vvtPA
            United States
            Environrnsntal Protection
            Agency
            Off ire cf Water
            Program Operations (WH-547)
            Washington DC 20460
May 1984
            Water
Before and After
Case Studies:
            Comparisons of Water Quality
            following Municipal Treatment
            Plant Improvements

-------
           BEFORE AND AFTER
             CASE STUDIES:
     COMPARISONS OF WATER QUALITY
     FOLLOWING MUNICIPAL TREATMENT
          PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
                  By:
            William M.  Leo
           Robert V. Thomann
          Thomas W.  Gallagher
       Contract No. 68-01-6275
           Project Officer
             John Maxted
            Prepared for:
 Office of Water Programs Operations
   Facility Requirements Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         401 M Street, S.W.
       Washington, D.C.  20460
              May 1984

-------
                                   DISCLAIMER
    This  report  has  been   reviewed  by  the  Office  of  Water,   United  States
Environmental Protectin Agency, and approved for publication.  Approval does  not
signify  that  the contents  necessarily  reflect  the views  and policies  of  the
United States Environmental  Protection  Agency, nor  does  mention  of trade  names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

-------
                                     PREFACE
    This  project  was  conducted by HydroQual, Inc.  (1  Lethbridge  Plaza,  Mahwah,
New  Jersey    07430),  under  contract   with the  United  States  Environmental
Protection  Agency  (USEPA),   Facility  Requirements  Division,  Office  of  Water
Programs Operations.

    Dr. Robert V. Thomann at  the time of the study was a partner with HydroQual.
He  is  presently  associated  with  Manhattan  College.    The  authors  wish  to
acknowledge  the  following individuals who  contributed  in various ways  to this
project:  Dr. Donald J. O'Connor of HydroQual for providing the technical review
of this project; Ms. Maureen Casey of HydroQual, who assisted in data collection
and analysis  efforts;  Mr. John Maxted  (USEPA,  Project Officer); Mr.  John Hall
(USEPA),  Mr.  Robert  Foxen  (Foxen and Associates) for providing  valuable
assistance, guidance and insight for this study.

    We  would  also like  to  acknowledge  the  numerous   persons  summarized  in
Appendix  A  for  taking  time out  of  their busy  schedules  to  organize  the
information sources and to help the authors understand each case study.
                                     11

-------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter                                                                  Page
Number                                                                  Number

         LIST OF TABLES	      v

         LIST OF FIGURES	     vi

         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	    ix

         CONCLUSIONS 	  xvii

         RECOMMENDATIONS	 xxiii

1.0      INTRODUCTION	  1- 1

         1.1  The Need for Before and After
              Comparisons Following Municipal
              Treatment Plant Upgrade	  1- 1
         1.2  Purpose and Objectives of Study	  1- 3
         1.3  Scope	  1- 4
         1.4  Benefits of a Before and After
              Analysis of POTW Improvement	  1- 4

2.0      BEFORE AND AFTER IMPROVEMENT DATA
         COLLECTION	  2- 1

         2.1  Methods of Collection	  2- 1
         2.2  Parameters Requested	  2- 1
         2.3  Data Collection Results	  2- 3
         2.4  Data Analysis	  2- 5

3.0      EVALUATION OF SHORT TERM WATER QUALITY
         CHANGES	  3- 1

         3.1  Intensive Survey Water Chemistry	  3- 1
         3.2  Seasonal Water Chemistry	  3-16
         3.3  Biology	  3-23
         3.4  Physical Habitat	  3-31
         3.5  Recreation	  3-31

4.0      WATER QUALITY MATHEMATICAL MODEL EVALUATIONS	  4- 1

         4.1  Model Calibration and Low Flow Water
              Quality Projections	  4- 1
         4.2  Post-improvement Model Evaluations	  4- 5
         4.3  Coefficient Evaluation	  4-13
         4.4  POTW Effluent Quality	  4-21
                                      111

-------
                                TABLE OF  CONTENTS
                                    (continued)

Chapter                                                                  Page
Number                                                                 Number

5.0      LONG TERM WATER QUALITY CHANGES	  5-  1

6.0      SIMPLIFIED WATER QUALITY MODELING
         EVALUATIONS	  6-  1

         6.1  Overview of a Simplified Wasteload
              Allocation Technique	  6-  2
         6.2  Use of Analytical Techniques as a
              Decision Making Tool	  6-  3
         6.3  Application of Guidance to Pre- and
              Post-improvement Data	  6-11

7 .0      REFERENCES	;	  7-  1

         APPENDIX A:  PERSONNEL POINTS OF CONTACT

         APPENDIX B:  INFORMATION SOURCES

         APPENDIX C:  CASE SUMMARIES
                                      IV

-------
                                 LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                  Page
Number                                                                Number

  2.1    PRE- AND POST-OPERATIVE PARAMETER REQUEST
         LIST	    2- 2
3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4
A.I
4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5
5.1

6.1

6.2
6.3
6.4
WATER BODIES WITH BEFORE AND AFTER WATER
QUALITY DATA 	 ,
STATISTICAL SUMMARY WATER OF CHEMISTRY
IMPROVEMENTS 	 ,
SUMMARY OF MONITORING DATA STATISTICAL
CHANGES 	
WATER QUALITY FOR BIOTIC INDEX VALUES 	 ,
PROJECTION POTW EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS 	 ,
POST-OPERATION POTW EFFLUENT
CHARACTERISTICS 	 ,
SUMMARY OF MODEL CALIBRATION AND PROJECTION
COEFFICIENTS 	
SUMMARY OF PRE- AND POST-IMPROVEMENT
OXIDATION RATES 	
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS 	
SECONDARY AND AWT EFFLUENT PARAMETERS USED IN
LONG TERM DISSOLVED OXYGEN EVALUATIONS 	
COMPARISON OF SIMPLIFIED MODELING ANALYSIS RESULTS
WITH OTHER WASTELOAD ALLOCATION RESULTS 	
COMPARISON OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 	
COMPARISON OF MODEL REACTION RATES 	
COMPARISON OF MODEL REACTION RATES 	

3-3

3-19

3-20
3-29
4-6

4-8

4-15

. , 4-19
4-22

5-2

6-7
6-10
6-20
.6-21

-------
                                 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                                  Page
Number                                                                  Number

 2.1     Results of Post-improvement Data Collection
         Survey	   2- 4

 3.1     Short Term Dissolved Oxygen Improvements	   3- 4

 3.2     Short Term Dissolved Oxygen Improvements	   3- 5

 3.3     Short Term Dissolved Oxygen Improvements
         (Secondary Treatment to Advanced Treatment)	   3- 6

 3.4     Short Term Dissolved Oxygen Improvements
         (Secondary Treatment to Advanced Treatment)	   3- 7

 3.5     Summary of Short  Term Dissolved Oxygen
         Improvements	   3- 9

 3.6     Summary of Short  Term BOD , Ammonia and
         Un-ionized Ammonia  Improvements	   3-11

 3.7     Comparison of  Pre-  and Post-operative Data to
         Water Quality  Criteria	   3-12

 3.8     Summary Of Site Dissolved Oxygen Variations for Thirteen
         Water Bodies	   3-15

 3.9     Probability Distribution of Summer  Dissolved  Oxygen
         and Ammonia Concentrations  at Fixed Location
         Monitoring Stations  (Wilsons Creek  and Clinton River)	   3-17

 3.10     Probability Distribution of Summer  Dissolved  Oxygen
         and Ammonia Concentrations  at Fixed Location
        Monitoring Stations  (South  River and Blackston River)	   3-18

 3.11     Summer  Standard Deviation of Dissolved Oxygen
         and Ammonia Concentrations	   3-22

 3.12     Pre-operational and  Post-operational Biology
        Data	   3-24

 3.13    Review of  Macroinvertebrate Data From
        Fifty-three Wisconsin  Streams	   3-26
                                     VI

-------
                                 LIST OF FIGURES
                                   (continued)

Figure                                                                  Page
Number                                                                 Number

 4.1     Model Calibration Analyses and AWT Low Flow
         Dissolved Oxygen Projections ................................    4- 3

 4.2     Model Calibration Analyses and AWT Low Flow
         Dissolved Oxygen Projections ................................    4- 4

 4.3     Comparisons of Model Results and Post-improvement
         Dissolved Oxygen Data .......................................    4- 9

 4.4     Summary of Model Errors .....................................    4-11

 4.5     Regression of Calculated and Observed
         Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations .............................    4-12

 4.6     Evaluation of Treatment Changes on Oxidation
         Rates [[[    4-16

 4.7     Evaluation of Treatment Changes on Oxidation
         Rates [[[    4-17

 4.8     POTW Effluent Characteristics ...............................    4-23

 4.9     POTW Effluent Ultimate CBOD as a Function of
         CBOD5 and BOD3 ..............................................    4-26

 5.1     Calculated Long Term Dissolved Oxygen
         Changes [[[    5- 3

 6.1     Results of Simplified Modeling Analysis
         (Nashua River, Patuxent River, Hurricane Creek,
         South River, Ottawa River, and Clinton River) ...............    6- 5

 6.2     Results of Simplified Modeling Analysis
         (Bridge Creek, Lemonweir Creek, Cibolo Creek,
         and Wilsons Creek ) ..........................................    6- 6

 6.3     Pre-operational Testing of Simplified Model
         (Nashua River, Patuxent River, Hurricane Creek,
         South River, Ottawa River, and Clinton River) ...............    6-13

 6.4     Pre-operational Testing of Simplified Model

-------
                                 LIST OF FIGURES
                                   (continued)

Figure                                                                  Page
Number                                                                 Number

 6.5     Post-operational Testing of Simplified Model
         (Nashua River, Patuxent River, Hurricane Creek,
         South River, Ottawa River, and Clinton River)	   6-15

 6.6     Post-operational Testing of Simplified Model
         (Bridge Creek, Lemonweir Creek, Cibolo Creek,
         and Wilsons Creek)	   6-16

 6.7     Summary of Simplified Method	   6-17

 6.8     Regression of Calculated and Observed
         Dissolved  Oxygen Concentrations	   6-19
                                   Vlll

-------
                  BEFORE AND AFTER COMPARISONS OF WATER QUALITY
                FOLLOWING MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
                                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    More  than  25 years  have  passed since the  initiation  of the  first  Federal
Waste Treatment Plant Construction Grants Program.  In  this  time,  the  number  of
secondary  treatment  facilities   has   increased   to  some  7800  while  advanced
treatment  facilities  have  increased to  about 2700.   By the  year 2000, it  is
expected  that   there  will  be  about   11,900  and  7400  secondary  and  advanced
treatment facilities, respectively.

    To date the effectiveness of most  treatment  facilities is  judged  on whether
the  facility  meets  the effluent  limits of  the  National  Pollution  Discharge
Elimination System  (NPDES) permits.   Since  the  goal  of  waste  treatment
facilities is to improve the quality of the  nations waters,  it  is also necessary
that the  effectiveness  of treatment plants  is judged  in terms  of  water quality
improvements gained  subsequent   to  improving treatment  levels.   Evaluation  of
water  quality  improvements  subsequent to  upgrading  treatment  levels  from
secondary  to  advanced  treatment  is especially  important since  the  incremental
cost of  this  upgrade is relatively  large compared to  the  amount of  pollutant
removed.

    This  study  is directed  toward the overall  issue  of determining  before and
after  responses of  river  systems  following  installation  of  improvements  in
municipal wastewater  treatment  facilities.    The  basic objectives of  the  study
are threefold:

a.  To determine the extent  of the data  base  for  water  quality  before  and  after
    improvements and compile such data.

b.  To compare  the before and after data to determine  changes  in  water quality
    after treatment  improvements.
                                      IX

-------
 c.   To evaluate  the  ability of  calibrated wasteload  allocation water  quality
     models  to  predict  water  quality after improved treatment.

     Output  from  the study  includes actual  measured  water quality  improvements
 after  construction of  an upgraded  treatment facility.   The  study also  provides
 an  assessment  of  the accuracy of  water  quality  models used as planning tools.

 Data Availability

    Thirty  one states, four USEPA regional offices  and four regional  planning
 boards were contacted  for before  and after  data.   Of  these numerous  contacts, no
 individual  agency had  a  complete compilation  of  water quality, biology,  water
 use, model  and publically owned treatment works (POTWs) effluent data necessary
 to  perform a  detailed  before  and after  comparison.     A partial  data  base,
 however, was compiled  from  52 water bodies.  These data sets were screened,  and
 rivers  where  background  flows  and inputs  were equal  in  the before  and  after
 settings were  selected  so  that  the  only  influence  on  water  quality  was  the
 treatment  change.   Data  sets  from 13  of  these  water bodies  were  considered
adequate for   review.   These   13  water  bodies and  the  associated  changes  in
treatment of the POTWs  discharging  to them  are  summarized  in  Table 1.
                                     TABLE 1
    River
State
Facility
Treatment Change
Nashua
Blackstone
Hudson
Patuxent
Hurricane
South
Potomac
Ottawa
Clinton
Bridge
Leraonweir
Cibolo
Wilsons
MA
RI
NY
MD
VA
VA
MD
OH
MI
WI
WI
TX
WY
Fitchburg East.
Woonsocket
Albany Area
Laurel Pkwy.
Hurricane
Dupont (ind.)
Blue Plains
Lima
Pontiac, Auburn
Augusta
Tomah
Odo J Riedel
Springfield S.W.
Secondary to Advanced Treatment
Primary to Secondary
Primary to Secondary
Secndary to Advanced Treatment
Upgrade to Secondary
Secondary to Nitrification
Secondary to Advanced Treatment
Secondary to Nitrification
Secondary to Advanced
Secondary to Nitrification
Secondary to Nitrification '
Upgrade to Secondary
Secondary to Advanced Treatment

-------
Water Quality Changes
                                      3.0 -
                                      4.0 -
    Data  from  intensive  water      _ 70
quality surveys on  10  of  these      ป60
13 water  bodies  show  increases
in dissolved oxygen of  between
0.8 and  6.1  mg/1 at  the  point
of  minimum  dissolved oxygen
after  treatment  improvements
(Figure  1).    Before  treatment
was upgraded, minimum  dissolved      ~-i.o
oxygen   concentrations  were
below   the   dissolved  oxygen
ซ..d.rd.  in   12  of  the   ,3       ff#&/$^^PS^/ฃ
rivers.   After treatment  was upgraded, nine  of  the rivers  had  minimum oxygen
concentrations  above the standard  or were within  1.0 mg/1 of  it.
                                      3.0
                                    o
                                    z
-
:




—



__.



LJ
—

III
t

IGURE 1


—

y-MEAN = 2.6ซg/l
nn „
— 1
l_J
                                          O
                                          d
    In  four  of  the rivers  where
monthly   sampling   data    are
available at routine  monitoring
stations,    dissolved    oxygen
standards were violated between 20
and 60  percent  of  the  time  before
treatment  was  improved.   In  the
same  four rivers  (Wilson,  South,
Clinton  and  Blackstone),   after
treatment was improved, violations
of  standards decreased  to  between
1  and  15 percent  of  the  time.
Figure 2 presents the effect of treatment on the dissolved oxygen levels at  the
sag point  in Wilsons  Creek  on which treatment was  upgraded  from secondary  to
advanced levels .

10

8
6
4
2
n
WILSONS CREEK, Mo.
(SUMMER DATA)
FIGURE 2



AFTER 0 9
(/* ฐ-ฐ-
^^— 	 BEFORE AWT
1 * II 1 II
STO.

1
                                             O.I
 I    10 20  50  80 90   99 99.9
PERCENT LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO
                                     XI

-------
      Before  and  after  stream  quality  data  also   show  decreases  in  maximum
  biochemical  oxygen demand (BOD  ),  ammonia, and  un-ionized  ammonia  levels
  subsequent to improved treatment.  BOD,, concentrations decreased by 15.0 mg/1 or
  more  in 5  of the  13  rivers.   In two  of  the  rivers,  ammonia  concentrations
  decrease  by  approximately  20.0  mg/1  after  installation  of  advanced  treatment
  facilities.
 Biological Changes
                                      Ul
                                      oc
                                      (D
                                         80
                                         60
                                      * 3
                                         20
                                               i-TOLERANT
                                                   •FACULTATIVE
WILSONS CREEK, Mo.

    FIGURE?
                                                       INTOLERANT
     The  amount  of  biological
 before and after data  available
 for review is  inadequate to make
 conclusions  on  the effect of
 treatment  changes  on  instream
 benthic  organisms.    For two
 cases  where  before and after
 comparisons   can  be  made  to
 assess  the effect  of  treatment
 changes   on    the    ecosystem,
 results  are   mixed.    Wilsons
 Creek  (Figure  3),   on  which  the  only  point  source  load  was  upgraded  from
 secondary  to  advanced treatment, shows a shift  from pollution tolerant benthic
 organisms to more sensitive organisms.  On the Ottawa River, where the Lima POTW
was  upgraded  to nitrification  (and two industrial  discharges  were  unchanged),
benthic  diversity  and   numbers  remain  depressed.    Data  from other  streams,
although  much  more  qualitative,   indicate  a  shift  toward healthier  benthic
macroinvertebrate  communities  when  there   is   a  major  improvement  in  water
quality.
                                               1964-1965
                                            SECONDARY TREAT.
     1980
ADVANCED TREAT.
    Available  data  to  assess  fish populations  after  treatment  upgrades  are
sparse;  however,  qualitative  information  available  show  an increase  in fish
population in Wilsons Creek and the Ottawa river.  No quantitative data, such as
fishing  angler,  swimming,  or  site  attendance  days were  available for  any  of
                                    XII

-------
these rivers to assess changes in recreational activity.  Although the data were
sparse,  it appears  likely  that  in  some  cases,  factors  other  than  pollutant
loadings  from  treatment  plants  such  as  upstream  sources  and  physical  stream
habitat prevented biological improvements from taking place.

Water Quality Modeling

    Mathematical  water quality  models have  evolved  from  the  early  1900s  to
become tools used  by  many present day water  quality planners  to make wasteload
allocation  decisions.   Models  have  grown  from  simple analytical  equations  to
multi-segmented,  computer-based  solution  techniques requiring  large  amounts  of
memory and high speed computers.

    The accuracy of models  to  date  is generally  evaluated during calibration or
verification analyses.  Rigorous evaluations have not been performed to show the
accuracy of calibrated models after a treatment facility has been upgraded.  The
compilation  of  before  and  after  data discussed  earlier  provides  information
necessary to verify the ability of models to predict changes in dissolved oxygen
concentrations in response to POTW treatment improvements.

    Sufficient  information  is  available  for  six  water  bodies  to   permit  an
evaluation  of  the  mathematical  models  used  in the  wasteload allocation
procedures.   These  six  water  bodies are  the Patuxent  River,  Wilsons  Creek,
Hurricane Creek, Cibolo Creek, Hudson River and the Clinton River.
    Testing  of   each  model  is
performed  in   this   study  by
setting  up  each  model for  the
appropriate   "after   treatment
change"  river conditions  (flow,
temperature,  POTW  effluent).
Model    reaction   rates    for
carbonaceous  biochemical  oxygen
demand     (CBOD),    oxidation,
nitrogenous  biochemical  oxygen
  PATUXENT RIVER, Md.

         •D.O. SATURATION
80
AUG. 22,1978
  FIGURE 4
                   MODEL
                        -0.0. STO.
t          LAUREL PKWY. POTW
          AT ADVANCED TREATMENT
        75       70       65
         PATUXENT RIVER MILES
                                60
                                     XI11

-------
 demand (NBOD)  oxidation,  sediment oxygen demand (SOD), photosynthesis and  oxygen
 reaeration  are  identical  to  those  rates  used  in the  original  wasteload
 allocation study.   Figure A  presents a  comparison  of  computed  model  results  and
 observed  dissolved oxygen  data after  treatment  was  upgraded  on  the  Patuxent
 River.  Similar  results are obtained for the other five  rivers.

     Root  mean  square  (RMS) errors,  which are a measure of  the  deviation  of  the
 model  from observed data, serve as  a quantitative measure of model  accuracy  in
 reproducing  after  data.   In  post-improvement  testing, RMS errors range  from  0.0
 to  about  2.0 mg/1. Average  error  of  0.9 mg/1 is  only slightly larger  than  the
 RMS  error 0.7  mg/1 associated with calibration of  these  six models,  indicating
 that the  models  perform fairly well in predicting  water  quality.
    An  additional measure of  the
models    ability    to   reproduce
post-improvement    data   is   the
correlation    of    observed    and
calculated mean  dissolved oxygen
concentrations.     This   analysis
(Figure    5)     suggests     that
post-improvement   models  have   a
tendency  to  over-estimate  dissolved
oxygen levels at concentrations less
than   7.0  mg/1.      This  result
indicates  that  the  RMS  errors  are
generally  in  the  direction of  over
estimation  of  dissolved  oxygen
concentrations.
  POST-IMPROVEMENT
- MODEL EVALUATION
  12   3436789 10
     OBSERVED MEAN D.O. (mq / I)
    Evaluations are  also  made as  part  of  this  project  to discern  changes  in
instream CBOD  and NBOD  oxidation  rates  after  installation of  advanced  waste
treatment (AWT) at the  POTWs.   In  general, CBOD  oxidaton  rates  after improved
treatment are  approximately 60 percent  of the pre-improvement  oxidation rates.
                                     xiv

-------
The NBOD  (nitrification) oxidation rates,  however,  do  not  show similar  trends.
Nitrification rate changes  are  dependent on the water body of interest and  show
no general trend  toward  increasing or decreasing after improvements to treatment
facilities.

Simplified Water  Quality Modeling
   3 -
   2
x
ป  0











i





r










—










^
ง
• TI
J





n





(5





.2





)




















i— i

rsi









—

•\^
^•>
JEFORE POTW
MPROVEMENTS
FIGURES

2.37mg/ 1


    A  simplified approach to
performing wasteload  alloca-
tions  for  effluent  dominated
streams is  tested  during  this
project  against  before  and
after   data.     Testing   is
performed  for two criteria; the
utility  of  the  model  as  a
decision making  tool  and  the
accuracy   of  the   model   in
predicting   instream  dissolved
oxygen  concentrations.    Ten
rivers  are  included  in  this
analysis .
    The  simplified  technique
was  found  to  be  an accurate
decision  making    tool   for
planning treatment   upgrades
from  secondary  treatment  to
nitrification  in 9  of 10 cases
analyzed.     The  simplified
method  is a  less  accurate  planning  tool  for  predicting  water  quality
improvements  from  treatment  beyond nitrification.    Quantitatively,  the
simplified  technique  results  in RMS errors  that  are  50 to 200  percent  higher
than RMS errors  developed  from  more rigorous modeling analyses (Figure  6).   The
average RMS error for  the 10 river analyses  is  approximately 2.0 mg/1.
o
in
<
> 3
1-
o
o
(ฃ
2
1
0
a (6.1) AFTER POTW
IMPROVEMENTS
-

-
—
n






s

/ / / /



i




r SIMPLIFIED
ANALYSIS



—

t
T
a?
5
r
/
L
/ / / / /
DETAILED
ANALYSIS

r
MEAN:
l.88ซq/ 1
/
                                 more ••
                                  M
                                  "MAIN STEM
                                   P4TUXENT R.
                                    XV

-------
XVI

-------
                                   CONCLUSIONS
    The  analyses  performed  in this  report  lead  to  the following  conclusions
concerning operational conditions; water quality models;  long  term water quality
changes; and simplified water quality model evaluations.

Pre- and Post-Operational Conditions

1.  There is an apparent lack  of  data  on water  quality, ecosystem response, and
    changes in  water  use following  the  installation and operation  of improve-
    ments  in  municipal  waste  treatment  facilities.   Of  37  states,  5  USEPA
    regional offices  and 6  regional planning boards  that were contacted,  there
    was  no case  where  a  complete  data  set  (chemical,  biological,   use)  was
    available.   Regulatory  agencies,  however,  are beginning  to  recognize this
    lack and in some instances are planning post-operational evaluations.

2.  From  an  initial  data  base  of  52 water  bodies,  13  were  appropriate for
    post-operational  evaluation.    Ten  of  the  thirteen water   bodies  showed
    increases in dissolved oxygen concentration after treatment upgrade.  Short
    term  (less  than  five  years  after  upgrade)   changes  in  minimum   dissolved
    oxygen averaged approximately a 2.6 mg/1 increase (-0.5 to  6.1 mg/1).

3.  In  the 13  water   bodies,  decreases  in maximum  ammonia  concentrations   of
    approximately 5 mg/1 and  decreases in  maximum un-ionized ammonia  concentra-
    tions of tenths of an mg/1 were observed.

4.  Before treatment  was upgraded, dissolved oxygen  standards were violated  in
    12 of the 13 rivers.  After upgrade, nine of the  rivers were above  or within
    0.5 to 1.0 mg/1 of the dissolved oxygen standard.   Four of  the rivers were 2
    mg/1 or more below the standard.
                                     xvi i

-------
 5.  Dissolved oxygen standards were not met in four rivers after upgrade due to:
     (a) influences  from  upstream or  other  point sources, or  (b)  large diurnal
     dissolved oxygen fluctuations.

 6.  No significant  change in  the  increment  of  dissolved oxygen  from mean  to
     minimum concentrations was observed  in  the water  bodies  between  pre- and
     post-improvement  conditions.    Based  on  these data,  a  dissolved  oxygen
     concentration of  approximately  1.0 mg/1  could  be  subtracted from  the  mean
     value  to  approximate  a minimum value.

 7.   The  effectiveness of dissolved  oxygen improvement  was inverse to  the  river
     flow and  ranged from approximately 0.01 mg/1 dissolved oxygen  increase/1000
     Ibs  ultimate  oxygen  demand  removed  per  day at  10,000  cfs  river flow  to
     approximately  3  mg/1  dissolved  oxygen/1000  Ibs  ultimate  oxygen  demand
     removed per  day at 2  cfs.  These  observations qualitatively  confirm general
     mathematical  models of  water  quality  and  indicate  that for  a  unit  removal  of
     oxygen demanding  material,  there is a larger  increase  in dissolved  oxygen  in
     a smaller stream  than  for  a larger stream.

8.   For four  rivers where data were available,  dissolved  oxygen standards  were
     violated between  20  to 60  percent of the  time  before additional  treatment
    was provided.  After  improvement  in  treatment,  dissolved  oxygen  standards
    were violated  1 to 15 percent of the  time.

9.  Effluent five  day  BOD,,  from 38 secondary treatment facilities averaged  19.1
    mg/1 (standard deviation(s)  =  16.3  mg/1)  during  summer  intensive survey
    periods.  Effluent five day  CBOD, from 24 of  the  facilities averaged  10.3
    mg/1 (s  = 6.4 mg/1).   These  data may  indicate  that  secondary  treatment
    facilities achieve effluent BOD^ concentrations  during summer periods which
    are less than  the  30  mg/1  concentration typically  used  to  define  secondary
    treatment  effluents.   The  data further suggest  that  nitrification may be
    occurring  in  the BOD   test  and  that inhibition of the BOD  samples to yield
    CBOD- concentrations  may more accurately represent plant performance. •
                                   XVlll

-------
 10. Similarly, for  the treatment  facilities  with nitrification  processes,
    effluent BOD,,  averaged  11.5  mg/1 (s =  11.8 mg/1) but CBOD  data  from  seven
    plants averaged 4.8 mg/1 (s = 8.2 mg/1).
11. No  significant  relationship was  obtained  for the ratio of ultimate CBOD  to
    BOD   or CBOD   for  144  POTWs.   CB(
    CBODult/CBOD5 averaged 2.8 (s  = 1.2)
BOD, or  CBODC for  144 POTWs.   CBOD , /BOD.  averaged  2.5  (s  =  1.5)  and
   5         5                       ult    5
12. For  two  cases  where  before and  after comparisons  could be  made  for  the
    effect on  the  ecosystem,  the  results  were mixed.   One  stream showed  an
    improvement from 6 percent pollution intolerant macroinvertebrate species to
    47  percent  following  treatment  upgrade.   A  second  stream  showed  no
    improvement in  macroinvertebrate diversity  and number of  taxa  after  upgrade
    of  a  municipal  plant.  In  this  river, however, discharges from  two  nearby
    industrial plants have remained unchanged.

13. Data  compiled from  an extensive  study of 53 Wisconsin  streams  indicated an
    approximate linear relationship between a biotic  index  and dissolved  oxygen
    over  the  range  of  dissolved  oxygen  from  3.0  to 11.0  rag/1.    This  is  in
    contrast to the prevailing  hypothesis that  the ecosystem is not  responsive
    to  increases  in dissolved oxygen above  approximately  5.0 to 6.0 mg/1.   It
    should be noted, however, that this information is not  presented  to  suggest
    a revision to existing dissolved oxygen criterial.   Any such  revision would
    require detailed  assessment  of biotic  index  conditions  during periods  of
    critical flow and temperature.

Water Quality Mathematical Model Evaluations

1.  Sufficient information  was  available for  six water  bodies  to  permit  an
    evaluation of   the  mathematical  models  used  in  the  wasteload  allocation
    process.   Root mean square errors of  dissolved  oxygen  between  the model and
    the data during calibration and verification analyses averaged  approximately
    0.7  mg/1.    The  RMS  errors  between model calculation  and  observed
    post-improvement data averaged  0.9 mg/1.
                                     xix

-------
 2.  Comparisons  of calculated  versus  observed mean  dissolved  oxygen indicated
     that  in the  post-improvement  phase,  the model calculations  on the average
     reproduced  the  observed data  but  tended to  over-estimate  the  dissolved
     oxygen  in individual  cases.

 3.  An  analysis of  instream  coefficients of  oxidation of CBOD and NBOD for seven
     cases of before and after treatment improvement showed no clear trend.

Long Term Water Quality Changes

1.   The ultimate  level of water  quality  improvement for  the long  term (i.e.,
     over  10 to  20  years)  must  be measured  from expected water  quality  at  POTW
     design  loads  and drought flows, but with no POTW upgrade.

2.   For four rivers, the improvements in POTW (at  design loads)  are estimated to
     result  in substantial improvement in  dissolved  oxygen over  levels  without
     increases in  treatment.   All  rivers  are  estimated  to violate  dissolved
    oxygen  standards without improvements.   Following upgrade at design levels,
    all four rivers are  estimated to be above 4.0 to 5.0  mg/1  dissolved oxygen
    and at least 20 miles of anaerobic stream is  prevented from  occurring.

Simplified Water Quality Model Evaluations

1.  As  a result  of evaluation of simplified wasteload  allocation techniques,  the
    simplified  wasteload  allocation reproduces wasteload allocation  decisions
    made  by other analyses  up  to  a   level of  secondary  treatment  plus
    nitrification.   Beyond  this  level  of  treatment,   the   method  results  in
    different facility  decisions  in  at  least three  of  nine   cases.    Beyond
    nitrification, the  method performs  poorly because  of  the  small reductions in
    pollutant  loadings  which  are attained  by  these  additional  levels  of
    treatment.
                                     xx

-------
2.  Although the method  is noted to  perform  well in some  cases,  and poorly  in
    others, the absolute  dissolved  oxygen levels  that  are predicted using  this
    method are  not  nearly as  accurate as those  concentrations predicted  using
    more resources intensive methods.
                                      xxi

-------
XXI1

-------
                                 RECOMMENDATIONS
    From this work the following recommendations are offered:

1.  Additional  data  should  be  collected  for  before  and  after  comparisons of
    water  quality  following  POTW  improvement   to   further  document  observed
    changes and improve water quality model credibility.

2.  The  before  and   after  studies  should  include  collection  of  biological,
    ecosystem  characteristics  and  water  use  data,  as  well  as  the physical/-
    chemical data  that  is normally  collected  for the  purpose  of calibrating a
    model.  These  data  are  all useful in  determining whether pollution sources
    or physical  habitat  factors  are important in  attaining  biological or water
    use goals.

3.  Although the  simplified  modeling methodology  performed  well  as  a tool  for
    determining  treatment  requirements  in some instances, the  method tended to
    under  predict  instream  oxygen concentrations.    Because  of  this,  further
    investigations  should  be   made  of   the   coefficients   recommended  by   the
    procedure to improve its preditive capability.
                                    XXlll

-------
XXIV

-------
                                   SECTION 1.0

                                  INTRODUCTION

    Water  quality mathematical^  are  generally used  to evaluate  the need  for
AWT facilities.   These models,  after  calibration  and/or validation,  are  used to
project water quality conditions  after AWT projects are built.   Actual  instream
water quality, after construction of  the  facility,  is  very  rarely  monitored and
compared to pre-improvement water quality.

1.1 The Need for Before and After Comparisons  Following Municipal Treatment
    Plant Upgrade

    More than  25 years have  passed since the initiation  of the  first  Federal
Waste  Treatment   Plant  Construction  Grants   Program  in  1956  under  the  Water
Pollution Control Act.  Since that  time,  wastewater treatment systems have been
built to improve and/or  maintain desired  water  quality in  streams  and  rivers,
estuaries and lakes.  At  present, there are some  7800  secondary treatment plants
and some  2700 plants  that  treat to  levels  beyond secondary.      By  the year
2000,  it is projected that there will be  about 11,900  secondary plants  and 7400
advanced treatment facilities.      Further, since  1973  about 24 billion dollars
have been expended on construction  of new facilities.   With these  expenditures,
one can  legitimately ask,  "What  has been  the  effectiveness of this treatment
plant program? i.e., What has been the result  of  this  effort and expenditure?"

    Recognizing that the  response of the water body in terms of improved quality
and subsequently improved water use is central to  the  success of water pollution
control  programs,  it  is  important  that   information  be  obtained  on  the
effectiveness of  treatment  in meeting water  quality  standards.   Assessment of
this effectiveness requires a two-staged  evaluation.   First, the analysis phase
performed by a regulatory  agency verifies the need for the upgrade  of  a POTW.
Second,  the actual effectiveness  of treatment in  improving  or maintaining water
quality, the  aquatic ecosystem  and  associated  water  use  is  determined  after
construction of  the  treatment works.   Without  the second  stage,  the questions
concerning  water use benefits cannot be answered.

-------
     In many  instances,  the  level of treatment for  the  facility  is  based in the
 analysis phase, on the use of water  quality—wasteload  allocation  models.   Such
 models are utilized to determine the allowable discharge  load  and  the discharge
 permit requirements.  The effectiveness phase involves  water quality  studies of
 the river  after  the upgraded facility  is  operational.   These before  and  after
 evaluations  for a  POTW  can  be thought of  as  being  composed of  two  components:
 (a) an  analysis  of  the  actual water quality and  ecosystem response  and
 associated water  use response, and;  (b)  an  analysis  of  the  effectiveness of the
 allocation model  framework in predicting observed water  quality responses.

     The  first component addresses  two  questions.   Did  the installation of  the
 improvement  in the  wastewater treatment facility,  in  fact, meet  the  targeted
 water  quality  standards?    What  is  the  performance   record  of  treatment  in
 improving  water  quality  and/or  meeting water quality  standards?   The second
 component  also addresses two  questions.  Have  the mathematical  models  utilized
 for establishment  of  treatment levels proved  reliable?   Is  the  model performance
 satisfactory?

     Particular  interest  in the effectiveness  of POTW improvements centers  about
 improvements  beyond  secondary treatment   to  advanced  treatment AWT.    It  is
 generally  accepted  that  eliminating raw  discharges  through  primary  treatment
 significantly improves  water  quality in most cases.  However,  as  the  level  of
 treatment  increases, the need  to  assess  the effect of higher levels of  treatment
 on  the water  body also increases.  This  is  due primarily to  two reasons:

 a.  At secondary  treatment and beyond,  the effluent concentration  of  residuals
    (e.g.,  BOD,  suspended solids,  ammonia) decreases to low levels  and hence,
    associated water quality  changes can be difficult to perceive and  assess.

b.  The  marginal  costs  of  treatment (i.e.,  the  change  in cost per  change  in
    constituent removed)  increases  dramatically (by about  10 times)  when  going
    from secondary to AWT.
                                      1-2

-------
    It is for these  reasons  that  Congress  has expressed increasing concern over
whether  expenditures  for  the  construction  of  advanced wastewater  treatment
facilities  results  in  signficant  water quality  improvements.    In  addition,
criticism of  water quality  based  standards  used to  justify  AWT processes have
raised  questions  about  whether  water   quality  based  models  and  analyses  can
accurately predict improvements claimed  for  a particular treatment process.   In
response to these  concerns,  a detailed  review of the technical justification  of
AWT facilities  is  carried out by  the Agency  under  authority of a Congressional
directive and in accordance with Program Requirement Memorandum  (PRM)  79-7.   The
USEPA  also  encourages states  to  use available  federal  funds  to  monitor water
quality  after  completion  of  municipal  wastewater  treatment  plants.    These
so-called "before  and  after"  studies  can be  used to both verify the assumptions
used in  modeling,  to predict water quality  impacts, and to  document  the water
quality improvements.

1.2 Purpose and Objectives of Study

    This study  is  directed toward  the  overall issue of  determining  the  before
and after  response  of aquatic systems  following  the  upgrade  of  treatment  at
POTWs.  The objectives are to:

a.  determine the available data base that permits before and  after  comparisons;

b.  determine changes  in  water  quality  under comparable  conditions following
    POTW upgrade;

c.  evaluate changes in the aquatic ecosystem from POTW  improvements;

d.  determine changes in water uses associated with  the  treatment plant  improve-
    ment;

e.  compile  information  on  the  analyses  and model  used  to  justify the  POTW
    upgrade;  and,
                                      1-3

-------
 f.  compare  the model projections  of water  quality made  before  the  POTW  improve-
     ment with  actual water quality monitored after the upgraded POTW was  opera-
     tional.
     The primary focus  of  this  project addresses the  impact  of CBOD and ammonia
 on dissolved oxygen concentrations in streams where data on pH, temperature, and
 ammonia are available;  water quality trends associated  to ammonia toxicity are
 also  presented.    Water  quality  responses  of  lakes relate  primarily  to the
 problem of nutrient  reduction  for control of  eutrophication,  and hence consti-
 tute  a separate  problem.    Control  of  point source  industrial  discharges,
 nonpoint  runoff,  storm  water,  and  combined  sewer  overflows  (CSOs)  are also
 important   issues  in natural water systems.   However,  the  scope of  the study
 would  have expanded   significantly   beyond  available   financial  resources  to
 evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  reducing  these  sources  on   changes   in  water
 quality.   Therefore,  only POTW  sources  were examined.   Finally, from a water
 quality point  of  review, the emphasis of  this  study was  on dissolved oxygen and
 nitrogen components  since these  variables  are  most often  used  as the  indicator
 standards  of water quality that must  be  met by  increased  treatment.

 1.4  Benefits of a Before and  After Analysis of  POTW Improvement

     Analyses of  the  data  from  before  and after a  POTW improvement,  provides an
 assessment  of  the  actual, not  predicted,  effectiveness  of wastewater   treatment
 systems  in  improving and maintaining water quality  and water  use.  The analysis
 also  provides  an assessment  of  the  reliability of  the  primary  planning  tools
 (mathematical water  quality models) to project  future  water quality.

    Benefits of before  and after analyses of the  performance of  both  POTWs  and
wasteload allocation models are:

a.  assistance in water  use attainability  analyses;
                                      1-4

-------
b.  a firm,  defensible  and quantitative description of  actual  treatment plant
    performance in improving water  quality,  ecosystem response and water use;

c.  improvements in future modeling through evaluation of actual performance of
    the predictive capability  of  contemporary water  quality models;

d.  identification of  problem  areas  in  treatment  effectiveness and  model
    performance, and;

e.  compilation of data for use in wasteload allocation analyses for projection
    of responses under similar treatment  and environmental conditions.
                                     1-5

-------
                                  SECTION 2.0

                  BEFORE  AND  AFTER IMPROVEMENT DATA COLLECTION

    Before and after improvement data is intended to provide a complete overview
of  water  quality  changes  following  improvements  to  municipal  treatment
facilities.   In  addition,  the  data  is  intended  to  provide an overview of  the
benefits,  to  the biological community  and  to  the  public which  results  as  a
function of any water quality changes.

2.1 Methods of Collection

    At the initiation of this project a substantial effort  was  directed  toward
developing a  data base  of  information  for  use  in  assessing changes  in  water
quality  and/or  water  uses  associated  with   upgrading   treatment  works   from
secondary treatment  to advanced  treatment  levels.   Since  no  data  were
immediately available,  this effort involved contacting state  and federal
agencies  to  obtain  pertinent information.   A total  of  31 states,  4  regional
USEPA offices and A  regional  planning boards were contacted during March through
July of 1982.(2'3)

    During  this   period,  some  97  people  at  the  various  agencies  provided
information.   A list of  these contacts is presented by state in Appendix A.

2.2 Parameters Requested

    Water  chemistry,  treatment  plant effluent concentrations,  biological
quality, recreational use and wasteload  allocation modeling data were requested
from water  bodies on which  a  treatment facility was upgraded  from  secondary
treatment to AST  or  AWT.   A detailed  list of  parameters  requested is presented
in Table 2.1.

-------
                                TABLE 2.1
             PRE- AND POST-OPERATIVE PARAMETER REQUEST LIST
Water Chemistry
1.   Dissolved oxygen
2.   BOD
3.   Temperature
A.   pH
5.   Nitrogen forms
6.   Un-ionized ammonia
7.   Phosphorus
8.   Chlorophyll

POTW Effluent
1.   Treatment type
2.   Flow (actual, design)
3.   BOD
4.   Nutrients

Wasteload Allocation Modeling
1.   Model calibration results
2.   Model wasteload allocation
3.   Model output listing
   Biology
   1.   Fish populations
   2.   Benthic macroinvertebrates
   3.   Invertebrate diversity indices
   A.   Habitat

   Recreational Use
   1.   General asthetics
   2.   Angler days
   3.   Swimming days
   A.   Shellfish harvesting days

   General
   1.   Stream depth
   2.   Flow (actual, 7Q10)
   3.   Sampling station locations
results
                                 2-2

-------
    The optimum situation was  to  obtain  data for all parameters listed in Table
2.1,  both  before  and  after  a   treatment  facility  was upgraded.    Data  were
requested  for intensive  surveys  conducted  at  or near  critical  flow  and
temperature  conditions  on effluent  dominated streams.  Water quality monitoring
data collected throughout the  transition  period  were also requested if the data
were collected near the dissolved oxygen  sag point.

2.3 Data Collection Results

    Thirty  one states  (Figure  2.1) along  with  four  USEPA  offices   and  four
regional planning boards were  contacted by HydroQual.  Of those contacted, eight
states had  no  AST or  AWT  facilities or had  no  post-improvement  data.   Eighteen
of the  thirty  states  had  the  appropriate data.   Five of the states had no data
but were  planning to  collect  post-improvement  data in  1982,  and  four states
which had data were also planning 1982 field surveys.

    Eventually, a data  base  covering in  excess of  52 water  bodies and some 214
references  was  constructed.   A  complete  summary  of  these  data sources   is
presented by state and water body in Appendix B.

    Upon receipt of each reference, HydroQual reviewed the information for those
parameters  listed  in  Table  2.1.   Follow-up requests  were   then made  until the
majority  of  data  existing on  a  particular  stream  had   been   collected  and
reviewed.

    All data sets  were then screened  and of  the  52 water  bodies  with data,  a
total of  13 water bodies contained data appropriate  for a  partial evaluation.
This evaluation focused primarily on water quality  responses since data on water
use changes  were  generally  not  available.   The  following  evaluation criteria
were used to screen information and develop complete  case histories.

a.  Pre- and post-operational water chemistry data  should exist.

b.  Data should originate from intensive  field sampling surveys conducted at  or
    near critical conditions.
                                      2-3

-------
LEGEND:
  |   J NOT CONTACTED
      NO POSTIMPROVEMENT DATA AVAILABLE

  ^^ PRE- 8 POST-IMPROVEMENT DATA AVAILABLE

      POSTIMPROVEMENT DATA TO BE COLLECTED IN 1982
                                       Figure  2.1
                    Results of Post improvement Data Collection Survey

-------
c.  If  surveys were  not  conducted  at  critical  conditions,  before  and  after
    surveys  should be  conducted  at  similar  flow,  temperature,  sunlight,  and
    nonpoint source loading conditions.

d.  Other  point sources  discharging  to the river  should  be  at similar effluent
    pollutant  loadings during both the before and after surveys.

e.  Pre-iraprovement discharges  to  the  river  should be  treating wastewaters to a
    minimum of  primary  treatment  and  preferably  should  be  at  secondary
    treatment.

f.  Post-improvement wastewaters  discharged  to  the  river should  be treated  to
    secondary  levels or greater.

    The purpose of imposing such criteria was to be able  to assess the effect  of
improved  treatment on water  quality  without  other point  or  nonpoint  sources
influencing the change in water quality.

2.4 Data Analysis

    Data  collected for the 13  water bodies were  reduced into  individual  case
histories  presented  in  Appendix C.    These case  histories  contain  background
information on changes in water quality, biology, mathematical modeling results,
and wasteload  allocations on  a  site  by site  basis.  Because of the  large  number
of sources  of  data used  to  construct the case histories, HydroQual  is not  able
to reference each  source of data on an individual basis.  However, all data  used
in the case histories  originate  either  from  the  data sources listed in Appendix
B or  from  personal conversations with the points  of contact listed in Appendix
A.
                                      2-5

-------
                                    SECTION 3.0

                  EVALUATION  OF  SHORT TERM WATER QUALITY CHANGES

     The  effectiveness  of  treatment  processes  beyond  secondary  treatment  in
 improving  or  upgrading  the  nations waterways  has  been  in  question  in  recent
 years.  This  section of  the  report reviews field sampling  data collected  before
 and  after  a POTW has been upgraded for 13 water bodies throughout  the country.
 Since  many of the upgraded  treatment facilities are  designed for  the expected
 year 1990  or  year 2000,  influent  flows  and field sampling  data are  available for
 a period covering no  more than  a  few years after the  facility  was  upgraded, and
 these  changes in water  quality are  referred  to as short  term changes.   These
 short  term water  quality improvements may  therefore, be  based on POTWs which are
 presently  underloaded.   Alternatively, changes anticipated by  the  years 1990 or
 2000 when  POTWs are  at full  design flow are referred  to as long term changes.

    Because  most  POTWs are  not at full design  flow,  the  analysis  of  long term
 improvements  requires the use  of  projection  water quality  models  to simulate
 dissolved  oxygen  concentrations   with  and  without  the  facility  improvements.
 When  POTWs are  at   full  design  flows,  long  term  improvement  analyses  can  be
 evaluated  directly from water quality data. A water quality  model  evaluation of
 long term  improvements is presented in  Section 5.0 of  this report.

 3.1 Intensive  Survey Water Chemistry

    Water  quality data collected  both before and after a  treatment facility has
 been improved  were  gathered  and  reviewed  in detail as discussed in Section 2.0
 of this report.   Detailed case  history  descriptions of these  13 water bodies are
 presented  in Appendix C.  Appendix C also  contains graphic summaries of pre- and
 post-improvement  data  including stream flow, mass loading, and instream concen-
 trations  of  dissolved  oxygen,  BOD    ammonia and nitrate.    Before  and  after
 studies were  chosen so  that background  and  other point  and  nonpoint loadings
were similar  in  both  surveys  and  water quality changes  were caused  mainly by
 changes in treatment levels.

-------
     The  13  water  bodies  are  listed  in  Table   3.1.    Dissolved  oxygen  data
 collected  both  before and after  individual treatment  works  were upgraded,  and
 are presented  graphically on  Figures  3.1, 3.2,  3.3,  and 3.4  for  the 13  water
 bodies.

     Additional  information provided  on  each  figure  is  the  level  of  treatment
 both before  and  after  the  facility was upgraded.  Treatment  changes  ranged from
 primary  to  secondary;  poor  secondary  to  upgraded  secondary;  secondary  with
 phosphorus  removal  to AWT;   secondary  treatment  to  upgraded  secondary  with
 phosphorus  removal;  and  secondary treatment  to  nitrification  and  filtration.
 Streams on  which these treatment  plants are  located  range  in  size  from  about
 summer low flow  streams with  flows of  2  cfs to streams with  flows  in excess of
 1000 cfs.

     Intensive data  shown   on  Figure  3.1 to 3.4  and  in  Appendix  C  for  post-
 improvement  conditions were   selected   such  that  stream flows,  temperatures,
 rainfall  conditions, and point and nonpoint source loadings,  were  nearly  equal
 to  those   which   occurred  during  the  pre-operative  study.     The   purpose of
 selecting surveys with similar  background  conditions  was to  isolate  as much as
 possible  the changes in water  quality caused by the POTW improvement.

     There  were  case  studies where  before and  after  data were  received and not
 included  in  the  analysis  because  of  variable background  conditions.   In one
 instance,  a  major tributary  upstream of  a dominant  point  source  had  a  much
 larger  flow  in  the  post-operative data  set.   This  larger  flow  along  with the
 increased mass of BOD associated with the tributary did not allow the effects of
 increased  treatment  levels to  be  isolated  from  other  effects, directly.   In
 another  stream,  increased algal   populations  in  the  post-operative  data set
 prevented isolation  of  point source effects.

    Large changes in  background conditions  make it difficult,  if not impossible,
 to  separate the   affects of treatment  changes  from other affects based only on
water  quality changes.  Where  this  is  the  case, modeling can aid  in problem
                                      3-2

-------
                                                          TABLE  3.1




                                    WATER BODIES WITH BEFORE AND AFTER WATER QUALITY DATA
State
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
New York
Maryland
Maryland
W. Virginia
Virginia
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Texas
Missouri
Water Body
Nashua River
Blackstone River
Hudson River
Main Stem Patuxent
Potomac Estuary
Hurricane Creek
South River
Clinton River
Ottawa River
Bridge Creek
Lemonweir
Clbolo
Wilsons Creek
Treatment Facility
Fitchburg Easterly
Woonsocket
Albany
Laurel Parkway
Blue Plains
Hurricane
DuPont (Industry)
Pontiac & Auburn
Lima
Augusta
Toman
Odo J. Reldal
Springfield S.W.
Treatment Change
Secondary to Secondary
& Nitrification
Primary to Upgraded
Secondary
Primary to Secondary
Secondary to Secondary
& Nitrification
Secondary & Primary
Remedial to Secondary &
Primary Remedial Nitrifi-
cation
Poor Secondary to Upgraded
Secondary
Secondary to Secondary
& Nitrification
Secondary to Secondary
& Primary Remedial
Secondary to Secondary
& Nitrification
Secondary to Secondary
& Nitrification
Secondary to Secondary
& Nitrification
Secondary to Upgraded
Secondary
Secondary to Secondary
River3
Flow/cfs
40
120
4000
30
2000
2
80
30
60
10
5
5
40
Data Availability
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Bio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A
NA
NA
A
A
Model
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA
NA
A
A
                                                            & Nitrification  & Filters
Approximate summer low flow Including point source flows

-------
PRIMARY TREATMENT TO UPGRADED SECONDARY
BLACKSTONE RIVER, R.I.
1977 1976
- 10
v. 8
ป
• 6
6 ซ
0 2
21
12
1 :
6 4
o
2
0
/VCTF5--
1 . SEE TEXT OR APPENDIX C FOR DET/
2. D.O. STANDARDS GENERALLY ARE NE
^•ttO. SATURATION
FV--ff
: . A-
10
8
6
4
2
^•0.0. MTU*ATIOM
^-t-t-prrf-
^- O.O. STO.
1 1 1

3 13 10 9 0 20 15 IO 5 0
BLACKSTONE RIVER MILES
HUDSON RIVER, N.Y.
1944 1977
L 	 _1
[^ ^0.0. SATURATION
- m y-o.o BTD.
m^ /
X i"
i wr * i
10
8
6
2
^•0.0. SATURATION
u-^A - - - - -j
r ^ซซinjm^
_ ^- o.o. STO.
l 1 1


5 143 133 125 13 153 145 133 123 115
HUDSON RIVER MILES
ULS.
:VER LESS THAN BUT IN SOME CASES MAYBE DAILY AVERAGE.
              Figure 3.I
Short Term Dissolved Oxygen Improvements

-------

SECONDARY
TREATMENT TO UPGRADED SECONDARY
CIBOLO CREEK, Tx.
1974, 1978 1990
_ 10
^ 8
1 6
d 4
d 2
0
8
c
12
- IO
^ ซ
ฃ
0 4
Q
2
- A"'
?'
> i
i i
&TURATION
fซ-i-
t
^-0.0.
STD.
1
IO
8
6
4
2
n
- ^
-
0.0. SATURAT
1
ION
1
).O. STO.
1
5 8O 75 70 65 89 80 79 70 6
CIBOLO CREEK MILES
>EC. -HP-REMOVAL TO ADVANCED TREA1
POTOMAC ESTUARY. Md.
1977 1981
,- D.O. SATURATION
-• ^ •• \
^ 9 N-O.O. STO.
1 1 1
10
8
6
4
2
n



12
~ 10
V.
9 8
C
~ 6
9 4
a
2
0
5
r.
HURRICANE CREEK. W. Vo.
1972 1981
r-0.0 SATURATION
*•
J
I
"ป 1
I
i- 0.0. STO.
1 1
10
8
6
4
2

T T ฃ0.0.
T T A SATURATION
~ **f ' i
t- 0.0. STO.
Till


0 5 10 15 "0 5 10 15
HURRICANE CREEK MILES
SEC. TREAT TO SEC. + P-REMOVAL
CLINTON RIVER. Mich. i
1958 1976
r-0.0. SATURATION
^—0.0.
1
STO.
I
- 'O
^ 8
1 6
0 4
d 2
f\
~ 1 1(
ป < <

r-0.0.
L III

11 \-O.O.STO.
-1-
l 1 1
]
4
2
r\
i _TA"!To!Ai^
— ^—0.0. STO.
1 1 I
'
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 50 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10
POTOMAC RIVER MILES CLINTON RIVER MILES
NOTES-
1. SEE TEXT OR APPENDIX C FOR DETAILS.
2. D.O. STANDARDS GENERALLY ARE NEVER LESS THAN BUT IN SOME CASES MAYBE DAILY AVERAGE.
              Figure 3.2
Short Term Dissolved Oxygen Improvements

-------
PATUXENT RIVER, Md.
1966
10
ป 8
~ 6
0 4
6
2
Q
^•0.0. SATURATION
I
-I •*
^— o.o. STO.
' ,t , ,
10
8
6
4
2
-
—
-
WILSONS CREEK, Mo.
1978 1968


4
,- D.O. SATURATION
_ •
1 •
^- D.O. STD.
' * , ,
50 75 70 65 60 SO
PATUXENT RIVER
~ 10 -
^ 8 	
1 '-"IT! i
*• :: f 5
i
r-O.O.
\SAT.


1979



^0.0.
STO.
1 1
75 70 65 60 "BO 75 70 65
MILES
SOUTH RIVER
1974
1 I0
^ 8
~ 6
0 4
Q
2

^0.0. SATURATION y
j T
j T 7
• r "Vfc,..,..
/ ปra
>- OปILT ปvป. tre
1 11
10
8
6
4
2

i
"

25 20 15 10 5 25
IO
6
6
4
2


— 1-0.0. SATURATION
,- •_ V
r-* * *
^0.0. STO.
1 I
60 *O 75 70 65


6O
JAMES RIVER MILES
, Vo. OTTAWA RIVER. OHIO
1976 1974 9, 1975
!j
• .




t!t/,;l-
1 f
/ *•• MILT KIN. ปm
t-BซILป ปVO. ซTO.
1 1 1
- IO - _
O 4 -
6 2- L -
1
20 15 10 5 50 40
SOUTH RIVER MILES
NOTES:


r r 0.0.
\ SATuซA
i T '
[fe "
1
3O 20
1977
rio*


10
8
6
4
2

!*rp
: LI
i i
10 50 40 30

i

t
i
20



10
OTTAWA RIVER MILES




\. SEE TEXT OR APPENDIX C FOR DETAILS.
2. D.O. STANDARDS GENERALLY ARE NEVER LESS THAN BUT IN SOME CASES MAYBE
DAILY AVERAGE.
              Figure 3.3
 Short Term Dissolved Oxygen Improvements
(SecondaryTreatment to Advanced Treatment)

-------
LEMONWEIR CREEK, Wi*.
1978                 1981
                             BRIDGE CREEK, Wi*.
                          1978                1981
IO
8
6
4
2

_ rฐo
—

_ 0. 0. S
1
SATURATION

1
L/]


*
. •
i i

IO
8
6
2
n

r- D.O.
= __\_
Taฐ.
_ ซ • *•
I

SATURATION
s7o~~ir
•
i i
                                   .
                                  O
                                  d
  1
12
10

6
4
2
0
                                           D'a SATURATION
                       \
                        ^-
                         0.0. STO.
                         0.5   1.0
                                                      .5
12
10

6
4
2
0
                                                            ^Ac
                                                               0.0. SATURATION
                                                                           \
                                                                           ^-
                                              0.0. STO.
                                                                            0.5   1.0
   LEMONWEIR CREEK MILES
                               BRIDGE CREEK MILES
                        NASHUA RIVER.  Most.
                       1973                 977
               2-
               60
30  40
                                                     20
                                        30   20 60   5O   40
                                       NASHUA RIVER MILES
NOTES-
  1. SEE TEXTOR APPENDIX C FOR DETAILS.
  2. D.O.STANDARDS GENERALLY ARE NEVER LESS THAN BUT IN SOME CASES MAYBE DAILY AVERAGE.
                                    1.5
                           Figure 3.4
           Short Term Dissolved Oxygen Improvements
          (Secondary Treatment to  Advanced Treatment)

-------
 evaluations.  However,  in this study, it was  decided to assess improvements on
 observed  water  quality  data and  not use  other tools  such  as  models  in the
 evaluations presented in this chapter.

     Of the water  bodies  shown on Figures 3.1  to 3.4, all  except  Cibolo Creek,
 Ottawa River, and Lemonweir  Creek  show increases in dissolved oxygen concentra-
 tions after  treatment  levels were upgraded.    Data presented  on  these figures
 has been  further  reduced  as  shown on Figure 3.5 to more quantitatively reflect
 dissolved oxygen changes.  The upper  panel  on  the figure presents  the change in
 the absolute  minimum dissolved oxygen concentration  in the river while the lower
 panel presents the overall spatial average change in oxygen concentration.

   '  Changes  in  treatment  have  increased  short term  minimum  dissolved  oxygen
 concentrations by an  average of 2.6  mg/1,  while daily  and  spatially  averaged
 oxygen levels have increased by approximately  1.9 mg/1.   In a few cases, either
 minimum or spatial average dissolved  oxygen concentrations  decreased by as much
 as, 0.5 mg/1.

     Those rivers which displayed  the smallest  short term  changes  in dissolved
 oxygen concentrations  were rivers  with:

 a.   large diurnal  dissolved oxygen  fluctuations - Cibolo, Ottawa,  Nashua;
 b.   influences from upstream  or  other  point  sources  - Lemonwier, Nashua, Ottawa;
 c.   elevated  pre-operative  dissolved  oxygen  concentrations  - Bridge Creek,  or;
 d.  minor  reductions in POTW  loadings  - Cibolo  Creek

    Water  bodies  which  displayed  the  largest  changes  in  dissolved  oxygen
 concentrations were rivers  which:

a.  had discharges located  on them which were upgraded  from  primary to secondary
    treatment - Blackstone, Hudson
b.  were dominated by a single major source  of  pollution  which was  upgraded from
    secondary to advanced  treatment levels - Potomac, Clinton,  Patuxent,  South,
    Wilsons
                                      3-8

-------
                      EPA REGION

                     -m	
   O
   Q
   2

   Z

   2

   UJ




   z

   LJ
   O
   I
   o
_l —
< ^
— O1

$1
Q.
in p

z o
/.u
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
-i n

—
—
—
—
—
—
LJ

—



















































1 — i





























—














__









/-MEANซ 2.6 mg/i

nn „
LJ


— 1





       4.0
O
       2.0
      -1.0
                    n
                                    /—
                                     MEAN: l.9mg
                               n
                                     LJ
                                          TREATMENT

                                          CHANGE
                    Figure  3.5

Summary of Short Term Dissolved Oxygen Improvements

-------
     Additional water chemistry changes  are  presented  on Figure 3.6 for  each  of
 the 13 water bodies.  Five-day BOD  concentration decreased  as  much as  29.0  mg/1
 in  the  Clinton River.   Other  water bodies such  as  the Nashua River,  Patuxent
 River,  Lemonweir  Creek,  and  Wilsons  Creek showed  decreases  in  maximum  BOD
 concentration in excess of 10.0 to 15.0 mg/1.   The Ottawa  River and Bridge Creek
 exhibited increases in  BOD  concentration.

     Three of  the  data  sets which  exhibited large changes  in  dissolved oxygen
 were  accompanied  by  large changes in  BOD-  (Patuxent,  Clinton, Wilsons).
 However, the Nashua and Lemonweir which displayed  small oxygen improvements did
 display a  large reduction  in  instream BODc  concentrations.  The Blackstone,
 Hudson, and Potomac Rivers  also  had large increases  in oxygen levels, but had
 very small  reductions  in  instream BOD .  These data  show that oxygen  improve-
 ments  are  not  always  directly  caused  by  reductions  in instream BODc.   The
 dissolved  oxygen  changes  are  sometimes  caused by  reductions in  ammonia
 concentrations,  ultimate CBOD concentrations or  changes  in other factors.

     Additional  improvements  in instream water  chemistry are also  summarized on
 Figure  3.6 which presents changes  in  ammonia  and un-ionized ammonia concentra-
 tions.   In  all  cases where ammonia  data  are available, both  instream ammonia and
 un-ionized  ammonia concentrations were  observed  to  decrease.   Generally,
 decreases  of about 5.0  mg/1 were observed while  un-ionized ammonia reductions
 were observed  to be on  the order of tenths of a mg/1.   Two  exceptions  were the
 Ottawa  River and Wilsons Creek,  where  maximum ammonia concentrations decreased
 by  about  20.0  mg/1.  In the Ottawa  River, un-ionized  ammonia also  decreased by
 7.5  mg/1.

     Pre- and post-improvement dissolved oxygen and  un-ionized ammonia concentra-
 tions  are  compared to water quality standards and criteria  on Figure  3.7.   As
shown  on  this  figure,  9 of  the  13  rivers  had  post-operative  dissolved oxygen
concentrations which were above or  very  near the dissolved oxygen  criteria.   In
four of the rivers, post-improvement oxygen concentrations were 2.0 mg/1 or more
below the  dissolved oxygen  standard.  Before  treatment  was  upgraded,  dissolved
oxygen standards were violated in all but one river.

                                      3-10

-------
                            EPA REGION

                          -m
  df
  o
  03
ฃz
ZQ
UJ 2
o 5
z <
o
u
     -30.0



     -20.0



     -10.0



        0



     410.0






     -20.0



    1 -1 5.0



   z -10.0

   o

      -5.0
X
<
2

u —

tง~
Ul O —
O UJ
Z N Z

< z 

  O ฐ

  z
  13
      -4.0
      -3.0
      -2.0
             _     n
                                           (7.5)
                        Figure 3.6

          Summary of Short Term BOD5, Ammonia  and

             Unionized Ammonia  Improvements

-------
                             EPA REGION
IE
2 —
uj d
t d
10



 8



 6
                              •MINIMUM
                               D.O. STD.
                                                 POSTOPERATIVE
                                                 CONCENTRATION
	I /-PREOPERATIVE
*ฃ1 / CONCENTRATION
5>C$ '
 N
                                              PREOPERATIVE
                                              CONCENTRATION
                           POSTOPERATIVE
                           CONCENTRATION
                         Figure  3.7

     Comparison of Pre-and Post-Operative Data  to
                  Water Quality Criteria

-------
    Redbook un-ionized  ammonia  criteria  were exceeded in 5 of  the  13  rivers in
the  pre-operative  studies.   After  treatment  was  upgraded,  major  un-ionized
ammonia  reductions  occurred  in  those rivers  where  pre-improvetnent  data exceeded
suggested criteria.  Of those rivers where un-ionized ammonia exceeded criteria,
only  the Ottawa River  exceeds all  criteria  in the  post-operative survey.  Other
than  the POTWs,  this river is  impacted  by  two industries which discharge high
effluent  concentrations  of  ammonia-N.    Even  though  nitrification  has  been
installed at  the  Lima  POTW,  nitrification at  the  two industries appears  to be
necessary to further reduce ammonia and un-ionized  ammonia concentrations.

    Based on  the pre-  and post-improvement  intensive  survey data,  short term
improvements in water  chemistry occurred  for  each  level  of  POTW upgrading. With
respect to  dissolved oxygen  levels,  upgrading  of  POTWs  has   resulted  in
approximately a 2.0  mg/1  increase  across  the  13 water bodies.  In  most of these
water bodies, this  increase  in  dissolved  oxygen was  enough  to raise the minimum
concentration to  a  level  very  near or  greater than  the appropriate  dissolved
oxygen  standard.    Where oxygen   levels  were not  substantially  changed  by
treatment,  other  dominant  point or nonpoint  source loads which existed remained
constant or  increased  in mass pollutant  discharge  rates.   Biochemical  oxygen
demand, ammonia and un-ionized ammonia  reductions also accompanied  the upgrading
of treatment processes.

    Where  the  largest dissolved  oxygen  improvements were noted  to  ocur,
installation of  improved treatment  systems decreased river loadings of both CBOD
and ammonia.  For the  Blackstone  River,  Hudson River,  Patuxent River,  Potomac
River,  Clinton  River,  and Wilsons  Creek,  minimum river  dissolved  oxygen
concentrations were observed  to increase by 3.0 mg/1 or more.   In these systems,
point source BOD,, loadings were decreased by between 55 and  94 percent.  Ammonia
mass discharges  from point sources  were decreased by between 50 and 90 percent.

    In  the  other  water bodies  where  lesser  dissolved oxygen  improvements were
observed,  a  number of   factors  were   responsible  for   the  small  changes  in
dissolved oxygen  concentrations.   In  the Nashua,  post-improvement  river flows
                                      3-13

-------
 were near 7Q10, while pre-improvement  flows  were  about  five times 7Q10 and
 point  inputs  to  the  river  only  decreased  by  some  29  percent.   In Hurricane
 Creek, BOD,, point loads were reduced by about 90 percent, while post-operational
 river  flow  was again,  near the  7Q10  which was  less than  the  pre-improvement
 river  flow.   Other reasons  noted  for  smaller  improvements  are  that  the  point
 discharge flow  receives  a large  stream  dilution  upon discharge  (Bridge  Creek)
 and/or nonpoint sources of pollution are a major influence on the oxygen balance
 of the river (Lemonweir).

     Variability of instream  oxygen  concentrations are  evaluated for  pre-
 improvement  and post-improvement settings  on Figure 3.8.  The ordinate on this
 figure is the  difference  between the observed daily mean dissolved oxygen at any
 given location and the minimum dissolved  oxygen  measured on that  day at the same
 location.   The abscissa on  Figure 3.8  is  the  mean  dissolved  oxygen.    The
 observed  variation  in dissolved  oxygen  (ordinate)  is  caused  by many  factors
 including photosynthetic  activity  and  variations  in flow,  point  and  nonpoint
 loadings, and  temperature.

     The mean dissolved oxygen  minus the  minimum  dissolved  oxygen as  shown  on
 Figure  3.8  is  randomly  distributed across  all mean dissolved  oxygen  concen-
 trations. Further,  the measure of  variation changes very little  with treatment.
 Pre-improvement  stream dissolved oxygen variations average about  1.3  mg/1  while
 post-improvement  variations  average  about  1.1  mg/1.   With  the  given  standard
 deviations,  each  of  which  is  near  1.0   mg/1,  the  pre-  and   post-treatment
 variations are not  significantly different.

    This  information may  be useful  to analysts performing  wasteload allocations.
 In many cases, the analyst utilizes  a mathematical  model which calculates  steady
 state  daily  average dissolved  oxygen  concentrations.   Standards, however,  are
often  written  as  "never  less than."   Unless there  is  an actual  data base  of
dissolved  oxygen  variability,   the  analyst  has  no  way  of  relating  the  model
output  to  the  "never  less  than"  standard.   In   such  instances,  an  oxygen
variation equal to 1.0 mg/1 (plus and minus  1.0  mg/1) can  be  subtracted  from the
                                      3-14

-------
           (a) PREIMPROVEMENT
o
5
4


•~ 3
(ft ^

f-^.
*Z '
ZUJ
LU *"* 0
MEAN= l.3mg/ 1
— * STO. DEV.= I.I mg /I
.•
•
•*. *

* * ป *
9 •
• • ซ • •
Vi v vu.**;* V ' Vj
-• •" ซA *^ • i • • ปu I










e>ฃ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
xO MEAN DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l )
OQ
>o (b) POSTIMPROVEMENT
WQ
— 5
2=>
ฐ o o ฐ 05 o
1 0 1 n 1 ^V ^1 1











0 2 4 6 8 10 12
MEAN DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
            Figure 3.8
 Summary of Site Dissolved Oxygen
Variations for Thirteen Water Bodies

-------
 daily average model calculations  to provide  an  estimate  of  the  "never  less  than"
 dissolved  oxygen  level.  Although,  this suggestion is  being  made to deal with
 "never  less  than" standards,  the suggested variation  is highly  variable.   If
 this  approach  is employed,   the  analyst  should  use   the  site  specific  data
 wherever possible.   Consideration should also  be given  by  analysts  and admin-
 istrators  to  a statistical  standard  such  as   "greater  than 90 percent  of  the
 time," as  opposed to  a "never less  than"  standard.  In addition  to  being more
 realistic,  this  type  standard  can be  approached more  accurately  in technical
 evaluations.

 3.2 Seasonal  Water Chemistry

  .   Additional water  chemistry data  which  are  available to assess  changes   in
 water quality  in  response to  point  source  treatment  changes  are  from routine
 water quality  monitoring stations.  These data are collected at stations located
 at  fixed points on rivers.  The  stations are sampled on a regular basis (weekly
 or  monthly) by  a variety  of  agencies  including  the  United States  Geological
 Survey  (USGS), the USEPA  and/or many  of  the states.  Data  from these stations
                                                  (4)
 were retrieved during this study  from the STORETV ' data base.  These data are
 presented in Appendix  C  as  time history plots for many  rivers.
    June,  July,  August  and  September dissolved oxygen and ammonia concentrations
have  been  extracted  from the  data base and are presented on Figures 3.9 and 3.10
for Wilsons  Creek, Clinton  River, South River and Blackstone  River.   Summer and
annual  average statistical properties developed at  each of  these stations are
presented  in  Table  3.2.   The  data  indicate  that  dissolved  oxygen has  been
increased  by about 1.6  mg/1 on a  year round basis and about 2.6 mg/1  on a summer
average basis.  These findings are  consistent with  the  short term improvements
based on the intensive  survey data presented in  Section 3.1.

    Table  3.3  presents  information on the  frequency  of dissolved oxygen standard
violations for the pre-  and post-operative routine monitoring  sampling data.
                                      3-16

-------
(a) Wl
~ 10
\
r ซ
6 6
d 4
2
0
0
14
12
\ 10
cป
E 8
0 6
d 4
2
0
0
NOTE-
1. SEE APPENDIX FOR DE
2. SEE TABLE 3.3 FOR TR
0
~ o •
,pooฐฐ0 • •
-ฐ000^-^
o ซ• ,f^ J
~f^ ^-D.O. STO.
1 * * 1 1 I II 1
1 10 20 50 80 90 99 99
PERCENT LESS THAN
OR EQUAL TO
(b)CL
o
_^oo0ooa
-------
in
— 8
^
r 6
s 4
2
0.
12
10
^ 8
9
1 6
9 4
Q
2
0
0
NO re-
1. SEE APPENDIX FOR DE
2. SEE TABLE 3.3 FOR TF
(a) SOUTH RIVER
o
• 0ซ*
00ฐ—.
000 -*•*
0 >T _OAIL*
00 ^yT^G.0.0.
0 ^i~ J 0.0. 3TO.
90 \_MINIMUM
• • 0.0.
1 III I 1 1
C 2-5
\
ป 2.0
< 1.5
z
0 1.0
^ 0.5
n
— •
— •
.*
•
— O
•
- 0ฐ
1 nl oka00.00 1 1 1

1 1020 50 8090 99 99.9 O.I 1 IO 20 5O 80 90 99 99.9
PERCENT LESS THAN PERCENT LESS THAN
OR EQUAL TO OR EQUAL TO
(b)BLACKSTONE RIVER
-
00ฐฐฐฐ. •
000 • •
o
0
••• \
• >- 0.0. STO.
_ •
1 1 1 1 1 1 j
v. 1.5
9
ฃ
< I.O
z
o
I 0.5
<
n
O
ฐฐ
O
o. •
oo
1 Olป?**l* 1 1 1
LฃGfMD--
• BEFORE
TREATMENT
INCREASE
0 AFTER
TREATMENT
INCREASE
1 1020 50 8090 99 99.9 O.I 1 10 2O 50 8O 9O 99 99.9
PERCENT LESS THAN PERCENT LESS THAN
OR EQUAL TO OR EQUAL TO
TAILS ON STATION LOCATION.
JEATMENT LEVELS.
               Figure 3.10
     Probability Distribution of Summer
Dissolved Oxygen and Ammonia Concentrations
    at Fixed Location Monitoring Stations

-------
                           TABLE 3.2


      STATISTICAL SUMMARY WATER OF CHEMISTRY IMPROVEMENTS
Annual Changes
              a,b
                                                                                  Summer Changes
                                                                                                a,b
Dissolved Oxygen
Water Body Before
Wilsons Creek
Clinton Rlverc
Patuxent River
Blackstone River
South River
Lemonwelr River
6
8
-
8
7
7
.8
.6

.9
.9
.2
Dissolved Oxygen
After
9
10
-
10
8
7
.2
.6

.8
.7
.9
Dissolved Oxygen
Before
4.7
7.2
3.7
5.3
5.6
5.0
(1.6)
(1.5)
(-)
(2.4)
;2.8)
(4.4)
Dissolved Oxygen
After
7.0
8.5
7.6
8.3
7.0
-
(1.5)
(1.1)
(-)
(1.2)
(2.1)
(2.0)
NH3 Before
1.4
0.47
-
0.29
1.50

(2.1)
(0.43)

(0.17)
(0.65)
-
NH3 After
0.25 (0.44)
0.06 (0.06)
-
0.41 (0.33)
0.30 (0.27)
-
aAll values with units of mg/1
 Number In ( ) Is standard deviation
cBefore 1 POTW @ P-Removal, 1 POTW @ secondary treatment: After both POTWs @ secondary +• P-Removal
 Primary to secondary treatment
                                                                       nitrification

-------
                                     TABLE 3.3
                  SUMMARY  OF  MONITORING DATA STATISTICAL CHANGES
   River
Wilsons
Clinton
South


Blackstone
        Treatment Change
Secondary to secondary &
nitrification filters

One POTW secondary & one POTW
secondary & P-removal to both at
secondary  & primary removal and
nitrification

Industry at secondary to industry
industry at nitrification

Primary to upgraded secondary
 Approximate Percent of Data Less
  than Dissolved Oxygen Standard
Pre-Improvement     Post-Operative
      60
      20
15
      25
      60
                                     3-20

-------
    Before  construction upgrades  for  the  specific  projects   dissolved  oxygen
standards  were violated  between  20  and  60  percent  of  the  time.    After the
projects came on line, violations occurred between 1 and 15 percent of the  time.
In  the  case  of  Wilsons Creek,  long  term improvements  may be  less  optimistic
since post-improvement POTW  flows  are  only at about 80  percent of design  flow.
However, observed  improvements  may accurately  represent  long  term improvements
for  the  Clinton,   South  and   Blackstone  Rivers  since  post-operational  POTW
effluent flows approximate design flows.

    Pre-  and  post-improv-ement  instream  ammonia  concentrations  are  also
summarized  on  Figures 3.10  and  3.11  and in  Table  3.2 for summer periods.  On
Wilsons Creek, Clinton River and  the  South River,  nitrification facilities were
installed at  the major  point sources.   Monitoring  data indicate this  results in
a  mean  ammonia  reduction  of  approximately  0.9 mg/1.    The   ammonia standard
deviation for  these  rivers  has  also  been reduced from 1.1 to 0.25 mg/1 over the
three sampling sites.   Treatment changes  also have  reduced   the  magnitude of
extreme  events.     For   example,   in  Wilsons  Creek   before  nitrification was
installed, an ammonia concentration of  1.0 mg/1 was exceeded about 30  percent of
the  time.   After  treatment  was  upgraded,  an ammonia  concentration  of 1.0 mg/1
was exceeded less than 10 percent of  the time.   Similar results are observed in
the other two rivers.  This  trend, however, is not true for the Blackstone  River
where the change in  treatment  from primary to  secondary  has  not  influenced the
instream ammonia probability distribitions.

    Both the ammonia  and dissolved  oxygen  data presented in Table 3.2 are also
presented on Figure  3.11 as  a  regression analysis  of standard  deviation against
the  mean  data.   Dissolved  oxygen data  indicate  that  the standard deviation
decreases as  the  mean approaches the dissolved oxygen saturation concentration
(8.0 to 9.0 mg/1 during  summer).   The  ammonia-N standard  deviation  data show  a
decreasing trend with decreasing mean ammonia concentration.

    Short  term oxygen  improvements  observed  from  routine  monitoring stations
indicate summer and annual average increases  in dissolved oxygen in the range of
                                      3-21

-------
    o>

  51
  O
  x z
  X O

  ฐH
  Q <

  2>
  -I UJ
  Q <
    O
    •z.
    CO

    E


    z
    O
   a
   K
   <
   o
   z
   <
   ป-
   w)
         10
      LEGEND:

       • PREOPERATIVE

       O POSTOPERATIVE
 LEAST SQUARE REGRESSION LINE
               I
I
             •TRENDLINE
                               I
           I
I
                    0.5         1.0          1.5         2.0

                SUMMER MEAN AMMONIA CONC. (mg/ I)
SEE APPENDIX C TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FIGURES AND

FOR STATION LOCATIONS AND ORIGINAL.DATA.
          0    I      23456789

             SUMMER MEAN DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONC. (mg/l )
                        Figure 3.11

            Summer Standard Deviation of

     Dissolved  Oxygen and Ammonia Concentrations

-------
2.0  mg/1.   These  observations  are in  agreement  with site  minimum and  spatial
average  dissolved  oxygen  improvements  observed  from  intensive  survey  data
(Section 3.1).  For three of the water  bodies,  long  term  (design  flow)  dissolved
oxygen  improvements  may equal  short  term improvements.   Improvements in waste
treatment,  specifically upgrading  to  AWT has  also decreased  the frequency  at
which standards were violated.

3.3 Biology

    Biological indicators such  as  benthic macroinvertebrate  and fish populations
can  be  used  to  assess  the general health of a  water body.   These  organisms  tend
to  reflect  the  overall  water   chemistry  in  rivers  and  streams.    To   a  certain
extent, they  are  also  good  indicators  of the history of  the water body over the
preceding weeks and months.

    During  the  data  collection  phase  of   this  post-improvement assessment,
biology data were requested from contact agencies as well as the water  chemistry
data previously discussed.  A  substantial amount of raacroinvertebrate  data  were
forwarded to  HydroQual in  response  to the  requests.   These data  were  reviewed
along with  other  information to  develop a  complete  picture of  the water  body
through the period of  facility  upgrading.

    Two of the thirteen before  and after  data sets collected in this  study  also
contained detailed biology  data.   Data  from Wilsons Creek  and the Ottawa River
are presented on Figure 3.12.

    Wilsons  Creek macroinvertebrate   data   from  1964  to   1965  represent  pre-
improvement conditions and data from 1980 represent post-improvement conditions.
In this single point load river, the Springfield  Southwest POTW was operating as
a secondary  treatment  facility  in 1964 to  1965 and was operating with nitrifi-
cation and  filtration  in 1980.   The number  of taxa downstream of the POTW was
less than 5 in 1964 to 1965 while  after upgrading to AWT  the number of  taxa  were
between 10 and 20.  Downstream  of  river mile 71.5 where Wilsons Creek  flows  into
                                      3-23

-------
(0 ) BIOLOGY COMPARISONS FOR WILSONS CREEK, MISSOURI
IM4-IM9 IMO
Ul
^<
S3
Jfป- w
ซป
>ซ
•a
M "
ซป
>







0 TO

.







M


ซ

v^
f
ซo '•So ro
JAMES RIVER MILES JAMCS RIVER


IOO

ป- w
z
S *>
0. 4O
20






9
— f
TF
~A _J
80 70

i
T1 3€ ^
F ~ ^B)^U
T A%^



i


IOO

so

6O
4O
ZO







• • .
iJ *! n
i i 11
60 10 7O
JAMES RIVER MILES JAMES RIVER













ซo
MILES

t
rซ 7%
rt 44%
*7%_












•O
MILES



1 F- ซฃ"*". VE~l-% 'ป 9PAT'*L 4 "O.NT SOURCE
i'. 'NTCOLERlNTEJAVE"*GE ฐr MT* T D'SCNAROI












( b ) BIOLOGY COMPARISONS FOR OTTAWA RIVER, OHIO
1*74 1*77
w
(- .
ซ s
gf 4

w * ^
Is *
s ^


_
, v
- \
-v\
-• ,1 \ ,


4

S
I
1



\
- X
-V,,
• ,ป v^



,



•O 40 SO SO 10 9O 4O 10 tO IO

W
i< ป
ซ K
•* ซn
W 1- *ซ
•• u.
ซ3 ..
5!ซ

— • to
ui w
O
9







• * T .-* t
M






fO
IO





™"
V^
1 1*^ 1








O 4O SO 2O 10 V5 4O W ZO 10


ป

K "
jr ZO
1 IS
ซ .0
I '
Z o




_ HO OAT*
-
1 1 1
x>

Z5
ZO
19
10
5




~
-\
:V^
w^^
i i i







90 4O 9O 2O 10 JO 4O 3O 2O 10
OTTAWA RIVER MILES OTTAWA RIVER MILES
                 Figure 3.12
Preoperational and Pottoperational Biology Data

-------
the  larger James  River,  macroinvertebrate  data are relatively the  same  at  both
treatment levels.

    Water quality before and after  AWT  was imposed, is also evaluated based  on
the  distribution  of the  macroinvertebrates between  pollution  tolerant,
facultative,  and  pollution intolerant  species in  the lower  graphs  on  Figure
3.12.    The  stream  in  1964  to  1965  (secondary  treatment)  was  dominated  by
pollution tolerant and facultative  species of  benthic  organisms when  94  percent
of the organisms were  from  these  two  groups.   In  1980, there was  an increase  in
the number of  pollution  intolerant  species at every location  downstream  of  the
POTW.  The overall improvement was  from 94 percent  tolerant  and  facultative and
6  percent intolerant  species  in  1964  to  1965   to   53  percent  tolerant  and
facultative and 47 percent  intolerant  species  in 1980.   The only  major change  in
the river during  this  period  was  upgrading the Springfield  Southwest  POTW  from
secondary to nitrification  and  filtration  and the increased POTW  effluent  flow
to the river.

    Biology data  for  the Ottawa  River  is presented   on  Figure  3.12(b).   This
river receives  waste discharges from the  city of  Lima POTW and  two  industrial
discharges.   Between 1974  and  1977,  a  nitrification  process  installed  at  the
Lima POTW  improved  dissolved  oxygen,  ammonia  and  un-ionized  ammonia  levels  in
the  river.   After  treatment, minimum  oxygen  concentrations  and maximum
un-ionized  ammonia   concentrations  were still in  violation  of  water  quality
criteria (Figure 3.7).

    Macroinvertebrate data  presented on Figure 3.13(b)  show  the species
diversity as well as  the number  of taxa  to  be about  the same both  before and
after nitrification was installed at  the Lima  POTW.  No significant improvement
in macroinvertebrate  organism  distributions  indicates   that  upgrading treatment
at  the  Lima POTW was not  adequate  to  improve river chemical   and  biological
quality.   This lack of  improvement  in biological  quality is  presumed to  be
caused in part  by two  other significant pollutant discharges  in  the  study  area
which did not modify treatment during  this  time period.
                                      3-25

-------
u

o
m
                            R'ซ 0.46
                    I
                         I
                     l
369
 D.O. (mg/l)
                                  12
                                     0
                                     ffi
                                               Rfซ 0.23
                           1     1     1
                                                                x
                                                                ui
O.I   0.2   0.3
TOTAL P (mg/1)
                                                    0.4
                                            g   2
                                            O
                                            CO
                                                               •*ซ 0.21
                            1
          1
1
0   200   40O   600   800
.  SUSP. SOLIDS (mg/l)
         o
         z
         u
         p
         m
                             R*ซ O.JO
                         1
      LEAST
      SQUARE
      REGRESSION

         _|	
                             X

                             O
               O    2    4    6   8
                     B009 (mg/l )


NOTE-
  R8 = VARIANCE REMOVED LINEAR REGRESSION.
                                     ฃ  2
                                               1
                                                1
                                      246
                                      TOTAL N (mg/l>
                                                                x
                                                                UJ
                                                        u

                                                        o
                                                        00
                                                                           R*ปO.OI
                                                    "•.'  •  x"
                                                    -I  •• * !•   •
                                                 0   0.2   0.4   0.6   0.8
                                                 CURRENT (METER/SEC.)
                                          Figure 3.13
                              Review of Macroinvertebrote Data
                            from  Fifty-Three Wisconsin Streams

-------
    Additional  qualitative  information  was  available  in  a  few of  the  river
basins (Clinton, Cibolo) discussed earlier as well as a  few  others not  included
in the 13 water bodies.

a.  Clinton River;   Between  1955  and  1972,  secondary treatment was upgraded  at
    one  facility  and  a  second  activated  sludge  facility  was constructed
    providing high quality  treatment.    A biological  survey conducted  in  1955
    between  Pontiac   and  Rochester  indicated  that  benthic macroinvertebrate
    communities  were   grossly  degraded  for  the  entire  30  mile   reach.    A
    macroinvertebrate  inventory conducted in 1972 shows  the  community  structure
    to be  completely  recovered from pollution  influence at a  point  some  nine
    miles downstream from the  city of Pontiac.  Fish  count  studies conducted  in
    1973  indicated  that  although  the  physical  environment  for  fish was
    excellent, there  was a general lack of  fish  diversity and fish counts showed
    a very stressed fish  population.   The river was  also  not  being stocked  in
    1973.  Although,  quantitative information is not available, a Department  of
    Natural Resources  biologist stated that in  1982 the  Clinton River  was being
    stocked with game  fish.   Between  1973  and  1982, sewage was  diverted  to  a
    single facility providing nitrification,  phosphorus  removal,  and  filtration.

b.  Cibolo Creek;   Water chemistry data showed only  minor improvements  to stream
    dissolved oxygen,  BOD, and  nitrogen  concentrations after construction of  an
    upgraded   secondary  treatment facility.    Benthic  macroinvertibrate  data
    collected before  the  plant was  constructed showed  the number  of  taxa  to
    average 12 organisms;  the diversity index to average  1.37;  and the  number  of
    individuals per square  foot to average  about  1300   for  a  seven mile reach
    downstream of  the  POTW.    In  this  same  reach  after   the new  treatment plant
    was  constructed,  the number of taxa increased  to 17,  the diversity  was about
    1.45, and the  number  of  organisms per  square  foot  decreased to about 700.
    Therefore,  biological  indicators  tended to  be   consistent  with  water
    chemistry data  which showed no major  changes in  the  stream  upon construction
    of the new facility.
                                     3-27

-------
 c.  Spring Brook, Wisconsin:  This river, which was not included in the 13 water
     bodies evaluated in detail, contained chemical and biological data collected
     both before  and  after  upgrading the Antigo  POTW from trickling  filters  to
     activated sludge secondary with nitrification.  October 1978 water chemistry
     data collected before  the  treatment  facility was upgraded  showed depressed
     dissolved  oxygen levels  (minimum 2.7  mg/1)  and macroinvertebrate  biotic
     index  values  of 4.32   (very  poor),  4.48  (very  poor)  and  3.63  (poor)
     downstream of the POTW.   October 1981 data were collected when the treatment
     facility  was discharging 19.0 mg/1 of BOD5,  compared  to  140.0 mg/1 in  1978
     and  3.0 mg/1 of ammonia,  compared  to  26.0  mg/1 in 1978.   These water quality
     data  showed  a  minimum  river  dissolved   oxygen  of   7.9   mg/1  and
     macroinvertebrate indicies  of 4.04 (very poor), 3.42  (poor)  and  2.04  (fair)
     downstream of the POTW.

d.   North Branch Pigeon  River,  Wisconsin: This river was  not included in  the  13
     water bodies evaluated  in detail.   In  1978,  the  Marion POTW was  treating
     municipal wastes  to a  level  of secondary  treatment  (effluent BOD,, of  21.0
     mg/1).  Downstream macroinvertebrate biotic  index values at that  time  were
     3.0   (poor),  3.15 (poor)  and  3.8  (very  poor).   After   being upgraded  to
     secondary  treatment  with  inplant  nitrification,  downstream  biotic   index
     values where greatly improved to 2.10 (good),  2.24 (good),  and 2.05 (good).

     Although  these  data  were  available  to assess  changes in biology,  both  before
and  after treatment improvements, the utility  of  biology  data is  improved  when
detailed  physical  and  water  chemistry  data  are  available  for  similar  time
periods.

     Additional  sets  of  biology data were  not  available  to   assess  changes  in
treatment  levels, however,  data were available to qualitatively  demonstrate the
relationship  between  water  chemistry  and  benthic  macroinvertebrate  indices.
These data derived  from  a recent study of 53 Wisconsin streams     are  presented
on Figure 3.13 as  regression of biotic  index against river dissolved oxygen,
total phosphorus, suspended solids, BOD., total nitrogen,  and  stream velocity.
                                      3-28

-------
    On this figure, the biotic index  (ordinate)  is  a  summation  of  the number of
individual  species  times  a quality  index  value divided by  the  total number of
organisms  in  the  sample.   The  abscissa  on  the  figure  shows  the  independent
variable which is dissolved oxygen concentration.  Table 3.4 is presented by the
author to show general relationship between biotic index and water quality.

                                    TABLE 3.4
                 WATER QUALITY INDEX FOR BIOTIC INDEX VALUES^
	Index	           Water Quality        	State of Stream	
        <1.75                Excellent           No organic pollution
  1.75 - 2.25                Very good           Possible slight pollution
  2.26 - 2.75                Good                Some pollution
  2.76 - 3.50                Fair                Significant pollution
  3.51 - 4.25                Poor                Very significant pollution
  4.26 - 5.00                Very Poor           Severe pollution

    The regressions show no strong correlations between biotic  index and BOD ,
nitrogen, phosphorous, suspended solids, and velocity.  Correlation coefficients
  2
(r )  values  were less  than .30  for  these parameters.    However,  there  was  a
                           2
fairly good correlation  (r  of .46)  between  biotic  index  and dissolved oxygen.
The information  suggests  that  reductions in  stream pollution and  corresponding
increases in dissolved oxygen does reduce the biotic index.   The reduced biotic
index  represents the  presence of  less  pollution tolerant  macroinvertebrates
which in turn produces a more diverse population of macroinvertebrates.

    Macroinvertebrates are a commonly used indicator of the biological health of
a waterbody and  are  a valuable method  of  quantifying and  qualifying biological
changes  in  water  quality that  occur  from  changes  in  water   chemistry.
Macroinvertebrates  are generally  preferred  over  fish in  biological  surveys
because they are easier to  collect  and evaluate.   The  underlying  assumption in
the  use  of  macroinvertebrates  as  a  biological  indicator  is  that  the
environmental conditions  necessary for  a  diverse  macroinvertebrate  population
are also the conditions that can support a healthy and diverse fish population.
                                      3-29

-------
     These data are presented  in  order  to  evaluate relationships which may exist
 between biota  and  stream parameters.  In any  given  stream,  these relationships
 may  change,  or  may  be  limited  by  physical  constraints  such  as  bottom
 characteristics.   Further, these  data which  are  collected  across a  number  of
 streams and across a range of temperatures  of  between  0 C and 30.5ฐC,  may  not
 represent  conditions in  any  single  stream.    Where  similar data  are to  be
 employed in developing site specific criteria,  the analysts  can develop similar
 type analyses  in that specific stream.

     Only four cases  contained enough data to  assess  biological changes  due  to
 additional  treatment.  As  shown  on Figure 3.12 Wilsons  Creek,  which  did have  a
 signficant  change in  water quality, also had a  shift  toward  pollution sensitive
 macroinvertebrates  after  AWT  (secondary, nitrification,  and  filters) was
 installed  at the  Springfield  Southwest POTW.   Similarly, in  the Ottawa River
 where  water chemistry changes are  less significant,  virtually no  change in  the
 macroinvertebrate community was  observed after  upgrading to  AWT  (secondary  and
 nitrification)  was   installed  at  the   Ottawa   POTW.    Qualitative information
 available  for  the Nashua River and the South River  showed similar results.  In
 the  Nashua  where water chemistry changes were  minor,  there was no shift in  the
 biological  community, while a shift to  pollution sensitive macroinvertebrates
 occurred  in the South River after  major  improvement  in water  chemistry.  Based
 on  this  limited data there  appears  to  be a  correlation  between the amounts of
 improvement  in  water  chemistry   and  the  diversity  of  the  macroinvertebrate
 community,  as one might expect.

    Although these  benthic  and fish organisms are dependent on water  chemistry,
 they are  also  dependent on  the physical  habitat or physical characteristics of
 the  waterbody.    Because  of  this dependence  and  the  inability  of   additional
 treatment  to  change  these   characteristics,  an improvement  in water   chemistry
will not always be accompanied by a  change  in the benthic and  fish communities.
Therefore,  consideration  of physical  as well   as  the chemical  and  biological
factors  must  be  considered  when  assessing  the water  quality   benefits  from a
treatment project  and the  attainability  of  fish related  beneficial  uses for a
given waterbody.
                                      3-30

-------
3.4 Physical Habitat

    Physical habitat factors  include  water temperature,  depth, stream velocity,
stream  bed  substate,  stream  bank  vegetation,  and stream  bank cover (shading).
Treatment can change only one  element  of  the physical habitat of waterbody; the
bed substrate.   In  rivers where discharges are obtaining poor solids removal  or
where  there  is  insufficient velocity  in  the stream  to  suspend  solid material,
sludge  beds  may build up on  the  stream bottom.   Sludge  beds are generally not
acceptable  to  most  game fish.    Data,  however,  were  not  available  from the
information  collected  for  these  case studies  to  assess  the  significance  of
sludge  beds.   All  other  physical  habitat parameters  are  functions  of the
waterbody itself and cannot be changed by  increasing  treatment levels.

    While water chemistry  improved in all  13 cases, habitat restrictions may
have  restricted  the degree of  the water  quality  improvements.   Unfortunately,
this  type of subjective  data  concerning the suitability of  the aquatic  habitat
to support a certain  fish population  was  not available.  Physical habitat  is  an
important factor to consider  in  predicting  the   improvements  that  will  result
from  a  treatment  project,  and therefore  should be  evaluated  in  addition  to
physical/chemical  information  as  part  of  the   wasteload   allocation  or the
determination of use attainability.

3.5 Recreation

    The last and most difficult  step  in the pre-  and post-improvement  review  is
the assessment of recreation changes which have resulted  from the project.   Data
were  not available to  quantitatively  assess  recreational  changes.    Angler
(fishing) day data  were  collected  by  New  York State through  the 1970s  but were
not available for  release  in  the  time frame  of  this project.   The only  other
data which give insight  to  recreational changes are  summarized below.
   ซ
a.  Hudson River;   Since the  upgrade  from  primary  to  secondary treatment,  two
    new marinas  and two  new riverside  parks have been constructed  in  the  study
    area.
                                      3-31

-------
 b.  Nashua River;   Canoeing has  become popular in the  basin.   A 300  foot  wide
     recreational park has been established along 40 miles of the river.

 c.  Wilsons Creek;    An  historic battlefield  park has  been established  on  the
     river  banks.   Pollution  sensitive fish species  now swim in the  creek  just
     downstream from the  effluent  discharge pipe.  Angler activity has noticeably
     increased  since  project   completion.    However,  no  quantitative data  were
     available  to definitively  document these changes.

 d.   Potomac Estuary;   Overall, recreational improvements have been noted through
     the  1970s  which were a period  of  clean-up through  installation  of  advanced
     treatment  and  upgrading secondary  treatment  at  many POTWs.  There  has  been
    an  increase  in  the  number of  large  mouth bass  caught near  the  Capital
                                    lere
                                     (9)
                         (8)
District in recent years.     There is also a trend of increasing commercial
    fish landings  through  the  1970s,

    In general, these factors  indicate  for  the  study  areas  evaluated,  the  stream
has  become a  more important  recreational  area  since  treatment  was  upgraded.
Water quality  has  improved significantly in  three  of these water bodies,  while
in  the  Nashua,  quality improvements  have  not totally  been achieved but  are
anticipated to occur in the near future.
                                      3-32

-------
                                   SECTION 4.0

                  WATER QUALITY MATHEMATICAL MODEL EVALUATIONS

    Mathematical  water quality  models  have  evolved  from  the  early  1900s  to
become  tools  used by many present day  water  quality planners to make wasteload
allocation  decisions.   Models  have  grown  from simple  analytical  equations  to
multi-segmented computer  based models  requiring large  amounts of memory on high
speed  computers.   In addition to  individual  simplified procedures  such as the
"26  pound  Rule"     or "dilution  ratio  calculations,"      models are generally
the  only technical tools available for  predicting  treatment requirements
necessary to protect dissolved oxygen resources under future  loading conditions.

    Rigorous evaluations  have not  been performed to date to  show  the accuracy of
calibrated models after a treatment facility has been upgraded.  The compilation
of before and after data  discussed earlier provides the  information necessary to
"truly"  verify  the accuracy  of  models  to  predict dissolved  oxygen  changes  in
response  to  POTW  improvements.    This  section  of   the   report  presents  an
evaluation  of  cases where  treatment changes were  instituted based  on a water
quality  model  and  where  data were  available  as  discussed  in   Section  3.0  to
evaluate the ability of the  models to accurately reproduce after field sampling
data.

4.1 Model Calibration and Low Flow Water Quality Projections

    The  13 water  bodies discussed  in Section  3.0 had sufficient  data to perform
pre-  and post-improvement water  chemistry evaluations.   On  all but  three  of
these water bodies, planners  utilized  water quality  models to develop wasteload
allocations.  A model was not utilized on the Blackstone River since at  the time
of  construction,  federal  law mandated  that  all  POTWs  discharging  to inland
waters  treat to a minimum level of  secondary  treatment.  The  "26  pound rule,"
which assumes Wisconsin streams  can  assimilate  26  pounds of BOD  per cubic foot
per second of stream  flow,  and un-ionized ammonia criteria  violations were the
basis of the inplant nitrification for the POTWs discharging  to Bridge Creek and
Lemonweir Creek.

-------
     On  the remaining  10  water  bodies,  mathematical models  were  employed to
 develop  wasteload allocations  and  total  maximum  daily  loads.   Six  of these
 models were obtained for  review  during  this  study.   The  other  four models were
 not available for analysis.

     Modeling  analyses  were,  therefore,  available  for the  main  stem  Patuxent
 River, Wilsons  Creek,  Hurricane  Creek, Cibolo  Creek, Clinton  River,   and  the
 Hudson River.   For Hurricane Creek,  Cibolo River,  and Clinton River, the models
 discussed in this and subsequent  sections of  this chapter were selected, because
 they were  calibrated at  stream flows  and  temperatures  similar  to conditions
 which  existed during  post-operational   surveys.    Other and  more  up   to  date
 models^  '   '  either exist or will be developed for  each  of  these water bodies.
 For Clinton River,  the  more recent  1973 modeling analysis was  not  included in
 this review because the  pre-improvement  survey was conducted at a flow in excess
 of  10 times the  post-improvement  survey flow.  In  the case  of  Hurricane Creek,
 the up-dated  model  was  calibrated against post-improvement  water  quality  data
 and therefore, would  not  be  a  true  test  of  the  model.   With  respect  to  the
 Cibolo Creek,  the  state  of Texas  is now  in  the  process of recalibrating  the
 model  against  the post-operational  water quality  data.

     A  variety  of  "off the  shelf"  water  quality modeling  programs were  used by
 the original analyses in  the  wasteload  allocation  studies.   These  models  were
AUTOQUAL  (Patuxent), RIVER (Wilsons  Creek),  CADEP  (Hurricane  Creek),  QUAL  I
expanded  (Cibolo  Creek),  desktop  solutions  (Clinton River) and HRM  (Hudson
River).   Although  each  computer program is  slightly different,  they   are  all
based on  similar  theoretical developments.

    For  background information,  the  results  of the  original model  calibration
and  low flow dissolved  oxygen projections (wasteload  allocations)  are presented
on Figures 4.1 and 4.2.

    On  these figures, model results are  plotted as  solid  lines  and observed  data
are  plotted  as  circles   (mean)  and  ranges  (variation  over  day).     As   is
                                      4-2

-------
11
1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg /I ) DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mq/ 1)
O ro * o> ot> 6 i^ ojO f0 *> 0> oo O R> ooO ro *ป o> OD O F
MODEL CALIBRATION

LOW FLOW D.O. PROJECTION

PATUXENT RIVER
JULY, 1968
_FLOW=30cfซ ,_ 0.0. SATURATION
I ^MOOEL
^sLnJHff
'1t-Jiu
^0.0. STD.
f LAUREL PKWY POTW
1 1
10
8
6
4
2
n
FLOW= 7010
	 i- 0.0. SATURATION
^——^—^—^
— t- MODEL
/
<- 0.0. STD.
,1 , ' ,

D 75 70 65 60 80 75 70 65 60
PATUXENT RIVER MILES PATUXENT RIVER MILES
WILSONS CREEK
a SATURATION
MODEL
0.0. STO.
J SPRINGFIELD 5.W. POTW |
0 75 70 65 6
JAMES RIVER MILES
HURRIC
JUNE, 1972
FLOW= 2 Cfป /- D.O. SATURATION
"V— 1 r- MODEL
- j^
k j / ^-0.0. STD.
	 \^^~
1 II
05 10 15
MILES FROM POTW
10
8
6
4
2
Q
0 8
:ANE c
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FLOW= 7010
,— 0.0. SATURATION
— ^-MODEL

^-D.O. STD.
"til 1
0 75 70 65 60
JAMES RIVER MILES
REEK
FLOW= 702
/—D.O. SATURATION
~ N. ^ 	 "" "" *- MODEL

^D.O. STD.
1 1 1 1
0 5 10 15
MILES FROM POTW
                Figure 4.1
Model Calibration Analyses and AWT Low Flow
       Dissolved Oxygen Projections

-------
        MODEL CALIBRATION
                                    LOW FLOW D.O. PROJECTION
                           CIBOLO CREEK


                                  12
o
>
X
o

o
8
          80     75     70

          CIBOLO CREEK MILES
                                         80     75      70

                                          CIBOLO CREEK MILES
   12
                          CLINTON RIVER


                                  12
                         0.0. SAT.
                Pit
                   V
             MODEL
                      0.0. STO.


                   AUGUST, 1958

                   FLOW= 30cfs

                     I   I   I
                                  10
                                      FLOW' 7010
                                                  • D.O. SATURATION
                                                    V
                                            MODEL
                                                      0.0. STO.
                                      I	I
                 I   I    I
UJ
(9
V
X
o

o
UJ
>
_J
o
en

                              10
50  45 40  35  30 25  20  15

      CLINTON RIVER MILES


                       HUDSON RIVER
50  45  40  35  30  25  20

      CLINTON RIVER MILES
                                                          15   10
           OCTOBER, 1964
           FLOW* 350Ocfป
                               12



                               10



                               8



                               6



                               4



                               2
                                      FLOW = l.5x 7QIO
                                                   D.O. SATURATION
                                        • MODEL
                                                        D.O. STD.
          145     135    125
         HUDSON RIVER MILES
                                   0
                                   155
                                     145     135     125
                                     HUDSON RIVER MILES
                          115
                         Figure 4.2

       Model  Calibration Analyses and  AWT Low Flow

               Dissolved Oxygen Projections

-------
illustrated  on these  figures,  model  calibration  results  reasonably  reproduce
observed  mean  dissolved  oxygen  field  sampling  data.   For  each  river,  both
observed  and  calculated oxygen data  are less  than  the dissolved  oxygen water
quality  standard.  Treatment  levels  for  each  POTW during  calibration analyses
were primary  (Hudson) or a  form of  secondary treatment.  Flows and  temperatures
were near  critical  flows  and temperatures.  Quantitative measures of  "goodness
of model fit" are presented in Section 4.2 of this chapter.

    Also presented on each figure for the background information are the results
of dissolved  oxygen projections at drought flows and temperatures.   Point source
effluent conditions for projections  represent year 1990 or  2000 plant  flows and
good carbon removal as  well  as inplant  nitrification  for all POTWs  except those
located  on   the  Clinton  River.     Clinton  River  point   source  loadings  are
established  based  on good  CBOD  removal  only.   Effluent   conditions  for water
quality projections are presented in Table 4.1.

    For  the   Patuxent River,  Wilsons  Creek, and  Hurricane Creek,  the  results
indicate  that the projects  increase  dissolved  oxygen  concentrations  to levels
which comply  with water quality standards.   In  Cibolo Creek, the Clinton River,
and  the  Hudson River,  the  projects  as  designed  are  projected  to cause  some
violations of dissolved oxygen standards at  critical conditions.

    The  following  section  presents  tests of  each of  these  calibrated models
against  post-improvement  dissolved  oxygen  data which  was  collected  after
treatment  was upgraded  from pre-operational levels.   Statistical  methods are
used to quantify "goodness of model fit."

4.2 Post-improvement Model Evaluations

    New treatment facilities were constructed in  all  six river basins discussed
in Section 4.1.   In  three basins  (Patuxent,  Wilsons  and  Clinton), POTWs  were
upgraded to treatment levels  beyond  secondary.   On the Main Stem Patuxent, the
Laurel Parkway  facility was upgraded to  secondary  treatment with nitrification
                                      4-5

-------
                                    TABLE 4.1

                    PROJECTION POTW EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
       River
1.  Main Stem
    Patuxent

2.  Wilsons Creek
3.  Hurricane Creek

4.  Cibolo Creek

5.  Clinton River


6.  Hudson River
POTW
Maryland City
Laurel Parkway
Springfield
Southwest
Hurricane Creek
ODO J. Riedal
Flow
(mgd)
2.70
6.40
19.00
1.55
5.82
BOD,
(mg/I)
10.0
10.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
Ammonia
(mg/1)
3a
3a
1
2b
2
Pontiac Area
Point loads

Albany Area
Point Loads
19.40
                                               34.50
11.7
            30.0
              10
       nitrogen (assumed as ammonia)

 TKN (assumed as ammonia)
p
 Post-operational flow

 Not considered in original projections

290% BOD and 50% NH, removal
                                     4-6

-------
and  effluent  polishing.    On the  Clinton  River,   both  the  Pontiac  and  East
Boulevard  POTWs  were upgraded  to  secondary treatment  with  phosphorus removal.
For  the  other  three  rivers,  treatment was upgraded  to  good  secondary.  In each
river,  however,  the  given  POTWs  were  achieving  a  high   degree   of  inplant
nitrification  at the time of  the post-improvement water quality survey.

    One evaluation made as  part  of  this study, was  to  test  the calibrated water
quality model  by calculating  post-improvement  river dissolved oxygen  concentra-
tion.   To do  this,  physical  parameters  of  stream  cross-sectional area, depth,
velocity,  or  time  of  travel  were  adjusted  to  post-improvement   river  flow
conditions.  Relationships  developed  during the model calibration analyses were
used as guidelines for setting these  parameters.  Next, low  flow projection CBOD
oxidation coefficients and NBOD oxidation coefficients  developed by the original
analysts  were  adjusted to  post-operative temperature  conditions.   Models were
then set-up  with segmentations  the  same as  those used  by the original analysts.
Where  possible,  the  same  computer modeling  programs as those discussed earlier
were used  for  evaluations.   Because  not all  of  these  models were available  to
HydroQual within the constraints of the project,  substitutions of  similar models
were made for  the Patuxent River, Hurricane Creek,  and  the Hudson  River.  Sparse
Matrix  Analysis  Model (SPAM)^16^  was  substituted  for  HRM,   RIVER^17^ was sub-
stituted  for  AUTOQUAL  and CADEP  and QUAL  II     was  substituted  for  QUAL  I
(expanded version).

    Treatment plant  effluent  values presented  in  Table 4.2  were  then input  to
all  models  and  dissolved  oxygen profiles  calculated.   The  results  of  these
analyses are shown on Figure  4.3  as  solid lines while  observed dissolved  oxygen
field  data  are  shown   as circles.    In  general,  the  water quality   models
reproduced  post-operational dissolved oxygen  data  with a  reasonable degree  of
accuracy.   In  the Hudson River,  the model underestimated  dissolved oxygen  by
approximately 0.8 mg/1,  while in  Hurricane Creek the model overpredicted  oxygen
concentrations  in excess of 1.5 mg/1.  For  each of the other  rivers, the model
results compare favorably with observed data.
                                      4-7

-------
                                    TABLE 4.2
                  POST-OPERATION POTW EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
       River
1.  Main Stem
    Patuxent

2.  Wilsons Creek
3.  Hurricane Creek

4.  Cibolo Creek

5.  Clinton River


6.  Hudson River
POTW
Maryland City
Laurel Parkway
Springfield
Southwest
Flow
(mgd)
0.48
4.50
24.70
BOD.
(ng/I)
10.0
1.0
3.6
Ammonia
(mg/1)
15.0
0.3
1.5
Hurricane Creek         0.64

ODO J. Riedal           2.00

a. East Boulevard       3.20
b. Auburn              17.60

a. Albany North        15.00
b. Albany South        19.50
4.7

7.3

5.0
4.0

8.1
8.5
1.4

4.8

0.2
1.1

0.1
0.1
                                     4-8

-------

\c.
10
8
6
4
^ 2
o>
6 rt
0 OXYGEN
5 CD C
>
O if)
*> I0
en
0 8
6
4
^ 2
"•" n
ID OXYGEN
5 c
>
o iol
V)
(/)
Q 8<

2
5
PATUXENT RIVER
AUG. 22,1978
— /— 0.0. SATURATION
.i^-*r" * ฃ MODEL
— ^0.0. STO.
1 1
D 75 70 65 6
PATUXENT RIVER MILES
HURRICANE CREEK
/- 0.0. SAT. SEPT. 28-29, 1981
T — - -^•"
- ^r p*7
XT 1 t. MODEL
- fij' 1 L
~ ^- o.o. ปTO.
1 1 1 1
0 5 10 15
MILES FROM POTW
CLINTON RIVER
,- o.o. SAT. TSEPT. 15-18, 1976
r _\
V ~L*~ "
' 	 'j^MOOCL J T
1 /
III III
0 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 1
CLINTON RIVER MILES
|O
10
8
6
4
2
o
0 8<
|O
in

8
6
4
2
(1
8
\">
10

8

2
0 '
W LSONS CREEK
V SEPT. 6, 1979
~ N /- 0.0. SATUHATIOH
— 1 /-MODEL
"" ^-0.0. STO.
1 1 1
3 75 70 65 60
JAMES RIVER MILES
CIBOLO CREEK
^O.O.SATUปATIOW APRIL 7, 1980
._/ V--T --^ 	
\r yfCL,
1%T/ 1
1| ^0.0. STO.
1 1 1
5 80 75 70 65
CIBOLO CREEK MILES
HUDSON RIVER
JUNE 28-30, 1977
y— 0.0. SATURATION
y
~^5ซqJX!!LJ--*-1
' MODEL
^0.0. STO.
I 1
S5 145 135 125 115
HUDSON ftlVER MILES
                 Figure 4.3

Comparisons of Model Results and Post improvement
             Dissolved Oxygen Data

-------
     The RMS  error (Equation  4.1),  a quantitative  measure  of the  "goodness  of
 fit"  of  the  models  against  pre-  and  post-improvement  field  data  was  then
 calculated using Equation 4.1.
     RMS = [(I (D.O.  - D.O. r/N]'                                         (4.1)
                    o       c
 where :
     RMS = root mean square error (mg/1)
     DO  = observed D.O. (mg/1)
     D0c = calculated D.O.  (mg/1)
       N = number of data observations  in  the  stream
 The RMS errors for each river are summarized on Figure 4.4 for both calibration
 and post-improvement analyses.  The post-improvement  RMS   error across all six
 rivers  is about 0.94 mg/1.   Cibolo Creek and Hurricane Creek  show the largest
 RMS errors  at 1.8 and 1.95 mg/1, respectively.  As shown on Figure 4.3, the RMS
 error  for Hurricane Creek originates  from  an over-prediction  of observed data.
 Cibolo  Creek errors stem from  the  model  over-predicting  data  at some locations
 and under-predicting at other locations.   Root  Mean  Square errors are slightly
 less,  as shown on  Figure  4.4 for model  calibration analyses.   The average RMS
 error across  all  rivers  in the  calibration  analyses is about 0.67 mg/1.

    An  additional measure of  "goodness  of  fit" for  pre-  and  post-operational
 model analyses  is  presented on  Figure  4.5 as a regression of computed dissolved
 oxygen  against observed dissolved  oxygen.   On  this figure,  the solid  line
 represents  where  calculated  model  output  equals  observed  calibration  or
 post-improvement  dissolved  oxygen data.   The general trend,  is  for  the  model
 calibration  results  to  yield  an extremely good representation  of observed field
 data.  This is  caused by the flexibility  in calibration procedures of being free
 to  adjust model results to obtain the best fit of observed data.

    In  the  post-improvement  regression,  a  number of  factors  are  evident . from
Figure   4.5(b).    First,  the  objective  of  increasing dissolved  oxygen
                                      4-10

-------
       2.0
cr
o
cr
cr
UJ

UJ
CT
< _.

o \
CO  oi

Z  E
< —
UJ
o
o
           DISSOLVED OXYGEN MODEL

             CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION ANALYSIS
1.5
1.0
       0.5
                                                        0.0
       2.0
cr
o
cr
cr
UJ

UJ
cr
< ^
ID _
O \
<" ^
z ฃ
< —
UJ
2
o
o
cr
            DISSOLVED OXYGEN MODEL

             POST AUDIT ANALYSIS
1.5
1.0
       0.5
                                                                  0.0
                             Figure  4.4

                    Nummary of Model  Errors

-------
    (o) MODEL CALIBRATION ANALYSES

—    12
p

d
<
UJ
O
UJ
I-
<
-I

o
_)

o
LEAST
SQUARE
HEGHESSIOH
               I   I  I  I  I   I  I  I
      01  23456789  IO II  12

        OBSERVED MEAN D.O. (mg/l)
              (b) POSTIMPROVEMENT ANALYSES

          —.   12
                                     O
                                     d
O
UJ
ป-
<
-I
o
o


o
                                                     CALCULATED' OMERVED
                  I  I  I   I  I  I  I  I   I  I  I
                01  2 3436789 IO II  12

                 OBSERVED MEAN D.O. (mg / I )
                            Figure 4.5

               Regression of Calculated and Observed

                 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations

-------
concentrations  in  all rivers was achieved.   This can be seen  by  the fact that
almost  all  of  the  dissolved oxygen  data  exceed  5.0 mg/1.   Second,  with the
exception  of  a  few data  points,  the  data  fall  near  the  line  representing  a
perfect  correlation  between  computed and observed  data.   Those  data which are
above the solid line are mostly from Hurricane Creek where the results were over
optimistic.   In general,  however,  there is  more scatter between  observed and
calculated  post-improvement  data  than  for  the  comparison during  model
calibration.

    In summary, model testings indicate that goals of improving dissolved oxygen
levels as calculated by post-improvement models generally are confirmed by  field
sampling  data.    The RMS  errors  calculated  during  the  post-improvement  model
testings  were  between 0.0 and  0.8  mg/1 for  four of the six  rivers evaluated.
Root mean square dissolved oxygen  errors for the  other  two  rivers  were  between
1.5 and  2.0 mg/1.   For  one  of these  rivers, the error  was  biased towards the
model over-predicting observed data, while for the other  river  there was  no bias
and over-prediction, and under prediction errors were about equal.

    Explanation as to why  the post-improvement models did not perform as  well as
pre-operational  models  requires detailed  evaluation  of  the  model calibration
analysis which  was  beyond  the scope of  this  project.  As discussed in  Section
4.3 which  follows,  one  potential  reason is  that  post-improvement CBOD instream
oxidation  rates tend to  be  less  than  pre-operational  rates.    However,  other
possible  reasons  which  can  exist are assignment  of a CBOD     to BOD,-  ratio to
POTW effluents which is not  confirmed by  time series BOD testing (Section  4.4);
inadequate  spatial  water  quality  data  (Cibolo Creek);  combined CBOD  and NBOD
reactions (Hurricane  Creek,  Clinton River);  or  inadequate definition  of  other
model components such as stream depth and velocity, SOD and algal influences.

4.3 Coefficient Evaluation

    The  CBOD  oxidation rates,  ammonia  or NBOD  oxidation rates,  and  dissolved
oxygen reaeration  rates  used in model  calibration analyses  for the six rivers
                                      4-13

-------
 discussed  in  the  preceding  sections  are  summarized  in  Table  4.3.    The  CBOD
 oxidation rates used  in  the  calibrations range  from  0.10/day  (base  e,  20 C) to
 2.2/day while nitrification rates range from 0.0/day to 0.5/day.  In all studies
 except the Hudson  River, oxidation  rates  used in wasteload allocation studies
 were  equal  to  oxidation  rates  developed  during  model  calibration  analyses.
 Hudson  River   nitrification   rates   for  projections  were  0.25/day  while  for
 calibration of the  model  they were 0.0/day.

     In post-operational testing of the six available  models  (Section 4.2),  CBOD
 and  ammonia  oxidation  rates  were  set equal  to  model  calibration  rates.
 Resulting dissolved oxygen calculations (Figure  4.3) were  reasonably  accurate
 when compared  to observed dissolved oxygen data.  Although  the  models reproduce
 dissolved oxygen data,   reductions  in the  RMS errors  can  be   achieved  through
 changes in CBOD and NBOD  oxidation rates  for  a few of  the  water  bodies.

                                                                    (21)
     Clinton River:   CBOD  oxidation rates  for  post-operative  studies      as shown
 on  Figure  4.6(a)   are  reduced  from  pre-operative  rates  of  2.2/day  to  about
 0.2/day.   As  shown on Figure 4.6(b),  nitrification is occurring  at a  rate  of
 about  2.5 to  3.8/day  based  on  1973 and  1976  data.   Pre-operational  analyses
 indicated  a  nitrification  rate  of 0.0/day would  best fit the  dissolved oxygen
 profiles.

    Patuxent River:   Figure 4.6(c) presents  pre- and  post-operational BOD   and
 NBOD  mass plots in  the Patuxent River.  Although the rates derived  from these
     (22)
 data      are  slightly  different than  those  shown in  Table  4.3, a reduction  in
 rates appears  to occur after  treatment  is upgraded.

    Hudson River:   Figure 4.7 shows  instream BOD  data as  solid circles.   The
 solid  line  represents  model  calculations  at  the  calibration  oxidation  rate  of
0.25/day.  A  reduction of  this  rate  to 0.15/day  (dashed  line)  provides  a  much
better  reproduction  of  instream  BOD,,  data.   When  this rate  is used to calculate
dissolved oxygen (not shown), the RMS error is  reduced  to  0.0 mg/1.
                                      4-14

-------
                                                             TABLE 4.3
                                     SUMMARY OF MODEL CALIBRATION AND PROJECTION COEFFICIENTS
                        BOD Decay Rate (I/Day)
NBOD Decay Rate (I/Day)
ReaeraLion Rate (I/Day)
River
Main Stem Patuxenc
Wilsons Creek
Hurricane Creek
Clbolo Creel.'
Clinton River
Hudson River
Calibration
0.37-0.50
0.3
0.10-0.50
0.18
2.2
0.25
Projection
0.37-0.50
0.3
0.10-0.50
0.13
2.2
0.25
Calibration
0.17-0.43
0.4
0.10-0.50b
0.25
0
0
Projections
0.17-0.43
0.4
0.10-0.50
0.25
0
0.25
Calibration
0 'Connor-Dobbins
0 'Connor-Dobbins
0.6-2.5
Owens-
-------
       (a) CLINTON  RIVER, MICHIGAN       (b) CLINTON RIVER, MICHIGAN

   40.0|                               i    4.0
    10.0 —
 m
a
o
aa
                                                         POSTOPERATIONAL OATA>
                                                           -SECONDARV+P REMOVAL
                                                          A- 1 POTW AT SECONDARY •
                           - 1998 DATA
                          • - I MO DATA
                                                            1 POTW AT SECONDANV t
                                                            P-REMOVAL
                             Kg • 2. t /day
                               1996
                                                            2.3/doy
                                                         SEPT. 14-16, 1974
                          (NteOKKATIONAL)
                                                               3.8/dO|
                                                            AUGUST 2Z-29, 1973
                  SEPT. 4, 1910
                  (P09TOPEKATIONAL)
                                     1.0     0
                             TIME OF TRAVEL  (day*)
                       DOWNSTREAM FROM  PONTIAC POTW
                    (C) UPPER PATUXENT RIVER, MARYLAND
   5000
"- 30OO|—
>.
o
? 2000
    5OO
                           CARBONACEOUS
 •Kdซ 0.61/day
   1973
  I PซEOซ RATIONAL)
             „ ' 0.30/day
             "f979 (P09TOPEHTIOWAL)

            I  ,  I  ,  I   ,  1 L
                                                                NITROGENOUS
                                                  L
                                                    K,,* 0.76/day   ^>ป
                                                     I97S
                                                    (PREOPCRATIONAL)
          0.2   0.4   0.6
                                                        0.6
  0.8   1.0    1.2     0   0.2  0.4
      TIME OF TRAVEL (days)
DOWNSTREAM FROM PARKWAY POTW
                                                   Kn> 0.46/doy
                                                    1973 (POSTOPERTIONALl
                                                    I  i  I   i  I   i  I
                                                                  1.0    1.2
                              Figure 4.6
                   Evaluation of Treatment Changes
                          on Oxidation Rates

-------
O
00
     155
            (a) UPPER  HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK
                                    JUNE 28-30,1977
                                 (POSTOPERATIONAL)
                          * O.I3/doy
                145         135         125

                   HUDSON RIVER MILES
                            115
C7>
E


Z
I
10
I
Z
                (b) SOUTH RIVER, VIRGINIA
                                     2
          2.o/ซ '
0"
25
3
—    2

Z
i
 K)
O
Z
 
-------
     Hurricane Creek;   A detailed water quality  modeling  analysis      using the
 1981 field  data developed a  CBOD oxidation  rate  of 0.35/day,  a  nitrification
                                                                             (23)
 rate of  .0.7/day and a  reaeration rate calculated using  the Tsivoglou-Neal
 from  the  dissolved oxygen,  BOD,  and  ammonia  concentration  profiles.    The
 nitrification rate  is  slightly  higher than  used  in the  pre-improvement  model
 calibration while the CBOD decay rate is about the same.

     South River:   Although a post-improvement  model testing was  not  performed
 for  this river,  data  were   available  to  evaluate   pre- and  post-operational
 nitrification rates.    These  data  are presented  on  Figure 4.7(b)  as  solid
 circles.    The  solid  lines   on  each  figure  are  the  result  of   calculations
 performed with a model developed by USEPA, Region  III.   The  nitrification  rates
 are  also shown  on the   figure.   This  analysis   indicates  that  instream
 nitrification rates (1.6  to 2.0/day)  did  not  change  after  treatment  was
 upgraded.

     Wilsons  and  Cibolo  Creeks;  Field data from Wilsons Creek and Cibolo  Creek
 indicate  that post-operational  oxidation  rates were equal  to oxidation  rates
 developed in the calibration  analyses.

     A summary of pre- and  post-operational  oxidation coefficients  is  presented
 in  Table  4.4. Three sets of  oxidaton coefficients show changes  after  treatment
was  upgraded  while  three  sets of  rates  remain the same.   Carbonaceous  oxidation
rates which  changed after upgrading, are  reduced on  the  average of  60 percent.
Where nitrification  rates changed  the Patuxent River  rate  decreased,  while  rates
in Hurricane  Creek double,  and rates in  the Clinton River  increased from 0.0/day
to in excess  of  2.0/day.

    Concepts  which  have  been postulated  with  respect  to   treatment  changes
influencing reaction rates  include:

a.  High  levels  of sewage treatment remove easily degraded carbonaceous material
    and  leave only  refractory  materials  in POTW supernatants.  These refractory
    materials are difficult to degrade  and resulting  stream oxidation  rates are
    reduced when streams are exposed to  these materials.
                                      4-18

-------
                                                            TABLE 4.4

                                      SUMMARY OF PRE- AND POST-IMPROVEMENT OXIDATION RATES
River
Main Stem Patuxent
Wilsons Creek
Hurricane Creek
Cibolo Creek
Clinton River
Hudson River
South River
Pro-Improvement
CBOD Oxidation
Treatment Rate (I/day)
Secondary 0.61a
Secondary 0.30
Trickling Filter 0.10 - 0.50
Secondary 0.18
Secondary 2.20
Primary 0.25
Secondary
Post -Improvement
NBOD Oxidation CBOD Oxidation
Rate (I/day) Treatment Rate (I/day)
0.76a Secondary and 0.30a
Nitrification '
0.40 Secondary and 0.30
Nitrification and
Polishing
0.10 - 0.50 Secondary1" 0.35
0.25 Secondary0 0.18
0 Secondary and 0.20
P-Removal
0 Secondary 0.15
1.6 - 2.0 Secondary and
Nitrification
NBOD Oxldatic
Rate (I/day)
0.46a
0.40
0.70
0.25
2.5 - 3.8
0
1.6 - 2.0
aFrom reference^  ' not from calibration analysis
bOxidation ditch achieving nitrification
cNew facility achieving nitrification

-------
 b.  Ammonia in effluents has the same degradeability characteristics whether  the
     effluent concentration is  10.0  or  4.0  mg/1.   Therefore, if nitrification is
     occurring in  the  stream,  it  is not likely  that  changes  in  POTW treatment
     will influence the rate of nitrification.

 c.  High levels  of  sewage treatment  result in  long  sludge ages  which  produce
     high levels of  bacteria  in POTW effluents.   These  higher  forms of bacteria
     may be capable  of  carrying on  instream nitrification where  lower forms  of
     bacteria in poorly treated effluents cannot carry on nitrification.

     It  is  not  clear  from  these data  that  any  trends  exist  which  confirm  or
 refute  any of these theories.   One  reason  for  the lack of any  finite trends,  is
 the  lack of before and after  improvements  rate information.   Another reason  is
 the  quality  of  the  rate  information  which  does exist.   For   example,  CBOD
 oxidation  rates  are often  based  on  evaluation  of  instream  BOD  .    Much  data
 exists  to  show  that  the  BOD,,  test  can often include oxidation of ammonia.  Where
 this  is true, the analyst has  not  developed a technically  sound  CBOD oxidation
 rate  which   can  realistically  be  used  to compare  against  other  rates   for
 evaluation  of any  changes.

    Without  definition of changes  in these  rates an amount  of uncertainty  will
 always  exist when  performing wasteload  allocation modeling.   The only way to
minimize this uncertainty is  to gather reaction  rate data from post-improvement
 field  surveys.    A  recommendation,  therefore,  is  that  post-improvement  model
testing  and  field data surveys  continue  so  that  the  oxidation rate  data  base,
particularly  for  highly  treated effluents,  can  be expanded  in order  to  improve
dissolved oxygen  projection modeling.  From  an expanded  data base, trends  which
may exist between treatment levels  and  oxidation  rates may become  more apparent.
Identification of any  such  trends  will aid future  analysts  to  develop dissolved
oxygen projections which will be more accurate than those presented here.
                                      4-20

-------
 4.4 POTW Effluent Quality

    During  this project information was compiled to assess effluent BOD,., CBOD,,
 ammonia, ultimate  CBOD to BOD   ratios,  and ultimate CBOD to  CBOD  ratios from
 POTWs  operating  at  various  levels of  treatment.    These  data  originated  from
                                                             (25)
 HydroQual  technical  files,   USEPA  technical  documents,      professional
        ( 26 )
 papers,     and j/arious other  literature  sources  summarized in  Appendix  B.   In
 total,  information  on these  parameters   was  available  for  approximately  114
 treatment facilities.

    Since these data originate  from  various  modeling  programs  and they were not
 scientifically  collected   to  assess  effluent  concentrations,  care   should  be
 exercised when evaluating  the following results.   First, much of  the  data were
 taken during warm weather  periods  when most treatment  facilities  are  operating
well.  Second, as shown in Table 4.5 data  from  certain  treatment facilities are
 sparse.  With these  facts  in mind, however,  some  qualitative information can be
 gained from the review which follows.

    Effluent BOD , CBOD  and ammonia concentrations  for POTWs  where information
 on treatment  type was available  are  presented on  Figure  4.8  and Table  4.5.
These data  indicate  that  secondary and advanced effluents are characterized by
 effluent BOD   concentrations  which  are   substantially less  than primary  and
 trickling filter  plant effluent concentrations.   Effluent  BOD   concentrations
 from some 38  secondary treatment  facilities  average  19.1 mg/1  with  a standard
deviation of about 16.3 mg/1.

    Effluent  CBOD,.  concentrations  from 24  of  these  secondary   treatment
 facilities  average 10.3 mg/1 with  a  standard  deviation  of  6.4  mg/1.  These BOD5
and CBOD,. concentrations are significantly different based on a "t" test at a 90
                                                                       / ofc \
percent confidence level.   This  information tends  to reinforce  findings     that
significant  nitrification  is  occurring during  the  BOD  test for  many  secondary
 treatment POTWs.
                                     4-21

-------
                                                   TABLE 4.5

                                      SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
                                                        POTW Effluent Concentrations (mg/1)
BOD5 CBODS
Treatment Type
Primary
Trickling
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary

Filter

+ P -Removal
+ Nitrification
+ P -Removal
Number of
Locations
2
13
38
9
10
3
Mean
101.0
41.2
19.1
16.2
11.5
13.6
Standard
Deviation Mean
21.2
27.8
16.3 10.3
14.0 14.6
11.8 4.8
18.6
Standard
Deviation
-
-
6.4
9.3
3.9
-
Ammonia-N
Mean
-
16.6
8.9
7.9
1.0
0.9
Standard
Deviation
.-
12.2
6.3
8.9
1.4
0.7
+ Nitrification

Secondary + Nitrification
+ Filters
3.9
2.0
                                                4.8
8.2
lumber of locations with BOD,, data,  in  some  cases number with CBOD_ or NH.  data  may  be  less

-------
      loop—n
   o>

   E
  —   10
   m
UJ
O
z
o
o
                                   -TOTAL BOD,
                                             CB005
PRIMARY  TRICKLING SECONDARY   SEC.-t-

 TREAT.    FILTER     TREAT.  P-REMOVAL
SEC. +   SCC.+

NITRIF.   NITRir.

     4- P-REMOVAL
               FILTERS
UJ
UJ —

0
Q. *~
      lOOe
  5   10
  Z
  O
  z
                                               I
                                                  1.0
                                             -0.9
            PRIMARY TRICKLING  SECONDARY   SEC.+

            TREAT.    FILTER     TREAT.  P-REMOVAL
                                   SEC. +   SEC.-*-
                                   NITRIF.   NITRIF.
                                         -i- P-REMOVAL
                                                              FILTERS
                           TREATMENT TYPE
                           Figure  4.8

              POTW Effluent Characteristics

-------
     A similar difference between effluent BOD  and  CBOD   concentrations  are  not
 observed  for secondary  facilities  which  are  removing  phosphorus  from  their
 effluents.   This  may  be  because phosphorus  removal unit processes also  remove
 nitrifying bacteria  from the  effluent stream.   Additional data  is  needed  to
 substantiate  this conclusion.
     For  secondary  treatment  facilities  with  nitrification  processes,   major
 differences again are  observed  between effluent BOD  and CBOD   concentrations.
 Effluent  data  available  for  10  of  these  facilities  show a  mean  BOD,
                                                                                5
 concentration of  11.5  mg/1 with  a  standard deviation of  11.8  mg/1.  Effluent
 CBOD  data available for seven of these POTWs  have  a mean concentration of 4.8
 mg/1 with a standard deviation of  8.2  mg/1.

     Information  available for facilities with both nitrification arid phosphorus
 removal   processes   and   facilities  with  effluent  polishing filters,  exhibit
 effluent  BOD,, concentraton of  13.6  and 3.9 mg/1, respectively.   A sufficient
 amount of  data were  not  available  to assess  effluent  CBOD  concentration.

     Figure 4.8  also presents effluent ammonia  concentration  by  treatment type.
 For  the  26  secondary treatment facilities  effluent  ammonia  averaged  8.9 mg/1
 with a standard deviation  of 6.3 mg/1.   These  data which  were  gathered from
 summer sampling information  during intensive  water quality surveys,  give
 credence  to  the  fact  that many  secondary POTWs  achieve  some nitrification during
 summer  periods.    It  is  likely  that  with  inplant  nitrification  occuring,
 nitrifying bacteria  present in the effluent  can cause oxygen consumption during
 the  BOD  test.   The BOD   test would therefore tend to under estimate the ability
 of the POTW  to remove carbonaceous oxidizing materials.

    These  data also show ammonia-N effluent concentrations for POTWs designed to
nitrify (secondary  plants with nitrification)  average  1.0 mg/1  or  less .with a
 standard deviation  of  about 1.0 mg/1.  A  summer effluent ammonia concentration
 for  nitrifying  POTWs therefore  of about  1.0 mg/1 appears  to be  a reasonable
estimate for planning purpose.
                                      4-24

-------
    Table  4.5 presents a  summary of the  effluent  information discussed  above.
These  data may  prove  to be  useful  in  reviews  or  in  facility  wasteload  allocation
impact  analyses.   These  data do  not   represent  an  exhaustive   search  of  all
available  sources;  however,  they may  prove  useful along  with other  available
effluent  concentration measurements  to  allow  analysts  to  develop  reasonable
summer effluent  concentrations  to  employ  in water quality analyses.
    Data were also  available  from  the  144 POTWs to assess the  ratio  of  effluent
    Lmate  CBOD to  BOD   or CBOD  .   This  ratio is  required  in dissolved  oxygen
modeling analyses  to estimate POTW ultimate oxygen demand from effluent  BOD,-  or
CBOD   data.
Figure 4.9.
ultimate  CBOD  to BOD   or CBOD .   This ratio  is required  in dissolved oxygen
                     estimate  PO'
CBOD,.  data.   A  summary of  this  information is  presented in Table  4.5 and  on
    Historically,  the  ratio  of  CBOD     to  BOD   has  been assumed  as  1.5  for
secondary and  highly  treated  effluent.   These data indicate 2.47  to  be  a  better
estimate  of  this ratio.   A CBOD    to  CBODC ratio  of  2.84  was  also  developed
                                 ult         5                                v
from  the  data on Figure  4.9.  The  standard deviation  for these two ratios  is
1.52  and  1.17,  respectively.   These  data  indicate that  the  ratio  can  vary
considerably,  not  only  between  different  treatment  levels   but  also between
different sites  with  the  same treatment levels.   These  data  suggest that  it  is
important to  determine the ratio  for  each  facility.   This may not  be  possible
where  projected  treatment  conditions  are  significantly  different than current
conditions.
    These data  also show a difference  in standard deviations  of 1.52  and  1.17
for Figure 4.9(a)  and  4.9(b),  respectively.  This may  in  part  be because Figure
4.9(a) is derived  from the  ratio of CBOD    to  BODC  and Figure  4.9(b)  is  based
                                         ult        5
on  the  ratio of  CBOD    to  CBOD,.  data.   As  mentioned  earlier, much  data  are
available to show  that  nitrification  can occur in the  BOD_  test, especially  for
municipal POTW  effluents.   When this  occurs, the ratio  of  CBOD    to BOD5 could
vary randomly.  The  reduced standard  deviation associated with  CBOD     to CBOD,
data may in part reflect this occurrence.
                                      4-25

-------
 tfl
o
o
CO
0
o
CD
O
     10.0
5.0

4.0

3.0
     2.0
      1.0
     0.5
       1.0
                          (a)
        _   r-MEAN + I STD. DEV
                                     -MEAN= 2.47
             *
                      •ป *     •  \ •
                          •    •-
                            •w —ป
                MEAN-I STD. DEV.
               5.0     10.0           50.0  100.0
          EFFLUENT  BOD5 (mg/l)


                    (b)
HJ.U
ซ 5.0
Q 4n
o 40
5 30
"X
^
Li 2.0
Q
O
CD
0 1.0
r> *
~_ YMEAN+I STD. DEV. * ซ
* V '
• • • • 0 ^-MEAN=2.84
~i • ปJ|*^ •
_
~ซ** mm J **
v • • •
VMEAN-I STD. DEV. •
—
, i i 1 , , , , 1 , i.l,,,,
       1.0
               5.0    10.0           50.0  100.0
          EFFLUENT CBOD5 (mg/l)
                 Figure 4.9

        POTW Effluent Ultimate CBOD
       as a Function of CBOD5 and  BOD5

-------
    Another reason the ratio of CBOD    to  BODr  or  CBOD    to CBODC can vary is
                                    ult        5         ult         5        J
associated with  the  BOD  test  itself.   It  is well known that the BOD test itself
is  an  inaccurate test.   Such phenomena as  lags in the  test  can significantly
affect  the  ratio.   In a  rigorous  analysis  of  this  ratio, it would be desirable
that  all  tests  are  performed in  a similar  manner and  hopefully by  the  same
analyst.

                       (27)
    A recent document,     presents suggested  ranges  for  these ratios.  A value
of  1.5  (CBOD    /CBOD )   is   suggested  for  poor  secondary  effluents;  2.0  is
suggested  for  good   quality   secondary  effluents;  and  2.3  is   suggested   for
advanced treatment effluents.  Data presented  on Figure 4.9 indicate  that these
suggested  ratios  are  reasonable  to  use   when  site  specific   data  are   not
available.

    The consequence  of using  a  ratio which has  not  been  developed  from field
data  could  be  to understate  the  effect   of  the  wastewater  on  stream  oxygen
concentrations.  For  example,  an analyst  may  measure  a secondary effluent BODS
of  10.0 rag/1  and  assign  a  CBOD   /BOD,-   ratio  of  1.5 in  a  model calibration
analysis.   This combination  would  result   in  a  calculated  effluent  CBOD    of
                                                                          ult
15.0 mg/1 (10.0  rag/1  x 1.5).   If the  actual ratio was  3.0,  the analyst would be
understating the effluent CBOD     by a factor  of  two (30.0 compared  to  15.0
mg/1).  In calibrating the model,  the analyst  will have  to  assign this error to
another source  of   dissolved  oxygen impact  such  as  nonpoint   loadings.
Extrapolating  to  wasteload  allocation conditions,  this nonpoint  source loading
may cause the  analyst  to  require higher levels  of  treatment which may actually
be necessary.   Depending on the approach taken,  the understated effluent CBOD ,
                                                                              U JL t.
may have  a  variety  of  effects on  the wasteload  allocations.   Because  of  ihe
importance of  this parameter and the observed  variability in the ratio from site
to site, it is  recommended that  site  specific ratios be  developed  or.  a case by
case basis.
                                      4-27

-------
                                   SECTION  5.0

                         LONG TERM WATER QUALITY CHANGES

    Improvements  in  water  quality as a  result  of  upgrading municipal  treatment
from  secondary  to  advanced  levels  can  only  be  fully  assessed when the  AWT
facility  reaches  its design capacity flow.   In most  cases,  POTWs are  designed
for project  year 1990 or  year  2000 flows.   Since,  the facilities evaluated  in
the preceding  report sections  may  not  be  at  design capacity,  post-improvement
water quality  data  represent  short  terra improvements over pre-improvement  water
quality.  However, a model  can  be used  to more accurately predict water quality
improvements with and without  the  treatment plant  improvements when  the  plant
reaches its  design  capacity.   These  model results are  referred to as  long term
water quality  improvements.

    This  section evaluates long  term dissolved  oxygen  improvements  using  the
calibrated water  quality models.  The questions addressed  are:

a.  When  the POTW is at design  (year  2000) effluent  flow,  what will  dissolved
    oxygen  concentrations   in  the stream  be if  the  POTW  is  constructed  as  a
    secondary  POTW?

b.  When  the  POTW   is  at  design effluent  flow,  what  will  dissolved oxygen
    concentrations  in  the   stream be  if  the POTW  is constructed as a  secondary
    plus nitrification POTW?

    To perform a  long term  assessment, water quality models were set  up for POTW
design  flows  and  critical river  flow  and  temperatures.    Dissolved oxygen
simulations were  then developed with each POTW at secondary treatment  and then
at  AWT.    Uniform POTW  characteristics  summarized  in Table  5.1 were used  to
calculate  effluent   loadings  of  oxygen  consuming materials  discharged to  the
respective rivers.

-------
                                     TABLE 5.1
                       SECONDARY AND AT EFFLUENT PARAMETERS
                  USED IN LONG TERM DISSOLVED OXYGEN EVALUATIONS
                   Secondary Treatment  Effluent  Characteristics
                                (Activated  Sludge)
                                CBOD5  =  20.0  mg/1
                                CBOD . /CBODC =2.0
                                    ult     5
                                Ammonia-N  =15 mg/1
                                NBOD/NH3 =4.57
                                Dissolved  Oxygen = 5.0 mg/1
                Advanced Waste Treatment Effluent Characteristics
                     (Secondary Treatment Plus Nitrification)
                               CBOD  =  5.0 mg/1
                               CBOD , /CBODC =2.5
                                   ult     5
                                   UJ. L.     -*
                               Ammonia-N = 1.0 mg/1
                               NBOD/NH3 =4.57
                               Dissolved oxygen =8.3 mg/1
    The four rivers used in this analysis are the Patuxent River, Wilsons Creek,
Hurricane  Creek,  and  Cibolo  Creek.   The  Laurel Parkway  POTW on  the Patuxent
River  has  already  been  upgraded  to  nitrification.    On  Wilsons Creek,  the
Springfield  Southwest POTW,  has  been  upgraded  to  nitrification  and effluent
polishing.   On Hurricane  and Cibolo  Creek,  new upgraded  secondary  facilities
have  recently  been  constructed  and wasteload allocation  studies  recently
completed   '     recommend further upgrading to AWT for both facilities.

    Results  of  dissolved  oxygen  simulations  calculated by  these  methods  are
presented  on  Figure  5.1.   These  analyses indicate  that the  dissolved  oxygen
standard  of  5.0  mg/1 is  violated  in  all  four  rivers when  design  flows  and
                                     5-2

-------
        e>
        >-
        X
        o

        Q
        UJ
        O
        V)
              12



              10



              8


              6


              4



              2
              0
              80
                     PATUXENT RIVER
                                           WILSONS CREEK
            • AWT
      SECONDARY
 75     70      65

PATUXENT RIVER MILES
 HURRICANE CREEK
60
                  0      5      10      15
                   HURRICANE CREEK MILES

NOTE;
  •SIMULATIONS AT CRITICAL RIVER FLOW AND TEMPERATURE.
z
UJ
o

X
o

o
UJ
                                                  CO

                                                  Q
                                   12



                                   10


                                   8



                                   6


                                   4



                                   2
                                   0
                                   85
75     70     65

 JAMES RIVER MILES

 CIBOLO CREEK
60
                                                                           • SECONDARY
                    8O      75      70
                    CIBOLO CREEK MILES
                                                                                    65
                                        Figure 5.1

                    Calculated  Long Term Dissolved Oxygen Changes

-------
 critical river flows are  reached  and only secondary  treatment  is provided.  At
 secondary treatment, dissolved  oxygen concentrations  in  three  of  these  rivers
 are  projected to be at 0.0 mg/1 for  5 to 10 river miles.   When  nitrification is
 provided at  each facility,  dissolved oxygen  concentrations are  projected  to
 increase substantially  and standards are only marginally  violated in one  of the
 rivers  (Cibolo Creek).

     Assuming  that the model  simulations  are reasonably accurate,  these  results
 indicate that nitrification  provides  significant dissolved  oxygen improvements
 in  all   four  rivers.   Further,  if  the project  were  not  constructed and  only
 secondary treatment  were provided  it  is likely  that  daily  average  minimum  oxygen
 concentrations  of 0.0 mg/1 would create unbalanced macroinvertebrate communities
 and  unbalanced fish populations.   In  addition,  it is  also likely  that  during
warm  weather,  anoxic  conditions  would  have  the  potential  to  create  odor
problems.

    In summary, nitrification in  the effluent dominated streams are observed  to
have  short  term water  quality improvements  (Section 2.0).   The model simula-
tions  also  indicate  the  potential   for  additional  long  term  water quality
improvements, especially with respect  to dissolved oxygen  concentrations.
                                     5-4

-------
                                   SECTION 6.0

                  SIMPLIFIED WATER QUALITY MODELING EVALUATIONS

    In Section 4.0 of this report, six  water  quality  models  were tested against
post-improvement field water quality data.  These models were calibrated against
water  quality  and  physical  river  information  collected  before treatment  was
upgraded  at  the wastewater  discharge  facilities.  The Hudson  River,  Patuxent
River, and Hurricane Creek models  were  also verified  against  at  least  one data
set other  than the calibration  data  set.  As  shown  on Figure  4.3,  the models
were able to reproduce water quality data collected after treatment was upgraded
with a fair degree of accuracy.

    Performing  water  quality  modeling  analyses  such  as   those  discussed  in
Section 4.0 generally requires a  substantial  effort.   First, low flow intensive
water  quality  and  stream physical  information  must  be  collected by  a trained
field  crew.     Laboratory  analyses  must  be  conducted on  the  water  samples
collected in the field.  All data must be reduced and  a model must be calibrated
against the  field  water quality  data.   For model accuracy, at  least  one other
data set must be collected and used in  a model  verification  analysis.   Finally,
model  sensitivity analyses  are  performed  and  wasteload  allocations  are
developed.

    A  complete  wasteload  allocation analysis  including  field  sampling,
laboratory analyses,  and modeling  for  a  river  with a single  point  load  may
require on the  order  of 1000 man hours.   More  complex water  bodies with model
verification analyses may  require in  excess  of  4000 man  hours.   Because such
analyses  can  require  substantial resources,  efforts  have been initiated  to
develop  simplified  wasteload  allocation  techniques   which require  a  minimum
amount of  field sampling data and only desktop modeling calculations.

-------
                                                (25)
     A recently  published simplified  technique      was  developed by  the  USEPA.
 This chapter presents an overview of  this  technique  and  evaluates  the technique
 in terms of  data  gathered  as part of the  previously discussed  before and after
 studies.

 6.1 Overview of a Simplified Wasteload Allocation Technique

     A recently  released   simplified   technique  for  performing  wasteload
 allocations  with  minimum   resources  is the  "Simplified  Analytical  Method  For
 Determining  NPDES  Effluent  Limitations  for  POTW's  Discharging into Low  Flow
          (25)
 Streams."       This  guidance was  issued  in  September  1980  by the  Monitoring
 Branch  of the Office  of  Water  Quality Regulations and Standards,  (OWRS)  USEPA,
 Washington,  D.C.    The   document  was  also  issued   as  Appendix  A  of another
                              (27)
 technical  guidance  document      issued  in  January 1981.    In  addition,  an
 addendum to  this  method  was issued  jointly  by  OWRS and  the  Office of   Water
 Program  Operations  on June  25,  1982.   This  addendum  presents  constraints  on the
 procedures  which are  not  presented  in  the original documentation.

    The   method  for  developing  wasteload  allocations   is  presented  as  "the
 simplest  possible that will still allow the water  quality  manager  to  make  a
 confident and defensible  water pollution  control  decision."   The method  relies
 on  a  minimum  amount of water quality  and physical stream data most of  which may
 exist based on previous studies.  Basic  data requirements are:

 a.  stream  design flow (7Q10)
 b.  upstream  water quality
 c.  stream  physical characteristics
 d.  time of travel or velocity
 e.  effluent  design flow
 f.  characteristics of design effluent

Using this  information as well as  a  basic  analytical equation for calculating
 instream  dissolved  oxygen,  the guidance  presents  methods  of  selecting instream
                                      6-2

-------
reaeration rates, BOD oxidation rates, NBOD oxidation rates, and SOD rates.  The
guidance  does  encourage collection  of site  specific  data  to  define oxidation
rates  but,  in  the  absence  of  such  data,   presents   a  method   to  determine
applicable rates.

    Rates  are  then  input  into  the  basic  analytical   equation  to  calculate   a
stream dissolved  oxygen  profile through the  point  of  minimum dissolved oxygen.
Effluent CBOD  and NBOD  concentrations  are  presented for secondary  treatment and
advanced treatment levels  to  use in calculating  dissolved oxygen levels in the
stream.    Dissolved  oxygen   profiles  are  then  compared  to  standards.    The
methodology  then  goes  on to  present  methods  to  be  used  in   incorporating
wasteload allocation results into an NPDES permit.

    The  guidance  document  takes  the  user through  the methodology  in  a  clear
concise way.   It  does  require some understanding of water quality analyses and
mathematical water  quality  modeling;   however,   the methodology does  not rely
heavily  on  the  users   judgment.    By  not  relying  on   judgment,  users  of the
documentation who have different levels of experience in water quality analyses,
should end up with similar wasteload allocations.

6.2 Use of Analytical Techniques as a Decision Making Tool

    Analyses were  performed  as  part of  this project  to  evaluate whether the
simplified analytical method would produce similar wasteload  allocations as were
developed by other methods.  These analyses were  performed  on  10 of the  13  water
bodies discussed in Section 2.0.

    It  should   be noted   that  the  following  constraints  are  placed  on the
analytical method by its authors:

a.  The discharger must be  a  POTW  receiving predominantly  sanitary  wastewaters.
    Any  nonsanitary  wastewaters in  the  treatment  plants  influent must exhibit
    essentially the same characteristics as sanitary wastewaters.
                                       6-3

-------
 b.  The discharge must  be  to  a  free-flowing stream in which the design low flow
     (usually 7Q10) is  approximately  equal to or less  than  the design discharge
     of the POTW.

 c.  The design discharge flow from the treatment plant must be 10 mgd (15.5 cfs)
     or less.

 d.  There is no  significant interaction  between  the discharger  being  analyzed
     and any other upstream or  downstream discharger.

 e.  The method  may not be used to justify permit limitations more stringent than
     10.0  mg/1  CBOD5  and 1.5  mg/1  NH3  (including  filtration  following
     nitrification).   More stringent treatment must  be supported by site  specific
     data and sensitivity analyses.

     In this  analysis  the constraints  were widened  so that the Hudson and Potomac
 Rivers (tidal water bodies), and the Blackstone River  (POTW flow much less than
 stream flow) are  the  only rivers excluded from the  analysis.

     Stream  reaction  rates  were  developed  from the  guidance  document and  were
 used to  calculate  dissolved oxygen profiles for each of  the  10 rivers at  summer
 critical flows  and temperatures.  Analyses were performed assuming  each  POTW  at
 either design secondary  treatment  or design  secondary  treatment plus  nitrifi-
 cation.  The  results  of  these  calculations are presented  on  Figures  6.1  and 6.2,
 and Table 6.1.

    In these  types of  analyses there  are  two  types  of "errors"  that  may  occur  in
 the  comparisons:   the  first error is  an over estimation of  the water  quality
 improvement  for a level  of treatment.   Therefore,  water quality  will  be  less
 than actually thought  after treatment is installed and a water use  interference
may occur that  was not  predicted.   The second error  is  an  under estimation  of
water  quality improvement resulting in over designed  treatment  facilities  a"nd  an
                                       6-4

-------
">5 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg / 1 ) DISSOLVED OXYGEN ( mg / 1 )
si?
r~ _ _ _ _
tป 0,0 ro A o oo O ro Oro^oooOro o>O ro •*>  oo O ro
NASHUA RIVER PATUXENT RIVER
r- 0.0. SATURATION
— \f ^— SEC. > NITRIF.
/ ^-0.0. STO.
— / ^-SECONDARY
J \ \ 1
10
8
6
4
2
rv
-
~~ V**" """""'^ ^— SEC. + NITRIF.
|— MODEL-' \ >\
X^^ ^S^ ^-SECONDARY
1 1 1

D 50 40 30 20 80 75 70 65 60
NASHUA RIVER MILES PATUXENT RIVER MILES
HURRICANE CREEK SOUTH RIVER

_ / >-SEC> NITRIF.
I / / >- SECONDARY
ivs^/ 7 i
0 5 10
HURRICANE CREEK MILES
OTTAWA RIVER
—
1 s^
\ /
|\ / ^-SEC. + NITRIF.
U y- SECONDARY
10
8
6
4
2
1
2
12
10
8
6
4
2
-
~ \ V-SEC.+ NITRIF.
\SECONDMt ^^
f-^^^ |

5 20 15 10 5
SOUTH RIVER MILES
CLINTON RIVER
—
^***^ ^-SEC. + NITRIF.
\ /—SECONDARY
~ \ A


0 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10
OTTAWA RIVER MILES CLINTON RIVER MILES
riONS AT CRITICAL RIVER FLOW AND TEMPERATURE.
            Figure 6.I
Results of Simplified Modeling Analysis

-------
BRIDGE CREEK LEMONWEIR CREEK
10
8
6

V.
9 2
E

/— SEC.-*- NITRIF.

_ ^ SECONDARY


—

1 1 1 1
10
8
6


2

f\
— /— D.O. SATURATION

_ y-D.O.STD.
V 	
\ ^ SEC. -ป• NITRIF.
— \ j- SECONDARY
y
\ V








z 0 0.5 1.0 1.3 0 1.0 2.0 3.0
o BRIDGE CREEK MILES LEMONWEIR CREEK MILES
X
O
R CIBOLO CREEK WILSONS CREEK
^ 12
O
(0 10
o
8
6
4
2


—

—
-^^^^ SEC. •ป• NITRIF.
_ f S*~
r It
— /I SECONDARY

10

8
6
4
2
n

—

~| /-SEC. + NITRIF.
_U 	
- \
_ \ /-SECONDARY







85 80 75 70 65 80 75 70 65 60
CIBOLO CREEK MILES JAMES RIVER MILES
NOTE:
SIMULATIONS AT CRITICAL RIVER FLOW AND TEMPERATURE.
            Figure 6.2
Results of Simplified Modeling Analysis

-------
                                                     TABLE 6.1

                                 COMPARISON OF SIMPLIFIED MODELING ANALYSIS RESULTS
                                      WITH OTHER WASTELOAD ALLOCATION RESULTS
                        Treatment Required to Meec Standards
                              Similar Decisions Reached in Simplified
                                 Uasteload Allocation Versus Other
                                  Wasteload Allocation Analyses
River
Nashua
Patuxent
Hurric'i.ie
Other Waateload Allocation
Analyses3
Secondary & Nitrification
Secondary & Nitrification
Seconary 4 Sitrif ical'.rn
Simplified Wasteload
Analysis"
Secondary & Nitrification
Secondary & Nitrification
G-jeaLfcC than Secondary
For Nitrification
Yes
Yes
Yes
              & Filters

South         Secondary & Nitrification

Ottawa        Secondary & Nitrification

Clinton       Secondary & Nitrification
              & Filters

Bridge        Secondary & Nitrification

Letnonweir     Secondary & Nitrification
Cibolo        Secondary & Nitrification
              f. Filters

Wilsons       Secondary & Nitrification
              & Filters
& Nitrificationc

Secondary & Nicrification                      Yes

Greater than Secondary & Nitrificatioปc        Yes

Secondary & Nitrification                      Yes


Secondary                                       No

Greater than Secondary                         Yes
& Nitrification0

Greater than Secondary                         Yes
& Nitrification0

Secondary & Nitrification                      Yes
?Based on dissolved oxygen or ammonia toxicity or other constraints
 Based only on results of dissolved oxygen analysis (Figure 6.1, 6.2)
ฐMethod indicated treatment in excess of  nitrification  needed or control of other pollution
 sources required to meet standards

-------
 over expenditure of funds.  The first "error" can then be called a water quality
 (use)  error  (i.e., quality  [use]  will  be  less  than  projected).    The  second
 "error" can be thought of as a facilities error (i.e., the facility is overbuilt
 to  meet  target   quality  [use]).    Table  6.1   indicates   that  the  simplified
 wasteload  allocation  could  have  potentially resulted  in  four water  quality
 errors  (Nashua,  Clinton,  Wilsons  Bridge)  and  two  facilities  errors  (Ottawa,
 Lemonweir).   With  respect  to  nitrification  facilities,   however,  Table  6.1
 indicates that the simplified wasteload  allocation  reached  the same decision in
 9 of the 10 cases.

     In all rivers except Bridge Creek, the  simplified  dissolved oxygen analyses
 indicate  that  secondary  treatment will  not be  adequate  to maintain  minimum
 dissolved oxygen  levels  of  5.0  mg/1 at  design POTW  flows  and critical  river
 flows and temperatures.  These  findings  generally confirm  the results  of other
 analyses which indicate  that  a  minimum of  nitrification  is required on  all 10
 water bodies.

     In the Nashua River,  Patuxent  River,  South River, Clinton River, and Wilsons
 Creek secondary treatment with  effluent nitrification is  shown by the simplified
 analysis to provide  adequate  protection to the dissolved  oxygen resources  of the
 rivers.   These results agree with  other  decision making  analyses which required
 secondary treatment  with  nitrification for  the Patuxent and  South Rivers  but do
 not  agree  for the  Clinton  River,  where  effluent  filtration  was  installed.
 Hurricane  Creek,  Ottawa River, Cibolo Creek, and Lemonweir  River are shown to be
 in  violation  of  dissolved  oxygen  standards  even  at  secondary treatment  and
 nitrification.   This  indicates  that levels of  treatment  beyond secondary  with
 nitrification  or  control of  other point  or nonpoint pollution  sources will be
 required  to maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations above 5.0  mg/1.   Detailed
 modeling  studies  for Hurricane  Creek and Cibolo Creek indicate that  secondary
 treatment  with nitrification is  not enough  to  maintain oxygen  resources.    In
Lemonweir Creek, upstream algal nonpoint  source  problems appear to be  the  reason
why  secondary  and  nitrification  is not   enough  protection  for  the  stream.
Detailed  analysis  for  the  Ottawa  River  indicate  secondary  treatment1  with
effluent nitrification is sufficient  to protect  oxygen  resources.
                                       6-8

-------
    Overall, the  simplified  wasteload  allocation  technique  analyses  would
require similar treatment processes as did other analysis frameworks in 4 of the
10  cases.   In two water  bodies,  treatment  in excess of  that  required  by other
techniques  would  be  recommended,  while  in  the  other  four  water  bodies,  the
simplified technique would under-estimate treatment requirements.

    Caution should  be  used  in  making  strict  quantitative  or qualitative
interpretations of these results.  Where treatment levels in excess of secondary
treatment  with  nitrification  are  developed  by  the  simplified  procedures,  the
procedure  states   that   this  decision must  be  backed  up  by further  detailed
modeling  evaluations.    Furthermore,  in many   of   the  water  bodies,  actual
treatment  levels  and  NPDES limits  were developed   based  on ammonia  toxicity
analysis  or  other  administrative  constraints  such  as  blanket   statewide  or
basinwide  policies,  which are  not  taken into  consideration  in  the simplified
technique .

    Table  6.2  presents   comparisons   that   indicate  the  simplified  wasteload
allocation technique recommends similar effluent BOD  and ammonia concentrations
as those developed by other methods.  However, the treatment process units which
are recommended  by this  analysis  framework  (Table  6.1)  may  be  different than
those recommended  by  other  analyses.   This  difference in  part  is due  to the
level  of   treatment  that  nitrification  and filtration  processes  can  achieve
during the critical warm weather  periods.   In some  analyzed  cases the original
analysts assumed  that  filtration  after nitrification is  needed  to reduce CBOD,.
to below 30.0 mg/1.   Recent  data  (Section 4.0) indicates that operation of the
nitrification  process  during  warm weather  periods  reduces  effluent  CBOD  to
significantly less than  the  30.0 mg/1  that  was generally  assigned in previous
analysis.    Where  this  is  true  it  may not  be  necessary  to  add  filters  to
treatment facilities  to  obtain effluent BOD,, concentrations  of  between 5.0 and
10.0 mg/1.

    In summary, the original analysts made  recommendations  that a minimum POTW
nitrification is necessary in each of the 10 water bodies.  Even though analyses
                                       6-9

-------
                                     TABLE  6.2


                        COMPARISON  OF EFFLUENT  LIMITATIONS
                                          Effluent Requirements for POTW
Other Wasteload
Allocation Analysis
River
Nashua
Patuxent
Hurricane
South
Ottawa

Clinton
Bridge
Lemon weir
Cibolo
Wilsons
Facility
Fitchburg East.
Laurel Parkway
Hurricane
DuPont
Lima
2 Industries
Aurburn
Augusta
Tomah
Odo J. Reidel
Springfield, S.W.
BOD-
(mg/1)
8.0
10.0
5.0a
2.0b
6.7
-
-
30.0
10.0
5.0
10.0
Ammonia
(mg/1)
1.0
1.0
2.0
0.8
0.6
-
-
16. Oc
4.0
2.0
1.0
Simplified
Allocation
BODS
(mg/l)
6.5
6.5
Less 6.5
6.5
Less 6.5

6.5
30.0
Less 6.5
Less 6.5
6.5
Wasteload
Analysis
Ammonia
(mg/D
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

1.5
20. Od
1.5
1.5
1.5
 Analysis based on pre-operational data

 Analysis based on post-operational data
^
 50 percent ammonia removal

 Assumed effluent ammonia concentration
                                      6-10

-------
constraints  were not  strictly  adhered  to,  the  simplified  analytical  method
confirmed  the need  for  nitrification in  9  of  the  10  water bodies  that  were
evaluated.   However,  for  treatment facilities  beyond  nitrification,  the
simplified  wasteload  allocation did  not  result in  a similar decision  as  that
revealed  in  more detailed analysis in five  of nine  rivers.   For  three  of the
rivers,  the  simplified   wasteload allocation  did   not  indicate  a  need  for
additional facilities while  the  detailed analysis  did.   This  represents  a water
quality  error.    In  two  of  the  rivers,  the  simplified wasteload  allocation
indicated a  need  for  treatment  beyond nitrification  while the detailed analyses
indicated that nitrification should be sufficient.   This represents a potential
facilities  error although  as   noted  above,  the procedure  for   the  simplified
wasteload allocation  stipulates that  additional study  is necessary  if  such an
analysis indicates that  treatment  beyond nitrification  is needed.  In addition,
facility errors would have resulted in all  five  other projects  in which filters
were constructed if only the simplified analysis had been applied.

6.3 Application of Guidance to Pre- and Post-Improvement Data

    The simplified analytical method  for secondary  and  nitrification appears to
yield answers regarding treatment requirements similar to answers develped using
more detailed decision making  processes.   For facilities  beyond nitrification,
the  simplified  wasteload allocation  results  in  differing conclusions.   Direct
quantitative assessments  of the  accuracy of the  method  are made  in this  section
by using the technique to calculate pre-  and post-operational water quality data
discussed in Section 2.0  and Appendix  C.

    Pre- and  post-improvement  dissolved  oxygen  profiles were calculated using
the  simplified  analytical  method by developing  physical  and  kinetic parameters
according to  methods  suggested  by  the  simplified  method.   River  flows, river
temperatures,  and  waste  inputs  are  all as  measured  during  pre-  and
post-operational intensive water quality  surveys.
                                      6-11

-------
     Results  of  dissolved  oxygen  profiles  calculated  using  a  simplified
 analytical method guidance are  compared  to  measured dissolved concentrations on
 Figures 6..3 to 6.6.  For pre-operational analyses, the simplified method results
 do not accurately reproduce  the entire  spatial  dissolved  oxygen profiles in any
 of the  10  rivers.   The method  does  approximate  the minimum dissolved  oxygen at
 the sag point in 2  of  the  10 rivers, Patuxent and Clinton  Rivers.   In general,
 the method  under-estimates  oxygen  levels  in  Hurricane  Creek,  Ottawa  River,
 Lemonweir Creek,  Cibolo Creek, and Wilsons Creek while oxygen concentrations are
 over-estimated  in the South River  and Bridge Creek.

    Results  differ  slightly  when  the  simplified analytical  method  is  used  to
 evaluate  post-operational  dissolved  oxygen  data  (Figures  6.5,  6.6).    More
 favorable comparisons to observed oxygen profiles  are  obtained  for the Patuxent
 River,  South River, Bridge Creek,  and Wilsons Creek.  The  method  over predicts
 concentrations  in the Nashua River while  it under predicts  in  Hurricane Creek,
 Ottawa  River, and Cibolo Creek.

    A  compilation  of  RMS  errors  for  both  sets  of analyses  are  presented  on
 Figure  6.7 for each of the  10 water  bodies.   Pre-operational RMS errors  range
 fro.m 0.9 to  5.2 mg/1 and average 2.4  mg/1.   Post-operational errors range  from
 0.5 to  6.1  mg/1 and average  1.9 mg/1.  These  errors compare with pre-  and  post-
 operational analyses developed  in  Section 4.0 for detailed  analyses  of 0.67 and
 0.94 mg/1, respectively.

    Also  shown  on Figure 6.7 is a comparison  of  RMS errors  calculated  for  five
 specific  rivers  evaluated  in  the detailed model  testing   (Section 4.0).    In
 general,  the  simplified wasteload allocation  analysis  always yields RMS errors
 greater  than  those  calculated  for the  detailed modeling.   In pre-operational
model testing, detailed models had an RMS error  of  0.6  mg/1  while the simplified
modeling  had  an RMS error  of 2.1 mg/1.   Post-operational model testing, showed
similar results with detailed model RMS errors averaging 1.0 mg/1 and simplified
models averaging RMS errors of 1.5 mg/1.
                                       6-12

-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l) DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mq/l)
uO ro *  00 O ro o ro * o> oo o ro O ro * a> ao O ro
NASHUA RIVER PATUXENT

1 1
	 i
r-D.O. SATURATION
\ 	
t
I- D.O. STO.
1
0 50 40 30 2C
NASHUA RIVER MILES
HURRICANE CREEK
r-O.O. SATURATION
- -m SIMPLIFIED
_ ป^
	 ' f— D.O. STD.
1 1
0 5 10 15
HURRICANE CREEK MILES
OTTAWA RIVER

1
r-D.O. SATURATION
'__!_ _v_ ^
It JL
L /
10
8
6
4
2
0
) 8
19
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
12
10
8
6
4
2
RIVER
— r- D.O. SATURATION
_ ^v •
1 1
•fT
^-0.0. STD.
1

D 75 70 65 60
PATUXENT RIVER MILES
SOUTH RIVER
X" "). SATURATION
^
1 1

' / 	
/ 'DAILY MIN.
/ STD.
t- DAILY AVO. STD.
1


5 20 15 10 5
SOUTH RIVER MILES
CLINTON RIVER
"\ ' J
:Vr
^- D.O. SAT.
1 W
^-D.O. STO.
0 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10
OTTAWA RIVER MILES CLINTON RIVER MILES
               Figure 6.3
Preoperational Testing of Simplified Model

-------
BRIDGE CREEK LEMONWEIR CREEK
10
8

6
2 4
9 o
e *•
_ A
/- 0.0. SATURATION


- * y
"*" . ^ SIMPLIFIED •!
HOC

—
—
1 1
uj o 0.5
EL

^ 0.0. STD.

I
10
8

6
4
2
A
— r-0.0. SATURATION -i-
—



_ _ D.O. STD.y ,|i
K y
- V"
.0 1.5 0







1.0 2.0 3.0
> BRIDGE CREEK MILES LEMONWEIR CREEK MILES
• x
O




ฃ CIBOLO CREEK WILSONS CREEK
o
OT I0
Q
8
6
4
2
Q
/— 0.0. SATURATION
" _/ i
?
/
/
_ I I
l\ l\
85 80 75
CIBOLO CREEK
rj |


^0.0. STD.

I
10
g
6
4
2
r\


- •

1 * . <
• i
_ \ ^j —
v i
70 65 80 75
MILES JAMES
D.O.
SATURATION-^
I 1
f7
r-

i i






70 65 60
RIVER MILES
               Figure 6.4
Preoperotional Testing of Simplified Model

-------
NASHUA RIVER PATUXENT RIVER
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l) DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
uiO ro .& ff> 09 O r\j i o ro * cf> o> O iv cnO ro -f en CD o S
—
~yp"
i
< i

t


i < '
_ ^ป
^-0.0. SATURATION
{.
^— D.O.STO.
1 1
0 50 40 30 2(
NASHUA RIVER MILES
HURRICANE CREEK

-If '
IT

V

I
,-D.O. SATURATION
^-SIMPLIFIED
MODEL
— 1 / ^— D.O. STD.
1 1
0 5 10 15
HURRICANE CREEK MILES
OTTAWA RIVER
r- 0.0. SATURATIC
- \ T 1
"I 1
\
\
STO. \ -
IN <
" J_
/
0 40 30 20 1
OTTAWA RIVER MILES
10
8
6
4
2
'
) 8
12
10
8
6
4
2
2
12
IOT
8<
6
4
2
0
0 5
— r- 0.0. SATURATION
•• V.^
~ ^-0.0. STD.
1 1

3 75 70 65 60
PATUXENT RIVER MILES
(l,o) SOUTH RIVER
<
,-00 SATURATION
/ ^ DAILY MIN. STD.
— f— DAILY AVG. STO.
1 1 1

5 20 15 10 5
SOUTH RIVER MILES
CLINTON RIVER
r DO. SATURATION
~-W^ i i
— ^-0.0. STO.
1 1 1
I
0 40 30 20 10
CLINTON- RIVER MILES
               Figure  6.5
Postoperational Testing of Simplified Model

-------
19
10
8
6
4
C
•" O
z
UJ
(9
X
0
0
UJ 19
3 2
O
OT 'ฐ
O
8
6
4
2

8

BRIDGE CREEK
_ ^0.0. SATURATION
r "* — 7 	 T~"
^SIMPLIFIED
_ MODEL
VD.0.STD.
1 1 1 1
0 0.5 1.0 1.5
BRIDGE CREEK MILES

i
CIBOLO CREEK

^•0.0. SATURATION
tซ X^l
I/I •
II / D'ฐ' 9TD'
LI
J 1 1
5 80 75 70 6
CIBOLO CREEK MILES
|O
10
8
6
4
2






19
1C
10
8
6
4
2

5 8

LEMONWEIR CREEK
— r- D.O. SATURATION
_ r- 0.0. STO. { J-
T T rtl • • I
I 1 1
0 .0 2.0 3
LEMONWEIR CREEK MILES


WILSONS CREEK
^^
— \ r- 0.0. SATURATION

* ^^~ ""
\- 0.0. STO.
—
1 II
0 75 70 65 6
JAMES RIVER MILES





0











0

               Figure 6.6
Postoperotional Testing of Simplified Model

-------
IT
O
ฃK
cr
UJ

UJ
cc
<
tn
UJ
o
o
cr
                                     (5.2)
                                                            2.37mg/l
SIMPLIFIED
ANALYSES
DETAILED
ANALYSES
(SECTION 4.2)
                                                        NOTE:

                                                         *MAIN STEM OF THE
                                                          PATUXENT RIVER
                            Figure  6.7

                 Summary of Simplified Method

-------
     Regressions  of  calculated   and  observed  dissolved  oxygen  concentrations
 across all  10  water bodies  are  shown on  Figure  6.8.  This  analysis indicates
 significant spread  of  results from  the  perfect  correlation  of  observed equals
 calculated  for  both  pre- and  post-operational   settings.    The simple linear
 regression  of  calculated  dissolved  oxygen  against  observed dissolved oxygen
 indicates that  the simplified method  tends  to calculate  oxygen concentrations
 which are lower than those which are  observed for the pre-operational data sets.
 The  post-operational  regression  is  slightly  closer  to  the  calculated equals
 observed   line  but  still  shows  a general trend  towards  predicting  dissolved
 oxygen values  that are  less than observed data.

     As discussed earlier,  a  number of  evaluation criteria are presented in the
 simplified method which are  directed towards limiting the use of  the method to
 single point load free  flowing systems.  If  these  criteria are adhered to, only
 the  Patuxent River, Hurricane Creek,  South River, Clinton River, Bridge Creek,
 Cibolo Creek,  and Wilsons Creek  should  be  considered  in the  analyses presented
 previously.   Regression data for only these  rivers  are shown as  open circles on
 Figure 6.8.   Considering only these  data,  there  still appears to be  a tendency
 for  the  simplified  method to yield  calculated dissolved oxygen concentrations
 which  are lower  than observed data.   The RMS errors  are slightly reduced to 1.8
 and  1.4  mg/1  for  pre-  and post-operational  data when only  these seven  water
 bodies  are included in  the analysis.

     Insight  as   to  why  the  simplified  technique  did  not  accurately  reproduce
 field  data  can  be  obtained by comparing   the  reaction  rates  developed  by
 simplified analytical method  procedures and by other  calibration and  validation
 procedures  (Tables 6.3  and  6.4).  Considering only  those  single point source
 streams,  Tables 6.3  and  6.4 shows  that  the  simplified method  BOD  decay rates are
 on  the   order  of  50  to  100  percent  higher  than  those   developed  through
 traditional  modeling techniques.  Therefore, the  rates  used  in  this, method
appear to  over estimate dissolved  oxygen  impacts.
                                       6-18

-------
               (a) PREOPERATIONAL ANALYSES
                                    (b) POSTOPERATIONAL ANALYSES
          q
          ci

          z
          <
          UJ
          2

          Q
          UJ
0  I  23456  789  IO II 12

 OBSERVED MEAN D.O. (mg/ I )
                                O
                                ci

                                z
                                <
                                UJ
                                Q
                                UJ
                                                CJ
                                                _J
                                                <
                                                O
                                                                  LEAST SQUARE
                                                                  REGRESSION
                                                     0  I  2 3 4  5  6  7  8 9  10 II 12

                                                      OBSERVED MEAN D.O. (mg /I)
0-PATUXENT, HURRICANE, SOUTH, CLINTON, BRIDGE,

  CIBOLO, WILSONS

• -NASHUA, OTTAWA, LEMONWEIR
                                      Figure 6.8

                        Regression of Calculated and Observed
                           Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations

-------
                                                        TABLE 6.3
                                            COMPARISON OF MODEL REACTION RATES
                                BOD Decay Rate8
NBOD Decay Rate
Pre-operational
River
Nashua
Patuxent
Hurricane
South
Clinton
Ottawa
Bridge
Lemonweir
Cibolo
Wilsons
lb
NA
0.37 - 0.50
0.1 - 0.5
0.3 - 0.60
2.2
NA
NA
NA
0.18
0.30
2C

0.57
0.49
.41 - .81
0.79
0.56
0.49
0.62
.35 - 0.51
0.61 - .84
Post-operational
lb
0.4 - 2.3
0.37 - 0.50
0.35
0.3 - 0.60
0.20
NA
NA
NA
0.18
0.30
2c
0.48 - 0.65
0.60
0.49
.41 - .81
0.77
0.57
0.49
0.62
0.37 - 0.4
0.4
Pre-operational
lb
NA
0.17 - 0.43
0.1 - 0.5
1.6 - 2.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.25
0.40
2C
—
0.40
0.30
.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.29 - 0.59
Post-operational
lb
0.9 - 2.0
0.17 - 0.43
0.70d
1.6 - 2.0
2.5 - 3.8
NA
NA
NA
0.25
0.40
2C
0.40
0.40
0.40
.40
.40
0.4
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.40
a(l/day at 20ฐC base e)
 Original modeling studies
"Tlates as per "simplified analytical method"
d0.7 for NU3, 0.2 for organic -N hydrolysis

-------
                                    TABLE 6.4

                       COMPARISON OF MODEL REACTION RATES
                                                    a
                                     Reaeration Rate
Pre-operational
,b
1
NA
1.7 - 4.2
0.6 - 2.5
2.1 - 6.8
-
NA
NA
NA
0.5 - 5.1
0.6 - 4.5
-.c
2
n>
3. - 4.
0.37
4.5 - 5.3
7.5
1.47
12.5
1.4
0.3 - 1.3
2.7 - 15.1
Post-operational
,b
1
0.8 - 19
1.7 - 4.2
0.41
2.1 - 6.8
-
NA
NA
NA
0.49 - 2.4
0.47 - 5.2
-C
2
9. - 24.
3.4
0.37
3.7 - 5.3
6.5
1.47
12.5
1.4
0.5 - 1.1
4.3 - 18.1
   River

Nashua
Patuxent
Hurricane
South
Clinton
Ottawa
Bridge
Lemonweir
Cibolo
Wilsons
*(l/day at 20ฐC base e)
 Original modeling studies
 Rates as per "simplified analytical method"
                                      6-21

-------
     Simplified  technique  nitrification  rates  are  generally  on  the  order  of
 0.4/day while  calibration  rates ranged  from 0.25 to  about  3.8.   In  Lemonweir
 Creek and the Ottawa River where models  were not utilized or  were  unavailable,
 water  quality  data  do  not  indicate the   presence  of  active  nitrification.
 However, use of the analytical technique  without  examination  of these  data  would
 still lead the analyst  to  select a  nitrification  rate  in the  order of  0.4/day.

     Reaeration rates suggested  by  the simplified technique were  about equal  to
 those selected by calibration analyses.  One exception was in  the Nashua River,
 an impounded river, which would not qualify  as being  a free  flowing stream and
 would be  excluded  by  the  evaluation  criteria.   Other  rates  differed between
 simplified and detailed analyses but do not  show  a definite trend.

     The  simplified  analytical  technique dissolved oxygen  analyses  indicated that
 treatment  levels beyond secondary treatment  were  required in  9 of the  10 rivers
 evaluated.   This decision was  consistent with other dissolved oxygen and ammonia
 toxicity  analyses  which  indicated   a  minimum of   secondary  plus  inplant
 nitrification  was required in  all 10 rivers.

     Quantitative error  evaluations,  however, indicate  the simplified  technique,
 when  applied to free flowing  single point  source rivers, yielded RMS  errors of
 1.8  and  1.4  mg/1  for  pre-  and  post-operational  evaluations.   The general
 tendency  was  for  the   simplified  technique  to calculate dissolved  oxygen
 concentrations lower than those  observed.

    The  CBOD decay  rates that developed  following simplified  procedures,  were
 higher than  those developed by more resource  intensive calibration analyses.  In
 addition,  calibrated NBOD  decay rates ranged  from   0.2/day   to  in  excess  of
 2.0/day while simplified procedure rates were near 0.4/day.  In two rivers where
water quality  data  did   not  strongly indicate the occurrence  of  nitrification,
 the simplified procedure would yield an NBOD decay rate of about 0.4/day.
                                       6-22

-------
    One reason why the simplified modeling technique performs fairly well in the
decision  making  phase of analysis  but  has substantial  quantitative  RMS errors
when  compared  to  field  dissolved  oxygen data,  is  related  to   the  effluent
ultimate  oxygen demand assigned  to  various levels  of treatment.  The simplified
modeling  technique assigns  a total  effluent  oxygen  demand of  about  140.0 mg/1
(30.0 mg/1  CBOD- X  1.5 and  about 20.0  mg/1 NH_  X  A.57) to secondary treatment.
Secondary  treatment  with nitrification,   is  assigned   a  total  effluent  oxygen
demand of about 21.0  mg/1  (6.5  rag/1 CBOD   X 2.5 and 1.2 mg/1 Nซ3 X 4.57).  This
difference  in total  effluent  oxygen  demanding  loading  rate  illustrates  the
significant  pollutant reductions   that  can  be  achieved  with  a  nitrification
process.   It  also  reduces the point  pollutant  impacts on  river oxygen levels,
thereby,  reducing  the  importance  of accurately  estimating CBOD  and  NBOD
oxidation rates.

    At summer critical conditions  the technique  tends  to yield proper  decisions
as  to  allowable waste loadings;  however, calculated  expected  dissolved oxygen
concentrations may be vastly different  from observed oxygen levels.  Because of
the RMS errors calculated, it may not be advisable to use the modeling  technique
to extrapolate to seasonal treatment  levels.  When performing seasonal  wasteload
allocation  analysis,  smaller differences  in  POTW ultimate oxygen  demands than
the difference between 140.0 mg/1 (secondary treatment) and 21.0 mg/1 (secondary
plus nitrification) are being examined.  Based on the quantitative analyses, the
simplified  technique  does  not appear to   be  accurate  enough  to  make  realistic
predictions  needed   when  performing  seasonal  wasteload  allocations   involving
relatively small differences  in  pollutant  concentrations from various  treatment
levels.

    As a  result of  this  comparison  between the  simplified wasteload allocation
and the more detailed water quality analysis,  it is concluded that:

a.  the simplified wasteload allocation  adequately  reproduces  the  decision on
    facilities up  to  secondary plus nitrification;
                                       6-23

-------
b.  beyond  secondary  plus  nitrification,  the  simplified  wasteload  allocation
    results  in  different  facilities  decisions in  at  least  three  of the  nine
    cases;

c.  quantitatively the  simplified  wasteload allocation  performs  poorly in
    comparison to observed dissolved oxygen data with RMS errors  that  are  50 to
    about  200  percent   higher   than  that  resulting  from  the  more resource
    intensive water quality analysis,  and;

d.  the simplified method is not appropriate for determining  seasonal  wasteload
    allocations  unless additional site specific data  are  collected.
                                      6-24

-------
                                   SECTION 7.0

                                   REFERENCES
1.   Water Pollution Control Federation, "Fact Sheet for Wastewater  Treatment,"
     WPCF. 54 (10:1346-1348).

2    EPA,  "Water  Quality  Management  Directory,"  Office  of  Water  and Waste
     Management, Washington B.C.,  March 1979.

3.   EPA,  "Areawide  Assessment  Procedures  Manual",  Municipal  Research
     Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA - 600/g-76-014,  July  1976.

4.   EPA Storage and Retrieval  Water Quality Data Base.

5.   Hilsenhoff, W.L.,  "Use of  Arthropods to Evaluate Water Quality  of  Streams,"
     Technical  Bulletin  No.  100, Wisconsin  Department  of  Natural Resources,
     1977.

6.   Johnson,  A.S.,  "The  Nashua  River Basin  1977  Water  Quality Analysis,"
     Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality  Engineering,  1979.

7.   Cairns,  J. and  K.L.  Dickson, "An Ecosystematic Study  of the South River,
     Virginia," Virginia  Polytechnic Institute and  State  University,  July 1972.

8.   Final Draft,  "Tidewater Potomac  Cleanup,  A  Decade of  Progress,"  GKY  and
     Associates, Inc.,  January  1981.

9.   National Marine Fisheries  Service, Data Management and  Statistics  Division,
     NOAA, Fish Catch Data 1962-1980.

10.  "General  Procedure  for  Determination of  Effluent  Limits  for  Municipal
     Dischargers," State  of Wisconsin Internal Guidance Document.

11.  "Chapter 3:  Water Pollution," Illinois Pollution Control  Board Rules  and
     Regulations,  March 1977.

12. Clark, L.J. and  K.D.  Feigner, "Mathematical Model  Studies of Water  Quality
     in the Potomac Estuary," U.S. EPA Annapolis Field Office, Technical Report
     33,  1972.

13.  Thomann, R.V.  and J.J.  Fitzpatrick,   "Calibration  and  Verification  of  a
     Mathematical  Model of  the  Eutrophication  of the Potomac  Estuary,"  HydroQual
     and  the  Metropolitan Washington Council of  Governments,  August  1982.

14.  "Clinton River  Study, Pontiac  to Rochester,  August  15, 16  & 17,  1973,"
     Michigan Department  of Natural Resources, February 1974.

-------
 15.   Corn,  M.R.,  Brawley,  W.B.,  and J.H.  Clarke,  "Predictive  Water Quality
      Modeling,  Hurricane Creek,  Near Hurricane,  West Virginia,"  AWARE   Inc.,
      September  1982.

 16.   New York City 208 Areawide Water Quality Management  Study.

 17.   "Waste Load Allocation Study, James  River,  Wilsons Creek, Little Sac River,
      S. Dry Sac River," CTA and Hydroscience, January 1975.

 18.   Mini-computer  Version WRE-QUAL  II  distributed  by  EPA Modeling Center,
      Athens, Georgia.

 19.   O'Connor,  D.J.,  W.E.  Dobbins,  "Mechanisms  of  Reaeration  in  Natural
      Streams," Transactions ASCE, 1958.

 20.   Owens,  M., Edwards,  R.W.,   and  I.W. Gibbs,  "Some  Reaeration  Studies  in
      Natural Streams," International Journal Air and Water Pollution, 1964.

 2i.   Hobrla,   R.,   "Carbonaceous  and  Nitrogenous,  In-Stream  Decay   Rate
      Coefficients Downstream of an Advanced  Wastewater Treatment Plan," Michigan
      Department of Natural Resources,  Staff  Report,  January  1981.

 22.   Pheifter, T.H. and  L.J.  Clark,  "Patuxent River Basin Model Study," United
      States    Environmental   Protection  Agency,  Region   III,  Annapolis  Field
      Office.

 23.   Tsivoglou,  E.G.,  and L.A.  Neal,  "Predicting  the Reaeration  Capacity  of
      Inland Streams,"  WPCF Journal,  1976.

 24.   "Waste Load Evaluation for  Segment  1902 of  the  San  Antonio  River Basin,"
     Texas Department  of  Water Resources,  August 1978.
                   ซ
 25.  EPA,  "Simplified  Analytical  Method  for  Determining NPDES  Effluent
     Limitations  for   POTW's   Discharging  into  Low-Flow Streams,"  Monitoring
     Branch, Washington,  D.C., September  1980.

26.  Hall,  J.C.,  and  R.J.  Foxen, "Nitrification  in  BOD  Test Increases  POTW
     Non-Compliance,"  presented at WPCF Conference St. Louis, October 1982.

27.  Driscoll,   E.D.,  Mancini, J.L.  and  P.A.  Mangarella,  "Technical  Guidance
     Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations," prepared for USEPA, January
     1981.
                                      7-2

-------
        APPENDIX A




PERSONNEL POINTS OF CONTACT

-------
     State
                Agency
      Contact
 Arizona
 Arkansas
Colorado
Department of Health Services
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Connecticut


Delaware


Florida


Georgia

Illinois


Indiana



Iowa

Louisiana



Maryland
North West Colorado Council of
Governments
Larimer-Weld Council of Governments
Colorado State Health Department
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Pollution Control
Department of Natural Resources

Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency

Indiana State Board of Health
Purdue University
Purdue University

Department of Environmental Quality
Massachusetts
Department of Natural Resources
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association
Chesapeake Bay Program

Division of Water Control
Dean Moss
Dave Woodruff

Larry Wilson
Ed Dunne
Tom Elmore
Terry Trimley
Dennis Anderson
Terry Carter

Mike Curtis
Ron Waghorn

Jay Brahrabhatt
Paul Jones

Jay Thadaraj
Dean Jackman

Roy Burke

Ken Rogers
Jim Park

T.P. Chang
Dr. Ron Wukash
John Bell

Mr. McAllister

Lewis Johnson
Frank Thomas
Tom Gregs

Pete Robertson
Mike Hare
Rick Wagner

Dick Schween
Virginia Tippie

Russ Isaac
Bryant Firman
Arthur Johnson

-------
     State
                 Agency
      Contact
 Michigan
 Minnesota

 Missouri



 Nebraska

 New Hampshire


 New Jersey


 New York
New York
North Carolina

Ohio


Oklahoma



Pennsylvania


Rhode Island
 Department  of  Natural  Resources             Steve  Buda
                                            John Robinson
                                            Edward Hamilton
 Southeast Michigan  Council  of Governments   Pam Lazar
 Department  of  Natural  Resources

 Department  of  Natural  Resources
 City  of  Springfield
Department of Environmental Control
Department of Environmental Protection
Delaware River Basin Commission

New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
New York State Health Department
Department of Environmental Conservation
Regional Office
Rensselaer County Plant
Albany County Plants
Onondaga County Department of
Drainage and Sanitation
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Indian Nations Council of Governments
Department of Pollution Control
Department of Water Resources
Philadelphia Water Department

Naragansett Bay Commission
Department of Environmental Management
Jerry Winslow

John Rowland
Bob Schaefer
Tom Hoist

Dayle Williamson

Fred Elkind
Jim Rhonetree

Dr. Shing Fu Hsueh
Seymour Gross

Tom Quinn
Bill Berner
Bob Crownen
Ken Stevens
Dr. Ron Sloan
Walt Keller
Dough Sheppard
Carl Simpson

John Midelkop
George Lehner
Frank McGowan

Randy Ott

Forrest Westfall

Jerry Myers
Dan Dudley

Gaylon Pine
Brent Vanmeter
Susan Young

Bob Frey
Dennis Blair

Dan O'Connor
Ed Semanski
Phil Albert
                                      A-2

-------
    State
                Agency
      Contact
South Dakota

Texas


Vermont

Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Department of Water Resources


Department of Water Resources

State Water Control Board

State Water Control Board - Piedmont
Regional Office
Occoquan Water Shed Monitoring Laboratory

Department of Ecology
Department of Natural
Resources
                 United States Environmental Protection
                 Agency, Region II

                 United States Environmental Protection
                 Agency, Region III
                 United States Environmental Protection
                 Agency, Region V

                 United States Environmental Protection
                 Agency Region VII

                 Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
                 Commission

                 Delaware Valley Regional Planning
                 Commission

                 Tennessee Valley Authority

                 Trinity River Authority of Texas
Leon Schochenmaier

Dale White
Dave Buzan

Dave Clough

Dale Phillips
Gary Moore

Tom Modena
Tom Grizzard

Richard Cunningham
Carol Perez
Lynn Singleton
Jim Fredenty

Duane Schuettpelz
Dan Moran
Robert Einweck
                                           Jim Rooney
                                           Charles
                                           Tom Henry
                                           Bob Koroncai
                                           Don Schregardus

                                           Norma Sandberg
                                           Lynn Kring
                                           Al Viseric


                                           Ken Miller

                                           John Higgins

                                           Tom Sanders
                                           Dr. Richard Browning
                                     A-3

-------
    APPENDIX B




INFORMATION SOURCES

-------
        River
                       Reference
Dillon Reservoir
Chattahoochee River
Floyd River
            Colorado

Lewis, W.M. et al., "Dillon Project First Annual  Report
1 Jan - 31 Dec. 1981," January 1982

             Florida

Inventory of Florida Water  Quality  Monitoring  Stations,
State of Florida Department of Environmental  Regulation,
March 1981

             Georgia

Burke,  Roy,  Summary   Report   to  a  House Subcommittee
Inquiry.

Miller,  J.G.   and  M.G.  Jennings,  "Modeling  Nitrogen,
Oxygen  Chattahoochee   River,  GA.,"  ASCE  Environmental
Division, August 1979

            Illinois
                        Illinois Pollution Control  Board  Rules  and Regulations,
                        Chapter 3:  Water  Pollution
                        Illinois Environmental  Protection Agency
                        Policy WPC-1  as  Amended, March  1976
                                              Technical
Summary Notes of Before Vs After Construction Conditions
Down-Stream of 24 Facilities Surveyed in the Late 1970s

Summaries of  10 Case Studies Based Primarily  on  Studies
Conducted in 1979 and 1978

Water Quality Information for Surveys Completed  in  1980
and 1981
              Iowa

"Floyd  River Winter Water Quality," The University
Hygienic  Laboratory,  The University  of Iowa,  February
1982

"Water Quality Survey of the Floyd River,"  #77-18,  The
University of Iowa, State Hygenic Laboratory

"Winter Water  Quality  Survey  of  the Floyd  River,"
//77-30,  The University of Iowa,  State Hygenic Laboratory

"Water Quality Survey of  the Floyd River,"  //78-16,  The
University of Iowa, State Hygenic Laboratory

-------
        River
Smoky Hill River
Cobbossee Watershed
Patuxent River
	Reference	

"Water  Quality  Survey  of the Floyd River,"  #78-35,  The
University of Iowa, State Hygenic Laboratory

Section of "Water Quality Management Plan  Western  Iowa
Basin,"  Planning and  Analysis   Section,  Water  Quality
Management  Division,  Iowa  Department  of  Environmental
Quality, July 1976

             Kansas
Summary of Kansas Department of Health  and   Environment
Data  Before  and After  Expansion  of Abilene Wastewater
Treatment Plant
              Maine

"Lake Restoration in Cobbossee Watershed,"
Transfer, Capsule Report,  July 1980

            Maryland
Technology
Pheiffer,  T.H.  and L.J.  Clark,  "Patuxent  River  Basin
Model Rates Study"

"Water Quality Survey  of the Patuxent  River," 1968 Data
Report Number  16, Annapolis Field  Office,  Region III,
Environmental Protection Agency.
                        "Water Quality and Pollution Control
                        River Basin," May  1967
                                        Study-Patuxent
                        "Data  Report - Patuxent  River  Cross Sections  and  Mass
                        Travel Velocities," Chesapeake Field  Station  FWPCA,
                        Middle Atlantic Region, July 1968

                        "Water Quality  Survey  of  the  Patuxent River," 1967  Data
                        Report  Number 15, Annapolis  Field  Office,  Region  III,
                        Environmental Protection Agency

                        "Water Quality Survey of the Patuxent River,"  1969  Data
                        Report  Number 17, Annapolis  Field  Office,  Region  III,
                        Environmental Protection Agency

                        "Water Quality  Survey  of  the  Patuxent River," 1970  Data
                        Report  Number 34, Annapolis  Field  Office,  Region  III,
                        Environmental Protection Agency

                        Pheiffer,    Thomas    H.,    "Evaluation   of   Waste
                        Load Allocations-Patuxent  River  Basin,"  Air and Water
                        Programs,   Annapolis   Field   Office,   Region   HI,
                        Environmental Protection Agency,  February 14, 1974
                                     B-2

-------
	River	  	Reference	

                        "Application of AUTO-QUAL Modeling System to  the Patux-
                        ent River Basin,"  Technical  Report  58, Annapolis  Field
                        Office,  Region III,  Environmental  Protection Agency,
                        December 1973

                        Effluent Data  Collected  as  Part of  the Patuxent  River
                        Program, State  of  Maryland  Water Resources Administra-
                        tion, 1978 Data (Computer Printout)

                        Patuxent  River Water  Quality  Data,  1960's   to   1979,
                        Listed by Station  (Computer  Printout)

                        Patuxent River Water Quality  Data,  Listed by  Sampling
                        Date, 1977-1978 (Computer Printout)

                        Water Quality Data  Sheets, Arranged by  Station Number

                        Patuxent River Basin, Water Quality Management  Program,
                        Sections  7   &  10,   State  of  Maryland,  Department  of
                        Natural Resources,  Annapolis

                        Water Quality Data  from Storet,  1970  to Present

                        Water Quality Data  for  Patuxent  Recalculation

                        Summary of Effluent Limits -   Patuxent   River   Discharge
                        Permits

                        AUTOSS Model Output for NPDES Permit  Conditions

Potomac River           Miscellaneous 1980  & 1981 Water  Quality Data

                        Provisional   July,  August and  September  United States
                        Geological Survey Flow  Date

                        Jaworski, N.A., Clark,  L.J.  and K.D.  Feigner,  "A  Water
                        Resources Water Supply  Study  of the  Potomac  Estuary,
                        Tech Report  // 35,"  April  1971

                        National Marine Fisheries Service,  Data Management and
                        Statistics Division, Fish Catch  Data  1962-1980

                        "Calibration and Verification of a Mathematical Model of
                        the  Eutrophication   of the  Potomac   Estuary,"  by
                        HydroQual, 1982
                                     B-3

-------
	River	 	Reference	

                       GKY  and  Associates,  Inc.,  Tidewater  Potomac  Cleanup  "A
                       Decade of Progress," Draft  Report, January 1981

                       Blue Plains POTW Effluent Operating  Data 1977 and  1981
                       from  Government  of  District  of  Columbia,  Wastewater
                       Division

                       Clark, Leo J. and Stephen G. Roesch,  Assessment  of  1977
                       Water Quality Conditions  in the Upper  Potomac  Estuary,
                       July 1978

                                 Massachusetts

Nashua River           "Nashua River Basin  1973 List of Wastewater Discharges,"
                       Water  Quality  Section,  Division of  Water  Pollution
                       Control,  Massachusetts,  Water  Resources  Committee,
                       January 1975

                       "Nashua River Basin  1975 Water Quality Management Plan,"
                       Water  Quality  Section,  Division of  Water  Pollution
                       Control, Massachusetts  Water Resources  Committee, March
                       1975

                       Johnson,  A.S.,  "The Nashua River  Basin  1977  Quality
                       Analysis," September  1979

                       "The Nashua  River  Basin  Water Quality  Management  Plan
                       1981,"   Technical   Services  Branch,  Massachusetts
                       Department   of   Environmental  Quality  Engineering,
                       September 1981

                       "The Nashua  River 1973  Water Quality Survey Data," Water
                       Quality Section,  Division  of Water  Pollution  Control,
                       Massachusetts Water Resources Committee, December 1973

                       Johnson,  Arthur  S.,  "Fitchburg West Wastewater Treatment
                       Facility  Recommendations  and  Justification  for NPDES
                       Effluent  Limitations,"  Technical  Services  Branch,
                       Division  of  Water  Pollution  Control, Massachusetts
                       Department of Environmental Quality Enginering

                       Portions  of  "The Nashua River Basin  1977 Water  Quality
                       Survey  Data,"  Water  Quality and  Research Section,
                       Division of  Water  Pollution Control, April  1978
                                    B-4

-------
        River
Red Cedar River
Pine River
Grand River
Paw Paw River
Clinton River
    .	Reference	

            Michigan

 "Report on Biological Conditions and WQ of the Red Cedar
 River as Affected by Discharges from the Hoover Ball and
 Bearing Co. 1953-1967"

 "Report on Biological Conditions of  the  Red  Cedar River
 as  Affected  by  Discharges  from  the Hoover  Ball  and
 Bearing Co. October 19, 1971"

 "Water  Quality  and  Biological Investigation of  the Red
 Cedar River in  the Vicinity of Hoover Universal Die Cast
 Co.  Fowlerville,  Michigan,  September 9,  1976  & January
 24,  1978,"  Michigan  Department of  Natural  Resources,
 June 1978

 "Biological Survey  of  the Pine  River Vicinity  of  Alma
 and  St.  Louis,   1967  &  1970," Michigan  Water  Resources
 Committee

 "Biological Survey of the Pine River  1974  and   1978,"
 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, June 15, 1979

 "Biological Survey of the Grand River    Vicinity    of
 Jackson, Michigan 1977",  Michigan  Department  of Natural
 Resources, January 1979

 "Biological and Water Quality Investigation of the Grand
 River, Vicinity of  Jackson,  Michigan July  to  September
 1970," Michigan Department of Natural Resources

 "Paw Paw River Water Quality"

 Lundgren, R.N.,  "A  Biological Survey  of  the  Paw  Paw
 River  and  Pine Creek  in the  Vicinities of  Hartford,
 Waterviet and  Coloma,  Michigan  Berrion  and  Van Buren
 Counties on July  27 - 28,  1976", Michigan Department of
 Natural Resources, December 1977

 "Clinton River Study,  Pontiac to Rochester,  August  15,
 16,  &  17,   1973,"  Michigan Department  of  Natural
Resources,  February 1974

 "Water Pollution in the Lake Erie Basin    Southeastern
Michigan Area  Clinton River,"  Federal Water  Pollution
 Control Administration,  October 1966
                                     B-5

-------
 	River	  	Reference	

                        "State  of  Michigan  Report  on  Self   Purification
                        Capacities  Clinton  River  -  1958  Survey-Pontiac to
                        Rochester," Water Resources Commission,  May 1959

                        "Water Quality  in Southeast  Michigan: The  Clinton River
                        Basin," Southeast Michigan Council of  Governments, April
                        1978

                        Gannon,  John J., "River BOD Abnormalities - A Case Study
                        Approach:   The  Clinton  River Below Pontiac,  Michigan,
                        The  Tittabawassee  River  Below  Midland,  Michigan,"  The
                        University of Michigan, November 1963

                        Miscellaneous  Data from Pontiac,  Michigan Treatment
                        Plant  - 1977  Monthly  Average Flow,  BOD,  SS and Total P
                        and  Bioassay Studies Done in 1973

                        "Biological Survey of Paint Creek,"   Michigan   Water
                        Resources  Commission,   Bureau  of  Water Management
                        Environmental Protection  Branch, Michigan  Department of
                        Natural  Resources, 1973

                        Hobrla,   Richard,   Staff   Report:       Carbonaceous
                        and  Nitrogenous  In-Stream   Decay  Rate   Coefficients
                        Downstream  of  an Advanced  Wastewater  Treatment  Plant,
                        January  1981

                        A  Biological Investigation of the  Clinton  River Between
                        Pontiac  and  Rochester,  Oakland  County, Michigan,
                        Michigan  Water  Resources  Commission,  Bureau   of  Water
                        Management, Department of Natural  Resources, October 17,
                        1972

                        Spitter, Ronald J., Fisheries Management of the Clinton
                        River  Oakland and Macomb Counties  with Special Consider-
                        ations  of  the   Lower  Main  Stream Pontiac to  Mouth,
                        Michigan Department  of Natural  Resources, Fisheries
                        Division, May 1976

                        1981 Update on the Clinton River Walleye    Population
                        Study

Flint River             Roycraft, P.R.,  and S.G.  Buda,  "Flint River Study,  May
                        23-24,  1978,"  Aug.   1-2,  1978,  Michigan Department  of
                        Natural Resources,  May 1979

                        "Flint  River   Study,  August  6-7,  1974,"  Michigan
                        Department of  Natural  Resources, February 1977
                                    B-6

-------
        River
Kalamazoo River
Shagawa Lake
Wilson Creek
	Reference	

"Kalamazoo River - Water Quality"

"Kalamazoo River  Study,  Comstock  to  Plainwell,  August
16-18  1976,"  Michigan  Department  of  Natural Resources,
April 1978

            Minnesota

Larsen, David P.,  Van  Sickle,  John,  Malueg, Kenneth W.
and Paul D. Smith, "The Effect  of Wastewater Phosphorous
Removal  on  Shagawa  Lake,  Minnesota:    Phosphorous
Supplies, Lake Phosphorous  and  Chlorophyll "A"

Tables and Figures Updating Those in Above Paper Through
September  1978,  When Routine Sampling of  Shagawa  Lake
Was Terminated

            Missouri

Miscellaneous Report Sections and Letter

"Waste Load Allocation  Study, James River, Wilson Creek,
Little   Sac   River,  So.  Dry  Sac  River,"  CTA  and
Hydroscience, January 1975

"Water Quality,  James  Elk,  Spring River  Basins,  1973,
Appendix,  Biological  Data,"  Missouri  Clean  Water
Commission

Summary of United  States  Geological  Survey Data Before
and After  Upgrading  Of Springfield Wastewater Treatment
Plant

Berkas,  Wayne  R.,  "Streamflow  and  Water  Quality
Conditions, Wilsons  Creek  and  James  River,  Springfield
Area, Missouri," United States Geological Survey, Water
Resources Investigations  82-26, April  1982

"Water Quality of James,  Elk  and  Spring  River  Basins:
1964-1965," Department of  Public  Health  and Welfare of
Missouri, Missouri Clean  Water  Commission, January 1974

Stream Survey Results Before  and After      Springfield
Southwest  Plant  Was Upgraded,  Also  Some  Plant Monthly
Report Sheets
                                     B-7

-------
         River
                       Reference
 Hudson River
St. Regis Lake
Onondaga Lake
Ottawa River
Scioto River


Grand River
            New York

 Miscellaneous New York State Water Quality Data 1977

 "Hudson River Water Quality and Waste Assimilative
 Capacity  Study,"  Quirk,  Lawler  and Matusky  Engineers,
 December  1970

 Miscellaneous United States Geological Survey 1977 Water
 Quality Data at Green Island New York

 "Pollution Analysis of the Upper  Hudson  River Estuary,"
 Hydroscience, Inc., October 1965

 Total Park and Historic Site Attendance by Region,  Park
 Attendance DATA, Unpublished Data Sheets

 Fuhs, G.  Wolfgang, Allen, Susan P.,  Hetling,  Leo  J,  and
 T.   James  Tofflemire,   "Restoration  of  Lower   St.
 Regis Lake  (Franklin  County,  New York),"  Environmental
 Protection Agency-600/3-77-021,  February  1977

 "Onondaga Lake Monitoring Program 1980,"       Onondaga
 County, New York Department of Drainage  and  Sanitation,
 Stearns & Wheeler

 Effler, Steven W., Field, Stephen D.,  Meyer,  Michael A.
 and  Phillip Sze, "Response of Onondaga Lake  to  Restora-
 tion Efforts," Journal of the Environmental  Engineering
 Division ASCE, February 1981

              Ohio

 Martin,  G.L.,  Balduf,  T.J.,  Mclntyre,  D.O.  and  J.P.
 Abrams, "Water Quality Study  of  the  Ottawa  River,  Allen
 and Putnam Counties,  Ohio,"  September 1979

 United States Geological  Survey  Water Quality and  Flow
 Data for Allentown,  Ohio

 Yoder,  C.O.,  Albeit,  P.S.   and  M.A.   Smith,  "Fish
Community Status  in the Scioto River 1979," June  1981

 Northeast Ohio Tributaries to Lake   Erie    Waste-Load
Allocation  Report,   United   States  Environmental
Protection Agency,  Region V, March 1974

Presentation on Grand  River at Region  V  Management  Re-
treat, February 1982
                                     B-8

-------
	River	 	Reference	

                       Data  from  Ohio  Environmental  Protection  Agency Station
                       50520 at Painesville,  1975 to  1982

                       Data  from  Ohio  Environmental  Protection  Agency Station
                       50530 at Painesville,  1975 to  1982

                       Data  from  United  States Geological Survey  Station
                       04212200 at Painesville 1975 to  1982

                       Brief Outline of the History of  Ohio    Water    Quality
                       Standards, March 1982

                       Ohio  Environmental Protection Agency  Water  Quality
                       Standards, Chapter  3745-1  of  the  Administrative  Code,
                       1978

                       Federal  Changes  to Ohio  Water  Quality  Standards,  May
                       1981

                                   Oklahoma

Bird Creek.             INCOG-Bird Creek Data,  September 8  and 9, 1981

                       Calibration Run,  September  8,  1981 Data,  Computer
                       Printout

                       Calibration  Run,   Duplicating  Original   Calibration  of
                       1976, Computer Printout

                       Run 102A-Revised Population Projection,  Computer Print-
                       out

                       Northside Area Facility Plan,  Water Quality  Evaluation
                       and the  Assessment of  Phasing, Report XII,  Camp Dresser
                       & Mckee, Inc.,  June 1982

                       Portions of Analysis of New Water Quality  Data  for  the
                       INCOG   208  Study  Area,  Tulsa   City-County  Health
                       Department, August 1979

                       Portions of Modeling Analysis  of Water  Quality  for  the
                       INCOG Planning Area,  Hydroscience,  Inc., March  1978

                       "Biological Water Quality  Study," Interim    Report    2
                       (Supplement), Tulsa City-County  Health Department, July
                       1977

                       "Biological Water Quality Study,"  Interim  Report  2
                       (Supplement), Executive  Summary, Tulsa  City-County
                       Health Department, July 1977
                                    B-9

-------
 	River	  	Reference	

                        Miscellaneous Dissolved Oxygen Plots Based  on Data  and
                        Model Runs

                        Portions of First Annual Plan Update,   Revised   April
                        1980, Indian  Nations  Council of Governments and A Host
                        of Others

                        The  INCOG Regional Park  and  Recreation Plan, Phase II,
                        Indian Nations Council of Governments,  October 1981

                                  Pennsylvania

 Big Conneauttee Creek   Miscellaneous Letters  and Tables of  Data
Ironstone Creek

Delaware River
Blackstone River
Trinity River
Cibolo Creek
Memo to Oberdick from Bronner, August 25,  1981

Delaware River Water  Quality  Data  January  1975  to
December 1981 - Computer Printout

          Rhode Island

Miscellaneous (Sampling Map)

Miscellaneous  1977 Water Quality Data

Miscellaneous 1978 Water Quality Data

              Texas

"1981  Annual Water  Quality Management Plan for  North
Central   Texas,"  North  Central   Texas  Council   of
Governments, April 1981

"Trinity River Water Quality CAM Report   81-2,"  North
Central Texas Council of Governments, December  1981
                        Plant Construction Phases  - Plant Layout
                        Plant,  Trinity  River Authority of Texas
                                           of   Central
Buzan, David, "Intensive Survey of Cibolo Creek  Segment
1902," Water  Quality Assessment Unit, Texas  Department
Water Resources

"Intensive Surface Water  Monitoring Survey for  Segment
1902, Cibolo Creek,"  Texas Water Quality  Resources

"Waste Load Evaluation for the San Antonio River Basin,"
Texas Department of Water  Resources
                                     B-10

-------
        River
Nolan Creek
Cypress Creek
Dickinson Bayou
Clear Creek
Clear Creek
	Reference	

"Nolan  Creek Oxygen  Resources  Study,"  Special  Studies
Section, Texas Water Quality Board

"Intensive  Survey  of Nolan Creek,"  Texas  Department of
Water Resources

"BOD  &  pH  Waste  Load  Evaluations  for Water  Quality
Segment No.  1218 of the Brazos River Basin," Texas Water
Quality Board.

"Intensive  Survey  of  Cypress  Creek Segment  1009," Texas
Department  of Water Resources

"Waste Load  Evaluation for Water Quality  Segment  No.
1009," Texas Water Quality Board

"Intensive  Surface Water Monitoring Survey  for  Segment
1009," Texas Department of Water Resources

"Intensive  Surface Water  Monitoring Survey  for Segments
1103 and 1104," Texas Department of Water Resources

"Waste  Load Evaluations  for  Segment  No.  1104,"  Texas
Water Quality Board

"Intensive  Survey of the  Dickinson Bayou Segment  1104,"
Texas Department of Water Resources

Honefenger,  R.L.,  "A Water Quality Survey of Clear Creek
Tidal," Texas Water Quality Board, 1974

"The Clear Creek/Clear Lake Basin and  the  Clear  Lake
Board  Order,"  Staff  Report,  Texas Department of  Water
Resources,  1980

"Intensive Survey of Clear Creek and  Clear  Creek  Tidal
Segment Nos.  1102  and 1101," Texas  Department  of Water
Resources

"Intensive  Surface Water  Monitoring Survey  for Segments
1101 and 1102," Texas Department of Water Resources

Wastewater Effluent Report, 1971, Computer Printou

Wastewater Effluent Report, 1972, Computer Printout

Wastewater Effluent Report, 1973, Computer Printout
                                     B-ll

-------
	River	  	Reference	

                        Wastewater Effluent Report,  1974,  Computer  Printout

                        Wastewater Effluent Report,  1975,  Computer  Printout

                        Wastewater Effluent Report,  1976,  Computer  Printout

                        Wastewater Effluent Report,  1977,  Computer  Printout

                        Monthly Effluent  Data,  1977-1978,  Computer  Printout

                                    Virginia

South River             Miscellaneous  Model and Water Quality Data, C. App Notes

                        Letter   to Anthony  from  Mullen,   (Effluent   and  Water
                        Quality Data), May  30,  1974

                        Memo to Pollack  from Ayers  (Biological Data), February
                        4,  1982

                        Cairns  J.  and K.L.  Dickson,  "An Ecosystematic Study of
                        the South  River,  Virginia," July 1972

                        Memo from A.  Anthony to  C.  App,  Data  from South River
                        Study Survey Conducted  July 1976

                        Draft Summary  of  Findings  for Advanced  Secondary  Treat-
                        ment Facilities  Proposed   for  City  of  Waynesboro,
                        Virginia,  Hazen and  Sawyer, P.C.,  September 1981

                        Phillips,  M.D.,  "Case  Study  of  the  South  River  near
                        Waynesboro, Virginia,"  Virginia  State  Water Control
                        Board for  1981, Wasteload Analysis Seminar

                        Advanced Wastewater  Treatment Review, City  of Waynesboro
                        Wastewater Treatment Plant,  Waynesboro,  Virginia,  and
                        Appendix A-G
                        -Appendix  A-Water Quality Model  Diurnal
                        -Appendix  B-South River Cross Sections
                        -Appendix  C-Krypton-Tritium Rearation Study
                        -Appendix  D-August 1974 Water Quality Data
                        -Appendix  E-August 26-17,  1975 Water Quality Data
                        -Appendix  F-September 8-10, 1975 Water Quality Data
                        -Appendix  G-July  7-8, 1976-Water Quality Data

                        Letter  from R.K. Weeks  to R.F. Roudabush (Costs for
                        Construction for  the Secondary  and Tertiary Portions of
                        the Waynesboro, Va. Treatment Plant)
                                     B-12

-------
         River
Spokane River
Palouse River
Lower Green/
Duwamish River

Mill Creek
Weaver Creek
Dragon Creek

Budd Inlet
	Reference	

 1973 Water Quality Data Collected by Dupont

 1973 Water Quality Data Collected by  the  Virginia State
Water  Control Board

           Washington

Yake,  W.E.,  "Water Quality  Trent  Analysis,  The Spokane
River  Basin," Washington  State Department  of Ecology,
Water  and Wastewater Monitoring Section, July  1979

Singleton,  L.R.,  "Spokane  River  Wasteload   Allocation
Study-Supplemental Report  for Phosphorous Allocations,"
Water  Quality Investigations  Section,  Washington State
Department of Ecology, December 1981

State  of Washington  Department of  Ecology Spokane River
Wasteload Allocation Study,  Phase I, April 1981

Long Lake, Washington  Chlorophyll  A  Data, Sampling Data
and Notes

Bernhardt  J.  and W.  Yake,  "Assessment   of   Wastewater
Treatment and Receivng Water Quality - South Fork of the
Palouse River at  Pullman,  Washington," Washington State
Department of Ecology, Water  and  Wastewater  Monitoring
Section, February 1979

The Impact of Renton Wastewater Treatment Plant on Water
Quality of the Lower Green/Duwamish River

Memo  from  L. Singleton  and J. Joy  to C. Nuechterlein,
May 5, 1982

Moore,  A.  and  D. Anderson,  "Weaver Creek-Battleground
Sewage Treatment  Plant Impact  Study," Washington State
Department of  Ecology, Water  and  Wastewater  Monitoring
Section, December 1978

Memo from J.  Joy to C. Nuechterlein, April 22, 1981

Memo from B.  Yake to D. Cunningham, December 22, 1981

Kruger,  D.,   "Effects  of   Point-Source  Discharges  and
Other  Inputs  on Water Quality in Budd  Inlet, Washing-
ton,"    State  of  Washington,  Department  of Ecology,
December 1979
                                     B-13

-------
        River
Hurricane Creek
Lemonweir River
Bridge Creek
	Reference	

Yake,  W.  and R.  James, "Setting Effluent Ammonia Limits
to  Meet  In-Stream  Toxicity  Criteria,"  Water  Quality
Investigations Section,  Washington State  Department  of
Ecology, October 1981

          West Virginia

Miscellaneous Preconstruction Data

Letter  to  Maniktala  from  App  (Water  Quality  Model),
April  4, 1975

September 11, 1981,  Intensive Survey (Raw Data)

            Wisconsin

Report  of a Pre-Operative Point Source Impact  Study  on
the  South  Fork  of   the Lemonweir  River Near  the  Tomah
Wastewater  Treatment Plant,  Part of the  1978-1979 West
Central District Basin Assessment Survey Program, August
1980

Field Data Sheets-Tomah Fall Post-Op, November 1981

Tomah, Monroe County - 3 Combined Intensive   Studies,
Summer  1981 Data

Outline from Talk  on  Integrating NPS  and  Setting
Effluent Limits (Using Tomah as a Case Study)

Tomah Model Predictions, Computer Printout

Tomah Model Calibration, Computer Printout

Tomah Model Verification, Computer Printout

Report  of a Pre-Operative Point Source  Impact  Study  on
Bridge  Creek below  the  Augusta  Wastewater   Treatment
Plant,  Part  of  the  1978 West  Central District  Basin
Assessment Survey Program, October 31,  1980

Data  from  Survey  Done  in  Bridge Creek  Near  Augusta
Treatment Plant,  August 26, 27, 1981

Bridge Creek at Augusta, 1974 Survey

Augusta, Spring 1982 Post-Op Study
                                     B-14

-------
        River
Tomahawk River
Black River
Peshtigo River
Spring Brook
Isabelle Creek
Pigeon River
Miscellaneous
	Reference	

Pre-operational Stream Survey Conducted at the Minocqua
Sanitary District  Wastewater  Treatment Facility, North
Central District, Fall 1979

Minoaqua Post-op Summary Done  Fall-Winter  1981-82

Preliminary Pre-Post Operational  Study  of  Black  Creek
Related to  City of Seymour and  Village of Black Creek
Publicly Owned Treatment Works, Part  of the 1979-81 Lake
Michigan  District Basin  Assessment  Survey  Program,
February 1982

Pre-operational Stream  Survey of  Peshtigo Lake and  the
South   Branch  Peshitigo   River  Below   the  Crandon
Wastewater  Treatment  Plant Part  of  the  1980-81 Basin
Assessment Program,  Wisconsin  Department  of Natural
Resources,  North Central District, May 1980  - December
1980

Crandon Post-op Summary and Data  from   Fall   1981   and
Winter 1981-82 Survey

1978-79 Pre-operational  Survey  of  the City  of   Antigo
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Langlade  County Wisconsin

Post-op Summary and  Data,  Antigo STP Winter,  Spring,
Fall 1981  & Winter  1981 to  1982 Survey

Antigo POTW  Semore  Data, October  19,  1981 and February
10, 1982

"Preoperative Point Source Impact Study Isabelle Creek
Related to  the  Ellsworth  Coop Creamery and  Village  of
Ellsworth Wastewater Treatment Facilities," Part  of  the
1978 West  Central Basin Assessment Survey  Program

Post-op Data, Ellsworth STP and Creamery,  February 1982

Ellsworth Post-op Data, April  1982

Marion Pre-operation Survey, D.C.  Weisensel,  August  1978

Marion Post-op Data, August 1981

Hilsenhoff,  William L.,  Use  of  Arthropods  to Evaluate
Water  Quality  of  Streams,  Department  of  Natural
Resources,  Madison,  Wisconsin,   Technical  Bulletin  No.
100, 1977
                                     B-15

-------
River	  	Reference	

                Effluent Limits and Water Quality Standards   for  Noted
                Parameters  for Discharge  to  Various  Stream  Classifica-
                tions

                Water Quality  Standards for Wisconsin Surface  Waters

                The Development of a Water Quality Model  for  Waste  Load
                Allocations in Small Wisconsin Streams

                General  Procedure for Determination  of Effluent  Limits
                for Municipal  Dischargers

                         Miscellaneous

                Delaware River Basin Commission - Annual Report  1975

                Delaware River Basin Commission - Annual Report  1976

                Delaware River Basin Commission - Annual Report  1977

                Delaware River Basin Commission - Annual Report  1978

                Tiedemann, R.B., Tuffey, T.J.,  Hunter,  J.V.  and  J.
                Cirello, "The  Nitrogen Cycle  in  the Delaware  River," New
                Jersey  Water  Resources  Institute,  Rutgers   University,
                February 1981

                Smith V.H.  and J. Shipiro, "A Retrospective  Look  at the
                Effects of  Phosphorous Removal in Lakes," University  of
                Minnesota,  from  Environmental   Protection  Agency
                Publication  EPA 440/5-81-010.

                Shipiro, J., "The Need for More  Biology  in Lake  Restora-
                tion," University of  Minnesota, 1978

                Smith,  V.H.  and  J.  Shapiro,  "Chlorophyll-Phosphorous
                Relations in Individual  Lakes. Their Importance to  Lake
                Restoration   Strategies,"   Environmental   Science  &
                Technology, April 1981

                "A Compendium of  Lake and Reservoir Data Collected  b    y
                the National Eutrophication Survey in  the Western  United
                States," Working  Paper No. 477  Environmental Protection
               Agency,  September 1978

                "A Qualitative  Survey of  Fish  and Macroinvertebrates  o  f
                the  French Broad  River and   Selected  Tributaries
               June-August 1977," Division   of  Water  Resources,  Office
                of Natural  Resources, Tennessee Valley  Authority


                            B-16

-------
River	  	Reference	

                "Restoration  of  Lakes  and  Inland Waters,"  Proceedings
                from International  Symposium on  Inland  Waters  and  Lake
                Restoration Held  in Portland,  Maine  on  September  8-12,
                1980

                Classification, by  Various Authors of  the Tolerance  of
                Various Macroinvertebrates  Taxa to Decomposable Organic
                Wastes
                             B-17

-------
                                   APPENDIX C

                                 CASE SUMMARIES
Note:         1.   References are not provided in the text of the following case
                   studies.  Information sources reviewed are presented by state
                   in Appendix B.

              2.   The  information  provided  does  not  represent  an exhaustive
                   study of  the particular  water  body.   It does  represent an
                   overview of  the project which was  limited by finite time and
                   budgetary constraints.

              3.   The project  review stops  at  the  time of the post-operational
                   survey.    Further  changes  or  improvements  in  stream water
                   quality are therefore, not covered in the case summaries.

-------
                               APPENDIX C
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                      Page
     Project Case  Study	                                         Number
 Nashua  River                                                           C- 1
 Blackstone River                                                       C- 5
 Hudson  River                                                           C- 9
 Main Stem Patuxent River                                               C-13
 Hurricane Creek                                                        C-19
 South River                                                            C-23
 Potomac Estuary                                                        C-27
 Clinton River                                                          C-31
 Ottawa River                                                           C-37
 Bridge Creek                                                           C-43
 Lemonweir Creek                                                        C-47
Cibolo Creek                                                           C-53
Wilsons Creek                                                          C-59

-------
Project Case Study
Water Body:  Nashua River, Massachusetts


    The Nashua River, located in northern central Massachusetts and southern New
Hampshire,  is a  major  tributary to the Merrimack. River.  The Nashua consists of
a north branch,  south  branch and main stem  and  receives  wastewater inputs from
numerous  municipalities  and industries.   The north  branch of  the  river which
receives waste inputs from the  cities of Fitchburg and Leominster is the area of
concern for this review.

    In  1973,  a  water  quality  sampling  study of the  Nashua  was  conducted  to
collect water  chemistry  and other  data  required  for  a  wasteload  allocation
modeling  analysis  (Figure  C-l).     These   data showed  low  dissolved  oxygen
concentrations,  and  elevated BOD   and ammonia-N levels.   At  the  time  of this
survey, a number of industries  plus  the  cities  of Fitchburg and Leominster were
discharging treated secondary effluents to the north branch.

    Around  1975  two  new  treatment   plants,  Fitchburg  Westerly and  Fitchburg
Easterly,  came on  line.   These  plants were  designed based on the 1973 wasteload
allocation  analysis  to  provide  secondary treatment,  air  nitrification,
phosphorus  removal,  and  carbon adsorption   (Westerly  only).    However,  carbon
adsorption  columns  have  not functioned  properly since the  construction  of the
new Westerly POTW.

    A  review  of  the  AWT  application by  USEPA  for  the   city of  Leominster
indicated  the  original  wasteload  allocation modeling  analysis contained
uncertainty which  made the  AWT recommendation  questionable.  To overcome this,
the state of Massachusetts  conducted  another water  quality  survey of the Nashua
in 1977.  This survey  conducted at a slightly lower  river  flow, indicated some
slight improvements in North Branch  oxygen,  BOD   and  ammonia levels, presumably
in response to  increased  treatment   levels  at  Fitchburg.   Although,  Fitchburg
Westerly was not meeting  its designed effluent  BOD,,  of 8.0 mg/1 and Leominster
was  not   upgraded  to  AWT,  dramatic  improvements  in  oxygen   levels  were  not
observed (Figure C-2).

    Results of macroinvertebrate  data showed stressed  river conditions  in 1973
with  a predominance  of  pollution  tolerant species  such  as   tubified  worms,
leeches and  midge  larve.    More recent data  indicated  no  significant  shift  to
clean water communities.

    Recent  recreational  changes noted  was   the  use  of  scenic  portions  of the
lower  river for  canoeing.   In  recent  years the  river has been  upgraded from
class  C  (warm  water  fishery,   secondary  contact recreation)  to class  B  (warm
water  fishery,  primary and  secondary  contact   recreation).   In  addition, the
state has  already reclaimed  a 40 mile  by  300 foot wide "greenland buffer strip"
for  the  purpose of  scenic  recreation  and  to prevent  location of  any  further
sources of  pollution  near  the  river.   Although these  changes are  being made
before significant improvements in water quality are  observed,  the changes are
part   of  the areawide  planning  program and  are  being  made in  anticipation  of
improved water  quality in response to AWT/AST at the major point discharges.

-------

- 10
•^ 8
E* 6
0 4
o 2
o
1973 977
- r- 0.0. SATURATION
-$ A
— 2ZT 1
- Jit J


60 50
IOO
ฃ 80
- 6O
0 40
i 20
Q
/


J
1
60 50

.T
LJ ^0.0. STO
1
10
8
6
4
2
A
r-D.O. SATURATION
fi'ff]

i i

^0.0. STD.
1



40 30 20 60 50 40 30 20
X




/



1
IOO
80
60
40
20
r\
\s





40 30 20 60 50 40 30 20
NASHUA RIVER MILES NASHUA RIVER MILES
•^
w
3 8,000
36,000
Q.
24,000
to 2,000
TF 0
_


BOO,


-





NHj





-
-


~ BOD,
-
—

NH,





TOTAL TOTAL
INPUTS INPUTS
AUG. 27-
31, 1973 AUG. 16-
18, 1977
(63)-, ' 1973
bU
r 50
^ 40
1 30
a 20
o
m 10
o

- I
"~ ^ J' V T
K 1*1** 1
5O
4O
30
20
10
A
_
_ •
•
60 50 40 30 2O 60
6f
^ 5
** 4
z 3
1 2
r
o
^
•
_ %
•
*mm | | |
5
4
3
2

A
1977

L
^T • |^|



50 40 30 20
^* •
ซ^*i i " i
60 50 40 30 20 60


r 4
z 3
ซ 2
O
Z
Q
-
-
—

-_v. r ,
5
4
3
2

-
-
—
—





50 40 30 20




*
*— i . i
60 50 40 30 20 60





50 40 30 20
NASHUA RIVER MILES NASHUA RIVER MILES


                               Figure C-l

         Water Quality Comparisons for  Nashua River, Massachusetts
(Secondary Treatment to Secondary Treatment + Nitrification + P-Removal)

-------
Figure C-2
POST AUDIT FACT SHEET
NO. 1 WATER BODY NAME:
Nashua River (North Branch)
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
POINT SOURCE DESIGN:
FLOW (MGO) -
BOD, (mg / 1) / (IDป/dh
NH3(mg/l) / (Ibs/d ) =
COMMENT:
POINT SOURCE OPERATING'
FLOW (MGD)s
BOD, (mg/l) / ( Ib3/d) =
NH5 ( mg/l) / ( Ibs/d ) =
COMMENT:
RIVER CHEMISTRY:
AVERAGE D.O. (mg/l):
MINIMUM D.O. (mg/ 1 ) =
MAXIMUM BOD, (mg/l):
MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ l) =
MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l):
RM/lRM X TRIBUTARY TO:
ESTUARY Merrimack River
STATE: MODEL USED TO
Massachusetts MAKF wi A: YES X NO

STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
2
AVERAGE DEPTH: 1 to 4 feet
APPROX. VELOCITY:2 .1 to .5 ft/sec
SLOPE: 15 ft/mile (impounded throughout)
7Q10FLOW: 3 3.8 cfs
i BEFORE
Multiple Leominster
Inputs POTW TOTAL
6.0
TOTAL
10.5 6.4 16.9
59/(5175) 23/(1235) 6410
3.2/(279) 10.37(548) 827
Sec. Treat. Act. Sludge
5.1
0.6
65.0
4.0
0.031
AFTER
Fitchburg Leo-
East. West. minster TOTAL
12.4 15.3 6.0
8 8
1 1
TOTAL
4.5 12.5 3.9 20.9
4.37 357 24.07 4540
(160) (3500) (780)
.287 .437 18.07 641
(11) (45) (585)
See Note 5 Act. Sludge
5.5
0.2
45.0
2.4
0.009
% CHANGE
% CHANGE
+ 24%
- 29%
- 22%
+ 8%
- 67%
- 31%
- 40%
- 71%
COMMENTS: 1. Crocker Mill, Fitchburg Paper, Simonds Saw & Steel, Fitchburg POTW; 2. At 7Q10;
3. Upstream of point source inputs; 4. There are dams on the North Branch; 5. Act. Sludge +
Air nitrification + P-removal, also carbon columns which do not work at the west plant at the
the time of this study.

-------
Project Case Study
Water Body:  Blackstone River, Rhode Island


    The  Blackstone  River  located  in north eastern Rhode Island has  its
headwaters near  the  city  of Blackstone, Massachusetts.   The major point source
load to the river, is the Woonsocket POTW and is located about 12 miles upstream
from the mouth of the river.

    Before upgrading, in  late  1977,  the Woonsocket POTW was a primary treatment
plant.  Water  quality data collected in  1977  (Figure C-3) showed minimum river
dissolved  oxygen concentrations  of  2.0 mg/1  downstream  of  the  POTW  inflow.
Instream BOD,-  concentrations  during this survey were  as  high as  8.0 mg/1 while
maximum ammonia concentrations were near 0.5 mg/1.

    In  1977,   the  Woonsocket  POTW  was  expanded  and  upgraded to  an activated
sludge  type  secondary  treatment  plant  (Figure C-4).    Post-operational  field
sampling data collected in the Blackstone River showed improved dissolved oxygen
concentrations after  the  plant upgrade.  After  the plant  was brought on line,
minimum dissolved oxygen  concentrations were about 7.2 mg/1 as  opposed  to near
1.0 mg/1 before plant upgrading (Figure C-5).

    No water quality  modeling  was done  to develop  wasteload allocations because
the POTW  by  federal  law  was  required  to  upgrade  to a  minimum  of secondary
treatment.  Further, recreational data and/or biological data were not uncovered
within the framework of this project.
                                      C-5

-------
1977
_ 10
\ 8
o>
E 6
O ^
o 2
o
r-O.O. SATURATION
\] "T" -i

- 1 T I .
1 '
1 1 1
20 15 10 5

250
ฃ 200
0 150
g ,00
^ 50
Q
1978


i

•
10
8
6
4
2
n
^0.0. SATURATION
^— • J i J_
-
-
1 1 1





0 20 15 10 5 0

-
' , t
20 15 10 5
250
200
150
100
50
A
-
_
-*-1
-
_
I 1 1






0 20 15 10 5 0
BLACKSTONE RIVER MILES BLACKSTONE RIVER MILES
o
ZBjOOd
36,000
1 4,000
ฃ 2,000
2 r,
-
BOD,


NHj





-
"
-
BOD,
1 |NHl





WOONSOCKET POTW WOONSOCKET POTW
SEPTEMBER 1, 1977 SEPTEMBER 13, 1978
1977 1978
r 10
^. 8
1 6
ฃ 4
O
CD 2
Q
-
—
HT
1 - T
r r , , '
10
8
6
4
2
f\
-
—
-
!.
, I } ^





20 15 10 5 0 20 15 ,0 5 0


ป 2
-
10
z
Q

_

-

W • 1 1 • '

2



n

_

-

ซi • r • -i • '






20 15 10 5 0 20 15 10 5 0


~ 2
z
10
0
CM
ง o

"
-
A A • 4
1 * ป * *l

2




"
-

i i i





20 -15 10 5 0 20 15 10 5 0
BLACKSTONE RIVER MILES BLACKSTONE RIVER MILES
                     Figure C-3
Water Quality Companions for Blackstone River,  Rhode Island
      (Primary Treatment to Secondary Treatment)

-------
                                                                                                  Figure C-4
  POST AUDIT  FACT  SHEET
NO. 2 WATER BODY NAME:
Blackstone River
STREAM
RIVER
LAKE
ESTUARY
TRIBUTARY TO'
Atlantic Ocean
STATE:
Rhode Island
MODEL USED TO
MAKE  WLA: YES
NO X
 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
 AVERAGE DEPTH: approximately 6 feet
 APPROX. VELOCITY:  variable
 SLOPE= impounded
 7Q10 FLOW:   101 cfs upstream of POTW
 POINT SOURCE DESIGN:
  FLOW (MGD) '•
  BOD, (mg /I )  / (Ibs/d):
  NH3(mg/l) / (Ibs/d):
  COMMENT:
 POINT SOURCE OPERATING'
  FLOW (MGD):
  BOD5 (mg/l) / ( Ibs/d):
  NH3 (mg/l) / ( Ibs/d ):
  COMMENT:
 RIVER CHEMISTRY:
  AVERAGE 0.0. (mg/l):
  MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l ):
  MAXIMUM BOD9 (mg/l):
  MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ I):
  MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l):
           BEFORE
           Woonsocket
             POTW       TOTAL
                        TOTAL
             6.5         6.5
          116/(6288)    6228
          7.5/(407)      407
       Primary Treatment
             5.9
             1.0
             7.0
             0.48
            0.002
                                  AFTER
                                 WoonsocKet
                                   POTW        TOTAL
                                              TOTAL
                                    8.5        8.5
                                 23/(1630)    1630
                                 3.07(213)     213
                               Secondary Treatment
                                    8.7
                                    7.2
                                    5.0
                                   0.28
                                   0.001
                                % CHANGE
                                % CHANGE
                                 +  31%
                                 -  74%
                                 -  48%
                                 +  48%
                                 + 620%
                                 -  29%
                                 -  42%
                                 -  50%
 COMMENTS:

-------
                         1974 '   1975  '   1976    1977
                            PRIMARY TREATMENT-*
                              1978    1979    1980 '   1981
                                SECONDARY TREATMENT
                                              1982
                                   JUNE, JULY, AUGUST 8 SEPTEMBER
             FLOW
             D.O.
             NH,
BEFORE
  225
  5.3
 0.29
                               MEAN  (mg/ I )
                                AFTER      % CHANGE
                          STANDARD DEVIATION (mg/l)
                             BEFORE      AFTER
 8.3
0.41
+ 57%
+ 41 %
103
 2.4
0.17
 1.2
0.33
1-UNITS= CFS
                                                                                     DATA SOURCE STORET
                                              Figure  C-5
                          Time History Data Analysis  for  Blackstone River
                        (Station Code* 01112900 •  Agency Code' II2WRD)

-------
Project  Case  Study
Water  Body:   Hudson River, New York


    The  area  of  interest for this evaluation  is  the upper Hudson River  estuary
in  the vicinity of Albany, New York.   At  the  upper end of the study area,  near
river  mile  154,  is the Troy Dam.   Downstream the  river is tidal but free  of  sea
water  intrusion.  Major  sources of municipal and  industrial waste  are discharged
to  the river  upstream of  the Troy  Dam  and  in the  vicinity  of Albany.

    In the  late  1960s  and early 1970s the river, upstream and  downstream of  the
dam,  received large amounts  of  treated and untreated municipal  and industrial
wastewater.   In  the  mid-1970s, many  industrial  discharges in the Albany  area
were  diverted  to  the three  major  new  POTWs; Albany North,   Albany  South  and
Rensselaer.

    Before  upgrading,  the treatment plants were  designed as primary facilities
and  after  upgrading,  the  plant   designs  were  for activated  sludge  secondary
treatment.    Post-audit  data  from  1977  show  the   two  Albany  area  plants  are
achieving  effluent BOD_  levels  of  less  than 10.0 mg/1 and  effluent  ammonia
levels of less than 1.0 mg/1.

    The  following figures (C-6, C-7),  show that,  although, point BOD  loads  have
been  reduced  by  about 94 percent  between  1964 and  1977,  the BOD,,  load  entering
the upper  river  from  the Troy Dam has  remained high and  has actually  increased
by some  42 percent.  At  the high flow  condition observed  in  1977,  these  upstream
loads  now dominate  the  point  loads  by  a  factor in  excess of 20  to 1.    At  7Q10
this  factor may  be  reduced  to about 7 to  1.   Between  the  two available  surveys,
the total BODc load has been reduced by about  28  percent.

    It is evident from the figures that after  upgrading of the  treatment  plants,
the river  dissolved oxygen  levels have increased  substantially  while  BODc  and
ammonia  in  the  river  have decreased slightly.  Dissolved oxygen  concentrations
during 1977 were well above the dissolved  oxygen  standard  of 4.0 mg/1.

    In the mid- and  late  1960s  water   quality  mathematical  model  wasteload
allocation  studies  were  performed   to  develop   waste   treatment efficiencies
required  to  meet river  dissolved  oxygen   standards.   These  studies required  at
least  secondary  treatment plus 50 percent ammonia removal  at  all Albany  area
inputs and other loads upstream of the Troy Dam (Figure C-8).

    Evaluation  of  the   post-audit  data   set  using observed  river  flows  and
wasteload allocation model  kinetic  rates  indicates (Figure  C-8)   that  the  model
agrees fairly well  with  the observed  data.    To  actually  simulate the  observed
BOD,,  and dissolved oxygen  data,  however, it  was  necessary to reduce  the  CBOD
decay  rate  (K.,)  from  a  rate  of 0.25/day (base e,  20  C)  to  about 0.15/day  (see
main text, Section 4.3).

    No information was available within the framework  of  this project concerning
biological improvements and/or improved  recreational  uses  of  the river
associated with upgraded water quality and improved treatment.  Since completion
of the project,  however,  two  new  riverside parks with boat launching facilities
have been built in this area of the  Hudson.

-------
1964

~ 10
o> 8
c
-5 6
6 4
0
2
0
IS
ip fW">
ฃ 8,OOO
o
0 4,000
u.
o

_ ^0.0. SATURATION
t*
~ * fT 0.0. STO.
V i"'
L * * 1
5 145 135 125 II
APPRO*.


1 1
10
8
6
4
2
0
5 IE




-
~t
™~
i—

>5



•A

1977

r-O.O. SATURATION
^1
*ซ5Qf ป'
^-0.0. STD.

i i




145 135 125 115
APPHOX.
_

_



ft!
155 145 135 125 115 155



i i




145 135 125 M5
HUDSON RIVER MILES HUDSON RIVER MILES
120
- 100
\- ^
^^ BO
-~60

-
"~

I \ \
)5 145 135 125 1


__
• ••.&* * •.• •••!



5




155 145 135 125 M5 155 145 135 125 115

_ J
9
E
- 2
z
n
O

CM
O


^


—

o

2






"~


"• •+ • •
1 1 1







155 145 135 125 115 155 145 135 125 115
HUDSON RIVER MILES HUDSON RIVER MILES

                   Figure C-6

Water Quality Comparisons for Hudson River, New York
    (Primary Treatment to Secondary Treatment)

-------
                                                                                                 Figure  C-7
  POST AUDIT FACT SHEET
NO. 3 WATER BODY NAME:
Hudson .River
STREAM
RIVER
LAKE
ESTUARY
TRIBUTARY TO =
Atlantic Ocean
STATED
 New York
MODEL USED TO
MAKE  WLA: YES
X   NO
 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
 AVERAGE DEPTH=  approximately 20 ft
 APPROX. VELOCITY^  fresh water approximately 0.1 cfs
 SLOPE=   N/A
 7010 FLOW=   approximately 3,000 cfs
 POINT SOURCE DESIGN^
  FLOW (MGD) -
  BODS (mg/l) /(ID
  NH3 (mg/l) / (Ibs/d ) =
  COMMENT:
 POINT SOURCE OPERATING'
  FLOW (MGD):
  BOD9 (mg/l) / ( lbs/d) =
  NH, (mg/l) / ( Ibs/d ) =
  COMMENT:
 RIVER CHEMISTRY:
  AVERAGE 0.0. (mg/l) =
  MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l ) =
  MAXIMUM  BOD5 (mg/l):
  MAXIMUM  NH,  (mg/ I):
  MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l):
                                            BEFORE
                        TOTAL
                       TOTAL
                      -/(124000)
                      -/(5000)
                      Raw,  PRI  &
                      Industrial
              3.9
              0.4
              9.0
              2.3
             0.005
                                  AFTER
                      Albany No. Albany So.
                      TOTA'.
                                              TOTAL
                         15.0       19.5
                       8/(1087)  8.5/U386)  -/(7411)
                       .1/(12.5)   .17(16.2)  -/(1890)

                       Sec.Treat. Sec.Treat.
                                     7.0
                                     5.6
                                     4.0
                                     0.25
                                    0.003
               % CHANGE
                                % CHANGE
                                     94%
                                     62%
                                     79%
                                 + 1300%
                                     55%
                                     89%
                                     40%
 COMMENTS-'   1.   Does not include any industrial loadings;

-------
POST AUDIT MODEL FACT SHEET
WATER BODY NAME' HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK
MODEL TYPE' FINITE SEGMENT CALIBRATED' YES _*_ NO 	
MODEL NAME' HRM( HUDSON RIVER MOD.) VALIDATED' YES JL_ NO 	
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
RIVPR FI nw: 5IOOCFS
BIWFB TFUP: 23ฐC
POINT SOURCE INFO;
TOTAL LOAD
Q(MGD)= 	
BOD9 (lbซ/doy)= 47,000
NBOOdbs /doy) = 62,000
UPSTREAM INFQ:
Q(CFS) = 3,100
BOD9(mg/l): 1.8
NBOD(mg/l) = 2.3
COMMENTS1
FOR 80% BOD98
40% NBOD REMOVAL
POST AUDIT
mivfa FL^W: 8790 CFS
RIVE" TEMP: 24.3ฐC
POINT SOURCE INFO=
TOTAL LOAD
Q(MGD)= 51.7
B009 (lbs/doy)= 7,411
NBODMbs/doy) = 8,640
UPSTREAM INFO:
Q(CFS)= 8,790
BOO, (mg/l): 3.5
NBOD (mg/ l)= 0.2
COMMENTS:

DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
— Oro -tk ft OB O f\5
1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
-O ro A cr> oo O N

r- D.O. SATURATION
/- MODEL ^^^^"*"
^—0.0. STD.
1 1 1

15 143 135 125 115
HUDSON RIVER MILES

JUNE 28-30, 1977
r-0.0. SATURATION
- Ki"J?
^-^UiHj_^-i
^- MODEL
\-D.O. STO.
1 1 1

5 145 135 125 115
HUDSON RIVER MILES
Figure C-8

-------
 Project  Case  Study
 Water  Body:   Main Stem Patuxent River, Maryland

    The  Patuxent  River  located  in  the   state  of  Maryland  is  tributary  to
 Chesapeake  Bay  on  the western shore of the bay.  The  river  is formed just  east
 of  Washington,  D.C.  and flows south  east  towards Chesapeake Bay.  Upstream the
 river  has  three  branches;  Upper  Main Stem, Middle Patuxent and Little Patuxent.
 The  area of  interest  for  this review is  the Upper Main  Stem from about  river
 mile 75  to  river mile 65.

    In this reach,  the Laurel Parkway POTW contributes about 6  cfs  of  flow  to
 the river.   At  a 7Q10 flow of 16 cfs, this sewage accounts for about 27 percent
 of  the river flow.   The river is  approximately 1.9  feet  deep  and  flows   at  a
 velocity of near 0.3  ft/sec,  at low flow.

    In 1968, when  the  Laurel Parkway  POTW  was designed   and  operated  as  a
 secondary  treatment  plant,  intensive water quality data  collected  in   1968
 (Figures C-9, C-10),  showed dissolved  oxygen  concentrations in  violation of both
 the daily average standard  (5.0 mg/1) and  the minimum  daily standard  (4.0 mg/1).
 These  data  also indicate  that  instream  conversion   of  ammonia-N  to  nitrate
 nitrogen was  in part  responsible for  the dissolved oxygen depressions.

    Additional dissolved oxygen data  (Figure  C-ll)  available at  river mile 70.8
 during 1966  and  1967  showed  the river was stressed  during each  of the low flow
 summer months.   Both  1966  and 1977 data collected at  flows  at/or less than the
 7Q10  low flow  exhibited dissolved  oxygen concentrations  between 2.9  and  4.8
 mg/1.

    Because river quality was  already stressed and growth was anticipated in the
 basin, plans  were  developed to upgrade the treatment  at the Laurel Parkway and
 Maryland City POTWs  (mile  78.5)  as well as POTWs on other  branches of the  free
 flowing  river.    In   1969,  the state  legislature passed  rulings requiring  all
 treatment plants in  the  basin to  be designed for AWT.  This  policy was further
 defined  by  the State  of  Maryland  Department of Health  and Mental Hygiene,  which
 defined effluent limits  as 10.0  mg/1   BOD    and   3.0  mg/1  total  nitrogen
 (oxidizable nitrogen of  1.0 mg/1).

    Recently, treatment  requirements  have  been re-evaluated  and  permits revised
 to be  less  stringent.   The  Parkway plant  now has a permit of 30.0  mg/1 BOD- and
 6.0 mg/1 of  TKN, while  the  Maryland City has limits of only  BOD5 at 30.0  mg/1.
 These  revisions  were  made  after  original  projections  were  made  and after this
 present  study was complete.

    A  water  quality  model  calibration and  projection  analysis  conducted  by
 USEPA, Region III and  published  in 1974,  confirmed  that effluent limits of 10.0
mg/1 BOD and  total nitrogen of 3.0  mg/1  (oxidizable  nitrogen of  1.0 mg/1)  would
 allow  for compliance with the  dissolved oxygen standard of 5.0  mg/1 in the  Upper
Main Stem.   The  modeling framework called  AUTO-QUAL was  used in this analysis.
The 1968 data was  used for model  calibration and additional 1973 data was used
 for model verification.
                                      C-13

-------
1968 1978


•2 10
^. 8
E
- 6
0 4
ci
2
Q


— x
I T

\- D.O. STD.
-
1 1 1

IO
8

6
4
2
r\




— r- D.O. SATURAT ON
_ • *
• •
—
~~ ^-0.0. STD.
—
1 1
	 — -U-J _













80 75 70 65 60 80 75 70 65 60


- 5O
i/>
u. 40
- 3O
0 20
_j
u. 10
Q

—

^^,
^
^^
- ,1 , ,

5O

40
30
2O
10
n

- ,f ,







80 75 70 65 6O 80 75 70 65 60
PATUXENT RIVER MILES PATUXENT RIVER
TJ IcUU
* IOOO
- 800
3 600
a.
z 40O
 200
< 0
-
—
_
BOD
- m
BOD. 1 1 1
.— 2.TKN [ | |
\C\J*J
IOOO
80O
6OO

400
200
-
—
_

~ ITKN
~~ BO0^ 1 BODS
MILES




TKN
NM,





Md CITY LAUREL-PKWY. Md. CITY LAUREL-PKWY.
POTW POTW POTW POTW
JULY 15-19, 1968 AUGUST 22, 1978
1968


10
o 8
E
- 6
a 4
0
05 2
Q



1978

(IT) (I9)(I8)(I2)(I3)(I7)
^
_

—
~" I
-





l
i

-
BO 75


\ 5
a
E 4
Z 3
1 _

-------
Figure C- 10
POST AUDIT FACT SHEET
NO. 4 WATER BODY NAME:
Main Stem Patuxent River
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS




POINT SOURCE DESIGN:
FLOW (MGD) s
BOD, (mg/l) / (lbt/d) =
NH,(mg/l) / (Ibi/d)*
COMMENT:
POINT SOURCE OPERATING:
FLOW (MGD):
BOD, (mg/l) / (lb$/d):
NH,(mg/l)/ ( Ibt/d ):
COMMENT:
RIVER CHEMISTRY:
AVERAGE 0.0. (mg/l)s
MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l):
MAXIMUM BOD, (mg/l):
MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ 1):
MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l):
STREAM >
RIVER
LAKE
ESTUARY

' TRIBUTARY T0= STATE:
Chesapeake Bay Maryland

MODEL USED TO
MAKP Wl A: YES X NO

STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
AVERAGE DEPTH: 1-2 feet at 7Q10
APPROX.
SLOPE=
VELOCITY: 0.3 ft/sec at 7Q10
N/A


7010FLOW: 16.5 cfs upstream of point sources
BEFORE
Laurel Pkwy. MD Cty
POTW POTW TOTAL
2.4

0.75

Secondary

2.0
217(350)
177(283)
Sec. Treat



TOTAL
.44 2.4
107(37) 387
3.5/U3)3 296
Sec. Treat.
5.5
3.8
18
2.2
0.014
AFTER
Laurel Pkwy. MD Cty
POTW POTW TOTAL
8.21 1.71
107(684) 107(142)
3/(205)2 3/(25)2



TOTAL
4.5 .48 5.0
17(38) 10/(40) 78
.3/(ll)3 15/(60) 71.0
Nitrif. Sec. Treat.
7.9
7.6
0.1
0.0005
% CHANGE



% CHANGE
+ 108%
- 80%
- 76%

+ 44%
+ 100%
- 94%
- 95%
- 96%
COMMENTS-' !• For year 1988 (Pkwy.), 1980 (MD Cty) as per 1975 permits; 2. Total nitrogen;
3. TKN

-------
0>

E
ui
o
>-
X
o

o
UJ
           PATUXENT RIVER at MILE 70.8
     JAN.  FEB. MARCH APRIL  MAY  JUNE   JULY  AUG. SEPT.  OCT.

                           MONTH OF YEAR



                JUNE. JULY, AUGUST a SEPTEMBER



                             MEAN  (mg/ I )

                     BEFORE    AFTER     % CHANGE
                                NOV.   DEC
             0.0.
3.7
7.6
+ 108%
                          Figure C-11

  Time History Data Analysis for Main Stem Patuxent River
          (Station- PXT0708-State of Maryland)

-------
    In mid-1974 the Laurel Parkway POTW construction was completed and the plant
came  on  line  as  with  secondary  treatment  plus  inplant  nitrification  (not
denitrification).  Instream water quality data collected August 22, 1978 (Figure
C-9), show substantial increases in river oxygen concentrations and decreases in
BOD,  and  ammonia  concentrations in  response to the  improved  treatment levels.
Further,  data  collected  at other  times  during 1978  also  indicated  significant
improvements in river oxygen levels near the sag point (river mile 70.3).  These
data  collected  at flows  near  7Q10  indicate  average 1978 summer dissolved oxygen
concentrations  of  about  7.6  mg/1  in  comparison to  average  1966,  1967
concentrations of about 3.7 mg/1.

    In order to assess the adequacy of the  verified  model  to predict changes in
water quality,  the  model  coefficients  k ,  k  ,  k ,  etc.  used in the  low flow
wasteload allocation model were input to a post-audit simulation model at proper
flows and  temperatures.   The  wasteloads  from Maryland City  and  Laurel Parkway
POTWs were also  input  to  the  model which was  set  up  for  August   22,  1978
conditions.  Dissolved oxygen simulations made are shown on the bottom of Figure
12.  As can be seen on this figure, the verified model coefficients were able to
simulate post-audit  field data with a high degree of accuracy.

    Within  the  framework  of  this  project,  no  biological  sampling  data  or
recreational data were available to evaluate changes in river use in response to
upgraded treatment.
                                     C-17

-------
1 POST AUDIT MODEL FACT SHEET
WATER BODY NAME' MAIN STEM PATUXENT RIVER
MODEL TYPE' MODEELDIFFERENCE CALIBRATED' YES JL_ NO 	
MODEL NAME' AUTO SS OR AUTO QUAL VALIDATED* YES JL. NO 	
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
RIX/FP Fi ft*: I6.5CFS
RIX/FB TFUP: 28ฐC
POINT SOURCE INFQ:
LAUREL MO.
PARKWAY CITY
0(MGD) = 6.4 2.7
BOD9 (mg/l)= 10 10
NH3(mg/ I )= I I
UPSTREAM INFO:
0(CFS)= 16.5
BOD, (mg/l): 1.4
NH3 (mg/ 1 ) = 0.6
COMMENTS:

POST AUDIT
BIVFB FI n*: l7-6 CFS
BiyFB TfliP: 23ฐC
POINT SOUHCg INFO
LAUREL Md.
PARKWAY CITY
O(MGD): 4.5 .46
BOO, (mg/l): 1.0 9.6
NH,(mg/l )= 0.3 12.5
UPSTREAM INFO:
Q(CFS)= 17.6
BOD5(mq/l)= 1.0
NH3(mg/l)= 0.6
COMMENTS:
1-UPSTREAMOF
POINT SOURCES
12
- .0
o>
E
z 8
UJ
o
X 6
O
o
UI
> 4
_J
O

-------
Project Case Study
Water Body:  Hurricane Creek, West Virginia


    Hurricane  Creek  located in western West  Virginia flows north  from  the  city
of  Hurricane  towards the  Kanawha River.   The  creek is a  shallow slow  moving
creek which at a 7Q10 low  flow of 0.1 cfs  is  effluent dominated  by  the Hurricane
POTW effluent  flow of about 0.5 mgd.

    The Hurricane  treatment  facility in 1972  was  a trickling filter plant  with
an  effluent  BOD   concentration   in  excess of  70.0  mg/1.   Water  quality  data
collected  in  the  creek  in June  1972  (Figures C-13,  C-14)  show  the river to  be
stressed with  respect to dissolved oxygen, BOD,,  and TKN  levels.  A  water quality
model developed  by USEPA,  Region III in  1975 and calibrated  against   the  1972
water quality  data showed  the Hurricane POTW  to  be  the major source of pollution
in Hurricane Creek.   A wasteload allocation  performed using this  model (Figure
C-15)  showed  treatment  at  the  Hurrican POTW  would  have  to  be upgraded  to
effluent BOD,  and  TKN concentration of 5.0 and  2.0 mg/1, respectively  in order
to comply with a river dissolved  oxygen standard of 5.0  mg/1.

    In the late 1970s an  oxidation  ditch treatment facility was constructed and
the old  trickling  filter  plant was  abandoned. In  1981,  intensive  water quality
data was collected  in Hurricane  Creek to  evaluate  the effectiveness of  the new
treatment  levels.   At  the time of  this  survey,  the  Hurricane POTW was  actively
nitrifying in  the  plant.   Data collected  during the  1981  survey  (Figure C-13)
showed increases in  creek dissolved  oxygen concentrations  as  well  as decreases
in both BODc and TKN when  results were compared  to  1971  field data.  During  this
survey, which  was  conducted at stream flows  near  the 7Q10 of 0.10 cfs,  average
oxygen  concentrations  did  not   violate  the  daily   average   dissolved  oxygen
standard of 5.0 mg/1.

    As part  of the  present  study,  the  calibrated  model was  applied using the
post-audit survey  conditions  to  evaluate  the  effectiveness of  the  model.  This
analysis was  performed  using the September  11,  1981  creek flows,  temperatures,
the Hurricane  POTW  September 11,  1981  effluent  characteristic BOD   and  TKN
equaling 4.7  and  1.4 mg/1,  respectively.   All  oxidation  and  reaeration rates
were as  set  equal  to the  rate  used in the original  wasteload  allocation.   The
results of this analysis are shown on Figure  C-15.

    As indicated  on this  figure  the  model  does  predict oxygen concentrations
which are  increased  from   the earlier calibration  period.   The model,  however,
does over calculate instream dissolved oxygen  concentrations.

    In the  framework of  the present  study,   no data were  found   on  biological
changes or recreational activity  on Hurricane  Creek.
                                      C-19

-------
1972 1981
~ 10
\
9 8
E
~ 6
9 4
o
2

^-D.O. SATURATION

•*-
—
—
I
1— i
1 !
ฐ 0 5
15
ฃ 10
o
I 5
u_



j








t- 0.0. STO.


1 1
10
8
6
4

2


'~ _ /'
- -i- T ^-o.o.
_T T f SATURATION
Tk A — \
-iLT I
^t y
t- 0.0. STO.

— |
till
10 15 "0 5 10 15



_^r-^





ฐ 0 5
MILES
~~ 30O
a
~ 20O
l-
o.
z 100
en
< 0
f
-
-



1 1
13
10

5



—

—

_l ป. i i
10 15 ^ 0 5 10 15
FROM POTW MILES FROM POTW
iOD.



i
TKN
~\
ouu
200
100

—
BODj
|~~[TKN
HURRICANE CR. HURRICANE CR.
POTW POTW
JUNE
6-7,1972 SEPTEMBER 28-30,1981
1972 1981
c 10
o 8
E
— 6
Q 4
o
CO
2
Q
-
"~
- T
^
w
I
iiii
10
8
6
4

2

-
~
—
- i J
4 ^^ป
— 1
IIII







0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
\ 10
9
E 8
Z 6
i
Z 4
K 2
Q
-
—
- j
_ j_
^
ซ•! 1 1 -^ 1
10
8
6
4
2
r\
-
—
-
••
- ,.
• 1^ 1 1






0 5 10 15 ~ 0 5 10 15

= 10
E 8
Z 6
i
ซ A
O *
Z 2
o
-
^
NO DATA
IIII
10
8
6
4
2

"™ "T"
:U
dill



0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
MILES FROM POTW MILES FROM POTW

                                Figure C-13

         Water Quality Comparions for Hurricane Creek, West Virginia
(Trickling Filter Secondary Treatment to Oxidation Ditch Secondary Treatment)

-------
Figure C-14
POST AUDIT FACT SHEET
NO. 5 WATER BODY NAME:
Hurricane Creek

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS


POINT SOURCE DESIGN:
FLOW (MGD) =
BOD9 (mg/l) / (IDs/d) =
NH, (mg/l) / (lbs/d) =
COMMENT:
POINT SOURCE OPERATING:
FLOW (MGD)-
BODS ( mg/l) / ( lbs/d)s
NH3 (mg/l) / ( Ibs/d )s
COMMENT:
RIVER CHEMISTRY1
AVERAGE D.O. (mg/l):
MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l ) =
MAXIMUM BOD, (mg/l) =
MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ l) =
MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l) =
COMMENTS:

R!vlRM X TRIBUTARY TO =
LAKE Kanawaha River
ESTUARY
STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
AVERAGE DEPTH= less than i.o ft
APPROX. VELOCITY: 0.04 ft/sec a
SLOPE=
7Q10FLOW= 0.1 cfs upstream of
BEFORE
HuTTrlCSHe
POTW TOTAL
TOTAL
0.29 0.29
110/(267) 267
34/(83) 83
Trickling
Filter

5.6
2.6
5.6
5.4
0.007


STATE: MODEL USED TO
West Virginia MAKE WLA: YES


t 7Q10
POTW
AFTER
rfurrlcane
POTW TOTAL
TOTAL
0.64 0.64
4.7/(25) 25
1.4/(7.5) 7.5
Oxidation
Ditch

6.3
4.5
5.1
1.3
0.004


X NO




% CHANGE
% CHANGE
+ 120%
- 90.6%
- 91.0%

+ 12.5%
+ 73.1%
- 8.9%
- 75.9%
- 42.8%


-------
POST AUDIT MODEL FACT SHEET
WATER BODY NAME' HURRICANE CREEK
MODEL TYPE* STREETER-PHELPS RivERCALIBRATED* YES JL NO —
MODEL NAME' CADEP(USEPA REGION TJLT) VALIDATED- YES 	 NO JL_
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
RIVFB Fl nw: O-1 CFS
RIVFR TFMP: 26.7ฐC
POINT SOURCE INFO:
HURRICANE
POTW
0(MGD)= 1.55
BOD9 (mg/l) : 5.0
TKN (mg/l )= 2.0
UPSTREAM INFO:
0(CFS)= O.I
2
TKN (mg/l)= 	
COMMENTS:
1-7010
2-ULT. CBOD +NBOD
POST AUDIT
BIVFB Fl nw: 0.16 CFS
HIWFB TfUP: I5ฐC
POINT SOURCE M4FO:
HURRICANE
POTW
O(MGO): 0.64
BOD9 (mg/l): 4.7
TKN (mg/l )= 1.4
UPSTREAM INFO:
0(CFS)= 0.16
BOD9 (mg/l)= 3.01
TKN (mg/l)= 0.4
COMMENTS:
1-ULT. CBOD+NBOP
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
O ro * o> 09 O fv>
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
3 IV) * O> 09 6 ivป

i—. 0.0. SATURATION
— \. -i***^""*'^ L- MODEL
/
ฃ-0.0. STD.
1 II 1
0 5 10 15
MILES FROM POTW

i— 0.0. SATURATION
^t*** *- MODEL
* ' /
*- 0.0. STD.
1 II 1
0 5 10 15
MILES FROM POTW


Figure C-15

-------
Project Case Study
Water Body:  South River, Virginia


    The South River is  located  in  the  northwestern part of Virginia.  The South
River  joins  the Middle River and North  River near Port  Republic,  Virginia to
form  the  South  Fork  Shenandoah  River.   The watershed  consists  primarily of
agricultural and forest land, with the only heavy populated area being the  city
of Waynesboro.   River  flows  approach  the 7Q10  low flow on a  regular basis in
summer months.

    Water  quality problems of   primary  concern  are  low dissolved  oxygen
concentrations  as  well  as  large  diurnal  fluctuations  in  dissolved oxygen  as a
result  of  photosynthesis  and  respiration  by attached  algae   and  higher level
aquatic plants.  Wastewater discharged to  the  river by both municipalities and
industries are  expected to  account for about 27 cfs in  the  future.  This waste
flow will  at  7Q10  account  for  about 50 percent  of the river flow downstream of
the point source inputs.

    In  1974,  the state  of  Virginia  performed initial  mathematical modeling of
the South  River to  develop preliminary  wasteload allocations.   At this time,
instream nitrification  and attached  algal  photosynthesis  and  respiration  were
defined as the major issues influencing river dissolved oxygen  levels.

    Wasteload  allocations  developed  required point  sources to  reduce  ammonia
levels  in  their effluents.   After  reduction of  ammonia  by DuPont,  additional
water  quality  data sets  were  collected  and used  to  recalibrate  and  verify a
water quality model by  USEPA, Region III.

    Review of  data collected after installation  of nitrification facilities by
DuPont indicated improved dissolved  oxygen  levels and reduced ammonia levels in
the river  (Figures  C-16,  C-17).   Monitoring  data collected  by  the  state of
Virginia at  river  mile 18.5 also reflect  the upgrade of  treatment at  DuPont.
Dissolved oxygen data (Figure C-18) from  summer  periods before  the  plant  upgrade
indicated a mean dissolved  oxygen  concentration  of 5.6 mg/1 while  after  the AWT
upgrade dissolved  oxygen levels averaged 7.0 mg/1.   Similarly,  ammonia  levels
before  upgrade  averaged  1.5   mg/1  and  after  upgrade  ammonia  concentrations
averaged 0.3 mg/1.  Biological macroinvertebrate data  collected  in 1970,  five
miles  downstream of DuPont  showed  99 percent of  the  species  to  be bloodworms and
sludge worms, pollution tolerent group.   Biological  data  collected  in  1979,  four
miles  downstream of DuPont, still indicated  the  presence of pollution dominant
species but also indicated  the  presence of  facultative and  pollution  intolerant
species.  No data were  uncovered concerning recreational use of the  river in the
framework of this project.
                                      C-23

-------
1974
~ 10
^. 8
~ 6
0 4
Q
2
o
1976
^0.0. SATURATION -r
a\_ A
f I
4 	 T
T 	 i
i i
25 20 15
(A
u. 100
o
*"•""
S 50
u.
Q

h
0ปIL




34ILY HIN.
sro.
V AVG.STQ
1
10
8
6
4
2

^" " t DO-SAT-

L
\
10 5 25 20
t , , ,
25 20 15


100


50
n


^r-^^^
f

! ,
10 5 25 20
/-
0*IL
|
15

.— — •



,
15

r
-0ปILT HIN.STa
V AVG. (TO.
I


10 5
	 	 *
. 	



1






10 5
SOUTH RIVER MILES SOUTH RIVER MILES
•o I2Oฐ
"ซ 1000
- 800
=> 600
a.
- 400
ฃ 200
^ 0
~ BOD, -
„_.

	
-

— T
"




DUPONT
AUGUST 14-15
KN





ItlJVJ
IOOO
800
600

400
200
n
_ BOD5
_

~"
-





TKN




NHj
1






DUPONT
, 1974 JULY 7-8, 1976
1974
- 10
ป 8
~ 6
n
Q 4
O
00 2
o
,_ NO DATA
__
1 1 1
10
8
6
4
2


\ '

)
1
i
<
i
25 20 15 10 5 25 20

E 2
—
z
i
r
z
Q

—

•r
* *
1 II 1 .

2


1
n
1976

l i
15 10


5
>_ ฃix ป ii i .
25 20 15 10 5 25 20

_ o
0>
E
Z
i
0
Z
CM
O

I *
T * ?
I

~
\
\ 1 1
J
2






i ^
J-
1
15 10

III .
•^


C
1
25 20 15 10 5 25 20





15 10






5













5
SOUTH RIVER MILES SOUTH RIVER M 1 LES
                     Figure C-\&
 Water Quality Comparisons for South River, Virginia
(Trickling  Fi Iter to Nitrification at  Du Pont only )

-------
                                                                                                 Figure C-17
  POST AUDIT  FACT SHEET
NO. 6 WATER BODY NAME'-
 South River
STREAM
RIVER
LAKE
ESTUARY
TRIBUTARY T0 =
South Fork Shenandoah
  STATE:
  Virginia
MODEL USED TO
MAKE  WLA:
                       X
                           NO
 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
 STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
  AVERAGE DEPTH= 2 ft at 7Q10
  APPROX.VELOCITY:  0.5 to 1.5 ft/sec
  SLOPE=
  7010FLOW =  27 cfs
 POINT SOURCE DESIGN:
  FLOW (MGD) :
  BOD5 (mg/l)  /(lb
  NH,(mg/l) / (lb*/d) =
  COMMENT:
 POINT SOURCE OPERATING'
  FLOW (MGD)s
  BODS (mg/l) / ( lbป/d):
  NH3 (mg/l) / ( Ibt/d )'
  COMMENT:
 RIVER CHEMISTRY!
  AVERAGE D.O. (mg/l) =
  MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l):
  MAXIMUM  BOD0 (mg/l)s
  MAXIMUM  NHS (mg/ I):
  MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l) =
  Dupont
 BEFORE
Waynesboro
   POTW
                        TOTAL
Act.Sludge High Rate T.F.
                        TOTAL
   9.3        2.3
11.5/(882)  30/(575)3
 7.9/(614)  7.4/U38)
              12.6
              1457
               766
              6.4
              3.2

              1.4
             0.018
  Dupont
 AFTER
Waynesooro
   POTW
                        TOTAL
                                    10.6
                                 6.7/(600)
                                 0.6/(50)
                                 7.5/(250)
                                 2.0/(66)
                                 RBC/Filters
                          17.2
                           982
                           139

                       TOTAL2
    7.7       1.8          9.8
11.3/(737)   317(478)       1215
 .817(53)   8.2/(126)        179
                                    8.7
                                    4.8
                                   11.3
                                   0.45
                                  0.004
               % CHANGE
                                                        % CHANGE
                        -  22%
                        -16.7%
                        -76.6%
                                   +  36%
                                   +  50%

                                   -67.9%
                                   -77.8%
 COMMENTS:   1.   From WLA not operating  at this  design during  July,  1976;   2.'  Includes  duPont,  Waynesboro,
             and also Crompton-Shenandoah,  ThioKol;   3.   Assigned at 30 mg/l;

-------
   o
   o>
   E
  •  K)
   X
   O>
   E
   q
   o
             1968
1969
1970
  1971  '   1972  '  1973    1974
SECONDARY TREATMENT—	
 1975    1976    1977  '  1978  '  1979
—*• NITRIFICATION AT DUPONT
                   1980
                                   JUNE. JULY, AUGUST 8 SEPTEMBER
                               MEAN  (mg/l)
             FLOW
             D.O.
             NH3
   BEFORE

     5.6
     1.5
       AFTER

        7.0
        0.3
                                           % CHANGE
                             STANDARD DEVIATION (mg/l)
                                BEFORE     AFTER
              + 25%
              -80%
     2.8
     0.65
2.1
0.27
i-UNITS= CFS
                                                                                      DATA SOURCE STORET
                                              Figure C-18
                            Time History Data Analysis for South River
                       (Station Code' IBSTHOI8.50 • Agency Code' 2IVASWCB)

-------
Project  Case  Study
Water  Body:   Potomac  Estuary,  Maryland


     The  Potomac  Estuary located in the  eastern United States, forms  the  border
between  the  states   of  Virginia  and  Maryland.   Upstream  of  the  District  of
Columbia,  the  river  is  free  flowing   while  downsteam  of   the  capitol  it  is
estuarine.    The Potomac  River receives  treated wastes  from  a  population  in
excess of  three  million people.  In recent  years,  treated  sewage  flow discharged
to  the Potomac in the Capitol  district vicinity  has  reached  about  425 mgd.

     In the  1950s and  1960s,  the Potomac  River, which at that  time was receiving
primary  and secondary treated  wastewaters,  was  experiencing  low  summer dissolved
oxygen concentrations (approximately  2.0 to 3.0 mg/1), elevated coliform  levels
and  persistent  blue-green algal blooms.  About this time,  agreements were  made
to  remove  some 96 percent  of  the phosphorus and BOD, and 85 percent  of the  NBOD
from the  areas' wastewaters  before  discharging them to  the  Potomac.    This
clean-up program which  has  been in effect  for a decade, has  resulted  in Potomac
River water quality improvements.

     Data,  displayed  on Figure  C-19,  show  dissolved  oxygen, BOD,  and  ammonia
improvements  in  the  river  between 1977  and 1981.   At these  times,  river  flows
and  temperatures were  about  equal,  therefore,  water quality  changes  reflect
differences in treatment practices.  The principal action  taken  during this  time
was  upgrading (Figure C-20) the Blue  Plains POTW from secondary treatment  and
phosphorus  removal  to secondary treatment,  phosphorus and NBOD removal.   It is,
therefore,  assumed  that the observed  Potomac quality  improvements are, at  least
in  part, due  to  the upgrade  in treatment at  this  facility.

     Another measure  of   the  Potomac  quality improvement  is  presented  as  summer
dissolved  oxygen concentrations measured near  and at  the Woodrow Wilson  Bridge
over the time period  1969  to 1981  (Figure C-21).   Although differences in summer
flows  complicate conclusions  which can  be  drawn  from this  data,  it  is  evident
that there is a  general  trend  toward increased  dissolved  oxygen  levels in recent
years.

     Because  of   the   complex  influences  and  responses  of  Potomac  River  water
quality, no attempt has  been made  as part of this  study to address  the impact of
phosphorus  removal  at  Blue  Plains on algal  levels.  This  is a more  difficult
issue to address and  requires  more data  input and  review  time  than was available
as  part  of  this  project.  A report recently  complete  (Reference 12,  Section 5)
discusses these  issues  in more detail.

    With  respect to  recreational  improvements  in   the   river,  there is  some
indication that  large mouth bass are  now routinely  caught by  sport  fishermen in
the  area  of  the capitol.   Further,  there  has  been a general  increase in  the
annual  fish  landings  by   commercial  fisherman  in   the  upper  reaches  of  the
Potomac.  Generally,  fish  landings have  been  increasing  over the decade  of  the
1970s.   However, it  is not obvious  from these  data  that  pollution  intolerant
fish species,  such  as  bass,  are more abundant in  the  river.    Although  both
dissolved  oxygen levels and  fish  landings  appear  to be  increasing in  time  as
noted, the correlation  of the  two  factors only  yields  a weak relationship (seven
percent variance removed).


                                      C-27

-------
1977
~ 10
^ Q
I 6
o 4
Q
2
o
~ ^- D.O. SATURATION
- *•• ••
* *%*- ^-0.0. S TO.'

1 1
10
8
6
4
2
r>
1981
~ ^-0.0. SATURATION
-***•*** *** ....
^-0.0. STD.
—
1 1 1
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 6O 80
_ 5000
tf\
ฃ 4000
" 3OOO
0 200O
^ 1000
Q
— APPROX. FLOW FOR 2 WKS.
BEFORE SURVEY
—

__

t







APPROX. FLOW FOR 2 WKS.
BEFORE SURVEY
—
-
_
~ 1
t 1 , I
O 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 6O 80
POTOMAC RIVER MILE BELOW CHAIN BRIDGE
100
i-"" 80

zS 60
—
 O 40
 o
|S? 20

B009
—
NH,
— - • i

BOD9
FPL
BO

60

40

20
BLUE OTHER POINT


—

—

BODป NH,
B^IMH, (— |— |
BLUE OTHER POINT
PLAINS LOADS PLAINS LOADS
SEPTEMBER 6, 1977 SEPTEMBER 1, 1 98
iO
- IO
ป 8
6
0 4
0 *
" 2

1977 1981

""• **. V. •
_ •
r • ••
i i i
10
8
6
4
2

-
- w ,
".**. .
r *"•••.,..
i i i





0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

n
E 2
z
m
X
Z
Q


- w

_ *•
•
* ^— ซ.•*•ซ . j..


2



/-ป


—

_
•
/V i i







0 20 40 6O 80 0 20 40 60 8O
3

— 2
z
r>
O
Z
CM
O
z o


_
•
•
• •_
-• .
•
J> 1 *•!— • •(••
3

2







_ ^ป

• •

•
i *•.• • •••
^ i i i








0 2O 40 60 80 O 20 4O 60 8O
POTOMAC RIVER MILE BELOW CHAIN BRIDGE

                                     Figure  C-19

                  Water Quality Comparions for Potomac Estuary, Maryland
(Secondary Treatment + P-Removal to Secondary Treatment + P-Removal + Nitrification )

-------
                                                                                                Figure C-20
  POST AUDIT  FACT SHEET
NO. 7 WATER BODY NAME'
Potomac River Estuary
STREAM
RIVER
LAKE
ESTUARY
                                        X
 TRIBUTARY  T0 =
 Chesapeake Bay
           STATE:
           Maryland
        MODEL USED TO
        MAKE  WLA:
                                     N0
 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
 AVERAGE  DEPTH:  15 ft
                  1
                                 APPROX. VELOCITY^
                                 SLOPE:   N/A
                                 7Q10FLOW=  560 cfs
                     0.1 ft/sec
 POINT SOURCE DESIGN;
  FLOW (MGD)=
  BOD9 (mg/l) / (IDs/d):
  NH3(mg/l) / (Ibs/d):
  COMMENT:
 POINT SOURCE OPERATING'5
  FLOW (MGD):
  BOD, (mg/l) / ( Ibs/d):
  NH3(mg/l)/ ( lbป/d ) =
  COMMENT:
 RIVER CHEMISTRY'
  AVERAGE D.O. (mg/l):
  MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l):
  MAXIMUM BOD, (mg/l):
  MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ I):
  MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l):
   Blue
  Plains
  BEFORE
Other Point
  Sources
TOTAL
Sec.Treat. Sec.Treat.
                        TOTAL
   271
     82
 353
28.8/(65000)  -/(13701)  78701
17.7/(40000)4 -/(9394)  49394
              4.3
              1.8
              7.6
              1.8
             0.009
   Blue
  Plains
 AFTER
Other Point
  Sources
                                                         TOTAL
                          305
                       5.07(12700)
                       2.4/(6130)3
                       Ammonia
                       Removal
                                              TOTAL
    317       99        416
1.57(3965)  -/(14200)  18165 Ibs/d
0.61/(1612)-/(12774)  14386 Ibs/d
                                     7.6
                                     6.0
                                     5.6
                                     0.5
                                    0.002
% CHANGE
                                           % CHANGE
                                                         -  77%
                                                         -  71%
                                           +  77%
                                           + 233%
                                           -  26%
                                           -  72%
                                           -  78%
 COMMENTS:  1-  At 7Q1ฐ-'  2-  Between mile zero and mile 30.0;  3.  Total kjeldanl nitrogen;
            4.  Total nitrogen;  5.  Upstream flow for both cases could account for another
            30,000 Ibs/day BOD and 650 Ibs/day NH3;

-------
 ro
   '
o


20


16

12


 8


 4


 0
o>
1
d
d
vvv
                                                                     vi
1968  '  1969
                1970
                1971
                        1972
1973   1974
                1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
BEFORE BASINWIDE CLEAN-UP
       PROGRAM  .  	•
                       ONGOING BASINWIDE CLEAN-UP PROGRAM INCLUDING PLANT EXPANSIONS,
                       "—P-REMOVAL AT BLUE PLAINS, SECONDARY TREATMENT AT OTHERS—*
1981
                                                                         NITRIF. AT
                                                                          BLUE
                                                                          PLAINS
 STATION NEAR WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE
                                                                   DATA SOURCE STORET
                                     Figure C-21
                        Time History Analysis for Potomac River
                (ฉ- Station Code' 100130   •  Agency Code= 11IONET )
                (ฎ,ฎ Station Code' POT-CONS-002 -Agency Code' III2ITWQ)

-------
 Project  Case  Study
 Water  Body:   Clinton River,  Michigan

     The  Clinton  River,  located  in  eastern Michigan, discharges  to Lake St.  Clair
 which  forms  the Detroit  River  and flows  into  the Western Basin  of Lake  Erie.
 The  entire  river basin  drains about  760  square  miles  of the state.  The area of
 interest  is  between the cities  of Pontiac and Rochester, 35 miles upstream from
 Lake St.  Clair.   In this reach, the major wastewater  input  is  from the city of
 Pontiac.

     In 1958,  the Michigan Water Resources  Commission performed a water quality
 monitoring  and  modeling  study  on the  river to  develop  the  waste  assimilation
 capacity.  Data  from this study, shown on Figure  C-22,  exhibit dissolved oxygen
 levels in the river as low  as  0.4 mg/1  and  BODc  levels as  high as  32.0 mg/1 at
 summer low flow conditions.   At  the  time  of  this  survey,  74 percent  of the
 wastewaters  entering the river received secondary  treatment  (trickling filter
 and  activated sludge)  while the  remaining  wastewaters underwent  only primary
 treatment (Figure C-23).

     Subsequent   surveys  in   1973  and 1976  were  conducted  after  new treatment
 plants had  been constructed and  all  wastewaters  were receiving  a high  level
 secondary  treatment.    At  the   time  of  the  1976  survey,  both  the  Pontiac East
 Boulevard and the  Auburn treatment plants were  achieving  significant levels of
 nitrification   although they  were  only  designed   for  phosphorus  removal.
 Effluent  BOD- and  NH,  concentrations  from  both  plants were about  5.0  and 0.5
 mg/1,  respectively,  water  quality data shown  on Figure  C-22,  indicate greatly
 improved  dissolved  oxygen   concentrations  and  reduced BOD- concentrations  in
 response  to the  upgrade  in treatment plant efficiency.

     Additional  chemical water  quality  data  available for review  was obtained
 from the USEPA STORET data system.  These data  (Figure  C-24) were collected near
 the  dissolved oxygen sag point (river mile  40  to 45).  The data, both qualita-
 tively and  quantitatively,  show  improved   conditions  resulting  from upgraded
 treatment.    Data  from  1958   indicated  that  under  conditions   of  secondary
 treatment,  summer   instream  dissolved  oxygen  concentrations were  depressed  to
 near 0.0 mg/1.   As  shown in  the monitoring data,  summer oxygen  concentrations at
 upgraded treatment  levels are not  less than  5.0 mg/1.

    Further,  as  treatment is upgraded at each facility  through  the  1970s, summer
 mean oxygen concentrations gradually improve.   In the early 1970s when the East
 Boulevard  and Auburn  POTWs had   secondary  treatment  plus  phosphorus removal,
 summer  mean   river  oxygen  concentrations averaged  7.2 mg/1.   After  phosphorus
 removal was implemented at the Auburn POTW,  summer average oxygen concentrations
 increased again  slightly to  7.3 mg/1.  At the end of  the 1970s  when  the effluent
 flow from  both  plants  was  combined  and treated  with nitrification,  phosphorus
 removal,  and  effluent  polishing,  average  oxygen  concentrations   are  further
 increased to  8.5 mg/1.   Ammonia concentrations  show similar trends, starting at
 0.47 mg/1 and decreasing to  0.27 and 0.06 at the  respective levels  of  treatment.
 These  data along with  the  1958  and 1976 intensive survey data  show  improvements
 in  river water  quality that  are  directly  associated with   improvements  in
wastewater treatment techniques at both the Pontiac treatment facilities.

                                      C-31

-------
1958
~ 10
\ 8
o>
E 6
0 4
^D O
0
5
300
250
{ซ 200
0 150
* 100
ul 50
0
5
^3
2 5,000
- 4.OOO
o SjOOO
? 2,000
 I.OOO
2 0
vorf.-
*-ASSU
— 4 i
~i Jj -
< i
i
r-D.O.
T t Vs AT
•flf
^-0.0. STO.
1
3
4
2
n

1976

T" r-D.O.
E\ SATURATION
Tf^rT
1
A.
D 40 30 20 IO 50 40

-

-f 1
1 1
250
200
150
100
50
_
_jj
• •
^— D.O. STO.
1 1
30 20

y
-l_
f
10
•


0 40 30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10
CLINTON RIVER MILES CLINTON RIVER MILES

30D,
NH3*


-
-BC
)D,-I53 Ibt/d
-NHj-3 lbซ/d
BOO,


PONTIAC PONTIAC AUBURN
POTW E. BLVD. POTW
POTW
MED CONC.= 20. ซ>g/i NH,-N w "
24
~ 20
^ 16
E 12
o" 8
0
00 4
0
5(
6
tป 4
E
~~ 3
I 2
r
z
O
5
— 6
"^ 5
I 4
f 3
O p
N
i o
5
1958

r
D
—
-
0
-
[ij
[is
40 30 20 l(
NO
1
40
NO
1
DATA
1 1
30 20 1
DATA
1 1
10
8
6
4
0
D 5
6.
5
4
3
2
1
0 5
6
5
4
3
2
i
]
i-
1976
: i
'1
0 40 30
—
Lj


• i
20



J
10
' (f 1 X 1 K
0 40 30
(7.e) 
-------
                                                                                                Figure C-23
  POST AUDIT  FACT  SHEET
NO. 8 WATER BODY  NAME:
Clinton River
STREAM
RIVER
LAKE
ESTUARY
TRIBUTARY T0 =
Lake St. Clair
  STATE:
  Michigan
MODEL USED TO
MAKE  WLA: YES
                                                                                                       NO
 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
STREAM,RIVER, ESTUARY:
  AVERAGE DEPTH:  2 to 3 feet
  APPROX. VELOCITY: 0.5 ft/sec
  SLOPE= -
  7010 FLOW=  1-4 cfs upstream of POTW's
 POINT SOURCE DESIGN'
  FLOW (MGD) =
  BOD9 (mg/l)  / (lb
  NH, (mg/l) / ( Ibs/d):
  COMMENT:
 POINT SOURCE OPERATING:
  FLOW (MGO):
  BOD9 (mg/l) / ( lbs/d):
  NH3 (mg/l) / ( lt>s/d ):
  COMMENT:
 RIVER CHEMISTRY:
  AVERAGE D.O. (mg/l):
  MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l ):
  MAXIMUM BOD9 (mg/l):
  MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ l) =
  MAX. UNIONIZED  NH, (mg/l!
                                            BEFORE3
Pontiac
  POTW
             TOTAL
T.F. +
Act.Sludge
                        TOTAL
   11.6
39/O817)
20/U934)1
T.F. +
Act.Sludge
               11.6
               3817
               1934
              3.8
              0.4
               32
           AFTER3
Pontiac     Auburn
East Blvd.   POTW
      TOTAL
                                   9.4
                                   10.0
                                4           4
                      Sec.Treat.  Sec.Treat.
                                              TOTAL
  3.2        17.6       20.8
 5/(133)    4/(587)       720
0.2/(5.3)   1.1/U62)    167
Sec.Treat.  Sec.Treat.
Act.Sludge  Act.Sludge
                                     7.1
                                     5.2
                                     3.2
                                     0.9
                                    0.008
% CHANGE
                                  % CHANGE
                +  79.3%
                -  81.0%
                -  91.0%
                                  +  87.0%
                                  +1200.0%
                                  -  90.0%
 COMMENTS:  1.  NH3 assumed equal to 20 mg/l;  2.  BOD5 and NH3 as pounds per day;  3.  Before survey
            1958, after 1976;  4.  Designed as secondary treatment but attaining significant inplant
            nitrification;

-------
             L.
             O
             O
             _l
             u_
             o>
              10
             X
             Z
             o<
             J^

             O
             Q
                      PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL AT
                          AUBURN POTW
                      P-REMOVAL AT
                      AUBURN POTW
                      8 EAST BLVD.
                         POTW
                                                                                     1961
                        EAST BLVD. 8 AUBURN FLOWS TREATED TO
                              TERTIARY TREATMENT +
                            MEDIA FILTRATION/ POLISHING
                                    JUNE, JULY, AUGUST 8 SEPTEMBER
                               MEAN (mg/ I )
                                      STANDARD DEVIATION (mg/l)
               PERIOD-
                  1
              FLOW
              D.O.
              NH,
 92
 7.2
0.47
 112
 7.3
0.27
 79
 6.5
0.06
 37
 1.5
0.43
 60
 1.3
O.I I
  38
  I.I
0.06
1-UNITS= CFS
                                                                DATA SOURCE STORET
                                               Figure C-24
                        Time History Data Analysis for Clinton  River, Michigan
                           (Station  Code? 6302S2  •  Agency  Code' 2IMICH)

-------
    The original  1958  wasteload allocation work  was  performed using  analytical
equations not a computer based model.  Essentially, this analysis developed BOD
oxidation rates  and  dissolved oxygen reaeration  rates  needed for the  Streeter-
Phelps equation  from instream BOD and dissolved  oxygen data.  The analysis  did
not include nitrification, SOD, or photosynthesis and respiration.

    To evaluate  the goodness of fit  of the  original  1958  model,  a  dissolved
oxygen projection curve  was  developed  in  this study (Figure  C-25)  for   the
appropriate 1976  loading  conditions  from the  projections  presented  in the 1958
report.   This simulation  is plotted  against  the  1976 observed  water  quality
dissolved oxygen data.  The model simulation,  although  somewhat over optimistic,
does  show  the significant  improvement   in  dissolved  oxygen  levels  measured   in
1976.

    Within  the  framework  of  this  project  no  data  were  available  to   assess
biological improvements in the river or  any increased recreational activities as
stimulated by the upgraded treatment levels.
                                      C-35

-------
POST AUDIT MODEL FACT SHEET
WATER BODY NAME' CLINTON RIVER
MODEL TYPE' STREETER-PHELPS CALIBRATED' YES Ji_ NO 	
MODEL NAME' ANALYTICAL EQUATION VALIDATED' YES 	 NO _*_
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
RIVFR Fl OW: 9.1 CFS
BIX/PR TfUP: 2IฐC
POINT SOURCE INFO;
TOTAL

0 ( MGO) : - -.
BOD, (mg/l) =
UPSTREAM INFO:
Q(CFS)- 9.1
BOO, (mg/l): 6
COMMENTS
1 UPSTREAM FROM
POTW'S
POST AUDIT
RIS/EB FI nw: 9 CFS
R|VF_ป TFป*P: I8ฐC
POINT SOURCE INFO:
PONTIAC
E. BLVD. AUBURN
0(MGD)= 3.2 17.6
BOD, (mg/l): 5 4
UPSTREAM INFO'
O(CFS)* 9
BOD, (mf/ l)= 1.0
COMMENTS:

DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
m O r\> A O) Qo O fvJ
12
^10]
o>
E
1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (
o>
CJlO f\3 * O) | >

— ^- 0.0. SATURATION
1 ^^ I900lbs/doy
^ / /, 2850 Ibs/doy
\\ / / , 3800 Ibs/doy \
- lx/// DOSTD
~ \\ซ/ /^- MODEL
l\ / 1 1 1 1

0 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10
CLINTON RIVER MILES

SEPT 15-18, 1976
r-O.O. SATURATION
\ "
- V ^-r- -L T
•— — *^ >- MODEL 1
o •ซ' X o
\-D.O. STO.
Ill II
< i

0 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10
CLINTON RIVER MILES
Figure C-25

-------
Project Case Study
Water Body:  Ottawa River, Ohio


    The Ottawa  River is  located  in north western Ohio.   The river  flows  west
from LaFayette  to Lima  and  then  north to join the Auglaize River near Defiance,
Ohio.   The  river  drains some 373  square  miles  of  agricultural  land.   Major
sources of  pollution are located in  the city of  Lima which is about  38 miles
upstream from the river mouth.

    In  1966,   the   Department  of   the  Interior   reported  median  ammonia
concentrations  of  more  than  60.0 mg/1 in the river  downstream  of the  city of
Lima.    Further,   the   Ohio  Department  of  Health has  reported  October  1964
dissolved oxygen concentrations  ranged  from  0.0  to 1.0 mg/1 for  the 38 miles of
river from Lima to the mouth.  These data coincide with biological  findings that
at  this  time,  the  river near Lima was  totally  devoid of  fish life  and  only
pollution tolerant macroinvertebrates existed in the river.

    Literature  indicates  that CSOs,  municipal  and  industrial  discharges  from
Lima were responsible for these levels of instream pollution.  Over the last few
decades efforts which have  been  initiated have  greatly reduced pollution inputs
to  the  river.   In  the mid-1970s  these  efforts   continued  and  the  Ohio
Environmental  Protection Agency  undertook  a study   to  assess  the  associated
instream water quality improvements.

    The first data  sets from these studies  presented on Figures C-26  and  C-27
show Ottawa  River  data  collected in the  summers of 1974  and 1975.   The studies
represent  post-audit  conditions  in  response to ongoing  clean-up  of  the river
from the 1950s and 1960s.  The same data set represents pre-audit conditions for
later nitrification at the Lima POTW.

    During the  summer of  1974 and  1975  average  dissolved  oxygen concentrations
ranged from  a  low  of 2.8 to  a high of  8.3 mg/1,  average ammonia concentrations
were near  20.0  mg/1,  and the maximum un-ionized ammonia  concentration  was 6.2
mg/1 (Figure  C-28).   Although,  these  data  still  indicate  poor water quality,
they are greatly improved over those data collected in the mid-1960s.

    After  1975,  nitrification  at  the  Lima POTW  reduced effluent ammonia
concentrations to less than 1.0 mg/1.   This  change, plus improved  BOD,, removals
at  the  plant,  is  reflected in  increased  river  oxygen  levels,  reduced ammonia
levels,  and  greatly  reduced ammonia  concentrations  as   shown  in  the   1977
intensive water  quality  data.   Dissolved  oxygen  concentrations,   however,  are
still depressed  below  5.0 mg/1;  ammonia concentrations still exceed  10.0  mg/1
and un-ionized  ammonia   concentrations  exceed 0.1  rag/1.   These water  quality
conditions still exist  because although the Lima POTW  reduced effluent BOD5 by
an  additional   80  percent  and   reduced  effluent  ammonia  by  an additional 90
percent, the two industries  have  not reduced effluent  BOD and ammonia concentra-
tions.   Both the Vistron Corporation  and Standard Oil  have slightly increased
effluent BOD,- and ammonia levels  between 1974 and 1977.
                                      C-37

-------
1974 a 1975
- 10
I 6
0 4
ฐ 2
o
-T-
— < L '
J.

50 40
U_
o
*
Q
u_
-
r r o.o.
\ srruRATiom
1 ii j<
[fe 41 •
I
10
8
6
4
2
n
1977
r-O.O. SATU
A T 1
'-]


30 20 10 50

_ APPROX. 40 CFS
" t
50 40




-
_
_
-
30 20 10 50








i.


40

RATION '
< >
U
i i




30 20 10

APPROX. 40CFS

f
40

1




30 20 10
OTTAWA RIVER MILES OTTAWA RIVER MILES
— • IcUU
•o
^ 1000
ซ">
- 800

3 600
Q.
? 400
ซ 200
•S Q





	 NH3

BOC
r
1
9 1 	
NHj
I 	 1


BOO,



IฃUVJ
IOOO

800

60O
400
20O
n


-














NH, NHj



-BOD.




NH,
Bor



>9 BOD5
1








LIMA VISTRON STD. LIMA VISTRON STD.
POTW CORR OIL POTW CORR OIL
JUNE-OCT.I974, 1975
JUNE-OCT. 1977
1974 a 1975 1977
- 25
"9 20
E
~ 15
ง 10
"> 5

ซ-
_ -
<

50
^ 50
r 40
~" 3O
'ซ 20
2 10

_
_
-
50

DU
- 5O
X^
9 40
E
~ 3O
v. ป
i 10
o
_

-



-
1
50



1
40


<

40








m \ J
40
{

I
1 1
25
20
15
10
5
r\
-
!'

I I I 1




30 20 10 50 40 30 20 10


T T
1 1 •*-
5O
40
30
20
10
-


'. ,.I,II,.




30 20 10 50 40 30 2O 10








*• l^^^^L^ปซi
5O

40

30
20
IO

_

-


T
- • .;: i i









30 20 IO 50 40 30 20 10
OTTAWA RIVER MILES OTTAWA RIVER MILES



                    Figure C-26
 Water Quality Comparisons for Ottawa River, Ohio
(Secondary Treatment to Secondary + Nitrification)

-------
Figure C-27
POST AUDIT FACT SHEET
NO. 9 WATER BODY NAME:
Ottawa River

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS


POINT SOURCE DESIGN:
FLOW (MGD) =
BOD9 (mg/l) / (lbป/d) =
NHS (mg/l) / ( lbs/d)s
COMMENT:
POINT SOURCE OPERATING:
FLOW (MGD)=
BOD, (mq/l) / ( Ibs/d):
NHS (mg/l) / ( Ibs/d ) =
COMMENT:
RIVER CHEMISTRY-
AVERAGE D.O. (mg/l) =
MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l ) =
MAXIMUM BOD, (mg/l):
MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ 1 ) =
MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l):
COMMENTS: 1. Vistron Corp. &
project;

STREAM X To,miTAOY rn-
RIVER TRIBUTARY TO :
LAKE Auglaize & Maumee Rive
ESTUARY
STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
AVERAGE DEPTH: N/A
APPROX. VELOCITY: N/A
SLOPE: 4 feet per mile
70 10 FLOW: near zero upstream
BEFORE
Lima POTW Industries TOTAL
TOTAL
15.2 6.9 22.1
8.6/(1114) 11.3/(650) 1764
10/(1239) 26.8/(1543) 2782

5.4
2.0
10.5
38
6.2
Standard Oil Refinery; 2. Not
r

STATE: MODEL USED TO
r Ohio MAKE WLA' YES


Df point sources
AFTER
Lima POTW Industries TOTAL
TOTAL
16.5 7.9 24.4
1.8/(243) 14.6/(960) 1203
0.9/(231) 29.3/U933) 2164

7.5
2.8
21
17
0.53
available for incorporation in t

X2 NO




% CHANGE
% CHANGE
+ 10.4%
- 31.8%
- 22.2%

+ 38.9%
+ 40.0%
+ 100.0%
- 55.3%
- 91.5%
his

-------
                   1974
                                        1977
      i.o
o>
E
Z
o
o
UJ
M

Z
o

z
      O.I
      .01
     .00
                 i
• RANGE OF DATA
 OVER THE SUMMER
                     I
                                           10.0
                          1.0
                     Oป
                     E


                     Z
                     I


                     z
                     o
                                o
                                Ul
                                M

                                Z
                                o
                          O.I
                          .01
                          .001
                                   I
                                                           I
50     40     30     20
      OTTAWA RIVER MILES
                                  10
50     40      30     20
      OTTAWA RIVER MILES
                                                       10
                                Figure C-28

            Water Quality Comparisons for Ottawa  River, Ohio
           (SecondaryTreatment to Secondary + Nitrification)

-------
    Additional  information available  to  assess  water  quality  changes  is the
biological data  summarized  on  Figure  C-29.  The upper  two  figures show changes
in  species  diversity  and  total number  of  taxa  between  1974  and  1977.   In
general, slight  improvements are observed  in both indices.  However, as is  shown
on  Figure  C-29, downstream  indices are well  below  the index for the upstream
station.

    The  bottom  graph   of  Figure  C-29  presents  the  number  of   fish  species
collected  in the  river  in the  summer of  1977.   Although,  un-ionized  ammonia
concentrations  are  noted   to  exceed  suggested  cold  and  warm  water  maximum
concentrations  of  0.02 and 0.05 mg/1,  the observed  data show a number  of fish
species  living   in  the  river.    The  number   which  averages  about  10  species
downstream of Lima,  however,  is  less  than the 22 species  observed upstream of
the pollutant  inputs.    It should  also  be noted  that  data  collected  in 1960
showed  a  total  absence of fish  in  the river  between Lima  and  the river mouth.
This change  in  fish  counts is not  totally related  to  the  AWT  now  in place at
Lima,  but is reflective of a decrease of pollution over the past two decades.

    Within  the   framework  of  this  study, no  data  were   available   to  assess
recreational changes associated  with pollution  reductions.  In  addition,
although wasteload allocation modeling has been  performed  by  the state of  Ohio,
it was not available within the framework  of this project.
                                     C-41

-------
                    1974
                                             1977
UJ
(At
50
DC
O
UJ
ceo

>*
>UJ
CC
o
CO
UJ
OL
CO

X
CO
oc
UJ
CD
       0
       50
60


50


40


30



20


10
       0
       50
30


25



20


15



10


 5
        40
        40
              I
30
20
30
20
                  NO DATA
                I
       I
       50    40      30     20

            OTTAWA RIVER MILES
10  50



 60


 50


 40


 30



 20


  10
40
30
20
                             10  50      40     30     20

                                     OTTAWA RIVER MILES
10
                                            10
                            Figure C-29

           Biology Comparisons for Ottawa River, Ohio

-------
Project Case Study
Water Body:  Bridge Creek, Wisconsin


    Bridge Creek is a soft water trout stream located in southwestern Wisconsin.
Since  the  creek does  not flow towards  either  Lake Superior  or  Lake Michigan,
waste  treatment dischargers  located  on the creek are not  subject to phosphorus
removal as  mandated by  international  agreements  between the  United  States and
Canada.  Summer low flows in the creek are on the order of 10 cfs while the 7Q10
low flow is 2.6 cfs.

    The main source of  pollution on  the  creek is  the Augusta  POTW  which  in the
pre-operative  state was  designed  as  a  high rate  trickling  filter  treatment
facility.  The Wisconsin  Pollution Discharge  Elimination System permit for this
facility specified  a  maximum  effluent BOD,,  concentration  of 60.0 mg/1  and  no
ammonia limitation.  During a water quality survey conducted on August 21,  1978,
this  POTW  had  effluent  BOD   and  ammonia  concentrations  of 59.0 and  20.0 mg/1
respectively.

    Water quality data  collected during  this  1978 survey (Figure C-30) indicate
an  impact  of  the  plant  on  creek  dissolved  oxygen,   BOD    and ammonia
concentrations.  Un-ionized ammonia  concentrations,  however, did not  exceed the
suggested criteria.  The  wastewater  treatment plant caused  the dissolved oxygen
to drop 1.5 mg/1, the BOD5 to increase from 2.7 to  5.7  mg/1, and the ammonia to
increase from 0.04 to 0.89 mg/1.

    In June  1980,  the  new Augusta facility  construction was  completed  and the
plant  came on  line  as  an advanced secondary  treatment  plant utilizing Rotating
Biological Contactor units.  The plant was designed for seasonal treatment with
summer  effluent  BOD   and  ammonia  limits at  30.0  and 16.0  mg/1  and  winter
effluent limits at 45.0 and 32.0 mg/1  (Figure C-31).

    No detailed  calibration  analyses were performed  in developing  the effluent
limitations stated  above.  The BOD,, limitation was developed  based  on  the "26
pound  rule"  (Reference  11,  Section 6)  and  ammonia  limitations were  based  on
ammonia toxicity calculations  for  the  protection  of  the cold  water  fishery at
7Q10 flows.

    On August 26 to 27,  1981  an intensive water  quality  survey of  Bridge  Creek
was  conducted  to evaluate  water  quality  changes after  the AST plant  came  on
line.  This  survey  was conducted  at the  same 10 cfs background  flow and  17  to
20 C temperature as the  pre-operative  survey.  Water quality data (Figure  C-30)
from  this   survey   shows  minor water  quality   improvements   with   respect  to
dissolved  oxygen,   BOD,.,  and  ammonia  concentrations.    Average stream  oxygen
levels  increased  about  14 percent  and the  maximum ammonia  concentration
decreased by 83 percent.

    These improvements  do not  appear  to  be  that  significant compared  to the
changes in  treatment  levels.    However,  during  both  pre-  and  post-operative
studies river  flows  were about  four  times  the  7Q10.   Had  these  surveys been
conducted  at a flow closer  to the  7Q10, water  quality changes may have been
greater.

                                     C-43

-------

10
\ 8
E 6
0 4
Q 2
Q
r-O.O.
1978 1981
SATURATION
"** • •*
- V
>-
i
D.O.

1
0 0.5
25
ฃ 20
ii is

O '^
u! 5
Q
STO.

| |
10
8
6
4
2
n
_ ^D.O. SATURATION
-* . . -
—
~ ^-0.0. STD.
k-
1 1 1 1






1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5
A 1
-•*
- .
f


1
" 0 0.5


1 |
25
20
15

10
5
r\
-
p
^ j
_,__! 	 i^
~
- .
Till







1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5
BRIDGE CREEK MILES BRIDGE CREEK MILES
— 3OO
•o
in
~ 200
i_
^
Q.
? 100
(0

.
E

_

-

00,









TKN
71
JVJ1_>
200



100
f\
_
_

_

_ TKN
BOO,
- nu?






AUGUSTA POTW AUGUSTA POTW
AUGUST 21, 1978 AUGUST 26- 27, 1981
1978 1981
C 10
^ 8
C
~ 6
*> ^
0 ^
o
03 2
o
—
-
• . •
_ • •

III!
10
8
6
4
2
n
_
-
"•
" • • •
~ *
1 1 1 1






0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5

r 2
^^
z
'to '
X
Z
o
-
-
-

~ ซ
_ •
.1111

2


1

n
-
-
-

"
-
J • 1 • ซU







0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5


1 2
z
i
10
O
(M
ฐ 0
^
-
•


"•*

2




_
.
_
—
ฃ ^
*






0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5
BRIDGE CREEK MILES BRIDGE CREEK MILES
                     Figure C-30
Water Quality Comparisons for Bridge Creek, Wisconsin
   (Secondary Treatment to Secondary-I- Nitrification)

-------
Figure C-31
POST AUDIT FACT SHEET
NO. 10 WATER BODY NAME:
Bridge Creek
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
POINT SOURCE DESIGN:
FLOW (MOD) -
BOD9 (mg/l) / (lbs/d) =
NH, (mg/l) / (Ibs/d):
COMMENT:
POINT SOURCE OPERATING:
FLOW (MGDM
BOD9 (mg/l) / ( lbs/d) =
NH, (mg/l) / (Ibs/d ) =
COMMENT:
RIVER CHEMISTRY;
AVERAGE D.O. (mg/l) =
MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l )-
MAXIMUM BOD, (mg/l }-
MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ 1):
MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l) =
RM/iRM X TRIBUTARY T0 =
LAKE
ESTUARY
STATE: MODEL USED TO
Wi^rnnsin MAKF Wlfl;YES NO X

STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
AVERAGE DEPTH= 1 to 4 feet
APPROX. VELOCITY: 0.5 to 1.0 ft/sec
SLOPE=
7010FLOW: 2.6 cfs
BEFORE
Augusta
POTW TOTAL
0.25 0.25
60/U25) 125
High Rate T.F.
TOTAL
0.39 0.39
59/(191) 191
20/(65) 65
7.5
7.1
5.6
0.9
0.004
AFTER
Augusta
POTW TOTAL
0.25 0.25
30/(62) 62
16/(33) 33
RBC
TOTAL
0.392 0.39
19.2/C62) 62
4.3/U4) 14
8.2
8.1
6.8
0.15
0.0005
% CHANGE
0%
- 50%
% CHANGE
0%
- 68%
- 78%
+ 9.3%
+14.1%
+21.0%
-83.0%
-87.5%
COMMENTS: i. Rotating biological contact filters, designed for effluent ammonia of 16 mg/l summer and
32 mg/l winter,- 2. Data not available, assumed equal to preoperative flow;

-------
    Further, Bridge Creek  is  a  valuable  recreational resource and is regularly
used for fishing  in  the  area  downstream of the wastewater discharge.  Although
pre- and post-operative  data  indicates  that a relatively  small  (less than 1.0
mg/1)  improvement in  dissolved oxygen ocurred,  this  improvement  may  be
significant to the very  sensitive and valuable fish that  inhabit this  stream.
Additional data are needed  to  evaluate the biological and recreational changes.
                                     C-46

-------
Project Case Study
Water Body:  Lemonweir Creek, Wisconsin


    Lemonweir Creek  is located  in Monroe County in the southwestern part  of  the
state  of  Wisconsin.   The river  does  not  flow towards either  Lake Superior  or
Lake  Michigan  and  therefore,  is  not  subject  to  manditory  phosphorus  removal.
The river  is  inpounded about a mile upstream of where  the Tomah  treatment works
discharges  treated effluent  to  the  river.

    Prior  to  November 1979, the  Tomah POTW was a secondary treatment  facility
which  had  process   units  consisting  of  primary  settling,  trickling  filters,
activated  sludge units,  and secondary  clarification.   On  August 22,  1978,  a
water  quality  survey  was  conducted in  the stream to  establish  baseline water
quality conditions prior  to upgrading  of  the Tomah POTW.   This  survey  (Figures
C-32,  C-33, C-34)  indicated that  river dissolved oxygen  concentrations, both
upstream and downstream  of  the  POTW, were  in  violation of  the dissolved  oxygen
standard of 5.0 mg/1.   Downstream of the  POTW inflow BOD  concentrations were
elevated  to 21.0 mg/1; ammonia concentrations were  elevated  to  6.9  mg/1;   and
un-ionized  ammonia concentrations were as  high  as  0.083 mg/1.

    By  November  1979,  the new  treatment  works  came  online  with  secondary
treatment,  nitrification,  sand  filtration,  and   effluent   aeration.    Summer
effluent  limitations  were  set  by  the  state in   1976  for  a  maximum BOD,.
concentration  of 10.0  rag/1 and  a maximum  ammonia  concentration  of  4.0 mg/1.
These limitations were preliminarily set using a  simplified screening procedure
called the  "26 pound rule."

    The new AWT facility  was   constructed  and an August 1981  intensive water
quality survey  was  conducted to  assess  the  resulting  change  in water  quality.
This survey which  was conducted  at similar flow  and  temperature  conditions  to
the 1978  survey, showed  post-operative  dissolved  oxygen concentrations  (Figure
C-32) to be similar  to concentrations which  were observed in 1978.  The  observed
data,  however,  do  indicate  that  instream  BOD  ,  ammonia,  and un-ionized  ammonia
concentrations in the stream are  greatly reduced from  the 1978  levels.

    Additional  dissolved  oxygen  data  collected weekly for certain  periods  in
1978,  1979, 1980 and  1981 are  also available to assess changes  in stream water
quality in  response  to the  POTW  upgrade.   These data (Figure C-35) indicates  a
slight increase  in  the overall mean dissolved  oxygen of 7.2 to  7.9  mg/1.   The
data,  however,  indicates  a  decrease  in  the  summer mean from  5.0  to  2.1 mg/1.
Although the data  sets are  sparce  with  respect to the  post-operative data,  it
does seem to confirm the 1981 intensive dissolved  oxygen data which indicates no
noticeable  oxygen   improvements .    The   state  is   currently processing
post-operative biological data for  comparison with pre-operative  data.

    One  conclusion  that  can   be  made  here  is  that  at   the  1978  and  1981
conditions, upstream  flow from  the lake contained a  large  amount of suspended
algae which were in the death phase, and respiration  from these  algae tended to
drive  the oxygen levels down.   At either treatment level, oxygen consumption by
                                      C-47

-------
1978
1C.
~ io
\ 8
e 6
0 4
ฐ 2
o
r-D.O. SATURATION
~ 1 1
—
- j
j_ 0.0. ST
1
0
25
ฃ 20
^ IO
i 5

-
-

^•J-"'
I
0 o




1







i
X





(


1981

r

L •
1
10
8
6
4
2
r>
— r-D.O. SATURATION
- T T
^•0.0. STD. ti
"~ \ .*.
• %!•••
i- * *
i I I





23 0123




1
j\j
25
20
15
if)
5
/N
-
-

=— ซfw
T 1 1





23" 0 1 23
LEMONWEIR CREEK MILES LEMONWEIR CREEK MILES
6OO
^ 500
o
3 400
=> 300
z 200
w "00








BOD,
_
_
-




NHj
1



DUW
5OO

400
300
200
100
r\


-
-
_
_ BOD,
| INMS- i ib/d






TOMAH POTW TOMAH POTW
AUGUST
22, 1978 AUGUST 4-5,1981
1978 1981
3O
2 25
^. 20
~ 15
o I0
o
-
- *
-
*
1 1 1
25
20
15
10
5
r>
-
-
• '
"
*t- *. T





0 1 23" 0 1 23
^ 10
w P
E 8
^_
' 4
i 2
Q
-
.
.
_
J 1 *•!
10
8
4
2
/->
-
-

—
t -da^ • 1 A





OI23~ 0123

_ '*•
"^ 10
^
~ 8
2

i 4
"^i 2
2 0
_

-
-
-
•*• 1 "^
10

8
6
4
2
_

—
—
*"•••
•
...J 1 /






0123 0123
LEMONWEIR CREEK MILES LEMONWEIR CREEK MILES
                      Figure C-32
Water Quality Comparisons for Lemonweir Creek, Wisconsin
   (Secondary Treatment to Secondary-I- Nitrification)

-------
Figure C-33
POST AUDIT FACT SHEET
NO. llWATER BODY NAME:
Lemonweir Creek

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS


POINT SOURCE DESIGN:
FLOW (MGD) =
BODS (mg /I) / (lbs/d) =
NH, (mg/l) / ( lbs/d) =
COMMENT:
POINT SOURCE OPERATING:
FLOW (MGD) =
BOD5 (mg/l) / ( lbs/d) =
NH3 ( mg/l) / ( Ibs/d ) =
COMMENT:
RIVER CHEMISTRY:
AVERAGE D.O. (mg/l) =
MINIMUM 0.0. (mg/l ) =
MAXIMUM BOD3 (mg/l):
MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ 1):
MAX. UNIONIZED NH3 (mg/l) =
COMMENTS: 1. Sec. Treat. + a
upstream; 3. Down

R!vERM X TRIBUTARY TO
LAKE
ESTUARY
STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
AVERAGE DEPTHS 1 to 2 feet
APPROX. VELOCITY: 0.2 ft/sec
SLOPED N/A
7010FLOW= 2.6 cfs
BEFORE
Tomah POTW TOTAL
Sec. Treat.
T.F. +Aeration
TOTAL
1.0 1.0
43/O59) 359
21/(175) 175

4.7
2.1
21.0
6.9
0.083
ir nitrification + filters; 2.
stream of POTW, higher values obs

STATED MODEL USED TO
Wisconsin MAKE WLA: YES



AFTER
Tomah POTW TOTAL
1.03 1.03
10.0/(83) 83
4.0/(33) 33
Tertiary Treat.
TOTAL
1.5 1.5
6.0/(75) 75
<0.1/(1) 1

4.3
1.72
6.13
0.283
.00173
Downstream of POTW, lower values
erved upstream;

NO x




% CHANGE
% CHANGE
+ 50.0%
- 79.0%
- 99.4%

8.5%
- 19.0%
- 71.0%
- 96.0%
- 98.0%
observed

-------
                  1978
     1.0
                  1981
     1.0
     o.i
     O.I
z
i
     .0,
     .0.
Q
UJ
M

Z
o
     .001
Q
LJ
N

Z
O
    .001
    .0001
              0123
          LEMONWEIR RIVER MILES
   .0001
   I	|	I
   0      I      2
LEMONWEIR RIVER MILES
                                Figure C-34

         Water Quality Comparisons for Lemonweir Creek, Wisconsin
            (Secondary Treatment to Secondary-I- Nitrification)

-------
                          o<
                          e
                          LJ
                          O
                          >•
                          X
                          O

                          Q
                          LJ
                            SECONDARY TREATMENT —
                                — TERTIARY TREATMENT
                                    JUNE, JULY, AUGUST 8 SEPTEMBER
                               MEAN ( mq/ I )

                      BEFORE      AFTER     % CHANGE
               0.0.
5.0
                                    STANDARD DEVIATION (mq/l)

                                        BEFORE     AFTER
2. r
                                                                 4.4
2.0
1-POSTOPERATIONAL DATA BASED ON TO FEW SAMPLES TO BE ACCURATE
                                                               DATA SOURCE STORET
                                               Figure C-35
                         Time History  Data Analysis for Lemonweir  River

-------
materials  discharged  from  the  POTW  did  not  significantly  impact  the  total
dissolved oxygen balance.  At the 7Q10 flow  this conclusion would  tend  to change
and the POTW impact may tend to be more significant.
                                     C-52

-------
Project Case Study
Water Body:  Cibolo Creek,

    Cibolo Creek  is located  in the  state  of  Texas  just north of the city of San
Antonio.   The  river  flows  in  a  south  easterly direction.   From  the  city of
Schertz,  the river traverses about  75 miles  and  joins  the San Antonio River.

    Upstream  of  Schertz,  the  river passes  through  an  aquifer  recharge  zone
during  which time  the   flow  is essentially  reduced  to  zero.   The  base  flow
downstream of Schertz is formed  by wastewater effluents discharged to the river
by  the  Universal  City POTW, Randolf Air Force  Base  (AFB)  wastewater treatment
facility  and  the  city of Schertz  POTW.   The river flow is comprised totally of
wastewater  flow for  the  10  mile reach  downstream  of  Schertz.   River  depth in
this reach is about one  foot or  less while velocities  are less  than 0.1 feet per
second.

    In  1974 and 1975, all discharges to  the  river near Schertz  were operating as
secondary treatment facilities.   Effluent BOD.  concentrations from these
facilities were less  than 20.0  mg/1 and both  the Randolf AFB and the  Schertz
treatment  works  were  at  times  achieving  a degree  of  inplant nitrification.
Water quality data collected (Figure C-36)  in 1975 indicate depressed dissolved
oxygen  concentrations near  Schertz  (1.4 mg/1),  elevated  CBOD  levels (9.0 mg/1)
and elevated ammonia-N concentrations (11.4  mg/1).

    Shortly after this  survey,  a new treatment  facility  was constructed.  This
POTW accepts the  flow from  the  old Schertz  POTW ,  the Universal City POTW, and
Randolf AFB.    The  new  plant is  a trickling filter  treatment  facility  (Figure
C-37).

    In  1978, the  state  of  Texas issued  a report in which wasteload allocations
were developed  for  this river segment.   A version of  the QUAL model similar to
WRE/QUAL  II was used in  this evaluation.  The model which was calibrated  against
the December 1975 water  quality  data, was used to make wasteload allocations at
temperatures of 28 C and a one in two year 7 day low flow upstream  of Schertz of
zero cubic feet per  second.   The  allocations show that at a  1995  flow of 5.82
mgd from  the  ODO J.  Riedal  POTW  (new  Schertz  facility)  effluent  BOD5  and NH
concentrations  of 5.0  and  2  mg/1  respectively,  would  still   result  in river
minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations of less  than 3.0 mg/1.   However,  because
of the  preliminary nature of the modeling and the inadequate data  available for
model calibration, the  authors  recommended  a permit be written at  BOD- of  10.0
mg/1 and  no ammonia  limitation.   Further,  they  recommended  additional field
studies be  conducted to collect  data  necessary  for  a  more  refined  modeling
analysis.

    These additional data were collected  in  April,  May and June of 1980.  Water
quality data were collected  in  April, while  time of travel, reaeration,  and BOD
oxidation rate  information were  gathered in  May and June.   These water  quality
data presented  on Figure C-36,  show sampling stations which are  located  to give
much better definition of water  quality  gradients  and the dissolved oxygen sag.
The data  however, do not  show  substantial  improvements  in quality beyond the
                                      C-53

-------
1974, 1975
~ 10
E 6
0 4
2
o
X" 0. SATURATION
T-x -J
T

^
\
_ STO.
I 1 1
10
8
g
4
2

1980
r- 0.0.
:__\_

I
- ,
_
1
•T
^pT
,fl
^1

85 8O 75 70 65 85 80
— IO
2 8
o
.- 6
0 4
Si 2
o
-
-

	
//
\
_T 1 1
10
8

6
4
2

-
-

—
-
—
4




•
SATURA1
J- J
3





V-


75




- •



•
k
ION
I


D.O. STO.
1





70 65



^
S
I
85 8O 75 70 65 85 80
CIBOLO CREEK MILES CIBOLO
^3
ป 250
o
- 200

f 150
- 100
en
w 5O
f 0

—
—
NH BOOS

BOD, NH3
p=aj BOD CD

250
2OO

150
IOO
50
r>

—
—





75
CREEK















70 65
MILES




~ BOD,
-


NH9








UNIV. RAND. S.CH. TOTAL QDO J RIEDAL
CITY A. KB. POTW LOAD
POTW
POTW
JUNE 1974, DEC. 5, 1975 APRIL
7, 1980
1974, 1975 1980
- 5
9 A
e *

Q 2
0 1
Q


_ „
—
1 1
85 8O 75
^ 5
E 4
ซ•-ป
2 3
'" 2
z
Q

—

—
- ,
—
I i
85 80 75


^i 5
E
— 4
z
'ป 3
o
i 2
M
O
Z Q

—
—

<
1 A 1
85 80 75
A

.

1
5
4

2
1

~" "jl '

mf
_ i
,
70 65 85 80






AH | M.
5
4

3
2

r\
X
*0

—
-
•
W
70 65 85 80




__A y T"
r i *
L
i

5
4

3
2
vf



• ^
1 1





75 70 65






... 1







75 70 65


X


- .
1
70 65 85 80

• T

i
1 1






75 70 65
CIBOLO CREEK MILES CIBOLO CREEK MILES



                    Figure C-36

 Water Quality Comparisons for Cibolo Creek, Texas
(Old Secondary Facility to New Secondary Facility)

-------
                                                                                                 Figure C-37
   POST AUDIT  FACT  SHEET
N0.12 WATER  BODY NAME:
Cibolo Creek
 STREAM
 RIVER
 LAKE
 ESTUARY
TRIBUTARY TO:
San Antonio River
STATE:
Texas
MODEL USED TO
MAKE  WLA: YES
                                                                                                   X   NO
 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
 STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY:
  AVERAGE DEPTH=  0.5 to 1.0 feet
  APPROX.VELOCITY:  less than 0.1 cfs
  SLOPE=  N/A
  70 10 FLOW 2- less than 0.1 cfs
 POINT SOURCE DESIGN:
  FLOW  (MOD) :
  BOD9 (mg/l) / (lbs/d) =
  NH,(mg/l) / (Ibs/d):
  COMMENT:
 POINT SOURCE OPERATING'
  FLOW  (MGD) =
  BOD, (mg/l) / { lbs/d) =
  NH3 (mg/l) / ( Ibs/d )-
  COMMENT:
 RIVER CHEMISTRY--
  AVERAGE D.O. (mg/l) =
  MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l ) =
  MAXIMUM BOD9 (mg/l):
  MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ I }-
  MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l):
            BEFORE2
Universal Randolt Shertz
City POTW   AFB    POTW TOTAL
                    2.2
                     27
                        TOTAL
  0.59
L5.5/(76)
14.2/(70)
 0.37    0.95    I.i9
4.7(15)  8.7(169) 160
1.2/(4) 11.4/(90) 164
  All at Secondary Treatment^
             1.4

            11.4
            1.03
                                  AFTER
                          ODO J. Riedal
                               POTW
                      TOTAL
                                3.2
                                 10
                                              TOTAL
          2              2
       7.3/(122)       122
       4.8/(80)         80
     Secondary Treatment4
                                   6.0
                                   1.6
                                   5.5
                                   5.0
                                  0.031
               % CHANGE
                                % CHANGE
                +   5%
                -  24%
                -  51%
                                 +14.2%

                                 -  55%
                                 -  97%
 COMMENTS:   1.   Upstream of point  sources,  actually 7Q2;   2.   Permit requirements;   3.   Effluent data
             shows  Randolf AFB and  Schertz were  achieving  partial nitrification;   4.   Trickling filter
             plant  but  achieving partial  nitrification;

-------
original  1974,  1975 quality data.   This is in  line  with the fact  that  the new
facility 'does  not substantially reduce  effluent loads to the stream.  The data
do  indicate -depressed water  quality conditions which can be at  least  in part
caused by effluents discharged by the ODO J. Riedel POTW.

    A  post-audit  simulation presented  on  Figure  C-38  shows  that  the  model
under  predicts  dissolved oxygen impacts downstream  of  the  ODO J.  Riedal  POTW.
Observed  daily average  minimum  dissolved  oxygen  concentrations  from the  1980
data set  are  near 3.0 mg/1 while  the  model predicts  a minimum  dissolved oxygen
of  near  4.5 mg/1.   Further,  because  of model inadequacies  and  variations  in
observed data,  the  post-audit model simulation has a  RMS  error  of  approximately
1.9  mg/1  when  compared  to  the   1980  dissolved  oxygen  data.     Because  of
unexplained spatial dissolved oxygen variations  it will  probably not be possible
to  reduce  the  error substantially.  At  the time of  this writing,  the state  of
Texas  has  not  completed  its  revisions  to  the  model and have  not developed  a
revised wasteload allocation.
                                     C-56

-------
POST AUDIT MODEL FACT SHEET
WATER BODY NAME' CIBOLO CREEK, TEXAS
MODEL TYPE-- FINITE SEGMENT CALIBRATED- YES J<_ NO 	
MODEL NAME' WRE EXPANDED VERSION VALIDATED' YES 	 NO_L_
QUAL I (SIMILAR TO WRE QUALU)
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
RIVFR Fl DW: 0 CFS
RIVFR TFMP: 28ฐC
POINT SOURCE INFO:
ODD J. RIEDAL
Q(MGD): 5.82
BOD9 (mg/l): 5.0
NH3(mg/l ): 2.0
UPSTREAM INFO:
O(CFS) = 0

COMMENTS:
1 NO UPSTREAM OF POTW
POST AUDIT
RIVFR Fl nw: ฐ'5 CFS
RIV/FR TฃMP: 20ฐC
POINT SOURCE-INFO:
ODO J. RIEDAL
Q(MGD): 2.0
BOD, (mg/l): 7.3
NH3 (mg/ 1 ) : 4.8
UPSTREAM INFO:
O(CFS): 0.5
BOD3(mg/l): 1.0
NH3 (mg/ 1 ): 0.0
COMMENTS:

DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
ooO ro * o> 09 O i\J
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
3 PO -C> O) 00 O W

—
—

^
— \- D.O. STD. I
1
r- D.O. SATURATION
/
_S MODEL
1

5 80 75 70 65
C BOLO CREEK MILES

r- D.O. SATURATION

v
N
<
i
V
fo^
, y^>
1
-p
>— MODEL
\
\-D.O. STD.
1

85 80 75 70 65
CIBOLO CREEK MILES
Figure C-38

-------
1968 1979

- 10
^ 8
E 6
0 4
d 2
0
8
120
_ too
12 80
" 60
0 40
u. 20

—
	


1
0
_
_
	
-
-
i
ฐ80

— 3.0OO
^ 2,500
Z 2,OOO
t; 1,500
ft
z I.OOO
 50O

< n




	
jl
1 |
75



*
*J
1 • 1
75
1


r-O.O.
\SAT.


- ^ o.o.
STO.
1
70 65 6



J

•

I—*
pl
1

1
10
8
6
4
2
0 8
|ฃ(J
100
80
60
40
20
n

— T-0.0. SATURATION
,-f * *

•"•
t 1


ฃ-0.0. 1TO.
1




D 75 7O 65 60
_ 4
-
_
- 1
~
J 1
— 273 —
*




1 1






70 65 60 80 75 70 65 60
JAMES RIVER MILES JAMES RIVER M ILES



BOD,

—
















MM,








~ BODs





SPRINGFIELD SPRINGFIELD
S
W.
POTW S.W
POTW
JULY 20-23, 1968 SEPTEMBER 6, 1979


- 25
^ 20
- 15
n
Q 10
O
CD K
0
8(
^n
^ 25
^ 20
z '5
V. 'O
i 5

Q
_"p
—
I1 1
1
D 75
-
"If
- J_
: i

A 1
80 75

.u
- 25
o> 2.0
E
1.5
z
1 I Q
z 0.5
Q
-
^ >
•^
— -^*
ซ• l
80 75
1968 1979



i
1 1
70 65 6<



I

| "j \
25
20
15
10
5
0
D 8
^n
25
20
15
IO
5

rป
-
-
-*•.
1 1 1




3 75 70 65 6O
-
—
—
—

••••I • 1 1






70 65 60 8O 75 70 65 6O

I
I


1 | i






NO DATA



1 1 1





70 65 6O 8O 75 70 65 6O
JAMES RIVER MILES JAMES RIVER MILES


                       Figure C-39
Water Quality Comparisons for Wilsons Creek, Missouri
  (Secondary Treatment to Sec. 4- Nitrif. -I- Filters)

-------
10.0
^ i.o
o>
E
z
i
1 o,
5
Q
Ul
M
Z
O
z .01
.001
9

-
-
i
—
"

4
1



:
1
3 80
1968


i

i




i i



i
<



i


I i
70 60 5
10.0
^ i.o
CP
E
z
i
z
o
5 0. 1
a
UJ
M
z
o
Z .01
.001
0 9
1979
-
-
-
—
- 	 a {_ ALL DATA
**"* J LESS THAN

:
1 1 1








0 80 7O 60 50
JAMES R VER MILES JAMES RIVER MILES
                       Figure C-40
Water Quality Comparisons for Wilsons Creek, Missouri
    (Secondary  Treatment to Sec. -I- Nitrif. -I- Filters)

-------
 Project Case Study
 Water Body:  Wilsons Creek, Missouri


     Wilsons Creek  located  in  southwestern  Missouri  drains about 84 square miles
 of land in and  including  the  city of Springfield.  The average elevation of the
 basin is about 1250 feet above mean sea level and the river slope averages about
 7.3 feet per  mile.  Summer low flow in Wilson Creek  can  be  as  low as one cubic
 foot per second.  A few miles downstream of Springfield, Wilsons Creek joins the
 James River.   The combined flows of the James River and Wilsons Creek flow south
 for 70 miles  and enter a reservoir system near the Missouri-Arkansas border.

     At  summer  dry  flow,   the  effluent  from  the  Springfield  Southwest  Sewage
 Treatment  Plant accounts  for  almost 100 percent  of  the stream flow  in Wilsons
 Creek.  In 1954,  1960,  1966,  1971, 1975 and  1976,  fish kills which occurred in
 Wilsons  Creek and  the  James  River, were associated with  wastewaters  discharged
 from the sewage treatment  facility.

     An intensive water quality  study  (Figures C-39, C-40) performed  in 1968 in
 Wilsons  Creek showed dissolved oxygen levels of 1.2 mg/1,  BOD  concentrations of
 26.0  mg/1,  and  ammonia-N  of  23.0  mg/1.   In  addition,  un-ionized  ammonia
 concentrations during  this time  were 0.8  mg/1   downstream  of the  Springfield
 Southwest  Sewage  Treatment Plant.   During  this survey,  the  sewage  treatment
 plant  was  an activated  sludge secondary treatment plant with effluent  BOD  and
 ammonia-N concentrations averaging about 20.0 mg/1 (Figure C-41).

     In  1973,  consultants  for  the  city  of  Springfield  submitted  plans  for
 construction  of  an AWT facility  at the site of  the  old secondary  plant.   A
 wasteload allocation study for the AWT plant  was  developed in January 1975.  As
 part  of  this  study, model  RIVER was calibrated against the 1968 intensive survey
 data.  Subsequent wasteload allocations performed at low flow conditions, showed
 that  a  tertiary  treatment plant  with  an  effluent  BOD,,   of  10.0  mg/1 and  an
 effluent ammonia  of  1.0   mg/1  would  comply  with  river  dissolved oxygen  and
 ammonia  water  quality  standards.

    An AWT  facility was  approved for  construction and  became operational  in
 October  1977.   A subsequent intensive water quality study  conducted by  the city
 of  Springfield in  1979 showed  substantially  improved  dissolved  oxygen,  BOD,.,
 ammonia  and  un-ionized ammonia  levels  in  the   stream (Figures  C-39,  C-40).
 Further, weekly sampling performed  by  the  USGS at  Boaz,  Missouri  on the  James
 River  just  downstream  of the  Wilsons Creek inflow,  show substantial improvement
 in  oxygen and  ammonia  levels.   Before  installation of  the new  facility,  summer
 oxygen concentrations  averaged 4.7 mg/1  (Figure  C-42).   After  the  plant became
 operational, summer mean dissolved oxygen concentrations increased  to  7.0 mg/1.

    Biological  improvements were  also  observed.   Generally,  fishing  has  been
 improved as seen by appearance  of  large and small mouth bass.   Schools  of  small
 fish have also been observed  in Wilsons Creek just downstream of  the  outfall.
 Improved water quality  has lead  to  increased  use  of  Wilsons  Creek  National
Battlefield Park  which has recently  undergone a  major  expansion.   Macroinver-
 tebrate  surveys conducted  in 1964  to  1965 and  1980 have  also  shown  improvements.


                                      C-59

-------
Figure  C-41
POST AUDIT FACT SHEET
NO. 13WATER BODY NAME:
Wilsons Creek
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

POINT SOURCE DESIGN:
FLOW (MOD) :
BOD, (mg/l) / (Iba/d):
NH, (mg/l) / ( lbป/d)s
COMMENT^
POINT SOURCE OPERATING:
FLOW (MGO):
BODS (mg/l) / ( Ibl/d):
NH, (mg/l) / ( Ibt/d )-
COMMENT:
RIVER CHEMISTRY:
AVERAGE D.O. (mg/l):
MINIMUM D.O. (mg/l )-
MAXIMUM BOD, (mg/l) =
MAXIMUM NH, (mg/ 1):
MAX. UNIONIZED NH, (mg/l):
RiviR" X TRIBUTARY T0=
LAKE James River
ESTUARY
STATE; MODEL USED TO
Missouri MAKF wi A: YES X NO

STREAM, RIVER, ESTUARY'
AVERAGE DEPTH= 1.0 feet
APPROX. VELOCITY: 0.75 ft/sec
SLOPE = 4 to 12 ft/mile
7Q 10 FLOW= 8 cfs + POTW flow
BEFORE
ipringtield
S.W. POTW TOTAL
20Z
30/(5064)
Sec. Treat. Act. Sludge
TOTAL
9.13
21.5/(1632)
20.87(1579)
6.4
1.4
26.0
22.2
0.61
AFTER
Springfield
S.W. POTW TOTAL
107(2520)
17(250)
See Note 1
TOTAL
24.7
3.6/(742)
1.5/(309)
5/79-6/80 data
8.2
6.5
5.0
<1.0
<0.04
% CHANGE
+ 50%
50%
% CHANGE
-t- 171%
55%
80%
+ 28.1%
+364.3%
- 80.8%
- 95.5%
- 93.4%
COMMENTS: 1. Secondary + air nitrification + ozone + filter (average conditions); 2. A portion
of effluenl is discharged into another river; 3. Discharged to Wilsons Creek.

-------
  4OOO
        1966
1969
(970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
                                               SECONDARY TREATMENT —-
1978
1979
I960
1981
                                                         -ป- AWT TREATMENT
                                  JUNE, JULY, AUGUST 8 SEPTEMBER
             FLOW
             D.O.
             NH,
       BEFORE
        276
        4.7
        1.4
                              MEAN  (mg/ I )
                                AFTER     % CHANGE
                                    STANDARD DEVIATION (mg/l)
                                       BEFORE      AFTER
           232
            7.0
           0.25
               - I 6 %
               + 49 %
               -82%
                           336
                            1.6
                            2.1
                               202
                                1.5
                               0.44
1-UNITS = CFS
                                                                    DATA SOURCE STORET
                                             Figure C-42
                           Time History Data Analysis for Wilsons Creek
                         (Station Code* 07052250 • Agency Code'  II2WRD)

-------
These  data  (Figure C-43)  show  an increase in  the  number of taxa downstream  of
the  facility.   The data also show  a shift from  tolerant species to  intolerant
species.

    In  the  1975  analyses,  model RIVER was calibrated against the  1968 intensive
water quality data.  The model  was  then used  to evaluate  future water  quality  at
critical  flow  and  temperature  for  the  proposed  treatment  upgrade  of  nitrogen
removal and  effluent  polishing.  The wasteload allocation shown  on Figure  C-44
indicated  increased  treatment   would  substantially  improve  dissolved  oxygen
levels.  In the  present analysis, the calibrated  model was  tested  by calculating
the  post-audit  instream water  quality data.   The  results of  this   test,  also
shown  on  Figure C-44,  indicate that the model does simulate the water  quality
data with  a high  degree  of  accuracy.    It  is interesting to  note   that  after
upgraded treatment, the POTW effluent dissolved oxygen concentration was  15.0  to
20.0 mg/1  due   to  pure oxygen  activated  sludge  treatment  and  disinfection  by
ozonation.   As   shown  in  the post-figure,  the model was capable of  accurately
calculating  the  effect of  the  high  effluent  dissolved   oxygen  on river  oxygen
levels.
                                      C-64

-------
UJ
               1964- 965
                                           1980
            JAMES RIVER MILES
                                     JAMES RIVER MILES
Z
UJ
(J
oc
UJ
Q.
100


80


60


40


20
T= 36%
- F = 38%
1= 6%
p

—

Tf
•


T


'
T
r
\ \


Z
1

 80            70

       JAMES RIVER MILES
  100


  80


  60


  40


  20
                                                     T: 7%
                                                     F= 46 %

                                                     I* 47%
60 80           70

         JAMES RIVER MILES
                                                              60
              J
                         DA™
                            Figure C-43

       Biology Comparisons for  Wilsons Creek, Missouri

-------
POST AUDIT MODEL FACT SHEET
WATER BODY NAME5 W LSONS CREEK, MISSOURI
MODEL TYPE' STREETER-PHELPS CALIBR ATED' YES JL. NO 	
MODEL NAME' RIVER (HYDROSCIENCE) VALIDATED' YES 	 NO JL_
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
BivFH f\ nvw: 5.4CFS
RIVFB TFMP: 23ฐC
POINT SOURCE INFO:
SPRINGFIELD
S.W. -POTW
Q(MGD): 19.0
BOO, (mg/l): 10.0
NH3(mg/ 1 )s 1.0
UPSTREAM INFO:
0(CFS)= 0
BOD,(mg/l)s 	
NH3 (mg/l )s 	
COMMENTS:
1 UPSTREAM OF POTW
POST AUDIT
BIV/FB Fl n*: 0 CFS
OIVFB rpuB: 22.8ฐC
POINT SOURCE INFO:
SPRINGFIELD
S.W. -POTW
0(MGD)= 17.0
B003 (mg/l)s 3.0
NH,(mg/ 1 ): 1.0
UPSTREAM INFO:
0(CFS)= 3.8
BOO, (mg/l )s 3.0
NH3 (mg/l )= 0.9
COMMENTS:
POTW EFFLUENT D.O.
APPROX. 14 mg/l BECAUSE
OF OZONE DISINFECTION
AND PURE-OX TREATMENT
12
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/
00 O l\> A O> 09 O
1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l)
mO M * O> OD O (\>

/— 0.0. SATURATION
_ ^— MODEL
/
*- 0.0. STO.
INCLUDES PHOTOSYNTHESIS
1 1 1

0 75 70 65 60
JAMES RIVER MILES

SEPT 6, 1979
/— 0.0. SATURATION
_ " y
/— MODEL
/
^- 0.0. STD.
NCLUDES PHOTOSYNTHESIS
1 1 1

0 75 70 65 60
JAMES RIVER MILES
Figure C-44

-------