EPA-600/2-77-047
March 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY OVERVIP
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
EPA-600/2-77-047
March 1977
URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
by
Richard Field
Anthony N. Tafuri
Hugh E. Masters
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
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 publi-
cation. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
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 attack 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.
This report developed for the EPA Office of Air, Land and Water Use,
Office of Research and Development "State-of-the-Art Research Seminar
Series," on September 28, 1976, constitutes a review of EPA's R&D Program
for Urban Runoff Pollution Control. It describes completed work, ongoing
work and future work required to abate pollution from wet-weather flows
and presents the overall philosophy of approach to this specific problem as
far as EPA's R&D Program sees it.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This Overview describes the major elements of the Urban Runoff
Pollution Control Program. Problem Definition, User Assistance Tools,
Management Alternatives and Technology Transfer are covered, including
some of the highlights of the Program's future direction and products
from over 150 of its research projects. References are cited for completed
Program reports, ongoing Program projects, and in-house documents.
Capital cost comparisons for storm and combined sewer control/treatment
are given, along with a specific example of cost-effect solution for urban
runoff pollution control by in-line storage in Seattle. In a study done
in Des Moines, using a simplified receiving water model, four control alter-
natives were compared, considering cost and effectiveness in terms of a
frequency of D.O. standard violations.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract „ iv
Figures viii
Tables x
Acknowledgments xi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 4
Characterization 4
Representative Concentrations 4
Representative Loads 7
Potential Impacts 7
Receiving Water Quality Impacts 8
Erosion/Sediment Impacts 10
Characterization: Products . 10
Nationwide Cost Assessment 10
Sewer Separation 10
High Cost Implied 12
New R&D Estimates Imply Lower Costs 12
Solution Methodology 12
More Accurate Problem Assessment 14
Cost-Effective Approach 14
Example Solution Methodology 15
Overcome Administrative Problems. . . 15
Solution Methodology: Products 17
3. USER ASSISTANCE TOOLS 20
Instrumentation 20
Instrumentation: Products. ........ 22
Simulation Models 22
Planning/Design Models 24
Level I 24
Level II . 26
Level III 27
Level IV 27
Operation Models 27
Simulation Models: Products 27
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
4. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES . . . . • 29
Land Management 29
Structural/Semi-Structural Control 29
On-Site (Upstream) Storage 31
Porous Pavements 32
Overland Flow Modification 32
Solids Separation 33
Non-Structural 33
Surface Sanitation 33
Chemical Use Control 34
Urban Development Resource Planning 36
Use of Natural Drainage 36
Erosion/Sedimentation Control (Non-Structural) 37
Integrated Benefits 37
Erosion/Sediment Control: Products 37
Hydro!ogic Modification Category Status 39
Collection System Controls 39
Catch Basins 39
Sewers 41
Polymers to Increase Capacity 41
Infiltration/Inflow 41
Flow Routing 41
Regulators and Tide Gates 42
Swirl and Helical Device Development 42
Swirl and Helical: Products 42
Maintenance 42
Storage 44
Treatment 47
Physical/Chemical Treatment 47
Land Disposal 49
Biological Treatment 49
Disinfection 50
Treatment Process Performance 50
Treatment: Products 51
Sludge/Solids 51
Sludge: Products 51
Integrated Systems 53
Storage/Treatment 53
Dual Use, WWF/DWF Facilities 53
Control/Treatment/Reuse 53
Integrated Systems: Products 55
5. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 56
Significant Documents Completed 56
Significant Documents Anticipated 57
-------
6. CAPITAL COSTS COMPARISONS FOR STORM AND COMBINED SEWER
CONTROL/TREATMENT 58
7. SEATTLE: IN-LINE STORAGE IS COST-EFFECTIVE 60
Costs 60
Pollutant Reduction 60
Effectiveness 60
8. DES MOINES: CONTROL COSTS VS. D.O. VIOLATIONS 61
9. CONCLUSION 62
10. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 63
Bibliography of Urban Runoff Control Program Reports 64
Ongoing Urban Runoff Pollution Control Projects ("P" Nos.). . 84
Other Urban Runoff Pollution Control Program References ("R"
Nos.) 88
-------
FIGURES
Number Pa9e
1 EPA Storm and Combined Sewer R&D Program 2
2 Problem Definition 5
3 Representative Strengths of Wastewaters (Flow Weighted Means
in mg/1) 6
4 Dry Weather Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, Wells Street,
Milwaukee River, Milwaukee, WI . 9
5 Wet Weather Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, Wells Street,
Milwaukee River, Milwaukee, WI 9
6 Dry Weather Fecal Coliform Concentrations, Wells Street (CSO
Area) and Brown Deer Road (Separate Drainage Area), Milwaukee
River, Milwaukee, WI 11
7 Wet Weather Fecal Coliform Concentrations, Wells Street (CSO
Area), and Brown Deer Road (Separate Drainage Area), Milwaukee
River, Milwaukee, WI 11
8 Single Purpose and Multiple Purpose Stormwater Pollution
Control Costs for US 13
9 Example Solution Methodology 16
10 Construction Cost Example: Storage Facilities 18
11 Instrumentation for Total System Management . . 21
12 Simulation Models for Total System Management 23
13 Land Management 30
14 Porous Asphaltic - Concrete Features 32
15 Deicing Chemical Control (Land Management/Non-Structural). . . 35
16 Erosion - Sedimentation Control: Products 38
17 Collection System Control. . 40
vm
-------
FIGURES (Concluded)
Number Page
18 Isometric View of Swirl Regulator/Concentrator ........ 43
19 Storage 45
20 Results of Controlling Storm Flow by Storage 46
21 Treatment 48
22 Sludge/Solids 52
23 Integrated Systems 54
IX
-------
TABLES
Number ?*2
1 Summary: Storm and Combined Sewer Program 3
2 Metals Discharged to the Harbor from New York City Sources . 7
3 Instrumentation: Products 22
4 Levels of Urban Water Management Analysis 24
5 Pollutant Analysis 25
6 Runoff Analysis 26
7 Simulation Models: Products 28
8 Cost Comparison Between Surface Ponding Techniques and
Conventional Sewer Installations 31
9 Advanced Street Cleaner Pollutant Recovery Percentages ... 33
10 Swirl Regulator/Concentrator: Suspended Solids Removal. . . 44
11 Swirl Regulator/Concentrator: BODr Removal 44
12 Wet-Weather Treatment Plant Performance Data 50
13 Sludge/Solids: Products 53
14 Significant Documents Completed 56
15 Significant Documents Anticipated 57
16 Typical Capital Costs for SCS Control/Treatment (ENR 2000) . 59
17 Des Moines: Control Costs vs. Violations of DO Standard
(4 ppm) 61
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The assistance and thoughtful ness of Francis J. Condon of the Waste
Management Division, EPA, Washington, D.C., in the preparation of the
"Erosion/Sedimentation Control: Products" and "Hydrologic Modification
Category Status" subsections, is gratefully acknowledged.
Betty H. Mohary of the Storm and Combined Sewer Section deserves
special recognition for her perseverance, unselfish devotion, and extreme
effort in putting this report together.
The cooperation of .Richard Traver, Russell Bowden, Mary Landante
Kathy Rozgonyi and Linda Zipfel of the Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, N.J.,is acknowledged with sincere appreciation.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Control and treatment of stormwater discharges and combined sewage
overflows from urban areas are problems of increasing importance in the
field of water quality management. Over the past decade much research
effort has been expended and a large amount of data has been generated,
primarily through the actions and support of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Storm and Combined Sewer Research and Development
Program.
The products of the Program (Figure 1.) as it will be presented will
be divided into the following areas, common to the major elements of
Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution Control, and Sewered and Unsewered
Runoff Pollution Control: Problem Definition, User Assistance Tools
(Instrumentation, Computers), Land Management, Collection System Control,
Storage, Treatment, Sludge and Solids, integrated Systems, and Technical
Assistance and Technology Transfer.
Table 1. breaks down these categories into more specific elements
which will be discussed individually. There have been many projects under
the Program -- about 150, so only a basic Program direction and the more
significant products, both completed and anticipated, will be highlighted.
References are cited for completed Program reports (numerically indicated),
ongoing Program projects (indicated by "P" numbers), and in-house and
miscellaneous documents (indicated by "R" numbers).
-------
I
COMBINED
SEWERS
INFILTRATED
SAN. SEWERS
STORM
SEWERS
UNSEWERED
RUNOFF
I
I I
i HYDROLOGIC
MODIFICATIONS
COMBINED SEWER
POLLUTION CONTROL
SEWERED & UNSEWERED
RUNOFF
POLLUTION CONTROL
RUNOFF POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAM
•PROBLEM DEFINITION
•USER ASSISTANCE TOOLS
INSTR. & COMPUTERS
•LAND MANAGEMENT
•COLL. SYS. CONTROL
• STORAGE
• TREATMENT
• SLUDGE/SOLIDS
• INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
• TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Figure 1. EPA Storm and Combined Sewer R&D Program
-------
CATEGORIES
PROBLEM rJEHNIUUN
Characterization
Solution Methodology
USER ASSISTANCE TOOLS
Instrumentation
.AM HAWfiEMEfJT
Enforced controls
COLLECTION 5V5TEH CONTROLS
Sewer separation
Sewers
tide qates
S^^cortrol^
sTtmi; ^^
In-Line
Off-Line
TREATMENT
Biologica treatment
Physical-chem cal
Disinfection
Land disposal
SLUDGE/ SOLIDS
Characterization/Q'jant -
fication
(Varies)
Dual use UWF/DWF (storage/
treatment
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER'
Consultation to Fed.,
quasi -govt. agencies
Public Inf. Requests
Consultation to foreign
govt, arid international
confer.
In-House seminars
SWMH
Higher Educat on
Planning/design/SOTV
assess manuals and extra-
mural pub] ications
INITIATED/ACCOMPLISHED
Prelim, appraisals CSO/SW prob., CSO/SW char.,
deicing, sed./eros,, loading factors, rec. water
SQTA S&CS tech., plan/select guide, conduct of SW
studies, SOTA's sed./eros. & deicing control, unit
cost factor dev .
Raingage, flow measuring, sampling, monitoring.
control
Simplified, detailed/complex, operational,
dissemination
NON-STRUCTURAL:
tural), porous pavement
Air pollution, eros,/sed., cropping, berms, chemical
use, hydrophobic, deicing
"First flush" relief: flushing/cleaning, new designs
swirl S, helical, fluidic reg.
Provides storage/discharge options
Use excess sewer capacity
ries), subterrain. (natural formations, silos 6
tunnels), underwater, sol ids impacts
w/continuously operated plant
Precipitation, filtration, adsorption, ion exchange,
break-pt Cl?
Chlorination, hypochlorination, ozonation, chlorine
organism indicator study [pathogen, virus), 2-stage
Harsh land
Thickening, digestion, centrifugation, vacuum filtra-
tion, incineration
econ. w/treatment
Lagoon storage/treat,, HRTF, contact stab., P-C, hi-
rate filter, equalization, combined sewers
treat. /reuse
EPA, OAWP (needs surveys): EPA TT (seminars, film
EPA Hq and Regions on 201/208 studies and seminars;
Reg. V on 108 grants; NSF. DOT, OURT (reviews,
confer, steering comni ttees); CEQ & NCWQ (proposal
ports, example methodology for prob. solution, conf.
moderator, prog, committees
Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand), Canadian (TAG)
IJC (steering com.) 1AUPH (confer & prog, commit-
Varioi/s tech. areas; overviews
Short course,; user's assistance manuals/dissem-
ination
SCS prog, university coursp man,
Overall prog, concepts, sol. method, sampling/anal . ,
costs, specific processes
ON GOING
-Direct rec. water/source loading factor analysis
-Oev. S6CS strategy document
-Analyze optimum SiCS/DWF T/C combinations
-Verlf. magnetic flowrneter for simultaneous press/
gravity flow meas. (supplement)
(Syracuse- supplement)
-Dev, syst. analysis program for quantification/hand-
ling of CSO sludge/sol ids
fall predict.
-Hydr. model for steep slopes (supplement)
stream det./ret.
-Demo in-situ hydrophobic substance
-Demo sedT/eros. control techniques in SE USA
(supplement)
-Demo improved street cleaninq practices
concrete pipe
w/rainfall predict.
high-rate disinf. by ClO^/Cl^ and mixing incl:
eval.) (Syracuse-supplement)
-Feas, of land disposal (Envirex-supplement)
-Evaluate: methods of ultimate disposal of WWF solids
(En vi rex- supplement}
-Continuous (15% - 20% of prog, time)
(201) and planning grant (208) assist.
due to CSO emphasis
Table 1. Summary Storm and Combined Sewer Program
-------
PROBLEM DEFINITION
The program starts with "Problem Definition" broken into "Character-
ization" and "Solution Methodology" (Figure 2.).
The background of sewer construction led to the present urban runoff
problem. Early drainage plans made no provisions for storm flow pollutional
impacts. Untreated overflows occur from storm events giving rise to the
storm flow pollution problem.
Simply stated the problem is:
a. Cstty £ak&> a both, wkat, do you. do uiLth the. dvvty
Three types of discharges are involved: combined sewer overflows (CSO),
storm drainage in separate systems, and overflows from infiltrated sanitary
sewers. Significantly, the storm path and collection system configuration
may have a pronounced influence on combined overflow quality, resulting
in simultaneous discharge mixtures of sewage and runoff at different
points, varying from raw to highly diluted as the system adjusts to a
particular storm pattern. The problem constituents of general concern
are visible matter, infectious bacteria, organics, and solids and in
addition may include nutrients, heavy metals and pesticides.
CHARACTERIZATION
Representative Concentrations
Figure 3. gives some representative concentrations for comparison
purposes. As shown the average BOD concentration in combined sewer overflow
is approximately one-half the raw sanitary sewage BOD. However, storm dis-
charges must be considered in terms of their shockloading effect due to
their great magnitude. A not uncommon rainfall intensity of 1 in./hr will
produce urban flowrates 50 to 100 times greater than the dry-weather flow
(DWF) from the same area. Even separate storm wastewaters are significant
sources of pollution, "typically" characterized as having solids concentrations
equal to or greater than those of untreated sanitary wastewater, and BOD con-
centrations approximately equal to those of secondary effluent. Bacterial
contanr: nation of separate storm wastewaters is typically 2 to 4 orders of
magnitude less than that of untreated sanitary wastewaters. Significantly,
however, it is 2 to 4 orders of magnitude greater than concentrations con-
sidered safe for water contact activities.
-------
PRE-FY76
FY76
FUTURE
CHARACTERIZATION
•PRELIM APPRAISALS CSO/SW PROB
•CSO/SW CHARACTERIZATION
-FLOW
-LAND LOADING FACTORS(D/D ACCUMUL.
-POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
•REC. WATER IMPACT PREDICTIONS
»DEICING CHEMICALS
• SEDIMENT/EROSION
•PATHOGEN ANALYSIS
• NATIONWIDE CONTROL/COST ASSESS
•DATA BASE
DIRECT REC. WATER/SOURCE
LOG. ANAL
ADDITIONAL REC. WATER/
OPTIMIZED SOURCE LOG FACTORS
SOLUTION METHODOLOGY
• SOTA'S FLOW MEAS.
-FLOWRATE
-SAMPLING/IN SITU ORG
• SOTA DEICING CONTROL
• SOTA SEDIM/EROSION CONTROL
•8-CITIES ECON./SOLUTION COMPARISONS
• SOTA S&CS TECHNOLOGY AND FILM
« MANUAL: STORM FLOW RATE &
VOL DETERMINATION
• GUIDE FOR CONDUCT OF SW STUDIES
• PROCESS COST FACTOR DEV
•GUIDE FOR URBAN PLAN/CORRECTION;
INCLUDE REC. WATER OBJECTIVES
• CITY-WIDE DEM.
DEV S&CS STRATEGY DOC
(IN-HOUSE)
ANALYZE OPT. S&CS/DWF
T/C COMB. (IN-HOUSE)
MANUAL: REFINED SOLUTION
METHODOLOGY
NAT'L ASSESS PLAN GRANTS
Figure 2. Problem Definition
-------
200
200
BOD
SS
^f RAW
Y//X COMBINED
| | STORM
6-7
DO
5*107
H RAW
Y//\ COMBINED
I J STORM
10
TOTAL COUFORM TOTAL
MPN/100 ml NITROGEN
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
Figure 3. Representative Strengths of
Wastewaters (Flow Weighted
Means in mg/1)
-------
Microbiological studies of both sanitary sewage and storm runoff have
shown a consistently high recovery of both pathogenic and indicator or-
ganisms (160). The most concentrated pathogens were Pseudemonas aerugigosa
anqj Staphylococcus aureus at levels ranging from 10 to 10 and from 10 to
10 /100ml, respectively. Salmonella and enteroviruses, though frequently
isolated were found at levels of only 10 to 10/10 liters of urban runoff.
This strongly indicates that all types of urban runoff, in general, are
hazardous to health.
Representative Loads
From 40% to 80% of the total annual organic loading entering
receiving waters from a city is caused by sources other than the treatment
plant (R-l). Assuming treatment plants are operating properly, during a
single storm event, from 94% to 99% of the organic load and almost all
settleable solids are attributed to wet-weather flow (WWF) sources (R-l).
The runoff of toxic pollutants, particularly heavy metals, is also high--
considerably higher than typical industrial discharges. For example, New York
Harbor receives metals from treatment plant effluents; discharges from combined
sewer overflows and separate storm sewers; and untreated wastewater included
in the CSO and from sewered areas not yet served by treatment plants. As
can be seen in Table 2., urban runoff is the major contributor of heavy metals
to the Harbor (R-2).
Potential Impacts
Approximately one-half of the stream miles in this country are water
quality limited and 30% of these stream lengths are polluted to a certain
degree with urban runoff. Hence, generally speaking, secondary treatment
of DWF is not sufficient to produce required receiving water quality;
and control of runoff pollution becomes an alternative for maintaining
stream standards. Accordingly, both water quality planning and water
pollution abatement programs need to be based on an analysis of the total
urban pollution loads.
TABLE 2. .—Metals Discharged to the Harbor from New York City Sources
Source
Plant effluents
Runoff *
Untreated wastewater
Total weight Ob/day)
Weighted average concentration (mg/1)
Cu
1,410
1,990
980
4,380
0.2S
Cr
780
690
570
2,040
0.12
Ni
930
650
430
2,010
0.11
Zn
2,520
6,920
1,500
10,940
0.62
Cd
95
110
60
265
0.015
*In reality, shockload discharges are much greater.
-------
Until the urban stormwater situation is analyzed and efficient
corrective measures taken, there is little or no sense in seeking higher
levels of treatment efficiency in existing plants. For example,
o In Roanoke, VA domestic waste load removal was upgraded from
86% to 93%, yet there was no dramatic reduction in the BOD
load (3.2 million pounds before upgrading, compared to 3.1
million pounds after)(41).
o If Durham, NC provided 100% removal of organics and suspended
solids from the raw municipal waste on an annual basis, the
total reduction of pollutants discharged to the receiving water
would only be 59% of the ultimate BOD, and 5% of the suspended
solids (112).
These examples are for separate systems. Communities with combined
systems offer a potentially greater pollutional impact since additional
loads come from domestic wastewaters, dry-weather sediment wash-out, and
more impervious and populated lands.
Receiving Water Quality Impacts
For the aforementioned Durham study it was found that during storm
flows, dissolved oxygen content of the receiving watercourse was independent
of the degree of treatment of municipal wastes beyond secondary treatment.
Oxygen sag estimates were unchanged even if the secondary plant was assumed
upgraded to zero discharge, and stormwater discharges governed the oxygen
sag 20 percent of the time.
There is an R&D study (P-68) in the Milwaukee area to determine
water quality impacts from wet-weather discharges. This study is being
worked in conjunction with a 201, Step 1 construction grant for the
evaluation of combined sewer overflow pollution and control; and will
provide the necessary "receiving water impact" basis for these evaluations.
Early results from direct receiving water sampling in the Milwaukee
River provide strong evidence of CSO impacts on intensifying D.O. sag and
increasing fecal coliform concentration. Figure 4. represents D.O. analyses
for the Wells Street sampling station that lies at the downstream portion
of the combined sewer area. Samples were collected at three hour intervals
during 72 hours of dry weather during June 1975, averaged for the stream
cross-section, and followed approximately nine days of antecedent dry weather,
D.O. values hovered around 6 to 8 rng/1.
Figure 5. is for the same Wells Street location representing data from
six days of monitoring following a 0.26 inch rainfall on October 14-15,
1975. Continuous monitoring at the site showed D.O. levels between
5.0 and 7.8 mg/1 for the three days prior to rainfall. (The lag between
the end of the storm and beginning of data acquisition was due to equipment
malfunction.) The graph indicates a highly significant D.O. sag to zero
mg/1 and six days after the storm required for recovery.
-------
12.0 ,
11,
10,
^ 9.
rH
!?8i
7
01
"6.
x
o
-o 5.
0)
o
w 3 •
*r',
Q
2.
,0
0 -
0 -
0 -
0 -
0
o -
o -
o -
o -
o -
0
Surface
/" -\
10 Foot Surface
0630 oooo oooo oooo
9 June 75 10 June 75 11 June 75
Time
10-,
9-
c
OJ
too q-
x"
O
T) ^
Oi
H
S3H
en
•H
P2J
.End of Storm
Start of Sampli ng
10 Foot Depth
Surface /
/ V /
/ V /
TIT I I
-------
Adverse combined sewer overflow effects on fecal coliform concentrations
in the Milwaukee River in the proximity of Lake Michigan were also deciphered.
Figures 6. and 7. depict fecal coliform in the Milwaukee River during the same
dry- and wet-weather monitoring periods as in Figures 4. and 5., respectively
Additionally, Figures 6. and 7. contain the Brown Deer Road monitoring site
which is well above the intensely urbanized combined sewer overflow area.
There is nearly a two log increase in enteric microorganisms downstream in the
CSO area after wet-weather discharges indicating a potential health hazard for
the nearby Lake beach fronts. Brown Deer Road showed no significant differ-
ence in fecal coliform concentration.
Due to Health Department findings, shell fishing must cease in Narra-
gansett Bay in the vicinity of the Providence, RI overflows for periods of
seven and ten days following rainfalls of one-half and one inch, respectively.
Other studies (P-15, 157,R-3) based on mass balance effects of urban
runoff in receiving waters have reinforced these findings.
Erosion/Sediment Impacts
Erosion-sedimentation causes the stripping of land, filling of surface
waters, and water pollution. Urbanization causes acceleKated^erosion, raising
sediment yields two to three orders of magnitude from 10-10 tons/sq mi/yr
to 10 - 10 tons/sq mi/yr (164). At the present national rate of urbaniza-
tion, i.e., 4,000 ac/day, erosion/sedimentation must be recognized as a major
environmental problem.
Characterization: Products
Past characterization studies for storm flow provide a data base for
pollutant source accumulation, and hydraulic and pollutant loads (2,20,34,35,
41,47,51,53,54,59,60,63,65,67,73,81,82,83,88,102,123,124,127,128,143,149). A
computerized data base and retrieval system has been developed for urban
runoff (P-49). The data base contains screened and reasonably accurate
data that is intended for model verification and future study area data
synthesis -- especially useful to 201 and 208 planning agencies.
Besides the more generalized characterization studies, specific
studies have been carried out for deicing salt (67,109,86), sediment/erosion
(129), and pathogenic impacts (160) from storm flows.
Nationwide Cost Assessment
Sewer Separation --
The concept of constructing new sanitary sewers to replace existing
combined sewers has largely been abandoned for pollution control due to
enormous costs, limited abatement effectiveness, inconvenience to the public,
and extended time for implementation. The use of alternate measures for
combined sewer overflow control could reduce costs to about one-third the
cost for separation (2,102). It is emphasized that sewer separation would
not cope with the runoff pollution load.
10
-------
10'
o IO
o
•=*=
o
4-
107
10
o 10-
CJ>
io
10
Day
1
Wei Is
Brown Deer
Day
2
Day
3
Figure 6. Dry Weather
io
10
o
o
S
OJ
10
We 11s
Brown Deer
Figure 7. Wet Weather
Fecal Coliform Concentrations, Wells Street (CSO Area)
& Brown Deer Road (Separate Drainage Area)
Milwaukee River, Milwaukee, WI
-------
High Costs Implied — . .
However, even in alternate approaches high costs have been implied.
The 1974 Needs Survey (R-4), the 1967 EPA survey by the American Public
Works Association (2), and the 1975 National Commission on Water Quality
(NCWQ) Report (R-5), identified national costs for abating combined sewer
overflow pollution at $26 billion, or approximately one-fourth of the total
for municipal sewage control. The cost of abating separate stormwater
pollution was estimated at $235 billion by the Needs Survey and $173 billion
(for 75% BOD reduction) by another NCWQ report (R-6).
There must be a more accurate assessment of the problem both nationwide
and regional to provide the necessary foundation for policy and Jaw making,
and firmer pollution abatement targets -- realistically, can a job be done
for the money allotted?
New R&D Estimates Imply Lower Costs--
The recently completed Nationwide Assessment report (157) has attempted
to more accurately assess these national cost estimates by reflecting a more
logical consideration of such items as: climate, land usage, and degree of
urbanization; pollution abatement of storm flow only and not separate,
conventional flood control; appropriate design flows; and the benefits of
optimized coordinated systems of smaller storage-treatment units not taken
into consideration in earlier estimates. The resultant national cost for
combined sewer overflow and separate stormwater pollution control was $23
billion at 75% BOD removal (Curve A, Figure 8.) (157). It is estimated that
the incremental costs for combined sewer overflow pollution abatement alone
would be $9 billion (Curve D, Figure 8).
Additional national cost reductions were shown by the multi-purpose
coordinated use of wet and dry weather flow treatment facilities, and
storm flow storage facilities used as dual sedimentation-treatment pro-
cesses (see Curve B, Figure 8.). Within certain control levels best manage-
ment practices, e.g., street cleaning and sewer flushing, could further
reduce control costs (Curve C, Figure 8.).
When compared to prior studies the major reduction in the national
figure for stormwater control is attributable to discounting storm sewer
line construction (at $84 billion) and flood control (at $73 billion). These
new estimates are admittedly limited because of required assumptions and the
simplistic approach taken; but the point is, R&D should not shy away from
separate stormwater research and control implementation based on even rougher
preliminary surveys (e.g., the 1974 Needs or NCWQ surveys), if what is required
is better estimating procedures; especially when stormwater pollution is site
specific, and its abatement may be cost-effective in certain areas of the
country.
SOLUTION METHODOLOGY
The second area under Problem Definition, "Solution Methodology"
naturally followed initial "Characterization" for providing a uniform and
necessary background for the user community.
12
-------
540O
EQUATION. Z-
e99a0046R
SINGLE PURPOSE STORAGE - T RE ATMENT
ONLV
MULTIPLE PURPOSE PORTION OF STORAGE
TREATMENT COSTS uSSiGNEf) 10
PURPOSES
SINGLE PURPOSE STORAGE-TREATMENT
AND 8EST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
SINGLE PURPOSE STORAGE-TREATMENT
ONLY - RESULTS FOR COMBINED
SEWERED AREAS
U S URBAN POPULATION 149 AID
U.S. DEVELOPED URdAN AREA 156 X 10° oc
100
% BOD REMOVAL ,
Figure 8. Single Purpose and Multiple Purpose Stormwater Pollution
Control Costs for US
13
-------
More Accurate Problem Assessment
Considering the limitations in the presently available data base,
the first and most fundamental approach should be a more accurate assess-
ment of the problem. Ideally, this should involve acquiring data on a
city-wide basis for both DWF and wet-weather flow (WWF) including upstream-
downstream pollutant mass balances and the effects of the waste loads on
the receiving waters.
Cost-Effective Approach
Integrated with a more accurate assessment is the consideration of
cost-effective approaches to WWF pollution control.
Present abatement alternatives exhibit an extraordinary range of
cost-effectiveness. For example, cost-effectiveness in terms of dollars/lb
of pollutant removed for an alternative such as storage plus primary
treatment, varies over a range of 75:1, depending on such factors as location
and land costs, type and condition of sewerage systems, pollution loads,
and type of storage configuration. This very high cost-effectiveness
variability demonstrates the irrationality of any attempt to prescribe
uniform national standards for the technology of total urban load abate-
ment as opposed to requiring site-specific studies.
There is an excellent opportunity to bring down the high costs
implied for storm flow control. The most cost-effective solution method-
ology must thoroughly consider:
1. Wet-weather pollution impacts in lieu of blindly upgrading
existing municipal plants.
2. Structural vs. land management and non-structural techniques
Studies have indicated that it may be cheaper to remove
pollutants from the source by such measures as street,
catch basin, and sewer cleaning than by eliminating them by
downstream treatment. Certain land use, zoning, and construc-
tion site erosion control practices are other ways of
alleviating the solids burden to the receiving stream or
treatment plant;
3. Integrating dry and wet-weather flow systems to make maximum
use of the existing sewerage system during wet conditions
and maximum use of wet-weather control/treatment facilities
during dry weather; and
4. The segment or bend on the percent pollutant control vs. cost
curve (see Figure 8. for example) where cost differences accelerate
at much higher rates than pollutant control increases. This phenomena
is caused by the need to size storage-treatment facilities at dis-
proportionately greater capacities for the less frequent storm
events required for higher percent pollutant controls.
14
-------
Until two important philosophies are allowed to prevail, the high cost
implications for wet-weather pollution abatement will continue. First, flood
and erosion control technology must be integrated with pollution control
technology so that the retention and drainage facilities required for flood
and erosion control can be simultaneously designed for integrated dual-
benefits of pollution control. Second, if land management and non-structural
techniques are maximized and integrated, there will be less to pay for the
extraction of pollutants from storm flows in the potentially more costly
downstream plants.
Example Solution Methodology
It is worthwhile to discuss a hypothetical example of a cost-effective
solution methodology. Figure 9. represents one such approach. This case is
for D.O.; actual studies should include other parameters and should represent
at least one year of continuous data (at a minimum rainfall data). By this
analysis a truer cost-effectiveness comparison can be made based on total
time of receiving water impacts and associated abatement costs. For example,
if a 5 mg/1 D.O. is desired in the receiving water 75% of the time as a stan-
dard, an advanced form of wet-weather treatment or primary wet-weather treatment
integrated with land management is required. The latter is the most cost-
effective at $3M. This or similar methodologies (157, Chapter VII) can help
set cost-effective~standards as well as select alternatives.
At this juncture it is most appropriate to bring out the fact that there
is a critical lacking of meaningful water quality standards—especially for
storm flow transient effects! This limitation forces the use of (1) existing
criteria not well backed up by ecological receiving water effects, or
(2) arbitrary percent control of combined sewer overflow or storm discharges.
A critical need exists for the technology development sectors to join to-
gether with the receiving water ecology sectors to define and establish
wet-weather receiving water effects — for only then will the right bench-
marks be available for proper solution methodology. It is felt that the
present state-of-the-art is advanced far enough to generate land runoff
pollutant loadings from different control options and subsequent receiving
water pollutant concentration. By filling the important gap of an
adequate set of receiving water quality standards to work with, the
necessary foundation tools will be available for a true cost-effective
solution methodology.
Overcome Administrative Problems
It is essential to include these concepts to handle the job properly.
However, there are basic problems in administration that must be overcome.
The autonomous Federal and local agencies and professions involved in
flood ,and erosion control, pollution control, and land management and environ-
mental' planning must be integrated at both the planning and operation levels.
Multi-agency grant coverage must be adequate to stimulate such an approach.
For example, EPA would have to join with the Corps, Soil Conservation Service,
Department of Transportation, and perhaps other Federal agencies as well as
15
-------
100 -
CO
U
co
CO
<
A|
o
CN
I
U
LLJ
§
H-
Jtf
75 --
WET-II (75% Rem) OR
\ ("WET-S (PRIM)/LM
v^ (75% Rem)
t& i\
\
•\
v\
TERTIARY X^>\
D.O. (mg/l)
CONTROL
ALTERNATIVES
EXISTING
TERTIARY
WET-I (PRIMARY)
WET-II (ADV)
WET-I/LAND MGMT.
% BOD REMOVAL
DRY WEATHER
85
95
85
85
85
WET WEATHER
0
0
25
75
75
COST
($xl06)
—
6
1
6
3
Figure 9. Example Solution Methodology
16
-------
departments of pollution control, sanitation, planning and flood control at
the local level. EPA's present policy of funding construction will also need
expansion to cover cost-effective land management and non-structural techniques
promulgated by its planning grant approach.
Solution Methodology: Products
Highlighted solution methodology products are the often referenced eight
city studies (41,51,53,54,49,60,65,83) which involved an economic comparison of
pollution control alternatives for both dry and wet weather flow.
The state-of-the-art text on urban stormwater management and technology
(102) is considered an excellent program milestone and guide for planners and
engineers. It organizes and presents more than 100 completed Program projects
as of December 1973. The text is presently being updated and will include compre-
hensive guidelines for total city-wide, wet-weather pollution control planning
and countermeasure selection (P-5). Other in-house Program documents (111, R-6a,
R-6b, R-6c, R-6d, R-6e, R-6f, R-6g, R-6h, R-6i) must also be included in this
category.
A film is available covering the entire Program, and in particular
full-scale control technologies (R-7). Program seminar proceedings (6,40,96)
with themes of "design, operation, and costs" have been published. Urban
runoff seminar proceedings for 208 planning agencies (140a) are also avail-
able. Separate engineering manuals are available for urban storm flowrate
and volume determination (140,123), storm sewer design (71), and conducting
urban stormwater pollution and control studies (145). SOTA's on storm flow
measuring (130) and sampling (87,133) have also been published. All these
documents are valuable references for the planning and implementing of
urban stormwater studies for PL 92-500, 201, Step 1, and 208 grants.
In the area of "unit cost information" a manual (156) is at press which
contains summary unit cost graphs on construction and operation of the basic
urban stormwater storage and treatment devices. An example on storage facility
construction costs is presented in Figure 10. Additional cost information and
equations can be obtained from the abovementioned text on urban stormwater
management and technology (102), the SWMM user's manual (116), the nationwide
stormwater assessment document (157), and the manual for preliminary (level I)
stormwater control screening (153).
Other important and widely referenced SOTA manuals are available for
deicing pollution (100,104) and erosion control (68,70,90,92,168,169). The SOTA
document on size and settling velocity characteristics of particles in storm
and sanitary water (115) is important because it offers information for
physical treatability of suspended solids and anticipated settlement in
receiving waters. More information of this nature, along with the availability
of pollutants with the suspended solids, is needed. These, along with the
aforementioned solution methodology documents, are or should be serving for
201 and 208 studies.
17
-------
o
u
u
Z3
o;
O
U
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10
/
/ s
S.S
s
xl
/•"
- CO
/
X
x
/
s^
/
X
>ICR
X
^
/
-X1
x
ET
X
X1
^
X
E-
X
^x
r
/
c
/>
/
—
r
/^
/
/
X"
/E
/
^
x'
irS
RED-^X^
/
/
S
/
/
S
^
/
L
X
/"
^x
X
X
RT^
X
X
^CON
X
1Eh
—
—
—
/
)
—
-t-
>
C
X
-
—
—
X
*E
X
-
-
•"•
1
*
-
s
E
^
-
X^
s^
-UNCOV
X
X"
ERED
—
• —
-
-
-
-
---
2 345678 9 2 3456789 2 3456789
STORAGE CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS
Figure 10. Construction Cost Example: Storage Facilities
-------
Looking to the near future a city-wide demonstration (P-15) of a multi-
faceted approach methodology is nearing completion in Rochester, N.Y. The
product from this study will serve as an example for other cities.
There is also an endeavor to study direct receiving water impacts along
with verification of a water quality model. This task will serve as an im-
portant demonstration by lending credence to the implications of storm flow
impacts. The previously discussed Milwaukee project (P-68) covers this ob-
jective. Other demonstration sites are being sought by the Program. Re-
ceiving water impacts have been included in an ongoing project in Lancaster,
PA (P-4) and additional non-EPA funds to conduct a receiving water impact
analysis for the ongoing Rochester project (P-15) have been secured.
In FY 78 the Program would like to initiate an assessment of the various
201 and 208 planning grants, and later a refined manual on solution methodology
culminating Program objectives in the area of problem definition.
19
-------
USER ASSISTANCE TOOLS
The User Assistance Tools are divided into "Instrumentation" and
"Simulation Models."
INSTRUMENTATION
The qualitative and quantitative measurement of storm overflows is
essential for planning, process design, control, evaluation, and enforcement.
"Urban intelligence systems" require real-time data from rapid remote
sensors in order to achieve remote control of a sewerage network. Sampling
devices do not provide representative aliquots, and in-line measurement of
suspended solids and organics is needed. Conventional rate-of-flow meters
have been developed mainly for relatively steady-state irrigational streams
and sanitary flows and not for the highly varying surges encountered in
storm and combined sewers. A schematic of instrumentation development by
the Program is shown on Figure 11.
The electromagnetic (P-45), ultra-sound (150), and passive sound (139)
flowmeters have been developed to overcome these adverse storm flow condi-
tions (which require dual pressure-gravity measurement of unsteady flows by
non-intrusive instrumentation). Further demonstration of the electromagnetic
and passive sound flowmeters will take place shortly. Passive sound instruments
offer the additional benefit of extremely low power requirements rendering
them amenable to installation at remote overflow locations (where power may
not exist) and integration into city-wide, in-sewer, sensing, and control
systems. A prototype sampler for capturing representative solids in storm
flow, and overcoming storm flow adversities, has been developed and compared
with conventional samplers. Favorable results have been obtained and a
design manual (135) is available. Demonstration of two previously developed
instantaneous, in situ monitoring devices for suspended solids (113) (based
on the optical principle of suspended solids depolarizing polarized light)
and TOC (126) were successfully conducted.
Separate SOTA reports for flow measurement (130) and sampling (87,133)
have been mentioned under problem definition. A SOTA on organic analyzers
(110) is also available. Because storm flow conditions are extremely adverse,
the manuals and instruments developed for the Program in this area are
useful for the monitoring of all types of waste flows.
20
-------
RAIN
QUAN
(FLOW MEAS)
PRE-FY76
CONVENT
GAGES
METER DEV
• DUAL GRAVITY-
PRESS
» NON-INTRUSIVE
• UNSTEADY STATE
(EM, SOUND,
PASSIVE SOUND)
FY76
FUTURE
RADAR
(REMOTE
WARNING)
FULL-SCALE
TEST LOOP
• REAL SEWAGE
QUAL
(SAMPLING,
IN-SITU)
SOA/
ASSESS
SAMPLING
DEV/DEM SCS
• IN SITU SS
• IN SITU TOC
•SAMPLER
CONT. DEM. SCS
• IN SITU TOC
•SAMPLER
CONTROL
• FABREDAM
• POSITIVE CONTROL GATES
•FLUIDIC
• TELEMETRY (REMOTE
SENSING/CONTROL)
• OPTIMIZE
DIVERSION
GATES(FOR
IN-LINE)
Figure 11. Instrumentation for Total System Management
-------
Remote raingaging by radar is being considered for an automated
combined sewer flow routing project in San Francisco (P-25).
Instrumentation: Products
An instrumentation product summary is listed on Table 3.
Table 3. Instrumentation: Products
Flow Measuring Devices Development
o Electromagnetic (open-channel and press flow) (P-45)
o Ultra-sound (150)
o Passive Sound (139)
Sampler Development (135)
In situ suspended solids monitor development (113)
In situ TOG monitoring system development (126)
SOTA/Assessment reports
o Sampling (133)
o Flow measuring (130)
o Organics monitoring (110)
SIMULATION MODELS
Math models are needed to predict complex dynamic responses to variable
and stochastic climatological phenomena. Models have been subcategorized
into three groups: (1) simplified for preliminary planning, (2) detailed
for planning and design, and (3) operational for supervisory control
(Figure 12.).
The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) provides a detailed simulation
of the quantity and quality of stormwater during a specified precipitation
event. Its benefits for detailed planning and design have been demonstrated
and the model is widely used. However, for many users it is too detailed;
e.g., the 208 planning effort needs simplified procedures to permit pre-
liminary screening of alternatives. Consequently, current Program thinking on
urban water management analysis in general, and SWMM in particular, involves
four levels of evaluation techniques ranging from simple to complex proce-
dures that can be worked together. The major portions of all four levels
have been developed (Table 4.).
22
-------
PRE-FY76
FY76
FUTURE
SIMPLIFIED
(PRE-PLAN)
DETAILED
(PLAN/DESIGN)
IX)
CO
DEV/VERIFY
SWMM
AUGMENT SWMM
• NATURAL DRAIN
• DRY WEATH
SIMPLIFIED
SWMM
• HRLY STEPS
• CONTINUOUS
M&E SIMPLIFIED
« SCREENING
.400 VS 15000 STATEMENTS
1
1
*
] DEM. CITY-WIDE
] (ROCHESTER)
INCORP
SLUDGE
HANDLING
INCORP
• IMPROVE
QUAL
• SOLIDS
DEPOSITION
•REUSE
• REC HoO
ECON
• H O USE
ECON
UWMM
DEM.
OPERATIONAL
MANUAL SUPERVISORY
CONTROL DEMOS
(DETROIT, ST. P A UL, SEATTLE)
DEV AUTOMATIC
CONTROL
(SAN FRANSCICO)
DEM. AUTOMATIC
CONTROL
DISSEMINATION
SWMM
USER'S
MANUAL
1
T T.
• USER ASSIST
PROG
• SHORT COURSES
('74, '75)
SWMM
»
USER'S
MAN II
SWMM
MAN III
SWMM
MAN IV
UWMM
USER'S
MAN
Figure 12. Simulation Models for Total System Management
-------
Table 4. Levels of Urban Water Management Analysis
Preliminary: Print out information from Nationwide Assessment (157
Level I: Desktop - no computer, statistical analysis
o UF Methodology (153)
o Hydroscience methodology (R-8)
Level II: Simplified continuous simulation model
o Simplified SWMM (by M&E) (148)
Level III: Refined continuous simulation model
o Continuous SWMM (P-53)
o STORM (R-9, R-10)
Level IV: Sophisticated single event simulation model
o Detailed SWMM (116,125)
Planning/Design Models
Level I--
The Level I procedure as developed by the University of Florida (153)
was directly derived from the previously mentioned nationwide cost assess-
ment project (157). This assessment document already contains data on land
use; drainage system types; runoff volumes and pollutant quantities; costs
and cost-effective control strategies for the 248 Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas in the country. The information, also itemized for States
and EPA regions, can be used in the early stages of problem assessment,
determining national cost requirements and preliminary planning.
In Level I, a "desktop" statistical analysis procedure permits the
user to estimate the quantity and quality of urban runoff in the combined,
storm and unsewered portions of each urban area in his jurisdiction.
For example, under the University of Florida approach, equations such as
cc we ™n in, Mb e 5' have been statistically developed to estimate BODC,
' - ^ ?4 and N loads as a function of land use, type of sewer system, 5
precipitation, population density, and street sweeping frequency. The a
and b terms represent normalized loading factors iVlb/ac-in. tabularized
as functions of land use, i and pollutant type, j, for separate and
combined areas, respectively. These factors were derived from a statistical
review of available stormwater pollutant loading and effluent concentration
data (157).
Similarly, Table 6. gives equations for analyzing runoff for both
stormwater flow prediction and DWF prediction. Here again the equations
were based on a statistical analysis of available data.
24
-------
Table 5. Pollutant Analysis
The following equations may be used to predict annual average
loading rates as a function of land use, precipitation and population
density.
Separate Areas:
Combined Areas:
where
£2(PDd)
Ib
P
PD
f (PD ) population density
Land Uses :
Pollutants :
Population
i —
i
i
i
1 j =
j
j
j
j
Func
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
ti
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Other Developed, e.g.,
(assume PD , = 0)
a
BOD , Total
Suspended Solids (SS)
Volatile Solids, Total
Total PO, (as PO, )
H 4
Total N
on: i = 1 f2(PDd)
i 2,3 f (PD )
i 4 f-,(PDJ
parks
(VS)
0.142 •
1.0
0.142
acre-yr
) . P . f (Pn ) . Y lb
/ d acre-yr
pounds of pollutant j generated per acre of
land use i per year,
annual precipitation, inches per year,
developed population density, persons per acre,
factors given in table below,
street sweeping effectiveness factor, and
cemeteries, schools
PD
0.54
Factor's a and 6 for Eqixitians: Separate factors, a, and combined factors,
5, nave units Ib/acre-in. To convert to kg/ha-cm, multiply
by 0.442.
Pollutant, j
Land Use, i 1.
Separate
Areas, ot
Combined
Areas, B
Street
1 .
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.W3
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Other
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Other
eping: Factor
0.
3.
1.
0.
3,
13,
5.
0
Y
BOD
799
20
.21
.113
.29
,2
.00
.467
is a
2. SS
16
22
29
2
67
91
120
11
.3
.2
.1
.70
.2
.8
.0
.1
function
3.
9
14
14
2
38
57
59
10
of
VS
.45
.0
.3
.6
.9
.9
.2
.8
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
street
• PO,
.0336
.0757
.0705
.00994
.139
.312
.291
.0411
sweeping
5. N
0.131
0.296
0.277
0.0605
0.540
1.22
1.14
0.250
interval
N , (days):
'x /20 if 0 < N <_ 20 days
s ~ s
1.0 if N > 20 days
s
25
-------
Table 6. Runoff Analysis
Stormwater Flow Prediction
AR = (0.15 + 0.75 1/100) P - 5.234 (DS)0'5957
where AR - Annual Runoff, in/yr
I = 9.6 pDd(0-573-0.0391 log10PDd)
where I = Imperviousness, Percent and
PD, = Population Density in Developed Portion of
d the Urbanized Area, Persons/Acre
P = Annual Precipitation, in/yr and
DS = 0.25-0.1875 (1/100) 0< I < 100
where DS = Depression Storage, in. (0.005 < DS < 0.30)
Dry Heather Flow Prediction
DWF - 1.34 PDd
where DWF = Annual Dry-Weather Flow, in/yr, and
PD, = Developed Population Density, Persons/Acre
A generalized method for evaluating the optimal mix of storage and treat-
ment and its associated costs has also been developed. Also, procedures for
comparing tertiary treatment with stormwater management and possible savings
from integrated management of domestic wastewater, stormwater quality and
stormwater quantity from combined and separate drainage areas, are available.
The Hydroscience approach offers another procedure for assessing urban
pollutant sources, loadings, and control. Both approaches, available in
the form of user's manuals, are at press (153, R-8).
Level II —
Level II involves a simplified continuous model for planning and pre-
liminary sizing of facilities. The model can run on daily time steps to
screen the entire history of rainfall records or hourly time steps to screen
the worst two years. It is inexpensive to set up and use, flexible enough
to be applicable to a variety of system configurations, and accurate even
though only very moderate expenditures are made for data collection and
preparation. It is especially valuable in sizing storage facilities based
on storm return periods and available in-line capacity. A user's manual
is available (148).
26
-------
Level Ill-
Level III involves a more refined continuous model approach (e.g., STORM,
continuous SWMM) which in addition to Level II provides for flow time routing
and continuous receiving water impact analyses. The number of program state-
ments involved here is in the order of a few thousand as compared to a few
hundred for the Level II effort. A user's manual and program for STORM is
available (R-9, R-10). The continuous SWMM user's manual is in preparation;
however, the computer program is available from the University of Florida.
Level IV—
The aforementioned three levels essentially represent various degrees of
planning efforts and the models involved are typified by relatively large
time steps (hours) and long simulation times (months and years). Data re-
quirements are kept to a minimum and their mathematical complexity is low.
Design models on the other hand are oriented toward the detailed simu-
lation of a single storm event. They provide a complete description of
flow and pollutant routing from the point of rainfall through the entire
urban runoff system and into the receiving waters. Such models may be
used for predictions of flows and concentrations anywhere in the
rainfall-runoff system and can illustrate the detailed and exact manner in
which abatement procedures or design options affect them. As such, these
models are a highly useful tool for determining least-cost abatement pro-
cedures for both quantity and quality problems in urban areas. They are
typified by short time steps (minutes) and short simulation times (hours).
Data requirements are usually very extensive. The EPA SWMM is such a model.
SWMM user's manuals and other pertinent references that were revised at critical
junctures are available (42,43,44,45,116,120). The Program would like to end
the simulation modeling program by expanding SWMM into an Urban Water Manage-
ment Model which integrates both dry- and wet-weather flow analyses
including sludge handling capabilities. This is emphasized in the Program
report on future direction of the modeling development (136).
Operational Models
The^e is also a defined program for operational models. Operational
models are used to produce actual control decisions during a storm event.
Rainfall is entered from telemetered stations and the model is used to
predict system responses a short time into the future. Various control
options may then be employed, e.g., in-system storage, diversions, regulator
settings. The Program has demonstrated supervisory control models in Detroit
(118), Minneapolis-St. Paul (19), and Seattle (29,98); and have recently
started on a program in San Francisco (P-25) riding "piqgy-back" with a $100
million construction grant, to develop a fully automated operational model
which includes rainfall prediction.
Simulation Models: Products
Other simulation model products include demonstration of a dissemination
and user assistance capability (122) and development of a short course and
course manual (125, P-51) for stormwater management model application. Of
particular note is the SOTA assessment document on 18 available mathematical
27
-------
models for storm and combined sewer management (141). The document presents
a summary of the objectives, advantages and limitations of each model along
with a side-by-side comparison to aid in assessing the applicability of a
model for a particular purpose. Table 7. summarizes simulation model products,
Table 7. Simulation Models: Products
o Development of a computer model (SWMM) for storm water management
(42,43,44,45).
o Updated and refined user's manual modifying and improving SWMM (116).
o Demonstration of a stormwater management model dissemination and user
assistance capability (122).
o User's manual for "desk-top calculation" procedure for preliminary
stormwater management planning (153).
o User's manual for simplified model application for preliminary storm-
water management planning (148).
o Course manual and seminar for stormwater management model application (125).
o Assessment of mathematical models for storm and combined sewer manage-
ment (141).
o Refine and augment the capabilities of SWMM and develop decision-making
capabilities (120).
o Evaluation of available runoff prediction methods for storm flowrate and
volume determination (140).
28
-------
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Wet weather flow control can be grouped into three management al-
ternatives. First there is the choice as to where to attack the problem:
at the source, (e.g., the street, gutters, and catchment areas) by land
management, in the collection system, or off-line by storage. Pollutants
can be removed by treatment and by employing complex or integrated systems
which combine variations of control and treatment including the dual-use
of dry-weather facilities. Second, there is the choice of how much
control or degree of treatment to introduce. Thirdly, there is the
impact assessment, public exposure, and priority ranking with other
needs. The proper management alternatives can only be made after a
cost-effective analysis involving goals; values; and hydrologic-
physical system evaluations, generally assisted by mathematical model
simulations, pilot-scale trials, and new technology transfer.
LAND MANAGEMENT
Land Management includes all measures for reducing urban and construction
site stormwater runoff and pollutants before they enter the downstream
drainage system (Figure 13). On-site measures include structural, semi-structural
and non-structural techniques that affect both the quantity and quality of runoff.
Careful consideration must be given to land use planning since urbaniza-
tion accelerates hydrograph and pollutograph peaks and total loads by creating
impervious surfaces for pollutants and water to run off from. This causes
excessive water pollution, erosion, sedimentation and flooding. Discreet
selection of land management techniques can reduce drainage and other down-
stream control costs associated with these problems.
Until two important philosophies prevail, the high cost implications
for wet-weather pollution abatement will continue. Established flood and
erosion control technology must be integrated with pollution control tech-
nology so that the retention and drainage facilities and other non-structural
management techniques required for flood and erosion control can be simulta-
neously designed for pollution control.
Structural/Semi-Structural Control
Structural and semi-structural control measures require physical modifi-
cations in a construction or urbanizing area and includes such techniques as:
on-site storage, porous pavement, overland flow modifications and solids
separation.
29
-------
LAND MANAGEMENT
!STRUCTURAL/Sa-lI-STRUCTURALJ*-
ON-SITE
(UPSTREAM)
STORAGE
CONSTRUCTION (HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION) CONTROL j NON- STRUCTURAL
Erosion/Sedimentation (Construction )
Flood
Pollution
o RETENTION
Basins /Ponds
Recharging Ponds
o DETENTION
Basins /Ponds
Dual Use
Rooftop
Parking Lot/Plaza
Recreational Facilities
Aesthetics
POROUS PAVEMENT 1
o SWALES
OVERLAND o DIVERSION STRUCTURES
FLOW Ditches
MODIFICATION Chutes
Flumes
SOLIDS
- SEPARATION
o SEDIMENT BASINS
o FINE SEDIMENT
REMOVAL SYSTEMS
Tube Settler
Upflow Filter
Rotating Disc Screen
o SWIRL DEVICE
SURFACE
SANITATION
o ANTI LITTER
o STREET CLEANING
o STREET FLUSHING
o AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
CHEMICAL
USE
CONTROL
o LAWN CHEMICALS
o INDUSTRIAL SPILLAGE
o GASOLINE STATIONS
o LEAD IN GASOLINE
o HIGHWAY DEICING
URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
RESOURCE
PLANNING
USE OF NATU-
RAL DRAINAGE
EROSION
SEDIMENTATION
CONTROL
o COMPUTER SIMULATION
Land Use
Population Density
Control Options
o MARSH TREATMENT
o CROPPING
Seeding
Sodding
o SOIL CONSERVATION
Mulching
Chemical Soil
Stabilization
Berming
Figure 13. Land Management
-------
On-Site (Upstream) Storage--
On-site or upstream storage refers to detention (short term) or retention
(long term) of runoff prior to its entry into a drainage system. Simple pond-
ing techniques are utilized on open areas where stormwater can be accumulated
without damage or interference to essential activities. Oftentimes, on-site
storage does or can be designed to provide for the dual or multi-benefits of
aesthetics, recreation, recharge, irrigation, or other uses. For example, in
Long Island, NY, groundwater supplies are being replenished by retention-
recharge. The dual benefit of recharging is stressed because urbanization
depletes groundwater supplies; however, potential groundwater pollution must
also be considered.
Successful variations of detention that take advantage of facilities
primarily used for other purposes are ponding on parking lots, plazas,
recreation and park areas; and ponding on roof tops. The fundamental
approach is the same as for other forms of detention but low cost is implied.
Dual purpose basins used for recreation and athletics when dry are also
employed.
Surface ponding is the most common form of detention being used by
developers. Apparent economic benefits of surface ponding for flood pro-
tection are derived from the savings over a conventional sewer project.
Several surface ponding sites are listed in Table 8. where a cost comparison
is made between a drainage system using surface ponds to decrease peak flows
and a conventional storm sewer system. It is important to note that pollu-
tion and erosion control benefits of the basins are not included in this
comparison.
Table 8.
Site
Earth City,
Missouri
Consolidated
Freightways, St.
Louis, Missouri
Ft. Campbell ,
Kentucky
Indian Lakes
Estates, Blooming-
ton, Illinois
Cost Comparison Between Surface Ponding Techniques
and Conventional Sewer Installation (R-8).
Description
A planned community in-
cluding permanent re-
creational lakes with
additional capacity for
storm flow
A trucking terminal using
its parking lots to de-
tain storm flows
A military installation
using ponds to decrease
the required drainage
pipe sizes
A residential development
using ponds and an
existing small diameter
drain
Cost estimate, $
With surface
ponding
2,000,000
115,000
2,000,000
200,000
With Conven-
tional
sewers
5,000,000
150,000
3,370,000
600,000
31
-------
Porous Pavement--
Another approach to stormwater management is
the use of an open graded
asphalt-concrete pavement which under pilot testing has allowed over 70
of stormwater to flow through (Figure 14.) (64). Stability, durability,
in./hr
AGGREGATE GRADED TO ALLOW
A WATER FLOW OF 76/HOUR
EXCEEDED THE
MINIMUM MAR-
SHA1L STABILITY
CRITERION FOR v
MEDIUM TRAFFIC
USES
AEROBIC ACTIVITY
UNDER PAVEMENT ~
NOT IMPAIRED
DURABILITY TEST
INDICATED THAT
HEIGHTENED EX~
POSURE TO AIR OR
WATER DID NOT PRO-
DUCE ASPHALT
HARDENING
I
5.5SBY WT. OF
85-100 PENETRATION
ASPHALT CEMENT
BINDER
SUBJECTED TO 265
FREEZE-THAW CY-
CLES WITH NO
"CHANGES IN PHYS<
ICAL DIMENSIONS,
MARSHALL STABILITY
VALUES OR FLOW
RATES.
Figure 14. Porous Asphaltic-Concrete Features
and freeze-thaw tests have been positive and it is comparable in cost to
conventional pavement. Long-term tests are still required to evaluate clogging
resistance and the quality of water that filters through. If the soil porosity
under the pavement allows free drainage there will be no water residue; how-
ever, the coarse sub-base and porous nature of the pavement can serve for
ponding capacity if storm quantities exceed soil infiltration. A 4-inch
pavement and 6-inch base could store 2.4 in. of runoff volume in its voids.
The proven use of porous pavement can be an important tool in preserving
natural drainage and decreasing downstream drainage and pollution control
facility requirements. As a result of Program studies a feasibility report (64)
is available. The Program is currently evaluating a porous pavement parking
lot (P-16) and results of this study will be available next year.
Overland Flow Modification--
Another form of structural and semi-structural control is overland
flow modification including swales and diversion structures (e.g., ditches,
chutes, flumes). These modifications are usually of lower cost than sub-
terranean sewer construction and importantly allow vegetative cover and
soil infiltration to reduce runoff and pollutant loadings.
32
-------
Solids Separation--
Sediment basins trap and store sediment from erodible areas in order to
conserve land and prevent excessive siltation downstream. If designed
properly, these basins can remain after construction for on-site storage.
A project (P-46) is evaluating the efficiency of sediment basins.
Because a significant portion of the eroded solids may be colloidal or
unsettleable and therefore cannot be treated in conventional sedimentation
basins, special devices for fine-particle removal are required. An ongoing
project (P-73) has developed a SOTA (163) on methods for fine-particle
removal and is now undertaking the evaluation of three solids separation
devices (i.e., tube settler, up-flow filter, and rotating disc screen).
The swirl concentrator has been developed for erosion control (P-3, 99)
to remove settleable solids at much higher rates than sedimentation. A
prototype device is presently being evaluated at a construction site (P-74).
Non-Structural
Non-Structural control measures involve surface sanitation, chemical use
control, urban development resource planning, use of natural drainage, and
certain erosion/sedimentation control practices (Figure 13.).
Surface Sanitation--
Maintaining and cleaning the urban area can have a significant impact
on the quantity of pollutants washed off by stormwater. Cleanliness starts
with reduction of litter and debris at the neighborhood level. Both street
repair and street sweeping can further minimize the pollutants washed off.
It has been estimated that street sweeping costs per ton of solids removed
are about half the costs for solids removed via the sewerage system.
The effectiveness of street sweeping operations with respect to stormwater
pollution has been analyzed by EPA (73,88,128,157,P-49). It was found that
a great portion of the overall pollution potential is associated with the
fine solids fraction of the street surface contaminants and that only 50 per-
cent of the dry weight solids are picked up by conventional broom sweepers
(73) as compared to 93 percent removal by more advanced techniques (128)
(Table 9.).
Table 9. Advanced* Street Cleaner
Pollutant Recovery Percentage
Parameter
Dry Weight Solids
Volatile Solids
BOD
COD
Total PO.-P
Heavy Metals
Recovery
93
80
67
84
85
83-98
*Broom and Vacuum Combination
33
-------
Cities clean their streets for aesthetic reasons, removing the larger
particles and brushing aside the fines. Conventional sweepers are utilized
and satisfy the aesthetics problem. More advanced street cleaning procedures
such as a combination of sweeping and vacuuming would not only satisfy the
aesthetics problem but would also attack the source of stormwater related
pollution problems by removing the finer or more pollutant prone range of
particles.
Further verification of the benefits of street cleaning will be
carried out in an ongoing grant (P-25). Also, a desk-top analysis comparing
the cost-effectiveness of street cleaning and sewer flushing with downstream
treatment methods is nearing completion under another study (P-73). Flushing
of streets can be used to remove street contaminants effectively; however,
it may necessitate more frequent catch basins and sewer cleaning. Street
cleaning is estimated to cost $3 to $13/curb mi or about $0.75/ac.
Air pollution abatement plans must also consider water pollution reduction
benefits from decreased fall out.
Chemical Use Control--
One of the most overlooked measures for reducing the pollution potential
from neighborhood areas is the reduction in the indiscriminate use of
chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides, and the mishandling of
other materials such as oil, gasoline, and highway deicing chemicals. Aside
from air pollution control, de-leaded gasoline also results in water pollu-
tion control.
The progression of studies in deicing chemical control, and resulting
reports, is depicted in Figure 15. The Program's motivation from the start
has been to determine the extent of environmental damages and costs associated
with the use of chemical deicers so that the economic validity of alternative
approaches could be assessed.
Until the Program's assessment of the problem in 1971 (67) there had been
only limited research on highway deicing effects. Inquiries concerning this
work indicated such an increased public awareness of the salt problems, that it
seemed appropriate to firm up recommendations for alternatives to snow and ice
control. A search was conducted (76) to define alternatives. The need for
an accurate economic impact analysis of using deicing salt, and a require-
ment to identify a substance which can be applied to~pavement to reduce ice
adhesion was indicated. These two needs became projects which have recently
been completed (138,152). Hydrophobic substances have been identified and
are being investigated, and even though material and application costs appear
greater than for salt (0.20-0.25/yd^ vs. $0.03/yd^), when considering total
damage to the environment ($3 billion annually, including paved area, highway
structures and vehicles) the costs are acceptable.
After the 1973 assessment of the problem (86,R-11), the Program re-
cognized that it was not practical to ban salt since the "bare pavement"
philosophy was very popular and considered by most highway authorities as
the safest way for ice and snow removal. The major problems were identified
34
-------
ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEM (67)
Kept: Environmental Impact of
Highway Deicing 6/71
EVALUATION OF APPROACHES (76)
Rept: A Search: New Technology for
Pavement Snow & Ice Control 12/72
SOTA REVIEW (86,R-11)
Rept: Water Pollution and Associated
Effects from Street Salting 5/73
— ATTEMPTS AT A SOLUTION
MANUALS OF PRACTICE (100,104)
Rept: Manual for Deicing Chemicals
Storage and Handling 7/74
Rept: Manual for Deicing Chemicals
Application Practices 12/74
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COSTS OF DEICING (138)
Rept: An Economic Analysis of the
Environmental Impact of Highway Deicing 5/76
ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT (152)
Rept: Dev. Hydrophobic Substance to
Mitigate Pavement Ice Adhesion 10/76
^OPTIMIZE HYDROPHOBIC SUBSTANCE (P-70){
--^Ongoing Study: Washington
jState University 9/77
Figure 15. Deicing Chemical Control (Land Management/Non-Structural)
35
-------
with sloppy salt storage practices and over-application on highways, con-
sequently, a 1974 project resulted in manuals of practice for improvement in
these areas. These manuals (100,104) were recognized as highly significant
by the user community and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requested
permission to reprint them for their own distribution. To date, over 7000
copies have been distributed to the user community.
It is believed that the outcome of EPA work has prompted several states
to enact legislation controlling the application and storage of salt. In the
future it is hoped to verify the cost-effectiveness of the hydrophobic sub-
stances both through research of R&D (P-70) and in a joint effort with the
FHWA.
Urban Development Resource Planning--
The goal of urban development resource planning is to develop a macroscopic
management concept to prevent the problems resulting from shortsighted urban-
ization plans. As previously discussed, the planner must be aware of totally
integrating planned urban hydrology with erosion-sedimentation and pollution
control. This new breed of planner has to consider the new land development
planning variables of land usage, population density and total wet and dry
runoff control as they integrate to effect water pollution. Computer simula-
tion will most likely play an important role. A simple land planning model
has been developed by G.K. Young (140as Chapter I, pp 98-121) to encompass the
pertinent variables and the most effective control options based upon receiving
water pollutant absorption capacity. A new project is planned to perfect this
area.
Use of Natural Drainage--
The traditional urbanization process upsets the existing water balance
of a site by replacing natural infiltration areas and drainage with impervious
areas. The net impact is increased runoff, decreased infiltration to the
groundwater and increased flowrates, all contributing to increased channel
erosion and the transport of surface pollutants to the stream. Promulgating
the use of natural drainage concepts will reduce drainage costs; enhance
aesthetics, groundwater supplies, and flood protection; and lower pollution.
A project in Houston (P-16) focuses on how a "natural drainage system" can
be integrated into a reuse scheme for recreation and aesthetics. Good land use
management will allow runoff to flow through low vegetated swales and into a
network of wet-weather ponds, strategically located in areas of porous soils.
This system will cause some of the runoff to seep into the ground and retard
the flow of water downstream, thus preventing floods caused by development
and enhancing pollution abatement. The concept of considering urban runoff
as a benefit as opposed to a wastewater, in a new community development,
will br employed and evaluated.
Another project in Wayzata, MN (P-28) is using marshland for stormwater
treatment. After sufficient testing it has been determined that controlled
stormwater retention in the marsh resulted in better vegetative conditions
which in turn enhanced stormwater nutrient removal. It was found that if
the marshlands were filled in by urbanization it would have a detrimental
effect on the nearby Lake.
36
-------
Erosion/Sedimentation Control (Non-Structural)--
Other nonstructural soil conservation practices such as cropping (seeding
and sodding) and the use of mulch blankets, nettings, chemical soil stabilizers
and berming may be relatively inexpensive. Two ongoing projects (P-72, P-74)
are evaluating many of these low structural intensive management practices for
proposed erosion control manuals.
Integrated Benefits
While the flood control benefits of all the above land management control
measures are easy to see, the stormwater pollution and erosion control effects
are difficult to quantify. But briefly stated, detaining or retaining flow
upstream offers the opportunity for flow quiescence resulting in solids separa-
tion. It also decreases downstream drainage velocities and discharges to
streams resulting in less overflow pollution, siltation and scour. Aside from
causing downstream erosion, this scouring can also increase pollution loads
in the scouring stream.
Erosion/Sediment Control: Products
By showing the genealogy of the products through past milestone events
(Figure 16.) the strategy which has guided the Program in this category can be
demonstrated. The original "Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control
Planning and Implementation" (70) are still applicable to communities initia-
ting an urban sediment control program.
For erosion-sedimentation controls, many agencies (e.g.. The Department of
Transportation and Soil Conservation Service, and state and local departments)
and factors must be considered and interrelated in product development and
technology implementation. For example, the Soil Conservation Service has
published a document with the State of Maryland entitled "Standards and
Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in Developing Areas"
(R-12). Other states are using this document as a model ordinance. Local
laws will have an important impact on any Best Management Practices proposed
by EPA. Therefore, there must be close liaison between all groups.
A recently developed training program consists of an instructor's
manual (168), a workbook (169), and 2762 slides with integrated audio
cassettes. The program is directed to the local land developer and
inspector, the excavation contractor, and the job foreman. It is designed
to directly support the Maryland "Standards and Specifications for Erosion
and Sediment Control in Developing Areas." As the state and local agencies
move toward setting standards for control on non-point sources, the need for
this type of training program becomes urgent.
Future Program plans include an evaluation of various cities' erosion
control programs. This product will be the foundation for National Standards
and Specifications for sediment and erosion control in developing areas and
with the findings of the Urban Runoff Program will lead to the National Best
Management Practice for this category.
37
-------
{
COMMUNITY (R-12)
GUIDEBOOK 3/70
r
DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS
(89,90,91)
,
EXECUTI
SUMMAR
r
URBAN SOIL (68)
EROSION 5/70
'
GUIDELINES (70)
PLANNING
IMPLEMENTATION 8/72
, , 1
VE (92)
Y 2/74
^Af
DEMONSTRATION (90)
FOR
SPECIALIALISTS 6/74
1
f
AUDIOVISUAL (168,169)
TRAINING PROGRAM 8/76
-' "" 1
^
,-rrt Sam
r
INTER AND (167)
INTRA AGENCY
PROJECTS
^
\
r
SUMMARY (167)
STATE
PROGRAMS 3/75
s \
STANDAR]
SPECIFICAT
USDA-SC
f
DS & (R-13)
IONS
S 6/75
^- -"
JREGIONAL (P-72,73,
I TECHNIQUES 6/77
I
« L
TECHNICAL
EVALUATION 1/78
,„___ Jf_
i NATIONAL
| STANDARDS &
{SPECS. FOR BMP 6/78
URBAN RUNOFF PROJECTS
Figure 16. Erosion/Sedimentation Control: Products
38
-------
Hydrologic Modification Category Status
It is important to discuss the status of the Hydrologic Modification
Program category.
The product "Impact of Hydrologic Modification on Water Quality" (129)
describes the scope and magnitude of water pollution and flood and erosion-
sediment problems caused by hydro!ogic modifications such as dams, impound-
ments, channelization, in-water construction, out-of-water construction,
land reclamation, and dredging. It is an excellent overview document.
There are important administrative decisions affecting this category.
1. The out-of-water construction element is no longer part of this
category. It is the construction site erosion-sedimentation
category previously defined.
2. There has been an interagency agreement assigning the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers the function of dredging impacts and control.
3. The R&D activities for land reclamation are mainly conducted
by other EPA offices (e.g., beach reclamation in the Office of
Oil and Special Materials Control Branch and strip mine reclamation
in the Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry).
The Program strategy is to allocate most of the resources to urban
runoff and then to construction.
COLLECTION SYSTEM CONTROLS
The next category, collection system control (Figure 17=), pertains to
those management alternatives concerned with wastewater interception and trans
port. These alternatives include sewer separation; improved maintenance and
design of catch basins, sewers, regulators and tide gates; and remote flow
monitoring and control. The emphasis, with the exception of sewer separation,
is on optimum utilization of existing facilities and fully automated control.
Because added use of the existing system is employed, the concepts generally
involve cost-effective, low-structurally intensive control alternatives.
To accomplish this an extensive and dependable intelligence system is
necessary.
Catch Basins
A project is assessing the value of catch basins (P-17,174) as
they are presently designed and maintained. Optimized basin configuration,
design and maintenance for removing solids before sewerage system entry has
also being investigated. Evaluations showed that a catch basin contains
approximately 0.18 Ib-BOD,- or the equivalent of one person's daily contribu-
tion. Consequently, the utilization of catch basins (which depends on a
city's network configuration and multi-agency desires) can either contribute
to the pollutional load or aid in reducing downstream treatment depending
on their design and maintenance. A full-scale demonstration of catch
basin technology is recommended (p-17).
39
-------
PRE-FY76
FY76
FUTURE
SEPARATION
« FEASIBILITY STUDY
RUNOFF INLETS/
CATCH BASINS
« EFFECTIVENESS
• CLEANING
« NEW DESIGN
SEWERS
SEWERS
EXISTING
• FLUSHING
» POLYMER
• I/I CONTROL
-SOTA/MOP
-INST/DETECTION
-EVAL. METHODOLOGY/
UPDATE MOP
-SEALING & LINING
NEW (NON-STRUCTURAL)
•I/I PREVENTION
DEM SEWER
FLUSHING
DEM. SULFUR
IMPREGNATION
FOR IMPROVED
STRENGTH
CATCH BASIN DEM.
TT DESIGN MANUAL
• SOTA/MOP
• DEVICE DEV/DEM.
-FLUIDIC
-FABRE DAM
POSITIVE GATES
-SWIRL/HELICAL
•MOP TIDE GATES
-INSPECTION
-CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
-IMPREGNATION
•NEW DESIGN
-CARRYING VEL.
- ADDED STORAGE
/
/
/
\
\
\
ON SWIRL/HELICAL
SWIRL/HELICAL
DEM. COMPARISON
TIDE GATE DEVICE DEV.
FLOW ROUTING
•DEM. IN-LINE STOR.
'SELECTIVE RELEASE
•REMOTE SENSING/CONTROL
• DEV. TOTAL AUTO./SEW-
ERAGE SYS. CONTROL
CONTINUATION
OF AUTO. SYS.
CONTROL DEV.
Figure 17. Collection System Control
DEM. CITY-WIDE SYSTEM
-------
Sewers
Solids deposition in lines has always been a plague to effective
maintenance. Recently, the significance of such loads as a major con-
tributor to first flush pollution has been recognized (P-66; 140a, Chapter II,
pp 62-82).
Work is being conducted on new sewer designs for low flow solids carrying
velocity to alleviate sewer sedimentation and resultant first flush and pre-
mature bypassing (P-50); and also on sewer designs for added storage
(P-13,165). As a natural follow-up to Program work with a controlled
test loop (13,14), a project has just been initiated to demonstrate
periodic sewer flushing during dry weather for first flush relief (P-66).
Polymers To Increase Capacity--
Research (6,11, P-6) has shown that polymeric injection can increase flow
capacity as much as 2.4 times (at a constant head). This method can be used
as a short or long-term correction of troublesome pollution-causing conditions
such as localized flooding and excessive overflows. Direct cost savings may be
realized by eliminating relief sewer construction (6); however, additional cost
verification at the site is necessary.
Infi1trati on/Inf1ow--
The Program SOTA (27) and manual of practice (MOP) (28) on infiltration/
inflow (I/I) identified a significant problem which led to fruitful counter-
measure research and a national emphasis on I/I control. Program developments
have included detection methodology and instrumentation (27,28,10); preventive
installation and construction techniques, new and improved materials (22,27,28,
52,61, P-31,P-41); and correction techniques (12). A project to update and
develop practices for determining and correcting infiltration and its economic
analysis (P-18,166) is nearing completion. An in-house paper on the analysis
and evaluation of I/I has been published (R-14). Another project is evaluating
the strength increases and erosion resistance, and resulting infiltration
prevention from sulfur impregnation of concrete pipe (P-30,52). Since
pipe costs are significant, an increase in strength could lead to a de-
crease in pipe materials and construction costs.
Flow Routing
Another collection system control method fs in-sewer or in-line storage
and routing of storm flows to make maximum use of existing interceptors and
sewer line capacity. The general approach comprises remote monitoring of
rainfall, flow levels, and sometimes quality, at selected locations in the
network, together with a centrally computerized console for positive regulation
This concept has proved to be effective in Minneapolis-St. Paul (19), Detroit
(40,118), and Seattle (29,98). Seattle results are discussed later (Section 7,
pp. 56-58) to indicate potential control and cost benefits.
An ongoing project mentioned earlier with the City of San Francisco is
developing an automatic operational model for real-time control (P-25).
Future demonstration of the system is anticipated.
41
-------
Regulators and Tide Gates
Program pace-setters in the area of flow regulator technology were the
SOTA (23) and MOP (24).
Conventional regulators malfunction and cause excessive overflows. The
new improved devices such as fluidic and positive control regulators have
been developed and demonstrated (P-7,9,23,24,98 ,173). The swirl and helical
regulator devices are significant enough to single out separately.
Swirl and Helical Device Development--
The dual functioning swirl device has shown outstanding potential for
providing both quality and quantity control (R-15,93).
A swirl flow regulator/solids-liquid separator has been demonstrated in
Syracuse, NY (P-2; R-16; 140a, Chapter II, pp. 99-117). Figure 18. is an
isometric review. The device, of simple annular shape construction, requires
no moving parts. It provides a dual function, regulating flow by a central
circular weir while simultaneously treating combined wastewater by a "swirl"
action which imparts liquid-solids separation. The low-flow concentrate is
diverted via a bottom orifice to the sanitary sewerage system for subsequent
treatment at the municipal works, and the relatively clear supernatant overflows
the weir into a central downshaft and receives further treatment or is dis-
charged to the stream. The device is capable of functioning efficiently over
a wide range (80:1) of combined sewer overflow rates, and can effectively sepa-
rate suspended matter at a small fraction of the detention time required for
conventional sedimentation or flotation (seconds to minutes as opposed to
hours by conventional tanks). Tests indicate at least 50 percent removal of
suspended solids and BOD. Tables 10. and 11. contain further treatability
details on the Syracuse prototype. The capital cost of the 6.8 mgd Syracuse
prototype was $55,000 or $8,100/mgd and $1,000/ac which makes the device
highly cost-effective.
The swirl concept (for dual dry/wet-weather flow treatment) has been
piloted as a degritter (P-71) in Denver, CO and as a primary clarifier in
Toronto, Canada (P-71). Test results are very encouraging and the concept
has been further developed for erosion control.
A helical or spiral-type regulator/separator has also been developed
based on principles similar to those of the swirl device. The device is
beneficial since its solids separation action is created by only a bend in
the sewer line, and it is of relatively low depth.
Swirl and Helical: Products — Important products for this category are
design manuals for the swirl (69,93,101) and helical (132) regulator/separators,
swirl degritter (99) and swirl erosion control devices (151); and a Technology
Transfer Capsule Report (162) which ties the various swirl applications to-
gether.
Maintenance
Improved sewerage system inspection and maintenance is absolutely neces-
42
-------
Figure 18. Isometric View of Swirl Regulator/Concentrator
sary for a total system approach to municipal water pollution control. We
cannot afford the upgrading and proper operation of sewage treatment plants
while a significant amount of sewage leaks into streams at the upstream
points in the sewer network! Premature overflows and backwater intrusions
during dry as well as wet weather caused by malfunctioning regulators and
tide gates, improper diversion settings, and partially filled interceptors
can thus be alleviated. Although the resulting abatement obtained is from
a non-structural approach, it must be viewed as an ancillary benefit of
required system maintenance. Regulatory agencies should be anxious to strive
for policy to enforce collection system maintenance.
43
-------
Table 10. Swirl Regulator/Concentrator: Suspended Solids Removal
Storm No.
02-1974
03-1974
07-1974
10-1974
14-1974
01-1975
02-1975
06-1975
12-1975
14-1975
15-1975
Swir Concentrator
Mass Loading
kg
Inf.
374
69
93
256
99
103
463
112
250
83
117
Eff.
179
34
61
134
57
24
167
62
168
48
21
t
Rem.
52
51
34
48
42
77
64
45
33
42
82
Average SS
per storm, mq/1
Inf.
535
182
110
230
159
374
342
342
291
121
115
Eff.
345
141
90
164
123
167
202
259
232
81
55
% ,
Rem.
36
23
18
29
23
55
41
24
20
33
52
Conventional Regul
ator
Mass Loading
kq
Inf.
374
69
93
256
99
103
463
112
250
83
117
Underflow
101
33
20
49
26
66
170
31
48
14
72
°Rem.a
27
48
22
19
26
64
34
27
19
17
61
For the conventional regulator removal calculation, it is assumed that the
SS concentration of the foul underflow equals the SS concentration of the
inflow.
3Data reflecting negative SS removals at tail end of storms not included.
Table 11. Swirl Regulator/Concentrator:
BOD,- Removal
b
Storm No.
7-1974
1-1975
2-1975
-
Mass Loading, kg
Influent
277
97
175
Effluent
48
30
86
%
Rem.
82
69
51
Average BOD5
per storm, mg/1
Inf.
314
165
99
Eff.
65
112
70
%
RenK
79
32
29
STORAGE
Storage is perhaps the most cost-effective method available for reducing
pollution resulting from combined sewer overflows and managing urban storm-
water runoff. Furthermore, it is the best documented abatement measure in
present practice. Program technological advancement for this category is
depicted on Figure 19. (Storage with the resulting sedimentation that occurs,
can also be thought of as a treatment process.)
44
-------
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
FUTURE
DEM. UNDERWATER
STORAGE (BAGS)
EVALUATE IMPACTS OF
SOLIDS FROM STOR.
FAC. ON DWF PL.
IN-SEWER STORAGE
BY REMOTE CONTROL
OFF-LINE STORAGE
(TANKS/BASINS)
DEEP TUNNEL STOR.
& ROUTING
Figure 19. Storage
DESIGN MANUAL FOR
STORAGE FACILITIES
DEM. NEW
CONFIGURATIONS
FOR STORAGE FAC.
F/S DEM.-SILO,
UNDERWATER BAGS,
FLOW ROUTING
EVAL. SEEPAGE BASINS
(CSO/SWR) (RECHARGE)
DEM. STORAGE W/
CONTROLLED RELEASE
TO REC. WATER
EVAL. DUAL STORAGE
OF DWF/WWF W/
SECONDARY POLISHING
-------
The concept is to capture wet-weather flow and bleed it back to the
treatment plant during low flow dry-weather periods. The result of
controlling overflow by detention is shown on Figure 20. Notice how an
entire hypothetical overflow event at point A is prevented by storage with
controlled dewatering.
| RAINFALL
1 I I
i
1 1
BASIN
SEWER
RAINFALL
OVERFLOW
CAPACITY
--<-- OF
PLANT
*• t
TIMED
RELEASE
HYDROGRAPH AT "A"
WITHOUT CONTROL
CONTROLLED
HYDROGRAPH AT
"A"
Figure 20. Results of Controlling Storm Flow by Storage
Storage facilities possess many of the favorable attributes desired
in combined sewer overflow control: (1) they are basically simple in
structural design and operation; (2) they respond without difficulty to
intermittent and random storm behavior; (3) they are relatively unaffected
by flow and quality changes; and (4) they are capable of providing flow
equalization and, in the case of sewers and tunnels, transmission. (Frequently
they can be operated in concert with regional dry-weather flow treatment
plants for benefits during both dry- and wet-weather conditions (107).)
Finally, storage facilities are relatively fail-safe and adapt well to
stage construction.
Storage facilities may be constructed in-line or off-line; they may
be open or closed; they may be constructed inland and upstream, or on the
shoreline; they may have auxiliary functions, such as flood protection,
sewer relief, and flow transmission. (And they may be used for hazardous
spill containment during dry weather.)
Disadvantages of storage facilities are their large size and dependency
on other treatment facilities for dewatering and solids disposal.
46
-------
Storage concepts investigated by the program include the conventional con'
crete holding tanks (18,134) and earthen basins (30,72); and the minimun-land-
requirement concepts of: tunnels (40), underground (85) and underwater con-
tainers (15,25,26), underground "silos (96)," gravel packed beds with over-
head land use (154), natural (85) and mined under and above ground formations,
and the use of abandoned facilities and existing sewer lines (19,29,98,118).
A 3.5 MG asphalt-lined storage basin in Chippewa Falls, WI (72) was con-
structed on reclaimed land and eliminated 59 out of 62 overflows during the
evaluation period.
Inherent in many of these storage schemes is the pumping/bleeding back
of the stored flow to the DWF plant during off-peak hours, the impacts of
this increased load on the DWF plant (both from a hydraulic and increased
solids point of view) is an important consideration and has been investigated
in an ongoing project (159,161). Once this impact information is available,
the SOTA on storage in the form of a design manual could be summarized.
The feasibility of off-line storage and deep tunnel storage along
waterways for selective discharge based on least receiving water impacts is
presently being investigated in Rochester, N.Y. (P-15). It is envisioned
that this concept along with dual DWF/WWF storage, will be demonstrated in
post FY 76 plans as part of a tie-in to construction grants.
Future Program plans include the investigation of new storage configu-
rations, e.g., floating storage facilities, cofferdams, storage under
piers, etc. Full-scale demonstration of some of the more promising con-
figurations, such as silos and underwater bags, is also desirable.
TREATMENT
Due to adverse and intense flow conditions and unpredictable shock load-
ing effects, it has been difficult to adapt existing treatment methods to
storm-generated overflows, especially the microorganism dependent biological
processes. The newer physical/chemical treatment techniques have shown more
promise in overcoming these adversities. To reduce capital investments,
projects have been directed towards high-rate operations approaching maxi-
mum loading boundaries. Applications include pretreatment or roughing, main
or sole treatment, and particularly with microstrainers and filters, polishing
devices.
The various treatment methods which have been developed and demonstrated
by the Program for storm flow include physical and physical-chemical, bio-
logical, and disinfection (Figure 21.). These processes, or combinations of
these processes, can be adjuncts to the existing sanitary plant or serve as
remote satellite facilities at the outfall.
Physical/Chemical Treatment
Physical processes with or without chemicals, such as: fine screens
(34,37,38,78,105), swirl primary separators (162, P-29) and swirl degritters
(99,162,158, P-29), high-rate filters (35, P-39^, sedimentation (36,81), and
47
-------
PRE-FY76
TY76
FUTURE
PHYSICAL
W/ OR W/O
CHEM
oo
LAND
DISPOSAL
(NON-STRUCT)
DEV/PILOT
• FINE SCREENS
• SWIRLGRIT/PRIM
• HI-RATE FILT
• DISS AIR FLOAT
• NH3:ION EX,BK PT
• P-C (AWT)
\
\ \
\
DEM FULL-SCALE
• FINE SCREENS
•COAG-SED(CS/SW)
• SWIRL DEGRITTER
• HRF
• DAF
\
1 1
FINE SCREEN I DUAL USE 1
DEM.(CONT) l SCREENING!
DEM FULL-SCALE
» SWIRL PRIMARY
DEM. FULL-SCALE
AWT SYSTEM
DEM. FULL-SCALE
MARSH LAND DISP (SW)
FEASiLAND
DISP(CS/SW)
PILOT:
LAND DISP
DEM. FULL-SCALE
LAND DISP
BIOL
DEM. FULL-SCALE
• LAGOONS • HRTF
•CONT STAB . RBC(PIL)
I
DUAL USE
-*1»CONT STAB |
(•FLUIDIZED BED'
DISINF
DEV/PILOT
• PATH/VIR DETECTION
•HI-RATE (MIX,CI02,03)
•ON-SITE GEN
DEM. FULL-SCALE
• CONV CI2(CS/SW)
•HI-RATE
•ON-SITE
• VIRUS DISINF
• CARCINOGENIC RES
Figure 21. Treatment
-------
dissolved air flotation (20,21,131), have been developed and demonstrated by
the Program. Ammonia removal (P-12 and advanced physical-chemical-adsorption
systems (81) have also been developed and tested at the pilot level. Physical
processes have shown importance for stormwater treatment because of their
adaptability to automated operation, rapid startup and shut-down characteristics,
high-rate operation, and very good resistance to shock loads.
This year an investment was made in a grant continuation (P-2) to
further compare three different fine screens for combined sewer overflow
treatment. In the near future the Program desires to implement a full-scale
swirl primary treatment demonstration.
A microstrainer is conventionally designed for polishing secondary
sewage plant effluent at an optimum rate of approximately 10 gpm/sq ft.
Tests on a pilot microscreening unit of 23 micron aperture in Philadelphia
have shown that at high influx rates of 25-30 gpm/sq ft, suspended solids
removals in combined overflows as high as 90% can be achieved (34,78,105).
A study in Cleveland (35) showed high potential for treating combined
sewer overflows by in-pipe coagulation-filtration using anthrafilt and
sand in a 7 foot deep bed. With the high loadings of 16 to 32 gpm/sq ft
surface area, removal of solids was effectively accomplished throughout
the entire depth of filter column. Test work showed suspended solids
removal up to and exceeding 90 percent and BOD removals in the range of
60 to 80 percent. Substantial reductions, in the order of 30 to 80 per-
cent of phosphates, can also be obtained. A large-scale high-rate filtration
unit in New York City is being evaluated for the dual-treatment of dry and
wet-weather flows (P-39).
Results from a 5.0 mgd screening and dissolved-air flotation demon-
stration pilot plant in Milwaukee (20), indicate that greater than 70 per-
cent removals of BOD and suspended solids are possible. By adding chemical
coagulants, 85 to 97 percent phosphate reduction can be achieved as an
additional benefit. Based on these findings two full-scale prototypes (20
and 40 mgd) have been demonstrated in Racine, WI (P-23).
Land Disposal
As previously discussed, the use of marshlands for disposal of stormwater
has been demonstrated in Minnesota. The feasibility of land disposal of raw
CSO has also been investigated (161). Because of the cost of collection and
transportation and large land requirements this concept does not appear
feasible. Land disposal of CSO sludges, liquid or dewatered, appears feasible
and promising for ultimate sludge disposal; however, further investigation in
this area is required.
Biological Treatment
The following biological processes have been demonstrated: contact
stabilization (117), high-rate trickling filtration (95), rotating biological
contactors (106), and lagoons (108,30). The processes have had positive
49
-------
evaluation, but with the exception of long term storage lagoons, must operate
conjunctively with DWF plants to supply biomass, and require some form of
flow equalization.
Disinfection
Because disinfectant and contact demands are great for storm flows, re-
search has centered on high-rate applications by mixing and more rapid oxid-
ants, i.e., chlorine dioxide (C10J and ozone (OJ; and on-site generation
(149,31,34,78,94,105,119). Because of new concerns, a recent grant supple-
ment tied onto a full-scale demonstration if these units for domestic wastewater (102)
50
f
-------
Treatment: Products
The products associated with the treatment category up to this point
are in the form of project final reports and design/user's manuals as
referenced.
SLUDGE/SOLIDS
Due to the documented deleterious effect of CSO on the quality of
receiving waters, WWF sludge handling and disposal has been given less
emphasis previously in concession to the problems of treating the combined
overflow itself. Sludge handling and disposal should be considered an
integral part of CSO treatment because it significantly affects the efficiency
and cost of the total waste treatment system. Flow characterization studies
show that the annual quantity of CSO solids is at least equal to and in most
cases greater than solids from DWF. For example, 29% of the sewered population
in the U.S. is served by combined sewers. This represents a service area of
3x10 acres. Assuming an average yearly rainfall of 36 in. and 50% of the
runoff resultincj^in an overflow, the yearly volume of CSO in the U.S.
would be 1.5X10 gal. The corresponding average yearly volume of sludge
resulting from treatment of all CSO nationwide is estimated at 41X10 gal
or 2.8% of the volume tested. The average solids content of this sludge
would be about 1%.
9
In comparison, an average yearly volume of dry weather sludge of 35X10
gal may be expected from the same service area.
Consequently, if nationwide CSO treatment was instituted there .would be
an equal or greater problem with CSO sludge as there now is with municipal
sludge.
The chronology of the Program's WWF sludge/solids technological advance-
ment is contained in Figure 22. The need for defining the problem was re-
cognized and, in FY 73, a contract was awarded (P-21) to characterize and pre-
liminarily quantify CSO sludge/solids and perform treatability studies.
Sludge handling/disposal techniques are also being evaluated and a nation-
wide assessment of the sludge problem has been conducted (P-24). As part
of this assessment, the "impacts" of the following alternatives are being
considered: bleed-back of the sludge to the municipal dry weather treat-
ment plant, handling the sludges with parallel facilities at the dry
weather plant, handling the sludges at the site of CSO treatment, and land
disposal of either untreated or treated sludges.
Sludge: Products (Table 13)
Two reports are presently available (159,161). The first covers the
characterization, treatability, and quantification of CSO sludges and
solids and the second is a "rough cut" at assessing the impact of han-
dling and disposal.
51
-------
PRE-FY 76
FY 76
FUTURE
WWF SLUDGE/
SOLIDS CHAR./QUANT.
DESK-TOP ANALYSIS OF
HANDLING/DISPOSAL
TECHNIQUES
TREATABILITY STUDIES
(BENCH)
PILOT STUDIES OF
CONVENTIONAL TECH.
(CENT.;ANAER.DIG.)
NATIONWIDE ASSESS. OF
WWF SLUDGE PROBLEM
EVAL. IMPACTS OF WWF
SLUDGES/SOLIDS ON DWF PL.
EVAL. ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE/
SOLIDS HANDLING/DISPOSAL
TECHNIQUES
MOP FOR WWF SLUDGE/
SOLIDS HANDLING/DISPOSAL
DEM. NEW SLUDGE/SOLIDS
HANDLING TECH.(SWIRL)
DEM. DISPOSAL OF WWF
SLUDGES TO LAND
(ALSO RAW CSO/SW)
Figure 22. Sludge/Solids
-------
Table 13. Sludge/Solids: Products
o Characterization and Quantification of CSO Sludges and Solids.
(Draft report available) (159)
o WWF Sludge/Solids Impact Assessment. (Preliminary Report
available) (161)
o WWF Sludge/Solids Treatability Studies. (159)
The characterization, quantification, and treatability evaluation of
sludges from separate stormwater will be done in the future.
INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
By far the most promising and common approaches to urban stormwater
management involve the integrated use of control and treatment with an area-
wide multidisciplinary perspective. When a single method is not likely to
produce the best possible answer to a given pollution situation, various
treatment and control measures may be combined for maximum flexibility and
efficiency.
Integrated systems is divided into (1) Storage/Treatment, (2) Dual Use
WWF/DWF Facilities, and (3) Control/Treatment/Reuse (Figure 23).
Storage/Treatment
Where there is storage, there is treatment by settling, pumpback
to the municipal works, and sometimes disinfection; and treatment, which
receives detention, provides storage. In any case, the break-even economics
of supplying storage must be evaluated when treatment is considered (35).
The program has demonstrated all of these storage-treatment concepts on a
full-scale basis (15,18,25,26,29,30,40,72,102,108,114,118,134,146,147,154,
P-10, P-37).
Dual Use, WWF/DWF Facilities
The concept of dual use is -- maximum utilization of wet-weather
facilities during nonstorm periods and maximum utilization of dry-weather
facilities during storm flows for total system effectiveness. The program
has demonstrated'the dual use of high-rate trickling filters (95), contact
stabilization (117), and equalization basins (107,114). On a pilot scale the
Program has evaluated advanced physical-chemical treatment (81); and is in
the process of demonstrating large-scale, high-rate filtration (P-39).
It should also be mentioned that combined sewers themselves are dual
use systems.
Control/Treatment/Reuse
The sub-category, "Control/Treatment/Reuse" is a "catch-all" for all
53
-------
PRE-FY76
FUTURE
STORAGE/
TREAT
DUAL USE,
WWF/DWF
FAC
DEM. STORAGE W/
• PUMP-BACK
• SED. IN STORAGE
• STORAGE/TREAT LAGOON
• DISINF.
• BREAK-EVEN ECON.
W/TREAT
DEM. TREAT
• HRTF (F/S)
• CONT STAB (F/S)
• HI-RATE FILT(F/S)
• P-C(AWT,PILOT)
DEM. EQUALIZATION
(ROHNERT PK.)
COMBINED SEWERS
DEM. TREAT
• PHY-BIOL
• DISS AIR FLOT
• MICROSCREENS
DEM. STORAGE
• DWF/WWF
W/EFFL POLISH
CONT/TREAT/
REUSE
• LAND MGMT/TREAT
• TREAT-PK
• STORAGE-TREAT
LAKELETS
Figure 23. Integrated Systems
DEM. STOR-TREAT-
RECHARGE
54
-------
Integrated systems. As the prime consideration, it is reasonable to apply
the various non-structural and land management techniques to reduce down-
stream loads and treatment costs.
Previous projects have evaluated the reuse of stormwater runoff for
aesthetic, recreational, and subpotable and potable water supply purposes
(62,79). In Mt. Clemens, MI, a series of three "lakelets" has been incor-
porated into a CSO treatment-park development (114). Treatment and disinfec-
tion is being provided so that these lakes are aesthetically pleasing and
allow for recreation and reuse for irrigation. Other projects have shown the
feasibility of reclaiming stormwater (3,39).
The previously mentioned Houston project (P-16) is focusing on how a
"natural drainage system" can be integrated into a reuse scheme for recreation
and aesthetics.
Integrated Systems: Products
The specific outputs from the integrated systems work have been pre-
dominantly in the form of demonstrations, documented by final reports. The
previously referenced SOTA Assessment Report (102) neatly summarizes the
work in this area and ties it into wastewater management systems planning,
design, and program implementation. Specific demonstration products are
classified into main and complementary units for interrelating storm flow
devices and unit processes and interfacing with dry-weather facilities. In
the future it is important to evaluate storage used for DWF and WWF along
with secondary effluent polishing.
55
-------
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
The Technology Transfer area covers the formal dissemination of Program
findings in the form of actual project reports, films, journal papers,
SOTA reports, and manuals of practice and instruction. To date the Program
has published approximately 160 reports, and it is the intent here to concen-
trate on the "user" type of document.
SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTS COMPLETED
Reports generated by the program have received widespread recognition
both within this country and abroad. Many have been referenced by EPA
Headquarters and used for 201/208 studies. Some of the more significant
documents are indicated in Table 14. The first set of reports, item No. 1,
Table 14. Significant Documents Completed
1. Assessment - Problems of CSO/SW (2,20,34,35,41,47,51,53,54,59,60,63,65,67,
73,81,82,83,88,102,112,123,124,127,128,143,149)
2. CSO/SW Seminar Reports (6,40,96,140a)
3. MOP - I/I Prevention and Correction (27,28,97)
4. MOP - Regulation and Management (23,24)
5. Design Manuals - Swirl: Regulator/Degritter/Erosion Control (69,93,99,101)
6. Design Manual - Helical Regulator/Separator (132)
7. Assessments - Sources/Impacts of Urban Runoff Pollution (157,164,127,88,
128,73)
8. Assessments - Sampling/Flowrate Measurement (133,130)
9. Assessment - Impact of Deicing (67,86)
10. MOP's - Deicing Chemical Usage/Storage & Handling (100,104)
11. Assessment - SOTA Urban Stormwater Management Technology (102,111,137)
12. Users Manuals - SWMM, Version I and II (44,116)
13. Course Manual - SWMM Application (125)
14. SOTA - Urban Water Management Modeling (136)
15. MOP - Determination of Flowrates/Volumes (140)
16. Assessment/MOP - Stormwater Models (141)
17. MOP - Procedures for Stormwater Characterization/Treatment Studies (145)
18. MOP's - Sediment & Erosion Control (68,70,168,169)
19. User's Manuals - Simplified Urban Runoff Planning Models/Tools (148,153)
20. Assessment - Nationwide Stormwater/Characterization/Impacts/Costs (157)
set the pace for EPA's Program by identifying Stormwater and combined sewer
overflow as major sources of water pollution and provided a characteriza-
tion data base (Refs. see item 1, Table 14.). As previously mentioned, the
manuals of practice on infiltration/inflow (27,28,97) and regulators
(23,24), Nos. 3 and 4, flagged two prime and basic problems leading to
fruitful countermeasure research and a national emphasis on I/I control.
Specific research products coming out of the regulator MOP's were the
56
-------
swirl (69,93,99,101) and helical (132) devices -- resultant design manuals
are listed as Nos. 5 and 6. No. 8 cites two instrumentation reports
(130,133) for flow analysis which have proven to be highly useful to the
engineering community, including Construction Grants. An assessment of
the significant impacts of highway deicinq chemical use (67,86) and
practicable MOP's on control through proper salt storage and use (100,
104) are covered by items 9 and 10. Nos. 11 through 18 relate to
Approach and Solution Methodology, the goal of the program. Item 19
refers to two very important user's manuals containing relatively simple
urban runoff assessment planning methods (148,153) which can be applied
to 201 and 208 studies; and item 20 cites the previously mentioned
national assessment of urban runoff control and costs (157).
SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTS ANTICIPATED (Table 15)
In the immediate future a construction and O&M cost estimating manual
(156) for CSO storage and treatment will be released, along with three
other assessments: two on WWF sludge handling, disposal, and impact
problems (159,161), and the other on pathogens in stormwater (160).
Ongoing work will also lead to an updated SOTA and a planning document
providing guidance and examples for total municipal studies (P-5) and a
refined SWMM user's manual (P-53).
Table 15. Significant Documents Anticipated
Estimating Manual CSO Storage and Treatment Costs (156)
User's Manual - SWMM Version III
Assessments - WWF Sludge Handling/Disposal Problems/Impacts (159/161)
Assessment - Pathogens in Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflow (160)
SOTA/Planning Guide - Update Storm and Combined Sewer Overflow Management
and Treatment/Total Approach Methodology
Design Manual - Swirl: Primary Treatment
MOP - I/I Analysis, Prevention and Control
Instruction Manual - Storm and Combined Sewer Overflow Technology
Post FY 76
MOP - Pollution Control from Construction Activities
MOP - Refined Solution Methodology
MOP - Land Management
Design Manual - Storage Facilities
Consolidated Design Text Swirl and Helical
57
-------
CAPITAL COSTS COMPARISONS FOR STORM AND COMBINED SEWER CONTROL/TREATMENT
Table 16. shows a capital cost comparison for various SCS control and
treatment methods.
Sewer separation is very costly with a national average of $20,000/ac
(2,102). In-system control storage costs were found to be as low as $0.02
and $0.25/gal for Detroit and Seattle, respectively (R-6d, 111). These
figures represented l/10th the cost for large off-line facilities, and
l/25th the costs for separation in Detroit and Seattle, respectively. Off-
line storage varies from $0.03 to $4.75/gal depending on whether earthen
or concrete basins are employed (102).
Per acre costs can only be given in wide ranges since they significantly
vary with climate, receiving water, terrain, degree of urbanization, sewer
network configuration, etc. Per capita and per acre unit costs may be appli-
cable for gross estimating; but it is best to fix unit costs per gallon for
storage and per mgd for treatment as design factors for the user engineer
confronted with site-specific conditions.
These data are based on a limited number of specific projects thus
they represent only a range of placement. In extrapolating these costs into
master plan systems for cities, the totals frequently approach $500 to
$1,000 per capita.
Physical treatment costs range between $2,000 to $35,000/mgd; whereas
physical with chemical treatment varies between $35,000 and $80,000/mgd.
Biological treatment ranges between $17,000 and $80,000/mgd depending on
whether land is available for lagooning or if contact stabilization or
trickling filtration (102) is resorted to. As can be seen from the table,
costs for the swirl at $2,000/mgd and $500/acre (P-4) are considerably
lower than other forms of treatment installation.
Preliminary figures for incorporating land management techniques show
a definite cost-effectiveness benefit.
It must be mentioned that the various alternatives offer different
degrees of removal which will have a significant bearing on the selection
process.
58
-------
Table 16. Typical Capital Costs for SCS Control/Treatment (ENR 2000)
COMPONENT DEVICES
SEPARATION
STORAGE
• IN-LINE
t OFF-LINE
-EARTHEN
-CONCRETE TANKS
TREATMENT
« PHYSICAL W&W/O CHEMICALS
-FINE SCREENING/MICROSTRAINING
-SEDIMENTATION
-HI-RATE FILT
-DISS AIR FLOAT
-SWIRL
• BIOLOGICAL
-CON. STAB/TRICK. FILTER
-LAGOONS
• PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL SYSTEMS
• DISINFECTION
-CONVENTIONAL
-HI-RATE(STATIC MIXING)
INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
• STORAGE/TRMT/REUSE
-TREATMT-PARK CONCEPT
LAND MANAGEMENT
•STRUCTURAL
-DIVERSION BERMS
• NON-STRUCTURAL
-STREET CLEANING
$/GAL
0.02 0.25
(DETROIT) (SEATTLE)
0.03-0.26
1.00-4.75
S/MGD
5,000/12,000
10,000-50,000
70,000
40,000
8,000 (SYRACUSE)
2,000 (LANCASTER)
80,000
17,000
150,000-2*106
1,500
900
1*I06(KINGMAN LAKE)
17,000(MT. CLEMENS)
I/ACRE
10,000 (SEATTLE)
6,500 (DES MOINES)
32,000 (CLEVELAND)
20,000-NATIONAL AVE.
400 (SEATTLE)
250 (MINNEAPOLIS)
7,000 (JAMAICA, NYC)
2,000/13,000
3,500-6,500
10,000
6,500 (MILWAUKEE)
SOO(SYRACUSE)
SOO(LANCASTER)
1,700
5,000
10,000(KINGMAN LAKE)
5,000(MT. CLEMENS)
160
0.7
-------
SEATTLE: IN-LINE STORAGE IS COST-EFFECTIVE
A case study illustrating cost-effectiveness by Seattle's flow routing
approach is worthwhile discussing (98,140a).
COSTS
The Seattle in-line storage system covering 13,250 acres costs $5.3M
or $400 per acre as opposed to tens of thousands of dollars per acre for
other alternatives. A specific Seattle study revealed $10,000 per acre for
separation. The low cost is attributed to a quasi-structural system which
takes advantage of the existing combined sewer network; and control gates
installed at strategic points only. The system is highly signal and computer
oriented with minimal hardware requirements. In fact, one-half the costs
were for computers and related software. Of course, in-line storage is
site specific since implementation of the concept requires a relatively
large and flat existing combined system.
POLLUTANT REDUCTION
Overflow and pollutant reduction from 12 major overflow points averaged
55% and 68%, respectively. Also, 90% of the overflow volume was reduced by
experimental automatic control.
EFFECTIVENESS
Effectiveness of the system is proven by a one to two mg/1 D.O. increase
and a 50% coliform reduction in the receiving water.
60
-------
DES MOINES: CONTROL COSTS VS. D.O. VIOLATIONS
Based on a study for the City of Des Moines (157) using a simplified re-
ceiving water model, four control alternatives were compared considering cost
and true effectiveness in terms of frequency of D.O. standard violations.
As Table 17 depicts, 25% BOD removal of WWF coupled with secondary treat-
ment of DWF results in slightly higher D.O. levels in the receiving water
than tertiary treatment and no control of urban runoff. The annual cost of
25% BOD removal for WWF is 10% of the cost for tertiary treatment. However,
existing DWF treatment facilities exhibit a comparable effect to these two
options at no additional cost. However, significant increase in the mini-
mum D.O. levels of the Des Moines River is obtained by 75% BOD removal of
WWF with the annual cost of this level of control being lower than the
cost of tertiary treatment. The application to Des Moines demonstrated
clearly the overwhelming effect of urban runoff pollution on critical D.O.
concentrations. The cost-effectiveness of various treatment alternatives can
be determined realistically only by a continuous analysis of the frequency
of water quality violations.
In the selection of the "best" control strategy, other factors that may
become important are: (1) recovery of receiving waters from shock
loads caused by runoff, (2) local and regional water quality goals,
and (3) public willingness to pay the costs associated with each level of
control.
Table 17. Des Moines: Control Costs vs Violations of DO Standard (4 PPM)
Options
1. DWF Tertiary Treatment
2. WWF 25% BOD Removal
3. WWF 75% BOD Removal
4. DWF Secondary Trt Only
Total Annual Cost
($/yr)
6.3M
0.6M
4.0M
0
% of Precipitation Events
Violating Standard
40
30
3
42
61
-------
CONCLUSION
The pertinent research needs in the areas of solution methodology, non-
structural and structural control and treatment techniques, and integrated
systems have been covered in enough detail now to conclude with an item
of overlying importance. Mandates of the law are upon us, emphasizing WWF
pollution control; monies are being spent at large scale by EPA and others
for water pollution cleanup. In order for governments to execute their
function in this area properly, it is a must that WWF pollution be considered
and R&D be fostered to back this need.
62
-------
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliography of Urban Runoff Control Program Reports
Ongoing Urban Runoff Pollution Control Projects ("P" Numbers)
Other Urban Runoff Pollution Control Program References ("R" Numbers)
63
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM REPORTS
Ref.
No. Report Number Title/Author Source
1. 11020---09/67 Demonstrate the Feasibility of the NTIS ONLY
Use of Ultrasonic Filtration in PB 201 745
Treating the Overflows from Combined
and/or Storm Sewers: by Accoustica
Assoc., Inc., Los Angeles, CA
2. 11020---12/67 Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities NTIS ONLY
and Overflows-!967: by AmericanPB 214 469
Public Works Assoc., Chicago, IL
3. 11020---05/68 Feasibility of a Stabilization- NTIS ONLY
Retention Basin in Lake Erie at PB 195 083
Cleveland, OH: by Havens and Emerson,
Cleveland, OH
4. 11020---06/69 Reduction in Infiltration by Zone NTIS ONLY
Pumping: by Hoffman and Fiske, PB 187 868
Lewiston, ID
5. 11020---10/69 Crazed Resin Filtration of Combined NTIS ONLY
Sewer Overflows: by Hercules, Inc., PB 187 867
Wilmington, DE
6. 11020---03/70 ^Combined Sewer Overflow Seminar NTIS
Papers: by Storm and Combined Sewer PB 199 361
Pollution Control Branch, Division of
Applied Science and Technology, FWQA,
Washington, DC
7. 11020—-02/71 *Deep Tunnels in Hard Rock: by College NTIS
of Applied Science and Engineering PB 210 854
and University Extension, University
of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
8. 11020DES06/69 Selected Urban Water Runoff Abstracts:NTIS ONLY
by The Franklin Institute, Phila-PB 185 314
del phi a, PA
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
Note: Number in left margin corresponds to reference numbers cited in report
text.
64
-------
Ref.
No.
Report Number
Title/Author
Source
9. lin20DGZ10/69
10. 11020DH006/72
11. "M020DIG08/69
12. 11020DIH06/69
13. 11020DN008/67
14. 11020DN003/72
15. 11020DWF12/69
16. 11020EK010/69
17. 11020EXV07/69
18. 11020FAL03/71
19. 11020FAQ03/71
*Copies may be obtained
Edison, NJ 08817
Design of a Conbined Sewer Fluidic NTIS ONLY
Regulator: by Bowles Engineering PB 188 914
Corp., Silver Sprinq, MD
*Ground Hater Infiltration and NTIS
Internal Seal ings of Sanitary Sewers, PB 212 267
Montgomery County, OH: by G.E. Cronk
Polymers for Sewer Flow Control: by NTIS ONLY
The Western Co., Richardson, TX PB 185 951
Improved Sealants for Infiltration NTIS ONLY
Control: by The Western Company, PB 185 950
Richardson, TX
Feasibility of a Periodic Flushing NTIS ONLY
System for Combined Sewer Cleansing: PB 195 223
by FMC Corp., Santa Clara, CA
*A Flushing System for Combined Sewer NTIS
Cleansing: by Central Engineering PB 210 858
Laboratories, FMC Corp., Santa
Clara, CA
Control of Pollution by Underwater NTIS ONLY
Storage: by Underwater Storage, Inc., PB 191 217
Silver, Schwartz, Ltd., Joint Ven-
ture, Washington, DC
Combined Sewer Separation Using NTIS ONLY
Pressure Sewers: by American Society PB 188 511
of Civil Engineers, Cambridge, MA
Strainer/Filter Treatment of Combined NTIS ONLY
Sewer Overflows: by Fram Corporation, PB 185 949
East Providence, RI
^Evaluation of Storm Standby Tanks, NTIS
Columbus, OH: by Dodson, Kinney & PB 202 236
Lindblom, Columbus, OH
*D-Jspatching Systems for Control of NTIS
Combined Sewer Losses: by Metro. PB 203 678
Sewer Board, St. Paul, MN
from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section,
65
-------
Ref.
No.
Report Number
Title/Author
Source
20. 11020FDC01/72
21. 11020FKI01/70
22. 11022DEI05/72
23. TI022DMU07/70
24. 11022DMU08/70
25. 11022DPP10/70
26. 11022ECV09/71
27. 11022EFF12/70
28. 11022EFF01/71
Screening/Flotation Treatment of GPO ONLY
Combined Sewer Overflows: by The
Ecology Division, Rex Chainbelt, Inc.,
Milwaukee, WI
Dissolved-Air Flotation Treatment of NTIS ONLY
Combined Sewer Overflows: by Rhodes PB 189 775
Corp., Oklahoma City, OK
*Sewer Bedding and Infiltration Gulf
Coast Area: by J.K.Mayer, F.W.Mac
Donald, and S.E.Steimle; Tulane Univ.
New Orleans, LA
NTIS
PB 211 282
*Combined Sewer Regulator Overflow GPO ONLY
Facilities: by American Public Works
Assoc. , Chicago, IL
*Combined Sewer Regulation and Manage- NTIS
ment A Manual of Practice: by AmericanPB 195 676
Public Works Assoc., Chicago, IL
*Combined Sewer Temporary Underwater NTIS
: b Mel ar, Falls PB 197 669
Church, VA
Storage Facility: by Mel par, Falls
29. 11022ELK12/71
*Copies may be obtained
Edison, NJ 08817
Underwater Storage of Combined Sewer NTIS ONLY
Overflows: by Karl R. Rohrer Assoc., PB 208 346
Inc. , Akron, OH
Control of Infiltration and Inflow NTIS ONLY
into Sewer Systems: by American PB 200 827
Public Works Assoc. , Chicago, IL
*Prevention and Correction of Exces- NTIS
sive Infiltration and Inflow into PB 203 208
Sewer Systems-A Manual of Practice:
by American Public Works Assoc.,
Chicago, IL
Maximizing Storage in Combined Sewer NTIS ONLY
Systems : by Municipality of Metro- PB 209 861
politan Seattle, WA
from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section,
66
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number
Title/Author
Source
30. 11023—-08/70
31. 11023DAA03/72
32. 11023DPI08/69
*Retention Basin Control of Combined NTIS
Sewer Overflows: by SpringfieldPB 200 828
Sanitary District, Springfield, IL
*Hypochlorite Generator for Treatment NTIS
of Combined Sewer Overf1ows :~by PB 211 243
Ionics, Inc., Watertown, MA
Rapid-Flow Filter for Sewer Over-
f1ows: by Rand Development Corp.,
Cleveland, OH
33. 11023DZF06/70 *Ultrasonic Filtration of Combined
NTIS ONLY
PB 194 032
NTIS
34. 11023EV006/70
35. 11023EYI04/72
36. 11023FDB09/70
37. 11023FDD03/70
38. 11023FDD07/71
39. 11023FIX08/70
Sewer Overflows: by American Process PB 212 421
Equipment Corp., Hawthorne, CA
*Microstraining and Disinfection of NTIS
Combined Sewer Overflows: by Cochrane PB 195 674
Div., Crane Co., King of Prussia, PA
*High Rate Filtration of Combined
Sewer Overflows: by Ross Nebolsine,
P.J.Harvey, and Chi-Yuan Fan, Hydro-
technic Corp., New York, NY
NTIS
PB 211 144
*Chemica1 Treatment of Combined Sewer NTIS
Overflows: by Dow Chemical Company, PB 199 070
Midland, MI
Rotary Vibratory Fine Screening of NTIS ONLY
Combined Sewer Overflows: by Cornell PB 195 168
Howl and, Hayes and Merryfield, Cor-
vallis, OR
*Dempnstration of Rotary Screening for NTIS
Combined Sewer Overflows: by City of PB 206 814
Portland, Dept. of Public Works,
Portland, OR
Conceptual Engineering Report-
Kingman Lake Project: by Roy F.
Weston, West Chester, PA
NTIS
PB 197 598
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm ft Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
67
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number
Title/Author
Source
40. 11024—06/70
41. 11024DMS05/70
42. 11024DOC07/71
43. 11024DOC08/71
44. 11024DOC09/71
45. 11024DOC10/71
46. 11024DOK02/70
47. 11024DQU10/70
48. 11024EJC07/70
49. 11024EJC10/70
50. 11024EJC01/71
*Copies may be obtained
Edison, NJ 08817
*Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement NTIS
Technology: by Storm and Combined PB 193 939
Sewer Pollution Control Branch,
Division of Applied Science and
Technology, FWQA, Washington, DC
*Engineering Investigation of Sewer NTIS
Overflow Problems: by Hayes, Seay, PB 195 201
Mattern and Mattem, Roanoke, VA
*Storm Water Management Model, NTIS
Vol. 1, Final Report: by Metcalf & PB 203 289
Eddy Engineers, Palo Alto, CA
Storm Water Management Model, Vol. NTIS ONLY
II, Verification and Testing: by PB 203 290
Metcalf & Eddy Engineers, Palo Alto,CA
Storm Water Management Model, Vol. NTIS ONLY
III, User's Manual: by Metcalf & PB 203 291
Eddy Engineers, Palo Alto, CA
Storm Water Management Model, Vol. IV NTIS ONLY
Program Listing: by Metcalf & Eddy PB 203 292
Engineers, Palo Alto, CA
^Proposed Combined Sewer Control by NTIS
Electrode Potential: by Merrimack PB 195 169
College, Andover, MA
*Urban Runoff Characteristics: by NTIS
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, PB 202 865
OH
Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff NTIS ONLY
Abstracts, July 1968-June 1970: by PB 198 228
The Franklin Institute Research Lab.,
Philadelphia, PA
^Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff NTIS
Abstracts, First Quarterly Issue: PB 198 229
by The Franklin Institute Research
Lab., Philadelphia, PA
^Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff NTIS
Abstracts, Second Quarterly Issue: PB 198 312
by The Franklin Institute Research
Lab., Philadelphia, PA
from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section,
68
-------
Ref.
No.
Report Number
Title/Author
Source
51. 11024ELB01/71
52. 11024EQE06/71
53. 11024EQG03/71
54. 11024EXF08/70
55. 11024FJE04/71
56. 11024FJE07/71
57. D E L E T
58. 11024FKJ10/70
59. 11024FKM12/71
60. 11024FKN11/69
*Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution NTIS
Sources and Abatement, Atlanta, GA: PB 201 725
by Black, Crow and hiasness, inc.,
Atlanta, GA
impregnation of Concrete Pipe: by GPO
Southwest Research Institute,
San Antonio, TX
Storm Water Problems and Control in NTIS ONLY
Sanitary Sewers, Oakland & Berkeley, PB 208 815
CA: by Metcalf & Eddy Engineers,
Palo Alto, CA
*Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement
NTIS
Alternatives, Washington, DC: by Roy PB 203 680
F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA
*Se1ected Urban Storm Water Runoff GPO
Abstracts, Third Quarterly Issue:
by Franklin Institute Research Lab.,
Philadelphia, PA
*Selected Urban Stormwater Runoff GPO
Abstracts July 1970 -June 1971: by
The Franklin Institute Research Lab.,
Philadelphia, PA
ED DELETED
*In-Sewer Fixed Screening of Combined NTIS
Sewer Overflows: by Envirogenics Co., PB 213 118
Div. of Aerojet General Corp.,
El Monte, CA
Urban Storm Runoff and Combined
NTIS ONLY
Sewer Overflow Pollution, Sacremento, PB 208 989
CA: by Envirogenics Co., Div. of
Aerojet General Corp., El Monte, CA
*Stream Pollution and Abatement from
Combined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus,
OH: by Burgess and Niple, Ltd.,
Columbus, OH
NTIS
PB 195 162
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
69
-------
Ref.
No.
Report Number
Title/Author
Source
61. 11024FLY06/71
62. 11030DNK08/68
63. 11030DNS01/69
-64. 11034DUY03/72
65. 11034FKL07/70
66. 11034FLU06/71
^67. 11040GKK06/71
68. 15030DTL05/70
*Heat Shrinkable Tubing as Sewer NTIS
Pipe Joints: by The Western Co. of PB 208 816
North America, Richardson, TX
The Beneficial Use of Stormwater: by NTIS ONLY
Hittman Associates, Inc., Baltimore, PB 195 160
MD
Water Pollution Aspects of Urban NTIS ONLY
Runoff: by American Public Works PB 215 532
Assoc., Chicago, IL
investigation of Porous Pavements NTIS |Z
for Urban Runoff Control: by PB 227 516
E. Thelen, W.C.Grover, A.J.Hoiberg,
and T.I.Haigh, The Franklin Institute
Research Lab., Philadelphia, PA
Stormwater Pollution from Urban Land NTIS ONLY
Activity: by AVCO Economic Systems PB 195 281
Corp., Washington, DC
^Hydraulics of Long Vertical Conduits GPO
and Associated Cavitation: by Uni-
versity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
*Environmental Impact of Highway NTIS
Deicing: by Edison Water Quality PB 203 493
Laboratory, EPA, Edison, NJ
Urban Soil Erosion and Sediment NTIS ONLY
Control: by National Association of PB 196 111
Counties Research Foundation,
Washington, DC
69. EPA-R2-72-008
70. EPA-R2-72-015
*The Swirl Concentrator as a Combined GPO $2.25
Sewer Overflow Regulator Facility: EP 1.23/2:72-008
by American Public Works Assoc., NTIS
Chicago, IL PB 214 687
Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment NTIS ONLY
Control Planning and Implementation: PB 213 119
by the Dept. of Water Resources,
State of MD, and Hittman Assoc., Inc.,
Columbia, MD
*Copies may be obtained from the EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
70
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number Title/Author Source
71. EPA-R2-72-068 *Storm Sewer Design-An Evaluation of GPO
the RRL Method: by J.B.Stall andEP 1.23/2:72-068
M.L.Tierstriep, Illinois State Water NTIS
Survey, University of Illinois PB 214 134
Urbana, IL
72. EPA-R2-72-070 ^Storage and Treatment of Combined GPO
Sewer Overflows: by the City of EP 1.23/3:72-070
Chippewa Falls, WI NTIS
PB 214 106
73. EPA-R2-72-081 *Water Pollution Aspects of Street GPO
Surface Contaminants: by J.D.Sartor EP 1.23/2:72-081
and G.B.Boyd, URS Research Co., NTIS
San Mateo, CA PB 214 408
74. EPA-R?-72-082 ^Feasibility Study of Electromagnetic GPO
Subsurface Profiling: by R.M. Morey EP 1.23/2:72-082
and W.S. Harrington, Jr., Geophysical NTIS
Survey Systems, Inc., North BillericaPB 213 892
MD
75. EPA-R2-72-091 *A Pressure Sewer System Demonstration:GPO
by I.G.Carcich, et al, New York State EP 1.23/2:72-091
Department of Environmental Conserva- NTIS
tion, Albany, NY PB 214 409
76. EPA-R2-72-125 *A Search: New Technology for Pave- GPO
ment Snow and Ice Control : by EP 1.23/2:72-125
D.M. Murray and M.R. Eigerman, NTIS
ABT Associates, Inc., Cambridge, MD PB 221 250
77. EPA-R2-72-127 ^Selected Urban Stormwater Runoff GPO
Abstracts, July 1971-June 1972: EP 1.23/2:72-127
by D.A. Sandoski, The Franklin In- NTIS
stitute Research Lab., Philadelphia, PB 214 411
PA
78. EPA-R2-73-124 Microstraining and Disinfection of GPO
Combined Sewer Overflows-Phase II: EP 1.23/2:73-124
by G.E. Glover, G.R. Herbert, Crane NTIS
Company, King of Prussia, PA PB 219 879
79. EPA-R2-73-139 *The Beneficial Use of Stormwater: GPO
by C.W. Mallory, Hittman Associates, EP 1.23/2:73-139
Columbia, MD NTIS
PB 217 506
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
71
-------
Ref.
No.
Report Number Title/Author
Source
80. EPA-R2-73-145 *A Thermal Have Flowmeter for
Measuring Combined Sewer Flows:
by P. Eshleman and R. Blase, Hydro-
space Challenger, Inc., Rockville, MD
81. EPA-R2-73-149
82. EPA-R2-73-152
Physical-Chemical Treatment of Com-
bined and Municipal Sewage: by A7J7
Shuckrow, et al., Pacific NW Lab.,
Battelle Memorial Institute,
Rich!and, WA
*Cpmbined Sewer Overflow Study for
th~e Hudson River Conference: by A.I.
Mytelka, et al., Interstate Sanita-
tion Commission, New York, NY
(jointly sponsored by Office of En-
forcement & General Council and
Office of Research & Monitoring, EPA)
83. EPA-R2-73-170 *Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement
Plan, Des Moines, IA: by P.L.Davis,
et al., Hennington, Durham, and
Richardson, Inc., Omaha, NE
84. EPA-R2-73-238 *F1ow Augmenting Effects of Additives
85. EPA-R2-73-242
86. EPA-R2-73-257
87. EPA-R2-73-261
GPO
EP 1.23/2:73-145
NTIS
PB 227 370
GPO
EP 1.23/2:73-149
NTIS
PB 219 668
GPO
EP 1.23/2:73-152
NTIS
PB 227 341
GPO
EP 1.23/2:R2-73-170
on Open Channel Flows: by C. Derick
and K. Logie, Columbia Research Inc.,
Gaithersburg, MD
*Temporary Detention of Storm and
Combined Sewage in Natural Under-
ground Formations: by City of St.
Paul, St. Paul, MN
Hater Pollution and Associated
Effects from Street Salting: by
R.Field, H.E.Masters, A.N.Tafuri,
Edison Water Quality Research Lab.,
EPA, Edison, NJ and E.J.Struzeski,
EPA, Denver, CO
*An Assessment of Automatic Sewer
Flow Samplers: by P.E.She!ley and
G.W.Kirkpatrick, Hydrospace Challenger
Inc., Rockville, MD
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
GPO
EP 1.23/2:73-238
NTIS
PB 222 911
GPO
EP 1.23/2:73-242
In-House
Report
NTIS
PB 222 795
GPO
EP 1.23/2:R2-73-261
NTIS
PB 223 355
72
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number Title/Author Source
88. EPA-R2-73-283 *Toxic Materials Analysis of Street GPO
Surface Contaminants: by R.E.Pitt and EP 1.23/2:R2-73-283
G.Amy, URS Research Co., San Mateo, NTIS
CA PB 224 677
88a EPA-600/2-73-002 A Portable Device for Measuring Naste-GPO
water Flow in Sewers: by Michael A. EP 1.23/2:600/2-73-002
Nawrocki, Hittman Associates, Inc., NTIS
Columbia, MD PB 235 634
89 EPA-660/2-73-035 Joint Construction Sediment Control GPO
Project: by B.C.Becker, et al.,EP 1.23/2:660/2-73-035
Water Resources Administration, State NTIS
of Maryland PB 235 634
'90. EPA-660/2-74-071 Programmed Demonstration for Erosion GPO
and Sediment Control Specialist:EP 1.23/2:660/2-74-071
by T.R.Mills, et al., Water Resources
Administration, State of Maryland
91. EPA-660/2-74-072 Demonstration of the Separation and GPO
Disposal of Concentrated Sediments: EP 1.23/2:660/2-74-072
by M.A.Nawrocki, Hittman Associates,
Columbia, MD
92. EPA-660/2-74-073 An Executive Summary of Three EPA GPO
Demonstration Programs in Erosion EP 1.23/2:660/2-74-073
and Sediment Control: by B.C.Becker
et al., Hittman Associates, Columbia,
MD
93. EPA-670/2-73-059 *The Dual-Functioning Swirl Combined GPO
Sewer Overflow Regulator/Concentrator:EP 1.23/2:670/2-73-059
by R.Field, USEPA, Edison, NJ NTIS
PB 227 182/3
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
73
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number Title/Author Source
94. EPA-670/2-73-067 *Hypoch1orination of Polluted Storm- GPO
water Pumpage at New Orleans: by U.R. EP 1.23/2:670/2-73-067
Pontius, E.H.Pavis, Byrne Engi- NTIS
neering Corp., New Orleans, LA PB 228 581
95. EPA-670/2-73-071 Utilization of Trickling Filters for GPO
Dual-Treatment of Dry and Wet-Weather EP 1.23/2:670/2-73-071
Flows: by P.Homack, et a!., E.T. NTIS
KTTTam Assoc., Inc., Mi 11 burn, NJ PB 231 251
96. EPA-670/2-73-077 ^Combined Sewer Overflow Seminar GPO
Papers: by Storm and Combined Sewer EP 1.23/2:670/2-73-077
Technology Branch, USEPA, Edison, NJ NTIS
PB 231 836
97. EPA-670/9-74-004 *Excerpts from "Control of Infiltra- NTIS Pending
tion and Inflow into Sewer Systems,"
and "Prevention and Correction of Ex-
cessive Infiltration and Inflow into
Sewer Systems Manual of Practice,
January 1971." Complete reports can
be purchased from NTIS, See PB numbers
listed on third page of this Bibliography.
98. EPA-670/2-74-022 *Computer Management of a Combined GPO
Sewer^System: by C.P.Leiser, Muni- EP 1.23/2:670/2-74-022
cipality of Metropolitan Seattle, NTIS
Seattle, WA PB 235 717
99. EPA-670/2-74-026 *The Swirl Concentrator as a Grit NTIS
Separator Device: by R.H.Sullivan, PB 233 964
et al., American Public Works Assoc.,
Chicago, IL
-cO )'-"
•100. EPA-670/2-74-033 *Manual for Deicing Chemical Storage NTIS
and Handling: by D.L.Richardson, et PB 236 152
al., Arthur D. Little, Inc.,
Cambridge, MD
101. EPA-670/2-74-039 ^Relationship between Diameter and NTIS
Height for Design of a Swirl Concen- PB 234 646
trator as a Combined Sewer Overflow '
Regulator: by R.H.Sullivan, et al.,
American Public Works Assoc.,
Chicago, IL
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
74
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number Title/Author Source
102. EPA-670/2-74-040 *Urban Stormwater Management and NTIS
Technology An Assessment:PB 240 687
by J.A.Lager and W.G.Smith, Metcalf
& Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, CA
103. EPA-660/2-74-043 Prediction of Subsoil Erodibillty GPO
Using Chemical, Mineraloglcal and EP 1.23/2:660/2-74-043
Physical Parameters: by C.B.Roth, NTIS
D.W.Nelson, M.J.M.Romkens, PB 231 846
Cincinnati, OH
~104. EPA-670/2-74-045 *Manua1 for Deicing Chemicals: Appli- NTIS ^ ''
cation Practices: D.L.Richardson,PB 239 694
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MD
105. EPA-670/2-74-049 *Microstraining and Disinfection of GPO
Combined Sewer Overflows-Phase III: EP 1.23/2:670/2-74-049
by M.B.Maher, Crane Co., King of NTIS
Prussia, PA PB 235 771
106. EPA-670/2-74-050 Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment NTIS ONLY
by the Rotating Biological Contactor PB 231 892
Process: by F.L.Welsh, D.J.Stucky,
Autotrol Corp., Milwaukee, WI
107. EPA-670/2-74-075 *Surge Facility for Wet- and Dry- GPO
Weather Flow Control: by H.L.Wei born EP 1.23/2:670/2-74-075
City of Rohnert Park, CA NTIS
PB 238 905
108. EPA-670/2-74-079 An Evaluation of Three Combined NTIS ONLY
Sewer Overflow Treatment Alterna- PB 239 115
tives: by J.W.Parks, et al.,
City of Shelbyville, IL
109. EPA-670/2-74-086 Chemical Impact of Snow Dumping NTIS ONLY
Practices: by J.P.O'Brien, et al., PB 238 764
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MD
110. EPA-670/2-74-087 Assessment and Development Plans for NTIS ONLY
Monitoring of Organics in Storm PB 238 810
Flows: by A.Molvar, A.Tulmello,
Raytheon Co., Portsmouth, RI
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
75
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number Title/Author Source
111 EPA-670/2-74-090 *Countermeasures for Pollution from NTIS
Overflows: by R.Field. USEPA, and PB 240 498
J.A.Lager, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,
Palo Alto, CA
112. EPA-670/2-74-096 Characterization and Treatment of NTIS
Urban Land Runoff: by Newton V- PB 240 978
Colston, Jr., North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, MC
113. EPA-670/2-75-002 *Suspended Solids Monitor: by John W. NTIS
Liskowitz, et al., American Standard PB 241 581
Inc., New Brunswick, NJ
114. EPA-670/2-75-010 *Multi-Purpose Combined Sewer Overflow NTIS
Treatment Facility, Mt. Clemens, MI: PB 242 914
by V.U.Mahida, F.J.DeDecker, Spalding
DeDecker & Assoc., Madison Heights, MI
115. EPA-670/2-75-011 *Physical and Settling Characteristics NTIS
of Participates in Storm and Sanitary PB 242 001
Wastewater: by R.J.Dalrymple, et al,
Beak Consultants for American Public
Works Assoc., Chicago, IL
116. EPA-670/2-75-017 *Stormwater Management Model User's NO NTIS
Manual-Version II: W.C.Huber, et al.,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
117. EPA-670/2-75-019 *Biological Treatment of Combined NTIS
Sewer Overflow at Kenosha, WI: by PB 242 126
R.l-J.Agnew,et al., Envirex, Mil-
waukee, WI
118. EPA-670/2-75-020 *Sewage System Monitoring and Remote NTIS
Control: by T.R.Watt, et al., Detroit PB 242 107
Metro Water Department, Detroit MI
119. EPA-670/2-75-021 *Bench-Scale High-Rate Disinfection NTIS
of Combined Sewer Overflows: by P.E. PB 242 296
Moffa, et al., O'Brien & Gere Engrs.,
Syracuse, NY
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
76
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number Title/Author Source
120. EPA-670/2-75-022 *Urban Stormwater Management Modeling NTIS
and Decision-Making: by J.P.Heaney PB 242 290
and W.C.Huber, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL
121. EPA-670/2-75-035 Stream Pollution Abatement by Supple- NTIS ONLY
mental Pumping: by C.W.Reh and W.E.PB 239 566
Saddler, City of Richmond, VA
122. EPA-670/2-75-041 *Storm Water Management Model: Pis- NTIS
semination and User Assistance!PB 2242 544
J.A.Hagerman and F.R.S.Dressier,
University City Science Center (UCSC),
Philadelphia, PA
123. EPA-670/2-75-046 *Rainfa11-Runoff Relations on Urban NTIS
and Rural Areas: by E.F.Brater and PB 242 830
J.D.Sherrill, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI
124. EPA-670/2-75-054 Characterization and Treatment of NTIS ONLY
Combined Sewer Overflows: by Engi- PB 241 299
neering Science Inc. for City and
County of San Francisco, CA
125. EPA-670/2-75-065 *Short Course Proceedings, Application NTIS
of Stormwater Management Models: PB 247 163
F.DiGiano, et al., University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
126. EPA-670/2-75-067 ^Automatic Organic Monitoring System NTIS
for Storm and Combined Sewers: byPB 244 142
A.Tulumello, Raytheon Co., Ports-
mouth, RI
127. EPA-440/9-75-004 *Hater Quality Management Planning for NTIS
Urban Runoff: by G.Any, et al., PB 241 689
Woodward-Clyde, San Francisco, CA
128. EPA-600/2-75-004 ^Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage NTIS
to Water Pollution: by D.G.Shaheen, PB 245 854
Biospherics Inc., Rockville, MD
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
77
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number Title/Author Source
-129. EPA-600/2-75-007 Impact of Hydro!ogle Modifications on NTIS
Water Quality: by J.Bhutani, et al.. PB 248 523
Mitre Inc., McLean, VA
130. EPA-600/2-75-027 *Sewer Flow Measurement-A State-of- NTIS
the-Art Assessment: by P.E.Shelley PB 250 371
and G.A.Kirkpatrick, EG&G Washington
Analytical Services Center, Inc.,
Rockville, MD
131. EPA-600/2-75-033 *A Treatment of Combined Sewer Over- NTIS
flows by Dissolved Air Flotations: PB 248 186
by T.A.Bursztynsky, et al., Engineer-
ing Science Inc., Berkeley, CA
132. EPA-600/2-75-062 *The Helical Bend Combined Sewer Over- NTIS
flow Regulator: by R.H.Sullivan, et PB 250 619
al., American Public Works Assoc.,
Chicago, IL
133. EPA-600/2-75-065 *An Assessment of Automatic Sewer NTIS
Flow Samplers-!975: by P.E.Shelley, PB 250 987
EG&G Washington Analytical Services
Center, Inc., Rockville, MD
134. EPA-600/2-75-071 ^Detention Tank for Combined Sewer NTIS
Overflow: by Consoer, Townsend and PB 250 427
Associates, Milwaukee, WI
135. EPA-600/2-76-006 *Design and Testing of a Prototype NTIS
Automatic Sewer Sampling System: PB 252 613
by P.Shelley, EG&G Washington Analyt-
ical Service Center Inc., Rockville, MD
136. EPA-600/2-76-058 Future Direction of Urban Water NTIS ONLY
Models: by M.Sonnen, Water Resources PB 249 049
Engineers (WRE), Walnut Creek, CA
137. EPA-600/2-76-095 *Urban Runoff Pollution Control NTIS
Program Overview: FY 76: R.Field, PB 252 223
A.N.Tafuri, H.E.Masters, USEPA, In-house
Edison, NJ Report
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
78
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number Title/Author _ Source
-138. EPA-600/2-76-105 *An Economic Analysis of the Environ- NTIS
mental Impact of Highway Deicing: by PB 253 268
D.M.Murray and U. F.W.Ernst, Abt
Associates, Inc., Cambridge, MA
139. EPA-600/2-76-115 *A Passive Flow Measurement System NTIS
for Storm and Combined Sewer: PB 253 383
by K. Foreman, Grumman Ecosystems Corp.,
Bethpage, NY
140. EPA-600/2-76-116 *Urban Stormwater Runoff Determination NTIS
of Volumes and Flowrates: by B.C. Yen PB 253 410
and V.T.Chow, University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL
140a. WPD 03-76-04 *Proceedings Urban Stormwater Manage- NTIS
ment Seminars: Atlanta, GA, Nov. 4-6, PB 260 889
and Denver, CO, Dec. 2-4, 1975,
Edited by Dennis Athayde, USEPA,
Water Planning Div., Washington, DC
141. EPA-600/2-76-175a*Assessment of Mathematical Models for
Storm and Combined Sewer Management:" PB 259 597
by A.Brandstetter, Batten e, Pacific
Northwest Lab., Richland, WA
142. EPA-600/2-76-175b Assessment of Mathematical Models for NTIS ONLY
Storm and Combined Sewer Management^ PB 258 644
Appendix: by A.Brandstetter, Battelle,
Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA
143. EPA-600/2-76-217a Urban Runoff Characteristics-Vol . I, NTIS ONLY
Analytical Studies: by H.C.Preul and PB 258 033
C.N.Papadakis, University of Cincin-
nati , Cincinnati , OH
144. EPA-600/2-76-217b Urban Runoff Characteristics-Vol. II, NTIS ONLY
by H.C.Preul and C.N.Papadakis, PB 258 034
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
OH
145. EPA-600/2-76-145 *Methodology for the Study of Urban NTIS
Storm Generated Pollution and Control :PB 258 743
by Envirex, Environmental Sciences
Division, Milwaukee, WI
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
79
-------
Ref.
No. Report Number
Title/Author
Source
146. EPA-600/2-76-222a*Wastewater Management Program,
Jamaica Bay-Vol.I, Summary Report:
by D.L.Feurstein and W.O.Maddaus,
City of New York, NY
147. EPA-600/2-76-222b Wastewater Management Program,
Jamaica Bay-Vol. II, Supplemental
Data, NYC Spring Creek: by D.L.
Feurerstein and W.O.Maddaus, City
of New York, NY
148. EPA-600/2-76-218 *Deve1opinent and Application of a
Simplified Stormwater Management
Model: by Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Palo
Alto, CA
149.
150.
151
•152,
153.
EPA-600/2-76-244 *Proceedings of Workshop on Micro-
organism in Urban Stormwater:
March 24, 1975, Storm and Combined
Sewer Section, USEPA, Edison, NJ
EPA-600/2-76-243 *Wastewater Flow Measurement in
Sewers Using Ultrasound, Milwaukee:
by R.J.Anderson and S.S.Bell, City
of Milwaukee, HI
EPA-600/2-76-271 *The Swirl Concentrator for Erosion
Runoff Treatment: by R.H.Sullivan,
et al., American Public Works Assoc..
Chicago, IL
EPA-600/2-76-242 ^Development of a Hydrophobic Sub-
stance to Mitigate Pavement Ice Ad-
hesion: by B.H.Alborn and H.C.Poehl-
mann, Ball Bros., Inc., Boulder, CO
NTIS
PB 260 887
NTIS ONLY
PB 258 308
NT IS
PB 258 074
NT IS
Pending
NTIS
Pending
NTIS
Pending
NTIS
Pending
EPA-600/2-76-275 *Storm Water Management Model Level I NTIS
Preliminary Screening Procedures:PB 259 916
by J.P.Heaney, et al., University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL
154. EPA-600/2-76-272 ^Demonstration of Void Space Storage NTIS
with Treatment and Flow Regulation: Pending
by Karl R. Rohrer Assocs., Inc.,
Akron, OH
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
Edison, NJ 08817
80
-------
Ref.
No.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
Report Number Title/Author
EPA-600/2-76-228 Demonstration of Interim Techniques
for Reclamation of Polluted Beach-
water: by J.F.Weber, City of Cleve-
land, OH
EPA-600/2-76-286 *Cost Estimating Manual— Combined
Sewer Overflow Storage Treatment:
by H.H.Benjes, Jr., Gulp, Wesner,
Gulp, Inc., El Dorado Hills, CA
Nationwide Evaluation of Combined
Sewer Overflows and Urban Stormwater
Discharges, Vol. II: Cost Assessment
and Impacts: by J.F.Heaney, et al . ,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
Field Prototype Demonstration of the
Swirl Degritter: by R.H. Sullivan, et
al . , American Public Works Assoc.,
Chicago, IL
*Handling and Disposal of Sludges from
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment-
Phase I (Characterization): by M.K.
Source
NTIS ONLY
PB 258 192
NTIS
Pending
At Printers
DRAFT
At Printers
160.
161.
162.
Gupta, et al., Envirex, Environmental
Science Division, Milwaukee, WI
Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater:by DRAFT
V.P.Olivieri, et al., The Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Assessment of the Impact of the DRAFT
Handling and Disposal of Sludges
Arising from Combined Sewer Overflow
Treatment: by M.J.Clark and A.Geino-
polos, Envirex, Environmental Sciences
Division, Milwaukee, WI
Swirl Device for Regulating and
Treating Combined Sewer Overflows,
EPA Technology Transfer Capsule
Report: by R.Field and H.E.Masters,
USEPA, Storm and Combined Sewer Sec.
Edison, NJ
At Printers
*Copies may
Edison, NJ
be obtained
08817
from EPA Storm and Combined Sewer Section,
81
-------
Ref.
Nn
163.
Report Number
EPA-600/2-77-033
Title/Author
Methods for Separation of Sediment
from Storm Water at Construction
Sites: by J.F.Ripken, et al . , Univ.
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
Source
NTIS ONLY
Pending
164.
Nationwide
Sewer Overflows
Evaluation of Combined
Urban
DRAFT
and
Discharges, Vol. Ill
Stormwater
Characterization:
by R.H.Sullivan, et
Public Works Assoc.,
al., American
Chicago, IL
165,
166,
EPA-440/9-75-001
Cost-Effective Pollution Control of
Combined Hastes and Urban Runoff: by
Clinton Bogert Assocs., Fort Lee, NJ
Analysis of Practices for Preparing
an Economic Analysis and Determining
Infiltration and Inflow: Vol. II:
Manual of Practice, Sewer System~
Evaluation Rehabilitation and New
Construction: by R.H.Sullivan, et
al., American Public Works Assoc.,
Chicago, IL
Report on State Sediment Control
Institutes Program: USEPA, Office of
Water Planning and Standards
DRAFT
DRAFT
168. EPA-600/8-76-001a Erosion and Sediment Control Audio-
Visual Training Program: Instruction
Manual: by The State of Maryland
NTIS
PB 241
NTIS
PB 256
088
901
Water Resources Administration; Dept.
of Transportation, The Federal High-
way Administration; The U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service; and USEPA, Office of Research
and Development
169. EPA-600/8-76-001b Erosion and Sediment Control Audio-
visual Training Program: Workbook:
by The State of Maryland Water Resources
Administration; Department of Transpor-
tation, The Federal Highway Adminis-
tration; The U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Soil Conservation Service;
and USEPA, Office of Research and
Development
NTIS
PB 258 471
82
-------
Ref.
No.
Report Number Title/Author
Source
170. EPA-600/2-77-015 ^Treatment of Combined Sewer
171.
172.
173.
Overflows NTIS
Pending
by High Gradient Magnetic Separa-
tion: by John Oberteuffer, et al.
Sal a Magnetics, Cambridge, MA
Cottage Farm Combined Sewer Detention NTIS ONLY
and Chlorination Station, Cambridge, Pending
MA: by Commonwealth of MA Metropolitan
District Commission, Boston, MA
Bachman Treatment Facility for Ex- NTIS ONLY
cessive Storm Flow in Sanitary Pending
Sewers: by H.W.Wolf, Texas A&M
University, for Dallas Water
Utilities, Dallas, TX
Evaluation of Fluidic Combined Sewer At Printers
Regulators Under Municipal Service
Conditions: by P.A.Freeman, Peter A.
Freeman Assoc., Inc., Berlin, MD
174.
Catchbasin Technology Overview and
Assessment: by J.J.Lager, et al.,
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, CA;
in association with Hydro-Research-
Science, Santa Clara, CA
At Printers
83
-------
Project
Reference
Number
ONGOING URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS
On-Going Projects
P-l
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
P-10
"Nationwide Characterization, Impacts, and Critical Evaluation
of Combined Sewer Overflow, Stormwater, and Non-Sewered Urban
Runoff." American Public Works Association, 68-03-0283
"Disinfection/Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows -
Syracuse, N.Y." Onondaga County, N.Y., 802400
"Development of a Swirl Concentrator and a Helical Combined
Sewer Overflow Dual Functioning Regulator-Separator."
American Public Works Association, 68-03-0272
"Demonstration of a Swirl Regulator/Solids Separator System
for Control of Combined Sewer Overflows." City of Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, 802219
"State-of-the-Art Update on Storm and Combined Sewer Overflow
Management and Treatment, and An Urban Planning Guide for the
Assessment of Storm Flow Pollution and the Selection of System
Pollution Control Methods." Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 68-03-2228
"Use of Polymers to Reduce or Eliminate Sewer Overflows in the
Bachman Creek Sewer." City of Dallas, Texas, 11022 DZU
"Combined Sewer Fluidic Regulator Demonstration." City of
Philadelphia, 11022 FWR
"Development of a Flocculation-Flotation Module." Hercules,
Inc., 14-12-855
"Stormwater Treatment Facilities." City of Dallas, Texas,
11023 FAW
"The Lawrence Avenue Underflow Sewer System." City of Chicago
11022 EMD
Note: Number appearing in left margin corresponds to reference numbers
cited in report text.
84
-------
Project
Reference
Number
On-Going Projects
P-ll
P-12
P-13
P-14
P-15
-P-16
P-17
P-18
P-19
P-20
P-21
P-22
P-23
"Microorganisms in Stormwater." John Hopkins University,
802709
"Nutrient Removal Using Existing Combined Sewer Overflow
Treatment Facilities." Onondaga County, N.Y., 802400
"Comparison of Alternate Sewer Design." City of Elizabeth
New Jersey, 802971
a) "Refine/Verify a Simplified Model to Handle Large Areas
with Minimal Data Input as a Planning Aid." Rochester Pure
Water Agency, Y-005141
b) "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Program - Rochester,
N.Y." Rochester Pure Water Agency, Y-005141
"Maximum Utilization of Water Resources in a Planned
Community." Rice University, 802433
"Evaluation of Present Catch Basin Technology and Demonstration
and Evaluation of New Upstream Attenuator/Solids Separator
Design." Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 68-03-0274
"Analysis of Practices for Preparing an Economic Analysis and
Determining Infiltration." American Public Works Association,
803151
"Engineering Aspects of Storm and Combined Sewer Overflow
Technology A Manual of Instruction." North Carolina State
University, 801358
"Develop a Movie on Nature/Impacts of Stormwater Pollution
As Compared to Other Forms of Water Pollution." (SRO ID
No. 61ABR), EPA, Technology Transfer
"Characterization and Disposal of Combined Sewer Overflow
Sludges and Solids," Envirex, 69-03-0242
"Development and Demonstration of Combined Sewage Treatment
Utilizing Screening and Spilt-Air Flotation,," City of
Milwaukee (Hawley Road) 11020 FDC
"Demonstration of Screening/Dissolved-Air Flotation as an
Alternative to Combined Sewer Separation." City of Racine,
Wisconsin, 11023 FWS
05
-------
Project
Reference
Number
On-Going Projects
P-24
P-25
P-28
P-29
P-30
P-31
P-32
P-34
P-37
P-39
P-40
P-41
P-42
P-45
"Sludge Treatment and Disposal Methods for Combined Sewer
Overflow." Envirex, 68-03-0242
"Demonstration Real-Time Automatic Control in Combined Sewer
System." City and County of San Francisco, California, 803743
"Evaluation of Stormwater Treatment Methods." Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District, 802535
"Evaluation and Technology Transfer of the Swirl Concentrator
Principle." American Public Works Association, 803157
"Demonstration/Evaluation of Impregnated Concrete Pipe and
Other Methods of Infiltration Control." Texas Water Quality
Board, 802651
"Trenchless Sewer Construction and Sewer Design Innovation."
Sussex County Council, Delaware, 800690
"The Somerville Marginal Conduit Including Pretreatment
Facilities." Boston Metropolitan District Commission, 11023 DME
"Large Scale Demonstration of Treatment of Storm-Caused Over-
flows by the Screening Method." City of Fort Wayne, Indiana,
11020 GYU
"Boston University Bridge Storm Water Detention and
Chlorination Station." Boston Metropolitan District
Commission, 11023 FAT
"Ultra-High Rate Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflow and Raw
Dry Weather Sewage at Newtown Creek Sewage Treatment Plant."
City of New York, 803271
"East Chicago Treatment Lagoon." East Chicago Sanitary
District, 11020 FAV
"Evaluation of Various Aspects of an Aluminum Storm Sewer
System." City of LaSalle, Illinois, 11032 DTI
"Pilot Plant Studies to Determine the Feasibility of Using
High Gradient Magnetic Separation (HGMS) for Treating Combined
Sewer Overflows." Sala Magnetics, Inc., 68-03-2218
"Development of Electromagnetic Flowmeter for Combined Sewer."
Gushing Engineering, Inc., 68-03-0341
86
-------
Project
Reference
Number
On-Going Projects
P-46
P-49
P-50
P-51
P-53
P-68
P-70
P-71
fP-66
P-67
P-72
P-73
P-74
"Efficiency of Off-Stream Detention-Retention Measures as
Sediment Control Devices." Howard University, 803066
"Collect and Define Availability of Test Data (Rainfall/Runoff)
For Urban Models-Data Base." University of Florida, 68-03-0496
"Develop and Demonstrate New and Improved Model for Design
of Combined Sewers to Prevent Solids Sedimentation and to
Optimize Construction Cost." Water Resources Engineers, Inc.,
68-03-2205
"Short Course on Application of Stormwater Management Models-
1975." University of Massachusetts, 803069
"A Guide for Comprehensive Planning for Control of Urban Storm
and Combined Sewer Runoff." University of Florida, 802411
"Verification of Water Quality Impact from CSO using Real-Time
Data." County of Milwaukee, 804518
"Optimization and Testing of Highway Materials to Mitigate Ice
Adhesion." Washington State University, 804660
"Evaluation and Technology Transfer of the Swirl Concentrator
Principal." American Public Works Association, 803157
"Characterization of Solids Behavior in, and Variability
Testing of Selected Control Techniques for Combined Sewer
Systems." Northeastern University, 804578
"Demonstration of Non-Point Pollution Abatement through
Improved Street Cleaning Practices." San Jose, California,
804432
"Demonstration of Erosion and Sediment Control Technology."
State of California, 803181
"Methods of Separation of Sediment From Storm Water at
Construction Sites." University of Minnesota, 803579
"Demonstration and Evaluation of Sediment and Erosion Control
Techniques Applicable to the S.E. Piedmont, Fairfield County,
South Carolina." University of South Carolina, 803724
87
-------
OTHER URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM REFERENCES
Ref.
No. References
R-l Total Urban Pollutant Load: Sources and Abatement Strategies: Enviro
Control, Inc., for Council of Environmental Quality, Draft Report,
October 1973.
R-2 Sources of Metals In New York City Wastewater: Larry A. Klein, et al
JWPCF, Vol.46, No. 12, December 1974.
R-3 Water Quality Effects From Urban Runoff: Robert E. Pitt and Richard
Field, Preprint, 1974 American Water Works Association Conference,
Boston, Massachusetts.
R-4 1974 Survey of Needs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities:
USEPA, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C.
R-5 Report to National Commission on Water Quality on Assessment of Tech-
nologies and Costs for Publicly owned Treatment Works under Public
Law 92-500, Volume 1: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., September 1975.
R-6 Study and Assessment of the Capabilities and Cost of Technology for
Control of Pollutant Discharges from Urban Runoff: Black, Crow &
Eidness, Inc. and Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., for the National
Commission on Water Quality, Draft Report, July 1975.
R-6a Management and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows: Richard Field and
E.J. Struzeski, Journal Water Poll. Control Fed., Vol. 44, No. 6,
July 1972, pp 1393-1415.
R-6b Combined Sewer Overflows: Richard Field, Civil Engineering - ASCE
Magazine, February 1973, pp 57-60.
R-6c Coping with Urban Runoff in The United States: Richard Field, Water
Research, Vol. 9, Pergamon Press 1975, pp 499-505.
R-6d Urban Runoff Pollution Control - State of The Art: Richard Field and
John A. Lager, Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE,
Vol. 101, No. EE1, Proc. Paper 11129, February 1975, pp 107-125.
Note: Number appearing in left margin corresponds to reference numbers
cited in report text.
88
-------
OTHER URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM REFERENCES (continued)
Ref.
No. References
R-6e Urban Runoff Must Be Controlled: Richard Field, Baltimore Engineer
Magazine, March 1975.
R-6f Literature Review - Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow: Richard
Field and Pauline Weigel, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
Vol. 45, No. 6, June 1973, pp 1108-1115.
R-6g Literature Review - Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow: Richard
Field and Pamela Szeeley, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
Vol. 46, No. 6, June 1974, pp 1209-1226.
R-6h Literature Review - Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow: Richard
Field and Donna Knowles, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
Vol. 47, No. 6, June 1975, pp 1353-1369.
R-6i Literature Review - Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow: Richard
Field, J. Curtis, and R. Bowden, Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, Vol. 48, No. 6, June 1976, pp 1191-1206.
R-7 Stormwater Pollution Control: A New Technology: Richard Field and
Anthony N. Tafuri, 28 Minute - 16 mm - Sound - Color Film, Available
from: General Services Administration, National Archives and Records
Service, National Audiovisual Center, Washington, D.C. 20409,
Rental - $12.50, Purchase - $119.50.
R-8 Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual: Hydroscience, Inc., USEPA,
Chapters 2 & 3, and Appendix I, Cincinnati, OH, September 1976.
R-9 Generalized Computer Program, Urban Storm Water Runoff, STORM:
Hydrologic Engineering Center for U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers,
723-S8-L2520, October 1974.
R-10 A Model for Evaluating Runoff-Quality in Metropolitan Master Planning:
L.A. Roesner, jet jj, Water Resources Engineers, A.D. Feldman, The
Hydrologic Engineering Center, for U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, A.O.
Friedland, Department of Public Works, City of San Francisco, Tech-
nical Memorandum No. 23, ASCE, April 1974.
89
-------
OTHER URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM REFERENCES (continued)
Ref.
No. References
R-ll Hater Pollution and Associated Effects From Street Salting: Richard
Field, Edmond J. Struzeski, Jr., Hugh Masters, Anthony Tafuri,
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 100,
No. EE2, Proc. Paper 10473, April 1974, pp 459-477.
R-12 Community Action Guideline for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control:
National Association of Counties Research Foundation, March 1970.
R-13 Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in
Developing Areas: The United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service for The State of Maryland, June 1975.
R-14 Infiltration - Inflow Analysis: David J. Cesareo and Richard Field,
Journal of The Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101,
No. EE5, Proc. Paper 11645, October 1975, pp 775-785.
R-15 Design of a Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator/Concentrator: Richard
Field, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 46, No. 7,
July 1974, pp 1722-1741.
R-16 Give Stormwater Pollutants the Spin: Richard Field, et_ a]_, The
American City & Country Magazine, April 1976, pp 77-78.
90
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-047
3. RECIPIENT'S ^CCESSI ON«NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
5. REPORT DATE
March 1977 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Richard Field,
Anthony N. Tafuri, Hugh E. Masters
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9_PERFORMIN,G
Storm and
NIZATIQN NAME-AND, ADDRESS
~ned Sewer Section
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Edison, New Jersey 08817
1BC611
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory--Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
: In-house Rppnrt. FY'77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Supplement to EPA-600/2-76-095, "Urban Runoff Pollution Control Program Overview:
FY'76" P.O. Richard Field, Chief, Storm & Combined Sewer Section, (201)321-6674,
0 340 6674 ——
16. ABSTRACT
This Overview describes the major elements of the Urban Runoff Pollution Control
Program. Problem Definition, User Assistance Tools, Management Alternatives and
Technology Transfer are covered, including some of the highlights of the Program's
future direction and products from over 150 of its research projects. References are
cited for completed Program reports, ongoing Program projects, and in-house documents
Capital cost comparisons for storm and combined sewer control/treatment are given
along with a specific example of cost-effect solution for urban runoff pollution
control by in-line storage in Seattle. In a study done in Des Moines, using a
simplified receiving water model, four control alternatives were compared, considering
cost and effectiveness in terms of a frequency of D.O. standard violations.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Water pollution, Waste Treatment, Sewage
Treatment, Runoff, Wastewater, Sewage,
Overflows--Sewers, Cost effectiveness, Com-
bined Sewers, Surface water runoff, Collec-
tion, Sludge, Water Quality, Hydrology
Drainage systems, Water
pollution control, Urban
runoff pollution/control,
Storm runoff, Waste water
treatment, Research and
development
13B
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21 . NO. OF PAGES
103
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pagej
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
91
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-757-056/5W Reg ion No. 5-I I
------- |