EPA-600/2-77-064C

August 1977
Environmental Protection  Technology Series

                                            SEWER
                                            te-^»J*^pp;SV.^
                                                  i?,S1^dvJ^»^;fr>ii=j»'*.ILfVi!:.!;.1r:i*r.j1iJj|'...?,,* s v^u.i.'^sviWi'jpa ••!. ^kv. ,. < - ^raFit-t^vMisv
                                                                         ^3^
                                                ization  of
                                                    ;ipal Environmental Research Laboratory
                                                    i»«i«M(e!fi<{£

-------
                 RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
      i"  ^  .         .",.' (•'•'.-!•,'•'s'   •' "i*!i'',  "> : '«!"' > ^t'Si ---  ."!»,':*• •".:•"
      1.   Environmental Health  Effects Research
      2.   Environmental Protection Technology
      3.   Ecological Research
      4.   Environmental Monitoring
      5.   Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.   Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.   Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.~  "Special" Reports
      9._  Miscellaneous Reports                 "" ""   "'""_""	"

This report has been assigned  to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY  series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and  methodology to repair or  prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to  meet environmental quality standards.
                                            "  ;r a ti :i -,>•*» it.1; • • ' ,   i ••- I.  « i *  t   '  "; "I-«•,-*• it* ,'t1'
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
                                       5        "« iu i .'in j"" in in ..... i i  nn Fn ii  ii 'f  i  it
                                       'IJ  '  *.*1Js* KJ' ^ Hil'lH!!1*5!" *'!HJS.f!t ",l1* !--.* !>  V1' ''"
                                              	innii ipii n n i	ii|i|nii|ii	p1! iiiw inn inn 	    in i*	pi	i	i


-------
                                         EPA-600/2-77-064c
                                         August 1977
                NATIONWIDE EVALUATION OF
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS AND URBAN STORMWATER DISCHARGES

      Volume III:  Characterization of Discharges
                            by
                    Martin J. Manning
                    Richard H. Sullivan
                      Timothy M. Kipp
              American  Public Works Association
                    Research Foundation
                 Chicago,  Illinois   60637
                  Contract No.  68-03-0283
                      Project  Officer

                       Richard Field
              Storm and Combined Sewer Section
                Wastewater Research Division
  Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory(Cincinnati)
                 Edison,  New Jersey   08817
        MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
             OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
            U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  CINCINNATI,  OHIO   45268

-------
                                DISCLAIMER


     This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                                    ii

-------
                                  FOREWORD
     The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people.  Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attach on the problem.

     Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching
for solutions.  The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and
management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges
from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of
public drinking water supplies and to minimize the adverse economic, social,
health, and aesthetic effects of pollution.  This publication is one of the
products of that research; a most vital communications link between the
researcher and the user community.

     The study describes what has been learned from a variety of field
investigations which allow the quality of urban stormwater runoff and com-
bined sewer overflows to be characterized in terms of their pollutional
strengths.


                                               Francis T. Mayo
                                               Director
                                               Municipal Environmental Research
                                                   Laboratory
                                      iii

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
     An analysis was made of existing data to characterize the pollutions!
strength of urban stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows.  Published
and unpublished data were evaluated.

     Extensive evaluation was made of census track data to develop data con-
cerning land use and population densities in urban areas to assist modelling
of urban stormwater discharge.

     Utilizing the developed data, an analysis of receiving water impacts
was made.

     It was found that much of the available data was developed without con-
sideration of the quantity of flow at the time quality was being considered.
A wide variety of methods used to sample flows further complicates the use
of much reported data.

     The 'estimated runoff pollutional contributions were found to exceed any
contributions of treated sanitary flows at the time of a storm event.  Thus,
runoff pollution can govern the quality of receiving water due to the shock
effect and long term buildup of solids.

     This report is submitted in partial fulfillment of EPA Contract 68-03-
0283 by the American Public Works Association.  Work was completed  as of
November 1976.
                                     iv

-------
                                    CONTENTS
Disclaimer 	 .... 	 .......   ii
Foreword	iii
Abstract	   iv
Figures.	viii
Tables	xii
Acknowledgement	xix

  SECTION I    Findings and Recommendations 	   1
                 Urban Runoff Pollution Origins 	   1
                 Discharge Pollution 	 .....    3
                 Sampling Methods	   4
                 Wet Weather Flows 	    5
                 Urban Data	   7
                 Receiving Water Impacts 	    7
  SECTION II   The Study	   11
  SECTION III  Characterization of Urban Sewered and Unsewered Storm
               Sewer Discharges, and Combined Sewer Overflows 	  14
                 Runoff Qunatity Characterization ... 	  17
                 Sources of Runoff. Pollution	   17
                   Transportation Activities as a Source of Runoff
                    Pollution	17
                      Vehicular Contributions 	 . 	  17
                      Snow and Ice  Control Contributions	21
                 Airborne Contributions to Urban Runoff Pollution 	  33
                 Vegetation as a Source of Runoff Pollution ........  49
                   Tree Litter ..... 	 .....   49
                   Grass Litter	54
                   Pollutional Effects 	   54
                   Urban Vegetative Pollutional Contributions 	  56
                   Soil Erosion as a Water Pollution Source 	  60
                      Erosion Effects ..... 	  63
                      Sediment Prediction Methods .............  64
                      Pollutional Potentials of Sediment 	   71
                   Miscellaneous Sources of Urban Runoff Pollution and
                   Intermittent Pollutant Depositories 	   78
                      Catch Basin Pollutional Characteristics 	  78
                      Roof Drainage Contributions 	  85
                      "First Flush" Effects 	  88
                 Street Surface Pollution Potentials 	 ...  113
                   Street Surface Accumulation Sources 	  113
                   Major Street Surface Accumulation Components  ...... 113
                   Street Accumulation Sampling Efforts ....  	 115

-------
                            CONTENTS  (CONTINUED)

                 Laboratory Analysis of Street Accumulation Samples .  .  .  115
                 Street Surface Material Accumulation ....  	  118
                 Street Surface Accumulation Measurements .......*  122
                 Street Surface Material Deposition Characteristics .  .  .  126
                 Physical Characteristics of Street Surface
                  Contaminants	129
                 Pollutional Potentials of Street Surface
                  Contaminants	   132
                 Application of Street Surface Contaminant Data .....  142
                 Measured and Calibrated Results	   142
               Street Surface Accumulation Removal Mechanisms  ......  143
                 Street Cleaning Practice 	  143
                 Uncontrolled Removal 	  150
               Indirect Runoff Pollution Sources - Sanitary Waste-
                water Flows	156
               Direct and Indirect Runoff Discharge Pollution  ......  158
                 Sampling Activities	   158
                 Direct (Storm) and Indirect (Combined)  Runoff
                  Discharge Characteristics 	  ....  165
               Comparison of Wet and Dry Weather Flows	170
                 Hypothetical Case Comparisons	170
                 Direct Runoff Pollution 	   173
                 Other Wastewater Flows 	  178
                 Comparison of Waste Contributions 	   179
SECTION IV   Urban Data Development To Assist Modelling  Activities .  .  .   181
               Urban Areas	182
               Major Urban Runoff Catchments	,	186
               Urban Physical Development and Demographic
                Characteristics 	    187
               Land Use Characterization	192
               Runoff Quality Characterization 	   198
               Characterization of Street Cleaning Operations  and
                Other Physical Development Factors ..,...,,...   206
                 Other Data Requirements ... (	206
SECTION V    Receiving Water Impacts of Urban Runoff 	   208
               Receiving Water Assimilation Capacity 	   209
               Pollutional Sources	215
               Receiving Water Impact 	    221
                 Dissolved Oxygen	    221
                 Nutrients	241
                 Miscellaneous Receiving Water Impacts 	   244
                 Receiving Water Components ... 	    246
SECTION VI   Data Needs	    248
               Existing Data	248
               Data Requirements	249
                 Physical-Geographic Data 	    249
                 Pollutional Loadings By Source 	    250
                 Controlled Removal Effects 	 .  	    251
                 Rainfall Events		251
                 Transport "Mechanism .	251
                 Direct Measures At Receiving Water Sites .......    252

                                     vi

-------
                            CONTENTS  (CONTINUED)

References	253
Appendix
    Data Management For Street Surface Solids Accumulation ....... 262
Glossary	265
                                     vxi

-------
                                  FIGURES

Number                                                                   page

  1    Relationship between air and water pollution 	    9

  2    Illustrative components of potential pollution
       sources. .  . ..	10

  3    Average annual number of days with snow ground cover 	   21

  4    Climatic regions 	   27

  5    Salt applied as compared to salt discharged	   31

  6    Location of the 77 midwestern cities	35

  7    Geometric means and 95 percent confidence intervals for
       dustfall measurements by land use and month	36

  8    Pesticide cycle in the environment 	   43

  9    Map of PE values for state climatic divisions -
       Thornthwaite's precipitation - evaporation index 	   45

 10    Drift potential of tillage emissions 	   46

 11    Drift potential of road emissions	46

 12    Nitrogen contributions from rainfall 	   48

 13    Annual production of total tree litter in
       relation to latitude 	   50

 14    Climatic zones and prevalent land uses -
       continental United States	52

 15    Sediment yield vs. contributory basin area 	   62

 16    ISO - eredent map	66

 17    Soil erodibility nomograph	67

 18    Composite triangle of the basic soil textural classes	67
                                  .  viii

-------
                            FIGURES  (CONTINUED)

Number                                                                 ?age

  19   Factor LS by slope length and percent slope	   68

  20   Percent nitrogen (N) in surface soils	   73

  21   Percent phosphorus in surface soil	   74

  22   Summary of catch basin sampling results. ... 	   82

  23   Variations in flow and composition of combined
       sewage for two runoff events  	 ..........   91

  24   BOD concentration vs. time	   92

  25   Suspended solids concentrations vs, time	   93

  26   Total solids	   94

  27   Nitrate nitrogen ............. 	  ...   95

  28   Ammonia and organic nitrogen  	   96

  29   Total phosphates .......  	  ...   97

  30   Runoff characteristics .....  	  .......   98

  31   Flow and solids vs. time	102

  32   Flow, BOD and COD vs. time	103

  33   Flow, BOD, COD, total solids, suspended solids
       vs. time	104

  34   First-flush effects in combined sewage flow (Halifax)	  110

  35   Pollutant variation with flow and time for
       storm event No. 13	112

  36   Average components of .street  litter, Chicago 	  114

  37   Accumulation of contaminants  - typical case	 .....  119

  38   Theoretical street accumulations at various time intervals
       and overall removal constants  k and ?S.	121

  39   Accumulation of litter and  solids dust and dirt
       with barrier height	  127

  40   Residual mass as a function of initial mass loading for
       various levels of flushing  effort on concrete surfaces,
       mechanized flushing	»	148
                                      ix

-------
                            FIGURES  (CONTINUED)

Number

  41   Residual mass as a function of initial mass loading
       for various levels of flushing effort on asphalt
       surfaces, mechanized flushing. ....... 	   149

  42   Residual mass as a function of initial mass loading for
       various levels of flushing effort on asphalt and
       concrete surfaces, firehose flushing 	   149

  43   Comparative effectiveness of motorized flushing
       and firehosing on pavement	   150

  44   Particle resuspension rates from an asphalt
       road caused by vehicle passage	   152

  45   Particle resuspension rates from an asphalt road
       as a function of weathering	 .............   153

  46   Particle transport across street surfaces by type
       of pavement and rainfall intensity	   154

  47   The problem of timing discrete grab samples with
       respect to a runoff event.	   160

  48   Method of compositing equal volume samples at
       equal flow increments.	   161

  49   Method of compositing variable volume samples at
       fixed time intervals	   161

  50   Indirect runoff quantity and quality data
       Bloody Run sewer watershed	   164

  51   Hypothetical runoff hydrographs	   172

  52   Urbanized areas, 1970	183

  53   Distribution of urbanized areas sample with respect
       to water resource and USEPA regions .... 	  184

  54   Population density profiles for urbanized areas . . 	  189

  55   Land utilization rates for various cumulative population
       densities - nationwide	 193

  56   Land-use regions	 .  195

  57   Residential land utilization rates for various water
       resources regions 	  196

-------
                             FIGURES  (CONTINUED)

 Number                                                                  Page
  58   Commercial land utilization rates for various water
       resources regions	  196

  59   Industrial land utilization rates for various water
       resources regions	,	197

  60   Park land utilization rates for various water resources
       regions	197

  61   Average daily street solid accumulations for various
       population densities for all but park and undeveloped
       area contributions nationwide  .... 	  202

  62   Imperviousness vs. population/density - nationwide, 1974 	   203

  63   Specific curb length vs. population density - nationwide,
       1974	  .   203

  64   Processes that determine the fate and distribution of a
       pollutant added to the marine  environment .......	  210

'  65   Effect of changed land use on  characteristics of sub-
       catchment runoff from Shelby Street watersheds,  San
       Francisco	220

  66   Oxygen sag curves for case study	   223

  67   Theoretical annual average dissolved oxygen profiles
       in South River for two-week storm .	226
  68   The Potomac Estuary and its major pollution problems 	   230

  69   BOI>5 in the Potomac Estuary, 1966 dry weather	232

  70   Dissolved oxygen in the Potomac Estuary, 1966 dry weather  	  233

  71   BODc in the Potomac Estuary, 1971 storm condition	234

  72   Dissolved oxygen in the Potomac Estuary due to dry-weather
       flow treatment enhancement	   235

  73   Onodaga Lake stablization zone	  .   237

  74   Lake dissolved oxygen versus BOD input 	   238

  75   Oxygen demand effects of benthal deposits on dissolved
       oxygen levels	    239

  76   Dissolved oxygen deficit due to benthal oxygen demand ....... 240

  77   Measured dissolved oxygen profile West Eend-Waubeka Reach  of
       the Milwaukee River, summer 1968		244
                                     xi

-------
                                   TABLES

Number                                                                 Page

 1   Major Potential Sources of Urban Stormwater Pollution By
       Points of Release to Stormwater Systems 	 ,  	  8

 2   Characteristics of Separate Stormwater 	 .... 15

 3   Pollutant Loadings and Concentrations With Respect to
       Average Daily Traffic Volume (ADT)	 19

 4   Accumulation Rates of Traffic Influenced Roadways Materials ...   20

 5   Materials and Methods Used For Snow and Ice Control	22

 6   Constituent Concentrations Measured in Different Cities
       of Ontario	23

 7   Pollutants and Pollutant Levels Found in Snow Deposits 	 24

 8   Total Lead Concentrations At Various Sampled Snow Deposits .... 25

 9   Chemical and Abrasive Spreading	26

10   Salting Rates Used in Ontario	28

11   Assumed De-icing Chemical Makeup 	    28

12   Composition of Common De-icing Salt	29

13   Trace Elements Found in Common De-icing Salts 	   29

14   Concentration of Contaminants Found in Rainfall 	   33

15   Nationwide Estimates of Particulate Emissions, 1940-1970 ....    34

16   Average Annual Dustfall Values for Various Water Resources
       Regions	37

17   Comparison of Suspended Solids Concentrations Computed
       From Dustfall and Measured Values 	   38

18   Concentrations of Selected Airborne Particulate Contaminants,
       1957-1961	39

                                    xii

-------
                              TABLES (CONTINUED)

Number                                                                    gage

 19    Geometric Mean For Cadmium and Zinc For 77 Midwestern
         Cities	39

 20    Particulate and Sulphur Oxide Emission Factors  for Light-
         Duty Gasoline Powered Vehicles ..... 	  .  	  40

 21    Emission Factors for Heavy-Duty Diesel-Powered  Vehicles  	   40

 22    Wind Erosion Factors for Various Activities and Sites .  	   44

 23    Comparison of Litter Production By Evergreen and Deciduous
         Trees in the Northern Hemisphere	49

 24    Sources of Forest Litter	50

 25    Annual Forest Litter Production in Four Major Climatic
         Zones	51

 26    Ranking of Land Resource Regions in Terms of Crop and
         Forest Uses With Associated Litter Production Reported  	  53

 27    Annual Yield of Various Grass Types 	   54

 28    The Concentration of Nutrients and Ash Content  in Newly
         Fallen Gymnosperm and Angiosperm Tree Leaf Litter 	   55

 29    Average Quantities of Nutrients Falling in the  Litter
         of Different Trees	55

 30    Collection of Yard Litter as Part of Solid Waste Collection
         Activities	57

 31    Collection of Tree Debris as Part of Solid Waste Collection
         Activities	  -.  .  .  57

 32    Sites Where Public Agency Leaf Removal Activities Occur  	   58

 33    Frequency of Leaf Collection and Length of the  Special
         Collection Season	58

 34    Erosion Rates Reported for Various Sediment Sources	 .  .   61

 35    Estimated Relative Contributions of Sediment Production  	   64

 36    Cropping Management Factor 	  69

 37    Erosion Control Practice Factor for Construction Sites 	  70

 38    Organic Contents of Surface Soils From Various  Areas of
         the United States	72
                                      xiii

-------
                              TABLES  (CONTINUED)

Number                                                                    Page

 39    Types and Quantities of Pesticides Used in Urban Homes .......  75

 40    Estimated Quantities of Home and Garden Pesticides Used
         In Three Study Areas . .  	 .......  76

 41    Representative Half Lives of Various Pesticides and
         Potential for Migration on Sediment ...............   77

 42    Fraction of Pollutant Associated With Each Particle
         Size Range, From Ten Test Cities	  79

 43    Analysis of Catch Basin Materials 	   79

 44    Summary of Catch Basin Sampling, 1970	81

 45    Summary of Data on Catch Basin Content Analysis 	   83

 46    Analysis of Catch Basin Contents ..... 	    83

 47    Summary Roof Runoff Sampling	86

 48    Median Nutrient Concentrations	87

 49    Mean Solids Concentrations  Based on Dustfall and Rainfall
         Amounts in the Vicinity of Roof Runoff Sampling Sites 	   87

 50    Average Daily Pollutant Buildup On Urban Streets 	   89

 51    Characteristics of Combined Sewer Overflows in Sewer
         District Good Hope Run	105

 52    Urban Freeway Drainage Water Quality ....... 	  106
          i
 53    Comparison of Quality Characteristics From First-Flush
         and Extended Overflow Data	106

 54    Pollutant Removals By Screening .	107

 55    Combined Sewer Overflow Pollutant Removal By Screening 	  107

 56    First-Flush Evaluations 	 108

 57    Comparison of Raw Combined  Sewer Overflow Quality 	 108

 58    Methods for Measuring Street Surface Accumulations 	  116

 59    Analyses of Street Accumulation Samples 	 ......117

 60    Amount of Total Refuse and  Dust and Dirt By Land Use	122

                                       xiv

-------
                               TABLES (CONTINUED)

Number                                                                    Page

 62    Mean Street Surface Accumulations For Commerical Locations  	 123

 63    Street Solids Accumulation Loadings Resulting  From the
         Analysis of Existing Data	124

 64    Comparative Summary of Reported Values For Street  Surface
         Solids Accumulation Loadings By Land Use	125

 65    Average Percent Total Solids Load Across Street Width 	  .  .  126

 66    Percentage of Total Street Solids Accumulation For Defined
         Sample Components For All Sites At Various Collection
         Frequencies	128

 67    Sieve Analyses of Selected Street Solids Samples	 129

 68    Particle Size Distribution of Street Solids Selected
         City Composites	130

 69    Particle Analysis in Percent for Street Solid  Samples
         Collected From Specific Sites 	  130

 70    Comparison of Street Solids Particle Size Distribution
         Anaylsis Results 	 131

 71    Specific Gravity Analysis of Various Fractions of  Selected
         Street Dust and Dirt Samples	132

 72    Fraction of Pollutant Associated With Each Particle Size
         Range	132

 73    Organic Analysis of Selected Street Solid Samples  	  133

 74    Percentage of Pollutant Potential Associated With  Various
         Ranges of Street Solids Particle Size 	  134

 75    Percentages of Pollutant Potentials Associated With Various
         Particle Sizes of Street Solids 	  135
 76    Percent of Heavy Metals in Various Particle Size  Ranges  	  135

 77    Percentages of Elemental Heavy Metal Pollutants Associated
         With Various Street Solids Particle Size Ranges  	  136

 78    Percentages of Pesticides Associated With Various  Street
         Solids Particle Size Ranges 	  136

 79    The Percentages of Total Pollutant Loads Associated With
         the Major Fractions of Street Accumulations  and  Pavement
         Types	   137

                                      xv

-------
                               TABLES (CONTINUED)

Number                                                                    Page

 80   Average Daily Dust and Dirt Accumulation and Related
        Pollutant Concentrations for Selected Field Observations 	  138

 81   Percentage of Pollutants Found in Dust and Dirt and
        Flush Samples Attributable to the Flush Fraction	141

 82   Comparison of Removal Effectiveness for Abrasive and
        ¥acuum Sweeping	144

 83   Summary of Street Cleaning Effectiveness Tests 	  	  145

 84   Sweeper Efficiency With Respect to Particle Size	  146

 85   Street Cleaning Intervals (days)  for Various Population
        Ranges and Land Uses	  146

 86   Representative Values for Various Factors in Determining
        Efficiency of Street Flushing 	   148

 87   Traffic Dust Emission Factors	i	151

 88   Reported Pollutant Concentrations For law Domestic
        Sanitary Wastewater Flows 	   156

 89   Reported Pollutant Concentrations for Primary Treated
        Domestic Sanitary Wastewater Flow	157

 90   Reported Pollutant Concentrations for Secondary Treated
        Domestic Sanitary Wastewater Flow	157

 91   Reported Pollutant Concentrations for Raw Wastewater and Ad-
        vanced Treated Domestic Sanitary Wastewater Flows Employing
        Chemical Coagulation, Filtration, and Activated Carbon
        Absorption	

 92     Mean Discharge Quality Data for Separate Storm Systems	166

 93     Mean Discharge Quality Data for Combined Sewer Overflows 	  167

 94     Regression Equations Predicting Pollutant Concentration
          In Urban Land Runoff in a Natural Channel Corrected
          to Flow at Mid-Depth	169

 95     Hypothetical Land-Use Distribution 	  171

 96     Potential Pollutional Contributions Added By Rainfall .  	   173

 97     Dust and Dirt and Potential Pollutant Concentrations
          Used With Events 1 and 2	174
                                     xvi

-------
                               TABLES  (CONTINUED)

Number                                          .                           Page

 98   Estimated Total Solids and Pollutant Contributions
        Computed for Events 1 and 2	175

 99   Dustfall and Pollutant Potentials Used With Events 1 and 2 .....   175

100   Estimated Suspended Solids and Pollutant Contributions From
        Dustfall for Event 1 and 2	 . .	   176

101   Estimated Solids and Pollutants Contribution From Pervious
        Areas for Event 2	176

102   Summary of Estimated Direct Pollutional Contributions From
        Various' Sources for Event 1	 177

103   Summary of Estimated Direct Pollution Contributions From
        Various Sources for Event 2 	 ....... 177

104   Estimated Direct Pollution Contributions for Event 1 Computed
        From the Durham, North Carolina Characterization Data 	 178

105   Estimated Pollutional Contributions From Other Wastewater
        Flows During Event 1 and 2	179

106   Comparison of Waste Contributions for Events 1 and 2	180

107   Population Distribution of the Sample of Urbanized Areas 	   185

108   Urbanized Area Runoff Catchments  	  ...........   186

109   Average Daily Accumulations of Street Solids 	   199

110   Regional Daily Street Solids Accumulation Values  	   200

111   Relative Road Density Values ,	   201

112   Relative Pollutant Loads	203

113   Average Detention Times and Half-Lives for River Water  in  the
        Great Lakes and in Various Estuaries and Coastal Regions 	   211

114   Water Quality Criteria For  Various Subsequent  Beneficial Uses  ....  213

115   Representative Rates of Erosion From Various Land  Uses  and
        Percent of Non-Urban Production Attributable to  Each  .......   215

116   Annual Mass Discharges From Some  Rural Areas	   216
                                     XV1X

-------
                             TABLES (CONTINUED)

Number                                                                Page

 117   Summary of Present Annual Metro Area Discharges 	 217

 118   Total Annual Yield of Pollutants from Municipal and
         Urban Runoff Wastes During 1972 .	218

 119   Total Yield of Pollutants During Storm Periods from
         Urban Runoff and Municipal Wastes 	 218

 120   Estimates of Annual Pollutant Contributions from Urban
         and Non-Urban Sources, Des Moines 	 219

 121   Comparison of Stormwater and Sanitary Wastewater Dis-(
         charges for Case Study	222

 122   Sag-Point Dissolved Oxygen Levels and the Related Number
         of Days below Criteria ..... 	   224

 123   Results of Oxygen-Sag Computations For Study Watershed ....   227

 124   Potential Effect of Combined Sewer Overflows on the Water
         Quality of the Milwaukee River Above the North Avenue Dam .  . 228

 125   Tidal and Net River Velocities	231

 126   Existing and Predicted Loadings to Onondaga Lake ........238

 127   Permissable Loading Levels for Total Nitrogen and
         Phosphorus	241

 128   Major Sources of Phosphorus in the Milwaukee River Water-
         shed Under 1967 Conditions	243

 129   Pesticide Residues Measured in Various Receiving Water
         Bodies	245

 130   Pollutant Percent Loadings in Sewers and in Non-Sewered
         Urban Runoff	246

  A-l  Distribution of Available Land Use Related Samples by
         Major Sampling Characteristics 	   263

  A-2  Distribution of Available Land Use Related Dust and Dirt
         Samples by Geographical Area	263
                                  xviii

-------
                                ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
     This volume was written as part of USSPA Contract #68-03-0283,  "Nation-
wide Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflows and Urban Stormwater Discharges."
Insofar as the basis for the conduct of the overall project was existing
published and unpublished sources of information, this report represents a
compendium of contemporary approaches to the assessment of urban stormflow
discharges; some of the data employed to support these approaches;  and the
apparent deficiencies that remain to be recoaciled by further research and
investigation.

     The development of this volume was under the direction of Richard H.
Sullivan, General Manager of the American Public Works Association.   Another
principal involved in this effort was Martin J. Manning, formerly Director
of Research for the American Public Works Association, and now Manager, Waste-
water Division, Department of Public Works, City of Houston, Texas.   Other
contributors to this report were:

     American Public Works Association:
     Daniel Eberhardt         William Murphy         Russell Doyle
     Kelvin Shiu              Timothy Kipp           Linda Kalafut
     Shin Ahu                 Ken Pai                Susan Groeneveld

     Univerjsity of F lo r id a;
     Wayne Huber              Miguel Medina          Sheikh Hasan
     James Heaney             Michael Murphy         Tony Arroyo
                              Michael Fladmark

     A project steering committee was created as part of the research effort.
This committee provided advice, assistance, and direction during the conduct
of the work, and included:

     Murray McPherson, ASCE
     Donald G. Shaheen, Biospherics, Inc.
     Kenneth Eff, Formerly of Corps of Engineers
     Michael A. Ports, Water Resources Administration, State of Maryland
     M.T. Augustine, Water Resources Administration, State of Maryland
     Herbert Poertner, Consultant
     Francis J. Condon, USEPA
     J. Charles Baummer, National Commission on Water Quality
                                     xix

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  (CONTINUED)

     Additional help and assistance in the review of project end products and
draft reports was also provided by the project management and steering com-
mittee of a similar work performed for the Province of Ontario,  Canada, in-
cluding the following individuals:

     Thomas Koplyay, Environmental Protection Service, Canada
     Donald Weatherbe, Ministry of the Environment, Ontario, Canada
     Charles Howard, Charles Howard & Associates, Ltd., Winnipeg,
                        Manitoba,  Canada
     Don Waller, Nova Scotia Technical College, Halifax, Nova Scotia,
                        Canada
     Harry Torno, USEPA, Washington, D.C.

     The USEPA Project Officer for this research activity was Richard  Field,
Chief, Storm and Combined Sewer Section of the Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory in Edison, New Jersey.
                                    xx

-------
                                SECTION  I

                      FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


     The various sections of this report are concerned with the pollution
of urban sewered and unsewered stormwater discharges and combined sewer
overflows.  In addition, the pollutional effects of these varied sources
of contamination are discussed under the heading of "Receiving Water Impacts,"
Section V.  A discussion of the characterization of urban development as re-
quired for the modelling activities performed in connection with Volume II
of this report, whose theme is the national control and cost assessment for
urban storm-generated pollution, has been provided.

     The information for this report has been derived from published and
unpublished sources of data.  This volume has been designed to provide a
summarization of much that is known of urban runoff pollution.  The drawing
together of its different sections, however, also helps to pinpoint those
parts of the total spectrum of urban runoff pollution that may require broader
and better understanding.  It seems likely that practical approaches to al-
leviation of urban runoff problems, where they exist, can only proceed from
a clear perception of the problem, and the more cost-effective solutions at-
tendant upon these preceptions.

     Findings and recommendations are presented in order to clarify the origins
and effects of urban runoff pollution.  Relevant data for future urban run-
off impact characterizations are also discussed.

URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION ORIGINS

     An evaluation of the origins of urban runoff pollution is needed for an
understanding of the mechanisms by which runoff is contaminated.  Clearer
understanding also serves to suggest viable pollution control alternatives
to the traditional sanitary engineering approaches of wastewater collection,
transportation, treatment, and disinfection.  Given the contributions of pol-
lutants from various sources and pollutant repositories, preventive methods
that may alleviate their pollutional potentials may be possible.

     Contaminants may be prevented from entering water courses in runoff by a
number of innovative techniques.  Among others, it is apparent that regulatory
activities concerned with the interim stabilization of vacant property in con-
struction sites will reduce the pollutant contributions from erosion.  Urban
development policies and guidelines that consider on-site runoff detention may
eliminate pollutional contributions from developed sites.  Design standards
for street design employing uncurbed cross sections and sediment traps may be

-------
helpful in reducing street surface pollutional contributions.  Further, local
codes governing the discharge of roof drainage leaders to pervious areas or
on-site runoff detention sites may prove effective in reducing roof runoff
pollution contributions.

     In addition, public works programs, practices,and equipment may also
affect the quality of urban runoff.  More effective street cleaning programs
employing efficient cleaning equipment at a relatively high frequency of
cleaning can alleviate the pollutional contributions from street surface
contaminant, as can efficient and properly-programmed catch basin cleaning
activities and snow and ice control practices among others.

     Thus, considerable value may be derived from the careful study and
evaluation of potential runoff pollution sources and repositories if pre-
vention and control is to be an effective supplement to customary abatement
measures.

  A. Finding;  Existing data and information on many sources and repositories
     of potentialrunoff pollution are very limited.  Much of the existing
     information available is reported in studies that have either investi-
     gated street surface pollutant accumulations or pollutional sources and
     repositories that are non-urban in nature.  Most of the latter represents
     data and technology that originate in a variety of studies from a number
     of disciplines.  The summary of information in the foregoing sub-sections
     on vegetation resulted from investigations in agriculture, silviculture
     and forestry; erosion information was a product of research in agriculture;
     and air pollution contribution data was derived from investigations
     of air quality.  The purposes and intent of these studies were not to
     address the issues of urban water-borne pollution.  Thus, the applica-
     bility of these sources of information is limited.

  B. Recommendation;  Various sourcesand depositories of potential pollutants
     should be further measured, evaluated and characterized in termsof their
     urban runoff pollutional characteristics.  These analyses should be of
     specific sources or repositories and correlated to those physical and
     other factors instrumental to their becoming sources of runoff pollution.
     The pollutional sources and repositories that should be considered should
     include among others:

          1.  Contamination of receiving waters through discharges in melt
              water of the contaminants entrapped in snow and ice deposits
              directly from source contamination or through snow andice
              control methods.  Much of the interest exhibited to date in
              this area has been in terms of chloride contributions as they
              are liberated from snow and ice control materials.  More re-
              cently, investigations have provided general characterization
              data not only for these pollutional contributions, but for
              source contaminants entrapped within snow and ice deposits
              as well.  Melt water contributions and their occurrence,
              magnitude over time or in relationship with varying precipita-
              tion events, and temperatures remain to be more fully investi-
              gated .

-------
         2.  Water quality impairing characteristics of atmospheric
             particulates.  Atmospheric intermedia effects as such are
             little understood, and the contributions of contaminants
             to surface runoff pollution from these sources may be
             significant within urban areas.  A clearer understanding
             of these water quality effects would serve to indicate some
             of the impacts of air pollution heretofore undefined and
             further pinpoint the necessity for both air pollution and
             water pollution control.  An evaluation of air pollutional
             contributions to runoff in terms of sanitary engineering
             water quality parameters alone would prove to be enlightening.

         3.  Pollutional contributions from the weathering or wear pro-
             ducts of street surface and other impervious surface materials.
             Indications exist that these materials may represent hereto-
             fore undefined sources of runoff contamination.  Determination
             of the magnitude of pollution involved would prove helpful
             in establishing effective control strategies for these sources.

         4.  Water quality characteristics  of urban  sediment, corrosion,  and
             erosion products.  The  study of erosion and  erosion  products have
             generally been related  to non-urban  conditions.  Their water
             quality characteristics are not clearly defined, but should
             be if the true water  quality impacts are  to  be established.

         5.  Pollution contributions attributable to tree and leaf litter
             evaluated in sanitary engineering water quality terms.  Vege-
             tative contributions, as such, may afford a significant source
             of urban runoff water quality impairment during those periods
             of the year when leaf fall occurs.  A clearer understanding of
             these contributions would be helpful in the assessment of their
             relative impacts.

         6.  Pollutional potentials of accumulations on other non-street
             impervious surfaces.  Little real data exist for the assess-
             ment of pollutional potentials from  these sources.

         7.  Economic-aesthetic impact of coarse and floatable solids.
             Only fragmentary data is available as to the impact upon
             property and property values from the discharge of coarse
             and floatable solids.


DISCHARGE POLLUTION

     The majority  of  data on  runoff pollution generally takes the  form of
discharge measurement information.   Within  a given urban drainage  area,  dis-
charge pollution measurements  represent  the  integration of the pollutional
contributions from all  available sources.  As such,  runoff pollution  informa-
tion is the most complete representation of  the pollutional experience that
may be anticipated within a defined basin for given rainfall and runoff
conditions.

-------
    A.  Finding:  Runoff discharge pollution data are reported on the basis
        of mean concentration values for the purposes of gross characteriza-
        tion.  The time-related effects such as first flush contributions or
        variations of concentration with flow in time, are not reflected in
        these average values.  Seldom has sufficient discharge information
        been collected to provide a more complete characterization reflecting
        these variations.

    B.  Recommendation;  A detailed study of runoff discharges from a completely
        developed urban drainage basin should be performed.  Runoff, as collected
        by a storm drainage collection system, should be metered and sampled to
        reflect the time-related responses of the system as to flow and concen-
        tration for a variety of rainfall and runoff events.  Discreet samples
        of runoff should be collected and analyzed to provide quality informa-
        tion on these urban runoff flows.  The analysis should seek to provide
        some indications of runoff characterization over time.

SAMPLING METHODS

     Variability in sampling methods for both wet and dry samples are reported
in the literature.  Insofar as these sampling methods vary, the reported results
may also vary.

    A.  Finding;  A need exists for consistent and comparable sampling results.

    B.  Recommendation; Standardization for sample taking and analysis should
        be developed.

        In view of this general finding, the following recommendations for
        further research are proposed:

            1.  Standardize data collection and analytical methods -for the
                evaluation of street and non-street impervious surface ac-
                cumulations and their pollutional potentials for runoff.

            2.  Investigate and standardize sample handling and processing
                techniques for a subsequent analytical evaluation of the
                potential physical, chemical and biological water quality
                characteristics of dry samples.  Current practices in the
                handling of dry samples are varied and often unrelated to
                the mechanisms by which these potential contaminants become
                runoff pollution.  Thus, further study in this area is war-
                ranted.

            3.  Develop standard methods and procedures for the metering of
                runoff flows and for the collection and analysis of urban
                runoff samples.  Significant efforts in developing standard
                methods for sampling discharges has been performed to compare
                alternative sampling techniques and find desirable standard
                methods.  (75)  Proceeding from this work,  further methodological

-------
              development applicable to the specifics of urban runoff pol-
              lution samples should be established.

          4.  Establish standard procedures for the collection of verifica-
              tion data to be employed in the evaluation of existing analyti-
              cal methodologies.  These procedures should include methods
              appropriate for the accumulation of precipitation data, re-
              ceiving water quantity metering, sample collection, sample pro-
              cessing preparation and sample preservation techniques.

          5.  A sampling program is needed which measures both effluent quality
              and surface (street dust and dirt) quality.
WET WEATHER FLOWS

     Comparisons of wet and dry weather flow pollutional contributions based
on available data and existing analytical methods suggest that significant
contributions originate in a number of identifiable sources—street surfaces,
non-street impervious areas, pervious areas, catch basins and the collection
system itself.  Rainfall contributions themselves may also prove to be signi-
ficant.  Evaluative mechanisms exist by which pollutional contributions may be
calculated.  In sufficient information, however, specific to the sources
analyzed is available to provide an estimating basis for many of the pollutants
that should be evaluated.  As an added consideration, little or no verifica-
tion data is available with which to compare the results of these estimating
methods with real runoff quality data.
                                                                 •as1.
   A.  Finding;  Comparisons of estimated runoff pollutional contributions to
       those of other wastewater flows and treated effluents from various
       levels of treatment show that runoff solids contributions—total and
       suspended—far exceed those associated with other wastewater flows at
       any level of treatment.  Runoff BOD estimates exceed those of secondary
       effluents; runoff COD estimates are greater than primary treatment
       effluent contributions; and runoff metal contributions—zinc and lead—
       are estimated to be  greater  than  those  of  raw domestic wastewater.
       In view of the significance of runoff pollutional contributions, the
       following recommendations for additional investigation are of particular
       importance.

   B.  Recommendation: A field demonstration effort should be instituted on one
       or more select small-scale urban drainage sub-basins to achieve a
       number of significant objectives.  Among these would be:

            la.  Identification of the pollutional contributions associated
                 with urban sources and repositories of contaminants for
                 various measures of oxygen depletion, nutrients, pesticides,
                 metals, and other contaminants.

            Ib.  Comparison of sampling and analytical results for both identi-
                 fied potential pollutional contributions—street surface, roof-
                 tops, erosion products, rainfall, etc.—and for the actual

-------
     equivalent discharges related to these potential pollutional
     contributions.

Ic.  Evaluation of the effectiveness of local control methods ap-
     plicable to the prevention of runoff contamination.

Id.  Comparison of both potential and actual pollutional  contri-
     butions among existing types of development in various land
     uses.

le.  Assessment of the impacts of the first flush phenomenon, in-
     cluding the contributions of catch basins and sewer  system
     accumulations.

 2.  The accumulation andremoval mechanisms applicable to the
     deposition of pollutants on street surfaces and other im-
     pervious surfaces.  These would include:  airborne,  water-
     borne, vehicular—produced, and miscellaneous dispositions,
     as well as wind erosion, runoff, transportation-related,
     and intentional removals.  These accumulation and removal
     mechanisms should be evaluated in terms of various street
     configurations, paving types,curb and other barrier  heights,
     land use and other variables.

 3.  The removal of street surface contaminants by runoff flows
     to establishthe physical processes involved.  Such  evaluation
     should consider the hydraulic modelling of rainfall  and run-
     off on representative street sections if necessary.

 4.  The evaluation of the effectiveness of street cleaning equip-
     ment including new cleaning technologiesin reducing thelevels
     ofpotential pollution on street surfaces.  Such studies
     should relate air and water pollution.

 5.  The quantitative contributions of urban erosion sediments in
     relationshipwith the major variables involved—soil character-
     istics, cover management practices, rainfall and other hydra-
     logical conditions, physicalconfigurations,and other measurable
     parameters.  Although annual estimating methods exist for agri-
     cultural sediment production,either shorter-term single rainfall
     erosion, responses remain to be determined, or the applicability
     of existing estimating methods to urban areas and individual
     rainfall occurences should be validated.
                                          I
 6-  Sources of potential pollution for urban runoff to provide
     a basis of prediction in connection with existing analytical
     methodologies or thedevelopment ofnew expanded methodologies.
     Little real information in this regard is available.

-------
                Further study and evaluation of calibration techniques employ-
                ing verification data for the calibration of existing models
                and their usefor the prediction of pollutional contributions
                dueto subsequent runoff events.  Recalibration techniques
                employing discharge information have been shown to be promising
                approaches for fine tuning models to assure higher levels of
                accuracy in prediction.  These procedures should be further
                evaluated and more highly developed for existing models where
                they may apply.
URBAN DATA
     Urban development data serve as key parameters in a number of existing
runoff pollution estimating methods.

  A. Finding: Deficiencies exist within available data as to reputable and
     comparable land use information for total urbanized areas including
     central cities,suburbs andthe unincorporated urban fringes.  Information
     on imperviousness; length of combined, separate and storm sewers; street
     length; location and length of swales; and extent of drainage areas are
     not well defined, and existing sources of this information are limited.

 Bl. Recommendation:  Further research into urban development characteristics
     should beinstituted, and recommended procedures for the collection of
     this data should be established.

 B2. Recommendation;  Various urbandevelopment parameters should be studied
     and analyzed as to their applicability as meaningful parameters for the
     estimation of urban runoff pollution.  This analysis should proceed on
     the basis of real runoff quality discharge information.  The relative
     importance of various urban development parameters with respect to run-
     off discharge pollutional characteristics should be established.


RECEIVING WATER IMPACTS

     The existing analytical methods available for the evaluation of receiving
water impacts are generally based on steady-state conditions emphasizing
dissolved oxygen and non-conservative pollutants.

  A.  Finding:  Under given wet weather conditions,runoff pollution can govern
      the quality of receiving waters due to their shock effects and long term
      build-up of solids_.  High-level dry weather treatment may not be a
      guarantee of receiving water quality created by wet—weather conditions.
      The relative pollutional contributions among urban and non-urban sources
      indicate that non-urban locales contribute a significant portion of the
      pollutional load within the receiving water in many instances.

-------
Recommendation:
  1.  Research to establish on a nationwide basis,the comparisonof
      the pollutional contributions in receivingwaters as needed.
      These may be proposed on generalized  per acre annual emission
      for various types of land use.

Recommendation:
  2.  Effects  of benthal deposits and other sourcesofpollutional
      impacts  on receivingwater should  be  further studied and
      evaluated.  The impact of these deposits resulting from com-
      bined sewer overflows and stormwater  runoff on water quality
      is generally significant and of considerable interest.  The
      fate of  heavy metals is of particular concern.
     Section III of this volume reviews  at length the available information
concerning  the various sources and points  of  release to stormwater systems.
Table 1 contrasts sources by points of release.   Strategies for control must
consider the points where source control can  be  effective, as contrasted  to
the feasibility  and cost of controlling  the pollutants at the point of release
prior to contaminating stormwater.

    TABLE 1. MAJOR POTENTIAL SOURCES OF URBAN STORMWATER POLLUTION
                BY POINTS OF RELEASE TO STORMWATER SYSTEMS
 Potential
 Major Sources
                Point of Release to Stormwater
 1. Transportation
   Activities

 2. Applied Chemicals
   (Direct & Indirect)

 3. Air Pollutional
   Dustfall

 4. Vegetation

 5, Erosion/Sediment

 6. Solid Waste/Litter

 7. Connections with
   Sanitary Sewer System
Roadways  Roofs

   X


   X


   X       X

   X

   X       X

   X
 Other
Impervious
 Areas

   X
   X


   X

   X

   X

   X
                                                Pervious
                                                 Areas
X


X

X

X

X
       Catch
       Basins
       Sewer
      Systems
Rain
                          X
                 X
X

X

X
                                                 X

-------
     The distinction between a secondary  source and a point of release must
be arbitrary.   Figure 1 attempts to vividly portray the interrelationships
of the sources  and control activities.  Figure 2 indicates some of  the activi-
ties and phenomenom which produce the "source".  Similar system analyses of
each of the major sources identified in Table 1 would indicate a similar
blurring and need for careful analysis of the total system.
                   Figure 1.  Relationship between air and water pollution.
                                            Uncontrolled
                                              Removal
Air
Land
                                                            Water
                                            Transport to
                                             Disposal
                                              Site


Site



Air
Land
Water

-------
                                     Receiving Waters
                                       Air Pollution
Transportation
  Activities
                        Industrial
                     Stack Participates
Combustion Wear of
A * .

Vehicle Surface Receiving Waters
1
k
Solid Waste/Litter
i
^s
* 4 "^ 4 t *
..... Commercial
Vehicles _
Centers
Pedestrians Industry Construction
Commercial

Passenger
                                                       Receiving Waters
                                                      Applied Chemicals
Crops/via
Air Pollution


Lawn & Yard
^ 1

Snow & Ice
Control

                                          Fertilizers
Herbicides
Pesticides
                      Figure 2. Illustrative components of potential pollution sources.

-------
                                 SECTION II

                                 THE STUDY
     The American Public Works Association (APWA) and the University of
Florida (UF) jointly, under contract with the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), have conducted a study to characterize urban
sewered and unsewered stormwater discharges and combined sewer overflows,
and to determine the cost of control or abatement of receiving water pol-
lution from such sources.

     This study, "Nationwide Characterization, Impacts and Critical Evaluation
of Stormwater Discharges, Non-Sewered Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Over-
flows" encompasses a number of objectives.  These include the generalization
of the quantity and quality characteristics of urban storm sewered discharges,
combined sewer overflows and non-sewered urban runoff; an assessment of the
pollutional significance of these storm-generated flows on a national basis
as to their impacts, applicable prevention, abatement and control methods,
and the related costs of better managing their pollutional contributions;
and the critical evaluation of these flows in relation to other known pol-
lutional discharges.  An additional objective of this work was to determine
gaps and weaknesses in existing information and to make recommendations for
improving this store of data where it appears to be sparse.

     The origins of this project were defined as existing published and un-
published sources of information and data.  Thus, a broad survey of the
literature and other data sources was instituted by both APWA and UF.

     Among the most useful data sources were USEPA research reports which
describe:

     *  Storm-generated discharge magnitudes for various urban drainage
        basin characteristics

     *  Pollutional characteristics of these discharges including solids
        measures, oxygen consumption measures, nutrients, heavy metals,
        PCB's, chlorinated hydrocarbons, chlorides, cyanides and ferro-
        cyanides and bacteriological measures

     •  The pollutional significance of these discharges on receiving
        streams and treatment systems

     »  Recommended degrees of prevention, abatement and treatment appropri-
        ate to the encountered on a case-by-case study basis
     *  Abatement cost

                                      11

-------
     Some broad inconsistencies exist within the body of information uncovered
as to the handling and reporting of various aspects of the complex physical
processes involved, sampling methods and equipment, the pollutants measured
and associated characterizing parameters and the results identified.  While
the diversity and variation encountered is representative of the current
state-of-the-art, it also reflects the evolutionary character of this area
of study over the past ten years or so.  Nevertheless, the information un-
covered is representative of the best available for the purposes of this pro-
ject.

     Specifically, this research effort has successfully tapped these reference
sources within the data available to:

     1.  Characterize urban storm sewered discharges, combined sewer over-
         flow and non-sewered urban runoff quantitites (flowrates and
         volumes) of basin physical characteristics, climatology, and urban
         development characteristics.

     2.  Characterize the quality of flow related, storm generated pollutants
         with respect to select pollutants in terms of generally identified
         urban basin parameters.

     3.  Determine the pollutional significance of these storm generated
         discharges with respect to receiving waters and the means to effect
         control of these pollution sources.

     4.  Critically evaluate the pollutional character of these discharges
         by comparison with various other wastewater flows.

     5,  Evaluate the use of alternative indicators for defining stormwater
         induced flow strength.

     6.  Summarize briefly the use of alternative sampling plans and methods.

     7.  Determine gaps in current knowledge through an evaluation of the
         state-of—the—art and to make recommendations for strengthening the
         existing body of knowledge concerning runoff induced pollutional
         problems.


     Many of the results of the literature investigation form the basis of
this report.  These encompass such topical areas as the characterization of
runoff quantity and quality, the generalization of demographic and physical
development characteristics of urbanized areas, and a compilation of re-
ceiving water impacts due to the quantity and quality contributions of storm-
caused discharges.

     Section III reviews runoff quantity and quality, including summarization
of what is known of direct runoff pollutional sources, general characteriza-
tion of dry weather flows including raw sanitary wastewater flows; primary,
secondary and advanced treated municipal wastewater effluents; and results
                                      12

-------
of various studies of discharge pollution from combined sewer overflows and
recorded runoff discharges.  This section of the report also includes a
comparison of the various pollutional sources as they might be theoretically
studied in a hypothetical case study derived from various actual sources.

     Section IV which considers the demograhpic and physical development
characteristics of urban areas, covers the assumptions and derivation of
these elements for their subsequent use in the computations for Volume II
of this report.  Although information for individual cities is available
for some data, little is known of the complete relationships of central city,
suburbs, and urbanizing areas associated with urban areas.  Thus, some gener-
alizations were developed to provide a first basis for the estimation of
pollutional contributions on a national basis.  Eventually less complex
estimating procedures were used to prepare the cost estimate.

     The review of receiving water impacts, Section V, compiles the results
of a number of studies that have addressed this issue.  This summary indicates
the effects of the pollutional contributions of sanitary wastewater effluents,
stormwater discharges and combined sewer overflows.  Volume II, Section VII
develops data for the Des Moines, Iowa area.

     Section VI addresses the apparent gaps within existing available informa-
tion.  The additional data that would be helpful in the delineation of the
pollutional effects of storm sewer discharges, combined sewer overflows, and
unsewered runoff are discussed.  Thus, the information contained in this
volume is intended to provide a freestanding but supplementary document
to the other volumes of this project.  This volume as such, comprises an
important adjunct of the overall study effort that not only details many
of the sources of information, assumptions, and background employed in the
overall research project; but should also provide helpful insights as to
future needed research, deficiencies in existing information, and alternative
approaches to the fulfillment of data needs, as well to others interested
in the significant pollutional contributions of stormwater discharges, com-
bined sewer overflows, and general runoff, and their effective prevention,
control, and abatement.
                                      13

-------
                              SECTION III

                   CHARACTERIZATION OF URBAN SEWERED AND
                   UNSEWERED STORM SEWER DISCHARGES AND
                         COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS


     Little doubt now exists that stormwater runoff represents a. significant
source of water pollution.  It bears importantly upon the quality of the
nation's streams, esturaries, lakes and oceans.  Too little is known, how-
ever, of the mechanisms  through which rainfall and runoff are converted from
a desirable and beneficial natural phenomenon to one that also creates the
hazards of water quality deterioration.  An important factor in this con-
version from an asset to a liability is man and his activities and their
broad influence on nature and natural processes.

     Considerable research has been devoted to a better understanding of the
problems of runoff contamination in both urban and non-urban environments.
Of particular concern to environmentalists has been urban surface runoff and
its contributions to the deterioration of receiving water quality.  These
pollutional effects of runoff may be the end-product of both direct and in-
direct contributions of contaminants.

     Direct pollutional contributions include those discharged in surface
runoff from separate storm drainage collection systems or contributed by
uncontained surface runoff entering receiving waters at locations other than
clearly defined points of discharge.

     Indirect pollutional contributions involve point discharge or overflows
due to planned or unplanned addition of stormwater to other wastewater flows.
These may include the sewer overflows from combined sanitary and stormsewer
systems due to hydraulic overloading.  They may also involve surcharge spills
resulting from uncontrolled runoff inflow into sanitary sewer system and, in
some cases, excessive subterranean infiltration.

     Traditionally, direct runoff pollutional contributions have been dis-
regarded.  Surface runoff was generally characterized as, a phenomenon to be
quantitatively controlled.   Drainage and flood control objectives were para-
mount in urban practice and runoff pollution was considered non-existent or,
at least, a low-priority problem.  Although early investigative efforts in
Europe (1) and the United States (2) began to suggest the importance of
surface runoff pollution, serious consideration of its effects is fairly
recent. A recapitualtion of early stormwater quality findings is summarized in
Table 2.  It was not until a 1964 report by the U.S. Public Health Service (3)
that the problem of runoff quality began to assume national importance. In the

                                                           *
                                      14

-------
 ensuing  period,  a number  of research efforts have sought  to characterize
 runoff pollution, to  evaluate  its  pollutional impacts, and to  explore  means
 for its  control  and abatement.
              TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF SEPARATE STORMWATER
             City
                      BOD
                      ...rng/1.
             Total
             Solids
             mg/l
          Suspended
            Solids
             mg/l
          Coliform
            mg/l
  Total
Chlorides
  mg/l
                                                                                     COD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.


11.
12.
East Bay
Sanitary District, California
 Minimum
 Maximum
 Average
Cincinnati, Ohio
 Average
Los Angeles County
 Average 1962-63
Washington, D.C.
 Catch-basin samples
 during storm
 Minimum
 Maximum
 Average
Seattle, Washington
Oxney, England
Moscow, U.S.S.R.
Leningrad, U.S.S.R.
Stockholm, Sweden
Pretoria, South Africa
 Residential
 Business
Detroit, Michigan
Criteria New York State:
 A.  Potable water
     (to be filtered)
     {not to be filtered)
 B.  Body contact water
    3
7,700
   87

   17

  161
  726

1,401




2,909
6
625
126
10
1002
186-285
36
17-80
30
34
96-234




2,045
1,000-3,5002
14,541
30-8,000


310-914
   16
4,400
  613

  227
                                                      26
                                                  36,250
                                                   2,100
                       102-2131
                                                                   4      300
                                                               70,000   10,260
                                                               11,800    5,100
                                                                          199
                                                11
                                               160
                                                42
                                    16,100
                   40-200,000

                      240,000
                      230,000
                      930,0002
                                                                5,000
                                                                  50
                                                                2,400
                                                                                     111
                                               6002
                                               NA
                                                      18-3,100

                                                           29
                                                           28
                                               10
                                               10
  Mean
 2Max.

 Source:   American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," USEPA Report
         No. H030DNS01/69 (NTIS No. PB 215 532), January, 1969.
                                              15

-------
     One approach to the runoff problem has been to empirically characterize
discharges in various drainage basins across the country.  This has often
involved the study of drainage flows from urban drainage basins or those
subject to urbanization.  In some cases, relationships between discharge and
receiving water quality data have been co-related to physical basin charac-
teristics and given rainfall events.  Inconsistency exists within this body
of information, however, due to the variability in research objectives being
addressed, the pollutants being evaluated, the sampling techniques employed
and the measurements made.  Many are the by-products of human activities;
their origins may be traced to man-made facilities and activities.

     A body of knowledge is now being developed through the study of some of
the pollutant source characteristics previously described in Figures 1 and
2.  Although this area of study was developed primarily for non-urban en-
vironments and non-point discharges, some generalizations are now being
applied in urban cases to estimate pollutional effects.  The use of the Uni-
versal Soil Loss Equation(USLE) (4) for the estimation of sediment contribu-
tions is a good example of a non-urban technology used in an urban application.

     In urbanized areas, the pollutional potentials of street litter accumula-
tions have been studied in an effort to assess the magnitudes of the pol-
lutants that are available to surface runoff.  Considering the developed urban
street as a temporary sink for the accumulation of pollutants that are repre-
sentative waste products of a complex urban environment, methods for estimat-
ing the quantity of runoff pollution have been devised under the assumptions
that the urban street is a logical extension of the urban drainage system
and that the runoff and pollutional contributions from pervious areas will
be negligible for most runoff events.  This approach to the definition of
urban runoff pollution may be construed as a special case of the study of
contaminant source characteristics.

     All of these methods represent some of the various mechanisms that have
been used to assess the direct pollutional contributions of urban runoff.
The priorities associated with the evaluation, abatement and control of in-
direct pollutional contributions have generally been much higher.  Indirect
contributions are overflow pollutional effects due to the admixture of run-
off with other wastewater flows.  Interest in uncontrolled discharges of
combined sewer overflows has generally taken the form of sampling programs,
and pollutional contributions have been determined through discharge measure-
ments on a case-by-case basis.  Similarly, the control and abatement of com-
bined sexier overflox%rs has been developed on a specific site basis.

     This section will cover what is generally known of these various methods
of characterizing the pollutional contributions of urban runoff—either
direct or indirect.  This will include consideration of some of the apparent
sources of runoff pollution; the pollutional potential of urban street
surface accumulations; some of the estimating methods employed to assess
the pick-up and transport of pollutants by surface runoff for both point
and non-point runoff; representative findings for direct and indirect runoff
discharge sampling activities; and, finally, a generalized comparison of
pollutional contributions from these and other sources.
                                      16

-------
RUNOFF QUANTITY CHARACTERIZATION

     The quantity of stormwater surface runoff varies for different locales
across the country.  Some of the major causes of this variation are climate,
topography, soils and catchment characteristics, vegetative growth types,
and land use.  A number of surface runoff estimating methods exist that take
cognizance of these valuables.  Some of these have been employed for this
purpose and are reported in Section V, Volume II of this report in some
detail.

     The following parts of this report are directed to the quality character-
ization of these flows and the pollutional contributions they present.


SOURCES OF RUNOFF POLLUTION

     Some of the apparent sources of storm runoff pollution include animal
and vegetable wastes; the residuals from transportation activities; air pol-
lutants; erosion products, including a variety of chemical constituents such
as fertilizers and pesticides; various litter components; snow and ice control,
chemicals, and antiskid and corrosion inhibiting additives and others.

Transportation Activities As A Source Of Runoff Pollution.

     Transportation is vital to urban life.  The flows of trucks, buses and
automobiles on urban roadways contributes benefits to the urban economy at
the expense of environmental impairment.  These environmental expenses are
from transportation's role in contributing to air, land, noise,and water
pollution.  The direct effects of vehicular operation represent one important
aspect of those environmental concerns.  Another aspect involves transportation-
related activities such as snow and ice control that are performed to assure
the safe movement of traffic during periods of snowfall or freezing weather.
                                                                             ™s
Vehicular Contributions—

     Traffic-related  pollutants  are generated during daily vehicular  oper-
ation and the wearing processes  of the vehicle.   Daily operational pollut-
ants are fuel leakage,  lubricants, hydraulic fluids,  battery acids,  coolants,
particles from clutch and brake lining wear,  particulate exhaust emissions,
and debris from the private and commercial transport of passengers and
materials.  Vehicular components, such as glass, plastic,  metals, rubber,
dirt and rust are pollutant contributors via natural weathering and wear.
Vibrations and impacts during operation accelerate the wearing process.

     A major  contribution  from  the  operation of vehicles  is pollution from
 incomplete hydrocarbon combustion which can deposit almost immediately upon
 the street surface or be released .to  the atmosphere for subsequent deposit
 on land  or be scoured by rain.
                                       17

-------
     Fuel, lubricants, and hydraulic fluids add to pollutant generation
both directly and through the degradation products of asphaltic pavements.
Vehicles produce structural damage to pavements, curbs, and gutters acceler-
ating the degradation of these structures and increasing the quantities of
pavement residues generated.  Hydrocarbons exert relatively large oxygen
demands.  Fuel, lubricants, and hydraulic fluids also produce insoluble
films in receiving waters that are aesthetically unsightly and hinder natural
reaeration; this, in turn, inhibits natural biological processes.  Compounds
such as lead, nickel, and zinc used in the manufacturing of vehicles may also
be harmful to the environment.  Nitrogenous emissions increase nutrient loads.

     Traffic-related  pollution generation is probably  influenced by seasonal,
geographic and  local  traffic  conditions.  The literature provides some data
and  results of  research  dealing with the type and quantity of these pollutant
elements  and  compounds present in receiving water due  to urban wash-off.

     Only two research efforts have attempted to address themselves to the
questions of  traffic-related  runoff pollution.  The first of these studies
related average daily street  surface accumulations with ranges of average
daily  traffic (ADT)  (5)  of  500 to over 15,000 vehicles per day.  A summary
of the data  employed in  this  general analysis is shown in Table 3.  The
data represented are a compilation of street accumulation and mass discharge
measurements.   The comparative analysis resulted in the following general
findings:

     •  Lowest  copper and  zinc concentrations occurred in locations with
        light ADT volumes  (<500).

     •  Lowest  lead concentrations appeared in  locations with light to
        moderate ADT volumes  (<5000).

     •  Lowest  BOD5, COD,  orthophosphate, organic nitrogen, and nickel
        concentrations occurred in locations with moderate ADT volumes
        (500  -  5000).

     •  Lowest  street accumulations of total and fecal coli counts appeared
        in locations with'heavy ADT volumes (> 15000).

     •  Nitrates, elemental cadmium, iron and strontium concentrations
        showed  no differences in concentration  with ADT volumes. (2)

     This analysis was based  on a compilation of a number of published
observations, none of which were specifically for the  definition of traffic-
generated pollutional contributions.  A specific study of pollutants generated
by traffic flows took place in Washington, D.C. (6)  This work involved the
collection of street  accumulation samples and data on  traffic volumes during
the  sampling  periods.  A linear regression analysis of the results of street
mea'surements  compared with traffic volumes produced the regression coefficients
shown  in  Table  4.  Although the accumulation rates appear relatively low, they
achieve considerable  significance when applied  to high traffic volume.  Thus,
an indication of the  traffic  contributions to street surface accumulations
may  be estimated on  the  basis of these rates.

                                       18

-------
TABLE 3. POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND CONCENTRATIONS WITH RESPECT TO AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME (ADT)

               Loading
Ib/curb-mi/day
ADT
<500

x:
O)

500-5K
OI
o £
** V
~ E
5K-15K
moderate
to heavy
>15K

fa
j-


X
a
R
N
X
0
R
N
X
o
R
N
X
0
R
N

280
343
12-
950
12
140
155
20-
600
24
146
211
5-
946
61
82
104
3-
326
17
kg/curb-km/day

78.8
96,5
3.4-
266
3.4
39.2
43.4
5.6-
168.0
6.7
40.9
59.1
1.4-
264.9
17.1
23.0
29.1
0.8-
91.3
4.8
BOD,
21,600
-
6,320-
39.600
4
9,500
8,520
1,720-
25,300
16
27.400
26,000
2,900-
10,400
38
5,720
_
1,940-
8,600
4
COD
153,000
-
45,600-
252,000
4
83,000
83,200
18,300-
277,000
16
163,000
165,000
18,000-
526,000
42
26,980
—
21,000-
321,000
4
Concentrations in Microarams per Gram of Dry Solids
OPOa
1,500
—
73-
2,700
3
741
950
20-
2,800
15
1,340
1,250
30-
5,050
43
514
—
27-
1,000
4
TPO4
5,440
-
—
1
212
—
1
2,980
1,070
2,130-
4,850
5
_
_
—
-
NO,
8,335
-
670-
16,000
2
419
269
64-
845
11
836
979
37-
3,600
37
501
-
323-
600
4
KHa OrqN
5,470
- -
1,700-
12,800
3
1,515
846
890
2,200
7
2,640 2,900
1,820 2,430
595- 490-
3,390 9,250
9 30
1,600
- _
0
2
Cd
2.8
2.0
0.0-
5.4
8
2.9
1.6
1 1-
6.1
12
3.8
2.5
0.0-
9.3
54
3.1
2.1
0.0-
6.8
16
Cr Cu
198 89
76 37
132- 33-
295 150
9 9
196 107
62 31
138- 67-
320170
12 12
215 107
80 62
9- 9-
430 300
54 56
203 102
93 69
24- 25-
345 250
16 16
Fe
21,700
9,300
13,000
43.000
9
18,900
3,500
14,000-
23.000
12
22,500
10,000
2,600-
59,000
56
22,900
13,400
1,400-
53,000
1S
Pb
1,210
1,180
280-
3,900
9
1,060
925
66
3.500
15
2,010
1,480
47-
5,700
54
2,230
1,530
470-
5,100
15
Mn
384
130
210-
620
9
415
140
150-
700
12
442
172
160-
1,100
55
357
105
100-
500
15
Ni
26
23
7-
75
8
17
18
0-
55
11
38
35
0-
140
58
28
23
0-
83
15
Sr Zn
19 252
15 100
3- 110-
33 420
8 9
34 418
32 198
5- 180-
110 760
12 12
18 375
10 167
4- 57-
63 780
51 54
18 389
11 160
5- ISO-
SB 720
15 16
No./qram
TColib FColi6
1.3E6 6.9E4
2.0E6 1.6E5
8.4E4- 5.0E2-
5.6E6 4.5E5
8 8
2.1E6 3.4E5
2.5E6 4.6E5
1,065- 5.5E2-
9.6E6 1.3E6
17 16
3.1E6 1.7E5
7.1E6 2.8E5
2.5E4- 6.7E1-
3.4E7 9.1E5
57 53
3.8E5 1.4E5
5.4E5 '2.1 E5
1.8E4- 1.2E2
2.0E6 5.2E5
12 11
   a = Blanks indicate that no data were available.              g
   b = Coliform counts are expressed In computer notation, i.e., E6=10
   Source:
         Amy, G., "Water Quality Management Planning for Urban Runoff," USEPA Report No. EPA-440/9-7 5-004 (NTIS No. Pb 241 689),
         December, 1974.

-------
TABLE 4. ACCUMULATION RATES OF TRAFFIC
     INFLUENCED ROADWAYS MATERIALS
           (Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area)
Parameter
Dry Weight
Volatile Solids
BOD
COD
Grease
Total Phosphate-P
Orthophosphate-P
Nitrate-N
Nitrite-N
Kjeldahl-N
Chloride
Petroleum
n Paraffins
Asbestos
Rubber
Lead
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Cadmium
Magnetic Fraction
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Litter dry weight
Litter BOD
Rate
Ib/axle-mi gm/axle-m
2.38 x 10~3
1.21 x 10"4
5.43 x 1 0'6
1.28x 10"4
1.52x 10~5
1.44x 10~6
4.31 x 10~8
1.89x 10'7
2.26 x 10'8
3.72 x 10'7
2.20 x 10'6
8.52 x 10'6
5.99 x 10'6
3.86 x 105 a
1.24x 10'5
2.79 x 10'5
1.85x 10"7
2.84 x 10~7
4.40 x 10'7
3.50 x 10'6
3.11 x 10"8
1.26x 10~4
1 x 1 0"4
1.69x 10"4
3.49 x 1 0'7
6.71 x 10'4
3:41 x 10'5
1.53x 10"6
3.61 x 10'5
4.28 x 10'6
4.06 x 10"7
1.21 x 10'8
5.33 x 10'8
6.37 x 10'9
1.05x 10'7
6.2 X10'7
2.4 x 1Q-6
1.69x 10'6
2.39 x 1 05 a
3.49 x 10'6
7.86 x 10'6
5.21 x 10'8
8.00 x 10'8
1.24x 10'7
9.86 x 10'7
8.76 x 10'9
3.55 x 10'5
2.82 x 10'10
4.76 x 10'5
9.84 x 10'8
a. In flbars/axle-km

Note:    An axle-mile Is the length traversed for each axle of a vehicle.
        Hence In traveling one mile, a two-axle vehicle will contribute
        two axle-miles.

Source:  Shebeen, D.G., "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to
        Water Pollution," USEPA Report No. EPA-600/2-75-004
        (NTIS No. PB 245 864), April, 1975.
                            20

-------
 Snow and Ice  Control Contributions—

      Snowfall and ice represent significant  hazards to pedestrian and
 vehicular  traffic in urban  areas.  Risks of  economic loss  due to traffic
 delays, higher accident levels, and the need for safe assured travel by
 emergency  and other vehicles  require that  snow and ice be  rapidly and
 effectively removed or controlled.

      Large parts of the United States are  subject to an annual snowfall
 sufficient to require some  control operations.  An Indication of the area
 involved is shown in Figure 3.
[  	1  0-30 Days
|=^|  30 - 60 Days
       60 - 90 Days
       Over 90 Days
       Total Snowfall Above This Line
       Averages More Than 50 cm {20 in) year
              Figure 3. Average annual number of days with snow ground cover.
Source;  American Public Works Association, "Managing Snow Removal and Ice Control Programs" APWA Special Report
       No. 42, 1974,
                                       21

-------
     Another  less  dramatic, but obviously important aspect  of the problem
concerns the  effects of snow and ice as a prospective source of pollution.
These pollutional  effects are two-fold.  On one hand, snow  and ice deposits
are a repository of  pollutants produced by human activities in urban areas.
These pollutants may be generated by vehicular traffic  and  wear, particulate
fallout from  air pollution, the erosion of street surfacing materials,  con-
struction and demolition waste materials, spilled domestic,  commercial  and
industrial solid wastes, wastes from wild and domestic  animals, among others.
They are deposited and entrapped in the snow and ice and  inevitably reach
natural water bodies either through snow removal operations and direct
dumping into  water bodies or in drainage areas adjacent to  such water,
or through the natural drainage of melt waters.

     In contrast,  the immediate demands for snow and ice  control may also
create a source of potential runoff pollution.  In general,  snow and ice
control practice employs the materials and methods shown  in Table 5. The
most widely used methods taken the form of plowing, sanding, and salting,
although other technological procedures—better removal equipment,  alterna-
tive chemicals, hydrophobic surfacing or surface treatments, and heated
pavements—are being studied or used. (7)  The application  of sodium and
calcium chloride salts with associated anti-caking; and in  some areas anti-
corrosion additives,  abrasive materials, and other chemicals,  pose  significant
problems around potential runoff pollution.
                        TABLE 5. MATERIALS AND METHODS
                        USED FOR SNOW AND ICE CONTROL
                      Methods Employed
                      Abrasive Application
Materials
Cinder
Sand
                      Chemical Salt
                      Application
                      Radiant Heating

                      Melting Machines
Sodium Chloride
Calcium Chloride
Aluminum Chloride
Ammonia Nitrate
Ammonium Nitrate
Potassium Pyrophosphate

Brine and Marine Salt
Urea
Prussian Blue
Yellow Prussiate of soda
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
                                      22

-------
     In the area of direct snowmelt runoff pollution, field measurement
data are relatively limited.  Some of the pollutants found in urban snow
samples collected in Toronto, Ontario, included suspended solids, organics,
phosphates, chlorides, lead, oil, trash, soot, and soil. (8)  In Madison,
Wisconsin winter runoff BOD concentrations ranged from 20 to 30 mg/1; sus-
pended solids were found to be as high as 3,850 mg/1; and chloride concentra-
tions ranged up to 3,275 mg/1.(9) A further indication of the contaminants
that may accumulate in snow is shown in Table 6,  The data shown reflects
the results of snow samples taken from roads in the Ontario municipalities
indicated.
           TABLE 6. CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN
                       DIFFERENT CITIES OF ONTARIO
Municipality
Thunder Bay
Timmins
Sault Ste. Marie
Toronto
London
Barrie
Source: James F.
BODS
mg/1
54
15
14
21
31
-
MacLaren Ltd.
Suspended
Solids
mg/1
21 ,433
28,767
34,967
—
12,100
1 1 ,700
,, "Municipal Snow
Chloride
mg/1
3,051
505
730
11,318
1,490
—
Quality Study,
Diss.
Lead
mg/1



0.34


Total
Phosphate
mg/1

0.97

14


1973-74," Ontario Ministry of
Phenol
mg/1
36
25
30
115
29
—
Environment
          (unpublished report), Ontario.
     The concentrations  of  various  pollutants  found  in urban snow  sampled in
 the Ottawa-Carelton area of  Ontario  are  summarized  in Table 7.  Comparisons of
 snow sample concentrations and runoff  concentrations indicate  that  chlorides
 and BODc are readily transported in  runoff while  suspended solids,  lead, and
 some of the other  metals are more  inclined to deposit than to  runoff.  Pollut-
 ants other than chlorides  and  BOD^ were  generally concentrated  in black crust,
 indicating that pollutant  accumulations  occur subsequent  to snowfall as a
 product of adjacent urban  activity.  (8)   This is  shown more clearly in
                                      23

-------
N3
                               TABLE 7. POLLUTANTS AND POLLUTANT LEVELS FOUND IN SNOW DEPOSITS

                                                   Pollutant Concentrations, mg/l (or mg/kg snow)
Pollutant
Suspended Solids
BOD5
Chlorides
Oils
Greases
Phosphates
Lead
Cadmium
Barium
Zinc
Copper
Iron
Chromium
Arsenic
Location
Arterial street
Collectors
Local
Parking lot
Arterial street
Collectors
Local
Parking lot
-
All sites
All sites
Arterial streets
Collectors
Local
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Highway
-
-
_
-
-
-
Windows
Undisturbed Adjacent to
Snow Street
- 3,570 mg/kg
1,920-4,020 mg/kg
1,215-2,530 mg/kg
- 1,620 mg/kg
- 16.6 mg/kg
13,2 mg/kg
- 5.5 mg/kg
— 5.5 mg/kg
5 mg/kg 0-4,500 mg/kg
- 28.6 mg/kg (mean!
— 19.6 mg/kg (mean)
- 0.032 mg/kg (mean)
- 0.087 mg/kg (mean)
— 0.065 mg/kg mean)
0.002-0.25 mg/kg
- 2 mg/kg (mean)
— 4.7 mg/kg (mean)
— 3.7 mg/kg (mean)
102.0 mg/kg
- -
-
-
-
_
-
Snow Disposal
Disposal Site
Sites Runoff
- 96 mg/l
108mg/l (mean)
175-2,250 mg/kg
28.6 mg/ kg (mean) —
19.6 mg/kg (mean) -
1.5 mg/kg (mean) -
0.9-9,5 mg/ kg 0.048-0. 1 73 mg/l

-------
Table 8.  The table  shows  the surface accumulation and the reduction in
lead concentration with depth in the snow deposits sampled.

                        TABLE 8. TOTAL LEAD
                    CONCENTRATIONS AT VARIOUS
                   DEPTHS SAMPLED SNOW DEPOSITS
(in)
0- 2
2- 4
4- 6
6- 8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
20-22
22-24
Source:
Depth
(cm)
! 0- 5.1)
{ 5.1-10.2)
(10.2-15.3)
(15.3-20.4)
(20.4-25.4)
(25.4-30.5)
(30.5-35.6)
(35.6-40.6)
(40.6-45.7)
(45.7-50.8)
(50.8-55.9)
(55.9-61.0)
J.L. Richards
Total Lead Concentration
(mg/kg)
237
163
142
126
126
51
72
56
36
22
85
41
and Associates, Ltd., and Labracqui
                       Vezina and Associates, "Snow Disposal Study for
                       the National Capital Area: Technical Discussion,"
                       for the Committee on Snow Disposal, Ottawa,
                       Ontario, June 1973.
     These findings  suggest  that many of the same considerations that influ-
ence the quality of  urban  stormwater runoff are also significant in terms of
the quality of snow  melt water.   Thus, although runoff rates may be some-
what attenuated by the  physical  processes of snow melting, the quality of
snow melt runoff is  still  a  source of concern even though non-chemical
methods are employed for snow and ice control.

     Until recent years highway maintenance officials relied heavily on  the
use of abrasive materials  such as cinders and sand to meet the needs of  snow
and ice control.  But public demand for roads that are usable and  safe in
all seasons has  led  to the adoption of a "bare pavement" policy by many  high-
way departments  located in the snow belt. (10)  To obtain bare pavements in
the midst of  winter  storms,  sodium chloride and calcium chloride have come
into increasing  use.  Unlike abrasives, which essentially are skid preventives
and traction  aids,  salts prevent the formation of ice or melt ice  or hard
packed snow.
                                       25

-------
     The most  commonly used deicing agent  is  common salt,  applied by itself
or in combination with abrasive materials  or  other  chemical additives.  Of
the various  control methods, deicing chemicals,  particularly salts, have
proven more  effective in melting snow and  ice.   These materials are not
readily blown  off of a roadway by wind or  by  traffic,  and  are simple to
apply and clean up from the roadway. (11)

     A 1973  APWA survey indicated that almost 85 percent of 289 responding
jurisdictions  used common salt for snow and ice  control.  Some of the results
of this survey are shown in Table 9.  This tabulation shows the usage of
various chemicals and abrasive materials in terms of the climatic zones
identified in  Figure 4.  As the table shows,  more than one type of chemical
or abrasive  material may be used in any one jurisdiction.
                  TABLE 9. CHEMICAL AND ABRASIVE SPREADING
                                Number and % Using
Material Spread
Rock Salt

Evaporated or
Solar Salt
Sand

Cinders

Brine

Calcium Chloride

Other


No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Total Respondents
1
1
50
0
0
1
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Climatic Zones3
II III IV
7
70
1
10
6
60
0
0
1
10
0
0
1
10
10
34
65.4
6
11.5
29
55.8
4
7.7
0
0
9
17.3
4
7.7
52
114
94.2
10
8.3
56
46.3
15
12.4
0
0
44
36.4
4
3.3
121
V
65
91.5
1
1.4
46
64.8
5
7.0
2
2.8
28
39.4
3
4.2
71
Total
U.S. Canada
221
86.
18
7.
138
53.
24

3

0

9

9.4
3

1.1
81

31.6
12

4.7
256

24
72.7
3
9.1
24
72.7
0
0
0
0
5
15.2
4
12.1
33
Total
245
84
21
7
162
56
24
8
0
1
86
29
16
5
289

.8

.3

.1

.3

.0

,8

.5

             Source: American Public Works Association, "Managing Snow Removal and Ice Control
                   Programs," Special Report No. 42, 1974,

             ^oo Figure 4
                                      26

-------
Climatic Areas
I    Mediterranean climate —
    dry summer - mild, wet winter
II   Arid climate - hot, dry
III  Humid subtropical - mild winter —
    hot, wet summer (Washington,
    Oregon area mild, moist summer)
\V  Humid continental - short winter,
    hot summer
V   Humid continental — long winter,
    warm summer
Figure 4. Climatic regions.
 Source:  Amerlcarr Public Works Association, "Managing Snow Removal and Ice Control Programs,4' APWA Special Report
         No. 42, 1974.

-------
      Salt application  rates of from 85  to 141 kg/lane-km (300 to 500 Ib/lane-
mi) have been recommended for ice at -7°C (20°F) where an adequate traffic
load  exists. (12)  Application rates have been reported  as high as 197 kg/lane-
km  (700  Ib/lane-mi) in metropolitan Toronto,  Ontario.  These represent annual
salt  loadings of more  than 90 MT/ton (160  tons/mi), (8)   The different salt
application rates compared to population  density for various communities in
Ontario  is shown in Table 10.

                    TABLE 10. SALTING RATES USED IN ONTARIO

 Population Density                                Rates of Salt Application
    (No/mi2}                No/ha                (Ib/application/lane-mi)    (kg/application/lane-km)
 <1,QOQ                     <0.6                    75-800                  21 -218
 From 1,000 to 5,000           0.6-3.1                350-1,800                96-491
 >5,000                     >3.1                   400-1,200               109-327

 Sourco: Jamet F. MacLaren Ltd, "Municipal Snow Quality Study, 1973-74," Ontario Ministry of Environment (unpublished
      report), Ontario.

      It  has been theoretically proposed that  approximately 1,820 kg (4,000 Ib)
of  salt  would be necessary to clear 1.6 km (1 lane-mi) pavement of 0.3 cm
(0.125 in)  of ice at -7°C (20°F) if enough vehicular traffic exists. (10)
In  practice, 273 kg (600 Ib) of salt will clean 0.5 cm (0.2 in) of ice on a
6.1 m (20 ft) road at  -4°C (25°F).

      A guide for the use of calcium chloride  salts is shown in Table 11.  This
material is generally  employed with common salt, as indicated in this table
of  deicing chemcial composition recommended by the Pennsylvania State Depart-
ment  of  Transportation.   A definition of  the  appropriate temperature range
for each mix, as well  as the relative chloride yield, is given.


                   TABLE 11. ASSUMED DE-ICING CHEMICAL MAKEUP
°F
0
5
15
25
Temperature
Ranges
°C
-5 -17.7 --15
-15 -15 --9.4
-25 - 9.4 --3.9
-3.9
De-icing
Chemical
Makeup
1 Nad: 1 CaCI2
2NaCi: 1 CaClj
3 NaCI: 1 CaCI2
NaCI
Part Chloride/
Part De-icing
Agent
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
                  Source: American Public Works Association, "Managing Snow Removal and Ice
                       Control Programs," APWA Special Report No. 42,1974.
                                         28

-------
      The chemical makeup of deicing salts  is shown  in Table  12.   The ranges
of some of the  trace elements found in highway salt are shown in Table  13.
  TABLE 12. COMPOSITION OF COMMON
             DE-ICING SALT
                    TABLE 13. TRACE ELEMENTS FOUND
                         IN COMMON DE-ICING SALT
        Constituents
Percent by Weight
  Trace Element
  Range mg/kg
Sodium Chloride (NaCI)
Calcium Sulphate (CaSO4)
Calcium Chloride (CaCl2)
Magnesium Chloride (MgCLJ
Water Insolubles
    98.8
     0.4
     0.1
     0.05
     0.65
Source:  J.L. Richard and Associates, Ltd., and Labrecque,
       Vezlna and  Associates, "Snow Disposal for the
       National Capital Area: Technical Discussion," June
       1973.
Manganese (M)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Copper (Cu)

Nickel (Hi)
Chromium (Cr)
Silicon (Si)
0.04-0.08
0.08-0.09
0.09-0.30
Not Detectable
 0.0004
0.003-0.003
0.003-0.01
0.3-0.7
                                              Source: J.L. Richards and Associates, Ltd., and Labreo.ua,
                                                    Vezina andAssociates, "Snow Disposal Study for
                                                    the National Capital Area: Technical Discussion,"
                                                    June 1973.
      The chlorides liberated in common salt amount to approximately  60 percent
by  weight.

      A general expression for  estimating  the deicing salt  loading function
has been proposed by  the Midwest Research Institute. (14)   This loading takes
the general  form:

          Y = A • K • PI                                                     (1)
                M .W

where    Y = Loading, kg/lane-km/day (Ib/lane-mi/day)

          A = dimensionless attenuation factor

          K = conversion factor—equal to  2,000  for conversion of tons to
               pounds or 1,000 for "the conversion of metric  tons to Kilograms

         DI = amount of deicing material applied during the season In metric
               tons  (tons)

          M = single-lane mileage of streets and highways to which deicing
               materials are applied, km  (mi)

          W = number of days in the winter season,  day
                                          29

-------
     Values for A, the attenuation factor, are suggested as 1.0 for urban
streets, and 0,7 for non-urban highways.  Values for this and the remaining
variables can be determined from local records and data sources.  The general
loading function may also be used to estimate constituent loadings—chlorides
or trace elements—as suggested in some of the tabulations previously described.
A modified loading function for constituents would take the form of:

          Y con = CY                                                 (2)

where     Y con = constituent loading, kg/lane-km/day (Ib/lane-tnl/day)

              C = constituent concentration, in part per part,  and

              Y = loading of deicing material, as defined above
     The Massachusetts Department of Public Health has pointed out that the
chlorides in drainage water can usually be traced to one or  two sources or
a combination of the two.  (12)  The first source is the area where the salt
is stored.  This is very often the same area used for the blending of sand
and salt mixtures.  This mixing process is often carried out directly on
the ground which means that relatively large areas of ground are exposed to
the chlorides.  The second source, in accordance with the opinions of highway
maintenance engineers, is  the terminal point of a drainage system where
runoff pollutants may be expcected to be concentrated. (15)  In a few areas
of the country, groundwater wells have become unfit due to increased salinity
attributed to deicer use.  Some of the salt, thus, finds its way into sub-
surface aquifers.  Most of ther remainder is transmitted directly to surface
streams, while some has an appreciable residence time in roadside soils.

     Measurements performed on the John F Kennedy Expressway in Chicago,
demonstrated the magnitude of chloride conentrations contributed by deicing
operations. (15)  Following the winter salting operations, the chloride con-
centration ranged from 1,00 - 4,500 mg/1, with an average of about 2,000 mg/1.
Plows in the storm sewer draining the roadway during this period were as high
as 0.51 m3/min (0.3 cfs).  During prior periods of snowfall, chloride con-
centrations of 11,000 - 25,000 mg/1 were found with an average of about
14,000 mg/1.  Flow in the  storm sewer varied from 0.17 - 2.55 mj/min (0.1 -
1.5 cfs).  Figure 5, indicates that virtually all of the deicing salts applied
were removed from the site either as a brine runoff during the period following
application or as general  runoff during subsequent warmer weather.  Higher
immediate releases on this interstate roadway are to be expected as compared
to an urban arterial street due to road configuration.
                                      30

-------




To
u>
"S
£





100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000

50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000



Salt Applied — ft
.
.


•

/
• f



/
A— Salt C
y
/

/
>
S^
S

/
' ' ' ' • I ' i • i
                                 24 J 1
                            Feb.   	»M
6   11   16   21   26  | 1
      March
April
                     Figure 5. Salt applied as compared to salt discharged,
                     Kennedy Expressway, February 24—Apri! 1, 1967.

 Source:  American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff,"
       USEPA Report No. 11030DNS01/69 (NTIS No, PB 215 532), January, 1969.
     A study  In  the  National Capital Area  of  Canada concluded that approximate-
ly 84 percent.of the deicing salts used  in the  Ottawa-Carelton area were dis-
posed of as brine after application, and that from 6 to 10 percent of the  salt
was carried to the receiving water in runoff  resulting from the melting of
background snowfall. (16)  Runoff chloride concentrations are thus largely
determined by temperature, which dictates  that  the source of this runoff will
be brine or background snow melt, or a mix of the two.

      In assessing the effects of salt use as a deicing agent of Lake Ontario,
it was estimated in  1971 that 1.5 x 10   MT (1.67 x 106 tons) chlorides intro-
duced into the lake  annually, 20 percent came from roads during snow and ice
control operations in the Province of Ontario and New York State.  This
figure would  have exceeded 40 percent if all  industrial sources of chloride
were completely  controlled. (17)  Other  serious effects attributable to the
use of deicing salts can be illustrated  by past experience in Springfield,
Mass.  Increases in  the chloride content of the municipal well water supply
were ascribed to snow and ice control activities on the adjacent Massachusetts
Turnpike.  (12)   Lake Wingra, one of the  lakes in the Madison, Wisconsin area,
was found  to  have quadrupled its chloride  levels from 9-11 mg/1 to 41-43 mg/1
from 1959  to  1965, respectively.
                                       31

-------
     At Cumberland, Wis., a 1959 research study on Beaver Dam Lake showed
chloride concentrations increasing with depth, ranging from 8 mg/1 near the
top to 33 mg/1 near the bottom.  More severe cases of this density stratifi-
cation have prevented vertical mixing in some bodies of water, thereby
causing a lack of dissolved oxygen at lower levels, with consequent detri-
mental effects on plants and fish.

     A study was performed on salt runoff in the 7.6 m (25 ft) First Sister
Lake in a suburban section of Ann Arbor, Mich., in 1965-68.  Density strati-
fication, 150 mg/1 chloride at 7 m (23 ft), and 60-85 mg/1 near the top, oc-
curred due to  road salting that prevented complete spring mixing of the
waters.  Complete fall mixing might also have been prevented, except that some
of the salts were taken into the lake bottom during the summer.  This lack of
mixing prevented oxygen from reaching the lower levels of the lake, and
caused some damage to plant and animal life.  It was reported that the deeper
zones of the lake were most likely without oxygen for about ten months, and
the entire lake below the 3 m (10 ft) depth was virtually devoid of dissolved
oxygen for about eight months. (18)

     A study of Irondequoit Bay in Rochester, New York, was made in 1969-70;
winter road salt is the "single major source" of salt in the waters.  The bay
showed a density stratification of its water sufficient to prevent vertical
mixing in the spring, an unusual occurrence for a body so large, 6 km (3.7
mi) long, 1.6 km (1 mi) wide, and a shallow average depth of 7.3 m (24 ft),
with a maximum depth of 23 m (75 ft).  This stratification also delayed mixing
of the salty strata for one month.  Dissolved oxygen, from January-November,
1970 a period of severe stratification, was at the maximum, 1 mg/1.  Average
surface water chlorides were 160 mg/1; average bottom water chlorides were
220-400 mg/1. (19)

     Of other chemicals in use for snow and ice control, most appear to be a
variant of aluminum chloride, with a much higher effective snow and ice melt-
ing rate than common salt.  However, limitation of mechanical spreading
devices, relatively high costs of these chemicals, and hazards to health and
safety restrict the wide use of these materials. (15)  Ferric ferrocyanide
(Prussian Blue) is sometimes added to salt to prevent caking.  Prussian Blue
is insoluble in water and, thus, is not considered as contributing to pol-
lutional problems.  Some jurisdictions have also used sodium ferrocyanide
(Yellow Prussiate of Soda) to prevent caking.  This compound is soluble in
water, and releases cyanide in the presence of sunlight. (12)  A sodium
hexametaphosphate material has also been used by some jurisdictions.  Its
phosphate content  acts  as a nutrient  in receiving waters and thus, contributes
to pollutional problems by triggering eutrophication.

     Salt is not used on airports because of its corrosive potential for air-
planes.  Therefore, other chemicals have been used to melt snow and ice on  run-
ways.  The primary ingredients in many of these compounds are urea and ammonium
nitrate.  Both of  these chemicals act as nutrients, and are oxygen demanding
in receiving bodies of  water contributing to eutrophication and oxygen depletion.

     Ammonium nitrate and potassium pyrophosphate compounds, although not as
widely used as calcium  chloride, have been  applied on  sidewalks by  individual

                                        32

-------
homeowners.  When these are used  it  can be  expected  that receiving waters will
be affected by them during periods of  snow  melt.  (12)

    ' The spraying of brine is another more  expensive method  for  snow and ice
control.  This method increases loads on  sewage  treatment facilities, and may
result in the spraying of polluted waters on  streets.   The use of  marine salt
is not too much different than the use of mined  salt from the viewpoint of its
pollutional potential.  Other methods used  for ice and  snow  control include
radiant heat and melting machines.   Because of their limited usefulness for
large-scale practical operations, they have little pollutional potential to
the environment| and minimal public health implications.

AIRBORNE CONTRIBUTIONS TO URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION

     Airborne materials represent another contributing  source of contaminants
carried in stormwater runoff.  These contaminants originate  naturally and
through man's activities.  Naturally occurring sources  may be dust storms and
the bulk precipitation of nutrients  and wind  erosion.   Man-made  air contribu-
tions may result from the combustion of fuel  in heating,  industry, transporta-
tion activities and energy production; through, the incineration  of wastes and
other materials; by various manufacturing processes^ wind erosion  on construc-
tion sites, agricultural activities, and automotive traffic.

     Airborne materials may take  the form of  either  particulate  matter, aerosols,
or gases.  Particulate materials may be deposited in a  given drainage basin
through the processes of sedimentation.   The  results of this process depend
upon particle size, specific gravity, and  weather conditions.  Larger particles
under appropriate climatic conditions may be  deposited  at locations adjacent
to their source, while smaller particles  will remain suspended in  the air.
Airborne materials may also be deposited  in rainfall itself.  Falling snow
and rainfall wash out or scavenge airborne  materials and gases and carry them
to the ground.  The contaminant levels found  in  rainfall sampled and tested
in Cincinnati, Ohio, are shown in Table 14.


                          TABLE 14. CONCENTRATION OF
                       CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN RAIMFALL
Contaminant
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended
Solids
Inorganic N
Ortho PO,
Range During
Storm (mg/H
0.5 - 58
0.5 - 12
0.12-2.3
0 -0.9
Average Storm
Concentration
(mg/i)
13.0
3.8
0.69
0.24
                      Source: Werbel, S.R.,  et at., "Urban Land Runoff as a
                            Factor in Stream Pollution," Journal of The Water
                            Pollution Control Federation, Vol.  36, No. 7,
                            July, 1964.
                                         33

-------
     Particulates are perhaps the most prevalent of all the intermedia pol-
lutants between air and water.   Deposited particulates add to  the total
solids loadings available  and accessible to  surface runoff.  Metallic slats
and oxides  may be significant when collected from the atmosphere and re-
leased into receiving waters.  On pervious erodible surfaces,  these particu-
lates may be removed with  soil materials through scouring processes.  Parti-
culate depositons on impervious surfaces are more available to runoff and
can be readily washed into a surface runoff  flow.

     Indication of the annual amounts of atmospheric particulates originating
from point  emmission sources is shown in Table 15.  Of the data shown, the
majority of the point source particulates are considered to be controllable.
It should be noted that non-point aerial sources of particulates are not in-
cluded in  the tabulation.
                       TABLE 15. NATIONWIDE ESTIMATES OF
                        PARTICULATE EMISSIONS, 1940-1970
                                   (106 tons/yr)

                     Source category    1940 1950 1960 1968 1969 1970
                     Fuel combustion in  9.6   9.0  7,6  6,5  6.4 6.8
                      stationary sources
                     Transportation     0.4   0.4  0.5  0.8  0.7 0.7
                     Solid waste disposal 0.4   0.6  1.0  1.4  1.4 1.4
                     Industrial process   8.8  10.8 11.9 13.8 14.3 13.3
                      losses
                     Agricultural       1.6   1.8  2.1  2.4  2.4 2.4
                      burning
                     Miscellaneous      6.4   3.3  2.1  1.7  2.1 1.0
                     Total            27.1  25.9 25.3 26.6 27.3  25.6

                     Total controllable8  20.7  22.6 23.2 24.9 25.2  24.6
                     "Miscellaneous sources not included.
                    Source:  "National Air Pollutant Emission Trends: 194Q-1970,"
                           USEPA  Report No. AP-115 (NTIS PB 227 739),
                           January, 1973.
     A sense of the magnitude of deposited particulates or dustfall can be
obtained from data collected in 77 midwestern cities. (20)  The cities and
the locations are shown  in  Figure 6.  The results of the analysis  of measure-
ments  collected in the cities are shown in Figure 7.  The converted mean dust-
falls  found in residential  areas was 8.12 MT/km2/mo (23.5 ton/mi2/mo), while
commercial and industrial areas were 14 MT/km^/mo (40.5 ton/mi2/mo)  and
18.16  MT/km2/mo (62.5 ton/mi2/mo), respectively.   Dustfall values measured
in Chicago in 1966 ranged from 18.5 to 55.3 MT/km2/mo (64 to  191 ton/mi2/mo)
as determined from data  collected at 20 sampling stations.
                                        34

-------
                                                                                                               List of Cities and Code Numbers
Ui
      Source:
                          Figure 6. Location of the 77 Midwestern Cities,

Hunt, W.F., et al., "A Study of Trace Element Pollution of Air in 77 Midwestern Cities," Paper presented at the Fourth Annual
Conference on Traca Substances in Environmental Health, University of Missouri, June 1970.
City
Code
No,
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
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
City
Little Rock, Ark.
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Denver, Colo.
Pueblo, Colo.
Champaign-Urbana, III.
Decatur, III.
East St. Louis, III.
Joliot, III.
Peoria, III.
Rockford, III.
Rock Island-Moline, III.
Springfield, III.
Granite City, III.
Evansville, Ind.
Ft. Wayne, Ind.
Gary, Ind.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Muncie, Ind.
South Bend, Ind.
Terre Haute, Ind.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Davenport, Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa
Sioux City, Iowa
Waterloo, Iowa
Kansas City, Kan.
Topeka, Kan.
Wichita, Kan.
Ashland, Ky,
Covington, Ky.
Lexington, Ky.
Louisville, Ky.
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Flint, Mich.
Grand Rapids, Mich,
Jackson, Mich.
Kalamazoo, Mich.
Lansing, Mich.
Muskegon, Mich.
City
Code
No.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

City
Pontiac, Mich.
Saginaw, Mich.
Minneapolis, Minn,
Morehead, Minn.
St. Paul, Minn.
Kansas City, Mo.
Springfield, Mo.
St. Louis, Mo.
Lincoln, Neb.
Omaha, Neb.
Fargo, N. Dakota
Akron, Ohio
Canton, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Dayton, Ohio
Hamilton, Ohio
Lorain, Ohio
Steubenville, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Youngstown, Ohio
Lima, Ohio
Martin's Ferry, Ohio
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla.
Chattanooga, Tenn.
Knoxville, Tenn.
Memphis, Tenn.
Nashville, Tenn.
Charlestown, West Va.
Huntington, West Va.
Weirton, West Va.
Wheeling, West Va.
Green Bay, Wise.
Madison, Wise.
Racine, Wise.
Hammond, Ind.
Middletown, Ohio


-------
                   2.20I|
                   2.00'
                                                         7.07
                                                                                        9.00


                                                                                        8.00


                                                                                        7.00
 o


3=
 on
 o?
            LL


            §
            O
                   1.80
                    1.60
1.40
                                               5.45
                                                                                  5.61
                                                                        5.01
                                                                                            4.81
                                                                                                     455
                                                                                                            6.00
                                                                                         5.00
                                                                                                 4.00
                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                  -I
                                                                                                  CM"
                                                                                                  -I
                                                                                                  "§>
                                                    u.
                                                    I
                                                    Q
                    1.20
                                     3.16
                    1.00
                                RES
                     COMM
                                         IND
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
                                                                                         3.00
                                         AREA
                                                            MONTH
                              Figure 7. Geometric means and 95 percent confidence intervals for
                                         dustfall measurements by land use and month.
Source:  Hunt, W.F., et al.,'"A study of Trace Element Pollution of Air In 77 Midwestern Cities," Paper presented at the Fourth
        Annual Conference on Trace Substances In Environmental Health, University of Missouri, June 1970.

-------
     Some  average annual dustfall values for various water resources  regions
in the continental United States are shown in Table 16.
                          TABLE 16. AVERAGE ANNUAL
                            DUSTFALL VALUES FOR
                      VARIOUS WATER RESOURCES REGIONS
      Area
     Geometric Mean
ton /mi2/mo   MT/km2 /mo
        Range
ton/mi2/mo    MT/km2/mo
New England
Mid Atlantic
Upper Colorado
Pacific Northwest
Lower Mississippi
Missouri Basin
Lower Colorado
South Atlantic Guld
Tennessee
Ohio
Upper Mississippi
Great Lakes
Sonris-Red Rainy
Rio Grande Region
Texas Gulf Region
Arkansas-White-Red
California
Great Basin
8.2
5.5
143.3
7.2
62.0
34.7
33.9
5.0
4.2
2.8
12.5
32.0
23.4
29.5
32.4
—
16.9
14.7
2.87
1.92
50.2
2.52
21.7
12.2
12
1.75
1.47
.98
4.37
11.2
8.2
10.33
11.34
—
5.9
5.15
0.5-152
0.3-241
69 -281
0.3-317
18 -270
6 -103
16 -69
1.2-296
1.1-17.2
1.7-5.9
0.3-315.3
2 -206
3.0-73
12 -269
8 -116
—
1 -38
5 -56.5
.18-53.2
.1 -84.4
24 -98.4
.1 -111
6.3 -95
2.1 -36
5.6 -24
.42-104
.38-6.0
.6 -2.1
.1 -110.4
.7 -72
1.1 -26
4.2 -94
2.8 -41
—
.35-13.3
1.8 -20
      Source:
             USEPA National Aerometric Data Bank,  Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab, EPA
             Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
     A  comparison of suspended  solids concentrations  calculated from mean
monthly dustfall in the City  of Halifax, Nova Scotia,  and measured runoff
concentrations is shown in Table 17.
                                       37

-------
                  TABLE 17. COMPARISON OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
                  CONCENTRATIONS COMPUTED FROM DUSTFALL
                             AND MEASURED VALUES
                            (Dustfalls are mean values from two
                              stations adjacent to study area.)

                                             MONTH

                           MAY   JUNE   JULY  AUG.  SEPT.  OCT.   NOV.
Mean Dustfall
(ton/mi2 /mo)
(g/m2/mo)
Monthly Rainfall
(in)
(cm)
Calculated
Mean Solids
Concentration
(mg/l)
-100% runoff
- 35% runoff.
Measured Mean
Surface Runoff
Suspended Solids
(mg/l)
- Quinpool Rd.
(Table 20)
- Cambridge St.
(Table 21)

7.1 4.9 4.0 6.7
2.5 1.72 1.40 2.35

4.3 3.8 3.6 7.2
,T0.9 9.6 9.1 18.3




23 14 15 13
65 41 43 37




147 131

191 54


4.5 6.4 6.8
1 .58 2.24 2.38

5.2 4.6 4.6
13.2 11.7 11.7




12 20 21
34 56 59




104

66

         Sourea: Waller, D.H., "Pollution Attributable to Surface Runoff and Overflows from Combined
               Sewerage Systems," Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario, April,
               1971.
     This  tabulation shows that total monthly dustfalls would contribute  from
20 to 90 percent of the measured suspended  solids if they were picked up  in
runoff amounting to 35 percent of the monthly precipitation.  It seems  likely
that deposited particulates assume some  significance in urban areas where
imperviousness is greater and the likelihood of their transport is higher.

     The characteristics of airborne particulates vary from inert materials
that contribute only to total solids concentrations, to organics, metals,
nutrients, and  pesticides.  A listing of  some of these pollutants appears  in
Table 18,  accumulated from 1957-61 by  the National Air Sampling Network.
                                       38

-------
                       TABLE  18. CONCENTRATIONS OF
                     SELECTED AIRBORNE PARTICULATE
                        CONTAMINANTS 1957 TO 1961
                                     (jug/m3)
                                         Urban
IMonurban

Suspended particulates
Benzene-soluble organics
Nitrates
Sulfates
Antimony
Bismuth
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Radioactivity
Mean
104
7.6
1.7
9.6
(a)
(a)
(a)
0.020
(a)
0.04
1.5
0.6
0.04
(a)
0.028
0.03
0.03
(a)
0.01
4.6b
Maximum Mean Maximum
1,706 27 461
123.9 1.5 23.55
24.8
94.0
0.230
0.032
0.170
0.998
0.003
2.50
45.0
6.3
2.60
0.34
0.830
1.00
1.14
1.200
8.40
5.435.0b
            a. Less than minimum detectable quantity.
            b. Picocurles per cubic meter.

                 Source:  American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of
                       Urban Runoff," USEPA No. 11030DNS01/69 (NTIS No. PB 215
                       532), January, 1969.
More specific  data  for cadmium,  lead,and zinc are shown in Table  19.
          TABLE 19. GEOMETRIC MEANS FOR CADMIUM AND ZINC
                         FOR 77 MIDWESTERN CITIES
                            kg/km2/mo  (ton/mi2/mo)
Contaminant
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Residential
0.038 (0.00011)
5.212 (0.015)
5.560 (0.016)
LAND USE
Commercial
0.063 (0.00018)
12.509 (0.036)
9.382 (0.027)
Industrial
0.073 (0.00021)
9.730 (0.028)
12.510 (0.036)
       Source:  Hunt, W.F., at al., "A Study of Trace Element Pollution of Air in 77 Midwestern
              Cities,"  Paper Presented at the  Fourth Annual Conference on Trace Substances in
              Environmental Health, University of Missouri, June 1970.
                                       39

-------
     A further indication of the pollutant content  of  airborne particulates
may be suggested by automotive emission factors attributable to vehicular
traffic.   Some of  these are shown in  Table 20.

                             TABLE 20. PARTICULATE
                              AND SULPHUR OXIDE
                             EMISSION FACTORS FOR
                              LIGHT-DUTY GASOLINE
                               POWERED VEHICLES
Pollutant
Paniculate
Exhaust
Tire Wear
Emissions
g/mi g/km
0.34 0.21
0.20 0.12
                            Sulphur Oxides    0.13 0.08
                            (SOX as SO2)
                           Source: "Compilation of  Air Pollutant
                                 Emission Factors," USEPA Report
                                 No. AP-42  (NTIS No. PB 223
                                 996/0), April, 1973.
      Similarly, emission factors for  heavy duty vehicles are shown  in Table 21.


                  TABLE 21. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HEAVY-DUTY
                            DIESEL-POWERED VEHICLES
Pollutant lb/1, 000 gal fuel
Particulate 13
Sulfur Oxides
(SOxasSO2)
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX as N02)
Aldehydes
(as HCHO)
Organic Acids
27
225
37
370
3
3
kg/1,0001 fuel
1.6
3.2
27.0
4.4
44.0
0.4
0.4
g/mi
1.2
2.4
20.4
3.4
34
0.3
0.3
g/km
0.75
1.5
12.7
2.1
21
0.2
0.2
             Source: "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors," USEPA Report No. AP-42
                  (NTIS No. PB 223 996/0), April, 1973.
                                         40

-------
     In a study carried out in the South Coastal Basin of Southern California,
various major components of man-made air and water pollution were examined for
their intermedia relationships. (21)  A number of conclusions were drawn rela-
tive to these relationships.  The transfer of suspended solids from one media
to another occurs with great ease.  The only difference between atmospheric
particulates and suspended solids in water is the degree of transfer between
the media.  The intermedia transfer of sulfur compounds between water and air
may occur directly.  The transfer from air to water is more easily accomplished
than the transfer from, water to air.

    Sulfuric acid (H-SO^) is more toxic than SO  or its hydrate.  S03 and ^SC^
can be washed out of the air by rainfall to form sulfite salts which are later
converted to sulfates.  These sulfate compounds are very hard to breakdown;
hence, they will tend to leach into surface and subsurface water supplies. (22)

     Man's inability to effectively change the transfer of nitrogen compounds
from the air to water has made them a difficult substance to handle.  The
potential health hazard from nitrogen oxides as air pollutants is great.  It
is estimated thatfithe total emissions, for 1970, of nitrogen oxides (HOX) was
roughly 20.4 x 10  MT (22.7 x 10° ton) which nearly all is identified as
emanating from mobile and stationary fuel combustion sources.

     Heavy metals (lead, mercury, cadmium, and nickel) are another category
in which air pollution can affect water quality.  Occurring naturally in the
earth's crust, these metals, when processed, may become hazardous.  They
deposit in or settle on land and water areas through natural fallout and
rainfall.  Furthermore, the metals that have settled on the ground can further
contaminate surface waters through runoff.

     Of the heavy metals, mercury is very toxic.  Mercury enters the atmosphere
in both gaseous and particulate forms.  It has been estimated that mercury
precipitates from the atmosphere at a rate between approximately 2.5 x 10' kg/yr
(5.50 x 107 lb/yr) and 4.4 x 108 kg/yr (9.68 x 108 Ib/yr). (23)  More heavily
industrialized areas receive much greater fallout than these limits.

     Lead is another heavy metal  that becomes quickly diluted in the air
after emission from cars or other vehicles*.  Studies have shown the presence
of lead in the air 396 m  (1,300 ft) downwind from a freeway.  (24) These
emissions find their way into  surface waters via fallout on  the land and
subsequent storm wash-off and  discharge from storm drainage  systems.  The
urban fallout of lead alkyls also finds its way to storm sewers. In England
about 7,920 MT/yr  (8,800 ton/yr)  find their way into storm drainage.  The
majority of this lead was thought to originate from car exhaust.

     Cadmium is released into  the air and water mainly through various mining
processes and metal smelters.  The cadmium which is released into the air is
ultimately deposited on the soil  and water.  Concentrations  of cadmium have
been found in sewage treatment plant sludges.  Furthermore,  if these sludges
are used as fertilizers or disposed on land, soil contamination is possible.
                                       41

-------
      Carbon monoxide is a lesser intermedial pollutant.  Because of its low
 water solubility and low moisture retention, carbon monoxide does not readily
 transfer to water or land by natural means, e.g., rainfall.  Carbon monoxide,
 hence, can be looked at essentially as an air-pollutant, it causes little
 water pollution.

      Pesticides  and  chlorinated hydrocarbons are  a unique source  of pollution;
 they  are intentionally  introduced  into  the  natural environment.   A representa-
 tion  of  the  pesticide cycle  is shown in Figure  8.  Pesticides are generally
 directly applied to  the land, but  at times  air  application  is necessary, thus
 creating an  uncontrolled aerosol condition.  Climatic factors such as wind,
 rain,  and fog will determine where the  air-applied pesticides will come to
 rest.  A study showed that pesticides were  in the air of Antarctica, notably
 DDf,  transported from other  continents. (25)  In  the air DDT can  be trans-
 ported as vapor,  tiny crystals or  even  a mixture with dust  particles.  The
 pesticides that  are  applied  to land can be  transported  to adjacent waters by
 additional rainfalls and other climatic phenomena.  A large portion of the
 pesticides and chlorinated hydrocarbons in  the  air that have come from
 industrial emissions and other operations,  will eventually  return to the land
 or waterways through natural fallout and precipitation.

     The final category of airborne contributions to be considered are those
from non-point sources.   Foremost among these would be the products of wind
erosion processes.  A general procedure known as the ¥ind Erosion Equation (26)
is employed  to estimate topsoil losses from agricultural fields over long time
intervals. (27)  This complex estimating procedure equates soil credibility,
surface roughness, climate, unsheltered field width along the prevailing wind
direction,and vegetative cover.  Unfortunately, it does not estimate short-
term emission rates  (27) nor does it, at present, take into consideration wind
erosion within an urban development.

     Expressions for short-term wind erosion emission factors for various
sites have been developed on the basis of field sampling activities. (27)
Some of  these are shown in Table 22.  Values for various construction acti-
vities—townhouse and shopping center construction—averaged 442 kg/ha/mo
 (0.2 ton/ac/mo).
                                      42

-------
W
                                                                                                                                    Degradation
                                                                                                                                    loss
                                                               SPRAY
                                                              PELLETS
        GRANULES
        FUMIGANTS
ATMOSPHERE
                     Injection
                     pellets, etc,
                                                       Injection,
                                                       soil incorpation
                                                                    Degradation loss
                                                                                                           Cod ist illation

                                                                                                           Wind
        Spillage
        Accidents
        Industry
        Sewage
                                                                 Spillage
                                                                 Accident
                                                                 Industry
                                                                 Sewage
Rain
Vaporous
                         Volatility
                         Codistillation
                                       Decay Exudation
                            ecay Exudation
                                                                         Runoff
                                                                         Erosion
                                      Absorption  Irrigation
                                 Adsorption
                                          Excretion
                                        >.
                                        Movement
                                                                                                                          SOIL ORGANISM
ORGANISM ~
                                                                                                    SUBSURFACE WATER
                                                                HARVESTED CROP
             "Degradation loss
                                        Degradation loss
                                               Figure 8. Pesticide cycle in the environment.
     Source:  Crawford, N.H., and A,S. Donagam, "Pasticida Transport and Rynoff Model for Agricultural Lands," US%PA  Report No.
             EPA-660 /2-74-013 (NT1S No. PB 235 723), December, 1973.

-------
                    TABLE 22. WjND EROSION EMISSION FACTORS
                        FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES AND SITES

                                                         Particle
                                             Applicable Size Characteristics
                 Emission                      Particle             Percent
                 Source	Expression    Size	Diameter  By Weight
                 Unpaved Roads    e1=0.81s1/i i  30jum     20
                 Aggregate Storage   e ^0.33
                  Pile's            3  (tSn)2
                 e, = emission factor (Ib/vehcile-mf),
                 e2 = emission factor (Ib/ac),
                 e3 = emission factor (Ib/ton in storage),
                 s.j =  silt content of road surface material, percent
                     of loose surface dust passing a 200 mesh screen,
                 s2 =  soil silt content, percentage of surface soil between
                     2 and 50/^m, and
                 PE = Thornthwaitets precipitation-evaporation index.
                Sourca:  Cowherd, C., et al*, "Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive
                       Dust Sources," USEPA Report No, EPA-4SO/3-74-037 !NTlS No. PB
                       238 262/LK), June, 1974.
      The level of construction activity  could  change  emissions by a factor
of  two or more.   Values for  the Thornthwait's  Precipitation-Evaporation
Index (PE)  are shown  in Figure 9.

      The wind drift potentials of  the particles emitted from the  emission
sources identified are shown in Figures  10 and 11.  The drift potential is
indicated  for various wind speeds  and is based on materials of various  particle
diameters  and a  specific gravity of 2.5.
                                            44

-------
Ul
                                                Figure 9. Map of PE values for state climatic divisions.

                                                 Thornthwaite's Precipitation — Evaporation Index


       Source:  Cowherd, C. et at., "Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources," USEPA Report No. EPA-450/3-74-037
               (NTIS No. PB 238 262/LK), June, 1974.

-------
    210
     180
     15°
  K
     120
  Ul


  p
  DC
  <
  a.
     60
      30
           Unimpeded Settling
           t
           \
            \
             \
             \
              \
           i   \
            \  \
             \   \
                \\

               \    \  \
                \    \ 20 mph

                 \\\
                     M5i

                                 *V   10 mph  N
                                    -       V
                            Wind Speed = 5 mph  >
                                                   AGRICULTURAL TILLING
                                     Indefinite Suspension
                                   10                         100
                               DRIFT DISTANCE DOWNWIND (ftJ

                     Figure 10. Drift potential of tillage emissions.
     210
     180
 a.  iso

 K
 Ul

 Ul
 S  120

 5
 Ul
 _l
 O  90

 DC

 a.

     60
      30
Unimpeded Settling
        1                        10                        100

                           DRIFT DISTANCE DOWNWIND (ft)

                       Figure 11. Drift potential of road emissions.

Sourco:  Cowherd, C. et al., "Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources," US6PA
        Report No. EPA-450/3-74-037 (NTIS No. PB 238 262/LK), June, 1974.
                                      46

-------
     Nutrient contributions may also be attributed to airborne sources.  Nitro-
gen compounds exist in the atmosphere and are returned to earth in the form of
precipitation. (28)  Similarly, phosphorus precipitation, although typically
small, can be enough to cause concern where receiving waters may be subject to
eutrophication. (29)  Precipitation concentrations for phosphorus range from
0.015 to 0.06 g/m2/yr (4.9 x 10-5 to 2 x 10~4 oz/ft2/yr). (30)

     Man induced changes in the natural balance of these and other airborne
materials can have a material impact on the amounts deposited in bulk precipi-
tation (dustfall plus precipitation).  It has been estimated that about
1.134 million kg (2.5 million Ib) of phosphorus are consumed annually in
gasoline fuels for motor vehicles alone. (30)  These contributions in and
around urban areas can produce significant nutrient inputs through the pro-
cesses of bulk precipitation.

     An indication of general nitrogen contributions in rainfall for the
Continental United States is shown in Figure 12.  It is apparent that signi-
ficant local variations from the levels depicted are likely.  The dry fallout
of nutrients is of critical importance.  It has been estimated that between
four to ten times the nutrient content of rain falls as bulk precipitation. (31)
Other studies have estimated that from 40 to 70 percent of the atmospheric
nitrogen contribution comes from dry fallout. (32)

     Bulk precipitation of phosphorus is relatively low.  Work in Wisconsin
estimated that this source ranged from 0.5 to 1.2 percent of the total. (33, 34)
Urbanization and industrialization have been noted as major contributors
through the phenomena of soil erosion, and industrial emissions. (20)
                                       47

-------
    Noto:   1 kg/ha/yr = 0.89 lb/«c/yr
Figure 12. Nitrogen contributions {NO3-N & NH4-N) from rainfall.
Source:  Uttormark, P.O., et a!,, "Estimating Nutrient Loadings of Lakes from Non-Point Sources," USEPA Report No. EPA-660/3-
        74-020 (NTIS No. PB 238355), August, 1974.

-------
VEGETATION AS A SOURCE OF RUNOFF POLLUTION

     Vegetative wastes include leaves, buds,  pollen,  bark, twigs, seeds,  fruit,
grasses, and other  plant materials common  to an urban setting, as well as  humic
or decomposed plant wastes and leaf leachates.   Studies performed in Chicago
by the American Public Works Association  estimated that vegetative materials
as one component of street litter were as high as 21  percent of the annual
total litter loading accumulated in a ten-acre residential area. (15) As  a
source of organic  solids, vegetative matter can be a meaningful cause of  water
quality impairment.

     Vegetative waste generation depends  upon soils,  location, climate, season,
land use, landscaping activities, and local public works practices. (15) Although
these wastes are generally distributed across pervious urban areas they can
enter the runoff stream through a variety of  mechanisms.  These may be as by-
products of sheet  erosion, by wind, by direct fall onto impervious areas, or
they may be dumped or raked onto street surfaces for subsequent scour by  street
runoff.

     A sense of vegetative pollution contributions to urban runoff can be estab-
lished from a better understanding of tree litter debris as determined from
silviculture studies and from what is known concerning grass litter debris.
A review of such data follows.

Tree Litter

     Tree litter is one of the major sources  of vegetative debris.  The pre-
valent  tree types  are angiosperms or deiduous trees,  and gymnosperms or
conifers.  An  indication of the annual tree litter production from each of
these types is  shown in Table 23.  This information represents tree litter
production in  a fully forested area with  a completely closed canopy.  Under
these conditions,  evergreen tree types produce litter at a higher annual  rate
than do deciduous  tree types.
                TABLE 23. COMPARISON OF LITTER PRODUCTION
                    BY EVERGREEN AND DECIDUOUS TREES
                        IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE

                     No. of Regions  Evergreen or Gymnosperms Deciduous or Angiosperms
                       Averaged    Ib/ac/yr    kg/ha/yr     Ib/ac/yr    kg/ha/yr

         Total Litter          8
         Leaf Litter          9

         Sources: E. Graham and J.R. Bray, "Litter Production in Forests of the World," Advances in
               Ecological Research, Vol. 2, 1964.
               Heaney,J.P., and W.C. Huber, "Urban Stormwater Management and Decision-Making,"
               USEPA Report No. EPA-670/2-75-022 (NTIS No. PB 242 290), May, 1975.
3,300
2,319
3,702
2,601
2,854
2,141
3,202
2,402
                                        49

-------
      The components  of tree  litter  are shown in  Table 24.   By  far the
 greatest amount of litter  takes the form  of leaf fall.   Thus,  this com-
 ponent  would  appear  to be  the most  significant in influencing  surface
 runoff  quality when  allowed  to be introduced into these  flows.

                                  TABLE 24. SOURCES OF
                                      FOREST LITTER
                              Source
                              Leaves
                              Branches
                              Bark
                              Fruit
.% of Total Litter
     60-70
     12-15
      1-14
      1-17
                        Source: J.P.  Meaney  and  W*C.  Huber,  "Urban
                               Stormwat@r   Management   and  Decision-
                               Making,"  USEPA  Report No. EPA-670/2-75-
                               022 (NTIS No. PB 242 290), May, 1975.
      The production of  tree litter under fully forested conditions  depends
not  only on the tree type,  but  also on  the local climate.  An indication  of
the  variation in  annual  forest  litter production appears in  Figure  13.
    10
  s
  H
  o
  g
  o
  K
  O.
  K
& EQUATORIAL

A WARM TEMPERATE
+ COOL TEMPERATE
  (NORTH AMERICA!

O COOL TEMPERATE
    (EUROPE)

O ARCTIC ALPINE
                                                                                  8920
                                                                                  7136
                                   5362
                                                                                  3568
                                                                                  1784
                                                                                  892
                10
                          20
                                                                    60
                                                                              70
                                     30         40         50
                                   NORTH OR SOUTH LATITUDE (DEGREES)

             Figure 13. Annual production of total tree litter in relation to latitude.

 Sourcu: Gorham, E., and J.R. Bray, "Litter Production in Forest of tha World," Advances in Ecological Research, Vol. 2,1964.
                                           50

-------
      These data are  presented in terms of four major  climatic  zones:   Equa-
 torial, Warm Temperate,  Cool Temperate, and Arctic-Alpine.   The majority of
 the land area of  the United States falls into the warm  temperate and  cool
 temperate zones.   The former lies approximately between 30°  and 40° north
 latitude, and the latter lies between 40° and 50° north latitude.  This
 figure shows that the total tree litter production diminishes  with the dis-
 tance from the Equator.   The tabulation of tree litter  production by  major
 component is shown in Table 25.   This indicates leaf  litter  and other tree
 litter components for fully forested, complete tree canopy coverage.

 TABLE 25. ANNUAL FOREST LITTER PRODUCTION IN FOUR MAJOR CLIMACTIC ZONES
                  Number
                    of
                  Regions
                  Averaged
                     1
Arctic-Alpine
Cool Temperate
Warm Temperate
Equatorial
                    15
                     8
Leaves
Ib/ac
624
.2,230
3,211
6,066
kg/ha
700
2,500
3,600
6,800
C
Number
of
Regions
Averaged
1
10
5
1
her
Ib/ac
357
803
1,695
3,122
kg/ha
400
900
1,900
3,500
Total
Number
of
Regions
Averaqed Ib/ac
3
22
7
4
892
3,122
4,906
9,723
kg/ha
 1,000
 3,500
 5,500
10,900
 Sources:  Gorham, E., and J.R. Bray, "Litter Production in the Forests of the World,"' Advances in Ecological Research, Vol. 2
        1964.
       Heaney, J.P., and W.C. Huber, "Urban Stormwater Management and Decision-Making," USEPA Report No. EPA-670/2-
        75-022 (NTIS No. PB 242-290), May, 1975.


      The data reported  heretofore on tree litter represent  fully forested,
 complete leafed  canopy  conditions.  This is generally  not a circumstance
 existing in most urban  developments.  The areal coverage  of the leafed
 portions of urban  trees most  often is less than 100  percent.   Interestingly,
 variations in tree densities  under full canopy conditions do  not produce
 significant changes on  the  magnitude of tree litter  production.   The results
 of tree density  thinning  produces a decrease in tree litter production roughly
 proportional to  the degree  of canopy reduction. (36)

      In an urban setting  a  number of conditions may  prevail in determining the
 amount of tree litter that  can influence surface runoff quality.   Climate and
 tree species, maturity, and specific growing conditions obviously influence
 the amount of tree litter produced.   Barring a more  complete  understanding of
 these factors in an urban environment, it seems reasonable  that  gross annual
 estimates of urban tree litter production may be made  on  the  basis of geo-
 graphical location, and the relative degree of tree  canopy  development.

     A further indication  of the geographical distribution of  desirable  natural
tree growing conditions  is shown in Figure 14.   The figure shows  the  major
climatic zones indicated previously by latitude and also classifies the  land
area of the continental  United States by its relative aridity  and predominant
non-urban land uses.  The  unshaded areas are those likely  to provide  the least
favorable natural conditions for tree growth and crop production.   Additional
supporting data appear in  Table 26.  The ranking of land resource regions
represents relative vegetative growth productivity.   Available data on tree
                                       51

-------
Cool
Temperate
   Warm
   Temperate
             |	_J
Arid — Semi-Arid

Pasture Range

Crop — Forest
                                                                                Cool
                                                                                Temperate
                                                                                Warm
                                                                                Temperate
                             A.
                             B.
                             C.
                             D.
                             E.
                             F.
                             G.
                             H.
                             I.
                             J.
            Northwest coast region            K.
            Columbian region                L.
            California coast region            M.
            Mountain and basin region        N.
            Rocky Mountain region           O.
            Northern plains region            P.
            Western plains region             R.
            Central plains region              S.
            South Texas region               T.
            Southern prairie region            U.
Northern lake region
Southern lake region
North-central region
Appalachian-Ozark region
Mississippi delta region
South Atlantic slope region
Northeastern region
North Atlantic slope region
Atlantic coast region
Florida subtropical region
                                     Figure 14. Climatic zones and prevalent land uses.
                                                  Continental United States.
      Sourca:   "Two-Thirds of  Our Land: A National  Inventory," Program  Aid  No.  984, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.
               Department of Agriculture, 1971.
                                                      52

-------
                  TABLE 26. RANKING OF LAND RESOURCE REGIONS
                         IN TERMS OF CROP AND FOREST USES
                  WITH ASSOCIATED LITTER PRODUCTION REPORTED


                  Land Resource           Percent of          Leaf        Other
                    Regions in          Region in Crops       Litter       Litter   Total
          	Ranked Order	and Forest	Ib/ac	Ib/ac   Ib/ac

          Most Acceptable Regions for
          Crop and Tree Growth
          O.   Mississippi Delta               90%              ~          ~      ~
          A.   Northwest Coast               85%              -          _      _
          L.   Southern Lakes                85%         1,700-4,600     1,500   6,100
          P.   South Atlantic Slope           85%            3,800       1,600   5,400
          K.   Northern Lakes                84%            2,000         -      -
          R.   Northeastern                  84%         2,100-4,000       -
          S,   North Atlantic Slope           82%              -          -      -
          M.   North Centra!                 79%              -          -    3,800
          N.   Appalachian-Ozark             78%            3,800         700   4,500
          T.   Atlantic Coast                74%         2,700-3,400
          U.   Florida Subtropical             60%              -          -      -
          C.   California Coast               59%            2,100         -      -
          F.   Northern Plains                59%              -          -      -
          Least Acceptable Regions for
          Natural Crop and Tree Growth
          B.   Columbian Region             52%              -          -      —    .
          H.   Central Plains                 47%              -          -      -
          E.   Rocky Mountain               41%              —          —      —
          J.   Southern Prairie               27%              —          —      -
          D.   Mountain/Basin                _19%              —          —      —
          G.   Western Plains                 18%              -          -      -
          I.   South Texas                   10%              -          -      -

          Sources:  Gorham, E., and J,R, Bray, "Littter Production in the Forests of the Worls," Advances in
                 Ecological Research, Vol. 2, 1964,
                 Daubenmere, R., "Nutrient Content of  Leaf Litter of Trees  In the Northern Rocky
                 Mountains," Ecology, Vol. 34, 1953.
                 Heyward, F., and R.M. Barnette, "Field Characteristics and Partial Chemical Analysis of the
                 Humus Layer of Longleaf Pine Forest Soils," Bulletin of Florida, Agricultural Experiment
                 Station, Vol. 302, 1936.
                 "Two-Thirds of Our Land: A National Inventory," Program Aid No. 934, Soii Conservation
                 Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1971.                                  ,

litter production are  also shown for those regions where such information has
been determined.   This generalized  scheme  for  classifying  natural  growth  pro-
ductivity may serve  as a guideline  to locales  where  vegetative growth is  prob-
able, but it is  a  weak  substitute for measurement  of  actual local conditions.
As  a case  in point,  the desert and  semi-desert regions of  the Southwest  are
designated  as areas  least acceptable for natural  tree  and  crop growth.   In
urban areas of  the  Southwest,  trees, lawns, and other plantings are grown  by
use of irrigation  and  vegetative litter  is produced.   Tree densities and  tree
canopy development  are probably  less than  in more  humid areas, and  their
associate  litter production  is  also probably less.


                                           53

-------
GrassLitter

     Grass  clippings and other low-lying refuse are another prospective source
of organic  materials that may enter urban runoff as a pollutant.   As may be
expected, grass clipping production is  also related to the amount of grassed
areas.  Production figures for various  types of grasses appear  in Table 27.
This information was developed through  work performed in the State of Florida.
The figures may, as such, represent higher yields than may be experienced in
other areas of the country with shorter growing periods.

                           TABLE 27. ANNUAL YIELD OF
                             VARIOUS GRASS TYPES
Grass
Grass Type
Rye grass
White clover
Pensacola Bahia grass
Coastal Bermuda grass
Annual Yield
Ib dry matter/ac kg dry matter/ha
3676-5612 4124-6300
3805-5108 4270-5730
8126 9120
2542 - 91 35 2850 - 1 0250
               Sources: "Florida Field Crop Variety Report, 1971," E.6. Whitty (ed) Agronomy
                     Report AG 72-51, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University
                     of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1972.
                     Ruolko, O.C., and G.M. Prime, "Preliminary Evaluation of Yield and
                     Protein Content of Six Hybrid Bermuda Grasses, Pensacola Bahra Grass
                     and Pengola Grass Under Three Fertilization Regimes in North Central
                     Florida," Soli and Crop Science Society of Florida, Vol. 28, 1968.

Pollutional  Effects

     Vegetative waste materials  can constitute one source of surface runoff
quality impairment through the addition of organic matter,  nutrients and
mineral constituents.  Past  studies have indicated that  water quality effects
can  result from the decomposition  of leaf litter  in  the  presence of water.(36,
37)  Coniferous trees and plants contain about half  of  the mineral content of
deciduous  types (2 to 5  percent  ash content as compared  to 4 to 14 percent).
(14)  Table 28 shows the  results of past studies  of  leaf litter constituents.
Some indications of the relative amounts of nutrients produced by various tree
types is shown in Table 29.  The nutrients available in this  vegetative matter
can contribute to eutrophication processes when transported  to a natural
receiving  lake or pond.   Vegetative organic matter produces  oxygen depletion
effects, as  might be predicted,  and also contributes to  the  solids loadings
in surface runoff flow.   Maple leaves have been shown to consume 75 percent
of their initial dry weight  in oxygen over a period of 13 months. (39)   Lawn
litter  and other vegetative  matter  pose a similar problem  from a pollutional
standpoint.   The total nitrogen  content of grasses common to Florida was found
to be somewhat higher than that  encountered in tree leaf litter.  This amounted
to 1.7  to  2 percent of their dry weight. (40)   Values for  the nitrogen content
of harvested commercial crops were  found to be about 128 kg/ha (114 Ib/ac) for
hay, 48 kg/ha (43.2 Ib/ac) for mixed grains, and 361 kg/ha  (322 Ib/ac)  for
alfalfa and  pasturage.  Phosphorus  content was found to  be  about 13 kg/ha
(12 Ib/ac)  for hay and 9  kg/ha (8.4 Ib/ac) for mixed grains.   Thus, grasses
                                        54

-------
         TABLE 28. THE CONCENTRATION OF NUTRIENTS
                            IN NEWLY FALLEN
      GYMNOSPERM AND ANGIOSPERM TREE LEAF  LITTER
                                (% Dry Weight)
Evergreen

Deciduous

Deciduous/Evergreen

Deciduous
Sources: Daubenmlre, R., "Nutrient Content of Leaf Litter of Trees in the Northern Rocky
        Mountains," Ecology, Vol. 34, 1953.
        Lutz, H.J. and R.F. Chandler, "Forest Soils," John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
        1946,
        Carlisle,  A,, A.H.F. Brown  and E.J. White, "Litter Fall Leaf Production and the
        Effects of Defoliation  by Tortrix Viridamal in a Sissile Oak (Quercus Petrala) Wood-
        land," Journal of Ecology, Vol. 54,1986.
        Corla, T.S., "Composition of  tha Leaf Litter of Forest Trees," J. Elisha Mitchell
        Science Society, Vol. 52, 1936.
        Graham, E., and J.R.  Bray, "Litter Production In Forests of the Worls," Advances
        in Ecological Research, Vol. 2, 1964.
        Heaney,  J.P.,  and  W.C.  Huber, "Urban Stormwater Management and  Decision-
        Making," USEPA Report No. EPA-670/2-75-022 (NTIS No. PB 242-290), May, 1975.
N
0.58-
1.25
0.51-
1.01
0.3-
0.7
0.5-
1.25
P
0.04-
0.10
0.09-
0.28
-

-

K
0.12-
0.39
0.40-
1.18
-

-

Ca
0.55-
2.16
0.99-
3.84
-

-

Mg
0.14-
0.23
0.22-
0.77
-

-

Ash
3.01
4.33
5.71-
15.16
-

-

   TABLE 29. AVERAGE QUANTITIES OF NUTRIENTS FALLING
                IN THE LITTER OF DIFFERENT TREES
                             Ib/ac/yr (kg/ha/yr)
TREES
Leaves Only
Deciduous
Evergreen
Deciduous

N
13.2
18.8
18.9

P
2.5
1.4
1.11

K
10.7
5.2
—

Ca
52.2
21.1
—

Mg
7.3
3.6
—
   Evergreen/Deciduous      13.6-64.7  0.6-4.5 3.2-14.6 19.9-64.8  2.4-12.3
    Sources: "Forest Soils," H. J. Lutz and R. F. Chandler, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
         New York, 1946
         "Litter Fall  Leaf Production and the Effects of Defoliation by Tortrix Viridamai
         In a Sissile Oak (Quercus Petrala) Woodland," A. Carlisle, A.H.F. Brown, E.J.
         White, Journal of Ecology, Vol. 54, 1966
         "The Return of Nutrients With Litter in the Forest Ecosystems," Teruhiko
         Kawahara, Journal of Japanese Forest Society, Vol. 53, 1972
         "Litter Production in Forests of the World," E. Graham and J.R. Bray, Advances
         in Ecological Research, Vol 2, 1964
         Heaney, J.P., and W.C.  Huber, "Urban Stormwater Management and Decision-
         Makinfl," USEPA  Report  No. EPA-670/2-75-022 (NTIS  No.  PB 242-290),
         May,  1975,
                                      55

-------
from lawns also provide a source of organic material that can, without proper
management and disposal, present a significant source of pollution in both
urban and non-urban runoff.

     Unfortunately, existing reported information on the pollutional charac-
teristics of tree and grass litter does not reflect all of the pollutant
parameters of special interest in the study of unoff quality.  Measures of
oxygen demand, solids contributions, pesticides, and metals are all of interest,
but were not uncovered in the review of existing published sources.  Thus,
additional research and study of vegetative pollutional contributions in both
urban and non-urban environments appears to be warranted.

Urban Vegetative Pollutional Contributions

     The production of vegetative wastes in urban areas does not occur uniform-
ly during the year.  Little waste should be expected during the winter months
through most of the country.  During the growing season, however, lawn clip-
pings are produced at a more or less uniform rate.  Tree litter generally peaks
during the autumn with the annual leaf fall.  Interestingly, coniferous trees,
as well as the deciduous trees, generally shed the greatest amount of their
needles during the autumn and winter months,  (42) although some leaf fall oc-
curs during the growing season as well.

     Tree canopy development in urban areas are considerably less than under
fully forested conditions.  It is apparent that trees and other vegetation can
only be planted in pervious areas, although they may be found to overhang im-
pervious areas.  Thus, tree and plant density is a function of available plant-
ing space.  The extent of vegetative cover is also influenced by the maturity
of the trees and bushes located within the urban area.  The relative maturity
of vegetative cover can be estimated from the general age of the development
within the area.  As previously noted, the best estimation of vegetative
cover and leaf litter production within any given urban drainage area should
be determined from local conditions.  The utilization of aerial photography
for this purpose holds out the greatest promise for developing this type of
information and other pertinent data.  Investigations by the American Public
Works Association in connection with street sweeping estimated that in Chicago,
three-quarters of the annual leaf loadings occurred in the fall, while one-
quarter of the annual loading apparently occurred during the growing season.(15)
Estimation of vegetative contributions to the pollution of storm runoff within
a given drainage basin requires a careful evaluation of the factors that dictate
vegetative litter production; its seasonal variation through the year and local
public works practices related to the collection and disposal of these wastes.

     A number of variations in local public works programs exist in response
to the handling of vegetative debris, other forms of litter, and other waste
materials.  The range of programs vary from complete collection and disposal
of these wastes to nominal activities that leave the greater part of this
responsibility to the individual citizen.  It is apparent that the degree of
effort exercised by the local jurisdiction can  influence the amount of waste
which can affect surface runoff.  The methods by which these wastes are
handled, stored, collected, and disposed of also affect the amount of wastes
which can affect runoff quality.

                                       56

-------
     Recent surveys by the APWA help to shed some light on local practice.
Data from the 1973 APWA "Survey of Refuse Collection Practice" is presented
in Tables 30 and 31.   They show the number of jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada that make provision for the collection of yard litter as part
of solid waste pickup and disposal activities in terms of population ranges.
In each case, the majority of the respondent jurisdictions provide this ser-
vice whether collection is accomplished by the municipality's own forces, by
contract, or through private arrangements by individual householders.
               TABLE 30. COLLECTION OF YARD LITTER AS PART OF
                     SOLID WASTE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
Jurisdictions
Population
Range
(Thousands)
0-6
5-10
10-25
25-50
50-100
100-250
260-500
500-1,000
1,000+
Total
Municipal Contract
Agency or Private
No. % No. %
1
1
7
26
16
12
5
3
1
72
10.0
3.4
6.7
12.7
9.6
16.0
13.9
12.0
9.0
10.8
4
10
54
94
86
51
23
15
5
342
40.0
34.5
51.4
45.8
51.8
68.0
63.9
60.0
45.5
52.0
Both
No. %
0
7
16
40
26
12
7
5
2
115
0.0
24.1
15.2
19.5
15.7
16.0
19.4
20.0
18.2
17.4
Providing
Services
No. %
5
18
77
160
128
75
35
23
8
529
50.0
62.0
73.3
78.0
77.1
100.0
97.2
92.0
72.7
80.2
%Not
Providing Total
Service No.
50.0
38.0
26.7
22.0
22.9
0.0
2.8
8.0
27.3
19.8
10
29
105
205
166
76
36
25
11
662
       Source: 1973 APWA Survey of Refuse Collection'Practioe.
               TABLE 31. COLLECTION OF TREE DEBRIS AS PART OF
                      SOLID WASTE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES
                                                Jurisdictions
Population
Range
(Thousands)
0-5
5-10
10-25
25-50
50-100
100-250
250-500
500-1,000
1,000+
Total
Municipal
Agency
No. %
1
2
5
15
9
7
0
1
1
41
10.0
6.9
9.0
7.3
5.4
9.3
0.0
4.0
9.0
6.2
Contract
of Private
No. %
3
3
35
54
48
26
10
9
3
191
30.0
10.3
77.8
26.4
28.9
34.7
27.8
36.0
27.4
28.8
Both
No. %
0
4
5
21
12
5
3
2
1
53
0.0
13.8
9.0
10.2
7.3
6.7
8.3
8.0
9.0
8.0
Providing
Service
No. %
4
9
45
90
69
38
13
12
5
285
40.0
31.0
42.8
43.9
41.6
50.7
36.1
48.0
45.4
43.0
%Not
Providing Total
Service No.
60.0
69.0
57,2
56.1
58.4
49.3
63.9
52.0
54.6
57.0
10
29
105
205
166
75
36
25
11
662
       Source: 1973 APWA Survey of Refuse Collection Practice
                                       57

-------
     The data represented in both  of these tabulations  reflect solid waste
pick-up activities on both  routine  and special collection schedules.  Inter-
estingly,  the collection of yard litter and tree debris is relatively con-
sistent regardless of population served.

     The 1973 APWA "Survey Of Practice As To Street Cleaning,  Catch Basin
Cleaning,  and Snow and Ice Control" also provides some  information on local
practices  in handling leaves and other vegetative matter.   In general, the
responsibility for direct leaf  collection falls on the  same agency that per-
forms street cleaning operations.   A total of 99.1 percent of 340 responding
jurisdictions placed this responsibility within this agency.  A summary of
practice as  to the locations where leaf collections are made is shown in
Table 32.  Interestingly, the majority of reporting jurisdictions collect
leaves from  storage containers  or  from piles in the street.  The frequency
of leaf collection is shown in  Table 33.

                        TABLE 32. SITES WHERE PUBLIC AGENCY
                          LEAF REMOVAL ACTIVITIES OCCUR
Removal
Site
Streets
Planting Strips
between Street
and Sidewalk
Sidewalks
Number of
Jurisdictions
Reporting Removal
Prom this Location
No. %
264 85.2
86 28.5
39 13.0
Number of
Jurisdictions
Responding
No.. %
310 100
302 100
301 100
                     Source: 1973 APWA "Survey of Practice as to Street Cleaning, Catch
                           Basin Cleaning and Snow and Ice Control."
             TABLE 33. FREQUENCY OF LEAF COLLECTION AND LENGTH
                       OF THE SPECIAL COLLECTION SEASON

       Frequency of Collection (days)       <5    6-10    11-15   16-20    21-25   Total

       Collection Frequency
        times per season          No.    193     26     10     1       1       231
                             %      83.6    11.3    4.3    0.4      0.4     100

       Special leaf
        collection season
        weeks per year           No.    91    109     39     12      2       253
                             %      36.0    43.1   15.4     4.7     0.8     100

     Source:  1973 APWA "Survey of Practice as to Street Cleaning, Catch Basin Cleaning and Snow and Ice Control."
                                       58

-------
     Table 33 shows that leaf removal operations occur most often in a special
collection season of up to 15 weeks at a most prevalent frequency of five col-
lections per season.

     The foregoing has attempted to identify some of what is known of the vege-
tative sources of runoff pollution.  Some approximate estimating methods for
urban conditions may be hypothesized on the basis of available, limited, non-
urban experience.  On the assumption that all leaf litter is deposited during
the autumnal leaf fall, the following general expression may be used to estimate
average daily street loadings of leaves.
LA = r . VT . I£

     lOOn * G,
                                                                      (3)
where   L^   is average daily accumulation of tree litter in kg/curb-km/day
             (lb/curb-mi/day) or pollutant loadings as appropriate

        r    is the ratio of tree canopy covered area to total area

        VT   is average annual tree loadings in kg/ac (Ib/ac) or pollutant
             loadings as appropriate

        I    is the percent of street surface imperviousness
         s

        n    is the number of days during the leaf fall season

        G    is curb density, m/ac (ft/ac)


     Values for street surface imperviousness and curb length may be determined
from careful study of the area under investigation.  General estimating expres-
sions for both in terms of population density are given below; (42)

        I  = 17.06 - 14.56 (0.839)PD                                 (4)
         s
        G-L = 413.1 - (352.7) (0.839) PD                              (5)

where
        Is and Gj_ are as previously defined

        PD is gross population density in persons/ac


     Although the foregoing provides an estimating method for determining the
average daily accumulation of tree litter along the curb, it is likely that the
amount of litter or litter borne pollutants that will affect the quality of
runoff will be less than that accumulated.  Thus, the pollutional contribution
might take the form of the expression:
                                       59

-------
        *L-VD                                            (6)

where:

        P  is the pollutional accumulation in kg/curb-km/day (Ib/curb-mi/day)

        L. is as previously defined

        D  is an applicable delivery ratio, estimating to range from 0.1 to
           0.5

     The best approaches to the determination of the pollutant contributions
from vegetative sources should be on the basis of locally determined data and
the experience of local public works operating practices.


Soil Erosion As A Water Pollution Source

      Sediment  is perhaps  the largest  single  source of water pollution.  Cur-
  rent estimates suggest that 1.8 x  109 MT  (2  x  109 ton)  of  sediment  are
  desposited  in  the  nation's rivers  annually.  (44)  Sediments are soils or
  other  surficiai materials that are products  of  erosion  and may  be  trans-
  ported or deposited by the action  of  wind, water, snow,  ice or  gravity.  (44)

     Erosion and sedimentation are naturally and continually occuring geologi-
cal processes.  Normally,  soils are protected by vegetation and vegetative
residue.  In areas where moisture is too limited or fertility too low to sus-
tain close-growing vegetation, the land is subject to periodic erosion from
intense rains.  Man's actions, including construction and mining activities
often remove all of  the vegetation in localized areas thus tending to increase
the rate of erosion.  Removal of the protective cover allows the forces of
wind and water to act more directly and forcefully on the exposed soil environ-
ment.

      Non-point pollutants are organic and inorganic materials entering
  surface and ground  water from non-specific or unidentified sources.  In a
  rural  environment,  they include sediment, plant nutrients, pesticides, and
  animal wastes from  cropland, rangeland, feeding areas, pastures, and farm
  woodlots.  Sediment is the major pollutant in  terms of volume,  and may be
  a carrier of some organics, pesticides, and  plant nutrients. (45)  In an
  urban  environment,  similar pollutants may be experienced from pervious areas
  as well as those materials that are unique to urban activities  - transporta-
  tion related pollutant sources, air pollution, and other conditions.

     As might be anticipated, sediment production has been found to vary ac-
cording to land use  and physical site characteristics.  Some examples of annual
erosion rates found  in connection with a variety of overall land uses are shown
in Table 34.  A comparison of the relative stability of land under natural cover,
with the greater instability of land employed in agricultural uses or disturbed
                                       60

-------
                       TABLE 34. EROSION RATES REPORTED FOR
                              VARIOUS SEDIMENT SOURCES
Sediment                Erosion Rate
Source           ton/mi2/yr        MT/km2/yr
                                     Geographic Location
                                           Comment
Natural
Agricultural
Urban
Highway
Construction
    15-20
    32-192
     200

     320

    13-83
    25-100

     115


  12,800
  13,900
    1,030
10,000-70,000
                   200-500
                   320-3,840
    5.25-7.00
  11.2-67.2
  70

 112.1

    4.55-29.1
    8.75-35

  40.3
4482.5
4867.7
 360.7
3501.9-24,514
                     70-175.1
                    112.1-1,345
  50,000        17,510

 1,000-100,000      350.2-35,019
                    1,000

                      500
                      146
                      280
                      690
                    2,300
                    350.2

                    175.1
                     51
                     98
                    242
                    805
   36,000        12,607

50,000-150,000   17,510-52,529
Potomac River Basin

Pennsylvania and
Virginia
Mississippi River Basin

Northern Mississippi
Northwest New Jersey
Missouri Valley
Northern Mississippi
Northern Mississippi
                   Eastern U.S. Piedmont
                   Kensington, Maryland
                   Washington, D.C. area

                   Philadelphia area
                   Washington, D.C. area
                   watersheds
                   Fairfax County, Virginia

                   Georgia
Native Cover
Native Cover
Natural drainage
basin
Throughout geologic
history
Forested watershed
Forest & under-
developed land
Soils eroding at the
rate they form

Loess-region
Cultivated land
Pasture land
Continuous row crop
without conservation
practices

Farmland
Established as
tolerable erosion

Undergoing extensive
construction
Small urban construc-
tion area
750 mi2 area
average
                        As urbanization
                        increases
                        Construction on 179
                        ac
                        Cut slopes
Sources: Brandt, G.H,, et at., "An Economic Analysis of Erosion and Sediment Control Methods for Watersheds Under-
        going Urbanization," Final Report OWRR Contract 14-31-001-3392, Midland, Michigan, 1972.
        Heaney, J.P., and W.C. Huber, "Urban Stormwater Management and  Decision-Making," USEPA Report No.
        EPA-670/2-75-O22 (NTIS No. PB 242 29O), May, 197S.
                                                 61

-------
by the  processes of  construction  activity, demonstrates the  influence of human
activity.   Only in long-term and  highly stabilized urban uses  is some resemb-
lance of  relative stability regained.   In these  areas, however,  the diminished
contributions of soil erosion are replaced by  solids generated as a product  of
other human activity—airborne particulates, traffic related depositions,
vegetative materials,  litter and  other solid wastes, salts and abrasives used
in snow and ice control,  animal wastes, and even  the erosion  products of street
surfacing materials.   Only 0.25 mm (0.01 in) of  concrete pavement surface
erosion annually would produce a  potential sediment yield of  4.4 MT/ha/yr
(2 ton/ac/yr) or more of  pavement surface.

     Further information  on annual sediment yields is presented  in Figure 15.
This figure summarizes findings for areas of differing sizes and land uses
in the  Central Atlantic States.   It also demonstrates the extremely high
sediment  yields found in  connection with exposed or uncovered  sites, and helps
to pinpoint the magnitude of sediment  problems associated with construction
and other denuded and uncontrolled sites.
 IOOO 000
             AREA(kmJ)
           .0026       .026
          5 •'-
   100 000-r
    (O OOO- ;
      lOOO-r
.>.

1


Q
UJ
  UI

  5
  UI
  GO
        100 -:
                              .26
                                         2.6
                                                                          260
                                                            (After data collected
                                                            by M. Gordon Wolman
                                                            [tentative relationship],
                                                            H.R. Malcom, Jr., and
                                                            C.A. Smallwood, Jr.)
                                                                     ' '||«"l  3.5
                                                                             350,000
                                                                             35,000
                                                                              3,500
                                                                              350
                                                                              35 "E

                                                                                1
         10 I   i  i  IILJJIJ  11111 nil—i  i i mill—i  iTpinf-  ill
           oool      061        o.i          i     ^  lo       '  loo      ' looo
              AREA (mi2)

                        Figure 15. Sediment yield vs. contributory basin area.

Source: Malcom,  H.R., and C.A. Smallwood, "Urban Erosion as a Source of Pollution," Paper prepared for the Twentieth
      Southern Water Resources and Pollution Control Conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, April, 1971.
                                         62

-------
Erosion Effects —

     Erosion depends upon wind, gravity, and water.  The most meaningful of
these from a pollutant generation point of view is water-produced erosion.
Wind erosion produces water pollution when materials eroded by wind are
blown into drainage ditches, streams, lakes, and reservoirs, or are dropped
back to the earth's surface where they become more susceptible to water
erosion.  Although there are no estimates of the proportion of wind-blown
materials going into inland waters, it is believed to be small when averaged
over the nation.  (45)  Wind deposition of soil on land areas has been measured
in quantities ranging from more than 15.7 MT/ha/yr (7 ton/ac/yr) near sites
of severe erosion to less than 112 kg/ha/yr (100 lb/ac/yr) in other areas. (45)
Similar amounts would be directly deposited in bodies of water.  In additon
to soil particles, associated materials may include organics, nutrients,
animal wastes, residues from burning, and pesticides.

     Wind erosion is a problem in any area of low, variable precipitation,
where drought is frequent, and temperatures, evaporation, and wind speeds are
high.  It is the dominant problem on about 28 x 10^ ha (70 x 10  ac) or ap-
proximately three percent of the land in the United States	an area that
includes 22.3 x 10° ha (55 x 106 ac) of cropland, 3.6 x 106 ha (9 x 106 ac)
of rangeland, and 2.4 x 1Q6 ha (6 x 10° ac) of "other" land. (46)

     The movement of soil by wind action takes place through the mechanisms
of saltation, surface creep and atmospheric suspension.  Saltation denotes
the bouncing movement of particles within the air layer close to the ground
surface.  Surface creep is induced by the impact of particles descending from
saltation.  Atmospheric suspension is the process by which fine soil is carried
from the surface into the air.

     Further discussion of air pollution, air erosion, and available non-point
estimating methods was included as part of the preceding section on air pol-
lution.

     Similarly, gravity erosion, landslides, and massive soil movements  pro-
duce an important impact on receiving water quality only when soil is directly
introduced into a drainage feature or waterway or when soils are exposed to
greater hazards of water erosion.

     Water erosion is generally thought to consist of the detachment of soil
particles, and the movement of the particles to the channel in which they are
transported to their ultimate destination.  The .erosion process may be broadly
classified into the three mechanisms of sheet erosion, gully erosion, and
channel erosion.  Sheet erosion refers to the relatively uniform loss of top-
soil across the soil surface as a result of rainsplash and runoff on a sloped
surface.  The impact of falling raindrops detaches soil particles, or fines,
from the soil aggregate.  These fines are then available to be picked up
and transported by overland flow..
                                       63

-------
     Initially  occurring as sheet flow,  overland flow soon begins  to concen-
trate in small  rivulets due to surface  topography.  Gully erosion  becomes
operative when  flow turbulence creates  local forces sufficient  to  dislodge
particles from  the sides and head of  the gully.  As the gully grows deeper
and wider, flow momentum and inertia  becomes significant factors in shaping
the stream bed  and water course.  Channel erosion influences the direction
of the stream and this results in changes in the stream cross-section and
the meandering  of the stream bed.

     Channel erosion contributions  in some regions  can be  significant with
respect  to  other sediment  sources.   Estimates  of  the relative  percentage of
sediment production are shown  in Table 35 for  two watersheds.

                              TABLE 35. ESTIMATED
                           RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
                              SEDIMENT PRODUCTION

                       Northern California         Willamette Basin
                          Watershed            Western Oregon
                    Sediment Source Percentage  Sediment Source   Percentage
                                Of Total                 Of Total
                                                       Sediment
Land Surface 20
Landslides 25
Streambank erosion 55
Total 100
Forestlands 24
Agricultural Land 22
Main Stream Channels 54
100
                    Source:  "Anderson, H.W., "Relative Contribution of Sediment from
                          Source Areas and Transport Processes," in Proceedings of A
                          Symposium on Forest Land Uses and Stream Environment,
                          Oregon State University, August, 1972, pp. 55-63.
      In reality, erosion processes are gradual  and continuous; there  is  no
 definitive dividing  line between the mechanisms of sheet, gully, and  channel
 erosion.

 Sediment Prediction  Methods —

      Erosion production is largely dependent upon rainfall characteristics,
 climate, vegetative,  and other forms of protective cover, soil properties—
 texture, situation and  moisture content—and the drained surface slope and
 length.  A number of methods have been developed to predict soil loss due
 to sheet erosion.  One  such method in use is the "Universal Soil Loss Equa-
 tion" (USLE), (47,48),  an estimating technique  generally applied to determine
 annual sediment losses  from large areas.
                                       64

-------
     The USLE generally takes the following form:

        A = R« K • LS • C -P                                  (7)

where:

        A = average soil loss for the desired time interval,
             ton/ac/unit time

        R = Rainfall Factor or number of erosion index units (El) for the
            desired time interval

        K = Soil Erodibility Factor , ton/unit of El

       LS = Slope Length-Gradient Factor

        C = Cropping Management Factor

        P = Erosion Control Practice Factor


     Values for R, the Rainfall Factor, can be computed from the equation:

        R = El = £)(9.16 + 3.31 log X^D.,1                 (8)

where:

        R = Rainfall Factor, or the summantion of erosion index units
            (El) for all storms during the desired time interval

        E = Rainfall Energy ,  hundreds  of  ft-ton/ac

        i = Rainfall Hyetograph time increment, i

       X^ = Rainfall Intensity during the hyetograph time increment
             in/hr

       D- = Inches of rainfall during time increment'

        I = Maximum average 30 minute intensity of rainfall, in

     Rainfall  factor R, values for  annual  rainfall and erosion,  are shown in
Figure  16 for  areas east of the Rocky Mountains.

     The Soil  Erodibility  Factor, K, may be  determined through the use  of the
nomographs shown in Figure 17.  The K  factor depends on five soil character-
istics:  the percentage of silt and very  fine  sand, the percentage of organic
material, soil structure and  soil permeability.   Some assistance in  the per-
centage distribution of soil  components can  be  obtained from the use of the
soil composition triangle  shown in  Figure  18.
                                      65

-------
                                        Figure 16. Iso-erodent map (R values for the erosion equation).


Source:  Wisclimerer,  W,H,, and Smith,  D.D., "Predicting  Rainfall-Erosion Loses from Cropland East  of the Rocky Mountains,'
        Agriculture Handbook No, 282, ARS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May, 1965.

-------
                                                    ery f*ne granular
                                                  2 fine granular
                                                  3 mod. or coarse granular
                                                  4 biocfcv. P'atv. of massive
                                                          SO»LSTRUCTURE
                                                                              PERMEABILITY
PERCENT SAND
(0.10-2.0 mm)
                                                                           ' 6-very
                                                                            S-StOW
                                                                            4-sIow to mod,
                                                                            3-moderaie
                                                                            2-mod. to rapid
                                                                            1 rapid
   PROCEDURE: With appropriate data, enter scale at left and pro
coed to points representing th« soil's % sand {0.10-2.0 mm), % organic
matter, structure, and  permeability, in  That  sequence. Interpolate
between plotted curves. The dotted line illustrates procedure for a soil
having it + vfs 65%, sand 5%, OM 2.8%, structure 2, permeability 4.
Solution: K = 0.01.
             Figure 17. Soil erodibifity nomograph
     tOO     go   80    ?0
                              Percent Sand
                                             30    2O    10
                 Percentages of clay (below 0,002 mm)
           Silt (0.002 to 0.05 mm), and sand (0.05 to 2.0 mm!
                     in the basic soil textural classes
  Figure 18. Composition triangle of the basic soil
  textural classes (U.S. Soil Conservation Service).
                                67

-------
                                      SLOPE LENGTH (ml

                                     100              150  '
                                           200
                                                I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I I  I--1  I  I  I  I  I  I
               100
200      300       400      500      600       700      800
             SLOPE LENGTH (ft)

    Figure 19. Factor LS by slope length and percent slope.
 Source: Unttod States Environmental Protection Agency — Office of Water Programs, "Methods for Identifying and Evaluating
       tho Naturoand Extant of Non-Point Sources of Pollution," USEPA Report No, EPA-430/9-73-014, Octobar, 1973.
      The Slope Length-Gradient  Factor,  LS, can be evaluated through the
equation:
          LS = L1/'2(0.0076 + 0.0053S -f  0.0076S2)
                                              (9)
where:
           L « Length  from the  point of  overland  flow to  the discharge
                channel or to  the point where sediment deposition occurs,
                ft; and

           S m Average slope  over the runoff length, L, as a percent.

A plot of the Slope Length-Gradient Factor is depicted in Figure  19,  where
values for LS may be  determined for known values of L and S.

                                          68

-------
      The Cropping  Managment Factor,  C,  depends on  crop  types or  ground  cover.
Some representative values for  various  ground cover conditions are shown in
Table 36.

                          TABLE 36. CROPPING MANAGEMENT
                                        FACTOR C

                         	Type of Cover	Factor C
                        1.  None (fallow ground)                 1.0
                        2.  Temporary seedings (90% stand!
                               ryegrass (perennial)              0.5
                               ryegrass (annual)                0.10
                               small grain                     0.05
                               millet or sudan grass             0.05
                               field bromegrass                0.03
                        3.  Permanent seedings (90% stand)        0.01
                        4.  Sod (laid immediately)                0.01
                        5.  Mulch
                               Hay rate of application
                               in ton/ac
                                                1/2          0.25
                                                1            0.15
                                                1-1/2        0.10
                                                2            0.05
                               small grain straw    2            0,05
                               wood chips        6            0.06
                               wood cellulose     1-3/4        0.10
                               fiberglass          1/2          0.05
                        6. Asphalt emulsion 11,692 I/ha           0.03
                                        (1,250gal/ac)

                       Source:   Ports,  M.A., "Use of  the Universal Soil Loss
                               Equation as a Design  Standard," ASCE Water
                               Resources Engineering Meeting, Washington, D.C
                               1973.
      The  Erosion Control Practice Factor,  P, represents  management measures
employed  to control erosion  on the  site.   Estimated values for P are  shown
in Table  37 for  stripped or  disturbed areas.
                                          69

-------
                             TABLE 37. EROSION CONTROL
                                PRACTICE FACTORS FOR
                                  CONSTRUCTION SITES

                         Surface Condition With No Cover	Factor P
                         Compact, smooth, scraped with bulldozer
                         or scraper up and down hill               1,30
                         Same as above, except raked with bulldozer
                         root raked up and down hill              1,20
                         Compact, smooth, scraped with bulldozer
                         or scraper across the slope                1.20
                         Same as above, except raked with bulldozer
                         root raked across slope                  0,90
                         Loose as a disced plow layer               1,00
                         Rough irregular surface, equipment
                         tracks in all directions                   0.90
                         Loose with rough surface greater than
                         12% depth                            0.80
                         Loose with smooth surface greater than
                         12% depth                            O.iO

                         Structures
                         Small sediment basins:
                         0.04 basin/ac                          0.50
                         0.06 basin/ac                          0.30
                         Downstream sediment basins:
                         with chemical flocculants                0.10
                         without chemical flocculants             0.20
                         Erosion control structures:
                         normal  rate usage                       O.iO
                         high rate usage                         0.40
                         Strip building                           0,75
                        Source:  Ports,  M.A., "Use of the Universal  Soil  Loss
                                Equation As a Design Standard," ASCE  Water
                                Resources Engineering Meeting, Washington, D.C.,
                                1973.
      Values  of P  for urban  development have been taken as 1.0.

      The Sediment Delivery  Ratio,  or  the  percentage  of the gross eroded
sediment conducted down slope from its origin  to a point  of delivery, has
been estimated as:  (48)

                D =   0.627S0'403                                     (10)
                                           70

-------
where:

               D = Sediment yield  (ton)
                   Total eroded  sediment  (ton)        '

               S = Slope of the main channel in percent
     It should be noted that no general sediment delivery relationships exist
that are applicable to all watersheds due to soil texture, type of erosion,
and areas of deposition within the drainage area. (45)  Comparisons of several
graphical relationships showed that the area of the drainage basin may be a
better indication of the sediment delivery ratio.  (48)  The results of this
analysis produced the equation:

              logD = 1.534 - 0.142 logA                        (11)

where:

                 D is defined above

                 A = drainage area in ac

     Sediment yield can, therefore, be determined on the basis of an estimate
of the gross erosion, as may be computed by the Universal Soil Loss Equation,
and some estimate of the Sediment Delivery Ratio, as defined by:

               Yield = E • D                                    (12)

where:

                   E = Gross erosion loss,  tons

                   D = Sediment Delivery Ratio

     Care should be taken in the use of the USLE insofar as it is generally
employed as an estimating method for annual sediment yield values.  Its use
to determine sediment contributions resulting from individual short-term
events is thus suspect, and should be employed with discretion.


Pollutional Potentials of Sediment —

     The major pollutant potential due to soil erosion is due to its contri-
bution to the total solids loadings conveyed through the sediment production
and transport processes.  Total solids have a physical, chemical, and biological
effect on receiving water quality.  These include disruptions to aquatic life
systems due to the presence of suspended solids and sedimentation, increased
turbidity that can result in thermal effects due to increased heat absorption,
reduced storage capacity, changed stream flow characteristics, decreased
photosynthesis, increased water treatment costs,and other direct and indirect
effects.

                                      71

-------
     Erosion products also  contribute to oxygen depletion effects due to the
introduction of organic matter.   This organic material may be green vegetative
and humic matter, various naturally occurring organisms and animal wastes,
and other similar materials.   The organic content of soils in various locations
is shown in Table 38,


                        TABLE 38. ORGANIC CONTENTS OF
                      SURFACE SOILS FROM VARIOUS AREAS
                             OF THE UNITED STATES

                    Location                   Percent Organic Matter
                                             Mean   Range
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
Kansas
Nebraska
Minnesota Prairie
Southern Great Plains
Utah
2.88 0.74-15.1
3.60 1.70- 9.9
3.38 0.11- 3.62
3.83 2.43- 5.29
5.15 3.45- 7.41
1.55 1.16- 2.16
2.69 1 .54- 4.93
                    Source:  Buckman, H.O., and Brady, N.C., The Nature and
                          Properties of Soil, MacMillan Company, New York,
                          1969 (seventh edution).


     The major nutrients—nitrogen and phosphorus—also contribute  to  pol-
lutant  potentials of  sediment.  Generalizations as to the nitrogen  and phosphorus
content of  surface soils  are provided for non-urban land uses in Figures  20
and  21.  Estimating functions for nitrogen and phosphorus losses by erosion
processes have been proposed.

             N = a • E  • D • Nt • r                                   (13)

where:

             N = Nutrient  loss by erosion, kg/ha/yr (Ib/ac/yr)

             a = dimensionless constant
                 Nitrogen:  10 for S.I. (metric) units or 20 for U.S. Customary
                              units
                 Phosphorus:  1.72 for S.I. units (metric) or 3.44 for  U.S.
                              Customary units

             E = Gross erosion loss, MT (tons)

             D = Sediment Delivery Ratio

            Nt = Total nutrient concentration  in the soil, percent by weight

             r = Enrichment ratio or  nutrient content in eroded soil
                                      nutrient content in uneroded soil
                                        72

-------
—I
u>
                        NITROGEN
                        PERCENTN
                        Highly Diverse
                        Insufficient Data
                        Under 0.05
                        0.05 - 0,09
                        0.10-0.19
                        0.20 - 0.29
                        0.30 and Over
                                                    Figure 20. Percent nitrogen (N) in surface soils.
                    Source:   Parker, C.A., et al., "Fertilizers and Lima In the United States," U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication, No. 586,
                             1946.

-------
       PHOSPHORIC ACID
        Percent P2OS
               0.0 - 0.04

               0.05 - 0.09

               0.10-0.19
           :•:•-: 0.20-0.30
                                                     Figure 21, Percent phosphorus in surface soil
Source:  Parker, C.A., at al., "Fertilizers and Lime in the United States," U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publica-
        tion, No. 586, 1946.

-------
     Values for gross erosion and the Sediment Delivery Ratio  nave been dis-
cussed  previously.  Data  for nutrient concentrations may be determined for local
sampling  efforts.  Enrichment Ratio values  have been found to  be from 3.4 to
4.3 for nitrogen, and 1.5 to 1.6 for phosphorus. (49)  Other soil constituents
may also  be transmitted to receiving waters in the process of  erosion and trans-
port.   These components may include soil salts and some trace  metals.  Calcium,
phosphorus, nitrogen, magnesium compounds,  and trace metals such as iron and
manganese fall into this  category.  Other trace metals such as copper, cobalt,
and chromium may also be  transported in a fixed form within the crystalline
structure of sediment.  (49)

     Depositions of chemicals and materials that are products  of human activity
may also  be transported to receiving waters with sediment.  These include ferti-
lizers, insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, and fungicides.  An indication
of pesticide usage for urbanized areas is described in Table 39.
                 TABLE 39. TYPES AND QUANTITIES OF PESTICIDES
                              USED IN URBAN HOMES
Pesticide % of Homes Quantity
Category (of 100 surveyed) ounces I
Aerosols
Garden sprays
Garden dusts
Herbicides-solids
crystalline materials
Herbicides-liquid
81
10
26

18
18
2,117.5
132.5
559.0

9,312.0
261.0
62.6
3.9
16.5

275.4
7.7
                 Sources: Apgar, W. and Bertollette, R.8., "Pesticides Usage Profile Study,"
                       Research and Demonstration Services, Department of Environmental
                       Resources, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
                       1971,
                       "A Study of the National Scope of Urban  Pesticide Runoff,"
                       CONSAD Research Corporation, A draft report  prepared under
                       USEPA Contract No. 68-O1-222B, November, 1974.
      Table 40 gives a further indication  of  the magnitude and  complexity of
possible sources.
                                         75

-------
             TABLE 40. ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF HOME AND GARDEN
                      PESTICIDES USED IN THREE STUDY AREAS
                                    STUDY AREAS
                                                      TOTALS

Population
No, of Single-
Family Dwelling
Philadelphia
3,866,000
979,413
Dallas
1,327,000
307,775
Lansing
272,000
56,658

5,465,000
1,243,845
  Units
 Herbicides, wtof active ingredients
                                  bx103   kgxtO3   Ib x 103  kg x 103

Phenoxy
Decarnba
Altrazine
Other Herbicides
All Herbicides
Insecticides, wt of
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Dicofol
Methoxychlor
Dimethoate
Carbaryl
Malallion
Deazinon
Other Insecticides
All Insecticides
Ib x 103
79
—
—
14
93
kg x 10s
35.9


6.4
42.3
active ingredients
54
—
11
2
15
	
104
—
48
234
24.5

5.0
0.9
6.8

47.3

21.8
106.4
 Fungicides, wt of active ingredients
 AH Fungicides
 All Pesticides
 90
417
 40.9
18i.5
                                   11
                                    4
                                    4
                                    5
                                   24


                                   39
                                   14
 19
 66
 31
 82
251


 26
301
                            5.0
                            1.8
                            1.8
                            2.3
                           10.9


                           17.7
                            6.4
  8.6
 30.0
 14.1
 37.3
114.1


 11.8
136.8
                            13



                            13

                            4
 3
 4

10
24


 4
41
 5.9



 5.9


 1.8


 1.4

 1.4
 1.8

 4.5
10.9


 1.8
18.6
                                                    Ib x 103   kg x 103
103
  4
  4
 19
130


 97
 14
 11
  5
 15
 22
174
 31
140
509


120
759
 46.8
  1.8
  1.8
  8.6
 59.1

 44.1
  6.4
  5.0
  2.3
  6.8
 10.0
 79.1
 14.1
 63.6
231.4


 54.5
345.0
Source:
       Rymkar, R.U, at al., "The Use of Pesticides in Suburban Hotnas and Gardens and Their Impact on tho Aquatic
       Environment," USEPA (NTIS No. PB 213 960/7), 1972.
      Pesticides are considered  to be introduced into receiving waters  through
surface runoff, either in a dissolved form  or carried by  eroded soil sediment.
The  levels of pesticides within runoff are  dependent upon their local  usage,
the  rate and formulation of the application,  their decay  rate, topography,
climatic conditions,  and the  time intervals between the applications and
the  rainfall event.   Pesticide  concentrations are generally higher in  sediment
than in a dissolved state. (51)   Pesticides are subject to degradation through
microbiological activity, by  photochemical  conversion or  through chemical
reaction. (51)  The relative  persistence of pesticides is shown in Table  41.
                                         76

-------
                     TABLE 41. REPRESENTATIVE HALF LIVES OF
                      VARIOUS PESTICIDES AND POTENTIAL FOR
                              MIGRATION ON SEDIMENT


                    Pesticides           Half Life of the           Migration
                                     Pesticide, Days           Potential

                    Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
                        Aldrin         215 ±   152 (to dieldrin)    High
                                     2,248 ±2,040 (including
                                             dieldrin loss)
                        Dieldrin            360               —
                        Lindane        568+   442
                    Phosphate
                        Diazinon             0.9             Possible
                        Malathron       0.56 ±0.41             Not likely
                    Urea, Uracil and Triazine
                        Atrazine        130±   40             High
                        Bromacil            205              Possible
                        Duiron         212 ±   87            Possible
                        IVlonuron           166               —
                    Benzoic Acid
                        Diacamba        32 ±   39             —
                    Phenoxy and Tolidine
                        2,4-D           .17 ±    8             Low
                   Source: "A Study of the National Scope of Pesticide Runoff," CONSAD
                        Research Scorp., A Draft Report Prepared Under USEPA Contract
                        No. 68-O1-2225, November 1974.
      In view of  the foregoing,  it is apparent that some estimation of pesticides
may be  possible  from a knowledge of pesticide formulation, application, degrada-
tion, and the relative distribution between the sediment and fluid  fractions of
runoff.   Data on urban pesticides are limited, however, and estimations as such
are subject to these limitations.

      Other activities may  also contribute to  the pollutional  impact  of sedi-
ment.  Construction site wastes  include petroleum product  wastes, demolition
and  construction materials,  soil additives—lime, fly  ash,  salt, asphalt,
calcium chloride, and others—and other special  construction  chemicals.   To
this  growing  list should be  added the more obvious contributions due to litter,
air  pollution,  and other waste products of human activity.
                                           77

-------
     Although some estimating methods have been outlined in the foregoing
discussions, few, if any, actual field measurements of runoff contained identi-
fiable sediment and sediment related pollutants have been made and reported.
Thus, few of the pollutant measures of direct interest from a water quality
standpoint can be reported.  This is a serious deficiency if a clear under-
standing of urban and non-urban runoff is to be achieved.  It is apparent on
this basis, that further study and investigation is required to obtain reputable
estimations of sediment and its related pollutional contributions.


Miscellaneous  Sources  of Urban Runoff Pollution,  Intermittent Pollutant
Depositories

     A number of effects on the pollutional makeup of urban runoff pollution
remain to be considered.  These include the miscellaneous sources, rooftop
drainage, and intermittent pollutant depositories such as catch basins and
sewers during low flow which contribute to first flush contributions.  These
are all included within this section insofar as limited data exist to ade-
quately describe or estimate the relative contributions of each.

Catch Basin Pollutional Characteristics —

     Stormwater runoff in urban areas normally flows for a short period of
time in the street gutter and is diverted into an inlet structure leading to
an underground conduit or open channel for transport to a treatment facility
or receiving water body.  The underground conduit,either a storm or combined
sewer, is often protected by a catch basin built in conjunction with the inlet
structures.

     Catch basins are normally constructed under the inlet gratings or openings
in the street.   The typical catch basin is made of concrete, brick, or pre-
cast concrete with a total depth of about 2.4 m (8_ ft) and with a holding
capacity below the outlet sewer invert of about 0.76 m3 (27 f t^) .  (15)
A water seal is sometimes Included in a catch basin to prevent the escape
of sewer odors.  Recently, many local authorities have amended these design
standards, and provided stormwater inlets without sump storage.

     Historically, the purpose of catch basins was to prevent sewer clogging
from sand and gravel, and to prevent odor emanation from the sewers.  In areas
where streets were partially or wholly unpaved, significant quantities of stone,
sand, and other materials were washed into the sewer system during periods
of rainfall.  During the earlier years of sewer construction few attempts were
made to maintain self-cleaning velocities in sewers of at least 0.6 in/see
(2 ft/sec).  (15)  Catch basins are widely used in many jurisdictions in all
parts of the country as reported in a 1973 Survey by the American Public Works
Association.  (52)
                                                                *
     There is little information as to the composition of the materials retained
in catch basins.  The major source of pollutants that will produce accumulations
in a. catch basin come from street surfaces and other contributing sources of
runoff.  These pollutants generally can be divided into four categories;
floatable, dissolved, suspended, and settleable solids.  Each category can be


                                       78

-------
further  sub-divided into organic  and inorganic components.   (53)  On this
basis, an  indication of the pollutions! contributions  associated with various
particle size distributions is  provided in Table 42.

             TABLE 42. FRACTION OF POLLUTANT ASSOCIATED WITH
               EACH PARTICLE SIZE RANGE, FROM TEN TEST CITIES*
                            PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT

                                         Particle size, microns

Total solids
Volatile solids
BOD5
COD
Kjeldahl nitrogen
Nitries
Phosphates
Total heavy metals
Total pesticides
>2,OQO
24.4
11.0
7.4
2.4
9.9
8.6
0
16.3
0
840 - 2,000
7.6
17.4
20.1
4.5
11.6
6.5
0.9
17.5
16.0
246 - 840
24.6
12.0
15.7
13.0
20.0
7.9
6.9
14.9
26.5
104-246
27.8
16.1
15.2
12.4
20.2
16.7
6.4
23.5
25.8
43 - 104 
-------
     Attempts were also made during a study in Chicago to obtain undisturbed
samples of catch basin solids using a tube-within-a-tube sampling device,  (15)
Unfortunately, core samples could be obtained by this method from only one
catch basin, a basin that was completely full of solids.  In all others,  the
moisture content of the mixture was so high that a core of solids could not
be lifted out of the basin in an undisturbed condition for examination.

     Cores taken from the one catch basin revealed that much of the solids had
been washed in from under the adjoining gutter.  Those solids obtained from the
center of the basin were composed of black, organic material, while the solids
near the sides of the chamber appeared to be washed sand.  From the tests  of
the laboratory, the core material provided the following information:

     The solids retention time in a catch basin depends on the rainfall
     pattern, and may vary from a few minutes during a rainstorm to several
     months during prolonged periods of insignificant runoff.  Results of
     some field tests which were conducted to determine the change of  sludge
     level in a catch basin indicates that with a flow of 4,012 1 (1,060 gal)
     in 30 minutes, the depth of sludge above the invert level was eroded
     1.75 cm (0.69 in).  The COD of the top layer of the solids in the catch
     basin was measured before and after the washing of solids.  The initial
     COD was 38,300 mg/kg of solids and the BOD was 1,750 mg/kg of solids.
     After the test the COD was 24,900 mg/kg of solids which amounted  to a
     reduction of 35 percent in the strength of the top layer materials.  (15)

     Another study in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1970, attempted to identify the
contribution that sewers and catch basins make to combined sewage composition. (55)
Samples were obtained of liquids in catch basins during storm periods.  The
results, together with related information, are presented in Table 44.

     The samples reported were taken at the liquid surface, and may not have
represented actual concentrations throughout the full depth of the basin.   All
of the basins sampled were in residential sections of the study areas.  The
volatile suspended solids to suspended solids ratio for surface runoff was
found to be characteristically around 30 percent.  Catch basin samples* evidenced
a similar or higher ratio for the most part.
                                       80

-------
               TABLE 44. SUMMARY OF CATCH BASIN SAMPLING, 1970
                                 (Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Date

Aug. 12

Aug. 21









Aug. 24







Location
Of
Basin

York S.
Bm
Elm
York N.
York S.
York S.
Cambridge
Cambridge
Cambridge
Gutter
Pit
Manhole
York S.
Gutter
Pit
Manhole
Cambridge
Gutter
Pit
Manhole
Time
From
Start
Of
Storm
hr mln
3 07
3 12
0 41
2 16
0 46
2 11
0 56
2 06
4 56



9 08



8 53



Storm
Rain-
fall
Prior
To
Sample
in
0.9
0.9
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.07



0.9



0.9



Rainfall
Inten-
sity
At
Sample
Time
in/hr
0.84
0.72
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.22



0.3



0.36



ss
mg/l
179
151
276
42
160
305
223
153
_
10
35
139

TO
26
56

82
185
158
Fecal.
VSS/SS Coir. Coli.
No/ No/
	 100 ml 100ml
(J.21 	
0.18
0.54
0.52
0.51
0.40
0.32
0.29
--
„
0.23
0.30

..
0.62
0.38

0.38 120 2
0.31 65 <2
0.32 540 12
Fecal
Strep.
No/
TOO ml
















<2
<2
<2
    Source:
           Waller, D.H., "Pollution Attributable to Surface Runoff and Overflow from Combined Sewerage Systems,'
           Atlantic Industrial Research Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia, April 1971.
     On  three occasions,  samples were  obtained simultaneously from  the gutter,
the catch basin, and at the point where the pipe from the eaten basin entered
the sewer manhole.  In  each, case concentrations at  the latter point exceeded
those measured in the gutter, indicating that some  solids were being picked
up in the catch basin.   As indicated in Figure 22,  a  general downward trend
in suspended solids from the beginning of a runoff  event was suggested.
                                         81

-------
                              CATCHBASIN LOCATIONS
                                YORK ST. S.

                                YORK ST. N.

                                ELM ST.

                                CAMBRIDGE ST.
                          5 min. rainfall intensities in in./hr at
                               times of sampling are shown in
                               parentheses
               SS
               mg/i
                    300
200
                    100
    - (0.04)
                             (0.06)

                              *
                            (0.04)
    - (0.06)
                               (0.4)
                                   (0.7)
(0.07)
Jy (0.22)
1 ! 1
(0.3)
1 I
                       0246      8     10

                            TIME (MRS) FROM BEGINNING OF STORM

             Figure 22. Summary of catch basin sampling results—Halifax, Nova Scotia.

 Source; Wallor, D.H., "Pollution Attributable to Surface Runoff and Overflows from Combined Sewerage Systems," Atlantic
       Industrial Research Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia, April, 1971.
     Table 44, suggests,  from very limited data, variations in rainfall
intensity do not appear to affect  catch basin solids  concentrations.   APWA
measured BOD concentrations in Chicago catch basin  liquids of from  50 to
250 mg/1.   In calculating the pollutional load that could be flushed  from
all of  the basins in  the area, it  was  determined that the liquid content of
a catch basin would be flushed out during the first 1 cm (0.4 in) of  rain-
fall in a storm. (15)

     Further information on catch  basin content sampling is shown in  Tables
45 and  46.

     The data, as shown,  reflect conditions during  winter and spring  months.
Catch basin operation can be considered essentially uniform during  all seasons
of the  year.  In terms of operational  mode, catch basins act as a short-term
sedimentation basin and their efficiency is generally constant, as  measured
in terms of solids removal and retention times if maintained in a clean
condition.
                                         82

-------
                                   TABLE 45
        SUMMARY OF DATA ON CATCH BASIN CONTENT ANALYSIS
                              (SAN FRANCISCO)
CATCH BASIN    FIRST SAMPLING SERIES
                                     SECOND SAMPLING SERIES
LOCATION
COD    BOD    TOTAL N  TOTAL P  COD    BOD
(mg/l)   (mg/l)   (mg/l)     (mg/l)     (mg/l)   (mg/l)
                         TOTALN  TOTALP
                         (mg/l)     (mg/l)
Plymouth and
 Sadowa
7th and Hooper
Yosemite
40th and Moraga
Mason and
 O'Farrell
32nd and Taraval
Haight and
 Ashbury
Marina Area
Montgomery
 Street
Webster and Turk
Lower Selby
Upper Mission
 3,860
15,000
   739
 9,060

 8,100
   153
190
430
 11
 40

130
  5
37,700  1,500
   701   100
10,9
33.2
 1.8
16.1

29.7
 0.5

 1.4
 7.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
8,610 122
2,570 170
21,400 120
51,000 130
2.8
2.0
4.6
12.0
0.3
<0.2
<0.2
<0.2
< 0.2
< 0.2

< 0.2
< 0.2
6,440
1,440
288
5,590
390
44
6
50
18.8
14.0
1.4
12.0
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.2
0.3
  7,720  85
    708  15

143,000 420
  8,600  40

  8,160 300
16.5
 1.4

14.6
O.5

 3.9
<0.2
<0.2

<0.2
<0.2

<0.2
Source:
       Sartor, J.D., and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA Report
        No. EPA-R-2-72-081 (NTIS No. PB 214408). November, 1972.
            TABLE 46. ANALYSIS OF CATCH BASIN CONTENTS
                                 (Chicago, Illinois)
           A.
           Tests
                               Percent
                            Organic Material
                    Percent
                  Washed Sand
           Total solids                             58.6           75.2
           Fixed solids                            45.2           62.8
           Volatile solids                          13.3           12.4
           Sieve analysis
            Retained on No. 10 (200mm)             33.5            6.6
            Retained on No. 16 (1190mm)            7.8            1.0
            Retained on No. 20 (840mm)              5.0            0.8
            Retained on No. 30 (590mm)              6.1            1.4
            Retained on No. 325 |44mm)             47.6           90.2
           Specific gravities of screen fractions
            No. 10                                 3.250          2.692
            No. 16                                 3.190          3.111
            No. 20                                 3.178          3.081
            No. 30                                 3.220          3.130
            No. 325                               3.237    "      3.515

         Source: American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban
                Runoff," USEPA Report No. 11030DNS01/69 (NTIS No. PB215 532),
                January, 1969.
                                         83

-------
    B.
    TEST SITE    LIQUID SAMPLES (Supernatant)   	._
    CODE    COD   PHOSPHATES  NITRATES  COD
            (mg/»     (nrw/I)      img/t)      (mg/o)
        SOLID SAMPLES (Sediments)
PHOSPHATES
    Milwaukee 8,250    1.5
    Milwaukee   —    —
                                Milwaukee
                                 9.0
7,750
  11.75
  3.0
  O.Oi
                  NITRATES
                  Img/a)

Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore

150
_
175

1.10
—
2.2
Baltimore
4.0
—
5.5

31.0
12.0
—

0.60
0.17
—

0.50
0.90
—
16.0
 0.70
     NOTE; Both sampling series were conducted in April/May, 1971.
     Sourc*: Sartor, J.D., and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA Report
          No. EPA-R-2-72-081 (NTIS No, PB 214 408), November, 1972,


     Pollutant loads  (in terms of specific constituents)  do vary seasonally,
and as would be  expected during the summer months  the pollutant load on catch
basins and the resultant effluents from them will  be higher in nitrates and
phosphates due to the increased use of fertilizers.   It should be stressed
that this change in pollutant character and quantity is not a function of
catch basin  efficiency, but rather, a function  of  increased pollutant load
in the environment.  (43)

     It  appears  from  the above that catch basins contribute little to the
efficiency of  sewerage systems.  They behave as a  reservoir for solids when
not  cleaned, and of liquids when cleaned.  If cleaned regularly, they may
reduce the load  of heavier solids that may be deposited in sewers or carried
through  the  system.  The successful operation of a catch basin, as a settling
basin device,  is a function of its solids retention capacity.  Basins which
are  frequently cleaned have the capacity for operating at design efficiency
in retaining solids.   In a relative sense, the  retained solids may represent
a relatively high proportion of the potential pollution involved, as was
previously indicated  in Table 42.  A comparison of this with Table 43 shows
that of  the  few  catch basin depositons measured, all were 44 microns or larger
in size. In a dry state, this particle size or greater would represent about
80 percent of  all pollutants with the exception of phosphates.

     It  is apparent that the dissolved pollutant portion of urban runoff will
pass into storm  or combined sewers regardless of the type of intermediate
device employed, whether a catch basin or  inlet.  The foregoing shows, however,
that those pollutants more directly tied  to solid  particles may be captured
within some  catch basin configurations.  The net impact of this capture of
surface  runoff quality would then appear  to be  a direct function of the basin's
capture  efficiency, retention capacity, and the frequency of cleaning.  Dirty
catch basins may be expected to exert a significant influence on the pollutional
load on  receiving waters or wastewater  treatment units because of their contri-
butions  to a first-flush or pollutants.
                                        84

-------
     In conclusion, it appears that catch basins can be reasonably effective in
protecting sewers from loadings of the heavier suspended solids, but that they
have a definite potential for contributing to water pollution problems. (43)
However, catch basins under most circumstances may be an unnecessary component
in combined or stormsewer systems as far as their primary purpose of preventing
sewer clogging is concerned.  This obsolescence with respect to their historical
function is because of two factors:  1) greatly reduced quantities of solids
entering the sewer system via the street inlets; and 2) technological advances
in sewer design and cleaning, as well as in street cleaning. (53)

     The effectiveness of catch basins in influencing the quality of surface
runoff, as previously stated, is directly affected by the basin's capture ef-
ficiency, retention capacity, and the frequency of cleaning.  Uncleaned catch
basins containing significant quantities of organic matter act as biological
treatment units.  Indeed, the catch basin configuration is closely akin to that
of a single-cell septic tank.  Light storms, thus, might be expected to cause
significant disturbances to catch basin accumulations that would contribute
materially to a first-flush effect and produce, in combination with depositions
within the sewer system, more severe shock loading to the receiving water or
treatment facility than would otherwise be the case.
*
Roof Drainage Contributions —

     The three major sources of particulates on roof surfaces are from air pol-
lution dustfall, tree leaves and seed, and bird and animal droppings.  In urban
areas, roofs represent a large part of the impervious surface that increase
runoff.  Thus, the relative pollutional contributions of roof runoff to urban
surface runoff must be considered in the context of runoff quality.

     Of the solids sources outlined above, air pollution contributions have
been explored in a previous section of this chapter.  Likewise, general informa-
tion on vegetative contributions have also been presented.  No clear definition
of the magnitude, distribution or the impact of wild bird and animal wastes can
be readily identified from the literature.  Some indications of overall roof
drainage contributions may be identified through a few past sampling efforts.

     During the summer of 1969, a series of investigations of roof drainage were
performed in the City of Halifax, Nova Scotia.  (55)  Roof runoff samples were
taken at three sites, with the results shown in Table 47.  All of the sampling
sites were within 91 m (300 ft) of the shore of Halifax Harbor, and were exposed
to seagull wastes as well as other local sources of airborne particulates that
might not be reflected at official dustfall sampling sites.

     The table shows the results of roof samples for suspended solids, BOD, and
bacteriological concentrations.  Although the majority of the samples reported
were single samples taken during individual runoff events, in those few instances
where more than one sample was taken, a general reduction in concentrations ap-
peared  to occur.  Generally,  it was also found  that the volatile suspended
solids  to suspended solids ratio was about 30 percent, which is approximately
the same as that found for surface runoff. (55)  Values for BOD were found  to
be relatively low—in most cases less than 10 mg/1.


                                        85

-------
TABLE 47
SUMMARY - ROOF RUNOFF SAMPLING
Rain
Time From In Storm Volatile
Sample Start Prior To Suspended Suspended Fecal Fecal
Sampls Of Storm Sample Solids Solids BOD Coliform Coliform Strep.
Sita Date (\\t min) (in) (cm) (mq/l) (mg/l) (ma/0 (per 100 ml) (per 100 ml) (per 100 ml!

1












2



















3









1
2
3
May 15, 1969
29
June 4
17
25
May 1,1970
JuneS
May 29, 1969
June 4
June 17
25
July 13
13
15
27
29
30
Aug. 5
5
6
6
7
10
12
25
25
May 27, 1970
May 15, 1969
June 4
17
25
July 13
13
15
27
29
30
Aug. 5
5
6
6
7
10
12
25
26
Median
Values

*
»
8 05
15 40
0 24
*
•
*
7 50
28 36
30 11
15 37
15 40
1 12
0 35
10 07
13 25
1 05
1 40
16 15
4 06
4 50
0 26
16 41
15 25
9
*
#
8 45
29 41
31 06
15 47
15 25
1 22
0 45
10 0
13 20
1 15
2 35
16 05
4 14
4 40
1 31
16 31





0,05
1.37
0.29



0.05
1.93
2.29
0.88
0.20
0.07
0.04
0.26
0.45
0.12
0.17
0.73
0.12
0.07
0.06
0.33
1.37



0.05
2.10
2.41
0.88
0.19
0.07
0.04
0.26
0.45
0.15
0.21
0.73
0.12
0.07
0.14
0.33





0.13
3,48
0.74



0.13
4.90
5.82
2.24
0.51
0.18
0.10
0.66
1.14
0.30
0.43
1.85
0.30
0.18
0.15
0.84
3.48



0.13
5.33
6.12
2.24
0.48
0.18
0.10
0.66
1.14
0.38
0.53
1.85
0.30
0.18
0.36
0.84






<10
187






1,314
44
499
158
1,401
421
691
350
1,070
352
628
1,289
582
<10






40
682
93
430
154
91
140
40
65
147
38
87
157
-
582
93



—
20






289
11
152
87
393
100
108
45
541
55
117
309
215
_






1
120
32
91
66
37
35
—
21
33
14
17
71
—
117
34



24.0







7.0
3.5
3.9
8.1
21.8
6.5
'6.0
4.6
5.7
3.4
1.5
21.9
—
23.0






2.3
_
6.4
13,8
6.6
3.3
2.8
2.7
3.2
4.6
3.0
7.1
3.1
_
6
3
300
0
13
5
200,000


130
8
110,000
100
10
10
10
10
2
3
10
1,700
280
2,600
1,400
20
540
2
1,000

860
40
2,800
<10
3,200
420
5
<10
2
> 12
20
570
1,300
1,200
280
<2
<2
<2
<2
13
10
20
200
0
6
5
68


70
2
30
<2
<30
^10
20,000


230
2,100
1.4x1 0s
<100
20
10
—
10
10
7
20
20
<10
<10
<10
4
< 2
<10
<10

1,000
8,400
14,000
2,500
25,000
900
37,000
50
550
530
5,000
40
10
290
400
10
14
<10
670
75
10
550
        * Tima of start of storm not recorded.
Sourca: Wallor, D.H., "Pollution Attributable to Surface Runoff and Overflows from Combined Sewer Systems," Atlantic Industrial
        Raiaarch  Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia, April 1971.
                                                         86

-------
      Comparisons of  measured nutrient concentrations from various sources are
shown in Table 48.   The nutrient concentrations  reported  for roof runoff appear
lower than for the other sources sampled, with the exception of nitrates.


                                         TABLE 48
                           MEDIAN NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS
                                            (mg/1)
                               (number of samples shown in parentheses)
Source of
Sample
Surface Runoff -

Roof Runoff -

Combined Sewage-
Year*
1969
1970
1969
1970
1970
Total Inorganic
0.6 (7)
0.5(101)
—

-------
     The. largest part of the deposited participates on a flat roof could be ex-
pected to be washed into the runoff flow, while contributions from gabled roofs
with their direct exposure to prevailing winds would be relatively small. (15)
It seems that overall roof runoff contributions may be reduced by local public
policies requiring the disconnection of roof leaders from sanitary and combined
sewer systems, and even  storm  sewers.   If  properly handled  in residential and
other areas with available permeable surfaces, a relatively high degree of
entrapment of roof runoff pollutant contributions may be possible on sodded or
densely planted areas.

First Flush Effects —

     First-flush can be defined as the phenomenon in which the most contaminated
storm and combined sewer discharges occur at the beginning of a significant run-
off event.  A first-flush may originate from a number of sources including
drainage area pollutant accumulations, catch basin depositions,  roof top accumu-
lations, and sewer solid dispositions.  All of these sources can determine how
contaminated these first-flush flows will be.

     Surface accumulations can originate from debris dropped or scattered by
individuals; sidewalk sweepings; debris and pollutants deposited on or washed
into streets from yards and other adjacent areas; wastes and dirt from building
construction and demolition; animal wastes; remnants of household and commercial
refuse dropped during collection or scattered by wind or animals; oil, tire
and exhaust residues contributed by motor vehicles; fallout of airborne particu-
lates; etc.

     Data on the rate at which pollutants accumulate on an urban watershed are
rare.  Pollutant accumulation has been discussed in various other sections of
this report.  One source of information on the buildup of contaminants on
streets are shown in Table 50.   The rate of buildup of pollutants varies with
land use.  Industrial and commercial areas were evidently dirtier than resi-
dential areas.  Average daily accumulations were approximately  one and
one-half to five times as great in commercial and industrial areas as they
were in residential areas.

     More detailed information concerning pollutant loadings from street
surfaces is given in a later discussion of Street Surface Pollution Potentials,

     The incorporation of pollutants into urban runoff would likely proceed in
the following way.  The first raindrops that fall on an urban watershed simply
wet the land surface.  Additional rainfall collects on the impervious surfaces
and fills any depression storage.  This early rain begins to dissolve the
pollutants in the gutters, streets and on other impervious surfaces and, as
this runoff water actually begins  to flow off the watershed, it carries dis-
solved material with it.
                                       88

-------
        Land Use
TABLE 50. AVERAGE DAILY POLLUTANT BUILDUP
              ON URBAN STREETS
                  (CHICAGO)

  Amount of Dust and Direct and Strength of BOD by Land Use
                 Amt. of D/D                    Soluble
                 by land use                     BOD of D/D
                Ib/curb-mi/day    kg/curb-km/day    tng/g
Commercial
Industrial
Multiple family
Single family residence
174.2
242.9
121.4
37.0
49.2
68.5
34.3
10.4
7.7
3
3.6
5
        Assumed weighted average
                    79.2
22.4
                         Amount of Pollutant by Type of Land Use
Item
Water Soluble (mg/g)
Volatile water soluble (mg/g)
BOD (mg/g) soluble only
COD (mg/g) soluble only
PO4 (mg/g) soluble only
N (mg/g) soluble only
Total plate counts/g (x 1,000)
Confirmed coliform/g (x 1,000)
Fecal enterococci/g
Single Family
6.0
3.8
5.0
40
0.05
0.48
10,900
1,300
645
Multiple Family
5.6
3.4
3.6
40
0.05
0.61
18,000
2,700
518
Comercial
12.4
6.9
7.7
39
0.07
0.41
1 1 ,700
1,700
329
        Source:  American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," USEPA
              Report No. 11030DNS01/69 (NT1S No. PB 215 532S, January 1969
     As the rainfall continues overland,  flow  velocities become sufficient  to
pick up solids.   The suspended solids discharged in the first-flush do not
appear to represent a large amount of solids unless a high flow which results
in surface scouring happens to occur.  Lighter suspended solids which are,  of
course, transported at lesser velocities  than  heavier settleable solids may
be suspended  in  the overland flow.  At low  flow velocities, particles may
simply be rolled along the gutter bottom  surface toward the stormwater inlet.

     The rain that  initially falls on pervious surfaces percolates into the
ground.  If the  rainfall is sufficiently  intense or prolonged, soil Infiltra-
tion capacity may be exceeded and excess  rainfall will begin to fill depression
storage on pervious surfaces.  Finally, if  the rainfall is of sufficient in-
tensity and duration, runoff will begin to  flow off the pervious areas, onto
adjacent impervious areas and hence, into stormwater inlets.  Present experience,
however, indicates  that the amount of runoff and resultant pollutant loads
contributed from pervious surfaces in urban areas may be small compared to
those coming  from impervious areas, except  for rainfalls of high intensity  and
long enough duration to create runoff.  For most low intensity rainfall events
                                        89

-------
the contributions from pervious urban areas may be neglected in determining
the quality of surface runoff.  This is especially true of pervious surfaces
covered with vegetation such as lawns and planting areas.  Formulas for deter-
mining runoff for areas of various pervious and impervious character have been
developed for storm sewer design purposes.

    The first-flush phenomenon is not always observed, and  there is little data
available to indicate how often or under whay exact conditions it will occur.
In addition, few sources can be found that describe the visual phenomenon of
the first-flush in clear detail.  A USEPA funded project reported a sampling
investigation of the influent to a wastewater treatment facility after a rain-
storm of 8 mm (0.25 in.) following a dry period of eight days.  The description
indicates the existence at that time in the system of a first-flush phenomenon.

      The initial sample obtained was grey, appeared to be normal late
      night flow, but after only two minutes the rate began to increase
      rapidly and the sewage became black and gave off a very strong odor,
      indicating septicity.  This odor did not disappear until the flow
      again returned to nearly normal.  The results of sample No. 2 indicate
      the flushing of grit and putrescible material undergoing anaerobic
      digestion from the bottom of the sewers.  (56)

    A two-year study in Halifax, Nova Scotia provided information on the composi-
tion of combined sewage, surface runoff, roof runoff, and effluent from a com-
bined sewage tank.  (55)  This study showed that the characteristics of combined
sewage can be expected to vary with the rate of flow, with time during the storm,
and with time since the previous runoff event.  This is depicted in Figure 23.
This figure shows the variation in flow and composition of combined sewage in
terms of time.

    Both of the sterm events represented  demonstrate a first-flush effect with
high concentrations of solids after the beginning of significant rainfall, and
the subsequent general diminishment of these concentrations with time and con-
tinuing flow.

      A detailed engineering investigation and comprehensive technical study to
 evaluate the pollutional effects from combined sewer overflows was conducted
 on the Sandusky River at Bucyrus, Ohio.  The results of the findings are pre-
 sented in Figures 24 thru 29 covering concentrations of BOD, suspended solids,
 total solids, nitrate nitrogen, ammonia and organic nitrogen, and total
 phosphates, respectively. (57)  All these figures clearly present the first-
 flush effects of the storm flow on the water quality of the overflows.

    Combined sewer overflow investigations in Des Koines, Iowa (58) produced
results as depicted in Figure 30.  All of the storm events studied demonstrated
a first-flush effect with high concentrations of solids after the beginning
of significant rainfall, and the subsequent general diminishment of these
concentrations with time and continuing flow.
                                       90

-------
                                          04QQ Tim» A.D.T. O6QQ         0800

                                        Event: August 11 12th Storm
                                                                                       2200       2*00 OlOO
        06OQ  1000
                                                  1600 Tim* A O T  18OQ
     Figure 23. Variations in flow and composition of combined sewage for two runoff events.
Source:  Walter, D.H., "Pollution Attributable to Surface Runoff and Overflows from Combined Sewer Systems/* Atlantic
        industrial Research Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia, April, 1971.
                                                   91

-------
3UW


400


300
1
Q
0
CO

200


100


C

n
i i
i \

V V \ /
/ V 1 ^
•' A
>• ^K ,'
t-JN
•'K
/ Y' ^^

* ' ^
*^V "^
"® ©
\Xs..
>§)
8xv-

)





*
/€)
i/- N
* A
\
\.


^
%^%

•^
«^3^
•••*"












L

\
V.
f%^^*X
^^•^
»-__


-














Storm Date
0 SEP 24'68
(?) OCT. 10 '68
V-x
(5) NOV. 15 '68
(4) JAN. i6'69
(|)FEB.8'69
(D MAR. 24' 69
(?) MAY 7 '69
(§) JUN. 13 '69




^*^ Representative Curve

!l^^.j


5 <•

ata,,,
*
juut m'68
j ;





^^^r^

5 €
                                  HOURS AFTER START OF OVERFLOW
                              Figure 24. BOD concentration vs. time.
                                          (Bucyrus, Ohio)
Sourco:   Burgess and Niplo, Ltd., "Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus, Ohio," USEPA
        Report No. 11024FKN11/69 (NTIS No. PB 195 162), November, 1969.
                                                92

-------
 I
 _l
 o
 oo
 0
 a.
 CO

 CO
£OUU


2000



1500


1000'


500

C




^
&
/f\
t(2\\f
f ^r *W
f A y%
/! vv\
• !%
(ft W V * <












^
TV' A * 	 f*.
K jfe>A [\
• '\J /r X <^^

7! \
• ^^^ «».
— ^v^

)
\\
®V

\ v '
*NOV. IS'68
2















/
j
*»«»^_ r
^••^i
=^
i














Representativ
/^

!^r— -•
~~v§/ 	
5 <
Storm Dates
Q SEP 24'68
© OCT. 10 '68
© NOV. 15 '68
© JAN. 16 ' 69
©FEB. 8*69
© MAR. 24' 69
@ MAY 7 ' 69
© JUN. 13 '69
© AUG. 9 '69


e Curve


• ^H ^•^•^B

» :





"" • •— —
j 6
                                     HOURS AFTER START OF OVERFLOW
                           Figure 25. Suspended solids concentration vs. time.

                                         (Bucyrus, Ohio)
Source:  Burgess and Niple, Ltd., "Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus, Ohio," USEPA
        Report No. 11024FKN11/69 (NTIS No. PB 195 162), November, 1969.
                                                 93

-------
VO
                       4400
                       4000
                        3200
                       2400
                     g
2  1600
                         800
                                                A
                                                        \
                                                                 ^
                                                                  —+-•&
                                                                             Cf
 Storm DatM
 OCT. 10'68
INOV II'68
I JAN. I6'69
 FEB. 8'69
 MAR. 24'69
i MAY 7'69
I JUN.13'69
                                                       I                         2
                                                        HOURS AFTER START OF OVERFLOW
                                                             Figure 26. Total Solids
                                                             (Bucyrus, Ohio)
                       Source:  Burgess and Niple, Ltd., "Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus, Ohio," USEPA
                              Report No. 11024FKN11/69 (NTIS No. PB 195 162), November, 1969.

-------
Ui
                   O
                   Z
                   I-
                   z
                   ui
                   a
                   O
                   st
                   UI
                   SL

                                                                       x
	Storm Dates
 0 OCT. 10'68
 (f) NOV. 15 '68
 (§) JAN. 16'69
 0 FEB. 8 '69
 (§) MAR. 24'69
 @ MAY 7 '69
 (7) JUN. 13 '63
                                                       HOURS AFTER START OF OVERFLOW
                                                      Figure 27. Nitrate nitrogen.
                                                          (Bucyrus, Ohio)
                      Source:
                              Burgess and Niple, Ltd., "Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows, Bucyriu, Ohio." USEPA
                              Report No. 11024FKN11/69 (NTIS No. PB 195162). November, 1969.

-------
               20
VD
OS
                16
            en
            U
            O
            O
            ft
            H

            Z
            O


            1
            O
            cc
            O
            OB
            O
            §
12
                8
                                                          — AMMONIA  NITROGEN

                                                          — ORGANIC  NITROGEN
                                                                               T  FEB. 8 '69

                                                                                  MAR,2469


                                                                                  JUN.B'69
                      Source:
                                                                   HOURS AFTER START OF OVERFLOW


                                    Figure 28. Ammonia & organic nitrogen.

                                             (Bucyi us, Ohio)

             Burgess and Niple, Ltd., "Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus, Ohio," USEPA
             Report No. 11024FKN1T/69 (NTtS No. PB 195 162), November, 1969.

-------
8
S
PO4
VO
 I
03
ui

<

u.

-------
       1400

       IJOO

       I ZOO

        1100

       1000

        too

        •oo

        TOO

        •oo

        »OO

        400

        JOO

        ZO<

         to
           a
           o
                    I?   18  19   20  21  22  23   24  01   02  05 O4  05
                                                                           60

                                                                              1w
                                                                              €
                                                                              e
                                                                           so ~
                                                                              >

                                                                              
-------
  I4OO


  I3OO

  1200


  1100


  1000


  900

— 800
as

 . 70O

O) 600


  soo

  4OO


  300

  2OO


  IOO

    O
               70,
               60
               50
            «t  40
            en

            I

            O  30
               20
                10
                             FLOW
                                      BOD
                    07  03  09  10   II  12   13  14   IS  16   17  IB

                   	7-J3-J9	  I

                                                 Time       '
                                                               70
                                                               60
                                                               SO
                                                               40
                                               D
                                               ac
                                                               30
                                                               2O
                                                               10
                                                                        2.8
                                                                        2.4
                                                         JC
                                                         .£
                                                      2.0 ~-
                                                                        1.6
                                                                            <
                                                                            tr
                                                                        ,8
                                                                       J 0
       PERTINENT  DATA

RUNOFF  PERIOD'  07OO  HRS
              TO  1800  HRS 7-23- 69
TOTAL RUNOFF =
9.30  AC FT
0.097 |N
RAINFALL PERIOD' 0630 HRS
(AT R.6. No.5)    TO 0745 HRS

TOTAL RAINFALL*  0.69 In

VOLUMETRIC COEFFICIENT OF
                  RUNOFF = 0.141
ANALYZED  RUNOFF:  5.9O AC FT
                   (64% OF TOTAL)

RUNOFF SAMPLES5  3 GRABS
  (I)  O725 HRS= BOD = 37.5 mg/l
                TSS =588 mg/I
  (2)  0815  HRS= BOD = 36.0 mg/l
                TSS ^808 mg/l
  (3)  0850 HRS  = BOD = 23.1 mg/l
                                           CO
                            100
                                              ao
                                              70
                            60
                            40
                                           U.
                                           O
                            3°
                            20
                             10
                                      VOLUMETRIC RELATIONSHIP
                                        BOD & TSS vs. FLOW
                                                                         BOD
                                              TSS
                TSS =356  mg/l
                              O  10  20  30  4O  SO  60  TO  BO  90  IOO

                                        % OF TOTAL RUNOFF
                RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
                   STATION 0-11
                  20th Street Storm Sewer

           Figure 30   Runoff characteristics.
                                         99

-------
                  "X
           INTENSITY
           RAINFALL
   100

   »0

w  80

*  70
oS

§  «
CO
_J  SO

O  *0

S  30
85  20

   10

    O
                                                      .60
                                                      .50
                                                      .40
                                                      .30
                                                      .20
                                                            .10
                          TIME
VOLUMETRIC RELATIONSHIP
 BOD & TSS vs. FLOW
     TSS
            BOD
                                            PERTINENT  DATA

                                       RUNOFF PERIOD:  ITOO MRS. 5-7-69
                                                   TO 0400 MRS. 5-0-69
                                 TOTAL RUNOFF '.
                                                       19.29 AC FT
                                                       0.171 IN
O  IO 20  30  4O  SO 6O  7O  BO  9O  IOO

        % OF TOTAL RUNOFF
                                 RAINFALL PERIOD'. 1650 HRS  5-7-69
                                 (ATR.G. No.5)    TO 2240 HRS  5-7-69

                                 TOTAL RAINFALL= 1.14 IN

                                 VOLUMETRIC COEFFICIENT OF
                                                 RUNOFF-0.150
                                 ANALYZED RUNOFF! 18.75 AC FT
                                                  (97.4 OF TOTAL)
                                 COMPOSITE PERIOD: I700HRS-
                                                    2300 HRS 5-7-69
                                 COMPOSITE   BOD = 44.8 mg/l

                                             TSS =343 mg/l

                                            RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
                                              STATION 0-8
                                            Ingersoll Run Overflow at Outlet
           Figure 30. Runoff characteristics. (Continued)
                          100

-------
  EOOO

  1900 •

  iaoo

  JTOO

  1600

  I50O

  I40O

  1300

  12OO

_ II OO
o>
^ IOOO
-I
u
=3  90°
oo
   TOO

   60O

   soo

   40O

   3OO

   ZOO

    IOO

     0
 IOO)

  9OJ

  8O

  7O
Q
§ 50
  4O

  10

  20

   IO

   O
                                                     6.O
                                                     5.0
                                                     4.O
3.O U.
   U.
   O
                                                         QC
                                                      z.o
I.O
                    ZO  22  24  O2 04  OS  03  10  12  14  16  18  2O
      I -15-69
                                I - 16 - 69
                                                 Time
                       PERTINEIMT  DATA

                 RUNOFF  PERIOD :   1800 HRS  I- 15-69
                               TO  1800 HRS  I-16-69
                 PRECIPITATION :   NONE - SNOW MELT

                 COMPOSITE  PERIOD : SAME AS ABOVE
                COMPOSITE
                     BOD = 31 mg/l
                     TSS  = 302 mg/l
                     CL~= 100 mg/l
                                                   RUNOFF CHARACTERISTICS
                                                       STATION S- 3
                                                   Cummins ParkwayStorm Sewer
                  Figure 30. Runoff characteristics.
                                     101

-------
     Studies in Seattle, Washington  in  1971  also  generated information on com-

bined sewer overflow pollutant  concentrations  versus time. (59)   A plot of these

data with flow and rainfall  intensity is  shown in Figures 31  and 32.  These

show that solids concentrations increase  to  a  peak subsequent to the flow peak
"Ml

o
                           si 'aaoavHasia sanosivioi
                                                                            o.
                                                                            a
                                                                            C
                                                                           a.
                                                                           ui
                                                                           ui
                                                                        1
                                                                 •a

                                                                  to


                                                                  O

                                                                 LL
                                                                           a
                                                                           to
                                                                           _c

                                                                           .a


                                                                           o
                                                                           O
                                                                        fi  C

                                                                        fO
                                                                           50
                                                                           K ""
                                                                           5 en
                                                                           o o
                                                                           o J«


                                                                           II
                                                                           •- y.
                                                                           "

-------
                     qi 'paBjeqosia dOO 'QOB I8*0!
                                                                       a
                                                                       Z
                                                                       t
                                                                       e
                                                                       a
                                                                       a.
                                                                       LU
                                                                       w
                                                                       a

                                                                       I
                                                                       S 01
                                                                       II
                                                                       IS IS
                                                                       so
                                                                       e ID
                                                                       •gco
                                                                       IS O
                                                                       OZ
                                                                       o in
                                                                       St
                                                                        Q. tu
                                                                        *
                sp'MOld
experienced while COD and BOD peak  very early and diminish with increasing
flow—a condition consistent with the first-flush phenomenon.  It should be
recognized that these data, however,  are for an overflow and do not as such,
indicate flows and pollutant strengths during the first hour of rainfall
where first-flush characteristics may be better defined.
                                     103

-------
       Detailed tabulation  of the  characteristics of  the first flush phenomenon
  are also  found  in the literature on combined sewer  overflow investigations.
  Results of a monitoring program  for the District  of Columbia are plotted in
  Figure 33 and shown in Table 51.  (60)  As  shown in  the table, the sampling
  occurred  at relatively small time steps, the data clearly demonstrated the
  gradual changes in concentrations of each  of the  contaminants.
                                                            •  BOD
                                                            O  COD
                                                            m  Total Solids
                                                               Suspended Solids
                                                            0  Flow
                       (75,000)
                       4732   l/*ec
                       (70,000)
                       4416
                       (65,000)
                       4101
                       (60,000)
                        3784
                       (55,000)
                        3470
                       (50,000)
                        3154
                       (45,000)
                        2839
                       (40,000)
                        2524
                       (35,000)
                        2208

                       (30,000)
                         1893
                        (25,000)
                       ' 1577
                        (20,000)
                       • 1262
                        (15,000)
                       • 946

                        (10,000)
                       ' 631

                       , (5000)
                        315
                  20     40      60      80     100
120
                                                            140
                                                                    160
                  Figure 33  Flow, BOD, COD, Total Solids, Suspended Solids
  Source:  Roy F. Watson, Inc., "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Alternatives, Washington, D.C.," USEPA Report
         No, 1024EXFO8/70 (NTIS No. PB 203 680), August, 1970.
      An analysis of  the mass  emission  (not shown) indicates that after  30
minutes the  rate of  discharge of the key pollutants is  minimal.
                                           104

-------
              TABLE 51. CHARACTERISTICS OF COMBINED SEWER  OVERFLOWS  IN
                         SEWER DISTRICT GOOD HOPE RUN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Location of Sampling Site - 17 Minn, and 16 S.E.

Date
July 28





















July 28








August 2











Storm
Total Sampling
Rainfall Interval
Time in cm min
1:20-2:00 p.m. 1.6 4.1 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
35
10
10
10
30

5:00-5:30 p.m. 0.20 0.5 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

8: 17-9:30 p.m. 2.9 7.4 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
" 10
10

Elapsed
Time
min
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
70
80
90
100
135
145
155
165
195
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
•70
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Flow pH
gpm I/sec
21,000
65,600
75,000
67,900
47,700
43,300
57,900
15,400
12,500
10,200
7,900
6,090
4,570
5,000
3,740
3,620
4,770
2,020
2,625
2,190
3,180
1,140
2,020
2,500
4,010
2,640
3,600
4,200
3,090
1,640
2,020
34,400
16,800
10,100
5,660
4,400
3,520
2,470
1,960
1,995
1,601
1,410
1,340
1,325 6.2
4,140 6.2
7,730 6.1
3,655 6.0
3,010 6.1
2,730 6.0
3,655 6.0
970 6.2
790 6.2
645 6.3
500 6.2
385 6.3
290 6.4
315 6.3
235 6.6
230 6.8
300 6.9
130 7.0
165 6.3
140 7.0
200 7.0
70 7.1
130 7.0
160
255 6.9
165 7.0
230 7.1
265 7.1
195 7.1
105 7.2
130 7.1
2,170 6.3
1,060 6.3
640 6.2
360 6.2
280 6.5
220 6.6
155 6.8
125 6.9
125 7.0
100 7.0
90 7.0
85 7.1
COD
mg/l
430
400
280
170
310
300
370
240
230
210
210
230
150
120
140
120
53
48
67
77
67
29
58
96
77
77
48
106
86
77
38
400
259
210
140
184
119
108
140
129
65
86
54
BOD
mg/l
13
15
11
16
15
15
5
8
13
15
16
4
15
17
14
14
12
4
4
5
8
3
4
6
7
5
5
5
5
4
3
16
12
36
16
36
17
12
31
13
40
14
17
Total
Solids
mg/l
14,600
12,560
6,638
5,830
10,002
10,682
10,242
8,676
7,198
6,092
4,898
4,598
3,908
2,898
2.310
1,670
1,454
1,140
770
944
776
778
578
488
446
539
1.070
1,842
1,580
1,984
1,240
10,346
6,626
4,290
3,318
2,478
1,838
1,090
1,290
1,342
680
1,130
910
Total
Volatile
Solids
mg/l
912
996
278
268
600
484
512
488
460
390
288
378
284
228
200
110
136
136
138
136
76
142
90
90
151
96
120
136
84
12
106
538
368
250
226
188
180
40
184
178
164
200
72
Suspended
Solids
mg/l
9,600
11,200
6,050
5,520
9,020
10,010
9,170
8,150'
5,560
5,900
4,620
3,920
3,140
2,160
1,920
1,020
1,160
640
480
720
480
520
380
320
300
340
920
1,500
1,300
1,740
980
9,568
6,560
4,210
2,610
1,200
1,550
1,278
910
840
200
548
416
Volatile
Suspended
Solids
mg/l
880
860
60
40
430
370
380
410
460
210
180
280
300
180
200
50
100
120
100
120
-
100
100
100
120
100
120
180
160
180
140
524
210
250
50
70
80
232
60 .
20
0
40
12
Settleable
Solids
mg/l
6,756
7.640
3,330
2,660
6,528
6,906
5,702
6,662
2.912
2,332
2,530
3,616
2,792
1.016
1.036
360
524
-
—
396
280
200
248
144
192
157
472
812
708
984
496
5,353
4,700
2,370
1,290
710
1,060
480
662
,. 700
40
400
268
Total P
mg/l
4.5
2.8
1.5
1.8
2.4
2.0
2.6
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.4
2.1
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.8
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
Total N
mg/l
4.0
2.8
2.5
2.5
4.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
3.2
3.0
2.0
2.2
1.8
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.5
2.4
1.2
1.6
2.0
1.6
1.4
3.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
4.0
4.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
       Roy F. W.tion. Inc., "Comblnix) Sowir Ov.rilow A0«tom«nt Alurnstlvot. Wllhlngton, D.C.." USEPA Roport No. 1024EXF08/70 (NTIS No. PB 203 680). Augutt. 1970.

-------
      A summary of data  from a  study of  urban  freeway drainage  is presented in
 Table  52. ,(59)   This  shows that a first flush effect occurs at the beginning
 of storm runoff.  Relatively high concentrations of contaminants, particularly
 suspended solids, COD,  and settleable solids  can be observed early in  the run-
 off, then diminishes  rapidly after 15 to 30 minutes.
              TABLE 52. URBAN FREEWAY DRAINAGE WATER QUALITY
                                        (Seattle)



D»te
3.2-70


36.70





Tims Since
Last Rain
12 days


3 days




Time After
Start of
Runoff
0-15 min.
15-30 min.
30-40 min.
0-20 min.
4hrs.
8hrs.
12hrs.

Suspended
Solids
mg/l
1494
25
11
504
177
228
141

Settleable
Solids
mg/l
31.0
<0.1
<0.1
1.1
0.2
0.7
0.2


COD
mg/l
1617
909
893
222
185
150
103


BOD
mg/l
198
181
162
22
21
9
12

NO2 + NO3
Nitrogen
mgN/l
2.52
2.50
2.45
0.58
1.00
0.38
0.51
Total
P04
Soluble
mgP/l
.37
.18
.16
.33
.28
.20
.16

Free
NH3
mg N/l
.01
.01
.01
.18
.20
.09
.11


Oil
mg/l
55.0
16.0
18.0
55.0
47.0
27.0
30.0
Source:  Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle "Maximizing Storage in Combined Sewer Systems," US EPA Report 11022ELK12/71
       (NTIS No. PB209861), December, 1971.


     Comparisons of  the quality characteristics from  a  first-flush and  an extended
overflow period, are  also reported on in a study of  the existing combined sewer
system in the  City  of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.   The findings are  shown in Table  53.
                                TABLE 53. COMPARISON OF
                   QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS FROM FIRST-FLUSH AND
                        EXTENDED, COMBINED-OVERFLOW DATA
                                          Concentration
                                          During First Flush1
 Concentration of
Extended Overflow2
Analysis
COD
BOD
Total Solids
Total Volatile Solids
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Total Nitrogen
Ortho-Phosphate
PH
Coliform Density per ml
 (x 103/ml)
  Data represent 12 overflows at 95 percent confidence level range.
2 Data represent 44 overflows at 95 percent confidence level range.
Source:  Rex Chainbelt, Inc., "Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined
      Sewer Overflows," USEPA Report No. 11020FDC01/72 (NTIS No.
      PB215 695), January, 1972
                         106
581 ± 92
1 86 ± 40
861 ±117
489 ± 83
522+150
308 ± 83
17.6 + 3.1
2.7 + 1.0
7.0 ±0.1
142 ± 108 x 103
161 ±19
49+ 10
378 ± 46
185 + 23
1 66 ± 26
90 ±14
5.5 ± 0.8
—
7.2 + 0.1
62.5 ± 27 x 103

-------
      As may be  expected,  the quality of  the combined sewer overflow changed
 rapidly after the end of  the first flush period.   According to  the findings,  the
 period persisted  for about 20  to 70 minutes after the  storm runoff began.  (61)

      The  first-flush effect can  also be  disclosed by the efficiency of  pollutant
 removal in a wastewater  treatment unit process.    Tables 54 and 55
 present the results of the operation of  a demonstration unit in the treatment
 system.   Removal  of BOD,  COD,  suspended  solids,  and volatile suspended  solids
               TABLE 54. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW POLLUTANT
                              REMOVAL BY SCREENING
                              SCREEN MESH 50 (297^)
                                     Removal During      Removal During
             Pollutant                 First Flushing %l     Extended Overflows %2
COD
BOD5
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
39 ±15
33 ±17
36 ±16
37 ±18
26 ±5
27 ±5
27 ±5
34±5
              Represents 8 overflows
             2
              Represents 46 overflows
             Data at 95 percent confidence level

             Source:  Rex Chainbelt, Inc., "Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer
                    Overflows," USEPA Report No. 11020FDC01/72 (NTIS No. PB 215695),
                    January, 1972.
                       TABLE 55. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
                 POLLUTANT REMOVALS BY SCREENING/FLOTATION
                                                    Removal During Extended Overflows — %2
                                         Without Chemical        With Chemical   With Chemical
Pollutant
COD
BODg
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Total Nitrogen
During First
Flushes %1
64 + 6
55 ±8
72 + 6
75 ±6
46 ±7
Flocculants
(1969-1 970 Data)
41 ±8
35 ±8
43 ±7
48 ±11
29 ±14
Flocculants
{1969 Data)3
40 ±14
46 ±17
59±11
58 ±10
19±11
Flocculants
(1970 Data)4
57 ±11
60 ±11
71 ±9
71 ±9
24 ±9
All data at 95 percent confidence level
Overflow Rate ~190 I/m2/min {2.5 gpm/ft2)

 Represents 12 overflows
 Represents 38 overflows
32.5 — 3.5 mg/l C31 Dow Polyelectrolyte, 6 rog/l Clay
43-6 mg/l C31, 20-25 mg/l FeCI3
Source:
       Rex Chainbelt, Inc., "Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows," USEPA Report No. 11020FDC01 /72
       (NTIS No. PB 215 697), January, 1972.
                                           107

-------
in the  screening operation during the first-flush were in  the range of  30 to
40 percent.   During  the extended  overflows period, removal efficiencies drop-
ped  to  the 20 to 30  percent level.   In the operation of  the screening flotation
system,  the percentage removal  of contaminants  during the  first-flush period
was  generally higher than during  extended overflows, except during use  of
chemical flocculants in 1970   (61)  due to the operating  characteristics of
the  treatment method.

     First-flush occurences appear to be related to the length of time between
overflows.  The study conducted in the City  of  Milwaukee demonstrates the
effects of the length of time between overflows on the concentrations of con-
taminants in combined sewer overflows.  The  results of the study are shown in
Tables  56 and 57.

                        TABLE 56. FIRST-FLUSH EVALUATIONS
Days Since COD (mg/l)
Last Overflow Mean a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
11
17
19
178.1
122.5
139.0
164.9
78.0
221.5
316.0
716.0
301.3
267.0
353.0
39.9
57.2
43.4
62.1
—
198.7
224.7
288.5
301.2
26.9
26.9
N
8
10
6
7
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
BOD (mg/l)
Mean a N
50.1
26.8
45.3
51.0
12.0
101.0
60.0
170.0
135.3
113
134.5
21.3
15.3
20.3
29.5
—
—
41.5
14.1
168.6
—
14.8
7
8
4
3
1
1
3
2
3
1
2
SS (mg/l)
Mean a
192.5
119.4
127.7
150.7
208.0
364.0
295.3
805.5
470.4
214.5
297.5
99.6
43.3
23.1
86.8
—
186.7
232.4
529.6
431.0
70.0
166.2
N
8
9
6
7
1
2
3
2
5
2
2
VSS (mg/l)
Mean a
100.6
68.4
63.8
95.6
66.0
196.0
178.7
462.5
131.0
140.5
205.5
44.9

17.8
46.2
—
80.6
130.1
304.8
140.1
33.2
95.5
N
8
10
6
7
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
  a - standard deviation
  N ™ number of samples
 Source:
        Rex Choinbolt, Inc., "Screen/Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows," USEPA Report No. 11020FDC01/72
        (NTIS No. PB 215 695), January, 1972.
        TABLE 57. COMPARISON OF RAW COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW QUALITY
                 Interval shorter than four days
            COD       BOD       SS        VSS
            (mg/l)     (mg/l)      (mg/l)       (mg/l)
  Mean
  a
  N
149.6
54.6
31
39.6
22.1
23
149.8
73.4
31
81.5
38.8
32
Interval longer than four days
COD BOD SS VSS
(mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l)
404.0
230.5
22
132.1
77.8
19
388.9
246.7
21
227.7
140.1
21
  0* " standard deviation
  N ™ number of samples
  Source:
         Rex Chalnbelt, Inc., "Screen/Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows," USEPA Report No. 11020FDC01/72
         (NTIS No. PB 21 5 695), January, 1972.
                                          108

-------
     As shown in Table 56, there is an obvious jump in potential strength
between the time intervals of four and five days for all the listed combined
sewer overflow characteristics.  Table 57 compares data between time and
intervals of less than and over four days.  According to these investigations,
four-day antecedent dry periods will produce a significant first-flush.  (61)

     Variables that influence the occurrence of the first-flush phenomenon
may include:  the length of time between overflows, dry-weather flow variations,
the intensity of rainfall and runoff, area of the catchment, population.density,
sewer network configuration, land use, and the sewer system interceptor
capacity.  (61)

     In the Halifax, Nova Scotia study, the characteristics of the combined
wastewater flow were found to depend upon the relative proportions of sewage,
surface runoff, roof runoff, catch basin contents, and sewer solids included
in the flow.  If surface runoff and roof runoff were the only significant
contributions to wet weather combined sewage flow, it could be expected  that
as the rate of flow due to contribution of runoff increased, combined sewage
quality would approach the pollutant concentrations of surface runoff.  As
storms continued, lower concentrations in surface runoff would result in
lower combined sewer concentrations. (55)

     If the contributions from street and building sewers and catch basins are
significant, a first-flush of organic solids should result from a small  flow
increase at the beginning of a runoff event.  Thus, a higher concentration
would be experienced at the first occurrence of a given flow than would be
experienced with subsequent occurrences of a similar flow during the same
event. (55)

     Each  of these effects is  depicted to some degree, as  shown  in Figure 34.

     Subsequent solids peaks are associated with the contributions of surface
runoff, and are due to high relative runoff rates and their consequent removal
of pollutants within the drainage area.

     A further analysis based on the ratio of volatile suspended solids to
total suspended solids showed that values of 0.75 were experienced during
flushing periods.  This value was compared to a value of 0.8 for dry weather
flow, 0.3 for surface runoff and catch basin flows, and values of 0.75 to 0.8
for solids flushed from sewers at velocities from 0.46 to 1.5 m/sec (1.5 to
5 ft/sec).  These comparisons suggest that in Halifax, the first-flush origi-
nates primarily from organic solids depositions within the sewer system, and
that other effects may often be masked by these contributions.

     Other studies have noted the existence of a first-flush.  A study of
surface runoff from an estate with separate sewers in Oxney, England, showed
BOD's up to 100 mg/1 and suspended solid concentrations up to 204 mg/1.  It
was found that BOD's tended to increase with the length of dry weather prior
to a runoff event.  After about 10 days,  little change occurred.  (62)
                                       109

-------
                       1200
                                 1300
                                            1400
                                                      150O
                                                                 1600
              2000
      Total and
      Volatile
      Suspended
      Solids
                          JJj^p-^--
              1000
                        1200
                                  1300
                                                      AUGUST 4
                                         1400       '1500
                                              Time
                                                                  '-1600
                                                                           1700
                                                                            1700
Total and 1000
Votatila
Suipandod
Solids
rng/l
                  1000
               -=t±r
                "•2


                    Rainfall
                    Intansity
                       1300
Total and
Volatile
Suspondod
Solids
mo/I
            1000
                    0800
            . .2

            _,4  Rainfall
                Intensity
            -.6  in/hr

            .8
                                 1400
                                1400
                                           1500
                                                     1600
                                                                '700
                                                  Rainfall
                                                         AUGUST 1O
                                       150O        1600
                                              Time
                                                                 1700
                                                                           1300
                              0900
                                         10OO
                                                   1100
                                                              1200
                                  AUGUST 21
                                          HKQi

                   0800
                              0900
                                         1000
                                                   110O

                                                   Time
                                                              1200
                                                                           1800
                                                                        1300
                                                                         1300
              The dashed line joins the time at which runoff started at the surface runoff samplers
              to the time of collection of the first combined sewage sample.
                         Figure 34. First flush effects in combined sewage flows.
                                    (Halifax, Nova Scotia)

Sourca:  Waller, H. D., "Pollution Attributable to Surface Runoff and Overflows from Combinoc) Sowar Systems " Atlantic
       Industrial Research Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia, April, 1971.
                                            110

-------
     Stormwater samples from Seattle street gutters contained BOD's of about
10 mg/1; coliforms of up to 16,000 MPN's/100 ml; organic nitrogen of up to
9.0 mg/1; nitrate nitrogen up to 2.8 mg/1; and phosphorus up to 784 mg/1
soluble and to 1,400 mg/1 total, as phosphorus.  The highest concentrations
usually were found when the rainfall was low and there was little detention
time in the system before sampling.

     A study performed in Durham, North Carolina, on the characterization of
urban land runoff in separate sewer systems, generally corroborated the Nova
Scotia combined sewer experience.  (64)  Figure 35, portrays higher concentra-
tions of total suspended and volatile solids during the rising limb of the
hydrograph, with subsequent diminution of these concentrations until the next
peak on the hydrograph is approached.  This tends to indicate the existence
of a first-flush effect and the later effects of higher subsequent rates of
runoff.  One of the major findings of the study, however, indicated that the
significant independent variables  found as a result of a regression analysis
of pollutant concentrations determined from 36 storm events were the discharge
rate and the time from the start of the storm event.  The elapsed time from
the last storm was not found to be an important consideration in this analysis,
nor was the elapsed time from the  last storm peak discharge of major signi-
ficance.  These items must be considered in relation to the physical features
of Durham which differ from Halifax in such major items as percent pervious
area and type of sewer system.

     These results tend to suggest little or no early influence on solids due
to solids accumulation within the basin itself.  It seems likely therefore
that the major part of first-flushing effects are due to depositions and
erosion within the natural channel drainage collection system itself.  In
the Halifax study, the few values  for suspended solids concentrations in
surface runoff greater than 400 mg/1 that did occur coincided with higher
discharges later in the storm events studied.  This showed that surfaces ac-
cumulations and surface runoff solids may not account for much of the first-
flush effect experienced in many drainage areas. (55)

     It is likely, therefore, that a first-flush effect exists in combined and
even in separate storm systems, to some degree. The major source of this first
flush is the solids depositions within the collection system, as opposed to
the pollutants accumulated on the  drainage basin itself.  Contributions for
the latter source appear to be more important during subsequent discharge
peaks.  In combined sewer collection systems, this is reflected by the rela-
tive diminution in volatile suspended solids concentration with time.  It is
also likely that first-flush effects may be less apparent in large drainage
areas than in small ones.  In large basins, first-flush contributions from
individual upstream sewer areas may be diluted by flows from downstream areas
where first-flushes have already been discharged.  Thus, the apparent net
effect of total system first-flush contributions may be moderated due to
their relative distribution over time. (55).
                                      Ill

-------
               2200

               2000

               1800


               1600


               1400


               1200


               1000


                800

                600


               400


                200
Total Solids


Total Suspended Solids


Total Volatile Solids


Volatile Suspended Solids
                500 r
                400 -
                300 -
                200 -
                100 -
                          T	1	1	—I	1	!	1	1	T
                         1700   1800   1900   2000    2100  2200    2300   2400   0100
                                                 TIME (hrs)

              Figure 35, Pollutant variation with flow and time for storm event no. 13.


Source:  Colston, N.V., "Characteristics and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff," USBPA Report No. EPA-670/2-74-096
        (NTIS No. PB 202865), December, 1974.
                                               112

-------
STREET SURFACE POLLUTION POTENTIALS

     Much of the pollutional load borne in urban stormwater has been assumed
to be largely due to the washing away of pollutants deposited on urban streets,
The street network of an urban area serves as a depository for the materials
that result from activities on and around city streets.  Where urban streets
function as an extension of the runoff collection system, the assumption of
significant street pollutional contributions would appear to hold—particular-
ly for rainfall events that minimize the relative contributions from other
pollutant sources.  Street surface accumulations, therefore, and the pollutant
potentials of their constituent fractions may represent an important aspect
of urban runoff discharge pollution.

Street Surface Accumulation Sources

     Street surface accumulation sources are as diverse as the urban environ-
ments that produce them.  Some of these may be characterized as:  street
surfacing materials; grass clippings, street trees, and yard refuse; air
pollution emission sources; local soils; truck spillage; illicit dumping;
construction site wastes; adjacent vacant lots; the products of transportation
activities, including both vehicle-produced and vehicle-transported materials;
roof surfaces; parking lots and other impervious surfaces; and materials
applied for specific purposes, such as chemicals and abrasives for snow and
ice control purposes, or fertilizers, persticides and herbicides.  A more
detailed evaluation of some of these varied sources appears in previous
portions of this section.

Major Street Surface Accumulation Components

     The components of urban street surface accumulation have been roughly
classified on the basis of materials type as:  rock, metal, paper, vegetation,
wood, glass, and dust and dirt.  The distribution of street surface accumula-
tions into these categories are shown in Figure 36.  At most of the sites
included in this figure, the largest and most stable component identified
was the dirt and dust fraction.

     Another approach to the classification of street  accumulation  components
used in recent studies of street surface pollution categorized  these materials
on the basis of particle size.  Major components have  been defined  as  the
litter, dust and dirt, and flush fractions.  Litter is the largest  fraction
and has been generally defined as the portion retained on a U.S. No. 6 sieve,
3.35 mm  (0.013 in) mesh.  (15) Dust  and dirt is the fraction, passing the same
size screens.  Dust and dirt has been called that part of urban  street litter
"having the greatest pollution causing effect."  (15)   The flush  fraction
represents that part of the pavement surface contaminants that  can  only be re-
moved by a flush of water after complete sweeping and  vacuuming.
                                     113

-------
                                                                                   LEGEND
                                                                                   Rock
                                                                                   Metal
                                                                                   Paper
                                                                                   Dirt
                                                                                 = Vegetation
                                                                         nnBin  3 Wood
                                                                         HUVVi  = Glass
                                                                    100


                                                                      90
                                                                      80.
                                                                     70.
                                                                  X
                                                                  2 60.
                                                                  UJ

                                                                  ffl 50
                                                                  H
                                                                  U
                                                                  cc 40.
                                                                     30.
                                                                     20 _
                                                                     10-
                     34567
                       TEST AREA NUMBER
10    13     14     15    16    17
              TEST AREA NUMBER
18
                                                                                                                      19
20
                                   Figure 36. Average components of street litter, Chicago.

Source:  American Public Works Association. "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," USEPA Report
        No. 11030DNS01/69 (NTIS No, PB 215 532), January, 1969.

-------
Street Accumulation Sampling Efforts

     A number of studies have been performed to determine the pollutional po-
tentials of street surface accumulations.  One of these studies was conducted
by the APWA on street accumulation samples collected in Chicago. (15)  Another
study, performed by the URS Research Company, sampled various sites in a
number of cities across the country. (43)  The latest study, by Shaheen, col-
lected samples in Washington, B.C. to evaluate the pollutional contributions
of transportation activities. (6)  Still another survey was conducted in Omaha,
Nebraska during the summer of 1974 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
(65)  The detailed results of this latter study unfortunately, were not availa-
ble at the time of this writing.  The data accumulated under this investigation
will be used for local sturm planning studies.

     The sampling methods employed in each of these studies proved to be some-
what varied.  This variation involved the size of the area sampled, sampling
technicques, the types of samples collected, the handling of samples for test-
ing purposes, and the laboratory tests performed.  A summary of sampling
techniques are shown in Table 58.  The variability of methods applied, is the
reason in part, for the degree of variation experienced in the comparison of
test results reported in a later portion of this section.

     Sampling methods were tested in the case of the Shaheen study, (6) using
a simulated material made up of particles passing the U.S. No. 6 sieve
(3.35 mm (0.013 in)).  Vacuum sweeping was found to satisfactorily recover
virtually all of the simulant on various types of surfaces with reputable
results.

Laboratory Analysis of Street Accumulation Samples

     A number of laboratory analyses were performed on collected samples in
each of the major studies.  A summary of the types of analyses performed are
shown in Table 59.  As might be expected, one of the greatest problems en-
countered in performing laboratory analyses on collected dry solid samples
concerns their handling and processing to assure analytical results comparable
with the pollutional parameters and test procedures routinely employed for
water analyses.

     The general practices employed for some of these solids analyses used
aqueous suspensions of mixed or homogenized dry samples.  Homogenization in
itself may be assumed to change the physical characteristics of the street
surface materials in a way that may not occur through normal street activities
or runoff transport.  It would appear to impose inaccuracies as a general
method except where it may be required by specific analytical testing procedures.
The aqueous suspensions in themselves may not represent the dissolved and col-
loidal pollutant fractions experienced in an actual runoff.  In addition, they
may not represent actual runoff particulate concentrations that can exert an
influence on some of the analytical tests exercised—BOCg, COD, and other
constituents.  It seems likely, therefore, that the measured values for some
street surface pollutants may be estimates of soluble and colloidal constituents
adulerated by the contributions of particulates resulting from physical sample
alterations due to processing procedures.

                                       115

-------
                   TABLE 58. SAMPLING METHODS FOR MEASURING
                         STREET SURFACE ACCUMULATIONS
Sampling
Programs
Sample
Area





Land Uses





APWA"
Length :
Full block frontage
from building line
parallel to curb
Width: Gutter


Residential
Commercial
Industrial



URSb
Research
Co.
Length: 12-15 m
(40-50 ft)
parallel to curb

Width: 7.6m (25ft)i
to curb
74-93 m2 (800-1 ,000 ft2)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial



Biospherics0
Inc.
Length: 18-31 m
(60- 100 ft) or more
parallel to curb

Width: Gutter,
1.2 m (4 ft) 1
to curb
Isolated from
land use to the
degree possible to
reflect roadway
contribution
Some commercial
Omahad
District
U.S. Corps
of Engineers
Length: 1.5 m
(5 ft) parallel
to curb

Width: Gutter,
1.2m (4ft)lto
curb
Primarily
Residential




Sampling   A. Hand Sweeping
Techniques B, Vacuum Sweeping
Sampling
Techniques
Most Often
Employed
Samples
Taken
Samples
Tested
Dry Samples
A. HandSweeping
B, Vacuum Sweeping
C. Flushing of hand
   swept areas
D. Simulated rainfall
   on unswept street
E. Simulated rainfall
   on swept street

A on each site
C on occasion

Dry Samples
Liquid Samples
                                             A. Hand Sweeping  A. Hand Sweeping
                                             B. Vacuum Sweeping
                                             C. Flushing
A,B,C on
each site

Dry Samples
Liquid Samples
A on each
each site

Dry Samples
Dry Samples
passing the 0.3 cm
(0.18 in) mesh
pulverized with
subsequent screening
by U.S. No. 40 sieve
[0.00375cm (0.0015
Homogenized dry samples Dry litter samples   Dry samples passing
                                and liquid samples
                                composited on the
                                basis of land use
                              in)]
                        retained on U.S.
                        No. 6 sieve
                        [0.03 cm
                        (0.012 in)]
                        Liquid samples
                        (flush fraction)
                  the U.S. No. 10
                  sieve
                  [0.02cm (0.008 in)]
Sourcei:  'American Public Work* Association. "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban  Runoff,"  USEPA Report No
        11030DNS01/69 !NTIS No. PB 215 532), January, 1969.

        ^Sartor, J.D.and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA Report No.
        EPA-R2-72-081 {NTIS No. PB 214 408), November, 1962.

         Shannon, D.B., "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution," USEPA Report No. EPA-600/
        2-75-004 (NTIS No. PB 245 854), April, 1975.

         Information on U.S. Corps of Engineers survey program was determined by telephone conversation with
        Mr. Jack Rose, the project engineer for the Omaha District in March, 1975.
                                             116

-------
Sampling
Program    APWAa
TABLE 59. LABORATORY ANALYSES OF
   STREET ACCUMULATION SAMPLES
             URSb                                 Omaha District11
             Research           Biosphericsc        U. S. Army Corps
             Company           Inc.                of Engineers
Samples Dry


Pollutant
Analyses Volume
Dry Weight


Water Sol. Fraction
Vol. Water Sol. Fraction
BODg
COD
N03
-
Kjeldahl N
So P04
-
-
-
..
,.
~
-
~
-
..
,.
-
-
-
Liquid-Dry
Composite


-
Dry Weight
(total solids
dry & liquid)
-
--
BODC
3
COD
N03
--
Kjeldahl N
~
Total PO4
-
-
-
-
~
-
Cadium
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Chromium
Mercury
Litter (dry)
Dust-Dirt (dry)
Flush (liquid)

Dry Volume
Dry Weights
(total solids
liquid)
-
Vol. Solids
BODK
Q
COD
N03
N02
Kjeldahl N

Total PO4
Ortho-PO4
Chlorides
Asbestos
Rubber
Petroleum
n-paraffins
Cadium
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Chromium
--
Dry



-
Dry Weight


--
--
BOD5
COD
-
--
Kjeldahl N
-
,,
-
-
-
--
-"
-
--
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
--
Chromium
Mercury
                                   Chlorinated Hydro- Chlorinated Hydro-
                                   carbons            carbons
                                   PCB's             PCB's
                                   Organic Phosphates
                                                      Cyanides
                                                      Hexavalent Chromium
           Total Coliform

           Fecal Enterococcus
             Total Coliform
             Fecal Coliform
Total Coliform
                                                      Total Coliform
                                                      Fecal Coliform
                                                      Fecal Streptococcus
         * Note:  Information on the Corps of Engineers analyses is incomplete as of this writing
Sources: aAmerican Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," USEPA Report No.
        11O30DNS01/69 (NTIS No. PB 21 5 532)', January, 1969.
         Sartor, J.D. and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA
        Report No. EPA-R2-72-081 (NTIS No. PB 214 408), November, 1972.
        cShaheen, D.B., "Contributions of  Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution," USEPA Report No.
        EPA-600/2-75-004 SNTIS No. PB 245 854), April, 1975.
         Information on U.S. Corps of Engineers survey program was determined by  telephone conversation
        with Mr. Jack Rose, the project engineer for the Omaha District in March, 1976.
                                             117

-------
       Insofar as the effects of runoff  transport mechanisms  are not  reflected
  in these values,  street surface pollutant measures provide  one valid  estimate
  of urban pollution potentials, although the relationship  of these potentials
  to the actual pollution experienced in any runoff event may remain  somewhat
  unclear .

  Street Surface Material Accumulation

     The  interaction of diverse urban environmental processes are generally
assumed to account for the accumulation of street surface materials .   Pat-
terns of urban development, physical drainage area characteristics,  local
climatology, construction practices, public works operations and maintenance,
transportation patterns, and human, social, economic and behavioral character-
istics represent some of these variables.  Collectively, they prove too com-
plex to analyze readily.  Thus, more generalized parameters have been used to
characterize street surface pollutants.

     The most consistently used of these is gross land use.  Street surface
materials are generally characterized by their accumulation and pollutional
composition in residential, commercial,  and industrial areas.  Other indepen-
dent variables that have been used for characterization purposes are:  Climate,
landscaping, or land treatment adjacent to the paved streets, and street
surfacing materials. (43)   Traffic volumes have also been used to characterize
the pollutional contributions associated with street traffic. (6)

     The physical mechanisms by which street surface materials accumulate is
not wholly understood.  Some theoretical generalizations have been suggested
by Sartor, et al. (43)   and Shaheen et al. (6)  These may be readily under-
stood from the standpoint of the following simplified conceptual mass balance:
  where :
          A-,-An reflects the net change in the storage of material accumula-
                tions on the street surface where AQ is a base line accumula-
                tion entrapped within the street surface and AI is the exist-
                ing accumulation susceptible to ready removal.

          D     are airborne depositions including air pollutants, vegetative
           a    products, litter, trash, and other wind-blown wastes.

          D     are water-borne depositions of sediment from other pervious and
           W    impervious surfaces, and ground water constituents where sump
                pumps may be used.

          Dt    are vehicle-produced materials such as exhaust emissions,
                the products of vehicular wear, the products of street surface
                abrasion and wear; and  also include vehicle-transported materi-
                als such as undercarriage deposits and spillage of transported
                materials.
                                      118

-------
     R
are depositions  from miscellaneous sources such as  snow and ice
control chemicals  and materials, litter, trash, dead  animals,
animal wastes^and  yard wastes,

are material removals by the wind erosion processes.

are removals due to  runoff in all forms—rainfall,  snow melt,
irrigation surpluses, and other water sources.

are transportation-related material removals due  to traffic
generated blowoffs or through the pickup and transport  of
materials on individual vehicles.

are intentional  removals effected by public works operations
and programs such  as street cleaning and flushing,  solid waste
collection and disposal; and street maintenance activities.
 The foregoing suggests the major mechanisms involved in the accumulation of
 street surface materials.  It has  been hypothesized that the accumulation of
 street materials would take  the form of the curve represented in Figure 37.
                       ta
                       z
                       5
                       3
                           0
                           TIME
                 Figure 37. Accumulation of contaminants — typical case
             (natural build-up with periodic sweeping and intermittent rainfall)

         Source:  Sartor, J.D., and Q.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants,"
               USEPA Report No. EPA-R2-72-081 (NTIS No. PB 214408), November, 1972.

This approach  considers  the sum of the contributions  of  all  deposition pro-
cesses at a  constant  rate.  The net effects of the various removal processes,
with the exception of runoff and street cleaning,  result in  an accumulation
function  that  was essentially linear  in its early time  steps and  subsequently
asymptotic  to  a maximum accumulation  value as the time  interval became long,
and constant rate depositions were balanced by removal  processes.

     A  genera] expression for this theoretical approach,  (6)  assuming a
clear1 street at the  outset is:
                 L  =  C (1 - e-Kt),
                       K
                             where:
(15)
                                       119

-------
                 Lfc is the street accumulation at time t, Ib/curb-mi

                 C  is a constant average deposition rate,  Ib/curb-mi/d

                 K  is an overall average removal constant

                 t  is time step, in days.

      Another similar approach to the same problem provides a general recursive
 expression in the form:  (6)

                 Lt  = (Lt_!  +  C)  (1- X)               (16)

 where L,  C and t are as defined above and X is the removal constant.

      This expression simply says that the street loading at tiue t is given
 by the loading at time t-1, plus what is deposited, minus what is removed
 during the interval [t-1,  t].     It can  be shown inductively that this
 recursive expression is a  polynomial of degree t in X , i.e., -

                          t
                 Lt  = C £  (1- X )i                   (16a)
      A graphical comparison of both expressions for various overall removal
 constants,  K and X »   is  shown in Figure 38.   Attempts to verify this theo-
 retical approach with data collection on street surface accumulations and
 antecedent  times, based on actual street cleaning and rainfall intervals,
 have proved inconclusive  to date.


    Support for the concept of maximum levels of street surface accumulations
and non-linear overall accumulation rates, however, was developed in the Bio-
spherics study in Washington, D.C. (6)   Amounts of street surface materials
were found to level off after three to four days of accumulation.  Average  .
ratios of single to multiple— day measurements indicated that overall accumula-
tion rates were non-linear.

     In the Washington study (6)  two processes were suggested as influencing
removal rates — the mechanical break-up of deposited particles to smaller sizes,
and the removal of particles by vehicular traffic through blow-off or physical
pick-up and transport.

     The simplified mass balance previously described suggests some of the
difficulties involved in defining the complex processes of street surface
material accumulations.  An insufficiency of real field data limits a more
complete analysis of these processes.
                                      120

-------
                                   K =  0.5
O
CO

g
LU
Q

u.

O

I-


Ul
O
cc
111
Q.
 »


O
U
u
    180 _
    160 _
    140 _
    120
100
                                                                      K  = 0.6
                                                           I
                                                     8     9    10


                                                        TIME, DAYS
                                                                 11    12   13
   Figure 38.  Theoretical street accumulations at various time intervals and overall

               removal constants,  k & X.
                                        121

-------
  Street Surface Accumulation Measurements

      The majority of  street surface accumulation measurements  are reported as
  average daily accumulations,  as opposed  to rate-defined accumulations  as  pre-
  viously discussed.   These data are based on actual street measurements and the
  units most often reported are kg/curb-km/day  (Ib/curb-mi/day).

      Mean  values from the Chicago study  (15) for both total  street refuse  and
  dust and  dirt are reported in Table 60.


       TABLE 60. AMOUNT OF TOTAL REFUSE AND DUST AND DIRT BY LAND USE

                           Amount of Total Litter             Amount of Dust and Dirt1
                               By Land Use                     By Land Use
      Land Use          kg/curb-km/day   Ib/curb-mi/day	kg/curb-km/day    Ib/curb-mi/day
Single Family
Residential
Multiple Family
Residential
Commercial
Industrial

30

52
80
113

105.6

184.8
285.1
401.3

10

34
49
68

37.0

121.4
174.2
242.9
      • Whore total litter was all material swept up and Dust and Dirt was fraction passing 0.31 cm (0,125 in) screen.
     Soyrco:    American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," USEPA Report No.
              11030DNS01/69 (NTIS No. PB 215 532), January, 1969.
      Similar information is reported in the  results of  a later multi-city
sampling project by the  URS Research Company.  (43)  A summary of  these
results appears in Table 61.
                             TABLE 61. MEAN VALUES OF
                           STREET SOLIDS ACCUMULATION
                                     BY LAND USE

                                      Accumulations of Street Solids
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
kg/curb-km/day
166
51
395
Ib/curb-mi/day
590
180
1,400
                       Source: Sartor, J.D., and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects
                              of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA Report No.
                              EPA-R2-72-081 (NTIS No. PB 214 408), November,
                              1972.
                                        122

-------
      The  street accumulation measurements enforced  in Washington, D.C.  (6)
generally do not provide data on measurement  relationships to  land use.   These
observations were made to  evaluate  traffic-related  pollutional contributions.
Sampling  sites were selected to minimize influence  of all but  traffic on
street surface contaminants.  Two commercial  sites  were sampled, however,
where land-use influences  were considered likely.   A  tabluation of mean
accumulation values for these sites is given  in Table 62.  These values  have
been reported in a  three-component  format,  indicating the mean amounts  of
street litter, dust and dirt, and flush fractions as  defined in the study. (67)
   TABLE 62. MEAN STREET SURFACE ACCUMULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS
                                   (WASHINGTON, D.C.)

                     Litter Fraction1               Dust and Dirt2              Flush Fraction3
Site           Ib/curb-mi/day kg/curb-km/day Ib/curb-mi/day kg/curb-km/day  Ib/curb-mi/day kg/curb-km/day
CAMP Station
Street Samples
Mean
Range
Shopping Center
Parking Lot
Samples
Mean
Range
Overal
Mean
Range


53
19.5-99.2



7.4
2.1-13.9

27.6
2.1-99.2


15
5-28



2
1-4

11
1-28


174.7
55.2-365.3



60.2
35.3-108.8

134.7
35.3-365.3


49
16-103



17
10-31

38
10-103


9.3
4-18.8



	
—

9.3
4-18.8


3
1-5



—
—

3
1-5
 Litter Fraction: that portion of the participates retained by a U.S.A. No. 6 sieve, greater than 3.35 mm in diameter.
o
 Dust and Dirt: participates smaller than 3.35 mm in diameter (U.S.A. No 6 sieve).
 Flush Fraction: components of the dust and dirt fraction which were not picked up at high efficiencies by the sweeping and vacuuming
   techniques.

Source:  Shaheen, D.B.,"Contributions of  Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution," USEPA Report No. EPA-600/2-75-004 (NTIS
       No. PB 245 854), April, 1975.
                                           123

-------
     Samples collected by the U.S.  Corps of Engineers in Omaha, Nebraska,  (65)
by hand-sweeping methods  resulted in composite street solids accumulation
values for older residential areas  of 29 kg/curb-km/day (103 Ib/curb-mi/day).
Of this amount, the dust  and dirt fraction was 21 kg kg/curb-km/day  (75 Ib/
curb-mi/day).  In newer residential areas, the total debris was 6 kg/curb-
km/day (14 Ib/curb-mi-day).   The major focus of this sampling effort was
directed to residential land uses since most of the commercial and industrial
streets in the area were  uncurbed.

     Street surface measurement  information supplemented by mass  discharge
data developed from runoff discharge information uncovered by the existing
literature, was compiled  and statistically analyzed by the URS Research
Company. (5)  The result  of  this analysis provided the street solids ac-
cumulation values indicated  in Table 63.
                    TABLE 63. STREET SOLIDS ACCUMULATION
                    LOADING RESULTING FROM THE ANALYSIS
                               OF EXISTING DATA

                                     Street Surface Loadings
Land Use
Residential
Commericial
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
Open Space
All Uses
Ib/curb-mi/day
149
74
389
203
12
156
kg/curb-km/day
42
21
110
57
3
44
                  Source:  Amy G., "Water Quality Management Planning for Urban
                        Runoff, USEPA Report No. EPA-440/9-75-004 (NTIS No.
                        PB 241 689), December, 1974.
     A comparative summary of reported values for dust and dirt or its closest
 equivalent is shown in Table 64.  The values indicated in this table are
 averages of field measurements performed using somewhat different methods and
 subject to varying definitions of similar characteristics.  Some of these
 variations were previously mentioned.  Ready comparisons of these data  should
                                      124

-------
             TABLE 64. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF REPORTED VALUES
               FOR STREET SURFACE SOLID ACCUMULATION LOADINGS
                                      BY LAND USE
                                 {Dust and Dirt Fractions)

                                            ReportedValues in kg/curb-km/day
                                            (Values in Ib/curb-mi/day)
Land Use
Residential

Single Family

Multi-Family

Commercial

Industrial

Light

Heavy

Open Space

All Uses
APWA1
— —

10
(37)
34
(121)
49
(174)
68
(243)
—

—

—

—
URS2
Research
Company
1972
166
(590)
—

__

51
(180)
395
(1,400)
—

« —

—

—
Omaha4
District
Biospherics3 U.S. Corps
Inc. of Engineers
4-21
(13-75)
— —

— 	

49
(175)
— —

— —

— —

— —

49
URS5
Research
Company
1974
42
(149)
	

	

21
(74)
	

110
(389)
57
(203)
3
(12)
44
                                             (175)
(156)
            Source:   American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff,"
                   USEPA Report No.  11030DNSO1/69 (NTIS No. PB 215 532), January, 1969.

                    Sartor, J.D., and G.B.  Boyd, "Water  Pollution  Aspects of Street Surface
                   Contaminants,"  USEPA Report No. EPA-R2-72-081  SNTIS No. PB 214 408),
                   November, 1972.

                    Shaheen, D.G.,  "Contributions of  Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution,"
                   USEPA Report No. EPA-6OO/2-75-004 (NTIS No. PB 245 854), April, 1975.
                   4
                    Telephone conversation; Omaha District Corps of Engineers, 1975.
                    Amy, G., "Water Quality Management Planning  for Urban Runoff," USEPA
                   Report No. EPA-440/9-75-004  (NTIS  No. PB 241  689),  December,  1974.
be  somewhat suspect on  this  basis.   However, all the  street  measurement  data
show a relative  compatibility as  to magnitude,  with the possible  exception
of  the URS  Research Company  data,  (5)  This is  two or more  times  other re-
ported values, with the exception of the commerical land use, and is con-
sistently higher in all cases due to variations in measurement practices.
                                          •125

-------
Street Surface Material Deposition Characteristics

     The  distribution of surface materials on paved  streets  varies due to
street geometry,  traffic patterns, vehicular parking practices,  and type of
pavement.   The results of a sampling program conducted  in  a  number of cities
are presented  in  Table 65.

                         TABLE 65. AVERAGE PERCENT
                             TOT ALSO LIDS LOAD
                            ACROSS STREET WIDTH

                                               Cumulative
                    Distance From                 Percentage of
                     Curb Face	Total Loading
                    0.5 ft (0.15m) .                    78
                    1.0 ft (0.3m)                      88
                    3.5 ft (1.1m)                      97
                    8.0 ft (2.4 m)                      98
                    to street centerline                 100

                    Source: Sartor, J.D., and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects
                          of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA Report No.
                          EPA-R2-72-081 (NTIS No. PB 214 408), November,
                          1972.
     The  table shows that the majority of  street surface solids  will accumu-
late within 15 cm (6 in) of the curb face  and virtually all  accumulations
may be accounted  for within 1.1 m (3.2 ft).  Little  accumulation occurs with-
in the traveled lanes, although greases and other  automotive fluids that may
bond to the street surface, may be found  along the centerlines of traffic
and parking lanes.  Vehicular movement tends to blow particulates out of the
traffic lanes, the cross-sectional slope  of the street  downward  to the curb
enhances  particulate movement to the curb  by gravity, and  the curb face usual-
ly provides trapped area for some of the moving solids.  Parked  vehicles also
add to the  accumulation through the entrapment of moving material, and be-
cause they  interfere with the planned removal of street accumulation by
street cleaning.

     It has also  been found that street surface materials  are not uniformly
accumulated longitudinally along streets.  This is due  to  variations in street
geometry.   Intersections, bus stops, driveways, deceleration lanes, turning
lanes, etc. were  all found to produce major variations  in  the distribution of
street surface accumulations.  Intersections were  found to be one-third as
heavy in  accumulations than the other street portion and driveways were
found to  be 30 percent less than curbed street sections.  (5)  Assuming that
these estimates are valid, a theoretical  block distribution  of 0.5 blocks/ha
(128 blocks/mi2)  each block being 200 m by 100 m  (660 ft by  330  ft) from
right-of-way centerline, would result in  only seven  to  thirteen  percent over-
all reduction in  accumulations  (assuming  fully curbed sections in a single-
family residential area with off street parking) due to variations in geometry
alone.  For commercial areas the reduction would be  somewhat less.

     The relative  effects  of  curb height on measured accumulations of street
surface materials  were studied in Washington, B.C.  The results  are shown in
Figure 39.
                                      126

-------
              E
              ^f
              •e
              I
300
(85)
              1   200
              |   (56)
              ,0
              CA
              £
              z*
              o   100
              <   (28)
              D
              D
              O
                              10
                              25
                      20
                      50
30
75
 40
100
 50  in
125  cm
                                                   BARRIER HEIGHT
             Figure 39. Accumulation of litter and dust and dirt with barrier height.

             Source: Shaheen, D.G., "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution,"
                   USEPA Report No. EPA-600/2-75-004 (NTIS No. PB 245 854), April, 1975.
     The variation  in average total accumulation values  for  six sampling lo-
cations compared  to the height of the curb or barrier  are  shown along with a
regression line for the reported data.  Both litter and  dust and dirt fractions
generally increase  with increasing curb height.  Thus, shifting patterns due
to traffic-generated or natural winds would be inhibited by  curb height with
greater amounts of  materials captured on streets as a  function of increasing
curb height.  The implications of this particle capture  phenomenon on street
development policies is immediately apparent.  A strategy  directed to the
removal or entrapment of street surface particulates might require a revision
of street standards.   This would be the case whether removal and entrapment
was by street cleaning and materials disposal or through the elimination of
curbing and the use of strategically located plantings or  vegetation.

     An analysis  of available sampling data collected  in Washington  (6)  in-
dicated the effects of pavement surface type and changes in  the relative dis-
tribution of street accumulation components over time.   The  data was grouped
on the basis of sampling time'intervals and pavement surface type.  It was
assumed that initial or first samples taken at the beginning of the sampling
periods, represent  valid estimates of street surface accumulation characteris-
tics.  The composition of collected street surface accumulation samples at
various collection  frequencies is shown in Table 66.   This information shows
that a disparity  among sample components exists for each pavement surface
type for one and  three-day frequency samples.
                                       127

-------
        TABLE 66. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL STREET SOLIDS ACCUMULATION
                FOR DEFINED SAMPLE COMPONENTS FOR ALL SITES
                     AT VARIOUS COLLECTION FREQUENCIES

                          Sample Components (%of Total Accumulation)
         Sample         Litter Fraction     Dust-Dirt Fraction      Flush Fraction
         Collection     Concrete  Asphalt   Concrete  Asphalt   Concrete  Asphalt
         Freauenev. davs Pavement  Pavement  Pavement  Pavement  Pavement Pavement	
1
3
3.6
Many days
5.1
7.5
--
43.0
32.0
--
31.4
45.0
92.2
91.4
--
55.3
67.6
-
60.9
52.1
1.8
1.1
..
1.7
0.4
--
7.7
2.9
        Sourca: Shaheen D.G., "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution," USEPA Report
              No. EPA-600/2-75-004 (NTIS No. PB 245854), April, 1975.
     Similarity exists  in  the  distribution of components among the many day  (or
 initial) samples.  The time-related changes in the composition of accumulations
 are similar for each type of  pavement.   In each case, the relative proportion
 of dust and dirt diminishes with time due to the weathering of accumulated  ma-
 terials and their removal by  runoff and other climatic effects.  Precipitation
 data were unavailable  to  make any estimates of specific wash-off event charac-
 teristics.

     Comparisons of  litter and dust and dirt components on concrete and
asphalt  surfaces also  showed some notable variation.  Although  the sum,of
percentages of litter  and  dust and dirt fractions were similar  for each pave-
ment, litter material was  found to be a greater proportion of the total ac-
cumulation for asphalt  surfaces while dust and dirt was greater for concrete
pavement.  Pavement  surface type and the definition of the litter and  dust
and dirt fractions are  probably responsible for much of this difference.
Paving surface materials,  depending on their type, age, wear and weathering
characteristics, could  contribute to either litter or dust and dirt when
classification is based on the U.S. No.  6 sieve, 3.35 mm (0.012 in).   In
view of  the general  characteristics of these paving materials, asphaltic
concrete wear or weathering products would probably contribute more to the
litter fraction, while  Portland cement concrete would produce, more dust and
dirt sized materials.   An  annual pavement thickness reduction of 0.32  cm
(0.125 in) on a 10.9 m  (36 ft) wide roadway could produce from 56 to 110 kg/
curb-km/day (200 to  400 Ib/curb-mi/day)  if everything was captured on  the
roadway, depending on  the  surfacing material.  On the assumption that  all
surficial materials  on  concrete pavements will be added to the dust and
dirt sized fraction  (
-------
       It has  been noted that debris accumulations  on  asphaltlc surfaces have
 been  found to  be about 80 percent heavier than on all  concrete streets, while
 mixed concrete and asphalt surfaces are about 65  percent  heavier.  (43)   This
 general observiation was verified by other sampling  programs, (64)

       Thus, the distribution and magnitude of deposited street surface materials
 are subject  to a number of considerations.  Street geometry,  curb  height, and
 pavement  type  are merely a few.  Climatic effects, topography, and prevalent
 soil  types among other factors, also contribute to street accumulation depo-
 sition characteristics, and they may explain some of the  variance  experienced
 in field  sampling these materials.

 Physical  Characteristics of Street Surface Contaminants

       The  particle size distribution of street surface  accumulations is one of
 their most important characteristics.  The association of relative pollutant
 concentrations with particle size bears not only  on  the movement of pollutants
 to receiving waters but also on some of the methods  that  may  be employed to
 control these  pollutants.  Physical wastewater treatment  processes are also
 dependent upon particle size distributions as are street  cleaning  operations.

       Particle  size distributions have been studied in  each of the  major street
 sampling  activities to date.  The Chicago study analyzed  large particle sizes
 (15), the results of which are shown in Table 67.
                           TABLE 67. SIEVE ANALYSES OF
                         SELECTED STREET SOLIDS SAMPLES
                     AVERAGE AND RANGE (CHICAGO, ILLINOIS)
                       Particle Size  Commercial         Industrial
                         (microns)	Site	Site	
                       >2,000        5.8%           3.4%
                                  2.5-12.4%
                       1,190-2,000     7.8%           7.0%
                                  5.2-12.4%
                         840-1,190     5.2%           6.4%
                                  4.1- 6.9%
                         590-840      6.6%           12.8%
                                  5.0- 8.4%
                       < 590       74.6%           70.4%
                                 58.8-82,5%
                       Source:  American Public Works Association, "Water  Pollu-
                             tion Aspects of Urban Runoff," US EPA Report
                             No. 11030DNS01/69 (NTIS No. PB 215  532),
                             January, 1969.
     The greatest percentage by weight of the materials are below 590 microns
(0.023 in).   Insofar as  coarse sand may be described  as from 420 to 2000
microns (0.0165 to 0.0786 in) in size, the majority of  the street materials
samples appear  comparable in size to find sand 74  to  2000  microns (0.0029
to 0.0786  in),  silt 5 to 74 microns (0.002 to 0.0029  in) and clay soils, less
than 5 microns  (0.002 in)  in size.

     A more detailed analysis of street surface material samples was performed
in connection with a later study.   The results of  the analysis are  shown in
Table  68.

                                       129

-------
                       TABLE 68. PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                                  OF STREET SOLIDS
                       SELECTED CITY COMPOSITES - PERCENT
Size
Ranges
Microns
> 4,800
2,000-4,800
840-2,000
246-840
104-246
43-104
30-43
14-30
4-14
<4
Milwaukee
12,0
12.1
40.8
20.4
5.5
1.3
4.2
2.0
1.2
0.5
Bucvrus
—
10.1
7.3
20.9
15.5
20.3
13.3
7.9
4.7
-
Baltimore
17.4
4,6
6.0
22.3
20.3
11,5
10.1
4.4
2,6
0.9
Atlanta
_
14.8
6.6
30.9
29.5
10.1
5.1
1.8
0.9
0.3
Tulsa
-.
37.1
9.4
16.7
17.1
12.0
3.7
3.0
0.9
0.1
                    Source:  Sartor, J.D., ond Q.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of
                           Street  Surface Contaminants,"  USEPA Report  No.
                           EPA-R2-72-081 (NTiS No.  PB 214 408),  November,
                           1972.
     Similar analyses performed  on the samples collected  in Washington, B.C.,
 are shown in Table 69.
   TABLE 69. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS IN PERCENT FOR STREET SOLID SAMPLES
                          COLLECTED FROM SPECIFIC SITES
                                 (WASHINGTON, D.C.)
Site
3,350-1,700
     Particle Size Ranges, microns
1,700-850 850-420   420-250   250-150
150-75
75-45
Interstate Highway

Unused Interstate
5.4
4.1-10.6
4.6
8.0'.
5.2-14.0
6.2'
16.2
11-21.5
6.6
22.2
16.9-26.6
11.8
19.4
16.2-20.9
16.1
17.8'
11.2-23.0
24.5
714
2-15.2
15.7
3.6
0.9-6.0
14.5
 Highway
Arterial Roadway

Arterial Roadway

Urban Highway

Shopping Center

Commercial Street
11.8
5.9-31.5
3.2
1.7-4.6
8.7
5.3-11.2
1.8
0.3-2.8
5.5
4.1-9.0
13.2
8.5-17.
7.1
3,6-11.
9.6
7.7-10.
6.3
4.0-9.0
8.0
5.7-9.8

9

8

8




22.4
16.2-29.1
19.4
16.1-22.4
14.4
13.4-15.7
19.7
6.6-25.6
18.6
17.6-20.4
23.8
15.1-29,
25.2
20.2-31,
14.3
13.2-16
25.4
20.4-31,
23.0
19.9-27.

.6

.5



.5

,6
14.8
9-17.5
19,1
15.4-23
12.3
10.4-14
15.4
11.8-18
16.3



.6

.1

.9

14.8-17.7
9.5
6.4-13.6
17.6
10.1-22.
17.2
13.5-19.
16.4
10.3-20.
17.0
12.4-19.



8

2

1

9
3.0
1.2-8.7
7.6
2.6-10
13.4
11.2-15.6
10.8
6.3-18.2
10.6
2.8-16.3
1.6
0.2-3.6
0.6
0.3-1.5
10.0
8.3-12.8
4.3'
0.6-6.8
1.0
0.3-1.7
Sou re*:
       Shahoon, D.Q., "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution," USEPA Report
       No. EPA-600/2-7S-004 (NTiS No. PB 245 854!, April, 1975.
                                         130

-------
      On  the assumption  that there is compatibility between the  analytical
methods  employed,  a comparison  of findings from all three studies is  pre-
sented in Table  70.
                      TABLE 70. COMPARISON OF STREET SOLID
                             PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
                                  ANALYSIS RESULTS

                                    Comparable Ranges of Particle Sizes, microns
Location
Chicago 'al
Commercial
Industrial
Milwaukee(b)
Bucyrus"3'
Baltimore(b>
At!anta
2.000-850

13.0%
13.4%
40.8*
7.3*
6.0 *
6.6*
9.4*
850-250

_
..
20.4
20.9
22.3
30.9
16.7
250-45

-
_
6.8
35.8
31.8
39,6
29.1
<45

--
—
7.9
25.9
18.0
8.1
7.7
                  Washington^0'
                   Interstate Highway     ---      38.4   44.6     3.6
                   Unused Interstate
                    Highway           --      18.4   56.3    14.5
                   Arterial Roadway      -      46.1   27.3     1.6
                   Arterial Roadway      -      44.6   44.3     0.6
                   Urban Highway       --      28.7   42.9    10.0
                   Shopping Center      -      45.1   42.6     4.3
                   Commercial Street     -      41.6   43.9     1.0

                  "Actual particle size ranges reported are 84O-2,QGQjLi,
                   840-246/U. 246-43jU and less than or equal to 43/Lt

                  Sources:  (a) American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution
                           Aspects of Urban  Runoff,"  USEPA Report No.
                           1103ODNSO1/69  (NTIS No. PB 215 532), January,
                           1969.
                         (b)Sartor, J.D.,and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects
                           of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA Report No.
                           EPA-R2-72-081 (NTIS No. PB 214 408), November,
                           1972.
                         (c) Shaheen, D.G., "Contributions of Urban Roadway
                           Usage to  Water Pollution,"  USEPA Report No,
                           EPA-600/2-75-OO4  (NTIS No. PB 245 854),  April,
                           1975.

      The overall comparisons indicate that  some  similarities exist among the
sample sites analyzed.  In  most  cases, the  major fraction of street surface
accumulations is from 850 to 45 microns (0.033  to  0.0018  in).  This would
be equivalent to a material range of coarse sand to  medium silt.   In individual
cases, the  coarser or finer fractions may be  relatively greater.   This  is most
likely due,  however,  to the make-up  of local  soils.  (43)   A prevalence  of
local soils  composed  of silts  or  clays could  result  in greater small-particle
fractions while local gravels  or  coarse sands could  make  large-particle
fractions more significant.


                                           131

-------
     An analysis of the  specific gravity of  selected samples was performed in
connection with the Chicago study.  The resulting ranges of specific gravity
for  the fractions of individual samples tested are shown in Table 71.
                          TABLE 71. SPECIFIC GRAVITY
                       ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS FRACTIONS
                              OF SELECTED STREET
                            DUST AND DIRT SAMPLES
                              (CHICAGO, ILLINOIS)
                                           Specific Gravity
                     Land Use	Range of Test Findings
                     Commercial               2.588-3.027
                     Commercial               2.295-2.578
                     Commercial               2.197-2.484
                     Industrial                 2.488-2.652

                     Source:  American  Public  Works  Association; "Water
                            Pollution  Aspects  of  Urban Runoff," USEPA
                            Report No. 11030DNS01/69 (NTIS No. PB 215
                            532), January,  1969.

     Most local soils in the Chicago area may be  characterized  as having a
specific gravity of from 2.6 to 2.7.  Thus, most  of the values  shown indicate
the  presence of non-mineral constituents including organics.  The highest
specific gravity noted was probably due to  the metallic contributions added
from an overhead rapid transit railway at the sampling site.

Pollutional Potentials of  Street Surface Contaminants

     The pollutional potentials of street surface accumulations have been
found dependent on the particle size distribution of these materials.  The dis-
tribution of solids has  been previously considered.  A summary  of the findings
associated with field observations made in  a  number of cities is given in
Table  72.


             TABLE 72. FRACTION OF POLLUTANT ASSOCIATED WITH
                          EACH PARTICLE SIZE RANGE
                                  (% By Weight)

                                       Particle Size (micron)
                            > 2.000 840-2,000  246-840104-24643-104  <43
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
BOD5
COD
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Nitrates
Phosphates
24.4
11,0
7,4
2.4
9.9
8.6
0
7.6
17.4
20.1
4.5
11.6
6.5
0.9
24.6
12.0
15.7
13.0
20.0
7.9
6.9
27.8
16.1
15.2
12.4
20.2
16.7
6.4
9.7
17.9
17,3
45,0
19,6
28.4
29.6
5.9
25.6
24,3
22.7
18.7
31.9
56.2
             Source:  Sartor, J.D.; and G.B, Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface
                    Contaminants," USEPA Report No.  EPA-R2-72-081 (NTIS No. PB 214
                    408), November, 1972.
                                        132

-------
     The table provides  a summary tabulation of solids  content,  oxygen de-
mand, and some of  the  nutrients that may exist in runoff  flow.   Interestingly,
the fraction of  the  total solids of 246 microns (0.0097 in)  or  less,  while
less than 50 percent of  the total accumulation by weight,  accounts  for the
majority of all  pollutants reported.  More than a quarter of the volatile
solids, nitrates,  and  phosphates are associated with  the  fraction of  43 microns
(9.0017 in) or less.   Thus, the management of small particles may assume a
relatively high  degree of importance in street runoff quality control.

     A more  detailed analysis of the organic constituents contained in com-
posited samples  was  performed to identify tannins and lignins having  their
source in vegetation;  carbohydrates from food wastes, methylene blue  active
substances  from  anionic  detergents, organic acids, and  grease and oil.  The
results of  this  analysis are shown  in Table 73.


                   TABLE 73. ORGANIC ANALYSIS OF SELECTED
                            STREET SOLID SAMPLES

                                              % of Total Assumed Loading
                            Assumed Loading      Associated With Particle Size
           Constituent       Ib/curb-mi   kg/curb-km   > 246 microns  <246 microns
Tannins and Lignins
Carbohydrates
Organic Acids
MB AS
Grease and Oil
0.17
1.06
—
0.07
18.0
0.05
0.30
—
0.02
5.07
44.3
61.5
—
64.9
52.6
55.7
38.5
—
35.1
47.4
         Source: Pitt, R.,and G. Amy, "Toxic Materials Analysis of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA
               Report No. EPA-R2-73-283 (NTIS No. PB 224 677/AS), August, 1973.
     The major amounts of carbohydrates, methylene  blue  active substances, and
grease  and  oil are associated with the small particle fraction below 246
microns (0.0097 in).   Vegetative debris, as represented  by the analysis of
tannins and lignins are apparently associated with  the fraction above 246
microns.
     An analysis  of the pollutants associated with various particle  size
ranges  was  conducted  on samples collected in Washington, B.C.   The results
are shown in  Table 74.   The values reported are based  on the dust and  dirt
fraction rather than  on a total solids fraction made up of a composite of
litter, dust  and  dirt,  and flush materials.  The findings generally  corro-
borate  those  reported in the previous table (based on  composite solids).
Those pollutant percentages associated with the 250  micron (0.0098 in) or less
size account  for  a significant amount of the total pollutant load.   Visual
comparison  of the data suggests that the pollutant percentages  are similar
for all size  ranges,  with the exception of the largest and smallest  fractions.
                                       133

-------
           TABLE 74. PERCENTAGE OF
   POLLUTANT POTENTIAL ASSOCIATED WITH
     VARIOUS RANGES OF STREET SOLIDS
                 PARTICLE SIZE
              {WASHINGTON, D.C.)
Pollutant Ranges of Particle Size, microns
Dust and Dirt 3,350-850 850-420 420-250 250-75
Commercial Street
Shopping Center
Isolated Roadways
Volatile Solids
Commercial Street
Shopping Center
Isolated Roadways
BOD
Commercial Street
Shopping Center
Isolated Roadways
COD
Commercial Street
Shopping Center
Isolated Roadways
Total PO4-P
Commercial Street
Shopping Center
Isolated Roadways
Commercial Street
Shopping Center
Isolated Roadways
NO2-IM
Commercial Street
Shopping Center
Isolated Roadways
Total Kjcldahl N
Commercial Street
Shopping Center
18.8
8.7
13.2
25.1
9.4
16.4
20,8
11.3
11.9

21.2
6.4
10.7
11.9
4.2
12.2
17.1
14.4
9.3
52.8
5.3
15.3
31.5
8.6
20.4
22.8
16,2
17.0
17.3
10.2
19.0
16.7
14.5

16.0
13.7
10.6
14.5
12.5
14.0
14.1
13.5
12.2
11.2
13.9
15.8
28.8
29.6
27.6
23.0
21.1
17.1
10.4
11.7
24.5
21.0
15.0

18.2
13.1
12.7
18.3
22.4
17.2
18.7
12.2
16.1
0.0
17.6
11.7
18.5
17.6
30.1
28.7
35.2
34.0
29.9
36.0
28.6
26.0
33.7

37.0
33.8
39.6
47.5
28.7
37.6
40.9
32.0
35.4
16.9
17.3
31.2
18.9
25,8
<75
3.1
16.8
14.3
6.8
33.0
25.7
7.1
25.0
24.9

7.6
33.0
26.4
7.8
32.2
19.0
9.2
27.9
27.0
19.1
45.9
26.0
2.4
18.4
 Isolated Roadways   20.2     19.5    16.5   26.9    16.9


Source: Shaheen, D.G., "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water
      Pollution," USEPA Report No. EPA-600/2-75-004 (NTIS No. PB
      245 854J, April, 1975.
                      134

-------
     A similar  analysis of other pollutants by size range was  also conducted
on the Washington,  B.C. samples.  These appear in Table 75.
                    TABLE 75. PERCENTAGES OF POLLUTANT
                    POTENTIALS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS
                       PARTICLE SIZES OF STREET SOLIDS
                              (WASHINGTON, D.C.)
                                          (microns)
                 Pollutant         3,380-850 850-420 420-250 2BO-75
Grease
Petroleum
n-Paraffin
Asbestos
Rubber
Chlorides
Fecal Streptococcus
11.6
10,8
10.2
13.0
3.0
13.5
5.4
10.3
9.1
9.0
15.5
5.4
17.0
1.2
12.5
12.5
11.6
20.5
11.3
16.6
2.6
40.1
39.9
40.7
39.6
37.8
33.6
63.6
25.5
27.7
28.5
11.4
42.5
21.6
27.2
  Source: Shaheen, D.G., "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water
       Pollution," USEPA Report No. EPA-600/2-75-004 (NTIS No. PB
       245 854), April, 1975.

     The  majority of all of these pollutants is associated with the smaller
particle  size ranges,  fhese findings generally agree with those previously
indicated for grease and oil.

     A summary of  the precentages of elemental heavy metals in various
particle  size ranges is presented in Tables 76 and  77.   The distribution of
pollutants to particle size ranges in both tables shows fair agreement for
the same  metals.  The table indicates that cadmium  is most frequently as-
sociated  with the fraction of  246 microns  (0.0097 in) or less, while iron,
manganese, and nickel are more related to  the fraction  above 246 microns
(0.0097 in).

                    TABLE 76. PERCENT OF HEAVY METALS IN
                       VARIOUS STREET SOLIDS PARTICLE
                                  SIZE RANGES
(microns)
Average Of Four
Cities: . Tulsa,
Baltimore, San
Jose II. Seattle
Zinc
Copper
Lead
Iron
Cadmium
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Strontium


<104

20
26
14
11
36
20
16
23
34
104
to
246

26
33
28
21
52
24
20
17
12
246
to
495

21
15
35
21
12
17
20
31
15


>495

33
26
23
47
0
39
44
29
39
  Source:  Pitt, R., and Q. Amy, "Toxic Materials Analysis of Street
        Surface Contaminants," USEPA Report No. EPA-R2-73-283
        (NTIS No. PB 224 677/AS), August, 1973.
                                      135

-------
                      TABLE 77. PERCENTAGES OF ELEMENTAL
                      HEAVY METAL POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED
                      WITH VARIOUS STREET SOLIDS PARTICLE
                                   SIZE RANGES
                                (WASHINGTON, D.G.)

                                   Ranges of Particle Size, microns
                       Pollutant  3.380-8BO 850-420 420-250 250-75 
-------
  TABLE 79. THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POLLUTANT LOADS ASSOCIATED WITH
   THE MAJOR FRACTIONS OF STREET ACCUMULATIONS AND PAVEMENT TYPES
 Sample
 Collection             Total                                       Volatile
 Frequency Sample       Accumulation          BOD5       '   COD      Solids
 Days	Fraction
1

3

3.6

Many
Days
Litter
Dust/Dirt-Flush
Litter
Dust/Dirt-Flush
Litter
Dust/Dirt-Flush
Litter
Dust/Dirt-Flush
32
68
-
--
31.4
68.6
45.0
55.0
5.1
94.9
7.5
92.5
-
--
43
57
61.3
38.7
--
--
63.5
36.5
70.7
29.3
27.7
72.3
29.7
70.3
-
-
79.9
20.1
59.1
40.9
—
-
89.9
10.1
88.3
11.7
12.9
87.1
27.8
72.2
..
--
85.7
14.3
88
12
„
--
75.5
24.5
87.3
12.7
33.2
66.8
9.4
90.6
__
-
58.5
41.5
 Source:  Shaheen, D.G., "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution," USEPA Report No. EPA-600/2-75-004 (NTIS
       No. PB 245 854), April, 1975.

of the contaminant loading related  to each.   The  pattern of  each is somewhat
different for each pavement type.   The asphalt litter or approximately 32
percent of the total accumulation,  accounts  for 61.3  percent of  the total
BODc while only the concrete litter, or  5.1  percent of  the total accumulation
produces 27.7 percent of  the total  BOD^.   A  fair  degree of consistency in
the proportions of pollutants attributable to each litter fraction over time
for unweathered samples occurs  for  totalaccumulations,  and BOD^  and volatile
solids on asphaltic surfaces and  for total accumulations,  and BOD^ on Portland
cement surfaces.  Among weathered samples, the distribution of fractions and
pollutants appear relatively the  same for most pavement type comparisons.

     A reasonable degree  of linear  association appears  to exist  for the per-
centage of the total BOD,- and COD,  compared  to street accumulation fraction
percentages, when data from both  street  surfacing types are commingled.  Al-
though the data are limited and,  therefore,  suspect,  this tends  to suggest that
some consistency may be assumed in  the distribution of  pollutants compared to
mass accumulations for some pollutants.

     The foregoing indicates that the effect of rainfall and the removal of the
dust and dirt and flush  sized accumulations  by runoff can be identified through
net changes  in their composition  over time.   This is  evidenced by the greater
relative influence due to the litter  fraction with weathering of the accumula-
tion regardless of pavement surfacing. A higher relative proportion of the dust
and dirt and flush particles and  pollutants  will  probably be removed from con-
crete than asphalt surfaces.  This  would be  due to the  large relative propor-
tion of street materials  in these size ranges on  concrete surfaces.

     A tabulation of average dust and dirt accumulations and related pol-
lutant concentrations is  shown  in Table  80.   The  table  shows mean values of
                                       137

-------
TABLE 80. AVERAGE DAILY DUST AND DIRT ACCUMULATION AND RELATED
    POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECT FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Pollutant
                                       Land Use Categories

Dust and Dirt
Accumulation
Ib/curb-mi/day
kg/curb-km/diy
Chicago'1'


Washington {z'


Multi-City'31
.

All Data


BOD mg/kg


COD mg/kg


Total N-N
(mg/kg)

Kfeldahi N
(mg/kgl

N03
(mg/kg)

N02-N
(mg/kg)

Total PO4
(mg/kg)




Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs.
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Single Family
Residential


35(10)
19-96(5-27)
60
,.
-•
-
182(51)
3-950(1-268)
14
62(17)
3-950(1-268)
74
5,260
1,720-9,430
59
39,250
18,300-72,800
59
460
325-525
59
-

-






..


Multiple Family
Residential


109(31)
62-153(17-43)
93



157(44)
8-770(2-217)
8
113(32)
8-770(2-217)
101
3.370
2.030-6320
93
41,970
24,600-61,300
93
550
356-961
93











,.
Commercial


181(51)
71-326(80-151)
126
134(38)
35-365(10-103)
12
45(13)
3-260(1-73)
10
116(47)
3-365(1-103)
158
7,190
1,280-14,540
102
61,730
24,800-498,410
102
420
323-480
80
640
230-1,790
22
24
10-35
21
0
0
15
170
90-340
21
Industrial


325(92)
284-536(80-151)
55



288(81)
4-1,500(1-423)
12
319(90!
4-1,500(1-423)
67
2,920
2.820-2,950
56
25,080
23,000-31,800
38
430
410-431
38












All Data


158(44)
19-536(5-15)
334
134(38)
35-365(10-103)
22
175(49)
3-1,500(1-423)
44
159(451
3-1,500(1-423)
400
5,030
1,288-14,540
292
46,120
18,300-498,410
292
480
323-480
270
640
230-1,790
22
24
10-35
21
15
0
15
170
90-340
21
                              138

-------
TABLE 80  (cont'd)
   Pollutant"
                                                        Land Use Categories

P04-P
(mg/kg)

Chlorides
(mg/kg)

Asbestos
fibers/lb
(fibers/kg!
Ag
(mg/kg)

As
(mg/kg)

Ba
(mg/kg I

CD
(mg/kg)

Cr
(mg/kg)

Cu
(mg/kg)

Fe
(mg/kg)

Hg
(mg/kg)

Mn
(mg/kg)

Ni
(mg/kg)


Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No, of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Gbs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Single Family
Residential
49
20-109
59
-



Multiple Family
Residential Commercial
58
20-73
93

-
-

60
0-142
101
220
100-370
22
57,2x1 (^(^exIO6)
Industrial
26
14-30
38
-

-

0-172.5x108(0-380x106) -


-




„


3.3
0-8.8
14
200
1 1 1 -325
14
91
33-150
14
21.280
11,000-48,000
14



450
250-700
14
38
0-120
14


--




..


2.7
0.3-6.0
8
180
75-325
8
73
34-170
8
18,500
11,000-25,000
8


-
340
230-450
8
18
0-80
8
16
200
0-600
3
0
0
3
38
0-80
8
2.9
0-9.3
22
140
10-430
30
95
25-810
30
21,580
5,000-44,000
10
0.02
0-0.1
6
380
160-540
10
94
6-170
30
-
-

-




-•

3.6
0.3-11.0
13
240
159-335
13
87
32-170
13
22,540
14,000-43,000
13



430
240-620
13
44
1-120
13
All Data
53
0-142
291
220
100-370
22
57,2x106(126x106)
0-172.5x106(0-380x106)
16
200
0-600
. 3
0
0
3
38
0-80
8
3.1
0-11.0
57
180
10-430
65
90
25-810
65
21,220
5,000-48,000
45
0.02
0-0.1
6
410
160-700
45
62
1-170
65
                                           139

-------
TABLE 80 (cont'd)
   Pollutant
                             Land Use Categories
Single Family   Multiple Family
Residential     Residential     Commercial	Industrial
                                                                         All Data
Pb
Imf/kj}

Sb
(mfl/kjl

So
{ms/kg!

Sn
(mg/kg)

Sr
(mf/kg)

Zn
fmfl/kg}

Fecal Strep
HaJgrm

Fecjl Coli
No./gram

Total Coli
No^gram

Mean 1,570
Range 220-5,700
No. of Obs 14
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Mean 32
Range 5-110
No. of Obs 14
Mean 310
Range 110-810
No. of Obs 14
Geo. Mean
Range
No. of Obs
Geo. Mean 82,500
Range 26-130,000
No. of Obs 65
Geo. Mean 891,000
Range 25,000-3,000,000
No. of Obs 65
1,980
470-3,700
8







..

18
12-24
8
280
210-490
8



38,800
1,500-1,000,000
96
1,900,000
2,330
0-7,600
29
54
50-60
3
0
0
3
17
0-50
3
17
7-38
10
690
90-3,040
30
370
44-2,420
17
36,900
140-970,000
84
1,000,000
80,000-5,600,000 18,000-3,500,000
97
85
1,590
260-3,500
13









13
0-24
13
280
140-450
13



30.700
67-530,000
42
419.000
27,000-2.600,000
43
1,970
0-7,600
64
54
50-60
3
0
0
3
17
0-50
3
21
0-110
45
470
90-3,040
65
370
44-2,420
17
94,700
26-1,000,000
287
1,070,000
18,000-5,600,000
290
    Source:  'American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," USEPA Report No.
              U030DNSOI/69 (NTIS No. PB 215 532), January, 1969.
           2Shaheen, D.G., "Contributions of Urban  Roadway Usage to Water Pollution," USEPA Report No,
              EPA-600/2-7S-004 (NTIS No. PB 245 8S4), April, 1975.
           3Sartor, J.D., and G. B. Boyd, "Water Pollution of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA Report No.
              EPA-R2-081 (NTIS No. PB 214 408), November, 1972.
           ''Amy, G.,  "Water Quality Management  Planning  for Urban  Runoff," USEPA
            Report No. EPA-440/9-7S-004,  (NTIS No. PB 241 689), December, 1974.
    Note: Data for this table has had the flush fraction and some URS Data edited out - this data represents sweeping values
        only. Tables 60 ond 64 reflect the flush fraction and thus differ from Table 80.

daily values  of  all reported  samples collected  by mechanical and pneumatic
methods,  but  not flushing.   All the  data  included in  these values  were defined
in terms  of a specific sampling location.   Although  the preponderance of the
reported  data included in  this tabulation was taken on asphaltic pavements  (in
many cases with  a concrete gutter)»  a few samples were collected on  concrete
pavement.   In these few cases,  dust  and dirt accumulations were  uniformly
lower in  magnitude  than those measured on asphalt.  A more detailed description
of street measurements is  given in Appendix B,  Data Management for Street
Surface Solids Accumulation Samples.
                                             140

-------
     Although the table does not reflect  accumulations  measured by flush
sampling methods, some detailed investigations were conducted in the Washington
study  (6)  of the significance  of flush samples.   As  it is normally used,  flush-
ing with limited amounts of water is accomplished  subsequent to mechanical and
pneumatic sampling.  Flush sample data, therefore, indicate some of the parti-
culate and soluble accumulations that  are not readily removed from a pavement
surface by high efficiency mechanical  and pneumatic cleaning.  Rainfall simula-
tion studies have shown that approximately a 90 percent capture of settleable
materials took about one-half hour  of  simulated rainfall at a rate of 2 cm/hr
(0.8 in/hr) on new asphalt and  concrete.   Dissolved,  colloidal and suspended
materials required about an hour at the same simulated  rainfall rate. (43)
Thus, it is not clear  that flushing with  limited water  quantities, even though
under pressure, is wholly representative  of residual  materials to be found on
street pavements.  Flushing is  important, however, as an indication of some
pollutants that do occur in high percentages in this  fraction.  A relative
distribution of the percentages of  pollutants associated with the flush com-
ponent of dust and dirt plus flush  samples, is shown  in Table 81.
              TABLE 81. PERCENTAGE OF POLLUTANTS FOUND IN
             DUST AND DIRT AND FLUSH SAMPLES ATTRIBUTABLE
                          TO THE FLUSH FRACTION
Pollutant
Accumulation
(dry weight)
Volatile Solids
BOD
COD
Total PO4-P
P04-P
NO3-N
NO2-N
Kjeldahl N
Chlorides
Asbestos
Lead
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
F. Strep
F. Co!i
Number Of
Observations

82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
68
10
10
10
10
10
82
82
Average Percentage
In Flush Fraction

7
20
36
16
15
43
69
97
33
43
13
4
17
5
5
2
44
76
Range Of Flush
Fraction Percentages *

5.2-8.8
17.1-22.9
31.1-40.9
13.3-18.7
11.7-18.3
33.7-52.3
63.7-74.3
95.4-98.6
27.9-38.1
35.7-50.3
5.4-20.6
2.5-5.5
5.7-28.3
2.0-8.0
3.5-6.5
1.2-2.8
35.3-52.7
67.1-84.9
                        * Ranges inferred at 95% confidence interval

            Source:  Shaheen, D.G., "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution/
                  USEPA Report No. EPA600/2-75-004 (NTIS No. PB 245 854), April, 1975.
                                      141

-------
     The table clearly shows that, although the flush sample contributes
relatively little to the street accumulation by weight, it does influence
BCtt>5, phosphate and nitrate, Kjeldahl nitrogen, chlorides, and bacteriologi-
cal indicators.  In addition, it accounts for virtually all of the nitrates
measured.  This suggests that significant amounts of these pollutants are
associated with street accumulations that are incapable of capture with pre-
sent mechanicial and pneumatic street cleaning methods.

Application of Street Surface Contaminant Data

     The previous discussions have related the results of field measurements
of street surface contaminants from a number of urban sites across the
country.  The values related provide an indication of the magnitude of po-
tential pollutants to be expected from a variety of urban land uses.  They
also form the basis for analytical techniques and models employed to esti-
mate urban runoff pollutional contributions; evaluate alternative control
and abatement methods; project the influence of land use changes on runoff
quality; and perform other analytical functions.

     As noted in Appendix B, available data on street surface contaminants are
relatively limited, and subject  to some variation due to sampling and ana-
lytical procedures.  Thus, this body of data does not provide universal
answers to pollutional loadings from street surface contaminants.  Verfifica-
tion of the results obtained from using this data in applicable models is
therefore desirable.  Verification involves the collection of runoff discharge
data from representative urban drainage basins.  These data preferably should
include precipitation information, runoff quantities over time, and an array
of related discrete samples taken in a manner representative of average condi-
tions of flow quality.  Verification in this case takes the form of comparisons
of measured and estimated results for the same runoff event within the defined
drainage basin.

     Another approach to the application of measurements of runoff discharge
was employed by the University of Florida in the STOKM and SWMM modelling as
reported in Volume II, Section ?.

 Measuredand Calibrated  Results

      This calibration effort was limited to street accumulation values  only.
 Non-point runoff estimating methods such as the Universal Soil Loss Equation
 or estimations of contributions  from other sources such as roof runoff,  catch
 basins and first flush effects,  were not employed for  calibration purposes.
 In spite of this fact,  the potentials of model calibration as  a means to more
 effectively reflect local variations in input due to climate,  region, local
 development, soils,  and  other  factors are clearly of value.  Adjustments to
 the given street surface accumulation values cited within this section with
 locally obtained data on pollutant concentrations or mass emissions can result
 in more accurate analytical tools for the evaluation of urban  runoff as well
 as new insights into the problems of prevention, abatement,  and control.
                                      142

-------
 STREET SURFACE ACCUMULATION REMOVAL MECHANISMS

      Street surface accumulations are removed from streets by a number of
 methods—both planned and unplanned.  Planned removal mechanisms involve the
 various street cleaning methods that may be used in any urban area.   Unplan-
 ned removals include those accomplished by wind erosion processes;  surface
 runoff including rainfall, snow melt and irrigation surpluses; and,  transpor-
 tation-related removals due to traffic-generated blow-off, or by the pick-up
 and transport of materials on or attached to individual vehicles.   The most
 significant of these removal processes are those attributable to street clean-
 ing and surface runoff.
 Street Cleaning Practice

      Some of the pollutants that are accumulated on urban streets are removed
 by street cleaning operations.   The amount of material removed by street clean-
 ing will vary according to local practice in terms of the frequency  of clean-
 ing, cleaning methods,  and the effectiveness of these methods.  Thus,  street
 cleaning activities affect the amounts of materials removed and, more im-
 portantly,  the effect street cleaning has on the accumulation of pollutants on
 streets.

      Street cleaning operations usually employ abrasive (mechanical)  or abrasive
 and pneumatic machinery and, in some cases,  water flushing equipment.   Abrasive
 street cleaning equipment employs brooms to  impart sufficient energy to street
 accumulation particles  for their collection.  Two types of brooms are generally
 used—the gutter broom  to remove material from the gutter area and make it
 accessible to the main  or pick-up broom and  the pick-up broom which  moves the
 material to a conveyor  and collection bin.  Brooms may be made up ,pf a number
 of materials—natural fiber, steel filaments, and synthetic fibers.

      In tests performed in Pomona, California using a simulant material [NO.
 16 Sand, 0.12 cm (0.049 in)] ,  on a 0.9 m by 91 m  (3 ft by 300 ft)  strip, a
 four-wheel abrasive sweeper operated with pick-up efficiencies of from 80
 to 98 percent at broom pattern widths of  17.8 and  22.9 cm  (7  and 9 in).  A
 three-wheeled abrasive sweeper produced similar results.  Vacuum sweepers
 resulted in pick-up efficiencies in the range of  97 to 99.5 percent.  (15)
 This range of efficiency is higher than that experienced in actual practice
 because the conditions of the tests were  ideal for equipment  performance.

      A study of sweeper performance in connection with radiological  decontamina-
 tion described abrasive sweeper effectiveness by the following genral ex-
 ression: (69)
         M = M* + (MQ - M*)e~KE                             (17)

where:
         M = the mass remaining after sweeping (g/ft^)

        M  = the initial mass before sweeping (g/ft )

        M* = an irreducible mass remaining after any amount of sweeping
             (and dependent upon the type of sweeper, the surface,  and
             particle size)

                                       143

-------
           e = 2.718

           K = a dlmensionless empirical constant  dependent upon the sweeper
               characteristics

           E = the  amount of sweeping effort involved (equipment min/
               1000 ft2 swept)


     A comparison  of  removal effectiveness between abrasive and vacuum sweeping
was made as part of  the same study.  (69)  The results are shown in Table 82.


                TABLE 82. COMPARISON OF REMOVAL EFFECTIVENESS
                       FOR ABRASIVE AND VACUUM SWEEPING

Machine
Type
Abrasive
Vacuum
Abrasive
Vacuum
Relative
Effort (E)
min/1.000ft2
2.17
2.88
4.32
5.83
20 g/ft2
177-300/j
(%)
92.5
95.0
94.5
98.5
100 g/ft2
71-177/j
(%)
58.0
94.5
—
—
600 g/ft2
74-1 77 n
(%)
46.0
89.5
62.6
91.4
              NOTE:  Tests conducted on asphaltic concrete. Results are for 1 pass in 2nd gear and
                     1 pass in 3rd gear.
                     g/ft2 =  Initial mass level
                     fj.   =  Particle size range of simulant
                     %   =  Removal effectiveness = (Mo-M*)/Mo x 100
                     s.g.  =  2.65

              Source:  Sartor, J.D. and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface
                     Contaminants," USEPA Report No. EPA-R2-72-08I (NTIS No. PB 214 408),
                     November, 1972.
     This shows pick-up effectiveness for various particle size ranges deter-
mined  as a result  of  strip tests.   Thus, removal effectiveness  would be some-
what higher than might be experienced under actual cleaning conditions.   In
any case, vacuum cleaning apparently operates  at a higher removal effectiveness
than abrasive cleaning for smaller particle size ranges.

     The results of street tests  to determine  the effectiveness of street
cleaning in a number  of cities  in terms of percent removal are  shown in
Table  83.
                                         144

-------
             TABLE 83. SUMMARY OF STREET CLEANING EFFECTIVENESS TESTS1
A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
City
Milwaukee
Baltimore
Scottsdale
Atlanta
Tulsa
Phoenix
Test
No.
Mi-3
Ba-7
SC-1
At-9
Tu-6
PII-2
Pick-Up
Street Equipment
Type Condition Type Condition
Concrete
Asphaltic
Asphaltic
Asphaltic
Concrete
Asphaltic
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Wayne 94.5
Wayne 945
Wayne 985
Elgin Pelican
Elgin Pelican
Mobile TE-3
Fair
New
Worn (50%)
Fair
Worn (50%)
Fair
Broom
Speed
(rpm)
2,000
2,000
—
n.a.
n.a.
1,700
Strike
cm in.
20.3 8
14.0 5%
12.7 5
15.2 6
1.0.2 4
12.7 5
Vehicle Speed
Gear km/hr mph
3rd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
8.8
6.4
8.8
5.5
6.6
8.8
5.5
4.0
5.5
3.4
4.1
5.5
             3.

1
2
3
4
5
6
Test
No.
Mi-3
Ba-7
SC-1
At-9
Tu-6
PII-2
Initial Loading
g/m2 lb/1,000 ft2
18.2 3.72
53.1 10.86
36.2 7.40
27.8 5.68
64.5 13.24
108.0 22.09
Residual Loading
g/m2 lb/1,000 ft2
9.6
47.0
16.0
18.8
41.9
40.7
1.96
9.62
3.28
3.85
8.57
8.32
Removal
Effectiveness
47
11
56
32
35
62
  1.
n.a.
All units, abrasive type
= not available
Source: Sartor, J.D., and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface
      Contaminants," USEPA Report No. EPA-R2-72-081  (NTIS No. PB 214 408),
      November, 1972.
     These results show a range of  overall removal effectiveness for abrasive
cleaning equipment of from 11 to  62 percent.  Overall average removal effective-
ness was found to be 50 percent.  The  effectiveness of removal varies with
particle size.  The concentration of pollutants in street  solids also varies
with particle size.  The effectiveness of  abrasive  street  sweeping equipment
decreases with a decrease in particle  size, as shown in Table 84, the concentra-
tion of pollutants in street solids increases with a decrease in particle size.
It is noted,  for example, that the  particles of less than  43 microns represent
only 5.9 percent of the total solids while they are 24.3 percent of the total
BOD.
                                         145

-------
                   TABLE 84. ABRASIVE SWEEPER EFFICIENCY
                      WITH RESPECT TO  PARTICLE SIZE
                                                     Sweeper
                        Particle Size                     Efficiency
                          (Microns)	*%}
                        > 2,000                          79
                        840 - 2,000                        66
                        246 -  840                        60
                        104-  246                        48
                          43-  104                        20
                        <  43                          15
                        Overall                           50

Source  Sifter, J.D.,  and G.B. Boyd,  "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA
       Report No.  GPA-R2-72-081 (NTIS No. PB 214 408), November, 1972.

      From the  foregoing it  is apparent  that removal effectiveness  should
be  determined  in terms of  equipment type  and its related efficiency  in
removing particles of various sizes.  As  is apparent,  the relative interval
between street cleaning may have a strong bearing on  the amount of potential
pollution available to runoff on urban  streets.  An indication of  current
practice as  to street cleaning  intervals  is shown in  Table 85.  As might be
predicted, the shortest cleaning intervals  are used in central business
areas.  The  data shown do  not reflect the methods of  cleaning employed.

                  TABLE 85. STREET CLEANING  INTERVALS (DAYS)
                        FOR VARIOUS POPULATION RANGES
                                 AND LAND USES
Population
Range
10,000
to
50,000
50,000
to
100,000
100,000
to
250,000
250,000
to
1,000,000
AN
Data
Days Between Sweeping Events
Residential Commercial Industrial
Low Medium High Central Local
Density Density Density Business Business
Mean 64.8
a 15.2
n 47
Mean 60.7
a 9.4
n 32
Mean 55.3
0 12.1
n 25
Mean 41.5
a 13.5
n 19
Mean 58.9
a 13,7
51.0
12.2
49
49.8
7.5
32
50.0
9.9
23
44.1
13.5
18
48.1
11.4
36.0
11.6
37
37.6
5.4
31
47.5
11.0
23
39.0
6.4
18
38.1 .
9.0
5.5
1.3
50
9.7
17.6
33
5.8
1.6
26
7.4
2.7
16
6.8
8.9
11.6
3.8
48
15.2
17.2
30
9.4
3.3
22
10.3
4.1
18
11.5
9.3
32.0
12.6
29
36.5
19.5
25
19.5
3.9
18
23.0
15.5
18
29.3
16.0
                         n   127     126    113    128    121    93
                Note:  O is defined as the correlation coefficient
                      N is defined as number of responses

Sourc*: 1973.APWA Survev of Street Cleaning, Catch Basin Cleaning and Snow and Ice Removal Practice.

                                        146

-------
     An alternative or supplementary approach to street cleaning Involves the
use of flushing with water.  In some jurisdictions flushing is employed to
supplement other street cleaning activities.  An investigation of street
flushing performed in connection with radiological decontamination using a
synthetic test material—industrially processed clay loam, produced some
results of interest.  Simulant materials applied at levels of approximately
0.1, 0.4 and 1.1 kg/m2 (22, 72.7 and 220 lb/1,000 ft2)(70), were removed by
manual hose flushing and mechanized flushing.  Manual flushing operations were
performed with a hose at a nozzle pressure of from 5.27 to 5.62 kg/cm  (75 to
80 psi) with a 1.5 cm (0.6 in) nozzle orifice on a standard 3.7 cm (1.5 in)
fire hose.  Mechanized flushing was accomplished with two different equipment
units.  One was a conventional 11,340 1 (3,000 gal) flushing unit with three
nozzles, operating at a nozzle pressure of 3.87 kg/cm  (55 psi), a nozzle
orifice of 0.16 cm (0.06 in) and a spray direction of 60° to the line of
travel.  The other unit employed a  2.6 m (8.5 ft) long spreader of a 5 cm
(2 in) diameter of 5.98 kg/cm2 (85 psi) an angle of application with the pave-
ment of 30° and a spray direction of 60° to the line of travel.

     The findings of various field measurements were characterized in the form:
                                „   1/3
           M = M* + (Mo - M*) e~J °                             (18)

 In which M* = M*0(l + e'^)
                                                                1/3
 where     M - M*Q(1 + e" aMo) + [MQ - M*o C1 + e" *Mo)le"3K°E
                                                           9
           M = Residual street loading after flushing, g/ft

          M* = Residual street loading remaining after an infinite
               flushing effort, g/ft2

          MO = Initial street loading, g/ft2

         M*0 = A constant  limiting upper  value for M* for each  pave-
               ment and cleaning method,  g/ft2

          a  = Loading spreading coefficient dependent on pavement
               surface, cleaning method,  loading particle size  and
               density

          K  = Efficiency  constant
                                                 f
           E ~ Flushing  effort,  equip.  min/103ft'
                                      147

-------
     Values  for  some of  the  factors  defined  in  the  previous  equation are
shown  in Table  86.

                       TABLE 86. REPRESENTATIVE VALUES FOR
                   VARIOUS FACTORS IN DETERMINING EFFICIENCY
                                  OF STREET FLUSHING
                                    Asphalt Pavement
Concrete Pavement
Flushing Method
3-nozzle flusher
14 flat jet nozzles
firehose
d
0.0081
0.0081
0.0081
K
o
1.05
1.05
0.42
M
2.
2.
2.
#
o
0
0
0
d
0.0064
0.0064
0.0064
Ko
1.05
1.05
0.42
M
1.
1.
1.
*
o
0
0
0
 Source:  Owen, W.L., etal., "Stoneman II Test of Reclamation Performance:
         Volume II, Performance Characteristics of Wet  Decontamination
         Procedures," USNRDL-TR-325, U.S. Naval Radiological Defense
         Laboratory, San Francisco, California, July, I960.
     Some of the results of  this study  are  shown in Figures  40,  41  and  42.
                       3   7
                      5=
                      •8
                                     E, flushing effort
                                       equip,  min/103  ft2
                                 10    20   30    40    50   6O    70   80   9O   100

                                                        Mo, Initial street loading (g/ft2)
 Source:  Owen, W.L., et el., "Stoneman II Test of  Reclamation Performance:
        'Volume  II. Performance  Characterisitcs  of  Wet  Decontamination
         Procedures,"  USNRDL-TR-325 (NTIS No. AP  248  069/LK), U.S.
         Naval Radiological Defense  Laboratory, San Francisco,  California,
         July, 1960.
                     Figure 40. Residual mass as a function of initial mass loading
                     for various  levels of flushing effort on concrete  surfaces,
                     mechanized flushing.
                                             148

-------
             s  6

             01
             ,E  5

             "1
             4*  4
             _ 3
              (8
              3
             13
             'vt «
              w 2
             e
                           E, flushing effort
                             equip, min/103 ft
                                  I
                                                I
i
I
                      10
                           20
                                 30
                                       40
                                             SO
                                                  60
                                                        70
                                                             80
                                                                  90   100
                                           MQ, Initial Street Loading (g/ft2)

    Figure 41. Residual mass as a function of initial mass loading for various
    levels of flushing effort on asphalt surfaces, mechanized flushing.
                    E, flushing effort

                       equip, min/10 ft2
                  10
                         20
                                                                                100
                                                M0, Initial Street Loading (g/ft2 )
Source:
        Figure 42. Residual mass as a function of initial mass loading for various

        levels  of  flushing  effort on  asphalt and  concrete surfaces,  firehose

        flushing.

Owen, W.L., et al., "Stoneman II Test of Reclamation Performance: Volume II,
Performance Characteristics of Wet Decontamination Procedures," USNRDL-TR-32S
(NTIS No. AP 248 069/LK),  U.S, Naval  Radiological  Defense Laboratory, San
Francisco, California, July, 1960.
                                    149

-------
      The relative  effectiveness of  the three flushing methods is  shown in
 Figure 43.  This  comparison was  based on an initial street loading of 1.08
 kg/ra2 (0.22 lb/ft2).
                    FIREHOSING - ASPHALTIC OR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
                  MOTORIZED FLUSHING - ASPHALTIC CONCRETE~
                           MOTORIZED FLUSHING - PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE
I  I  I  I  I  I
I  I  I
                                              I  I  I
I  I  I  I  I
                              20
                                       30       40        5O

                                                E,eq. min/103ft2
                                                                 60
                 70
 Source:  Owan, W.L., ot al., "Stoneman II Test of Reclamation Performance: Volume II,
        Porformnnca Chnroctorlstlcs of Wet Decontamination Procedures," USNRDL-TR-325
        (NTIS No. AP 248 069/LK), U.S. Naval Radiological Defense  Laboratory, San
        Francisco, California, July, 1960.

                  Figure 43. Comparative effectiveness of motorized flushing and
                  firehosing on pavement.
 Uncontrolled Removal

     Uncontrolled removals are accomplished through wind erosion processes,
transportation-related removals due  to traffic generated blow-off or  the
pick—up and transport of accumulations on and by means of vehicles and through
removals due to runoff in all forms.   Of these, surface runoff constitutes
the most significant  removal process  in terms of receiving water pollution.

     An indication  of general wind erosion processes  for lands adjacent to
roadways was discussed in the previous section on airborne contributions to
urban  runoff pollution.   In addition,  vehicular emissions for unpaved roads
was also discussed.   Studies in Washington State (72)  produced traffic dust
emission estimates  shown in Table 87.   This information indicates particu-
late emission factors in Ib per vehicle-mi for a number of road types at
specific vehicular  speeds.
                                        150

-------
                                            TABLE 87. TRAFFIC DUST EMISSION FACTORS



Speed
km/hr
16.7

33,3
50.0
33.3
mph
10

20
30
20

Type of Road
And
Test Site
Weight/Vehicle Distance
Total Below
Particulates
kg/veh-km
Ib/veh-tni
10 Microns
kg/veh-km
Ib/veh-mi
Below
2 Microns
kg/veh-km
Ib/veh-mi
Percent
Below
10 Microns
Number
of
Tests
Gravel Road, Duwamish Valley
10th Ave. S. from
Same
Same
Dusty Pave Road •
S. 92nd to S. 96th


- No Curbs
0.95
1.91
.6:05

3.5
7.0
22,2

0.16
0.54
2,53

0.58
1.9
9.0

0.028
0.067
0,22

0.10
0,24
0.77

16.7
27.4
40.4

1
17
1

               S. Kenyon-7th Ave. S. — S. Chicago
               8th Ave. S. Duwamish Valley                0.23         0.83      0.047      0.17
33.3     20    Paved Road With Curbs - Flushed Weekly
               Swept Biweekly* — 6th Ave. S. Between
               S. Alaska and S. Lander                      0.04         0.14      0.001B     O.OOE
33.3     20    Gravel Road East of Redmond
               N.E. 40th Between 260th Ave. N.E,
               and 272nd Ave. N,E.                        1.99         7.3       0,56       2.0
0.006
0.022
20.3
                          3.82       1
                         27.1
* The standard deviation of the average grains per actual cubic foot (g/acf) of 17 samples at mph on 10th Ave, S, is 0.010. In 95% of the cases the true average would He between
        0.133 g/acf+0,010 x 1.96 which would give a 6.0 Ib/veh-mi to 8.1 Ib/veh-mi emission factor.
Source:
        Roberts, John Warren, "The Measurements, Cost and Control of Air Pollution From Unpovod Roads and Parking Lots in Seattle's Duwamish Valley," A thesis submitted
        In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Engineering, University of Washington, 1973.
  Every 14 days (per phone call 4/25/75 John Roberts)

-------
     Another study  resulted in  estimates of  the surface  deposition fraction

that is  resuspended with each passing vehicle.  (71)  This  study employed a

phosphorescent tracer (specific gravity = 4.1)  with a mass median diameter

of approximately 5  mm (0.2 in).   From this study the following can be  said:
       Resuspension factor
                               airborne concentration/rar

                               surface concentration/m^
     Resuspension  factors of  the trace material were found to increase with
the square of vehicle  speed and ranged from 10"   to 10
                                                          "^
                                                                The resuspension
due vehicles travelling in an  adjacent lane  to the trace material was  ap-

proximately one  order of magnitude less.
     The variation in resuspended particulates with vehicular speed is  shown

in Figure 44.
              O
              cc
              UJ
              I


              S
              o
              cc
              u.
              Q
              tu
              Q
10 ~2 -
                    10
                      -3
               Ul U

               d>

               1s
               CC Q.
               <
               Q.
               a.
               O
               Z
               O

               O
               <
               cc
               u.
                    10
                      -s
                            11  	1
                          Car Driven-Through

                              Tracer

                         Truck Driven-Through

                              Trace
                                             Car Driven-By —

                                               Tracer
                        1

                       1.6
                                     10            100    mph

                                     16            160    km/hr

                                           VEHICLE SPEED
  Sou re o:  Sahmel, G.A., "Particle Resuspension from an Asphalt Road Caused by Car and Truck
         Traffic, Atmospheric Environment, ParBamon Press, Vol. 7 (291-309), Great Britain,
         1973,



                Figure 44. Particle resuspension rates from an asphalt road

                caused by vehicle passage.
                                       152

-------
      The effects  of particle weathering were found  to decrease resuspension
 rapidly with  time.  Weathering effects are demonstrated in Figure 45.
                                          Car Speed

                                     6  50 mph (80 km/hr)

                                       SOmph (48 km/hr)
                                       .1.1.1.1
                                                         I
                            10  20  30   40   50   60  70   80

                                      WEATHERING TIME. DAYS

Source: Sehmel, G.A., "Particle Resuspension from an Asphalt Road Caused by Car and Truck
      Traffic," Atmospheric Environment, Pergarnon Press, Vol. 7 (291-309J, Great Britain,
      1973.

       Figure 45. Particle resuspension rates from an asphalt road as a function of weathering
                                (car driven through tracer).

      Estimates of  traffic related  accumulation removal  rates, as defined by
 the general equation  first discussed in an earlier  section,  were developed
 in  the  Washington, D.C.  study.  (6)
                   L  =  C (1 - e-KT)
                        K
                                                          (19)
 where:
                   L = roadway  pollutant loading,  Ib/mi

                   C = per axle deposition rate, Ib/axle/mi

                   e =  2.718

                   K = fractional traffic related  removal rate /axle

                   T = total traffic in axles

     The resulting estimated values for K  were from 1 x 10"^ to  3 x  10~  per
axle.  These  values, however,  were computed on the basis of dust  and  dirt load-
ing that was  attributable to traffic contributions only.

     As to  the problem of vehicular pick-up and transport of street accumula-
tions, the  study in Washington State (72) reported that material  deposits on a
passenger car were found to be as much as 36.4 kg (80 Ib) after the vehicle was
                                         153

-------
driven on  country roads.  This was supported  by another direct measurement of
materials  collected on a passenger car driven through the farmlands of Illinois,
that showed  approximately 27.3 kg (60 Ib)  of  transported materials.  (6)

     The most  significant uncontrolled street surface accumulation removal mecha-
nism is surface runoff.  The wash-off of street surface accumulations has been
characterized  as:
where:
                   Po(l-eKrt)
                                                     (20)
PQ  is the  initial street accumulation loading  in Ib

P   is the  street accumulation remaining at  time  interval t,
    after removal at runoff rate, r

r   is the  average runoff in in./hr

K   is a constant dependent on street surface characteristics

t   is the  time interval
            e    -  2.718

     Studies  of the wash— off of contaminants  on streets, using a rainfall simula-
tor device, showed that the above mathematical expression accurately describes
this phenomenon. (43)  Some of the results of these studies are presented in
Figure 46.  Values of the constant K were found to be dependent on street sur-
face characteristics.  Unfortunately, representative values for K for various
street surface types were not reported.  Although values for K are critical,  '
general  practice to date has been to assume a 90 percent removal of the initial
street accumulation with a uniform runoff of  1.2 cm/hr (0.5 in/hr) .
               I   I   I    I   I   I
                            104- 246 fl
                             44-104M
                            246 - 840 M
                            840 — 2,000 (I
                            ~> 2,000 ]J.
                                             1.00
                     1            2
                   FLUSHING TIME (hr)
                                                                          104- 246 p
                                                                           44- 104 (J.
                                                                          246 — 840 H
                                                                          840 - 2,000 y.
                                                                          > 2,000 U.
                                                 1            2
                                                FLUSHING TIME (hr)
           a. Concrete, Rainfall 0.8 in./hr
                                    b. New Asphalt, Rainfall 0.2 in./hr
     Figure 46. Particle transport across street surfaces by type of pavement and rainfall i
                                                             intensity.
                                         154

-------
                      KT  1-00 *=
                                          44- 104 (JL
                                         104- 246 (I

                                         246 - 840 H
                                                > 2,000 fl

                                               840 - 2,000 H
                                        \   I   I   I    I
                                          FLUSHING TIME (hr)

                            c. New Asphalt, Rainfall 0.8 in./hr
                                                   10.00
                               KEY FOR D & E
                                      t = in./hr
                                 Concrete
                                 Concrete
                                 Aged Asphalt
                                 New Asphalt
                                 New Asphalt
                   FLUSHING TIME ftir)
                                                                      1             2

                                                                    FLUSHING TIME (hr)
         d. Transport of Total
           Settleable Matter
                                                   e. Transport of Dissolved and
                                                     Colloidal Suspended Matter
Source:
           Figure 46. Particle transport across street surfaces by type of
           pavement and rainfall intensity.

Sartor, J.D., and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants,"
USEPA Report No. EPA-R2-72-081 (NTIS No. PB 214 4O8), November, 1972.
The foregoing  discussion has described  both controlled and uncontrolled street
accumulation removal  processes.   The major focus of  these  procedures has been
in the area of discharge sources  of receiving  water  quality impairment.  Other
non-point sources of  runoff  pollution have been discussed  at length earlier
in this  section.
                                          155

-------
INDIRECT  RUNOFF POLLUTION SOURCES - SANITARY WASTEWATER FLOWS

     The  foregoing portions of this section have been devoted  to identifying
the major apparent sources of pollution  accessible to surface  runoff.  These
sources contribute to runoff pollution that enters receiving waters as point
discharges from separate  storm sewer systemsand as general  surface runoff.
They also contribute to the pollutional  loads associated with  discharges or
overflows due to the planned or unplanned  addition of surface  runoff to other
wastewater flows.  While  these may result  from uncontrolled runoff inflow into
sanitary  systems, the more general case  is the overflow of  combined sanitary
and storm sewage due to hydraulic overloading.  From the standpoint of rela-
tive pollutional contributions, sanitary wastewater assumes an overall signifi-
cance because of its relative pollutional  strength, and may be an additional
source of pollution in storm overflows.

     Some reported values for the concentrations of various constituents within
raw domestic sewage are shown in Table 88.  The values shown are average values.
The ranges shown reflect  daily averages  and not diurnal variations.
                         TABLE 88. REPORTED POLLUTANT
                      CONCENTRATIONS FOR RAW DOMESTIC
                      SANITARY WASTEWATER FLOWS (mg/I)


                  Pollutant .	Average Concentration  Range
Total Solids
Total Volatile Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
BOD5
COD
Total Nitrogen-N
1MO3-N
ISIH4-N
Total Phosphorus-P
Chlorides
Lead
Zinc
CoIiforrreMMPN/IQQml)
860
300
160
680
150
320
30
21
8
50
34
7
106 -
700-

100-
500-
100-
200-
24-
17-
6-




1,014
—
220
854
235
523
40
25
10
—
—
—
_
                  Sources: Pound, C.E.,and R.W. Crites, "Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by
                         Land Application:  Volume I," USEPA Report No. EPA-660/2-
                         73-0060 (NTiS No, PB 225 940), May, 1973.
                         Cornell, Howland,  Hayes and  Merryfleld,  Clalr  A. Hill  and
                         Associates, "Wastewater Treatment Study, Montgomery County,
                         Maryland," Reston, Virginia, November, 1972.
                         Thomas, R.E., et al., "Feasibility of Overland  Flow for Treatment
                         of Raw Domestic Wastewater," USEPA Report No. EPA-660/2-
                         74-087 (NTIS No. PB 238 926/AS), December,  1974.
                                         156

-------
      In  the same vein,  some reported values  for various  levels of  treatment of
domestic  sanitary wastewater flows are shown in Tables 89, 90, and 91.  These
values are presented  to indicate  the quality characteristics  of raw and treated
wastewater flows.  As such,  they  should be considered as informative but
suspect,  insofar as they may not  compare favorably with  locally acquired  data.
  TABLE 89. REPORTED POLLUTANT
   CONCENTRATIONS FOR PRIMARY
    TREATED DOMESTIC SANITARY
          WASTEWATER  FLOW
                  (mg/l)
 Pollutant
                  Average Concentration  Range
                        66

                        48
                       115
                         9
23  172

23  102
71  158
 5   18
                                           TABLE 90. REPORTED POLLUTANT
                                          CONCENTRATIONS FOR SECONDARY
                                             TREATED DOMESTIC SANITARY
                                                  WASTEWATER FLOWS
                                                           (mg/l)
                                         Pollutant	Average Concentration  Range
                                         Total Solids              425
                                         Total Volatile Solids
                                         Total Suspended Solids       25
                                         Total Dissolved Solids       400
                                         BOD                   25
                                         Cod                    70
                                         Total Nitroyen-N           20
                                         N03-N                   8.2
                                         NH4-N                   9.8
                                         Total Phosphorus-P         10
                                         Chlorides                 72        45  -TOO
                                         Sulfate                  125
                                         Boron                    0.8        0.7-  1.0
                                         Sodium                  50
                                         Potassium                14
                                         Calcium                  24
                                         Vlagnesium                0.2
                                         iron                     0.1
                                         Lead                    0.1
                                         Mercury                   5 mg/l
                                         Nickel                    0.2
                                         Zinc                    0.2
                                         Sources Pound, C fc ., ana R.W. Crites, "Wasteweter Treatment and
                                               Reuse bv Land Application: Volume I," USEPA Report
                                               No. EPA 660/2 730060 (NTIS No. PB 225 940), May,
                                               1973.
                                               Reed. S.C.. et al., "Wastewater Management by Disposal
                                               on the Land." Report 171, Corps of Engineers, Hanover,
                                               New Hampshire. May, 1972.
         TABLE 91. REPORTED POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
    FOR RAW WASTEWATERS AND ADVANCED TREATED DOMESTIC
        SANITARY WASTEWATER FLOWS EMPLOYING CHEMICAL
COAGULATION, FILTRATION, AND ACTIVATED CARBON ABSORPTION
Total Solids
Total Volatile Solids
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
BODrj
COD
Total Nitroyen-N
NO3-N

Total Phosphorus-P
Chlorides
                         4.4
                         3.4
 1.4
 2.3
12.9
 5.9
 Source  Thomas R .6 ., et a I., "F-easibilitv of Overland f lew tor
       Treatment of Raw Domestic Wastewater," USEPA Report
       No.  EPA 660/2 74087 (NTIS No. PB 238 926/AS).
       December. 1974
Raw Wastewater
Average
Pollutant
Total Suspended Solids
BOD
COD
Total Phosphorus
Concentration
160
68
362
8
Tertiary
Average
(Range) Concentration (Range)
(100
(100
(200
(5.4
- 220)
- 235)
-523)
- 10)
6
10
27
0.4
(0
(1
(2
(0.1
- 13)
- 24)
-50)
- 1.0)
                                                                     Treatment
            Source  Cornell, HowlantJ, Haves arid Merryfield, Clair A Hill and Associates, "Wastewater Treatf
                  Study, Montgomery County, Maryland," Reston, Virginia, November. 1972.
                                             157

-------
     Wet-weather combined sewer flows are often characterized in terms of the
admixing of dry-weather flow and surface runoff.  However, a number of opinions
have been expressed concerning combined sewage.  One viewpoint describes the
mixing of sanitary wastewater and storm runoff in terms of an initial period
in which dry-weather flows are pushed ahead of storm runoff; a subsequent
period in which the scouring of sewer depositions occur; and a third period
in which  flows are an admixture of sanitary sewage and surface runoff. (73)

     Overflows occur when the hydraulic capacity of the collection system,  inter-
ceptor line or the dry-weather treatment facility is exceeded.  Values for
interceptor sewer capacity have been reported as peak to average
dry-weather flow ratios in the range of 1.0 to 8.0, with a median of 4.0.  In
terms of dry-weather treatment capacity, these values have been reported as
0.80 on an annual basis, with a range of from 0.5 to 1.50. (74)  However, the
values that are reported above for dry-weather treatment capacity, are not
very representative of short-term runoff.  There are studies that have produced
evidence of a strong correlation between the strength of sewage or surface run-
off and rate of discharge.


DIRECT AND INDIRECT RUNOFF DISCHARGE POLLUTION

     One source of information on direct and indirect urban runoff pollution is
available through past studies of runoff discharges and combined sewer over-
flows from drainage basins in various parts of the country.  A number of pub-
lished references were reviewed to determine the extent and adequacy of exist-
ing data sources.  The following discussion relates the results of this in-
vestigation for both direct and indirect runoff.  The emphasis, to the degree
an emphasis exists, will be on direct runoff.  However, quality of combined
sewer overflows may be more  accurately reflected by local conditions such as
the collection and interception system, and treatment plant hydraulic capacity.

Sampling Activities

     The most realistic indications of direct and indirect runoff quality contri-
butions from a given drainage basin are those determined by direct measurement.
The selection of the sampling methods employed is an important determinant in
the quality of the collected data.  In the review of published sources, sampling
activities were found to vary considerably.  Composite samples have generally
been taken most often.  These were usually obtained by automatic devices or
by manual grab sampling.  Related flow measurements were made in only a few
instances.  Similarly, flow-related discrete samples were collected rarely,
although discrete manual grab samples were often used in conjunction with
automatically collected composite samples.

     Sampling site location also plays an important role in defining sampling
results.  As an example, it is likely that combined sewer sampling generally
occurs within or at the discharge of a piped collection system in order to
reflect the quality of the flow to receiving waters.  Separate system sampling
may occur at locations within the collection system or at the receiving water.
Very often, the separate system may take the form of earthen channels in whole
of in part.  Sampling downstream of earthen channel sections add solid components

                                       158

-------
and other pollutants during a meaningful runoff event due to gully and channel
erosion and other direct contributions.  This condition would not be experienced
to the same degree in a combined sewer system.  Thus, sampling from non-piped
or lined channels should be viewed with caution when considering solids content.

    The sampling of urban runoff, and combined sewer overflows with all their
fluctuations and different characteristics, requires a high degree of monitor-
ing.  Wide variations in the quality and quantity of direct and indirect run-
off, and the unpredictability of rainfall complicate monitoring activities.
Thus, it is difficult to obtain good information on the quality and quantity
of these flows.

     Direct and indirect runoff sampling requires the measurement of both flow
and quality parameters throughout a storm event.  This may be especially true
when first-flush quality and flow characteristics may be important.  Automatic
sampling equipment is a desirable tool in runoff measurement.  Unfortunately,
few automatic monitoring stations measure both flow and collect samples for
quality determinations.  Although many samplers are actuated by floats, static
head transducers, and pressure switches; standard flow measuring devices such
as weirs and flumes are generally problematical in both sewered and channelized
collection systems due to the cost involved and difficulties in calibration.

     Samples, collected either manually or with automatic equipment, may be
classified as discrete or composite samples.  Discrete samples are collected
at selected intervals where each sample is retained for separate analysis.
As such, they represent water quality at a particular instant in time.

     Discrete sampling and flow measurements taken at a sufficient frequency
during a flow"event provides"one of the most effective representations of run-
off quality variations with time and flow.  Data collected on this basis can
provide useful information in the form of mass emission rates, and the
characterization of local first-flush effects.

     Of discrete sampling, random grab samples are the easiest and most econo-
mical, but they are also least reliable in terms of representing quality flow
time characteristics unlessthese latter element are measured as well.  An in-
dication of some of the problems associated with random grab samples is shown
in Figure 47.

     Storm discharges vary in flow with respect to time and also in constituent
strength.  Grab samples taken at the points of the hydrograph shown are rela-
tively unique.  Mean values of pollutant concentrations taken on this basis
may not be very descriptive of the runoff or combined sewer overflow being
sampled.  A more effective use of grab samples would be to verify samples
collected with an automatic sampling device.
                                      159

-------
         <
         cc
                                                       i
               ii
DENOTES COLLECTION OF
SAMPLES OF DIFFERENT
VOLUMES AT RANDOM TIMES
                                                 TIME

Source: Wullsehleger, Richard E., ET AL., "Recommended Methodology for the Study of Urban Storm Generated Pollution
      and Control," USEPA Report No. EPA-600/2-76-145, Envirex, Inc., August 1976.
                 Figure 47. The problem of timing discrete grab samples
                 with respect to a runoff event.

     Simple  composite samples, are made up  of  a series of smaller samples of
constant volume  that  are collected and combined in a single container.  Composite
sampling is  an attempt to synthesize a sample  which will represent the average
discharge characteristics over a period of  time.   Composite samplers may draw
a series of  discrete  portions into individual  containers which are then added
together manually.  As an alternative they  may be drawn as a series of discrete
samples that are mixed automatically in a single container to make up the
composite sample.

     Proportional  flow composite samples are those collected in relation to flow
volumes to represent  average constituents strength during the sampling period.
One  approach to  proportional flow composites is to collect equally sized samples
at a frequency that is inversely proportional  to the volume of flow.  As the
flow volume  increases, the time interval between samples is reduced.  The
samples are, thus,  representative of constant  flow volume increments.  This
theoretical  rainfall event is shown in Figure  48.

     Another approach to the collection of  flow proportioned composite samples
can  be accomplished by increasing sample volumes in proportion to the flow,
but  keeping  the  sampling frequency constant. -Figure 49, shows such a sampling
scheme with  respect to a theoretical runoff hydrography.
                                        160

-------
     6 I-
  D
  O

  1
  Si  3
   3

   U
                                            t = VARIABLE
                              DENOTES SAMPLES OF EQUAL VOLUME (SAME LENGTH ARROWS)
                              AT CONST ANT FLOW INCREMENTS (VARIABLE TIME)
                                                          TIME
  Figure 48. Method of compositing equal volume samples at equal flow increments.
  I
                   DENOTES COLLECTION OF A SAMPLE WHERE VOLUME
                   IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE RATE OF FLOW.
                   THE INDIVIDUAL SAMPLES ARE COMPOSITED INTO
                   ONE CONTAINER.
                                                               TIME
      Figure 49. Method of compositing variable volume samples at fixed intervals.

Source: Wullschleger, Richard E., ET AL., "Recommended Methodology for the Study of Urban Storm Generated Pollution
   and Control," USEPA Report No. EPA-600/2-76-I4S, Envirex, Inc., August 1976.
                                            161

-------
    The differences between constant flow volume and constant time composite
sampling techniques are relatively small and in most cases, both procedures
approach true average values.  Interestingly, smaller time or volume incre-
ments between samples, will represent greater accuracy as to true runoff or
overflow conditions.  The logical extreme of reducing these increments is
equivalent to an array of discrete grab samples at known values of flow and
time.

    Sequential composite sampling is accomplished by taking composite samples
representative of a short period, with each being held in a separate container.
An example of sequential sampling may be taken as 24 one-hour composites that
may be used to represent daily quality characteristics.  As previously noted
the accuracy of this sampling approach depends upon the length of the time
intervals selected with shorter intervals producing results closer to actual
conditions.  It should be noted that sequential composites should also be
related to some average flow level to provide the most meaningful results;
but unfortunately this is not always the case in actual practice.

    A recent study on sampling methods and equipment identified some of the most
desirable characteristics for a general sampling device. (75)  These were:

    1.   Ability to take a sequentially timed series of discrete
         samples.  It should be possible to use an external signal
         to allow sample volumes to be taken proportional to flow
         rate or increments of flow.  Five minutes should be the
         minimum sampling interval.

    2.   Four different sample containers should be filled at each
         sampling:  (a) for solids and BOD testing to hold no pre-
         servatives; (b) for metals and TOD analysis acid added to
         preserve sample; (c) for nitrogen and phosphorus, HgCl2
         added; and (d) sterilized containers used for bacterial
         analysis.  The fourth set of containers could also be used
         for grease and oil, pesticides, or other tests.

    3.   Capability of using 1 to 3 liter sample containers so that
         individual discrete sample analyses can be made.

    4.   Capability of programming the time interval at which samples
         are taken, so the sampling interval can be short during the
         early stages of the storm with longer intervals automatically
         used as the storm continues.

    5.   Facilities hold 96 sample containers - this would allow samp-
         ling every 10 minutes for four hours.

    6.   Refrigeration capabilities to hold samples at 4°C (39°F)

    7.   Capability of lifting samples 7.6 m (25ft) or more without
         affecting sample size.
                                      162

-------
      8.    Availability of a self-contained power source.

      9.    Capable of being automatically activated to indicate samp-
           ling at beginning of storm.

     10.    Inlet line to be sufficiently large to eliminate problems
           of plugging.

     11.    Inlet sampling velocity to be sufficiently high to keep heavy
           particles in suspension throughout their flow to the sample
           container.

     12.    Inlet device of such a configuration to allow obtaining a
           representative sample throughout the depth of the stream
           flow.  Light floating material and heavy bottom sludge should
           be included in each sample.

     13.    Inlet device should not plug easily and should be self-
           cleaning.  Sample lines should be purged so that the next
           sample is not contaminated by any of the previously taken
           samples,

     The ideal sampling mechanism does not now exist, however, improved samp-
lers are being developed.  In recognition of the problems in sampling and the
use of automatic samplers, the USEPA has developed a number of sampler design
goals similar in intent to the previously described characteristics. (76)

     The success of a sampling program depends on the selection of the sample
site and the point at which samples are collected.  Recent work in Durham,
North Carolina, showed that variations in results may be expected at differ-
ing depths within a runoff flow.  (64)  The selection of sampling methods
should be determined on the basis of the objectives to be served.  If average
values for constituent concentrations over a number of events will suffice,
then composite sampling may produce sufficiently accurate results
If more definitive determinations of specific occurences related to flow
during an event are important, composite sampling may suffice if the flow or
time increment which activate sampling frequency are sufficiently short.  As
the needs for accuracy increase, discrete sampling with related flow and time
measurements at a sufficiently high collection frequency may be required.

     During a runoff event the composition and rate of flow may change contin-
uously.  No single grab sample can adequately represent the flow and pollutant
concentration variations that may be experienced. An example of this variation
is shown in Figure 50.  A large number of samples is required to characterize
the results of a given storm event.  Thus, careful selection of the sampling
objectives to be served and the methods and procedures to be used, is necessary.
used, is necessary.
                                      163

-------
                     140
                               2300
                   2330
2400    0030
                 O
                 O
                 O
                 Q
                 O
                 BJ
400
                     300
                     200
                     100
                                                                  COD
                                                                  BODB
                               2300
                   2330
2400
0030
                              2300     2330       2400      0030

                                                     TIME
Source!  University of Cincinnati, "Urban Runoff Characteristics,"

        USEPA Report  No. 11024DQU1O/70 (NTIS No. PB 2O2

        865), October, 1970.
                       Figure 50. Indirect runoff quantity and quality data.
                                  Bloody Run Sewer Watershed.
                                     164

-------
Direct (Storm) and Indirect(Combined) Runoff Discharge Characteristics

     Some overall indications of the quality of direct and indirect runoff
discharges can be determined from the published reports of studies performed
in various locales.  These locales have often been urban or urbanizing.  On
occasion, discharge quality and quantity have been related to basin character-
istics and given rainfall events.  Inconsistencies exist within this body of
information, however, due to variability in the research objectives being ad-
dressed, the pollutants evaluated, the sampling technique employed, and the
measurements performed.  The majority of existing direct and indirect runoff
discharge quality information appears in the form of mean pollutant concentra-
tions or averages of sample results from one or more runoff events.  These
average results are at times taken without regard to rainfall-runoff relation-
ships and other variations in time.

     Some overall indications of the quality of direct surface runoff dis-
charges are given in Table 92.  Similarly, mean concentrations of various pol-
lutants found in measured combined sewer overflows are depicted in Table 93.
This form of data provides an estimate of average quality characteristics.
Time-related effects such as the "first-flush" are not reflected in these values.

     A simple evaluation of these flows indicates that direct runoff generally
has solids concentrations equal to or greater than untreated sanitary sewage.
BOD5 concentrations are approximately those of secondary effluents.  Bacterial
contamination of separate storm wastewater is about two to four orders of
magnitude less than untreated sewage.  Combined sewer overflows and sanitary by-
passes generally average less than half  the strength of untreated sewage, but
are important because of their volumetric magnitude.  A rainfall intensity of
2.5 cm/hr (1 in/hr) may produce flows up to 100 times normal dry-weather flows.(77)

     Discharge quality, time and runoff flow data have been published in only a
few locales.  Foremost among these is a published study from Durham, North Caro-
lina (64) that studied a separate storm runoff collection system in terms of
the quality of surface runoff with respect or runoff quantity during a number
of rainfall events.

     The Durham study represents perhaps the most advanced approach to the
characterization of runoff quality to date, insofar as it proceeds from real
discrete data taken with careful attention to runoff and basin characteristics.
A summary of further findings from this study  is  shown in Table 94.  It should
be remembered that these findings are basin specific and as such, reflect the
characteristics of the catchment studied.  Therefore, the transferability of
these findings to other basins may well be limited.

     As to the quality characterization of runoff discharges, it is apparent
from the foregoing that the available discharge information leaves much to be
desired.  The original objective for the majority of this information was
obviously to produce order-of-magnitude estimates of the pollution represented
by runoff discharges.  In fulfilling this end, the reported average data is
successful.  Realistic discharge quality data, however, requires considerably
more.  Thus, further research in this area of investigation is indicated.
                                        165

-------
                 TABLE 92. MEAN DISCHARGE QUALITY DATA FOR SEPARATE STORM SYSTEMS
CTs
ON
Location
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
27
28
29
Tulsa, Okla.{l)
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okia.
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla.
Tulsa, Okla.
Washington, DC*2'
Madison, WisJ3)
Atlanta, GaJ4'
Atlanta, Ga.
Atlanta, Ga.
Seattle, WashJs)
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Roanoke, Va. (e)
Roanoke, Va.
Roanoke, Va.
Minneapolis, Minn.'7'
Cincinnati, Ohio'8'
No. Runoff
Events
14
16
16
15
13
10
18
8
11
11
11
11
10
5
8

„
..
-
.,
„
,.
-
	
..
-
_,
4
-
No. of
Samples
36
23
48
46
50
15
60
13
16
34
26
27
30
18
22
64
.»
„
-
.,
..

_
„
..
-
..
84
_
Total
Solids
mg/1
2,242
275
680
616
271
346
413
382
417
431
575
199
469
592
273
2.166
280

-
„
—
-
--
„
460
514
937
..
--
Susp.
Solids
mq/l
2,052
169
280
340
136
195
84
240
260
300
401
89
332
445
183

.*
,.
„
—
168
34
305
54
--
..
„
-
227
BODg
mg/l
13
8
8
14
18
12
8
15
10
11
14
8
15
11
10
19
..
7
20
26
27
42
6
10
18
20
26
26
17
COD
mg/l
110
45
65
103
138
90
48
115
117
107
116
45
88
58
41
321
„
28
84
67
266
96
76
57
-
--
—
164
111
Total
Organic
Carbon
mg/l
43
22
22
42
48
34
15
37
35
28
33
26
35
29
34
...
'..
..
--
..
-
• --
--
„
-
-
-.
_
-
Organic
Kjeldahl
N03 Nitrogen
ma/I mg/l
-- 1.11
-- 0.95
-- 1.48
- 0.97
- 0.72
- 0.65
- 0.80
- 0.60
- 0.67
-- 0.88
- 0.66
- 0.39
-- 1.46
- 0.06
-- 0.36
..
- 3.5
..
..
„
0.58 --
0.33 --
0.66 --
0.51 --
_
-
—
-
..
Soluble
Nas Total On the
NH3 N P04 P04
ma/I mg/l mg/I mg/l
.. 3.49
- 0.35
	 1.92
- 1.05
-- 0.87
~ 0.86
- 0.67
- 1.15
	 1.02
.. 0,70
,. 1.11
	 0.54
	 1.13
- 0.39
- 0.31
- 2.1 1.3 --
- 0.98 --
- 0.4
-- 0.3
-- 1.6 --
1.87 -- -- 2.38
0.38 -- - 0.55
0.18 -- - 0.35
0.18 -- -- 0.20
	
	
..
	
- 3.1 1.1 -
Total
P Chloride
mg/l mg/l
- 11
-- 10
- 13
- 19
3
9
- 49
- 10
5
- 10
6
4
- 15
-- 13
2
..
..
„
--
_
..
_
..
..
-
--
..
0.62 -
--

-------
TABLE 93. MEAN DISCHARGE QUALITY DATA FOR COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
Total Susp.
No. Runoff No. of Solids Solids
Location Events Samples mg/l mq/l
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
*3C
nfi
Washington. DC*9' 25
Washington, DC 4
Washington, DC 2
Washington, DC
Portland, Ore.'10'
Philadelphia, Penn.(n) 44
Milwaukee, Wis.'12> 26
Chippewa Falls, Wis.{13'
Atlanta, Ga.'14'
Atlanta, Ga.
Atlanta, Ga.
Seattle. Wash.'15'
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
Seattle, Wash.
San Francisco, Cal.'16' 50
Detroit, Mich.'17'
Cleveland, Ohio'18'
Cincinnati, Ohio'19' 4
Bucyrus, Ohio'20'
Bucyrus
Bucyrus
^Arramrmfn f*ll '^t| c
rnlumhin:'2*) -30
94 883
574
103 •- " 106
178
150 378 166
360 - 287

..
..
340
212
1,464
53
64
280
96
207
200
194
777
317
192
245
93
286
209 68
60± •• 634
177 590 234
33 1,073
-- 1,647
863
916
1R 1R1
I Q I Q I
Udd 1 1A
B000
mg/I
71
1 "31
U I
137
~j~l
1 I
49
49
170
210
84
133
27
62
68
34
51
148
27
49
15
33
235
66
19
66
39
42
49
72
92
210
170
107
168
on 7
£\}t
in1?
COD
mg/l
381

242


161


442
164
286
266
196
353
371
288
736
100
210
160
250
817
211
200
272
124
165
155

308
438
372
476
391
OA1

NO3
mg/l

-




..



--

0.27
0.34
0.51
0.54
0.54
1.52
0.84
0.44
0.21
0.22
0.33
0.82
-
0.42
0.87
1.11

_
—
„
4.54
3.79
3.89


N as Total
NH3 N PO4
mq/l mg/l mg/l
1.5 3.5 3.0
- 3.5 1.0




-- 5.5


-• - 6.5
-- -- 1.7
-- - 2.3
0.23 --
1.98 -
5.08 --
0.78 -•
1.36 -
1.34 --
0.36 -•
2.18 --
0.91 --
2.75 --
3.0 --
2.5 -
1.38 -
6.25 -
2.05 -
1.26 -
_
- 4.5 --

.,
3.13 --
1.08 ••
2.7


Total
P Chlorides
mg/l mg/I
--
..









-
..
..
..
-
..
..
..
..
..

..
..
..
..
..

...
1.45 --


- 203
-- 120
- 147


                            SOURCES FOR TABLES 92 AND 93

  1 American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," USEPA Report No.
       11030DNS01/69 {NTIS No. PB 215 532), January, 1969.

  2American Public Works Association, "Combined Sewer Regulation and  Management," USEPA Report No.
       110220MU08/70 (NTIS" No. PB 195 676), July, 1970.

  ""Lager, J.A.,and W.G. Smith, "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology an Assessment," USEPA Report
       No. EPA-670/2-74-040 (NTIS No. PB 240687/LK) May, 1974.
                                             167

-------
4Waller, D.H., "Pollution Attributable to Surface Runoff and Overflows From Combined Systems," Atlantic
     Industrial Research Institute, Halifax, Nova Scotia, April, 1971.

5 Burgess and Niple, Ltd., "Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus, Ohio,"
     USEPA Report No. 11024FKN11/69 (NTIS No. PB 1B5 162), November, 1969.

6Davis, P.L.and  F. Borchardt, "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Plan, Des Moines, Iowa," USEPA Report
     No. EPA-R2-73-170 (NTIS No. PB 234 183), April, 1974.

'Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, "Maximizing Storage in Combined Sewer Systems," USEPA Report No.
     11022ELK12/71 (NTIS No. PB 209 861), December, 1971.

8 Roy F. Weston, Inc., "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Alternatives, Washington, D.C.," USEPA Report
     No. 11024EXF08/70 (NTIS No. PB 203 680), August, 1970.
9
 Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Op. Cit.
10
  Ibid.
11 Rex Chainbelt, Inc., "Screening/Flotation  Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows," USEPA  Report No.
      11020FOC01/72 (NTIS No. PB 215 695), January, 1972.

12
 '.Lager, J.A., and W.C. Smith, Op. Cit.

13 Rex Chainbelt, Inc., Op. Cit.
Mlbid.

lslbid.

"Waller, D.H., Op. Cit.

17 Ibid

1'Wilkinson, R-, "The Quality of Rainfall Runoff Water from a Housing Estate "Journal of the Institute of Public
     Health Engineers, 1962.

1'Sylvester, R.O., "An Engineering and Ecological Study for the Rehabilitation of Green Lake," University of
     Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1960.

20iColston, N.V.,"Characteristics and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff," USEPA Report No. EPA-670/2-74-096
     (NTIS No. PB 202 86B), December, 1974.

11 Waller, D.H., Op. Cit.

"Ibid.
                                               168

-------
TABLE 94. REGRESSION EQUATIONS PREDICTING POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION
            (mg/I) IN URBAN LAND RUNOFF IN A NATURAL CHANNEL
                      CORRECTED TO FLOW AT MID-DEPTH
                    Pollutant
            mg/I
                      COD
                      TOC
                      TS
                      TVS
                      TSS
                      VSS
                      Kjel, N.
                      Total P.
                      A!**
                      Ca
                      Co**
                      Cr
                      Cu**
                      Fe
                      Pb
                      Mg
                      Mn
                      Ni**
                      Zn
113.   CFS0-11   TFSS-°'2a
 32.   CFS°'°    TFSS-'28
420.   CFS0-14   TFSS-'18
130.   CFS0-09   TFSS-'11
222.   CFS0'23   TFSS-'16
 44.   CFS0-18   TFSS-'17
  0.85 CFS0-87   TFSS--29
  0.80 CFS0-03   TFSS"-29
 10.   CFS0-05   TFSS~-15
 12.5  CFS"-4   TFSS"'09
  0.07 CFS0-18   TFSS*'13
  0.18 CFS""'04  TFSS*'06
  0.08 CFS0"10   TFSS*-08
  4.6  CFS0'24   TFSS-'18
  0.27 CFS0-125  TFSS-'29
 10.   CFS"'02  TFSS--16
  0.45 CFS0'11   TFSS-'27
  0.12CFS0-03   TFSS--01
  0.22 CFS0-10   TFSS-22
  •CFS = Cubic Feet Per Sacond
  * TFSS = Time from Storm Start (Hours)
 * "Mid-Depth Correction Assumed as 0.9

 Source:  Colston, N.V., "Characterization and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff," USEPA Report No. 670/2-74-096
        (NTIS No. PB 2O2 865), December, 1974.
                                        169

-------
COMPARISON OF WET AND DRY WEATHER FLOWS

     A number of the characteristics of runoff pollution have been discussed
at some length in this section.  These have included consideration of a number
of the sources of direct runoff pollution—transportation activities, vegeta-
tive debris, air pollution depositions, erosion products, catch basin depositions,
roof drainage, animal wastes, and first flush contributions.  In addition, street
surface potentials were also considered as a direct runoff pollutional source.

     While not wholly definitive, this review of the sources of pollution, pro-
vies a number of insights into the current state of the art of source assessment.
In addition, it provides a concept of the multiplicity of contributing sources
and suggests areas for further research.

     Another area of review concerned the characterization of direct runoff pol-
lution from the viewpoint of runoff dicharge measurements.  For the most part,
existing data collection in this area have been for the purposes of gross run-
off characterization.  These reported results have  been presented most often
as average values for various measures of pollution.  A more detailed character-
ization of discharge pollution, however, is also available but in a limited
form.  This considers the magnitude and nature of various pollutional concentra-
tions in terms of flow and time, as determined from the detailed analysis of a
single basin in Durham, North Carolina. (64)

     In view of the variety of potential contributions to runoff pollution, a
number of questions must arise as to their relative effects and relationships.
The following discussion evaluates these issues from the standpoint of a hypo-
thetical case study, in terms of existing assessment methods.  It is anticipated
that this case study evaluation will provide approximate estimates of the magni-
tudes of pollution to be contributed from these various sources, based on
available data and existing analytical methods.  In addition, some estimates
of other pollutional contributions from other wastewater flows will be developed
for the purposes of comparison.

     Since information on sources of pollution are derived from a variety of
published reports, a hypothetical approach will serve as a practical illustra-
tive mechanism to demonstrate estimates of source contributions.  It will also
show those contributing elements for which little or no data now exists.
Finally, it will point out the relative magnitudes of contributions from
various wastewater flows for similar time periods.

Hypothetical Case Comparisons

     The hypothetical case considered in the following analysis is based on an
urban area  of approximately 260 krn^ (100 mi^) and an overall population density
of 21.25 persons/ha (8.6 persons/ac).  The distribution of land use within this
area was assumed to be as shown in Table 95.
                                       170

-------
                       TABLE 95. HYPOTHETICAL LAND-USE
                                  DISTRIBUTION

                      Land Use	Percent of Area

                      Residential                       65
                      Commercial                       6
                      Industrial                        12
                      Park/Undeveloped                  17
                                                   100

                      Source:  Land-use distribution as derived from  data for
                            the City of Denver, Colorado.
     The general configuration  of  the  hypothetical urban area is assumed to
be approximately square, and  it is tributary to a receiving stream with a main
channel length of 16.1 km  (10 mi)  and  a gradient of 0.25 percent.

     Precipitation data from  two individual storm events produced hydrographs
for descriptive purposes as shown  in Figure 51.  The hydrographs show esti-
mates of total flows for the  rainfall  distribution indicated.  The two rain-
fall events selected were  used  to  demonstrate conditions where runoff from
pervious areas would or would not  be contributed to the overall runoff from
the area.  Pervious contributions  were estimated for the second rainfall event
only.

     A generalized rainfall distribution was assumed to fall over the entire
basin; this condition is unlikely  to occur in reality,  but it proves helpful
in the analysis.  The hydrographs  are  broken into their components for flows
attributable to street imperviousness,  non-street imperviousness, and pervious
areas where they occur.  Flows  from non-street impervious areas are assumed
to contribute wholly to total flows although, in reality, roof drainage may
be discharged to pervious  areas on occasion.

     Estimates of total and street imperviousness were  determined from the
generalized expressions which were developed and are described in Section 4,
Data Development for Application of the STORM Model in  50 Urbanized Areas.

          Percent Total Imperviousness  =  104.95 - 81.27(0.974)PD
          Percent Street Imperviousness = 17.06 - 14.56(0.839)PD

where:  PD = population density, persons/ha (persons/ac)

     Application of these  empirical expressions resulted in an estimated over-
all total imperviousness of 39.9 percent.   Imperviousness attributable to
street paving was estimated to  be  13.8 percent, and non-street imperviousness
was thus assumed to be 26.0 percent, more or less.
                                      171

-------
113    4,000
 85    3.000
 57    2,000
 28    1,000
in/min  cm/min
0             Runoff Hyetograph
0.25    0.8      Event No 1
0.50    1.2
                                                    9  10   11  12   13  14
                                                 in/min  cm/min
                                                                 Runoff Hyetograph
                                                                     Event No 2
                       Figure 51.  Hypothetical Runoff Hydrographs
                                         172

-------
 Direct Runoff Pollution

      Direct runoff  pollution contributions were estimated  in  terms  of  those
 parts of  the urban  environment that contribute to the overall runoff and the
 pollutants that  these different parts are likely to contribute.   The major
 limitation associated with this approach was the availability of  data  on the
 pollutional characteristics of these runoff sources.

     The major sources of  contribution considered were those associated  with
rainfall,  street  surface areas,  impervious rooftops, parking lots, sidewalks
and other  areas,  and pervious areas such as lawns and undeveloped  sites.   The
pollutional contributions  associated with rainfall itself were based  upon
contaminant levels measured in Cincinnati, Ohio. (78)  On the  basis  of  the run-
off estimated from street  and non-street impervious areas, rainfall  pollutional
contributions could  be those presented in Table 96.
      TABLE 96. POTENTIAL POLLUTIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS ADDED BY RAINFALL
Pollutant
Suspended Solids
Volatile Sol'rds
Inorganic Nitrogen
Hydrolyzable Phosphates
BOD=
Event
Ib,
46,860
13,410
2,440
850
Unknown
No. 1
kg.
20,820
S.088
1,108
386

Event
Ib.
104,550
30,860
5,B50
1,930
Unknown
No. 2
kg.
47,466
13,874
2,520
876

Mass Emission Rate
Ib/ac-in kg/ha-cm
74,000
21,600
3,930
1,370
Unknown
33,067
9,652
1,756
612

  Source;  Derived from data reported In "Urban Land Runoff as a Factor m Stream Pollution," Weibel, S.R., Anderson, R.J.,
        Woodward, R.L., Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 36, No. 7, July, 1964.
      The  pollutional contributions for street surface areas were  derived from
  the general  tabulation of street surface contaminants discussed previously.
  A composite  value for the dust and dirt accumulation based on  the percent of
  each land use and the relative road density attributable  to each  was computed
  to be  33.7 kg/curb-km/day (119.6 Ib/curb-mi/day).  The dust and dirt values
  and related  potential pollutant concentrations employed are shown in Table 97.
                                       173

-------
              TABLE 97. DUST AND DIRT AND POTENTIAL POLLUTANT
                   CONCENTRATIONS USED WITH EVENTS 1 AND 2

            Pollutant	Concentration	

            Dust and Dirt                  32.6 kg/curb-km/day (119.6 Ib/curb-mi/day)
            BOD5                      5,030  mg/kg
            COD                     46,120  mg/kg
            Kjeldahl Nitrogen               640  mg/kg
            Total PO4                   170  mg/kg
            Ortho PO4                    53  mg/kg
            Cadmium                      3.1 mg/kg
            Lead                      1,970  mg/kg
            Zinc                       470  mg/kg
 Average street cleaning  frequencies were also composited to produce a value
 for 43 days between  cleanings  for  all land uses.  (52)

      The accumulation  period of  street surface contaminants was determined
 through comparison of  composite  street cleaning frequencies and the analysis
 of average probable  rainfall frequencies based on Chicago rainfall data. (15)
 This analysis was selected  since the Chicago data in total simulated the
 annual national  average  precipitation.  The findings of this analysis defined
 the average probable rainfall  occurrence period as approximately four days for
 events of 0.1 cm (0.04 in)  or  more, and 20.5 days for precipitation events of
 1.2 cm (0.5 in)  or more.  On this  basis, it was assumed that the average range
 of accumulation  period would vary  from 4 to 20.5 days.  In this hypothetical
 case, street surface accumulations were considered to start with clean street
 conditions.

      The total solids  accumulated  over this accumulation period and removed
 by the runoff from the described precipitation events, is shown in Table 98,

     The related  contributions  for  select conservative and non-conservative
pollutants are also shown in this tabulation for both of the rainfall events.
In addition to solids measures, these include amounts of oxygen demand,
nutrients, and some metals.  The  BOD values shown were derived from standard
analyses techniques and as such,  are only theoretical estimates.   They repre-
sent possible minimum values.   BOD  values,  so determined,  have been proposed
to be questionable due  to the toxic constituents in runoff and other inherent
factors, and their inhibitive effect on biological activity. (64)
                                       174

-------
       TABLE 98. ESTIMATED TOTAL SOLIDS AND POLLUTANT CONTRIBUTIONS
                          COMPUTED FOR EVENTS 1 AND 2
Pollutant
Total Solids
BODB
COD
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total PO4
Ortho PO4
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Event
Ib
1,797,000-9,209,500
9,040-46,320
82,880-424,740
1,150-1,570
210-1,570
100-490
6-29
3,540-18,140
840-4,330
No. 1
kg
815,838-4,181,113
4,104-21,029
37,628-192,832
522-2,674
95-713
45-222
3-13
1,607-8,235
381-1,966
Event No.
Ib
1,897,000-9,722,100
9,540-48,900
87,490-448,380
1,210-6,220
320-1,650
100-620
6-30
3,740-19,150
890-4,570
2
kg
861,238-4,413,833
4,331-22,200
39,720-203,564
549-2,824
145-749
45-236
3-14
1 ,698-8,694
404-2,075
     The pollutlonal contributions associated with non-street impervious areas
were also  computed for the two defined runoff events.   Unfortunately, the
data available  for estimation purposes were  limited to suspended solids and
metals such as  cadmium,  lead, and zinc.  For the  purposes of computation the
same accumulation period as employed for street surface accumulations was used
in connection with the basic dustfall information,  and are shown in Table 99.
                TABLE 99. DUSTFALL AND POLLUTANT POTENTIALS
                            USED WITH EVENTS 1 AND 2
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Dustfall
kg/ha/day
(Ib/ac/day)
120
(107)
208
(185)
269
(240)
Cadmium
kg/ha/day
(Ib/ac/day)
1.27x 1Q'5
(1.13x 10'5)
2.07 x 10~6
(1.85x10"s)
2.42 x 10'5
(2.16 x 10'5)
Lead
kg/ha/day
(Ib/ac/day)
1,73x 10'3
(1,54x 10~3)
4.15 x 10'3
(3.70 x 10'3)
3.23 x 10'3
(2.88 x 1Q-3)
Zinc
kg/ha/day
(Ib/ac/day)
1.84x 10~3
(1.64x 10'3)
3.1 x 10'3
(2.77 x 10"3)
4.15 x 10'3
(3.70 x 1Q-3)
 Source:
        Hunt, W.F,,.at al., "A Study of Trace Element Pollution of Air in 77 Midwestern Cities," Paper presented at the Fourth
        Annual Conference on Trace Substances in Environmental Health, University of Missouri, June, 1970.
       The computed data obtained  from  this  estimating process are shown  in
 Table 100.
                                        175

-------
    TABLE 100. ESTIMATED SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND POLLUTANT CONTRIBUTIONS
                      FROM DUSTFALL FOR EVENTS 1 AND 2
Pollutant
Suspended Solids

Volatile Suspended Solids*

BOD6'

Cadmium

Lead

Zinc

Event
Maximum
kg
(Ib)
16,802,742
(37,043,900)
5,040,822
(11,113,170)
4,672
(10,300)
1.8
(4.1)
263
(580)
281
(620)
No. 1
Minimum
kg
Ob)
3,278,593
(7,228,100)
983,578
(2,168,430)
4,672
(10,300)
0.4
(0.8)
52
(114)
54
(120)
Event
Maximum
kg
(Ib)
17,737,909
(39,105,600)
5,321,372
(11,731,680)
10,696
(23,580)
1.9
(4.3)
276
(610)
300
(660)
No. 2
Minimum
kg
(Ib)
3,461,073
(7,630,400
1,038,322
(2,289,120)
10,696
(23,580)
0.4
(0.8)
54
(120)
59
(130)
 'Volotito Sujpondod Solids estimated at 30 percent of suspended solids and an average median BODg value of 4.6 mg/l from
 W«ll*r, D.H., "Pollution Attirutable to Surface Runoff and Overflows from Combined Sewer Systems," Atlantic Industrial
 Rouurch I nit I tu to, Halifax, Nova Scotia, April, 1971.

     As previously noted,  the  foregoing summary does not reflect all  of  the
pollutants involved  in non-street impervious runoff.  However, it  provides  an
estimate of  contributions for  which some data are available.  The  dustfall  data
used to estimate non-street impervious runoff applies most appropriately to roof
runoff as opposed to parking lot or sidewalk runoff.

     The pollutional contributions due to pervious area runoff were estimated  for
the second event only.   Under  the assumptions made in this analysis,  pervious
area runoff was  estimated for  this event and not for the initial event.   The
pollutional  contributions in this analysis  were limited to sediment  (total
solids) as estimated by the Universal Soil Loss Equation, and nitrogen and  phos-
phorus, computed as  a function of sediment.  (14)  It should be noted that  the
Universal Soil Loss  Equation and other estimating methods are used for annual
estimates.   In the analysis proposed in this section, these are assumed  to  apply
as well for  the  short-term events studied.

     The results of  this analysis are shown in Table 101.  The results shown are
limited to only  3 pollutants due to the limited availability of data.

               TABLE 101, ESTIMATED SOLIDS AND POLLUTANTS
                   CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERVIOUS AREAS
                                 FOR EVENT 2

                                              Event No. 2
Pollutant
Total Solids
Total Nitrogent
Phosphorus (P2OS)
Ib
12,371,100
1,410,300
427,000
kg
5,616,479
640,276
19,386
                                        176

-------
      A  summary  of the  findings  of the  foregoing analysis are compiled in
 Table 102.  The data shown within this tabulation are low estimates  for all
 pollutants, with the exception  of total solids and  suspended solids.   Similar-
 ly, a summary of results for  the second rainfall event is shown in Table 103.

 TABLE  102. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DIRECT POLLUTIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
                           VARIOUS SOURCES  FOR EVENT 1
Source
Rainfall

Streets



Non-Street
Imperviousness


Pervious
Totals
(Range)


Total Solids
kg (Ib)
20,820
(45,900)
Win. 815,101
(1,797,000)
Max. 4,177,337
(9,209,500)
Win. 3,862,818
(8,516,100)°
Max. 19,130,204
(42,175,100)
0
Min. 4,698,739
(10,359,000)
Max. 23,328,361
(51,430,500)
Suspended Solids
kg (Ib)
20,900
(45,900)
630,853
(1,390,800)"
•3,285,352
(7,243.000)
3,270,594
(7,228,100)
16.802,743
(37,043,900)
0
3,930,267
(8,664,800)
20,108,915
(44,332,800)
BOD 5
kg (Ib)
link.

4,082
(9,000)
21.001
(46,300)

4,672
(10,300)

0
8,754
(19,300)B
25,673
(56.600)
COD
kg (Ib)
Unk.

37,603
(82,900)
7,192,640
(424,700)

Unk.


0
37,600
(82,900)b
192,640
(424,700)
PO4 Cadmium
kg (Ib) kg (Ib)
386
(850)
141
(310)
712
(1,570)

Unk.


0
526
(1,160)b
1,098
(2,420)
Unk.

3
(6)
14
(30)
0.5
(1)
1.8
(4)
0
3
(7)D
15
(34)
Lead
kg (Ib)
Unk.

1,588
(3,500)
78,210
(18,100)
45
(100)
272
(600)
0
1.633
(3.600)"
78.482
(18,700)
Zinc
kg (Ib)
Unk.

363
(800)
1,950
(4,300)
45
(100)
272
(600)
0
7.408
(900)°
2.223
(4.900)
  Estimated fron
            i estimating function in the form suspended solids - 0.79 (Total Solids) - 22, in mg/l derived from moan discharge data.
  Low estimates due to incomplete available data.
 TABLE 103. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DIRECT POLLUTION CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
                         VARIOUS SOURCES  FOR EVENT 2
Source
Rainfall

Streets



Non-Street
Imperviousness


Pervious





Total Solids
kg (Ib)
47,446
(104,600)
Min. 860,460
(1.897,000)
Max. 4,432,527
(9,722,100)
Min. 4,277,671
(9,430,700)
Max. 20,394,903
(44,963,300
5,611,407
(12,371,100)
Min. 10,796,984
(23,803,400)
Max. 30,463,603
(67,161,100)
Suspended Solids
kg (Ib)
47,446
(104,600)
650,902
(1, 435,000) '
3,453,997
(7,614,800)
3,461.073
(7.630,400).
17,737,909
(39,105,600)
4,418,012
(9,740,100)1
8,577.432
(18,910,100)
25,657.364
(56,565,100)
BOD5
kg (Ib)
Unk.

4,309
(9,500)
722,226
(49,000)

10,705
(23,600)

Unk.

15,014
(33.100)2
32,931
(72,600)
COD
kg (Ib)
Unk.

39,689
(87,500)
203,390
(448,400)

Unk.

•v.
Unk.

39,689
(87.500)2
203,390
(448,400)
PO4 Cadmium Lead
kg (Ib) kg (Ib) kg (Ib)
7,875
(1,930)
145
(320)
740
(1,650)

Unk.


Unk.

1,021
(2.250)2
1,624
(3,580)
Unk.

3
(6)
14
(30)
0.5
(1)
2
(4)
Unk.

3
(7)2
15
(34)
Unk.

1,678
(3,700)
78,709
(19,200)
54
(120)
277
(610)
Unk.

1,733
(3.820)2
8,986
(19.810)2
Zinc
kg (Ib)
Unk.

408
(900)
2,087
(4,600)
59
(130)
299
(660)
Unk.

467
(1,030)z
2,386
(2.386)
NOTES:
1
 Estimated value from an estimating function in the form suspended solids (mg/l) = 0.79 (Total Solids, mg/l) — 22 derived from available mean discharge data.
 Low animates due to incomplete data.
                                          177

-------
     This event reflects sediment contributions from pervious  areas  in addition
to the other sources previously described.  For this event,  sediment estimates
represented from 18 to 52 percent of the solids contributed.

     An alternative approach to the estimation of direct pollutional contribu-
tions was employed for the first event, using the discharge  characterization
equations developed in Durham, North Carolina. (64)   The results  of  this compu-
tation appear in Table 104,  This characterization was  performed  on  an urbanizing
basin and represent the response of that basin to experienced  rainfall events.
As such, the magnitude of the solids estimated by this  method  are considerably
less than, those previously  identified in Table 102. The other pollutants iden-
tified, however, generally fall within the range of  previously estimated values,
with the exception of lead which is somewhat less.
                   TABLE 104. ESTIMATED DIRECT POLLUTION
               CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EVENT 1 COMPUTED FROM THE
                DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, CHARACTERIZATION
                                    DATA

                                              Event No. 1
Pollutant
Suspended Solids
COD
Lead
Zinc
Ib
3,445,200
555,000
1,450
1,200
kg
1,564,121
251,970
638
545
Other Wastewater Flows

     Other wastewater flows for the hypothetical community might include raw
domestic sanitary sewage, primary treatment domestic wastes  effluents, secondary
treatment domestic wastes effluents, and those domestic wastes effluents that
result from advanced treatment processes.  An average  daily  per capita flow of
515 1 (136 gal) and the general characterization of these flows designated as
resulting from indirect runoff pollution sources as previously discussed, were
applied to hypothetical case conditions to prepare the estimated contributions
shown in Table 105.  These estimates apply to the period of  flow encompassed by
the runoff period.
                                      178

-------
        TABLE 105. ESTIMATED POLLUTIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER
                  WASTEWATER FLOWS DURING EVENT 1 AND 2
Pollutant
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
BOD
COD
Lead Zinc

Raw
kg Ib
137,108
24,515
23,926
51,030
5,403
1,135
302,000
56,200
52,700
112,400
11,900
2,500
Primary
kg ib
—
10,533
7,673
18,342
	
—
—
23,200
16,900
40,400
—
—
Secondary
kg Ib
67,737
3,995
3,995
11,168
16
32
149,200
8,800
8,800
24,600
35
32
Advanced
kg Ib
—
953
1,589
4,313
—
—
—
2,100
3,500
9,500
	
—
Comparison of Waste Contributions

     On the basis  of  the foregoing estimates, some simple  comparisons of rela-
tive contributions may be made for the period covered by the  selected short-
term runoff events.   The comparison for both events is shown  in Table 106.
     TABLE 106. COMPARISON OF WASTE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EVENTS 1 AND 2
Source
Direct Runoff
Event 1
Event 2

Raw Domestic
Sanitary
Primary Treated
Domestic Sanitary
Effluent
Secondary Treated
Domestic Sanitary
Effluent
Advanced Treatment
Domestic Sanitary
Effluent
Total Solids
kg (Ib)
4,698,739
(10,359,000)
1 0,796,984
(23,803,400)
136,984
(302,000)

—
—

67,676
(149,200)

—
—
Suspended Solids
kg (Ib)
3,930,267
(8,664,800)
8,577,432
(18,910,100)
24,492
(56,200)

10,523
(23,200)

3,992
(8,800)

953
(2,100)
BOD
kg (Ib)
8,754
(19,300)
15,014
(33,100)
23,904
(52,700)

7,666
(16,900)

3,992
(8,800)

1,588
(3,500)
COD
kg (Ib)
37,603
(82,900)
39,689
(87,500)
50,984
(112,400)

18,325
(40,400)

11,158
(24,600)

4,309
(9,500)
Lead
kg (Ib)
1,633
(3,600)
1,724
(3,800)
5,398
(11,900)

—
—

16
(35)

—
—
Zinc
kg (Ib)
408
(900)
454
(1,000)
1,134
(2,500)

—
—

32
(70)

—
—
      On  the basis of these estimates,  direct  runoff contributions of solids
 materially exceed those associated with domestic sanitary wastewater flows at
 any level of treatment.  Domestic sanitary flows represent two percent or
 less of  the total estimated solids loadings.   Estimated BOD contributions
 from direct runoff are greater than those from secondary and advanced treat-
 ment domestic wastewater effluents. However,  these contributions are less
                                     179

-------
than for raw wastewater, and about the same as primary treatment effluents,
for the events evaluated.  Similar comparisons also exist for COD contribu-
tions, except for primary treated domestic sanitary effluents.  In this
instance, direct runoff contributions exceed those of primary treatment
effluents.

     Direct runoff contributions represent at least 44 percent of the total
pollutional load on an annual basis.  In the category of metal contributions,
direct runoff produced higher levels of lead and zinc for treated effluents,
but not for raw domestic wastes.  These contributions may be on the order
of at least 24 and 28 percent per annum, respectively, of the total lead and
zinc contributions.

     The foregoing comparison indicates that the relative contributions of
pollutants associated with direct runoff can be significant during a runoff
event.  The estimations shown do not encompass all pollutants from all direct
runoff sources.  As such, they represent relatively conservative estimates;
and the comparisons suggested tend to minimize the contributions of direct
runoff.

     The relative contributions of direct runoff will be found to diminish as
the time intervals investigated become longer.  The investigation of longer
term comparative contributions will be considered in Section V of this report
for a number of individual urbanized areas across the country, and finally
for all urbanized areas.  These evaluations will provide some comparative
results that will be helpful in better identifying these time-increment effects.
                                      180

-------
                                SECTION IV

                      URBAN DATA DEVELOPMENT TO ASSIST
                            MODELLING ACTIVITIES


     One of the key elements of this study has been the analysis of 50 urban
areas through the use of models and other analytical devices.  The results
of this analytical activity were to provide base-line estimates from which
the nationwide characterization of pollutional loads and impacts, and the
costs of alternative control strategies could be developed.  This section ad-
dresses the basic assumptions and methods employed to prepare some of the data
desirable for use of models and other analytical tools in this application.

     Runoff quality and quantity analysis require data concerning features
such as lengths of steets and roads, population density, and types of land
use.  The absence of such data has hindered the use of a modelling as only
general approximations could be used or considerable site specific data
gathered.

     The data developed by the APWA presented in this section is based upon
a detailed analysis of 50 urban areas.  Such a broad base of information should
be particularly helpful in adjusting models where site specific data is not
available and should encourage the development of models which more accurately
relate to land use and population density considerations.

     The estimation of runoff quality by existing models depend upon the as-
sumption that pollutants accumulate over time on street surfaces.  Models do
not accommodate accumulation of pollutants on non-street impervious areas as
outlined in Section III.  Nor do models provide for pollutant contributions
from pervious urban areas for runoff events when these contributions from pervi-
ous urban areas for runoff events when these contributions may be expected to
occur.  The basic assumption of street surface accumulation would seem to best
apply in well developed urban environments where drainage patterns are con-
sistent with street networks and impervious surfaces may be expected to entrap
many of the pollutional products of the area.  In an urban setting, basic model-
ling philosophies hypothesize that the quality of urban runoff may be estimated
from runoff quantity  computations based on given hydrologic and physical basic
characteristics; the computed transport of the potential pollutants contained in
accumulated street litter by the runoff; and the calculation of the related pol-
lutional loading based on its relationship to the transported solids.  The fore-
going assumes, of course, that the mechanisms of runoff solids transport and the
pollutant-to-solid estimation processes within the model are accurate representa-
tions of the real physical processes involved.
                                       181

-------
     As the modelling effort  for this study was directed to an evaluation of
50 urban areas, certain assumptions were made to accommodate its operation on
this relative scale.  Some of these assumptions are as follows;

     •  Urban areas may be assumed to be the Urbanized Areas as defined by
        the Bureau of Census.

     *  Average daily street  solids accumulations are assumed to be a
        representative indication of the accumulation of many pollutants
        within an urban area.  It is further assumed that the STOBM model
        will adequately estimate the total solids transported in a runoff
        flow for a given event.  As pollutant concentrations are estimated
        directly with the solids so estimated, it is also assumed that only
        those pollutants that bear some reasonable level of linear correla-
        tion with solids can  be estimated through the modelling process.
        Those that do not, should not be estimated in the modelling effort.

     *  The distribution of urban land use may be characterized in terms
        of population density, on the basis of central city land-use
        characteristics taken with respect to the entire Urbanized Area.
        This assumption originates in the fact that little comparable
        land-use-data could be found for full urbanized areas.

     •  Estimates of imperviousness and specific curb length, in terms
        of unit of curb length per unit area, may be made through their
        relationship with population density.

     It is apparent that the assumptions made must be carefully considered with
respect to the accuracy assigned to the results of this evaluation effort.  The
mechanism proposed, however,  is one that may be improved upon as better data
becomes available.  On this basis, it represents a prototype assessment methodo-
logy that may afford even better results as knowledge of runoff phenomenon im-
proves .

URBAN AREAS

     Urban areas in this study have been taken as the Urbanized Areas defined
by the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. Department of Commerce in the 1970
census. (81)  A total of 252  urbanized areas were defined in 1970; they are
generally characterized as having:
     •  A central city or urban core of 50,000 or more inhabitants.

     *  Closely inhabited surroundings, consisting of incorporated places
        of 100 housing units or more; and small unincorporated parcels with
        population densities of 1,000 inhabitants per 2.59 km2(l mi2) or more.

     *  Other small unincorporated areas that may eliminate enclaves, square
        up the geometry of the urbanized area or provide a linkage to other
        enumeration districts fulfilling the overall criteria within 2.5 km
        (1.5 mi) of the main body of the urbanized area. (82)
                                      182

-------
     The distribution of urbanized areas across the United  States is shown  in

Figure 52.
                                   *M?"
                                  *> s>j  .*

                                   ",S(J

                                  .*:'£* '
 tefaf*

'.«&•'    V*
-- & if.    / «













v>.
v\ v
v ''X"V**^

**/£ a

» v
** ^ K
$ «• 1 -
C*' ^*»"*-— — '
^--"*-*^5 &
ll"V
'" £

4
K*. *
a"""?"
r !'
« ^
"Ti1
£ •; *.»'-t>
f f^
i -y-? i
^J 5 ,f
s

5 , |i |
< s
a '
	 . 	 __j!

[
J

1
~J
'«
r| /
^V , •;'"'
t^yi
&l / a._— •











8
f
|
* 1
e B
ll
% V
^—*»i?
.^"
x"x °

•^•"/ ^ £ I pe?

a /" ""* g

if*" K
, **
1»\ *
J*
**
ft f
fc-%?
ftfe'v5
!v (V^'V
n * "^
Ji" „ >
o.C-:
S1,^
_ji ;5
Ti^i
l:| i-sl
I V$\
^':6V
M P
a i|
1 V'
i /-^"^


}/

/I 	 -
/
/
/
V /t
1 ../••/ ft..
>P K.
.^/. v
s /" *
/;.\
A ^"|
K" !J
{"
<' 1



0
/TT
i ii't
jiu .1 j
F* 1 {
V* ** [
.*

•.*



**" •--

v\
< \






i
!t

|
I.

if
I.
!|
I
J

»:
w-^.S "-, v
'(.
> '
,"''•' •:




/~~/i
/•J-V:
£"?•'
>7 J
// «i
— V J
1 ,'
4 i
^ •
rf;
\.*- *
0 . \V.
^•! V
P i-
,•
'i
. s
t
^
,?


4"
1

,J
U
Jl
O
~t
*
fv
"3
ffl
21
O
P
<
fr.
l~
vt
it
c^
<
f>
u
J.
(«
it
<
i/i
Nor/^c
o
o
ui
D
Z
<
**
«:
o
O
I/)














Ul
U
(t
VI
r;
o
o
u.
O
z
t*3
:>
K
*t
6.
til
£3
»;
D
                                                                         O
                                                                         fs,

                                                                         O)
                                                                         Jta>
                                                                         CO


                                                                        I

                                                                         CO
                                                                        JD
                                                                        CM
                                                                        in

                                                                        £

                                                                        §>

                                                                        iu
                                        183

-------
00
                                         5-RED RAINY
                                     _
                                         <
                                           ;^r\    rt£ 5gss
                                                    ' GREAT Vf~£'
                                                      •CKCW.I.V'
                                                      ^t^P^r^
                                                      3l»*\-f^ti«"rt6n'
                                                      *£&*'>,
          /  •' • "^^H^V.   rBA-^^^
          >    /      T^3f    ,?   i1   ^"^\MlSSj^PPSSr*^^(,tfktHlS^^i^ ^
          ^rT;'^^^^W*gtegs>'
           i.°^**  ..;,.. •. «-CSAOO;-£SL. J^-?**- W** ,: ,A-iX ..^JS.
 -.-«*•    |.... . CCuJwooiiftl^^a^ V^ l^E^f^

^^h^^&tvL^
  X  ^*7v  IOH/FP r5-^ f  Hfairi  ^jwt^f C^*5 VcN^^tV«&T--x.. ,r
    \   )c(Sl^ *^k^      V^^psr^
      L.._J   -«S?^ Rio  \w   ^/y-.^.--4\MSSis|w^fH ^,v),/
         '"-\ • •^VGRAND£*  ^X^<^^^i1^^  wTir GULF f
__	C-^.-.-Ij--^-^    *-^*?X>*4f ATLAN^'6  J,-*-.^
^"^~, i
c 1 !
«-^ ';
«, ^ ALASKA !
t c' ; i
"S x&^-^ ^
>/ %!
i
	 I.j--^gOSi
'•A
\. \
»o \
^> >
?^>
HAWAII rx
iN, »*«** >
^X TEXAS GULF
' '"~"\ 1 >
" Xk/
V. 5
^
                                                       r.---'^—-.:^ J****"'
                                                           "aww
                                                                   PUERTO R!CO
                      Figure 53, Distribution of urbanized areas sample with respect to
                                water resource and USEPA regions.
   Source: U.S. Watar Resources Council, "Coordination Director for Planning Studies and Reports,"
        August 1971,(as amended).
                                                                                O rt
                                                                                ro
                                                                                o
 ffi W (D
 H rt
 O M O
 (0 H- 3*
 0 D4 O
 rt C H-
  rr O
 O H- It)
 Hi O
  0 O
 (B   Hi
 H- H
 t-i ro (n
  Hi
 (2 M OS
 H (t! »
 o4 o a
 PJ rt "d
 0 H- M
 H- 0 (D
 N OQ
 CD   O
 Q> 
TJ CO 0
*d   H-
 (D (J. N
 SB 0 (B
 H   Cb
 CO O
  M (B
 H. H- H
 00m
  P Co
 >*! rt CO
 (j. (D
OQ   S
 0 (B »
 H 0 CO
 m a
   D4
 UJOQ (B
 U> CO CO
 « O (B
 OQ CL
  H
  5B C
 »d •«
  a* o
                                                                       CO H
                                                                        «D
                                                                       01 CO

                                                                       §§
                                                                       *O rt
                                                                       1_« (B
                                                                       » 1

-------
  Figure 53 (cont'd)
  USEPA
  Region I
  Region II

  Region III
   Region IV
   Region V
                      KEY TO USEPA REGIONS, SAMPLE URBANIZED AREAS
Core City

Hartford
Portland
Boston
Providence

Albany

Wilmington
Richmond
Charleston
District of Columbia

Birmingham
Jacksonville
Miami
Atlanta
Lexington
Jackson
Raleigh
Columbia
Knoxville
Nashville

Indianapolis
Detroit
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Cleveland
Madison
Milwaukee
State
Connecticut
Maryland
Massachusetts
Rhode Island

New York

Delaware
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Tennessee

Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Region VI
Region VIII
                                                   Region IX
                                                   Region X
Core City

Little Rock
Topeka
St. Louis
Lincoln
State
Arkansas
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Denver         Colorado
Great Falls      Montana
Fargo-Moorhead  North Dakota
Sioux Falls      South Dakota
Salt Lake City   Utah
               Phoenix
               Tuscon
               Oakland
               Sacramento
               San Francisco
               Reno
               Arizona
               Arizona
               California
               California
               California
               Nevada
               Boise          Idaho
               Portland        Oregon
               Seattle-Everett   Washington
      The  Water Resources Region  represents  the major basins within  the United
States as defined  by the U.S.  Water Resources Council.  (83)  The populations
reflected in  the sample of urbanized  areas  appears  in Table 107.

                                     TABLE 107.
                        POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF THE
                           SAMPLE OF URBANIZED AREAS
Population
Range
50,000 < Pop. < 1 00,000
100,000 < Pop. < 250,000
250,000 < Pop. < 500,000
500,000 < Pop. < 1 ,000,000
1, 000,000 < Pop.
Number of
Urbanized Areas
7
12
11
7
13
                                            185

-------
MAJOR URBAN RUNOFF CATCHMENTS

     The major urban runoff drainage areas were  determined for each of the
urbanized areas selected for detailed study.  These  drainage areas were defined
In terms of the major catchments or receiving waters draining each urbanized
area, as shown in Table 108.  This table shows the major  catchments identified,
and the percent of the urbanized area contributing to each.  These catchment
areas have been used to provide a basis for determining many of the urban area
parameters necessary for the broader evaluation  effort.
                TABLE 108. URBANIZED AREA RUNOFF CATCHMENTS

1.

2.
3i.
b.
c.
4.
5*.
b.
c.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14«.
b.
c.
d.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23*.
b.
24.
25.

26a.
b.
c.
27.
28,
29.
3O.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.

37.
38.
390.
b.
Urbanized Area
Albsny-Schonectady
Troy, N.Y.
Albuquerque, N.M.
Atlanta, Ga.


Baton Rouga, La.
Birmingham, Al.


Bolie, Id.
Boston, Ma.
Charleston, W. Va.
Cleveland, Oh.
Columbia, S.C.
Dallas, Tx.
Denver, Co.
Dot Momes, la.
Detroit, Mi.



El Paso, Tx.
Fargo— Moorehead, N.D.
Groat Falls, Mt.
Hartford, Ct.
Indianapolis, In.
Jackson, Ms.
Jacksonville, Fl.
Knoxville, Tn.
Lexington, Ky.

Lincoln, No.
Little Rock— North
Little Rock, Ar.
Madison, Wi.


Manchester, N.H.
Miami, FI.
Milwaukee, Wi.
MInn»apoIIs— St. Paul, Mn.
Monroe, La.
N«thvillB— Davidson, Tn.
Phoonlx, Az.
Portland, Me.
Portland, Or.
Provldanco— Pawtucket—
Warwick, R.I.
Raleigh, N.C.
Reno, Nv.
Richmond, Va.

Total
ac

96,640
72,960
25,430
63,250
189,720
54,400
32,350
39,790
71 ,860
18,860
424,960
39,680
413,440
65,920
431 ,360
187,520
69,760
75,170
9,030
146,130
327,750
76,160
15,360
14,080
83,840
243,840
46,080
224,640
55,040
17,050
8,550
33,280

60,800
10,620
15,250
18,290
24,960
165,760
292,480
461 ,440
26,600
220,160
248,320
35,840
1 70,880

156,160
45,440
24,320
24,580
S8.220
Area
ha

39,110
29,530
10,290
25,590
76,780
22,020
13,090
16,100
29,080
7,510
171,980
16,060
167,310
26,680
1 74,570
75,890
28,230
30,420
3,650
59.14O
132,640
3O.82O
6,220
5,700
33,930
98,680
18,650
90,910
22,270
6,910
3,450
13,470

24,600
4,300
6,170
7,400
10,100
67,080
118,360
186,740
10,360
89,100
100,490
14,500
69,150

63,20O
18,390
9,840
9,950
27,610
Percent of
Urbanized
Area

100
100
9
23
68
100
22
28
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
13
2
26
59
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
67
33
100

10O
24
34
42
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

100
100
100
26
74
Major Catchment

Hudson River
Rio Grande River
Flint River
South River
Chattahoochee River
Mississippi River
Village Creek
Valley Creek
Cahaba River
Boise River
Massachusetts Bay
Kanawha River
Lake Erie
Congaree River
Trinity River
South Plane River
Des Moines River
Lake St. Clair
Lake Erie
Clinton River
Detroit River
Rio Grande River
Red River
Missouri River
Connecticut River
White River
Pearl River
St. Johns River
Tennessee River
Elkhorn Creek System
Hick man Creek System
Salt Creek

Arkansas River
Lake Waubesa
Lake Monona
Lake Mendota
Merrimac River
Biscayne Bay/ Atlantic Ocean
Lake Michigan
Mississippi River
Ouachita River
Cumberland River
Salt River
Fore River/Portland Harbor
Williamette/Columbia Rivers
Providence River/
Narragansett Bay
Walnut Creek
Truckee River
Chickahorniny River
James River
                                      186

-------
     TABLE 108 (cont'd)

40.
41.
42,
43a,
b.
C-
44.
45.
46.
47.
4Sa.
b.
49.
50.
Urbanized Area
Sacramento, Ca.
Salt Lake City, Ut.
San Francisco— Oakland, Ca.
Seattle— Everett, Wa.


Sioux Falls, S.D.
St. Louis, Mo.
Topeka, Ks.
Tucson, Az.
Tulsa, Ok.

Washington, D.C.
Wilmington, De.
Total
ac
156,160
117,760
435,840
17,870
93,390
153,050
17,280
295,040
33,920
6 7.20O
63,480
61 ,704
316,300
7O.400
Area
ha
63,200
47,660
1 76,380
7,230
37,800
61 ,940
6,990
119,400
13,730
27,200
25,690
20,930
128,200
28,490
Percent of
Urbanized
Area
100
100
100
7
35
58
100
100
100
1OO


100
100
Major Catchment
Sacramento River
Great Salt Lake
San Francisco Bay /Pacific Ocean
tSammamish Lake
Lake Washington
Puget Sound
Big Sioux River
Mississippi River
Kansas River
Santa Cruz River
Verdigres Rivor
Arkansas River
Potomac River
Delaware River
URBAN PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

     There are few sources of standardized data,covering the physical develop-
ment characteristics of urbanized areas.  The evaluation of urban runoff im-
pacts requires definition of some of these characteristics.  Urban land use
patterns, the level of surface imperviousness, street density and improvement
standards, and other development-related parameters are all basic building
blocks within the evaluation process.  While data on physical development
characteristics are generally available locally in individual jurisdictions,
the scope of this overall evaluation effort did not envision an on-site sur-
vey of prospective urbanized area modelling sites.  Thus, other methods for
estimating these parameters were necessary.

     The most important source of urban demographic data in the U.S. Bureau of
the Census.  The 1970 Census provides a wealth of standardized information ac-
cumulated in a land-area classification system that is compatible with the
purposes of this evaluation effort.  The choice of the "urbanized area" as a
basic unit for the definition of urban runoff contributions has already been
discussed.  One additional unit of areal definition was also adopted for the
purposes of the overall evaluation effort—the census tract.  These units of
area and demographic data accumulation were selected as the smallest manage-
able units of area to be used.  By definition, census tracts are relatively
uniform, stable area units in terms of population characteristics, economic
status and living conditions; they generally average about 4,000 residents. (86)
                                       187

-------
     The estimation of urban physical development characteristics for the 50
study areas has been preapred from census tract area measurements and demo-
graphic data.  The key demographic parameter employed for this purpose is gross
population density. (85)  This parameter was used to characterize land use,
imperviousness, street density, street cleaning frequencies, and other model
input requirements.

     The data source used to characterize urbanized areas in terms of their
respective population densities was made available through the National Plan-
ning Data Corporation.  This data source provided census tract population, area
and related population densities.  Additional data on land use were also pro-
vided for some land-use types.  Land use will be discussed in more detail in
the following portions of this section.

     Urbanized areas and drainage catchments were characterized through develop-
ment of population density profiles.  These profiles were developed by identify-
ing and ranking census tracts in ascending order by gross population density.
The ranked census tracts so determined were grouped into five categories,
designated on the basis of area.  These categories were arbitrarily chosen as
one, approximately one-third sized part, and for, approximately one-sixth parts
of the total catchment area.  The one-third sized area category represents the
most sparsely populated census tracts within the catchment.

     The results of the population density profiling process are shown in
Figures 54a thru 54g,  for various population groups by section of the country.
These figures demonstrate the cumulative gross population densities reported
over each urbanized area, as fitted to a geometric regression line.   As these
lines show, the overall gross population densities indicated at the 100 per-
cent level vary from those shown at other percentage levels for each urbanized
area.  Variations may also be noted among the gross population density pro-
files reported for individual urbanized areas.  The gross population density
profiles, thus, suggest the level of variation that exists in the demographic
and physical development characteristics of the urbanized areas selected for
detailed study.  This data in a modified form was used in the cost assessment
reported in Volume II,
                                       188

-------
  20.
                                                                   Denver
                                                                   Portland, Or.
                                                                   Seattle
                                                                   Lincoln
                                                                   Sioux Falls
                                                                   Topeka
                                                                   Great Falls
                                                                   Boise
                                                                              Equation

                                                                                 41.9x-°-M
                                                                              y = 40.2 x ~°'53
                                                                              y = 36.2 x -°-51
                                                                              y = 35.6 x -°'50
                                                                              y = 26.7 x ~0>46
                                                                                = 24.5x-°-46
                                                                              y=22.8x-°'37
                                                                              y = 15.2 x ~°'31
   100  90
                                                   20                   10
                                              Average Percent of Urbanized Area
Figure 54a. Population density profiles for urbanized areas—Pacific Northwest—Missouri.
   20
e
o
t/t
&

|  10
Z   Q
UJ
Q
Z   8
O
?   6
                                                             Urbanized
                                                               Area
                                                             San Francisco-
                                                              Oakland
                                                             Sacramento
                                                                             Equation
                                                                             y=101.Sx
                                                                             y = 31.0x
                                                                              -0.67
                                                                             -0.50
        J	I
              J_
                                          I
J
   100  90 80 70   60   50
                              40
                                        30
                                          20                   10
                                    Average Percent of Urbanized Area
Figure 54b. Population density profiles for urbanized areas—California.
                                  189

-------
                                                         El Paso
                                                         Phoenix
                                                         Dallas
                                                         Salt Lake City
                                                         Tucson
                                                         Reno
                                                         Albuquerque
                                                           10
                                                                          Equation

                                                                          y = 45.9 x -°'58
                                                                          y = 36.4x-°-58
                                                                          y = 43.8 x ~°-66
                                                                          y = 36.2 x -°'54
                                                                          y = 22.4 x -°'47
                                                                          y = 25.3 x -°-47
                                                                          y = 24.8 x
-0.44
                     40      30        20
                        Average Percent of Urbanized Area
Figure 54c. Population density profile for urbanized areas—Arkansas—Lower Colorado
            Upper Colorado—Great Basin—Rio Grande—Texas Gulf.
                                                             1
                                                             Urbanized
                                                               Area
                                                                          Equation
                                                             Miami
                                                             Baton Rouge
                                                             Jackson
                                                             Atlanta
                                                             Birmingham
                                                             Columbia
                                                             Knoxville
                                                             Raleigh
                                                             Jacksonville
                                                             Little Rock
                                                             Monroe
                              30         20                10
                                Average Percent of Urbanized Area
: 54d. Population density profiles for urbanized areas—South Atlantic Gulf-Upper Mississippi.
                                        190
y =
y =
y =
y =
y =
y-
Y =
y =
y =
y =
v-
50.6
29.9
28.6
23.4
21.2
20.1
20.6
21.6
31.2
12.6
12.4
x-0.48
x-0.47
x-0.48
x-0.48
x-0.43
x-0.43
x-0.45
x-0.48
x-0.65
x-0.33
x-0.32

-------
   20
   10
    9
    8
    7
2   6
ill
Q

I   5
Q.
O
Q.
2
100
                                                                              Equation

                                                                              y = 66.4 x
                                                                              y = 56.3 x
                                                                              y = 38.8 x
                                                                              y = 35.7 x
                                                                              y = 38.6 x
                                                                              y = 45.2 x
                                                                                          -0.54
                                                                                          -0.61
                                                                                  -0.50
                                                                                  -0.44
                                                                                          -0.55
                                                                                          -0.64
                                                                                    32.4x"°-53
                                                                                 y = 27.2 x
                                                                                          -0.65
90 80  70 60  50   40

Figure 54e. Population density profiles for urbanized areas—Mid Atlantic—Ohio.
                                    30        ^0               10
                                   Average Percent of Urbanized Area
   20-
                                                                 Urbanized
                                                                   Area
                                                                  8
                                                                                Equation
                                                                 Detroit
                                                                 St Louis
                                                                 Cleveland
                                                                 Madison
                                                                               y = 58.6x-°'57
                                                                               y = 58.9x-°-55
                                                                               y = 85.2x-°-72
                                                                               y = 44.6x-°-55
                                                              Minneapolis-St Paul y = 49.0 x~°'83
                                                              Fargo             y = 23.7 x"0'38
                                                              Des Moines        y = 30.0 x~°'52
                                                              Milwaukee.        y = 13.0 x~°'35
   100 90 80  70  60   50   40     30         20                10
                                    Average Percent of Urbanized Area
  Figure 54f. Population density profiles for urbanized areas—Great Lakes—Upper Mississippi.
                                              191

-------
     20
     10
   u
   Jf
     0
   S 8
   D.
   ui 6
   Q
   Z
   o
   Is
   a.
   9 4
                                                  Boston
                                                  Hartford
                                                  Providence
                                                  Manchester
                                                  Portland, Me.
                                      y = 92.2 x -°-71
                                      y = 53.9 x -°-57
                                      y = 54.3 x -°-60
                                      y = 54.9 x -°-57
                                      y = 43.4x-°-68
                                                                        j_
     100 90  80   70   60
50    40      30          20                  10
                     Average Percent of Urbanized Area
            Figure 54g. Population density profiles for urbanized areas—New England

LAND USE CHARACTERIZATION

     A key  ingredient of the evaluation  effort is urban land use.  Pollution
potentials, physical development characteristics, and public works operations
practices have  been characterized in terms of urban land use.  Land use,
however, is seldom defined for entire urbanized areas—particularly where
portions of an  urbanized area may fall into different political jurisdictions.

     As stated, one of the sources of land-use data employed in this  project
was the population density files created by the National Planning Data
Corporation.  These files were developed from 1970 census data and the map-
ping available  through the Metropolitan  Map Series available from the U.S.
Department  of Commerce.  These maps were electronically planimetered  and the
                                       192

-------
and the  areas determined were grouped into four major categories:   Total
census tract areas; water  surface areas; apparent  non-residential  land-use
areas; and areas containing  special institutional  population concentrations. (86)

     Data from 48 of the 106 cities reported  representing central  cities as
opposed  to suburban communities and were complete  enough to use in the develop-
ment of  a land-use estimating method.  A regression analysis compared gross
land utilization rates determined from mid-1960fs  land-use area data with
overall  population density determined from the reported cities.  The results
are represented in Figure  55.
 0.11
            y = Residential LU = 0.1007 (0.9366)
                      y = Commercial LU =
                0.0171
                 „ 0.3413
                         y = Industrial LU = 0.0110 (0.9607)"
                              r = 0,44
                                y = Park LU = 0.0157 (0.9426)*
                                       r = 0.53
  0.01-
                 20
30    40    50     60    70     80
 X, POPULATION DENSITY, persons/acre
                                                              90
100
110
                Figure 55. Land utilitzation rates for various cumulative
                          population densities — nationwide.
                                         193

-------
     The figure shows residential, industrial, commercial and park land utiliza-
tion rates from the data uncovered on a nationwide basis.  Relatively low cor-
relations were indicated for commerical, park and industrial land uses.  Regional
analysis of land-use data was performed on tha available central city informa-
tion for the water resource regions shown in Figure 56.  On this basis, a
theoretical construct of land use for each of the Water Resources Regions or
aggregates of regions where data proved limited was created for land use
estimating purposes.  The results of this analysis is plotted in Figures 57
thru 60.  Thus, two alternatives are posed for land use estimating within
urbanized areas — nationally and more specifically for water resource regions
where possible.

     Generally, this information shows that better correlations can be expected
for data sets representing a broad span of population density.  On a regional
basis, better comparisons would have been possible with larger data sets for
each region that represented a broad range of population density.  Insofar as
better or more inclusive data was not uncovered, the functions developed on
the basis of the regional analysis of 48 cities were used as estimators of
land use in the nationwide analysis.

     The total census tract areas and water surface areas are considered the
most accurate values available.  The commerical and industrial land use areas
contained within the files are viewed as low values because map measurements
for these areas were performed on 1:24,000 scale maps and, as such, were limited
to obvious or large-size parcels in these use categories.  The residential
land-use areas from the data files also appeared less accurate.  Residential
land-use areas are residual areas not otherwise classified in other use cate-
gories.  As such, they are generally considered as high values since they also
contain the land areas that may be suitable for future residential development. (86)

     The National Data Planning Corporation data files were used to define
land use in those parts of urban catchments where population densities were high.
It was assumed that high population densities indicate relatively complete
development and that with complete development, the data files would provide
relatively accurate information.

     The basic land-use estimating methods employed in the study were derived
from data developed in past work by Bartholomew (87) and Manvel. (88)  The land
used data identified from these sources did not prove as up-to-date as might
be desired.   Of the two, the latter source provided more current data on land
use as of the middle 1960's.  A total of 106 cities was surveyed and all
were of 100,000 population or more.  All of the cities reported were central
cities or cities representing some part of an urbanized area.

     A more detailed analysis of how the above methods were used is presented
in Volume II, Section 3, Description of the Urbanized Areas.
                                         194

-------
VO
U1
                        J  7--ci
                                        FIGURE 56, LAND-USE REGIONS

-------
           I
           I
           £
           CO
           1
                                                        Pacific Northwest — Missouri y = 0.1098 x  °-1704
        0.2964    0.12
        0.2470   0.10
        0.1976    0.08
        0.1482   0.06
                                       Arkansas — White — Red — Lower Colorado
                                       Upper Colorado — Great Basin           y =  (0.4582) x ~0-'704
                                             S. Atlantic Gulf — Lower Mississippi y =  0.1125 (0.9401 )x
                                               .California                    y =  0.0845 (0.952)x
                                                   Great Lakes — Uppar Mississippi y  = 0.1259 (0.9227*
                                                      Mid Atlantic — Ohio     y =  0.0959 (0.9383!*
                                                         New England        y a  0.06 — 0.001 Sx
0.0988  0.04
0.0494  0.02
                                                  40    50     60     70     80     90    100
                                                       x Population Density — Persons per Acre

                 Figure 58. Commercial land utilization rates for various water resources regions.
         0.0988   0.04-
         0.0741    0.03
         0.0494   0.02 -
        0.0247   0.01
                                 N«w England  v  = 0.0078 + O.OO07X
                                   Mid Atlantic — Ohio y = 0.0188 (0.926)
                         'Pacific Northwest — Missouri  y = 0.0108 (0.946)x

                                         Great Lakes — Upper Mississippi  y = 0.0168 x '•3323
                                                         f
                                                          South Atlantic Gulf — Lower Mississippi
                                                                                V  = O.O213 X
                                                                                 -O.4374
                                                                                                      .3968
T.x..Gu,fv-  o.oossxO-3763  10     20     30     40    50    60     70     80    90    100
                                                       x Population Density — Persons Per Acre


                   Figure 57. Residential land utilization rates for various water resources regions.
                                                    196

-------
 0.0741   0.03
 0.0494  0.02 •
  0.0247   0.01
                   -Texas Gulf y = 0.0517 (0.6242)x
                   -New England v =  0.0127 — O.OOOSx
                       California v =  0.0187 x ~°'538
I Great Lakes — Upper Mississippi  y = 0.0358 x ~°'6782

  • Mid Atlantic - Ohio y = 0.0151 (0.961 )x

           ,South Atlantic Gulf — Lower Mississippi y = 0.0132 (0.8933)x

                        , Arkansas — White — Red — Lower Colorado
                         Upper Colorado — Great Basin v =  0.0057 + 0.0012x
                     10    20     30    40    50    60     70    80    90
                                                  x Population density—persons/acre
   Figure 59. Industrial land utilization rates for various water resources regions.
  i
0.0741     0.03
0.0494   0.02
 0.0147    0.01
                    .Arkansas — White — Red — Lower Colorado
                     Upper Colorado — Great Basin            y = 0.035 — 0.0039x
                        • Mid Atlantic - Ohio y = 0.0235 (0.9108)x
                           New England y = 0.0236 — O.OOOSx
                             Pacific NW - Missouri y  =  0.0336 (0.8479)
                                Texas Gulf y = 0.0122 — 0.0004x
                                   Great Lakes — Upper Mississippi y = 0.0633 x
                                                           ^» California y =  0.0155x
                              S. Atlantic Gulf — Lower Mississippi y = 0.0114(0.8975)'
                                                                           -0.8013
                                                                                    -0.3433
                      10     20     30     40     50     60     70     80      90
                                                    x Population density—persons/acre
     Figure 60. Park land utilization  rates for various water resources regions.
                                            197

-------
RUNOFF QUALITY  CHARACTERIZATION

     The estimation  of runoff  quality by  the use of  the STORM model depends
upon the accumulation of pollutants within a drainage basin over time.  The
urban street cross-section is  considered  a logical repository for pollutants
carried by wind and  water from their places of origin, and a depository for
the pollutant products of street and related activities.  Based on this assump-
tion, the model estimates runoff quality  in terms of the amounts of pollutants
that will accumulate in urban  streets and be washed off during a rainfall
event.

     On this basis,  the model  deals with  runoff pollutants in terms of their
relationship to urban street litter.  Proceeding from the average daily
accumulations of litter, the model estimates the quantity of soluble pollutants
picked up by a  give  street runoff. (80)   For the purposes of this evaluation,
it was assumed  that  STORM will adequately estimate the quantity of solids re-
moved by a particular rainfall event.  The materials so transported were
assumed to constitute the total solids load contributed by the street litter.
Pollutant loads were estimated on the basis of their relationship to the
amounts of total solids so removed.

     Three studies funded by the USEPA represent the source of the majority
of the existing information on dally street litter accumulation and street
litter pollutional potentials.  The first of these was performed by the
American Public Works Association in the City of Chicago.  (15)  The URS
Research Company performed another study  that sampled street litter in a
number of cities across the country. (43)  The remaining study was completed
by Biospherics, Incorporated based on street litter samples collected in
Washington, D.C. (6)

     Some of the findings of the sampling programs conducted for these studies
are summarized  In Table 109.   The data shown reflects mean values for all
reported data,  regardless of the method of sampling or other differences in
samples.  These values are, therefore, somewhat different from those reported
in other sections of this report; but were used as beginning values for
modelling computations.   Statistical comparisons of the means among land use
types and overall estimates indicated that average values for residential,
industrial and park  land uses were significant enough to differentiate these
values from the overall mean, while the value for commercial land use was not.
Thus, the mean value for commercial data was taken as the estimated population
mean.  Similarly, comparisons of daily street solids were prepared on a regional
basis.  The results of these comparisons are shown in Table 110.  These data
are inconsistent with those cited In Section III in so far as they are early
estimates of these values.
                                       198

-------
         TABLE 109. AVERAGE DAILY ACCUMULATIONS OF STREET SOLIDS
Land Use
    APWAa
 Ib/curb-mi/day
(kg/curb-km/clay)
URS Research Co.b
  Ib/curb-mi/day
 (kg/cu rb-km/day)
Biospherics, Inc.0
 Ib/curb-mi/day
(kg/curb-km/day)
    Overall
 Ib/curb-mi/day
(kg/curb-km/day)
Residential
   Mean

   Range
   80
   (23)
   1i-153
   (5-43)
   153
     229
     (64)
     3-2,700
     (0.8-761)
     42
   71
   (20)
   7-378
   (2-107)
   58
   103
   (29)
   3-2,700
   (0.8-761)
   253
Commercial
   Mean

   Range

   n
   181
   (51)
   71-326
   (20-92)
   126
     46
     (13)
     3-260
     (0.8-73)
     17
   126
   (36)
   17-712
   (4-201)
   22
   160
   (45)
   3-712
   (0.8-201)
   165
Industrial
   Mean

   Ranp

   n
   325
   (92)
   283-536
   (80-151)
   55
     292
     (82)
     4-1,850
     (1-521)
     20
                     316
                     (89)
                     4-1,850
                     (1-521)
                     75
All Uses
   Mean

   Range
   158
   (45)
   19-536
   (5-151)
   334
     206
     (58)
     3-2,700
     (0.8-761)
     79
   86
   (24)
   7-712
   (2-201)
   80
   154
   (43)
   3-2,700
   (0.8-761)
   493
Sourcss; aAmerican  Public  Works Association,  "Watar  Pollution  Aspects of  Urban  Runoff." USEPA Report  No.
        1103QDNS01/69 (NTIS No. PB 215 532), January, 1969.
        Sartor, J.O., and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants," USEPA Report No.
        EPA-R2-72-031 (NTIS No. PB 214408), November, 1972.
       cShahean, D.G., "Contributions of Urban  Roadway Usage to Water Pollution," USEPA Report No. EPA-600/
        2-75-004 JNTIS No. PB 245 854), April, 1975,
                                              199

-------
TABLE  110. REGIONAL DAILY STREET SOLIDS ACCUMULATION VALUES
                         Residential       Commercial        Industrial          Open Space
Water Rtiource
Region
Ark«nsas-White-Red
Lower Colorado
Mean
Range
a
n
Great Lakes
Mean
Range
a
n
MM Atlantic-Ohio
Mean
Ranp
a
n
California
Mean
Range
a
n
S. Atlantic-Gulf
Mean
Range
a
n
Pacific Northwest
Mean
Range
a
n
T«xa$ Gulf
Mean
Range
a
n
New England
Mean
Range
a
n
Nationwide
Mean
Range
a
n
Ib/curb-mi/day
(kg/curb- km/day)

C1I
51 (14)
6-238 (2-87)

12

84(24)
19-770(5-217)

157
0




0




(2)
178(50)
31-2i5 (9-83)

4
(i)
30 {8)
12-15 (3-13)

4
0




0





103 (29)
3-2.700 SO.8-761
205 (58)
253
Ib/curb-mi/day Ib/curb-mi/day
(kg/curb-km/day) (kg/curb-Ian/day)

(1) (t)
21 (6! 58 (16)
3-53(0.8-15) 4-130(1-37)
20.4 (6) 54 (15)

0
181 (51)
6-326 (2-92)

128
(2) 0
57 (16)
4-168(1-47)
77 (22)
4 4
111
18 (5) 104 !29)
3-26 (0.8-7) 19-204 (5-57)

4
0 0




0 0




0 0




0 0


~-


154(43} 316(89)
4-1,850(1-521)
207.3 (58) 272.6 (77)
493 75
Ib/curb-mi/day
(kg/curb-km/day)

0




0




0




0




0




0




0




0









     O  " standard deviation
     n  • number of observations
     !1) denotes a difference from the nationwide estimate of the population mean at a level of
        significance of 0.1.
     (2) denotes a difference from the nationwide estimate of the population mean at a level of
        significance of from 0.1 to 0.2
     Source:  American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," USEPA
             Report No. 11030DNSO1/B9 (NTIS No. PB 215 532), January, 1969.

             Sartor, J.D., and G.B.  Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants,"
             USEPA Report No. 72-031 (NTIS No. PB 214408), November, 1972.

             Shaheen, D.G. "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water Pollution," USEPA
             Report No, EPA-60O/2-7S-OO4 (NTIS No. PB 245 854), April, 1975.

                                           200

-------
     On  the basis of these street  solids accumulation values,  population
density  values and land utilization rates previously defined,  composite
accumulation values were determined for various population densities.  The
composite values were computed  from the general equation:
where:
s _  P(2 SL
                    R
                                       So Ro
                                                               (21)
                                  Ro
              S - Composite daily  solids accumulation

              P = Population density

             Sj  - Daily solids accumulation for each given  land use

            LU,  - Land utilization rate for each given  land use
              Li
TL.
 Ju
                  Relative road density expected within  each given land use

             So = Daily solids accumulation for undeveloped land

             Ro = Relative road density expected within  undeveloped areas
     All  of the elements contained within the compositing  expression may be
defined from the foregoing with  the exception of the  relative road density
expected  within each given land  use.  Some values for relative road density
are  shown in Table 111.
                  TABLE 111. RELATIVE ROAD DENSITY VALUES
        Land Use
         Average Specific
           Curb Length
        mi/ac       km/ha
                                     Range of Specific
                                       Curb Length
                                  mi/ac
km/ha
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Park
Undeveloped
All land uses
0.076
0
0
0
0
0
.082
.041
.042
.016
.069
0.302
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
,326
,163
,167
.064
,274
0.051
0.054
0.033
—
—
0.053
-0
-0
-0
—
—
-0
.115
.127
.064


,127
0.
0.
0.


0
,203
.215
.131
—
—
.131
- 0.457
-0
-0
—
—
-0
.505
.245


.505
        Source:
               AVCO Economic Systems Corporation, "Storm Water Pollution From Urban Land Activity,"
               USEPA Report No. 1 1 034 F K L/07-70 (NTIS No. PB 195 281), July, 1970.
                                      201

-------
      The resulting composite street solids accumulation values related to
  population density and land use for all but park and undeveloped area
  contributions are shown in Figure 61.  These values are  dependent upon the
  assumptions that national land utilization factors are applicable as esti-
  mates of land use.  Related estimations of suspended solids  and BOD 5 are
  also shown for those street surface contributions for  the  indicated land
  uses.  Values for park and undeveloped areas were found  to be unavailable
  from existing data sources.  Assumed values for these  land values were
  taken as 13.6 kg/curb-km/day (16 Ib/curb-mi/day) for the purposes of the
  modelling analysis.
   Ill
   >
   O
       24.3  901—

       21.6  80
     O 19.0  70
   ss
   O £ 16.3  60
   D O 13.6 50
    g 
-------
     Statistical comparisons of the pollutant concentrations for individual
land uses with overall concentrations for the pollutant data sets selected
in the array of concentrations is shown in Table 112,   This table shows
overall concentrations of the various pollutants, as well as those concentra-
tions specific to given land uses.  These specific concentrations are shown
where a difference of means at a level of significance of at least 0.2 is
indicated.

     The values for BODj. are given in both rag/kg and mg/1 formats due to
their low correlation with solids.  Organic nitrogen is also reported as
mg/1 since its correlation to  total solids (discharge) proved to be
negligible.  The values reported for asbestos, cadmium, chromium, copper,
iron, lead, manganese, nickel, strontium and zinc are all derived from
street surface accumulation data in view of the fact that virtually no
information was available from the discharge data for comparative purposes.
As such, these values may prove somewhat low if the relative comparisons for
the other pollutants are also applicable to metals.

                   TABLE 112. RELATIVE POLLUTANT LOADS
                                                    Open
Pollutant
Suspended
Solids
Mean
Range
0
n
Volatile
Solids
Mean
Ranp
0
n
BODS
Mean
Range
0
n
BODS
Mean
Range
a
n
COD
Mean
Range
0
n
Residential
mg/kg

0





0




(1)
29,840
7,890-66,400
15,330
18
0




(2)
207,600
57,000-509,000
125,000
14
Commercial industrial
mg/kg mg/kg

0 0





0 0




(1) 0
83,600
25,500-175,000
51,970
10
0 0




(2) 0
393,200
101,000-690,900
200,200
11
Space Overall
mg/kg mg/kg

0
576,000
154,800-915,200
192,100
42

0
332,300
108,400-652,000
142,110
22
0
k
53,180
5,800-250,000
52,610
52
0
24 mg/i
3-126mg/I
24.5
43
0
288,700
49,100-880,600
190,700
41
                                    203

-------
TABLET 12 (cont'd)
Residential
Pollutant mg/kg
TOC 0
Mean
Range
a
n
HO3 0
Mean
Range
a
n
Organic N 0
Mean
Range
a
n
Sol, Ortho-
Phosphate 0
Mean
Range
CT
n
Total PO4 0
Mean
Range
a
n
Chlorides 0
Mean
Range
a
n *
Asbestos 0
Mean
Range
a
n
Cadmium (1)
Mean 3
Range 0-8.8
o 2.4
n 44
Open
Commercial Industrial Space Overall
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
0 00
32 mg/l
15-48 mg/l
9.5 mg/l
17
0 00
0.8 mg/l
0.1 -0.5 mg/l
0.5 mg/l
9
0 00
1.32 mg/l
0.39-3.5 mg/l
0.96
23
(1) 0 0
3,150 1,860
170-6,670 170-7,100
2,270 1,833
10 40
0 00
1.3 mg/l
0.3-0.5 mg/l
1.1 9 mg/l
14
0 00
18.8 mg/l
2-74 mg/l
20.7 mg/l
19
0 00
12.3x10* fibers/kg
2.4x1 06 -13.9x10*
fibers/kg
7.1x10* fibers/kg
6
0 00
3
0-25
3.5
78
                                  204

-------
TABLE 112{cont'd)
Pollutant
Chromium
Mean
Range
a
n
Copper
Mean
Range
a
n
Iron
Mean
Range
a
n
Lead
Mean
Range
a
n
Maganese
Mean
Range
o
n
Nickel
Mean
Range
a
n
Strontium
Mean
Range
a
n
Zinc
Mean
Range
a
n •
T. Coli
Mean
F. Coli
Mean
Notes: (1)
(2)
Al!
Residential
mg/kg
(1)
183
49-390
77
48
0




0




(2)
1,580
220-5,700
1,230
43
0




0




0




0




0

0

denotes a difference
denotes a difference
Commercial
mg/kg
0





162
25-810
195
15
0




(1)
3,000
0-10,000
2,460
17
0




(2)
52
6-170
50
17
0





515
190-1,100
241
17
0

0

from the overall estimate
from the overall estimate
Industrial
mg/kg
(1)
284
74-760
168
17
0




(2)
26,200
8,100-72,000
14,490
21
0




(1)
540
180-1,600
880
20
0




0




0




0

0

of population mean at
of population mean at
Open
Space Overall
tug/kg mg/kg
0
213
49-760
113
82
0
117
33-810
95
78
0
22,860
5,000-72,000
11,300
81
0
2,080
0-10,000
1,930
81
0
400
100-1,600
206
80
0
36
0-170
37
82
0
21
0-110
20
80
0
390
110-1,100
200
82
0
20.7x1 0s /kg
0
2.9x106/kg
a level of significance of 0.1 or less.
a level of significance of from O.2 to 0.1
units are in mg/kg unless otherwise noted.
                                  205

-------
 CHARACTERIZATION  OF  STREET  CLEANING OPERATIONS AND OTHER PHYSICAL DEVELOP-
  MENT FACTORS

     The  characterization of  street cleaning operations, imperviousness and
 curb length per unit area also were important inputs  to the modelling effort.
 Street cleaning operations  involve street  cleaning frequency or the period
 between cleanings in days,  and street cleaning efficiency or the percent of
 street litter picked up by  cleaning operations.

     The  basic source of  street cleaning data was from the 1973 APWA Survey
 of Street Cleaning,  Catch Basin Cleaning and Snow and Ice Removal Practice
 the results of which were given in Table 85.

     Street cleaning effectiveness has been found to vary with the particle
 size distribution of street surface accumulations; accumulation loadings
 and the loading distribution  on the street surface; the street surface
 type and  condition;  the type  of cleaning equipment used and its characteris-
 tics; number of passes of the cleaning equipment; and the equipment operator's
 ability.  Overall sweeping  effectiveness for conventional street sweepers
 has been  found to be about  50 percent. (43)  Improved removal effectiveness
 has been  found for vacuumized sweepers, but data for this equipment is not
 generally available.  A review of some of  the data from the 1973 APWA Survey
 of Street Cleaning,  Catch Basin Cleaning and Snow and Ice Removal Practice,
 however,  indicates that of  363 respondent municipal jurisdictions, only 27
 had purchased any vacuumized  equipment and then in only limited quantities.
 As of that time,  the relative impact of vacuum equipment on cleaning effective-
 ness had  not been felt to any great degree.  It is, therefore, assumed that
 the main  effort in street cleaning operations is still being performed by
 conventional street  sweepers, although a trend to vacuumized equipment may
 be underway.

     Physical development relationships, such as imperviousness and specific
 curb length, have been estimated from the functions indicated in Figures 62
 and 63.   These estimating curves were developed on the basis of the original
 Washington, D.C.  data on  imperviousness, curb length and population density,
 first developed by Graham,  Costello  and Malion. (89)  This information was
 extended  by the addition of reported values from other cities in the nation
 and regression lines  were developed.  The distribution of the cities from
 which data were evolved for this analysis were:  Durham, N.C.; Roanoke, Va.;
 District  of Columbia; Bucyrus, Ohio; Milwaukee, Wis.; Tulsa, Ok.; and San
 Francisco, Calif.

 Other Data Requirements

     The  foregoing discussions have identified estimates and estimating
methods for a number  of the data requirements necessary for the analysis
 of the 50 urbanized areas selected.   In general, these have covered urban
 development and runoff quality data needs.   Other data needs,  such as
 pollution control and abatement data,  are developed in other sections of
 the report.    Rainfall data have been obtained from the U.S.  Weather
 Service.   Control and abatement information is developed in Volume II of
 this report.


                                      206

-------
         100
          90
          80-
          70
        I60
        K
        I 50'
          40
          30
          20
                                    Impennoutness =  104,95-81.27 (0.974)PD
                                                 where PD it the population density (persons/act
                  10    20     30      40     50      60    70     80     90    100 pop/ac
                  25    50     75     100    125     150   175    200    225    250 pop/ha
                                           GROSS POPULATION DENSITY

         Figure 62. Imperviousness vs. population/density — nationwide,  1974.
x
o
m
IT
3
o
ft/ac    m/h«

 400    122.



 350    107.


 300    91.4.



2SO    76,2 -


 200
     150    46
   100
   50
          30.5
          15.2
                                   Curb Length = 413.11-1352.66) <0.839)PD
                                               whore PD is population (tensity (personi/ae)
                                  30      40     50     60     70     80     90    100 pop/ac
                                  75     100    125    150    175    200    225    250 pop/ha
                                          GROSS POPULATION DENSITY
                    Figure 63. Specific curb length vs. population density
                                       nationwide, 1974.
                                          207

-------
                                    SECTION V

                       RECEIVING WATER IMPACTS OF URBAN RUNOFF


     Receiving waters are those water bodies—lakes, streams, estuaries, bays,
and oceans—that are the recipients of wastewater flows.  The value of these
water resources is beyond realistic assessment.  The degradation of their
quality influences their use as water supplies for home, farm, or factory and
for aesthetic and recreational enjoyment.  Quality impairment may also upset
and even destroy the diverse and complex biological systems inhabiting and
dependent upon these water bodies.

     Water quality impairment is most often the product of pollutional con-
taminants in wastewater flows.  Municipal and industrial wastewaters, and the
introduction of contaminants through the direct and indirect contributions of
runoff, all add to the problems of maintaining water quality.  Initiatives
undertaken to alleviate the pollution associated with municipal and industrial
wastewater effluents have lightened the burden of insuring receiving water
quality.

     The pollutional problems associated with runoff, however, remain to be
resolved.  It has been estimated that from 40 to 80 percent of the annual total
of oxygen-demanding contaminants are contributed from sewer overflows, storm-
sewers, uncontrolled runoff and bypasses in urban areas where municipal and
industrial wastewater effluents have received secondary treatment. (90)

     Some of the toxic contaminants yielded in runoff are also significant.  A
modestly sized city may discharge from 45.5 to 114 MT/yr (50 to 125 t/yr)
of lead and from 2.7 to 13.6 MT/yr (3 to 15 t/yr) of mercury annually in its
runoff.  Similarly, from 70 to 90 percent of the annual suspended solids load-
ing may be attributed to urban runoff. (90)   Most significantly, these con-
taminants may occur as shock loadings on the receiving water as a result of
individual rainfall events,

     The net effects of these and other wastewater contaminants on the sensitive
balance of a receiving water may be disastrous. The introduction of solids,
oxygen consuming contaminants, nutrients and toxic materials that exceed a
water body's natural assimilation capacity,  can provide major changes in its
character.  Combined sewer overflow discharges from Bucyrus, Ohio to the San-
dusky River resulted in distinct symptoms of gross pollution.  Sections of the
river were devoid of dissolved oxygen; sludge deposits and extensive algal
growth were apparent; and in some of its reaches, the river was completely
devoid of life. (57)  Similarly, frequent fish kills in Sugar Creek in Illinois
were traced to combined sewer overflows from Springfield following rainstorms. (91)
                                        208

-------
     Other, more subtle effects on receiving water quality may also be dis-
cerned.  Certain organic chemicals used as insecticides and herbicides, when
introduced into a receiving body, may accumulate in various fish and snail
species in concentrations higher than those found in the water itself. (92)
Similarly, the methylation of mercury and its accumulation in fish is detri-
mental to natural stream fauna and the predators that may rely upon this
source of food. (93)

     Thus, the relative impacts of wastewater flows may bear significantly
on receiving water quality, with a resulting impairment of its value.  Al-
though all of the processes involved are not clearly understood, some in-
sights are possible through a summary of some of the past efforts under-
taken to study the phenomena involved.


RECEIVING WATER ASSIMILATION CAPACITY (94)

     The impacts resulting from the addition of wastewater contaminants to a
receiving water are largely determined by the assimilative capacities of the
water body.  Assimilation refers to the transformation and incorporation of
these materials by the aquatic system.  Assimilative capacity is determined
by the interaction of complex physical, chemical, and biological aquatic sub-
systems.  A number of factors, such as the velocity and volume of flow, water
body  bottom contours, rate of water exchange, currents, depth of flow, light
penetration, temperature, pH, hardness, alkalinity and nutrients, all contri-
bute to relative assimilation capacity.  The introduction of contaminants to
a receiving water in amounts that exceed the ability of the water body to
recover, or the addition of toxic materials or those that may accumulate to
undesirable levels, will result in the impairment of receiving water quality.

     The addition of a given pollutant will tend, over time, to reach a steady
state condition within a water body that is determined by its rate of addition,
the rate of its removal or dilution by circulation, and the rate of its decom-
position or removal by biological, chemical, or physical processes.  A straight-
forward conceptual model of the processes involved is shown in Figure 64 •

     It is apparent that receiving water capacity is determined largely by
the nature and characteristics of the water body.  Dilution in a stream may be
determined from the rate of contaminant addition and the stream's volume of
flow.  This does not hold for lakes and estuaries where long average retention
times may allow the accumulation of conventional contaminants.  Some representa-
tive estimates for average retention times are shown in Table 113 .  The dilu-
tion and circulation characteristics of receiving waters are most important for
conventional pollutants—solids, heavy metals, etc.  Other non-persistent con-
taminants, such as decomposable organic, are also subject to the rate of their
decomposition as part of the definition of their relative impact.  Some of
the products of this decomposition are persistent contaminants that may also
accumulate to produce long-term water quality impacts.
                                       209

-------
                                           Pollutant
              Diluted and
            Dispersed By
  Turbulent
    Mixing
                   Marine
                 Environment
 Ocean
Currents
             Exchange
               With
             Atmosphere
                 Transported
                     By
         Ocean
        Currents
                                           Concentrated
                                                By
 Uptake
   By
  Fish
Biological
Processes
1
Uptake
By Phyto-
plankton
V
       Uptake
        By
      Seaweeds
     Invertebrate
      Brenthos
                       \
Sorption
 Zooplankton
             \7
                 Fish and
                 Mammals
              Migrating
             Organisms
                                                   Gravity
                                                  (Sinking)
                                                                      Chemical and
                                                                        Physical
                                                                        Processes
Precipitation
               Accumulation
                on the Bottom
  Ion
Exchange
             Figure 64.  Processes that determine the fate and distribution of a pollutant
                                   added to the marine environment.
Sourc*:  Kajcham, B.H., "Man's Resources in the Marine Ecology, " Pollution and Marine Ecology,
        IntarsciflncB Publishers, New York, 1967.
                                                210

-------
 TABLE 113. AVERAGE DETENTION TIMES AND HALF-
   IN THE GREAT LAKES AND IN VARIOUS ESTUARIES
LIVES FOR RIVER WATER
AND COASTAL REGIONS

Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
Capes Cod to Hatteras
to 1,000 ft contour
New York Bight
Bay of Fundy
Delaware Bay
high flow
Raritan Bay
high flow
Long Island Sound
Surface
Area
mi2
31,820
22,420
23,010
9,930
7,520
29,000
483—662
3,300
—
45
930
km2
82,870
58,390
59,920
25,860
19,580
75,520
1,260-1,720
8,590
—
120
2,420
Theoretical
Mean Retention
Time
183 years
100 years
30 years
2. 8 years
8 years
1 .6 - 2.0 years
6-7.4 days
76 days
48 -126 days
15-30 days
36 days
Half Life
128 years
69 years
21 years
1 .9 years
5.6 years
1.1 — 1 .4 years
4.1 - 5.05 days
52 days
33 - 87 days
10 - 21 days
25 days
Sources:  Beaton, A.M., "Changes In the Environment and Biota of tha Great Lakes," Entmphication: Causes, Consequences,
        Correctives, National Academy of Sclencas, Washington, D.C., 1969.

        Ketchum, B.H., and D, J. Keen,  "The Exchanges of Fresh and Salt Waters in the Bay of Fundy and in Passamaquoddy
        Bay," Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 10(3): 97— 124.

        Ketchum, 8.H., and D.J. Keen, "The Accumulation of River Water Over the Continental Shelf Between Cape Code and
        Chesapeak Bay," Marine Biology and Oceanography, London, pp. 346-357.

        Ketchum, B.H., "The Flushing of Tidal Estuaries," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 23 (2): 198-208.

        Riley,  G.A., "Hydrography of the  Long Island and Block Island Sounds," Bulletin Bingham Oceanographic Collection,
        Yale University, 8: 5-39.
                                                  211

-------
     Thus, the Impacts of wastewater contaminants on a receiving water may be
characterized in terms of the following factors:

     »  The makeup of the contaminants

     *  The degree of discharge quality enhancement achieved
         through treatment

     •  The amounts of pollutants entering a receiving water

     •  The response of the ecosystem


     These factors suggest that impact assessment and reasonable receiving
water quality requirements should be the product of the detailed analysis of
each receiving water body performed in the light of real data and realistic
objectives.  Historically, however, water quality criteria have taken a
number of forms.  The major form of criteria has been an array of allowable
limits organized on the basis of specific public health and other needs,
associated with subsequent beneficial water uses.  Select general water
quality criteria developed on this basis are shown in Table 114.  These types
of criteria are extremely useful, insofar as they may be related to the
deleterious effects of using poor quality receiving waters for specified
purposes.  They are also limiting, however, because they are overall criteria
and may not reflect the impact of contamination on receiving waters of varying
characteristics and sensitivities.  These impacts may be determined only
through the type of analysis previously suggested.

     Other approaches to the definition of water quality criteria have dealt
with one or more of the impact factors outlined above.  These include effluent
criteria, implied standards of treatment, and, in some cases, effluent limita-
tions imposed as a result of existing or potentially undesirable conditions
with a receiving water.
                                     212

-------
                   TABLE 114. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR VARIOUS
                               SUBSEQUENT BENEFICIAL USES
Intended Use
Quality
Limit
ABS (detergent) mg/l
Aluminum, mg/t
Ammonia— N, mg/l
Arsenic, mg/l
Barium, mg/l
Berylium, mg/l
Boron, mg/I
Cadmium, mg/l
Carbon Absorbable
Organ ics
Carbon Chloroform
extract mg/l
Carbon alcohol
extract mg/l-
Chlorides, mg/l
Chromium, mg/l
Coliform
Fecal/1 00 ml
Total/100 ml
Color, Standard
Cobalt Scale Units
Coblat, mg/l
Copper, mg/l
Cyanide, mg/l
Electrical Conductivity
# m h os/cm
Emulsified Oil and
Grease mg/l
Floatable Oil and
Grease mg/l
Fluorides, mg/l
50-54°F (10-12°C)
55"58°F(13-14°C)
59"64°F(15-18°C)
65-7 ff <19-22°C)
72-79°F (23-26°C)
80-9 1°F (27-33°C)
Iron, mg/l
Lead, mg/l
Lithuim, mg/l
Maganese, mg/l
Mercury, mg/l
Molybdenum, mg/l
Drinking
Water Livestock
Maximum Recommended
Permissible Maximum
Concentrations Concentration
0,8
5
0.5
0.5 0.2
1.0
—
5.0
0,01 50 mg/l



0.2

1.5
250
0.05 1.0

2.000
20,000

75
1.0
1.0 0.5
0,02

— —

0

0

2.4
2.2
2.0 2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
0.3
0.05 0.1
— —
0.05 10 mg/l
0.002
— —
Irrigation
Limiting or
Recommended Maximum
Concentration
—
5
—
0.1
—
0.1
0.75
0.01



—

—
350
0.1

1,000
—

—
.05
0.2
—

2,250

—

—



1.0



5,0
5.0
2.5
0.2
0,2
0.01
Water Boating &
Contact Aesthetics
Limiting Limiting
Threshold Threshold
2.0 5.0
— —
— , —
— —
— —
—
— —
— —



—

— —
— —
— —

— —
— —

100 100
— —
— —
— —

— —

20 50

5 10



	 	



— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
Note:
The foregoing values are a mix of most stringent limits as cited in the sources defined. It should be recognized that the values shoyvn
are from existing standards and do not reflect the "national interim primary regulations" or "secondary regulations" to b*
published by the USEPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.
                                               213

-------
   TABLE 114 (continued)

Nitrata-N, mg/I
Nitrate-N, mg/I
Drinking
Water
Maximum
Permissible
Concentrations
10
1
Livestock
Recommended
Maximum
Concentration
—
Irrigation
Limiting or
Recommended Maximum
Concentration
—
Water
Contact
Limiting
Threshold
—
Boating &
Aesthetics
Limiting
Threshold
::
 Nickel, mg/I             —
 Phenols                  1 mg/I
 Pesticides
  Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
  Insecticides mg/I
 AWin                    0.001
 Chlordane                0.003
 DDT                    0.05
 Dieldrin                  0.001
 Ertdrin                  0.0005
 Heptachlor               0.0001
 Heptachlor Epoxide       0.0001
 Lindane                  0.005
 Methoxychlor            1.0
 Toxaphene               0.005
 Carbonate and
 Grganophosphorus
 Pesticides, mg/I           0.1
 Chlorophenoxy
 Herbicides, mg/I
 2,4-D                    0.02
 2,4,5-TP(SiIvex)           0.03
 2.4.5-T                  0.002
 Range of pH              5.9-S.O
 Salenium, mg/I            0.01
 Silver                    0.05
 Sodium Absorption
 Ratio, SAR
 Sulfate, mg/I           250
 Suspended Solids, mg/I    —
 Soluble Salts, mg/I        —
 Threshold Odor Number  —
 Total Dissolved Solids   500
 Transparency,
Secehe Disk, ft           —
 Turdidity, silica
 scale units              —
Vanadium, mg/I          —
Visible Sewage Solids   None
Zinc, mg/I                5
Residual Sodium
 Carbonate (meq)        —
                                                             0.2
                                              0.001
                                              0.003
                                              0.05
                                              0.001
                                              0.0005
                                              0.0001
                                              0.0001
                                              0.005
                                              1.0
                                              0.005
                                              0.02
                                              0.03
                                              0.002

                                              0.05
  4.5-9.0
  0.02
                          6.5-8.3     6.0-10.0
                                         3,000
                                             0.1

                                            25
                                                              15,0
                                                           1,000
500-5,000




  0.1

  2.0

  2.5
 100       100

256       256


 	        20

 50

None       None
Soureas: Chan, C.W., "Management of Urban Strom Runoff," American Society of Civil Engineers, Urban Water Resources Research
        Program, Technical Memorandum No. 24, New York, 1974.
       National Acadomy of Scienca—National Academy of Engineering Committee on Water Quality Criteria, Water Quality Criteria,
       1972, USEPA Report No. EPA-R3-73-O33 (NTIS No. PB 236 199/AS), March, 1973.

                                                        214

-------
POLLUTIONAL SOURCES

     Impacts on receiving waters  are generated by the contribution of pol-
lutants from both urban and non-urban sources»  Treated and untreated munici-
pal and industrial wastewater  effluents are important contributions.  The
direct and indirect additions  of  pollution due to stortnwater runoff are
also important.  Direct contributions may take the form of runoff discharges
and unsewered runoff.  Indirect runoff contributions may involve combined
sewer overflows or sanitary sewer bypasses that result from excessive inflow
or infiltration, or other sources of excessive flows.

     Non-urban sources include agricultural, silvicultural, and mining land
uses.  In addition, the non-point contributions due to erosion from construction
activity may be included as both  an urban and non-urban source of pollution.

     A major pollutant in non-sewered runoff contributions for both urban and
non-urban land uses is sediment.   It has been estimated that 3.6 billion MT
(4 billion tons) of sediment are  produced annually through the processes of
erosion. (43)  An indication of the relative magnitudes of sediment generation
from non-urban land uses is shown in Table 115.

                TABLE 115. REPRESENTATIVE RATES OF EROSION
                        FROM VARIOUS LAND USES AND
         PERCENT OF NON-URBAN PRODUCTION ATTRIBUTABLE TO EACH
Non-Urban
Land Use
Forest
Grassland
Abandoned Surface Mines
Cropland
Harvested Forest
Active Surface Mines
Construction
Ton/mi2/yr
24
240
2,400
4,800
12,000
48,000
48,000
Metric Ton/km2 /yr
8
84
840
1,670
4,180
16,720
16,720
% of Total
Sediment Production
Nationwide
0.5
6.0
84.0
6.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
'  Source:  United States Environmental Protection Agency — Office of Water Programs, "Methods for Identifying and
        Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Non-Point Sources of Pollution," USEPA Report No. EPA-430/9-73-014,
        October, 1973.


     Although the  greatest rates of sediment  production are associated with
construction and active  surface mining, they  represent a relatively low per-
centage of national  production on a mass basis.  The greatest percentage is
that associated with crop lands.  An indication of the pollutional contri-
butions attributable to  some non-urban land uses is shown in Table 116.
                                       215

-------
           TABLE 116. ANNUAL MASS DISCHARGES FROM SOME RURAL AREAS

                         Annual Average Load, Ib/ac/yr (kg/ha/yr)

Corn
Wheat
Apple Orchard
Suspended
Solids
13,200
(14,790)
1,730
(1 ,i40)
185
BOD5
120
(134)
15.5
(17.4)
3.7
COD
1,300
{1,460)
170
(190)
27.8
N
237
(266!
31
(35)
0.8
P04
27.7
(31)
3.6
(4.0)
3.9
                       (207)         (4.1)          (31.2)         (0.9)         (4.4)

  Sourco:  Woldnar, R.B., et al., "Rural Runoff as a Factor in Stream Pollution," Journal of the Water Pollution Control
         Federation, 41 S3): 377,1969,


     An  appropriate measure of the relative strength of direct urban runoff
discharges was shown in Table 92.   A similar array of data for combined sewer
overflows is  shown in  Table 93.

     A more meaningful relative comparison of various contaminant  contributions
from sources  in Des Moines, Iowa appears in Table 117. This estimates the
relative distribution  of BOD^, nitrates, and ortho-phosphates from the apparent
sources  of these  contaminants—treatment plant effluent, bypasses,  combined
sewer overflows and urban  runoff.   Interestingly, approximately  64 percent of the
BODj, 43 percent  of the nitrates,  and 44 percent of the ortho-phosphates,  on an
annual basis, are attributable to controlled and uncontrolled wet-weather sources.
Of these, combined  sewer overflows direct runoff represents around  25 percent of  the
BOD^, 8  percent of  the nitrates,  and 2 percent of the ortho-phosphates.

     A similar analysis of data collected in Durham, North Carolina,  produced
the estimates shown in Table 118, The data are based on a  separate system and
attributes about  99 percent of the annual yield of suspended solids,  88 percent
of the ultimate BOD, and 91 percent of the COD to urban runoff alone, with
secondary treatment of sanitary wastewaters.  The relative impact  of secondary
treatment on  the  overall annual suspended solids, ultimate BOD and COD delivered
to the receiving  water, amounts to only 4 percent, 46 percent, and  48 percent,
respectively.  During  approximately 20 percent of the year, downstream water
quality  is controlled  by runoff. (58)
                                         2L6

-------
Condition
WWTP Effluent
   Dry Weather
   'Wet' Weather
   Subtotal

'Wet' Dry Weather Overflow

Wet' Weather Combined
Sewer Overflows
   2.72 in. Rain (6.9cm)
   1.50 in. Rain (3.8cm)
   0.75 in. Rain (1.9cm)
   0.375 in. Rain (1.0cm)
   0.175 in. Rain (0.4 cm)
   Subtotal

Urban Storm Water
   2.72 in. Rain (6.9 cm)
   1.50 in. Rain (3.8cm)
   0.75 in. Rain (1.9cm)
   0.375 in. Rain (1.0cm)
   0.175 in. Rain (0.4cm)
   Subtotal

Total Annual Discharge
                                                 TABLE 117
                      SUMMARY OF PRESENT ANNUAL METRO AREA DISCHARGES
                                          BOD                       NO3                     O.PO4
                         Days       Ib             kg             Ib          kg           Ib
                                                                                                       kg
257
108
365
108
1
5
12
18
20
56
1
5
12
18
20
56
365
4,060,600
2,246,400
6,307,000
2,235,600
40,500
101,500
32,500
0
0
174,500
292,000
765,000
966,000
495,200
149,800
2,668,000
11,385,100
1,845,700
1,021,100
2,866,800
1,016,200
18,400
46,100
14,800
0
0
79,300
132,700
347,700
439,100
225,100
68,100
1,212,700
5,175,000
400,900
237,600
638,500
9,700
240
680
220
0
0
1,140
6,800
15,300
19,300
9,900
3,000
54,300
703,640
182,200
108,000
290,200
4,400
110
310
100
0
0
520
3,100
6,950
8,770
4,500
1,360
24,680
319,800
1,737,300
1,036,800
2,774,100
263,500
6,350
12,200
3,250
0
0
21,800
3,900
9,200
12,000
6,200
1,900
33,200
3,092,600
789,700
471,300
1,261,000
119,800
2,890
5,540
1,490
0
0
9,910
1,770
4,180
5,450
2,820
860
15,090
1,405,800
Source: Davis, P.L., and F. Borohardt, "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Plan, Des Moines, Iowa," EPA-R2-73-170, NTtS PB 234 183, April 1974.

-------
                                     TABLE 118
                   TOTAL ANNUAL YIELD OF POLLUTANTS FROM
               MUNICIPAL AND URBAN RUNOFF WASTES DURING 1972
 Suspended
 Solids       335

 Ultimate BOD  685
 COD       1,027
                   Municipal
                Raw
               Sanitary       Percent
           Ibs/ac/yr   kg/ha/yr  Removal*
                                              Percent
                    Urban           Total       Overall
    Effluent           Runoff           Yield       Removal
 lb»/ac/yr  kg/ha/yr   Ibs/ac/yr  kg/ha/yr   Ibs/ac/yr  kg/ha/yr   Efficiency
375
768
1,151
85
91
91
50
61
92
56
68
103
6,690
470
938
7,497
527
1,051
6,740
531
1,030
7,553
595
1.155
4
46
48
  Attum«d
 Souroo:  Colston, N.V., "Characterization and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff," USEPA Report EPA-670/2-74-096,
        Decambar, 1974.



     Perhaps a better indication of wet weather  effects is  shown in Table 119.
Suspended
Solids
                                      TABLE 119
               TOTAL YIELD OF POLLUTANTS DURING STORM PERIODS
                   FROM URBAN RUNOFF AND MUNICIPAL WASTES
             Municipal
               Raw
             Sanitary       Percent
          Ibs/ac/yr   kg/ha/yr  Removal*
            64
    Effluent
Ibs/ac/yr   kg/ha/yr
    Urban
    Runoff
Ibs/ac/yr  kg/ha/yr
               Percent
     Total        Overall
     Yield       Removal
Ibs/ac/yr   kg/ha/yr  Efficiency
72
146
218
85
91
91
10
12
18
11
13
20
6,617
447
895
7,415
601
1,003
6,627
459
913
7,426
514
1,023
1
20
16
Ultimate BOD  130

COD        195


 Source: Colston, N.V., "Characterization and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff," USEPA Report iPA-670/2-74-096,
       Decambar, 1974.
      During  the "wet" weather periods of  the year  the direct  contributions from
runoff are significantly greater  than those of wastewater effluents and  even
raw sanitary wastes.. In addition,  the relative overall removal efficiency can
be  estimated to control  only one  percent  of the suspended solids, 20 percent of
the ultimate BOD, and 16 percent  of the COD production in the basin.  This
represents around one-quarter,  somewhat less than  one-half, and one-third
respectively,  of the overall efficiencies computed for these  pollutants  on
an  annual basis.  It is  apparent  that the relative overall effect of sanitary
wastewater treatment would be even  less for individual high intensity rainfall
events.
                                          218

-------
     Since non-urban land uses occupy 97 percent of the land area of  the United
States, it seems  apparent that the largest quantitites of uncontrolled  pollutants
originate from  these areas,  as opposed to urban sources, on an annual discharge
basis.  Indeed, the impact of rural contributions on receiving water  quality
can be significant.   Results from a study in Des Moines, Iowa are shown in
Table  120.  This  table shows that the majority of organic loadings  found in
the Des Moines  River originated in upstream rural areas.  Only urban  ortho-
phosphate contributions were found to approach those from rural areas.  The
control and abatement of the contributions of the Des Moines community  were
considered insignificant compared to the receiving water demands imposed by up-
stream pollutant  sources. (58)  Although the annual pollutional discharges from
rural areas are significantly greater than those of urban areas, this does not
dismiss the relative impact or importance of urban pollution sources.
                                   TABLE 120
               ESTIMATES OF ANNUAL POLLUTANT CONTRIBUTIONS
               FROM URBAN AND NON-URBAN SOURCES, DES MOINES
 Parameter
 Low Water Year
Ib	kg
High Water Year
Ib           kg
Average Water Year
Ib           kg
BODS
Incoming
Metro Area
NO3
Incoming
Metro Area
O.PO4
Incoming
Metro Area
1 5,549,000
11,385,100
2,431,000
703,640
593,000
3,092,600
7,067,700
5,175,000
1,105,000
319,800
269,500
1,405,700
100,070,000
11,385,100
60,032,000
703,640
7,292,000
3,092,600
45,486,400
5,175,000
27,287,300
319,800
3,314,500
1,405,700
65,225,000
11,385,100
22,222,000
703,640
2,940,000
3,092,600
29,647,700
5,175,000
10,100,900
319,800
1 ,336,400
1 ,405,700
 Source:
       Davis, P.L.,, and F. Borchardt, "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Plan, Des Moines, Iowa," USEPA Report
       EPA-R2-73-17O, NTIS PB 234 183, April, 1974.
     In urbanized areas, the regrading  of  land  surfaces, the construction of
structures and facilities that result in greater basin imperviousness, and the
installation of drainage structures, all add to higher runoff rates and shorter
times of runoff concentration.  This factor, and the array of pollutants, in-
cluding heavy metals, from urban  areas, all contribute meaningfully to receiving
water impacts.  The significance  of  land use is shown in Figure  65.  In this
                                       219

-------
                                                                          14:00
                                                             ALTERNATIVE LAND USE
                                                                (Multiple Residential)

                                                             EXISTING LAND USE
                                                                   (Park)
                                                                          14:00
                            10:00
                                        11:00
                            12:00
13:00
14:00
                                           CLOCK TIME
   Figure 65. Effect of changed land use on characteristics of subcatchment runoff from
                         Shelby Street Watershed, San Francisco
Sourco:
        Roesnor, L.A., et al.,
        Resources Research
                          ,
, "A Model for Evaluating Runoff Quality in Metropolitan Master Planning,"
Program Technical Memorandum No. 23, New York, N.Y., April, 1974.
                                                                                  ASCE Urban Water
                                              220

-------
figure, the modelling effects of changing land use, from a park use to a multiple
residential use, resulted in higher runoff discharges and generally higher pol-
lutional load from that area by more than 10 times. (80)   Thus, although urban
areas represent only three percent of the nation's land area, the relative pol-
lutional contributions and receiving water impacts associated with urban areas
are disproportionate to their size and must be dealt with in order to insure
receiving water quality.


RECEIVING WATER IMPACT

     Receiving water impacts are generally the time-related effects of pollution
on the water body.  Thus, in a flowing stream, river or estuary, some of the
impact of pollutant contributions may be realized at locations far downstream
from the point of discharge.  In addition, certain pollutant additions may pro-
duce depositions that exert long term effects on the aquatic system.  In lakes and
other water bodies with long term flow retention capabilities, the most widely
noted impact is eutrophication or the changes due to excessive nutrient enrich-
ment.

     Receiving water impacts have been evaluated in a number of ways.  These gener-
ally involve the assessment of individual water quality parameters through the
estimation of the mass balance of pollutant loadings in successive segments of the
water body.  Of particular interest is the analysis of biological oxygen demand
to assess the effects of biodegradable organic contaminants on dissolved oxygen
levels in a receiving stream.  With the advent of the computer, more complex
evaluations of impact have become possible.  These may include the modelling of
receiving water hydrodynamics, chemical, and biological pollutant transformations
and their ecological effects on various biota. (97)  They may also involve the
impact of specific pollutants on specific biological groupings. (98)

Dissolved Oxygen

     Dissolved oxygen concentrations are often considered the most important
indicator of surface water quality.  Low concentrations result in poor environ-
mental conditions for fish and other aquatic life.  Complete or major oxygen
depletion creates or threatens to provide septic conditions.  Aquatic dissolved
oxygen is primarily from atmospheric sources and is also produced by aquatic
plant life.  The decomposition of organic pollution by oxygen consuming micro-
organisms may cause large decreases in surface water dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions.  Biological oxygen demand, BOD, is a measure of the potential oxygen
depletion associated with the biological decomposition of organic material over
a given time interval and temperature.  Decreases in dissolved oxygen depend
upon the amount of BOD in the receiving water, the exertion rate of the BOD,
and also the dissolved oxygen content and the reaeration characteristics of the
water body. (99)
                                       221

-------
     Various hypothetical case  studies have been developed  to indicate  the
relative impacts of  direct urban  runoff and combined sewer  overflow contri-
butions on dissolved oxygen levels in receiving waters.  One such analysis
involved the estimation of the  effects of direct urban runoff on a receiving
stream. (100)  The hypothetical city was of 100,000 population and a drainage
area of 50 km2 (19.3 mi2).  In  addition, the  city has 1,368 km (850 mi) of
streets, a street surface contaminant loading of 42 kg/eurb-km/day (150 Ib/curb-
mi/day), and a sanitary wastewater flow of 0.52 m^/sec (12  mgd).   Further, an
uncontaminated receiving water  of 2.8 m^/sec  (100 cfs) and  a critical rainfall
event  of 6.4 nun (0.25 in) were  also assumed.   The results of this analysis
produced the discharges shown in  Table 121.
                                      TABLE 121
                    COMPARISON OF STORMWATER AND SANITARY
                     WASTEWATER DISCHARGES FOR CASE STUDY
                                            Metric Ton/Yr*
        Discharge
        Raw Storm Water
        Raw Sewage
        Treated Sewage
         (secondary)
        Storm Water as
        Percent of Storm-
        water and
        Raw Sewage
        Storm Water as
        Percent of Storm-
        water and
        Treated Sewage
Total
Solids
17,000
 5,200

  520
   77
   97
COD
2400
4800

 480
  33
  83
       Total
BODLPhosphates
1200
4400

 440
  21
  73
 50
200

 10
 20
 83
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
  50
 800

  80
Lead
 31
Zinc
 6
  39
         Metric Ton » 1,000 kg = 1.1 tons
        Source:  Pitt, R.E.. and Field R,, "Water Quality Effects from Urban Runoff," a paper presented at the 1974
              American Water Works Association Conference, Boston, Massachusetts.
                                        222

-------
     As this table indicates,  the major  contributions of pollutants would  be
attributable to  direct runoff  when secondary treatment of sanitary sewage  was
provided for all contaminants  but Kjeldahl Nitrogen.   Figure  66 depicts  the
projected stream impacts of  these contributions on dissolved  oxygen levels for
steady state conditions.  The  analytical approach  employed is based on the
assumption that  pollutants accumulate  in urban drainage basins.  The degree
of accumulation  is projected in this case to reflect  varying  effects on  the
receiving water.
       10-
      z
      § «'

               TREATED SANITARY WASTEWATER + 16,000 kg
               (36,000 Ibl BOOL IN URBAN RUNOFF (5 days accumulation!
                             345             7

                                DAYS OF TRAVEL FROM DISCHARGE
                                                                         10
                             Figure 66, Oxygen sag curves for case study.
  Source:  Pitt, R.E., and Field R., "Water Quality Effects from Urban Runoff," Paper presented at the 1974
         American Water Works Association Conference, Boston, Massachusetts.
                                         223

-------
     Assuming a desirable dissolved oxygen level of  5 mg/1,  the  level  attri~
butable to the effect of treated sanitary effluents  is well  above  this criterion.
The contributions of runoff reflecting  the contaminant removals  from every  one
day's accumulation will force the dissolved oxygen level below the 5 rag/1 limit,
and septic conditions will be realized  in the receiving water  from the runoff
contributions estimated from five day's pollutant accumulation.

     Another steady state analysis was  performed on  a similar  hypothetical  city
to suggest the impacts attributable to  combined sewer overflows, but not direct
runoff or sources other than sanitary sewage. (101)  Although  the  case study
involved the same population, in this case the drainage area was taken as
 81 fcn^ (31 mi^), a. dry-weather flow of 0.55 m3/sec  (12.5 mgd) was assumed  and
the receiving stream was taken to have  a discharge of 56 m^/sec  (2,000 cfs).
Data from Bucyrus, Ohio,(57) on overflow quality and a rainfall  event  with  a
recurrence interval of one year produced the results in Table  122  .  This table
indicates sag-point dissolved oxygen concentrations  and the  number of  days
during which dissolved oxygen is below  a 4.0 mg/1 level for  various  degrees of
treatment of sanitary sewage and combined sewer overflows.   In  each case,  dry
weather flows alone produced conditions above the 4.0 mg/1 criterion for all
levels of treatment.  The net effects of degree of treatment on  sanitary effluents
and combined sewer overflows are indicated in both minimum dissolved oxygen levels
and the number of days below standard.  The greatest relative  beneficial effects
of stream impacts are associated with primary treatment of overflows.
                                   TABLE 122
                     SAG-POINT DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS
              AND THE RELATED NUMBER OF DAYS BELOW CRITERIA
               Minimum
       Plant    Dissolved
      Overflows  Oxygen, mg/1
      Untreated
      Primary
      Treatment
1.0

2.8
Days
Below
Standard
5
3
Minimum
Dissolved
Oxygen, mg/I
1,8
3.5
Days
Below
Standard
4
3
Minimum
Dissolved
Oxygen, mg/1
2.5
3.9
Days
Below
Standard
4
1
      Source:  Untltlod paper prepared by Robert Crim, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
      The foregoing hypothetical examples,  while illustrative, do not reflect
 the myriads  of  other influences that also  contribute  to receiving water impacts,
 Although desirable, few receiving streams  can be assumed to be uncontaminated.
 Few receiving waters can be considered  free of the effects of other sources of
 pollution or the residual effects of past  rainfall events.  The analytical
 methods  for  determining BOD exertion rates for runoff (64) and the methods of
                                        224

-------
assessing receiving water reaeration (102) may be suspect.  Even the method
by which discharges are introduced into the receiving water (103) and the
resulting dispersion of discharges in the aquatic environment (104) have an
important bearing  on resulting impacts.

     A real world theoretical analysis of organic pollutant of storm and
receiving stream was developed in connection with a study of storm and com-
bined sewer pollution in Atlanta, Georgia, and its effects on the South
River. (95)   The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 67.  The average
annual dissolved oxygen deficits for dry-weather flows are shown, as well as
the projected impacts of a two-week storm confined to the headwaters of the
drainage areas.  Average dissolved oxygen concentrations for dry weather flow
amounted to 3.9 mg/1, although minima of 1.9 mg/1 were experienced.  Annual
average B"OD loads from separate storm areas were found to be approximately
55 percent of the loads from combined sewer areas.

     The impact of direct and indirect runoff contributions are also demon-
strated in the figure for various exertion constants and treatment conditions.
As indicated, the relative influence of storm runoff and combined sewer
overflows are significant for the assumed conditions.  It was suggested that
the impacts of combined sewer overflows were due not only to the increased
volume of biodegradable organic materials contributed, but also to higher
deoxygenation rates due to the percentage of sanitary sewage.

     Another steady state analysis of receiving water dissolved oxygen concen-
trations on the urbanized Third Fork Creek Basin in Durham, North Carolina,
produced the results shown in Table 123.  In this table, the impacts of treated
sanitary effluents and direct runoff contributions were analyzed.  Deoxygena-
tion rates in this analysis were determined by the laboratory analysis of
representative runoff samples by COD analysis over time, which were taken to
provide an estimate of ultimate BOD exertion rates.  The impact of small
rainfall events was found to be negligible for the assumed conditions.  In
addition, treated sanitary effluents exerted no effect on dissolved oxygen
levels.  For larger storm events the impact of the various parts of the run-
off hydrograph—the "first flush," hydrograph peak, the falling limb tail—
were evaluated.  For each of the larger storms the "first flush" and hydro-
graph peak contributions exert a greater effect on dissolved oxygen than the
remainder of the runoff.  This indicates the relative effects of the earlier
components of the runoff event and the significance of the "first flush."
In comparison to a tentative criterion of 5 mg/1 dissolved oxygen, the runoff
pollutional contributions associated with a one to two-year return period
storm or greater, could produce subcritical dissolved oxygen levels in the
receiving water.  The enhancement of dissolved oxygen by various levels of
treatment is also shown.
                                       225

-------
                  J1JKMII.   I
                  mi!«tD IX  I
                  NtJk;*t;i*i
              Q-  Mil §»lf—«-|
                                 DISTANCE {ft x 10*1
NJ
NJ
ON
                                                                                     60
                                                                                      1
                                                                   80
                                                                   f
90
1
i   too
 i    i
                                                   SATURHTIOS  0.0. C3HCc:iTB*TION »  8.25 ng/1
            J
                                                                             NOTE:
                        -CRY  WEATHER  FLOW--
                         OiSERVED D.O. PROFILE
                                      A.  »LL tmiTP FLOW TREATED;   STORM DRAINAGE K, = 0.05

                                      B.  ALL WTP FLOW 8T-PASSED; STORM OMiNASE K, =0,05

                                      C.  ILL SMTP FLOW TREATED;   STORM CRAJNAEE K, =0.10
THEORETICAL D,0. PROFILES
   FOR  TfO-WEEK STORM
                            Figure 67. Theoretical annual average dissolved oxygen profiles in South River for two-week storm.
          Source:   Black, Crow and  Eidsness,  Inc., "Storm and Combined Sowar Pollution Sources and Abatement," USEPA  Report
                   No. 11024ELB01/71 SNTIS No. PB 201 725), January, 1971.

-------
              TABLE 123. RESULTS OF OXYGEN-SAG COMPUTATIONS FOR STUDY WATERSHED
Rain-
fall Du ra-
in tion
Storm Type (cm) (hr)
Small Storm 0.1 1
(0.25)
Small Storm 0.1 3
(0.25)
1-2 year Storm 1.0 5
(2.54)


Is?
"xl
5-year Storm 3.3 5
(8.4)




7-day, 10-year — —
Return
Period Storm
(yr) Component
- Total
Storm
- Total
Storm
1 to 2 First
Flush
Peak
Falling
Limb
Tail
5 First
Flush
Peak
Falling
Limb
Tail
	 	
Storm Regeneration Ultimate
Flow Coefficient BOD
(efs) (day:1:) (mg/l)
40

20

200

315
200

75
500

1,100
800

300
0.3
4.00

5.70

1.25

0.86
1.25

2.75
0.58

0.32
0.40

0.90
0.13
40

31

75

62
47

37
85

70
54

42
15
Flow
Deoxygena- Time
tion to Sag
Coefficient Point
(day'1) (day)
0.12

0.12

0.12

Q.12
0.12

0.12
0.12

0.12
0.12

0.12
0.12
0

0

2.0

2.6
1.9

0.8
3.4

4.8
4.2

2.4
6.0
DO
Deficit
at Sag
Point
(mg/l)
0

0

5.6

6.3
3.5

1.4
11.7

14.7
9.7

4.1
11.9
D.O.
at
Sag
Point
(mg/l)
10.0

10.0

4.5

3.8
6.5

8.7
0*

0*
0.3

5.9
0*
no
Point
BOD
St<
20%
	

_

5.6

5.0
7.2

8.9
0.7

0*
2.3

6.8
0*
(mg/l) at Sag
: With Stated
Removal from
armwater
40%
: 	

—

6.7

6.3
7.9

9.1
3.0

1.2
4.2

7.6
0*
60%
	

_

7.8

7.5
8.6

10.0
5.3

4.1
6.1

8.4
0*
       Low Flow

•Anaerobic
                                                       9
Notes:
 1 Treatment Plant Pararntetars for all Cases: Flow  = 5.1 cfs
                                   BOD  = 27 mg/l
                                   D.O.  = 3,3 mg/l
 2. Water temperature assumed to be 60°F,

 3. Initial stormwatar D.O. estimated at 9.5 mg/l based on watershed observations.

Source:  Colston, N.V., "Characteristics and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff," USEPA Report No. EPA-670/2-74-096 (NTIS No. PB 202
865), December, 1974.

-------
      An  evaluation  of  the Milwaukee River Watershed  (99)  in  Wisconsin led  to
the findings  indicated in Table  124 .   This  table shows estimates  of  dissolved


            TABLE 124. POTENTIAL EFFECT OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
                    ON THE WATER QUALITY OF THE MILWAUKEE RIVER
                                 ABOVE THE NORTH AVENUE DAM3


                                               RIVER CONDITION IN AUGUST WITH AVERAGE FLOW (170cfs)c
WITHOUT OVERFLOW
Rimf.ll
Runoff
Otpth
In,
(cm)
0-0.05
(0-0.13)
0,05-0.10
(0.13-0.25)
0.10-0.30
(0.25-0.76)
0.30-0.60
(0,76.1.5)
0.60-1-00
(1.5 -2.5)
1,00-2,00
(2.5 -5.1 >
4.0O-5.00
(10,2 -12.7)

Volume of
Combined
Sewer
Overflows'1
Annual Number ac-ft
of Runoff
EvurrtJ
16

8

15

3

3,25

1.32

0.12

(ha-ra)
Per E»ent
4.4
(0.54)
13.2
( 1.6)
35
( 4.3)
78
( 9.6)
140
(17.2)
.260
(32.0)
700
(86.3!



BOD Per Voluma/Day
Event*
Ib (kg)
1,800
(816.5)
5,400
(2449.4)
14,000
(6350.3)
32,000
(14515.0)
58.000
(26308.0)
108,000
(48987.7)
287,000
(130180.3)
ac-ft
(ha-m)
340
(42)
340
(42)
340
(42)
340
(42)
340
(42)
340
(42)
340
(42)
BCD/Day
Ib (kg)
4,600
(2,087!
4,600
(2.087)
4.600
(2,087)
4,600
(2,087)
4,600
(2,087)
4,600
(2,087)
4,600
(2,087)

DO
Ib/gal
fms/l!
42
(5.0)
42
(5.0)
42
(5.0)
42
(5.0)
42
(5.0!
42
(5.0)
42
(5.0!
WITH COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW


Volume/Day
ac-ft (ha-m)
344
(42!
353
(44)
375
(46!
418
(52)
480
(59)
600
(74)
1,040
(128)

BOD'

Ib (kg)
6,400
(2,903)
10,000
(4,536)
18,600
(8,437)
36,600
(16,601)
62,600
(28,395)
112,600
(51,074)
291,000
(132,267)


Ib/gal
(rng/l)
58
(7)
83
(10!
150
(18!
267
(32)
401
(481
576
(69)
860
(103)
DOd
24 Hour
After
Overflow
Ib/pl (mg/l)
33
(3.93)
26
(3.07)
3.0
(0.35)
0

0

0

0

  *far purpotat of thli computation, »»ch overflow evem it aftyrned to mix with the volume of river flow for one day.
  blm*rc«otOf iew*r capacity atiumad to be 1.0 DWF, contributing area equals 2,100 ac (850 ha).
  cAvir»e* Aufluit river flow bated on 16 yean of record (1949-1964) for Ettabrook Park gsuga. Average 5-dav 20°C BOD of river and combined «ewer overflow.
  (*Q;!ia!v*a> o*vSr»rt concentration *t wmmar water temperature of 77°F (25°C3.
  'ffeetuancy an§*yi!t b««d on 16 v«*ff of record (1949-19641 in tne Chicago metropolitan »r*«.
  'AvarcQ* 5
-------
oxygen concentrations in the river for both dry and wet-weather conditions.
All wet-wether contributions have been assumed to take the form of combined
sewer overflows, with a BOD .concentration of 150 mg/1. The comparison of dis-
solved oxygen concentrations for dry and wet-weather conditions suggests the
relative impact of combined sewer overflows estimated to annually contribute
about 10 percent of the average BOD arriving at the North Avenue impoundment
during an average year.  In an average year the remaining 90 percent of annual
BOD originates in upstream flows and is due to industrial discharges, non-
sewered runoff, stormsewer discharges, and sanitary sewer system bypasses.
It should be noted, in addition, that the dissolved oxygen concentrations cited
do not reflect sag point conditions, but rather conditions 24 hours after the
overflow.

     An analysis of the impacts of organic loadings on the Upper Potomac Estuary
in Washington was performed to evaluate their effects on dissolved oxygen levels
in various reaches of the receiving water. (106)  A plan of the Potomac Estuary
and the major receiving water quality problems identified in this water body
are depicted in Figure 68.  As an estuary, the receiving water is subject to
tidal influences.  The new outflow velocities experienced in the estuary due
to these influences are shown in Table 125.  As part of the overall analysis,
data from two separate years were evaluated.  One year, 1966, represented a  low
annual flow within the estuary while the second year, 1971, was one with an
average annual flow.

     A BODe profile of the estuary appears in Figure 69.  This figure indicates
both acutal data and modelled estimates of BODc concentrations.  Definite BODc
peaks can be discerned from this profile.  These were due to pollutional contri-
butions from the discharges of Rock Creek, the Anacostia River and the treated
effluents of the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.  The peaks at Rock
Creek and the Anacostia River were not as discernible in the dry-weather BODc
profiles for the average flow year, 1971.  A related low flow dissolved oxygen
concentration profile is shown in Figure 70.  This indicates the modelled and
actual dissolved oxygen responses to the organic loadings represented for low-
flow conditions.  Both modelled and actual profiles depict substandard levels
in various parts of the estuary.  One of the major contributions to low dis-
solved oxygen levels is the treated effluents discharged from the Blue Plains
Treatment Plant.

     The effects of a storm event on the estuary are shown in Figure 71.  Pre-
storm conditions show a small peak due to Rock Creek contributions and significant
additions due to the effluent from the Blue Plains Treatment Plant.  Under storm
conditions the contributions from direct and indirect runoff are apparent.  The
additions from Rock Creek are significant for the assumed storm conditions.
Over time, the peak can be seen to proceed downstream.

     An indication of the effects of dry-weather flow treatment is indicated in
Figure 72.  These data demonstrate the depression of dissolved oxygen levels
associated with storm runoff and combined sewer overflows, over time, even though
higher quality effluents are being discharged from the treatment facility.  Thus,
storm runoff and combined sewer overflows may exert a significant impact on
receiving water bodies, and this must be considered in the analysis of receiving
water quality.

                                        229

-------
                 Periodically
                 High Bacterial
                 Densities
                                                                   Periodically High
                                                                   Bacterial Densities
                                                                   and Low Dissolved
                                                                   Oxygen Levels
                                                                           Periodically Moderate
                                                                           Bacterial Densities
                                                                           Low Dissolved
                                                                           Oxygen Levels and
                                                                           Beginnin of
                                                                           Algal Blooms
                                                                            Pronounced
                                                                            Nuisance Algal
                                                                            Growths
                                                                             Brackish
                                                                             Waters
Sourc»:
           Figure 68. The Potomac estuary and its major pollution problems.

Matcalf and Eddy Engineers and Water Resources Engineers, Inc., "Reconnaissance Study of Combined Sewer
Overflows and Storm Sewer  Discharges,"  a report prepared for the Department of Environmental Services,
District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., March, 1973.
                                                230

-------
                    TABLE 125. TIDAL AND NET RIVER VELOCITIES
                         Downstream
24-HOUR VELOCITY, mi/day (km/day)
           Upstream
Net
Location
Potomac River
1. Roosevelt
Island
2. Just below
Blue Plains
Plant
3. Hallowing
Point
1966
1.21
(2.02)
5.16
(8.60)
5.86
(9.77)
1971
3.27
(B.45)
5.91
(9.85)
5.80
(9.67)
1966
0.46
(0.76)
4.43
(7.38)
5.54
(9.23)
1971
0
(0)
3.36
(5,60)
4.90
(8.17)
1966
0.75
(1.25)
0.73
(1.22)
0.32
(0.53)
1971
3.27
(5.45)
2.55
(4.25)
0.90
(1.50)
Anacostia River

1. Main River at        1.22          1.47          1.11          0.81          0.11          0.66
  Upper  End of       (2.03)        (2.45)        (1.85)         (1.35)        (0.18)        (1.10)
  Kingman Lake

2. Between             0.90          0.90          0.89         0.80          0.1           0.02
  Douglas &          (1.50)        (1.50)        (1.48)         (1.48)        (0.16)        (0.03)
  11th Street
  Bridges
Source:  Metcalf and Eddy Engineers and Water Resources Engineers, Inc., "Reconnaisanee Study of Combined Sower
        Overflows and Storm Sewer  Discharges," a report prepared for the Department of Environmental Services,
        District of Columbia, Washington, D.C.. March, 1973.
                                               231

-------
(Major outfall)
(Tributaries)
(Major outfall)
(Tributaries)
(Plant effluent)
(Major outfall)
   12H
      A    Chain Bridge
      B    Mouth of Rock Cr.
      C    14th St. Bridge
      D    Mouth of the Anacostia River
      E    Blue Plains Plant
      F    Ft. Washington
Case:   Dry Weather Flow
Year    1966
Flow   880 cfs (25.3 m3/sec)
Temp.  80.6° F {27°C>
Actual Data

Model Data •
                                                                  \
                                                                                                29  mi
                                                                                               48.1 km
   Source:
                           DISTANCE FROM CHAIN BRIDGE
                     Figure 69. BOD5 in the Potomac estuary,
                                 1966 dry weather.
Metcalf and Eddy Engineers and Water Resources Engineers, Inc., "Reconnaissance Study of Combined Sew®r
Overflows and Storm  Sewer  Discharges," a report prepared for the Department of Environmental Services,
District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., March, 1973.
                                                  232

-------
      MAIN RIVER
      (Major outfall)     A    Chain Bridge
      (Tributaries)       B    Mouth of Rock Cr.
      (Major outfall)     C    14th St. Bridge
      (Tributaries)       D    Mouth of the Anacostia River
      (Plant effluent)    E    Blue Plains Plant
      (Major outfall)     F    Ft, Washington
             Case;    Dry Weather Flow
             Year    1966
             Flow    880 cfs (25.3 m3/sec)
             Temp.   80.6° F (27° C)

             Standard  	'
             Actual Data —	
             Model Data 	
   10-
       A
    8 -
1
o
Q
              x
ifiiiiiiiuiiif iiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
                     T—
                       5
                      8.3
  I               I	1—
 10              15             20
16.6            24.9           33.2
DISTANCE FROM CHAIN BRIDGE
                         25
                        41.5
 29  mi
48.1 km
                      Figure 70. Dissolved oxygen in the Potomac estuary.
                                       1966 dry weather.
  Source:  Metealf and Eddy Engineers and Water Resources Engineers, Inc., "Reconnaissance Study of Combined Sewer
          Overflows and  Storm  Sewer Discharges," a report prepared for the Department of Environmental Services,
          District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., March, 1973.
                                                 233

-------
(Major outfall)    A    Chain Bridge
(Tributaries)      B    Mouth of Rock Cr.
(Major outfall)    C    14th St. Bridge
(Tributaries)      D    Mouth of the Anacostia River
(Plant effluent)   E    Blue Plains Plant
(Major outfall)    F    Ft. Washington
                                                              Case:   Simulated Storm, August 27,1971
                                                              Year    1971 Background
                                                              Flow   4,761 cfs (135.2 m3/sec)
                                                              Actual Data
                                                              Model Data	
	Pre Storm
	Storm 1
                                                                                     Storm 2
                                                                                             T
                                                                                             29
                                                                                            48.1
ml       0             5               10              15             20             25
km                    8.3             16.6            24.9           33.2           41.5
                                       DISTANCE FROM CHAIN BRIDGE

                               Figure 71. BOD5 in the Potomac estuary.
                                         1971 storm condition.
  Source:  Motcalf and Eddy Engineers and Wator Resources Engineers, Inc., "Reconnaissance Study of Combined Sewer
          Overflows and Storm Sewar Discharges," a report prepared for the Department of Environmental Services,
          District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., March, 1973.
                                                 234

-------
           (Major outfall)    A    Chain bridge
           {Tributaries)     B    Mouth of Rock Cr.
           (Major outfall)    C    14th St. Bridge
           (Tributaries)      D    Mouth of the Anacostia River
           (Plant effluent)   E    Blue Plains Plant
           (Major outfall)    F    Ft. Washington
                                                Case:   Dry Weather Flow
                                                Year    1966
                                                Flow   890 cfs (25.3 m3/sec)
                                                Temp,  80.6° F (27° C)
                                                Standard
                                                Actual Data
                                                Model Data
                    B
                    I
  C
   I
D
 I
E
i
     8-
  o
  Q
                                                                          AFTER UPGRADING
     4-
     2-
        iiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiii
                            iiiiiiiiimn
                  MAIN RIVER
                                                                  BEFORE UPGRADING
                                     -r
                                                     -I-
mi
km
 5
8.3
       10             16             20
      16.6           24.9           33,2
       DISTANCE FROM CHAIN BRIDGE
                                             25
                                            41.5
 29
48.1
                Figure 72. Dissolved oxygen in the Potomac estuary due to dry-weather
                                        flow treatment enehaneement.
    Source:
            Lager, John A,, P.E., Vice President, Metcal and Eddy, Inc., "Application of Simplified Math Models for
            Combined System Impact Analysis," Palo Alto, California.
                                               235

-------
     An assessment of a lake response to the contribution of oxygen-consuming
contaminants was performed as part of the study of Onondaga Lake in New York.
(105)  In this analysis, the total oxygen demand was estimated to reflect the
contributed effects of both carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand.  Suf-
ficient nitrifying bacteria were found in the lake waters, on the basis of
20-day oxygen demand tests, to indicate a significant impact.

     An evaluation of lake hydrodynamics based on the structure of the lake
and water currents produced the "stabilization zone" depicted in Figure  73 .
The "stabilization zone" is defined as that volume of the lake that will ef-
fectively stabilize the major sources of total oxygen demand under critical
conditions of minimal lake water currents.  Estimates of total oxygen demand
for a number of sources were used in the analysis.  These included waste dis-
charges, air pollutants, benthic demand and the total oxygen demand produced
within the lake itself.

     Air pollution contributions were defined from a country-wide air pollution
study, benthic demands were estimated from core samples and waste discharge
contributions were determined from a detailed waste discharge survey of tribu-
tary streams.  The lake stabilization depicted is a response to the average daily
additions of total oxygen demand from each of these sources.  Assumed variations
in total oxygen demands to the receiving waters resulted in the curve shown in
Figure 74 .  This curve relates the percentage of dissolved oxygen saturation at
17.4°C (63.3°F) for various levels of total oxygen demand contributions to the
lake.  A comparison of estimated existing loadings and projected loadings due to
new sewage treatment facilities  are shown in Table 126.

     The indicated values are average daily loadings, based on a grab sampling
program, with the exception of combined sewer overflows.  Overflow quality esti-
mates were taken as a percentage of the BOD tributary to the Metro Treatment
Plant.  These estimated loading values in Figure  74, indicate that septic
conditions would be experienced with existing daily loadings and that approximate-
ly 50 percent of the saturated dissolved oxygen level (4.7 mg/1) could be realized
by improvements to treated wastewater effluents.  In this analysis, combined
sewer overflows were considered relatively insignificant.  The values assigned,
however, were based on average conditions and as such, may not reflect the im-
mediate impacts of direct runoff contributions throughout the tributary area
other than overflows on select tributaries.  These might be expected to produce
greater short-term effects than shown.

     The previous analyses have centered primarily on the impact of the apparent
direct pollutional contributions of storm runoff and combined sewer overflows.
The effects of shock loadings of biodegradable organic materials due to indivi-
dual rainfall events, may appear to represent relatively transient conditions
which, while undesirable, will dissipate  over  relatively short  periods  of time.
Longer-term impacts may also result from these and other pollutional contribu-
tions to the receiving water body.

     A study of receiving water impacts on the Menomonee and Milwaukee Rivers in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, disclosed some of these longer-term impacts.  (99)  This study
was  conducted  to evaluate a combined sewer overflow  detention tank and its effects
                                        236

-------
KJ
LO
               ,LAKE STABILIZATION ZONE
                Based on Critical Conditions
                                                       AIR POLLUTION
                                                     950 Ib/day (431 kg/day)
                                                             I
                                                                                                      LAKE OUTLET
                                            NINE MILE CREEK
                                                                   1,902 Ib/day
                                                                    (864 kg/day)
          HARBOR BROOK
          1,647 Ib/day
          (748 kg/day)
                     ONONDAGA CREEK
                        4,562 Ib/day
                       (2,071 kg/day)
                                                             BENTHIC DEPOSITS
                                                  LEY CREEK
                                                  67,891 Ib/day
                                                  (30,823 kg/day)
                                                                                             THERMOCLINE
                                                                                           29.5-39.4 ft (9-12 m)
\
  \
             \
      \
                 \
Ib/day  —   Present daily average discharge of TOD5,
           unless otherwise noted
LCSTP  —   Ley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant
MSTP  —   Metro Sewage Treatment Plant
                                       PRESENTLY BEING
                                        PUMPED TO MSTP
                                                    Figure 73. Onondaga Lake stabilization zone.
      Source:  O'Brien and Gere Consulting Engineers, "Onondaga Lake Study," USEPA Report No. 11060FAE4/71 (NTIS
             No. PB 206 472), April, 1971.

-------
   804-

   70--


ui  6°--
5
2
O

<
OS
3
O
Q
   50--
   40--
   30-_
   20--
   10--
            140
                    120
                                                              BASIS OF CALCULATION:
                                                                Critical Conditions
                         Lake Temperature
                         DO in Lake (OLDO)
                         BOD5 in Lake {OLBOD5j
                         Deoxygenation Rate (K^)
                         DO Saturation
                         TOD5 Input (TULBS)
                               63.3° F (17.4°C)
                               0.66 mg/l
                               6.41 mg/I
                               0-18/day
                               9.46 mg/l
                               126,000 Ib/day
                               (57,567 kg/day)
                                                        Note: Projection curve accounts for
                                                          nitrogeneous oxygen demand,
                                                          NOD  = 0.28 BOD
                 60
                        50
40
40  |  20
   15
Ib x 103
kg/103
                       TOD5 INPUT TO LAKE
                               Figure 74. Lake dissolved oxygen versus BOD input.
    Source:  O'Briari and Gere Consulting Engineers, "Onondaga Lake Study," USEPA Report No. 11060FAE4/71 {NTIS No,
           PB 206 472). April. 1971.
                 TABLE 126. EXISTING AND PREDICTED LOADINGS
                                 TO ONONDAGA LAKE
                                       Existing Loadings         Existing Future Loadings
                                                        TODS
                                    Ib/day         kg/day       Ib/day          kg/day
Metro Plant Effluent
Ley Creek Plant Effluent
Lay Creek
Onondaga Creek
Harbor Brook
Combined Sewer Overflows
Nine Mile Creek
Steel Mill
Air Pollution
Benthic Demand
48,791
67,891

4,562
1,647
10,750
1,902
945
950
100
22,200
30,860

2,070
750
4,890
860
430
430
45
8,100

13,381
4,562
1,647
10,750
1,902
945
950
100
3,690

6,080
2,070
750
4,890
860
430
430
45
      Total
                                    137,538
                   62,500
              43,337
                19,700
      Sourco:  O'Brien and Gere Consulting Engineers, "Onondaga Lake Study," USEPA Report No, 11060FAE4/71
             (NTIS No. PB 206 472), April, 1971.
                                             238

-------
on  receiving water  quality.   Benthai deposits  in  the Milwaukee River were found
to  demonstrate a marked  capacity  to degrade water  quality as  measured by dis-
solved oxygen.   An  indication of  this effect at two monitoring stations  is
shown in  Figure 75.  This figure shows that from 0,8 to  2.0 mg/1 of  dissolved
            Model Verification

            Model Without Benthal
            Oxygen Demand
            0 = 0900  5/17/72
                    12
                    10
                 O)
                 o
                 X
                 o
                 0
                 111
                 >
                 o
                 %
                                                                ST. PAULAVE
                                                                Station 52
                     0 10    30    50   70    90   110   13O    150   17O   190
                     5/17 '  5/18 '  5/19  I  5/20  I  5/21  1  5/22  I  5/23  I  5/24  I 5/25
                     Wed    Thu    Fri     Sat     Sun    Mon    Tue     Wed   Thu

                                            TIME (hrs)
M
O
                                                                     WATER ST
                                                                    Station 59
                          i
                       O 10
                              30
                                    50
                                         70
                                               90
                       5/17
                       Wed
                                                    110

                                                      '
                                                          130   150
                                                                     170   190
                          '  5/18  I  5/19  I 5/20 I  5/21  ' 5/22  '  5/23  I  5/24   I 5/25
                            Thu    Fri    Sat     Sat    Sun    Tue     Wed    Thu
                                                TIME (hrs)
            Figure 75. Oxygen demand effects of benthal deposits on dissolved oxygen levels.
Source: Consoer, Townsend  and  Associates,  "Detention Tank for  Combined Sewer Overflow,   Milwaukee, Wisconsin,"
      Demonstration Project prepared for the Milwaukee Department of Public Works, Wisconsin Bureau of Engineers, USEPA
      No. EPA-600/2-75-071 (NTS No. PB 250 427), December,  197S.
                                             239

-------
OKygen variation was  due to these deposits.   The variation  in these benthal
effects,  with respect to increasing flows in  the Milwaukee  River, appear  in
Figure 76.  This figure shows a  reduction in  dissolved oxygen deficits due to
benthal  deposits with increasing flow, as would be appropriate for a finite
pollutant source.   Thus, in mature streams and  in other water bodies where
sedimentation processes may occur,  the deposition of contaminants may be  ex-
pected to contribute  to longer-term quality impairment.  The resuspension of
these  contaminants  caused by the flushing effects of large  quantities of  run-
off can  also magnify  the impact  of these events on water quality.
te  I
Ul —
CC H

Si

§ O
3 a
               WATER STREET
               BOTTOM DEMAND = 4gm/m2-day
                  Survey I
                             Survey 111
                                                                       Survey IV
           100
                200       300        400        500
                           MILWAUKEE RIVER FLOW (cfs)
                               HUWIBOLDT AVENUE
                                                              600
700
            Figure 76. Dissolved oxygen deficit due to benthal oxygen demand.
 Source: Consocr, Townscnd and Associates,  "Detention  Tank for Combined Sewer Overflow,  Milwaukee, Wisconsin,"
       Demonstration Project prepared for the Milwaukee Department of Public Works, Wisconsin Bureau of Engineers, USEPA
       No. EPA-600/2-7 5-071 (NTS No. PB 250 427), December, 197S,
                                          240

-------
Nutrients

     Abundant contributions of nutrients  to  a  receiving water can produce
nuisance conditions due to the growth  of  algae and aquatic plants, the pro-
duction of highly organic sediments, and  radical variations in dissolved oxygen
concentrations due to the photosynthetic  activity of  these algae and plants.
In lakes, nutrient enrichment can be a critical consideration in L'he benefi-
cial uses of the water bodies.  The effects  of nutrient enrichment have been
defined as:
    •  A steady decrease in the dissolved oxygen content of the hypolimnion
         when measured prior to the fall  overturn.
    •  An increase in anaerobic areas  in  the lower portions of the hypolimnion
    •  An increase in dissolved materials, especially nutrients such as nitro-
         gen, phosphorus, and simple carbohydrates
    »  An increase in suspended solids, especially organic materials
    •  A shift in aquatic organism community structure, involving changes
         in species types and the abundance  of species and biomass
    •  A steady decrease in light penetration
    •  An increase in organic materials and  nutrients, particularly phos-
         phorus, in bottom deposits
    •  Increases in total phosphorus in the  spring of the year. (94)

     Few simple generalizations can be expressed covering nutrient loadings,
concentrations, and the production of  aquatic  biota due to a number of physical
influences such as receiving water depth, shore line  extent, flow-through and
detention time. (75)  An indication of specific loading level guidelines are
shown in Table 127.
               TABLE 127. PERMISSIBLE LOADING LEVELS FOR TOTAL
                           NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS
                                Ib/yd2/yr(gr/m2/yr)
Mean Depth
Up To:
ft m
16.4
32.8
164.0
328.1
492.1
656.2
5
10
50
100
150
200
Permissible Loading, Up To:
N P
1.0
1.5
4.0
6.0
7.5
9.0
(0.54)
(0.8 S
(2.2 )
(3.3 }
(4.1 )
(5.0 )
0.07
0,10
0.25
0.40
0.50
0.60
(0.04)
(0.05)
(0.14)
(0.22)
(0.27)
(0.33)
Dangerous Loading in Excess Of:
N P
2.0
3.0
8.0
12.0
15.0
18.0
(1.1)
(1.6)
(4.3)
(6.5)
(8.15
(9.7)
0.13
0.20
0.50.
0.80
1.00
1.20
(0.07)
(0.11)
(0.27)
(0.43)
(0.54)
(0.65)
    Source:  Bartsch, A.F., "Rote of Phosphorus in Eutrophication," US6PA Report No. EPA-R-3-72-001 ENTIS No. PB 228
          •>£>?! Aunii«t 1Q7?
          292), August, 1972.
                                      241

-------
     The addition of nutrients to receiving waters is an extremely complex pro-
cess that must take into account transport mechanisms involving groundwater,
point source discharges, overland flow, precipitation, atmospheric and dustfall
contributions, and other source contributions such as nutrient enrichment due
to resident flora and fauna.  (35)  It is generally considered that the effects
of nutrient enrichment can be best controlled in the light of available treat-
ment technologies by limiting the amount of phosphorus contributed to receiving
waters. (29)

     An estimated nutrient balance for the Milwaukee River Watershed is shown
in Table 128.  In this tabulation, the major contributions of phosphorus are
due to rural and agricultural runoff.  Urban runoff, although significant on a
per-unit basis, is relatively unimportant from the standpoint of the percentage
of the basin attributable to urban land uses.  Some of the effects of this
nutrient and aquatic plant-rich river environment on diurnal dissolved oxygen
levels are shown in Figure 77.  The data demonstrates the variations in dis-
solved oxygen concentrations that may occur as a result of the photosynthetic
activities of aquatic life.  These variations range from 1.5 to 10 mg/1 in a
single day.

     As might be expected, radical diurnal changes in dissolved oxygen levels
within a receiving water can cause a severe upset to the aquatic system and
endanger various species of resident biota.  Although the Milwaukee River water-
shed is primarily non-urban in character, the loading rates suggested indicate
the potentials of the nutrient enrichment from urban receiving waters.  A study
of 52 lakes in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, area (96) showed that the
quality of storm runoff was generally inferior to lake quality.  Total coliform
levels were 35 times greater, total phosphorus was six times greater, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen was four times greater, and chloride levels were three times
greater, on the average, than the assumed threshold concentration of 100 ppb
that may produce eutrophication and poor aesthetic quality.  Of the 52 lakes
surveyed, 25 percent had phosphorus concentrations larger than this threshold
value.  This was generally attributable, in part, to storm runoff since all
other identified wastewater effluents are discharged to the river system in the
area.

     Nutrient enrichment is an important consideration in evaluation of receiving
water impacts.  Enrichment can produce nuisance aquatic plant life that, in
turn, can create environmental conditions deleterious to other receiving water
biota, as well as an impairment to receiving water aesthetics.  Urban runoff is
a rich source of nutrients that can upset the balance of urban receiving waters.
Interestingly, it has been found that although low concentrations of phosphate will
slow algal growth rates, total algae production is dependent on the degree of
phosphate replenishment from available sources, (107)  Thus, even though advanced
wastewater treatment may provide effective phosphorus control for domestic and
industrial sanitary waste flows, untreated urban runoff may provide a consistent
source of phosphate replenishment.
                                        242

-------
                                          TABLE 128. MAJOR SOURCES OF PHOSPHORUS
                                             IN THE MILWAUKEE  RIVER WATERSHED
                                                      UNDER  1967 CONDITIONS
                                                          (Ib/yrx0.45  =  kg/yr)
Source*
                                Unit
                       Amount of Phosphorus
     Above           At
   West Bend     North Branch
  Ib    Percent    Ib    Percent
At Milwaukee           At         Milwaukee River
 County Line    North Avenue Bay   North Branch     Cedar Creek
Ib      Percent   Ib      Percent   Ib    Percent    Ib     Percent





N3
W




Urban Runoff
Rural and Agricultural
Runoff
Sewage Treatment Plant
Effluent
Private Sewage
Disposal Systems
Sanitary Sewer
Overflows
Combined Sewer
Overflows
460lb/m2/yr
60lb/m2/yr

1.9 Ib/capita/yr

0.2 Ib/capita/yr

	 b

	 c

800
12,500

6,000

1,000

	 b

H 	 c

5
61

30

5

—

—

2,600
16,000

29.000

2.000

	 b

	 C

5
32

59

4

	

—

7,200
37,000

60,000

7,000

	 b

	 c

7
33

54

6

—

—

29,400
37,000

60,000

7,000

168,000

30,000

5
11

18

2

51

9

1,000
9,000

2,000

1,000

	 b

	 c

8 1,300
69 8,000

15 13,000

8 1,000

	 	 b

	 	 c

6
34

86

4

__

—

Total
20,300   100   49,600   100    111,200     100   331,400     100    13,000    100   23,300   100
 Contributions from precipitation onto water surfaces and from industries were considered neglibible.

 Contributions considered negligible in upstream areas. The volume of overflow that takes place annually in Milwaukee County upstream irom the North Avenue Dam was estimated to be
 2.73G million gallons with phosphorus concentration as P equal to 2/3 of 10.7 rng/l (strength of bypassed influent Jones Island Sewage Treatment Plant).

cthere are no combined sower service areas in the Milwaukee River watershed upstream from Milwaukee County. The volume of overflow that takes place annually upstream from the North
 Avenue Dam was estimated to be 745 mg with phosphorus concentrations as P equal to 45 percent of 10.7 mg/l.

Source:   Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, "A Comprehensive PJan for the Milwaukee River Watershed: Inventory, Findings and Forecasts, Regional Planning Commission,
        Waukesha, Wisconsin, December, 1970.

-------
                    —  18
                    oi
                    O
                       16
   3 Day Average, July 29-31, 1968
   Mid-Afternoon DO
   Early Morning DO
   Average Temperature 73.4° F (23°C)
   DO Saturation at 23°C - 8.4 mg/l

  Mid-Afternoon
                                                          16
                                                              18
                           64
                           107
62
103
60
100
58
97
56
93
54
90
52
87
50
83
48
80
46
77
ml
km
                         DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM FROM WOOLEN MILLS DAM

                        Figure 77. Measured dissolved oxygen profile.
                     West Bend-Waubeka reach of the Milwaukee River,
                                     summer 1968.

 Sourcn: Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, "A Comprehensive Plan for the Milwaukee
       River Watershed: Inventory, Findings and Forecasts," Waukesha, Wisconsin, December, 1970.

 Miscellaneous  Receiving Water Impacts

      The  foregoing discussion has emphasized the  impacts of biodegradable
 organic contaminants and  nutrients on  receiving waters.   Other  important re-
 ceiving water  impacts may be attributable to such other factors as tempera-
 ture changes,  chlorides,  pesticides, heavy metals,  and  other toxic materials.


      Temperature  effects can be attributed  to deforestation activities,  stream
channelization, and  the impoundment of flowing water. (94)  It has been found
that  average temperature elevations about  4°C (7°F)  above ambient summer
temperatures in a marine environment caused  almost barren conditions  where few
animals  and almost no micro-algae or seagrasses existed,  between 3 and 4°C
(5.4  and 7°F), serious depletion occurred in the biota,  and between 2 and 3°C
(3.6  and 5.4°F),  damage to  the summer biota  occurred. (108)
                                         244

-------
      In Minneapolis-St. Paul, higher runoff  chloride concentrations due to winter
snow  and ice control activities were noted.   Mean winter concentrations were
found to be around 300 mg/1 while summer runoff concentrations were approximately
24 mg/1.  Annual contributions to the lake  system amounted to  5.1 mg/1.  It was
found that high chloride  concentrations provided a  stimulus  to the growth of
blue-green algae,  a major local lake nuisance.  High level lake concentrations
also  cause an  incomplete  turnover of domestic lakes that prevent the oxygen
rejuvenation of deep lake water.  (96)
      Runoff has been found to be  the major  transport mode for  various  herbicides
(109) and pesticides.  (110)  The  soil insecticides  such as dieldrin, and herbicide
Trifluralin, have been  found to accumulate  in fish  and snails  in concentrations
above those found in the  water.  (92)  A representation of the  pesticide residues
found in a number of water bodies is shown  in Table 129.
                     TABLE 129. PESTICIDE RESIDUES MEASURED IN
                          VARIOUS RECEIVING WATER BODIES
                        Concentration in mg/l	

    Location	Dieldrin   Endrin    DDT	DDE   ODD	Heptachler	BHC

    Great Lakes Region*

    St. Lawrence River:      ND       ND       ND       .002   ND      ND           ND
    Massena, N.Y.

    Lake Erie: Buffalo      ND       ND       ND       ND    ND      ND           ND
    N.Y.

    Detroit River: Detroit    ND       ND       ND       ND    ND      ND           ND
    Michigan

    St. Mary's River: Sault   ND       ND       ND       ND    P        ND           ND
    Ste. Marie, Michigan

    Lake Superior:         ND       0.022     0.026     P      rO.005     ND           ND
    Duluth, Minn.

    Lake Michigan:         ND       ND       ND       ND    ND      ND           ND
    Milwaukee, Wis.

    Maumee River: Toledo   ND       ND       ND       ND    0.006     ND           ND
    Ohio

    St. Joseph River:       P        0.29      ND       ND    0.013     ND           0.003
    Benton Harbor, Mich.

    Grand River: Grand      P        ND       ND       ND    0.009     ND           ND
    Haven, Mich.

    Detroit River, Grosse    ND       ND       ND       ND    0.012     ND           ND
    Ponte, Mich.

    Fox River: Green       ND       .007      ND       ND0.007         ND           ND
    Bay, Wis.
    ND — indicates none detected.
    P   — Indicates presumptive. Data are reported as presumptive in instances where the results of chromatography were
        highly indicative but meet all requirements for positive identification and quantification.
    •Agricultural Pollution of the Great Lakes Basin, Combined Report by Canada and the United States, July 1, 1971.
                                            245

-------
     Polychlorinated biphenyls were also found to accumulate  in  snails  and
fish increasingly as the number of chlorine substituents increased.  (92)
Many of  these materials show some toxic effects on various receiving  water
biota at sustained low-level concentrations.

     The effects  of heavy metals buildup in receiving waters  are not  well
understood.  Their toxicity is well established and their unabated discharge
is a cause for  concern.  (90)  Dangerously high lead concentrations have been
measured in snow  melt runoff (96) as well as urban storm runoff. (Ill)  Other
significant metals have been noted, as well.

Receiving Water Components

     Various analyses have been performed to assess the impact of runoff  on
receiving water bodies,  both hypothetical and based on actual data.   The  results
of these analyses on the transient and longer-term effects of biodegradable
contaminants and  their effects on dissolved oxygen levels, nutrients  and
nutrient impacts,  and miscellaneous contaminants, point to an array of  consistent
conclusions:

    •  Direct and indirect urban runoff contributions can be  a significant
        source  of pollution.                                      *

    •  The pollutant percent loadings in sewers and in non-sewered urban
        runoff  provides one estimate of the annual distribution  of various
        pollutants in major wastewater flows across the country, as shown
        in Table  130.
              TABLE 130. POLLUTANT PERCENT LOADINGS IN SEWERS
                      AND IN NON-SEWERED URBAN RUNOFF

                      PERCENTAGES OF INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS IN EACH STREAM
                      Combined       Sanitary      Storm        Non-Sewered
                       Sewers          Sewers      Sewers        Urban Runoff
BODS
COD
SS
N
P
Inorg. DS
28.6
27.7
26.3
29.3
28.1
29.4
61.2
48.0
28.6
63.2
61.2
70.6
4.5
10.8
20.1
3.3
4.8
0
5.6
13.5
25.1
4.2
5.9
0
                                       % Coliforms/yr

        Total MPN Coliforms 29.2            70.1          0.3            0.4


        Sourco:  Boition, H.E., "The Relative Magnitudes of Municipal Water Pollution Problems," an unpublished
              EPA paper, September, 1974.
                                       246

-------
     This table shows that approximately 40 percent of the BOD,  50 percent of
the COD, and 60 percent of the suspended solids are associated with combined
sewers, storm  sewers, and non-sewered urban runoff flows.

     *  Under given wet-weather conditions, direct and indirect  storm
        runoff can govern the quality of receiving waters because of
        their shock impact characteristics.

     *  High levels of dry-weather treatment may not insure receiving
        water quality under wet weather conditions.

     »  The abatement of runoff-related pollution may be more cost-
        effective than providing higher levels of dry-weather flow in
        many circumstances.

     Hence, direct and indirect runoff should not be casually dismissed if
effective means of insuring receiving water quality are to be achieved.
Urban runoff in its many forms is an important aspect of urban wastewater
pollution and it warrants careful consideration as a necessary added dimen-
sion in local, regional, and national water resources planning.
                                     247

-------
                                 SECTION VI

                                 DATA NEEDS

     One of the essential features of the study has been the development
of an analytical framework that provides the quality and quantity charac-
terization of direct stormwater runoff pollution.  The informational outputs
from this type of activity can reveal not only the total magnitude of
pollutional loads entering receiving waters but also holds the key to iden-
tifying the relative effects and relationships of the various existing
pollutional sources.  Based on this knowledge of relative pollutional con-
tributions from the many sources, alternative plans for abatement and control
can be identified and evaluated in terms of program costs and related
benefits.  Such an analysis will provide a basis for the reduction of the
pollutional impact on receiving waters in an efficient fashion.
     To accomplish these objectives it is necessary to bring into use various
analytical tools.  Such, tools are necessary due  to the extremely complex
nature of the component parts of the many physical processes that constitute
runoff phenomenon and the high level of interaction between these processes.
In view of this complexity it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
provide meaningful information regarding the above objectives without taking
advantage of various analytical  techniques that  are available.

     The state of the art methodology for providing the needed informational
outputs requires a large amount of data.  This section of the report will
present a critical review of existing data and discuss the data requirements
for using and validating the tools at our disposal that can provide the re-
sults necessary for the evaluation of stormwater runoff pollution.
EXISTING DATA

     The existing data sources have been reviewed in detail in the foregoing
sections.  These data can best be described as:

     •  Collected for purposes that are extremely different from one
        data set to the next,

     •  Collected for types of pollutants  that are inconsistent from
        test to test,

     •  Collected with sampling devices that are not comparable with
        one another,

     •  Collected under physical conditions  that are quite dissimilar,  and

     »  Collected using measurement and sampling techniques that are
        incommens urab1e.

                                     248

-------
      Other generalizations concerning existing data can be made.  For the
 most part the data results are reported in terms of (arithmetic) average
 values.   However,  the wide range of values reported and relatively large
 standard deviations suggests that average and mean values may not be reliable
 measures of central tendency.   Other measures of central tendency such as
 the mode, median,  or geometric mean should be considered in these instances.

      Much of the data that reports pollutional loadings by land use types,
 geography, city, etc., uses the overall average value for a complete data
 set when individual average values do not differ "significantly" from the
 overall  values.   This can be very misleading, since "significance" is as
 much dependent on the discriminating power of the statistical test being
 used as  well as the real difference in the average values being tested.

      This high level of variability represents an underlying weakness of the
 existing body of information.   The inconsistencies, variation and diversity
 in the data impose limitations on its usefulness and as such should be used
 with caution.   Although this weakness is present, the data discussed and used
 in this  report are the best available at this time.

 DATA REQUIREMENTS

      Before specific gaps in existing data can be addressed, the issue of
 consistency must'be considered.  Adding to the available voluminous data, more
 data than is collected in a piecemeal, uncoordinated manner will only compound
 current  problems.   Future efforts at data acquisition must be carefully planned
 and executed in terms  of the uses to which the data are to be applied.

      Since the problem is basically one of national scope, any solution at-
 tempted  at other governmental levels will fall short of the goal of insuring
 that the data sets collected in the future are not only commensurable with  one
 another, but also that the scope of other data collected is adequate for the
 state-of-the-art analysis techniques.  USEPA has just published a report which
 establishes a handbook of accepted standards and specifications for data ac-
_quisition for urban stormwater discharges. (7.5)

  Physical-Geographic Data

       1.   Validation of the assumption (the estimating function) that
            land use distribution may be estimated by population density.

       2.   Validation of the techniques for estimating the percentages
            of pervious and impervious area in an urban area as well as the
            validation of the technique for decomposing the impervious areas
            into street and non-street impervious area.

       3.   Validation of the methods used for estimating total curb or
            gutter length.

       An alternative to validating these three estimating techniques would  be
  to develop in each urban area of concern actual data for the three variables
  being estimated.   These variables are of such a nature, however, to make this
  a burdensome, time consuming task, a task that would be open ended, with a
  real possibility that the end results would be incomparable.  Thus it appears

                                       249

-------
that validation and refinement, is necessary, if the estimating techniques
would be the logical choice.

     These validations should take the form of a carefully planned experi-
mental design that would take into account possible underlying influencing
parameters such as climatology, legal restrictions, and possibly terrain.
Based on this design, selected urban areas would then have the actual values
of these variables measured and compared, statistically, to the values
produced by the estimating techniques.  This comparison will result in
either a validated estimating technique or guidelines for refining the
method.

Pollutional Loadings by Source

1.    Streets

     As reported in Section III, Application of Street Surface Contaminant
Data, calibration factors have been prepared that produced reasonable esti-
mates for individual runoff events, but only for selected pollutant types.
This calibration process applied measured annual average runoff discharge
pollutant concentrations to reported pollutant to solids relationships and
on this basis adjusted the dust and dirt (solids) values on the street.

     This approach, however, neglects the possibility of error in the
analytical tool that "transports" the loadings from the street to the point
of measurement.  If this tool underestimates the transport mechanism, and
loadings from other sources, such as rooftops, are also underestimated or
even ignored, then application of this calibration procedure will allocate
a disproportionate share of the pollutant loading to the street source.
This has the obvious result of placing too strong an emphasis on streets
as a point of control,

    It would appear more logical to develop a standard "in-situ" method for
measuring street pollutional loadings, since once the pollutants have entered
the collection system the loadings from the different sources are mixed to-
gether.  Thus, no matter how accurately the runoff pollution is measured, the
results will not trace the pollutants back to the respective source.  This
method would have to be fairly simple and not require more time than local
jurisdictional people would be willing or able to give.

2.    Non-Street Impervious (Rooftops, Sidewalks, Parking Lots, etc.)

     The only data that have been used for estimating pollutional loadings
for this source has been the reported dustfall data.  Dustfall data is not
representative of other than rooftop surfaces, and does not address possible
pollutants on these surfaces from other than dustfall sources, such as
animal droppings, decomposition of debris, etc.  In light of the fact that
non-street impervious areas have been shown to be significant contributors
to the total runoff pollutant discharge it is warranted to establish
quantitatively the pollutional loadings for this source.  This would pre-
ferably be done by land use categories with consideration given to where the
runoff from these sources is directed, i.e., storm or sanitary sewers, open
culverts, etc.
                                     250

-------
3.    Pervious Areas (Soil Loss)

     By applying the Universal Soil Loss Equations to individual events,  per-
vious areas have been shown to be potentially significant contributors of
sediment and other nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.  The use of
these equations to estimate soil loss for short term events needs to be
validated for use with small urban parcels ,or other methods should be develop-
ed.

Controlled Removal Effects

     The effects of controlled removal are crucial to the evaluation of storm-
water runoff.  This is especially true with the increased use of vacuum and
combined brush-vacuum street cleaning systems, as this equipment has been
demonstrated to be very efficient in removal of the finer particles that
contain most of the pollutant loadings.  Thus, the equipment efficiency com-
bined with the frequency of cleaning can drastically reduce the pollutant
loadings in a given urban area.

     Some street cleaning frequency data, stratified by population ranges
and climatic zones, is available.  The data is sparse in some places and
additional data are needed.  Data on equipment efficiency, however, is very
much lacking.  This is exhibited by the wide range of values reported in the
available test data.  This wide range of values is mostly caused by the fact
that efficiency is almost totally dependent on equipment conditions and
operation.  Additional data will not improve this situation unless some ef-
fort is made to maintain equipment at specified minimum levels and to
standardize optimum equipment operation.

Rainfall Events

     Analytical efforts to date have assumed uniform rainfall distribution
over an entire area.  This assumption needs to be tested by performing
sensitivity analysis on the evaluation tools being used.  This could be
done by selecting a number of areas and in each area measure the actual rain-
fall in enough locations to accurately reflect the true rainfall distribution
and scale the hypothetical statistical analysis of rainfall density by the true
 rainfall pattern.  If the analysis tools are in fact sensitive to the true
rainfall distributions then the methodology must be modified.

Transport Mechanism (Pollutant Removal)

     Negative exponential decay functions have been used very successfully
to describe the street pollutant removal phenomenon.  The function contains
a critical parameter that is dependent on the street surface characteristics.
The function has been well tested and documented.

     This same function has been used to describe the non-street impervious
runoff.  This is a logical application of the function since both processes
are physically analogous.  However, representative values for the type sur-
face parameter are not available.  Thus, the application of the function
                                      251

-------
needs to be validated and from this process determine the necessary para-
metric values for rooftop surfaces.

Direct MeasuresAt Receiving Water Sites

     This data will be used to verify directly several components of the
modelling effort that evaluates the stonnwater runoff phenomenon.  It in-
cludes measuring runoff quantities continuously over the time period of
various types of rainfall events combined with an adequate number and type
of individual samples.  The sampling plan for extracting these individual
samples must be such that the relationship between flow quantity and pol-
lutant loadings can be established.  Since technology does not exist for
continuous sampling of pollutants in runoff flow, this continuity must be
approximated by judiciously selecting discrete points over the life of the
rainfall event at which to procure a sample.
                                   252

-------
                                   REFERENCES

 1.    Akerlinch,  G.»  "The Quality of Storm Water Flow," Nordisk Hygienish
      Tidskrift,  31,  1,  1950.

 2.    Palmer,  C.L.,  "The Pollutional Effects of Storm Water Overflows from
      Combined Sewers,"  Sewage and IndustrialWastes, 22,  2, 154,  February,  1950.

 3.    "Pollutional  Effects of  Stormwater and Overflows from Combined Sewer
      Systems  - A Preliminary  Appraisal," U.S.  Public Health Service,
      November, 1964.

 4.    Wischmeier, W.H.,  and D.D.  Smith,  "Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses
      from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains," Agricultural Handbook No.  282,
      Agricultrual  Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May, 1965.

 5.    Amy, G., "Water Quality  Management Planning for Urban Runoff," USEPA
      Report No.  EPA-440/9-75-004, (NTIS No. PB 241 689),  December,  1974.

 6.    Shaheen, D.G.,  "Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage to Water  Pollution,"
      USEPA Report  No.  EPA-550/2-75-009  (NTIS No. 245 854), April, 1975.

 7.    Murray,  D.M.,  and  M.R. Eiserman, "A Search;  New Technology  for Pavement,
      Snow and Ice  Control," USEPA Report No. EPA-R2-72-125 (NTIS  No. PB 221
      250), December,  1972.

 8.    J.L. Richards and  Associates, Ltd., and Labrecque, Vezlna and  Associates,
      "Snow Disposal Study for the National Capitol Area:   Technical Discus-
      sion," Committee on Snow Disposal, Ottawa, Ontario,  June, 1973.

 9.    Schranfuagel,  P.M., "Chlorides," Commission on Water Pollution, Madison,
      Wisconsin,  1965.

10.    Edison Water  Quality Lab.,  "Environmental Impact of Highway  De-Icing,"
      USEPA Report  No.  11040Gkk06/71 (NTIS No.  PB 203 493), June,  1971.

11.    Field, R.,. ET AL., "Water Pollution and Associated Effects from Street
      Salting," USEPA Report No.  EPA-R2-73-257 (NTIS No. PB 222 795), May,
      1973.

12.    "Use and Effects of Highway De-icing Salts," Legislative Research Council
      Report,  Commonwealth of  Massachusetts, January, 1965.

13.    O'Brien, J.P., ET AL., "Chemical Impact of Snow Dumping Practices,"
      USEPA Report  No.  EPA-670/2-74-086   (NTIS No. PB 238 764), February, 1974.


                                      253

-------
14.   Mcllroy, A.D. ,ET AL., "Loading Functions for Assessment of Water Pollution
      From Non-Point Sources," USEPA Report No. 600/2-76-151, May, 1976.

15.   American Public Works Association, "Water Pollution Aspects of Urban
      Runoff," USEPA Report No. 11030DNS01/69(NTSI No. PB 215 532),  January,
      1969.

16.   "De-Icing Salts as a Source of Water Pollution," Ontario Water Resources
      Commission, February, 1971.

17.   Habitat School of Environment, "De-Icing Salts and the Environment,"
      Massachusetts and National Audubon Societies, Lincoln, Massachusetts,
      February, 1972.

18.   Judd, J.H., "Lake Stratification Caused by Runoff from Street  De-icing,"
      Street Salting Urban Water Quality Workshop, SUNY Water Resources
      Center, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y., May, 1971.

19.   "Runoff of De-icing Salt:  Effect on Irondequiot Bay, Rochester, New
      York," Bubeck, R.C., et. al., Science, (NTIS No. COM 72 10015/LK),
      Vol. 1971, 1972.

20.   Hunt, W.F., ET AL. , "A Study of Trace Element Pollution of Air in
      77 Midwestern Cities," Paper Presented at the Fourth Annual Confer-
      ence on  Trace Substances in Environmental Health, University  of
      Missouri, June, 1970.

21.   Stone, R., and H. Smallwood, "Intermedia Aspects of Air and Water
      Pollution Control," USEPA Report No. EPA-600/5-74-003(NTIS lo. PB
      224 814, August, 1973.

22.   Dixon, J.P., "Air Conservation," Air Cpnservation Commission,  APAS,
      Washington, B.C., 1965.

23.   Weiss, H.V., M. Korde and E. Goldberg,  "Mercury in the Greenland
      Ice Sheet:  Evidence of Recent Input by Man," unpublished manuscript
      referenced in a draft of a preliminary report of the Task Group on
      Major Ocean Pollutants, for the IDOE Maine Environment Quarterly Study,
      Washington, D.C., 1965.

24.   Mills, A.L.j "Lead in the Environment," Chemistry in Britain,  Vol. 7,
      No. 14, 1972, pp. 160-162.

25.   Zeeman, N., "Everyman's Garden of Pesticides," Environmental Quality,
      Vol. 3, No. 2, 1972, pp. 29-33.

26.   Woodruff, N.P., and F.H. Siddoway, "A Wind Erosion Equation,"  Soil
      Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 29, No. 5, September-
      October, 1965, pp. 602-608.
                                       254

-------
27,   Cowherd, C., ET AL.»  "Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive
      Dust Sources," USEPA Report No. EPA-450/3-74-037 (OTIS No. PB 238 262)
      June, 1974.

28.   Williford, J.W.,  and D.R. Garden, "Possibility of Reducing Nitrogen in
      Drainage Water by on-Farm Practices," USEPA Report No. 13030ELY05/72
      (NTIS No. PB 221 482), June, 1972.

29.   Bartsch, A.F., "Role of Phosphorus in Eutrophication," USEPA Report
      No.  EPA-R3-72-001 (NTIS No.  PB  228 292), August,  1972.

30.   Vollenweider, R.A., "Scientific Fundamentals of the Eutrophication  of
      Lakes and Flowing Waters, with  Particular  Reference to Nitrogen and
      Phosphorus as Factors in Eutrophication,"  OECD, DAS/C51/68-27,  1968.

31.   Whitehead, H.C.,  and J.H. Feth, "Chemical  Character of Rain, Dry
      Fallout and Bulk Precipitation  at Menlo Park,  California,  1957  - 1959,"
      Geophysical Research, Vol. 69,  No. 16, pp. 3319-3333.

32.   Matheson, D.H., "Inorganic Nitrogen in Precipitation and Atmospheric
      Sediments," Canadian Journal of Technology, Vol.  29, pp. 406-412.

33.   Schraufnagel, F.H., "Excess Water Fertilization Report," Working Group
      on Control Techniques, Water Subcommittee  of Natural Resources,
      Committee of State Agencies, Madison, Wisconsin,  1967.

34.   Stidharan, N., Ph.D., "Aqueous  Environmental Chemistry of  Phosphorus
      in Lower Green Bay, Wisconsin," Thesis Water Chemistry Department,
      University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1972.

35.   Uttormark, P.O.,  ET AL.,  "Estimating Nutrient Loadings of Lakes
      from Non-Point Sources," USEPA  Report No.  EPA-660/3-74-020 (NTIS
      No.  PB 238 355),  August, 1974.

36.   Gorham, E., and J.R. Bray, "Litter Production in Forests of the World,"
      Advances inEcological Research, Vol.2, 1964.

37.   Heyward, F., and R.M. Barnette, "Field Characteristics and Partial
      Chemical Analyses of the Humus  Layer of Longleaf Pine  Forest Soils,"
      Bulletin of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Vol.  302,  1936.

38.   Slack, K.V., and H.R. Feltz, "Tree Leaf Control on Low Flow Water
      Quality in Small Virginia Streams," Environmental Science  and Tech-
      nology. Vol. 2, 1968.

39.   Corle, T.S., "Composition of the Leaf Litter of Forest Trees,"  J. Elisha
      Mitchell Science Society, Vol.  52, 1936.

40.   Chase, E.S., and A.F. Ferullo,  "Oxygen Demand of Leaves in Water,"
      Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 105, No. 5, 1958.
                                     255

-------
41.   Ruelke, O.C., and G.M. Prime, "Preliminary Evaluation of Yield and
      Protein Content of Six Hybrid Bermuda Grasses, Pensacola Behia Grass
      and Pengola Grass under Three. Fertilization Regimes in North Central
      Florida," Soiland CropScience Society of Florida, Vol. 28, 1968.

42.   Chandler, R.F., "The Amount and Mineral Nutrient Content of Freshly
      Fallen Leaf Litter in the Hardwoods Forests of Central New York,"
      Journals of the American Society ofAgronomy, p. 33, 10, 1941.

43.   Sartor, J.D., and G.B. Boyd, "Water Pollution Aspects of Street
      Surface Contaminants," USEPA Report No. EPA-R2-72-081 (NTIS No. PB
      214 408), November, 1972.

44.   Kanerva, R.A., "An Overview of Maryland's Sediment Control Program,"
      Maryland Water Resources Administration.  ASCI National Meeting on
      Water Resources Engineering, Washington, D.C., January, 1973.

45.   "Methods and Practices for Controlling Water Pollution from Agricul-
      tural Non-Point Sources," USEPA Report No. EPA-43Q/9-73-Q15, October,
      1973.

46.   Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith, "Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses
      from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains," Agricultural Handbook
      No. 282, ARS-U.S. Department of Agriculture, May, 1965.

47.   Williams, J.R., and H.D. Berndt, "Sediment Yield Computed with Univer-
      sal Equation," Journal of Hydraulics Division Proceedingst ASCE,
      No. 9426., p. 2087, December, 1972.

48.   Renfrom, G.W., "Use of Erosion Equations and Sediment Delivery Ratios
      for Predicting Sediment Yield," Paper presented at the Sediment Yield
      Workshop, Oxford, Mississippi, November, 1972.

49.   Vites, F.G., "Fertilizer Use in Relation to Surface and Groundwater
      Pollution," Fertilizer Technologyand Use, Soil Science Society of
      America, Madison, Wisconsin, 1971 (second edition).

50.   Stratfull, R.F., ET AL.,  "Further Evaluation of De-Icing Chemicals,"
      State of California Department of Transportation, Division of High-
      ways, Presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Highway Research
      Board, January, 1974.

51.   CONSAD Research Corporation,  "A  Study  of  the National Scope of Urban
      Pesticide Runoff," A  Draft Report prepared under USEPA Contract
      No.  68-01-2225, November, 1974.

52.   American Public Works Association,  "1973 APWA Survey of Street Clean-
      ing, Catch Basin Cleaning and Snow  and  Ice Removal Practice," Chicago,
      Illinois,  1973  (unpublished).

53.   Lager, J.A., ET AL.,  "Catch Basin Technology  Overview  and  Assess-
      ment," Report prepared under  USEPA,  Contract  No.  68-03-0274,  January,
      1974.
                                    256

-------
54.   Untitled and unpublished paper prepared by William J. Murphy, American
      Public Works Association, 1974.

55.   Waller,  D.H., "Pollution Attributable to Surface Runoff  and Overflows
      from Combined Systems," Atlantic Industrial Research Institute,  Halifax,
      Nova Scotia, April,  1971.

56.   Lager, J.A., and W.G.  Smith,  "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology:
      An Assessment," USEPA Report No. EPA-670/2-74-040 (NTIS  No. PB 240 687),
      May, 1974.

57.   Burgess and Niple,  Ltd., "Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined
      Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus, Ohio," USEPA Report No. 11024FKN11/69  (NTIS No.
      PB 195 162), November, 1969.

58.   Davis, P.L., and F,  Borchardt,  "Combined Sewer Overflow  Abatement Plan,
      Des Molnes, Iowa,"  USEPA Report No. EPA-R2-73-170 (NTIS  No. PB 234 183),
      April, 1974.

59.   Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, "Maximizing Storage in Combined
      Sewer Systems," USEPA Report No. 11022ELK12/71 (NTIS No. PB 209  861),
      December, 1971.

60.   Roy F. Weston, Inc., "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement  Alternatives,
      Washington, D.C." USEPA Report No. 11024EXF08/70 (NTIS No. PB 203 680),
      August, 1970.

61.   Rex Chalnbelt, Inc., "Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined  Sewer
      Overflows," USEPA Report No.  11020FDC01/72 (NTIS No. PB  215 695),
      January, 1972.

62.   Wilkinson, R., "The Quality of Rainfall Runoff Water from a Housing
      Estate," Journal of the Institute of Public Health Engineers, 1962.

63.   Sylvester, R.O., "An Engineering and Ecological Study for the Rehabilita-
      tion of Green Lake," University of Washington, Seattle,  Washington, 1960.

64.   Colston, N.V.,  "Characterization and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff>"
      USEPA Report No. EPA-670/2-74-096  (NTIS No. PB  240  978),  December, 1974.

65.   Information on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers survey program was
      determined by a telephone conversation with Mr. Jack Rose, project
      engineer for  the Omaha District, in March, 1975.

66.   Hinkle, G.J., "Street Cleaning Effectiveness Model," American Public
      Works Association.   An unpublished paper.

67.   See  the previous section on Street Surface Accumulation Sampling
      Methods.
                                      257

-------
68.   The data reported under the 1974 URS Research Company study also include
      discharge mass emission information in addition to street measurements.

69,   Lee, H., ET AL., "Stoneman II Tests of Reclamation Performance, Volume
      III:  Performance Characteristics of Dry Decontamination Procedures,"
      USNRDL-TR-336 (NTIS No. AD 228 966), U.S. Naval Radiological Defense
      Laboratory, San Francisco, California, June, 1959.

70.   Owen, W.L., ET AL., "Stoneman II Test of Reclamation Performance:
      Volume II, Performance Characteristics of Wet Decontamination Proce-
      dures," USNRDL-TR-325 (NTIS. No. AP 248 069), U.S. Naval Radiological
      Defense Laboratory, San Francisco, California, July, 1960.

71.   Sehmel, G.A., "Particle Resuspension from an Asphalt Road Caused "by
      Car and Truck Traffic," Atmospheric Environment, Pergamon Press, Vol. 7,
      (NTIS No. BNWL SA 4175 (Rev.)), Great Britain, 1973, pp. 291-309.

72.   Roberts, J.W., "The Measurement, Cost and Control of Air Pollution from
      Unpaved Roads and Parking Lots in Seattle's Duwamish Valley," a thesis
      submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
      Master of Science in Engineering, University of Washington, 1973.

73.   Engineering Science, Inc., "Characterization and Treatment of Combined
      Sewer Overflows," USEPA Report No. EPA-670/2-750054 (NTIS No. PB 24f
      299), November, 1967.

74.   American Public Works Association, "Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities
      and Overflows-1967," USEPA Report No. 1102012/67 (NTIS No. PB 214 469),
      December, 1967.

75.   Wullschleger, Richard E., ET AL., "Recommended Methodology for the
      Study of Urban Storm Generated Pollution and Control," USEPA Report
      No. EPA-600/2-76-145 (NTIS No.  PB 258 743),  Envirex, Inc., August,  1976,

76.   "Urban Runoff-Quantity and Quality," ASCE, Conference at Franklin Pierce
      College, Rindge, New Hampshire, August 11-16, 1974.

77.   Field, R., and J.A. Lager, "Countermeasures for Pollution from Overflows:
      The State-of-the-Art," USEPA Report No. EPA-670/2-74-090  (NTIS No. PB
      240 498), December, 1974.

78.   Weibel, S.R., R.J. Anderson, and R.L. Woodward, "Urban Land Runoff as
      a Factor in Stream Pollution," Journal Water Pollution Control Federa-
      tion. Vol. 36, No. 7, July, 1964.

79.   Composite value for street cleaning frequency was computed on the basis
      of mean data from the "1973 APWA Survey of Street Cleaning Catch Basin
      Cleaning and Snow and Ice Control Practice," as reported in a previous
      section of this report.

80.   Roesner, L.A., ET AL., "A Model for Evaluating Runoff Quality in Metro-
      politan Master Planning," Technical Manual No. 23, ASCE Urban Water
      Resources Program (NTIS No. PB 234 312), April, 1974.
                                      258

-------
81.   "1970 Census Geography:  Concepts, Products and Programs," Data Access
      Descriptions, U.S. Department of Commerce, DAD No. 33 Series CG-3,
      Washington, D.C., August, 1973.

82.   "Characteristics of the Population:  Number of Inhabitants," 1970 Census
      of Population, U.S. Department of Commerce, Volume 1, Part A, Washington,
      D.C., May, 1972.

83.   "Coordination Directory for Planning Studies and Reports," U.S. Water
      Resources Council, Washington, D.C., August, 1971 (as amended).

84.   County and City Data Book, 1972., Social and Economic Statistics Admin-
      istration, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.
      Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973.

85.   Gross population data may be defined as the population per unit area,
      where the area specified includes rights-of-way and all forms of land
      use.

86.   Francese, P.K., and K. Deschere, "Development of New Data Files for 1970
      Census Tracts:  Population Density, 1960 Comparisons Population Updates,"
      Public Data Use, Vol. 1, Number 4, October, 1973.

87.   Bartholomew, H., Land Uses in American Cities, Harvard University Press,
      Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1955.

88.   Manvel, A.D., R.H. Gustafson, and R.B. Welch, "Three Land Research
      Studies," National Commission on Urban Problems, Research Report 12,
      (NTIS No. PB 196 883/LK), Washington, D.C., 1968.

89.   Graham, P.M., L.S. Costello, and H.J. Mallon, "Estimating of Impervious-
      ness and Specific Curb Length for Forecasting Stormwater Quality and
      Quantity," Journal ofthe Water Pollution ControlFederation, 47, 4,
      717, April, 1974.

90.   Vitale, A.M., and P.M. Sprey, "Total Urban Water Pollution Loads:  The
      Impact of Stormwater," Council on Environmental Quality, USGPO,
      Washington, D.C., (NTIS No. PB 231 730/LK), October, 1974.

91.   Springfield Sanitary District, "Retention Basin Control of Combined
      Sewer Overflows," USEPA Report No. 11023-08/70 (NTIS No. PB 200 828),
      August,  1970.

92.   Sanborn, J.R.,  "The Fate of Select Pesticides in the Aquatic Environ-
      ment," USEPA Report No. EPA-660/3-74-025   (NTIS No. PB 239 749),
      December,  1974.

93.   Holm, H.W., and M.F. Cox, "Mercury in Aquatic Systems:  Methylation,
      Oxidation-Reduction and Bio-accumulation,"  USEPA' Report No. EPA-660/3-
      74-021  (NTIS No. PB 239 329), August, 1974.
                                      259

-------
 94.   Generally abstracted from:  WaterQuality Criteria, 1972, National
       Academy of Science-National Academy of Engineering Committee on Water
       Quality Criteria, USEPA Report No. EPA-R3-73-033 (NTIS No. PB 236
       199), October, 1973.

 95.   Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., "Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution
       Sources and Abatement," USEPA Report No. 11024ELB01/71 (NTIS No. PB
       201 725), January, 1971.

 96.   Eugene A. Hickok and Associates, "Stormwater Impact Investigation for
       Metropolitan Council," Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, November, 1972.

 97.   "Management of Urban Storm Runoff," Water Resources Engineers and
       Hydrologic Engineering Center, Corps of Engineers, ASCE Urban Water
       Resources Research Program Technical Memorandum No. 24, New York,
       New York (NTIS No. 234 316), May, 1974.

 98.   Thomann, R.V., ET AT., "Mathematical Modelling of Phytoplankton in Lake
       Ontario," USEPA Report No. EPA-660/3-75-005 (NTIS No.  PB 241 046),
       March, 1975.

 Q_     Consoer, Townsend and  Associates,  "Detention Tank for  Combined  Sewer Over-
        flow, Milwaukee,  Wisconsin,"  Demonstration  Project prepared  for the Milwaukee
        Department  of Public Works, Wisconsin Bureau of  Engineers, USEPA No. EPA  600/
        2-75-071  (NTIS No.  PB  250 427),  December, 1975.
100.   Field, R., and R.E. Pitt, "Water Quality Effects from Urban Runoff,"
       A Paper Presented at the 1974 American Water Works Association Con-
       ference, Boston,  Massachusetts.

101.   Untitiled and unpublished paper prepared by Robert Grim, USEPA,  Wash-
       ington, D.C.

102.   Tsivoglov, E.G.,  and J.R. Wallace, "Characterisation of Stream Reaeration
       Capacity," USEPA Report No. EPA-R3-72-012 (NTIS No. PB 214 649),
       October, 1972.

103.   Roesner, L.A., "Impact of Stormwater Runoff on Receiving Water Quality,"
       Water Resources Engineers, Walnut Creek, California,  June, 1973.

104.   Brooks, N.H., "Dispersion in Hydrologic and Coastal Environments,"
       USEPA Report No.  EPA-660/3-73-010 (NTIS No.  PB 226 890), August, 1973.

105.   O'Brien and Gere Consulting Engineers, "Onondaga Lake Study," USEPA
       Report No. 11060FAE4/71 (NTIS No. PB 206 472),  April,  1971.

106.   Metcalf and Eddy Engineers and Water Resources Engineers, Inc.,  "Recon-
       naissance Study of Combined Sewer Overflows and Storm Sewer Discharges,"
       Report Prepared for the Department of Environmental Service, District of
       Columbia, Washington, D.C., March, 1973.

107.   College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, "Management
       of Nutrients on Agricultural Land for Improved Water Quality," USEPA
       Report No. 13030DP.B (NTIS No. PB 239 328), Ithaca, N.Y., August, 1971.

                                        260

-------
108.   Roessler, M.A.,  and D.C.  Tabb, "Studies of Effects of Thermal Pollu-
       tion in Biscayne Bay, Florida," USEPA Reort No.  EPA-660/3-74-Q14
       (OTIS No. PB 239 328), August, 1974.

109.   Bailey, G.W., ET AT., "Herbicide Runoff from Four Coastal Plain Soil
       Types," USEPA Report No.  EPA-660/2-74-017 (NTIS  No. PB 235 571),
       April, 1974.

110.   Paris, D.F., ET AL., "Microbial Degradation and  Accumulation of Pesti-
       cide in Aquatic Systems," USEPA Report No. EPA-660/3-75-007 (NTIS No.
       PB 241 293), March, 1975.

111.   Byan, E.H., "Concentrations of Lead in Urban Stormwater," Journal of
       the Water Pollution ControlFederation, Vol. 46, October, 1974,
       pp. 2419-2421.
                                     261

-------
                              APPENDIX

        DATA MANAGEMENT FOR STREET SURFACE ^OLIDS ACCUMULATIONS
     Three sources of data on street surface accumulations exist.  These
are the results of studies by APWA for Chicago, (15) by URS Research
Company in various cities across the country (43) and by Biospherics, Inc.
for Washington, D.C. (6)  Each of these studies explored the pollutional
potentials of street surface accumulations.  Land-use was acknowledged
as a means of classifying and characterizing the results of field measure-
ments except in the case of the studies in Washington, B.C., where the
contribution from vehicular traffic was investigated in some detail.  The
selection of sampling sites was based  on  the assumption that land-use effects
could be minimized.  Even so, two sites in commercial areas were acknowledged
in this study as having strong land-use influences.

     Some variation in field measurement technique occurred in each study.
The largest and most susceptible component to the effects of runoff was
taken to be the dust and dirt fraction of the total street accumulation.
In one case, this was defined as the fraction passing a 3.2 mm (0.125 in)
screen, (15) in another, it was assumed to be the fraction passing the
U.S. No. 6 sieve (43) and in the last, it was defined as being less than
6.35 mm (0.25 in) in size. (6)

     Field measurements were generally taken by sweeping, in some instances
they were obtained by a combination of sweeping and vacuuming, and in other
cases they represented a combination of sweeping, vacuuming and flushing
with water.  As may be expected, each of these sample collection methods
could yield somewhat different tresults.  The most significant of these
relates to the use of flush samples.

     An array of the types of samples collected in each of the aforementioned
studies is shown in Table A-l.

     The most consistent sampling accomplished to date has been through
sweeping and, in some instances, vacuuming.  Measurements taken on this
basis account for 90 percent of available samples collected at identified
land use sites, while 10 percent included flush sampling components.

     The geographical distribution of the field observations of dust and
dirt accumulations is presented in Table A-2.
                                     262

-------
             TABLE A-1. DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE LAND USE
          RELATED SAMPLES BY MAJOR SAMPLING CHARACTERISTICS
Sample
Location
Chicago

Many Cities

Washington


Total


Sample
Type
Sweeping
Flush
Sweeping
Flush
Sweeping
Vacuuming
Flush
Sweeping
(Vacuuming)
Flush
Single-
Residential
60
—
13
8
—

— .
73

7
Multiple-
Residential
93
—
8
6
—

—
101

6
Commercial
126
—
10
7
221

141
158

21
Industrial
55
; 	
12
8
—

—
67

8
Total
334
—
43
28
22

14
399

42
                             80
' Data available in separate dust and dirt and flush fractions.
               107
                 179
               75
             TABLE A-2. DISTRIBUTION OF AVAILABLE LAND USE
         RELATED DUST AND DIRT SAMPLES BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS
         441
Location
Great Lakes-
Upper Mississippi
Chicago, III..
Milwaukee, Wis.
New England-
Mid Atlantic— Ohio
Bucyrus, Oh.
Washington, D.C,
Single-
Family
Residential
62
(60)
(2)
3
(3)
(0)
Multiple-
Family
Residential
95
(93)
(2)
0
(0)
(0)
Commercial
128
(126)
(2)
22
(0)
(22)
Industrial
57
(55)
(2)
2
(2)
(0)
Total
342
(334)
(8)
27
(5)
(22)
S. Atlantic Gulf—
Lower Mississippi

Arkansas—White—Red
Texas Gulf	

California—Great Basin
Upper Colorado—Lower
Colorado—Rio Grande
  San Jose, Calif.
  Phoenix, Az,
Pacific NW—Missouri Basin
Totals
 8
(4)
(4)
 0

73
  6
  (2)
  (4)
	0_

101
  8
  (4)
  (4)
	0_
 158
 8
(4)
(4)
 0

67
 30
(14)
(16)
399
                                      263

-------
     The major geographical categories shown are cited in terms of the water
resources regions identified by the Water Resources Council.  Individual
cities included within the data set are also identified.  The majority of
all samples have been collected in the Great Lakes area, in Chicago, Illinois,
and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  The remainder of the identified regions are
represented by considerably less field observation data.  Although statistical
comparisons of aggregated data for some of the regions are possible, few
land use-related comparisons could be reasonably accomplished due to small
sample sizes or non-existent data.  The addition of flush sample data would
not alter this circumstance meaningfully.  Reaggregation of the data into
four major regions — Northwest, Southwest, Northeast and Southeast — would
still result in an inadequacy of data for the Northwes.t and Southeast regions.
Thus, it appears that specific comparisons on a regional basis, are not
warranted.
                                      264

-------
                                  GLOSSARY


BOD /removal  efficiency:    Measurement  of the BOD data is used in sizing of
      waste treatment  facilities  and for measuring the efficiency of some
      treatment  processes.   The rate at which dissolved oxygen will be
      required  can  also be  calculated from BOD data.

 catch basin:    A chamber or well,  usually built below grade at the curb
      line of a  stre'et, for the admission of surface  water or drainage to
      a sewer or subdrain,  having at its base a sediment sump designed to
      retain  grit and  sediment below the point of overflow.

 combined sewer:    A sewer  receiving both intercepted surface runoff and
      municipal  sewage.

 combined sewer  overflow:    Flow  from a combined sewer in excess of the
      interceptor or regulator  (preset  diversion) capacity that is discharged
      into a  receiving water.

 confidence interval:   Provides  a method of stating  both how close the value
      of a single term is likely  to be  to the value of a parameter and the
      chances of its being  that close.

 core city  (central city):    The  major  jurisdiction of 50,000 inhabitants or
      more within the  SMSA.  In addition to the county or counties containing
      such a  city or cities, contiguous counties are  included in an SMSA if,
      according  to  certain  criteria, they are socially and economically
      integrated with  the central city.

 demographic:   Science of  the  condition, general movement and progress of
      population in civilized countries.  The dynamic balance of a population,
      expecially with  regard to density and capacity  for expansion or decline.

 depression  storage:  Watershed  capacity to retain water in puddles, ditches,
      depressions and  on  foliage.

 detention  time:   The theoretical time required to displace the contents of
      a tank  or unit at a given rate of discharge (theoretically defined as
      volume  divided by rate of discharge).

 direct pollution:   The  processes by which urban runoff that may be accumu-
      lated  and collected into  a  separate storm sewer collection system and
      may  suffer impairments in its quality.
                                      265

-------
direct runoff:   The runoff that enters stream channels promptly by flow over
     the ground surface or through the ground without entering the main water
     table, or that portion of the runoff which is directly associated with
     causative rainfall or snow melt.

dissolved oxygen:   Usually designated as D.O.  The oxygen dissolved in
     sewage water or other liquid usually expressed in mg/1 or percent of
     saturation.

D.O. deficit:   The difference between the actual oxygen content of the water
     and the saturation content at the water temperature.  The process of
     reoxygenation and deoxygenation go on simultaneously.  If deoxygenation
     is more rapid than reoxygenation, an oxygen deficit results.  The amount
     of dissolved oxygen at any time can be determined if the rates of re-
     oxygenation and deoxygenation are known.

D.O. sag:   A graphical representation of the decreasing dissolved oxygen
     concentration against distance downstream.  This curve is attributed
     to active biological decomposition which begins immeidately after dis-
     charge.  This decomposition utilizes oxygen.  Finally, the critical
     dissolved-oxygen point, at which the rate of oxygen utilized for waste
     decomposition equals the rate of atmosphere reaeration, is reached on.
     this curve.  Downstream from this point, the rate of reaeration is
     greater than the rate of utilization and dissolved oxygen begins to
     increase.

dominant soil characteristics:   The following soil properties are of the
     most significance:  1) sheer strength, 2) density, 3) compressibility,
     4) permeability, 5) color, 6) composition (grain size, shape, plasti-
     city, mineralogy), 7) structure of soil.

dry-weather flow:   The flows in a combined sewer that result from domestic
     sewage discharges with no significant contribution by stormwater runoff.

dust and dirt:   The portion of street refuse which is smaller than 0.32 cm
     (0.125 in).

erosion:    (1) The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind,
     ice, or other geological agents, including such processes as gravita-
     tional creep.  (2) Detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments
     by water, wind, ice, or gravity.  (3)  The spattering of small soil
     particles caused by the impact of raindrops on wet soils.  The loosened
     and spattered particles may or may not be subsequently removed by
     surface runoff.

evapotranspiration:   The unit amount of water used on a given area in
     transpiration, building of plant tissue, and evaporated from adjacent
     soil,  snow, or intercepted precipitation in any specified time.
                                     266

-------
first flush:   The condition, often occurring in storm sewer discharges and
     combined sewer overflows, in which a disproportionately high pollu-
     tional load is carried in the first portion of the discharge or over-
     flow.

frequency of storm (design storm frequency):   The anticipated period in
     some time frame (ex. yrs.)» which will elapse, based on average proba-
     bility of storms in the design region, before a storm of given intensity
     and/or total volume will recur; thus, a 10 year storm can be expected
     to occur on the average once  every 10 years.  Sewers designed to handle
     flows which occur under such storm conditions would be expected to be
     surcharged by any storms of greater amount or intensity.

hydrograph:   A graphical representation of liquid flow versus time with
     time on the horizontal axis.

hyetrograph:   An intensity-time graph for rainfall derived from direct
     measurements.

impervious:   Not allowing or allowing only with great difficulty, the move-
     ment of water.  Impermeable.  Waterproof.

indirect pollution:   Refers to runoff as a diluent to other wastewater flows.

infiltration:   The water entering a sewer system and service connections
     from the ground, through such means as, but not limited to, defective
     pipes, pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls.  Infiltration does
     not include, and is distinguished from, inflow.

interevent time:   The period between points of time or events.

land use:   Differentiating the spatial arrangements and activity patterns
     of the urban area.  From a variety of research studies it became clear
     that quantityt and quality of runoff could be related to the intensity
     and spatial separations of land use.

litter:   Material which can be removed by sweeping street surface.

non-point discharge:   Flow from an area from which pollutants are exported
     in a manner not compatible with practical means of pollutant removal.
     (example:  croplands)

nutrients:   A nutritious substance or component.  A chemical element or in-
     organic compound (as a nitrate) taken in by a green plant and used in
     organic synthesis.

overflow:    (1) The flow discharging from a sewer resulting from combined
     sewage, storm wastewater, or extraneous flows and normal flows that
     exceed  the sewer capacity.  (2) The location at which such flows leave
     the sewer.
                                     267

-------
permeability:   The flowrate in gpm - cp/ft^ promoted through a granular
     bed by a differential pressure equal to one foot of liquid head per
     foot of bed thickness.  (cp = viscosity in centipoise)

pervious:   Allowing movement of water.

point discharges:  Flows from a location at which pollutants are released
     in quantity and concentration compatible with practical means of
     pollutant removal.  (example: sewage affluent)

pollutograph:   A time-concentration or time-mass emission graph of a
     particular pollutant carried by urban runoff.

reaeration:   The process entraining air in liquids such as wastewater
     effluents, streams, etc.  Reaeration is proportional to the dissolved
     oxygen deficit; its rate will increase with increasing deficit.

runoff:   That portion of the precipitation on a drainage area that is
     discharged from the area in stream channels.  Types include surface
     runoff, groundwater runoff, or seepage.

runoff coeffient:  The fraction of the flow calculated to have reached the
     ground from rain gauge data which reaches some arbitrarily chosen
     downstream point.  The coefficient may be measured from actual data
     or estimated from the topography of the drainage area.

runoff event:   A particular occurrence at which runoff occurred.

separate sanitary sewer:  A sewer that carries liquid and water-carried wastes
     from residences, commercial buildings, industrial plants and institu-
     tions, together with minor quantitites of ground, storm and surface
     waters that are not admitted intentionally.

separate storm sexier:   A sewer that carries stormwater and surface water,
     street wash and other wash waters, or drainage, but excludes domestic
     wastewater and industrial wastes.  Also called storm drain.

SMSA:   Except in the New England states, a SMSA (standard metropolitan
     statistical area) is a county or group of contiguous counties which
     contain at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants.  In the New England
     states, SMSA's consist of towns and cities instead of counties.  The
     complete title of an SMSA identifies the central city or cities.  For
     a detailed description of the criteria used in defining SMSA's; see
     the Bureau of Budget, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 1967,
     U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.  20402.

SWMM:  Storm Water Management Model:   A model developed by the EPA speci-
     fically for simulation of urban quantity and quality processes.
                                     268

-------
tertiary treatment:   A third stage of treatment of sewage and other wastes,
     following primary and secondary treatment, for the purpose of further
     improving the quality of the treated waters by the removal or modifi-
     cation of constituents which have not been removed or modified by
     previous treatment steps.

universal soil loss equation: ^Predicts the short-term rates of soil loss
     for localized areas.  This equation takes into account the influence
     of the total rainfall energy for a specific area rather than rainfall
     amount.  The universal equation is as follows:  A = RKLSCP where A is
     the average annual soil loss in tons/acre, R is the rainfall factor,
     K is a soil-erodibility factor, LS is a slope length and steepness
     factor, C is a cropping and management factor, and P is the supporting
     conservation practice, such as terracing, strip cropping, and contouring.

urban/urbanizing:  The area included within and adjacent to a municipality
     or other urban place of 5,000 or more population.

wet-weather flow:   A combination of storm flow as well as infiltration/
     inflow which occurs as a result of a storm with or without sanitary
     industrial flow.  This total flow, in older or poorly constructed systems,
     can be many times the dry-weather flow.
                                      269

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read lustnictions on she reverse before completing)
t.RIPORTNO. 2.
EPA-600/2-77-064c
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE NATIONWIDE EVALUATION OF COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOWS AND URBAN STORMWATER DISCHARGES
Volume III : Characterization of Discharges
7, AUTHOR(S)
Manning, Martin J. , Sullivan, Richard H. ,
and Kipp, Timothy M.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
American Public Works Association
Research Foundation
1313 East 60th Street
Chicago, Illinois 60637
12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Res(
Office of Research and !
U.S. Environmental Prote(
Cincinnati, Ohio
2arch Labor atory ~i5 **
)evelopment
:tion Agency
45268
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
1 1 . CONTRACT/O4MAM: NO.
68-03-0283
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
FINAL
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/ 600/1 4
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Project Of ficer: , Richard Field, (201) 321-6674, (8-340-6674).
See also EPA-600/2-77-064a, Volume I, "Executive Summary," and EPA-600/2-77-064[b] ,
Volume 11, "Cost Assessment and Impacts."
IS. ABSTRACT
An analysis was made of existing data to charaterize the pollutional strength of
urban stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows. Published and unpublished data
were evaluated.
Extensive evaluation was made of census track data to develop data concerning
land use and population densities in urban areas to assist modelling of urban storm-
water discharge.
Utilizing the developed data, an analysis of receiving water impacts was made.
It was found that much of the available data was developed with consideration
of the quantity of flow at the time quality was being considered. A wide variety of
methods used to sample flows further complicates the use of much reported data.
The estimated runoff pollutional contributions were found to exceed any contri-
buitions of treated sanitary flows at the time of a storm event. Thus, runoff pol-
lution can govern the quality of receiving water due to the shock effect and long
term buildup of solids.
This report is submitted in partial fulfillment of EPA Contract 68-03-0283 by
the American Public Works Association.
i
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
t. DESCRIPTORS
Water pollution, Combined sewers
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Separated sewers, Urban drainage,
Urban runoff, Water pollution 13B
control, Water pollution effects,
Pollution sources, Urban storm-
water runoff, Storm sewer
discharges, Combined sewer over-
flows, Receiving water impacts
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
UNCLASSIFIED 290
2O. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
UNCLASSIFIED
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
270
                                                                                                                       4 U.S. COYBWUDiT PRISTIHG WTO 197*-7 57-140/1319

-------