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 qualitywasteload 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
-------
loopn
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
------- |