oEPA
Unned Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1
EPA 600 7-79-049
February 1979
Technical Manual for the
Measurement and
Modeling of Non-point
Sources at an Industrial
Site on a River
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports m this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of. control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide-range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-79-049
February 1979
Technical Manual for the
Measurement and Modeling of
Non-point Sources at an Industrial
Site on a River
by
G.T. Brookman, J.J. Binder, P.B. Katz, and W.A. Wade,
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England
125 Silas Dean Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
Contract No. 68-02-2133
Task No. 2
Program Element No. EHE624
EPA Project Officer: D. Bruce Harris
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 OBJECTIVE 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF A FIELD SURVEY PROGRAM
3.1 Selection of Sampling Sites 5
3.1.1 Runoff Sampling Sites 5
3.1.2 River Sampling Sites 7
3.2 Sampling Methodology 9
3.2.1 Selection of Parameters to be Measured .... 9
3.2.2 Number and Frequency of Samples 12
3.2.3 Sample Collection Methods 15
3.2.3.1 Overland Runoff 15
3.2.3.2 Open Channel Flow 15
3.2.4 Type of Sanple 20
3.2.5 Measurement of Runoff and River Flow 21
3.3 Sample Analysis 23
3.4 Data Reduction and Analysis 23
4.0 MATHEMATICAL MODELING 30
4.1 Model Selection Criteria 30
4.2 Possible Industrial Non-Point Source Models. . . 31
4.3 Example Industrial Runoff and Receiving
Water Model - SSWMM-RECEIV II 35
4.3.1 General Description 35
4.3.2 Computer Requirements 35
4.3.3 Model Utilization 35
4.3.4 Model Input Information Requirements 36
4.3.5 Model Results 3S
5.0 PROGRAM COSTS AND TIME CONSIDERATIONS 40
5.1 Manpower for Measurement Survey -*0
5.2 Other Direct Costs for Measurement Survey. ... ^2
5.3 Elapsed Time Requirements -*2
5.4 Labor and Computer Time to Implement
SSWMM-RECEIV II for Case Run ^6
6.0 SUMMARY: HYPOTHETICAL CASE ^8
6.1 Introduction ^8
6.2 Background Information *S
6.3 Selection of Sampling Sites 50
6.4 Sampling Methodology 50
6.4.1 Parameters for Analysis 50
6.4.2 Sampling Frequency 51
6.4.3 Method of Sample Collection 51
6.4.4 Flow Measurement 51
6.4.5 Sample and Data Analysis 52
6.5 Model Apolication to Example Case 53
6.6 Conclusion 56
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
3-1 Parameters Commonly Monitored in Water Non-Point
Source Programs 10
3-2 Minimum Volume, Preservation and Maximum Storage Time
of Samples for Common Pollutants 11
3-3 Comparison of Manual and Automatic Sampling 19
3-4 Range of Pollutant Concentrations at the Sampling
Locations of Coal-Fired Utility . 25
3-5 Mean Pollutant Concentrations with 95TI Confidence
Limits on River at Coal-Fired Utility ] 27
3-6 Comparisons of Mean Values and Variances Within 957.
Confidence Limits at Upstream and Downstream Sites
During Dry and Wet Sampling Periods at Coal-Fired Utility . 29
4-1 Possible Models for Industrial Runoff Applications ... 32
4-2 SSWMM-RECEIV II Model Input Requirements 37
5-1 Estimated Manpower Requirements for Runoff Study .... 41
5-2 Estimated Cost of Equipment - Estimate of Other Direct
Costs for Example Runoff Study 43
5-3 Estimated Cost/Parameter Analyzed/Sample 44
5-4 Labor and Computer Time Based on Example Case 47
6-1 Physical Dimensions of Land Elements - Coal-Fired
Utility Station Example Case 55
A-l TRC SSWMM Selected Model Results 59
A-2 TRC LNKPRG Selected Model Results 61
A-3 TRC RECEIV Setup/Quantity Selected Model Results .... 63
A-4 TRC RECEIV II Quality Selected Model Results 69
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
3-1 Site Divided Into Drainage Basins 6
3-2 Plug Collector 16
3-3 Weir Installation in Storm Drain 22
5-1 Elapsed Time Estimates for Runoff Study Which is to be
Used in Conjunction with a Mathematical Model .... ^5
6-1 Site Layout, Coal-Fired Utility Station Example Case . . ^9
6-2 Land and River Model Element Schematic, Coal-Fired Utility
Station Example Case 5~»
-------
1.0 OBJECTIVE
This Technical Manual presents a guide to planning a measurement
and modeling program for non-point sources of water pollution from an
industrial site. The emphasis of the manual is on storawater runoff
and the impact of the runoff on stream water quality.
The manual describes the criteria for designing a measurement program,
including factors to be considered in sampling site selection and options
for sampling methodology. The planning to be done includes: 1) the choice
of pollutant parameters for analysis, 2) the determination of sampling
frequency, 3) analysis of alternative techniques of sample collection, and
4) the selection of flow measurement methodology. In addition, sample analysis
and data analysis procedures must be considered.
The resulting measurement program is designed to be compatible for use
with a mathematical model. A model, with a minimum amount of measured field
data as input, can be used to predict the quantity and quality of runoff
and its impact on a river for a wide variety of storm, site, and river
conditions. This manual includes a guide to the application of one model
especially adapted for stormwater runoff.
Data is also presented to assist in the development of estimates for
manpower and time requirements, field equipment costs, and for computer
time.
An example of the possible application of a plan for the measurement
and modeling of stormwater runoff from a coal-fired utility plant is pre-
sented in Section 6.
-1-
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
A precise definition of non-point source water pollution does not exist;
however, for the purpose of this manual the following definition applies:
Non-point source water pollution is the accumulated pollutants
in a receiving body of water from runoff due to snow melt and
rain, seepage and percolation, and chemical spills and leaks,
contributing to the degradation of the quality of surface waters
and groundwaters.
Non-point source water pollution can have a major influence on water
quality. Thus, identifying non-point source pollution and its impact on
natural water bodies is of significant concern to those developing water
management plans to maintain and improve water quality.
To date, non-point source water pollution has been studied in some
detail for urban and agricultural environments. However, little attention
has been paid to industrial stonnwater runoff.
As Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans are enacted
by regional agencies on a nationwide scale, more emphasis can be expected
on non-point source controls in both the municipal and industrial sectors.
Also, with increasing enactment of Best Practicable Treatment (BPT) for
point sources, more stress will be placed on BPT for non-point sources in those
areas where water quality still falls short of attainment goals.
In addition, more regulations may be forthcoming on the quality of
stormwater outfall discharges and subsequent controls may be required.
*
For these reasons, more concern is being directed toward runoff from
industrial non-point sources. Sources with the highest potential for con-
taminating runoff are generally material storage piles and fallout from
fugitive and point source air emissions which accumulate on impervious
— 9 —
-------
This manual will assist the facilities engineer and agency water quality
planner to develop the framework of a program to assess the impact of storm-
water runoff on stream water quality. This manual discusses the approach to
the measurement and modeling of stormwater runoff from most industrial sites.
The discussion of measurement and modeling of the impact on receiving waters,
however, is limited to rivers, the most likely industrial receiving body.
This manual is the second volume in a set concerning the evaluation of
non-point pollution sources from industry. The first volume is a technical
report of sampling and modeling of non-point sources at coal-fired utilities.
The measurement and modeling guidelines described in this manual were developed
in conjunction with the program described in the first volume.
-3-
-------
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF A FIELD SURVEY PROGRAM
The field survey procedures chosen for a runoff sampling program are
specific both to the industry and to the site. The following considerations
are important for the development of a plan for such a runoff survey.
1. Purpose of Sampling Program. What is the reason for the
sampling program? What is the intended use of the results?
2. Resource Availability. What resources in terms of manpower,
equipment and money are available to perform the sampling
program? Are they adequate to fulfill the objectives of
the program?
3. Site Location. What are the flow and mixing characteristics of the
river likely to be? Is flow in the river regulated by a dam? Is
there the likelihood of a suitable amount of rainfall during the
sampling period? Can plant discharges and runoff be isolated
from other discharges, tributaries, etc.?
4. Runoff Sources and Characteristics. What are the likely sources
of runoff (i.e., material piles, from fugitive dust on parking
lots and roads, from material-loading/unloading areas, etc.)?
What types and quantities of materials are likely to run off?
What are the physical properties of the material subject to run-
off? How are the runoff sources located with respect to drainage
patterns, storm sewers, etc.? How large .an area is drained? Is
there evidence of runoff patterns? How is runoff disposed of?
How can it be quantified? Are local topography and drainage sys-
tems amenable to interception?
5. Parameters to be Analyzed. Is there a river flow recording
station nearby? What is the river water quality? What
chemical compounds are specific to the runoff material? What
pollutants are important to the program objective?
Each of these elements must be addressed in the development of specific
test plans for the sampling program. A site visit and discussions with
plant personnel are usually adequate to answer many of these questions
and to develop the test plan. Some preliminary samples may be necessary
to fill gaps in available information.
-4-
-------
3.1 Selection of Sampling Sites
One of the principal objectives of the initial on-site visit is to
gather enough information to select the runoff and river sampling locations.
3.1.1 Runoff Sampling Sites
From a visual survey of the industrial site and site maps, the possible
significant sources of runoff are determined. These may include piles of
raw materials such as coal and wood, waste material disposal piles such as
bark, and areas of significant accumulated dirt and dust fall.
The path of surface water flow from these sources to a stream is defined
by the drainage basins of the site. The drainage basins can be determined in
a variety of ways. Contours from existing topographic maps of the site can be
used to define the drainage area. If these maps are not available or if there
is uncertainty as to the size and shape of a basin, visual observations of
drainage patterns snould be made during one or more storm events and during
dry conditions. Many plants have storm sewer systems which can be located
through the use of sewer system drawings. These sewer systems can also be
used to divide the plant into basins. A more accurate but more costly method
of determining drainage basins is to perform a topographic survey of the site.
Figure 3-1 shows a plant site which has been divided into drainage
basins through visual observation and storm sewer network maps. The four
drainage basins are numbered 1 through 4. Basin 1 discharges to the river
via overland flow at discharge point No. 1. Basins 2, 3 and 4 discharge to
the river via a storm sewer system at discharge point No. 2.
-5-
-------
- s
Storm sewer system
i
Coal
pile
/ N
Cooling water
^\, discharge
i.*,'
LEGEND
Q BASIN NUMBER
BASIN BOUNDARY
DISCHARGE POINT
STORM SEWER
SAMPLING POINT
Figure 3-1: Site divided into drainage basins.
-6-
-------
To isolate the runoff from these drainage basins, stormwater runoff
should be intercepted as close to the source as possible. For example, in
Figure 3-1, sampling should occur in the storm sewer as close as possible
to the location where Basin 3 drains into Basin 4 and the combined drainage
from Basins 3 and 4 discharge into Basin 2. These locations are marked with
asterisks in Figure 3-1. Sampling must also be performed at all major dis-
charges to the river to get a total quantity of runoff to the receiving
water. In Figure 3-1, points Nos. 1 and 2 indicate the discharge locations
of Basin 1 and Basins 2-4, respectively.
The access to the sampling sites of both manpower and equipment must
also be considered. Related considerations for storm sewers include:
1) Location of the manholes; 2) for accurate flow measurement, the change
of slope of the sewer lines influent to and exiting from the manhole; 3)
possible drop manholes; 4) possible bends in the manhole channels; and 5)
effect changes in river depth and flow rate after heavy rains will have on
storm sewer outfall access.
3.1.2 River Sampling Sites
Once the drainage basins and the runoff sampling points have been de-
fined, river sampling stations can be selected upstream and downstream of
the basin discharges from the plant. Several factors must be considered to
assure that these sites produce representative river samples. For example,
river mixing patterns relative to the discharge points and runoff areas
must be adequately defined. All stations must be positioned at locations
which are well-mixed; i.e., having uniform chemical and physical properties.
-7-
-------
The upstream sampling station should be located above any influence
from the discharges of the plant site in a well-mixed reach to obtain
samples truly representative of background pollutant levels in the stream.
The downstream station should be placed at a location where the runoff
plume (portion of river influenced by runoff) has fully dispersed across the
river to ensure that the samples collected are representative of time average
pollutant loadings. To determine discharge plume dispersion, various tests
can supplement visual observation. These include tracking floating tags and
fluorometry which measures optically the concentration of fluorescent dyes
in waterways.
For both upstream and downstream sampling sites, consideration must also
be given to the effect of heavy rain on the runoff plume flow rate and conse-
quently on the plume dispersion behavior. Also the sampling equipment must
be sited well above the expected high water level caused by heavy rainfall.
One sampling location upstream and one downstream will usually provide
sufficient data, although increasing the number of sampling stations to two
or three per location will insure more representative sampling in situations
where less than ideal conditions exist such as rivers with poor mixing or
wide, deep rivers which have a low velocity. Any point discharges (such as
the cooling water discharge shown in Figure 3-1), tributaries, etc., between
the upstream and downstream sites must also be sampled to account for their
effects on the river.
-8-
-------
During dry conditions the upstream and downstream data should be approxi-
mately the same, excluding any point source discharges. (If there are major
point source effluents, these should be reflected in the downstream data.)
If unaccountable major differences in data exist, the downstream and possibly
the upstream station(s) should be moved until agreement is attained.
3.2 Sampling Methodology
3.2.1 Selection of Parameters to be Measured
Table 3-1 shows a list of typical parameters associated with non-point
sources. The objectives of the field survey may allow deletion of some con-
stituents or require the addition of others. The water quality of the
receiving body, the likelihood of detecting the various contaminants in the
river, and the type of source being analyzed will affect the choice of
parameters. For example, coal pile runoff dictates different parameters
than agricultural runoff. Contaminants previously present in high concen-
trations in the receiving body may mask similar contaminants discharged in
the runoff.
Sample preservation and analysis requirements may also affect the
choice of parameters to be studied. Table 3-2 shows the minimum sample
volume, method of sample preservation, and recommended maximum storage time
requirements for commonly-sampled pollutants. Review of these recommended
storage times indicates that parameters such as BOD, phosphate, kjeldahl
nitrogen, ammonia, phenol, cyanide, and TOG, which require rapid analyses,
should be determined in a field laboratory or immediately shipped to a
nearby home laboratory. On the other hand, metals samples can be acidified
and stored for analysis at the end of the sampling program. In addition,
-9-
-------
TABLE 3-1
PARAMETERS COMMONLY MONITORED IN WATER NON-POINT SOURCE PROGRAMS
1. Solids
Total Suspended
Total Dissolved
Turbidity
2. Organic Materials
Oil & Grease
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
3. Metals
Iron
Cadmium
Copper
Manganese
Lead
4. Nutrients
Phosphate (Ortho, total)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate-Nitrite
5. Others
Sulfate
Cyanide
PH
Phenol
-10-
-------
TABLE 3-22
MINIMUM VOLUME, PRESERVATION AND MAXIMUM STORAGE TIME OF
SAMPLES FOR COMMON POLLUTANTS
Minimum
Pollutant Volume (mi)
Total Suspended Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Turbidity
Oil & Grease
Total Organic Carbon
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Metals
Phosphate
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia
Sulfate
Cyanide
pH
Dissolved Oxygen (Winkler)
Dissolved Oxygen (Probe)
Phenol
100
100
100
1000
25
1000
50
100
50
500
400
50
500
25
300
300
500
Sample
Preservation
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
HjSOi^ to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
H2SOit to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
H2SO^ to pH<2
HN03 to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
H2S01+ to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
H2S01+ to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
NaOH to pH 12
Cool, 4°C
-
-
Cool, 4°C
Maximum Storage
Period
7 Days
7 Days
7 Days
24 Hrs in glass
container only
24 Hrs
6 Hrs
7 Days
6 Mos
24 Hrs
24 Hrs
24 Hrs
7 Days
24 Hrs
6 Hrs
No Holding, glass
No Holding, glass
only
only
24 Hrs, glass only
H3POU to pH<4
l.OgCuSOu/Jl
-11-
-------
as a screening process, some laboratories only analyze for oil and grease
on samples with a visible oil sheen or floating grease matter. This proce-
dure thus reduces the number of samples to be transported for analysis.
Reference should be made to Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
(EPA-625-/6-74-003) and to Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Waste-
water, 14th ed., 1975, APHA-AWWA-WPCF, for specific details concerning pre-
servation and storage times.
Some parameters such as pH, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen can be
measured using continuously recording monitors. Measuring these parameters
continuously can reduce the load on the analytical laboratory and provide a
real time indication of changes in water quality. For example, during dry
weather, these parameters (pH, etc.) should be very similar upstream and
downstream in the river when point source dry weather flows are subtracted
from the downstream data. If they are not similar, it is highly probable that
the sites are located in non-representative sections of the river and should
be moved, if possible, and re-sampled.
It should also be noted that frequent (weekly during sampling) calibration
of dissolved oxygen and pH probes is advisable for accurate readings. In addi-
tion, dissolved oxygen values determined using a DO probe can be compared to
dissolved oxygen values determined by the Winkler Method (Section 218, Standard
Methods) from random samples fixed on-site.
3.2.2 Number and Frequency of Samples
Timing of sample collection is one of the problems associated with sampl-
ing runoff. Because runoff is diffuse and it is usually not feasible to
collect all of it, total quantification must be estimated from a limited
number of samples. Even if it were possible to collect all runoff from a
-12-
-------
particular basin as it discharges to the river, the data generated from sum-
ming all the basins in a test area could still have significant errors. These
errors could be caused by some of the basin runoff draining to or from an ad-
joining basin outside the test area. The measured data would not, therefore,
quantify and qualify the runoff generated by the test area. Instead, many
factors are used in the timing of sampling periods and the number and frequency
of samples within those periods and fewer samples need to be collected and ana-
lyzed in dry weather than in wet weather. River conditions are more stable in
dry weather than they are during and after a rainfall event when short-term
and dynamic changes in pollutant values occur in the river. It is important
to initiate sampling at the first instance of rainfall and then take samples
often because a large quantity of materials may wash off the surface almost
immediately, especially in paved areas. This effect is called "first flush."
For longer-duration storms, the sampling rate can be reduced.
The number of samples deemed adequate is also dependent upon the pro-
gram objective and the available resources. A data base constructed from many
samples can allow greater confidence in deriving conclusions from the program
and in calibrating the model. Cost savings can be obtained by analyzing
fewer than the total number of collected samples (e.g., analyze every third
or fourth sample initially). If the reduced number of analyses show a trend,
then additional analyses can be performed on selected samples to fill in the
missing data. If no trend is indicated, additional analyses are not cost-
effective.
-13-
-------
A determination of sampling frequency can be made by the relationship
between variation in runoff character and the acceptable error in the average
result. It can be assumed that the greater the variability, the greater the
number of samples that must be integrated to yield a composite sample with a
reasonable value.
For example, the SSWMM-RECEIV-H model divides a storm into rainfall
intervals, with the intensity of the rainfall and the length of the interval
as input data. How many discrete samples must be integrated in that interval
period to obtain an average sample that will vary no more than 5 Ib/day
suspended solids from the true average based on 95% confidence limits?
From previous sampling and analysis, 10 samples taken over the interval show
a standard deviation of 10 Ib/day suspended solids.
The Student 't1 distribution can be utilized to estimate n, the number
of samples. This relationship is defined as:
t2 2
n = ±£- (3-1)
where :
s is the sample standard distribution,
d is allowable margin of error,
t is the percentile of the 't1 distribution at v
degrees of freedom and (1-a) confidence limits.
In this case,
s = 10 Ib/day
d = 5 Ib/day
C = Va/.Z = C.975 = 2'262
v = (10-1) degrees of freedom = 9
n _
n
_ (2.262)2 (10)2 _ fi
-- - - 20.46
-14-
-------
Approximately 21 discrete samples should be integrated over the designated rain-
fall interval so that the value of suspended solids in the composite will vary
no more than ±5 Ib/day with 95% confidence limits.
However, it should be noted that this methodology can be used only for
estimation purposes, as the value of the sample standard deviation, determined
by preliminary sampling, is based on factors not necessarily reproducible in
each storm. For example, the number of dry days between storms will affect the
dust and dirt accumulation and the subsequent variability of the runoff samples.
Wide variations in storm intensity and duration can also affect sample vari-
ability.
Sampling frequency methods must be taken into account so that project
objectives are not compromised by too few samples or analyses.
3.2.3 Sample Collection Methods
3.2.3.1 Overland Runoff
Where runoff from an industrial site follows a storm sewer or natural or
earth channel, open channel methods of sample collection can be utilized. How-
ever, where runoff is likely to follow a poorly-defined path overland, plug
collectors can be placed in the ground to trap water flowing over them. These
plugs (see Figure 3-2) should have a screen cover to prevent "pushalong" solids
from collecting in them. Plug collectors can be used with a system of dikes
and berms to channel flow in an impervious area to a discharge point where the
flow can then be sampled.
3.2.3.2 Open Channel Flow
Runoff and river samples in sewers and channels are collected with manual
and automatic samplers. The sampling equipment is selected based on the parame-
ters chosen, the number and frequency of samples to be taken, and location of
the sampling stations.
-15-
-------
Plug collector
/
/MI
'
Figure 3-2: Plug Collector
-16-
-------
3.2.3.2.1 Manual Samplers
Manual sampling of runoff and rivers is best suited to those areas where
a small drainage area must be surveyed or where significant manpower resources
are readily available during storm activity. Manual sampling should not be
considered if the manpower available is less than one person/sampling site.
A "honey dipper" or bucket-type container with a rod or rope is one of the
oldest types of manual samplers. It is used to obtain grab samples from shallow
runoff channels or storm sewers.
In addition, samplers have been developed to take dissolved oxygen (DO)
and BOD samples without significant sample aeration. A BOD bottle(s) is placed
in a bucket-type device and lowered into the stream flow. Water enters the
inlet and flows through a tube to the bottom of the BOD bottle. When the
chamber and bottle are full, the device is raised and the bottle is removed
for BOD and/or DO analysis.3 These samplers are not suited to shallow areas.
Similarly, Van Dorn bottles are manual samplers for deep channel areas.
These samplers consist of an open-ended cylinder which is lowered into the
stream. When there is a representative sample within the cylinder, a
triggering mechanism is activated to seal the chamber.
3.2.3.2.2 Automatic Samplers
Automatic samplers have advanced in reliability and sophistication in
recent years. These samplers, which are manufactured by a number of firms,
are either the scoop type or the pumping type. A majority of present-
day samplers are pumping systems.
-17-
-------
Scoop samplers utilize a ladle-type dipper activated by a time clock or
electrical impulse. Periodically, at a prescribed interval, the scoop is
lowered into the runoff stream and a sample is extracted and emptied into a
composite receiver.
Scoop type samples operate best in sewers and shallow manholes and are
not suited for river sampling.
Automatic samplers utilizing pumps are suited to both runoff and river
sampling, as the sampling hose can be extended to sites in channels, manholes,
sewers and mid-stream, while the main unit with the pump and sample bottles
remains in an accessible location.
Automatic samplers have several advantages in runoff sampling:
1. Automatic samplers can assure that the beginning of the storm
is not missed. Rising water level in the channel can activate
a mercury switch on the sampler and the sample pump automatically
starts. In this manner the "first flush" of the storm where the
highest pollutant loads can occur is accurately measured.
2. Sequential samplers containing many small bottles can take inte-
grated samples (composite of individual samples with time) at
predetermined intervals within each bottle and still offer the
discrete-sample advantage of separate bottles. In this manner,
individual samples can be taken of the "first flush" of the storm
while composite samples can be generated for the latter portions
of the storm event as runoff and loadings decrease.
3. Most automatic samplers can be coupled with compatible flow
measurement equipment to generate flow proportional samples.
4. Refrigerator containers in the samplers are available to maintain
sample integrity for many parameters, although they may not be
necessary for short storm events.
Table 3-3 presents a comparison of manual and automatic sampling techniques
-18-
-------
TABLE 3-3
COMPARISON OF MANUAL AND AUTOMATIC SAMPLING
Manual
Automatic
Manpower requirement is quite
large; therefore, manual samp-
ling is an advantage only when
sampling small drainage areas.
Sample collection equipment
expenditures are not excessive.
Simple submersible pumps and/
or weighted water samplers will
suffice.
3. Field measurements can be made
by individual or combined
meters.
4. The beginning of the storm
event can be missed if mobili-
zation of manpower is not
immediate.
5. Samples will be non-representa-
tive if untrained collectors
are used.
6. If samples need to be collected
at close time intervals, exten-
sive manpower may be required
at each station or the inter-
vals may be missed altogether.
Manpower requirement is mini-
mal; only maintenance and
removal of samples require
manpower.
Sample collection equipment
becomes a capital expenditure
because it is automated and
must be sheltered from weather
and vandalism and often must
be specially designed.
Field measurements can be made
by meters used in conjunction
with the automatic collection
system, or they may be designed
into the system.
Since automatic collectors can
be activated by precipitation
or an increase in flow or water
level, the initial influence of
the storm will not be missed.
Samples will be lost or non-
representative only if equipment
malfunctions or power source is
interrupted or depleted.
Automatic samplers make collec-
tion easier at close time
intervals.
-19-
-------
3.2.4 Type of Sample
In a runoff sampling program both discrete and composite samples can be
generated. Individual discrete samples require more resources and time for
analysis but better reflect rapid changes in water quality and "slugs" of
pollutants. Composite samples are suited for river sampling upstream of
the runoff sampling site and downstream of the site when waste characteristics
do not vary significantly over the sample interval.
Samples for parameters such as bacteria counts, dissolved oxygen, chlorine,
and sulfide need to be analyzed quickly and are, therefore, best taken as
grab samples. Sampling programs with an emphasis on oil and grease should
utilize a sampling technique which requires no transfer of the sample to
another container, i.e., requires discrete samples.
Most runoff sampling programs will require a combination of discrete and
composite samples. Discrete samples will be generated by automatic samplers
with some of the discrete samples integrated to reflect steady state conditions
in the runoff and river during that interval. For example, samples of runoff
remaining after the main storm event can easily be combined into a composite
sample. Discrete or "grab" samples are then taken for parameters such as
fecal and total coliform, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and pH.
Acceptable storage containers for the pollutants being sampled should
be used. Specific parameters such as phenols, oil and grease, and dissolved
oxygen must be collected in glass bottles. Reference should be made to
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes and Standard Methods for
Examination of Water and Wastewater
-20-
-------
3.2.5 Measurement of Runoff and River Flow
A weir or flume installed across the discharge or storm drain intake is
an excellent means of measuring the runoff flow rate. Flumes, which are
specially shaped open channel flow sections providing a restriction in
area, are compatible with runoff flow measurement since they are self-clean-
ing. The high velocity through the flume can eliminate the deposition of
solids and sediments. In addition, the accuracy of the flume is less affected
by varying approach velocities than is the weir.5
Figure 3-3 illustrates the application of a weir to measure runoff through
a storm drain in an industrial site. Weirs, which are obstructions to the flow,
can cause deposition of materials behind the weir which affect the accuracy
of the flow measurement. In addition, time delays behind the weir can effect
problems in highly variable flow conditions. In these cases, water quality
samples taken at the weir cannot be correlated with simultaneous flow measure-
ments taken behind the weir, causing difficulty in data interpretation. There-
fore, weirs should be designed with consideration to the expected flow rates
and should be maintained between storms to prevent interference from solids
deposition.
In areas where neither a storm drain nor a defined drainage pattern (to
use plugs) exist, ditches can be dug to collect and channel the runoff flow
for sampling and flow measurement. Ditches must be constructed carefully
because alteration of the soil porosity will affect runoff quantity and quality.
Ideally, ditches should be lined with impervious material, such as polyethylene
sheeting, to reduce the risk of pollutants reacting with or leaching into
freshly exposed soil.
-21-
-------
£&**
^^S^^^^^ir^^^T^'j^^--1-,-; v^-T^^^s^rT" ~
•,f£r<> <-. -££.'..r**'-~*-i~e?'-'~>*"~±. —'-^33^ T^..:T'..vs5i:»»mr-^rr.-.—.Tr-—r-^._—
^-^^^"i^^'i^l^-^^'^^-'i-^-"^"-^^"-"/ —«ie"*f-. %V-V^:&;»<-J-i.-> !L""*^:-,
^MJ-JTC-^I datt .-..JJCi —'BE;. JiTMja»i".-> -l--*^ ^.A*»»j. i «• •\!»T. ..«.^T.T.-Q**».^.<^. ....r.v->..
Figure 3-3: WEIR INSTALLATION IN STORM DRAIN
-22-
-------
River flow can be determined in several ways. If there are U.S. Geolo-
gical Survey (USGS) continuous recording gaging stations nearby upstream and
downstream of the site, their flow data will usually be satisfactory. If
gaging stations do not exist, local flow rates can be estimated as the pro-
duct of the cross-sectional area of the river and measured velocity.
In addition, if the river is dammed, a measurement of the water level
behind the spillway can be used to provide a suitable estimate of flow, when
taken at a distance behind the dam equal to at least four times the water level.
3.3 Sample Analysis
Analytical procedures for pollutants of interest can be found in the
previously mentioned Methods of Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes and
Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water & Wastewater. It is important to
use these accepted methods to ensure the data's comparability with other studies
and acceptability to regulatory agencies. Analysis time and cost can be reduced
by analyzing only a portion of the samples (e.g., analyze every third or fourth
sample) and investigating further only if important trends appear.
The laboratory should follow accepted quality assurance procedures to
ensure the validity of the data. These procedures should include an inventory
file of all instrumentation, standards, chemicals and samples, a file for instru-
ment calibration, and a semi-annual State or EPA analytical audit. Additionally,
it is recommended that the laboratory repeat analyses of a specified portion of
the samples (e.g., 10 percent) and include an audit sample (split sample or
known standard) as a further check on the results.
3.4 Data Reduction and Analysis
The data used to evaluate the runoff and its impact on the river should be
compiled to present time-dependent changes in:
-23-
-------
river flow
rainfall
runoff rates
pollutant concentrations in runoff, river, and rain
Hyetographs (plots of rainfall versus time), hydrographs (river flow
versus time) and plots of pollutant concentrations versus time can together
provide a graphic indication of the relationship between runoff and the receivi:
body water quality.
In addition, flow and concentration data can be related by plotting the
mass loadings of pollutants versus time for both runoff and receiving water
bodies.
There are a number of ways to present and analyze runoff and receiving
water data to ascertain any trends. Table 3-4 shows the range of pollutant
concentrations measured at runoff sources and upstream and downstream river
locations in a coal-fired utility non-point source program.1 Alternatively,
only the mean values of each range could have been given. However, data can be
presented to show its variability. Giving the standard deviation and the
coefficient of variation of data values is one method of expressing the vari-
ability of sampling measurement. The sample standard deviation, S, is the
2
square root of the sample variance, S , which is defined as
i
S~ = Z(X-X)
n-1 (3-2)
and the coefficient of variation, CV = S
where: X = value in sample
X = mean value of sample
n = number of values in samples.
-24-
-------
TABLE 3-4
RANGE OF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION AT THE SAMPLING LOCATIONS
OF COAL-PIItEl) UTILITY
Pollutant
Total Suspended
Solids
Total Dissolved
Solids
Iron
Aluminum
Manganese
Sulfate
Total Alkalinity
@ CaC03
Total Acidity
(? CaCOa
PH
RANGE OF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS, mg/1
Upstream
Dry
1-21
100 - 170
.14 - .40
N.D.1
.013 - .090
11 - 20
38 - 48
-
6.77 - 7.80
Wet
2-5
60 - 130
.09 - .17
N.D.1
.025 - .040
12 - 17
38 - 42
-
6.60 - 6.76
Downstream
Dry
1-11
80 - 180
.06 - .34
N.D.1
N.D.2- .040
11 - 22
36 - 45
-
6.77 - 7.60
Wet
2-12
-
.09 - 1.03
N.D.1 - 26.6
.030 - .060
12 - 24
40-41
-
6.36 - 6.87
Coal Pile Discharge I'ipe
Dry
12 - 19000
2300 - 21700
160 - 23500
20 - 1800
2 - 100
90 - 57000
-
200 - 38000
1.48 - 3.37
Wet
1700 - 13000
2300 - 115000
700 - 1400
70 - 100
9-15
1600 - 2700
-
1900 - 2900
2.35 - 3. 36
in
lNone detected, < Q.2 mg/1
2Hone detected, < 0.012 mg/1
-------
Another method is to state the level of confidence that a measured value
will fall within a certain interval. Table 3-5 illustrates the 95% confidence
limits of pollutant concentrations for upstream and downstreams sites of an
example sampling program. In this case, the observed values of the confidence
interval will bracket the mean value 95 out of 100 times.
If the data is plotted and the magnitude of the parameter versus the
frequency of occurrence demonstrates a normal distribution, then the confidence
limits can be defined by use of Student's 't1 distribution. The confidence
limits are:
L = X + t, ,, JS2 (3-4)
where: L * the limits of the confidence interval
X = arithmetic mean of data set with 'n1 elements
t = percentile of the 't1 distribution at v degrees of
freedom and (1-a) confidence limits
S2 = best estimate of sample variance of 'n' elements in data set
In the analysis of runoff data, it is sometimes desirable to determine if
there are statistically different pollutant values in the receiving stream
upstream and downstream of the runoff discharges. While the 't' test can be
utilized to determine if mean values of parameters differ upstream and down-
stream within certain confidence limits, the 'F1 test is used in a similar
manner to derive a confidence interval for the variances of the sample. The
'F1 ratio is a ratio of variances of the upstream and downstream samples. The
critical 'F', like the 't1 test, is the percentile of the 'F1 distribution
at v upstream and v downstream degrees of freedom and (1-a) confidence limits.
-26-
-------
TABLE 3-5
MEAN POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS WITH 95%
CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON RIVER AT COAL-FIRED UTILITY
Pollutant
TSS
SOu
Fe
Mn
Alk
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION, mg/1
Upstream
Dry
8.11 ± 2.26
13.89 ± 0.84
0.23 ± 0.02
0.028 ± 0.005
41.65 ± 0.85
Wet
7.25 ± 3.13
15.09 ± 0.94
0.12 ± 0.03
0.032 ± 0.003
40.33 ± 0.94
Downstream
Dry
4.13 ± 2.04
13.83 ± 1.45
0.21 ± 0.09
0.023 ± 0.005
39.33 ± 0.89
Wet
5.50 ± 2.71
16.65 ± 2.25
0.39 ± 0.27
0.043 ± 0.012
40.30 ± 0.34
95Z confidence limits - x ±
-27-
-------
Table 3-6 illustrates how the 'tf test and 'F' test were used to determine
if the pollutant values varied to a statistically significant degree upstream
and downstream of runoff sites at a coal-fired utility.1
If the pollutant values prove to be statistically different upstream and
downstream during a rain event, then further investigation and data evaluation
of the runoff would be made. The presence of point discharges, tributaries,
etc. between the upstream and downstream sites will complicate the statistical
calculations. These data must be subtracted from the downstream data before
a statistical analysis can be performed comparing upstream and downstream
conditions.
In general, increasing the number of samples will increase the confidence
with which conclusions can be drawn. However, it may take several rainfall
events over several months to get a set of data to properly define whether a
problem exists and, if it exists, to gather enough data to design a cost-
effective control system. This procedure is impractical from cost and time
standpoints. Therefore, in an attempt to define non-point sources from industry
more cost effectively, the use of a mathematical model as a replacement for
most of the sampling is recommended. Applicable models are discussed in
Section 4.
-28-
-------
TABLE 3-6
COMPARISONS OF MEAN VALUES & VARIANCES WITHIN 95% CONFIDENCE LIMITS
AT UPSTREAM & DOWNSTREAM SITES DURING DRY & WET SAMPLING PERIODS
AT COAL-FIRED UTILITY
Pollutant
TSS
SOi,
Ft!
Hn
Alk
1
1-0
f TSS
SOM
Fe
Hn
Alk
TSS
s Downstream
Wet < Dry
Wet < Dry
W*t > Dry
Wet < Dry
-------
4.0 MATHEMATICAL MODELING
4.1 Model Selection Criteria
Mathematical models properly applied provide a cost-effective means of
quantifying impacts on water quality resulting from stormwater runoff and
of evaluating alternatives for the control of polluted runoff. In recent
years many mathematical models have been developed to simulate the quantity
and quality of stormwater runoff and the impact of such runoff on the quality
of water bodies. These models were developed to satisfy different needs,
ranging from the design of municipal storm sewer systems to the assessment of
land use as it influences flooding and water quality. Although none of the
models were developed specifically for industrial runoff, some models can be
adapted to such use. There are many criteria that can be used when selecting
a model, but in general the simplest model which satisfies project needs should
be selected for use since such a model is normally the most economical choice.
Once a model has been selected, it must be adapted to the specific site
or area being studied. A model is adapted through the process of calibration
and verification. Calibration is achieved by adjusting the model to reflect
site specific field data. After the model has been calibrated, it should be
tested against a second set of field data. If the second set of field data
and the modeled results compare favorably, the model is considered to be
verified and ready for application.
To be adaptable to industrial applications a model must predict the
quantity and quality of stormwater runoff, the transport of such runoff to
a receiving body of water, and the impact of such runoff on the quantity and
quality of the receiving water. In addition, since storm events are dynamic,
a model must also be capable of simulating functions in a dynamic (time-
dependent) fashion.
-30-
-------
To predict the quantity and quality of stonnwater runoff, a model must
be able to simulate the effects of such items as the intensity and the dura-
tion of the storm event, infiltration and drainage characteristics, the
accumulation of pollutants between storms, and the washoff of such pollutants
during storms. For continuous simulation of multiple storms, a model must be
able to simulate dry weather flows as well as storm flows.
To predict the transport of stonnwater runoff for industrial land use,
a model must be able to simulate overland flow and routing in man-made systems
(channels, sewers, etc.). To describe the impact of the stormwater runoff on
a receiving body of water, a model must be capable of simulating the quantity
and quality responses of the receiving water to the runoff. For increased
flexibility, a model should simulate various types of receiving waters including
rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
4.2 Possible Industrial Non-Point Source Models
Table 4-1 lists ten (10) mathematical models for runoff and/or receiving
waters with possible adaptability to an industrial site.
The EPA Stormwater Management Model (SWMM), Water Resource Engineers
Stormwater Management Model, Short Stormwater Management Model - RECEIV II
(SSWMM-RECEIV II), Hydrocomp Simulation Program (HSP), and Dorsch Consult
Hydrograph Volume Method are capable of dynamically simulating the quantity
and quality of stormwater runoff and its impact on the quantity and quality
of receiving waters. These models can best be described as runoff and receiving
water models. The quality simulation portion of each of these models must be
modified for industrial application. The quality relationships are based on
land utilization with all types of industry lumped into one land use category -
-31-
-------
TABLE 4-1
POSSIBLE MODELS FOR INDUSTRIAL RUNOFF APPLICATIONS
EPA Stonnwater Management Model - Release II (SWMM)
Water Resource Engineers Stonnwater Management Model
Short Stormwater Management Model - RECEIV II (SSWMM - RECEIV II)
Hydrocomp Simulation Program (HSP)
Dorsch Consult Hydrograph Volume Method
Corps of Engineers Storage, Treatment, Overflow, and Runoff Model (STORM)
Battelle Wastewater Management Model (BWMM)
Metcalf and Eddy Simplified Stormwater Management Model
EPA - Hydrocomp Agricultural Runoff Management Model (ARM)
Pyritic Systems: A Mathematical Model
-32-
-------
industrial. No attempt is made to specify the particular type of industry.
If industry-specific data is available on pollutant accumulation, washoff
characteristics, and pollutant characteristics of dirt and dustfall, then
these models can be utilized.
The Corps of Engineers Storage, Treatment, Overflow, and Runoff Model
(STORM), Battelle Wastewater Management Model (BWMM), and Metcalf and Eddy
Simplified Stormwater Management Model are capable of dynamically simulating
the quantity and quality of stornwater runoff, but not its impact on receiving
waters. Consequently, these models are designated as runoff models. As with
the preceding model group (runoff and receiving water models), the quality
portion of the runoff models is not adequate to meet the program objectives.
Again, the quality relationships for runoff are based on general land utiliza-
tion categories that do not specify the type of industry; hence, quality
relationships addressing pollutant accumulation and washoff must be supplied
for the industry. In addition to this limitation, the runoff models were not
designed to simulate the impact of stonnwater runoff on receiving waters. To
simulate this impact, it is necessary to interface the runoff models with a
receiving water model. RECEIV - II,' developed by Raytheon Company for EPA, is
a Water Quantity and Quality receiving water model that can be used in conjunc-
tion with such runoff models.
The EPA - Hydrocomp Agricultural Runoff Management Model (ARM) and Pyritic
Systems: A Mathematical Model are designed to quantify and qualify stonnwater
runoff for the agricultural and mining industries, respectively. These models
-33-
-------
are described as specific industry models. As with the runoff models, the
specific industry models cannot simulate the impact of stormwater flows on
receiving waters. They must be interfaced with a receiving water model to
simulate such impact. Since ARM was developed specifically for the agri-
cultural industry, it is not necessary to modify the program quality relation-
ships but only to calibrate and verify existing quality relationships with
field data. On the other hand, Pyritic Systems: A Mathematical Model is
designed for a drift (subsurface) mine. Extension of this model to surface
mining (strip mining) requires both quantity and quality program modifications,
One combined runoff and receiving water model found very suitable for
industrial application is the Short Stormwater Management Model (SSWMM) -
RECEIV II. SSWMM, developed by the University City Science Center, Philadelphi|
Pennsylvania in 1976, is a simplified version of the runoff and transport por-
tions of the EPA-SWMM model; RECEIV II, developed by the Raytheon Company and
the EPA in 1974, is a modified version of the receiving water portion of the
EPA-SWMM model.8
A brief description of SSWMM-RECEIV II, as linked for industrial appli-
cations,1 will follow as an example on (1) how such models are utilized,
(2) the necessary input data, and (3) what model results are presented.
-34-
-------
A.3 Example Industrial Runoff and Receiving Water Model - SSWMM-RECEIV II
4.3.1 General Description
SSWMM-RECEIV II is capable of dynamically simulating both the quantity
and the quality of industrial stonnwater runoff and the impact of such runoff
on the quantity and the quality of receiving waters including rivers, lakes,
and estuaries. The user can define, with certain restrictions, the quality
parameters which he chooses to simulate. Pollutant transport can be modeled
by both overland flow and sewer routing. Dry weather flows can also be simu-
lated. The model is primarily designed to simulate individual storm events
but can be used to model multiple storm periods.
The linked SSWMM-RECEIV II model1 consists of the following four
programs:
SSWMM (Short Stonnwater Management Model Program)
LNKPRG (Link Program)
SETUP/QUANTITY (RECEIV II Quantity Program)
QUALITY (RECEIV II Quality Program)
4.3.2 Computer Requirements
SSWMM-RECEIV II is written in Fortran IV and was developed for installa-
tion on a Univac 90/30 digital computer with a basic compiler (equivalent to
an IBM 370 Level G compiler). The program requires 100K bytes of core storage.
4.3.3 Model Utilization
Without performing a detailed field measurement program, SSWMM-RECEIV II
can be used to simulate industrial non-point source pollution associated with
stonnwater runoff from material storage piles and from areas of dust and dirt
accumulation. It also simulates the subsequent impact on receiving waters
(rivers, lakes, or estuaries). Pollutants that can be modeled are user-selected
and include items such as solids, nutrients, and metals.
-35-
-------
Typical model applications for new or existing plants might include:
Defining industrial stormwater runoff flow and pollutant
concentrations. The quantity and quality of stormwater
runoff at user selected storm intensities can be affected.
Identifying if an impact results from stormwater runoff
and if so, defining its significance and frequency of
occurrence.
Defining design criteria for stormwater treatment. The
volume flow rate and total volume of stormwater runoff
and the pollutant mass loads caused by the stormwater
runoff for user selected design storms can be predicted.
Evaluating stormwater treatment alternatives. The impact
of various wastewater treatment efficiencies on water
quality in the receiving waters can be described. The
relative merits (cost vs. improved water quality) of
different treatment alternatives can be weighed.
As with any mathematical model, SSWMM-RECEIV II must be applied
correctly. The user must understand model limitations and use the model
within these limitations. At this time SSWMM-RECEIV II:
Cannot simulate stormwater percolation through or the erosion
of material storage piles, but can only simulate stormwater
runoff from material storage piles.
•
Has not been tested to simulate dynamic background source
flows and loadings in the receiving water.
Must be used within temporal and spatial limits defined in
the model.
More detailed descriptions of SSWMM-RECEIV II user restrictions can be
found in the technical report prepared for this program on the sampling and
modeling of non-point sources at a coal-fired utility.1
4.3.4 Model Input Information Requirements
Table 4-2 summarizes the model input information requirements for SSWMM-
RECEIV II, as categorized by the individual programs. SSWMM input includes
information such as physical descriptions of user selected discretization
-36-
-------
TABLE 4-2
SSWMM - RECEIV II MODEL INPUT REQUIREMENTS
INPUT DATA
PROBABLE DATA SOURCE
SSVIHM Program
1) drainage basins
2) land use characterise lea
3) spatial framework of storm sewers, sub-
cacchments, drainage ditches on site
4) rainfall intensity
5) storm duration and dry days between storm
6) dust and dirt accumulation rate
7) pollutant characteristics of dust and dirt
LMKFRC Program
1) background receiving flows and
pollutant mass loads
2) industrial flows and pollutant mass loads
Setup/Quantity Program
1) spatial segmentation of receiving water Into
nodes and channels of uniform hydraulic and
water quality properties
2) rates of rainfall and evaporation (optional)
Quality Program
1) initial pollutant concentrations in
receiving water
2) reaction rates
3) water temperatures and temperature
compensation coefficients
plant site maps and engineering drawings
National Weacher Service or installation of
on-site rain gage
field measurement and laboratory analysis
USCS. NOAA, and state pollution control agencies
USGS, 7.5' topographic maps, US Army Corps of
Engineers flood studies. National Ocean
Survey bathymetric maps
National Weather Service
plant data, USGS data, or state pollution control
agencies
literature values or results of field
measurement program
USCS or state pollution control Field data
with literature values for coefficients
-37-
-------
elements, storm activity, and pollutant generation and washoff data. LNKPRG
input includes the information output files from SSWMM and an input deck.
The card input consists of user-determined program interface instructions to
link SSWMM and RECEIV II and instructions for non-storm input to or withdrawals
from the receiving waters. Input requirements for the Setup/Quantity portion
of RECEIV II include' the information output file from LNKPRG and input card
decks, including geographical, hydraulic, and meteorological data describing
the receiving waters. The QUALITY program requires input data describing the
initial pollutant concentrations in the receiving water and pollutant reaction
kinetics.
4.3.5 Model Results
Model results are printed for each of the programs (SSWMM, LNKPRG,
SETUP/QUANTITY, QUALITY) in the SSWMM-RECEIV II model. SSWMM-RECEIV II model
utilizes a mixed system of English/metric units.
Results from SSWMM include:
• Initial pollutant loads (mg) on each subcatchment prior to
the storm.
• Stormwater flow (cfs) and associated pollutant mass loads
(Ibs/min) for each timestep.
• Total amount of rainfall (cu. ft.), total infiltration (cu.
ft.), total runoff (cu. ft.), total surface storage (cu. ft.),
and the percentage error computed for unaccounted water.
• Total pollutant mass (Ibs) washed from the land surface
during the storm.
LNKPRG results include the stormwater flows and pollutant mass loads
from SSWMM converted to a format acceptable to RECEIV II (SETUP/QUANTITY,
QUALITY).
-38-
-------
Results from SETUP/QUANTITY include:
• Hydraulic head (m) or water level in the receiving water
at each node for each timestep.
• Water flow (m3/sec) and velocity (m/sec) in the receiving
water in each channel for each timestep.
Results from QUALITY include:
• Pollutant concentrations (mg/1) in the receiving water at
each node for each timestep.
• Daily maximum, minimum, and average pollutant concentra-
tions (mg/1) in the receiving water at each node.
The complete set of results, then, quantifies and qualifies stormwater
runoff and its impact on the quantity and quality of the receiving water.
-39-
-------
5.0 PROGRAM COSTS AND TIME CONSIDERATIONS
The cost and time requirements of a runoff study will vary with the
number of sampling sites, parameters to be measured, number of samples to
be taken, as well as other complicating factors. These factors may include
the interference of other sources or tributaries in the test area and the
variability of river flows. This section outlines the considerations necessary
for planning the resources to conduct an industrial runoff measurement and
modeling study.
5.1 Manpower for Measurement Survey
In order to outline manpower requirements, a typical runoff study, includ-
ing modeling, was developed. This runoff study was based on several assump-
tions:
(1) site was 300 miles from contractor's base
(2) most runoff collected by storm sewers
(3) regulated flow stream at 60 m3/s
(4) 2 receiving body and 4 runoff sampling sites
(5) 4 week sampling program (16 weeks without modeling)
(6) 960 samples collected (3840 samples without modeling)
(7) 6 parameters analyzed
(8) 500 samples analyzed (2000 samples without modeling)
Table 5-1 shows an estimate of the manpower requirements for the assumed
4-week sampling program using modeling (and the assumed 16-week program with-
out modeling). The Senior Engineer/Scientist would serve as project coordi-
nator and review the conclusions of the field program. The Engineer/Scientist
would develop the test plan, supervise the field work and analyze the data.
Preparation and field support and analyses would be handled by-the Junior
Engineer/Technician.
-40-
-------
TABLE 5-1
ESTIMATED MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR RUNOFF STUDY
Task
1. Pretest Survey
& Site Selection
2. Test Plan
3. Preparation For Field
4. Field Study
5. Sample Analysis
6. Data Evaluation
Total Hours
Senior
Eng./Scientist
(Hours)
20
8
36
Eng./
Scientist
(Hours)
40
120 (100)
40 (80)
320 (1280)
240 (480)
40 (240)
800 (2220)
Junior
Eng./Tech
(Hours)
40
180 (360)
320 (1280)
240 (1400)
40 (100)
820 (3180)
( ) without modeling
-41-
-------
Using this sampling program as a guideline, the manpower costs for
individualized programs can be estimated.
5.2 Other Direct Costs For Measurement Survey
Table 5-2 presents estimated costs for equipment purchases and other major
expenditures excluding travel and subsistence for a program including model-
ing. The vehicle rentals and on-site communication are estimated to be $2200
and $850 respectively for a program which does not include modeling. The
estimate for equipment assumes a laboratory is available for use in the program
without additional equipment expense. The equipment costs can be mitigated
by taking advantage of rental or lease arrangements offered by many vendors.
These costs will vary proportionally with the complexity of the source rather
than the duration of the study.
In addition, Table 5-3 outlines the cost per sample of some parameters
for analysis in an industrial runoff study. These costs are from one com-
mercial laboratory which was found to be in the median range for such analysis
and are quoted for 6 or more samples. Some laboratories offer a volume rate
for large numbers of samples and these costs can be adjusted accordingly.
5.3 Elapsed Time Requirements
Figure 5-1 shows an estimate of the elapsed time requirements for con-
ducting a field survey program. The entire survey using modeling can be com-
pleted in 3-6 months. Equipment preparation and acquisition take the longest
amount of time to complete. If a model is not used, the program will take from
9 to 12 months to complete.
-42-
-------
TABLE 5-2
ESTIMATED COST OF EQUIPMENT-
ESTIMATE OF OTHER DIRECT COSTS FOR EXAMPLE RUNOFF STUDY
1. Equipment
Sequential Samplers (6) $ 9,050
Flow Measuring Device & Recorder (4) 8,500
Rainfall Measuring Device & Recorder (2) 2,130
pH Monitor (2) 2,200-3,200
DO Monitor (2) 4,900
Dual Pen Recorder (2) 1,100-3,200
Boat with Outboard Motor 1,100
Misc. 1,100
2. Shipping 850
3. Vehicle Rentals 650
4. On-Site Communication 220
TOTAL (12/77) DOLLARS $31,800-34,900
-43-
-------
TABLE 5-3
ESTIMATED COST/PARAMETER ANALYZED/SAMPLE
Parameter
acidity
alkalinity
BOD 5
COD
color
cyanide
dissolved oxygen*
hardness
ammonia nitrogen
total Kjeldahl nitrogen
organic nitrogen
nitrite nitrogen
nitrate nitrogen
oil and grease
soxhlet extraction
infra-red
TOC
pH*
phenol
total phosphate
total solids
sulfate
turbidity
common metals (each)
Cost/Sample
(based on 6 or more samples, 1978 dollar;
S 2.00
2.00
7.25
6.25
2.00
5.00
2.00
3.25
3.50
5.50
5.50
2.00
3.50
7.25
15.75
7.50
2.00
5.00
7.50
3.25
6.50
2.00
5.00
*can be determined in the field with continuous monitors
-44-
-------
ELAPSED WEEKS
10 15
20
25
J i I I L 1 L_ II
I I I
_i i I i i i i
10 15 20
ELAPSED WEEKS -
25
30
Pretest Survey
& Site Selection
TocF Plan
Preparation &
Equip. Acquisition
*-Field Study
i
Sample
Analysis
Evaluation
1
*
'<%%,
wtm
^^^^^
i
!
' , . , . j ......
i mzz%t
30
PROGRAM ELEMENT
IF ALL EQUIPMENT IS
IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE
PROGRAM ELEMENT IF
EQUIPMENT MUST BE
PURCHASED
Figure 5-1: Elapsed time estimates for runoff study which is to be used
in conjunction with a mathematical model
-------
5.4 Labor and Computer Time to Implement SSWMM-RECEIV II for Case Run
The labor and computer time necessary to utilize SSWMM-RECEIV II are
directly related to the complexity of the plant site to be modeled and are
site specific. To provide comparative information to the potential user,
a program run was designed and executed for a coal-fired utility plant on
a river system and the labor and computer time requirements for this
exercise are listed. Labor includes the time to define the problem, gather,
reduce, code, and keypunch the input information, run the model, and analyze
the results. Estimates are based on using a Univac 90/30 computer. Operational
costs may differ for other computers.
The labor and computer time for the sample program is listed in Table 5-4.
To define the problems, gather, reduce, code and keypunch the input informa-
tion, run the model, and analyze the results require 12 hours of a Senior
Engineer/Scientist, 48 hours of an Engineer/Scientist, and 88 hours of a Junior
Engineer/Scientist. Computer time requirements based on a Univac 90/30 rate of
speed were 14 minutes and 14 seconds.
-46-
-------
TABLE 5-4
LABOR AND COMPUTER TIME BASED ON EXAMPLE CASE
Task
1. Problem- Definition
2. Input Data Acquisition
3. Input Data Reduction
4. Input Coding/
Keypunching
5. Run Model (including
ilobup.jjiny)
6. Analyze Results
TOTAL
Sr Engr/Sci
8
.
4
12
Labor (Man-Hours)*
Engr/Sci
8
8
20
4
8
48
Junior Engr/Sci
16
40
16
8
8
88
Computer Time**
SSWMM - 44 sec.
LNKPRG - 17 sec
SETUP/QUANTITY-
9 min. , 34 sec
QUALITY - 3 min. ,
39 sec.
14 min. , 14 sec.
* Based on using a Univac 90/30 computer.
** Based on Univac 90/30 rule of speed.
-------
6.0 SUMMARY; HYPOTHETICAL CASE
Application of Che Measurement and Modeling Techniques to Stonnwater
Runoff from a Coal-Fired Utility on a River.
6.1 Introduction
This section provides an example of the application of the measurement
and modeling techniques to a coal-fired electric utility plant.
The example is an uncomplicated case applied to an average-sized
plant on a small river.
6.2 Background Information
The objective of the sampling program was to provide data to evaluate the
effects of runoff on the river. The following information was obtained
from an initial site visit and interviews with plant personnel.
Figure 6-1 shows a plant layout of a coal-fired electric utility station.
With a typical 100-day supply of coal on hand, the 200,000 tons of coal cover
11 1/2 acres. The ash-handling area covers 23 acres on the opposite side of
the plant. The coal pile runoff drains into a branched storm sewer, while the
ash pile runoff is discharged from a collection pipe into the river.
The site is located on a fast-moving, very clean river. Other than the
cooling water intake and discharge, there are no other normal discharges into
the river. Runoff patterns and drainage areas are visible in the texture and
type of soil, rock, and vegetation. These drainage areas are practically
flat, making runoff flow measurements difficult.
-48-
-------
^'ii^i^ j.
^vv^y^'4
E
LESEND
5fC AUTOMATIC SAMPLERS
• PLUS COLLETTORS
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARIES OF
DRAINAGE BASINS
Figure 6-1: Site layout, coal-fired utility station
example case.
-49-
-------
6.3 Selection of Sampling Sites
Figure 6-1 also shows the delineation of drainage basins and the
locations of sampling sites. As runoff from the coal pile, fly ash
pile and roof of the plant were of major interest, sampling stations were
placed in these areas. The river background sampling site was located upstream
of the ash pile runoff's entry into the river. It was placed approximately
one third of the distance across the river and the sampler intake was adjusted
to 1/3 the river depth. The downstream site was placed approximately 150
meters (500 feet) downstream of the storm sewer entry into the river, where
the discharge plume was dispersed.
6.4 Sampling Methodology
6.4.1 Parameters for Analysis
For evaluation of coal and ash pile runoff, the following constituents
were of interest in both the river and runoff:
Total suspended solids
Total dissolved solids
Iron
Aluminum
Sulfate
PH
Manganese
Alkalinity
Of the above parameters, only sulfate and alkalinity requires cooling of
the samples and analysis within a short period. Analysis of samples for these
parameters was performed in a field laboratory to guard against sample degrada-
tion. The samples of metals were acidified and shipped to the home laboratory
with solids samples for analysis. Values of pH for the river stations were
determined in the field with pH probes.
-50-
-------
6.4.2 Sampling Frequency
In order to sample the first flush of runoff at the initiation of the
rainfall, automatic samplers were used which were activated with the rising water
level. In order to collect representative samples at this stage of the storn,
the automatic samplers drew samples every 2 minutes and these were integrated
to represent 10 minute intervals. The sample plugs were also emptied every
10 minutes. If the storm duration was greater than 90 minutes, pollutant
concentrations leveled out and the sampling frequency was consequently reduced
to half-hourly integrated samples. This rate was continued after the storm
until noticeable effects had diminished.
River samplers were set to integrate hourly composites of 15-minutes
discrete samples during dry weather for background flow data.
6.4.3 Method of Sample Collection
As shown by Figure 6-1, automatic samplers were utilized in the storm
drains and at the river stations. Samples of runoff around coal and ash piles
were collected in sampling plugs.
The automatic samplers were pump-type sequential samplers. The river
samplers were set in inflatable rafts since the sample line could not reach
far enough into the river and still maintain proper purge and backflush cycles.
These rafts also supported the pH probe while the monitors were sheltered on
land.
6.4.4 Flow Measurement
For the storm sewer, flow data were obtained by a combination rectangular
and V-notch weir located at the discharge end of the pipe. The V-notch is used
to measure the lesser dry weather flows and the rectangular weir measures the
wet weather flows. The water level sensor must be calibrated to a combination
-51-
-------
weir. Flow data from the ash pile area were obtained by applying standard
hydraulic formulas to the depth, slope, and diameter of the collection pipe.
Dry weather flow from this pipe and the cooling water discharge flow and
quality were also measured.
River flow data were obtained from USGS gaging stations located approxi-
mately 0.5 miles upstream and 1.5 miles downstream. The upstream gaging
station was located downstream of the nearest tributary and there were no major
point source discharges between the gaging station and the sampling site.
Rainfall data were obtained from a rain gage installed at the plant.
6.4.5 Sample and Data Analysis
Samples taken at the coal-fired utility site were analyzed in accordance
with procedures described in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater. After trends in the analysis results were established, every
fourth sample was analyzed.
As shown in Tables 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6, analytical results were arranged in
dry and wet weather categories, by pollutant, to facilitate the comparative data
analysis. Sample variance, standard deviations, etc. were calculated and analys
of the variance and means were performed to establish the comparability of the
site data.
The upstream and downstream dry weather data should vary in a similar
fashion and their means should be essentially the same. Conclusions concerning
wet weather data were more subjective. If the runoff affects the river, then
the downstream values should be greater than the upstream on a statistically
significant basis.
Comparison of the hydrographs and graphs of pollutant concentration versus
time and interpretation of statistical analyses provided the basis for
conclusions on the runoff's effect on the river.
-52-
-------
6.5 Model Application to Example Case
The SSWMM-RECEIV II model was selected for the case of the coal-fired
utility station on a river. This model, as previously discussed, simulates the
conveyance of the runoff to the river and the impact of the runoff on the down-
stream water quality.
In addition to the water sampling described in Section 6.4, dust and
dirt accumulation at the plant site was measured and analyzed to determine
its constituents. The stormwater runoff from the coal and ash piles as well
as the runoff from the dust and dirt constituted the sources of non-point
source pollution input to the model. The pollutants modeled included total
suspended solids, dissolved solids, sulfates, total iron, manganese, and
aluminum.
Land and river areas wera divided into discrete elements for modeling pur-
poses, as depicted in Figure 6-2. Input data required for the river elements
are, for the nodes: (1) water surface elevation, (2) surface area, (3) depth
of bottom, and (4) Manning coefficient, and for the channels: (1) channel
length, (2) width, (3) depth, (4) Manning coefficient, and (5) initial velocity.
Input data for the land elements include the physical dimensions of the runoff
collection system as outlined in Table 6-1.
Timesteps were chosen for the model, with 60 seconds for the hydraulic
river model, 720 seconds for the RECEIV II Quality model, and 900 seconds for
the SSWMM stormwater model. In addition, storm activity was recorded and rainfall
intensity was input to SSWMM, as well as background river and non-storm-related
source flows.
-53-
-------
1000'
1000
i ., BACKGROUND RIVER FLOW =
1/141.6 mVsec (5000 ftVsec)
/
STORMWATER DISCHARGE FROM
ASH HANDLING AREA;COOLING
WATER WITHDRAWAL =
5.7 mVsec (200 ftVsec)
STORMWATER DISCHARGE FROM
COAL PILE AND PLANT AREA;
COOLING WATER DISCHARGE =
5.7 m3/sec (200 ftVsec)
SUBCATCHMENT BOUNDARY
---STORM SEWER SYSTEM
© LAND ELEMENT NUMBER
1 RIVER NODE (JUNCTION)NUMBER
i RIVER CHANNEL NUMBER
ARTIFICIAL CAM
Figure 6-2:
Land and river model element schematic,
coal-fired utility station example case
-54-
-------
TABLE 6-1
PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OF LAND ELEMENTS
COAL-FIRED UTILITY STATION EXAMPLE CASE
Element
Number
Description
Type* Area (Acres) or Slope Width Overland
Pipe Diam. (ft) (ft/ft) Flow (ft) or
Pipe Length (ft)
6
7
8
Ash Handling Area
(Dust & Dirt
Accumulation)
Inlet to River for
Ash Handling Area
Coal Pile Area
(Pile & Dust.& Dirt
Accumulation)
Storm Sewer Draining
Coal Pile Area
Plant Area (Dust fie
Dirt Accumulation)
Storm Sewer Draining
Coal Pile Area
Storm Sewer Draining
Plant Area
Storm Sewer Draining
Coal Pile & Plant
Areas
Inlet to River for
Coal Pile & Plant
Areas
23.0
.01
1000.
50
11.5
1.5
11.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
500.
335.
2000.
250.
667.
250.
100,
100.
1 = Subcatchment
2 = Gutter (Pipe or Inlet)
NOTE: For a subcatchment, use area, slope, width of overland flow, and
percent imperviousness. For a gutter (pipe), use pipe diameter,
slope, and pipe length. For a gutter (inlet), just identify type,
-55-
-------
Selected results from the case run are presented for each program in SSWMM-
RECEIV II (SSWMM, LNKPRG, SETUP/QUANTITY, and QUALITY) in Tables A-l, A-2, A-3,
and A-4 in the Appendix. Selected SSWMM results (Table A-l) include the pol-
lutant mass loads on each subcatchment prior to the storm, flow and pollutant mass
loading information for each inlet to the river at time 50,400 seconds of Day 2,
total rainfall, total infiltration, total runoff, total surface storage, per-
centage error for unaccounted water during the storm period, and the total
storm-induced pollutant loads for each inlet to the river. Selected LNKPRG
results (Table A-2) include background river and power plant cooling water
loadings. Other selected LNKPRG results include flows and stormwater pollut-
ant concentrations from SSUMM. The selected results from SETUP/QUANTITY
(Table A-3) include the head or water level at each node and the river flow
and velocity in each channel. Selected QUALITY results (Table A-4) include
the pollutant concentrations at each node (junction) in the river and the
maximum, minimum, and average pollutant concentrations for each node in the
river for Day 2.
6.6 Conclusion
This hypothetical case of an industrial runoff study demonstrates how such
a study is planned and enacted. The costs incurred in the project can be
developed from the cost data presented in Section 5.
The case of the coal-fired utility plant is based on TRC's collective
efforts in this field. It has been outlined to show in an uncomplicated manner
a diverse number of runoff sources and the measurement and modeling that can
be used to address the impact of industrial runoff.
-56-
-------
REFERENCES
Sampling and Modeling of Non-Point Sources at a Coal-Fired
Utility by TRC - THE RESEARCH CORPORATION of New England for the Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, N.C.
2EPA-625-16-74-003 Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (1974).
technical Bulletin No. 183, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement, June 1965.
^EPA-600/4-77-031 Sampling of Water and Wastewater. Shelley, P., Office of
Research and Development, U.S. EPA.
5Stevens Water Resources Data Book, Leupold & Stevens, Inc., June 1975.
6Experimental Statistics, Handbook 91, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1966.
7New England River Basins Modeling Project Final Report, Volume Ill-
Documentation Report, Part I-RECEIV II Water Quantity and Quality Model,
Raytheon Company (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency),
EPA Contract No. 68-01-1890, December 1974.
8Stormwater Management Model, Metcalf & Eddy, University of Florida and Water
Resources Engineers, Inc., 4 Volumes, U.S. EPA Report Nos. 11024 DOC 7/71,
8/71, 9/71, and 10/71.
-57-
-------
APPENDIX
SELECTED RESULTS - SSWMM-RECEIV II MODEL
CASE RUN FOR EXAMPLE
INDUSTRIAL NON-POINT SOURCE RUNOFF STUDY
-58-
-------
TABLE A-l
TRC SSWMM SELECTED MODEL RESULTS
COAL-FIRED UTILITY STATION EXAMPLE CASE
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS AND INITIAL HASS LOADS AREPfllNTEO OUT FOR 6 CONSTITUENTS.
THESE CONSTITUENTS, IN ORQER. AUC
2 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
j SULFATES
» TOTAL IRON
S MANGANESE
t ALUMINUM
7 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
ON WATERSHED I THERE ARE 1.I110E 07 GRAMS OF DUST AND DIRT.
THE KG CONTENT OF EACH CONSTITUENT ONTHIS UATEIISHLD IS
O.OOOOE-Ol I.I227E 10 l.l3i|GE 0? 2.26BOE OS S.67UUE 06 5.6700E 0? 1.1340E 08 O.OOOOE-OI
THE HG CONTENT OF EACH CONSTITUENT IN THE CATCHBASINS FOR THIS WATERSHED IS
I O.OOOOE-01 O.OOOOE-01 O.OOObE-01 U.OOOOE-01 O.UOOOE-OI O.OOOOE-01 O.OOOOE-01 O.OOOOE-01
Ln
vo
ON WATERSHED 3 THERE ARE &.6700E 06 GRAMS OF DUST AND DIRT.
THE KG CONTENT OF EACH CONSTITUENT ONTHIS WATERSHED IS
O.OOoOE-01 S.6I33E 09 S.6700E 06 L1340E OB 2.BJ50E 06 2.83SOE 07 S.6700E 07 O.OOOOE-OI
THE HG CONTENT OF EACH CONSTITUENT IN THE CAICHBASINS FOR THIS WATERSHED IS
O.OOOOE-01 O.OOOOE-01 O.OOOOE-OI O.OOOOE-01 O.OOOOE-Ol O.OOOOE-Ql O.OOOOE-01 O.OOOOE-01
ON WATERSHED S THERE ARE S.6700C 06 GHAHS OF OUST AND CIRT.
THE HG CONTENT OF EACH CONSTITUENT ONTHIS WATERSHED IS
O.OOOOC-01 S.613JE 09 S.670CE 06 1.13HOE OB 2.83SOE 06 2.B3SOC 07 S.6700E 07 O.OOOOE-01
THE HC CONTENT OF EACH CONSTITUENT IN THE CATCHBASINS FOR THIS WATERSHED IS
O.OOoOc-01 O.OOOOE-01 O.OOOOE-01 O.OOOOE-01 O.OOOOE-Ol O.OOOOE-01 O.OOoO£-01 O.OOOOE-01
-------
TABLE A-l
(Cont'd)
COAL riRCU UTILITY SlAllON EXAHPLC CASt
SUMHiRY OF QUANTITY AMD OUALllV RESULTS FOR 1IMC SUMOO.
QUANTITY - FLOW IN CD FT/SEC
I QUALITY - POLLUTANT LOADINGS IN LB/HIN; COLIFORHS (IF HOOCLCOI IN HPN/HIN
ON
I ELEMENT FLOW TSS SULFATES TOTAL FE MANGANESE ALUMINUM TOS
? 2.83 0.00(1 Jb.J13 0.1611 3.282 0.082 0.821 1.641
9 5.SU O.OUa <|6.MU1 0.1223 2.446 0.061 fl.612 1.223
-------
TABLE A-2
TRC LNKPRG SELECTED MODEL RESULTS
COAL-FIRED UTILITY STATION EXAMPLE CASE
BACKGROUND |«iFONHAI10N 41 tlHC = 0. IS AS FOLLOWS
now in cu M/stc
POLLUTANT LOADINGS IN HG/SCCj COLIFORHS IIF MODELED) IN MPNE«06/SEC.
PTSRC FLOU SOU TOTFt HN AL TOS TSS
3 1H1.6000 0.1C OT 12480.0 4250.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 141600.0 0.0 0.0 0.7E 07 0.1E 07
4 -5.7000 S7000.0 1710.0 170*0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 5700.0 0.0 0.0 2SSOOO.O 57000.0
5 5.7000 57000.0 1710.0 170.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5700.0 0.0 0.0 285000.0 57000*0
-------
TABLE A-2
(Cont'd)
INPUt INTO KCCCIV II AT HUE SOUOO. SCC ARC AS FOLLOWS
FLOW IN CU MXSCC
, POLLUTANT LOADINGS IK MG/SEC; COLIFOHHS IIF HODELEOI IN Hf>NC«06/SEC.
ON
V INLET FLOU so* TOTFC HN AL TOS TSS
1 O.C80Z 1210.6 21812.1 620.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 6203.0 0.0 0.0 12406.0 289644.*
2 0.1SS9 924.6 18*91.7
-------
TABLE A-3
TRC RECEIV II SETUP/QUANTITY SELECTED MODEL RESULTS
COAL-FIRED UTILITY STATION EXAMPLE CASE
EXANPLC RUN 1
ILL LOADINGS TREATED AS FINITE SOURCES
»ASIN CONTAINS 3 SUBCAKHHENTS,1 PIPES,AND 2 INLETS
BAY IS 2
TOTAL AREA=16 ACRES
U)
HOUR
0.00
0.20
0.10
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.10
1.60
1.60
2.0Q
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.bO
3.00
3.20
J.lO
J.60
3.80
1.UO
1.20
1.10
1.60
1.80
5.00
5.20
5.10
5.60
•,.81)
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60
6.80
7.00
7.20
7.40
7.60
JUNCTION 1
HEAD (HI
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.S2
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.'i2
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
TIME HISTORY OF STAGE
JUNCTION 2
HCADIH)
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.2*
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.2«
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
JUNCTION 3
HCAD(H)
2.05
2. 35
2.35
2.05
2.35
2.05
2.05
2.35
2.35
2.05
2.)S
2.35
2.05
2.05
2. 05
2. 05
2.35
2.05
2.35
2.95
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.35
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.35
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
JUNCTION 4
HEADIHt
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
JUNCTION S
HEAOCH1
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.93
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
JUNCTION
HEAOCHl
255.55
257.59
259.62
261.66
263. 70
265.73
267.77
269.60
271.84
27j. aa
275.91
277.95
279.98
282.02
284.06
286.09
288.13
290.16
292.20
291.24
296.27
298.31
300.35
302.36
33
-------
TABLE A-3
(Cont'd)
.c-
I
.•0
.00
uto
.to
'.GO
.20
.40
9.60
9.80
10.00
10.20
10.10
10.60
10.80
11.00
11.20
11.40
11.60
11.60
12.00
12.20
12.HO
12.60
12.60
13.00
13.20
13.00
13.60
13.80
14.00
11.20
1N.HO
11.60
In. 80
IS. 00
IS. 20
15.10
IS-fcO
IS. 80
16. CO
16.20
16.10
16.60
16. bO
17.00
17.20
I7.*0
17.60
17.80
18.00
l». 20
\m."»a
2.52
2.S2
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.S2
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.S2
2.52
2.52
2.53
2.53
2.53
2.52
2-52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.S2
2.29
2.29
2.2*
2.7V
2.29
2>29
2.29
2.2'
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2-29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.2«
2.05
2.')5
2.05
2.15
2.US
^.15
2.35
2.05
2.05
2.US
2.35
2.05
2.U*.
2.35
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.OS
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.OS
2.35
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.OS
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.74,
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
0.90
n.9o
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0>90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
O.yQ
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
331.96
337.00
339.01
311.07
313. 10
315.14
347.18
319.21
3S1.2S
353.28
355.32
357.36
359.39
361.13
363.17
365.50
367.51
369.57
371.61
373.65
375.68
377.72
379.75
381.79
383.83
385.86
387.90
389.94
391.98
394.02
396.06
39B.1Q
400.14
402. 18
434.22
406.26
404.30
410.34
412.37
414.41
416.45
418.49
420.53
422.57
424.61
126.65
428.69
430.73
432.77
434.80
436.84
438.88
440.92
442.95
-------
TABLE A-3
(Cont'd)
K.60
18.10
iv.ro
19.20
19.HO
19.60
19. 80
20.00
20.20
2U.«tO
20.60
20.ED
21.00
21.20
21.-40
21.60
21.60
22.00
22.20
22. 00
22.60
22.60
23.00
23.20
2J.<|0
21.60
23.BO
2«.00
2.52
2.52
2.S2
2.52
2.52
2.S2
2.S2
2.52
2.52
2-52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2*52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.52
2.S2
2.52
2. 52
2.S?
2.52
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.21
2.29
2.29
2.2V
2.2*
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.2?
2.29
2.29
2.29
2-29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.29
2.OS
2.OS
2.OS
2.05
2.35
2.05
2.05
2.35
2.05
2.05
2-05
2.35
2.OS
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.35
2.05
2.115
2.OS
2.TS
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.OS
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
.76
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
400.99
4*7.03
409.06
051.10
-------
RUN 1
ALL LOADINGS TRCATlb AS FINIlt SOURCES
TABLE A-3
(Cont'd)
BASIN CON1AINS 3 SUBCATCHMENTS ,4 PIPES,AND 2 INLETS
DAY IS 2
TOTAL AREA=46 ACRES
HOUR
D.OO
0.20
O.qC
O.bC
o.so
.Ot
.20
.10
.60
.ao
2.0U
2.20
2. HO
2.60
2.60
1.00
3.20
1.40
1.60
i.ac
4.30
1.20
4. 40
4.60
«t.ac
5.00
S.2C
s.40
5. GO
.80
.00
.20
.10
.60
.80
7.00
1.20
1.<»0
CHANNEL
FLOW
CU M/S
111.60
I1* 1.60
1H. 40
11*1.60
1"|.60
141.60
141.40
111. bO
1*11.60
It 1.60
141.60
111.60
111.60
111.60
111.60
lH.bO
141.60
111.60
1«1.60
111.60
1*1. hO
H1.60
lll.hO
141.60
141.60
III. 60
111. CO
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.i>0
141. bC
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
111. 60
V*t .bO
1 2
VCL.
H/S
O.BB2
0.882
0.862
0.382
0.06?
0.882
3.482
3.182
0. 862
0.882
3.882
0.882
0.882
0.88?
o.aa?
O.UB2
0.882
0.1B2
o.na?
0.862
O.B&2
0.88?
0.882
0.8hZ
o.abz •
0.982
0.3*2
0.802
U.«32
0.862
U.3B2
0.382
U.OB2
0.882
O.OB2
0.862
O.U82
O.uaj
HE II I
CHANNEL
FLCU
CU H/S
135.93
Hb.VO
135.9Q
m.su
US. 90
135. VO
1 35.93
135. *0
MS. 93
135. SO
US. SO
US. 93
135.91)
115.90
135.90
135.90
135. SU
135. SO
1 35. SO
115.90
135. VO
115.90
135.9i)
135.90
135.90
135.90
135.90
135. VQ
135.9(1
135. S3
135.90
155.90
135.90
lib. 90
115.90
131. VO
135.90
11S.«0
S T 0 1
2 3
yEL.
N/S
0.865
0.865
0.865
O.A6S
0.865.
0.865
0.865
U.865
0.865
U.C6S
O.U65
(..065
U.865
0.865
0.665
0.865
0.865
O.E65
0.665
0.865
0.665
O.E65
0.865
U.B6S
U.66S
u.665
b.865
0.665
O.P65
C.B65
U.B65
0.065
0.8d5
O.U6S
0.865
0.865
0.865
G.86S
A K 0 VELOCITY
HANNEL 3 4
FLOW VEL.
CU H/S M/S
14 .60 0.911
14 .60 0.9M
1^ .tU 0.941
11 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.911
11 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
11 .60 0.941
11 .60 0.941
11 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.911
14 .60 0.941
11 .60 0.941
11 .63 0.941
11 .60 0.941
11 .60 U.941
m .bO 0.941
14 .63 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 O.V41
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .63 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
14 .60 0.941
141.63 0.941
141.60 0.941
141.60 0.941
141.60 0.941
141. bU 0.941
CHANNEL 1
FLOU \
CU M/S
141 .60
111 .60
141.60
141 .63
141 .60
111 .60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141 .60
141.60
141 .60
141 .60
141 .60
141.60
141 .60
141.60
141.63
141.60
141.60
111 .60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
I'll. 60
141.60
111 .60
141 .60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
5
'EL.
H/S
.258
.258
.258
.?58
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.25B
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.256
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
CHANNEL 4 S
FLOU VEL.
CU H/S H/S
CHANNEL 4 S
FLOU VEL.
CU H/S H/S
-------
7.60
7.8U
8.00
6.2"
8.40
8.60
8.80
9.JU
9.20
V.lO
9.60
9.80
10.00
10.20
10.10
10.bO
10.00
1.1)0
1.20
l.lO
1.60
1.80
12. 30
12.20
12.10
12.60
12.ao
13.00
13.20
13.10
13.60
13.80
J 1.00
14.20
11.10
14.bO
11.bO
IS.JO
IS.20
IS.10
IS.60
IS.80
16.00
16.20
16.10
16.60
ib.ao
17.00
17.20
17.10
17.60
17.80
Ifl.OO
ia.20
TABLE A-3
(Cont'd)
1*1.60
HJ.hO
HI. 1.0
HI . oO
Hl.t.0
Hl.fiO
HI. 60
HI. 60
HI. 60
HI. 1.0
HI. 60
Hl.bO
HI .60
Hl.oO
I'll. 60
141.60
HI. 60
Hl.oO
I'M. 60
111.60
m.6o
HI. 60
111.60
1H. 60
111.60
lil.oO
111.60
HI. 60
HI. 60
H1.39
111.5'
HI. 59
111.5V
H1.S9
Hi.i>0
HI. 61
111.61
111.60
Hl.(.0
INI .60
111.60
Hl.f.O
Hi .60
HI. 60
HI. 60
HI. 60
HI. 60
Hi. 60
HI. 60
HI. 60
HI. 60
HI. 60
HI. 60
HI. 60
U.HA2
O.BB2
U.H82
.).ft6;r
O.M02
0.0&2
U.8S2
•J.8B2
O.HB2
O.H62
o.«82
0.882
0.882
3.802
0.682
0.082
o.Bfl2
J.9U2
0.862
J.Sb2
0.862
i).B82
0.482
0.882
0.882
0.882
0.682
0.8«2
0.882
0.801
0.881
,1.061
0.08|
n.eei
0.881
0.361
0.081
J.381
0.88 |
n.aei
0.382
9.082
0.382
O.a«2
O.A62
0.882
0.86?
0.88;
0.882
3.082
0.862
0.832
0.882
0.862
US. 90
MS. 10
135.90
U5.VO
US. 90
us. to
Mb. 91)
MS. 90
135.90
1 JS . 90
1 IS. 90
MS. S3
MS. 90
US. til
US. til
MS. 90
US. 90
US. 90
135.90
US. V.I
US. 90
us.vu
US.9J
1J5.SO
us.vo
U5.9'J
US.VO
US. 90
US. 91
US. 92
US. 93
135.95
US.V6
US. 97
US. 97
US. 97
US. 95
US.9S
135. SI
U5.V3
US.V2
US. 91
135.91
135.91
135.90
US. 9(1
135.90
US.VO
135.90
135 .90
US. 90
US. 9Q
US. 90
US. 90
0.665
U«8*>S
0.16S
0.865
C.865
0.865
U.06S
0.865
0.665
0.865
O.B6S
0.065
0.865
C.665
O.B6S
0.865
0.365
C.66S
0.86S
U.B65
U.865
0.865
U.865
U.86S
0.665
U.D65
0.865
U.66S
U.floS
0.665
0.66S
0.665
O.B65
O.H65
C.B6S
0.665
0.065
0.065
0.065
0.66S
Ci.865
C.865
0.86S
O.B6S
0.865
U.865
0.865
O.f 65
0.865
0.665
U.B6S
U.66S
0.665
C.865
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
H
11
11
H
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
H
H
It
11
11
H
11
11
11
H
H
H
H
11
11
H
H
H
11
11
H
H
H
H
11
11
H
H
H
H
H
11
H
11
H
.60
.bO
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.6U
.60
.60
.60
.60
.61
.62
.66
.71
.75
.79
.62
.61
.79
.76
.73
.69
.67
.65
.63
.62
.62
.61
.61
.61
.61
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
.60
0.911
G.911
0.9M1
0.911
0.911
0.911
0. VII
0. VII
O.V1I
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.91 1
0.911
0. 911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.91 1
0.911
0.911
0. V12
0.912
0.912
0.912
0.912
0.912
0.9M2
0.912
0.912
0.912
0.912
0.912
0.911
0.941
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
0.911
111.60 .258
H1.60
111.60
111.60
111.60
141 .60
111.60
111.60
111 .60
HI .60
1 11 .60
111 .60
HI .60
HI .60
111.60
HI .60
111.60
HI .60
111.60
HI .60
111 .60
111.60
111 .60
111.60
111.60
111 .60
111 .60
HI .60
111.62
111.65
1 11 .69
111.73
mi. 78
111 .81
111.81
1 1 1 . a o
111 .78
111.71
11 .70
11 .68
11.66
11.61
11 .63
. 41.62
11.61
11.61
11.61
111.60
111 .60
111 .60
111.60
HI .60
111.60
111.60
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.256
.258
.258
.250
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.259
.259
.259
.259
.259
.259
.259
.258
.258
.258
.256
.258
.258
.258
.256
.258
.253
.258
.258
.256
.258
.258
.256
-------
TABLE A-3
(Cont'd)
00
18.40
18.60
lb.au
1-J..IO
IV.bU
I9.au
2J.OU
10. 20
2U.4U
20. bO
20. 80
21.30
21.20
21.40
21.60
21. ac
22. OU
22.20
22.40
22.60
22.80
21. JO
23.20
23.40
23.60
23. »0
24.00
141.60
141. hO
1*1. bO
|4|.bO
1*1.60
1*1. (.0
1*1 .bU
|4|.M)
|41.hO
1*1. hO
141.60
111. fcO
iM.dO
1*1.60
1 11.60
I'M. 60
1H 1.60
141. GO
1*1. bo
l*l.bll
1*1. bO
1*1.00
111. CO
111.60
1*1. bO
141.60
1*1.60
101.60
141.60
O.BB2
o.a*2
O.Uo?
U.HH2
O.IIU2
0.4(2
U..J8?
o.*«2
0.6*2
0.3H2
O.BB*
U.8B2
Q.I1R2
U.OB?
U.H62
0.8B2
O.b62
U.OB2
n.flB?
II.HU2
0.882
U.0b2
0.882
0.882
0.8B2
U.8B2
0.882
0.882
0.882
1 IS.VO
liS.«U
1 J'j.90
lli.VD
M'j.Vl)
llb.VU
Mb.VU
Mb.MU
M'j.VO
U'j.MO
US. SO
Ub.vn
lib. fO
M5.SIO
1J&.VO
13S.«0
13&.90
1JS.VJ
IIS .90
1 J5. 50
13S.90
US.fU
)35.«J
13S.«0
135.90
13S.90
US. 90
135.90
135.90
U.flfcS
0.861
o.6t:
(J.B6S
li.8hL
U.P6h
U.86S
(J.A6S
U.«b<
U.B6S
U.86S
U.8(.b
U.flbS
U.8f.S
L.865
U.f 6S
U.865.
0.86$
0.865
0.865
0.665
0.665
O.P6S
0.865
0.865
0.865
0.865
0.86S
0.865
14 .60
14 .60 '
14 .bU
14 .60
14 .60
14 .60
14 .60
14 .60
14 .60
14 .60
14 .60
14 .60
14 .611
14 .60
14 .60
14 .60
14 .bO
14 .60
14 .60
14 .60
141.60
141.60
141.bO
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.9'll
0.941
0.9<4l
0.941
U.94I
0.941
U.941
o.9m
0.9'll
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
U.941
U.941
0.941
0.9<;1
0.941
0.941
0.941
O.V41
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
0.941
141.60
141.60
14] .60
141 .60
141 .60
141.60
141. bO
141.60
141.60
141.60
141. tO
14] .60
141.60
141 .60
141.60
141.60
141. 60
14] .60
141 .60
141.60
141. bO
141.60
141.60
141 .60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
141.60
.?S8
.258
.2S8
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
.258
-------
TABLE A-4
TRC RECEIV II QUALITY SELECTED MODEL RESULTS
COAL-FIRED UTILITY STATION EXAMPLE CASE
HUN 1
ALL LOADINGS TREATED AS FINITE SOURCCS
BASIN CONTAINS 3 SUbCATCHHCNTS .4 PIPES,AND 2 INLETS TOTAL AREA=16 ACRES
JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS. DURING TIHC CYCLE 2 .QUALITY CYCLE 70. UNITS ARE MG/L, EXCEPT I0**6 HPN/L COLIFORHS*
I JUNCTION SULFATCS TOTAL ft MANGANES ALUHINUH TDS TSS
OS E
I 1 10.COO D.3UO 0.030 1.000 SO.000 10.000
2 10.003 0.471 0-03* 1.0M2 50.058 11.638
3 9.V99 t.566 0.037 1.365 So.060 12.819
• 9.999 0.528 0.036 1.0SC Sfl-OSI 12.001
$ 9.998 0-1*5 0.03S l.OtS So.035 11.393
6 9.000 C.200 0.020 0.900 HS.QOO 9.0flO
-------
TABLE A-4
(Cont'd)
EXAMPLE RUN I
ALL LOADINGS TREATED AS HHHt SOURCES
AVERAGE JUMC110N CONCENTRATIONS DURING TIDAL OR MHE CYCLE 2. CONSTITUENT NUMBER 1 SULFATES
123KS6789IO
JUNCTIONS.
BASIN CONTAINS 3 SUBC* TCHHCNTS ,"» PIPES.AND 2 INLETS TOT»L AREA=<(6 ACRES
I 1 TO 6 O.lQOOE aZO.IOOOE 020.1000E 020.1000E 020.IOOOE 020.9000C 01
^4
° HAXIHUHS
JUNCTION
1 TO 6 O.I030E J20.I01DE 02U.1000E 020.10QOE 020.100DE 020.9000E 01
MINI HUMS
JUNCTION
1 TO * 0.1000C 020.10QOE 020.9«9IE 010.7998E 01Q.999SE Q10.9000E 01
-------
TABLE A-4
(Cont'd)
EIAHPLE RUN I
ALL LOADINGS TREATED AS MNITE SOURCES
AVERAGE JUNCTION CONCENTRAI10NS DURING TIDAL OR TIME CVCLE 2. CONSTITUENT NUMBER 2 TOTAL Ft
123*56769 10
JUNCTIONS.
, BASIN CONTAINS 3 SU6CATCHHENTS•* PIPES,AND 2 INLETS TOTAL AflEA=46 AtRES
-J 1 TO 6 O.jQOQt J00.31D7C OOa.SlTBE OOO.JUbE OCO.JJ7BC 000.2000E 00
I
HAXIHUHS
JUNCTION
1 TO 6 0.30DOE OOO.H7b|E 003.60JME OOO.bl29E OUO.blBBE 000.20QQE 00
MJNIMUHS
JUNCTION
1 TO 4 O.JOOOE OOQ.IOOOE QOa.SOOOE 000.3000E 000.2S1SE OOQ.200QE 00
-------
TABLE A-4
(Cont'd)
EXAMPLE
•LI IOM)IN6$ .1REATED AS FiNiTE SOURCCS
AVCRA6E JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS DURING TIDAL OR TIME CYCLE 2. CONSTITUENT NUMBER 6 TSS
1234S678910
JUNCTIONS.
BASIN CONTAINS 3 SUBCA TCMMf NTS t* PIPES,AND 2 INLETS TOTAL AREA=«6 ACRES
1 TO b O.lQOoE 020.1010E 020.1023E 020.1023C 02Q.1023C 020.9000C 01
I HAXIHUHS
^ JUNCTION
I 1 TO 6 O.lOnOE 020.121SE 020.H7TE 020.1SQ7E 020.1602E 020.9000E 01
JUNCTION
1 10 * 0.1000E 020.1000E 020.1000E 020.1000E 020.99B9E 010.9000E 01
-------
E*AMPLE RUN I
ALL LOADINGS TREATED AS UNITf SOURCCS
AVERAGE JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS DURING TIDAL OR TIME CYCLE 2, CONSTITUENT NUMBER 3 MANGANESE
1231S678910
JUNCTIONS.
BASIN CONTAINS 3 SUBCATCHMENTS tt PlPtS.ANO 2 INLETS TOTAL AREA=tt ACRES
010.JO'»Si
HAXIHUHS
I 1 TO 6 0. JoOIE-010.J028f-010. JOMSC-010.JUHSE-010.JO'»Si:-Ll»U.2000t:-Ol
JUNCTION
I TO 6 0.3001t-al0.3'mOE-ai0.375SE-U10.J779E-010.37Vi»E-010.2000E-01
MINIMUM*
JUNCTION
I 10 4 0.300lE-UlO.JQOJE-OI0.3001E-010.i301E-Oi0.2»50E-OI0.2000E-01
-------
TABLE A-4
(Cont'd)
EXAMPLE MUN I
ALL LOADING* TREATED AS TINHC SOURCES
AVERAGE JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS DURING TIDAL OR TIME CYCLE 2. CONSTITUENT NUMBER % ALUH1NUH
123*»S67B91Q
JUNCTIONS.
BASIN CONTAINS 5 SUbCATCHHENTS«4 PIPES.AND 2 INLETS TOTAL AREA=M6 ACRES
1 TO 6 O.ioUoL J1U.1003E 013.10QHE U10.10Q
-------
TABLE A-4
(Cont'd)
EXAMPLE RUN 1
ALL LOADINGS TREATED AS FINITE SOURCES
AVERAGE JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS DURING TIDAL OR TINE CYCLE 2, CONSTITUENT NUMBER 5 TDS
123456789 10
JUNCTIONS.
BASIN CONTAINS 3 SUBCATCHHENTS,4 PIPEStAND 2 INLETS TOTAL AHEA=46 ACRES
I 1 TO & O.SnOot 020.5000E 020.SOOOE 020.50UOE 0?0.5000E 020.4SOOE 02
•»j
I HAXIHUHS
JUNCTION
1 TO 6 O.SCOOE 020.SOQ6E 020.SC07E 020.S007E 020.S007E 020.HSOOE 02
MJNIMUMS
JUNCTION
1 10 6 Q.SUOOE U20.500UE UZ0.50UOE 020.SOOOE 020.499BE 020.H500C 02
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1 REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-79-049
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Technical Manual for the Measurement and Modeling
of Non-point Sources at an Industrial Site on a River
6. REPORT DATE
February 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
G.T.Brookman, J.J. Binder, P. B.Katz, and
W.A.Wade, m
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRC - The Research Corporation of New England
125 Silas Dean Highway
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE624
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2133, Task 2
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 1/77 - 5/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is SUPPLEMENTARY NOTEST£RL-RTP project officer is D. Bruce Harris, MD-62, 919/541-
2557.
16 ABSTRACT rpne manuai provides 2i guide for the implementation of a measurement and
modeling program for non-point sources at an industrial site on a river. Criteria
for developing a field survey program and model selection are provided, along with
program costs and manpower requirements. A sample list of equipment and compu-
ter costs is also provided. The development of a field survey includes sample site
selection, selection of parameters to be measured, number and frequency of sam-
ples, collection methods , analytical methods, and data reduction and analysis.
Included in the modeling section is a description of the SSWMM-RECETV-TI model
which has been adapted to a coal-fired utility site. Application of the outlined pro-
cedures to the measurement of non-point sources from a coal-fired utility is also
presented.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Utilities
Measurement
Mathematical Models
Runoff
Stream Pollution
Leaching
Dust
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Non-Point Sources
13 B
14B
12A
08H
07D,07A
11G
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
81
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (••?»)
-76-
------- |