^EA^ WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES  11024DOC08/71
   Storm Water Management Model
      Volume IIVerification and Testing
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY  WATER QUALITY OFFICE

-------
                   WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Reports describe the results and progress
in the control and abatement of pollution of our Nation's waters.  They provide
a central source of information on the research, development and demonstration
activities of the Water Quality Office of the Environmental Protection Agency,
through in-house research and grants and contracts with the Federal, State
and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial organizations.

Previously issued reports on the Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution Control
Program:
11023 FDB 09/70
11024 FKJ 10/70
11024 EJC 10/70

11023 	 12/70
11023 DZF 06/70
11024 EJC 01/71
11020 FAQ 03/71
11022 EFT 12/70

11022 EFF 01/71
11022 DPP 10/70
11024 EQG 03/71

11020 FAL 03/71
11024 FJE 04/71
Chemical Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows
In-Sewer Fixed Screening of Combined Sewer Overflows
Selected Urban Storm Water Abstracts, First Quarterly
Issue
Urban Storm Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution
Ultrasonic Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflows
Selected Urban Runoff Abstracts, Second Quarterly Issue
Dispatching System for Control of Combined Sewer Losses
Prevention and Correction of Excessive Infiltration and
Inflow into Sewer Systems - A Manual of Practice
Control of Infiltration and Inflow into Sewer Systems
Combined Sewer Temporary Underwater Storage Facility
Storm Water Problems and Control in Sanitary Sewers -
Oakland and Berkeley, California
Evaluation of Storm Standby Tanks - Columbus, Ohio
Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff Abstracts, Third
Quarterly Issue
                                        To be continued on inside back cover...

-------
             STORM WATER  MANAGEMENT MODEL
           Volume II  -  Verification and Testing
                              by

        Metcalf  & Eddy,  Inc., Palo Alto,  California
        University of Florida, Gainesville,  Florida
 Water Resources Engineers, Inc., Walnut  Creek, California
                            for the
             Environmental Protection Agency
        Contract No.  14-12-501 Project No.  11024EBI
        Contract No.  14-12-502 Project No.  11024DOC
        Contract No.  14-12-503 Project No.  11024EBJ
                          August 1971
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing omoo, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.60
                         Stock Number C501-0108

-------
                EPA REVIEW NOTICE









This report has been reviewed by the Environmental




Protection Agency and approved for publication.




Approval does not signify that the contents neces-




sarily reflect the views and policies of the Environ-




mental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade




names or commercial products constitute endorsement




or recommendation for use.
                       11

-------
                                ABSTRACT
     A comprehensive mathematical model, capable of representing urban
storm water runoff, has been developed to assist administrators and en-
gineers in the planning, evaluation, and management of overflow abate-
ment alternatives.

     Hydrographs and pollutographs  (time varying quality concentrations
or mass values) were generated  for real storm events and systems from
points of origin in real time sequence to points of disposal (including
travel in receiving waters) with user options for intermediate storage
and/or treatment facilities.  Both combined and separate sewerage systems
may be evaluated.  Internal cost routines and receiving water quality out-
put assisted in direct cost-benefit analysis of alternate programs of
water quality enhancement.

     Demonstration and verification runs on selected catchments, varying
in size from 180 to 5,400 acres, in four U.S. cities (approximately 20
storm events, total) were used to test and debug the model.  The amount
of pollutants released varied significantly with the real time occurrence,
runoff intensity duration, pre-storm history, land use, and maintenance.
Storage-treatment combinations offered best cost-effectiveness ratios.

     A user's manual and complete program listing were prepared.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Projects 11024 EBI, DOC,
and EBJ under Contracts 14-12-501, 502, and 503 under the sponsorship of
the Environmental Protection Agency.

     The titles and identifying numbers of the final report volumes are:

               Title                           EPA Report No.

     STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL              11024 DOC 07/71
       Volume I - Final Report

     STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL              11024 DOC 08/71
       Volume II - Verification and Testing

     STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL              11024 DOC 09/71
       Volume III - User's Manual

     STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL              11024 DOC 10/71
       Volume IV - Program Listing
                                  iii

-------
                               CONTENTS




Section                                                           Page




    1    INTRODUCTION                                               1





    2    SAN FRANCISCO                                              9





    3    CINCINNATI                                                43





    4    WASHINGTON, D.C.                                          65




    5    PHILADELPHIA                                              97





    6    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS                                          129





    7    REFERENCES                                               133




    8    ABBREVIATIONS                                            137





    9    APPENDIX

-------
                                FIGURES

                                                                   Page
SAN FRANCISCO
2-1      Baker Street Study Area Looking North on
         Broderick Street from Broadway                             13

2-2      Baker Street Combined Sewer Outfall                        13

2-3      Plan of Selby Street System                                17

2-4      Plan of Baker Street System                                18

2-5      Baker Street Dry Weather Flow Comparisons with
         Reported Values                                            23

2-6      Selby Street Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
         Quantity                                                   25

2-7      Selby Street Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
         Quality                                                    26

2-8      Baker Street Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
         Storm of April 4-5, 1969                                   27

2-9      Baker Street Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
         Storm of October 14-15, 1969                               28

2-10     Baker Street Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
         Storm of December 19-20, 1969                              29

2-11     Baker Street Receiving Water Grid System                   31

2-12     Baker Street Receiving Water BOD Movement                  33

2-13     Concentration History at Three Junction Points             35


CINCINNATI
3-1      General Location Map of Cincinnati Bloody Run
         Drainage Basin                                             46

3-2      Characteristic Photographs of the Cincinnati
         Drainage Basin                                             48

3-3      Cincinnati Rain Gage and Runoff Sampling Point
         Locations                                                  50
                                   VI

-------
3-4      Division of Cincinnati Drainage Basin into
         Subcatchments                                             52

3-5      Division of Cincinnati Subcatchments into Subareas        53

3-6      Plan of Cincinnati Bloody Run System                      55

3-7      Location of Sampling Points for Dry Weather Flow          56

3-8      Cincinnati - Comparisons Between Measured and
         Computed Hydrographs - Storm of April 1, 1970             57

3-9      Cincinnati Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
         Storm of May 12, 1970, Sampling Point 3                   60

3-10     Cincinnati Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
         Storm of April 1, 1970, Sampling Point 3                  63


WASHINGTON, D.C.

4-1      Characteristic Photographs of Kingman Lake Drainage
         Basin                                                     69

4-2      Plan of Kingman Lake System                               71

4-3      Kingman Lake Rain Gage Locations and Subcatchments        72

4-4      Kingman Lake Rainfall Hyetographs - Storm of
         July 22, 1969                                             74

4-5      Kingman Lake Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
          (Quantity) - Storm of July 22, 1969                       75

4-6      Kingman Lake Surcharges in Conduit System -
         Storm of July 22, 1969                                    76

4-7      Kingman Lake Rainfall Hyetographs - Storm of
         August 20, 1969                                           77

4-8      Kingman Lake Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
          (Quantity) - Storm of August 20, 1969                     78

4-9      Record of  Rain at Washington, D.C., National
         Airport -  Summer 1969                                     81

4-10     Kingman Lake Receiving Water System                       84

4-11     Kingman Lake Receiving Water Dissolved Oxygen Profile     85

4-12     Kingman Lake Receiving Water SS Profile                   86
                                   VI1

-------
4-13     Kingman Lake BOD Comparisons With and Without
         Separation                                                 88

4-14     Kingman Lake Simulated Relief Sewer                        89

4-15     Kingman Lake Hydrographs With and Without Relief
         Sewer - Storm of July 22, 1969                             91
PHILADELPHIA

5-1      Plan of Wingohocking System                               102

5-2      Wingohocking Rain Gage Locations                          103

5-3      Wingohocking Rainfall Hyetographs -
         Storm of July 3, 1967                                     107

5-4      Wingohocking Combined Sewer Overflow
         Results (Quantity)  -
         Storm of July 3, 1967                                     108

5-5      Wingohocking Rainfall Hyetographs -
         Storm of August 3-4, 1967                                 110

5-6      Wingohocking Combined Sewer Overflow
         Results (Quantity)  -
         Storm of August 3-4, 1967                                 111

5-7      Wingohocking Combined Sewer Overflow
         Results (Quality)  -
         Storm of August 3-4, 1967                                 115

5-8      Wingohocking Receiving Water System                       116

5-9      Wingohocking Receiving Water Computed
         Stages at Nodes 1,  10, and 18                             117

5-10     Wingohocking Stages in Storage Basin
         Storm of August 3-4, 1967                                 124
                                 viii

-------
                                 TABLES

                                                                   Page
SAN FRANCISCO
2-1      Selby Street Subcatchment Data                             16

2-2      Selby Street Surface Quality Data                          16

2-3      Selby Street Dry Weather Flow Results                      20

2-4      Selby Street Dry Weather Flow Variation Factors            21

2-5      Selby Street - Computed Settled Solids in the Pipe
         System Before and After Storm                              22

2-6      Computed BOD Concentrations in Receiving Water             32

2-7      Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Option 1              36

2-8      Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Option 2              37

2-9      Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Option 3              38

2-10     Summary of Treatment Costs - Option 1                      39

2-11     Summary of Treatment Costs - Option 2                      40

2-12     Summary of Treatment Costs - Option 3                      41


CINCINNATI

3-1      Cincinnati Dry Weather Flow Results                        58


WASHINGTON, D.C.

4-1      Combined Sewer Overflow Quality Comparisons                80

4-2      Computed Time Variation of Overflow Quality                82

4-3      Kingman Lake Basic Design Data                             92

4-4      Kingman Lake Summary of Treatment Effectiveness            93

4-5      Kingman Lake Summary of Level Performance                  94
                                   ix

-------
PHILADELPHIA

5-1      Preliminary Dry Weather Flow Results                      104

5-2      Rainfall Data Storm of July 3, 1967                       106

5-3      Rainfall Data Storm of Aug. 3-4, 1967                     109

5-4      Wingohocking Combined Sewer Overflows - Quality
         Comparisons                                               114

5-5      Wingohocking Receiving Water Frankford Creek
         Flows and Velocities                                      118

5-6      Wingohocking Receiving Water  (Quality) Results            120

5-7      Wingohocking Basis of Design                              126

5-8      Wingohocking Summary of Treatment Effectiveness           127

5-9      Wingohocking Summary of Treatment Costs                   128

-------
                               SECTION 1





                             INTRODUCTION




                                                                 Paqe
PRESENTATION FORMAT                                                3




SELECTION OF DEMONSTRATION SITES                                   4




     San Francisco                                                 4




     Cincinnati                                                    5




     Washington, D.C.                                              5




     Philadelphia                                                  5




PURPOSE OF TESTS                                                   6

-------
                               SECTION 1




                             INTRODUCTION






Under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency a




consortium of contractorsMetcalf fi Eddy, Inc., the University of




Florida, and Water Resources Engineers, Inc.has developed a compre-




hensive mathematical model capable of representing urban storm water




runoff and combined sewage overflow phenomena.  Correctional devices in




the form of user selected options for storage and/or treatment are pro-




vided with associated estimates of cost.  Effectiveness is portrayed by




computed treatment efficiencies and modeled changes in receiving water




quality.






PRESENTATION FORMAT




The project report is divided into four volumes.  This volume. Volume II,




"Verification and Testing," describes the methods and results of model




application in four urban catchment areas.






Volume I, the "Final Report," contains the background, justifications,




judgments, and assumptions used in model  development.  It further in-




cludes descriptions of unsuccessful modeling techniques that were




attempted and recommendations for forms of user teams to implement




systems analysis techniques most efficiently.






Volume III, the "User's Manual," contains program descriptions, flow




charts, instructions on data preparation  and program usage, and test




examples.

-------
Volume IV, "Program Listing," lists the main program, all subroutines,




and JCL as used in the demonstration runs.







SELECTION OF DEMONSTRATION SITES




The selection of demonstration sites was based on five major considera-




tions.  First, the availability of data necessary to run the Model and




against which to compare the results was checked.  Basic needs included




rainfall data, and concurrent runoff hydrographs and pollutographs.




Second, in order to test the general applicability of the Model, wide




geographical separation between study areas and contrasts in storm




patterns was required.






Third, the size and character of each area was checked to stress dif-




ferences in land use, topography, population density, and income.




Fourth, existing problem areas were sought so that techniques of analy-




sis could be stressed and possible solutions could be compared.  Fifth,




the close cooperation of the city representatives had to be assured to




support the data collection efforts.






The four sites thus selected were San Francisco, Cincinnati, Washing-




ton, D.C., and Philadelphia.







San Francisco




A valuable BPA-sponsored report (Grant No. WPO-112-01-66) (Ref. 1)  char-




acterizing combined sewer overflows in the city had been completed in




November 1967, and work was continuing toward construction of a demon-




stration facility (in-line dissolved air flotation) by fall of 1970.  The

-------
demonstration facility was to serve a rather small (187-acre)  combined




sewer area with sharply varying topography.






Cincinnati




A comprehensive sampling and analysis survey for a 2,600-acre combined




sewer area in Cincinnati was initiated on another EPA project (Project




No. 11024 DQU) in March 1970.  Several points in the collection system




were monitored simultaneously, thus providing a good test of the flow




and quality routing efficiency of the Model.







Washington, D.C.




A storm water reclamation project (Project No. 11023 FIX) was under con-




sideration which would impound portions of the combined sewer overflow




from a 4,200-acre area.  The impounded sewage would be treated and re-




leased to one of two lakes for recreational use.  Between storm events,




effluent from this lake would be repumped through the treatment facility




and released with improved quality to the second lake.







Philadelphia




The City of Philadelphia had monitored storm and runoff conditions on




a 5,400-acre combined  sewer area in varying detail since 1954.  Weekly




sampling runs had also been made in the receiving waters, the Delaware




River estuary.  Further, in a separate area of the city, a demonstration




treatment system for combined sewer overflows using a microstrainer




had recently  completed its first year of operation.

-------
Initially, the intention was to model separate storm sewers as well as




combined sewers in the demonstration series.  However, combined sewers




could be converted to separate storm sewers -in the model by simply




leaving out the dry weather flow.  Therefore, these tests were sus-




pended and the additional combined systems were substituted.






PURPOSE OF TESTS




The purpose of the Storm Water Management Model tests was to demonstrate




the model's ability to simulate real systems under known storm events.






In addition, possible solutions to existing problems were compared by




manipulating the flow control and treatment alternatives in the model.




From these, the apparent best solutions were indicated on the basis of




cost effectiveness information and the following limitations:






     1.  The "apparent best solutions" to test cases were generated




         without regard to the several sociopolitical factors which




         would have to be considered in arriving at the final




         solution.




     2.  While this task was approached in a systematic manner,




         formal systems analysis techniques, such as linear or




         dynamic programming (optimization), were beyond the




         scope of work and were not used.






In no instance was a complete analysis of a drainage basin attempted.




Investigations were pressed only to gain preliminary results and to




test and refine the more significant options within the program.

-------
This volume describes each of the study ct^eas modeled, the sources and




methods used in ferreting out data, the verification results obtained,




and the corrective actions modeled.

-------
                               SECTION 2




                             SAN FRANCISCO




                                                                 Page






DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS                                         H




     Selby Street                                                  11




     Baker Street                                                  12




DATA SOURCES                                                       12




     Selby Street                                                  15




     Baker Street                                                  15




VERIFICATION RESULTS                                               19




     Dry Weather Flow                                              19




     Combined Sewer Overflows                                      24




          Selby Street                                             24




          Baker Street                                             24




     Receiving Waters                                              3<->




CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED                                         34

-------
                               SECTION 2




                             SAN FRANCISCO






The results of two drainage basin modeling efforts are reported in this




section.  The first, Selby Street, was the trial basin used in the ba-




sic development of many of the subroutines and, as such, was frequently




mentioned in Volume I.  The second basin, Baker Street, is the principal




subject of this section and demonstrates a technique of transferring




results between neighboring basins.






DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS




Selby Street




The Selby Street basin drains a major portion  (3,800 acres) of the




southeast quadrant of the city and discharges into inner portions of




San Francisco Bay.  The land use is predominantly  (77 percent) resi-




dential.  The total population is 88,000, or 24 persons per acre.  The




basin is approximately 35 percent impervious, and varies in elevation




from 600 feet on its western boundary to sea level at its point of




discharge.






The main trunk is 4 miles long and branches into approximately 130 miles




of lateral conduits.  It drops below sea level over its last mile and




is therefore protected by an elevated weir and tide gates.  This feature




creates a significant impoundment  (approximately 400,000 cubic feet)




prior to overflows.  The DWF interceptor has a maximum capacity equiv-




alent to the expected runoff from 0.02 inch of rainfall per hour (Ref.




1).
                                   11

-------
The system carries an average DWF of 12 cfs and is designed to handle




a 5-year design storm flow of 2,700 cfs.






Baker Street




The Baker Street basin drains a small, 187-acre, average-to-high income




residential area adjacent to the Presidio in the northeast quadrant of




the city.  The main trunk sewer, 0.8 mile long, discharges into San




Francisco Bay approximately 1 mile east of the Golden Gate Bridge.




Characteristic photographs of the study area and outfall are shown in




Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively.  The most notable topographical fea-




ture of the area is the sharp rise in elevation, from 90 feet to 350




feet in four city blocks, toward the southern boundary.






The drainage basin is 60 percent impervious and has a total population




of 11,700 (including a population equivalent of 3,000 persons from the




Presidio), or a density of approximately 50 persons per acre.  The




DWF averages 2.7 cfs and the design system capacity is 450 cfs.






A dissolved air flotation treatment facility, designed to treat combined




sewer overflows at a flow rate up to 37 cfs (maximum hydraulic capacity




of 60 cfs), is now under construction adjacent to the outfall.  This




project was undertaken by the City of San Francisco with grant assis-




tance from the EPA (Project No.  11023  DXC).






DATA SOURCES




The City of San Francisco, Department of Public Works, furnished maps




of the sewer system, catchbasin construction and locations, aerial
                                  12

-------
Figure 2-1.  BAKER STREET STUDY AREA LOOKING  NORTH
             ON BRODERICK STREET FROM BROADWAY
 Figure 2-2.  BAKER STREET COMBINED SEWER OUTFALL
                          13

-------
photographs of the study area, summaries of street cleaning data, and
the sampling results of three storms on Baker Street (Ref.  2)  and eight
storms on Selby Street (Ref. 1).

The Baker Street storms were:
          	Date	                 Total Rainfall, in.
          February 24-25, 1969                        0.25
          April 4-5, 1969                             0.33
          October 15, 1969                            1.67

Rainfall data from the city sources were supplemented by hourly rain-
fall data collected by the U. S. Weather Bureau and published by the
U. S. Department of Commerce as local climatological data.   The largest
storm reported in the 1968 and 1969 data (December 19-20, 1969) as re-
corded at the Federal Building, San Francisco, was modeled  for Baker
Street for the treatment and receiving water tests.

The following census tract data for 1960, published by the  U.  S. Depart-
ment of Commerce (Ref. 3), were used for the DWF computations:
          	Item	           Census Tract Table No.
          Total Population                             P-l
          Population Per Household                     P-l
          Median Income, Families                      P-l
          All Housing Units                            H-l
          Condition and Plumbing                       H-l
          Year Structure Built                         H-l
          Median Value                                 H-2
          Renter Occupied                              H-2
                                   14

-------
Subcatchments and sewer system representation for use in the model were




determined from sewer maps, aerial photographs, and a half-day inspec-




tion of each field site.






Selby street




The Selby Street system was subdivided into 26 subcatchments (15 acres




minimum, 466 acres maximum) as listed in Table 2-1.  Complete listings




of the input data for selected computer runs are provided in Appendix A.




Surface quality data are listed in Table 2-2.  The sewer system was re-




presented by 74 elements (37 manholes, 36 pipes, and 1 internal storage




unit) as shown in Figure 2-3.  The internal storage unit, element 74,




was used to model the impoundment prior to overflow as previously




described.






Baker Street




A total of 16 subcatchments  (no minimum, 25 acres maximum), as shown in




Figure 2-4, were selected for the watersheds, and 39 elements (20 man-




holes and 19 pipes, varying from 250 feet to 1,510 feet long) were




selected for the sewer system.  The sewer elements, with identifying




numbers and inlet points, are shown in the figure.  In this case approx-




imately 30 percent of the total pipes in the system were modeled as




compared to 7-1/2 percent for Selby Street.






Two sets of rainfall data were reviewed for the Baker Street modeling.




The first gage was located adjacent to the project site but only about




15 feet (ground elevation)  above sea level.  The second gage was lo-




cated 1-3/4 miles from the project site but at 70 feet above sea level.
                                   15

-------
 Table  2-1.   SELBY STREET SUBCATCHMENT DATA
SUBARE4
NUM8EW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

GUfTER
H1DTM
OR MANHULE (FT)
1
3
5
6
9
11
13
17
21
23
.27
29
30
34
41
43
46
.3
0.250
0.250
0.25D
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
O.?50
0. ?50
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.253
0.250
0 ,?53
0. ^50
0.250
3.250
0.2*0
0.253
SURFACE Stl
IWERV.
0 ")&
0.352
U.O(,i
9.0!>2
4.002
0.062
3.362
0.062
" >3&2
O.U62
0 .062
0.062
0.362
0.062
0,062
0.052
P. 062
0.3&2
0. 3[>2
0.062
3RAC(( 1*1
PFRV.
0. 114
0.1 14
0. 1H'
0.1S4
0.194
0.1H
0.14
0.134
0.1S4
0.184
0. 184
O.I ?<
0. 184
0.194
0.194
0. 1H4
O.lfl(
     C13 LON(6^fi ROD (MC/L)t CBISCU
     Cb SIOKSC VOLUMfc (CAD, CBVOL
                               IS.. NOPASS

                                   I.
                                  125.
                                  150.
                        &5UB
                               GUTTCrt
1
2
3
4
5
6
/
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
If.
if
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2b
27
I
3
7
6
9
11
13
17
21
23
27
2')
30
34
41
43
46
4J
?1
51
5V
ol
65
67
u9
71
71
i
I
2
1
2
I
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
t,
4
3
139.00
65.00
uH ,oO
U4.00
140 .CO
i n.oo
135. OC
6.00
2B7.0C
B9.PO
39.00
90.00
2)2.00
77.00
zn.?c
ja.oo
2C7.0C
ii.OO
40.00
109.00
iifl.no
237.00
366. CC
64.f)0
1S6.CC
200.00
13.00
360.00
100.00
164.00
320. 00
500.00
6U4.UO
7iO.OO
292.30
716.00
92T.50
64.00
316.00
560.20
350.00
1296.00
14H.OO
HI/. .00
8H.OO
14tj .00
480.00
460.00
105? .00
UHS.OO
244.00
7ao,oo
6? 4. 00
50.00
                           16

-------
              5l^Jt   /
	_,^    7   /
     '14^15 ^Yso46-'
                                                                                         OUTFLOW
                                                                                         DWF
                                                                                         INTERCEPTOR
                                                O MANHOLE
                                                 INPUT MANHOLE
                                     CITY BOUNDARY {APPROX. 411 ACRES OF  THE DRAINAGE
                                     BASIN  FALL  OUTSIDE CfTY)
       Figure  2-3.   PLAN  OF SELBY  STREET  SYSTEM

-------
                                   SAN FRANCISCO BAY
                               PAL A
                               FINE ARTS    ,
                                HkJ
                                Vxs    i
                      PRESIDIO SEWER
                       PRESIDIO
       LEGEND
    O  MANHOLE
      INPUT MANHOLE
     _._CTCHBASIN
  	DRAINAGE BASIM
     	SUBCAICHUENT
                                            40
                                              YACHT HARBOR
Figure 2-4.   PLAN OF  BAKER  STREET SYSTEM
                        18

-------
VERIFICATION RESULTS




Dry Weather Flow




Dry weather flow for Selby Street, shown in Table 2-3, was computed and




adjusted to within 2 percent of the reported average daily values.




Hourly variations in quantity and quality were set equal to the average




of the reported values.  The correction factors obtained are shown in




Table 2-4.  Note that the maximum hourly BOD is 1.34 x 1.77 = 2.37




times the average at 9 p.m. and 0.30 x 0.30 = 0.09 times the average at




5 a.m., an overall variation of 26 to 1.  For suspended solids, the




overall variation is greater, reaching a maximum of 45 to 1.  The




quality significance of the dry weather flow's contribution to combined




sewage overflows is therefore largely dependent on the time (hours) of




occurrence of the storm event.






Table 2-5 shows the computed settled solids in the Selby Street pipe




system before and after the November 6, 1966, storm.  The large accumu-




lations prior to the storm are typical for these first-of-the-season




storms on the West Coast.  The quality contribution to the overflow,




where significant, is  seen as the first flush effect.






The  computed DWF results  from Baker Street are compared  to the reported




values in Figure 2-5.  The uncertain  (no maps or population figures




were furnished) contribution  from the Presidio was represented as an




industrial  source entering at element 36 with somewhat stronger  than




average  domestic waste characteristics.  The hourly variation factors




were transferred from  the nearby  Laguna street area where a more
                                   19

-------
            Table 2-3.   SELBY STREET DRY  WEATHER FLOW  RESULTS
KNUH IMCOf
21
23
27
30
34
29
OUANTI1V ANO Oimnr OF 0 W f fO EACH SUUAREA
AIROO * 95a.l2iaSPEHOl FS
1SS  1197.53 LBSPEar CFS
A] COll - i.tOf 14 ffH/01 >SR CAPITA
0*f - 12.20 CFS
D'jr  IMF it. . aaowr KLA OMOOO owiS TOTPOP BODCONC
CFS CFS CFS LUS/HIN LBS/HIN PERSONS HC/L
0.48 0.07 0.51 0.27 0.14
C.26 0.04 0.24 0.18 0.22
0.11 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.10
0.48 0.07 fl.SS 0.33 0.42
.20 0.03 0.22 0.13 0.17
C.2t> 0.04 0.30 0.18 0.22
SSCONC COL (FORMS
HC/L NPN/1QOHL
sua TOTALS

7
8
9
1C
11

12
13
14

41
43
46
17
49
SU
51
11
li
S3
1.79
0.43
C. 12
0.71
0.21
0.40
HQTALS
4.16
0.11
0.34
0.44
0.27
0.2S
0.13
O.O2
0.13
0.03
0.06
0.58
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.04
2.04
1.06
0.14
O.Dl
0.24
0.46
4.74
0.12
0.39
O.SO
0.30

2
2
2
2
2

2
1
2
2
J.14 LBS
0.4
0.08
0.3S
0.11
0.27
13.34 LBS
0.07
0.24
o.zt
0.14
7.32 LftS 17601. If3.
4.80
0.10
0.4
0.14
0.34
16.67 LSi 37364. ISO.
0.09
0.30
0.30
0.18
14?. T.41E 10

18. 6.7AE 10

SUBTOTALS

16
17
18
19
20
21

6
1
3
t
9
S9
5.31
0.23
O.IC
0.12
0.14
0.30
0.4S
0.74
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
o.os
0.06
6. OS
0.26
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.44
O.SI

I
2
2
2
2
2
16.81 LBS
O.I/
0.08
0.00
o.oe
0.21
0.2S
21. Ol L8i 4828*. 148.
8. 21
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.2&
0.31
186. 6.6SE 10

suaioiALS

22
2)
231

61
6*
65
6.71
0.73
l.Cl
c.os
0.94
0.10
0.14
0.0
7.69
0.84
1.17
O.OS

2
2
4
21.12 LBS
0.40
O.S7
0.04
26.40 LBS 630*1. 147.
0.51
0.71
0.37
183. 7.D4f 10


SUBTOTALS

24
251
253

67
69
69
69
69
8.16
0.36
O.OS
0.0)
1.12
o.u
1.18
0.05
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.02
9.7S
0.41
O.OS
0.03
1.12
0.18

2
4
4
4
2
26.46 LBS
0.20
0.04
0.00
0.84
0.09
32. Bt US 3. It*.
a.zs
0.07
0.7
I.?6
0.11
189. 7.09E 10

SUBTOTALS

261

71
71
10.29
0.23
a. 10
1.26.
0.03
0.0
11.54
'0.26
0.10

2
4
12. S6 LBS
0.13
0.19
41.67 IBS 8S960. 1SI.
0.16
Q.il
193. 6.39E 10

SOHKIALS


10.62
1.29
11.91

34. 14 LBS
43. S LOS 88346. 153.
196. A.17F 10
TOTALS


10.62
1.29
11.91

34.14 IBS
43.Sd LBS 88346. 1S3.
196. 6. 376 10
.COMPARISON OF HEISUREO AMD CALCULATED TOTAL SEUAGE     FLOW!   ADVf> 12.20 CFS  SHT3WF* 11.41
         FAcrui (CF2i or 1.02 APPLIED TO tut IMF (QUAWIIV AMD CJUAHITI AT EACH INLET
                                           20

-------
Table 2-4.   SELBY STREET  DRY WEATHER FLOW VARIATION FACTORS
              DAILY  AND HOURLY  CORRECTION FACTORS
                         FOR  SEWAGfc DATA
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      h
      7
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      R
      9
     10
     11
     12
     13
     14
     15
     16
     17
     18
     19
     20
     ?1
     22
     23
     24
         DAY
         HOUR
DVOWF
OVBOD
                                           DVSS
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1. 000
1.000
1 .000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.003
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
                             DVCULI
0.760
0.500
0.400
0.320
0.300
0.320
0.470
1.040
1.410
1.370
l.iBO
1.370
1.310
1.210
1.170
1.110
1.140
1.1 1.0
1.270
1.370
1.340
1.210
1.120
0.980
0.730
0.550
0.340
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.610
0.080
1.223
1.220
1.250
1.250
1.220
1.190
1.160
1.130
1.070
1.040
1.280
1.520
1.770
1.490
1.220
0.940
0.840
0.570
0.37D
0.270
O.?30
0. 150
0.570
0.990
1.3n
1.460
1. 540
1.500
1.480
1.310
1.070
1.010
0.970
0.920
1.040
1.243
1.460
1.410
1.170
1.010
0.840
0.57D
0.370
0.270
0.23J
0.150
0.57D
0.990
1.310
1.460
1.540
l.bdD
1.4UO
1.310
i.oro
1.010
0.970
O.S20
1.040
1.243
1.460
1.410
1.170
1.010
                              21

-------
           Table  2-5.   SELBY STREET  -  COMPUTED SETTLED SOLIDS IN THE  PIPE SYSTEM BEFORE AND AFTER STORM
            INITIAL BED OF SULIOS  UBS)  IN SEWER DUE TO

              50.0 DAYS OF DRY WEATHER PRIuR TO STURM
BED OF SOLIDS  IN  SEWER AT END OF STORM
to
to
ELEMENT
NUMBER

2
4
7
8
10
12
14
16
IB
20
22
24
26
28
31
33
35
37
38
40
42
44
47
48
50
52
34
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
SOLIDS IN
BOTTOM
(IBS)
0.0
0.02668
0.29763
0. 14997
0.0
0.13717
0. 9926b
2.36231
0.90106
10.70633
1.15119
0.32377
0.59344
3.48855
0.53567
O.BOB66
1.74615
O.P5363
2.71647
2.83775
1.49950
4.H1593
4, 01B54
1.03989
0.0
3.15479
1.14104
11.25840
3.57339
10.62061
0. 04679
26.60228
55.93730
7.81516
1080.21924
1704. 82 93 ;>
ELEMENT
NUMBER

2
4
7
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
31
33
35
37
38
40
42
44
47
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
6b
68
70
72
SOL IDS IN
BOTTOM
(LBS)
0.0
0.00001
0.00038
0.00010
0.0
0.00007
0.00120
0. 00365
0.00149
0.01414
0.00143
0.00012
0. 00044
0.00546
0.00051
0. 00096
0.00246
0. 000 13
0.00372
0.00387
0. 00162
0.00754
0.00687
0.00097
0.0
0.00336
G. 00056
0.01684
0. 00370
0.01346
0.0
0.04175
0.09837
0.00892
1.54411
2.60031

-------
   4.Q|-
    3,0
 O

 UI
 O
                                                                                 REPORTED
 IX)
               AVERAGE REPORTED VALUE = 2.74 CFS
               CALCULATED VALUE      = 2.70 CFS
     12
                             18
                                        21          24           3
                                           TIME, HOUR OF DAYS
                                                                                              12
   20O
   150
H
Q
O
   100
    50
              fl/ERAGE REPORTED VftLUE = 95

              CALCULATED VWJJE      ^ISa
     12
             I  i  I  i  I  i  I  . I  i  I  i  I  .  I  .  I  . I  .  I  .  I  .  I  .  I  .  I  . I  .  I  .  I  .  I  .  I  .  I  .  I'  .  I
                 15
                            18
                                       21           24           3
                                           TIME, HOUR OF DAYS
  200
   ISO
E

if,
   100
50 -
              AVERAGE  REPORTED VALUE =

              CALCULATED VALUE       = 150
         I  .  I  .  I  .  I  j I  .  I  .  I  .  I  .  I .  I  .
                 15          18          21
                                                I  .  I  .  I  . I  .  I  .  I  .  I  .  I  .  I  . I  .  I  .  I  .  |
                                                24          3           6           9           12
                                       TIME.HOUR OF DAYS
         Figure 2-5.    BAKER  STREET DRY  WEATHER  FLOW  COMPARISONS  WITH
                           REPORTED  VALUES
                                                23

-------
comprehensive dry weather flow  sampling program had been completed.




The results as shown in Figure  2-5 were quite satisfactory.






Combined Sewer.Overflows




Selby Street.  The results of the computed and reported hydrographs




for Selby Street for the storm  of November 6, 1966  (0.94 total inch




of rainfall) are shown along with the hyetograph in Figure 2-6.  The




results for BOD and suspended solids are compared to reported values




in Figure 2-7.  Units of pounds per minute rather than concentrations




were used in the comparison as  these reflect the total pounds discharged




(flow times concentration).  In terms of pounds discharged, an error of




20 percent in predicting concentrations at the time of maximum overflow,




could have an effect several magnitudes greater than an error of 100




percent or more at the tails of the curve where flows are low.  The



fit of computed to reported data was considered exceptionally good.






Baker Street.  Four storms were computed for the Baker Street test




area.  The verification results of the April 4-5, 1969, and the October




14-15, 1969, storms (0.33 and 1.67 inches of rainfall, respectively)




are shown in Figures 2-8 and 2-9.  The model results of the December




19-20, 1969 (2.51 inches) storm are shown in Figure 2-10; no sampling




was reported for this storm.






The Federal Building rain gage  (elevation 70 feet) gave the best cor-




relation to the reported results, which is not surprising since over




70 percent of the project area  is above this elevation.  The lower rain




gage  (elevation 15 feet) correlated poorly with the recorded runoff,
                                   24

-------
                 RAINFALL  HYETOGRAPH
       e.too -
       o.oo
RAINFALL
   IN
IN/HR
       o.oo
       0.100
           .
                   .1     10.4     II.*
                                                                  BASIN  NO 26
                                                                    k.7     IS.fc     Ik.4     11.2
      03.000 -
      kOO.OOO
 FLOW
  IN
  CFS
      *00.000
      200.000
                      INClCf IICEND

                        IT. S*
                                 .
                                 I
                                                                          RAGE
            O.I      1.0      1.*       2.7      l.t      *.l      .      -      ''1      *<

                              TIME IN MOJUi
   Figure  2-6.   SELBY  STREET COMBINED  SEWER  OVERFLOW  RESULTS -  QUANTITY
                                              25

-------
      160.000 -
      120.000
BOO
IN
LRS/H1N
      eo.ooo
       o.o
     1*04.000 -
     1200.000
\H
IBS/HIM
      100.000
                   SEL8 ST.  SAN FRANCISCO
                             274
                                               - REPORTED
                                                  COMPUTED  BEFORE  STORAGE
                                                        COMPUTED  AFTER  STORAGE
           O.I      1.0
                                            3-*
                                                           >.<.      6.J      '.I      8.0      8.9
                              TIHE IN HOUtS

                   MIST  ST.  SAN FRANCISCO
                                                       COMPUTED  BEFORE  STORAGE
                                                         COMPUTED AFTER  STORAGE
   Figure  2-7.    SELBY  STREET  COMBINED  SEWER  OVERFLOW  RESULTS    QUALITY
                                              ,'

-------
S  Q
u.  ci
i.
?  o
V
   8



   -,



   ;


 fa
  
 m

   8



   ,,
                                35

                               TIME, HOURS OF DAY
                                 COMPUTED SS,

                                    Ibj/min
                                 357

                               TIME. HOURS OF DAY
Figure 2-8.   BAKER STREET COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW  RESULTS

               STORM OF APRIL 4-5,  1969


-------
       or 6
         i1
         :>
                                    RAINFALL-
              COMPUTED  RUNOFF
                            >
                          MEASURED RUNOFF
                   n
                               TIME , HOURS OF DAY
S
2
8
*
t;
0
- a
0
.- 
o
o
ID
. 9
. 9
o
-
-
/"S /
.-COMPUTED BOO, mfl/1 / .
'""**% / '
s COMPUTED BOO, lbAnin-^ V I \
' \ ^) v V
'\ ^ MEASURED BOO, j .'
, 1 ! ^"l"4"' 1 _l 	 1 	
          9
        *$
       Ol-  o
                   21
                  *       i       T      *
               TIME, HOURS OF DAY

                       OMPUTED SS, mfl/l
                        *      MEASURED  SS,mg/
                   25
                                   i       t       J
                                TIME, HOURS OF DAY
Figure  2-9.
BAKER  STREET  COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW  RESULTS
STORM  OF  OCTOBER 14-15,  1969
                                      28

-------
                                                                                                     t>l> irifit (UN FMICIHOI It (UI-WM mtM
        I*

      u /  m
                                            *
                                          n.o
                                                               Jl.    H.O .   tt.l     H.5
                                                                                             0.0  -
                                                                                                 0.2
                                                                                                        *.
                                              TIM Ik HOWS
                                                                                   ,-!	,	



                                                                                     TIM III MOUIU
                                                                                                                                   II.     tl.
                                                                                                                                                               10.1     11.0
to
VO
                               LCCCMO     I
                       ltf(1 IUk (MCIUO) t 1U>-UI> UlttH
                                                                                                    M IrtCCT IS1N fUMCIUVI I* SUt-ME< JTtltH
                                                                                         Si

                                                                                         I*
~ *."*   T.O     ->     H-     !'     "


    IIX  ou
                                                                             10. T    H.O
>*
..7     f.O     1.1    ll.t    11.1    It.)    !    10.'    J-0

  i iiw IN HOMIS
                  Figure  2-10.   BAKER STREET COMBINED  SEWER  OVERFLOW RESULTS  -  STORM  OF DECEMBER 19-20,  1969

-------
once runoff was recorded before the storm reached the gage area.  The




significance of these findings is that topography and storm patterns




can greatly influence the runoff results^ and rainfall data must repre-




sent the entire drainage basin in order to be applicable to the Model.






Receiving Waters




The receiving waters were modeled only for the storm of December 19-20,




1969 (the largest) and only for Baker Street.  The grid system used is




shown in Figure 2-11.  The storm flow was so small in comparison with




the tidal flows through the Golden Gate as to make quality influences




indiscernible.  The pattern of the flow in the estuary was defined,




however, and is shown in Table 2-6.  Time cycle 1, hour 0, is the start




of the rainfall event (3 hours before the first low water at Golden




Gate).   Initial junction concentration values were preset to zero; thus




a number at any junction indicates the arrival of the pollutant field




at that point.  For example, at time step 2 the pollutant field encom-




passed junctions 27, 28, and 33, in addition to the outfall near junc-




tion 40 (see Figure 2-11).  The boundary of the pollutant field of BOD




concentrations greater than 0.01 mg/L plotted at 3, 4, and 5 hours




after the start of rain is shown in Figure 2-12.   This figure shows




the tidal influence on the movement of the field.  Trace concentrations




appeared at all junctions at the end of 20 time steps (5 hours).  The




tendency for the higher concentrations to remain near shore is because




there is less mixing water available.
                                  30

-------

                                                               0  1000 2000  3000 4000
                                                                   ES5E
                                                                   SCALE IN FEET
Figure  2-11.  BAKER STREET RECEIVING WATER GRID  SYSTEM

-------
Table 2-6.  COMPUTED BOD CONCENTRATIONS IN RECEIVING WATER
CONSTITUCNT punscft i Boo /IT BAKER ST
StWK eoflCENTnATTOV .00
TMITI't CONCENTRATIONS (M60)i BY JUNCTION
1 2 3 4 S 6 7
1 'C 10 .0000 .000? .OC'OO. .i?COQ .0007 .(3000 .0000
IT TO 20 .onm .OOOP .no.io .?2oo .oono .oona .0000
21 TO so .anno .coo1? .OQOO .cooo .0000 .ooon .oonn
si TO no ao3o .nor? .nnac .0000 .0000 .ooco .nooo
JUHfTtOW COMCENTff)|T IONS i CU IMG TIKC CYCLE 1 .HOUR 2 t CONSTITUENT NUP3ER 1
1 ? 3 4 5 fi T
JIJ'ICT'CN
1 T8 10 .3C90 .0370 .OCOO .OT30 .0000 .0000 .00 DP
ii TO 20 ."otic .(!>?(' .0000 .nooo .orni .0000 .ocoo
21 TC 30 ,?r3io .onpc .0000 .0020 .OnCC .0000 .1E35-02
31 TO fO .0000 .09PO . SSPM-02 .CPOO .OOCO .0000 .0000
JUNCTION CONCErfT/MTIONSt OU&TNG TTMF CYCLf 1 .HMIP 4 .CON'STUuf Mr NUMBER 1
I 2 3 4 S 6 7
t TO to .OTIO .MOO .cnnn .ncno .onnp .nono .oono
it TO 20 .0000 .no a1] .anon .0000 .im-os .i.<>i-ii .0000
i TO jo .S5oo-ct .1446-11 .oonn .noon .oooc .1311-02 .55R2-.1.?
31 TO 0 .J9.)i-r;i .4751-07 .4330-01 .nono .ooon .0000 .oaoo
juwrrie.M coucEMTRiiTCM'. onrc TTHC CYCLE i .HOUR e .COHSTJTIJEXT IIIJKJER i
rn' 2 3 * 5 6 7
1 TO 10 .l7l?-13 .i*00 .0000

8 9
.0003 .0000
.oonn .ooon
.noon .0000
.0000 .nooo
900 AT BAKER ST
8 9
.0000 .0000
.0000 .neon
.2835-08 .0000
.onun .ooon
9C, M BEP ST
8 9
.nono .oono
.0030 .4102-04
.ISG2-IG .0000
.cgcn .0000
BCD AT BAKfR ST
8 4
.0000 .nooo
.ooco .893$-nj
.1870-14 .noon
.0000 .no co
BOO AT BAKER ST
8 9
.onon .ooco
.anuo .2112-02
.1171-18 ,onn
.0000 .0000
3CD AT BAKER ST
8 9
.nono .otJB3
.0300 .23S-02
.2794-22 .0000
.anno .oono
BOO AT BAKER ST
8 9
.0000 .COCO
.aonn .3559-0?
.1502-27 .1478-US
.0000 .ooon
BOD AT BXEff ST
8 9
.14S5-1& .1554-06
.3813-04 .2338-02
.2034-01 .2138-01
.oaoo .anno

10
.coon
.333T

10
.nnoo
.nnco

10
.0000
.1903-03
.0000
.8140-01

11
.0000
.11 3O-02
.nnoo
.6384-01

in
.0300
.149n-02
.0700
.1403*00

in
.18S8-02
.nmn
.3718*00

in
.0000
.4554-02
.099C
.6693,*0n

10
.1181-02
.2676-02.
.J14&-OI
.8121-01
                                   32

-------
SAN   FRANCISCO    BAY
           BAKER STREET
           COMBINED SEWER
                                          SAN FRANCISCO
                            1000     0	IQOO   EOOO    SOO<    4000

                                       SCALE IN FEET



 Figure 2-12.  BAKER STREET RECEIVING WATER BOD MOVEMENT
                           I :

-------
The concentration versus time history at three junction points for sus-

pended solids is shown in Figure 2-13.


CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED

As in the case of the Receiving Water Model, only the storm of December

19-20, 1969, for Baker Street was used in the treatment analysis.


Three options were investigated:

     1.  Treatment by mechanically cleaned bar racks followed by

         an on-line 25.0 mgd dissolved air flotation unit and no

         ch emi c als added.

     2.  Same as 1 but with chemicals and chlorination added.

     3.  Same as 2 but with a 3.5 million gallon (maximum)

         capacity storage basin and effluent pumps added

         ahead of the dissolved air flotation facility to

         minimize bypassing of the treatment unit.


The treatment efficiencies of the three options are compared in

Tables 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9, and the costs in Tables 2-10, 2-11, and 2-12,

respectively.  For the large storm modeled, the increase in efficiencies

under option 3 over option 1 or 2 (shown below) appears to more than

justify the additional (28 percent)  incremental cost.

                                         	REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
          Option


            1

            2

            3
                                  34
BOD
36.5%
36.7
58.4
SS
49.2%
49.2
64.9
Coli
58.1%
72.8
99.9

-------
                                                   BAKER STREET
                                                 RECEIVING WATER
                                                   DEC. 19,1969
                                                     STORM
                                              NODE 4O (OVER OUTFALL)
                                 TIME
Figure  2-13.   CONCENTRATION  HISTORY AT THREE JUNCTION POINTS
                                 35

-------
                               Table 2-7.   SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS - OPTION 1
CJ
CT>
SlifMM* PF TRCAT.MCNT EFFrCTIvr\T.SS
TQTAIS FLOW (x.r..) nn (in) *.<; 
MVFPFLilV (BYPASS) ?.'4P ?'?>? ">. 7 *'.o<>71 .(. S.61F 14
TI!F,,TTn 5.7J3 43^7.1 7r,.~,B?6.*> 1.7F 1 *
Hr"r\Tll 0.0^6 ?riH56 'i'.O"%'.4. T 1 . <, T 1*
ITLTA^rn R.075 4^11^.0 M.0r'^r..3 1.P3F JS
Rri'iiVAl S rLOHtM.G.) POP (in) ^5 IL^J
LFVCL t C.OOO ]7.fl 7S7.0
LI V L ^ (TTTAI) O.OtU. ?^'i??.H 6--,on>(?.4
I.FVI 4 o.oco o.r o.o
LFVrl i O.OrP 0.0 0.0
LrvTL 7 C.O^P T'.T ".f>
Is- ASH;
JA" I'AfKS 34.262 CU.FT (AT !f LH/f.U.FT.I
rrrLtJFKT srufpfis P.P^O CK.TT (AT so i r/fu.rr.i
OCMCV/L pfprrNTAf.rs FLOK (voi i Ptin (ini ss ILI'I COLJF (MPN
iff )'Vri ALL If::>"T, 1.0^ ">h ,4i, 41. 7p  71.72
trvi i o.c o.o
LI-V'L ' C.C O.r
LFV<:( 7 0.0 0.0
TCTAL O.P 0.0
RFt>PrSFf|TAT!V/F VAP1AT!^)M OF TRtATMFMT ofpfORMAMrF Wlllt Tf^F (''VFRALl ) .
TtMF ?*: 5 ritts 1:'K ?:3r> 3:4S 4:5S 6: s
HATER
AV. FLOW (CFS) 2.6 ?.63 64.74 A1.B3 0. 03 2T.3S ?1.U
p.nn
AP". IV'M'i (MT./1 ) lS7..t) 33R.71 7">11.AR l.'<1t'.65 r,ot.i, 01, /, 7 7"."p
kFLfASfO (Mf./L) 67.61 137.75 1973. "1 7CT.04 /,?*.. -in 4'. 34 34. IR
t PECItf. TI(!f! (t.ril 6P.06 60.01 35. 16 37.36 ?F.<)0 4S.78 *3,pr>
s. stuins
AP.RlVIJiT. (r'C/l ) 7.11.47 7.11?.. ^5 ^'170.2'' 7JA00.04 H7,">.'-6 1*17.71 1'"'';.64
RcLrA$FI) (fIG/L) Sfj.01 3H4.57 ?7?45.06 llftll.71 7^lp.A7 ?T..?0 7^.03
T vrr^i.r T u.r1 .!4e O7 .''.Iflr 07 l.")F P7 6.7. 3?r ",(, 7.131= 05 Ul^F P6
PEL ("PIl/lOffL ) "?.7?r 06 3.17P 06 7. (,-ir 0*' 3.3ST T6 7.<"."<^ (>. I.?1" 01 7.(.F T^
 ('?I)IICfI(lN (LRI 7?. 60 PP.O'J 41.17 5!. 08 "X5.50 9?. 1C *?. 11








 BAR RACKS
 OISS AIR FLOATN
* HYPASS LIVF1 4
 NO FFFL. SCKfFMS
' NO CONTACT TAW






 OtSS AIR FLOAT'N
* BYPASS LFVEl 4
= NU CONTACT TANK


7:15 :?? :35

6.48 4.7 ^.54

80.87 163.?o 1B0.54
3^. b8 66.10 73.10
60.13 60.07 60. P6

49<>.64 315. 6* 26. OS
94. ?7 77.4? 60.55
81.39 75. SO 74.41

1. UK 07 J.62f C7 3.77F 07
2. 486 C6 B.riHF O6 0.77F 06
Bl.43 75. P6 74.47
























IOS45

3,40

133.65
74.36
6P.06

237.81
63.78
73.54

3.52E 07
9.47F 06
7>.60

-------
                             Table 2-8.   SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS - OPTION 2
to
S'JfMAKY TF TPFATMFKT rcFrCT IVNTSS
rnuts FLOW (.<,.> con (IP sr, usi C.OLIF (MPNI
INPUT .lh) 7C90H.I H<".0754.0 7.46F 1 *
nV.PFlflW (PYPASS) 2.448 77*.3'.7 5l>n71.6 "> .(.or 14
TRTATtf) *.71't 433h7,J 7POH?f-.6 !.7F 1*
HfPVFI) 0.1R6 26P75.3 f^ri'J.q 1.7C": 15
muser B.O^S **OT,.I ^.047. .0 <..7,r .4
ftr-WALS FLOW(w.r,.J pur, (LM M PF TP^ATvrjT PrrrrowAf.T. P W1T| TTMT tr>Vr-- ILL 1 .
TIKE 2^: s 0:15 1:21 2:^5 3:4S 4:5s 6: s
WATFR
AV. FL^V,  3.63 64.?* 61.83 RO.fM ?->.38 21.11
BOO
AKP.l V!f:C. (ir,/L) 16"*. 09 31i<.7' ?91./,B 1?3<).<,5 ri14.1'> 13.47 7?. 9R
PFLFASTl (f'f./l  6T.SI> H7.?5 1073. 0] 7^,->.fi/, t?.oO -.-'4 ?Q.4p
T l>F.OyCTJr*| (I.K1 6f.0f- 6^) .r 3 3K.t "'''.36 rft.0 60.1'' ftO. 1 "
S. SOLICS
Att^IVlflC '!4.<;7 77?A*,I>* M'"O1.7-J 7li,t7 ^^^.^C ZK0.0'
f RrnijCTIiri (L1!) "t^.AH B7.05 40. H 51.05 ">. 49 fl> . 06 R7.C7
AI'P (MI'fi/lf (;**L I .^.I4r- 07 2.1ft': 07 l.SOf "7 >.. T-tr Q<, ^.'.?r oh 7,1^F D* 1.1*F 0>
PTL (wPN/:{,rwLI 3.O5>" O4 2.17J: 04 C-.07F ff 7. nor O6 1 . 7fcr 0"i 7,O9f O.-> l.'tr 03
<; cF.nucTuirj (uu "i.n 10.^0 so.1*? 6?.?o 4n.io t^.^t oo.oo








= OAR RACKS
= UISS AIR FLOAT'N
- BYPASS LFVEl 4
= NO EFFL. SCRFFNS
= NU CONTACT TA^K







- OISS AIR FLOST'N
* BYPASS Lfc'VFL 4
 NO CONTACT WK

7:15 8:25 9:^5

6.48 4.?J 3.54

B'J. 87 163.29 130.54
32.66 66.10 71.1.0
60.13 60.07 60.06

499.64 .'IS.'.S 26f.OS
90.18 56,'-l 47.c3
82.19 87.31 R'.36
l.ME 07 ?.62F 07 3.77F Q7
1.30F. 04 3.55F O4 3.6PF 04
9*^  90 ^*^  ^(^ Q  ^0
























10:45

3.40

l3.f.f
74.?6
60. C6

737.81
42.41
8T.41
3.57F 07
3.43F C4
99.90

-------
                             Table  2-9.   SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS - OPTION 3
oo
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
TOTALS
INPUT
OVERFLOW (BYPASS)
TREATED
REMnvrn
RELEASED
REMOVALS
LEVFL 1
LEVEL 3 ITUT4LI
LEVFL 4
LEVFL 5
LEVEL 7
TRASH:
BAR RACKS
EFFLUENT SCREENS
REMUVAL PERCENTAGES
OF OVERALL INPUTS

FLOW (H.G.I 600 (IH)
7. S60 765.6
0.000 0.0
7.860 765.6
O.llf) 4'.7.6
7.7*1 318.0
FLt)H(M.G.I BOO (LH)
0.000 17.7
O.llB *29.9
0.000 0.0
0.000 C.O
0.000 0.0

47. 137 CU.F T (AT SO
0.000 CU.f-T (AT 50
FLOW (VOLI BOO ( L )
l.*JO ^B.^7
OF TREATED FKAt.TUm 1.50 58.47
CCNSUMPTIONS (LBI
LEVEL 3
LFVFL 4
LEVEL 7
TCTAL
REPRESENTATIVE VAR1A1UJN
TIME 21: 5
HATFR
AV. FLOW (CFS) 0.00
BCD
ARRIVING (KG/L) 0.00
RELEASED (MG/L ) 0.00
 HfOUCTION (L0> 0.00
S . SOL II) S
AHFUVING IMG/L) 0.00
RELEASED (MO/LI 0.00
t REDUCTION (LU 0.00
CCUFORMS
ARR (HP.V100ML) C.COl-Ol
RtL HPN/IOOMLI O.OOC-01
% REDUCTION (LQI 0.00
ChLORINF tOLYHRS
655. ft 7d'.'J
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
65->.6 7BV.9
OF TREATMENT PERFORMANCE M
0:15 l: it 2:3i
0.00 36.56 36.^1
1.00 34.81 15. bl
0.00 Is. 57 !>.5H
0.00 5ft. 70 -irt.lO
0.00 B6.76 100.16
0.00 31.42 3h.l5
0.00 64.27 6o
0.10
0.30
o. en
0.00
0. COF-ru
3.00F-C1
0.00

-------
                                       Table  2-10.   SUMMARY OF TREATMENT COSTS  - OPTION 1
                      COST PARAMfTTCRS .  .
                           INTEREST RATE        =
                           AMORTIZATION  PERIOD   
                           CAP. KECOVERV FACTOR  =
                           YEAR OF SIMULATION
                           SITE LOCATION FACTOR  
  7.00 PfcRCFNT
    25 VEAS
0.0858
                                                    1.1452
OJ
VO
UfllT COSTS . .
LAMC = 20000.00 t/ACRE
POWER  ri.070 /KWH
CHLORINE = 0.2CO t/LH
POLYMERS  1.250 VLB
ALUM = 0.03 i/LH

ITMENT
RACKS
;T Plir'Plnr.
R FLOAl'K
LfVEL *<
.. SCREENS
ET JHMPS
ACT TANK

LEVEL
1
2
3
^
5
ft
7
CAPt 1AL
ItiSTAL
1.1915.
0.
15496^Z.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ccsrs
LANi)
1Z93.
0.
5280.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ANNUAL COiTS
INSTAL
12178.
0.
'.32976.
0.
0.
0.
0.
LAND
91.
0.
370.
0.
C.
0.
0.
HlH MAINT

0.
30993.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ST01M
CHLORINE
0.
o .
0.
0;
0.
0.
0.
EVENT COSTS
CHf*
o.
Q
0.
0.
0.
0>
0.
OTHER
33.

38.
A

0.
0.
                                 SUBTOTAL  t  1691557. t
                                                         6573.  *  14515*.
                                                                               400.  t
                                                                                                      0. t
                                 TUTAL
                                              *  1698130.
                                                                            1760E6.
                                                                                                                 0.
                                                                                                                70.
                                                                                                                           70.
                                 TOTAL  PER
                                 TRID ACRE
                                                    9295.
                                 TOTAL LAND RCOMIREMENT
                                                             O.i3 ACPTS.

-------
     Table 2-11.   SUMMARY  OF TREATMENT  COSTS - OPTION 2
COST PARAMCTCKS . .
INTEREST RATF. = 7.00 PERCENT
AfOHTlZAT ION PERIOD * 25 V6AKS
CAP. RECOVERY FACTOR = O.ORb1}
YEAR OF SIMULATION  I<70
SITE LOCATION FACTOR  1.1452
mm COSTS . .
LAND = 20000.00 */ACRE
POV.ER = 0.0?0 k/KWH
CHLORINE = 0.200 S/LB
POLYMERS * 1 .250 /LB
ALUM = 0.03 t/LH
CAPITAL COSTS
TREATMENT
uAK RACKS
nn INLET Fu"ft''(r-
OISS AIK FLOATN
BYPASS LEVEL 4
NO EFFL. SCREENS
NO OUTLFT PU.1PS
NO CONTACt TANK




LF.VEL
I
2
3
b
A
7
SUBTOTAL t
TOTAL
TOTAL PF.R
TRI8 ACRE
IUSTAL
141915.
0.
1562142.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1704057. 
< 1710630.

t 9363.
LA MO
1293.
0.
S280.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6573. 1



ANNUAL COSTS
INSTAL LANO HlN NAINT
121T6. 91. JA10.
0. 0. n.
0. 0. 0.
0, o (>,
0. 0. C.
0. 0. 0.
J 46226. i 1
Q


0.
0.
714. *
915.

5.
OTHTR
337"
38.

0.
0.
70.



TOTAL LAND RCOMIHEMENT
                         0.3J

-------
                       Table 2-12.   SUMMARY OF  TREATMENT COSTS -  OPTION 3
       COST PARAMETERS  .  .
            IMPREST RATE
            APOaTHATlON  PERIOD
            CA".  RtCuVeRY FACTOR
            YEAR  OF SIMULATION
            SITE  LOCATION FACTOR
  7.00 PERCFNT
    25
O.OR59
  1970
1.1452
       urn COSTS
            LANC
            PCWER
            ChLUR
            PCLVM
            AL'JH
   TREATMENT

   3A* BACKS
 tuLiT PUMPING
01SS M* FLflAT'N
    STUHAGE
NJ EFFL. SCREENS
i.U uUUET PU.4PS
NO CC.\TACr TANK
 20000.03 /ACRE
 0.070 l/KWH
KIE = 0.2CO t/LH
ERS - 1 .250 VLB
 0.01 t/LB

LEVEL
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
SUBTOTAL $
TUT1L
CAPITAL
INSTAL
1 & 1 O t ti
1 0 20 ^ T 
1562142.
2*>fl606.
0.
0.
0.
215W50.
ccsrs
LAND
1201.
Hrt.
52HO.
24122.
0.
0.
0.
4 3<*833.
$ 2189583.
ANNUAL COiJS
INSTAL
12178.
16'tfll.
134043.
22191.
0.
0.
P.
$ 181)900.
$
LAND
91.
10.
370.
1969.
0.
P.
0.
$ 2.
0.
0.
0.
39090. $

STORM
CHLUKINE
0.
0.
131.
0.
0.
0.
0.
131. $
$
EVENT COSTS
CHF
0.
9.
9B?.
0.
0.
0.
0.
982. $
1251.

OTHER
17.
16.
46.
19.
0.
0.
0.
138.

                 TCTAL PER
                 TRIB ACRE
                                    11965.
                          1237.
                 TOTAL LAND RCO'JIREMENT
         1.81  ACRES.

-------
Because of the infrequent occurrence (once in two years) of storms of




this magnitude on the drainage basin, similar analyses should be made




using a complete representative series of storms in arriving at the




final decision.  This is because the efficiency of option 1 will con-




tinue to improve with increasingly smaller storms due to the reduction




in the amount bypassed, yet the cost comparisons will be substantially




unchanged.  Because of the relatively short duration of storm events,




the use of chemicals to assist removals seems to be justified.  This




is not seen for BOD and SS in comparisons of options 1 and 2 because




the design parameters selected for option 1 achieved the maximum re-




movals permitted by the Model in the treated fraction of the flow.
                                   42

-------
                               SECTION 3




                               CINCINNATI




                                                                   Page




DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA                                           45




DATA SOURCES                                                        47




VERIFICATION RESULTS                                                57




     Dry Weather Flow                                               57




     Combined Sewer Overflows                                       57
                                    43

-------
                              SECTION 3




                              CINCINNATI









A section of Cincinnati was selected as a demonstration site for the




verification of the Storm Water Model.  Demonstration runs,  in cooper-




ation with the University of Cincinnati (EPA Project 11024DQU),  were




made on the Runoff and Transport Blocks of the Model.  Internal storage,




flow dividers, or other transport options were not utilized.  In com-




parison with the other demonstration runs, no corrective actions were




made with the Cincinnati test site.  The drainage basin used for these




test runs is referred to as the Bloody Run Sewer System because of a




meat packing plant that was once located in the area.






DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA




The test site is a drainage basin located in the northeast section of




the city as shown in Figure 3-1.  The area is composed of 2,380 acres




of hilly land.  Fifty-five percent of the area is residential, 17 per-




cent is commercial, 5 percent is industrial, and 22 percent is open




land or parks.  The drainage basin has two main valleys running ap-




proximately east and west.  Most of the coomercial and industrial sec-




tions of the test site are located in these valleys,- the residential




housing is found on the ridges.  The total population for the test site




is approximately 26,000, or an average of 11 persons per acre.






The drainage basin is serviced by a combined sewer system.  The sewer-




age network has a main trunk line that splits into three branches
                                    45

-------
M
                                 BLOODY RUN
                                 DRAINAGE BASIN
    Figure  3-1.  GENERAL LOCATION MAP OF
                CINCINNATI BLOODY  RUN DRAINAGE BASIN
                           46

-------
running down the valleys of the test area.   The outfall to the test site




is located at the southwestern tip of the area which discharges to an




interceptor leading to the Mill Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant.




Overflows from storms are discharged directly to Mill Creek via an open




channel.  Photographs of the drainage basin are shown in Figure 3-2.






DATA SOURCES




The University of Cincinnati was contracted by EPA to collect data for




the verification runs on the Storm Water Model.  It was their respon-




sibility to define a test site in Cincinnati, to set up several sampling




points in the sewerage system, and to collect the required data for the




verification runs.  Their principal source of information was the




Department of Public Works which furnished maps of the sewer  system,




types of trunk lines and their slopes, street cleaning data,  types of




catchment basins, and other required data.   information was  also taken




from the 1960 census and from the U.S. Weather Bureau.  For the verifi-




cation  runs, four storms were sampled, both  for the rainfall  hyetographs




and runoff hydrographs, and for the quality  constituents in the run-




off waters.  Three sampling stations were  set up for these storms and




were located as  shown  in Figure  3-3.  Data were also collected on subse-




quent  dry weather days  to  define  the amount  and quality of the DWF in




this drainage basin.






After  the  collection of the data  for the purpose of modeling  the  test




site,  the  drainage basin was divided into  38 subcatchments by using




sewer,  topographical,  and  zoning  maps, with  the  ideal  that each area
                                    47

-------
     Storm Water Outfall from the Bloody Run
                  Drainage Basin
           Typical Residential Street
Figure 3-2.  CHARACTERISTIC PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
             CINCINNATI DRAINAGE BASIN
                         48

-------
Typical Parking Lot Next to a Shopping Center
              Typical Park Land
           Figure 3-2.  (continued)
                      49

-------
                                                   *
-
-
                                 f
                                     RESIDENTIAL
/
                                                                        APPROXIMATE  LIMIT OF
                                                                           DRAINAGE BASIN

                            IT-
          O - SAMPLING  POINT
          A- RAIN  GAGE

                                                                                 '
                                                                                       1000   2000  3000   4000
                                                                                         ^^^5^5
                                                                                         SCALE IN FEET
                      Figure 3-3.   CINCINNATI RAIN  GAGE AND RUNOFF  SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS

-------
should include one major type of land use and should incorporate an

individual inlet manhole.  However, the nature of the test site and the

sewerage network prevented following this ideal in many cases.  The

resulting division is shown in Figure 3-4.  The maximum size of a  sub-

area was 250 acres; the minimum was 3.6 acres.  Each subcatchment  was

then further subdivided according to land use, as shown in Figure  3-5,

resulting in 71 subareas.


The required information for each of the subcatchments was then fur-

nished, paying particular attention to the width of the subcatchment

which is, in effect, twice the length of the main sewer system through

that subcatchment.  The input width is used to calculate  the length that

the overland runoff flows must travel before entering a modeled gutter,

gutter pipe, or the inlet manhole as shown in the following sketch.
 BOUNDARY OF SUBCATCHMENT-
 LENGTH OF
 OVERLAND FLOWS
                                              OIRECTION  OF RUNOFF FLOWS
s




i ft.
t

"WIDTH" OF
1 1 -1

SUBCATCHMENT ^

CONDUIT w
** 	 INLET MANHOLE
FOR SUBCATCHMENT

 In the illustration, the runoff flows are shown to run overland across

 the "length" of the subcatchment to an imaginary gutter which instantan-

 iously transfer the flows to the inlet manhole.  Had a gutter or gutter-

 pipe been modeled, the flows would then have entered the gutter/gutter-

 pipe and been routed by the RUNOFF Block to the inlet manhole.

 Data input for the subareas  was basically straightforward except in
                                    51

-------
           ).  ;
                  -' -        .; -$*$?-
                                                                        ^i'

                              \  3
                             .I}1'814       X
            SUBCATCHMENT NUMBER


            AREA, ACRES

            IMPERVIOUSNESS. %
Figure  3-4.  DIVISION OF CINCINNATI DRAINAGE BASIN  INTO SUBCATCHMENTS

-------
                                                                                             APPROXIMATE  LIMITS

                                                                                             OF DRAINAGE  BASIN
                                                                                                         a
--
....
              LEGEND
           Z
SUBCATCHMENT NUMBER


SU8AREA  NUMBER


SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING


MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING


COMMERCIAL


INDUSTRIAL


OPEN LANDS  6 PARKS
                                                                                                        SCALE IN FEET
                               Figure  3-5.   DIVISION OF CINCINNATI  SUBCATCHMENTS  INTO  SUBAEEAS

-------
areas of extensive parking lots and/or open lands.  For the purpose of




modeling the amount of solids accummalation on these lands, the actual




gutter lengths, as measured from a city map or aerial photo, was in-




creased.  For parking lots, a single gutter was assumed to run the length




of the lot every 25 feet.  This amounted to 1,740 feet of gutters per




acre of parking lots.  For open lands with no vegetational cover, 1,740




feet of gutters per acre were used.  A minimum of 1,000 feet of gutters




for park lands/ since many parks contributed suspended solids and BOD




even though gutters are absent from the area.






The development of a sewer system is based upon sewer maps of the test




area.  For the Transport Block, main sewer lines must be determined and




laid out in what usually results in a tree-like structure.  For the Cin-




cinnati Bloody Run drainage basis, all pipes smaller than 27 inches were




omitted from the pipe network.  Manholes were located whenever there was




a significant change in pipe size, direction, or slope.  Inlet manholes




were located so that every subcatchment had its individual inlet manholes.




Figure 3-6 shows the Cincinnati Bloody Ran sewer system.  The majority of




the pipes used in this test site were either circular or rectangular round




bottom.  Some of the actual shapes were not the same as those supplied by




the computer model; however, instead of supplying the flow characteristics




for these new pipe shapes, an equivalent modeled section was used.






In addition to storm flow monitoring stations, six DWF stations were set




up as shown in Figure 3-7.  Data from these stations were used both to




compute the daily and hourly variation factors as required by subroutine




FILTH and to compare the calculated DWF values with the real numbers.






                                   54

-------

O MANHOLE
 INPUT MANHOLE
                                                                                    SCALE IN FEET
                        Figure 3-6.   PLAN OF CINCINNATI BLOODY RUN SYSTEM

-------
.-
:
                                          r
                                 /
                                /    RESIDENTIAL
                                                   /)
               .^-APPROXIMATE LIMIT  OF
              f      DRAINAGE BASIN

^v r     n
    vj
        O- SAMPLING  POINT
                                                                                           1000    2000   3QOO


                                                                                            ^^C^5~


                                                                                             SCALE IN  FEET
                                                                                                              4000
                            Figure 3-7.   LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS FOR  DRY WEATHER FLOW

-------
The choice of time-step length and the number of time-steps was based




upon the duration of measured runoff from the storm.  The average length




of time-steps was usually between 1 minute and 10 minutes.  Much of the




sampling at Cincinnati was done on a 2-1/2 minute increment; however,




for the purpose of shortening computer runs, a 5-minute interval was




used.  Fifty time-steps were required to extend the simulation beyond




the recorded storm water flows.






VERIFICATION RESULTS






Dry Weather Flow




The computed DWF was adjusted as described elsewhere in this volume.




The results matched the measured flows within several percentage points




at the six sampling locations.  A comparison is shown in Table 3-1.  As




was the case in the San Francisco verification runs, the start time of




the storm was of particular importance because of large daily and hourly




variations for the flow and contaminant concentrations.  The results




for the DWF were considered good.






Combined Sewer Overflows




Of the four storms sampled, only two were used for verification runs.




Figures 3-8 and 3-9 show the comparisons between the measured hydro-




graphs and the computed hydrographs for the storms of April 1, 1970,




and May 12, 1970, respectively.  The match was considered only fair.




In Figure 3-8, three sets of hydrographs are given for the storm of




April 1 at three different locations in the sewer system.  This figure




shows that the comparison between the measured and computed flows was
                                   57

-------
                                    Table 3-1.   CINCINNATI DRY WEATHER FLOW RESULTS
ui
CO
Sampling
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
Flow,
Reported*
0.93
0.54
1.45
15.50
0.50
13.94
cfs
Computed
0.90
0.50
2.12
12.58
0.80
13.61
BOD,
Reported*
360.
350.
1160.
618,
292.
412.
mg/L
Computed
403.


529.

517.
SS , mg/L
Reported* Computed
224. 206.
230.
236.
265. 226.
181.
252. 224.
Coli, MPN/100 ml
Computed
9.5 x 107


7.0 x 107

7.6 x 107
            *Reported values  are averages  of approximately 10 grab samples each over a two-week period.


            NOTE:   Data  listing for the  above results  can be  found under Section 8,  Cincinnati data.

-------
   12.0
  It e.o
  o
  z
   i
  !.
                                SAMPLING POINT I
                       16 30      I7:OO      17 SO      18 OO

                       TIM,HOURS OF DAY
    10
    81
  5
     ol	
     IS:JO
                                SAMPLING POINT Z
                      1630      1700      17 SO

                       TIME, HOURS OF DAY
                                                  00
   400r
   500
   SOO
    00
                                SAMPLING POINT 3
    I5.JO
                      1630      17 OO      I7:SO

                       TIME,HOURS OF DAY
                                                 ioo
Figure  3-8.   CINCINNATI -  COMPARISONS BETWEEN

                MEASURED  AND  COMPUTED HYDROGRAPHS

                STORM OF  APRIL 1,  1970
                            59

-------
      s:
                                  8 30       900       930

                                      TIME, HOURS OF DAY
                                                             lO'OO
5


B
             o
             a
             in
                                       MEASURED  BC
                                        mg/l
                    COMPUTED B
                       Ibi/rwi
               o1
                T30
                                   30       900      430

                                     TIME. HOURS OF DAY
      1
      ,;
                                            'COMPUTED SS,
                                              Ibi/min
                                  X>       900      130
                                      TIME. HOURS OF DAY
Figure  3-9.   CINCINNATI  - COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW RESULTS
                STORM  OF MAY 12, 1970,  SAMPLING  POINT 3
                                       60

-------
reasonably consistent throughout the drainage basin.   Figure 3-9, which




shows the runoff hydrograph and pollutographs, was for the May 12




storm where only one sampling point was in operation.  For both storms,




the time of peak flows coincided with good accuracy,  but the volume of




flow for each calculated hydrograph was below the measured hydrograph.




Several factors may have attributed to this low peak:




     1.  Accuracy of the input hyetograph.  The collected hyetographs




         for all four rainstorms were based on 30-minute intervals for




         two rain gages located outside of the test area.  These rain




         gages apparently produced the same measurements and were




         several hundred feet below the average elevation of the test




         site.  As was noted in Section 2, difference in elevation




         between the rain gages and the actual test site can make a




         difference in the amount of rainfall for the higher elevations.




         Also, it is possible that the charts were misread and that the




         reported intensities were, in fact, accumulations over




         30-minute or other time periods and were not corrected to




         hourly rates.




     2.  Flow measurements.  The flow measurements were made by




         recording the depth of flow in the drainage conduits and




         calculating the flow rate.  An improper C factor for that




         particular pipe will give a faulty hydrograph.




     3.  Lack of gutter pipes for the larger subcatchment basins.  This




         can cause a delay in the runoff peak and also a flatter and




         broader hydrograph than will actually occur.  The flow rate




         over land surfaces as calculated by the Runoff Block has a






                                   61

-------
          much slower flow rate than the runoff through a pipe or a gut-




          ter.  Thus, for large subcatchment areas the water is stored




          on the surface and is allowed to come off at a much slower rate




          than would actually be found in a gutter of one of the smaller




          drainage pipes.






Figures 3-9 and 3-10 show a comparison between the measured pollutographs




and the computer pollutographs for the two storms.  To improve the pollu-




tographs1 fit, three dummy subareas were required to increase the concen-




tration of the suspended solids and BOD in the runoff waters.  These dummy




subareas were located upstream of the three sampling points at manholes




25, 53, and 59 (Figure 3-6)  and each consisted of a one-acre area with




long lengths of gutters to increase pollutant runoff.  Gutter length is




used in the Model to determine the amount of pollutants washed off in a




storm.  The need for these dummy subareas was attributed to the unusually




large amount of open land and parts, 22 percent, that seem to contribute




a continuous amount of pollutants varying only with the amount of runoff




and/or the possible data errors previously discussed.






A second possible explanation for the mismatch between the measured and




calculated pollutographs may be caused by inaccurate runoff figures which




undermine the validity of the pollutographs.  The equations that determine




the amount of solids washed off during a storm utilize the simulated run-




off quantities calculated by the Runoff Block.  The quanitities of solids




removed are in direct proportion to the quantity of runoff.  Therefore,




if simulated hydrographs were flatter and broader (less peak flows),




smaller amounts of pollutants would be introduced into the storm sewers.






                                   62

-------
                I>OO       IB>30      I7<00      17'JO       18 OO
                                      COMPUTE   BOO, Ibi/mln
       I'3O
      Ir
                l>00
                          16'SO      I7-OO      IT'SO
                           TIME, HOURS OF  DAY
                                                      II OO
     . o
                                        COMPUTED SS, mg/1
                       I
                      L COMPUTED SS,     "N.
                             lb/min           X

      o
       l '30
16.00      I'X>      17.00       17.SO
          TIME, HOURS OF DAY
                                                      li'OO
Figure  3-10.   CINCINNATI COMBINED  SEWER
                  OVERFLOW  RESULTS  - STORM OF
                  APRIL 1,  1970, SAMPLING  POINT  3
                            63

-------
Figure 3-8 shows that the simulated hydrographs are flatter and of longer




duration.  These hydrographs, in turn, govern the calculated BOD mg/L




curves as shown in Figure 3-9.  The curve has been depressed by the flat-




ter hydrograph for a longer period of time than was observed at the test




site.  As was noted above, the addition of gutter pipes to the larger




subcatchments should increase the peak flows and thus improve the pollu-




tographs.








The sampling and modeling work is continuing and the questions raised




will be resolved in a report under Project No. 11024 DQU.
                                   64

-------
                               SECTION 4




                           WASHINGTON, D.C.




                                                                Page




DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA                                        67




DATA SOURCES                                                     68




VERIFICATION RESULTS                                             70




     Combined Sewage Overflows - Quantity                        73




     Combined Sewage Overflows - Quality                         79




     Receiving Waters                                            83




CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED                                       87




     Complete Sewer Separation                                   87




     Construction of a Relief Sewer                              87




     External Storage and Treatment                              90
                                   65

-------
                               SECTION 4




                           WASHINGTON, D.C.





The results of two storms modeled on the Kingman Lake drainage basin




are discussed in this section.





DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA




The Kingman Lake drainage basin  (4,200 acres) is served by the North-




east Boundary Trunk Sewer and lies wholly within the one-third portion




of the District of Columbia still using combined sewers.  It is by far




the largest combined sewer basin in the District and overflows under




the influence of storm water runoff approximately 57 times per year for




an overall duration of 300 hours (Ref. 1).  The land use is predomi-




nantly (69 percent)  residential, with family incomes ranging from




average to low, followed by industrial (13 percent), parks and open




space (12 percent),  and commercial (6 percent).  The total population




is 146,700, or 35 persons per acre.   Several large schools,  hospitals




and similar institutions lie within the basin.





As estimated by the District, the basin is highly impervious.  Over




half of the subcatchments are considered to be 90 percent impervious;




the average of all subcatchments is high75 to 80 percent.  The topo-




graphy is gentle, and drainage is southeasterly from a high elevation




of 310 feet at the northwest to a low elevation of 0 feet at its dis-




charge to the Anacostia River.
                                   67

-------
Only about 15 percent of the Northeast Boundary Trunk Sewer has the




hydraulic capacity to carry off the runoff from a 15-year return-




frequency storm   (8,600  cfs versus  an available maximum trunk  capacity




of 4,000 cfs, Ref. 1).   The trunk sewer is about 4.9 miles long and




terminates in a triple-barrel section, each barrel 16.5  feet by 8 feet




in size.  The DWF, computed,at 29.8 cfs, is intercepted by a 6-foot




diameter conduit  (96 cfs capacity) a half-mile west of the Anacostia




River for eventual treatment at the District's Water Pollution Control




Plant (Ref. 2).  When the combined sewer flow reaches approximately




800 cfs, a regulator stops all diversion to the interceptor and the




full flow is bypassed to the Anacostia River.






Photographs taken in the study area are shown in Figure 4-1.







DATA SOURCES




A conceptual design for combined sewer storage and reclamation in the




Kingman Lake basin was conducted for the EPA in January-June 1970




(Ref. 1) and the initial data collection was performed in cooperation




with this study.  The recommended storage and treatment facilities of




the conceptual engineering report were modeled as discussed later in




this section.






The Department of Sanitary Engineering for the District of Columbia




furnished sewer plans, watershed data, and aerial photomaps of the




complete drainage basin.   Libraries and statistical abstracts were




consulted for data on the three major schools and six major hospitals




in the drainage basin for dry weather flow computations.  Average
                                   68

-------

 Outfall to Anacostia River
Typical Street of Rowhouse
Apartments
Typical Garage Way After Storm
Surface Ponding After Storm
         Figure 4-1.  CHARACTERISTIC PHOTOGRAPHS OF KINGMAN
                      LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN
                                 69

-------
DWF characteristics were taken from Ref. 3, and population and income




figures were taken from census tract data as in the previous tests.





The Kingman Lake system was subdivided into 53 subcatchments varying




from 5 acres to 225 acres in size and from 2 percent to 7 percent in




slope.  Fifty-seven subareas were used in the surface quality computa-




tions to allow for multiple land uses in some subcatchments.





The sewer system was represented by 152 elements as shown in Figure 4-2.




Pipe configurations modeled included circular, rectanglular, egg-




shaped, gothic-shaped, and modified basket-handle.





Two rain gages were used as shown in Figure 4-3.  The first was




located at D. C. General Hospital (ground elevation 35 feet), and the




second was located at the D. C. Water Filtration Plant (ground elevation




170 feet).





VERIFICATION RESULTS
The two storms modeled for the Kingman Lake drainage basin were:





          	Date	                    Total Rainfall, in.




            July 22, 1969                           3.20




          August 20, 1969                           0.64





Direct sampling data were not available for quality comparisons.




However, a chart recording the depth of sewage flow at element 115 was




available for each storm.  The computer program was modified to print




out depths of flow for this element for direct comparisons with this




measured data.
                                   70

-------
APPROXIMATE LIMITS
OF DRAINAGE  BASIN
                                                            /

 Figure 4-2.   PLAN  OF KINGMAN LAKE SYSTEM
                      71

-------
                r  ''    --
                    I
i    J  ?;>
                    \   ^'
                    V*-- x
                           /v  ^
                                o
                                rffl
                     ^r-.j i   ^
                     vf^    r
                       GAGE I

                       D. C. GEN. HOSPITAL

                       RAIN GAGE
Figure 4-3.  KINGMAN LAKE RAIN GAGE LOCATIONS


         AND SUBCATCHMENTS
              72

-------
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quantity




Figure 4-4 shows the rainfall hyetographs used in the model for the




storm of July 22, 1969.  The comparison of the computed and recorded




depths of flow in element 115 is shown in Figure 4-5.  With the excep-




tion of the maximum computed stage value, the fit was good.  The over-




estimation of the peak stage may have resulted from restrictive capa-




cities and storage in the feeder lines which were not modeled.  From




discussions with District personnel, it was understood that sections of




the Northeast Boundary Trunk Sewer cannot flow full without surcharging




and backing up flows in large sections of the feeder system.  This




assumption was reinforced by the fact that the recorded stage remained




high for a period well after the computed stage dropped off, which is




typical of outflow from storage.






During the large storm of July 22, 1969, the capacities of several




sewer elements as represented by the model were exceeded and surcharging




developed.  In order to maintain continuity, the model stored the excess




flow at each manhole immediately upstream of a surcharged element until




capacity became available.  The locations, times, and durations of the




modeled surcharging are shown on Figure 4-6.






Hyetographs and stage comparisons for the storm of August 20, 1969, are




shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-8, respectively.  Again, the fit was good




with the feeder system-storage effects still evident.  No trunk sewer




surcharging was computed for this lesser storm.
                                   73

-------
                  8.000 -
                  6.000
         RAINFALL

            IN

         IN. /  HR
                  4.000
                  z.ooo
                              4
                              4
                              4 4
                             *4 t
                             *44
                             *44
                             *44
                               *
                              * **    *4
                              * 44*   4
                               4 4*  4
           *# *4*  444   4   * 4 4*  4
           C 4 44*4  4 444 4444  f- *4
              44 44*
                                         **
                                         **
                                         **
                                         **
                                         *
                                         **
                                        **
                                       ***
                                       ****
                                       ***^
                                       ***
                                       **
                                         **
                                          *
                                          *
                                          *
                                          *
                                          *
                                        f *
                                       4 * *
                                       4 444
                                       4 44*4
                                       4 44 4
                                       4 44 4
    *4
    *4 4
    * 44
    * *44     *
    **  * 4    *
    *    *444*44
       **
       * *
       * 4
       t   ***
       >   4  *
       t  44 4*
         4 44*
         4   4
       4 *   4*4*44* 4
                  0.0
                        +44-444 ---- t* **.4*
0.12




7.04

0.?'.

oil?
0.17
0.77
0.0
1 .70
O./.H
1..SO
0.0
n.36
0.0
1 . ?0
0. ?4
1.20
0.0
0.36
0.0
7.40
0. 12
1.20
0.0
0.96
O.fO
0.0
0. 17
1.70

1 .OS
0.0
P. 30
n. 36
7.40
0. 17
O.SO
0.12
                   Figure  4-4.
                    KINGMAN LAKE  RAINFALL  HYETOGRAPHS
                    STORM OF  JULY 22,  1969
                                                74

-------
                      1    PEAK, 19.3 FT
                      \^S  TIME, 6
                               COMPUTED
                              DAY
Figure 4-5.
KINGMAN  LAKE COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
RESULTS  (QUANTITY)    STORM  OF
JULY 22,  1969
                          75

-------
                      RAINFALL HYETOGRAPH
         19.000
         1.000
         6.000
   AMNfUL

     II

   IN./  HI
         4.100
         2.0CO
                                                             BASIN NO  I






*
4*
** *
*#*  ** 
*+*  * *







f
*
*
*


 

*
t *
* * 




 ft*
* 
fr *

         0.0
            17.C
                           ID.*
                                  I*.*
                                          ZO.Z    Jl.O     21.7
                                             TIME IN HOURS
                                                                22.9
                      PlAIMCJCE UCENO
                                       I  *
ELEMENT NO*

22
38
82
96
103

1 IS
139

DURATION

1 	 1
1 	 1
|...
|...
| 	 1
1 	 1
I 	 I
I 	 I
1 	 1
1 1 1 1 1 ill
1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1
MAXIMUM SURCHARGE, CU FT

427,489
08,893
49,208
94,244
46,802
129,677
IS3, 183
> 999,999
867,633

             17.0       18.0       19.0      20.0
                                TIME  IN  HOURS
                        21.0
                                 22.0
SEE FIGURE  4-2
         Figure  4-6.
KINGMAN LAKE SURCHARGES IN  CONDUIT  SYSTEM
STORM OF JULY  22,  1969
                                            76

-------
                      1.000
                      o.aoo
                      0.600
             RAINFALL

                IN

             IN./  HR
                      0.400
                                 ** *
                                 ** 
                                 ** *
                                 ** 4
                                 ** *
                                 **44
                            44
                            44
                            44
                            44

                            44
                            44

                            44
                            44

                            44
                            44
                            44
           44
           44
           * *
           44   *
           4- 4  **

0.200       * *  
            4-  **
           4 4  *4

            4  *
           4 4****
           44   *  *4*   4*
       *   4-4   *  44*   4*
       **4**4   *  44*   4
          4-4   *  *** *4 *
          * 4    * * 4 *4 *
0.0  *44444	44444444-4444-*-

    J3.5     14.3     15.1
                            *
                            *
                          *
                          *
                         **
                         **
                         *
                         **
                         **
                         **
                         **
                         **
                         **
                         **
                         **
                         **
                         * *
                         * *
                         * *
                         *+
                         *4*
                         44*
                         44*
                       **4 + 44
                       **4 -4 44
                       **4 4 44
                       **4 4 44
                       * 4- 44
                       **4 4 44
                       *4 4 44
                       **4 4- 44
                       **4 4 44

                       **4 4 44
                       *+ 4 44

                       **4 4 44
                       **4 4 44
                       * 4  44
                       *4*  44
                    * * 4 44

                    ** *4* 4 44

                    * *4* 4 44
                    ** *4* 444
                    *** 4*   *

                    *** 4* 4 4 4
                     ** 4* 4 4 4
                     ** 4*   t

                     *4 * 44  *
                     *.*4 **44  4

                     *4 **    4
                     *4 ***   4
                     **4 ***   4

                     4 +**   4
                     4 * *   *
                     . * **  4
                                           *
                                           *

                                           *
                                           *
                                           *

                                           **
                       *
                       *
                       **
                       *
                                                                *** **
                                                                *** **
                                                                * **
                                                                ** *
                                                                *** **
                                                                * * ***
                                                           * **** * *44***44*444   **
                                                           *  **   *4 4444   * *
                                                          ** * **   *4*4 4 44  4   *
                                                          ***      *4+4  ,  +   *
                                                          ***   *   *4*4 4 44  4   *
                                                          * *   *   **4 4 44  4*  *
                                                          * *   * 44***4 4  4  4**.*
                                                        *4 *
                                                        *4
                                                        +
                                                        *4*      4
                                                        * 4
                                                      ***-44+44444+
                                                    15.9     16.7
4
4
4>



44
4>4
4
4

17.5
4
4
4
4
4

                                                               44444444

                                                                18.Z
                                      RAINGAGE LEGEND
                                                         I " 
                                                   TIME tN HOURS

                                                     2  
FOR    5<> RAINFALL STFPSt  THE TIMF INTERVAL  IS    5.00 MINUTFS

FOR RAINGACE NUMBER   1   RAINFALL HISTORY  IS
     0.12
     0.12
     0.24
     C.O
     0.46
     0.24
0.12
0.24
0.0
0.12
0.24
0.24
0.06
O.C
0.96
C. C
0.36
O.Z4
             0.06
             0.0
             0.60
             0.12
             0.0
             C.?4
0.06
0.0
0.12
0.24
0.4A
0.12
FOR RAINGAGE NUMBER
                          RAINFALL  HISTORY  IS
     0.0
     0.0
     0.1?
     0.12
     0.0
     0.12
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.24
O.C
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.12
0.24
             0.0
             0.0
             0.36
             0.0
             0.12
             0.24
0..0
0.0
0.72
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.06
0.60
0.24
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.0
0.12
0.84
C.O

0*0
0.06
0.0
0.12
0.24

o!l2
0.30
0.0
0.24
o.n
0.12
0.0
0.06
0.0
0.12
0.24
0.24
0.12
0.30
O.C
0.24
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.I?
0.0
0.0
0.?4

0.24
0.0
0.0

o!o
0.2*.
n.o
0.12
0.60
C.O
0.12
0.24
C.O
O.C
0.36
0.0
0.24
                Figure  4-7.   KINGMAN LAKE  RAINFALL HYETOGRAPHS
                                STORM OF  AUGUST  20,  1969
                                              77

-------
   10
!


 '
I
in
   <;
            RECORDED
                                         COMPUTED
                               I
                               4      5


                                TIME OF DAY
                                                                      10
    Figure  4-8.  KINGMAN LAKE COMBINED SEWER  OVERFLOW

                  RESULTS (QUANTITY)  - STORM OF  AUGUST 20,  1969
                                   78

-------
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quality




Although no direct sampling of the Kingman Lake combined sewer over-




flows was accomplished, others (Ref. 1) had monitored two combined




sewers in the District (drainage basins of about 200 acres) over a six-




month period.  The results are compared to the computed storm values




in Table 4-1.  The verification was favorable except that the July 22,




1969, concentrations were weaker due to the extremely high runoff volume.






Figure 4-9, a chart of recorded rainfall for the District for the




summer of 1969, further explains the observed variations in the mean




concentrations of pollutants overflowing in the two storms.  A large




storm occurred just two days prior to the July 22 storm, effectively




flushing much of the accumulated surface pollution from the drainage




basin.  A storm of similar magnitude did not occur until 18 days prior




to the August 20 storm.  These variations in antecedent conditions were




accounted for in the Storm Water Model by adjusting the dry day esti-




mates supplied in the input data (see Volume III).






Typical variations of pollutant concentrations in the overflow with time




computed for the two storms are shown in Table 4-2.  From these data it




is obvious that the source of surface pollutants was effectively ex-




hausted after 3 hours of the extremely intense July 22 storm.






In terms of mass quantities, the total computed (untreated) releases in




the two storms were:
                                  79

-------
                             Table 4-1.  COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW QUALITY COMPARISONS
oo
o

Reported*
Computed**

July 22, 1969 August 20, 1969
Waste Constituent
BOD, mg/L
SS, mg/L
Total coli forms ,
MPN/100 ml
Range Mean*** Range
10-470 71 4-220
35-2,000 622 6-977
420,000- 2,800,000
5,800,000
Mean*** Range
47 43-245
267 173-827
380,000-
4,670,000
Mean***
97
394
1,730,000
        *Roy F. Weston, "Preliminary Draft Conceptual Engineering Report, Kingman Lake Project,"
         FWQA, May 1970 (Ref. 1).
       **Based on 95 five-minute time-steps.
      ***Not weighted according to flow.

-------
                                                                 (N
                                                                 
-------
Table 4-2.  COMPUTED TIME VARIATION OF OVERFLOW QUALITY
Time from Start
of Overflow, min
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
Storm of July
BOD, mg/L
220
135
79
54
48
40
14
4
6
6
10
18
27
37
42
63
90
22, 1969
SS , mg/L
261
425
921
755
798
698
252
25
9
7
13
20
28
38
44
60
80
Storm of Aug.
BOD, mg/L
245
239
218
150
87
70
60
54
55
47
43
47
58
67
72
96
125
20, 1969
SS, mg/L
321
327
289
277
506
675
779
576
518
450
410
325
241
201
179
175
180
                            82

-------
                               Total SS                Total BOD
        Storm               Released,  Ib             Released, Ib
   July 22, 1969               581,000                  46,500

   August 20, 1969             250,000                  30,900


Receiving Waters

Although no sampling data were available, the Anacostia-Potomac Rivers

were modeled by the 47 node system shown in Figure 4-10.  An appropriate

tide was imposed at node 32, fresh water inflows were imposed at nodes

1 and 47, and the Kingman Lake basin discharge was imposed at node 15.

The computed oxygen balance in the receiving water system for 5 and 25

hours following the storm of July 22 is shown in Figure 4-11.  The max-

imum deficit occurred at node 17, 3,000 feet from the point of release

and 25 hours after the start of the storm.  The oxygen deficit was con-

tinuing to increase and move seaward at the end of the simulation.

Similarly, the computed travel of suspended solids is shown in Figure

4-12.


It should be noted that these changes were the direct result of one

outfall discharging for one very large storm.  The residual effects

from earlier storms and pollution releases from coincident discharges

would have to be evaluated to determine the full impact on the river

system.
                                   83

-------
                          APPROXIMATE  LIMITS
                          OF DRAINAGE  BASIN
                                                   SCALE IN  MILES
Figure 4-10.   KINGMAN  LAKE RECEIVING WATER SYSTEM
                           84

-------
o
ui
o
I
o
HJ
cn
O
    9.0 r-
    8.0
    7.0
    6.0
     1
o
a.
      25
                     5 HOURS
                           25  HOURS
d

I
to
a
      _L
      20       15       10        5

    NODE  POINTS  ALONG ANACOSTIA
                                                 0
  Figure 4-11.   KINGMAN LAKE RECEIVING WATER
                 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
                        85

-------
    zoo
     ISO
     100
  in
  m
      SO
                               5 HOURS
           o
               ZS HOURS
                                            
                                            fc
                                            5
                 20
                          15
                                   10
                  NODE  POINTS ALONG ANACOSTIA
Figure 4-12.  KINGMAN LAKE  RECEIVING WATER SS PROFILE
                              86

-------
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED




Three modifications to the existing system were modeled:






     1.  Complete sewer separation.




     2.  Construction of a relief sewer to relieve surcharges in the




         main trunk.




     3.  Construction of an external storage and treatment facility at




         Kingman Lake.






Again, the modifications were pressed only to demonstrate modeling




techniques and not to real system solutions.






Complete Sewer Separation




Complete sewer separation was simulated by setting NFILTH = 0 for the




storm of July 22, 1969.  Because of the great magnitude of the storm




and the relatively short time span over which overflows occurred, qual-




ity improvements were small.  The total suspended solids released were




reduced by 16,000 pounds or only 3 percent.  The total BOD released was




reduced by 15,600 pounds or 33 percent.






The line printer graphs of the BOD results are shown in Figure 4-13.






Construction of a Relief Sewer




The District representatives spoke of the possible construction of a




relief sewer to reduce  flooding and surcharge along the main trunk sew-




er.  A dummy pipe system, shown in Figure  4-14, was modeled, intercep-




ting all  flows upstream of elements 45, 63,  and 69.  The resultant flow




reduction  in the main trunk and the total diverted flow are shown in
                                    87

-------
     IM.OOO
     400.0OO
    )00.000
 BOO

 IM

 USSMN
    100.000
    100.000
                       t6 OtiTAItl. UUMtHftlO* DC
                                       *
                                    *   *
                                    *   *
                                      *
                                 *t*   *
                       WITHOUT SEPARATION
         11,0     11.9
1 --------- 1 --------- 1 --------- : ------ 1
. *     10.2    21.0     11, 1     U.S
                           TItft IN
                                                                               1
                                                                             24.1
    500.000
     300.000
aao
in

US/MM
     f00*000
     100.000
       *
                       nut Dumier, IIIMINCTON oe
                                  *
                                 
                                                                      144
                       WITH SEPARATION
                        11.
                                               n.o
                            f|M( IN HOVOS
           Figure  4-13.   KINGMAN  LAKE BOD COMPARISONS  WITH
                             AND  WITHOUT  SEPARATION
                                         88

-------
   APPROXIMATE LIMITS
   OF DRAINAGE BASIN 
                                                                  156
Figure  4-14.  KINGMAN LAKE SIMULATED RELIEF SEWER
                         89

-------
Figure 4-15.  The diversion, as expected, eliminated the surcharge in




elements 139 and 115 on the main trunk sewer.






External Storage and Treatment




Based on the recommendations stated in the Kingman Lake Report, Ref.  1




(Contract No. 14-12-829), a storage-treatment scheme consisting of a




175-million gallon storage basin and a 50-mgd treatment plant was




modeled and the output of the August 20, 1969 storm was applied.  The




treatment system consisted of the storage basin, mechanically cleaned




bar racks, effluent pumps, high rate filters, and postchlorination.




The basic design data for the units are shown in Table 4-3, and the




summary of treatment effectiveness is shown in Table 4-4.






For the 95 five-minute time-steps modeled, the total inflow to storage




was 7,741,961 cubic feet and the total outflow to treatment was 1,776,956




cubic feet or 23 percent.  To empty the basin completely would require




an additional 257 time-steps (21.4 hours) if all inflows to the basin




were stopped.  The maximum depth reached in the basin during the storm




was 8.94 feet of the available 35.0 feet, assuming the basin was empty




at the start of the storm.  A major portion of the suspended solids




and over 50 percent of the BOD removed in the first 95 time-steps were




removed in the storage basin.  Such removals would create a significant




sludge handling problem.






A final summary of the flows and characteristics passed between treatment




levels is shown in Table 4-5.  Removals in storage are represented by




level 3, the high rate filters in level 4, and chlorination in level 7.
                                   90

-------
                                                                           KINSMAN LAKE DISTRICT, WA S KING TON DC
                      KINGMAN LAKE
                      STORM  OF JULY 22,1969
             KINGMAN  LAKE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON  DC
ouuu. uuu
4000. OOO
3000.000
(> FLOW
H IN
FS
2000. 000
10 00. 000
A A
: :~....


~
 ' 
 *

                                          MAIN TRUNK FLOW
                                          WITHOUT RELIEF
                                                              5000.000
 4000.000
  3000.000
FLOW
IN
CFS
  2000.000
                                                               1000.000
                                                                  0.0
                                                                                                   MAIN TRUNK FLOW
                                                                                                   WITH RELIEF
                                                                                                 *    *
                                                                      17.0  17.8  18.6  19.4  202  21.0  217   22.S  23,3  24.1  24.9
                                                                                  TIME  IN HOURS
                                                                           KINGMAN LAKE  blS TRICT, WAS HIN GTON  DC
                                                               2500.000!
                                                               2000.000
                                                                ISOO.OOO
         17:0   17.6  16.6   19.4  20.2  21.0  217  22.9  23.3  4.1  24.9
                    TIME IN  HOURS
FLOW
I"
CFS
Figure  4KL5.   KI.NGMAN  LAKE HYDROGRAPH WITH
                 AND WITHOUT  RELIEF SEWER"
                 STORM OF JULY 22,  1969
                                                                1000 .000
   500.000
                                                                  0 .0
                                                                                                  RELIEF SEWER FLOW
                 v                               **
          I7.o""l7'.8  18.6  19.4  20.2  21.0  21.7  22.5  13.3  24.1  24.9
                     TIME IN HOURS

-------
                                    Table  4-3.   KINGMAN  LAKE BASIC DESIGN  DATA
SPECIFIED  TSEAIPFNT  CAPACITY USFD.

           OEStii.i FlUWiUTE  =      75.00 CFS.
                     SYSTEM INCLUDES MOGUL F UNITS
                    iN FLOW IS THfKFFrjRF  iuCRbASFfl tu (UXT LARofSI MJOflLF  SUE
                ACJUSTl'C DESIGN ritJWKATt        7 7. 3i O i. r "     ^0.00  MOD.
                IKMff) *  HI
                CMAKACTfJISTICS OF STORAGE UNIT ARC
                            TYPE  =  6
                             wunr *  i
                     STUKAOE 1YPF. *  2

                     - i PRIM CnNTHQL USPR1M  *  I

           HAN-MAOE KeSFKVUIK.miH MAX.  OEPTH    IS.CO FT.,  AM) CIMHACTERISTICS
                     PASE APEA -   67COOO. SQ.fT.,        BASF CIPCIIMF.  -      327?.H.,      COTISIOESLOPEI    0.00000
                HESFRVQIR OUTFLOW BY Flxm-HATF >IIMI'INv.
                fVAflM, RATF   77.40 CFS, PUMPING  STAUT DEPTH * 10.DO  FT, PJHPINC STOP DEPTH *   O.OD  FT
                QFPTHIFM STlJRCC'J.FT I     OEPTH(FI|  SrimiCU.FTI    OfPTMII-TI  SOMClLtT)    DFPTHIFTI  STORICU.FTI
                  ^f"0         0,          T.50    ?145'JOO.          7.03    46<3000.         10.50    7035000.
                 14.00  'MfiOOCO.         I?. SO   U7?-j001.         71.00   K.0/0100.
                 2B.CO  19760COO.         31.SO   /llfiwin.         JS.OP
                SfDKAGF JFTWFEN I'UMP STA^T AND ST>J( I f Vf I $ =      21H.5 Tlrtf-S
                - -  -  -  UNIT CUSt IFXCAV/UIUN, HNINv,  ilC.I - IS.00 l/C'I.Vi).
                       1PFAHF.il  (IV rtf-f.HAUlC ALLY CLtAUfi) HAH KAOS  ILEtftl  II
                       CF iCKt'CNS   *      2
               CAPACITY PEf  SCHEFN *     3B.67 CFS
               SUH^tKCFC AKfA       =     If.nn SiJ.rt.  ( tTHI'FNni Cut A Ti)  IMF FLUHI
               FACE AKFA OF  BARS   *     IB.OS Sg.FI.

                 HY INLET HUHPINO  ILIVCL 21
               PUMPED  HEAD *   35.00 FT. WATFR
                    OY SfUMnNIATIUM Id ASSof.l ATtl) STuRAOF  > SFF IF. (/EL 9 ABJVE
               M. CHl.UUINf 4UUH)
                                                    4
                                                   U SO.FT
                                                ?ft.0.0 Cptl/SO.FI.
                                                '*U.OO PtRCFMI
                                                MO.OO PfRCEMT
                                                I?.00 FT.
IREATfffNT I!V UGH KAC  FILTERS  NCV
     MAX, HI SIOn MF.AO LUS5
     fAX. SDHOi HilLOINli CAP.
                                                 J.OC Ltt/SJ.FT.  IAT  MAX H AND 01
               CHCHICALS MILL Of  AOOfcO

          NO  EFFIUENT SCREWS  (LFVft  SI

          CUlFLCx  AY URAVITY IM)  PUMPINul   (LEVEL 61

          tREATi4F,f  BY ClR(jRI: KATF. i'f-K OKI T        RQnn.no L/i)ft
               J4AXIMIM OfMAM) PATF     *   10J<,1.U5 LB/OAY
               WClUMf CF CCMTACt  IANK  *     fc">fcl^. CH.VT. AT  15  MIN.  DETFNHJN TIME

-------
                                   Table  4-4,   KINGMAN LAKE  SUMMARY  OF  TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
        SUMMARY Of TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
                           TOTALS
                             INPUT
                             OVERFLOW (BYPASS)
                             TREATED
                             REMOVED
                             RELEASED
FLOW (M.S.)
     13.374
      0.009
     13.365
      0.114
     13.260
     BOD (LB)
       8999.3
          5.8
       899*. %
       T206.2
       17V3.2
                                                SS .
                  TIHE
                  MATER
                     AV. FLOW ICFS)
                  BOD
                     ARRIVING (NG/L)
                     RatASED IMC/L)
                     t REDUCTION ILBI
                  S. SOLIDS
                     AMIVIMG (MG/L)
                     RELEASED (MG/LI
                     t REDUCTION (L&)
                  COllFORKS
                     ARR (HPN/100NL)
                     REL (MPN/lOONLt
                     % REDUCTION (LBl
              01  5

              0.00

              0.00
              0.00
              0.00

              0.00
              o.oo
              0.00
0:50

0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
 77.31

120.85
 J2.2C
 73.J7

168.79
 25.17
 85. 10
                    ZlZC

                    77.11

                  133.73
                    34. 86
                    74.09

                  505.24
                   63.55
                   B7.50
  3t S

 76.99

 79.49
 15.91
 80.17

701.98
 88.83
 87.46
  3:50

 7T.OI

 68.12
 11.90
 82.68

674.77
 85.33
 87.46
                                                STORAGE
                                            HIGHRATE FILTERS
                                              CONTACT TANK
  4535

 77.03

 64.05
 10.45
 83.81
626.75
 79.15-
 87.47
  5:20

 77.07

 58.93
  8.63
 85.46

S73.ZL7
 72.28
 87.48
  6; S

 77.OB

 57.38
  8.08
 86.02

541.14
 68.15
 87.49
  6:50

 77.10

 57.66
  a.17
 85.92
 7:35

77.10

58.25
 8.37"
85.71
521.85   509.66
 65. 6 8    64.12
 87.49    8T.50
          O.OOE-01 O.OOt-OI 2.25E 06 2,2ZE 06 8.46E  05 S.3.7E 05  6.15E 05 6.83E 05 7.42E 05 7.93E 05 g.21E 05
          O.OOE'Ql O.OOE-01 1.79E 03 1.72E 03 6.586  02 4.96E 02  4.79E 02 5.31E 02 5.76E 02 6.16E 02 6.37E 02
              0.00     0.00    99.92    99.92    99.92     99.92    99.92    99.9Z    99.92    99.92    99.92

-------
                                 Table 4-5.  KINGMAN LAKE SUMMARY OF  LEVEL PERFORMANCE
vo
SlIKMARY OF FLOWS - MAXIMA, AVERAGES, AND MINIHA
ARRIVING
FLOW RATES IM.G.tXI
MAXIMUM 50.032
AVERAGE 40.552
fUN|l"UM 0.000
TO LEVEL. 3 LEVEL 4
OVERFLOW TREATMENT REMOVAL OUTFLOW REHOVAL OUTFLOW
0.032
0.032
0.000
BOO CONCENTRATIONS 
-------
The asterisks, signifying a number larger than the field width, in the




removal fraction of level 4 result from the intermittent nature of fil-




ter backwashing.






The recommended combination of storage and treatment appears quite




feasible if the problem of residual solids in the storage basin can be




solved.
                                   95

-------
                                SECTION  5




                             PHILADELPHIA





                                                                    Page



DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA                                            99




DATA SOURCES                                                        100




VERIFICATION RESULTS                                                101




     Combined Sewage Overflows  - Quantity                           105




     Combined Sewage Overflows  - Quality                            113




     Receiving Waters                                               113




CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED                                          119




     In-System Storage                                              119




     External Storage with Treatment                                123
                                  97

-------
                              SECTION 5

                             PHILADELPHIA


The results of two significant storms modeled on the Wingohocking drain-

age basin and the Frankford Creek-Delaware River receiving waters are

discussed in this section.


DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

The Wingohocking drainage basin is the largest combined sewer area in

Philadelphia and the largest area attempted by the model to date.  The

past sampling and analysis performed by the City of Philadelphia for

drainage catchments and receiving waters are discussed briefly in

Ref. 1.

A further description of the study area quoted from Ref. 2 follows:


          "The combined sewered area with a population of 173,000
     named Wingohocking is situated in north central Philadelphia
     and drains some 5400 highly developed residential acres (8.4
     sq. miles), via 45 miles of branch sewers.  The dry weather
     flow is intercepted by a low, broad crested weir and inter-
     ceptor arrangement for treatment at the Northeast Water Pol-
     lution Control Plant.  During significant rains, the inter-
     ceptor is mainly bypassed and a mixture of sanitary waste
     and stormwater discharges into' the receiving Frankford Creek
     through a 21 ft. by 24 ft. outfall.
           Four recording raingages are distributed over the
     catchment area.  A depth of flow recorder and a composite
     sampler are located at the outfall just upstream of the weir.
     This instrument system has been operated by the R & D Unit
     of the Philadelphia Water Department since 1966.  Prior to
     that time, the runoff and sampling instruments were main-
     tained by the FWQA for the purpose of studying combined sewer
     overflows."


The average imperviousness of 75 percent (range 40-80 percent)  and pop-

ulation density of 32 persons per acre (predominantly in single-family
                                   99

-------
row houses) compare closely with the Kingman Lake study area.  Six




industrial waste sources were reported in the basin, but their combined




reported discharge of less than 0.1 cfs  (suspected data error) had




negligible effect on the waste stream.  Quality characteristics of the




discharge were not reported.




The basin topography, varying from an elevation of 60 feet at the point




of discharge to an elevation of 380 feet at the northwest corner, is




also similar to the Kingman Lake area.






DATA SOURCES
The Research and Development Division of the City of Philadelphia Water




Department furnished essentially all data used for the model takeoffs.




These included rainfall data, topographic maps, system maps, aerial



photographs, catchbasin and street sweeping data, daily operating stat-




istics at the Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant, weekly quality




analyses of the receiving waters, and the storm runoff and quality




composite data discussed below.  The collection, collation, and pres^



entat-ion of this data represented approximately 200 engineering man-!



hours on the part of the City.  This total does not include approxim-




ately 400 additional man-hours by the authors for the data reduction,




evaluation, simulation, and execution of the computer program.




These efforts are in no way proportional to the basin size but are



contingent on the complexities of the system and the availability of




the data.  No sampling, measuring, or analyses efforts are included.




A principal advantage of the model is that numerous additional storms




and basin modifications can be readily executed for a small percentage
                                   100

-------
increase in man-hours once the original basin modeling and correlation




has been accomplished.




The Wingohocking drainage basin was subdivided into 57 subcatchments




(range 38-210 acres).  The sewer system was represented by 129 elements




as shown in Figure 5-1.  The total length of sewer lines modeled was




73,385 feet or approximately 32 percent of the total in the drainage




basin.



The four rain gages used in the study were:






                                                 Approximate Ground
Model No.
1
2
3
4
Name
Roosevelt
Heinz
Harrow Gate
Queen Lane
Elevation, ft.
300
140
80
220
The locations of the gages and the approximate areas where they were




applied are shown in Figure 5-2.  The cities rain gage network is de-




scribed in Ref. 3.






VERIFICATION RESULTS




Time and budget restrictions did not permit the measurement, sampling,




and correlation of dry weather flows, including estimates of industrial




discharges and infiltration.  The preliminary computed dry weather flow




based on census data and assumed uniform single-family residential




development is shown in Table 5-1.  These values had no allowance for




infiltration  or for industrial or commercial wastes and totaled only




about one-half the expected value based on prior Kingman Lake study.





                                   101

-------
:
                                                                                                               E
                                                                                          SCALE IN FEET
                                     Figure 5-1.   PLAN  OF WINGOHOCKING SYSTEM

-------
    r
          .*J~*
-
-


                                ROOSEVELT
"X^-vd-
         <
       /
  /
                                                             GAGE 2
                                                             HEINZ
                     >
                     \


                                                                        '
                          >
W

                                                   THE ISEN POLYGONS
                                                   USED FOR GAGE LIMITS
                                                                               6AGE
                                                                               HARROW GATE
                      \
                                                                                \
                                                       /-GAGE 4
                                                      /  QUEEN LANE
                                                                            2000    4CK30


                                                                            E IN FEET
                            Figure 5-2.  WINGOHOCKING RAIN GAGE LOCATIONS

-------
Table  5-1.    PRELIMINARY  DRY WEATHER FLOW  RESULTS
lUH I-

221
222
223
224
225
iff
2Jl
232
2J J
234
235


236
3*1
334
315
33fi
381
424
425
427
428


429
431
432
434
491
492
493
41*
4PUT

21
53
51
43
3 r
31
4i
51
57
65
6


09
104
106
100
96
11
19
98
100
96


98
94
79
109
31
31
31
71
OMF
CFS
0.37
0. 11
0.25
0.61
0.14
0.09
0.52
o.aa
0.22
0.60
0.36
SUBTOTALS
4.35
0.54
0.04
0.00
0.01
o.?o
0.08
0.06
o.o-s
0.17
0.32
SUBTOTALS
5.83
0.22
0.55
0.42
0.01
0.01
0.61
0.76
0.18
SUBTOTALS

495
4Sb
4>7
*>)<9
'Hit
510
511
512
513
514
516
5V I
592
543
594
5V5
596
599
600
602
433


too



85
8)
*)2
a->
i
5
9
1 3
21
29
23
77
77
67
ol
61
111
53
41
3i
85


77


8.57
0.41
0.46
0.14
0.38
'J.U4
0. 33
0.34
0.58
0.30
0.11
0. 30
0.-I6
0.15
0.49
0.15
0.40
0.06
0.04
0.00
0.01
0. 10
SUBTOTALS
14.77
0. 12
lUlAli
14.89
II1F1L
 CFS
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0,0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 o.n
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0
 0.0


 0.0



 0.0
oanwF KLASC
CFS
0.37 1
O.I I
0.25
0.61
0. 14
0.09
0.57
o.aa
0.22
0.60
0.36
) OWBJD
IBS/Ml*
0.27
0.08
0. 18
0.**
0.25
0.07
0.19
0. 64
0. 16
0. .*
0.26
DWSS
L3S/HM
0.29
0.0")
0.20
0.i,S
0.27
0.07
0.41
0. 70
0.17
3.48
0.28
                                         TOTP3P
                                        PERSONS
                                 BOOCUNC
                                   MS/I
                                SSCOMC
                                 MC/L
COLIFORMS
MPN/103ML
           4.35
 0.54
 0.04
 0.00
 0.01
 0.20
 0.08
 0.06
 0.06
 0.17
 0.32
           5.83
 0.22
 0.55
 0.42
 0.01
 0.01
 0.61
 0.76
 0.18
           e.5T
 0.41
 0.46
 0.
0.12
0.39
0.12
0.11
O.OS
0.33
0.33
0.00
0.38
                                                   59851.
                                                               193.
                                                                        211.
                                                                                 1.12E 08
                                                   72050.
                                                     193.
                                                                        211,
                                                                                 1.01F 08
                          30.98  L8S   31.83 IBS   10785*.
                                                    193.
                                                                        211.
                                                                                 I. Oil? 08
53.61 IBS  58.51 LBS   152701.


 0.11       3.12



54.18 LBS  57.19 LBS   152701.
                                                               194.
                                                               194.
                                  712.
                                                                        212.
                                           9.OIF  07
                                                                                       07
                               104

-------
The two storms modeled for Wingohocking were:






        Date                             Total Rainfall, in.




      July 3, 1967                              1.30




      August 3-4, 1967                          0.97






Measured flow data (depth of flow correlated to diversion weir) were




available for each storm.  In addition, quality results from composite




samples (not proportional to flow) were available for rough comparisons.






Combined Sewage Overflows - Quantity




Table 5-2 and Figure 5-3 show the rainfall hyetographs for the storm of




July 3, 1967.  The resulting runoff hydrograph at element 108 is com-




pared to the reported data in Figure 5-4.






Table 5-3 and Figures 5-5 and 5-6 show the same data for the storm of




August 3-4, 1967.  In the comparisons the computed data are higher and




of longer durations than the reported values.  This is probably because




the diversions to the DWF interceptor  (102-inch diameter, maximum




carrying capacity = 270 cfs) are not accounted for in the model.  The




interceptor receives flow not only from the Wingohocking basin but also




from an upstream  (60-inch diameter, maximum carrying capacity = 150 cfs)




DWF interceptor.  The actual diversion during storm events could there-




fore vary from 0 to 250 cfs depending upon the storm pattern.  At the




time of the demonstration the allowance for this diversion was beyond
                                   105

-------
                Table 5-2.   RAINFALL DATA STORM  OF  JULY 3,  1967
                 AREA. PHILADELPHIA PA.
           OF  JULY 3,  1967. NO GUTTERS
INLET NJMttER    1

NUMBER Of   TIME   STEPS   99
          4  TIME  INTERVAL (MINUTES)i    5.00

2i.O PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH

FOR    60 RAINFALL  STEPS, THE TIME INTERVAL IS    5.00 MINUTES

          ;e NUMBER    i   RAINFALL HISTORY is
0.0
0.12
0.84
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.0
FOR R4IN*AtE
0.12
0.24
l.5i
O.U
0.0
0.12
0.2*
FUR RAl.NGAliE
0.0
0.24
0.84
0.03
0.0
0.0
0.01
FOR RAlN.iA.iE
O.J
0.12
1.03
0.0
0.84
0.24
0.0
0. 12
0.12
C.48
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NUMBER
0.12
0. 12
0.24
0.0
0.60
0.0
0.24
NUMBER
0.0
0.24
0.24
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.24
NUMBER
0.12
0.12
0.48
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.36
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RAINFALL
0.12
0.0
1.20
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.12
RAINFALL
0.0
0.0
0.84
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RAINFALL
0.0
0.12
0.48
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.72
1.08
0.0
0.12
0.0
HI STORY
0.0
0.24
1.08
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.12
HISTORY
0.0
0.12
2.04
0.0
O.U
0.0
0.0
HI STORY
0.48
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.4B
0.0
0.0
2.28
0.0
0.0
0.0
IS
0.24
0.0
1.32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IS
0.60
0.12
1.20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IS
0.96
0.12
0.24
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
                                                     0.48
                                                     0.12
                                                     1.08
                                                     0.0
                                                     0.0
                                                     0.0
                                                     0.0
                                                     0.9S
                                                     0.12
                                                     0.72
                                                     0.0
                                                     0.12
                                                     0.0
                                                     0.0
                                                      1.08
                                                      0.12
                                                      0.24
                                                      0. 12
                                                      0.0
                                                      0.0
                                                      0.0
0.60
0.24
0.12
0.0
3.3
0.24
0.72
0.03
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.48
0.4 A
0.33
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.7,!
0.24
0.43
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.48
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.48
0.24
0.03
O.U
0.72
O.U
0.0
0.60
0.12
0.24
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.24
0.60
0.0
0.0
0.?4
0.24
1.BO
0.0
O.C13
0.24
0.0
0.48
0. 1>
0.24
0.48
0.12
0.0
0.03
2.04
0.24
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.12
1.80
0.0
0.12
0.24
0.0
                                             106

-------
                                        RAINFALL HrETOGRAPH
                                                                                     BASIN NO
                          2. SCO
                  RAINFALL


                     IN

                  IN / HR
O
-J






2.000 -









1.500









1.000









0.500































X
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
X'X
X X
X'*X
X'tX *
X' X'*
XX' *
X'tX' *
X'X' *
X'+X *
X' X *
X X' 
X* XX*"
X'* X*"
X ** *X * *
*
*
*
* *
* *





XX
XX*
XX*
XX'
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X *
X'X*'*
X'X*'*
*+
**
*
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
**
**
**
**
 
**
*
*


X'X*' 
X'X*' 
X'X*' 
X"X' '
Xf*X' 
X 'X1 
X 'X' 
X X' '
X *X'* *
X'+ X'* **'
X'* X '*
X'* XX** *
x* x* 
X x * '
*X'* *X* 
*X'  X* 
 *x*  XXX'*'
* *X* XXX" *








X
X
XX
*X XX
*XX XX
*XX XX
*XX XX*
*xxxx 
XXXX* "
XX* XX* I '
XX*XX  I
XX+XX* ' '
XXXX XXXX X '*  *
XXtX*X X X XX '* '*"
****X'* XX X'  * XXX*X* X X XX **!
XX* 'XXXXXXX X* X**XX*  *XXX XXX*>X'  X >X XX ' *
X X  t
O.o xx~ 1-
24.0 2* .a
*XX *XXX**X XX"X"'X' X XX  * 
**  I *-X*XXXXXi"X'-*XXXXX*'" 'XX'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKKX(X
-------
             FLOW-
              IN
             CFS
o
CD
3000.000 -
         I
         I
         I
         I
         I
         I
         I
         I
         I
2000.000 -
         I
         9
         I
         I
         I
         !
         I
         t
         I
         I
1000.000 -
                   0.0
                                 WINGOHOCKING AREA. PHILADELPHIA,  PA.
                                                                                                      108
                                      /-REPORTED
                                    E* !  *
                                    O|  o
                                    rl  fS rCOMPUTED  CORRECTED FOR
                                     Ln) DIVERSION TO DWF  INTERCEPTOR
                                                                 ******************************************
                                                                         12.0
                                                                            16.8
19.2
                                               TIME  IN HOURS
                              Figure 5-4.
                           WINGOHOCKING  COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
                           RESULTS  (QUANTITY)  - STORM OF JULY  3,  1967

-------
        Table 5-3.  RAINFALL DATA STORM  OF AUG.  3-4,  1967
f-ftf   lit B!HFAl.L tTEPSt THE TIMf INTCDVM. li  5.CO HlNUTFS
HP
                          HISTOPV is
0.0
c.o
1.0
o.t?
0.0
o.o
o.o
O.I?
fl.C
0.0
O.C
o.o
O.I2

oln
0.0
0.12
0.0
c.o
0.0
F(l* PA t SCARE
e.o
0.2*
O.C
0.0
c.o
o.o
C.?*
C.J*
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,12
0.1
c.c
0.12
C.I2
c.o
0.0
0.12
riM P* INC AGE
0.0
0,2*
0.0
c.o
0.0
c.a
o.o
C.36
c.o
0.0
r.o
0.0
0.0
c.o*
c.?*
0.12
c.o*
a. i
0.0
0.1?
fan PAinciGE
0.0
0."*
0.9
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.?*
O.I?
C.I?
o.o

do
0.0
Q.C6
0*2*
C.I?
O.I?
C.I?
c.a
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
C.I?
0.4
n.o
c.c
0.12
c.o
0.0
0.0
O.C
0.12
O.C
0.7*
0.12
0.?*
0.12
0.0
0.0
HUHBEf
0.0
Oil*
c.o
0.0
o.r
0.0
0.2*
0.2*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.12
o.z*
0.12
0.12
0.0
e.o
0.0
MJM8E
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.06
t.Ofl
0.06
c.o
0.0
P.O
0.0
o.o
C.?*
0.12
0.06
o.ot
0.0
0.1?
NUI-SE*
0.^6
o.o
O.C
0.0
o.o
0.0
1.20
0.12
0.0*
O.C
0.0
c.o
0.12
0.06
0,2*
0.13
0.06
c.o
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
C.60
n.o
0,*!
0.0
O.C
C. 2*
r.o
c.o
O.C
0.0
0.17
c.o
c.?*
p.;*
0. ft
O.J6
0.12

2 PIINfALL
0.0
C. 2*
0.0
C.O
r..o
c.o
C.l?
0.2*
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7*
C.I2
0.06
0.0
o.n

} PMNFALL
0.0
0.0
O.r
C.O
C.O
O.C
C.C6
0.6P
0.06
c.o
0.0
c.o
r.c
e.a
C.!?
C. 12
C.I*
C.I2
C.C

* PA1MFAU
0.1?
n.o
o.n
ft.C
0."
o.r.
C.T2
P.O
r.o
C.O
c.o
c.o
0.12
r.n
0.2*
0.12

-------
RAINFALL

   IN

!N./  HR
 ,000 -
      I
      I
      I
         2.000 -
         I
                          RAINFALL HVETOGRAPH
      I
      I
 .000 -
      I
      I   '
      I   '
      I   
      I*  '
      I*1
). 0    
-------
the scope of work.  For a rough approximation of this effect, however,

it was estimated as follows:


          Wingohocking Computed                     Estimated
       Flow Without Diversion, cfs               Diversion, cfs

                 0-500                              up to 200

               500-1,000                              150

             1,000-1,500                              100

                  >1,500                               50


Applying these diversion allowances to the computed results produced

the corrected curves shown in Figures 5-4 and 5-6.  These preliminary

results, while not exceptional, correlate well and, for design purposes,

would adequately define the storm event (i.e., peaks, volume, time of

occurrence).  A closer fit may have been obtained by comparing computed

with measured depths, since the cross-sectional area of the storm con-

duit is so great (21 by 24 feet) that minor depth changes make large

changes in flow.


It should be noted however that the final model provides for three types

of flow diversion:

     Type 18 - Diverts all surplus flow above a specified maximum.

     Type 21 - Special case of Type 18 for cunnette sections.

     Type 20 - Diverts a percentage of the surplus flow above a specified

               maximum according to a linear relationship  (such as a

               weir formula).

The use of these diversion models is discussed in Volume III.
                                  112

-------
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quality

Table  5-4  compares  the  computed quality results with the reported com-

posite  sample  results.  The computed quality results for BOD and sus-

pended  solids  for the storm of August  3-4 are shown in Figure 5-7.

The  curves  show how the removals in the first phase of the storm sub-

stantially  reduced  the net removals in the second phase.  Correlation

with the reported data is only fair possibly due to the low estimate

for  "dry days"  (3.0 days) used for each storm.


Receiving Waters

The  Frankford Creek-Delaware River receiving water system was modeled

by the  18-node system shown in Figure 5-8.  A tide condition was im-

posed at node 1 and the Wingohocking overflows were received at node

18.  For the July 3, 1967, storm, fresh water inflows were added as

follows:


                Node                        Inflow, cfs

                 2                              30.
                 4                            1000.
                13                              60.
                14                            4130.
                18                              70.


The computed stages at nodes 1,  10,  and 18 are shown in Figure 5-9 for

the day of the storm.  The storm flow can be seen superimposed on the

tide induced stage for node 18.   Although Frankford Creek is not tidal

up to the point of discharge,  this assumption was necessary to simplify

the modeling.  The computed flows and velocities in the Frankford Creek

channels are shown in Table 5-5  for  the day of the storm.   A total of
                                  113

-------
        Table 5-4.  WINGOHOCKING COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS - QUALITY COMPARISONS
                                 Reported
                           Composite Sample Values
                               Computed Values
                        Combined Overflow   Average DWF
Storm #1, July 3, 1967
5-Day BOD, mg/L
Suspended Solids, mg/L
Coliform, MPN/100 ml
      17.4
    7.2 x 10
                               1-38             194
      7-210            212
1 x 103-3 x 104      9 x 10'
Storm #2, August 3-4, 1967
5-Day BOD, mg/L
Suspended Solids, mg/L
Coliform, MPN/100 ml
     36-148
      1-15
1 x 107-1 x 108
      1-48             194
      9-581            212
4 x 103-7 x 104      9 x 10'

-------
     Ufl.eao -
     uo.cto
  BOB

  IN

iBS/XIH
      0.000
      o .co
                        WINGOHOCKING  AREA,  PHILADELPHIA,  PA.
                  4 *
                   *
                   *
                       BOD
          0. I
                                                                         .    10.
                          T IMC IN 4
      0.9
         O.I     1.2
i     1.3
 TIME IU HOUHS
            Figure 5-7.  WINGOHOCKING COMBINED  SEWER OVERFLOW
                           RESULTS  (QUALITY)  - STORM OF  AUGUST  3-4, 1967
                                         115

-------
T
                                                            WINGOHOCKING
                                                             STUDY AREA
                                  Figiire 5-8.  WINGOHOCKING RECEIVING  WATER SYSTEM

-------
         >  
                                 10
                    >     >
                                 18
Figure 5-9.  WINGOHOCKING RECEIVING WATER
             COMPUTED STAGES AT NODES 1,  10,  AND 18
                         117

-------
                   Table 5-5.  WINGOHOCKING  RECEIVING WATER FRANKFORD CREEK FLOWS AND VELOCITIES
                 DELAWARE  !?.1V?R RECEIViNG
       WINGOHOCK3MG  AREA    JULY 3t

       DAY  IS   2
             HOUR
            2't.CO
            25.00
            20.00
           27.CO
00           23-. 00
            29-00
            30.00
            31-00
            3-.?.. 00
            33.00
            3 A. CO
            35.00
            36.CO
            37.00
            36.00
            39.CC
            40.CO
            41.00
            42.00
            43.00
            4^.00
            45.00
            46.00
            '7. CO
            48. CO
            4-9. CO
CHANNEL
FLOW
(CFS)
-12276.
-1]265.
-illgS.
-IOCfeS>
        0.44
        0,45
-901,  -C.97
        2.4/*
        2.13
 -1544.
  -778.
  -226.
   258.
   457.
   325.
   -23.
  -439.
  -597;
  -542.
  -484.
  -40 1 .
  -233.
  -1.3S.
    70.
   467.
   655,
   511.
   20-2.
  -259.
       -0.30
        0.28
        O.38
        0.23
        0.02
       -0.31
        0.47
       -0.50
       -0.53
       -0.53
       -0.25
        0.12.
        0.54
        0.57
        0.36
        0.12
       -0.16
-622.  -C.42
-615.  -0.4fl
                CHANNEL 15  16
                   TLOVI  VEL.
                   (CFS)  CFPS)
 -339.
 -279.
 -720 .
-1752.
-1493.
 -683.
 T9S.
 330.
 -62.
-287.

-337.
-289-
-223.

-ua.
-139,
 11.3.
 329.
 230.
  58.
-'1.92.
309.
-384.
                           -0-67
                           -0.73
                           -2-2.4
                           4.32
3.02
2.15
0.03
0.43
0.22
0.10
  47
0.74
0.88
  05
  22
  29
  30
  1.6
        -0
        -1
        -I
        -1
        -1
        -I
         O.52
         0.79
         0-3?
         0.03
        -0.26
        0.60
        -0.75
CHANNEL
FLOW
fCFS
-?.?6.
-134.
-746.
-1540.
-1393.
-592.
-379.
-158.
67.
30.
-83.
-216.
-264.
-242.
-210.
-173.
-141.
-123.
-124.
-32.
153.
68.
-14.
-160.
-276.
-272.
16 17
VEL.
1 CFPS)
-0.55
-0,53
-2.27
-3.20
-3.06
-1 .86
-.1.52
-0.67
0.13,
C.06
-0.16
-0,44
-0.65
-0.77
-0.83
-0.95
-0.91
-0.82
-0.86
-0.14
0.46
0.!9
-0.03
-0.27
-0.53
-0.66
CHANNEL
FLOW
fCFS
-3 16.
-122.
-1003.
-12.4-5.
-1230.
-'( 82 .
-307.
-179.
-69.
-74.
-108.
-147.
-161.
-1 54.
-1 44 .
-1-33.
- ! 24 .
-120.
-1 ?0.
-11~3.
-38.
-57 .
-88.
-131.
-165.
-164.
17 18
VEL.
) (FPSJ
-0.37
-0.51
-3.19
-2.94
-3.03
-1 .76
-1.40
-0.99
-0.26
-0.21
-0.28
-0.40
-0.52
-0.64
-0.75
-0.85
-0.90
-0.90
-0.91
-0.83
-0.16
-O.lfa
-Ck.21
-0.30
-0. 42
-0.52

-------
3 days, starting 24 hours before the initial storm discharge,  were




simulated.






For the quality analyses, initial dissolved oxygen concentrations were




set to 0.5 mg/L on the day preceding the storm.  A quality integration




step of 1 hour was used, as opposed to the 3-minute integration step




necessary for the quantity computations.   The computed junction concen-




trations at the end of 2 hours {from the start of overflow), 10 hours,




and 20 hours are shown in Table 5-6.  As computed, the dissolved oxy-




gen in Frankford Creek was completely depleted after 5 hours,  and




maximum deficit in the Delaware due to the storm was 0.07 mg/L occurring




at node 10, 25 hours after the start of the storm.  Traces of coliforms




from the storm had reached all node points by the 25th nour.  Again it




should be noted that the effects are limited to this single storm and




single discharge.






CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED




Two corrective actions were modeled for the Wingohocking system, both




using the computed output of the storm of August 3-4, 1967:




     1.  In system storage using a simulated inflatable rubber dam




         across the mouth of the overflow conduit.




     2.  External storage with treatment by microstrainers.






In-System Storage



The concept of in-system storage is to create backwater impoundments in




the pipe system by installing a temporary dam partially blocking the




overflow.  It is hoped that this action will completely trap runoffs
                                  119

-------
Table  5-6.  WINGOHOCKING RECEIVING WATER  (QUALITY) RESULTS
DELAWARE RIVEP. RECEIVING WATER
W1NGOHQCKING AREA JULY 3i 1967
JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS, DURING TIME CYCLE
CONST ITUENT



1




1

JUNCTION
1 TO 10
i TO ia


JUNCTION
t TO 10
i ro is
I

O.CO
0.00
CONSTITUENT
1

0.0
O.O
2

0
0

2

9
0
CONSTITUENT



1




1

JUNCTION
1 TO 10
1 TO 18


JUNCTION
1 TO 10
1 TO 13
1

0.0
0.0
CONSTITUENT
1

O. 50
O.50
2

0
0
NUMBER


.00
.00
NUMBER


.0
.0
NUM6FR


.0
.0
NWA1BER
Z



0.50
0
.50
180D FROM
3

0.00
0.0
?SS FROM
3

0.0
r>.0
3 COL 1 FORM
3

O.O
O.O
480O FROM
3

O.SO
0.50
2 .QUALITY
TIDE AT MARCUS
CYCLE ?
HOOK
EPA STORMMA7ER MQOFL
RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
WlWGdHQCKlNG
4

0.00
0.0
WINGO
4

0.0
0.0
5

0.00
0.00

5

0.0
0.0
6

0.00
0.00

6

0.0
0.0
7

0.00
1.13

7

0.0
z.w
8

0.00
33.63

3

0.0
238.17
9 10

0. 00 0. 00


9 10

0.0 0.0

FROM WINGO
4

0.0
0.0
WINGCJHOCK
4

0.50
0.50
5

0.0
0.0
IN (DO)
5

0.50
0.50
6

0.0
0.0 "**

6

0.50
0.50
7

0.0
<;<>:#**:

7

0.50
0,49
&

0.0
*#*****

8

0.50
0.37
9 10

0.0 0.0


9 10

0.50 0.50


-------
  Table 5-6  (continued)
         DELAWARE RIVER RECEIVING WATER
                                            EPA  STORMWATFR MQOFL


                                            RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
WINGWCCMNG ARfA   JULY 3, 1967                             TIDE  AT MARCUS  HOOK


JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS, OURING TIME CYCLE    2  .QUALITY CYCLE   10



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
JUNCTION

to
1 TO
13 TO
10
18
0.00
0,11
O.OO
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
70.1)
0.00
106.50
o-oo
122.92
8 9

0.00 0.00
1?3. 0*
10

0.06

                CONSTITUENT NUMBER  2SS FROM WIWGO


1
2
3
A
5
6

JUNCTION
1 TO
11 TO
10
18
0.0
0.63
0.0
0-20
0.0
0.0?
0.0
0.00
0.0
1079'.65
0.
16*1.
0
8O
7 8

0.0 0.
19Z4.08 1937.


Q
78
9

0.0

                                                                                                           10
                CONSTITUENT NUMBER  3COLIFORM FROM WINCQ
                 1         2         3  '       4         5
   JUNCTION

  1 TO  TO       0.0       O.O       O.O
 11 T0  18 ****#*********#***********#**
                                           8
   0.0       0.0       0.0       O.O       0.0
6^^5.85*******^** ******************=************
9        10


0.0 **********
                CONSTITUENT NUMBER  4BOD PROM WINGOHOCKIN/DQ)



I
2_
3
4
5
6
7
8
JUNCTION
1
11
TO
TO
10
18
0.50
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
0.00
9 10

0.50 O.A9


-------
         rable  5-6 (continued)
                DELAWARE  RIVER RECEIVING WATER
E PA STORMWATER MODEL



RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
       WINGOHOCMNG AREA    JULY  3t  1967                            TIDE AT MARCUS HOOK




       JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS,  DURING TIME CYCLE   2 ,QUALITY CYCLE  20
to

JUNCTION
1 TO 10
11 TO 18


JUNCTION
I TO 10
11 TO 18


JUNCTION
I TO 10
1 2

0.00 0.00
0.57 0.16
CONSTITUENT NUMBER
1 Z

0.0 0.0
10.47 2.. 27
CONSTITUENT NUMBER
1 ?

0,0 0.0
3 4

0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
2SS FROM WINGO
3 4

0.00 0.00
0.13 C.CO
5

0.00
72.20

5

0.01
1149.3V
6

o.oo
107.15

6

0.06
1702.23
7

0.02
120.86

7

0.34
1937.76
8

0.11
119.96

8

I. 56
1937.78
9 10

0.36 0.85


9 10

5.48 13.43

3.COLIFQRM FROM WINGO
3 4

5

6

7

8

9 10

967. 97 1 47 ft 0 3. O668.92 84 5. 00 **************************************************
11 TO 18 *******x-#*********:*i:********** 831874. 13****************************************


JUNCTION
I TO 10
11 TO 18
CONSTITUENT NUM86R
1 ' Z

0.50 0.50
0.46 0.49
4800 FROM WINGOHQCKINCno)
3 4

0.50 P. SO
0.50 0.50
5

0.50
0.00
f>

0.50
0.00
7

0.50
0.00
g

0.49
0.00
9 10

0.47 0.44


-------
from small storms, until they can be treated at the DWF treatment




facility, and reduce overflows from large storms.






For Wingohocking, a dam height of 10 ft above the sewer invert was




selected for the simulation.  The plan areas of the storage basin thus




created were then estimated at 2 ft-increments of depth to provide




necessary data for the storage model.  The resulting variation of the




stage  (depth) in the conduit is shown in Figure 5-10 assuming that no_




flow was diverted to the DWF interceptor.  With no diversion the total




volume overflowing was 10.9 million cubic feet or 92 percent of the




arriving flow.  However, had the DWF interceptor been capable of accept-




ing 100 cfs throughout the storm, an additional 3.0 million cubic feet




would have been diverted, reducing the overflow to 66 percent.  Thus




in order for in-system dams to be effective for large storms there must




be substantial available capacity in the DWF interceptor.   On the other




hand, the percentage of diverted flow increases as the size of the




storm decreases.  The greater frequency of the smaller storms forms a




significant basis of appeal of this type of impoundment.






External Storage With Treatment




To test the feasibility of linking in-system storage (of the type just




described)  with a pumped outflow to treatment, the following system




was devised.




     1.  The storage chamber was held to the dimensions of the existing




         conduit except that the simulated dam crest was raised to




         20 feet in an attempt to contain the entire storm.
                                 123

-------
                INGOHOCKINO  AREA.  P H I L A 0 E L P H I A , P A .
   too o.ooo
   1600.000
  1200,000
FLOW

  N

C F 8
   400.000
      0,O
         O.I
                       2,2     3.3     4.4

                         TIME IN HOURS

                                                    6,5     7.6     1.7     9.S
15 0 r
100 -
                                                                       :ROWN EL
                                                                      22.0 FT
TEST t
WEIR EL 20.0FT
00 CFS PUMPED OUTFLOW
PUMP START EL 10.0 FT
PUMP STOP EL 10 FT
                             4       S
                            TIME IN  HOURS
          Figure  5-10.   WINGOHOCKING STAGES IN STORAGE BASIN
                            STORM OF AUGUST 3-4,  1967
                                        124

-------
     2.  Several discharge pumping rates and settings were tested with



         the final selection of 600 cfs effluent pumps,  starting at




         elevation 10.0 ft  and stopping at elevation 5.0 ft.




     3.  This inflow set the treatment unit module size  to 450.0 mgd




         as shown in Table 5-7.  Microstrainers and mechanically




         cleaned bar racks were selected for the treatment units.






The resulting stages in the storage chamber and pump operation cycles




are shown in Figure 5-10.  The summaries of computed treatment effect-




iveness and costs are given in Tables 5-8 and 5-9 respectively.  It




appears that a more economical solution would be to supplement the in-




system storage and reduce the number of treatment units.
                                 125

-------
                                              Table  5-7 .   WINGOHOCKING  BASIS OF DESIGN
                  DESIGN STORM USED.  TREATMENT CAPACITY HILL 6F SELECTED TO SUIT.

                            DESIGN FLOHRATE -    632.3* CFS.
                                 l 0.500 TIMES MAXIMUM ARRIVAL PATE OF   1264.67 CFS. 
                            TREATMENT SYSTEM JNXLUPFS MODULE UNITS
                                 DESIGN FLOW is THEREFORE INCREASED TO NFXT LARGEST MOOULF  SIZE
                                 AnJUSTfD DESIGN FLOWRATE     6<>6.15 CFS.. "    *53.00 MOD.
                                 IKWOO - IB)
                                 CIIARACTFPISTICS OF STORAGE UNIT ARE
                                      UUTLF.T TYPE    6
                                      STORAGE Mnne   i
                                      STORAGE TYPF   1
                                 IPOL * I, PRINT CONTROL IISPRIN! . 1
                                 NATURAL RFSFRVniH, WITH MAX. DEPTH   20.00 FT.            11 DFPTH/AREA PARAMETERS ARE
                                      OFPTHtFTI AftEA(SQ.FT)    DFPTH(FT) APEAJSQ.FTI    PEPTH(FT)  AREA  AREACSQ.FTI
                                          0.00        0.           2.00    JI<20.           *.0(1     57600.            6.00    82SOO.
                                          B.OO   1U*0.          10,00   176000.           12.00    138000.           14.00   1550*0.
                                         If..00   168T?0.          Ifl.OC   1H5780.           21.00    185260.
H                                RESERVOIR OUTFLOW BY FIXED-RATE PUMPING
(O                                PUMPING RAT-f  600.00 f.FS, PUMPING START DEPTH -  13.00 FT, PUMPING  STOP DEPTH  -  5.00 FT
&                                D"=PTH(FTI SrO STORICU.FTI
                                    O.CO         0.          2.00      J10ZO.           *.00    l?l**0.           6.00    2618*0.
                                    p.00    456<.0.         10.00    ^''.^?0.          12.00    9SS120.          1.00   1251360.
                                   H.fO   1S7M70.         1C.00   1
-------
                           Table  5-8.  WINGOHOCKING SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
N)
vj
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
TOTALS FLOW (H.G.) BOO (LBI SS (LB) COLIF 
-------
                                  Table 5-9.  WINGOHOCKING SUMMARY OF  TREATMENT COSTS
Kl
03
COST





UNIT

INTJUFST PATf
AWOfTIJEATfCN
CAP. pfcnvcuv
VEA* Of SI Hilt
SITE tncAtrroN
CCSTS . .

T.OO 1-MCfwT
PF*IOt> 7^ VEASS
FACTQt O.OB54
AT ION 14TO
FACTO" 1.H5?








LAND  70000.00 /ACPf




POwCR 
CHLORINE 
ALUM 

TMATHCNT LfVCt
BAH PACK
NO INLCT PU
STOPAGf
mC*OSf*At
NO fML. $f
OUTLET MJ
NO CONTACT



S 1
HP INC 7
J
NE*$ *
ftCCNS *
PING *
TANK T
SUMTOfA
TOTAL
TOTAL 
0.070 /.IAINT CHI
l70IM-. Hv. 1PJU6. 15*. 120tT.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1*56*)*. 106)16. 17*T1. T***. K56..
10)0*MO. tC<>04. *Hit7. 15<-1. 7041)6.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
ZlTMOOi. IJTO. 7CKO*. 40. *T>60.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
i M5U7-.00. * 16C5U.  tlU4l.  117 J6. 1 ZW7T7. 
t li*0)*70. t 160(04$.
l
Tftlft ACRE t 2IS). 1 746.



STn** FVFNT COSTS
OHlNf CHf< Illnf"
0. 0. f>.
o. o. o.
0. 0. 140.

-------
   SECTION 6





ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
       129

-------
                               SECTION 6




                            ACKNOWLEDGMENTS






The consortium is deeply indebted to the following persons and their




organizations for the services they rendered to the project group in the




development, demonstration, and verification of the EPA Storm Water




Management Model:




     1.  Mr. William A. Posenkranz, Chief, and Mr. Darwin R. Wright,




         Project Officer, of the Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution




         Control Branch of the Environmental Protection Agency,




         Washington, D.C., for their generous assistance and guidance.




     2.  Mr. Alan O. Friedland, Chief, Mr. Harold C. Coffee, Jr., and




         Mr. Robert T. Cockburn of the Division of Sanitary Engineering,




         City of San Francisco, and Mr. T. G. Shea of Engineering-




         Science, Inc., for furnishing data on the Baker and Selby




         Street systems.




     3.  Dr. Louis M. Laushey and Dr. Herbert C. Preul of the Civil




         Engineering Department of the University of Cincinnati and the




         graduate student project group coordinated by Abdul S. Rashidi




         for providing necessary data on the Bloody Run drainage basin,




         Cincinnai, Ohio.




     4.  Mr. George A. Moorehead, Chief of Systems and Planning,




         Department of Sanitary Engineering, District of Columbia, and




         Mr. Michael S. Neijna of Roy F. Weston, Inc., for furnishing




         data on the Kingman Lake study area.




     5.  Mr. Joseph V. Radziul, Chief, and Mr. William L. Greene of the




         Research and Development Unit of the City of Philadelphia Water





                                   131

-------
         Department for furnishing data on the Wingohocking and Callowhill




         study areas.






The  consortium management and the project work of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,




were under the direction of Mr. Dean F. Coburn, Senior Vice President,




and  Mr. John A. Lager, Project Manager and Principal Investigator.




Other key personnel of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., were Drs. Byrne Perry,




George Tchobanoglous, and E. John Finnemore, and Messrs. William G.




Smith, Dennis A. Sandretto, Charles D. Tonkin, and Ferdinand K. Chen.




Particular acknowledgment is given to Mr. Allen J. Burdoin, staff con-




sultant, for his worthy contributions to the theoretical development of




the  surface quality and treatment models.






The project work of the Department of Environmental Engineering of the




University of Florida was directed by Dr. Edwin E. Pyatt, Chairman and




Principal Investigator, and Mr. Larry W. Russell, Senior Research




Assistant.   Other key personnel for the University of Florida were




Drs. Wayne C. Huber and James P.  Heaney, and Messrs. Ralph A.  Aleutian




and B. James Carter.   Dr.  John C. Schaake,  Jr.,  consultant,  provided




valuable assistance in the development of the Transport Model.






The project work of Water Resources Engineers, Inc., was directed by




Drs. Gerald T. Orlob,  President,  and Robert P. Shubinski, Principal




Engineer and Project Leader.   Other key personnel for Water Resources




Engineers were Mr.  Marvin R.  Lindorf,  Vice  President, Drs. Ian King and




Carl W.  Chen, and Mr.  John R.  Monser.
                                   132

-------
SECTION 7




REFERENCES
    133

-------
                              SECTION 7

                              REFERENCES
Introduction (Section 1)

     1.  Engineering-Science, Inc., "Characterization and Treatment
         of Combined Sewer Overflows."
San Francisco (Section 2)

     1.  Engineering-Science, Inc., "Characterization and Treatment
         of Combined Sewer Overflows."

     2.  Engineering-Science, Inc., Progress Reports to the City of
         San Francisco upon "Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows
         by the Dissolved Air Flotation  Process," February 1969 to
         January 1970.

     3.  U.S. Department of Commerce,  Census Tract Data, 1960.
Washington, D.C. (Section 4)

     1.  Roy F. Weston, Inc., "Preliminary Draft Conceptual Engineering
         Report, Kingman Lake Project," Federal Water Quality Adminis-
         tration, Contract No. 14-12-829, May 1970.

     2.  Metcalf & Eddy,. Inc., "Report to District of Columbia upon
         Investigation of Sewerage System," June 1955.

     3.  Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., "Report to District of Columbia upon
         Development Plan for the Water Pollution Control Plant with
         Implementation Program for 1969-1972," February 1969.


Philadelphia (Section 5)

     1.  American Society of Civil Engineers, "Technical Memorandum
         No. 10, Sewered Drainage Catchments in  Major Cities," New
         York, March 1969.
                                   135

-------
Philadelphia (Section 5)  continued

    2.  Guarino, Carmen P., Radziul, Joseph V., and Greene, William L.,
        "Combined Sewer Considerations by Philadelphia." Journal_of_the_
        Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American
        Society of Engineers, Vol. 96, Ho. SA1, February 1970.

    3.  American Society of Civil Engineers, "Technical Keaorandvaa
        No. 9,  Raingage Networks in the Largest Cities," New York,
        Harch 1969.
                                   136

-------
  SECTION 8





ABBREVIATIONS
        137

-------
                               SECTION  8
                            ABBREVIATIONS
JCL  -    job control language




DWF  -    dry weather flow




BOD  -    biochemical oxygen demand




SS   -    suspended solids




cfs  -    cubic feet per second




mg/L -    milligrams per liter
                                  139

-------
                              SECTION 9




                              APPENDIX A




                                                                Page




SAN FRANCISCO, Baker Street Input Data                          143




CINCINNATI, Bloody Run Input Data                               147




WASHINGTON, D.C., Kingman Lake Input Data                       152




PHILADELPHIA, Wingohocking Input Data                           166
                                 141

-------
                   SAN FRANCISCO, BAKER STREET INPUT DATA
BAKER STREET           SAN FRANSICO,  CAU
    I     187.0                             1
DEC. I9/ 1969  AVERAGE=2.51
    0  10  10   11
    I   2   3    4  13
WATERSHED
 BAKER  STREET  (SAN FR ANCISCOJ  16  SUU-AH.EA SYSTEM
    STORM OF 19  DEC 1969  AT SF  FOB  GAGE.  NU  &JTTEK.S.
1
96
.02
.02
.15
.62
.*)<
.73
.22
.22
.19
.04
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
1
9
3
1
40
17


1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
1
1
150
5.00
.02
.02
.15
.62
.54
.73
.22
.22
.19
.04
1
3
^
7
9
11
19
21
23
25
29
31
33
36
3d
40

3
5
7


lo
.25
1.
1
3
5
7
9
11
19
21
23
25
29
31
33
J3
30
38
40
2300
.02
.15
.15
.62
.54
.73
.22
.19
.19
.04
1
3
5
7
9
11
19
21
23
25
29
31
33
36
38
40

5

9


5.


2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
5.
.02
. 15
.15
.62
.54
.73
.22
.19
.19
.04
300.
300.
150.
300.
300.
200.
460.
350.
900 .
330.
340.
4dO .
870.
1.
880.
520.

7

21


23
7.
100.

















1
.02
.15
.62
.62
.54
.73
.22
.19
.04
.04
13.23
12.93
6.56
d. 13
12.60
a. 02
12.03
8. 3b
15.00
12. H6
J.32
12.35
24. 52
0.05
13.93
12.79

9

23


00
2

13.23
12.93
6.56
8. 13
12.60
8.02
12.03
8.3B
15.0C
12.86
9.32
12.35
20. b?
3.65
C.OO
13.93
12.79

.02
.15
.62
.62
.54
.73
.22
.19
.Ot
.04
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
bO.
60.
60.
60.
oO.
60.
60.
60.

11

29


150

150.


















.02 .02 .02
.15 .15 .15
.62 .62 .62
.54 .54 .54
.54 .54 .73
.73 .73 .73
.22 .22 .22
.19 .19 .19
.04 .04 .04

.035
.030
.061
.067
.081
.134
.lob
.121
.043
.033
.200
.088
.055
.000
.0041
.0034

19 21 23

33 38 40


0


4720.
5620.
4740.
3100.
5320.
4560.
4640.
3500.
6220.
4740,
3800.
4920.
9800.
2000.
0.
6240.
6040.

.02
.15
.62
.54
.73
.73
.22
. 19
.04


















2
























                                                        29   31   33   36   33    40
                                      143

-------
TRANSPORT
0
1 BAKER ST
39 150
300.
1 0
1 0
2 1
3 2
4 3
5 4
0 5
7 0
8 7
9 S
10 9
11 10
12 11
13 12
.14 13
15 14
Lt> 15
17 Ib
Ib 17
IV Id
20 19
21 20
22 21
23 22

-------
   5   92

   6  112
     I
  10

  11
 12 232
    I
 I* 252

 16 292

 17 312
 13  332
     I
 Id  364
     1
 19  382
     1
 20  402
     1
GRAPH
   27     1    2
  GRAPH OF  THE  TRANSPORT  OUTPUT  TAPE
          TIME  IN  HOURS
  FLUW      IN      CfS
ENUPKOGAAM
12. oO 40.0 162. 2.8225.00 1.84

 8.02 40.0 103. 2.U225.00 1.42

12.03 36. C 175. 2.2825.00 4.62

 8.36 J7.0 130. 2.3225.00 2.29

15.00 38.0 248. 2.1025.00 4.73

12.86 35..0 164. 2.3825.00 5.85

 9.32 35.0 119. 2.3825.00 5.05

12.35 38.0 I9tt. 2.1425.00 3.05

24.52 94.0 490. 2.0225.00 3.46
                                                  8.89

                                                  6,89

                                                 15.05

                                                 10.49

                                                  8.95

                                                 18.28

                                                 18.28

                                                  9.94

                                                  a. 75
      0.   0.   0.   0.25.00    Q.  1.50  100.  120.    0.

   13.93 54.0 350. 1.9625.00 2.00                 9.31

   12.79 54.0 3!>0. 1.9625.00 1.56                 9.31
BAKER STREET
    I     187.0
DEC. 19,  1969  AVERAGE:
   11  12
    1   2   3   4  13
STORAGE
SAN FRANSICO, CAL

2.51
40
3
01 12
2
37.0
0 0
23 00
7.0
1314
1570
2COOO.
01 12
2
37.0
1 1
23 00
7.0
1314
1570
2CCOO.

0.0
21 32
1

5000.0

25
1346
1602
0.02
21 32
1

5000.0

25
1346
1602
0.02


41 51
1

15.0

1970
1378
1634
0.20
41 51
1

15.0

1970
1378
1634
0.20


61 71
1

10.0

1.1452
1410

1.25
61 71
1

10.0

1.1452
1410

1.25








1442

0.03






1442

0.03
                                                        1474
                                            1506
                                                   1538
                                                       1474
                                            1506
                                                                            1538.
                                     145

-------
0? 12
2
37.0
1 2
2
9.5
4<*000.
37.
0.
15.
15.
1 I
23 00
7.
1314
1570
20000.
STORAGE
40
1
02 12
2
37.
1 2
2
9.5
49000.
37.
0.
15.
15.
23 00
7,
1314
1570
2COOO.
STORAGE
40
1
01 12
2
37.
1 2
2
9.5
49000 .
37.
0.
15.
15.
1 1
23 00
7.
1314
1570
20000.
ENUPKLiGAAM
22 32
1

6
1

785.
5.
0.


5000.

25
1346
1602
0.02


0.
21 35
1

6
1

785.
5.
0.



25
1346
1602
0.02


0.
22 32
I

6
1

785.

0.


5000.

25
1346
1602
0.02

41 51
1




0.0
0.0



15.

1970
1378
1634
0.20



41 51
1




0.
0.15




1970
1378
1634
0.20



41 51
1




0.




15.

1970
1378
1634
0.20

61 71
1









10.

1.1452
1410 1442 1474

1.25 0.03

TRAM. OUT. BAKER2 ON SYS04

62 71
1










1.1452
1410 1442 1474

1.25 0.03

TREAT, OUT, BAKER2 ON SYS

61 71
1









10.

1.1452
1410 1442 1474

1.25 0.03

                          1506
1538
                          1506
                                    1538
                          1506
1538
146

-------
CINCINNATI, BLOODY  RUN INPUT  DATA
CINCINNATI BLOODY RUN SEWEP SYSTEM
    1     2380.      0.00    0
 MAY 12, 1970      1.80
   C   8   8   9   910
   1   2   3   4  13
WATERSHED
 BLOODY RUN WATERSHED, CINCINNATI
 STORM OF MAY 12, 1970
   38   50 0730  5.0    1  25.
   40  5.0
                 STORM  1
                 0.0    1
0.0
      10  11  11   12  12  14
                  COMBINED SEWF* SYSTFM
                  FWOA STOHMWATER MOOFl
.000
1.27 1
.61
.OC5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
38
1
45
114
0
C
71


.080
.03 1
.40
.005
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

9
51
97
0
0
38
15.
1.
.430 .77 1.15 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 I
.03 1.03 1.03 .80 .30 .61 .61
.40 .21 .21 .21 .21 .21 .005

11530.176.0 33.7.0310
91138. 68.6 29.7.0545
151262. 73.2 43.5.0545
1741 1?. 59.0 ?4.7.03?0
191558. 38.0 36.8.1120
21 970. 33.4 38.9.1050
25 481. 69.0 73.3.0450
271701. 53.7 56.8.0940
312389.250.2 51.9.0393
332625. 45,2 58.5.0200
351487. 38.4 81.4.0430
372591. 81 .8 54.5.0320
391523. 49.8 10.8.0500
41 3flO. ?0.2 34.7.0350
112116*. 72.0 45.6.0370
435515.116.0 45.6.0375
451593. 91 .2 64.5.0233
108 B30. 14.3 5.0.0400
512053. 58.9 39. B. 0220
531646. 42.5 39.7.0150
57179R. 36.1 42.3.04?0
591545. 39.9 46.4.0250
613571. 87.1 60.8.0570
652461. 88.3 38.7.0630
71 839. 30.1 43.6.0830
751310. 29.9 71.7.0640
771072. 21.9 56. 4. 0590
872335. 60.3 48.7.0430
892091. 48.0 39.9.0360
911954. 50.6 29.7.0660
931243. 66.0 5.0.0495
95 904. 54.0 4.9.0250
114 725. 25.0 16.8.0270
97 896. 54.0 .10.9.0Z35
116 838. 62.5 39.5.0125
1017600.122.0 49.7.0659
1051138. 49.0 33.8.0710
109 210. 3.6 95.0.0400

15 17 19 21 25 27 31
53 108 57 59 61 65 71
116 101 105 109

0
5.0 07 30 50 0
14. I
125. 100.
.27
.610
.005

.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
,01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01

33 35 37
75 77 87








.01
,01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
 01
.01
.01
.01
.01

.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
,01
.01
.01
.01
.01

39
89








.00113
.00113
.30113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.30113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.C0113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.ooin
.00113
.ooli?
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.3011?

41 43 112
91 93 95






                 147

-------
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
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
46
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
bO
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
I
1
1
9
9
15
15
17
17
19
21
21
25
27
27
31
31
33
33
35
35
35
37
39
39
41
41
112
112
43
43
45
45
45
108
109
51
53
57
57
57
59
51
61
61
61
65
65
71
71
75
77
77
87
87
87
89
91
91
93
95
114
97
97
116
101
1
5
3
1
5
1
3
3
I
I
\
5
1
4
2
3
I
1
2
3
2
1
1
5
3
2
3
5
3
I
3
3
5
2
5
3
1
I
1
5
3
?
5
1
3
2
2
I
5
4
4
2
I
1
5
4
1
5
1
5
5
5
5
1
1
2
105.6
52. B
17.6
34.3
34.3
59.6
14,6
14.8
44.2
3H.O
20.0
13,4
69.0
43.0
10.7
37.5
212.7
21.1
18.1
23.0
11.6
3,3
81.8
37.4
12.4
13.5
7.3
43.2
28.8
5a.o
58.0
36.7
Z7.5
27.5
H3
3.6
58.9
42.5
10.8
14.5
10.8
29.9
10.0
21 .8
47.9
17.4
2?. I
66.2
10.5
19.6
29.9
10.9
11.0
36.1
12.1
12.1
44.0
an, 4
?0.2
66.0
54.0
25.0
40.1
10.0
62.5
24.4
454.
1.
47.
147.
1.
252.
33.
39.
190.
164.
36.
1.
180.
43.
46.
98.
916.
117.
76.
60.
50.
16.
352.
1.
32.
5S.
19.
1.
75.
250.
151.
96.
1.
108.
1.
9.
254.
183.
46.
1.
28.
129.
1.
94.
125.
75.
95.
285.
1.
20.
30.
47.
47.
155.
1.
12.
211.
U
87.
1.
1.
1.
1.
4.3.
269.
105.
148

-------
68 ICl
69 101
70 101
71 105
72 105
TRANSPORT
1
117

1
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
50
51
52
53
54
55
5
1
3
5
4

24.4
54.9
18.3
24,5
24.5
CINCINNATI'S
50
300.
I
0
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
0
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
0
23
?6
29
30
31
0
27
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
43
44 1
45
46
47
110 1
49
50
51
0
53
0
55
56



0
0
0
0
6
0
C
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
25
0
0
0
28
C
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
0
c
0
42
0
13
0
66
C
11
0
52
0
0
c
0
0
53
33
.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0001
1
16
1
16
I
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
I
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
2
16
?
16
2
16
2
16
2
16
9
16
9
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
I
16
1
16
5

0

394.

689.

380.

467.

319.

345.

577.

462.

142B.

1641.

43?.

149.

1238.

750.

700.

700.

900.

438.

1473.

350.

1673.

1433.

595.

291.

231.

76.

698.


1.
236.
48.
1.
25.



BLOODY RUN WATFRSHEDi TRANSPORT
5
15.


0

3

4

0

4

3

0

7

5

0

0

7

5

0

0

0

0

3

6

0

I

4

4

2

0

0

7

0



4.5

4.5

4.0

4.0

5.5

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.5

7.0

5.0

7.5

5.0

5.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

9.0

9.0

8.63

8.63

B.O

4.5

3.5

3.0

6.5

3 4



2.60

2.30

2.20

2.60

1.40

0.90

1.00

1.40

i.ao

1.25

1.10

I. 00

1.30

l.?0

1.00

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.40

0.40

0.30

0.28

0.60

1.30

2.40

3.40

0.90





.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

 015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.016

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015



































10.0

10.0

10.0

11.0

11.0















149

-------
56 57
57 0
58 59
59 60
60 61
61 62
62 63
63 64
64 65
65 0
66 67
67 68
68 69
69 70
70 71
71 72
72 73
73 74
74 75
75 76
76 77
77 78
78 79
79 80
80 81
81 82
82 83
fl3 84
84 85
85 86
86 67
87 0
38 89
89 90
90 91
91 0
92 41
93 92
94 95
95 0
96 93
97 96 1
98 97
C
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
G
88
0
C
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
94
c
c
0
15
0
99 98 100
100 101
101 0
102 99
103 102
104 103
105 104
1C6 105
107 106
108 54
109 48
110 109
111 108
112 0
113 112
114 0
115 114
116 0
117 116
109 108
51
109 108
2550.
0
0
c
c
0
c
0
0
0
c
c
0
c
c
0
0
c
0




0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
117
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45

41
0.0
1
16
I
16
I
16
1
16
1
16
I
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
I
16
1
16
12
16
I
16
12
16
12
16
1
16
12
16
12
16
12
16
16
16
I
I
16
1
16
1
16
1
41

45

209.3

46?. 8

1086.0

463.4

475.5

1251.9

930.4

365.0

404.7

800.2

481.0

354.4

253.6

389.4

342.0

325.9

R58.0

1700.0

2190.0

170.0

775.0

495.0

706.5

500.0

1556.0

334.0



1,0
1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0
107

107
0.0
3.5

6.5

5.5

5.0

4.5

6.5

6*0

5.5

5.5

5.5

4.0

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.75

2.25

4.00

3.5

9.25

40

9.25

9.25

4.5

9.25

9.25

9.25



8.0
8.0

8.0

1.0

8.0




2.10

o.ao

1.30

1.50

1.50

0.86

I. 00

1.90

2.30

I. 10

1.57

2.18

5.70

1.42

1.67

1.65

?. 10

1.50

0.28

0.90

0.32

0.32

0.50

0.32

0.34

0.34



2. CO
2.00

2.00

2.00

2.00




.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015





.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015

.015















                                                      15.0          23.125



                                                      15.0          23.125

                                                      15.0          23.125



                                                      15.0          23.125

                                                      15.0          23.125

                                                      15.0          23.125
316   2550.
  0    0   39  208   55B  86?   915  70  6
-------
0.96
1.00
1.00
0.74
1.42
1.21
0.85
0.77
1.14
1.05
1.03
1.16
1.10
1.37
0.96
24 2
I 591
2 511
3 751
31 755
4 452
41 453
4? 454
5 431
51 432
J>2 433
53 435
6 1*5
61 151
(,? 157
7 211
8 274
9 331
10 415
101 411
102 412
103 413
11 975
111 971
121054
GRAPH
9 1
1.
1.
1.
C.
1.
1.
G.
1.
0.
1.
C.
0.
0.
1 .
1.
3

























0
08
00
CO
67
19
23
71
57
99
05
91
94
64
49
18
2

























5
1 .05
I .00
1.00
0.63
1.20
I. 75
0.60
1.0?
1.45
1.10
0.66
1 .33
0.45
1.30
0.84
0 0
259.3
101 .4
160.7
50.0
50.0
41.8
30.0
50.0
20.0
50.0
Bfl.8
100. 0
150.0
67.8
130.4
122.7
295.4
50.0
90.0
18.0
11.0
195.1
184.5
49.0


















10.
20.
10.
I.
25.


20.
25.



20.
25.
20.

20.

22.
30.


20.



0.90
l.CO
1.00
0.59
1.15
!.?!
0.41
0.87
1.16
0.50
0.63
1,22
0.87
1.12
I. 01



























1.04
1.00
1.00
0.54
1.17
1.17
0.46
0.91
1.55
0.66
0.04
1.44
0.54
0.89
2.B2
50.000










































25.
15.
15.

25.


10.
10.



40.
30.
10.

10.

15.
40.


20.



1.00
1.00
1.00
0.56
1.11
1.15
0.40
0.94
1.29
1.33
0.94
1.10
0.4B
0.5B
1.77






.2 200.
.2 300.


.3 200.





2.01000.




.2 180.


.4 300.


0.97
1.00
l.CO
0.67
I. OH
0.88
0.72
1.07
C.99
1.10
1.05
0,88
1.29
0.45
0.84






200.
300.


200.





ROD.




2CO.


400.


















10.
7.
8.

10.


7.
7.



15.
12.
8.

8.

9.
15.


10.






0.96
1.15
i .07
0.87
1.07
1.60
C.U8
1 .05
1.05
1.18
0.67
0.71

1
I




1













1


1


  108  109
Q - CFS BOD
ENDPPOCRAM
45   41  107
GRAPHS  OF  CINCINNATI'S  BLOODY  RUN
                 TIME   IN   HOURS
      #/MIN
                                                    WATERSHED
                                     151

-------
                WASHINGTON,  D.C., KINGMAN  LAKE INPUT DATA
KINGMAN LAKE WASHINGTONi
2 4060.0 27.8
JULY 20 1969
JULY 22 1969
AUG. 20 1969
0 8 8 9 8 10
1 2 3 4 13
D.C.
15
1,04
3.20
0.64


                                  6600.0
                                   4000.00
WATERSHED
     KINGMAN LAKE DISTRICT,  WASHINGTON DC
     STORM OF JULY 22  1969.  NO GUTTERS
    1   95 17CO   5.     2
   64   5.
 0.00 0.00 0
 0.00 0.00 0
60 0.48 2.16  0.00  0.24 0.72  0.36 0.36
00 0.00 0.00  0.00  0.00 0.00  0.00 0.00
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0




























.96
.CO
.00
.20
.00
.00
.60
.36
.40
.12
.84
.00
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
c




























.44
.60
.12
.96
.00
.00
.60
.24
.20
.12
.36
.00
I
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0




























.72 1.21
.20 0.24
.12 0.12
.24 0.12
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.60 0.24
.08 1.08
.40 1.60
.00 0.12
.CO 0.12
.00 0.12
1 300.
318CO.
51200.
71800.
916CO.
111300.
13 600.
151100.
171800.
191300.
21 700.
23 750.
2513CO.
27 200.
291200.
31 600.
33 600.
35 400.
371400.
39 400.
41 750.
43 600.
45 950.
47 800.
49 550.
5115CO.
53 800.
551900.
0.
0.
0.
0.

0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.

20
140
94
98
73
183
13
20
116
74
43
36
79
23
136
36
12
36
156
39
150
101
75
41
32
79
49
78
36
36
60
12

00
48
24
20
12
00

.7
.1
.1
.1
.5
.0
.8
.2
.2
.2
.5
.4
.2
.4
.3
.0
.3
.9
.8
.9
.4
.4
.2
.2
.3
.6
.3
.3
0.72

0.60
1.20
0.24

0.00




0.24
0.00
0.84
0.00
0.12

40.
40.
80.
60.
85.
70.
90.
90.
90.
85.
90.
80.
90.
90.
40.
90.
90.
80.
40.
30.
40.
60.
90.
90.
90.
85.
90.
90.





0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.48
0.60
1.80
0.12

2.04
0.60
0.24
C.96
0. 12
0.12

.070
.070
.070
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.070
.050
.020
.020
.070
.050
i070
.050
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
1.20 1.20 2.40
0.48 0.24 0.12
1.80 1.20 1.20
0.00 0.00 0.00

0.36 0.30 0.30
0.24 0.36 0.36
0.96 1.20 2.40
0.60 0.60 0.12
0.00 1.08 0.60
0.12 0.00 0.12





























                                       152

-------
2
2
2
2
?
?
2
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
53
1
33
65
108
5
3
1
116
57


1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
A3
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
73
75
77
81
67
93
95
97
93
100
102
1C4
106
108
110
112
II*
116

3
35
67
110
2
25
1

53
11.0
1.5
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
571200. 78.2
59 350. 33.?
611000.158.5
631700.225.0
651000.121.0
672000.151.1
691900.145.4
732400.135.3
751100. 62.1
772500.220.3
811500. 50.0
871000. 50.0
93 500. 20.4
95 500. 49.6
97 200. 4.7
9B 450. 32.0
1001000. 22.8
102 500. 39.1
104 250. 8.0
106 500. 14.6
1061700. 70.7
11015CO. 79.1
112 450. 11.4
1141600. 61.4
1161000. 73.3

579
37 39 41
69 73 75
112 114 116

63 77 116
0

5. 17 00
10.0 1
125.
5 20.7
5 140.1
5 94.1
1 98.1
I 73.5
1 183.0
2 13.6
2 20.2
2 116.2
2 74.2
2 43.5
2 36. A
2 79.2
2 23.4
5 186.3
2 36.0
2 12.3
5 36*9
5 156.8
5 39.9
5 150.4
1 101.4
85.0.020
90.0.020
85.0.020
60.0.020
75.0.020
80.0.020
60.0.020
80.0.020
50. C. 020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
85.0.020
90.0.020

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63
77 81 87 93 95 97 98 100 102 104 106





95 0

100.
48.4-4
327.84
220.00
695.4?
520.38
1006.48
97.70
143.08
822.72
374,74
308.00
224.32
505.56
94.00
435.94
198.00
87,08
159.40
366.92
164.40
351.92
469.26
153

-------
45 45 2 75.2 532.42
47 47 2 41.2 291.72
49 49 2 32.3 232.20
51 51 2 79.6 453.72
53 53 2 49.3 352.56
55 55 2 78.3 554.36
57 57 2 78.2 481.92
59 59 2 33.3 235.76
61 61 2 145.5 1030.0
1061 61 4 13.0 40.0
63 63 2 141.0 1000. 0
1063 63 4 34.0 280.0
65 65 5 121.0 605.52
67 67 1 151.1 753.78
65 69 2 80.4 568.0
1069 69 4 65.0 240.0
73 73 2 92.6 655.62
1073 73 5 92.6 400.4
75 75 1 61.1 249.98
77 77 2 220.3 1560.0
81 31 2 50.0 354.0
87 87 2 50.0 354.0
93 93 2 20.4 144.42
95 95 2 49.6 351.18
57 97 2 4.7 33.28
98 98 2 32.0 204.48
100 100 2 22.8 161.40
102 102 2 39.1 276.82
104 104 2 8.0 56.64
1C6 106 2 14.6 103.38
10P 108 2 70.7 483.48
110 110 2 79.1 560.02
112 112 2 11.4 80.70
114 114 2 61.4 274.30
116 116 2 73.3 478.68
TRANSPORT
0 0
1 KINGMAN LAKE DATA USING REVISED FORMAT AND
152 95 53 I 5 1 034
300. 11.0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

0
1
2
3
137
5
0
7
8
9
6
11
0
119
0
15
120
17
18
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
135
0
0
0
0
0
143
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
16 0.
32940.
16 11.
11780.
16 0.
11900.
16 0.
11320.
16 0.
1 510.
16 11.
14685.
16 0.
16 11.
16 0.
31055.
16 11.
11C59.
16 11.
11622.

0
000
000
000
0
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
000
000

0.0
4.500
0.0
5.500
0.0
6.500
0.0
5.750
0.0
5.750
0.0
8.00C
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.125
0.0
6.000
0.0
6.000

0.0
1.570
0.0
1.300
0.0
1.600
0.0
1.600
0.0
1.700
0.0
1.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.880
0.0
2.030
0.0
1.320
VERSION,

0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
. JUL 22 1969 STORM

0.0
2.300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.800
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
030
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
154

-------
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
43
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61'
62
63
64
65
66
67
6' 8
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
30
81
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0
29
30
31
0
33
32
35
0
37
36
39
0
41
40
43
44
150
0
47
48
4<3
50
51
52
53
131
55
56
57
58
59
46
61
12
151
64
65
0
67
63
152
76
71
70
73
0
75
66
77
91
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
127
0
0
0
129
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
0
0
0
16 11
3 405
16 0
31956
16 0
3 525
16 0
3 656
16 0
2 385
16 11
32819
16 0
32333
16 11
680
16 0
I 210
16 11
11567
16 0
11013
1>> 11
12165
16 11
12616
16 0
11150
16 11
1 378
16 0
1 171
16 11
11231
16 0
11542
16 0
1 480
16 11
12105
16 11
5 544
16 11
51350
16 11
14544
16 0
12590
16 11
. 000
.coo
.0
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.coo
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.oco
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.oco
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
13430.000
16 0
1 180
16 11
12650
16 0
32820
16 11
J 315
11165
11525
16 0
.0
.000
.000
.oco
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
9.750
0.0
9.750
0.0
9.750
0.0
6.000
0.0
9.000
0.0
3. COO
0.0
9.000
0.0
2.750
0.0
6.550
0.0
5.000
0.0
7.640
0.0
10.000
0.0
6. 000
0.0
B.5
0.0
8,500
0.0
8.500
0.0
9.000
0.0
9.000
0.0
10.000
0.0
17.500
0.0
17.500
0.0
22.000
0.0
7.000
0.0
7.500
0.0
22.000
0.0
9.750
0.0
4.675
0.0
22.000
3.500
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.620
0.0
0.850
0.0
1.080
0.0
1.190
0.0
3.100
O.Q
1.800
0.0
1.010
0.0
1.300
0.0
1.180
0.0
0.810
0.0
1.000
0.0
0.840
0.0
0.390
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.300
0.0
0.350
0.0
0.380
0.0
0.220
0.0
1.060
0.0
0.490
0.0
1.500
0.0
0.450
0.0
1.490
0.0
0.540
0..740
1.580
0.0
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0,013
0,013
0,013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.0

0.0
6.500
0.0
6.500
0.0
6.500
0.0
6.000
0.0
6.000
0.0
2,000
0.0
6.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.Q
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.000
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.Q
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
D.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
155

-------
82
33
64
65
96
67
P8
89
90
91
92
93
94
?5
96
97
93
99
IOC
101
102
103
104
IC5
106
107
IC8
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
123
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
81
0
83
82
142
0
87
0
89
90
79
0
93
SO
95
78
0
98
0
ICO
99
102
96
97
0
106
1C7
1C6
109
110
0
112
111
114
141
13
117
118
14
16
38
122
123
124
125
126
42
128
54
130
10
132
133
134
4
136
105
138
115
140
88
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
94
0
86
0
0
0
0
101
0
103
0
0
0
0
C
139
0
0
0
113
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
147
0
0
0
145
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000.
16 0.
11250.
16 11.
53980.
16 0.
12260.
16 0.
11550.
16 11.
16 11.
16 0.
11071.
16 11.
1 425.
16 11.
16 0.
32542.
16 0.
32062.
16 11.
3 422.
16 11.
11601.
16 0.
12170.
16 11.
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
000
000
0
000
000
11290.000
16 11.
5 585.
16 0.
31670.
16 11.
5 670.
16 11.
3 713.
16 11.
3 720.
31370.
16 11.
16 11.
1 830.
16 11.
2 712.
16 11.
13300.
16 0.
12041.
16 11.
1 552.
16 11.
2 470.
16 11.
1 800.
16 11.
1. 400.
16 11-
51199.
16 11.
101520.
16 11.
000
000
0
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
oco
000
000
000
000
0
000
000
oco
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
coo
000
4.500
0.0
3.500
0.0
6.000
0.0
3.000
0.0
3.250
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.500
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
4.500
0.0
4.875
0.0
6.750
0.0
22.000
0.0
4.000
0.0
4.500
0.0
23.500
0.0
4.875
0.0
23.500
0.0
3.000
0.0
4.125
4.500
0.0
0. 0
4.000
0.0
4.000
0.0
5.000
0.0
5.250
0.0
9.000
0.0
4.000
0.0
6.500
0.0
5.750
0.0
23.500
0.0
18.250
0.0
0.950
0.0
0.590
0.0
0.800
0.0
1.670
0.0
0.760
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.000
0.0
0.730
0.0
0.0
1.770
0.0
1.500
0.0
0.350
0.0
0.540
0.0
1.250
0.0
0.66C
0.0
0.100
0.0
2.800
0.0
0.100
0.0
1.760
0.0
2.270
1.700
0.0
0.0
1.210
0.0
1.700
0.0
2.000
0.0
1.950
0.0
0.320
0.0
0.960
0.0
0.350
0.0
1.030
0.0
0.100
0.0
0.120
0.0
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
3.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.800
0.0
3.000
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.000
0.0
2.500
0.0
22.000
0.0
2.300
0.0


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
22.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
156

-------
143 121 0
144 0 0
145 144 0
146 116 0
147 85 0
148 104 0
149 146 0
150 28 45
151 62 63
152 69 0
149
45 63
1CCO.
7 4100
0 0
0.96
1.
1.
C.74
1.42
1.21
0.65
0.77
1.14
1.05
1.03
1.16
1.10
1.37
0.96
47 1
27.8
4060.
21
39
24
41
45
11
63 2
65
67 2
81
30 1521
3612121
31 1421
35 2121
351 2131
352 2141
32 3121
23212411

34 3921
341 3<54l
41 4141
33 4521
331 4E41
332 4531
951 111











69

O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3
16
1
21
5
1
16
16
16
16

140


7C2.000
0.0
970.000
260.000
800.000
4.500
0.0
3.000
16.500
6.000
1.090 22.000
0.0
11.000
11.000
11.00

149

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0



1.500
0.0
0.660
0.230
0.800
0.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0



0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013



3.000
0.0
0.0
15.500
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0



0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0



.0
.0
.0
.000
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0



0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0



6.0
33
217
1.08
1
I
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
c
1
1
10

52.
.07
.30
.15
.22
.14
.05
.00
.05
.00
.08
















.
.
.67
.19
.23
.71
.57
.99
.05
.91
.94
.64
.49
.18

190
7








































2
.0



























519 834
1.05
1.
1.
0.63
1.20
1.25
0.60
1.02
1.45
I. 10
0.66
1.33
0.45
1.30
0.34
17 00
220.0
22.
150.
150.
300.
300.
300.
150.
200.
150.
200.
300.
35.6
43.2
62.5
90.2


69.8
471.1

247.6


144.8


87.6
871 762 626
0.90
1.
1.
0.59
1.15
1.21
0.41
0.87
1.66
0.50
0.63
1.22
0.87
1.12
1.01
1.
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
288
04 1
.
.
.54
.17
.17
.46
.91
.55
.66
.94
.44
.54
.89
.82
74 0
.00
1.
1.
0.56
1.11
1.15
0.49
0.94
1.29
1.33
0.94
1.10
0.48
0.58
1.77

0.















97
1.
1.
0.67
1.08
0.88
0.72
1.07
0.99
1.10
1.05
0.88
1.29
0.45
0.84




0.96
1.15
1.07
0.87
1.07
1.60
0.88
1.05
1.05
1.16
0.67
0.71
146.078
4.00E+06
3985.
150.
150.
350.
350.
350.
150.
250.
150.
250.
350.
102.1338.
100 .1779.
60.1103.
29. 772.


71.1306.
4. 22.

28.1679.


66.2541.


5. 125.










2.56
2.39
3.35
3.35


3.72
3.09

3.13


3.65


2.43










IS. 4
14.3
12.7
12.3


13.8
13.9

12.7


13.7


14.4














.80
.07


.15

.30
.22

.14
.80















190.
150.


300.

150.
300.

300.
190.















220.
150.


350.

150.
350.

350.
220.
















1








1

9313421
                       168.9   IB. 928. 3.20 15.0
                                  157

-------
44 4721 63.5 58.1147. 2.99 12.6
45 4<32l 50.8 43. 722. 3.27 12.5
50 5121 68.6 60.1841. 2.21 14.0
4S 5321 64.8 76.1556. 2.99 12.3
4813021 96.5 61.1557. 3.59 12.1
46 5521 90.2 68.1442. 4.18 11. 1
92 1121 367.0 22.2158. 3.00 13.0
921 1141 .05 150. 150.
87 6321 232.4 31.1863. 3.79 12.8
371 6341 2.00 200. 250.
872 6331 .80 190. 220.
95 6521 ^9.5 64. 740. 4.17 12.3
351 6531 .20 190. 220,
B52 6541 .05 150. 150.
91 6721 336.5 13.1301. 3.25 14.2
911 6741 2.00 200. 250.
881 6521 370.7 18.1954. 3.21 12.3
82 7721 87.6 87.2107. 3.56 13.2
84 7721 105.4 43.1163. 3.79 12.1
69 7721 141.0 61.2733. 3.13 12.6
891 7131 .80 190. 220.
82 8-521 39.4 32. 557. 2.18 16.5
66 8121 17.8 34. 244. 2.40 17.9
83 8521 8.9 111. 260. 3.75 12.1
67 8721 10.2 67. 190. 3.55 12.9
81 S121 72.4 77.1532. 3.63 12.9
661 8141 .08 300. 350.
8010421 187.9 53.2975. 4.07 12.5
7913321 104.1 64.1920. 3.47 13.3
6911621 71.1 29. 440. 3.77 12.9
GRAPH
<* 1 3
GRAPH OF THE TRANSPORT OUTPUT TAPE
TIME IN HOURS
FLClis IN Cf-S
TRANSPORT
0 0
I K1NGMAN LAKE AREA WITH DIVERSION OF STORM FLOW FROM ELEMENTS #45t63tC69
156 95 53 1 6 2 0 3 4
300. 11.0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
0
1
2
3
137
5
0
7
8
9
6
11
0
119
0
15
120
17
18
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
135
0
0
0
0
0
143
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
16 0
32940
16 11
11790
16 0
11900
16 0
11320
16 0
I 510
16 11
I468b
16 0
16 11
16 0
31055
16 11
11059
16 11
11622
0
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.000
.oco
.000
.000

0.0
4.500
0.0
5. 500
0.0
6.500
0.0
5.750
0.0
5.750
0.0
8.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.125
0.0
6.000
0.0
6.000

0.0
1.570
0.0
1.300
0.0
1.600
0.0
1.600
0.0
1.700
0.0
1.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.880
0.0
2.030
0.0
1.320

0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0,013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013

0.0
2.800
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.800
0.0

0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
030
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0*0
158

-------
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
4"
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0
2<5
30
31
0
33
32
35
0
37
36
39
0
41
40
43
44
150
0
47
48
49
5C
51
52
53
Ul
55
56
57
58
59
46
61
12
151
64
65
C
67
68
152
76
71
70
73
0
75
66
77
91
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
127
0
0
0
129
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
153
0
0
0
0
0
154
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
0
0
0
16 11.
3 405.
16 0.
31956.
16 C.
3 525.
16 0.
3 656.
16 0.
2 385.
16 11.
32819.
16 0.
32333.
16 11.
680.
16 0.
1 210.
16 11.
11567.
16 0.
11013.
16 11.
12165.
18 11.
12616.
16 0.
11150.
16 11.
I 378.
16 0.
1 171.
16 11.
11281.
16 0.
11542.
16 0.
1 480.
16 11.
12105.
16 11.
5 544.
18 11.
51350.
16 11.
14544.
16 0.
12590.
IS 11.
13430.
16 0.
1 180.
16 11.
12650.
16 0.
32820.
16 11.
1 315.
000
000
0
000
0
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
coo
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
11165.000
11525.
000
16 0.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
9.750
0.0
9.750
0.0
9.750
0.0
6.000
0.0
9.000
0.0
3.000
0.0
9.0QO
0.0
2.750
0.0
6.550
0.0
5.000
0.0
7.640
20.0
10.000
0.0
6.000
0.0
8.5
0.0
8. SCO
0.0
8.500
0.0
9.000
0.0
9.000
0.0
10.000
0.0
17.500
18.0
17.500
0.0
22.000
0.0
7.000
11.0
7. 500
0. 0
22.000
0.0
9.750
0.0
4.875
0.0
22.000
3.500
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.620
0.0
0.850
0.0
1.080
0.0
1.190
0.0
3.100
0.0
1.800
0.0
1.010
0.0
1.300
0.0
1.180
0.0
0.810
0.0
1.000
0.0
0.840
0.0
0.390
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.300
0.0
0.350
0.0
0.380
0.0
0.220
0.0
1.060
0.0
0.490
0.0
1.500
0.0
0.450
0.0
1.490
0.0
0.540
0.240
1,580
0.0
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.0

0.0
6.500
0.0
6.500
0.0
6.500
0.0
6.000
0.0
6.000
0.0
2.000
0.0
6.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.000
0.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
150.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
151.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
152.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
159

-------
82
83
84
65
86
87
ea
89
90
91
92
3
94
55
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
1C9
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
113
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
81
0
83
62
142
0
87
0
89
90
79
0
93
80
95
78
0
98
0
100
99
102
96
97
0
106
107
1C8
109
110
0
112
111
114
141
13
117
113
14
16
33
122
123
124
125
126
42
128
54
130
10
132
133
134
4
136
105
138
115
140
86
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
94
0
86
0
0
0
0
101
0
103
0
0
0
0
0
139
0
0
0
113
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
147
0
0
0
1*5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
16 0
11250
16 11
53960
16 0
12260
16 0
11550
16 11
16 11
16 0
11071
16 11
I 425
16 11
16 0
32542
16 0
32062
16 11
3 422
16 11
11601
16 0
12170
16 11
11290
16 11
5 585
16 0
31670
16 11
5 670
16 11
3 713
16 11
3 720
31370
16 11
16 11
1 830
16 11
2 712
16 11
13300
16 0
12041
16 11
1 552
16 11
2 470
16 11
1 800
16 11
1 400
16 11
51199
16 11
101520
16 11
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.coo
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
,000
.000
.000
.000
.000
4.500
0.0
3.500
0.0
6.000
0.0
3.000
0.0
3.250
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.500
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
4.500
0.0
4.375
0.0
6.750
0.0
22.000
0.0
4.000
0.0
4.500
0.0
23.5.00
0.0
4.875
o.b
23.500
0.0
3.000
0.0
4.125
4.500
0.0
0.0
4.000
0.0
4.000
0.0
5. COO
0.0
5.250
0.0
9.00.0
0.0
4.000
0.0
6.500
0.0
5.750
0.0
23.500
0.0
18.250
0.0
0.950
0.0
0.590
0.0
O.BOO
0.0
1.670
0.0
0.760
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.000
0.0
0.730
0.0
0.0
1.770
0.0
1.500
0.0
0.350
0.0
0.540
0.0
1.250
0.0
0.660
0.0
0.100
0.0
2.800
0.0
0.100
0.0
1.760
0.0
2.270
1.700
0.0
0.0
1.210
0.0
1.700
0.0
2.000
0.0
1.950
0.0
0.320
0.0
0.960
0.0
0.350
0.0
1.030
0.0
0.100
0.0
0.120
0.0
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
3.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.800
0.0
3.000
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.000
0.0
2.500
0.0
22.000
0.0
2.300
0.0


0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
22.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
160

-------
143 121 0
i4 0 0
145 144 0
14A 116 0
147 85 0
148 104 0
149 146 0
150 28 45
151 62 63
152 6<5 0
153 45
154 63
155 69
156 155
149 156
13
45 63
1GCO.
7 41CO
C 0
o.st
1.
1.
0.74
1.42
1.21
0.65
0,77
1.14
1.05
1.C3
1.16
1.10
1.37
0.96
47 1
27.8
4060.
21
39
24
41
45
11
63 2
65
67 2
SI
30 1521
3612121
31 1421
35 2121
351 2131
352 2141
32 3121
23212411
23312441
34 3921
341 3941
41 4141
33 4521
0 3 702.000 4.500 1.500 0.013
0 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.013
0 1 970.000 3.000 0.680 0.013
0 21260.000 16.500 0.230 0.013
0 5 800.000 6.000 O.BOO 0.013
0 1 1.090 22.000 0.500 0.013
0 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.013
0 16 11.000 0.0 0.0 0.013
0 16 li.OCO 0.0 0.0 0.013
0 16 11.00 0.0 0.0 0.013
13500.000 8.5 0.8 0.013
14500.000 11.0 0.8 0.013
19400.000 12.0 1.0 0.013
16 11.00 0.0 0.0 0.013


69 140 149 156

6.0
33 217 519 834 871 76Z 626 288
1.08 1.05 0.90 1.04
1. 1. 1. 1.
1. 1. 1. 1.
0.67 0.63 0.59 0.54
1.19 1.20 1.15 1.17
1.23 1.25 1.21 1.17
0.71 0.60 0.41 0.46
1.57 1.02 0.87 0.91
0.99 1.45 1.66 1.55
1.05 1.10 0.50 0.66
0.91 0.66 0.63 0.94
0.94 1.33 1.22 1.44
0.64 0.45 0.87 0.54
1.49 1.30 1.12 0.89
1.18 0.84 1.01 2.82
10 2 17 00 146. 07b
190.0 220.0 4.GOE+06
52.7 22. 3985.
.07 150. 150.
.30 150. 150.
.15 300. 350.
.22 300. 350.
.14 300. 350.
.05 150. 150.
.00 200. 250.
.05 150. 150.
.00 200. 250.
.08 300. 350.
35.6 102.1338. 2.56 15.4
43.2 100.1779. 2.39 14.3
62.5 60.1103. 3.35 12.7
90.2 29. 772. 3.35 12.3


69.6 71.1308. 3.72 13.8
471.1 4. 22. 3.09 13.9

247.6 28.1679. 3.13 12.7


144.8 66.2541. 3.65 13.7
3. QUO 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
15.500 3.000
4.bOO 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0





74 0
I. 00 0.97
1. 1.
1. 1.
0.56 0.67
1.11 1.08
1.15 0.88
0.49 0.72
0.94 1.07
1.29 0.99
1.33 1.10
0.94 1.05
1.10 0.88
0.48 1.29
0.58 0.45
1.77 0.84

















.80 190. 220.
.07 150. ISO.


.15 300. 350.

.30 150. 150.
.22 300. 3SO.

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0









0.96
1.15
1.07
0.87
1.07
1.60
0.88
1.05
1.05
1.18
0.67
0.71


















1







161

-------
331 4541
332 4531
951  111
 9313421
 44 4721
 45 4S21
 50 5121
 49 5321
 4813C21
 46 5921
    1121
    1141
    6321
    6341
    6331
    6521
    6531
    6541
    6721
                                                        .14 300. 350.
                                                        .80 190. 220,
 92
 87
671
872
 85
351
852
 91
911
681
b82
 34
 89
391
 82
 66
 83
 67
 81
661
    6741
    7721
    7721
    7721
    7731
    8321
    8121
    8521
    6721
    9121
    8141
 8010421
 7913321
 681U21
GRAPH
   10
  GRAPH
         1
        OF
87,
168.
63,
50.
68.
64,
96.
90,
367.
.6
,9
,5
.8
.6
,8
.5
,2
,0
5,
18,
58,
46,
60,
76,
61,
68,
22.
, 125.
. 928.
,1147.
. 722.
.1341.
>1556.
.1557.
.1442.
. ?15fl.
2.
3.
2.
3.
2.
2.
3.
4.
3.
43
20
99
27
21
99
59
18
00
14,
15.
12,
12.
14,
12,
12.
11.
13.
,4
,0
,6
,5
,0
.3
,1
,1
iO
                        232.4  31.1863. 3.79 12.8
                         49.5  64. 740. 4.17 12.3
                        336.5  13.1301. 3.25 14.2
                        370.7
                         87.6
                        105.4
                        141.0
       18.1954,
       87.2107.
       43.1163.
       61.2733.
  FLCW
ENDPROGRAM
 39.4  32. 557.
 17.8  34. 244.
  8.9 111. 260,
 10.2  67. 190.
 72.4  77.1532.

187.9  53.2975.
104.1  64.1920.
 71.1  29. t40.
           THE TRANSPORT OUTPUT TAPE
           IME IN HOURS
           IN     CFS
3.21 12.3
3.56 13.2
3.79 12.1
3.13 12.6

2.18 16.5
2.40 17.9
3.75 12.1
3.55 12.9
3.63 12.9

4.07 12.5
3.47 13.3
3.77 12.9
                                .05 150. 150.

                               2.00 200. 250.
                                .60 190. 220.

                                .20 190. 220.
                                .05 150. 150.

                               2.00 200. 250.
                                                        .80 190. 220,
                                                        .08 300. 350.
KINGfAN LAKE VIA
2 406C.O
JULY 20
JULY 22
AUG. 20
11 1
12 3
STORAGE
1
02 12
2
75.
1 2
2
35.0
670000.
1969
1969
1969

4 13


2?. 35
1

6
1

3272.
               WASHINGTON, O.C.
                     27.8
                            15
                            1.04
                            3.20
                            0.64
                              Gl
                                  8600.0
                                                4000.00
                                   72
                                    1
                         0.
                                     162

-------
77. /
0.
15.
35.
20.
0 0
7.00
1570
20000. 0.
ENOPROGRAM
10.
0.


1

25
1G02
02000

                        0.0
                        12.

                       1970
                       1573
                       1G3I
                       0.20
                           3.0

                        l.H52
                          1410

                          1.25
               l'U2

               0.03
                                              MONFY FACTORS
                                       l'7i>      150G      1538
                                              UNIT COSTS
KINGMAN LAKE
JULY
JULY
AUG.
  11
  12
  4060.0
 20 1969
 22 1969
 20 1969
  WASHINGTON!
       27.8
D.C.
15
1.04
3.20
0.64
                                  8600.0
     4000.00
1
3
13
RECEIVING
QUANTITYQUALITY
            POTOMAC-ANACOSTIA RECEIVING WATCR

    20 JULY TIDE 1969 TlOfc AT ALEXANDRIA
    1
 5.52
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    o
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    1^
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
.
1
2
1
4























1. 60. 17.
7
14 15 15
15
50 1
0.5 11.38
.73 20.
.65
.2)
.65
.26
.26
.26
.65
.65
.65
.65
.26
.65
1.30 20.
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
2.26
2.66
2.86
3.08
6
13
16

























                            >    2
                               19
                            30 32
                        2.9
 34.70
 25.00
  5.-57
               40.
         3.5
         3.5
         3.5
         4.0
         5.0
         4.0
         4.0
         4.0
         4.0
         4.0
         4.0
         8.0
         8.0
         11.0
         15.0
         20.0
         16.0
         10.5
         24.0
         17.0
         17.0
         16.0
         18.0
         20.0
         18.0
         16.0
                                  0.
                                  25
                               40 42
                                                      0.
                                1
                              32
                           48 49
                           17
72     0.3
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .018
  .013
  .018
  .018
  .018
                                              23.98
                                                                3.1
                                      163

-------
27
2*
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
33
39
40
4 1
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
GO
V"
1
2
T
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






















i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
28
30
30
36
37
38
37
40
40
42
41
43
44
45
46
17.30
14.70
4.16
38.10
14.70
27.90
4.95
2.31
4.5o
7.18
1.71
.52
6.96
1.63
2.93
3. 41
4.68
4.10
3.25
.912000
13.00
8.17
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
43
44
45
46
47






















1500.
1500.
1500,
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1530.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
2500.
2500.
2500.
2500.
2500.
7500.
3000.
6000.
5409.
2100.
5400.
3000.
4800.
2700.
1BOO.
3000.
5300.
2300.
3900.
3300.
4500.
2700.
4500.
5100.
4800.
21.
20.
14.
25.
15.
30.
24.
22.
10.
6.
10.
7.
10.
12.
20.
30.
50.
40.
35.
35.
10.
15.











































3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

































































450.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
417.
533.
550.
600.
600.
675.
775.
800.
850.
900.
1200.
1300.
1800.
3000.
1600.
2800.
1800.
900.
1400.
1400.
1400.
150.
150.
600.
1850.
125.
1162.
938.
550.
1050.
900.
650.
220.
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.013
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.016
.018
.018

































































3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
7
10
15
20
16
18
24
16
17
17
16
20
18
12
18
24
17
26
17
31
9
9
6
17
12
20
25
6
10
43
32
35






















.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.s
.6
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.8
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.6
.0
.1)
.0
.0
.7
.0
.0
.6
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.3
.3
.2
                        .old
                        .018
                        .018
                        .016
                        .018
                        .016
                        .018
                        .018
                        .016
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .oia
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .016
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .Old
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .Old
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
                        .018
164

-------
44
45
46
47
4fl
49
50
9999
39
48
37
24
34
33
24

41
49
49
48
36
34
33

                              4800.
                              4300.
                              2200.
                              3900.
                              2100.
                              4800.
                              6000.
                                         ISO.
                                        2100.
                                        2250.
                                        3030.
                                         900.
                                         900.
                                        1350.
  STAGE
   42
        C
 63000.
 64800.
 66600.
 7?OCO.
10000000.
ENOCUJNT
            POTOMAC-ANACOSTIA RECEIVING MATER
                   TIME IN HOURS
           IN    FEET
            3000.
           1300.
        QUALITY
         2
         2
    0
    2
   32     C
99999
   32
99999
ENPPRCGRAM
     1    1
1   25
1 .50
  8.  4.E-92.E-1
                                      4.0
                                     14.0
                                     18.0
                                     11.0
                                     10.0
                                     23.0
                                     22.0
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
                                   BOO FROM KINGMAN LAKE

                                   SS  FROM KINGMAN
                                     165

-------
             PHILADELPHIA,  WINGOHOCKING INPUT DATA
VINGChOCKING  AREA
    <    5434.0
                    PHILAnFLPHIAt  PA.
JULY 3t
AUG. 3
   0
   1
    1*567
  , 1967
   8   ft
   ?.   3
                 4-CAGF  AVG.M.43
                 4-GAGE  AVG.=1.?1
               9
               4
WATFf> SHED
     WINGOHOCKING  ARFA.  PHILADELPHIA,  PA.
     STOP!* OF JULY ?,  1967.  MO O.UTTFP.S
    j   09 2'OC   5.C     4
   66   5.
 O.Or 0.12 O.CO 0.24  0.4ft  0.7? 0.72 0.36 0.24 0.24
 0.1? C.i* 0.1? O.CO  C.OO  0.24 O.'fc 0.36 1.?0 ?.16
 C.B4 0.43 0.36 0.72  O.CO  0.12 0.12 0.00 O.12 0.00
 r.Or 0.00 O.CO 1.08  2.2  0.4 0.48 0.36 0.00 0.24
 0.12 0.00 0.00 O.CC  C.OO  0,12 0.00 C.OO 0.00 O.CO
 O.CO O.CO 0.00 0.12  C.OO  0.03 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00
 0,10 0.00 O.CO O.CO  C.OO  0,00
 0.12 0.12 0.12 O.CO  0.24  0.48 0.60 0.72 0.60 0.48
 0.24 0.12 O.CO 0.24  C.CC  0.12 P.?4 0.?_4 0.12 0.19
 1.56 0.?4 1.20 I.OR  1.32  1.08 0.12 0.60 0.?4 0.24
 0.1? 0.00 C.OO O.CO  0.00  0.00 0.00 n.OO 0.1? 0.43
 0.00 0.60 0.24 0.1?  O.CO  0.00 O.CO 0.00 0.00 0.12
 0.1? C.OO 0.00 C.OO  0.00  0,00 C.24 O.03 0.00 0.00
 0.24 0.24 0.1? 0.12  O.CH  0,00
 0,00 O.CO 0.00 0.00  0.60  0.96 0.72 0.4fl 0.03 0.03
 0.?4 0.?4 C.CO 0.1?  0.1?  0.1? 0.03 O.i? 0.24 2.04
 O.P4 0.?4 P.34 2.T4  1.20  0.72 C.OO 0.12 0.60 0.?4
 O.C? 0.00 C.OO 0.00  0.00  0.00 0.00 0.1? O.CO 0.12
 O.CO 0.12 O.CO O.I?  0.00  0.1.2 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00
 o.oo o.co c.oo o.oo  o.on  c.oo 0.43 o.4 0.24 o.oo
 o.
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
}
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
i
i
2
A
?
i.
4
4
A
?
?
^*
3
T
3
s
T
7
3
Tl
1
3
r>
57
1
33
61
9iS
s
1
1
ion
59


1
2
3
A
5
6
17
IB
IP
?o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
?6
37
?P
3.7
352300.126.7
37KCO. 50.^
'o??GO .17-T.4
^11300. 45,4
431200. ftf-.l
4512CC. 51. S
47 800. 65.4
40HC0.119.5
5124CO. 147.0
5^14-!0. 67.0
5511CO. 70.6
57 700. 67. 4
50 noo. 51.1
iniPCO.210.3
612000. 1P1. 9
63 600. 81.^
651100. 7S.7
67r3CT,. 106.1
601200. 75.0
7l20n.l79.5
731300. R6.4
7512CO. 72.7
772100.27? .0
792100.143.4
81 CC. 44,4
831300. "2.3
l*2icr;.iQ->.o
3T44CC .242.6
B-l 000. 60.?
9"1 700. 55.1
94l?00. 33.4
061^00. 57.7
it^QC.IZZ.V
10012^0. 3^.4
IC^l^'lO. 36.0
1112203.144.4
1021900.142.1
IP^nCO. 90.1
1061100. 4C.3
1091000. 63. f>

5 7 <>
37 39 41
67 69 71
100 109 in

59 77 93
0

5, ?4 00
5.0 I
150.0 1
I 61.9
] 3Q.7
1 B1.4
1 53.3
1 79.3
1 66.0
no. .oino
HO.. 01 CO
fi*..C100
f*0. .OKO
80..0VCO
flO.,0100
BO..OICO
80.. 0100
RO.,0100
65. .0100
R0..010Q
ftO.. OOflO
R0..0100
BO. .0080
80. .0100
80..00QO
flC. .00^0
80..CORO
00.. OOfiO
no. .or no
R0..onao
no..coao
BC..OOPO
flO..OORO
80..0CSO
BO. .crao
BO..C-OPO
ao..ropo
so. .on PC
80..CCPO
60..ooao
80. .OCflO
fl'O..C080
PO. .0060
40.. 0060
7 S... 10 60
40. .0060
45.. 0060
40..P060
flO. .0060
80.. 0060

11 13 15 17 19 21 23 ?5 27 29 31
4? 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 113 61
73 75 77 79 81 3 85 87 ft** 92 94
102 10^ 106 108




99 0

10.0
561.54
32->.56
663.41
434.40
646. '0
537.90
167

-------
7
((
0
If
I1
1 2
!.
14
li
1 A
17
1 ft
I"
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2*
2
30
31
32
33
34
3 5
T f.
37
3"
3
4il
41
4?
43
44
45
46
47
4rt
40
50
51
52
5"
54
55
56
57
53
13
15
17
10
21
23
25
27
29
"*1
33
35
37
30
41
43
4?
A7
40
5 1
53
55
57
50
113
61
63
65
67
60
71
71
73
75
77
79
PI
83
R5
87
8''
01
94
Oft
<8
100
100
111
102
104
106
108
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
2
2
2
I
1
1
I
5
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
t
1
I
I
I
5
I
I
5
5
1
1
74.2
42.1
54. O
7.4
11". 0
1 52. ?&. 7C
2920.30
1224.31
760.40
2334. C'
1526. fiq
502.50
10?2.6l
41<>. 02.
104*,. 47
370.01
5*3.72
< 2 ? . I 7
1240. 14
073.93
1 IOH, 05
! 20f,.89
575.30
54-1.? I
^16, 47
1 71^. 05
1530.54
720. A3
14? .83
P64.72
142.^0
647. OT
100.00
704.16
502.51
7 ? 0 fl . 6 5
1161. 71
34R.C4
75?. ?5
?4in. ai
4?4fl,22
H21.72
1 t 40.07
733.^4
1006.57
1024, PI
71.06
700.00
1176. fl6
?6.o<>
171. 19
76.57
517.53
TKAriSPORT
0
1
120

1
1
2
3
0

Wf MOO HOCK ING
OQ
30P.
1
0 0
1 0
?. 0
57

APF.A RUf!
1 *
tCOCl
I
0
0
0
1 0
16 C. 0
01 780.

- PEMOMSTP.ATION PHASE - STORM OF JULY
1034
1.0

0.0 0.0 00 0'. 0 0,
5. 1.7
-------
4
5
6
7
1
q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
IP
20
21
22
23

25
26
27
?fl
29
?0
31
32
33
34
35
16
37
39
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0
1

'. I
* ,
Sj
r:t

5'J

cc
ft'.
6t
63
64
*
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
1
?0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
?o
30
31
0
33
34
35
76
37
33
39
40
'
50
5V
5?
53
54
55
56
57
53
59
114
61
62
63
0
0
?
c
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
c
f)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
46
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ft
60
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
02
16
o?
16
02
16
c?
16
02
16
0?
16
0?
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
Cl
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
Cl
16
Cl
16
01
16
Cl
u
C2
16
01
16
Cl
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
01
IA
0?
16
09
1170.
O.C
13<:>7.
12 .COO
SHfl.
11 .000
1170.
0.0
4flO.
e.o
6'0.
0.0
10?5 .
o.O
564.
11. COO
870.
0.0
1530.
0.0
If24.
C.C
371.
11.000
2f?6.
ll.OOC
15?7.
H.Ono
2^65.
0.0
945.
11.000
1COO.
11.^00
1013.
13 .oro
1090.
0.0
1 <) t. ,
ll.r.oo
1 Ih2 .
0.0
?80.
0.0
VO.
0.0
1410.
C.O
1410.
u.noo
1260.
0.0
14H5,
C.O
5 -JO.
ll.OOC
?70.
r.c
ROO.
11.000
1357.
6.
0.0
7.S
r .^
7.5
C.C
fl.O
0.0
fl.O
o.r
n.o
0.0
8.0
C.O
8.5
0.0
8.5
0.0
8.5
C.O
8. 5
0.0
P. 5
0.0
9.?
0.0
1C.O
0,0
10.5
OoO
4', f
O.C
6.0
O.C
7.0
0 .^
7.5
0.0
10. n
0.0
7. ;
0.0
s.?5
o.r
ft.?5
o.n
8. ?5
0.0
ft. 25
0,0
8.5
0.0
8.5
0.0
P. 5
0.0
12.
0.0
6.5
C.O
12.0
1.53
0.0
1.50
0.0
5<-
0.0
.80
0.0
.94
0.0
1.13
0.0
1.57
0.0
1.65
0.0
1.09
0.0
.flB
0.0
1.75
0.0
2.6B
n.o
1.16
0.0
1 .19
0.0
1.03
0.0
3.98
0.0
1.1 1
0.0
1.14
0.0
.94
0.0
,73
0.0
.6 a
0.0
1.1R
C.O
2. 75
n.o
. B5
0.0
.95
0.0
.90
0.0
.90
0.0
.9C1
0.0
.90
0.0
.90
0.0
.90
.013
0.0
.01 3
0.0
,013
C.O
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
O.C
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0

0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
,013
5.
0.0
6. 0
0.0
7.5
0.0
7.5
0.0
7.5
0.0
7.5
0.0
7,5
0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

C.O

0.0

0.0

O.C

0.0
9.
0.0

0.0

o.o

C.O

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

C.O
8.
O.C


0.0

C.O

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

C.O

0.0

C.O

0.0

0.0

C.O

C.O

0.0

0.0

n.o

0.0

0.0

C.Q

0.0

0.0

0.0

169

-------
t5
66
67
( ft
t9
7C
71
7?
73
?4
75
76
77
78
79
90
61
82
P3
P4
35
66
87
115
116
iir
ii3
1 1^
120
121
f>8
89
90
122
123
"I
92
S3
1?4
1?5
126
127
94
S5
= 6
57
qg
59
ICO
IC1
1C3
104
1C5
1C6
107
KB
109
110
III
112
128
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
0
77
C
79
30
81
02
83
7f,
85
86
97
115
1 16
117
Hfl
119
120
121
88
09
90
12?
85
91
9?
"3
124
125
126
127
94
95
96
< 7
93
99
100
102
103
104
105
1C6
107
0
109
110
111
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
3?
o
0
0
0
n
0
c
0
0
0
0
78
0
84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
f\
0
0
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
c
0
0

0
123
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
01
1 fc
Cl
16
Ci
16
0?
16
Cl
16
0!
16
Cl
16
Cl
16
01
16
01
21
11
01
16
01
16
Cl
16
ci
16
04
16
04
16
01
02
16
02
16
04
16
02
16
02
16
02
16
10
16
C4
10
16
10
16
02
16
16
01
16
01
16
11.000
1570.
0.0
1 f> 3 0 .
I! .OCC
1497.
11. COO
704.
ll.OCO
13^0 .
C.O
125^.
0. C
lorn.
o.o
250 .
0.0
1500.
0.0
475.

145.
2300.

119.

199.

263.

628.
0.0
I4i>n.

415,
146.
0.0
305.

2347.

2374.

475.

50.
0.0
20*0.
11.000
252.
2919.
0.0
515.
C.O
1312.
1! .Of 0

2765.
r. o
2730.

0.0
. 5
o.r
^  5
0.0
11.
0.0
15.
0.0
13.
0.0
13,
0.0
7.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
6. 5
0.0
8.0

6.2
14.

15.

16.

17.25

17.25
0.0
17.5

17.5
6.26
C.O
16.

16.0

1?..

15.

15.
0.0
7.5
0.0
19.0
9.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
21.0
C.O

5.5
0.0
7.0

P.O
."0
0.0
1.6?.
0.0
1.3
0.0
.67
0.0
.37
0.0
.37
C.O
.90
0.0
.^7
0.0
.37
0.0
1.33

.54
.54

.54

. ?4

.54

. 54
0.0
.54

.54
.54
0.0
.54

.54

.54

.54

. 39
0.0
.35
0.0
.33
.17
0.0
.13
0.0
.24
0.0

1 .0
0.0
1.0

0.0
.01 3
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013

.013
.013

.013

.013

,013

.013
0.0
.013

.013
.013
0.0
.013

.013

.013

.013

.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0

.013
0.0
.013

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0
17.
0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0


10.5









0.0



10.
0.0
14.



21.

17.

17.
0.0
21.
0.0

?4.
0.0
?4.
o.o
24.
0.0


0.0


r.

0.

0.

0.

0.

o.

0.

0.

0.

c.


3.









0.



3.
0.









0.

0.


c.

0.

0.


0.


0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

R6
1









0




0









0

0


0

0

0


0


170

-------
129 123 0 0 10
1C2 129 112 0 16
113 0 0 016
T14 113 0 C C?
10*
(IS 91 86 95
1000.
353 55CO. 6.C
0 0 30 205
1. I.
!. 1.
0.60 0.53
1.40 1.46
1.73 1.16
.73 .55
1.77 1.22
1.07 1.04
.P4 .57
1.31 1.46
.97 .92
1,10 0.64
1.37 1.49
0.96 1.18
51 2 0 1
,??! .'11
222 531
273 "Ml
274 4M
725 ?71
726 331
231 Ml
I!**? 531
233 "71
734 651
235 651
236 6^1
3331081
3341061
3351001
33d ^61
381 771
424 891
4?5 81
4771061
4?fl 6 1
429 S81
431 941
4?2 ">91
4341091
491 ?! 1
4^2 3ll
493 ?1 1
4') 4 711
495 8?1
496 851
497 2l
<.<58 fQl
5CS 31
510 51
P?3 .

C.O
3100.

123 96


51? 956
1.
1 .
0.50
1 .44
1. 10
.34
1.75
1.28
.37
1.54
1.04
0.45
1.3C
0. 84
24 00
8^. 7
189.7
1 ? 0 . 7
193.8
593.5
74. 6
145.3
239.1
79.1
737.7
1?7. 3
709. 1
70.2
66.2
212.6
7, .6
96.0
13.6
?,4 4
52. rt
105.5
80.5
198.1
107.7
32.0
151 .6
151, ft
326.9
65.7
130.4
183.1
167.9
10^.1
63.3
145.6
8.0 .n

0.0 0.
6. 2.5

101 108


924 23
1.
1.
0.53
1.4?
l.ni
.30
1 .7'i
1.52
.27
1.58
1 > ^4
0.87
1.12
1.01

5^.1441.
67. 401.
1". 70-}.
28. 1^1.
17.11.41.
303.
44.?0->9.
41 .3368.
">4. fl^O,
31 .7.T77.
29.1442.
^0.7137.
1?6.
1. 8.
1 . 4 .? .
15. 811.
370.
33. 236.
3fl , ?4'3.
647.
3C.1261.
27. 859.
31.1158.
47 .1A73.
50. 20.
37. 78.
32.2152.
28 . 797").
76. 6B5.
34.1517.
30.1P05.
51 ,31"4.
50.1448.
283.
73.1074.
.013 77.

0 0.0 0.0
.013 7.




691 351 en 0
1. 1.
1. 1.
0.55 0.60
1.36 1.34
0.95 0.86
.30 .30
1.7? 1.19
1.77 1.49
.23 .15
1.48 l.?l
1.46 1..41
0.54 0.48
0.89 0.58
2.82 1.77

7.o
9.0
16.4
15.5
14.4
15.8
8.2
9.0
8.6
7.8
7,1
7.3
11.2

.
7.2
6.4
8.3
ft.O
8.3
B.O
7.9
7.6
7.0
7.5
11.8
1U8
8.5
9.5
10,5
7.7
9.4
8.6
15.3
18.3


0.0






1.
1.
0.75 1.12
1.32 l.?5
0.80 0.70
.61 .83
1.16 1.13
1.22 0.94
.57 .99
1.07 1.01
1.17 1.01
1.29 1.18
0.45 O.A7
0.84 0.71











1









1







1






171

-------
512
     91
    291
516 231
591 771
592 771
593 671
504 611
595 611
5961131
131.7
166.7
75.9
23.3
91. *
126.2
58.0
117.3
fl6.6
36.6
125.6
25.4
20.2

34.6
*>2. 103d.
34.2024.
1143.
414.
1176.
37.1ROO.
?.?., 55*.
37.1"12.
15. 556.
15.1470.
30. 211.
140.
2.
21.
413.
600 4H
602 351
433 R51
ICO 77i            0.12
    I
GRAPH
    9    1    3
  GRAPH OF THE TRANSPORT  OUTPUT  TAPE
          TIME IN  HOURS
  FLOW     IN      CFS
ENDPROCRAM
                                              13.7
                                              12.5
                                               9.6
                                               9.7
                                               8.2
                                               8.1
                                               9.4
                                               8.2
                                               9.0
                                               9.7
                                              12.1
                                              11.5
                                              14.4
                                               8.5
                                               7.4
WINC.HHOCKING AREA
    3    5434.0
JIILV 3, 196^
AUG. 3f 1967
                       PMH.AOn.PHIA,  PA.
                4-GAUF AVC.=1.43
                       AVO.=1.31
9 10 ".
1 2 3
STORAGE
108
1
02 12
2
1 1
1
20.
0.
3.
16.
600.
0.
15.
30.
10 50
7.00
1311*
1570
20000.
ENDPROGRAM
9
4 n


.50
21 35
1
6
1

0.
11181(0.
168720.
10.
0.



25
13l(G
1602
0.02000






1(2 51
1



2.
10.
18.
5.0




1970
1378
1631*
0.20






62 71
1



31920.
126000.
185280.





1.1U52
1410

1.25

 !(.    57600.
12.   138000.
21.   185280.
                                               0.03
                                                                     6.
                                                                    Id.
                                                                           82800.
                                                                          15501(0.
                                                                MONEY FACTORS
                                                                   1506      1538
                                                                ENR  IMOECES
                                                                UNIT COSTS
                                        172

-------
     /Icce.ssio/i Number
                             Subject Field & Group
                              013B
                                           SELECTED  WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
                                                 INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
  c I Organization

    Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto,  California ;  Florida University, Gainesville, Dept.
    of Environmental Engineering  ; Water  Resources Engineers, Inc., Walnut Creek, Calif.
     Title
            STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL
 |Q  Authors)

~Lager, John A.,
    Pyatt, Edwin E., and
    Shubinski, Robert P.
                                16
                                21
Project Designation

  EPA Contract Nos.  14-12-501,  502, 503
                                   Note
                                     Set of four volumes:  Volume I - Final Report,
                                     Volume II - Verification and Testing, Volume  III
                                     User's Manual, Volume IV - Program Listing
 22  Citation
 23
Descriptors (Starred First)
    Water Quality Control*, Computer Model*, storm Water*,  Simulation Analysis, Rainfall-
    Runoff Relationships, Sewerage, Storage, Waste Water Treatment, Cost Benefit Analysis
 25 I Identifiers (Starred First)                     ~

Combined Sewer Overflows*, Urban Runoff
 27
     Abstract
    A comprehensive mathematical model, capable of representing urban storm water runoff,
    has been developed to assist administrators and engineers in the planning, evaluation,
    and management of overflow abatement alternatives.  Hydrographs and pollutographs
    (time varying quality concentrations or mass values) were generated for real storm
    events and systems from points of origin in real time  sequence to points of disposal
    (including travel in receiving waters) with user options  for intermediate storage
    and/or treatment facilities.  Both combined and separate  sewerage systems may be
    evaluated.  Internal cost routines and receiving water quality output assisted in
    direct cost-benefit analysis of alternate programs of  water quality enhancement.
    Demonstration and verification runs on selected catchments,  varying in size from
    180 to 5,400 acres, in four u.s. cities (approximately 20 storm events, total)  were
    used to test and debug the model.  The amount of pollutants  released varied
    significantly with the real time occurrence, runoff intensity duration, pre-storm
    history,  land use, and maintenance.  Storage-treatment combinations offered best
    cost-effectiveness ratios.  A user's manual and complete  program listing were
    prepared.
Abstractor
John
A.
Lager
Institution
Proiect
Manaoer .
Metcalf
&
Eddy.
Inc.
  WR:102 (REV JULY 16B>
  WRSIC
                                          SEND TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
                                                 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
                                                                               * SPO: ieee-35-sj9

-------
Continued from inside front cover.
11022 	 08/67

11023  09/67

11020 	 12/67

11023 	 05/68

11031 	 08/68
11030 DNS 01/69
11020 DIH 06/69
11020 DBS 06/69
11020	06/69
11020 EXV 07/69

11020 DIG 08/69
11023 DPI 08/69
11020 DGZ 10/69
11020 EKO 10/69
11020 	 10/69
11024 FKN 11/69

11020 DWF 12/69
11000 	 01/70

11020 FKI 01/70

11024 DOK 02/70
11023 FDD 03/70

11024 DMS 05/-70

11023 EVO 06/70
11024 	 06/70
11034 FKL 07/70
11022 DMU 07/70
11024 EJC 07/70

11020	08/70
11022 DMU 08/70

11023  08/70
11023 FIX 08/70
11024 EXF 08/70
Phase I - Feasibility of a Periodic Flushing System for
Combined Sewer Cleaning
Demonstrate Feasibility of the Use of Ultrasonic Filtration
in Treating the Overflows from Combined and/or Storm Sewers
Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows, 1967
(WP-20-11)
Feasibility of a Stabilization-Retention Basin in Lake Erie
at Cleveland, Ohio
The Beneficial Use of Storm Water
Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff, (WP-20-15)
Improved Sealants for Infiltration Control, (WP-20-18)
Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff Abstracts, (WP-20-21)
Sewer Infiltration Reduction by Zone Pumping, (DAST-9)
Strainer/Filter Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows,
(WP-20-16)
Polymers for Sewer Flow Control, (WP-20-22)
Rapid-Flow Filter for Sewer Overflows
Design of a Combined Sewer Fluidic Regulator, (DAST-13)
Combined Sewer Separation Using Pressure Sewers, (ORD-4)
Crazed Resin Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflows, (DAST-4)
Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows 
Bucyrus, Ohio, (DAST-32)
Control of Pollution by Underwater Storage
Storm and Combined Sewer Demonstration Projects -
January 1970
Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer
Overflows, (WP-20-17)
Proposed Combined Sewer Control by Electrode Potential
Rotary Vibratory Fine Screening of Combined Sewer Overflows,
(DAST-5)
Engineering Investigation of Sewer Overflow Problem -
Roanoke, Virginia
Microstraining and Disinfection of Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Technology
Storm Water Pollution from Urban Land Activity
Combined Sewer Regulator Overflow Facilities
Selected Urban Storm Water Abstracts, July 1968 -
June 1970
Combined Sewer Overflow Seminar Papers
Combined Sewer Regulation and Management - A Manual of
Practice
Retention Basin Control of Combined Sewer Overflows
Conceptual Engineering Report - Kingman Lake Project
Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Alternatives -
Washington, D.C.

-------