SEPTEMBER 1976
URBAN RUNOFF
POLLUTION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
-------
September 1976
URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
by
Richard Field
Anthony N. Tafuri
Hugh E. Masters
Storm and Combined Sewer Section (Edison, N.J.)
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
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.
-------
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 a.nd 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
-------
ABSTRACT
Ijjiis Overview describes the major elements of the Urban Runoff
Pollution Control Program.] Problem Definition, User Assistance Tools,
Management Alternatives aficJ 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 givenj 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
frequency of D.O. standard violations.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ,. iii
Abstract . . iv
Figures viii
Tables x
Acknowledgments. xi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION 1
. Characterization 5
Representative Concentrations 5
Representative Loads.. 5
Potential Impacts 5
Receiving Water Quality Impacts 7
Erosion/Sediment Impacts 8
Characterization: Products ....,.,, , 8
Nationwide Cost Assessment 11
Sewer Separation 11
High Cost Implied 11
New R&D Estimates Imply Lower Costs 11
Solution Methodology 13
More Accurate Problem Assessment 13
Cost-Effective Approach 13
Example Solution Methodology .14
Overcome Administrative Problems 14
Solution Methodology: Products 14
3. USER ASSISTANCE TOOLS 18
Instrumentation 18
Instrumentation: Products. . . 18
Simulation Models . . . 20
Planning/Design Models 20
Level I 20
Level II. 25
Level III 25
Level IV. 25
Operation Models ' . . . 25
Simulation Models: Products 26
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
4. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 26
Land Management 27
Structural/Semi-Structural Control. 27
On-Site (Upstream) Storage 27
Porous Pavements. . . 30
Overland Flow Modification 30
Solids Separation 31
Non-Structural 31
Surface Sanitation. 31
Chemical Use Control 32
Urban Development Resource Planning 34
Use of Natural Drainage . . . 34
Erosion/Sedimentation Control (Non-Structural). ..... 35
Integrated Benefits 35
Erosion/Sediment Control: Products 35
Hydrologic Modification Category Status 37
Collection System Controls 37
Catch Basins 37
Sewers 39
Polymers to Increase Capacity 39
Infiltration/Inflow 39
Flow Routing. ., . - 39
Regulators and Tide Gates 40
Swirl and Helical Device Development 40
Swirl and Helical: Products 40
Maintenance 40
Storage 43
Treatment ......... 46
Physical/Chemical Treatment 46
Land Disposal 48
Biological Treatment 48
Disinfection 48
Treatment Process Performance 48
Treatment: Products 49
Sludge/Solids 49
Sludge: Products 50
Integrated Systems 52
Storage/Treatment 52
Dual Use, WWF/DWF Facilities 52
Control/Treatment/Reuse 52
Integrated Systems: Products 54
5. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 54
Significant Documents Completed 55
Significant Documents Anticipated . . 56
VI
-------
CONTENTS (Concluded)
6. CAPITAL COSTS COMPARISONS FOR STORM AND COMBINED SEWER
CONTROL/TREATMENT 56
7. SEATTLE: IN-LINE STORAGE IS COST-EFFECTIVE 56
Costs 56
Pollutant Reduction ......... 58
Effectiveness 58
8. DES MOINES: CONTROL COSTS VS. D.O. VIOLATIONS 58
9. CONCLUSION. 59
10. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY . . 60
Bibliography of Urban Runoff Control Program Reports 61
Ongoing Urban Runoff Pollution Control Projects ("P".Nos.). . 78
Other Urban Runoff Pollution Control Program References ("R"
. Nos.) 82
vn
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 EPA Storm and Combined Sev/er R & D Program ......... 2
2 Problem Definition .• 4
3 Representative Strengths of Wastewaters (Flow Heighted
Means in .mg/1) 6
4 Dry Weather Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, Wells
Street, Milwaukee River, Milwaukee, HI 9
5 Net Weather Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, Hells
Street, Milwaukee River, Milwaukee, WI 9
6 Drv Weather Fecal Coliform Concentrations, Hells Street
(CSO Area) ^ Brown Deer Road (Separate Drainage Area),
Milwaukee River, Milwaukee, WI 10
7 Het Weather Fecal Coliform Concentrations, Wells Street
(CSO Area) ^ Brown Deer Road (Separate Drainage Area),
Milwaukee River, Milwaukee, WI 10
8 Single Purpose and Multiple Purpose Stromwater Pollution
Control Costs, for US 12
9 Example Solution Methodology • 15
10 Construction Cost Example: Storage Facilities ........ 17
11. Instrumentation for Total System Management 19
12 Simulation Models for Total System Management 21
13 . Land Management 28
14 Porous Asnhaltic - Concrete Features 30
15 Deicing Chemical Control (Land Management / Non-Structural) . 33
16 Erosion - Sedimentation Control: Products 36
17 . Collection System Control- « . 38
18 Isometric View of Swirl Regulator / Concentrator ..'.... 41
19 Storage. . • •. 44
vm
-------
FIGURES
No. . . Page
20 Results of Controlling Storm Flow by Storage 45
21 Treatment . 47
22 Sludge / Solids- . . . ' 51
23 Integrated Systems 53
IX
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Summary: Storm and Combined Sewer Program ......... 3
2 Metals Discharged to-the Harbor from New York City
Sources 7
3 Instrumentation: Products ...... 20
4 .Levels of Urban Hater Management Analysis • ... 22
5 Pollutant Analysis 23
6 Runoff Analysis. . . 24
7 Simulation Models: Products 26
8 Cost Comparison Between Surface Ponding Techniques and
Conventional Sewer Installations • 29
9 Advanced Street Cleaner Pollutant Recovery Percentages • • • 3JL
10 Swirl Regulato'r / Concentrator: Suspended Solids
Removal ........... 42
11 Swirl Regulator / Concentrator: BODg Removal- 42
12 Wet-Weather Treatment Plant Performance Data 49
13 Sludge / Solids: Products 50
14 Significant Documents Comoleted. . . . .' 55
15 Significant. Documents Anticipated. . . . 55
16 Tynical Capital Costs for SCS Control / Treatment
. (ENR 2000) 57
17 Des Moin'es: Control Costs vs. Violations of DO Standard
(4 p'pm)'- .59.
-------
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).
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:
"When a c^y taku a. bath, what do you. do with. tke. divty
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.
-------
1
COMBINED
SEWERS
INFILTRATED
SAN. SEWERS
STORM
SEWERS
UNSEWERED
RUNOFF
! HYDROLOGIC |
! MODIFICATIONS !
L_ _ I
COMBINED SEWER
POLLUTION CONTROL
SEWERED & UNSEWERED
RUNOFF
POLLUTION CONTROL
RUNOFF POLLUTION
CONTROL PROGRAM
•PROBLEM DEFINITION
•USER ASSISTANCE TOOLS
INSTR. & COMPUTERS
•LAND MANAGEMENT
• COLL. SYS. CONTR'OL
• STORAGE
• TREATMENT
•SLUDGE/SOLIDS
• INTEGRATED SYSTEMS
• TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Figure 1. EPA Storm and Combined Sewer R&D Program
-------
CATEGORIES
PROBllH OEF INITION
Characterization
USER ASSISTANCE TOOLS
Instrumentation
Simulation Models
LAND MANAGEMENT
Retention/detention
Enforced controls
Neighborhood sanitation
COlllCr I ON SYSfEH CONTROLS
Sewer separation
Runoff Inlet/catch basin
tide gates
Remote monitoring with
Supervisory control
Fully automated control
STORAGE
!r,-L1r.e
Off-Une
TREATMENT
Physical treatment with
Biological treatment
Physical-chemical
Land disposal
>LULKjl/iULlL>i
Characterization/Quanti-
fication
Treatment handling schemes
Process evaluations
(Varies)
Storage/treatment
OuaT use WF/DUF (storage/
treatment
Control /treatment/reuse
(ECHNICAl ASSISTANCE AND
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER'
Consultation to Fed.,
sute, local govts. and
quasl-govt. agencies
Public Inf. Requests
Consultation to foreign
govti and International
confer.
In-House seminars
SWHN
Higher Education
Planning/ design/ SOW
assess manuals and extra-
mural publications
INITIATED/ ACCOMPLISHED
Prelim, appraisals CSO/SW prob.. CSO/SW char..
deiclng, sed./eros., loading factors, rec. water
Impacts, nat'l assess. Impacts/costs
studies, SOTA's sed./eros. & deiclng control, unit
cost factor dev
Ralngage, flow measuring, sampling, monitoring,
control
Simplified, detailed/complex, operational,
dissemination
NON-STRUCTURAL:
Land use planning, upstream Impoundment (struc-
tural), porous pavement
Air pollution, eros./sed., cropping, berms, chemical
Street cleaning, solid waste management
Effectiveness eval.. Improved design, cleaning
(low flow carry) no vel. and added storage), I/I pre-
vent and control (with manuals), polymers to In-
crease capacity
swirl & helical, fluidic req.
Provides storage/discharge options
Automates storage/discharge options
Surface (rect. tanks, earthen basins, abond. quar-
Flne screening, mlcrostralnlng. sed. . filt., dis-
Contact stabilization, trickling filters, lagoons.
w/continuoujly operated plant
Precipitation, filtration, adsorption. Ion exchange,
break-pt Cl?
dioxide, on-slte gen., high-rate, nixing, micro-
organism Indicator study (pathogen, virus), 2-staoe
Harsh land
Classification requirement, testability, vital
parameters, amount, solids content
On-site vs Wk trmt., land disposal
Thickening, digestion, centrlfugatlon. vacuum filtra-
tion, incineration
Host coomon master plan approach
Pump-back, sed. In storage, disinfection, break-even
econ. w/treatment
Lagoon storage/treat., HRTF, contact *tab.. P-C, hl-
rate filter, equalisation, combined sewers
Treatment-park, new town devel . (land mgmt-treat).
storage/treat, marina feas., lakelets for storage/
treat./reuse
EPA. OAWP (needs surveys): EPA TT (seminars, film
production); EPA Reg. receiving H?0 impact studies;
EPA Hq and Regions on 201/206 studies and seminars;
Reg. V on 108 grants; NSF, DOT, OURT (reviews,
confer, steering committees); CEO & NCWQ (proposal
ports, example methodology for prob. solution, conf.
moderator, prog, committees
Netherlands. Australia, New Zealand); Canadian (TAG)
IJC (steering com.) IAUPR (confer. ft prog, commit-
tees); various conferences and publications
Various tech. areas: overviews
1 nation
SCS prog, university course man.
Overall prog, concepts, sol. method, sanpl Ing/anal ,,
costs, specific processes
ON&OINC,
-Direct rec. water/source loading factor analysis
-Dev. SACS strategy document
-Analyie optimum S&CS/DWF T/C combinations
-Verlf. nagnetlc flowmeter for simultaneous press/
gravity flow meas. (supplement)
-Demo 1 -situ TOC anal. & storm flow sampler
(Syrac it-supplement)
-Dev. s st. analysis program for quantification/hand-
ling o CSO sludge/solids
-Oev. a torn. oper. model for rtal-ttmt control w/raln
fall p edict.
-Hydr. model for steep slopes (supplement)
-Eval. effect of sed. trtppfng efficiency of off-
stream del. /ret.
-Demo In-siiu hydrophobic substance
(supplement)
-Demo periodic sewer flushing: CSO 1st .flush relief •
-Eval. strength Increases from sulfur Impregnation of
'Oev. autom. operational model for rial-time control
w/ rainfall predict. '
-Demo. fine screening/microstralnfng, swirl reg. and
high-rate disinf. by ClO^/CK and mixing incl:
resid. toxic/carcinogenic Cl^ comp. viral disfnf.
-Feas. of land disposal (Envirex-supplement)
-Evaluate: methods of ultimate disposal of UWF solids
and impacts of WWF sludges/solids on OVF plant
(Envi rex-supplement)
-Continuous • (15X - 201 of prog, time)
NOTE: Anticipate increase In EPA construction grant
(201) and planning grant (208) assist.
due to CSO emphasis
r
Table 1. Summary Storm and Combined Sewer Program
3
-------
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!
NAT'L ASSESS PLAN GRANTS
MANUAL: REFINED SOLUTION
METHODOLOGY
Figure 2. Problem Definition
-------
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
contamination 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..
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 Pseudpmonas aeruginosa
and 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
settl.ea.ble 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;
-------
200
200
HB RAW
Y//X COMBINED
I I SIORM
6-7
BOD
SS
DO
SxlO7
RAW
COMBINED
F I STORM .
10
TOTAL COLIFORM TOTAL
MPN/100 ml NITROGEN
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
Figure 3. Representative Strengths of
Wastewaters (Flow Weighted
Means in mg/1)
-------
TABLE 2 . .—Metals Discharged to the Harbor from New York City Sources
Source
Plant effluents
Runoff *
Untreated wastewater
Total weight (Ib/day)
Weighted average concentration (mg/1)
Cu
1,410
1,990
980
4,380
0.25
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.
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.
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 mg/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.
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 irr 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 accelerated,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 database 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.
8
-------
12.0.
Surface
r~\
10 Foot Surface
0630 oooo oooo oooo
9 June. 75 10 June 75 U June 75
Time
10-
9
8-
H
00
,
a)
oo c^
^ •
x
o
03
•H
P2.
.End of Storm
Start of Samp!ing
10 Foot Depth
'» Surface /
I \ /
\ /
\ /
V/
I I 1 I I I MI I i I 1 I ' 111 I I ! 1 I I I M I I I I I I I li I I I I I I Ijl I I I I I I I
15 Oct . 16 Oct '7 Oct 18 Oct 19 Oct 20 Oct
Time
Figure 4. Dry Weather
Figure 5. Wet Weather
Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Wells Street
Milwaukee River, Milwaukee, WI
-------
10' r
10
o 10"
o
10
'o 103
10
io
10
Day
1
Wei Is
Brown Deer
[
Day
2
Day
3
E
O
10
c
10
o
o
S
O)
10'
10
Wei Is
Brown Deer
Figure 6. Dry Heather
Figure 7. Wet Weather
Fecal CoHform Concentrations, Wells Street (CSO Area)
& Brown Deer Road (Separate Drainage Area) -
Milwaukee River, Milwaukee, WI
-------
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
Sewer1 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.
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 arid $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 law making,
and firmer pollution abatement targets -- realistically, can we do a job
for the money we have?
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
coordinated systems of smaller storage-treatment units. The resultant
national cost for combined sewer overflow and separate stormwater pollution
control was $17 billion, at 75% BOD removal (Figure 8.) (157). The major re-
duction in the national figure for stormwater control is attributable to
discounting storm sewer line construction (at $93 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,
we should not shy away from separate stormwater research and control imple-
mentation based on even rougher preliminary 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.
11
-------
2200-
2000-
U>
01800-1
x
^leooH
N
co 1400-
h- .
co
OI200H
§1000-]
800-1
_J
£ 600-
h-
400-
200-
00-j
0
20
40
o/
/o
60 80
POLLUTANT CONTROL, R,
-18,000 S
• o
-16,000
co
ID Q
-14,0000^
CO
or
-I2.0OO " lo
Ho
CO O
-10,000'
f- 8,000 £ fc
-------
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.
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; and
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.
13
-------
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 we maximize and integrate land management and non-structural
techniques 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. By this analysis a truer cost-effective-
ness 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 standard, 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 $3M. This
or similar methodologies (157 Chapter VII) can help us set cost-effective
standards as well as select alternatives.
»
.Overcome Administrative Problems .
It is essential to include these concepts to handle the job properly.
However, there are basic problems in administration that must be overcome.
The autonomous Federal and local agencies and professions involved in
flood and erosion control, pollution control, and land management and environ-
mental planning must be integrated at both the planning and operation levels.
Grant coverage must be adequate to stimulate such an approach. For example,
EPA would have to join with the Corps, Soil Conservation Service, Department
of Transportation, and perhaps other Federal agencies as well as departments
of pollution control, sanitation, planning and flood control at the local
level. EPA's present policy of funding construction will also need expansion
to cover cost-effective land management and non-structural techniques promul-
gated by its planning grant approach.
Solution Methodology: Products
Highlighted solution methodology products are the often referenced eight
city studies (41,51,53,54,49,60,65,83) which involved an economic comparison of
pollution control alternatives for both dry and wet weather flow.
The text on urban stormwater management and technology (102) is considered
an excellent program milestone and guide for planners and engineers. It
organizes and presents more than 100 completed Program projects as of
December 1973. The text is presently being updated and will include compre-
14
-------
ioo-w_
CO
to
VJ
CO
CO
<
A|
o
Q
O
CN
I
UJ
Qi
§
>—
fc*
75- -
—-^S, WET-II (75% Rem) OR
\ (" WET-I (PRIM)/LM
(75% Rem)
0
D.O. (mg/l)
CONTROL
ALTERNATIVES
EXISTING
TERTIARY
WET-I (PRIMARY)
WET-II (ADV)
WET-I/LAND MGMT.
% BOD REMOVAL
DRY WEATHER
85
95
85
85
85
WET WEATHER
0
0
25
75
75
COST
($xl06)
—
6
1
6
3
Figure 9. Example Solution Methodology
15
-------
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.
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 stu^y 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. We have
also included receiving water impacts in an ongoing project in Lancaster, PA
(P-4) and received additional non-EPA funds to conduct a receiving water
impact analysis for the ongoing Rochester project (P-15).
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 our objectives in the area of problem definition.
16
-------
O
u
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
.
X
Xx
X^x
'
s
X
LUJ
^CR
X
—
ET
X
_X ' -x^
x^
s
X"
X
X
.f
y'
>
X
fl_
E-
x"
''-
C
X
D'
x*
i
x
—
X
I
'E
/
X"
X
R
'
X
-
'
-
-
_ „ JfJL-
ED-^X
•^
X
X
X
X
x
/
^
>
x
x
X
/
X
RTl
.X
.,
^CON
X
^h
—
X
\
s
Cf
X
^,
JE
/
-
-
-
X*
T
^
-
X1
E
x
~
-
X
X"
X"
.
-UNCOV 1
x
X"
:RED
-
- -• -
3 456789
3 456789
10 '100
STORAGE CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS
3 45678
?,000
Figure 10. Construction Cost Example: Storage Facilities
17
-------
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 oh 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.
The instrumentation effort seems to be coming to a head, but before
that, it would prevail upon us to reactivate the EPA full-size test loop
in the possession of FMC for further testing of Storm and Combined Sewer
(S§CS) Program developed, and other instrumentation.
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.
18
-------
PRE-FY76
FY76
FUTURE
RAIN
QUAN
(FLOW MEAS)
<£>
CONVENT
GAGES
METER DEV
• DUAL GRAVITY-
PRESS
»NON-INTRUSIVE
• UNSTEADY STATE
(EM, SOUND,
PASSIVE SOUND)
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
-------
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)
Ln situ TOC 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, our current 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.).
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.
20
-------
PRE-FY76
FY76
FUTURE
SIMPLIFIED
(PRE-PLAN)
DETAILED
(PLAN/DES.IGN)
DEV/VERIFY
SWMM
AUGMENT SWMM
• NATUR.AL DRAIN
• DRY WEATH
SIMPLIFIED
SWMM
• HRLY STEPS
• CONTINUOUS
M&E SIMPLIFIED
• SCREENING
• 400 VS 15000 STATEMENTS
1
1
J
! DEM. CITY-WIDE
] (ROCHESTER)
*
INCORP
• SLUDGE
HANDLING
f
' INCORP
• IMPROVE
OUAL
• SOLIDS
DEPOSITION
• REUSE
•REC H2O
ECON
• H oO USE
ECON
UWMM
DEM.
OPERATIONAL
MANUAL SUPERVISORY
CONTROL DEMOS
(DETROIT, ST. PAUL.SEATTLE)
DEV AUTOMATIC
CONTROL
(SAN FRANSCICO)
DEM. AUTOMATIC
CONTROL
DISSEMINATION
SWMM
H ccp* c
MANUAL
T.T.
• USER ASSIST
PROG
• SHORT COURSES
('74. '75)
SWMM
II CCD'C
MAN II
SWMM
MAN III
SWMM
MAN IV
UWMM
'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 (at press) (153)
o Hydroscience methodology (at press) (R-8)
Level II:
Simplified continuous simulation model
o Simplified SWMM (by M£E) (at press) (148).
Level III: Refined continuous simulation model
o Continuous SWMM (available) .(P-53)
o STORM (available) (R-9, R-10)
Level IV: Sophisticated single event simulation model
o Detailed SWMM (available) (116,125)
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
those shown in Table 5. have been statistically developed to estimate BOD ,
SS, VS, PO. and N loads as a function of land use, type of sewer system,
precipitation, population density, and street sweeping frequency. The (X
and ft terms represent normalized loading factors in Ib/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.
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).
22
-------
Table 5. Pollutant Analysis
The. following equacions may be used to predict annual average
loading rates as a function of land use, precipitation and population
density.
Separate Areas: M • u(i,j) • P
£2(PDd)
acre-yr
Conibined Areas: M
where
• 6(1,j)
M »
P -
PD -
0,8 =
Y *
£2(PDd)
pounds of pollutant j generated per acre of .
land use i per year,
annual precipitation, inches per year,
developed population density, persons par acre,
factors given in table below,
street sweeping effectiveness factor, and
population density function.
Land Uses: i = 1 Residential
i = 2 Commercial
i = 3 Industrial
i = It Other Developed, e.g., parks, cemeteries, schools
(assume PD ,
0)
Pollutants:
j =.1
j = 2
BOD , Total
Suspended Solids (SS)
Volatile Solids, Total (VS)
Total PO, (as FO )
Total N
Poulation Function:
i = 1 f-(PD.) = 0.142 + 0.218 ' PD
i = 2,3 ^(PDj) ='1-0
i = 4 ff(PD ) = 0.142
0.54
'factors' -j. and 6 ;'jr r^u'^tionc: Separate factors, '<., and combined factors,
:, have units Ib/acre-in. To convert to kg/ha-cm, multiply
by 0.442.
Pollutant, j
Land Use, i 1. BOD.. 2. SS 3. VS 4.
5. N
1. Residential 0.799
Separate 2. Commercial 3.20
Areas, a 3. Industrial 1.21
4. Other 0.113
1. Residential 3.29
Combined 2. Commercial 13.2
Areas, S 3. Industrial 5.00
4. Other . 0.467
16.3
22.2
29.1
2.70
67.2
91.8
120.0
11.1
9.45
14.0
14.3
2.6
38.9
57.9
59.2
10.8
0.0336
0.0757
0.0705
0.00994
0.139
0.312
0.291
0'.0411
0.131
0.296
0.277
0.0605
0.540
1.22
1.16
0.250
m
Jinct ttcepin-j: Factor Y Is a function of street sweeping interval,
x! (t\ o tic ^ • F
N , (days):
S
f.; /20 if 0 < N < 20 days
Is- ~ s
.1.0 if N > 20 days
23
-------
Table 6. Runoff Analysis
Stormwater Flow Prediction
AR =.(0.15 + 0.75 1/100) P - 5.234 (DS)°'5957
where AR = Annual Runoff, in/yr
I = 9.6 PD (0-573-0.0391 log^PD,)
a
where I = Imperviousness, Percent and
PD, = Population Density in Developed Portion of
the Urbanized Area, Persons/Acre
P = Annual Precipitation, in/yr and
DS = 0.25-0.. 1875 (1/100) 0
-------
settings. We have 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 "piggy-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
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) .
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Wet-weather flow control can be grouped into three management alternatives.
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 collec-
26
-------
tion system, or off-line by storage. We can remove pollutants 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 technology
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 modifica-
tions in a construction or urbanizing area and includes such techniques as:
on-site storage, porous pavement, overland flow modifications and solids
separation.
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 ponding
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 gro.undwater pollution must also
be considered.
27
-------
LAND
MANAGEMENT
{STRUCTURAL/SEMI-STRUCTURAL
oo
CONSTRUCTION (HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION) CONTROL
Erosion/Sedimentation (Construction)
Flood
Pollution '
. ON- SITE
(UPSTREAM)
STORAGE-
o RETENTION
Basins /Ponds
Recharging Ponds
o DETENTION
Basins /Ponds
Dual Use
Rooftop
Parking Lot/Plaza
Recreational Facilities
Aesthetics
POROUS PAVEMENT
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
CHEMICAL
USE
CONTROL
URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
RESOURCE
PLANNING
USE OF NATU-
RAL DRAINAGE
EROSION
SEDIMENTATION
CONTROL
NON-STRUCTURAL
o ANTI LITTER
o STREET CLEANING
o STREET FLUSHING
o AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
o
o
o
o
o
LAWN CHEMICALS
INDUSTRIAL SPILLAGE
GASOLINE STATIONS
LEAD IN GASOLINE
HIGHWAY DEICING
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
-------
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. Cost Comparison Between Surface Ponding Techniques
and Conventional Sewer Installation (R-8).
Cost estimate, $
Site
Description
With surface
ponding
With Conven-
tional
sewers
Earth City,
Missouri
Consolidated
Freightways, St,
Louis, Missouri
Ft. Campbell,
Kentucky
Indian Lakes
Estates, Blooming-
ton, Illinois
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
2,000,000
5,000,000
115,000
2,000,000
150,000
3,370,000
200,000
600,000
29
-------
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 in./hr
of stormwater to flow through (Figure 14.) (64). Stability, durability,
EXCEEDED THE
MINIMUM MAR-
SHALL STABILITY
CRITERION FOR
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
AGGREGATE GRADED TO ALLOV
A WATER FLOW OF 76/HOUR-|
5.5XBY WT. OF:'• ""jft
85-100 PENETRATION'
ASPHALT CEMENT ,
BINDER ,
SUBJECTED TO 265i
FREEZE-THAW CY-J
CLES WITH NO
CHANGES IN PHYS-1
ICAL DIMENSIONS, i
MARSHALL STABILITY1 j
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 ho 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.
30
-------
Solids Separation--
Sediment basins trap and store sediment from credible 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 stormwatcr. 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 Percentages
Parameter
Dry Weight Solids
Volatile Solids
BOD
COD
Total PO.-P c-
Heavy Metals
% Recovery
93
80
67
84
85
83-98
*Broom and Vacuum Combination
31
-------
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
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 environ-
ment ($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
32
-------
ASSESSMENT OF PROBLEM (67)
Kept: .Environmental Impact of
Highway Deicing 6/71
< r
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
lOPTIMIZE HYDROPHOP-IC SUBSTANCE (P-70)[
-->'Ongoing Study: Washington
jstate_University 9/77
Figure 15. Deicing Chemical Control (Land Management/Non-Structural)
33
-------
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 our own (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 (140a, 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 be 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.
34
-------
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.
35
-------
COMMUNITY (R-12)
GUIDEBOOK 3/70
±
DEMONSTRATION
PROJECTS
(89,90,91)
\ '
EXECUTIVE (92)
SUMMARY
URBAN SOIL (68)
EROSION 5/70
GUIDELINES (70)
PLANNING
IMPLEMENTATION 8/72
DEMONSTRATION (90)
FOR
SPECIALIALISTS 6/74
\ f
AUDIOVISUAL (168,169)
TRAINING PROGRAM 8/76
INTER AND (167)
INTRA AGENCY
PROJECTS
SUMMARY (167)
STATE
PROGRAMS 3/75
STANDARDS & (R-13)
SPECIFICATIONS
USDA-SCS 6/75
{REGIONAL (p-72,73,74)'
I TECHNIQUES 6/77
"*"
TECHNICAL
EVALUATION 1/78
y_
NATIONAL
STANDARDS &
{SPECS. FOR BMP 6/78 J
K URBAN RUNOFF PROJECTS
Figure 16. Erosion/Sedimentation Control: Products
36
-------
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 hydrologic 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 o.f 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
An ongoing project is assessing the value of catch basins (P-17) as
they are presently designed and maintained. Optimized basin configuration
design and maintenance for removing solids before sewerage system entry is
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 ppllutional load or aid in reducing downstream treatment depending
on their design and maintenance. A full-scale demonstration of catch
basin technology is planned (P-17).
37
-------
PRE-FY76
FY76
FUTURE
O4
OO
SEPARATION
• FEASIBILITY STUDY
RUNOFF INLETS/
CATCH BASINS
• EFFECTIVENESS
• CLEANING
• NEW DESIGN
SEWERS
REGULATORS/ TIDE GATES
• SOTA/MOP
• DEVICE DEV/DEM.
-FLUIDIC
-FABRE DAM
-POSITIVE GATES
-SWIRL/HELICAL
• MOP TIDE GATES
SEWERS
EXISTING
• FLUSHING.
• POLYMER
• I/I CONTROL
-SOTA/MOP
-INST/DETECTION
-EVAL. METHODOLOGY/
UPDATE MOP
-SEALING & LINING
NEW (NON-STRUCTURAL)
• I/I PREVENTION
-INSPECTION
-CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
-CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
-IMPREGNATION
• NEW DESIGN
-CARRYING VEL.
- ADDED STORAGE
DEM. SEWER
FLUSHING
DEM. SULFUR
IMPREGNATION
FOR IMPROVED
STRENGTH
CATCH BASIN DEM.
TT DESIGN MANUAL
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 our 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.
Infiltration/Inflow—
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 is 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 oper'ational model for real-time control (P-25) .
Future demonstration of the system is anticipated.
39
-------
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) . 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 $l,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 sx^irl 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-
sary for a total system approach to municipal water pollution control. We
cannot afford the upgrading and proper operation of sewage treatment plants
40
-------
fOUl SIWER
LIGIND
o fnl.i R0mp
b Flow Dfttledor
t Stum Ring
d Overflow W.ir Ond W*ir Plo
• Spoilirt
I Flooloblvt Trop
g Foul S*w*r OutU'
h Floor Gull*ri
Figure 18. Isometric View of Swirl Regulator/Concentrator
41
-------
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
Swirl 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
% b
Rem.
52
51
34
48
42
77
64
45
33.
42'
82
Average SS
per storm, mg/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
% b
Rem.
36
23
18
29
23
55
41
24
20
33
52
Conventional Regulator
Mass Loading
kg
Inf.
374
69
93
256
99
103
463
112
250
83
117
Underflow
101
33
20
49
26 •
66
170
31
48
14
72
%
o
Rem.
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.
DData reflecting negative SS removals at tail end of storms not included.
Table 11. Swirl Regulator/Concentrator:
BOD Removal .
Storm No.
7-1974
1-1975
2-1975
Mass Loading, kg
Influent
277
97
175
Effluent
48
30
86
%
Rem.
82 '
69
51 .
Average BOD
per storm, mg/1
Inf.
314
165
99
Eff.
65
112
70
%
Rem.
79
32
29
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. EPA should be anxious to strive for policy
to enforce collection system maintenance.
42
-------
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.)
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.
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.
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.
.43
-------
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 1.9. 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
-------
RAINFALL
T
RAINFALL
OVERFLOW
- CAPACITY
•^—-L— OF
PLANT
t
RAINFALL
/\
/ N
TIMED
RELEASE
HYDROGRAPH AT "A"
WITHOUT CONTROL
CONTROLLED
HYDROGRAPH AT
"A"
Figure 20. . Results of Controlling Storm Flow by Storage
45
-------
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
our 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
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, we would like 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 microscreeiving 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).
46
-------
PRE-FY76
FY76
FUTURE
PHYSICAL
W/ OR W/O
CHEM
LAND
DISPOSAL
(NON-STRUCT)
DEV/PIIOT
• FINE SCREENS
• SWIRL:GRIT/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 ' DUAL USE I
DEM.(CONT) ' SCREENING i
DEM FULL-SCALE
». SWIRL PRIMARY
DEM. FULL-SCALE
AWT SYSTEM
DEM. FULL-SCALE
MARSH LAND DISP (SW)
FEAS:LAND
DISP(CS/SW)
PILOT:
LAND DISP
DEM. FULL-SCALE
LAND DISP
BIOL
DEM. FULL-SCALE
• LAGOONS • HRTF
•CONT STAB • RBCfPIL.)
DUAL USE ]
1 i
*)• CONT STAB .
l '
I»FLUIDIZED BEDl
l i
DISINF
DEV/PILOT
• PATH/VIR DETECTION
• HI-RATE (MIX,CIO2,O3)
•ON-SltE GEN
DEM. FULL-SCALE
• CONV CI2(CS/SW)
• HI-RATE
•ON-SITE
• VIRUS TJISINF
• CARCINOGENIC RES
Figure 21. Treatment
-------
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 dissolve'd-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
We have previously discussed demonstrating the use of marshlands for
disposal of stormwater 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
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 (C10-) and ozone (0,); 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 in Syracuse, NY (P-2) will allow
viral disinfection and carcinogenic chlorine residual compound studies.
Treatment Process Performance
Treatment process performance in terms of design influx rate (gpm/ft)
and BOD,, and suspended solids (SS) removal efficiency is provided in Table
12. The high-rate performance of the swirl, microstrainer, filter, and
dissolved air flotation is apparent when compared to sedimentation.
48
-------
Table 12. Wet-Weather Treatment Plant Performance Data
Device
Primary
Secondary
Control Alternatives
a b
Swirl Concentrator '
Microstrainer
High-Rate Filtration
Dissolved Air Flotation
Q
Sedimentation
Representative Performance
Contact Stabilization
CT
Physical -Chemical
Representative Performance
Design Loading
Rate _
(gpm/fO
60
20
24
2.5
0.5
Removal Efficiency (%)
BOD5
25-60.
40-60
60-80
50-60
25-40
40
75-88
85-95
85
SS
' .50
70
90
80
55
60 .
90
95
95
aField, 1976 (R-16)
bSullivan, 1974 (101)
CMaher, 1974 (105)
Lager and Smith, 1974 (102); w/chem. add.; hi-rate filter incl. pre-screens
e
Performance data based on domestic wastewater treatment
fAgnew, et al., 1975 (117)
^Estimate based on performance of these units for domestic wastewater (102)
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
49
-------
cases greater than solids from DWF. For example, 29% of the sewered population
in tbe 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 resulting?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 we would have
an equal or greater problem with CSO sludge as we now have 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: Product's (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.
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.
50
-------
PRE-FY 76
FY 76
FUTURE
tn
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
-------
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.
Cont ro1/Treatment/Reus e
The sub-category, "Control/Treatment/Reuse" is a "catch-all" for all
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 incorporated into a
CSO treatment-park development (114). Treatment and disinfection is being
provided so that these lakes are aesthetically pleasing and allowfor recreation
and reuse for irrigation. Other projects have shown the feasibility of re-
claiming stormwater (3,39).
52
-------
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
53
DEM. STOR-TREAT-
RECHARGE
-------
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.
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 we have
published approximately 160 reports, and it is the intent here to concentrate
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,
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
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 deicing 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).
54
-------
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)
SIGNIFICANT DOCUMENTS ANTICIPATED (Table 15)
*
In the immediate future a construction and 0§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 (1.59/161)
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
55
-------
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 we resort to contact stabiliza-
tion or trickling filtration (102). 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.
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
56
-------
Table 16. Typical Capital Costs for SCS Control/Treatment (ENR 2000)
COMPONENT DEVICES
SEPARATION
STORAGE
• IN-LINE
• 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
,
$/MGD
5,000/12,000
10,000-50,000
70,000
40,000
8,000 (SYRACUSE)
2,000 (LANCASTER)
80,000
17,000
150,000-2xl06
1,500
900
lx|06(KINGMAN LAKE
)7,000|MI. CLEMENS)
5/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)
500(LANCASTER)
1,700
5,000
10,000(KINGMAN LAKE)
5,000(MT. CLEMENS)
»
160
0.7
57
-------
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.
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 25% of the cost for tertiary treatment. However,
existing DWF treatment facilities exhibit a comparable effect to these two
options at no additional cost. A significant increase in the minimum D.O.
levels of the Des Moines River is obtained by 75% BOD removal of WWF. How-
ever, the annual cost of this level of control is significantly higher 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.
58
-------
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
1.6M
10. 8M
0
% of Precipitation Events
Violating Standard
85
82
58
85-86
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 so we must 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.
59
-------
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)
60
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM REPORTS
Ref.
No.
Report: Number
Titl.c/Ayi thg_r_
Source
1. 11020 09/67
2. 11020 12/67
3- 11020 05/68
4- 11020 06/69
5- 11020 10/69
6- 11020—03/70
7- 11020 02/71
8- 11020DES06/69
9- 11020DGZ10/69
10 • 11020D11006/72
Demonstrate the Feasibility of the Use of
Ultrasonic Filtration In Treatim; the Over-
flows from Combined and/or Storm Sewers: by
Accoustica-Assoc., Inc., Los Angeles, California
Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities
and Overflows - 1967: by American Public
Works Association, Chicago, .Illinois
Feasibility of a S tabilix.ation-Re tention
Basin in Lake KrLc at Cleveland. • Ohic: by
Havens and Emerson, Cleveland, Ohio
Reduction in Infiltration by '/.one Pumping:
by Hoffman and Fiske, Lewis ton, Idaho
Crazed Resin Filtration of Combined Sower
Over Flows: by Hercules, Inc., Wilmington,
Delaware
^Combined Sewer Overflow Seminar Papers: by
Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution Control
Branch, Division of Applied Science and
Technology, -FWQA, Washington, D.C.
*Dccp Tunnels in Hard Rock: by College of
Applied Science and Engineering and Univ.
Extension, Univ. of Wisconsin, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff Ab-
stracts : by The Franklin Institute, Phila.
Pennsylvania
Design of a Combined Sewer Fluidic Regu-
lator : by'Bowles Engineering Corp., Silver
Spring, Maryland
^Ground Water Infiltration and Iiitorn.il
Sealin;y; oT Sanitary Severn, Montgomery
County , Ohio: by C.K . Cronk
NTIS - PB 201 745
NTIS - PB 214 469
(3.00)
NTIS - PB 195 083
NTIS - PB 187 868
NTIS -«PB 187 867
NTIS - PB 199 361
GPO - $1.75
NTIS - PB 210 854
NTIS - PB 185 314
NTIS - PB 188 914
GPO - 75C
NTI-S - PB 212 267
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm £• Combined Sewer Section Edison, N. J.
Note: Number appearing in left margin corresponds to reference number;; cited in
report text.
61
-------
Ref.
No.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Report Number
11020DIG08/69
11020DIH06/69
11020DN008/67
11020DII003/72
11020DWF12/69
11020EK010/69
11020EXV07/69
11020FAL03/71
11020FAQ03/71
11020FDC01/72
11020FIU01/70
11022DEJ.03/72
Title/ Author
Polymers for Sewer Flow Control: b.y
The Western Co. , Richardson, Texas
Improved Sealants tor Infiltration
Control: by The Western Corwnny ,
Richardson, Texas
Fcanibil i tv of a Periodic Flushing
System for Combined Sever Cleansing: by-
FMC Corp., Santa Clara, California
*A Flushing Syster. for Combined Sewer
Cleansing,: by Central Engi nccring
Laboratories, FMC Corporation, Santa
Clara, California •
Control of Pollution by Underwater
. Stornpe: by Underwater Storage, Inc.,
Silver, Schwartz, Ltd., Joint Venture
Washington, D.C.
•Combined Sewer Separation Using Pressure
Sewers: by American Society uf Civil
Engineers, Cambridge, Massachsetts
Strainer/Filter Treatment of Combined
Sewer Overflows: by Fran Corporation ,
•East Providence, Rhode Island
^Evaluation of Stonn Standbv Tanks,
Columbus, Ohio: by Dodson , Kinney &
Lindblom, Columbus, Ohio
*Dispatchinc Svstoins for Control of Com-
bined Sewer 1, o. s ;•;..•• s : by Metro. Sev;er Board,
St. Paul, Minnesota
Screening/Flotation Treatment of Contained
Sewer Overflows: by Tiie Ecology Division,
Hex Chainbelt, Inc.,' Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Di fi.solvod-Ai r Flotation Treatment of Com-
bined Sower Oven 1 ow:'. : by Rhodes Corp.,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
*Scwi>r Rcdilini; and Tnf i .1 trati.on Cnl f Coast
Area: by J.K. Mavcr, F.W. Macdonnlcl , and
Source
NTIS - PiJ. 185
NTIS - PB J85
NTIS - PB 195
NTIS -PB 210
GPO - $1.75
NTIS' - PB 191
*
NTIS - PB 188
NTIS - PB 185
GPO - $1.50
NTIS - PB 202
GPO - $1. 75
NTIS - PB 203
GPO - $1.50
NTIS - PB 189
NTIS - PB 211
951
950
223
858
217
511
949
236
678
775
282
S.K. Steimlc; Tulane University, New
.Orleans, Louisiana
*Copics may be obtained from El'A Storm & Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J.
6.2
-------
Ref .
No.
Report Number
Title/Author
Source
23. 11022DMV07/70
24. 11022DMU08/70
25. 11022DPP10/70
''Combined Sewer Ref.u.1 ator Ovcrflov/ r'aci-
1 j ties : by American Public Works Asso-
ciation, Chicago, Illinois
* Combined Scv.'cr Regulation .'md Manage-
ment A Manual of Practice: by American
Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois
^Combined Sower Temporary Underwater
Storage Facility^ by fle.lpar , Kails
Church , Virginia
26. 11022l':CV09/71 Underwater Storage of Combined
27. 11022EFF12/70
28. 11022EFF01/71
29. ' 11022liLK12/71
30. 11023 --- 08/70
31. 11023DAA03/72
32. 11023DPI08/69
33. H023DZF06/70
34. 11023EV006/70
Over T. lows: by Karl K. Kolu'er Ayso-
ciates, Inc. Akron, Ohio
Control of InfiltraLion and Inflow into
S ewer Sy» I ems : by American Public Works
Association, Chicago, Illinois
'•Prevention and Correction of Excessive
Infiltration and Inflow Into Sewer Sys-
.tcins - A Manual of I'rnctico: by American
Public Works Association. Chicago, Illinois
Maximizing Storage in Combined Sewer
Sys tems : by Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, Washington
''Retention Basin Control of Combinod Sower
Overflows : by Springfield Sanitary District,
Springfield, Illinois
•-•Hypochlori te Generator For Treatment of
Combined Sower Overflows: by Ionics, Inc.,.
Water town, Massachusetts
Rapid-Flov.' Filter for Sower Overflows:
by Rand Development Corp., Cleveland, Ohio
*ll] trasonic Fi] trat.i.on of Combined Scwor
Overflows : by American- Process Equipment
Corp. , Hawthorne, California
"Micros l:i:a ininq and Disinfection ofCom-
binecl ilcwcr Ovcrf]c
Cochrane Div.,
Crane Company, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
CPO - $1.50
CPO - $1.50
NTIS - PB 195 676
GPO - $1.75
NTIS - PB 197 669
NTIS - PH 208 346
GPO - $1.25
NTIS - PB 200 S27
GPO - $1.25
NTIS - PB 203 208
GPO - $1.75
NTIS - PB 209 861
CPO - $1.00
NTIS - PB 200 828
GPO - $1.00
HT1S - PB 211 243
NTIS - PB 194 032
GPO - 60c
NTIS -• 1'ii 212 421
GPO - 70s-.
NTIS - PB 195 674
^'Copies may be obtained from liPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section .Kdison, N. J.
63
-------
Ref.
No.
Report Number
Title/Author
Source
35. 11023KYI04/72
36. 11023FDB09/70
37. 11023FDD03/70
38. 11023FDD07/71
39. 11023FIX08/70
40. 11024 06/70
11024DMS05/70
42. 11024DOC07/71
43. 11024DOC08/71
11024DOC09/71
45. 11024DOC10/71
•'High Kote Filtration of Combined Seu'cr
Overflows: by Ross Kebolsinc, P.J.
Harvey, and Clii-Yuan Fan, Hydrotechnic
Corporation, New York, New York
*Cheinica3 Treatment or Combined Sewer
Overflows: by Dow Chemical Company,
Midland, Michigan
Rotary Vibratory Fin.e Screening of
Combined Sewer Over Hows: by Cornell
(lowland, Hayes and Merry field, Cor-
vallis, Oregon
^Demonstration of Rotary Screening for
Conibined Sewer Overflows: by City of
Portland, Dept. of Public Works, Port-
land, Oregon
'•''Conceptual Engineerinp, Report-Kinsman
Lake Project: by Roy F. Western, West.
.Chester, Pennsylvania
^Combined'Sewer Overflov.' Abatement Tech-
nology : by Storm and Combined Sewer
Pollution Control Branch, Div. of Applied
Science and Technology, FWQA, Washington
D.C.
'^Engineering Investigation of Sewer Over-
flow Problems: by Hayes, Seay, Mattern
and Mattern, Roanoke, Virginia
Storm Water Management Model, Vol. 1,
Final Report: by Metcalf & Eddy Engineers,
Palo Alto, California
Storm Water Management. Model , Vol. T.I,
Verification and 'J'ostinR: by Metcalf &
'Eddy Engineers, Palo Alto, California
Storm Hater Management, Vol. Ill,
User's Manual: by Metcalf & Eddy Engi-
neers, Palo Alto, California
Stoi'iii Wafer Management Model,. Vo] . IV,
Program Listing: by Metcalf & Eddy
Engineers, Palo Alto, California
GPO - $2.50
NTIS - PIT 211 144
GPO - $1.50
NTIS - PB 199 070
NTIS - PB 195 168
CPO - 65C
NTIS - PB 206 814
GPO - $1.25
NTIS - PB 197 598
GPO - $2.50
NTIS - PB 193 939
GPO - $2.00
NTIS - PB 195 201
GPO - $2.75
NTIS - PB 203 289
NTIS - PB 203 290
NTIS - PB 203 291
NTIS - PB 203 -292
* Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J.
-------
Rcf.
No. Report: Numb or
• Title/Author
46. 11024DOK02/70 ^Proposed Combined .Sewer Control by
47. 11024DQU10/70
48. 11024EJC07/70
Electrode Potential; by-Merrinack
College, Andovcr, Massachusetts
*llrhnn Runoff Characteristics: by Univ.
of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio
Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff
Abstracts, July I'JfuS-June 1970:
by The Franklin Inst. Research Labo-
ratories, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
49. 11024EJC10/70 '"'Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff
Abstracts, First Quarterly Issue:
by The Franklin Inst. Research Labo-
ratories, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
50. 11024EJC01/71 *Sclcclerl Urban Storm Wacer Runoff
Abstracts, Second Quarterly Issue :
by The Franklin Inst. Research Labo-
ratories, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- 11024ELB01/71 &Stonn and Combined Sewer Pollution
Sources an-d Abatement, Atlanta, Ga. :
by Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia
''Impregnation of Concrete Pipe: by
Southwest Research Institute,
San Antonio, Texas
Storm Water Problems and Control in
Sanitary Sewers, Oakland1and Berkeley,
California: by Metcalf & Kddy Engineers,
Palo Alto, California
54. 11024EXF08/70 "Conihinnd Sewer Overflow Abhfcir.ent
Alternatives, Washington, O.C.; by Roy
52. 11024EQE06/71
53. 11024EQG03/71
F. West/on, Inc.
Pennsylvania
West Chester,
55. 11024FJE04/71
.-Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff
Abstracts, Third Quarterly ls!Uie: by
Franklin Institute Research Laboratories,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Source
NT1S - PB 195 169
GPO - $2.75
NTIS - PB 202 865
NTIS - P13 198 228
GPO - 50C
NTIS - PB 198 229
GPO - 60c
NTIS - PB 198 312
NTTS - PB 201 725
GPO - 75c
NTIS - PB 208 815
GPO - $2.00
NTIS - PB 203 6SO
GPO - 75C
*Copier, may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J.
65
-------
Ref .
No.
Report Number
Sniirr<»
56. 11024FJE07/71
57.
58.
11024FKJ10/70
59. 11024FKM12/71
60. 11024FKN11/69
61. 11024FLY06/71
62. 11030DNK08/68
63. 11030DNS01/69
64. 11034DUY03/72
65. 11034FK.L07/70
66. 11034FLU06/71
67. 1HK.OGKK06/71
'''Selected Urban S tonnwater Runoff Abstracts
July, 1970-June, 197l:by tlie Franklin In-
stitute Research Laboratories, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
CPO - $1.50
DELETED'
DELETED
*In-Sewer Fixed Screening of Combined Sewer
Overflows: by Enviroyeni.es Co., Div. of Aero-
jet General Corp. HI Monte, California
Urban Storm Runoff and Combined Sewer
0vcrf.1 civ Pollution, Sacramento, California:
by Envirogenics Co., Div. of Aerojet General
Corp. , El Monte, California
"Stream Pollution and Abatement from Com-
bined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus, Ohio: by
Burgess and Niple, Ltd., Columbus, Ohio
*Hoat Shr i.nkablc Tubi.np, as Sewer Pipe
Joints : by The Western Co. of North
America, Richardson, Texas
The Beneficial Use of Stormwatcr: by
Hittman Associates, Inc., Baltimore,
Maryland
Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff:
by American Public Works Assn, Chicago.,
Illinois
Investigation of Porous Pavements for
Urban Runoff Control: by E. Thelen,
W.C. Grover, A.J. Hoiberg, and T.I. Haigh,
'Franklin Institute Research Laboratories
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-
Stormwater Pollution from Urban Land
Activity : by AVCO Economic Systems
Corp., Washington, D.C.
•'Hydraulics of Lon;; Vertical Conduits and
Associated Cnvi tat.i on : by University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
*Environmental Impact of Highway Oe-
ici ng : by Edison Water Quality Lab.,
EPA, Edison; New Jersey
GPO - $1.00
NTIS - PB 213 118
CPO - $1.75
NTIS - PB 208 989
NTIS - PB 195 162
GPO - $].,25
NTIS - PB 208 816
NTIS - PB 195 160
NTIS - PB 215 532
NTIS - PB 227 516
GPO - $2.50
NTIS - PB 195 281
GPO - 60C
GPO - $1.25
NTIS - PB 203 493
*Copies may be obtained fvom'EPA Storm 6 Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J.
66
-------
Rcf..
No. KcporL Number
Title/AuUlior
Source
68. 15030DTLOS/70 Urban Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control, by National Association of
Counties Research Foundation,
Washington, D.C.
69. EPA-R2-72-008
70. EPA-R2-72-015
71. EPA-R2-72-068
72. EPA-R2-72-070
73. EPA-R2-72-081
74. EPA-R2-72-082
75. EPA-R2-72-091
76. EPA-R2-72-125
77. EPA-R2-72-127
"The Swirl Concentrator as a Combined
Sewer Overflow Regulator Facility:
by American Public Works Assn., Re-
search Foundation, Chicago, Illinois
Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning and Implementation
by the Dept. of Water Resources, State
of MD and B.C. Becker, Thos. R. Mills
Hittman Assoc., Inc., Columbia, Maryland
*Storin Sower Design - An Evaluation of
the RKL Method: by J.B. Stall and
M.L. Tierstriep, Illinois State Water
Survey, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
••Storage and Treatment of Combined
S^wer Overflows: by the City of
Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
M-Jater Pollution Aspects of Street Sur-
face Contaminants: by J.D. Sartor and
G.B. Boyd, URS Research Co., San Mateo,
California
^'Feasibility Study of Electromagnetic
Subsurface Profiling; by R.M. Morey and
W.S. Harrington, Jr., Geophysical Sur-
vey Systems, Inc., North Billerica, Maryland
•*A Pressure Sewer System Demonstration:
by I.G. Carcich, L.J. Hetling, and R.P.
Farrel, New York State Dept. of Environ-
mental Conservation, Albany, New York
*A Search: New Technology for Pavement
Snow and Ice Control: by D.M. Murray •
.and M.R. Eigennan, A15T Associates, Inc.
Cambridge, Maryland
^Selected Urban Stonnw;itcr Runoff
Abstracts, July 1971.-.lime 1972:
by D.A. Sandoski, The Franklin In-
stitute Research Lab., Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
GPO - $1.00
NTIS - PB 196 111
GPO - $2.25
EP 1.23/2:72-008
NITS - PB 214 134
GPO - $1.25
NTIS - PB 214 134
GPO - $1.25
EP 1.23/2:72-068
NTIS - PB 214 134
GPO - $2/00
NTIS - PB 214 106
EP 1.23/3:72-070
GPO - $3.00
EP 1.23/2:72-081
NTIS PB 214 408
GPO - $1.25
EP 1.23/2:72-082
NTIS - PB 213 892
GPO - $2.75
EP 1.23/2:72-091
NTIS - PB 214 409
GPO - $1.00
EP 1.23/2:72-125
NTIS - PB 221 250
GPO - $1.50
KP 1.23/2:72-12-7
NTIS - PB 214 411
*Copies may be obtained from the EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J.
^67
-------
Ref.
KV>-
Report'Number
Title/Author
Source
78. EPA-R2-73-124
79. EPA-R2-73-139
80. EPA-R2-73-145
81. EPA-R2-73-149
82.. EPA-R2-73-152
83. •EPA-R2-73-1/0
84.
EPA-R2-73-238
85'. EPA-R2-73-242
86.
EPA-R2-73-257
87.
EPA-K2-73-261
Mic.rost raining and Disinfection of Com-
bined Spvj'.-r Overflows - Phase II: by
G.E. Glover, G.K.. Herbert, Crane Company.
King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
-The Beneficial Use of S tormwater: by .C;W.
Mallory, Hittmun Assoc., Columbia,
Maryland
*A Thermal Wave Flowir.cter for Measuring
Combined Sev;cr Flows: by P. Kshleman and
K. Blase, Hydrospace Challenger, Inc.,
Rockville, Maryland
Physical-Chemical Treatment of Combined
and Municipal Sewage: by A.J. Shuckrow
G.W. Dawson and W.I''. Konner, Pacific NW .
Laboratory, Battelle-Memorial Inst. ,
Richland, Washington
^-'Combined Scwi-.r Overflow Study for the
•Hudson River Conference: by A.I. Mytolka,
et al., IjUerstate Sanitation Commission,
New York, NY, (jointly sponsored by Office
of Enforcement & General Council and
Office of Research and Monitoring, EPA)
• ^-'Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Plan,
Des Moines, Iowa: by P.L. Davis, and F.A. Bor-
chardt, Ilenningston, Durham, and Richardson,
Inc., Omaha, Nebraska
•"Flow Augmenting Effects of Additives on
Open Channel Flov.'s : by C. Derick and K.
Logic, Col.uinbia Research Inc. ,
Gaithersburg, Maryland
^'Temporary Detention of Storm and Combined
Sewat;c in Natural Underground Formations:
by City of St. Paul, Minnesota
Water Pollution and Associated Id'fccts
From Street Sal.tinR: by R. Field, H.E.
Masters, A.M. Tafuri, Edison Water Quality
Research Lab. EPA, Edison, N.J.-and E.J.
Struzeski, EPA, Denver, Colorado
*An Ar.sossmfnt of Autom.-i tic Scwor Flow Snm-
plors : by P.E. Shelley, and G.W. Kirkpatrick
llydrospace Challenger, l.nc., Rockville,
Maryland
GPO
EP 1.23/2:73-124
NTIS'PB 219 879
GPO - $2.85
EP 1.23/2:73-139
NTIS PB 217 506
GPO - $1.25
EP 1.23/2 :73-145
NTIS' P15 227 370
GPO - $2.35
EP 1.23/2:73-149
NTIS PB 219 668
GPO - $2.85
NTIS PB 227 341
EP L.23/2:73-152
GPO $3.20
GPO - $1.00
EP 1.23/2:73-238
GPO - $.95
EP 1.23/2:73-242
In-llouse Report
GPO - $2.60
EP 1.23/2:R2-73-261
NTIS PB 223 355
Microfiche $1.45
*Co)'ies may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Scwcr Section Edison, N.J.
••68
-------
Ref.
No.Report Number
Title/Author
Source
88. EPA-R2-73-283 *Toxic Materials Analysis of Street: Surface
Contaminants: by R.K. Pitt and G. Amy, URS •
Research Co., San Mateo, California
Joint Construction Sediment" Control Project
by: B.C. Becker, D.B. Emerson, M.A. Nawrocki
Water Resources Administration, State of
Maryland
EPA-660/2-74-071 Programmed Demonstration for Erosion and
Sediment Control Specialists: by T.R. Mills
M.A. Nawrocki, C.R. Squire, II.T. Hopkins, M.L.
Clar, Water Resources Administration, State
of Maryland
89. EPA-660/2-73-035
90.
NTI.S PB 224 677
Microfiche $1.45
CPO $2.00
EP 1.23/2:660/2-73-035
GPO - $2.15
EP 1.23/2:660/2-74-071
91. EPA-660/2-74-072
92. EPA-660/2-74-073
93. EPA-670/2-73-059
94. EPA-670/2-73-067
95. EPA-670/2-73-071
Dcnionstra tion of The Separation and Disposal of GPO- $1.45
Concentrated Sediments: by M.A. Nawrocki, EP 1.23/2:660/2-74-072
"Hittman Associates, Colombia, Maryland
An Executive Summary of Throe ETA Demonstration GPO $1.20
Programs In Erosion and Sediment Control: by *
B.C. Becker, M.A. Nawrocki, G.M. Sitek,
Hittman Associates Colombia, Maryland
96.
EPA-670/2-73-077
97. EPA-67079-7/.-004
'•''The Dual-Functioning Swirl Combined Sower
Overflow Regulator/Concentrator: by
R. Field,. USEPA, Edison, New Jersey
''•'Hypochlorination of Polluted Stormwater
Pumpage at New Orleans: by U.R. Pontius
E.H. Pavis-Byrne Engineering Corp, New
Orleans, Louisiana
-'Utilization of Trickling Filters for Dual-
Treatment of Dry and I'.'ct-V.'eatlicr Flows: by
P. Homack, K.L. Zippier, and E.C. Herkert,
E.T. Killam Assoc., Inc., Millburn, New Jersey
••'Combined Sewer Overflow Seminar Papers: by
Storm and Combined Sewer Technology Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Edison, New Jersey
Excerpts from "Control of Infiltration
and Inflow into Sower Systems." and ."Pre-
vention and Cori.'oct.ion of Kxci'ssi vc Infil-
t.ration nnd Inflow into Sewer Systems.
GPO
NTIS - PB 227 182/3
GPO $1.50
N'TIS PB 228 581/AS
GPO $1.50
NTIS PB 231 251/AS
GPO $2.20
NTIS PB 231 836
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $7.25
NTIS PB 200 827
Manual of Pra-ctice. January .1971". •
Complete reports can be purchased from NTIS.
See P1J numbers listed on page 3 of this
Bibliography.
*Copios may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J.
69
-------
Ref.
No.
Report Number
Title/Author
Source
98.
99.
100.
101.
EPA-670/2-74-022 ••'Computer Management of. n Combined Sewer
System; by C.P. Lciscr, Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle, Seattle, Washington
GPO $5.30
EP 1.23/2:670/2-74-022
NTIS PB 235 717
EPA-670/2-74-026
..'•The Swirl Concentrator as a-Grit Separator NTIS PB 233 964/AS
Device: by R.H. Sullivan, M.M. Colin, J.E. Uro,Microfiche $1.45
and F. Parkinson, American Public Works Paperback $4.50
Association, Chicago, Illinois
102.
103.
104.
105.
106.
EPA-670/2-74-033 -'Manual for Dcicinp. Chemical Storage ami
Hand]ing: by D.L. Richardson, R.C. Terry,
J.B. Metzger, and R.C'. Carroll; Arthur I).
Little, Inc., Cambridge, Maryland
EPA-670/2-74-039 -Re]ationsliip between Diameter and Height
for Uc.sign of a Swirl Concentrator as a
Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator: by
R.H. Sullivan, M.M. Cohn, J.E. lire, F.E.
Parkinson and G. Galiana, American Public
Works Association, Chicago, Illinois
EPA-670/2-74-040. *Urban Stormwater Management and Technology
An Assessment:: by L.A. Lacker and W.G. Smith
. Metcalf '& Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, California
EPA-660/2-74-043 Prediction of Subsoil Erodibilitv Usine
Chemical, Mincralosjcal and Physical
Parameters: by C.B. Roth, D.W. Nelson,
EPA-670/2-74-045
EPA-670/2-74-049
EPA-670/2-74-050
107. EPA-670/2-74-07.5
M.J.M. Romkens, Cincinnati, Ohio
j'-Manual for Deicing Chemicals: Application
Practices: David L. Richardson, Arthur
D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, />5ary land
*Microstraining and Disinfection of Com-
bined Sewer Overflows-Phase III: by M.13.
Maher, Crane Co., King of Prussia,
Pennsylvania
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment by
the Rotating Biological Cont.-ictor
Process: by F.L. Welsh, -D.J. Stucky, •
Autotrol Corp., Milwaukee, Wisconsin
-•'.Siirpe FaciJjty for Wct-and-Pry-Wcathcr Flow
Control : by li.L. Welborn, City of Rolmcrt
Park, California
NTIS PI? 236 152/AS
/Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $3.70
NTIS PB 234 646/AS
Microfiche $2.25
NTIS PB 240 687/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $11.50
NTIS PB 231 845
Microfiche $1.90
Paperback $3.90
NTIS PB 239 694/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $6.25
NTIS PB 235 771/AS
Microfiche $2.25
No Paperback
NTIS Only
PB 231 892/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $11.00
NTIS PB 238 905/AS
Microfiche $2.*25
*Copics may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J.
70
-------
Ref.
No.
Report .Number
Title/Author
Source
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
EPA-670/2-74-079 An Evaluation of Throe Combined Sewer
• Overflow Treatment Alternatives: by
J.W. Parks, J.O. Finks and F.Ii. Price,
City of Shelbyville, Illinois
NTIS Only
P13 239 115/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $5.25
EPA-670/2-74-086 Chemical Impact of Snow lliimpinp. Practices NTIS Only
J.P. O'Brien, P.L. Levins, and C.II. Summers,- PB 238 764/AS
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Maryland Microfiche $3.75
Paperback $3.75
EPA-670/2-74-087
Assessment and Development Plans for Moni-
toring of Org.'inics Jn Storm Flews: by Allen
Molvar, Angclo Tulumcllo, Raytheon Co.,
Portsmouth, Rhode Island
EPA-670/2-74-090 *Countcrmeasures for Pollution from Over
NTIS Only
PB 238 810/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $4.75
NTIS P13 240 498/AS
flows: by Richard Field, USEPA and John Lager,Microfiche $2.25
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, California Paperback $3.75
EPA-670/2-74-096 *Chai.-nc terization and Treatment of Urban
Land Runoff: by Newton V. Colston, Jr.,
• North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina
NTIS PB 240 978/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $6.75
EPA-670/2-75-002 ^Suspended Solids Monitor: by John W. Lisko- NTIS PB 241 581/AS
witz, G.J. Freney, Joseph Tarczyr.ski American Microfiche $2.25
Standard, Inc., New Brunswick, New Jersey Paperback $2.75
EPA-670/2-75-010.
115.
EPA-670/2-75-011
116.
EPA-670/2-75-017
117.
KPA-670/2-75-019'
^Multi-Purpose Combined Sewer Overflow
Treatment Facility, Mt. Clemens, MI; by
Vijays'inh U. Mahida, Frank J. DeDecker
Spalding, DeDecker & Assoicatcs, Madison
Heights, Michigan
^Physical and Settling Cliaracteris tics
of Particulates in Storm and San-itary
Was tew a ter: by Rob t. J. Dolryr.iple, Stephen
1. llodd, David C. Morin (Beak Consultants)
American Public Works Association, Chicago,
Illinois
*Stormwat.er Management: Model User's
Maminl-Version ] I, W.C. lluber, J.P.
Ikvmcy, M.A. Median, W.A. Pe.ltz, H.
Sheikh, G.F. Smith, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida
*UioloF,ical Treatment of Combined Sewer
Overflow af. Kcnoslui, Wl by Dr. Robert W.
Agnew. City of Keno.sha, Environmental
S^iicnc.e, Envirex, Inc., Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
NTIS PB 242 914/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $7.25
NTIS PB 242 001/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $3.75
NO NTIS
NTIS PB 242 126/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $8.50
>'cCopics may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J.
71
-------
Ref.
No.
Repor t "Number
Title/Author
Source
118. EPA-670/2-75-020
119.
EPA-670/2-75-021
120. EPA-670/2-75-022
121. EPA-670/2-75-035
*Scwcigc System Monitoring and Remote
Control; by Thomas K. Watt, Robert: G.
Skrentner, Antenore C. Davanzo, Detroit
Metro Water Department, Detroit Michigan
'"Bench-Scale Hi^.h-Rato Disinfection of
Combined Sewer Ovci'fJows : by Peter E.
Moffn, Edwin C. Tiff-t, Jr., Steven J.
.Richardson, Jnnies E. Smith, O'Brien &
Gere Engineers, Syracuse, New York
*Urban Stormwatcr Management. Modeling.
and Decision-Making: by Jr.mes P. lleaney
and Wayne C. llubcr, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida
Stream Pollution Abatement by Supplemental
Pumping: by Carl W. Ren, and Warren E.
Saddler, City of Richmond, Virginia
122. EPA-670/2-75-041* Storm Konagemcnt Model: Dis-
semination and User Assistance:
James A. Hagerman, FRS Dressier,
University City Science Center (UCSC),
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
123. EPA-670/2-75-046 Rainfall-Runoff Relations on Urban
and Rural Areas: by E.F. Grater, J.D.
Sherrill, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan
124. EPA-670/2-75-054 Characterization and Treatment of
• Comb i n ctl Sewer Overt ] ow s : City and
County of San Francisco, California,
Engineering Science Inc. '(11/61)
125. EPA-670/2-75-065
126.
EPA-670/2-75-067
*Short Course Proceedings, Appli-
cation of Storr.woter Management
Models: Francis })i Ci.ano, et al.
Unive.irsity of Massacliusetts, Amherst,
Massachusetts
^Automatic Orf.anic Monitoring. System
for Storm ami Combined Severs: by
Ango.lo Tiil.iiinollo, Katlieon Co., Ports-
moutli, Khode Island
NTIS Pli 242 107/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $7.00
•NTIS -
PB 242 296/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $7.00
NTIS PB 242 290/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $7.00
NTIS Only
PB 239 566/AS
Microfiche
Paperback $5. 25
NTTS -
PB 242 544/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $4.25
NTIS -
PB 242 830/AS
Microfiche $2. 25
Paperback $5.25
NTIS.Only
PB 241 299/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $7.25
NTIS PB 247 163/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $11.75
NTIS PB 244 142/AS
Microfiche $2.-25
Paperback $4.75
*Copics may be obtained from EPA 'Storm•& Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J.
72
-------
Ref:
No.
Report Number
Title/Author
Source
127. EPA-440/9-75-004
128. EPA-6ISO/2-75-004
129. EPA-600/2-75-007
'''Water Quality Management Planning
for Urban Runoff : by Gary Arny, Robert
Pitt, et al., Woodward-Clyde, San Fran-
sico, California
^Contributions of Urban Roadway Usage
to Water Pollution; by Donald G. Sbabeen,
Biopherics Inc., Rockville, Maryland
Impact of llydrologic Modifications
On Water Quality: . by Joginder liluitani,
et al., Mitre Inc., McLean Virginia
130.
131.
132.
133.
134;
EPA-600/2-75-027 *Sewcr Flow Measurement—A State-o'f-the
Art. Assessment: by Philip E. 'Shelley,
George A. Kirkpatrick, EG&G Washington
Analytical Services Center, Inc., Rockville
Maryland
EPA-600/2-75-033 *A Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows
. by Dissolved Air Flotations: by Taras A.
Bursztynsky, et al., Engineering
Science -Inc., Berkeley, California
EPA-600/2-75-062 *The Helical Bend Combined Sewer Over-
flow Regulator: by Richard H. Sullivan,
et al., American Public Works Assoc.
Chicago, Illinois
EPA-600/2-75-065 _*An Assessment of Automatic Sower
Flow Sainplcrs-1975: by Philip E. Shelley
EG&G Washington Analytical Services Center,
Inc., Rockville, Maryland
EPA-600/2-75-071 ^Detention Tank for Combined Sewer
Overflow: by Consoer, Townsend and
Associates, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
NTIS PB 241 689/AS
Microfiche $2.27
Paperback $7.50
NTIS PB 245 854/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $10.00
NTIS PB 248 523/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $13.00
NTIS PB 250 371/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $11.75
NTIS PB -248 186/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $8.00
NTIS PB 250 54 5'/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $6.00
NTIS PB 250 987/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $10.50
NTIS PB 250 427/AS
Microfiche $2.25
Paperback $9.75
*Copies may be obt-iined from EPA Storm &.Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J,
73
-------
Rcf.
No.
Report Number
Title/Author
Source'
135. EPA-600/2-76-006
136. EPA-600/2-76-058
137. EPA-600/2-76-095
138. EPA-600/2-76-105
139. EPA-600/2-76-115
-Design and Testing of a Prototype; Auto-
matic Sewer Sampling System^ by Philip
Shelley, EG&G Washington Analy t.i ca.l
Service Center, Inc., Rockville, Maryland
Future Direction of. Urban W.itcr Models,
by M. Sonnen, Water Resources Engineers,
(WRE), Walnut Creek, California
"••Urban Runoff Pollution Control • Program
Overview: FY 76, R. Field, A.N. Tafuri,
H.E. Masters, USEPA, Edison, New Jersey
*An Economic Analysis of f.he Environmental
Impact of Highway IVicinr,: by Donald
M. Murray and Ulrich F. W. Ernst, Abt
Associates, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
*A Passive Flow Measurement System for
Storm and Combined Sewer: by Ken Foreman,
Grumman Ecosystems Corp., Bethpage, New York
140. EPA-600/2-76-116 '-Urban S'tormwater Runoff Determination of
Volumes and Flow rates, by lien Chie Yen,
Ven Te Chow, Univcristy of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois
NTIS
PI! 252 613
Paperback $5.50
NTIS Only
PB 249 049
Paperback $5.00
In-House Report
NTIS
PC 253 2G8
Paperback $6.00
NTIS
PB 253 383
Paperback $6.00
NTIS
PB 252 410
Paperback $9.00
140a KPD 03-76-04
Proceedings Urban Stormwacer Managoment
Seminars, Atlanta,.GA, Nov. 4-6, 1975 and
Denver, CO. Dec. 2-4, 1975; Edited by Dennis
Athaydc, USEl'A, Washington, D.C.
f
*Copies may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Scwcr Section .Edison, ,N.J.
74
-------
Ref.
Report Number
Title/Author
Source
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
.147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
EPA-600/2-76-175a ^Assessment of. Mathematical Models for
Storm and Combined Scwcc Manaf-emont: '• by
Albin brands teller, Rnttellc, Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington
EPA-GOO/2-76-175b -Same as above - Appendix
EPA-600/2-76-217a Urban Runoff Charnctcristics - Volume I,
. An.ilyti.cnl Studies: by 11. C. Prcul, C.N.
Papadakis, Univeristy of Cincinnati, Ohio
EPA-600/2-76-217b Urban Runoff Characteristics - Volume II,: by
II.C. Preul, C.N. Padndnkis
University of Cincinnati, Ohio
EPA 600/2-76-145 *Mcchod'oloRy for the Study of Urban Storm
'Generated Pollution and Control: by Envircx,
Environmental Sciences Division, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
''•'Wastcwate.r Mnna.p.encnt rrof.rnm, Jamaica
Bay - Volume I, Summary Koport: by D.L.
Feuerstein, W.O. Maddaus, City of New
York, New York
Wastcwater Management Program, Jan;,i:'ca
Bay - Volume II, Appendix, t.'VC Sprini;
Creek: by JJ.L. Feuerstein, W.O. Maddaus,
City of Kew York, New York
EPA-600/2-76-218 '''Development and Application of a
Simplified S torniw;i tier Management Model: by
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, California
At Printers
Pb258034
NTIS Only
PH258033
NTIS Only
NTIS Only
NTIS
At Printers
NTIS Only
NTIS
EPA- 600/2- 7 6- 244 ^Proceedings of Workshop on Microorganism in At Printers
Urban S tori:iwa tcr: March 24, 1975, Storm and
Combined Sewer Section, USEPA, Edison, NJ
EPA- 600/2- 7 6- 243 *lvVis tcva ter Flow Measurement in Sewers Using At Printers
HI iT-asoimd', Milwnukoe: by R.J. Anderson, i>.S.
Sell, City of. Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
*Thc Swirl Concpntrriror foi: Kro.-'.ion Runoff At Printers
Trc.itniiMii: : by K.ll. Sullivan, et ol., American
'Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois
•
EPA-600/2-76-242 *Di-ve..1.opmcnt of a llvflropholv.ic Sub:; tancc to At Printers
Miti.)'.aLe Pavement fee. Atllifnion: by C.ll. Alborn,
IkC. 1'ochlmann, Ball Hros . , Inc., Boulder,
*Copics may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J.
75
-------
Ref.
No.
Report Number
Title/Aur.hor
Snnrr-p
153.
154.
'''Storni Water Management Model Level I Desktop Ac Printers
Procedures for Preliminary Airo.-iwide Planning:
by J.I', lleaney, ct al.,
Gainesville,-Florida
University of Florida,
^Demonstration of Void Space Storage With Treatment
and Flow Regulation: by Karl R. Rohre'r Associates,
Inc., Akron, Ohio
At Printers
155. EPA-600/2-76-228 Demonstration of Interim Techniques for NTIS Only
Reclamation of Polluted Benc'hw.-itor : by James F.
156.
Weber, City of Cleveland, Ohio
Cost EstimatJnR Manual~-Coir.binfd Sewer Over-
flow Storage an'cl Treatment: by l!enry 11.
Benjcs, Jr., Culp, Wcsnr.r, Gulp, Inc., El
Dorado Hills, California
At Printers
157.
158.
Nationwide Evaluation of Combined Sower Ovcvrj^ At Printers
flows and Urban Stiormwatcr Discharges, Volume.
*II: Cost Assessment and Impacts: by James F.
Heanuy, Wayne C. Hub or, Miguel A. Medina, Jr.
Michael P'. Murphy, Stephen J. Nix, Sheikh M.
Haasan, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Field Prototype Demonstration of the Swirl
Degritter: by Richard II. Sullivan, Morris M.
Colin, James E. Ure, Paul Ziclinski,
American Public Works Association, Chicago,
Illinois
159. ' .Handling a.nd Disposal of Sludges from Combined Draft
Sewer Overflow Treatment Phase I -
(Characterization): by M.K. Cupta, E. Bellinger
S. Vanderah, E. Hanson, and M. Clark,
Environmental Science Envircx, Division, Inc.,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
160. Microorganisms in Stormwater: by Vincent P. Draft
Olivicri, Cornelius W. Krusc, Kazuyoshi
Kawata, The. John Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland, James C. Smith, Syracuse University,
Syracuse, New York
*Copics may be obtained from EPA Storm & Combined Sewer Section Edison, N.J,
76
-------
'Rcf.
No. Report Number
Title/Author
161.
Draft
162.
163.
164
165.
166.
167, EPA-440/9-75-001
168. EPA-600/8-76-OOla
At Printers
Assessment of The Impact of The Handling
and Disposal of Sludges Arising from
Combined Sewer Ovcri'lou Trc.'itmont: by
M.J. Clark and A. Gcinopolos, Envirex.
Inc., Environmental Sciences Division,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Swirl Device for Rogula tir.R and Tr en ting
Combined Sewer Overflows, EPA Technology
Transfer Capsule R-jpcirt: by Richard Field
and Hugh E. Masters, USEPA, Edison, New Jersey
Methods for Separation of Sediment From Storm
Water at Construction Sites: by J.F. Ripken,
J.M. Killen, and J.S. Gulliver, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Nationwide Evaluation of Combined Power Overflows Draft
and Urban Storir.water Discharges, Volume T.T'l.:
Characterization: by R.H. Sullivan, M.J. Manning
and T.M. Kipp, American Public Works Association,
Chicago, Illinois
Cost-Effective Pollution Control of Combined*
Wastes and Urban Runoff: by Clinton Bogert
Associates, Fort Lee, New Jersey
Draft
Analysis of Practices for Preparing' an Economic Draft
Analysis and Determining Infiltration• anci Inflow:
Volume II: Manual of -Practice. Sewer System Evaluation
Rehabilitation and New Construction: by R.H. Sullivan,
M.M. Cohn, T.J. Clark, W.B. Tliompson and J. Zaffle,
American Public Works Association, Chicago, Illinois
Report on State Sediment Control Institutes Program;
USEPA, Office'of Water Planning and Standards
Erosion and Sediment Control Audiovisual Training Program:
Instruct ion Mnnu.il: by The State of Maryland Water
Resources Administration
169. EPA-600/8-76-001b
Erosion and Sediment Control Audiovisual Training Program:
Workbook:. by The State of Maryland Water Resources
Administration
*Copics may be obtained from EPA Stonn & Combined Sew.er Section Edison, N.J.
77
-------
ONGOING URUAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL. PROJECTS
PROJECT
REFERENCE
NUMBER ON-GOING PROJECTS
P-l . • "Nationwide Characterisation, Impacts, and Critical Evaluation
of Combined Sewer Overflow, S tormwa e'er, ' and Non-Sewered Urban
Runoff." American Public Works Association, 68-03-0283
P-2 "Disinfection/Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows -
Syracuse, N.Y." Onondaga County, N.Y., 802400
P-3 "Development of a Swirl Concentrator and a Helical Combined
Sewer Overflow Dual Functioning Regulator-Separator^"
American Public Works Association, 68-03-0272
P-4 "Demonstration of a Swirl Regulator/Solids Separator System
for Control of Combined Sewer Overflows." City of Lancaster,
Pennsylvania, 802219
P-5 . "State-of-ther-Ar-t 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
P-6 "Use of Polymers to Reduce or Eliminate Sewer Overflows in the
Bachman Creek. Sewer." City of Dallas, Texas, 11022 DZU
P-7 "Combined Sewer Fluidic Regulator Demonstration." City of
Philadelphia, 11022 FWR
P-8 "Development of a Flocculation-Flotation Module." Hercules,
Inc., 14-12-855
P-9 "Stormwater Treatment Facilities." City of Dallas, Texas,
11023 FAW _ .
•P-10 "The Lawrence Avenue Underflow Sewer System." City of Chicago
11022 EMD
P-ll "Microorganisms in Stormwater." John Hopkins University, 802709
P-12 "Nutrient Removal Using Existing Combined Sewer Overflow
Treatment Facilities." Onondaga County, N.Y., 802400
P-13 "Comparison of Alternate Sewer Design." City of Elizabeth
New Jersey, 802971
P-14 . a) Refine/Verify n Simplified Model to Handle Large Areas
with Minimal Data Input 'as a Planning Aid." Rochester Pure
Wate* Agency, Y-005141
Note: Number appearing in left margin corresponds to reference numbers
cited in report text.
.78
-------
ONGOING URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS (continued)
PROJECT
REFERENCE
ON-COINC PROJECTS
P-15 b) "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Program - Rochester, N.Y."
Rochester Pure Water Agency, Y-005141
P-16 "Maximum Utilization-of Water Resources in a Planned Community."
Rice University , 80243.3
F-17 "Evaluation of Present Catch Basin Technology and Demonstration
and Evaluation of Now Upr.trcnm Attenuator/Solids Separator Design."
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 68-03-027/4
P-18 "Analysis of Practices for Preparing an Economic Analysis and
Determining Infiltration." American Public Works Association,
803151
P-19 "Engineering Aspects of Storm and Combined Sewer Overflow
Technology A Manual of Instruction." North Carolina State
University, 801358
P-20 "Develop a Movie On Nature/Impacts of Stormwater Pollution •
As-Compared -to Other Forms of Water Pollution." (SRO ID No. 61ABR) ,
EPA, Technology Transfer
P-21 "Characterization and Disposal of Combined Sewer Overflow
Sludges and Solids," Envirex, 69-03-0242. .
P-22 "Development and Demonstration of Combined Sewage
Treatment Utilizing Screening and Spilt-Air Flo-
tration." City of Milwaukee (llawley Road) 11020 FDC
P-23 "Demonstration of Screening/Dissolv.ed-Air Flotation
as an Alternative to Combined Sewer Separation."
City 'of Racine, Wisconsin, 11023 FWS
P-24 "Sludge Treatment and Disposal Methods for Combined
Sewer Overflow." Envirex, 68-03-0242
P-25 "Demonstration' Real-Time Automatic Control in Combined
Sewer System." City and County of San Francisco,
' California, 803743
P-28 "Evaluation of Stormwater Treatment Methods."
Minnchaha Creek Watershed District, 802535
P-29 "Evaluation and Technology Transfer of the Swirl.
Concentrator Principle." American Public Works
Association, 803157
79
-------
ONGOING UKHAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECTS (continued)
PROJECT
REFERENCE
NUMBF.R ON-GOING PROJECTS
P-30 "Demonstration/Evaluation of Impregnated Concrete
Pipe and Other Methods of Infiltration.Control."
Texas Water Quality Board, 802651
P--31 "Trcnchless Sewer Cons true tion and Sewer Design
Innovation." Sussex County Council, Delaware,
800690
P-32 "The Somervillc Marginal Conduit Including Pre-
treatment Facilities." Boston Metropolitan District
Commission, 11023 DM'E
P-34 "Large Scale Demonstration of Treatment of Storm-
Caused Overflows by the Screening Method." City of
Fort Wayne, Indiana, 11020 GYU
P-37 "Boston University Bridge Storm Water Detention and
Clilorination Station." Boston Metropolitan District
Commission. 11023 FAT
P-39 "Ultra-High Rate Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflow
and Raw Dry Weather Sewage at New.town Creek Sewage
Treatment Plant." City of New York, 803271
P-40 ' "East Chicago Treatment Lagoon." East Chicago Sanitary
District, 11020 FAV
P-41 "Evaluation of Various Aspects of an Aluminum Storm
Sewer System." City of LaSalle, Illinois, 11032 DTI
P-42 '"Pilot Plant Studies to Determine the Feasibility of
Using High Gradient Magnetic Separation (h'GMS) for
Treating Combined Sewer Overflows," Sala Magnetics,
Inc. , 6.3-03-2218
P-45 "Development of Electromagnetic Flowmcter for Com-
bined Sewer." Gushing Engineering, Inc., 68-03-0341
P-46 "Efficiency of Off-Stream Detention-Retention Measures
as Sediment Control Devices." Howard University,
803066
P-49 "Collect and Define Availability of Test Data (Rain-
fall/Runoff) for Urban Models-Data Base." University
of Florida, 68-03-0496
80.
-------
ONGOING URBAN RUNOFF POI.Un'ION CONTROL 1'ROJECTS (conf.inued)
PROJECT
REFERENCE
NUMBER
ON-GOING PROJECTS
P-50
P-51
P-53
P-68
P-70
P-71
P-66
P-67
P-72
P-73
P-74
"Develop and Demonstrate New and Improved Model for
Design of Combined Sewers to Prevent Solids Sedi-
mentation and to Optimize Construction Cost.-"
Water Resources Engineers, Inc., 68-03-2205
"Short Course on Application of Stormwntcr Manage-
ment 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, Fail-field County, South Carolina."
University of South Carolina, 803724
81
-------
OTHER URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM REFERENCES
REFERENCE
NUMBER 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 Hater 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 Hastewater Treatment Facilities: (US
EPA, Office of Hater and Hazardous Materials, Washington, D.C.
R-5 Report to National Commission on Hater 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-5 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.
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 Woigel , Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
Vol. 45, No. 6, June 1973, pp 1108-111.5.
R-6g " Literature Rovicw - Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow: Richard
Field and Pamela Szceley, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
Vol. 46, No. 6," June 1974, pp 1209-1226.
.Note: Nuiriicr appearing in left margin corresponds to reference numbers
cited in report text.
82
-------
OTHER URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM REFERENCES (continued)
REFERENCE
NUMBER REFERENCES.
R-6h Literature Review - Urban Runoff arvd 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, ejt aj_, Water Resources Engineers, A.D. Feldman, The
Hydrologic Engineering Center, for U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, A.O.
Fried!and, Department of Public Works, City of San Francisco, Tech-
nical Memorandum No. 23, ASCE, April 1974.
R-ll Water Pollution and Associated Effects From Street Sal ting: Richard
Field, Edmond J. Struzeski., Jr., Hugh Masters, Anthony Tafuri, Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. TOO, 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 - Dosi'f|ii of n Combined Sower Overflow Regulator/Concentrator: Richard Field,
.Journ.il Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 46, No. 7, July 1974,
pp 1722-1741 '
R-16 Give Stonnwater Pollutants the Snin: Richard Field, et^ a_j_, The American
City & Country Magazine, April 1976, pp 77-78.
83
------- |