&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
:eof
:'rograms Operations
Washington DC 20460 (WH-595)
EPA-430/9-79-003
February 10, 1979
Water
1978 Needs Survey
Cost Methodology for Control of
Combined Sewer Overflow and
Stormwater Discharge
FRD-3
-------
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Copies of this publication "1978 Needs Survey—Cost Methodology
for Control of Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharges"
(FRD-3) may be purchased from:
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, Virginia 22151
Telephone: 703/557-4650
-------
1978 NEEDS SURVEY
COST METHODOLOGY FOR CONTROL OF
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
AND STORMWATER DISCHARGES
Project Officer
Philip H. Graham
Facility Requirements Division
Office of Water Program Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Contract No. 68-01-3993
EPA Report No. 430/9-79-003
FRD Report No. 3
February 10, 1979
-------
CONTENTS
Page
TABLES vil
FIGURES X
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
Chapter
1 BACKGROUND 1-1
PREVIOUS NEEDS ESTIMATES 1-1
1978 NEEDS SURVEY OBJECTIVES 1-3
1978 NEEDS SURVEY METHOD 1-5
2 RECEIVING WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES 2-1
INTRODUCTION 2-1
INDICATOR POLLUTANTS 2-1
AESTHETICS OBJECTIVE 2-2
FISH AND WILDLIFE OBJECTIVE 2-3
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 2-4
Suspended Solids (SS) 2-7
Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2-8
Phosphorus (P) 2-14
RECREATION OBJECTIVE 2-15
REFERENCES 2-16
3 TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE CONTROL OF POLLUTION
FROM COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW AND URBAN
STORMWATER RUNOFF 3-1
INTRODUCTION 3-1
SOURCE CONTROLS 3-1
Street Cleaning 3-2
Combined Sewer Flushing 3-2
Catch Basin Cleaning 3-3
COLLECTION SYSTEM CONTROL 3-3
Existing System Management 3-3
Flow Reduction Techniques 3-4
Sewer Separation 3-4
Inline Storage 3-4
TREATMENT FACILITIES 3-5
Offline Storage 3-5
Sedimentation 3-5
Dissolved Air Flotation 3-6
Screens 3-6
Microscreens 3-7
High-Rate Filtration 3-7
Swirl and Helical Concentrators 3-7
11
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Chapter
3 Chemical Additives 3-8
Coagulation and Flocculation 3-8
Disinfection 3-8
Sludge Disposal 3-8
Biological Treatment 3-9
High Gradient Magnetic Separation 3-10
Carbon Adsorption 3 - 10
REFERENCES 3-11
4 COST FUNCTIONS FOR CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW AND URBAN STORMWATER
RUNOFF 4-1
INTRODUCTION 4-1
SEWER SEPARATION 4-1
SEWER FLUSHING 4-4
Inline Storage 4-4
Offline Storage 4-5
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT 4-6
REFERENCES 4-6
5 TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES 5-1
INTRODUCTION 5-1
RANKING INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PROCESSES 5-1
Selection of Treatment Trains 5-4
REFERENCES 5-10
6 PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS FOR COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW AND URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF POLLUTION
CONTROL ALTERNATIVES 6-1
INTRODUCTION 6-1
STORAGE/TREATMENT SYSTEMS 6-2
STREETSWEEPING 6-4
SEWER FLUSHING 6 - 13
SEWER SEPARATION 6-15
REFERENCES 6-16
7 OUTLINE OF CONTINUOUS STORMWATER POLLUTION
SIMULATION SYSTEM (CSPSS) 7-1
SYSTEM STRUCTURE 7-1
COMPUTATIONAL SEQUENCE 7-2
RAINFALL SIMULATOR 7-4
WATERSHED RUNOFF 7-5
POLLUTION ACCUMULATION AND WASHOFF 7-5
SEWER SYSTEM INFILTRATION 7-6
111
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Chapter
7 STORAGE/TREATMENT 7-6
DRY-WEATHER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
FLOW 7-7
UPSTREAM FLOW 7-7
RECEIVING WATER RESPONSE 7-8
Suspended Solids 7-8
Dissolved Oxygen 7-10
Dissolved Lead 7-10
REFERENCES , 7-11
8 SITE STUDIES FOR RECEIVING WATER IMPACT
ANALYSIS 8-1
INTRODUCTION 8-1
SITE SELECTION 8-1
SITE STUDY PROCEDURE 8-5
Rainfall Module 8-5
Runoff Module 8-5
Pollutant Washoff 8-5
Infiltration Module 8-6
Wastewater Treatment Plant Module 8-6
Upstream Flow Module 8-6
Receiving Water Module 8-6
SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS 8-7
REFERENCES 8-7
9 SITE STUDIES FOR ECONOMIC OPTIMIZATION OF
CONTROL ALTERNATIVES 9-1
INTRODUCTION 9-1
ECONOMIC THEORY 9-1
Marginal Cost Analysis 9-1
Production Theory 9-2
SITE STUDY METHODOLOGY 9-2
Parallel Operations 9-3
Serial Operations 9-3
Selected Economic Study Sites 9-8
CSO Watersheds 9-9
SWR Watersheds 9-11
CSO and SWR Watersheds Combined 9-11
SITE STUDY RESULTS 9-13
REFERENCES 9-18
10 ANALYSIS OF SITE STUDY RESULTS 10-1
POLLUTANT REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS 10-1
Suspended Solids (SS) 10-1
Ultimate Oxygen Demand (UOD) 10-2
IV
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Chapter
10 Dissolved Lead (Pb) 10-5
Phosphorus (P) 10-9
ECONOMIC OPTIMIZATION 10-9
Pollutant Removal by Sewer System
Type 10-10
Pollutant Removal from Streetsweeping 10 - 10
Pollutant Removal from Sewer
Flushing 10 - 11
Pollutant Removal from Storage/
Treatment Systems 10-11
REFERENCES 10-15
11 NATIONAL DATA BASE 11-1
NATIONAL COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM DATA FILE 11-1
Combined Sewer System Worksheet 11-1
Description of Items on Worksheet 11-2
Additional Information 11-9
Sources of Data 11-9
Results 11-10
URBANIZED AREA DATA BASE 11 - 10
Sources of Data 11 - 11
NON-URBANIZED AREA DATA BASE 11-12
REFERENCES 11-13
12 NEEDS ESTIMATION TECHNIQUE 12-1
PROGRAM OUTLINE 12-1
URBANIZED AREA CHARACTERISTICS 12-4
ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADS 12-4
AESTHETICS OBJECTIVE NEEDS 12-4
POLLUTANT REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FISH
AND WILDLIFE OBJECTIVE 12-5
OPTIMUM MIX OF POLLUTANT REMOVAL BY
SEWER SYSTEM TYPE 12-5
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 12-5
STORAGE/TREATMENT SYSTEMS 12-6
RECREATION OBJECTIVE 12-7
YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS 12-9
REFERENCES 12-9
13 NEEDS FOR CONTROL OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW 13-1
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Chapter
14 NEEDS FOR CONTROL OF URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF 14-1
15 SENSITIVITY AND CORRELATION ANALYSIS 15-1
INTRODUCTION 15-1
SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY 15-1
Aesthetics Cost Estimates 15-1
Fish and Wildlife Cost Estimates 15-2
Recreation Cost Estimates 15-5
SENSITIVITY OF COST ESTIMATES 15-5
Fish and Wildlife Costs 15-5
Recreation Costs 15-6
CORRELATION ANALYSIS 15-6
REFERENCES 15 - 10
Appendix
A SITE STUDY DATA A - 1
B URBANIZED AREA DATA BASE B - 1
C NON-URBANIZED AREA CSO DATA BASE C - 1
D FORTRAN LISTING OF NEEDS ESTIMATION COMPUTER
PROGRAM D - 1
E CORRESPONDENCE E - 1
VI
-------
TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Comparison of Previous Capital Cost Estimates
for Control of Pollution from Combined Sewer
Overflow and Urban Stormwater Runoff 1-4
2-1 Mean Total Lead Toxicity Limits for Warm-
Water Species (96-hour TL 's)
2-2 Mean Total and Dissolved Lead Toxicity Limits
for Cold-Water Species (96-hour TLm's)
2-11
2-3 Summary of Acute Dissolved and Total Lead
Toxicity Data for Rainbow Trout (Davies, 1976) 2-12
4-1 Sewer Separation Capital Costs Summary 4-2
4-2 Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost
Functions for Physical/Chemical Treatment of
CSO and Urban Stormwater Runoff 4-7
5-1 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies of Individual
Physical/Chemical Treatment Processes 5-2
5-2 Unit Capital Costs and Ranking of Individual
Physical/Chemical Treatment Processes 5-3
5-3 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for the Selected
Physical/Chemical Treatment Trains 5-8
5-4 Capital, Operation and Maintenance, and
Equivalent Annual Costs of Selected Physical/
Treatment Trains 5-9
6-1 Values of Parameters and Correlation
Coefficients for Isoguant Equations for
Percent BOD Capture with First Flush 6-5
6-2 Estimated Pickup Efficiencies (E) by
Streetsweeper Type and Constituent 6-10
8-1 Overall Watershed Removal Requirements on
Combined Systems to Meet Fish and Wildlife
Water Quality Objectives 8-8
8-2 Overall Watershed Removal Requirements on
Separate Systems to Meet Fish and Wildlife
Water Quality Objectives 8-9
VI1
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
8-3 Summary of the Fish and Wildlife Water Quality
Objectives 8-10
9-1 Site Study Input Data for Economic Optimization
of Wet-Weather Pollution Control 9-15
9-2 Optimum Combination of Control Alternatives
for Castro Valley BOD5 9-19
9-3 Optimum Combination of Control Alternatives
for Castro Valley Suspended Solids 9-20
9-4 Optimum Combination of Control Alternatives
for Bucyrus BOD5 9-21
9-5 Optimum Combination of Control Alternatives
for Bucyrus Suspended Solids 9-22
9-6 Optimum Combination of Control Alternatives
for Des Moines BOD5 . 9-23
9-7 Optimum Combination of Control Alternatives
for Des Moines Suspended Solids 9-24
9-8 Optimum Combination of Control Alternatives
for Milwaukee BOD5 9-25
9-9 Optimum Combination of Control Alternatives
for Milwaukee Suspended Solids 9-26
10-1 Dissolved Oxygen Impact Data from Site Studies 10-6
10-2 Summary of Lead Removal Data 10-8
10-3 Optimum Treatment Levels 10 - 16
13-1 State Category V (Combined Sewer) Needs to
Achieve the Aesthetics Water Quality Goal 13-2
13-2 State Category V (Combined Sewer) Needs to
Achieve the Fish and Wildlife Water Quality
Goal 13-5
13-3 State Category V (Combined Sewer) Needs to
Achieve the Recreation Water Quality Goal 13-8
Vlll
-------
TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
13-4 Summary of Combined Sewer Area, Population
Served, and Estimated Cost of Sewer Separation
by State 13 - 12
13-5 Unit Capital Cost of Correction for Combined
Sewer Systems Located in Urbanized Areas 13-14
13-6 Selected Treatment Levels for Combined Sewer
Systems Located in Urbanized Areas 13 - 15
13-7 Parameter Summary for Combined Sewer Systems
Located in Urbanized Areas 13 - 16
14-1 State Category VI (Stormwater) Needs to
Achieve the Aesthetics Water Quality Goal 14-2
14-2 State Category VI (Stormwater) Needs to
Achieve the Fish and Wildlife Water Quality
Goal 14-5
14-3 State Category VI (Stormwater) Needs to
Achieve the Recreation Water Quality Goal 14-8
14-4 Unit Cost of Control for Urban Stormwater
Runoff Based on Year 2000 Conditions 14 - 11
14-5 Selected Treatment Levels for Category VI
(year 2000) 14 - 12
14-6 Parameter Summary for Control of Urban
Stormwater Runoff in Urbanized Areas Based
on Year 2000 Conditions 14 - 13
15-1 Receiving Water Reaeration Rates 15-3
15-2 Receiving Water Decay Rates 15-4
15-3 Correlation Analysis Independent Variable
Definitions 15-7
15-4 Unit Cost Correlation Coefficients 15 - 8
15-5 Total Cost Correlation Coefficients 15-9
15-6 Capital Cost Functions 15 - 11
ix
-------
FIGURES
Figure
2-1 Mortality of Juvenile Brook Trout due to low
DO levels
4-1 Capital cost of sewer separation
5-1 Process trains for treatment levels 1 and 2
5-2 Process trains for levels 3 and 4
5-3 Process train for treatment level 5
6-
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Figure
9-5 Schematic for the economic optimization of control
alternatives for combined sewer watersheds
9-6 Schematic for the economic optimization of control
alternatives for urban stormwater (separate sewer)
9-7 Schematic for the economic optimization of control
alternatives for urban areas served by both combined
and separate sewer systems
9-8 Unit costs for the optimized removal of BOD5
discharges
9-9 Units costs for the optimized removal of SS discharges
10-1 Relationship between desired pollutant removal and
optimum streetsweeping level -of effort for areas
served by separate sewers
10-2 Relationship between desired pollutant removal and
optimum streetsweeping level of effort for areas
served by combined sewers
10-3 Relationship between desired pollutant removal and
optimum sewer flushing level of effort for areas
served by combined sewers
11-1 Combined sewer system worksheet
11-2 Code reference chart and definitions for combined
sewer system worksheet
12-1 Storage/treatment isoguant for reguired pollutant
capture
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc. Personnel who were
directly involved in many phases throughout the project included
Michael J. Mara, Sadia Kissoon, and James E. Scholl. In addition,
Dr. Wesley H. Blood, Udai P. Singh, Stephen J. King, Gregory L.
Tate, Edward Kent, and Michael D. Leinbach contributed directly
to the development of the site studies for receiving water impact
analysis. Also, Franklin W. (Skip) Ellis and Rodger C. Sutherland
were instrumental in the development of the site studies for
economic optimization of pollution control alternatives.
Drs. James P. Heaney, Professor of Environmental Engineering,
University of Florida, and Bruce H. Bradford, Assistant Professor
of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, served in
an advisory capacity as project consultants.
Typing and editorial services were provided by the Gainesville
Office Word Processing Center and Editing Department. Ronald L.
Wycoff served as project manager.
Especially acknowledged is the leadership and review of Philip H.
Graham, Environmental Engineer, Facilities Requirements Division,
EPA, who was the Project Officer; and Michael Cook, Chief,
Facilities Requirements Division, EPA. Both of these individuals
provided valuable guidance and review throughout the project.
Numerous other individuals both within the outside of EPA provided
significant cooperation and direct participation in the preparation
of this report.
X0.1
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1978 NEEDS SURVEY—COST METHODOLOGY
FOR CONTROL OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
AND STORMWATER DISCHARGES
National needs for control of pollution from combined sewer
overflow'(Category V) and urban stormwater runoff (Category VI)
have been estimated for three receiving water quality objectives,
the aesthetics objective, the fish and wildlife objective, and
the recreation objective. The recreation objective is the only
one of the three considered which will fully meet the requirements
and goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of
1972 (PL 92-500). Therefore, the recreation objective construction
cost estimates are the needs reported to Congress.
Nationwide construction cost estimates for the aesthetics objective
and the fish and wildlife objective are developed and reported
herein in order to establish a relationship between the cost of
pollution control for Categories V and VI and benefits measured
in terms of beneficial receiving water use.
Costs for Category V reflect estimated grant-eligible pollution
control needs. That is, needs for flood control or urban drainage
are not included. Category VI estimates are also for pollution
control only; however, Category VI needs are not presently grant-
eligible. National needs for each catetory and receiving water
objective are summarized and compared in Table ES-1 to those
reported in the 1976 Needs Survey.
Combined sewers serve approximately 2,527,000 acres and 39,781,000
persons. Therefore, mean estimated Category V needs for the
recreation level are approximately $10,188 per acre or $643 per
person served.
In the year 2000, approximately 130,427,000 persons will occupy
32,244,000 acres in Urbanized Areas served by separate storm
sewers. Therefore, mean estimated Category VI needs for the
recreation level are approximately $1,913 per acre or $473 per
person served. Mean unit capital, O&M, and equivalent annual
costs for Categories V and VI are summarized in Table ES-2.
The 1978 estimated cost to achieve the aesthetics objective is
lower than the 1976 estimated cost for both Categories V and VI.
The difference in the case of combined sewer overflow control is
explained by alternative technology. In the 1976 Needs Survey,
aesthetics objective needs were based on providing swirl concen-
trators at all overflow points and consolidated screening of the
concentrate. In the 1978 Needs Survey, aesthetics objective
needs are based on providing an optimum mix of streetsweeping and
combined sewer flushing. Both methods can remove approximately
ES-1
-------
ES-1
Summary of Categories V and VI National Needs
Estimates (Billion January 1978 Dollars)
A. Year 2000 Needs for Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Aesthetics Fish and Wildlife Recreation
Objective Objective Objective
1976 6.5 14.0 21.2
1978 2.0 10.9 25.7
B. Year 1990 and 2000 Needs for Urban Stormwater Runoff Control
Aesthetics Fish and Wildlife Recreation
Objective Objective Objective
1976
(1990)
1978
(2000)
23.7
-
1.4
58.
29.
7
2
62.8
61.7
Table ES-2
Summary of Categories V and VI Capital and O&M Unit Costs for
Year 2000 Recreation Level Conditions (January 1978 Dollars)
Unit Costs
$ per person$ per acre
Category V
Capital cost 647 10,188
Category V
O&M cost 18.38 289
Category V
Equivalent annual cost 77.68 1,223
Category VI
Capital cost 473 1,913
Category VI
O&M cost 22.84 92.37
Category VI
Equivalent annual cost 66.20 268
Note: Capital costs are total estimated grant-eligible costs,
including planning design and construction. O&M costs and
equivalent annual cost are both expressed as dollars per year.
__
-------
40% of the combined sewer solids which are now discharged to the
receiving water. However, the streetsweeping/sewer flushing
combination has an obvious cost advantage. Although sewer flushing
is a promising low-cost technology for control of pollution from
combined sewer overflow, it has not been tested on a full-scale
areawide basis. Further testing is necessary to confirm the
cost effectiveness indicated in small-scale demonstration studies
completed to date.
The difference in year 2000 aesthetics level costs in the case of
urban stormwater runoff control is explained by differing assumptions
related to the cost of storage of stormwater in newly developing
areas, in the 1976 Needs Survey, the cost of storing stormwater
runoff was assumed to be $0.50 per gallon, which is a typical
unit cost for concrete storage basins. In the 1978 Needs Survey,
it was assumed that stormwater storage could be designed into new
developments in such a manner that earthen detention basins would
be utilized. A typical unit cost for this type of facility is
approximately $0.03 per gallon.
The 1978 estimated cost to achieve the fish and wildlife objective
is also lower than the 1976 estimated cost for both Categories V
and VI. The major reason for the estimated decrease in fish and
wildlife objective needs is the economic optimization analysis
considered in the needs computations. This optimization results
in the selection of the most cost-effective mix of technologies
at a given site for a specified level of pollutant removal. The
economic optimization of pollution control alternatives is a
major enhancement of the 1978 needs estimate over the 1976 approach.
The 1978 estimated cost to achieve the recreation receiving water
quality objective is somewhat higher for combined sewer overflow
control and slightly lower for urban stormwater runoff control.
The approximately 21% increase in estimated construction cost for
Category V needs is due to two factors. First, identified combined
sewer service area has increased from approximately 2-1/4 million
acres in the 1976 Needs Survey to approximately 2-1/2 million
acres in the 1978 Needs Survey. Second, a more accurate estimate
of storage volume required to achieve the recreation receiving
water quality goal was utilized in the 1978 needs computations.
This technique yields slightly larger values for required storage
volume.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The major objective of this project is to develop updated nationwide
cost estimates for control of pollution from combined sewer
overflow (Category V) and urban stormwater runoff (Category VI)
on a State-by-State basis.
A secondary objective is to establish the National Combined Sewer
System Data File. This file contains information on every known
combined sewer system in the nation, including location, sewer
ES-3
-------
system and receiving water characteristics, and the status of
current Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) planning.
Receiving water quality objectives are developed in order to
evaluate the need for control of pollution from combined sewer
overflow and stormwater runoff based on beneficial use of the
receiving water. The objectives are defined for three levels
of water quality: aesthetics level, fish and wildlife level, and
recreation level.
The indicator pollutants selected for the aesthetics objective
are floatable and settleable solids, and the objective is based
on criteria proposed by EPA in "Quality Criteria for Water."
The indicator pollutants selected for the fish and wildlife
objective are suspended solids, carbonaceous BOD (CBOD), nitrogenous
BOD (NBOD), dissolved lead, and total phosphorus (for lakes).
The objective is to provide a receiving water suitable for the
propagation of fish and wildlife. For this purpose, the allowable
suspended solids concentration from combined sewer overflow and
urban stormwater runoff was chosen to not exceed the mean value
of background suspended solids for the receiving water on an
annual basis, with a minimum limit of 25 mg/1.
The selected criteria for removal of oxygen-demanding pollutants
(CBOD and NBOD) are based on dissolved oxygen toxicity limits for
juvenile brook trout and on "Quality Criteria for Water," as
follows.
The minimum receiving water dissolved oxygen concentration
shall not average less than 2.0 mg/1 for more than 4
consecutive hours; nor shall the minimum receiving water
dissolved oxygen concentration average less than 3.0 mg/1
for more than 72 consecutive hours (3 days). In addition,
the annual average receiving water dissolved oxygen concen-
tration shall be greater than 5.0 mg/1 for all waters which
will support warm water species and shall be greater than
6.0 mg/1 for all waters which will support cold water (salmoid)
species.
In cases where the DO criteria cannot be met even if all pollutants
from combined sewer overflow and stormwater runoff are removed,
the removal requirements are based on elimination of 90% of the
occurrences of low DO (<2.0 mg/1) which can be controlled.
The criteria for dissolved lead removal, based on extremely
limited dissolved lead toxicity data for rainbow trout were developed
as follows.
1. The mean instream 96-hour (time averaged) dissolved lead
concentration should not exceed 0.33 mg/1.
2. The long-term mean instream dissolved lead concentration
should not exceed 0.01 mg/1 in soft waters (hardness <100
mg/1) or 0.025 mg/1 in hard waters (hardness >100 mg/1).
ES-4
-------
Removal of phosphorus to meet the fish and wildlife objective is
applied to all sources discharging into the receiving water with
average annual lake phosphorus concentrations not exceeding
0.025 mg/1.
The objective of the recreation level is to obtain the fish and
wildlife level and, in addition, meet the fecal coliform bacteria
criteria recommended in "Quality Criteria for Water," which are
as follows.
Based on a minimum of five samples taken over a 30-day
period, the fecal coliform bacterial level should not exceed
a log mean of 200 per 100 ml nor should more than 10% of
the total samples taken during any 30-day period exceed 400
per 100 ml.
Since combined sewer overflow and separate stormwater runoff both
have very high fecal coliform concentrations, it was assumed that
any nondisinfected discharge from these two sources will exceed
the above criteria. Therefore, a high level of control will be
required to meet this water quality objective. Treatment of all
but two overflow events per year was selected as the basis for
estimating facility needs to meet the recreation receiving water
quality objective.
The incremental cost to achieve the recreation water quality
objective (i.e., waters safe for full body contact) beyond the
cost to protect fish and wildlife is $14.8 billion for Category V
and $32.5 billion for Category VI. The costs reported in this
1978 Needs Survey depend upon the water quality criteria adopted
to achieve the recreation water quality objectives. As discussed
in Chapter 2, there is considerable uncertainty related to selec-
tion of bacteriological quality criteria for urban stormwater
runoff and combined sewer overflow. Considering the magnitude of
the incremental needs, additional research in the field of bacte-
riological contamination risks is warranted.
CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Alternative technologies for the control of combined sewer overflow
and urban stormwater runoff are categorized into: (1) source
controls, (2) collection system controls,,and (3) treatment
facilities.
To control pollutants at their source, management practices must
be applied where pollutants accumulate. Streetsweeping and
combined sewer flushing are examples of such techniques.
Collection system controls are implemented to provide maximum
transmission of flows for treatment and disposal while minimizing
overflow, bypass, and local flooding. Flow reduction, sewer
separation, and inline storage are techniques used for control in
the collection system. Flow reduction minimizes infiltration and
ES-5
-------
inflow and requires a thorough analysis of the existing sewer
system. Sewer separation may be a cost-effective control alternative
for small watersheds. Inline storage reduces the amount of
overflow and may utilize remote combined sewer system monitoring
and control as well as real time control. The capital costs and
annual operation and maintenance costs of these control systems
are site-specific and could not be evaluated on a national basis
in this project.
Treatment facilities considered include the following.
1. Offline storage.
2. Sedimentation.
3. Dissolved air flotation.
4. Screens and microscreens.
5. High-rate filtration.
6. Swirl and helical concentrators.
7. Chemical additions.
8. Coagulation and flocculation.
9. Biological treatment.
10. High-gradient magnetic separation.
11. Carbon adsorption.
12. Disinfection.
13. Sludge disposal.
Information on capital and operation and maintenance costs as
well as on process pollutant removal efficiencies are required
for a given technology in order to be considered in the national
needs estimate. Such information is available for most but not
all of the above technologies. Based on available information,
the following physical/chemical treatment processes appear to be
the most cost effective and were utilized as a basis for estimating
the cost of treatment facilities.
1. Microscreen (23-micron).
2. Flocculation-sedimentation.
3. High-rate filtration.
4. Dissolved air flotation (with prescreening and chemical
addition).
Offline storage, along with the above treatment processes were
used to define five treatment trains which obtain maximum pollutant
removal at least cost. These treatment trains are illustrated in
Chapter 5. Application of the Needs Estimation Program (Appendix D)
indicates that it is cost effective in general to provide signifi-
cant amounts of storage as opposed to relying on high-rate treatment
systems during the runoff period. If storage sites are not available,
alternative treatment methods may be cost effective (Chapter 3); the
Needs Estimation Program, however, assumes the availability of
storage/treatment sites at the stated costs. The storage/treatment
systems associated with the $25.7 billion estimate for the control
of pollution from combined sewer overflow, Category V, amounts to
62 billion gallons of storage for Urbanized Areas, with a mean
dewatering time for a full storage facility of 4.5 days. Similarly,
ES-6
-------
the storage/treatment systems associated with the $61.7 billion
estimate for the control of pollution from urban stormwater runoff,
Category VI, amounts to 800 billion gallons of storage nationally,
with a mean dewatering time for a full storage facility of 6 days.
Production theory, along with marginal cost analysis, was used to
identify the optimum mix of source controls and storage/treatment
facilities required to achieve a desired pollutant removal.
Production functions which define a relationship between level of
effort and pollutant removal were developed from the literature.
Sufficient information is available to define production functions
for streetsweeping, sewer flushing, and storage/treatment systems.
The results of this investigation, including application of the
Needs Estimation Program (Appendix D), indicate that there is no
single best technology for the control of combined sewer overflow
or urban stormwater runoff which is applicable to all situations.
The required treatment level and optimum mix of control technolo-
gies varies from city to city. The procedure used to determine
the optimum mix of pollution control technologies is presented in
Chapter 9.
SITE STUDIES
Site studies were conducted in order to develop information
related to receiving water impacts of CSO and urban stormwater
runoff and information related to the economic optimization of
facilities to control pollution from these sources. Therefore,
the site studies consisted of two relatively independent phases.
Phase I utilized continuous hydrologic simulation to evaluate
receiving water impacts of all major pollution sources in selected
urban areas and Phase II utilized production theory and marginal
cost analysis to identify optimum control technologies. This
information was then used to develop transferable principles and
relationships which were used in the estimation of national
needs.
The three main objectives of the receiving water impact site
studies were to: (1) determine if a particular urban area/
receiving water system is presently exhibiting a water quality
problem, (2) determine how much of the problem, if any, is due to
CSO and stormwater runoff, and (3) determine the level of pollutant
removal required to achieve selected water quality goals.
The water quality response of a receiving stream depends not only
on the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff but also on the
quantity and quality of upstream flow as well as point sources of
pollution. These sources of pollutants and flow are largely
independent and are made up of random or stochastic components.
Thus, receiving water quality is the total effect of several
random processes. Interactions among these processes cannot be
represented adequately when addressed from the standpoint of a
ES-7
-------
single isolated rainfall/runoff event with discharge to assumed
or selected receiving water flow conditions. All events as they
occur in nature should be considered. In order to accomplish
this objective, continuous hydrologic/water quality simulation is
required.
The "Continuous Stormwater Pollution Simulation System" (CSPSS)
was developed specifically for use in the receiving water impact
portion of the site studies. CSPSS is a computer-based probabilistic
simulation model of an urban area receiving water system and will
generate long-term synthetic records of (1) rainfall, (2) runoff,
(3) runoff quality, (4) upstream receiving streamflow, (5) excess
sewer system infiltration, (6) dry-weather (point source) waste
discharges, and (7) receiving water quality response. In addition,
the simulation will account for storage and treatment of urban
runoff, including combined sewer overflow. Model components
utilize Monte Carlo and Markovian techniques to produce random
observations of variables where possible. The model will simulate,
on a long-term basis the operation of alternative storage/treatment
schemes and will provide stochastic information on overall reduction
of loadings and on frequency and magnitude of overflow. Overflow
events are then analyzed by the receiving water response portion
of the model to determine stochastic relationships between frequency
and magnitude of water quality violations and the size of storage
and treatment facilities. Once such information is known, appropriate
pollutant removal requirements can be selected based on the
receiving water quality desired.
Ten sites served by combined sewer systems were selected for
study, as follows.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Atlanta, Georgia
Portland, Oregon
Rochester, New York
Bucryus, Ohio
Des Moines, Iowa
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Washington, D.C.
Sacramento, California
Syracuse, New York
Five additional sites served by separate storm sewers were also
selected for study, as follows.
Durham, North Carolina
Castro Valley, California
Springfield, Missouri
Tulsa, Oklahoma
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Phase I site study results identified the pollutant removal
requirements for four indicator pollutants, suspended solids
(SS), ultimate oxygen demand (UOD), dissolved lead (Pb), and
ES-8
-------
phosphorus (P), at each study site where the indicator pollutant
was applicable. The following is a summary of the results for SS
and UOD removal requirements to meet the fish and wildlife water
quality objective.
Summary of Pollutant Removal Requirements
Resulting from Site Studies
Urban Stormwater
Combined Sewer Sites Runoff Sites
Pollutant
SS
UOD
Range
0%-91%
0%-93%
Mean
57%
67%
Range
41%-97%
0%-30%
Mean
81%
9%
Six of the study sites indicate that some lead removal is required
to meet the selected criteria. Long-term dissolved lead levels
for four of these six sites are dominated by the receiving water
background concentrations; hence, removal of lead from CSO and
urban stormwater runoff is not justified. Selection of a treatment
level which will provide the required suspended solids removal
for the other two sites will also provide for the required lead
removal. Therefore, lead removal requirements were not directly
considered in estimation of the needs for CSO and urban stormwater
runoff.
Although no nationally applicable method for estimating lead
removal requirements could be obtained from the results of the
site studies, several conclusions regarding dissolved lead impacts
can be made.
1. Our understanding of dissolved lead toxicity in natural
waters is inadequate to establish justifiable limits. Much
additional research on both acute and chronic lead toxicity
for a number of representative species is required.
2. The data base on which background receiving water lead
concentrations are determined is inadequate. Background
lead has been shown to dominate the system at four of the
six study sites which indicate a potential dissolved lead
problem. Data which define background receiving water lead
concentrations are few and quite variable.
3. Receiving waters with background hardness greater than
approximately 250 mg/1 are unlikely to experience dissolved
lead toxicity problems.
4. Design of stormwater management systems based on the suspended
solids and dissolved oxygen criteria outlined in this report
ES-9
-------
will result in substantial watershed lead removals. Additional
removals, if any, necessary to obtain acceptable receiving
water dissolved lead concentrations are indeterminate at
this time.
One study site discharges directly to a lake and a phosphorus
removal requirement of 80% from the CSO portion of the load is
indicated. However, wastewater treatment plant effluent, not
CSO, is the predominant source of phosphorus pollution.
The most cost-effective combination of control alternatives for
achieving any desired level of pollutant removal was established
by the economic optimization (Phase II), which is based on marginal
cost analysis and production theory. Streetsweeping, sewer
flushing, and storage/treatment are the three control options
considered.
In stormwater pollution control, the objective is to remove
pollutants from the receiving water. The objective of the economic
analysis is to identify the most cost-effective mix of Streetsweeping,
sewer flushing, and storage/treatment systems which will achieve
various levels of pollutant removal.
The technique is used to determine control alternatives to achieve
any desired level of BOD5 or SS removal from three basic watershed
categories. The three watershed categories are (1) watersheds
with only combined sewer overflow (CSO), (2) watersheds with only
stormwater runoff (SWR), and (3) watersheds with both CSO and
SWR. The four study sites selected to represent these watershed
categories are: (1) Castro Valley, California (SWR only), (2)
Bucyrus, Ohio (CSO only), (3) Des Moines, Iowa (both CSO and
SWR), and (4) Milwaukee, Wisconsin (both CSO and SWR). All three
of the selected control options were analyzed on the CSO watersheds
and Streetsweeping and storage/treatment were analyzed on the
stormwater runoff watersheds.
A complete tabulation of the optimum total costs and pollutant
removals by watershed and control option is presented in Chapter 9.
The results of the economic optimization indicate that it is
generally more cost-effective to employ a mix of technologies
rather than a single technology. Furthermore, source controls
are generally most useful when overall pollutant removal requirements
are low and storage/treatment systems are most useful when
overall pollutant removal requirements are high.
NEEDS ESTIMATE
The combined sewer data used in the estimation of the 1978 needs
were obtained by establishing the National Combined Sewer System
Data File, which includes the location, sewer system and receiving
water characteristics, and the status of CSO planning for each
identified combined sewer system in the nation.
ES-10
-------
The actual data were collected by Dames and Moore, Inc., using
guidelines provided by CH2M HILL. The resulting data file contains
information on 1,143 combined sewer systems nationwide.
Data from the National Combined Sewer System Data File were used
in part to establish the Urbanized Area Data Base, which is used
directly in the estimation of Categories V and VI needs.
As of 1 January 1978, there were 279 Urbanized Areas defined in
the nation. Thirty-five of the Urbanized Areas encompassed area
in two states and three Urbanized Areas encompassed area in three
states. By subdividing the Urbanized Areas by state, a total of
320 areas were defined for estimation of Categories V and VI needs.
The Urbanized Area Data Base consists primarily of the following
items.
1. Demographic data.
a. The items in this category are the combined sewer
service area and the population served by combined
sewers, the Urbanized Area population and size, the
year 1970 SMSA population and year 2000 SMSA population
estimate, and the citywide EPA construction cost
factor.
2. Hydrologic data.
a. The items in this category are the number of days with
rain per year, the mean annual rainfall, the receiving
water classification, the mean annual flow of the
receiving water, and the natural runoff coefficient.
3. Water quality data.
a. The items in this category are maximum monthly receiving
water temperature; background BOD, suspended solids
lead, hardness, alkalinity, and pH of the receiving
water.
The Non-Urbanized Area Data Base, similar to the Urbanized Area
Data Base, was also developed to estimate the needs for the
combined sewer systems located outside of the Bureau of Census-
defined Urbanized Areas.
A needs estimation computer program for Categories V and VI
developed for the 1978 Needs Survey calculates present and year
2000 capital and operation and maintenance costs for the aesthetics
level, the fish and wildlife level, and the recreation level.
The SS and BOD5 removal requirements for the fish and wildlife
objective were computed and an estimate of the optimum mix of
pollutant removal by sewer system type was obtained. The level
of effort, pollutant removal, and cost of management practices
ES-11
-------
were then computed, followed by selection of an appropriate
treatment level and, finally, establishment of the required
annual pollutant capture. The optimum combination of storage
volume and treatment rate was then determined. This storage/
treatment cost minimization, together with the use of appropriate
management practices, is the basis of the economic optimization
of facility needs to meet the fish and wildlife water quality
objective. Pollutant removal determinations, selection of control
technologies, levels of effort, and facility sizes are based on
the results of the site studies.
Needs for the recreation objective are based on treatment and
disinfection of nearly all combined sewer overflow and urban
stormwater runoff in order to eliminate bacterial contamination
from these sources. An allowable discharge of two untreated
overflow events per year has been selected as the basis for
estimating facility needs.
Needs estimates for the year 2000 are based on the assumption
that no new combined sewer systems will be constructed and that
all population growth will occur in the separate sewer service
area. Therefore, year 2000 Category V needs are equal to present
Category V needs.
It is further assumed that existing population densities will
remain constant and that new growth will be accommodated by an
increase in urbanized land area and not by an increase in population
density. Based on these assumptions, Urbanized Area characteristics
in the year 2000 are computed and a needs estimate for these
conditions was developed.
A sensitivity and correlation analysis performed on the Urbanized
Area needs estimates for Categories V and VI indicate that the
development of a more reliable needs estimate will depend upon
development of more reliable information on almost all aspects of
the problem. This analysis also indicates that needs for a given
municipality are highly correlated with land area and number of
persons served.
ES-12
-------
8
PART I
NEEDS SURVEY OBJECTIVES
-------
Chapter 1
BACKGROUND
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, PL
92-500, requires the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to estimate the needs of publicly owned treatment
facilities to meet the 1983 water quality requirements of PL 92-
500. Section 516(b) of PL 92-500 requires EPA to make a detailed
estimate of individual State needs as well as total national
needs for the construction of all publicly owned treatment works.
The national needs survey is to be completed biennially and
submitted to Congress not later than 10 February of each odd
numbered year. This report presents the 1978 estimate of needs
for control of pollution from combined sewer overflow and urban
stormwater runoff as well as a description of the criteria,
methods, and assumptions used to develop the needs estimates.
PREVIOUS NEEDS ESTIMATES
The first comprehensive needs survey was the 1973 Survey of Needs
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The 1973 Needs
Survey focused on the needs to achieve the 1977 requirements of
PL 92-500. The needs were determined for five categories: I -
Secondary Treatment, II - More Stringent Treatment, III -
Infiltration/Inflow Correction, IVa - New Interceptor Sewers,
IVb - New Collector Sewers, and V - Combined Sewer Overflow
Correction. Identified needs totaled $60.123 billion. Needs for
stormwater control and major sewer system rehabilitation were not
included in the 1973 Needs Survey.
Even though EPA's final report on the 1973 Needs Survey was not
submitted to Congress until November 1973, a new survey was
needed in 1974 to meet the requirement of PL 92-500 for an updated
report by 10 February 1975. Recognizing a need to address the
cost for achieving the 1983 goals of PL 92-500 as well as the
eligible costs for the treatment and/or control of stormwater,
Congress, through passage of PL 93-243, required EPA to amend the
1973 survey approach to include these projects in the new needs
survey.
The 1974 Needs Survey divided Category III into Ilia - Infil-
tration/Inflow Correction and Ilib - Major Sewer System
Rehabilitation and added Category VI - Treatment and/or Control
of Stormwaters. The subcategories of Category IV were renumbered
so that all collectors were reported in Category IVa and
interceptors were reported in Category IVb. A limited amount of
time was available for the states and local authorities to complete
the 1974 Needs Survey. During mid-May 1974, regional meetings
were conducted by EPA to provide the States with guidance, including
instructions on preparation of Category VI needs for the treatment
1-1
-------
and/or control of stormwaters. The time restrictions for the
survey required the states to submit a summary report by 26 July
1974 and a final State report by 20 August 1974. Also, EPA was
required to supply Congress with a preliminary report by 3 September
1974.
The results of the 1974 Needs Survey showed that needs to meet
the objectives of Categories I through IV totaled $76.360 billion.
The estimated needs for Categories V and VI were $31.076 billion
and $235.006 billion, respectively. The reported costs for
Category V in 1974 increased by some 245% over those in 1973.
Both surveys considered needs for the projected 1990 population
and reported in June 1973 dollars.
EPA provided specific guidance to the States and municipalities
for Categories I through IV. Some guidance was available for
Category V and only general guidance was presented for Category
VI. However, the results were to be used as a basis for allocating
federal funds and varying methods and assumptions were utilized
which impacted the results of the needs estimates. These variations
in methods, assumptions, and results identified a need for a
uniform technique to be applied nationwide.
Under authority of Section 315 of PL 92-500, the National Commission
on Water Quality (NCWQ) developed an independent survey to estimate
the costs of achieving the requirements of PL 92-500 for publicly
owned treatment works. This nationwide assessment involved four
basic steps: 1) an identification of needed facilities and
applicable technologies, 2) a determination of available
technologies likely to be used and their costs, 3) an assignment
of available technologies to individual needs, followed by 4)
addition of costs. A similar approach was taken in estimating
quantities of residual wastes generated and requirements for
manpower, energy, materials, and land. The NCWQ survey resulted
in a range of cost estimates for control of pollution from combined
sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff, depending on the
level of control achieved. The NCWQ investigation did apply a
uniform set of assumptions criteria and methods nationwide and
did, therefore, correct some of the deficiencies of the 1974
needs survey.
The 1976 Needs Survey was conducted by EPA under contract with
several consultants. Separate contracts for Categories I through
IV and for Categories V and VI were let. Like the NCWQ Study,
the 1976 Needs Survey for Categories V and VI also employed a
uniform set of assumptions, criteria, and methods to develop the
nationwide estimates. In addition, the assimilative capacity of
the receiving water was considered in the establishment of pollutant
removal requirements.
Unlike previous surveys, the 1976 needs estimates for Categories
V and VI were developed for three different receiving water
1-2
-------
quality objectives: 1) aesthetics, 2) fish and wildlife, and 3)
recreation. Thus, state-by-state needs were associated with
various levels of receiving water use.
A summary of the results of previous capital cost estimates for
control of pollution from combined sewer overflow and urban
stormwater runoff is presented in Table 1-1. These results
include the 1973 Needs Survey, the 1974 Needs Survey, the NCWQ
estimate, and the 1976 Needs Survey. All costs are updated to
January 1978 dollars for direct comparison with the cost estimates
developed in this, 1978 Needs Survey Report.
1978 NEEDS SURVEY OBJECTIVES
The major objective of this project is to develop updated nationwide
cqst estimates on a State-by-State basis for control of pollution
from combined sewer overflow (Category V) and urban stormwater
runoff (Category VI). The term "State" as used in this report
shall include all 50 States, the District of Columbia, American
Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Trust Territories (including Wake
Island), and the Virgin Islands.
The cost estimates for the above two categories are divided into
the following six divisions for each State.
1. Current Year Capital Needs, Category V—Capital costs
needed to fund alternatives, sized for the current metropolitan
development pattern, to control selected pollutants in
combined sewer overflow.
2. Operation and Maintenance Costs, Category V—Annual equivalent
operation, maintenance, and repair cost during 20-year
planning period for alternatives to control selected pollutants
in combined sewer overflow.
3. Year 2000 Needs, Category V—Capital costs needed to fund
alternatives, sized for the year 2000 metropolitan development
pattern, to control selected pollutants in combined sewer
overflow.
4. Current Year Capital Needs, Category VI—Capital costs
needed to fund alternatives, sized for the current metropolitan
development pattern, to control selected pollutants in urban
stormwater runoff.
5. Operation and Maintenance Costs, Category VI--Annual equivalent
operation, maintenance, and repair costs during 20-year
planning period for alternatives to control selected pollutants
in urban stormwater runoff.
1-3
-------
Table 1-1
Comparison of Previous Capital Cost Estimates
for Control of Pollution from Combined Sewer
Overflow and Urban Stormwater Runoff
Capital Cost in Billions of January 1978 Dollars
1973 Needs 1974 Needs b
Category Survey Survey NCWQ Report 1976 Needs Survey
V—Combined 17.9 43.8 5.9-96.4 6.5, 14.0, 21.2
Sewer Overflow
VI—Urban — 331.2 64.8-491.8 23.7, 58.7, 62.8
Stormwater
Runoff
Total ~ 375.0 70.7-588.2 30.2, 72.7, 84.0
, Range indicates various control levels.
Values are for aesthetics, fish and wildlife, and recreation receiving
water quality criteria, respectively^ for year 1990 conditions. Values
for Category VI are for census defined Urbanized Areas only.
-------
6. Year 2000 Needs, Category VI—Capital costs needed to fund
alternatives, sized for the year 2000 metropolitan development
pattern, to control selected pollutants in urban stormwater
runoff.
An additional objective of this project in conjunction with the
Category I through IV portion of the needs survey is to establish
a National Combined Sewer System Data File. This file contains
information on every known combined sewer system in the nation,
including location, sewer system characteristics, receiving water
characteristics, and the status of current CSO correction planning.
This data base is described in Chapter 11 and is used in part to
estimate Category V needs.
1978 NEEDS SURVEY METHOD
The approach taken in the 1978 Needs Survey for Categories V and
VI is in many ways similar to the approach taken in the 1976
Needs Survey. Both investigations developed cost estimates for
achieving three levels of receiving water quality, the aesthetics
level, the fish and wildlife level, and the recreation level.
Both investigations considered the assimilative capacity of the
receiving water in the determination of pollutant removal
requirements. Finally, both investigations utilized specific
site studies to determine the interactions of an urban area, its
pollutant production characteristics, and receiving water quality.
The major differences between the 1976 Needs Survey approach and
the 1978 Needs Survey approach are specific improvements of the
1976 method. The major improvements include: 1) development of
probabilistic wet-weather receiving water quality criteria, 2)
development and application of a continuous stochastic urban
runoff and receiving water response simulation model for the
purpose of estimating pollutant removal benefits and requirements
at the study sites, and 3) application of production theory and
marginal cost analysis in order to determine the optimum mix of
structural and nonstructural pollution abatement controls. These
major technical improvements along with the development of an
expanded combined sewer data base significantly improve the
quality of the 1978 needs estimate for Categories V and VI.
The 1976 Needs Survey approach utilized a single "design storm"
simulation to estimate receiving water quality response, whereas
the approach for the 1978 Needs Survey utilizes continuous
hydrologic simulation. As part of this project, a linked rainfall/
runoff receiving water response model known as the "Continuous
Stormwater Pollution Simulation System" was developed for use in
the site studies. This model is briefly described in Chapter 7,
and a user manual (FRD-4) has been prepared as a separate volume.
The model can be used to simulate the water quality response of a
one dimensional receiving stream to intermittent combined sewer
1-5
-------
overflow (CSO) and urban stormwater runoff (SWR) as well as
upstream river flow and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent
on a long-term continuous basis. In this manner, the water
quality effects of changes in any of the pollutant sources can
be estimated. Continuous simulation is a conceptually more
realistic representation of the behavior of stormwater/water
quality response systems than is the single event simulation used
in 1976.
Once the pollutant removal requirements were determined based on
the selected receiving water quality criteria and on the results
of the continuous simulation, control alternatives, and their
costs were developed. The 1976 approach did not provide for
identification of optimum pollution control strategies; whereas,
the approach utilized for 1978 provides for the selection of
optimum mix and sizing of control alternatives.
The information obtained from the 15 site studies, including the
economic optimization, is utilized in a manner similar to the
1976 approach for the development of the actual cost estimates.
An Urbanized Area data base, also enhanced, expanded, and updated
from the 1976 version, is utilized along with updated cost equations
to develop a needs estimate for each Urbanized Area for both
Categories V and VI. In addition, needs estimates are developed
for all combined sewer service areas located outside of Urbanized
Areas. The overall approach is similar to the 1976 method although
the details of many calculations have been changed. The computation
procedure is described in Chapter 12.
1-6
-------
Chapter 2
RECEIVING WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to develop criteria for the
evaluation of receiving water impacts due to combined sewer
overflow and urban stormwater runoff. Receiving water quality
criteria must be developed in order to evaluate the need for
control of pollution from stormwater and other sources. Any
criteria selected will be arbitrary to some extent. However,
without such criteria, a "needs estimate" cannot be developed.
The selection of pollutants to be controlled and the establish-
ment of receiving water quality criteria for these pollutants may
be viewed as the formulation of abatement objectives. Abatement
objectives or overall pollution control goals are not only
technical questions but are also policy and management questions.
The water quality criteria are developed on a probabilistic
basis. That is, in addition to the selection of a numeric limit
for a given water quality parameter, an allowable frequency of
exceedance of this limit is also specified. The water quality
criteria are also developed on a national basis as was done in
the 1976 Needs Survey, but the actual numeric limits may vary
with geographic location and with background receiving water
quality.
Criteria are developed for three levels of water quality: (1)
aesthetics, (2) fish and wildlife, and (3) recreation. Total
dollar needs to achieve each of these levels of water quality are
developed, based in part upon the selected receiving water quality
objectives. These dollar estimates are presented in Part IV,
"Needs Estimate," of this report.
INDICATOR POLLUTANTS
Since it is impossible to consider all pollutants which may enter
a receiving water via combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater
runoff, indicator pollutants must be selected for evaluation and
control.
The indicator pollutants which vary by receiving water quality
objective, are listed as follows.
1. Aesthetics objective.
a. Floatable solids.
2-1
-------
b. Settleable solids.
2. Fish and wildlife objective.
a. Suspended solids.
b. Carbonaceous BOD (BOD5).
c. Nitrogenous BOD (TKN).
d. Dissolved lead.
e. Total phosphorus (for lakes).
3. Recreation objective.
a. Suspended solids.
b. Carbonaceous BOD (BOD5).
c. Nitrogenous BOD (TKN).
d. Dissolved lead.
e. Total phosphorus (for lakes).
f. Fecal coliforms.
For practical purposes, the above list represents the pollutants
for which reasonable estimates of pollutant washoff and receiving
water impact may be developed. Other materials such as pesticides
or heavy metals other than lead may potentially require control;
however, not enough is known about their occurrence in the urban
system to evaluate potential impacts.
Inclusion of a pollutant in the above list does not necessarily
mean that removal of that pollutant will actually impact the
magnitude of the needs estimate. It does mean, however, that the
above pollutants are considered in the formulation of receiving
water quality criteria and that receiving water impacts are
evaluated in the 15 site studies.
AESTHETICS OBJECTIVE
The following criteria were applied to the aesthetics objective
in the 1976 Needs Survey.1
"All waters are to be aesthetically compatible to adjacent
areas. All waters shall be free from oil, scum, and floating
debris associated with cultural activities in amounts
sufficient to be unsightly.
2-2
-------
"All waters shall be free from materials associated with
cultural activities which will settle and form significant
sediment or sludge deposits that become unsightly or interfere
with stream capacities."
Criteria proposed by EPA in "Quality Criteria for Water" for the
aesthetics level are:2
"All waters free from substances attributable to wastewater
or other discharges that:
1. settle to form objectionable deposits;
2. float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter to form
nuisances;
3. produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity;
4. injure or are toxic or produce adverse physiological
responses in humans, animals, or plants; and
5. produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life."
The above two sets of criteria are essentially the same and
provide a baseline or minimal requirement for freedom from
pollution. The EPA criteria has been adopted as the goal of the
aesthetics objective in the 1978 Needs Survey.
Specific quantitative values are not associated with the aesthetics
objective which implies a minimum technology-based level of
control for all combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater
runoff.
FISH AND WILDLIFE OBJECTIVE
The suitability of a receiving water body for propagation of fish
and wildlife is largely a function of in-stream water quality.
However, other factors such as the variability of the flow will
affect suitability. For example, if a stream or lake is dry
during certain portions of the year, then it cannot be expected
to maintain a viable fishery even if the water quality is very
good. M jr JT
Dissolved oxygen concentration is one of the most important
indicators of the ability of a water body to support a well-
balanced aquatic fauna. Urban areas adversely affect the DO
resources of a water body by introduction of carbonaceous oxygen
demand (CBOD) and nitrogenous oxygen demand (NBOD) during periods
of wet weather. Therefore, the combined effects of these two
pollutants may be evaluated by considering the DO budget of the
receiving stream.
2-3
-------
Excess suspended solids will also adversely affect the suitability
of a stream to support a viable fishery. The extent of this
effect is to a large degree a function of the background or
natural suspended solids load carried by the receiving water.
Toxic materials such as heavy metals and pesticides may have
undesirable effects on the aquatic life of a water body. Lead is
one heavy metal which has been associated with urban runoff
largely due to the current use of leaded gasoline.
In the case of lakes, overenrichment with nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus will cause excessive growth of undesirable
aquatic weeds and algae which will interfere with the natural
fishery. This process, when induced by nutrients added by man,
has been termed cultural eutrophication. In some cases, the
algae will produce large diurnal fluctations in dissolved oxygen
which will also reduce the ability of the lake to maintain a
balanced fishery. In extreme cases, an algal bloom may be generated
which will eventually die and exert a short-term oxygen demand
which depletes the oxygen resource and results in a fishkill.
It has been shown that, in most cases, phosphorus is the growth-
limiting nutrient and that control of phosphorus will result in
the control of cultural eutrophication;
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
The dissolved oxygen criteria proposed by EPA in "Quality Criteria
for Water" for freshwater aquatic life are given as follows.
"Freshwater aquatic life: A minimum concentration of dissolved
oxygen to maintain good fish populations is 5.0 mg/1. The
criterion for salmonid spawning beds is a minimum of 5.0
mg/1 in the interstitial water of the gravel."
Most states have established fish and wildlife standards which
are in substantial agreement with the criteria suggested above.
Many states differentiate between cold water species (i.e.,
salmonids) and warm water species. The most often cited limit
for cold water species is 6.0 mg/1, whereas the limit for warm
water species is 5.0 mg/1.
The above limits define the lower end of the DO range at which a
healthy fish population can be maintained. However, DO
concentrations as low as 2 to 3 mg/1 can be tolerated infrequently
for short durations without causing fishkills. Therefore, it
appears to be appropriate to establish a minimum DO limit and an
allowable frequency of exceedance of selected DO limits.
Conventional wastewater treatment plant design is based on an
analysis of the DO budget of the receiving water during low flow
conditions. The generally accepted criterion is to maintain a DO
2-4
-------
level at or above the minimum level during the 7-day, 10-year low
flow event, defined as that low flow rate which will occur for 7
consecutive days an average of once in any given 10-year period.
Thus, facility needs for the conventional wastewater treatment
plant are defined by a receiving water impact analysis whereby
the required degree of treatment is based on maintaining a minimum
DO level at all times except during extreme low flow conditions;
Thus, an allowable frequency of exceedance of water quality
criteria is incorporated into the design; and therefore, the
cost of facilities for the control of pollution from municipal
wastewater.
The intent of the fish and wildlife objective is to provide a
receiving water suitable for the propagation of fish and wildlife
and to prevent severe and/or frequent man-induced fish kills. A
viable fishery can be maintained if the DO level is generally
above 5.0 mg/1, and fish kills will occur only if the DO drops to
low levels for significant durations and the fish are unable to
move to another part of the water body where DO levels are higher.
From available data3, a relationship between safe and lethal
levels of DO for various durations has been developed and is
illustrated on Figure 2-1. This DO level duration relationship
is based on measured survival times of Juvenile Brook Trout when
subjected to lethal levels of DO. Juvenile Brook Trout are a
very sensitive indicator species. Therefore, the relationship
shown in Figure 2-1 is conservative for most receiving waters.
The selected criteria based on the relationship given in Figure 2-1
and on "Quality Criteria for Water" are given as follows.
The minimum receiving water dissolved oxygen concentration
shall not average less than 2.0 mg/1 for more than 4
consecutive hours; nor shall the minimum receiving water
dissolved oxygen concentration average less than 3.0 mg/1
for more than 72 consecutive hours (3 days). In addition,
the annual average receiving water dissolved oxygen
concentration shall be greater than 5.0 mg/1 for all waters
which will support warm water species and shall be greater
than 6.0 mg/1 for all waters which will support cold water
(salmoid) species.
The results of the simulation studies, which are discussed in
Chapters 8 and 10, indicate that, if the 2.0 mg/1 for 4 consecutive
hours criterion is met, then, in general, all other criteria are
met. That is, this criterion, in most cases, controls the level
of BOD removal required. If this condition occurs infrequently
and for short durations, then only a small volume of water will
be affected and fish kills will be unlikely. That is, the fish
will be able to escape the small volume of poor quality water
during the time of minimum DO level. For this reason, an allowable
frequency exceedance of the 2.0-mg/l criteria of one 4-hour
period per year has been selected as the basis for establishment
of BOD removal requirements.
2-5
-------
100.01
10.0-
oc
o
oc
O
1.0-
0.1-
72 Hours (3 Days)
SAFE
10%-INDICATES
MORTALITY
PERCENTAGE
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
DISSOLVED OXYGEN, MG/L
3.0 3.5
FIGURE 2-1. Mortality of Juvenile Brook Trout due to low DO levels.
-------
It should be noted that, in some cases, the DO criteria for the
fish and wildlife objective cannot be met even if all pollutants
are removed from the combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater
runoff. In these cases, removal requirements are based on
elimination of 90% of the occurrences of low DO (i.e., <2.0 mg/1)
which can be controlled. For example, if a receiving water is
subject to 100 occurrences per year of mean 4-hour DO less then
2.0 and if removal of all BOD from urban stormwater runoff and
CSO will reduce the number to 70 per year, BOD removal requirements
will be based on elimination of 27 of the 30 controllable low DO
events.
Suspended Solids (SS)
The solids (suspended and settleable) and turbidity criteria
proposed by EPA in "Quality Criteria for Water" for freshwater
fish and other aquatic life are given below.
"Settleable and suspended solids should not reduce the depth
of the compensation point for photosynthetic activity by
more than 10 percent from the seasonally established norm
for aquatic life."
The above criteria are difficult to interpret from the standpoint
of establishment of numeric limits above which the aquatic
environment will be harmed. However, the philosophy proposed is
to base the receiving water standard on the background or natural
water quality. That is, receiving waters with high natural
turbidity are considered to be relatively insensitive to added
suspended material/ whereas receiving waters with low natural
turbidity are considered to be sensitive to added suspended
materials. This sensitivity is measured as a function of light
penetration.
It has been shown that light penetration in north Florida lakes
is inversely and linearly related to color and turbidity.4 That
is, if other factors are .constant, light penetration and, therefore,
photosynthetic activity may reasonably be assumed to be inversely
proportional to turbidity.
It is well known that suspended solids concentrations affect
turbidity and that an increase in.suspended solids will result in
an increase in turbidity. Turbidity is an optical property that
causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather than transmitted
in straight lines. This scattering of light is caused by the
presence of suspended matter. Attempts to develop general
correlations between suspended matter and turbidity have proved
impractical because the size, shape, and refractive index of the
particles are important and vary from place to place.5
The European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission reviewed the
effects of suspended solids on fish in 1965.6 This study resulted
2-7
-------
in the following conclusions relating to inert solids concentrations
and satisfactory water quality for fish life.
1. There is no evidence that concentrations of suspended solids
less than 25 mg/1 have any harmful effects on fisheries.
2. It should usually be possible to maintain good or moderate
fisheries in waters which normally contain 25 to 80 mg/1
suspended solids. Other factors being equal, however, the
yield of fish from such waters might be somewhat lower than
with less than 25 mg/1.
3. Waters normally containing from 80 to 400 mg/1 suspended
solids are unlikely to support good freshwater fisheries,
although fisheries may sometimes be found at the lower
concentrations within this range.
4. At best, only poor fisheries are likely to be found in
waters which normally contain more than 400 mg/1 suspended
solids.
The Commission report also stated that exposure to several thousand
mg/1 for several hours or days may not kill fish and that other
inert or organic solids may be substantially more toxic.
Based on the above review of suspended solids and their effects
on freshwater aquatic life, the selected criteria for evaluation
of facility needs for control of pollution from combined sewer
overflow and urban stormwater runoff to achieve .the fish and
wildlife receiving water quality goal are stated as follows.
"The mean value of suspended solids concentration discharged
to the receiving water from urban stormwater and CSO sources
should not exceed the mean value of natural background
suspended solids concentration for the subject receiving
water on an annual basis."
The above general criteria will apply except in cases where the
allowable mean value of suspended solids concentration is less
than 25 mg/1. In this case, a discharge limit of 25 mg/1 shall
apply. This exception is based on the conclusion reached in the
European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission study that
concentrations of suspended solids less than 25 mg/1 have no
harmful effects on fisheries.
Dissolved Lead (Pb)
The dissolved lead criteria proposed by EPA in "Quality Criteria
for Water" for freshwater fish are given below.
"0.01 times the 96-hour LC50 value, using the receiving or
comparable water as the diluent and soluble lead measurements
(using an 0.45 micron filter), for sensitive freshwater
resident species."
2-8
-------
Like the suspended solids criteria, the above criteria are also
difficult to interpret from the standpoint of establishment of
numeric limits above which the aquatic environment will be harmed.
The toxicity of lead in water is affected by pH, hardness, organic
materials, and the presence of other metals. In addition, the
solubility of lead in water is a function of pH, alkalinity, and
hardness and varies over several orders of magnitude.
As much as 5,000 tons of total lead per year may be added to the
aquatic environment as a result of urban runoff.2 However, it is
not known how much of this total is in the dissolved state. One
study of an urban watershed in central Illinois reports that only
about 10% of the lead washoff is soluble.7 The remainder is
associated with solids and eventually ends up in the sediments
and not in the water column.
This same study7 also reports that ingestion is not a primary
mode of lead uptake in fish. When fish (creek chubs) were fed
'foods with high lead content for 25 days, the body burden was not
increased. On the other hand, when fish (channel catfish) were
exposed to lead in solution, accumulation rates and final body
burdens were correlated to initial solution concentrations.
Thus, in order for fish to accumulate lead, it must be present in
soluble form in the water column.
The lead criteria proposed by EPA2 imply that only the soluble
fraction of aquatic lead is of concern. This conclusion is
supported by the results of the Illinois study.
A summary of total lead toxicity data for fish is reported in
"Quality Criteria for Water." Data on the 96-hour TL for various
warm and cold water species are reported in Tables 2-x and 2-2,
respectively.
Inspection of the data presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 reveals
that only one value of dissolved lead is reported in "Quality
Criteria for Water." The summary data indicate that measurements
of dissolved metals are not often made in acute toxicity bioassay
testing. Thus, these data are of little value when the objective
is to establish acute toxicity limits based on the dissolved
fraction.
Davies8 has reported results of both acute lead toxicity bioassays
and chronic (long-term) lead toxicity bioassays for rainbow trout
in which dissolved lead concentrations as well as total lead
concentrations were measured. A summary of the acute toxicity
data is given in Table 2-3.
Inspection of these data indicates that total lead, pH, alkalinity,
and hardness vary over a wide range, whereas the dissolved lead
fraction does not. Thus, it may be concluded (from this extremely
limited data base) that the 96-hour TL for rainbow trout is
approximately 1.32 mg/1 of dissolved lead.
2-9
-------
Table 2-1
Mean Total Lead Toxicity
Limits for Warm-Water Species
(96-hour TLm's)
Species
Bluegills
Bluegills
Flatheads
Flatheads
Flatheads
Flatheads
Flatheads
Flatheads
9 6 -hour TL
Total Pb m
(mg/1)
23.8
442
6.46
0.97
5.6
2.4
7.48
482
EI_
7.5
8.2
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
8.2
Alkalinity
(mg/1)
18
300
18
18
18
18
18
300
Hardness
(mg/1)
20
360
20
20
20
20
20
360
Note: Data are summarized from "Quality Criteria for Water."
2 - 10
-------
Table 2-2
Mean Total and Dissolved Lead
Toxicity Limits for Cold-Water Species
(96-hour TLm's)
96 -hour TL
Total Pb m Alkalinity
Species (ma/1) PH (mg/1)
Rainbow
trout
Rainbow
trout
Rainbow
trout
Brook
trout
Brook
trout
Coho
salmon
Coho
salmon
Coho
salmon
Coho
salmon
7.8 14
471 7.8 14
542 6.7 16
4.5 7.0 43
5.8 7.2 41
0.8
0.8
0.52 ~ — .
0.52
Hardness
(mg/1)
300
300
385
45
44
22
22
22
22
Dissolved
Pb
(mg/1)
1.38
—
—
--
—
—
—
--
—
Note: Data are summarized from "Quality Criteria for Water."
2-11
-------
Table 2-3
Summary of Acute Dissolved and Total
Lead Toxicity Data for Rainbow Trout
(Davies, 1976)
96-hour TL 96-hour TL
Dissolved Pb Total Pb m Alkalinity Hardness
(mg/1) (mg/1) pH (mg/1) (mg/1)
1.32 542 8.15 267 385
1.47 471 8.78 228 290
1.17 1.45 6.85 30 32
2 - 12
-------
Analysis of the acute toxicity results reported by Davies also
indicates that the dissolved lead concentration at which no kills
were observed in 96 hours is approximately 0.33 mg/1 dissolved
lead. These values ranged from 0.22 mg/1 to 0.48 mg/1. This
value may be considered to be a threshold above which fishkills
will begin to occur due to acute lead toxicity. Concentrations
below this value should not result in fishkills if the duration
of the concentration is 96 hours or less. These results indicated
that a safe (no kills) limit for dissolved lead acute toxicity is
approximately equal to 25% of the 96-hour TLm value.
Davies' data on chronic toxicity indicate that safe levels for
chronic effects are considerably lower than safe levels for acute
effects. Chronic toxicity limits should, however, be applied to
long-term average dissolved lead receiving water concentrations
and not to peak short-term (i.e., 96-hour) concentrations. The
no-effect dissolved lead limit for rainbow trout was determined
to be approximately equal to 0.01 mg/1 in soft water and 0.025
mg/1 in hard water. The above limits were computed by averaging
the values at which no chronic effects were observed with the
minimum value at which chronic effects were first observed. The
chronic effect observed in the Davies long-term experiments was
the development of "black tails" on the sample fish. These
experiments were conducted for a period of 19 months.
Based on the above discussion of dissolved lead toxicity, the
following criteria for evaluation of facility needs for control
of pollution from combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater
runoff to achieve the fish and wildlife receiving water quality
goal were selected.
1. The mean in-stream 96-hour (time averaged) dissolved lead
concentration should not exceed 0.33 mg/1.
2. The long-term mean in-stream dissolved lead concentration
should not exceed 0.01 mg/1 in soft waters (hardness less
than or equal to 100 mg/1) or 0.025 mg/1 in hard waters
(hardness greater than 100 mg/1).
The above criteria should prevent both fishkills (except for very
rare occurrences) and long-term toxicity problems from developing.
In order to apply the criteria, background water chemistry which
affects lead solubility and background receiving water lead
concentrations must be known. Background water chemistry for the
nation's surface waters has been reported by McElroy et al.,9 and
generalized maps of pH, alkalinity and hardness are available.
The major problems remain the definition of appropriate 96-hour
TL values for dissolved lead for a variety of species and the
quantification of -. natural background lead concentrations in the
receiving stream..
2-13
-------
Phosphorus (P)
The goal of nonpoint source water quality criteria for lakes
should be to prevent cultural eutrophication. This goal is easy
to state but somewhat difficult to quantify. This difficulty
begins with the fact that the concepts of eutrophication and
trophic state are subjective and thus do not have exactly the
same meaning to any two individuals. The situation is further
complicated by the fact that no single parameter can be used in
all cases to measure trophic state.
There are three generally recognized levels of trophic state.
These are: (1) oligotrophic, (2) mesotrophic, and (3) eutrophic.
Oligotrophic lakes are characterized by clear waters and low
primary productivity. Mesotrophic lakes represent an intermediate
level and are generally characterized by good quality waters
which support a highly diversified biological population and
moderate production of algae. Eutrophic lakes tend to have high
populations of rough fish and limited populations of game fish.
They are subject to periodic algal blooms and/or excessive littoral
vegetation. Such waters are of general lower quality than are
noneutrophic lakes and tend to be subject to dissolved oxygen
stress associated with algal blooms.
In general, phosphorus is the nutrient which limits the growth of
algae. In cases where the water body is highly eutrophic, nitrogen
is occasionally the limiting nutrient. However, for most cases,
it may be assumed that control of phosphorus will result in
control of eutrophication.
Freshwater phosphorus criteria are not selected in "Quality
Criteria for Water." However, in the discussion of phosphate
phosphorus, it is suggested that maximum concentrations in lakes
be limited to 0.025 mg/1 in order to prevent excessive or nuisance
growth of algae or other aquatic plants. Larsen and Mercier10
recommend that lake phosphorus concentrations be limited to 0.020
mg/1. This criterion is also based on the prevention of nuisance
algae growth.
The following phosphorus criterion is selected for evalution of
facility needs for control of pollution from combined sewer
overflow and urban stormwater runoff to achieve the Fish and
Wildlife receiving water quality goal.
"Average annual lake phosphorus concentrations should not
exceed 0.025 mg/1."
The evaluation procedure outlined by Larsen and Mercier10 is
used to estimate average annual lake phosphorus concentrations.
This procedure accounts for the phosphorus retention capacity
(assimilative capacity) of the lake as well as for total phosphorus
concentrations of the inflow. The relationship between lake
phosphorus concentration and inflow phosphorus concentration is
expressed as follows.10
2-14
-------
p =
where
i i (1 " V
PI - Average annual lake phosphorus concentration
in mg/1.
P- = Average annual inflow phosphorus concentration
in mg/1.
R = Phosphorus retention coefficient.
The phosphorus retention coefficient is a function of the average
depth and retention time of the lake and is estimated by the
following equation.10
10 (2-2)
10 + Z/tw
where
Z = Mean depth of the lake in meters.
tw = Mean hydraulic retention time in years.
Since the watershed tributary to a lake is in general composed of
both rural and urban lands, phosphorus removal requirements are
proportioned to all sources. For example, if the average annual
lake phosphorus concentration is determined to be 0.05 mg/1, an
overall phosphorus removal of 50% would be required to meet the
proposed criteria. This removal factor should be applied to all
sources including combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater
runoff as well as to wastewater treatment plant effluent and
agricultural runoff. That is, the total required load reduction
(in terms of pounds per year) should not be obtained only by
control of combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff.
RECREATION OBJECTIVE
The suitability of a receiving water for body contact recreation
is largely a function of bacteriological contamination assuming
that other quality factors are such that the fish and wildlife
goal is met (i.e., DO, SS, toxic materials, and phosphorus).
The fecal coliform bacteria criteria recommended in "Quality
Criteria for Water" for bathing waters are as follows.
2-15
-------
"Based on a minimum of five samples taken over a 30-day
period, the fecal coliform bacterial level should not
exceed a log mean of 200 per 100 ml, nor should more than 10
percent of the total samples taken during any 30-day period
exceed 400 per 100 ml."
The above criteria, in addition to all the receiving water
criteria for the fish and wildlife goal, is used for evalution of
facility needs for control of pollution from combined sewer
overflow and urban stormwater runoff to achieve the recreation
objective.
Considerable evidence exists which suggests that bacterial
contamination from combined sewer overflow and urban runoff is
massive. For example, fecal coliform concentrations in combined
sewer overflow have been reported to range from 2.4(10)5 MPN/100
ml to 5(10)6 MPN/100 ml. Separate stormwater runoff contains
fecal coliform bacteria in the range of 4(10)4 MPN/100 ml to
1.3(10)6 MPN/100 ml.3 Thus, it may reasonably be concluded that
any discharge of nondisinfected combined sewer overflow or urban
stormwater runoff will result in exceedance of the criteria for
fecal coliform bacteria.
Whether fecal coliform is the proper bacterial contamination
indicator for combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff
is questionable, as discussed in references 11 and 12. However,
nearly all existing water quality standards and criteria are
based on allowable fecal coliform concentrations and disinfection
is required to meet these existing criteria. Additional information
related to health risks and benefits of both bacteriological conta-
mination and disinfection should be obtained before substantial
resources are committed, particularly in the case of urban storm-
water runoff.
The only technically feasible alternative to achieve the recreation
objective is to provide storage and treatment for nearly all
stormflows. Thus, an allowable number of untreated overflow
events in a given period of time must be established in order to
determine facility needs to meet this objective.
Two untreated overflow events per year has been selected as the
basis for estimating facility needs to meet the recreation
receiving water quality objective.
REFERENCES
1. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., and Black, Crow and Eidsness,
Inc. "Cost Estimates for Construction of Publicly Owned
Wastewater Treatment Facilities—Summaries of Technical Data
for Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharge—1976
Needs Survey." EPA 430/9-76-012. 10 February 1977.
2-16
-------
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Quality Criteria for
Water." July 1976..
3. Gehm, H. W., and J. I. Bregman (ed.). Handbook of Water
Resources and Pollution Control. Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company. 1976.
4. Shannon, E. E., and P. L. Brezonik. "Eutrophication Analysis:
A Multivariate Approach." Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, ASCE. Vol. 98, No. SAl. February 1972.
5. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
American Public Health Association. Washington, D.C. 1976.
6. European Inland Fisheries Commission. "Water Quality
Criteria for European Freshwater Fish Report on Finely
Divided Solids and Inland Fisheries." International Journal
of Air and Water Pollution, Vol. 9. 1965.
7. Rolfe, G. L. et al. "An Ecosystem Analysis of Environmental
Contamination by Lead." University of Illinois at Champaign-
Urbana. National Science Foundation. Report No. U1LU-IES
7£ 001. August 1975.
8. Davies, P. H. "The Need to Establish Heavy Metal Standards
on the Basis of Dissolved Metals." In proceedings of a
workshop on toxicity to biota of metal forms in natural
waters. Great Lakes Research Advisory Board, International
Joint Commission. Duluth, Minnesota. 7-8 October 1975
(published April 1976).
9. McElroy, A. D. et al. "Loading Function for Assessment of
Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources." EPA 600/2-76-151.
May 1976.
10. Larsen, D. P. and H. T. Mercier. "Lake Phosphorus Loading
Graphs: An Alternative." Working Paper No. 174. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency. National Eutrophication
Survey. Corvallis, Oregon. July 1975.
11. Olivieri, V. P., C. W. Kruse, K. Kawata, and J. E. Smith.
"Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater." EPA-600/2-77-087.
July 1977.
12. Field, R., V. P. Olivieri, E. M. Davis, J. E. Smith, and
E. C. Tifft. "Proceedings of Workshop on Microorganisms in
Urban Stormwater." EPA-600/2-76-244. November 1976.
2-17
-------
PART II
TECHNOLOGIES FOR COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOW AND URBAN
STORMWATER RUNOFF CONTROL
-------
Chapter 3
TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOW AND URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF
INTRODUCTION
Alternative technologies for the control of combined sewer
overflow (CSO) and urban stormwater pollution must be adaptable
to highly variable operating conditions and/or adaptable as dual
wet- and dry-weather treatment facilities. They must also be
flexible to site-specific conditions and subject to reliable
automatic operation because rainfall produces an intermittent
discharge of CSO and stormwater pollutants. In general, runoff-
producing rainfall events occur during 200 to 1,300 hours per
year, or from 2% to 15% of the time. Source control information,
collection system control information, and treatment facility
information presented in this chapter were taken from research
reports published by the EPA Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, in the Environmental
Protection Technology Series. Two EPA compendium reports are
currently available which summarize the state-of-the-art in
stormwater control technology.1'2 The reader is referred to
these reports for further information, including design and
performance data which are not presented in this report.
SOURCE CONTROLS
Management practices to control the accumulation of pollutants on
an urban watershed cannot be considered as independent pollution
control alternatives. They are part of a total pollution control
program and will play an important role in reduction of pollution
from combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff.
To control pollutants at their source, management practices must
be applied where pollutants accumulate. For combined sewers,
dry-weather deposition of sewage solids in the collection system
is the major source of BODS, TN, PO4, and coliform bacteria.
Therefore, source control techniques which operate in the collection
system, such as sewer flushing, can be expected to be more effective
than source control techniques which operate on the land surface,
such as street cleaning for BOD5, nutrients, and coliform bacteria.
On the other hand, lead is a pollutant which is associated with
automobile use, and accumulation is predominantly on the street
surface. Therefore, if removal of lead is of concern, street
cleaning can be expected to be more effective than sewer flushing
to achieve the given objective.
3-1
-------
Source controls which operate on the land surface or which affect
pollution accumulation, such as street cleaning, trash removal,
and air pollution controls, will generally be more effective on
separate watersheds than on combined sewer watersheds because the
majority of the pollutants accumulate on the land surface rather
than in the collection system.
Street Cleaning3" 8
The major objective of municipal street cleaning is to enhance
the aesthetic appearance of streets by periodically removing the
surface accumulation of litter, debris, dust, and dirt. Common
methods of street cleaning are manual, mechanical broom sweepers,
vacuum sweepers, and street flushing. However, as currently
practiced, street flushing does not remove pollutants from
stormwater, but merely transports them from the street into the
sewers.
Streetsweeping has received a great deal of attention during the
last few years as a potential water quality control management
practice. It has the major advantage of being applicable to
highly developed, established urban areas. It also controls
pollutants at the source and will improve general urban aesthetics
as well as water quality. However, Streetsweeping is only
applicable to streets with curbs and gutters and often requires
parking restrictions in order to be an effective pollution control
alternative.
Streetsweeping effectiveness will depend upon the sediment
transport and deposition characteristics of an urban watershed.
However, in general, an effective Streetsweeping program is a
function of sweeper efficiency, frequency of cleaning, number of
passes, equipment speed, pavement conditions, equipment type,
fraction of streets swept, litter control programs, and street
parking regulations.
Combined Sewer Flushing9"12
The major objective of combined sewer flushing is to resuspend
deposited sewage solids and transmit these solids to the dry-
weather treatment facility before a storm event flushes them to a
receiving water. Combined sewer flushing consists of introducing
a controlled volume of water over a short duration at key points
in the collection system. This can be done using external water
from a tanker truck vzith a gravity or pressurized feed or using
internal water detained manually or automatically. Implementation
requires a complete knowledge of how the existing collection
system is operating.
Combined sewer flushing is most effective when applied to the
flat portion of the collection system. Procedures are available
3-2
-------
to estimate the quantity and distribution of dry-weather
deposition in sewers and for locating the optimum sites for
sewer flushing. A recent feasibility study of combined
sewer flushing indicates that manual flushing using an
external pressurized source of water is most effective. No
significant gain in the fraction of load removed was achieved
by repeated flushing, and 70% of the flushed solids will
quickly resettle. Therefore, repeated flushing in a down-
stream sequence is probably necessary to achieve significant
pollutant reductions. Process efficiency is dependent upon
flush volumes, flush discharge rate, sewer slope, length,
diameter, wastewater flow rate, and efficiency of the
wastewater treatment device receiving the resuspended solids.
Catch Basin Cleaning13
The major objective of catch basin cleaning is to reduce the
first flush of deposited solids in a sewer system by frequently
removing accumulated catch basin deposits. Methods to clean
catch basins are manual, eductor, bucket, and vacuum. Less than
45% of the municipalities in the United States use mechanical
methods.
The role of catch basins in newly constructed sewers is marginal
due to improvements in street surfacing and design methods for
providing self-cleaning velocities in sewers. Catch basins
should be used only where there is a solids-transporting deficiency
in the downstream sewers or at a specific site where surface
solids are unusually abundant; however, many existing combined
sewers have catch basins. A national survey of catch basin
cleaning indicates that it is not a cost-effective alternative
for stormwater pollution control. This is due in part to the
limited amount of watershed pollutants found in catch basins and
in part to the high cost of their removal.
COLLECTION SYSTEM CONTROL
Existing System Management14
The major objective of collection system management is to implement
a continual remedial repair and maintenance program to provide
maximum transmission of flows for treatment and disposal while
minimizing overflow, bypass, and local flooding. It requires
patience and an understanding of how the collection system works
to locate unknown malfunctions of all types, poorly optimized
regulators, unused in-line storage, and pipes clogged with
sediments in old combined sewer systems.
The first phase of analysis in a sewer system study is an extensive
inventory of data and mapping of flowline profiles. This
information is then used to conduct a detailed physical survey of
regulator and storm drain performance.
3-3
-------
This type of sewer system inventory and study should be the first
objective of any combined sewer overflow pollution abatement
project.
Flow Reduction Techniques15"20
The major objective of flow reduction techniques is to maximize
the effective collection system and treatment capacities by
reducing extraneous sources of clean water. Infiltration^ the
volume of ground water entering sewers through defective joints;
broken, cracked, or eroded pipe; improper connections; and manhole
walls. Inflow is the volume of any kind of water discharged into
sewerlines from such sources as roof leaders, cellar and yard
drains, foundation drains, roadway inlets, commercial and industrial
discharges, and depressed manhole covers. Combined sewers are by
definition intended to carry both sanitary wastewater and inflow.
Therefore, flow reduction opportunities are limited. Typical
methods for reducing sewer inflow are by discharging of roof and
areaway drainage onto pervious land, use of pervious drainage
swales and surface storage, raising of depressed manholes, detention
storage on streets and rooftops, and replacing vented manhole
covers with unvented covers. Flow reduction requires a thorough
analysis of the existing sewer system to maximize the effective
capacities of collection systems and treatment works.
Sewer Separation21~23
Sewer separation is the conversion of a combined sewer system
into separate sanitary and storm sewer systems. Separation of
municipal wastewater from stormwater can be accomplished by
adding a new sanitary sewer and using the old combined sewer as a
storm sewer, by adding a new storm sewer and using the old combined
sewer as a sanitary sewer, or by adding a "sewer within a sewer
pressure system. If combined sewers are separated, it must be
remembered that storm sewer discharges may contribute a significant
pollutant load relative to secondary wastewater treatment plant
effluent and, therefore, may require some type of control even
after the sewer systems are separated. For a small watershed
sewer separation may be a cost-effective control alternative.
inline Storage12^4"29
The major objective of inline sewer storage is to effectively
control the ambient sewer volume so that a minimum amount of
untreated overflow occurs. A prerequisite for this alternative
is a large collection system with the potential for regulation of
flow. Flow regulators may be static, manually operated dynamic,
or computer-operated dynamic. Remotely controlled dynamic
regulators are supported by telemetered real time information on
rainfall, flow rates, and storage levels throughout the system.
3-4
-------
Usable ambient inline storage is generally not sufficient to
completely eliminate the overflow of untreated wastewater. It
must, therefore, be combined with offline storage if high levels
of pollutant capture are required. Compared to offline storage
which may be considered, a 100% effective storage device static
control of inline storage is approximately 60% effective, manual
operation of dynamic controls is approximately 80% effective, and
computer operation of dynamic controls is approximately 90%
effective. That is if a given offline storage device (located at
the treatment plant) of a certain capacity is capable of capturing
100,000 pounds of pollutants per year, that same total capacity
available as static inline storage would capture on the order of
60,000 pounds of pollutants per year. Dynamic operation of this
available inline storage could increase the annual capture to
80,000 or 90,000 pounds per year. The analysis of available data
on the operation of inline storage indicates that dynamic real
time controls perform better than static controls when rainfall
is of a short duration, a high intensity, and is spatially variable,
Remote real time control with an experienced operator is probably
almost as effective as computer control, except for complex
systems with many control options.
TREATMENT FACILITIES
Offline Storage29"32
The major objective of offline storage is to contain intermittent
large volumes of stormwater for controlled releases into treatment
facilities. Offline storage provides a more uniform constant
flow and, thus, reduces the required size of treatment facilities.
Offline storage facilities may be located at overflow points or
near dry-weather or wet-weather treatment facilities. A major
factor determining the feasibility of using offline storage is
land availability. Operation and maintenance costs are generally
small, requiring only collection and disposal costs for sludge
solids unless input or output pumping is required. Many
demonstration projects have included storage of peak stormwater
flows.
Three types of offline storage basins can be constructed to meet
site-specific problems and resources: earthen basins, uncovered
concrete basins, and covered concrete basins.
Sedimentation
The major objective of sedimentation is to produce a clarified
effluent by gravitational settling of the suspended particles
that are heavier than water. It is one of the most common and
well-established unit operations for wastewater treatment.
Sedimentation also provides storage capacity, and disinfection
can be effected concurrently in the same tank. It is also very
3-5
-------
adaptable to chemical additives such as lime, alum, ferric chloride,
and polymers, which provide higher suspended solids, BOD, nutrients,
and heavy metals removal.
Advantages of sedimentation are its familiarity to design engineers
and operators and its minimal energy requirements. Disadvantages
of sedimentation are its land requirement and its sensitivity to
the duration of peak flow.
Dissolved Air Flotation38"41
The major objective of dissolved air flotation (DAF) is to
achieve suspended solids removal in a shorter time than with
conventional sedimentation, by attaching air bubbles to the
suspended particles. The principal advantage of flotation over
sedimentation is that very small or light particles that settle
slowly can be removed more completely and in a shorter time.
Capital costs for DAF are moderate; however, operating costs are
relatively high due to the energy required to compress air and
release it into the flotation basin and due to the greater skill
required of operators. Chemical additives are also useful
to improve process efficiencies of BOD and SS removals and to
obtain nitrogen and phosphorus removals.
Advantages of DAF are its smaller land requirements and sludge
volumes than with conventional sedimentation. Disadvantages of
DAF are its higher costs and energy requirements than with
conventional sedimentation.
Screens4
1-44
The major objective of screening is to provide high-rate pre-
treatment of stormwater by removing coarse materials. Three
screening devices have been developed for this purpose, static
screens, drum screens, and rotary screens.
For all screens, removal performance tends to improve as influent
suspended solids concentrations increase, due to the relatively
constant effluent concentrations. In addition, screens develop a
mat of trapped particles which act as a strainer, retaining
particles smaller than the screen aperture. Chemical additives
can be used to improve process removal efficiencies. The use of
screens in series does not show any advantage over the use of a
single screen.
Advantages of screening are its relatively constant performance
under highly variable flows, small land requirements, and
adaptability to automatic operation. The major disadvantage of
screening is that only particulate matter can be removed.
3-6
-------
Microscreens45
The microscreen is a very fine screening device designed to be
the main treatment process of a complete system. It has the
potential to obtain very high suspended solids removal and 40% to
50^ BOD5 removal. Microscreen effluent is also more easily
disinfected due to solids breakup.
High-Rate Filtration46~50
The major objective of high-rate filtration (HRF) is to capture
suspended solids and other pollutants on a fixed bed dual media
filter (a bed of anthracite coal is usually above sand filter
media). Filtration is one step more efficient than screening.
Solids are usually removed by one or more of the following
mechanisms: straining, impingement, settling, and adsorption.
Filtration has not been widely used in wastewater treatment
because of rapid clogging caused by compressible solids. CSO and
stormwater contain a larger fraction of discrete, noncompressible
solids, which can easily be cleaned from the filter media by
periodic backwashing. HRF has been developed over the past 15
years for a variety of treatment applications, mainly industrial
wastewater treatment. Advantages of HRF are its smaller land
requirements and its suitability to automatic operation. The
major disadvantage of HRF is its moderately high energy use.
Swirl and Helical Concentrators51-54
The major objective of swirl and helical concentrators is to
regulate both the quantity and quality of stormwater at the point
of overflow. Solids separation is caused by the inertia differ-
ential which results from a circular path of travel. The flow is
separated into a large volume of clear overflow and a concentrated
low volume of waste that is intercepted for treatment at the
wastewater treatment plant. In addition to regulation of combined
sewer flow, they can provide high-rate primary treatment for
solids removal. Swirl and helical bend concentrators have been
modeled and, in several cases, demonstrated for various processes,
including treatment and flow regulation, primary treatment,
and erosion control. A major attribute of the swirl concentrator
ls. t*le relatively constant treatment efficiency over a wide range
ofo flow rates (a five-fold flow increase results in only about a
\/* efficiency reduction) and the absence of mechanical parts
which use energy, unless input or output pumping is required.
Disadvantages of the swirl concentrator are its limited full-
scale operating experience and its inability to remove dissolved
pollutants.
3-7
-------
Chemical Additives55
The major objective of using chemical additives is to provide a
higher level of treatment than is possible with unaided physical
treatment processes (sedimentation, dissolved air flotation,
and high-rate filtration). Chemicals commonly used are lime,
aluminum or iron salts, polyelectrolytes, and combinations of
these chemicals. There is no rational method for predicting the
chemical dose required. Jar tests are used for design purposes;
however, field control is essential since the chemical composition
of CSO and stormwater is highly variable. The major advantage
of using chemical additives with physical treatment is the increased
pollutant removals, including removal of dissolved pollutants. •
The major disadvantages of using chemical additives are the higher
energy and treatment costs, greater sludge volumes, and the necessity
of experienced personnel to monitor the application of chemicals.
Coagulation and Flocculation55
The major objective of coagulation and flocculation is to permit
aggregation of colloidal particles prior to sedimentation.
Coagulation is the term which describes the overall process of
particle aggregation, including both particle transport to cause
interparticle contact and particle destabilization to permit
the attachment of particles once contact has occurred. Flocculation
is the term used to describe the transport step only. Coagulation
requires the addition of chemical additives as described above.
Disinfection45*56"59
The major objective of disinfection is to control pathogens and
other microorganisms in receiving waters. The disinfection agents
commonly used in CSO and stormwater treatment are chlorine, calcium
or sodium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, and ozone. They are
all oxidizing agents, are corrosive to equipment, and are highly
toxic to both microorganisms and people. Physical methods and
other chemical agents have not had wide usage because of excessive
costs or operational problems. The choice of a disinfecting
agent will depend upon the unique characteristics of each agent,
such as stability, chemical reactions with phenols and ammonia,
disinfecting residual, and health hazards. Adequate mixing must
be provided to force disinfectant contact with the maximum number
of microorganisms. Mixing can be accomplished by mechanical
flash mixers at the point of disinfectant addition, at intermittent
points by specially designed contact chambers, or both. Chlorine
may enhance aftergrowth of microorganisms in the receiving water
by cleaving large protein molecules into small proteins, peptides,
and other amino acids.
Sludge Disposal60
As with all treatment processes, the concentrated waste residue
generated by CSO and stormwater treatment must be disposed of
3-8
-------
properly. It is estimated that treatment of CSO will generate
41.5 billion gallons of sludge per year, which is approximately
2.6 times the volume of raw primary wastewater treatment plant
sludge. However, the average solids concentration in CSO sludge
is about 1%, compared to 2% to 7% in raw primary sludge. This is
due to the high volume, low solids residuals generated by treatment
processes employing screens. CSO residuals have a high grit and
low volatile solids content when compared to raw primary sludge.
The same is true for urban stormwater. Regarding the effect of
toxic materials in combined sewage sludges affecting its suitability
for application on agricultural lands, an EPA report entitled
"Municipal Sludge Management: Environmental Factors,"
EPA 430/9-77-004, October 1977, presents total amount in pounds ,
per acre of sludge metals allowed on agricultural land for lead,
zinc, copper, nickel, and cadmium. These amounts should not be.
exceeded for sludges from separate sanitary wastewater combined
sewer overflow or urban stormwater runoff.
,>
Preliminary economic evaluation indicated that lime stabilization,
storage, gravity thickening, and land application comprise the
most cost-effective disposal system. Costs for overall CSO
sludge handling depend on the type of CSO treatment process,
volume and characteristics of the sludge, and the size of the CSO
area, among other considerations. Estimates indicate that first
investment capital costs range from $181 to $4,129 per acre and
annual operating costs range from $56 to $660 per acre. The
above-mentioned report recommends that the use of grit removal,
lime stabilization, and gravity thickening plus dewatering be
further investigated to establish specific design criteria for
CSO sludge disposal.
Biological Treatment33'61"64
The major objective of biological treatment is to remove the
nonsettleable colloidal and dissolved organic matter by biologically
converting them into cell tissue which can be removed by gravity
settling. Several biological processes have been applied to
combined sewer overflow treatment, including contact stabilization,
trickling filters, rotating biological contactors, and treatment
lagoons. Biological treatment processes are generally categorized
as secondary treatment processes. These processes are capable of
removing between 70% and 95% of the BOD5 and suspended solids
from waste flows at dry-weather flow rates and loadings. A
operational problem when treating intermittent wet-weather storm
events by biological processes is maintaining a viable biomass.
Biological systems are extremely susceptible to overloaded
conditions and shock loads when compared to physical treatment
processes, with the possible exception of rotating biological
contactors. This and the high initial capital costs are serious
drawbacks for using biological systems to treat intermittent CSO
and stormwater, unless they are designed as a dual treatment
facility. Therefore, biological treatment of CSO and stormwater
3-9
-------
is generally viable only in integrated wet/dry-weather treatment
facilities. Since the application of a dual biological treatment
facility is extremely site-specific, cost data for biological
treatment systems are not considered in Chapter 4 and the needs
estimate is based on single purpose physical/chemical treatment
of CSO and urban stormwater runoff.
High Gradient Magnetic Separation65"69
The major objective of high gradient magnetic separation (HGMS)
is to bind suspended solids to small quantities of a magnetic
seed material (iron oxide called magnetite) by chemical coagulation
and then pass them through a high gradient magnetic field for
removal. Magnetic separation techniques have been used since the
19th century to remove tramp iron and to concentrate iron ores.
Solids are trapped in a magnetic matrix which must be cyclically
back-flushed like screens and filters.
Application of HGMS to treat CSO and stormwater is still in the
research stage and no full-scale facilities have been constructed;
however, it may prove to be competitive with other alternative
technology. The major attributes of HGMS are the 90%+ BOD5
removal with a detention time of 3 minutes, the ability to remove
nutrients and heavy metals, small land requirements, reduced
chlorine demand for disinfection, and capital and operation and
maintenance are estimated to be lower than comparative
physicochemical treatment. The major disadvantage of HGMS is
that no full-scale facilities have been constructed. Therefore
prototype performance and cost data are not available.
Carbon Adsorption55'70'71
The major objective of carbon adsorption is to remove soluble
organics as part of a complete physicochemical treatment system
which usually includes preliminary treatment, sedimentation with
chemicals, filtration, and disinfection. Carbon contacting can
be done using either granular activated carbon in a fixed or
fluidized bed or powdered activated carbon in a sedimentation
basin. Periodic backwashing of the fixed bed must be provided,
even if prefiltration is used, because suspended solids will
accumulate in the bed. A physicochemical treatment system
utilizing powdered activated carbon, coagulated with alum, settled
with polyelectrolyte addition, and in some cases, passed through
a trimedia filter was demonstrated in Albany, New York, during
1971 and 1972 to treat combined sewer overflow. Application of
carbon adsorption is well suited to advanced waste treatment of
sanitary sewage. However, the feasibility of application to,CSO
and urban stormwater is dependent upon the effluent quality
objectives, the degree of preunit flow attenuation, and the
ability to obtain dual dry- and wet-weather use of treatment
facilities.
3-10
-------
The major attributes of carbon adsorption are the 90%+ BOD5
removal, the ability to remove refractory organic material, and
small land requirements.
The major disadvantage of carbon adsorption is the limited full-
scale experience of treating CSO and urban stormwater. As a
result, reliable cost data are not available.
REFERENCES
1. Lager, J.A. et al. "Urban Stormwater Management and
Technology: Update and User's Guide." EPA-600/8-77-014.
September 1977.
2. Lager, J.A., and W. G. Smith. "Urban Stormwater Management
and Technology: An Assessment." EPA-670/2-74-040. December
1974.
3. "Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual, Volume III, Appendix
G, Urban Stormwater Management Techniques: Performance and
Cost." EPA-600/9-76-014. July 1976.
4. Sartor, J. D. and G. B. Boyd. "Water Pollution Aspects of
Street Surface Contaminants." EPA-R2-72-081. November 1972.
5. American Public Works Association. "Water Pollution Aspects
of Urban Runoff." EPA-R2-72-081. January 1969.
6. Levis, A. H. "Urban Street Cleaning." EPA-670/2-75-030.
1975.
7. Amy, G. et al. "Water Quality Management Planning for Urban
Runoff." U.S. EPA No. EPA 440/9-75-004. December 1974.
8. Adimi, R. et al. "An Evaluation of Streetsweeping
Effectiveness in the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution."
The Catholic University of America. April 1976.
9. Pisano, W. C. and C. S. Queiroz. "Procedures for Estimating
Dry Weather Pollutant Deposition in Sewerage Systems." EPA-
600/2-77-120. July 1977.
10. FMC Corporation. "A Flushing System for Combined Sewer
Cleansing." EPA 11020 DNQ 03/72. March 1972.
11. Process Research, Inc. "A Study of Pollution Control
Alternatives for Dorchester Bay." Commonwealth of Mass.
Metro. District Commission. Volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
23 December 1974.
3 - 11
-------
12. Smith, S. F., "Material Received for the Record—Hearings
before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Review of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation." U.S. House
of Representatives, Ninety-Fifth Congress, Second Session.
11-13 July 1978.
13. Lager, J. A., Smith, W. G., and Tchobanoglous, G. "Catchbasin
Technology Overview and Assessment." EPA-600/2-77-051. May
1977.
14. Pisano, W. C. "Analyzing the Existing Collection System."
Paper presented at a seminar on combined sewer overflow
assessment and control procedures. Windsor Locks, Connecticut.
May 1978.
15. Sullivan, R. H. et al. "Sewer System Evaluation, Rehabilitation
and New Construction, A Manual of Practice." EPA-600/2-77-017d.
December 1977.
16. Cesareo, D. J. and R. Field. "Infiltration-Inflow Analysis."
J_._ Env. Eng. Div. ASCE. Vol. 101, No. 5, pp. 775-784.
October 1975.
17. Respond, F. J. "Roof Retention of Rainfall to Limit Urban
Runoff." National Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hyd. and
Sed. Control, July 26-29, 1976. University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Kentucky.
18. Poertner, H. G. "Detention Storage of Urban Stormwater
Runoff." APWA Reporter. 40, 5:14. 1973.
19. Poertner, H. G. "Better Storm Drainage Facilities at Lower
Costs." Civil Eng. 43, 10:67. 1973.
20. Peters, G. L. and 0. P. Troemper. "Reduction of Hydraulic
Sewer Loadings by Downspout Removal." JWPCF 41, 4:63-81.
1969.
21 American Society of Civil Engineers. "Combined Sewer
Separation Using Pressure Sewers." EPA 110020 EKO. October
1969.
22. C-E Maguire, Inc. "Stormwater—Wastewater Separation Study,
City of Norwich, Connecticut." Engineering Report. June
1977.
23 Albertson, Sharp and Backus, Inc. "City of Norwalk,
Connecticut, Facilities Plan Update for Sewerage System."
Engineering Report. June 1977.
24 Leiser, C. P. "Computer management of a combined sewer
system by METRO SEATTLE." EPA-670/2-74-022. July 1974.
3-12
-------
25. Metropolitan Sewer Board—St. Paul, Minnesota. "Dispatching
System for Control of Combined Sewer Losses."
EPA Report No. 11020FAQ03/71. March 1971.
26. Watt, T. R. et al. "Sewerage System Monitoring and Remote
Control." EPA-670/2-75-020. May 1975.
27. Bradford, B. H. "Real Time Control of Storage in a Combined
Sewer System." Proceedings, National Symposium on Urban
Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Sediment Control. University of
Kentucky. Lexington, Kentucky. July 1976. pp. 287-296.
28. Wenzel, H. G. et al. "Detention Storage Control Strategy
Development.11 J. Wat. Res. Plan, and Management Div.
ASCE. Vol. 102, No. WR1. April 1976. pp. 117-1357
29. Liebenow, W. R. and J. K. Sieging. "Storage and Treatment
of Combined Sewer Overflow." EPA-R2-72-070. October 1972.
30. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Metropolitan District
Commission. "Cottage Farm Combined Sewer Detention and
Chlorination Station." EPA-600/2-77-046. November 1976.
31. City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Consoer, Townsend, and
Asso. "Detention Tank for Combined Sewer Overflow, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, Demonstration Project." EPA-600/2-75-071.
December 1975.
32. Dodson, Kinney, and Lindbolm. "Evaluation of Storm Standby
Tank, Columbus, Ohio." EPA No. 11020FAL03/71. March 1971.
33. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering. McGraw-Hill.
1972. a
34. Wolf, H. W. "Bachman Treatment Facility for Excessive Storm
Flow in Sanitary Sewers." EPA-600/2-77-128. 1977.
35. Feurstein, D. L. and W. 0. Maddaus. "Wastewater Management
Program, Jamaica Bay, New York, Vol. I: Summary Report."
EPA-600/2-76-222a. September 1976.
36. "Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal." EPA
Technology Transfer. EPA 625/l-75-003a. January 1975.
37. Mahida, V. U. and F. J. DeDecker. "Multipurpose Combined
Sewer Overflow Treatment Facility, Mount Clemens, Michigan."
EPA-670/2-75-Q1Q. May 1975.
38. Bursztynsky, J. A. et al. "Treatment of Combined Sewer
Overflow by Dissolved Air Flotation." EPA-600/2-75-033
September 1975. ~~
3-13
-------
39. Rex Chainbelt, Inc. "Screening/Flotation Treatment of
Combined Sewer Overflows." EPA 11020FDC. January 1972.
40. White, R. L. and T. G. Cole. "Dissolved Air Flotation for
Combined Sewer Overflows." Public Works. Vol. 104, No. 2.
pp. 50-54. 1973.
41. Gupta, M. K. et al. "Screening/Flotation Treatment of
Combined Sewer Overflow, Volume 1 Bench Scale and Pilot
Plant Investigation." EPA-600/2-77-069a. August 1977.
42. Clark, M. J. et al. "Screening/Flotation Treatment of
Combined Sewer Overflow, Volume II: Full-Scale Demonstration."
U.S. EPA Demonstration Grant No. 11023 FWS. Draft report,
April 1975.
43. Prah, D. H. and P. L. Brunner. "Combined Sewer Stormwater
Overflow Treatment by Screening and Terminal Ponding at Fort
Wayne, Indiana." U.S. EPA Demonstration Grant No. 11020 GYU»
Volumes 1 and 2. Draft Report. June 1976.
44. Neketin, T. H. and H. K. Dennis, Jr. "Demonstration of
Rotary Screening for Combined Sewer Overflow."
EPA No. 11023 FDD 07/71. July 1971.
45. Maher, M. B. "Microstraining and Disinfection of Combined
Sewer Overflow—Phase III. EPA 670/2-74-049. August 1974.
46. Nebolsine, R. N. et al. "High Rate Filtration of Combined
Sewer Overflow." EPA 11023 EY 104/72. April 1972.
47. Innerfeld, H. et al. "Dual Process High-Rate Filtration of
Raw Sanitary Sewage and Combined Sewer Overflow." U.S.
EPA Grant No. S 803271. Draft Report. July 1978.
48. Drehwing, F. J. et al. "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement
Program, Rochester, N.Y. Pilot Plant Evaluations." U.S.
EPA Grant No. Y005141. Draft Report. 1977.
49. Hickok, E. A. et al. "Urban Runoff Treatment Methods Volume
II—High-Rate Pressure Filtration." U.S. EPA Grant
No. S-802535. At Press. 1977.
50. Murphy, C. B. et al. "High Rate Nutrient Removal for Combined
Sewer Overflow." EPA-600/2-78-056. June 1978.
51. Sullivan, R. H. et al. "The Helical Bend Combined Sewer
Overflow Regulator." EPA-600/2-75-062. December 1975.
52. Sullivan, R. H. et al. "Field Prototype Demonstration of
the Swirl Degritter." EPA-600/2-77-185. September 1977.
3-14
-------
53. Sullivan, R. H. et al. "Regulationship Between Diameter and
Height for the Design of a Swirl Concentrator as a Combined
Sewer Overflow Regulator." EPA-670/2-74-039.
54. Sullivan, R. H. et al. "The Swirl Concentrator for Erosion
Runoff Treatment." EPA-600/2-76-271. September 1976.
55. Weber, W. J. Jr. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality
Control. Wiley—Interscience. 1972.
56. Olivieri, V. P., et al. "Microorganisms in Urban Stormwater."
EPA-600/2-77-087. July 1977.
57. Moffa, P. E., et al. "Bench-Scale- High-Rate Disinfection
of Combined Sewer Overflow with Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide."
EPA-670/2-75-021. April 1975.
58. Weber, J. F. "Demonstration of Interim Techniques of
Reclamation of Polluted Beachwater." EPA-600/2-76-228.
1976.
59. Pontius, U. R. et al. "Hypochlorination of Polluted Stormwater
Pumpage at New Orleans." EPA-670/2-73-067. September 1973.
60. Huibregtse, K. R. et al. "Handling and Disposal of Sludges
from Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment, Phase II-Impact
Assessment." EPA-600/2-77-0536. December 1977.
61. Agnew, R. W. et al. "Biological Treatment of Combined Sewer
Overflow at Kenosha, Wisconsin." EPA-670/2-75-019. April
1975.
62. Welsh, F. L. and D. J. Stucky. "Combined Sewer Overflow
Treatment by the Rotating Biological Contractor Process."
EPA-670/2-74-050. June 1974.
63. Hamack, P. et al. "Utilization of Trickling Filters for
Dual-Treatment of Dry- and Wet-Weather Flows." EPA-670/2-
73-071. September 1973.
64. Parks J W. et al. "An Evaluation of Three Combined Sewer
Overflow'Treatment Alternatives." EPA-670/2-74-079.
December 1974.
65. Allen, D. M., R. L. Sargent, and J. A. Oberteuffer. "Treatment
of Combined Sewer Overflow by High Gradient Magnetic
Separation." KPA-600/2-77-015. March 1977.
66. Kolm H , J. A. Oberteuffer, and D. Keeland. "High Gradient
Magn4tic Separation." Scientific American, 233(5): 46-54.
1975.
3-15
-------
67. Oder/ R. R. and B. I. Horst. "Wastewater Processing with
High Gradient Magnetic Separators (HGMS)." Presented at the
2nd National Conference on Complete Water Reuse, Chicago.
May 1975.
68. Bitton, G. et al. "Phosphate Removal by Magnetic Filtration."
Water Research. 8:107. 1974.
69. Bitton, G. and R. Michell. "Removal of E. coll Bacteriophage
by Magnetic Filtration." Water Research 8:548. 1974.
70. Swindler-Dressier Co. "Process Design Manual for Carbon
Adsorption." EPA-17-020-GNR. October 1971.
71. Shuckrow, A. J., G. W. Dawson, and W. F. Bonner. "Physical-
Chemical Treatment of Combined and Municipal Sewage." EPA-
R2-73-149. February 1973.
3-16
-------
Chapter 4
COST FUNCTIONS FOR CONTROL OF POLLUTION FROM
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW AND URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to present equations for capital
and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for various alter-
natives which may be used to control pollution from urban stormwater
runoff and combined sewer overflow. Cost equations and unit cost
data are derived from the references cited.
A literature review was completed in order to identify sources of
information on capital and O&M costs for control alternatives
ranging from collection system controls to storage/treatment
systems. Since most cost data reported in the literature were
referenced to the ENR construction cost index, this index was
used as the basis for updating historic data to present (January
J-978) costs. The ENR construction cost index for January 1978 is
2 '672, and all cost data presented here are for this base.
Where sufficient cost and capacity data were available, regression
analysis was used to define the relationship of best fit. Both
J-inear and logarithmic cost estimating models were considered.
SEPARATION
sewer separation construction costs, expressed as dollars
acre of sewers separated, were obtained from various sources
the literature and are summarized in Table 4-1. Also listed
ln Table 4-1 is the population density, expressed in persons per
acre, of the combined sewer service area. Simple linear regression
?f the population density values versus the cost values yields
the following equation.
Css = 1,779 X PD (4-1)
where
Css = Capital cost of sewer separation in dollars
per acre.
PD = Population density of the combined sewer service
area in persons per acre.
pigure 4-1 illustrates the data points and the resultant equation.
•^o data pairs, Boston and San Francisco, were considered outliers
and were not used in the final .regression analysis.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1
Sewer Separation Capital Costs Summary
Cost
($/acre)
17,846
22,824
32,279
81,800
4,930
4,660
28,220
8,420
32,300
6,450
20,680
41,210
9,830
66,250
52,950
ENR
Index
2305
2410
2700
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
Cost
($/acre)
ENR = 2672
20,687
25,306
31,944
109,285
6,586
6,226
37,702
11,249
43,153
8,617
27,628
55,057
13,132
88,510
70,741
Population
Density
(persons/acre )
6.9
—
19.9
26.4
5.5
5.5
27.5
—
11.7
8.3
16.5
67.5
11.7
45.0
45.0
City
Norwich
Norwalk
Milwaukee
Boston
Bucyrus
Bucyrus
Chicago
Chippewa Falls
Cleveland
Des Moines
Sandusky
San Francisco
Seattle
Washington, D.C.
Washington , D.C.
Reference
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Note: The estimated unit cost and population density for Milwaukee was obtained
from a recent reference (February 1979). An earlier estimate of unit cost and
population density was used in the regression analysis.
-------
120,000
10
20
30 40 50
Population Density (persons/acre)
60
70
FIGURE 4-1. Capital cost of sewer separation.
-------
For the purpose of the needs estimate, it will be assumed that
O&M costs for a sewer separation project are negligible since
wastewater collection system maintenance will be required regardless
of the type of collection system.
SEWER FLUSHING
Installed capital and O&M costs of an automatic sewer flushing
station are reported in the following table.
Sewer Flushing Costs
Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost Reference
$4,260 $1,880 Lager & Smith4
9,000 1,630 Pisano9
In the Detroit demonstration project reported by Lager
& Smith4, it was determined that approximately two to four flushing
stations would be required for each 9 acres. That is, each
flushing station could be expected to service an area ranging
from 2.25 to 4.5 acres in size. Pisano9 reported that flushing
station efficiency could be increased by selecting locations in
flat sewer segments, thus reducing the total number of required
stations. The relationship between sewer flushing level of
effort (i.e., density of flushing stations) and flushing efficiency
is discussed in Chapter 6. Based on presently available data,
the unit capital cost of a sewer flushing system which will
remove 40% of the annual watershed BOD5 and SS load is approximately
$1,000 per acre and the unit O&M cost is approximately $180 per
acre per year.
Inline Storage
Inline storage, including remote combined sewer system monitoring
and control or real time control, has been used with varying
degrees of success to reduce combined sewer overflow. The capital
costs, O&M costs, and effectiveness of such a system depends upon
the hydraulic characteristics of the collection system which are
site specific. In general, these systems will work best on large
collection networks where the interceptor capacity and, thus,
storage capacity is large.
Perhaps the most successful real time control system is the
Computer Augmented Treatment and Disposal (CATAD) system now
operating in the City of Seattle, Washington. Capital cost of
this project was $4,141,000, and O&M costs are $267,200 per year.
4-4
-------
However, insufficient cost and performance data are available
from other inline storage and remote monitoring and control
systems to generalize unit costs or removal efficiencies.
Offline Storage
The most complete source of information on the cost of storm-
water storage is the "Cost Estimating Manual—Combined Sewer
Overflow Storage and Treatment."7 Capital costs for three types
of offline storage are presented. These are (1) earthen basins,
(2) concrete basins uncovered, and (3) concrete basins covered.
The capital cost equations are as follows.
1. Earthen basins
f\ *~fO O I A ") \
Cs = 30,300 vu*/tJJ ^~z;
2. Concrete basins uncovered
Cs = 465,000 v°'619 (4-3)
3. Concrete basins covered
Cs = 528,000 V0'790 (4-4)
where
Cs = Capital cost of storage basin in January 1978
dollars.
V - Volume of basin in million gallons.
Annual operation and maintenance costs are separated into three
categories: labor, supplies, and power. The labor cost equation
is based on 30 operation cycles per year (i.e., runoff events)
and on a unit labor cost of $12.12 per man-hour. The labor cost
equation is given as follows.
CLs =2,670 v°'509 (4-5)
where
CLs = Annual cost of labor for maintenance of
storage facilities in January 1978 dollars.
The annual cost of supplies is given by the following equation.
CSs = 618 v°'405 (4-6)
where
CSs = Annual cost of supplies for storage facilities
in January 1978 dollars.
4-5
-------
The power cost equation given below is based on 80 days of operation
per year and on a unit power cost of 2.42 cents per kilowatt hour
(kWh).
CPs = 15.8 v°*493 (4-7)
where
CPs = Annual cost of power for storage facilities
in January 1978 dollars.
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT
Cost equations were derived from the cost estimating manual7 and
compared to the cost equations used in the 1976 Needs Survey6 for
the following items or physical/chemical processes.
Administration.
Yardwork.
Laboratory.
Sedimentation.
Dissolved air flotation.
Screens.
Microstrainer.
Filtration.
Swirl concentrators.
Pumping (wastewater).
Pumping (sludge).
Sludge disposal.
Flow measurement.
Chemical mixing.
Rapid mixing.
Flocculation.
Disinfection.
Where available, cost equations derived from data presented in
"Cost Estimating Manual—Combined Sewer Overflow Storage and
Treatment"7 are used. If equations cannot be derived from this
source, then equations derived from other sources, including
equations updated from the 1976 Needs Survey are utilized. Cost
equations used in this project are presented in Table 4-2. All
O&M cost equations are based on 30 operation cycles per year and
a total time of operation of 80 days per year.
REFERENCES
1. C-E Maguire, Inc. "Storm Water-Wastewater Separation Study,
City of Norwich, Connecticut." Engineering Report. May
1976.
4-6
-------
Table 4-2
Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Functions for
Physical/ Chemical Treatment of CSO and Urban Stormwater Runoff
Treatment
Process
Administration
Laboratory
Yardwork
Sedimentation
£> Dissolved air
, flotation
Screening
Micros trainer
Filtration
Swirl concentrator
Raw wastewater
pumping
Sludge pumping
Design
Parameter
—
400 samples
per year
— :
1,500 gpd/ft2
3.600 gpd/ft2
—
—
10 gpm/ft2
—
—
—
Capital Costs
(dollars)
—
--
—
52,000 O/817
163,000 Q.658
16,700 Q-972
35,000 Q-846
127,000 Q-735
13,000 Q-818
113,000 Q-833
288,000 Q*502
S
Labor
232Q*463
9,970
1,010Q-798
3,870Q*702
3,260Q-618
3,8800_-287
3,880Q*287
27,600 + 29 Q
2.980Q-316
4,790Q-188
9,600 Q-413
S
Annual Costs
(dollars/yr)
Supplies
87Q-471
2,550
660. *838
1,520Q-212
4,7700_-870
848Q-273
848Q-273
1,0200/237
—
69Q
1,100Q-643
S
Power Reference
6
6
6
4.15 Q-779 7
1,180 Q 7
7
5,7
16.7 Q 7
7
140 Q 6,7
145 Qs ?
-------
Table 4-2 — Continued
Treatment
Process
Sludge disposal
Flow measurement
Chemical mixing
Rapid mixing
Flocculation
Disinfection
i
Design Capital Costs
Parameter (dollars)
58,100 Q-608
3,800 Q*484
Dp to 75 mg/1 55,600 Q*611
Td = 2 min 6,190 Q-724
Td = 30 min 30,000 Q-612
Up to 7 mg/1 73,100 + 6,020Q
dosage
Annual Costs
(dollars/yr)
Labor Supplies Power Reference
9,950 Q — — 6
7
4,020Q-332 41.7Q-662 23Q*86 6
98.5Q-884 30Q-698 63Q 6
392Q 206Q-641 63Q 6,7
2,060Q-597 1,320Q-690 — 6
Note: All costs are in January 1978 dollars (ENR = 2,672).
Q = Design flow rate in mgd.
Q = Sludge pumping rate in mgd (Q = 0.05Q--0.10Q)
T§ = Detention time. s
-------
2. Albertson, Sharp & Backus, Inc. "City of Norwalk, Connecticut,
Facilities Plan Update for Sewerage System." Engineering
Report. June 1977.
3. "Facilities Plan Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program."
Draft Report, February 1979.
4. Lager, J. A. and W. G. Smith. "Urban Storm Water Management
and Technology: An Assessment." EPA-670/2-74-040. December
1974.
5. Lager, J. A., et al. "Urban Storm Water Management and
Technology: Update and Users Guide." EPA-600/8-77-014.
September 1977.
6. Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc., and Black, Crow and Eidsness,
Inc. "Cost Estimates for Construction of Publicly Owned
Wastewater Treatment Facilities—Summaries of Technical Data
for Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharge—1976
Needs Survey" EPA 430/9-76-012, 10 February 1977.
7. Benjes, H. H., Jr. "Cost Estimating Manual—Combined Sewer
Overflow Storage and Treatment." EPA-600/2-76-286. December
1976.
8. Gallery, R. L. "Dispatching System for Control of Combined
Sewer Losses." Water Pollution Control Research Series
11020. March 1971.
9. Pisano, W. C. "Useful Technological Information on Sewer
Flushing." Paper presented at a seminar on combined sewer
overflow assessment and control procedures. Windsor Locks,
Connecticut. May 1978.
4-9
-------
Chapter 5
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to present pollutant removal
efficiencies for individual physical/chemical treatment processes
and to combine these processes into treatment trains that offer
cost-effective pollutant removal. Cost functions presented in
Chapter 4 are used to derive equations for estimating the capital
and annual costs of each treatment train.
RANKING INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
Removal efficiencies of individual physical/chemical treatment
processes are often erratic and unpredictable and depend on
loading rates or other process variables. An extensive litera-
ture search of physical/chemical process removal efficiencies,
including a compendium on the state-of-the-art in urban storm
water management and technology1, is summarized in Table 5-1.
The removal efficiencies reported in Table 5-1 are believed to be
typical for the processes, loading rates, and pollutants considered.
Individual efficiencies may vary considerably from the values
reported, depending on the characteristics of the runoff.
The seven treatment processes considered are storage, sedimen-
tation, dissolved air flotation with prescreening, dissolved air
flotation with prescreening and chemical addition, flocculation-
sedimentation, high-rate filtration, and microscreening. Storage
is assumed to have a detention time of 12 hours or greater and,
therefore, is assumed to achieve removals that are equivalent to
plain sedimentation.
Using the cost equations presented in Chapter 4 and the removal
efficiencies in Table 5-1, it was possible to estimate a typical
unit capital cost expressed in dollars per mgd treated per percent
pollutant removed for each of the seven treatment processes. The
results of the unit capital cost calculations are presented in
Table 5-2. Storage is not applicable to this calculation since
it is included with any treatment train.
The data in Table 5-2 are also ranked in order of increasing unit
capital costs. This ranking results in a priority rating for
each process based on its pollutant removal cost effectiveness.
The ranking ranges from one for microscreens to six for dissolved
air flotation without chemical addition.
5-1
-------
Table 5-1
Pollutant Removal Efficiencies of
Individual Physical/Chemical Treatment Processes
Treatment Pollutant Removal (%)
Process BOD. SS TKN Pb
Storage 25 30 35 30
Plain sedimentation 25 30 35 30
Loading Rate = 1,500 gal/ft2-day
Dissolved air flotation 45 50 25 50
(with prescreening)
Loading Rate = 3,600 gal/ft2-day
Dissolved air flotation 60 70 25 70
(with prescreening and chemical
addition)
Loading rate = 3,600 gal/ft2-day
Flocculation-Sedimentation 60 75 25 75
(with lime)
High rate filtration 55 65 25 65
Loading rate = 14,400 gal/ft2-day
Microscreen 35 80 30 50
(23-micron)
5-2
-------
Table 5-2
Unit Capital Costs
and Ranking of Individual
Physical/Chemical Treatment Processes
Treatment
Process
Storage
Plain sedimentation
Loading Rate = 1,500 gal/ft2-day
Dissolved air flotation
(with prescreening)
Loading rate = 3,600 gal/ft2-day
Dissolved air flotation
(with prescreening and chemical
addition)
Loading rate = 3,600 gal/ft2-day
Flocculation-sedimentation
(with lime)
High-rate filtration
Loading rate = 14,400 gal/ft2-day
Microscreen
(23-micron)
Unit Capital Costs
($/mgd-% re-noved)
BODK
NA
701
(1)
SS
NA
TKN
NA
1,366 1,138
(4) (4)
306
(1)
818
(1)
Note: The number in parenthesis indicates the individual
treatment process rank in order of increasing
unit capital costs.
Pb
NA
975 1,138
(4) (4)
1,645 1,481 2,962 1,481
(6) (6) (6) (6)
1,612 1,382 3,870 1,382
(5) (5) (5) (5)
774 619 1,857 619
(2) (2) (2) (2)
1,251 1,059 2,754 1,059
(3) (3) (3) (3)
491
(1)
5-3
-------
Selection of Treatment Trains
The ranking of unit capital costs for physical/chemical treatment
processes provides a basis for adding individual treatment
processes in series to obtain the maximum pollutant removal at
the least cost. Unit capital cost data from Table 5-2 indicate
that physical/chemical treatment processes should be added to
storage in the following order; microscreening, sedimentation-
flocculation, high-rate filtration, and then dissolved air
flotation with prescreening and chemical addition. Plain
sedimentation is not considered because sedimentation is included
in the flocculation-sedimentation process. The result of this
analysis is five levels of treatment, as shown schematically in
Figures 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3.
When treatment processes are used in series, the total pollutant
removed may be estimated using the following equation2.
RQ = R! + R2 (100-Ri) (5-1)
where
R = Total pollutant removed by two treatment
0 processes in series, in percent
R! = Pollutant removed by treatment process 1,
in percent, and
R2 = Pollutant removed by treatment process 2,
in percent.
Using equation 5-1, pollutant removal efficiencies are estimated
for the five treatment levels and presented in Table 5-3. Since
storage basins can provide a practical maximum of approximately
98% capture of all watershed pollutants, the maximum watershed
pollutant removal is slightly less than the treatment level
removal efficiency. Practical maximum watershed removal effi-
ciencies are also reported in Table 5-3.
Using the cost equations presented in Chapter 4, the capital,
operation and maintenance, and equivalent annual costs of each
component of the five treatment trains were estimated and
composite cost equations were developed and are reported in
Table 5-4. These cost functions are based on treatment rates of
1 to 100 mgd and are used in the economic optimization portion of
the needs estimate.
5-4
-------
LEVEL 1
STORAGE
Influent
Storage
Effluent
LEVEL 2
STORAGE/MICROSCREENING
Influent
Storage
Coarse
Screening
Sludge
4
Micro-
Screening
^7 sp\-
Disposal
P Influent Pumping
SP Sludge Pumping
Measurement
All Treatment
Trains Include
Disinfection
Effluent
FIGURE 5-1. Process trains for treatment levels 1 and 2.
-------
LEVELS
STORAGE/MICROSCREENING/FLOCCULATION-SEDIMENTATION
Influent
Storage
-
-------
LEVEL 5
STORAGE/MICROSCREENING/DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION/ (with chemical addition)/FLOCCULATION-SEDIMENTATION/HIGH-RATE FILTRATION
Influent
Storage
h-GT
Coarse
Screening
Micro-
Screening
Chemical
Mixing
Dissolved
Air
Flotation
Chemical
Mixing
Sludge
Disposal
P Influent Pumping
SP Sludge Pumping
Flow Measurement
All Treatment
Trains Include
Disinfection
Flocculation
Sedi-
mentation
High
Rate
Filtration
I
1
Effluent
Sludge
Disposal
FIGURE 5-3. Process train for treatment level 5.
-------
Table 5-3
Pollutant Removal Efficiencies for the
Selected Physical/Chemical Treatment Trains
Treatment
Level
1
2
3
4
5
Pollutant Removal
BODs
25
51
81
91
96
SS
30
86
97
99
99
TKN
35
55
66
74
81
Pb
30
65
91
97
99
Treatment
Level
1
2
3
4
5
Note:
Treatment Level
Maximum Watershed Removal
At 98% Capture
BODs
25
50
79
89
95
SS
29
84
95
97
97
TKN
34
54
65
73
79
Pb
29
64
89
95
97
1
2
3
4
5
Storage
Storage/microscreen
Storage/microscreen/sedimentation-
flocculation
Storage/microscreen/sedimentation-
flocculation/high-rate filtration
Storage/microscreen/dissolved air flotation
(with chemicals)/sedimentation-flocculation/
high-rate filtration
5-8
-------
Table 5-4
Capital, Operation and Maintenance, and
Equivalent Annual Costs of Selected
Physical/Chemical Treatment Trains
Treatment Capital Cost
Level (dollars)
2
3
4
5
182,500Q-735
376,OOOQ-716
631,OOOQ-693
758,OOOQ-700
O&M Costs Equivalent Annual
(dollars/year) Costs (dollars/year)
19,900Q-406
43,500Q-687
65,200Q-753
87,700Q«680
17096,OOOQ*678 112,900Q-734
35,900Q-609
78,100Q-700
122,800Q-727
157,800Q-688
213,OOOQ-711
Notes:
2
3
All costs are in January 1978 dollars
(ENR = 2,672).
Storage costs are not included.
Annual costs are based on an interest rate
of 6-5/8%, a project life of 20 years, and
include operation and maintenance costs.
Q = design flow rate in mgd.
Treatment Level
1 = Storage.
2 = Storage/microscreen.
3 - storage/microscreen/sedimentation-flocculation.
4 = Storage/microscreen/sedimentation-flocculation/
high-rate filtration.
5 = S tor age/microscreen/dis solved air flotation (with
chemicals )/sedimentation-f locculation/high-rate
filtration.
5-9
-------
REFERENCES
1. Lager, J. A. et al. "Urban Stormwater Management and
Technology: Update and User's Guide." EPA-600/8-77-014.
September 1977.
2. Heaney, J. P., and S. J. Nix. "Stormwater Management
Model: Level I--Comparative Evaluation of Storage-Treatment
and Other Management Practices." EPA-600/2-77-083.
April 1977.
5-10
-------
Chapter 6
PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS FOR COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOW AND URBAN STORMWATER
RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to define production functions for
the economic optimization of CSO and urban stormwater runoff
pollution control alternatives, based on existing literature.
A production function may be defined as a relationship between
level of effort and output. In the context of control of
pollution from urban stormwater runoff and combined sewer over-
flow, the level of effort will take on different meanings for
different control techniques. For example, in a streetsweeping
program, level of effort may be measured in terms of the fraction
of total streets swept daily, whereas, in a storage/treatment
system, level of effort may be measured as the size of the storage
treatment facility constructed to capture a desired percentage
of the annual runoff. The output of these functions is always
expressed in terms of the amount of pollutants removed from the
watershed.
Knowledge of the production function for various wet-weather
pollution control alternatives is required to obtain the least
costly pollution control strategy which also meets the desired
pollutant removal. In addition to the production function which
relates the level of effort to pollution removal, the relationship
between effort and cost must also be known. Cost data for the
1978 Needs Survey have been presented in Chapter 4. Production
functions are considered for the following control alternatives.
1. Storage/treatment systems.
2. Streetsweeping.
3. Sewer flushing.
4. Combined sewer separation.
5. Real time control systems.
In each case except for real time control systems, a generalized
production function has been identified and is discussed herein.
The cost and performance of a real time combined sewer system
control is a function of site-specific conditions. Insufficient
data are available on which to base national estimates.
6-1
-------
STORAGE/TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Application of production theory to the stormwater pollution
control problem was first proposed by Heaney, et al.1 The problem
under consideration at that time was the optimization of a storage/
treatment system which required the development of a production
function for a system which produces one output (pollutant removal)
as the result of two inputs (storage and treatment).
Figure 6-1 is a definition sketch of a production function for a
two input/one output system. The production function takes the
form of a family of curves which define combinations of storage
and treatment which will achieve an equal level of annual pollutant
removal. These curves are termed isoquants since they define
combinations of the two inputs which result in an equal value of
output. If lines of equal annual cost, termed isocost lines, are
constructed and superimposed on the isoquants, then the point of
minimum cost for each level of control can be identified. The
curve which connects these minimum cost points is termed the
expansion path and defines the optimum relationship between
storage and treatment.
The key to determination of the expansion path is the construction
of the storage treatment isoquants which are functions of the
hydrologic characteristics of the site. Storage treatment iso-
quants have been defined by the following equation.1
T = T! + (T2 - Ti) e"KS (6-1)
where
T = Treatment rate in inches per hour.
T! = Treatment rate at which isoquants become parallel
to the ordinate, in inches per hour.
T2 = Treatment rate at which isoquant intersects the
abscissa, in inches per hour.
S = Storage volume in inches.
K = Constant in inches"1.
T! is defined as follows.
Tl = 8760 * TOO <6~2>
where
AR = Annual runoff in inches per year.
C = Percent of pollutants captured.
6-2
-------
30% < Level of Control:
Percent Pollutant Captured
Isoquant
Treatment Rate, in/hr
FIGURE 6-1. Definition sketch of storage/treatment production function.
-------
The terms T2 - Tj and K are defined by the following empirical
equations derived from analysis of isoquants developed from
simulation of the rainfall/runoff and storage/treatment
process for cities located in various regions of the country.1
T2 - T! = be (6-3)
-fc
K = de (6-4)
where b, h, d, and f are parameters defined by regression
analysis.
Values for these parameters for five cities representing
various hydrologic regions are listed in Table 6-1.
Utilizing the parameters presented in Table 6-1 for the region
of the country under consideration and the mean annual runoff
(AR) of the specific urban watershed under consideration, approx-
imate storage/treatment isoquants may be constructed for any
study site in the nation.
Once the pollutant capture is known, as determined from the
isoquant analysis, then the pollutant removed from the receiving
water may be determined as follows.
FRst = Cst * Est (6-5)
where
FR . = Fraction of pollutant removed by storage treatment
on an average annual watershed basis.
C . = Fraction of pollutants captured by storage treatment
on an average annual watershed basis.
E t = Pollutant removal efficiency of the wet weather
treatment facility by constituent. Approximate removal
efficiencies for seven treatment processes and five
treatment trains are presented in Chapter 5.
STREETSWEEPING
Streetsweeping has received a great deal of attention during the
last few years as a potential water quality control management
practice. More is known about Streetsweeping costs and effec-
tiveness than is known about any other potential management
control for existing urban areas.
Streetsweeping has the major advantage of being applicable to
highly developed, established urban areas. It also controls
pollutants at the source and will improve general urban aesthetics
6-4
-------
Table 6-1
Values of Parameters and Correlation Coefficients for Isoguant
Equations for Percent BOD Capture with First Flush (after Heaney, et al.1)
San Francisco
Denver
Minneapolis
Atlanta
Washington, D.C.
b
in hr""1
0.0021654
0.0013631
0.0013656
0.0025864
0.0018959
0
0
0
0
0
h
.0388910
.0439822
.0481981
.0468175
.0487876
d
in'1
211
184
241
190
228
.2763
.9639
.6141
.2240
.8434
f
(% C)'1 T
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0320226
0279177
0301648
0312484
0339322
Correlation Coefficient
2 - Tl = be hc K = de-fC
0
0
0
0
0
.9893
.9903
.9956
.9857
.9933
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
.9898
.9926
.9958
.9899
.9896
-------
as well as water quality. However, streetsweeping is relatively
inefficient as a pollution control measure because, even under
the most favorable circumstances, only that portion of the total
pollution load located in or near street gutters can be removed.
Therefore, streetsweeping will be more effective for watersheds
served by separate sewers than for watersheds served by combined
sewers.
A review of the literature was undertaken in order to identify
those factors which are significant to a streetsweeping program
and to establish a procedure by which streetsweeping effectiveness
(i.e., production functions) can be estimated. Factors which
were determined to be important are listed as follows.
1. Type of sewer system.
2. Fraction of streets swept.
3. Streetsweeping frequency.
4. Total impervious area.
5. Impervious area due to streets.
6. Efficiency of streetsweeper.
BOD has generally been the parameter of interest for evaluating
the effectiveness of streetsweeping as a water quality management
technique. However, enough information is available to address
several other constituents. Therefore, a general procedure for
evaluation of alternative streetsweeping programs and construction
of streetsweeping production functions will be developed here.
This procedure provides a means whereby overall removal efficien-
cies for total solids, volatile solids, BOD, COD, TKN, nitrates,
phosphates, and heavy metals can be evaluated.
In the most general case, the fraction of total watershed
pollutants removed by streetsweeping can be expressed as follows.
FR T = Fsw • sw • Ysw (6-6)
sw
where
FR = Fraction of pollutant removed by streetsweeping on
sw an average annual watershed basis.
Fsw = Fraction of streets swept.
4>sw = Sweeping availability factor.
Ysw = Fraction of pollutants available to the streetsweeper
which are removed by sweeping.
6-6
-------
The factor Fsw, fraction of streets swept, may reflect current
streetsweeping practice within a community, or it may be an
indicator of the type of streets existing within a given watershed.
For example, it may be current practice to sweep only certain [
major downtown streets with the remainder receiving no attention.
In this case, the factor Fsw represents the ratio of the area of
streets actually swept to the total street area.
Streetsweeping is effective only on streets where pollutants
accumulate which, in general, is on streets constructed with
curbs. Thus, the sweeping of streets without curbs would be
largely ineffective. For this reason, the maximum practical
streetsweeping program would be to sweep all curbed streets.
In this case, the factor Fsw would represent the ratio of area
of curbed streets to total street area. The value of Fsw will
range from near 0.0 in some low density suburban areas which were
developed without curbed streets to near 1.0 in high density
urban or downtown commercial areas, served entirely by curbed
streets.
Evaluation of the sweeping availability factor, <(>sw, requires
several assumptions regarding the distribution of pollutants
within the watershed. It is generally accepted that most pollu-
tant surface washoff from urban areas is associated with the
impervious portion of the watershed.
Given that pollutant accumulation is significant only on impervious
areas, it then becomes important to determine the distribution of
this material within the impervious portion of the watershed.
Data related to the distribution of pollutants are not available.
However, it is probable that a disproportionate amount of the
material is located on the streets or is delivered to the streets
prior to final entry into the storm drainage system. Heaney and
Nix (1977)2 developed a relationship between the streetsweeping
availability factor sw and population density, assuming that
pollutants are uniformly distributed over the impervious portions
of the watershed. Such an assumption would, however, tend to
underestimate pollutant availability. A more accurate repre-
sentation would be to assume that surface loadings are twice as
great on street surfaces as on other impervious surfaces. This
assumption was made in the 1976 Needs Survey for control of
pollution from combined sewer overflow and urban storm-water
runoff.3 Utilizing the above assumption, a relationship between
total impervious area and population density developed by Stankowski4
and a relationship between area of streets and population density
reported by Heaney, Huber, and Nix (1976),5 the following rela-
tionship between the availability factor, <|>sw, and population
density may be derived.
d>sw = a (0.67 - 0.00762PD) (6-7)
T sw
6-7
-------
where
()>sw = Streetsweeping availability factor which is the
ratio of the pollutant available in the streets to
the total watershed pollutant load.
a = Sewer system type factor.
sw
PD = Watershed population density in persons per acre.
For comparison purposes, an equation similar to the above equation
was derived based on the assumption of uniform pollutant distri-
bution. This equation is expressed as follows.
sw = a T(0.50 - 0.00762PD) (6-8)
SW
The above equation is presented only to illustrate the sensitivity
of the pollutant distribution assumption.
The a or sewer system type factor is equal to 1.0 for watersheds
serveSwby storm sewers because all pollutant accumulation occurs
on the watershed surface. In combined sewers, a substantial
portion of the pollutants accumulate directly in the collection
system and are therefore unavailable to the streetsweeper. The
of factor is, therefore, the ratio of surface accumulation to
t§¥al watershed accumulation. For combined sewers, a is assumed
to be equal to 0.24 for BOD, SS, TKN, and P04 and equal to 1.0
for Pb.
The final factor appearing in the Streetsweeping availability,
factor equation Ysw, factor of available pollutant removed by the
streetsweeper, is a function of rainfall characteristics, sweeping
frequency, and streetsweeper pickup efficiency. Adimi, et al.
(1976)6 evaluated the effectiveness of Streetsweeping in the
Washington, B.C., area by use of simulation. The results of this
study were presented as a family of curves (production functions)
relating frequency of sweeping and pickup efficiency to percentage
of BOD removed from the street gutters (Ysw). Heaney and Nix2
performed a similar simulation study using Minneapolis rainfall
data. This study resulted in development of a more complete set
of production functions which are presented in Figure 6-2.
A review of the literature2'6~9 concerning streetsweeper pickup
efficiencies was conducted in order to establish typical values
for various constitutents. The results of this review are
reported in Table 6-2.
There are two types of streetsweepers in general use. These
are broom type and vacuum type. The vacuum type does a better
job of picking up fine material and, thus, has higher pollutant
pickup efficiencies, as shown in Table 6-2. Most efficiency
values for the broom-type sweeper were derived from data developed
6-8
-------
Streetsweepmg Simulation,
Minneapolis, Minn-1971
E.» Efficiency
0.2 0.4 0.6
Fraction of Days Streets are Swept, Xsw
FIGURE 6*2. Production functions for streetsweeping.
-------
Table 6-2
Estimated Pickup Efficiencies (E)
by Streetsweeper Type and Constituent
Type of Streetsweeper
Constituent
Total solids
Volatile solids
BOD5
COD
TKN
Nitrates
Phosphates
Heavy metals
Broom
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.30
0.45
0.35
0.20
0.50
Vacuum or Broom/
Vacuum Combination
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.90
Note: The above pickup efficiencies are typical values
rounded to the nearest 0.05.
6-10
-------
by Sartor and Boyd9 as reported by Heaney and Nix.2 Efficiency
values for vacuum-type sweepers were estimated by extrapolation
of the Sartor and Boyd data and by comparison of these estimates
with typical values reported by Field, et al.7
The streetsweeping production function used in the 1978 Needs
Survey is presented in Figure 6-3. This streetsweeping production
function was developed from an areawide 208 study performed in
Illinois, assuming a streetsweeper with an 80% pickup efficiency.10
The Management of Urban Nonpoint Pollution (MUNP) Model11'12
was used to evaluate the pollutant removal effectiveness of
streetsweeping operations. The MUNP model is a continuous planning
model that can simulate the physical processes of nonpoint source
pollutant accumulation, washoff, and control. The MUNP model
uses the streetsweeping equations developed by Sutherland and
McCuen.11 The effectiveness of streetsweeping in removing total
solids and associated pollutants is a function of the accumulated
material in each particle size range, the type of sweeper (i.e.,
broom type or vacuum), and the forward speed of the sweeper. The
data used in the development of the MUNP model's streetsweeping
component were obtained by the U.S. Naval Radiological Defense
Laboratory13'14 which conducted a series of tests designed to
evaluate the effectiveness of broom-type and vacuum streetsweepers
in removing particulate material.
The streetsweeping production function shown on Figure 6-3 was
developed from data obtained from several simulations with the
MUNP model. 1960 hourly rainfall data for Champaign-Urbana and a
modified version of the Illinois State Water Survey's nonlinear
street solids accumulation curve for commercial land uses15 were
inputs to the continuous model. A streetsweeper operating at a
forward speed of 6 miles per hour was assumed. Successive
simulations of the MUNP model in which the streetsweeping frequency
was the only variable changed provided annual BOD removals (i.e.,
expressed as a fraction of the available BOD street surface
loading, Y ) for several levels of sweeping effort (i.e., expressed
as the fraction of days streets are swept, X ). A curve was fit
to the data generated by the simulation.
Figure 6-3 also shows a comparison of the Minneapolis, Minnesota,
and the 1978 Needs Survey streetsweeping production functions for
an 80% pickup efficiency.
The procedure for estimating the overall reduction of pollutant
loading due to a given streetsweeping program may be summarized
in four steps.
1. For the constituent of interest and a known sweeper type,
select the appropriate efficiency, E, from Table 6-2.
6 - 11
-------
E - 0.8 (from FIGURE 6-2)
Y' 0.08909 XgW
sw " (0.00589 + 0.10547 XjW)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Fraction of Days Streets are Swept ,X$W
FIGURE 6-3. Streetsweeping production function for economic optimization.
-------
2. Knowing E and the frequency of streetsweeping, determine the
fraction of available pollutant removed by sweeping, Ysw,
from Figure 6-2 or 6-3.
3. Using the population density of the watershed, PD, and
knowing the type of collection system, estimate the street-
sweeping availability factor, sf • Esf • E^p • Ysf (6_g)
where
FR - = Fraction of pollutant removed by sewer flushing on an
average annual basis.
4 - = Sewer flushing availability factor.
Tsr
6-13
-------
I
£
Ji
o
o
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Fraction of Sewer Components Flushed Daily ,Xsf
FIGURE 6-4. Production function for combined sewer flushing.
-------
E - = Efficiency of sewer flushing, defined as the ratio of
the amount of pollutants delivered to the WWTP to the
amount of pollutants resuspended.
= Pollutant removal efficiency of the wastewater treatment
plant.
Y - = Fraction of pollutants available in the collection
system, which are resuspended by flushing.
The sewer flushing availability factor, <)» f, is equal to 0.76 for
BOD, SS, and TKN and is equal to 0.0 for lead. These values
imply that approximately 3/4 of the BOD, SS, and TKN found in
combined sewer systems accumulates in the collection system,
whereas all of the lead accumulates on the surface and is,
therefore, unavailable for flushing.
Preliminary results indicate that sewer flushing removal effec-
tiveness, E £, ranges from 0.75 to 0.90.16 For the purpose of
the 1978 Nelas Survey, a value of 0.83 was used in all computa-
tions .
The pollutant removal efficiency of the wastewater treatment
plant, E . , is independent of the sewer flushing program but
must be a^cBunted for, since the final objective is to prevent
pollutants from entering the receiving water. Typical values for
secondary treatment are 0.85 for BOD and SS.
The fraction of pollutants which are resuspended by sewer flushing,
Y fl is a function of the level of effort of the sewer flushing
program. This effort is expressed as the fraction of sewer
components flushed daily and is represented by the production
function illustrated in Figure 6-4.
SEWER SEPARATION
A review of the available literature failed to produce a production
function for sewer separation or data which could be used to
define such a function. It is reasoned, however, that sewer
separation may be addressed in a manner similar to the procedures
developed for streetsweeping and sewer flushing. Thus, the
fraction of total watershed pollutants removed by sewer separation
may be expressed by the following equation.
FRsep = ^sep ' Ewwtp * Ysep (6-10)
where
FR = Fraction of total watershed pollutants removed by
seP combined sewer separation.
6 - 15
-------
<|> = Combined sewer separation availability factor.
= Pollutant removal efficiency of the wastewater treatment
plant.
Yg = Fraction of pollutants available in the collection
p system, which are transmitted to the wastewater treatment
plant by combined sewer separation.
The sewer separation availability factor, D/ is identical to
the sewer flushing availability factor, £» since both factors
represent the ratio of pollutants available in the collection
system to total watershed pollutants. This factor is equal to
0.76 for BOD, SS, and TKN and is equal to 0.0 for lead.
Y , the fraction of available pollutants transmitted to the
WwTr, is a function of the degree of combined sewer separation.
If the assumption is made that pollution accumulation is uniform
over the watershed, then Y is equal to the fraction of sewer
components separated on an area basis. Thus, the production
function for combined sewer separation may be considered linear,
as illustrated in Figure 6-5.
REFERENCES
1. Heaney, J. P., et al. "Nationwide Evaluation of Comb
Sewer Overflows and Urban Stormwater Discharges Volume II:
Cost Assessment and Impacts." EPA-600/2-77-064.
March 1977.
2. Heaney, J. P. and S. J. Nix. "Storm-water Management
Model: Level I - Comparative Evaluation of Storage -
Treatment and Other Management Practices." EPA 600/
2-77-083. April 1977.
3. Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc., and Black, Crow and
Eidsness, Inc. "Cost Estimates for Construction of
Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities - Summaries
of Technical Data for Combined Sewer Overflows and
Storm-water Discharge - 1976 Needs Survey." EPA 43O/
9-76-012. February 1977.
4. stankowski, S. J. "Magnitude and Frequency of Floods
in New Jersey with Effects of Urbanization." Special
Report No. 38. U.S. Geological Survey, State of New Jersey,
Division of Water Resources. 1974.
5. Heaney, J. P., W. C. Huber, and S. J. Nix. "Storm-
water Management Model: Level I - Preliminary Screening
Procedures." EPA 600/2-76-275. October 1976.
6-16
-------
1.0
£
a>
TJ
I
S.
ja
J2
3
o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
z
/
/
C»
E\
/
/
jrve Based on As
/enly Distributed
1
/
/
/
/
/
gumption that Pollutant Generation i$
Throughout Combined Sewer Watershed
II 1 1
) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.(
Fraction of Sewer Components Separated, Xsep
FIGURE 6-5. Production for combined sewer separation.
-------
6. Adimi, R., et al. "An Evaluation of Streetsweeping
Effectiveness in the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution."
The Catholic University of America. April 1976.
7. Field, R., A. N. Tafuri, and H. E. Masters, "Urban Runoff
Pollution Control Technology Overview." EPA 600/ 2-77-047.
March 1977.
8. Lager, J. A., and W. G. Smith. "Urban Storm-water Management
and Technology: An Assessment." EPA 67O/ 2-74-040.
December 1974.
9. Sartor, J. D., and G. B. Boyd. "Water Pollution Aspects of
Street Surface Contaminants." EPA 22-72-081.
November 1972.
10. CH2M HILL. "Feasible Methods to Control Pollution from Urban
Stormwater Runoff, Second Interim Report." 208 Study for
Illinois EPA. 1978.
11. Sutherland, R. C. and R. H. McCuen. "Simulation of Urban
Nonpoint Source Pollution." Water Resources Bulletin. Vol. 14,
No. 2. April 1978. pp. 409-428.
12. Sutherland, R. C., L. E. Brazil, and D. M. Mades. "Management
of Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution." Presented at the American
Water Resources Association Conference. Tuscon, Arizona,
31 October through 3 November 1977.
13. Lee, H., J. D. Sartor, and W. H. Van Horn. Stoneman n_
Tests of Reclamation Performance, Volume III, Performance
Characteristics of Dry Decontamination Procedures. U.S.
Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. USNRDL-TR-336.
June 1959.
14. Clark, D. E. Jr., and W. C. Cobbin. Removal Effectiveness
of Simulated Dry Fallout from Paved Areas by Motorized and
Vacuumized Streetsweepers. U.S. Naval Radiological Defense
Laboratory. USNRDL-TR-746. August 1963.
15. Terstriep, M. L., G. M. Bender, and D. J. Benoit. "Nonpoint
Sources of Pollution During Urban Storm Runoff." Illinois
State Water Survey. 1978.
16. Pisano, W. C. and C. S. Queiroz. "Procedures for Estimating
Dry Weather Pollutant Deposition in Sewerage Systems."
EPA-600/2-77-120. July 1977.
6-18
-------
PART III
SITE STUDIES
-------
Chapter 7
OUTLINE OF CONTINUOUS STORMWATER
POLLUTION SIMULATION SYSTEM (CSPSS)
The Continuous Stormwater Pollution Simulation System (CSPSS) was
developed for use in the 1978 Facilities Needs Estimate for Control
of Pollution from Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), Category V, and
from Urban Stormwater Runoff, Category VI. The CSPSS model was used
to perform a continuous macroscopic analysis of 14 of the 15 urban
study sites to estimate the impact of CSO and urban Stormwater on
a receiving river or river/estuary. The receiving water of the 15th
urban study site, Syracuse, New York, is a lake, and CSPSS does not
apply in this case.
The three main objectives of these studies were to determine (1) if
a particular urban area/receiving water system is presently experi-
encing a receiving water quality water problem, (2) how much of the
problem, if any, is due to CSO and urban Stormwater runoff, and
(3) the level of pollutant removal required to achieve selected
water quality goals. A summary of the 15 site studies is presented,
in Chapter 8 and complete site study results are presented in
Appendix A. This chapter will present only a brief description
of the CSFSS since a separate document provides a detailed
development of the model, including computer coding instructions
and a complete Fortran listing.1
SYSTEM STRUCTURE
The Continuous Stormwater Pollution Simulation System is structured
as a series of modules, each designed to perform a certain set of
hydrologic or water quality computations. These modules are nested;
that is, output of one may become input to another. In some cases,
more than one option is available to perform a given function,
and the system is structured so that additional modules may be
developed and added in the future with a minimum of changes to
the existing modules.
Basic functions which may be simulated on a continuous basis are
listed as follows.
1. Local rainfall.
2. Local runoff.
3. Pollutant washoff.
7-1
-------
4. Sewer system infiltration.
5. S to r age/tr e atinent.
6. Dry-weather wastewater flow.
7. Receiving water streamflow.
8. Receiving water quality response.
These modules may be executed in logical sequential order to produce
the desired simulation. A general flow chart of the simulation
system is shown in Figure 7-1.
The numbers given in each box on Figure 7-1 are module identifiers
which are associated with each computation routine. The series
10 through 50 (rainfall through storage/treatment) constitutes the
urban runoff and combined sewer system pollution generation simu-
lation. The 60 module and 70 module generate wastewater treatment
flow and upstream receiving water flow, respectively. Output from
the 10 through 50 series and modules 60 and 70 are input to module
80 which computes receiving water quality resulting from these
inputs.
COMPUTATIONAL SEQUENCE
The basic computational sequence involves the generation of a
number of annual arrays. The first array is the annual rainfall
array, developed in the rainfall module (10), which drives the
remainder of the urban runoff pollution generation sequence.
The runoff module (20) converts the rainfall array to a runoff
array which represents the hydrologic response of the urban area.
Either one or two watersheds may be represented; therefore,
either one or two runoff arrays may be generated.
The washoff module (30) simulates the processes of pollution
accumulation and subsequent pollutant washoff for four constituents:
suspended solids (SS), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and lead (Pb). Thus, four runoff
quality arrays are defined for each watershed.
The sewer system infiltration module (40) is optional and applies
to sewer systems subject to infiltration-induced overflow. This
module will generate an infiltration array based on the recent
time history of daily rainfall. Quality arrays for SS, BOD, TKN,
and Pb are also developed, and these arrays are combined with the
runoff quantity and quality arrays.
The storage/treatment module (50) simulates the effects of a
storage/treatment system on the runoff sequence and on runoff
quality.
7-2
-------
MAIN
(CONTROL)
DRY-
WEATHER
FLOW
STREAMFLOV
(UPSTREAM)
RAINFALL
RUNOFF
®
WASHOFF
©
I
(40
SEWER v-x
SYSTEM
INFILTRATION
STORAGE/
TREATMENT
RECEIVING WATER RESPONSE
(STREAM/ESTUARY)
FIGURE 7-1. General flow chart for CSPSS.
-------
The receiving water response module (80) determines the water
quality response of the receiving stream immediately downstream
of the urban area. All waste sources, including urban stormwater
runoff, combined sewer overflow, wastewater treatment plant
effluent, and upstream flow, are considered. Constituents simu-
lated include suspended solids concentrations, minimum dissolved
oxygen concentrations, and total and dissolved lead concentrations.
Allowable time steps are 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours. A shorter
time step could be used with a program modification to increase
all annual array sizes. However, for the purpose of the 1978
Needs Survey, a time step of 4 hours was used on all free-flowing
freshwater streams and a 24-hour time step was used on all tidal
river/estuary receiving water systems.
RAINFALL SIMULATOR
The purpose of the rainfall simulator is to develop an annual array
of rainfall depths, which is representative of point rainfall for
the urban area under consideration. The rainfall array is developed
for the time step used in the simulation (i.e., 4 hours or 24 hours)
and preserves certain statistical characteristics of observed rainfall
events. It is assumed that all precipitation occurs as rainfall.
Snowmelt is not simulated.
Two seasons are defined for the purpose of rainfall simulation,
which means that rainfall depths are assumed to belong to one of
two different statistical populations depending on time of
occurrence. These two populations may represent a wet season and
a dry season or a summer season and a winter season, as defined
by the user.
Rainfall simulation is based on the assumption that adjacent
rainfall events are independent and that the time between events,
the duration of events, and rainfall depths can be represented by
certain standard distribution models. Independent events are based
on an interevent time of 8 hours for a 4-hour time step and of
24 hours for a 24-hour time step.
Synthetic observations of the time between storms and duration of
storms are generated by Monte Carlo sampling of an exponential
distribution. Synthetic observations of rainfall depths for each
time step within a given event are generated by a two-step
procedure. First, the rainfall depth for the first time period
is generated by Monte Carlo sampling of a log-normal distribution.
Once the rainfall depth for the first time interval of an event
is established, then the rainfall depth for all subsequent time
intervals of the same rainfall event are computed by application
of a first-order Markov model.
7-4
-------
WATERSHED RUNOFF
The purpose of this portion of the simulation is to transform the
annual rainfall array into an annual runoff array. One or two
runoff arrays may be generated. In general, one runoff array
will represent the hydrologic response of the urban area served
by combined sewers, and the other runoff array will represent the
hydrologic response of the urban area served by separate sewers.
However, in the case of an urban area which does not have any
combined sewer service area, the user has the option of generating
two runoff arrays, each of which represents the hydrologic response
of a portion of the urban area, or the user may generate only one
runoff array which represents the entire urban area.
The method used is based on a rainfall runoff relationship
developed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS rain-
fall/runoff relationship was chosen because it is a simple rela-
tionship which accounts for the major factors influencing direct
surface runoff, such as land use, soil type, antecedent rainfall,
initial losses, and variation of the rainfall/runoff ratio during
a given event. Other simpler relationships, such as the rational
method, do not account for all of the above factors, and more
sophisticated procedures require continuous soil moisture
accounting which is computationally complex and requires detailed
knowledge of watershed characteristics.
Once the runoff arrays are generated, then a simple hydrologic
routing (time-area) may be applied to each array to account for
watershed storage. This step will redistribute the flows with
respect to time. However, the total volumes will remain unchanged.
POLLUTION ACCUMULATION AND WASHOFF
The objective of the pollution accumulation and washoff module
is to simulate the process of pollutant accumulation or buildup
on the watershed during dry periods and subsequent pollutant washoff
during periods of runoff. Pollutants considered are those which
are evaluated in the receiving water impact analysis and include
suspended solids (SS), 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and lead (Pb). The accumulation
and removal of each of the above pollutants are computed for each
time step in the year, and annual quality arrays for each are
developed.
The watershed pollutant accumulation function can be specified
as a linear or nonlinear buildup, depending on the pollutant
decay rate. For the purposes of the 1978 Needs Survey, it was
assumed that oxygen-demanding materials, i.e., BOD and TKN,
will reach maximum accumulation in 15 days and that non-oxygen-
demanding materials, i.e., SS and Pb, accumulate in a linear
fashion. Pollutant accumulation rates are calculated using
the SWMM Level 1 equations2 unless field data are available.
7-5
-------
Watershed pollutant washoff at the end of any time period is a
function of the pollutant accumulation at the end of the previous
time period and of the runoff during the time period. The func-
tional form of this relationship utilized in CSPSS is the classical
exponential decay curve.
SEWER SYSTEM INFILTRATION
The purpose of the infiltration component is to construct an annual
array of daily excess sewer infiltration values for wastewater
collection systems. This array is added to the runoff array before
processing by the storage/treatment model or receiving water model.
Thus, it is primarily intended for use in combined sewer systems.
The infiltration module is optional and should be used when there
is evidence that infiltration alone will cause treatment plant
bypass or overflow and when the annual quantity of such overflow
is known or can be estimated.
Sewer system infiltration rates depend on many factors such as soil
type/ ground-water table elevations, type of collection system, and
age and condition of collection system as well as local rainfall.
No general mathematical models are available which account for all
of the above parameters. Therefore, simulation of sewer system
infiltration is subject to much uncertainty, and the results must
be reviewed by the user for reasonableness.
Total infiltration quantity is computed from the rainfall array by
an empirical equation developed from analysis of observed rainfall
and infiltration data for the City of Baltimore, Maryland.3 Infil-
tration is assumed to be pure water which mixes with and dilutes
sanitary wastewater in the collection system.
STORAGE/TREATMENT
The purpose of the storage/treatment module is to modify the runoff
quantity and quality arrays in such a manner as to simulate the
operation of stormwater runoff storage and treatment facilities.
Computation of storage, treatment, and overflow is accomplished
on a simulation time step basis throughout the year. For every
time period in which runoff occurs, the treatment facilities are
utilized to treat as much runoff as possible. When the runoff
rate exceeds the treatment rate, storage is utilized to contain
the runoff. When runoff is less than the treatment rate, the
excess treatment rate is utilized to diminish the storage level.
If the storage capacity is exceeded, all excess runoff is consid-
ered overflow and does not pass through the storage facility.
This overflow is discharged to the receiving water and cannot be
treated later. The treated runoff array is then added to the
overflow array and the combined quality is computed to produce
the new modified runoff arrays.
7-6
-------
The quality of the runoff waters in storage is considered to be
the quality of the composite mixture during any time step. Thus,
storage will have an attenuation effect on both the quantity and
quality of runoff. However, actual removal of pollutants from the
runoff waters in storage is not simulated directly. Thus, the
treatment which occurs in storage is assumed to be negligible
or may be accounted for by adjustment of the removal efficiencies
assigned to the treatment processes.
The physical, chemical, and biological aspects of wastewater
treatment are not simulated directly in this module. Instead,
effluent quality for each constituent is computed by application
of a user-supplied treatment efficiency to the stored runoff waters.
DRY-WEATHER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FLOW
The purpose of the dry-weather flow module is to create an array
of flow values which represents base wastewater flow generated by
the entire urban area. Both domestic and industrial waste sources
should be considered. Average values of wastewater effluent quality
for SS, BOD, TKN, and Pb are applied to the time variant flow array
to generate representative dry-weather point source wasteloads to
the receiving water.
Dry-weather point source flow magnitude is varied by hour of the
day and by day of the week by application of the appropriate flow
ratios. These flow ratios are multiplied by the mean dry-weather
wastewater effluent flow rate to obtain a representative time
variant flow rate. The ratios used are the national average
default values used in the "STORM" model.4
UPSTREAM FLOW
The purpose of the streamflow modules is to provide an array of
flow values which are representative of the upstream flow entering
the urban area. Only quantitative aspects of the upstream flow
are considered in this portion of the simulation system.
Upstream water quality data are input with the receiving water
module.
There are two options available for upstream flow. The first
(module 70) reads in and stores an array of observed daily flow
values for a period of up to 5 years. The second (module 71) is
a stochastic streamflow simulator which will generate synthetic
values of monthly flows. Module 71 is similar in structure to the
synthetic rainfall generator.
7-7
-------
For the purposes of the Needs Survey, module 70 was used since the
time distribution of streamflow is better defined on a daily basis
than on a monthly basis.
The term "upstream flow," as used here, refers to all waters
entering the upstream boundary of the urban area which are
available to blend with the local urban runoff, combined sewer
overflow, and wastewater treatment plant effluents. These flows
may be generated by one or more major streams, as illustrated on
Figure 7-2. Refering to Figure 7-2, flows Q. and QB are the
flows of interest, and their summation defines the upstream flow
array which is to be read into or simulated by the model.
Several additional important concepts are illustrated in Figure 7-2.
First, the receiving stream within the limits of the urban area is
considered a mixing zone. This zone accepts the upstream flows
and mixes these flows with the local urban-area-induced flows,
including urban runoff, combined sewer overflow, and wastewater
treatment plant effluent. These local flows are added to the
upstream flow to produce the total outflow from the urban area,
represented as Qc on Figure 7-2. The total outflow (quantity and
quality) from the urban area becomes the inflow to the receiving
water response portion of the simulation.
RECEIVING WATER RESPONSE'
The purpose of the receiving water response portion of the simulation
is to compute the water quality of the receiving water on a contin-
uous basis. Water quality parameters considered are (1) suspended
solids concentrations, (2) minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations,
and (3) total and dissolved lead concentrations. In addition, total
annual discharge of all pollutants to the receiving water is determined.
The receiving water response module will generate the data required
to construct a cumulative frequency distribution for each water
quality parameter considered. Cumulative frequency curves may be
developed for existing prototype conditions or for proposed condi-
tions. The difference between existing condition and proposed
condition curves can then be compared to quantify the receiving
water quality impact of the proposed improvements.
Suspended Solids
Suspended solids are assumed to be a conservative substance during
the time period required for inflows to mix. Thus, suspended solids
concentration occurring in the receiving water during each time step
is computed as the flow-weighted average of all suspended solids
entering the mixing zone (see Figure 7-2) during that time step.
7-8
-------
RIVER B
RIVERA
FIGURE 7-2. Definition sketch showing upstream flow, mixing zone, and receiving zone.
-------
Dissolved Oxygen
The dissolved oxygen response model is a one-dimensional, completely
mixed plug flow freshwater river or river/estuary representation.
Application of this model is limited to free-flowing freshwater
streams and tidal river estuaries where the flow primarily occurs
along one dimension. In general, if the length of the receiving
water system is large compared to the width, then the model can be
applied. The model cannot be applied to impounded rivers and lakes
or to multidimensional estuary systems. The DO budget computations
for a river/estuary are modified to account for tidal dispersion
using a dispersion coefficient.
Parameters of the system are considered constant throughout the
length of the stream under consideration. Thus, the model is a
lumped parameter representation rather than a distributed
parameter representation.
Oxygen demands considered are ultimate carbonaceous BOD, nitrogenous
BOD, sediment demand, and background dissolved oxygen deficit. The
only oxygen source considered is atmospheric reaeration. Atmospheric
reaeration rate (K2 value) for the receiving water during each time
step may be calculated by using the existing hydraulic conditions
to select one of three equations.5 These equations are (1) the
O'Connor-Dobbins equation, (2) the Churchill equation, and (3) the
Owens equation. The user also has the option to specify a constant
reaeration value. This may be useful when modeling a small stream
or a stream with a known reaeration rate.
Separate deoxygenation rates (K2 values) are user-specified for
each waste source, including upstream flow, combined sewer over-
flow, urban stormwater runoff, and wastewater treatment plant
effluent. Both sets of reaction rates (Kt and K2) are adjusted
for receiving water temperature before computing DO levels.
Dissolved Lead
The equilibrium dissolved lead response model for CSPSS is based
on the assumption that a lead carbonate (PbCO3) system governs the
chemistry of lead in natural waters. In most cases, it is generally
accepted that lead carbonate chemistry will control dissolved lead
content for most natural waters where pH is in a reasonable range
and total lead concentrations are not excessive. When the lead
carbonate system governs the chemistry of aquatic lead, the solu-
bility of lead is a function of total alkalinity, total hardness,
and pH of the receiving water after mixing. The dissolved lead
equilibrium model developed here is based primarily on information
presented by Stumm and Morgan.6
The purpose of the model is to compute total and dissolved lead
concentrations in the receiving water for each time step of the
simulation. In addition, maximum annual 96-hour and time average
mean dissolved lead concentrations are also computed.
7-10
-------
REFERENCES
1. Wycoff, R. L., and M. J. Mara. 1978 Needs Survey—
Continuous Stormwater Pollution Simulation System—Users
Manual EPA-430/9-79-004. FRD-4. 10 February 1979.
2. Heaney, J. P. et al. "Stormwater Management Model Level 1,
Preliminary Screening Procedures." EPA-600/2-76-275.
October 1976.
3. Huber, W. C. et al. "Stormwater Management Model Users
Manual, Version II." EPA-670/2-75-017. March 1975. Page 139,
4. "Storage, Treatment, Overflow Runoff Model Storm" Users Manual
The Hydrologic Engineering Center. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Davis, California. July 1976.
5. Covar, A. P. "Selecting the Proper Reaeration Coefficient
for Use in Water Quality Models." Proceedings, Conference
on Environmental Modeling and Simulation. EPA-600/9-76-016.
July 1976.
6. Stumm, W., and J. J. Morgan. "Aquatic Chemistry: An
Introduction Emphasizing Chemical Equilibria in Natural
Waters." Wiley-Interscience, Inc. New York. 1970.
7-11
-------
Chapter 8
SITE STUDIES FOR RECEIVING WATER IMPACT ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to present (1) the criteria for
selecting the 15 receiving water study sites, (2) the procedure for
simulating receiving water quality, and (3) a summary of the results
of the receiving water simulation. A complete presentation of the
15 site studies is presented in Appendix A.
The results of these site studies are analyzed in Chapter 10 to
determine relationships between receiving water quality and pollutant
removal requirements. These generalized relationships are then applied
to the urbanized area data base in Chapter 11 to produce the national
needs estimate for Categories V and VI.
SITE SELECTION
The criteria for selection of the 15 study sites were similar to the
primary criteria reported in the 1976 Needs Survey1 as follows.
1. Study sites were evenly distributed geographically throughout
the United States.
2. Study sites were representative of the full population range of
urban centers.
3. Ten sites were served by combined sewer systems and five were
served by separate storm sewers only.
4. The sites were selected based on the availability of the follow-
ing types of data.
a. Water quality of stormwater/combined sewer runoff, including
BOD5, COD, nitrogen (NO2, TKN), SS, coliforms, and heavy
metals.
b. Drainage area, level of development (percent impervious
area) slope, soil type, etc., for tributary watershed.
c. Continuous rainfall data at or near the site.
d. Streamflow data for receiving water upstream of urban area.
e. Water quality data for receiving water including DO, temp-
erature, SS, coliforms, salinity, etc.
8-1
-------
These site selection criteria were applied to 24 candidate combined
sewer sites and 12 candidate stormwater sites. An extensive literature
search was performed so that the potential study sites could be ranked
according to the availability of data and the applicability of the
Continuous Stormwater Pollution Simulation System (CSPSS, presented
in Chapter 7). The two major sources of information for this litera-
ture search were the EPA Water Quality Management Information System2
and the USGS National Water Data Exchange3 (NAWDEX).
The Water Quality Management Information System tracks the progress
of 76 areawide and 49 state 208 programs. Each 208 project profile
stored on this system contains startup dates, major cities involved,
a description of high priority problems, milestones for achieving
solutions, and a narrative overview of proposed solutions.
The USGS NAWDEX has been established to assist users of water data
in the identification, location, and acquisition of needed data.
Its objectives are to provide the user with sufficient information
to define what, data are available, where these data may be obtained,
and in what form they are available as well as to describe some of
their major characteristics. NAWDEX is comprised of water-oriented
organizations in the federal, state, and local governments and in
the academic and private sectors of the water data community who work
together to make their water data readily and conveniently available.
Data search and referral services are currently provided through the
Program Office established by the USGS, which has the lead role
responsibility for NAWDEX operations. A computerized Master Water
Data Index has been created, which currently identifies more than
61,500 sites for which water data are available, the location of
these sites, the hydrologic disciplines represented by the data, the
media in which the data are available, and the organizations collect-
ing the data.
Based on these site selection criteria, the 15 selected study sites
are:
Group 1—Combined Sewer Systems (Figure 8-l|
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Des Moines, Iowa
Atlanta, Georgia Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Portland, Oregon Washington, DC
Rochester, New York Sacramento, California
Bucyrus, Ohio Syracuse, New York
Group 2—Separate Storm Sewers (Figure 8-2)
Durham, North Carolina Tulsa, Oklahoma
Castro Valley, California Ann Arbor, Michigan
Springfield, Missouri
8-2
-------
Ratio of projected population served by combined
sewers to total sewered population, 1962.
I i 0%-10%
KM 51%-75%
mil Over 75%
11%-25%
26%-50%
PHILADELPHIA
wiijj^,^]&/^
^SHINGTON. D.C.
FIGURE 8-1. Location of combined sewer site studies.
-------
FIGURE 8-2. Location of stormwater site studies.
-------
Figure 8-1 not only illustrates the distribution of the selected com-
bined sewer sites but also shows the distribution of populations
served by combined sewer systems. Seven of the 15 selected study
sites were included in the 1976 Needs Survey: Atlanta, Georgia; Des
Moines, Iowa; Durham, North Carolina; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; and Tulsa, Oklahoma.
SITE STUDY PROCEDURE
The analysis of pollutant removal requirements to meet the receiving
water quality objectives presented in Chapter 2 was performed using
the CSPSS described in Chapter 7.
Basically, the procedure consists of loading the site data module-
by-module and testing each module before proceeding to the next.
Since the modules of CSPSS are nested (i.e., output from one becomes
input to another), it is not possible to adequately test one module
until all modules preceding it are operating properly. For example,
watershed pollution accumulation and washoff (module 30) cannot be
calibrated until the runoff module (20) is generating a representative
runoff sequence. Also, the runoff module cannot be calibrated until
the generated rainfall sequence is determined to be representative
of the study site.
Rainfall Module
Rainfall statistics from each study site are based on a 5-year sample
of rainfall data from the climatological data records of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In general, the input
rainfall statistics were considered representative when the 20-year
simulation mean annual rainfall was within ±5% of the long-term sta-
tion average and when the extreme value frequency curve obtained from
the 20-year simulation compared reasonably well with the extreme value
frequency curve obtained from the U.S. Weather Bureau Technical Paper
No. 40.4
Runoff Module
Runoff simulation requires an estimate of the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) curve number (CN) for each study watershed. The CN
values are adjusted up or down until the 10-year simulated runoff
volume agrees with the measured or estimated watershed runoff volume.
Pollutant Washoff
Surface accumulation rates, pollutant decay rates, and annual pollutant
yields for BOD5, TKN, SS, and Pb were estimated for each watershed
using data presented in the CSPSS User's Manual5 or using site data.
Surface accumulation rates were adjusted, when necessary, until the
average annual watershed pollutant washoff from a 10-year simulation
was within ±10% of the measured or estimated annual watershed pollutant
washoff.
8-5
-------
Infiltration Module
The excess infiltration module was applied only to watersheds where
there was evidence that infiltration-induced overflow was a problem.
When the total annual volume of infiltration-induced overflow was
known, the infiltration module was calibrated to produce that over-
flow volume. When limited data were available, a reasonable value
for excess infiltration was considered to be 5% to 10% of the annual
rainfall.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Module
For the purposes of estimating Categories V and VI pollutant removal
requirements, the average WWTP effluent concentrations are assumed
to meet secondary effluent limits unless better effluent is known to
exist at the study site.
The secondary WWTP effluent concentrations used in the 1978 Needs
Survey are as follows.
BOD5 = 30 mg/1
SS = 30 mg/1
TKN = 28 mg/1 -
Pb = 0.04 mg/1
Upstream Flow Module
A representative record for a 5-year period of streamflow was
determined by comparing the mean annual flow during several 5-year
periods to the mean annual flow for the period of record. When a
representative 5-year trace was determined, the actual measured
average daily flows were input to the simulation and no adjustments
were necessary.
Receiving Water Module
The DO budget portion of the receiving water module can be calibrated
to prototype conditions if continuous DO data at some point on the
receiving stream are available.
Minimum adequate data for DO calibration are daily observations of
DO for a total period of at least 2 years. From these data, an
observed cumulative frequency curve of DO concentrations can be
developed at a given point in the receiving water.
Continuous DO data were available to calibrate the receiving water
module in Springfield, Missouri; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and
Washington, D.C. The results of these DO calibrations are presented
in Appendix A.
It was not possible to calibrate the suspended solids and dissolved
lead portion of the receiving water response module due to a lack of
data.
8-6
-------
SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS
The overall watershed removal requirements to meet the fish and wild-
life water quality objectives presented in Chapter 2 for combined
sewer system and separate sewer system study sites are presented in
Tables 8-1 and 8-2, respectively. A summary of the fish and wildlife
water quality objectives is presented in Table 8-3.
The results of the site study analysis indicate that higher UOD ^
removals are required on combined systems and higher SS removals" are
required on separate systems. Removal requirements for dissolved
lead were more dependent on the receiving water pH, hardness, and
alkalinity than on storm-generated discharges. A detailed analysis
of the receiving water pollutant removal requirements is presented
in Chapter 10.
REFERENCES
1. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., and Black, Crow & Eidsness, Inc.
"1976 Survey of Needs for Control of Pollution from Combined
Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Discharges." EPA-430/9-76-012.
MCD-48C. 10 February 1977.
2. News, Water and Sewage Works. May 1977, p. 10.
3. Edwards, M. D. "Status of the National Water Data Exchange
(NAWDEX)." USGS Open File Report 76-719. Reston, Virginia.
September 1976.
4. Hershfield, D. M. "Rainfall Frequency of the United States for
Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from
1 to 100 Years." U.S. Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 40.
Washington, D.C. May 1961.
5. Wycoff, R. L. and M. J. Mara. "1978 Needs Survey—
Continuous Stormwater Pollution Simulation System--Users Manual"
EPA-430/9-79-004. FRD-4. 10 February 1979.
8-7
-------
00
CO
Table 8-1
Overall Watershed
Removal Requirements on Combined
Systems To Meet Fish and Wildlife Water
Study Site
Rochester, NY
Syracuse, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Washington, DC
Atlanta, GA
Bucyrus , OH
Milwaukee, WI
Des Moines, IA
Sacramento, CA
Portland, OR
Ultimate Oxygen
Demand (UOD)
(percent)
89
N/A
87
92
92
83
93
90
0
18
Quality Objectives
Suspended
Solids (SS)
(percent)
59
N/A
75
70
91
55
82
0
54
22
Lead (Pb)
(percent)
0
N/A
0
>100
>100
0
0
0
>100
>100
Phosphorus (P)
(percent)
N/A
80
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Notes: N/A = Not applicable
UOD = BOD +4.57 TKN
-------
Table 8-2
Overall Watershed Removal Requirements
On Separate Systems To Meet Fish and
Wildlife Water Quality Objectives
Study Site
Durham, NC
Ann Arbor, MI
Springfield, MO
Tulsa, OK
Castro Valley, CA
Ultimate
Oxygen
Demand
(UOD)
(percent^
0
0
30
0
13
Suspended
Solids
(SS)
(percent)
97
90
41
80
96
Lead (Pb)
(percent)
0
0
0
40
95
Note: UOD = BOD +4.57 TKN
8-9
-------
Table 8-3
Summary of the Fish and Wildlife
Water Quality Objectives
Dissolved oxygen;
4-hour average annual minimum concentration >2.0 mg/1
3-day average annual minimum concentration X3.0 mg/1
Warm-water fish:
Average concentration >^5.0 mg/1
Cold-water fish;
Average concentration >^6.0 mg/1
Suspended solids;
The mean annual concentration of SS in combined sewer
overflow and urban stormwater runoff shall not exceed
the mean natural background SS concentration of the
receiving water, with an allowable limit of at least
25 mg/1.
Dissolved lead;
96-hour maximum annual concentration £0.33 mg/1
Average concentration £0.01 mg/1 (soft water)
Average concentration £0.025 mg/1 (hard water)
Phosphorus;
(Lake sites only)
Average annual lake concentration £0.025 mg/1
8-10
-------
Chapter 9
SITE STUDIES FOR ECONOMIC
OPTIMIZATION OF CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to present the methodology used to
establish the optimal combination of control alternatives which can
achieve any desired level of pollutant removal. The optimal
combination of control alternatives was determined using marginal
cost analysis from economic theory.
This chapter has been divided into three major sections. The first
section briefly discusses the economic theory applied. The next
section presents the general methodology used on four site studies
to determine the optimal combination of control alternatives which
can achieve desired levels of pollutant removal. The third and final
section of this chapter presents the optimal combination of control
alternatives for Castro Valley, California; Bucyrus, Ohio; Des Moines,
Iowa; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The results of these four site
studies are analyzed in Chapter 10 to determine relationships between
the required pollutant removal and the level of effort used with
nonstructural control alternatives. In addition, a relationship was
determined between the required pollutant removal and the percentage
of the total removal obtained from the combined watershed and the
percentage of the total removal obtained from the separate watershed
when both watersheds discharge to a common receiving water.
A major portion of the material presented in this chapter was
obtained from an EPA publication entitled "Stormwater Management
Model: Level I—Comparative Evaluation of storage-Treatment and
Other Management Practices" by Heaney and Nix, 19771.
ECONOMIC THEORY
Marginal Cost Analysis
In its simplest terms, marginal may be defined as "extra." In economic
terms, marginal cost is defined as the extra cost associated with an
additional unit of some commodity. In economic decision making,
marginal analysis determines whether an action results in a sufficient
additional benefit to justify the additional cost. Marginal analysis
indicates that more intensive use should be made of control alterna-
tives with lower marginal costs, measured in dollars per pound of
pollutant removed. As these activities are expanded, marginal costs
increase to the point where other options become competitive.
9-1
-------
The entire analysis can be viewed as determining/ at any specified
marginal cost, the quantity of pollution (or target pollutant
reduction) which the various control options, in parallel, would
offer to control. These results, for all control options operating
in parallel, are combined to yield a composite control cost curve.
The solution is guaranteed to be optimal because every option
produces a diminishing marginal value of pollution control as its
level of effort is expanded. For example, if streetsweeping is to
be used as a control option, the initial monies will be spent where
most effective, e.g., frequent sweeping on heavily loaded streets.
As more money is spent, sweeping would be used on progressively
cleaner streets. Thus, the pollution control effectiveness, per
dollar invested, would decrease.
Production Theory
A production process seeks to increase the utility of a commodity or
commodities. The relationship between the input and output of a
production process is described as a production function. The shape
of the production function is governed by the "law" of diminishing
returns, which states that, as an input to a production process is
increased with all other inputs held constant, a point will be
reached beyond which any additional input will yield diminishing
marginal output.
In stormwater pollution control, the production function is the
mathematical relationship between the amount of pollutant removed,
in pounds, and the level of effort applied. The definition of level
of effort depends on the particular control measure. For example,
the level of effort for streetsweeping has been defined as the fraction
of days streets are swept and, for sewer flushing, it has been defined
as the fraction of sewers flushed daily. The production functions used
for the 1978 Needs Survey were defined and presented in Chapter 6.
SITE STUDY METHODOLOGY
In stormwater pollution control, options may operate in parallel,
series, or a combination of both. A parallel operation is defined
as one in which the effluent (untreated portion) of any one option
does not act as the influent to any other parallel option. Street-
sweeping and sewer flushing on combined sewered areas are examples
of parallel operations. A serial operation is defined as one in which
options are sequential with the effluent from one option acting as
the influent to the next. Storage of urban runoff and treatment of
the same runoff are examples of serial operations.
9-2
-------
Parallel Operations
The logic of the marginal cost analysis procedure can be illustrated
by considering the evaluation of three control options operating in
parallel. The evaluation procedure is described in three steps and
illustrated in Figures 9-1 and 9-2.
1. Given a production function (PF) and cost relationships for each
control option, develop a total cost (TC) curve (i.e., total
cost in dollars/year ys fraction of pollutant removed) for each
control option (see Figure 9-1).
2. Transform each total cost (TC) curve to a marginal cost (MC)
curve by graphical differentiation. The marginal cost curve
defines the relationship between incremental cost of control
(dollars/pound of pollutant removed) vs total amount of pollutant
removed by that control technique (pounds/year).
3. Sum the three individual marginal cost (MC) curves horizontally
to obtain the composite marginal cost (CMC) curve for all three
parallel options (see Figure 9-2).
To obtain the optimum level of effort for each control option in
parallel, the overall pollutant removal required to meet the desired
water quality objectives must be known. Knowing the overall pollutant
removal required (pounds/year), one enters the x-axis (pounds/year)
of the composite marginal cost (CMC) curve in Figure 9-2 and finds
the equivalent marginal cost (dollars/pound) on the y-axis.
Next, enter the individual marginal cost (MC) curves for each control
option with the marginal cost obtained above, and determine the
optimum pollutant removal rate (pounds/year) for each control option
in the mix considered. Now enter the total cost curve for each
control option (see Figure 9-1) with the optimum pollutant removal
rate (pounds/year) obtained above, and determine the total cost
(dollars/year) allocated to each control technique. Knowing the
total cost allocated to each control option, it is possible to
determine the optimum level of effort for that control technique,
based on cost equations and on the production function for each option.
Serial Operations
The procedure for analysis of serial operations is slightly more
complex than the three-step operation described above, but the
principles are the same. The composite marginal cost (CMC) curve
shown in Figure 9-2 is equivalent to a single "option" which repre-
sents the economic behavior of the whole parallel group (i.e.,
options 1-3). To satisfy the pollutant removal criteria in the
least costly manner, it may be necessary to combine this "option"
with an additional option (i.e., option 4). If the two options
act in series, the procedure for combining them into a single
equivalent "option" is continued from the previous Step 3 and
illustrated in Figures 9-3 and 9-4 as follows.
9-3
-------
STEP1: FIND TOTAL COST CURVE FOR EACH OPTION.
Production Function
Total Cost Curve
Level of Effort
Fraction of Available
Pollutant Removed
STEP 2: FIND MARGINAL COST CURVE FOR EACH PARALLEL OPTION.
Total Cost Curve
Marginal Cost Curve
8
Pollutant Removed (Ib/year)
0 Wp~
M max
Pollutant Removed, Wp (Ib/year)
Adapted from Heaney and Nix, 1977
FIGURE 9-1, Graphical procedure for determining optimal control strategies, steps 1 and 2.
-------
STEP 3: FIND COMPOSITE MARGINAL COST CURVE FOR ALL PARALLEL OPTIONS.
Marginal Cost Curve (p=1) Marginal Cost Curve (p=2)
110 W'max
Pollutant Removed, W, (to/year)
WlO -max
Pollutant Removed, W2 (Ib/year)
Composite Marginal Cost Curve For All Parallel Options (p - 1,2, and 3)
(
ff
Marginal Cost Curve (p=3)
3max
Pollutant Removed, W3 (Ib/year)
"max
Pollutant Removed By Parallel Options, W,, (Ib/year)
Adapted from Heaney and Nix, 1977
FIGURE 9-2. Graphical procedure for determining optimal control strategies, step 3.
-------
STEP 4: INTEGRATE COMPOSITE MARGINAL COST CURVE TO OBTAIN
COMPOSITE TOTAL COST CURVE FOR ALL PARALLEL OPTIONS.
Composite Marginal Cost
Curve For All Parallel Options
Composite Total Cost Curve
For All Parallel Options
o
2
ti
»<>
Area ™ Total
CostATWllo
W,,0 Wn
max
M
11
Pollutant Removed, Wn (Ib/yr)
Pollutant Removed, Wn (Ib/yr)
STEP 5: FIND ISOQUANTSOF THE FRACTION OF POLLUTANT REMOVED BY
OPTIONS IN SERIES, Y.
For All Parallel Options
Total Cost Curve For Option 4
N
I
Y"max 1'°
Fraction of Pollutant Removed
By All Parallel Options, Ylt
0 Y» 1
'max
Fraction of Pollutant Removed
By Option 4, Y4
Adapted from Heaney and Nix, 1977
FIGURE 9-3. Graphical procedure for determining optimal control strategies, steps 4 and 5.
-------
STEPS: (CONTINUED).
Isoquants of
Total Cost, Z4. $/yr
STEP6: FIND OPTIMAL EXPANSION
PATH.
Isoquants of Y#
EXPANSION
PATH;
Total Cost, Z4r$/yr
STEP 7: FIND TOTAL COST CURVE
FOR ALL OPTIONS.
(p= 1,2.3. and 4)
Fraction of Pollutant Removed By
All Options, Y^
Adapted From Heaney and Nix 1977.
FIGURE 9-4. Graphical procedure for determining optimal control strategies, steps 6 and 7.
-------
4. Integrate the composite marginal cost (CMC) curve (see Step 3-
parallel operations) to obtain the composite total cost (CTC)
curve (See Figure 9-3). This step must be performed for each
serial operation.
5. Transform the composite total cost (CTC) curves to fractional
values by dividing the pollutant removed by the annual pollutant
discharged from that watershed. Fractional values of the two
control options in series can then be used to calculate all
possible total cost combinations of the two inputs which obtain
a constant output of pollutant removal. These constant removal
curves are called isoguants and are calculated from the following
equation. (See Figure 9-4.)
Yi|i = YH + Y4 (1-Yn) (9-1)
where
YtJ> = Total pollutant removed by two control alternatives
in series, fraction.
Y!i = Pollutant removed by the first serial control option
(e.g., parallel management practices), fraction.
Y4 = Pollutant removed by the second serial option
(e.g., storage/treatment), fraction. (In this
example, S/T is the fourth control alternative
considered.)
6. Find the optimal expansion path from the isoguants (see Figure
9-4) by constructing points of tangency between the isoquants
and isocost lines. Isocost lines are lines of equal cost.
These tangent points determine the optimal combination of each
option to obtain a given quantity of pollutant removed.
7. Find the fractional total cost (FTC) curve for the optimal com-
bination of both serial options as shown on Figure 9-4.
Having established the fractional total cost (FTC) curve in Step 7,
the optimal operating level of stormwater pollution control options,
in parallel and in series, can be found if the required pollutant
removal is known. The combination of watershed management practices
and washoff storage/treatment is found by following these seven steps
in reverse (i.e., Figures 9-4 through 9-1).
Selected Economic Study Sites
This economic technique was used to determine the optimal combination
of control alternatives needed to achieve any desired level of BOD5 or
SS removal from three basic watershed categories. The three watershed
categories are: (1) watersheds with only combined sewer overflow (CSO)
(2) watersheds with only stormwater runoff (SWR), and (3) watersheds
with both CSO and SWR. The four study sites selected to represent
9-8
-------
these watershed categories are: (1) Castro Valley, California (SWR
only), (2) Bucyrus, Ohio (CSO only), (3) Des Moines, Iowa (both CSO
and SWR), and (4) Milwaukee, Wisconsin (both CSO and SWR).
Both nonstructural and structural control options were evaluated at
each site. Streetsweeping, sewer flushing and storage/treatment were
analyzed on CSO watersheds and Streetsweeping and storage/ treatment
on SWR watersheds.
CSO Watersheds
A schematic of the graphical procedure utilized to obtain the optimal
control strategy for pollutant removal from a CSO watershed is shown
in Figure 9-5. The total cost (TC) curves for Streetsweeping (SW)
and sewer flushing (SF) were calculated using the production functions
presented in Figures 6-3 and 6-4, pollutant removal equations 6-7
and 6-8, and the following total cost equations.
TCSW = (Xsw) (WD) (CM) (Csw) (9-2)
and
TCsp = (XSF) (DA) (CSF) (9-3)
where
TCCM = Total annual cost of Streetsweeping, $/year.
ow
XOT1 = Fraction of streets swept daily, from Figure 6-3.
ow
WD = Working days per year available to sweep the streets.
CM = Curb-miles available to sweep per day.
C_ = Average cost to sweep 1 curb-mile of street. A
value of $10/curb-mile was used, in all computations.
TCot, = Total annual cost of sewer- flushing, $/year.
Of
X0- = Fraction of sewers flushed daily.
Of
DA = Drainage area, acres.
C__ = Average annual cost to flush all sewers daily. A value
of $1,284/acre-year was used, in all computations.
The total cost curves (TC) calculated from application of these
equations and the production functions are then differentiated, and
the marginal cost (MC) curves are obtained. The two nonstructural
controls are combined into a single nonstructural (NS) option through
a parallel operation. The resulting composite marginal cost (CMC)
curve is integrated to obtain the composite total cost (CTC) curve
for this single nonstructural option. The composite total cost (CTC)
9-9
-------
Streetsweeping (SW)
effort
Ib/yr
Ib/yr
Nonstructural (NS)
CMC CTC FTC
Storage and Treatment (ST)
FTC
Ib/yr
Ib/yr
fraction
removed
effort
Ib/yr
Ib/yr
LEGEND:
PF
TC
MC
CMC
CTC
FTC
Production Function
Total Cost Curve
Marginal Cost Curve
Composite Marginal
Cost Curve
Composite Total
Cost Curve
Fractional Total
Cost Curve
Isoquants
NS$/yr
FTC
fraction
removed
Ib/yr
Combined Sewered Basin (CSO)
fraction
removed
Treatment
five different
levels (Chapter 5)
Storage
NOTE:
FTC for the
Storage and Treatment (ST)
system was obtained
'from regionalized
isoquant curves
(see Chapter 6).
Parallel
Combination
of Two Options
Serial
Combination
of Two Options
FIGURE 9-5. Schematic for the economic optimization of control alternatives for combined sewer watersheds.
-------
curve for the NS option is transformed to a fractional total cost
(FTC) curve by dividing the pollutant removed by the annual
pollutant discharge from the entire CSO watershed.
The fractional total cost (FTC) curve for the single structural option
of storage-treatment (ST) was obtained from the regionalized isoquants
described in Chapter 6. The single storage-treatment (ST) option shown
on Figure 9-5 (and later on Figure 9-6) is the least cost combination
of each of the five different treatment levels described earlier in
Chapter 5.
A serial operation is then used to convert both the nonstructural
(NS) option and the storage-treatment (ST) option into a single frac-
tional total cost (FTC) curve for all of the control alternatives on
the CSO watershed. The total annual pollutant discharge from the
CSO watershed is used to transform the fractional total cost (FTC)
curve to a simple total cost (TC) curve.
This last total cost (TC) curve represents the optimum combination of
dollars spent and pollutant removed throughout the entire CSO basin.
To achieve a specified pollutant removal in pounds per year or a
fraction thereof, one proceeds in reverse through the curves shown
on Figure 9-5 and determines the optimal costs and operating levels
of each control option in the mixture. These optimal cost and
operating levels defined the least-costly control strategy which can
achieve the desired pollutant removal from the CSO watershed.
SWR Watersheds
A schematic of the graphical procedure utilized to obtain the optimal
control strategy for pollutant removal from a SWR watershed is shown
in Figure 9-6. Streetsweeping is the only nonstructural control
alternative evaluated on SWR watersheds.
Once again, a serial operation is used to convert both the street-
sweeping (SW) option and the storage-treatment (ST) option into a
single fractional total cost (FTC) curve for all the control alterna-
tives on the SWR watershed. The total annual pollutant discharge
throughout the SWR watershed is used to transform the FTC curve to a
simple total cost (TC) curve.
This last total cost (TC) curve, shown on Figure 9-6, represents the
optimum combination of dollars spent and pollutant removed throughout
the entire SWR basin. By progressing backwards through the curves/
one can obtain the optimal control strategies geared toward specific
pollutant removals from the SWR watershed.
CSO and SWR Watersheds Combined
As one might expect, the determination of optimal control strategies
on watersheds that contain both CSO and SWR components is somewhat
more complicated. A schematic of the additional steps needed to
obtain the optimal control strategies on CSO and SWR watersheds
9-11
-------
PF
Streetsvweping (SW)
TC
FTC
Storage and Treatment (ST)
FTC
Ib/yr
fraction
removed
fraction
removed
Isoquants
Expansion
(Least Cost)
Path
r
SW$/yr
LEGEND:
PF Production Function
TC Total Cost Curve
FTC Fractional Total
Cost Curve
FTC
fraction
removed
Ib/yr
Separate Sewered Basin (SWR0)
Treatment
five different
levels (Chapter 5)
Storage
NOTE:
FTC for the
Storage and Treatment (ST)
system was obtained
from regionalized
isoquant curves
(see Chapter 6).
J
Serial
Combination
of Two Options
FIGURE 9-6. Schematic for the economic optimization of control alternatives for urban stormwater (separate sewer).
-------
together is presented in Figure 9-7. Starting with the last
total cost (TC) curves obtained from Figures 9-5 and 9-6, the
marginal cost (MC) curves are computed for the CSO watershed and
the SWR watershed, respectively.
The CSO and SWR marginal cost curves are then added in parallel
to obtain the total composite marginal cost (TCMC) curve of the
watersheds together. The (TCMC) curve is then integrated to
obtain the total composite total cost (TCTC) curve for the entire
basin. This TCTC curve represents the least cost combination of
seven control alternatives (five storage/treatment levels and two
management practices) on two watersheds to obtain any desired
removal of pollutants. The TCTC can easily be converted into a
total fractional total cost (TFTC) curve by dividing the horizontal
axis by the annual pollutant discharge from the CSO and SWR
basins together.
To find the optimal control strategy for an entire basin (CSO and
SWR together), one starts with a desired pollutant removal in
pounds per year or a fraction thereof and proceeds in reverse
through the curves on Figures 9-7, 9-6, and 9-5 to determine the
optimal costs and operating levels of the seven control alternatives
on the two watersheds.
SITE STUDY RESULTS
Site study data input to the economic procedure described above
is presented in Table 9-1. Streetsweeping working days per year
are based on 6 working days per week for 52 weeks, 8 holidays,
and 60 days of snowcover in areas with snow. The total curb-miles
available to sweep were estimated from Figure G-2 in the EPA
Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual, Volume III2 . Finally, the
number of treatment plants were calculated with the following
equation, which was utilized in the 1976 Needs Survey to estimate
the number of treatment-plants as a function of area served.
0.435
<9-4)
where
NTP = Number of treatment plants per watershed.
DA - Drainage area of the watershed, acres.
The total watershed discharges, drainage areas, and population
densities were taken from the site study data presented in Appendix A,
A comparison of the unit costs at each of the four site studies
is shown in Figures 9-8 and 9-9 for BOD5 and SS, respectively.
The wide range in unit removal costs at the four sites are indicators
of the wide range of watershed pollutant yields (e.g., the CSO
discharge of BOD5 from Milwaukee is 318.97 Ib/acre-year while
9-13
-------
TC from
last curve
on Figure 9-5
TC from
last curve
on Figure 9-6
Combined Sewered Basin
-------
Table 9-1
Site Study Input Data For Economic
Optimization of Wet-Weather Pollution Control
Total Watershed Streetsweeping Number
Discharge Working of Population
Study Streetsweeping3 (lb/yr) Days Curb- Treatment Area Density
Watershed F 0
wW 3n
Castro Valley 0.30
Separate
Bucyrus 0 . 15
Combined
Milwaukee 0.11
Combined
Milwaukee 0.32
Separate
Des Moines 0.15
Combined
Des Moines 0.30
Separate
BOD5 SS Per Year Miles Plants (acres; (persons/ acre;
291,000 4,766,667 304 43 2 3,850 8.00
233,705 3,690,000 244 55 2 2,559 6.00
1,850,000 4,940,000 244 355 2 5,800 27.3
600,000 9,840,000 244 108 4 27,400 3.6
109,300 444,400 244 85 2 4,018 8.33
752,100 5,828,000 244 240 5 45,000 7.82
See Equation 6-6 for definition of F and d> .
sw Tsw
-------
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Removal of Total BODS Discharge, %
FIGURE 9-8. Unit costs for the optimized removal of BOD5 discharges.
-------
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Removal of Total SS Discharge, %
FIGURE 9-9. Unit costs for the optimized removal of SS discharges.
-------
only 27.20 Ib/acre-year at Des Moines). In addition, there is a
distinct change in curve shape at about 30% to 40% removal for
each of the study sites. This break in the unit cost curve
indicates the shift from using all nonstructural controls to a
mix of nonstructural and storage/treatment controls. Castro
Valley, California, shows the sharpest break in the unit cost
curve because the high operation and maintenance costs of storage/
treatment at low removals means that storage/treatment is not
used unless greater than 30% removal of the pollutant discharge
is desired.
A complete tabulation of the optimum total costs and pollutant
removals by watershed and control option is presented in Tables
9-2 through 9-9.
REFERENCES
1. Heaney, J. P., and S. J. Nix. "Stormwater Management Model:
Level I—Comparative Evaluation of Storage/Treatment and
Other Management Practices." EPA-600/2-77-083. April 1977.
2. U.S. EPA. "Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual, Volume
III, Appendix G, Urban Stormwater Management Techniques:
Performance and Cost." EPA-600/9-76-014. July 1976.
9-18
-------
Table 9-2
Optimum Combination of Control
Alternatives for Castro Valley BOD5
Desired
Total
Basin
Removal
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Calculated
Separate Watershed
Removals
Total
Cost
(dollars/yr)
$ 4,759
27,337
177,582
247,277
329,129
426,606
544,577
689,988
872,418
SW
10.0
20.0
19.6
19.6
19.6
19.4
19.2
18.5
16.7
S/T
(%)
0
0
12.9
25.4
37.8
50.4
62.9
75.5
88.0
Total
Watershed
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Note: SWR watershed BOD5 discharge =75.6 Ib/acre/year.
SW = percent removed by street sweeping.
S/T = percent removed by storage treatment.
9-19
-------
Table 9-3
Optimum Combination of Control
Alternatives for Castro Valley Suspended Solids
Calculated
Desired
Total
Basin
Removal
(%)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Separate Watershed
Removals
Total
Cost
(dollars/yr)
$ 4,759
27,337
142,573
197,636
262,678
340,671
435,853
554,383
704,958
SW
m
10.0
20.0
18.9
18.9
18.8
18.7
18.4
17.8
15.8
S/T
(%)
0
0
13.7
26.1
38.4
50.8
63.2
75.7
88.1
Total
Watershed
m
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Note: SWR watershed SS discharge = 1,238.1 Ib/acre/year.
SW = percent removed by streetsweeping.
S/T = percent removed by storage/treatment.
9-20
-------
Table 9-4
Optimum Combination of Control
Alternatives For Bucyrus BOD5
Desired
Total
Basin
Removal
(%)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Total
Cost
(dollars/yr)
$ 34,963
85,586
165,430
310,057
475,960
621,720
806,905
1,047,950
1,356,880
SW
(%)
8.2
9.1
9.8
10.6
9.7
9.7
9.5
9.3
8.7
Calculated
Combined Watershed
Removals
SF
(%)
4.3
11.0
20.2
29.4
18.4
18.5
16.7
10.8
0
S/T
(%)
0
0
0
0
31.0
44.7
59.0
74.0
89.5
Total
Watershed
(%)
12.5
20.1
30.0
40.0
50.4
60.3
69.7
79.2
90.4
Note: CSO watershed BOD5 discharge =91.3 Ib/acre/year.
SW - percent removed by streetsweeping.
SF = percent removed by sewer flushing.
S/T = percent removed by storage/treatment.
9-21
-------
Table 9-5
Optimum Combination of Control
Alternatives for Bucyrus Suspended Solids
Desired
Total
Basin
Removal
(%)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Calculated
Combined Watershed
Removals
Total
Cost
(dollars/yr)
$ 23,535
58,685
116,862
231,722
355,316
476,314
631,382
836,230
1,109,074
SW
(%)
7.6
9.0
9.8
10.6
9.8
9.8
9.7
9.6
8.5
SF
m
0
10.3
19.8
29.4
19.8
20.4
19.3
17.4
4.8
S/T
(%)
0
0
0
0
37.9
42.8
67.5
72.5
88.1
Total
Watershed
(%)
7.6
19.3
29.6
40.0
56.3
60.1
76.9
79.9
89.7
Note: CSO watershed SS discharge = 1,441.97 Ib/acre/year,
SW = percent removed by streetsweeping.
SF = percent removed by sewer flushing.
S/T = percent removed by storage/treatment.
9-22
-------
Table 9-6
Optimum Combination of C
Alternatives for Des Mod
Desired
Total
Basin Total
Removal Cost \
(%) (dollars/vr)
10
20
30
VD
i 40
w 50
60
70
80
90
$ 24,
192,
720,
1,344,
2,032,
2,840,
3,808,
4,912,
6,208,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Control
Lnes BOD5
Calculated
Total Areawide
Removals
CSO
Watershed
0
2.0
2.6
2.9
3.2-
3.5
3.8
4.1
7.3
SWR
Watershed
9.5
17.9
27.2
37.3
47.7
57.6
66.8
75.9
85.8
: sw
(%)
0
8.7
9.1
9.3
9.5
9.7
9.8
10.0
8.8
Calculated
Combined Watershed
Removals
SF
(%)
0
7.0
11.5
13.9
16.0
18.2
20.1
22.1
7.9
Calculated
Separate Watershed
Removals
Total
S/T Watershed SW
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48.8
0
15.7
20.6
23.2
25.5
27.9
29.9
32.1
57.4
10.9
20.5
21.0
20.9
20.7
20.4
19.9
18.8
13.9
Total
S/T Watershed
(%) ^>
0
0
12.8
27.5
42.8
57.3
70.6
83.9
98.0
10.9
20.5
31.1
42.7
54.6
66.0
76.5
86.9
98.3
Notes:
CSO watershed BODS discharge = 27.20 Ib/acre/year,
SWR watershed BODS discharge = 16.71 Ib/acre/year,
SW - percent removed by streetsweeping
SF = percent removed by sewer flushing.
S/T = percent removed by storage/treatment.
-------
vo
ro
Table 9-7
Optimum Combination of Control
Alternatives for Des Moines Suspended Solids
Calculated
Desired Total Areawide
Total Removals
Basin
Removal
(%)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Total
Cost
(dollars/yr)
$ 18,000
150,000
495,000
900,000
1,385,000
1,965,000
2,700,000
3,620,000
4,800,000
CSO
Watershed
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.6
1.1
SWR
Watershed
(%)
8.4
18.6
29.9
40.3
50.2
59.6
70.1
79.7
89.3
Calculated
Combined Watershed
Removals
SW
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.6
8.2
8,8
SF
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
7.6
S/T
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Watershed
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.6
9.0
16.4
Calculated
Separate Watershed
Removals
SW
(%)
9.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
19.8
19.4
18.4
13.9
S/T
(%)
0
1.0
15.2
29.2
42.5
55.2
69.5
82.6
95.5
Total
Watershed
(%)
9.0
20.8
32.2
43.4
54.0
64.1
75.4
85.8
96.1
Notes: CSO watershed SS discharge = 110.6 Ib/acre/year.
SWR watershed SS discharge = 129.5 Ib/acre/year.
SW = percent removed by streetsweeping.
SF = percent removed by sewer flushing.
S/T = percent removed by storage/treatment.
-------
Table 9-8
Optimum Combinati
Alternatives for
Desired
Total
Basin Total
Removal Cost
(%) (dollars
10
20
30
VD
, 40
uJ 50
60
70
80
90
$ 78,
240,
480,
750,
1,092,
1,560,
2,208,
3,060,
4,440,
on of i
Milwau!
j/yr)
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Control
kee BOD5
Calculated
Total Areawide
Removals
CSO
Watershed
1.7
15.2
25.3
34.9
44.9
54.1
64.8
72.9
72.9
SWR
Watershed
3.5
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.1
5.4
5.6
7.1
17.1
SW
/ A/ \
JuuL^M^
2.2
4.7
6.1
4.6
4.6
4.4
6
0
0
Calculated
Combined Watershed
Removals
SF
(%)
0
15.4
27.4
14.7
14.7
12.4
0
0
0
Total
S/T Watershed
0
0
0
33.3
49.7
66.0
85.8
96.6
96.6
2.2
20.1
33.5
46.2
59.4
71.7
85.8
96.6
96.6
Calculated
Separate Watershed
Removals
SW
(%)
14.1
18.5
19.8
20.5
20.9
22.0
22.7
23.0
22.2
S/T V
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.9
61.2
Total
Watershed
14.1
18.5
19.8
20.5
20.9
22.0
22.7
29.1
69.8
Notes: CSO watershed BOD5 discharge = 319.0 Ib/acre/year.
SWR watershed BOD5 discharge =21.9 Ib/acre/year.
SW = percent removed by streetsweeping.
SF = percent removed by sewer flushing.
S/T = percent removed by storage/treatment.
-------
Table 9-9
Optimum Combination of Control
Alternatives for Milwaukee Suspended Solids
Desired
Total
Basin
Removal
10
20
30
vo
, 40
£ 50
60
70
80
90
Calculated
Total Areawide
Removals
Total
Cost
(dollars/yr)
$ 15,000
175,000
455,000
800,000
1,225,000
1,710,000
2,310,000
3,065,000
4,050,000
CSO
Watershed
m
0
0.8
2.2
6.1
8.8
15.5
19.1
22.2
24.8
SWR
Watershed
8.1
17.0
26.5
34.5
39.5
45.4
51.9
58.3
64.5
Calculated
Combined Watershed
Removals
SW
0
2.4
3.3
4.5
5.4
4.6
4.7
4.5
3.9
SF
(%)
0
0
3.4
13.8
20.9
14.3
14.8
13.8
8.7
S/T
0
0
0
0
0
33.8
46.8
59.0
70.4
Total
Watershed
0
2.4
6.7
18.3
26.3
46.3
57.2
66.5
74.1
Calculated
Separate Watershed
Removals
SW
(%)
12.1
22.0
22.1
22.0
22.0
21.8
21.4
20.4
15.8
S/T
0
4.6
22.7
38.2
47.9
59.3
72.0
84.3
96.3
Total
Watershed
12.1
25.6
39.8
51.8
59.4
68.2
78.0
87.5
96.9
Notes: CSO watershed SS discharge = 851.7 Ib/acre/year.
SWR watershed SS discharge = 359.1 Ib/acre/year.
SW = percent removed by streetsweeping.
SF - percent removed by sewer flushing.
S/T = percent removed by storage/treatment.
-------
Chapter 10
ANALYSIS OF SITE STUDY RESULTS
The 15 site investigations resulted in the development of a
considerable volume of site-specific data related to hydrology,
waste loadings, required stormwater and combined sewer overflow
treatment, and economic optimization. This chapter analyzes these
data and develops appropriate conclusions and generalizations which
can be applied nationwide for estimating national needs.
POLLUTANT REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS
Pollutant removal requirements were determined for the four
indicator pollutants, suspended solids, ultimate oxygen demand,
dissolved lead, and phosphorus, at each study site where the
indicator pollutant was applicable. The analysis of these results
are presented, by pollutant, in the following subsections.
Suspended Solids (SS)
Suspended solids removal requirements to meet the fish and wildlife
water quality objective were estimated at nine of the 10 combined
sewer study sites. Only one combined sewer site did not require
some suspended solids removal to meet the selected criteria.
Suspended solids removal requirements for combined sewer sites
ranged from 0% to 91% and averaged 56%.
Each of the five urban stormwater runoff sites required removal
of suspended solids to meet the fish and wildlife water quality
objective. Removal requirements ranged from 41% to 97% and
averaged 81%. Determination of suspended solids removal require-
ments for a given urban runoff quality and receiving water quality
is computed as follows.
SSREM = SS gSSSA x 100 (10-1)
where
SSREM = Suspended solids removal requirement, in percent.
SS = Average areawide concentration of suspended solids in
urban runoff and/or combined sewer overflow, in mg/1.
SSA = Allowable concentration of suspended solids in urban
runoff or combined sewer overflow, in mg/1.
10-1
-------
The allowable concentration, SSA, is equal to the mean receiving
water background concentration or 25 mg/1, whichever is larger.
Ultimate Oxygen Demand (UOD)
Ultimate oxygen demand removal requirements to meet the dissolved
oxygen criteria of the fish and wildlife water quality objective
were estimated for nine of the 10 combined sewer study sites.
Only one combined sewer study site (Sacramento, California) did
not require UOD removal to meet the selected criteria. Several
of the study sites, most notably Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, could not meet the selected dissolved
oxygen receiving water quality criteria even if all oxygen-
demanding pollutants were removed from urban stormwater runoff
and combined sewer overflow. In these cases, UOD removal require-
ments were determined based on the elimination of 90% of the low
DO events which could be eliminated by control of pollutants from
SWR and CSO. Ultimate oxygen demand removal requirements for
combined sewer sites ranged from 0% to 93% and averaged 72%.
Only two of the five urban stormwater runoff sites required
removal of oxygen-demanding materials to meet the selected
dissolved oxygen receiving water criteria. UOD removal requirements
for urban stormwater runoff ranged from 0% to 30% and averaged
only 9%.
Development of a relationship between low dissolved oxygen
occurrences and urban area/receiving water characteristics based
on results of the continuous simulation was one of the main
objectives of the site studies. After preliminary correlation
analysis of study site characteristics and resulting total annual
duration of low DO values (i.e., <2.0 mg/1), it was reasoned that
low DO resulted from two different types of critical events.
These are dry-weather events and wet-weather events. Thus, two
areawide quality parameters, the wet-weather quality parameters
(WWQP) and the dry-weather quality parameter (DWQP), were defined.
These parameters are in turn a function of the waste loads and
flows occurring during each type of event.
The wet-weather quality parameter and dry-weather quality parameter
are defined as follows.
ww™ - CSOQP + SWRQP + USFQP + WWTPQP
WWQF -
and
USFQP + WWTPQP
10-2
-------
where
CSOQP = Combined sewer overflow quality parameter.
SWRQP = Urban stormwater runoff quality parameter.
USFQP = Upstream flow quality parameter.
WWTPQP - Wastewater treatment plant quality parameter.
QWW = Mean receiving water flow occurring during wet-weather,
in cfs.
QDW = Mean receiving water flow occurring during dry-weather,
in cfs.
K2 = Receiving water reaeration rate, in I/day (base e).
The individual areawide waste source quality parameters are defined
by the following equations.
SWRQP =
USFQP = ""gc76QIX1ft (10-6)
WWTPQP = LWW^P7*QK14 (10-7)
where
LCSO = Total annual BOD5 load from combined sewer overflow,
in pounds per year.
LSWR = Total annual BOD5 load from urban stormwater runoff,
in pounds per year.
LUSF = Total annual BOD5 load from upstream flow, in pounds
per year.
LWWTP = Total annual BOD5 load from municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment plant effluent, in pounds per
year.
10-3
-------
Kii/ Ki2/ Ki3> anc* K14 = Waste decay rates (Kx values) for
combined sewer overflow, urban
stormwater runoff, upstream flow,
and wastewater treatment plant
effluent, respectively, in I/day
(base e).
D! = Duration of the year during which combined sewer
overflow occurs, expressed as an absolute fraction.
D2 = Duration of the year during which urban stormwater
runoff occurs, expressed as an absolute fraction.
The areawide waste source quality parameters defined in equations
10-4 through 10-7 are waste loading rates in pounds of BOD5 per hour
multiplied by the individual decay rate of each waste. The decay
rates are considered a measure of each waste's relative ability to
deplete the oxygen resources of a receiving stream. That is, a
waste with a small decay rate will not cause as large a maximum DO
deficit as a waste with a larger decay rate.
The ability of a receiving stream to assimilate oxygen-demanding
wastes is a function of the total stream flow and the receiving
water reaeration capacity. The product of these variables define
the denominator of equations 10-2 and 10-3. The total streamflow
for wet-weather conditions (QWW) and for dry-weather conditions
(QDW) are defined by the following equations.
QWW = *g^ + *g^ + QUSF + QWWTP (10-8)
and
QDW = QUSF + QWWTP (10-9)
where
QCSO = Mean annual flow from CSO, in cfs.
QSWR = Mean annual flow from SWR, in cfs.
QUSF = Mean annual upstream flow, in cfs.
QWWTP = Mean wastewater treatment plant flow, in cfs.
All other terms are as previously defined.
10-4
-------
The dependent variable of interest is the total number of hours
per year when DO levels are less than 2.0 mg/1. This variable
is termed VT in the present analysis. The site studies yielded
30 observations of VT, which were used in the regression analysis.
Many different models were analyzed, including linear models, semi-
logarithmic models, and logarithmic models. In addition, a set
of models were derived, with an additional independent variable
accounting for background dissolved oxygen in the receiving water
upstream from the urban area. The best model included this
independent variable and is defined by the following equation.
VT = 1,013 + 864 * DWQP + 256 * WWQP - 204 * DWDO (10-10)
where:
VT = Total number of hours per year when the receiving water
will experience dissolved oxygen levels less than 2.0 mg/1.
DWQP - Dry-weather quality parameter (Eq. 10-3).
WWQP = Wet-weather quality parameter (Eq. 10-2).
DWDO = Dissolved oxygen level occurring in the receiving water
upstream from the urban area'during the month of highest
water temperature, in mg/1.
Dimensional analysis reveals that all three independent variables,
DWQP, WWQP, and DWDO, are concentrations (i.e., M/L3). The waste
decay rate (Kx) is divided by the stream reaeration rate (K2) and
thus, dimensionally, these terms are eliminated from the DWQP and
the WWQP. However, the dimensionless ratio K!/KZ remains; therefore,
the pollutant concentrations from each waste source are adjusted
by this ratio, which may be considered a waste potency factor.
Equation 10-10 states that low dissolved oxygen levels are directly
related to adjusted concentrations of pollutant discharge occurring
during dry weather and wet weather and are inversely related to the
background dissolved oxygen resources of the receiving stream.
Equation 10-10 is derived from multiple linear regression analysis
of 30 receiving water impact observations generated for the 14 study
sites. These data are reported in Table 10-1. Equation 10-10 has a
correlation coefficient of 0.82 and a standard error of estimate of
353 hours.
Dissolved Lead (Pb)
Two criteria were established for dissolved lead: an acute
criteria which limits maximum 96-hour dissolved lead levels and a
chronic criteria which limits long-term dissolved lead levels.
The results of the simulations indicated that the chronic or
long-term criteria controlled the lead removal requirements. No
acute dissolved lead problems were simulated. Therefore, the
remainder of this discussion is concerned with lead removal
requirements to meet the chronic or long-term dissolved lead
receiving water criteria.
10-5
-------
o
I
en
Table 10-1
Dissolved Oxygen
Location
Rochester
Rochester
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Washington
Washington
Atlanta
Atlanta
Des Moines
Des Moines
Milwaukee
Bucyrus
Bucyrus
Sacramento
Portland
Portland
Durham
Ann Arbor
Springfield
Tulsa
Castro Valley
Ann Arbor
Springfield
Castro Valley
Philadelphia
Washington
Atlanta
Des Hoines
Milwaukee
Sacramento
Impact
DWQP
0.681
0.681
1.655
1.655
0.349
0.349
0.181
0.181
0.273
0.273
0.228
0.312
0.312
0.394
0.069
0.069
0.893
0.827
0.436
0.441
0.033
0.827
0.436
0.033
1.655
0.349
0.181
0.273
0.228
0.394
Data From
WWQP
2.865
0.849
3.840
1.568
0.796
0.341
1.266
0.197
0.738
0.301
4.036
2.021
0.519
1.029
0.669
0.560
1.151
1.705
0.400
0.565
0.257
0.472
0.309
0.224
2.134
0.535
0.348
0.5B2
0.574
0.520
Site Studies
VT
36
1
3,137
2,417
252
4
103
4
118
25
1,053
152
4
2
6
4
0
10
40
0
10
10
4
4
1,994
106
2
98
1
0
DWDO
8.61
8.61
4.67
4.67
5.89
5.89
8.19
8.19
6.96
6.96
6.12
6.16
6.16
8.76
7.76
7.76
7.78
7.04
6.05
6,36
5.76
7.04
6.05
5.76
4.67
5.89
8.19
6.96
6.12
8.76
Comments
Existing conditions
91.1% CSO removed
Existing conditions
100% NFS removed
Existing conditions
92% NPS removed
Existing conditions
92% NPS removed
Existing conditions
85% NPS removed
Existing conditions
Existing conditions
83% CSO removed
Existing conditions
Existing conditions
18% CSO removed
Existing conditions
Existing conditions
Existing conditions
Existing conditions
Existing conditions
100% SWR removed
30% SWR removed
13% SWR removed
100% CSO and benthal demand
100% CSO removed
100% CSO and benthal demand
100% CSO and benthal demand
100% CSO and benthal demand
100% CSO and benthal demand
removed
removed
removed
removed
removed
-------
Required lead removals from urban stormwater runoff and combined
sewer overflow are summarized in Table 10-2. Six of the 14 study
sites indicated that some lead removal is required to meet the
selected criteria. Additionally, four of the six study sites
which require lead removal require more than 100% removal of SWR
or CSO lead to meet the selected criteria. Thus, only two of the
14 study sites indicate a lead problem which is solvable by
control of SWR or CSO.
Those sites which require more than 100% removal of lead from SWR
and CSO (Washington, DC; Atlanta, Georgia; Sacramento, California;
and Portland, Oregon) are all located on moderate-to-large
receiving waters with low hardness and large background (i.e.,
upstream flow) lead loads. Thus, long-term dissolved lead levels
are dominated by receiving water background conditions and not by
lead washoff from the urban area. Therefore, the "need" for
removal of lead from urban runoff waters in these cases is
questionable and cannot be justified by the present data base.
The remaining sites which require lead removal of less than 100%
of the total SWR lead load (Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Castro Valley,
California) are stormwater sites located on small receiving
streams. The receiving water hardnesses of 219 mg/1 for Tulsa,
Oklahoma, and 100 mg/1 for Castro Valley, California, are also
fairly low. It is noted that, in these two cases, the required
suspended solids removal is greater than the required lead removal
and that selection of a treatment level which will provide the
required suspended solids removal will also provide the required
lead removal. Thus, in these cases, no "additional needs" would
be required to meet the dissolved lead criteria.
Therefore, based on the results of the 14 receiving water impact
studies, lead removal requirements are not considered directly in
the estimation of national needs for Categories V and VI.
Although no nationally applicable method for estimating lead
removal requirements could be obtained from the results of the
site studies, several conclusions can'be made.
1. Our understanding of dissolved lead toxicity in natural
waters is inadequate to establish justifiable limits. Much
additional research on both acute and chronic lead toxicity
for a number of representative species is required.
2. The data base on which background receiving water lead
concentrations are determined is inadequate. Background lead
has been shown to dominate the system on four of the six
study sites which indicate a potential dissolved lead problem,
Data which define background receiving water lead
concentrations are few and quite variable.
3. Receiving waters with background hardness greater than
approximately 250 mg/1 are unlikely to experience dissolved
lead toxicity problems.
10-7
-------
Table 10-2
Summary of Lead
Study Site
Rochester,
New York
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
Washington,
DC
Atlanta,
Georgia
Bucyrus ,
Ohio
Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
Des Moines ,
Iowa
Sacramento,
California
Portland,
Oregon
Durham,
North Carolina
Ann Arbor,
Michigan
Springfield,
Missouri
Tulsa,
Oklahoma
Castro Valley,
California
Removal Data
Required
Lead
Removal
(percent)
0
0
>100
>100
0
0
0
>100
>100
0
0
0
40
95
Receiving
Water
Hardness
(mg/1)
125
116
110
10
300
337
341
60
24
50
267
153
219
100
Percent of
Total Load
from SWR
and/or CSO
1.7
20.0
15.7
43.7
51.4
90.0
80.0
4.8
4.6
98.7
85.0
91.7
82.0
••
98.4
Percent of
Total Load
from Upstream
Flow
91.5
67.2
81.8
51.8
46.0
10.0
17.1
92.9
95.1
0.0
15.0
5.2
17.4
1.6
10-8
-------
4. Design of stormwater management systems based on the suspended
solids and dissolved oxygen criteria outlined in this report
will result in substantial watershed lead removals.
Additional removals, if any, necessary to obtain acceptable
receiving water dissolved lead concentrations are
indeterminate at this time.
Phosphorus (P)
Phosphorus is a nutrient which, in the United States, is largely
the controlling nutrient in the lake eutrophication process.
Only one study site, Syracuse, New York, discharges directly to a
lake, although many others discharge indirectly to lakes. The
Syracuse, New York, site study indicated a phosphorus removal
requirement of 80% from the combined sewer overflow portion of
the load.
In general, combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff
are not the predominate sources of phosphorus generated by urban
land use. The predominate source is wastewater treatment plant
effluent. For example, if an urban watershed is served entirely
by combined sewers, wastewater treatment plant effluent will
account for approximately 80% of the annual phosphate phosphorus
load, while CSO will account for only 20%. If the urban watershed
is served 25% by combined sewers and 75% by separate sewers,
which is somewhat more typical, then the phosphate phosphorus
contribution from CSO and SWR drops to 10% of the annual load and
the wastewater treatment plant portion of the annual load increases
to 90%.1 Therefore, control of phosphorus is largely a function
of wastewater treatment plant design (Categories I through IVB in
the Needs Survey) and not of urban stormwater management
(Categories V and VI). However, an allowance is made for phosphate
removal from combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff
when discharge is directly to a lake.
A recent study of nutrient removal from combined sewer overflow
indicates that coagulation-flocculation with chemical addition
followed by high-rate filtration is effective in removing phosphorus
as well as ammonia.2 Suspended solids removals were in the range
of 90% to 100% and total inorganic phosphorus removals were above
91%. This treatment train corresponds to Treatment Level 4 as
defined in Chapter 5. BOD5 and SS removals for Level 4 were
previously assumed to be 91% and 99%, respectively (see Table 5-3).
Therefore, phosphorus removals for Treatment Level 4 are
approximately equal to BOD5 removals. Therefore, for the purpose
of the Needs Survey if discharge is directly to a lake, required
BOD5 removal is set equal to 80%, which will assure selection of
Treatment Level 4 as a minimum and removal of at least 80% of the
annual phosphorus load.
ECONOMIC OPTIMIZATION
The economic optimization analysis presented in Chapter 9 provides
insight into the mix of techniques which should be used to obtain
10
-------
various levels of pollutant removal for both combined and separate
watersheds. Topics discussed in this section of Chapter 10
include pollutant removal by type of watershed, pollutant removal
from streetsweeping, pollutant removal from sewer flushing, and
pollutant removal from storage/treatment systems.
Pollutant Removal by Sewer System Type
For watersheds served by both combined and separate sewers, the
first question to be addressed is how much of a given desired
areawide pollutant removal should be obtained from the combined
portion of the watershed and how much should be obtained from the
separate sewered portion of the watershed. The results of the
site studies related to optimum removal by sewer system type have
been reported in Tables 9-6, 9-7, 9-8, and 9-9. Regression
analysis of these data against selected pollutant loading parameters
yields the following equations.
REMSWR = 0.926 * TOTREM - 2.696 * LDRAT
+ 111.92 * ARAT
REMCSO = 0.502 * TOTREM + 2.864 * LDRAT
- 50.48 * ARAT
(10-11)
(10-12)
where
REMSWR = Pollutant removal obtained from SWR portion of
basin in percent of total SWR load.
REMCSO = Pollutant removal obtained from combined sewered
portion of basin, in percent of total CSO load.
TOTREM = Total areawide pollutant removal required, in
percent of total areawide load.
LDRAT = Load ratio defined as the unit pollutant yield from the
combined portion of the watershed, in pounds per acre
per year, divided by the unit pollutant yield from the
separate portion of the watershed, in pounds per acre
per year.
ARAT = Area ratio, defined as the combined sewer service area
divided by the total area.
Equations 10-11 and 10-12 have correlation coefficients of 0.973
and 0.839, respectively, and were derived for total removal
requirements in the range of 10% to 90%. The load ratio was in
the range of 0.854 to 14.56 and the area ratio was in the range
of 0.082 to 0.175.
Pollutant Removal from Streetsweeping
The results of the economic optimization analysis relating street-
sweeping level of effort to desired pollutant removal did not
10 - 10
-------
lend themselves to regression analysis because of discontinuities
in the data. Therefore, these data were analysed graphically, as
shown in Figures 10-1 and 10-2.
Figure 10-1 illustrates the relationship between optimum
streetsweeping level of effort (X , fraction of streets swept
daily) and pollutant removal, in percent, for areas served by
separate sewers. Also shown on Figure 10-1, as a solid line, is
the relationship used to select an appropriate streetsweeping
level of effort given an overall required pollutant removal.
Figure 10-2 is a similar illustration for areas served by combined
sewers. The discontinuity in the data occurs in the range of 30%
to 40% pollutant removal and represents the point where storage/
treatment systems become cost-effective. Once storage/treatment
systems enter into the mix, the relative use of streetsweeping
declines. However, as can be seen from Figures 10-1 and 10-2,
some streetsweeping is used throughout the entire range of
pollutant removals.
Pollutant Removal from Sewer Flushing
The results of the economic optimization analysis relating sewer
flushing level of effort (X f, fraction of sewers flushed daily)
to desired pollutant removal were also analyzed graphically, as
shown in Figure 10-3. These data exhibit the same discontinuity
and overall behavior as the streetsweeping data. Maximum level
of effort occurs at approximately 40% overall pollutant removal,
and some sewer flushing is used for nearly all desired pollutant
removals.
Pollutant Removal from Storage/Treatment Systems
Once the optimum level of effort for sewer flushing and street-
sweeping are known, these levels of effort can be converted to
fraction of pollutants removed by application of the production
functions presented in Figures 6-3 and 6-4 and equations 6-6 and
6-9. If these removals are insufficient to satisfy the total
required removal, then the remainder must be removed by a storage/
treatment system. The removal required by storage/ treatment is
computed by the following equation.
(10-13)
where
STR = Pollutant removal required from storage/treatment
system in percent of total load.
TR = Total pollutant removal desired, in percent.
MPR = Total pollutant removal obtained from management
practices, in percent.
10 - 11
-------
UJ
>*-
o
2
O
O
LEGEND
BODS Castro Valley
SS Castro Valley
BOOS Des Moines
SS Des Moines
BODS Milwaukee
SS Milwaukee
Estimating Line
Pollutant Removal %
FIGURE 10-1. Relationship between desired pollutant removal and optimum streetsweeping level of effort for areas served by separate
sewers.
-------
X
e
UJ
•^
o
."•
o>
0.4-,
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
0.0
O D
20
40
60
80
100
Pollutant Removal %
A
A
O
o
LEGEND
BODS Bucyrus
SS Bucyrus
BODS DesMoines
SS Des Moines
BODS Milwaukee
SS Milwaukee
Estimating Line
FIGURE 10-2. Relationship between desired pollutant removal and optimum streetsweeping level of effort for areas served by combined
sewers.
-------
0.2(H
0.15 H
D O
O O
60
Pollutant Removal %
—I
100
LEGEND
• BODS Bucyrus
• SS Bucyrus
* BODS Des Moines
A SS Des Moines
O BODS Milwaukee
Q SS Milwaukee
— Estimating Line
FIGURE 10-3. Relationship between desired pollutant removal and optimum sewer flushing level of effort for areas served by combined
sewers.
-------
The optimum treatment level is a function of the removal required
from the storage/treatment system, STR, the pollutant type (SS or
BOD), and the sewer system type (separate or combined). Selection
of the optimum treatment level is defined in Table 10-3. Once
the required removal and treatment levels are known, then the
optimum storage volume and treatment rate may be obtained by
application of the storage/treatment isoquants presented in
Chapter 6.
REFERENCES
1. Wycoff, R. L., J. E. Scholl, and M. J. Mara. "Report to
Congress on Control of Combined Sewer Overflow in the United
States." EPA 430/9-78-006. October 1978.
2. Murphy, C. B., Jr., O. Hrycyk, and W. T. Gleason. "High-
Rate Nutrient Removal for Combined Sewer Overflows—Bench
Scale and Demonstration Scale Studies." EPA 600/2-78-056.
June 1978.
10 - 15
-------
Table 10-3
Optimum Treatment Levels
A. Optimum Treatment Levels for BOD Removal
BOD Removal, Percent
Treatment Level Combined Sewers Separate Sewers
1 <8.0 <8.0
2 >_8.0 and <13.0 >.8.0 and <16.0
3 ^13.0 and <38.0 >_16.0 and <53.0
4 X38.0 and <88.0 ^53.0 and <97.0
5 ^88.0 >^97.0
B. Optimum Treatment Levels for SS Removal
SS Removal, Percent
Treatment Level Combined Sewers Separate Sewers
1 <8.0 <7.0
2 >.8.0 and <68.0 X7.0 and <83.0
3 >^68.0 and <98.0 >^83.0
4 >_98.0 Not used
5 Not used Not used
10 - 16
-------
PART IV
NEEDS ESTIMATE
-------
Chapter 11
NATIONAL DATA BASE
NATIONAL COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM DATA FILE
The purpose of the National Combined Sewer System Data File is to
assemble certain basic data on each combined sewer system in the
nation. These data include location, sewer system character-
istics, receiving water characteristics, and the status of CSO
correction planning.
The actual data gathering effort was conducted by Dames and
Moore, Inc., who served as consultants on the Categories I through
IV B portion of the Needs Survey. Guidelines and a combined
sewer system worksheet were provided by CH2M HILL.
Combined Sewer System Worksheet
Because of the dual role provided by combined sewer systems,
i.e., urban drainage and wastewater conveyance, they cannot be
entirely defined on a facility-by-facility basis, but must be
defined by hydrologic considerations. For this reason, a separate
worksheet was completed for each combined sewer system/major
receiving water combination. One worksheet covered more than one
combined sewer network if the networks are adjacent and discharge
to the same major receiving water. Thus, a single worksheet may
cover any number of overflow points on either side of a given
receiving water so long as they are located in the same general
area and discharge to a single receiving water.
The definition of a major receiving water is somewhat subjective.
However, an attempt was made to define a receiving water as
objectively as possible. If a combined sewer system discharges
directly to a lake, an ocean, or a major stream, then the receiving
water in each case is obvious. Receiving water definition problems
may arise where discharge is to small urban streams which feed
larger streams. The question then arises as to whether or not a
given stream should be considered a major receiving water. The
criteria used to define a receiving water are given as follows.
If the reach in question is a continuously flowing stream which
could, in its natural state, support a viable fishery, then this
stream was considered a receiving water, and a worksheet was
completed for that combined sewer network/receiving water system.
In general, if a stream is wholly contained within a combined
sewer watershed, then the stream was not considered a major
receiving water. On the other hand, if the stream drains a
significant watershed area upstream from the combined sewer area,
then the stream was considered a major receiving water.
11-1
-------
Description of Items on Worksheet
Figure ll-l is a copy of the combined sewer system worksheet.
Figure 11-2 is the back of the worksheet, which defines the work-
sheet items. These items are defined in more detail as follows.
Item 1—Authority/Facility Number. The authority/facility number
is defined in the Guidance for Categories I-IV. The number
reported on this form is for the major facility serving the
combined sewer system.
I tern 2 —Authority Name. The official name of the authority with
Major responsibility for operation of the combined sewer system.
Item 3—State, County, Place. The state, county, place code is
defined in the Guidance for Categories I-IV. This code applies
to the facility reported in Item 1.
Item 4—SMSA. A code which indicates whether or not the combined
sewer system is located at least in part within a standard
metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) as follows:
0—Combined sewer system is not located within an SMSA.
1—Combined sewer system is located, at least in part,
within an SMSA.
Item 5—Basin. The basin code is defined in the Guidance for
Categories I-IV. This code applies to the location of the
combined sewer system.
Item 6—Congressional District. The number of the congressional
district(s) which are served by the combined sewer system.
Item 7—City Name. The official name of the city or town served
by the combined sewer system.
Item 8—County Name. The official name of the county or county
equivalent in which the major portion of the combined sewer
system is located.
Item 9—Combined Sewer Drainage Area. The area in acres drained
directly by the combined sewer system which is tributary to the
subject receiving water.
Item 10—Combined Sewer Length. The total length of combined
sewer in feet tributary to the subject receiving water. In
general, total combined sewer lengths will range between 50 and
350 feet per acre and average about 165 feet per acre.
Item 11—Population Served. The total number of people resident
to the area drained directly by the combined sewer system defined
11-2
-------
COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM WORKSHEET-1978 NEEDS SURVEY
IDENTIFICATION AND COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM DATA
1. Authority/Fac. No. 2. Authority Name
3. State, Co., Place 4. SMSA 5. Basin 6. Cong. District
7. City Name
1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
4243444546
47 48 49 50 51
525354I5556S758
59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
737475
76 77 78 79 8O
8. County Name
9. Combined Sewer
Drainage Area —Acres
10, Combined Sewer Length
-ft
11. Population Served
12. Population
Equivalent
13. Separate Sanitary Sewer Area
Code Acres
14. Number
CSO Points
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 242526 27 28 293031 32 33 34 35 36 373839 4041 42 4344 4546 47 4849 5051 52 53 54 555657 58 59 6061 62 63 64 65 6667 68 6970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
RECEIVING WATER CHARACTERISTICS
15. Name of Receiving Water
16. Mean Annual Flow—cfs
Code
17. 7/Q/10-cfs
Code
18. Known Reaeration Rate
Code a) K2 1/dBasee Code b) Flow
19. Receiving Water
Classification
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 1314 15
16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
32
333435363738394041
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51
52 53 54 55 56 57
58 59 60 61
62 63 64 65
66 67 68 69 70
71
72
73
7475
767778
7980
20. USGS Gage No.
21. Type of
Aquatic Life
22. Known CSO
Problems
12345678 9 K> 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2223 24 25 2627 28 29 3031 32 3334 35 36 37 3839 40 41 42 43 4445 4647 48 49 50 51 52 53 54555657 585960 61 62 6364 65 66676869 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 798Q
STATUS OF CSO PLANNING
23. Planning Projects
Complete Ongoing
24. Status of Completed Project Funding
Mo Pay Yr I 201 208 Other EPA
Non-EPA
25. Status of Ongoing Project
Mo Day Yr 201 208
Funding
Other EPA Non-EPA
26. Proposed Solutions
27. Total Construction
Code Cost of Solution K$
123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 2223242526 27 28293031 32 333435 36 37 3839 4041 42 434445 46474849 5O 51 5253 54 55 5657 58 59 6O 61 62 63 6465 66 67 686970 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 SO
GRANT INFORMATION
28. Grant Number(s)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8O
ITEM COMMENTS AND NOTES
WORKSHEET COMPLETED BY
FIGURE 11-1. Combined sewer system worksheet.
Signature
Date
-------
CODE REFERENCE CHART AND DEFINITIONS
Item 1 - Authority/Facility No.
Enter the authority/facility number for the major facility serving the
combined sewer system.
Item 2 • Authority Name
Name of authority with major responsibility for operation of the combined
sewer system.
Item 4 - SMSA
0 - Combined sewer system is not located within an SMSA.
1 - Combined sewer system is located, at least in part, within an SMSA.
Item 9 - Combined Sewer Drainage Area
Enter the area in acres drained directly by the combined sewer system
which is tributary to the subject receiving water.
Item 10 - Combined Sewer Length
Enter the total length of combined sewer in feet tributary to the subject
receiving water.
Item 1T - Population Served
Enter the total number of people resident to the area drained directly by
the combined sewer system defined in Items 9 and 10:
Item 12 - Population Equivalent
Enter the wastewater (dry-weather flow) population equivalent for the
combined sewer system. Population equivalent is defined on a BOD basis
and includes the resident population (Item 12), commercial contribution,
existing industrial contribution, and transient population.
Item 13 - Separate Sanitary Sewer Area
Enter the area in acres served by separate sanitary sewers which discharge
directly into the combined sewer system, if known. Codes are defined
as follows:
0 - No information presently available.
1 - Some separate sanitary sewers are connected; however, the area is
unknown.
2 - Area is known and is reported.
Note that a code value of 2 and a reported area of 0.0 will be interpreted
to mean that no separate sanitary sewers discharge directly into the
combined sewer system.
Item 14 - Number of CSO Points
Enter the approximate number of points at which combined sewer
overflow enters the receiving water.
Item 15 - Name of Receiving Water
Enter common name of receiving water, e.g., Rock Creek.
Items 16 and 17 • Mean Annual Flow and 7/Q/10
Enter the average flow rate (Item 16) and the 7-day, 10-year low flow
rate (Item 17) of the receiving water in cubic feet per second (cfs).
Ideally, the receiving water flow should be measured at the upstream
boundary of the combined sewer area. However, flow measurements
or estimates near this point are acceptable. Codes for this item are
as follows:
0 - Flow rate not applicable, e.g., lake.
1 - Flow rate measured at USGS gage.
2 - Flow rate estimated from regional relationship.
Item 18 - Known Reaeration Rate
If a reaeration rate for the subject receiving water has been measured,
enter the value in Item 18a and the flow rate at which the measurement
was made in Item 18b. Units of the reareation rate are day*1 base e.
Codes are as follows:
0 - Reaeration rate and/or flow measurements are not available for
receiving water.
1 • Reaeration rate and/or flow measurements are available and are
reported.
Item 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Receiving Water Classification
12 - Medium depth, low tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth = 10 to 30
• feet,V<1.5fps).
13 - Deep, high tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth > 30 feet, V> 1.5
fps).
14 - Deep, low tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth > 30 feet, V < 1.5
fps).
15 - Open ocean or beach.
Item 20 - USGS Gage Number
If receiving water flow estimates reported in Items 17 and 18 are derived
from USGS flow records, enter the station identification number.
Item 21 - Type of Aquatic Life
Enter the type of aquatic life which could be supported under unpolluted
or uncontaminated conditions in the receiving water downstream from the
combined sewer system. Codes which apply to this item are defined as
follows:
1 - Cold freshwater fishery, e.g., trout.
2 - Cold freshwater nursery or breeding area.
3 - Warm freshwater fishery, e.g., black bass.
4 - Warm freshwater nursery or breeding area.
5 - Estuary nonshellfish.
6 - Estuary shellfish waters.
7 - Open ocean.
Item 22 • Known CSO Problems
Enter water quality problems associated with the receiving water down-
stream from the combined sewer area which are known to be caused at
least in part by combined sewer overflow. Up to four known problems
may be entered in order of importance from left to right. Codes are defined
as follows:
0 - No known problems.
1 - Esthetic degradation.
2 - High suspended solids levels.
3 • Low dissolved oxygen levels.
4 - Bacteriological contamination.
5 - Sludge deposits.
6 - Toxic conditions.
7 - Fish kills.
8 - Eutrophication (nutrients).
9 - Other, see comments.
Item 23 - Planning Projects
Enter a 1 in columns 4 and/or 10 if the subject combined sewer system
has been or is being studied for the purpose of control or treatment of
overflow events.
Item 24 • Status of Completed Project
Enter the completion date, mo/day/year, of most-recent completed com-
bined sewer planning project and indicate method of funding by entering
1 in the appropriate column.
Item 25 - Status of Ongoing Project
Enter the expected completion date, mo/day/year, of current ongoing
combined sewer planning project and indicate method of funding by enter-
ing 1 in the appropriate column.
Item 26 • Proposed Solutions
If problems have been identified and solutions proposed, enter the nature
of the proposed solution. Up to four proposed solutions may be listed in
order of decreasing importance from left to right. Codes are defined as
follows:
1 - Sewer separation.
2 - Storage/treatment system.
3 - High rate treatment without storage (e.g., swirl concentrator).
4 • In-system storage.
5 • In-system storage with real-time control.
6 - Surface water interception/storage/diversion scheme (i.e., runoff di-
verted before entering combined sewer system).
7 - Sewer flushing.
8 - Catch basin cleaning.
9 - Streetsweeping.
Item 27 - Total Construction Cost of Solution
Enter the total estimated construction cost of CSO abatement facilities
recommended in most-recent planning study. Codes are defined as
follows:
10
11 -
Creeks and shallow streams (depth (d) < 2 feet). .
Upstream feeders (2 < d < 5).
Intermediate channels (5 30 feet).
Small ponds, backwaters.
Lakes.
Shallow high tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth < 10 feet, V > 1.5
fps).
Shallow, low tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth < 10 feet, V < 1.5
fps).
Medium depth, high tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth = 10 to 30
feet, V> 1.5 fps).
FIGURE 11-2. Code reference chart and definitions for combined sewer system worksheet.
0 • No completed planning project to date.
1 • Planning project complete, but report unavailable.
2 - Planning project complete-construction not recommended.
3 - Construction recommended and costs are reported.
Item 28 - Grant Number(s)
Enter grant number(s), if any, which provide funds for CSO control.
-------
in Items 9 and 10. In general, population densities will range
from 5 to 75 persons per acre and average about 17 persons per
acre.
Item 12--Population Equivalent. The dry-weather flow population
equivalent for the combined sewer area defined on a BOD basis and
includes the resident population (Item 11), commercial contribution,
existing industrial contribution, and transient population. ,
Population equivalent was computed on the basis of 0.17 pounds
BOD5 per person per day.
Item 13—Separate Sanitary Sewer Area. The area in acres served
by separate sanitary sewers which discharge directly into the
combined sewer system, if known.
Codes are defined as follows:
0—No information presently available.
1—Some separate sanitary sewers are connected; however, the
area is unknown.
2—Area is known and is reported.
A code value of 2 and a reported area of 0.0 indicates that
no separate sanitary sewers discharge directly into the
combined sewer system.
Item 14—Number of CSO Points. The number of points at which the
combined wastewater/stormwater is discharged from the collection
system directly into the receiving water during periods of high
flow.
Item 15--Name of Receiving Water. This is the common name of the
receiving water such as "Rock Creek."
Items 16 and 17—Mean Annual Flow and 7/Q/10. These are the
average flow rate (Item 16) and the 7-day, 10-year low flow rate
(Item 17) of the receiving water in cubic feet per second (cfs).
Ideally the receiving water flow should be measured at the upstream
boundary of the combined sewer area. However, flow measurements
or estimates near this point were often used.
In most cases, the United States Geological Survey provided flow
records, or general flow studies for rivers within their jurisdic-
tion. These records provide information sufficient to establish
mean and low flow conditions within the context of this survey.
Codes for this item are as follows.
0—Flow rate not applicable, e.g., lake.
1—Flow rate measured at USGS gage.
11-5
-------
2—Flow rate estimated from regional relationship.
Item 18—Known Reaeration Rate. If a reaeration rate for the
subject receiving water was known, the value was entered in
Item 18a and the flow rate at which the measurement was made in
Item 18b. Units of the reaeration rate are day'1 base e.
Codes are as follows:
0—Reaeration rate and/or flow measurements are not available
for receiving water.
1—Reaeration rate and/or flow measurements are available .
and are reported.
Item 19—Receiving Water Classification. The purpose of the
receiving water classification is to describe the general charac-
teristics of the receiving water. A verbal description is used
to place the receiving water in 1 of 15 separate categories.
Values and ranges of depth and/or velocity were given on the code
reference chart (Figure 11-2) to guide in the selection of the
proper category. Depths and velocities are mean values and apply
to mean flow conditions.
Codes for this item are as follows:
1—Creeks and shallow streams (depth (d) <2 feet).
2—Upstream feeders (2 £d <5),
3—Intermediate channels (5 _1.5 fps).
10—Shallow, low tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth <10 feet,
V £1.5 fps).
11—Medium depth, high tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth
= 10 to 30 feet, V >.1.5 fps).
12—Medium depth, low tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth =
10 to 30 feet, V <1.5 fps).
11-6
-------
13—Deep, high tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth >30 feet,
V >.1.5 fps).
14—Deep, low tidal velocity estuary or bay (depth >30 feet,
V <1.5 fps).
15—Open ocean or beach.
Item 20—USGS Gage Number. If receiving water flow estimates
reported in Items 16 and 17 were derived directly from USGS flow
records, the station identification number, is reported here.
Item 21-Type of Aquatic Life. The type of aquatic life which
could reasonably be supported under unpolluted or uncontaminated
conditions in the receiving water downstream from the combined
sewer system, is reported in Item 21.
Codes which apply to this item are defined as follows:
1—Cold freshwater fishery, e.g., trout.
2--Cold freshwater nursery or breeding area.
3—Warm freshwater fishery, e.g., black bass.
4--Warm freshwater nursery or breeding area.
5—Estuary nonshellfish.
6—Estuary shellfish waters.
7—Open ocean.
Item 22—Known CSO Problems. Water quality problems associated
with the receiving water downstream from the combined sewer area
which are known to be caused at least in part by combined sewer
overflow. Up to four known problems may be entered in order of
importance from left to right.
Codes are defined as follows:
0—No known problems.
1—Aesthetic degradation.
2—High suspended solids levels.
3—Low dissolved oxygen levels.
4—Bacteriological contamination.
5—Sludge deposits.
11-7
-------
6—Toxic conditions.
7—Fish kills.
8—Eutrophication (nutrients).
9—Other.
Items 23, 24, and 25-~P^ann_ing_JPrqqectsf. Status of Completed
Project, and Status of"OngoingPro;)ect. The purpose of these
items is to establish the overall status of combined sewer over-
flow pollution abatement planning in the United States. Data
requirements are defined as follows.
Item 23—Planning Projects. A 1 in columns 4 and/or 10 indicates
that the subject combined sewer system has been or is being
studied for the purpose of control or treatment of overflow
events.
Item 24—Status of Completed Project. The completion date,
month/day/year, of the most recently completed combined sewer
planning project and method of funding.
Item 25—Status of Ongoing Project. The expected completion
date, month/day/year, of a current ongoing combined sewer planning
project and method of funding.
Item 26—Proposed Solutions. If problems have been identified
and solutions proposed, the nature of the proposed solution was
reported. Up to four proposed solutions were listed in order of
decreasing importance from left to right.
Codes are defined as follows:
1--sewer separation.
2--Storage/treatment system.
3—High rate treatment without storage (e.g., swirl concentrator)
4—In-system storage.
5—In-system storage with real-time control.
6—Surface water interception/storage/diversion scheme
(i.e., runoff diverted before entering combined sewer system).
7—Sewer flushing.
8—catch basin cleaning.
9—streetsweeping.
11-8
-------
Item 27—Total Construction Cost of Solution. If facility construe-
tion has been proposed,the total estimated cost of construction
was reported in Item 27. It is assumed that the reported costs
are developed for the year the planning project was completed as
reported in Item 24. If costs are reported for a different base
year, the base was reported in the comments and notes.
Codes are defined as follows:
O--NO completed planning project to date.
1—Planning project complete, but report unavailable.
2—Planning project complete--construetion not recommended.
3—Construction recommended and costs are reported.
Xi
Item 28—Grant Number(s). Grant number(s), if any, which provide
funds for CSO control.
Additional Information
If CSO planning reports were available for a given combined sewer
system, copies of the following portions of the report were
requested with the completed combined sewer system worksheet.
I. Title page.
2. Table of contents.
3. Summary and conclusions.
4. Recommendations.
5. Maps showing overall location of combined sewer area.
6. Cost summary.
Sources of Data
Because of time and manpower constraints, the above information
was obtained only from immediately available sources. A substan-
tial portion of the data is missing. This is due in large part
to the existing uncertainty about the actual extent of combined
sewer systems in many cities and towns. Most combined sewer
systems are 50 to 100 years old and their origins are obscure.
Establishment of the extent and characteristics of many of these
systems will require intensive physical surveys. Sources of
information available to Dames and Moore include the following.
1. Permits—NPDES files in EPA Regional Offices.
2. USGS Water Resources Data.
11-9
-------
3. 1974 Needs booklet.
4. Grants file.
5. 208 plans.
6. 201 plans.
7. : Telephone survey to municipalities.
Results
A total of 1,241 completed worksheets were received from Dames
and Moore. These worksheets were screened for facilities which
discharge to a common receiving water in the same municipality.
When this situation was encountered, multiple worksheets were
combined into a single worksheet for that urban area/receiving
water system. This situation was encountered only in the States
of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. The resulting data
file contains information on 1,143 combined sewer systems nationwide.
URBANIZED AREA DATA BASE
The Urbanized Area Data Base is used directly in the estimation
of Categories V and VI needs. Category V needs for areas served
by combined sewers existing both within and outside of urbanized
areas are estimated by use of subsets of the National Combined
Sewer System Data File.
In the regulations for application of the NPDES Permit Program to
separate storm sewers, the term "separate storm sewer" is defined
as "a conveyance or system of conveyances.... located in an
urbanized area and primarily operated for the purpose of collecting
and conveying stormwater runoff."1 Based on this definition, the
urbanized areas, as designated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
are used as the geographical areas which required control and/or
treatment of urban stormwater runoff. Therefore, needs estimates
for both Categories V and VI are required within Urbanized Areas.
The specific criteria for the delineation of an Urbanized Area
are as follows.
1. A central city of 50,000 inhabitants or more, or twin cities
with a combined population of at least 50,000, and with the
smaller of the twin cities having a population of at least
15,000.
2. Surrounding closely settled territory, including the following.
a. incorporated places of 2,500 inhabitants or more.
b. incorporated places with fewer than 2,500 inhabitants,
provided that each has a closely settled area of 100
housing units or more.
11 - 10
-------
c. Small parcels of land normally less than one square
mile in area having a population density of 1,000
inhabitants or more per square mile.
d. Other similar small areas in unincorporated territory
with lower population density provided that they serve
to eliminate enclaves, or to close indentations in the
urbanized ares of 1 mile or less across the open end,
or to line outlying enumeration districts of qualifying
density that are not more than 1-1/2 miles from the
main body of the Urbanized Area.
As of 1 January 1978, there were 279 Urbanized Areas defined in
the nation. Thirty-five of the Urbanized Areas encompassed area
in two states and three urbanized areas encompassed area in three
states. By subdividing by state the Urbanized Areas encompassing
lands in more than one state, a total of 320 areas were defined
for estimation of Category V and VI needs.
The Urbanized Area Data Base consists primarily of the following
items, some of which were obtained from the National Combined
Sewer System Data File and the remainder were obtained from other
published sources.
1. Demographic data.
a. The items in this category are the combined sewer
service area and the population served by combined
sewers, the Urbanized Area population and size, the
year 1970 SMSA population, and year 2000 SMSA population
estimate, and the citywide EPA construction cost factor.
2. Hydrologic data.
a. The items in this category are the number of days with
rain per year, the mean annual rainfall, the receiving
water classification, the mean annual flow of the
receiving water, and the natural runoff coefficient.
3. Water quality data.
a. The items in this category are maximum monthly receiving
water temperature, background BOD, suspended solids
lead background hardness, alkalinity and pH of the
receiving water.
Sources of Data
1. Demographic data.
a. The combined sewer service area and the population
served by the combined sewers were taken from the
National Combined Sewer System Data File for those
systems located within Urbanized Areas.
11 - 11
-------
b. Urbanized Area population and size were reported from
the supplementary report of the 1970 census of population.2
c. 1970 SMSA population was reported in the "Current
Population Reports Series."^
d. Year 2000 SMSA population estimates were reported from
the U.S. Water Resources Council's OBERS Projections.4
e. Citywide EPA construction cost factor was taken from
EPA Municipal Construction Cost Index Map, Wastewater
Treatment Plants, City multipliers.
2. Hydrologic data.
a. The number of days with rain per year and the mean
annual rainfall were obtained from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.5
b. Receiving water data were obtained from the National
Combined Sewer System Data File and from USGS water
resources data.6
c. Natural runoff coefficient were obtained from U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1797—"Has the
United States Enough Water?"7
3. Water quality data.
a. Background water quality data were obtained from the
Assessment of Water Pollution from nonpoint Sources8
The Urbanized Area data base is presented in Appendix B.
NON-URBANIZED AREA DATA BASE
In addition to the Categories V and VI needs estimates developed
on an Urbanized Area basis, an estimate of Category V needs was
made for all combined sewer systems located outside of Bureau of
Census-defined Urbanized Areas. These data are developed for
each state and are similar to the Urbanized Area data. Included
are total combined sewer areas located outside of Urbanized
Areas, population served by those systems, total number of systems,
total number of CSO points, annual number of days with rain, mean
annual rainfall, mean receiving water flow, background receiving
water BOD and SS, the EPA construction cost factor, and the
natural runoff coefficient. These data are reported in Appendix C.
Sources for this information are the same as those reported for
the Urbanized Area data base. The mean receiving water flow for
each state was computed as the combined sewer area weighted
average of the receiving water flows, reported on the National
Combined Sewer System Data File.
11 - 12
-------
REFERENCES
1. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 124, 125, National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System--Separate Storm Sewers, Final
Regulations. 18 March 1976.
2. Supplementary report 1970 Census of Population, PC(S7)-106.
Population of urbanized areas established in the 1970 census
for the United States. 1970.
3. Population estimates and projections, P-25, No. 709. Estimates
of the Population of counties and metropolitan areas.
1 July 1974 and 1975.
4. U.S. Water Resources Council, 1972, OBERS Projections of
Economic Activity in the U.S., Volume IV—States, Volume V—
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Washington, DC.
5. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Climates of the States, Vol. I and Vol. II.
1974.
6. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, "Water
Resources Data for the United States." Published annually
for each state.
7. Piper, A. M. Has the United States Enough Water? U.S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1797. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC. 1965.
8. McElroy, A. D*, et al. Loading Functions for Assessment of
Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources. EPA 600/2-76/151.
May 1976.
11 - 13
-------
Chapter 12
NEEDS ESTIMATION TECHNIQUE
A needs estimation computer program for Categories V and VI was
developed specifically for the 1978 Needs Survey. This program
calculates present and year 2000 capital and operation and
maintenance costs for combined sewer overflow (Category V) and
for urban stormwater runoff (Category VI).
PROGRAM OUTLINE
The program consists of two major parts. Part I computes both
Category V and Category VI needs for the 320 Urbanized Areas
based on the Urbanized Area data base, and Part II computes
additional Category V needs for combined sewer systems located
outside of Urbanized Areas, based on the non-Urbanized Area data
base. A complete Fortran listing of the Needs Estimating Computer
Program is presented in Appendix D.
The major computational steps required to develop the necessary
Urbanized Area cost estimates are outlined below.
1. Read in Urbanized Area (UA) data.
2. Compute UA characteristics (present condition).
a. Stormwater area.
b. Population density CSO.
c. Population density SWR.
d. Imperviousness CSO.
e. Imperviousness SWR.
f. Runoff coefficient CSO.
g. Runoff coefficient SWR.
h. Miles of streets CSO.
i. Miles of streets SWR.
3. Compute annual pollutant loads (BOD5 & SS).
a. CSO.
b. SWR.
12 - 1
-------
c. Wastewater treatment plant effluent.
d. Background upstream flow.
4. Compute total annual water yield (CFS).
a. CSO.
b. SWR.
c. Wastewater treatment plant effluent.
d. Upstream flow (given).
5. Compute aesthetics objective needs.
a. Category V.
b. Category VI.
6. Compute removal requirements for fish and wildlife objective
for both SS and BOD5.
7. Compute removal obtained from aesthetics objective for both
SS and BOD5.
8. Determine optimum mix of pollutant removal, by sewer system
type, to meet the fish and wildlife objective.
a. Removal required for BOD, CSO.
b. Removal required for SS, CSO.
c. Removal required for BOD, SWR.
d. Removal required for SS, SWR.
9. Determine level of effort for management practices.
a. Streetsweeping—BOD, CSO.
b. Streetsweeping—SS, CSO.
c. Streetsweeping—BOD, SWR.
d. Streetsweeping--SS, SWR.
e. Sewer flushing-BOD, CSO.
f. Sewer flushing—SS, CSO.
10. Determine costs for and removals obtained by management
practices defined in Step 9.
12-2
-------
11. Determine removal requirements for storage/treatment systems
to meet the fish and wildlife objective.
a. Storage/treatment removal for BOD, CSO.
b. Storage/treatment removal for SS, CSO.
c. Storage/treatment removal for BOD, SWR.
d. Storage/treatment removal for SS, SWR.
12. Determine optimum treatment level, removal efficiency, and
annual pollutant capture required for each storage/treatment
system defined in Step 11.
13. Compute the optimum (minimum annual cost) storage/treatment
combination for each storage/treatment system defined in
Step 11.
14. Compute total capital and O&M costs, by sewer system type
and pollutant, for optimum storage/treatment combinations.
a. Costs for BOD removal from CSO.
b. Costs for SS removal from CSO.
c. Costs for BOD removal from SWR.
d. Costs for SS removal from SWR.
15. Determine which pollutant controls costs (i.e., requires the
highest or most costly level of control) and establish needs
for the fish and wildlife objective based on removal of the
controlling pollutant.
16. Compute storage volume and treatment rate required for two
overflow events per year.
17. Scale up facilities identified in fish and wildlife objective
to meet the two overflow event per year (recreation objective)
criteria.
18. Compute capital and O&M costs for scaled-up facilities.
19. Compute cost of sewer separation in combined sewer portion
of UA.
20
Print out results of computations.
21. Compute UA characteristics for future (year 2000) conditions
and go to Step 3.
22. Repeat Steps 1 through 21 until needs for all 320 UA's have
been computed.
12 - 3
-------
A similar computational procedure is used to estimate combined
sewer control needs in the non-Urbanized Areas. These compu-
tations are, however, less comprehensive since only Category V
needs are considered. The remainder of this chapter describes
the individual computational sequences and assumptions used in
the needs computations.
URBANIZED AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The stormwater runoff area and population densities are straight-
forward computations based on the input data. Imperviousness is
computed by the Stankowski equation1, which relates watershed
imperviousness to population density. The runoff coefficient for
each portion of the Urbanized Area is computed based on the
computed imperviousness and on the natural runoff coefficient. A
runoff coefficient of 0.90 is assumed for impervious areas.
Total miles of streets in the Urbanized Area is based on a
relationship between total population and street miles presented
in the Areawide Assessment Manual.2
ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADS
Annual pollutant loads for BOD5 and SS from combined sewer systems
and urban stormwater runoff were computed using loading functions
developed by Heaney et al.3 These functions relate annual watershed
pollutant yield to annual rainfall and population density.
Wastewater treatment plant effluent pollutant loads for BOD5 and
SS were estimated by assuming an effluent quality of 30 mg/1
(secondary treatment) and a flow of 100 gallons per person per
day.
AESTHETICS OBJECTIVE NEEDS
The aesthetics objective needs estimates are based on a uniform
technology which is applied nationwide. This level of control is
designed to provide a minimum level for CSO treatment, which will
result in the removal of a significant portion of the annual
solids presently discharged to receiving waters and will provide
certain minimum management practices for urban stormwater runoff.
Aesthetics objective needs for Category V are based on providing
an optimum mix of management practices in combined sewer watersheds.
Cost estimates are based on sweeping all streets once every
4 days (X = 0.25) and on flushing 13% of the sewers daily
(X f = 0.13). It is assumed that all streets in combined sewer
service areas are constructed with curb and gutter sections.
This combination of management practices should remove approximately
the same amount of combined sewer solids as the swirl concentrator/
screening system used as a basis for estimating Category V aesthetics
objective needs in the 1976 needs survey.
12-4
-------
Aesthetics objective needs for Category VI in existing urban
areas are based on providing streetsweeping of all streets with
curb and gutter sections swept once every 10 days (X = 0.1) and
on providing erosion control in all areas experiencing active
construction. It is assumed that one half of all streets in
existing stormwater areas are constructed with curb and gutter
sections and that 4% of the urban area will experience active
construction in any given year. In addition, for new urban areas
which will develop between the present time and the year 2000, it
is assumed that earthen stormwater detention basins will be
incorporated into the new construction. These detention basins
will be sized to provide detention storage for 90% of the annual
runoff.
POLLUTANT REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE OBJECTIVE
Computation of suspended solids removal requirements to meet the
fish and wildlife receiving water quality objective is accomplished
by application of equation 10-1.
Computation of BOD5 removal requirements is somewhat more involved.
Computations begin by computing the total number of hours per
year that the receiving water experiences DO levels less than
2.0 mg/1. This estimate is obtained by application of equation
10-10. If the total number of hours per year below 2.0 mg/1 (VT)
is less then 4.0, then BOD removal is not required. If VT is
greater than 4.0 hours per year, then VT is recomputed based on
removal of all of the BOD5 load from CSO and SWR. If VT is still
greater than 4.0 hours per year, then the receiving water DO
problem cannot be solved by removal of pollutants from CSO and
SWR alone and BOD5 removal requirements are set equal to 90%. If
the recomputed VT is less than 4.0 hours per year, then exact BOD
removal requirements are obtained by interpolation.
OPTIMUM MIX OF POLLUTANT
REMOVAL BY SEWER SYSTEM TYPE
An estimate of the optimum mix of pollutant removal by sewer-
system type is obtained by first computing the removal required
from the stormwater portion of the urban area (REMSWR) using
equation 10-11. The remaining required pollutant removal is then
obtained from the combined sewer watershed.
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Once removal requirements by pollutant and sewer system type are
established, the level of effort, pollutant removal, and costs
for streetsweeping and sewer flushing are estimated. The appropriate
level of effort is estimated by the pollutant removal versus
level of effort relationships presented in Figures 10-1, 10-2 and
10-3. Pollutant removals for each management practice considered
12-5
-------
are determined by application of the production functions defined
on Figures 6-3 and 6-4. and by application of equations 6-6 and
6-9. Streetsweeping costs are based on a unit cost of $10.00 per
curb mile swept and sewer flushing costs are based on a unit
capital cost of $9,000 per sewer flushing station and a unit O&M
cost of $1,630 per station per year. A complete sewer flushing
network is assumed to require a sewer flushing station density of
one station every 2-1/4 acres.2
Streetsweepers are assumed to have an economic life of 5 years
and sewer flushing stations are assumed to have an economic life
of 10 years. The needs estimates are developed for a 20-year
planning period. Therefore, the present worth of anticipated
capital replacements during the planning period is also included.
STORAGE/TREATMENT SYSTEMS
If total required pollutant removals are less than approximately
30%, then storage/treatment systems are generally not required.
That is, the total required pollutant removal can be obtained by
application of optimum management practices. Given an estimate
of the pollutant removal obtained by management practices, the
additional removal required from storage/treatment systems, if
any, is obtained by application of equation 10-13.
Once removal requirements are established, an appropriate treatment
level is selected (see Table 10-3) and the required annual pollutant
capture is computed. The optimum combination of storage volume
and treatment rate is then determined by application of the
storage/treatment isoquants presented in Chapter 6. The basis of
this computation is the isoquant equation (equation 6-1) transformed
as given below.
S = Inf
T - Tj (12-1)
K
where
S = Storage volume in inches.
T! = Treatment rate, in inches per hour, at which isoquant
becomes parallel to the ordinate.
T2 = Treatment rate, in inches per hour, at which isoquant
intersects the abscissa.
T = Treatment rate, in inches per hour.
12-6
-------
K = Constant, in inches1, which is a function of the required
capture (C) and the rainfall region (See equation 6-4
and Table 6-1).
Equation 12-1 is defined graphically on Figure 12-1. The technically
feasible range of solutions lies between storage =0.0 and storage
~• Ewax and between Treatment = Tx and Treatment = T2, as shown on
•J9^re 12-1. The objective of the economic optimization is to
identify that combination of storage volume and treatment rate
which will minimize the total annual cost of the storage/treatment
system considering both capital and O&M costs. The economic
optimization consists of a pattern search of the technically
feasible range.
Computations begin by computing AT, which is equal to (T2-T!)/100
or 0.001 inch per hour which ever is less and setting T equal to
T! + AT. The value of storage, S, corresponding to the treatment
rate, T, is then computed by application of equation 12-1. The
total equivalent annual cost of this combination of storage
volume and treatment rate is then computed and saved. These
computations are based on the capital and operation and maintenance
cost relationships presented in Chapter 4.
Next, the treatment rate, T, is increased by AT and the storage
volume and equivalent annual costs are recomputed. If the annual
cost of the present storage/treatment combination is less than
the annual cost of the previous storage/treatment combination,
then the treatment rate, T, is again increased by an amount equal
to AT and the process is repeated. When a storage/treatment
combination is found which has an equivalent annual cost greater
than the previous combination, then computations are complete and
the optimum storage volume/treatment rate combination is set
equal to the immediately preceding combination.
This storage/treatment cost minimization together with the use of
appropriate management practices is the basis of the economic
optimization of facility needs to meet the fish and wildlife
water quality objective.
RECREATION OBJECTIVE
Needs for the recreation objective are based on treatment and
disinfection of nearly all combined sewer overflow and urban
stormwater runoff in order to eliminate bacterial contamination
from these sources. An allowable discharge of two untreated
overflow events per year has been selected as the basis for
estimating facility needs.
Facilities requirements are based on the treatment level identified
in the fish and wildlife objective except that a minimum treatment
(Level 2) is specified. These facilities are scaled up, if
necessary, in order to achieve the two overflow events per year
criteria. Storage required to achieve this objective is estimated
as follows.
12-7
-------
T
w
_
O
Smax
Storage/Treatment
Isoquant for
Capture-C
Treatment Rate (T)—in/hr
FIGURE 12-1. Storage/treatment isoquant for required pollutant capture.
-------
S2 = 0.0653*AR-0.0273*ARD (12-2)
Where:
S2 = Storage volume, in inches, required to obtain a maximum
of two untreated overflow events per year.
AR = Annual runoff in inches.
ARD = Annual duration of runoff in percent of time, (i.e.,
ARD = 10 corresponds to runoff occurring 876 hours per
year).
The above equation was developed by regression analysis of data
developed in the 14 site studies. A total of 22 observations
were used and the resulting correlation coefficient and standard
error are 0.91 and 0.27 inches, respectively.
The ratio of S2 to the storage required to meet the fish and
wildlife objective is used as a scaling factor to obtain the
facility sizes (both storage and treatment) required to meet the
recreation objective. The costs of these scaled-up facilities
are then computed.
YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS
/
Needs estimates for the year 2000 are based on the assumption
that no new combined sewer systems will be constructed and that
all population growth will occur in the separate sewer service
area. Therefore, year 2000 Category V needs are equal to present
Category V needs.
It is further assumed that existing population densities will
remain constant and that new growth will be accommodated by an
increase in urbanized land area and not by an increase in population
density. Based on these assumptions, Urbanized Area characteristics
in the year 2000 are computed and a needs estimate for these
conditions is developed.
REFERENCES
1. Stankowski, S. J. Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in New
Jersey with Effects of Urbanization Special Report 38. U.S.
Geological Survey, Water Resources Division. Trenton, NJ.
1974.
2. Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual—Volume III.
EPA 600/9-70-014. July 1976.
3. Heaney, J. p, et al. Stormwater Management Model Level
I—Preliminary Screening Procedures. EPA-600/2-76-275.
October 1976.
12-9
-------
Chapter 13
NEEDS FOR CONTROL OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
Tables 13-1, 13-2, and 13-3 present the estimated needs, by
State, to meet the aesthetics water quality goal, the fish and
wildlife water quality goal, and the recreation water quality
goal, respectively. All costs are reported in millions of January
1978 dollars.
The first column of each table contains the estimated needs for
Urbanized Areas within each State and the second column contains
the estimated needs for non-Urbanized Areas. Needs met before
January 1978 (column 3) were obtained from a recent report to
Congress on combined sewer overflow control. These values are
based on information contained in the Grants Information Control
System (GIGS) file and 75% grant eligibility. Column 4, Total
Estimated Needs, is computed as column 1 plus column 2 minus
column 3.
Each State's percentage of total national needs is reported in
column 5 and annual operation and maintenance costs are reported
in the last column. These O&M costs include both Urbanized Area
and non-Urbanized Area needs.
Nationwide Category V needs developed in the 1978 Needs Estimate
are compared to Category V needs developed in the 1976 Needs
Estimate in the following table. Costs are reported in billions
of January 1978 dollars.
Category V Needs
Needs
Survey
1976
1978
Aesthetics
Objective
6.5
2.0
Fish and
Wildlife
Objective
14.0
10.9
Recreation
Objective
21.2
25.7
The 1978 estimated cost to achieve the aesthetics objective
for Category V is lower than the 1976 estimated cost. The
decrease is explained by alternative technology. In the 1976
13 - 1
-------
Table 13-1
State Category V (Combined Sewer) Needs to
Achieve the Aesthetics Water Quality Goal
Current and Year 2000
Capital Costs ($106 January 1978)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Urbanized
Area Needs
(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
48.144
0.382
17.737
8.449
16.346
0.0
21.089
0.0
0.0
362.974
230.757
3.606
29.160
37.041
0.0
17.798
0.0
73.577
251.954
27.634
0.0
Non-Urbanized
Area Needs
(2)
0.0
0.394
0.0
0.0
3.234
0.976
5.879
1.863
0.0
0.603
0.344
0.0
9.733
91.830
87.926
15.115
0.455
16.946
0.0
41.085
10.325
7.328
26.975
5.689
1.829
Needs Met
Before
1978
(3)
0.0
0.005
0.0
10.347
125.000
7.031
4.131
2.384
0.847
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
870.991
44.621
2.104
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.004
32.420
250.456
0.093
0.0
Total Percentage
Estimated of National
Needs
(4)
0.0
0.389
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.485
7.928
15.499
0.603
21.433
0.0
9.733
0.0
274.062
16.617
29.615
53.987
0.0
58.883
8.321
48.485
28.473
33.230
1.829
Needs
(5)
0.0
0.02
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.97
0.39
0.77
0.03
1.06
0.0
0.48
0.0
13.58
0.82
1.47
2.68
0.0
2.92
0.41
2.40
1.41
1.65
0.09
Annual
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
(6)
0.0
0.096
0 0
V * V
0 0
V * \J
8.329
0.216
3.493
1 361
~L. • «J \J J.
3.094
0.104
2.661
0.0
1.110
64.619
37.560
2.853
4.081
7.565
0.0
7.177
1.186
14.627
34.722
4.112
0.282
-------
u>
I
Table 13-1 — Continued
Current and Year 2000
Capital Costs ($106 January 1978)
Urbanized Non-Urbanized
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsy 1 vani a
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Area Needs
(1)
95.177
0.0
21.463
0.0
10.641
92.686
0.0
318.658
6.300
1.035
220.413
0.0
20.307
194.816
13.928
0.0
0.214
11.622
4.126
0.0
0.0
22.458
68.154
27.398
27.964
0.0
Area Needs
(2)
2.547
7.181
0.281
0.0
4.121
7.338
0.0
27.623
0.397
0.969
128.344
0.0
10.209
25.099
13.957
0.0
2.366
5.537
0.0
0.300
12.952
2.815
18 . 064
36.313
6.657
0.848
Needs Met Total Percentage
Before Estimated of National
1978
(3)
0.163
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.291
8.656
0.0
16.367
0.0
0.0
7.601
0.0
0.0
0.048
16.164
0.0
1.873
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.711
4.129
0.791
0.384
12.561
0.0
Needs
(4)
97.561
7.181
21.744
0.0
7.471
91.418
0.0
329.914
6.697
2.004
341.156
0.0
30.516
219.867
11.721
0.0
0.707
17.159
4.126
0.300
6.241
21.144
85.427
63.327
22.060
0.848
Needs
(5)
4.84
0.36
1.08
0.0
0.37
4.53
0.0
16.34
0.33
0.10
16.90
0.0
1.51
10.89
0.58
0.0
0.04
0.85
0.20
0.01
0.31
1.05
4.23
3.14
1.09
0.04
Annual
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
(6)
13.219
1.066
2.6'23
0.0
2.444
17.179
0.0
71.850
0.743
0.318
43.656
0.0
4.355
34 . 943
4.065
0.0
0.406
2.053
0.492
0.077
1.696
3.857
10.257
7.933
5.212
0.155
-------
Table 13-1 — Continued
Current and Year 2000
Capital Costs ($10e January 1978)
State
Am. Samoa
Guam
Marianas Group
Puerto Rico
Trust Terr.
Virgin Islands
Urbanized Non-Urbanized
Area Needs Area Needs
(1) (2)
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.478
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Needs Met Total Percentage
Before Estimated of National
1978 Needs Needs
(3) (4) (5)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.478
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.07
0.0
0.0
Annual
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
(6)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.214
0.0
0.0
V-1
u>
Totals
2,304.503
642.495
1,435.172 2,018.639
100.0
428.063
-------
u>
Table 13-2
State Category V (Combined Sewer) Needs to
Achieve the Fish and Wildlife Water Quality Goal
Current and Year 2000
Capital Costs ($106 January 1978)
Urbanized Non-Urbanized
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Area Needs
(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
201.595
2.798
133.902
44.599
90.143
0.0
119.162
0.0
0.0
867.226
611.872
20.515
41.097
196.181
0.0
111.130
0.0
384.438
564.611
115.034
0.0
Area Needs
(2)
0.0
3.045
0.0
0.0
17.813
4.953
50.317
18.713
0.0
4.840
3.137
0.0
57.808
548.608
550.189
79.664
3.005
125.056
0.0
379.764
81.093
70.689
192.418
42.351
15.335
Needs Met
Before
1978
(3)
0.0
0.005
0.0
10.347
125.000
7.031
4.131
2.384
0.847
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
870.991
44.621
2.104
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.004
32.420
250.456
0.093
0.0
Total Percentage
Estimated of National
Needs
(4)
0.0
3.040
0.0
0.0
94.408
0.720
180.088
60.928
89.296
4.840
122.299
0.0
57.808
544.843
1117.440
98.075
44.102
321.237
0.0
490.894
79.089
422.707
506.573
157.292
15.335
Needs
(5)
0.0
0.03
0.0
0.0
0.86
0.007
1.65
0.56
0.82
0.04
1.12
0.0
0.53
4.99
10.23
0.90
0.40
2.94
0.0
4.50
0.72
3.87
4.64
1.44
0.14
Annual
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
(6)
0.0
0.188
0.0
0.0
5.038
0.212
5.032
1.581
2.306
0.095
2.722
0.0
1.763
45.852
36.612
3.149
3.118
8.085
0.0
14.460
2.211
12.933
25.274
4.339
0.365
-------
Table 13-2 — Continued
Current and Year 2000
Capital Costs ($106 January 1978)
Urbanized Non-Urbanized
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Am. Samoa
Area Needs
(1)
219.488
0.0
65.512
0.0
75.768
455.153
0.0
1,242.379
33.580
2.402
639.429
0.0
98.257
817 . 544
70.167
0.0
2.117
75.901
18.470
0.0
0.0
107.632
254.911
135.384
125.258
0.0
0.0
Area Needs
(2)
21.450
33.731
1.948
0.0
53.018
43.055
0.0
225.382
4.099
9.373
659.169
0.0
88.394
270.541
80.559
0.0
15.253
23.150
0.0
2.206
127.066
27.807
141.414
274 . 648
39.950
3.341
0.0
Needs Met
Before
1978
(3)
0.163
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.291
8.656
0.0
16.367
0.0
0.0
7.601
0.0
0.0
0.048
16.164
0.0
1.873
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.711
4.129
0.791
0.384
12.561
0.0
0.0
Total Percentage
Estimated of National
Needs
(4)
240.775
33.731
67.460
0.0
121.495
489.552
0.0
1,451.394
37.679
11.775
1,290.997
0.0
186.651
1,088.037
134.562
0.0
15.497
99.051
18.470
2.206
120.355
131.310
395.534
409.648
152.647
3.341
0.0
Needs
(5)
2.21
0.31
0.62
0.0
1.11
4.48
0.0
13.28
0.35
0.11
11.82
0.0
1.71
9.96
1.23
0.0
0.14
0.91
0.17
0.02
1.10
1.20
3.62
3.75
1.40
0.03
0.0
Annual
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
(6)
9.935
0.777
1.510
0.0
4.335
13.674
0.0
46.113
0.796
0.691
40.637
0.0
5.789
30.265
3.898
0.0
1.010
2.364
0.369
0.078
4.129
3.760
11.408
10.304
4.791
0.132
0.0
-------
U)
I
-J
Table 13-2 — Continued
Current and Year 2000
Capital
Costs ($106
Urbanized Non-Urbanized
State
Guam
Marianas Group
Puerto Rico
Trust Terr.
Virgin Islands
Totals
Area Needs
(1)
0.0
0.0
12.265
0.0
0.0
7,947.018
Area Needs
(2)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4,394.340
January 1978 )
Needs Met
Before
1978
(3)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,435.172
Total
Estimated
Needs
(4)
0.0
0.0
12.265
0.0
0.0
10,925.446
Percentage
of National
Needs
(5)
0.0
0.0
0.11
0.0
0.0
100.0
Annual
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
(6)
0.0
0.0
0.305
0.0
0.0
372.402
-------
Table 13-3
State Category V (Combined Sewer) Needs to
Achieve the Recreation Water Quality Goal
Current and Year 2000
Capital Costs ($106 January 1978)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
£ Colorado
Connecticut
1 Delaware
oo Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Urbanized
Area Needs
(1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
272.621
2.797
286.918
94.727
171.518
0.0
212.465
0.0
0.0
2,001.532
1,700.521
43.827
204.916
336.710
0.0
232.159
0.0
891.043
1,483.897
133.438
0.0
•
Non-Urbanized
Area Needs
(2)
0.0
9.170
0.0
0.0
20.094
4.895
116.125
36.618
0.0
8.533
6.267
0.0
57.256
1,001.189
1,264.855
151.162
4.860
255.709
0.0
860.361
149.135
177.577
368.850
53.869
33.286
Needs Met
Before
1978
(3)
0.0
0.005
0.0
10.347
125.000
7.031
4.131
2.384
0.847
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
870.991
44.621
2.104
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.004
32.420
250.456
0.093
0.0
Total
Estimated
Needs
(4)
0.0
9.165
0.0
0.0
167.715
0.661
398.912
128.961
170.671
8.533
218.732
0.0
57.256
2,131.730
2,920.755
192.885
209.776
592.419
0.0
1,092.520
147.131
1,036.200
1,602.291
187.214
33.286
Percentage
of National
Needs
(5)
0.0
0.04
0.0
0.0
0.65
0.003
1.55
0.50
0.66
0.03
0.85
0.0
0.22
8.28
11.35
0.75
0.81
2.30
0.0
4.24
0.57
4.03
6.22
0.73
0.13
Annual
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
(6)
0.0
0.262
0.0
0.0
6.244
0.186
10.190
3.064
4.351
0.142
4.573
0.0
1.670
75.127
87.637
5.233
4.181
14.146
0.0
28.322
3.568
29.088
53.707
4.807
0.696
-------
VD
Table 13-3 — Continued
Current and Year 2000
Capital Costs ($106 January 1978)
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Am. Samoa
Urbanized
Area Needs
(1)
711.279
0.0
67.550
0.0
150.927
899.402
0.0
2,869.917
58.019
3.923
1,773.078
0.0
236.474
1,625.883
152.550
0.0
2.116
141.997
39.148
0.0
0.0
226.122
437.018
259.797
211.774
0.0
0.0
Non-Urbanized
Area Needs
(2)
46.803
33.236
3.256
0.0
129.360
119.017
0.0
451.588
9.323
9.782
1,496.137
0.0
194.859
572.271
192.956
0.0
23.814
56.465
0.0
2.199
215.692
50.818
457.091
494.788
69.692
3.164
0.0
Needs Met
Before
1978
(3)
0.163
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.291
8.656
0.0
16.367
0.0
0.0
7.601
0.0
0.0
0.048
16.164
0.0
1.873
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.711
4.129
0.791
0.384
12.561
0.0
0.0
Total
Estimated
Needs
(4)
757.919
33.236
70.806
0.0
272.996
1,009.763
0.0
3,305.138
67.342
13.705
3,261.614
0.0
431.333
2,198.106
329.342
0.0
24.057
198.462
39.148
2.199
208.981
272.811
893.318
754.201
268.905
3.164
0.0
Percentage
of National
Needs
(5)
2.94
0.13
0.28
0.0
1.06
3.92
0.0
12.84
0.26
0.05
12.67
0.0
1.68
8.54
1.28
0.0
0.09
0.77
0.15
0.009
0.81
1.06
3.47
2.93
1.04
0.01
0/\
.0
Annual
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
(6)
25.663
0 . 627-
1.234
0.0
7.754
27.804
Of\
.0
89.654
1.241
0.652
94.095
0.0
12.206
54.307
9.021
0.0
1.045
4.640
On f *•%
.763
0.067
5.683
6.656
25.891
16.939
7.465
0 . 084
Of\
.u
-------
Table 13-3 — Continued
Current and Year 2000
Capital Costs ($106 January 1978)
State
Guam
Marianas Group
Puerto Rico
Trust Terr
Virgin Islands
Urbanized
Area Needs
(1)
0.0
0.0
19.360
0.0
0.0
Non-Urbanized
Area Needs
(2)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Needs Met
Before
1978
(3)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
Estimated
Needs
(4)
0.0
0.0
19.360
0.0
0.0
Percentage
of National
Needs
(5)
0.0
0.0
0.08
0.0
0.0
Annual
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
(6)
0.0
0.0
0.441
0.0
0.0
Totals
17,955.230
9,212.064 1,435.208 25,742.719
100.0
731.119
-------
Needs Survey, aesthetics objective needs were based on providing
swirl concentrators at all overflow points and consolidated
screening of the concentrate. In the 1978 Needs Survey, aesthetics
objective needs are based on providing an optimum mix of street-
sweeping and combined sewer flushing. Both methods can remove
approximately 40% of the combined sewer solids which are now
discharged to the receiving water. However, the streetsweeping/
sewer flushing combination has an obvious cost advantage.
The 1978 estimated cost to achieve the fish and wildlife objective
is also lower than the 1976 estimated cost. The major reason for
the estimated decrease in fish and wildlife objective needs is
the economic optimization analysis considered in the needs computations
This optimization results in the selection of the most cost-effective
mix of technologies at a given site for a specified level of
pollutant removal. The economic optimization of pollution control
alternatives is a major enhancement of the 1978 needs estimate
over the 1976 approach.
The 1978 estimated cost to achieve the recreation receiving water
quality objective is higher for combined sewer overflow control
than the 1976 estimated cost. The approximately 21% increase in
estimated construction cost for Category V needs is due to two
factors. First, identified combined sewer service area has
increased from approximately 2-1/4 million acres in the 1976
Needs Survey to approximately 2-1/2 million acres in the 1978
Needs Survey. Second, a more accurate estimate of storage volume
required to achieve the recreation receiving water quality goal
was utilized in the 1978 needs computations. This technique
yields slightly larger values for required storage volume.
In addition to the required Category V Needs Estimate for the
three receiving water quality objectives discussed above, an
estimate of nationwide capital cost of sewer separation has also
been developed. This estimate is based on the sewer separation
cost function presented in Chapter 4, the population served by
each combined sewer system, and the citywide construction cost
index. Estimated sewer separation capital cost for Urbanized
Areas is 89.3 billion and for non-Urbanized areas is 14.6 billion,
resulting in a total national cost estimate of $103.9 billion
(January 1978).
Table 13-4 presents a summary by State of estimated capital cost
of sewer separation. Also presented is a summary of known combined
sewer service area and population served nationally. Combined
sewers serve approximately 2-1/2 million acres and 40 million
persons. Therefore, estimated Category V needs as reported to
Congress (recreation level) are approximately $643 per person
served.
Table 13-5 presents a summary of the unit cost of correction
expressed in terms of dollars per acre for Category V. This
summary is based on analysis of the results obtained from the 127
estimates developed for combined sewer systems located in Urbanized
13 - 11
-------
Table 13-4
Summary of Combined Sewer Area, Population Served,
and Estimated Cost of Sewer Separation by State
u>
I
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Combined
Sewer Area
(acres)
0.0
324.0
0.0
0.0
38,100.0
1,444.0
20,581.0
8,451.0
14,713.0
630.0
25,083.0
0.0
9,306.0
365,422.0
274,955.5
21,215.0
28,500.0
49,465.3
0.0
47,163.8
10,105.0
66,043.0
260,961.0
30,768.0
1,570.0
89,466.0
7,723.0
25,471.0
0.0
Population
Served
(1,000 persons)
0.0
5.4
0.0
0.0
852.1
19.0
344.4
90.1
489.1
4.4
221.7
0.0
46.0
5,693.6
1,997.5
396.4
384.0
732.6
0.0
394.5
53.9
1,943.4
2,506.5
269.5
19.1
1,158.6
129.0
199.4
0.0
Sewer Separation
Cost
(million dollars)
0
12
0
0
2,436
37
836
236
1,096
8
411
0
105
15,254
5,079
736
853
1,701
0
932
120
4,862
5,817
638
46
2,760
253
371
0
.0
.427
.0
.0
.760
.292
.273
.701
.647
.593
.343
.0
.696
.740
.390
.482
.920
.097
.0
.852
.824
.247
.527
.422
.759
.806
.636
.192
.0
-------
Table 13-4—Continued
State
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
Marianas Group
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
American Samoa
Pacific Trust
Combined
Sewer Area
(acres)
12,266.0
67,088.7
0.0
233,592.0
10,566.0
1,808.2
324,913.7
0.0
28,275.0
189,919.9
23,730.0
0.0
2,332.0
20,287.0
4,670.0
284.0
11,187.0
23,726.0
81,987.9
59,745.2
30,921.3
877.0
0.0
0.0
1,067.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
2,526,704.5
Population
Served
(1,000 persons)
278.5
1,822.5
0.0
9,091.8
38.4
25.6
3,159.5
0.0
436.3
4,030.6
394.0
0.0
37.6
150.5
35.0
4.7
123.1
442.1
628.2
543.2
557.3
14.7
0.0
0.0
17.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sewer Separation
Cost
(million dollars)
695
5,469
0
27,768
53
59
7,385
0
1,002
9,934
982
0
87
277
67
9
307
991
1,443
1,257
1,304
28
0
0
52
0
0
0
.132
.801
.0
.886
.565
.318
.218
.0
.285
.732
.084
.0
.081
.759
.542
.313
.347
.335
.353
.875
.578
.799
.0
.0
.340
.0
.0
.0
39,781.4
103,927.745
-------
Areas. The range of unit costs within any receiving water quality
objective is large, indicating a dependence on site-specific
variables which should be addressed in future facilities plans.
Table 13-5
Unit Capital Cost of Correction for Combined
Sewer Systems Located in Urbanized Areas
Receiving Water Unit Cost ($/acre)
Objective
Aesthetics
Fish and wildlife
Recreation
Sewer separation
Mean
1,184
4,086
9,221
45,872
Maximum
1,699
17,851
35,131
188,951
Minimum
630
671
2,680
4,113
Table 13-6 is also based on analysis of the 127 Urbanized Area
estimates and presents the degree of treatment selected for both
the fish and wildlife and the recreation receiving water objectives
In terms of area served, treatment level 3 is selected most often
and, in terms of population served, treatment level 4 is most
often selected.
Table 13-7 presents a summary of storage, treatment, and
management practices parameters selected for control of pollution
from combined sewer overflow for Urbanized Areas. Parameters for
both the fish and wildlife and recreation water quality objectives
are presented. Storage volumes and treatment rates are given on
a per acre and per capita basis as well as for Urbanized Area
totals.
13 - 14
-------
Table 13-6
Selected Treatment Levels for Combined
Sewer Systems Located in Urbanized Areas
A) Fish and Wildlife Objective
Treatment Level
Storage +
disinfection
Capital Cost
(million of
1978 $)
29
Area
(acres)
36,410
Population
385,000
2. 1 + Microscreen
2 + Sedimentation-
flocculation
3 + High-rate
filtration
38
2,639
2,209
31,781
817,148
235,184
9,302,403
534,465 12,814,696
5.
B)
A • */-LB»W.J.V«3U
air flotation
Total
Recreation Objective
Treatment Level
3,041
7,956
Capital Cost
(million of
1978 $)
527,362
1,947,166
Area
(acres)
10,978,767
33,716,050
Population
Storage +
disinfection
2. 1 + Microscreen
3 2 + Sedimentation-
flocculation
A o . High Rate
J filtration
5. 4 +
Dissolved
air flotation
Total
514
6,738
4,859
5,844
17,955
68,191
817,148
620,184
9,302,403
534,465 12,814,696
527,362 10,978.767
1,947,166 33,716,050
13 - 15
-------
Table 13-7
Parameter Summary for Combined Sewer
Systems Located in Urbanized Areas
Parameter
Total storage
Mean storage
per acre
Mean storage
per person
served
Total treatment
rate
Mean treatment
rate per acre
Mean treatment
rate per person
served
Mean dewatering
time of full
storage facility
(range)
Mean percentage
of sewers
flushed daily
(range)
Mean percentage
of streets
swept daily
(range)
Receiving Water Objective
Fish and Wildlife
20.6 x 109 gallons
10,573 gallons
618 gallons
4,109 mgd
2,110 gpd
123 gpd
5 (0.3 - 16) days
1.2 (0 - 10)
6.6 (3 - 14)
Recreation
62.2 x 109 gallons
31,938 gallons
1,844 gallons
13,743 mgd
7,059 gpd
408 gpd
4.5 (1.5 - 16) days
Not used
Not used
13 - 16
-------
Chapter 14
NEEDS FOR CONTROL OF URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF
Tables 14-1, 14-2, and 14-3 represent the estimated needs, by
State, to meet the aesthetics water quality goal, the fish and
wildlife water quality goal, and the recreation water quality
goal, respectively, for Category VI. All costs are reported in
millions of January 1978 dollars.
The first column of each table presents an estimate of current
capital needs, by State, and the second column presents an estimate
of current annual O&M costs. The same information for year 2000
conditions is presented in columns 3 and 4, respectively. The
percentable of national needs, by State, reported in column 5 is
based on year 2000 capital needs.
The following table presents a comparison of nationwide Category VI
needs developed in the 1978 Needs Estimate to Category VI needs
developed in 1976. Costs are reported in billions of January
1978 dollars.
Category VI Needs (years 1990 and 2000)
Needs
Survey
1976
(1990)
1978
(2000)
Aesthetics
Objective
23.7
1.4
Fish and
Wildlife
Ob j ective
58.7
29.2
Recreation
Objective
62.8
61.7
The difference in aesthetics level needs is explained by differing
assumptions related to the cost of storage of stormwater in newly
developing areas. In the 1976 Needs Survey, the cost of storing
stormwater runoff was assumed to be $0.50 per gallon, which is a
trypical unit cost for concrete storage basins. In the 1978
Needs Survey, it was assumed that stormwater storage could be
designed into new developments in such a manner that earthen
detention basins would be utilized. A typical unit cost for this
type facility is approximately $0.03 per gallon.
The 1978 estimated cost to achieve the fish and wildlife objective
is also lower than the 1976 estimated cost for Category VI. The
14-1
-------
Table 14-1
State Category VI (Stormwater) Needs to
Achieve the Aesthetics Water Quality Goal
Current and Year 2000
Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs
($106 Jan 1978)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Current
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(1)
2.451
0.247
2.048
0.693
34.721
2.547
4.441
0.645
0.537
8.507
2.839
1.514
0.196
6.745
1.966
1.234
0.854
1.431
3.290
0.096
5.168
5.960
7.351
3.671
0.769
3.090
Current
Annual
O&M Costs
(2)
10.080
0.927
7.306
2.500
89.423
7.148
15.496
1.883
1.020
28.415
9.819
3.901
0.565
22.856
11.903
5.573
3.279
4.851
7.601
1.574
12.067
23.062
21.931
13.863
2.621
12.608
Year 2000
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(3)
17.747
6.811
27.279
11.692
145.640
18.958
21.867
7.506
6.874
167.643
28.591
12.283
2.555
44.757
34.454
8.272
17.152
22.694
14.372
15.575
23.491
34.467
27.606
18.594
5.778
22.998
Year 2000
Annual
O&M Costs
(4)
12.497
3.306
18.418
4.549
123.855
13.196
17.233
3.221
2.690
62.689
15.448
7.424
1.149
32.126
17.886
6.932
6.735
9.013
9.852
3.836
16.423
28.029
26.153
17.375
3.569
16.557
Percent of
National Needs
(based on
Year 2000 needs)
(5)
1.23
0.47
1.90
0.81
10.12
1.32
1.52
0.52
0.48
11.65
1.98
0.85
0.18
3.11
2.39
0.57
1.19
1.58
1.00
1.08
1.63
2.39
1.92
1.29
0.40
1.60
-------
Table 14-1 — Continued
Current and Year 2000
Capital
and Operation
and Maintenance Costs
($106 Jan 1978)
State
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Am. Samoa
Guam
Marianas Group
Puerto Rico
Current
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(1)
0.287
0.702
0.877
0.111
12.837
0.536
15.929
1.796
0.110
9.260
1.706
1.257
7.972
1.252
0.963
0.201
2.638
11.917
1.331
0.0
4.084
3.140
0.368
3.423
0.0
0.0
- 0.0
0.0
2.886
Current
Annual
O&M Costs
(2)
0.811
1.990
3.295
1.060
50.395
1.760
29.483
6.446
0.285
33.605
7.112
4.984
29.584
3.889
3.429
0.547
10.647
43.039
4.647
0.0
14.887
11.058
1.688
12.568
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.218
Year 2000
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(3)
1.267
4.833
10.938
43.907
96.053
3.895
45.872
12.906
0.612
41.076
13.276
29.302
29.634
1.183
6.158
1.147
25.717
180.774
6.248
0.0
51.732
28.062
2.390
28.621
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.192
Year 2000
Annual
O&M Costs
(4)
1.082
3.109
7.661
8.373
69.348
2.970
37.361
7.997
0.408
39.253
10.150
10.433
30.876
3.673
4.279
0.773
14.684
92.238
5.554
0.0
24.819
16.349
2.011
18.103
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.514
Percent of
National Needs
(based on
Year 2000 needs)
(5)
0.09
0.34
0.76
3.05
6.67
0.27
3.19
0.90
0.04
2.85
0.92
2.04
2.06
0.08
0.43
0.08
1.79
12.56
0.43
0.0
3.59
1.95
0.17
1.99
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.57
-------
Table 14-l--Continued
State
Trust Terr.
Virgin Islands
Current and Year 2000
Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs
($106 Jan 1978)
Current
Capital
Costs
(Needs)
(1)
0.0
0.0
Current
Annual
O&M Costs
(2)
0.0
0.0
Year 2000
Capital
Costs
(Needs)
(3)
0.0
0.0
Year 2000
Annual
O&M Costs
(4)
0.0
0.0
Percent of
National Needs
(Based on
Year 2000 Needs)
(5)
0.0
0.0
Totals
118.591
604.673 1,439.421
898.147
100.0
-------
Table 14-2
State Category VI (Stormwater) Needs to
Achieve the Fish and Wildlife Water Quality Goal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mass achusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Current and Year 2000
Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs
($106 Jan 1978)
Current
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(1)
2,
1,
1,
- — __
338
44
236
49
367
106
830
70
61
563
374
118
17
807
538
155
61
298
290
105
459
034
748
156
135
345
.977
.951
.388
.455
.056
.264
.963
.698
.247
.531
.318
.019
.088
.256
.015
.105
.598
.770
.535
.871
.985
.546
.459
.173
.878
.607
Current
Annual
O&M Costs
(2)
15
1
7
2
99
3
36
2
2
73
14
4
0
35
22
6
3
11
12
3
22
48
35
6
5
16
—
^
^
»
.
m
*
*
»
•
•
*
*
^
^
^
—
^
^
*
*
•
^
•
^
035
211
862
704
440
859
493
717
246
221
068
431
535
548
266
469
034
315
565
997
968
556
507
878
583
457
Year 2000
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(3)
463
122
533
78
3,097
167
890
104
133
2,936
507
207
29
1,040
723
186
58
463
346
173
712
1,184
854
170
172
370
.447
.291
.396
.900
.444
.470
.124
.913
.840
.213
.020
.264
.404
.938
.954
.756
.756
.548
.025
.990
.651
.454
.533
.318
.459
.971
Percent of
Year 2000 National Needs
Annual (based on
O&M Costs Year 2000 needs)
(4) (5)
18
3
18
4
133
6
39
4
5
149
19
7
0
47
30
7
3
20
15
7
33
57
40
7
6
18
.137
.536
.962
.436
.283
.427
.674
.246
.258
.565
.974
.941
.921
.671
.444
.762
.274
.185
.492
.623
.564
.285
.436
.912
.901
.082
1
0
1
0
10
0
3
0
0
10
1
0
0
3
2
0
0
•1
1
0
2
4
2
0
0
1
.58
.42
.83
.27
.61
.57
.05
.36
.46
.06
.74
.71
.10
.55
.47
.63
.20
.59
.18
.60
.44
.06
.93
.58
.59
.27
-------
Table 14-2—Continued
Current and Year 2000
Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs
($106 Jan 1978)
State
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
H New Mexico
* New York
i North Carolina
en North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Am. Samoa
Guam
Marianas Group
Puerto Rico
Current
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(1)
20.732
66.659
113.444
72.557
2,209.514
31.895
1,036.408
212.904
3.909
1,229.290
78.020
174.662
1,339.411
130.358
156.164
6.829
219.729
977.996
106.357
0.0
762.898
532.531
110.279
497.054
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
201.448
Current
Annual
O&M Costs
(2)
0.766
2.472
3.302
2.212
118.922
0.949
46.308
8.082
0.238
56.080
4.050
6.741
56.870
5.392
5.850
0.409
9.427
39.678
2.994
0.0
29.842
23.259
4.032
22.969
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.805
Year 2000
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(3)
25.027
101.455
218.450
261.456
2,903.453
49.491
1,077.743
243.363
4.665
1,325.576
103 . 740
292.700
1,427.582
125.434
188.139
9.704
285.652
1,655.497
109.520
0.0
1,301.172
721.799
119.593
683.719
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
235.595
Year 2000
Annual
O&M Costs
(4)
0.939
3.737
6.685
9.796
161.516
1.495
50.876
9.492
0.259
63.254
5.458
11.556
60.931
5.153
6.993
0.552
12.516
70.141
33.719
0.0
53.582
32.866
4.489
31.898
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.438
Percent of
National Needs
(based on
Year 2000 needs)
(5)
0.08
0.34
0.74
0.90
9.94
0.17
3.68
0.83
0.02
4.54
0.35
1.00
4.89
0.43
0.64
0.03
0.97
5.66
0.37
0.0
4.55
2.46
0.41
2.34
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.81
-------
Table 14-2—Continued
State
Trust Terr.
Virgin Islands
Current and Year 2000
Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs
r$106 Jan 1978)
Current
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(1)
0.0
0.0
Current
Annual
O&M Costs
(2)
0.0
0.0
Year 2000
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(3)
0.0
0.0
Year 2000
Annual
O&M Costs
(4)
fr.O
0.0
Percent of
National Needs
(based on
Year 2000 needs)
(5)
0.0
0.0
Totals
21,657.272
954.584
29,201.031 1,326.948
100.0
-------
Table 14-3
State Category VI (Stormwater) Needs to
Achieve the Recreation Water Quality Goal
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
i-> Arkansas
*• California
i Colorado
oo Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illianois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Current and Year 2000
Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs
($106 Jan 1978)
Current
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(1)
1,212.966
44.868
235.560
373.717
3,113.770
201.776
2,243.538
178.336
84.195
3 , 542 . 938
765.969
117.161
24.133
1,451.131
1,353.832
409.775
228.488
529.855
781.714
267.647
1,043.601
2,772.137
1,520.014
461.124
336.486
1,062.430
Current
Annual
O&M Costs
(2)
60.651
1.124
7.039
24.760
113.060
4.287
112.707
5.573
3.029
197.566
25.048
3.537
0.562
63.608
79.354
16.839
9.996
23.854
31.881
9.904
59.580
139.765
75.116
13.370
15.161
59.819
Year 2000
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(3)
1,428.370
122.010
531.491
610.525
4,047.876
319.494
2,441.443
270.383
184.561
6,909.125
1,068.665
205.653
41.671
1,855.135
1,633.752
482 . 182
418.709
925.625
940.536
679.106
1,191.849
3,205.351
1,719.430
527.889
415.338
1,172.799
Year 2000
Annual
O&M Costs
(4)
72.067
3.243
16.976
43.828
150.273
6.942
125.359
8.994
7.204
432.440
36.331
6.260
0.965
83.482
71.151
19.884
19.182
46 . 943
40.136
36.309
59.752
164.810
84.389
15.208
17.705
57.693
Percent of
National Needs
(based on
Year 2000 needs)
(5)
2.32
0.20
0.86
0.99
6.56
0.52
3.96
0.44
0.30
11.20
1.73
0.33
0.07
3.01
2.65
0.78
0.68
1.50
1.53
1.10
1.93
5.20
2.79
0.86
0.67
1.90
-------
Table 14-3—Continued
Current and Year 2000
Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs
($106 Jan 1978)
State
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Am. Samoa
Guam
Marianas Group
Puerto Rico
Current
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(1)
21.477
90.868
113.089
174.856
4,162.982
54.627
1,877.500
649.000
9.326
3,138.712
310.045
501.438
2,539.711
360.938
334.259
21.783
988.997
2,164.211
154.516
0.0
1,222.888
1,031.828
189.302
900.122
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
335.264
Current
Annual
O&M Costs
(2)
0.620
3.000
2.932
4.977
253.805
1.095
83.603
28.023
0.302
165.409
13.810
18.694
114.203
12.641
12.897
0.756
35.842
84.473
3.256
0.0
45.940
50.071
6.649
41.877
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.032
Year 2000
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(3)
26.079
131.578
217.645
958.894
5,378.994
84.984
2,026.998
777.296
16.779
3,558.954
411.963
901.669
2,609.314
347.016
379.781
30.032
1,313.997
3,773.298
171.921
0.0
1,975.668
1,374.248
220.100
1,230.055
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
404.121
Year 2000
Annual
O&M Costs
(4)
0.751
4.390
5.845
33.352
339.116
1.716
91.370
35.732
0.382
195.032
18.859
34.396
121.626
12.042
13.653
1.045
52.052
147.811
3.641
0.0
84.633
70.073
8.125
58.054
0.0
0.0.
0.0
0.0
17.255
Percent of
National Needs
(based on
Year 2000 needs)
(5)
0.04
0.21
0.35
1.55
8.72
0.14
3.29
1.26
0.03
5.77
0.67
1.46
4.23
0.56
0.62
0.05
2.13
6.12
0.28
0.0
3.20
2.23
0.36
1.99
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.66
-------
Table 14-3—Continued
Current and Year 2000
Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs
($106 Jan 1978)
State
Trust Terr.
Virgin Islands
Totals
Current
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(1)
0.0
0.0
45,704.344
Current
Annual
O&M Costs
(2)
0.0
0.0
2,156.061
Year 2000
Capital
Costs
(needs)
(3)
0.0
0.0
61,670.352
Year 2000
Annual
O&M Costs
(4)
0.0
0.0
2,978.445
Percent of
National Needs
(based on
Year 2000 needs)
(5)
0.0
0.0
100.00
I
I-1
o
-------
major reason for the estimated decrease in fish and wildlife
objective needs is the economic optimization analysis considered
in the needs computations. This optimization results in the
selection of the most cost-effective mix of technologies at a
given site for a specified level of pollutant removal. The
result is a lower needs estimate to achieve the fish and wildlife
objective for both Categories V and VI.
The total estimated Category VI needs to achieve the recreation
receiving water objective is nearly equal to the total reported
in 1976.
Table 14-4 presents a summary of the unit cost of control expressed
in terms of dollars per acre for Category VI. This summary is
based on analysis of the results of the cost estimates developed
for each of the 320 urbanized areas. The range of unit costs
within any receiving water quality objective is large and generally
shows greater variations than the unit costs for combined sewer
overflow control.
Table 14-4
Unit Cost of Control for Urban Stormwater
Runoff Based on Year 2000 Conditions
Receiving Water Unit Cost ($/acre>
Objective Mean Maximum Minimum
Aesthetics 45 168 2
Fish and wildlife 906 4,215 2
Recreation 1,913 6,914 379
Table 14-5 is also based on analysis of the 320 urbanized area
estimates and presents the degree of treatment selected for both
the fish and wildlife and the recreation receiving water objective.
Of the five available treatment levels the two most often selected
are level 2 and level 4. It is probable that level 2 is selected
in cases where suspended solids removal controls the treatment
requirements and that level 4 is selected in cases where BOD
removal controls the treatment requirements. Level 5, which
includes dissolved air flotation, was never selected for Category VI
facilities.
Table 14-6 presents a summary of storage, treatment, and streetsweeping
parameters selected for control of pollution from urban stormwater
runoff for Urbanized Areas. Parameters for both the fish and wild-
life and recreation water quality objectives are presented. Storage
volumes and treatment rates are given on a per acre and per capita
oasis as well as for Urbanized Area totals.
14 - 11
-------
Table 14-5
Selected Treatment Levels for Category VI (year 2000)
A) Fish and Wildlife Criteria
Treatment Level
Capital Cost
(million of
(1978 $)
Area
(acres) Population
-, Storage +
disinfection
28
306,599
488,029
2. 1 + Microscreen
7,037
12,002,895 40,897,245
3.2 +
Sedimentation-
flocculation
2,567
4,193,103 14,702,036
4
**
High-rate
filtration
19,575
15,741,459 74,340,124
Dissolved
air flotation
Total
29,207
32,244,056 130,427,434
B) Recreation Criteria
Treatment Level
Capital Cost
(million of
(1978 $)
Area
(acres)
Population
., Storage +
disinfection
2. 1 + Microscreen
3. 2 +
Sedimentation-
flocculation
. q High Rate
*• J filtration
18,601
7,895
35,175
12,309,494 41,385,274
4,193,103 14,702,036
15,741,459 74,340,124
. . Dissolved
* air flotation
Total
61,670
32,244,056 130,427,434
14 - 12
-------
Table 14-6
Parameter Summary for Control of Urban Stormwater
Runoff in Urbanized Areas Based on Year 2000 Conditions
Parameter
Total storage
Mean storage
per acre
Mean storage
per person
served
Total treatment
rate
Mean treatment
rate per acre
Mean treatment
rate per person
served
Mean dewatering
time of full
storage facility
(range)
Mean percentage
of streets
swept daily
(range)
Receiving Water Objective
Fish and Wildlife
273 x 109 gallons
8,451 gallons
2,089 gallons
42,119 mgd
1,306 gpd
323 gpd
Recreation
797 x 109 gallons
24,717 gallons
6,110 gallons
132,864 mgd
4,121 gpd
1,019 gpd
6.5 (1.1 - 20) days 6 (2.3 - 20) days
15.8 (5 - 21)
Not used
14 - 13
-------
Chapter 15
SENSITIVITY AND CORRELATION ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to identify sources of uncertainty
in the methodology used to develop cost estimates for Categories V
and VI and to quantify the sensitivity of the reported cost
estimates to those uncertainties introduced by extrapolation from
the detailed site studies.
Several sources of uncertainty exist in the Categories V and VI
methodology; (I) the stochastic variation inherent in nature,
(2) limited understanding of the causes and effects in physical
and biological systems including toxicity and tolerance limits,
(3) lack of nationally consistent data to quantify all input
variables, and (4) limited full-scale operating experience with
storm and combined sewer pollution abatement systems. The accuracy
of the data contained in the combined sewer system data file
described in Chapter 11 is no doubt a source of uncertainty in
the needs estimate. However, it is the best information currently
available and it is impossible to quantify the magnitude of error
if any. Therefore, the following discussion will assume that the
data contained in the 1978 combined sewer system data file are
correct and that cost equations utilized in the needs estimate
are also correct.
The sensitivity analysis was performed to quantify the uncertainty
introduced into Categories V and VI cost estimates by extrapolation
of results obtained from the detailed site studies and not to
quantify uncertainty introduced by other sources.
SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY
Aesthetics Cost Estimates
The estimated aesthetics costs for Category V are based on obtaining
a fixed SS and BOD5 removal of approximately 40% at all sites
using a cost-effective mix of streetsweeping and sewer flushing.
The aesthetics objective costs for Category VI in existing urban
areas are based on sweeping all streets with curb and gutter
sections once every 10 days (X = 0.10) and providing erosion
control in all areas experiencing active construction (for more
details see Chapter 12). Since the method of calculating aesthetics
control costs was fixed, no uncertainties were introduced by the
methodology. The only uncertainties inherent in an aesthetics
cost estimate relate to the cost and efficiencies of the technologies
applied and these cannot be quantified. The aesthetics cost
estimate is based on the best information available relevant to
the cost and effectiveness of these control technologies.
15-1
-------
Fish and Wildlife Cost Estimates
The estimated fish and wildlife costs for Categories V and VI are
based on an empirical relationship developed from 14 receiving
water impact studies, termed the "VT equation."
VT = 1012 + 864*DWQP + 256*WWQP - 204*DWDO
(10-10)
where
VT = Total number of hours per year when the receiving
water will experience dissolved oxygen levels
less than 2.0 mg/1.
DWQP = Dry-weather quality parameter (See Chapter 10).
WWQP = Wet-weather quality parameter (See Chapter 10).
DWDO = Dissolved oxygen level occurring in the receiving
water upstream from the urban area during the month
of highest water temperature in mg/1.
The parameters of the VT equation are a function of the
characteristics of the urban area receiving water system, and
their evaluation requires knowledge of these characteristics
including (1) the receiving water reaeration rate, (2) annual
receiving water flow, (3) pollutant loads and flows generated by
the urban area, (4) the annual duration of the waste loading
events, (5) the waste decay rates of the various waste sources,
and (6) the background receiving water quality including maximum
temperature and background DO deficit. Each of these items along
with the VT equation itself introduces some uncertainty into the
estimation of needs.
Receiving water reaeration rates were reported on only 23 of the
1,241 combined sewer system worksheets obtained for the combined
sewer system data file. Undoubtedly, the receiving water
reaeration rates estimated from this limited data base and
reported in Table 15-1 are a significant source of uncertainty.
However, these receiving water reaeration rates are reasonable
values and should yield usable results. A more site-specific
approach to estimating the receiving water reaeration rate would
improve future needs estimates for Categories V and VI.
For the most part, annual receiving water flows were taken from
available USGS flow records. Uncertainties associated with these
data are considered negligible.
Areawide receiving water pollutant loads were estimated using
empirical relationships and available background water quality
data. Receiving water loads from combined sewer overflow and
urban stormwater runoff were calculated using equations
15-2
-------
Table 15-1
Receiving
Class
1-5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Water Reaeration Rates
Receiving Water
Description
Streams and rivers
Impounded rivers
Small ponds, backwaters
Large lakes
Shallow, high-tidal-
velocity estuary or bay
Shallow, low-tidal-
velocity estuary or bay
Medium depth, high- tidal -
velocity estuary or bay
Medium depth, low- tidal-
velocity estuary or bay
Deep, high- tidal-velocity
estuary or bay
Deep, low- tidal-velocity
estuary or bay
Open ocean or beach
Estimated Reaeration
Rate (day'1)
Base e at 20° C
k2 = 153.6(QUSF)("°*588)
maximum = 10.2
minimum = 0.17
k2 = 0.10
N/A
N/A
k2 = 0.96
k2 = 0.60
k2 = 0.48
k2 = 0.18
k2 = 0.14
k2 = 0.07
N/A
Note: QUSF = Mean annual upstream flow, in cfs.
N/A = Not applicable.
15-3
-------
developed for a previous nationwide survey.1 Data input for this
calculation were the average annual rainfall and areawide
population density, both of which should be known with certainty.
The accuracy of these empirical equations is unknown. However,
they are the best nationwide pollutant loading equations available
to date.
The annual duration of runoff was estimated using data from the
site studies. It was concluded that the average annual duration
of runoff from a combined or separate sewered area could
adequately be determined from the average annual number of days
with rain, which is known. The uncertainty associated with the
annual duration of runoff is therefore considered negligible.
Receiving water waste decay rates were assigned reasonable
default values taken from the literature. First-order decay
rates used in the 1978 needs survey are presented in Table 15-2.
Table 15-2
Receiving Water Decay Rates
UOD Decay Rates
(day M
Source Base e at 20° C
Combined sewer overflow kj = 0.40
Stormwater runoff kj. = 0.16
Upstream flow kt = 0.16
Wastewater treatment plant effluent kj = 0.23
Actual receiving water waste decay rates have been known to vary
substantially from the values given above, especially in small
streams. However, site-specific data are nearly nonexistent.
The critical dry-weather DO deficit was calculated using Equation
15-1.
DWDO = DOSAT -1.66 (15-1)
where
DOSAT = saturated dissolved oxygen concentration
during the month of highest water
temperature.
The constant term of 1.66 represents the average dry-weather DO
deficit from the site studies.
15-4
-------
It is apparent, from this discussion, that there are many sources
of uncertainty in the approach developed to estimate Categories V
and VI needs. However, when this approach is used nationwide,
the overall uncertainty of the total Categories V and VI cost
estimates is reduced since the residual sum of overestimating and
underestimating site-specific parameters and resulting costs
should approach zero. The uncertainty is greatest when
considering a cost estimate for a single Urbanized Area, since it
is possible for several parameters to be in error and for these
errors to have a cumulative effect on the estimated needs.
Recreation Cost Estimates
The estimated recreation costs for Categories V and VI are based
on an empirical relationship developed from the site studies,
termed the "S2 equation."
S2 = 0.0653*AR - 0.0273*ARD (12-2)
where
S2 = Storage volume, in inches, required to capture all but
two untreated overflow events per year.
AR = Annual rainfall, in inches.
ARD = Annual duration of runoff, in percent of time.
The costs for facilities to meet the recreation objective were
obtained by using the ratio of S2 to the storage volume required
to meet the fish and wildlife objective as a scaling factor
applied to the previously determined storage/treatment system for
fish and wildlife. The only source of uncertainty in the
parameters of this relationship is the estimated annual duration
of runoff, which was estimated based on the average annual number
of days with rain. Thus the parameter uncertainty for the S2
equation is considered negligible.
SENSITIVITY OF COST ESTIMATES
Fish and Wildlife Costs
The previous section indicates that the data used to calculate
receiving water dissolved oxygen violations have many sources of
uncertainty. If it were possible to eliminate the uncertainty in
these data, each calculation of the dissolved oxygen violations
would contain only the uncertainty introduced by the VT equation.
Since the input data uncertainties cannot be quantified, a test
of the fish and wildlife cost estimate sensitivity to the
15-5
-------
uncertainty of the VT equation must assume that the input data
are correct. As discussed in Chapter 10, the VT equation has a
standard error of 353 hours per year. The results of a sensitivity
test indicate that the addition of 353 hours to all VT calculations
increased the fish and wildlife total costs by 13.2% for Category
V and 26.1% for Category VI. The subtraction of 353 hours from
all VT calculations decreased the fish and wildlife total costs
by 0.8% for Category V and 2.6% for Category VI.
Recreation Costs
The costs for facilities to meet the recreation objective were
obtained by scaling up the fish and wildlife facilities to capture
all but 2 overflow events per year. The scaling factor was
determined by application of the S2 equation. Again, it is
assumed that the input- data to these calculations were correct
and that the only uncertainty was introduced by the S2 equation.
Based on the analysis presented in Chapter 10, the S2 equation
was found to have a standard error of 0.27 inches. The results
of a sensitivity test indicate that the addition of 0.27 inches
of storage to all calculations increased the recreation total
costs by 16.9% for Category V and 18.3% for Category VI. The
subtraction of 0.27 inches of storage from all calculations
decreased the recreation total costs by 17.3% for Category V and
17.5% for Category VI.
CORRELATION ANALYSIS
A correlation analysis was performed on the Urbanized Area data
in order to investigate the interrelationships between Urbanized
Area characteristics and cost of pollution control for Categories V
and VI for each receiving water objective. Two measures of costs
were considered: (1) the total cost of control, and (2) the unit
cost of control. The unit cost is expressed in dollars per acre,
and total cost is in total dollars for the entire Urbanized Area.
Table 15-3 presents a summary of the independent Urbanized Area
variables which were correlated against the cost data (the dependent
variable). As noted in Table 15-3, some of these variables apply
to Category V or Category VI only, whereas others apply to both
categories.
Tables 15-4 and 15-5 present a summary of the correlation analyses
for unit costs and total costs, respectively. The independent
variables listed adjacent to each dependent variable are with the
strongest correlation to the dependent variable. Six variables
are listed in order of decreasing value of the correlation
coefficient, which is also reported.
The results reported in Table 15-4 indicate that there is little
strong correlation between unit cost of control and the
independent Urbanized Area characteristics considered. The
15-6
-------
Table 15-3
Correlation
Variable
Name
CSAREA
CSPOP
SSAREA
SSPOP
UAPOP
UASZ
NDR
RAIN
QUSF
PD
T
BOD
SS
GNAT
VT
PD5
PD6
Analysis Independent Variable Definitions
Variable Definition
Combined sewer area, in acres
Combined sewer population
Storm sewered area, in acres
Storm sewered population
Urbanized area population
Urbanized area size, in square miles
Number of days with rain per year
Mean annual rainfall, in inches
Mean annual upstream flow of the
receiving water, in cfs
Percentage of the urbanized area
draining to receiving water
Maximum monthly receiving water
temperature °C
Background BOD concentration in the
receiving water, in mg/1
Background SS concentration in the
receiving water, in mg/1
Natural runoff coefficient for the
urbanized area
Total number of hours per year when
the receiving water will experience
dissolved oxygen levels less than
2.0 mg/1.
Population density of the combined
sewer area, in persons/acre
Population density of the storm
sewered area, in persons/acre
Relevant
Category
5
5
6
6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5,6
5
6
15-7
-------
00
Table 15-4
Unit Cost Correlation Coefficients
Dependent Cost Variables
Category V
Aesthetics level unit cost
Category V
Fish and wildlife level unit cost
Category V
Recreation level unit cost
Category VI
Aesthetics level unit cost
Category VI
Fish and wildlife level unit cost
Category VI
Recreation level unit cost
Independent Urbanized Area Variables
1st
UAPOP
0.466
PD5
0.271
RAIN
0.481
PD6
0.325
NDR
0.370
GNAT
0.534
2nd
PD5
0.456
RAIN
0.266
CNAT
0.427
UAPOP
0.188
CNAT
0.348
NDR
0.531
3rd
CSPOP
0.443
CNAT
0.210
PD5
0.420
RAIN
0.157
VT
0.264
RAIN
0.521
4th
VT
0.349
VT
0.154
NDR
0.210
SSPOP
0.150
PD
0.205
PD6
0.150
5th
CNAT
0.299
NDR
0.137
VT
0.149
VT
0.141
RAIN
0.202
QUSF
0.145
6th
UASZ
0.297
QUSF
0.055
QUSF
0.019
SS
0.067
PD6
0.199
VT
0.141
-------
Table 15-5
Total Cost Correlation Coefficients
Dependent Cost Variables
Category V
Aesthetics level total cost
Category V
Fish and wildlife level total cost
Category V
Recreation level total cost
Category VI
M Aesthetics level total cost
U1
1 Category VI
vo Fish and wildlife level total cost
Category VI
Recreation level total cost
IndeDendent Urbanized Area Variables
1st
CSAREA
0.987
CSPOP
0.907
CSPOP
0.932
SSAREA
0.935
UASZ
0.872
UASZ
0.856
2nd
CSPOP
0.864
CSAREA
0.906
CSAREA
0.915
SSPOP
0.798
SSAREA
0.823
SSAREA
o.ssn
3rd
UAPOP
0.797
UAPOP
0.885
UAPOP
0.895
UASZ
0.781
SSPOP
0 . 698
SSPOP
0.665
4th
UASZ
0.628
UASZ
0.714
UASZ
0.658
UAPOP
0.742
UAPOP
0.693
UAPOP
0.652
5th
VT
0.404
VT
0.497
VT
0.443
VT
0.348
VT
0.492
VT
0.433
6th
PD5
0.160
PD5
0.261
PD5
0.268
PD6
0.136
PD6
0.130
CNAT
0.175
-------
results reported in Table 15-5, on the other hand, indicate a
strong correlation between total cost, area served, and population
served. Based on these results, linear multiple regression
analyses were run relating total cost (dependent variable) to
area served and population served (independent variables). Both
linear and logarithmic regression models were fit. The resulting
best functions, their correlation coefficients, and standard
error of estimate are reported in Table 15-6. These functions
may be used to obtain a cursory or first-cut estimate of capital
cost, in January 1978 dollars, to control pollution from combined
sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff for municipalities in
the United States.
REFERENCES
1. Heaney, J. P. et al. "Nationwide Evaluation of Combined
Sewer Overflows and Urban Stormwater Discharges, Volume II:
Cost Assessments and Impacts." EPA-600/2-77-064, March
1977.
15 - 10
-------
Ul
1
Table 15-6
Capital Cost Functions
Capital Cost
Category V
Aesthetics objective
Category V
Fish and wildlife objective
Category V
Recreation objective
Category VI
Aesthetics objective
Category VI
Fish and wildlife objective
Category VI
Recreation objective
Cost Function
C = 1003 A -+. 12 P
C = 13123 A*551 p-2S8
C = 21363 A*574 p-27i
C=40.5A+1.0P
C = 2314 A
•657 T>-227
C = 13540 A*807 P'021
Correlation
Coefficient
.998
.962
.971
.904
.812
.824
Standard Error
of Estimate
$2.7(10)6
$40(10)6
$59(10)6
$3.0(10)6
$90(10)6
$160(10)6
Notes:
A
P
C
Area served in acres, A = CSAREA for Category V cost functions and A = SSAREA
for Category VI cost functions.
Population served, P = CSPOP for Category V cost functions and P = SSPOP for
Category VI cost functions.
Estimated grant-eligible capital cost in January 1978 dollars and includes an
allowance for planning and design.
-------
APPENDIX A
SITE STUDY DATA
-------
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Rochester urban area is located along the Genessee River near
the shore of Lake Ontario. A large urban area spans Monroe County
in this area, so the study area was defined as the area tributary
to the Genessee River between miles 12.0 and 4.5 above Lake
Ontario. This area contains all significant combined sewer
overflow locations to the Genessee River. Approximately 76%
of the area tributary to the Genessee River is served by combined
sewers. Much of the separate area drains to Irondequoit Creek.
The receiving water is the Genessee River beginning at the
centroid of the urban area and extending to the mouth. Waste
inputs from the urban area include combined sewer overflow, a
small amount of urban runoff, and industrial wastewater treatment
plant effluent. Effluent from the municipal wastewater treatment
plant is discharged directly into Lake Ontario. Major charac- ,
teristics of the study area and of the receiving water are presented
in Table A-l. Pollutant loadings by source are summarized in
Table A-2.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall data for the study site were taken from the climatological
data records of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Upstream flow and background water quality data on the
Genessee River were provided by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) records. Additional water quality data for the
river and for the wastewater treatment plant were obtained from
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Information on combined sewer overflow quantity and quality was
obtained from the Rochester Pure Waters District. Additional
data which were utilized to define urban area and receiving
water characteristics of the Rochester study site were obtained
from the following reports.
1. Wastewater Facilities Plan, Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement
Program/ Rochester Pure Waters District, Monroe County, New
York. A joint venture by Erdman Anthony Associates; Lozier
Engineers, Inc.; and Seelye, Stevenson, Value and Knecht,
Inc. December 1976.
2. Lager, J. A., T. Didriksson, and G. B. Otte. "Development
and Application of a Simplified Stormwater Management Model."
EPA-600/2-76-218. August 1976.
A-2
-------
3. Water Quality Management Plan for the Genes see River Basin.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
November 1976.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall portion of the model was calibrated to known prototype
conditions. The runoff and pollution washoff portions were
adjusted to match overflow monitoring records collected by the
City of Rochester. The dry-weather flow portion of the model was
based on the permit requirements of the sole treatment plant
which discharges into the study area. The upstream flow module
was represented by actual observed streamflow records. The
modeled dissolved oxygen distribution correlated well with observed
data; however, continuous receiving water quality data are
unavailable. Therefore, precise calibration of the receiving
response cannot be accomplished.
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that removal of ultimate oxygen
demand and suspended solids is required to meet the selected
water quality criteria. Lead pollution from urban runoff was not
determined to be a problem in Rochester. The removal requirements
for the pollutants are summarized in Table A-3.
A - 3
-------
Table A-l
Major Characteristics
Rochester Site Study
Rainfall Characteristics Season No. 1
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall
(inches)
Mean time between storms
(hours)
Mean duration of storm
(hours)
Mean rainfall depth per
event (inch)
1, 2, 3, 12
10.08
44.49
9.6
0.0735
Season No. 2
4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10, 11
22.53
67.40
7.1
0.1597
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage area (acres)
Time of concentration
(hours)
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual runoff
(inches)
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
SS accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Combined
Sewer
Watershed
11,476
4
4.6
50
5.06
0.900
0.0407
0.6775
0.0003
A - 4
-------
Table A-1--Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow
from treatment plant(s)
(ftVsec) 55.8
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD 18.95
SS 39.90
TKN 4.58
Pb 0.04
_ Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3/sec) 2,743
Mean K2 value (I/day base e) 0.17
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e) 0.40
Kl value for stormwater and
upstream flow (I/day base e) 0.16
Kl value for WWTP effluent
(I/day base e) 0.23
Maximum monthly temperature (°C) 23.5
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 3.0
Mean background SS (mg/1) 88
Background pH 7.9
Background hardness (mg/1) 125
A - 5
-------
Table A-2
Pollutant Loading Summary
Rochester Site Study
Average Pollutant Loads (106 Ib/yr)
BODS TKN SS Pb
Upstream flow 14.8 3.6 476.7 0.054
WWTP effluenta 2.0 0.5 4.3 0.004
Combined sewer
overflow 1.3 0.06 2.8 0.001
Urban stormwater
runoff
Industrial waste only. WWTP effluent discharges
directly to Lake Ontario.
Table A-3
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Rochester Site Study
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Combined
Sewer
Pollutant Overflow Overall
Suspended
solids 59 59
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD) 89 89
Lead (Pb) 0 o
Total 18.1 4.16 482.9 0.059
A - 6
-------
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
Syracuse is located in central New York, about 35 miles southeast
of Lake Ontario. Onondaga Creek, which flows north through
Syracuse, is the principal drainage system for the urban area.
The Syracuse urban area is served by combined sewers.
All drainage from Syracuse empties immediately into Lake Onandaga.
Waste inputs to the lake include combined sewer overflow, urban
stormwater runoff, and industrial and municipal wastewater treat-
ment plant effluent.^ Major characteristics of the receiving
water are presented in Table A-4. Pollutant loadings by source
are summarized in Table A-5.
The continuous rainfall runoff water quality model (CSPSS)
developed for this project does not apply in the case of Syracuse,
where discharge is directly to a lake. That is, suspended solids
and BOD removal requirements cannot be determined based on the
selected criteria. However, the phosphorus criteria do apply and
removal requirements for phosphorus have been determined.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Waste discharge monitoring information for 1970-1977 was
obtained from Stearns and Wheeler Engineers, Cazenovia, New York.
Water quality data were available for each source of pollution to
Lake Onondaga.
RESULTS
analysis indicates a mean lake phosphorus concentration of
0.36 mg/l. This represents a removal requirement of 93% of the
phosphorus from influent sources. As shown in Table A-5, all
sources of phosphorus influent to Lake Onondaga are severely in
violation of the objective concentration of 0.025 mg/l. The
largest contributor of phosphorus pollution is the Metropolitan
Sewage Treatment Plant. This plant discharges 65% of the total
Phosphorus influent to the lake. If the phosphorus pollution
from the treatment plant were completely removed, the remaining
sources would require removal of 80% of the phosphorus to achieve
the objective concentration of 0.025 mg/l.
A - 7
-------
It should be noted that backwater from the Seneca River has not
been included in the analysis. In times of floods on the Seneca
River, the flow commonly reverses and discharges into the lake.
This occurrence dilutes the lake phosphorus concentrations.
There are no records on the quantity or quality of this type of
flow; therefore, detailed analysis cannot be attempted. Measure-
ments at the lake outlet indicate a mean phosphorus concentration
of 0.2 mg/1. This figure may be taken as the minimum possible
lake concentration, as the outlet is surely the location of the
lowest average concentration. Considering flushing from the
Seneca River, the mean phosphorus concentration in the lake is
between 0.2 and 0.36 mg/1, far from the goal of 0.025 mg/1.
A - 8
-------
Table A-4
Physical Characteristics of Lake Onondaga
Drainage area (mi2) 285
Mean depth (meters) 13
Mean volume (ft3) 5.7 x 109
Surface area (mi2) 4.60
Principal Influent Streams
Drainage Area Mean Discharge
Stream (mi2) (ft3/sec)
Nine Mile Creek 115 247
Ley Creek 29.9 102
Harbor Brook 11.3 18.2
Onondaga Creek 109 223
A - 9
-------
Table A-5
Average Waste Discharge to Lake Onondaga
Syracuse Site Study
Annual Mass Loading
Rate of Total
Inorganic Phosphorus
(lb/yr)
Source
Ley Creek
Metropolitan Syracuse
Sewage Treatment Plant
Onondaga Creek
(receives CSO)
Harbor Brook
East Flume
Nine Mile Creek
Steel mill discharge
Total
48,600
449,714
98,221
22,723
26,142
45,347
1,200
691,947
Average
Concentration Total
Inorganic Phosphorus
(mg/1)
0.24
2.08
0.196
0.51
0.14
0.094
0.136
0.42
A - 10
-------
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The City of Philadelphia is located in eastern Pennsylvania at
the confluence of the Delaware and Schuylkill Rivers. The study
area consists of the City of Philadelphia on the western bank of
the Delaware River and Pennsauken, Camden, and the neighboring
JJ^ban areas on the eastern bank of the river. This area is
heavily industrialized and contains many industrial waste sources
&s well as numerous municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Approximately 45% of the study area is served by combined sewers,
and there are approximately 176 discrete combined sewer overflow
Points. The remainder is either drained naturally or is served
by storm sewers.
receiving water is the Delaware Estuary beginning just south
°£ the City of Philadelphia and extending approximately 41 miles
Downstream. Waste inputs from the urban area include urban
runoff, combined sewer overflow, and municipal and industrial
wastewater effluents. Major characteristics of the study area
and of the receiving water are presented in Table A- 6. Pollutant
by source are summarized in Table A-7.
OF INFORMATION
and temperature data for the study site were taken from
climatological data records of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) . Upstream flow and background
Jjater quality data on the Delaware River/Estuary were provided by
United States Geological Survey (USGS) records. Additional water
<3uality data for the river as well as those pertaining to the
coliection system were obtained from the Philadelphia Water
0ePartment . The Delaware River Basin Commission supplied the
*f fluent discharge and effluent quality data. Most of the physical
aata used to describe the Delaware Estuary, including hydraulic
and dispersion data, were taken from the Thomann study referenced
below. Additional data which were utilized to define urban area
d receiving water characteristics of the Philadelphia study
site were obtained from the following reports.
l' Watermation, Inc. Facility Plan, City of Philadelphia
Combined Sewer Overflow Control . July 1976.
2- Thomann, R. V. Systems Analysis and Water Quality Management.
Environmental Research and Applxcations , Inc. (now McGraw-
Hill). 1972.
A - 11
-------
3. Philadelphia Water Department Research and Development
Division. Urban Stormwater Quality/Land Use Characterization.
November 1977.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall, runoff, and pollution washoff portions of the model
were calibrated to known prototype conditions. The dry-weather
flow portion of the simulation is based on historic wastewater
treatment plant flow data, and the upstream flow module was
represented by actual observed streamflow records on the Delaware
River and the Schuylkill River. The receiving water response
module was calibrated for dissolved oxygen (DO) based on the
continuous observed DO data in the Delaware Estuary at Chester,
which is approximately 10 miles downstream of the Philadelphia
Urbanized Area. The observed and simulated curves developed
in this calibration are presented in Figure A-l.
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that removal of ultimate oxygen
demand (BOD and TKN) as well as suspended solids will be required
to meet the selected water quality criteria. However, no lead
removal is required. These removal requirements are summarized
in ^able A-8.
i
The Philadelphia study site has the most severe receiving water
quality problems regarding DO concentrations of any of the 15
selected sites. Tl— simulation results indicate that the removal
of all oxygen-demanding pollutants from combined sewer overflow
and urban stormwater runoff would still leave the receiving
water with severe DO criteria violations. Thus, the DO criteria
cannot be met by control of pollutants from CSO and urban runoff
alone.
A - 12
-------
r
100
iu c
.2280
c c
I §60
II
40
8*
Is
20
Observed
Simulated
2 46 8 10
Dissolved Oxygen Level at Chester, Pennsylvania (mg/l)
12
14
FIGURE A-1. Calibration of receiving water model at Philadelphia.
-------
Table A-6
Major Characteristics
Philadelphia Site Study
Rainfall Characteristics
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall
( inches )
Mean time between storms
(hours)
Mean duration of storm
( hours )
Mean rainfall depth per
event ( inch )
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage areas (acres)
Time of concentration
( hours )
Washoff coefficient
Imr>erviousness (%)
Season No. 1
1, 2, 9, 10,
11, 12
17.70
92.18
42.42
0.2959
Combined Sewer
Watershed
50,000
5.42
4.60
60
Season No. 2
3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8
22.23
81.34
39.52
0.3206
Stormwater
Runoff Watershed
60,000
12.53
1.90
35
Average annual runoff
(inches)
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Suspended solids
accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
23.96
2.0260
0.2309
1.7700
0.0032
16.47
1.4940
0.4030
1.3800
0.0032
A - 14
-------
Table A-6—Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plants (ft3/sec) 1,025.33
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD 30.00
SS 30.00
TKN 12.17
Pb 0.04
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow
(ft3/sec) 16,312
Mean K2 value (I/day, base e) 0.10
Kl value for CSO (I/day, base e) 0.40
Kl value for stormwater and
upstream flow (I/day, base e) 0.16
Kl value for WWTP effluent
(I/day, base e) 0.23
Maximum monthly temperature (°C) 27.10
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 2.22
Mean background SS (mg/1) 34.0
Background pH 7.0
Background hardness (mg/1) 116.0
A - 15
-------
Table A-7
Pollutant Loading Summary
Philadelphia Site Study
Source
Upstream flow
WWTP effluent
Combined sewer
overflow
Urban stormwater
runoff
Total
Average
BOD
70.10
60.5
20.8
11.981
163.381
Pollutant
TKN
20.13
24.5
2.369
3.235
50.234
Loads (106
SS
1,043.10
60.5
31.86
30.235
1,165.695
lb/yr)
Pb
0.4272
0.0807
0.0585
n.ofiqn
0.6354
Table A-8
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Pollutant
Suspended
solids (SS)
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD)
Lead (Pb)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
72
Urban
Stormwater
Runoff
78
0
Overall
75
87a
0
aThis overall UOD removal will result in elimination of
90% of the DO occurrences less than 2.0 mg/1 which can
be eliminated by control of CSO and urban stormwater
runoff.
A - 16
-------
WASHINGTON, DC
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Washington urban area is located in a large basin tributary
to the Potomac River. The study area includes all of the Washington
metropolitan area that is tributary to the Potomac River, from
Cabin John Bridge to the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. Tributary
areas in Virginia include Alexandria, Arlington, and Falls Church;
and in Maryland, College Park, Cheverly, and parts of Rockville.
The entire District of Columbia lies within the watershed.
Approximately 6% of the study area is served by combined sewers.
The remainder is either drained naturally or served by storm
sewers.
The receiving water is the Potomac River Estuary beginning at
the confluence of the Anacosta and Potomac Rivers and extending
approximately 18 miles downstream. Waste inputs from the urban
area include urban runoff, combined sewer overflow, and municipal
wastewater treatment plant effluent. Major characteristics of the
study area and of the receiving water are presented in Table A-9.
Pollutant loadings by source are summarized in Table A-10.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall data for the study, site were taken from the climatological
data records of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Upstream flow and background water quality on the Potomac
River were provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
records and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
STORET information retrieval system. Additional water quality
data for the river and those data related to wastewater treatment
plants were obtained from the Department of Water Resources of
the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) and from
conversations with local treatment plant operators. COG publica-
tions and additional sources of information which were utilized
to define urban area and receiving water characteristics of the
Washington site study are listed below.
1. Water Resources Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington COG.
Major Sewage Treatment Plants in the Washington Metropolitan
Area. 1976.
2. . The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
28 April 1977.
3. Thomann, R. V. Systems Analysis and Water Quality Management.
McGraw Hill Book Co. pp. 184-186. 1972.
A - 17
-------
4. Hetling, L. J. and R. L. O'Connell. A Study of Tidal
Dispersion in the Potomac River. Water Resources Research.
Vol. 2, No. 4. 1966.
5. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Areawide
Assessment Procedures Manual, Volume I. EPA-600/9-76-014.
July 1976.
6. United States Soil Conservation Service. Hydrology—
SCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 4. 1972.
7. USGS. Effects of Urban Development on Floods in Northern
Virginia. Water Supply Paper 2001-C. 1970.
8. Hartigan, J. P., et al. Planning for Nonpoint Pollution
Impacts. Presented at ASCE Urban Planning and Development
Division Specialty Conference. Anaheim, California. 25-27
July 1977.
9. Linsley and Franzini. Water Resources Engineering, McGraw-
Hill. 1972.
10. Metcalf & Eddy and Water Resources Engineers, Reconnaissance
Study of Combined Sewer Overflows and Storm Sewer Discharges
Prepared for District of Columbia. March 1973.
11. Stearns and Wheeler. Infiltration/Inflow Analysis—Rock
Creek Sewer System Drainage Basin. September 1976.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall and pollution washoff portions of the model were
calibrated to known prototype conditions. Annual runoff volumes
were estimated based on rainfall and percent impervious area, as
described in Reference 5. The linear STORM model equation was
assumed for the runoff coefficient determination. The dry-
weather flow portion of the simulation is based on historic
wastewater treatment plant flow data, and the upstream flow
module was represented by actual observed streamflow records.
Simulated receiving water dissolved oxygen concentrations were
calibrated against DO measurements at Woodrow Wilson Bridge
taken during 1965.3 The simulated and observed cumulative
frequency curves for 1965 conditions are shown on Figure A-2.
The overall fit is fairly good; however, there are substantial
deviations in the midrange. For the low DO concentrations of
interest (i.e., less than 2.0 mg/1), the fit between observed
and simulated is very good. Also shown on Figure A-2 are
simulated conditions including the effects of the existing WWTP.
These conditions are much improved over 1965 conditions.
A - 18
-------
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that receiving water concentrations of
dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, and long-term dissolved lead
are in violation of the selected water quality criteria. The
simulation also indicates that the water quality criteria for
ultimate oxygen demand and suspended solids can be met by removal
of these constituents from the rainfall-induced wastewater streams
(CSO and urban runoff). These removal requirements are summarized
in Table A-ll.
A - 19
-------
Table A-9
Major Characteristics
Washington Site Study (Potomac River Basin)
Rainfall Characteristics
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall
( inches )
Mean time between storms
( hours )
Mean duration of storm
( hours )
Mean rainfall depth per
event (inch)
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage area (acres)
Time of concentration
(hours)
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual
runoff (inches)
BOD accumulation
rate (Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation
rate (Ib/acre/day)
Season No. 1
1, 2, 4, 10,
11
18.42
95.35
41.73
0.3471
Combined
Sewer
Watershed
12,396
1.2
4.6
60
24.7
2.4290
0.2094
Season No. 2
3, 5, 6, i,
8, 9, 12
21.65
94.76
41.66
0.3137
Stormwater
Runoff
Watershed
190,125
5.00
3.2
40
19.8
0.3800
0.0310
Suspended solids
accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation
rate (Ib/acre/day)
9.9200
0.0093
2.0500
0.0044
A - 20
-------
Table A-9 — Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow
from treatment plant(s) (ft3 /sec) 758.72
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD 6.30
SS 6.40
TKN 3.40
0 . 04
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3 /sec) 10,000
Mean K2 value (I/day base e) 0.30
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e) 0.40
Kl value for stormwater and
upstream flow (I/day base e) 0.16
Kl value for WWTP effluent
(I/day base e) 0.23
Maximum monthly temperature (°C) 26.0
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 2.1
Mean background SS (mg/1) 61
Background pH 8.2
Background hardness (mg/1) 110
A - 21
-------
Table A-10
Pollutant Loading Summary
Washington Site Study (Potomac River Basin)
Source
Upstream flow
WWTP effluent
Combined
sewer overflow
Urban stormwater
runoff
Total
Average Pollutant Loads (10s Ib/yr)
BOD TKN SS Pb
48.43 13.01 1,535.98 1.891
9.26 5.00 9.41 0.059
6.50 0.56 44.22 0.041
13.05 1.07 140.05 0.301
77.24 19.64 1,729.66 2.292
Table A-ll
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Washington Site Study (Potomac River Basin)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Pollutant
Suspended
solids (SS)
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD)
Lead (Pb)
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
91
Urban
Stormwater
Runoff
64
Overall
70
92
100
A - 22
-------
1001
Simulated /
1965 f
X^_ Simulated with
X Existing WWTP
8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration at Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the Potomac River Estuary
FIGURE A-2. Calibration of receiving water model at Washington, D.C.
-------
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Durham urban area is located at the headwaters of Third Fork
Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin. The study area encompasses
approximately the southwestern half of the City of Durham and is
served by separate sanitary and storm sewers or natural drainage.
The receiving water is Third Fork Creek, which originates within
the site. The receiving water segment reaches from just below
the Durham Third Fork Creek Sewage Treatment Plant to a point
approximately 4 miles downstream. Waste inputs from the urban
area include urban runoff and municipal wastewater treatment
plant effluent. Major characteristics of the study area and of
the receiving water are presented in Table A-12. Pollutant
loadings by source are summarized in Table A-13.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall data for the study site were taken from the climatological
data records of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Flow data on Third Fork Creek were provided by the United
States Geological Survey (USGS). Additional water quality data for
the stream and those data related to wastewater treatment plants
were obtained from the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's STORET information retrieval system, the City of Durham
Water Resources Division, conversations with local treatment
plant operators, and selected volumes of the Triangle J Council of
Governments' 208 Areawide Water Quality Management Plan. Those
selected volumes and additional sources of information which were
utilized to define urban area and receiving water characteristics
of the Durham site study are listed below.
1. Triangle J Council of Governments. Areawide Water Quality
Management Planning, 208 Project Inventory of Existing
Resources. Research Triangle ParlTNorth Carolina. March
1976. ~
2. . Areawide Water Quality Management Planning, 208
Pollution Source Analysis. Research Triangle Park. North
Carolina. July 1976.
3. Colston, N. V., Jr. Characterization and Treatment of Urban
Land Runoff. EPA-670/2-74-096. December 1974.
A - 24
-------
4. United States Soil Conservation Service. Hydrology—SCS
National Engineering Handbook, Section 4. 1972.
5. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Areawide
Assessment Procedures Manual, Vol. I. EPA-600/9-76-014.
July 1976.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall and pollution washoff portions of the model were
calibrated to known prototype conditions. Annual runoff volumes
were estimated based on rainfall and percent impervious area, as
described in Reference 5. The linear STORM model equation was
assumed for the runoff coefficient determination. The dry-
weather flow portion of the simulation is based on historic
wastewater treatment plant flow data, and the upstream flow
module was represented by assuming a constant base flow of 0.5
ft3/sec since the stream's headwaters lie completely within the
urban area. The modeled dissolved oxygen distribution in the
receiving water correlated well with observed data. However,
continuous observed receiving water quality data are unavailable;
therefore, the receiving water response module could not be
calibrated.
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that suspended solids concentrations
entering Third Fork Creek from the study site are in violation of
the selected water quality criteria. The suspended solids problems
could be solved by removal of suspended solids from the rainfall-
induced effluent streams (urban runoff). The suspended solids
removal requirements are summarized in Table A-14.
These simulation results indicated that dissolved lead concentrations
and dissolved oxygen concentrations in Third Fork Creek were in
compliance with the selected criteria.
A - 25
-------
Table A-12
Major Characteristics
Durham Site Study (Third Fork Creek Basin)
Rainfall Characteristics
Season No. 1
Season No. 2
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall (inches)
Mean time between storms (hours)
Mean duration of storm (hours)
Mean rainfall depth per event
(inches)
1, 4, 10,
11, 12
15.0
98.56
8.98
0.2019
2 / 3 , 5/ 6,
7, 8, 9
27.5
79.85
7.43
0.2429
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage area (acres)
Time of concentration (hours)
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual runoff (inches)
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Suspended solids accumulation
rate (Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Stormwater
Runoff
Watershed
5,275
1.25
2.30
30
15.7
0.4560
0.0238
17.300
0.0065
A - 26
-------
Table A-12—Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant(s) (ft3/sec)
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD
SS
TKN
Pb
Stormwater
Runoff
Watershed
8.52
10.0
28.0
5.0
0.01
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3/sec)
Mean K2 value (I/day base e)
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e)
Kl value for stormwater and upstream
flow (I/day base e)
Kl value for WWTP effluent (I/day
base e)
Maximum monthly temperature (°C)
Mean background BOD (mg/1)
Mean background SS (mg/1)
Background pH
Background hardness (mg/1)
0.5
1.29
0.38
0.55
26.0
0
50
6.8
50
A - 27
-------
Table A-13
Pollutant Loading
Durham Site Study
Summary
(Third Fork Creek
Basin)
Average Pollutant Loads (Ib/yr)
Source
Upstream flow
WWTP effluent
Combined sewer
overflow
Urban stormwater
runoff
Total
BOD TKN
0 0
165,245 82,623
NA NA
328,769 17,159
494,014 99,782
SS
0
462,687
NA
32,251,331 12
32,414,018 12
Pb
0
165
NA
,119
,284
Table A-14
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Durham Site Study (Third Fork Creek Basin)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Urban
Stormwater
Pollutant Runoff overall
Suspended
solids (SS) 97 97
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD) 0 0
Lead (Pb) 0 0
A - 28
-------
:i
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Atlanta urban area is located along a ridge separating three
distinct river systems including the Chattahoochee River, the
Flint River, and the South River. The study area is that portion
of the Atlanta urban area that is tributary to the Chattahoochee
River and includes all of the urbanized Peachtree Creek watershed.
Approximately 6% of the study area is served by combined sewers.
The remainder is either drained naturally or is served by storm
sewers.
The receiving water is the Chattahoochee River, beginning just
southwest of the urban area and extending approximately 70 miles
downstream. Waste inputs from the urban area include urban
runoff, combined sewer overflow, and municipal wastewater treatment
plant effluent. Major characteristics of the study area and of
the receiving water are presented in Table A-15. Pollutant
loadings by source are summarized in Table A-16.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall and temperature data for the study site were taken from
the climatological data records of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Upstream flow and background
water quality data on the Chattahoochee River were provided by
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) records. Additional
water quality data for the river and those data related to waste-
water treatment plants were obtained from the Environmental
Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
and from the City of Atlanta Bureau of Pollution Control.
Cross-sectional data for the receiving water were furnished by
the Department of the Army, Mobile District Corps of Engineers.
Additional data which were utilized to define urban area and
receiving water characteristics of the Atlanta study site were
obtained from the following reports.
1. Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., and Jordan, Jones, and Goulding,
Inc. Nonpoint Pollution Evaluation, Atlanta Urban Area.
May 1975.
2. Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc. Storm and Combined Sewer
Pollution Sources and Abatement, Atlanta, Georgia. Water
Pollution Control Research Series 11024 ELB 01/71. January
1971.
A - 29
-------
CALIBRATION
The rainfall, runoff, and pollution washoff portions of the model
were calibrated to known prototype conditions. The dry-weather
flow portion of the simulation is based on historic wastewater
treatment plant flow data, and the upstream flow module was
represented by actual observed streamflow records. However,
continuous observed receiving water quality data are unavailable;
therefore, the receiving water response module could not be
calibrated.
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that removal of all three indicator
pollutants (suspended solids, ultimate oxygen demand, and lead)
will be required to meet the selected water quality criteria.
These removal requirements are summarized in Table A-17.
The long-term dissolved lead criteria for soft water states that
the mean concentration should not exceed 0.01 mg/1. The simula-
tion results indicate that, for present conditions, the mean
dissolved lead is 0.048 mg/1 and that removal of all lead from
combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff would reduce
this value to 0.033 mg/1. Thus, the lead criteria cannot be met
by control of lead from CSO and urban runoff alone.
A - 30
-------
Table A-15
Major Characteristics
Atlanta Site Study (Chattahoochee River Basin)
Rainfall Characteristics
Season No. 1 Season No. 2
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall (inches)
Mean time between storms (hours)
Mean duration of storm (hours)
Mean rainfall depth per event
( inch )
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage area ( acres )
Time of concentration (hours)
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual runoff (inches)
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Suspended solids accumulation
rate ( Ib/acre/day )
Lead accumulation rate
( lb /acre /dav }
1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 12
35.72
67.54
6.94
0.2588
Combined
Sewer
Watershed
9,060
2.15
4.60
35
19.82
3.2171
0.1848
10.6000
0.0039
8, 9, 10, 11
12.62
100.50
5.91
0.2451
Stormwater
Runoff
Watershed
140,800
19.20
1.80
25
16.44
0.4925
0.0334
3.9044
0.0028
A - 31
-------
Table A-15—Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant(s) (ft3/sec) 185.22
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD 30.0
SS 30.0
TKN 15.0
Pb 0.04
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3/sec) 2,742
Mean K2 value (I/day base e) 0.95
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e) 0.44
Kl value for stormwater and
upstream flow (I/day base e) 0.17
Kl value for WWTP effluent
(I/day base e) 0.25
Maximum monthly temperature (°C) 19.70
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 1,83
Mean background SS (mg/1) 36.0
Background pH 6.7
Background hardness (mg/1) 10.0
A - 32
-------
Table A-16
Pollutant Loading Summary
Atlanta Site Study (Chattahoochee River Basin)
Average Pollutant Loads (106 Ib/yr)
Source
Upstream flow
WWTP effluent
Combined sewer
overflow
Urban stormwater
runoff
Total
BOD
9.87
10.93
5.09
a. so
34.69
TKN
1.89
5.47
0.29
0.60
8.25
SS
194.3
10.93
34.44
196.5
436.17
Pb
0.183
0 . 015
0.0126
0 . 143
0.3536
Table A-17
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Atlanta Site Study (Chattahoochee River Basin)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Combined Urban
Sewer Stormwater
Pollutant Overflow Runoff Overall
Suspended
solids (SS) 96 90 91
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD) — ~ 92
Lead (Pb) — ~ >100
(253)
A - 33
-------
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Ann Arbor urban area is bisected by the Huron River, which is
tributary to Lake Erie. The study area is served entirely by
separate storm and sanitary sewer systems.
The receiving reach of the Huron River begins just upstream from
the Cedes Dam and continues for a distance of approximately 5-1/2
miles to the upstream limits of Ypsilanti Township. Waste inputs
from the urban area include urban runoff and municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment plant effluents. Major characteristics of the
study area and of the receiving water are presented in Table A-18.
Pollutant loadings by source are summarized in Table A-19.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall and temperature data for the study site were taken from
the climatological data records of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Upstream flow and background
water quality data on the Huron River were provided by the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) records. Information on the
wastewater treatment plants serving the urban area was obtained
from the Environmental Protection Bureau of the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources. Additional data which were utilized to
define urban area and receiving water characteristics of the Ann
Arbor study site were obtained from the following reports.
1. McElroy A. D., et al. Loading Functions for Assessment of
Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources. EPA-600/2-76-151.
May 1976.
2. Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). Urban
Stormwateri Its Quality and Management. Detroit, Michigan.
March 1978.
3. SEMCOG. Water Quality in Southeast Michigan; The Huron
River Basin.Detroit, Michigan.February 1978.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall, runoff, and pollution washoff portions of the model
were calibrated to known prototype conditions. The dry-weather
flow portion of the simulation is based on historic wastewater
A - 34
-------
treatment plant flow data, and the upstream flow module was
represented by actual observed streamflow records.
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that removal of ultimate oxygen
demand and suspended solids will be required to meet the selected
water quality criteria. However, the wastewater treatment plant
effluent was responsible for violations of the dissolved oxygen
criteria, with no additional violations caused by urban runoff.
That is, removal of the oxygen-demanding load from the urban
stormwater runoff did not reduce the number of occurrences of DO
levels below 2.0 mg/1. The removal requirements are summarized
in Table A-20.
A - 35
-------
Table A-18
Major Characteristics
Ann Arbor Site Study (Huron River Basin)
Rainfall Characteristics
Season No. 1
Season No. 2
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall (inches)
Mean time between storms (hours)
Mean duration of storm (hours)
Mean rainfall depth per event
(inches)
1, 2, 9, 10,
11
12.28
95.19
8.29
0.1351
3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 12
21.16
90.50
6.62
0.1992
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage area (acres)
Time of concentration (hours)
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual runoff (inches)
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Suspended solids accumulation
rate (Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Stormwater
Runoff
Watershed
9,783
2.83
4.38
24
23.2
0.2333
0.0291
3.8360
0.0047
A - 36
-------
Table A-18—Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant(s) (ft3/sec)
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD
SS
TKN
Pb
Stormwater
Runoff
Watershed
20.35
30
30
28
0.04
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3/sec)
Mean K2 value (I/day base e)
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e)
Kl value for stormwater and upstream
flow (I/day base e)
Kl value for WWTP effluent (I/day
base e)
Maximum monthly temperature (°C)
Mean background BOD (mg/1)
Mean background SS (mg/1)
Background pH
Background hardness (mg/1)
454
0.20
N.A.
0.16
0.23
25.83
2.45
5.5
8.17
267.45
A - 37
-------
Table A-19
Pollutant Loading Summary
Ann Arbor Site
Source
Upstream flow
WWTP effluent
Combined sewer
overflow
Study (Huron
Average
BOD
2.57
1.20
NA
River
Basin)
Pollutant Loads
TKN
0.71
1.11
NA
SS
5.46
1.20
NA
(106 Ib/yr)
Pb
0.003
0.000006
NA
Urban stormwater
runoff
Total
0.82
4.59
0.10
1.92
13.51
20.17
0.017
0.200
Table A-20
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Ann Arbor Site Study (Huron River Basin)
Pollutant
Suspended
solids (SS)
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD)
Lead (Pb)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Urban
Stormwater
Runoff
90
0
0
Overall
90
0
0
A - 38
-------
BUCYRUS, OHIO
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
Bucyrus, a small community located in central Ohio, is characterized
by a predominantly flat landscape. The Sandusky River flows through
the urban area and is tributary to Lake Erie. The entire urban area
is served by a combined sewer system.
The Sandusky River is the receiving water, beginning west of the
urban area and extending some 17 miles to its confluence with
Broken Sword Creek. Waste inputs from the urban area include
urban runoff and municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Major characteristics of the study area and of the receiving
water are presented in Table A-21. Pollutant loadings by source
are summarized in Table A-22.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall data for the study site were taken from the climatological
data records of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Upstream flow and background water quality data on the
Sandusky River were provided by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) records. Additional data which were utilized to define urban
area and receiving water characteristics of the Bucyrus study site
were obtained from the following reports.
1. Burgess and Niple, Limited. Stream Pollution and Abatement
from Combined Sewer Overflows. Columbus, Ohio. 1969.
2. Floyd G. Brown and Associates, Limited. Infiltration/Inflow
Analysis Report, City of Bucyrus, Ohio. Marion, Ohio.
1974.
3. Burgess and Niple, Limited. Final Report, Land Use,
Transportation, Parks and Open Space. Columbus, Ohio.
1974.
4. Floyd G. Brown and Associates, Limited. Facilities Plan for
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement and Appurtenances,
City of Bucyrus, Ohio. Marion, Ohio. 1976.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall, runoff, and pollution washoff portions of the model
were calibrated to known prototype conditions. The dry-weather
- 39
-------
flow portion of the simulation is based on historic wastewater
treatment plant flow data, and the upstream flow module was
represented by actual observed streamflow records. The modeled
dissolved oxygen distribution in the receiving water correlated
well with observed data. However, continuous observed receiving
water quality data are unavailable. Therefore, the receiving
water response module could not be calibrated.
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that receiving water concentrations
of dissolved oxygen and suspended solids are in violation of the
selected water quality criteria. The simulation also indicates
that the water quality criteria for ultimate oxygen demand and
suspended solids can be met by removal of these constituents from
the rainfall-induced wastewater streams (CSO and urban runoff).
These removal requirements are summarized in Table A-23. The
simulation results also indicated that dissolved lead concentrations
in the Sandusky River were in compliance with the selected criteria.
A - 40
-------
Table A-21
Major Characteristics
Bucyrus Site Study (Sandusky River Basin)
Rainfall Characteristics
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall (inches)
Mean time between storms (hours)
Mean duration of storm (hours)
Mean rainfall depth per event
(inches)
Season No. 1
12
2, 10,
9.9
57.17
8.02
0.0770
Season No. 2
3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 9, 11
25.8
60.94
6.76
0.1635
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage area (acres)
Time of concentration (hours)
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual runoff (inches)
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Suspended solids accumulation
rate (Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Combined
Sewer
Watershed
2,599
0.52
4.60
31.0
13.5
0.5244
0.0729
4.0200
0.0016
A - 41
-------
Table A-21—Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant(s) (ft3/sec)
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD
SS
TKN
Pb
Combined
Sewer
Watershed
6.51
6.00
6.00
10.00
0.04
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3/sec)
Mean K2 value (I/day base e)
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e)
Kl value for stormwater and upstream
flow (I/day base e)
Kl value for WWTP effluent (I/day
base e)
Maximum monthly temperature (°C)
Mean background BOD (mg/1)
Mean background SS (mg/1)
Background pH
Background hardness (mg/1)
80
1.73
1.21
0.49
0.70
22.5
4.4
202
7.9
300
A - 42
-------
Table A-22
Pollutant Loading Summary
Bucyrus Site Study (Sandusky River Basin)
Average Pollutant Loads (Ib/yr)
Source
Upstream flow
WWTP effluent
Combined sewer
overflow
Urban stormwater
runoff
Total
BOD
725,658
11,622
233,705
NA
970,985
TKN
171,638
11,622
32,489
NA
215,749
SS
33,304,920
19,370
3,692,158
NA
37,016,448
Pb
1,316
75
1,470
NA
2,861
Table A-23
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Bucyrus Site Study (Sandusky River Basin)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Combined
Sewer
Pollutant Overflow Overall
Suspended
solids (SS) 55 55
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD) 83 83
Lead (Pb) 0 0
A - 43
-------
19
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Milwaukee study area consists of all of the urban area
tributary to the Milwaukee River south of the Milwaukee-Ozaukee
County line in southeastern Wisconsin. Urban areas tributary to
the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers are not included in this
analysis. Approximately 17% of the study area is served by
combined sewers. The combined sewer systems are located in the
densely developed downtown area and, consequently, serve approxi-
mately 61% of the resident population. Approximately 62 discrete
combined sewer overflow points discharge to the lower Milwaukee
River. The remaining urban area upstream of the combined sewer
systems is served by separate sewer systems and, thus, discharge
stormwater runoff only to the Milwaukee River.
The receiving water is the lower reach of the Milwaukee River
extending to the south into Milwaukee Bay. Waste sources include
stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflow. Wastewater
effluent from the Jones Island Wastewater Treatment Plant was not
included in the analysis since discharge is directly into Lake
Michigan. Also, as previously stated, flows from the Menomonee
and Kinnickinnic Rivers were not included in the analysis, even
though these rivers do discharge to Milwaukee Bay. Major
characteristics of the study area and of the receiving water are
presented in Table A-24. Pollutant loadings by source are
summarized in Table A-25.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall and temperature data for the study site were taken from
the climatological data records of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Upstream flow data on the
Milwaukee River were provided by the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) records. Background water quality data on this
river were obtained from Envirex, Inc. Additional data which
were utilized to define urban area and receiving water
characteristics of the Milwaukee study site were obtained from
the following reports.
1. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission.
A Regional Sanitary Sewerage System Plan for Southeastern
Wisconsin. February 1974.
- 44
-------
2. Meinholz, T. L. Analysis of Receiving Stream Impacts on
the Milwaukee River. Presented at seminar on Combined
Sewer Overflow Assessment and Control Procedures. Windsor
Locks, Connecticut. 18 May 1978.
3. Stanley Consultants, Inc. State of the Art of Water
Pollution Control in Southeastern Wisconsin, Vol. 1, Point
Sources. July 1977.
4. Stanley Consultants, Inc. State of the Art of Water
Pollution Control in Southeastern Wisconsin, Vol. 3_, Urban
Stormwater Runoff. July 1977.
5. Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. Water
Quality and Flow of Streams in Southeastern Wisconsin.
November 1966.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall, runoff, and pollution washoff portions of the model
were calibrated to known prototype conditions. The upstream flow
module was represented by actual observed streamflow records.
However, long-term continuous observed receiving water quality
data are unavailable; therefore, the receiving water response
module could not be calibrated.
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that the removal of ultimate oxygen
demand (BOD and TKN) as well as suspended solids will be required
to meet the selected water quality criteria. However, no lead
removal is required. These removal requirements are summarized
in Table A-26.
Results also show that the removal of all oxygen-demanding
pollutants from combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater
runoff would still leave the receiving water with DO criteria
violations. Thus, the DO criteria cannot be met by control of
pollutants from CSO and urban runoff alone.
A - 45
-------
Table A-24
Major Characteristics
Milwaukee Site Study (Milwaukee River Basin)
Rainfall Characteristics
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall
( inches )
Mean time between storms
(hours)
Mean duration of storm
(hours)
Mean rainfall depth per
event (inch)
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage areas (acres)
Time of concentration
(hours)
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Season No. 1
1, 2, 3, 10,
11, 12
11.97
69.28
9.68
0.0973
Combined Sewer
Watershed
5,800
5.30
4.60
53
Season No. 2
4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9
18.32
68.75
6.94
0.1692
Stormwater
Runoff Watershed
27,400
13.50
1.80
20
Average annual runoff
(inches)
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Suspended solids
accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
14.48
1.7164
0.1299
2.3659
0.0239
7.88
0.2256
0.0237
0.9971
0.0017
A - 46
-------
Table A-24—Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow
(ft3/sec) 381
Mean K2 value (I/day, base e) 0.45
Kl value for CSO (I/day, base e) 0.45
Kl value for stormwater and
upstream flow (I/day, base e) 0.18
Maximum monthly temperature (°C) 26.0
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 3.40
Mean background SS (mg/1) 44.3
Background pH 7.8
Background hardness (mg/1) 337.0
A - 47
-------
Table A-25
Pollutant Loading Summary
Milwaukee Site Study (Milwaukee River Basin)
Average Pollutant Loads (106 Ib/yr)
Source
Upstream flow
WWTP effluent
Combined sewer
overflow
Urban stormwater
runoff
Total
BOD
1
0
1
0
4
.90
.85
.60
.35
TKN
0
0
0
J)
0
.62
.14
.06
.82
SS
20.
0
4.
9.
34.
01
94
£4.
79
0
0
0
o
0
Pb
.0074
.0500
.0163
.0737
Table A-26
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Milwaukee Site Study (Milwaukee River Basin)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Combined Urban
Sewer Stormwater
Pollutant Overflow Runoff Overall
Suspended
solids (SS) 85 80 82
Ultimate
oxygen demand _
(UOD) -- — 93*
Lead (Pb) ..0 0 0
aThis overall UOD removal will result in elimination of
90% of the DO occurrences less than 2.0 mg/1 which can
be eliminated by control of CSO and urban stormwater
runoff.
A - 48
-------
I!
DES MOINES, IOWA
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Des Moines urban area is located in central Iowa at the
confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers. The study area
consisted of the Oes Moines urban area tributary to the Des
Moines and Raccoon Rivers, lying upstream of the wastewater
treatment plant. The extent of the combined sewer watershed is
about 8% by area. The remainder is served by storm sewers or by
natural drainage.
The receiving water consists of the Des Moines River below the
confluence with the Raccoon River near the wastewater treatment
plant, extending to the Red Rock impoundment at State Highway 14,
a total of approximately 45 miles of stream length. Major
characteristics of the study area and of the receiving water are
presented in Table A-27.
Waste sources input to the Des Moines River included municipal
and industrial wastewaters as well as combined sewer overflow and
stormwater runoff. Pollutant loadings by source are summarized
in Table A-28.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Climatological data for the Des Moines area were taken from the
records of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Flow records for the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers were
provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Background
water quality data were provided by the USGS and the State Hygienic
Laboratory (University of Iowa).
Additional data concerning the demographic characteristics, waste
source strengths, and watershed hydrology were obtained from the
following sources.
1. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc. Combined Sewer
Overflow Abatement Plan, Des Moines, Iowa. EPA-R2-73-170.
April 1974.
2. Iowa Water Quality Management Plan, Des Moines River Basin.
(Draft) Iowa Department of Environmental Quality. July
1975.
3. Iowa Water Quality Report. Iowa Department of Environmental
Quality. April 1975.
A - 49
-------
CALIBRATION
The rainfall, runoff, and pollution washoff portions of the model
were calibrated to known prototype conditions. The dry-weather
flow portion of the simulation is based on historic wastewater
treatment plant flow data, and the upstream flow module was
represented by actual observed streamflow records. However,
continuous observed receiving water quality data are unavailable;
therefore, the receiving water response module could not be
calibrated.
RESULTS
The results of the 10-year simulations summarized in Table A-29
indicate that fish and wildlife dissolved oxygen criteria will
not be met for even total removal of the combined sewer overflow
and stormwater loads. That is, the fish and wildlife criteria
for dissolved oxygen cannot be met by control of combined sewer
overflow and stormwater runoff alone.
Based on the results of the simulation, the fish and wildlife
criteria for suspended solids and lead will not be violated at
the present conditions with no control of combined sewer overflow
and stormwater runoff.
A - 50
-------
Table A-27
Major Characteristics
Des Moines Site Study (Des Moines River Basin)
Rainfall Characteristics
Season No. 1 Season No. 2
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall (inches)
Mean time between storms (hours)
Mean duration of storm (hours)
Mean rainfall depth per event
(inch)
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage area (acres)
Time of concentration (hours)
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual runoff (inches)
BOD accumulation rate
( Ib/acre/day )
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Suspended solids accumulation
rate (Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
1, 2, 3, 11
12
8.26
97.18
9.92
0.0865
Combined
Sewer
Watershed
4,018
3.20
4.6
37.7
12.51
1.276
0.1680
2.1200
0.0120
4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10
29.53
71.17
6.79
0.1912
Stormwater
Runoff
Watershed
45,000
9.10
2.1
33.1
10.98
1.050
0.0700
2.5000
0.0077
A - 51
-------
Table A-27—Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant(s) (ft3/sec) 62.50
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD 30.20
SS 30.20
TKN 11.00
Pb 0.04
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3/sec) 4,280.0
Mean K2 value (I/day base e) 0.77
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e) 0.46
Kl value for stormwater and
upstream flow (I/day base e) 0.18
Kl value for WWTP effluent
(I/day base e) 0.26
Maximum monthly temperature C°C) 25.0
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 6.08
Mean background SS (mg/1) 233.0
Background pH 8.3
Background hardness (mg/1) 341.0
A - 52
-------
Table A-28
Pollutant Loading Summary
Des Moines Site Study (Des Moines River Basin)
Average Pollutant Loads (10s Ib/yr)
Source BOD TKN SS Pb
Upstream flow 38.99 11.99 3,504.24 0.03
WWTP effluent 3.71 1.35 3.71 0.005
Combined sewer
overflow 0.70 0.09 3.03 0.02
Urban stormwater
runoff 4.72 0.32 39.65 0.12
Total 48.12 13.75 3,550.63 0.175
Table A-29
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Des Moines Site Study (Des Moines River Basin)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Combined Urban
Sewer Stormwater
Pollutant Overflow Runoff Overall
Suspended
solids (SS) 0 0 0
Ultimate
oxygen demand _
(UOD) ~ — 90a
Lead (Pb) 0 0 0
aThis overall UOD removal will result in elimination of
90% of the DO occurrences less than 2.0 mg/1 which can
be eliminated by control of CSO and urban stormwater
runoff.
A - 53
-------
SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Springfield study area is located in the Missouri Ozark
Plateau Province of the White River basin. It is an area of
karst terrain with numerous sinkholes providing direct flow
between surface and ground waters. The urban area is served
entirely by separate storm and sanitary sewers. Urban runoff was
simulated from two characteristically unique urban drainage
basins of Wilson's Creek. Urban watershed No. 1 encompasses the
central Springfield business district, with a developed population
density of approximately six persons per acre. Urban watershed
No. 2 is located southwest of Springfield with an average popula-
tion density of two persons per acre and receives effluent from
the recently constructed 30-mgd advanced wastewater treatment
plant (AWT). Summer thunderstorms have resulted in severe fish
kills in the James River due to low dissolved oxygen concentrations
in Wilson's Creek.
Conceptually, the James River receiving water model combines
urban runoff from watersheds No. 1 and No. 2, AWT effluent, and
upstream flow at the confluence of the James River and Wilson's
Creek during a 4-hour time step and simulates DO, SS, and Pb
concentrations for 70 miles of river. Model input data for
rainfall, watershed characteristics, AWT effluent, and James
River receiving water characteristics are presented in Table A-30.
Annual pollutant loads for BOD5, TKN, SS, and Pb from the four
sources are shown in Table A-31. Upstream James River flow is
the source for approximately 50%, 45%, and 79% of the total loads
for BOD5, TKN, and SS, respectively. Runoff from urban watershed
No. 1 is the source for approximately 85% of the total load for
Pb.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall and temperature data for Springfield were taken from the
climatological data records of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). Upstream flow and background water quality
data for the James River and Wilson's Creek were provided by USGS
records from five sampling stations, three of which provide
continuous dissolved oxygen data. Additional water quality data
for surface waters and wastewater treatment plant effluent were
provided by the City of Springfield. Drainage basin boundaries
were determined from l:24,000-scale, 7-1/2-minute USGS quadrangle
maps. Additional data for the Springfield study site were obtained
from the following sources.
A - 54
-------
1. James River-Wi1son Creek Study, Springfield, Missouri.
Volumes I and II. Robert S. Kerr Water Research Center,
Ada, Oklahoma. June 1969.
2. Hayes, W. C. Urban Development in a Karst Terrain. City of
Springfield, Missouri. October 1977.
3. Personal Communication. Dr. William C. Hayes, Environmental
Geologist. City of Springfield, Missouri.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall, runoff, and pollution washoff portions of the model
were calibrated to known or estimated prototype conditions. The
dry-weather flow portion of the simulation is based on actual
wastewater treatment plant records for 1974 from the Southwest
Springfield Wastewater Treatment Plant. At that time, the
Southwest wastewater treatment plant was a secondary plant
which has recently been upgraded to AWT. The upstream flow
module was represented by actual observed streamflow records
from the James River above Wilson's Creek. Dissolved oxgyen
concentrations from the receiving water simulation were cali-
brated to 4 years (October 1973 to September 1977) of continuous
USGS DO measurements at Frazier Bridge on the James River. This
calibration represents conditions existing at the time of the
DO measurements, i.e., secondary wastewater treatment.
To simulate observed dissolved oxygen concentrations in the James
River prior to the operation of the new AWT facility, 80% of the
1974 wastewater treatment plant effluent pollutants were assumed
to deposit uniformly in Wilson's Creek where they were flushed
to the receiving water (James River) during periods of runoff.
Figure A-3 indicates that the simulated cumulative dissolved
oxygen frequency curve agrees well with the observed frequency
curve. Also shown on Figure A-3 is the simulated cumulative
dissolved oxygen frequency curve with the existing AWT effluent
quality parameters. It appears that substantial water quality
benefits can be expected in the James River due to construction
of this AWT facility.
RESULTS
Continuous simulation of existing James River water quality
conditions indicates that 30% removal of ultimate oxygen demand
(BOD and TKN) from urban runoff is required to reduce the current
estimated average of 10 DO violations per year to one violation
per year. An overall 41% removal of SS is required to prevent
the mean concentration of urban runoff SS from exceeding the mean
background SS concentration in the James River. Dissolved lead
criteria are met under existing conditions. These removal
requirements are summarized in Table A-32.
A - 55
-------
o
1
c ~
61
x 8
i!
. e
T) a
s
•88
c «
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Simulated
Without AWT
Observed *
Without AWT /
Simulated
With AWT
(on line Nov. 1977)
2345
Dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/l)
at Frazier Bridge on the James River
FIGURE A-3. Calbration of receiving water model at Springfield, Missouri.
-------
Table A-30
Major Characteristics
Rainfall
Characteristics
Months in each season
Springfield Site Study
Season 1
1, 2, 3, 11,
12
Total rainfall (inches) 13.18
Mean time between
storms (hours)
Mean duration of
storm (hours)
Mean rainfall depth
per event (inch)
Watershed
Characteristics
Drainage area (acres)
Time of concentration
( hours )
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual runoff
( inches )
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre-day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre-day)
SS accumulation rate
(Ib/acre-day)
Pb accumulation rate
(Ib/acre-day)
85.73
8.83
0.3860
Urban
Watershed No. 1
18,782
7.25
3.50
25
13.32
0.1230
0.0139
0.7370
0.0059
Season 2
4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10
26.22
81.24
6.61
0.4601
Urban/Rural
Watershed No. 2
15,128
4.71
4.60
15
13.32
0.168
0.0400
0.4660
0.0008
A - 57
-------
Table A-30--Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant (ft3/sec) 37.64
Existing effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD 10.0
SS 10.0
TKN 3.0
Pb 0.02
Receiving Water (James River)
Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3/sec) 215.0
Specified mean K2 (I/day base e) 1.14
Kl for stormwater and upstream flow 1.00
Kl for WWTP effluent 1.42.
Maximum monthly temperature (°C) 30.50
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 1.89
Mean background SS (mg/1) 48.33
Background pH 8.00
Background hardness (mg/1) 153.0
A - 58
-------
Table A-31
Pollutant Loading Summary
Springfield Site Study
Average Pollutant Loads ( Ib/yr)
Source BODS TKN SS Pb
Upstream flow 1,148,383 217,669 30,133,750 2,526
AWT effluent 741,000 222,000 741,000 1,500
Watershed No. 1
runoff 297,500 33,420 5,184,000 41,460
Watershed No. 2
runoff 112,400 13,860 1,974,000 3,044
Total 2,229,283 486,949 38,032,750 48,530
Table A-32
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Springfield Site Study
Percent Removal Requirements by Source
Urban RunoTfUrban Runoff
Parameter Basin 1 Basin 2 Overall
SS 49.0 19.0 40.7
UOD 30.0 30.0 30.0
Pb 0.0 0.0 0.0
A - 59
-------
TULSA, OKLAHOMA
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Tulsa urban area is located on a ridge defining two distinct
drainage patterns. A portion of the City drains to the Arkansas
River, while the study area is that portion to the north and east
of the ridge for which Bird Creek is the receiving stream. This
area is served entirely by separate storm and sanitary sewer
systems.
The receiving zone of Bird Creek begins north of the Tulsa
International Airport and extends some 6 miles downstream to its
confluence with the Verdigris River and eventually the Arkansas
River. Waste inputs from the urban area include urban runoff,
municipal wastewater treatment plant effluents, and industrial
wastewater treatment plant effluents. Major characteristics of
the study area and of the receiving water are presented in
Table A-33. Pollutant loadings by source are summarized in
Table A-34.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall and temperature data for the study site were taken from
the climatological data records of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Upstream flow and background
water quality data on Bird Creek were provided by the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) records. Additional data which
were utilized to define urban area and receiving water
characteristics of the Tulsa study site were obtained from the
following reports.
1. McElroy, A. D., et al. Loading Functions for Assessment of
Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources. EPA-600/2-76-151.
May 1976.
2. Avco Economic Systems Corporation. Stormwater Pollution
from Urban Land Activity, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Federal Water
Quality Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. 1970.
3. Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG). Working Paper
No. T-l, Water Quality Problem Areas, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1977.
4. INCOG. Working Paper No. T-7, Wastewater Treatment Community
Profiles, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1977.
A - 80
-------
5. INCOG. Working Paper No. T-8, Future Wastewater Flows,
Volume II, Part A, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1977.
6. INCOG. Working Paper No. T-8, Future Wastewater Flows, Vol.
II, Part B, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1978.
7. INCOG. Assessment of Nonpoint Source Pollution for the
INCOG 208 Study Area, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1978.
8. INCOG. Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the INCOG 208 Study
Area, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1978.
9. INCOG. Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the INCOG 208 Study
Area, Appendix, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1978.
10. INCOG. Regional BOD and Nutrient Generation, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
1978.
11. INCOG. Significant Industrial Point Source Inventory for
the INCOG Study Output 3B, Tulsa, Oklahoma. 1978.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall, runoff, and pollution washoff portions of the model
were calibrated to.known prototype conditions. The dry-weather
flow portion of the simulation is based on historic wastewater
treatment plant flow data, and the upstream flow module was
represented by actual observed streamflow records. The receiving
water quality response module agreed well with observed records.
However, the data base was insufficient to achieve a complete
calibration.
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that removal of suspended solids and
lead is necessary to meet the selected water quality criteria.
There are no dissolved oxygen problems indicated. The removal
requirements are summarized in Table A-35.
A - 61
-------
Table A-33
Major Characteristics
Tulsa Site Study (Bird Creek Basin)
Rainfall Characteristics
Season No. 1 Season No. 2
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall (inches)
Mean time between storms (hours)
Mean duration of storm (hours)
Mean rainfall depth per event
(inch)
1, 2, 3, 11,
12
27.62
119.46
8.47
0.1491
4, 5, 6, 1,
8, 9, 10
10.38
94.45
6.20
0.3340
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage area (acres)
Time of concentration (hours)
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual runoff (inches)
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Suspended solids accumulation
rate (Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Stormwater
Runoff
Watershed
78,084
3.14
2.20
30.0
13.61
0.2614
0.0186
5.6254
0.0140
A - 62
-------
Table A-33 — Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant(s) (ft3 /sec) 32.485
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD 30
SS 30
TKN 35
0.05
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3 /sec) 500
/
Mean K2 value (I/day base e) 0.978
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e) N.A.
Kl value for stormwater and
upstream flow (I/day base e) 0.24
Kl value for WWTP effluent
(I/day base e) 0.35
Maximum monthly temperature (%C) 29.17
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 7.0
Mean background SS (mg/1) 127.0
Background pH 7.86
Background hardness (mg/1) 218.68
A - 63
-------
Table A-34
Pollutant Loading Summary
Tulsa Site Study (Bird Creek Basin)
Average Pollutant Loads (Ib/yr)
Source BOD TKN SS Pb
Upstream flow 6,387,391 1,424,783 115,886,398 82,117
WWTP effluent 1,382,722 306,845 1,620,527 3,196
Combined sewer
overflow 00 00
Urban stormwater
runoff 2,572,809 183,072 155,884,748 387,949
Total 10,342,922 1,914,700 273,391,623 473,262
Table A-35
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Tulsa Site Study (Bird Creek Basin)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Urban
Stormwater
Pollutant Runoff Overall
Suspended
solids (SS) 80 80
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD) 0 0
Lead (Pb) 40 40
A - 64
-------
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Sacramento urban area consists of the City of Sacramento as
well as numerous developed areas nearby. The study area includes
the urban area that is tributary to the Sacramento River between
miles 53 and 63, including the American River below Folsom Lake.
The downtown section of the City of Sacramento is served by
combined sewers and comprises approximately 7% of the study area.
The remainder is either drained naturally or is served by storm
sewers.
The receiving water is the Sacramento River beginning just south
of the urban area and extending approximately 50 miles downstream.
Waste inputs from the urban area include urban runoff, combined
sewer overflow, and municipal, industrial, and food processing
wastewater treatment plant effluents. Major characteristics of
the study area and of the receiving water are presented in
Table A-36. Pollutant loadings by source are summarized in
Table A-37.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall data for the study site were taken from the climatological
data records of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Upstream flow and part of the background water quality
data on the Sacramento River were provided by the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) records. Additional data which were
utilized to define urban area and receiving water characteristics
of the Sacramento study site were obtained from the following
reports.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Impact
Statement, Sacramento Regional Wastewater Management Program.
April 1975.
2. Sacramento Area Consultants. Stormwater Control System,
Sacramento Regional Wastewater Management Program. August
1975.
3. J. B. Gilbert and Associates. Feasibility Study, Elimination
of Wastewater Bypassing, City of Sacramento. September 1973.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Urban Storm Runoff
and Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution, Sacramento, California.
December 1971.
A - 65
-------
5. McElroy, A. D., et al. Loading Functions for Assessment of
Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources. EPA-600/2-76-151.
May 1976.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall portion of the model was calibrated to known prototype
conditions. The runoff in the combined watershed was made to
match the overflow recorded at sumps No. 1 and No. 2 and the
runoff from the separate area was adjusted to runoff values cited
in Reference 2. The pollution washoff was calibrated to known
prototype conditions. The volume of dry-weather flow was based
on historic wastewater treatment plant flow records. Effluent
quality was based on secondary requirements of 30 mg/1 BOD, 30
rag/1 SS, 28 mg/1 TKN, and 0.04 mg/1 Pb. The modeled dissolved
oxygen distribution in the receiving water correlated well with
observed data. However, continuous observed receiving water
quality data are unavailable; therefore, precise calibration of
the receiving water module could not be accomplished.
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that removal of suspended solids and
lead will be required to meet the selected water quality criteria.
Dissolved oxygen criteria are met under present conditions.
Removal requirements are summarized in Table A-38.
It is noted that the complete removal of lead from urban runoff
and combined sewer overflow will not be sufficient to meet the
lead criteria.
A - 66
-------
Table A-36
Major Characteristics
Sacramento Study Site (Sacramento River
Rainfall Characteristics
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall
(inches)
Mean time between storms
(hours)
Mean duration of storm
(hours)
Mean rainfall depth per
event ( inch )
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage area (acres)
Time of
concentration ( hours )
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Season No.
4, 5, 6, 7
8, 9, 10
3.28
354
6.7
0.14
Combined
Sewer
Watershed
7,000
1.0
4.6
70
Basin)
1 Season No. 2
1, 2, 3, 11,
12
13.74
84
10.5
0.1376
Stormwater
Runoff
Watershed
93,000
11.6
1.7
50
Average annual runoff
(inches)
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Suspended solids
accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
5.5
3.462
0.3055
1.820
0.0014
6.75
0.329
0.0310
0.5300
0.0010
A - 67
-------
Table A-36—Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant(s) (ft3/sec) 150
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD 30
SS 30
TKN 28
Pb 0.04
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3/sec) 24,670
Mean K2 value (I/day base e) 0.17
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e) 0.40
Kl value for stormwater and
upstream flow (I/day base e) 0.16
Kl value for WWTP effluent
(I/day base e) 0.23
Maximum monthly temperature (°c) 22.3
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 2.0
Mean background SS (mg/1) 58.9
Background pH 7.5
Background hardness (mg/1) 60
A - 68
-------
Table A-37
Pollutant Loading Summary
Sacramento Site Study (Sacramento River Basin)
Source
Upstream flow
WWTP effluent
Combined sewer
overflow
Urban stormwater
runoff
'Total
Average
BOD
71.5
13.5
1.65
2.01
88.66
Pollutant
TKN
7.7
12.6
0.147
0.189
20.6
Loads (106
SS
2,320
13.5
4.56
17.60
2,356
Ib/yr)
Pb
0.715
0.018
0.0036
0.0332
0.7698
Table A-38
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Sacramento Site Study (Sacramento River Basin)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Pollutant
Suspended
solids (SS)
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD)
Lead (Pb)
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
89
Urban
Stormwater
Runoff
52
Overall
54
0
>100
A - 69
-------
CASTRO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Castro Valley urban area is located just east of San Francisco
Bay on the fringe of the urban area surrounding the bay. The study
area is that portion of the urban area that is tributary to San
Lorenzo Creek downstream of Crow Creek to downstream of Castro Valley
Creek. The entire study area is either served by separate sewers or
is drained naturally.
The receiving water is San Lorenzo Creek beginning just downstream
of Castro Valley Creek and extending approximately 5.1 miles down-
stream to San Francisco Bay. The effects of downstream urbanization
have not been included in this study. Waste inputs from the urban
area include urban runoff only. Major characteristics of the study
area and of the receiving water are presented in Table A-39. Pollutant
loadings by source are summarized in Table A-40.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall data for the study site were taken from the climatological
data records of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Upstream flow and background water quality on San Lorenzo
Creek were provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
records. Additional water quality data for San Lorenzo Creek and
Castro Valley Creek were obtained from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall portion of the model was calibrated to known prototype
conditions. The runoff was calibrated using information from the
USGS gage on Castro Valley Creek. The results were then applied
to the entire study area. The pollution washoff was similarly
calibrated using information from the Castro Valley Creek gagesite.
The upstream flow in San Lorenzo Creek was simulated using a base
flow (3 ft3/sec) and runoff related to rainfall on the urban area.
The mean flow in San Lorenzo Creek was adjusted to match the mean
flow from the USGS gage. Continuous receiving water quality data
are unavailable; therefore, precise calibration of the receiving
water response could not be accomplished.
A - 70
-------
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that removal of all three indicator
pollutants (suspended solids, ultimate oxygen demand, and lead)
will be required to meet the selected water quality criteria.-
Those removal requirements are summarized in Table A-41.
71
-------
Table A-39
Major Characteristics
Castro Valley Study Site (
Rainfall Characteristics
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall
( inches )
Mean time between storms
(hours)
Mean duration of storm
(hours)
Mean rainfall depth per
event (inch)
Watershed Characteristics
Drainage area (acres)
Time of concentration
( hours )
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual runoff
( inches )
BOD accumulation rate
( Ib/acre/day )
TKN accumulation rate
( Ib/acre/day )
Suspended solids
accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
San Lorenzo Creek)
Season No. 1
5, 6, 7, 8,
9
0.87
486.6
5.55
0.0682
Natural
(Upstream)
Watershed
24,490
<4
2.5
0.0
5.22
0.08
0.012
1.0
0.0
Season No. 2
1, 2, 3, 4,
10, 11, 12
16.89
101.67
11.06
0.1552
Stormwater
Runoff
Watershed
3,850
<4
5.0
>60
9.4
0.662
0.0662
3.46
0.0029
A - 72
-------
Table A-39—Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant(s) (ft3/sec) 0
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD °
SS 0
TKN 0
Pb 0
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft2/sec) 14.7
Mean K2 value (I/day base e) 5.9
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e) N.A.
Kl value for stormwater and
upstream flow (I/day base e) 0.22
Kl value for WWTP effluent
(I/day base e) N.A.
Maximum monthly temperature (°C) 22.5
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 0.5
Mean background SS (mg/1) 20
Background pH 7-5
Background hardness (mg/1) 100
A - 73
-------
Table A-40
Pollutant Loading Summary
Castro Valley Study Site (San Lorenzo Creek)
Average Pollutant Loads (Ib/yr)
Source
Upstream flow
WWTP effluent
Combined sewer
overflow
Urban stormwater
runoff
Total
BOD
114,000
0
0
291,000
405,000
TKN
23,000
0
0
29,200
52,000
SS
8,880,000
0
0
4,780,000
13,660,000
Pb
66
0
0
4,000
4,066
Table A-41
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Castro Valley Study Site (San Lorenzo Creek)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Pollutant
Suspended
solids (SS)
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD)
Lead (Pb)
Combine
Sewer
Overflow
gu3
d
Urban
Stormwater
Runoff
95.6
13
95
Overall
95.6
13
95
A - 74
-------
PORTLAND, OREGON
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY SITE
The Portland urban area is located between the Columbia River, to
the north, and the Willamette River, to the south, just above their
confluence. The study area included only those portions tributary
to the Willamette and downstream from where the Clackamas River
enters the Willamette. The study basin is served by a combined
sewer system except in a few newly developed areas where separate
systems have been constructed. The basin was .assumed to behave
as a totally combined sewered area.
The receiving water is the Willamette River beginning at Ross
Island and extending 14 miles downstream to Kelly Point. The
receiving water is tidal ly influenced over its entire length.
Waste inputs from the urban area include combined sewer overflow
and municipal wastewater treatment plant effluent. Major
characteristics of the study area and of the receiving water are
presented in Table A-42. Pollutant loadings by source are presented
in Table A-43.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Rainfall data for the study site were taken from the climatological
data records of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Upstream flow and background water quality data on the Willamette
River were provided by the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
records and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's
STORET information retrieval system. Additional water quality
data for the river and those data related to wastewater treatment
plants were obtained from various agencies of the City of Portland
and also from selected volumes of the Columbia Region Association
of Governments (CRAG) 208 Waste Treatment Management Study.
Those selected volumes and additional sources of information
which were utilized to define urban area and receiving water
characteristics of the Portland site study are listed below.
1. CH2M HILL for Columbia Region Association of Governments,
Proposed Plan, Areawide Waste Treatment Management Study,
Volume T. T5 November 1977.
2. CH2M HILL for CRAG, 208 Plan Technical Supplement No. 1,
Planning Constraints . 15 November 1977.
3. City of Portland for CRAG, 208 Plan Technical Supplement
No. 2. Water
15 November 19
No. 2. Water Quality Aspects of Combined Sewer Overflows.
77T
A - 75
-------
4. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development. Areawide
Assessment Procedures Manual, Volume I. EPA-600/9-76-014.
July 1976.
5. Rickert, D. A., et al. Planning Implications of DO Depletion
in the Willamette River, Oregon. EPA-600/9-76-016. 1976.
6. Hartigan, J. P., et al. Planning for Nonpoint Pollution
Impacts. Presented at ASCE Urban Planning and Development
Division Specialty Conference, Anaheim, California.
25-27 July 1977.
CALIBRATION
The rainfall and pollution washoff portions of the model were
calibrated to known prototype conditions. Annual runoff volumes
were estimated based on rainfall and percent impervious area, as
described in Reference 4. The linear STORM model equation was
assumed for the runoff coefficient determination. The dry-
weather flow portion of the simulation is based on historic
wastewater treatment plant flow data, and the upstream flow module
was represented by actual observed streamflow records. The
modeled dissolved oxygen distribution in the receiving water
correlated well with available observed data. However, continuous
observed receiving water quality data are unavailable; therefore,
the receiving water response module could not be precisely
calibrated.
RESULTS
Simulation results indicate that receiving water concentrations
of dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, and long-term dissolved
lead are in violation of the selected water quality criteria.
The simulation also indicates that the water quality criteria for
ultimate oxygen demand and suspended solids can be met by removal
of these constituents from the rainfall-induced wastewater systems
(CSO and urban runoff). These removal requirements are summarized
in Table A-44.
The long-term dissolved lead criteria for soft water states that
the mean concentration should not exceed 0.01 mg/1. Background
levels of dissolved lead in the Willamette River are in exceedance
of the criteria and, therefore, this problem cannot be solved by
control of dissolved lead from CSO and urban runoff alone.
A - 76
-------
Table A-42
Major Characteristics
Portland Site Study (Willamette River Basin)
Rainfall Characteristics
Months in each season
Total seasonal rainfall
Season No. 1
6, 7, 8, 9
Season No. 2
1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 10, 11,
12
( inches )
Mean time between
storms (hours)
Mean duration of
storm (hours)
Mean rainfall depth
per event (inch)
Watershed Characteristics
4.48
118.79
8.07
0.2285
33.13
42.90
12.67
0.3630
Combined
Sewer
Watershed
Drainage area (acres)
Time of concentration
(hours)
Washoff coefficient
Imperviousness (%)
Average annual runoff
(inches)
BOD accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
TKN accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Suspended solids
accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
Lead accumulation rate
(Ib/acre/day)
51,394
3.33
4.60
35
15.4
0.3288
0.0283
0.3126
0.0003
. .
A - 77
-------
Table A-42—Continued
Point Source Characteristics
Mean daily dry-weather flow from
treatment plant(s) (ft3/sec) 13.95
Effluent limits (mg/1)
BOD 20.0
SS 20.0
TKN 5.0
Pb 0.01
Receiving Water Characteristics
Mean annual upstream flow (ft3/sec) 24,000
Mean K2 value (I/day base e) 0.08
Kl value for CSO (I/day base e) 0.40
Kl value for stormwater and
upstream flow (I/day base e) 0.16
Kl value for WWTP effluent
(I/day base e) 0.23
Maximum monthly temperature (°C) 22.0
Mean background BOD (mg/1) 1.0
Mean background SS (mg/1) 16
Background pH 6.9
Background hardness (mg/1) 24
A - 78
-------
Table A-43
Pollutant Loading Summary
Portland Site Study (Willamette River Basin)
Source
Upstream
flow
WWTP
effluent
Combined
sewer
overflow
Urban
stormwater
runoff
Total
Average Pollutant Loads (Ib/yr)
BOD
2,703,736
TKN
SS
232,712
5,483,645
Pb
6,517,371 4,201,346 137,328,845 114,024
540,432 135,108 540,432 270
5,550
9,761,539 4,369,096 143,652,952 119,844
Table A-44
Pollutant Removal Requirements
Portland Site Study (Willamette River Basin)
Percent Removal
Requirements by Source
Pollutant
Suspended
solids (SS)
Ultimate
oxygen demand
(UOD)
Lead (Pb)
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
22
18
>100
Urban
Stormwater
Runoff
Overall
22
18
>100
A - 79
-------
APPENDIX B
URBANIZED AREA DATA BASE
-------
OfcBANIZED AREA CAT1 EASE LISTING
SEC MO 72 O.A NO. 40101 OA NAHE BIBHINGHAB »L CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
UA EOF 558099. OA SIZE 22".6 70 SHSA PCI 767230.
200C SHSA POP 915700. DC.CSO PIS. 0> CAYS H/ BAIN 118.0 CEAM BAIN 53.52
EM CLASS 1 FLOW 0. k DRAINED 30.OC
BH line 26.6C BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0067 HABD 15.0 AlK 10.0 PH 7.00
CCS1 IACTOB 0.8289 CHAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 73 O.A NO. 40102 UA NAHE COLOHBUS BETBO AL CSC ABBA 0. CSO POP
UA EOF 25281. OA SIZE 18.7 70 SHSA PCE 238584.
2000 SBSA POP 259600. NC.CSO PIS. 01 CAIS «/ BAIN 110.C EEAN BAIN 48.67
EH CLASS 5 PLOW 67600. ft DRAINED 1CO.OC
EH 1EHP 26.60 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0. CC67 HABC 10.0 A IK
CCS1 FACTOR 0.8289 CHil 0.3060
10.0 PH 7.00
SEQ NO 74 O.A NO. 40103 OA NAHE GADSDEN IL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOF 67706. DA SIZE 55.2 70 SHSA PCE 94144.
200C SHSA POP 122100. NC.CSO PIS. 01 CATS H/ BAIN 118.0 EEAH BAIN 54.95
EH CLASS 5 FLOH 9468. % DBAINED 100.OC
fife 1EHP 26.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0067 HABD 10.0 A IK
CCSS JACTOB 0.6289 CHAT 0.3060
10.0 PH 7.00
SEQ NO 75 O.A NO. 4C104 UA NAHE HUN1SVILIE AL CSC ARIA 0. CSO POP
OA EOF 146565. OA SIZE 123.1 70 SHSA PCE 282450.
200C SHSA POP 40040C. NC.CSO PIS. 0« CAXS WX BAIN 118.0 EEAN BAIN 52.07
ER CLASS 5 FLOW 0. % DBAINED 100.00
£K 1EHP 26.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 HABD 35.0 ALK
CCS3 FACIOB 0.8289 CKAT 0.4130
20.0 PH 7.20
SEQ MO 76 O.A NO. 40105 OA NAHE HOBILE Al CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
UA EOF 257616. OA SIZE 168.4 70 SHSA PCE 376690.
2000 SHSA POP 472700. NC.CSO PTS. Ot CAXS H/ BAIN 123.C EEAN BAIN 67.57
EN CLASS 1 FLOR 20. X DRAINED 100.00
BH TEBP 27.70 BCD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0067 HABD 10.0 AlK 10.0 PH 7.00
CC£2 IACTOB 0.8289 CNAI 0.3060
SEQ MO 77 O.A MO. 40106 OA NAHE HOBIGOMEBI AL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 138983. 0» SIZE 51.1 70 SBSA PCE 225911.
200C SHSA POP 25280C. MC.CSO PIS. 01 CAXS H/ BAIN 113.C (EAN BAIN 53.66
(H CLASS 4 FLOR 15100. X DRAINED 100.00
BH IEHP 26.60 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0067 HAED 10.0 AlK
COS! IACTOB 0.828S CIAI C.3060
10.0 PH 7.00
B - 2
-------
URBANIZED ABEA CATA EASE LISTING
SEQ NO 78 O.A NO. 4C107 OA NAHE IOSCALOCSA AL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0
OA EOP 65675. OA SIZE 43.7 70 SHSA PCE 116029.
200C SHSA POP 15900C. NO.CSO PTS. Of CAXS N/ BAIN 118.0 CEAN RAIN 52.77
EH CLASS 6 FLOH 7668. X DRAINED 100.00
Eli TEHP 26.60 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB O.CC67 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 7.00
CCST EACTOR 0.8289 CNAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 298 O.A NO. 4C108 OA NAHE ILOBENCE AL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0
OA EOP 62926. OA SIZE 42.0 70 SHSA PCE 117743.
2COC SHSA POP 174100. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAXS H/ BAIN 118.C KEAN RAIN 49.92
EH CLASS 5 JLOH 51600. X DRAINED 100.90
EH IEHP 26.70 BOD 1.0 SS 48.0 PE 0.0067 BARE 50.0 AIK 50.0 PH 7.40
COST FACTOR C.8289 CUT 0.4130
SEQ NO 303 O.A NO. 40109 OA NAHE ANNISTON AL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0
OA EOF 58851. OA SIZE 37.4 70 SHSA PCE 103092.
2000 SHSA POP 145000. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAXS B/ RAIN 118.0 CEAN BAIN 51.48
EH CLASS 2 ILOH 49. X DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 26.00 BOD O.S SS 20.0 PB 0.C117 HARD 20.0 AIK 10.0 PH 7.20
CCSI EACTOR 0.8289 CSAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 294 O.A NO. 100201 OA NAHE ANCHORAGE AK CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0
OA EOE 110782. OA SIZE 54.5 70 SHSA PCE 126385,
200C SHSA POP 299500. NO.CSO PTS. Of CAIS H/ RAIN 126.0 CEAN BAIN 14.71
EH CLASS 1 FLCH 18. X DBAINED 1CO.OC
EH TEHP 6.50 BCD 0.0 SS 0.0 PB 0.0 HABC 68.0 ALK 0.0 PH 7.10
COST FACTOB 1.0330 CNAT 0.0
NO 258 O.A NO. 90401 OA NAHE PHOENIX AZ CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0
OA EOP 8€3357. OA SIZE 387.5 70 SRSA PCE 971228.
'000 SHSA POP 1886400. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS VS BAIN 34.0 KEAN BAIN 7.42
EN CLASS 2 FLOH 29. X DRAINED 100.00
Rfi TEHP 32.10 BOD 0.5 SS 16.0 PB 0.C267 HARD 90.0 AIK 75.0 PH 7.50
CCST IACTOR 0.8843 CNAT 0.0850
SEQ NO 259 O.A NO. 9C402 OA NAHE TOCSON AZ ,SC AREA 0. CSO POP 0
OA EOP 294184. OA SIZE 104.7 70 SHSA PCE 351667.
200C SflSA POP 56070C. NC.CSO PTS. Ot CAXS NX RAIN 50.0 EEAR BAIN 10.47
EH CLASS 4 FLOW 21. X DRAINED 100.00
RK TEHP 32.10 BOD 0.5 SS 16.0 PE 0.0300 HARD 75.0 ALK 75.0 PH 7.50
CCST EACTOR 0.8843 CKAT 0.0850
B - 3
-------
OBBANIZED AHEJ CATA EASE LISTING
£10 MO 185 O.I MO. 60501 OA NAME IORT SHITH Afi CSC AREA
OA EOF 73419. DA SIZE 57.6 70 SflSA PCS 160421.
200C SflSA POP 213800. MC.CSO PTS. Of IAYS «/ BAIN
EH CLASS 0 FLOH £13. X DRAINED 100.OC
EN TEHP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PE 0.C167 HABD 20.0 ALK
COST FACTOB 0.8289 CHAT C.3300
0. CSO POP
93.0 CEAN BAIN U2.22
75.0 PH 7.80
SEC NO 186 O.A MO. 60502 OA MAKE 1ITILE ECCK AB CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
01 [OP 222616. OA SIZE 95.3 70 SHSA POP 323296.
2COC SHSA POP 511600. MC.CSO PTS. 01 CA1S «/ fiAlM 102.C CEAN RAIN U8.66
Fii CLASS 4 ILOH 86333. * DRAINED 100.OC
BH 1IHP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.OC67 HABD 20.0 AlK
CC£I FACTOR 0.8289 CKAT C.3300
65.0 PH 7.50
SEQ NO 187 O.A MO. 6C503 UA NAME PINE BLOJI AB CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 60907. OA SIZE 20.8 70 SBSA PC* 85329.
2COC SBSA POP 112200. MC.CSO PTS. 01 rAYS I)/ BAIM 102.0 BEAN RAIN 52.13
EH CLASS 4 FLCH 86333. X DRAINED 100.00
EH TEMP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0067 HABD 20.0 AlK 65.0 PH 7.50
COSI FACTOR C.6289 CMAT C.3300
SEQ MO 188 O.A MO. 6050U UA NAME TEXARKAVA METRO AB CSC AREA
OA EOP 21682. OA SIZE 6.8 70 SHSA POP 113188.
200C SHSA POP 130300. MC.CSO PTS. 01 CAXS «/ BAIM
IB CLASS 2 fLOH 0. X DRAINED 100.00
B« TEHP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0117 HABD 78.0 ALK
COST FACTOB 0.8289 OAT C.3300
0. CSO POP
98.C IEAH BAIH 09.19
50.0 PH 7.50
SIQ MO 26C O.A MO. 9C601 OA MAHE EAKZBSFIE1C CA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 176155. OA SIZE 57.2 70 SHSA PCI 33023U.
2000 SHSA POP 371900. NC.CSO PTS. 0* tAIS «/ BAIM 37.C HAM RAIN 6.36
El CLASS 3 flOW 946. X DRAINED 100.OC
BM T1HP 29.30 BOD 0.5 SS 12.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 50.0 ALK 40.0 PR 7.50
COST FACTOB 1.0578 CIAT 0.0880
SEC MO 261 O.A MO. 90602 OA MAHE FRESNO CA CSC AREA
OA COP 262908. OA SUE 79.1 70 SHSA PCI 413329.
200C SHSA POP 45540C. MC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS H/ BAIN
EH CLASS 2 FLOH 0. X DRAINED 100.OC
fill TEHP 27.70 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PB 0.0117 HARD 20.0 AlK
COST FACTOB 1.3175 CHAT 0.4590
0. CSO POP
43.C EEAN RAIN 11.14
20<0 PH 7.50
B - 4
-------
ORBAHIZED IRE I GAT* EASE LISTING
- MO 262 O.A NO. 90603 DA MAHE LOS ANGELES CA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
•!n,JOE 8351265. DA SIZE 1571.9 70 SBSA PCE 6930«00.
ZOOC SBSA POP 911570C. MC.CSO PTS. Of CAJS «/ BAIH 35.C (EAR RAIN 14.68
*• CLASS 15 ILCH 0. * DRAINED 100.00
*• TEBP 20.10 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PE 0.C167 HARD 35.0 AlK 35.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOB 1.0578 CIAT 0.4590
f*Q NO 263 O.A NO. 90604 OA NABE BODESTA CA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
"* EOP 106107. OA SIZE 34.3 70 SBSA PCE 194506.
«°OC SBSA POP 25130C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS «/ RAIN 63.C BEAR RAIN 12.17
*• CLASS 5 FLOH 1363. X DRAINED 100.OC
*H TEBP 23.80 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PB 0.0067 HARD 20.0 AlK 20.0 PH 7.50
COS! FACTOR 1.3175 CIAT C.4590
MO 264 O.A MO. 90605 OA MABE OZMARE CA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
01 fop 2UU653. OA SIZE 111.5 70 SHSA PCE 378497.
<000 SBSA POP 548800. MC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS •/ RAIN 35.C CEAR RAIN 1U.75
•• CLASS 15 FLOW 0. * DRAINED 100.00
«« TEMP 20.10 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 35.0 AIR 35.0 PH 7.50
COST fACTOB 1.0578 CVAT 0.4590
HO 265 O.A BO. 90606 OA NABE SACEAHENTO CA CSC AREA 6800. CSO POP 96119.
EOP 633732. OA SIZE 244.2 70 SBSA PCE 803793.
SBSA POP 1094300. MC.CSO PTS. 3t CAIS H/ RAIN 57.C BEAR RAIN 18.02
*V CLASS 5 FLOH 24330. % DRAINED 100.00
B« TEH? 20.10 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PB 0.0067 HARD 20.0 ALK 20.0 PH 7.50
CO£T FACTOB 1.0855 CIAT 0.4590
HO 266 O.A MO. 90607 OA NAHB SALINAS CA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
"* EOP 62456. DA SIZE 15.0 70 SHSA PCI 247450.
2000 SHSA POP 31270C. MC.CSO PTS. Of EAXS IV RAIN 62.C CEAH RAIN 14.14
Si CLASS 11 FLOS 0. I DRAINED 100.00
BH TEMP 18.20 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 Pfi 0.C250 HARD 20.0 AlK 20.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOB 1.3175 CIAZ 0.4590
MO 267 O.A NO. 9C608 OA MAHE SAN BERMABBIMO CA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
°A EOP 583597. OA SIZE 309.7 70 SBSA PCE 1141307.
20QC SBSA POP 1602400. MC.CSO PTS. 01 EAXS N/ BAIN 35.C CEAM RAIN 17.71
BN CLASS 3 ELOV 8. X DRAINED 100.00
B« TEHP 32.10 BOD 0.5 SS 18.0 PB 0.C250 HARD 1CO.O AIK 100.0 PH 7.50
CCSI FACTOB 1.0578 CIAT 0.0860
B - 5
-------
UfcBANIZBD ABE* CAIA EASE LISTIKG
SEQ HO 268 U.A MO. 9C609 UA NAHE SAN DIEGC CA CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
UA EOP 1198322. UA SIZE 380.7 70 SHSA PCP 135785U.
2000 SHSA POP 1976000. NC.CSO US. 0* CAYS H/ BAIN 42.0 CEAH BAIN 10.40
EH CLASS 15 FLOW 0. X DBAINED 100.00
fib IEHP 19.90 BOD 0.5 SS 10.0 PB 0. C250 HABD 50.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.50
CCSI fACIOB 1.0768 CIAX 0.4590
SEQ MO 26S O.A MO. 9C610 UA ttAHE SAM FBAKISCO CA CSC ABEA 28550. CSO POP 731000.
OA EOP 2987849. OA SIZE 681.0 70 SHSA PCE 3107355.
2000 SHSA POP 415530C. NC.CSO PIS. 39i IAIS H/ BAIN 67.0 (EAN BAIN 20.78
EH CLASS 12 FLOH 0. X DRAINED 100.00
BH IEHP 15.40 BOD 0.5 SS- 8.0 PB 0.0067 HABD 20.0 ALK 20.0 PH 7.50
COSI FACIOB 1.2175 GUI 0.4590
SEQ MO 27C O.A MO. 9C611 UA MAHE SAM JOS! CA CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 1025273. UA SIZE 277.2 70 SHSA PCE 1065313.
200C SHSA POP 1954000. NC.CSO PIS. Of CA1S H/ BAIN 63.0 EEAN BAIN 13.11
EH CLASS 2 FLOW 45. X DBAINED 100.OC
BH IEHP 20.10 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PE 0.0067 HABD 20.0 ALK 20.0 PH 7.50
CCSI FACIOB 1.3175 CVAI 0.4590
SEQ NO 271 O.A MO. 9C612 UA NAHE SANIA BAEBAEA CA CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
UA EOE 129774. OA SIZE 37.1 70 SHSA PCE 264324.
2000 SHSA POP 386400. NC.CSO PIS. Of CAXS H/ BAIN 35.C CEAN BAIN 17.63
EH CLASS 15 FLOH 0. X DBAINED 100.00
BH IEHP 17.70 EOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PE 0.0150 HABC 30.0 ALK 35.0 PH 7.50
COSI FACIOB 1.0578 CUT 0.4590
SEQ MO 272 U.A MO. 90613 UA NAHE SANIA BCSA CA CSC ABIA 0. CSO POP
UA EOP 7SC83. UA SIZE 38.2 70 SHSA PCE 204885.
2000 SHSA POP 25250C. NC.CSO PIS. Of CAXS H/ BAIN 67.C CEAN BAIN 29.25
EH CLASS 15 FLOH 0. X DBAXNED 100.00
EH IEHP 15.40 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PB 0.OC67 HABD 20.0 ALK 20.0 PH 7.50
CCSI EACT08 1.0855 CIAT 0.4590
SEQ NO 273 O.A MO. 90614 OA NAHE SEASIDE CA CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 93284. UA SIZE 24.1 70 SHSA PCE 247450.
200C SHSA POP 312700. MC.CSO PIS. Ot CAXS H/ BAIN 62.C CEAN BAIN 14.14
EH CLASS 15 FLOH 0. X DBAIMED 100.OC
EH IEHP 18.20 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PB 0.0250 HABD 20.0 ALK 20.0 PH 7.50
COSI FACTOB 1.3175 CIAI C.4590
B - 6
-------
URBANIZED iBEl CATA EASE LISTING
SEQ NC 274 O.A HO. 90615 01 NAHE SBHI VALIII CA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 56S36. DA SIZE 2U. 8 70 SNSA PCS 378197.
200C SHSA POP 5U8800. HC.CSO SIS. 01 CA«S NX RAIN 35.0 «EAN RAIN 1U.22
EH CLASS 15 FLOW 0. I DRAINED 100.00
EH 1EBP 20.10 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 35.0 AIK 35.0 PR 7.50
CCSI FACTOR 1.0578 CIAT 0.4590
SEC NO 275 O.A HO. 9C616 OA NAHE SICCKTOI Cl CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
0* EOP 160373. OA SIZE 46.8 70 SHSA PCI 291073.
200C SHSA POP 33360C. HC.CSO PTS. Oft CAXS i/ BAIN 50.C KAN BAIN 14.31
EH CLASS 4 FLCN 0. I DRAINED 100.00
Hi TEHP 23.80 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PE 0.0067 BARD 20.0 AIK 20.0 PR 7.50
COSI FACTOB 1.3175 CIAT 0.4590
SEQ NO 306 O.A MO. 90617 OA MAKE SANIA CEOZ CA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA IOP 73758. OA SIZE 34.4 70 SBSA PCE 123790.
2000 SHSA POP 161100. NC.CSO PIS. Of CAXS i/ BAIN 67.C CEAH RAIN 31.25
EH CLASS 15 FLOH 0. I DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 20.10 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PB 0.0067 HABD 20.0 AIK 20.0 PH 7.50
COST PACT OB 1.3175 CUT G.4590
SEQ »0 307 O.A MO. 90618 OA NAHE ANTIOCH EIITSBOBG CA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 59585. OA SIZE 22.3 70 SHSA PCE 3111866.
<000 SHSA POP IM5530C. NC.CSO PTS. Oft CAXS IX BAIN 163.0 EEAN RAIN 13.34
EH CLASS 11 FLOH 0. % DRAINED 100.OC
EH TEHP 20.10 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PB 0.0067 HABD 20.0 AIK 20.0 PH 7.50
COST MCTOB 1.3175 CUT C.4590
SIQ NO 246 O.A NO. 8C801 OA NAHE BOULDER CO CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
0* EOP 66621. OA SIZE 14.1 70 SHSA PCE 1239477.
2000 SHSA POP 1981000. NC.CSO PTS. 0* EATS H/ EAIN 87.C CEAN RAIN 18.57
EH CLASS 1 FLON 89. C DRAINED 90.00
*H TEHP 18.20 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 50.0 AIK 90.0 PH 7.50
CCST FACTOR 0.8843 CKAX 0.0720
SEQ NO 247 O.A MO. 8C802 OA NAHE COLOBADC SWINGS CO CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
DA EOP 204766. OA SIZE 90.0 70. SHSA PCE 239288.
2000 SHSA POP 292900. NC.CSO PTS. Oft CATS H/ BAIN 66.C HAN BAIN 13.19
EH CLASS 1 FLON 27. X DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 18.20 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 50.0 AIK 90.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.8843 CUT 0.0820
B - 7
-------
OKBANIZED AREA CATA EASE LISTING
SEC DO 218 O.A NO. 80803 OA NAHE DENVER CC CSC ABBA 0. CSO POP
UA EOF 1047311. OA SIZE 292.8 70 SHSA PCF 1239077.
2000 SHSA FOP 1981000. NC.CSO PIS. Of CAYS «/ BAIN 87.C (BAN BAIN 12.89
IV CLASS 2 FLOW 342. X DRAINED 100.00
Eli TEMP 18.20 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0167 HARD £0.0 AIK 90.0 PH 7.50
CCS1 FACTOR 0.8803 CHAT 0.0720
SEQ NO 249 D.A NO. 8C804 OA NAME PUEBLO CC CSC AREA U29. CSO POP 1964.
OA EOF / 103300. OA SIZE 31.5 70 SBSi PCE 116238.
200C SHSA POP 13510C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAYS S/ RAIN 70.C BEAN RAIN 11.8U
CD CLASS 2 FLCB 5U. X DRAINED 100.00
DM TBHP 18.20 EOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 50.0 AIK 90.0 PH 7.50
COS! FACTOR 0.8843 CKAX 0.0820
SEQ NO 1 0.A NO. 10901 OA NAHE BRICGEPCET CT CSC AREA 3380. CSO POP 50000.
OA EOF 413366. OA SIZE 148.8 70 SHSA PCE 792814.
2000 SHSA POP 1080300. NC.CSO PTS. 571 LAYS H/ RAIN 119.0 BEAN RAIN 42.01
El CLASS 12 FLOH 0. X DRAINED 100.00
RN TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.0919 CHAT 0.5650
SEQ NO 2 O.A NO. 10902 OA NAHE BRISTOL CT CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 71732. OA SIZE 37.3 70 SHSA PCE 1035195.
2000 SHSA POP 1096800. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAXS «/ BAIN 128.0 BEAN RAIN 42.43
EB CLASS 1 FLCN 0. ft DRAINED 100.OC
EH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.0919 CHAT 0.5650
SEQ NO 3 O.A NO. 10903 UA NAHE DANEORr CT CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOF 66651. OA SIZE 54.9 70 SHSA PCE 792814.
2000 SHSA POP 1080303. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS V/ RAIN 119.0 BEAN BAIN 42.01
CM CLASS 1 FLOW 0. % DRAINED 100.00
RH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 BARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.20
CC£T FACTOR 1.0919 CCAT 0.5650
SEQ NO 4 O.A NO. 1C904 OA NAHE HA2IFORC CT CSC AREA 3492. CSO POP 114000.
OA EOP 465001. OA SIZE 130.5 70 SHSA PCE 1035195.
2000 SHSA POP 109680C. NC.CSO PIS. 122* CAXS •/ BAIN 128.C BEAN RAIN 42.43
EN CLASS 5 FLCN 16230. X DRAINED 80.00
BB TEHP 21.00' BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.0919 CNAT 0.5650
B - 8
-------
URBANIZED ARE! DATA EASE LISTING
SEQ NO 5 O.A NO. 10905 OA NAHE HERIDEN CT CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 98454. OA SIZE 70.7 70 SHSA PCE 744948.
2000 SHSA POP 976000. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS R/ BAIN 128.0 KEAH RAIN 44.14
EN CLASS 5 FLOR 0. X DBAINED 60.00
£f) TEBP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0. C167 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
CCSI FACTOR 1.0919 CBAT 0.5650
NO 6 O.A NO. 1C906 OA NAflE NEN BRITAIN CT CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
DA EOP 131349. OA SIZE 39.1 70 SHSA PCE 1035195.
2000 S0SA POP 1C9680C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS H/ BAIN 128.0 (EAN RAIN 42.43
£H CLASS 1 FLOW 0. X DRAINED 100.00
Ei IEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS' 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARE 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
CO£T FACTOR 1.0919 CIAT 0.5650
SEQ NO 7 O.A NO. 1C907 OA NAHE HEN HAVIN CT CSC AREA 3658. CSO POP 84300.
DA EOP 348341. OA SIZE 107.3 70 SHSA PCE 744948.
2000 SHSA POP 976000. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS H/ BAIN 131.C EEAN RAIN 44.49
BB CLASS 13 FLOR 0. X DRAINED 100.OG
BH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.0919 CUT 0.5650
SEQ NO 8 O.A NO. 10908 OA NAHE NORNALK CT CSC AREA 525. CSO POP 15800.
OA EOE 106707. OA SIZE 41.5 70 SHSA POP 792814.
2000 SHSA POP 1080300. NC.CSO PIS. 41 CAIS R/ BAIN 119.0 EEAN RAIN 42.01
£K CLASS 13 FLOW 0. X DBAINED 100.00
fiR TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COSI FACTOR 1.0919 CBAT 0.5650
SEQ NO <3 O.A NO. 1C909 OA NAHE SPBINGF11LC HETBO CT CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
01 EOP 58173. OA SIZE 26.7 70 SHSA PCE 583031.
200C SHSA POP 667400. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS N/ BAIN 128.0 BEAN BAIN 45.11
IW CLASS 5 FLOR 16230. X DRAINED 100.00
B« TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 BARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.0919 CUT 0.5650
SEQ NO 10 O.A NO. 1C910 OA NAflE STABFORD CT CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOE 184BS8. DA SIZE 69.6 70 SBSA PCE 792814.
2000 SHSA POP 1080300. NC.CSO PTS. Ot CAIS R/ BAIN 119.C KEAN RAIN 42.01
EN CLASS 15 FLCH 0. X DBAINED 100.00
BH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HART 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COS! FACTOR 1.0919 CCAZ 0.5650
B - 9
-------
URBANIZED ABEI DftTft EASE LISTING
SEQ DC 11 D.I NO. 10911 04 NAJJE N4TEBEOB1 CT CSC AREA 305. CSO FOP 69U7.
Oft I0f 156S86. 01 SIZE 59.9 70 SHSA PCI 7449U8.
2000 SHSA POP 97600. NC.CSO PXS. Ul CftXS H/ BftIN 128.0 EEftN BUM 47.26
EH CUSS 13 FLOW 197. » DBAINED 100.00
Ek TEHP 21.00 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE O.G167 HftBD 10.0 ftlK 10.0 PH 6.20
CCST IACTOB 1.0919 CIAT 0.5650
SEC NO 29C O.A NO. 10912 Oft NftHE HEN LOHCCN-NOBUICH CT CSC AREA 4000. CSO POP 23000.
01 IOE 139121. Oft SIZE 75.tt 70 SflSft PCI 23065U.
200C SHSA POP 291300. NC.CSO PTS. 22* EftIS «/ BftIN 128.C CEiN BftIM 50.88
EH CUSS 10 JLOH 0. X tiBUNED 100.00
EN 1EHP 20.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 10.0 fttK 10.0 PH 6.00
C0£l 7ACTOB 1.0919 CIAT 0.5650
SEQ NO U(l 0.1 NO. 31001 Oft BABE HILBINGICN DE CSC AREA 6936. CSO POP 80368.
Oft IOP 34967U. Oft SIZE 97.1 70 SHSA PCI 499U93.
2COO SHSA POP 712200. NC.CSO PTS. 30* CftXS «/ BftIN 127.0 KEftN RUN Utt.36
EN CLASS 1 ILCW «65. X DBftlNEO 100.00
EH TEflP 23.80 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HftBO 10.0 ftlK 10.0 PH 6.00
CGS1 EftCTOB 1.1818 CUZ 0.4620
SEQ NO US O.i NO. 31101 Oft NAHE NftSHlNSICH DC CSC AREA 1U713. CSO POP 489093.
lift EOF 756510. tfft SIZE 61.4 70 SHSA PCI 2910111.
2000 SHSA POP 5189600. NC.CSO PTS. £9* CftlS H/ BftIN 111.0 CEftN BftIN 40.78
EN CLASS 12 ILOH 11190. It DBftlNEO 100.OG
EN IIHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AlK 10.0 PH 6.50
COEl IAC70B 1.0083 CIAT 0.3910
SEQ NO 7S O.ft NO. 41201 Oft NftHE IT 1AODIEDA1E SI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
Oft EOF 613797. Oft SIZE 212.2 70 SflSA FCC 620100.
2COO SHSft POP 1472700. NC.CSO PTS. Of CftXS I/ BftIN 127.0 EEftN RftIN 60.29
EH CIASS 15 ILOH 0. I DBAIHED 100.00
BH TEHP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 HftBD 10.0 AlK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST IftCTOfi 0.8843 CIAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 8C O.ft NO. 41202 Oft NABE GAXIBSTllLZ U CSC ftBEft 0. CSO POP 0.
Oft EOP 69229. Oft SIZE 29.0 70 SBSA PCI 104764.
2000 SHSA POP 186600. RC.CSO PTS. 0* OIS H/ BftIN 116.0 CEftN BAIN 52.45
EH CltSS 1 ILCH 0. X DBAIKED 100.OC
EH TIHP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 HftBD 10.0 ftlK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST fftCTOB 0.8843 ClftX 0.3060
B - 10
-------
ORBAN1ZED ABE! CATA EASE LISTING
SIQ NO 81 O.A DO. 41203 DA HABE JACKSONVILLE FL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOF 529585. DA SIZE 351.3 70 SHSA PCE 621827.
2000 SHSA POP 615500. IIC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS «/ BAIN 116.0 EEAN RAID 53.36
f» CLASS 10 HOW 0. ft DRAINED 100.00
BITBHP 27.70 BOD 1.0 S3 20.0 Pfi 0.0117 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.00
CCSI IACTOR 0.8803 CNAT 0.3060
SHQ MO 62 O.A HO. 41204 DA NAHE HIABZ Fl CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOF 1219660. OA SIZE 258.7 70 SHSA PCE 1267792.
200C SHSA POP 2817400. NC.CSO PIS. 01 CAIS B/ EAIN 127.C EEAN RAIN 57.48
Ft CLASS 15 ILOH 0. % DRAINED 100.00
BH TEBP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 0.8843 CIAI 0.3060
SIQ HO 83 O.A NO. 41205 OA NAHB CBLANDO IL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
01 EOP 305479. OA SIZE 131.7 70 SHSA PCE 453270.
2COO SHSA POP 76900C. NC.CSO PIS. Of CAIS H/ BAIN 114.0 HAN RAIN 51.37
BH CLASS 7 ILOR 0. X DRAINED 40.00
EM TEHP 29.30 BOO 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 0.8843 CIAI 0.3060
SEQ HO 84 O.A NO. «1206 OA NAHE PEISACOLA IL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 166619. OA SIZE 66.4 70 SHSA PCE 243075.
2000 SHSA POP 295000. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS N/ RAIN 116.0 HAN RAIN 62.87
CR CLASS 10 ILOH 0. X DRAINED 100.OC
RH TEHP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 0.8643 CIAT 0.3060
SIQ HO 85 O.A NO. 41207 OA NABE SI EBIBBSBORG FL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 495159. OA SIZE 160.5 70 SHSA PCE 1088549.
2000 SHSA POP 195550C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS •/ BAIN 108.C HAN RAIN 55.41
EH CLASS 10 ILON 0. X DRAIHED 100.00
BH TEHP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.C117 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 0.8843 CIAI 0.3060
NO 86 O.A NO. 41208 OA NAHB TALLAHASSEE IL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 77651. OA SIZE 29.8 70 SHSA PCE 109355.
200C SHSA POP 196000. NC.CSO PIS. Of CAIS N/ BAIN 119.0 HAN EAIN 56.86
EN CLASS 6 ILOH 0. X DRAINED 80.00
RH IiaP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 BARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 0.8843 CIAT 0.3060
B -. 11
-------
OBBANIZED AREA BATA EASE LISTING
SEC NO 67 O.I NO. 41209 DA MARE TAMPA FI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
01 EOF 368V42. OA SI2E 130.5 70 SHSA PCC 1088509.
2COG SHSA POP 1955500. NC.CSO PTS. 01 EAXS N/ BAIH 106.0 CEAK RAIN 51.57
F.U CLASS 10 FLOW 107. I DRAINED 100.00
£fi TEBP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE O.C117 HARD 10.0 A1K 10.0 PH 6.00
CCST FACTOR 0.8803 C*AT 0.3060
SIC NO 88 O.A NO. 41210 OA NAME BEST EAlfl BEACH FL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOf 287561. OA SIZE 136.4 70 SHSA PCI 348993.
2000 SHSA POP 65020C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAYS K/ RAIN 131.C IEAH RAIN 61.70
SH CLASS 15 FLOW 0. X DRAINED 100.00
UK TEHP 29.30 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.C117 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PB 6.00
COS! FAC10R 0.8843 CIA1 0.3060
NO 287 O.A NO. 41211 OA NAHE HBLBOOHIE COCOA FL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 178948. OA SIZE 106.8 70 SBSA PCE 230006.
2000 SHSA POP 47300C. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAYS H/ RAIN 115.C EEAN RAIN 55.96
FH CLASS 15 ILCV 0. X DRAINED 100.00
BH TENP 28.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
CCST FACTOR 0.8843 CIAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 288 O.A MO. 41212 OA NAHE SARJSOTA-BBADENTON IL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 167298. OA SIZE 91.6 70 SHSA PCE 217528.
2000 SHSA POP 450774. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAYS «/ RAIN 108.C CEAN BAIN 55.41
El CLASS 15 FLOI 0. I DRAINED 100.OC
BH TEHP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
CCST FACTOR 0.8843 CIAT 0.3060
SEC NO 289 O.A NO. 41213 OA NAHE DAYIONA EEACH FL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOF 115176. OA SIZE 85.0 70 SHSA PCE 16S487.
2000 SHSA POP 247900. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAYS H/ BAD! 115.C BEAN RAIN 49.90
FH CLASS 15 FLOH 0. X DRAINED 100.0C
BH TEflP 28.80 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 BARE 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 0.8843 CIAI 0.3060
SEil NO 297 O.A HO. 41214 OA NAHE FORT HYIES FL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 69129. DA SIZE 43.4 70 SHSA PCE 105216.
200C SHSA POP 265300. NC.CSO PTS. 0» CAXS H/ RAIN 115.0 CZAN BAIN 53.34
EH CLASS 11 FLOH 0. X DRAINED 100.00
£H TEBP 29.30 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB O.C117 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 0.8843 CHAT 0.3060
B ~ 12
-------
OBB1NXZED 1BEJ C1T1 E1SE LISTING
SEC NO 310 0.1 NO. 41215 01 N1BE IIKELIHC FL CSC 1RE1 0. CSO POP
01 EOF 66739. 01 SIZE 27.3 70 SBS1 PCE 228515.
2000 SBS1 POP 381700. NC.CSO PIS. 01 C1IS «/ E1XN 121.0 HAN BUN 51.37
EH CL1SS 7 FLOH 0. K DB1INED 100.OC
BN TEBP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0117 HABD 10.0 UK 10.0 PH 6.00
CCSI F1CTOB 0.8843 CH1I 0.3060
SEQ HO 69 0.1 HO. 41301 01 NAME 1LB1NX Gl CSC 1RE1 225. CSO POP 6000.
01 EOP 76512. 01 SIZE 32.9 70 SBS1 PCE 96663.
200C SBS1 POP 118000. NC.CSO PIS. 01 C1XS «/ BUN 110.0 CE1N BUR 47.84
EH CL1SS 5 F10N 6339. X DB1XHED 100.00
EN TEBP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0067 H1RD 10.0 ILK 10.0 PH 6.00
CCST F1CTOB 0.8347 CUT 0.3060
SEQ RO 90 0.1 NO. 41302 01 N1BE ATLANTA 61 CSC 1RE1 11290. CSO POP 115800.
Ul EOP 1172777. 01 SIZE 435.0 70 SHS1 PCE 1595517.
2COC SBSA POP 246530C. NC.CSO PIS. 61 C1XS «/ BUR 115.0 CE1N BUN 47.14
FB CL1SS 5 FLOW 2742. X DB1XNED 70.00
BH TEBP 26.70 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0. OC67 B1BD 15.0 UK 10.0 PH 6.90
CCST F1CIOB 0.8347 CUT 0.3060
SEQ HO 91 0.1 HO. 41303 01 HUE 10GOSTA 61 CSC 1BE1 8960. CSO POP 54863.
OA EOP 126770. 01 SIZE 42.4 70 SHS1 PCE 275787.
200C SBSA POP 277400. NC.CSO PIS. 4t C1XS H/ BUR 105.0 ZEAH BAXR 39.18
EV CLASS 5 FLOW 10200. X DB1XHED 100.00
BN TEBP 26.70 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0. C167 B1BD 10.0 UK 10.0 PH 6.40
CCSI FACTOB 0.8347 CUT 0.3060
SEQ RO 92 0.1 NO. K1304 01 RIME CH1IT1HCCG1 BETBO Gl CSC 1BE1 0. CSO POP
01 EOP 28947. 01 SIZE 17.2 70 SBSl PCE 370657.
2000 SBSA POP U64200. HC.CSO PIS. 01 CAIS •/ BUN 131.0 CE1R BUR 53.60
EN CUSS 4 FLOH 37180. % DB1XRED 100.00
Bi TEBP 25.40 BOD 0.5 SS 20.0 PB 0. C167 H1BD 20.0 UK 10.0 PH 7.10
COST FACTOB 0.8347 CHIT 0.3060
SEQ HO 93 0.1 NO. 41305 01 H1BE COLOHBOS Gl CSC 1BZ1 3064. CSO POP 22970.
01 EOE 183335. 01 SIZE 67.5 70 SBSA PCE 238534.
200C SBSA POP 25960C. HC.C50 PIS. 151 E1XS N/ B1XH 110.0 CE1R B1XH 48.67
EN CLASS 5 FICR 6760. X DRAINED 100.00
EN TEBP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0. 0147 B1BC 10.0 UK 10.0 PH 6.50
COSI F1CTOB 0.8347 CUT 0.3060
B - 13
-------
URBANIZED AREA CATA E1SE LISTING
SEC HO 94 O.A NO. 41306 OA NAHE HACCN 6 A CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 128CC5. OA SIZE 51.3 70 SHSA PCE 226762.
200C SHSA POP 299600. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS H/ BAIN 112.0 BEAN BAIN 44.08
EH CLASS 4 FLOH 2740. X DRAINED 100.00
EN TEBP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.50
CCST FAC10H 0.6347 CIAT 0.3060
SEC MO 95 0,A NO. 41307 OA NAHE SA1ARNAE GA CSC AREA 1184. CSO POP 18210.
OA EOP 163753. OA SIZE 64'. 1 70 SHSA PCE 207987.
2000 SHSA POP 208900. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS N/ RAIN 110.0 BEAN RAIN 48.91
EN CLASS 10 FLON 0. X DRAINED 100.00
BN TEHP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.00
CC£T FACTOR 0.8347 CIAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 276 O.A NO. 91501 OA NAHE HONCLOLO HI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 442397. OA SIZE 115.0 70 SHSA PCE 630528.
200C SHSA POP 95250C. NC.CSO PTS. Ot CAIS NX RAIN 99.0 BEAN RAIN 23.96
EN CLASS 15 FLON 0. X DRAINED 100.00
BN TEBP 20.40 BOD 0.0 SS 62.3 PB 0.C HABD 37.5 AIK 32.0 PH 7.90
COST IACTOB 1.7000 CIAT 0.0
SEQ NO 27S O.A NO. 101601 OA NAHE EOISE CITI ID CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 85187. OA SIZE 29.4 70 SHSA PCE 112230.
2000 SHSA POP 146700. HC.CSO PTS. Ot CAIS H/ BAIN 91.0 HAN RAIN 11.43
EN CLASS 3 FLON 1263. X DRAINED 100.00
BN TEHP 20.10 BOD 1.5 SS 12.0 PE 0.CC67 HARD 35.0 AIK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.0330 CIAT C.5300
SIQ NO 121 O.A NO. 51701 OA HAHE AORCRA IL CSC AREA 7170. CSO POP 148200.
OA EOP 232917. OA SIZE 76.6 70 SHSA PCI 6977611.
200C SHSA POP B93460C. NC.CSO PTS. 33t CAIS N/ BAIN 120.0 BEAN RAIN 33.80
EN CLASS 3 FLON 808. X DRAINED 100.00
BN TERP 23.8C BOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
CCST FACTOB 1.1009 CIAI 0.2350
SEQ 10 122 O.A NO. 51702 OA NAHE BLOOHIN61CI IL CSC ABEA 3010. CSO POP 41200.
OA IOP 69392. OA SIZE 19.9 70 SHSA PCE 104369.
200C SHSA POP 144200. NC.CSO PTS. lOt CAIS N/ BAIN 109.0 BEAN BAXN 36.20
BN CLASS 2 FLCN * 42. X DRAINED 90.00
BN TEHP 23.80 BOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PC 0.0167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
CCST FACTOR 1.2209 CIAT 0.2350
B - 14
-------
URBANIZED AREA CiTA EASE LISTING
SEQ NO 123 O.A NO. 51703 OA NAHE CHABPAIGB IL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0,
OA EOf 1C0417. OA SIZE 18.3 70 SHSA PCE 163281.
2000 SHSA POP 21070C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS «/ RAIN 112.0 EEAN RAIN 37.00
EH CLASS 1 FLOH 0. X DRAINED 20.00 •
BN TEHP 23.80 BCD 3.0 SS 140.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 200.0 AIK 175.0 PH 8.00
COST FACTOR 1.2209 CHAT 0.2350
SEQ NO 124 O.A NO. 51704 OA NAHE CHICAGO IL CSC AREA 231608. CSO POP 4508725,
0» EOP 6185152. OA SIZE 978.1 70 SHSA PCE 6977611.
200C SHSA POP 893460C. NC.CSO PIS. 680« CAIS V/ BAIN 120. C BEAN BAIN 33.49
*N CL1SS 6 FLOH 568. * DRAINED 100.OC
EN TEHP 22.70 BOD 3.0 SS 7.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 200.0 AIK 150.0 PH 8.00
COST FACTOR 1.2209 CKAX 0.2350
SEQ NO 125 O.A NO. 51705 OA NAHE DAVENfOBT HETRO IL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
0* EOP 139824. OA SIZE 35.3 70 SHSA PCE 362638.
'000 SHSA POP 39690C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS N/ BAIN 110.0 BEAN RAIN 33.88
EN CLASS 5 FLOS 50000. * DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 23.80 BOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 200.0 ALK 200.0 PH 8.00
COST FACTOR 0.8336 CBA1 0.2350
SEQ NO 126 O.A MO. 51706 OA MAHE DECATOR IL CSC AREA 5800. CSO POP 40000.
OA EOE 99693. OA SIZE 37.2 70 SHSA PCE 125010.
2000 SHSA POP 194800. NC.CSO PTS. 61 CAIS N/ RAIN 112.0 EEAN RAIN 37.13
*» CLASS 1 FLOW 331. {DRAINED 100.OC
EN TEHP 24.30 BOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 200.0 AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
COST FACTOR 1.1009 C»AI 0.2350
SEQ NO 127 O.A NO. 51707 OA NAHE DOBOQOE HETRO IL CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
0* EOP 2408. OA SIZE 1.9 70 SHSA PCE 90609.
2000 SHSA POP 106500. NC.CSO PTS. 0« CAIS H/ RAIN 109.0 BEAN RAIN 35.71
EH CLASS 5 FLOW 50000. I DRAIRED 100.00
BN TEHP 22.70 BOD 3,0 SS 140.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 200.0 ALK 200.0 PH 7.80
COST FACTOR 0.8336 CHAT 0.2350
SEQ NO 128 O.A MO. 51708 01 NAHE JOLIET IL CSC AREA 11076. CSO POP 94337.
°» fOP 155500. OA SIZE 55.0 70 SHSA PCE 6977611..
200C SHSA POP 893460C. MC.CSO PTS. 37* CAIS «/ BAIN 120.0 BEAN RAIN 33.80
EN CLASS 3 ILOII 83. I DRAINED 100.00
E« TEHP 24.30 BOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 2CO.O ALK 175.0 PH 8.00
CCST FACTOR 1.1009 CIAI 0.2350
B - 15
-------
0&BANIZBD AREA CATA E1SE LISTING
SEQ NC 129 O.I HO. 51709 01 HAHE PEOEIA 11. CSC AREA
0* EOF 247121. Oi SIZE 106.7 70 SHSA PCE 341979.
20CC SBSA POP 44310C. NC.CSO PTS. 231 CAYS >/ BAIN 109.0 EEAN RAIN 34.84
BH CLASS 4 FLON 14427. X ORAIMED 100.OC
EH TEHP 24.30 EOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PE 0.C167 BARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 Pfl 8.00
COST FACTOR 1.2209 CIA1 0.2350
4100. CSO POP 106000.
SEQ NO 130 D.A NO. 51710 DA NAflE BOCKFCRC II CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
Ul EOP 206C64. DA SIZE 61.0 70 SflSA PCF 272063.
2000 SHSA POP 33790C. HC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS N/ RAIN 112.0 CEAN RAIN 35.62
EH CLASS 3 FLOW 8588. % DRAINED 100.OC
EH TEBP 22.70 BOD 3.0 SS' 140.0 PB O.C167 HARD 2CO.O AIX 190.0 PH 7.80
CCSI FACTOR 1.2209 CIAT 0.2350
SEQ NO 131 O.A NO. 51711 OA HARE SPRINGFIUC IL CSC AREA 12100. CSO POP
DA EOP 120794. OA SIZE 33.5 70 SHSA PCE 171020.
2000 SBSA POP 25590C. NC.CSO PTS. 71 £AZS «/ RAIN 112.0 CEAN RAIN 34.83
EN CLASS 3 FLOW 0. X DRAINED 100.00
BH TEHP 24.30 BOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
COST FACTOR 1.1009 CHAT 0.2350
75000.
SEQ NO 132 O.A NO. 51712 UA NABE ST LOUIS HETBO IL CSC AREA 11080. CSO POP
OA EOP 314476. OA SIZE 114.7 70 SHSA PCF 2410602.
2000 SHSA POP 282520C. NO.CSO PIS. 6f CAIS «/ RAIN 104.0 EEAN RAIN 36.46
EH CLASS 5 FLCH 176800. X DRAINED 100.00
Rti TEBP 24.90 EOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PE 0. C167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 180.0 PH 8.00
COST EACTOR 1.1009 CIAI 0.2350
88322.
SEQ NO 299 O.A NO. 51713 OA NAHE ALTCN II CSC AREA
OA EOP S5998. OA SIZE 41.5 70 SHSA PCE 2410602.
2000 SBSA POP 282520G. NC.CSO PTS. 2« CAIS «/ RAIN 104.0 EEAN RAIN 41.22
EH CLASS 4 FLOW 97560. X DRAINED 100.00
EN TEHP 23.80 BOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
CCST EACTOR 1.1009 CNAT 0.2350
1600. CSO POP
39700.
SEQ NO 133 O.A NO. 51801 OA NAHE ANDERSON IN CSC AREA
OA EOP 8C704. DA SIZE 43.4 70 SRSA PCE 138522.
2000 SNSA POP 15670C. NC.CSO PTS. 46f CATS •/ RAIN 124.0 EEAN RAIN 36.71
EH CLASS 5 ILOH 365. X DRAINED 100.00
BH TEHP 23.70 BOD 2.8 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 2CO.O ALK 120.0 PH 8.00
CCST FACTOR 1.1411 CIAI C.3860
7840. CSO POP
23375.
B - 16
-------
OB8ANIZED AREA CATA EASE LISTING
SIC HO 13H o.A NO. 51802 OA NAHE CHICAB6C HZTBO IN CSC AREA 73935. CSO POP U69363.
-n« P 529122. OA SIZE 299.1 70 SHSA PCF 6977611.
-------
URBANIZED AREA EATA EASE LISTING
SEC NO 140 O.A NO. 51808 OA NAHE HUNCIE III CSC AREA 4800. CSO POP 54400.
OA EOF 90427. OA SIZE 24.5 70 SHSA POP 129219.
2COO SHSA POP 147800. NC.CSO PTS. 42* CAXS H/ RAIN 124.0 EEAN BAIN 39.11
EH CLASS 3 FLOH 213. % DRAINED 100.OC
EH TIHP 23.70 BOD 2.2 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 150.0 AIK 100.0 PH 8.00
COST FACTOR 1.1411 CKAT 0.3860
SEQ NO 141 D.A NO. 51809 OA NAHE SOOTH BIIC IN CSC AREA 36438. CSO POP 176768.
OA EOF 265148. OA SIZE 89.2 70 SHSA PCE 280031.
2000 SHSA POP 327900. NC.CSO PTS. 125* CAXS H/ BAIN 136.C EEAN BAIN 35.59
EH CLASS 4 FLCH 29140. * DRAINED 1GO.OC
BH TEHP 22.10 BOD 2.0 SS 88.0 PB 0.0167 HARC 2CO.O AIK 130.0 PH 7.80
COST FACTOR 1.0577 CHAT 0.2350
SEQ NC 142 O.A NO. 51810 OA NAHE TEHBA HAOTE IN CSC AREA 3405. CSO POP 10152.
OA EOP 80906. OA SIZE 31.6 70 SHSA PCE 175143.
200C SHSA POP 19870C. NC.CSO PTS. 10* CAXS H/ RAIN 124.0 BEAN RAIN 41.66
BH CLASS 3 FLOH 38622. * DRAINED 100.OC
RN TEHP 24.30 BOD 3.0 SS 100.0 PB 0.0167 BARD 2CO.O AIK 140.0 PH 8.00
COST FACTOR 1.1148 CKAT 0.3860
SEQ NO 227 O.A NO. 71901 OA NAHE CED1R RIEIES IA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 132006. OA SIZE 62.0 70 SHSA PCE 163213.
2COC SHSA POP 207500. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAXS N/ RAIN 91.0 EEAN RAIN 33.82
EH CLASS 2 FLOH 3262. * DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 23.20 BOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PC 0.0167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 7.70
COST FACTOR 0.6336 CHAT 0.2350
SEQ NO 226 O.A NO. 71902 OA NAHE DAVENPOBT IA CSC AREA 1000. CSO POP 60000.
OA EOP 126295. OA SIZE 82.9 70 SHSA PCE 362638.
200C SHSA POP 39690C. NC.CSO PTS. 101 CAXS H/ RAIN 110.0 EEAN RAIN 33.88
EH CLASS 5 FLCH 50000. * DRAINED 100.00
BH TEHP 23.80 BOD 3.0 SS 120.0 PB O.C167 HABD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
CCST FACTOR 0.8336 CNAT 0.2350
SEQ NO 229 O.A NO. 71903 OA HAHE DBS HOIIIS IA CSC AREA 2793. CSO POP 100000.
OA EOP 255624. OA SIZE 109.1 70 SHSA PCI 313562.
2000 SHSA POP 391100. NC.CSO PTS. 201 EAXS H/ BAIN 105.0 EEAN BAIN 31.06
BH CLASS 3 FLOH 4645. % DRAINED 100.00
BN TEHP 23.80 BCD 3.0 SS 140.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 7.70
CCST FACTOR 0.6371 CBAT 0.2350
B - 18
-------
URBANIZED AREA CATA EASE LISTING
NO 230 O.A NO. 71904 OA NAME DOBOQUB IA CSC AEEA 0. CSO POP
EOP 62143. OA SIZE 17.2 70 SBSA PCI 90609..
SHSA POP 10650C. NC.CSO PIS. 0« EAXS «/ BAIH 109.0 BEAN RAXH 35.71
»S C1ASS 5 FLOW 50000. X DEAIHED 100.OC
B" TIBP 23.20 BOD 3.0 SS 120.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 2CO.O AIR 200.0 PH 7.70
CCST FACTOR 0.8336 CHAI 0.2350
"0 231 O.A NO. 71905 OA NAHE OMAHA HZTEO IA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
°* 64E47. OA SIZE 41.0 70 SHSA PCE 542646.
SHSA POP 69410C. NC.CSO PIS. 01 CAIS V/ RAIN 94.0 EEAN RAIN 25.90
*• CLASS 6 FLOW 30670. X DRAINED 100.OC
B» TIflp 23.80 BOD 2.0 SS 200.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
COST IACIOH 0.8371 CHAT 0.2570
SHQ NO 232 O.A NO. 71906 OA NAHE SIOOX CITX IA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA fop 87157. OA SIZE 56.0 70 SHSA PCE 116189.
2000 SHSA POP 10960C. NC.CSO PTS. 21 CAYS R/ RAIN 98.0 BEAR RAIN 24.77
*« CLASS 4 FLOV 33126. X DRAINED 100.OC
*« TEBP 23.20 BOD 2.5 SS 200.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
CCSI FACTOR 0.8371 CBAI 0.2570
NO 233 O.A NO. 71907 OA NAHE HATIBLOC IA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
IOE 112881. UA SIZE 69.U 70 SHSA PCE 132196.
SHSA POP 14260C. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS N/ RAIN 91.0 CEAN RAIN 31.48
*« CLASS 2 FLCK 2714. X DRAINED 100.00
B» TEHP 23.20 BOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 7.70
COSl IACJOH 0.8371 CHAS 0.2350
NO 234 O.A NO. 72001 OA KAHE KANSAS CI1X HETRO KS CSC AREA 22600. CSO POP 259000
°* EOP 350208. OA SIZE 85.9 70 SHSA PCE 1273926.
-------
OBBAMIZED ABEA CATA EASE LISTING
SIC DC 236 0.1 NO. 72003 OA NAHE TOPEKA KS CSC AREA 5500. CSO POP 120000.
UA fOP 122106. 01 SIZE 52.6 70 SHSA PCI 180169.
200C SHSA POP 214100. HC.CSO PIS. 121 CAXS H/ BAIN 95.0 BEAN BAIN 33.28
EN CLASS U JLON 5407. % DBAINED 100.OC
EN TEHP 24.90 BOD 1.0 SS 240.0 Pfi 0.0167 HABD 1CO.O AIR 90.0 PH 7.80
COST 1ACTOB 1.0000 CIAT 0.2570
SEQ MO 237 O.A MO. 72004 OA NAME HICHITA RS CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP ,3023JU. OA SIZE 105.1 70 SHSA PCI 389352.
2000 SHSA POP 36900C. MC.CSO PTS. Of CAXS H/ BAIN 76.C HEAH BAIN 30.70
EH CLASS 4 FLCH 1C92. ft OBAINEO 100.00
BH TEHP 25.UO BOD 1.0 SS 300.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 45.0 AIR 55.0 PH 7.50
COST EACTOB 1.0000 CIAI 0.0820
SEQ NO 96 O.A MO. 42101 OA BABE CINCINNATI HETBO KT CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 196S78. OA SIZE 59.9 70 SHSA PCI 1387207.
200C SHSA POP 173800C. NC.CSO PTS. Ot CAXS «/ BAIN 134.C EEAM BAIN 39.34
IV CLASS 5 ILOU 113600. I DBAIMED 1CO.OC
EN TEHP 23.60 BOD 2.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 130.0 AIK 50.0 PH 7.90
CCS1 IACTOB 1.0415 CIAT C.3860
SEQ NO 97 O.A MO. 42102 OA NAME UONHNGICM HETBO KX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
OA IOP S3316. OA SIZE 22.6 70 SHSA PCI 286935.
200C SHSA POP 26270C. MC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS I/ BAIN 136.C CEAN BAIN 41.79
EM CLASS 5 ILOU 174180. ft DBAIMED 100.00
fill TEHP 23.8C BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0. C167 HABD 60.0 AIK 10.0 PH 7.30
COST IACTOB 1.0415 CIAT C.3860
SEQ NO 98 O.A MO. 42103 OA MAHE IEXIMGTCN KX CSC IBEA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 159538. OA SIZE 39.9 70 SHSA PCI 266701.
200C SHSA POP 30050C. MC.CSO PTS. 0« CAXS «/ BAIM 133.C CEAN BAIN 43.71
EH CLASS 2 ILCN 32. % DBAINED 100.30
BH TEHP 25.40 BOD 1.5 SS 80.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 125.0 AIK 50.0 PH 7.90
COST IACTOB 1.0415 CIAT C.3860
SEQ MO 99 O.A MO. 42104 OA MAKE IOOISVI11E KX CSC ABEA 28800. CSO POP 457450.
OA fOP 657908. OA SIZE 183.6 70 SHSA PCI 667330.
2000 SHSA POP 129710C. MC.CSO PTS. 13f CAXS H/ BAIM 122.C MAI BAIN 41.47
BH CLASS 5 FLOH 113600. % DBAINED 100.00
BH TEHP 25.40 BOD 3.0 SS 60.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 150.0 AIK 100.0 PH 8.00
COST EACTOB 1.0415 CIAT 0.3860
B - 20
-------
URBANIZED AREA DATA EASE LISTING
NO IOC O.A NO. 42105 OA NAHE OHENSBOBC KX CSC AREA 5098. CSO POP 33600.
OA toe 53I33. UA SIZE 11.9 70 SHSA PCE 79486.
200C SBSA POP 112300. NC.CSO PTS. 31 IAXS N/ RAIN 115.0 CEAN RAIN 44.29
B» CLASS 5 FLOW 113600. % DRAINED 100.30
Bi TEBP 26.70 EOD 3.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 175.0 ALK 125.0 PH 8.00
CCSI FACTOR 1.1009 CBAT 0.3860
SEQ NO 302 O.A NO. 42106 UA NAHE CLAEKSVIILE RETRO KI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 13616. DA SIZE 6.2 70 SHSA PCE 118945.
2000 SBSA POP 26000C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CATS W/ RAIN 120.0 EEAN RAIN 47.46
*« CLASS 4 FLOW 19COO. * DEAINED 100.00
BW TEBP 26.00 BOD 2.5 SS 72.0 PB 0.0117 HARD 1CO.O ALK 200.0 PH 8.00
CCSI FACTOR 1.0415 CIAI 0.4130
MO 189 U.A NO. 62201 UA NAHE BATCN HCDGE LA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0
™*f°* 249463. OA SIZE 84.6 70 SHSA PCE 375628.
2000 SBSA POP 4Q2900. NC.CSO PTS. 0« CAIS W/ RAIN 106.0 BEAN RAIN 59.13
BW CLASS 5 FLOW 582500. > DRAINED 100.90
IK TEBP 27.80 EOD 1.0 SS 28.0 PB 0. OC67 HARD 10.0 ALK 20.0 PH 6.70
CCSI FACTOR 0.9256 CSAT 0.3270
SEQ NO 19C O.A NO. 62202 UA NAHE LAFAXETTI LA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0
U* EOP 78544. OA SIZE 24.9 70 SHSA PCE 111643.
'000 SBSA POP 105400. NC.CSO PTS. Off CAXS W/ RAIN 107.0 BEAN RAIN 59.13
*» CLASS 6 FLOW 0. * DBAINED 100.00
BW TEHP 27.80 BOD 1.0 SS 28.0 PB 0.OC67 HARD 10.0 ALK 20.0 PH 6.70
CCSI FACTOR 0.9256 CBAT 0.3270
NO 191 D.A NO. 62203 OA NAHE LAKE CHAELIS LA CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
AA* 88260. OA SIZE 33.5 70 SHSA PCE 145415.
2000 SHSA POP 15680C. NC.CSO PTS. Oi CAIS H/ BAIN 107.0 HAN RAIN 57.82
*H CLASS 3 FLCW 0. I DRAINED 100.00 . ~
*« TEHP 28.80 BOD 1.0 SS 32.0 PB 0.C117 HARD 18.0 ALK 25.0 PH 7.00
COST FACTOR 0.9256 CSAI 0.1480
NO 192 O.A NO. 62204 UA NAHE HOHBOB LA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
01 EOP 90567. OA SIZE 40.1 70 SBSA PCE 115387.
200C SHSA POP 146100. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS H/ BAIN 90.0 KAN RAIN 51.29
ED CLASS 4 FLOR 18220. % DRAINED 100.30
BK TEHP 28.20 BOD 1.0 SS 48.0 PB 0.OC67 HARD 15.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.00
COST FACTOR 0.7934 CIAI 0.3300
B - 21
-------
ORBAMIZED AREA CATA EASE IISIIHG
SIQ MO 193 O.A HO. 62205 (JA HARE REH ORLI1HS IA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA IOP 961728. OA SIZE 84.0 70 SHSA PCI 1046470.
200C SBSA POP 122170C. HC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS H/ BAIR 120.0 EEAH RAIH 63.54
IB CIASS 5 ILOW 582500. % DRAIRED 50.OC
KM TIHP 28.80 EOD 1.0 SS 28.0 PB 0.CC67 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.50
COST IACTOB C.9256 CIAT 0.3270
£EQ RO 194 D.A HO. 62206 OA HARE SHBEfEPCfl IA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 234564. OA SIZE 94.3 70 SBSA PCI 333826.
2000 SHSA POP 35500C. HC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS H/ BAIH 90.0 (EAR RAIH 45.10
IR CIASS 4 FLOH 24690. % DRAIHED 100.00
BR TIBP 28.20 BOD 1.0 SS 60.0 PB 0.0117 HARD 18.0 AIK 50.0 PH 7.40
CCS1 EACTOR 0.7934 CIA'I C.3300
SIQ RO 304 O.A RC. 62207 OA RARE ALEXARDEIA IA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA IOP 77609. OA SIZE 37.1 70 SRSA PCI 131749.
200C SRSA POP 13800C. HC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS H/ RAIR 106.C (EAR RAIH 63.28
IB CIASS 4 FLCB 31070. I DRAIRED 100.00
RR TIBP 27.7C BOD 1.0 SS 40.0 PB 0.CC67 HABD 15.0 AIK 35.0 PH 7.00
COST IACTOR 0.9256 CBAT C.3300
SEfi MO 12 O.A RO. 12301 DA NAHE LENISTOI-AdBORH HE CSC AREA 4500. CSO POP 51300.
01 IOP 65212. DA SIZE 67.9 70 SHSA POF 91297.
2COO SHSA POP 89300. RC.CSO PTS. 31* CAIS •/ RAIR 125.C (EAR RAIR 43.58
IB CIASS 4 IIOM 6135. X DRAIHED 100.OC
RH TEHP 20.40 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.30
CCST FACTOR 1.2226 CIAI 0.5650
SIC BO 13 B.A BO. 12302 OA BARE PORTLAHC HI CSC AREA 9678. CSO POP 85200.
OA lOf 1C6599. OA SIZE 55.7 70 SHSA PCE 192528.
200C SBSA POP 225000. BC.CSO PTS. 67* CAIS H/ RAZB 125.C EEAH RAIH 42.85
fR CIASS 15 PIOR 0. ft DRAIHED 1CO.OC
ER TIHP 20.40 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PR 6.30
COST IACTOR 1.2226 CIAT 0.5650
SEQ RO 46 O.A HO. 32401 OA HARE BAITIHOEI HD CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 1579780. OA SIZE 309.6 70 SHSA PCE 2071016.
2000 SHSA POP 2488000. HC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS R/ BAIR 112.0 EEAH RAIH 44.21
BR CIASS 11 7ICH 0. X DRAIHED 100.OC
BH TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.50
COST IACTOR 1.0083 CHAT 0.3910
B - 22
-------
ORGANIZED AREA UTA EASE LISIXHG
OA inn 47 °«* "°- 32U02 °* B1HE BASHIBGICN EC HTK HE CSC AREA 0. CSO POP n
SOfln ! 10C9138. DA SIZE 248.0 70 SBSA PCI 291011U .
SB r? SA Pop 518960C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CATS »/ RAIN 111.0 CEAN RAIM 40.78
" CL1S* 12 HOB 11190. I DRAINED 100.00
23.6C BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.50
FACTOR 1.0033 CIAI 0.3910
Ol°r«S U "•* *°. 12501 OA MAHE BOSTON HA CSC AREA 28000. CSO POP 1005200
SOOn ! 2652S74. OA SIZE 664..4 70 SHSi PCI 3848593.
wuu SHSA Pop 4995500. NC.CSO PTS. 1001 CAXS N/ BAIN 128.0 (EAN BAIM 42.77
" CUss 11 «,„„ 37U j, DBAIH1D KO.OC
21.00 BCD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
FACTOR 1.1349 CIAT 0.5650
_IQ MO 15 0 12502 OA NAHE BBCCKTOK BA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
• IK t« •» *•*•• VI V « • * a? W * WH KWHAil MW^n**«V M ••
2flon ! 1<*8e<(4. OA SIZE 52.5 70 SHSA PCI 3848593.
KB r * P0e "995500. NC.CSO PTS. 0» CATS H/ BAIM 135.0 CEAN RAIN 40.96
BB ». S 1 FLC« 0. I DRAINED 100.00
ere? 2l'°0 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
*•*•-» FACIOB 1.1349 CIAT 0.5650
UQcnS U °'* "°- 12503 Oi *AME fALl EI?IB H* CSC ABEA 3840. CSO POP 92600
20on°! 123491. OA SIZE 30.5 70 SHSA PCF 444301. *«00.
KB _.BS4 Pop 494700. NC.CSO PTS. 19* CATS H/ BAIH 123.C CEAN RAIN 45.28
•• CIASS 11 FtO» 0. * DRAINED 100.00
CrcJr BP 21-00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 BABC 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
Vfc*l FACTOR 1.1349 CIAT 0.5650
OlQSn2 17 °'A H0- 1250* oi «'»»E FHCHBOBG HA CSC ABEA 1182. CSO POP 41800
200o P 78053..OA SIZE 60.9 70 SBSA PCS 637037. * «M800.
KB rfMS* POP 81460C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS I/ BAIN 129.C BEAM RAIH 45.74
SB S. SS 3 ILOB 127- * DRAINED 100.OC
rne- BP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
«-«SI FACTOR 1.0919 CIAT 0.5650
OA°t£» 18 O.A NO. 12505 OA NAHE LAREENCE HA CSC AREA 9000. CSO POP 12*900
SOnn 182438. OA SIZE 72.0 70 SHSA POf 3848593. i«-»uo.
j;"° SHSA POP 499550C. MC.CSO PIS. 18* CAIS MX RAIN 128.0 CEAN RAIM 40.96
fit! SIASS " tiov 7432. * DRAINED 1CO.OC
r"..lBP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARE 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
FACTOR 1.1349 CIAI 0.5650
B - 23
-------
OBBANIZBD AREA tATA EASE LISTING
SEC NO 19 O.I NO. 12506 OA NAHE IOHELL HI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOE 182721. OA SIZE 62.1 70 SHSA PCE 3848593.
2000 SBSA POP 4995500. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAYS H/ RAIN 128.C HEAN RAIN 43.34
EH CLASS 2 -FLOH 613. ft DRAINED 100.OC
EN TEMP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.1055 CHAT 0.5650
SEQ NO 20 O.A NO. 12507 OA NAHE HEH BEDFCtC HA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
01 EOE 1336C7. OA SIZE 33.7 70 SHSA PCE 444301.
2COO SHSA POP 49470C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAYS »/ RAIN 123.0 CEAN RAIN 41.05
f« CLASS 11 FLOH 0. ft DRAINED ICO.vK
EH TEBP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.20
CO£T FACTOR 1.1349 CKAT 0.5650
SEQ NO 21 O.A NO. 12508 OA NAME PITTSFIIIC HI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 62872. OA SIZE 43.6 70 SHSA PCE 149402.
2COC SHSA POP 194300. DC.CSO PTS. 0* [AYS K/ RAIN 152.0 BEAN RAIN 44.42
EH CLASS 3 FLOW 114. ft DRAINED 50.OC
EH TEHP 21.00 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0. C167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
CCSI FACTOR 1.0919 CHAT 0.5650
SEQ NO 22 O.A NO. 12509 OA NAHE PROVIDENCE HETRO HA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA ICE 65S74. OA SIZE 43.9 70 SHSA PCE 855495.
2000 SHSA POP 94550C. NC.CSO PTS. 0» CAYS H/ RAIN 123.C EEAN RAIN 39.63
FH CLASS 4 FLCN 40. ft DRAINED 100.OC
ES TEBP 21.00 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARE 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
CC£T FACTOR 1.1209 CKAT 0.5650
SEQ NO 23 O.A NO. 12510 OA NAHE SPRINGFIELC HA CSC AREA 15037. CSO POP 277309.
OA EOP 456125. OA SIZE 211.1 70 SHSA PCE 583031.
2000 SHSA POP 66740C. NC.CSO PTS. 841 IAIS H/ RAIN 128.C CEAN RAIN 45.11
EH CLASS 4 FLOH 16230. ft DRAINED 100.OC
RH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB O.C167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
CC£T FACTOR 1.0919 CIAT 0.5650
SEC NO 24 O.A NO. 12511 OA NAHE HORCESTEE HA CSC AREA 3240. CSO POP 1C
OA EOE 247416. OA SIZE 84.4 70 SBSA PCE 637037.
200C SHSA POP 81460C. NC.CSO PTS. 231 CAIS H/ RAIN 129.0 EEAN RAIN 1*5.41
EH CLASS 3 FLOH 53. ft DRAINED 50.OC
EH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
CO£T FACTOR 1.1055 CKAT 0.5650
B - 24
-------
URBANIZED ABE* CATA EASE LISTING
n!C "° 143 °'* M0- 52601 OA NAME ANN ABBCB HI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
2onn ! 178«05. OA SIZE 45.0 70 SHSA PCE 2U3103.
KB ,- POP 36300C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS H/ BAIN 130.0 CEAN BAIN 30.67
*" CtASS 4 ILOS 1)52. X DBAIKED 100.00
cr,*l f 22.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 80.0 A1K 90.0 PH 7.50
«-CSl IACTOB 1.0415 CHAT 0-4970
NO 144 O.A NO. 52602 DA -NAHE BAY CITY HI CSC AREA 2880. CSO POP 25000.
200fl e 78097. OA SIZE 26.2 70 SHSA PCE 117339.
KB - * POP 1*2000. NC.CSO PTS. 30t EAXS K/ BAIN 129.C CEAN BAIN 26.73
RU »« S 3 FLOM 18457. X DRAINED 1CO.OC
rn«2 HP 20.40 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 70.0 AIK 75.0 PH 7.20
<-«SI fACTOR 1.0577 C«AT C.3500
DiQeS° 1tt5 °«* M0- 52603 OA NAHE DETBOIT HI CSC AREA 195581. CSO POP 1916990
20nr * 397C583. OA SIZE 872.0 70 SHSA PCE 4435051. "'
««"C SHSA POP 5322600. NC.CSO PTS. 2201 EAJS H/ RAIN 130.0 CEAN RAIN 30.95
*" CLASS 4 flOH 190800. X DRAINED 100.00
r*.» P 21-°C BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 70.0 AIK 60.0 PH 7.20
JACIOB 1.0415 CBAI 0.4970
01- *° 1*6 O.A »0. 52604 UA NAHE HINT SI CSC AREA 1035. CSO POP 12400
20ftn 330128. OA SIZE 96.4 70 SHSA PCE 508664.
Ru * HS* POP 76700C. HC.CSO PTS. 1* EAJS H/ BAIN 129.0 BEAN RAIN 30.14
KU 5L»SS 3 IiC« 1131. X DRAINED 100,00
cnc. BP 22-10 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HABC 70.0 AIK 60.0 PH 7.20
'•o-T IACTOR 1.0415 C»AT 0.3500
atO. NO 1U7 o.A NO. £2605 OA NAHE GBAND R1EIDS HI CSC AREA 4968. CSO POP 66960
2Cnn°P 3*2703. OA SIZE 146.2 70 SHSA PCE 539225. oe*ea,
«vuo SHSA POP 65380C. NC.CSO PTS. 14» EAXS S/ BAIN 137.0 EEAN RAIN 31.19
t! SL*SS 3 fLOW 5694. X DRAINED 100.OC
TEBP 21.00 BOD 1.5 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 80.0 AIK 100.0 PH 7.30
JAC10H 1.0577 CIAT C.3500
n?Q,Bo 1*8 0-» NO. 52606 OA NAHE JACKSCN HI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
2flft«°F 78572. OA SIZE 36.1 70 SHSA PCE 143274.
<«00 SHSA POP 187400. HC.CSO PTS. Of CATS «/ BAIN 137.C CEAN RAIN 31.15
•J! 5IASS 3 HOB 120. X DRAINED 90.00
TEHP 22.10 BOD 1.5 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 90.0 AIK 0.0 PH 7.50
*ACTOB 1.0415 CKAa 0.3500
B - 25
-------
ORBAMIZED ABEI CATA EASE LISTING
SIC MO 149 O.A NO.. 52607 OA HAHE KALAHAZCC HI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 152083. OA SIZE 73.3 70 SHSA PCE 257723.
2000 SHSA POP 293700. MC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS i/ BAIN 137.C KAN RAIN 34.48
EH CLASS 1 FLOH 56. X DBAIMED 100.00
BH TEBP 20.40 BOD 1.5 SS 40.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 90.0 ALK 120.0 PH 7.50
CCSI FACTOR 1.0577 CIAI C.3500
SIQ MO 150 O.A MO. 52608 OA NAHE LANSING HI CSC AREA 8840. CSO POP 85000.
OA EOP 229518. OA SIZE 73.4 70 SHSA PCE 424^71.
2000 SHSA POP 562100. MC.CSO PIS. 49t CAVS H/ BAIN 137.C BEAN RAIN 31.18
EH CLASS 3 ILOS 8371. X DRAINED 100.00
BH TEHP 21.00 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 70.0 AIK 75.0 PH 7.40
COST FACTOR 1.0577 CIAT C.3500
SIQ MO 151 O.A MO. 52609 OA NAME HOSKEGOR HI CSC AREA 7032. CSO POP 50112.
OA EOP 105716. OA SIZE 52.3 70 SBSA POE 175410.
2000 SHSA POP 180400. MC.CSO i . 0* CAIS H/ RAIN 140.C CEAN RAIN 30.07
EH CLASS 8 ILOH 0. X DRA1>-0 100.OC
BH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.5 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 80.0 ALK 100.0 PH 7.30
COSI FACTOR 1.0577 CIAT C.3500
SEQ NO 152 O.A NO. 52610 OA NAHE SAGINAH HI CSC AREA 12790. CSO POP 95500.
OA EOP 147552. OA SIZE 43.5 70 SHSA PCE 219743.
2000 SHSA POP 283200. RC.CSO PTS. 351 CAIS H/ BAIN 129.0 BEAN BAIN 28.04
EN CLASS 3 FLOH 2588. X DRAINED 100.00
BH TEHP 22.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 70.0 ALK 60.0 PH 7.20
CCST FACTOB 1.0415 CIAT 0.3500
SEQ NO 153 O.A NO. 52611 OA NAHE SOOTH BEID RETBO HI CSC AREA 1830. CSO POP 11100.
OA EOP 23424. OA SIZE 13.6 70 SHSA PCE 280031.
2000 SHSA POP 327900. NC.CSO PTS. 20* CATS H/ BAIN 136.C EEAN RAIN 35.59
Fl CLASS 4 FLCR 29140. X DRAINED 100.OC
BH TIHP 22.10 BCD 2.0 SS 88.0 PC 0.0167 HABD 2CO.O ALK 140.0 PH 8.00
COST IACTOB 1.0415 CBAX 0.3500
SEQ NO 154 O.A NO. 52612 OA NAHE TOLEDO BEIEO (II CSC AREA 930. CSO POP 2712.
OA EOP 11861. UA SIZES 6.9 70 SHSA PCE 762658.
2000 SHSA POP 90010C. MC.CSO PTS. 01 EAIS H/ BAIN 131.0 EEAM BAIN 31.84
BH CLASS 3 FLOH €42. X DRAINED 100.00
BH TEBP 22.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 BABD 80.0 ALK 90.0 PH 7.50
COSI FACTOB 1.0415 CIAT 0.4970
B - 26
-------
ORBANXZED ABM CATA EASE HSltWC
SIQ DO 308 O.A MO. 52613 01 NAME BAT1LI CBEEK (IX CSC AREA 0. CSO FOP 0.
OA (OF 77922. Ot SIZE 31.1 70 StSA PCE 180129.
200C SBSA POP 187400. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAXS H/ RAIN 137.C BUM RAIN 33.09
Ei CLASS 2 FLOW €50. X DRAINED 100.00
*i TIHP 22.10 BOD 1.5 SS 40.0 PB O.C167 HARD «5.0 AIK 100.0 PH 7.50
CCST IACIOR 1.0577 CBAT 0.3500
SRQ MO 155 0.A MO. 52701 UA VANE DULOTH RN CSC ABEA 2597. CSO POP 313CO.
01 IOC 1C5C39. DA SIZE 71.1 70 SHSA PCE 265350.
2000 SMSA POP 249300. MC.CSO PIS. Of CA1S H/ BAIR 135. C CEAI RAXN 21.97
BH CLASS 8 FLOW 0. * DfiAIMED 100.00
KV lilt 19.30 BOD 2.5 SS 40.0 PE 0.0167 BABE 1CO.O AIK 90.0 PH 7.50
CCS1 JACIOR 1.2468 CIAI 0.0720
SEQ MO 156 0. A MO. 52702 UA MAHE 1ARGO HIIRC HM CSC ASEA 0. CSO POP 0.
01 EOP 32026. OA SIZE 8.8 70 SflSA PCF 120261.
2000 SflSi POP 128000. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAXS »/ BAIN 106.0 CEAM BAIM 18.73
EN CLASS 5 FLOW 5«7. I DRAINED 100. OC
EK TEBP 19.90 BOD 3.0 SS 160.0 PE 0. C167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
COS! FACIOB 1.0415 CVAI 0.0720
SEQ MO 157 O.A MO. 12703 OA MAHE LACBOSSI BIT 50 HM CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
01 EOP 3142. OA SIZE 2.3 70 SRSA PCS 80K68.
200C SMSA POP 10000C. MC.CSO PIS. 0* UTS MX BAZM 112.0 EEAN RAIM 28.92
EN ClASS 4 FLOI 25(90. I DRAINED 100.50
Hi IEHP 22.10 £00 3.0 SS 100.0 PE 0. C'67 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
CCS1 FAC10B 1.0415 CKAT 0.2350
NO 158 O.A NO. 52704 UA MAHE H2RBEAPCZIS «R CSC AREA 22437. CSO POP 204913.
OA EOP 1704422. OA SIZE 721.4 70 SMSA PCE 1965391.
2000 SHSA POP 2760000. MC.CSO PTS. 87« CAIS «/ BAIM 113.0 CEAM BAIN 24.78
EH CLASS 4 PLOH 10530. I DRAINED 100.00
Bi TBHP 21. 6C BOD 3.0 SS 80.0 PC 0.0167 HABE 2CO.O ALK 200.0 PH 8.00
CC55 FAC10B 1.0415 CIAT 0.2350
SEQ MO 15S O.A MO. 52705 OA NANE BOCHESTIE HN CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
GA EOP 56604. OA SIZE 15.2 70 SMSA PCE 961516.
200C SMSA POP 137100. MC.CSO PTS. 01 CATS i/ BAIM 115.0 CEAN RAIN 28.46
KM ClASS 3 FLCH 150. I DRAINED 100.30
KB TEHP 22.10 BOD 3.0 SS 100.0 PE 0. C1C7 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
COST ZACTOR 1.0415 CHAT 0.2350
B - 27
-------
OBBANIZBD ABEA IA1A EASE LIS1ING
SEQ MO 316 O.A MO. 52706 OA HAHE ST CLOU I BN CSC AREA 365. CSO POP 4000.
OA EOP 52059. OA SIZE 18.8 70 SHSA PCE 134585.
2COC SBSA POP 185000. MC.CSO PIS. 5* IAIS «/ BAIN 108.0 CEAN RAIN 25.92
EH CLASS 4 FLOW 17000. X DRAINED 100.OC
EN TEHP 20.40 BOD 3.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 150.0 A1K 150.0 PH 8.00
CCS! fACTOfi 1.04.15 CRAI 0.2350
SEQ NO 101 O.A NO. 42801 OA NAHB BILCXI GOLFPORT BS CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOF 121601. OA SIZE 63.7 70 SHSA PCE 160070.
2000 SHSA POP 14610C. NC.CSO PIS. 01 CAIS V/ BAIN 123.C EEAN RAIN 57.59
EB CLASS 15 FLOW 0. % DRAINED 100.OC
EN 1EBP 26.70 BOD 1.0 SS ' 20.0 PE O.OC67 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.40
COS1 IAC10R 1.1009 CEAI 0.3270
SEQ NO 102 O.A MO. 42802 DA MAHE JACKSON ES CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 190060. OA SIZE 72.2 70 SHSA PCE 258906.
200C SHSA POP 386300. NC.CSO PIS. 0* CAIS «/ BAIN 107.0 CEAN BAIN 50.86
EH CLASS 4 FLOH 3937. % DRAINED 100.OC
BK 3EHP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.OC67 BARD 10.0 ALK 15.0 PH 7.00
COST IACTOB 1.1009 CNAI 0.3270
SEQ NO 103 O.A NO. 02803 OA NAME HEHEHIS BEIBO BS CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOE 8931. OA SIZE 3.2 70 SBSA PCE 834103.
2000 SBSA POP 1112700. HC.CSO PIS. 01 tAIS */ RAIN 112.0 BEAN RAIN 46.81
E« CLASS 4 PLOW 470600. * DRAINED 100.30
Bti IEBP 26.1C BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0. OC67 HARD 50.0 ALK 100.0 PH 7.40
COS! IACIOR 1.1009 C«AI 0.3270
SEQ MO 238 O.A MO. 72901 OA MAHE COlOHEIl BC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 59231. UA SIZE 42.0 70 SBSA PCE 80935.
2000 SBSA POP 175500. NC.CSO PIS. Ot EAIS N/ BAIN 107.0 EEAN BAIN 36.96
EN CLASS 1 FLCH 60. * DRAINED 75.00
BS IEBP 24.90 BOD 2.0 SS 160.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 2CO.O ALK 200.0 PB 8.00
COS1 FACTOR 1.1009 CMAI 0.2570
SEQ NC 239 O.A NO. 72902 DA MAHE KANSAS CI1X HO CSC AREA 36480. CSO POP 292000,
OA EOP 751579. OA SIZE 407.3 70 SHSA PCE 1273926.
200C SHSA POP 1793300. NC.CSO PIS. 10* CAIS I/ BAIN 98.0 BEAN BAIN 34.07
Ei CLASS 3 FLOB 20. % OBAINED 100.00
Ei TEBP 24.9C BOO 1.5 SS 200.0 PB 0.01€7 HABD 2CO.O ALK 100.0 PH 8.00
CCS3 IACXOB 1.0000 CNAI C.2570
B - 28
-------
OBBAMIZED AREA CAT* CASE LISTING
MO 2UC 0.A MO. 72903 OA NAHE SPRIMGFIILC 80 CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
«* IOP 121340. OA SIZE 63.1 70 SHSA POI 168053.
«OOC SHSA POP 222000. MC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS «/ BAZH 106.0 CEAN BAZM 41.08
B» CLASS a FLOi 215. I DHAINED 80.00
BM TIHP 25.40 BOD 1.0 SS 200.0 PB 0.0167 HABO 75.0 AXK 100.0 PH 8.00
COS1 PACIOB 1.0000 CIAZ C.3300
MO 241 O.A MO. 72904 OA MAHE SI JOSBI6 HO CSC ABEA 5000. CSO POP 44800.
"• IOP 77223. OA SIZE 31.9 70 SHSA PCI 98828.
2COC SHSA POP 83900. MC.CSO PTS. 1* CAIS «/ BAIM 95.C CEAN BAIM 34.18
CD CLASS 5 FLOR 38S10. X DBAINED 100.00
BI TEHP 24.90 BOO 1.5 SS 200.0 FB 0.0167 HABD 200.0 ALK 100.0 PH 8.00
COST IACTOB i.oooo cm 0.3270
MO 242 O.A MO. 72905 OA MAHE ST LOOIS HO CSC ABEA U5790. CSO POP 793000.
!>• IOP 1568467. OA SIZE 349.9 70 SHSA PCI 2410602.
200C SHSA POP 2825200. MC.CSO PTS. 601 CAIS «/ BAIM 104.C CEAN BAIM 36.46
»« CLASS 6 PLOW 174500. X DBAZNED 100.00
Bit TEHP 25.40 BOD 3.0 SS 140.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 200.0 ALR 190.0 PH 8.00
COST IACIOB 1.1009 CIAT 0.3270
NO 250 O.A MO. 83001 OA NAHE BILLINGS BI CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
01 top 71197. OA SIZE 26.9 70 SHSA PCI 87367.
2<>OC SHSA POP 102000. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS H/ BAIN 93.0 CEAN BAZM 13.23
BB CLASS 2 FLOR 10653. X DBAIMED 100.00
R* TEHP 18.20 BOD 1.5 SS 400.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 200.0 ALR 200.0 PH 8.00
CCS1 FACTOR 0.8843 CIAI 0.0720
MO 251 O.A MC. 8^002 OA MAHE 6BEAT FAILS HT CSC ABZA 0. CSO POP
0* IOP 70905. OA SIZE 21.8 70 SHSA PCI 81804.
2000 SHSA POP 8150C. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS N/ BAZI 99.0 CEAN BAZM 14.07
(« CLASS 5 FLOW 8040. % DBAZMED 100. OC
TIHP 18.20 BOD 2.0 SS 12.0 PB 0. C167 HABD 200.0 AIR 200.0 PH 7.50
FACTOB 0.8843 CIAI 0.0720
MO 243 O.A MO. 7^101 OA MAHE LINCOLN IB CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
°* IOP 153443. DA SIZE 52.1 70 SHSA PCI 167972.
2000 SHSA POP 22070C. MC.CSO PTS. Ot CAIS «/ BAZM 93.0 CEAI BAZR 25.73
CM CLASS 1 FLQi 198. X DBAIMED 100.00
BN TEHP 24.90 BOD 1.5 SS 240.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 200.0 ALR 100.0 PH 7.80
CCS1 FACIOB 0.8371 CIAI 0.0720
B - 29
-------
OBBANIZED ARE* CATA EASE LISTING
SEQ NO 244 O.A NO. 73102 OA NAME OMAHA NI CSC AREA 25201. CSO POP 191505.
OA EOP 426929. DA SIZE 110.2 70 SBSA PCE 542646.
2COO SBSA POP 694100. NC.CSO PIS. 22t CAIS H/ RAIN 94.0 BEAN RAIN 25.90
EW CLASS 6 FLOH 30670. X DRAINED 100.00
fit 1EBP 24.3C EDO 1.8 SS 240.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 150.0 PH 7.80
CCST FACTOR 0.8371 CHAT 0.0720
SEQ NO 245 O.A NO. 73103 UA NAHE SIODX CI1I 8ETBO NE CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 7920. OA SIZE 3.6 70 SBSA PCE 116189.
2000 SBSA POP 109600. NC.CSO PIS. 01 £AIS N/ RAIN 98.C BEAN RAIN 24.77
EH CLASS 4 FICH 33126. * DUilNED 100.00
BH 1 EBP 23.20 BOD 2.0 SS 240.0 P£ 0.0167 HARD 2CO.O AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
C0£l IAC10B 0.8371 CHAT 0.0720
SEQ NO 277 O.A NO. 93201 OA BABE LAS VEGAS NV CSC AREA - 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 236681. OA SIZE 121.2 70 SBSA PCE 273288.
2000 SBSA POP 481100. NC.CSO PIS. 01 CAIS NX BAIN 25.0 EEAN RAIN 4.35
EH CLASS 2 FLOH 1. X DRAINED 100.00
EH TEBP 29.30 BOD 0.5 SS 20.0 PB C. 0200 HARD 1CO.O ALK 100.0 PH 7.50
CCST FACTOR 1.3175 CIAT 0.0850
SEQ NO 278 O.A NO. 93202 UA NABE 8ENC NT CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 99687. OA SIZE 37.5 70 SBSA PCE 121068.
2000 SttSA POP 23680C. NC.CSO PIS. Of CATS «/ RAIN 47.0 EEAN RAIN 6.96
EH CLASS 2 FLOH 671. X DRAINED 100.00
EH TEBP 18.20 BOD O.S SS 8.0 PE 0.CC67 HARD 20.0 AIK 20.0 PH 7.50
CCST FACTOR 1.0855 CSAI 0.0880
SEQ NO 25 O.A NO. 13301 OA NAHE LANRENCE BITBO NH CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
UA EOP 17842. OA SIZE 12.4 70 SHSA PCE 3848593.
2000 SHSA POP 499550C. NC.CSO PIS. Of CAXS H/ BAIN 128.0 EEAN RAIN 40.96
EH CLASS 4 FLON 7432. X DRAINED 100.00
Bi TEBP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.1226 CJAT C.5650
-EQ NO 26 O.A NO. 13302 OA NAME MANCHESTER NH CSC AREA 5900. CSO POP 8U400-
i 4 EOP 95140. OA SIZE 39.1 70 SBSA PCE 223941.
,000 SHSA POP 330300. NC.CSO PIS. 401 CAXS H/ RAIN 120.C BEAN RAIN 43.20
EH CLASS 4 FLOW 5255. X DRAINED 1C0.3C
EH TEBP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 BABE 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.20
CCST FACTOR 1.1226 CIAT C.5650
B - 30
-------
OJtBANIZED AREA till EASE LISTING
SEC NC 27 O.A NO. 13303 OA NAHE NASHUA NB CSC AREA 3163. CSO POP 544QO.
DA EOE 60*61. OA SIZE 33.5 70 SHSA PCE 223941.
2000 SHSA POP 33030C. NC.CSO PTS. 91 CAXS H/ RAIN 120.C EEAN RAIN 42.13
EH CLASS 4 FLOW 5255. X DRAINED 1CO.OC
Ei TEBP 21.00 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.C167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST IACTOR 1.1226 CHAT C.5650
SEQ NO 30 O.A NO. 23401 OA NAHE ALLENTOBN HETRO VJ CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
DA EOP 25201. OA SIZE 6.9 70 SHSA POE 594382.
200C SHSA POP 624300. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS H/ EAIN 122.C CEAN RAIN 44.12
EH CLASS 2 ILOW 96. X DRAINED 100.90
EH TEBP 23.80 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARE 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.1985 CIAT 0.4620
SEQ NO 31 O.A NO. 22402 DA NAHE ATLANTIC CITY NJ CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
DA EOP 134016. DA SIZE 67.1 70 SHSA PCE 175043.
2000 SHSA POP 207400. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS •/ RAIN 112.0 BEAN RAIN 43.78
EN CLASS 15 PLOW 0. X DRAINED 100.OC
EN IEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
CCST IAC10R 1.1818 CUT 0.4620
SEQ NO 32 O.A NO. 2J403 OA NAHE NED YORK CITY HTR NJ CSC AREA 53747. CSO POP 1222129.
UA EOF 4837261. OA SIZE 2045.0 70 SHSA POE 9973716.
200C SHSA POP 14323200. NO.CSO PTS. 214f CAXS H/ RAlN 119.0 BEAN RAIN 42.38
EH CLASS 13 FLCW 40. X DRAINED 100.00
EH ZIBP 23.80 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARE 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST IACTOR 1.4322 CKAT 0.4620
,SEQ NO 33 O.A NO. 23404 OA NAHE PUIIADEIEHIA HTR NJ CSC AREA 7867. CSO POP 1517'0.
OA EOP 744045. DA SIZE 49.1 70 SHSA PCE 4824110.
200C SHSA POP 601580C. NO.CSO PTS. 561 CAXS N/ RAIN 115.0 EEAN RAIN 42.48
EH CLASS 13 FLON 11430. X DRAINED 100.00
RK TIHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.1818 CHAT 0.4620
SEQ NO 34 O.A NO. 23405 OA NAHE TRENTON NJ CSC AREA 684. CSO POP 1860.
01 EOF 242673. OA SIZE 54.8 70 SHSA PCE 304116.
2000 SHSA POP 45940C. NC.CSO PTS. 3* CAXS H/ BAIN 121. C CEAN RAIN 41.28
EH CLASS 2 FLO* 11660. X DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 BARE 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.1205 CIAT 0.4620
B - 31
-------
OfiBANIZED ABEA DATA EASE LIS11NG
SEQ MO 35 O.A HO. 22006 04 HAHE VINELANC HJ CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
01 COP 73579. at S12E 85.3 70 SBS1 PCf 121374.
2000 SHSA POP 179800. NO.CSO PIS. Of CAXS H/ RAIN 115.0 BEAM BAIN 43.74
B« CLASS 8 FLON 0. X DRAINED 100.OC
BN IE HP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0. C167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
CCSI FACIOB 1.1818 CSAI 0.4620
SEQ NO 36 O.A NO. 23407 01 NAME NIIfllBGICN HETHO NJ CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOF 21593. UA SIZE 12.7 70 SHSA PCF 499493.
200C SHSA POP 712200. HC.CSO PTS. 01 CAXS «/ FAIN 127.C (CAN BAIN 44.36
EN CLASS 1 FLOW 465. X DRAINED 100.00
£N 1EHP 23.80 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
CCSI FAC10B 1.1818 CIAI 0.4620
SEQ NO 195 O.A NO. 62501 OA NAHE ALBOQURCDE NH CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 297451. OA SIZE 114.4 70 SHSA PCE 333266.
2COC SHSA POP 46160C, NC.CSO PIS. Of CAYS «/ BAIN 58.C CEAN BAIN 8.13
EH CLASS 3 BLOB 0. X DBAINED 100.00
BH IEHP 20.10 BOD 1.0 SS 60.0 PB 0.0025 HABD 48.0 ALK 90.0 PH 7.50
COSI FACTOB 0.8843 CIAI 0.1480
SEQ NO 37 0.A MO. 23601 OA MAHE ALBANX MX CSC ABEA 15028. CSO POP 233661,
OA EOP 486525. OA SIZE 150.5 70 SHSA PCE 777977.
200C SHSA POP 94100C. HC.CSO PTS. 116f CAXS «/ BAIN 133.C BEAN BAIN 37.95
EN CLASS 13 ILCN 132SOO. X DBAINED 80.00
BN IEHP 19.90 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.50
CCSI ZACIOB 1.1985 CIAI 0.4620
SEQ NO 38 O.A NO. 23602 OA MAHE BINGHAHE10N NX CSC ABEA 7139. CSO POP 134283,
UA EOP 167224. OA SIZE 52.3 70 SHSA PCE 302672.
200C SHSA POP 340100. NC.CSO PIS. 33f CAXS N/ BAIN 133.C CEAN RAIN 36.24
GN CLASS 3 FLOW 3608. X DBAINED 100.0C
BN IEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 BABD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
COST FACIOB 1.1722 CIAI C.3910
SEQ MO 39 D.A NO. 22603 UA MAHE BOIEALO SX CSC AREA 34166. CSO POP 943488.
01 EOP 1066593. OA SIZE 213.7 70 SHSA PCE 1349211.
2000 SHSA POP 141960C. MC.CSO PIS. 161f CAIS N/ BAIN 165.C BEAM BAIN 35.65
El CLASS 5 FLOW 204000. X DBAINED 100.OC
BN IEHP 21.OC BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.80
COSI FACIOB 1.2171 CIAT 0.4970
B - 32
-------
UBB1HIZEO ABEA EATA EASE LISTING
SEQ NC 40 O.A NO. 22604 UA NAHE NEW YORK CITY NY CSC ABEA 112426. CSO POP 6670000.
OA EOP 11369S74. OA SIZE 380.1 70 SBSA PCE 9973716.
2COC SHSA POP 1432320C. NO.CSO PTS. 3661 CAYS HX BAZN 119.0 BEAN BAIN 42.37
EH CLASS 13 FLOW 40. % DBAINED 60.00
RK TIBP 23.20 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.C167 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
CC£T XACTOB 1.4322 CHAT 0.4620
SEQ NO «»1 0,A NO. 22605 OA NAHE ROCHESTIE NY CSC ABEA 9190. CSO POP 166500.
DA IOE £01361. OA SIZE 145.7 70 SHSA PCE 961516.
200C SHSA POP 141250C. NC.CSO PTS. 38« CAYS NX BAIN 153.C CEAN BAIN 31.50
EN CLASS 3 FLOW 2751. It DBAINED 67.00
BH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARC 20.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.80
COST ZACTOB 1.2171 CIA'! 0.4970
SIQ NO 42 O.A NO. 22606 UA NAHE SYRACUSE NY CSC ABEA 13600. CSO POP 317100.
OA EOP 376169. OA SIZE 96.2 70 SHSA PCE 636596.
200C SHSA POP 789700. NC.CSO PTS. 1231 CAYS V/ EAIN 167.0 BEAN BAIN 37.60
EN CLASS 8 FLOH 0. % DBAINED 60.00
El TENP 21.00 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0. C167 HABD 19.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.70
CCST IACTOB 1.2000 CJ1AT 0.4970
SEQ NO 43 0.A NO. 22607 UA NAHE OTICA BCHE NY CSC ABEA 15360. CSO POP 130930.
OA IOP 180355. OA SIZE 7J1.6 70 SHSA POE 340670.
2000 SHSA POP 35590C. NC.CSO PTS. 621 CAYS VX BAIN 167.C BEAN BAIN 39.73
EH CLASS 13 FLCIT 397. % DBAINED 100.OC
EH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 15.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
CCST FACTOB 1.1902 CIAT 0.4970
SIQ NO 293 O.A NO. 22608 OA NAHE POUGHKEIESIE NY CSC ABEA 700. CSO POP 33270.
OA EOP 102649. OA SIZE 50.7 70 SHSA PCE 222295.
20CC SHSA POP 35210C. NC.CSO PTS. 71 CAYS NX BAIN 133.C BEAN BAIN 40.21
EV CLASS 6 FLON 132900. * DRAINED 100.00
EN TEHP 20.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 FH 6.00
CCST FACTOR 1.1985 CNAI 0.4620
SEQ NO 311 O.A NO. 22609 OA NAHE ELHIBA NY CSC ABEA 4628. CSO POP 45300.
OA EOP 74039. OA SIZE 23.8 70 SHSA PCE 101537.
2000 SHSA POP 116600. NC.CSO PTS. 71 CAYS B/ BAIN 161.C BEAN BAIN 34.89
EH CLASS 4 ILOH 2505. % DBAXNED 100.OC
IV TIHP 20.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 12.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
COST IACTOB 1.2171 CIAT 0.3910
B - 33
-------
ORBANIZED AREA CATA EASE LISTING
SIQ HO 104 O.A MO. 43701 0* HABE ASHEVILLI.MC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 72451. UA SIZE 36.2 70 SHSA PCS 161059.
2000 SHSA POP 207900. NC.CSO PIS. Of CAYS H/ RAID 127.0 HAN RAIN 37.88
IN CLISS 4 fLOf) 2C89. X DRAINED 100.00
fib TIBP 23.80 BOD 0.5 SS 40.0 PB 0.0167 BARD 15.0 AIR 10.0 PR 6.90
CCS3 FACTOR 0.6281 CRAT 0.3060
SEQ MO 105 O.A NO. 42702 OA MABE CHAELOIT1 NC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOE 279550. OA SIZE 105.7 70 SBSA PCE 557785.
2000 SBSA POP 66130C. NC.CSO PIS. 01 CAYS «/ RAZM 110.C BEAM RAZM 43.38
EH CLASS 1 FLON 0. X DRAZNED 25.OC
RH TEBP 25.40 EOD 1.0 SS • 20.0 PB 0.0167 BARC 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.50
COST FACTOR 0.6261 CIAI 0.3060
SEQ NO 106 O.A NO. 45703 OA MAHE EORBAB VC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
UA IOP 1CC764. OA SIZE 43.0 70 SBSA PCI 419254.
2000 SBSA POP 338400. KC.CSO PTS. 01 CAYS H/ BAZM 113.0 CEAN RAII 42.65
EH CLASS 3 FLOtT 122. X DRAINED 50.OC
EH IEHP 23.60 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 BARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PB 6.50
COST FACTOR 0.6281 CIAT 0.3060
SEQ MC 107 O.A MO. 43704 OA MAHE FAYITVZLLE MC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 161370. OA SIZE 73.3 70 SBSA PCE 212042.
200C SBSA POP 26620C. MC.CSO PIS. 0* CAYS H/ RAZM 113.0 EEAN RAZR 46.44
RH CLASS 3 FLOW 0. % DRAINED 100.OC
EH TIBP 25.40 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
CCST FACTOR 0.6281 CIAI 0.3060
SEQ NO 108 O.A MO. 43705 OA MABE GEEINSBCfO MC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA IOE 152252. OA SIZE 61.2 70 SHSA PCE 724129.
200C SHSA POP 101640C. MC.CSO PTS. 01 CAYS H/ RAZM 117.0 BEAM RAZM 42.16
EH CLASS 1 FLOW 53. * DRAINED 40.00
EH TEBP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 40.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
COST FACTOR 0.6281 CIAI 0.3060
SEQ MO 109 O.A MO. 42706 OA MAHE HIGBPOIIT NC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
01 EOP 93547. OA SIZE 52.1 70 SBSA PCE 724129.
200C SBSA POP 1016400. MC.CSO PIS. 01 CAYS H/ RAZM 117.0 BEAM RAZM 45.69
EH CLASS 1 FLOW 0. X DRAINED 20.00
Rfi TEBP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 40.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AtK 10.0 PH 6.60
CCSI FACTOR 0.6281 CIAI 0.3060
B - 34
-------
URBANIZED ABE1 CATA BASE LISTING
SEQ HO 110 0.1 NO. 43707 01 DANE RALEIGH BC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
01 tOP 152289. DA SIZE 70.5 70 SHSA PCE 4192E4.
2000 SHSA POP 36860C. MC.CSO PTS. Of IAIS «/ RAIN 113.0 PEAN BAIM 46.28
S« CL1SS 2 FLOW 0. X DRAINED 90.00
EH TEMP 23.60 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB C.C167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.50
COST FACTOR 0.6281 CUT 0.3060
SEQ MO 111 O.A MO. 43708 OA MAHE H3LBING3CN NC CSC ABEA 10000. CSO POP 29450.
01 IOE 57645. OA SIZE 29.3 70 SHSA PCE 107219.
2000 SHSA POP 139700. NC.CSO PTS. 3* CAIS H/ BAIM 115.0 EZAN BAIN 51.29
E« CLASS 11 FLOW 0. X DRAINED 1CO.OC
EW TEHP 26.70 BOD 1.0 SS' 24.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 0.6281 CBAT 0.3060
SEQ MO 112 O.A MO. 43709 OA MAHE 02NSTON SALEB NC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
DA EOE 142584. OA SIZE 66.0 70 SHSA PCE 724129.
2000 SHSA POP 101640C. MC.CSO PTS. Of HIS «/ BAIM 117.0 BEAM RUN 45.69
fin CLASS 1 FLOW 73. X DBAIMBD 70.00
Bi TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 40.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 15.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
COST IACTOB 0.6281 OAT 0.3060
SEQ MO 291 0.1 NO. 43710 OA NAHE GASICMIA 1C CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
01 EOP 94725. OA SIZE 58.5 70 SRS1 PCP 557785.
2000 SBSA POP 187700. MC.CSO PTS. Of CAXS t/ BAIM 110.0 CEAM BAIM 47.38
Ei CLASS 2 FLOW 0. X DBAIMBD 100.00
£« TEHP 25.40 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.50
COST FACTOR 0-6281 CHAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 309 O.A MO. 43711 OA MAHE BUBIINGTCN NC CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 59891. OA SIZE 30.7 70 SBSA PCE 96502.
2000 SHSA POP 15200C. MO.CSO PTS. Of CAIS «/ BAIM 117.0 EEAH BAIN 44.95
Bf) CLASS 2 FLO* 0. % DBAIMED 100.00
BB TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.50
CCST FACTOB 0.6281 CIAI 0.3060
SFQ MC 252 O.A MO. 83801 OA MAHE FABGO HC CSC ABEA 965. CSO POP 9650.
OA EOP £3420. OA SIZE 15.3 70 SHSA PCE 120261.
2000 SHSA POP 128000. MO.CSO PTS. 4f CAIS B/ BAIM 106.0 EBAN BAIM 18.73
BH CLASS 5 FLOB £47. X DBAIMED 100.00
BB TEHP 20.40 BOD 3.0 SS 200.0 PE 0.0167 HABD 2CO.O ALK 200.0 PH 8.00
CCST FACTOB 1.0415 CIAT 0.0720
B - 35
-------
.00 **
fiV TZHP 21.00 BOD 1.USS 20.0 PB 0. C<67 HARD £0.0 ALK 20.0 PH 7.00
CCSI FACTOR 1.0744 CKAZ 0.4970
SEQ NO 164 D.A NO. £3905 OA NAHE COLCHCOS OH CSC AREA 27490. CSO POP 350000.
OA EOP 790019. OA SIZE 234.5 70 SHSA PCP 1817647.
2QOQ,«fSA POP 14754CO. NC.CSO PTS. 571 CAXS «/ RAIN 140.0 BEAN BAIN 34.36
El CLASS 3 FLOW 1269. % DRAINED 100.00
BH TEBP 23.80 BOD 2.0 SS 20.0 PB 0. C167 HARD 1CO.O ALK 20.0 PH 7.50
CCSI IACTOB 1.0415 CIAT 0.3860
SEQ NO 165 O.A NO. 53906 OA NAHE DAMON CB CSC AREA 4480. CSO POP 11470.
OA EOP 665942. OA SIZE 224.2 70 SBSA PCE 652531.
2COO SHSA POP 115270C. NC.CSO PTS. 61 CAXS •/ EAZN 122.0 BEAN BAIN 35.15
EN CLASS 6 FLOW 4748. * DBAINED 85.OC
BB TEHP 23.8C BOD 2.0 SS 40.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 1CO.O ALK 20.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.0415 CHAT 0.3860
B - 36
-------
ORBANIZED 1BEI CATA BASE LISTING
SEQ HO 166 O.A NO. 53907 UA NAHE HAHILTON OH CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 90912. OA SIZE 38.2 70 SHSA PCE 226207.
200G SHSA POP 29470C. NC.CSO PIS. 0* CAIS «/ RAIN 134.0 BEAN RAIN 39.85
EN CLASS 6 FLON 3185. X DRAINED 100.00
EN TEHP 23.80 BOD 2.5 SS 80.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 150.0 ALK 75.0 PH 8.00
COST FACTOR 1.0415 CKAT 0.3860
SEQ NO 167 O.A NO. 53908 OA NAHE HONTING1CV HETRO OH CSC ARIA 2100. CSO POP 15700.
(II EOP 29250. OA SIZE 13.8 70 SHSA PCE 286935.
200C SHSA POP 262700. NC.CSO PIS. 91 IATS H/ RAIN 136.C BEAN RAIN 41.79
EN CLASS 5 JLON 174180. X D.RAINED 100.00
RN IEHP 24.30 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 50.0 AIK 10.0 PH 7.00
COST FACTOR 1.0415 CUT C.3860
SEQ NO 168 0.A NO. 53909 OA NAHE LIHA CH CSC AREA 6470. CSO POP 47800.
UA EOP 70295. OA SIZ2 27.4 70 SHSA PCE 210074.
2COC SHSA POP 211100. HC.CSO PIS. 481 CAIS N/ RAIN 132.C BIAN RAIN 36.28
EN CLASS 2 PLOW 125. X DRAINED 100.00
BN TEHP 22.7C BOO 2.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 150.0 AIK 100.0 PH 7.80
CCST FACTOR 1.0415 CKAT 0.4970
SEQ NO 16S a.A NO. 53910 OA NAHE LOBAIN-ElIRIA OH CSC AREA 220. CSO POP 2540.
OA EOP 1922(5. OA SIZE 106.4 70 SNSA PCE 256843.
200C SHSA POP 33040C. NC.CSO PTS. 191 CAIS I/ RAIN 156.C BEAN RAIN 34.03
EN CLASS 3 FLON 319. X DRAINED 100.OC
RH TEHP 21.6C BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 50.0 AIK 20.0 PH 7.00
CC£T FACTOR 1.C774 CIAT 0.4970
SEQ HO 17C O.A NO. 52911 OA HAHE HANSFIEIE OH CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA IOP 77599. OA SIZE 40.9 70 SHSA PCE 129997.
2000 SHSA POP 164400. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS N/ RAIN 141.C BEAN RAIN 33.93
RH CLASS 3 FLOS 5. K DRAINED 100.OC
RN TEHP 22.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 50.0 ALK 20.0 PH 7.00
COST FACTOR 1.0774 CIAT 0.4970
SEQ NO 171 O.A NO. 52912 0A NAHE SPRlNGFIllt OH CSC AREA 5200. CSO POP 72280.
OA EOP 93653. OA SIZE 25.3 70 SHSA PCE 187606.
2000 SHSA POP 176500. RC.CSO PTS. 641 CAIS I/ RAIH 132.0 BEAN RAIH 38.07
EN CLASS 3 FLGV 481. X DRAINED 100.00
RN TENP 23.80 ECO 2.5 SS 80.0 PR 0.0167 HARD 150.0 AIK 75.0 PH 7.80
COST FACTOR 1.04.S CIAT 0.3860
B - 37
-------
OBBANIZED ARE! CATA EASE LISTING
SEQ NO 172 O.A NO. 52913 DA HAHE STEOBEHVILLE OH CSC AREA UOOO. CSO POP 39000.
OA EOP 46262. OA SIZE 12.3 70 SHSA PCE 166365.
2COC SHSA POP 146900. NC.CSO PTS. 15* CAXS W/ RAIN 146.0 HEAH RAIN 40.83
EN CLASS 4 FLOW 2234. ft DRAINED 100.00
BN TEBP 22.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 40.0 A1K 12.0 PH 6.90
CCST IACTOB 1.0415 CIAT 0.3660
SEC NO 173 O.A NO. £2914 OA NAHE TOLEDO CH CSC AREA 25924. CSO POP 232534.
OA EOF 475928. OA SIZE 158.6 70 SBSA PCE 762658.
200C SHSA POP 900100. NC.CSO PTS. 1251 CAXS W/ RAIN 131. C HAM RAIN 31.64
EH CLASS , 3 FLOW 4786. X DRAINED 100.OC
EW TEBP 22.10 BOD 1.5 SS- 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 65.0 ALK 75.0 PH 7.50
CCST FACTOR 1.0415 CIAT 0.4970
SEQ NO 174 O.A MO. £2915 OA NAHE WHEELING HEIBO OH CSC AREA 800. CSO POP 14039.
OA EOP 32239. OA SIZE 6.9 70 SHSA PCE 181954.
2000 SHSA POP 167900. MC.CSO PTS. 231 CAXS W/ BAIN 146. C HAM RAIN 38.95
EN CLASS 4 FLOW 69430. X DRAINED 100.00
BW TEHP 23.60 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 40.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.90
CCST FACTOR 1.0413 CIAT C.3660
SEQ MO 175 O.A HO. 52916 OA MAHE XCOHGSTCWH OH CSC AREA 12262. CSO POP 74325.
OA EOP 395E4Q. DA SIZE 126.6 70 SHSA PCE 537124.
200C SHSA POP 627500. MC.CSO PTS. 1311 CAXS N/ BAIN 166.C HAM RAIN 41.33
EW CLASS 3 FLOW 652. X DBAINED 100.00
BN TZHP 21.60 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 40.0 ALK 18.0 PH 6.90
COST FACTOR 1.0415 CIAT C.3860
SEQ NO 315 O.A NO. 52917 OA HAHE PARKERSEOBG METRO OB CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 7189. OA SIZE 3.2 70 SHSA PCE 148122.
2000 SHSA POP 220400. KC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS W/ BAIN 143.0 HAN BAIN 39.11
EH CLASS 4 FLOW 69430. X DRAINED 100.00
EN TEHP 23.80 BOD 0.5 SS 32.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 35.0 ALK 10.0 PH 7.00
COST FACTOR 1.0413 CIAI 0.3860
SEQ NO 196 O.A NO. 64001 OA NAHE FORT SHITH HETRO OK CSC ARIA 0. CSO POP 0.
01 EOP 2098. OA SIZE 2.7 70 SHSA PCE 160421.
2000 SHSA POP 21380C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAXS N/ BAIN 93.0 EEAN RAIN 42.22
EN CLASS 2 FLOW 372. X DRAINED 100.00
EN TEBP 26.60 BOD 1.0 SS 200.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 20.0 ALK 75.0 PH 6.00
CCST FACTOR 0.7934 CIAT C.3300
B - 38
-------
ORBANIZED ABET DATA EASE LISTING
SEQ NO 197 0.1 NO. 64002 OA NAHE LAHTON OK CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOF S5687. OA SIZE 44.0 70 SHSA PCE 108144.
2000 SMS* POP 108100. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS H/ RAIN 62.0 KEAN RAIN 30.16
RR CLASS 2 FLCW 0. ft DRAINED 100.00
BV TEHP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 220.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 30.0 ALK 45.0 PH 7.50
CC5T FACTOR 0.7934 CNAT 0.0820
SIQ NO 196 O.A NO. 64003 DA NAHE OKLIHOHA CITX OK CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOE 579788. OA SIZE 339.1 70 SHSA PCE 699092.
2COC SHSA POP 1028300. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAXS N/ RAIN 82.C KEAN RAIN 32.58
FH CLASS 2 FLOH 103. ft DRAINED 65.90
EH TEHP 27.10 EOD 1.0 SS1 240.0 PE 0. OUT HARD 30.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.7934 CIAT 0.0820
SIQ NO 199 O.A NO. 64004 DA NAHE TOLSA OK CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
DA EOP 371U99. o» SIZE 180.1 70 SHSA PCE 549154.
2000 SHSA POP 61670C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS »/ RAIN 90.C CEAN RAIN 37.08
EH CLASS 4 FLOH 6554. ft DRAINED 100.00 '
RN TIHP 26.60 BOD 1.0 SS 280.0 PB 0.C117 HARD 30.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.7934 CIAT 0.0820
SIQ NO 28C O.A NO. 104101 OA NAHE EOCENE CI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
01 EOP 139255. DA SIZE 55.3 70 SHSI PCE 215401.
2000 SHSA POP 272100. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS H/ RAIN 143.C EEAN EAIN 37.51
FH CLASS 5 FLOH 1711. ft DRAINED 100.OC
EH TEMP 15.40 BOD 0.5 SS 8.0 PB 0.0100 HARD 20.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.0330 CIAT C.5300
SEQ NO 281 O.A NO. 104102 DA NAHE PORTLAND CR CSC ARIA 12420. CSO POP 325351.
DA EOP 751156. OA SIZE 236.2 70 SHSA PCE 1007130.
200C SHSA POP 1391300. NC.CSO PTS. 73* CAXS H/ BAIN 149.0 HEAR RAIN 39.91
ER CLASS 5 FLOH 38420. X DRAINED 100.30
RH TEHP 16.20 BOD 0.6 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 20.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.0330 CNAT C.5300
SEQ NO 282 O.A NO. 104103 OA NAHE SALEH OC CSC AREA 6100. CSO POP 60187.
OA EOP 93041. OA SIZE 36.8 70 SHSA PCE 186658.
2000 SHSA POP 25730C. NC.CSO PTS. 181 CAXS H/ RAIN 151.C IEAN RAIN 39.85
ER CLASS 5 FLON 238600. I DRAINED 100.OC
RR IEHP 18.20 BOD 0.5 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 20.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.0330 CIAT 0.5300
B - 39
-------
URBANIZED AREA CATA USE LISTING
SEQ MO 48 0.A MO. 34201 UA MAHE ALLEMTOHM PA CSC ARIA 170. CSO POP 800.
UA EOE 338316. UA SIZE 91.6 70 SHSA PCI 594382.
2000 SHSA POP 62430C. MC.CSO PTS. 41 CAIS V/ RAIM 122.C CIAI RAII 44.12
EH CLASS 1 FLOW 96. % DRAINED 1C0.3C
RH TIHP 21.60 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 15.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
CCST FACTOR 1.1722 CIAT C.3910
SEQ NO US O.A NO. 34202 DA MAHE ALTCCHA IA CSC ARIA 2500. CSO POP 45000.
OA IOP 81795. OA SIZE 19..6 70 SHSA PCI 135356.
200C SHSA POP 15980C. MC.CSO PTS. 31 CAIS «/ RAII 142.C C1AV RAII 43.83
FH CLASS 2 FLOW 367. X DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 15.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
COST FACTOR 0.9703 CIAI 0.3910
SEQ NO 5C 0.A NO. 20203 UA MAHE ERIE PA CSC ARIA 16120. CSO POP 136066.
OA EOP 175263. OA SIZE 43.8 70 SMSA PCI 263654.
2000 SHSA POP 35660C. MC.CSO PTS. 24t CAIS I/ RAII 157.C IEAI RAII 37.50
EH CLASS 12 CLOV 0. K DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB C. C167 HARD 25.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.90
CCST FACTOR 1.2171 CIAT 0.4970
SEQ 10 51 O.A M*0. 34204 OA NAHE HARRISBOE6 PA CSC ARIA 16580. CSO POP 69350,
OA EOP 240751. OA SIZE 78.4 70 SHSA PCI 410505.
2000 SHSA POP 569200. NC.CSO PTS. 471 CAIS N/ RAIM 124.C CIAI RAII 37.65
EH CLASS 5 FLOW 34250. % DRAINED 1CO.OC
RH TEBt 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 15.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
COST FACTOR 1.1818 CIAT 0.3910
NO 52 O.A NO. 34205 UA MAHE JOHNSIOHK PA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
UA EOP 96146. OA SIZE 28.0 70 SdSA PCF 262822.
2000 SHSA POP 246700. 1C.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS «/ RAII 150.0 HAM RAII 44.77
El CLASS 4 FLOW 324. X DRAINED 100.00
Rl TEHP 22.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 20.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
COST FACTOR 0.9703 CIAT 0.3910
SEQ MO 53 O.A MO. 34206 OA MAHE LAMCASTEE PA CSC AREA 2851. CSO POP 57690.
OA IOP 117097. OA SIZE 38.7 70 SHSA PCP 320079.
200C SHSA POP 42670C. MC.CSO PTS. 21 CAIS •/ RAII 124.C CIAI RAII 43.29
II CLASS 1 FLOH 0. K DRAINED 65.OC
EK TEHP 22.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 15.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.50
COST FACTOR 0.9316 CIAT 0.3910
B - 40
-------
URBANIZED AREA [ATA EASE LISTING
SEQ MO 54 0.1 DO. 34207 OA NAHE PHIIACBLEHIA Pi CSC AREA 45600. CSO POP 1926176,
OB tot 3277020. UA SIZE 702.7 70 SHSft PCE 0621(110.
2000 SHSA POP 601580C. NC.CSO PIS. 1781 CAIS H/ BAIN 115.0 BEAN RAIN 42.48
EN CLASS 13 FLOW 11030. X DRAINED 100.00
Eli TEBP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 Pfi 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 1.1818 CIAS 0.4620
SEQ NO 55 O.A NO. 30208 DA MAHE PIT1SBOIC PI CSC AREA 59417. CSO POP 9578"",
01 EOP 18U6C41. OA SIZE 596.4 70 SHSA PCE 2401362.
2000 SHSA POP 253900C. 1C.CSO PTS. 2661 CATS N/ BAIN 1*6.0 EEAN RAIN 36.87
ED CLASS 4 FLOW 32340. I DRAINED 100.00
Ei TEBP 22.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE O.C167 HARD 25.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.80
COST FACTOR 1.0413 OAT 0.3860
SEQ NO 56 O.A MO. 30209 OA MAHE REAEINS EA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
DA EOP 167932. OA SIZE 41.1 70 SHSA PCE 296382.
200C SMSA POP 34730C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 EAIS i/ RAIN 120.0 {BAN RAIN 41.43
Ei CLASS 3 FLOW 1490. X DRAINED 100.00
B« TEBP 22.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.C167 BARD 15.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.50
CCST FACTOR 0.9316 CUT 0.3910
SEQ 00 57 O.A NO. 30210 UA NABE SCKANTOM EA CSC AREA 14119. CSO POP 110000.
DA EOE 204205. OA SIZE 98.4 70 SHSA POF 621862.
2000 SHSA POP 305100. NC.CSO PTS. 7St IAIS i/ RAIN 137.C IEAN RAIN 38.48
Ei CLASS 3 FLOW 508. K DRAINED 100.00
fii TEBP 22.10 EOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PC 0.0167 HARD 15.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.50
COST FACTOR 0.9703 CUT 0.3910
SEQ NO 58 O.A MO. 30211 UA NAHZ TRENTON HITfiO PA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 31475. OA SIZE 13.1 70 S1SA PCE 304116.
2000 SHSA POP 45940C. MC.CSO PTS. 0* IAXS •/ RAIN 121.0 CEAN BAIN M.28
EH CLASS 2 FLOW 11660. X DBAINED 100.00
fifi TEBP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 1.1205 CIAT 0.4620
SEQ MO 55 O.A MO. 3*212 OA MAHE HUKES-BAEIE PA CSC AREA 5615. CSO POP 71719,
OA EOP 222820. OA SIZE 82.5 70 SHSA POf 621862.
2000 SHSA POP 45830C. MC.CSO PTS. . 50* CAXS «/ BAIN 137.C BEAN BAIN 39.37
Ei CLASS 5 FLOH 13270. X DRAINED 100.OC
Ei TEHP 23.60 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 15.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.50
COST FACTOR 0.9316 CIAT 0.4620
B - 41
-------
URBANIZED AREA CATA EASE LISTING
SEC MO 60 O.A NO. J4213 OA NAHE YORK PA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 123106. OA SIZE 37.3 70 SHSA PCE 329540.
2000 SHSA POP 442800. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS I/ EAIN 124.0 BEAM RAIN 42.00
E» CLASS 2 FLCN 245. X DRAINED 100.OC
El TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 15.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
COST IACTOR 1.1818 CIAT 0.3910
SEQ MO 313 O.A NO. 34214 OA NABE HILLIAHSECET PA CSC AREA 4500. CSO POP 35000.
01 EOP 63660. OA SIZE 21.7 70 SHSA PCE 113296.
200C SHSA POP 120300. NC.CSO PTS. Ot CAIS WX RAIN 142.0 CEAN RAIN 40.65
EN CLASS 3 PLOW 8664. % DRAINED 100.00
Eli TEflP 22.70 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 18.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.70
COST IACTOR C.9703 CIAT 0.3910
SEQ NO 28 O.A NO. 14401 OA NAHE IA1L RIVIE RETRO RI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 15901. OA SIZE 12.4 70 SHSA PCE 444301.
2000 SHSA POP 494700. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS N/ RAIN 123.0 EEAN RAIN 45.28
ED CLASS 11 FLOW 0. % DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 21.00 GOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0. C167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST IACTOR 1.1209 CIAT 0.5650
SEC NO 29 (I.A NO. 14402 OA NAHE PROVIDEBCE RI CSC AREA 11865. CSO POP 197000.
OA 10f 729327. OA SIZE 200.2 70 SHSA PCE 855495.
2000 SHSA POP 945500. NC.CSO PTS. 671 CAIS «/ BAIN 123.C EEAM RAIN 39.63
ED CLASS 4 FLOW 40. X DRAINED 100.0C
EH TEHP 21.00 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 BARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.1209 CIAT 0.5650
SEQ NO 113 O.A MO. 4U501 OA NAHE AUGOSIA BETBO SC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 22183. OA SIZE 15.6 70 SHSA PCE 275787.
2000 SHSA POP 277400. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAXS I/ BAIN 105.C EEAN RAIN 39.18
El CLASS 5 FLOW 10200. X DRAINED 100.00
RV TEHP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 24.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST ZACTOR 0.6281 CIA1 0.3060
SEC HO 114 O.A NO. 44502 OA NAB2 CHABLESTCM SC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 228399. OA SIZE 99.2 70 SHSA PCE 336125.
2COC SBSA POP 332200. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS N/ RAIN 115.0 EEAN RAIN 46.54
El CLASS 12 fLOV 0. X DRAINED 100.OC
•V TERP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
CCST IACTOB 0.6281 CIAI 0.3060
B - 42
-------
URBANIZED AREA CATA EASE LISTING
SEC NC 115 O.A NO. 44503 OA NAHE COLUHEl A SC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
DA EOP 241781. OA SIZE 103.3 70 SBSA PCI 322880.
2000 SHSA POP 486700. NC.CSO PTS. Ot CAXS H/ RAIN 109.0 (BAN BAIN 46.82
EH CLASS 3 ILON 9371. ft DRAINED 100.OC
BK TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 24.0 PE 0.C167 HABD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.00
CCST IACTOH 0.6281 CIAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 116 O.A NO. 44504 OA NAHE GREENVILLE SC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
CA ICE 157C73. OA SIZE 70.9 70 SflSA PCI 473454.
200C SHSA POP 480000. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS H/ RAIN 112.C EEAN RAIN 46.42
EN CLASS 2 FLOH 347. % DRAINED 95.OC
EH TEHP 27.10 ECD 0.6 SS 40.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 15.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.80
COST FACTOR 0.6281 CIAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 305 O.A NO. 44505 OA NAHE SPABTANEOBG SC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA IOE 73638. OA SIZE 36.1 70 SHSA PCI 473454.
2000 SHSA POP 25044C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CATS N/ RAIN 112.0 JEAN BAIN 49.69
EH CLASS 4 ILON 4C49. % DRAINED 50.OC
BH TEHP 27.10 BOD 0.6 SS 40.0 PB 0.C167 HART 10.0 AIR 10.0 PH 6.00
CCST FACTOR 0.6281 CIAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 253 O.A NO. 84601 OA NAHE SIOOI CITX HETBO SD CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA IOP 860. OA SIZE 0.7 70 SHSA PCI 95209.
2COO SHSA POP 109600. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAXS I/ RAIN 98.C (EAN RAIN 24.77
EH CLASS 4 FLOH 33126. % DRAINED 100.OC
Bi TENP 23.20 BOD 2.5 SS 240.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 200.0 AIR 200.0 PH 8.00
CCST FACTOR 1.0415 CIAT 0.0720
SEQ NO 254 O.A NO. 84602 DA NAHE SIOUX FAILS SD CSC AREA 200. CSO POP 2000.
OA tOP 75146. OA SIZE 26.9 70 SBSA PCI 95209.
200C SHSA POP 11570C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAXS i/ RAIN 93.0 CEAN RAIN 25.24
EH CLASS 4 FLON 364. X DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 22.70 BOD 3.0 SS 240.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 200.0 AIK 200.0 PH 8.00
CCST FACTOR 1.0415 CIAT 0.0720
SEQ NO 117 O.A NO. 44701 OA NAHE CHATTANCCGA TN CSC AREA 2707. CSO POP 15600.
OA IOP 194633. OA SIZE 99.5 70 SHSA PCS 370857.
2000 SHSA POP 484200. NC.CSO PTS. 171 CAXS H/ BAIN 131.C (EAR BAIN 53.60
EH CLASS 6 PLOW 37180. * DRAINED 100.OC
BH TEHP 25.40 BOD 0.6 SS 28.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 20.0 ALK 10.0 PH 7.20
COST FACTOB 0.8389 CIAT 0.4130
B - 43
-------
OfiBlNIZED 1BEI C1T1 E1SE LISTING
SEC MO 118 0.1 NO. 44702 01 NlHE KMOXVILLI TN CSC 1RE1 0. CSO POP 0.
01 ICE 190502. 01 SIZE 86.1 70 SHS1 PCE 4Q94Q9.
200C SBSl POP 52700C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CIYS N/ BUM 132.0 IE1N RUN 45.51
EH CL1S5 4 FLCW 13C70. X DB1INED 100.00
Bi TIBP 23.80 EOD 1.0 SS 28.0 PE 0.0167 H1RD 50.0 ILK 10.0 PH 7.20
COST F1CTOR 0.6289 CUT 0.4130
SEC MO 119 0.1 NO. (40703 01 NlHE HEMPHIS TH CSC 1RE1 0. CSO POP 0.
01 EOP €55045. 01 SIZE 192,3 70 SHS1 PCE 834103.
200C SBSl POP 1112700. NC.CSO PTS. Of CIYS W/ RUN 112.0 CE1N BUN 46.81
El C11SS 5 FLOW 470600. X DB1IHBD 100.OC
EH TIHP 26.7C BOD 1.0 SS 60.0 PB 0.0067 HIED 50.0 ILK 100.0 PH 7.50
COST P1CTOB 0.8289 CUT 0.3270
SEQ NO 120 0.1 NO. 44704 01 nlHE N1SUVILLE TN CSC 1RE1 11000. CSO POP 100900.
01 EOP 484444. 01 SIZE 343.5 70 SBSl PCE 699271.
200C SBSl POP 872200. NC.CSO PTS. J2f CIYS H/ BUM 120. C BE1H BUN 45.40
EM CL1SS 4 FLOW 19000. X DB1INED 100.00
BW TEBP 25.40 BOD 2.4 SS 60.0 PB 0. C167 H1BD 100.0 UK 100.0 PH 7.80
COST F1CTOB C.8289 CHIT 0.4130
SEQ MO 295 0.1 NO. 44705 01 NlHE KINGSPOSI TN CSC 1RE1 0. CSO POP 0.
01 EOP 66266. 01 SIZE 46.5 70 SHS1 PCE 373591.
2000 SBS1 POP 625000. NC.CSO PTS. Of CIYS H/ BllM 132.C CE1H RUN 42.34
EH CL1SS 4 FLOW 2603. X DB1ZNED 100.OC
BW TEHP 23.80 BOD 0.5 SS 40.0 PB 0.0167 H1BD 20.0 ILK 10.0 PH. 6.90
COST F1CTOB 1.0415 CUT 0.4130
SEC MO 301 0.1 NO. 44706 01 NlHE CL1EKS7ILLE TN CSC 1RE1 0. CSO POP
01 EOP 44729. 01 SIZE 33.7 70 SBSl PCE 118945.
2000 SHS1 POP 260000. NC.CSO PIS. Of CHS H/ B1IN 120.0 CE1N RUN 47.46
EK CilSS 4 FLO! 19000. X DB1IRED 100.00
BH TEBP 26.00 BOD 2.5 SS 72.0 Pfi 0.0117 BIRD 1CO.O UK 200.0 PH 8.00
COST F1CTOB 1.0415 CUT 0.4130
SEC MO 200 0.1 NO. 64801 01 NlHE 1BZIENB IX CSC IB El 0. CSO POP
01 EOP 90571. 01 SIZE 78.4 70 SBSl PCE 122164.
200C SBSl POP 118900. RC.CSO PTS. Of CIYS «/ BUR 65.C CE1N BUR 23.32
Ef CLISS 2 PLOW 48. X DR1XHZD 100.OC
ER TEHP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 200.0 PB 0.0250 H1BD 30.0 ILK 42.0 PH 7.50
COST F1CTOB 0.7934 CUT 0.1480
B - 44
-------
OBBANIZZD AREA CATA EASE LISTING
SEC NC 201 O.A NO. 64802 OA NAHE ABABILLC TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOF 127010. OA SIZE 60.7 70 SBSA PCE 144396.
2000 SBSA POP 141600. NC.CSO PIS. 0* CAXS H/ BAIN 66.0 IEAN BAIN 19.67
FH CLASS 3 FLOH 359. X DRAINED 20.OC
Bfi IEI1P 25.40 BOD 1.0 SS 200.0 Pfi 0.C333 HABD 40.0 AIK 60.0 PH 7.50
CCST IACTOB C.7934 CHAT 0.0820
SEC NO 202 O.A NO. 64803 OA NAHE AUSTIN TX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 264499. OA SIZE 85.8 70 SBSA PCE 360462.
2000 SHSA POP 482900. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS H/ BAIN 81.C KEAN BAIN 32.58
EN CLASS 6 1LON 4536. X DRAINED 95.00
FH TEBP 29.30 EOD 1.0 SS 40.0 PE 0.0333 HARD 30.0 AIK 30.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.8678 CKAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 203 O.A NO. 64804 OA NAME BEAOHONT TX CSC AREA 4670. CSO POP 35000.
OA EOP 116350. OA SIZE 74.5 70 SBSA PCE 34.7568.
2000 SBSA POP 42480C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS V SAIN 103.6 EEAN BAIN 54.29
EN CLASS 4 ILOH 6308. X DRAINED 75.OC
BH TEHP 28.80 EOD 1.0 SS 36.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 20.0 AIK 25.0 PH 7.50
CCST IACTOB 0.8678 CHAT 0.1480
SEQ NC 204 D.A NO. 64805 OA NAHE BBONNSVIILE TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 52627. OA SIZE 15.2 70 SBSA PCI 140368.
2000 SHSA POP 14720C. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAXS H/ BAIN 71.C EEAN RAIN 26.75
EH CLASS H fLOH 7901. X DfiAINED 100.OC
BN TEHP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS 36.0 PB 0.0333 HABD 30.0 AIK 25.0 PH 7.50
COST IACTOB 0.8678 CKAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 205 O.A NO. 64806 01 NAHE BRIAN IX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 51395. OA SIZE 33.4 70 SBSA PCI 57978.
2000 SBSA POP 120200. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS H/ BAIN 76.C (BAN BAIN 40.76
BH CLASS 2 ILOH 0. X DRAINED 25.00
BN TEBP 28.80 BOD 1.0 SS 40.0 PB 0.0333 HABO 30.0 AIK 30.0 PH 7.50
COST I1CTOB C.7934 CKAT 0.1480
SZQ NO 206 O.A NO. 64807 01 NAME CCBEOS CHIISZI TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 212820. OA SIZE 130.3 70 SBSA PCE 284832.
2COC SBSA POP 330200. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAYS H/ BAIN 75.0 BEAN BAIN 28.34
EH CLASS 10 ILOH 0. X DRAINED 100.0C
BH IEBP 29.30 BOD 1-0 SS 36.0 PB 0.0333 HABD 30.0 AIK 25.0 PH 7.50
CCST IACTOB 0.8678 CKA'J 0.1480
B - 45
-------
UBBANI2ED ABEA CA1A EASE LISTING
SEQ NC 207 D.A NO. 69808 UA NAHE DALLAS TX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOF 1338663. OA SIZE 674.2 70 SBSA PCE 2376353.
200C SBSA POP 2521400. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CA1S H/ BAIN 80.0 EEAN BAIN 34.55
fH CLASS « FLOH 0. X DBAINED 100.3C
FB TEBP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 140.0 PE O.C167 BABD 20.0 ALK 40.0 PH 7.50
CCST FACTOB 0.7934 CBAI 0.1480
SEQ NO 208 O.A MO. 64809 OA MAHE EL EASO TX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOF 337471. OA SIZE 119.4 70 SBSA PCE 359291.
2000 SBSA POP 36540C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAJS H/ BAIN 44.C EEAN BAIN 7.89
EN CLASS 0 FLOH 0. X DtiAINED 100.00
BI TEBP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 36.0 PB 0.0333 HABD 40.0 ALK 60.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOB 0.8678 OAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 209 O.A NO. 64810 OA NAHE FOBT HOBIB TX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 676944. OA SIZE 396.4 70 SBSA PCE 237853.
2000 SBSA POP 1068300. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAYS fc/ BAIN 79.C EEAR RAIN 31.33
IN CLASS 2 FLOW 372. ft DBAINED 100.00
BN TEHP 27.7C BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0117 HABD 18.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOB 0.7934 CIAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 210 O.A MO. 64811 OA MAHE GAL1ESTCS TX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOF 61809. OA SIZE 22.5 70 SHSA PCE 169812.
2000 SHSA POP 26040C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS H/ BAIN 96.C BEAN BAIN 45.21
il CLASS 15 FLOH 0. X DBAINED 1CO.OC
BH TEHP 28.30 BOD 1.0 SS 36.0 PB 0.0250 HABD 20.0 ALK 25.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOfi 0.8675 CIAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 211 O.A NO. 60812 OA MAHE HABLIMGEB IX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 50469. OA SIZE 33.8 70 SBSA PCE 140368*
2000 SBSA POP 147200. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAJS H/ BAIN 71.0 EEAN BAIN 26.09
BH CLASS 4 FLON 0. X OBAINED 100.00
BN TERP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS 36.0 PB 0.0333 HABD 30.0 ALK 25.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOB 0.8678 CIAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 212 O.A NO. 64813 OA MAHE HOUSTEN TX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 1677662. OA SIZE 538.6 70 SHSA PCE 1999316.
200C SHSA POP 325690C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAXS I/ BAIN 103.0 HEAN BAII 45.26
SI CLASS 4 FLCH 274. .ft DBAINED 80.00
El TEBP 28.3C BOD 1.0 SS 36.0 PB 0.0025 HABD 20.0 ALK 25.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOB 0.8678 CIAT 0.1480
B - 46
-------
OEB1N2ZEO AREA CATA EASE LISTING
SEQ HO 213 O.A NO. 64814 OA NAHE LARIDO IX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOF 70197. OA SIZE 22.1 70 SMSA PCE 72859.
2000 SHSA POP 78200. MC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS N/ BAIN 79.0 CEAN RAIN 18.63
ED CLASS 3 FLOW 5J82. X DRAINED 100.00
EN TIHP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS 40.0 PE 0.C333 HARE 30.0 ALK 30.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.8678 CHAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 214 O.A NO. 64815 OA NAHE LOBEOCK TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 150135. OA SIZE 76.9 70 SHSA POP 179295.
200C SHSA POP 171000. MC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS N/ RAIN 60.C KEAN RAIN 17.67
EN CLASS 2 PLOW 0. X DRAINED 1C0.3C
EN TIHP 26.60 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0333 HABD 40.0 ALK 48.0 PH 7.50
COST FACIOB 0.7934 OAT 0.1480
SEQ HO 215 O.A MO. 64816 OA MAHE HCALLEN-EBABR IX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 91141. OA SIZE 32.7 70 SHSA PCE 181535.
2000 SHSA POP 16360C. NC.C50 PTS. Of CAXS N/ RAIN 71.C BEAM RAIN 19.29
Ei CLASS 3 FLON 0. X DRAINED 100.00
Bl TEHP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS 36.0 PB 0.C333 HARD 30.0 ALK 25.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.8678 CNAT 0.1480
SEQ HO 216 O.A HO. 64817 OA HAHE HICIAHD TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 60371. OA SIZE 32.0 70 SHSA PCE 65433.
2000 SMSA POP 6460C. RC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS N/ RAIN 50.0 EEAN RAIN 14.24
EN CLASS 1 FLON 0. X DRAINED 100.OC
EN TIBP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 72.0 PB 0.0333 HARD 35.0 ALK 48.0 PH 7.50
CCST FACTOB 0.7934 CIAT 0.1480
SEQ MO 217 O.A MO. 64818 OA MAHE ODESSA TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 81645. OA SIZE 25.1 70 SMSA PCE 92660.
2000 SHSA POP 9080C. MC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS I/ RAIM 50.0 HEAH RAIN 14.24
EH CLASS 1 FLON 0. X DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 72.0 PB 0.0333 HARD 35.0 ALK 48.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.7934 CIAT 0.1480
SEC MO 218 O.A HO. 64819 OA HAHE PORT AUTHOR TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA IOP 116474. OA SIZE 73.0 70 SHSA PCE 347568.
2000 SHSA POP 424800. RC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS N/ RAIM 103.0 BEAN RAIN 55.35
EN CLASS 8 FLON 0. ft DRAINED 100.00
EN TEHP 28.80 BOD 1.0 SS 36.0 PB 0.0167 HABD 20.0 ALK 25.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.8678 CIAT 0.1480
B - 47
-------
URBANIZED ABEA CATA EASE LISTING
SEQ MC 219 O.A MO. 64820 UA MAHE SAM ANGELO TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOE 63884. UA SIZE 33.7 70 SBSA PCE 71047.
2000 SBSA FOP 905000. NC.CSO PIS. Ot CAXS H/ BAIN 55.0 BEAM BAIM 18.63
EH CLASS 4 FLOH 158. X DRAINED 100.OC
Bf TEBP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 72.0 PE 0.0333 BABD 35.0 ALK 48.0 PH 7.50
CCST FACTOR 0.7934 CIAT 0.1480
SEC NO 220 O.A NO. 64821 UA NAHE SAN ANTCIIC TX CSC ABBA 0. CSO POP 0.
01 EOE 772513. OA SIZE 222.9 70 SBSA PCE 888179.
2000 SHSA POP 1022000. NC.CSO PIS. Ot CAXS H/ BAIN 79.0 CEAN BAIH 27.84
EN CLASS 3 FLCH 39. X DRAINED 85.0C
Bfi TEfiP 29.30 BOD 1.0 SS- 40.0 PE 0.C333 HARD 30.0 ALK 30.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.8678 CHAT O.U80
SEQ NC 221 D.A MO. 64822 UA HARE SHEBHAM TX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOF 55343. DA SIZE 34.5 70 SHSA PCE 83225.
2000 SBSA POP 11560C.. NC.CSO PIS. Ot CAXS H/ BAIM 80.0 BEAN BAIN 39.05
EH CLASS 2 FLCH 0. X DRAINED 70.00
EN IfiflP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 200.0 PB 0.0200 HABD 22.0 ALK 45.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.7934 CHAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 222 U.A NO. 64823 UA MAfiS IEXABKAHA TX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
UA EOP 36888. UA SIZE 24.0 70 SHSA PCE 113488.
2000 SHSA POP 130300. NC.CSO PIS. Ot CAXS H/ BAIN 98.0 BEAM BAIM 49.19
BH CLASS 2 FLOH 0. X DRAINED 100.00
RH TEBP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 60.0 PB 0.0117 HABD 18.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.7934 CVAT 0.1480
SEQ MO 223 U.A NO. 64824 UA NAHE TEXAS CITX TX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
UA EOP 84054. UA SIZE 82.7 70 SHSA PCE 169812.
2000 SHSA POP 2604QC. NC.CSO PIS. Ot CAXS H/ BAIN 96.0 BEAN BAIN 45.21
EH CLASS 10 FLOH 0. X DRAINED 100.0C
BH TEBP 28.30 BOD 1.0 SS 36.0 PE 0.0250 BABD 20.0 ALK 25.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.8678 CIAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 224 D.A NO. 64825 UA NAHE TYLER TX CSC ABEA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 59781. DA SIZE 24.8 70 SHSA PCE 97096.
2000 SBSA POP 145200. NC.CSO PIS. Ot CAXS H/ RAIN 80.0 BEAN RAIN 46.78
EH CLASS 2 FLCH 0. X DRAINED 40.00
BH TEBP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0200 HABD 18.0 ALK 48.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.7934 CIAT 0.1480
B - 48
-------
ORBANIZED ABE* CAT* EASE LISTING
SEQ NO 225 D.A NO. 64826 UA NAHE HACC TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 118843. OA SIZE 89.9 70 SHSA POP 147553.
2COC SHSA POP 19360C. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAVS H/ RAIN 76,0 BEAN RAIN 32.08
EH CLASS 6 FLOW 2560. % DRAINED 80.0C
EH TEHP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0250 HARD 22.0 ALK 40.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.7934 CHAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 226 O.I NO. 64827 UA NAHE WICHITA FALLS TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
DA EOE S7564. OA SIZE 42.2 70 SHSA PCE 128642.
2000 SHSA POP 128900. NO.CSO PTS. 0* CAXS W/ RAIN 69.0 EEAN RAIN 26.20
IN CLASS 5 FLOW 285. * PRAINED 100.00
EW TEHP 27.10 BOD 1.0 SS 200.0 PB 0.0250 UARC 30.0 ALK 45.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.7934 CNAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 300 O.A BO. 64828 OA NAHE KILLEEN TX CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
DA EOP 73565. OA SIZE 40,3 70 SHSA PCE 159794.
200C SHSA POP 176300. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAYS H/ RAIN 76.0 EEAN RAIN 33.94
EH CLASS 2 FLOW 0. % DRAINED 100.00 .
EW TEHP 27.70 BOD 1.0 SS 80.0 PB 0. C250 HARD 22.0 ILK 40.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 0.7*934 CNAT 0.1480
SEQ NO 255 O.A NO. 84901 DA NAHE OGDEN 01 CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 149727. OA SIZE 61.0 70 SRSA PCC 705458.
2000 SHSA POP 171500. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS H/ RAIN 87.0 EEAN RAIN 17.07
EH CLASS 20 FLOW 0. > DRAINED 100.00
RH TEHP 20.10 BOD 1.0 SS 60.0 PB 0.OC67 HARD 150.0 ALK 150.0 PH 8.00
COST FACTOR 0.8843 CNAT 0.0880
SEQ NO 256 O.A NO. 84902 OA NAHE PfiOVO Ul CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 104110. OA SIZE 65.0 70 SHSI POP 137776.
2000 SHSA POP 189800. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS H/ RAIN 87.0 BEAM RAIN 13.20
EH CLASS 2 FLOW 376. ft DRAINED 100.00
EN TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 60.0 PB 0.OC67 HARD 150.0 ALK 200.0 PH 8.00
COST FACTOR 0.8843 CHAT 0.0880
SEQ NO 257 O.A NO. 84903 OA NAHE SALT LIKE CUT OT CSC IREI 0. CSO POP
01 EOP 479342. OA SIZE 184.3 70 SHSA PCE 705458.
2000 SHSA POP 791300. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS H/ RAIN 87.0 BEAN RAIN 14.74
EH CLASS 2 FLOW 113. * DRAINED 100.00
BR TEBP 20.10 BOD 1.0 SS 60.0 PB 0.0067 HARD 1*0.0 ALK 150.0 PH 8.00
CCST FACTOR 0.8843 CNAT 0.0880
B .- 49
-------
URBANIZED ABE* DATA EASE LISTING
SEQ NO 61 0.A NO. 35101 OA NAHE LXNCHBERG VA CSC AREA 10425. CSO POP 54QOO.
UA EOP 70642. OA SIZE 37.2 70 SHSA POP 153258.
2000 SHSA POP 194100. NC.CSO PTS. 901 CATS N/ RAIN 119.0 BEAN RAIN 40.30
*N CLASS 4 FLON 3538. X DRAINED 100.OC
EH TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 40.0 Pfi 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.60
COST FACTOR 1.0083 CKAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 62 ,U.A NO. 35102 OA HAHE NEWEOBT BESS VA CSC AREA 268. CSO POP 4500.
OA EOP 268263. OA SIZE 142.3 70 SHSA PCE 33314Q.
200C SNSA POP 35280C. NC.CSO PTS. II CAYS N/ RAIN 114.0 PEAH RAIN 41.95
EH CLASS 14 FLON 7431. X DRAINED 100.00
EH TEHP 25.40 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 1.0083 CHAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 63 O.A NO. 35103 UA NAHE NORFOLK VA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA FOP 668259. OA SIZE 299.0 70 SHSA PCE 722600.
2COC SHSA POP 770400. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS N/ RAIN 114.C BEAR RAIN 44.94
CH CLASS 14 FLON 7431. X DRAINED 100.OC
RH TEHP 25.40 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.00
COST FACTOR 1.0083 CEAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 64 0.A NO. 35104 OA NAHE PETERSBOEG VA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 100617. OA SIZE 42.4 70 SHSA PCE 128809.
2000 SHSA POP 17130C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 EAXS N/ RAIN 113.0 CEAN RAIN 44.21
EH CLASS 4 FLON 1463. X DRAINED 100.00
RN TEHP 25.40 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0. C167 HARD 10.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.20
COST FACTOR 1.0083 CSAT 0.3060
SEQ NO 65 O.A NO. 35105 OA NAHE RICHHOME VA CSC AREA 10361. CSO POP 352775,
OA EOP 416563. OA SIZE 144.6 70 SHSA PCE 547542.
200C SHSA POP 817000. NC.CSO PTS. 461 CAYS «/ RAIN 113.0 BEAN RAIN 4i».21
EH CLASS 14 FLON 7431. ft DRAINED 100.OC
EN TEHP 25.40 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.50
COST FACTOR 1.0083 CNAI 0.3060
SEQ NO 66 O.A NO. 35106 OA NAHE BOANOKE VA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 156621. OA SIZE 66.4 70 SHSA PCF 203153.
2000 SHSA POP 279800. NC.CSO PTS. Of IAIS «/ RAIN 120.0 EEAN RAIN 43.12
EN CLASS 4 FLON 370. % DRAINED 100.00
BH TEHP 25.40 BOD 1.0 SS 40.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 15.0 AIK 10.0 PH 6.70
COST FACTOR 1.0083 CNAI 0.3060
B - 50
-------
URBANIZED AREA CATA EASE LISTING
SEQ NO 67 O.A NO. 35107 UA NAME HASBINOTCN DC HTR VA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP fl
Oft EOF 715841. OA SIZE 185.1 70 SHSA PCE 2910111.
2000 SMSA POP 5189600. NC.CSO PTS, 01 CAYS B/ RAIN 107.0 FEAN RAIN 40.78
RB CLASS 12 FLOB 11900. X DRAINED 100.OC
RB TIBP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 10.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.50
COST FACTOR 1.0083 CSAT 0.3910
SEQ NO 296 O.A NO. 35108 UA NAHE KISGSPOFT HETRO VA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0
OA EOF 4076. UA SIZE 2.2 70 SHSA PCI 373591.
2000 SHSA POP 625000. NC.CSO PTS. 0« CAYS B/ RAIN 132.C EEAN RAIN 42.34
FB CLASS 4 FLOW 2€03. X DRAINED 100.00
RB IEHP 23.80 BOD 0.5 SS 40.0 Pfl 0.0167 HARD 20.0 ALK 10.0 PH 6.90
COST FACTOR 1.0415 CHAT 0.4130
SEQ NO 283 O.A NO. 105301 UA NAHE PORILANC BITRO HA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0
UA IOP 73170. UA SIZE 30.6 70 SHSA PCE 1007130. .. «o ifw o
2COC SMSA POP 1391300. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAYS H/ RAIN 149.0 BEAN RAIN 39.00
BB CLASS 5 PLOB 38420. X DRAINED 100.DC
FB TEBP 18.20 BOD 0.6 SS 20.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 20.0 AlK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.0862 CHAT 0.5300
SEQ NO 284 O.A NO. 105302 UA NAHE SEATTLE BA CSC AREA '8978 CSO POP •=77Q«n
UA EOP 1238106. OA SIZE 413.1 70 SHSA PCE 1«24605. CSO POP .77980,
2000 SBSA POP 1822400. NC.CSO PTS. 159# CAYS B/ RAIN 164.0 BEAN RAIN 34.10
BB CLASS 14 FLOB 0. X DRAINED 100.00
RB TEBP 18.20 BOD O.B SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 20.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.0330 CBAT 0.5300
SEQ NO 285 O.A NO. 105303 OA NAHE SPOKANE NA CSC AREA 25600 CSO POP ttmnn
OA EOP 229620. OA SIZE 77.8 70 SHSA PCI 287487. 25600. CSO POP 160700.
200C SHSA POP 326000. NC.CSO PIS. 31f CAYS B/ RAIN 118.0 REAN RAIN 17.19
BB CLASS 5 FLOW 6S38. X DRAINED 100.30
BB TEBP 18.20 BOD 1.0 SS 8.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 20.0 AIK .50.0 PB 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.0330 CSAT 0.5300
SEQ NO 286 O.A NO. 105304 OA NAHE TACCHA «A CSC AREA 111. CSO POP 1561
OA EOP 332521. OA SIZE 128.7 70 SHSA PCE 4123*4. "O POP 1561.
2000 SHSA POP 424600. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAYS B/ RAIN 163.0 BEAN BAIN 40.50
BB CLASS 9 FLOW 0. X DRAINED 100.OC
BB TEHP 18.20 BOD 0.8 SS 20.0 PB 0. C167 HARD 20.0 ALK 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.0862 CHAT 0.5300
B - 51
-------
ObBANIZED AfiEl CATA EASE LISTING
SEQ NO 292 O.A NO. 10*305 OA NAHE BICHLANC-KENNEVICK NA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA ICt 71245. OA SIZE 54.8 70 SHSA POP 93356.
200C SHSA POP 11700C. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS H/ BAIN 106.0 «EAH BAIN 7.49
EN CLASS 5 fLON 0. X DRAINED 100.00
BN TEHP 20.10 BOD 0.8 SS 8.0 PE 0.C167 HARD 20.0 AIR 50.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.0330 CIAX 0.5300
SIQ NO 312 O.A NO. 105306 UA NAHE IAKIHA NA CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA FOP 64730. OA SIZE 22.2 70 SHSA PCS 1U5212.
2000 SHSA POP 140300. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAIS N/ BAIN 70.0 (BAN RAIN 7.86
EN CLASS 3 ILON 0. X DRAINED 100.00
EN TEHP 20.10 BOD 1.0 SS 12.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 20.0 AIR 50.0 PH 7.50
CCST FACTOfi 1.0330 CIAT C.5300
SIQ NO 68 O.A NO. 35401 OA NAHE CHAELESTCN NT CSC AREA 8838. CSO POP 105421.
OA fOP 157662. OA SIZE 61.8 70 SRSA PCI 25714Q.
2000 SHSA POP 24770C. NC.CSO PTS. 921 CAIS «/ BAIN 152.0 CEAH RAIN 42.36
fli CLASS 4 ILOH 14780. X DRAINED 100.00
BN TEHP 23.80 BOD 0.5 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HABD 20.0 AIR 10.0 PH 6.90
CCST FACTOR 1.0413 CIAT C.3860
SEQ NO 69 O.A HO. 3£4Q2 OA NAfiE HOSTINGTCH HT CSC AREA 10400. CSO POP 79844.
OA tOP 85017. OA SIZE 19.1 70 SHSA PCP 286935.
2000 SHSA POP 26270C. NC.CSO PTS. 2f CAIS »X BAIN 136.C EEAN RAIN 41.79
EN CLASS 5 ILCH 174180. X DRAINED 100.OC
EH TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 30.0 AIR 10.0 PH 7.00
COST FACTOR 1.0413 CIAT C.3860
SEC NO 7C O.A NO. 35403 OA NAHE STEOBENTUIE HTB HT CSC AREA 240. CSO POP 3450.
OA SOS 37230. OA SIZE 26.6 70 SRSA PCP 166385.
2000 SHSA POP 14690C. NC.CSO PTS. 5» CAIS N/ BAIN 146.0 BEAN RAIN 40.83
EN CLASS 4 ILOH 323400. X DRAINED 100.00
EN TZHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 20.0 AIR 10.0 PH 6.60
COST FACTOR 1.0413 CIAT C.3860
SEQ NO 71 O.A NO. 35404 OA NAHE WHEELING NT CSC AREA 6130. CSO POP 57946,
OA iOP 60705. OA SIZE 20.9 70 SHSA PCP 181954.
2000 SHSA POP 16790C. HC.CSO PTS. 1731 CAIS NX RAIN 146.0 CEAN RAIN 38.95
UN CLASS U fLOH 69430. X DRAINED 100.OC
RH TEHP 23.80 BOD 1.0 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 35.0 AIR 10.0 PH 6.80
COST FACTOR 1.0413 CIAT C.3860
B - 52
-------
URBANIZED AREA DATA EASE LISTING
SIQ NO 314 O.A NO. 3E405 OA NAHE PARKERSEOBG WV CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOF 57821. DA SIZE 17.1 70 SBSA PCS 148132.
2000 SHSA POF 220400. NC.CSO PIS. Of CAYS «/ EAZN 143.0 HAH BAIN 39.11
EM CLASS 4 FLOW 69430. X DRAINED 100.00
El I EBP 23.80 BOD 0.5 SS 32.0 Pfi 0.0167 HABD 35.0 A1K 10.0 PH 7.00
COS1 I ACTOR 1.0013 CUT 0.3860
SIQ MO 176 O.A HO. 55501 OA HABE APPLBTON HI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA IOF 129532. OA SIZE 37.1 70 SHSA POF 276948.
200C SHSA POP 35100C. NC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS «/ RAIN 121.C CEAN RAIN 28.23
EN CLASS 8 PLOW 0. X DRAINED 100.30
EN TEBP 20.10 EOD 1.5 SS 20.0 PC 0.0167 HARD 85.0 AlK 100.0 PH 7.30
COS! FACTOR 1.0415 CIAI 0.3500
SIQ NO 177 O.A NO. 55502 OA NAME DULOZH BETRO NX CSC AREA 3134. CSO POP 30100.
OA IOP 32713. OA SIZE 39.8 70 SHSA PCF 265350.
2000 SBSA POP 249300. MC.CSO PTS. 28i CAXS N/ RAIN 135.C CEAN RAIN 28.97
EN CLASS 8 PLOD 0. % DRAINED 100.00
EN TEBP 19.90 BOD 2.4 SS 32.0 PB 0.C167 HARD 100.0 AlK 100.0 PH 7.50
COST FACTOR 1.2468 CNAZ C.3500
SIQ NO 178 O.A NO. 55503 OA NAME GREEN BAT NX CSC AREA 918. CSO POP 9860.
OA EOF 129105. (IA SIZE 77.6 70 SHSA POF 158244.
2000 SBSA POP 19600C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* CAIS N/ RAIN 121.0 CEAN RAXN 26.51
EH CLASS 8 ILOH 0. * DRAINED 100.00
EN IIBP 20.10 BOD 1.5 SS 20.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 85.0 ALK 100.0 PH 7.30
COS1 IACTOR 1.0415 CIAT 0.3500
SEQ NO 179 O.A NO. 55504 UA HA HE KENCSHA NI CSC AREA 1400. CSO POP 29724,
OA EOP 84262. OA SIZE 17.5 70 SHSA POF 117917.
2000 SHSA POP 140500. NC.CSO PIS. 411 GAXS NX RAIN 114.0 flEAH RAIN 31.95
EN CLASS 8 7LON 0. X DRAINED 100.00
BB TIHP 22.10 BOD 2.5 SS 80.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 200.0 ALK 200.0 PH 7.60
COS1 FACTOR 1.0415 CNAI 0.3500
SEQ 10 180 O.A HO. 55505 UA NAHE LA CROSSI NI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
OA EOP 60231. OA SIZE 21.2 70 SHSA POP 80648.
2000 SHSA POP 100000. NC.CSO PTS. Of CAM N/ RAIN 112.0 CEAN BAIN 28.92
EN CLASS 4 FLOW 25890. • DRAINED 100.00
El TEHP 21.60 BOD 3.0 SS 80.0 PE 0.0167 HARD 200.0 ALK 200.0 PH 7.80
CCST FACTOR 1.0415 CIAT 0.2350
B - 53
-------
URBANIZED AREA CATA BASE LISTING
SEQ MO 181 O.A NO. 55506 UA NAME HADISON HI CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA IOP 2031*57. OA SIZE 68.8 70 SHSA PCI 290272.
2000 SBSA POP 50530C. NC.C50 PTS. Ot CAIS N/ RAIN 115.0 BEAM RAIN 30.71
UN CLASS 8 JLOH 0. X DRAINED 100.00
RN TEHP 22.70 BOD 2.5 SS 80.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 200.0 A IK 150.0 PH T.50
CC£1 FACTOR 1.0415 CBAT 0.2350
SEQ NO 182 U.A NO. 55507 OA BABE BILKAUK!! HI CSC AREA 17776. CSO POP 370300.
DA EOP 1252456. OA SIZE 456.5 70 SBSA PCE 1"03884.
200C SHSA POP 1581100. NC.CSO PIS. 1681 CAIS H/ RAIM 119.0 EEAR RAIM 27.57
Ffl CLASS 6 FLOW 522. X DRAINED 100.90
fill TEHP 22.70 BOD 2.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 150.0 ALK 150.0 PH f.50
COST FACTOR 1.0415 CIAT 0.3500
SEQ MO 183 O.A NO. 555Q8 OA MAKE OSBKOSH HI CSC AREA 210. CSO POP U5S9.
DA fOP 55480. OA SIZE 12.6 70 SHSA PCE 276948.
2000 SHSA POP 35100C. NC.CSO PTS. 81 EAYS «/ RAIN 121.0 BEAN BAIN 28.12
EN CLASS 8 ILOi 0. It DRAINED 100.00
RH TEBP 22.70 BOD 2.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 150.0 ALK 150.0 PH 7.50
COS1 FACTOR 1.0415 CBAI 0.3500
SEQ HO 184 O.A NO. 55509 OA HAHE RACINE HI CSC AREA 1355. CSO POP 28770.
OA EOP 117408. OA SIZE 28.1 70 SHSA PCE 170828.
2000 SHSA POP 195000. NC.CSO PTS. 501 CAIS H/ BAIN 119.0 BEAR RAIN 31.95
*N CLASS 8 FLOH 0. X DRAINED 100.00
RN TEHP 22.70 BOD 2.0 SS 80.0 PB 0.0167 HARD 150.0 ALK 150.0 PH 7.50
CCS1 FACTOR 1.0415 CUT 0.3500
SEQ MO 317 O.A HO. 27201 OA RAHE CAGOAS EC CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 65844. OA SIZE 8.5 70 SHSA PCE 95661.
2000 SHSA POP 15100C. HC.CSO PTS. 01 CAIS H/ RAII 150.0 BEAN RAIN 65.61
EH CLASS 2 ILOH 216. X DRAINED 100.JO
RN TEHP 27.50 BOD 0.8 SS 922.0 PB 0.C HARD 99.5 ALK 97.6 PH 7.20
CC£3 FACTOR 1.3223 CIAT 0.0
SEQ MO 318 O.A NO. 27202 OA KAHE HATA60EZ PR CSC AREA 0. CSO POP 0.
OA EOP 69558. OA SIZE 14.3 70 SHSA PCE 85857.
2000 SHSA POP 14000C. NC.CSO PTS. Ot CAXS H/ RAIN 150.0 MAN RAIN 76.12
EN CLASS 15 ILOB 0. % DRAINED 100.00
RN TEHP 29.50 BOD 3.6 SS 0.0 PB 0.0 HARD €5.6 A1K 72.0 PH 7.00
COST FACTOR 1.2223 CNAT C.O
B - 54
-------
OBBANIZED ABE* CATA EASE LISTING
SIC HO 319 O.A NO. 27203 OA MAHE PONCE PE CSC AREA 0. CSO POP
Ok EOP 128233. Ok SIZE 17.0 70 SMSk PCE 158961.
2000 SBSA POP 26000C. NC.CSO PTS. 0* (AXS «/ BAIN 99.0 BEAN RAIN 36.53
EN CLASS 4 FLOfi 16. % DRAINED 50.OC
BH TEHP 30.50 BOD 2.2 SS 0.0 PB 0.0 HARD 403.3 A IK 271.3 PH 7.90
COST FACTOR 1.3223 CUT 0.0
SEQ NO 320 0.A NO. 27204 OA NAME SAN JOAN CD CSC AREA 1067. CSO POP 17800,
Ok EOP 820442. Ok SIZE 102.5 70 SNSA POE 1165406.
200C SHSA POP 130000C. NC.CSO PTS. Ot CAXS H/ BAIN 208.C CEAN RAIN 64.21
EH CLISS 10 PLOH 0. % DRAINED 100.OC
BH TIBP 31.50 BOD 3.7 SS 88.0 PB 0.0 HARD 141.7 A1K 143.3 PH 7.50
COST IkCTOH 1.3223 CIAI 0.0
B - 55
-------
APPENDIX C
NONURBANIZED AREA CSO DATA BASE
-------
Table C-1
Non-Urbanized Area Combined Sewer Data Base
o
to
Combined Sewer
State Name
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Area
(acres)
0.
324.
0.
0.
2,750.
1,015.
5,221.
1,515.
0.
630.
360.
0.
9,306.
77,878.
78,788.
17,422.
400.
15,567.
0.
32,986.
10,105.
5,744.
25,075.
4,369.
1,570.
2,196.
7,723.
270.
Population
_'
5,410.
~
25,000.
1 7,000.
50,366.
9,700.
-
4,370.
3,820.
-
46,012.
552,116.
430,554.
236,370.
5,000.
241,521.
-
257,976.
53,886.
220,607.
240,673.
29,242.
19,100.
28,791.
128,981.
7,900.
Number of
Systems
__
2
-
-
2
2
7
4
-
1
1
-
14
91
93
14
1
14
-
56
11
14
52
15
3
8
11
1
Number of
CSO Points
„
0
-
-
2
0
33
23
-
10
4
-
24
223
286
38
3
94
-
165
62
78
134
10
1
18
0
1
Annual
Number
of Days
with Rain
_m
174
-
-
49
87
125
117
-
114
115
~
90
113
121
104
91
122
-
125
112
129
134
116
116
101
99
98
Annual
Rainfall
(inches)
__
35.
-
-
15.
14.
43.
44.
~
51.
47.
-
11.
35.
38.
31.
33.
42.
-
43.
43.
43.
31.
26.
52.
37.
14.
25.
Mean
RW Flow
(cfs)
_
0.
-
-
280.
0.
7,124.
92.
-
0.
6,677.
-
5,233.
1 3,646.
2,148.
37,778.
38,910.
140,491.
-
5,564.
12,941.
5,463.
3,649.
3,573.
0.
38,762.
0.
5,660.
Background
BOD
(mg/l) '
_
0.
-
-
1.
1.
1.
1.
-
1.
1.
-
2.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
-
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
2.
2.
2.
SS
(mg/l)
..
173.
-
-
10.
80.
20.
20.
-
20.
20.
-
12.
140.
100.
140.
240.
46.
-
20.
20.
20.
30.
100.
20.
140.
85.
240.
Construction
Cost
Factor
..
1 .033000
-
-
1.134399
0.884300
1.091900
1.181800
-
0.884300
0.834700
-
1.033000
1.160899
1.104500
0.835400
1.000000
1.041499
-
1.222600
1.008300
1.134899
1 .049600
1.041499
1.100900
1.100900
0.884300
0.837100
Natural
Runoff
Coefficient
0.530
-
..
0.459
0.077
0.565
0.412
-
0.306
0.306
-
0.530
0.235
0.386
0.235
0.077
0.386
~
0.565
0.391
0.565
0.350
0.235
0.327
0.257
0.072
0.072
-------
Table C-l (Continued)
Combined Sewer
State Name
Nevada
New Hampshire
New jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
_ Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
w Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
Virgin Islands
Area
(acres)
0.
3,203.
4,791.
0.
21,155.
566.
843.
121,403.
0.
9,755.
22,448.
11,865.
0.
2,132.
6,580.
0.
284.
11,187.
2,672.
17,299.
34,137.
6,128.
877.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
Population
_
139,656.
446,767.
-
417,307.
8,900.
15,962.
842,087.
-
50,782.
620,951.
197,000.
-
35,599.
34,000.
-
4,736.
123,117.
30,850.
88,007.
296,559.
84,035.
14,645.
-
-
-
-
-
Number of
Systems
_
21
3
-
28
2
7
73
-
21
79
2
-
11
1
-
2
28
7
20
33
8
1
-
-
-
~
-
Number of
CSO Points
_ •
112
11
-
163
0
4
475
-
130
998
87
-
1
0
-
0
161
19
119
246
53
0
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
Number
of Days
with Rain
_
124
113
-
148
115
106
142
-
152
132
124
-
96
120
-
87
148
115
149
147
120
101
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
Rainfall
(inches)
_
42.
43.
~
37.
51.
19-
37.
-
39.
41.
42.
-
25.
45.
-
15.
33.
43.
61.
41.
29.
15.
-
-
-
-
-
Mean
RW Flow
(cfs)
_
1,589.
16,306.
''-
15,864.
1,333.
2,508.
1 5,426.
-
82,299.
4,426.
297.
-
0.
0.
-
0.
1,619.
3,848.
6,495.
9,432.
5,347.
0.
-
-
-
-
-
Background
BOD
(mg/l)
_
1.
1.
-
1.
1.
3.
2.
-
1.
1.
1.
-
3.
2.
-
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
3.
1.
-
-
-
~
-
SS
(mg/l)
_
20.
20.
-
20.
40.
200.
46.
-
20.
20.
20.
-
240.
60.
-
60.
20.
20.
20.
20.
46.
226.
-
-
- -
-
-
Construction
Cost
Factor
_
1.122600
1.181800
-
1.233800
0.628100
1.041499
1.041499
-
1.033000
1.031300
1.120899
-
1.041499
0.828900
„
0.884300
.122600
.008300
.033000
.041300
.041499
0.884300
-
-
~
~
-
Natural
Runoff
Coefficient
„
0.565
0.412
. -
0.497
0.306
0.072
0.386
-
0.530
0.391
0.565
-
0.072
0.413
-
0.086
0.497
0.306
0.530
0.386
0.235
0.072
-
-
-
--
-
-------
APPENDIX D
FORTRAN LISTING OF NEEDS
ESTIMATION COMPUTER PROGRAM
-------
C NOTE I HAVE COMENTED OUT VT=,VT1=
C NOTE I HAVE COMMENTED OUT S25=,S26=
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
**************************************
* NEEDS ESTIMATION PROGRAM FOB CATEG
**************************************
DEVELOPED BY: CH2M HILL INC.
7201 N.W. 11TH PLACE
GAINESVILLE FLOBIDA 32
FOR: FACILITIES REQUIREMENT
*****************
CUES V AND VI *
*****************
6C2
S DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C.
EART I OF THIS PROGRAM COMPUTES COMBIN
11 SEWER OVERFLOW
(CAT V) NEEDS AND URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF (CAT VI) NEEDS
FCR PRESENT AND YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS FOR 320 URBANIZED
AREAS. BOTH CAPITAL AND OPERATION & M
ARE ESTIMATED
AINTENANCE CCSTS
EART II OF THIS PRCGRAM COMPUTES ADDITICNAL COMBINED SEW1R
OVERFLOW (CAT V) NEEDS FOR COMBINED SE
CU1SIDE OF URBANIZED AREAS.
WIH SYSTEMS LOCATED
DIMENSION EPAPOE(78),OBPCP(78) , EPA1 (78),OBP(78)
INTEGER EPAPOP,CBPOP,TLFW5,TLFW6
DATA EPAPOP/4140000,667000,0,4149000,2970000,26786000,0 ,
1 3868000,3741000,841000,661000,15049OCO,7053000,0,1366COC,
2 1183000,12358000,5732000,3101000,2517000,4224000,4659000,
3 1222000,5583000,6614000,10314000,4505000,274000C,5225COC,
4 802000,1734000, 1141000,1306000,8747000,1436000,18922000,
5 7419000,690000,12031000,3396000,3209000,12365000,0,1033000,
6 3700000,730000,5573000,18069000,1688000,607000,6755000,0,
7 4417000,2003000,5553000,484000,0,0,0,40000,0,0,C,0,0,27£000,
8 0,0,0,0,0,4700000,0,0,205000,0,0,116000/
DATA OBPOP/4284300,438000,0,3065500,2380400,27049400,C,
1 3134000,4030000,779100,750000,12713300,6458100,0,1085200,
2 755400,13877000,6837000,3053500,2322200,4233500,4021200,
3 1002900,5947400,7456700,11342500,4900700,24964OC,5717COC,
4 656400,1609800,881500,989400,9693900,1180400,22438400,
5 6972900,545200, 13382200,3144700,2680100,139943OC,0,1191700,
6 3319400,637000,5625200,14632600,1412100,550200,6782300,0,
7 3992100,1845100,5012900,334000,0,0,0 ,40000,0,0,C,0,0,27EOOO,
8 0,0,0,0,0,4688827,0,0,205000,0,0,11600/
REAL NEWSWA ,LEN,NSPYR,NDR
DIMENSION UANM(6)
INTEGER SEQ,UANC
REAL LCSO,LSWR,LWWTP,LUSF
REAL LBATB,LRATS
1000 FORMAT (218,6A4, 5F8. 0/F8.0,18 ,2F8. 0,16,5F8. 0/6F8 .0)
10C4 FORMAT(1X,5('*») ,'SSPOP FOR SEC NO. ',16,'IS LT 0.0')
1005 FORMAT (1X,5 ('*') ,'CSPOP LT 1.0 AND CSAREA=0 FOR SEQ NC.',I6)
1006 FORMAT(1X,5('*') ,'SSAREA LT 0 FOR SEC NC.' ,16)
1007 FORMAT(I1,I3,I6,6A4,F8.0,2F9.0,F6.1 ,2F9. 0,I3,F6.1 ,F5. 2,I2,F7,
D - 2
00000100
00000200
00000300
00000400
00000500
00000600
00000700
00000800
00000900
00001000
00001100
00001200
00001300
00001400
00001500
00001600
00001700
00001800
00001900
00002000
00002100
00002200
00002300
00002400
00002500
00002600
00002700
00002800
00002900
00003000
00003100
00003200
00003300
00003400
00003500
00003600
00003700
00003800
00003900
00004000
00004100
00004200
00004300
00004400
00004500
00004600
00004700
00004800
00004900
00005000
00005100
00005200
00005300
00005400
00005500
00005600
00005700
00005800
00006000
00006100
0,F600006200
-------
1.2,
1F5.2,2F6.1,F6.4,2F6.1,F4.2,2F6.4,211,12F14.0,F13.0, 2F5.2,
1 2T1,2F6.3,2I1,4F6.3,3F6.4,4F6.3,2I2,2F8.1,2F9.0)
C
C THIS EROGRAM WRITES 2 RECORDS
C -1ST- PRESENT CONDITIONS AND COSTS
C -2ND- YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS AND COSTS
C
C***********************************************
C
C INITIALIZE ALL VARIABLES
C
DO 10 1=1,78
EPA1 (I)=EFAPOP(I)
OBP(I)=OBPOP(I)
10 CONTINUE
K=1
KMAX=320
C***************************************************
C
C READ UA EA1A SEQUENCE =K
C
50 CONTINUE
C
C READ URBANIZED AREA EATA
C
BEAD(5,1000,END=99)SEQ,UANO,UANM,CSASIA,CSPOP,U1POP,UAS 2,
1 POP70,POPOO,NCSC,NDR,RAIN,ICLASS,QUSF,PD,T,BOD,SS,PB,HABD,
1 ALK,PH,CF,CNAT
PD=PD/100.0
J*1 PRESENT CONDITIONS
J=2 YR 2000 CONDITIONS
C
C
C
C*****************************************************
C
C CCHPOTE UA CHARACTERISTICS-PRESENT CCNDIT3CNS
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C STCHMWATER AREA
C
SSAREA=UASZ*640.0-CSAREA
IF(SSAR£A.LT.O. 0) WRITE(6,1006) SEQ
IF(SSABIA.LT.O.O) GOTO 50
**********************************************
* COMPUTE URBANIZED AREA CHARACTERISTICS *
4*********************************************
C
C
C
100
150
EOPULATION DENSITY - COMBINED SEWER
CONTINUE
IF(CSPOP.LT.1.0.AND.CSAREA.GI.O.O)WEITE(6,1005)SBQ
IF(CSEOP.LT.1.0.AND.CSAREA.6T.O.O)GC10 50
IF(CSAREA.GT.O. 5) GOTO 150
EDCS=0.0
CSPOP=0.0
CSIMP*0.0
GOTO 200 , .
CONTINUE U - J .
00006300
00006UOO
00006410
00006500
00006600
00006700
00006800
00006900
00007000
00007100
00007200
00007300
00007400
00007500
00007600
00007700
00007800
00007900
00008000
00008100
00008200
00008300
00008400
00008500
00008600
00008700
00008800
00008900
00009000
00009100
00009200
00009300
00009400
00009500
00009600
00009700
00009800
00009900
00010000
00010100
00010200
00010300
00010400
00010500
00010600
00010700
00010800
00010900
00011000
00011100
00011200
00011300
00011400
00011500
00011600
00011700
00011800
00011900
00012000
00012100
00012200
-------
PDCS=CSPOP/CSAREA
200 CONTINUE
C
C POPULATION DENSITY - STORMWATER AREA
C
SSPOP=1>APOP-CSPCP
205 CONTINUE
IF(SSPOP.LT.O.O)WRITE(6,1004)SEC
IF(SSPOP.LT.O.O)GO TO 50
PDSS=SSPOP/SSAREA
C
C
C
210
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
IMPERVIOUSNESS - COMBINED SEWER AREA
IF(CSARIA.LE. 0. 5) GOTO 210
X1 = ALOG10 (PDCS)
X2=C.573-(0.0391*X1)
CSIMP=9.6*(PDCS**^2)
CSIHP=CSIMP/100.0
CONTINUE
IMPERVIODSNESS - S10RMHATER AREA
X01=ALOG10(PDSS)
X02=0. £73- (0.03S1*X01)
SSIMP = 9.6*(PDSS**X02)
SSIMP=SSIMP/100.0
BUNCFF COEFF - CCMEINEE SEWER AREA
BOCS=0.90*CSIMP*CNAT*(1.0-CSIMP)
HUNCFF COEIF - STOBMWATER AREA
FOSS=0.90*SSIHP+CNAT* (1 ,0-SSIME)
*****************************************
* MILES OF STREET IN URBANIZED AREA *
*****************************************
UAPOP=UAPOP/1000.0
IF {UAEOP.GE. 100.0) GOTO 250
C FOB UAPOP LT 100,000
C
TOTMIL=45.0+ (OAEOP-10.0) *1. 9444
GOTO 300
250 CONTINUE
C FCR UAPOP GT 100,000
C
TOTMIL=220.0+ (U APOP-100. 0) * 1 . 9778
300 CONTINUE
UAPOP=UAPOP*1 000.0
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
KILES - COMBINED SEWEB AREA
SMCS=T01MIL*CSPCP/UAPOP
EILES - STCBMWATER AREA
SMS£=IOIMIL*SSPOP/UAPOP
4*************************************
00012300
00012UOO
00012500
00012600
00012700
00012800
00012900
00013000
00013100
00013200
00013300
00013400
00013500
00013600
00013700
00013800
00013900
00014000
00014100
00014200
00014300
00014400
00014500
00014600
00014700
00014800
00014900
00015000
00015100
00015200
00015300
00015400
00015500
00015600
00015700
00015800
00015900
00016000
00016100
00016200
00016300
00016400
00016500
00016600
00016700
00016800
00016900
00017000
00017100
00017200
00017300
00017400
00017500
00017600
00017700
00017800
00017900
00018000
00018100
00018200
00018300
-------
c
c
c
c
c
* COMPUTE ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADS f/YE *
4*44****************** ****************
ANNUAL EOLL01ANT LOAD - COMBINED SEWEB AEIA
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
= 0.142+0.218*(PDCS**0.54)
EODC=BAIN* ( 1. 92*TE1+1 . 89)
CSOEOD=EODC*CSABEA*ED
SSC=BAIN* (39. 24*TEU25. 94)
CSOSS=SSC*CSABEA*PD
PBC=BAIN*(0.0126*TE1+0.0124)
CSOFB=PBC*CSABEA*PD
ANNUAL PCLLU1ANT LCAE- STOBMWATEB ABEA
TE2=0.142+0.218*(PDSS**0.54)
EODS=BAIN* (0.467*TE2+0.457)
SWBEOD=BODS*SSABEA*PD
SSS=BAIN* (9. 52*lE2+6.29)
SWBS£=SSS*SSABEA*PD
EBS=BAIN* (0.0126*TE2+0.0124)
SWBPE=PBS*SSABEA*PD
ANKUAL LOAD - HWTP EfFLUENT
WWBOD=9.12*UAPOP*PD
MWSS=9.12*UAPOP*PD
WWPB=0.01210*UAEOP*PD
ANNUAL LOAD - EACKGBCUND UPSIBEAM FLOW
DFBOD=BCD*QUSF*1967.8
UFSS=SS*QUSF*1967.8
UFPB=PE*QUSF*1967.8
4*4***********************************
* COMPUTE TOTAL WATEB YIELD (CFS) *
44************************************
CCKBINED SEHZR OVEBFLON
CSBUN=BUN (BAIN,FOCS,CSABEA)
S1CEHHATEE BUNOFF
SSBUN=BUN (BAIN^BOSS/SSABEA)
KK1P AT (100 GPCD -CFS)
WWTP=1.5U7E-U*UAEOP
TOUAL FLOW ***************
QT= (CSBI3N*SSBUN+WWTE) *PD*QUSF
C
c
c
c
AB5
AB6
- ANNUAL
- ANNUAL
BUNOFF
BU.NOIF
CSO
SUB
IN
IN
INCHES
INCHES
AB5=BAIN*BOCS
AB6=BAIN*BOSS
C**44*************************************************
C D - 5
C CCMPUTE COSTS FOB AESTHETICS LEVEL
00018U00
00018500
00018600
00018700
00018800
00018900
00019000
00019100
00019200
00019300
00019400
00019500
00019600
00019700
00019800
00019900
00020000
00020100
00020200
00020300
00020400
00020500
00020600
00020700
00020800
00020900
00021000
00021100
00021200
00021300
00021400
00021500
00021600
00021700
00021800
00021900
00022000
00022100
00022200
00022300
00022400
00022500
00022600
00022700
00022800
00022900
00023000
00023100
00023200
00023300
00023400
00023500
00023600
00023700
00023800
00023900
00024000
00024100
00024200
00024300
00024400
-------
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
340
A) CAPITAL—ALC
B)C 6 M—ALCM
****************************
* AESTHETICS OBJICTIVE *
444 + #***************** 4*****
4****************
* CAT V (CSO) *
*****************
IF(CSAREA.LT.O. 5) GOTO 340
CAPITAL COST STREET SWEEPING
CSW=SMCS*2.0*7.25*365*0.25
O&M COST STREET SWIEPING
CMSW=SMC3*2.0*9.45*365*0.25
CAPITAL COST SEWER FLUSHING
CSF=CSABIA*6105.0*0.13
CSH COST SEWER FLUSHING
CMSF=CSABEA*724.0*0.13
SUM COSTS FOB AESTHETICS LEVEL
ALC5=CSW+CSF
ALOE5=CMSW+OMSF
CONTINUE
IF (CSABEA.LE.0.5)ALC5=0.0
3F(CSAB£A.LE.O. 5) ALOM5=0.0
c***********************************************
C * AESTHETICS OBJECTIVE—CAT VI (SWR) *
C************************************************
C
c **********************************************
C * COMPUTE CAPITAL COST OF STREETSWEEPIMG *
£ **********************************************
C
C PRESENT VALUE OF STREET SWEEPING
ALC6=SBSS*7.25*365*0.30
C COMPUTE 0 & M COST OF STHEETSWEEPING
C
CMSS=SMSS*9.45*265*0.30
C COMPUTE ANNUAL COST OF EROSION CONTROL
C SUM ANNUAL COSTS
CMEC=SSAREA*0.04*464.0
ALOK6=OMSS+OMEC
C CCMPUTE CAPITAL CCSI OF DETENTION BASINS IN NEW
C NEW AREAS (J=2) ONLY
IF (J.SE. 2) GOTO 350
NEWSWA=SSAREA-PSSA D - 6
00024500
00024600
00024700
00024800
00024900
-00025000
00025100
00025200
00025300
00025400
00025500
00025600
00025700
00025800
00025900
00026000
00026100
00026200
00026300
00026400
00026500
00026600
00026700
00026800
00026900
00027000
00027100
00027200
00027300
00027400
00027500
00027600
00027700
00027800
00027900
00028000
00028100
00028200
00028300
00028400
00028500
00028600
00028700
00028800
00028900
00029000
00029100
00029200
00029300
00029400
00029500
OOC29600
OOC29700
00029800
00029900
00030000
00030100
00030200
00030300
00030400
00030500
-------
IF(NEWSWA.LT.O.C)NEWSWA=0.0
IF(NE«SWA,LT.O. 5) GOTO 350
NTP2=(NEWSWA/1000.0)**0. 435+0. 5
IF(NTP2.LT.1)NTE2=1
EATP=NE«SWA/NTP2
AE=EOSS*BAIN
C STOEAGE CAPACITY (INCHES)
S=0. 1048* (AB**0.372)
C STCBAGE VCLOME (MG)
V=S*DATP*0.02715
CCS =30300. 0*(V*+0.783)
CCS=NTP2*CCS
ALC6=A1C6+CCS
C * COMPOTE 0 6 M CCST OF DETENTION BASINS IN
350
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
* NEW AEEAS
CMCS=2670.0*(V**0.509)
CMCS=OMCS+618.0*(V**0.405)
CMCS=CMCS+15.8* (V**0.493)
ALOM6 = ALOM6-K)MCS
CONTINUE
**********************************************
* COMPUTE BEMOVAI EEfiUIREMENTS FOB F fi W *
**************************************
************************
* SUSPENDED SOIIES *
************************
1SS=CSOSS+SWBSS
CSS=CSBCN+SSRON
C IN CFS
C # fEfi YEAB
QSS=62.U*24. 0*3600. 0*365. 0*QSS
C CCNC (MG/1)
CONSS=TSS*1.0E+6/QSS
SSMAX=SS
IF(SSMAX.LT.25. 0) SSMAX=25.0
IF (CCMSS.LE. SSMAX) SSEEM=0.0
IF(CCNSS. LE. SSMJiX) GOTO 400
SSEEM= JCONSS-SSMAX) /CONSS
SSREM=100*SSSEM
C AEEID 12-U-78
IF(SSBEM.LT.40. 0)
C 35
.1.00
CONTINUE
C * BOD *
C ************
C
C FECM API
C # EER YEAfi
ICSC=CSOBCD
LSHB=SHBEOD
LWHTP=«WBOD
LOSF=OIEOD
C SKIP LAKES, OCEANS, FONDS
IF(ICLflSS.EQ.7.0R.ICLASS.EQ.8.0B.IClASS.EQ.15)BCDREH=80.0
IF(ICLASS.EQ.7.0R.ICLASS.EQ.8.0B.ICI4SS.EQ.15) GCTO 550
C 13EAI ESTDJ5BX D - 7
00030600
00030700
00030800
00030900
00031000
00031100
00031200
00031300
00031UOO
00031500
00031600
00031700
00031800
00031900
00032000
00032100
00032200
00032300
00032100
00032500
00032600
00032700
00032800
00032900
00033000
00033100
00033200
00033300
00033400
00033500
00033600
00033700
00033800
00033900
00034000
00034100
00034200
00034300
00034400
00034500
00034600
00034700
00034800
00034900
00035000
00035100
00035200
00035300
00035400
00035500
00035600
00035700
00035800
00035900
00036000
00036100
00036200
00036300
00036400
00036500
00036600
-------
IF(ICLASS.GE. 6) GOTO 450
IF(QCSE.LE.0.5) EWK=10.2
IF(QUSF.LE.O.S) GOTO 500
EWK = 1£3.6*QUSF**(-0.5882)
IF(EWK.GT.10.2) EWK=10.2
IF (RWK.LT.O.176)RWK=0.176
GOTO 500
450 CONTINUE
CALL EWK2 (ICLASS,RWK)
500 CONTINUE
C KUUBEE OF SICEMS PER YEAH
NSPYR=1.0022*NDE-2.58
C DURATION BUNOFF CS
D1 = 0.6*9.94*NSP*R
D1=D1/8760.0
C EUEATICN BUNOFF SWB
D2=0.5*9.94*NSPYR
D2=D2/8760.0
C fill HEATHER
gWW=QUSF+HWTP+C£RUN/D1+SSRUN/D2
C ERY HEATHER
QDW=QDSF+WWTP
CSOCP= (LCSO*0.4 0)/(01*8760.0)
SWRCP= (I SHE* 0.1 6)/(D2*8760.0)
USFCP= (LOSF*0.1 6) /8760. 0
KWTPQP=(LWWTP*0.23)/8760.0
HWQP=(CSOQP+SHRCP+USFQP + WWTPQP)
DWQE= (l)SFCP+HHTPQP)/(QDW*RWK)
EOSAT = 14. 652-0. 410222*1*0.00799* (T**2)-0.00007777* (T**3)
EWDO=DOSAT-1.66
VT=0.0
VT1 = 0.0
C
C
C
C
C
550
C
C
C
C
C
C
COMPUTE T01AI VICLATIONS FOR UA
VT=1013. 0+864.0*DWQP+25 6.0* WWQP-2 04. 0*D«DO
VT=VI-353.0
IF(VT.LE.4.0)BOEBEM=0.0
IF(VT.LE.4.0) GOTO 550
W/C NFS
HWQP1= |USFQP + WWTPQP)/(QHW*RWK)
VT1=1013.0+864.0*DHCP+256.0*WKQP1-204.0*DWDO
VT1=VT1-353.0
VT1 Gl 4.0 DEANS CAM REACH CRITERIA
IF (VT1.GT. 4. 0)-BCDREM=90. 0
IF (VT1.GT.4.0)GCTO 550
CAN MEET CEITEE3A
WWQP2=(204.0*DWCO-864.0*DWQP-1009.0J/256.0
X= tWWQP-WHQP2)/ (WWQ£-WWQP1)
EODBEM=100.0*X
IF(BODEIM.GT.95.0)BODREM=95.0
CONTINDE
IF(BODEEM.LT.UO.O) BODREH=40.0
*****i|E ********* ***************** **** *** ********** ******* ** *
* COMPOTE REMOVAI OBTAINED FROM AESTHETICS OBJECTIVE *
4 ************************************* 4*******************4
***** PRESENT CONDITIONS
IF(J.NE. 1) GOTO 650
AESTHETICS LEVEL BCD 6 SS
(J=D
D - 8
REMOVAL
00036700
00036800
00036900
00037000
00037100
000372CO
00037300
00037400
00037500
00037600
00037700
00037800
00037900
00038000
00038100
00038200
00038300
00038400
00038500
00038600
00038700
00038800
00038900
00039000
00039100
00039200
00039300
00039400
00039500
00039600
00039610
00039620
00039700
00039800
00039900
00040000
00040100
00040200
00040300
00040400
00040500
00040600
00040700
00040800
00040900
00041000
00041100
000412CO
00041300
00041400
00041500
00041600
00041700
00041800
00041900
00042000
00042100
00042200
OOC42300
00042400
00042500
-------
ALBODB=(40.0*LCSO+22.0*LSWR)/(1CSO+ISHB)
ALSSR= (40.0*CSOSS*22.0*SWRSS)/(CSOSS*SWESS)
600 CONTINUE
IF(ALBODR.LT.BOCREM.OR.ALSSR.LI.SSREHJGOTO 750
EWLC5=ALC5
FWLCM5=ALOM5
FWLC6=A1C6
EWLCM6=ALCM6
GOTO 700
650 CONTINUE
C IUTURE CONDITIONS (J=2)
C EFIICIENCY SS £ BOD EEHOVAL AES OBJECTIVES
EFFS£=(43.0*NEWSWA*22*PSSA)/SSABEA
EFJBOD=(40.0*NE»SWA+22*PSSA)/SSABEA
ALBODR=(40.0*LCSO+EFFBOD*LSHH)/ (LCSC*ISWB)
ALSSR= (40.0*CSOSS + EEFSS*SWRSS)/ (CSOSS+SWRSS)
GOTO 600
C
C
C
C
C
cc
700
IF EXTRA COSTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO
MEET THE F & W OBJECTIVE SET TREATMENT IEVEL
EETERMINE VALUES FCR SSAV5,SSAV6,TSAV5 ,1SAV6
THEN PROCEED TO THE RECREATION OBJECTIVE
2 AND
CONTINUE
ILEV5=2
ILEV6=2
NTP5=0.0
IF(CSAREA.GT.O. 0)
1 NTP5=(CSAREA/1000.0)**0.435+0.5
NTP6= (SSAREA/1000.0)**0.435+0.5
IA5=0.0
IF(CSAREA.GT.O. 0. AND. NTP5.LT. 1) NTP5 = 1
IF(CSABEA.GT.O.O)
1 rA5=CSARIA/NTP5
EA6=SSAREA/NTP6
IEPA=UANO/10000
IT1=UANC-IEPA*10000
IST=II1/100
CALL BAINEG (IST,IHG)
CALL ISOPAR (IRG,B,H,D,F)
T15=(AR5*S5) /876000.0
T16=(AB6*95)/876000.0
X56=B*IXP(H*95)
Y56=D*EXP(-1.0*E*95)
IF(CSABEA.LE.O.O)TSAV5=0.0
IF(CSAREA.LE.O. 5)SSAV5=0.0
3FJCSABEA.GT.O. 0)
1 CALL SlOPIfS^ILEVS^AS^IS^Se^YSe^ISAVS^SAVS)
CALL STOPT{6,ILEV6,CA6,T16,X56,Y56, TSAV6,SSAV6)
GOTO 1350
C****************************************************
750 CONTINUE
C IETERMINE CONTROL LEVEL BEQ BY CATEGORY AND OPTIMUM MIX OF
C STRUCTURAL AND NONSTBUCTURAL CONTROLS BY CATEGORY, AKD
C COSTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (HP'S)
C
C
C
c **************************************************
C * DETERMINE OPTIKUM MIX OF POLLUTANT SEMOVAL *
C * BY WATERSHED D - 9 *
00042600
00042700
00042800
00042900
00043000
00043100
00043200
00043300
00043400
00043500
00043600
00043700
00043800
00043900
00044000
00044100
00044200
00044300
00044400
00044500
00044600
00044700
00044800
00044900
00045000
00045100
00045200
00045300
00045400
00045500
00045600
00045700
00045800
00045900
00046000
00046100
00046200
00046300
00046400
00046500
00046600
00046700
00046800
00046900
00047000
00047100
00047200
00047300
00047400
00047500
00047600
00047700
00047800
00047900
00048000
00048100
00048200
00048300
00048400
00048500
00048600
-------
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
******
RBB5 -
HESS -
BEB6 -
RE6S -
****
BOD
SS
EOD
SS
**************************************************
BEMOVAI COMBINED
SEPABATE
IF(CSiRIA.NE.O. 0) GOTO 800
BRB5=0.0
BRS5=0.0
BRB6=EOEREM
RBS6=SSEEM
GOTO 850
800 CONTINUE
C THIS IS CASE FOE CSAEEA NOT =0.0
C BJTICS
ARAI=CSAREA/ (CSflREA+SSAREA)
LRATB= (LCSO/CSABEA)/(LSWR/SSAREA)
LRATS=(CSOSS/CSAREA)/(SWBSS/SSABEA)
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
810
650
C
C
C
REMOVALS BY WATERSHED FOB BOD
IF (BODEEM. LT. 0. 5) BSB5=0 . 0
IF(BCDEEM.LT.0.5)BBB6=0.0
IFfBODBEM.LT.O. 5) GOTO 810
ERB6=0.926*BODBEM-2.696*LRATB+1 11 .92*ABA1
IF(BBB6.LT.O.O) BRB6=0.0
IF{RRE6.GT.95.0)RRB6=95.0
EODE6=(BRB6/100.0) *SWRBOD
EODE5= (CSOBOD+SWBBOE) * (BODBEM/100.0 ) -BODE6
BBB5= (ECDB5/CSOEOD) *100. 0
IF(BBE5.GT.95.0)BBB5=95.0
IF(RRE5.LT.95.0)GO!IO 810
EODB5=0.95*CSOBCD
EODB6= (CSOBOD+SHRBOD)*(BODREM/100.0) -BODB5
BRB6= (EOER6/SHREOD) *100.0
IF (RRE6.GT.95.0)RRB6=95.0
REMOVALS BY WATERSHED FOR SS
CONTINUE
IF (SSREtt.LT. 0
IF (SSEEtt.LT.0.5)ERS6
IF(SSEEfl.LT.0.5)GOTO
5) RRS5=0. 0
0.0
850
RRS6=0.926*SSBEH-2.696*LBATS*111.92*ABAT
IF£BRS6.LT.O.O) BRS6=0.0
IF (BRS6.GT. 95. 0)RRS 6=95.0
SSR6= (BES6/1 00. 0) *SHBSS
SSR5= (CSOSS + SWRSS) * (SSREM/100. 0) -SS B6
ERS5=(SSR5/CSOSS) *100.0
IF (BRSS.GT. 95.0) BBS 5=95.0
IF(ERS5.LT.95.0)GOTO 850
SSR5=0 95*CSCSS
SSR6=(CSOSS + SWRSS)* (SSREM/1 00. 0) -SS B5
EES6= (S£R6/SWBSS)*100.0
IF (RRS6.GT.95.0)RRS6=95.0
CONTINUE
DETEBMINE LEVEI Of
BY WA1ERSHED
EFFORT FOB
D
HP (MANAGEMENT
- 10
PEACTICE )
00048700
OOOU8800
00048900
00049000
OOC49100
00049200
00049300
00049400
00049500
00049600
00049700
00049800
00049900
00050000
00050100
00050200
00050300
00050400
00050500
OOC50600
00050700
00050800
00050900
00051000
00051100
00051200
00051300
00051400
00051500
00051600
00051700
00051800
00051900
00052000
00052100
00052200
00052300
00052400
00052500
00052600
00052700
00052800
00052900
00053000
00053100
00053200
00053300
00053400
00053500
00053600
00053700
OOC53800
00053900
00054000
00054100
00054200
00054300
00054400
00054500
00054600
00054700
-------
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
,
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
3SWE5 - LEVE1 OF EFFORT STREETSWEEPING ECD,
SSWS5 - SS
2SWB6 - EOB,
SSKS6 - SS
XSFE5 - SEWER FLUSHING EOE
XSFS5 SS
CALL SSCW(RRE5,XSWB5)
CALL SSCW(RRS5,XSWS5)
CALL SSSW(RRB6,XSHB6)
CALL SSSW (RRS6, SSWS6)
CALL SECS(RRB5,XSFB5)
CALL SFCS(RRS5, XSFS5)
* DETEEHINE COSTS OF UPS BY POLLUTANT BY
SW - SIREITSWEEEING
SF - SEWER FLUSHING
CSWE5 - CAPITAL COST SW BOD, CSO
CMSWB5 - OSM
CSKS5 - CAPITAL CCST SW SS,CSO
CMSWS5 - CEM
CSWES -CAPITAL BOD,SWH
CMSKB6 - C8M
CSWS6 - CAPITAL SS
CMSWS6 - C 6 M
CSFE5 - CAPITAL Sf BOD, CSO
CMSFB5 - 06M
CSFS5 - CAPITAL SS
CMSFS5 - C6M
A) CAPITAL COST CF STREET SWEEPING SWE
CSWB6=SMSS*7.25*365*XSWB6
CSWS6=SMSS*7.25*365*XSWS6
E) OSM COST OF STRE1TSWEEPING SWR
CMSWB6=£MSS*9. 4f*365*XSWB6
CMSWS6=SMSS*9.45*365*XSWS6
C) CAPITAL COST OF STREETSWEEPING CSC
CSWB5=SMCS*2.0*7.25*365*XSWB5
CSWS5=SMCS*2.0*7. 25*365*XSWS5
E) OSM CCST OF S1REETSWEEPING CSO
CMSWB5=SMCS*2.0*9.45*365*XSWB5
CMSWS5=SMCS*2. 0*9. 45*365*XSWS5
E) CAPITAL COST OF SEWER FLUSHING CSC
CSFB5=CSAREA*6105.0*XSFB5
CSFS5=CSAREA*6105.0*XSFS5
J3 - 11
J) O&M CCST OF SEWER FLUSHING CSO
CSO
SWR
,csc
WATERSHED
00054800
00054900
00055000
00055100
00055200
00055300
00055400
00055500
00055600
00055700
00055800
00055900
00056000
00056100
00056200
00056300
00056400
00056500
00056600
00056700
00056800
00056900
00057000
00057100
00057200
00057300
00057400
00057500
00057600
00057700
00057800
00057900
00058000
00058100
00058200
00058300
00058400
00058500
00058600
00058700
00058800
00058900
00059000
00059100
00059200
00059300
00059400
00059500
00059600
00059700
00059800
00059900
00060000
00060100
00060200
00060300
00060400
00060500
00060600
00060700
00060800
-------
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CMSFE5=CSAREA*724.0*XSFB5
CMSFS5=CSAREA*724.0*XSFS5
* SUM COST BY POLLUTANT 6 WATERSHED
CMPB5 - CAPITAL ME EOD CSO
C8FS5 - SS
CHMPE5- CSB BOD
CKMFS5 SS
CHEB6 - CAPITAL MP BOD SWR
CMPS6 -
CKMEB6- OSM
CMKPS6 -
SS
BOD SWR
SS
CMPE5=CSWE5+CSFE5
CMP£5=CSHS5+CSF£5
CMMPE5=CMSWB5+OHSFB5
CMMPS5=OMSWS5+OMSFS5
CMPB6=CSWB6
CMPS6=CSWS6
CMMPE6=CMSWB6
CMMPS6=CMSWS6
* DETERMINE POLLUTANT REMOVALS EHOM BE-S
AND XSF TO YSE
TRANSFORM XSW TC YSW
YSWB5=1SW(XSWB5)
YSHS5=1£K(XSWS5)
YSHS6=1£W(XSWS6)
YSWB6=1SH(XSWB6)
YSFE5=2SF(XSFB5)
YSFS5=TSF(XSFS5)
E) TRANSFORM YSW TO FRSW
FRSWB5=1FSW(0.24,PDCS,YSWB5)
FRSWS5=TFSW(0.24rPDCS,YSWS5)
FRSWE6=TF£W(0.50,PDSS,YSWB6)
FRSWS6=TFSW{0.50fPDSS,YSWS6)
C) TRANSFORM YSF TO FRSF
ERSFE5=0.536*YSPB5
IRSFS5=0.536*YSFS5
DETERMINE REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
STORAGE/TREATMENT SYSTEMS
S/T REMOVAI BOD CSO
SS
BOD SWR
SS
1E1 = HRB5- (FRSHB5+FRSFB5) *100.0
TE2=10C.O-100.0*(FRSWB5+FRSFB5)
STB5X=TE1/TE2
STB5X=S1B5X*100.0
IF(STB5X.LE.1.0)STB5X=0.0
D - 12
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
* D
* s
STB5X
£TS5X
STB6X
STS6X
00060900
OOC61000
00061100
00061200
00061300
00061UOO
00061500
00061600
00061700
00061800
00061900
00062000
00062100
00062200
OOC62300
00062400
00062500
00062600
00062700
00062800
00062900
00063000
00063100
00063200
00063300
00063400
00063500
00063600
00063700
00063800
00063900
00064000
00064100
00064200
00064300
00064400
00064500
00064600
00064700
00064800
00064900
00065000
00065100
00065200
00065300
00065400
00065500
00065600
00065700
00065800
00065900
00066000
00066100
00066200
00066300
00066400
00066500
00066600
00066700
00066800
00066900
-------
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
£51
TE1=EBS5- (FRSKS5+FRSFS5)*100.0
TE2=100.0-100.0*(FRSWS5+FRSFS5)
S1S5X=1E1/1E2
STS5X = S!IS5X*100.0
IF(STS5X.LE.1.0)STS5X=0.0
TE1 = EBE6- (FRSHB6*100.0)
TE2=10C.O-100.0*FBSKB6
STB6)!=TE1/TE2
STB6X=SIB6X*100.0
IF (STB6X.LE. 1.0)S1B6X=0.0
IE1=RRS6-FRSHS6*100.0
TE2=100.0-100.0*FRSKS6
STS6X=TE1/TE2
STS6X=S1S6X*100.0
IF(STS6X.LE. 1.0)SIS6X=0.0
* DETERMINE TREATMENT LEVEL REMOVAL EIFICIENCY AND
* CAPTURE REQUIRED
CALL LEVB06(S1B6X,IIEV6B)
CALL LEVB05 (STB5X,ILEV5B)
CALL LEVSS6(S1S6X,IIEV6S)
CALL LEVSS5 (S1S5X,ILEV5S)
EB6=REE(ILEV6B)
EB5 = REE(ILEV5B)
ES6 = HES (IIEV6S)
ES5=RES(ILEV5S)
CCMEUTE CAPTURE REQUIRED
C5B=STE5X/EB5
C6B=STE6X/EB6
C5S=S1£5X/ES5
C6S=S3S6X/ES6
* CCHPD1E OPTIMUK STORAGE/1HEATMENT E5 ECLLDTANT
* AND WATERSHED
44 *************************************************
* DETERMINE NUMBER OJ TREATMENT ELANTS (NET), *
* STORAGE VOLUME (V), TREATMENT RATE IT), AND *
* COSTS FOR STORAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS *
****************************** *********************
ITYPE=5
ITYPE=6
FOR CSC
FOR SWB
NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS & DRAINAGE ABBA
IF(CSABEA.GT.O. C)G010 851
NTP5=0.0
EA5=0.0
GOTO €52
CONTINUE D - 13
NTP5=(CSARIA/1000. 0) **0. 435+0.5
00067000
00067100
00067200
00067300
00067400
00067500
00067600
00067700
00067800
00067900
00068000
00068100
00068200
00068300
00068400
00068500
00068600
OOC68700
00068800
00068900
00069000
00069100
00069200
00069300
00069400
00069500
00069600
00069700
00069800
00069900
00070000
00070100
00070200
00070300
00070400
00070500
00070600
00070700
00070800
00070900
00071000
00071100
00071200
00071300
00071400
00071500
00071600
00071700
00071800
00071900
00072000
00072100
00072200
00072300
00072400
00072500
00072600
00072700
00072800
00072900
00073000
-------
6E2
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
IF(NTP5.L1.1)NTP5=1
DA5=CSAREA/NTP5
CONTINUE
NTP6=(SSAREA/1000.0) **0.435+0.5
IF{NTP6.LT. 1) NTE6=1
EA6=SSABEA/N1P6
IIEV5B = LEVL REQ EOE REM CSO ABEA
ILIV6E = 1EVL REQ BOD BEM SWR ABEA
ILEV5S = IEVL EEQ SS REM CSO ABEA
ILEV6S = LEV1 REQ SS REM SWR ABEA
= CAPTURE EEC BOD REM CSO AREA
= n EEC BOD, REM SWR AREA
C5E
C6B
CSS = SS ' CSO
C6S = SS SWR
E) COMPUTE T15B,T15S,T16B,T16S
115B = 11 CSO, BOE
116B = T1 SWR, BOE
115S = T1 CSO SS
116S = T1 SWB S3
AR5 = ANNUAL RUNCFI CSO
AR6 = ANNUAL BUNCFJ SWB
T15E=(AR5*C5B)/876 000.0
T16B=(AB6*C6B)/876 000.0
T15S=(AR5*C5S)/876000.0
T16S=(AB6*C6S)/876000.0
C) COMPUTE X5B,X6E,X5£,X6S
IEPA=UANO/10000
IT1=UANC-IEPA*10000
131=111/100
CALL RAINRG(IST,IRG)
CALL ISOPAR(IRG,B, H,D,F)
X5B=B*EXP£H*C5B)
X6B=B*EXP(H*C6B)
X5S=B*IXP(H*C5S)
X6S=B*EXF(H*C6S)
E) COMPUTE Y5B,Y6B,Y5S,Y6S
Y5B=E*EXP(-1.0*I*C5B)
Y6B=D*EXP (-1.0*I*C6B)
Y5S=D*EXP(-1,0*I*C5S)
Y6S=D*EXP (-1 ,0*J*C6S)
E) EIND OPTIMUM STORAGE/TREATMENT COMBINATION FOR
COMBINED SEWER WATERSHED BOD REMOVAL
IF(C5B.EQ.0.0)6010 853
CALL S10PT (5,ILEV5B,DA5,T15B,X5E,Y5*,T5I,S5B)
f) FIND OPTIMUM STORAGE/TREfcTMENT COMBIKATION FOR
STOBMEtiATIR BCD REMCVAL
D - 14
00073100
00073200
00073300
00073400
00073500
00073600
00073700
00073800
00073900
00074000
00074100
00074200
00074300
00074400
OOC74500
OOC7U600
00074700
00074800
00074900
00075000
00075100
00075200
00075300
00075400
00075500
00075600
00075700
00075800
00075900
00076000
00076100
00076200
00076300
00076400
00076500
00076600
00076700
00076800
00076900
00077000
00077100
00077200
00077300
00077400
00077500
00077600
00077700
00077800
00077900
00078000
00078100
00078200
00078300
00078400
00078500
00078600
00078700
00078800
00078900
00079000
00079100
-------
£53 IF(C6B.EQ.O.O)GCTO 854
CALL S10PT (6,IIEV6B,DA6,T16B,X6E,Y6E,T6E,S6B)
C
C G) FIND OPTIMUM STORAGE/TREATMENT COMBIKA1ICN FOR
CC COMBINED SEWER WATERSHED SS REMOVAL
C
£54 IF(C5S.EQ.O.O)GCIO 855
CALL SIOPT (5,IIEV5S,DA5,T15S,X5S,Y5S,I5S,S5S)
C
C
C
C
£55
C
656
B) FIND OPTIMUM STORAGE/TREATMENT COMBIKATION FOR
STOEMWATEB WA1EESHEC SS REMOVAL
IF(C6S.EQ.O.O)GCTO 856
CALL SIOPT (6,IIEV6S,DA6,T16S,X6S,Y6S,T6S,S6S)
CONTINUE
IF(C5B.GT.O.O)GCTO 857
T5B=0.0
S5B=0.0
CONTINUE
IF (C6E.GT.O.O)GOTO 858
T6B=0.0
S6B=0.0
CONTINUE
IF (C5S.G1.0.0)GOTO 859
T5S=0.0
S5S*0.0
CONTINUE
IF(C6S.GT.O.O)GCTO 860
T6S=0.0
S6S=0.0
CONTINUE
**********************************************
C
C CCMPUIE COSTS FOE STCRAGI-TREATMENT SYSTEHS FOB F6W LEVEL BY CATEGORY
C A) CAPITAL—FWLC
C E)05M —FWLOH
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
657
858
659
860
*************************************************
* COMPUTE CAPITAL ANE O&M COSTS FOR STORAGE *
* TREATMENT SYSTEMS ' *
*************************************************
i)
CCMPUTE COSTS FOE BOD EEMOVAI FROM COMBINED SEWER
WATERSHED
IF(T5fl.G!I.O.O.AMD.S5B.GT.O.O) GOTO 862
CC5B=0.0
OM5E=0.0
GOTO 864
662 CONTINUE
C5B=0.6518*T5B*EA5
V5B=0.02715*S5B*DA5
CALI CCL(ILEV5B,a5fl,CCT5B)
CALL CBL(ILEV5B,Q5B,OMT5B)
C1=CCEIS (Q5B)
CM1=CMDIS(Q5E) .
CCT5B=CCT5B+C1 u " AO
00079200
00079300
OOC79UOO
00079500
00079600
00079700
00079800
00079900
00080000
00080100
00080200
00080300
00080400
00080500
00080600
00080700
00080800
00080900
00081000
00081100
00081200
00081300
00081UOO
00081500
00081600
OOC81700
00081800
00081900
00082000
00082100
00082200
00082300
00082400
00082500
00082600
00082700
00082800
00082900
00083000
00083100
00083200
00083300
00083400
00083500
00083600
00083700
00083800
00083900
00084000
00084100
OOC84200
00084300
00084400
00084500
00084600
00084700
00084800
00084900
00085000
00085100
00085200
-------
c
c
c
864
865
CMT5E=CMT5B+OM1
CCS5E=CCCS(V5B)
CMS5B=OMS(V5B)
CC5E = (CCT5B + CCS5B)*NTP5
CM5B= (CMT5B + OMS5B) *NTP5
£) COMPUTE COSTS FOB BOD BEMOVAI FROM STOBMWATEB WATERSHED
CONTINUE
IF(T6B.GT.O.O.AKD.S6B.GT.O.O) 6010 865
CC6B=0.0
CM6B=0.0
GOTO 870
CONTINUE
Q6B=0.6518*T6E*EA6
V6B=0.02715*S6B*DA6
CALI CCL{ILEV6B,Q6B,CCT6B)
CALL CM1 (ILEV6B,Q6B,OHT6B)
C1=CCEIS (Q6B)
CM1=CMDIS(Q6E)
CCT6B=CCT6B+C1
CMT6E=CflT6B+OMl
CCS6B=CCSWB (V6B)
CMS6E=CMS(V6B)
CC6E=(CCT6B + CCS6B) *NTP6
CM6B= (OM16E+CMS6B)*NTP6
C) COMPUTE COSIS FOB SS BEHOVAL IROM COMBINED WATERSHED
CONTINUE
IF(T5S.GT.O.O.AKD.S5S.GT.0.0) GOTO 875
CC5S=0.0
CM5S=0.0
GOTO 880
CONTINUE
Q5S=0.6S18*T5S*EA5
V5S=O.C2715*S5S*DA5
CALI CCL(ILEV5S,Q5S,CCT5S)
CALI CM1 {ILEV5S,Q5S,OMT5S)
C1=CCDI£(Q5S)
CM1=CMDIS (Q5S)
CCT5S=CCT5S+C1
CMT5S=CMT5S<-OH1
CCS5S=CCCS (V5S)
OMS5£=OMS(V5S)
CC5S=(CCT5S-«-CCS5S) *NTP5
CM5S= (CMT5S + OMS5S) *MTP5
D) COMEUTI COSTS fOR SS REMOVAL PROM STCEMWATER WATERSHED
CONTINUE
IF(T6S.G1.0.0.AKD.S6S.GT.O.O) GOTO 885
CC6S=0.0
CM6S=0.0
GOTO 890
885 CONTINUE
Q6S=0.6518*T6S*EA6
V6S=0.02715*S6S*DA6
CALL CCL(ILEV6S,Q6S,CCT6S)
CALI CBL(ILEV6S,Q6S,OMT6S)
C1=CCDI£ (Q6S) D - 16
C
C
C
870
875
C
C
C
880
00085300
00085400
00085500
00085600
00085700
00085800
00085900
00086000
00086100
00086200
00086300
00086400
00086500
00086600
00086700
00086800
00086900
00087000
00087100
OOC87200
00087300
00087400
OOC87500
00087600
00087700
00087800
00087900
00088000
OOC88100
00088200
00088300
00088400
00088500
00088600
00088700
00088800
00088900
00089000
00089100
00089200
OOC89300
00089400
00089500
00089600
00089700
00089800
00089900
00090000
00090100
00090200
00090300
00090400
00090500
00090600
00090700
00090800
00090900
00091000
00091100
00091200
00091300
-------
890
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
FCB
900
C JOB
S50
C
C E)
C
CM1 = CMDIS (Q6S)
CCT6S=CCT6S+C1
CMT6£=CMT6S+OM1
CCS6£=CCSHR(V6S)
CMS6S=OMS (V6S)
CC6S=(CCT6S+CCS6S)*NTP6
CM6S = (CMT6S+OMS6S) *NTP6
CONTINUE
DETIEMINE WHICE POIIUTANT CONTBOLS
ESTAE1ISE NEEDS
COMBINED SEWEP
CCBOD5=CC5B+CMPi5
CCSS5=CC5S+CMPS5
IF{CCBOE5.GE.CCSS5) 15=1
IF(CCEOD5.LT.CCSS5) 15=2
15=1
IF(I5.NE.1) G010 900
FWLC5=CCBOD5
FWLCM5=CM5E+OMMIB5
XSW5=XSWB5
XSF5=XSFB5
TLFW5=IIEV5B
QFW5=15B
SFW5=S5B
GOTO 950
CONTINUE
15=2
IWLC5=CCSS5
FWLCM5=CM5S+OMMFS5
XSW5=XSWS5
XSF5=]ISFS5
1LFW5=IIEV5S
QFW5=1SS
£FW5=S5S
CONTINUE
STCEMHATEB BUKOFF
NEEES AND
CCBOD6=CC6B+CMPE6
CCSS6=CC6S-i-CMPSe
C SE1 SKB INDICATOB
IF (CCEOE6.GE.CCSS6) 16=1
IF(CCBOD6.LT.CCSS6) 16=2
C FCB 16=1
IF(I6.NE.1) G010 1050
IHLC6=CCBOD6
FWLCM6=CM6E<-OHBEE6
XSW6=XSWB6
TLFW6=ILEV6B
QFW6=T6B
£FW6=£6B
GOTO 1100
1050 CONTINUE
C FCB 16 = 2
FWLC6=CCSS6
FWLCM6=CM6S+OMMES6
XSW6=XSWS6
D - 17
00091UOO
00091500
00091600
00091700
00091800
00091900
00092000
00092100
00092200
00092300
00092400
00092500
00092600
00092700
00092800
00092900
00093000
00093100
00093200
00093300
00093400
00093500
00093600
00093700
00093800
00093900
00094000
00094100
00094200
00094300
00094400
OOG94500
00094600
00094700
00094800
00094900
00095000
00095100
00095200
00095300
00095400
00095500
OOC95600
00095700
00095800
00095900
00096000
00096100
00096200
00096300
00096400
00096500
00096600
00096700
00096800
00096900
00097000
00097100
00097200
00097300
OOC97400
-------
TLFW6=ILEV6S
QFW6=T6S
SFW6=S6S
1100 CONTINUE
C
C SAVE CCNTFCLLING STOBAGE AND TREATMENT VALUES FOR BECEEATICN
C CRITERIA LEVELS
IF(I5.NE.1)GOTO 1150
SSAV5=E5B
TSAV5=I5B
ILEV5=ILEV5B
1150 CONTINUE
IF (15.NE.2)GOTO 1200
SSAV5=S5S
TSAV5=T5S
ILEV5=ILEV5S
1200 CONTINUE
IF(I6.NE. 1) GOTO 1250
SSAV6=£6B
TSAV6=16B
ILEV6=ILEV6B
1250 CONTINUE
IF(I6.NE,2) GOTO 1300
SSAV6=S6S
1SAV6=T6S
ILEV6=ILEV6S
1300 CONTINUE
c****************************************************
1350 CONTINUE
C CCKEUTE STOBAGE VOLUME AND TREATMENT RATE
C BECUIBED FCB 2 OVEBFLOH EVENTS PEB YEAR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
AB5
D1
ANNUAL RUNOFF CSO (IN.)
DURATION OF EUNOEF FROM BRFW
C
C
C
1355
IF S/T REQUIREMENTS FOB F&W ARE SHALL (I.E.
IEVEL 1 OR 2 ) SET I1EVEL =2 AND COMPUTE SSAV
AND TSAV EASED ON 95% CAPTURE BEFORE INCREASING
FACILITY SIZE TO MEET BECREATION CBITEBIA
A) COMBINED SEHEE WATERSHED
IF(CSABEA.LT.0.5)GOTO 1355
IF(ILEV5.GE.3)GCTO 1355
ILEV5=2
EA5=CSABIA/NTP5
IEPA=UANO/10000
IT1=UANC-IEPA*10000
IST=IT1/100
CALL BAINRG (1ST ,IRG)
CALL ISOPAR(IRG,B,H,D,F)
T15=(AB5*95.0)/876000.0
X56=B*EXP(H*95.C)
Y56=D*IXP(-1.0*F*95.0)
CALL STOPT(5,2,IA5,Tl5,X56,Y56f1SAV5,SSAV5)
E) STOBMNATER WATERSHED
CONTINUE
D - 18
00097500
00097600
00097700
00097800
OOC97900
00098000
00098100
00098200
00098300
00098400
OOC98500
00098600
00098700
OOC98800
00098900
00099000
00099100
00099200
00099300
00099UOO
00099500
00099600
OOC99700
00099800
00099900
00100000
00100100
00100200
00100300
00100400
00100500
00100600
00100700
00100800
00100900
00101000
00101100
00101200
00101300
00101400
00101500
00101600
00101700
00101800
00101900
00102000
00102100
00102200
00102300
00102400
00102500
00102600
00102700
00102800
00102900
00103000
00103100
00103200
00103300
00103400
00103500
-------
1360
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
1372
IF(ILEV6.GE.3)GCTO 1360
ILEV6=2
EA6=SSJBIA/NTP6
IEPA=UANO/10000
IT1=UANC-IEPA*10000
IST=IT1/100
CALL BAINBG(IST,IBG)
CALL ISOPAR(IBG,B,H,D,F)
116= (AB6*95. 0)/876000.0
X56=B*IXP(H*95.0)
Y56=D*IXP (-1.0*1*95.0)
CALL STOPT(6,2fEA6,Tl6,X56,Y56,lSAV6,SSAV6)
CONTINUE
S25=0.0653*AB5-0.0273*01*100.0
S25=S25-0.27
S26 = O.C653*AR6-0.0273*02*1 00.0
526=526-0.27
COMPUTE BA1IC TO F & i STOBAGE
IF(SSAV5.EQ.O.O)B5=1.0
IF(SSAV5.KE.O.O)B5=S25/SSAV5
IF(R5.L1.1.0) B5 = 1.0
IF(SSAV6.EQ.O.O)R6=1.0
IF(SSAV6.NE.O.O)
1 B6=S26/SSAV6
IF(B6. LI. 1.0)86=1.0
SCALE UP FACILITIES TO MEET RECREATION OBJECTIVES
(IN.)
S5=SSAV5*B5
S6=SSAV6*B6
(IN/HR)
T5=1SAV5*B5
16=TSAV6*B6
(MG)
V5=C.C2715*S5*DA5
V6=0.02715*S6*DA6
(HGD)
Q5=C.6518*T5*EAE
Q6=0.6518*T6*EA6
* COMPU1I COS1S CI SCALED UP FACILITIES
A) COMBINED SEHEB WATERSHED
IF(CSaBEA.GT.O.O) GOTO 1372
BLC5=0.0
BLOM5=0.0
GOTO 1374
CONTINUE
CALL CCL(ILEV5,C5,CCT5)
CCD5=CCDIS(Q5)
CCS5=CCCS(V5)
BLC5= (CCD5 + CCT5 tCCSS) *NTP5
CALL CML(ILEV5,C5rOHT5)
OMD5=CMDIS(Q5)
OMS5=OMS(V5)
BLOM5={CMT5+OMD5<-OMS5)*NTP5
00103600
00103700
00103800
00103900
00104000
00104100
00104200
00104300
00104400
00104500
00104600
00104700
00104800
00104900
00105000
00105100
00105200
00105300
00105400
00105500
00105600
00105700
00105800
00105900
00106000
00106100
00106200
00106300
00106400
00106500
00106600
00106700
00106800
00106900
00107000
00107100
00107200
00107300
00107400
00107500
00107600
00107700
00107800
00107900
00108000
00108100
00108200
00108300
00108400
00108500
00108600
00108700
00108800
00108900
00109000
00109100
00109200
00109300
00109400
00109500
00109600
-------
c
c
1374
STOEMKA1EE WATERSHED
CONVINCE
CALL CC
CCD6=CCEIS (Q6)
CCS6=CCSHR(V6)
ELC6=(CCI6 + CCD64CCS6) *NTP6
CALI CML(ILEV6,C.6,OMT6)
CMD6=CMDIS (Q6)
CMS6=OMS(V6)
ELOM6= (CMT6*OHD6+OMS6) *NTP6
C*4* ** « ***********.**********************
C CCHPUTE CAPITAL COST 01 SEWER SEPARATION -CCSS
ccss=o.o
IFfCSAREA.GT.O. 0) CCSS=1779, 0*CSPOP* 1. 25*CF
14*4**********************************************
ADJUST ALL COSTS BY CITY COST FACTOE AKE INCREASE ALL
CAPITAL COSTS BY 25 % FOR PLANNING, DESIGN, ETC.
C
C
C
ALC5=ALC5*1.25*CF
ALC6=ALC6*1.25*CF
IWLC5=FWLC5*1.25*CF
FWLC6=FHLC6*1.25*CF
ELC5=BLC5*1.25*CF
RLC6=BLC6*1.25*CF
C
ALOH5=J»LOM5*CF
ALCM6=ALOM6*CF
FWLCM5=FW10H5*CF
IWLCM6=FWLOM6*CI
ELCM5=BIOM5*CF
BLCH6=JLOM6*CI
C IS THIS PRESENT CCNEITICNS ?
C IS J=1
IF(J.EQ.1) GOTO 1UOO
GOTO 1550
C
C LCCK AT YEAfi 2000 CONDITIONS
C YES
C
1400 CONTINUE
C4****44*************#*******************************
C EUT PRESENT CONDITIONS
PD=PD*100.0
WRITE (8,1007)J,SEQ,OANO,UANM,CSAREA,CSEOP,UAPOPfUASZ,EOE70,
1 fOPOO,NCSC,NDB,EAIN,ICLASS,QUSF,PD,T,EOD,SS,PB,HAED,AlK,EH,
1 CF,CNAT,I5,I6rAIC5,ALOM5,ALC6,ALOM6,FWlC5rFHLOM5rFWLC6,
1 FWLCH6,ELC5,ELCM5,ELC6,ELOM6,CCSS,BCEEIH,SSBEM,
1 ILEV5,IlEV6fR5,B6,TLFW5,TLFW6,QFH5f giH6,SFH5,SFK6,
1 XSW5,XS«6,XSF5,15,T6,S5,S6fNTP5,NTP6,
1 VT,VT1,SSABEA,SSPOP
C
J=2
C*444*4**********************************************
C COMPOTE UA CHARACTERISTICS YR 2000 CONDITIONS
C OPEATE—
C UAAREAfUAPOE,CSABE£,CSEOP, CNAT ?
c *** KEEP TRACK OF PREVIOUS UA CHARACTERISTICS
PSSE=SSPOP
D - 20
00109700
00109800
00109900
00110000
00110100
00110200
00110300
00110UOO
00110500
00110600
00110700
00110800
00110900
00111000
00111100
00111200
00111300
00111400
00111500
00111600
00111700
00111800
00111900
00112000
00112100
00112200
00112300
00112400
00112500
00112600
00112700
00112800
00112900
00113000
00113100
00113200
00113300
00113400
00113500
00113600
00113700
00113800
00113900
00114000
00114010
00114100
- 00114200
00114300
00114400
00114410
00114420
00114430
00114600
00114700
00114800
00114900
00115000
00115100
00115200
00115300
00115400
-------
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
PSSA=SSAREA
ECSA=CSAREA
ECSP=CSEOP
* OBPOP = 2000 S3ATE POP - OBEfiS
* EPAPOP= - EPA
EOE70 - 1S70 UA PDF - OBERS
EOPOO - 2000
OAPOP - ACTUAL 197C POE 1970
E2000 - UA POP 2000
E2000 = UAPOP*(EOEOO/POP70) *(EPA1 {IST)/OBP (1ST) )
EOESS - 2000 UA POPULATION SERVED BY SICBM SEWEES
WE ASSUME CSPOP DOESNT CHANGE I.E. ALL NEW UAPOP IS SSEOE.
EOPS£=P2000-CSPCP
IF (POPSS.LT. 1000.0) POPSS=1000.0
SSAREA=POESS/PESS
IF(SSARIA.LT.1000.0)SSAREA=1000.0
C RESET FOR LATER USE
UAPOP=P2000
SSEOP=EOPSS
IF (SSPOE.LT.0.0)WRITE(6,1004) SEC
IF(SSPCE.LT. 0.0)60 TO 50
RECOMPUTE TOTAL BILES FO STREET IN UA 6 IN STORMWATER AREA
*****************************************
* MILES OF STREET IN URBANIZED AREA *
*****************************************
UAPOP=UAPOP/1000.0
IF (UAPOP.GE.100.0) GOTO 1450
C FOE UAPOE LT 100,000
C
TOTMIL=45.0+ (UAEOP-10.0) *1. 9444
GOTO 1500
1450 CONTINUE
C FCR UAPOP GT 100,000
C
TOTMIL=220.0+(UAPOP-100.0)* 1.97 78
1500 CONTINUE
UAPOP=OAPOP*100fl.O
C
C
C
C
C
c
KILES - COMBINED SEWER AREA
SMCS=TOTMIL*CSPCP/UAPOP
CILES - STCRMWATIR AREA
SMSS=TOTMIL*SSPCP/UAPOP
ED=PE/100.0
GOTO 2C5
*************************************************
C THIS IS YEAR 2000 CONDITIONS
C D - 21
C NO
00115500
00115600
00115700
00115800
00115900
00116000
00116100
00116200
00116300
00116400
00116500
00116600
00116700
00116800
00116900
00117000
00117100
00117200
00117300
00117400
00117500
00117600
00117700
00117800
00117900
00118000
00118100
00118200
00118300
00118400
00118500
00118600
00118700
00118800
00118900
00119000
00119100
00119200
00119300
00119400
00119500
00119600
00119700
00119800
00119900
00120000
00120100
00120200
00120300
00120400
00120500
00120600
00120700
00120800
00120900
00120910
00121000
00121100
00121200
00121300
00121400
-------
1550
UE
ED=PD*100.0
WRITE (8, 1 007) J,SEQ,UANO,UANM, CS ABBA,
1 EOPOO , KCSC , NDE, BAIN, ICLASS, QUSF ,PD, T
1 CFf CNAT, 15,16, AIC5, ALOM5 , ALC6, ALOM6 ,
«*=•*******************************=***************
C HAVE ALL UA'S BEEN EXAMINED ?
C IS K GT KHAI (-320)
IF (K.GI.KflAXJGOlO 1600
C DC THEN GO GET ANOTHER 5ICORD
GOTO 50
C
C
C YES AIL UA'S HAVE BEEN EXAMINED
C
1600 CONTINUE
99 CONTINUE
STOP
END
00121500
00121510
00121600
00121700
00121800
00121900
00121910
00121920
00121930
00122000
00122100
00122200
00122300
00122fOO
00122500
00122600
00122700
00122800
00122900
00123000
00123100
00123200
00123300
00123400
00123500
D - 22
-------
SEAL LCSO,LSWR,IWWTP,LUSF,NSPYB,LEN
C KEAK MONTHLY TEMP OF WATEfi FROM SOfiFACE SCDBCES FOR JULY ASD
C AUGUST,Bl STATE CODE
EIMENSION T(78)
EATA T/80.0,55.0,0.0,80.0,82.0,78.0,0.0,65.0,70.0,75. 0,
C23456
1 75.0,85.0,80.0,0.0,90.0,68.0,75.0,75,0,75.0,77.0,
1 77.0,83.0,65.0,75.0,70.0,70.0,70.0,81.0,77.0,65.0,
1 75.0,70.0,68.0,75.0,75.0,70.0,77.0,67.0,75.0,80.0,
1 68.0,73.0,0.0,70.0,80.0,72.0,78.0,83.0,73.0,68.0,
1 75.0,0.0,65.0,75.0,70.0,65.0,0.0,0. 0,0.0,90.0,
1 0.0, 0.0, 0.0,0.0,0.0, 90. 0,0. 0,0. 0,0. 0,0.0,
1 0.0,90.0,0.0,0.0,90.0,0.0,0.0,90.O/
FORM AT (IH,F8.0, 18.0 ,14,14,14,F8.0,F8.0,4F8.0)
FOHMAT(3I4,2F8. 0,314,4F8. 0, 2F8. 4,7F 14. 0 ,2F6.2)
CONTINUE
1010
1011
1600
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
*******************************************
* PART II OF NEEES ESTIMATION PBCGRAH *
* THIS PART OF TEE PROGRAM COMPUTES *
* CAT V NEEDS FCE COMBINED SEWER SYSTEMS*
* LOCATEC OUTSIDE OP URBANIZED AREAS *
444****************************************
K=1
KMAX=56
CONTINUE
FEAD NON 01 CAT V EATA
1610
C
C
C
READ(5,1010,END=99)ID,CSABEA,CSEOP,KCSS,NCSO,NDE,RAIN,QUSF,
C23456
1 EOD,SS,CF,CNAT
IEPA=IE/100
IST=ID-IEPA*100
IF£CSABEA.GT. 0.5) GOTO 1700
ALC=0.0
ALOM=0.0
FWC=0.0
FWOM=0.0
ELC=0.0
BLOM=0.0
CCSS=0.0
GOTO 2500
CONTINUE
1700
C
C
C
C
C
44***************************************************
* COMPUTE COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM CHABACTERISTICS '*
4************************************* ***************
PD=CSFCE/CSABEA
X1 = ALOG10(PD)
X2=0.573-(0.0391*X1)
CSIMP=9.6*(PD**X2)
CSIMP=CSIMP/100.0
EOCS=0.90*CSIMP+CNAT*(1.0-CSIMP)
CSPOP=CSPOP/1000.0
IF (CSPOP.GE. 100.0) GOTO 1750
TOTMIL=ii5.0+(CS£OP-10.0)*1.9U4
GOTO 1800
1750 CONTINUE D - 23
TOTMIL=220.0+ (CSPOP-1 00. 0) * 1 .9778
00000100
00000200
00000300
00000400
00000500
00000600
00000700
00000800
00000900
00001000
00001100
00001200
00001300
00001400
00001500
00001600
00001700
00001800
00001900
00002000
00002100
00002200
00002300
00002400
00002500
00002600
00002700
00002800
00002900
00003000
00003100
00003200
00003300
00003400
00003500
00003600
00003700
00003800
00003900
00004000
00004100
00004200
OOOOU300
00004400
00004500
00004600
00004700
OOOOU800
OOC04900
00005000
00005100
00005200
00005300
00005400
00005500
00005600
00005700
00005800
00005900
00006000
00006100
-------
18CO
C
C
C
C
C
cc
C
C
C
££
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CONTINUE
CSPOP=CSPOP*100 0.0
CCWEUTE ANNUAL PCLIUTAKT LOADS
1E1=0.1U2+0.218*(PD**0.54)
EODC=RAIN* (1.92*TE1 + 1.89)
CSOEOD=EODC*CSAEEA
SSC=RAIN*(39.24*TE1+25. 94)
CSOSS=SSC*CSAREA
WWBOD=9.12*CSPOE
KWSS=9.12*CSECP
UFBCE=EOD*QUSF*1967.8
UFSS=SS*QOSF*1S67.8
4444*****************************
* CCMEOTE TOTAL WATER HELD *
44 *******************************
CSRUN=BON (RAIN,EOCS,CSAREA)
HWTP=1.547E-U*CSEOP
QT=CSBUN*WWTP+QUSF
AR5=BAIN*BOCS
* 4'4** *************************************
* ( COMPOTE COSTS FOR AESTHETICS IEVEL *
******************************************
EA=CSAEEA/NCSS
MTP= (EA/1000. 0) **0.435+0.5
IF(NTP.LT. 1) NTP = 1
'EATP=EA/NTP
NTP1=NC£S*NTP
IF(NCSC.LT.NTP1)NCSO=NTP1
CAPITAL COST STREET SWEEPING
CSW=TCTMI1*2.0*7.25*365*0.25
C6M COST STREET SWEEPING
CMSH=TOTMIL*2.0*9.45*365*0.25
CAPITAL CCST SEWER FLUSHING
CSF=CSAEEA*6105.0*0.13
CSM COST SIWER FLUSHING
CMSF=CSARIA*724.0*0.13
SUH COSTS FOB AESTBETICS LEVEL
ALC=CSH+CSF
ALCM=OMSW+OMSF
D - 24
4*4*******************************************
* COMPOTE REMOVAI RETIREMENTS FCB F 6 H *
00006200.
00006300
00006400
00006500
00006600
00006700
00006800
00006900
00007000
00007100
00007200
00007300
00007400
00007500
00007600
00007700
00007800
00007900
00008000
00008100
00008200
00008300
00008400
00008500
00008600
00008700
00008800
00008900
00009000
00009100
OOC09200
00009210
00009220
00009230
00009240
00009250
00009260
00009300
00009400
00009500
00009600
00009700
00009800
OOC09900
00010000
00010100
00010200
00010300
00010400
00010500
00010600
00010700
00010800
00010900
00011000
00011100
00011200
00011300
00011400
00011500
00011600
-------
c
c
c
c
1£50
C
C E)
C
4444******************************=************
A) SUSPENDED SCLIDS
QSS=62. 4*24. 0*3600. 0*365*CSRUN
CON££=CSOSS*1.0I*6/QSS
SSMAX=SS
IF (SSMAX.LT.25. 0) SSMAX=25.0
IF (CCNSS.LE.SSMAX) SSKEM=0.0
IF (CCNSS.LE.SSMAX) GOTO 1850
SSBEM= (CONSS-SSKAX)/CONSS
SSREM=100.0*SSREM
IF(SSRIM.LT.40.0)SSBEM=40.0
CONTINUE
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
BOD (EBOM SITE STUDIES ASSUME SWRECD=CSOEOD )
LCSO=CSOBOD
LSWR=CSOBOD
LWKTP=KKBOD
LUSF=UIEOE
IF (QCSF.LE.0.5) EODREM=80.0
IF{CUSE.LE. 0.5) GOTO 1900
RWK= 1 53. 6*QUSF** (-0.5882)
IF (BWK.GT. 10.2) BWK=10.2
IF(HWK.IT.0.176)RWK=0.176
NSPXB=1.0022*NDB-2.58
E1=D1/8760.0
D2=C.5*9.9U*NSPKR
E2=D2/8760.0
SSBON=a.31*CSBUN
CWW=QOSE+WWTP+C£RUN/D1+SSBUN/D2
CDW=QOSE+WWTP
CSOCE= (LCSO*0.40)/(D1*8760.0)
SWBCP=(ISWB*0.1 6)/(E2*8760
USFCP=(LUSF*0. 16)/8760.0
WWTPQP= (LWWTP*0 .23) /8760. 0
0)
DWQE= (CSFQP+HHTJQP)/(QDW*BWK)
VT=0.0
VT1=0.0
11=1(131)
EOS AT= 14. 652-0. a 10222*11+0. 00799* (T1**2) -0.0000 7777* (T1**3)
DWDO=DOSAT-1.66
VT= 1013. 0+864. 0*DWUP+256.0*WWQP-204.C*DKDO
VT=VT+353.0
IF(VT.LE.4.0) EOEBEM=0.0
IF(Vl.IE.U.O) G010 1900
CSO
WWQP1=(CSFQP+WW1PQP+SWRQP)/(QHW*RWK)
VT1=1013.0+864.0*DWQP+256.0*WKQP1-204.0*DWDO
'811=V11+353.C
CAN DO CBITEBIA EE MET ?
IF(VT1.GT.4.0)BCDBEM=90.0
IF(VT1.GT.4.0)GCTO 1900
D - 25
000111700
00011800
000119CO
00012000
00012100
00012200
00012300
00012400
00012500
00012600
00012700
00012800
00012900
00013000
00013100
00013200
00013300
00013400
00013500
00013600
00013700
00013800
00013900
00014000
00014100
00014200
00014300
00014400
00014500
00014600
00014700
00014800
00014900
OOC15000
00015100
00015200
00015300
00015400
00015500
00015600
00015700
00015800
00015900
OCC16000
00016100
00016200
00016300
00016400
00016500
00016600
00016700
00016800
00016900
00017000
00017100
00017200
00017300
OOC17400
00017500
00017600
00017700
-------
c
c
1900
C
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
BEMOVAL EEC. IF CBITEEIA CAN BE MET
WWQF2=(204,0*DWEO-864.0*DHQP-1C09.0)/256.0
X= (WWCP-WKQP2)/ (WWQE-WWQP1)
EODEEM=100.0*X
CONTINUE
IF(BODBEM.LT.40.0)BCDREM=40.0
**************************************************
* DETERMINE HP'S - LEVEL 01 EFFOET A»E COSTS *
**************************************************
BEB5=EOIREM
BRS5=SSREM
CALL SSCW (RRE5, XSWB5)
CALL SSCH (RRS5,XSWS5)
CALL SICS (RRE5,XSFB5)
CALL SICS(RBS5,XSFS5)
CAPITAL COST STREET SWEEPING
CSHB5=TCTMIL*2.0*7.25*365*XSWB5
CCSWS5»TOTMIL*2.0*7.25*365*XSWS5
CGM COST STREET SWEEPING
CMSHB5=TOTMIL*2.0*9.45*365*XSWB5
'CMSWS5=TOTMIL*2.0*9.45*365*XSWS5
(
CAPITAL COST SEWER FLUSHING
CSFB5=C£AREA*6105.0*XSFB5
CSFS5=CSAEEA*61C5.0*XSFS5
06M COST SEWER FLUSHING
CMSFB5*CSAREA*724.0*XSFB5
CMSFS5=CSAREA*72U.O*XSFS5
SUM COSTS
CMPE5=CSWB5+CSFE5
CMPS5=CSSS5+CSFS5
CttMPE5=OMSWE5+OMSFB5
OMMES5=CMSWS5+OHSFS5
***********************************************
* DETEEMINE POLLCTAN1 REMOVAL FROM M E 'S *
***********************************************
ISWB5=TSH(XSWB5)
HSWS5=1£W(XSWS5)
YSFB5=!ISH(XSFB5)
YSF£5=2SH(XSFS5)
JRSWB5=1FSW (0.2U,PD,YSWB5)
IRSHS5=TFSW (0.24,PD,YSWS5)
IRSFB5«0.536*YSFB5
FBSFS5=0.536*Y£FS5
00017800
00017900
00018000
00018100
00018200
00018300
00018UOO
00018500
00018600
00018700
00018800
00018900
00019000
00019100
00019200
00019300
00019400
00019500
00019600
OOC19700
00019800
00019900
00020000
00020100
00020200
00020300
00020400
00020500
00020600
00020700
00020800
00020900
00021000
00021100
00021200
00021300
00021400
00021500
00021600
00021700
00021800
00021900
00022000
00022100
00022200
00022300
00022400
00022500
00022600
OOC22700
00022800
00022900
00023000
00023100
00023200
00023300
00023400
00023500
00023600
00023700
00023800
-------
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
930
931
4*********************************************
* DETERMINE REMOVAL EEQUIREMENTS FOR £/l *
4******J**4 *********************** 4* ***********
1E1=ERE5-(FRSWB5+FRSFB5)*100.0
TE2=100.0-100.0*(PRSWB5+FRSFB5)
SIB52=IE1/TE2
STB5X=STB5X*100.0
IF(STB5X.LE.1.0)STB5X=0.0
TE1=RRS5-(FRSHS5+FRSFS5)+100.0
TE2=100.0-100.0* (FRSWS5 + FRSFS5)
STS53=TE1/TE2
STS5X=S1S5X*100.0
IF (STS5X.LE.1.0)STS5X=0. 0
************************************** **************
* DETERMINE TRIA1MENT LEVE1 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY *
* AND CAETURE BECUIRED
4444************************************************
CALL LEVB05(SlB5XrILEV5B)
CALL LEVSS5 (STS5X,ILEV5S)
EB5=REE|ILEV5B)
ES5=RES(ILEV5S)
CCMEUTE CAETURE BEC.UIRED
C5B=STB5X/EB5
C5S=S1£5X/ES5
4********************************************************
* COMPUTE ISOQUANT PARAMETERS 6 STORAGE S TREATMENT *
* VALUES *C
4444*****************************************************
T15E=(JB5*C5B)/876000.0
T153= (AR5*C5S)/876 000.0
CALL EAINRG(ISTrIRG)
CALL ISOPAR(IHG,E,H,D,F)
X5B=B*IXP(H*C5B)
X5S=B*EXP(H*C5S)
Y5B=D*EXP (-1. 0*F*C5B)
Y5S=D*IXP (-1,0*F*C5S)
IF(C5B.EQ.O.O)GCTO 1930
CALL SIOPT(5,ILEV5B,DATP,Tl5BrX5BrY5E,T5BfS5B)
IF(C5S.EQ.O.O)GCTO 1931
CALL STOPT(5,ILEV5S,DATP,T15S,X5S,Y5S,1ES,S5S)
CONTINUE
OJGCTO 1935
1935
936
IF(C5B.G1,
15B=0.0
S5B=0.0
CONTINUE
IF(C5S.GI,
355=0.0
S5S=0.0
CONTINUE
O.OJGOTO 1936
4****************************************
* COMPUTE CAPITAL AND OSM COSTS FOR *
* STCEAGI TREATMENT SYSTEMS D _ 27 *
00023900
00024COO
00024100
00024200
00024300
00024400
00024500
00024600
00024700
00024800
OOG24900
00025000
00025100
00025200
00025300
00025400
00025500
00025600
00025700
00025800
00025900
00026000
00026100
00026200
00026300
00026400
00026500
00026600
00026700
00026800
00026900
00027000
00027100
00027200
00027300
00027400
00027500
00027600
00027700
00027800
00027900
00028000
00028100
00028200
00028300
00028400
00028500
00028600
00028700
00028800
OOC23900
00029000
00029100
00029200
00029300
00029400
00029500
00029600
00029700
OOC29800
00029900
-------
c
c
1940
1941
1S43
C
C
cc
c
c
c
c
c
c
1950
C
c
*****************************************
IF(T5B.G1.0.0.AND.S5B.GT.O.O)GOTO 1940
CC5B=0.0
OM5E=0.0
GOTO 1941
CONTINUE
Q5E=0.6518*T5B*EATP
V5B=0.02715*S5B*DATP
CAII CCI (IIEV5E,Q5B,CCT5B)
CALI CM1(IIEV5E,Q5B,OMT5B)
CCS5B=CCCS (V5B)
CMS5B=CMS(V5E)
C1=CCEIS (Q5B)
CM1=CMDIS(Q5E)
CCT5B=CC15B+C1
CMT5E=CKT5E+OM1
CC5E=(CCT5B+CCS5B) *NTP1
OM5E=(CKT5B+CMS5B) *NTP1
CONTINUE
IF(T5S.G1.0.0.AND.S5S.GT.O.O)GOTO 1 942
CC5S=0.0
CM5S=0.0
GOTO 1S43
CONTINUE
C5S=0.6518*T5S*EATP
V5S=0.02715*S5S*DATP
, CAII CC1(IIEV5S,C5S,CCT5S)
; CAII CMI (IIEV5S,Q5S,OMT5S)
C1 = CCEIS(Q5S)
OM1=CMDIS (Q5S)
CCT5£=CCT5S+C1
CMT5S=CMT5S-»-OMl
CCS5S=CCCS(V5S)
CMS5£=CMS(V5S)
CC5S=(CCT5S + CCS5S)*KTP1
CM5S= (CMT5S*OMS5S) *NTP1
CONTINUE
****************************************************
* DETEEWINE WHICH PCI1UTANT CCNIBCLS NEEES AND *
* ES1ABIISH F 6 W NEEDS *
****************************************************
CCBOD5=CC5E+CMPE5
CCSS5=CC5S+CMES5
IF(CCBOI5.GE.CCSS5)15=1
1F(CCECL5.LT.CC£S5)15=2
FOE 15=1 (EOD CONTEOIS NEEDS)
IF(I5.NE.1) GC10 1950
IWC=CCBCD5
FWOM=Cl
IIEV5=IIEV5B
£SAV5=S5B
TSAV5=15B
GOTO 2000
CONTINUE
FOE 15=2 (SS CONTEOIS NEEDS)
D - 28
00030000
00030100
00030200
00030300
00030400
00030500
00030600
00030700
00030800
00030900
00031000
00031100
00031200
00031300
00031400
00031500
00031600
00031700
00031800
00031900
00032000
00032100
00032200
00032300
00032400
00032500
00032600
00032700
00032800
OOC32900
00033000
00033100
00033200
00033300
00033400
00033500
00033600
00033700
00033800
00033900
00034000
00034100
00034200
00034300
00034400
00034500
00034600
00034700
00034800
00034900
00035000
00035100
00035200
00035300
00035400
00035500
00035600
00035700
00035800
OOC35900
00036000
-------
2C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
21
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
FWC=CCSS5
FWCM=CM5S+OMMPS5
ILEV5=ILEV5S
SSAV5=£5S
TSAV5=T5S
CO CONTINUE
***************************************************
* RECREATION LEVEL — COMPUTE SIORAGI VOLUME *
* AND TREATMENT BATES FOR 2 OVERFLOW EVENTS PER *
* YEAR *
*«4 *********************************** *************
IF S/T REQUIREMENTS FOR F&W ARE SMALL (I.E.
IEVEL 1 OH 2 ) SET ILEVEL =2 AND COMPUTE SSAV
JNE TSJSV EASED CN S5% CAPTURE BEFORE INCREASING
FACILITY SIZE TO MIET RECREATION CRITERIA
IF (ILEV5.GE.3)GCTO 2100
ILEV5=2
EA5=CSaRIA/NTP1
IEPA=IE/100
IST=ir-IEPA*100
CALL RAINEG(IST,IRG)
CALL ISCPAR(IRG,B,H,D,F)
T15=(AH5*S5.0)/S76000.0
= B*IXP(H*95.0)
= D*EXP(-1.0*F*95.0)
CALL STOP! (5,2,£A5,T15,X56,Y56,TSAV5,SSAV5)
00 CONTINUE
S25=O.C653*AR5-0.0273*01*100.0
325=325+0.27
IF(SSAV5.EQ.O.O)R5 = 1.0
IF(SSAV5.NE.O.O)R5=S25/SSAV5
IF(H5.LI.1.0) R5=1.0
S5=SSAV5*R5
T5=TSAV5*R5
V5=S5*0.02715*DATP
Q5=T5*0.6518*EATP
CCMEUTE CCST OF SCALED UP FACILITIES
CALL CCL(ILEV5,C5,CCT5)
CCD5=CCEIS(Q5)
CCS5=CCCS(V5)
RLC=(CCI5*CCD5+CCS5)*NTP1
CALI CHI (ILEV5,C5,OMT5)
CMD5=OMEIS(Q5)
CMS5=OMS(V5)
RLOK= (CMT5+OMD5+OMS5) *NTP1
***********************************************
* COMPUTE CAPITA! COST OF SEWER SEPARATION *
***********************************************
CCSS=1779.0*CSPCP*1.25*CF
************************************************
* ADJCSI ALL COSTS BY CITY COST EACTCE AND *
D •" 29
00036100
00036200
00036300
00036400
00036500
00036600
00036700
OOC36800
00036900
OOC37000
00037100
00037200
00037300
00037100
00037500
00037600
00037700
00037800
00037900
00038000
00038100
00038200
00038300
00038400
00038500
00038600
00038700
00038800
00038900
00039000
00039100
00039200
00 C3 93 00
00039400
00039500
00039600
00039700
00039800
00039900
OOOUOOOO
00040100
00040200
00040300
00040400
00040500
OOC40600
00040700
00040800
OOC40900
00041000
00041100
00041200
00041300
00041400
00041500
00041600
00041700
00041800
00041900
00042000
00042100
-------
c
c
c
c
2500
* INCREASE CAPITAL COSTS BY 25% FOB EIANNING *
* DESIGN,ETC. *
44*4********************************************
ALC=1.25*ALC*CF
ALOM=CF*AICM
EWC=1.25*CF*FHC
FHOM=FHCM*CF
ELC=1.25*CF*RIC
BLCM=CF*RLOM
CONTINUE -
WRITE (8, 1011) K,IEEA, 1ST, CSAREA,CSPOP, NCSS, NCSO , KDR , RAIN,
QUSF,EOE,SS,CF, CNAT ,ALC, ALOM, FHC, FW CH,BIC, BLCM, CCSS ,
£ODEEH,SSEEH
K=K-H
3F[K.GS.KMAX)GO!IO 99
GOTO 1610
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
STOP
CEBUG INIT
END
3CCO
99
£4444*4***** ACS *************************
c
SUBROUTINE ACS {V1, 1, AC)
IF(I.EQ.S) AC=61400.0*(V1**0.724)
IF{I.EQ.6)
EETUEN
END
= 33500*(V1**0.621)
£4444444********* ACT ************************
C
SUBROUTINE ACT (Q1,I,AC)
GOTO (10,20,30,40,50),!
10 CONTINUE
AC=359CC.O*(Q1**0.609)
GOTO 60
20 .CONTINUE
AC=781CO.C*(Q1**0.700)
GOTO 60
30 'CONTINUE
AC=1228CO.O*(Q1**0.727)
'GOTO 60
40 CONTINUE
AC = 1576CO.O*(Q1**0.688)
GOTO 60
50 CONTINUE
AC=213CCO.O*(Q1**0.711)
60 CONTINUE
BETUBN
END
C
£44*4******** CCCS *********************
C
FUNCTION CCCS (V)
C
£ 4*44********************************** 4****** **********
C * CAPITAL COST OE STORAGE FOR COHBINEE SEWEB AREA *
£ 4444***************************************************
C D - 30
00042200
00042300
00042400
00042500
00042600
00042700
00042800
00042900
00043000
00043100
00043200
00043300
00043400
00043500
00043600
00043700
00043800
00043900
0004UQOO
00044100
00044110
00044200
00044300
00044400
00044500
00044600
00044700
00044800
00044900
00045000
00045100
00045200
00045300
00045400
00045500
00045600
00045700
00045800
00045900
00046000
OOC46100
00046200
00046300
00046400
00046500
00046600
00046700
00046800
00046900
00047000
00047100
00047200
00047300
00047400
00047500
00047600
00047700
00047800
00047900
00048000
00048100
-------
C V - 1CTAI VCIUME IK KG
C
V1=0.3 *V
V2=0.7*TI
C1=465000.0*(V1**0.619)
C2=5280CO.O*(V2**0.790)
CCCS=C1+C2
BETUBN
END
C
C************** CCDIS ***********************
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
FUNCTICN CCDIS (Q1)
44*4******************************
* CAPITAL COST- DISINJECTION *
4444 ******************************
Q1 - JLOa BATE IN HGE
CCDIS=73100.0+6C20.0*Q1
EETUBN
END
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
444*********** CCL **************************
; SUEBOUT3NE CCL (LEVEL, Q ,CCT)
4*4**********************************
* COMPUTE CAPITA! COST BY LEVEL
*
444**********************************
CCT=0. 0
4444**********
* LEVEL 1 *
444*4*4*******
AEMINISTBA1ION
-HONE
LIECBATOBY
--NONE—
YiBEWOBK
--HCME
KAS1EWATEB EUMPING
C
C
C
C
CCWWE=113000.0* (Q**0.833)
CCT=CCT+CCHBP
fICHMEASUBEMENT
CCFM=38CO.O* (Q**O.U8<*)
CCT=CCT+CCFM
IF(LEVEL.LT.2)GCTO 99
4444***********
* LEVEL 2 *
444************
CCABSE SCREENING
CS1=16700.0*(Q**0.972)
CCT»CC1+CS1
HICfOSCB£ENING
D - 31
00048200
00048300
00048400
00048500
00048600
00048700
00048800
00048900
OOC49000
00049100
00049200
00049300
00049400
00049500
00049600
00049700
OOC49800
00049900
00050000
00050100
00050200
OOC50300
00050400
00050500
00050600
00050700
00050800
00050900
00051000
00051100
00051200
00051300
00051400
00051500
00051600
00051700
00051800
00051900
00052000
00052100
00052200
00052300
00052400
00052500
00052600
00052700
00052800
OOC52900
00053000
00053100
00053200
00053300
00053400
00053500
00053600
00053700
00053800
00053900
00054000
00054100
00054200
-------
c
c
Q
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
99
= 35CCO.O*(Q**0.846)
CC1=CCT*XMS
SLUDGE PUMPING (QS=0. 10 Q)
QS=Q*0.10
SP2=288C00. 0*(Q£**0.502)
CCT=CCT+SP2
SIUEGE EISPCSAL
SD2 = 58100.0*(Q**0.608)
CCT=CCT+SD2
IF (IEVEI.1T.3)GCTO 99
4**************
* LEVEL 3 *
***************
ChlMICAL BIXING
CM3=55600.0*(Q**0.611)
CCl=CCl-fCM3
FICCCULATICK
FL=30000.0*(Q**0.612)
CCT=CCT+FL
SEDIMENTATION
SED=52000.0*(Q**0.817)
CCT=CCT+SED
SLUDGE PUMPING (QS3=0.05 Q)
CS3=Q*C.05
SP3 = 288000.0* (QS3**0.502)
CCT=CC14SP3
SLUIGE EISFCS&l
SD3=58 100. 0* (Q**0.608)
CCT=CC1+SD3
IF(LEVEI.L1.«)GCTO 99
***************
* LEVEL 1 *
***************
E3GH RATE IILTEATICK
HEF=127000.0* (Q**0.735)
CCT=CCT+HRF
JIF (1EVEL.L1.5)GCTO 99
)
***************
* LEVEL 5 *
***************
CiEEICAL HIXING
CM5=55600.0*(Q**0.611)
CC1=CCT+CM5
D3SSOLVEE IIR FLOTATION
EAF=1€3000.0* (Q**0.658)
CCT=CCT+CAF
SLUDGE IUMPING (QS=C.Q5*Q)
CS=0.05*Q
SP5=288000*(QS**0. 502)
CCT=CCT+SP5
SIUtGE EISPOSAL
SD5=58100.0*(Q**0.608)
CCl=CCT-«-SD5
CONTINUE
D - 32
00054300
00054400
00054500
00054600
00054700
00054800
00054900
00055000
00055100
00055200
00055300
00055400
00055500
00055600
00055700
00055800
00055900
00056000
00056100
00056200
00056300
00056400
00056500
00056600
00056700
00056800
00056900
00057000
00057100
00057200
00057300
00057400
OOC57500
00057500
00057700
00057800
00057900
00058000
00058100
00058200
00058300
00058400
00058500
00058600
00058700
00058800
00058900
00059000
00059100
00059200
00059300
00059400
00059500
OOC59600
00059700
00059800
00059900
OOC60000
00060100
00060200
00060300
-------
RETURN
END
C
£44********* ISOEAR **************************************
C
SUBROUTINE ISOP2R (EEC,B,H,D,F)
C
C * ENTEB WITH REGION CODE
C * RETURN WITH B,E,D,F VALUES
INTEGER REG
GOTO (10,20,30,10,50) ,REG
10 CONTINUE
C IN/HR
E=0.0021654
C 1/lK'B)
H=O.C388910
C 1/IN
E=211.2763
C 1/(*R)
1=0.0320226
GOTO 60
20 CONTINUE
£=0.0013631
H=0.0^35822
D=164.S639
1=0.0279177
GOTO 60
30 CONTINUE
E=0.0013656
H=O.C481981
0=241.6141
E=0.0301648
GOTO 60
40 CONTINUE
£=0.0025864
H=O.C468175
D=190.2240
1=0.0312484
GOTO 60
50 CONTINUE
E=0.0018959
H=O.C487876
D=228.8434
1=0.0339322
6C CONTINUE
BETU5N
END
C
£44*4*********** LEVE05 *******************
C
SUBROUTINE LEVBC5 (STB5,ILB5)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
THIS SUBEOUTINE PICKS THE TREATMENT LEVEL
FCE BOD REMOVAL FEOM A COMBINED SEWER
HATERSKED
SIE5-EOD REMOVAL BY STOBAGE/TBEATMENI ~%
IF (STB5.LT. 8.0)ILB5=1
IF f STBS.GE.8.0. AND. STBS. LT. 13.0)ILB5*2
D - 33
00060400
00060500
00060600
00060700
OOC60800
00060900
00061000
00061100
00061200
00061300
00061400
00061500
00061600
00061700
00061800
00061900
00062000
00062100
00062200
00062300
00062400
00062500
00062600
00062700
00062800
00062900
00063000
00063100
00063200
00063300
00063400
00063500
00063600
00063700
00063800
00063900
00064000
00064100
00064200
00064300
OOC64400
00064500
00064600
00064700
00064800
00064900
00065000
00065100
00065200
00065300
00065400
00065500
OOC65600
00065700
00065800
OOC65900
00066000
00066100
00066200
00066300
00066400
-------
IF (STB5.GE.13.0.AND.STBS.LT.38.0)ILE5=3
IF (STBS.GE.38.0.AND.STBS.LT.88.0) ILE5=4
IF(STB5.GE.88.0)ILB5=5
EETUBN
END
C
C44444*4**4***** LEVSS5 ************************
C
SUBROUTINE 1EVSS5 (STS5,ILS5)
C
C
C
THIS SUEBCDTINE
SS BEMCVAI FBCM
PICKS THE TREATMENT LEI/EL FOR
A COMBINED SEWEE WATERSHED
IF(STS5.L1.8.0) ILS5=1
C
IF(SIS5.GE.8.0.AND.
IF (STS5.GE. 68.0. AND
IF(STS5.GE.98.0)ILS
BETUBN
END
STS5.LT.68.0)ILS5=2
,STS5.LT.98.0)ILS5=3
5=4
C************ CMDIS ********************
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
FUNCTICK CMDIS fQ1)
*********************************
* 0 S M COST - DISINFECTION *
4444*44**************************
Q1 - FLOW BATE IN MGE
LABOB
ACLD=2C60.0* (Q1**0.
SUPPLIES
ACSD=1320.0*(Q1**0.
TOTAL ***********
CMDIS=ACLD*ACSD
IETORN
END
597)
690)
£44*444********** OML *********************
C
SUBROUTINE OML (IEVEL,Q, OMT)
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
4*4 *********************************** *****************
* CCMPUTE OPESATION
& MAINTENANCE COST- BY LEVEL *
************************************** *****************
CMT=0.0
444***4********
* LEVEL 1 *
4*4************
ADMINISTRATION
**IAECE
AL=232.0*(Q**0.463)
**SUPPLIIS
AS=87.0* (Q**0.471)
CMT=CMT+AS+AL
LiECBATORY
**IAEOE
D - 34
00066500
00066600
00066700
OOC66800
00066900
00067000
00067100
00067200
00067300
00067UOO
00067500
00067600
00067700
00067800
00067900
OOC68000
00068100
OOC68200
00068300
00068400
00068500
00068600
00068700
00068800
00068900
00069000
00069100
00069200
00069300
00069400
00069500
00069600
00069700
00069800
00069900
00070000
00070100
00070200
00070300
00070400
00070500
00070600
00070700
00070800
00070900
00071000
00071100
00071200
00071300
00071400
00071500
00071600
00071700
00071800
00071900
00072000
00072100
00072200
00072300
00072400
00072500
-------
CMT=CMO>9970.0
C **SUPPLIES
CMT=OM1+2550.0
C YJ.BDWORK
C **LAECB
YL=1010.0*(Q**0.798)
C **SUPPLIES
3S=66.0*(Q**0.838)
C HBS1EWATEB PUMPING
C **LAEOR
WWPL = 4790.0*(Q**0.188)
C **SUP£LIES
WWPS=69.0*Q
C **POWER
HWPP=140.0*Q
CMT=CM14WWPL+KWIS+WWPP
C FICW MEASUBEMENT
C —NCNE
IF(LEVEL.LT.2)GCTO 99
****************
* LEVEL 2 *
****************
C
C
C
c
c
C CCABSE SCBEINING
C **LAEOB
CSL=3880.0* (Q**0.287)
C **£UPPLIES
CSS=848.0*(Q**0.273)
CM1=OM1+CSL+CSS
C MICECSCBEENING
C **LAECR
XMSL=CSL
C **£UPPLIES
XMS£=CSS
CMT=OM14XMSL+XM£S
C SLUDGE PUMPING (QS = 0.10 Q)
CS=0.10*Q
C **LAECR
SPL2=9600.0* (QS**0.413)
C **SUPPLIES
SPS2=1100.0*(CS**0.643)
SPP2=145.0*QS
CMT=CM1+SPL2+SPS2+SPL2
C SIUEGE DISPOSAL
SDL2=9S50.0*Q
OM1=CM1+SDL2
IF(LEVEL.LT.3)GCTO 99
C
c ***************
C * LEVEL 3 *
Q ***************
C
C CEECICAL MIXING
C **LAECR
CML3=4020.0*(Q**0.332)
C **SUPPLIES
CMS3 = 41.7* (Q**0.662)
C **ECWER
D - 35
00072600
00072700
00072800
00072900
00073000
00073100
00073200
00073300
00073UOO
00073500
00073600
00073700
00073800
00073900
OC07UOOO
00074100
0007U200
00074300
00074400
00074500
00074600
00074700
00074800
00074900
00075000
00075100
00075200
00075300
00075400
00075500
00075600
00075700
00075800
00075900
00076000
00076100
00076200
00076300
00076400
00076500
00076600
00076700
00076800
00076900
00077000
00077100
00077200
00077300
00077400
00077500
00077600
00077700
00077800
00077900
00078000
00078100
00078200
00078300
00078400
00078500
00078600
-------
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
CMP3=23.0*(Q**0.86)
CMT=CMT+CHL3+CMS3+CMP3
F1CCCULATICN
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
FLL=392.0*Q
**SUPELIES
FLS = 206.0*(Q**0.641)
**IC«ER
FLP=63.0*Q
CMT=CMT*FIL+FIS*FLP
SEDIMENTATION
**1AIOR
SEDL=3870. 0* (Q**0. 702)
**£UEELIES
SEDS=1520.0*(Q**0,212)
**EGWER
SEDP=4.15* (Q**0.779)
CMT=CMT+SIDL+SEES+SEDP
SLUDGE PUMPING £QS3=0.05 Q)
CS3=0.05*Q
**LAEOR
SPL3=9600.0*(QS3**0.413)
**£OPELIES
SPS3=1100.0*(QS3**0.643)
**EOWER
SPP3=iaE.O*QS3
CMT=CMT*SEL3+SPS3+SEP3
S1UEGE DISPOSAL
SD3=SS50.0*Q
CMT=CMT+SD3
IF (lEVEI.LT.U)GCTO 99
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
* LEVEL 1 *
4**************
HIGH HATE 5ILTRATIOK
**LAEOR
HRFL=27600.0+29.0*Q
**£OPELIES
HRFS = 1020.0*(Q**0.237)
**EOWIR
HRFP=16,7*Q
CHT=CH1+HBFL+HRIS+HRFP
IF(LEVEL.Li:.5)GCTO 99
4**************
* LEVEL 5 *
**:»*#**********
CUKICAL MIXING
**IAEOR
CML5=4020.0*(Q**0.332)
**SyPPLIIS
CMS5=41.7*(Q**0.662)
**ECHER
CMP5=23.0*(Q**0.86)
CHT=CH1+CML5+CM£5+CHP5
D3SSCLVIE AIR FLOTATION
**1AEOR
D - 36
00078700
00078800
00078900
00079000
00079100
00079200
00079300
00079400
00079500
00079600
00079700
OOC79800
00079900
00080000
00080100
00080200
OOC80300
OOG80UOO
00080500
00080600
00080700
00080800
00080900
00081000
00081100
00081200
00081300
00081400
00081500
00081600
00081700
00081800
00081900
00082000
00082100
00082200
00082300
OOC82UOO
00082500
00082600
00082700
00082800
00082900
00083COO
00083100
00083200
00083300
00083400
00083500
00083600
00083700
00083800
00083900
00084000
00084100
00084200
00084300
00084400
00084500
00084600
0008U700
-------
C
C
C
C
C
C
99
C
C*
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
EAFL=3260.0* (Q* +0.618)
**£UEELIES
EAFS=4770.0* (Q**0.870)
**EOWER
EAFF=1180.0*Q
CMT=CMT+EJ!FH-IAIS + DAFP
SLUDGE EUMEING (QS5=0. 05 Q)
**IA£OR
SPL5=SPI3
**SUPELIES
SPS5=SPS3
**EOWER
SPP5=SPP3
CMT=CMT+SPL5+SPS5+SPP5
SIUEGE DISPOSAL
SD5=SD3
CMT=CMI+SE5
CONTINUE
RETURN
END
4*44**************
FUNCTION CMS (V)
**********************
444******************************************
* OPERATION AND KAINTENACE COST-STORAGE *
4444*****************************************
LiEOB
«CLS=2670*(V**0.509)
SUPPLIES
ACSS=618*(V**0. 405)
ECWER
ACPS=15.8*(V**0.493)
CMS=ACIS+ACSS+ACPS
RETURN
END
EAINRG ***************************************
SUBROUTINE BAINBG (ST,REG)
INTEGER SI,BEG
* ENTER HITH STATE CODE
* RETURN HITH REGION CODE
IF(ST.EC.6.0R.SI.EQ.15.0B.ST.EQ.60) GCTO 10
3F(SI.EC.66.OB.ST.EQ.75.OR.ST.EC.2) GCTC TO
IF(SI.EC.41.0H.£T.EQ.53) GOTO 10
IF(S1.EC.4.0R.ST.EQ.32.0R.ST.EQ.35) GCTC 20
IF(ST.EC.8.0R.S1.EQ.30.0R.ST.EQ.49) GCTC 20
IF(ST.EC.56.OH. ST.EC.16) GOTO 20
IF (ST. EC. 1 7. OR. ST. EQ. 18. OB. ST. EC.26) GOTO 30
IF(ST.EQ.27.OH.ST.EQ.39.OB.ST.EC.55)GOTO 30
IF(SI.EC.19.OR.ST.EC.20.OR. ST.EC.29)GCTC 30
IF(ST.EC.3I.OB.ST.EQ.40;OR.ST.EQ.48)GOTO 30
IF(ST.EQ.38.0R. ST.EQ. 46) GOTO 30
IF(ST.EQ.72.0R.ST.EC.78.0R.ST.EC.1) GOTO <1Q
D - 37
00084800
00084900
OOC85000
00085100
00085200
00085300
00085400
00085500
00085600
00085700
00085800
00085900
00086000
00086100
00086200
00086300
00086400
OOC86500
00086600
00086700
00086800
00086900
00087000
00087100
00087200
00087300
00087400
00087500
00087600
00087700
00087800
00087900
00088000
00088100
00088200
00088300
00088400
OOC88500
00088600
00088700
00088800
00088900
00089000
00089100
00089200
00089300
00089400
00089500
00089600
00089700
00089800
00089900
00090000
00090100
00090200
00090300
00090400
00090500
00090600
00090700
00090800
-------
IF(ST.EC.12.OH.ST.EQ.28.OR.ST.EC.37)GOTO 40
IF(ST.EC.45.0B. ST.EQ.47.0B.ST.EC.5) GOTO 40
IF (SI.EC.22.OB. ST.EC.13) GOTO 40
C
•IP(ST.EC.9.0B.S1.EQ.23.0B.S"T.BQ.25) GCTC 50
IF(ST.EC.33.OB.ST.EC.44.OB.ST.EC.50)GCTC 50
IP(S1.EQ.10.0E.£T.EQ.11.0E.ST.EC.2U)GOTO 50
IF{ST.EC.42.0B.ST.EC.51.0B.SI.EC.54)GCTO 50
IF(ST.EC.34.OB.ST.EC.36.OK.ST.EC.21)GOTO 50
GOTO 60
10 CONTINUE
EEG=1
GOTO 60
20 CONTINUE
BEG=2
GOTO 60
30 CONTINUE
EEG=3
GOTO 60
40 KEG=4
GOTO 60
5C. CONTINDE
BEG=5
60 CONTINUE
BETUEN
END
C
£444*44*********** REB *********************
C
JUNCTION EEE (II)
GOTO (10,20,30,00,50) ,IL
THIS FUNCTION ASSIGNS BEMOVAL
1C TREATMENT LEVELS
C
C
C
1C
EIFECIENCIIS
20
30
50
60
CONTINUE
EEB=0.25
GOTO 60
CONTINUE
BEB=0.51
GOTO 60
CONTINUE
EEB=0.81
GOTO 60
CONTINDE
BEB=0.91
GOTO 60
CONTINUE
BEB=0.96
CONTINUE
BETUBN
END
********************
c**********4******
C
IDNCTICN BBS (II)
GOTO (10,20,30,40,50) ,IL
C THIS FUNCTION ASSIGNS EEMOVA1 EIPECIENCIIS TO
C IBIATMENT IIVELS JOB SS
C
10 CONTINUE
BES=0.30 D - 38
00090900
00091000
00091100
00091200
00091300
00091400
00091500
00091600
00091700
OOC91800
00091900
00092000
00092100
00092200
00092300
00092400
00092500
00092600
00092700
00092800
00092900
00093000
00093100
00093200
00093300
00093400
00093500
00093600
00093700
00093800
00093900
00094000
00094100
00094200
00094300
00094400
00094500
00094600
00094700
00094800
00094900
OOC95000
00095100
00095200
00095300
00095400
00095500
00095600
00095700
00095800
00095900
OC096000
00096100
00096200
00096300
00096400
00096500
00096600
00096700
00096800
00096900
-------
20
30
uo
50
60
GOTO 60
CONTINUE
BES=0.86
GOTO 60
CONTINOE
EES=0.97
GOTO 60
CONTINUE
EES=0.99
GOTO 60
CONTINOE
EES=1.00
CONTINOI
EETUEN
END
£44*4*********** Bl
C
FUNCTICN BUN (RiYN, XIMP, ABEA)
*4*****************************
COMPUTE BUNOFF IN CFS
-3NCEES
BN=BAYN*XIMP
C -iC-ET
BN=IN*iBEA/12.0
C FT**3
BN=EN*43560.0
C EI**3/SEC
EUN=BN/31536000.0
BETUBN
END
C
£44*4*4************ SFCS ***********************
C
C
C
c
C
C
c
c
SOBEOOTINE SFCS (BB,XSF)
444**iM 4**********************************
* SEWEB FLUSHING—COMBINED WATEESHED *
44****************************************
* ENTEB WITH BEMOVAL BEQUIBEMENTS
* EETUBN WITH LEVEI OF EFFOET BECUIREE
IF (BE.IT.8.0) G010 10
IF(BE.LE.25.0)GCTO 20
IF(BB.LT.42.0)GCTO 30
IFIBB.LE.75.0)GCTO UO
IF(BB.LE.9a.O)GCTO 50
GOTO 60
10 CONTINUE
C ; BE CN THE INTEEVAL 0 TO 8
XSF=0.0
GOTO 70
20 CONTINUE
C BE CN THE IKTERVAL 8 TO 25
BE1=BB-8.0
XSF=(BB1/17.0)*0.033
GOTO 70
30 CONTINUE
C BE CN THE INTEBVAL 25 TO U
D - 39
00097000
00097100
00097200
00097300
00097400
00097500
00097600
00097700
00097800
00097900
OC098000
OOC98100
00098200
00098300
00098400
00098500
00098600
00098700
00098800
00098900
00099000
00099100
00099200
00099300
00099400
00099500
00099600
OOC99700
00099800
00099900
00100000
00100100
00100200
00100300
00100400
00100500
00100600
00100700
00100800
00100900
00101000
00101100
00101200
00101300
00101400
00101500
00101600
00101700
00101800
00101900
00102000
00102100
00102200
00102300
00102400
00102500
00102600,
00102700
00102800
00102900
00103000
-------
IE1=BE-25.0
XSF=0.033+ (BB1/17.0)*0.067
GOTO 70
40 CONTINUE
C BE CN THI INTEEVAL 42 TO 75
XSF=0.033
GOTO 70
50 CONTINUE
C BB CN THE INTEBVAl 75 TO 94
EE1=EB-75.0
XSF=(19.0-HS1)/19.0*0.033
GOTO 70
60 CONTINUE
C EB CN THI INTEBVAL 94 TO 100
70
C
C
C
C
C
C
cc
C
10
C
20
C
C
C
C
C
XSF=0.0
CONTINUE
BETUEN
END
SSCH ***********************
SUBBOUTINE SSCH (RR ,XSW)
4444********************************** ****
* STREETSHEEEING COMBINED WATEBSBEDS *
44*4*44***********************************
* ENTER KITH REMCVA1 BEQUIREMENTS
* RETURN HITH LEVEI OF EFFOBT BEQUIEEB
IF{RB.IT.39.0)GOTO 10
IF (EB.LI.73.0)GCTO 20
GOTO 30
CONTINUE
RE CN THE IKTEBVAL 0 TO 39
XSW=(BR/39.0)*0.235
GOTO 40
CONTINUE
BE CN THE INTERVAL 39 TO 73
EE1=EB-39.0
30
C
GOTO 40
CONTISUE
IB CN THE INTEEVAL 73 TO 100
EB1=RB-73.0
XSW=0.14-(BB1/27.0) *0.137
CONTINUE
SETUBN
END
********* STOPT ********************
SUBBOUTINE STCPT (IT 1,IL1,D,T1,X,Y,1,S)
4*4***********************************
* STOBAGE-TBEATMENT OPTIMIZATION *
44 ************************************
S=1
DELTAT=X/100.0
IF(DEL3AT.GT..001)DELTAT=0. 001
IC=T1+DILTAT D - 40
00103100
00103200
00103300
00103400
00103500
00103600
00103700
00103800
00103900
0010UOOO
00104100
0010U200
00104300
00104400
00104500
00104600
00104700
00104800
00104900
00105000
00105100
00105200
00105300
00105400
00105500
00105600
00105700
00105800
00105900
00106000
00106100
00106200
00106300
00106400
00106500
00106600
00106700
00106800
00106900
00107000
00107100
00107200
00107300
00107400
00107500
00107600
00107700
00107800
00107900
00108000
00108100
00108200
00108300
00108400
00108500
00108600
00108700
00108800
0010B900
OC109000
00109100
-------
10
CONTINUE
SC = ALOG (X/(TC-T1))/Y
IF(SC.LE.O.O) G010 50
C=TC*0.6518*D
V=SC*0.02715*D
CALL ACS (V,IT1 ,ACSTOR)
CALL ACT (Q,I11 ,ACTE)
ACC=ACSTOR+ACTR
IF(N.EC.D GOTO 100
EAC=ACC-ACP
IF(EAC.1T.O.O)GCTO 100
CONTINUE
T=TP
£ = SP
GOTO 200
AT NEXT STEP
N=N+1
ACP=ACC
TP=TC
SP=SC
TC=TP+DELTAT
GOTO 10
CONTINUE
RETURN
END
4444******* TFSW *******************
FUNCTION TFSU (C,PD,YSW)
C ** TRANSFORM YSW TO FRSW
TFSH=C*(0.67-O.C0762*PD)*YSW
RETURN
END
50
C ICCK
10C
2CC
£44************** TSW
C
FUNCTION TSW
G **
4******************
(XSW)
TRANSFORM XSH TO YSW
X1=C.08909*XSW
X2=0.105U7*XSH
ISH = X1/(0.00589 + X2)
RETURN
END
00109200
00109300
00109400
00109500
00109600
00109700
00109800
00109900
00110000
00110100
00110200
00110300
00110400
00110500
00110600
00110700
00110800
00110900
00111000
00111100
00111200
00111300
00111400
00111500
00111600
00111700
00111800
00111900
00112000
00112100
00112200
00112300
00112400
00112500
00112600
00112700
00112800
00112900
00113000
00113100
00113200
00113300
00113400
D - 41
-------
APPENDIX E
CORRESPONDENCE
-------
Copies of the November 1978 draft report were sent to each State
Water Pollution Control Director, State Needs Survey Director,
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, and EPA regional
office as well as to numerous other individuals during November
1978. It was requested that written comments on the draft report
be submitted by 30 December 1979.
Meetings were held on 6 and 7 December in Chicago and Washington,
D.C., to present the report and receive verbal comments from the
various reviewers.
This appendix presents written comments received on the draft
report and EPA response to these comments. Lengthy attachments
and additional data received from the reviewers are not reproduced
here.
E - 2
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY
EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
P. O. BOX 100 • SACRAMENTO 95801
<916) 445-7971
In Reply Refer
to: RM
DEC g 9 1978
Mr. Philip Graham
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(WH-595)
401 "M" Street
Washington, DC 20460
"1978 NEEDS SURVEY, COST METHODOLOGY FOR CONTROL OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
AND STORMWATER DISCHARGE" AND "1978 NEEDS SURVEY, CONTINUOUS STORMWATER POL-
LUTION SIMULATION SYSTEM USERS MANUAL"
We have received the above documents and appreciate the opportunity to provide
comment.
Our comments center around our conviction that the 1978 EPA estimate for
Category V needs in California is extremely low, as was the case with the 1976
estimate. Our preliminary estimate of Category V needs, submitted on the
Category V worksheets, of $1,186,676,000 is 444 percent higher than the EPA estimate
of $266,981,000 (Recreation Water Quality Goal). We request that the EPA es-
timate be raised to the higher figure. It is a good approximation of the grant-
eligible dollars that are planned to be spent on combined sewers in California
over the next few years.
Our contention is based on the status of San Francisco's combined sewer project.
Of our submitted estimate, $1,136,000,000 (95.7 percent) was for San Francisco.
This figure represents that portion of the San Francisco project allocable to
wet weather (combined sewer) flows and was broken out by the City of San
Francisco's consulting engineers, Metcalf and Eddy. This project is nearing
completion of planning, within the framework of the 201 Grant Program, with
concept approval already given to many project elements.
The enclosed letter from the City of San Francisco includes updated cost estimates
for the facilities needed to solve their water quality problems due to wet
weather flow. This information must be considered carefully. The cost estimates
originally supplied on the worksheets were for a City system designed to accom-
modate a one overflow per year requirement. The attached, updated cost estimates
are for a City system allowing four overflows per year. The City is currently
applying for overflow relaxations, however, it is uncertain at this time what
they might obtain from our Regional Board and EPA Region IX.
The City's updated cost estimates must also be recognized as presenting the
costs as of the estimated construction bid advertising date. With the assistance
of the City staff, we have refined these costs to a December, 1977 (ENR 3200)
basis including a developed proration of 75 percent of sludge processing and
handling costs devoted to wet weather flows. The backup to this refinement is
the Metcalf and Eddy raw data summary sheet included with San Francisco's
letter This effort resulted in an estimated cost of $869.9 million as of
January 1, 1978, for the Category V needs in San Francisco assuming a four
overflow per year requirement.
E - 3
-------
Mr. Philip Graham -2-
The Needs Survey reporting criteria required that reporting be on the basis of
actual circumstances as of January 1, 1978. In this context, the requirements
applicable to San Francisco were one overflow per year and the originally
submitted need of $1.136 billion (which was ENR 3200) remains accurate. However,
should San Francisco succeed in obtaining a relaxation of requirements to four
overflows per year, their Category V need would be $869.9 million.
Therefore, we estimate that total State needs will range from $920,576,000 to
$1,186,676,000 depending on whether the overflow relaxation is granted San
Francisco.
We call your attention to the "Needs Met Before 1978" estimate included in your
report. We estimate $125 million in needs have been satisfied through Step 3
grant offers prior to January 1, 1978, rather than your reported figure of
$48.765 million.
The modeling technique used by the EPA to estimate Category V needs, while
sophisticated and well thought out, is still only a model and has less validity
than actual cost estimates. This model should not be applied to California
because of the fact that essentially all of our combined sewer needs are localized
in a single area, San Francisco, for which combined sewer needs are known. To
use the modeling technique instead of the actual cost estimates in determining
Category V needs contradicts the basic philosophy of the Needs Survey to always
use available and actual engineering cost estimates over any type of artificial
needs estimation technique.
Finally, the recently published EPA regulations implementing the Clean Water
Act Amendments of 1977 state that, "The State project priority list shall be
consistent with the needs inventory" (40 CFR 35.915(b)). If the low EPA Cate-
gory V estimate for California is not raised significantly, California's
priority list estimated cost for San Francisco's combined sewer project will be
inconsistent with the Needs Survey. If this is the case, we would like written
assurance that this inconsistency will not in any way inhibit the progress or
alternative selection process of the San Francisco project.
Our case for an increase in Category V needs for California is a strong and
defensible one and we hope you will seriously consider raising the Category V
needs estimate for California to a more realistic figure. If no raise in the
estimate is made by EPA, we request that a separate Category V State estimate
of $1,186,676,000 be made for California in the Report to Congress. Randy Marx
of our staff will be available to discuss this issue with you.
Neil Dunham
Division Chief
Manager - Clean Water Grant Program
Enclosures
E - 4
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Neil Dunham
Division Chief
Manager, Clean Water Grant Program
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
P. 0. Box 100
Sacramento, California 95801
Dear Mr. Dunham:
Thank you for your review dated December 29, 1978, of our draft
report presenting preliminary estimates of construction costs for the
control of combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff.
Based on our experience with the Category V and VI portions of
the Needs Survey, your estimate of Category V needs for the city of
San Francisco of $1,136,000,000 appears high. There is, of course,
uncertainty in the needs estimate, and this uncertainty is discussed
in Chapter 15 of the final report (FRD-3). The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) estimate, before adjustment for $125,000,000 of met needs,
is $272,621,000. On a per acre of combined sewer area basis the State
and EPA estimates respectively are 31,146 $/acre and 7,155 $/acre. For
comparison purposes, the national average cost estimated by EPA to control
pollution from combined sewer overflows is $10,752 per acre. The estimate
presented by the State of California is approximately three times this
national average cost. Most of this difference is due to the cost
estimates for the city of San Francisco.
The differences between the EPA and State estimate for San Francisco
result largely from different assumptions on appropriate control
technology, in particular the optimal mix of storage and treatment
capacity. EPA's estimate is derived from the model which is based on
an intensive analysis of available research and other information on
control technologies and the 15 site studies.
E - 5
-------
-2-
The model provides the advantage of producing needs estimates which
are comparable among the States and based on reasonable and common
assumptions. It is unlikely to provide the same answer in every city
as would detailed facility planning. We understand, however, that
San Francisco and the State of California have been considering revisions
which would bring their current estimate needs for San Francisco closer
to the EPA estimate.
Needs met before 1978 will be changed from $48,765,000 to
$125,000,000 in the final report.
The final report, including all comments and corrections
received from the States, will be forwarded to you in March 1979.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
(-..--'James A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 6
-------
GOVERNMENT OP THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL. SERVICES
BUREAU OF DESIGN AND ENGINEERING
ADDMBM MKPLY Toi
•OOO OVERLOOK AVINUE, «.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. tOO»
E&C-4.25
11978
Mr. Philip Graham
Environmental Protection Agency (WH-595)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
SUBJECT: 1978 Needs Survey, Categories
V and VI
Dear Mr. Graham:
Enclosed are the combined sewer system worksheets (1978 Needs Survey)
and copy of the pages of the CSO reconnaissance study with the information
requested by EPA in transmittal letter of Novmeber 20, 1978.
If you desire further information or assistance in this matter, please
contact Mr. Rodolfo Gutierrez of our staff/StSE£7-7614.
Enclosures
FG:ec
cc: Mr. Slocum
Mr. Bass (w/encl.)
Chief, Engineering Div,
E - 7
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
FEB1 1979
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Kenneth L. Donnelly, P. E.
Chief, Engineering Division
Department of Environmental Services
Bureau of Design and Engineering
5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20032
Dear Mr. Donnelly:
Thank you for your review dated December 26, 1978, of the Category V
data sheets for the District of Columbia. Your corrections have been
recorded on the 1978 Combined Sewer System Data File and used in the final
computation of Category V needs.
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
from the States, will be forwarded to you in March 1979.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
James A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 8
-------
Illinois Environmental _
Protection Agency 2200 Churchill Road,Springfield, Illinois 62706
217/782-2027
James A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities and Needs Assessment Branch
Office of Water anoX Hazardous Materials
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear J1m:
Here are our Category V data sheets with such corrections as we were able
to make. In most Instances where data was missing, 1t 1s simply not
available.
As I stated before, the contractors working with Illinois did a very fine
job.
Sincerely,
__ Le1n1cke
Grant Administration Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
JL:jw/6041,5
E - 9
-------
P,,OIV-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 2 9 1979
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Jim Leinieke
Grant Administration Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
Dear Jim:
Thank you for your review of the Category V data sheets for Illinois.
The corrections which you provided have been recorded on the 1978 Combined
Sewer System Data File and used in the final computation of Category V
needs.
The final report, Including all comments and corrections received from
the States, will be forwarded to you in March 1979.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Tames A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 10
-------
INDIANA
STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
INDIANAPOLIS
Address Reply to:
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
December 11, 1978
Mr. Philip H. Graham
USEPA Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Facility Requirements Division (WH-595)
Washington, DC 20460
Re; 1978 Needs Survey Categories V and VI
Dear Mr. Graham:
Enclosed are two (2) copies of the preliminary results of a
study of the use of three types of screens and terminal ponding for
combined sewer overflow treatment. The final version of the report
is not available at this time. The only screen recommended by the
study was the Hydras I eve, which is useful primarily for the removal
of gross solids and debris. Other screens required too much main-
tenance to be of any real use.
It is possible that a final version of this report is available
from Region V; however, the consultant on this project was not aware
of any report other than the one enclosed.
Please feel free to call me at (317)633-0723 if you need any
additional information.
Very truly yours,
Patrick O'Connell
Sanitary Engineer
Water Pollution Control Division
PO/cps
Enclosure
E - 11
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF WATER AND
FEB 1 1Q7Q HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Patrick O'Connell
Sanitary Engineer
Water Pollution Control Division
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Dear Mr. O'Connell:
Thank you for your letter of December 11, 1978, and for your comments
at our December 6, 1978, meeting in Chicago.
We have reviewed the results of the CSO screening demonstration project
which you sent and have contacted the senior author. We have also reviewed
other literature on screening and microscreening applications to CSO control.
Our conclusions are:
1. Operating experience with microscreening has ranged from good
to poor.
2. In order to operate properly, microscreens must be subject to
near-constant flow rates.
3. Microscreens must also be protected from large objects (rocks,
cans, etc.) in the wastestream.
The process trains for treatment levels 2 through 5, as shown on
Figures 5-1 through 5-3 of the report, provide both flow attenuation
by means of Influent storage, which is depleted at a constant rate by
pumping, and protection of the microscreen from large objects by the
combined effects of storage, pumping, and coarse screening. Therefore,
we believe that microscreens as utilized in the Needs Survey are a
viable technology and have been retained in the final report and in
the final needs estimate.
E - 12
-------
-2-
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
from the States, will be forwarded to you in March, 1979.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
i..
Oames. A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 13
-------
STATE
INDIANA
STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
INDIANAPOLIS
Address Reply to:
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, IN 46206
December 27, 1978
Mr. Philip Graham
Priorities and Needs Assessment Branch (WH-5^7)
US EPA
401 "M" St. SW
Washington DC 20^60
Re; Needs Survey, Category V and VI
Dear Mr. Graham:
Enclosed Is the final set of additions and corrections to
the Combined Sewer System Data File for Indiana.
If you have any questions about the enclosed material,
please contact Mr. Patrick O'Connell at (317)633-0723.
Very truly yours/
PO/cps
I
Enclosures
T. P. Chang, Chief
Technical Support Branch
Division of Water Pollution Control
E - 14
-------
'•"•'«.',.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 2 9 1979
OFFICE OF WA I'ER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. T. P. Chang, Chief
Technical Support Branch
Division of Water Pollution Control
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 W. Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
Dear Mr. Chang:
Thank you for your review of the Category V data sheets for Indiana.
Your additions and corrections transmitted on 21 December and 27 December
have been recorded on the 1978 Combined Sewer System Data File and used
in the final computation of Category V needs.
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
from the states, will be forwarded to you in March 1979.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
•\James A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 15
-------
Of Kansas . . . ROBERT F. BENNETT, Governor
DWIGHT F. METZLER, Secretary
Topeka, Kansas 66620
December 14, 1978
Mr. Phillip Graham
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH-595)
Washington, B.C. 20460
Dear Mr, Graham:
This is in reply to your memorandum of November 20, 1978 transmitting a
preliminary report on the Combined and Storm Sewers categories of the
1978 Needs Survey.
tt is very difficult to make a meaningful analysis of the adequacy of the
water quality predictive system incorporated in the "Continuous Stormwater
Pollution Simulation System". It is, of course, exceptionally difficult
to construct a model which will reflect the many unusual circumstances
which will influence water quality in urban areas encompassing a great range
of climatic and geographic conditions, I would expect the data on combined
sewers is better than that for urban runoff although there are certainly
many complicating factors also associated with the combined sewer analysis.
Table 14-1-3 of your report indicates the following capital costs would be
required to achieve the following water quality goals for Kansas-:
Aesthetics Goal
Fish & Wildlife Goal
Recreational Goal
Current Needs
0,285
112,000
203.000
Year 2000 Needs
16.275
105,000
386.000
These estimated expenditures are in sharp contrast to our water quality data
and biological monitoring data which is Incorporated in our 305(b) Report and
which generally indicates that Kansas waters are acceptable from a fish and
wildlife standpoint to the extent these waters can support balanced populations
of fish and wildlife. The 305(b) Report does report a significant number of
E - 16
-------
Mr. Graham
December 14, 1978
page 2
water quality standard violations attributable to nonpoint sources; however,
most of these violations are attributable to natural mineralization problems
characteristic of this area and to runoff from the extensive agricultural
operations In the state. Additionally, many of our urban streams which would
be most likely to be influenced by urban runoff quality, are without flow for
extended periods of the year and may have limited fishery or recreational
values only because of the discharges from sewage treatment plants. I find It
difficult to accommodate these divergent concepts of relatively high corrective
costs and absence of any substantive indicators of water quality or fish or
wildlife problems. This 1. not .-.n argument against the modeling approach which
has been used but strongly suggests that great care must be taken in the inter-
pretation of the data. I urge that you attempt to make similar order of magni-
tude comparison with 305 (b) and 208 Reports from other states.
We have some problems with the combined sewer estimates for Kansas. We suspect
the cost of meeting the fish and wildlife water quality goal Is in error, which
is put at about one-half of the cost of meeting the aesthetics goal in your
draft report. Since the aesthetics, goal is much less stringent than the fish
and wildlife goal, we fail to see how the cost of meeting the former can be
greater than the cost of meeting the latter. Other errors noted In the draft
report pertaining to combined sewers in Kansas are as follows:
1) The cost of correction of combined sewers in the City of Topeka was
put at $16.9 million in the combined sewer system data file. The
consultant for the city estimates this cost to be $8.4 million.
2) The City of Kansas City alone has a preliminary estimate of $190
million for the correction of Its combined sewers (please see en-
closed attachment) compared to $32,6 million estimated for the
whole state for the fish and wildlife water quality goal in the
report. One factor for these low estimates could be the discre-
pant values of combined sewer acreage and population served by
combined sewers entered Into the model for Kansas City, The true
values are 10,235 acres and 91,117 respectively.
3) We estimate the category V cost to meet the fish and wildlife water
quality goal In urban areas of Kansas Is $8,4 million plus $190
for a total of $198,4 •million,
I; am surprised the section dealing with, combined sewers does not provide any
meaningful dl^cuss-ion of public health problems. Certainly a combined sewage.
oyer$lQWy which i* essentially untreated human sewage, Into a small stream which
£low through, a developed residential neighborhood park or into a shellfish
producing area Is. highly undesirable — perhaps dangerous — and ought to be
E - 17
-------
Mr. Graham
December 14, 1978
page 3
corrected without regard for BOD or Suspended Solids reduction. This concept
seems lost in your report. The computer data for both Kansas City, Kansas and
Topeka indicates that discharges occur into the Missouri and Kansas Rivers, re-
spectively, whereas a significant portion of these flows is discharged into
very small urban streams.
The modeling approach does not appear to provide a mechanism for dealing with
those situations in which a combined sewer network is interposed between the
treatment facility and a large suburban system of sanitary sewers. Under this
arrangement, the quality of the bypassed materials should be substantially
different than that in which all flows are in a combined system, i.e. a mixture
of runoff and sanitary sewage. Secondly, the modeling system seems to make no
provisions for incorporating the impact of industrial facilities connected to com-
bined sewer systems or facilities, such as hospitals, which may have unusual
public health significance.
Tables 13 and 14 provide very rough estimates of capital and operating costs. I
think it is a mistake to show amounts with sometimes seven significant figures
in view of the large assumption incorporated in the formula. In my judgment, one
or two significant figures is about the most that could be justified although I
assume your statiticlans can provide you with a more scientific estimate of accur-
acy. The report should highlight the probable accuracy of the estimates.
Ultimately, it is going to be necessary to obtain factual information on combined
sewer problem areas and to develop a better body of information on both the needs
and costs for urban runoff problems. The former can certainly be accomplished
through the Step 1 process in a relatively short period of time. The latter will
require many years because of the need for obtaining additional data on water
quality in urban streams and for testing some of the "pollution control theories"
against water quality. I would hope the report you are preparing will place
adequate emphasis on these components and will not leave decision makers with the
idea the numbers in the report are highly accurate or that they are based on real
data.
Sincerely yours,
Eugensr T. Jensen/, Director
Bureau of Water Quality
ETJ:lm
attachment
E - 18
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'.V,"T"'\"..'rON. D.C. 20460
m7 1Q79
"«w» * OFFICE OF WAI tR AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Eugene T. Jensen, Director
Bureau of Water Quality
Department of Health and Environment
Topeka, Kansas 66620
Dear Mr. Jensen:
Thank you for your letter of December 14, 1978, reviewing our draft
report presenting preliminary estimates of construction costs for the control
of combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff.
We agree that there is a degree of uncertainty in the needs
estimates developed for Categories V and VI. The final report will
include an additional chapter not present in the draft report, which will
attempt to quantify this uncertainty. It is possible that actual Category VI
needs in Kansas are less than the $418.709 million (final estimate) reported
to Congress in FRD-1. However, it must be remembered that this estimate
includes an allowance for future growth, and is based on full-body contact
recreation objectives.
In regard to the lower cost estimates reported in the draft report
for the fish and wildlife protection level than for the aesthetics protection
level, the final report presents revised estimates. In the draft report
pollution control technologies for the aesthetic protection level were
not optimized while these control technologies were optimized for the fish
and wildlife protection level.
The pollution control technologies in the final report are optimized
for both the aesthetics and fish and wildlife protection levels. The
aesthetics objective costs in the final report are based on an optimum
combination of management practices (streetsweeping and sewer flushing)
rather than on the swirl concentrator/screening system utilized in the
draft report. These management practices achieve approximately the same
overall pollutant removal; and, the optimum combination of management
practices has a definite cost advantage.
E - 19
-------
-2-
The final needs estimates reported to Congress in FRD-1 are based
on the recreation water use criteria. The reported Category V needs to
meet the recreation criteria in Kansas are $204.916 million, which is
very close to your estimate of $198.4 million.
With regard to the protection of small streams flowing through
residential areas, costs are reported to Congress to provide pollution
control from. combined sewer overflows for all but a small portion of two
overflow events per year.
We believe that the modeling approach utilized for the 15 site
studies provides a flexible tool for investigating the interactions of
an urban area and its receiving water. Each of the items that you mention
in the second paragraph of page 3 of your letter influences the pollutant
loading rates may require monitoring of the system in order to accurately
quantify watershed pollutant yields.
Further, if certain industrial facilities, such as hospitals, are
considered to be public health hazards, it would be perhaps more cost
effective to pretreat or predisinfect these waste influents before discharge
to the combined sewer system rat1- - +han dealing with them after discharge
to the system.
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
by ihe States, will be forwarded to you in Mdrch 1979.
I hope that my letter has answered your qu.jtions. If I can be
of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
)ames A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 20
-------
"»- -OU.MOH, M.D. „„ D
SECRETARY ' '
DONALD H. NOREN
DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
P.O.1 BOX ,3387
20 ' WEST PRESTON STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203
PHONE « 301-3S3- 2737
December lli, 1978
Mr. Philip Graham
Environmental Protection Agency *
WB-595
i|01 M Street, SW
Washington, D. C. 201*60
Dear Mr. Graham:
We have reviewed the first and second mailings of the "1978 Needs
Survey, Cost Methodology for Control of Combined Sewer Overflow and
Stormwater Discharge" and "1978 Needs Survey, Continous Stormwater
Pollution Simulation System Users Manual" and have the following comments.
The technical expertise and methodologies indicated in these
documents represent the strictest mathematical approach, which may be
applicable in many states but, we feel, not applicable in this area,
It would appear that the statistical has overtaken common sense because
many of the decisions, which would statistically be within mathematical
water quality parameters, would still be an adverse factor in the
protection of public health.
One example would be the criteria utilized on page 2-17 of two
untreated overflow events per year. A glance at Table A-9 on page A-19
would indicate in either season an occurrence of approximately 30 storms
per year. The combined sewers in shellfish areas receive their heaviest
rainfall and consequently greatest overflow during the winter months
which is coincidental with the major oyster harvesting. The point that
I am making or attempting to make is a consideration of fecal oolifozm
bacteria in areas other than recreation. Nowhere within the document do
I see a reference to shellfish.
Another example would be the other side of the coin - in Western
Maryland where the general pH of the streams are quite low due to acid
mine drainage, a problem which is not going to be solved in a short
period. The effects of the low pH would have to be evaluated separately
to determine the true effect of combined sewer discharge.
E - 21
-------
Mr. Philip Graham
Page 2
December ll+, 19?8
On the positive side, the general approach and apparent overall
completeness is striking, and I am sure is a very viable document for
use in achieving the objective of developing updated nationwide cost
estimates*
Very truly yours,
Earl S. Quance,T?.E.
Program Administrator
ESQ:bn
cc: Mr. Kenneth Pantuck
Dr. Max Eisenberg
E - 22
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB1 1979
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Earl S. Quance, Program Administrator
Department of Health and Mental'
Hygiene
Environmental Health Administration
P.O. Box 13387
201 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21203
Dear Mr. Quance:
Thank you for your review dated December 14, 1978, of our draft
report presenting preliminary estimates of construction costs for the
control of combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff.
A consistent set of water quality criteria was applied nationwide
to provide a nationally consistent estimate of Category V and VI needs.
Three levels of water quality criteria were applied in the 1978 Needs
Survey to show the sensitivity of the degree of protection of receiving
water uses to the pollution control capital resources provided. The
costs for the highest level of protection are the needs reported to
Congress. This highest level of protection, called the recreation water
use protection level, is also,the level used in this report for the
protection of shellfish and will be so noted in the final report.
Even though the recreation protection level permits two combined
sewer overflow events each year, it is expected the use of storage/treatment
systems would greatly reduce the amount and pollutant content of such
overflow in comparison to uncontrolled overflow.
We agree that the impact of acid mine drainage should be considered
when a facility is designed to control combined sewer overflow. However,
it is very difficult in a nationwide survey to address all site-specific
problems, which must be considered in detailed facilities plans.
E - 23
-------
-2-
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
by the States, will be forwarded to you in March, 1979.
I hope that this letter has answered your questions. If I can be
of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
<:----i3ames A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 24
-------
STATE OP NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OP ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CAPITOL COMPLEX
CARSON CITY, NEVADA 8971O
December 29, 1978 I*L»HOM« (7oa> •«8-4«7o
Mr. Philip Graham
EPA (WH-595)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D. C. 20460
RE: 1978 Needs Survey, Categories V and VI
Dear Mr. Graham:
I have reviewed the subject survey and have the following
comments concerning it:
1) Table 13-1 13-2 and 13-3 Category V Needs; there are
no Needs shown for Nevada. Several of Nevada's larger communities
have sanitary sewers which carry stormwater to the treatment plant,
Although these combined sewers do not discharge directly to a
surface water they may cause degradation of treatment plant eff-
luent quality by temporarily overloading the treatment plant,
We have not had ample time to estimate costs for cate~
gory V Needs but we would like the Needs Survey to indicate that
Nevada has Category V Needs, but the costs have yet to be deter-
mined.
2) The category VI Heeds appear to be adequate, However^
we have not had ample time to make our own estimates of costs. We
often wonder how the Category V and VI Needs are derived for Nev-
ada since we have never been asked to be involved in estimating
these costs during the preparation of the Category V and VI Needs
Survey.
In the future, we would appreciate being invited to
participate in the data gathering and cost estimating phase of the
Category V and VI Needs Survey.
Yours truly,
a
cc; Bob Rock and
Jim Thompson of James B, Williams, Jr, , P,E,
EPA Region IX Construction Grants Officer
E - 25
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. James B. Williams, Jr., P.E.
Construction Grants Officer
Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Protection
Capitol Complex
Carson City. Nevada 89710
Dear Mr. Williams:
Thank you for your review dated December 29, 1978, of our draft
report presenting preliminary estimates of construction costs for the control
of combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff (Categories V and VI).
Category V needs apply only to sewer systems which were designed
to carry both sanitary wastewater and urban runoff. The problem of
stormwater infiltration in sanitary sewers, to which you refer in your
letter of 29 December 1978, is an infiltration/inflow problem which is
estimated in Category III-A needs, "Correction of Infiltration/Inflow."
A total of $1,340,000 will be reported in Category III-A for Nevada in
the 1978 Needs report to Congress. Nevada has no known combined sewer
systems and, therefore, no Category V needs.
The needs estimates for Categories V and VI are derived through the
methodology documented in our draft report. State agencies are providing
review and input data for the Combined Sewer System Data File, which is
then used in part to estimate needs prior to final publication of the
survey results.
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
from the States, will be forwarded to your in March, 1979.
I hope that my letter has answered your questions. If I can be
of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
'James A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 26
-------
fctatr nf Nrm
COMMISSIONERS A^^^fct STAFF
ROBERT J. HILL, Chairman ^EJStfB WILLIAM A. HEALY. P. E.
HERBERT A. FINCHER, Vice Chairman VJK59GR? Exaeutlwa Dlraeto'r
CHARLES E. BARRY XSW?^
DONALD C. CALDERWOOD. P. E. ^HflB*^ RICHARD P. GROSSMAN. P. E
PAUL T. DOHERTY _ _ . v*.,,^. *r * < AT , , Daputy Executive Diractor
RICHARD M. FLYNN 9nltr frupjjlg and f flllutinn
-------
Mr. Philip Graham
December 27, 1978
Page Two
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to
contact this office.
Sincerel
Mochael P. Donahue, P.E.
Director, Permits & Surveillance
MPD/bb
Enclosures
E - 28
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 161979
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Michael P. Donahue, P.E.
Director, Permits and Surveillance
Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission
Prescott Park
P.O. Box 95—105 London Road
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Dear Mr. Donahue: .
Thank you for your review dated December 27, 1978, of our draft
report presenting preliminary estimates of construction costs for the
control of combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff.
The criteria used for fish and wildlife protection in the 1978 Needs
Survey were divergent from "Redbook," "Quality Criteria for-Water,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1976, criteria and from State
water quality standards. The rationale for using these divergent criteria
for Categories V and VI is discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of the "Cost
Methodology for Control of Combined'Sewer Overflows and Stormwater
Discharge," FRD-2. EPA currently is considering an aquatic life criteria
comprised of a concentration to be maintained as an average during any
24-hour period and a recommended maximum concentration which should not
be exceeded at any time during the 24-hour period. .In the meantime, the
officially, recognized water quality criteria are reported in the Redbook.
The needs reported to Congress are for the recreation protection
level, which provides for larger storage/treatment facilities than the
fish and wildlife protection level. One nationwide set of water quality
criteria were required to provide a nationally consistent estimate of
Category V and VI needs. We believe the needs reported to Congress will
maintain a nationwide water quality which will provide for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide the protection
of recreation uses.
The combined sewer worksheet for the Town of Mil ford was changed
to indicate the Step II design cost estimate for sewer separation.
E - 29
-------
-2-
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
by the States, will be forwarded to you in March 1979. .
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely
J.a
O
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233
December 22, 1978
Peter A. A. Berle,
Commissioner
Mr. Philip H. Graham
Facility Requirements Division (WH 547)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Graham:
<_
Enclosed are completed combined sewer system worksheets for the following
significant non-urbanized areas together with their corrected EPA-1 forms:
363002001
364011001
364050001
364053001
364070001
366067001
367059001
368066001
369036001
Beacon (C)
Stockport (T)
Schenectady (C)
Oneonta (C)
Amsterdam (C
Boonville (V
Weedsport (V
Medina (V)
Salamanca (C)
This transmittal concludes our review of the data base for combined sewers as
prepared by Dames and Moore and modified by Black, Crow and Eidsness. I hope
that with this information the needs in New York State can be somewhat un-
scrambled and more closely reflect the true situation. I cannot help but
wonder, however, how accurate the data for other states may be.
Thank you for your patience and consideration. If there is anything that I
can do to assist in the completion of your task, please feel free to call me
at (518) 457-2570.
Sincerely,
W.F. Esmond, Jr., P.E.
Needs Survey Director
for New York State
Enclosures
cc, w/Enclosures:
Black, Crow and Eidsness
Mr. Olsen, USEPA - Region II
WFE:kf
E - 30
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
JW*
9 1979
OFFICE OF WA PER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. W. F. Esmond, Jr., P.E.
New York State Needs Survey Director
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
Dear Mr. Esmond:
Thank you for your review of the Category V data sheets for
New York. Your additions and corrections transmitted on 12, 13, 15,
18, 19, 20, and 22 December 1978 have been recorded on the 1978 Combined
Sewer System Data File and used in the final computation of Category V
needs.
The final report, including all comments and corrections
received from the states, will be forwarded to you in March 1979.
Thank you for your through review of the 1978 Needs Survey combined
sewer data base. I greatly appreciate the time you and your staff took
to improve the 1978 Needs Survey in New York State.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
\
CLx/a
James A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 31
-------
Mr. James A. Chamblee December 22, 1978
1978 Need Survey Director
Facility Requirements Division (WH-547)
Office of Water Program Operations
•U. S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Attn: Philip H. Graham, Project Officer, 1978
Needs Survey for Combined Sewer
Overflows and Storm Water Discharges
Dear Mr. Chamblee:
Enclosed are data on Entities having combined sewers. The lists are as defined
in Explanations (attached). These lists are not complete. However, we hope to
have the data for added entities to you by December 29, 1978.
We will have comments on Categories V and VI to you by December 29, 1978.
Happy Holidays,
L. T. Hagerty,
Director
1978 Ohio Needs Survey
LTH:rm
Enclosure
cc: Philip Graham
Ted Horn, Region V
E - 31
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Box 1049.361 E. Broad St., Columbus, Ohio 43216- (614)466-8565
James A. Rhodes, Governor
Ned E. Williams, P.E., Director
-------
December 28, 1978
Mr. James A. Chamblee, 1978 Need Survey Director
Facility Requirements Division (WH-547)
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Attention: Philip H. Graham, Project Officer, 1978
Needs Survey for Combined Sewer
Overflows and Storm Water Discharges
Dear Mr. Chamblee:
Enclosed are our comments on the "1978 Municipal Needs Survey, Categories
V and VI."
1. We wish to express our appreciation for the help and cooperation we
received from Philip Graham, Project Director, Washington, D.C. and Ted Horn,
1978, Needs Survey Director, Region V, U. S. EPA.
2. We, again, wish to express our displeasure with the time allotted for
the "Survey". As we stated in our 1976 comments, the time is not sufficient
for the detail the "Survey" deserves.
3. In our 1976 comments we pointed out the deficiencies of the USGS
Gaging Stations for the 17 designated Urban Areas. As we reviewed the 1978
printout it became very evident that most of the gaging stations are not
suitable for determining Water Quality requirements. It should be remembered
that these stations were installed to gather information on stream flows for
flood control.
4. We question the re-definition of the word optimum as stated on page
1-6 of FRD-3, "The 1976 approach did not provide for identification of optimum
pollution control strategies; whereas, the approach utilized for 1978 provides
E - 32
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Box 1049,361 E. Broad St., Columbus, Ohio 43216 • (614) 466-8565
James A. Rhodes, Governor
Ned E. Williams, P.E., Director
-------
Mr. James A. Chamblee, 1978 Need Survey Director
December 28, 1978
Page 2
for the selection of optimum or least-cost control alternatives." Our
definition of optimum is, "the best or most favorable degree, condition,
amount." We can relate optimum with "cost effective", we cannot relate it
with "least-cost", which we interpret as meaning cheapest.
5. We have some questions on the following tabulations:
Category V, Storm Sewers
Survey Yr.
1974
1976
1978
Data from:
Ohio EPA
MCD-48C
Table 8.1
Table 8.2
Table 8.3
FRD-3
Table 13.1
Table 13.2
Table 13.3
Survey Year
or Projected Data from:
1974
1976
1990
1976
1990
1976
1990
1978
2000
1978
2000
1978
2000
Ohio EPA
MCD-48C
Table 9.1
ii
Table 9,2
n
Table 9.3
n
FRD-3
Table 14.1
n
Table 14.2
ii
Table 14.3
Costs ($106)
Aesthetics Fish & Wildlife
582.194
787.433
1,207.506
687.043
Category VI, Storm Sewers
Costs ($106)
Aesthetics Wildlife
48.631
864.198
3,325.437
4,141.000
28.098(7)
33.648
1,192.865
1,317.146
Recreation
3,790.331
1,765.612
2,177.925
Recreation
6,569.580
3,936.619
4,752.180
3,353.954
3,743.233
E - 33
-------
Mr. James A. Chamblee, 1978 Need Survey Director
December 28, 1978
Page 3
(a) Do Tables 13-1, 13-2 and 13-3, (FRD-3) have the correct headings, or
are the year 2000 costs omitted?
(b) Are the figures in Table 13-1 and 13-2, (FRD-3) correct for Ohio
costs? It does not appear .to us that we can achieve Fish and
Wildlife Water Quality for less cost than attaining Aesthic Water
Quality.
(c) Are the figures, for Ohio, in Table 9.1 (MCD-48C) correct? An
increase from $48,631,000 in 1976, to $864,198,000 in 1990 does not
seem right. We did not notice this before since we have always
planned our programs to meet Water Quality Standards, i.e.,
Recreation Water Quality.
(d) We have assumed that columns (1) and (2) in Table 14-1, (FRD-3) are
reversed. The Current Capital Costs (Needs) should be much higher
than O&M costs. Is this correct? Are the costs in columns (3) and
(4) correct? We do not see how the year 2000 Capital Costs of
$33,648,000 could require Annual O&M Costs of $32,692,000.
6. We agree with the criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, presented in Chapter
2., FRD-3, with one exception. We feel that the 90% criteria as stated in the
last paragraph, page 2-6, is much more reasonable than the allowable one
4-hour period per year for the basis for establishment of BOD removal
requirements, as stated in the next to last paragraph.
7. If the National Cost estimating is to be based on the above mentioned
4-hour minimum D.O. of 2 mg/1, any estimates of costs for Ohio will be wrong.
We have proposed Water Quality Standards for an average D.O. of 5 mg/1 with an
allowable minimum of 4 mg/1 for an eight hour period, for warmwater
fisheries. D.O. for coldwater fisheries is 6 mg/1. Region V, U.S. EPA is
currently insisting that we delete the 4 mg/1 minimum D.O. and establish a
minimum of 5 mg/1. We do not want to have Ohio's costs based on the lower
D.O. criteria if we are forced by Region V to adopt and meet a higher D.O.
standard. We estimate that Current Capital Costs (Needs) for Categories V and
VI, based on the higher D.O. standard would be approximately $18,250,000,000.
(eighteen billion).
8. The text of FRD-3 acknowledged that intermittent streams have little
possibility of having fish life. However, the "Code Reference Chart and
Definitions", does not have a code in Item 19 for intermittent streams or dry
ditches, and there is no code in Item 21 for no fish. Ohio has many Cities
and Villages located on intermittent streams or dry ditches.
9. We feel that the addition of "Non-Urbanized Area Needs" for combined
sewers is an improvement over the 1976 survey. We think that a similar cost
estimate should be made for stormwater needs.
E - 34
-------
Mr. James A. Chamblee, 1978 Need Survey Director
December 28, 1978
Page 4
Enclosed 1s a typed copy of our List No. II and 6 additional worksheets,
(List No. IV).
If you have any questions, please contact Tom Hagerty at (614) 466-8945.
Yours very truly,
L.T. Hagerty, P.E. Ned E. Williams, P.E.
Director, Director
1978 Ohio Needs Survey Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Enclosure
cc: Philip Graham
Ted Horn, Region V
E - 35
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEE 1 6 197*3
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. James F. McAvoy
Director, Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
Box 1049
361 E. Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
<,
Dear Mr. McAvoy:
We appreciate receiving Mr. William's letter of December 28, 1978,
with a review of our draft report presenting preliminary estimates of
construction costs for the control of combined sewer overflow and urban
stormwater runoff (Categories V and VI).
We have received Mr. Hagerty's letter of December 22, 1978,
transmitting additional data and corrections for the combined sewer system
data file for Ohio. These corrections have been made and the final Category V
needs estimate for Ohio is based on,the corrected data set.
The following are responses to the numbered comments in your letter
of December 28, 1978.
2. We are already initiating the 1980 Needs Survey and are hopeful
that more time will be available as a result.
3. The USGS gaging stations were used to estimate the average
annual flow of a receiving water, rather than to determine water quality.
4. The sentence in question will read as follows in the final
report: "The 1976 approach did not provide for identification of optimum
pollution control strategies; whereas, the approach utilized for 1976
provides for the selection of the optimum mix and sizing of control
alternatives."
,a. Tables 13-1, 13-2, ar u-o (FRD-3) do have the correct heading.
It is assumed that the combined sewer area will not increase; therefore;
year 2000 costs are equal ic present costs when measured in January,
1978 dollars.
E - 36
-------
-2-
In regard to the lower cost estimates reported in the draft report
for the fish and wildlife protection level than for the aesthetics
protection level, u. r-;'oal report presents revised estimates. In the
draft report pollution control technologies for the aesthetic protection
level were not optimized while these control technologies were optimized
for the fish and wildlife protection level.
the pollution control technologies in the final report are optimized
:or both the aesthetics and fish and wildlife protection levels.
The aesthetics objective costs in the final report are based on an
optimum combination of management practices (streetsweeping and sewer
flushing) rather than on the swirl concentrator/screening system utilized
in the draft report. The management practices achieve approximately the
same overall pollutant removal, and, the optimum combination of
management practices has a definite cost advantage.
5c. Table 9-1 (MCD-48C) is correct for the assumption of the 1976
Report. The assumption was that urban runoff storage capacity constructed
for new urban areas, which would develop between the present time and the
year 1990, would cost $0.50 per gallon, which is typical for concrete
storage basins. In the 1978 Needs Survey, this assumption has been changed.
It is currently assumed that urban stormwater flow control in new urban areas
will be provided by earthen basins..-
5d. Columns (1) and (2) in Table 14-1 (FRD-3) are not revised. The
aesthetics objective needs for Category VI in existing, urban areas are
based on providing streetsweeping on all streets with curb and gutters
once every 10 days. As a result, capital costs are lower than operation
and maintenance costs because capital cost is only a small component of
total streetsweeping costs. In addition, columns (3) and (4) are also
correct. Category VI aesthetic needs for year 2000 apply the above
criteria. In addition, stormwater detention basins are incorporated into
newly constructed urban areas between the present time and the year, 2000,
at a cost significantly lower than the $0.50 per gallon used in 1976, as
discussed in 5c above. .
6. If it is possible to eliminate all DO occurrences below 2.0 mg/1,
the potential for. a receiving water to support a viable fishery is greater
than in a receiving water where many violations remain after combined
sewer and stormwater oxygen loads are removed.
E - 37
-------
-o-
7,. The criteria used for fish and wildlife protection in the 1978
Needs Survey were divergent from "Redbook," "Quality Criteria for Water,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July, 1976, criteria and from State
water quality standards. The rationale for using these divergent criteria
for Categories V and VI is discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of the "Cost
Methodology for Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Discharge,"
FRD-3. EPA currently is considering an aquatic life criteria comprised of a
concentration to be maintained as an average during any 24-hour period and
a recommended maximum concentration which should not be exceeded at any time
during the 24-hour period. In the meantime, the officially recognized water
quality criteria are reported in the Redbook.
The needs reported to Congress are for the recreation protection
level, which provides for larger storage/treatment facilities than the
fish and wildlife protection level.
8. Item 19 of the Combined Sewer System worksheet does not include
a column for intermittent streams or dry ditches because the receiving
water of a combined sewer area was defined at the downstream point where
CSO impacted a potential fishery. A dry stream or ditch would not be
considered if the potential for fishlife did not exist.
i 9. Your. comment to include non- urbanized area needs for Category VI
in the next Needs Survey will be considered.
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
by the States, will be forwarded to you in March, 1979.'
I greatly appreciate Tom Hagerty's concentrated efforts to improve
the 1978 Needs Survey in Ohio.
I hope that my letter has answered your questions. If I can be of
further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
C_
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
POST OFFICE BOX 2063
HARRI3BURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17120
December 26, 1978
In reply refer to:
File: 16-4.101
Mr. Philip Graham
Environmental Protection Agency (WH-595)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Graham:
This is in response to Mr. Chamblee's request to Mr. Drawbaugh and me
for comments on the 1978 Needs Survey document on Cost Methodology for
Control of Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater.Discharge. The following
are our comments:
1.
The criteria that are proposed (Pages 8-10) for protection of
fish and aquatic life violate EPA policy ("Redbook") specifically
as follows:
Parameter;
Dissolved
Oxygen
Suspended
Solids
Lead
Phosphorus
Needs
No less than
2 mg/1 as a
4 hour annual
average
At least 25 mg/1
annual average
Dissolved lead
0.33 mg/1 as a
96 hour average.
This amounts to
about 1/3 of the
96 hour LC 50.
Average annual
lake concentra-
tion of 0.025 mg/1
"Redbook"
Not less than 5 mg/1
at any time
Not more than 25 mg/1
"normally"
Total lead not more
than 1/100 of the
96 hour LC 50.
Not to exceed 0.025 mg/1
at any time or place in
a lake.
2.
3.
The dissolved oxygen criteria of the needs would not achieve
Pennsylvania standards (existing Chapter 93).
The lead limit of 0.33 mg/1 dissolved lead would violate
Pennsylvania's proposed standard for lead.
E - 39
-------
Mr. Philip Graham Page 2 December 26, 1978
We feel that the use of criteria that are at variance with EPA policy
must be justified. As far as we are concerned, the use of criteria that are
at variance with Pennsylvania water quality standards are not permitted.
We thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment on this document,
Please advise us of your consideration of our comments.
Should you have a question, do not hesitate to call me at 717-787-3,481.
Sincerely yours,
Brij M. Garg, Chief
Facilities Section
Division of Sewerage and Grants
Bureau of Water Quality Management
E - 40
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D'C- 2046°
FEB 1 6 1979
Mr. Brij M. Garq OFFICE OF WATER AND
Chief, Facilities Section HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Bureau of Water Quality Management
Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Dear Mr. Garg:
Thank you for your review dated December 26, 1978, of our draft
report presenting preliminary estimates of construction costs for the
control of combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff.
The criteria used for fish and wildlife protection in the 1978
Needs Survey were divergent from "Redbook," "Quality Criteria for Water,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July, 1976, criteria and from
State water quality standards. The rationale for using these divergent
criteria for Categories V and VI is discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of
the "Cost Methodology for Control of Combined Sewer Overflows and Stormwater
Discharge," FRD-3. EPA currently is considering an aquatic life criteria
comprised of a concentration to be maintained as an average during any
24-hour period and a recommended maximum concentration which should not
be exceeded at any time during the 24- hour period. In the meantime, the
officially recognized water quality criteria are reported in the Redbook.
The needs reported to Congress are for the recreation protection
level, which provides for larger storage/treatment facilities than the
fish and wildlife protection level.
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
by the States, will be forwarded to you in March 1979.
I hope that my letter has answered your questions. If I can be of
further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 41
-------
STATE OF TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
COROELL HULL BUILDING
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37219
Room 621
December 13, 1978
Mr. Philip Graham
Environmental Protection Agency (WH-595)
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Mr. Graham:
We have read through Parts 1 and 2 of the mailing on Category V and Category VI
needs analysis and find the complex subject very adequately handled. It is apparent
that a great deal of thought and preparation went into the formulation.
We notice that the cost summary in the mailings showed zero Category V needs for
Tennessee. At the December 6, 1978, meeting in Chicago you told me that three
combined sewer cities had recently been turned in by Dames and Moore. These
were probably for Nashville, Bristol, and Chattanooga. Knoxville and Clarksville
also have combined sewers. As far as we know, these are the only combined sewer
cities in Tennessee.
Sincerely yours,
I ' SJ
Donald P. Gregory
Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Quality Control
DPG/jg/3/2
E - 42
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Donald P. Gregory
Environmental Engineer
Division of Water Quality Control
Department of Public Health
Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
Dear Mr. Gregory:
Thank you for your review dated December 13, 1978, of our draft report
presenting preliminary estimates of construction costs for the control of
combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff (Categories V and VI).
The Combined Sewer System Data File has been corrected to include the
Cities of Nashville, Chattanooga, and Bristol, Tennessee. Based on the
data we have for these cities, the corrected Category V needs for Tennessee
as reported to Congress are $198,462,000. We have no data on Combined Sewer
Systems located in Knoxville or Clarksvllle and Category V needs have not
been estimated for these cities.
I would, appreciate receiving information regarding the combined sewers
in Knoxville and Clarksville for use in future needs surveys.
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
from the States, will be forwarded to you in March 1979.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Si
>"^ r '\/i • y*--
(James A. Chamblee, Chief
^Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 43
-------
State of Vermont
AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
Montpelier, Vermont 0560*
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER!^
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation
Department of Water Resources
Environmental Board
Division of Environmental Engineering
Division of Environmental Protection
Natural Resources Conservation Council
December 4, 1978
Mr. Phillip Graham
Environmental Protection Agency (WH-595)
401 M. Street, SH
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Category V and VI Needs
State of Vermont
Dear Mr. Graham:
This office has reviewed the draft report on needs in Category V
(combined sewer overflows) and Category VI (urban stormwater runoff)
prepared by Dames & Moore, Inc., and CH2M HILL.
Category V; we are in agreement with the figures as presented in
the draft report.
Category VI; As in the 1976 survey, the needs in this category were
based on urbanized areas, as designated by the U.S. Bureau of Census.
Due to the lack of urbanized areas, once again the State needs in this
category have been calculated as being zero. We submit that, to use this
criteria for a state such as Vermont, is totally inaccurate. The water
quality needs do not disappear when urbanized areas do not exist. It
is the State's opinion that there are several large communities where
stormwater discharges can degrade water quality, and, under present laws,
corrective action will have to be undertaken under this category at some
future time. The following is a list of the communities with their
respective (low side) control costs.
Community
Burlington
St.Johnsbury
Newport City
Rutland City
Bennington
St. Albans
Windsor
Springfield
Hartford
Brattleboro
Feet Connecting
Storm Sewer @
$80.00/1f
$ 31,680
15,840
15,840
23,760
21,120
21,120
13,200
13,200
21,120
10,560
Sedimen tation
Basin(s)
Total Costs
4 @ 397,600 {
2 @ 397,600
1 plus pump station
4 @ 397,600
3 @ 397,600
2 @ 397,600
1 @ 397,600
1 plus pump station
2 @ 397,600
2 @ 397,600
4,124,800
2,062,400
1,835,200
3,491,200
2,882,400
2,484,800
1,453,600
1,624,000
2,484,800
1,640,000
E - 44
-------
Mr. Phillip Graham
Page 2
December 4, 1978
Community
Feet Connecting
Storm Sewer @
$80.00/If
Sedimentation
Basin (s)
Total Costs
Winooski
Colchester F.D. #1
Shelburne F.D. #1&2
So. Burlington
(Bartletts Bay)
10,560
26,400
21,120
10,560
1 @ 397,600
1 @ 227,200
1 @ 227,200
1 @ 397,600
$ 1,242,400
2,339,200
1,916,800
1,242,400
TOTAL = $30,824,000
Note: The above figures are based on Jan. 1, 1978 dollars.
These figures were generated based on a map determination of interceptor
footage required and a determination of the number of treatment facilities
necessary to reasonably treat the discharges. As the above figures clearly
represent the actual needs for the State of Vermont, we submit that these
figures should be included in the needs estimate for Category VII for the
State of Vermont.
Sincerely,
fnald A. LaRosa, P.E., Director
ision of Environmental Engineering
RAL/DB/lg
cc: Charles Bishop, EPA
Ralph Caruos, P.E., EPA
Alfred Pelequin, N.E. Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
Secretary Brendan Whittaker, AEC
E - 45
-------
<°!>
*
-------
-2-
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
from the States, will be forwarded to you in March, 1979.
If I may be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
c)
V-Xfa
ames A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 47
-------
STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
WASHINGTON Olympia, Washington 98504 206/753-2240
Dixy Lee Ray
Governor Wilbur G. Hallauer, Director
December 21, 1978
Mr. James Chamblee
Chief, "Need" Assessment Section
Facility Requirements Branch (WH-547)
401 M Street S.W.
Washington D.C. 20460
Dear'Mr. Chamblee:
I was provided a brief of your December 6th meeting regarding the
combined sewer needs survey by Mr. Frank Monahan of our staff.
It concerned me to learn that the data base being used to cal-
culate the needs of the Seattle-Metro and Everett areas contained
significant errors.
To correct this data we have requested from each entity official
data for your use. The Seattle information is enclosed for your
use and the Everett material will be sent under separate cover.
The source of this data is recently completed facility plans
making it the most reliable.
We have maintained that since 60 percent of Seattle's system has
separated storm and sanitary sewers, the overflows from separated
areas should be considered as I/I problems and reported under
category III-A. Since EPA has chosen not to agree with this
determination, I urge you to see that the combined sewer overflow
needs are properly addressed in category V.
Without full consideration of the combined sewer overflow needs
in our state, particularly the major metropolitan area needs,
there will be a decline in Washington State's proportion of
the national needs and subsequent grant allocations. This would
seriously jeopardize projects for which facility planning and de-
sign have been completed over the past several years.
If more data is needed, please contact me as soon as possible. I
would like to be advised of the changes in our data base when you
have completed them.
Yours truly(, -^ {
! U
Wilbur G. Hallauer
WGHrnd
cc: Senator Warren G. Magnuson
Thomas Jorling, Assistant Administrator, EPA
E -
-------
52J2JI UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\t ^ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
FEB 1 1979
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Wilbur 6. Hallauer, Director
Department of Ecology
Olympia, WA 98504
Dear Mr. Hallauer:
Thank you for your letter of December 21, 1978, correcting the
Combined Sewer System Data File for Seattle-. A combined sewer area of
32,000 acres with a population of 330,000 was recorded in the data file,
per Mr. Wiatrak's letter of December 12, 1978. These data, together
with information previously available, result in a total combined sewer
area of 38,978 acres serving 377,980 persons for the Seattle urbanized
area. These.figures were used in the final Category V needs estimate.
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
from the States, will be forwarded to you in March, 1979.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours.
c/.
James A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
E - 49
-------
NICHOLAS J. MELAS
PRESIDENT
Hugh H. McMillan
(General Superintendent
751-5722
BOARD OF COMMISSION^
JOANNE H. ALTER
JEROME A. COSENTINO
DELORIS M. FOSTER
WILLIAM A. JASKULA
NELLIE L. JONES
JAMES C. KIRIE
CHESTER f. MAJEWSKI
NICHOLAS J. MELAS
RICHARD J. TROY
December 21, 1978
Mr. James A. Chamblee
Needs Survey Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
SUBJECT: 1978 Needs Survey, Cost Methodology for Control of Combined
Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharges (Categories V and VI)
Dear Mr. Chamblee:
The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago has reviewed
the subject draft report. With respect to the control of pollution from
combined sewer overflows and urban Stormwater runoff, the report attempts
to provide a uniform set of receiving water quality criteria, a comprehensive
set of treatment technologies and a uniform analysis methodology to estimate
the cost of combined sewer overflow and urban Stormwater pollution control
in the United States. While conceptually commendable, this approach, as
documented in the subject report, falls far short of the effort necessary
to accurately assess the needs that are being addressed. It is of the utmost
concern to the Sanitary District that while the report's considerable volume
implies a rigorous and technically complex analytical foundation, national
needs have been extrapolated from a fundamentally deficient and simplistic
assessment of criteria and a technically crude theoretical evaluation of
15 site specific areas. Site specific studies concerning combined sewer
overflow and urban Stormwater pollution control, such as the Sanitary
District's, have not been utilized, even though available and procured
with resources and the cooperation of the USEPA.
The following comments are provided to substantiate the concern of the
Sanitary District that the findings of this report should be strongly qual-
ified as to the report's deficiencies.
Receiving Water Quality Objectives;
Of the three receiving water quality objectives delineated, aesthetics,
fish and wildlife, and recreation, only the recreation objective appears
to reflect the goals and policy of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Additionally, only the recreational objective is compatible with the Water
Quality Regulations of the State of Illinois. As a consequence, the evolu-
tion of Ithe two sub-standard objectives are of concern to the Sanitary Dis-
trict. It is recommended that these sub-standard objectives be clearly
defined as not addressing the goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
E - 50
-------
Page 2
SUBJECT: 1978 Needs Survey, Cost Methodology for Control of Combined
Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharges (Categories V and VI)
Aesthetics Objective;
Page 13-14 of the report recognizes the arbitrary character of the
aesthetics objective with the statement "...the arbitrary, technology-based
aesthetics objective;..." It does not appear that this significant qualifi-
cation of the aesthetics objective is contained elsewhere within the report.
It is the view of the Sanitary District that the aesthetics objective is
misnamed. It is based upon an unproven technology (swirl concentrators and/or
screens at combined sewer overflow points), and it is highly doubtful that an
acceptable aesthetic ^level would be produced from the application of such
technologies. At best, such technologies would still transmit to a receiving
water significant portions of the odorous and obnoxious raw sewage contained
in the combined sewer overflows. As a consequence, it is suggested that the
aesthetics objective be more appropriately named to reflect, that while some
pollution load will be removed, the impact on the receiving stream will be
basically unchanged from an aesthetic perspective.
Fish and Wildlife Objective;
The parameters utilized to analyze the fish and wildlife objective re-
flect a glaring, significant omission. While nitrogenous BOD is considered
with respect to its effect on dissolved oxygen levels, the toxicity of ammonia
to fish and wildlife is totally ignored. The Illinois Pollution Control Board
has established an ammonia stream quality standard of 1.5 mg/1 for the waters
of Illinois. This standard- is predicated on the toxic characteristics of
ammonia at nominal ranges of stream pH. A comprehensive analysis of data
available to the Sanitary District for combined sewer overflows to its water-
ways indicates that combined sewer overflow ammonia concentrations exceed
1.5 mg/1 approximately 70% of the time. Average overflow concentrations as
high as 13 mg/1 have been measured. As high ammonia concentrations are typical
of domestic sanitary wastes, no non-structural alternatives are available for
its elimination from combined sewer overflows. It. is, therefore, strongly
recommended that the needs assessment be revised to include the impacts of
ammonia toxicity.
Technologies for Combined Sewer Overflow Control;
Chapter 3 of the report delineates a number of pollution control tech-
nologies for the control of combined sewer overflow (CSO) and urban stormwater
runoff pollution. An element missing from this presentation is a compre-
hensive analysis of these technologies or systems of these technologies com-
pared against uniform standards. Swirl concentrators are not equivalent to
off-line storage followed by complete treatment. Furthermore, source controls
for the reduction of nonpoint urban stormwater pollution loadings are not
compatible with technologies for the elimination of the raw sewage pollution
loadings associated with combined sewer overflows.
E - 51
-------
Page '3
SUBJECT: 1978 Needs Survey, Cost Methodology for Control of Combined
Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharges (Categories V and VI)
In addition, this section does not address the peripheral problems
that may be associated with a number of the technologies delineated. In-line
storage and flow concentrators can seriously aggravate flooding in a combined
sewer area. It is recommended that the relative merits of the proposed tech-
nologies be defined, and their constraints be further documented.
The report points out (page 3-9) that cost data for treating combined
sewer overflows and urban storrawater runoff using biological systems were not
considered in the needs estimate, since, as the report states, the application
of an integrated wet/dry weather biological treatment facility is extremely
site specific. The District is providing a system of surface Collecting struc-
tures and conveyance tunnels which will intercept and transport the captured
combined sewer overflows (CSO) to large storage reservoirs. Subsequently, after
the storm has subsided, the CSO will be pumped to existing wastewater treat-
ment plants for purification and discharge to the waterways.
There are several advantages which this system provides. First of all,
shock hydraulic loads will not be imposed on the treatment facility, consequently
pollutant removal efficiencies should not be impaired. Secondly, by inte-
grating controlled wet and dry weather flows over a longer timeframe, optimum
utilization of treatment plant capacity is possible. Thus, a treatment capacity
of 1.5 times dry weather flow will be adequate rather than the 2.5 times dry
weather flow generally specified in the NPDES permits for combined sewer areas
by the USEPA. Further, pollution of the waterways caused by CSO will be almost
completely eliminated and flooding of low-lying areas will be considerably
reduced. Moreover, there are significantly lower capital costs involved in
utilizing an existing biological treatment plant in order to achieve these
objectives than other treatment alternatives discussed. Therefore, we believe
that the applicability of dual biological treatment facilities in treating CSO
and stormwater has national significance, thus should be reconsidered and appro-
priate cost data supplied.
Receiving Water Response Model;
The application of the receiving water response model provides, at best,
a crude estimate of needs and these may be inaccurate by orders of magnitude
of the needs assessed. As examples of the inaccuracies which have been intro-
duced by this model's application for the waterways of the Sanitary District,
the following are submitted:
1. Nitrogenous Oxygen Demand. Studies of the Sanitary District's basic
canal and river system have indicated that nitrification within the system is
negligible. The characteristics of the canal and river system, the upstream
input of relatively ammonia free Lake Michigan water, the anaerobic state of
benthal deposits, and major inputs of chlorinated effluents all act to inhibit
nitrification within the waterway systems. The nitrogenous oxygen demand
load has been found to be exerted far downstream from the urban area in the
Illinois River. The model assumes the nitrogenous oxygen demand load is
exerted within the urban area.
E - 52
-------
Page 4
SUBJECT: 1978 Needs Survey, Cost Methodology for Control of Combined
Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharges (Categories V and VI)
)
2. Sediment Oxygen Demand. The Sanitary District's basic canal and
river system exhibits low flow velocities through large channelized sections.
The system characterizes a very efficient linear settling tank. As a conse-
quence, sediment oxygen demands are extremely high. These oxygen demands
have been measured, and their loading is on the same order of magnitude as
the treatment plant loadings to the system. The estimated benthic demand
values utilized in the model grossly underestimate the sediment oxygen demand
of the Sanitary District's waterway system.
3. Upstream Water Quality. The headwaters of the Sanitary District's
canal and river system is Lake Michigan. The quality of Lake Michigan water
,is extremely high. Data presented in the report for Chicago appeared to
indicate an upstream water quality suspended solids concentration of 88 mg/1.
This is a gross overestimate of the suspended solids concentration of
Lake Michigan water (6 to 8 mg/1 in the Chicago area).
4. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration. While dissolved oxygen was used
as a prime indicator to assess needs for combined sewer overflow control,
the application of the model to assess this parameter is somewhat suspect.>
Modelling exercises on the Sanitary District's basic waterways systems indicate
that during periods of combined sewer overflows, oxygen rich stormwater,
coupled with relatively high flow velocities within the waterway system, tend
to negate the deoxygenating effects of introduced pollution loads. Critical
periods for maintenance of adequate dissolved oxygen within the waterway
are characterized by warm, dry weather. The combination of warm water, sewage
treatment plant effluents, and high sediment oxygen demands (the benthic
material is replenished by combined sewer overflows occurring approximately
every fourth day) defines a maximum loading situation.
It is of interest to note that the Sanitary District is construc-
ting an instream aeration system for its waterways. The first prototype
station was operating during the summer of 1978. While the instream aeration
system will be able to positively maintain adequate dissolved oxygen concen-
trations through the waterway, this instream aeration system will not alle-
viate any portion of the pollution loadings on these waterways, nor will the
system accelerate the stabilization of carbonaceous or nitrogenous oxygen
demanding substances. The dichotomy presented by the potential availability
of an oxygen rich receiving stream which is grossly polluted, underscores
the qualifications which must be imposed on utilizing dissolved oxygen as
a prime indicator to assess combined sewer overflow needs.
5. Model Utilization, Calibration and Verification. The conceptual,
theoretical, and empirical sophistication of the continuous modelling system
utilized in the report does not discount the fact that its application on a
national scale affords only a crude estimate of combined sewer overflow and
E - 53
-------
Page 5
SUBJECT: 1978 Needs Survey, Cost Methodology for Control of Combined
Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharges (Categories V and VI)
urban stormwater needs. The assumption and utilization of the assimilative
capacities of streams and the site specific nature of combined sewer overflow
and stormwater needs demand amore thorough and site specific study. From
the report, the receiving water flow for New York appears to be 40.2 cfs at
suspended solids concentration of 20 mg/1. As needs are a function of the
quality of receiving water flow, New York's needs would be estimated as
greater than Chicago's. The 40.2 cfs flow, however, appears to be rather low.
Chicago's receiving water flow is estimated at 568 cfs, which is approximately
the direct diversion flow from Lake Michigan through the District's canal
system. However, the suspended solids concentration attributed to this flow
appears to ignore'that the water source is Lake Michigan. The receiving
water course analyzed for Milwaukee, Wisconsin appears to be the Milwaukee
River, however, the immediate and ultimate receiving water is Lake Michigan.
The report indicates that the model has been calibrated for two
urban areas. Considering the comprehensive national utilization of the model,
the 'extent of calibration is totally inadequate. In addition, no evidence
is presented to indicate that the model was verified for any of the urban
areas analyzed. The absence of a verification exercise allows no assignment
of credibility to the model. The necessity for the verification of mathema-
tical models is recommended by USEPA guidance on this subject and is generally
accepted amongst experts in the field (i.e. USEPA Areawide Assessment Proce-
dures Manual, July 1976; USEPA Urban Stormwater Management and Technology
Update and Users Guide, September 1977).
Also, investigators have not shown or proven that transfer of
nonpoint source water quality data from one region to another can be accom-
plished accurately. When transferring such data, such factors as varying
climatic and meteorological conditions, topography, hydraulic characteristics
of land surface and waterways, and land use activities on a watershed must be
considered. There are no accepted criteria or methodologies for transfer of
such data. In other words, there is no real substitute for observed data on
the watersheds to be analyzed.
The report should, in its preamble specifically delineate that an
unverified, inadequately calibrated model was utilized to perform the need's
analysis. The readers may then be aware of the limitations of the needs
estimated.
Report Conclusions:
An indicator of the reasonableness of the estimated needs is the com-
parison of needs generated by a site specific detailed analysis to those
estimated by the report's methodology. The Sanitary District has analyzed
the combined sewer overflow problem for its area in detail. Over ten years
of study is involved and a number of site specific calibrated and verified
receiving water quality models were utilized. Under the combined sewer
recreational water quality objective, the District's remaining needs are
E - 54
-------
Page 6
SUBJECT: 1978 Needs Survey, Cost Methodology for Control of Combined
Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Discharges (Categories V and VI)
estimated at $2.1 billion. This figure is higher than the $1.8 billion esti-
mate attributed to the entire State of Illinois, and as a consequence, the
$1.8 billion figure is obviously underestimated.
In summary, the emphasis of the report on small scale technologies,
which are highly doubtful as to acceptable performance, and water quality
objectives, which neither are intended to meet the national goals nor State
of Illinois objectives, is misleading to the casual reader. The report must
place these items in proper perspective. A major oversight of the report is
its failure to consider the adverse toxic impacts of ammonia nitrogen intro-
duced into receiving streams through combined sewer overflows.
Attached are documents further detailing the toxic effects of ammonia
nitrogen, additional detailed comments and questions concerning the report,
and the District's comments of September 20/1978 to the USEPA "Report to
Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows," portions of which apply to the combined
sewer overflow aspects of this "Needs" study.
Very truly yours,
ugh H. McMillan
General Superintendent
HHM:FCN:WM:ag
w/attachments
cc: Mr. Phillip Graham/ USEPA
E - 55
-------
DETAIL ADVERSE TOXIC IMPACTS OF AMMONIA
Nitrogen is known to occur in organic and ammonium forms in CSO.
The concentration of these forms as they occur in CSO is highly variable
and depends on several factors such as land use practices, industry prev-
alence, storm events, their duration and interval between storms, dilution
rate of sewage by urban runoff, etc. The concentration of organic nitrogen
in CSO was reported to be in the range of about 3 to 10 mg/1, and NH^-N in
the range of 1 to 3 mg/1 in a study conducted at Bucyrus,Ohio,the Sandusky
River. Higher concentrations than these may occur in CSO if it carries
excessive quantities of suspended solids which originated from sewage or
other nitrogenous materials. In a separate study conducted to evaluate the
mineralization of organic nitrogen in urban stormwater runoff of Madison,
Wisconsin, it was found that more than 50% of the total nitrogen could be
mineralized and be made available for algal uptake. Although extensive
information on the nitrogen content of CSO's is lacking, it is conceivable
that nitrogen present in CSO's has the potential to cause adverse effects
either in its indigenous or mineralized state.
Ammonium and nitrate nitrogen species are known to cause biostimulation
at a concentration of about 0.3 mg N/l. The nitrogen concentration that is
available in CSO's may generally exceed this critical concentration by several
fold and cause algal blooms in receiving waters when appropriate environmental
conditions such as the presence of phosphorus, carbon dioxide, sunlight, and
optimum temperature prevail. Even if inorganic nitrogen is not present above
the critical concentration of nitrogen known to cause biostimulation, it may
be formed eventually due to mineralization of the organic nitrogen contained
in CSO.
Ammonia in its undissociated form is known to adversely affect fishlife
at as low a concentration as 0.01 mg/1. High concentrations of undissociated
ammonia may occur if the pH of CSO is above a pH of 9.5.
When chlorination is practiced for the disinfection of water and waste-
water, its efficacy is impaired if NH.-N is present in them because of the
formation of chloramines. Chloramines are not as effective as free chlorine
for disinfection. Approximately 8 mg C12/1 is consumed for 1 mg NH^-N/1
before free residual chlorine results. If other chlorine demanding substances
such as organics and reduced compounds, are present, the requirement of Cl
is even greater.
Another adverse effect that the CSO's might exert is oxygen depletion
in receiving waters. This is not only due to the oxygen demand exerted by
carbonaceous matter but also due to the oxygen demand exerted by NH4-N contained
in CSO. Under appropriate environmental conditions, nitrifying organisms
oxidize NH^N to N03~ and in doing so exert an oxygen demand of about
5 mg/1 for every mg NH4-N/1 oxidized. Depending on the potential for mineral-
ization of organic nitrogen and subsequent oxidation of the' NH4~N formed and
that of the NH^-N present initially, the oxygen depletion in receiving waters
may be significant. The resulting sag in dissolved oxygen due to this depletion
may have an adverse effect both in terms of fish populations, esthetics, and
any intrinsic recreational value.
E - 56
-------
The potential adverse health effects of ammonia have been evaluated
by the Illinois Pollution Control Board and as a consequence, the Board
has set an ammonia limit of 1.5 mg/1 for General Use waters. Thus, the
potential adverse toxicity of ammonia should be evaluated in the "Needs"
report.
E - 57
-------
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
How were the water quality data used for identifying receiving waters,
and for determining pollutant loadings from U.S. cities listed in the report?
Specific information requested are sampling methods, frequency of sampling,
sampling locations, chemical procedures,etc.
How were the actual pollutant loadings determined for the fifteen watersheds
transferred to other areas of the country? The methodology is not
identified.
It is stated on page 1-2 and 1-3 of the report that a uniform set of assump-
tions, criteria, and methods were used in order to develop the nationwide
estimates. Because of the variable nature of stormwater quality data, it is
our opinion that it is not possible to assume uniform conditions.
E - 58
-------
NICHOLAS J. MELAS
PRESIDENT
BART T. LYNAM
°KN«HAL • UPCHINTCNQCNT
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JOANNE H. ALTER
JEROME A. COSENTINO
DELORIS M. FOSTER
WILLIAM A. JASKULA
NELLIE L JONES
JAMES C. KIRIE
CHESTER P. MAJEWSKI
NICHOLAS J. MELAS
RICHARD J. TROY
September 20, 1978
Mr. Michael B. Cook, Acting Director
Facility Requirements Division (WH-547)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Subject: Report to Congress on Combined Sewer Overflows
Dear Mr. Cook;
The Metropolitan Sanitary District (MSD) has reviewed subject
draft report and offers the following comments:
1) We recommend that a qualitative description be given of the
pollution which results from combined sewer overflows. Combined
sewer overflows cannot be equitably or usefully compared to
sewage treatment plant effluents as has been done in the subject
report.
Sewage treatment plant effluents are generally disinfected, and
the organic matter contained in sewage treatment plant effluents
is finely dispersed and relatively stable with respect to
deoxygenating potential.
Combined sewer overflows contain raw sewage which is highly unstable,
putrescent, carriers of disease organisms, malodorous, and visually
repugnant. The combined sewer overflows are discontinuous, and
impact the water during storm events at a frequency of approxi-
mately once every four days. During combined sewer overflows,
heavier particulate organic material settle to the bottom of the
waterway and contribute to a benthic load which detrimentally
impacts the waterway even during dry weather periods. Floatable
and soluble organic material impact the waterway with a shock
pollution loading which totally negates any fishable to swimmab.le
goals. The impact of a large combined sewer overflow event on any
viable aquatic biota element in the waterway could be described
as catastrophic.
In the MSD area, virtually 100% of the visual pollution in river
and streams comes from combined sewer overflows and this violates
the primary requirement of PL 92-500.
Also, in many areas, combined sewer overflows constitute a major
source of industrial waste discharges to waterways. Such industrial
wastes may be highly toxic or otherwise harmful to the ecology of
E - 59
-------
Mr, Michael B, Cook -2- September 20, 1978
the receiving waters and to potential users of the waters.
In addition, the report analyzes the relative contribution of
5 pollution parameters by combined sewer overflows, treatment
plan'ts and urban runoff. The pollution parameters are listed on
page 17 of the report. We believe, since one of the main purposes
of reducing pollution is .protection of health, it would be beneficial
to consider the amount of E-coli contributed by the various pollution
sources. E-coli are considered an indicator organism or a measure
of the potential ability of a pollution source to spread disease.
Even a casual analysis would indicate that combined sewer overflow
is considerably greater in E-coli count than plant effluent. The
addition of this parameter would aid in putting the combined sewer
overflow problem in proper perspective.
2) In order to determine cost, it is noted that the report
(pages 4, 41 & 42) uses an economic life of 50 years for collection
systems, 10 years for mechanical equipment and 20 years for treat-
ment plants. We disagree with these life estimates, since it is
our opinion that the rock tunnel systems presently being constructed
to solve the combined sewer overflow problems in the MSD area will
have an economic life of at least 500 years, and we estimate major
mechanical equipment and plants will last approximately twice as
long as assumed in the report. We not only disagree with the
economic life estimates stated in the report, but also the conclusion
that construction "should be realistically viewed as continuous."
3) The report discusses so-called alternatives; however, it is
apparent that each of the alternatives do not meet any established
goal. As an example, storage-treatment systems will intercept
combined sewer overflows, convey the flows to a storage vessel and
then treat all flows so that discharges to the waterways can meet
waterway quality requirements, By providing storage we have
determined that we can make better use of treatment plant capacity.
We plan to expand our treatment plants to a size equal to 1-1/2 times
average dry weather flow instead of the 2-1/2 times average dry
weather flow requirement of NPDES Permits for combined sewer areas.
By.maintaining a size of 1-1/2 times dry weather flow we will
save approximately $1 billion in capital cost on the treatment
plant expansions, No other alternative provides this opportunity.
Therefore, street sweeping, sewer flushing or sew.er separation
cannot be regarded as alternatives which are equal to the storage
treatment system. It is recommended, therefore, that the term
"alternative" not be used because it conveys a false impression,
4) , We have reviewed the details of the street sweeping, sewer
flushing and sewer separation systems and concur with the conclusion
that these three systems have severe limitations. We believe the
report should emphasize the limitations of each of the systems in
the Executive Summary and not give them credence by calling them
alternatives.
5) The report does place all cities- large or small rin the
same category, We believe this is an error because major cities
such as Chicago, Detroit, New York and Philadelphia have combined
sewer overflow problems with tributary areas in excess of 2,000 acres
E - 60
-------
Mr, Michael B, Cook -3- September 20, 1978
and, therefore, the discussion of so-called alternatives should
be separate and distinct from the small communities.
6) The nationwide costs of $21 billion represented as needed
for control of combined sewer overflows is not properly placed
in perspective. The figure based on generalized methodology
developed in the needs survey does not reflect real costs already
contained in facility plan reports. As an example, the figure
listed for Illinois is approximately $3 billion in Table 4.1,
whereas the MSB Facility Plan cost for TARP Phase I being funded
by the USEPA totals $1.9 billion of which $0.7 billion is under
construction. Since the MSD area contains most of the combined
sewered area in Illinois, the $3 billion figure appears grossly
high. If this is true in other areas, then the $21 billion number
is grossly misleading.
Attached are copies of and comments on selected pages of the
subject draft report on which we are making suggested revisions
in order to reflect the above comments.
In closing, we do concur in the recommendation that funding
Alternative #1 be pursued as stated in our letter of July 17, 1978.
Alternative. #1 states, in part: "Construction grant funds will be
allocated to each State under the present allocation formula."
We believe that this system will provide all parties to solve the
combined sewer overflow problem in a timely manner.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to review the draft
report.
If you have any questions pertaining to our comments or would
like to meet on this subject, please feel free to contact
this office,
Sincerely,
Bart T.
General Superintendent
BTL:FCN:FED:jn
Attachment (.8 pages)
cc: John T. Rhett
E - 61
-------
Suggested Changes (Indicated in Capital Letters) 1 g
Page of
Executive Summary
-Page 9-
investment in additional research would likely yield substantial net savings
to the public. For example, if additional research resulted in development of
technologies which are 5% more efficient than technologies available today,
$1 billion could be saved.
This report presents an analysis of the unit removal costs expressed in dollars
per pound of BOD removed from the receiving water for a combined sewer watershed.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT FOR EXCEPTIONALLY LARGE OR OTHERWISE UNUSUAL WATERSHEDS,
THE COSTS AS REPORTED HERE MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE. THESE CASES NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY. Unit removal costs are developed for nonstructural
or low-structural control alternatives such as street sweeping, catch basin
cleaning, and sewer flushing as well as for structural or capital intensive
controls which involve storage and/or treatment. The results of this analysis
for nonstructural or low-structural controls are:
1. Streetsweeping, IF PERFORMED FREQUENTLY, can be used to remove FROM 2% TO
11% of the watershed BOD_ load at a cost of from $3 to $12 per pound of BOD_
removed. THUS STREETSWEEPING HAS LITTLE POTENTIAL TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY
PARTICULARLY IN LARGE AREAS BECAUSE OF THE SMALL REMOVAL PERCENTAGE.
2. Catch basin cleaning is not a viable alternative because of low removal and
high cost.
3. A CONTINUOUS sewer flushing PROGRAM can be used to remove from 18% to 32%
of the watershed BOD. load at a cost of from $.94 to approximately $4 per
pound of BOD removed. THE ABOVE FIGURES ARE FOR VERY SMALL DRAINAGE AREAS.
SEWER FLUSHING AS A SOLUTION IN LARGER AREAS IS NOT A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE
BECAUSE OF THE LARGE SIZES, LONG SEWER LENGTHS AND TREMENDOUS QUANTITIES
OF WATER NEEDED EVEN TO ACHIEVE AN 18% REMOVAL.
E - 62
-------
Executive Summary Page 2 of 8
-page 10-
4. Swirl concentrators/regulators can be used to remove up to 56% of the water-
shed BOD load at a cost of from $2.30 to $4 per pound of BOD removed. IN
J J
MOST LARGE AREAS, THIS PERCENT REMOVAL IS NOT SUFFICIENT NOR ARE THEY VIABLE
BECAUSE OF SPACE RESTRAINTS AND THEY AGGRAVATE FLOOD PROBLEMS.
The cost and effectiveness of storage/treatment systems depend to a large extent
upon the size of the area served. Storage/treatment systems become more cost-
effective as the area served by a given facility increases. For a small watershed
of 100 acres or less, sewer separations may be a cost-effective control alternative.
Sewer separation with subsequent treatment at a secondary WWTP will remove
approximately 65% of the total watershed BOD load at a unit cost of approximately
$24 per pound removed. For watersheds greater than about 200 acres, storage/
treatment systems will become more cost effective than sewer separation. The
relationship between facility size percentage of BOD removal and unit cost is
illustrated on Figure 7-1 of this report.
The following comments pertain to storage/treatment systems,
1. In-line storage including real time control (RTC) of the collection system
is a viable alternative if the existing collection system has a large inter-
ceptor storage capacity. In-line storage with subsequent treatment at a
secondary WWTP will remove up to 45% (possibly more in collection systems
not yet investigated) of the watershed BOD_ load at a cost of from $1.25 to
$4 per pound of BOD5 removed.
E - 63
-------
Page 3 of 8_
Executive Summary
-page 11-
2. Off-line storage in a highly developed urban area is expensive. In many
cases, covered concrete storage basins will be required to permit dual land
use. Therefore, economic optimization of all proposed storage/treatment
systems should be required before construction funds are granted.
3. Storage/treatment systems are the only technologically viable alternative
for removal of more than about 65% of the total annual watershed BOD load.
4. For large watersheds greater than 2,000 acres in size, the optimum storage/
treatment system can be used to remove from 30% to 80% of the watershed
BOD,, load at a cost of from $3 to $4 per pound of BOD removed.
5. FOR EXTREMELY LARGE WATERSHEDS IN THE RANGE OF 105 ACRES, STORAGE TREATMENT
IS THE ONLY OPTION CAPABLE OF ADDRESSING THE ENORMITY OF THE PROBLEM ON A
COST-EFFECTIVE BASIS, WITH NON-STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS BECOMING HIGHLY UNREALIS-
TIC BOTH FROM A COST STANDPOINT AND FROM THE AMOUNT OF POLLUTION THEY COULD
EFFECTIVELY REMOVE.
The reader should remember that the discussions of pollutant loadings and tech-
nological alternatives presented in this Executive Summary and in the main body
of the report represents a summary of our understanding of the CSO pollution
problem as it exists today and that this understanding is everchanging. Much
information has been developed in the last few years, and it is probable that
much more will be developed in the future.
E - 64
-------
Page 4 of 8
INSERT
STREET CLEANING DISADVANTAGES
APPENDIX C (OUR PAGE 143)
4. to provide more than minimal benefits, sweeping would have to
be almost continual.
5. frequent parking restrictions necessary for continual cleaning
will meet with adverse public acceptance resulting in non-
compliance and drastically reduced effectiveness.
6. not very effective in areas with streets in poor condition
or with cobblestone streets.
7. seasonal measure; can only be employed in fair weather months.
8. effectiveness very dependent upon factors over which you have
no control, i.e., when it rains, before or after sweeping.
E - 65
-------
Page 5_ of 8
INSERT
BEFORE LIST OF_ ADVANTAGES
COMBINED SEWER FLUSHING
APPENDIX C (OUR PAGE 144)
4 (A)
Sewer flushing demonstration projects have only been performed on systems with
sewer sizes in the range of 12"-15". In the Metropolitan Sanitary District
area 53 communities have combined sewers with a length approximately 25% or
1,715 miles are between 24" in diameter and 20' in diameter. The flushing
of such sewers is totally impractical. Flushing of large sewers (in addition
to flushing the network of smaller tributary sewers) would require fleets of
tank trucks, connections to hydrants where the water supply mains and pressures
are adequate, or construction of sluice gate installations with telemetry con-
trols throughout the system. All of these methods, when applied to large size
sewers over extensive areas, are prohibitive as to cost and disruption of
water supply systems and/or traffic. It is further noted that the control
devices at the interceptor sewers are not designed to capture the volume of water
necessary to have an effective flush without overflow to the waterways or are
the interceptors themselves large enough to convey the capacity of the com-
bined sewers, being designed to carry dry weather or sanitary equivalent flows.
The flushing of sewers, in order to be effective, would have to be performed
prior to every significant rain or snowmelt event. Indeed the only practical
method of regular flushing action, to obtain the degree of pollution control
claimed in the report, is by the utilization of the rainfall itself to flush
the sewers and to collect and temporarily store this water after each rainfall.
This is what is to be done in the Tunnel and Reservoir system (TARP).
E - 66
-------
Page 6 of 8
INSERT
THIRD PARAGRAPH UNDER "SWIRL AND HELICAL CONCENTRATORS11
APPENDIX C (OUR PAGE ISO)
It should be noted that the percentage removal and overall
efficiencies listed above have been obtained under controlled circumstances
and may vary greatly depending upon the actual conditions encountered
in various sewer systems,. These conditions may make the use of swirl
concentrators highly ineffective and uneconomical. Among these
conditions, are the following: 1) in areas where the interceptors
surcharge during storms, the free outlet necessary for the con-
centrated low volume wastewater will not be available, thereby forcing
almost all of the flows, including the low volume concentrated
wastewater, through the outfall into the river; 2) in flat combined-
sewered areas where flooding presently occurs in streets and base-
ments, the problem will be aggravated by the introduction of any
device on the combined-sewers, such as swirl concentrators, which
will increase the head loss and, therefore, the hydraulic gradient
upstream? 3) depending upon the actual volume of concentrated flow
introduced by swirl concentrators, the capacity of the existing
treatment plant may be exceeded, necessitating bypassing some of the
flow past the plant directly to the river; 4) on very large sewers
in congested downtown areas, the land required to build a large
diameter swirl concentrator may not be available; and 5) swirl
concentrators act to remove only certain elements and percentages of
the pollution found in C.S.O. Still other alternatives have to be
employed in conjunction with them to eliminate the bulk of the
problem.
E - 67
-------
Page _7 of 8_
Additional Minor Corrections and Suggested Changes in Wording of Text
(Note that page numbers refer to numbering system which began with the first
page of the Executive Report being numbered page 1. )
1. Page 13, under "Overflow Pollution Abatement Projects," 4th paragraph,
lines 1 and 11, "Alternative 4" should be "Alternative 3."
2. Page 16, under Mandate, 1st paragraph, 1st line, "Section 516(c)" is
referred to, but under Scope, 1st paragraph, 2nd line, the section is
referred to as "Section 615 (c)."
3. Page 18, under "The 1978 Needs Survey." 3rd paragraph, 9th line, it is
suggested for clarity that the term "an order of magnitude" be changed
to "ten times."
4. Page 57, under"Results. Nationwide", 2nd paragraph, 1st line, "Table
6-8" should be "Table 6-7".
5. Page 119, under'Ehicago, Illinois, Urban Characteristics":
a. 1st paragraph, 2nd line, "878" square miles should be "867" square
miles.
b. 1st paragraph, 5th line, "50%" open space should be "15%" open
space.
c. 1st paragraph, 14th line, "16" (Lake Michigan floods) should be "19".
d. 2nd paragraph, line 3, "3.47 inches" does not conform with what
Figure B-8 (p. 120) of that section shows.
6. Page 149, under "Sewer Separation Advantages," item 1, line 1. It is
suggested the term "municipal wastewater" be changed to "municipal
sanitary sewage."
E - 68
-------
Page 8 of 8
7. Page 158, under "Screens, Advantages" in line 1 or 2, it is suggested
that the words, "(except for microstrainers)" be added.
8. Pages 48 and 49, Tables 6-1 and 6-2, information on Chicago, Chicago
Metro, and New York seem to be inconsistent between the two tables.
Data for Chicago in Table 6-1 is correct.
9. Page 4, under "Executive Summary, Estimated Time Required...," remove
sentence "Because water pollution...viewed a continuous," because it is
misleading since it is based on incorrect economic life for equipment
and tunnel and gets construction costs mixed up with maintenance costs.
10. Page 7, under "Executive Summary, Pollutant Discharge," change point (1)
under annual average pollutant sources in urbanized areas to read:
"Secondary WWTP effluent and combined sewer overflows are the major sources
of BOD-." This is definitely true in the very densely developed Chicago
area and certainly, we believe, in other densely developed areas.
11. Page 7, under "Executive Summary, Pollutant Discharge...", add the
following point (5) to the pollutant sources in urbanized areas:
"Combined sewer overflow is the only source of visible, floatable and
malodorous untreated sewage in the receiving waterways in those areas
with treatment facilities."
12. Page 75, under Appendix C, after Table 7-1, delete the second sentence
beginning: "Sewer flushing appears to be the most promising source
control..." This sentence is in error and contradicts other statements
in the report.
E - 69
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
FEB2 1979
OFFICE OF WATER AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mr. Hugh H. McMillan
General Superintendent
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, IL 60611
Dear Mr. McMillan:
Thank you for your review dated December 21, 1978, of our draft
report presenting preliminary estimates of construction costs for the
control of combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater runoff (Categories
V and VI).
We agree that the recreation receiving water quality objective is
the only receiving water quality objective considered which will reflect
the fishable/swimable goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Therefore, the construction cost estimates developed for the recreation
objective are the estimates which are reported to Congress as the national
needs for Category V. The other receiving water objectives were considered
in order to obtain a relationship between receiving water beneficial use
and total cost to the public. Such information may be useful for future
policy making.
The aesthetics level presented in the final report is based on an
optimum combination of sewer flushing and street sweeping and not on the
swirl concentrators/screens combination developed in the draft report.
We estimate approximately 40 percent of the watershed pollutants (solids
and BOD) can be removed by these technologies and an overall removal of
this magnitude would have positive aesthetic as well as benthic effects.
Concerning the fish and wildlife protection level, it is possible
that direct consideration of ammonia toxicity may have some effect on
the cost estimates to meet this objective. However, it is probable
that, by meeting the ultimate oxygen demand requirements (which include
ammonia oxidation), ammonia toxicity problems will be greatly reduced.
E - 70
-------
-2-
The methodology used to develop the needs estimates for Categories
V and VI involves consideration of many technologies. These technologies
vary in cost and effectiveness and cannot be readily compared against
uniform criteria except for economic criteria, which is the main thrust
of the analysis.
Control alternatives considered for combined sewer systems include
street sweeping, sewer flushing, and storage/treatment systems. Each of
these alternatives were considered directly in the estimation of needs
required to meet the fish and wildlife receiving water quality criteria.
In cases where the overall pollutant removal is low, the optimum mix
will include maximum utilization of sewer flushing and street sweeping
and minimum utilization of storage/treatment systems. In the case of
Chicago, where the required pollutant removals are high, the optimum mix
will include utilization of street sweeping and sewer flushing and
maximum utilization of storage/treatment systems.
We agree that, for extremely high pollutant removals, storage/treatment
is the only technically feasible alternative. For this reason, recreation
level needs, which are the needs reported to Congress, are based on
providing storage/treatment systems which will limit the total number of
untreated overflow events to two per year. Street sweeping and sewer
flushing are not considered under the recreation receiving water objective.
For the combined sewer area of Chicago, needs are based on providing 6.0
billion gallons of offline storage and a wet weather treatment capacity
of 1.2 billion gallons per day.
We agree that there is no substitute for observed data when assessing
a water pollution problem. However, a nationwide inventory of available
receiving water quality data revealed only three urban areas in the ,'
United States with adequate retrievable continuous dissolved oxygen data
to calibrate a continuous simulation model.
The "Continuous Stormwater Pollution Simulation System" (CSPSS) was
developed for and used in the 1978 Needs Survey to derive relationships
between urban characteristics and receiving water quality in the 15
receiving water site studies. Pollutant removal requirements for each
of the 320 urbanized areas were then estimated using these relationships,
rather than application of the continuous receiving water model. Therefore,
the CSPSS was not applied to Chicago.
Although CSPSS was not applied to Chicago and its receiving water,
we would like to address the deficiencies which you perceive to be
inherent in the receiving water response component.
E - 71
-------
-3-
1. Nitrogenous Oxygen Demand., The nitrogenous oxygen demand is
included in the model as one of four dissolved oxygen sinks considered.
This does not imply, however, that simulation of nitrogeneous oxygen
demand is required. If nitrification within the receiving reach of
interest is negligible, then the TKN loading rates may be set to negligible
values and this load will not be included in the computations.
2. Sediment Oxygen Demand. There are no default values for
sediment oxygen demand utilized in the model. The values for sediment
oxygen demand reported in Table 9-3 of the users manual are typical
literature values to be used as a guide in the absence of measured
values, which are rare. The source of this information is fully documented.
3. Upstream Water Quality. Again, there are no default values for
upstream water quality parameters in the model. A background suspended
solids concentration of 7 mg/1, shows in the urbanized area data base
for Chicago, is used in the final needs computation by the Needs Estimation
Program which is listed in Appendix D.
4. Dissolved Oxygen Concentration. CSPSS simulates receiving
water dissolved oxygen concentrations on a continous basis for c.s many
years as the user desires. Therefore, dry-period dissolved'oxygen
levels, as well as wet-weather dissolved oxygen levels, are simulated as
they occur in the prototype. No assumptions need be made as to "critical"
conditions, since all conditions are considered. The difficulties
encountered in the definition of critical loadings and/or design conditions
is, in fact, the problem which precipitated the development of a continuous
simulation approach which considers all pollutant sources and all loading
conditions.
5. Model Uti1 i zation, Cali brati on, and Verification. The ultimate
uses of the simulation model for this project were to study 15 urban
areas and to develop transferable principles and relationships which are
then used in the national needs estimate. There is no doubt that a
certain degree of uncertainty is introduced by this process and that
this uncertainty will decrease as fflo>e observed data become available.
The final report will contain an additional chapter on sensitivity not
presented in the draft report. This chapter will attempt to quantify
the uncertainties associated with the present needs estimates.
Nevertheless, we believe that the major variables which influence
combined sewer pollution control needs are included in this survey.
E - 72
-------
-4-
The Sanitary District of Greater Chicago has invested much time and
effort in identifying a cost-effective solution to the serious combined
sewer overflow and flooding problems in Chicago. As you stated in your
letter, the estimated cost for the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) is
$2.1 billion. Since the TARP is a multipurpose project, only the cost
for water pollution control can be considered in Category V as grant-
eligible needs. The present EPA estimate of grant eligible water pollution
control funding for TARP is approximately $1.70 billion. The 1978 Needs
Survey estimate of grant eligible funding for Chicago is $1.52 billion
and $3.00 billion for the State of Illinois. Of these total needs,
approximately $871 million were met before January 1, 1978.
It is unfortunate that limited time and resources are available to
perform the nationwide survey of water pollution control costs. However,
we feel that the analysis presented in the 1978 Survey is a significant
improvement over past surveys and presents a state-of-the-art analysis
of combined sewer overflow and urban stormwater pollution problems.
The final report, including all comments and corrections received
by the States, will be forwarded to you in March, 1979.
I hope that my letter has answered your questions. If I can be of
further assistance, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
James A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE! 1979-281-147/34
E - 73
------- |