by river or by season. The
coefficient of variation allows comparison of the variation
between two sampling populations independent of the magnitude
of their means. The higher the coefficient of variation, the
larger the spread of values about the mean.
The coefficients of variation presented in Table 4-15 for BOD
reflect a large amount of variability in the data. These
numbers are representative of the coefficients of variation
for the other monitored parameters. Approximately 40% of all
the coefficients of variation exceed 1.0, indicating that the
variability of the data is as much or greater than the mean
value itself.
4-32
-------
TABLE 4-14
DETROIT RIVER OVERFLOW RATES
Overflow Location
Computation
Method
Range in
Overflow Rate
Conner Creek
McCleiIan-Cadillac
Fischer
Iroquois
Leib*
Joseph Campau
Dubois*
Rivard
First-Hamilton*
Eleventh Street
Twelfth Street
Twenty-first Street
Scotten
Summit*
Ferdinand
Morrell
Junction Calvary
Dragoon
Indirect 1
Indirect 2
Not Calculated
Direct
Direct
Indirect 1
Indirect 1
Indirect
Indirect 1
Direct
Direct
Not Calculated
Indirect
Indirect 1
Not Calculated
Indirect I
Indirect
Not Calculated
250 to 300 cfs
50 to 100 cfs
10 to 50 cfs
300 to 500 cfs
50 to 150 cfs
60 to 120 cfs
15 cfs
50 to 150 cfs
20 to 50 cfs
5 to 15 cfs
20 to 80 cfs
60 to 100 cfs
25 to 35 cfs
50 to 175 cfs
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980e
Note: * Indicates locations of CSO's used to calibrate
the sewer system computer model.
4-31
-------
TABLE 4-13
ROUGE RIVER OVERFLOW RATES
Overflow Location
Computation
Method
Range in
Overflow Rate
Pembroke
Frisbee
Seven-Mile East
Seven-Mile West
McNichols*
Puritan
Glendale
Plymouth
West-Chicago East
West-Chicago West
Tireman*
Hubbell-Southfield*
Baby Creek*
Direct
Not Calculated
Not Calculated
Not Calculated
Indirect 1
Indirect 2
Indirect 2
Indirect 2
Not Calculated
Not Calculated
Indirect 1
Direct
Indirect 1
1 to 5 cfs
100 to 200 cfs
10 to 15 cfs
10 to 25 cfs
5 to 10 cfs
75 to 150 cfs
600 to 1300 cfs
100 to 300 cfs
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980e
Note: * Indicates locations of CSO's used to calibrate the sewer
system computer model.
4-30
-------
monitoring points during every rainfall event. The same
volume of overflow did not consistently occur with similar
rainfall intensities. Minimum and maximum values for a
parameter were sometimes found at adjacent overflows. The
range of values for CSO quality data was as high as four
orders of magnitude for some parameters.
Factors that may affect flows and loadings include the
intensity and duration of the rainfall event, the number of
antecedent dry days, the sediment buildup within a sewer that
may be flushed out, the type and intensity of land use, the
kind of surfaces that are drained, and the regulating system
within the sewer network that affects in-line storage and
routes flows.
The 1979 CSO flow data, consisting of depth and velocity
measurements taken in time series, were used to calculate
flow rates in terms of cubic feet per second (cfs). Three
basic types of calculations were done:
0 Direct - Weir equation, velocity/area equation
or energy continuity equation.
0 Indirect 1 - Overflow = Inflow - outflow
A theoretical hydrograph was con-
structed by subtracting outflow from
total incoming flow in hourly time
series.
0 Indirect 2 - Outflow = Inflow
Tables 4-13 and 4-14 show the range of overflow rates en-
countered during the flow sampling program for the Detroit
and Rouge River CSO's, respectively. The nine CSO's marked
with asterisks were used to calibrate the sewer system
computer model.
4-29
-------
1
CM
«M 1 |
^sj H^
£3 ^
m 8
l-i C9
g
J
§
CA
§
to
>J
T3 -i 1 O 0)
4J i-H M-l Q4 W
•H i— 1 -iH d) (0
.C 0) O 4J >J
ro cL T3 cj cn O
•H O -H r-H
C >J ^1 rH rH J D rH -H g
C/l --H O CO *O aj >-i cr>
>£OO'OrHDJ £ >,
rHWf3jZ!^C-HtQ U >,X
O'D'OPMtiS-UD 4->O
tO-HrHWO|(OW -U -H
WrHdJCUOtOrH C >T3
•HQT->JJJSDO<1) ^irH o g3rH s^ .u >
£ -r^Jj-HEg-HfOVj W-H Or-
rHrHrHQjrHrHrH4-)(l)C3-HE>a) DO) 73 O
(UnjO-U4-'-PrHrHWVjr8>-lXEOVjO«6CCtn
OOOXlOOOO-'H^(On3.c(i)O!>Jcn
-------
Thirty storm events were monitored for CSO quality consisting
of 5 monitored events in the fall of 1978 and 25 events
during the 1979 monitoring year.
Samples were collected by automatic samplers, supplemented by
grab samples and probe readings. They were analyzed as
either "time composited" or discrete samples. Time compos-
ited samples, a time proportional mixture of several individ-
ual samples, were used to reduce the number of samples ana-
lyzed. Discrete sampling provided intra-event information.
Automatic interval sampling continued for the overflow dura-
tion, in order to obtain the mass discharge of a parameter.
Sample time intervals varied from 15 minutes to one hour.
Thirty-three water quality parameters were selected for
analysis in all collected samples. These parameters repre-
sent common wastewater parameters as well as the major heavy
metals and some toxic organic compounds. Table 4-12 lists
the water quality parameters and the season of sampling. It
is unclear whether measurements were ever taken for ammonia,
chlorophyll-a, and pH. The Facility Planner explains why
these parameters were included but does not list results with
their summary data.
A laboratory quality assurance program was conducted using
both an internal and external check. Internal quality
control consisted of each laboratory analyzing blind dupli-
cate samples. The external quality control program consisted
of sending blind duplicate samples to an outside laboratory
for the same analyses. Generally, these samples met the pre-
cision limits, but occasionally the limits were exceeded.
Results which failed to meet the external quality control
were deleted from the data base.
4.4.4 Sampling and Monitoring Results
The data obtained from monitoring both CSO flow and quality
were highly variable. Overflows did not always occur at all
4-27
-------
Velocity was manually measured in sewers using a portable
water current meter (Marsh-McBirney 1201). At the pump sta-
tions, velocity was measured using an ultrasonic doppler
principle flow meter (Polyponic UFM-P). Specific details on
sampling and measurement techniques, as well as field prob-
lems, are discussed in the "Quantity and Quality of Combined
Sewer Overflows" (Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980e)
The spring 1980 monitoring was to be used to further cali-
brate and refine the model. Although an occasional reference
to this monitoring effort has been found in Facility Planning
documents. The 1980 data is unavailable.
4.4.3 Quality Sampling
CSO quality sampling was designed to provide a base from
which the water quality portion of the sewer system computer
model could be calibrated and verified. The main objective
was to obtain average concentrations for each measured para-
meter by storm event.
CSO quality data were collected at 8 outfalls on the Rouge,
5 outfalls on the Detroit River and at 3 stormwater pump
stations:
TABLE 4-11
LOCATIONS OF CSO QUALITY MONITORING
Detroit River
Conner Creek backwater gate
Conner Creek Pump Station
Freund Pump Station
Fischer
Lieb
First-Hamilton
Summit
Rouge River
Pembroke
McNichols
Puritan
Plymouth
Tireman
Hubbell-Southfield
Baby Creek
Oakwood Pump Station
4-26
-------
Flow was discharged at some overflow points during all moni-
tored events. Nine stations were monitored during the entire
1979 program, three stations were monitored only during the
spring, and five stations were monitored only during the
summer-fall. The remaining stations (15), including the
Oakwood Pump Station, were monitored in series of 119, 51,
and 75 consecutive days. Due to field problems, only six (6)
of the 25 monitored storm events provided a complete set of
flow data for model calibration. These events occurred on
June 10-11, June 20-21, June 29-30, July 9-10, July 25-26 and
August 23-24. The results of this monitoring were used to
develop the sewer system computer model.
Flows were computed using accepted hydraulic principles and
formulae which were appropriate to the variety of overflow
and sewer structures. In all cases, surface water elevation,
depth of flow and velocity of flow were obtained during field
monitoring.
Depth of flow was recorded using an electronic flow monitor-
ing system. Each device recorded the depth of flow through
the conduit at fifteen minute intervals. The recordings were
matched to "real-time" through a computerized synchronization
of all installed metering devices. With the meters synchron-
ized, the units were able to identify time delays and to
measure changes in flow depth resulting from pump stations,
industrial facilities and rainfall events. Each device was
equipped with a memory unit that accommodated 3 1/2 weeks of
data. Data were collected from the units at least weekly.
The information from the units was coupled with previously
obtained velocity/discharge curves obtained at the manholes
where the above units were installed. This information
allowed the correlation of flow rate with any depth of flow
in the pipe.
4-25
-------
^
<3
o
E
ki
Q>
o
QL
UJ
t
o
o:
h-
UJ
0
UJ
x
S
C/)
2 O
O
C
Q
tf>
c
o
Lu
CL
c
-------
-------
In addition, three stormwater pump stations were monitored
which bypass their excess volumes to the rivers: the Freund
and Conner Creek Pump Stations on the Detroit River and the
Oakwood Pump Station on the Rouge River. Figures 4-6 and
4-7 show the location of each monitored CSO discharge.
4.4.2 Quantity Monitoring
The goal of the Facility Planners'sampling program was to
gather enough data to allow quantification and characteriza-
tion of the combined sewage and the receiving waters. This
information would be used to calibrate and verify the collec-
tion system and river models.
The field monitoring program was divided into four separate
data collection periods:
1978 Fall Monitoring
0 1979 Spring Monitoring
0 1979 Summer-Fall Monitoring
0 1980 Spring Monitoring
The 1978 monitoring of CSO's was only done at three locations
on the Rouge. The McNichols, Tireman, and Baby Creek out-
falls were selected for monitoring of flow and quality.
These three CSO discharges represent overflows to the upper,
middle and lower portions of the main stem of the Rouge.
Five storm events were sampled: November 13, 17 and 23 and
December 3 and 8. The data generated served as a basis for
future assumptions and possible refinements to the remainder
of the sampling program.
Twenty-five storm events were monitored at 31 CSO discharge
points during the period from March through November, 1979.
Rainfall intensity varied from a trace to just over one inch
per storm event. During each event not all monitor-jd
overflows discharged combined sewage to the receiving water.
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-10
CSO MONITORING POINTS
Detroit River
Rouge River
Conner Creek
McClellan-Cadiliac
Fischer
Iroquois
Leib
Joseph Campau
Dubois
Rivard
First-Hamilton
Eleventh
Twelfth
Twenty-First
Scotten
Summit
Ferdinand
Morrell
Junction-Cavalry
Dragoon
Pembroke
Frisbee
Seven Mile-East
Seven Mile-West
McNichols
Puritan
Glendale
Plymouth
West Chicago-East
West Chicago-West
Tireman
Hubbell-Southfield
Baby Creek
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980e
4-21
-------
4.4 CSO Sampling and Monitoring Program
4.4.1 Monitoring Sites
In order to calibrate the sewer system model which would
mathematically determine the quantity and quality of
combined sewage overflowed during an average year's storm
events, a sampling program was undertaken. There were 18
CSO locations selected on the Detroit River and 13 on the
Rouge River.
Six criteria were used in the selection:
1. Frequency of overflows,
2. Magnitude of overflows,
3. Association of subwatersheds with specific
overflow discharge points,
4. The need for determining impact in the receiving
stream at specific locations,
5. The need for confirming assumptions on flow
regimes and splits,
6. Inflowing and outflowing sewers having constant
size and slope to facilitate accurate measure-
ments.
After site selection was made, all sites were then checked
in terms of two additional criteria. These were: 1)
accessibility for sampler installation and operation; and
2) long sewer reaches, both entering and leaving, with
minimal size and slope variations. In all cases, the mon-
itored overflows were at locations where combined sewage is
discharged to the river. Of the 81 existing CSO outfalls
in the Detroit collection system, the following overflow
points were monitored in 1979 as representative of the
system:
4-20
-------
TABLE 4-9
ESTIMATED PRESENT AND FUTURE DWWTP DRY WEATHER FLOW
1980 1990 2000
(MGD) (MGD) (MGD)
POPULATION 2,930,000 2,880,000 2,965,000
AVERAGE DAY DRY WEATHER FLOW
Detroit Domestic 97 87 88
Industrial 152 136 138
I/I 57 57 57
Unaccounted For 60 60 60
Suburban Domestic 174 185 193
Industrial 65_ 6J9 72
Total Influent Flow 605 594 ~T08~
MAXIMUM DAY DRY WEATHER FLOW
Detroit Domestic 136 121 124
Industrial 212 189 194
I/I 57 57 57
Unaccounted For 60 60 60
Suburban Domestic 131 257 266
Industrial 90 95 99
Total Influent Flow 797 779 800
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981 a
4-19
-------
Table 4-8
Suburban Area
1980 Existing and Future Projected Dry Weather Flows (DWF)
Major Watershed
Area
DBE
GPP
GP
GPF
DBW
DBN
APR
MEL
ISL
RV
COD
FAR
EVF
SEK
MCD
CLN
EWM
SMC
1980 DWF
(MGD)
13.77
2.74
.93
1 .62
9.44
0.32
0.56
2.90
0.10
61 .10
5.04
1 .51
25.73
59.30
25.95
1 .29
5.07
22.12
1990 DWF
(MGD)
14.29
2.45
.93
1 .52
9.67
0.33
0.68
3.02
0.11
66.44
9.09
1.53
27.83
56.41
33.32
1 .22
4.10
21 .59
2000 DWr
(MGD)
14.73
2.37
0.84
1.43
9.85
0.36
0.60
3.01
0.11
70.19
10.63
1 .45
29.79
56.36
37.94
1 .25
3.96
20.62
Suburban Total 239.49 254.53 265.49
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980d
4-18
-------
Table 4-7
City of Detroit - Rouge River Basin
1980 Existing and Future Projected Dry Weather Flows (DWF)
Major Watershed
Area
BCW
Watershed Total
Subwatershed
Area
BC-1
BC-2
BC-3
1980 DWF
(MGD)
5.99
4.68
10.23
20.90
1990 DWF
(MGD)
5.51
4.22
9.13
18.86
2000 DWF
(MGD)
5.71
4.31
9.26
19.28
HS
S-1
S-2
S-3
H-1
H-2
H-3
Watershed Total
4.37
3.39
2.34
4.57
3.22
3.01
20.90
3
3
2
4
2
81
10
01
22
83
2.83
18.80
3.79
3.07
1 .87
4.31
2.85
2.73
18.62
RRN
Watershed Total
RR-5
7.61
7.61
7.25
7.25
7.13
7.13
RRS
Watershed Total
RR-1
RR-2
RR-3
RR-4
2.99
3.83
2.95
3.84
T3.3T
2.88
3.64
2.75
3.57
12.84
2.84
3.62
2.72
3.52
12.70
Watershed Total
BASIN TOTAL
0-1
1.86
1.86
64.88
1 .79
1.79
59.54
1 .82
1 .82
59.55
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980d
4-17
-------
Table 4-6
City of Detroit - Detroit River Basin
1980 Existing and Future Projected Dry Weather Flows (DWF)
Major Watershed
Area
CBC
Watershed Total
FCE
Watershed Total
CCC
Watershed Total
BCE
Subwatershed
Area
C-4
BC-6
CC-6
CC-7
CC-1
CC-2
CC-3
EJ-1
FC-3
FC-4
FC-5
CC-4
CC-5
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-1
C-2
C-3
BC-4
BC-5
Watershed Total
1980 DWF
(MGD)
15.70
5.88
6.44
6.15
34.17
22.38
4.98
12.20
12.81
3.19
3.56
7.13
66.25
9.28
6.36
54.22
25.04
18.16
15.38
128.45
22.24
12.47
23.57
4.95
8.51
71.74
1990 DWF
(MGD)
14.76
5.34
6.17
5.87
32.14
20.48
4.83
11 .48
11.76
2.75
3.28
6.42
61 .00
8.71
6.14
50.15
24.05
17.00
14.09
120.14
20.46
11 .97
22.41
4.34
7.46
66.64
2000 DWF
(MGD)
15.38
5.51
6.12
5.80
32.81
21 .07
4.12
11 .64
11.68
2.72
3.23
6.48
60.94
8,
6
50,
23,
17,
88
24
89
97
31
14.17
121 .48
20.60
11 .99
23.16
4.42
7.54
67.71
BASIN TOTAL
300.61
279.92
282.94
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980d
4-16
-------
This inflow elimination would be obtained by modifying
submerged overflow discharge pipes and correcting abandoned
river front sewers resulting in a 50% reduction (12.5 MGD) of
river inflow. It was reported that inspection and repair
costs to achieve this would amount to a present worth cost of
$193,000. This compares to a present worth cost of $8,431,000
for transport and treatment. (Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981b;
ESEI, 1981d)
4.3.4 Existing and Future Dry Weather Flows
Existing and future flows were estimated based on the domes-
tic, commercial, industrial and infiltration/inflow portions
of the dry weather flow. Flows were determined at the sub-
watershed level and summed. The following considerations
were made in order to complete the calculations:
1. Average dry weather flows from suburban combined
and separate areas were assumed to be the only
flows entering Detroit during dry weather.
2. Suburban dry weather flows were based on the three
lowest monthly flow readings per district as record-
ed by DWSD between 1971 and 1979.
3. Where metered flows were not available, suburban
dry weather flows were calculated from water con-
sumption records.
Tables 4-6 through 4-8 list the 1980 existing and future pro-
jected average dry weather flows by subwatershed, watershed
and basin. Table 4-9 lists the Detroit and suburban compo-
nents for the average and maximum day dry weather flows.
4-15
-------
Table 4-5
DWSD Service Area Existing and Future Populations
Area
Detroit River Basin
Rouge River Basin
Suburbs
Total
1980
Population
906,700
404,300
1,616,300+
1990
Population
811,700
358,200
1,711,900+
2000
Population
831,000
355,400
1 ,778,900+
2,927,300+ 2,881,800+ 2,965,300+
4-14
-------
Table 4-4
DWSD Suburban Service Areas
Existing and Future Populations
Major Watershed
Area
DBE
GPP
GP
GPF
DBW
DBN
APR
MEL
RV
COD
FAR
EVF
SEK
MCD
CLN
EWM
SMC
1980
Population
38,604
13,700
6,400
10,300
49,816
3,580
4,000
13,200
458,800
56,200
10,700
191 ,000
327,800
221 ,000
9,200
36,807
165,193
1990
Population
36,351
12,100
5,900
9,500
47,772
3,577
3,800
12,500
494,600
101 ,700
9,700
201 ,100
295,200
285,700
8,400
28,387
155,613
Total
1 ,616,300+
1,711,900+
2000
Population
35,836
11 ,600
5,700
9,000
46,954
3,910
3,700
11,800
512,000
122,000
9,400
211,500
287,000
325,000
8,000
27,260
148,240
1,778,900+
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980d
4-13
-------
Table 4-3
City of Detroit - Rouge River Basin 1980
Existing and Future Population Projections
2000
Watershed Area Population Population Population
BCW BC-1 34,400 31,600 33,900
10,000
41,000
Total 91,800 81,200 84,900
HS S-1 40,600 33,900 33,500
31 ,000
19,800
23,200
26,900
26,200
Subwatershed
Area
BC-1
BC-2
BC-3
S-1
S-2
S-3
H-1
H-2
H-3
RR-5
RR-1
RR-2
RR-3
RR-4
0-1
1980
Population
34,400
10,400
47,000
91,800
40,600
35,200
26,200
23,800
31 ,600
29,600
187,000
45,200
45,200
17,500
14,500
13,000
23,400
68,400
11 ,900
11 ,900
1990
Population
31 ,600
9,400
40,200
81 ,200
33,900
31 ,400
21 ,700
22,400
26,700
27,500
163,600
40,400
40,400
15,900
14,000
11,500
19,700
61 ,100
11 ,900
11 ,900
Total 187,000 163,600 160,600
RRN RR-5 45,200 40,400 38,800
Total 45,200 40,400 38,800
RRS RR-1 17,500 15,900 15,400
13,500
10,900
19,100
Total 68,400 61,100 58,900
12,200
Total 11,900 11,900 12,200
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980d
4-12
-------
Table 4-2
City of Detroit - Detroit River Basin 1980
Existing and Future Population Projections
2000
Watershed Area Population Population Population
CBC C-4 43,100 41,300 48,500
45,600
14,900
Total 131 ^200 11?', 400 125',100
FCE CC-1 77,800 69,200 75,200
. .. _.. ..... 2,100
35,100
30,100
21 ,200
33,200
Subwatershed
Area
C-4
BC-6
CC-6
CC-7
CC-1
CC-2
CC-3
EJ-1
FC-3
FC-4
FC-5
CC-4
CC-5
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-1
C-2
C-3
BC-4
BC-5
1980
Population
43,100
49,200
18,300
20,600
131 ,200
77,800
12,700
35,400
40,900
26,500
37,500
59,300
290,100
28,400
19,400
81 ,100
61 ,700
22,300
66,800
279,700
13,700
23,800
89,100
38,400
40,700
205,700
1990
Population
41 ,300
43,400
15,700
17,000
117,400
69,200
11 ,800
34,000
31 ,800
21 ,700
33,900
52,100
254,500
24,300
17,000
76,900
60,200
20,600
56,500
255,500
13,800
22,800
82,500
32,100
33,100
184,300
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980d
JL Vrf _/ _/ _^ f _/ w w *^ «* f i \s vs .^ *-• f r w vs
Total 290,100 254,500 249,600
CCC CC-4 28,400 24,300 26,200
18,400
80,800
58,000
23,100
56,700
Total 279,700 255,500 263,200
BCE C-1 13,700 13,800 12,700
22,400
91 ,600
33,000
33,400
Total 205,700 1B4TTOO 193,100
4-11
-------
The Joint Venture developed future population projections
using the 1979 version of SEMCOG's Small Area Forecast
Alternative 6. Tables 4-2 through 4-5 give the existing and
future populations by subwatershed, watershed, basin and
total service area.
4.3.3 Infiltration and Inflow
During the Segmented Facilities Plan (SFP) an infiltration
and inflow (I/I) study was conducted on the collection system
to identify possible excessive flows of extraneous water.
The U.S. EPA requires such a study before funds will be
granted for construction of new wastewater treatment
facilities. The study concentrated on the City of Detroit
but considered portions of the entire DWSD service area
amounting to 144 square miles.
The SFP analysis (Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1978a) showed that
removal of the 32 MGD infiltration and 45 MGD river inflow
was not cost-effective when compared to conveyance and
treatment. Therefore, excessive I/I, as defined by U.S. EPA,
did not exist.
Since the SFP I/I study was based on a plant capacity of 1050
MGD, the revision of capacity to 805 MGD necessitated a re-
evaluation of I/I cost-effectiveness. In the FFP study, the
previous data for the City of Detroit and its four worst
watershed districts, Rouge River North and South and Baby
Creek East and West, were reevaluated. It was found that
infiltration of 36 MGD (up from the previous 32 MGD) was
still not cost-effective to remove. However, the partial
elimination of the 25 MGD of river inflow (down from 45 MGD)
would be very cost-effective.
4-10
-------
4.3 Dry Weather Flows
4.3.1 General
Dry weather flow (DWF) in this system has been defined in the
AFIR as the flow of wastewater (excluding stormwater) enter-
ing the collection system, regardless of its source, and
treated at the DWWTP. This includes domestic sewage from
residential and commercial sources, industrial wastewater,
infiltration and inflow (except from stormwater). Since DWF
utilizes a large portion of the system's capacity, it is an
important model input factor. Generally, the amount of
capacity remaining in the system can be used to transport and
treat stormwater inflow. When this "excess" system capacity
is exceeded, a combined sewer overflow occurs.
4.3.2 Present and Future Population
No direct wastewater flow measurements are routinely made in
Detroit except at the treatment plant; however, since a
direct correlation exists between service area population and
DWF, existing and future population estimates have tradition-
ally been used to help forecast flows.
The existing 1980 population figures were compiled from the
preliminary 1980 Census data. These figures were being
contested because they showed a 23.8% decline in the City's
population since 1970. Such a population decrease could be
explained by a decrease in the number of people occupying
each housing unit and/or a decrease in the number of housing
units. Data collected by the City Planning Department
indicated that the number of occupants per housing unit has
remained nearly constant since 1970. Thus, it appears that
the decline in population has been manifested as a decrease
in the number of occupied housing units.
4-9
-------
-------
cn
o
LU
X
CO
tr
LU
«-
I
O
U.
CD
(/)
(0 JO ^**^ ^"
o i ° n &
L o s l-"L"J{rr
""I i U "?
I r <->
Ln QD
1 . . ,
^
iO ^
i H
, 1
10
' CM
-------
TABLE 4-1
DETROIT WATERSHED DATA
Drainage Interceptor
Area Receiving
Watershed (Acres) Flows
Detroit River
Baby Creek East
(BCE)
Conner & Baby Creek
(CBC)
Conner Creek-Central
(CCC)
Pox Creek-East Jeffer-
son (FCE)
Rouge River
Baby Creek West
(BCW)
Hubbell-Southfield
(HS)
Rouge River North
(RRN)
Rouge River South
(RRS)
12,730 0-NWI
7,930 DRI
16,015 DRI
26,009 DRI
7,819 0-NWI
14,454 0-NWI
4,106 0-NWI
6,830 0-NWI
Interceptor Storage Cap-
Capacity For acity for
the Watershed Watershed
78 MGD 31 MG
269 MGD 5 MG
244 MGD 19 MG
118 MGD 69 MG
41 MGD 50 MG
130 MGD 4 MG
1 1 MGD None
54 MGD 3 MG
4-6
-------
-------
SOUTHFIELO
RRS BASIN DESIGNATION
BASIN BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4-2
WATERSHED BOUNDARIES IN THE ROUGE RIVER BASIN
-------
Creek East, Conner Creek-Central, Fox Creek-East Jefferson,
and Conner and Baby Creek watersheds. The Rouge River was
divided originally into 5 areas; the Rouge River North, Rouge
River South, Baby Creek West, Hubbell and Southfield water-
sheds, but later the Hubbell and Southfield areas were com-
bined into a single watershed, Hubbell-Southfield. Figures
4-2 and 4-3 show the location of the 8 major watershed areas.
Table 4-1 provides basic information about each.
The 8 major watersheds were further subdivided into 39 sub-
watersheds. These were determined based on key points in the
sewer system. The 39 Detroit subwatersheds are delineated in
Figure 4-4.
In addition to providing service for the City of Detroit, the
DWSD also serves large metropolitan suburban areas in Wayne,
Oakland and Macomb Counties. The combined sewer system
watershed areas for these counties consist of Dearborn East
(DBE), Dearborn West (DBW), Evergreen-Farmington (EVF),
Northeast Wayne and Southeast Macomb (EWM), City of Farming-
ton (FAR), Lower Rouge Valley (LRV), Middle Rouge Valley
(MRV), and Southeast Oakland (SEO). Their locations relative
to the Planning Area are also shown in Figure 4-5.
These eight suburban watershed areas are connected to the
DWSD system through five interceptor systems: the Rouge
Valley; Evergreen-Farmington; Southeast Oakland County;
Clinton-Oakland, Macomb; and the Grosse Point-Jefferson.
4-3
-------
CLINTON
MILFORD
ST.
CLAIR
, ROSEVILLE I. SHORES
S I HARPER / SROSSE
/ WOODS I POINTE
/ | WOODS
NORTHVILLE
1
h " RIVER BASIN
HT RIVER BASIN
I
BStt
BASIN 6 AREA
-------
4. CSO Quantity and Quality
4.1 General
The determination of CSO quantity and quality over time was
ascertained through the use of a computer model rather than
direct measurements. Input data included: transport and
treatment capacity of the Detroit system, present and future
dry weather flows (DWF), infiltration and inflow (I/I),
weather data from an "average" year, and numerous factors and
assumptions. The model used this information to generate the
quantity and quality of CSO discharges which would theoreti-
cally occur at several locations along the Rouge and Detroit
Rivers.
4.2 Watershed and Drainage Basins
One of the first major tasks of facilities planning is to
understand just how the existing facilities function. For a
combined sewer system, and particularly one as complex as
Detroit's, it is necessary to subdivide the system into
smaller components for study. The Detroit system can first
be divided into its Detroit River Basin and the Rouge River
Basin. The terms "basin", "drainage basin", and "watershed"
refer to a delineated area from which all runoff will flow
through the combined sewer system to a specified point.
Thus, all the runoff from the Detroit River Basin, delineated
in Figure 4-1, enters the DWWTP through the Detroit River
Interceptor or is overflowed to the Detroit River. Runoff
from the Rouge River Basin, also delineated in Figure 4-1,
enters the DWWTP through the Oakwood-Northwest Interceptor or
is overflowed to the Rouge River.
Each of these two major basins in Detroit were divided into
smaller watersheds and associated with major interceptors.
The 4 areas of the Detroit Basin were designated the Baby
4-1
-------
3.3.4 Lakeshore Arm
During the planning described above, the concept of "fast-
tracking" the Lakeshore Arm designed to serve Chesterfield
Twsp. was suggested. This "fast-tracking" concept arose when
the DWSD received a letter from Chesterfield Township dated
March 4, 1980. This letter requested the extension of the
Lakeshore Interceptor at the earliest possible date to
replace all inadequate local facilities.
Construction of the Lakeshore Interceptor Extension was ori-
ginally recommended in the SFP Summary Report in 1978,
(Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1978) but was deferred to the FFP to
allow for a more extensive evaluation of northern Macomb
County's sewer service needs based upon that area's most
recent demographic projections. DWSD however, concurred that
on the basis of the immediate need, work should proceed as
quickly as possible on the interceptor design with construc-
tion to begin immediately thereafter.
DWSD requested EPA approval in July of 1980 to prepare an
amendment to the 1978 SFP for the design work on the Lake-
shore Interceptor Extension. On August 29, 1980, a meeting
was held to discuss the necessary procedures required to
accelerate facilities planning documentation for the Lake-
shore Arm. Agreement on this procedure was reached by all
parties (DWSD, MDNR, and US-EPA). Later, however, the Federal
Court mandated that facilities planning for Detroit CSO
control was to proceed only to the point at which the "few
best" preferred alternatives were identified in the AFIR.
All program tasks previously designed to facilitate planning
of DWSD's suburban customers (including the "fast-tracking"
of the Lakeshore Interceptor) were deleted. And, as a result,
no further US-EPA funded facilities planning activities have
occurred regarding provision of service by DWSD to Chester-
field Twsp.
3-44
-------
The environmental analysis considered the two alternati ses
with respect to their impacts on water quality and the aquat-
ic community. Upgrading the Richmond and New Haven plants
was the preferred alternative since connection to the Detroit
system could have a significant negative effect on streamflow
and water quality due to interbasin transfer of water. Up-
grading the two plants to provide advanced treatment would
improve water quality, maintain streamflow during low flow
conditions, provide a means of runoff dilution, and contri-
bute to groundwater recharge. However, if due to severe
fiscal impacts these communities cannot afford to construct
or operate advanced treatment facilities, the environmental
benefits of a Detroit connection would likely be greater than
those from facilities which currently exist.
Secondary developmental impact potential from the proposed
Richmond Arm Interceptor was also analyzed. For this, the
interceptor extension to Chesterfield and DWSD service for
New Haven and Richmond were considered to be separate
decisions. However, construction of the lower portion of the
Richmond Arm (the Lakeshore Arm) would be necessary first
before service could be provided to New Haven and Richmond.
Thus, the entire area was studied for secondary development
impact potential.
It was concluded that construction of the Richmond Arm could
cause serious secondary impacts in Lenox Township and north-
ern Chesterfield Township. An interceptor extension to New
Haven along with local upgrading in Richmond could also
result in additional development in northern Chesterfield
Township. These alternatives were shown to be inconsistent
with SEMCOG's Regional Plan and Sewer Service Area Map for
the year 2000. Thus, the decision was made to give no
further consideration to the alternative of extending DWSD
service beyond Chesterfield to include New Haven and Rich-
mond. Provision of service to Chesterfield was recommended,
though the specific method was not determined.
3-43
-------
upon which all previous work had been based, a significant
population increase was shown for the year 2000 for Macomb
Township while a decrease was shown for Chesterfield Town-
ship.
The decision to upgrade local POTW's rather than tie into the
DWSD system was then reviewed. The EIS consultant prepared a
cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the cost of expanding
and upgrading local treatment facilities versus construction
of DWSD regional interceptors to serve Armada, New Haven, and
Richmond. The four alternatives evaluated were the following:
1) Village of Armada upgrading and expansion versus Detroit
Connection.
2) New Haven upgrading and expansion versus Detroit Connec-
tion.
3) City of Richmond upgrading and expansion versus Detroit
Connection.
4) Richmond and New Haven upgrading and expansion versus
Detroit Connection.
The significant cost differences shown with Alternatives 1
and 3 indicated that it would be more cost-effective to up-
grade and expand the local facilities in Armada and Richmond
than connect to Detroit. However, the costs of 100 percent
local treatment were approximately the same as the costs of a
Detroit connection for New Haven and local facilities for
Richmond or for a Detroit connection for New Haven and Rich-
mond combined. Thus, an environmental analysis and a second-
ary impact analysis were performed to further evaluate Alter-
natives 2 and 4.
3-42
-------
4) Modify the DWSD contracts to collect all flow into the
Van Dyke interceptor and leave the system along the
Shelby-Macomb boundary as is.
EIS and Facilities Planning Consultants met again on January
18, 1980 to determine the status of the Macomb County alter-
natives. The Facility Planners proposed several specific
interceptor alternatives for Macomb County with accompanying
flows and capacities. They also included five alternatives
for Shelby and Macomb Township and three alternatives for
Chesterfield Township. (ESEI, 1981c) Further, they presented
and evaluated preliminary sanitary sewer alternatives for
Washington, Shelby, Macomb, and Chesterfield Townships
Service districts. Population projections, current sewer
service, construction costs, design parameters, and sewer
profiles were discussed and specific recommendations for
interceptor alternatives were made for each township.
(Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980b).
The final Northern Macomb Summary Memorandum was distributed
on August 25, 1980. This memorandum described and analyzed
the technical aspects of the proposed interceptor alterna-
tives for Macomb, Shelby, Washington, and Chesterfield Town-
ships. Included were descriptions of existing facilities,
population projections, future sewer service areas, costs,
and an historical account of the assessment of Macomb
County's sewer service needs. The five alternatives for
serving Chesterfield Township and the four alternatives for
Shelby, Macomb, and Washington Townships are detailed in
Appendix C of the "Macomb Summary Memo" (ESEI, 1981c).
3.3.4 Chesterfield Township
In October, 1980, SEMCOG distributed a new "Version 80" pop-
ulation projection. Compared to the Version 79 projections,
3-41
-------
3.3.3 Washington, Shelby and Macomb Townships
On August 20, 1979, US-EPA, SEMCOG, EIS and Facility Planning
representatives also discussed proposed sewer service areas
for Washington, Macomb, and Shelby Townships. The main topic
discussed was how the population distribution patterns
developed in the North Macomb Study for the Romeo Arm were
different from SEMCOG's regional planning goals.
SEMCOG predicted that major urban growth would not material-
ize in northern Macomb County during the planning period.
(SEMCOG, 1978). SEMCOG felt that those areas currently
served by DWSD should continue to be served with DWSD capac-
ity provided to accommodate the growth of those areas.
Further SEMCOG projections included that growth in the rest
of northern Macomb County would be of low density in which
case treatment with septic tanks would be sufficient; and
that local plant expansions in New Haven, Richmond, Armada,
Memphis, and Romeo would provide adequate capacity for
development in and around these communities during the
planning period. Thus, the service area was modified to
agree more closely with SEMCOG's regional planning goals.
The following four alternatives were developed for serving
the projected populations in Macomb, Shelby, and Washington
Townships:
1) No action.
2) Construct an interceptor at Van Dyke (Clinton-Oakland
Arm) to connect the maximum amount possible under exist-
ing agreements. The remainder should be placed into a
modified existing system along the Shelby-Macomb Township
line (Interim Romeo Arm).
3) Collect all flow from the sewered areas into the inter-
ceptor along the Shelby-Macomb boundary.
3-40
-------
These four alternatives relate to broad types of service.
The North Macomb Study (NMS) recommended that further evalua-
tion by the FFP environmental and facilities planning teams
be undertaken as a first step towards developing specific
alternatives.
On August 20, 1979, the US-EPA, DWSD, SEMCOG, the Facility
Planners and the EIS Consultant met to discuss the possible
interceptor construction alternatives in the northern six
Macomb County Townships. Two facets of the north Macomb issue
were discussed. First, the population distribution developed
in the NMS was compared with SEMCOG's Macomb County Sewer
Service Map. The NMS analysis generally supported the "208"
planning goals. However, the projected population pattern
for the Romeo Arm exceeded SEMCOG1s prediction and extended
much further north into Washington and Bruce Townships.
Secondly, the EPA announced that advanced secondary treatment
(AST) would be required at the New Haven, Richmond, Armada,
and Romeo wastewater treatment plants, and that facilities
proposed in local "201" plans for these communities would
have to meet EPA effluent criteria for the planning period.
In addition, the agency stated that, based on population pro-
jections, DWSD regional interceptors to serve these communi-
ties would not be necessary if proposed "201" plans received
approval.
Two basic conclusions were drawn from the sewer service study
of the northern six Macomb County Townships. First, the
development of population distributions for the Romeo Arm
(including Macomb, Shelby, Washington, and Bruce Townships)
needed to be studied in more depth. Secondly, the upgrading
and expansion of local facilities in New Haven, Richmond,
Armada, and Romeo was recommended because the population
projections calculated in the NMS did not provide adequate
justification for the construction of interceptors to these
communties.
3-39
-------
LAPEER_O>,
ST CLAIR CO.
MEMPHIS
I X"V- ^ ^^ f* •m-*^**. » -^~^. «.*-* >**
•£%Xj>_2*JifJ*.?J
-------
Gross Residential
Development Density Development Density
3 dwelling units/acre 960 units/sq. mile
2 dwelling units/acre 672 units/sq. mile
1 dwelling units/acre 384 units/sq. mile
The population projections for the northern Macomb County
area were also used to provide an estimate of the density of
all dwelling units. Macomb County's forecast of 2.74 people
per household for the year 2000 was used to compute the pro-
jected household increase. The household increase along with
the gross residential densities were used to calculate the
land required to provide for the population increase pro-
jected for each township and incorporated community. This
required land area for sewer service is shown in Figure 3-8.
The following "first cut" alternatives for the Romeo, Armada,
and Richmond corridors were also proposed:
1) Expand the Richmond and New Haven plants for maximum sec-
ondary treatment and when effluent limits have been
reached, consider the two sub-alternatives of Advanced
Wastewater Treatment (AWT) or Detroit Connection.
2) Expand all local plants for the year 2000 flows using AWT
as needed with no Detroit Connection during the planning
period.
3) Immediate Detroit Connection to New Haven and Richmond.
Convey Memphis wastes to Richmond via force main when
and if effluent limits have been exceeded for secondary
treatment.
4) Immediate Detroit connection to New Haven. Other local
plants should be maintained at whatever level of treat-
ment is required.
3-37
-------
_f
LAPEER CO.
To N.E. Pumping 5/a (D.W.S.D.j
POP
ACRES
EXISTING SERVICE
COMB.
30
10
SEPAR.
173,700
46,200
CITY/TWR BOUNDARY
EXIST. INTERCEPTOR
METER POINT
PUMP STATION
FIGURE 3-7
EXISTING D.W.S.D. INTERCEPTORS
SERVING MACOMB COUNTY
-------
3.3.2 The Northern Six Townships
The northern six townships and the incorporated jurisdictions
within them include Bruce, Washington, Armada, Ray, Richmond,
and Lenox Townships; plus the Cities of Romeo, Memphis, and
Richmond; and the Village of Armada.
The North Macomb Study (NMS) which was begun during the
initial work on the FFP, provided a growth analysis and a
population distribution for all of Macomb County. This study
considered several factors including development patterns,
existing infrastructure and planned improvements, current and
projected population figures, environmental limitations,
drainage patterns, future development patterns, and institu-
tional constraints. The data included SEMCOG's revised popu-
lation projections for Macomb County (Alternative 6A-Version
79); completed 201 facilities plans for the communities of
Romeo, Armada, Memphis, Richmond, and New Haven; plus other
supplemental market information. In addition, the planning
period was revised from 40 to 20 years.
Population projections and estimates of family size plus
housing preferences and local development controls were used
to formulate a future development projection in northern
Macomb County. This projection was obtained by modifying
population estimates to specify the types of housing, the
number of units and the expected density. Population of
areas were also projected that would most likely undergo
urban development during the planning period. Future
development densities were projected based upon available
local plans and some general socioeconomic assumptions.
Based upon these projected densities, the following gross
residential densities (which allow for transportation,
industry, commerce, and some open space) were calculated for
the year 2000:
3-35
-------
"I
RICHMOND
I 1
RICHMOND! I
_,^__^__ t-|
i i
^^^»^^^M
_ __ __ «_^_^__—*.^ __« _^^__
ANCHOR
BAY
CHESTERFIELD
LAGOON
CLINTONDALE PUMP STA.
ST. CLAIR LAKE
LEGEND
CONTROL FACILITY
CONSIDERATION AFTER 1981
CONSIDERATION UP TO 1981
CORRIDOR INTERCEPTOR
r
FIGURE 3-6
RECOMMENDED INTERCEPTORS
MACOMB SANITARY DISTRICT
A Resources Management Compart]
-------
The SFP recommended three control and metering facilities, as
well as three interceptors to provide service to Macomb
County through the year 2020. These interceptors (the Armada,
Richmond, and Romeo Arms) were scheduled for construction
when the populations of their service areas exceeded 3.5
people per acre. Construction of these three arms was to be
completed in 1995 with earlier service to Washington, Macomb,
Shelby and Chesterfield Townships. The Romeo Arm was to be
extended to the City of Romeo while the Armada Arm was to
serve Macomb, Ray, and Armada Townships as well as the
Village of Armada (see Figure 3-6). The Richmond Arm was to
provide service to the Cities of New Baltimore, New Haven and
Richmond plus Chesterfield, Lenox and Richmond Townships.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the SFP raised
questions about the necessity of these proposed interceptors,
particularly those in the northern townships and the
possibility of their causing serious secondary developmental
impacts if they were constructed. The EIS concluded that
only the Mt. Clemens Arm, part of the Lakeshore Arm, and the
portion of the Richmond Arm on 21 Mile Road from Gratiot Road
to 1-94 should be constructed.
Subsequently, the US-EPA deferred any decision on expanding
the existing DWSD system into Macomb County beyond the
existing service area shown in Figure 3-7. The EPA concluded
that the construction of any Macomb County interceptor facil-
ities should receive further study in the FFP.
They also recommended that a special study be made of the
northern six townships of Macomb County to substantiate the
sewer service requirements in that area.
The evaluation of Macomb County's sewer service needs subse-
quent to the SFP focused mainly on three areas. These areas
are the northern six townships; Washington, Shelby, and
Macomb Townships; and Chesterfield Township.
3-33
-------
3.3 Sewer Service Area Extensions - Macomb County
3.3.1 General
The determination of Macomb County's sewer service needs for
the planning period along with the alternatives to meet these
needs has been a long-term complex issue. Complications have
arisen concerning environmental, socioeconomic, political,
regulatory and contractual ramifications. Substantial effort
has been spent by consultants and governmental agencies in
projecting future populations and flows, in defining service
areas, in developing alternatives, and in the phasing and
sizing of planned facilities. This work was recommended for
special study in the Segmented Facilities Plan (SFP) EIS and
has been on-going since the inception of the Final Facilities
Plan (FFP). Although service to the Macomb County Suburbs
would not have a significant effect on CSO control in
Detroit, a thorough understanding of the FFP accomplishments
would not be possible without a description of Macomb
planning in this report.
Macomb County was included in the SFP because the DWSD is
under contract to provide sewerage service to the Macomb
County area; and because the natural drainage pattern of the
area, previous sewer system development, and the urbanization
of the county have all facilitated connection to the DWSD
system.
The service contract, (dated March 6, 1967) between DWSD and
the Macomb County Authorities provided for wastewater dispos-
al services through the DWSD Corridor Interceptor and estab-
lished metered connection points for future interceptors in
Macomb, Shelby, and Chesterfield Townships. On July 2, 1973,
this contract was amended to include Bruce and Washington
Townships, and the Cities of Romeo and Mt. Clemens.
3-32
-------
Photograph 17 - Drum filter dewatering sludge.
Photograph 18 - Ash lagoon at the DWWTP.
-------
Photograph 15 - Aeration tanks.
Photograph 16 - One of 25 final clarifiers
at the DWWTP.
-------
Photograph 13 - Bar screening in the DWWTP
preliminary treatment complex.
Photograph 14 - Grit collectors in the DWWTP
preliminary treatment complex.
-------
Photograph 11 - The main pump station, sometimes
referred to as Pump Station No. I,
located at the DWWTP.
«MMI ^ttflt
•jH^ge- ••'•**• »••*
iilifei- — --
**KI *•
^P
Photograph 12 - Four pump motors in the main
pump station.
-------
Photograph 10 - View inside the plant control
room where all plant facilities
are monitored and controlled.
-------
TABLE 3-6
SUMMARY OF DWWTP CAPABILITY
Max. Day Max. Day
Dry Average Dry Sustained First
Weather Annual Weather Peak Flush
Plant Influent^)
Flow - MOD 605 670 800 950 950
TSS - 1,000 Ibs/day 1,160 1,286 1,534 1,822 3,050
BOD- 1,000 Ibs/day 706 726 934 792 1,585
P - 1,000 Ibs/day 24.7 25.1 32.7 26.9 37.2
Plant Effluent
TSS - 1,000 Ibs/day 151 168 300 483 515
BOD - 1,000 Ibs/day 76 84 173 261 325
P - 1,000 Ibs/day 5.0 5.6 8.9 10.4 13.4
Note:
(1) Plant influent is based on wastewater characteristics vrtiich does not
include plant recycle.
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980b
3-26
-------
TABLE 3-5
DWWTP LIQUID PROCESS CAPABILITY
WITH PROBABLE FACILITIES
Flow-MGD
Raw Wastewater*
Primary Influent
TSS Plant Influent*
mg/1
1000 Ibs/d
Primary Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ibs/d
Plant Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ibs/d
% Removal
BOD Plant Influent*
ng/1
1000 Ib/d
Primary Effluent
mq/1
1000 Ib/d
Plant Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
% Removal
Total P Plant Influent*
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
Primary Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
Plant Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
% Removal
Min.
Month
545
634
190
864
115
606
30
136
34
143
650
99
523
15
68
90
4.6
20.9
2.4
12.7
1.0
4.5
78
Dry
Weather
605
711
230
1 ,160
125
740
30
151
87
140
706
98
581
15
76
89
4.9
24.7
2.8
16.4
1.0
5.0
80
Average
Annual
670
782
230
1,286
129
842
30
168
87
130
726
95
620
15
84
88
4.5
25.1
2.5
16.1
1.0
5.6
78
Max. Day
Dry
Weather
800
915
230
1,534
136
1,054
45
300
80
140
934
96
733
26
173
81
4.9
32.7
2.4
18.2
1.3
8.9
73
Sustained
Peak
950
1,064
230
1,822
143
1,300
61
483
73
100
792
82
727
33
261
67
3.4
26.9
1.7
14.6
1.3
10.4
61
Max. Day
First Flush
950
1,071
385
3,050
154
1,408
65
515
83
200
1,585
109
973
41
325
80
4.7
37.2
3.0
27.2
1.7
13.4
64
*Based on raw wastewater influent, does not include plant recycle.
3-25
-------
TABLE 3-4
DWWTP LIQUID PROCESS CAPABILITY
WITH TOTAL FACILITIES
Flow-MGD
Raw Wastewater*
Primary Influent
TSS Plant Influent*
mg/1
1000 Ibs/d
Primary Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ibs/d
Plant Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ibs/d
% Removal
BCD Plant Influent*
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
Primary Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
Plant Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
% Removal
Total P Plant Influent*
nn/1
1000 Ib/d
Primary Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
Plant Effluent
mg/1
1000 Ib/d
% Removal
Min.
Month
545
632
190
864
105
554
30
136
84
143
650
99
522
15
68
90
4.6
20.9
2.6
13.8
1.0
4.5
78
Dry
Weather
605
714
230
1,160
114
680
30
151
87
140
706
99
590
15
76
89
4.9
24.7
3.0
17.9
1.0
5.0
80
Average
Annual
670
789
230
1,286
119
784
30
168
87
130
726
96
632
15
84
88
4.5
25.1
2.7
17.8
1.0
5.6
78
Max. Day
Dry
Weather
800
929
230
1,534
127
994
37
247
84
140
934
97
752
21
140
85
4.9
32.7
2.7
20.6
1.3
8.5
74
Sustained
Peak
1,150
1,279
230
2,206
142
1,566
69
662
70
100
959
82
875
39
374
61
3.0
28.8
1.5
16.1
1.3
12.4
57
Max. Day
First Flush
1,150
1,286
385
3,693
152
1,688
74
710
81
200
1,918
109
1,169
49
470
76
4.7
45.1
3.1
32.7
1.9
17.9
60
*Based on raw wastewater influent, does not include plant recycle.
3-24
-------
concentrations were estimated from average plant loading
data. Since the new and modified treatment plant facilities
have not been in place long enough to have allowed an evalua-
tion based on actual long-term plant data, the capability
estimates are the best information currently available. ESEI
has reviewed this information with DWSD personnel and has
noted possible new trends where data appear to support such a
finding.
Liquid process capability determinations for the plant were
based on the total and probable facilities available as
listed previously in Table 3-2, and compliance with applic-
able effluent limitations, Tables 3-4 and 3-5 list the plant
capabilities under six different flow regimes for removal of
total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
and total phosphorus (Total P) for the total and probable
facilities available, respectively.
Whereas the "total facilities" table gives an indication of
the plant's theoretical capability, the "probable facilities"
table is a more practical indication of plant's capability
assuming operation and maintenance efficiency remains about
the same as is historically indicated.
3.2.3 Summary
As stated previously, the Capacity and Capability Report, the
source of much of the data presented in the section was pre-
pared prior to the completion of the facilities modification
and construction at the DWWTP. As of this writing, these
figures are the best available on this subject. However, any
future planning and design should be based on capacity and
capability determined at that time from accurate and
up-to-date plant records. A summary of the capability of the
DWWTP is given in Table 3-6. Photographs 10 through 18 show
several of the treatment plant components.
3-23
-------
-------
LU
i LU
co ^
I-
UJ
h-
O
cc
h-
UJ
Q
-------
oo
f-
(Tl
CO
H
w
En
I
CO
LU
§ £
S2 <
u- _i
Q_
-------
Table 3-3
Treatment Plant Component Capacities*
(not including plant recycle)
Component Total Influent Flow Probable Influent
Capacity Flow Capacity
1. Pumping & Preliminary
Treatment (existing) 1,173 MGD 984 MGD
Same (with new motors
and impellers) 1,536 MGD 1,278 MGD
2. Primary Clarifiers 1,720 MGD 1,370 MGD
3. Intermediate Lift Station 1,720 MGD 1,320 MGD
4. Aeration Basins (existing) 970 MGD 670 MGD
Same (with 4 aeration
basins operated 74 MGD
over nominal capacity) 1,270 MGD 895 MGD
5. Final Clarifiers** 875 MGD 770 MGD
6. Disinfection System with
limit at 100,000 Ibs Cl
per day 997 MGD 997 MGD
7. Outfall Conduits (Detroit
River only) 950-1,050 MGD 950-1,050 MGD
* Unless another source is given, all figures are taken from "Interim Report
Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity & Capability Evaluation" dated
August 1980 assuming all "given" facilities are constructed.
** According to DWWTP records, above capacities based on a total of 25
secondary Clarifiers with an average of 22 clarifiers in service from
August 1981 through November 1981.
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-2
DWWTP MAJOR FACILITIES
Facility
Preliminary Treatment
Main Pumps
Bar Screens
Grit Tanks
Total
Facilities
Available
8
8
8
Probable
Facilities
Operational
7
7
7
Primary Treatment
Rectangular Clarifiers
Circular Clarifiers
12
4
10
3
Secondary Lift Station
Intermediate Lift Pumps
Aeration System
Air Aeration Tanks
Oxygen Aeration Tanks
1
3
1
2
Final Clarifiers with
Modified Inlet
25
23
Disinfection
Hot Water Evaporators
Steam Evaporators
Chlorinators
10
2
11
0
1
11
Sludge Treatment
Thickener Tanks
Blending Tanks
Storage Tanks
Vacuum Filters, Complex I
Vacuum Filters, Complex II
Incinerators, Complex I
Incinerators, Complex II
Belt Filter Presses
Centrifuges
12
2
6
12
16
6
8
16
3
11
2
4
10
14
5
7
14
2
DWWTP Outfall
Detroit River Outfall
Rouge River Outfall
1
0
1
0
3-18
-------
The capacity figures of the various plant unit processes w-re
derived from the DWWTP Capacity and Capability report of
August 1980 and confirmed or updated by plant records and
personnel where possible. It should be noted that the total
plant liquid process capacity figures are based on compliance
with all applicable effluent limitations as defined in the
Amended Consent Judgement and were calculated from the total
and probable facilities available listed in Table 3-2.
Table 3-3 lists each of the 7 plant components described
above and defines the Total Influent Flow Capacity derived as
the sum total of all available units less plant recycle.
Also given is the Probable Influent Plow Capacity derived as
the total capacity minus the historical average amount of
capacity lost due to equipment failures and also minus any
plant recycle. The item numbers listed for each component
correspond to the numbers shown in Figure 3-4 which is a
plant process schematic. Figure 3-5 shows the actual layout
of the DWWTP. Photograph 9 is a 1980 aerial view of the
DWWTP while under construction.
As indicated from Table 3-3 and Figure 3-4 the total capacity
of the DWWTP is limited by the existing pumping and prelimi-
nary treatment complex and the Detroit River outfall conduit
to between 950 and 984 MGD. Secondary treatment capacity is
limited by the existing final clarifiers to about 770 MGD.
3.2.2 Capability
The determination of wastewater treatment process capabil-
ities was accomplished by the Facility Planner prior to
completion of facilities construction. Their findings
published in the DWWTP Capacity and Capability Report dated
August 1980 were estimated by evaluating plant performance
over a representative range of flow and loading conditions.
Flow information was derived from plant records and influent
3-17
-------
Secondary treatment is by the activated sludge method. There
are 3 pure oxygen aeration tanks with nominal capacities of
300 MGD each and 1 conventional air aeration tank with a
nominal capacity of 150 MGD. These units provide biological
treatment for the wastewater.
The final clarifiers remove the activated sludge from the
treated effluent. According to recent records, the DWWTP has
25 secondary clarifiers each with a capacity of 35 MGD. Mod-
ifications of the inlet structures on 21 of the clarifiers
increased their capacities from 20 to 35 MGD. The other 4
clarifiers were recently constructed.
Disinfection is the final treatment process before discharge.
The chlorination equipment consists of 12 evaporators and 11
chlorinators. Ten of the evaporators are capable of supply-
ing 10,000 Ibs/day of chlorine while the other two supply
100,000 and 120,000 Ibs/day. Of the 11 chlorinators, 5 can
feed 8,000 Ibs/day chlorine each and 6 can feed 10,000
Ibs/day. It is the chlorinator capacity which limits the
capacity of the disinfection process to 100,000 Ibs/day.
There are 2 discharge outfalls from the treatment plant; one
to the Detroit River and one to the Rouge River. Since the
Rouge River outfall cannot presently be sampled, metered,
regulated or chlorinated and since high discharge flows
interfere with commercial navigation on the Rouge, only the
Detroit River outfall is used. Capacity of this outfall is
determined by river elevation and the portion of flow
receiving secondary treatment. This is because secondary
effluent is discharged in the plant from a higher elevation
than is primary effluent.
The remaining plant processes are designed to handle the
residual solids (sludge) removed from the wastewater by the
treatment processes. These are discussed in detail in other
reports which specifically address solids.
3-16
-------
According to the AFIR, the existing collection system pro-
vides about 188 million gallons of in-line storage capacity.
Additional in-line storage is possible but will require
improvements to the system control center and the in-line
control facilities. For additional information, see ESEI,
1981b.
3.2 Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant
3.2.1 Capacity
All CSO control alternatives rely on the built-in excess
capacity of the Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant to treat a
portion of the combined sewage generated during storm events.
This excess capacity is also necessary to treat peak flows
during dry weather periods. Since the treatment plant is
made up of numerous individual components a brief description
of each is in order.
The Main Pump Station consists of 8 individual raw wastewater
pumps associated with individual bar racks and grit chambers
for preliminary treatment. Their functions are to lift the
raw wastewater from the Detroit River and Oakwood-Northwest
Interceptors up to the treatment plant and to provide coarse
screening and grit removal.
Primary treatment is provided by 12 rectangular clarifiers
with maximum process capacities of 100 MGD each and 4 circu-
lar clarifiers with maximum capacities of 150 MGD each. Fol-
lowing primary treatment, a portion of the wastewater is
disinfected and discharged to the Detroit River. The remain-
der enters the Intermediate Lift Station which consists of 5
variable flow pumps; two with maximum capacities of 300 MGD
each and three with maximum capacities of 400 MGD each. This
pump station lifts the wastewater up to the elevation of the
secondary treatment components.
3-15
-------
The goals of the present operating philosophy for the system
control center are to maximize in-line storage of combined
sewage, equalize flow to the sewage treatment plant, and pro-
vide for specific trouble spot control.
The operational methods employed to achieve these goals are
the following:
1 . "Storm flow anticipation" - When rainfall is first de-
tected from rain gauge and Metropolitan Meterological
Station data, the treatment plant operators increase
sanitary sewage pumping and start additional pumps at
the plant in order to lower the gradients in the inter-
ceptors. This procedure maximizes the unused capacity
in the system.
2. "First Flush Interception" - The interception of the
first portion of the storm system in lower portions of
drainage districts is automatic due to system pumpdown.
In locations where remote controlled regulators are in-
stalled, the operator can keep the regulator open for
some predetermined time period that would ensure capture
of the first flush.
3. "Selective retention" - This would involve closing spe-
cific regulator gates to create storage in certain com-
bined areas while allowing flows from uncontrolled sewers
to empty into the interceptor. Previous analyses have
indicated which sewers carry flow with higher pollutant
concentrations. These are consequently retained for
later treatment.
4. "Selective Overflowing" allows certain large combined
sewers to overflow so that flow from sewers containing
wastewater with higher pollutant concentrations can be
intercepted and transported to the plant for treatment.
3-14
-------
Photograph 7 - Another view of the channelized
portion of the Rouge.
Photograph 8 - Baby Creek outfall (submerged)
on far side of the river
-------
Photograph 5 - View of the Rouge River at Tireman.
Photograph 6 - Rouge River at the beginning of its
channelized portion showing a storm
drainage outfall from nearby development,
-------
Photograph 3 - View of the Rouge River at Lyndon CSO.
Photograph 4 - Chicago CSO outfall.
-------
Photograph 1 - McNichols CSO outfall
Photograph 2 - Lyndon CSO outfall with flap gate,
-------
LU
>
o:
H
O
a:
en
i
eo
UJ
o:
UJ
O
yj
o
o
q
(/)
o
-------
-------
Within the Planning Area, several combined sewage relief
structures are located along the DRI and O-NWI. There are a
total of 81 combined sewer overflow discharge points with 49
from the Detroit River Interceptor, 30 from the Oakwood-
Northwest Interceptor and 2 located at the Treatment Plant.
Figures 3-2 and 3-3 identify the locations of the 81 CSO
outfalls. Photographs 1 through 8 show various CSO outfalls
and the appearance of the Rouge at several locations from the
upper to lower reaches.
Under a 1966 agreement between the City of Detroit and the
Michigan Water Resources Commission, the City agreed to take
steps to decrease the frequency, magnitude and pollutant load
of CSO's discharging to the Detroit and Rouge Rivers. A
system control center designed to monitor and allow coordina-
tion of the components described above was developed for this
purpose.
Data to the center are provided from many sources. Status
sensors signal when combined sewer overflows are occurring.
Mechanical level sensors measure the level of flow at key
points in the collection system and at the pumping stations.
There are 25 rain gauges throughout the Service Area which
provide data regarding the location, intensity, duration and
cumulative total rainfall as it occurs and a radar unit at
the Metropolitan Meterological station provides weather fore-
casting information. Operational controls and status monitors
for pump stations, dams and regulators are also located at
the system control center.
A digital computer and interface system provides on-line
process monitoring and control for both the DWSD water dis-
tribution system and the wastewater collection system. It
was designed to display operational status, control certain
regulators and pump stations, and store and compile data for
reports and long-term analysis.
3-7
-------
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
DWSD INTERCEPTOR SERVICE AREAS
Name
Evergreen Interceptor
Farmington Interceptor
Oakland Arm
Clinton Arm
Paint Creek Arm
North interceptor- East Arm
Service Area
Eastern Half of the Evergreen-
Farmington Sanitary District
Western Half of the Evergreen-
Farmington Sanitary District
East-central portion of the
Clinton Oakland Sanitary
District including the town of
Utica
Southwestern portion of the
Clinton-Oakland Sanitary
District
Oxford/ Lake Orion and portions
of Oakland, Orion and Avon
Townships except the town of
Rochester.
This interceptor was intended to
transport flows from the
Clinton-Oakland and Oakland
Macomb Districts to the Detroit
Wastewater Treatment Plant. At
the present time the Southern
end of the NI-EA has not been
connected to the DWWTP and the
interceptor is not yet able to
be used to transport flows to
the DWWTP.
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-1 (Continued)
DWSD INTERCEPTOR SERVICE AREAS
Name
Service Area
Lower Rouge River Interceptor Southern half of Westland,
Inkster, Wayne, Central Canton
Township, Northern Van Buren
Township and Northwestern
portions of Romulus.
Middle Rouge River Inter-
ceptor
Wayne County and Grosse
Pointe Interceptor
Jefferson Interceptor
Corridor Interceptor
Dequindre Interceptor
Southfield Rouge Arm
Livonia, Northern half of
Westland Redford Township,
northern portion of Dearborn
Heights, Plymouth, Northville,
Northville Township, Plymouth
Township, Northern Canton Town-
ship, Novi, and Novi Township.
Harper Woods, Grosse Points
Woods and Grosse Pointe Shores,
and South Macomb Sanitary
District communities of East
Detroit, Roseville, and St.
Clair Shores.
Northeast Portion of South
Macomb Sanitary District
Western portions of South Macomb
Sanitary District, South and
Southeastern portions of Macomb
Sanitary District. This Inter-
ceptor also receives flows from
the Oakland Arm, Clinton Arm and
Paint Creek Arm which serve the
Clinton-Oakland Sanitary
District.
Southeast Oakland County
Sanitary District
Central portions of the
Evergreen-Farmington Sanitary
District including Southfield
Township, Franklin and Bingham
Farms and Portions of Bloomfield
Township
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-1
DWSD INTERCEPTOR SERVICE AREAS
Name
Detroit River Interceptor
Rouge River Interceptor
Service Area
Centerline, Eastern Detroit,
Southeast Oakland Sanitary
District, Oakland-Macomb
Sanitary District, Northeast
Wayne County, Clinton-Oakland
Sanitary District.
Rouge Valley Sewer District
Oakland-Northwest Interceptor Melvindale, Allen Park, Portions
of Dearborn, Farmington,
Evergreen-Farmington Sanitary
District, Portions of the Route
Valley Sewer District, Wayne
County West of Detroit, Parts of
Southern Oakland County, Western
portion of Detroit.
Southfield Relief Sewer
Conant Mt. Elliott Sewer
7-mile Relief Sewer
Fox Creek Enclosure
Evergreen-Farmington Sanitary
District
North Central and Central
Detroit, Southeast Oakland
County Sanitary District,
Clinton-Oakland, and Oakland
Macomb Sanitary Districts
Clinton Oakland and Oakland
Macomb Sanitary Districts. This
sewer serves to route flows
intended for the North Intercep-
tor East Arm to the Conant-Mt.
Elliott Sewer.
Northeast portions of Detroit,
Grosse Pointe Park, Grosse
Pointe, Grosse Pointe Farms.
Also receives flows fromt he
Wayne County and Grosse Point
Interceptor and the Jefferson
Interceptor.
3-4
-------
o
o
o
ac.
-------
will remove a different amount of BOD toward the total goal
of 20%, 40%, 60%, or 75% BOD removal. The following BOD
removal percentages were obtained from Figure 6-3.
TABLE 6-2
Least Cost BOD Removal Rates
Percentile BOD Removed
Control
Level
20%
40%
60%
75%
Composite
Marginal
Cost
$ 5
$14
$25
$40
Module
Only
0%
2%
7%
12.5%
Storage with
Additional
Capacity
+ 20%
+ 38%
+ 53%
+ 62.5%
Alternative
% BOD
Removed
20%
40%
60%
75%
For example, to achieve 60% control, an alternative would use
the treatment module to remove 7% of the BOD (at a marginal
cost of $25) and storage/additional capacity to remove the
remaining 53% (also at a marginal cost of $25). Both control
options together remove 60% of the BOD, and at a marginal cost
of $25, these levels of BOD removal (7% and 53%) represent the
least cost combination.
Finally, these values of % BOD removed by each option can be
located on Figure 6-2 to determine their corresponding total
costs. This procedure would give these total costs:
TABLE 6-3
TOTAL COSTS
Control
Level
20%
40%
60%
75%
% BOD
Removed
Module
Only
0%
2%
7%
12.5%
Treatment
Module
Total
Cost (10 "^
$0.0
$0.4
$1.5
$3.3
% BOD Removed
Storage with
Additional
Capacity
20%
38%
53%
62.5%
Storage/
Additional
Capacity Total
Cost (106$)
$0.6
$2.6
$5.3
$8.3
Alternative
Total Cost
(106$)
$ 0.6
$ 3.0
$ 6.8
$11.6
6-18
-------
For example, to remove 60% BOD, an alternative would use the
treatment module to remove 7% at a cost of $1,500,000 and the
storage with additional DWWTP capacity to remove the other 53%
at a cost of $5,300,000. The TOTAL cost for the alternative
is the sum of the costs of the two options of $6,800,000.
Once the optimum total cost is known for any control option,
the number or capacity of specific units can be easily deter-
mined. These combinations of control options will achieve the
given level of control more efficiently than any other
combination or option used singly. (For example, using the
storage with additional DWWTP capacity control option alone
to remove 60% of the BOD would have a total cost of approx-
imately $8,000,000 which is $1,200,000 more than the least
cost combination of options.)
6.1.6 Generation of General Least Cost and Specific
Control Alternatives
Each of the five scenarios was evaluated for each of the four
control levels (i.e. 20, 40, 60, 75% BOD control) for each
watershed. The general least cost control alternatives
generated by the marginal analysis technique are documented
fully in Tables 2-9 through 2-16 of the AFIR and are dis-
cussed on pages 2-98 through 2-128. The reader is referred
to the AFIR for detailed information.
The resulting storage capacities and treatment rates of the
general least cost alternatives were used to size and locate
actual facilities, creating specific control alternatives.
Two options were investigated: 1) decentralized facilities
where the necessary storage tank and/or treatment modules
would be located in each watershed and 2) centralized facil-
facilities which would transport the flows from several
watersheds to a central location for storage and/or treatment.
6-19
-------
These two options were denoted by (alpha) for decentralized
and (beta) for centralized. Thus, a total of 40 specific con-
trol alternatives were possible from the general least cost
methodology: J3 Scenarios X £ Levels of BOD Control X 2^
Location Options = 40.
Actually, only 21 of the specific control alternatives gener-
ated were unique. This occurred because different scenarios
often involved the same or overlapping control options and
the general least cost alternatives were duplicated in sever-
al instances. For example, Scenarios I and II have identical
control options except for the additional primary treatment
at DWWTP for Scenario II. Since primary treatment involves
approximately 30% BOD removal, it was not economically effi-
cient (or even possible) for Scenario II to provide addition-
al primary to achieve the 40%, 60% or 75% levels of BOD con-
trol. Thus, the general least cost alternatives of Scenario
II at the 40%, 60% and 75% levels are identical to those of
Scenario I. The unique specific control alternatives are
summarized by scenario below:
Scenario 1-7 alternatives (1 at 20%, 2 each at
40, 60, 75%)
Scenario II - 1 alternative (1 at 20%)
Scenario III - 7 alternatives (1 at 20%, 2 each at
40, 60, 75%)
Scenario IV - 2 alternatives (2 each at 60%)
Scenario V - 4 alternatives (2 each at 60 and 75%)
Total 21 alternatives (3 at 20%, 4 at 40%, 8
at 60%, 6 at 75%)
Two more specific control alternatives were also generated to
represent additional capacity at the plant: 1450 MGD (firm
capacity of primary clarifiers) and 2200 MGD (capacity of all
existing and proposed interceptors to DWWTP: DRI-800, 0-NWI-
500, NI-EA-600, NI-WA-300). Also, two additional specific
control alternatives were added representing 10% of the
potential in-line storage.
6-20
-------
Two alternatives, FNA and the Existing Case, were not pro-
duced by the general least cost methodology and served as a
baseline in determining flows, capacities and facilities for
the 25 specific control alternatives. The two alternatives
are described in the next section. Thus, the Facility Planner
generated the following 25 specific control alternatives plus
two special cases:
Scenario
Scenario I 20%
Potential Storage (10%)
Scenario I
Scenario I
Scenario I
Scenario I
Scenario I
Scenario I
Scenario II
40%
40%
60%
60%
75%
75%
20%
Maximum Potential Storage
Scenario II 1450 MGD
Scenario II 2200 MGD
Scenario III 20%
Scenario III 40%
Scenario III 40%
Scenario III 60%
Scenario III 60%
Scenario III 75%
Scenario III 75%
Scenario IV 60%
Scenario IV 60%
Scenario V 60%
Scenario V 60%
Scenario V 75%
Scenario V 75%
Existing
Future No Action
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exist
FNA
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981e
6.2 The Special Cases - FNA and Existing Year
There are two special cases which do not result from the gen-
eral least cost methodology. These two special cases, FNA and
Existing Year, were modeled by the Facility Planner along
with the 25 specific central alternatives. It is important
for the reader to understand the differences between the
6-21
-------
Existing and FNA conditions, and also for the reader to
understand that the assumptions of the FNA underlie the
modeling (not the generation) of all specific control alter-
natives. Remember that different assumptions, data, and
methodologies generated 1) the specific control alternatives
and 2) the water quality modeling of the FNA, Existing Year,
and 25 specific control alternatives.
The Existing Year conditions represent the DWWTP facilities
existing in 1979. All CSO computations were then based on
1965 rainfall data with 1979 facilities. Assumptions that
were originally used for Existing Year conditions include the
following:
1) No North Interceptor-East Arm (NI-EA)
2) Main pump station (preliminary treatment complex) raw
wastewater capacity of 795 MGD (855 MGD of raw wastewater
flow minus 60 MGD of recycle).
3) Primary treatment capacity at the DWWTP of 795 MGD.
4) Secondary treatment capacity at the DWWTP of 400 MGD (480
MGD minus 80 MGD of recycle).
5) Primary treated effluent capacity beyond secondary of
395 MGD (795 MGD minus 400 MGD).
However, modifications to existing clarifiers and additional
final clarifiers have since been constructed at the DWWTP to
increase secondary treatment capacity to 800 MGD. Thus, the
Existing Year conditions would not accurately describe the
overflows, effluent, or resulting water quality for the
planning period. The Existing Year case also would not meet
U.S. EPA regulations requiring that secondary treatment be
provided to all dry weather flow (average of 605 MGD) before
CSO alternatives may be approved.
6-22
-------
A Future No Action (FNA) alternative was then developed and
modeled to take into account all construction and modifica-
tions which had already begun or had at least been approved.
The FNA alternative assumed the following:
1) The existing combined sewer system would remain unchanged
and would continue to transport flows to the DWWTP for
treatment.
2) Construction of the North Interceptor-East Arm (NI-EA)
and Pump Station #2 would be completed, and would trans-
port flows from the suburban Macomb County and the
Clinton - Oakland Sanitary District at a rate of 600 MGD
to the DWWTP, and would also store excess combined wet
weather flow from the east side of the Detroit area.
3) Main pump station capacity of 800 MGD.
4) A plant primary treatment capacity of 800 MGD.
5) A plant secondary treatment capacity of 800 MGD (880 MGD
minus 80 MGD recycle).
The following table shows a comparison between the various
flow and capacity assumptions used by the Facility Planner
for the Existing Year and Future No Action conditions:
6-23
-------
TABLE 6-4
FLOW AND CAPACITY ASSUMPTIONS
Flows
Existing Yr
FNA or
Yr 2000
Ave
DWF
605
1
608
6
Max.
Ave
DWF
797
1
800
6
Ave
CSO
201
2
232
7
Ave
WW
Influent
149
3
156
8
Ave
Total
WWF
350
4
388
Primary
800
5
800
9
Capacities
Main
Secondary Pump
400 795
5 5
800 800
9 9
Sources;
1. Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980c
2. Calculation from printout (13,720 MG/1,634 hrs. x 24 hrs/day=
201 MGD)
3. Calculation from printout and DWF (Influent = 754 MGD, 754-
604 = 149)
4. 2+3
5. Dave Upmeyer, Mai Grahm, December, 1980 listing Primary as
875 MGD, Secondary 400 MGD, Main Pump 795
6. Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980d
7. Same as 2 (15,820 MG/1,534 hrs x 24 hrs/day = 232 MGD)
8. Same as 3 (Influent = 764 MGD, 764 - 608 = 156 MGD)
9. Dave Upmeyer
Thus, even though this alternative was named Future No
Action, there is substantial construction involved to realize
this alternative.
The maximum secondary treatment capacity for the FNA alterna-
tive was based on 25 secondary clarifiers rated at 35 MGD
each (after the inlet modifications were implemented for a
total of 25 X 35 = 875 MGD of raw wastewater flow minus 80
MGD or recycle for a grand total of 795 MGD of secondary
treatment capacity, plus one of the following two options: 1)
6-24
-------
the addition of two more final clarifiers at 35 MGD each for
a total maximum capacity of 865 MGD (recycle included), or 2)
the implementation of a surge control program that would fur-
ther increase the capacity of the existing 25 secondary
clarifiers to 40 MGD per unit for a total maximum secondary
capacity of 40 X 25 = 1,000 MGD minus 80 MGD or recycle or
920 MGD.
The firm capacity (the capacity with two units out of ser-
vice) of the existing 25 clarifiers is 795 MGD minus 2 X 35
MGD or 725 MGD total. The addition of two more final clari-
fiers would increase this firm capacity to 795 MGD. The
Industrial flows and pollution loads developed for the FNA
were based upon an estimated waste load reduction due to
industrial pretreatment. Another assumption made in this
analysis was that industrial flow quantities would be con-
stant for all CSO alternatives.
Potential impacts of industrial pretreatment were evaluated
by using the quality of industrial wastewater flows as a data
base. Average compatible pollutant concentrations for bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS)f
and phosphorus (P) were recalculated for each watershed
assuming the following maximum concentrations permitted to
avoid surcharges:
BOD - 200 mg/1
TSS - 250 mg/1
P - 10 mg/1
The resultant reduction in compatible pollutant loads was
approximately 50% for BOD, 30% for TSS, and 60% for total
phosphorous (TP). The Facility Planner, however, conserva-
tively assumed that a 30% reduction in TSS could reasonably
be achieved and that this level of treatment would only
result in a corresponding 30% minimum reduction in BOD and P
loads.
6-25
-------
The methodology used to establish the potential impacts of
industrial pretreatment on heavy metal loads was similar to
that used for compatible pollutants. Average heavy metal
concentrations were recalculated for each basin assuming the
following maximum concentrations permitted for existing
industries:
Cd - 1.2 mg/1 Pb - 0.6 mg/1
T-Cr - 7.0 mg/1 Ni - 4.1 mg/1
Cu - 4.5 mg/1 Zn - 4.2 mg/1
The resultant reduction in industrial heavy metal loads
projected to result from industrial pretreatment ranged from
approximately 70% for Cadmium (Cd) to over 90% for Lead (Pb).
However, an overall reduction in industrial heavy metal loads
of approximately 50% was used by the Facility Planner since
total pretreatment of all industrial flows is not mandatory
or practical.
Under the FNA, the total estimated Detroit and suburban
industrial pollutant loadings, including the estimated
probable reductions resulting from industrial pretreatment,
were:
TABLE 6-5
Estimated Industrial Loadings with Pretreatment*
Item
Flow
BOD
TSS
P
Cadmium (Cd)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Zinc (Zn)
Chromium (Cr)
Units
MGD
Ib.xlOOO/day
Ib.x1000/day
Ib.x1000/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
Ib/day
1980
217
312
293
16.5
35
463
331
1.2
1067
1395
890
1990
205
289
273
15.7
33
437
313
1.1
1008
1318
841
2000
210
295
279
16.0
34
448
312
1.1
1032
1350
862
*Compatible pollutants (BOD, TSS, P) are reduced by 30 per
cent. Heavy metals are reduced by 50 per cent.
6-26
-------
Implementation of the FNA alternative would require the con-
struction of additional facilities at the DWWTP whereas the
Existing Year case would not. The additional facilities would
include one preliminary treatment complex, two final clari-
fiers (unless a surge control program were initiated and the
capacity of the existing clarifiers were increased), plus
more sludge processing and solids disposal facilities.
The Future No Action alternative does provide some improve-
ment in water quality over the Existing Year condition. The
following table presents a comparison between projected dry
weather and projected average annual DWWTP effluent concen-
trations conventional pollutants for both the Existing Year
and the Future No Action alternatives:
TABLE 6-6
Pollutant Concentrations with Dry Weather and Average
Annual Flow
Existing Year: ( 1 )
Future No Action: (2)
Dry
TSS
BOD
P
TSS
BOD
P
Weather
- 67 mg/1
- 47 mg/1
- 1.9 mg/1
- 30 mg/1
- 15 mg/1
1 mg/1
Average
TSS -
BOD -
P - 1
TSS -
BOD -
P -
Annual
75 mg/1
50 mg/1
.8 mg/1
30 mg/1
15 mg/1
1 mg/1
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980b
6.3 Specific CSO Control Alternatives
6.3.1 25 Alternatives
This section describes the 25 specific control alternatives
developed by the JV to control Detroit combined sewer over-
flows. The alternatives represent a broad range of control
options including more primary capacity, more secondary cap-
acity, storage facilities, expanded in-line storage capacity,
6-27
-------
better management practices and new/expanded interceptors.
The costs of these alternatives and the water quality
improvements are addressed in following chapters. The goal of
this section is to convey the important information on each
particular alternative the reader is directed to Chapter 3 of
the AFIR.
The majority of alternatives retain the Future-No-Action
level of primary (800 MGD) and secondary (800 MGD) treatment
at the DWWTP. The levels of treatment and storage capacities
are summarized in Table 6-7. Fifteen alternatives (1-8, 10,
20-25) reduce the overflow volume by adding off-line storage
capacity, by increasing in-line storage ability, or by adding
remote treatment processes. For the Rouge River Basin, the
amount of off-line storage ranges from 0 to 571 MG while
treatment capacities range from 0 to 97 MGD. For the Detroit
River Basin, off-line storage capacities range from 0 to 1609
MG and remote treatment capacities from 0 to 74 MGD. Alterna-
tive #2 and 10 increase the amount of in-line storage as a
means of reducing overflows. Alternative 2 provides a total
of 46 MG of storage for both basins while 110 provides 269
MG.
While the Scenario I and Scenario V alternatives may look
very similary in Table 6-7, the Scenario V alternatives (22
through 25) employ a new West Arm Interceptor. On the other
hand, the Scenario I Alternatives (1 through 8) employ by-
passes around present bottlenecks in the O-NWI. The Scen-
ario IV alternatives (20 and 21) involve increased sewer
flushing to reduce overflow pollutants.
The other ten alternatives involve some combination of in-
creased primary and increased secondary treatment capacities
at the DWWTP and off-line storage. The DWWTP capacity in-
creases from 843 MGD for Alternative 13 to 1,264 MGD for
Alternative 19. Off-line storage ranges from 0 to a total of
6-28
-------
TABLE 6-7
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
DWWTP(a)
Alt.
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Designation
Scenario
I 20% (c)
Potential Storage (10%)
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
I 40%
I 40% (d)
I 60%
I 60%
I 75%
I 75%
II 20%
Maximum Potential Storage
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
II 1450 MGD
II 2200 MGD
III 20%
III 40%
III 40%
III 60%
III 60%
III 75%
III 75%
IV 60%
IV 60%
V 60%
V 75%
V 75%
V 75%
Capacity (MGD)
Prim.
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
925
800
1450
2200
843
896
896
1112
1112
1264
1264
800
800
800
800
800
800
Sec.
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
800
843
896
896
1112
1112
1264
1264
800
800
800
800
800
800
Rouge R. (e) Detroit
R.(e)
Star. Remote Trmt. Stor. Remote Trmt.
(MG.)
38.2 (b)
19.1(b)
53
53
252
252 (203)
571 (418)
571 (334)
38.2 (b)
106.2 (113. 8) (
0
0
38.2 (b)
39
39 (22)
87
87
322 (202)
322 ( 79)
248
248
235
235
565 (275)
113 ( 95)
(MGD) (MG)
0
0
0
0
97
97
94
94
0
b)o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97
97
87
87
90
90
26 (23)
16.9(b)
148
148
(0) (b) 490
(0) (b) 490
(0)(b)1599
(0)(b)1599
7.9*'
162.5(b)
0
0
7.9 (b)
26
26
14
14
272 (247)
272
(0) 541
(0) 541
(0) 490 (403)
(0) 490 (403)
(0) 1609 (929)
(0) 1550 (911)
(MGD)
0
0
0
0
74
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
74
0
0
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(a) Excludes Recycle of 80 MGD
(b) In-line storage (storage is within the sewers)
(c) Alpha ( ) option utilizes storage tanks, if required, within a watershed
(d) Beta ( ) option provides a centralized storage facility (one facility serves several
basins)
(e) Numbers without parentheses were taken from the Preliminary AFIR, whereas numbers in
parentheses were taken from Final AFIR following revision of specific control alternatives
Source: Giffels, Black & Veatch, 1981a&f
6-29
-------
594 MG for Alternative 18 and 19. Alternatives 11 and 12
simply increase the primary capacity of the DWWTP without
increasing secondary capacity or adding storage.
The land required for implementation of the alternatives
ranges from a total of 0 acres for Alternatives 2, 9, 10, and
13 to a total of 434 acres for Alternative 24. The largest
single site requirement is 108 acres for Alternative 23. The
higher level control alternatives require the most land for
the vast amounts of off-line storage that must be provided.
More detail on each alternative is provided in Table 6-8. The
information is divided so that the Rouge River facilities can
be examined separately from the Detroit River facilities.
Both basins were also separated into their four major water-
sheds and specific sites were identified in each. Information
listed includes in-line storage (amount of storage within
existing sewer lines); site storage capacity (new off- line
storage facilities - both centralized and decentralized);
storage inflow rate (the required new pump station capacity
to lift the flow into the new storage tanks); maximum storage
dewatering rate (the greatest amount of flow that could be
removed from the storage facilities); remote treatment rate
(the daily treatment for remote modules); and approximate
land area required (the number of acres that would be needed
to build the new storage systems).
As an example, Alternative 1 requires 7.9 MG of in-system
storage in watershed FCE. On site 61-450 of watershed CCC,
the construction of a new storage facility with a capacity of
23 MG of storage will be required. A new pump station with a
capacity of 45 MGD to lift flow into the storage tanks is
also needed. These facilities will occupy 10 acres and will
have a maximum dewatering rate of 11.5 MGD. In addition, a 4
MG of in-line storage capacity will be used in watershed RRN,
18.7 MG of in-line storage in watershed HS, and 15.5 MG of
6-30
-------
in-line storage in watershed BCW. No new storage facilities
are required in any watershed of the Rouge River Basin.
Interpretation of Alternatives 2 to 25 can be similarly made,
The abbreviations used in Table 6-8 are as follows:
Detroit River Rouge River
FCE - Fox Creek- East Jefferson RRN - Rouge River North
CCC - Conner Creek - Central RRS - Rouge River South
CBC - Conner and Baby Creek HS - Hubbell-Southfield
BCE - Baby Creek East BCW - Baby Creek West
6-31
-------
"*H W
o
o
o o o o
0 0 CM 0
o
o
^
o
r—
o o o o
o o o o
o
o
•H
SJ
00 >O
VO rH
•H
a
£
fl
I
S3 »
*.«!
X 4J
5 I
«y
H I
(fl *—•
s
CO
"8 •'-•'cJO
(Q CO JOS!
dp
CM
CO
CO
•H
CO
y
81
a
§1
s
0000
0000
o
o
O O O O
O O O O
O
O
o o o o
o o o o
O
O
O O O O
O O O O
o
o
o o r- m
<* o oo m
CN
00
CO
03
8*8
fi|
a-
•H rH
rH O
(1) M-l
8*
52
•S&
r~H
4-1 rH
I8
£3
DJ (0
S10
4J
w c
C) i)
£ y >
4J Qj-rl
C
r*4 C
a 8 oj
^™S
85^
ps
S,*3
W Q
y c o
O) -H
•8 ^
C ^ -H
»^c
B^
2~
in
vo
CM
CO
vo
SI ft
00
en
oo
s
I
(0
•H
6-32
-------
5
H
BiW
o o o o
d o o o
o
d
3
"81
! S
o o o o
o o o o
o
o
•u
c
o o o o
o o o o
o
o
5 «
•5 fi.
o o o o
o o o o
o
d
CN
oo C
I dj
VO 4->
r
&
<*>
25
o
dP
Kg
*
CO-
o o o o
o o o o
o
o
«M
-I-1 !
DI
0000
o o o o
o
d
.1 I
•a
2
CO
o o o o
d d d d
o
o
V44J
O-H
4J O
(D
4-H
•H
CO
O O O O
o o o d
o
o
C CT
•H (O
MCO
If)
VO ^" CM CO
Cfi
VO
•H «U
rH M SB
MCQ
PO 00 C«I 00
01 ro oo ^<
5
•H
CO
MM
CO
4J
'O
C
•H
(0
&
V*
1
.5
6-33
-------
o o
• •
in r^
01 VO
0 0 0 CO
O O CM IT)
CO T- CM
ro
r-
vo
o o o o
CO CO CM CM
! „
•H
I 1
~ 6
CO CD
vo rH
0)
1
4J
C
•H 5
<0 (1) 0)Q
Q) W" —
H -P
i^ tiQ
2! DC
£
£ QJ
4J d) -P
jj I^S!
0) VJ
> O C71*-*
O -P CQ
CO -H O
00 • 2^^
ON 11(0
«- 4JCJ
•H
£ w
i-H S Ow-»
§ 325?
> i~i W 2.
1 Q~^
O C -P
95 H co
§
D
$ 0)
K -P
•H
CO
• •
M
5
2
4J
•H
S 'I
JJ CQ
(u
o r- o vo ^*
^* r— r— r*- dP
PO
CM
CO
£
S
1
o o o in in rH
o in o *- vo Q
vo in r» oo Q
r— C^ 0J
Q)
i
j^
CM O O O CM fH
O O O O O >
r— r—
o en vo D
in CM ro TJ
1 ^j« cs in cu
III! W
vo vo vo
• •
M
§!
2
(Ct ^t
•P O o"
f5-
•H
CO
ssu
•H (00
1 1 1 ^t
nn M A
MW
•M
CO
•1-1
I
0)
O O O O O .CJ
O O O O O (0
B*
(U
•S6
•1-1
>• 0)
M
& ^
&H1
(0 "H
in tn o m in -g o
•* CM VD CO VO -H iH
*- CM iH O
C)
i3 CU*^
mcor»ino C o oo »— 1* <5 -P
CM CM t— VD ft C
I I I I en 5
O CM CM CM iJ C O
-Q O
g IQ -H
3 ill MH
C 0) -H
j5 o
rH 3 Si
•• <3 C CQ
CQ
0)
6-34
-------
o o
• •
in in
CM in
o o o co
o o o in
ro CM
co
in
in
o o o
• • •
Tf CM VO
O O 00 i-
o o co CM
co T-
m
£
i _
CO CU Q
c2—-
Remote
0 O 0 O O
o o o o o
4J
C
m —
co
4J
O O O O O
O O O O O
o m o m
o vo
CM
5
o o o m
O O CO CO
in
vp
CM
M 0).
CO
o o o m
o m o «-
vo CM
m
vo
oo
CM
t-t d>-
0)^1
^i
CO
0 0 VO 0
o o a\ «-
CM «-
VO
o
O O O O
o in o co
o\ in
o
00
VO -H
CM CO
O O O O
o o vo r^
CO
in
T C3
C-P
MCO
CM O O O
o o o o
CM
o
MCO
in en c- in
in oo in
«- CM
cn
m
I
4J
•H
fi
8
•H
CO
(0
o
in
vo
vo
en
in
vo
3
•H
CO
m oo
00 i-
CM CM
6-35
-------
o o
• •
a\ ro
CM in
t- O O
oo
s£8
o o
CM »-
VO
o o oo o m
vo vo ro vo vo
CM CM CO CM
ro
00
ti
1
(0 ^
w m
CM CO
CM i-
fs. O ^
•<* ro i-
CM
m
•- dp
CO
X)
S1
> o o
- o m
) •* O
j ro «—
in m
CM [^
T—
O
in
00
o o
CM r-
00 ^S*
- 8
ro
O
«
O O O
vo o
0 0
CM
in
o m
o
o
dP
ro
r- vo r- oo oloo
r~ CM vo in o CM
«- CM T- vo
•a
M
S
CO
o o o o o
CT\ i— ro vo o
r~ O T- CM
«- CM r-
m
•p ot?
to mSE
W
00000
co ro vo o o
ro ro CM vo
CM
in
CM
8
•H S
Ifi
MCQ
in o o
• • •
r~ o o
CM
o
•
o
in
•
r-
CM
Sc^
HCO
m ro r- in
m
oo m
r- CM
(Tl
in
a
•rH
CO
o o\
CM m CM
r- ^ CM
I I I
o «- *-
00 VO VO
vo in
CO O
m o
vo
•H
CO
ro in ^r oo
o> o oo o i-
CM CM «- in vo
O CM CM CM CM
U-l
6-36
-------
o o
• •
CTi CO
CM ID
O O
VO
000
*- o o
*? [^
o o o
in •*«• •«*
CM «- ^-
0
^r
CT>
O O
• •
CM CM
«- r-
o o o o o
O O O IT) CM
VO t-
r--
r-
(U
s
o
dp
*
Oi
£
3
I 0)|
'St
(
•H
W
MCQ
CO
o o o r- o co
o o
co
CM VO i-
in
00
o o
CM
00
CO
o
000
VO O O
CM O>
000
o «— co
vo ^* r*
o
o
in o o
r~ o o
CM
CM in
r- *r I
*
dP
CO
I
I
I
•a
I
W'
S2S
w
MCQ
•H
CO
•S
CO
o o o o o
O O CO «J O
C^ CM
CO T—
o
Oi
in
o
co
o o o o o
co
S
O O CM O O
o> vo
CM
in
CM
in ro
• •
in
in
oo m
«- CM
Oi
in
CM ^< 00
CM O »-
I i co in vo
I I I I I
CM CM CM
<4-l
33
o
0) g
iH p
"gw
52
^^5
rH
Is
CO
gfl
CX (0
S'0
CO^
(U 0) •
en co co
4J Qf-l
c 5T 4->
S vj is
tj ^*
S<
-------
jj)
•H
4J
co
4J
3
flj
4-J
QJ
1
00
•
OS
in
Xi
O^
{*
•H
(rt
•-H
CO
1
jg
£j
d)
•o
1
*
vo
^1
jb
i
1
CQ
O
3
2
^j
^
>rj
4J
•H
Detro
$
e oiw
•H'n vj a)
kj A .. j i .
5 F^
1 "~
4-1
C
i
(0 —
p "}n jg
03 SB^
vV
0)
0)4-1
S&Q
CQ *H U
• fl) •*— '
X -P
S9
Q
|
M-l
M !
S
o
p-
**
1
0 4J
O C
^4
in °
«- o
CO
^-^
O >1
• XI
in
CM rri
co C
«. -H
«- 'Q
^ g
0 rH
in Q
os OQ
f~ CO
o/
CO
^^^ 10
o d>
t^ 0)
OS 13
OS
OS c»P
in vo
». CO
*~ Sn
X)
S ^
w
flj
Q
D
S
^
(U
1
t
^
l^H
§JjU|j
| £~
c
1
S
S'lS
BH'Q
W«^ ^n
K
• 6) *»— *
X4-)
S 5
D
B
rH
•a
M 0)*-^
j i CD
i*^s
}_i
B
CO
0)
&1
m >i
VJ 4->
4J O O
f£
•H
CO
Pi
C •^
HCQ
QJ
CO
.s
i
o o o
00 00 ^"
o *- os
o o o o o o
VO CM 00 CO CM VD
CO CO O «— «— O
r- CM
00
0 0
O O O O O O
r*$ f^ f^ f^j ^jt
IQ 4->
4J 0) H
§5^
£ C rH
4J 0) O
•H VJ Wl
? m 4J
QJ c!
CQ 5
M C 0
fl) -iH
Jfi o
g CO -iH
i3 W *4-H
C
-------
in
o o
in **
«- CN
0 0 0
00* 0 0
O O O O O
••* o r- T- o
CM I1 «— «—
*"
o
•
o
O 0 0
lO ^S* ^4*
CM TJ« r-
•
r—
o
,_
CM
CO
oooo
• • • •
r- oo o in
in«— r-
o o o o o
o o oo oo rs
o «- «-
oo
n
"8
I
dP
ro
in
00
D
•H 0)
•P >
(V
00 -P
0)
dP
»*
in
I 0.
-U I
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o
o
o o
o o
o
o
in o o
T^ O O
.—» -—. (1)
^•".5
o in
^^ ft
in o
in •<*
CM
00
in
— m c
o CM -H
• ^ *o
Or- (0
o
,_
r»
o o
CM r~
CO
o
vo
in
o
o
1
o
[^
00
Cft O
CM VO
eft in
o
o
o
o
^
0
00
ro
o
vo
00
o>
in
°1
o o
xr r-
o o o
r> o o
CM
%
O OJ
0-- '
•«- -g
ss 1
0
^_
in
o
ro
CM
CM
o
"*•
in
o
,_
i—
*~
o
,
m
T™
o
CM
in
•*"•
0
T_
c^
o
,_
in
o
o
o
o
o
0 0
^J< t—
VO f^-
CM
O
Cft
in
dP
ro
o o
• •
o o
o o o o o
o o o o
en
O O O 00 O
00
o o r> in o
CM
VO
O O O O O
o o vo in o
tn oo
oo
vo
CM
CO
O O CM O O
o o in vo o
vo
§
r-
m
ico
in
in
CM
MCQ
m ro r- in
• • • •
in c* oo in
t- CM
o
•
in
2
4J
•H
§
•H
CO
CM o o
r» o »-
o o\ o
oo ON oo
o
in
r-
«— in oo o
VO ^J1 VO O
VO 00
vo co in
en o o
in o o
VO
0)
CO
CM ^f 00
CM O *-
n in vo
CM CM CM
6-39
-------
3
e o5lo
•H'TJ vt -i (V
5 ftg
o gee
dP O O*-*-*
in 4J c Q
ro Vj 5E
•^ .
§ 1
ii [ i
dp O-H— «
CO 4J O C3
f~.
•H
01 CO
5
i 'S'co
O O O O O -rlTJtlCU
^5 C5 CD C3 CD O fQ 3. y
4J
C
-P
*P CT^ ^Cj
5J 5 cyi*-»
OOOOO & 4JCQ
• •••« O CQH0
ooooo VJ3S
oo x -P
00 S §
1
•H rH
"8 ^
Q |_( H)-^
OOOOO iH a^fi
ooooo Q tjiK 3S
*O CO ^""^
s
$ CO
O (U
•^3 -l
0)
5
OOOOO (0
OOOOO 3E
i
S1
•H
•3
JJ
c
OOOOO 4J
OOOOO S
s
ii
HCQ
O O O
r- o o o
(Ti
HCO
O O
o oo in oo
«- ^- co
H.
M-l
O
•H
CO
•S
w
1
a
&
•H
CO
6-40
MM
w
I
in
CNJ
•a
-------
o o o o
o o o o
o
o
o o o ol
000 00
5
D 0
~4J £U
O 4->
^-- ffl
i|
00 CU
VO r-J
cu
i-H
S
4->
CU C
rH c
4J Jj
§m m ~
4, ^^
d i
Zj ffi
&4 OC
4J 0)
^ ScTa
vr Oj *rH t,jj
• • m — •
CM X4->
>i ^
ff ^
"-1 5
"O O
ro r— 1
O M-l
rH C
H CU*—
^j ' Q) (n ^2
(0 **— '
8 8
M 43
flJ CO
i
C W I '
ro O "'H *"^
4J Q
XI CO
I ||«
§^"
HCQ
S
D
•H
CO
*•
n
^
^
4-1
•H
S -S
4-> CQ
4> -^
Q CQ
1
4J
OOOOO C
OOOOO CU
s
j^i
m
1
a)
OOOOO
ooooo r->
o^
CM
S1
•H
T3
o
OOOOO Q
OOOOO OQ
10
*
OOOOO
OOOOO ^
CM
j^
1
OO 00 00 ^D ^O ^
CO V£> t— r- CM Q
in CM in ro vo CQ
*"" O
§
D
MM
• •
V4
aj
^
CU
EiU U ffl g
I
(0 —
m ni Q
«*, ,1 r«
*Ss
d)
g
d)
CM
CU
0) 4->
S'S
O D^*^1*
W*«j F'I
K
• Qj '*— '
X 4J
^s
fi
^J
rn
•a
H OJ*-^
JJ Q
rii /rt rn
^ IU ^^
(tl ^"^
8
ii
CO
ft
2^r
O'H--^
4-> OO
Wrtt *5^
«y 2«
CU «J*^
4JO
•H
CO
-1 I . flp
^fi*
MCO
(U
J i
•H
CO
-S
IQ
s
CU
OOOOO XJ
OOOOO fO
8 "8
CU
•S6
•H
«• CQ
«-H
M >
$8
&B1
g'rH
- - - - e *
OOOOO -5 rH
rH O
CU MH
H«
L_l
{»
rH
J(C
C
n |
OOOOO ® fl
OOOOO O
CD g
rH O
rH M
O MH
^S
•88
rH
4J rH
S8
OOOOO CO
OOOOO J-l 4-5
{li (0
g-0
GO 4J
— we
ro ro CU CU •
• «- W W 10
CTi i— CU CU CU
-- ^ x: y >
4J CX-rH
«- i- t- i- VO >J C
ro ro ^ o (d to V4
4-> CU r-j
§5^
£ C i-H
1 |B
1 1 1 1 0&g
r) C 0
fl) -3
•y ^
9 w *w
C CU -H
•"•"i ^
i— ( 9 ft
« .^ C 5f
CO
CU
s S Sffi SC
6-41
-------
fl
®^n
! & P
il$
s
X
"S'lO
! VI
CJ
CO
§
§
a
-
I 8
CO O
0) 4J
CO CO
4->
•H .
0<
CO
fl.
CO
•H
MCO
fl
•H
CO
IQ
tf rf rf rf
2 Z Z Z
fl
*
0)
6
2"
c
•H
8
b
.5
9*
1
Q
i S
«- CN
6-42
-------
x
(0
3
rtj IO *—*
E CD CO
•S-n M ft)
X C-rt Ki
C CN
•H «-^
4J CM
O CD
CO *
vi
0) -P
rH l
I '
dp
o
CO
?
1
CD
dP
vo
flj
CU 4-)
48^
TS;
X 4J
1
CO
*.
CO
§§ll
0)
I
dP
if)
CO
*
1
CO
B1
ssss
0)
-P
CO-
* IE
5 I
s •a
§
VJ-P
4J O
(V
4-M
•H
CO
1
I
.1
«
1
j
•H (0
01 1
S> jj
>o,
4J 0)
CV
4J "CT>
ti
o
O
5
•o
5J
(-1
I
sr
4J " 4J
(DO 5
4J ns
fli g
w
§
W
s
•H
CO
.S
10
CO
§
I
MCO
•H
CO
.S
6-43
1
n
S5 5
-------
CO
4J ^
1 "S 01
•H'Q >J (U
^ X .IJ Q
W »-• r* M
& S """"^
15 OH
(i^J
• f^
•U O CT>*-»
O 4J C Q
* W.Si.
cQ Si
£ S
CD rj>
-1 B ^
4J ro ffl IH
§»- O c
iH M CD —
O
•H
>t CO
a
i— 1 C CJ<^~
§M CO
01
CJ
3
CO
(u m
Q CQ
0)
-p ^
. E ® 10
O O O O lO 'H 'Tj V-i d)
^5 ^3 ^^ ^5 1^5 O fQ 3. w
& Jp **-*
Qj p^
i<5j
"c
(0 ^-«
ooooo
OOOOO (0 4->OQ
OOOOO 01 (i^
•H CO ^0
f^ tj r\
±1 -H
co
.5
CD
*O CO CO
ON O O O G^ £5 -H (0 O
r^ooor^ eg IQ>-'
(0 C 4J
^ MCO
8
ti
0^
C! fl)
1 1 1 1 < 4-*
INI ~ -H
*•
CU
>
a
CO C
& cj u ffl g Jg
OOOOO
OOOOO
J5
Oi
•H
X
(0
8 b
eTS
OOOOO H -H
OOOOO IS
Q 4J
(0
l?
4J -H
(0 3
TJ CO
gu
•H m
fH
o o d olo ju o
*O Q
rH O
§m
^p
O «w
S°
U*
0) -H
ooooo x: o
ooooo (0 QJ
5 S
4-1 (0
CO
5
DI-H
C &
1^1
•O 3
OOOOO 4-> ^
OOOOO CO
S 4-)
1* C
(0 CO
CO c
^ s
O O t"~ IT) CM B C
«* O 00 id 00 U -H
T- ^ CO &4->
<0
M-J W
O {0
Q w
£
o
CO -H
1 1 1 1 ** 4J
1 1 1 1 ^OJ
(0 CT>
C
-------
-
£S c8
• 4J
5 i
•H c
4-) J*
(Q (0 •*•**
c 2SS
>-l -M sV
4-J PM *— *
g i
Pi p2
if CD
0) 4J
^ ^
O O Ov*"1*
. a)—
O X 4-*
>, ^1
^ -Q Q
IP ! 8
C «- rH C ^
1 1 (Q ^^
oo id w M
L p J 4->
(0 O -H *-•
4J OO
H(0 m ill *V^
OT^ U J ID 2tt
ro O (0
-P O
^i >r^
XI CO
O C O^*""*"*
^ "H (0 C5
§^^
M CO
$
D
*S
K 0)
•H
CO
t«
§
i
-p
•rt
2 -5
S &
0)
4J ^
e 1
I 1
•8 'a
O M fl>*-»
OOO^T- M 4JQ
o m o CM r~ o c7>(2 £
vo m CM co o td — *
^~ CM QQ y |
0] -P
(D co
Vj
fly DI
*O fl3 ^i
OOOOO g 4JUU
^^ 00 ^S* ^4* ^O p i^*^
«- CM dP Q) (8
»— -H
CO
§d) o
C CTi'T-
CnOOOC"7 rH •H(OCJ
OOOOO > 'fi'"'
§H CO
§
O OS VO 3
in CM ro in
-------
I
4J
ll
-p «-
q d)
'^^f *r4
dP
$
0)
b
c*>
VO
ro
i
o o o o
o vo o in
o o o o
o o o o
o
o
o o o o
o o ^r
o
CO
in
•
CO
c
w
nj
CO
O O O t-
o m o CM
vo i^
ro
CM
o o o o
O CD O OO
vo
CM
8
§
0)
TJ
1
<*>
CTi
M CO
CO O O O
O C3 <3 CO
ro
O
CO
o vo
in ro
T IT
VO
VO
.5
CQ
I
!
o
•
^
O O 00 O
o
•
•**
o o n o
ro
00
ro
(0 •
0) 0)1
o o o o
o o o o
o
o
o o in o
o o y\ o
in
§ I
I
CO
O O CTi O
0 0 r- 0
CM
CM
CN
CN
CM
CM
O O O O
CO
O O Oi O
CO
in ro
• •
in en
o o r» in
o o oo m
CM
ro
•H
CO
in
oo
CM
CO
s
6-46
•H
cc
OJ
b
14-1
I I
8
2
-------
a
X
,1
(0
o o o o
o o o **
$
o o oo o
in vo m o
CM CO
00
s
c* **-"
•H VO
4J *-
i
4J
CO
VO
•D
§
*
00
in
nt
I5!
a
Jigf
WTJ§
• n) •*•
X4J
fi
CO
».
(V <0
.^u
CO
o o o o
o o o o
o
o
o o o o
O VO CJ ^
o o o o
o o o vo
^r CM
M
vo
VO
o o o o
O CM O CM
•H
4J
I
o
in
s
%
B
*
^
m —.
5
15!
'#
0)
2
H'S
x.
ter
•a
H £!
oi«:
CO
4J O
Q
3fl
CO
O O O O
O O O O
O
O
m o o o
vo CM m o
t— CM
in
CO
«a<
o o o o
* CJ
-------
>_v
1 _
s ~
•H »-'
•P r-»
O 0)
~ £
4J
00 ro
VO V4
0)
§ !"$
O O O^*™1*
i> CQ
-4rt PA ._.. ft*
vo (d fl
>i |
Cj (J
S «
"S 5
ro rH
O M-l
rH C
M
(0 CO
0)
•O 0)
cn
>rj nJ >i
C VI4-)
1 -H
JD CO
o o o o o
o o o ^ ^«
•
^
•H
O O O O O 4J
O O O O O C
5
3
s
1
Vj
o o o o o t>
o vo o «— r~
dP
CM
•
00
in
S>i
jQ
2
-H
T3
O O O O O rH
o o o vo vo Q
^r CM vo o
ro co n
w
0)
i
^J
0)
•a
0 O O O 0 g
O CM O CN ^J1
«— *— dp
00
XT
k.
5
e $ to
X?"* _ J ll
•3 »^
4J
I
1
Q) 0)Q
?-
i
Q)
0) 4->
CT* RJ
(Q Qu
Jj
o a»^~
4J CQ
rn._j rn
Uj "rn ^
. a)'-'
X 4J
49 S
0)
"
1
VM
M 0) —
1 1 ^^
rti «rt Fn
o,si
(8 ^
§
CO
0)
^w
(0 >i
VJ4->
O'H-^
4J OCJ3
ff* fjf V*
uj ro 2*
CM 4J
i
H1
•«H
§
•u
^
o o o o o g
o o r- o r- 5
oo oo ro
o>
i!
HCO
CO O O O
CN O O O
CM
00
•
rM
CM
W
if) ro r- in
• • • •
in en oo oo
-------
o o o o
o o o m
r^ «- CM
in
o
o o
« •
ro CM
o o o o
o o in ro
cy> in CM co
m
o
00
I
4J
O O O O
O O O O
o
o
81
•H
JJ
^*
a
O O O O
O O O O
o
o
-S 3
JJ 00
00
0)
ro
vo
a
H1
•H
1
d)
•o
dP
O
•a
H «:
CA
o o m m
o ro oo
ro
vo
ro
o o o o
o in in «-
r- CM r-
r^ CM CM
CM
o •
• r-
CM
o o o o
o vo r»
oo i-
o
CM
fM
dp
o\
OS
>*'
I
-8
dp
CM
r-
o m o>
• • •
VD O CM
T- CM 00
»* o in CN
^D ^^ *
-------
-S ^
JJ '
O QJ
O >
oo
VO
0)
EH
ti
<*>
CN
S1
•H
1
\*^
a
*
co
o o o o
o m
CN
in
o>
•
0)
>
•H
C
a
3
1
4->
C
^
nj ^-~
m m Q
§ . 1 1 FH
^1
s
I
o o o o o
o o o o o
o o o o
O CO O CO
vo
CO
c
H
S
CO
gi.
0)
4->
•H
CO
0000
o in o vo
r-
CN
o
o o o o
o vo o vo
00 00
es
dP
vo
00
A
£
•H
1
%
i
•o
dP
o
00
o
•
CO
o o o o
vo
IP
o o oo
O CO
o o o o
o o o o
o
o
0)
0) 4-)
o o in
VO r- VD
«—
oo in
IM
c
H
(0
3
CO
&.
So
CO
(U
4->
•H
CO
^^— CN
CN O •
• • f-^.
o r~ in
r^ oo «-
o o o o
o o in CN
oo m
r^ CN
o o o
1SJ* if} ^^
o o o o
O O CN O
(Tt CO
CN
CN
co
re
m
(U
co 5
(0
8 "8
(
o
0)
0) 0>
c tr>-
•n ns
C-P
M CO
m o o o
oo o o o
CO
CO
I CO
m
m
if>
oo m
«- CN
o
in
I
§
a
•H
CO
vo
ro
m
i i
o
in
vo
VO
.s
IQ
1
0)
B1
fl
•iH
CO
•H
I
6-50
I I
CN O
CN VO
co m
CNCN
cn
^, r -.
§ C
o
CN
-------
I
4-> 0
C CM
C_> 0
^^ Kfc
£
4J
oo jo
VO M
0 -P
rH i— 1
£1 3
&
0
JL|?
S 1-
0 4->
H C
^ i ~
r~H pcj k^w^
i^ C^
0
0
V4 04-1
^ !!L~
<*> 4-) C Q
"^ m'C! s
00 • 0 ^^
"J1 X4-I
-H
rH VH
§0 M 0 —
to ro *^
to o
(0 4->
6 m
fli
•O CT>
C (0 >i
(0 w 4-1
O-H ^
OP 4-> O U
^i W SjS-
0 <0
>1 4->U
CO
1 g&U
'H ffl U
S "V Q S-
v!5 C 4-*
HCO
to
3
«
0
•H
CO
0
4-)
8 -S
4J U)
Sy 5J
Q DJ
O O O O O
T— o o in ^
•* r~ CM CM T-
o o o o o
O 0 O O O
CM CM «* CM t-
r*"1 ^^ *^J* ^i* ^^
^Bjt CO ^~ ^™
o o o in in
r- o in v- t-
o •* o CM r^
CM OO t— *-
o o o o o
^D 00 LO 00 *^*
CM ^ in vo -fl1
«- CM
m o o o
r^ o o o
CM
o cri vo in
CM m CM co o
r^ ^ CM mo
III It
O t- T- r- &\
oo vo vo vo en
wy
c) O uj O
& O O S3
0
0
o
o
_
in
^—
o
T_
in
00
o
T_
^r
in
in
r^
CM
<-~ ^~. .—» 00
00 O O •
OO 00 O r-
CO »- «-
O O CO O O
CO
O O CO 00 CM
OO OO OO *— ^~
CO
tN
• •
8
>
2
g
f§
c
jl
S 0g
^Sl
4-)
S
O
04-)
tji (Q
fO OH
O t7>--~
• 0 ^_j
X l *
S S
S
8
S0^
jj O
/ll srl Fn
|S|
1
CO
0
Lj J-J
Boo
co 5? 2!
0 (0*^
•4JO
CO
CD
'—CM in
oo in xr oo
C^ O 00 O *—
CM CM r- in VO
O CM CM CM CM
,— ^ rr ^r rr
S S S S
0
to 5
(0
8*
Vf
*l
"• W
ft?
SS
&B1
(0 "H
•H §
-§rH'
"^ ^^
•H O
0VH
am
M
JS
rH
es
iJ53
SS
o
0 6
rH O
8^
5?
^5i
4JrH
S8
CO
13
0^3
H
sl .
0} (0 CO
(U (L) 0)
•H fe >
4J CU'rl
£ J" -ti
0 VJ (0
04 0 0
tO 4->
4-> 0 r-J
85^
£ C rH
4J 0 O
•H M V4
> 5 4J
&. C
to o
^ 5 °
0 -H
•Q CJ
B M -H
3 w «w
C 0 -H
1-1 R ?>
•• 3 C &
to
3~
gc.
6-51
-------
5
e 4J
£ c
•iH fl)
^ i C
(0 -D
c (o g>
< o> ^
1
V4 (D4-)
O) cnns
^ (0 P^4
° C5 cn~
* "^ c R
r- x 4->^"
— 01
0 -H
3 no S
C JO O
•H O iH
jl (_ . 1 ll t
«^* ~ r^ *w
C CM C
CJ 0) Q -pS
4J CO (0 ^-*
i
O-H^^
<*P 4-) O U
in Qi-~-'
£* -H
CO
rH
O 0) O
-H flBU
CO ^^
8
a
•H
CO
• •
o
4J
•H
S -S
4J W
S S
0 0 O
^00
^J* f"^l
CD 0 0
O O O
CM CM O
r- o o
rj- CO
o o o
r- o o
ss
O 0 O
VO 00 O
CM «*
i- CM
ID O O
• • •
r- o o
CM
o
CM in
CO S
W CJ CJ
0 0 O O
in ^ o o
CM r- CM r~-
0 O
• •
o o
O CO 00 O
co oo in in
r-- o co o
^" in ^ r~
CM VD r- in
«- r- 00
O 0 O 0
oo
dp
in
co
^
S
1
S
CO
(0
0)
'O
dp
co
0)
«
a>
S
s
0)
0) 4J
2s
W-
O O O 00 O
o o p- in o
oo
CM
<1>
(0 '
s
co
».
o o o o o
O O CM VD O
O1 CM
CO T-
O
CO
in
4J CJI
en rs:
l«
CO
0) ^- in
M CO
oo in
T-
CX-i-i
C 01 4J
0) VJ 1C
Vj C
a S Q)
CO 4->
4J Ol H
CO
&
s
6-52
-------
TJ
w
3
.S
4-> CN
C CM
O 0
•H
4-1
00 ItJ
vo $3
0> 4J
rH rH
| S
0)
4-» ^
e QJ co
•H TJ }4 Q)
9s C *^^ W
.
^ c
-H
^ r- CN CN
o
0
o o o o
o ^r o o
CN CO ^* ^*
r^ o ^* ro
^" n T— CN
o o o o
r~ o in ON
o ** o o\
CN CO r- »-
^-^ ,— ,
0 0
CN r>
00 ^*
T"-
— • — '
o o o o
vo o cr\ in
CN (Ti in T-
m o o o
r^ o o o
CN
O >i | I .
• X C -H W
vo O H5 3 Q
m H 5?1
^^ 4J
° . c
£. ^5
•H «J *-*
O 4-> 4)
4-> 4J
r-j Q
IS
0) O
x; o>4->
t SS
0) O O1'~»
in MS
t- dp . 0)-^
T- 00 X4->
oo 4)
^
S S
•H rH
m c
O M S£
00 ^Q ^4
q
CO 4-1
35 to
O Q)
0 0) Oi
^* 'O (0 ^^
«" Vl 4->
O C 4-> OO
O fi(*^
C^ dp 0) ^0
^* OO 4-1 O
VO -r-l
to
^"1
JO
(U vt>
C v7>cr-
r*> § T* vO^-
CM C -O
w
S
7
S
CO
"
gl
>rJ
0^
s> s
B1 «
O 0
• •
o •sr
CN
T—
"~* "~*
o o o o o o
00 CO O 00 CN VO
CN CN in i— t— ro
T—
o o
• • 0)
oo jq
-^•^ CQ 4J
(0
oooooo o>iy
o o o o r- r- o>
•S6
•H
- CO
PS -H
fej 0)
&s
el
•3 rH
r~voi^ooooo iHO
r^ CN vo in o CN u
T- CN T- VO &«
|S
_J
^H
€ S
O C
14 *H
l£j ii i
P
OOOOOO 4-)
•O o>
rH
4-) rH
0) O
CQ
S5
oooooo C^rO
n co in ^ o m w
ro ro t— m co 4j
»- CN CQ C
0) 0) •
CQ CQ CQ
(U (D (D
5 CU-H
C 0> 4J
0) VJ (0
u c
mcot^m o S?CQM
• • • • • Cii ni rll
• • • • • ^4 ly vy
in ^ oo m o> CQ 4->
r- CN in 4-> 0) rH
Jjs nJ
•P
•H S S
'^ m 4-i
CO CM ^t 00 CQ Q
cy>ocNo«- nco
CN CM CO in VO Q) -H
1 1 1 1 1 JJ O
OCNCNCNCM ^CQ-H
*~ C 0) -H
•Q O
^J '{2 fll
fH B Vy
iH 3 O-
« .5 C C?
CQ
0)
4J ^
gC
6-53
-------
~
D
•H CO
O fl)
O >
4J
00 C
VO 0)
(D rH
•S
H
O
0)
i5 o>
O k
4J OO
dP CO 3? 5E
CM dl^-
4JCJ
^^^ fA
O C ^T^*~ **
81 Q — •
C -P
MCO
10
8
3
"S
DC
CM CO O
CM O O
^* OO
o o o
r~ o o
^3 ^5*
CM CO
O O
CM r~
00 ^5*
f~~
"ta_x *^-^
o o o
vo o o
CM (T>
in o o
r^ o o
CNJ
o
CM m
r- ** 1
I I 1
§«-
VD
w p u
^8e
•
CO
0 O
^r in
-* in
o
o
--'
0 0
^^ ^i*
vo
00 CO
r- o
CO «-
0 0
•sf t—
o in
CO 00
o
CO
o
^*
****
o o
^s* ^^
r^* o^
o in
o r^
CM
CO
o
0
o>
rj
S
m
6
S
dP
r-
o
CO
ja
B1
•H
1
9
a
25
o
dP
O
jO
I
o o
• •
O V£>
CM
O O O O O
O O OO OO CM
O <~ *-
O
00
O O
O O
o o o o o
o o o o
00
O
00
O O O 00 O 00
o o r- in o
CM
VO
•a
H
o
CO «-
CM
O
o o o o o o
o o <- 'S1 o m
oo in oo
r- CM
0) (U
c rj1-
in ro
m
in o> oo in
«- CM
CM
in
-------
o
00
0)
4J
K CU CO
•HTI J-lCU
X C-H VJ
& Pi '
<
O
r~*
in
CO
* —
O O O O O O
LO ^3* ^^* r"3 f^» ^~
<— CM (N •*»• t— <—
O
CM
in
rji
CM
*-'
O O O
in ^r co
CM ^« O
o
ro
o o
o vo
oo
O O O 0 O
o m oo oo CN
0
*=r
•
in
in
^i
S1
•H
(0
Q
r-i
CO
0)
CO
(0
cu
$
'"O
S
VD
m
£
m
0-P
COB!
^
§OOV-
• cu^~^
^ jj
S S
S
^
g
rH
m
M (P^x
jj Q
tw2
fQ *— '
Lj
S
CO
0)
Dl
ro >i
4J oS
C/j ro ^i
55
•H
w
m
•
T—
N.^
inoocT* inoooo^—
tn^ot— inoooocM
CM r- ^~
^^
o
in
^*
^^
oooo ocMcom
>-cMr^vo ocMr»*t
r-~ r- r~ in ^"cocftin
co ^~ ^~ ^*
*•— * ^— , ^-^
o o o
T— ^ [^-
^J1 t~- CM
OOOO OOOO
r— CO ^* »— r— CM »— T—
incomr— roino>in
CM *— T- ^r
^a< m m
rj- CM O
O CM 00
in CM vo
CS VD CO
CM «— T-
0 0
VO VD
0 0
* — »—
o o o
o o in
Tt VD CO
00
in
•^^.f
0
o>
o
t—
o
in
CM
*.
T^
*-"
o
^
^™
^^
T—
3-
c^
CM
ON
o
(Ti
o
-
Q)
c^
•^
^J
§J
o
dP
VD
oo
>1
•°
{?
•H
13
S
iH
CO
d^
CO
S
b
'w
'S
(0
dp
SM
01
(U4J
^
SSR
^"Ss
• (D*^-*'
^ 4_)
Si
w
^
8
iH
M (U-^
4JQ
^gg
(T5 **•*'
ij
o
CO
o r- «- o
00 ^* V^ 00
i— CN ^ r-
^_^
o
•
^N
CO
o o o o o
rf VO CM CO O
oo
-------
r
<
>
4
^^
"8
3
C '
•H
4-i in
C CM i
2. £
•H
4->
00 (0
VO M
(!)
0) 4J
J3 3
(Q
<
<
CU
4-1 ^
•H-O $$
X C-H V4
^iij yWI
1 $~
CU C
> cu.
L) 4J
s cucuS"
i) iri'njs;
P CH*— '
H CU
< 4->
CU
5 CU
CU4->
kJ tj><3
^ ll
2OV^
• • Q)^-— '
£> X4->
* 55
Q Q
S1
5 g
SrH
U-4
H C
HCU —
Q CTTCS
(0 **^
U VJ
CU O
CO 4->
(0 to
[j
« CU
O"*
C ^J i ^
co O"^^™"*
4-> OU
o S^-
4* CU ^
u en
0 C« Ov™^
^ «H njo
^H Vj l£
S^ta^
U HW
CO
§
7^
1
% (!)
4J
•H
w
ll
^
s
4J
8 -S
4J CO
Sm
CO
0 0 O
i— in ^j*
in «— CM
o o o o
o o o o
in o oo .
^r CM o o
r* r-- o «-
o o o> o
00 00 (Ti 00
Cd
£
x-~ ^-» ^--
o o o
• • •
moo
^_^ ^ ^_^
o o o o o
• • • • •
TJ< o r- r- o
CM ^ ^" ^"
"
O O O
o o o
in o o
«- o o
^1* -^ ^
in co co r- o
in oo m CM o
<-^ *—*. *-*
000
in o o
^•^ X_x ^-i*
o CM m in o
o CM r- ^* o
^r oo cyi in
^~ ^*
^-x .^ — .
0 0 ~*
• • o
r* o •
CM O
o o o o o
«- CM t- r- O
m in o\ in
0 0
t •
o o
o r-
«- in co o
vo "^ vo o i
O «— O Cri
CO VO 00 ^ ^
^J
m
4-1
m
I
I
dP
vo
00
CO
(0
2
o
cu
•o
dp
(U
S1
0)
o
•
m
o
m
o o o o o
o o oo oo CM
o r- r-
oo
m
o o
o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o
o
Ol
0
CU4->
mm
o
vo
co
m
X4->
Si
O O O 00 O CO
o o en in o CM
•^« «— VO
^» CM
C
M i
6-56
-------
6.3.2 Site Selection Methodology
The preparation of a list of candidate sites in the Detroit
Metropolitan Area suitable for locating CSO storage/treatment
facilities was accomplished by an inter-disciplinary environ-
mental assessment team of the Facility Planner. The site
selection procedure involved the application of numerous cri-
teria to identify and screen an original list of 614 identi-
fied sites resulting in a final list of 47 primary candidate
sites.
The process of identifying CSO storage/treatment sites began
with the development of a list of 18 site screening criteria
(Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1979c) This list was subsequently
narrowed to 17 with the elimination of the air impact criter-
ion (ESEI, 1980a). These criteria'were evaluated and reduced
to a final list of 13 criteria which were ranked in order of
importance as follows:
1. No prime agricultural land.
2. Low archaeologial and historic significance.
3. Vacant land.
4. High social and political acceptance.
5. No ponds, wetlands, or lakes.
6. Relatively low purchase price.
7. Relatively remote from residential use.
8. Industrially zoned.
9. Medium to low forest coverage.
10. No surface mineral activity.
11. 6-10% slope.
12. Low water table. (Qualitative Measure)
13. Depth to water table. (Quantitative Measure)
The ranked criteria were then programmed into the 1975 SEMCOG
land use data base which had been updated by the Facility
Planner. Three levels of site screening were conducted based
upon site size.
6-57
-------
In level one screening, land use codes representing extrac-
tive/barren, vacant woodlands, vacant brushlands, vacant
grasslands and recreational grasslands in parcels equal to or
greater than 5 acres were called out and plotted for the City
of Detroit and surrounding areas. The resulting map con-
tained numerous sitesj however, the actual count was never
determined. The use of specific land use codes automatically
eliminated wetlands, lakes and ponds, residential areas, and
other built-up areas from consideration.
In level two screening, the size criterion was increased to
10 or more acres, based upon input from other Facility Plan-
ner engineering groups, and upon modular flow (50 MGD) and
size estimates defined in the SFP. Calling out the same 5
land uses resulted in a listing of 614 sites.
In level three screening, additional criteria were applied to
these 614 sites in order to eliminate sites which were un-
suitable because of the following environmental or engineer-
ing constraints. The additional criteria included:
0 15 ACRES OR GREATER - Based upon the need for
odor and noise mitigation and to achieve remote-
ness from residential land uses.
0 NOT LISTED IN STATE AND/OR FEDERAL HISTORIC
REGISTERS - Using data developed in the SFP, sites
which encompassed or were adjacent to registered
historic sites were eliminated.
0 LESS THAN 6% SLOPE - Based upon engineering/cost
considerations.
BEDROCK GREATER THAN 5 FEET FROM SURFACE - Based
upon engineering/cost considerations.
6-58
-------
SOIL CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN ACCEPTABLE RANGES -
The load-bearing capacity, shrink-swell potential,
permeability, and prime agricultural potential of
soils of each site were evaluated.
CHARACTERIZED BY A LOW WATER TABLE - Based upon
engineering suitability.
0 APPLICABLE LAND USE AT PRESENT - Update of SEMCOG
land uses.
0 PARTLY OR WHOLLY WITHIN DETROIT'S CITY LIMITS -
To avoid potential legal and implementation problems
associated with the acquisition of properties, sites
located entirely outside the city were eliminated.
Level 3 screening resulted in the identification of 125 pre-
ferred candidate sites. These sites were examined further to
document whether or not they were located in flood-prone
areas (based upon available Corps of Engineers flood reports)
or were zoned industrial. These criteria were not used to
eliminate sites, but rather to establish preferences.
Two additional criteria were also applied to the 125 candi-
date site list:
Lacking in forest vegetation with high recreational
and/or aesthetic value. Based upon input from City's
Planning and Recreation Departments, this criterion
selectively eliminated "vacant woodlands" known to be
of high value.
0 Site not located on or adjacent to school property -
To avoid potential implementation problems caused by
community opposition plus potential health and safety
problems.
6-59
-------
The sites eliminated by screening were placed on a "second-
ary" preference list from which selections could be made if
necessary. The resulting 78 sites were given "primary"
status which identified their higher preference. Evaluation
of these sites was requested from Facilities Planning engin-
eering groups and from DWSD, the Department of Recreation,
the Community and Economic Development Department (C&EDD),
and the City Planning Department.
0 With additional information developed by others, the
the sites were screened further using size, configur-
ation, location, and other factors to determine their
suitability relative to the interceptor system, over-
flow structures, and potential storage capacity re-
quirements .
0 The City of Detroit completed a preliminary screen-
ing of the 78 "primary sites" with input from the
City Planning Department, the Recreation Department,
and C&EDD. DWSD subsequently identified unaccept-
able sites which were eliminated from further con-
sideration.
Additional evaluations by the Facility Planner resulted in
the identification of several areas where there was a poten-
tial need for CSO facilities but where no site was available.
To remedy this situation, "secondary" sites in these loca-
tions were selected for the "primary" site list. Also, many
sites which were directly adjacent to one another were com-
bined into a single site. Although this procedure reduced
the number of sites, it did not actually eliminate any.
This screening process originally resulted in a net reduction
from 78 to 40 "primary" candidate sites plus a list of 60 to
70 less preferable or less certain "secondary" sites. Two
6-60
-------
large CSO conduits were subsequently identified as suitable
or conversion to storage facilities, increasing the number
of "primary sites" to 42.
Subsequent review and study of these sites by the DWSD, City
agencies, and other engineering groups resulted in the
deletion of some "unsuitable" sites and in the substitution
of others from the "secondary site" list. Six new sites,
99-003 through 99-007, and 42-322 were added (Giffels/Black &
Veatch, 1980f and 1980g). The final preliminary list of
primary candidate CSO sites contained 47 sites. Subsequently,
18 of these 47 primary candidate sites were selected and
incorporated into the development of 25 CSO control alterna-
tives (Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980). The 47 primary candi-
date sites and the 18 CSO control alternative sites are
listed in the following section.
The manner in which the site selection procedure was con-
ducted raised several major concerns among the US-EPA and
certain City government departments. Some of these issues
were outlined in the US-EPA Position Paper on CSO Site
Selection and recommendations were made concerning their
resolution (ESEI, 1980b). Many of these concerns have been
addressed and resolved. The following issues remain unre-
solved.
' Del Ray -
The original Del Ray site located north of the exist-
ing treatment plant was the preferred CSO site recom-
mended in the SFP (Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1978).
However, the FFP site selection procedure automati-
cally excluded Del Ray since it is not vacant land.
Subsequently, the US-EPA directed that this site be
given formal consideration in the site selection
process (ESEI, 1980b; US-EPA, 1980c). Because of
potential implementability problems DWSD has taken
6-61
-------
the position that the residential area of Del-Ray
should not be considered until all other alternative
sites in the industrial areas around the DWWTP are
exhausted (DWSD, 1980a).
School Properties -
During the site selection process, sites identified
as being on or adjacent to school properties were
eliminated from the primary list and given secondary
status to avoid potential implementation problems.
There was no evidence, however, that the specific
school sites were ever discussed with the Board of
Education to obtain their input.
The US-EPA Position Paper recommended that school
sites be submitted to the school board for evaluation
(ESEI, 1980b), citing that declining school enroll-
ments and subsequent school closings may have result-
ed in unused school property which the Board might
consider releasing for other municipal uses.
In a subsequent reevaluation of the potential Board
of Education sites reportedly accomplished by the
Facility Planner, nearly all school sites were
screened out based upon other criteria. This reeval-
uation however, was never documented (ESEI, 1980c).
In September 1980, DWSD submitted to the Board of
Education the Capsule Summary of CSO Site Selection
Appendices A through G (Giffels/Black & Veatch,
1980h) for review and comment (DWSD September,
1980b). This summary contained only a list of the
primary and key sites; it did not present a list of
school properties contained in the secondary site
list. To date, no comments concerning the site
selection process have been received from the Detroit
Board of Education.
6-62
-------
0 Park Lands -
More than half of the 47 candidate sites contained in
the "primary" site list are public recreational prop-
erties.
The City of Detroit Recreation Department reviewed the final
preliminary CSO site list and designated seven of these sites
as unacceptable because of the major adverse impacts of con-
struction on recreational activities (City of Detroit Recrea-
tion Department, 1980a and 1980b). The remaining sites were
considered acceptable, depending upon a number of factors,
but required further study before the department would
support them for an actual construction project.
The Recreation Department has expressed concern that DWSD has
not provided them with more information about the primary
sites, but yet indicated the Recreation Department was in
full agreement with the use of these facilities, as well as
several sites which were never reviewed by the department.
In addition, the Recreation Department together with the
Planning Department, have expressed concern that the site
selection process unfairly concentrated on public park-
lands. The selection process, these agencies contend, has
not seriously considered possible sites held either by pri-
vate owners or by other governmental agencies (City of
Detroit Recreation Department, 1980b; Giffels/Black & Veatch,
1980i; ESEI, 1980d).
The 47 CSO sites resulting from level three screening are
listed in Table 6-9. These sites were submitted to the
engineering groups for consideration in developing various
alternatives. To date, 18 of the 47 sites have been selected
and incorporated into the development of the 25 CSO control
alternatives. These sites are listed in Table 6-10.
6-63
-------
TABLE 6-9
FINAL LIST OF 47 PRIMARY CSO SITES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Site ID
Number
10-3
10-29**
10-467
10-467
10-508
30-226
30-294
42-185**
42-203**
42-217
42-257
42-322**
42-425
42-499
42-504
42-508
42-556
42-560**
42-561
42-618
42-823
42-828
50-95
59-129
50-274
51-139
61-299**
Name
E. Howell
Rogell Course
E. Howell Pk.
E. Howell Prk.
Heckel Plgd.
Peterson Fid.
O'Hair Pk.
Rouge Pk.
Stein Field
Stoppel Park
Kemeny Plfld.
Forman Plfld.
Patton Park
Hammerberg Field
Lodge Plfld.
Jayne Field
Lipke Plgd.
Palmer Park
Golf Course
Location*
Fenkell - 196
7 Mile-Curtis-Berg-Lahser
Brammell-Beaver land-Telegraph
Bennett-Santa Maria-Fenton-
Telegraph
Pickford-Curtis-Greenf ield-
Coyle
Hessell-St. Martins-
Edinbourough-Stahelin
v -I yur^/-*/^ ^ TI* rt v /"I — TTaiiG^— Q/"\i'i4-Vi'Fi o 1 A
j\ -L JL WUCJQ r y L Q r ciuou OVJUL.II.I- xc -to
Plymouth-Tireman-R. River-
Trinity
W. Chicago-Cathedral-Stahelin-
Faust
W. Chicago-Ellis-Grandmont-
Mansf ield
I-75-Fort-Downing-Schafer
Fort-I-75-Reisener
Oakwood-I-75-Schaefer-Saunders
Rouge River-Toronto-Fort-Liebold
J. Kronk-Dix Holy Cross-Fenwick
JTf ~^ f\f\ t ^ T^ n v — r^ i v^H/"\T \T f^vf^iGG
. RLvjnK ijix ijix noj.y v^toso
Dix-Vernor-Woodmere-Dix
Powell -Pleasant -Ford son-Dix
W. Chicago-West Point Wyoming-
Briar wood
r\ *• i -* TI r>u • ^, TT4^ n
urangeiawn w. wnicago wiscon
sin-Griggs
Kern-Georgia-Van Dyke-St. Cyril
Luce-Char les-Fenelon-Conant
Bliss-Suzanne-Van Dyke-Antwerp
Savanah-Merril Plaisance Extreme
S.E. Corner
1-94 W. Warren-Trumbull-U.S. 10
(Lodge)
6-64
-------
TABLE 6-9 (Continued)
Ite ID
.umber
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
61-433
61-444
61-450**
61-536**
70-407
Chandler Pk.
70-587 Sasser Playground
70-590 Balduck Park
70-598 Guilford Park
80-39 Vaughn Reid Pk.
80-40 Engel Park
80-61** Memorial Park
80-68** Gabriel Richard Pk.
80-72** Maheras Plfld.
80-107** Alfred B. Ford Pk.
80-74** Algonquin Pk.
99-0001** Conner Creek
99-002 Hubbell Southfield
99-003** Detroit Marine
Terminal
99-005** Edw. Levy Prop.
99-007** Uniroyal East Lot
Michigan-Howard-3rd-U.S. 10
(Lodge)
Wight-River-Mt. Elliott-Adair
E. Vernor-Lafayette-Chene-
Elmwood Cem.
C&O tracks-W. Jefferson-Water-
man-Reid
I-94-Frankfort-Dickerson-
Conner
Moross-Casino-I-94-Lanark
Chandler Pk. Dr.-Mack-McMillan-
Randor
Southampton E. Warren-Neff-
Guilford
Freud-Det. River-St. Jean-
Canal
Freud-Det. River-Canal-
Meadowbrook
Jefferson-Det. River-Lodge-
Burns
Jefferson-Det. River Baldwin-
E. Grand Blvd.
Avondale-Det. River-Port Dr.-
Conner Creek
Harbor-Det. River-Lakewood-
Lenox
As Above
Open Channel Clairpoint to Freud
Channel to Rouge River
Jefferson-Det. River-Rouge River
Jefferson-Det. River-RR Track-
Cope land
Jefferson-Det. River-Building-
McArthur Bridge
* Approximate street boundaries (not exact locations) for reference
only. For map locations, see the source document cited below.
** Site associated with one ormore of the 25 CSO Control
Alternatives.
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1980g
6-65
-------
TABLE 6-10
SITES PROPOSED IN THE 25 CSO CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
Site No.
10- 29
42-185
42-203
42-322
42-504
42-560
42-618
61-229
61-450
61-536
80- 61
80- 68
80:- 72/74
80-107
99-001
99-003
99-005
99-007
Size
(Acres)
89
34
138
108
18
32
12
52
140
25
24
17
51
24
15
44
14
11
Name
Rogell Golf Course
Urban open space (grassland)
Rouge River Park
Urban open space
Urban open space (industrial)
Urban open space (industrial)
Urban open space (industrial)
Wayne State University Athletic
Field
Urban open space (residential)
Urban open space (residential/
industrial )
Memorial Park
Grabriel Richard Park
Peter Maheras Playfield
Alfred Brush Ford Park
Connor Creek
Detroit Marine Terminal (industrial)
Edward Levy Property (industrial)
Uniroyal East Parking Lot
6-66
-------
7. Water Quality Improvements
This section of the report summarizes the potential water
quality improvements for each of the 25 alternatives des-
cribed in Sections 6.2 and 6.3. These water quality improve-
ments were predicted by the QUAL II, RECEIV II, and Plume
Models. In this section, the alternatives will be consid-
ered only on the basis of water quality improvements. Further
analysis, taking costs, benefits and environmental effects
into consideration, is described in the next chapter.
Each of the tables presented in this section summarizes
predicted water quality improvement with the alternatives
grouped by the originally projected control levels (20%, 40%,
60%, 75%) of biological oxygen demand (BOD). Tables 7-1
through 7-10 present the anticipated changes in water quality
and CSO volume for the Rouge River. Tables 7-11 through 7-21
present the same information for the Detroit River. A brief
explanation of the terms and abbreviations used in the tables
follows:
7-1
-------
Abbreviations:
EC - Existing conditions; defines the water quality
in the river with the Facilities which existed
in 1979.
FNA - Future no action; defines the water quality
which is predicted for 20 years in the future
assuming no furtner actions (other than those
assumed as given) will be taken to control
combined sewer overflows from the City of
Detroit.
CSO - Combined Sewer Overflow
RRN - Rouge River North Watershed (See Figure 4-2)
RRS - Rouge River South Watershed (See Figure 4-2)
HS - Hubbell-Southfield Watershed (See Figure 4-2)
BCW - Baby Creek West Watershed (See Figure 4-2)
FCE - Fox Creek-East Jefferson Watershed
(See Figure 4-3)
CCC - Conner Creek Central Watershed (See Figure 4-3)
CBC - Conner and Baby Creek Watershed (See Figure 4-3)
BCE - Baby Creek East Watershed (See Figure 4-3)
1C - Initial conditions are pollutant concentrations
and hours of violation for dry weather. This
condition defines water quality which would
result if no CSOs from the City of Detroit were
discharged into the river.
Std - State water quality standards which have been
set by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources or pseudostandards established by
the Joint Venture.
? - Indicates that the numbers reported are
questionable and probably in error.
Values not calculated because of an error
E - Values reported by Giffels/Black & Veatch
which are incorrect due to modeling errors.
* - Denotes the best control alternative within
the particular BOD grouping.
7-2
-------
Terms:
Dissolved Oxygen - the concentration of oxygen in water.
Without dissolved oxygen being present at an appreciable
level, many kinds of aquatic organisms cannot exist in
water. The only sources of dissolved oxygen in water are
photosynthesis and the atmosphere.
Fecal Coliforms - a group of bacteria found in the feces of
warm-blooded animals. Fecal coliforms do not multiply
outside the intestines of warm-blooded animals and the
presence of this bacteria indicates relatively recent
pollution. Fecal coliform by itself, does not cause
significant adverse health effects; however, the presence
of these organisms serves as an indicator that other
pathogenic organisms may be present in the water.
Suspended Solids - the concentration of undissolved materials
in water. Suspended solids include soil, inorganic and
organic matter present in the water. Excessive amounts of
suspended solids can clog the gills of aquatic organisms,
destroy the eggs and larva of some species, deplete dis-
solved oxygen, and in time, fill impoundments and/or
restrict flow.
7-3
-------
Phosphorus - an essential element for plant growth. High
concentrations of phosphorus in conjunction with other
essential elements and appropriate environmental condi-
tions can cause nuisance algal blooms and excellerate
eutrophication.
Hours of Violation - the total number of hours annually in
which a standard or pseudostandard is not met for the
parameter specified,
Since the information presented in this chapter is in the
form of tables, the following notes may assist in interpre-
tation:
Alternatives 20 and 21 are achieved through various manage-
ment practices (eg. sewer flushing, street sweeping, etc.).
It is very difficult to accurately model improved management
practices; therefore, the results from Alternatives 5 and 6
were used to approximate those expected from 20 and 21
respectively.
The percentages given under CSO volume, dissolved oxygen and
fecal coliforms are the percent improvement over the future
no action alternative (FNA).
The initial conditions (1C) hours of violation and average
concentrations for dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform were
calculated by the EIS Consultant.
All values presented in these tables were developed from the
modeling program outputs. The accuracy of these values is
directly related to the accuracy of the models used and the
model input and initializing data.
7-4
-------
s
* '
0 IS
CM dP
8
VC rH
CO *
86
ps
Iri in
PS
VD *»
OJ dP
». S
s
4"
0 *
«•
m if
:s
!&
co in
"^ co
^
?*
r
*- . n dP
N to .H
3S
u3
ro dP
no ^
j*i j<": ui w
I** in p |o
in * A *>
rH rH K P>
in *>
-8
VD
"21
vO
t W W I H
ss
VO '
I M CD I W
O <£ (N dP
JJ- ™ rH iH
I** dP f*l dP
CD IN in F-
s s
O *> IN *
m I U
CO
ss
VO
« in OP
-•«
VD
L? ?
o o
• •
rg o
S
1C
CO
VD
S R
VC
p
I
I
10
£ 55
(Q IM f
rH: O
in
lation
of
ge
tration
100 ml
in
violation
of standar
in
olation
»s
8S
7-5
-------
(Q
CM
I
a
a
D
s
I
1
p
n)
0)
to
•o
s
o
1
cs
z
H
EH
W
O
EH
§
CO
33
W
4J
rH
*
dP dP dP dP dP
CTI CM co P* p*
O 1 ^" VD OD CTi in
T- r- T- CM 1
*
r- vo CM CM CM oo CM
vo o in vo vo P- m
in CTI P~ vo i- CTI «—
VO *~ VD CM CO *~ *""
CM in «- »- CM oo oo
o CM en T- co m co
CM CM «- CM T- T- CM
*
O O O O O O O
O CTi CTi CTi O CTi CTl
in in in in o in in
CM oo in P~ r- m P-
m co ^" CM in *- p-
00 C3 ^** O^ VO *i* ^1*
v K N
o o o o o o o
•^ in «- P- »- i- o
CO CM 00 P- 00 CM CO
r*. m *~~ ^* *•" ' P* ^5*
CM in CM co CM CM in
P- VD CM CM CM CO CM
p- CM o vo o m »-
O 00 CM P- P* CTi *•"
CO CO ^J1 *"~ *3* CM ^j1
VO VO VD VD VD VD VD
0 O 0 0 O 0 0
in CTI m ^f in CM in
v- CTl *- in «- CM r-
co vo m oo m vo in
00 CTi CO 00 CO P» 00
r- O «- CM CTl O CO
dP
0
CM
•«*
vD
r-
0
*
dP dP dP dP dP
co o «- oo m
CM O *- CT> 00
p- CM CO CM in
co vo »- P- «-
CM CO 00 CM ^J1
^T in in in vo
CM P^ CM O CO
in in co oo oo
*
VO 0 0 O O
oo m CTI m in
CM ^ oo co in
oo m p~ vo «~
ro ^d1 ^ VD P*
^ % * * N
#
0 O 0 0 O
in CTI vo oo o
in oo in in in
CM CM CO CM CM
T- CM CO CM 00
^i1 »— p- m P>
P- O VO P~ VO
CO CTl CO CO VO
vo in vo vD vo
*
O O O O p-
O CO vD CT* CTi
«— oo ^ o o
CM CM P- CM CTl
in co »* in CM
co •«* T- •q- in
dP
o
•<*
o
CM
CO
VO
0
•k
dP dP dP dP dP dP dP
*- in v- O CM 00 P-
CTI P^ in r^ oo o o
co co vo in in oo co
*
^j1 p* in ^" CTI ^* CM
CM ^ •<» «- VD i- «*
(Jl Tf Tf r- p- CM 00
0 VO VD CTl O CM ^J"
P- O CO VO ^1" CO CO
ro ^l1 r^ 0^ 0^ ^* ^J*
*
o o o o o o o
in in oo m vo o in
CT* o ro p* co ^" P*
CM CO CM 00 00 CO CO
*
*
0 O O O O i-O
00 CO O «- CM v- O
CTivOinCTiOl IP-O
CTi i— CM CTi P^ VD CO
i- «- 00 CM T-
*
^f p* in ^ o co ro
CM o m p- o oo «-
0 P- Tji CO VD 1 1 <* P>
m oo r- in m p- *»
•5T CM ro VD 'sf CN
*
0 O 0 0 O 00
CO CM O ^" VO CO ^*
co in VD CM *t i i CTI in
vo in oo VD ^ vo ^*
CM «3" CM CM r- CO T-
mvDCMVOP-OT-CMCO
«- r- 1- 00 CM CM CM
dP
O
VO
CM
CM
00
in
o
6»
^
*
dP dP dP dP dP dP
O CO CTi f vO vO
CO CM CTi VD ^3* ^
^ ^ r^ oo oo oo
*
in p* CT* CTI o ^*
o p- vo CM co in
^j VD CTI ^ m p*
co p- T- m p- in
oo oo in o "31 i1
CM CM "* CO CO CO
*
0 0 0 0 0 O
CTl CTl CTl O CTl CTl
in in i- p- r- CM
PN CO P* O CM CO
CM in <* m r~ co
CM CM CO CM CM CO
*
O O O O O P-
P- CTi O O CTl CTl
VD CM CM *t CM «-
*- CM O O VO P>
»- CM t CM
*
o m CTI CTI o in
CM T- oo in P- vo
CTi in ^" co p- co
vo
-------
s
g
rH
R
o i
Pi
2
^
I
N
,aa
8
i
5
I
n * Sn
«s
s
w
a
58
7-7
-------
I
3
J
a
a
VO
a
00
a
<£
a
cc
a
CO
a
cc
a
CO
a
CO
a
CO
a
m
a
CO
a
CO
a
CO
a
cc
a
CO
a
CO*
a
CO
a
CO
a
CO
CQ
CO
a
CO
a
CO
CO
2
in
3
I
R
S
§
S
§
a », a
vO
S
VD
-
* in
VD
VD
VO
Tf
VO
3.
VC
R
VC
VD
O
15
S
S
S
£
P
VO
in
CO
10
in
VO
in
a
in
s
in
s
ft
*!
vO
vD
vO
vO
in
VD
vo
to
VO
"2
1C
VD
VD
* "2
VD
VD
S
VO
VO
m
in
VO
in
vo
a
1C
I
s
s
a
S
pi
s
s
VD
* in
vo
VD
5
VD
S
VD
R.
vO
rH
CO
vO
Bl
83
1|
tn fr
Cr) H
cg-H
i ±>
(N 'C
S-
v-S
i
h
rH O
II
.si
ola
of
si
7-8
-------
fsff
-o >. S1
I
s
Ul
o
p
s
r-
8
8
8
8
8
8
i
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
$'
H
tc
R
KJ
3
in
R
a
s
in
iH
g
S
rH
a
s,
a
8
w
a
R
S
R
S
R
S3 3
i
S
8
o
S
S
in
a
s
a
S
S
P
R
I
§m
9
g P
ft) in
s
R
s
R
§
m
R
ft
IP
§sl
* S
i
r-
ffi
P
to
CM
• .
Iff *M *
rH 0
7-9
-------
16
H§
|
§
*
9
1
M
§
fi
I
s
s
a
00
rH
00
i
in
IN
tN
tN
F3
8
•s,
H
ID
H
a
10
n
1
a
s
s
„,
n
1
n
o
H
»
N
H
1°
H7
a
1
ISusperded Solids
By Reach
8
8
0 8
8
8
0 8
R
8
0 R
R
R
R
R
0 R
R
R
0 R
0 R
0 R
0 8
R
0 R
0 R
0 R
S
0 R
0 R
0 R
q£ V 1
•3 -5s c aj 75
•P m O* v
rH
rH f\]
S S
O\ <*)
^ CM
c3 N
S N
rt R
»H (S
CM <0<
(N M
§ §
i §
R 3
a 3
a 3
R R
S R
S R
« R
R R
R R
R S
« S
R S
R S
R S
«
iMlh
M
S
•H ^
0 R
a s
R
a R
ft R
ft R
i §
a R
R R
a R
ft R
S R
a R
a R
R R
8 R
a R
R R
R ?!
a. s
R CM
R CM
R S
a s
R ?3
|
-Si 1 fi)CJ
JJ , JH ">±S
n
O -C-4
CM
O (N
fNJ
S M
"31 fN
° a
o «
O 00 < D £
-
* s
0 Pi
VC1 -H
a s
if e*i
M m
S H
fl
0 PH
§ S
I i
f» rj
rs n
W ?!
O fS
« m
S R
Pi R
N W
-------
a
to
s
ffi
^
N
"t
fM
si
8
$
s
i
^
s
?.
S
g
S
1
a
a
s
i
to
S
1C
3
S
R
R
R
8-1
7-11
-------
6,236,330
7,198,630
*
0000
ro ^- »-
oo
m
CO
N o
CO fO fO
vO VO vO m 00
in to in VD vo
* *
CO
in
CO CM *~ IT) CN
* *
r- m 00 CO in n
™
m
™
R, ""» ^ *
-^ co N 3
vo o r^ en
(*) CO C? ^" *
3
3
a\
*~
^f
CD
^D
If)
O O O O O
CM flR CM CM Cn
o o o o o
O? o< r^ S ci
in vo
in Tj1 in in m
o vo o *~ CM
t-^ T^t'xi~xT^.
in vo in «* m
o o o o o
CM CM CM Cft CM
T™ oo o f'O ro
O O * ^j ^t in in
O O O O O O
n 01 in
m cri o
1 o
c
in
§
o o
o o
3
o
o
a
So'SEo'8
*. ^ X ^ ^
co o> o co r*-
S 1
^3 C3 CD
O O3 O4
O CO (J\
%• ^ ^
S O> in
CD ^D
^ CO
CT\ CO
% *.
o$ ro
O O O O O
O If) O rH Cn
i-J CN C^ C^ VO^
CD CD O
iH f*) rH
\Q rti ^p
ro us co
o en o p in
r~ o
in
o
o o
gj ro J; o (D
CO VO OCj Cn 00
ffl CJ
n c\
m
cj <*j
VO CO
fs r~
oo o
8
*
assaa
§^3 *T*
o o
rH ^* in
CO
C) CD CD
r^ rH o
\Q t^ vD i
ro 'S1 in •
in
i™H
3 5 S S 8 S3
fin
dP
s
7-12
-------
dP dP dP dP
Co ro 10 en
i-i Ki f-J
dP dP dP
c*>
H
^_ ^_
5 tx> S
Is- T" PV. If) ^<
h- CO CM O CN
^* en ro r*» ro
X «h % ^ «.
*- o> 10 Is* r-
vo m in ^0 vo
* *
dp HP dP df dP
^J1 r« CO l~- CO
§
co »—
m
CNJ C5 F C» M VO
CTi CTv O CT* CM C^
*. ^ w ^ K ^
in
CM
fe&
S
r» »-
*^
i- t-
CM n oj n
Ssp
ro
in in «* in in
in ^|
"1 *
- tn
r-t ^
W
r-t N
r** co o
5B$5
rift
<*> iH
cri r*-
'"'
Cn
•Jc C*«
R o R VD
(Tv in en «*>
r- cp
in in
r-t r-t
88
VD25
r^ vo
«^ *
oiin.wio5.rH
"* ^" ^* •** in
CD o
«N r»
in 10
o ro
CM "31
r~ ts
in
tf>
en
m PI
T- m r^
aa
vO
VO VO lf> <£>
CM n
§ro c^ rH o
iff m co t
VO i-l O >H
* ^ ^ ^ ^
M CO
-------
7-14
in
*
1
-------
Q
S
* ^
n in
I
i
(N N
"-S
*i»
cq K®
a 3 B
Hdk
Ba
i
§
58
I
N
5 S
(Nin i
in o
§n
*
a
9 dp
in t
N ^f
m ro
vX) CM
fdp
in
S £,
*~ f*7
«
Oi
!PS
0>
in dp
r-S
en
£g
S*
we
s
Su
P «
_g
gfi
e
fifi
SS
«8
Sfi
g
5« ^ *
(N O
en
-* £S &
m^ o
*- dP
T d
£1
o
PIJ
=!!
oc
d
fMd
ej
d
^5
d
DdP
C50
O
SS
d
o!
d
9$
SS
0
d
Rff
cn
o TJ«
rf
I I
I o
S
S
S3
n
K
3
d
•s
n 8
"8%
ge
ntrat
ration
ftt
Sll
vio
of
I
8.5?,
"US1
7-15
-------
CM
I
3
PQ
w
•O
(I)
fi
CQ
H
^J> r^ Ch
ro ff> o oo oo m »-
r- cvi m CM r^ r> M
in •»» OD 10 CM oo eg
03 «- ^ 0 «- CO CM
or- vo r- P» ID r-
%
*
IO O\ G\ 0N CT^ CT> O>
VD ro vo vf> vo *r vo
O VO rr r- rji o TT
en in oo en oo ts oo
vo vo in m m T- in
CM CM M 01 CM M CN1
r- O «- C>J O\ O fO
1 i- r-
*>
O
CM
•^
in
m
^
V
m
•
tr
>
ft.
*
dP dP *> dP dP
00 VO O O CM
(J> O VO O i-
«- CM VO •« ^
*
't «- O ffi »-
CM r- o o in
r- CM ff> in O
r-- ro o oo *-
o in o t oo
vo m c^ •* ro
•** <* «- to ro
*
vo o ro CM «-
T- »— T- en r-
«- vo en r* co
CM 00 o fO ro
ro r~ T- vo o\
in ^ vo CM »-
fO fO tsi CM
*
r- 5j> en vo cr»
in ro oo vo *~
«- r> CM oo ^J1
oo r- ro o m
CM CM r- oo oo
*
00 OD O> CM CM
00 ro CO 00 CT*
ro ^j o ro r-
o o r- r- in
en cr> in ^J1 «f
in m r- vo vo
en * CM in i i in co
T- VD r-~ o *- o CM
vo CM ro ro *- «-
o o o ro ro 1 loo
co oo r«- r~ r> oo oo
en en vo ^~ ^ en en
r- «- «- CM CM r- T-
invocMvor-OT-cMco
'-'-'- 00 CN CM CM
dP
o
VO
ro
•N.
o
VO
CO
CM
•
o\
ft
*
dP dP dP dP dP dP
CO »- ro CM ^T O
en ro vo cn in vo
in in r~ r^ in TJ"
*
oo cn CM ro VD cn
o r~ o VD ^t t-»
VD 'S1 00 VO ^ ^
r~ t~ »- CM in ro
o cn vo cn v£> o
ro vD ro »- in T-
CM CM T- t- CM ro
*
in in VD ro ro in
r-. vo ^r vo «- vo
ro o o r^ CM o
T- O O ^ O> VO
o vo cn ^> m vo
vo cn rr CM co ro
•«- i- •'-CM
*
*- CM r- in r- CM
oo »- m cn co «-
CM oo in vo CM co
r~ r- »- cn r- r>
•
-------
•i la
I
•4
§3
I
la
I
§?
H
in
R
S
SD
w
8
in
s
in
in
ffi
ffi
S
i
R
R
S
a
GO <*>
B
I
_e
*
s
£
S
7-17
-------
s
i
rar
DP
P
£
|j
•£
Q
8
•s
1
S
1
6
i
^
1
i
s
rn
s
a
CO
^
i
m
OJ
N
i— 1
N
0
«
H
a
(S
H
tO
in
1
in
^•i
„
"*
rt
^
•»
pr)
i
r*l
o
*""
Ol
m
rt
z o
HI
a
I
1
lj
s&
P
o>
P
oi
0 CO
Ol
O CO
oi
o o;
oi
o p
oi
J5
oi
0 g>
O>
<~* m
"" rf
O Oi
Oi
o p
oi
O Oi
oi
o p
o*
o p
oi
o p
oi
R
oi
R
oi
R
oi
R
R
Oi
*~ CO
p*
oi
0 CO
Oi
P
O^
R
rf
R
oi
O 00
oi
p .
•
fll -
iHi!*?
^
«
o g;
*
o p
oi
O 1^
oi
O p-
Ol
o p
oi
o p
oi
o o;
oi
O 00
oi
*— s
o r-
"" oi
§ R
rf
o r^
r*-
oi
0 P~
o p
Q\
0 CO
oi
0 £
01
0 !>.
oi
O [^
oi
p
oi
o t^.
oi
0 t*
Ol
o r^
oi
0 CO
oi
o r»
oi
c t~
oi
O f^
oi
o t»
oi
o (&
oi
o
s* 1
lll!l51
s
0 CO
oi
0 CO
o>
O P-
oi
R
01
00
oi
0 CJ
oi
0 is
oi
o r^
oi
*^ 1^
O p-
~" O1
S ^"
oi
s
oi
o 10
oi
o g
oi
O l~
oi
O f~
oi
0 VD
oi
O tf
oi
0 \0
oi
O \D
Oi
0 JD
01
O l£
p;
oi
O 1^
oi
0 jg
oi
0 jg
oi
o vp
oi
O ID
oi
e p
rf
•
r-
* I
a O S ft* Q *3 c
*
a p
oi
P
oi
p
oi
p
oi
p
oi
0 p
oi
O V
oi
p
oi
^- ^
O p*
~~ oi
S rl
oi
O i-
oi
o «-
r;
oi
O fl
oi
o «-
oi
p
Ol
c o
oi
0 0
oi
R
oi
o *-
oi
o *-
Ol
O Ol
10
oi
O t-
oi
0 0
Ol
R
oi
o o
oi
O ttj
oi
o r*»
S
1
( O
CO ip XJ
•H -H H
O t£
01
o tn
p-
oi
o vo
oi
o in
oi
o in
p-
oi
o m
oi
o in
p-
oi
O <9
oi
1
'
•3 -fl y fl) E
o *H 4J 5 C *H £
as > 85 a g e
I
H
1
i
^
i
5
1
c
i
c
7-18
-------
. ffi
3
3
« ffi
•
* § • *
m * ty*
ro oj
tp <(f
m *
-------
$
PL
1
1
o
§
•B
"S
4
i>
1
1
<*P
P
i
f
i
,„
S
i
a
*
o*
M
s
CO
P-
i
n
a
^
CM
o
CN
r*.
rt
S
vo
m
i
•-i
r-i
a
«
m
1
s
s
a*
cs
rH
1°
a?
u
M
I
1 Solids
I!
o
c
U$
O
g
o
9
0
vc
o
VD
o
o
o
(N
O
fM
"£
g
£
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
o
00
o
o en
C CO
!n g
C5 CO
*- o
m *-
o &
R g
r-
o cr»
ft g
O S
ft g
o S
s s
O CO
* g'
0 PJ
• in
o
_. c 3
co *p re
•H -J5 M fli P
AJ B en ^
<
o
CO
C5
S
^
m
o
R
C3
R
O
K
g
^
^
»*
«»
N
^
I
o
s
^
O
ro
o
o
0
S
o
s
0
>4
0
0
p{
o
9
o
§
0
2
"5
s
^
IP
£
?
;:
p?
j;
3
^
m
-
o
j
o
s
o
•
in
o
^
o
in
Tt
S
T-
5
$
^
s
^
o
*~
5
O
¥
O
a
o
a
0
9
o
B
C3
S
pi
Hours in
Violation
of
Standard
-
W
"B
g"
CO
;£
co
^
m
JI
S
o
SQ
u E
^
VD IN
«- in
0
* E
g
CM 3>
g
(N \D
N «
O
v£ ro
** in
*
c
vg in
o
« s
g
fO O
g
nm
r*
3 "|
£ S
o
n°'
8 "2
g
m
JO ^
r
-------
16
rH Q
I
Q
8
•8
s
r
S
tt.
g
B
S
g
1
SQ
„
rvj
S
s
CO
[^
1
R
R
N
C
N
^
S
N
.n
i
in
«
iH
,_(
ro
1
ro
H
o
0*
CM
*H
HP *
a?
a
1
a
in
in
* \D
s
5
in
ir>
+ Vf>
g
o
c
d
(N
o
d
o
o
(N
o
o
CM
o
o
5
S
^
CO
i?
5
CO
CO
CO
^.
CO
CJ
0
d
o
d
(N
0
d
o*
o
o
o
o
O)
o
d
CM
0
o
(N
0
O
CM
O
d
CO
CO
CO
CO
,_
(C
(N
0
O
(N
0
O
O)
0
d
(N
O
*
O
M
0
d
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
$
00
s| I
III
s
IN
0
d
o
d
o
d
g
d
o
o
o
d
g
o
co
0
d
1
a
If!
CO
CO
g
5
^.
CO
^
CO
g
d
c
d
ro
d
g
d
ci
c
d
(M
o
d
3
s
^
^
v
5
»-*
s
p
s
s
^~
^,
j;
(M
o
d
g
d
(X
o
d
g
•
O
o
o
OJ
O
d
CM
O
d
CM
0
d
CM
O
d
S
S
S
s
^
ro
o
d
o
d
ro
0
o
CM
o
d
CM
O
d
R
s
R
R
3
R
S
.si |
a rt (u 'O
B o £
6
ro
o
d
o
d
ro
0
o
ro
o
d
o
o
CO
0
d
ro
d
(Tt
O
O
|
E f ri
I e-5!
S o
o
S g
O
S s
d
^ o
d
W CM
^ 0
d
V CM
o
ro ro
iC o
o
m CM
\p c
d
tn ro
\C o
•— o
\£ O
-— O
** o
o
m
^ CO
"^ O
d
JZ
*~ o
d
S ro
i* o
d
ro ro
* °.
o
n ro
d
ro ro
o
^ ro
R ^
O
ro ro
d
ro ft
0
ro ro
d
ro fo
O
2 °
o
ro ro
d
ro ro
o
§ s
*~ d
S§ o
d
Cl
0
d
1
^ K — -ti
CO 'P fB
llllf?
'
in ro
CM °
0
in ro
o
in ro
d
in co
o
in ro
Si ^
0
in ro
S o
o
in ro
o
in ro
S s
o
to ro
S °.
— o
« S
ro •
•w O
W ^
ro S
d
CN «tf
^
O
tn
^ ro
o
d
ro o
d
VD CO
R °.
O
o5 o
d
iQ ^
S S
o
i£J ^"
S ^
o
CO ^
d
tr ^
CO •
o
ro °
d
^1 ro
™ o
o
ro ^
d
S ?
o
s §
ro •
o
cQ o
d
o m
S o
d '
CO
o
o
5l 1
to a *y *S «? c
n *-* S W ^
O *H j3 S C *H ff
s
«
£
£
r-
\c
52
W
S
d
ry
o
d
o
o
ro
o
d
d
0
d
d
C3
d
E
t
^
r^
•^
r>
••^
r-
p*
S
J^
^
^.
c
o
d
C3
d
d
ej
d
S
o
o
d
o
d
d
o
d
ro
0
d
ro
0
d
E
t
S
E
^
ro
d
o
d
c;
d
ro
o
d
ro 0}
0 Q
• c
0 g
£
g
E
£
g
r*
S
g
5i i
n to tu
-------
•A1
iV
IP
un
•3§
|
§
a
!
I
s
g
*
'
i
i
!Q
S
CT>
a
CO
i
s
s
M
0
N
««,
H
S
a
1C
in
1
in
rH
S
H
rt
*
m
1
m
H
o
rH
»
CS
H
g
G°
H i
CJ
M
1
ll
I*
0 ffi1
« S
. s
S
o
8
0
^ o
S3
* •
CN
*.
o
R
• W
§
^
0
R
o
0
5
o
^;
o
5
0
5
o
S1
2
Average
Ooncentration
In
ug/1
o
S
o
s
0
i
0
FR'
0
R
O
R
o
5
o
s
o
C5
3
63
5
O
O
3
o
i
o
|9
0
i
cs
o
o
8
o
C5
"*
n
0
3
0
5
o
9
0
o
o
0
5
o
5
0
O
ft
o
ffi
2
15
o
s
o
s
iS
O
o
*
0
IT
O
in
o
o
3
o
•
15
O
ffi
o
5!
0
ft
0
s
o
p
4-) 3
s
$
o
^
o
*
o
$
o
in
0
$
o
9
0
B1
rsi
Average 1
Ocncentratlon
in |
ug/1 |
m m
(N €*!
0
(N rn
CN m
o
fn %
0
^> i*>
o
S R
O
^ R
O
tn ^
O
**» in
O
w ss
o
R R
^ 0
§
o
rh o
0
S R
o
W R
c5
fi ^
CO p>
•
o
{J N
0
5 CN
0
SfM
^«
O
8 5
o
$ 5
0
© tN
O
J5> o
0
9 $
o
m CM
*T ^
0
r^ n
o
9 ^
0
E 3
c
i1
^
5I |R^
31 t> TO < J5
i
R
1
£
V
J
]
£
I
C
1
1-22
-------
a
<
•
8
§
CD
"8 ra
!TJ r*
w £i£
rn rn
Suspended
Loadings
Basin in
*£ o
VD r«
in CM
^ CO
t~ VD
CD r^
11,003,240
12,635,960
2,504,110
1 ,081 ,910
tCM
CM
in co
^§
S!5
f- CM
S3
7°
w E
*
19,028,047
16,876,400
11,180,250*
15/487,070
13,757,558
14,504,580
12,159,940
6,399/490*
11,499,570
8,992,210
C3 CO C3 Cl *O
^* in ^j1 c^ ro
•». ^t *. ^ »»
C^ ^1 CD ^J co
CT) CN (D CS CO
CTN ^3 CD P^ C3
»» •» *k
O\ CN CM CN O
^ CO ^ PO rj«
CM c^ in^^ T^
CNJ ro CT» ^* ro
*— P* CJ1 ^ CN
^in in m vp^
?2F2 ?S^ £
o «? ^"i c^
CM r- CM vo CM
iH CN (^ O CO
f™1 nS
*
8
1
:
SfslcSW
--N^t
Cft ^3* VO O Civ
CO p CT> CM CM
ftScovp^
33^^:^
o o o o o
ID r- f- o r-
CMOiCftrxvO.
CM ^ co co S
CM 0 iff T^C*
o o CM r- \D
o o o o o
co cR co r- m
--co^in
^j ro «- vp CM
00 CO d( C^ C^
(*» v*l CO CO CM
r-^^CM-^
SSS^?
rsi CM 25 ro ro
», % ^ ** ^
f2f2?°fS^
in^ in CM in in
ro ro CM co ro
o o ^ o o
00^333
*
I
*
coco^-cMCMcororoco
CMO'-r~S'CMo^-ro
^00,^^05.^00^^ co
VjDCMinCMVOvOf^"1^
roin«-3'COcoini--cri
CCJ V0 \D CM C^ CO VD CT^ T~
(T>CT>^lt~-rs-O^O>T-^-
*
f**i ^5 ^? ^D *^ ^r* ^?
CM o co \o § o cT\
^ r** CJ\ in CO co T™
% % * % ^ ^ v
«* in r- in CM 1 I VD ^
t2- VD CTi ffi CO 1 r CM
TlrXrX ^^ f"l SP
^.^oi0.^ , , T.9.
CN CN O} CO 0 1 1 CM C4
Oi o» o^ VP P"- O« O<
t— T- \D in in ^" T-
CO 00 OD CO CO CO 00
r* r** ^ r* r^ P* p*-
CO CO w^ ^0 ^O CO CO
CO CO ^3 ^^ ^^ 1 1 CO CO
u) uj f) CT O^ ui ffj
CO CO P* o\ Cn CO 00
mv0(NvOP*oHCMro
rH rH rH CM (N Oi 04
s
1
*
00 CO
• •
*— 00 *O ^* »~ SO
co r- co *~ CM F-
O CO^ ^^CTi CO^
5SS8S5
\O yi ^d! 00 VD O
r^1 co in «* co o
*- ^r *- VD CM in
»™ CM ^ CM CO *""
CTv Cd ^* O^ CT* CM
rr in i- ^- in* r~
o o o p o o
t^ r- «- CM r^ f>-
CM^ CJ^ C^ I~^ CM_ C^
r- in »- 03 T- m
^T o> *~ co ^* en
in VD in in uS vo
CO CO
CO O VP CO CO O
P~ C Cn in 1^ ®
rXal'T.0i.tXai
^3 CO Dp ^3 C3 00
VD in CT^ CN \o in
?2fS?2?2f2FS
S^^Pai!?^
co co co r^ co co
in in Co 50 in in
in in en Cn in m
•"^saScQ
«
p»
i
7-23
-------
vo
CN
CT*
*
O 00
CO CS
ro o N oo m
CNJ r-j «~ »~ *••
o
vo
in
t^ »- m T- r-- r-
o T- in in in o
g
••a1 in
in in
roin
00 ^r
11
r** ^ o^ CD
^ f^ p*. o
- ^ cr* o 10
<"">
o
ro •
I °*'
^ vu ^" 00
vo in ^> in
f\ 1 °X "T. t
(Ti O O vO o
o o
•<* r- ro
j j
*
I***
00 ^M O^
*. *. «»
ro in m
*
ro in
§
0 O
in r- n ro n
r- r- 01 ro »-
^^H V£i'"i'"L
SSSRR
r- m *- «-
T- »- C4 CM
r- r-
^ vo ro o (T* v
*
S
OJ (N
in m in *- in
r"* r*» r*** vo t*^
ON o CTs *™ ON
00 00 O 00 00
ggjb
ss?.
.^
Tf TJ O
i^- r^ r» (
T- T- O
r- r-
pn
dP
a
1
7-24
-------
I
-3
01
<£>
in
in
en
7-25
-------
8. Evaluation of Alternatives
8.1 General Methodology
In order to gain a full understanding of the evaluations of
the alternatives described in the following sections, it is
necessary to make a clear distinction between the methodol-
ogies used to generate data measurements and the methodology
used to aggregate the data and subsequently rank CSO alterna-
tives. The former involves several techniques depending on
the particular evaluation parameter. They may include obser-
vation and measurement, computer modeling, correlation, ex-
trapolation, mathematical calculation and professional judg-
ment. The specific data generating procedures are outlined
in Sections 8.2 through 8.6 within the description of each
evaluation category. The methodology outlined here was used
to compile data from each of the category evaluations and to
ultimately combine the results into a single ranking of CSO
alternatives.
The aggregation of data by the Facility Planner was accomp-
lished using the Environmental Evaluation System (EES) for
Water Resources Planning (Battelle-Columbus Laboratories,
1972). The procedure was adapted for use in Detroit and also
modified for evaluations other than environmental (i.e. the
implementability, technical and economic categories).
A series of steps, not necessarily sequential, were used to
set up the evaluations. Each step is described below indicat-
ing its relationship to other steps and exceptions.
Step 1 - A list of evaluation criteria and parameters were
developed for each category; cost/benefit environmental,
implementability, technical and economic. The lists were
reviewed for completeness and to minimize duplication.
8-1
-------
Step 2 - Because all parameters or criteria are not of equal
importance in the evaluation of alternatives, an Importance
Unit (IU) value was defined for each parameter using the
weighted ranking technique (WRT). (For more information on
the WRT see the AFIR page 2-51.)
Step 3 - In this step, a Rating Value was determined for
each criterion or parameter which was the initial measurement
of each alternative's performance. For the Technical and
Implementability evaluation categories, the Rating Value
units (RV's) were determined using the weighted ranking tech-
niques. Thus, all possible pairs of alternatives were sub-
jectively evaluated relative to one another for each criter-
ion. The more desirable alternative was given a rating of 1
while the less desirable received 0. If the two alternatives
were of equal stature, each received a rating of 0.5. Once
all pairs were evaluated, the ratings received by each alter-
native were summed giving a single value for each alterna-
tive. Each alternative's Rating Value (RV) was derived by
dividing its single value by the total of all alternative
values. The example at the end of this section illustrates
this procedure.
For the Environmental and Economic categories, the parameter
"measurements" which were derived in several diverse units
such as acres, tons/year, mg/1, percentage, etc. were con-
verted to numerical values called Environmental and Economic
Quality Rating values (EQR's). This was done through the
application of a value function (EQR's are comparable to
RV's). The value functions were specifically developed for
each parameter to convert any "measurement" into an EQR value
of between 0 and 1. Figure 8-1 graphically illustrates the
value function.
For the Cost/Benefit category, the RV's of each alternative
were determined relative to an optimum point on a benefit/
cost curve. This is explained in Section 8.2.
8-2
-------
O
>
H
<
O
<
Z
LJ
2
Z
O
DC
Z
UJ
I.O—i
0.8-
P
1
P
A
1
0.2 —
0.0
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT
[ I I
(fttt, acres, tnq/l, etc.)
FIGURE 8-1
ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE FUNCTION
-------
Step 4 - The ranking of alternatives within each of the
evaluation categories was accomplished first by multiplying
the Rating Value (RV's or EQR's) for each alternative by the
Importance Unit (IU's) for each parameter or criterion. The
product of this calculation yielded weighted Rating Values
for each parameter or criterion. When these were summed by
alternative, the total Rating Value was used to rank the
alternative.
The following example was selected to illustrate the four
step process described above.
Step 1 - Select Criteria
For the Implementability category the following criteria were
selected:
1. Family Relocation
2. Federal and State Acceptance
3. Local Government Acceptance
4. Intercounty Group
5. Zoning - Site & Surroundings
6. Civic Groups' Acceptance
7. Industry and Business Acceptance
8. Legal Constraints
9. Institutional Arrangements
10. Existing Suburban Contracts
11. Time Required
12. Compatability With 208
Step 2 - Determine Importance Units
In this step, all possible pairs of criteria were compared
and scored relative to one another. Looking across line 1
of Table 8-1 to column 2, Criterion No. 1 - Family Relocation
was compared to criterion No. 2, Federal and State
8-4
-------
TABLE 8-1
IMPLEMENTABILITY IMPORTANCE UNITS
Criteria
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
2
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
3
.5
1.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
4
1.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.5
1.0
.0
.0
5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.5
.5
1.0
.0
.0
6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.5
1.0
.5
.0
7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.5
1.0
.0
.0
8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.0
1.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
.0
.0
9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.5
.5
1.0
1.0
.0
1.0
1.0
.5
.0
10
1.0
1.0
1.0
.5
.5
.5
.5
1.0
.0
.0
1.0
.5
.0
11
1.0
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
12
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.5
1.0
1.0
.5
.5
1.0
.0
.0
13
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.0
TOTAL
11.0
10.5
9.5
8.5
3.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
2.5
4.5
10.0
2.5
.0
78.0
IU
.141
.135
.122
.109
.038
.064
.077
.064
.032
.058
.128
.032
.000
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
8-5
-------
5 . ...........
O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
co
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
fi
CSr-O'-'-'-t-r-T-r-i-OJCMO
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
£
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
O ^_ ^_ ^_
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
£
_ ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
D o ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
00
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
^ ^ Hi5 ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I fi -PI
00 M
W H
a m o r~
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
vo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
o ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ID
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
n ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
•
-------
Assistance. The score of 0.5 indicates that both criteria
were considered to be of equal importance. Further along the
line at column 4, Criterion No. 1 was compared to Criterion
No. 4 - Intercounty Group. The score of 1.0 indicates that
Criterion No. 1 was considered to be significantly more
important than Criterion No. 4. Note that Criterion No. 13
is a Dummy which allows the other 12 criteria to score a
minimum total of 1.0. This is necessary to avoid a total
importance score of zero for any criterion which the Dummy
receives instead. The Importance Units (IU's) were derived
by dividing the total of each line by the sum of all lines
which in this case is 78.
Step 3 - Generate Rating Values
For each of the 12 criteria, the 25 CSO alternatives were
rated in pairs relative to one another. As in Step 2, a
table was developed which showed the scores of each compari-
son. These were totalled by line and summed. The Rating
Values (RV's) were then derived by dividing the total of each
line by the sum of all lines. A Dummy alternative was also
used to avoid the assignment of zero to any one alternative.
Step 4 - Weight the Rating Values,_ Sum and Rank Alternatives
The IU's developed in Step 2 for each criterion were then
.multiplied by the RV's developed in Step 3 for each alterna-
tive. Table 8-2 shows the product of each of these calcula-
tions.
Totaling these weighted Rating Values by alternative resulted
in the total Rating Value (column on far right) upon which
the alternatives were ranked for iraplementability.
Steps 1, 2 and 4 are similar for each of the evaluation cate-
gories. Step 3 - Rating Values are derived for the environ-
mental and economic categories through the generation of data
and application of value functions as described earlier.
8-7
-------
8.2 Cost/Benefit Analysis
The Facility Planner employed an innovative application of
cost benefit analysis to rank the efficiency of the alterna-
tives in reducing pollution. A cost effectiveness analysis
would not suffice since no minimum level of pollution control
or maximum allowable cost is specified - without which a cost
effectiveness analysis cannot be performed. Benefit analysis
must therefore be used to compare the benefits and the costs
of the 25 specific control alternatives, previously generated
from the general least cost alternatives. Although the FNA
alternative was used to calculate benefits and costs of the
25 specific control alternatives, no assessment was made of
whether any alternative should be chosen over the FNA alter-
native. (This question is addressed in Chapters 10 and 11.)
The Facility Planners' cost/benefit analysis was composed of
four major elements/ the first three of which were pursued
concurrently. First, the "benefits" were defined and calcu-
lated. Second, the costs were obtained and reworked as
necessary according to the needs of the particular methodol-
ogy. Third, the general methodology to perform the cost/
benefit analysis was developed. Fourth, the methodology,
costs and benefits were used to rank the alternatives. The
following sections describe each component in detail.
8.2.1 Definition of Benefit
The benefit of an alternative was defined as as the improve-
ment in water quality over the FNA case. For purposes of the
benefit analysis the water quality parameters of Dissolved
Oxygen (DO), Fecal Coliform (FC), Total Phosphorus (TP) ,
Suspended Solids (SS) and Cadmium (Cd) were chosen as indica-
tors of water quality improvement in the Rouge River. For
the Detroit River only one parameter, Fecal Coliform (FC),
was chosen as an indicator of improvement. Although eight
parameters were modeled for each river, the parameters other
8-8
-------
than those specified above showed little or no significant
change over the entire range of control levels in the respec-
tive rivers and, therefore, were not used for the benefit
analysis. Dissolved oxygen, SS, TP and Cd were taken as
measures of the benefits to fresh water aquatic life - an
important beneficial use in each river. Fecal Coliform
served as a measure of the potential for recreational uses.
More specifically, benefit was measured as the percent
improvement of the maximum practical improvement in water
quality achieved by an alternative for a given parameter in a
given reach. The maximum practical improvement is used as a
yardstick which reflects the fact that 100% improvement is
impractical. For instance, secondary treatment only removes
about 80% of the BOD, and the cost of removing 100% would be
astronomical. The maximum practical improvement may be found
by identifying the best average concentration for a given
river and reach. Once the maximum practical alternative is
identified the benefits for that parameter in that reach may
be calculated for all of the alternatives.
The process may be represented graphically using the cumula-
tive frequencies from the computer summaries of water quality
(See Section 5.3.4) to form cumulative distribution functions
(CDF). The CDF accounts for frequency, magnitude and duration
of concentrations and represents it as the area beneath the
curve.
8-9
-------
REPRESENTATION OF CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY
Increasing
Concentrat ion
Benefit =
0%
B = A
M
W
M
100%
Cumulative Frequency
[Area under FNA - Area under Alternative 1]
[Area under FNA - Area under Maximum ]
In the preceding equation, the denominator equals the maximum
practical improvement which is possible given the specific
control alternative and control level and is represented by
M. The numerator equals the improvement due to the specific
control alternative which is represented by area A. Since
the area under the cumulative distribution function equals
the average concentration, both the numerator and denominator
can be calculated directly from the printouts for each
alternative. (Remember that the computer summaries listed
the average concentrations for each parameter for each reach
for each specific control alternative. Since the average
concentratration equals the area beneath the CDF, all of the
necessary areas are already calculated.) Thus, the formula
for calculating benefit may also be stated using average
concentrations:
Benefit = Ave. Cone, for FNA - Ave. Cone, for Alternative 1
Ave. Cone, for FNA - Ave. Cone, for Maximum
8-10
-------
Suppose that the following average concentrations were taken
from printouts for nine alternatives for the Rouge River for
Reach 2 for the parameter of SS.
Alternative Average
FNA 32.05
Alternative 1 30.09
Alternative 2 31.19
Alternative 3 28.65
Alternative 4 29.55
Alternative 5 27.10
Alternative 6 28.25
Alternative 7 26.13
Alternative 8 25.05 (Maximum improvement)
Alternative 9 27.60
By inspection Alternative 8 represents the maximum improve-
ment (i.e. the alternative with the lowest average pollutant
concentration). Alternative 8 represents Scenario I at a 75%
level of BOD control. (One would expect the 75% control
levels to be maximums.) The maximum practical improvement is
thus FNA minus Alternative 8 and the amounts to 32.05 - 25.05
= 7.0. The calculations of benefit for Alternatives 1, 2 and
8 are as follows:
32.05 - 30.09 1.96
Alternative 1 B = 32.05 - 25.05 = 7.0 = 28%
32.05 - 31.19 .86
Alternative 2 B = 32.05 - 25.05 = 7.0 = 12%
32.05 - 25.05 7.0
Alternative 8 B = 32.05 - 25.05 - 7.0 = 100%
The application of this procedure results in a benefit for
every parameter for every reach for each alternative.
8.2.2 Determination of Costs
Once the specific control alternatives had been formulated,
the costs were determined for each over the twenty year
planning period from 1980 to 2000. (These costs are not to
be confused with those used to develop the general least cost
alternatives of Section 6.1. The general alternatives' costs
8-11
-------
were based on SFP and literature values whereas the costs in
this Section are detailed, specific engineering estimates
based on the preliminary facilities required for the specific
control alternatives.) These costs were used both to calcu-
late the present worths of the alternatives and to perform
the cost/benefit analysis. This section will explain the
present worth calculations while the next section will
explain how these costs were refined for purposes of the
cost/benefit analysis.
The Facility Planner developed capital and O&M costs for five
components: 1) storage facilities, 2) collection facilities,
3) treatment modules, 4) additional DWWTP facilities, and 5)
additional pump station facilities. The capital costs were
developed from the more specific cost categories of design,
construction and land acquisition. Inflation was not consid-
ered in determining the costs and all estimates were given in
1980 dollars. The FNA alternative was assumed to have no
cost, since it serves as a baseline for comparison and since
all construction for the FNA had already been planned.
In order to calculate the present worth of each alternative,
a timetable was developed, providing the start-up and com-
pletion date for design, construction, land acquisition and
O&M. These timetables were provided for each of the five
components or facilities. For most alternatives, design and
land acquisition would occur from 1985 to 1989. Construction
typically is planned to begin in the years 1987 to 1989 and
should require one to five years for completion. Partial
start-up with associated O&M expenses is expected to occur
from 1988 to 1991. Most of the alternatives would be fully
operational by 1992. The following example illustrates the
timing of different categories for a storage facility compo-
nent:
8-12
-------
TIMING OF COMPONENTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE FACILITIES
DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION
LAND ACQUISITION
OPERATION 8 MAINTENANCE
YEAR I1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
30
19
1
35
1
A
1
*
1
~t
1 4
1 i
1
I
k
w
19
i
90
t
1
!
!
i
19
]
l
1
1
|
!
95
!
i
i
•
j
i
20
For this initial screening of alternatives, a rigorous cost
effectiveness analysis was not required. Therefore, it was
assumed that capital outlays within a component would be
evenly spent over the period. For example, if construction
of storage facilities were to cost $100,000,000 over 5 years,
then $20,000,000 would be expensed each year. Another
simplication made at this level of analysis was that interest
during construction was not considered. Design costs were
assumed to be 10% of total construction costs.
8-13
-------
Present worth costs were calculated by the facility planner
for each component for each alternative according to the
timetable and the above assumptions. The interest rate of
7-1/8%, established by the Water Resources Council, was used
as the discount factor. The present worth costs were then
converted to annual costs over the twenty year planning
period for every alternative and for every watershed.
The EIS Consultant then calculated the present worth of each
alternative from annual cost data for each watershed. This
data is presented in an aggregated form (by River Basin) in
Tables 8-3 and 8-4. (Note: While the Facility Planner later
revised some of these cost estimates, detailed cost data were
not supplied for the revisions and thus the EIS analysis used
the complete set of initial data.) In June of 1981, revised
specific control alternatives were presented in the Final
AFIR. The costs associated with the higher level alternatives
were substantially reduced. Also, a substantial cost was
assigned to the FNA alternative which previously had been
zero. However, the facility planners did not revise the
cost/benefit analysis. For these revised costs, see the AFIR
and Chapter 9 of this report.
8.2.3 Allocation of Costs
For purposes of the cost/benefit analysis, the Facility Plan-
ner allocated the total annual cost of each alternative among
the eight watersheds and among the benefit analysis paramet-
ers for each watershed. The goal was to have a cost and bene-
fit for every parameter for every watershed for every alter-
native.
The first step was to distribute the total annual costs among
the eight watersheds by component. The cost components of
8-14
-------
TABLE 8-3
CSO ALTERNATIVE COSTS - ROUGE RIVER BASIN
Alternative
FNA
(Dollars x 1000)
Capital Cost
0
O&M
0
Present
Worth Cost
1
2
9 20%
10
13
Avg.
3
4
11 40%
14
15
Avg.
5
6
12
16
17 60%
20
21
22
23
Avg.
7
8
18
19 75%
24
25
Avg.
5,130
3,980
5,160
8,230
17,407
7,981
82,408
101,105
90,544
83,886
98,469
91,282
329,573
349,469
310,050
200,607
231,664
324,963
351,868
390,058
453,425
326,853
565,295
651,782
478,060
577,913
684,718
776,458
622,371
437
411
332
612
495
457
1,127
1,580
1,858
1,146
1,434
1,429
2,538
3,749
3,781
2,096
3,030
2,527
3,734
4,279
5,646
3,487
4,916
7,322
4,151
6,390
7,169
5,715
6,610
4,858
4,050
4,627
7,587
13,557
6,936
49,192
59,696
56,684
48,531
48,090
52,438
172,183
194,827
177,030
117,387
136,254
174,292
194,355
215,268
256,369
181,996
294,008
346,149
257,345
330,525
352,949
413,431
332,401
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981m
8-15
-------
TABLE 8-4
CSO ALTERNATIVE COSTS - DETROIT RIVER BASIN
Alternative
1
2
9 20%
10
13
Avg.
3
4
11 40%
14
15
Avg.
5
6
12
16
17 60%
20
21
22
23
Avg.
7
8
18
19 75%
24
25
Avg .
(Dollars x 1000)
Capital Cost
45,169
4,670
3,057
11,800
30,246
18,988
160,378
148,747
62,266
103,836
89,185
112,882
529,412
503,284
228,584
189,411
189,321
527,987
503,718
528,085
477,076
408,542
1,345,832
1,293,240
565,407
551,887
1,341,260
1,295,547
1,065,529
O&M
1,041
678
500
1,065
890
834
1,767
1,723
1,637
1,616
1,481
1,646
4,038
3,913
2,816
2,445
2,381
3,880
3,763
3,928
3,759
3,436
7,183
6,997
5,522
5,252
7,088
7,010
6,509
Present
Worth Cost
30,441
5,824
4,229
11,616
20,797
14,581
92,833
86,422
43,442
55,887
47,020
65,121
285,404
277,083
125,918
113,799
112,823
279,727
279,349
279,444
264,292
224,204
654,711
624,869
307,282
306,558
634,690
634,533
527,107
FNA
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981m
0
0
8-16
-------
storage, collection system and treatment modules had
originally been calculated by watershed, so these costs were
readily available. The remaining two cost components,
additional DWWTP facilities and additional DWWTP pump
station, were allocated to the eight watersheds in proportion
to the watershed areas. The result of this first step is
annual cost per watershed per alternative for each component.
The next step was to distribute the annual cost per watershed
among the five benefit analysis parameters for each compo-
nent. This allocation was accomplished using the removal
efficiencies of each component for the different parameters.
The following detailed methodology was supplied by the Joint
Venture in the form of a draft description of the Cost Allo-
cation Procedure.
8.2.3.1 Allocation by Parameter for Storage
Since storage guaranteed transport to the DWWTP for secondary
treatment, the removal capabilities of the DWWTP was used to
allocate the costs for storage. Removal rates at the DWWTP
were estimated for each unit process that directly affects
the removal of any one parameter:
TABLE 8-5
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL UNIT PROCESS COST ALLOCATED AMONG
PARAMETERS FOR STORAGE
Parameter
Unit Process
Primary Clarifiers
Aeration
Secondary Clarifiers
Disinfection
Chemical Facilities
TSS
34
11
34
—
BOD
26
89
33
0
TP
20
18
100
Cd
20
15
—
Fecal
Coli
-
100
—
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch3 (undated)
8-17
-------
The O&M costs for each of these unit processes were tabulated
for a twelve month period from June 1979 to June 1980. An
O&M cost per million gallons of treated water was estimated
by applying the average plant flow through each process. The
following table applies the percent of the total cost, as
shown in Table 8-5, to the O&M cost per million gallons.
Totaling the portion associated with each parameter will
allow a new percent allocation to each parameter as illus-
trated in the following example.
TABLE 8-6
COST ALLOCATION TO EACH PARAMETER FOR STORAGE
Unit Process
Primary Clarifiers
Aeration
Secondary Clarifiers
Disinfection
Chemical Facilities
Total Cost
% of Total
Total
O&M Cost
(S/M Gal)
6.51
33.87
4.59
4.90
4.41
54.28
100%
Parameter
TSS
2.20
3.73
1.53
7.62
14%
BOD
1.67
30.14
1.52
32.97
61%
TP
1.32
0.84
4.41
6.67
12%
Cd
1.32
0.70
2.12
4%
Fecal
Coli
4.90
4.90
9%
Source: aGiffels/Black & Veatch (Undated)
Therefore, using the concept that the DWWTP removal rates can
be those applied to the dewatered flow from the storage fa-
cilities, the following cost allocation for CSO storage fa-
cilities were developed:
CSO Facility TSS BOD TP Cd
Storage Facilities: 14% 61% 12% 4%
Fecal Coli
9%
Source: aGiffels/Black & Veatch (Undated)
8-18
-------
8.2.3.2 Allocation by Parameter for Treatment Modules
Unlike storage facility dewatered flow, the captured flow is
not transported to the DWWTP, but rather treated on-site and
discharged to the receiving stream. Therefore, pollutant
removal rates were those provided by the particular treatment
module used. For the twenty-five alternatives, only Treat-
ment Module B or Treatment Module E were employed. Developed
using the same concept described above, the following tables
summarize the percent of the total cost associated with each
parameter based on the removal rates by the unit processes
identified.
TABLE 8-7
TREATMENT MODULE B; % OF TOTAL COST ALLOCATED
Parameter
Fecal
Unit Process TSS BOD TP Cd Coli
Swirl Concentrators 39 27 11 23
Contact Basins - 100
C12 Feed System - 100
Rapid Mix - 100
Feed Building - 100
TABLE 8-8
TREATMENT MODULE E: % OF TOTAL COST ALLOCATED
Parameter
Unit Process
Fine Screens
Screens Building
Disinfection
Contact Basins
Rapid Mix
Feed Building
TSS
41
41
-
-
-
-
BOD
25
25
-
-
-
-
TP
9
9
-
-
-
-
Cd
25
25
-
-
-
-
Fecal
Coli
.
-
100
100
100
100
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatcha (Undated)
8-19
-------
To determine the overall cost allocation among the para-
meters, the cost for each unit process was distributed among
the parameters, then each was totalled and a percent of the
total cost was calculated. The following table provides this
information for the example alternative using Module B.
TABLE 8-9
COST ALLOCATION TO EACH PARAMETER FOR TREATMENT MODULE B
Unit Process
Swirl Concentrators
Contact Basins
CL2 Feed System
Rapid Mix
Feed Building
Total Cost
% Allocation
Total
Cost
(? X1000)
762
825
1,214
175
800
3,776
100%
Parameter
TSS
297
-
-
297
8%
BOD
206
—
-
206
6%
TP
84
-
-
84
2%
Cd
175
—
-
175
5%
Fecal
Coli
^
825
1,214
175
800
3,014
79%
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatcha (Undated)
A table similar to the one above was developed for each
alternative with treatment modules. This provided each with
a separate cost allocation among the parameters for each
associated treatment module. In several cases the percentage
allocation was the same since the treatment modules were
sized similarly for different alternatives.
8.2.3.2 Allocation by Parameter for Collec-
tion System
The wet weather flow contained in the collection system
through the use of interceptor in-system storage is theoreti-
cally held and later transported to the DWWTP and guaranteed
secondary treatment. Using the same concept as for storage
facilities, the cost allocation among the parameters for the
collection system is equal to that determined by DWWTP remov-
al rates. Therefore, allocation is as follows:
8-20
-------
CSO Facility
Collection System
TSS BOD TP Cd Fecal Coli
14% 61% 12% 4% 9%
Source: aGiffels/Black & Veatch (Undated)
8.2.3.4 Allocation by Parameter for Additional
Facilities
Depending on the alternative's level of control, the addi-
tional facilities required to treat the wet weather flow
transported to the DWWTP was determined to be a combination
of one or more of the processes listed in Table 8-10. Includ-
ed with this list is the percentage cost of each process
allocated to each parameter:
TABLE 8-10
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL UNIT PROCESS COST ALLOCATED AMONG
PARAMETERS FOR ADDITIONAL DWWTP CAPACITY
Parameter
Unit Process
Primary Clarifiers
Chemical Feed
Inter. Pump Station*
Aeration
Final Clarifiers
Disinfection
Outfall*
Sludge Processing*
TSS
34
14
11
34
-
14
14
BOD
26
61
89
33
—
61
61
TP
20
100
12
18
-
12
12
Cd
20
4
15
—
4
4
Fecal
Coli
-
9
—
100
9
9
*These processes are allocated the same as the "overall plant
process" allocation previously determined for storage facil-
ities.
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatcha (Undated)
For each alternative, the individual process costs were dis-
tributed among the parameters by the percentages indicated in
Table 8-10. These costs were then totalled and a new overall
percentage allocation was calculated as shown in the example
below:
8-21
-------
TABLE 8-11
COST ALLOCATION TO EACH PARAMETER FOR ADDITIONAL
DWWTP FACILITIES
Unit Process
Aeration
Final Clarifiers
Sludge Processing
Total Cost
% Allocation
Total
Cost
($ X1000)
22,624
14,635
800
38,059
100%
Parameter
TSS
2,489
4,976
112
7,577
20%
BOD
20,135
4,820
488
25,443
67%
TP
_
2,634
96
2,730
7%
Cd
«_
2,195
32
2,227
6%
Fecal
Coli
__
-
72
72
_
Source: aGiffels/Black & Veatch (Undated)
Therefore, in this example, the total annual cost of the
alternative was allocated among the parameters as follows:
CSO Facility TSS BOD TP Cd Fecal Coli
Additional DWWTP Fac. 20% 67% 7% 6% 0%
Source: aGiffels/Black & Veatch (Undated)
8.2.3.5 Allocation by Parameter for Addition-
al Pump Station Capacity
The cost associated with wet weather flow is the only portion
of the pump station facility cost applicable to CSO alterna-
tives. This facility is necessary to initiate the DWWTP
treatment process but not directly related to the reduction
in a parameter's concentration. Therefore, the cost alloca-
tion percentages were the same as those calculated for the
storage facilities.
CSO Facility TSS BOD TP Cd Fecal Coli
Additional DWWTP Pump Sta. 14% 61% 12% 4% 9%
Source: aGiffels/Black & Veatch (Undated)
8-22
-------
The final result of this complex methodology was an annual
cost per parameter per watershed for each of the 25 specific
control alternatives.
8.2.4 Methodology and Rankings
With both benefits and costs determined for each parameter
for each watershed, the Facility Planner employed various
mathematical techniques to evaluate each alternative's
efficiency. The benefit of each alternative was calculated
directly as a percentage improvement in water quality rela-
tive to the maximum practical improvement achieved by an
alternative. Thus, for each parameter in each reach the
alternative giving the maximum improvement was assigned a
benefit score of 100%. Benefit values were then calculated
for the remaining alternatives.
Cost for each alternative was calculated as annual cost and
then converted to a percentage of the highest cost for each
parameter in each watershed. With both benefits and costs in
commensurate terms, namely percentages, the actual cost/bene-
fit analysis could proceed.
The cost/benefit methodology is summarized below:
1) Plot pairs of Benefit and Cost values for each alterna-
tive by parameter, and by reach.
2) Construct a curve through the least-cost/benefit points.
3) Locate the optimum point.
4) Assign a grade to each alternative based on its relation-
ship to the optimum.
5) Weight the grades of the five parameters according to
their relative importance.
6) Sum the grades of the five parameters within each reach
for each alternative.
7) Sum the grades of the 8 reaches for each alternatives.
8) Rank the alternatives by grade.
8-23
-------
9) Weight the benefit grade of each alternative according to
its importance relative to Environmental Impacts, Econom-
ic Impacts, Implementability and Technical Considera-
tions.
10) Combine the benefit grade with the weighted grades for
the other evaluation categories listed in (9) above.
Step One is straight forward once Benefits and Costs have
been calculated. The computations for Alternative 1, water-
shed RRN, parameter DO are presented in Table 8-12 as an
example.
Figure 8-2 shows all 25 plotted points for the parameter DO
for watershed RRN. Twenty-four such figures were constructed
(_5 parameters x 4^ basins for the Rouge River + ^_ parameter x
4^ basins for the Detroit River).
The next step was accomplished manually since a computer
program could not be written to find the least cost-benefit
line. This line was drawn through the most efficient points
in the figure representing those alternatives which provide
the same amount of benefit for the less cost or more benefit
for the same cost than other alternatives. These points are
found to the upper left in Figure 8-2. In order to illus-
trate this concept, note that Alternative 1 is more efficient
than Alternative 13, since the same benefit is obtained but
at less cost with Alternative 1. Likewise, Alternative 4 is
superior to Alternative 11, since for approximately the same
cost Alternative 4 provides much more benefit.
The optimum was selected as the point where the slope of the
curve equalled 1.0. (Using calculus dB/dC = 1.0) Below this
point on the curve, it may be desirable to spend more money
since for every 1% increase in costs the benefit increases by
more than 1%. Beyond the optimum point, "diminishing
marginal returns" are found where less than 1% of benefit
will be realized for each additional 1% increase in costs.
8-24
-------
TABLE 8-12
BENEFIT/COST ASSESSMENT O3MPUTATIONS
Sample Calculation for Parameter: D.O.; Watershed: RRN; Alternative 7
Benefit Assessment
From computer model results (cumulative distribution function)
Alternative Average P.O. Concentration
Future No Action = 6.29 mg/l(min.)
No. 7 = 6.52 mg/1
No. 25 = 6.57 mg/1(max.)
Concentration: Alt. 7 - Alt. F.N.A. = 6.52 mg/1-6.29 mg/l=0.23 mg/1
Concentration (Max.): Alt. 25 - Alt. F.N.A. = 6.57 mg/1-6.29 mg/l=0.28 mg/1
Benefit Alt. 7 = 0.23 mg/l x 100 = 82%
0.28 mg/1
Cost Assessment
Alternative Total Annual Cost ($)
Future No Action 0 (min.)
No. 7 3,043
No. 24 3,458 (max.)
Cost: Alt. 7 - Alt. F.N.A. = 3,043 - 0 = 3,043
Cost (Max.): Alt. 24 - Alt. F.N.A. = 3,458 - 0 = 3,458
Cost Alt. 7 = 3,043 x 100 = 88%
3,458
Benefit/Cost Assessment (See Figure 8-3)
Graph Point: Benefit 82%, Cost 88%
Determine slope on curve for Alt. 7 (reflect point parallel to cost
axis) Tangent Angle = 65.4°, Tangent = s = 2.19 use 1/s = 0.46
Determine distance penalty = Distance from point to curve (parallel
to cost axis) x slope (1/s for Alt. 7) = (.78) x (.46) = .36
Grade = Slope - Penalty = 0.46 - 0.36 = 0.10
Rank = Grade x Importance Unit (IU = 29 for D.O.) = 0.10 x 29 = 0.29
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
8-25
-------
too
90
80
70-
60
UJ
z
ffl 5CH
UJ
o
oc
se 40
30
20'
10-
•Optimum Benefit/Cost
(45° Tangent)
"Tangent Slope Alternative 7 = '/s
(s<0ptimum .-. use '/s)
\i)\£}
S 2O
Tangent Slope Alternative 19 = s
( s> Optimum .-. use s)
PARAMETER P.O.
WATERSHED RRN
Distance Penalty = Distance x Slope
(Typical)
16
" Least Cost" Curve
10
20
50
-f fr-
vs)
IB
24
90
30 40
PERCENT COST
Figure 8-2
PERCENT MAXIMUM BENEFIT VS. PERCENT MAXIMUM COST
Source; Giffels/Black & veatch, 1981 a
KX)
8-26
-------
(Note: Use of this technique when the benefits and costs
were not originally in the same units will yield accurate
results only if the public places a value upon improvements
in water quality in direct proportion to the costs of these
improvements.
A grade was then assigned to each alternative depending on
its relation to the optimum point. An alternative coincident
with the optimum point would receive a grade of 1.0. An
alternative on the least cost curve above the optimum would
receive a grade equal to the slope at that point. The fur-
ther the point is from the optimum the smaller the slope and
grade become. If the alternative is on the curve below the
optimum, the grade is set equal to the reciprocal of the
slope. Since the slope becomes greater the further the point
is from the optimum, the reciprocal and grade will become
smaller. A distance penalty is assessed against any alterna-
tive beneath the least cost curve. In the example, Alter-
native 7 is penalized the distance (0.78) x slope (0.46) or
0.36. This penalty is subtracted from the slope for the
final grade of 0.10.
The final grades for each parameter for each watershed for
every alternative are weighted by importance units before
being summed. The weights previously developed by the
Environmental Assessment team were modified for the benefit
analysis. To calculate the weighted grade, the grade is
multiplied by the importance unit.
The weighted grades for the five parameters within one reach
are added together. The eight reach grades are then added to
find the total alternative score. The final cost/benefit
rankings of the facility planners appear in Table 8-13.
8-27
-------
TABLE 8-13
BENEFIT/COST RANKING
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Alternative No.
16
17
15
4
5
20
3
14
21
6
12
23
11
7
22
18
10
24
8
19
13
9
1
2
25
8-28
-------
8.3 Environmental Evaluation
8.3.1 Methodology
Three levels of hierarchical structure comprise the environ-
mental evaluation: Level 1 - Environmental components, Level
2 - Environmental Parameters, and Level 3 - Environmental
Measurements. The AFIR evaluated six environmental compo-
nents; land, water, air, biological, cultural and social.
(The reader should note that a discrepancy exists which could
lead to confusion since in Section 2 of the AFIR the social
and economic categories were combined as Socioeconomic (page
2-64). Later in Section 2 the social and economic categories
are discussed separately under the environmental category
(pages 2-76 and 2-78). Finally for the evaluation in Section
3, the economic evaluation was completely removed from the
environmental category and made into a separate evaluation
category (pages 3-164 and 3-184). Therefore, the economic
evaluation will be discussed later in Section 8.6 of this
report.)
The impacts related to each of the six environmental compo-
nents were measured by several parameters (Level 2) as shown
in Table 8-14. Each parameter was weighted for relative
importance as shown.
Each of the environmental measurements (Level 3) were calcu-
lated, estimated or in some other fashion derived as des-
cribed in the following paragraphs. (Please note that in
most cases this information was not provided in the AFIR but
was taken from various earlier Facility Planning memos on
predictive techniques. Whether predictive techniques were
followed as described was not verified.)
Soil Erosion - This parameter is a measure of the loss of
soil from the proposed construction areas by the action of
water. The detrimental effects of soil erosion include
8-29
-------
Table 8-14
ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS & IMPORTANCE
Components
Parameters
lUs
Land
Soil Profile
Soil Erosion
Urban Land Use
Nonurban Land Use
Subtotal
7
18
28
18
Water
Air
Biological
Cultural
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Coliforms
Iron (Dissolved)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Silver
Suspended Solids
TDS
Zinc
Odor
Suspended Particulate
Vegetative Cover - Terrestrial
Species Diversity - Terrestrial Fauna
Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species - Flora
Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species - Fauna
Wetlands
Shorelands
Plankton - Species Diversity
Aquatic Macrophyton -Species Diversity
Macroinvertebrates -Species Diversity
Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Aquatic Flora
Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Aquatic Fauna
Environmental Tolerance
Recreation Resources
Available Recreation Resource Land
Visitor Use
Availability of Recreation Facilities
Historic Resources
Infringement
Access Disrupted
View Obstructed
Archaeological Resources
Subtotal
Subtotal
Subtotal
Sociological Lifestyle Changes
Neighborhood Attitudes
Relocation Problems
Subtotal
Subtotal
TOTAL
18
26
18
18
35
31
10
18
26
10
33
26
5
2
10
36
20
5
5
25
25
25
5
5
7
14
25
25
25
TTT
20
16
12
2
7
7
31
40
19
43
IDT
801
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
8-30
-------
depletion of soil at the site possibly requiring replenish-
ment and the deposition of soil in storm sewers and/or water-
ways requiring eventual removal. Where soil erosion is a
problem, mitigative actions can be taken to minimize either
the soil loss or the adverse impacts.
The acres subject to increased erosion by each alternative
were determined by using a polygon overlay mapping technique
(POMT). Soil erosion resulting from each alternative was
calculated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation in units of
1000 tons/year. Impact was determined by converting the soil
loss attributable to each alternative to an E.Q.R.
Soil Profile - The soil profile is the natural layering of
topsoil over various subsoils which occurs generally within 5
feet of the surface. Disruption of the soil profile can have
a detrimental effect on fertility and future productivity of
the soil, making it difficult to establish plant growth.
This potential problem can be minimized by stock piling the
soils of various horizons separately during excavation, then
replacing them in reverse order during backfilling.
The POMT was used to determine the number of acres subject to
soil profile disruption. The impact of each alternative was
determined by converting those acreages to EQR.
Urban Land Use and Nonurban Land Use - Urban land use was
defined as residential, commercial, industrial, institution-
al, rail, highway, recreational and vacant land within urban-
ized areas. Nonurban land use included agricultural, water,
vacant land, and recreational land in non-urbanized areas.
The impacts of CSO alternatives are associated with short-
term disruption and long-term changes in land uses. No
specific types of impact such as utility interuption or
transportation detours were assessed.
8-31
-------
The impacts relative to these land use parameters were
measured in terms of acres affected for each alternative.
These acreages were then converted to EQR's.
Cadmium (Cd), Dissolved Oxygen (DO)/ Fecal Coliform (FC),
Phosphorus (PO ), Suspended Solids (SS), and Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) - These parameters are all measures of water
quality. Cd is a metallic element which can be toxic to
aquatic life and higher animals. DO is a measure of the
oxygen dissolved in the water which fish and other aquatic
animals require for respiration. FC is used to indicate the
possible presence of pathogenic organisms. Phosphorus is a
plant nutrient responsible in part for nuisance algae blooms
and lake eutrophication. SS is a measure of the water's load
of organic and inorganic particles and is an indication of
the clarity of the water. Finally, TDS measures the concen-
tration of dissolved solids (usually salts) that produce
salinity which can affect aquatic life and drinking water
quality.
The concentrations of all these parameters were projected for
each alternative by computer models (See Sections 5.3 and 7).
The model's data base was STORET, CSO monitoring and river
sampling data. The impact associated with each alternative
was determined by converting the projected concentration by
parameter to an EQR based on accepted water quality standards
and use criteria.
Arsenic (As), Chromium (Cr)f Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe)y Lead
(Pb), Mercury (Hg), Nickel (Ni), Silver (Ag)y and Zinc (Zn) -
All of these parameters are metallic elements which can be
toxic to aquatic life and higher animals under certain condi-
tions. Their concentrations were not modeled as above but
instead were projected statistically from CSO data. The
Facility Planners used the following formula (Giffels/Black &
Veatch, 1981).
8-32
-------
Mcso = [Mi + 1] - Mi - Md
Where: Mcso = Mass contributed by CSO's
Mi+1 = Mass downstream of CSO
Mi = Mass upstream of CSO
Md = Mass contributed by direct discharge
Direct discharges (Md) were calculated using dry weather
sampling data. Nonpoint sources of these parameters were
considered negligible. The mass of each parameter discharged
by CSO's was projected for each alternative by the assignment
of removal efficiencies for each level of CSO control. These
were correlated to the Cd values projected by the model. Mass
values were then converted to concentration using dilution
equations and background concentrations. Impacts were deter-
mined by alternative as above, by converting each concentra-
tion to an EQR.
Odor - The impact of potential odors generated by CSO alter-
natives was estimated in terms of subjective odor level
values ranging from 0 - No Odor to 5 - Very Strong Odor. The
baseline odor level was determined from 1978 complaint data
using the following relationships:
Number of
Odor Complaints Odor Levels
0 0 = No Odor
1-5 1 = Odor Threshold
6-10 2 = Slight Odor
11-20 3 = Moderate Odor
21-40 4 = Strong Odor
41 - Greater 5 = Very Strong Odor
For each alternative, an estimate of odor emissions rate was
made at each proposed site using 173 odor units per cubic
foot of escaping gas. A Gausian dispersion model was then
8-33
-------
used to estimate the concentration of odor units at the site
boundary. The resulting odor unit concentration was converted
to an odor level by the following equation:
Odor Level = a log-jQ (odor concentration)
Where: a = 1.732
The calculated odor levels ranged from 0 to 5 and were added
to the baseline level. The odor levels of each alternative
plus the baseline were converted to EQR's. Impacts were
quantified as the difference between the alternative EQR
value and the baseline value.
It should be noted that with the current state-of-the-art
virtually any nuisance odor condition could be eliminated
through proper facilities design.
Suspended Particulates - Suspended particulates, as assessed
in the AFIR, referred specifically to fugitive dust entrained
during construction activities and transport of sludge. The
baseline level was estimated from 1978 monitoring data.
For each alternative, an estimate of the amount of fugitive
dust generated was made based on factors developed for un-
paved roads. A Gausian dispersion model was used to estimate
the concentration of particulates at the site boundary. This
was added to the baseline level to obtain a projected ambient
particulate concentration. The concentrations resulting from
the alternatives as well as the baseline were converted to
EQR's. The impact was defined in terms of the difference
between the baseline and alternative values.
As with odors, fugitive dust can also be controlled through
the use of suitable mitigation techniques to eliminate
virtually all nuisance conditions.
8-34
-------
Vegetative Coyer (Terrestrial), Wetlands and Shorelands - The
AFIR defined impacts on vegetative cover (grasslands), wet-
lands and shorelands as the acreages of these specific habi-
tats destroyed or disturbed by an alternative relative to the
total acreage of each habitat located in the Detroit facili-
ties plan area. The total acreages of each habitat were
derived from the SEMCOG land use inventory (SEMCOG, 1976).
The acreages impacted by alternatives relative to the total
acreages were determined using the POMT and were converted to
EQR's.
Rare, Threatened, Endangered (R,T,E) Species (Flora); R,T,E
Species (Fauna); Species Diversity (Terrestrial Fauna) - The
baseline value for R,T,E species (flora) was established at 1
since there are 7 such species believed to occur in the
Detroit facilities plan area by MDNR. (bGiffels/Black &
Veatch, undated). Two R,T,E species (fauna) are believed to
occur in the area but likely habitat exists on only about
half the proposed CSO sites based on aerial photo interpreta-
tion. Therefore, the baseline was established as 0, 1 , or 2
at each site. Species diversity (terrestrial fauna) was
limited to an evaluation of breeding bird species. The base-
line for this parameter was assumed to be 0 according to the
AFIR.
Initially, the POMT was used to determine the amount of
specific habitat disrupted by each alternative which would
directly impact these species. Professional judgment based
on limited available data was used to project the number of
species expected to occur in these areas both before and
following implementation of each alternative. These values
were then converted to EQR's and the impact was defined as
the difference between the before and after project EQR's.
Plankton Species Diversity; Macroinvertebrates Species Diver-
sity; Macrophyton Species Diversity; R,T,E Aquatic Flora; &
R,T,E Aquatic Fauna - In the evaluation of aquatic impacts,
species diversity refers to the number of different plants
8-35
-------
and animals found in a specific habitat. In general, communi-
ties which are more diverse are more stable and are consider-
ed to be of higher quality. The baseline and projected values
of the species diversity parameters were derived from subjec-
tive visual observations and professional judgment based on
the modeled changes in water quality.
For R,T,E species no recent data exists; therefore, the base-
line values and impact assessment were based exclusively on
professional judgment.
Environmental Tolerance - This aquatic parameter represents
the AFIR's consideration of many subparameters including pH,
DO, temperature, current, substrate, nutrient class, feeding
class, turbidity preference, general habitat and specific
habitat. Using available research data and scientific liter-
ature, values for each subparameter were estimated. These
served as a basis for a final, subjective value of environ-
mental tolerance for each alternative which was subsequently
converted to an EQR.
Available Recreation Resource Land - This parameter was
intended to measure the loss of recreational land in acres
caused by a CSO alternative. The baseline value was the
total park and recreation land use in the planning area as
derived from the SEMCOG land use maps. For each alternative,
the percent change in recreation resource land was calculated
using the POMT, and then converted to EQR's.
Visitors' Use of Recreation Land - Decreases in visitor use
were estimated as an average percent change caused by con-
struction and operation of each alternative. These were
estimated from visitor use data compiled by the Detroit Parks
and Recreation Department. The estimates were then converted
to EQR's (bciffels/Black & Veatch, undated).
8-36
-------
Availability of Recreational Facilities - In this case,
recreational facilities refer to playgrounds, ball fields,
tennis courts, swimming pools, trails and open field play
areas. The baseline for measuring percent change in numbers
was derived as the total number of all facilities in the
planning area. The decrease in facilities was based on field
inspection at recreation sites proposed for CSO alternatives.
The percentage decrease was converted to an EQR.
Infringement of Historical Resources - Historically signifi-
cant buildings and structures were inventoried for the plan-
ning area (bGiffels/Black & Veatch, undated). This served
as the baseline for determining impact. The number of histor-
ical resources which would require demolition or mitigation
with the implementation of an alternative was considered the
measure of impact. This number was determined and converted
to an EQR for each alternative.
View Obstruction of Historic Resources and Disruption of
Access to Historical Resources - Above ground facilities
located near historic structures can obstruct views of or
from the structure or restrict access and may require miti-
gation to prevent severe impact. An example of severe impact
of these types in the planning area can be seen at a Del Ray
community church which has become surrounded on three sides
by DWWTP wastewater clarifiers. The measurements of impact
were the number of such views which would be obstructed and
the number of access routes disrupted. These were converted
to EQR's for each alternative.
Archaeological Resources - Archaeological resources are the
artifacts and remains of the former inhabitants of an area.
They may be of either historical or prehistorical signifi-
cance and are an important link in the understanding of an
area's heritage.
8-37
-------
The potential for encountering archaeological materials
exists whenever excavation occurs. The probability of encoun-
tering such materials is a function of the specific site's
past suitability for habitation or other human activities.
The evaluation of alternatives involved assessment of each
proposed site relative to its potential for yielding
archaeological materials. This was done by an archaeologist
based on the area's geomorphology, available historical
documents and available archaeological reports.
Each site was rated as either high, medium, or low archaeo-
logical sensitivity. The impact measurement was taken as the
average value of the site ratings corresponding to each CSO
alternative. These values were then converted to EQR's.
Lifestyle Changes, Neighborhood Attitudes and Relocation
Problems - Lifestyle changes were focused on the CSO sites in
relation to existing and anticipated zoning patterns. Long-
term impacts might include changes in transportation patterns
and land use. The impact on lifestyle was assessed by
considering zoning, actual use, distance from population,
planned use and development trends for each proposed site.
Neighborhood attitudes can be a strong social force and are
expected to have their major impact prior to construction of
a CSO facility. The greatest concern would likely be aimed
at decreasing property values, vandalism, and blight. Impacts
were based on data related to block club activity, grants
received and voting records.
The problems associated with relocating persons displaced by
the construction of CSO facilities are particularly severe
among certain demographic subgroups. Lower income, ethnic
and racial minorities, as well as elderly, female-headed and
large family households may find forced relocation to be
extremely traumatic. Impacts on this parameter were assessed
in consideration of household characteristics, dwelling unit
8-38
-------
characteristics, income, ethnicity, household size, age
groups, household composition, length of residence, type
dwelling units, ownership and availability of alternative
housing for the households which would be potentially dis-
placed for each alternative. Data sources included the U.S.
Census, SEMCOG, City Planning Department, Parks and Recrea-
tion Department, and visual observation.
Professional judgment was used to project the social vari-
ables described above for the baseline condition and with
each alternative. Impacts were defined as the difference
between the two and were converted to EQR's.
8.3.2 Ranking of Alternatives
Using the modified Environmental Evaluation System (EES), the
25 alternatives were numerically evaluated within each of the
six environmental components. These scores were then combined
to give an overall environmental evaluation of alternatives.
Ranking from most to least preferred alternative was accom-
plished by listing the alternatives from highest to lowest
score, respectively. Table 8-15 shows the final ranking of
alternatives within each environmental component. The overall
environmental ranking is given in Table 8-16. For the envi-
ronmental impact unit scores (EIU's) by parameter, refer to
Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981n.
8.4 Implementability Evaluation
8.4.1 Methodology
The 12 criteria used in the evaluation of project implement-
ability, previously discussed in the methodology example
(Section 8.1), are defined in detail below.
1) Family Relocation - the issues of time and difficulty of
relocation were to be considered. Costs and legal con-
8-39
-------
TABLE 8-15
ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING WITHIN EACH COMPONENT
Environmental Assessment
Weighted Short & Long Term
Alternative Comparison
RN Value Function
100 Land Alternative
EQR
IU
EIU
RN Value Function
200 Water
Alternative
26
9
27
2
10
11
1
15
13
14
12
4
17
3
16
22
19
6
5
20
21
23
18
25
8
7
24
EQR
25
12
8
7
23
24
22
19
5
20
6
21
4
11
3
17
16
15
14
10
1
9
2
18
26
13
27
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.999
0.998
0.997
0.993
0.990
0.989
0.983
0.981
0.968
0.968
0.966
0.955
0.924
0.908
0.905
0.905
0.902
0.894
0.893
0.891
0.809
0.805
0.768
0.749
0.643
0.642
0.640
0.639
0.639
0.637
0.636
0.636
0.635
0.635
0.635
0.635
0.634
0.634
0.632
0.632
0.632
0.631
0.630
0.630
0.626
0.626
0.626
0.625
0.622
0.622
0.613
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71 .000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
71.000
IU
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
286.000
71.000
71,
71,
.000
.000
70.937
70.874
70.783
70.524
70.293
70.244
69.810
69.677
68.763
68.693
68.574
67.825
65.585
64.444
64.276
64.234
64.031
63.457
63.415
63.282
57.423
57.136
54.500
53.170
EIU
183.839
183.625
183.125
182.829
182.651
182.228
182.014
181.835
181,
181,
181,
181,
181,
181,
749
749
574
574
245
206
180.864
180.719
180.655
180.486
180.282
180.213
179.159
179.102
178.936
178.796
178.017
177.786
175.333
8-40
-------
TABLE 8-15 (Cont'd)
Environmental Assessment
Weighted Short & Long Term
Alternative Comparison
RN Value Function
300 Air Alternative
EQR
IU
EIU
9
2
11
10
26
27
3
1
24
14
4
7
25
8
5
20
22
16
15
23
13
6
21
18
17
12
19
0.964
0.964
0.964
0.964
0.685
0.685
0.656
0.654
0.637
0.631
0.625
0.623
0.619
0.619
0.612
0.612
0.586
0.584
0.579
0.571
0.518
0.505
0.505
0.462
0.423
0.420
0.365
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
55.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
56.000
54.000
54.000
54.000
54.000
38.388
38.388
36.712
36.640
35.652
35.344
34.984
34.876
34.676
34.676
34.276
34.276
32.836
32.708
32.428
31.984
29.004
28.304
28.304
25.876
23.716
23.536
20.444
RN Value Function
400 Biological Alternative
EQR
IU
EIU
3
2
26
1
27
11
9
10
15
12
17
14
4
19
18
16
23
21
22
5
25
6
20
24
8
7
13
0.593
0.582
0.579
0.577
0.571
0.564
0.563
0.563
0.557
0.557
0.556
0.555
0.554
0.554
0.552
0.552
0.552
0.549
0.549
0.548
0.548
0.547
0.547
0.547
0.547
0.546
0.546
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
191.000
113.309
111.149
110.624
110.284
109.112
107.634
107.504
107.474
106.377
106.327
106.179
105.922
105.889
105.884
105.449
105.409
105.364
104.951
104.799
104.674
104.598
104.564
104.496
104.489
104.394
104.273
104.227
8-41
-------
TABLE 8-15 (Cont'd)
Environmental Assessment
Weighted Short & long Term
Alternative Comparison
RN Value Function EQR IU EIU
700 Sociological Alternative
26
9
27
2
10
11
23
21
8
25
6
19
12
13
24
7
22
17
18
20
5
1
15
4
3
16
14
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.889
0.859
0.844
0.841
0.836
0.817
0.812
0.812
0.809
0.806
0.788
0.767
0.767
0.758
0.754
0.749
0.687
0.673
0.671
0.661
0.661
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
90.712
87.649
86.071
85.791
85.300
83.334
82.825
82.825
82.552
82.229
80.404
78.267
78.242
77.310
76.899
76.445
70.075
68.598
68.453
67.440
67.440
RN Value Function EQR IU EIU
500 Cultural Alternative
26
27
2
17
9
19
4
13
11
15
10
12
14
16
1
21
6
23
3
20
22
5
18
8
25
7
24
1.000
1.000
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.837
0.831
0.814
0.807
0.807
0.807
0.807
0.802
0.748
0.748
0.747
0.745
0.734
0.734
0.640
0.640
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
95.000
79.500
79.500
79.500
79.500
79.500
79.500
79.500
79.500
79.500
79.500
78.948
77.336
76.700
76.628
76.628
76.628
76.148
71.048
71.048
70.988
70.740
69.768
69.768
60.808
60.808
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
8-42
-------
TABLE 8-16
Environmental Ranking of Alternatives
EQR IU EIU
Alternative
2
11
26
10
9
27
23
1
12
3
13
21
6
15
4
14
17
22
25
19
8
20
5
16
18
7
24
0.745
0.743
0.743
0.742
0.740
0.738
0.688
0.686
0.681
0.679
0.679
0.677
0.675
0.673
0.673
0.671
0.671
0.670
0.669
0.668
0.668
0.665
0.665
0.663
0.652
0.649
0.648
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801 .000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801 .000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
801.000
596.522
595.123
595.029
594.061
593.106
590.833
550.753
549.752
545.490
544.060
543.586
542.563
540.646
539.159
538.979
537.746
537.074
536.685
536.094
535.441
535.169
532.909
532.819
531.373
522.385
519.515
518.898
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
8-43
-------
straints posed by family relocation were important for
implementation. A residential site could possibly be
affected after all the alternatives were analyzed and
evaluated.
2) Federal and State Acceptance - all alternatives were to
be examined to determine the degree to which they met the
intent of Federal and State regulations and water quality
goals.
3) Detroit and other Local Government Acceptance - the
degree of acceptance of the alternatives by the City of
Detroit as well as any other involved local government
was to be assessed. Critical considerations were;
facilities jointly proposed, proposed DWSD facilities
outside the city, or DWSD facilities located in the
vicinity of another community. Local acceptance could
also be affected by other factors such as local costs for
alternatives.
4) Intercounty Group for Facilities Planning - an inter-
county group was previously formed to coordinate and aid
in the implementation of water pollution control facili-
ties in the tri-county area. All actions of this group
along with its resolutions and comments were to be con-
sidered in the implementability of any water pollution
control plan.
5) Zoning - the zoning of all alternative sites was deter-
mined. Any alternative that required a change in the
zoning of a site or site vicinity was to be ranked lower
than the other alternatives. Temporary disruptions or
land use changes were not considered.
6) Civic Group Acceptance - various civic groups were to be
contacted and their views assessed concerning CSO alter-
natives. Thus, the degree of acceptability by the civic
groups was considered.
8-44
-------
7) Industry and Business Acceptance - industrial and busi-
ness concerns were to be contacted. Their degree of
acceptance or resistance affecting the implementability
of any proposed plans was determined. Assessments were
made through direct contacts with various organizations
and through public comment.
8) Legal Constraints - all alternatives were to be analyzed
to determine any legal constraints posed. From research
and public comments, a judgment concerning any possible
legal challenges was made.
9) Institutional Arrangement - all alternatives were to be
examined to determine what major revisions would be
necessary to develop, operate, and maintain the proposed
DWSD facilities. Staffing provisions or alternative
costs were not considered. Generally, any alternatives
with a lesser affect on DWSD organization were ranked
higher since time and efforts required to change an
organization could cause a delay in implementation.
10) Existing Contracts with Suburban Customers - CSO alterna-
tives requiring revisions to existing contracts between
DWSD and the suburban customers for wastewater disposal
service were to be ranked lower than those with no revi-
visions. Revisions for DWF and population shifts were
expected to be important considerations for the purpose
of relative ranking.
11) Time Required - all alternatives were assessed as to the
length of time required for construction, and other
considerations such as political acceptance and financial
feasibility. Alternatives were ranked lower relative to
longer periods of time.
12) Compatibility with 208 Plan - the Regional Water Quality
Management Plan is the 208 plan for this region. All
8-45
-------
system alternatives were to be examined for compatibility
of the proposed action with the 208 Plan's policies. The
more compatible alternatives received a higher ranking.
An implementability importance unit (IU) was determined for
each individual criterion through the weighted ranking tech-
nique discussed previously in Section 8.1.
Management considerations were excluded in the development of
the Detroit Final Facilities Plan (FFP) list of factors that
affect implementation of sewerage systems. The Segmented
Facilities Plan (SFP) evaluated alternative institutional
arrangements and operating authorities. The SFP concluded
that the DWSD should continue to provide service to the
suburban communities on a contractual basis. The public
hearings and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
confirmed and approved this decision. The FFP work plan
approved by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) and the EPA did not include any examination of
alternative authorities to own and operate DWSD pollution
control facilities.
The implementability ranking was based on the expectations
and judgment using non-technical criteria and other related
available information. The measurement of the relative
implementability among alternatives was subjective and com-
plex. Generally, this measurement was a consideration of the
time required to implement a practical course of action or to
bring a facility on line; however, other criteria previously
discussed were also considered to have a great impact on the
implementation of an alternative.
For all of the 12 individual criteria each alternative was
rated relative to the other alternatives using the weighted
ranking technique described in Section 8.1.
8-46
-------
The data that were examined and considered for CSO alterna-
tive ranking included the following:
1) Construction and design schedules once Step 2 work had
started.
2) Zoning of the alternative's proposed sites and their
surroundings.
3) Comments and correspondence from CEDD, DWSD, the Parks
and Recreation Department, and the U.S. EPA/EIS consult-
ant regarding sites selected for CSO alternatives.
4) Suburban contracts and flow provisions.
5) CSO volume stored and/or treated under each alternative.
6) The reduction in annual phosphorus and cadmium loadings
from Detroit CSO's as a result of various alternatives.
7) Minutes from the CAC meetings for the previous year.
8) Consent Judgment and other legal requirements related to
DWSD pollution control activities.
9) The published draft copies of the City of Dearborn's and
Evergreen - Farmington Sanitary District's facilities
plans.
8.4.2 Ranking of Alternatives
Given importance units (I.U.'s) for each criterion and rating
value (RV's) for each alternative, a final ranking of the al-
ternatives was developed. The alternatives were ranked high-
est to lowest relative to their total IU x RV value obtained
by summing the individual IU x RV values for each of the 12
criteria. The final rankings of the CSO alternatives based on
implementability were the following given in Table 8-17.
8-47
-------
TABLE 8-17
IMPLEMENTABILITY RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Alt.
10
9
2
11
13
15
14
4
12
3
16
5
17
Rank
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Alt.
23
20
22
21
6
1
8
18
19
7
25
24
NOTE: DWWTP treatment facilities for some alternatives were
included in the implementability evaluation even though these
facilities were eliminated from the other evaluation categor-
ies.
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
8-48
-------
8.5 Technical Evaluation
8.5.1 Methodology
The technical category considered storage/treatment facili-
ties and the collection system. These systems were first
evaluated separately and were then combined and evaluated
together.
The storage/treatment criteria selected for evaluation are
listed and briefly discussed as follows:
1) Capital Cost - the probable construction cost for all
alternatives was obtained by totalling the construction
costs for all remote and on-site treatment facilities as
well as all in-line and off-line storage facilities. FNA
costs were treated as base costs common to all alterna-
tives. The alternative with the least cost received the
highest ranking.
2) Operation and Maintenance Costs - the estimated annual
operation and maintenance costs were summed and ranked in
the same manner as the Capital Costs.
3) Process Efficiency - modeling output was used to deter-
mine the most efficient alternative. The alternatives
were ranked from best to worst based on the control of
CSO volumes, BOD, TSS, TP, and fecal coliforms.
4) Process Safety - a list of all individual items such as
storage tanks, swirl concentrators, etc. was prepared.
These items were ranked from most safe to least safe.
Items rated equally when they were assumed to be equally
safe.
8-49
-------
5) Process Reliability - this criterion was evaluated in a
manner similar to process safety. In addition to ranking
the items in order of their relative reliability, a fac-
tor of importance was assigned to each item. This factor
was a quantitative measure of an item's importance to the
operation and performance of a storage/treatment facil-
ity.
6) Energy Recovery and Use - all alternatives were evaluated
based on energy consumption. Energy costs for 1980 were
collected for all on-site and remote storage/treatment
facilities. The best alternatives were the ones with the
lower energy costs.
7) Innovative/Alternative Technology - Alternatives 5, 6,
20, 21, 22, and 23 were considered to have innovative and
alternative technology because they utilized swirl con-
centrators. Therefore, these six alternatives received
higher ranking values than all of the other alternatives
based on this criterion.
8) Land Requirements - total land requirements in acres were
summed for each alternative. Those alternatives utilizing
the least amount of land received the higher rankings.
9) Residual Formation Potential - chlorine was the only item
used in the alternatives that had the possibility for
residual formation. The alternatives using lesser
amounts of chlorine received the higher rankings.
The method used for screening, ranking, and evaluating the
technical aspects of the collection system alternatives con-
sisted of applying a list of criteria to the system alterna-
tives. These criteria and a short description of each
follows:
8-50
-------
1 ) Capital Cost - this was the capital investment to cover
the probable cost of the proposed sewer procurement and
installation.
2) Operation and Maintenance Costs - these were the asso-
ciated present worth costs of operation and maintenance
of the proposed alternatives.
3) Geographical Impediments - these consisted of land imped-
iments to the construction of the alternatives caused by
the location of buildings, utilities, or rights-of-way.
4) Equipment Reliability - consideration was given to the
overall reliability of equipment during its useful life.
These considerations included the probable failure or
disruption of service of all equipment.
5) Energy Conservation - this criterion dealt with the con-
servation of energy used to operate each facility.
6) Time Schedule - the construction schedule, including time
for material and equipment acquisition, was examined.
7) Safety Hazards - the potential for hazards during con-
struction as well as during operation and maintenance was
considered.
8) Future Expansion - consideration was given to the feas-
ibility for future expansion of facilities.
9) Construction Restraints - included in this criterion were
restraints due to the current state of the art and any
limitations related to methods of construction.
8-51
-------
8.5.2 Ranking of Alternatives
The technical ranking was made up of the average for the sep-
arate rankings of the collection system alternatives and the
storage/treatment portion of the alternatives. The nine cri-
teria discussed for storage/treatment evaluation were given
rating values relative to each other. These values were then
multiplied by the importance units (IU) for each evaluation
criterion to obtain the most desired alternative. Thus, the
ranking of alternatives obtained by applying just the
storage/treatment procedure was the following:
TABLE 8-18
STORAGE/TREATMENT RANKING
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Alt
2
9
10
11
1
13
12
15
14
16
4
17
3
Rank
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Alt
23
19
6
21
22
20
5
18
25
24
8
7
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatchr 1981a
8-52
-------
Alternatives were also evaluated for technical acceptability
of the collection systems. The results for this analysis are
listed in the following table:
TABLE 8-19
COLLECTION SYSTEM RANKING
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Alt
9
13
2
1
10
14
15
11
3
4
16
20
17
Rank
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Alt
5
12
6
21
7
18
19
8
22
23
24
25
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
Combining the storage/treatment rankings equally with the
collection system rankings gave the overall technical ranking
TABLE 8-20
TECHNICAL RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Alt
9
2
13
1
10
11
15
14
3
4
16
12
17
Rank
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Alt
20
5
6
21
19
18
23
22
7
8
24
25
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981 a
8-53
-------
8.6 Economic Evaluation
8.6.1 Methodology
The economic evaluation was based on the assessment of five
selected parameters chosen to reflect the impacts of alter-
natives on commercial-industrial activity, local governments,
and individuals. These are:
1. Regional Economic Stability
2. Per Capita Personal Consumption
3. Local Government Balances
4. Real Costs
5. Federal Expenditures
Regional Economic Stability is an indication of the regional
economy's ability to withstand severe fluctuations and then
return to some equilibrium. The expenditures of any large
project for materials, equipment and labor can disrupt a
regional economy. Economic stability is demonstrated by the
diversity in the economy and indications are that the Detroit
area is currently diversifying. The impacts relative to this
parameter were projected by assessing the change in local
service income and employment during construction and opera-
tion. This change was then converted to EQR through the
application of a value function.
Per Capita Personal Consumption is considered a direct
measure of economic well-being. Local expenditures, employ-
ment, disruption of business activity, and changes in the tax
base caused by large projects can directly affect per capita
disposable income and, hence, consumption. Impacts were,
therefore, projected by assessing the percent change in per
capita disposable income during construction and operation.
The resulting percentages were converted to EQR values.
8-54
-------
Local Government Balances, which are the annual differences
between revenues and expenditures, reflect the economic well-
being of governments. Local expenditures, employment, busi-
ness activity and tax base also effect government revenues
and expenditures. A large project can have a substantial
effect. Therefore, the impacts relative to this parameter
were projected by assessing the percentage increase or
decrease in annual net local balances during construction and
operation. The percentages were then converted to EQR values.
Real Costs are the costs of goods and services relative to a
base year with the effects of inflation removed. The CSO
alternatives could contribute to an increase in the real cost
of sewer service due to the local share of project costs and
any associated operations and maintenance costs. The impacts
of alternatives were, therefore, projected relative to one
another based on local share and O&M costs. A value function
was then used to convert the findings to EQR's.
Federal Expenditures for construction of CSO facilities in
Detroit represents a diversion of government funds from
other, potentially more worthy, purposes. Therefore, impacts
were projected by estimating the Federal share of project
construction costs. These findings were converted to EQR
values.
Data with which to establish a baseline condition were
obtained for metropolitan income, employment, personal
income, government finances, and business activity. These
are described in detail on pages 4-272 through 4-286 of the
AFIR's expanded Chapter 4.
Historical time series data were used to initiate an econo-
metric model. Since this type of model reflects relationships
as they have developed over time, they are a more reliable
tool for forecasting than other types of economic models.
8-55
-------
The objective of the model was to define a "baseline"
condition and to forecast the "with project" effects on each
of the 5 economic variables. A more in depth discussion of
the predictive technique and the econometric model is
presented on pages 4-425 through 4-435 of the AFIR's expanded
Chapter 4.
8.6.2 Ranking of Alternatives
The 25 CSO alternatives, plus Future No Action (26) and
Existing Condition (27), were evaluated for economic impacts
using the output of the econometric model and the modified
Environmental Evaluation System described in Section 8.1.
Table 8-22 shows the EIU scores by alternative for each of
the economic criteria. The combined EIU scores and the
ranking of alternatives based on economic considerations
are given in Table 8-21 below.
TABLE 8-21
ECONOMIC RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Alt
11
26
2
9
10
13
1
14
15
4
3
16
17
12
Rank
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Alt
5
20
6
21
22
23
18
19
7
24
8
25
27
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a
8-56
-------
TABLE 8-22
ECONOMIC RANKING WITHIN EACH CRITERION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WEIGHTED SHORT & LONG TERM
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
RN VALUE FUNCTION EQR IU EIU
701 REGIONAL ECONOMIC STABILITY
ALTERNATIVE
1
2
3
4
5
G
T
8
9
10
11 ,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0.531
O.531
O.531
0.531
O.532
O.532
O.532
0.533
0.531
0.531
0.531
O.531
O.531
0.531
0.531
0.531
0.531
0.532
0.532
0.532
O.532
0.532
0.532
0.533
0.534
0.531
0.5OO
50.OOO
50.0OO
50.OOO
50.0OO
50.OOO
50.0OO
50.0OO
50.0OO
50.0OO
50.0OO
50.OOO
50.OOO
50.OOO
50.OOO
50.0QO
50.OOO
50.0OO
50 . OOO '
50.OOO
50 . OOO
50. OOO
50. OOO
5O.OOO
50. OOO
50.000
50. OOO
50. OOO
26.550
26.550
26 .550
2S.550
26.600
26.600
26.S25
26.650
26.550
26.550
26.550
26.575
26.550
26,550
26.550
26.575
25.575
26.6OO
26.625
26.6OO
26.600
26.6OO
26.600
26.650
26.675
26.550
25. OOO
RN ViLUE FUNCTION EOR IU EIU
7O2
PER CAPITA PERSONAL CONSUMPTION
ALTERNATIVE 1
2
3
4
5
£
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0.599
0.599
O.60O
0.6OO
O.60O
0.60O
O.6OO
0.6OO
O.S99
O.599
O.6OO
0.600
0.599
0.60O
0.600
0.6OO
0.60O
O.60O
O.6OO
O.6OO
O.60O
0.600
O.6OO
O.6OO
O.6OO
O.599
0.500
35.00O
36. OOO
36. OOO
35. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36.000
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36.000
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36. OOO
36.000
36. OOO
36. OOO
21 .564
21 .564
21 .582
21.582
21 .582
21 .582
21.582
21.582
21.564
21 .564
21 .582
21 .582
21.564
21.582
21.582
21.582
21.582
21.582
21.582
21.582
21.582
21.582
21.582
21.582
21.582
21.564
islooo
8-57
-------
TABLE 8-22 Continued
RN
703
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WEIGHTED SHORT £ LONG TERM
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
VALUE FUNCTION EQR
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BALANCES
ALTERNATIVE
RN
704
VALUE FUNCTION
REAL COSTS
ALTERNATIVE
EOR
IU
IU
EIU
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.780
0.780
0.78O
O.78O
0.779
0.779
0.780
0.780
0.779
O.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
O.78O
O.78O
O.780
O.780
0.780
0.780
0.780
0.780
0.779
0.750
24.000
24. OOO
24 .OOO
24. OOO
24.000
24. OOO
24. OOO
•24 . 000
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24.000
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24. OOO
24.000
16.708
t8 . 7O8
18.708
18.708
18.720
18.720
18.720
18.720
18.708
18.708
18.720
18.720
18.708
18.708
18.708
18.708
18.708
18.720
18.720
18.720
18.720
18.72O
18.720
18.720
18.720
18.708
18.000
EIU
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0.498
0.499
0.492
0.492
0.475
0.475
O.451
0.448
0.499
0.499
0.494
0.484
O.498
0.494
O.494
0.488
0.487
0.470
0.466
O.475
O.474
0.473
0.472
0.448
0.444
0.5OO
0.500
13.000
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
1 3 . OOO
13. OOO
1 3 . OOO
13.000
13.000
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13.000
13. OOO
13. OOO
13.000
13. OOO
13. OOO
13.000
13.000
13. OOO
13. OOO
1 3 . OOO
6.474
6.487
6.396
6.396
6. 175
6. 175
5.863
5.824
6.487
6.487
6.422
6.292
6.474
6.422
6.422
6.344
6.331
6. 1 10
6.058
6.175
6.162
6. 149
6. 136
5.824
5.772
6.500
6.5OO
8-58
-------
TABLE 8-22
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WEIGHTED SHORT & LONG TERM
ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON
RN VALUE FUNCTION
705 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
ALTERNATIVE
EQR
1U
EIU
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0.749
0.750
0.745
0.745
0.733
0.733
0.714
0.713
0.750
0.749
O.747
0.740
O.749
0.746
O.746
0.742
0.742
0.730
0.728
0.733
0.733
0.732
O.732
O.712
O.711
O.750
O.750
13.OOO
13.OOO
13. OCX)
13.0OO
13.000
13.0OO
13.OOO
13.OOO
13.OOO
13.000
13. OOO
13. COO
1 3 . OOO
13.OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
13. OOO
9.737
9.750
9.691
9.691
9.535
9.535
9.282
9.275
9.750
S.743
9.711
9.626
9.737
9.704
9.7O4
9.652
9. 645
9.490
9.470
9.535
9.535
9.522
9.522
9.256
9.243
9.7SO
9.75O
source: t*3iffels/&l»r!k & Veatch, undated
8-59
-------
8.7 Overall Ranking of Alternatives and Selection of Few
Best
Sections 8.2 to 8.6 described the evaluations and ranking of
alternatives within each of the five evaluation categories.
The final step of the analysis weights the relative import-
ance of each of these five categories, then combines the
weighted rankings into a single ranking of CSO alternatives.
The weighting factors were established by the Facility Plan-
ner in coordination with the DWSD, and the Citizens Advisory
Committee. The final category weights were:
Benefit/Cost 0.22
Environmental 0.21
Implementability 0.21
Technical 0.19
Economic 0.18
The rank of the alternatives (the actual rank numbers 1
through 25) within each of the categories was multiplied by
the reciprocal of the respective weighting factor shown
above. The five weighted rankings for each alternative were
then summed and consideration was given to any non-quantifi-
able factors (red flags) resulting in the following composite
ranking shown in Table 8-23.
This evaluation was to be the first of. a two phase screening
process for CSO alternatives. The objective of phase one was
only the selection of the "few best" alternatives from among
the 25. The "few best" were determined to be the 8 highest
ranked alternatives. These are:
1) Alternative 10 - Maximum Potential In-line Storage
2) Alternative 9 - 1005 MGD Primary, 880 MGD (including
recycle) Secondary
8-60
-------
I8
m ro co r- incorotN
r-l r-H t-H (N
H
W
u
in
01
r-oon
OlrHtM CN (Ni-i
1
(d
4J
C
I
0)
a
H
(1)
-6
-U
(0
•g
(0
id
o
•H
C
U
(U
in
TO
r-l
0)
rH r-l i-t i-)
4J •
rH O
< Z
rHrHrHr-Hr-HrHrHrHt-Hr-ICNCNfSfMrMtN
8-61
-------
3) Alternative 2 - Minimum Potential In-line Storage
4) Alternative 11 - 1450 MGD Primary, 880 MGD (including
recycle) Secondary
5) Alternative 15 - 974 MGD (including recycle) Secondary,
off-line storage in 3 basins
6) Alternative 13 - 923 MGD (including recycle) Secondary
7) Alternative 4 - Off-line storage in four basins
8) Alternative 3 - Off-line storage in all basins except FCE
8-62
-------
9. Revisions to the Alternatives - June, 1981
Between the publication of the PRELIMINARY AFIR in May, 1981
and the FINAL AFIR in June, 1981, the Facility Planner sub-
stantially revised the higher control level alternatives and
their costs. The cost of the FNA alternative also was radi-
cally changed. These revisions were not used to reevaluate
the cost/benefit, environmental, implementability, technical
or economic analyses, all of which had been completed in
March, 1981. The Facility Planner did investigate the sensi-
tivity of the cost/benefit rankings to the revised costs and
determined that the same "few best" alternatives would have
been selected.
The revisions in the specific control alternatives resulted
from analyses of the initial modeling results. Investiga-
tion indicated that storage/treatment facilities as modeled
were not being utilized effectively. Large amounts of
storage were never used and in some cases represented only
50% of the storage capacity provided. Such findings indicated
that either the model was not performing correctly or too
much storage/treatment capacity had been provided in the
general least cost methodology. Since major errors in the
modeling program were not discovered, the decision was made
to reduce the capabilities of the higher level control alter-
natives by the amount not being effectively used.
Storage capacities were substantially reduced and treatment
modules were eliminated completely. Table 9-1 summarizes the
revisions.
The cost of alternatives was also revised to reflect the
reduction in facilities. The cost revisions were most
substantial for the 60% and 75% control alternatives. Table
9-2 lists the magnitude of the revised costs: (Note: These
costs are not disaggregated by river and, thus, are not com-
9-1
-------
parable to the EIS Consultants' alternative costs per river.
Thus, Facility Plan costs are used to illustrate the magni-
tude of the change. The revised specific watershed costs
necessary to calculate alternative costs by river were not
provided.
The costs of the FNA alternative was also revised. Original-
ly, the FNA alternative had zero costs associated with it,
and the cost/benefit analysis was performed using the FNA
alternative cost as zero. Upon publication of the PRELIMIN-
ARY AFIR in May, 1981, however, the FNA alternative had a
capital cost of $137,500,000 and an annual cost of
$67,850,000.
Originally, the unfinished components of the FNA alternative
were taken "as given" and assumed to be "sunk" costs. These
items included a new preliminary treatment complex to provide
pumping and preliminary treatment for the NI-EA flows, with-
out which the NI-EA would remain idle. The cost for this
complex was estimated at $56,600,000. Additional disinfec-
tion facilities were also required at a cost of $6,500,000.
An expansion of the sludge handling and ultimate disposal
facilities was assumed originally and this cost was estimated
at $59,800,000. An additional $14,600,000 worth of capital
costs were estimated for necessary miscellaneous expenses.
These four items, which total $137,500,000, were accepted as
"givens" originally. The Spring of 1981, however, brought
major changes in the planning of CSO facilities for DWSD.
Since none of these four items could any longer be considered
"given", the revisions were believed justified.
Dry weather and existing wet weather O&M costs were also
added to the FNA alternative as well as to all of the 25
specific control alternatives. A total annual O&M cost of
$59,430,000 (base cost) was attributed to the existing plant.
The O&M costs to cover the additional facilities required by
an alternative were then added to the base O&M cost. (See
Appendix C for calculation of annual O&M cost.)
9-2
-------
This annual O&M cost combined with the amortized capital
costs is the basis of the Facility Planners' total annual
costs listed in the AFIR, TABLE 3-7.
9-3
-------
TABLE 9-1
REVISIONS TO FACILITIES MADE FOR FINAL AFIR
Storage Capacity
Original Revised Difference
FNA
Alt 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
26 MG
all in line
201 MG
201 MG
742 MG
742 MG
2170 MG
2170 MG
all in line
all in line
-
-
—
65 MG
65 MG
101 MG
101 MG
594 MG
594 MG
789 MG
789 MG
725 MG
725 MG
2174 MG
1663 MG
__
23 MG
all in line
201
201
655
606
1337
1245
all in line
all in line
-
-
—
65 MG
48 MG
101 MG
101 MG
449 MG
351 MG
789 MG
789 MG
638 MG
638 MG
1204 MG
1006 MG
Difference = ["Revised - Original
.
-11.5%
-
0%
0%
-11.7%
-18.3%
-38.4%
-42.6%
-
-
-
-
—
0%
-26.2%
0%
0%
-24.4%
-40.9%
0%
0%
-12.0%
-12.0%
-44.6%
-39.5%
Treatment Rate of
Original
.
-
-
-
-
268
268
188
188
1005°
-
1450°
2200°
923*
976*
976*
1192*
1192*
1344*
1344*
97
97
161
161
90
90
| X 100
Revised
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1005°
-
1450°
2200°
923*
976*
976*
1192*
1192*
1344*
1344*
-
-
-
-
-
Modules
Difference
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-100%
-100%
-100%
-100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-100%
-100%
-100%
-100%
-100%
-100%
Original
*Secondary treatment at DWWTP
"Primary treatment at DWWTP
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a&f
9-4
-------
TABLE 9-2
COST REVISIONS MADE FOR FINAL AFIR
FNA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Total
Original
122,900
169,400
127,750
362,000
369,000
978,100
971,600
2,030,200
2,064,900
156,500
139,100
270,200
675,400
166,700
300,800
306,800
516,700
547,800
1,157,700
1,243,900
972,100
974,600
1,053,400
1,065,800
2,161,300
2,207,300
Capital Costs
Revised
137,500
172,800
142,400
376,600
383,600
824,700
796,100
1,365,600
1,326,500
171,300
155,400
304,000
701,900
181,500
333,200
327,000
521,700
552,800
1,055,600
1,065,700
934,900
937,600
891,600
903,900
1,363,400
1,286,200
Difference
+11.9%
+2.0%
+11.5%
+4.0%
+4.0%
-15.7%
-18.1%
-32.7%
-35.8%
+9.5%
+11.7%
+12.5%
+3.9%
+8.9%
+10.8%
+6.6%
+ 1.0%
+0.9%
-8,8%
-14.3%
-3.8%
-3.8%
-15.4%
-15.2%
-36.9%
-41.7%
Total
Original
67,030
69,840
67,400
80,040
80,580
110,190
160,570
156,380
159,150
69,130
68,370
75,110
98,590
69,990
77,730
76,830
90,550
92,490
123,504
130,320
109,850
111,700
114,070
116,500
161,050
166,720
Annual
Revised
67,850
69,990
68,230
80,050
81,400
102,650
102,720
124,380
125,070
70,000
69,310
77,040
100,750
70,810
79,040
78,760
90,910
92,830
118,730
121,040
108,130
109,980
106,850
108,980
125,280
124,660
Costs
Difference
+1.2%
+0.2%
+1.2%
<0.1%
+1.0%
-6.8%
-36.0%
-20.5%
-21.5%
+1.3%
+1.4%
+2.6%
+2.2%
+1.2%
+1.7%
+2.5%
+0.4%
+0.4%
-3.9%
-7.1%
-1.6%
-1.5%
-6.3%
-6.5%
-22.2%
-25.2
Difference = ["Revised - Original"] X 100
[_ Original _|
Source: Giffels/Black & Veatch, 1981a&f
9-5
-------
10.0 Critique of Modeling & Evaluation Techniques
Since the major objective of this report is to provide
insight to future CSO planners, a professional critique of
the planning accomplishments that have been documented
primarily in the AFIR was believed necessary. Prior to
commencing with this objective, it should be understood by
the reader that the planning techniques which are the subject
of this critique were developed to facilitate a planning
sequence and time schedule established by the Consent
Judgement. The subject areas covered in the following
critique were approached without regard to the circumstances
under which they were developed.
The following discussion provides a statement to future CSO
planners concerning the utility, acceptability and relative
certainty of the data and findings presented in the AFIR.
This analysis provides the basis for several of the recommen-
dations discussed in Section 11.
10.1 Water Quality Modeling Critique
The procedure for water quality modeling outlined in Sections
303, 208 and 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(PL 92-500) as amended (most recently by PL 97-117) involves:
(1) the examination of regional water quality (2) the
identification of areas with unsatisfactory water quality and
(3) the identification of major sources of pollution and
approximate pollutant loadings from these sources. Thus, the
need for pollution abatement is determined and the problem is
then characterized relative to the kind of pollution, its
source and its magnitude. Once this information is available,
pollution abatement alternatives can be developed which
address the problems whether they are CSO, farmland runoff,
industrial discharges, septic tank discharges or others.
10-1
-------
This logical, orderly process of determining and prioritizing
appropriate pollution control measures was generally follow-
ed. After completion of a 208 study, it was felt that the
Detroit WWTP overflows were a major cause of poor water qual-
ity in the Rouge. As a result, the Rouge River water quality
models (QUAL-II and RECEIV-II) were developed to simulate the
variation in river quality from a series of CSO control al-
ternatives in only the lower Rouge River.
When the results of the Facility Planning modeling efforts
are examined, it becomes evident that the above decisions
resulted in the development of models which are limited to
assessing only a portion of the water quality problems in the
Rouge River.
The following analyses will focus on four areas of Rouge
River modeling: 1) model development, 2) initial model data,
3) model calibration, 4) model results.
10.1.1 Rouge River Model Development
Initial evaluations of documented model development proce-
dures indicated that certain assumptions may have been used
in Main Rouge River modeling which are contrary to standard
modeling practices and will require clarification before the
model can be utilized. In addition to documentation review,
an effort was made to understand the Rouge River modeling by
replication of previous modeling methods. The results were
comparable to the Facility Planners' results and the exercise
provided valuable insights.
10-2
-------
Three significant questions were raised. First, evidence
suggests that the Main Rouge River model forecasts were con-
ducted without consideration of carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (CBOD), deoxygenation, and ammonia nitrifica-
tion. This is a deviation from standard water quality
modeling procedures and warrants further investigation.
Second, evidence and discussion indicate that the Main Roxige
River model results are dominated by sediment oxygen demand
(SOD). However, the model procedures for simulating SOD were
relatively simple and have not been proven as a reliable
forecasting technique. This may reduce the credibility of
the model results, but at a minimum requires more investi-
gation. Finally, the model forecasts for the various CSO
control alternatives are very similar. Thus, the models'
accuracy may not be sufficient to claim a significant dis-
tinction between the results.
10.1.1.1 Reaction Rates
Stream chemical reaction processes can be determined through
field testing and then used to develop the stream model.
Input files from the DWSD tapes specific to both the QUAL-II
and RECEIV-II simulations were examined to determine reaction
coefficients used. In these input files, all reaction rates
other than the reaeration rate and SOD were set at zero.
Figure 10-1 presents QUAL-II input data obtained from file
BENTEST on the DWSD tape identified as ALT.DATA. 2. The
reaction coefficients Kl, rate of decay of carbonaceous BOD;
K3, rate of loss of carbonaceous BOD due to settling; CK5,
rate of loss of fecal coliform; and CKCAD, SP04, and CKTSS
10-3
-------
P-t
4J
3
Qj
;^1
S-
Cj) H
I— I i— i
Ot
co *^ n to *«D ^» -en in CT* m *o ooooooooooo o
M £TinoCN>O x> «>-UUUUUUUUUU>0
at- « i«»».».-»».»^Qt-' •<
H-l-'l-'HI-Hi-'HF-'HH «t MWMIOMklHHMtOt-' CCCCICiaccCCKCcaiKf-i
wo UUUUUUUUUU—: «*Q«<^<«-:«^«<« t»OUMUuuMWUMW<
«*K i«i<^^<^.<^^
-------
(understood to be the rate of losses for cadmium, phosphorus,
and suspended solids, respectively) are all zero. This tape
contains the QUAL-II input data sets for events 1 through 32
and alternatives 0 through 27. Figure 10-2 represents input
reaction rates for RECEIV-II obtained from file #58.01 on
DWSD tape identified as ALT.DATA.2. Again, all reaction
rates are zero. These findings were confirmed in the USA
report entitled, Interim Report on Sensitivity (May 6, 1981).
Although the Main Rouge River system may exhibit character-
istics suitably described by the above assumptions, this is
not standard modeling procedure. Without suitable documenta-
tion for the model reaction rates and the calibration and
verification efforts, the users of Detroit's QUAL-II and
RECEIV-II models output will continue to be substantially
uncertain about their reliability.
10.1.1.2 SOD Methodology
The RECEIV-II model simulated BOD settling which is accumu-
lated during a storm event and used this as input to QUAL-II.
The QUAL-II model reads as input to the BOD settled from
RECEIV-II and treats it as increased sediment demand during
the storm event. The BOD settled (gm/day) is converted to
sediment demand (mg/ft^/day) by dividing by the river
surface area. The model reads the settled BOD at every storm
and decays it by 3.34 gm/m2/day until a baseline SOD is
achieved. The SOD is constrained to a maximum level of 40
gm/m2/day.
The above characterization and modeling of SOD is a simplis-
tic approach to modeling this parameter and has not been
supported in the literature nor in the Detroit study through
validation against data. Since sediments and their dynamics
are a major factor affecting instream oxygen concentrations,
then for this reason the reliability and accuracy of the Main
Rouge River model results are substantially uncertain.
10-5
-------
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
10-6
-------
10.1.1.3 Differentiation Among Alternatives
Both the RECEIV-II and QUAL-II were used to forecast water
quality in response to the 25 CSO control alternatives.
Model results show a maximum 3.2 percent difference in aver-
age dissolved oxygen concentrations among alternatives and a
17 percent difference in the hours of violation. Since the
details of both model calibration and verification appear to
be mostly undocumented, the models' capacity to significantly
discriminate between such small differences is uncertain.
10.1.2 Model Initialization Data
Supplying the Rouge River models with accurate and appropri-
ate dry weather data for the headwaters was one of the most
critical elements in their development. Setting up requires
a minimum of 36 average concentrations for each parameter
(one concentration per month x nine months x four head-
waters). These data should be actual data to ensure as much
accuracy as possible. Of the 72 average concentrations used
as initial input data for fecal coliform and DO, only 10 of
these came from actual observed data. The remaining 62 were
best engineering judgements provided by the modeling group
(See Section 5.3.3). The accuracy of a model developed with
"best engineering judgement" rather than field data is
extremely difficult to estimate.
10.1.3 Model Calibration
The proper application of a model to a specific system
requires specification of many inputs including reaction
rates, which are often system specific. Calibration is the
process of determining and verifying these estimates by com-
paring simulated concentrations to observed data. Model
reliability can only be substantiated by a favorable compar-
ison between model results with actual observed data. The
calibration process should be carried out for at least two
10-7
-------
independent sets of water quantity and quality data so as to
develop confidence in the accuracy of the model for differing
conditions.
For the Detroit CSO study, it was reported that calibration
and verification of the RECEIV-II model was conducted for six
selected storm events out of the 1979 data base. Calibration
of QUAL-II was also reported. However, no documentation was
found which compares water quality model simulations by
QUAL-II or RECEIV-II to observed data. Although this process
may have been completed, no real confidence can be given to
the model simulations without detailed documentation of
calibration and verification of RECEIV-II and QUAL-II.
10.1.4 Model Results
The results of the water quality modeling for the Rouge River
shows only moderate improvement in river quality when sub-
stantial treatment levels are imposed. This would seem to
indicate that background conditions were adversely affecting
baseline quality. Potentially, non-point source loading, dry
weather overflows, or unregulated point sources may be a par-
tial explanation for the low quality background conditions
upstream of the modeled portion of the Rouge River (Figure
10-3).
Water quality IS a problem in the Rouge River with DO, FC and
TP all showing significant hours of violation. The concentra-
tions of FC and TP are significantly more than the average
during or following rain events.
10-8
-------
FIGURE K>-3
MODELED PORTION OF THE ROUGE RIVER
-------
TABLE 10-1
CONCENTRATION RANGES OP VARIOUS PARAMETERS IN THE
ROUGE RIVER FOR FNA AND ALTERNATIVE 19
FNA Alternative 19
Parameter
DO
FC
TP
SS
(mg/1)
(counts/
100 ml)
(ntj/1)
(mg/D
Standard
5
1000
0.12
80
Ave. Cone. Hrs.
6
1137
0
26
.34
.44
of Viol.
1882
2443
6584
24
Ave. Cone. Hrs.
6
495
0
24
.54
.42
of Viol.
1158
1809
6584
9
Alternative 19 shows the most improvement in water quality of
the Rouge River. It controls 80% of the total overflow volume
and BOD loadings are reduced by 86%. This high level of con-
trol, however, does not result in a significcant reduction in
the hours of violation. Alternative 19 improves the average
concentration of dissolved oxygen from 6.34 to 6.54 mg/1 and
reduces the hours of violation 17% from 1882 to 1558. Alter-
native 19 does improve the concentration of fecal coliform by
56%, but the average concentration of 495 counts/100 mg still
includes 1809 hours of violation. There was not, however any
significant improvement in phosphorus. Suspended solids was
not identified as a problem originally, and Alternative 19
does not improve the concentration. Figure 10-4 displays the
sensitivity of the DO and FC concentrations to the varying
measures of CSO control provided by the 25 alternatives.
Alternative 19 has a very high capital cost of $578,000,000
for limited Rouge River water quality improvements. Cost/
benefit and environmental analyses indicate that other
alternatives would be more desirable. The Facility Planner
lists Alternative 9 and 10 as the most desirable of the "few
best" as a result of their overall ranking procedure. Alter-
10-10
-------
ALTERNATIVES FNA 1 2 34 5678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
5500
au
4500 —
4000 >^
3000-~
2000
1500
1000
O
p
6
Q
oc
o £
dS
0-
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200 -
800
O
400
2400
8|
. I
-J CO
< -.
VJ O
o
X
1800
1600
1400
1200
10004
600
400
200
FNA 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE 10-4
ROUGE RIVER C.S.O, VOLUME, D.0.,ond FC.
-------
native 10 reduces CSO overflow volume by 24% and BOD loadings
by 30%. Alternative 10, however, provides only an 11% reduc-
tion in the hours of violation for dissolved oxygen and an 8%
reduction in the hours of violation for fecal coliforra.
TABLE 10-2
CCNCENTRATION RANGES OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS IN THE
ROUGE RIVER FOR FNA AND ALTERNATIVE 10
FNA Alternative 10
Parameter
DO
FC
TP
SS
(rng/1)
(counts/
100 ml)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Standard
5
1000
0.12
80
Ave. Cone.
6
1137
0
26
.34
.44
Hrs. of Viol.
1882
2443
6584
24
Ave. Cone. Hrs.
6
978
0
25
.38
.44
of Viol.
1674
2238
6584
23
Alternative 10 has a $8,200,000 capital cost for the Rouge
River and a $300,000 annual O&M cost. (Other capital, O&M
and present worth costs for the Rouge River are shown in
Table 10-3.) In comparing Alternative 10 with the FNA or
Existing Case, the small improvements in the two most import-
ant parameters do not appear worth the $8,200,000 capital
cost.
The above observation poses the question of why even the BEST
alternative of the 25 at a cost of half a billion dollars
does not substantially improve the water quality of the Rouge
River below Eight Mile Road. The answer may be that the
background or incoming water quality is poor. Even if DWSD
were to eliminate all overflows completely, the fecal coli-
form concentration might continue to violate state standards.
During wet weather there are numerous other combined sewer
10-12
-------
jo as
'O | ^
*~ K K
-' * Q i
* uS Si }* in $• +ini
• • I f*- f\j ^ *
! S
\£) r^ f* • * f-
r-H ID 0-1
*» dP m d^
g£ 5S
ss sr
R85
s ,
u5
S
en
in
olation
of
andard
(Sff
"
O rJ
m 0p
Q tfP
i u q> i
IS 9
in
in
• (N
in
ro I I
03
(N *
in
"if- I R
P* vC ' } VD
CT> dP
*
m dp
-«
ID
S!
in *
1C
R
R
o
§
C
"
'2
i-S
<0
(D
in —
C O
c X =
— UJ U.
II II II
O O Z
— UJ U-
-------
overflows on the Lower, Middle and Upper Branches that con-
tribute to the Rouge River. There are overflows and dis-
charges to the Rouge above Eight Mile Road. The communities
of Dearborn, Inkster, Garden City, Farmington and Southfield
all contribute CSOs to the Rouge River.
Furthermore, high fecal coliform and phosphorus concentra-
tions have been sampled consistently on the Lower and Middle
and Upper Branches during dry weather. Monthly average fecal
coliform concentrations ranging from 2000-5000 counts/100 ml
have been sampled at Garden City and Inkster for the months
of June through September. Based on Facility Plan projections
the dry weather average monthly fecal coliform concentrations
for the Upper Branch detract from the water quality of the
main Rouge for seven months of the year while the Middle
Branch detracts for eight months and the Lower Branch for
seven months. Nonpoint sources such as animal yard or farm
operation runoff could explain these concentrations, as could
faulty collection/treatment systems or individual point
sources upstream from the City of Detroit.
The branches and smaller tributaries of the Rouge River also
contribute a substantial loading of BOD, which, in addition
to the BOD already contributed by Detroit CSOs, can explain
why the dissolved oxygen levels deteriorate along the Main
Rouge. Figure 10-5 shows the annual BOD loadings for the
headwaters, the branches, the major industrial point sources
(on the Main Rouge), and Detroit CSOs. Ford Motor Company
contributes more than twice the BOD loading of Detroit CSOs
but also dilutes the river pollution by supplying three-
fourths of the river's flow. Collectively, the branches
contribute slightly less BOD than Detroit CSOs. Low levels
of dissolved oxygen could continue to be a problem even if
the city of Detroit were to completely eliminate its contri-
butions of BOD.
10-14
-------
-------
It must be recognized that communities, industries, and non-
point sources along the Lower, Middle and Upper Branches as
well as along the Upper Rouge contribute significantly to the
pollution of the Rouge River. Consequently, without reduc-
tions in pollutant contributions from upstream sources, even
complete control of all CSOs would not dramatically reduce
the hours of violation for dissolved oxygen and fecal coli-
form.
10.2 Benefit Analysis Critique
Benefit analysis for a large project such as Detroit is nec-
essarily complex. Consequently, different approaches would
be expected by different individuals, each of which may be
logical and defensible. The Facility Planner employed an
innovative approach which quantified benefits as required by
use of the Battelle Columbus environmental ranking system.
The approach, however, has certain idiosyncrasies which the
reader and future planners should be aware of. This commen-
tary will focus on three important points of that approach:
1) Definition of benefit given the data
2) Optimization
3) Value Systems
10.2.1 Definition of Benefit
Recall that benefit (B) was defined as the percent improve-
ment of the maximum possible improvement over the Future No
Action (FNA) case:
Ave. Cone. FNA - Ave. Cone. Alt.
Ave. Cone. FNA - Ave. Cone. Max.
Without considering the actual data, the definition seems
quite reasonable. The denominator is defined by the spread
or difference between the FNA concentration and the concen-
tration of the best alternative in that particular reach for
10-16
-------
that particular parameter. The numerator is defined by the
improvement in the concentration by the alternative from the
FNA baseline.
The actual data from the summaries of water quality model-
ling, however, may not be sufficiently sensitive to different
alternatives to yield meaningful calculations of benefit.
For example, in Reach 2 of the Rouge River, the average
concentration of dissolved oxygen is 6.29 mg/1 for FNA and
6.57 mg/1 for the best alternative (19 or 25). The
denominator or maximum improvement is only .28 mg/1 which is
only 4.45% of the 6.29 mg/1 FNA concentration. One must ask
first if the .28 mg/1 increase is significant and if so how
much confidence should be placed in it. Second, how much
confidence should be placed in improvements for the other
alternatives which lie between 6.29 mg/1 and 6.57 mg/1? For
much of the data the denominator of the benefit formula is
very small compared to the FNA average concentrations. If the
sampling and modeling had been completed before the benefit
analysis was initiated, a different definition of benefit
might have been selected.
The following table illustrates the difference between the
FNA concentration and that of the best alternative for each
reach parameter for the Rouge River.
10-17
-------
TABLE 10-4
COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE BETWEEN FNA AND BEST ALTERNATIVE
Rouge
Para- River
meter Reach
DO Reach 2
3
4
5
FC Reach 2
3
4
5
TSS Reach 2
3
4
5
TP Reach 2
3
4
5
Cd Reach 2
3
4
5
FNA
6.29
5.50
6.51
7.07
428
1380
1510
1180
24
21
23
34
.51
.51
.39
.34
2.19
2.16
2.10
2.14
Best
Alter-
native
6.57
5.79
6.65
7.16
182
568
640
418
23
20
21
31
.48
.49
.38
.31
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.03
Difference
.28
.29
.14
.09
246
812
870
762
1
1
2
3
.03
.02
.01
.03
.18
.15
.09
.1 1
Percentage
Difference
4%
5%
2%
1%
57%
59%
58%
65%
4%
5%
9%
9%
6%
4%
2%
9%
8%
7%
4%
5%
For all five parameters used in the benefit analysis for the
Rouge River only one, fecal coliform, showed improvement of
more than 10% by the BEST alternative.
10-18
-------
For the other four parameters both the numerator and the de-
nominator in the benefit of formula will be found using VERY
SMALL differences, which may not ever be significant.
Use of this benefit formula not only masks these small
differences but actually converts them to apparently large
differences. For example, Alternative 11 for DO, Reach 2,
Rouge River, has an average concentration of 6.44. The
actual difference between Alternative 11 and FNA is only .15
or 2%, but the calculated benefit is .15/.29 or 52%. The
unknowing reader might consider 52% to be a substantial and
significant improvement, unless the reader understood that
the 52% benefit was generated from a 2% difference. The
reader must therefore understand that benefits for the para-
meters of DO, TP, TSS, and Cd are all predicated upon VERY
SMALL ACTUAL DIFFERENCES IN AVERAGE ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS.
10.2.2 Optimization
Another feature of the benefit methodology worthy of close
examination is the definition of optimization. Once the
benefits and costs had been calculated as percentages, they
were plotted - one point for every alternative. The Facility
Planner then constructed the least cost curve. The optimum
point on the curve was defined as the place where the tangent
to the slope equaled 45% or where the marginal benefit
equaled the marginal cost (dB = dC or dB/dC = l). Each alter-
native was graded on how close it was to the optimum point
and this grade, when weighted, was combined with grades from
the other four categories to select the few best alterna-
tives.
At issue here is whether the optimum point is properly de-
fined for Detroit CSO planning purposes. Traditional economic
analysis does identify the point where marginal benefit
equals marginal cost as the optimum point of production.
10-19
-------
Traditional analysis also assumes that you have unlimited
resources (can afford) to achieve that point. In essence,
theory states that you should continue spending up to the
point where the marginal cost just equals your marginal
benefit. Up to this point you are indeed receiving greater
benefit than cost for every additional unit of pollution
reduction purchased. Beyond this point, your marginal return
from pollution reduction will be less than the cost so you
stop spending. Thus, the choice of an optimum located at
dB/dC = 1 is reasonable under the assumption of unlimited
resources (money).
The question remains, however, whether the optimum point
should be the desired objective. There are many other
demands for federal, state and local monies. Should the goal
of CSO control be the optimum point or should the goal be to
select alternatives with marginal returns greater than margi-
nal costs? At the extreme, should an alternative be chosen
with dB/dC = 1 or dB/dC = Maximum (such as 5, 10 or 15).
USEPA guidance states that "marginal costs shall not be
substantial compared to marginal benefits," which establishes
dB/dC = 1 as a ceiling, since beyond that point marginal
costs would exceed marginal benefits.
To ascertain the sensitivity of the Facility Planner's cost/
.benefit ranking to the alternate strategy of dB/dC = Maximum
(the extreme case of dB > dC), the EIS Consultant performed a
very simple and brief benefit analysis for the Rouge River.
Benefits were calculated according to the Facility Planners'
formula for DO and FC. Benefits were aggregated by river for
each parameter. Costs were computed from a re-tabulation of
present worth costs for the Rouge River. The benefit, cost
points were then plotted on three graphs - one for DO, one
for FC and one for DO + FC. These three graphs are shown in
Figures 10-6, 10-7 and 10-8. Instead of determining the least
cost line, the group of most efficient alternatives were
identified and circled. These most efficient alternatives
10-20
-------
were then subjected to average and marginal cost/benefit
calculations. Average benefit is defined as the total
benefit divided by the total cost. Marginal benefit is the
increase in benefit from the previous benefit level. Marginal
cost is the increase in cost from the previous cost level.
Tables 10-5, 10-6 and 10-7 show the benefit (B), cost (C),
B/C, marginal benefit (dB), marginal cost (dC), and dB/dC for
DO, FC, and DO + FC. The dB/dC ranking for DO shows that
Alternative 9 has the highest score of 28.3, followed by
Alternative 2 with 9.0 and Alternative 10 with 8.7. The
marginal benefit-cost calculations indicate which alternative
offers the most improvement compared to the previous level.
Such ratios very readily answer the question of where a
community might want to stop spending money on pollution
control. The marginal benefit of Alternative 9 over Alterna-
tive 2 is 17 at a marginal cost of only .6. Thus the dB/dC
ratio is very high at 28.3. Choosing Alternative 10 over
Alternative 9 yields more benefits but at a lower dB/dC
ratio. For FC Alternative 9 has the highest dB/dC ratio at
33.3 followed by Alternative 10 at 7.0. If the benefits for
DO and FC were combined, Alternative 9 would have the highest
dB/dC ratio at 61.7 followed by Alternative 10 at 15. If the
goal of maximizing benefits per dollar invested is chosen and
dB/dC is used as a measure, Alternatives 9 or 10 should be
chosen followed by Alternative 2. (If the average B/C is
used as a measure, identical results are obtained in this
particular case.)
The difference between the Facility Planner's method of opti-
mization (dB/dC = 1) and the alternative (dB/dC = Max) is
illustrated by comparison of the alternative rankings in
Table 10-8. Although the alternative approach did not
include all five parameters or disaggregate costs per
parameter per reach as the Facility Planner did, the ranking
is representative of the results which would be obtained
using the dB/dC = Max. optimum.
10-21
-------
500-1
400-1
300-
UJ
CD
200-
100-
• 3,14
• 24
•12
l
100
200
1
300
CAPITAL COST (MILLIONS $)
I
400
I
500
FIGURE 10-6
ROUGE RIVER COST/ BENEFIT GRAPH
DISSOLVED OXYGEN ONLY
-------
500—1
400—
300-
UJ
m
200—
100—
10
.13
\
100
_22
J8
r
200
.24
I
300
I
400
CAPITAL COST (MILLIONS $)
1
500
FIGURE 10-7
ROUGE RIVER COST / BENEFIT GRAPH
FECAL COLIFORM ONLY
-------
800—1
700-
600-
500-
t 400-
ui
z
UJ
m
300
200-
IOO-
10
9
•2
13
I
100
I
200
I
300
I
400
CAPITAL COST ( MILLION $)
FIGURE 10-8
ROUGE RIVER COST / BENEFIT GRAPH
DISSOLVED OXGEN AND FECAL COLIFORM
500
m
-------
TABLE 10-5
COST BENEFIT VALUES FOR DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Marginal Marginal
Benefit Cost Benefit Cost
Alternatives (B) (C) B/C (dB) (dC) dB/dC
FNA
Alt. 2 36 4.0 9.0 (3) 36 4.0 9.0 (2)
Alt. 9 53 4.6 11.5 (1) 17 .6 28.3 (1)
Alt. 10 79 7.6 10.4 (2) 26 3.0 8.7 (3)
Alt. 15 224 48.0 4.7 (4) 145 40.4 3.6 (4)
Alt. 16 304 117.0 2.6 (5) 80 69.0 1.2 (5)
Alt. 23 369 256.0 1.4 (6) 65 139.0 .5 (6)
Alt. 19 397 331.0 1.2 (7) 28 75.0 .4 (7)
( ) Denotes Ranking
10-25
-------
TABLE 10-6
COST BENEFIT VALUES FOR FECAL COLIFORM
Marginal Marginal
Benefit Cost Benefit Cost
Alternatives (Bj (C) B/C (dB) (dC) dB/dC
FNA 00-
Alt. 2 23 4.0 5.7 (3) 23 4.0 5.7 (3)
Alt. 9 43 4.6 9.3 (1) 20 .6 33.3 (1)
Alt. 10 62 7.6 8.2 (2) 21 3.0 7.0 (2)
Alt. 3 245 49.0 5.0 (4) 183 41.4 4.4 (4)
Alt. 16 310 117.0 2.3 (5) 165 87.0 1.9 (5)
Alt. 23 361 256.0 1.4 (6) 51 120.0 .4 (6)
Alt. 19 377 331.0 1.1 (7) 16 74.0 .2 (8)
Alt. 25 400 413.0 1.0 (8) 23 82.0 .3 (7)
( ) Denotes Ranking
10-26
-------
TABLE 10-7
COST BENEFIT VALUES FOR DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND FECAL COLIFORM
Marginal Marginal
Benefit Cost Benefit Cost
Alternatives (_BJ (C) B/C (dB) (dC) dB/dC
FNA 00-
Alt. 2 49 4.0 14.8 (3) 59 4.0 14.8 (3)
Alt. 9 96 4.6 20.9 (1) 37 .6 61.7 (1)
Alt. 10 141 7.6 18.6 (2) 45 3.0 15.0 (2)
Alt. 15 475 48.0 9.9 (4) 334 40.4 8.3 (4)
Alt. 4 494 60.0 8.2 (5) 19 12.0 1.6 (6)
Alt. 16 614 117.0 5.3 (6) 120 57.0 2.1 (5)
Alt. 17 630 136.0 4.6 (7) 16 19.0 .8 (7)
Alt. 23 730 256.0 2.9 (8) 100 120.0 .8 (8)
Alt. 19 774 331.0 2.3 (9) 44 75.0 .6 (9)
Alt. 25 800 413.0 1.9 (10) 26 82.0 .3 (10)
( ) Denotes Ranking
10-27
-------
TABLE 10-8
COMPARISON OP COST/BENEFIT RANKINGS
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
dB/dC = 1
16
17
15
4
5
20
3
14
21
6
dB/dC = Max
9
10
2
15
16
4
17
23
19
25
17 10
*
22 9
•
24 2
The reader should note the difference in rankings produced by
use of the two systems. Alternatives 9, 10, and 2, which
maximize benefits received per dollar invested, rank 22nd,
17th and 24th on the Facility Plan list. The reader and
future planners should therefore be aware of the tremendous
difference in ranking that is brought about by selecting the
dB/dC = 1 as a goal over dB/dC = Max. Depending on the funds
available, some compromise might be chosen between the two
goals, since dB/dC = Maximum will usually result in the
choice of very limited CSO control.
10.2.3 Value Systems
The third feature of the Facility Planner's benefit method-
ology deserving attention is related to optimization but is
very subtle. Here again, the methodology is not unreasonable,
but future planners should understand its implications. Any
10-28
-------
quantitative cost/benefit analysis which determines an opti-
mum for pollution reduction must involve a determination or
an assumption of the structure of peoples' value systems.
Subjectivity enters the process either way and cannot
possibly be avoided. There are simply no accepted dollar
values for improvement in water quality. A survey could be
taken to ascertain how people value the benefits of pollution
reduction, which would identify the subjectivity explicitly.
Such surveys, however, are very difficult to conduct and
interpret for improvements in water quality. In the Facility
Plan approach, an implicit assumption is made on how society
values the benefits of pollution reduction. The methodology
of defining cost as a percent of the most expensive alterna-
tive and the optimization technique of setting dB = dC are
valid so long as society values the benefits of pollution
reduction in direct proportion to the cost. For expensive
alternatives or for cases where there is only marginal
improvement in the water quality, this assumption is probably
not true. Thus, where benefits may possibly be overstated,
setting the optimum point at dB = dC is not desirable. The
following detailed explanation is complicated and may be
skipped by those without a strong background in marginal
analysis and the problems of value systems.
To understand how this subtle issue affects the rankings of
alternatives, three societies with different hypothetical
value systems (V- , V2r V,) will be examined. Each
society values the benefits from five alternatives A through
E. Table 10-9 lists the measured benefits (B) and costs (C)
of the five alternatives as well as the marginal benefits
(dB) and costs (dC). Benefits are in terms of percent
reduction in pollution from the maximum possible and costs
are in percent of the most expensive (E at $440). Each
society in column B$ values (through a perfectly constructed
survey) the percent reduction achieved by each alternative.
These benefit values may be thought of as "shadow" benefits.
10-29
-------
a
•H
M-l
8
£
Q
'O
!
ii
a
d>
i
5
a
•a
0
•H
0)
5
f\
&
I
dP
r
>
ro
8
dP
CN
CQ
)
ro
CQ
>C
dP
CN
€
dP
CN
CQ
1
£J
^
^>
*~* dP
00 «-
r^ dp
*" CQ~
^^
vo
dP dP dP
in <- vo
CM CN r-
dP dP
m vo
CN 'sj'
dP dP dP
«— CM
dP dP
O> O
CN
O CO
^S* 00
dP
dP
CN
VO
dP
m
CN
dP
^i
O
CO
<—
u
dP
VO
dP dP
CN 00 O
0 0
o in
in r-
*d* ^*
W VJ-
dP
m
dP dP
ro oo CQ
«- ro
CM ^>
ro ro
{/V "W
dP
dP dP
CN ro <
ro ro
O in
^•j1 "Sf
^- T- IQ
-H
rj
dP CQ O
in CQ ng •
Jj Q
CD JJ
dP dP "§ OJ
ro co ^-- w
r- r- o C
It 2 -d §
•H -H rH
dP 4J JJ 4-> O
4_) 4J (0
dp dP i-j rH.CC
vo O JJ 4-> 0)
14 D U-l -H C
CO Ti 0) 4J CD
rH CB C U
H-l £ -HO
0) >j tn c
C T> O C -H
al§^«
5 -H »* CD C
O O V> -H
rv5 O ^^ JJ O^
W fO 52- i S
*— -» ^-v. >— s.
vo r- co
*— - ^_^- -^-f
o hj
«> i
en rfj
•^
W 1
c
CO CD , C
(0 4J Q JD CD
c w o Ja
CD § c "CD c
4J -rH 4J -H
r-j CD (0
(0 .C CD rH CD
4J CQ 3 tfl
— * — -^-
10-30
-------
Although we do not know the actual benefit value in dollars,
we may hypothesize for our example. Society V^ values
pollution reduction much less than societies V2 or V^.
In both V1 and V2, society values the first 10% reduction
in pollution more than the second 10% more than the third
10%. These societies exhibit decreasing marginal satisfac-
tion from pollution reduction. In V.,, the society values
pollution reduction most in the middle range achieved by
alternatives B and C. In this society a substantial
amount of pollution reduction is necessary before any bene-
fits are perceived. Figure 10-9 illustrates the different
value systems. (For alternative A with 25% pollution reduc-
tion, society with V.. values considers the 25% reduction
worth $50, society V~ considers the same 25% reduction
worth $110, and society V., considers the same 25% reduction
worth $100.)
FIGURE 10-9
GRAPHS OF THREE VALUE SYSTEMS
$500
B$,
$400
$300
$200
$100
•V
25%
50%
75%
100%
B%
10-31
-------
Each of the benefit values is converted to a percentage using
$440 as a base. ($440 is the cost of E) The shadow benefits
for V2 were purposely chosen so that the resulting percent-
ages would equal the given B% in column three. Notice for
each alternative how the percent reduction figures (B%) vary.
The marginal benefits may now be calculated so that the
optimum criteria (dB/dC = 1) can be evaluated. For society
V1 dB%/dC% > 1 (dB%/dC% = 11%/9%) for Alternative A but
dB%/dC% < 1 (dB%/dC% = 9%/11%) for Alternative B. Society
V. would therefore probably choose Alternative A. For
society V2, Alternatives A and B have dB/dC > 1 with Alter-
native B having dB/dC = 21/11. Society V-> would therefore
probably choose Alternative B. By the same logic society
V3 would choose Alternative C where dB/dC = 46/21.
Without knowing the shadow benefits, the use of marginal
analysis would indicate that B is the preferred alternative,
when in fact society might prefer A or C. In our example
with three value systems, marginal analysis will select
society's preferred alternative only by coincidence - only if
society has the V2 value system which values a 25% reduc-
tion at $110, 46% at $220, 62% at $273, 73% at $321, and 78%
at $343 (or values close enough to still guarantee the selec-
tion of B). There is no guarantee that society has the V2
value system, but this is precisely the assumption implicit
in using the actual B% figures.
The implication of adopting this implicit assumption is that
society must value benefits in direct proportion to the cost
of the most expensive alternative. In a V2 society a 78%
reduction in pollution has a value of 78% X base cost or .78
X $440 = $343. In similar fashion a 73% reduction has a
value of .73 X $440 = $321, 62% a value of .62 X $440 = $273,
46% a value of .46 X $440 = $202, and 25% a value of .25 X
$440 = $110. If society does not value benefits in direct
10-32
-------
proportion to the cost of the most expensive alternative, the
facility planner's use of optimization technique with bene-
fits in percent improvement and costs as a percent of the
most expensive alternative will select an alternative that
may not in fact be preferred.
However, since a survey to determine benefits (or society's
values) cannot be perfectly constructed or administered,
some subjectivity must enter any benefit analysis. The
reader and future planners should understand that while this
particular methodology is reasonable, it is technically
accurate for only one value system. Different alternatives
might be selected as the few best under other value systems.
10.3 Environmental Evaluation
10.3.1 General
The environmental assessment portion of a facilities plan has
its legislative foundation in the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The Act ensures that all agencies
of the Federal government include in the decision-making
process appropriate and careful consideration of all environ-
mental effects of proposed actions, explain potential envir-
onmental effects of proposed actions and their alternatives
for public understanding, avoid or minimize adverse effects
and restore or enhance environmental quality as much as pos-
sible. Since Detroit's CSO project is partly funded by the
Federal government through the U.S. EPA, the facilities plan
must comply with NEPA.
Significant effort was expended on environmental analyses for
the FFP/AFIR. Although the Facility Planner accomplished this
work in accordance with their approved scope of work, the
availability of existing data, the limitations encountered
during the taking of original data and other circumstances
may have caused many of the analyses to be of little or
questionable value.
10-33
-------
This critique of the Final Facilities Plan's Environmental
Assessment has two objectives. The first of which is to give
the future planners an appreciation for the relative level of
certainty which can be placed on the report's environmental
findings, and secondly, to give future planners a basis upon
which to structure their environmental review of the future
project. It is hoped that through this critique the future
planners may avoid some of the difficulties and pitfalls
encountered.
10.3.2 FFP Environmental Evaluation System
Starting at the uppermost hierarchical level, the modified
Environmental Evaluation System (EES), developed by Battelle
Columbus and previously described in Section 8, has resulted
in the presentation of numerical EQR values which represent
relative environmental quality. These are simply summed by
alternative and ranked highest to lowest which relates to the
most and least preferred, respectively. The apparent
objectivity of the data manipulation technique and the ease
with which alternatives are ranked is impressive and appears
straight forward. However, when an attempt is made to
understand the true origin of the numbers, several levels of
subjective judgement are revealed, each with the potential
for substantial variation. When multiplied by one another,
they produce final EQR values which contain greater
uncertainty and potential variation than any of the preceding
values.
The initial data or measurement usually has some level of
variation or uncertainty associated with it. If these have
been derived from information which is too general or from
professional judgement without an appropriate data base, the
level of uncertainty may be substantial.
The initial measurement is then converted to an EQR value by
applying it to a value function. It is believed that this
10-34
-------
process, whereby all the diverse units of measurement are
converted to commensurate EQR's, contains tremendous poten-
tial for variation and uncertainty.
A third level of subjective judgement takes place when the
importance units (ill's) are derived and multiplied by the EQR
values. Finally, a fourth level of variation and uncertainty
is created when each of the evaluation categories are
"weighted" and the rankings of the environmental, technical,
implementability, economic and cost-benefit evaluations are
combined.
In any scientific endeavor the potential for creating varia-
tion is generally minimized to the extent possible by the
researchers since it is the ability to independently
reproduce similar results which establishes the credibility
of the procedures and findings. With the Battelle EES, the
potential for variation of independently derived results is
enhanced with each level of subjective judgement and
uncertainty, thus; the probability of obtaining similar
results is diminished.
If results are to retain credibility, judgement must have
factual information and a valid argument as a basis. Further-
more, the creation of additional levels of subjectivity, for
the purpose of converting all data to commensurate units,
then compiling all measurements into a single value, seems
unnecessary and leads to substantially diminished confidence
in the results. It should be the analyst's objective to
decrease subjectivity whenever possible.
For the future planners, a simple narrative matrix procedure
could be employed for environmental analysis. Assuming a
two-phased approach is used, only potentially severe to very
severe adverse impacts would be included in the preliminary
screening of alternatives. The final screening of alterna-
10-35
-------
tives would include discussions of moderate to very severe
impacts. All other significant impacts would then be dis-
cussed following the selection of an alternative.
Using this phased approach, the narrative matrix should not
become unwieldy, information and data obtained should be
relative to the level of analysis detail, and the ultimate
selection and/or ranking of alternatives should be more
understandable and defendable.
10.3.3 FFP Environmental Parameters & Measurements
The remaining hierarchical levels of the environmental
assessment procedure will be discussed concurrently. These
are the environmental components, the environmental para-
meters, and the environmental measurements. The thrust of
this discussion involves the appropriateness and utility of
the chosen parameters and units of measurement. Refer to
Section 8 for the definition of each parameter discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Under the Land component, the parameter of Soil Profile
Disruption is not believed to represent even a potentially
significant environmental impact from any CSO alternative in
the Detroit area. It therefore seems inappropriate for use
in this project.
The parameters Urban and Non-urban Land Use are not defin-
itive enough to be useful as assessment criteria since they
do not measure a specific impact parameter.
The Soil Erosion parameter does have merit but since the
alternatives do not propose the use of land areas with steep
slopes or otherwise erosion prone soils, the analysis may
best be presented in the final screening of alternatives in-
stead of the preliminary screening. In the final screening,
10-36
-------
site specific data determinations should be used as much as
possible. The unit of measurement, (1000 ton/year) seems
appropriate. The evalulation should include reasonable
mitigation and should be compared with total erosion in the
basin or subwatershed.
Under the Water component, the modeled parameters Cadmium,
Dissolved Oxygen, Fecal Coliform, Phosphorus, Suspended
Solids, and Total Dissolved Solids are all excellent measures
of water quality. However, in order to obtain a more com-
plete determination, the analysis should also include temper-
ature (required for D.O. calculation), pH and Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (also affects D.O. calculation). Each of the model
parameters should be evaluated relative to water quality
standards or generally accepted criteria in both the prelimi-
nary and final screenings. All this assumes that confidence
in the model has been established.
Arsenic, Chromium, Copper, Iron, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Sil-
ver and Zinc are worthwile parameters for evaluating water
quality where sufficient data exists. Criteria for these
have been established by the federal government. Iron,
nickel and zinc are not particularly toxic metals and should,
therefore, be of lowest priority. Among all of these para-
meters, very little data were available as a basis for the
assessment. Because of this, the assessment lacked sufficient
credibility for input in the screening of CSO alternatives.
For future planning purposes, unless a particular metals
problems is identified and linked to CSO pollution, it is
recommended that these parameters be disregarded in the
evaluation. If a problem is documented, sufficient sampling
and analysis should be done with the objective of quantifying
the pollutant discharge such that the remedial effects of CSO
alternatives can be determined. This type of analysis should
occur only during the final screening of alternatives.
10-37
-------
The Air component of the evaluation utilized two parameters:
odor and suspended particulates. Odor impacts for an exist-
ing wastewater facility can be determined through testing.
For proposed new facilities, EPA recommends testing existing
facilities which are similar in design and operation to those
proposed. The evaluation of odor impacts was extremely
theoretical, based on numerous questionable assumptions and
therefore lacked the credibility required in such an analy-
sis. Furthermore, the state-of-the-art in odor control is
such that virtually any nuisance odor condition can be
eliminated through proper facilities design. The quantifica-
tion of odor impact in this project would, therefore, be more
appropriately conducted as input to the design of the facil-
ity rather than the screening of alternatives.
Suspended particulates in this project would occur primarily
as fugitive dust created by construction equipment and
trucks. Any nuisance caused by this can also be thoroughly
mitigated through the use of proper techniques.
It appears that both the air parameters are inappropriate for
screening of CSO alternatives at either level of analysis.
These potential impacts and the fact that reasonable
mitigation is assumed to be built into the alternatives
should be covered in the discussion of environmental conse-
quences following the selection of an alternative.
Under the Biological category the vegetative cover (terre-
strial), wetlands, and shorelands parameters were all used to
quantify impacts on these specific habitats. For the prelim-
inary screening, SEMCOG data and aerial photographs could be
used in the analysis to determine acreage disturbed. For the
final screening, site specific information should be obtained
to refine the analysis. The basic approach appears suitable
for preliminary screening purposes.
10-38
-------
The remaining parameters used in the Biological category
lacked sufficient data base to render them useful or appro-
priate for this environmental assessment. The four para-
meters relating to rare, threatened and endangered species
may have some application in the final screening assuming
detailed site specific data are available and obtained.
However, those parameters related to species diversity and
the environmental tolerance parameter are far too general
and/or theoretical and difficult to substantiate to be
considered reliable criteria for CSO alternative screening.
These parameters should, therefore, be disregarded in any
future evaluation of CSO alternatives.
The Cultural Resources category is broken down into three
subcategories; Recreation, Historic and Archaeological
Resources. Of the parameters under Recreation, Available
Recreation Resource Land, determined in acres, is suitable
for the preliminary screening. This could even be expanded
to include land previously dedicated to any type of urban
land use. The parameters Visitors' Use and Availability of
Facilities require more site specific data than obtained for
the evaluation and, therefore, would be more appropriate in
the final screening of alternatives assuming that suitable
data is obtained. Impacts would be more accurately described
in terms of reductions in the numbers of visitor-days, tennis
courts, ball fields or playgrounds rather than expressed as a
percentage change.
Historic preservation is governed by a specific set of
Federal regulations administered by the Heritage, Conserva-
tion and Recreation Service (HCRS) of the Department of
Interior. The parameter, Infringement of Historical Re-
sources, is quite suitable for the preliminary screening.
Data for this analysis can be obtained from the National and
State Registers of Historic Places as well as local sources.
10-39
-------
The other parameters used, View Obstruction and Access Dis-
ruption are not broad enough to cover the multitude of
potential impacts which could occur to an historic struc-
ture. In accordance with regulatory procedure, the final
screening of alternatives should include clearance from the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on any structure
to be demolished or significantly impacted. This provides
official documentation on the historical status of any struc-
ture. Then, for all designated historical structures, a
narrative description of the potential impacts of the pro-
posed project should be defined along with mitigation. HCRS
provides detailed procedures explaining how clearance is
obtained for projects affecting historical properties.
Archaeological resources are also governed by regulations
administered by HCRS. According to procedures, the first
step should be to obtain a literature search by a qualified
archaeologist who will determine if any archaeological sites
are known to occur in the areas of impact. A short narrative
of the findings can be used in the preliminary screening.
Although the data obtained by the archaeological consultant
was useful and definitive, the use of "potential for en-
countering archaeological materials" is believed too specula-
tive to be of much value in the screening process. (All sites
were given the same value.) The final screening of alterna-
tives should include an on-site reconnaissance by an archae-
ologist. The documented findings can be used to define the
potential impacts. As with historical resources, clearance
must be obtained from the SHPO on any land disturbed by a
proposed project. If an alternative is selected which impacts
archaeological materials, HCRS has detailed procedures which
help define mitigative actions including the option of exca-
vation and recovery of the artifacts.
The final environmental category, Sociological Impacts, was
evaluated under three parameters; Relocation Problems, Life-
10-40
-------
style Changes and Neighborhood Attitudes. The Relocation
parameter is appropriate to the preliminary and final screen-
ing of alternatives. The preliminary screening should be
concerned with the number of households requiring relocation.
The characteristics and sensitivity of potential relocated
households should be focused on for the final screening. The
facility planner's evaluation in the AFIR found that no
alternatives would require household relocation.
Although the intent of the other two sociological parameters
described in the AFIR was worthwhile, these parameters as
presented are much too general and vague to be used with
confidence in either alternative screening phase. Further-
more, the baseline and projected results were derived through
professional judgement. Without some description of the
basis for such judgement, the findings lack credibility.
For the final screening of alternatives, site specific infor-
mation should be obtained relative to social impacts. It is
believed that the residents of potentially impacted neighbor-
hoods are the only reliable source of such information. This
would probably best be obtained through the use of a properly
conceived survey or questionnaire.
If consideration of social impacts in the final screening of
alternatives is a worthwhile pursuit of future planners, the
USEPA recommends that an acceptable neighborhood survey com-
posed of both closed and open-ended questions be developed
and utilized to obtain the necessary data. Evaluation of
these findings can be used to define potential impacts in
narrative form.
10.3.4 Environmental Assessment Critique Summary
The level of confidence placed on the FFP Environmental
Assessment is a function of the accuracy of its data, the
utility of its parameters, and the credibility of the
Battelle Columbus EES predictive technique.
10-41
-------
From the discussion above, several of the FFP analyses were
considered to exhibit a high level of uncertainty or were
inappropriate measures of impact for CSO alternative screen-
ing. Some parameters were too general (i.e. Urban and Non-
urban Land Use and Environmental Tolerance), while others
were too restrictive (i.e. Access Disrupted and View
Obstructed). Many of the Biological parameters were much too
theoretical and nondefendable (i.e. Plankton, Aquatic
Marcrophyton and Macroinvertebrate Species Diversity and
Terrestrial Fauna Species Diversity). Several of the
analyses lacked sufficient data but could be useful in a
final analysis if site specific information were obtained.
Table 10-10 is a summary of comments on the AFIR Environ-
mental analyses by parameter.
Although Table 10-10 indicates that 13 analyses (5th column)
were originally completed with reasonable confidence, the
Battelle Columbus EES multiplies errors and its use can
substantially diminish the credibility of the assessment.
Thus, in consideration of the preceding critique of the FFP
Environmental Assessment, future planners should use the
available data as a basis to initiate a new assessment.
10-42
-------
TABLE 10-10
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON FFP ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BY PARAMETER
Parameter Appropriate for
Prel 1 ml nary
Component Parameter Screening
Land Sol 1 Erosion
Soil Profile
Urban Land Use
Non Urban Land Use
Water Cadmium
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Collform
Phosphorus
Suspended Solid
Arsenic
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Final
Screening
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
AFIR Analysis
Acceptable ? Comments
No Requires more site specific
data
No Insignificant measure of
Impact
No Too general, relates to no
specific Impact
No Too general, relates to no
specific Impact
These analyses are acceptable for the
purpose of ranking alternatives rela-
tive to one another. They are not
acceptable for determining water qual-
ity Impacts or the effects of CSO
alternatives due to lack of confidence
In the river models.
No Insufficient Data
No Insufficient Data
No Insufficient Data
No Insufficient Data
No Insufficient Data
No Insufficient Data
No Insufficient Data
No Insufficient Data
No Insufficient Data
1043
-------
TABLE 10-10 (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON FFP ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BY PARAMETER
Parameter Appropriate for
Prel Imlnary
Component Parameter Screening
Air Odor
Suspended Partl-
culate
Biological Vegetative Cover
Wetlands
Shore lands
R,T,J£ Species Flora
R,T,4E Species Fauna
R,T,«£ Aquatic Flora
R,T,&E Aquatic Fauna
Species Diversity
Terrestrial Fauna
Plankton Species
Diversity
Aquatic Macrophyton
S.D.
Macrol nvertebrate
S.D.
Cultural Aval (able Recreation
Resource Land
Visitor Use
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Final
Screen 1 ng
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
AFIR Analysis
Acceptable ? Comments
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Insignificant impact with
mitigation
Insignificant Impact with
mitigation
Requires site specific data
for final
Requires site specific data
for final
Requires site specific data
for final
1 nsuf f Iclent Data
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Insufficient Data
Too theoretical
Too theoretical
Too theoret I ca 1
Too theoretical
Requires higher precision
for final
Requires more site specif
Ic
Aval labl Ifty of No
Recreation Facl11 ties
Historic Resource
Infringement
Yes
Yes
Yes
data for final screening
than used in AFIR
No Requires more site specific
data for final screening
than used In AFIR
Yes Requires more site specific
data for final screening
than used In AFIR
10-44
-------
TABLE 10-10 (Cont.)
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON FFP ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BY PARAMETER
Component Parameter
Parameter.Appropr1 ate for
Preliminary Final
Screening , Screening
AFIR Analysis
Acceptable ?
Comments
Cultural Access Disrupted No
View Obstructed No
Yes
Archaeological
Resources
SocIoIog1caI
Relocation Problems Yes
Lifestyle Changes No
Nelghborhood No
Attitudes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Too resstrtctlve, do not-
con si der
Yes Many other possible Impacts
No Disregarded actual data
Yes More precise data required
for final screening
No Insufficient data
No Insufficient data
10-45
-------
11. Recommendations
Presently, facilities planning activities relative to Detroit
combined sewer overflow control have been suspended. As such,
it is impossible to recommend any action alternative given
the present level of data availability. This section then,
will limit itself to recommendations regarding activities
which should be considered upon resumption of facilities
planning and to recommendations related to the system control
center to maximize in-system storage.
11.1 Alternatives For Evaluation
Facilities planning activities have been carried out under
assumptions which now appear questionable. Upstream condi-
tions may well be masking potential benefits from the alter-
natives, and implementation of upstream control measures may
vary the alternatives to be considered by DWSD. Specific
decisions on the use of the NI-EA, the size of PS#2 or even
its existence, the participation of communities within the
system and the extent of the Huron Valley Sewer Service area,
may all affect the type of alternatives to be evaluated.
Thus, upon resumption of facilities planning for Detroit/DWSD
the alternatives for evaluation should be carefully consider-
ed and all options which are discarded should include a
justification. Alternatives for consideration should include,
but not be limited to: maximization of system storage and
best management practices; and transfer of flows from the
Rouge River Basin to the Detroit River Basin.
11.2 Modeling Considerations
Before initiation of facilities planning activities, all
parties should consider how to address the problems for CSO
planning caused by upstream pollution sources. Options may
11-1
-------
sources. Options may include the detailed review of 208 data
and of all CSO planning data developed to date to redetermine
if combined sewer overflows are a major problem in the Rouge
River Basin as well as the coordination of present and future
CSO planning for pollution control from the headwaters to the
mouth.
Significant amounts of water quality data for the Rouge River
will be available from many sources (including the two large
USEPA funded facilities planning studies). A careful evalua-
tion of this data in light of the decision on study area
boundaries should be made. Any requests for further sampling
should be substantially justified.
11.3 Assessing Benefits
It is recognized that measuring the benefits of improvement
in water quality is sufficient, and pollution control deci-
sions are made with limited resources. As such, the concept
of spending to the point where marginal benefits equal
marginal costs (dB/dC=l) may be unaffordable. More appropri-
ate for future CSO control planning appears to be the
philosophy of choosing a spending level where the marginal
benefits exceed the marginal costs (dB/dC > 1). Future
planners will probably prefer a level of spending beyond the
limiting case where the ratio of marginal benefits to
marginal costs is maximized (dB/dC=max), since this point
(dB/dC = max) usually results in a very low level of pollu-
tion control.
11.4 System Control Center
Several improvements appear to be required at the System Con-
trol Center (SCC) to maximize the usage of in-line storage
volumes available for CSO control in the Detroit combined
sewer system.
11-2
-------
These include:
0 Evaluation of Operating Philosophy.
Reassessment of the assumptions and calculations resulting
from the facilities planning efforts is necessary to verify
that these storage volumes indeed exist. Then, operating
procedures should be developed and SCC equipment evaluated to
to insure utilization of these resultant volumes.
° Computer System Update
The Computer system at the System Control Center is necessary
for the collection, storage and processing of information
used in the operation and analysis of the collection system.
The present computer system apparently does not reliably
perform this function. Evaluation of the major components of
this system, especially the Central Processing Unit, Memory
and Disc Drive is therefore recommended. In addition, the
software program has been modified many times so the entire
program should be evaluated to determine if it does provide
the output necessary for system monitoring and evaluation.
0 Instrumentation Survey
Thirdly, to insure that signals are being received into the
computer, the sensors in the field must be operating proper-
ly. Thorough documentation regarding the status of the fol-
lowing equipment is not available: 1) Level Probes, 2) Level
Sensors in the Interceptors (not including bubblers at pump-
ing stations which are properly maintained), and 3) Proximity
Sensors. Therefore, a thorough survey to determine remaining
equipment/sensor life, replacement needs, adequacy of instal-
lation procedures for sensors, and recalibration requirements
and cleaning needs is recommended. The results of the survey
11-3
-------
should be used to replace worn-out parts and entire sensors
as required. This would increase the accuracy and reliability
of the monitoring portion of the SCC.
0 Preventative Maintenance Program
Finally, the work mentioned above would be useful in develop-
ing a future preventative maintenance plan for DWSD personnel
to insure continuance of reliable operation as well as
increase the life of the sensors.
11-4
-------
REFERENCES
City of Detroit Recreation Department, 1980a. Letter, D.
Krichbaum to W. Wilson. February 22, 1980.
City of Detroit Recreation Department, 1980b. Letter, D.
Krichbaum to C. Beckman. August 6, 1980.
DWSD, 1980a. Letter, C. Beckham to W. Foster. February 21,
1980.
DWSD, 1980b. Letter, C. Beckham to M. Hendrickson.
September 10, 1980.
ESEI, 1980a. Phone Memo. February 12, 1980.
ESEI, 1980b. U.S. EPA Position Paper - CSO Site Selection,
Detroit. February 14, 1980.
ESEI, 1980c. Letter, P. Swinick to M. Graham. August 11,
1980.
ESEI, 1980d. Notes of November 5, 1980 Meeting on CSO Site
Selection (Memo). November 12, 1980.
ESEI, 1981a. Summary of Planning of Interceptor Needs for
Macomb County Since Segmented Facilities Plan(Memo).
March 3, 1981.
ESEI, 1981c. Macomb Summary Memo, Appendices A, C. March 3,
1981.
ESEI, 1981d. Reassess I/I Data and Findings (Memo). September
24, 1981.
ESEI, 1981b. Status of System Control Center and Recommended
Improvements. November 19, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1978. Segmented Facilities Plan
Summary Report. 1978.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1979c. Site Selection Criteria for
CSO Treatment Sites. UNDATED-Received by ESEI January, 1979,
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1979a. Suburban Facility Plans (Memo),
June 12, 1979.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1979b. Macomb County 201 Plan (Memo).
July 31, 1979.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1979c. Storage Treatment Design
Manual. November, 1979.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1980a. 201 Summary Sheets (Memo).
January 30, 1980.
R-l
-------
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1980c. North Macomb Summary
Memorandum (Draft). February 21, 1980.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1980h. Letter, B. Pierce to J.
Williamson. March 18, 1980.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1980b. Detroit Wastewater Treatment
Plant—Capacity and Capability Evaluation. August, 1980.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1980f. Preliminary CSO Sites-Group 8
(Memo). August 19, 1980.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1980e. Quantity and Quality of CSOs.
September, 1980.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1980e. Task A-124 (Memo).
September 9, 1980.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1980d. DWF Calculations, Task 122
and 124 (Memo). October 10, 1980.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1980i. Conference Memorandum (Memo).
November 4, 1980.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1980g. Joint Venture Capsule Summary,
November 5, 1980.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981e. Final Alternatives Set
Definition (Memo). January 13, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981d. Planning Level Alternatives
Analysis Output Commentary. February 5, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981m. Alternative Costs and DWWTP
Capacities. February 18, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981g. Alternatives Modeling Output
Update #1. February 20, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981h. Alternatives Modeling Output
Updated #2. February 27, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981i. Alternatives Modeling Output
Update #3. March 6, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 19811. CSO Alternative Cost Data
(Memo). March 6, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981j. Alternatives Modeling Output
Update #4. March 13, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981c. Rouge River Model Printout,
Transmitted by Abdul Khayer to ESEI. April, 1981.
(Unpublished).
R-2
-------
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981n. Project Deliverables -
Group 8 (Memo). April 13, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981k. Alternatives Modeling
Output Update #5. April 27, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981b. Summary Memorandum, Task 117.
May 27, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981a. Final Alternative Facilities
Interim Report. June, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, 1981f. Preliminary Alternative
Facilities Interim Report. June, 1981.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, a. Cost Allocation Outline (Draft).
Undated.
Giffels/Black and Veatch, b. Alternative Facilities Interim
Report - Expanded Chapter 4 (Unpublished). Updated.
Heaney, James, and Stephan Nix, 1977. Storm Water Management
Model: Level Comparative Evaluation of Storage Treatment
and Other Management Practices. EPA 600/1-77-083. April 1977.
Limno-Tech., Inc., 1981. A Review of Detroit Combined Sewer
Overflow Study Modeling. December 1, 1981.
MDNR, 1974. Route River Basin - General Water Quality Survey
and Storm Water Survey, June-Sept. 1973. March, 1974.
Raytheon Co. Oceanographic and Environmental Services, 1974.
New England River Basins Modeling Project, Draft Documenta-
tion Report. 1974.
SEMCOG, 1976. Land Use Patterns in Southeastern Michigan:
Recreation, Open Space, Agriculture and Fragile Resource
Lands. May, 1976.
SEMCOG, 1977. Model Calibration and Validation Report. 1977.
SEMCOG Policy Document, 1978. Water Quality Management Plan for
Southeast Michigan, 1978.
SEMCOG, 1980. Version 80 Population Projections. October,
1980.
U.S. EPA, 1976. Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual, Vol.
iii, Report No. 600/9-76-014. July, 1976.
U.S. EPA, 1979. A Statistical Method for the Assessment of
Urban Stormwater, EPA 440/3-79-01. January, 1979.
R-3
-------
U.S. EPA, 1980. Letter, J. Novak to P. Swinick. June 11, 1980.
U.S. EPA. Storet Data Printout.
Urban Science Applications, Inc., Wayne State University, Urban
Consultants, Inc., 1979a. Monthly Progress Report for the
Month of June, 1979. Summarized by J.A. Anderson. July
24, 1979.
Urban Science Applications, Inc., Wayne State University, Urban
Consultants, Inc., 1979b. Monthly Progress Report for the
Month of July, 1979. Summarized by J.A. Anderson. August
23, 1979.
Urban Science Applications, Inc., Wayne State University, Urban
Consultants, Inc., 1979c. Monthly Progress Report for the
Month of September, 1979. Summarized by J.A. Anderson.
October 23, 1979.
Urban Science Applications, Inc., Wayne State University, Urban
Consultants, Inc., 1980c. Monthly Progress Report for the
Month of May, 1980. Summarized by J.A. Anderson. June 20,
1980.
Urban Science Applications, Inc., Wayne State University, Urban
Consultants, Inc., 1980b. Monthly Progress Report for the
Month of September, 1980. Summarized by J.A. Anderson.
October 7, 1980.
Urban Science Applications, Inc., Wayne State University, Urban
Consultants, Inc., 1980a. Monthly Progress Report for the
Month of October, 1980. Summarized by J.A. Anderson.
November 11, 1980.
Urban Science Applications, 1981b. Frequency Distribution:
Cumulative Distribution of Hourly Concentration, Alternative
0-0. February 1, 1981.
Urban Science Applications, 1981a. Transport Block Analysis -
Annual CSO Summary, Alternative 0. February 21, 1981.
Urban Science Applications, Inc., Wayne State University, Urban
Consultants, Inc., 1981c. Monthly Progress Report for the
Month of February, 1981. Summarized by J.A. Anderson.
March 13, 1981.
Urban Science Applications, Inc., Wayne State University, 1981d.
Interim Report on Sensitivity. May 6, 1981.
Water Resources Engineers, Inc., 1977a. User's Manual for the
Stream Quality Model QUAL-II, Prepared for the Southeast
Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, Michigan. July,
1977.
R-4
-------
Water Resources Engineers, Inc., 1977b. Computer Program
Documentation for the Stream Quality Model QUAL-II,
Prepared for the Southeast Michigan Council of Govern-
ments, Detroit, Michigan. July, 1977.
Water Resources Engineers, Inc., 1977c. Model Calibration and
Validation: QUAL-II, SEM-STORM, and RUNQUAL. SEMCOG
Environmental Background Paper No. 68, Detroit, Michigan.
November, 1977.
R-5
-------
APPENDIX A
Dry Weather Sampling Program Data
-------
-------
G iff els/Black & Veatch
Project DVVSD Final Facilities Plan CS-806 Date 5 // 6 / 7 *7
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File Set Up By />? J~ H
Subject O.O. Pro-f'Je on the /?o-,*r /?,ve^t / ?s /*>tti?r Computed By
j- , ' ^ o •"* * c A f j> ( £T - /S - 7f ) " Checked By
j. ( f Task No / ii-<-f. Paqp No J. of _/
<^~/^-0«/l ^-»f
M
co"
•-/:
P
~
-,
~—
|
£ ;
Q
XV ;>
/?-/
El
RZ
R3
RH-
R 5
R(.
Rl
/??
Ul
Ft*!
Rio
/?//
/?/^
RH
Ri+
W2
Wl.
f?/S
LZ
L i
ff/L
tfll
RI9
**L
-
Te^ift.
If
12.5
/f
15
15.5
15.5
IS, 5
15.$
/
ro*/0
fr£x/
f2x/0
VZx/V
3,57 7S'x/0
3.3.5 ?S~x/,?
3. V-tf 8~2 -X./0
3.
/0/0
/O/ 5
111
W/CC.'^
/ /) *5^,
/ /7 1-/- 0
3.*$ f^K/O /Wl
/(. \ '1.1* (5-.fr" y,/b . ^Tx/^ /fffff
/c,
17
/C.5
/C.5
/S
/(,
/cs
/7
'/C
^0
q.is
3. 7cre
^f"^~ -^ / /}
V t^ " / *^
12.X/3
\5. ^ X / if
?•%-«/#
-------
Giffels/Black & Veatch
Project DU'SD Fm;il Facilities Plan CS-806
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File
Subject P.O. /3-gyC/g 0/1 'g-dc.
o ,' c, -i ?J7/ * /) /n fr
ler Computed Bv _
Checked By __
Paqp No JL o( -£ _
ASo
Rl
j
E 1-
R2
/?3
O{l
i\ i
R£
/?&
Rl
R%
Ul
R*!
R/0
R/l
RtZ
/?/3
/P/y
/M2
Ml
f?t£
1-3.
I- /
Rlt,
/?fl
R/t
f?n
RX>
#31
Te
ts
\
1 3 j
/s
1
Ib
1
1
15
/5.S
IS. A.
/ £T 0
/ 37, X
13
15
/5
13.2
/5.1
/t
/(*
n
fi
/c>
f7
/7
17
' 17
£1
31
/?.>"
P. 0. ^.
/0. /s~
/O. C 0
fO./f
/0./Z
/0./£
/0.O5
/ O. //
/0. //
/Q.C0
/O. / 5
/0./S
/&. //
>. 77
f. ^5
9, ?>~
f 7V
f. 7^
f . f 3"
9". 7^
«?. 7/
f.7^
f. 7^
^f9
?.?^
fO /
« «^^ w*
O.O.
&.V
F, 3.
S-. 3.
&.O
S3~ £/
?.s
cv /^
5;5"
7.^
^3"
§•,2
^b
7.7
^v-
5". */
/*V
f.s-
<^ 5-
'
2". ?
^r
*?. /
^-5>~
7*7
7<^
/0
/t?5~5
93.5
// 05
///¥
//22.
1130
//¥£.
It+V
//5T
/300
/Z/S'
/3£0
/^35~
l^f-6'
/350
/300
/3'5
/33.0
V*/,< *
0.$
0.55
/.o
0, %
.0. V
O.iS
\
/Pe~>c,f*s.
sv.'A c-"-"~t
''
(/"/ £ f &*& &f * ^ (? S" tT«* J C
*V f
f
^~,yv ^^_f
V
-------
Giffels/Black & Veatch
Project DVVSD Fnvil Facilities Plan CS-806
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File
Date
Set Up By
Sub'ect O- Q Pf, -f, /f o~ *-£<• So*-" S?""-- * '*-* s^l'v Computed By
b^«r,*^fs f£-A3-7'S') Checked By
/W-e^rW^
^
£.
Task No //-^y- Page No _Z o< -£
fetc'So.
<£w/
o
o
c
C
Q
A o
/?J
El
R2
R3
R+
RS
R<*
R7
Rt
UJ.
R1
RIO
/?//
/?t2
R/3
/?//'
/m
mi
RiS
LI
R/(*
Rll
Rl*
Rll
#21
/ A "p.
IW
12.
if.V
1+3
/.*
l+.S
M*
i+.f
13.
/Lf.V
t$
is, '
17
*~l*
JJ
, /?. >
O. Q- *«1
10. n
IO.V3
/o./i
/o. /i
10.11
10. At,
10.1*1
10.1*1
/V.S-3
10.11
10. IS
JO. 05
Iff. 05
f . ?f>'
1.1*
/O, 05
to. OS'
/
^-.3
7. 7
76
7-3
7.V
^^
7,^7
7 /
C.y-
fr.^
5. ^
7-f
7 7
5".^
7, 3
7 f
/ 0
7.7
t'*r
&.ci
O.K*
2.2t
/,&3
O S^1 ^i?
0 / ^7
AS- 3
.?.>-£
5.yt
«?.^'T
3. V3
t.'il
3./S-
2.*! 'f
3.(,*
'
__
3.t*
2,1,5
t.AS
3.CS
i. ?y
/ ^v
/./v
'
^.J7
^.J^
O ^ -t<>1
SOx/0
II OK. to
. &$*/(?
?$*;0
rrx /^
19^/0
rrxiv
*r5*/J
3+C*/
325* /
ft s** &
<£3 *} r\
G '9/7
^r ~
^5T
/oos
1010
103.0
no
(033
10^0
/O'J-f
J3S5
1(09
1105
11 1%.
/1 3.0
)l*5-
l/V-0
1*07
/2f3>
>Z/7
13.33
JZ1-S
Ve.loc,-t>.
/
Ren^a^k*
^//^ t^J* <•-„*.
s. c. : 6T. 70
(?,/ p,u *,s,&/*
S.G. : z./O
3k et//*^
S/0~ Ccs^rf*£
„
1' , ,
s, c. i /. -70
(Ce.'fi> V"e *ot*j)
*¥%%*tfc*£S*~
S&°<.J}
" "G^y
•"'
.
'•
-------
Giffels/Black & Veatch
Project DVVSD Firuil Facilities Plan CS-806
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File
Subject J? C. ^f-oi^i/s on -f,
f 'ITS
(
V* -
Task No
Date S^
Set Up By
_ Computed By
_ Checked By _
Page No J of J.
/Ifo.
/?!
El
Rl
R3
Dl-L
K¥
R6
*c*
R7
R*
Ul
R*l
\
/«/*»/» P.O. S*T
13.5 \ /~J
/w \ w
JO.V
/ff.3.
/O.Z
1.7
1.0
t*
?.r
£.3
?.o
W
?.v/#
/W A /0
/£5~* /#
&5x/#
/7tx/& \ /00&
1
.
f?e ^"<- t?s
V t 5t b/c o , /
L.' C ^ y ^t><.//<:>^'
/
t/'5f&/•
-------
G iff els/Black & Veatch
Q)
O
re
Q.
CO
o
Q
Project DWSD Final Facilities Plan CS-806 Date &/<3oJ?'7
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File Set Up By s»fH Aft TV£>
Subject DttiS-n&l Prof, iff. as, -fig. X^«*« &
Ul.
RIO
Rl)
M-l
/?/>"
L^
R/7
R3.0
—
/t*
//?
/2o
li.Q
IS.-0
/i»5
[2.$
I&-1
/2-S
ts-5
/7.0
Q O'.wr
/°.<7(
/O, 96
/^>,?5
//.a&
10-85
lC< '? /
le.^t
/0.1&
/o>7<
lO-'ll
9.M
D.O.
'&./
3,8
M
9-3
8.?
B-f
f/1
9,9
5.1
8.£
&.1
0sf;c.A
Q.6S
1. /6
/, 03
1 .JZ
/.M
2. 2 /
A ^f
f-^g
r. ^^
^. 2-^
/.^
C*~J.
"7" 7 •* / O
/ O O * /£>
#
7^x/o
/ /^v, e
J-5^
5^:5"0
G:OS
6: i*.
6 -.21.
^_^
jrjrr &A&Z $,£
*r-Arr «*** o.l
^ ' 30 V/?/o ^:y7 $r#Ff &*&*•*
go »/
Ul
RIO
RI3
Te~
Ml j
DA *„
t
,
[
RlB l
Ll
R/7
D.O.
DfM
'
\
\
c.»*
T.~*
F,^^ P^e^s
\
\
\
/ / / / / /
0120 /*^^. 7/<^ ^^c,.~Jt>- *>-^ ft* ^L? ~«> ^.s't^
-------
Giffels Black & Veatch
Project DWSD Final FacilUies Plan CS-806
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File
Date
Set Up By
. /I ft
^-- ** '•>
/ &s~ Computed By
Checked By
_T;isk No // W Page No
ZZW^- 6£-
c- /" /" pdf
te^ri^
W*~o
^5,-^f;
o
«
P
~™
w
•>
"i
•
"y*.
-v?^
£-2
/?2
/?-?
R +
tf£
fit,
R7
FW
UJ.
R1
RIO
Rll
RlJ.
& ) ?
f\ i *J
A7//
/m
fl^JL
RlM
/?£
LZ
LJ.
!?!(,
Rll
Rft
Rlt
ftiG
fol
^
Te*>p.
12.0
It. 0
13.0
tA.O
£.0
tZ.0
M.0
tA.0
//.a
13.0
ft. 5
13.0
12. £
/J.O
i3.0
12 S
i3.0
/J.b
/I.?
13.0
/A 3"
/?•*
/7.0
K.0
' e&tt
0.9. **T
10. Z3,
//'.O?
/0.V3
/O.V3
to. si
to. 93
/ff.n
/O.tt
//,0V
/0.V3
tm
10.8-5
tO.Ji
to. ?i
(0.69
10.10
10.71
/0.60
to.1l
10.71
10.1.0
10 7l
1.6?
3.7
3.23
^y T *l
*t • (fi. J
Asr
T t^ T
2.6
77^-
1.W
135
f b'/
/~
/// 3
f/JO
//JO
//J<*
W0
//ST
/303
/13.3.
IJ3V-
/Af-0
/AS?
/3QO
/J//
/p. ' -i
\/a/of,+>
:~j.
-------
G iff els/Black & Veatch
Project DVYSD Final Facilities PlanCS-806
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File
Sut)lect
€1 7~ fr
Date £
Set Up By
Computed By
Checked By
Task No /
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT-- DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT: NO. GAI 78142 B a V 7889
SHEET OF.
EVE.NT DATE
EVENT NO. tf'1'"
'
^' '
BY //
III
5.2
f a
R9
AO.O
RIO
8OXIO
0.25
Rll
RI2
9./7
0. 25
RI3
4.08
fiox/o
//Mo
/./o
RI4
9.68
3.0
£./
//.'
-------
G1FFELS/BLACK & VEATCH
PROJECT^ DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT^ NO. GAI 78142 B8V 7889
EVENT DATE
EVENT NO
SHEET OF
. /7T
D.O. PROFILE LOG
NO.
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
R 1
f, J3'
/ IQ
El
n.o
7,0
, 7
R2
M.o
.lil
^L.
HZ
18.5
J-3
!^>2.
.-- ,v (/.---/#>
R4
^•/??/T7£Q
R5
/ cff&.rJAi-
R6
/to
J.
R7
/?,$
R8
. 2
1.31
Ul
17,5
5,6
fiOU
R9
0,70
RIO
3a,o
-7.5T
//o
Rll
v.o
faY/o
llioo
RI2
//o f/o
i/;o7
RI3
t/: 19.
RI4
pi &
M2
-)O.L
f.n
2.1
M
Oo.c
RI5A
L2
&.Q
LI
^•o
'0-3
25
RI6
2/..T
0.5
IT, 90
RI7
2/.O
-o.l
/212X
RI8
RI9
¥./
',
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT= DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT: NO. GAI 78142 B 8 V 7889
SHEET OF.
EVE.NT DATE //? -c-c
EVENT NO. &**•£•'&
BY
v
D.O. PROFILE LOG
NO.
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
Rl
7,35
7;
El
3.37
5r//r;. £ £.£>
R2
7ZMO
R3
SOX/0
R4
R5
20A/0
R6
.3
R7
$.£>
79X/0
R8
Ul
3.3
U.nn
R9
RIO
3 /.ft
to:*/?
Rll
1.LO
3.9
RSX/o
RI2
3/.0
28X10
i/:os
.3
RI3
RI4
2UL
,J^
M2
S.g
//:&
M 1
US
£.3
RI5A
ILL
z^
6M&
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK S VEATCH
PROJECT; DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT-' NO. GAI 78142 B 8 V 7889
SHEET OF.
EVENT DATE
Pe-t, ,t
D.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE •- "CELSIUS
D.O SATURATION'P.P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = P.PM.
DEFICIT = P.P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY 'JUMHOS
VELOCITY * FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE =FEET
NO.
TEMP.
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
MO.
2^L
mm
6.40
UL
*
R2
/o:oo
R3
3./9
R4
R5
j&n_
two
O.1O
R6
/R.O
/o:/?
R7
32L
10:20
R8
/7.0
5,80
3.78
/o.'30
/,8o
/.&
Ul
(20
3.30
vis
R9
^07
/o.'Sff
0.70
RIO
5,70
9x70
O,30
Rll
/ist
9.7O
$.70
RI2
/fro
92 #0
MO/
O,(0
RI3
9.5?
5.90
90X/0
f/:/o
RI4
3,70
5.70
ffftr/0
0,
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT; OWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT^ NO. GAI 78142 B8V 7889
SHEET OF.
*\\
EVENT DATE.
BY.
D.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE: "CELSIUS
D.O. SATURATION = P.P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = P.PM.
DEFICIT * P.P.M
CONDUCTIVITY =JUMHOS
VELOCITY * FT./SEC.
STAFF SAGE =FEET
NO.
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
0.0.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
R 1
El
8RQ
AJ5
-*-S. 70
R2
/7.0
7.90
R3
7,/f
3, a/
70X/&
90
R4
R5
! 2.-Z.
R6
/£.&
2.OO
R7
9,7 R
7QX/Q
0,70
R8
£.00
/s.a
/o,//
7, to
3. a/
0.&Q
~& BO
R9
no
7K/0
RIO
3.81
0.80
Rll
KI2
MO
RI3
I&CL
*><;
ML
RI4
<7,S
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
: DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT^ NO. GAI 78142 88 V 7889
EVENT DATE
EVENT NO i
BY /?/•
3-
SHEET OF.
D.O. PROFILE LOG
NO.
TEMP.
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
0
^5£
R2
S.I.
R3
£o_
joi
1,70
R4
RS
5A
/'I
R6
^35
R7
fo'.'O
R8
4-37
Ul
R9
RIO
Rll
5^0
RI2
$.33
a, 5
6-33
RI3
HI4
7.
M2
S
I/.'^O
Ml
c
1-75
RI5A
11)56
L2
.o5
LI
RI6
RI7
RI8
£-53
RI9
0(1
R20
R2I
1*"?
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT: DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT: NO. GAI 78142 88V 7889
SHEET
D.O. PROFILE LOG
EVE.NT DATE
EVENT NO.
/?7T /
BY
NO.
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
Rl
23
5.7
El
^L
2. 73
R2
3. IS
R3
J.-23
90*70
_L^1
R4
y.or
SOX/D
100
R6
Z.Sr
i^L
3,63
R7
dJM 3
8
R8
s.or
III
3.11
R9
•f-.'io
11-10
RIO
D-15
Rtl
sst
U-2.6
RI2
a.8
.73
RI3
-
t.cz
M2
3.
M 1
3.3?
RI5A
t?
5.00
^aj^:
L2
^4-
RI7
RTI8
AL2.
/CXD^C/Q
RI9
7.77
VS7
R20
7.77
3.11
.'OS
R2I
Si
^^7
3.5-7
J^
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK S VEATCH
PROJECT^ OWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT^ NO. GAI 78142 B 8 V 7889
SHEET.
-OF.
EVENT DATE
3 ' 7 ' ^
A.
D.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE; "CELSIUS
DO SATURATIONS? P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = P.PM
DEFICIT * PP.M
CONDUCTIVITY =O/MHOS
VELOCITY = FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE = FEET
NO.
TEMP.
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
R 1
S.Q
El
17.0
f 7+
10.0
R2
/f.Q
/./^
R3
. 0
/./v
R4
R5
If.
/.5y-
R6
/./y
/If?
ft?
R8
17 0
. 35
Ul
/f.
-------
G1FFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT: DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT: NO. GAI 78142 88 V 7889
SHEET.
-OF.
EVENT DATE
EVENT NO. ,/
BY
D.O. PROFILE LOG
f (t'1
NO.
TEMP.
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
Rl
j.7
El
\0.0
5'Cr
R2
S.57
R3
. (7'
3,57
R4
R5
56)
3',
R6
R7
3,37
R8
35x10
Ul
R9
6-5S
RIO
Rll
d-
RI2
RI3
R14
M2
^7'V'
^J~
M 1
^ co
y • y
RI5A
L2
2i±
0
LI
RI6
&XIO
RI7
3.6
RI8
RI9
•5,07
R20
15.07
R2I
1.30
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT- DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT: NO. GAI 78142 B 8 V 7889
SHEET.
-OF.
EVENT DATE
EVENT NO. /
' 7 -""? T
D.O. PROFILE LOG
NO.
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
R 1
LQ
El
^35-
'^ 5
R2
*ua
R3
3 ,
i rt
R4
0
R5
R6
R7
R8
Ul
R9
ns
I /;
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT' DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
OROJECT' NO. GAI 78142 B8V 7889
::*><
D.O. PROFILE LOG
SHEET OF
EVENT DATE <3 "" lO ~ 'I
EVENT NO..
BY_!!?A_k
/
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
7CWO
15
0,|5
V
F
100^
1£
^1A
-7
/Q.|3
0136
ia.
10.It
lo.13
/ voo
3.r7
£^i
-3."g7
-'So
^r
a
)A!Ol
J./5
JU
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT^ DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS"806
PROJECT- NO. GAI 78142 88V 7889
D.O. PROFILE LOG
EVENT DATE V/O/0/7^
EVENT NO..
BY.
NO.
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
R 1
. 0
R2
lox/o
R3
JQ.6Q
~70tlQ
R5
11
R6
R7
3,6
R8
"7Ox10
Ul
R9
0,60
loxtd
RIO
l3,5
•?/
'lOt/Q
IO/37
Rll
IQ.44
RI2
1±
IQ.37
RI3
M
10,37
^8.
RI4
(/.
RI5A
L2
1 1 /SO
LI
Li
10.37
a.75
RI6
1 1 '.53
RI7
RI8
76vfn
1AM
RI9
R20
R2I
/JLW
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT^ DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT^ NO. GAI 78142 B8V 7889
EVENT DATE
RVtA.l f fiT
SHEET _ OF.
- 3"7 ~ 7°1
D.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE'"CELSIUS
0.0 SATURATION'P.PM.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN =P.PM.
DEFICIT = P.P.M
CONDUCTIVITY - JJMHOS
VELOCITY - FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE = FEET
NO.
TEMP.
0.0. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
Rl
IS-0
JO.&o.
JA
El
10,4,0
7. 0-
R2
3.6O
R3
H
/0.-37
7-4
5.G-
R5
R6
W
R7
\M
•8,
R8
10,37
U-
Ul
75*10
R9
10,
RIO
10,15
Rll
gs
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT^ NO. GAI 78142 B ft V 7889
SHEET.
.OF.
EVE-NT DATE
RY M C j
cri 1
D.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE = "CELSIUS
DO. SATURATION J P P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = P.PM.
DEFICIT = P. P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY :JJMHOS
VELOCITY * FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE = FEET
NO.
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
DO.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
Rl
El
-------
SHEET_! OF !_
PROJECT-- DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT: NO. GAI 78142 B8V 7889
Xf""^^'^ D-°- PR°FIL-E LOG
NO.
Rl
El
R2
R3
t^
R5
R6
R7
R8
Ul
R9
RIO
Rll
RI2
RI3
RI4
M2
M 1
RI5A
L2
LI
RI6
RI7
RI8
RI9
R20
R2I
TEMR
1 3~
; ; ~
/,-°
/ ••' ""
h°S
7 ^
)i -1
/ 3a
/ 2. . £ '
/ '
/3'
! "U -
/ C"
1U J
' ' .-"V
1 t
\'L>°
ZL7
10 ,37
|O,<47_
10.31
/ 0.3*7
10.05
S. S3
*?.f>^
^,6^
-a_ M
L*<
s.
u of
D.O.
(^ ^>
^.UL
^ o
j^,. ^
£"£E
/5 U--
;, . 4.
r c? r"
^ • ^
e,.t7
3 ^
4 ' ^
3-1
^ .}
is. 9
(o.~)
1 S^
/ i
r, Q
C 0
£-f 0*5
>/. 5
L/
L/. -]S"
L/. ^
Ee / i
^hT Rft
/ r-i ' _l I
DEFICIT
^ .20
4.1.0
u/o
LI, 35
l\ I03
M.ao
^ • ?t>
6.00
a 5^0
5 ,77
7,xn
^. 07
3,^7
J,^7
7^7
9.32.
5? .07
J" .1 ~7
J .76
^,63
3-^1
cj., /f
-j i ,^ .
^ f H
COND.
(o£\ ^
^v/D
L^O 'x 3
6 ^ V. i •)
^5x :o
kO*iO
60^.'^
r'T ''- -»
*•=?> >->
'Dr^y /.o
^0\r ^
',- y,A
(o '? ) i 0
A?o> /.->
6 D v ; ^
/flnw'.o
tf>5 y i -o
C>$XIC>
^v ,^
'tOt \ 6
/r.^VO
6>£/
1»OK\0
3l3y |
^f\C>: |
^/rtvn
i- 1C",- f.vT
q'»f?
TIME
/&: 05
1 A' 0 ^>
/O' //
10 ; K,
/o: S./
/o: ^jfc
/o.'^l
lo: ^
Q,'u^
lo'^l
/O',^
10' ^h
/ / : 05
l|- 10
IMP
i r 3 -•
i /: ^-?
//: 3M
KI 4^
/ I1 £>l
ii1 57
i^oU
/^; , 7
13' 3.1
!<£.• ^.&
-v- ^ iv , r
VELOCITY
— ' r-
EVENT DATE --^ J - , / T /7
j
ov "^ 1 ! f\~^\
HT | v.^ 1 } -
LEGEND ' '
TEMPERATURE = "CELSIUS
D.O. SATURATION* PPM.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN •• P.PM.
DEFICIT = P.P.M
CONDUCTIVITY = JJMHOS
VELOCITY = FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE =FEET
REMARKS
ST«C^ %,-.-^ ^ /ocO
•
CLT^.' - It -.-.. /. ^<
Dutk
C"
P- I
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT: DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT: NO. GAI 78142 88 V 7889
yt? SJ/2 ^^
r*-/° , D.O. PROFILE LOG
SHEET OF.
EVENT DATE.
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE - "CELSIUS
DO. SATURATION *P.P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = P P.M.
DEFICIT t P.P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY =JJMHOS
VELOCITY = FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE - FEET
NO.
TEMP.
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
R 1
31
fox 10
R2
Cf
o
50x1
R3
11.51
, ) 5"
K-4-
R5
R6
\.6l
, t
R7
33 * /O
R8
/ o *.
V^J
ll
1-5
R9
Ouctr
RIO
S..
\o;
Rll
RI2
RI3
o
.4
RI4
ii.13
M2
C5O/-JC
M 1
J/,3]
RI5A
-1.1
CoxiO
L2
a
U
L 1
.J
RI6
H115
6,33
RI7
SQKIO
R18
ID.V
r,.
RI9
R20
R2I
56
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT: DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT^ NO. GAI 78142 88 V 7889
SHEET
EVENT DATE /O - | I -
BY_
OF.
P.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE'"CELSIUS
0.0. SATURATION*? P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = P.PM.
DEFICIT = P.P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY =JUMHOS
VELOCITY * FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE =FEET
NO.
TEMP.
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
Rf
6.5
El
R2
R3
.70
R5
,0*1
R6
11.1-7
6,4
R7
R8
U)
/.r?
5,Cr.
V
R9
66*10
io.'i4
RIO
Rll
RI2
&
.S^f
RI3
RI4
M2
S.Cr
M 1
RI5A
L2
LI
RI6
RI7
n.il
RI8
IL
1L.
RI9
4^
R20
-W-
R2I
3)35
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT; DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT-- NO. GAI 78142 B S V 7889
SHEET.
D.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE'"CELSIUS
D.O. SATURATION'P.P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = P.P.M.
DEFICIT = P.P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY
VELOCITY = FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE =FEET
NO.
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
0.0.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
Rl
6.
R2
1.6
R3
1.*
-75
1*4-
R5
T, a.
R6
R7
II--S7
R8
Ul
3 .5 I
R9
RIO
7-5
fl.l
Rli
1.4
^,53
)(.'&?
RI2
RI3
RI4
M2
£0*70
M I
1 -s
IH.O1
RI5A
II' 3
L2
LI
II. $1
6 6 MO
RIB
RI7
"7.6
RI8
RI9
45
I." 01
R20
R2I
to 15
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK S VEATCH
PROJECT- DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT: NO. GAI 78142 B 8 V 7889
SHEET.
-OF.
EVENT DATE1Q "
RY yvi.C
P.T
D.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE = "CELSIUS
D.O. SATURATION = P.P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = P.PM.
DEFICIT = P.P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY * JJMHOS
VELOCITY 'FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE sFEET
NO.
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
Rl
!°£.
El
-lOi:
*t
-------
G1FFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT^ DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT: NO. GAI 78142 B 8 V 7889
SHEET.
-OF.
D.O. PROFILE LOG
EVEMT DATE IQ - '>-! ~
RY g.T r rv.c.
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE « "CELSIUS
DO. SATURATION *P.P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN *P.PM.
DEFICIT ' P. P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY sJ
VELOCITY =FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE = FEET
NO.
TEMP.
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
Rl
1Z
4
17
R2
n
H.I
R3
^f'/O
S.6-
JHT
R5
R6
R7
5,74
R8
Ul
.75
R9
7.3^
RIO
Rll
("7
RI2
-P.
1,0,
7 o
i JO
RI3
P ?
RI4
n
M2
n
M 1
n
£.34
"76 *!
RI5A
10*10
L2
,£/
LI
-TX
RI6
n
~7o x,
RI7
(*,<£$
R'18
!<
^
S.-8
R19
I /,'}>
R20
JZ
r2«»5
R2I
1,35
A./5
-------
G1FFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT^ DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT^ NO. GAI 78142 B8V 7889
SHEET.
-OF.
EVENT DATE
D.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE^ "CELSIUS
DO. SATURATION = P.P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = P.PM.
DEFICIT = P.P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY =JUMHOS
VELOCITY = FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE =FEET
NO.
TEMR
D.O. SAT.
0.0.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
R 1
7
El
"?.T
R2
7
U.J7
R3
u-n
5. 17
10.
R5
5J7
R6
7
R7
7
R8
.2-
UI
-7°
5-G-. O.
R9
7.07
RIO
:*.
1^.17
Rll
it:
RI2
l#£-
RI3
RI4
m±
M2
*3.
i&XH>
SG-
M 1
AS.
II !
RI5A
r-
L2
LI
/A
3.4
fi^A/0
10
RI6
^JJI
RI7
RH8
OL
/33
J2J
RI9
IV f /
R20
Xc/V.
R2J
JI
^«3
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK a VEATCH
PROJECT^ DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS'806
PROJECT-- NO. GAI 78142 B 8 V 7889
EVENT DATE.
BY £1;
SHEET OF
-P ~"fr
? ;v».c
P
ro
LEGEND
D.O. PROFILE LOG
TEMPERATURE * "CELSIUS
D.O. SATURATION^ P.P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN = P.PM.
DEFICIT s P.P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY = JUMHOS
VELOCITY = FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE =FEET
NO.
TEMP.
D.O. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
Rl
<"?
El
R2
1.73
R3
{{•73
R5
JJL
R6
H-73
R7
J •
JUS1
X-
R8
Ul
c,o
R9
uU
RIO
Rll
RI2
/DC
RI3
J
RI4
M2
M
•1/46
> >: c
li/SJ
RI5A
uric
L2
1<>3?
LI
/.3J
RI6
RI7
M
Rt8
CoVo
RI9
JA
R20
R2I
-------
1 nc 1
GIFFELS/BLACK & VEATCH
PROJECT DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT NO. GAI 78142
EVENT DATE.
BY _NV - - __
SHEET__OF
8 N) C J 7
D.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE = "CELSIUS
00 SATURATION: P.P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN * P.P.M.
DEFICIT = P.P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY =JUMHOS
VELOCITY * FT./SEC.
STAFF GAGE *FEET
NO.
TEMP.
0.0. SAT.
D.O.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
R 1
^ZZ
El
vi'6-r
R2
S ,61
tj-7
R 3
1,15
R5
.3
R6
I3J3
"7,
R7
L
,0-
R8
'/'J-/3
R9
, ,
i J
RIO
D1H7
Rll
tl'51-
RI2
/'. C
P.-17
RI3
,32
RI4
5
j^.60
alfll
M2
5,6--
M 1
RI5A
L2
// , ,33
37
L 1
RI6
RI7
G
RI8
S.fr
7.
R19
R20
0£
^^//
R2I
7)
-------
GIFFELS/BLACK S VEATCH
PROJECT-' OWSO FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-806
PROJECT^ NO. GAI 78142 8 & V 7889
SHEET.
EVEJJT DATE i (" * 'J
RY v - P 1
D.O. PROFILE LOG
LEGEND
TEMPERATURE'"CELSIUS
D.O. SATURATION'P.P.M.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN* PPM.
DEFICIT. P.P.M.
CONDUCTIVITY *JUMHOS
VELOCITY = FT,/SEC.
STAFF SAGE =FEET
OF.
NO.
TEMR
0.0. SAT.
0.0.
DEFICIT
COND.
TIME
VELOCITY
REMARKS
R 1
/ .73
El
1.5
Jbl
uuil
c-x to
-' (J
~
R2
R3
Ji
RS
, -23
,2,2-3
R6
R7
R8
IH.23
R9
RIO
K/,2.3
Rll
RI2
I ,53
RI3
3,^5
RI4
J/J
i-l •
M2
_LBL
(,0^7
M
10:
RI5A
', ^T
'£> ( f
L2
2_
V^ay/
Ml '0
LI
RI6
RI7
A2.
RH8
ro
'I'Ul
RI9
ll.Dt
R20
R2.I
10.4
-------
SHEET OF.
V3II 1 l_l_vJ/-l_(l_/-AWI\ W4 Y l_ /-« 1 W 1 1
PROJECT: DWSD FINAL FACILITIES PLAN CS-8O6
PROJECT^ NO. GAI 78142 BSV 7889
D.O. PROFILE LOG
NO.
R 1
El
R2
R 3
**r
R5
R6
R7
R8
Ul
R9
RIO
Rll
RI2
RI3
RI4
M2
M 1
RI5A
L2
LI
RI6
RI7
R18
RI9
R20
R2J
TEMR
4,5
4, 6
^
L\
d
i.5
4, 6
LJ, ^
£
'Lf
M
4.5
6
£
5
6.5
£•£
&
(s)
£>
f
0
(*
3.5
}0
3.6
D.O. SAT.
Q,tf")
1Z><17
[^ ( ij
13.11
/1./3
/X?.^7
';- .f 9
15//J
;5'/3
ittfl
U.50
/Pr^O
)2«?o
iJ.Cd-
l(**C*J
H41
• C"t » i" */
y *} / / *s?
./^•4Y
/ ^i l^l^.^/
12'^$
U-4&
I/.3J
D.O.
10,4
/o.l
10,6
12.5
10,2
fo.l
U. $
(0,2
U
|o,2.
11,4
M.l
lo.-s
|0lij
M.fi.
KO'f-
'^•t>5
^ cr
*,2
q.^
J'O, 1
//. ^
//. /
DEFICIT
Of«*3
«3 ,$1
^ ,53
,&>2>
^.f^>
1 ,5"?
/ .17
,2 ,60
2.
CQttO
fe{£0
KfiiUd
55 X/o
BOK/S
5/jx/o
^x/o
£50x1
&J5xl
9.55/1
TIME
qr; 57
-------
Giffels/Black & Veatch
# c. P.
o
u
to
O
Q
Project DWSD Final Facilities Plan CS-806
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File
Subject £>. Q. P^
Bl
Ul
R2
R3
R7
Rl
RIO
RI3.
/?/*
fftf
M2
L 2
Ll
O. 0.
f.3,
7. (,
-7.1
1.C,
7.?
7.1
C,7
6.7
£.0
6.3
$.0
(,.<*
- /5-7?}
Task No
Date J?
Set Up By
Computed By
Checked By _
Page No ^
- / 5" - 7*?
7~//
of i-
^ ex .
$£*./
-------
G iff els/Black & Veatch
Project DWSD Fni.il Facilities PlanCS-806
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File
Subject /£>& ,. .- *•' ~ , £) c\ /'^
/?
Task No
Date t^/ j
Set Up By
Computed By
Checked By _
Pagp N<>
^ 7
X ••? /
JT c- ^ I <• r <. / S-''' -^- c
/--.
-------
Giffefs/Black & Veatch
Project DWSD Fuiiil F.icihnes PlanCS-806
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File
Subject
Task No
Date ^ .
Set Up By
Computed BY
Checked By
Pagp N
— c.7
71
x7- ^
' 7 r
u <• ,?*-*
s r ~-> e
f i? ^V"- — $ S
-------
n_ _"US[S{«=« i i owe j—' I; Iff
tzi"rf'5=7'"**<§.rj-avsT^ y" .1" tg
V, JpifAftCV- O ;? .«- '•^^f. tit
Srf I . "> S;,™=™=m_. .5_ '
i I
-------
Giffels/BIack & Veatch
Project DU'SD Fin;il Facilities Plan CS-80G
Project NII GM 78142 BJW 7889 File
Subject
3 -
Task N
Date o'
Set Up By
Computed By
Checked By
Pagp No / of /
7
/o
If
it.
/3
2'-OO
2 :3O
3 us
3
3°
3°
^ -
Z -SO /?. 7 >?
,3, O L A> •*/
G^^C.. Uc 7?'
{*r . T)
•j.\-ftt i < /-.->/>,
,»4
-------
Giffels/BIack & Veatch
Project DWSD Fm.tl Facilities PlanCS-806
Project Mi^GAI 78142 BRV 7889
Sublecl
,fjle
Dale
Set Up By
Computed Bv
Checked By
T.isk No //£-/\ Pagf No
o) _ /
A i V" J^
rA^edi
/8C,
^//D
(bob
'
Hf}
"7,7 756
7oo
CR-OSA
-------
Giffels/Black & Veatch
c
Project DU'SD Final Facilities Plan CS-806
Project No GAI 78142 B&V 7889 File
Subject L) 12 3
/rW,.,- /-^,
Date
Set Up By X^.J, //
rr<"=/"Tf,i- a^ ^/g Computed By
Checked By
Page No
T;isk No
of
/AC ^ f ft p 4 f- ^
cS' £T C t* *~ r f ^ 0 -^
/*•// .^^ /"/«
/. O e f< 1 r a
#3
P
//' o?
^ /
*-, *
^
/ /
, O.
*>(.
/^^^
/?/J . /¥ 50
P/v- /set
fits
JS3S
15 S'O
/S/b
7°C
t.S°
f
JO,
'7 7° ;0. &
/ 7.5" so. /
7'
7'
/
-------
,< .4 O O O
.' «5 t- O «-
K... ' U W *- 1C
O d. O ft. £
n U »:
T* \T" W *—»
*•" O ^ >~^ *-^ O
— T-tiO^vm ^^
tr j fti w I I- o in • ...
M u O M f- -»o ^ "
>..«.»-• O V .
COO; ' C
f- "
u-. in ,— ;•
>., o ,J m ,. r
Q M x<-
•J C IT> » t
b- 'f *i f- O >: o c ^
o s- •• t, c u; —o • t_- ^
r- u; •« «- S- u-
C 6J >: i:
CX t5 O£ ^* I"
z <: t- _, :-
w »— •••• c* t.1 — - o i*
«- C «; U «n •" t-
o <.*. f. c c~ •-
r-. =• ts »J . c :
>- Ijo *
O «:\r-
C C- O<^
a o = i^
=5 >i t- C
I- a sc c
a- — c
I-
X JO
cu vo
1C rf t- CS
= c «jm
c e- x»
«e • I- O
O —
«. O
E- O C- C S«-
u si < fr- vm
>-. «s f » c c
i-. j ^ c- e —
>r (.• ....... ..... ................ .....
s- c .— e CMo-f~'-^v£»ri^r-ir • «
CO M ~-0
tr e
>•
incc-mo ooo ccc- oooO'-»-O'-moo^ r-«- o ooc ooooo oocoo
r- t>i £•• c'
c- > a:
f t: f" w
ir •• ir
y. *r (u --
*-s*Dt^; i'~p-'^r~
«"»- 1-4 &; r*'f"-r*r-
>-t~^ j- t^r*^.cr
hi (r: » CN «N r: M (^4 r> f^: f^i rj -M cv M r-i r> r» r»r-< fv; • t- ft; IT IT u" ir IT IT in in u" e^ ir o IT i"- IT IT i/i ir IT in v u-w w» IT i/. a1 i~ u- vr m L" tr i'- IT
i« tt. c-i t5 f » (N (M r. (>i fs* n f*< r^* (N rj ^J r>J CN ^ IN (Mr.1 rw f v IN fN IN rj CN 01 (N. r; fv.' CN r^ r;r-* f J r^m CN nr>» fN rj r-i (N r . IM o« r^ r>*
^ (. E - «, ^r-^r-^_^r.^.^r.T.r.^-^^r-r.^^r-^^^r-^r-^^^^r-, --- ^r.^^^^^,.r-^^^
C •« C O V.
10 .•« ft; pi
-------
j o o \o
*i U. O i-
O M «- : .J X«-
t. c 0- «
O K
£- If *~
>+ C: H> >J O
i- c c> «= xin
u. c i t- n m
c. >J o r o
i- a HI H — o
. -r r. o
(T •
C H
c »: cr. 1/1 ,-.
t-t c Jir>
^- w o •-" N«~
- > «J f i/l
"•J I- C *^ C
• • U! O to ~O
-: a H
t: t-
c.
• «c O
c- o
O 1C --.
7. O>JC • • • t • I . i ...... !•>.•• lit •i(t>i>iti>tii>i> i • i I • i •
ftl »-i V" VC3«-O«3OCO O'COOC'OOOCCC'C'OC'COOCC'C-OOOC'OOOOOOOO OOOOOOO
— -w
>- iJO
o -:x«-
O C irn
co no
If. «-o
V
e> a- ^.vo
at e =i-
r» >- ec
f- es v. o
«— o
a> Xo
c; «c crs
3=
U
= &^
O t- X»
»- £ ^-o
CO'
f- —
so o o •-»'-
c = - |.. xu> .- :•
»• «• K: • C c -
«-. O
\CvCtcin
Ou^
r';r-iNPJeM*™ rvcs; *- rM*-r4o-ifrfN»ra^-^-cr~oro
-------
^ t? f O
O
..- o t- ^ ec » •- a- ccin L". r» N » a >o in sr mcr^er«-vcirim^i
OJ CO
IT — O
irr »->o
e o t»r»
»M l-o
t-e> z c
e. *-e
SEC c> tn
01- v a
cs • c o
>~ MIC a «-
f- t. ~C
z
» =
o o
o. i.
tr C. oc Z*r-
c; — «:*- N«r>
t- «r u. « o o
f- j »j(r r »-
•r. ic e. — o
(_ <•
V. C
iu ir\c;»«-sTinuijir~\oeDPM >o<- ir« o oo cooo
U —i ........ ...... i .
te. ~~c o omot^occfMOOorssrf-r^ crrr«- ifr~c>
= KVC
O fc-c
r- V) L.'C
C W — C
C
•- : u.
i -- >
»J e.
iMf\irMoooooooooo«-r>ioooooooooo'-'-'''-t-'-«-'-'-'-rMrMc>4
I- r^f-r~cca>-cocDcocracicca'%cococilO'cr^
•< fM «N (N (N n M CM (N
-------
1C «l
f a. K
-..-..... U a;
«: O
o
»(N U M
e «o v in —
_a sc o ce.-l.-io
u: »- M tr •< X«n
t~ a IT K i (- uvn
u-cUBi >joaco
= 0: 1-1 H «^o
I- • V • O
— c •«=
C ~ &
•J) a
s. r- • w OT ^~
l-OOM MO>JU%
«:««»: o M >v»-
(- vc J c u~.
= « b:
•«,• I- •-=
t- I- * M (-.
K-> fcS
C C 0=
y «t»-
l*. M < Q
t- o co
O v.
o
v. C no
e>
c <-u in
WMXf". rsr-oo cooeooocoecoco occcocooccoceo!ec'-
a,»Jtrifi (Mr- oovo«fincrr»r'*D»»-«->cvcofs'vcc- »'-'- ir
C t- N »
f* • tr o
>- M 61 => —
I- U. ~-0
i
f C. O C •-> •-
C a: •«•(-• X«Ti
•- ••; t: » u c
!- — .J f3 E- —
«. x r. »^o
o r- n- cr «JN f" » c» o <^ m c CM n -, r-o m^ir. ecr-. c-vcrjr-, (-io«-vonr-u>^a- cm c- tpo>^ >oxo eon
....I,,.........,.,, ....... .......... ..... .......
^-3ccr-)c'vo' croi ^-oo^ooor-
> r- «.-. O O
CO M ^0
IT (5 —
E " c: <: f- rM~t-< f— r^r^c^cccrcpcPcr'ccocccr^crcxcr|croccccocctccrc'"cr:rr;Q3c^oc'iC"o^o'^'C'C~cscxcy>oc'(Tt (*
~ t*. rx «s r-: r^ r>a rvr\) CM ^j (^J {^j rN r>i r*J rs) (% r-j r*j PJ f\" OICN oj r^oi rsj r»j iv r-t r*.' rs r-j r^ f^j r< f^ cs <~j t^i f^i f^: r^jr^j oj rsj f\j r*j rv <^i o,
-------
ea r.
o o»
O W •-«>
«c ^J X-
v. ^
-
J =»
fJ tru*
f- C *: c
O V. «-O
ft.
r: O
e «n .~
S C» .JO
W M Xf*";
o. ^? ^*tr*
tAO*"O
r> tr «-*o
en
C
CO
O(O *£> GCvC
o O C O O O O O O OO OOOOOOCOOO
v ~ "
ee
e>r: _«:
K o sr-
rM-> t- o
*- r5 x. o
ts «^c
a:
e-
Ot
•J O«N
X — '<•"(
* C •-' in
Cl- Xs»
«: » W C
i- —
e o J «-
*e (- Vin
fc' » t* o
».» «•• r> »-
o< •— o
u
O
»- JT cc> c =r
-nr I— ec ef c> c r in ^ rn ^» c ^* o t^ ^ ^*
ir IT •-»- =f iro«- O'-cocc-'-oo i^o o ^ e o
O C O O C O O O O O ^^ r*«
r^r- r- r-r- r-r^r-r»-r-r^r- r-r-r- r^r-
CN fM CM Psl O O O O O O O O
cc c^ >^ ro r^ r- u^ IT- m o c vr*
in-"> •-c»-iN«-r-t-ooo
c;c^t— fMn^ru^^r^crc'O
O O r- «~ «— r- r- •* r- r- *— r4
r-r- i~r-i~r-t-f~r-f^f~'~r»
p^r^r^crcrcccccccococcopocc'o^ occoc occraocceoorc.-or'CDC^crcr (7^0
.
OCO CC COOOOCOOOO OO OCOC.CCOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOCOOCOO
- !•• bJ
- V U
-•• c o
C-O'OC'C-OC'OOCOOOO C OC
"
C-OC-CCCCOOIOC O0<-
nn">rir'ip-r-. r^p^m r"«^i p-. r>r^» r,
-------
r: »4
os ic
•J O o«o
•t h. o«-
O M «-»C
U iJ X«-
h. o u.<»i
U r:
c.
v e
4(Nrjr^(N QC-QD KCT
oitsir^rMrirN fNiM rj
-------
C +3
K r.
,J O O VO
< b.0 f
O M «- >*>
M .J V
R_ o
0
>r vi —.
o w cc ,j tJ o
•-*•«• is
o *= »-• >J o r. o
l/ & M I- **o
. « o c
c
si c o
o ce
=; t\; in v. ~.
c «•-» n o
t- •- K ij e tn
" (• C *~ o
«; co tcwX"". or-c ooocooooooocoooooc oco coe eooc •-••coooecjc coc ooo ee oc
tr «£ u o> tj t* IT IN vc o <*> c- r- in <- CM c ^c xe ^- tc o r- o o o w "*^ »o •- -"> r~ u^ r- T a »- »-
C
-
*•* o; K » t? o
f- y »3 e =• «-
« t- 04 — O
I- <
'"• *
OO O C-O O OO f? t*S O O OO OO IT. OtTlO (TO C OO O V">
(.- . . . . > I t • . . . . I t . . I • . I . • . . I I , . . , , . , . , . . I , >• . . . . I , . • .
cc. ^.c o >c o f*i ^ ^ i^ GP =» st f* CN */u »^ 4T» o u^ »— i*"i f~ IT* o v*> U* c*j *c o =T o r*: vc o u"> u^ r^ in i"- o r~ »- in c^ o o c*
— tr. >c r-«-rvr><^r>/^, »»isri»airivnNf*or-ccor^c>>c»'*'. ri^r-inmr-. rsif\a-L~>cini."'^oo
U fc. O «- t- r- «- »-^ i- t- i- fy ^]•
-: c:
^ •<
« ft:
^rgrnc^PJf''i3piOvpp-irff>o«-'Nri^irv£r^«rc'O»-(vir-o'~'-'N|~i»L'~vcr-eocro
i.'.'.v.'..
— K.K
-J ft' &-•
OOO 00 O O OO O O O O OO OO C OOO OO OOOOOCCOOOOOOCOOCOOCOOOCOO
o-
N
m
O
. cntrC'-(Ni"3irvfr-^o>cv£'*c\ru3\£:^v£a:f*rfc(^p*r^r^r^r^r^r^c?oca:c3accoc'a:a:a:croc-cNC7'C^c~crcC' c
R-IC o< "
C! o »• "
O O v>
c; tt.
-------
d. O
«J
17 W
£ e rJ 3b
"fc JO to
M O
o»-i
-J
I- o
_ •=: o en —
f" 1*~ SC O »JO ttt ttttt tttttt t ttt t • t •••••! I I • t t t ttt *tt t*lttttt*t
^ i: c. w i-j x^ »*oc ccoeooooo oo ooooocc oooceoc^ooooooocooo oooooo=»oco
E~ §— ic O f o ifl CN w o*j CN n '"i zy H™. in ;* ^c i/^ so vo vo ^ ^i i/^ tf^ f*i n ^ ^* oc *c t-e
HS2 at o
v „
ft) Xo
j aoi
s —m
O
cr » vo
ft* ^^C1
C I- ~
Z O C. C •J'-
o •«. f-- Xir
>- f fc- » IT O
•
t- Co
M ^O
C
ovO(Mnr»i»3-^o MO IT o a CM oo ovcpMnircooooCMOoorMOOoec cy
, I . . . I . I . . . , . . . . . ! . . . I . . . • . I I I . • I I I I
O'OrNcor^o^«-ccfvi/>mr^<~r^i—csO'Oooc*! >r CD - in vc o- «: n »- o> er n x IT. 3 o a
ms-ocu", r^fMrMfMntsn «^f j a ui f r>j irir m in 1-1 3 m rr c in a r-. a r- f" IT. m ^ n a ir o»inirnr-3-'^^iru^
•- IN c? •- •- — ^-=ra-jt^^.-r=T
rsifM i^r^ rs fN r^j rj , r\ CN (N r j rx tM (N rj rsi r j t\t c\ OJ ^- TJ oj fN r\* r\i oi fN p-i fN CM rJ ts; c
-------
ex: e
>J O o\o . <-><
<= t, o - «**
«J M T- - *-c
O *. -I
c
M 9 W
•n ~. ri- w
«J OC .J .JO to KI:
*: U O •< Xt"> Sr- V! C *
u: o I J- em Is M i t
Ci — •-» O K O ' 0 CW ••»«
c. e »-" H — O t 0« »-<*
, i t O £ . «0 O
' O W
>T.O • »•"- ^^
r- c c 00
e-cni/j,^. rar~w«
. ;. M c\ ^j in % - «Q >-i ."
- • - ~ • t »"• ae- ° *
tfv:'.
-:o • E^UK
O OT ^-O fl- "f- Ct
k «) «O t-
f- »'|J
• . »:C C!
' 5K «S-
fi^>cC>
•>•>•• >l<<«l>t.>l(il ...... • • i • > I < . < t I I f I I I t • I t I I C t^ Z t
tr c K •-• v^ oc1 o oo ooooooooooocoo ccooococeccoccooooeooooooooo >. < cc ^ •
«: w d. >J f if. \cf- r-icoi~OKC=»''vo«-(N!3r^ocr-r-vccSir-»oCT'»-i.''(-»rrn\C' f c «'u °"
rt- irc»~o ?-•-«- CM"- «-«-fMr~nitrn£ra-nr>r^ari »r. f-)a-crsrt-r>4'*>c>)«-'-«-«-'-'-»-«-T-i-eN'^T-\
*. •£ C V. ~-Q . IT. »-«: 3«
< U OT t C - J O I
O -t \r- O-
C Cl U <»> O '
e. no ts
\f ~o «
K
C. r ~.\D * i
K es 01^ ' es:
c, —O
t-
<= •
^:
s
o
s c
c f • v »
B: » L« o
M K B> r" .
k. — O
>- • >•
a- t- i ort-
• '
C f .-.
Si. O C .J •-
*- fe. 61 » C> O
t. s: »: C s •-
•C >- CM ^**O
f- «r
in IT. in
r» r> r- CM T- oiy = «- CM f*-. r- vc o r- in oc. c *c <^ or n O O
O M — O
C • «; >
' >J cr.
o; r~ c o r~- 1~ f- f or m r- o w M a in (M IT (N c>(N » c r- c o c in u~r- o IT i^ rj LI rj oc n>— o i^ r-i n~ c o -I c. = ?:
"
-c:c-o«-r-i ^ t-
rslOOOCOOOOCO«-*-T-f-»-'-r-»->-fNCM<\!(MrMrloOOCOOOOO'~I-'-'"<-'-'r-<-'-'-(M:
v 'Np'jr'jfNfNtNfNfstNfNCNrjr'jrsjrMr^rwfVfNjiNrNjfNrjfNrsJrj^jDrNif^cMr^CNfN^rsiCNfNfN fNfMCvjr-ifNrNjfNcN
-------
K .J
CE T-
•J C OVO
O M T- O
W i4 V-
fc, O U-«n
U >c
'• ;•- ir v. ^
~. O es.-J.-JO
* J r i- e «; x«r»
• ^ iff- i i- c* in
-r CC .4 C CO
P <-• H ~0
. S CM .J V. VI
^ i-*C S MX—'
. «e r. »•• o v o
. f-< •• X O OT —O.
.C--C H
g5»-
«->oo>ooocooooooocoocooooooco ococvoccooooooooooooooo
«-tj «Xii-»t:u^
ft- v>
V. t-
S «e
t*
=«
S'
m —o
B. a- o
K —e
»: -»c-.
a. xe»
ft «• «.-<•«
J CIN
a- •»-»»»
u
W C f»f<
c *- X»
K % (.* C
M M =9 •-
IT "^
c «- _
=- w C C .J «-
» ai «J » cr e
t- r +*r~. S •-
i- «.
it >~
f c. ^ —
i i-
* i «e:
- fc tt -V
* r t>.
.--.' ^ 4.1
* ;< C
-------
APPENDIX B
Rouge River Model Initialization Data
-------
-------
1
M C
Hf
I
E
•w 1
u i
1_> 1
I
i
I
a i
~
C '
— 1
1
p
up
~
tr,
s
£
c
o
£
c-
~
p
0
5
3
«t
i,-!
I
r»=-c*ininL~>intst
i I
vrv|
3 co k
N fN r"i 1
3 O O k
1
3 r~ o;
1
— vo eo b CD ^
!
=> CO 9 \
7>ro«y^mL"i^«suJb"vsr>!l
i > ' 1
ooop copooio=>oi
•*• p» o^oooo opooim»~of~ p» o fy* o c?
N a i
i
=•001
5> O o <
N IN IN
=> O O
O O O
••O ^ STi
•*i jy r>
~m =•
OO L^
OO *-
O O LI
O » <—
OC> 0
33 in a
r-. r* O
o o o
— c- o
— fN 0
T— cr> u"t
— *-i o
«- LI
i-< «. CT
u b.>
C.- M
Li 0 5
--^
c- — c.
a- L- o
•N
3 O O
300
•N IN PJ
300
— i PJ a-
— o o
o o o
co a m
"--;
000
o o •-
o LI o
3 O O
™i r.1 PJ
j; C1 O
000
a o ^
3- «— in
f> o a
3 jr. t~
• to
a a. =
7 C o
<-i w?
M— PJ
a in •-
*~£
in LI in
(" ws sf
kfc »- a>
O O o
«N PJ O
3 C O
Poo
0 0 O
n a PJ
*
X
g
o
£
r- BO ITI
IN fM
U1 •« WJ
t: tr. K
COt-%
tt. U- Cu
e. Cb cu
^*;
p^ CD O^
c
A
m
c-
c* *- r;
„
O O 0
0 kD •-
°?s
oo e
o o o
o o
o o o
c- o o
i- r» o
e o o
"•* ^? W3
-. in a
• P<
3 «- PM
U> - «
= = M
H fr- »S
•D o tr,
0 C «
C W (fa
-; j KJ
o- a- 6,
t~. ~- rsi
•n a
o O o
o o o
rv PK CM
0 0 O
o o in
in in vs
o o o
a cr\ o
c* CD r~
a vc vo
000
oo o
oo
o o o
i- a O
IN a
=> o o
r- as o
3 en •-
3 O O
*• eo r-
na- n
. • in
"1 fN O
"- t->
tu f- »
Ci W •
tc ac o
e 2 cs
O M u>
_J »J ij
»•< M M
». IN
"i a LI
ci a- a
.£> r- cr
•N a
300
0 00
rN rs fN
o oo
s rv «-
300
^ ty a.
-• in a-
3 o »—
3 e? in
b co «-
•) r- t—
3 O O>
o in c^
~ r- p>
300
r- C' 0
--(NO
r-
» m in
n in o
u u. w
i/j «
» w c
U B O
a IT- o
IN ro
r- CM f-i
•v
3O 0
300
rN fN fN
300
m CN a-
— o o
o o o
cam
ift «- •-
o o o
o o «~
o in o
cr> •- fN
o co eo
300
= 00
y if s
3\ r- m
3 C« P-
«- 0
U*
IJL. • SU
• o o
woo
•= X U-
•=«:«:
a a in
a ut o
-.: f a
? SP « {
i
3^0!
1
- ~> a e
r
3 a a t
j
: |
9- W O O 3* O f
- o o
«~p "(^•pjrscN'NiNrNrs»- <•- •• |N »•
ti w »: »a w B4 1
o o o o o o
o o o p eo o
>N
O O O
000
rs rN IN
o o o
NP fN fN
rvi a vo
in a o
fN »• rj
a- in »-
ke»- ^>
n in in
i«« P" O
o> ^ co
0 0 o
0 0 0
in a- SN
O <£> f-
fN PJ o»
•- w in
a* a
IN PJ
^J m, ut
Q C a.
x u, t-
C O M
JW u. 0,
C C !=
r-
n "i
;i o o
0 fN L"*
5 rn C*>
o o o
o o m
o a f*i
us «•»
C. • CTN
3 r> «o
?is&sip§§
PJ
o o o
300
•N fN PJ
O O O
f o in
in in \o
' ' '
oo o
a o> o
o c? P*
a VC "45
o o o
000
3 O
OO 0
p- a o
M a
300
••• c> *
3 C< *-
=>o e-
B in p»
*>(S! "1
r«i (N O
• . \0
B- PJ 0
e-
U • U B W
= => £0
0 0 •=
C LT u.
i; = K
r-,"- PJ
O •- IN
~ r c.
CQ t- 3
O V. .
£ ^ £
«: z c.
V5 t-i U
»:•£<:
c T. c
C^ IN
•^ a LI
r— fsj r*
rv p^
3 O O
300
nj PJ PJ
3 00!
— in r- i
r\i PJ «~ t
O O O
N
3 O O
3 O O
N PJ IN
300
1 PJ a-
r- o O
3 O O
\o o c^ ia f*> »-
n p- c" to sr'in
r- in a ^n •- •—
o o «n p o o
o o «-
o r- T-
r> PJ «-
3 O IN
5* to O
£ VO CO
3 O O
— PJ O
•" •- 0
p«
•N a in
» IN O
LA Ui *.i
a ua
=» r-J c
4 (i4 [±^
= a E
^ rj -5
rr ui c>
IN "•>
• tv m
2? u'. kt.
0 O t-
o m o
5\ »- IN
o tf> >o
K6 03 CO
0» 0
a O o
a- a a
-^ *~ in
i o a
p o> r—
«- vo
u-
• Vi
•J- . O3
. o a
= tt t:
in O o
is. Kl w
5! K B;
=• » S3
"i"''3
aau,
m v* «
a «n w
r- c- c-
c2 U t*J ^U fcj 63
9 O O O 0 0
a o o o o in
N
3O O |
">o o i
O PJ
300
300
N PJ PJ |TN PJ fN
3 O O O O O
0 PJ (N p O O
N a \o p m in
r CT* ^^
j> f^ 10
N»- PJ
a in r-
J? »- \O
.n m in
10 i- a
10 \O O
f r- O
»cc as
00 C
C' 0 0
na- M
3 \£> !-•
•N PJ cn
— o> in
» a
•N PJ
U •=• VI
Z> t-i C£
yi CC t)
O O hi
Z 5= Z
= =53
«o r* cf
3 0 O
3 o T-
CO P»
0 . <-l
3 PJ a-
• O '•£•
u> - a
r- e-i JC
= =r es
0 O *
1- u. ta
rr, a ae
t::
:.:
1
i i
•U UJ It!
N O O
N O O
B PJ
3 O O
3 O O
N IN PJ
3 O O
=• o in
n in *c
s> o o
3 O 0
.i o r-
4~. VO >*
o o o
o o o
o o
o o c
— i r- o
CN
000,
LT O VC
*j3 r« •- ;
1
300:
•• c- p-
-an
M a p-
« . LI
^) a •
•»> »- o
ff. f*
Ul (« .T
LJ LO .
« K ft;
t? l-l t?
WWW
•s rs rs
cr> PJ
•^ l^'l
m a in
3^ (3- B->
w P- C
O
t-
a
«e
-------
~ '; i ,
1 !
i-v»-r\'rsir\!rsifMfM£ o P- in a
i O oo o in
, C5 0
• e> o
f- 0
•00
C- r-
• • in
' t- ^
' L"
.- T
^ 0 «-
& o in
C' 0 ~
1— O —
O L*s O
CO fw *X-
SO 0
•~ O o
— (NO
-
-c *£> in
:s f^*o c^
^t.
u-i U4
V. *—
a »j c.
i< —
=• BJ a.
— c u
er '.- <••
~Nl P"'
•— 'NJ f* .
so o
ooo
CD O O
o o o P o o
fMCs) T- *- fs) f— r» rsi
i^ir^rsirMrsifMnfMfM
ooopooooo
o *c VP.
.-MTMNtecocnbr-os^^-l
OOOpOODOOpOO
r-r-oKp-oenooiooo
*n in
ooo
ooo
•NrMrMrMfMfMrMfMrM fMfMCM
oooDOoboo ooo
^"irsia-iisrsirsjoooj oom
•— o o CN »r vo 13 in *n { in in vc
1
-s o o In eo o
r,- £
=> o o
o o •-
o in o
s o vc
p-> co c
y o o
f Cs O
a a sr
7S «- LI
-I o 3-
^ OS p*
•— ,c
u*
• Vt
• *-4 C£
S~±
« e ES
= es cr.
L.T O O
_i — -J
a- o IT
"i c.- o
=r ul 0
^•''1*0
-j t— rsi
j- in *-
£ *— VO
n in. m
S vc a-
c «- sr
^ K£> O
fc c-; o
^ p- ro
= 00
poo
N fM OS
— CD in
N fM
2=5
3 o w
^* *£ **
- ry !-3
ij r^ c-.
-- CO BS
-T I/ L' C IT \f }.' L' L''
D O O
e>r~ o
000
ooo
O 0
ooo
OP" <~
m «-
5 O O
=> 0 &
3 S3 VC
3 O C5
r> or in
3 • P»
[ rtO'Jtii ct. o.
r souiiifiD 1:
r FftBdlKGIll 1.
!i 3- C
U- L" i
ooo
•- en o
in n p.
=r to vc
o e> o
ooo
o o
o in o
a- n o
fM fM
ooo
ooo
cc f~ r~
f*s p* *")
«- «- CD
. os r^
p*i r^ o
r-<
w •
O IT. .
- >-
CT* P>]
•n m
c" o cr-
<• rv r-
fM a rN
O O O C5 O O
o o op o o
rsi P* CD
ooo
*- o o
^ Psl O
t»-
0 r»i«r>
rsi in o
a a- if,
\n 01
E, .j e
»• U3 C
cj c t;
IT ;j U
«: < «S
3- L'l r->
PJ ^
r> f ^
u; c c
ooo
ooo
p o o|o o o
n rN » ^ CM o o
3 O «-
3 in o
p - IN
=> CD CD
i ec c
O O O
a- o o
=• sr a-
»s «- in
•o o a-
O CTs p»
U.
• I/J
• ^^ LJ
• c. r,
= f. tr
n O O
J ii -o
5SS
-r a- in
a- if> ^
..0
5v rri vo
r- CD in
la- 3-
o o
3 O O T5 O O
N fS fM
3 O O
D O 0
o m m
ooo
0 VD vD
31 f*> »—
P* in
3 O O
OOO
0 O
3 O O
oom
or- C1
D CS If"
C) O O
r o "">
3 »-
& I-H t-<
S S >-<
e- f- sr
= =S D..
O O f
«£«=•=•
cr »- r j
t- »- r in o
3 LI VD
^•isjrsirsjfM^-l *-*-
rorsjfMrsj rsirsilrMfor*!
ooop ooooo
^noop oooino
. p,
O O OO Cl O
o o op o o
ooopoolooo
soinr-ui"— rirva
/s. m vo«Nrs*^"fr*oo
•300
•MOO
« sr r-
3- in vo
OOO
ooo
o c
ooo
a- in o
OOO
a- rsj r-
3 O o
com
N in SD
• « r
= £ 0
cr> rsi
r- p- r-
ooo
n 3 C"
•* m sr
n o m
o o «-
» o in
lo o r-
O O r-
3 O o
•- 0 0
- fM 0
p»
>D 11 in
O rsi o
LJ fc& UJ
Z J 0
S- £-i C
(•' IT- f-
c- o. c-
t; t: M
W5 f5 ")
fs-i f)
r- rsj -o
r- c" s
ooo
•M fM fM
OOO
•G fM fM
rM a o
in-co o
oook in --
O O r-
o in o
OS ^ fM
rs m in
-i p- p>
\t> CO CD
o o o
a o o
a- 3 3
P> »~ L")
>*> O 3
— 0
U,
« -J IO
o, . ej
. C 0
= t; ea
tf, C C
U (1 fc.,
V5 f. W
a t'i o
^ T~ vD
»-
in in IT.
P- o a
n in. o
CD CD CO
3 O O
i- 0 O
in a rs<
O vo p-
!N rsi Cr.
•- eo in
3 3
rsj rsi
U «• t/:
C £- b,
p C' LT
C U l-i
— u- C.
Sj t. b
r" P c
o c «
£3 M fc
e- t- J-
a a. c-
fc". W t-^
T. r- rM
ice ib cr
-------
^
^
_i
ri
^
-1
N]
7)
75
0
-
-
t— •
0
"'J
IT
r—
^
r^
u.
i—
Zl
iJ
1.
™
—
i..
^
^
-
*
.
~
TO CS ^
fM PS- fM
O O O
uj &2 &:
o o o
o o o
o o o
0 O O
•M rN rN
o o o
•vj ^ ^
ui o
— • d> cr>
rN"fv
... IP —
o •- o
u". i.^ in
-V !S O
~ ^ a
0 r.- 0
K^ O O
-i a CN
OOP-
rN CN c?^
a a
•N CN
_
^ -J
•^ M VI
U «z t-"
•„ t- tt-
^ C. —
c_ c; u
O O ^"""
A (4. ^
r* E-< f-
c o d
^ r- o^
w-^.j
> -=a
»• i-- r-
0 - o«f
O 0 O
tC W bit
O O O
O O O
0
c- o o
o c; o
'N CN CN
000
o in <-->
o o o
000
r-=r
o o o
O O 0
0 0
o o *-
O O P-
~i rj
s°s
O *~ 5\
O o O
r* o IT;
O O CN
000
0 CN T-
• O ss
Cj ~i t-
C£ * ^
— li M
i^ e- ^
•— — •"
O C •=
f- C- H
C 0 0
-^ «- 'N
r- •"
— r- -N
- r,-
C L- 0
3>(7« ^ '
~J CN CN
O O O
ii W W
o o o
o cv o
-1
t> 0 O
000
•N CN CN
000
?>£ £
000
iTi 0 0
»^ID
o o o
O 0 O
oo
— 7> O
1— 1C O
rj
o o o
O O l£
p T-
T"
O C O
|%C LT, f*-
*- rsi o
£_,
w •
iif £-»
i*= **- rt
EJ tr. •
te ^ c^
*S Z £Ti
0 M U
H c* t^
U '-> U
0 C3 O
V CN
-5 m
— a u~,
,5 P- ^
O O t-'
a a o '
•N CN fN '
o o o
M U UJ
^ t— o
y <- o
'N a
ooo
000
•N CN CN
J> O O
!N rj ^
000
us p» 3-.
r- v, a
o o in
O O r-
o \o in
o •— «—
*i U^ CN
p, r~ r-
rs o o
r- 0 O
U cv o
3; r- r»
. . IT,
o
1-1
r«i • iiJ
Q n* n
UJ lij
£ « CJ
w sz
[u O. a
> s> >
ooo
a un o
CN n
"- CN rn
rc--
r-»-»-
(1 ,- r- •
*> CN CN
O O 0 <
*3 &3 rj
^ O O 1
J^ O O
•N
000
ooo
o o o
poo
a <-i «-
C •? l^l
ooo
o o <-
D in o
7> — CN
3 0 vC
^00
T~ r~
=•00
ET O C?
*»„
T> •- in
•n o a
o o r-
>— IO
^
• in
• i^ A)
CG • w-i
3 U. Si
• Ci U
= Cr: tc
Ul C O
< t. tx
> > >
O C O
Z tz ¥•
a a IP
•our j5
a i.-v v£
r,:-a
k- <- <—
- - O O
a uj i
3 O O
r> o o
»
ooo
ooo
""
ooo
rN a xc>
-1 1C 0
a c* o>
CN f CN
a in r-
1C Y- VO
T-
in in in
•* o a
D r- a
rri cr> o
3 0 CO
V— — "
0 OC'
Poo
r, a rs)
o o r—
N CN !T>
i- 33 in
a a
•N CN
-( >-
U3 I-" OT
^J rt Ul
is n H4
a o it
e: cr. 6.1
O O M
— ti CU
1»»
O C O
"Z, y &.
& r- o
^ VS O
-co
^ 0 p-
— •— ,—
Oa'a !
-JCN"!
OOO
cd w i
D 0 O [
o o <- |
o *-
ooo
ooo
000
oLnS
ooo
O (D O
r* in
ooo
ooo
o o
O 0 d>
000
f*> **
C> 0 0
C1* *^ ^N1
lo o o
1™
P O o
rj o rn |
0 O »•
O • 10
-, ,- „
• u sa
UM t— ( c™1
13 - IS
_ * "
H P =
O 3 «
O O «=
e m u<
»>
o o c
B: 2, sc,
^ »— r*j
r^ *~
er-'N
a; c c'
•- r- CN
I
>•"> 0 0
1
-•• p~ IP, p in in
^1 rn CN tN CN CN
O O O O O O
m sj w (Ii w ia
r- o o f- f~ o
CN CO O P •- O
-«.
0 0 O
ooo
CN C\l CN
000
o o in
L.I ir. vo
OOO
•N a
OOO
0 O 0
•N CN CN
o o o
"•J CN •"
OOO
ro o o LO r^ cri
rn cr> p^ ro O c*1
in a o f~ in a
o o o
ooo
0 O
o ir, o
O 0 ift
o o *~
0^3 m
on 03 O d «- *~
1
o o o
\.O CN u^
o o *~
0 C- 0
,0 o r-
a O m
o a o
"-»-•
t; t^ =
«: 2. l_
L2 p"* o
c c c
fc 2. 21
22.
~i a IT
C-J rj rN
=•<;-<—
O in CN
o* r- r-
O O o
*~ o o
CD p* p~
o
H • f-.
IO r-1
z -; c-
<: »J
UJ Cj II
U ;j Cj
a cs c:
* £ S
-»• l^ v*.""
in in c
-'" Z £ *•" ~ ^
prj Psl CN fN CN CN
3 O O IO O O
ij UJ M
OOO
moo
N
go o
0 O
N CN CN
300
"• O O
= 00
a a m
n »- r-
0 O O
0 0 «-
^3 IP O
r- «—
— j ^ ^
-•> CT> CTi
J5 O 0
0 0 O
a o c-
:r> »- in
-o o a
o c" r~
r-
. Ul
. .-J U)
U. . DJ
. Q CL
£ 0 0
*C U4 llj
O U U
W W (i^
a c, &
a a u'
a in i
*\J CN C*--
3 O O
o o o
CN
0 O 0
oo o
CN CN CN
O O O
x a \£)
in ro o
a en cr*
tn n vr
CN <- rN
a in ^
VO r- i^
in in in
S25
VD l£> O
O\ C-' O
0 0 <=>
o o o
o o o
in a CN
o \o r-
tfN CN °^
r- CD in
a a
CN CN
u.
W t-( [/>
u *• co
a w u.
1C C Kl
0 C w
U 0 '_
Ci Q C
S!SS
P~ OC 3-
C' «- CN
3 m a '
0 a a
•^ v£> o
ji in cr*
"N CN CN »N ^> CN
3 O 0 O O O
w t3 W
o o o
C5 O O
O CN
o o o
O 0 0
•N CN CN
000
0 O O
o "~. in
O 0 0
T- VO 0
O ^ ^""
r- in
o o o
o o o
0 0
O O ON
O 0 o
en i—
O 0 O
0 a p-
0 0 CN
Poo
"^* O CN
1-1 r- a
O O CT1
o • --s
°"
^ •-( fe-t
o ~ c-
O O - CN
i. • "~ :N
^r, ~ ,-
r_ _
^ W frf
3 G3 O
** CN O
"- «-
o o o
000
"N CN CN
0 O 0
O O l"
n m vo
o o o
r*> o O
rn a* p*
in a i*?
o o o
3 O O
3 O
n IT. o
1 CO O
=>0 0
•N CN •—
000
M 01 r-.
a m n
a ^> a
3s a- o
cu r*
W c-1 Jt
a i/? •
•= S UK
•J t— o
U '_! U
^. C^4
~i a in
^ r- to
1— 1
—4
t-
t.
i^
a
1
-------
APPENDIX C
Calculation of Baseline Annual O&M Costs for
FNA and Specific Control Alternatives
-------
APPENDIX
Calculation of Baseline Annual O&M Costs
for FNA and Specific Control Alternatives
Annual O&M costs were calculated for each million gallons of
raw sewage treated at the DWWTP. The period from July 1979
through June 1980 was used by the Joint Venture in making
these computations. The plant flows including recycle were
used to compute the amount of sewage treated on an average
mounthly basis. The total of these monthly figures was then
divided by 12 to give an average number of gallons of treated
sewage per month for the entire year. Flows through the
secondary system were calculated in the same manner. O&M
costs were divided into the following 15 categories: Pump
station; Rock and grit; Chemical addition; Primary sedimenta-
tion; Aeration system; Secondary clarifiers; Process water;
Chlorination and outfalls; Sludge processing; Sludge dewater-
ing; Sludge incineration; Scum incineration; Control and
laboratory; Heating plant; and General plant expenses. The
total monthly operating expense for each category was then
divided by the average monthly number of gallons of treated
sewage. This gave the operating cost per each million gal-
lons of raw sewage for the individual O&M facilities. The
operating expense for the aeration system and secondary clar-
ifiers was figured by using the average flow through the
secondary system only.
-------
The total annual wet and dry weather flows were calculated
next and added together to give the annual flow through the
DWWTP. The annual recycle flow was also included in this
total. This total flow including recycle (in MG) was then
multiplied by the operating cost for each O&M facility (in
$/MG) to give the annual O&M cost per O&M process. The total
of these 15 costs came to approximately $53,400,000 of the
$59,430,000 estimated by the Joint Venture. Thus, an addi-
tional $6,000,000 is left in an unaccounted category.
Therefore, the grand total of annual costs for the FNA alter-
native was the sum of the amoritized capital costs and the
O&M costs or %67,850,000 per year.
Capital Costs X 1000 Annual Costs X 1000
FNA 56,600 6,500 59,800 14,600
Amort.
Cap. Cost
8,420
O&M Costs
Process
Rock & Grit
Chem. Add.
Prim. Sed.
Proc. Water
Cl, &
Outfalls
Sludge Proc.
Sludge Dew.
Cost
274
1,148
1,694
508
1,274
753
4,218
Sludge Inci. 12,947
Scum Inci. 245
Control & Lab. 2,298
Heating Plant 843
General Exp. 14,412
Aer. Sys. 9,282
Second. Clar. 1,259
Pump Sta. 2,236
Unaccounted 6,039
O&M Total 59,430
Thus, the total capital cost for the FNA alternative is
$137,500,000, and the total annual cost is $67,850,000.
-------
APPENDIX D
July 6, 1981 Court Resolution of Amended
Consent Judgment Items
-------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff and Counter-
Defendant,
and
THE WAYXE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
DIVISION,
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7-71100
-vs-
Hcnorable John Feikens
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, """
Defendant and Counter-
Plaintiff and Cross
Plaintiff,
THE CITY OF DETROIT, a Municipal
Corporation, and THE DETROIT WATER
AND SEWERAGE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants and Cross
Defendants,
-vs-
ALL COMMUNITIES AND AGENCIES uNDER
CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF DETROIT
FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT SERVICES.
ORDER RE: FINAL FACILITIES PLANNING,
RESIDUALS MANAGEMENT AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PRIMARY
CAPACITY
At a session of said Court held
in the Federal Suilding, City of
Detroit, County of Wayne, State
of Michican, on the £/7\ day
of \<~L- 1931.
n /
PRESENT: 'HONORABLE JOHN FEIXE7JS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JTDGE
Representatives of the City of Detroit, the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) , the United States
Environmental Protection Agency fJ.S. EPA) and the Wayne
County Air Pollution Control Division (WCAPCD) havi.-g r-.et on May" 2",
1981, in chanbers in -he Court's prasar.ce and cisc-ussed issuas
recarding Final "acilitias Planning, Residuals Mar.age.~ar.-c and
Wastewatsr Traai.-r.er.t Primary Cacaci-v; and,
-------
3ased upon that n-.eeting ar.d othar subsequent representations
by the parties, THIS COURT FINDS:
1. That the City of Detroit has submitted the interim
reports called for and in compliance with Section IV. A. 1.
through 4. of the Amended Consent Judg-ent; and,
2. That the City of Detroit has submitted a preliminary
interim report called for and in compliance with Section
IV. A. 5. of the Amended Consent Judgment. It has been deter-
mined by the par-ies that no further refinement of that preliminary
interim report- is needed; and,
3. That the City of Detroit has chosen Hydro-Sonic Systems
air pollution control equipment and the construction of tall
stacks for part of its on-site residuals processing, satisfying
the requirement of identifying the most cost effective and
environmentally sound on-sita residuals processing alternative
in Sections IV. A. 6. and XI. 3. 2. a. of the Amended Consent
Judgment. Also pursuant to Section IV. A. 6., Detroit, through
its consultants, Snell Environmental Group and ESEI, Inc., are
presently conducting studies of the xosc cost effective and
environmentally sound off-site rasiduais disposal alternative; and,
4. Thar in response to Section IV. A. 7., of the Amended
Consent Judgment, Detroit prepared the Alternative facilities
Interim Report (AfI3). It has been determined by the parties
that no further refir.ements of that report are required
at this time; and,
5. That the parties have agreed -o suspend further
facili-ies planning regarding combined sewer overflow control
but thac U.S. E?A and MDNK wish co reserve their rights to
petiricn the Court in rhe future for further relief on combined
sewer overflow ccncrol; ar.d,
5. That in accordance with Section V. D. cf the Amended
Consent Judg-er.c, Detroit submitted a Program for Effective
?esiiuals Manaca;r,er.t report on June 1, 1930, which proposed
the pilot testing of a ccr.pcst facility at the Detroit House
-------
-3-
of Correction (DeHoCo). Detroit requests approval to abandon
tnis project and U.S. EPA and MDNR concur; and,
7. That the parties have agreed to fix the reliable
wastewater treatment primary capacity at the Detroit Wastewater
Treatment Plant at 984 million gallons per day (ragd) of raw
influent wastewater, provided however that whan more equipment
than used to determine this capacity is operational, Detroit
shall operate all functioning equipment.
Being fully apprised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
A. That no further refinements are needed to the
interim reports required under Section IV. A. 5. and 7. of
the Amended Consent Judgment; and,
3. That no further refinement is needed to the reports
submitted by Detroit which chose Hydro-Sonic Systems air
pollution control equipment and the construction of tall
stacks for on-sita residuals disposal. It is further ordered
that these reports satisfy the requirements of Sections IV.
A. 6. and XI. 3. 2. a. of the Amended Consent Judgment with
regard to identifying the most cost effective and environ-
mentally sound on-site residuals processing alternative; and,
C. That in satisfaction of Section IV. A. 6. (for
off-site residuals disposal), 3. and C. of the Amended Consent
Judgment, the City of Detroit shall submit the completed
reports of its consultants, Snell Environmental Group and £SET,
Inc., and Detroit will cheese the most cost effective and
environmentally sound alternative for off-site residuals
disposal; v..id,
D. That r.o further facilities planning for combined
sewer overflew control is required at this time to satisfy
the requirements of Section IV. 3. a.-.d C. of the Amended
Consent Judgment. This order is without: prejudice to
".S. EPA's and XCNK's right to peti-ion this Court in
the fjtura for furt.-.er relief on combined sewer overflow
control. It is further ordered -hat: the "cericd" referenced
in Section VI". C. and tr.e "ir.tan.7t oeriod" referenced in
-------
-4-
Section X. D. of the Amended Consent Judgment shall continue
until the Amended Consent Judgr.snt is satisfied or until such
time as U.S. EPA and MDNR successfully petition this Court
for further raliaf on combined sawer overflow control; and,
S. That the pilot test of a compost facility at
DeHcCo is not required by Section V. D. of the Amended Consent
Judgment; and,
F. That the reliable wastawatar treatment primary
capacity at the Detroit Vvastewatar Treatment Plant is fixed
at 984 mgd of raw influent: wastewatar, provided however that
when more equipment than used to determine this capacity
is operational, Detroit shall operate all functioning
equipment.
HONORABLE JOHN FEIS2NS
Chief United States District Judge
-------
APPENDIX E
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
FOR CSO CONTROL PLANNING
-------
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR CSO CONTROL PLANNING
During development of CSO studies, a public participation
program was implemented to elicit public involvement in the
planning process. A mailing list of approximately 3,000
addresses was used for the monthly newsletter, "Moving Ahead-
Pollution Control." It included state and federal regulatory
agencies; regional, county, and local planning agencies;
municipalities in the study area; environmental groups; busi-
nesses; and interested private citizens.
The two key aspects of the public participation program were
the Citizens Advisory Council (CAC) and the monthly news-
letter. The CAC is made up of 29 people from various sectors:
private citizens; public interest groups, such as the Human
Rights Commission and Detroit Urban League; public officials,
including a mayor and a public utility manager; and groups
with substantial economic interest, such as the Michigan
Association of Metal Finishers.
The CAC members were initially appointed by Mayor Coleman
Young of Detroit and have volunteered their time on this pro-
ject for over 2 1/2 years. The regular meetings are tape
recorded and detailed minutes are prepared and circulated to
a mailing list of 65 which includes all CAC in addition to
federal, state, and local agencies.
E-l
-------
The CAC has been active in expressing concerns about DWSD
planning activities. In their study of the problem of
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), CAC members considered such
areas as management practices, cost control, and methods used
to alleviate CSOs. They asked for and received many technical
presentations from facilities planning consultants. As a
result, they strongly recommend two changes: 1) Basin-wide
planning; and 2) Standardizing data collection methods along
the Rouge and Detroit Rivers. CAC concerns were routed to
those involved in facilities planning and incorporated in the
various evaluation studies.
CSO problems were addressed in almost every issue of the
monthly newsletter, "Moving Ahead - Pollution Control." The
bulk of the articles had to do with suggested control alter-
natives—their respective rankings and costs. A Viewpoint
column provided readers a chance to write in with questions
and comments. In October, a special edition received wide
distribution during the 1981 WPCF Conference held in Detroit.
This sparked wide interest among the diverse group of water
quality specialists representing most of the United States.
In addition, an interagency package was sent out to 43 per-
sons associated with federal, state or local government or
E-2
-------
pollution control agencies. The package included an issues
paper on CSO. Officials were asked to complete a form re-
sponding to the issues paper. Agencies who responded to the
request are listed below:
U.S. Department of the Interior
Michigan History Division
Detroit Planning Department
Michigan Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service)
Mayor, City of Detroit
U.S. Department of Commerce - Nat'l Oceanic &
Atmospheric Administration
As with the CAC, these comments were funneled to facilities
planners for consideration in preparation of this document.
In summary, the public participation program for CSO issues
included extensive circulation of articles discussing CSO
problems and alternative solutions. Questions from the public
were answered in a regular question and answer column. Month-
ly meetings of the CAC provided a regular forum for discus-
sion of public concerns, and resulted in close agreement be-
tween the recommendations for further CSO work passed by the
CAC and those presented in this Report on Combined Sewer
Overflow.
E-3
-------
A public meeting on the CSO program is planned in the Detroit
area after the release of the Report on Combined Sewer Over-
flows. Comments received at this meeting and during the
public comment period will be summarized in the Final
Responsiveness Summary for this program.
E-4
-------
|