Combined Sewer Overflow Toxic Pollutant Study


PB84-207687
Combined Sewr»r Overflow
Toxic Pollutant Study
Jordan (Ldward C.) Co., Inc., Portland, ME
Prepared for
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Apr 84
91 Department of Commerce
Rafionl Technical Information Service

-------
SEFA
Toxic Pollutant Study
Un
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the a i iYiv before <\>n;plctingl
1, REPORT N.O.
ErA ^*40/1-8*4/30**
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Combined Sewer Overflow
Toxic Pollutant Study
S. PERFORMING ORGANIZA1 ION CODE
3. REC.HiE

5. REPORT DATE
Aprilf 198^ (Date of Issue)
7. AUTHORIS)
Mike A. Crawford, P.E.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZA ,'ION NAME AND ADDRESS
E. C. Jordan Company
562 Congress Street
Portland, Maine 0*1112
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract No. 68-01-6675
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division (WH-552)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington. D.C. 2Qt)60	
13, TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IB. supplementary notes
16. ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to document the occurrence, concentration,
mass, and source of priority toxic pollutants in combined sewer flows (CSF).
CSF, combined sewer overflow, first flush flow, runoff, and precipitation
samples were collected in eight drainage areas and analyzed for specified
conventional and nonconventional pollutants and for priority toxic pollutants.
Twenty-two storm events were sampled. Background dry weather flow, tap water,
and sediment samples were also collected in the eight drainage areas and
analyzed for the same pollutants that the wet weather samples were analyzed
for.
17.
KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Wastewater
Priority Pollutants
Combined Sewer Overflow


18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited	
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
None
21. NO. OF PAOES
208
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thltpaft)
None
22. PRICE
EM Form 2220-1 <»•»»»
-------
EPA 440/1-84/304
Combined Sewer Overflow
Toxic Pollutant Study
prep&rad by
E.C. Jordan Co.
562 Congress Street
Portland, Maine 04112
prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Effluent Guidelines Division
EPA Project Officer
Robert M. Southworth, P.E.
April 1984

-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Effluent Guidelines Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute undorsement or recommendation for use.
lb
-------
ABSTRACT
This project was initiated to document the occurrence, concentration,
Diss, and source of priority toxic pollutants in combined sewer overflows
(CSOs).
Wet weather samples of CSO, combined sewer flow, first flush flews, runoff
and precipitation were collected during 22 distinct storm events. These
samples were collected from eight drainage areas in four cities (two drainage
areas per city). In addition, background dry weather flow samples, tap water
samples and sediment samples were collected in the. eight drainage systems. All
samples were analyzed for specified conventional and nonconventional pollutants
and for 125 priority toxic pollutants.
The occurrence of pollutants in combined sewer overflows, the concentra-
tion of these pollutants, pollutant mass factors (pounds of pollutant per acre
of drainage area per inch of rainfall), and projected CSO pollutant masses on a
nationwide basis are presented. Results of an evaluation of the pollutant mass
associated with the first flush phenomenon are also presented. Toxic pollutant
masses attributable to runoff are quantified and a mass balance analysis of the
combined sewer systems sampled is presented. The mass balance analysis in-
cluded identification of sources of toxic pollutants and the discharge pathways
of these pollutants. Factors affecting pollutants in combined sewer flows and
CSOs are discussed.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-5772 by the
E.C. Jordan Company under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This report covers the period from October 1, 1981 to April 1, 1984.
Work was completed a* of April 1, 1984.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract				ii
Figures		v
Tables		vii
Abbreviations and Symbols		viii
Acknowledgment		ix
1.	Summary and Conclusions			1
Summary		1
Conclusions 	 .....	3
2.	Introduction 			5
Purpose 		7
Scope of Work		6
3.	Site Selection		9
4.	Description of Selected Catchment Areas		13
Providence, Rhode Island. . . 		13
Ernest Street at Allen Avenue		15
Dexter Street at Huntington Avenue 		15
Seattle, Washington 		17
Lander Street		19
Michigan Street			22
St. Louis, Missouri		22
Prairie Avenue 			.24
Branch Street		28
St. Paul, Minnesota			28
Eustis Street		30
Phalen Creek 1		30
5.	Sampling Program	 		37
Sampling Methodologies		37
Analytical Techniques 		47
Synopsis of Sampling Episodes 		47
6.	Data Evaluation		55
Factors That Affect Pollutants in CSFs and CSOs . .	55
Occurrence of Priority Toxic Pollutants 		56
Combined Sewer Overflow Pollutant Evaluation. ...	60
Runoff Analysis 		67
Comparison of Dry Veight Pollutant Concentrations .	77
Combined Sewer System Mass Balance		81
Source of Pollutants in Combined Sewer Flow. .	81
Fate of Pollutants in Combined Sewer Flow. . .	93
First Flush Analysis		98
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program 		104
iii
-------
CONTENTS (cont.)
Appendices
A.	References
S.	Sample Period Hydrographs
C.	Analytical Results
D.	Quality Assurance/Quality Control Results
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number	Page
2.1	Typical Combined Sewer Collection Network
During a Storm Event		6
4.1	Geographical Location of the Dexter at
Huntington Avenue and Ernest at Aliens Avenue
Drainage Areas		14
4.2	Ernest at Aliens Regulator Arrangement			16
4.3	Dexter at Huntington Regulator Arrangement. ...	IS
4.4	Geographical Location of the Lander Street and
Michigan Street Drainage Areas		20
4.5	Lar.der Regulator Arrangement		 . .	21
4.6	Michigan Regulator Arrangement		23
4.7	Typical Diversion Chamber Arrangement -
St. Louis, HO		25
4.8	Geographical Location of the Prairie and
Branch Drainage Areas 		26
4.9	Prairie Regulator Arrangement 		27
4.10	Branch Regulator Arrangement		29
4.11	Geographical Location of the Eustis Street
Drainage Area		31
4.12	Geographical Location of the Phalen Creek
Drainage Area		32
4.13	Eustis Street Regulator Arrangement 		33
4.14	Location of Phalen Creek Diversion Structures . .	35
4.15	Phalen Creek Regulator Arrangement. . 			36
5.1	Flow Proportioning Example		39
5.2	Sample Compositing Scheme		 . .	41
V
-------
FIGURES (cont.)
Number	Page
6.1	Combined Sewer Overflow Concentrations by
Drainage Area		66
6.2	Combined Sewer Overflow Concentrations for the
10th to 90th Percentile		.68
6.3	Runoff Pollutant Concentrations by Drainage Area.	72
6.4	Runoff Pollutant Concentrations for the 10th
to 90th Percentile		73
6.5	Lead Mass Per Unit Area Versus Rainfall .....	75
6.6	Zinc Mass Per Unit Area Versus Rainfall		76
6.7	Chemical Oxygen Demand Mass Per Unit Area
Versus Rainfall 		78
6.8	Total Solids Mass Per Unit Area Versus Rainfall .	79
6.9	Source of Pollutants in Combined
Sewer Flows		82
6.10	Source of Zinc in Combined Sewer Flow		84
6.11	Source of Lead in Combined Sewer Flow		85
6.12	Source of Copper in Combined Sewer Flow .....	86
6.13	Source of Nickel in Combined Sewer Flow		87
6.14	Source of Chromium in Combined Sewer Flow ....	88
6.15	Source of Priority Toxic Pollutants in Combined
Sewer Flows		92
6.16	Fate of Pollutants in Combined Sewer Flows. ...	96
6.17	Source and Fate of Combined Sewer Flow 		97
6.18	Fate of Priority Toxic Pollutants in Combined
Sewer Flow			99
6.19	Typical First Flush Hydrograph		101
6.20	First Flush Volumes Per Storm Event 		103
vi
-------
TABLES
Number	Page
3.1	Characteristics of the Selected
Catchment Areas	- 12
5.1	Pollutants Analyzed For During CSO Study 	 38
5.2	Summary of Analytical Methods	 48
5.3	Summary of Sampling Episodes 	 50
6.1	Percent Occurrence of Priority Toxic
Pollutants	 57
6.2	Combined Sewer Overflow Priority Toxic Pollutant
Percent Occurrence and Concentration
Summary by Drainage Area	 61
6.3	Comparison of Selected Priority Toxic Pollutant
Concentrations in Dry Weather Background
Samples and CSO Samples	 64
6.4	Combined Sewer Overflow Pollutant Indices	 69
6.5	Projected Combined Sewer Overflow Mass
Discharged Nationwide	 70
6.6	Runoff Concentrations for Selected Pollutants. ... 74
6.7	Comparison of Dry Weight Pollutant Concentrations
in Runoff, CSO, and Dry Weather Samples	 80
6.8	Source of Zinc in Combined Sewer Flow		89
6.9	Source of Lead in Combined Stiver Flow 		89
6.10	Source of Copper in Combined Sewer Flow		90
6.11	Source of Nickel in Combined Sewer Flow 		90
6.12	Source of Chromium in Combined Sewer Flow		91
6.13	Source of Selected Pollutants in Combined
Sewer Flow		 9A
6.14	Fate of Selected Pollutants in Combined
Sewer Flow			 100
6.15	First Flush Volumes and Priority Toxic
Pollutant Masses 	 ..... 105
vii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
BODS -
biochemical oxygen demand
CATAD -
computer augmented treatment and disposal
CFS -
cubic feet per second
cm -
centioetor
COD -
chemical oxygen demand
CS -
combined sewer
CSF -
combined sewer flow
CSO -
combined sewer overflow
°C -
degrees centrigrade
ct-cv -
constant time-constant volume
Dup -
duplicate
EPA -
Environmental Protection Agency
GPD -
gallons per day
osl -
mean sea level
mgd -
million gallons per day
mg/1 -
milligrams per liter
min -
minutes
ml -
milliliter
PAH -
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
POTW -
publicly owned treatment works
QA/QC -
quality assurance/quality control
scss -
storm and combined sewer section
TCU -
telemetry control unit
TOC -
total organic carbon
TS -
total solids
TTVO -
total toxic volatile organics
TVS -
total volatile solids
TSS -
total suspended solids
VOC -
volatile organic compounds
Vmhos/cm
- micromhos per centimeter
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was conducted under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. The cooperation and efforts of Jeffrey D, Denit, Division Direc-
tor, Effluent Guidelines Division (EGD); Robert Crim, former EGD Branch Chief;
and Thomas P. O'Farrell, Project Manager, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards are appreciated. Special recognition is given to the EGD Project
Officer, Robert M. Southworth, P.E., for his efforts in providing direction and
input throughout this study.
The Jordan Company wishes to thank the personnel of the R.W. Beck Company,
Environmental Science and Engineering, and Donohue Associates for their support
during the sampling phase of this study. In addition, the unlimited coopera-
tion extended by Doug Houck and Bill Nitz of the Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle (METRO), Bernie Rains and John Koeper of the Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District, Klauss Forester and Leo Hermes of the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission, and Juan Mariscal and Joseph Filipone of the Narra-
gansett Bay Water Quality Management District Commission is recognized.
This report was prepared by Mike A. Crawford, P.E., Project Engineer and
Charles Goodwin under the direction of A. Peter Krauss, P.E., Principal-in-
Charge; Willard C. Warren, P.E., Project Manager; and Robert A. Steeves, Tech-
nical Project Director. The E.C. Jordan Company wishes to thank the project
staff members for their many contributions throughout the project, especially
during the sampling phase of the program. Recognition is given to David
Dionne, Mehdi Nasser-Miremadi, Bill Thurston, Carl Beal, Paul Smith and Dave
Lovejoy.
ix
-------
SECTION 1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY
Results from several previous studies conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency indicate that the amount of priority toxic pollutants found
in the influent to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) served by combined
sewers increases significantly during and immediately following a stem event.
This study was initiated to document the occurrence, concentration, mass, and
source of priority toxic pollutants in combined sewer flows (CSF) and combined
sewer overflows (CSO). Samples of precipitation, stormwater runoff, sewerage
system sediments, dry weather flow, wet weather combined sewer flow, CSO, and
first flush flows were collected from eight selected drainage areas in four
cities (two drainage areas per city) and analyzed for priority toxic pollutants
and selected conventional and nonconventional pollutants. Municipal water
supplies were also sampled to determine background pollutant concentrations.
The analytical results for this study indicate:
1.	Forty-six priority toxic pollutants were detected in CSO at least once
during this study; 11 pollutants were detected greater than 50 percent of
the time; and one pollutant, zinc, was detected in 100 percent of the CSO
samples. Thirteen of the priority toxic pollutants were detected between
10 percent and 50 percent of the time and 21 of the 46 pollutants detected
were present less than 10 percent of the time. Zinc (569 Ug/1)> nickel
(553 pg/1), lead (329 yg/1), copper (263 ug/1), and chromium (117 pg/1)
were the toxic elements present in the highest average concentrations;
trichloroethene (178 Mg/1), methylene chloride (96 iig/1), tetrachloro-
ethene (88 yg/1), I,1,1-trichlorethane (52 pg/1), and toluene (36 jJg/1)
were the organic pollutants detected in the highest average concentra-
" tions.
2.	With the exception of lead, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and, to a lesser
extent, zinc, the average CSO toxic pollutant concentrations were much
higher than the CSO median toxic pollutant concentrations.
3.	Thirty-six priority toxic pollutants were detected at least once in runoff
samples. Of those 36 pollutants, lead (297 vg/1), zinc (274 lig/t), copper
(84 vg/t), methylene chloride (32 |Jg/t), chromium (22 Vg/t), and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate (17	were detected greater than 50 percent of
the time and in the highest average concentrations.
4.	Priority toxic pollutant occurrences for the wet weather background,
combined sewer flow, and first flush samples generally paralleled the
occurrences of toxic pollutants in CSO samples. Zinc, copper, chromium,
lead, methylene chloride, toluene, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were the
priority toxic pollutants detected most frequently. Fifty-two priority
toxic pollutants were detected above the analytical detection limit in the
combined sewer flow samples, in comparison to 48 and 46 priority pollu-
1
-------
tants in the wet weather background and first flush samples, respectively.
Thirty-two priority toxic pollutants were found in each of these three
types of samples.
5.	Nineteen priority toxic pollutants -vere detected at least once in the 13
precipitation samples collected. With the "jxceptjon of methylene chlo-
ride, only zinc, at an average concentration of 52 Vg/l, was detected
greater than SO percent of the time in precipitation samples.
6.	One tap water sample was collected in each of the fear cities where
samples were collected. Copper, zinc, chloroform, and methylene chloride
were reported in greater than 50 percent of the samples. Chloroform was
the toxic organic pollutant present in the highest average concentration
(15 |ig/£), and zinc was the toxic metal present in the highest average
concentration (110 ti»/t).
7.	CSO pollutant indices (pounds per acre per inch of rainfall) were calcu-
lated for the eleven most frequently detected priority toxic pollutants
and selected conventional and nonconventional pollutants (B0D5, TS, TSS
and COD). Indices varied widely from drainage area to drainage area,
particularly for the toxic organic pollutants.
8.	Acid extractable pollutants, base-neutral extractable pollutants [with the
exception of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate] and pesticides were not fre-
quently present in the samples collected during this study; when present,
the concentrations were generally close to the analytical detection limits
for these pollutants.
9.	Storm events with an average rainfall intensity in excess of 0.1 inch per
hour exhibited a definite first flush period, as defined by the change in
conductivity of the wastewater. Storm events with an average intensity of
less than 0.1 inch per hour did not exhibit a pronounced first flush
period.
10.	The average first flush volume for the 13 storm events included in the
first flush analysis was 15 percent of the average combined sewer flow for
tho^e storm events. Of the average first flush volume, about 35 percent
of the flow was discharged as CSO. The remaining 65 percent of the first
flush volume was discharged to a P0TV. First flush toxic metals and
organic pollutant masses averaged 24 percent and 40 percent, respectively,
of the CSF toxic mass. However, first flush volumes and toxic pollutant
nasses associated with the first flush were site specific.
11.	Quality assurance results for the CSO study data are good overall. The
average of the mean recoveries was 96.1 ± 14.5 percent for volatile
organic pollutants; 81.1 ± 23.2 percent for the base-neutral pollutants;
61.3 ± 25.8 percent for acid extractable pollutants; and 97.0 ± 8.0
percent for the toxic metal pollutants. The majority of the toxic organic
analyses were performed by isotope dilution (EPA Methods 1624 and 1625).
Analytical results obtained using these methods are adjusted based on
surrogate recoveries (i.e., pollutant concentrations are automatically
2
-------
adjusted when this procedure is used). Comparisons between these data
and data generated by other analytical methods (i.e., methods 624 and 625)
should be undertaken with the difference between these analytical proced-
ures clearly understood.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are based on results of the evaluations of data
obtained during this CSO study:
1.	For the eight drainage areas sampled, CSOs represent a substantial ;on-
tribution of toxic metals discharged to surface waters. The averse total
toxic CSO metals concentration was 1,890 ng/t and the median CSO total
toxic metals concentration was 1,255 Pg/i. The average dxy weather
background total toxic metals concentration at these locations was 4,596
lig/£ and the median concentration was 1,724 vg/t.
2.	CSO organic priority pollutant discharges are not as significant as CSO
toxic metal discharges. The average total toxic organic (TTO) concentra-
tion in CSOs was 543 vg/1 and the CSO TTO median concentration was 416
Hg/£. The average dry weather background total toxic organic concentra-
tion was 794 yg/t and the respective median concentration was 304 vg/l.
3.	In general, CSO acid extractable, base-neutral extractable, and pesticide
pollutant masses were not significant during this study. However, the
quantity of these organic toxic pollutant masses in CSOs is site-specific
and primarily dependent on the mass of organic toxic pollutants present in
the background pollutant masses.
4.	CSO toxic volatile organic, base-neutral, and acid extractable pollutant
concentrations varied significantly from one drainage area to the next.
Median concentrations were almost always much lower than the average
concentration for those pollutants. The large difference between median
and average concentrations for this database and the variation of organic
priority pollutant concentrations by drainage area illustrate that back-
ground discharges from sources within the drainage area must be addressed
in an evaluation of CSOs. Many other factors also affect the amount of
toxic pollutants discharged in CSOs. Extensive evaluations of cause and
effect relationships between these factors were beyond the scope of this
study. Empirically, however, CSOs are site-specific both in volume and
frequency, indicating that land use patterns and sewerage system charac-
teristics should be considered in attempts to estimate the toxic pollutant
mass discharge from a drainage area.
5.	The concentrations of total solids and total suspended solids in CSOs (376
mg/t and 273 mg/t, respectively) are notable particularly because of the
tremendous volume of wastewater that may be discharged as CSO. Average
B0D5 and COD concentrations for CSOs were 65 mg/t and 216 mg/t, respec-
tively.
3
-------
6.	The priority pollutant nass contributed by precipitation is an insignifi-
cant portion of the total CSF toxic pollutant mass.
7.	The primary source cf liad, zinc, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate in CSO is
runoff. Attempts were made to identify factors directly related to
pollutant mass in the runoff. Rainfall intensity displayed a linear
correlation for zii.c and lead. Length of antecedent dry weather condi-
tions did not demonstrate a direct relationship to the runoff pollutant
mass.
8.	The resuspension of dry weather sediments from combined sewer collection
systems accounts for a considerable portion of the CSF toxic pollutant
mass. This is an inherent characteristic of combined sewer collection
systems which, because they are sized for a wide range of flow rates,
often are not designed to maintain a self-cleansing velocity during
low-flow dry weather periods. Copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, and lead
resuspension masses were 59, 52, 51, 42, and 30 percent of the total CSF
mass, respectively. Toxic organic pollutants, while not as prevalent as
toxic metals, followed a similar resuspension pattern as the above met-
als. BOD5 and COD masses for resuspended material also exceeded 50
percent of the total CSF uass of these pollutants.
9.	Toxic pollutants in combined sewer systems may be discharged either to a
POTW (via the intercepter system) or to a receiving stream (as CSO). The
principal factor that affects the volume and, therefore, the mass of the
CSF discharged as CSO is the hydraulic capacity of the regulator chamber,
- the interceptor sewer, and the associated spur pipe connections (pipe that
runs from the regulator chamber to the interceptor). The average percent-
age of CSF discharged as CSO during the 22 storm events sampled was 57
percent. The total toxic metal mass discharged In CSOs was approximately
56 percent of the. CSF total toxic metal mass; and the total toxic organic
pollutant CSO mass was approximately 47 percent of the CSF total toxic
organic pollutant mass.
10.	Characteristics of the first flush samples vary by site. The composition
of the first flush samples includes the normal dry weather flow, runoff,
and a resuspension of accumulated deposits from both the drainage area and
the collection network. Therefore, the first flush sample characteristics
are dependent on the residential, commercial, and industrial wastewater;
land use; slopes in the drainage area; slopes of the sewers; antecedent
dry weather periods; and the intensity of the storm event.
11.	Samples were collected during the first flush periods and the toxic
pollutant mass for these periods was compared to the CSF toxic pollutant
mass for a given storm event. While the toxic pollutant concentrations
were normally greater during the first flush than the CSF and CSO average
concentrations, the first flush toxic pollutant mass in general was less
than half the CSF toxic pollutant mass. For the 13 storm events included
in the first flush database, the average total toxic metal mass during the
first flush period was 24 percent of the CSF total toxic metal mass. The
average total toxic organic pollutant mass during first flush periods was
ai/out 40 percent of the CSF TTO mass.
4
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
Combined sewers are conduits that transport domestic wastewater and
industrial wastewater during dry weather conditions and domestic wastewater,
industrial wastewater, and storm water runoff during wet weather periods. The
concept of combined sewers was developed around the turn of the century when
the primary objective of collection networks was r.o transport sewage to the
local receiving streams. The use of treatment plants to reduce the impact of
dry weather raw sewage on surface waters began during the early twentieth
century. The capacity of treatment plants is usually not adequate, however, to
handle the voluminous quantities of combined wastewaters that may result during
storm events. Wastewater that cannot be handled by the treatment plant is
diverted to the receiving waters by means of a diversion structure which is
referred to as a regulator chamber. Figure 2.1 graphically displays a typical
combined sewer collection network during a storm event.
A hypothetical scenario for a combined sewerage collection system is:
wastewater flowing at a dry weather design rate is intercepted at a regulator
chamber, conveyed to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) for treatment, and
discharged to the receiving stream. Precipitation begins to fall, first
accumulating in depressions and storage areas within the drainage area. The
normal dry weather wastewater continues to flow to the POTW; the volume of
precipitation continues to increase and the capacity of depressions and storage
areas within the drainage area is exceeded, resulting in runoff. The runoff is
gentle at first, increasing in velocity and volume as the storm progresses.
The runoff contacts dry weather pollutants that have accumulated on the streets,
in the gutters, and on the roofs of buildings. The runoff is transported to
the sewerage system, combining with the dry weather wastewater. The combined
sewer flow enters the regulator chamber that diverts the combined flow to
either the treatment plant or, if flows are excessive, directly to the receiv-
ing waters untreated. As the storm continues, the volume of combined waste-
water discharged to the receiving stream increases. The velocity of the
wastewaters in the collection system also increases, resuspending dry weather
sediments that accumulated in the sewers. The precipitation ceases and gradu-
ally the flow to the regulator chamber decreases. The flow continues to recede
until overflow conditions no longer exist.
Combined sewer systems currently serve approximately 1300 communities
nationwide. These systems are predominately in the northeastern states, the
upper midwestern states and the far western states. Parts of these areas are
densely populated urban centers in which millions of people are exposed to the
impacts of these overflows(l). The potential health problems to individuals in
the communities served by combined sewers and the degradation of the receiving
water quality warrant an understanding of the characteristics of CSOs. Numer-
ous studies have been conducted that assess the quantity and quality of CSOs
(2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). The focus of these studies varied from the fate
5
-------
ORY WCATHC*
FAlLOUT
Ml
-------
of particulates discharged in CSOs to microorganisms present in such waste-
waters. While a number of studies have investigated the presence of toxic
metals in CSOs, few is any studies have been undertaken to assess the presence
of priority toxic pollutants in CSOs.
To determine the source, occurrence, and fate of priority toxic pollutants
in sewerage systems and in POTWs, EPA initiated several related studies. In
one study, the source (residential, commercial, or industrial) of priority
toxic pollutants in the influent to POTWs was evaluated (11). A second study
addressed the occurrence and fate of priority toxic pollutants in 40 POTWs with
different treatment processes and diversified industrial wastewater contribu-
tions; this study was later expanded to include 10 additional POTVs, ecch with
only one significant industrial discharger (12). A third study evaluated the
occurtence and fate of priority toxic pollutants in a POTW for 30 consecutive
days; the influent pollutant variability for the 30-day period was compared to
the pollutant variability observed during a previously conducted six-day
sampling period (13). A fourth study is currently being conducted through the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program to assess the occurrence of priority toxic
pollutants in urban runoff. Collectively, these studies provide ouch infor-
mation on the source, occurrence, and fate of priority toxic pollutants in
sewerage systems and in POTWs. This study addresses the topic of priority
toxic pollutants in CSOs, a subject not covered in previous POTW studies.
Because this study represents the first effort to specifically assess
priority pollutants in CSOs, development of a sampling protocol was necessary
before a full-scale investigation could be undertaken. A pilot study was
initiated, therefore, during the summer of 198i that aided in the establishment
of a sampling protocol for this study (14). The pilot study program was
tailored to develop a sampling plan to obtain information on the magnitude,
source, and fate of the priority toxic pollutants in combined sower collection
systems during wet weather conditions.
PURPOSE
The purposes of this CSO toxic pollutant study are: 1) to document the
occurrence, concentration, and mass of priority toxic pollutants in CSOs; 2) to
determine the sources of priority toxic pollutants in combined sewer flows
(i.e., identify the percentage of the pollutant mass attributable to dry
weather wastewater flows, runoff, and resuspension of the accumulated sediments
within the collection network); 3) to determine the fate of priority toxic
pollutants in combined sewer collection systems (i.e., identify the percentage
of the total pollutant mass discharged to the POTW and the percentage of the
wet weather flow discharged directly to the receiving waters); and 4) to
evaluate any observable correlations between priority toxic pollutant mass and
land use, rainfall intensity, slope of the catchment area, or other physical
factors.
7
-------
SCOPE OF WORK
This CSO toxic pollutant study contained six major tasks. They are:
1)	select representative catchment areas for sampling;
2)	sample the selected catchment areas during dry weather background
periods to establish a baseline c.atum and subsequently during wet
weather conditions;
3)	collect sediment samples during dry weather conditions from the
collection system;
4)	analyze the collected samples for priority toxic pollutants and for
specified conventional and nonconventiondl pollutants;
5)	compile the analytical results in a computerized data management
file-structured system; and
6)	evaluate the data and prepare a final report.
8
-------
SECTION 3
SITE SELECTION
To assess the presence, source, quantity, and fate of priority pollutants
in combi ed sewer flows and combined sewer overflows on a nationwide basis,
criteria were established to ensure selection of drainage areas that are
amenable to the objectives of the study. As a result of a CSO pilot study,
which was conducted during the summer and fall of 1981 in Newark, NJ and
Brooklyn, NY, criteria were developed for this CSO study. These criteria are:
1.	The study areas selected should be served only by combined sewers.
Although pertinent information could be obtained by sampling separated
collection networks and extrapolating data to simulate a combined sewer
overflow, more representative data would be obtained by sampling drainage
areas served by combined sewers.
2.	The municipality responsible for the combined sewer system should be
willing to participate in the study. Experienced personnel employed by
the local municipality can provide pertinent information that otherwise
may not be available on potential sample locations. Communication
directly with the field crews responsible for the operation and
maintenance of the regulators is desirable.
3.	Catchment areas must have well-defined boundaries. This is necessary not
only to measure the quantity of priority pollutants in CSOs, but also to
identify the source of the pollutants and any observable correlations that
may exist between pollutant mass and land use, rainfall intensity, and
other paiameters.
4.	Catchment areas selected should be served by a single regulator to reduce
the number of samples that must be collected (a major consideration for
priority pollutant sampling) and to reduce the field crew manpower re-
quirements. Catchment areas with relief lines that do not discharge to
the regulator chamber should be avoided, as well as catchment areas served
by multiple regulators.
5.	Selected regulator locations should be arranged such that both the com-
bined sewer flows (CSF) and combined sewer overflows (CSO) are accessible
and adaptable for sampling. In particular, regulator sample locations
should be free of potential surcharge conditions as a result of tidal
influences or river flooding.
6.	Selected xegulatur locations should be arranged such that the CSF, CSO,
and flow to the POTW can be accurately monitored. Locations where flow
calibration monitoring has been previously conducted should be given
priority consideration. Similarly, locations with flow monitoring or
level monitoring equipment in-place or where such equipment can be easily
adapted should be evaluated first.
9
-------
7.	Catchment areas should contain some industrial/commercial facilities that
would be expected to have priority pollutants in their wastewater.
. Diversified land use that includes residential, commercial, open space
(parks, etc.)v and a mix of industries is desired.
8.	Historical information such as plans of the regulator chamber, drainage
area acreage, land use, industries tributary to sample locations, slopes
of the catchments, and frequency of overflows should be available.
9.	The regulator chamber's sensitivity to overflow conditions should be
considered. The in-line storage capacity of the collection system should
not be so large that overflows are limited to high intensity storm events.
10.	Proximity of catcnment areas to existing recording rain gauges should be
determined. Because storm intensities ate a major consideration in a CSO
study, availability of an existing recording rain gauge within the selec-
ted catchment areas is an asset.
11.	Size and shape of the catchment area should be considered. The catchment
area should be large enough so that it is not dominated by a single
industry (an atypical system), yet small erough to be manageable for
sampling and flow monxtoring.
12.	Accessibility of the regulator should be evaluated. Regulators situated
at the intersection of major traffic arteries are not attractive sample
locations due to the potential delays and additional manpower needed for
traffic control.
IS. Safety of the sample crews ar.d field equipment should be a primary con-
sideration.
Approximately 60 communities account for over 80 percent of the area in
the 1300 communities served by combined sewers. Those 60 communities were
contacted to appraise their willingness to participate in this CSO study and to
further evaluate the suitability of drainage areas within those communities
with respect to the above.
As a result of this initial screening, over 30 communities were eliminated
from further consideration. The remaining 30 communities were evaluated in
detail and the 13 communities which appeared to best meet the program objec-
tives were selected for field reconnaissance inspections. Potential sample
locations were physically inspected for their applicability to flow monitoring
and sample collection. The drainage areas were defined on plan drawings and
then redefined in the field. In addition, available historical information on
industries tributary to the potential sampling locations, the sensitivity of
the regulators at those locations to overflow, flow information, and the slopes
of the sewers were reviewed.
Eight catchment areas were selected for sampling in four cities. These
areas represent diversified land use; however, hone of the catchment areas
selected are "purely" residential, commercial or industrial, in nature. The
10
-------
selected catchment areas were in: Providence, Rhode Island; Seattle, Washing-
ton; St. Louis, Missouri; and St. Paul, Minnesota. Some important characteris-
tics of the selected catchment areas are summarized in Table 3.1.
11
-------
TABU 3.1. CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED CATCHMENT AREAS.
TRAFFIC
LOCATION	VOLUME
Ernest at Aliens-	Moderate
Providence, Rl
Dexter at Huntlagtoa- Light
Providence, It
LAMP USE DESCR1PTI0II
65 acres of Industrial and aulti-
fuiljr residential laod use;
catrhtnt area ia highly
inpervioua.
300 acres of predominately awlti-
and aingle-fanilv residential
with scattered conercial and
industrial activities.
Lander-
Seattle, VA
Heavy	500 acres of light to Medina
Industrial and aixei coanercial
activities.
Hichigan-
Seattle, WA
Heavy	745 acrea of heavy coaawrcial
and nixed industrial/residential
land use.
H Branch-	Moderate
St. Loois, MO
2,580 acrea, of which about 80
percent is residentlal/ceaMercial;
13 percent is industrial; and
seven percent is open space.
Prairie-	Moderate
St. iMil, HO
SIS acres, of which 50 percent ia
coMBerciai/resideotial; AO percent
is industrial; and 10 percent is
open space.
Vhalen-	Light	870 acres of scattered industrial,
St. Paul, Ml	co—rrcial land use with the
Majority of the area being aulti-
fanily residential and open area.
Eaatis-	Light	78 acres of light industrial and
St. Paul, Mi	coaaercial laad use. Area is
highly inpervious.
REGULATOR ABRAMGEHCTT
MAJOR INDUSTRIES IN CATCHMENT AREA
(Standard Industrisl Classification Code)
Heir and orifice ativcture 2-electroplatlng facilities (3471); 12-coating &
engraving facilities; 2-aiacellaneoua plastics
Manufacturer (3079).
Horizontal alot and dan
Pneumatically operated
sluice gates controlled by
the CATAD systeM
5-electroplating facilities (3471); 2-coating and
enaneling services (3479); 1-tool and die Manufac-
turer (3544); 1-fabricated netal Manufacturer
(3490); 1-vatch Maker (3*73); 1-jewelry nanufactur-
er (3915); 1-faatener Manufacturer (3960); 1-dry
cleaning operation (7216).
Brewery (2082), Meat packing (2011), netal plating
(3471), and battery Manufacturing (3691).
PneuMatically operated
sluice gates controlled by
the CATAD systesi.
Slot and weir regulator
Slot and weir regulator
Orifice and weir arrangement
Leaping weir
Metal plating (3471), dry cleaning (7216),
cheMical Manufacturing (2861), repair service
(7699), pet food processing (2047) and glass
Manufacturing.
5-nachinery Manufacturers (3592,3599,3544);
plsstics processor (3079); rubber Manufacturer
(3069,3061); 8-planta which fabricate Metal pro-
ducts (3431,3432,3446,3471,3441,3479); 3-
electrical aupplies Manufacturer (3613,3643);
leather tanning facility (3149,2851); foundariea
(3321,3362,3398); printing and publishing (2751,
2799,2711); 8-arat processors (2011,2013); oils
anJ fats processor (2077); Misc. food processors
(2099); paint Manufacturer (2751,2799).
4-plants which fabricate Metal producta (3471,
3479,3494); 2-Machinery Manufacture™ (3533,3599);
2-plaatica processing planta (3079); sporting
gooda Manufacturer; 3-chenicals and allied pro-
duct processors (2851,2891,2834); 2-Mest packing
plants (2011,2013); paper snd allied producta
coMpany (2653).
Halt beverage (2082), surgical appliancea (3842),
Malleable iron foundry (3322), asphalt felt and
coating (2952), Meat processing (2013), refriger-
sters and vacuus cleaners (3585,3632,3635).
Inorgsnic cheMicals (2816), truck trailer Manu-
facturing (3715), welding repair (7692), SKtal
coating (3479), and battery aunufacturlng (3691).
-------
SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED CATCHMENT AREAS
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND
The city of Providence is located in northern Rhode Island at the head of
upper Narragansett Bay. The entire city is served by combined sewers. The
touns of North Providence and Johnston have separated wastewater collection
systems that discharge into the Providence combined sewer system. The entire
service area, including Johnston and North Providence, is approximately 50
square miles in area. In May 1982, the Narrangansett Bay Water Quality Manage-
ment District Commission assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the
Providence sewer network and the operation of Providence's municipal treatment
facility.
Providence lies within the New England lowland region and encompasses an
area of 20 square miles. The downtown area is generally flat, with the highest
elevation just over 50 faet above mean sea level. . The rest of the city is
covered by hills, all less than 200 feet above sea level. The streams that
drain Providence are the Woonasquatucket River, Moshassuch River, Seekonk
River, West River, and Providence River (15). The average annual precipitation
for the Providence area totals approximately 41 inches.
The service area for Providence's municipal treatment facility collection
network Includes approximately 391 miles of sewers: 168 miles of combined
sewers, 137 miles of sanitary sewers, and 88 miles of separate storm sewers.
Sewers in this system range in size from eight to 110 inches in diameter. The
majority of the larger sewers (greater than 18 inches) are constructed of
brick, while the smaller diameter sewers are either vitrified clay or brick.
The depth of the sewers ranges from seven to 65 feet with an average depth of
approximately 12 fe&t. The normal distance between manholes is 200 feet with
two manholes located at each intersection. There are three pumping stations in
the collection network. The sewerage system includes 65 overflow structures
that discharge to the Providence River and its tributaries during wet weather
conditions (16).
Most overflow regulator structures consist of a slot and tide gate ar-
rangement. When the slot capacity is exceeded, the excess flow bypasses the
•lot and discharges to the receiving waters via the overflow pipe. The tide
gates, where required, exclude seawater inflow into the system during tidal
fluctuations. The sewerage system was designed to accommodate a rainfall of
one inch per hour In addition to the domestic wastewater and groundwater flows
(15).
Due to tidal fluctuations, flow monitoring at the majority of the regu-
lators adjacent to the receiving streams is affected by river backwater flows.
The two regulators that were free from these influences and determined suitable
for the CS0 study are located at the intersection of Ernest Street and Aliens
Avenue and the intersection of Dexter Street and Huntington Avenue. Figure 4.1
shows the geographical location of the catchment areas sewered by these two
regulators.
13
-------
Hi

300 ACRES
dexter/hunttngton

*00/.*
SlMlt'M
. Pi
REGULATOR
Elpirtod
2000 FECT
V.. ." •
• Th\ JTcmiu
V	-	"J« °*
\ ^ e&.o °i
*" .	®«c< "a««f
«ku —;
®l '
, PROVIDENCE •
<»•»•
^'"HARBOR
KfcVaW-AIUH >
ERNE8T/ALLEN3
t *5 — *•
-	'-*4/

/ *
""-i
PROVIDENCE. R. I.
s -«
<^Z
Uf
,r^--
•St ¦
r»2 ; ; ••- -
• ; **i r«r •» v*-*r»rc us
CRANSTON
l .0O
•	i
v ¦'! : i
nj 1000
r
FIGURE 4.1 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE
DEXTER STREET AT HUNTINGTON AVENUE AND
ERNEST STREET AT ALLENS AVENUE DRAINAGE AREAS
14
-------
Ernest Street at Aliens Avenue
The Ernest Street at Aliens Avenue regulator (Ernest @ Aliens) overflows
to the Providence River. The area served by the regulator consists of approxi-
mately 65 acres that is partly residential and highly industrialized. Metal
finishing and plating operations dominate the catchaent area while jewelry
crafting and plastic processing are secondary industries. The drainage area ia
bisected by Aliens Avenue, a heavily travelled riverfront artery that accommo-
dates a good deal of truck traffic. The section east of Aliens Avenue is
cocprised of single and multi-family dwellings; the area west of Aliens Avenue
is predominantly industrial development. Table 3.1 summarizes several of the
characteristics of the drainage area, including the industries discharging to
the overflow regulator. The western section of the drainage area is largely
covered by roofed structures and parking lot surfaces and is therefore highly
impervious.
Localized flooding was observed in the drainage area during storm events
as a result of numerous clogged catchbasins and storm water inlet structures.
Depending on the intensity and volume of rainfall for a given storm event,
various quantities of runoff from this drainage area bypassed the clogged storm
inlet structures and flowed to adjacent drainage areas. The clogged inlet
structures, in addition to diverting some runoff to adjacent areas, also
resulted in the temporary storage of storm water in the catchment area.
Sections of the brick and mortar sewers in the catchment area are severely
damaged in a number of locations, presumably the result of years of contact
with acidic wastewaters from the local industries. Several sections of sewers
have been reconstructed because of the complete deterioration of the mortar
Joints. Areas in which vitrified clay sewers were used appear to be in much
better structural condition.
A steeply sloped 24-inch concrete trunk sewer runs north along Aliens
Avenue to the regulator chamber. This sewer tapers to a 12-inch spur pipe that
discharges to the interceptor paralleling Ernest Street. As Figure 4.2 illus-
trates, a manhole (A) is located upstream of the regulator chamber manhole (B)
while a second manhole (C) is located downstream of the regulator chamber on
the overflow line. During wet weather periods, the combined domestic and stora
water flow discharges to the interceptor via the 12-inch spur pipe. As the
flow increases and the capacity of the spur pipe is exceeded, the flow spills
over the trough in manhole B and flows through a two foot square opening to
manhole C. Surcharge conditions develop as a result of a concrete weir con-
structed in the manhole which eliminates tidal inflow during high tide periods.
The combined sewer flow ultimately overflows the 18-inch high weir and is
discharged to the Providence River.
Dexter Street at Huntington Avenue
The Dexter Street at Huntington Avenue regulator (Dexter @ Huntington)
likewise overflows to the Providence River. Approximately 300 acres of single
family residential and scattered industrial development are tributary to this
regulator. Metal finishing and electroplating are the primary industries in
15
-------
^ c ¦
M!* VUR COMgCTMl
•M" coNCRere sewot
e	* •
^ i	h">m"opciima-^
.0
AU.CN> AVCNUC
&M
HT.»
concmtc «cn
r» mwui'iiw
JEBBEU
NTS.
FIGURE 4.2 REGULATOR CHAMBER ARRANGEMENT
AT THE INTERSECTION OF ERNEST STREET AND ALLENS AVENUE
-------
the drainage area. Traffic volume in general is low, most traffic is limited
to local travel.
No major highways traverse the drainage area. As with the Ernest @ Aliens
drainage area, several of the storm water inlet structures in the Dexter @
Huntington drainage arej were clogged with sediments and other runoff material.
Minimal bypassing of runoff tc adjacent areas was observed, however, during
sampling. Local flooding and temporary storage of the store water in the
catchment area were observed during each sampling episode.
Flow from the catchment area is intercepted by a horizontal slot at the
Dexter @ Huntington regulator (see Figure A.3). lite dry weather flow drops
into the interceptor sewer via a spur pipe connection. During wet weather
periods the hydraulic capacity of the slot is exceeded, and the combined
domestic/storm water flow bypasses the slot and flows to the Providence River.
A 17-inch-high brick dam structure, which is immediately behind the semi-
circular slot opening, reduces the number of dry weather overflow occurrences.
The slot regulator and associated spur pipe have a limited hydraulic capacity
in excess of the average dry weather flow. This point was substantiated in
July when water from a nearby fire hydrant was sufficient to cause an overflow
occurrence. Table 3.1 presents the characteristics of the drainage area.
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
The city of Seattle is located in the northwestern portion of the State of
Washington. It is surrounded by Lake Washington on the east and Puget Sound on
the west. The Laxe Washington ship canal connects these two water bodies. The
major rivers draining the area are the Duwamish, Sammamish, and Cedar rivers.
Average annual precipitation for the Seattle area totals approximately 40
inches. There are approximately 160 overflow structures in the Seattle area.
The municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO), a public corporation, is
responsible for the operation and maintenance of 30 of the 160 combined sewer
overflow regulators as well as the areawide sewage treatment plants. The
remainder of the overflow structures are under the jurisdiction of the city of
Seattle (17).
Fifteen of the regulators are controlled by fCTRO's Computer Augmented
Treatment and Disposal System (CATAD). The CATAD system is designed to provide
in-line storage of wet weather flow and flexibility in determining which
regulator locations will overflow to the receiving waters. These features
reduce the detrimental impacts resulting from CSOs (i.e., freshwater bodies
such as Lake Washington are protected from overflows whenever possible). The
CATAD system includes an extensive flow monitoring and sampling system. There
is also a network of rain gauges in the Seattle metropolitan area that, similar
to the flow monitoring and sampling equipment, are all connected to a centra)
computer by a telemetry control unit (TCU). Each flow monitoring and precipi-
tation gauge location is nsonitored every 10 seconds. Based on the information
from the flow monitors and rain gauges, the CATAD system either initiates,
increases, decreases, or stops wet weather overflows. Frequency of overflow is
currently estimated at AO occurrences per outfall per year on the average (3).
17
-------
IT" HIGH DAM STRUCTURE	
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
SLOT
FLOW
TO PROVIOENCE RIVER
COMBINED SEWER
(OVAL SHAPE 48"X 40 )
PLAN
N.T.S.
MANHOLE
SLOT
DAM
CSO
OAY WEATHER FLOW
SPUR PIPE
TO PROVIDENCE RIVER
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
PROFILE
N.T.&
FIGURE 4.3 DEXTER AT HUNTINGTON
REGULATOR ARRANGEMENT
18
-------
Following inspections of several of the overflow regulators, the Lander
Street and Michigan Street regulators were selected for sampling as part of
this CSO study. Table 3.1 presents the characteristics of the drainage areas
sewered by those regulators. Figure 4.4 presents the geographical location of
the drainage areas with respect to the Seattle metropolitan area. Both regula-
tors are part of the METRO CATAD system. For the purpose of this study, the
CATAD system was programmed in such a way that in-line storage of the wet
weather flow at the selected regulators was eliminated.
Lander Street
Five hundred acres of predominantly industrial land comprise the drainage
area of the Lander Street regulator. Major industries include a brewery, a
meat packing plant, various food processing plants, a metal plating operation,
and a battery manufacturing plant. The drainage area is largely impervious and
is subjected to scattered truck traffic serving the local industries as well as
heavy automobile traffic from Interstate S and East Marginal Way, both major
thoroughfares to downtown Seattle. A series of railroad yards parallels
Interstate 5 and East Marginal Vay running north to south through the drainage
area. With the exception of Beacon Hill on the eastern border, the drainage
area is only slightly sloped.
Wastewaters from the Lander drainage area flow into a common concrete
sewer. The trunk sewer discharges to a rectangular concrete regulator chamber.
As seen in Figure 4.5, dry weather sewage is discharged to the interceptor
system that ultimately conveys the wastewater to the municipal treatment plant.
During wet weather conditions, the CATAD system has several operation alterna-
tives. First, the sluice gate to the municipal treatment plant could be closed
and the sluice gate to the East Waterway opened, thus resulting in a CSO.
Second, both sluice gates could be closed, thus maxinizing in-line storage.
Third, both sluice gates could be opened. And fourth, any combination of the
three previous alternatives could be arranged. The sluice gates can be con-
trolled manually or programmed to open or closa at a fixed flow elevation.
During the CSO toxic pollutant utudy, the sluice gate to the POTW was opened
and the sluice gate to the East Waterway was programmed to remain closed until"
surcharge conditions reached a predetermined elevation. The predetermined
elevation was based on historical information and was selected to minimize
in-line storage. When wastewater reached that elevation, the overflew sluice
gate opened, the sluice gate to the municipal treatment plant closed, and
wastewater "overflowed" to the East Waterway.
Continuous level recorders (bubbler tubes) are in place on both the
incoming and outgoing interceptor sewors at the regulator chamber. Stage
versus discharge relationships were developed for both of these sewers. The
regulator chamber is accessible intide the existing regulator control building.
The overflow sewer can be affected by tidal fluctuations in the bay. However,
the tide elevations during the storm events sampled did not affect the sampling
program for this study.
19
-------
[ * IOO
foo3
1	i^^ir i rff At
(LANDER4 REC^ATOR

Aso M freer »'

745 ACRES
MICHIGAN REGULATOR
j±.£\	
ivr.uii-
4000 FEET
2000
FIGURE 4.4 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF LANDER
AND MICHIGAN DRAINAGE AREAS
20
-------
TO INTERCEPTOR
SLUICE GATES
CSO
TRUNK SEWER
TO EAST
WATERWAY
REGULATOR
CHAMBER
PLAN
N.TS.
REGULATOR
CONTROL
BUILDING
~W
SLUICE GATES
CSO
PROFILE
N.T.S.
FIGURE 4.5 LANDER REGULATOR ARRANGEMENT
21
-------
Michigan Street
The Michigan Street regulator serves a tributary area of about 745 acres
used for heavy industrial, light industrial, and commercial purposes. Metal
plating, dry cleaning, paint manufacturing, and barrel cleaning operations are
the dominant heavy industrial activities in the area. The area is generally
flat, although the eastern edge of the drainage area is bounded by the steeply
sloped Beacon Kill. The southern section of the drainage area borders the
Boeing Corporation airfield. The area is heavily travelled, encompassing
approximately a two mile length of Interstate 5. Figure 4.6 shows the regula-
tor arrangement at the Michigan Street location.
The Michigan regulator is also conne *->d to the CATAD system. The oper-
ation of this regulator is very similar tc hat of the Lander regulator.
Continuous depth level recorders (bubbler tubes) are in place for monitoring
the incoming sewer and overflew interceptor flow rates. One significant
difference between the Michigan and Lander regulators is that the segment of
the CSO sewer that extends from the regulator chamber to the Duwaoish River
(approximately	feet) may be used for in-line storage if desired.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
The city of St. Louis is located in eastern Missouri on the banks of the
Mississippi River. The metropolitan St. Louis area consists of two major
watersheds: the Coldwater Creek watershed, which includes the older downtown
urban area; and the Bissell Point watershed, which includes the heavily indus-
trialized area north of the city center flong the waterfront. Because of the
greater industrial land use and the extensive combined sewors within the Bis-
sell Point watershed, only Bissell Point sub-watersheds were considered for
this study.
The Bissell Point watershed is approximately 34 square miles of highly
urbanized, industrial, and commercial land use. This watershed has around 700
miles of combined sewers ranging in size from eight inches in diameter to a 38
foot horseshoe arch. The population of the area is about 500,000. Approxi-
mately 45 percent of the wastewater flow generated in this area is from indus-
trial sources (18). The watershed is divided into 23 sub-watersheds or drain-
age areas, each served by a single overflow regulator. Nine of these rogula-
tors have been flow-monitored and sampled previously during a CSO facility plan
study. Conclusions from that study indicated that a 0.25 inch/hour rainfall
event ensures that an overflow will occur at all regulators. However, over-
flows at several of the regulators may occur with as little as 0.04 inch/hour
of rainfall (19).
Treatment and disposal of wastewaters generated in the Bissell Point
watershed is affected directly by the stage elevation of the Mississippi River.
An extensive network of diversion chambers, sluice gates, flootlwalls, and
pumping stations have been constructed to maximize treatment of wastewaters,
yet ainiaize the inflow of seasonal flood waters at the treatment plant. In
general, three treatment and disposal modes of operations exist for the drain-
age areas serviced by the flood control facilities: 1) low river stage in
22
-------
TRUNK
SEWER
15001
TO
OUWAMISH
RIVER
SLUICE GATES
TO INTERCEPTOR
PLAN
mjzr
OUTFALL
CONTROL
BUILDING
SLUICE GATES
PROFILE
N.T.S.
FIGURE 4.6 MICHIGAN REGULATOR ARRANGEMENT
23
-------
which the diversion chamber sluice gate is opened to accommodate maximum flow
to the treatment plant during dry and wet weather conditions; 2) high liver
stage in which the diversion chamber sluice gate is closed to prevent river
inflow to the interceptor system (in this situation both dry and wet weather
flow are diverted directly to the Mississippi River); and 3) flood sta?e,
during which period the diversion chamber sluice gates are closed and the flood
control pumping stations are used to drain the inundated sewer system. For the
CSO toxic pollutant study, all field sampling was done when the river elevation
was low (mode number one abov0. Figure 4.7 contains a profile view of a
typical diversion chamber in the Bissell Foir*". watershed bnd indicates the
various stage elevations.
The two diversion chambers selected for monitoring are located on East
Prairie Avenue and on Branch Street. Figure 4.6 shows the geographical loca-
tions of the selected drainage areas and Table 3.1 details the characteristics
of the drainage areas.
Prairie Avenue
The Prairie Avenue drainage area is comprised of approximately 518 acres,
of which, about 50 percent is used for residential and commercial purposes , 40
percent is industrial land use, and 10 percent is open area. The major indus-
trial activities in this drainage area are metal plating, organic chemicals/
plastics manufacturing, soap and detergent manufacturing, and meat processing.
The drainage area is largely impervious. Truck and rail traffic associated
with industrial riverfront activities routinely pass through the drainage area.
The drainage area is bisected by the Mark Twain Expressway (Interstate 70),
which runs north-south connecting downtown St. Louis with the metropolitan
airport. The area west of the expressway is largely a multi-family residential
area that is moderately sloped (slopes ranging from 0.023 to 0.053 feet per
foot); the eastern section is much flatter (slopes of 0.011 feet per foot) and
industrial activities are prevalent. The Mississippi River defines the eastern
boundary of the catchment area, and lies at an elevation of about 295 feet
above mean sea level (msl).
The Prairie catchment area is drained by one major trunk sewer varying in
size from a three foot by four foot egg-shaped brick sewer to an eight foot
diameter sewer. This sewer transports wastewater from the eastern sections of
the drainage area to the interceptor tu&nel. It runs oeneath Prairie Avenue
the majority of its length. The Prairie trunk sewer discharges through the
interceptor to the municipal treatment plant at Bissell Point (see Figure 4.9).
During dry weather conditions (at low river stage when the CSO study was
conducted) the sanitary wastewater from the Prairie trunk line is diverted by a
one foot high dam structure into a 1.5 foot diameter spur pipe that directs the
flow to a gatewell chamber. This flow is then directed co the North Inter-
ceptor Tunnel leading to the Bissell Point Treatment Plant. The dam in the
Prairie regulator forms a weir at an elevation of 403.2 feet above msl.
Combined sewer flows that exceed the hydraulic capacity of the 1.5-ft diameter
spur pipe discharge over the weir/dam structure to the Mississippi River, which
is approximately 1,500 feet from the weir. River stages above 21.3 feet on the
24
-------
FLOOOWALL
FLOOOWALL SATE
REGULATOR MANHOLE
FLOOOWALL
PUMP STATION
FLOOD STAGE
CSO
NI6H RIVER STAGE
iRY WEATHER FLOW
INTERCEPTOR WEIR
LOW RIVER STAGE
GATEWELL CHAMBER SLUICE GATE
INTERCEPTOR TO MUNICIML TREATMENT PLANT
FIGURE 4.7 TYPICAL DIVERSION CHAMBER SCHEMATIC
ST. LOUIS, MO
-------
K3
O
FIGURE 4.8 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE PRAIRIE AND BRANCH DRAINAGE AREAS
PRAIRIE REGULATOR
BRANCH REGULATOR^'
	
i W i s\ V>y ."i %\	\
,qiss2a.^
< LAIH (1
Brooklyn *
(Lcrejojr, PO)
SOUBCe: tSE, 196J
I W!>
-------
o
3' R.C. R
DWF
GATEWELL CHAMBER
PRAIRIE
AVENUE
WEIR
j e' BRICK SEWER
TO RIVER
REGULATOR
o.
TO MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANT
PLAN
N.T.S.
PRAIRIE AVENUE
	—			 "IT "—w
«* BRICK SEWER
PROFILE
N.T.S.
FIGURE 4.9 PRAIRIE REGULATOR ARRANGEMENT
i7
-------
St. Louis level gauge Inundate the Prairie weir, prompting the Metropolitan St.
Louis Sewer District (MSD) to close the gatewell chamber sluice gate (19).
Branch Street
The Branch Street drainage area contains approximately 2,580 acres, of
which 80 percent is used for residential and commercial purposes, 13 percent is
used for industrial purposes , and seven percent is open area. Major indus-
tries located within the boundaries of the drainage area include six metal
plating plants, two rubber and miscellaneous plastics manufacturers, 21 food
and kindred products plants, two printing and publishing companies, and two
chemical and allied products manufacturers (20). Table 3.1 summarizes the
drainage area characteristics.
The Branch catchment area is bounded on the east by the Mississippi River.
River elevations are slightly lower near the Branch regulator than at the
Prairie regulator; the typical river elevation at the Branch regulator is about
394 feet above mean sea level. The highest elevation in the watershed is close
to 550 feet above mean sea level. Slopes across this drainage aroa range
between 0.007 and 0.017 feet per foot. The catchment area is drained by the
Branch Street trunk sewer, which is a 12 foot by 14 foot arch-shaped brick
¦ewer near the regulator manhole. Smaller trunk sewers from the Palm Street
and Blanton Street areas discharge to the Branch sewer system upstream from the
regulator. Figure 4.10 shows that the dry weather flow is diverted by a 4.8
foot high dam in the Branch regulator into a diversion chamber by reans of a
four foot diameter spur pipe (19). The flow then passes into the South Inter-
ceptor Tunnel.
The dam in the regulator forms a weir at an elevation of 400.8 feet above
mean sea level. During wet weather combined sewer flow conditions, flows in
excess of the spur pipe capacity pass over the weir/dam structure and discharge
to the Mississippi River some 800 feet to the east. River stages above 19.8
feet on the St. Louis level gauge appear to inundate the Branch weir. To
prevent the inflow of river water to the South Interceptor Tunnel, the Branch
gatewell chamber sluice gate is closed when the river stage is 19.8 feet and
the entire combined sewer flow discharges to the Mississippi River.
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
The city of St. Paul is located in southeastern Minnesota. The two major
receiving waters draining the area are the Mississippi ana Minnesota Rivers.
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) is the operating agency of the
Metropolitan Council, a regional governmental entity responsible for the
collection and treatment of wastewater in the seven-county St. Paul/Minneapolis
metropolitan area. The MWCC is responsible for the operation of some of the
CS0 regulators located within the St. Paul corporate limits (21). The other
CS0 regulators are the responsibility of the city of St. Paul.
Of the approximately 27,170 acres within the St. Paul city limits, about
21,220 acres, or 78 percent, are served by combined sowers. The average number
of overflows from 1970 to 1974 ranged from eight to 28.5 per year per regula-
tor.
28
-------
GAT EWE LL
CHAMBER
I4'XI2' BRICK SEWER
TO RIVER
WEIR
STREET
BRANCH
REOOLATOR
PLAN
N.TS.
BRANCH	STREET
CSO
OWF
PROFILE
RQURE 4.10 BRANCH REGULATOR ARRANGEMENT
29
-------
Total rainfall in excess of 0.10 inch usually causes an overflow at four
of the major regulators; total rainfall of 0.20 - 0.30 inch generally causes an
overflow at three additional locations; and at the remaining locations, a nort
intense rainfall is needed to cause overflows. Dry weather overflows have
occurred in the system as a result of unanticipated domestic sewage volumes
and/or regulator blockage, but do not occur on a regular basis (9).
The regulators selected for sampling and flow monitoring in St. Paul are
located in the vicinity of Eustis Street and Fountain Street. The Fountain
Street location is referred to as the Phalen Creek regulator. Figures A.11 and
4.12 shows the geographical locations of these catchment areas. Table 3.1
details the characteristics of the two catchment areas.
Eustis Street
The Eustis Street tributary area is comprised of 78 acrfcs utilized almost
solely for light industrial and commercial purposes. Industries located within
the drainage area Include an abandoned tractor assembly plant, a steel ware-
house, a die casting operation, and a battery manufacturer. Dry weather
wastewater flows &>n»«-4ted in this area are low (approximately 0.1 mgd). The
large percentage of warehouse buildings and parking lots makes this catchment
area highly impervious.
(Most of the sewers within this catchment aren were built in the early
1900's and range in diameter from 9 inches to ? feet 6 inches. The majority of
the smaller pipes (less than 24-inches) are vitrified clay; the intermediate
sizes are reinforced concrete pipe (RCP); *nd the largs 7-foot conduits are
brick. In 1965, the Highway 260 construction forced some sewer relocations and
the regulator or diversion structure was constructed at that time. As shown in
Figure A.13, a 60-inch RCP trunk sewer conveys the catchment area flow from a
7.5-foot trunk sewer and directs the flow to the diversion structure near
Wabash Avenue. Dry weather flow (DWF) is diverted to a IS-inch domestic sever;
the regulator configuration contains a leaping weir. When overflow conditions
occur during wet weather flow periods, the combined domestic sewage and storm
water spills over the trough and weir in the diversion manhole and flows into
the SA-lnch RCP pipe. This pipe discharges to a dropshaft that leada to a
storm water tunnel that eventually discharges to the Mississippi Rlvec (21).
Phalen Creek
The Phalen Creek drainage area consist* of approximately 070 acres of land
used for multiple-family residential, single family residential, coumercial.
Industrial, and park purposes (22). The area slopes aoderately toward the
Phalen Creek regulator location; average slopes range from approximately 0.00S
to 0.016 feet per foot. Surface elevations drop about 60-80 feet from the
highest uppor reaches to the regulator location. Major arterial* traversing
the area include Maryland Avenue, Payne Avenue, Arcade Street, and Seventh
Street. Major industries in the area include appliance manufacturers (SIC
numbers 3585, 3612 and 3635), a brewery, a building materials manufacturer, a
•eat packing company, and a surgical appliance and supplies manufacturer (SIC
code 38A2). Drainage area characteristics are summarized in Table 3.1.
SO
-------
'^mi.in&roN

iii^.»ii
EUSTIS STREET REGULATOR'
4000 FEET
2000
FIGURE 4.11 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF
EUSTIS STREET DRAINAGE AREA
21
-------
AT"
i am • ' >M»- J 1
OHLETTE
iTATE HOSf|T>

JLsJLki_	fifflfc}
870 ACRES
in a
":T
sss
.«.tt:.Riva V7i ft '/;j,v	.Vrfr: -»¦
:PHALEN CREEK REGULATOR ^O'
ts-j.. yr w=w Li' ^JT\ ><<•
m®
4000 FEET
2000
-Mpond«!p»r> ath
FIGURE 4.12 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF
PHALEN CREEK DRAINAGE AREA
32
-------
k
AVENUE
WABASH
13" SEWER
DIVERSION
MANHOLE
3 PLAN
N.T S.




*'•" SEWER	




	

OWF


¦ TO INTERCEPTOR
PROFILE
FIGURE 4.13 EUST1S STREET REGULATOR ARRANGEMENT
33
-------
Host of Che sewers in this area were constructed between the 1890's and
the 1920's. The majority of the smaller sewers (under 24 inches) are vitrified
clay pipe; the larger sewers are mostly brick (there are some RCP and some
segmented clay block). The Phalen Creek drainage area contains four diversion
structures. At the three upstream diversions, a portion of the combined sewer
flow can "overflow1 to a common storm sewer. This storm sewer also serves to
transport non-contact cooling water from several local industries during dry
weather periods. Figure 4.14 shows the general location of the diversion
chambers. During dry weather periods, domestic sewage generated in the drain-
age area is directed to a 9-foot, 4-inch horseshoe-shaped sewer. The combined
dry weather wastewaters flow to the Phalen regulator chamber where they are
diverted to a 30-inch diameter spur pipe leading to the interceptor that
conveys the wastewater to a municipal treatment plant. During wet weather
periods the combined wastewaters may be diverted to either the interceptor or
bypass the interceptor and discharge to the Mississippi River. The Veide,
Edgerton, and Greenbriar diversions direct excess wet weather flow to a 72-inch
by 102-inch eliptical storm sewer paralleling the Phalen Creek domestic sewer.
The Veide Street diversion overflows only during extreme conditions (i.e., the
combined sewer interceptor surcharges to such a degree that the Veide diversion
provides hydraulic relief). The Greenbriar and Edgerton diversions both drain
residential areas and are more sensitive to overflow than the Veide diversion.
The Phalen Creek regulator is a leaping weir as detailed in Figure 4.15.
During both dry weather and wet weather periods, the flow from the drainage
area drops' to the interceptor sewer via a 30-inch reinforced concrete spur
pipe. A tipping gate is located at the entrance to the spur pipe; tb's gate is
locked in an open position at all times. During wet weather periods, when the
hydraulic capacity of the spur pipe is exceeded, overflow conditions prevail.
Two dams are situated in series on the overflow sewer. Before an overflow
event commences, the combined sewer flow must surcharge to a level above the
dam structures. The dam farthest downstream is 2-feet high. Flow rates over
this dam structure are measured using bubbler-type level sensors. Bubbler
controls are housed in a separate, adjacent manhole noted on the schematic.
Flow levels are recorded every 15 seconds and the measurements are telemetered
automatically to KVCC'i computer for compilation of 15 minute averages. One
level recorder is located a short distance upstream of the regulator manhole
thus monitoring the depth of the CSF. The second bubbler Is located between
the two dam structures and monitors the CSO.
As already noted, there are thr*e smaller regulator manholes or diversions
upstream of the Phalen Creek regulator, all of which discharge excess flow Into
the large stora sewer paralleling the Phalen Creek domestic sewer. To assess
the total effects of a CSO event, It was necossary to monitor and sample the
flow in this storr sewer. Therefore, the Phalen Creek storm sewer was also
sampled at the same time samples were collected at the Phalen Creek regulator.
34
-------
TO MISi»CSIPPI RIVER
TO
MUNC.
TREAT.
PLANT
eog'rton
AVERSION |
-------
MANHOLE W/CONTROL PANELS
FOR BUBBLERS
BUBBLER
DAM STRUCTURES
9W SEWER
CSO —•
BUBBLER
JOT SPUR PIPE
GATE
OWF
TO
INTERCEPTOR
PLAN
REGULATOR MANHOLE
N.TS.
MANHOLE W/CONTROL PANELS
FOR BUBBLERS
•'«" SEWER
CSO
BUBBLER
GATE'
PWfllE
n.t.8.
RQURE 4.15 PHALEN CREEK REGULATOR ARRANGEMENT
36
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING PROGRAM
As previously mentioned, the purposes of the CSO toxic pollutant study are
to determine the occurrence, mass, and source of priority toxic pollutants in
combined sewer flows and combined sewer overflows and to review the relation-
ship of the pollutant mass in these flows to urban runoff, storm intensity,
land use, and other parameters. To accomplish these objectives, the character-
istics of dry and wet weather flows and sewer sediments were documented.
Sample locations were selected so that pollutant mass balances within each of
the study catchment areas could be estimated. The mass balance approach
identifies definite sources and discharge patterns of pollutants. In addition,
samples were collected to assess the character and fate of any observed first
flush (i.e., is the first flush wastewater contained and discharged to a POTtf
or discharged as CSO) (14).
As described in Section 4, eight catchment areas were selected for moni-
toring and s&mpling. Each drainage area was monitored during a 24-hour dry
weather period to establish daily pollutant masses (i.e., background samples)
void of wet weather influences. Wet weather samples were collected during
three separate storm events per location with the exception of the Eustis
Street and Phalen Creek drainage areas in St. Paul. These areas were moni-
tor led during two storm events. A total of 135 wastewater samples were collec-
ted and analyzed for the selected conventional and nonconventional pollutants
and for the priority toxic pollutants listed on Table 5.1.
SAMPLING METHODOLOGIES *
A rigid sampling protocol, detailed in a sampling and logistics plan
prepared for each site, was followed throughout this study to assure consisten-
cy in sampling techniques for each of the eight drainage areas. Depending on
the sample location, samples of the wastewater were procured either as grab
samples to provide an instantaneous characterization of the wastewater or as
composite samples that represent an overall wastewater characterization for the
duration of the sample period.
The typical wastewater flow pattern for this study encompassed large
variations in the flow during a relatively short duration. For this reason,
the majority of composite samples were collected as flow proportioned samples.
In these Instances, aliquot samples were collected based on the flow volume in
one of two manners: (1) constant volume aliquots were collected at varying
time intervals (e.g., a 500 ml aliquot was collected at 50,000 gallon Intervals
regardless of the time between aliquots); or (2) constant time intervals were
determined and the aliquot volume was proportional to the flow. The latter of
these two methods was used most frequently during this study. Figure 5.1
presents an example of the flow proportion compositing technique.
Occasionally composites were collected as constant tlae-constant volume
(ct-cv) samples. In these situations a fixed aliquot volume wat collected at a
37
-------
TABLE 5.1 POLLUTANTS ANALY7ED FOR DURING CSO STUDI
I. COWVFNTIOKAL/WOH.OHVElfTIOMAL POUUTAHTS
blocbcaical oxysea dnaad (S-djy)
aluainua
cheaical oxygen deoand

bariua
total organic carbon

boron
total aolida

calclua
total volatile aolida

cobolt
total volatile impended
aolida
Iron
total suapeaded aolidt

aagaeaiua
total volatile diaiolved
aolida
aaoianeae
total dieaolved aolida

anlybdeaua
aettleable aolida

aodluat
chloride

tia
aaaanala aa nitrogen

tltaaiu*
total phenols

vanadiua
•11 anil (mat

yttrioa
IX. PRIORITT TOXIC POLLUTANTS
felatile Orgaaica
Seai-Valatile Baae/Neutrala
Peaticide and PCBa
kroaodichlorooetbu*
aceeaphthyleae
endosaliaa aulf*te
carbon tetrachloride
aceoapbthese
a-eodo»ulfan
kroawfon
anthracene
b-endoaulfaa
chlorofora
beaao(b)fluoraathene
eadria aldehyde
toluene
bea*o(k)fluoraatbeae
4,4-ddt
dibroaochloro— than*
benzo(*)pyr«ne
4,4-ddd
acrolein
bia(2-chloroethoxy)®etiiaoe
4,4 rtda
•crylonltrlle
bUMU
fcta(2-cbloroiaopropyl)ether
aldrln
butyl benzyl phthalate
a-bhc
chlorobeazeae
chryaene
b-bhc
efcleroethaaa
diethylphthalate
d-bhc
•thylbenxena
dlaetbylphtbalate
|-bhc
knMMthiu
1,2-dipheaylhydraxiae
chlordane
cklatoattbtM
fluorantheae
dieldria
•ethylene chloride
fluorene
tndrin
tatrachlcroethene
bexachlorocyclopeatadieae
toxaphace
trlcborofluoroewthaa*
hexachloro'uatadieae
heptaeblor
1,1-dichlorotthane
bexachloroethaae
beptachlor epoxide
1,1-dicblorocthene
ladeao(l,2,3-cd)pyrea*
pcb-1016
1,1,2-triebloroethane
iaophoron*
pcb-1221
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
n-nitroaodi-n-propylaaine
pcb-1231
l,2-dichloro«thane
ft-nitEoaodipheaylamioe
pcb-1242
1,2-dichloropropane
a-aitroaodiMthylaaine
pcb-124t
traaa-1,2-dlchloroetheae
nitrobenzene
pcb-1254
1,9-dlchloropropene
pheaaathreae
pcb-1260
2>chloroethyLvlayl tther
pyrena

41chlorodlfluoreaMthaae
banxo(ghi)pexylene
&££l»
flijll chloride
benxo(a)aathraceae
trlchloroetnene
I,2-dichlorobeazeae
antiaooy

1,2,4-trichlorobeniena
araenic

4ibea»(a,b)aathraceae
berylliua
tel-Volatila Acid
1,3-dichlorobeazene
cadaius

1,4-dlchlorobenseae
cbroaiua
t>eUoro-S-aethylphanol
2-chloroaaphthaleae
copper
2-chloropben»l
di-n-octyl phthalate
lead
2-aitropheaQl
2,4-dinitrotoluene
aarcury
2,4-diclilorophcnol
2,4-dlaltrotoluana
nickel
1,4-dlMtky Ipheaol
3,3-dlchlerobeazidiae
aelealna
2,4-diaitropheaal
4-broeiopheayl phenyl ether
ailver
2,4,4-trlchlorophenol
4-cfcloropttenyl phenyl ether
thalllia
4-nitropheool
2,3,7,8-tetrichlorodibenzo-
liac
2-aetbyl-4,6-diaitroph«aol
p-dloxla

fkMwl
naphthalene
Other*
featechloropheaal
bie(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate


di-n-bvtyl phthalate
cyanide

beuldiM


hexachlorobenzeoe

38
-------
o
o
a
»
o
I
i
0 IS 30 49 60 79 90 109 120 139 ISO ISO 240
TIME (MINUTES)
R EQUIREO COMPOSITE VOLUME (RCV) « 11,390 ml « * (SAMPLE ALIQUOTS)
• ALIQUOT o ~ ALIQUOT b*	~ ALIQUOT I
VOLUME OF ALIQUOT f >
HAVE.
J (TOT/
FLOW RATE DURING INTERVAL 0(19 MINUTES)
| (TOTAL VOLUME FROM STORM HYOROGRAPH)
)(I0.4M3D)( IS MINUTE)
f(l0.4M3D)(l5
I 16
84 MO) (1.440MINUTES)
DAY
lb
350 ml
{required!
COMPOSITE)
VOLUMEJ
100 ml
FIGURE 5.1 FLOW PROPORTIONING EXAMPLE
39
-------
constant time interval throughout the sample period. The aliquot samples were
blended in equal proportions to form a single composite sample. This composite
technique was used only for storms where the flow did not fluctuate signifi-
cantly.
With the exception of the volatile organic compounds (VOC), oil and gr».&se
(O&G), and total cyanide (CN) samples, all subsample fractions were extracted
from the approximately 2.5 to 3.0 gallon composite sample. The composite
sample was fractioned into subsamples as shown in Figure 5.2. A critical step
in fractioning the composite was the process of homogenizing the sample. The
composition of each subsample had to be Identical to the composition of other
subsaaples. Once the composite was jpportioned to the respective subsaaples,
the fractions were preserved as indicated in Figure 5.2. Acids and bases were
added to the samples as preservatives or complexing agents to stop biological
activity or stabilize compounds. For instance, nitric acid (N03) was used to
prevent precipitation of trace metals and their adsorption onto container vails
(23). After the appropriate preservative* were added, all samples were chilled
to a temperature near 4°C.
The VOC, O&G, and CN samples were collected as grab samples, preserved
immediately, and forwarded to the appropriate laboratories. The individual
grab samples were composited in the laboratory in proportions specified by the
field sampling team.
The VOC samples wer» collected in 40 ml glass vials. The vials were
filled completely with wastewater and hermetically sealed with a teflon-lined
cap so that no visible air pockcca were trapped in the container. This vigor-
ous sample procedure ensured that dissolved gases were not liberated from
solution. No preservatives were added to the VOC samples except the tap water
VOC samples. Sodium thiosulfate was added to these samples to neutralize the
residual chlorine present. All VOC samples were chilled and then forwarded to
the laboratory.
Cyanide samples were collected In amber plastic containers and preserved
with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) because of the reactive and unstable characteris-
tics of most cyanides. NaOH was added to prevent the loss of volatile com-
pounds by forming a salt complexing compound; the ember bottle protected th*
sample from exposure to direct sunlight which caa cause rapid photolysis (24).
Oil and grease samples were collected in wide-mouth glass containers and
acidified with sulfuric acid (H2S04). Individual samples were analyzed (rather
than compositing the samples) to eliminate losses of grease that may adhere to
the laboratory equipment and sample containers. Because of the substantial
number of analysis that were required to obtain average O&G concentrations
during the storm events, the sampling interval for this parameter was modified.
At a maximum, six O&G samples per location were taken during a single storm
event. These samples were normally collected during the initial portion of the
storm and were collected directly from the wastewater instead of being col*
lected by an intermediate vessel. In general, the O&G values should be viewed
as biased upward since they usually represent the wastewater quality during the
initial period of the storm event.
40
-------
flOW I
COMPOSITE SAMPLE
MAS SAMPLES*
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CORVUIIOIUL/
MOHCOHVCMriOML
•cm*
(IWOjl
(xtractmlc
•Ml
rs
TSS
T»l
Tvm
roa
TVM
CMLOMC
COO
toc
HHs-M
acio
MSE/
NEUTRAL
KSTicnca
0 0 0 0
volatile cyaihoc ott a	total
OMAMC IM* ON J must	PHENOLS
CMxSO* I	(MjS04 I
SAMPLES IMMEDIATELY PIIESERVEO
IN FIELO, THEN COMPOSITED IN LABORATORY
EITMEN M CONSTANT VOLUME OK FLOW
PNOPONTIONEO MANNEH.
**a« i SAMPLES WERE CMLLED TO
( ) CHEMICALS M PARENTHESIS ARE SAMPLE PRESERVATIVES
FIGURE 5.2 SAMPLE COMPOSITING SCHEME**
-------
Samples that were analyzed foe the base/neutral (two liters), acid ex-
tractable (one liter), and pesticide (one liter) fractions were taken from the
2.5 to S gallon glass carboy composite containers. These samples were also
chilled and then shipped to the laboratory daily.
All organic priority pollutant sample glassware, composite containers, and
miscellaneous sample containers that could potentially contact the wastewater
sample were thoroughly cleaned prior to forwarding the equipment to the sample
location. The cleaning process involved a detergent bath, a thorough rinse
with ultrapure deionized water, and a final sterilization by baking the glass-
ware and containers at 450°C for thirty minutes. On occasions the carboy con-
tainers were rinsed with methylene chloride instead of being heat treated
because heat treatment tended to break these large containers. Priority
pollutant studies have been conducted during which glassware was coated with
dichlorodimethylsilane (i.e., silylation) following the cleaning process. The
purpose of this rinse is to reduce the accumulation of contaminants on the
glass surface, thus helping to preserve the sample integrity (25). Documenta-
tion to support this procedure was inconclusive. An EPA funded study concluded
"It has been demonstrated that most compounds are not absorbed appreciably by
the container walls" (26). Therefore, although silylation of sample containers
was considered for this study, the process was not used to prepare the sample
containers.
Sample containers and sample equipment that contacted the wastewater
samples were stainless steel, pyrex glass, or teflon. ISCO 1580 and Wanning
S-3000 automatic composite samplers and constructed precipitation collectors
all fulfilled this criterion (with the exception of a two-foot length of
silicon tubing in the peristaltic pumps of some of the samplers). Teflon
tubing was used exclusively for the sampler suction line and was replaced after
each sampling event; glass vacuum chambers in the samplers as well as the
stainless ste»l precipitation collectors were cleaned between sampling events.
Throughout this study, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples
were collected and analyzed. Blank, duplicate, and spiked sample analyses were
performed. The blank sample results identified field and/or laboratory cross
contamination while the duplicate and spike sample results were used to calcu-
late precision and accuracy of the analytical results. Section 6 presents a
discussion of the QA/QC program and details the results observed. The QA/QC
field procedures for this program are explained below.
Ultrapure deionized water was pumped through each of the automatic samp-
lers before each episode so that all wetted surfaces in the samplers (silicon
and teflon tubing) case in contact with the "sampler blank." Four liters were
collected and forwarded to the appropriate laboratory for extractable priority
toxic pollutant analyses. The sampler tubing was changed at the conclusion of
each sampling episode to minimize any possible cross contamination. VOC blanks
were prepared in the laboratory then transported to the field. The hermeti-
cally sealed blanks were carried to and from the sample locations by the field
ecews, and then forwarded to the appropriate laboratories for analysis.
Precision and accuracy samples (i.e., duplicate samples) were collected
such that a IS percent QA/QC level was maintained (for each 100 wastewater
42
-------
samples, 15 duplicate analysis were conducted). Sample locations and sample
periods were randomly selected for the QA/QC samples. The volumes for the
extractable organics and VOC samples at the selected sample locations were
doubled during these periods so that the laboratory could run duplicate and
spiked analysis.
Dry Weather Background Sampling
TVrenty-four Hour Composite Samples--
A single composite sample per catchment area vas collected during a
24-hour dry weather period to determine approximate daily dry weather flow
volumes and associated pollutant mass. The composite samples were collected at
the regulator locations prior to the discharge of the wastewater to the inter-
ceptor sewers that conveyed the wastewater to the municipal treatment plant.
These samples were used to characterize the dry weather wastewater flow for the
respective catchment areas. Sample periods were selected during the middle of
the work week (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) to capture discharges from a
cross section of different industrial processes. An extended antecedent dry
weather period was desired. Sample locations were situated such that well-
nixed representative samples and reliable flow information were obtainable.
Automatic samplers ware used whenever the sampling conditions allowed.
With the exception of flow proportioned samples collected in Seattle (Lander
and Michigan regulator locations), the remaining background samples, whether
procured manually or automatically, are constant time-constant volume compo-
sites. At the completion of the sample episode the composite samples vera
homogenized, separated into •tubsamples (as shown in Figure 5.2), and preserved.
VOC, 06>G, and CN grab samples were collected at four hour intervals and pre-
served immediately. The compouite subsaoples and the six series of individual
grab samples were forwarded to the appropriate laboratories via overnight
delivery service to minimize the holding time between sample collection and
analysis.
Pra-Storm Background Samples—
A grab sample void of urban runoff vas collected at the regulator loca-
tions immediately prior to the start of each storm event. These samples were
used to characterize dry weather pollutant contributions for a storm event.
The prw-storm background samples (wet weather background) do not reflect
changes in the baseline pollutant mass as a result of industrial discharge
variations during the storm event. However, for short duration storm events,
the pollutant mass at the beginning of the storm event is viewed as being more
representative of the dry weather pollutant contribution during the sampling
period than the dry weather composite background samples that were collected
weeks or even months prior to the storm event. All pre-stora background
samples were collected, preserved, and placed on ice for shipment to the
laboratories at the conclusion of the storm event.
43
-------
Sediment Samples--
Solids deposited in a combined sewer system during dry weather periods nay
be a source of pollutants in the first flush period during a storm event. For
this reason, sediment samples were collected after a minimum seven day dry
weather antecedent period to charecterize material that may be resuspended and
discharged from the collection system during storm periods. Samples were
collected as close to the regulator locations as possible (where sediments from
the entire drainage area could potentially accumulate).
Collection of sediment samples proved to be more difficult than orginally
perceived. Ideally, sediment samples should be obtained by first constructing
a temporary dam structure to divert the flow from a segment of sewer; a sample
can then be obtained of the "scum sediment" layer along the normally wetted
perimeter of the sewer. However, to interrupt the flow and enter a manhole to
access a sewer line upstream or downstream of the regulator was difficult, if
not impossible. Consequently, five of the six sediment samples collected were
from active sewer lines and for the most part, were collected within the
confines of e manhole. Only by repeated inspections of manholes could adequate
volumes of sediment be collected. The one exception to this was a sediment
sample collected from an interceptor line in Providence, RI.
Samples were collected by scraping the bottom of the manhole with a
stainless steel beaker. If, as was usually the case, the deposition volume
from one location was insufficient for the complete spectrum of analysis, the
dtoosition from the first location was blended with the deposition from other
locations to construct a complete composite sample. Samples included two-40 ml
VOC samples, a 250 ml CN sample, a one liter metals sample, and a one liter
extractable organics sample. A total of six sediment samples were collected
and analyzed only for priority toxic pollutants.
No sediment samples were collected from either the Branch or Prairie
collection systems in St. Louis due to the lack of any accessible sediments and
the imminent dangers involved in entering these sewers. Sediment samples were
collected in sewers tributary to the Eustis, Phalen, Michigan, Lander, and
Ernest $ Aliens drainage areas. In addition, a series of samples were taken
from an interceptor line in Providence, Rhode Island, which serves the downtown
and industrial/residential fringe surrounding the city limits. Samples were
collected during a bypass period when the interceptor line was drained for
repairs. This situation afforded the sample crews the opportunity to enter the
sewerage system and collect samples.
Wet Weather Sampling
Prior to initiation of the wet weather sampling, a number of locations
were calibrated for flow monitoring. Because CSF either flows over the regula-
tor or to the POTV, only two of the three flows (i.e., CSF, CSO, or flow to
POTV) were monitored. The third flow was obtained by subtraction.
Several flow monitoring techniques were used during this study. .Fluore-
scent dye tracing, electromagnetic velocity meters, current meters, and various
44
-------
surface velocity techniques were used in conjunction with depth measuring
instruments such as bubbler tubes, ultrasonic level recorders, staff gauges,
dippers, and acoustic level recorders. Velocity and depth measurements were
used to develop stage versus discharge curves. These relationships greatly
aided the field crews because by obtaining continuous depth measurements over
the duration of the storm events, the respective CSF and CSO volumes and
instantaneous flow rates could be determined using the stage versus discharge
curves. These data were needed both to calculate pollutcnt masses and to
composite samples.
Combined Sewer Flow Samples--
Flow proportioned composite samples were collected at each of the eight
regulator locations prior to the wastewater being discharged to the POTW
interceptor. These samples were used to characterize the CSF for a given storm
event. Sample locations were situated in the immediate vicinity of the flow
monitoring stations. Sample periods extended from the start of a storm event,
when the flow rate began to rise as a result of runoff entering the system,
until the conclusion of the storm event when the flow receded to the dry
weather flow level.
Automatic samplers were programmed to draw fixed aliquot samples at
predetermined flow volume intervals (flow intervals varied from storm to storm
depending on the storm intensity forecast) at the Lander and Michigan locations
in Seattle. Composite samples at the other six regulators were obtained by
collecting manual grab samples at a fixed time interval, then compositing these
grab samples into a single sample proportional to the flow rate at the time the
grab aliquot was collected. Grab samples for VOC, O&G and CN were collected at
constant cime intervals, preserved, forwarded to the respective laboratories,
composited in the laboratory proportional to the flow rate, and then analyzed.
Combined Sewer Overflow Samples*-
Flow proportioned composite samples and grab samples for VOC, O&G and CN
were collected similar .to the CSF samples. The sample period was during the
time of the overflow. Short overflow periods required that the time interval
between the collection of aliquot samples be shorter. Care was taken to
correlate sample collection times with overflow volumes.
For most of the sampling episodes, overflow samples were collected from
the same location as the CSF samples. The characteristics of these two flows
during overflow periods are generally the same, because turbulent flow condi-
tions eliminated any stratified flow patterns. The duration of the sample
collection period and the proportions in which these samples were composited
distinguishes the CSO sample from the CSF sample.
First Flush Samples—
Flow proportioned composite samples and grab samples for VOC, O&G and CN
were collected at the CSF sample location to document the characteristics of
any observed "first flush" phenomenon.
45
-------
First flush sampling during several other studies focused on collecting
numerous grab samples throughout a storm event and analyzing each individual
grab sample for the pollutants of concern. Due to the cost and number of
samples associated with such an endeavor for priority toxic pollutant sampling,
a different approach to defining the first 'lush period was considered. The
changes in total solids (TS) concentration, total suspended solids (TSS)
concentration, settleable solids (SS) concentration, temperature, and conduc-
tivity of the wastewater during wet weather periods were monitored to identify
such an approach.
Use of solids analyses (TS, TSS and SS) to define the first flush period
involved the collection of samples at equal time intervals, and the analysis of
each sample for the various solid constituents at the conclusion of the storm
event. By plotting the solids concentration with respect to time, changes in
the wastewater solids composition as a result of dilution were determined. The
extensive on-site analytical work and the lack of an observable drastic change
in solids concentration made this approach impractical.
The lack of sensitivity of temperature (change of only 3°C to 5*C through-
out a storm event) requires much discretion by the field sampling crewa to
explicitly identify the first flush period. Therefore, this approach to define
the first flush period was not further pursued.
Conductivity is the measure of the ability of the wastewater to conduct an
electrical current. This measure is proportional to the ionic concentration of
the wastewater. For wastewaters with discernable amounts of free acids or
alkalinity (such as those anticipated during the CSO study), the conductivity
of the wastewater should approximate 30 to SO percent of the total dissolved
solids concentration of the wastewater. The advantages of using conductivity
readings as a measure of the first flush period are: 1) no sampling and
analysis are required; 2) continuous instantaneous readouts are possible in the
field; and 3) the conductivity range is sensitive to changes in the character-
istic of the wastewater. For these reasons, the change in conductivity of the
wastewater was selected as thft indicator to identify the first flush period.
In-situ conductivity readings were continuously recorded at the CSF sample
location throughout the duration of each storm event. Conductivity readings of
300 to 2,000 nicromhos per centimeter (vmhos/cm) were recorded for domestic/
industrial wastewater free of wet weather influences. When a storm event
began, the conductivity generally remained unchanged. However, as the storm
event progressed, the wastewater became diluted and the ionic concentration of
the combined sanitary/storm water runoff decreased. The conductivity normally
decreased slowly at first, and then rapidly dropped to approximately 75 to ISO
ymhns/cm. Throughout this study, the first flush period was defined as the
duration from the beginning of a storm event to the rapid decline in the
conductance of the CSF wastewater. This period, for the most part, extended 30
to 60 minutes.
Composite aliquots and grab samples for VOC and CN were collected at the
CSF sample location during the first flush period. At the conclusion of the
Ktorm event, the aliquots and grab samples collected during the first flush
period were composited cn a flow-proportioned basis. These samples were used
46
-------
to characterize the combined sever wastewater flow during the first flush
period.
Runoff Sanples--
Composite aliquots and grab samples for VOC, O&G and CN were collected at
street level as the runoff entered the inlet structure. Samples -/ere collected
from two separate inlet locations per catchment area and later blended to form
a single runoff sample per catchment. All runoff samples were collected on a
constant tine-constant volume basis. The inlet locations were selected to best
represent the overall catchment area land use. Locations for runoff sampling
were selected after observing the inlets during several stora events.
Precipitation Samples-
Rainfall samples were collected during each of the sampling episodes. One
rainfall collector per catchment area was used to collect precipitation saa-
pies. If, as in most instances, samples were collected in both catchment areas
la a city, the two precipitation samples were combined to form a single sample
per storm event for a city. The collectors used throughout this program were
constructed of stainless steel and were sired so that a three-gallon sample was
obtained for a 0.25-in. stora event (16 square feet of surface area). A voluae
of three gallons is necessary for the complete spectrua of pollutant analysis.
Since rainfall amounts and intensities aay have a major influence on the
character and occurrence of combined sewer overflows, specific rainfall data
for each catchment area were also collected. One recording rain gauge was
sjtuatftd in each catchoent area and rainfall volumes and intensities were
obu»i-v.-i at 15 minute intervals.
ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES
Wastewater samples were analysed for the 125 priority toxic pollutants and
the selected conventional and nonconventional pollutants listed in Table 5.1.
The analytical procedures for toxic organic pollutants are those described ia
the EPA Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial
Wastewaters (27). The majority of the samples were analyzed by isotope dilu-
tion (EPA methods 162* and 1625). This method entails adjusting the analytical
results based on the respective samples* surrogate compounds recoveries. How-
ever , the samples from the Lander and Michigan catchment areas were analyzed
uiing EPA methods 626 and 625. Analytical results are not adjusted for recov-
eries using these methods. Conventional and nonconventional analyses were
performed in accordance with EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Waste (26). Table 5.2 summarizes the analytical methods used during this
study.
SYNOPSIS OF SAMPLING EVENTS
Prior to initiating sample collection activities, each of the eight
catchment area sampling locations were flow calibrated by developing stage
height versus discharge relationships. Upon completion of flow calibration, a
-------
TABLE 5.? SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL METHODS
PARAMETER METHOD NUMBER1
DESCRIPTION
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day)
405.1
Five day <§ 20°C
Chemical Oxygen Demand
410.4
Color inset ric-Manual
Total Organic Carbon
415.1
Combustion-Infrared
Residue


Total Solids
160.3
Gravimetric-Dried @ 103-105°C
Total Suspended
160.2
Gravimetric-Dried (? 103-105°C
Total Volatile Suspended
160.4
Gravimetric-Dried @ 550°C
Total Dissolved
160.1
Gravimetric-Dried @ 180°C
Total Volatile dissolved
160.1
Gravimetric-Dried @ 550°C
Total Volatile Solids
160.4
Gravimetric-Dried @ 550°C
Settleable Solids
160.5
Gravimetric
Chloride
325.3
Titrimetric-Mercuric Nitrate
Ammonia as Nitrogen
350.2
Titrimetric-Dist; llation


Procedure
Total Phenols
420.1
Spectrophotometry, Manual


(4-AAP with Distillation)
Oil and Grease
413.1
Gravimetric-Separatory Funnel


Extraction
Cyanide, Total
335.2
Spect rophotomet r ic
Metals


A. Aluminum, Barium, Beryllium,


Boron, Cadmium, Calcium, Chromium,


Cobalt, Copper, Iron, Lead,


Magnesium, Manganese, Molybdenum,


Nickel, Sodium, Tin, Titanium,

Inductively Coupled Plasma
Vanadium, Yttrium, Zinc

Emission Spectrometry
B. Antimony, Arsenic, Mercury,

FXaaeless Atomic Absorption
Selenium, Silver, Thallium

Spectrometry
Organics
1624*

A. Purgeables
Gas Chromatography/Mass

624'
Spectrometry
B. Acid Extractable, Base-Neutrals


and Pesticides
1625*
Gas Chromatography/Mass

6251
Spectrometry
'Unless otherwise specified, methods are from: Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Waste, U.S. EPA-600/4-79-020, 1979.
'isotope Dilution Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry for the Determination of
Priority Pollutants in Industrial Pollutants, U.S. EPA, 1981.
'Methods 624 and 625 were used for samples collected at the Lander and Michigan
locations only.
48
-------
total of 135 wastewater and six sediment samples were collected during four dry
weather sampling episodes (one per city) and 17 wet weather sampling events.
Table 5.3 summarizes these events; Appendix B presents the wet weather hydro-
graphs for tht«« events. A brief description of the sampling episodes is
presented below.
Providenr.e. Rhode Island
May 18-19, 1982: Dry weather background samples were collected at both the
Dexter @ Huntington and Ernest @ Aliens regulators. An eight-day ante-
cedent dry weather period preceded the sampling episode. The wastewater
from the Ernest @ Aliens location varied greatly in both color (dark green
to a light red) and pH (from 10 to less than 2) throughout the sampling
period. Industrial activities were minimal from 1600 hours on May 16 to
0600 hours the next morning. This point was evidenced by the dramatic
decrease in flow during this period. To a lesser extent, changes in the
wastewater flow, pH and color followed a similar pattern at the Dexter @
Huntington location. Solvent odors were documented at both locations, the
odors being most dominant in the 1600*1800 hour time period. Sediment
samples were collected from the Ernest @ Aliens location. Grab samples
from a number of locations were composited to form a single sediment
sample. Sediment samples were not collected from the Dexter @ Huntington
location due to a lack of any substantial solids accumulations in the
sewers.
July 19, 1962: A six-day dry weather period preceded this stortu event. Only
the Ernest @ Aliens location was sampled. The rainfall was gentle at the
beginning of the storm event, peaking at an intensity of 1.5 inches/hour,
30 minutes after the beginning of the storm period. Solvent odors were
heavy at the sample location, and multi-colored oil films were observed
both in the runoff samples and at the regulator location. Clogged catch-
basins within the drainage area resulted in some runoff "overflowing"
to adjacent areas.
August 8, 1982: Four days of dry-hot weather precaded the storm front that
deposited 0.30 Inches during a 3-hour period at the Dexter  the majority of
samples collected at the regulator location.
August 25, 1982: Both the Ernest @ Aliens and Dexter @ Huntington
locations were sampled during this storm event. Again, as a result of
clogged catchbasins, runoff bypassed the catchbasins in the Ernest @
Aliens catchment and overflowed to adjacent drainage areas. Clogged
catchbasins in the Dexter @ Huntington drainage area resulted in temporary
storage of storn water on the streets. Solvent odors again were preva-
lent.
49
-------
TARU S.J. tUHKAIT OT SAHKJM KFISOGU.
mr
COCK
LOCATION
DATE
USUI
DAT or
VEOC
TIME or
SAMPLE PERIOD
Dry Mea.
8ton JB
Stria 2
lun 9
Dour at
hotii|tM
May U, 1*
Auftiic S
An|»t 25
September 20
Toe*-Wed
Sua '
Wed
Hoa
0830-0830
05*0-0915
0905-1SOS
1740-2035
h) Hn.
Stan IA
Stars 2
(Km 3
Braest at
Alloa*
Hay IS, 19
July 19
An (tut 25
September 20
Taea-Wed
Hon
Wed
Hoa
OS30-0830
1800-2030
1010-1500
1705-1955
#nr Mr*.
Stent 1
Stan 2
Stan 1
lander
March I*, ir
April 1*
Jium 30
October i
IWa-IM
Ned
Had
Had
0930-0930
0930-1400
0830-1200
0600-1130
Dry Hu.
Stan 1
Stan 1
Stan 3
HicfcliM
llarcfc I*. 17
April 14
Jan* 30
October 6
Taci-Wrd
Wed
Wed
Mad
0930-0930
1000-1430
0845-1200
0600-1130
Dry Mre.
Stan 1
Stan 2
Stan 3
Sraacb
An goat. 4, 5
October (
October 19
Deceaber 2
Wed-Thara
Had
Tue*
Ihura
0730-0730
1555-1945
2045-2400
1510-2105
Ory Vet.
Ston I
Stan 2
Stan 1
Prairie
Aagmt 4. S
October i
October 19
Deceaber 2
Wed-Thar*
Had
TOca
Tluira
0730-0730
1500-1830
2030-2250
1600-2115
Dry He*.
Stan IS
Stan ZS
Itali*
Aagul 4, 5
October 19, 20
Novcabar 9
Wod-Thara
Toes-Wed
Tact
1130-1130
1345-0430
1600-1845
Dry Wi.
Stan 1A
Stan 2A
Eaatla
tofnit 4, S
October 9
¦omabur u
Ued-Thara
Sat
Thar*
1130-1130
1735-1919
1355-2155
uraaam
DRT WCAim
rat
(d
0D
isJL.



RAIKFALL
ACCUHULATIMI
(Into)
max. wnonm
SURUG A 15-MIKVTE
PERIOD
(Inch/hour)
AVEXAGE
IKYEHSITT
(incb/hr)
VOLUME TO
RtGU. .TOR
(l«lton«)
—
—
—
1,200,000
0.30
0.4
0.10
451,000
0.52
RA
0.17
1,358,000
0.26
0.4
0.13
580,400
..
	

740,000
0.70
1.5
0.65
567,000
0.42
MA
0.14
761,000
0.25
0.14
0.13
323,400
--
	
..
2,580,000
0.17
0.16
0.03
3,010,000
4.21
0.16
0.08
1,940,000
0.42
0.24
0.10
5.6S0.00C
—

	
4,180,00(1
0.26
0.2
0.05
1,570.00(1
0.16
0.16
0.07
2,160,00(1
0.38
0.28
0.10
3,590,000
..
..

3,360,000
1.17
1.5
0.45
19,500,000
0.57
O.TO
0.23
9,810,000
0.59
0.40
0.09
22,010,000
..

..
1.860,000
1.05
1.0
0.3S
3,740,000
0.59
0.76
0.25
2,280,000
0.73
1.0
0.12
6,980,000
'	
..
—
2,340,000
1.99
0.44
0.17
24,487,000
0.13
0 \i
0.07
2,603,000

..
..
562,000
0.10
0.24
0.16
98,000
0.6S
0.32
0.08
922,000
-------
September 20, 1982: An antecedent dry weather period of five days preceded the
sampling effort. The storm event initially was a light drizzle,
developing eventually into a shower activity with an average intensity of
0.13 inches/hour. Clogged catchbasins again produced the same results as
observed during previous storm events in both drainage areas.
Seattle, Washington
March 16-17, 1982: Dry weather background samples were collected at both the
Lander and Michigan regulator locations. A 48-hour dry weather period
preceded the initiation of the sampling period. The wastewater from the
Michigan drainage area had the smell and appearance of a dilute gray,
domestic wastewater. In contrast, the wastewater originating from the
Lander catchment area had a distinct solvent odor. In addition, a jet-
black petroleum-based discharge was observed from 1530 to 1630 hours at
the Lander location. Sediment samples were collected during the dry
weather background sampling episode. However, because that sample was
lost, a sediment sample was collected again on March 24, 1982 (after a 10
day antecedent dry weather period).
April 14, 1982: Only eight hours of dry weather preceded this storm event.
The showers from the previous storm had resulted in overflow occurrences
at both locations, and at the Lander site, overflow from the previous
event was still occurring at the initiation of the sampling period. As a
result, the first flush conductivity readings and settleable solid concen-
trations yielded no conclusive results as to the existence of a first
flush period. For this reason, analytical results for this storm event
characterize the second wave of rainfall activity associated with a
frontal system. In particular, the first flush samples from both loca-
tions should be viewed as samples representing the initial portion of the
storo event, but not necessarily a first flush period.
June 30, 1982: With the exception of a sparse shower on June 28, 1982, an
antecedent dry weather period of 16 days preceded the storm event sampled
at the Michigan and Lander locations. Shower activities began abou* 0800
hours, however, sample crews were not able to mobilize until 0830 tours.
The wet weather background samples collected were not considered, there-
fore, to be free of urban runoff. Showers were intermittent, as reflected
by the "peaks and valleys" on the storm hydrographs. The determination of
a first flush period was difficult, because no definitive change in the
conductivity of the wastewater at either location was observed.
October 6, 1982: Four days of antecedent dry weather conditions preceded the
Chird and most intense rainfall event sampled at the Lander and Michigan
regulators. Even with this antecedent dry weather period and the moderate
intensity of the storm event (average intensity of 0.1 inch of rainfall
per hour), a definitive first flush period based on conductivity readings
was not obtainable at the Michigan location. Excessive oil in the
wastewater may have prevented accurate conductivity readings at this
location. A pronounced change in the conductivity at the Lander location
was observed, however.
51
-------
St. Louis, Missouri
August 4-5, 1982: Dry weather background sampling at both the Branch and
Prairie locations were preceded by a 15-day antecedent dry weather period.
The wastewater at the Branch gatewell displayed a strong, noxious, soapy
odor at the 0730 and 0830 sample intervals on August 4. The odor gradu-
ally dissipated as the morning progressed. The same odor was again
noticed in the 0530 sample on August 5, and was significantly stronger in
the 0630 sample. The 1330 and 1430 samples taken at the Branch regulator
contained styrofoam particles.
October 6, 1982: A brief shower occurred in the Branch catchment area prior
to wet weather background sampling, though no precipitation fell at the
regulator. Combined sewer flow rates were near dry weather conditions at
the tine the wet weather background samples were taken. Combined sewer
flow samples were taken from 1557 until 1945. The first flush was not
well documented at the Branch Street location due to an equipment failure.
In retrospect, the first flush sample collected is not an accurate repre-
sentation of the first flush period and is not included in subsequent
first flush data analysis. At the Branch regulator location, styrofoaa
beads were again observed in abundance, as noticed during the dry weather
background sampling.
At the Prairie regulator, oil and grease was visible in a number of
samples taken throughout the sampling period. Strong organic solvent
odors were also noted at the Prairie location.
October 19, 1982: A 10-day antecedent dry weather period preceded the second
storm event sampled in St. Louis. As occurred during the first storm
event, oil and grease was again visible in several samples collected at
the Prairie regulator. A well-defined first flush period was observed
from 2030 until 2150 hours at the Prairie location; the first flush period
was not as pronounced at the Branch location. The storm event sampled was
a moderate storm that resulted in a total of 0.59 inches of rain with a
maximum intensity of 0.7 inches per hour. It lasted for 2.5 hours.
December 2,-1982: A thunderstorm resulted in approximately 0.73 inches of rain
during a six-hour period (average intensity of 0.12 inch/hour) with 0.26
inches of the total falling during a fifteen minute period (1.04 inch/hour
average intensity). A 3.5-day dry weather period preceded the initiation
of wet weather sampling. A total of 3.3 inches of rain fell during the
24-hour period following the initial six hour period. However, only the
initial frontal system that deposited 0.73 inches of rain was sampled.
Oil and grease was visible in a number of samples collected during the
sampling periods at both locations. The samples varied in color through-
out the storm event, ranging from dark red to deep gray. No samples
showed any distinct color dilution even though flow rates exceeded 150 mgd
at both locations. The composite sample from the Branch runoff location
was broken in transit; therefore, only V0C runoff sample results were
available.
52
-------
St. Paul, Minnesota
Due tc the localized nature of the thunderstorms that occurred In the St. Paul
area during the sampling phase of this study, the two catchment areas were
never sampled simultaneously. When precipitation was intense in one catchment
area, little, if any, rainfall was observed in the other drainage area. This
presented mobilization problems for the sampling crews. Consequently, after
dry weather sampling was completed, four separate storm events were sampled
(two events in each catchment area).
August 4-5, 1982: Dry weather background sampling at both the Phalen and
Eustis regulator locations were preceded by ten days of antecedent dry
weather conditions. A strong odor of fermentation and grain was present
at the Phalen Creek location throughout the day and night, and was especi-
ally strong between 0300 and 0400 hours. Steam and mist rose continuously
through the sampling episode and the wastewater was a murky green/brown
color. This is characteristic of the discharge froa the brewery immedi-
ately upstream of the sample location.
October 9, 1982: The first storm event sampled in St. Paul occurred between
1740 hours and 1910 hours and was preceded by a two day antecedent dry
weather period. Sampling was conducted at the Eustis Street location. A
total of 0.1 inches of precipitation fell during the storm resulting is
overflow of 39,600 gallons (hiring a 15-minute period.
October 19, 1982: Storm event two occurred from 1540 hours on October 19, 1982
until 0300 hours on October 20, 1982, and was preceded by a four day
antecedent dry weather period. A total of 1.99 inches of rain fell during
this sampling episode, which took place in the Phalen Street catchment
area. The velocity of flow was so great in the combined sewer that the
sampling pole used to hold oil and grease sample bottles was sheared
during the sampling episode. Therefore, no oil and grease samples were
taken at the Phalen storm location. There was a brief respite from
rainfall activity around 1815 hours, and flow in the storm sewer returned
to the normal dry weather depth of approximately six inches. The storm
sewer sampling activities were terminated at this time. Runoff also
ceased after the initial period of precipitation and crew members stopped
collecting runoff samples. CS0 and CSF sampling extended the full
duration of the storm period.
November 9, 1982: The third sampling episode took place at the Phalen catch-
ment area on November 9, 1982. A total of 0.13 inches of rain fell
between the hours of 1550 and 1840. Earlier in the day, between 0630 and
0830 hours, there was a storm event in the catchment area that resulted in
0.11 inches of rainfall. However, this 0.11'inch storm event did not
result in a significant increase in flow in the combined sewer system.
During the sampling period, combined sewer flows were elevated. Conduc-
tivity readings were not taken for the first 35 minutes of sampling due to .
an oversight by the field crew. For this reason it is felt the first
flush period was not documented for this sampling episode and these data .
are not included in subsequent first flush data analyes. No precipitation
samples were collected for this storm event.
53
-------
November 11, 1982: The final storm event that was sampled occured on November
11, 1982. Sampling was conducted in the Eustis Street catchment area from
1355 until 2150 hours. During this period, a total of 0.65 inches of rain
fell. No major field sampling problems were encountered.
54
-------
SECTION 6
DATA EVALUATION
Flow hydrographs for each sampling episode are presented in Appendix B.
Analytical results for dry and wet weather sampling episodes are presented in
Appendix C. Percent occurrences, mass calculations, and summary analyses
presented in this section are based on these data. One hundred and thirty-five
samples were analyzed for selected conventional and nonconventional pollutants
as well as for 125 priority toxic pollutants. Several blank samples (23),
duplicate samples (21), and spiked samples (107) were also analyzed as part of
a quality assurance/quality control program (QA/QC). The QA/QC results are
summarized in this section.
FACTORS THAT AFFECT POLLUTANTS IN CSFs AND CSOs
Factors that affect the concentration of pollutants in CSFs and CSOs may
be divided into two categories: 1) those that affect the quality of the CSF
and CSO, and 2) those that affect the quantity of CSF and CSO.
The first quality related factor is the characteristic of the background
wastewater. The background pollutant characteristics are dependent on the
industries that discharge to the collection system and the residential and
commercial wastewater contributions. The day of the week and tine of day may
impact the discharge of industrial wastewaters and, therefore, may impact the
quality of the CSFs and CSOs.
The quality oI the runoff from a drainage area is another factor that
affects the quality of CSFs and CSOs. As discussed later, the quality of the
runoff particularly impacts the lead, zinc, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-
butyl phthalate, fluoranthene, TSS, end to a lesser extent COD concentrations
in CSOs.
Resuspension of settled material in the combined sewer system also affects
the quality of CSF. The characteristics of resuspended material is dependent
on the composition of the wastewaters discharged during dry weather conditions.
Land use also may impact the quality of CSF and CSOs. For example, well
vegetated surfaces should show a low mobility of the metals deposited on those
surfaces from the runoff (grass and other vegetation effectively capture and
retain the metals). In contrast, bituminous pavements and other impervious
areas demonstrate little or no ability to remove metals from runoff. The pH of
the precipitation may further complicate the metals transport mechanisms. Acid
procipitation, for instance, could release metals bound in soils, especially
soils with low buffering capacities. Particulate matter discharged from indus-
trial smoke stacks and scrubbed from the atmosphere by rain droplets, although
not observed in appreciable concentration during this study, is a potential
land use quality factor. Storage of material in the drainage areas that may be
scoured by rainfall or runoff is another potential quality determinant.
55
-------
Traffic volume appears to be a critical factor in affecting the quality of
runoff and, therefore, the quality of CSFs and CSOs. Not only are lead, zinc
and roost PAHs by-products of automobile use, but "large traffic volumes and
relatively high speeds provide the energy needed at the street surface to
loosen particulates" (29).
The quantity of w£ tewater discharged as CSF and CSO is affected by a
number of variables. First, the volume of precipitation limits the quantity of
water discharged to the sewerage systea as runoff. Factors such as rainfall
intensity, percent of land area that is pervious or impervious, slope of the
drainage area, length of the antecedent dry weather conditions, and size of the
drainage area all affect the percentage of precipitation that eventually
becomes runoff.
Perhaps the most critical factor affecting the volume of CSO is the
regulator arrangement. During this study the capacity of the spur lines that
connect the regulator chambers to the interceptors and the interceptors that
carry wastewaters to the POTVs varied. The Ernest § Aliens and Eustis regu-
lators, which serviced the two smallest drainage areas, had the capacity to
capture the entire combined sewer flow during certain low volume, light inten-
sity storm events. In contrast, the Phalen and Branch regulators had very
little excess capacity. Therefore, during a given storm event the majority of
the combined sewer flow was discharged as CSO at the Phalen and Branca regula-
tors . .
OCCURRENCE OF PRIORITY TOXIC POLLUTANTS
For each of the 12S priority toxic pollutants listed in Table 5.1, percent
occurrence in the combined sewer overflow, combined sewer flow, runoff, first
flush, wet weather background, precipitation, dry weather background, and tap
water samples was determined. Table 6.1 summarizes the priority toxic pollu-
tant percent occurrences by type of sample. For this evaluation, if pollutant
concentrations were below the pollutant analytical detection limit, the pollu-
tant was assumed not to be present. For example, the analytical detection
limit for arsenic is 3 ug/1. Therefore, if arsenic was not present at 3 ug/1
or greater, it was ass*uned not to be present. Priority pollutants not detected
during any of the eight sampling episodes are not listed. The perceat occur-
rence is the number of samples in which a pollutant was detected (regardless of
concentration) divided by the number of samples analysed for that pollutant,
multiplied by 100. The number in parenthesis in Table 6.1 is the number of
samples analyzed.
Sixty-nine of the 12S priority pollutants were detected in at least one of
the 135 samples collected during this study. Metals (all 13 elements were
detected), volatile organic compounds (22 of 30 pollutants were detected), and
cyanide were the most frequently detected pollutants. Eleven of the 16 poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 10 of the 11 acid extractable com-
pounds were detected; how*-'k.r, occurrences for the PAHs were more sporadic and
their concentrations were generally close to the analytical detection limits.
All six priority pollutant phthalate compounds were detected at least once.
However, with the exception of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-a-butyl
56
-------
tA.ILf hi I
it*ce*r KcuuNtKt af mtmitf p«.iur»Mis
MUUlMt
CUI

(tf

MUfcorr
f Htt ft
m M«o
PMCCKMT
a« okc.o
T»p«Aier>
	
	

		
——
	
	—
	
	
		
	
	
	
2lfcC
100
1211
100
(22)
100
(21 )
100 (22)
100 (22)
7* (IJ)
100
( a)
40 (41
COWIW
oo
(22)
Mi
(221
H4
(21)
¦K> ( 22 1
»1 (22)
2 J (IJ)
79
( HI
74 ( *1
•» CHLUMIOt
•M
Utl
no
(22)
tr
(22)
tv. 122)
27 (22)

1110
( A)
74 (41
CNMUNIUK
¦6
(-•2)
•l
(22)
61
(21 )
« (22)
40 (22)
19 (IJ)
100
( HI
24 1 4 |
LC40
tttt
1221
no
(22)
7ft
(21)
MO (22)
M (22)
19 (IJ)
J7
( H)
24 ( 41
UlS(2-t (HfUtOtllfNlMl.tTI
¦ 1
1/21
77
(221
ol
(211
" (22)
rr (22)
*9 (III
24
1 61
24 ( 4|
rauLM
rt
(221
8
(22)
Jl
(221
rr (22)
»« (22)
Jft (II)
n7
I III
0 (41
I.I .l-f»IO«.O<»0elNMaC
*j
122)
»4
(22)
0
(22)
M ( 22 I
40 122)
0 (III
17
( HI
0 (4|
N|(«1L

122)
49
(22)
21
(21)
» 122)
9'» ( 22 1
0 (III
40
( HI
0 (41
tt f uAiMLuttat t nine.
VI
122)
»J
(24)
•
(22)
72 ( 22 )
94 (22)
27 ( II )
17
( HI
0 ( 4)
iwioH-OMJUMtue
*4
122)
44
(22)
«»
(22)
M (22)
M (22)

79
I n)
0 ( 4 |

w
122)
1*
(22)
«
(21 )
JO <22)
94 (22)
19 (IJ)
62
( HI
'9 ( 4 |
r
0 ( « |
Ol-H-IWfH mftMilK
*2
(22)

(22)
I*
(21 )
40 (22)
40 (22)
0 (III
12
1 n)
0 1 4|

U
(22)
22
(22)
21
(21)
•J (22)
IJ (22)
r tut
0
( HI
0 | 4 |

in
(22)
14
(22)
1 2
(22)
IJ (22)
IJ (22)
0 C III
24
( el
0 < «>
TM**'.-1 .2>Ollt^OMI(IMI«
10
122)
IN
(22)
0
(22)
JO (22)
49 (22)
0 (III
29
( •)
0 (41
fLIMMtHlHCK
>¦
(22)
•
(24)
*
(21)
22 (22)
O (22)
0 III)
0
• HI
0 ( 4|
^.4-UI MCfrlTLPHeMUL
IK
(22)
22
(22)
• •
(21 )
Jl (22)
2' (22)
9 (III
12
( HI
0 ( « 1
4*1 l"ON*
«
(22)
9
(22)
19
(21 1
» (22)
« (22)
0 1 1 Jl
0
( HI
0 ( 4 |


(22)
0
(22)
19
1211
• (22)
9 (221
2 J (111
24
( H|
29 (4)
UL)|/II«
V
(22)
•
(22)
•
(22)
4 (22)
IJ (22)
0 (III
12
( 01
O ( • 1
»IHt LMLOMfUC
«#
(22)
*
(22)
0
(22)
9 (22)
« (22)
0 lilt
12
( HI
0 ( • 1
Htwoimr luaourntNT
«
(22)
4
(22)
•
(21 1
4 (22)
O (22)
0 (III
0
( HI
0 (4|
IM NMlNMtW
«
(22)
14
(22)
•
121 )
II (22)
« (22)
0 (III
0
I HI
0 ( « 1
MHt*
•*
(22)
9
(221
0
(21)
in (22)
0 (22)
0 (II)
0
1 HI
0 I « 1
tK 0./UI *1 »nImu*C(MC!
»
(22)
0
(22)
*
(21 I
II (22)
0 (22)
0 (III
0
1 HI
0 ( 4|


(22)
«
(22)
•
<21 )
1 J (22)
IJ (22)
« (III
12
1 HI
0 ( 4 |
(MUlUM
«
(22)
0
(2/)
0
(21 1
4 (22)
4 (22)
0 ( 1 Jl
0
1 Ml
0 (41
«HLIjWk.WWMlMlW
•
(22)
9
(221
•
(21 )
4 (2/)
• (22)
0 (III
0
( H)
0 ( 4 |
ItCN/UlAlfVUCNt
•
(22)
•
(221
•
(21 )
» (2/)
0 (22)
0 (III
0
( H)
0 ( 4 |
• •»-Ull>l(WaiHN/lM
•
(22)
•
(221
0
(21)
4 (22)
IJ (22)
0 1 11 1
0
( HI
0 ( 4 |
Ol-N-ix rii fniiKitic
•
(22)
a
(22)
•
(21 )
0 (221
« (221
0 (III
a
( HI
0 (4|
2 . 4 - ll 1C. Ml IMUfHt »UL
4
(22)
•
(22)
a
(21 )
0 (22)
4 (22)
0 1 II 1
0
( HI
0 (4)
km «CHt,a"«iPnlMUk
•
(22)
»
(22)
*
(21)
4 (22)
4 (22)

0
1 Ml
0 ( «l
Kli-IOI*
•
(22)
•
(22)
•
(21)
0 (22)
4 (22)
0 III)
0
( HI
0 ( 4 |

•
(22)
0
(22)
0
(21)
0 (22)
0 (22)
0 111)
29
I HI
24 ( 4 |
•^X.lUl*Nf, MOT LltftO mw «tn« WKdCO
«.**»« IN	Mt M lOfM. MUWMM OP	tMtrffO
-------
*•!
nvctttf occv^rncL o»	whutantv
M&LUfANV	C«0	(Sf	MtH.yf	flffST *C V* R«(*0	#*»fC|M|T 9« 9KG0
--—	
———

-------
- - -	~~"
—" "" "¦*
———— ——
*"	—
¦"—
- 		
ctmoN « (»*c**.omim


<221
a <221
• <229
0 <221
0 <119

< *9
itKu«i» gun
• U/l

<2/1
• <229
• <22 9
0 <229
0 <119
1
< "I
UKriONII«ll(
• 1221

1/21
• <229
• <229
« <229
0 <119

< B9
HWKMIhmC
« ttrt

<221
• <229
• <229
« Ntl«
0 1221

<221
0 <22 9
• <27 9
« <22 9
0 <111

< 09
I • 1 ¦UllW.UWOt IHIM.
• (221

<221
• < 229
• <229
9 <229
0 <119
2
< "I

0 1221

<2/1
O <22 9
• 122 9
0 <229
0 <119
1
< «t
•rtmmixtM
• (221

<221
0 121 9
• <229
4 <229
0 <119

< «9
tklNUCNt
0 1221

< 22 9
• <21 9
• <22 9
0 <229
0 <119

< HI

0 1/21

<221
0 <21 9
• <229
0 <229
0 <119

< «9
nwru atMtiL.
• <221

<22 9
4 <21 9
« 1229
0 <229
0 <119

< f»

• 1221

<221
« <219
• <229
0 <229
0 <119

< «»
l»l k rmiiMiiante
• 1221

<221
0 <219
• <229
» <229
0 <119
J
< n>
ftlHil Mf Lf MlMAk XI
• <221

<229
« <219
• <221
11 <229
0 (til

< "I
rtC»ln.vXai fMNl
a <221

<221
• S 21 9
O <229
0 <229
0 <119

< «>
N-NI imhOOICHCNiritVIM
• <221

<221

0 <239
• <229
0 <119

< Ml
1 ./-OlOCdDIXUUtM
• <221

<221
• <219
• <22 9
• <229
0 <119

< n
4-tHk.o^imiMJk
0 <221

< 22 9
• <219
0 <229
0 <229
0 <111

< N|
/-Ml tlWWfcJt
• <229

<221
• <219
• <229
0 <229
0 <119

< 01
HI f UO*MCNOL
» <221

<221
• <21 9
• <2*9
0 <229
0 <119

< 01
IHICX.UUU'IKNW.
• <221

<22 9
0 <219
0 <229
0 <229


< tit
/-« ma-*oimi inMMi
0 <221

<221
• <219
0 <229
0 <229
0 <119

< 0)
ut
Q»
HAiufAMfs mov ihup «c«r mcvch pcrtctco
MN'lttf'# |« PA4LMfHCif> AMI THC IOV«i NUNIIC4 VA^IS MtAlf/IO
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
II
0
o
0
o
0
o
•
0
o
o
0
o
0
-------
phthalate, phthalates were observed less than five percent of the time.
PCB-1016 was the only polychlorinated biphenol detected during this study. It
was only detected, however, during one storm event at the Lander drainage area
in Seattle.
Analytical results for the CSO samples indicate that during the 22 storm
events sampled, 46 priority toxic pollutants were detected at least once in the
CSO. The <*6 pollutants detected include 12 of the 13 toxic metals (selenium
was not detected), 15 of the 30 volatile organic compounds, eight P&Ks, five
acid extractable compounds, three phthalate compounds, cyanide, 1,4-dichloro-
benzene, and PCB-1016. Eleven of these compounds (zinc, copper, chromium,
lead, methylene chloride, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, nickel, bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)phthalate, tricbloroethene, and tetrachloroethene) were detected 50
percent of the time or greater. TWenty-one of the 46 compounds detected were
present less than 10 percent of tbe time. Further evaluation of the pollutants
detected by drainage area revealed that the presence of toxic pollutants in
CSOs is very site specific. Nickel, for instance, was never detected in the
CSO samples from the Eustis or Michigan drainage areas; occurrences of nickel
in saaples from the Phalen, Prairie, and Branch drainage areas were sporadic
and concentrations ««r, low when nickel was detected; and nickel was detected
100 percent of the time at the Dexter 9 Huntington, Ernest @ Allen, and Lander
drainage areas at average concentrations of 416 vg/t, 3,110 vg/t and 246 vg/t,
respectively. The dominant industry in all three of these drainage areas is
the electroplating industry.
Toxic poliutant occurrences for the wet weather background, combiced sewer
flow, and first flush samples generally paralleled the occurrences of toxic
pollutants in CSO samples. Zinc, copper, chroaiua, lead, methylene chloride,
toluene, and bis(2-ethylhixyl)phthalate were the toxic pollutants detected most
frequently at each locetion. Fifty-two toxic pollutants were detected above
the analytical detecticn limit in the combined sewer flow, in comparison to 4ft
and 46 pollutants in the wet weather background and first flush samples,
respectively.
A comparison of percent occurrences in the wet weather background samples
to those in the combined sewer flow showed a slight decrease in percent occur*
retices in the combined sewer flow. Cyanide, ethylbenzene, and trans-1,2-di-
clcroethere demonstrated th* most distinct dilution patterns, decreasing from
63, 54, and 45 percent occurrences in the wet weather background samples to 40,
lft, and 18 percent, respectively, in the CSF saaples. A more detailed evalua-
tion of this phenomenon is presented in the discussion of the first flush
analysis.
Twenty-two runoff saaples were analyzed for cyanide and VOCs; and 21
runoff samples were analyzed for acid extractable, base-neutral extractable,
pesticide, and metal toxic pollutants. Zinc, copper, lead, and methylene
chloride were the pollutants most often detected. Methylene chloride percent
occurrences are suspected to be erroneously elevated due to laboratory contami-
nation. The metals chroaiua, nickel, silver, cadmium, and mercury were all
detected in a portion of the runoff samples, but not as often as they were
detected in the CSO and CSF. Nine VOCs were detected in the 22 runoff saaples;
they were detected, however, less frequently in the runoff than in either the
59
-------
CSO or CSF. Six PAHs were detected in the runoff. However, the PAHs were
detected in concentrations close to the analytical detection limit.
Thirteen precipitation samples were collected during the sampling epi-
sodes. Each of the 13 samples was analyzed for toxic metals, and 11 samples
were analyzed for toxic organic pollutants and cyanide. Eight of the 13 toxic
metals wtr« detected at levels above the pollutant analytical detection limit
at least once in the 13 samples; seven VOC and three acid extractable pollu-
tants were detected at least once; and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected
five times. Only zinc (10 occurrences) and methylene chloride (8 occurrences)
were detected greater than SO percent of the time. Again, methylene chloride
occurrences are suspected to be the result of laboratory contamination. No PAH
cottpoundii were detected in the precipitation samples.
One tap water sample was collected and analyzed i.-. each of the four
cities. The most frequently detected priority pollutants were copper, chloro-
form, and methylene chloride which were each present in three of the four
samples. The methylene chloride trace concentrations are suspected to be
false-positive occurrences because of laboratory contamination. Chloroform, a
trihaloaethane associated with chlorination of waters, was the organic toxic
pollutant present at the highest average concentration (15 Vg/t) in tap water.
Zinc was present in two of the four samples (at 110 ng/t) while lead, chromium,
silver, beryllium, selenium, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and carbon tetrachlor-
ide were each detected once above their respective analytical detection limit.
COMBINED SEVER OVERFLOW (CSO) POLLUTANT EVALUATION
TWenty-two composite CSO sanples were collected from the different drain-
age areas during this study. Each sample was a flow-proportioned representa-
tion of an overflow event. Samples w*rc collected during high and low inten-
sity storm events, from various land use areas, at several different types of
regulator chambers, on different days of the week, at varying times of day, and
from sites with unique combinations of industrial flows.
As previously mentioned, 46 priority toxic pollutants were detected at
least once in the CSO samples. Table 6.2 presents a summary of the percent
occurrence and mean concentration of these 46 pollutants and the percent
occurrence) and mean concentration values for selected conventional/nonconven-
cional pollutants by drainage area. In addition, overall average CSO pollutant
concentrations and median concentrations are presented. The median is pre-
sented to indicate the central tendency of these highly scattered data. To
calculate the average and median values, organic priority pollutants were
assumed to have zero concentration if the respective pollutants were reported
as not detected. For the 13 toxic metals and cyanide, analytical results were
reported either as a value or as less than an analytical detection limit. When
a pollutant result was reported as less than the analytical detection limit,
the detection limit was used to calculate the average concentration value. The
true average concentration value lies somewhere between zero and the detection
limit in these cases. If *ero was assigned as the concentration instead of the
detection limit value, the average.concentrations for several pollutants would
decrease slightly. Nickel and cadmium average concentrations would decrease
60
-------
TABU 6.2. COHBIKEO StWES OVUTUW rOLUTTAKT KKBNT OCCUWttMCf AMD COMCEMTItATIOH SIM1ART BY DftAINACS AREA
Orate r f Irneat | CSO CSO
follrtMt*	Hunt 1 niloo	Allena	Undff	filch Iran	Branch	Pr» i i* le	Pin 1 en	Euit !¦	Ave rtie**	Median**
Priority Mlmoti
Hatala:
Zt*C
100
(614)
100
(1,411)
100
(773)
100
(203)
100
(407)
too
(453)
100
(190)
100
(224)
100 (569)
(430)
Cofftt
100
(479)
100
(632)
too
(467)
100
(S3)
too
(96)
100
(125)
so
(66)
SO
(36)
90 (263)
(til)
Cbtoalua
too
(72)
100
(3S0)
too
(197)
100
(110)
100
(37)
100
(56)
ID

SO
(29)
86 (117)
(64)
Lead
100
OSS)
33
(290)
100
(250)
100
(ISO)
too
(458)
100
(500)
so
(175)
100
(403)
86 (329)
(322)
Nickel
100
(416)
100
(3.110)
100
(2«6)
HD

33
(61)
67
(S6)
so
(75)
MD

59 (553)
(81)
SI lee*
66
(13)
66
(20)
66
(1)
too
(3)
33
(4)
HD

MD

MD

45 (6)
(2)
Cs4mlum
31
(12)
33
(10)
66
(21)
33
(6)
33
(13)
33
(200)
SO
(13)
m>

36 (38)
(13)
Rtrnry
NO

ND

33
«l)
66
(I)
66
«n
66
«1)
ID

MD

31 (1)
«D
Arseaic
HD

m>

33
(U)
66
(IS)
33
(10)
HD

HD

MD

J« (13)
«DL)
Aat laoay
HO

M>

66
<3)
HD

ID

HD

MD

MD

9 «1)
(

ID

ID

HD

MD

MD

9 (5)
(
77 (36)
(7)
1,1,l-Tr«ct>lere«thaae
too
(134)
100
(U7)
33
(3)
66
(20)
100
(33)
66
(2)
ID

MD

63 (52)
(it)
TrlcMeroetteu
too
(94J)
100
(92)
33
(203)
66
(54)
66
(2)
66
(10)
ID

MD

56 (178)
(32)
Tetrachloroetkeae
100
(491)
too
(77)
33
(3)
66
(!•)
66
(2)
33
(56)
HD

ND

59 (88)
(11)
Chloroform
m

33
(t)
HO

HD

66
(3)
66
(40)
100
(6)
SO
(2)
36 (7)
(1)
Ilhyltau«a«
33
(J)
D

HD

HD

66
(2)
100
(37)
HD

MD

27 (6)
(

HD

33
O)
HD

MO

MD

4 «t)
(

33
(1)
ID

ID

ID

MD

ID

MD

4 «1)
(

HD

K?

ID

33
(1)
ID

MD

4 «1)
(

ID

ID

MD

SO
(2)
ND

4 «t)
(-------
tails t.2. cohbiibo sou waruw rncnr occunuici axd conccntkation sunutr at draimagc area (coatinued)
Deater I	(rivil §	CSO	CSO
Mhtwt*	fcmt t wtiow	*II«m	UnJtr	Hicbiiaa	Branch	f r*i cle	Phalca	Euati* Avcrnc** Ifedlin**
Priority Pollataata


















Acid (xtractablet


















Plieeol
md
ID

66
(7)
33
(i)
MD

100
(145)
50
(5)
MD

31
(24)
(1)
2,4-Diartbylpbaaol
no
NO

MD

33
(2)
MD

100
(111)
MD

ND

IS
(15)
(

MD

33
(<1)
33
O)
ND

MD

50
(5)
22
(2)
(

H>

MD

66
(3)
MD

50
(7)
50
(4>
ia
(!)
(

m>

MD

MD

MD

MD

50
(2)
9
«1)
('DL)
Pyreoe

ID

ID

HD

33
(1)
MD

MD

50
(3)
9
(<1>
(
(

MD

MD

MD

ND

MD

50
(2)
4
(<1)
(L)
1,4-DirblerobeMieae
n>
n>

33
(<«)
MD

MD

MD

ND

ND

4
(

M0

ND

KO

MD

4
«l)
(
-------
the most using this editing rule, dropping from 553 vg/1 and 38 vg/1 (if the
detection limit value is assigned) to 532 vg/1 and 34 vg/1 (if zero is as-
sumed), respectively. The use of detection limits in this analysis represents,
therefore, a more conservative analytical approach.
Zinc was the only priority pollutant detected IOC percent of the time in
the CSO samples. The average and median zinc concentrations of 569 Vg/1 and
430 vg/1i respectively, are the highest average and median concentrations of
any priority pollutant found in the CSO. Average zinc concentrations for the
eight drainage areas varied significantly, ranging from 1,411 vg/1 at the
Ernest @ Aliens regulator to 190 vg/1 at the Phalen regulator. With the
exception of the lead concentrations, which were more consistent among the
drainage areas, the average concentration of the other toxic metals varied
significantly among the drainage areas. Toxic metal concentrations in general
were higher at the Ernest @ Aliens, Lander, and Dexter @ Huntington drainage
areas (each drainage area has a number of electroplating industries) than the
remaining five drainage areas. For example, the average concentrations of
copper for the Ernest @ Aliens, Lander, and Dexter @ H.mtington regulator were
652 vg/1, 467 vg/l» and 479 vg/1. respectively. The aversge copper concentra-
tion for the remaining five drainage areas was 79 vg/1. The average and median
copper concentrations for the combined eight drainage areas were 263 vg/1 and
111 vg/1, respectively. The fact that the average is higher than the sediaa
indicates that, in general, the database is skewed upward by a few high con-
centrations .
Concentrations for lead demonstrated the least disparity between drainage
areas. The overall average concentration of 329 vg/1 ia very close to the
median lead concentration of 322 vg/1. The clustering or lack of substantial
scattering of lead concentrations suggests that the primary source of lead
(likely vehicular traffic) is the same in each drainage area. In contrast, the
average nickel concentration of 553 vg/1 is not similar to the median nickel
concentration of 59 vg/1. Therefore, the source of nickel is most likely
different in the various drainage areas.
A comparison of 24-hour composite dry weather wastewater toxic metal
concentrations and CSO toxic metal concentrations shows that dry weather
background concentrations in general are greater than CSO concentrations. The
total toxic metal average and median concentrations for the dry weather back-
ground samples were 4,596 vg/1 and 1,724 Vg/1, respectively; the CSO total
toxic metal average and median concentrations were 1,890 vg/1 and 1,255 vg/1,
respectively. CSO median concentrations for lead, zinc and cadmium exceeded
the median concentration for those pollutants in the background samples. Table
6.3 presents a comparison of dry weather background pollutant concentrations to
CSO concentr lions observed during this study.
Organic priority pollutant occurrences were less in the CSO samples than
occurrences of the toxic metals and, when detected, organic pollutants were
generally present at lower concentrations. Total toxic volatile organic (TTVO)
pollutant concentrations ranged from 1,730 vg/1 at the Dexter 9 Huntington
location to 10 vg/1 at the Eustis location. The average CSO TTVO concentration
was 480 yg/l.
63
-------
TABLE 6.3 COMPARISON OF SELECTED PRIORITY TOXIC POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN
DRY WEATHER BACKGROUND SAMPLES AND IN COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW SAMPLES

Average
Median



Dry Weather
Dry Weather



Background
Background
Average CSO
Median CSO
Pollutant1
Concentrat ion*
Concantration*
Concentration
Concentration1
BOD5 (mg/1)
205
111
65
54
TSS Cng/1)
113
94
273
187
Cadmium
53
4
38
13
Chromium
1,528
393
117
64
Copper
735
204
263
111
Lead
138
53
329
322
Mercury (ng/1)
687
<300
<1,000
<100
Nickel
1,398
85
553
81
Silver
17
3
6
2
Zinc
658
225
569
430
Benzene
2
ples collected at bach regulator.
1 Median values are for the eight drainage area average ccncentrations.
-------
Methylene chloride, which was detected in 20 of the 22 CSO samples, was
present at an average concentration of 96 Ug/1. However, methylene chloride
was also detected in 14 out of 18 blank samples at an average concentration of
16 vg/1. Methylene chloride results have not been adjusted to account for this
background contamination. Other than methylene chloride, toluene, 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane, trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene were the only VOCs
detected more than 50 percent of the time in the CSO samples. Volatile organic
compound concentrations also varied from drainage area to drainage area. As
with the toxic metal cone ntrations, the median concentrations for the volatile
organics were lower than the average concentrations for those pollutants.
None of the eleven acid extractable organic pollutants were detected in
the CSO samples collected in the Dexter @ Huntington, Ernest @ Aliens, Branch,
or Eustis drainage areas. Phenol was the most frequently detected acid ex*
tractable compound in the remaining five catchment areas (detected in seven of
11 CSO samples at an average concentration of 24 vg/1). The drainage area with
the highest acid extractable pollutant concentrations was the Prairie drainage
area. Phenol and 2,4-dimethyphenol were detected in all of the samples col-
lected at this location; their average concentrations were 165 Vg/1 and 111
)ig/t, respectively.
Vith the exception of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, which was detected in SI
percent of the CSO samples at average and median concentrations of 16 jig/1 and
18 pg/1, respectively, base-neutral extractable organic pollutant occurrences
were sporadic and those pollutants present had low concentrations when detec-
ted. The CSO total base-neutral pollutant average concentration was 21 Vg/1.
The average concentrations of total solids and total suspended solids in
CSOs were 376 mg/1 and 273 mg/1, respectively. The mass of these pollutants is
large because of the tremendous volume of wastewater that may be discharged as
CSO. The CSO average B0D5 and COO concentrations were 65 mg/1 and 218 mg/1,
respectively. Median values for all the conventional/nonconventional pollu-
tants were much closer to the average values for each poilutant in comparison
to the average and median concentrations for the toxic pollutants. Variation
ia sources of industrial wastewaters is suspected to be the reason for the
differences in the toxic pollutant average and median concentrations.
Common to all pollutants detected in the CSO was a high degree of vari-
ability in concentration. Figure 6.1 presents the CSO concentrations by
drainage area for selected pollutants. Pollutant concentrations in samples
collected ar. the Michigan and Eustis regulators were the most consistent froa
storm to storm. This may be because the Eustis drainage area has no heavy
industrial contribution (majority of area is light industrial, warehouse type
land use) and the Michigan drainage area is dominated by commercial establish-
ments with limited industrial dischargers.
As Figure 6.1 depicts, the pollutant concentrations in the CSO samples
varied widely during the 22 storm events sampled. Most of the average CSO
concentrations are elevated as a result of several high concentrations that
skew the database. For example, the average CSO nickel concentration for all
22 storm events is 555 yg/t. This average concentration is heavily biased by
the three nickel concentrations observed at the Ernest @ Aliens drainage area
6S
-------
I 100
1000
900
•00
TOO
600
900
400
300
200
100
i ¦ *a|)
'	ft (l,«*0) (i,
4
I	«
jVW *
5,7	¦
LEGEND
1.	DEXTER at HUNTINGTON
2.	ERNEST AT ALIENS
S. LANOER
4. MICHIGAN
i. BRANCH
«. PRAIRIE
t FMAlEN
•. EUSTIS

I!
!•
¦id

i?
TSS	COPPER	ZINC	TOLUENE
Oa«/l)	(pt/l	O19/I)
I	CHROMIUM	LEAD	METHYLENE M.I'TRICHLOROETHANE
f\)	(|ig/l)	CHLORIDE
(pfl/l)
6.1 COMBMEO SEWER OVERFLOW POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS BY DRANAGE AREA
66
-------
(7,200 yg/t, 1,310 vg/t, and 818 Vg/L). The CSO median concentration, which is
a measuro of the central tendency of a data array, was lower than the CSO
average concentration throughout this study. Jn several instances, such as the
example of nickel above, the median concentration is ouch lower than the
average concentration (median CSO concentration for nickel was 81 Vg/t compared
to an average CSO concentration of 555 yg/t).
One way to observe the relative skewness of the data is to evaluate the
database for a given percentile. Figure 6.2 presents the ranges, averages, and
medians of all concentrations within the 10th to 90th percentile for the
pollutants listed in Figure 6.1. This analysis eliminates the two highest and
two lowest concentrations which, in general, bias in a positive direction the
average concentrations. By eliminating the highest two values for each pol-
lutant, the average values tend to approach the respective median concentra-
tions.
One objective of this CSO study is to estimate the impact of toxic pollu-
tants in CSOs on a national level. Using the results of the CSO study, the
amount of priority toxic pollutants discharged in CSOs nationally can be esti-
mated. Many factors influence the discharge of toxic pollutants la CSOs
including land use, industries within the drainage area, size of the drainage
area, intensity of the storm event, and implementation of pretreataent pro-
grams. For these reasons, projections on a nationwide basis are estimates that
should only be used for comparative analysis, such as a comparison of the mass
of toxic pollutants discharged in CSOs to the estimated mass of toxic pollu-
tants discharged in P0TW effluents.
Using results of this CSO study, pollutant indices, which were normalized
on a mass per acre per inch of rain basis, were calculated for the 11 priority
toxic pollutants detected 50 percent of the time or greater in CSOs and for
selected conventional/nonconventional pollutants. These indices are presented
in Table 6.4. Assuming a total combined sewer area of 2,623,800 acres and an
average annual rainfall of 33.4 inches (2), annual pollutant loadings were
calculated using the calculated pollutant Indices. Table 6.5 summarizes the
nationwide CSO toxic pollutant mass projections based on the analytical results
from this study. Also presented In Table 6.5 are the nationwide projections
for BODS, TSS, and lead as estimated by the 1982 Needs Survey.
RUNOFF ANALYSIS
During this study, 21 composite runoff samples were collected. Composite
periods extended from the inception of a storm event until runoff ceased.
Subsamples were collected at equal time intervals and composited to form a
single sample per storm event per catchment area. Three runoff samples were
collected in each of the eight catchment areas with the exception of the
Branch, Eustis, and Phalen Creek locations where two samples per location vera
collected. Each of the 21 samples represents a different cocbination of
circumstances. For example, the dry weather period between storm events
influences pollutant concentrations. Traffic volume and street cleaning
practices also have a direct bearing on runoff quality. Land use, slope of the
drainage area, percent of the drainage area that is impervious, intensity of a
storm event, and volume of rainfall all affect the runoff quantity fro® a given
drainage area. Pollutant transport mechanisms further complicate a runoff
67
-------
MOO
IOOO
900
800
TOO
600
900
400
900
200
100
LEGEND
RANGE
MEAN
MEDIAN
-
cod
(mg/l)
TSS
(mg/l)
TS
(mg/1)
COPPER
(pg/l)
I
CHROMIUM
< *¦«/!>

	1	r
ZINC	TOLUENE
(yg/O	(pg/i)
METHYLENE I.I^TRlCMLOftO-
CHLORIDE	ETHANE
(pt/H
RE 6.2 COMBNED SEWER OVERFLOW POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
FOR THE 10th TO 90th PERCENTILE.
68
-------
TABLE 6.4 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW POLLUTANT INDICES
POUNDS PER ACRE PER INCH OF RAINFALL
Pollutant	Average1	Maximum	Minimum
Priority Pollutants
Metals:
Zinc
26
X 10"'
472
x
io"»
2.8
X
10"'
Copper
15
x 10"'
240
X
10*1
<0.4
X
io"1
Chromium
4.4
x 10"1
ISO
X
io"1
<0.2
X
io"»
Lead
20
x 10"'
75
X
10"»
<1.7
X
10'*
Nickel
17
x 10"'
1,180
X
io"*
<0.9
X
io"*
Volatiles:








Methylene Chloride
4.0
X 10"*
54
X
10"'


0
Toluene
0.7
x 10"'
37
X
10"*


0
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1.4
X 10"'
32
X
io"J


0
Tr ichlorethene
4.2
x 10"'
178
X
10"*


0
Tet rachloroethene
2.4
x 10"J
32
X
to"1


0
Base-Neutrals:








Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
0.3
x 10"»
3.10
X
io"1


0
Conventional Pollutants








Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5-day)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Solids
Total Suspended Solids

3.4
11.0
22.0
12.0


36
102
143
65


0.6
1.8
3.4
1.6
* Indices are calculated using data in
the 10th to 90th percentile of the database.
69
-------
TABLE 6.5 PROJECTED COMBINED SEVER OVERFLOW MASS DISCHARGED NATIONWIDE
CSO1
CSO1
pounds/year pounds/y*> a r
1,937,000
1,114,000
330,000
1,491,000
1,261,000
2,010,000
500,000
53,000
105,000
315,000
lfto.ooO
38,000
253,000,000
848,400,000
1,667,000,000
671,000,000
306,000,000
5,310,000,000
Pollutant
Priority Pollutants
Hetals:
Zinc
Copper
Chroaiua
Lead
Nickel
Volatile*:
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichlorethane
Trichloroethene
Tet r achloroethene
Base-Neutrals:
fc is (2 -ethy 1 hexy 1) ph tha late
Conventional Pollutant*
Giocheaical Oxygen Demand (5-day)
Cheaical Oxygen Deaand
Total SolIda
Total Suspended Solids
l£dsed on on area served by combined sewers of 2,623,600 acres, an average
annual rainfall of 33.4 inches and pollutant indices in Table 6.4.
*Froa 1982 Needs Survey
70
-------
analysis.
As previously aentioned, the most prevalent priority pollutant metals in
the runoff were zinc, lead, copper, and chromium. Methylene chloride and
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were also detected in a majority of runoff samples
but at lower concentrations than those metals. The nonconventional netals
aluminum and iron were detected in all 22 runoff samples analyzed and titanium
was present in 61 percent of the runoff samples. Generally, the concentrations
for these three nonconventiont1 metals were greater in the runoff than in the
CSF samples.
Figure 6.3 presents the concentrations of selected pollutants in the
runoff samples by drainage area. A "clustering" of pollutant concentrations by
location can generally be observed. This pattern illustrates the importance of
site-specific factors in determining runoff characteristics. When compared to
the CSO concentrations shown in Figure 6.1, runoff pollutant concentrations
fall within a smaller range of values. Ibis is most likely due to the inclu-
sion of highly variable industrial wastewater in CSOs and the lack of it in
runoff. Averages, medians and ranges of runoff pollutant concentrations
between the ICth and 90th percentile for selected pollutants are presented in
Figure 6.4. Table 6.6 summarises the concentrations of the pollutants listed
in Figure 6.4 and the concentrations for several other pollutants.
Runoff concentrations for tha conventional pollutants COD, B0D5, TS and
TSS are also presented in Table 6.6. In cocparison to the COO of the waste-
water samples collected during dry weather periods (average COD of 608 mg/C),
the runoff COD (SO mg/1) is small. As expec* I, the biologically oxidizable
organic material present in the runoff is 1 .. appreciable than that of the
COD; five day biochemical oxygen demand values were less than 30 mg/l for each
of 21 samples. The average total solids and total suspended solids runoff
concentrations of 188 mg/C and 108 mg/C, respectively, are significant in light
of the tremendous volumes associated with urban runoff.
Toxic and nonconventional metals found in the runoff samples include
chromium, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum, iron, and titaniun. With the exception
of titanium, which is used as both a white paint pigment and in whitening paper
in the form of titanium dioxide, each of these elements is associated with
vehicular traffic. Lead compounds used as anti-knock additives in gasoline are
released into the atmosphere in automobile exhaust fumes. These compounds and
to a lesser extent, the lead compounds produced by burning coal, may precipi-
tate to the land surface or be washed from the air by rain and enter the sewer
in the runoff. Zinc is in motor oil, transmission fluid, rubber tires, and
concrete; copper is found in antifreeze, rubber tires, and brake linings;
aluminum is used extensively in building supplies and various automobile
components; iron is abundant as a structural element; and chromium is associ-
ated with many structural alloys and plated parts.
While the preceding analysis details the concentration of various pollu-
tants present in runoff, a more accurate assessment of runoff pollutants
normalizes the pollutant mass on a per unit area per inch of rainfall basis.
Such an evaluation was conducted for the two priority pollutants detected most
often and at the highest concentrations (lead and zinc). The graphs in Figures
6.5 and 6.6 demonstrate that the zinc and lead mass per acre of drainage area
71
-------
800
TOO
«00
i
800
« 400
M
O
a.
x
o
u
w
>
hi
a
ae
I
300
too
100 -
I
>
I
«•
r
COO
(mg/l)
LEGEND
I. DEXTtft AT HUMTINCTON
t CftNCST AT AkLCNS
1 LANDER
4	MICHIGAN
5	ftftANCM
*	**A1*10/0
(IJ040)
(9 9 8)
(974)
(9 06)
A'
IRON
(»g/iiio)
ALUMINUM
(|ig/lRlO)
TITANIUM
(|ig/l)
FIGURE 6.3 RUNOFF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS BY DRAINAGE AREA
72
-------
TOO
600
500
<
•c
w
g 400
o
soo
o
0
w
t
8
1
w
>
a
o 200
M
100
LEGEND
RANGE
W^AN
MEDIAN
974
	1	1	1	
COD	TVS
(mg/l)	(»g/l)
TS
(mg/l)
COPPER f	ZINC IRON |
(ug/i)	(ig/D («g/i*tO)
TSS LEAD	ALUMINUM	TITANIUM
(mg/l) tag/1)	(¦g/lilO)	(ug/l)
FIGURE 6.4 RUNOFF POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
FOR THE 10th TO 90th PERCENTILE
73
-------
TABLE 6.6 RUNOFF CONCENTRATIONS FOR SELECTED POLLUTANTS
10th-90th
	Entire Database	 Percentile
Pollutant	Mean Max lams Minimua Mean Median
Priority Pollutan.'a (vg/1)
Cadmium
9
26
<5
8
<5
Chroaiua
22
53
<4
21
24
Copper
84
238
<20
75
60
Lead
297
683
<120
288
290
Nickel
89
525
<50
66
<50
Zinc
274
462
74
275
272
Cyanide
560
11,900
<20
<20
<20
Methylene Chloride
32
350
-------
50
40
30
x
20
a>
o
z
SLOPE *0.018 LBS/ACRE/INCH OF RAIN
R*« 0.849
0.4
0.6
1.2
OJ
1.0
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
INCHES OF RAINFALL
FIGURE 6.5 LEAD MASS PER UNIT AREA VERSUS RAINFALL.
-------
50
40
to
t
©
30
x
tit
ac
u
a.
O
o.
SLOPE * 0.0IS LBS/ACRE/INCH OF RAIN
11**0.848
1.4
2.0
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.2
INCHES OF RAINFALL
FIGURE 6.6 ZINC MASS PER UNIT AREA VERSUS RAINFALL
-------
have a linear relationship to the amount of rainfall. Correlation coefficients
were 0.849 and 0.848 for lead and zinc, respectively, and average pounds per
acre per inch of rainfall were 0.018 and 0.015. While data for storms in
excess of 1.0 inch of rainfall were limited during this study, the data that
are available suggest that there may be a reduction of pollutant mass per inch
of rain. This phenomenon is likely the result of pollutant availability being
reduced during the latter half of larger storm events.
A cartful examination of the individual data points was performed to
determine relationships between antecedent dry weather periods and storm
intensity in comparison to pollutant mass per acre per inch of rainfall. It
was anticipated that the greatest pollutant mass per acre par inch of rainfall
would correspond to high intensity storm events preceded by a substantial dry
weather period. No correlation was found, however, between either rainfall
intensity or antecedent dry weather conditions and pollutant mass per acre per
inch of rainfall. Antecedent conditions in particular did not have a direct
bearing on the lead and zinc mass. High intensity storms in general generated
a larger pollutant mass per unit area per inch of rain. However, this trend
was not observed for several catchment areas, such as the Lander drainage area.
Although the pollutant mass per acre per inch of rainfall for lead and
zinc do not appear to be empirically related to storm intensity and antecedent
conditions, the individual concentrations for lead and zinc by storm event do
exhibit a similarity to each other. These pollutant patterns suggest that the
source of pollutants, in this case probably vehicular traffic, is the same for
both lead and zinc.
Mass yield per acre of drainage area versus rainfall graphs for COD and TS
were also developed. As with lead and zinc, COD and TS yields appear to follow
a linear relationship with rainfall (i.e., the more rain the more COD and TS
discharged) although the scatter of the data points is greater (linear correla-
tion cotsfficients of 0.649 for COD and 0.790 for TS). The COD and TS aass per
acre of drainage area versus rainfall graphs are presented in Figures 6.7 and
6.8, respectively.
COMPARISON OF DRY WEIGHT POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
The analyses to this point have presented pollutant concentrations on a
"wet basis" (i.e., mg/i or ug/t for a selected pollutant). Another analysis,
which is a convenient way to compare waste streams with diversified residue
concentrations, is the presentation of pollutant concentrations on a "dry
weight basis" [i.e., milligrams (mg) of pollutant per kilogram (kg) of residue
(or solid material) in a sample). This evaluation assumes a total solids
common denominator in lieu of the unit volume of wastewater denominator as-
signed for "wet" concentrations. Dry weight concentrations reduce the signif-
icance of dilution on certain waste streams, and providea information on the
source of pollutants and the characteristics of the various waste streams. A
comparison of the dry weight concentrations (mg pollutant/kg TS) of selected
pollutants in runoff, CSO, and dry weather background samples is presented in
Table 6.7.
77
-------
hi
kl
SLOPE *3i78 LBS/ACRE/INCH OF RAIN
R* > 0.649
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.4
1.6
1.0
INCHES OP RAINFALL
2.0
FIGURE 6.7 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND MASS PER UNIT AREA VERSUS RAINFALL
-------
e
35
SO
<20
SUOPE * 19.2 UBS/ACRE/INCH OF RAIN
R* « 0.790
0.4
0.6
0.S
1.0
IKCHES OF RAINFALL
1.2
1.8
2.0
1.4
FIGURE 6.8 TOTAL SOUDS MASS PER UNIT AREA VERSUS RAINFALL
-------
TABLE 6.7 COMPARISON OF DRY WEIGHT POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN RUNOFF,
CSO, AND DRY WEATHER SAMPLES*
Average Runoff	Average CSO	Average Dry Weather
Pollutant	Ratio	Ratio	Flow Ratio
COD
473,000
594,000
951,000
TVS
414,000
430,000
358,000
Copper
440
580
1,150
Lead
1,700
920
220
Zinc
1,600
1,200
1,000
Iron
24,900
14,700
3,500
Aluminum
16,200
12,000
1,600
Titanium
750
340
45
*Ratio values are milligrams of pollutant per kilogram of total solids.
80
-------
The concentrations of lead, zinc, iron, aluminum, and titanium are great-
est in the runoff samples, and the concentrations of COD and copper are highest
in the dry weather wastewater samples. Because runoff and dry weather waste'
water are both components of CSO, Table 6.7 suggests that runoff significantly
contributes to lead, zinc, iron, aluminum, and titanium in CSO. In contrast,
COD and copper contributions from dry weather background sources are much more
prominent than contributions from runoff. An interesting observation in Table
6.7 is that the total volatile solid (TVS) concentration for CSOs is greater
than either the runoff or dry weather TVS concentrations. This increase is
volatile material (i.e., matter which is combustible at 550°C) may be the
result of settled volatile material in the collection system being resuspended
during wet weather, high flow conditions. A more detailed analysis of the
source of pollutants is presented in the mass balance analysis section.
COMBINED SEWER MASS BALANCE
Mass balances for each of the catchment areas were calculated for priority
toxic pollutants and for selected conventional/nonconventional. pollutants.
Results of th9 mass balances were used to determine the source of pollutants in
CSF and the fate of those pollutantr. (i.e., either discharged to a POTW or in
the CSO). The fate of the pollutants was determined by calculating the amount
of pollutants in the CSF and in the CSO. The difference in masses for these
two flows is the aaount discharged to a POTW.
For this analysis, if a priority toxic metal concentration was reported as
less than the analytical detection limit, the concentration was assumed to
equal the detection limit. Priority toxic organic pollutant concentrations
reported as not detected were assigned a zero concentration. This editing rule
does not affect the quantity of the organic pollutant mass since all organic
concentrations are reported as an absolute valu* or as not detected. This
editing rule also does not severely impact the quantity of the pollutant mass
for the metals zinc, lead, nickel, chromium and copper since absolute values
were reported for the majority of the samples included in the mass balance
analysis. The total toxic metal mass (which includes the infrequently detected
metals silver, thallium, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, antimony, mercury and
selenium) would be lower (approximately six to 10 percent lower than the
reported mass) if "less than" concentrations were assigned a zero concentration
in lieu of the detection limits assumed.
Source of Pollutants in Combined Sewer Flow
For the combined sewer mass balance analysis, the influent mass to the
regulator chamber is equal to the combined sewer flow pollutant mass. As
illustrated in Figure 6.9, the combined sewer flow pollutant mass is comprised
of several components. The background pollutant mass is the mass associated
with residential, commercial, and industrial wastewater and represents the dry
weather baseline mass. Wet weather sources of pollutants include precip-
itation, runoff, and resuspension of pollutants that accumulate in the collec-
tion system. As discussed earlier, precipitation did not constitute a major
source of any toxic pollutants.
Background, runoff, resuspension, and C8F toxic pollutant masses were
quantified for the 22 storm events sampled^ CSF, background and runoff toxic
»1
-------
RUNOFF
PRECIPITATION
COMBINED
SEWER
FLOW
RESUSPENSiON AND
UNACCOUNTED
SOURCES
oo
K»
TAP WATER
V DRY WEATHER
WASTEWATER
FIGURE 6.9 SOURCE OF POLLUTANTS IN COMBINED SEWER FLOWS
-------
pollutant masses were calculated based on observed flow rates and analytical
results of samples collected. Resuspension toxic pollutant masses were esti-
mated as the difference between the CSF mass and the sum of the background and
runoff masses.
A study of the source of the five most prevalent toxic metals (sine, lead,
copper, nickel and chromium) in CSFs was conducted. Figures 6.10 through 6.14
present these results graphically, and Tables 6.8 through 6.12 summarize these
results. These results are average mass discharges per storm event. For
example, the average pounds of zinc per storm event in the CSF for the three
storm events sampled at the Dexter @ Huntington location was 7.8 pounds. Of
that 7.8 pounds, 1.3 pounds are from background sources, 1.7 pounds originate
in runoff, and the remaining 4.8 pounds are assumed to be a resuspension of
settled material from the sewers. Any systematic bias (such as analytical
problems, field errors, or unaccounted sources) existing in this source analy-
sis is accounted for in the "resuspension mass."
Zinc end lead were the priority pollutants present in the CSF in the
greatest quantity. The primary source of each of these elements is runoff.
This is apparent by observing Figures 6.10 and 6.11 which detail the sources of
zinc and lead, respectively. Runoff sources account for over 57 percent of the
CSF zinc mass and 89 percent of the CSF lead mass. The ratio of the zinc
background pollutant mass to the zinc resuspension mass was fairly constant for
each drainage area. With the exception of th»? Michigan and Phalen drainage
areas (which had little resuspension of zinc), for each estimated pound of zinc
that was present during a storm event as a result of normal dry weather
sources, about four pounds of zinc were resuspended from the collection system.
Copper was the third most prevalent priority pollutant detected in CSF,
although present at much lower levels (142 pounds total during this study)
compared to zinc (301 pounds) and lead (215 pounds). Copper resuspension
sources account for about 54 percent of the CSF copper mass (Figure 6.12).
Similar to zinc, the ratio of copper background pollutant sources to copper
resuspension sources was fairly constant (about 2.5 pounds of copper is esti-
mated to be resuspended froa the collection system for each pound of copper in
the dry weather background flow).
Nickel was the most site-specific of the toxic elements. Evident in
Figure 6.13 is the l*rge contribution of nickel in the CSF samples in relation
to the small *ize of the drainage areas at the Ernest @ Aliens (65 acres),
Dexter @ Huntington (300 acres) and Lander (500 acres) locations. Tho Ernest @
Aliens CSF samples ia particular had excessive nickel concentrations. The
electroplating industry dominates the Ernest @ Aliens drainage area, and to a
lesser extent is present in the Dexter @ Huntington and Lander drainage areas.
Chromium was the fifth most prevalent toxic element in the CSF. Resus-
pension masses are estimated to be twice as large as both runoff and dry
weather masses (See Figure 6.14).
Total priority toxic metals and priority toxic organic pollutant masses
for each of the eight drainage areas are presented in Figure 6.15. These
masses are the average pounds per storm event of toxic metals and toxic organic
pollutants in the CSF. Average toxic metals mass In CSF ranged froa 115 pounds
83
-------
50-
45 -
I	1 RESUSPENSI ON/UN ACCOUNTED
E 1 RUNOFF
t' 1 BACKGROUND
48.5

LANDER
500
LOCATION
AREA(aerts)
MICHIGAN
745
BRANCH
2580
PRAIRIE
513
EUSTIS
78
FIGURE 6.10 SOURCE OF ZINC IN COMBINED SEWER FLOW
-------
50
45
40
39
30
25
20
15
10
5
I I RESUSPENSION/UN ACCOUNTED
RUNOFF
f" '"1 BACKGROUND
LANDER
500
MICHIGAN
745
BRANCH
2560
PRAIRIE
PKftlEN
870
EUSTIS
FIGURE 6.11
SOURCE OF LEAD IN COMBINED SEWER FLOW
-------
so
45
40
35
SO
23
20
IS
10
5
|	| RESUSPENSI ON/UNACCOUNTED
I RUNOFF
BACKGROUND
iaa
11.4

6.I




"I



yfofr ifyii rj






1.0
6.3
4.3

0.2 r
riON
:r«s)
E (3) A
65
DQH
300
LANDER
500
MICHIGAN
745
BRANCH
2580
PRAIRIE
518
PHALEN
870
EUSTIS
78
FIGURE 6.12 SOURCE OF COPPER IN COMBINED SEWER FLOW
-------
301
43
I I RESUSPENSI ON/UNACCOUNTED
i" 1 RUNOFF
BACKGROUND
40-
33H
30 H
23 H
20
13-
10-
19.8
JfL
r ' f
9.1
7.1
4.8
J
|
6.1
"Or
Ifel
2.7
LOCATION E^A
AftEAlocrts) 65
D^)H
300
LANDER
500
MICHIGAN
745
BRANCH
2580
PRAIRIE
518
PHALEN
B70
EUSTIS
78
FIGURE 6.13 SOURCE OF NICKEL IN COMBINED SEWER FLOW
-------
so
45
40
33
30
25
20
15
10
5


RESUSPENSI ON/UNACCOUNTED
RUNOFF
BACKGROUND
5.4
2.81
	i
—-
1.3
4.9
2.8
nSfllUH
mmam
ION
-•*)
E-------
TABLE 6.8 SOURCES OF ZINC IN COMBINED SEWER FLOW
	SOURCES (lbs/storn event)	
Total CSF	Resuspunsi.cn/
Location
(lbs/storm event)
Background
Runoff
Unaccounted
E 
-------
TABLE 6.10 SOURCES OF COPPER IN COMBINED SEVER FLOW
	SOURCES (lbs/storm event)
Location
Total CSF
(lbs/storm event)
Background
Runoff
Resuspension/
Unaccounted
E -------
TABLE 6.12 SOURCES OF CHROMIUM IN COMBINED SEWER FLOW
SOURCES (lbs/storm event)
Location
Total CSF
(lbs/storm event)
Background
Runoff
Resuspension/
Unaccounted
E @ A (3)
2.8
1.2
0.1
1.5
D 
-------
120
] RESUSPENSION
1 RUIJOFF
I
•»
100-
BACKGROUND
E
I
TJ
60
77.4
76.2
CO
<
h*
UJ
JE
60-
0
1
40-
402
33.9
20
14.6
LOCATION
BRANCH
LANDER
MICHIGAN
AREA (ACRES) «8	BOO	900	T4#	ESSO	SIS	STO	TS
SOURCE OF TOTAL TOXIC METALS IN COMBINED SEWER FLOW
30 n
RESUSPENSION
29.5
RUNOFF
23-
BACKGROUND
21.3
20-
13-
13.4
10-
7.6
40
0.1
3.7
LOCATION	C 6 A
AREA (ACRES) «B
OQM LANDER MICHIQAN BRANCH PRAIRIE
SOO	SOO	T4S	tSSO	SIS
RNALEN
STO
EUSTIS
TS
SOURCE OF TOTAL TOXIC ORGANICS IN COMBINED SEWER FLOW
FIGURE 6.15 SOURCE OF PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
IN COMBINED SEWER FLOWS
92
-------
per storm event at the Branch regulator to three pounds per storm event at the
Eustis rsgulator. As stated previously, the nature of the industries tributary
to the Ernest @ Aliens (65 acres), Dexter @ Huntington (300 acres) and Lander
(500 acres) drainage areas may account for the high CSF total toxic metals mass
for these relatively small drainage areas.
In general, the greater the ratio of the background toxic metal mass to
the CSF toxic metal mass, the greater the contribution attributable to resus-
pension. The Phalen drainage area, which during the two storm events sampled
had no apparent toxic metal mass originating as resuspension, was the exception
to the above observation.
Average total toxic organic pollutant mass in CSF ranged from 29.5 pounds
per storm event at the Prairie regulator to 0.1 pounds per storm event at the
Eustis regulator. Total toxic organic pollutant masses generated during the 22
storm events were much less than the total toxic metals mass (only about 20
percent of the total toxic metals). Toxic organic pollutant masses were the
greatest in the Prairie and Dexter (3 Huntington drainage areas. At the Prairie
regulator, toluene and phenol pollutant masses accounted for the majority of
the toxic organic pollutant mass. Trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene were
the dominant toxic organic pollutants discharged at the Dexter @ Huntington
location. With the exception of phenol (Prairie regulator only) and bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalata, over 95 percent of the total toxic organic pollutant mass
was from the volatile organic pollutant fraction.
The source of the toxic organics is attributed mostly to resuspension of
settled material in the sewer systems. Background toxic organic masses at the
Ernest @ Aliens and Lander locations were surprisingly high (70 percent and 45
percent of the total toxic organic CSF mass, respectively), however, background
toxic organic pollutant masses were less than 23 percent of the total CSF
pollutant mass for the remaining six drainage areas. Runoff was not a major
source of toxic organic pollutants.
Toxic pollutant masses for the 22 storm events were added to obtain total
toxic pollutant masses for the most frequently detected priority pollutants and
for several conventional/nonconventional pollutants. The results, which are
presented in Table 6.13, show that with the exception of methylene chloride,
the background pollutant mass does not represent a major portion of the CSF
mass. The toxic pollutants associated with runoff were zinc, lead, and bis(2-
ethylhexyj)phthalate. Runoff also had a large TSS contribution. The most
startling observation, however, is the tremendous mass apparently associated
with the resuspension of sediments in the combined sewer system. The percen-
tages of the CSF mass attributed to resuspension of the metals copper, nickel,
chromium, zinc, and lead were 59, 52, 51, 42, and 30 percent, respectively.
Toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethano, trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene masses
from the resuspension of sediments each exceeded 78 percent of the total CSF
mass. B0D5 and COD masses attributed to resuspension also excesded 50 percent
of the total CSF mass.
Fate of Pollutants in Combined Sewer Systems--
Pollutants in combined sewer flows can either flow to a POTW for treatment
93
-------
TABLE 6.13 SOURCES OF SELECTED POLLUTANTS IN COMBINED SEWER FLOWS1
SOURCES

Total Combined


Resuspension &

Sewer Flow
Background
Runoff
Other Unaccounted
Pollutant
(lbs)
(lbs)
(lbs)
Sources
Priority Pollutants




Zinc
301
43
172
86
Copper
142
27
39
76
Chromium
59
14
15
30
Lead
215
18
191
6
Nickel
137
26
45
66
Total Toxic Metals
955
140
490
325
Methylene Chloride^
41
30
11
—
Toluene
30
4.8
0.9
24.3
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
30
1.5
—
28.5
Trichloroethene
64
14
0.4
49.6
Tetrachloroethene
20
2.1
0.4
17.5
Phenol
28
9.5
0.5
18
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate^
8.1
1.2
6.9
—
Naphthalene _
1.0
0.1
--
0.9
Di-n-butyl p^thalate
1.4
0.1
1.4
--
Fluoranthene
0.2

0.5

Total Toxic Organics
224
63
22
139
Conventional/Nonconventional Pollutants


24,900
B0D5
47,200
10,000
12,300
COD
249,800
46,900
49,600
153,300
TSS
229,400
19,100
109,000
101,300
^Based on analytical results for samples collected during 21 storm events.
Sum of the background and runoff mass are equal to or in excess of the CSF mass.
-------
or be discharged to a receiving stream in the combined sewer overflow. Figure
6.16 illustrates the fate of pollutants in CSFs. Throughout this study the
CSFs and CSOs were rigorously monitored and sampled. The difference in CSF and
CSO mass was assumed to equal the mass discharged to the POTW.
Previous sections have shown that the concentrations of pollutants in CSF
and CSO vary by drainage areas. Similarly, the fate of pollutants in coir.binad
sewer systems varies from drainage area to drainage area. The principle factor
that affects the volume of CSF that can discharge to the POTW is the hydraulic
capacity of the collection system (i.e., the regulator structures, spur pipes,
and interceptor sewers). Figure 6.17 presents both the source and fate of the
average CSFs by drainage area. Average CSF volumes ranged from 17.1 million
gallons per storm event in the Branch drainage area to 0.5 million gallons per
storm event in the Eustis drainage area. A comparison of the eight regulator
structures, spur pipes and interceptors shows that the hydraulic capacity of
the eight regulators, associated spur pipes, and interceptors fluctuates
dramatically
The operation of the regulator chambers sampled can be divided into two
broad categories. The first case is the situation where during a portion of a
storm event, the regulator/spur pipe/interceptor system is designed to route
the entire CSF directly to the receiving waters as overflow. The Ernest @
Aliens regulator is situated such that the interceptor system will surcharge
during portions of storm events, thus preventing any CSF from the drainage area
to reach the POTW during these surcharge periods. A sluice gate on the gate-
well chamber at the Branch location was closed during a 45 min'ite period of
one storm event thus preventing any CSF from discharging to the interceptor
leading to the POTW during that time. The CATAD system in Seattle is designed
to minimize the volume and number of CSO occurrences and maximize the in-line
storage by opening and closing strategically located sluice gates within the
combined sewer network. For this study the CATAD system was programmed to
close the sluice ^ates at the entrance to the spur lines at the Michigan and
Lander regulators. These elevations were selected to simulate CSO occurrences
resulting from surcharged intereptor lines. During each of these interceptor
surcharge condicions, CSF is discharged directly to the receiving streams as
CSO until the water level in the interceptor allows a portirn or all of the CSF
from the drainage area to discharge to the POTW.
In contrast to the above interceptor surcharge condition is the more
common situation where the spur pipe or regulator chamber structure limits the
quantity of CSF that can be discharged to the interceptor. In this situation,
a portion of the CSF continually discharges to the interceptor, the quantity in
excess of the spur pipe and regulator structure hydraulic capacity is
discharged as CSO. This condition existed at the Dexter @ Huntington, Prairie,
Branch (on two occassions), Eustis and Phalen regulators. Figure 6.17 and the
hydrographs in Appendix B show the flow patterns and fate of the CSF. For the
22 storm events sampled, the average CSO volume was 57 percent of the CSF
volume.
95
-------
cso
COMBINED
SEWER
FLOW
FIRST FLUSH
TO POTW
FIGURE
6.16
FATE OF POLLUTANTS IN COMBINED S2WER FLOWS
-------
17.1
13.0
UJ
UJ
13.6
12.5
RJNOFF
BACKGROUND
10.0
7.5
o
u.
9.0
4.3
3.5
2.5
2.4
0.9
0.6
EUSTI*
MICHIGAN
LOCATION
AREA (ACRES) fS	*00	900	T49	tSIO	9IR	R70	T«
SOURCE OF COMBINED SEWER FLOW
17.5
17.1
I 150
I I cso
TO POTW
13.6
(9
Z
o
7.5
s
5.0
4.3
3.5
2.5
2.4
0.6
EUSTIJ
MICHI0AN BRANCH
LOCATION
DON
LANDER
AREA (ACNES) *9	>00	900	746	I9R0	SIR	*70	TR
FATE OF COMBINED SEWER FLOW
FIGURE 6.17 SOURCE AND FATE OF COMBINED
SEWER FLOW
-------
The fate of the total toxic metal and of the total toxic organic pollutant
masses is shown in Figure 6.18. For the total toxic cetal mass, the majority
of the metals were discharged in CSO for each of the drainage areas, with the
exception of the Dexter @ Huntington location. The average totcl toxic metal
mass discharged in the CSO was 56 percent of the total CSF toxic metal mass.
For the total toxic organic pollutants, the CSF mass was distributed approxi-
mately equally in the CSO and wastewater discharged to the POTW. Table 6.14
presents the amount of pollutants in CSF discharged to a POTW and the amount
discharged in the CSO for selected pollutants<
FIRST FLUSH ANALYSIS
During this study, samples were collected during the initial phase of each
storm event and analyzed to define any observable "first flush" periods. First
flush is a period during which solids deposited during dry weather periods are
resuspended or flushed from the collection system by the increased velocity of
the CSF. An objective of this study was to determine the first flush period
and to identify the factors that may affect the first flush magnitude, dura-
tion, volume, and pollutant mass.
The first task was to develop a methodology to define the first flush
period. Generally, CSFs and CSOs contain high metal concentrations and are low
in fats and other insoluble organic materiel. Most metallic salts, acids, and
bases are relatively good electrical conductors while organic compounds that do
not dissociate in water have a low conductivity. The electrical conductivity
of the wastewater, which is a measure of the relative ability of a solution to
conduct an electrical current, is directly proportional to the ionic con-
centration of the wastewater. For this reason, monitoring the ionic concentra-
tion of the wastewaters provides an accurate assessment of any increase or
decrease in the concentration of inorganic pollutants in the wastewater.
Conductivity was used in this study, therefore, to define the first flush
period. The advantages of using conductivity as a measure of the first flush
period are: 1) no sampling and analysis are required; 2) continuous instan-
taneous readouts are obtained in the field; and 3) conductivity is sufficiently
sensitive to changes in the characteristics of the wastewater. Conductivity
readings in the range of 300 to 2,000 micromhos per centimeter (ymhos/cm) for
domestic/industrial wastewater and from 50 to 100 ^mhos/cm for a dilute CSF
during a storm event were measured during this study.
The procedure for collecting first flush samples was to continually
monitor the wastewater conductivity and to take grab samples at a fixed time
interval. The conductivity generally ranged between 300 to 2,000 ymhos/cm at
the beginning of a storm event; diminished as the wastewater was diluted; and
finally ranged from 50 to 100 iimhos/cm for the remainder of the storm event.
At the conclusion of the storm event conductivity versus time was plotted and
from this graph the first flush period was defined. The conductivity plot was
unique for each storm event and drainage area. Samples collected during the
first flush period were then flow proportionally composited to form a single
composite sample. Figure 6.19 depicts a typical flow hydrograph, the conduc-
tivity graph for a storm event and identifies the first flush period.
98
-------
(ft
a
z
3
o
o.
w
_l
<
u
X
o
t-
_<
120
100
80
60
40
20
| | CSO
TO POTW
33.9
23.2
76.2
1
P
115
146|
W.VVVC
77.4
40.2
3.0,
location C($a
ARC* (ACRES) • »
0©H
300
LANDER
900
MICHIGAN
T4S
•RANCH
(960
PRAIRIE
910
RHAlEN
•TO
FATE OF TOXIC METALS IN COMBINED SEWER FLOW
EJSTIS
ra
-------
TABLE 6.14 FATE OF SELECTED POLLUTANTS IN COMBINED SEVER FLOW1
Pollutant
Total Combined
Sewer Flow
(lbs)
Discharged To
POTW CSO
(lbs)	(lbs)
Priority Pollutants
Zinc
Copper
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Total Toxic Metals
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Tr i ch1oroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Phenol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Naphthalene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Flouranthene*
301
142
59
215
137
955
41
30
30
64
20
28
6.1
1.0
1.4
0.2
Total Toxic Organics	224
Conventional and Nonconventlona1 Pollutants
BODS
C0D~
TSS
47,200
249,800
229,400
109
56
23
71
48
417
15
19
17
31
11
23
1.2
0.7
1.2
120
25,800
146,300
34,900
192
86
36
144
89
538
26
11
13
33
9
6.9
0.3
0.2
0.7
104
21,400
103,500
194,500
1 Based on analytical results from 21 storm events.
* CSO mass exceeds the CSF oass.
100
-------
1000
VOLUME OF
CSF TO POTW
CONDUCTIVITY
SO
VOLUME
- 300
RST FLUSH PERIOD
1200
1400
1000
1600
>-
>
P
o
D
O
z
o
'j
FIGURE 6.19 TYPICAL HYDROGRAPH
EH VOLUME TO POTW
n CSO VOLUME
HH] FIRST FLUSH VOLUME
FIRST FLUSH VOLUME
TO POTW
AS CSO
-------
Of the 22 storm events sampled, first flush samples collected during nine
of these storm events were not used in the analysis because the first flush
period was either not distinguishable or judgments made by the field crew in
compositing the samples were not accurate. For example, the first flush
periods for the storm events sampled at the Michigan regulator were not well
defined because the wastewater was not amenable to conductivity monitoring (a
thick oil-film was observed during each storm that may have masked the re-
sults). Definition of the first flush period was also difficult for samples
taken at: the Lander regulator during storms number one and two; the Branch
regulator during storms one and two; the Prairie regulator during storm one;
and the Phalen Creek regulator during storm two. Six of the nine first flush
samples referred to above were collected during the least intense storm events
(all less than 0.1 inch per hour).
The characteristics of the first flush samples varied by site. The
composition of the first flush flow includes the normal dry weather flow,
runoff, and a resuspension of accumulated deposits from both the drainage area
and the collection network. Therefore, first flush sariple characteristics are
dependent on: the characteristics of the residential, commercial, and indus-
trial wastewater; land use; slopes in the drainage area; slopes of the sewers;
antecedent dry weather periods; and the intensity of the storm event.
In most instances the dry weather background concentrations for the toxic
metal pollutants and conventional/nonconventional pollutants were greater than
the xirst flush concentrations for those pollutants; in turn, the first flush
concentrations for those pollutants were usually higher than the concentration
of those pollutants in the CSO. For example, lead, nickel, copper, iron imd
zinc concentrations at the Ernest @ Aliens regulator were high in the
background samples, decreased slightly during the first flush period as a
result of an increase in flow, and were even lower in the CSO. The COD and TSS
concentrations followed a similar pattern. With the exception of the samples
collected at the Prairie regulator, the VOCs showed little change in concentra-
tion in the first flush samples, the CSO samples, and the background samples.
Both storms sampled at the Prairie regulator resulted in substantial increases
in VOC concentrations (for example, toluene increased from 42 yg/1 and 86 yg/1
in the background samples to 164 Vg/1 and 937 yg/1 in the first flush samples).
Of the base-neutral pollutants, the PAHs showed a general increase in concen-
tration during the first flush period. Often the PAHs, such as pyrene, fluor-
anthene, and benzo(a)pyrene, were not detected in either the background or CSO
samples. However, these pollutants were present (although generally in
concentrations less than 10 Vg/1) in the first flush samples. Acid cxtractable
pollutant occurrences were sporadic, but whan present the concentrations
followed a pattern similar to the toxic metals concentrations (i.e., the dry
weather concentrations were higher than the first flush concentrations).
The volume of the first flush varied f«om 1,500 gallons at the Ernest @
Aliens location (two percent of the combined sewer flow for that storm event)
to 4,610,000 gallons at the Branch location (21 percent of the combined sewer
flow for the storm event). The average first flush volume for the 13 storm
events was 825,000 gallons or 15 percent of the average combined sewer flow
(5,508,000 million gallons per storm event). Figure 6.20 shows the CSF, CSO,
and first flush volumes for the 13 storm events sampled. This figure also
102
-------
FLOW TO POTW
1	j FIRST FLUSH
E @ A EQt Efil DON D(JH 0 © M EUSTIS EUSTIS
FIGURE 6.20 FIRST FLUSH VOLUMES PER STORM EVENT
-------
shows that the majority of the first flush volume during these storm events (65
percent) was discharged to the POTW.
The magnitude of the pollutant mass associated with the first flush was
also calculated. Table 6.15 presents the volume, total toxic metal mass and
total toxic organic pollutant mass for the CSF and the first flush. Toxic
pollutant masses associated with the first flush varied by drainage area and by
storm event in the same drainage area. On the average, the first flush toxic
metal mass was 24 percent of the CSF toxic pollutant mass; and the first flush
toxic organic pollutant mass was 40 percent of the CSF toxic pollutant mass.
In general, the magnitude and fate of the first flush toxic pollutant mass
was site specific. Pollutant concentrations during the first flush period were
normally higher than the CSF and CSO pollutant concentrations. However, a
dramatic increase in the pollutant concentration in the first flush samples in
comparison to the CSO concentrations was not observed.
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS
During the CSO study, QA/QC samples were collected and analyzed for
priority toxic pollutants so that the precision and accuracy of the data could
be calculated. Blank water samples were analyzed for priority pollutants to
identify ai.y sampling or analytical contamination. The objectives and limita-
tions of the QA/QC program for this study are briefly discussed below. Results
of the QA/QC program are then presented.
As previously mentioned, the field QA/QC program included pumping blank
water (ultrapure deionized water) through all automatic samplers and associated
tubing throughout the program and analyzing these samples for the acid, base/
neutral, and pesticide priority pollutants. Blank water was also poured across
precipitation collectors prior to each storm event, collected and analyzed as
a "precipitation sampler blank." Blank water was poured into VOC sample
bottles, hermetically sealed, transported to the sample locations, then for-
warded to the analytical laboratory as a VOC blank. These types of blank
samples were analyzed to identify potential field and analytical contamination
such as from methylene chloride (a solvent used extensively both during field
sampling and laboratory catalysis) or from phthalate compounds (which may be
associated with the sampler tubing). The analysis of blank water samples is
critical, especially when the purge-trap analytical technique (which is sus-
ceptible to contamination by residues from concentrated samples or vapors in
the laboratory) is employed.
Occurrences of methylene chloride were common in most of the VOC blank
water samples (14 out of 18 blank samples contained methylene chloride). The
average methylene chloride background concentration was 16 yg/t. No other
pollutants were identified either repeatedly or in high concentration in the
blank water samples.
The analytical QA/QC program included the analysis of duplicate and spiked
samples. "The expression 'accuracy and precision' is used commonly to charac-
terize the performance of analytical methods" (30). Precision, as defined by
the EPA is "the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements made
104
-------
TABLE 6.15 FIRST FLUSH VOLUMES AND TOXIC POLLUTANT MASSES
Total Toxic Orgsuic
Volume (MG)	 Total Toxic Metals (lbs)	Pollutants (lbs)
Drainage Area-Event No.
CSF
First
Flush
Percent
of CSF
CSF
First
Flush
Percent
of CSF
CSF
First
Flush
Percent
of CSF
Lander - 3
5.680
1.650
29
111.0
17.0
15
5.4
0.6
11
Phalen - 1
29.400
1.730
6
137.0
10.0
7
14.0
1.0
7
Prairie - 2
2.280
0.830
36
7.2
4.1
57
33.0
20.0
57
Prairie - 3
6.980
0.440
6
76.0
7.4
10
8.5
2.3
27
Branch - 3
22.000
4.600
21
240.0
50.0
21
18.0
3.7
21
E § A - 1
0.570
0.002
1
17.0
0.05
1
0.4
<0.1
25
E £ A - 2
0.760
0.390
51
81.0
52.0
64
8.1
8.5
100
E § A - 3
0.320
0.290
91
3.8
4.6
100
3-4
1.8
53
DM - 1
0.650
0.109
15
10.0
2.4
24
6.2
1.1
18
D g H - 2
1.360
0.450
33
47.0
23.0
49
52.0
22.0
42
DM-3
0.580
0.220
38
13.0
5.6
43
7.1
2.4
34
Eustis - 1
0.098
0 016
16
0.7
1.0
100
<0.1
0.1
100
Eustia - 2
C.920
0.006
_1
5.4
0.1
2
0.2
<0.1
50
Average
5.508
0.825
15
57.6
13.6
24
12.2
4.9
40
-------
under prescribed conditions with a single test procedure" (31). The precision
of the analytical results refers to the ability to reproduce the sane results,
regardless of whether the results are true values or the result of systematic
analytical errors. The smaller the difference in analytical results for dupli-
cate wastewater or duplicate spiked samples the higher the analytical preci-
sion. During this program, both duplicate wastewater and duplicate spiked
samples were analyzed. Precision results were calculated by determining the
relative percent difference between the duplicate sample concentrations.
Accuracy (or validity) on the other hand, is defined by the EPA as "the
difference between an average value and the true value when the latter is known
or assumed" (31). Accuracy can be defined for a given sample matrix by measur-
ing the percent recovery of known concentrations of priority pollutants or
surrogate compounds that are spiked into both wastewater and blank water
samples.
"Method spike" results reflect the recoveries of known concentrations of
surrogate or priority pollutant "cocktails" that are spiked into blank water
samples. Surrogate compounds, which are compounds that behave in the save
¦tanner as the priority pollutants they represent (but are unlikely to occur in
the environment), were added to all organic pollutant samples analyzed using
EPA Methods 1624 and 1625 and to a limited number of samples analyzed using EPA
Methods 624 and 625. The analysis performed by isotope dilution (Methods 1624
and 1625) were adjusted based on the surrogate recoveries. Organic pollutant
concentrations for samples collected from the Lander and Michigan drainage
areas were not adjusted based on surrogate recoveries because Methods 624 and
625 wera used to analyze those samples.
Known concentrations of the 13 toxic metals were added to the metals
samples. The method spike results describe the accuracy of the analytical
methods for deionized water samples. Matrix spike results reflect the recov-
eries of known concentrations of either suirogate compounds (organic fraction)
or priority pollutants (metal fraction) spiked into the wastewater samples and
describe the accuracy of the analytical methods for the wastewater samples.
Appendix D contains the results of tho QA/QC program.
The accuracy of the volatile organic pollutant data for both method spike
samples (blank water) and matrix spike samples (wastewater samples) during this
study was good with a mean recovery of 96 1 12 percent and 96 ± 15 percent,
respectively. The only VOCs found consistently above the analytical detection
limits throughout this study were methylene chloride, toluene, and 1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane. These compounds had matrix recoveries of 102 ± 22, 102 ±11 and
94 1 15 percent, respectively. These recoveries indicate that the concentra-
tions found for these compounds are accurate (i.e., the difference between the
observed surrogate compound concentration and the true surrogate concentration
is small). As mentioned previously, the consistent presence of methylene
chloride in the blank samples is indicative of field and/or laboratory contam-
ination. In general, reported "ND" values should be considered valid since the
wastewater spike sample recovery data demonstrate that the analytical method is
suitable for the sample matrix. Appendix D-l contains the volatile organic
percent recovery results.
106
-------
The precision (reproducability) of the spiked duplicate VOC analyses was
much better than the precision of the unspiked duplicate VOC analyses, an
enigma because all of the volatile compound surrogates were analogs of priority
pollutants and should have behaved similar to priority pollutants. Appendix
D-2 presents the relative percent differences for the unspiked volatile organic
duplicate and spiked volatile organic duplicate compounds. The relative
percent difference is calculated as the difference in duplicate analysis
divided by the average concentrations of the duplicate analysis, multiplied by
100.
The mean percent recovery (accuracy) for the base-neutral pollutants
(i.e., 81 ± 23 percent) is considered very good; throughout the CSO study,
occurrences of base-neutral compounds were sporadic. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthal-
ate was the only base-neutral pollutant detected above the analytical detection
limit a majority of the time. The mean percent recovery for the bis(2-ethyl-
hexyl)phthalate surrogate matrix spike sample was 84 1 28 percent. The stand-
ard deviation signifies some scattering of the results. With the exception of
dimethyl phthalate-3,4,5,6-d4, l,2-dichlorobenzene-3,4,5,6-d4 and 1,4-dichloro-
benzene-2,3,5,6-d4 (percent recoveries of 27 ± 15, 59 ± 22, and 54 ± 19,
respectively), all base-neutral recoveries were over 75 percent. Therefore,
"ND" values can be considered reliable, again indicating that the analytical
methods were accurate for the wastewater matrix. Appendix D-3 presents the
base-neutral surrogate percent recoveries for this study.
Precision data for duplicate base-neutral samples are limited due to the
sporadic occurrences of the base-neutral pollutants in the 21 duplicate samples
analyzed. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was the most frequently occurring base-
neutral pollutant, present in six of the 21 duplicate wastewater samples. The
37.1 percent average difference for this pollutant between duplicate analyses
compares favorably with the percent difference of the 16 spiked duplicate
wastewater samples in which the bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate-3,4,5,6-d4 average
percent difference was 33.1 percent. Appendix 0-4 summarizes the base-neutral
precision data.
The acid extractable pollutant fraction had the poorest accuracy of all
sample fractions with an overall percent recovery of 61 ± 26 percent.
Recoveries ranged from 82 ± 34 for pentachlorophenol-13-c6 to 29 ± 34 for
4,6-dinitro-2-methyl phenol-3,5-d2. Phenol was the most frequently detected
acid extractable pollutant; it was detecced less than 30 percent of the time.
The average percent recovery for phenci was 45 ± 19. Appendix D-5 presents the
surrogate matrix spike results for tha acid extractable fraction.
As with the base-neutral pollutants, the acid extractable pollutant
unspiked duplicate analyses results were comparable to the spiked duplicate
analyses results. However, the unspiked wastewater duplicate arslysis
precision data are limited due to only sporadic occurrences of vhe acid
extractable compounds in the wastewater samples analyzed. The acid extractable
pollutant precision data are fair, although the accuracy of the acid extract-
able data are poor. Appendix 0-6 presents the relative percent differences for
the duplicate acid extractable analyses.
107
-------
The average mean recovery for the 13 priority pollutant metals analyzed
was 97 ± 8 percent. For the metals analyzed by atomic absorption spectrometry
(selenium, thallium, silver, arsenic, antimony and mercury), the average
•ercent recovery was 101 ± 13 percent. The poorest r covery of these elements
was for thallium (76 ± 12 percent). The remaining priority pollutant metals
were analyzed by plasma emission spectrometry. The average percent recovery
for these seven elements (beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
and zinc) was 94 ± 5 percent. Recoveries ranged from 89 ± 8 perr«nt for copper
to 99 ± 4 percent for chromium. Appendix D-7 presents the metals percent
recoveries. Overall, the recoveries for the metals analyses were very good for
this CSO study, indicating that the concentrations presented should be con-
sidered accurate.
With the exception of silver, the precision of the metals results was very
good. The average relative percent difference for the duplicate analyses for
the most frequently detected elements (i.e., zinc, copper, chromium, lead, and
nickel) was 9.4, 6.9, 11.2, 6.0 and 3.4, respectively. Duplicate spiked analy-
ses were uot run for toxic elements. Appendix D-8 contains a summary of the
average relative percent difference for the duplicate metal analyses.
108
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
fVl
-------
REFERENCES
J. CH2M-HH1. Combined Sewer Overflow - Characterization, Storage and Pilot
Plant Treatment, Vol. 1. Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program,
1979.
2.	CH2M-H111. Report to Congress on Control of Combined Sewer Overflow in
the United States. EPA-43C/9-78-006, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1978. 226 pp.
3.	Tonlinson, R.D., B.N. Bebee, A.A. Heyward, S.G. Hunger, R.G. Swartz, S.
Lazoff, D.E. Spyridakis, M.F. Shepard, R.M. Thorn, K.K. Chew and R.R.
Whitney. Fate and Effects of Particulates Discharged by Combined Sewers
and Storm Drains. EPA-600/2-80-111, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinatti, Ohio, 19S0. 165 pp.
4.	Olivieri, V.P., C.W. Kruse and K. Kawata. Microorganisms in Urban Storm-
water. EPA/600/14, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1977. 197 pp.
5.	Vilhauer, M. Water Quality Aspects of Combined Sewer Overflows. City of
Portland, Portland, Oregon, 1977. 291 pp.
6.	Sargent, D.H. Water Pollution Investigation: Buffalo River. EPA-905/
9-74-010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New York, New York, 1975.
144 pp.
7.	H.F. Ludwig and Associates. Development of Scientific Parameters for the
Control of Pollution from Combined Sewer Overflows and Other Pollution
Sources and the Quantitative Assessment of the Ecology of Jamaica Bay.
Bureau of Water Pollution Control Department of Water Resources, City of
New York, New York, 1970. 187 pp.
8.	O'Brien and Gere. Progress Report Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement
Program. Onondaga County Department of Drainage and Sanitation, 1977.
135 pp.
9.	GANORAM. Combined Sewer Overflow Study. Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission Minneapolis - St. Paul No. 76-55, 1960. 148 pp.
10.	Mytelka, A.I., L.P. Cagliostro, D.J. Deutsch and C.A. Haupt. Combined
Sewer Overflow Study for the Hudson River Conference. EPA-R2-73-153, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1973. 287 pp.
11.	Levins, P., J. Adams, P. Brenner, S. Coons, G. Harris, C. Jones, K. Thrun,
and A. Wechsler. Sources of Toxic Pollutants Found in Influents to Sewage
Treatment Plants-Volume IV, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1979. 118 pp.
A-lu,
-------
12.	Burns and Roe Industrial Services Corporation. Fate of Priority Pollut-
ants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works - Final Report Volumes I and II,
EPA-440/1-82/303, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1982. 436 pp.
13.	E.C. Jordan Company. Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly Owned
Treatment Works - 30 Day Sti'dy. EPA-440/1-82/302, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1982. 263 pp.
14.	E.C. Jordan Company. Combined Sewer Overflow Toxic Pollutant Study -
Pilot Report. EPA-440/1-83/304, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1982. 129 pp.
15.	Anderson-Nichols and Company, Inc. Combined Sewer Management Report. City
of Providence, Rhode Island, 1977. 372 pp.
16.	Anderson-Nichols and Company, Inc., Waterman Engineering Company, City of
Providence, Rhode Island Study of Sewerage Improvements-Infiltration/
Inflow Analysis. City of Providence, Rhode Island, 1975. 295 pp.
17.	Farris, G., J.M. Butto, K.L. Clark, D.S. Sturgill, R.I. Matsuda. Urban
Drainage Stonaw8ter Monitoring Program. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle, March 1979. 112 pp.
18.	Blasiar, D., D.R. Mahaffay. Inside Historical St. Louis Inspection of
Deep Combined Sewers. Presented at the Rhode Island Runoff Sympsoiuo,
1981. 12 pp.
19.	Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. Combined Sewer Overflow Trip
Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1982.
20.	List of Industries tributary to Regulator locations provided by Bernard A.
Rains, P.E., Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 1982.
21.	Donohuo Associates. Combined Sewer Overflow Trip Report. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1982.
22.	Knutson, M. Metro Combined Sewer Overflow Study Summary of the Phalen
Creek Sewer System in St. Paul. Department of Public Works, St. Paul, MN,
July 14, 1980.
23.	Zickefosse, Charles. Wastewater Sampling for Process and Quality Control.
Manual of Practice No. 0M-1, Water Pollution Control Federation, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1980. 103 pp.
24.	American Public Health Assocation, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater - 15th Edition, 1980. 1134 pp.
25.	Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle. March, 1979. 100 pp.
A-2
-------
26.	Gulf South Research Institute and Research Triangle Insitute. Preliminary
Draft Report-Master Scheme for the Analysis of Organic Compounds in Water.
U.S. EPA, ERL, Athens, Georgia, 1980.
27.	Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Waste-
waters, EPA-600/4-82-057, U.S. Environmental Projection Agency, EMSL,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1982.
28.	Method for Chemical Analysis of Water and Waste, EPA-600/4-79-020, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EMSL, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
29.	Pitt, R., M. Bozeman. Sources of Urban Runoff Pollution and Its Effects
on an Urban Creek. EPA-600/2-82-909, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, October, 1982. 152 pp.
30.	Kirchmer, C.J. Quality Control in Water Analyses. Environmental Science
and Technology, 17(4): 174A-181A, 1983.
31.	Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development. Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in
Water and Wastewater Laboratories,: EPA-600/4-79-019.
A-3
-------
APPENDIX B
STORM HYDROGRAPHS
FIGURES
B-l thru B-6	Providence, Rhode Island, Storm Events
B-7 thru B-12	Seattle, Washington, Storm Events
B-13 thru B-18	St. Louis;, Missouri, Storm Events
B-19 thru B-22	St. Paul, Minnesota, Storm Events

-------
—	CSF
—	cso
14-
13-
TO'
UME OF CSF TO POTW
II-
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
16'00
19=00
19'30
20:00
TIME
APPENDIX B-1
C8F AND CSO HYDROQRAPH AT ERNE3T/ALLEN3 REGULATOR
STORM 1 A, 7/18/82
B-lou
-------
I
CSF
cso
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
TOTAL VOLUME OF
CSF TO POTW^
2.
2
3
4
5=30 AM	6=00	6-30	7'00	7>30	8=00	8 = 30	9 00	9=30
TIME
APPENDIX B-2
CSF AND CSO HYDROGRAPH AT DEXTER/HUNTINGTON REGULATOR
STORM IB, 8/9/82
-------
	CSF
CSO
to POT*
I|o\oLUMt
,500

CSF *H° 030
oapH *T EB^ST/AU3lOaM
V\VOB°QR
B-3
-------
o
©
z
9
o
a
I
0900
1000
1100
	 CSF
	CSO
1600
TIME
APPENDIX B-4
CeF AND CSO HYDROGRAPH AT
DEXTER/HUNTiNGTON REGULATOR LOCATION
STORM 2, 8/25/82
¦TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUME OF
CSF TO POT W
CSO VOLUME
—I—
1300
I
1400
-------
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
0
	 CSF
	CSO
APPENDIX B-5
CSF AND CSO HYDROGRAPH AT ERNEST/ALLENS REGULATOR
STORM 3, 9/20/82
30	18=00	" 19=00	20=00
TIME
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
TOTAL VOLUME OF
CSF TO POTW
-------
2
I
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
0
	 CSF
	cso
00
TOTAL VOLUME OF
CSF TO POTW
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
1800
1900
TIME
2000
2100
APPENDIX B-6
CSF AND CSO HYDROGRAPH FOR THE DEXTER/HUNTINGTON REGULATOR LOCATION
STORM 3. 9/20/82
-------
80
70
TOTAL VOLUME OF CSF TO POTW
CSF
CSO
60
50
a
©
5 40
30
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
20
11 = 30
10-30
13=00
10=00
TIME
APPENDIX B-7
CSF AND CSO HYDROGRAPH FOR THE LANDER REGULATOR LOCATION
STORM 1, 4/14/82
-------
w
I
CD
TOTAL VOLUME OF CSF TO POTW
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
I
l&:00
10 30
1130
1200
12-30
1300
1330
1400
1430
TIME	APPENDIX B-8
CSF AND CSO HYDROGRAPH FOR THE MICHIGAN REGULATOR LOCATION
STORM 1, 4/14/32
-------
60
SO
CSF
CSO
TOTAI. VOLUME OF CS FLOW TO POTW
40
o
o
2
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
30
*
o
-I
u.
20
^	
:
J-tei,- s . N\ _S X
11'00
9:00
10=30
11'30
12 00
8=30
TIME
APPEf"OIX B-9
CSF AND CSO HYDROGRAPH FOR THE LANDER REGULATOR LOCATION
STORM 2. 6/30/82
-------
140
130
120
110
100
90
BO
70
60
90
40
30
20
10
0
08:
CSF
CSO
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
TOTAL VOLUME OF
CSF TO POTW
0»30
1030
ll'OO
APPENDIX B-10
AND CSO HYDROGRAPH FOR THE MICHIGAN REGULATOR LOCATION
STORM ?, 6/30/82
B-10
-------
200
190
180
• TO
160
190
140
130
120
MO
100
90
60
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CSF
CS 0
TOTAL VOLUME OF
CSF TO POTW
6*0 6 40 700 7 20 7 40 SOO *20 &40 9-00 9 20 9 40 10=00 10 20 I0<40 1100 Ih20 ll'40
TIME
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
APPENDIX B-11
AND CSO HYDROGRAPH FOR THE LANDER REGULATOR LOCATION
STORM 3.10/6/32
B-ll
-------
69
66
CSF
CSO
63
60
57
54
48
45
39
o
o 36
33
30
27
24
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
TOTAL VOLUME OF
CSF TO POTW
7.30 0-00 0=30 9 >00 «<30 10-00 I0>30 ll'OO 11-30 12-00
TIME
6>30 7-00
APPENDIX B-12
CSF AND CSO HYDROGRAPH FOR THE MICHIGAN REGULATOR LOCATION
8TORM 3, 10/6/82
-------
140 i
	 CSF
	CSO
120-
100-
TOTAL VOLUME OF CSF TO POTW
60-
Q
O
3
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
ta.
60-
40-
20
16 00
1800
TIME
APPENDIX B-13
CSF AND CSO HYDROGRAPH AT PRAIRE REGULATOR
STORM 1, 10/6/82
B-13
-------
250 i
CSF
CSO
200
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
150
*
s
Ik
•TOTAL VOLUME OF
CSF TO POTW
100
50
15-00
l?'00
18'00
20'00
TIME
APPENDIX B-14
C8F AND CSO HYDROGRAPH AT BRANCH REGULATOR
8TORM 1, 10/6/82
B-14
-------
ron
CSF
CSO
TOTAL VOLUME
OF CSF TO POTW
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
...... I
20 00
21=00
22'00
TIME
APPENDIX B-15
CSF AND CSO HYDROQRAPH AT PRAIRIE REGULATOR
STORM 2, 10/19/82
B-15
-------
173
CSF
CSO
ISO
125
TOTAL VOLUME OF CSF TO POTW
100
o
o
X
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
_i
ik
75
50
2K00
2400
TIME
APPENDIX B-18
CSF AND CSO HYDROQRAPH AT BRANCH REGULATOR
STORM 2, 10/18/82
B-16
-------
o
o
2
*
Q
TIME
APPENDIX B-17
C3F AND CSO HYDROQRAPH AT PRAiRIE REGULATOR
8TORM 3, 12/2/82
VOLUME
150
125-
VOLUME OF CSP TO POTW
TOTAL CSO
25 H
0
15 00 16=00 17-00 I8'00 19=00
20-00
2i
-------
S00-,
TOTAL C30 VOLUME
TOTAL VOLUME OF
CSF TO POTW
\
\
\
\ I
%—J
¦ % '-m - - •
¦¦¦ ¦ AmMwmMmiiKU.1
16.00
17-00
20-00
21 00
22 00
TIME
APPENDIX B-18
C8F AND C80 HYDROGRAPH AT BRANCH REGULATOR
8T0RM 3. 12/2/82
B-18
-------
3-1
4H
18=00
17=45
	 CSF
	CSO
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
TOTAL VOLUME OF CSF TO POTW
19 = 15
TIME
APPENDIX B-19
C3F AND CSO HYDROGRAPH AT EUSTIS REGULATOR
STORM 1 A, 10/0/82
-------
CSF
cso
•TOTAL VOLUME OF CSF TO POTW
40
30
o
o
2
•TOTAL CSO VOLUME
%
-i
u.
20
teso
18 oo
1700
TIME
APPENDIX B-20
CSF AND CSO HYDROQRAPH AT PHALEN REGULATOR
STORM 1B, 11/9/82
-------
7
to
TOTAL VOLUME OF
CSF TO POTW
TOTAL CSO VOLUME
15=00
11 	11
16-00
"i—r
17=00
1 r
18 00
"1	T
19=00
2000
21=00
TIME
APPENDIX B-21
CSF AND CSO HYDROGRAPH AT EUSTIS REGULATOR
STORM 2A, 11/11/82
-------
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
30
40
30
20
10
0
	cso
TOTAL CSO VOLUME

TOTAL VOLUME OF CSF TOPOTW
"i—i—i—r
5=00 17.00
I9'00
t—r
20:00
-i—i—i—i—i—r
21:00 22:00 23:00
TIME
24:00
4-00
APPENDIX B-22
C8F AND CSO HYDROGRAPH AT PHALEN REGULATOR
STORM 1B. 10/10/82
-------
APPENDIX C
RAW DATA RESULTS
Table	Title
C-l	Providence Dry Weather Background Results
C-2	Piovidcnce Storm One Results
C-3	Providence Storm Two Results
C-4	Providence Storm Three Results
C-5	Seattle Dry Weather Background Results
C~6	Seattle Storm One Results
C-7	Seattle Storm Two Results
C-8	Seattle Storm Three Results
C-9	St. Louis Dry Weather Background Results
C-10	St. Louis Storm One Results
C-ll	St. Louis Storm Two Results
C-12	St. Louis Storm Three Results
C-13	St. Paul Dry Weather Background Results
C-14	St. Paul Storm One Results
C-15	St. Paul Storm Two Result*
C-16	Sediment Results
C-cA
-------
»*«ov I ook

UNITS
o« iwr.o
HCM

I
o
oia^HeMicAL nxtGe* ocwano
*c,/L
cxmical a«rueN
nc**AHo
W./L
TOTac JRUNlC
U^bON
«C/l
TOTAL SGLIO*


»t NIC


Ufc'l
IIT.KVCL IUM


Uti/L



UC/L
Cn^ot«|UM


OG/i
CIMTLH


UC/1
LLAO


liG/L
«feKCU«f


:-*/L
NtUtL


U«*/t
'^tLtNlUN


\iC/L
bJLVtM


UG/L
tmalhu*


UU/L
I INC


Ub/L
OltiLBli—



LT
•o«n
lf»7.0
JO.S
J^J-0
10.0
*3.0
^.O
2d«».0
I .0
¦4**0
*• 1
li*0
?.0
n.o lt
1.0	tt
i*0 IT
%%0 L T
WfcTO.O
3010.9
r.s.o LT
l-'» LT
7fr*o.n
3.1	LT
two
50.0 LT
11*0.0
C V AH I (Hi
tlOO.O
&UWCtft**LUl		
ALUMtMUM	UC/t.
OAttlUM	UC/L
tfUttON	UG.'t.
CALCIUM	IK./L
cohalt	ug/l
l%.0
I*IH0*0
I 1*00.A
12.0 LT
It «	t*%AH
OT * UfftAfCIt fHAM
no « not ctTCCtro
HU * *«0T fjAW>LfcO
i'u.(.urAMi> hji Lisiei>
•€»e not oerecreo
vahlc c-ci
.m.i. okv trcAfneti ccmpositc
Q4H	£3A
0« HROD	TAP *ATFK
UQ«)	1104b
in.o
2*»0,O
«Q«S
JM,0
ZtfJUQ
11£.0
121.0
rtl.O
1*0 Lt
5•1
%*•«
^*.0
10*0 lt
*0.0 CT
frt.O
2K.0
6N0
• • 0 LT
t .0 lt
2% *0
I J.O
• }
IO.O LT
i.o lt
10.0 lt
5.0
lt
5.0
LT
3«0
Lt
J*a
Lt
a«o
lt
2*0
LT
1.0
LT
*•0
LT
2I50.0

T.Q

1020.Q

1 A « 0

?'».0

Sf».0
LT
1.0
LT
1 .0
LT
ma i .a

Jt.O
LT
tt.o
LT
1.0

4T.O

%.o

SO.O
LT
50.0
LT


A.o
LT
2rt.O

20.0
LT
sns.o

too.a

u.o

?.o

Ml.o

2r«o
LT
I4IOIJ.O

*3*0.0

32.O
LT
lir.o
LT
-------
TMK.C C*01
WOVtHMCft «~!.	0ttV HCAfHCH C0*«P05lTg
MXLUfAHf
tmifs
CJA
t>« BKGO
11044
D»N
0« ?IKGQ
1104*
c»a
TAP MATE*
IKON
MACnC&IUH
»A%AN(SC
MOLVBOfcMUM
SOOfV*
T IN
MTANlU«
VAHAOIlM*
fllftlUK
UO/L
UC/L
VO/L
UG/L
UC/L
Lw/t
uc/c
UC/L
UG/L
M20.0
I2J0.O
61.0
JH.O
51400.0
1540,0
34*0
s«o
LT
2*0 Lt
1220.0
IVIO.O
J5.0
»6«0
4ron«u
1^2 *0
14.0
5.0 LT
i«o
244.0
5T| .0
4 mO
26«0
T'MO.O
460.0
2.0
5.0
Lf
Lf
2*0 IT
O
t
O
N
X0lAlilCJ)Bfr&*l£&«	 -
CAWUOH fCrRACHLOR'OC	UC/L
O4>Utt0f»a*4tt	UC/L
TOLUENE	UC/L
t fNVLUCW^tMe	UC/L
McrnvuNt cnomoc	ug/l
ILlflAOLOUDtlliEttf	U&/L
a*i-oK^LO«aefH4NE	og/l
I - 1 -OKHLtJM»f>tNf	UG/L
I .UI-TdlL ^QHOETHMC	UCa
.2UICHLDfiOtT+iEfie	UG/L
VlttrL LHLUmuE	UC/L
TA|{.HLQKO:rHEH£	UG/L
SUl:)COLAliU.il«aii£l£tilflAU.
itaiX£l&ULfe.0UO	
HO
9*0
2IO.O
2*0
0.0
*0.0
1.0
Z-O
7U*0
NO
22 7- 0
MO
5#T
20.J
MO
222*7
MO
1«D
2/7.0
20j.e>
12.^
4*0
t0«5
ti«e
NO
NO
MO
*10
NO
WD
NO
NO
NO
e£>SIU»lQ£-£*lS&Cl£3l.tS-
Lf * UbS THAN
Gl J OWEIiTiM TtttH
NO > NOT DETtCTfO
NS * NOT SA*f>L£b
POUUYANIS NOr listed
«€ttt not oetlcteo
-------
providence
eoa
bkgo
pollutant
UNITS
11047
comgEttii owM-zwowccwgiiiiaaAi.

BIOCHEMICAL qxvoen oemano
NG/L
20.0
CHEMICAL OXrOfcN DEMAND
NG/L
50.0 LT
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
NG/L
26*5
MON-PARTICULATE TOC
MG/L
NS
total SOLIDS
MG/L
201*0
TOTAL VOLATILE SQLIOS
MG/L
4» *0
total vol sus solios
MG/L
23*0
total suspended solids
MG/L
27,0
total vol ois solids
MG/L
ia,o
total OISSOLVCO FOLIOS
MG/L
1 74*0
SETTLEAttLE solids
ml/l
1*0 LT
cmlorioe
MG/L
22*1
anmon:a nitrogen
MG/L
1,0 Lf
total HHEN0L
UG/L
22*0
OIL ano GREASE
MG/L
4.2
C?EIALi___„ „ ...


ANTIM0NV
UG/L
4.0 LT
AOStNIC
UG/L
3*0 LT
OEMTLLlUN
UG/L
6*0
CAOMlUM
UG/L
12.O
chromium
UG/L
1300*0
COPPER
UG/L
2300,0
LEA0
UG/L
157.0
MERCURY
UG/L
I.O lt
NICKEL
UC/L
B2S0*O
SELENIUM
UG/L
4,0 LT
SILVER
UG/L
10*0
Thallium
UG/L
104.O
/INC
UG/L
1100*0
OTHERS


cyanide
UG/L
3050*0
ttQtiLQ&CEjaLQUiL.. WCIOLS	


aluminum
UG/L
2000*0
BARIUM
UC/L
|9.0
boron
UG/L
609,0
CALCIUM
UG/L
11200*0
LT • Less THAN
Cf » greater Than
NO m NOT OETCCTFO
NS ¦ NOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANYS NOT ntveo
«m NOV OCTCCTCO
TABLE C—02
ft.l. STQM CVCHT QM
e* a	c*a	eoa	e*a	e»*
C5F	CSO	FIRST FLUSH	AUNOFP	PREC IP
11040	11049	It 050	11051	HOST
11*0 lt
*0.0 *_T
40*0
MS
129*0
NS
NS
46*0
40*0
03.0
I *0
S*7
I.J
31 *0
4*9
LT
ll«0 LT
S0*0 LT
37.0
.NS
ISO.O
M«0
26.0
46,0
A2.0
102,0
1*0 LT
*•4
1*5
34 ,0
6,3
45.9
230.0
56.0
2*3.0
I6X.0
70*0
149.0
93.0
I 34,0
i.r
ii*i
2.7
IS.O
}a«s
NS
6*0
so.o
23*5
I I I.O
*0.0
10.0
61.0
1.0
2.4
1.0
5.0
5.0
LT
LT
NS
NS
NS
lt
LT
LT
LT
LT
10*0 Lt
50.O LT
A. O
NS
3f.O
24.O
4.0 LT
4 • O LT
I ft. O
3S.O
I.O LT
1.9
I . O LT
5.0 LT
f».l> LT
4*0 lt	4,0 cr	4*0 LT	4.0 LT	4.0 LT
3*0 LT	3*0 LT	3.0 LT	3.9 LT	J-O LT
6*0	ft«0	7.0	6.0	6.0
4*0	10,0	IS.O	6.0	3.0
109*0	140.0	94 s0	53.0	9.0
437.0	342.0	03S.0	94*0	24.0
003*0	62?#0	6S3.0	409.0	I 10.0
1*0 Lf	1*0 LT	1*0 LT	1.0 LT	1.0 LT
1*30*0	1310,0	1390.0	73.0	40.0 LT
4*O LT	4,0 LT	4.9 LT	4,0 LT	4.0 LT
7*0	3*.0	31.0	7.0 LT	f»,0
100-0 lt	io9,o	lee.o	ioo.o lt	ioo.o lt
555.0	404*0	O 79,0	230,0	17.O
20*0 LT	20*0 Lt	52«0	20.0 LT	20,0 LT
0|4«0	tOIO.O	2000*0	1350.0	164,0
41 *0	42*0	92*9 3S.0	7.0
122*0	92.0	155.0 34,0 LT	34.0 LT
9600*0	0600*0	9600*0	3390.0	645.O
-------
providence
POUUTANf
UNITS
CM
W BKCO
am?
COBALT
f PON
MAGNCSIUN
MANCANESC
MOLrSOCNUM
SODIUM
TIN
riTANIUM
VANAOSUM
VTTRIU*
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
ur«/u
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
16.0
1170.0
I180*0
611*0
29*0
29600.0
2600.0
7.0
16.0
• •0
xQLmuejBttamca.„ ¦ ,	-
CHLOROFORM	UC/L
lOLviNe	uc/l
METHYLENC OCORIDC	UC/L
TFJAACHLWOefHlNC	UC/L
I.l-OICHLORCCTHANE	UC/L
1.1.1-TRfCHLOROETHANe	UC/L
TRANS-l.2-DfCHLOI»OCTHeNC UC/L
TRfCHLORQE THE NE	UC/L
J.I
9*6
12.2
102.0
1.3
J7.2
215.0
SEflUttQLAlltg-QASCimiTimi ¦¦
PVACNE	UC/L
91 Sf 2~E THTLHEXTLIPHTHAL ATE U6A.
^usiyoLAixue^Cio.
f»£ NT ACNLOROPHE NOL
UC/L
22.6
efc*ll£iJML-£&IfiA£lAOLC
LT a LESS THAN
CT a CREATE* THAN
NO ¦ NOT OETCCTEO
NS > NOT SAMPLEO
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTCD
WERE NOT OETCCTEO
TABLE C-02
R.|. STQrfM EVENT ONE
E8A	EOA	COA	EOA	C«A
CSF	CSO	FIRST FLUSH	RUNOFF	PflECfO
11048	11 OAR	11050	I 1031	11057
7.0 LT	16.0	27.0	9.0	12.0
2110.0	1670.0	7180*0	21*0.0	296.0
767.0	641.0	1700.0	545.0	0t». 0
6A«0	79.0	163.0	64.0	8.0
25.0 LT	2S.0 LT	25.0 LT	25.0 LT	25.0 LT
4S60.0	11500.0	13000*0	4420.0	3520.0
7IS.0 LT	7IS.0 LT	1630.0	715.0 LT	715.0 LT
40.0	34.0	:S7«0	70.0	11*0
16.0 LT	I6.l) LT	16.0 LT	S6.0 LT	16.0 LT
J.O	7.0	10.0	7.0	5.0
1.7
• •I
18.6
22.7
2.4
8.5
19.0
NO
I .6
4.6
IS.5
20.0
J.O
8.7
23.O
1.8
6.2
8.2
63*0
1.4
6.9
3.6
28. J
1.7
8.8
2.5
NO
NO
NO
1.7
8.5
2.7
I .9
NO
NO
NO
14.7
MQ
3.9
69.0
6.4
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
119.0
NO
-------
PWVIMNCC
o*h
W MCO
nuUTMII	UNITS	110*3
commit oh MVKOHCQWYgtaxflnai
BIOCHEMICAL 0KV6EM DEMAND MM	25.0
CtCNICAL 0*YC£N ocmamo
MC/L
S0«0 LT
TOTAL ORGANIC CARSON
M6/L
26.0
NOlHPAATtCUUre Toe
mg/l
NS
total SOLIOS
MG/L
162*0
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
MC/L
9O.0
total vol sus solids
MC/L
16.0
total $uspo«eo solids
MG/L
20.0
total vol ois solids
MC/L
32*0
total dissolved SOL1OS
MC/L
I3A.O
SETTlEABLE SOLSOS
ml/l
1*0 lt
CHLORIOE
MC/L
22*0
AMMONIA NITROGEN
MC/L
T.J
TOTAL phenol
UC/L
o.o
OIL ANO CREASE
MC/L
5*0 LT
NTTAt_£


ANT (MONT
UC/L
~.0 LT
ARSENIC
UC/L
J.O LT
BERYLLIUM
UC/L
7.0
CAOMlUM
UC/L
T.O
CHROMIUM
UG/L
20.O
COPPER
UC/L
63.6
LEAO
UC/L
t 76.0
MERCORT
UC/L
I.O lt
NICKEL
UC/L
64.0
SELENIUM
UG/L
4.0 LT
SILVER
UC/L
7. 0
THALLIUM
UC/L
ioo.o lt
ZINC
UG/L
79.0
OTHERS


CVANIOC
UG/L
JS.O



ALUMINUM
UC/L
iis.o
BARIUM
UG/L
31.0
BORON
UG/L
34.0 LT
CALCIUM
UG/L
16900.0
LT « CESS THAN
gt * oat Atea tham
NO ¦ NOT OETECTEO
NS - not sampled
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED
•ERC NOT DETECTED
TABLE C-02
R.I. STORM EVENT ONE
MH	BM	OM	0»M	Bit)
CSF	CSO	FIRST FLUSH	RUNOFF	POeCIP
11064	11069	11064	11067	11066
tOO.O	136.0	230.6
260.0	290.0	600.0
MS MS
•2.0	44.9	36.0
3«r.o	2S2.0	sra.o
254.0	174.0	426.0
taa.O	126.O	362.0
24*.0	170.0	462.0
66.0	48.0	64.0
102.0	62.0	116.0
14.0	S.O	9.0
10.0	6.6	12.0
3.7	3.2	S.I
29.0	42.0	66.0
27.4	30.4	46.«
17.0 LT	17.0 LT
7S.0	90.0 LT
MS MS	10.0
29.5	NS
131.0	10. 0 LT
76.0	10.0 LT
34.0	4.0 LT
01.0	4.0 LT
44.0	10.0 LT
50.0	10.0 LT
1.0	LT	I .0 LT
4.1	2.9
1.0 LT	1.0 LT
16.0	10.0
S.O LT	S.O LT
4.0 LT	4.0 LT	4.0 LT	4.0 LT	4.0 LT
3.0 LT	3.0 LT	3.0 LT	J.O LT	J.O LT
6.0	6.0	9.0	9.0	0.0
10.0	19.0	19.0	12.0	7.0
34.0	46.0	93.0	30.0	20.0
358.0	344.0	929.0	105.0	10.0
974.0	936.0	623.0	663.0	1*1.0
t.O LT	1.0 LT.	1.0 LT	t.O LT	1.0 LT
246.0	261.0	438.0	134.0	40.0 LT
4.0 LT	4.0 LT	4.0 LT	4.0 LT	4.0 LT
7.0 LT	23.0	19.0	19.0	7.0
100.0 LT	tOO.O LT	100.0 LT	100.0 LT	100.0 LT
976.O	622.0	1050.0	411.O	9.0 LT
20.0 Lt	2O.0 LT	20.0 LT	20.0 LT	20.0 LT
2350.0	1460.0	2290.0	1640.0	6^.0
68.0	84.0	196.0	78.0 7.0
39.0	90.0	92.0	70.0	.14.0 LT
8950.O	8310.0	13200.0	4990.0	e6S.a
-------
TABLE C-0*
PROVIDENCE. R. I. STORM EVENT D*C


OftH

©aw

MH

08H
08H

DAM



WW 0ftGO
csf

cso

FIRST FLUSH
runoff

f»REC IP

pouutant
UNITS
II06J

11064

I1065

11066
1 1067

1 1068

COSM-T
UG/L
16.0

21*0

34.0

30.0
22*0

12.0

IRON
UG/L
1340.0

2840.0

2650*0

4330*0
2230*0

112.0

MAGNESIUM
UG/L
2080.0

1610*0

1540*0

2220*0
IOIO.O

2 1**. 0

MANGANESE
UG/L
36. 0

74*0

78*0

107*0
83*0

4.0

MCI TBDCNUM
UG/L
25.0
LT
25 #0
LT
52*0

121*0
23*0
LT
5J.0

SUOIUN
UG/L
22300.0

I8%00*0

2490O.O

25J00.0
ITSOO.O
LT
8960.0

TIN
UG/L
2460.0

1230*0

1370*0

2120*0
1050.0

7 11.0
LT
titanium
UG/L
4.0

38*0

41 *0

44*0
00.0

3.0

vanadium
UG/L
• 6.0
LT
82*0

91 *0

150.0
148*0

80.0

YTTRIUM
UG/L
4.o

6.0

10*0

6*0
8.0

3.0

XDLAllLEU0Bfi4«l£a-
TOLUENE
UG/L
2.0

5*4

5*5

13*0

MO

NO
CTHVL8EN2ENe
UG/L
1.8


NO

NO
2*1

NO

NO
methvlek cm-orioe
UG/L
20.0

26*0

25.0

23.0
18*0

20.0

TETRACHLOROETHEME
UG/L
I2«.0

568*0

M2.0

11*4

NO

NO
i•i—oichlorqethcne
UG/L
2.0


NO

NO
NO

NO

NO
t•t•l-TRICHLOROETNAME
UG/L
100*0

50*0

53*0

83*0

NO

NO
1 • 1 .2-TRICHLOROETHANE
UG/L

MO
2.9

3*0

2.0

NO

NO
TRAMS-1 •2-OICNLORQCTHCNe
UG/L
133.O

207*0

253* O

372.O

NO

NO
VtNYL CHLORIDE
.UG/L
44.0

1*5

2*8

8*1

NO

NO
TRICHLOAQETHEME
UG/L
103.0

285*0

366.0

574.0

NO

NO
Sgfl-VPLftf I*-g
81 SI 2*ETHTLHE»VL IPHTHALATE U6/L
II.A

35*0

36*0

42.C
19*0

7.2

SEMI VOLATILE ACID
PHENOL
UG/L

NO

NO

NO
20.0

NO

NO
eCSllSlK-EftlBAClAOkta	












tT » LESS THAN
6T m GREATER THAN
NO ¦ NOT DETECTED
MS ¦ NOT SANPLED
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTEO HCTf NOT DETECTED
-------
TABI C C-OJ
PROVIDENCE. R.I. STORM EVENT tW
EM CM E»«	EM EM Eit
¦« CUCCO CSF CSO	FIRST FLUSH RUNOFF PRECIP
POUUT«NT UNITS IIOSS II0S9 11060	I 1061 II Oft? IIOH
9IOCHEMICAL OKrCCN DEMAND
MGSL
18.0
LT
18.0 LT
18.0
LT
26.0

ta.o
LT
ia.o

CHEMICAL OXTGEN DEMAND
*6/t
76# 0

50*0 LT
50.0
LT
120.0

50.0
LT
so.o
LT
~OTAL ORGANIC CARBON
MG/L
49.0

35.5
29*0

66.0

24 .8

t I *o

TOTAL SOLIDS
MC/L
384,0

233.0
190.0

3S4.0

90.O

56.0

total volat ile solids
MC/L


73*0
67.0

¦ 25.0

57.0

15.5

TOTAL VOL SUS SOLIDS
MG/L
17.0

22.0
as.o

20.O

14.0

4.5

total suspended solids
MG/L
23*9

36*0
23.0

3J.0

20*0

5.5

TOTAL VOL OIS SOLfOS
MG/L
82.0

51 .0
52.0

lOA.O

43.0

1 t.O

TOTAL OISSOLVEO SOLIDS
MG/L
360*5

197.0
167.0

321 .0

70.0

50.5

SETTL6A8LE SOL IDS
ML/L
1*0
LT
1.0 LT
1 .0
LT
t.O
LT
1.0
LT
1 .0
LT
CHLORIDE
MG/L
so.o

19*0
15.O

30.0

8.7

1 .0

ammonia nitrogen
MG/L
4.2

1 .6
1 .0
LT
4.2

1 .0
LT
1 .0
LT
TOTAL PHENOL
UG/L
17.0

16.0
16.0

51.0

32.0

5.0
LT
OIL AND GREASE
MG/L
10.0
LT
6.0
0.0

6.0

5.0
LT
' to.o
LT
METALS












ANT ( MONT
UG/L
A.O LT
lt

U
4.ft
LT
4.0
O
t.O
LT
ARSENIC
UG/L
J.0
Lf
3*0 LT
3.0
LT
J.O
LT
3.0
LT
J.O
Lf
8CRVLLIUM
UG/L
2*0
LT
2.0 LT
2.0
LT
2.0
LT
2.0
lt
2.0
LT
CADMIUM
UG/L
10.O

10.0 LT
10.0
LT
to.o
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
CHROMIUM
UG/L
2040.0

1190.0
801 .0

1890.0

4.0
LT
4.0
LT
COPPER
UG/L
3190.0

1980.0
1460.0

3350.0

209.0

19.O
LT
LEAD
UG/L
• 20.0
LT
120.0 LT
120.0
LT
120.0
LT
120.0
LT
120.0
LT
MERCURY
UG/L
1.0
LT
t.O LT
1 .0
LT
4.0

1 .0
LT
1.9
LT
NICKEL
UG/L
3870*0

7940.0
7160.0

7200.0

525.0

40.0
LT
SELEN im
UG/L
4.0
LT
4.0 LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
SILVER
UG/L
ise.o

22.O
22.0

7.0
LT
7.0
lt
7.0
LT
THALLilM
ug/l
70.0
LT
70.0 LT
70.0
lt
70.0
LT
70.0
LT
70*0
LT
ZINC
UG/L
1300.0

1400.O
1020*0

34 20.0

214.0

12*0

nTHFRS












CVANlOe
UG/L
I03SO.9

10300.0
stao.o

16800.0

11900.0

20.0
LT
fitlflHfil HP TAB
ALUMINUM
UG/L
132O.0

654 .O
57* .0

97*.O

439.0

<90«0
LT
BARIUM
UG/L
20*0

19.0
20.0

17.0

17.0

2.0
LT
0ORON
UG/L
695*0

776.0
722 .O

693.0

68.0

20 .0
LT
CALCIUM
UG/L
8190.G

5570.0
5420.0

8430.0

C I 70•0

143.0

cobal r
UG/L
15.0

22 .O
17.0

12.0

6.0
LT
6*0
LT
tf a CESS THAN
CT • CREATED THAN
NO • MOT DETECTEO
NS * MOT SANPlEO
POLLUTANTS NOT LlSTCO
¦cue not oerecfEo
-------
TABLE C-03
RROVIOENCE. R.I. STORM EVENT T«0


«*a
c»a

c»a

EOA

eoa

CO A



V» AKCO
CSF

cso

MOST FLUSH
ftUNOPP

PRCC|p

POLLUTANT
UNITS
ItOS#
11099

11060

11061

11062

1 1079

IRON
IMA
T62.0
f 39.0

«r.o

1310.0

I0D9.0

3.0
LT
MGNCStUH
UG/L
T68.0
653.0

MJ.O

906.0

34T.0

04.0

NANCAKCSC
UG/L
J9.4
33.0

30.0

•2.0

29.0

2.0
LT
MOLYBDENUM'
UG/L
16.O lt
i«.0
LT
Ift.O
LT
10.0
LT
16.0
LT
18.0
LT
SODIUM
VG/L
60100.0
3I10Q.0

21000.0

532 00.0

120.0
LT
1200.0
LT
riM
UC/L
SlO.O LT
3IO.O
LT
SlO.O
LT
SlO.O
LT
310.0
LT
510.0
LT
TITANIUM
UG/L
7.0
12.0

6.0

12.0

1 A.O

3*0
lt
VANADIUM
UG/L
S.O LT
5.0
LT
3.0
LT
3.0
LT
3.0
LT
3.0
LT
YTTRIUM
UG/L
• •0 lt
6.0
LT
«.o
LT
4.0
LT
A.O
LT
4.0
lt
VOLATILE OftfiANftCS












CHLOROFORM
UG/L
12.0

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
TOLUENF
UG/L
s.o
3.5

2.0

3.6

11.3


WO
CTHVLeENteic
UG/L
S.J

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
MtTHVCCNE 04.0CUOC
UG/L
90673.0
&n.o

326.0

1313.0

7.5

2.9

rc TRACHUC3ROETHCNC
UG/L
315*0
226 .0

195.0

302.0


NO

NO
». a -01 chloroethcne
UG/L
19.0
16.5


NO

NO

NO

NO
1.1. l-rttlCHLOROETHANE
UG/L
232*0
127.0

104.0

AII.O


NO

NO
1 • 1 •2-TRICHLOaOeTHANC
UG/L
6.0
2.8

2.6


NO

NO

NO
TOANS-t . 2-0 tCHLOAQETHEMe
UG/L
S.5

NO

NO

ND

NO

ND
rniCHcowoethcnc
UG/L
766.0
213.0

230.0

206.0

2T.O

50.0

5EM=X0L4llU-64S£tilEyISAL&-











BUTYL BENZYL PMTHALATC
UG/L
NO

NO

NO
13.0

9.3


MO
8ISU-£TMYLHexrc|PHTMALAT€
UG/L
l9.©
II.0

12.6

9.0

13.3

13.0

SEMlVCLfcTlLE ACID












2.4-0IMETHYLPHCN0I.
UG/L
492.0

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
PHENOL
UG/L
561.O

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
P£Nf acmlorophemol
UG/L
164.0

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
PESTICIDE. EXTRACTABIES
i.f » less than
CT m GREATER THAN
NO s MOf DETECTED
MS s NOT SAWLCO
MNXUTANT& NOT (.tSTCO
vcnc NOT METECTEO
-------
TABLE C-03
PMOV1DCNCE*	SfOJ
DON	04H
«« bkqo	csr
pollutant	mm its	H074	i tors
CONytNTifti^/^QMcnmffiiTgHnAL



BIOCHEMICAL OKVCCN DC MA NO
MCA
95*0

53.0
chemical oaycen demamo
N6/L
970*0

210*0
total onean(C caroon
MC/L

NS
NS
NON-PART1CULATE TOC
M6/L
04*0

33*5
total solids
*C/L
1048*0

333*0
total volatile solids
MC/L
4 88.0

166*0
total vol sus solids
NC/L
236.0

106*0
total suspcmjeo solids
MC/L
298*0

1-2*0
total vol DfS SOLIDS
MC/L
252.0

*»6*0
total DISSOLVED SOLIDS
MC/L
750*0

I'll.O
SC.TTLEABLC SOLIDS
ML/L
B*8

2*4
CMLORIOE
MC/L
64*0

19*0
AMMONtA Nl TM0C4EM
MC/L
ao.o

2*4
total phenol
UG/L
18.0

23*0
OIL AND fiACASE
MC/L
12*0

35*0
METALS




ANT|MONV
UC/L
S*0

4*0 LT
ARSENIC
UC/L
3*0
LT
3*0 LT
beryllium
UC/L
2.0
LT
2*0 LT
CADMIUM
UC/L
IO.O
LT
IQ*0 LT
CMRUMIUN
UC/L
28SO.O

302.0
COPPER
UC/L
3490*0

1200*0
LCAO
UC/L
120*0
LT
240*0
MERCURY
UC/L
«*0
LT
1.0 lt
NICKEL
UC/L
2550*0

952*0
SELENIUM
UC/L
4.0
LT
4*0 LT
SILVER
UC/L
14*0

7.0 LT
thallium
UC/L
70.0
LT
70*0 LT
ZINC
UC/L
2210*0

1320*0
OTHFRS




CYANIDE
UC/L
33000*0

1536*0
HOMCOMVCWI1QMAI—BEI4LS	




ALUMINUM
UO/L
1540*0

1340*0
BARIUM
UC/L
16*0

31*0
BORON
UC/L
231*0

105*0
CALCIUM
UC/L
9440*0

S570*0
it • iiit Than
Of • CftMVfft VNAN
NO « Hi If
• NO! MttHVft
MtV kit*** •**« WW! MtfftfB
CVCMT T«Q
DOM	DON	OOH	CIA
CSO	FIRST FLUSH	RUNOFF	WCCIP
11076	I 1077	11070	11079
OO.O IT	M.O	18.0 Lt	ta.o
290*0	260*0	50*0 LT	50.0 LT
*3.0	83.5	21.5	11 .0
NS NS	NS	N5
263.0	343.0	138.0	56.0
153*0	159.0	48.0	15.5
IIO.O	57.0	30.0	4.5
151*0	82.0	81.0	5.5
43.0	I02.O	16.0	11.0
114*0	261*0	57*0	50.5
4*2	2*0	I .0 LT	1.0 LT
9*2	23*0	.5	1*0
t *1	4.9	1.0 LT	I.0 LT
12*0	20.0	5*0 LT	5.0 LT
24*0	39.0	10.0 LT	10.0 LT
4*0 LT
3.0 LT
2*0 LT
10*0 LT
140*0
694*0
230*0
1.0 LT
549*0
4*0 LT
7*0 LT
70*0 LT
•09*0
094*0
1100*0
20*0
¦ 7*0
3970*0
5.0

3.0
LT
2*0
LT
10*0
LT
601. O

1760* O

120.0
LT
1.0
LT
1560.0

4.0
LT
7.0
LT
70.0
LT
1910*0

2000*0

1250*0
20*0
235*0
0210*0
4.0
LT
3.0
LT
2.0
LT
10.0
LT
4.0
LT
24.0

283.0

1.0
LT
40.0
LT
4.0
LT
7.0
LT
70.0
LT
211*0

N
O
•
o
LT
1540*0
47.0
59.0
2210*0
4 • O LT
3*0 LT
2.0 LT
10.0 LT
4.0 LT
19.0 LT
120.0 LT
I .0 LT
40.0 LT
4. O LT
T.O L T
70*0 LT
12*0
20*0 LT
90*0 LT
2.0 LT
20*0 LT
143*0
-------
TABIC C-03
providence. r.i. STonM event two


04H
P*H

D»H

0*H

0*H

E9A



•V QKCO
CSF

CSO

riftST FLUSH
ffUNOFf

PRECIP

pollutant
UNITS
1 1074
ft 1075

1 1076

f 10 77

1 (078

1 1079

COSALT
UG/t
I6Z.0
8.0

II.0

6.0
LT
6.0
tT
6.0
LT
IRON
UC/L
nso.o
**60.0

1810*0

1290,0

1978.0

5.0
LT
magnesium
UC/L
1660.0
1000*0

722.0

1310.0

SOM.O

*4 .O

MAHGAN£S£
UC/L
2ft *0
38*0

34 .O

37 m 0

42.0

2.0
LT
M0LT80ENUM
UG/L
18*0 LT
|fl*0
IT
18*0
LT
18.0
LT
18.0
LT
(8.0
LT
SODIUM
UC/L
163000.0
2750O.O

13900.0

37500.0

1200.0
LT
1200.0
LT
TIN
UG/t
510.0 LT
540*0
LT
510*0
LT
510. 0
LT
510.0
LT
510.0
LT
TITANIUM
UC/L
36.0
60.0

69.0

39.0

94 * 0

3.0
LT
VANADIUM
UC/L
5.0 lt
5.0
IT
5*0
LT
5*0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
~ rmtufc
UC/L
4*0 LT
4.0
LT
4*0
LT
4*0
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
KQuaiiLfc-asfiAuia	












TOLUENE
UC/L

3.8

3.2

4*9


NO

NO
6P0M0METMAMC
UC/L
260. O

MO

MO

NO

NO

NO
netMatNE c»«.(miDe
UC/L
I4.Q
61.0

23.0

42* O

6*0

2.9

TC r«AC«LOPO€fHCNf
UG/t
MD
959*0

05*0

299*0


NO

HO
t • t • 1 -TRICHCOROE TMAMC
UG/L
263.0
225.0

93*0

296*0


NO

NO
1 • t .2-T*MCMLO«OFTNAN£
UC/L
ItO.O
24.O

16*0

43.O

2.4


NO
rnans-t*2-oichlooocthcmc
UC/L
64.0
31.0

22.0

35.0


NO

NO
VINYL CMLOPIOE
UC/L
13.0

NO
•9

3*5


NO

NO
TPICMLOWQCfHtNC
UC/L
9O55.0
3700.0

1922*0

5143.0

12.0

58*0

atMX^QLAX ILL-. OAtZOKMlH ftLS -











anthdaccic
UG/L
NO

MO

MO

NO
83*0


NO
01 M£ T MVLPH THAL AT£
UG/L
«S.O

MO

MD

NO

NO

NO
(t ( S( 2*C T WLHCX U » PHtHAI. Ate
UG/L
103.0
27.0

17.O

28.0

16.0

13.0

OI-N-8UTU. PHfMALATC
UG/L
MO
17.0

*«0

57*0


NO

NO
SEMI VOLATILE Af.CO












•-CMLOWO-J-MCTHVLPHFNOL
UC/L
WO

MO

NO
43.0


NO

NO
EE5IXCiOC_EiI3ACIAQI.e!
IT a (.CSS Than
ct « coetrtA than
MO » NOT DETECTED
ns • not stwieo
POLLUTANTS not listed
MERC NOT DETECTED
-------
TABLE C-04
moviocNCi*	sroi
©6M	06H
«f OK CD	CSF
POLLUTANT	UNITS	41052	U053
Ci*rtCaIlDttflL^ttQt#COtt«^IiOttAL
BIOCHEMICAL OXVGRN OCMANO N6A.	390. O	190.0
CHEMICAL OKYGEn DEMAND	NC/L	1100*0	420.0
fOVAL ORGANIC CAP BOM	MG/L	MS	NS
NON-PART (CUL ATE tOC	MC/t	132.0	47.5
TOTAL SOLIDS	MG/L	IO60»O	*77.0
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIOS	MG/L	674.0	JOS.O
TOTAL VOL SUS SOLIDS	MG/L	690.0	292.0
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLlOS	MG/L	764.6	376.0
TOTAL VOL D1S SOLIDS	NG/L	184.0	103.0
TOTAL OlSSOLVEO SOLIDS	MG/L	200.0	101.0
St'TTLCAtJLfc SOLIDS	ML/L	IO.O	3*5
CHLORIDE	MG/L	29.0	9.7
AMMONIA NITROGEN	N6/'.	ASO.O	0.4
TOTAL PHENOL	UGsL	56*0	9*8
OIL ANO GREASE	MG/L	220.0	93.0
C&I6LS		
ANT (MONY	UGA.	4.0 LT	5.0
ARSENIC	UG/L	3.0 LT	3.0 LT
OfcRVLLlUN	UG/L	2-0 LT	2.0 LT
CADMIUM	VG/C	21*0	10.0 LT
CHROMIUM	UG/L	9O.0	50.0
COPPER	UG/L	1260+0	595*0
LEAD	UG/L	440«O	279.0
MCRCURV	UG/L	5.0	1.0 LT
NICKEL	UG/L	SS60.0	4B3.0
SELENIUM	UG/L	4.0 LT	« *0 LT
SILVER	UG/L	14.0	10.0
thallium	ug/l	to.o lt	to.o lt
ZINC	UG/L	1*40.0	1090.0
oibtas		
CVANIOE UG/L	720.0	210*0
ttQC*tOt*¥EiiIiQSAL-a£XALS	
ALUMINUM UG/L	1960.0	1640*0
OAR I UN UG/L	6<)«0	S6.0
BORON UG/L	I5J.0	57.0
CALCIUM UG/L	I3BOO.O	6*60.9
lt * less than
GT i GREATER THAN
NO » KOT DETECTEO
NS * NOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED
¦ERE NOT OETCCTCD
EVENT THREE
DON	DON	OOH	E»A
CSO	MRST fLWSN	RUNOFF	PRECIP
U044	noss	ttos(»	noao
*10-O	330.0	23.0	17.0 LT
630*0	10410*0	57.0	50.0 LT
NS NS	NS	5.0 LT
44 #0	64*5	23.5	NS
775.0	926.0	120.0	23.0
567.0	697.0	70.0	2J.0
491.0	560.0	23.0	4.0 LT
653.0	747.0	49.0	4.0 LT
7G.0	117.0	*7.0	22*0
122.0	179.0	7|«0	22.0
6*3	4.to	1.0	LT t.O LT
A.4	14.0	1*3	1.0 LT
3*0	9.1	1.0	LT I .0 LT
16.0	7.8	I 1.0	S.O LT
26*0	72.0	5.0	LT 10*0 LT
4*0 LT	4.0 LT	4.0	LT	4*0 LT
3.0 LT	3.0 LT	3.0	LT	3.0 LT
2.0 LT	2.0 LT	2.0	LT	2.0	LT
10*0 LT	10.0 LT	tO.O	LT	10.0	LT
27#0	55*0	5.0	4.0 LT
J9A.O	567.0	51.0	19.0	LT
290.0	368.0	21*5.0	120*0	LT
1*6 LT	1.0 LT	1.0	LT	1.0 IT
419.0	56*.O	VO.O	LT	90.0	LT
4.0 LT	4.0 LT	4.0	LT	4.0	LT
8*0	18*0	7.0	LT	7.0	LT
70.0 LT	'0.0 LT	70.0	LT	70.0 LT
1140.0	1350.0	37J.0	2*. 0
160.0
220.0
20.0 LT
IS60.C
49.0
71 .0
6520.0
20 70.0
76.0
97.0
6640*0
974.0
37.0
37.0
31JO.O
90.0 LT
2.0 LT
20.0 LT
15.0 LT
-------
providence


O0H


WW 8* GO
POLLUTANT
UNITS
11052
C08ALT
UG/L
42.0
IRON
UC/L
44 70.0
MAGNESIUM
UG/L
20IO0.0
manganese
UC/L
1 14.0
MCLTBOENUM
UG/L
10.0 LT
SOOIUM
UG/L
35000.0
tin
UG/L
SIO.O LT
T| TANIUM
UG/L
65.0
VANADIUM
UG/L
14.0
VTTRIUM
UG/L
6.0
KCiaiU£.Q&liAtU£S	
CHLOROFORM	UC/U	7. ©
TOLUENE	UG/L	30.0
CTHVLBCNZCNC	UC/L	11.0
WTHTLCNE CHLORIDE	UC/L	14.0
TEIRACHLWOITHENC	UG/L	463.0
I , | .1-TPICHCOnat fHAMl	UC/L	101.0
I I .1 •2-TRICHLORQETHANE	UC/L	0.0
M | .1 .2.2-TETRACNLOROCTH4ME	UC/L	MO
N TPAHS-l.i-OlCMLOWOtTHCHC	UG/L	22.0
TP ICMCOPOE THENE	UC/L	B02.0
StHl-YQLftl lLC.fi£Sfc£J*CUtS&L&-
OIMETHVLPHTHALATE UG/L	49*0
PHENANThRENE UC/L	6«6
I ••-OICHLORO0EM/ENE UC/L	8*0
NAPHTMALcNE UC/L	57.0
8 tSf 2-ETHYLHCJKVL 1PHTHALATC UC/L	73.0
Oi-M-HUTfL PmThALATE UG/L	22*0
2EaXXDL4IiLE_A£iQ	
PHENOL UC/L	17*0
asuuQE.exifiui&aLCs	
lt * less Than
cr * GREATER THAN
HO * NOT OETEC TED
NS * NOT SAMPLEO
POLLUTANTS NOT LlSTCO
¦CUE NOT DETECTED
TABLk C-84
R.I. STORM EVENT
THREE
04H
CSF
11 OS J
O «M
CSO
11 OS*
O *H
FIRST FLUSH
I IOSS
0»H
RUNOFF
I 10*6
E*A
PRECIP
noao
6.0
3600.0
1470.0
55.0
to.o lt
utoo.o
sio.o lt
sa.o
15.0
4.0 LT
6*0 LT
2650.0
12IO.O
74 .0
10.0
6890*0
510.O
58.0
5.0 LT
4*0 LT
LT
LT
6*0 LT
3720.0
1600.0
93.0
16.0 LT
12600.0
510.0 LT
00.0
5.0 LT
4.0 L 7
6.0 LT
1200.0
65 I .0
69.0
10.0 LT
2250.0
510.0 LT
52.0
5.0 LT
4.o lt
6.0 LT
5.0 LT
5.0 LT
2.0
10.0 LT
1200.0 LT
510.0 LT
3.0 LT
5. 0 LT
4.0 L T
NO
NO
NO
24*0
10.0
12.0
474 .0
23<>.0
9.0
52.0
556.0
25.0
10.0
15.O
337.0
257.O
II.0
48.0
S46.0
NO
30.0
14.0
15.0
202.0
261 -O
10.0
e.o
43.0
550.0
6.5
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
2 • O
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
28*0
5.7
17*0
11.0
30.0
NO
5.1
12.0
36.0
9.0
NO
6.0
22. 0
14.O
39.0
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
M>
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
PflOVIOENCe
£»A
¦* OK GO
POLLUTANT	UNIfS	I10b9
CfittXCttXIQtfOUtlQtfCQtfXCtfllQeiAk

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN OCMNO
MG/L
SO.O
CnCMIClU. OXVGCN OENAMO
MC/L
6J.0
total ORGANIC carbon
MG/L
NS
non-partICUVATE TOt
MG/L
4J.O
total sotios
MG/L
354.0
TOTAL volatile SOL I OS
MG/L
IJ9.0
TOTAL vol SUS SOLtOS
MG/L
24«0
TOTAL suspewcd sclios
MG/L
32.0
TOTAL vol OlS SOLIDS
MG/L
S 15.0
total dissolved solids
MG/L
322.0
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS
ML/L
I.O lt
CHLORIDE
MG/L
43.0
AMMONIA NITROGEN
MG/L
3.5
total phenol
UG/L
2f.O
oil and GREASE
MG/L
to.o lt
MFTAL^


ANTI MONT
UG/L
4.0 LT
ARSENIC
UG/L
J.O LT
BERYLLIUM
UG/L
2.0 LT
CA0MIUM
UG/L
SO.O LT
CHROMIUM
UG/L
J660.0
COPPER
UG/L
3930.0
LEAD
UC/L
120.0 LT
MERC OP V
UG/L
1.0 Lt
NICKEL
UG/L
12000.0
SELENIUM
ug/l
~ •0 LT
SILVER
UG/L
119*0
thallium
UG/L
70.0 f.T
ZINC
UG/L
54 .O
OTMFRS


CYANIDE
UG/L
3TOOO.O
ttOtl£QsntE»Xl€MAL-ttElALS	


aluminum
ug/l
305.0
BARIUM
ug/l
12.0
SORON
UG/L
1460.O
CALCIUM
UG/L
9700.0
Lf • LESS TM4N
or » gdcmer than
NO a NOT DETECTED
NS ¦ MOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS not LISTEO
(•CUE MOT OCTKKD
TABLE C-0»
R.I.
STORM EVENT
ThR£E






E+4

E»A

EOA

E»A

E4A

CSF

CSO

FIRST FLUSH
RUNOFF

PRECIP

noro

11071

11072

1 I07J

1 lOOO

20.0

17.0

42*0

17.0
LT
17.0
LT
65.0

SS.O

170*0

50.0
LT
no.o
LT

MS
49.0


NS
10.5

5.0
LT
25.0


NS
37.0


NS

NS
1 34 .O

O2.0

173.0

70.0

23.0

110.0

37.0

S1.0

53.0

23 .0

S7.0

16.O

36.0

9.0

~ .0
LT
68 .0

2* .0

66*0

23.0

4,0
LT
61 .0

21 *0

1S.0

44*0

22.0

66 .0

sa.o

107.0

47.0

22 .0

I .0
LT
I.O
LT
I.O
LT
I.O
LT
1 .o
LT
6.1

3.0

5.5

1.4

1 .0
LT
1 .6

1*4

2.7

1 .O

1 .0
LT
32*0

5.0
LT
5.3

5.0
LT
5.0
LT
5.5

5.0
LT
19*0

5.0
LT
10.0
LT
4.0
lt
4*0
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
4 .0
LT
3.0
LT
3.0
LT
3.0
LT
3.0
LT
3.0
LT
2.0
lt
2.0
LT
2.0
lt
2.0
LT
2.0
LT
10.0
LT
10*0
LT
10*0
LT
to.o
LT
lO.O
LT
53.0

30*0

54. 0

4.0
LT
4.0
LT
229.0

193*0

207.0

230.0

l*.0
LT
120 .O

120.0
LT
23S.0

120.0
LT
120 .O
LT
1 .0
LT
1*0
LT
1.0
LT
1.0
LT
1 .0
LT
470.0

ota.o

527.0

153.0

90.0
LT
4 .0
lt
4*0
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
7.0
lt
7.0
LT
7.0
LT
7.0
LT
7.0
LT
70.0
LT
70*0
LT
70.0
LT
70.0
LT
70.0
LT
423 .O

350.0

090.0

320.0

24 .0

330*0

140*0

400.0

32.0

o
•
o
LT
440.0

411.0

1050*0

300*0

90 .0
LT
12*0

10*0

29*0

27.0

2 .0
LT
158.0

107.0

177.0

40.0

20.0
LT
4240*0

3260 *0

6280*0

2590.0

1S.0
LT
-------
TABLE C-0*


PROVt OLNCE*
R. t .
STORM
EVENT
three






E*A

Ed A

E6A

E8A

E8A
E*A


•V BKGO
CSF

CSO

FIRST FLUSH
RUNOFF
PREC *P
pollutant
UNITS
1 t06«)

1 1070

110 71

1 1072

1 (073
11080
COBALT
UG/L
22. o

984 «0

6*0
LT
6.0
L r
6.0 LT
6• O LT
SOON
UG/L
600*0



71 7.0

1910.0

592.0
5.0 LT
MAGNESIUM
U6/L
aie.o

546.0

462.0

902.0

4 32.0
5.0 LT
MANGANESE
UG/L
2d.O

55.0

53.0

92.0

4h.O
2.0
NOtvaOCNUN
UG/L
10.0
LT
ie.o
LT
18.0
LT
18.0
LT
18.0 LT
ie.0 lt
SOOIUM
UG/L
6*100.0

1720.0

1200.0
LT
5690.0

1200.0 LT
1200.0 Lt
TIM
UG/L
910.0
LT
SIO.O
LT
510.0
LT
510.0
LT
510.0 LT
sto.o lt
TftANtUM
UG/L
5*0

10.0

6.0

33.0

15.0
3.0 lt
VANAOIUM
UG/L
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0

5.0 LT
5.0 LT
YTTRIUM
UG/L
4*0
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
A .0
LT
4 .0 LT
4.0 LT
VOlATlLg PWC.AMICS











CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
UG/L

ND
14.0


NO

NO
NO
NO
fiPOMOORN
UG/L

NO
ts.o


NO

ND
NO
NO
Chloroform
UG/L
*•0


NO

NO

NO
NO
NO
TOLUENE
UG/L
3120*0

32.0

12.O

43.0

76.0
2.0
ACRVLOMI TRILE
UG/L

NO
ts.o


NO

NO
NO
ND
senienc
UG/L
6*0


NO

NO

NO
NO
NO
CHLOROBEN/ENC
UG/L

NO
16.0


NO

NO
NO
ND
ETMYLBEN2ENE
UG/L
10*0


NO

NO

NO
NO
NO
NCThVLENE CK.0R10E
UG/L

ND
s.o

29.0

59.0

7.0
24.0
rCTRACHLOHOETHCNC
UG/L
114.0

21 .0

16.0

20.0

NO
NO
a•1-OICMLOnOfcTHANE
UG/L

NO
37.0


NO

NO
NO
NO
t•I-OICHLOROETHENE
UG/L

NO
21 .0


NO

NO
NO
NO
1 • 1 . t -TN ICHLOROETNANC
UG/L
ltll.0

*54-0

449.0

5 A4.0

NO
NO
1 «l .2-TR1CHLOROETHANC
UG/L

ND

ND

ND

ND
2.2
NO
1.2-OlCHLOROETHAME
UG/L

NO
16.0


NO

NO
NO
NO
1.^-OICHLaROPROPANE
UG/L

NO
22.0


NO

ND
NO
NO
TRANS-1.2-OICMLOAOETMENe
UG/L

NO

NO

NO
2.0

NO
NO
TPICHLORQtTHENE
UG/L
119.0

28.0

22.0

2S.0

NO
NO
raiUKQLAlll£.0ftSe£tf£UlSAL&.










N-NI TRQSQOI PHENYL AMfNE
UG/L
75.0


ND

NO

NO
NO
NO
81 S( 2—ETHYLHEXYL iphtmalate
UG/L
16.0

10.0


NO

NO
NO
NO
St!U*GL4IlL£.AC10	










A—CMLORO-3-METHYL PHENOL
UG/L

ND
121.0


NO

NO
NO
NO
2-CHLOROPHENOL
UG/L

NO
36 >0


NO

ND
NO
NO
2*NirROPMENCL
UG/L

NO
92.0


ND

ND
NO
NO
2•4-O1CHLOHOPHCNOL
UG/L

NO
81.0


NO

NO
NO
NO
2*«-0IN£rMTLPHfN0L
UG/L

NO
83*0


NO

NO
NO
NO
If ¦ LES* THAN
61 a CHCMIR THAN
NO a NOT DCtCCTCD
Mi a NOT SMWtlll
POtlUTANTS NOT U«UO
MM MOT OflTtCTCO
-------
PROVlOENCE
EftA
•V BKGO
POLLUTANT	UNITS	11069
2*4*01 N| TROPHENOL	U6/L	NO
2.4.*-TfllCHLONOPt€NOL	UO/V	NO
2-NETHVI.-4 «6-0f Nf TROPtCNOL	UG/t	NO
PHENOL	VG/l	14*0
PENT ACHL0H0Pm£n0L	OC/L	NO
ecsxicire-eiia&cxAULC*.
lt • less than
GT * CAEATER THAN
NO ¦ NOT DETECTED
N& « NOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS NOT LlSTCO
«CM NOT OCTECTCO
table c-o*
R.I.	STORM EVENT
E*A	EIA
CSF	CSO
11070	110 7ft
18*0
*40.0
4|«0
NO
72 *0
THREE

CiA

E«A

E4A


FIRST FLUSH
RUNOFF

PRECIP


11072

11073

1 1 080

NO

NO

NO

NO
NO

NO

NO

NO
NO

NO

NO

NO
NO

NO

NO

NO
NO

NO

NO

NO
-------
SEATTLE
UN
CM SKGO
nuurwr	units	io«ii
CQCKCtlXiaNtklMBCIMXEtlUJUIftk

IIIOCHCMICAL OXVCCN OEM NO
*6/L
JM.f
CHEMICAL OIKtN OENANO
MC/L
S7S.O
TOTAL ORGANIC CAMBON
MC/L
NS
NOM-PAAriCULATE TOC
MC/L
190.O
TOTAL SOLI OS
MC/L
1360.0
IClTAL VOLATILE SOLIOS
MC/L
40S.O
TOTAL VOL SITS SOLI OS
MC/L
9O.0
TOTAL SUSPENOEO SOLIDS
MC/L
141.0
TOTAL VOL DIS SOLI OS
MC/L
307.0
tor«C OtSSOLVEO SOL IDS
MC/L
1220.O
sctileaole solids
ml/l
3.3
ct«.onioc
MC/L
JSO.O
AMM0NI'< N< ¦ MOOEN
MC/L
S.O
total phenol
UG/L
22.0
OIL AND MEASE
MC/L
• 02.0
MLTAL5


antimony
UC/L
S.0 lt
AOSCN1C
UC/L
2S.O LT
UERVLLlUN
UC/L
1.0 L?
CAOttlUM
UC/L
230.O
Chromium
UC/L
700.O
copper
UC/L
13*0.0
LEA0
UC/L
30.0 LT
HCRCURT
UC/L
.3 LT
NICKEL
UC/L
2*20.0
SEL&NIUM
UC/L
2S.O LT
SILVER
UC/L
i.e
thallium
UC/L
10.0 lt
line
UC/L
2*10.O
Qf MFBS


CTANIDE
UC/L
3*00.0
ALUMINUM
UC/L
ISAO.O
1MIUN
UC/L
60.O
ttOMON
UC/L
370.0
CALCIUM
UC/L
3*200.0
lt • less than
cr » CMUfn TMM
NO « NOT qetcctco
ns * not sampled
pollutants not listco
¦ERE NOT OCTECrCO
table e-os
•A.	DRV MEATHER COMPOSITE
MICH	LAN
OS BKCO	TAP i*TM
10912	inn
106.0
215.0
57.5
NS
3*6.0
131 .0
3J.0
*3.0
99.O
303.0
1.0 LT
16.0
*.*
s.o
27.0
• .0 LT
2S.0 LT
S.O LT
NS
05.0
26.0
*.0
4.0
2*. O
Bt .0
1.0 LT
3.7
1.0 LT
9.0
S.O LT
S.O
LT
S.O
LT
25 .0
LT
25.0
Lt
(.0
LT
1.0
LT
ll»O.0

S.O
LT
3*.0

10.0
LT
60.0

SO.O

SO.O
LT
50.0
LT
.3
LT
.3
LT
SO.O
LT
SO.O
LT
25.0
LT
2S.0
LT
3.6

.4
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
• 30.0

110.0

140.0
20.0 LT
7TO.O	so.o
22.0	10.0 LT
tao.o	20.0 LT
20*00.0	tm.e
-------
SEATTLE.


L«N


OW OKCO
pollutant
UNITS
10^11
cobalt
U6/L
5.0 LT
IRON
U6/L
*790.0
MAGNESIUM
wc/u
21100*0
manganese
UC/L
3SO.O
MOLT606NUM
UC/L
10*0 lt
SOOIUM
UC/L
292000.0
TIM
UC/L
30.0 LT
T ITANIUM
UC/L
50.0 LT
VANADIUM
UC/L
5.0 LT
vvrmuN
UC/L
9.0 LT
VOLATILE OAGAfilCS


imoMOFcyiM
UG/L
IJ.O
CHLOBOFOOM
UC/L
26.0
TOLULNfc
UC/L
24.0
SCN2CMC
UC/L
12*0
efHrLttCNlCNC
UC/L
NO
«CT»«TLCNC CM. Oft IOC
UC/L
120.0
it faA04.oiaer»«K
UC/L
NO
i. i - o i CHLoaoe tmanc
UC/L
40*0
c•1•2-TRICHLOAOCThANC
UC/L
16*0
? «i c HLoaoe ftc mc
UC/L
41.0
Stn 1 -.YOLAT1LC , BASCltfClfTBALS.


stmmnULt ttlD,
OKMOL	UC/X.	?.•
et>ric>nt.ti«ic»n
lt > less than
CT a CHUTE* THAN
NO > NOT octecteo
M ¦ MOT SAMPLCO
pollutants not listed wtme not oetectco
table C-05
•a.	oe» we atHen composite
MICH
oa axcp
I0VI2
5.0 LT
7SOO.O
1*0.0
10.0 lt
3A6O0.O
JO.O LT
30.0 LT
5.0 LT
9.0 LT
LAN
TAP MATER
IMIJ
9.0 LT
263.O
070.O
io.o lt
10.O LT
2000.o LT
30.O LT
50.0 LT
5.0 LT
9.0 LT
NO	NO
ia.o	no
74.0	NO
NO	NO
«.0	NO
110.9	NO
IJ.O	NO
NO	NO
13.a	no
34.0	NO
IS.*
-------
SEATTLE
LAW
W 8KGD
PQILVTMT	UNITS	*0914
totfttta lQ*&L£»QaCQtiXtHT t OttftL

SIOCHgMICAL OXYGEN DCmaNO
MG/L
265*0
CHCMSCAC OXVOE.N OEMAMO
MQ/L
Sll.O
TOTAL ORGANIC CARSON
MG/L
175.0
nom—particulate toc
MG/i.
NS
total solids
MG/L
TfO.O
TOIAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
MG/L
305.0
TOTAL VOL SUS SOLIDS
MG/L
124.0
total suspended solids
»H1/L
143.0
total vol ois solids
MG/L
IMift
total dissolveo solids
MG/L
5*7.0
scttleable SOL IOS
IL/L
4.0
CILOOidE
MG/L
120.0
AMMONIA NITROGEN
m«/l
5.4
total phenol
UG/L
25.0
OIL AND CREASE
MG/L
25.0
f»FTAt-4


ANTIMONY
UG/L
5*0 LT
ARSENIC
UG/L
2S.O LT
bERVLLlUM
UG/L
l»0 LT
CA0KJU*
UG/L
rie.p
CHROMIUM
UG/L
250*0
COPPER
UG/L
76. 0
LE AO
UG/L
*••0
MERCUR*
UG/L
• J LT
NICKEL
UG/L
so.o lt
SELENIUM
UG/L
25*0 LT
SILVEN
UG/L
.5 LT
rtfALl I UN
UG/L
IO.O lt
/INC
UG/L
200.0
OT«CR& ,


cvanioe
UG/L
20.0 LT
ttQttCOEtttiaiQtlALJieiALS	

ALUM I MUM
UG/C
490.0
OARtUN
UG/L
36*0
eoftON
UG/C
550.0
CALCIUM
UG/L
24OO0.O
LT * USS THAN
GT ¦ CffCATCR TMAM
MO * HOI oeTECTCO
NS ¦ MOT SAM»LED
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED
veM NOT DETECTED
taole c-m
WU	ST OWN EVENT ONE
LAN

L*N

LAN

LAN

LAN

CSf

CSQ

first flush
RUNOFF

MEC IP

10915

10916

10917

1091ft

1 002%

1 JO.O

124.0

120.0

30.0
LT
JO.O
LT
297.0

346.0

355.0

166.0

25.6
LT
103.0

III.O


NS

NS
6.0


NS

NS
73*5

11 .5


NS
446.0

486.0

470 .0

te?.o

10.0
LT
I63.0

IA7.0

190.0

44.0

10.0
LT
65. O

64.0

75.O

1*.0

A .0
LT
121.0

131.0

161.0

1 1 3.0

« .0
LT
IM.O

129.0

1 06.0

32.0

10.0
LT
31ft.0

350,0

313.0

69.0

10.0
lt
1 .0
LT
1*0
LT
1.0
LT
1 .0
LT
I .3
LT
65.0

ot.o

T7.0

4.0

1 .0

2.*

2.2

3.?

•V

• 1

25.O


NS
30 .0

7.5

7.5

a.*

20.5

14.0

7.5

19.0

5.0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0

1 1.0

5.0
LT
25.0
LT
25.0
lt
25.0
LT
20.0

29.0
LT
1 *0
LT
1.0
LT
1 .0
LT
1.0
LT
1 .0
LT
446.0

75*0

95.0

5.0
LT
5.0
LT
*20 *0

510.0

520.0

26.0

IO.O
Lt
350.0

350*0

420.0

61.0

10.0
L*
140.0

140*0

2 00*0

330.0

50.0
I T
• J
Lf
*3
LT
.3
LT
.3
LT
• 3
LT
55O.0

540*0

6IO.0

50.0
LT
50.0
lt
25.0
LT
25*0
LT
25.0
LT
25.0
LT
25.0
LT
1*4

1 .4

2*0

2.0

.5
LT
10.0
LT
10*0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
1650.0

1610.0

1900.0

280.0

IO.O
Lf
IJOO.O

2J00«0

32 00.0

20*0
LT
20.0
LT
32IO.O

J42O.0

4760 a O

4200.0

160.0

M.O

69.0

09.0

160*0

10.0
LT
270.0

220*0

240.0

27.0

20.0
LT
13400.0

13600.0

13200.0

13100.0

2020.0

-------
scArne*


LAN


UN 8KG0
POLLUTANT
UNITS
1 0914
COttALT
U6A.
S.O LT
IB ON
UCA.
J490*0
NAtNESfUN
UG/L
0350*0
NANGANESC
lA/L
270* O
NGLV&OE NUN
UG/L
10.0 LT
SODIUM
tlG/L
09000*0
tin
UG/L
63*0
TITANIUM
U&A.
50.0 LT
VANAOtUM
UG/L
5.0 LT
yttrium
UG/L
S.O lt
MQLitlLfe-PMAIilCi	,-1M


TOLUENE
UC/L
29.O
BENZENE
UC/L
0*0
ETMTLKHKMC
UC/L
a.o
metmvlene caoniac
UC/L
24*0
TE T NACMlQMOEThEME
UG/L
24 *D
1 • t. I-TRICNLQROETMAMC
UO/L
NO
TRANS* | •2">0 ICHLOROETHENE
UC/L
660*0
TRJCMLOROE ThENE
UC/L
440*0
5E*1-VOlAHlE BASg/NElJTRAl*

BtSt 2**E1MVLHEXVL )PHT«ALATC
UC/L
19*0
SMiyDL#TELC ACID	,


2 »4«0 ICMLODOPMENOL
UC/L
17*0
2*4-Dt NEINVLPmENOl
UC/L
ND
PHENOL
UG/L
NO
etancipt,fcnxg*cuam	


it * cess Than
GT a GREATER THAN
NO * NOT DETECTED
NS • NOT SAMPLED
pollutants not listed
•C*E NOT DETECTED
TaDLE
*4.	STORN EVENT ONE
LAN
csr
1091)
s#o lt
M00»0
UJ0»0
tYO^O
IO.O LT
44*0ft«O
30*0 LT
160*0
«,0
5*« LT
LAN
cso
ICWlA
5.0 LT
7060*0
4540*0
J70.0
10*0 LT
*6600.4
30.0 lt
ieo.0
to*o
s*o lt
LAN
first flush
I
-------
SCATTtC.
MICH
«« WOO
pollutant
UNITS
10919
CQSCtEHl lQW«.*«QM&QB3ttlg.lflMak

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN OEMANO
MG/L
70*0
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
MG/L
231*0
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
MG/L
04 .5
NON-PART1CULATE TOC
MG/L
NS
total SOLIDS
MG/L
337*0
TOTAL VOLATILE SOL 1 OS
MG/L
116*0
total vol sus socioo
MG/L
71 ,0
total suspended solids
MG/L
A9*0
total vol dis SOL 1OS
MG/L
76.0
total dissolvco SOL 10$
MG/L
248.0
StTTLCABLE SOLIDS
ml/l
3.0
chloride
MG/L
21.0
AMMONIA NITROGEN
MG/L
4,2
TOTAL PHENOL
UG/L
37,5
OU AND GREASE
MG/L
20.0
HFT4LS


ANTIMONY
UG/L
5*0 LT
ARSENIC
UG/L
25,0 LT
UERVLLIUM
UG/L
1*0 LT
cadmium
UG/L
5*0 LT
Chromium
UG/L
50,0
COPPER
UG/L
40,0
LEAD
UG/L
50*0 LT
MERCURY
UG/L
*3 LT
NICKfL
UG/L
50,0 LT
SELENIUM
UG/L
25,0 LT
SILVER
UG/L
4,0
thallium
UG/L
10.0 LT
Z1HC
UG/L
140,0
OTHERS


cyanide
UG/L
26.0
*OwCPt*YEMiOHf*-,.*f£TAi_*


ALUMINUM
UG/L
950.0
OARfUM
UG/L
25,0
DOR ON
UG/L
200,0
CALCIUM
UG/L
18400,0
I.T « LESS THAN
CT * GREATER THAN
MO * HOT detected
HS * NOt SAILED
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTEO *£f*E NOT OCTECTtO
TABLE C-06
«A«	STORM EVENT ONE
MICH	MICH	MICH	«ICH
CSF	CSO	FIRST FLUSH	RUNOFF
4 0120	10921	10422	10923
JO. 0
161 .0
J9.0
187.0
7J.O
34.0
42-0
~ 7.0
97.0
I .0
3.0
t*t
37.5
6.0
LT
JO.O
07.0
JO. 5
NS
163.0
92 *0
26.0
77.0
66* 0
87,o
I .0 LT
I .0
1.1
190.0
I J.5
30.0 LT
153.0
NS
21 .0
191.0
67.0
45.0
na.o
23.0
73.0
1.0
3.0
.9
450.0
10.0
JO.O LT
161 .0
NS
13.0
232.0
61.0
44.0
I <>9.0
25.0
63.0
I .0 LT
J.O
.2
7.5
15.3
5*0
LT
5*0
LT
S.O
LT
1 A . 0
25 .O
LT
25.O
LT
25.0
LT
35.0
1 .0
LT
t*o
LT
1.0
LT
t .0
5*0
LT
5,0
LT
S.O
LT
5.0
10.0
LT
30.0

40.0

30,0
10,0
LT
40,0

50,0

120.0
160.)

120,0

190.0

460,0
• J
LT
• 3
lt
.3
LT
.3
50.0
LT
50,0
LT
50.0
LT
50,0
2S.J
LT
25.0
LT
25.0
LT
25.0
1*3

3*8

1*4

.5
10,0
LT
10.O
LT
10.0
LT
10.O
190.0

160,0

220.0

390.0
20*0 LT
20«0 LT
20.0 LT
20.0 LT
3130*0
40*0
50*0
9690*0
2130.0
30.0
60.0
8940.0
30O.O
5O.O
60.0
9090.0
55 10.0
I 10.0
20.0
12000.0
-------
SCAirtE,
POUUTANr
UNITS
MICH
«W BtCCO
10419
CO*ALT
IRON
MACNeSlVM
MAMCANfcSC
NOtyooeNUM
MIOIUN
tin
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTRIUM
UC/L
OC/l
uc/l
UO/L
UG/L
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
5.© IT
2710.0
639O.0
t 70.O
10.0 LT
30S00.0
30.0 LT
90.0 LT
5*0 LT
SO LT
KOLA I ILE_03&AII1C&	
CHLOROFORM
TOLUkNt
METHYLENE, CHLORlOe
TE THAtHLMOE Th£NC
I•I.i-iricmlorocthanc
TttlCHl(MtfTHCNC
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
UC/L
MO
13.O
29S.O
NO
NO
200.0
I Sfc*LL=XQLAlU&_fiA&E£t£UZB&k&_
JJ RI S( 2-C THrLHCXVL ) PMlHALAfe UC/L
*£41K0LAI1L&_AC1Q..
2.A-0IM£fHTCPH£N0L
PM£N0L
UC/L
U6/L
13*0
la.o
IS.©
IT i LESS THAN
CT m G9CATER THAN
NO * NOT DC T£C TCO
NS a NOT SAMPLED
pollutants not listed
MfiHC MOV DETECTED
TABLE C-06
MA.	STORM EVENT ONE
M|CM
CSF
10920
MICH
CSO
IOV2I
MICH
FIRST FLUSH
I 0922
MICH
RUNOFF
I 092 J
5.0 LT
4030.0
33*0.0
110.0
IO.O LT
11000.0
30.0 LT
teo.o
5.0 LT
r*.0 Lf
%o lt
3A6O.0
2620.0
90*0
IO.O LT
6*70.0
30.0 Lf
lOO.O
*.0 LT
9.0 LT
S.OLT
svto.o
30 IO.O
I 10.0
IO.O lt
S?ao.o
JO.O LT
220.O
S.O LT
s.o lt
5.0 LT
4960.0
2S70.0
160.0
IO.O LT
2000.0 LT
30.0 LT
3*0.0
20.0
5.0 LT
9.0
*2.0
7.0
13*0
96«0
NO
S.O
41 .0
9.0
16.0
120.0
NO
32.0
NO
NO
NO
<1.0
37.0
«.0
13.0
100.0
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
200.0
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
KArm
POLLU TANT
units
LAN
mm 0*G©
ao^2S
£smeiaiatt4v£Muutt3EtfliimaL
• IOCM(M|CJIL DXVCCN DC MA NO	NG/L
CtCNtCAL OXYGEN DC MA NO	HC/l
TOTAL OffUNlC CARBON	MG/L
TOTAL SOttOlk	MG/U
TOTAC VOLAriLf SOLIDS	MC *L
TOTAL VOL SOS SOLIDS	MG/L
TOTAL SUVEWED SOLIDS	MG/L
TOTAL VOL DIS SOLIDS	NC/L
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS	*G/L
SC1TUABU SOLIDS	ML/L
CHLORIDE	HC/L
ammonia nirno&EN	mg/l
total PH£NOL	w>/l
OIL AHO 6ACA5C	MG/L
100*0 lt
125.O
70*0
3***0
• 66*0
S*.0
05*0
!!*••
231-0
l.tt LT
44i0
i.e
ST.O
is«o
eeiAkL
O antinomy
^ ARSENIC
K> UEftTLLlUH
CAOMIU*
CHPOMIUN
COPPER
LE AO
NEACURT
NICKEL
SELENlUN
SILVER
thallium
XINC
UGSL
UGA
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
OG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
5«
««
i«
5<
*»«
ISO.
MO<
¦
5.
I<
10.
JIS.
o lt
o
• IT
0 LT
0
,»
,0
3 LT
o
« LT
o LT
O LT
.0
Qit&as-
C«MIDE
OG/L
20.0 LT
ALUMINUM
BAUlUN
BORON
CALCIUM
COBALT
UG/L
U6/L
UC/L
V6/L
MA.
2100.0
S4-0
*4.0
I 7400.0
>.« 4.1
LT J Less THAN
CT a CMC ATE ft THAN
NO m NOT MKC1ED
MS * NOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS Nor LISTCO
HEME not bctcctcd
tablc c-o r
ma.	sro«M eve NT Two
LAN
CS'
IM2«
ts.o lt
I3S.0
73.0
163.0
•0.0
• SI .0
ax.o
2O3.0
2. 9
120-0
I .2
67.0
6.0
LAN
cso
IMiT
7S.0 LT
140.0
05.0
MO.t
123.0
•4.0
at .0
79.O
359.0
• .4
107.0
1.7
If. 0
6.0
LAN
FIRST FLUSH
t 0920
79.0 LT
2*0.0
79.0
tsa.o
129.9
SS.O
90.0
74.0
360.0
1.0 LT
146.0
2.0
IO.0
II. O
LAN
runoff
10929
12.0 LT
120.0
JS.O
111%.0
7 ,.0
20.0
I 02.0
42.O
02.0
.4
2.0
1.0 LT
7.5
6.0
CAN
««iecip
12.0 LT
73.0 LT
7.S
16.0
M.O
4.0
4.0
IO.O
12.0
I .0 LT
I .0
I .O LT
10.0
S.O LT
9.0 LT	S.O	S.O LT	S.O	S.O LT
20 #0	Itt.O	|9.0	20.0	6.0
1.0 LT	1.0 LT	1.0 LT	2.0	;.0 LT
5.0 LT	3.0 LT	S.O LT	3.0 LT	S.O LT
27.0	37.0	JO.0	21.0	10.0 LT
JOO.O	250.0	100.0	100.0	10.0
2S0.0	220.0	210.0	330.0	5O.0 LT
.3 L*	.3 LT	.3 LT	.3 LT	.3 LT
30.0 LT	60.0	97.0	50.0 LT	SO.0 LT
S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O LT
1.0 LT	1,1 LT	1.0 LT	¦.O LT	I.0 L T
10.0 LT	10.0 LT	to.o LT	10.0 LT	10.0 LT
3*0.0	360.0	320.0	34C.O	»1.C
20.0 LT	20.0 LT	2O.0 LT	20.0 LT	20.0 LT
2010.0	2660.•	22S0.0	3940.0	140.0
62.0	6I.O	SS.O	100.0	10.0 LT
72.0	44.0	6«.0	20.0 LT	20.0 LT
13000.0	14200.O	16300.0	15200.o	S250.0
S.O V.T	S.O LT	S.O	S.O LT	S.O LT
-------
r«0L£ c-#f


seatile*
VA.

SToftft eveNT
• mo








LAN
LAN

LAN

LAN

LAN

LAN



«« e/Go
CSF

cso

FIOST FLUSH
RUNOFF

phec t»

raUUTINt
UNITS
low
10426

1042/

10926

10924

109 J?

IRON
UG/L
3?90»o
4&JO.O

47*0*0

*080.O

6000.0

1 TO.O

MAGNESIUM
U6/L
3000*0
3000.0

2900.0

2tt90.0

iaoo-0

40.0

MANGANESE
UG/L
110*0
110.0

120.0

1 to .0

100.0

10.0
LT
NOLT6KHUM
UG/L
10.0 lt
10.0
LT
lO.O
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
L*
10.0
LT
SODIUM
UG/L
42900*0 LT
92900.0

jorooo.o

113000.0

2020.0

2000.0
LT
TIM
UG/L
30*0 LT
30.0
LT
30.0
LT
30.0
LT
30.0
LT
30. 0
LT
TI TAN! (Jit
UG/L
90.0
110.0

120.0

100.0

200.0

4.0
LT
VANADIUM
UG/L
r«o
9.0

10.0

15.0

18*0

5.0
LT
VTTftlUM
UG/L
so lt
9*0
LT
9.0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
xoLAtimkaoLutzi	












methylene cmloatoe
UG/L
NO

NO
34.0


NO

NO

NO
TR1 Cm.OKG£ IHCfC
UG/L
NO
13.0


NO

NO

NO

WD
asaixxQwfttii^-fl^senievTBflua,











01 -N-BUTTL PHTNAL ATE
UG/L
NO

N0

NO

NO
4* « 0


NO
ieaixaiAUcc-fltia	
resiicioc maaciABit:
o
IO
W LI •	LESS THAN
OT m	GACATER TfUN
NO ¦ MOT DETECTED
N$ • MOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS NOT LlSTCO «« HOT OETCCTEO
-------
SEATTU
MICH
M BfCGD
POLLUTANT
UNITS
10930
Cffii*MIlQaAL*bQWtQM¥£bIlQti&L

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
MG/L
as.o
Chemical oxygen demand
MG/L
250.0
TOTAL ORGANIC CAR8QK
MG/L
100.0
TOTAL SOLI OS
MC/L
219.0
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIOS
MG/L
134.0
TOTAL VOL SUS SOLIOS
MG/L
AT.O
total SUSPENDED SOLIOS
MG/L
73.0
TOTAL vol PIS SOLIOS
MG/L
87.O
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIOS
MG/L
IA6.0
SETrLEAo«_t SOLIOS
ml/l
t.O lt
CHLOtlOC
MG/L
B.O
AMMONIA NITROGEN
MG/L
1.9
total phenol
UG/L
48.0
OIL AND GREASE
MG/L
9.0
MFTALS


ANTI MONT
UG/L
S.O lt
ARSENIC
UG/L
16.0
BERYLLIUM
UG/L
1*0 lt
CADMIUM
UG/L
3.0
CHROMIUM
UG/L
180.0
COPPER
UG/L
66*0
LEAD
UG/L
180.0
MERCURY
UG/L
#3 LT
NICKEL
UG/L
so.o lt
SELENIUM
UG/L
S.O lt
SILVER
UG/L
I.a
thallium
UG/L
IO.O lt
ZINC
UG/L
240.0
HTHCRS


CYANIDE
UG/L
20.0 lt
ALUMINUM
"~UG/L
1470.0
BARIUM
UG/L
S6.0
BORON
UG/L
43.0
CALCIUM
UG/L
1A1O0.0
COBALT
UG/L
S.O LT
LT * CCSS THAN
or t create* than
NO * NOT DETECTED
NS * HOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS not LISTED	NOT OCTCCTEO
TABLE C-07
VA«	STORM EVENT TMO
MICH	MICH	MICH	M|CH	LAN
CSF	CSO	FIRST FLUSH	RUNOFF	PRECIP
I09JI	I09J2	109JJ	1093%	I09JS
7J.0
88.0
01 *0
IB2.0
125.0
AS* 0
68.0
ttO.O
II4.0
1.0 lt
7.0
1.5
*9.0
10.0
77.0
130*0
77.0
189.0
ItO.O
*5.0
83*0
64.0
102.0
2*6
7.0
1.3
75.0
7.0
72*0
250,0
77.0
100.0
105.0
51.0
73.O
54.0
107.0
K.O LT
8.0
1.6
77.0
7.0
12.0
I 30.C
52.0
228.0
85.0
4 1.0
155.0
44.0
73.0
I .0 LT
4.0
1.0 LT
16.0
17.0
12*0 LT
25.0 LT
7.5
16.0
14.0
4.0
4.0
IO.O
12.0
1*0 LT
I .0
I .0 LT
10.0
5.0 LT
S.O	5.0 LT	5.0 LT	b.O	5.0 LT
12.0	10.0	12.0	2*.0	6.0
1.0 LT	1.0 LT	1.0 LT	t.O LT	1*0 LT
7.0	7.0	T.O	5.0 LT	S.O Li
300.0	220.0	240.0	29.0	10.0 LT
60.0	63.0	57.0	1*0.0	10.0
210.0	200.0	180.0	490.0	50.0 LT
.3 LT	.4	.3 LT	.3 LT	.3 LT
50.0 LT	50.0 LT	50.0 LT	50.0 LT	SO.Q LT
S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O LT	5.0 LT	5.0 LT
1.0 LT	I .t	1.0 LT	1.0 LT	t.O LT
10.0 LT	tO.O LT	10.0 LT	10.0 LT	10.0 LT
220.0	220.0	200.0	440.0	45.0
20*0 LT	20.0 LT	20.0 LT	20.0 LT
1500.0	1870.0	1520.0	S620.0	140.0
43.0	49.0	47.0	440.0	10.0 LT
41.0	51.0	37.0	20.0	LT 20.O LT
1320O.0	12000.0	13200.0	16200.0	5250.0
S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O	5.0 LT
-------
SEATTLE
pollutant
IRON
MAONCSIUM
MANfeANCSE
MOi VOOENUM
SODIUM
tin
rITANIUM
MANAOIU*
*n»iun
xuvaiitC-08fi&bl
TOLUENE
NETHVUNC CMLORIOC
I.I.1-TRfCHLOROETMANE
TRICM.OROETHEN6
uni rs
UC/L
UC/L
U6/L
UG/t
U6/t
UC/L
UC/t
UC/L
UC/L
UG/t
UG/C
UC/L
UC/L
MICH
»« a«oo
109 JO
2SQ0.0
2190.0
76.0
10*0 LT
6760.0
30.0 Lt
62.0
7.0
S.O LT
NO
NO
NO
?
to
l/l
SLai=YOUUltE .BASECf.0 LT
S.O Lt
LT
LT
LT
27.O
2 30.0
64.O
• O.O
19.0
340.0
AS.O
AI .0
27*0
200.0
70.0
3A.O
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
SEATTLE
POLLUTANT
UNITS
LAM
MV 8XCO
IQ936
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN OCNANO MC/i.
CHEMICAL OKVGCN DENAND	NG/L
TOTAL ORGANIC CARSON	MG/L
NOM-PARTICULATE TOC	NG/L
TOTAL SOLIDS	ng/l
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS	NG/L
TOTAL VOL SUS SOLIDS	NC/L
TOTAL SUSPEtOEC SOLIDS	NC/L
TOTAL VOL DtS SOLIDS	NC/L
total dissolved solids	ng/l
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS	"L/L
CM.ORIK	NG/L
AMMONIA NITROGEN	NG/L
TOTAL PHENOL	UG/L
OIL ANO GREASE	NG/L
140*0
540.0
90.0
246*0
160.0
306*0
66*0
191.0
4*0
40*0
3.0
32.0
JS.O
MS
0
1
to
o*
is&iaws	
ANT INONY
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHRONIUM
COPPER
LEAO
NERCURV
NICKEL
SELENIUM
SILVER
THALLIUM
ZINC
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
¦IG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
9*0
22.0
1.0 LT
15.0
190*0
2J40.0
620*0
3.2
110*0
10*0 LT
3. I
5.0 Lt
1160*0
QIB&8S-.
CVANlOE
UG/L
NOHfO^fflpMAL NgTALS
ALUMINUM	UG/L	7940*0
BARIUM	UG/L	I9O.0
BORON	UG/L	56*0
CALCIUM	UG/L	15600*0
LT s LESS TNAN
GT * GREATER THAN
NO s NOT DETECTED
MS S Mor SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED MERE NOT DETECTED
TAOLC C-Oft
VA*	STOI
three
LAN	LAN	LAN	LAN	LAN
CSP	CSO	FIRST FLUSH	RUNOFF	PRECIP
10937	I0<» 36	10939	|09*0	tO<»46
130*0	69*0	390*0	15.0	LT 15.0 LT
330.0	170.0	690.0	160.0	2S.0 LT
NS NS NS	NS	T.5
78.0	63.0	2JO.O	23*0	NS
603.0	2A3.0	927.0	264.0	22.0
314.0	I3A.0	321.0	156* 0	20.0
177.0	46.0	S9.0	62.0	*.0 LT
267*0	139.0	Sfel.O	215.0	7.0
137.0	90.0	262*0	7«.0	20.0
316*0	144.0	766.0	49.0	15*0
1*0 LT	1.0 LT	1*6	1*0	UT 1.0 lt
26O.0	66.0	63O.0	*.6	3.2
3.0	2.4	6.1	1.0	LT t.O LT
23.0	25.0	38.0	20.0	t*.0
17.0	11.0	46*0	5*0	10.0 LT
5.0 LT	5.0	5.0 LT	5.0 LT	5.0 LT
330*0	10.0 LT	10*0 LT	10.0	10.0 LT
1.0 LT	1.0 LT	1*0 LT	1.0 LT	1.0
6.0	5.0	5*0 LT	5.0	*>.0 LT
SS.O	43.0	52.0	39.0	10.O LT
900*0	770*0	4*0.0	91.0	tO.O LT
390.0	390.0	260*0	410.0	50.0 LT
.6	*4	*6	.4	. 3 LT
140.0	140.0	69.0	50.0 LT	50.0 LT
10*0 LT	IO.O LT	10*0 LT	10.0 LT	10.0 LT
*6	*6	*7	.5 LT	.5 LT
5.0 LT	3.0 LT	5.0 LT	5.0 LT	5.0 LT
520.0	460.0	390.0	440.0	35.0
64*0	45.0	120.0	20*0 LT	20.0 LT
4320.0	3060.0	2030.0	6310.0	• 79.0
<14*0	79.0	61*0	110.0	10.0 LT
44*0	45.0	120.0	27.0	20.0 LT
12400*0	10400.0	I59OO.0	10500.0	2060.0
-------
SCATTU
POLLUTANT
UNITS
LAN
M BXGO
1093b
CQ9ALT
IRON
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE.
MOLYBDENUM
SODIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
VANAOIUM
yttrium
U6/L
UG/L
U6/L
UG/L
UG/L
UC/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
*•0 lt
13500.0
45*0.0
200.0
13.0
22200.0
33.0
*60.0
23.0
5-0 LT
*QLAlU£_08fiatfl
Tfc TRACHLORQEThENC
ug/l
6.2
?
N>
a£*i= XQLAIiL£-&ASCaCli£fi&L*~
phCnant hqene	ug/l
I .A-OICHLOROBENZENE	UG/L
Ot-N-OCTVL PHTHALATC	UG/L
NAPHTH»4.EN£	UG/L
D1S* 2~£THYLHEXYL)PHTM*LATC	UG/L
OI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATC	UG/L
2.0
2.0
2*0
2.0
15.0
2.0
S£*1K0L&£1LE-A£H
«-CHLORO-J~NETHrLPH£NOL	UG/L
2*4-OI»CTHrLPH£NOL	UG/L
PHENOL	UG/L
26.0
ND
5.0
f*e g r i c i pe-t&ia&ci&atea
PC8-10S6
3.3
LT t LESS THAN
Or a GREATER THAN
NO * NOT OETECTCO
MS • NOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS NOT LtSTCO
WERE NOT OCTECTEO
TAOLE C-0«
¦A.	STORM EVENT THREE
LAN
CSP
10937
5*0 LT
71bO.O
6320.0
130.0
10.0 lt
60600*0
30,0 LT
2 (>0.0
e.o
S.O LT
LAN
CSO
IOVM
5.0 LT
6450.0
2520*0
120.0
10.0 LT
24800.0
30.0 LT
230.0
12.0
5.0 LT
LAN
FIRST FLUSH
I09J9
5.0 LT
5390.0
IIJOO.O
I 30.0
10.0 LT
134000.0
' 30.0 LT
160.0
5.0 LT
5.0 LT
LAN
RUNOFF
104*0
5.0
104 00.0
2630*0
100.0
10.0
2170.0
30.0
360*0
l r.o
S.O LT
LT
LT
LT
LAN
PREC IP
I0<>46
S.O LT
»*O.0
41 .0
10.0 LT
10.0 LT
20 00.0 LT
30.0 LT
50.0 LT
S.O LT
5.0 LT
19.0
T.5
9.0
NO
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
6*0
NO
I .6
9.0
1.0
4 .0
1.0
2.0
I.O
4.0
6.0
NO
NO
NO
NO
6.0
r.o
NO
NO
NO
NO
J.O
66.0
7.0
6.0
37.0
NO
14*0
S.O
4*0
NO
7.0
4.0
9.0
12.0
7.0
1.3
2*6
NO
-------
SEATTLE.
MICH
¦V GKG8
POUUr*NT	UNITS	10941
CDMlfEbllQbAUiNQHCOltVEMtlQKAl.
BIOCHEMICAL OXTCEN CENANO M6SL	69.0
CHEMICAL OXTCEN OEM AND	MGSL	220.0
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON	NG/L	NS
NON-PAPTICULATE TOC	»0SL	34.0
TOTAL SOLI OS	MG/L	2114.0
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS	MG/L	132.0
TOTAL VOL SUS SOL IDS	NCSL	74.0
TOTAL SUSPEWED SOLIDS	MO/L	224.0
TOTAL VOL DIS SOLIDS	«/L	50.0
TOTAL OISSOLVEO SOLI OS	MG/L	60.0
SETTLEAOLE solids	mlsl	3.2
CHLORIDE	MG/L	«• I
AMMONIA NITROGEN	MG/L	2.0
TOTAL PHENOL	UG'L	16.0
OIL WO GREASE	MG/L	10.0 LT
BtlALS	


ANT IWON*
UG/L
S.O LT
ARSENIC
UC/L
IO.O LT
®Enruiu*
UG/L
i.o lt
TAOMIUM
UC/L
S.O LT
Chromium
UG/L
34.0
COPPER
UG/L
31.0
LEAD
UG/L
SJ.O
MERCURY
UG/L
24.0
NICKEC
UG/L
SO.O LT
SELENIUM
UG/L
IO.O IT
SILVER
UG/L
• a
thallium
UG/L
S.O lt
ZINC
UG/L
120.0
Qld&fiS


CYAN IOC
UG/L
20.O LT
bOtt£QIO£fil£JUttALJI£litS	


ALUMINUM
UG/L
910.0
BARIUM
UG/L
2S.0
BORON
UG/L
23.0
calcium
UG/L
9200.0
LT a LESS THAN
CT * GREATER THAN
NO • NOT OETECTEO
NS ¦ NOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE NOT OETECTEO
TABLE C-08
VA.	STORM EVENT THREE
MICH	MICH	MICH	MICH	LAM
CSF	CSO	FIRST FLUSH	RUNOFF	PPtCIP
109*2	10943	I09««	109*5	IM»6
•1.0	3ft.O	59.0	l«.0	LT 15.0 LT
110.0	110.0	140.0	190.0	25.0 LT
NS	NS	NS	NS	r.S
2S.0	27.0	34.0	22.0	NS
I47.Q	I4S.0	2SI.0	ItJ.O	22.0
97.0	7O.0	101.O	29.0	20.0
JJ.O	37.0	75.0	11.0	4.0 LT
01.0	08.0	179.0	61.0	7.0
64.0	31.0	26.0	13.0	20.0
66.0	S7.0	72.0	S2.0	15.0
1.0 LT	1.0 LT	2.3	1.0	LT 1.0 LT
6.S	B.I	11.0	4.0	J.2
2.S	2.0	3.3	1.0	LT 1.0 LT
16.0	2O.0	22.0	28.0	l«.0
25.0	S.O LT	12.0	9.4	10.0 LT
S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O LT	5.0 LT
|6.0	IS.O	16.0	10.0	LT 10.0 LT
1.0 tT	1.0 LT	1.0 LT	3.0	1.0
S.O L»	S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O	LT 5.0 LT
94.0	Bt.O	96.0	17.0	10.0 LT
S9.0	61.0	79.0	9H.0	10.0 LT
220.0	220.0	200.0	200.0	50.0 LT
1.0	1.0	1.6	.3	.3 L T
SO.O L*	SO.0 LT	00.0 LT	50.0 LT	50.0 LT
10.O LT	IO.O LT	IO.O LT	10.0	LT 10.0 LT
2.6	J.J	3.2	.5 LT	.5 LT
5.0 LT	S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O	LT 5.0 LT
250.0	230.0	320.0	200.0	35.0
20.0 LT	2O.0 LT 2O.0 LT	20.0 LT	20.0 LT
2770.0	2 7S0.0	3130.0	2980.0	79.0
SJ.O	S3.O T|.O	93.0	IO.O LT
37.0	51.0 64.0	32.0	20.0 LT
0520.0	B270.0	9bHO.O	A5J0.0	20H0.0
-------
SEATTLE
poumtmt
UNITS
•* ;CN
WW BKGO
tOHl
COBALT
IRON
nagmcsiun
KANCANCU
NQLVBOENUN
SODIUM
TIM
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
VTTftlUM
UC/L
UC/L
UCA.
UG/L
UG/L
OO/l
UG/L
OC/L
uo/t
UO/t
5.0 LT
tsto«o
1340.0
5a.o
10.0 lT
4170.0
30*0 Lt
72.0
5.0 LT
5.0 IT
XQLAlllC~QBCM»l£*-
reTRACHLORoerM£MC
UC/L
I I • o
0
1
N3
\o
SL3izJfQLAIlLt,BASE^Me urates
I»4~OICHLORQ0ENZENE	UG/L
OI-N-OCTTL PHTHALATE	UG/L.
NAPH?HM.CNC	UG/L
BI Sf 2~£ TWVLHE *TV JPHTM AL-*TC UG/L
OI-N-BUTTV. pmthalate	UC/L
&EaittttLAXiL£.££lQ	
~-CHLOTO-J-HE THVLPHENOL	UG/L
2.4-0|N£ThvLPH£N0L	UG/L
PHtNOL	UG/L
2«0
NO
HO
7.0
3.0
5.0
NO
NO
e&Sll£tML.eftl&A£lAeiE£
LT a LESS THAN
GT « 6DCATEA THAN
NO a NOT OETECTEO
ns ¦ not samplco
POLLUTANTS MOT LISTEO
MERC MOT DETECTED
table c*o«
•A.	STORM EVENT ThRCE
MICH
C5F
10942
S.O LT
420O.O
1780*0
04.0
10.0 LT
4060.0
30.0 LT
lttQ.O
7.0
S.O lt
MICH
cso
109*3
s,o lt
4310.0
IJT70.O
aj.o
10,0
J 330 *0
30.0
I6O.0
5.0
5.0
LT
LT
NIC*
FIRST FLUSH
1094 4
5.0 LT
4(1 70 .0
Iv^o.o
^.0
lO.O lt
4600.0
30.0 LT
210.O
7*0
5.0 LT
«ICH
Runoff
10945
5.0 LT
4H%0.0
14 I0«0
76.O
10.0 LT
2000.0 LT
30*0 LT
I vo • 0
5.0 LT
5.0 LT
LAN
PftEC !P
109*6
5.0 LT
l'»0 .0
41.0
JO.O LT
10.0 lt
2000*0 LT
JO.O LT
Sg.O lt
S.O t_ T
S.O IT
4««0
26.0
NO
NO
NO
5.0
4.0
NO
NO
11*0
1.0
NO
NO
I.O
5.0
t.O
4.0
7.0
I .0
NO
KO
NO
NO
5*0
9.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
2.0
6.0
IS.O
9.0
tz.o
7.0
-------
»r •i.outs*
OPANCM
0« OatCO
POUUTAMV	imlfl	11084
LtoattsfZH** vuwBKQtsxzxziomk

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
MCA.
54.0
CHEMICAL OXYGEN OEMANO
MG/L
sso.o
T3T AL ORGANIC CAROON
MC/L
*3*0
NO**PAtTICULATC TOC
MG/L
MS
TOTAL SCLIOS
MC/L
726*0
total volatile SOLIDS
MC/L
112*0
total vol SUS SOL1OS
MG/L
42*0
TOTAL SVjPeWEO SOLI OS

ro*o
TOTAL VOL DtS SOL IOS
MC/L
ro*o
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
MC/L
6S6.0
SETVLEA0LE SOLIDS
ML/L
1*0 lt
CX.ORIOE
MC/L
124*0
AMMOMt A Ml TAOCCM
MC/L
J.7
total phenol
UG/L
40.0
OIL AMO COCASC
M^/L
IS.O
atlALS..		


antinqnt
UC/L
5*0 LT
ARSENIC
UC/L
S*0 LT
t»£RVLLlU*
UC/L
1*9 LT
CADMIUM
UC/L
S*0 LT
CHROMIUM
UG/L
24*0
CO«t«
UC/L
20.0 Lf
LEAD
UC/L
90*0 LT
MCRCUOV
UC/L
• 1 LT
NICKEL
UC/L
50*0 LT
SELENIUM
UC/L
S.O
SILVER
UC/L
{*0 lt
thallium
UC/L
10*0 LT
2 INC
UC/L
220*0
otmfrs


CYAN IOC
UC/L
20*0 LT
BPUCCttttSai 1 OTjtL.BSIflU	


aluminum
UC/L
640*0
BARIUM
US/L
T|*0
Q0RON
UC/L
120*0
CALCIUM
UC/L
96400*0
iV ¦ LESS THAN
ct s create* tmam
mo * not octccteo
MS ¦ MOT SAIPLCO
POUUfAMTS MOT LISTCO
¦cm mot ocrecrco
nau c-o*
MO	ORT «CATHC« COMPOSITE
PftAlft	MANCM
M BKU»	TA* BATE*
I1005	11006
200.1	9*0 LV
MS«0	W-O Lf
MS	14*9
121*0	MS
U8.I	S22«0
ISJ.O	26.0
*«.0	4*0 Lf
ite.o	«*o
104.O	26*0
550.0	316*0
l.« LT	1*0 Lf
+7*0	21 .O
4*5	1.0 LT
2460.0	5.0 LT
II.O	5.0 LT
S.O LT
9.P LT
t*0 lt
S.O LT
06*0
20*0 LT
50*0 Lf
• 6
120*0
6*0
1*0 LT
10*0 Lf
44*0
S.O
LT
S.O
LT
1*0
LT
s*o
LT
• o.o
LT
20.0
LT
SO.Q
LT
• J
LT
so.o
LT
S.O
LT
1*0
LT
10*0
LT
20*0
LT
I2S*0
20*0 LT
2S20.O
09*0
200*0
5/300*0
40*0 LT
46*0
20.0 LT
2J000«O
-------
r*n.c c-o*
ST.LOU IS. NO	OAT »C*TMtP COM»OStTC


branch

muitf
0OANCH



0« KCO
OV ftKU)
TAP VAVCO
mUffMT
UNITS
llO»«

IIOS5
11096

COOA1.T
OC/U
5.0
IT
5.0 LT
5.0
LT
IHON
uca
IMO.O

3480.O
5O.0

MACKMUM
OC/L
to%oo.o

ZtBOO.O
t*700.0

nangancsc
UG/l
170.0

270.0
10.0
LT
HOLTeOCMUR
UOA.
IO.O
lt
10.0 lt
10.0
LT
SCOIIM
••i/t
I J6I00.9

77300.0
4|500.0

»IN
uc/c
30.O
tT
ito.e
30.0
LT
TITANIUM
UC/L
20.O
LT
«o*o
20.0
LT
VANAOIUH
UG/L
4*0
LT
9«Q
5.0
LT
vrroiuM
UC/L
5.0
L T
5.0 LT
5.0
Lf
YQL&lILC-OBfi&lliCS	






CM.OROFOIM
U6/1
6.7

NO
24.0

roLuCMC
uc/l
1.9

245.0

NO
CTHrLKNZCfK
Ufi/L

NO
311.0

NO
MEfHTUNE CHLONIOC
U6A.


172.0
31 .0

TerftACHLOROeTltftC
UC/L
i.a

NO

NO
1 • 1 ml •*- Tt TAACHLOROCTHAME
UC/L

NO
%•%

NO
TRAWS-I •2-frlCHLOftQCTNCMe
UC/L
2.»

NO

NO
TftlCHLOftOE THE ME
U6/L
3*0

NO

NO
SeoUCQL A IiLE-OftSANlCS	-¦






&ESld(QL&IlU.IU5£afiUtlULL.





01C f HVL^HTHALA re
UG/L

HO


NO
MAPHTHALCN6
UC/L

NO
140.0

NO
ai sl 2-c rHYLNEKn.iPHrHM.Afc
UC/L

NO
40.0

NO
OI-N-SUfVL PHlHACArfi
UO/L

MO


NO
iEHIVQLATItt ACID






2,4'OINETHVLPNeNOL
U6/L

NO
1392.0

NO
PHfHOL
U6/L

NO
1236.0

NO
euiituumiuttixi
tr * LESS TMN
cr * uttrc* than
no * not £>e re cr eo
NS » NOT S*Nt»«.EQ
POLLUTANTS MIT listed
KM NOT DETECTED
-------
Sf.LOMlS.
BAANCH


«• BCGO
POLLUTANT
UM1T4
a 1097


BIOCHEMICAL OArCCN OCMAt
O MCA.
99*6
CHEMICAL OKTCCN OCMANO
MG/L
210.0
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
MG/L
NS
non-particul*te toc
MG/L
55.0
total solids
HG/C
94 S. O
total volatile solros
MG/L
166.0
total vol SVS SOL1 OS
MG/L
60.0
TOTAL Sll&PENDEO SOLlOS
MG/L
06. 0
TOTAL VOL OIS S'JLlOS
MG/L
90.0
total dissolved SOL1OS
MG/L
1159*0
tf TrUABLI: SOLIDS
ml/l
I.S
chloride
MG/L
670*0
AMMONIA NITROGEN
MG/L
1.0 Lt
total phenol
UG/L
23*0
OIL AND GREASE
MG/L
21 .0
fe£l4L&	


ANTIMONY
UG/L
S.0 lt
ARSENIC
UG/L
10.0 LT
BERYLLIUM
UG/L
1.0 lt
CADMIUM
UG/L
7.0
CHROMIUM
UG/L
30. 0
COPPER
UG/L
23.0
Lt-AO
UG/L
SO.O lt
MERCURY
UG/L
*3
NICKEL
UG/L
SC.O tf
SELENIUM
UG/L
10.0 lt
SILVER
UG/L
• S LT
THALLIUM
UG/L
S.O lt
Z INC
UG/L
720.O
QlttCBS. . „ 	


CTANIOE
UG/L
25.0
BQtiCOMEetttX0irAL.KUL^	

ALUMINUM
UG/L
690.0
BARIUM
UG/L
52.0
80<*0N
UG/L
210*0
CALCIUM
UG/L
43400*0
lt * Less Than
GT t GREATER THAN
no > not oerccTco •
MS a NOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANT? NOT LlSTEO KCRC NOT OETECTEO
i«ac (*u
SVOM CVCnT OMC
BRANCH	0RAMCH	BRANCH	BRANCH	BRANCH
cs?	cso	riosr ^lusn runoff	mciP
BIOS*	||Oa<)	II09O	11091	11097
4j#e	*9«o	az.o	i9«o	^o.o it
170.0	2SO.O	JJO.O	M.O	2S.0 LT
MS N5 MS	NS	7.5
24.0	22.0	37.O	JO.O	NS
*79.0	620*0	JI4.0	768.0	77.0
CA2.0	135.0	J6S* 0	151.0	3S.0
AO.O	96.0	92.0	14.0	|9.0
J62«0	4)7.0	47.O	179,0	51.0
102*0	3«»*0	2 76-0	117.0	I6»0
217*0	105.0	267.0	609*0	2«.0
1.9	Z.I	3.1	1-0 LT	t.O LT
71.0	71.0	1*0.0	4.6	3.2
1.3	|«7	2.4	4*0 LT	4.0 LT
12.0	*.«	13.0	12.0	ft.7
20*0	29.0	27.0	10*0 LT	10.0 LT
r»*0 LT	S.O LT	5.0 LT	S.O LT	S.O LT
14.0	16.0	10.0 L*	10.0 LT	10.0 LT
t.O LT	1.0 LT	I.O LT	1.0 LT	1.0 LT
5*0 LT	S.O LT	5*0 LT	5.0 LT	S.O LT
40*0	32*0	100.0	10.0	10.0 LT
94.0	100*0	163^0	37.0	10.0 LT
360*0	420*0	470*0	360*0	50.0 LT
• 4	.4	.7	.3 LT	. 3 LT
50*0 LT	SO.O LT	"50.0 LT	50.0 LT	50.0 LT
10.0 LT	10.0 LT	10.0 LT	10.0 l_T	10.0 LT
.1 LT	.5 LT	.7	.5 LT	-S i_ J
S.O tf	S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O LT	S.O LT
420*0	490*0	630*0	230*0	110*0
20*0 LT	20*0 LT	23*0	20*0 LT	20.0 LT
CT9J0.C
ISO.O
02.0
26000*0
9630*0
210*0
77. O
27O00 *0
0730*0
220.0
75.0
34BOO mO
1520.0
49.0
*0.0
19600.0
40.0 LT
10.0 LT
20.0 LT
-------
TAM.E C-IO
ST.LOtMS. NO	STORN EVENT ONE


0RANCH

0RANCH

BRANCH

ORANCH

BRANCH

BRANCH



«¦ BKGO
CSF

cso

fcast FLUSH
RUSOF*

PRECIP

POLLUTANT
UNITS
11097

I ioaa

1I0H9

t 1090

a i09i

1 1097

COBALT
UG/L
5*0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
Lf
T*0

9.0
LT
3*0
LT
1PON
tIG/L
940*0

12900.0

I++00.0

(1900.0

3330.0

. 3' • 0

MAGNESIUM
U&/L
22000*0

6620*0

61 30*0

09 70*9

23&0.0

t»2.Q

MAMOAN£St
UG/L
120.0

•3*0.0

jeo.o

320*0

1 30.0

10.0
LT
"OLYBOfcNUN
UG/L
10.0
LT
10*0
LT
to*o
LT
10.0
LT
|0»0
LT
10.0
LT
SCOI UK
UG/L
2IOOOQ.O

22300.0

26900.0

39S00.0

22A0.0

2000.1
LT
TfN
UC/L
30*0
LT
30*0
LT
3O.0
LT
JO.O
LT
30. 0
LT
J0*0
r
TItan.uh
UC/L
50»0
lt
99.O

12O.0

too .a

SO.©
LT
SG,0
LT
VANAOfUN
UG/L
s.o
LT
1^*0

22*0

20.0

5.0
Lf
0.0
LT
YTTRIUM
UC/L
s.o
LT
5.0
f.T
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
L r
*OC A ZlL£_0Sfi&ttl£l	













CHLOflO'O^tt
UG/L

NO

NO

NO
~ .7


NO

NO
fOLUENE
UG/L
12.*

I J*o

9*2

9*7


NO
5. J

ecNZENe
UG/L
2*4


NO
l*T


NO

NO

NO
(THTiBENZENE
UG/L
6*5


NO
J. A

3.2

2.2


NO
MelHTLCW CH.ORIOC
UG/L
7*0

32*0

39.0

6.2

ft.2

1 t .2

TeiffACHLQUOCrHfiNE
UG/L
3.9


NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
1•1•1-TfflCHLOaOETNANe
UG/L

NO
so.o

69*0

»
O
•
o


NO

HO
.2~OICHLOAOCTh£N£
UG/L
*» +


NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
TlilCHLOftOE THEn£
UG/L
5*1


NO
».0


NO

NO

NO
:-taiXQL4Il1.E_QffiiAtllCS	













5Cttl^¥QL&£ iL£_fiAS££U£liIBALS-












&(-N2U( K )Ft UWANIKCNE
UC/L

NO

NO
4*0


NO

NO

M3
OIMCTHVLCHTMALATe
UG/L
20*0


NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
PLUORAnTHENE
UG/L

NO

NO
A.O


NO

NO

ND
naphthalene
UC/L
•*fr


NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
aiS(2*ETHVLHEkVL)PMTHAt.ATe
UG/L
20*0


NO
20.0

n.o

1A • 0

13*0

OI-n*butvl phtkalatc
UG/L
#•7


NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
SEfllVOLATrLfi ACIO













PHENOL
UG/L

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
16.0

e£SIl£10e_eKlBd£tABLES.
LT a LESS THAN
«T a COCHTCR THAM
no * not oetecreo
MS • NOT SAMPLCO
rauuimra not listed
¦{« MOT OETECTE0
-------
f>M.e c-io
ST.LOUIS. MO	STCMtM EVENT ONE


PRAIA

MAIR

PRAIA

PRAIA

PRAIA

BRANCH



WW OKGO
CSf

cso

FIRST flush
RUNOFF

PflECIP

PQLJLUTAMT
UNITS
11092

1109 J

1109*

1 109S

1 1096

1 1097

BIOCHEMICAL OXVGCN OClUK)
NG/C
lOO.O

01.0

*5*0

160. O

15.0
CT
SO .0
LT
CKNICM. 0*t&EN OCMAMO
«6A
230*0

jso.o

270.0

340.0

*7.0

2S .0
L*
TOTAL OOUNfC CAftfiON
«C/L

NS

NS

MS

NS

N>
7.5

NQH*PAfif ICUtAIC TOC
MGA.
*9.0

~o.o

3**0

4ft.0

21 .0


NS
total socios
NG/L
*72.0

1009*0

96S.0

10 02•O

312.0

77.0

TOTAL VOLATILC SOCIOS
MG/C
394*0

|4|.0

419.0

2 70.0

1 07.0

35 .0

TOfAC VOL SUS SOCIOS
NC/L
S5.0

1 16*0

344*0

150.0

35.0

19.0

fOTAC SOSPCKJEO SOCIOS
NG/L
101.0

797.0

444 .0

7 10.0

1 76.0

5 3.0

TOTAC voc ois SOCIOS
»*c/t
J39*0

Zi.e

75*0

1 12.O

72.0

16.0

TCTAC DISSOLVED SOCIOS
wc/c
371 .0

212*0

124 .0

204.0

1 36. 0

2* .0

SC1TUAUX SOC IDS
NL/L
1.4

2.2

1 .B

i.6

1 >0
CT
1.0
LT
chloride
MG/C
160.0

68.0

29.0

92.0

53.0

3.2
CT
AMMQHIA N|TR06EN
MG/C
1.0
CT
2.7

I.S

4.0

1 .0
CT
I *0
TQ'AC PMCNOC
UG/C
7400.0

2000.0

1700.0

2000.0

5.0
LT
H. 7

OIL AND GREASE
NG/C
20.0

14.o

IO.O
CT
10.0
IT
IO.O
LT
10.0
LT
sciaus.. 	-- ...












Lf
ANf 1 K-*MV
UG/C
5.0
C?
5.0
CT
5*0
CT
5.0
LT
s.o
LT
5.0
ANStNtC
UG/C
IO.O
CT
IO.O
IT
IO.O
CT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
0FRVCCIUN
UG/C
l«0
CT
1 *0
CT
1 .0
cr
1 .0
lt
1.0
LT
1.0
LT
CAOMtUM
UG/C
5.0
CT
5.0
CT
5*0
CT
5.0
CT
5.0
LT
S.O
LT
CMQOM|*JM
UG/C
120.0

79. O

60.0

140.0

1 7.0

10.0
Ll
COPPER
UG/C
310*0

1 tO.Q

140.0

310.0

44.0

10*0
LT
LEAD
UG/C
76.0

37 O.O

430.0

SfrO.O

220.0

50.0
Lt
mercury
UG/C
• J

• 6

.6

• 3
lt
. J
LT
. 3
LT
N1CKCC
UG/C
S6.0

42.0

64*0

1 60.0

so.o
LT
SO.O
Lf
SECENIUN
UG/C
10*0
CT
IO.O
CT
IO.O
CT
10.0
lt
10.0
LT
10. 0
LT
SILVER
UG/C
*S
CT
*S
CT
•5
CT
• 5
Cf
.5
LT
.5
LT
THALLIUM
UG/C
S.O
CT
5.0
CT
s*o
CT
5.0
It
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
/INC
UG/C
91.0

450.O

470.0

640.0

290.0

1 IO.O

n'tfrzn.













CTANIOE
UG/C
SIO.O

>4*0

20.0
CT
N
O
•
o
CT
20.0
LT
20.0
L T
tWt&OMYEWTIOMM. fCTACS	













ALUMINUM
UG/C
1S3O.0

7600*0

9320*0

13800*0

29R0.0

40.0
LT
HARIUM
UG/C
59.0

I0O.O

2IO.O

320.0

74.0

IO.O
LT
OORON
UG/C
JOO.O

» jo.o

S4*0

100*0

40.0

20 .0
CT
CACCIIM
UG/C
47900.0

*0903.0

35TOO.O

5*700.0

*0300.0

IT70.0

Lt • LESS THAN
OT « MCMtd THtN
NO a NOT OETECTEO
NS x NOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED WERE NOT OETECTEO
-------
~A8LE C-IO
ST .LOUIS* MO	STORM £vEnT OnE


PRAIR

PRAIA

PRAIR

PRAIR

PRAIR

BRANCH



«W OKGO
CSF

cso

FIRST FLUSH
RUNOFF

PHECIP

POLLUTANT
UNITS
11092

1 1093

11094

1095

1 1096

1 1097

coqalt
UG/L
S.O
IT
S.O
LT
S.O
LT
5*0
LT
S.O
LT
S.O
LT
IRON
UG/L
1250*0

11700*0

13800*0

20100*0

4890*0

37. 0

MAGNESIUM
UG/L
22100.0

97«#0*0

6000*0

154 00*0

3920.0

62 *0

MANGANESE
UG/L
I9O.0

360.0

350*0

54O.0

160*0

10.0
LT
MOLYBDENUM
UG/L
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
IO.0
LT
10*0
LT
10*0
LT
IO.O
L I
SOOIU4
UG/L
94300.0

22000*0

10300*0

34800*0

12900.0

2000.0
L T
TIM
UG/L
420*0

120*0

30*0
LT
2(10.0

30*0
LT
JO.O
LT
TITANIUM
UG/L
50.0
LT
91 *0

110*0

160*0

50*0
LT
50*0
LT
vanadium
UG/L
S.O
LT
IS.O

23*0

27*0

S.O

S.O
l r
YTTRIUM
UG/L
s*o
LT
5.0
LT
5*0
LT
5*0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
L T
y 0L4£i LE_08&At*L£S	













CHLOROFORM
UG/L
*2*0

1 2 *S

117*0

22*0


NO

NO
tolufne
UG/L
605*0

393*0

293.0

296*0

6.0

5.3

£ thvlbenzene
UG/L
344.O

63*0

59.0

61 *0


NO

NO
METHYLENE CM.ORIDE
UG/L
1499*0

21 *0

30*0

26.0

9.3

It .2

I.I.I-TRICMLOROETHANE
ug/l

NO
3*2

3.2

5*0


NO

NO
$fcfll^XQUAIlLE-.BASE£UCUlfi&LS













acenaphthene
ug/l
88*0


NO

NO

NO

MO

NO
fib NZOf K KLUOHANT^NE
ug/l

NO

NO

NO

NO
12.0


NO
NAPHTHALENE
UG/L
4*2

12*5

S.O

6*5


NO

NO
01 S12-E THYLHE A YL1 PH TH AL ATE
UG/L
S4*0

32*0

38.0

48*0

II.0

13.0

OI-N-flUT YL PHTHALATE
UG/L
6*7

5.1


NO
5*1


NO

NO
SL«l¥QLAKL£_AtlQ	













2««-0|M£ TM YLPHENOL
"ug/l
612*0

181 *0

125.0

183*0


NO

NO
PHENOL
ug/l
|6S2*0

708 .0

toi.o

404*0


NO
16*0

et5IlXIOt-EH9AClAW.es 	













LT * LCSS THAN
OT k GREATER THAN
HO t NOT 0£TECTEO
N'j * not sampled
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED
WERE NOT OETECTEO
-------
table c-ti
sr.LOUIS. MO	STORM
MtNCN	aMNCH	BAMCH	BRAMCH	«W»NCM	BP41CH
N BKCO	CSf	CSO	FIUST FLUSH	ftUNOFF	OXECIP
POLLUTANT	UNITS	SI0<»0	11094	IIIDS	lltOt	11102	III3K
BtOCHCKICAI. OXTGCN OCHAM)
MC/L
90«0

r*«o

32*0

76*0

26.0

is.o
LT
COMICAL 0#VG€N OC**NO
MC/L
220*0

2*0.0

140.0

250.0

9S.0

6« • 0

TOTAL ORGANIC CAftBQN
MC/L

MS

NS

NS

NS

NS
e. o

NON-P««nCULATe TOC
MG/L
S6*0

3ft .0

24.0

42.0

40.0


NS
TOTAL SOLIDS
MC/L
uoo.o

70^.0

266. 0

S36.0

496.0

12.0

TOTAL VOLATUE tOLlOS
MC/L
ist.o

20*.0

07.0

96.0

66.0

22.0

TOTAL vol sus solids
MC/L
45.O

a«s.o

30.0

«7.0

34*0

22.0

total strveioeo solios
MC/L
6S.O

%r«.o

9fr.O

161.0

99.0

4.0
LT
TOTAL VOL OIS SOL!OS
MC/L
IO6.0

61*0

S7.0

31.0

34.0

4. 0
LT
TOTAL 01SSOLVEO SOLIDS
MC/L
1115*0

3IS.0

170.0

3S7.0

99*0

to. 0

scttlcaole solids
nl/l
l»*

9.1

1.0
LT
2.3

t .0
lt
1 - 0
LT
CHLOaIDE
MC/L
330.0

S9.0

2.3

*7.0

i. A

2. J

AMMONIA NimOCEN
MC/L
7.0

3.0

2.2

3.3

1.0
lt
1 .0
LT
total phenol
UG/L
25.0

16.0

7.0

12.0

10.0

s.«
LT
OIL ANO GftEASC
MC/L
10.0

33.0

IA.0

34.0

9,0

10.0
L T
etUk^	













ANTINOMY
UG/L
S.O
LT
S.O
LT
S.O
LT
S.O
LT
S.O
Lt
s.o
LT
ARSENIC
UG/L
10.0
LT
10.0
L?
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
BCPVLLIOM
UC/L
1.0
LT
i «o
LT
1.0
LT
1.0
LT
1.0
LT
1.0
L T
CADMIUM
UG/L
s.o
LT
s.o
LT
5.0
Lt
s.o
LT
s.o
LT
s.o
LT
CHHONIUM
UG/L
23.0

2S.0

IO.O

22.O

10.0
LT
IO.O
LT
COPPEK
UG/L
10.0

90.0

39.0

76.0

31.0

10.0
L T
LEAD
UG/L
so.o
LT
240.0

9a.o

iao.0

350.0

52. 0
LT
MEDCURT
UG/L
• J

• 6

• 3

•s

.5

. 3
L T
NICKEL
UG/L
50.0
LT
50.0
LT
50.0
LT
50.0
LT
50.0
LT
50.0
L T
SELENIUM
UG/L
10,0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
L T
SILVER
UG/L
.7

• ft

*s

•s
LT
.5
LT
. 5
LT
thallium
UG/L
9.0
LT
5.0
LT
s.o
LT
s.o
LT
s.o
LT
S.O
LT
l INC
UG/L
300*0

3SO.O

160.0

310.0

2 70.0

120.0

OTHFRS













CVANlOe
UG/L
20. O
LT
20.0
LT
20.0
LT
20*0
LT
20.0
LT
20.0
LT
MQiicgingtMi i ortin we t ms	













aluminum
UC/L
12SO.O

S420.O

3020.0

3920.0

I7AO.O

56.0

BARIUM
UC/L
60.O

I60.O

59.0

140.0

61.0

IO.O
LT
BORON
UG/L
470.0

100.0

~ S.O

8S.0

72.0

20.0
LT
CALCIUM
UC/L
69000.0

3IA00.0

16400.0

32400.0

1 75 00 . 0

1260.0

LT * LESS TMAM
CT « CCEirC* THAN
no * not octccteo
MS « NOT S*N>t£0
POaUUKtS MOT Listto
•e«c not octectco
-------
sr. louis
pQauTAur
UNITS
BRANCH
WW 0KCO
11099
COBALT
IRON
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MOLYBDENUM
SOOIUM
tin
TITANIUM
VANAOIUM
YTTRIUM
IMA.
U6/L
UO/L
UC/L
U6/L
(«G/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
5.0 LT
|T*0.0
184 00.0
260*0
ta.o
2II9000.0
30.0
20.0
SI «o
*•0 LT
LT
LT
LT
U>
X0L A IlLE-QfiG Alll£S-
CHLOROFORM	UG/L
TOLUENE	UG/L
CHLOAOBENZEIC	UG/L
E ThvlBENXENC	UG/L
METHYLENE CM.0R10E	UG/L
TETRACHLOROCTHCNE	UG/L
i•i•i-rn(chlonqethaic	ug/l
trans-a .z-oichlorocthene ug/l
TRICMLOROfc TMtMC	UG/L
I J.O
s.a
2.1
%.s
a.2
NO
NO
*•1
J.5
StEIUVQLftI lt-g BASE/NEUTRALS
OIE THTLFNf MM.ATE	UG/L
l»mw€	UG/L
NAPHTHALENE	UG/L
SIS(2*ETHTLH?XTL|PNTNALAT6 UG/L
OI-N-8UTTL PmTHALATE	UG/L
A.2
19.0
J.I
&ESI*QV4I1LX-AC
e&&ii£iO£-£&ia&ci&ai.c
LT » LESS THAN
GT * GREATER THAN
NO * NOT DETECTED
NS a NOT SAMPLED
POLLUTANTS JOT LISTED MERE NOT DETECTED
table c-tt
MO	STORM EVENT T«Q
BRANCH
CSF
11099
BRANCH
CSO
• 1100
BRANCH
FIRST FLUSH
lltOI
BRANCH
RUNOFF
I 1102
894HCM
PPEC IP
I I I OA
S.O LT
9720.0
8*30.0
230.0
10.0 LT
95*00.0
30.0 LT
7«.0
29.0
S.O LT
S.O LT
*563.0
3060*0
1*0.0
10.0 LT
11600.0
JO.O LT
39.0
56.0
S.O LT
S.O LT
ooso.o
0710.0
210.0
10.O LT
65S00.0
30.0 LT
60.0
36.0
S.O LT
5.0 LT
35*0.0
2220.0
I6O.0
IO.O LT
2060.0
JO.O LT
27.0
20 • 0
S.O LT
5.0 LT
ae.o
I 10.0
10.0 LT
10.0 LT
2000.0 LT
JO.O LT
20.0 LT
S.O LT
5.0 LT
S.O
8.2
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
A.9
* .6
I m<*
2.*
BO. 3
3.7
6.3
I .8
NO
6.*
12.*
I.*
11.2
2.1
S.O
I .5
NO
3.3
2. J
2.0
2.7
9.3
NO
NO
NO
NO
2.3
11.9
5.9
NO
HO
NO
3*2
3.t
25.O
*.6
NO
NO
NO
11.6
*•0
NO
NO
3.3
IO.O
3.6
ND
NO
NO
19.0
T.O
MO
NO
ND
NO
NO
-------
sr.LOutv*
PRAtR
«¦ 6KCO
HULCUTANT	units	It 10J


HIOCHeNtCAl OXYGEN OfcKANO
M6/L
t*o.o
CMtMICU. JJlYGEN OENANO
NO f\.
370.0
total organic carhon
NC/L
NS
NON*PAR7ICVLAr£ TQC
Ma/L
120.0
TOTAL SCCtOS
NC/L
766.0
TOTAL VOLATILE SOL IOS
MG/L
166*0
TUTAL VOL SUS SOLIi>S
NG/L
64.0
TOTAL SUSPLNOEO SOLIDS
MG/L
102.0
TOTAL VOL OIS SOL IDS
NG/L
107.0
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
NG/L
6t*4.0
SLTTLCAtJLE SCLI0S
*l/l
2*4
CHL0*I0b
MG/L
0 1.0
AMM JN | A TR-JUCN
MG/L
6.0
TOTAL PHtfNOL
UG/L
I6r>30.0
OIL AND CUBASE
NG/L
16.0
S tlfiUa


antinomy
UC/L
s.t» lt
AWSfcNlC
UG/L
io.o lt
HEkra.LlUN
UG/L
t.O lt
CAOHIUM
UG/L
9.0 LT
CHMCMlifN
UG/L
35.0
COWE.M
•JC./L
IIO.O
LEAD
UG/L
50.0 LT
NMRCUtt*
UG/L
1.0
NIOU
UG/L
1 30.0
SELlNIOM
UG/L
to.o lt
S (LVtLM
UG/L
.5 LT
ThAlL ion
UG/L
s.o lt
£\u c
UG/L
52.0



	.....				
cyanide
UG/L
140.0
UU*CQUXCttti£XUL-a££*L*	


ALUKiHUN
UG/L
1100.0
C3A^1UN
UG/L
40.0
0OA(JN
UG/L
920.0
C ALL 1 UN
UG/L
49300.0
lt » less Chan
tiT c GWEArEII THAN
NO * HOT detected
MS * NOT iAH'-tt)
PUU,OfAMf$ HOT Ll'tfCb
•ERE NOT DETECTED
TAiH t£ C-1 I
>o
SCORN EVENT
TtfO






PKAI4

PNATtt

PRAfR

.^RAYP

BRANCH

CSF

CSO

FIRST FLUSH
RUNOFF

FREC IP

II 10*

11105

1 1 106

11107

111 OA

34.0

46.0

67.0

15.0
UT
15.0
LT
140.0

170.0

I MO .0

25.0
LT
*4 .0


Nil

NS

NS
10.0

ft.O

27.0

29.0

3A.0


NS

NS
111 .0

207.0

2<#5.0

105.0

12.0

Q2.0

109.0

0*4.0

40.0

?2 .0

4<>.0

42.0

44.0

12.0

22 .0

4 J » 0

¦ 25.0

1 2O.0

47.0

4 • 0
LT
4 I.J

67.0

20.O

2ft. 0

« .0
LT
I -3H . 0

H2.0

166.0

5H.0

IO.O

1 .o
lt
1.1

1. 1

i.a
LT
t .0
LT
*• %

6.3

11.0

3. tt

2.3

1 .4

2.0

4.1

1 .0
LT
1 .0
LT
ftttl.O

BSO.O

16 30.0

7. 3

s.o
LT
21 .0

ltt.0

27.0

5.0
LT
10.0
L T
5.0
lt
5.0
t-T
5.0
LT
5-0
LT
5.0
LT
IO.O
lt
IO.O
LT
10.0
lt
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
1.0
lt
1 .0
LT
1.0
LT
1.0
LT
1 .0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
9.0
LT
5.0
LT
^-0
LT
lfl.0

24 .0

40.0

10.0
LT
10.0
LT
3«.0

55.0

61 .0

17.0

10.0
LT


160.0

160. O

52.0

52.0
L T
.4

.4

.4

• 3
LT
• 1
LT
5O.0
LT
50.0
LT
50.0
LT
50.0
LT
50.0
L T
IO.O
LT
IO.O
LT
IO.O
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
.5
lt
.5
LT
.5
LT
.5
LT
.5
LT
0*0
LI
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
5.0
LT
160.0

210.O

250.0

1 30.0

1 30.0

20.0
LT
20.0
LT
20.0
LT
20.0
LT
20.0
LT
1B70.0

3620.0

3610.0

A 30.0

50 .0

17,0

71 .0

76.0

23.0

10.0
I T
Ga.o

7"#.0

01 .0

20.0
LT
?0.4
LT
rtton.o

20TOO.0

24300.0

I €>600,0

1 2f>0 • O

-------
f»T* LOUIS


PRAIM


M« DKO!>
POLLUTANl
UNI TS
(1(03
CilttAL*
UG/L
5.0 LT
IKON
UG/L
I2ZO.O
MAkNiSlUK
UG/L
21200.0
MANUAL &C
UG/L
200.0
*UL7»iOC.MUN
UC/L
10.0 lt
SOOlU*
UG/L
iiiooo.o
TIN
UG/L
t 10.0
T1FANfUM
UG/L
20.0 (.T
VANADIUM
UG/L
0.0
rfTfliun
UG/L
O.O lt
kULfiIllt.US&&t*l£2	


CHLU«0»-O"H
UG/L
1 3.9
rriLut'Nt
UG/L
(16. 0
ACHYLONITOILC
UG/L
37.0
ETtlVLtttNZENE.
UC/L
236.0
•*£fnrcENC CH.a«10£
UG/L
42-J-0
TtiMACHLO^OETHtNC
UG/L
J9. 0
I.I.I-THICMLO*OfcTHANE
IK»/L
NO
1.1.2-THICHLUnOfcTMANE
UG/L
NU
1 . 2-D 1 CHLUMOf. TmANC
UG/L
NO
I .J-OICMLOl'UPKOPAuE
UG/L
nl>
tWANV- 1 .2-l>ICHLO«OeTH£Nt
UG/L
2. I
TftlCHLOdQTTHcMC
UG/L
2. t
jL«lz¥QCAIlL£._tiAS£ZttEUl3ACS_

Ol L T•IVLPHT HAL A Tfc
UG/L
4.2
Oft-N-UCTVL l*HTHALATC
ug/l
5.2
napmthalc'ne
ug/l
3.4
U1M*-fc THTLHfcXVL1PH THALATE
UG/L
52.O
0 1-N-tJUTru PmTHALATE
UG/L
9. 1
S£9XXQLftXlLt.ACl&	


2iA-DIMEfH*L*»HENOC
UG/L
A20.0
PHtNol
UG/L
3-4 00.0
££JiIi£ia£-£*Itt&£IfttH£S	
cr - U&S THAN
or « CHtUEQ THAN
NO X NUT OfcTgcreO
MS S NOT SAWLEO
POLLUTANr^ NOT ll^TCA
•F«t Ntlt OCTfcCTCO
r«uL£ c-n
•HO	HTUWH tVlNT two
PHAt*
C1F
l|!Q«
WAIM
cso
1I I OS
P4A (**
MUST FLUSH
11 I OO
P<>4 1*4
RUN'JFF
I 1107
HWAMCM
PHfcC IP
I 11 Or)
s.o lt
J4BO.O
3 100,0
I 10.0
10.0
1220<1.0
JO *0
20.0
t 7.0
S.O uf
IT
LT
LT
s.o lt
6160.0
17O0•0
I
io.o l r
9*00.0
31 .o
45*0
I 7.0
r>.0 LT
s.o lt
7640.0
4UH0 «Q
IrtU.O
10.0 LT
1*700.0
Or..Q
44*0
23.0
b.O LT
r>.0 LT
I 1-40.0
|f>0.0
• ft. 0
10.0
67*0.0
30.0
20.O LT
16.0
r>.o lt
l r
LT
s. 0 L T
HB.O
1 to .0
10.0	LT
I 0 . 0	T
2000.O	L T
.10.0	LT
20.0	L T
r. . 0	L t
5. U	L T
6.*	no r».*	NO
397.0	216.0 9*7.0	l.S	9.9
NO	NO NO	NO	NO
7S.0	*0.0 I HI. 0	NO	2.3
bh2*Q	444*0 1174.0	174,9	11.9
|7«.0	I6M.0 351.0	HO	5.9
NO	2*4 2.0	NO	NO
NO	NO NO	1.4	NO
NO	NO	NO	NO
19.0	NO NO	NO	NO
2.«	1.7 5.4	NO	NO
92.0	202.0	NO	NO
NO
NO
0*6
20 .O
• •4
NO
NO
11*2
12.0
NO
NO
19.0
19.0
4*3
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
NO
NO
90.0
2%«0
114.0
319.0
I 12.0
667.0
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
taulc c-i2
sr.touis. no	stoon cvcnt rnntF


8HANCM

fMANCH

ftrtANCH

UAANCM

BRANCH
•JRANCH



«« BKUO
C5*

csrj

FIRST *LUSH
RUNOFF
PBtC IP

pollutant
UNITS
1 1109

II 1 10

II111

11112

1111 1
t 1 t 1 <»













HlOLHtMICAL OXVCCN 06MAND
NG/L
VJ.O

¦vl*0



ftO.O

NS
10*0
lT
CHEMICAL (IKY&EN OEMANO
MO XL
2MO.O

290.O

460.0

S *0 . 0

NS
25.O
LT
1UVAL 0«t»ANlC CAHBON
MG/L
9i .a


NS

NS

MS
NS
6.5

NUM-PAHT1CULATC TOC
MG/L

NS
Z5,0

I7.0

*©• 0

NS

NS
TO fAL SOLIUM
MG/L
7tt0«0

«#70.0

1 706*0

OSrt.O

NS
J9.0

total volatile SOU OS
mo/l
2 *2.0

IQH.O

;U6iO

261.0

NS
36*0

Total vol bu<> solids
mg/l
54*0

oo.o

2lrt.O

1 37.O

NS
A.0

larAL wytfCen SCLIOS
MG/L
65.0

S02.0

#**0.0

« w.e

NS
1 1 -o

TOTAL VOL Uts VJLlDS
»H,/L
t IH.O

lO'l.O

«fH.O



NS
2* • 0

TOTAL 0tV*0LV£0 SOLIOS
Kb/L
Mo,n

jro.o

262*0

A26.0

NS
^ri .0

btULtAtlU SOLIOS
ML/L
i .n
LT
?.<»

4.6

3.6

NS
1 . 0
Li
CHLOttlOSi
MU/L
a j.o

To.O

6J.0

*v.o

NS
1 .*

AMMONIA NlTDMofN
MG/L
is.o

i .«#

« . J

3.*

NS
t .0
f.r
TUTAL IHttNOL
UG/L
S1.0

JUi»0

7.6

47.0

NS
*7.0

OIL AllO fcKSASe
MC/L
3^0

ii>«a

(••O

2* -O

22 »0
20.0
LT
fitlAl*.. .. --	-












ANTIMONY
UG/L
4*0
lt
4*0
LT
4*0
L T
4*0
LT
«S
4*0
LT
A^r>tNtC
MC/L
».o
LT
J*o
LT
1.0
Li
3*0
LT
NS
J.O
L r
^HVLLIUN
UG/L
2*0
lt
2 *0
LT
2*0
LT
2.0
LT
NS
2*0
LT
CAllHttM
UG/L
23.0

2?»Q

2H »0

jo.o

NS
IS.O

CH4UNIUH
UG/L
Ol .0

ss*o

611.0

59,0

NS
25.0
LT

UG/L
*»A«0

1 i i«o

146.0

t 19.0

NS
20 .0
LT
LLAQ
UG/L
-EOO.O
LT
S40«0

85S.O

510.O

NS
200 .0
LT
^.MCUMV
UG/L
1*0
LT
1.0
LT
1*0
Li
1*0
LT
NS
1 *0
L ?
N|L^£L
UU/L
ton.o

75.0
LT
B2*0

75*0
LT
NS
75.0
LT
HLtt4(UN
UC/L
4,0
LT
«»o
lt
4*0
LT
4*0
LT
NS
*«0
LT
SILV6W
UG/L
122.0

to*o
LT
10.0
Li
10.0
LT
NS
to.o
LT
TmALLIU*
UG/L
n.o
LT
75.O
LT
75.0
LT
75*0
LT
NS
TS.O
LT
/INC
UG/L
S2.0

JV^.O

610.0

400*3

NS
1 8.1.0

OTrttttS












CTUtIK
UG/L
20*t>
LT
*o«o
LT
20.O
LT
21*0

20.0 LT
*o
LT
SlUiiLQaieuiligbAC-StXALS..	












ALUMfNUt
UG/L
470.O

95JO.O

17600*0

4 tSO * 0

NS
I0S. 0
LT
tfAHlUM
UG/L
*6.0

I6t.«

25V.0

w.o

NS
25. 0
LT
dObON
UG/L
JI9.D

^t6«U

U2*0

JOb.O

NS
21 .0

CALCIUM
UG/L
502UC.0

>M00«0

33000*0

S4000.0

NS
ltff>0.0

Li « Ltss than
Ul a oneAfeo THAN
no * Mor uErecTto
N*» S NOV SAMPLED
fmolANTS NOT A. t ST CO •€*>€ NOT OCTCCrCO
-------
TAOLt C-12
ST •LOUIS. MQ	STO««M ttfCNr T M»ee


BRANCH

aaArioi

BRANCH

MftANCH

BRANCH

tMANCH



Vtf BKOO
CSF

CM

FIWST FLUSH
RVHQF*

Mrf£C IP

mX.LUl ANT
UNITS
ItIO*

II11(1

111 1 1

Illt2

1 1 1 1 J

1 1 1 1 «

COBALT
UC/L
JS.O
Lf
)S*0
LT
jn,«*
LT
1S.0
LT

NS
JO.O
LT
(HON
IKi/L
HJ7.0

I2TOO.O

22SOO.U

t»b /O.0


N$
t 38 .0

MAGNCSIUH
IK./L
l*3O0«O

mio.o

76HO.O

<1900*0


NS


MAMOANE^C
UO/L
Ib2*0

A«%A «0

TTI .O

J47.0


NS
S.O

KOLTUMHIM
UC/l
AO* 0
LT
•o*o
LT
40.0
LT
~0.0
LT

NS
~ O.O
LT
^OOtUM
vo/u
b'HOOrO

tK>000*0

53200.0

S^HOO.O


NS
5000.o
LT
t IN

tsso.o
LT
HSO.C
LT
itso.o
LT
HSO.O
LT

NS
tiso.o
Lf
flTANlUM
uo/t
IA*0

24S.0

A*5«0

<12.0


NS
I2.0
LT
VIHA0IU4
UC/L
tS.O
LT
)NO

%4.0

15.0
LT

NS
1 *>* O
LT
vi TMitm
UC/L
12.0
L*
12.0
LT
|6.0

12.0
LT

NS
I2« 0
LT
xuuxjLt-osfi&tiics	













Cnlu^uF ym
UC/L
s.a

S.A

4.A

4> • fe


NO


TCX-UCMF
W./l
S.J




NO
i.a


NO
1.6

CTH*Li.*tHZtNe
1IC/L
1.2


NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
KfriirLENE C»KfflOC
UC/L
len.o

13.0

|A.O

22*0

0*2

6*2

TlTHACtCQUOETMENf
UC/L

NO
1 *6

1*7

2«0


NO

NO
1*1 • | —TwICHLOWOf THAHt
uu.a
6.0

72.O

iJ.O

Att*0


NO

NO
1 ^-UlCllLOHOPDOPANt'
UO/L



NO

NO

NO

NO

NO
t a A*r>~»• 2- o ICK.OROC rncic
UC/L
%A


NO

NO
2.0


NO

NO
TKICHLOftOt TNtKfc
U6/L
l#9

l*CV


NO

NO

NO

NO













FI.UWAHTMENC
uc/L

MD

NO
3.9


NO

NS

NO

UCA.

NO

NO
3.S


NO

NS

NO
1 .Z-OICtCOtfOBCN/CNE
uta

NO

NO

NO
*»0


NS

NO
KAPHtHAlENC
ur^v

NO

NO

MO
X.2


NS

NO
AU( 2-t IHVLIC «n.|PHllULATC
UCA.

HO


A*S

*•1


NS
« *o

xgiwurueaUtt	













KSTUlQC£tf8iCI tbies	
tr « ifs*i rtMn
Ut * MtiAfCR THAN
HO 3 NUT ocrtcrto
NS * NOT SANPLCO
'HXLUVANtS MOT IUUO U£N£ NOT OCTCCTCO
-------
TAOLC C-t?


$t*louis»
MO
STORM EVtNT
Tnnee








rs*u

POAIH

PttAIR

P«*A|»

P«A|*I

b**n«9

MS

MS

MS
s.s

KGN-PACriCULATE f OC
«/c

MS
26«'i

27.0

S7.0

24.0


KS
TGT*L SOLXOS

TOS.O

7O3.0

1200,0

10*0.0

510.0

3^> • 0

TUTM. VCLATlUt SOL ID*
MGA.
230.0

174.0

179.0

2O3.0

120.0

16 .0

total vol sus solids
MG'L
«6*0

rtd.O

117. .

ISO.O

G J.O

a • s

ruiM. VUSPCNDEO SOLIDS
MC/L
67. 0

SI7.0

1060.0

759.O

365.0

11.0

total vol ois sextos
•K./L
|A4«0

4ft.O

62.0

1 t J.O

S7.0

«'H . D

TOTAL DISSOLVED folios
MCA.
634.Q

i s«..o

132.0

27*. 0

145.0

2m.0

SfcTTLLAULt SQLIOS
N-/t
1 -o
tr
i .a

J.3

«.9

I .0
LT
1*0
LT
ClLU^lOt
*»A.
6«*0

II.0

S.2

23.0

5.5

1 . 4

AMMONti Nt1HO(*€N
«C/L
S.7

1*3

1 .2

2.3

t .o
LT
1*0
LT
lot AL Pm£nIL
VC/L
I9oo.n

700.O

700 .0

2BOO.O

IH.O

27.0

UlL AT*& U*£.AS€
Koa
43*. 0

*6.0

17,0

35.0

22 .0

. 20 .0
LT
		













ANT | MOttY
UG/L
A.O
IT
A.O
LT
* .0
LT
A.O
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
A***»LN|C
u&a
3.0
LT
2.0
cr
3.0
LT
J.O
LT
3.0
LT
3.0
LT
UfcttYLLlUM
uoa
2*0
IT
2*0
LT
2*0
LT
2.0
LT
2.0
LT
2.C
LT
cadmium
UG/L
t6.0

33.0

SR9.0

32.0

2*.0

15.0

CHMCMIUM
uc/t.
202.0

so.o

84 .O

1 63.O

4f* . 0

20 . 0
LT
COPl*tW
uc/t
13V. 3

120.0

too .0

203.0

99.0

20 .0
LT
Lt AD
OG/t
200.0
LT
477. o

*•09.0

744.0

437.0

200.0
LT
Ntkcuf«y
iKi/L
1*0
LT
1 *0
LT
1 .0
LT
1 .0
LT
1.0
LT
1.0
LT
NICKEL
UG/L
ei.o

75.O
LT
IS*.o

1 1 7.0

75.0
LT
7b. O
LT
St LF.NIU*
UG/L
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
4 .0
LT
4 • O
LT
4*0
LT
4 . O
L T
S1LVCP
UG/l
*0.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.o
LT
io.a
LT
10.0
L*
10.O
lt
thallium
uca
7S.O
LT
75.0
LT
rs.o
LT
rs.o
LT
7S.0
LT
7S.0
LT
4 InC
uG/l
3S4.0

4*52.0

679.0

66 J. 0

4 62 • 0

181*0

ir-tfw.













CVANlOfc
OGA.
110*0

1200*0

t100.0

oa.o

20.0
LT
20.0
LT
ttQtJLQH: 'HI IQfil Al_3£l&LS	











LT
ALUMINUM
UG/l
789*0

29SO.O

9030*0

ioooo.o

6633 • 0

10%. 0
.4Atf|UM
UG/L
28.0

123.0

214.0

223.0

1 39.0

2> .0
LT
«owat4
UGA.
46A.0

133.0

263.0

259.0

tss.o

21 .0

calcium
uga.
A3000*0

A2SOO.O

AO 300.0

sosoo.o

62000.0

ittoo.o

tr * li ss than
bt » uHCATER THAN
no * nut uerecrto
NS * HOT SanplCO
~HJLLUfANft. NOT LISTfeO «C»C NOT OtTECTCO
-------
st.louis


PNA9P


mm 9kgo
KJLLUfAMl
UNITS
11 t 14
cuualt
IIG/L
JS.Q LT
IKON
UG/t
V4?*0
NAOn&SIUN
UO/L
16*00*0
MfcK(*AN£.SC
UCA.
JJ^.O
M0LT<*0£NUN
UC/L
40*0 LT

UO/L
69500.0
TIN
UO/L
eso.o lt
t 1 TANlUM
UO/L
2S.O
VANAOlU*
UO/L
t*i*0 lt
V TT*|UN
UO/L
12*0 LT
* QL AI1Lt-QS&ftale S			


olorcf o**n
UO/L
4* 1
tatth?.
UO/L
42*0
tSbNlhNE
UG/L
NO
E fHVLti£NUNC
UO/L
5*1
NtTHTLfcNfe CtlOQtOi
UO/L
9,4
U JM*CHL CJROfc'THCNL
UO/L
2*1
1*1•|-TK|CMLO«OrTHANE
UO/L
t * 3
TMANS~1 •2-OICHL»}Q£ Th£**
UO/L
1*4
fHKHLQMOtfHENt
UO/L
2*0
St^zXGLflliLt-Ufl^atUlSAUS-

l*H(UO^a\)UltANTHSNe
UO/L
NO
(>LN20(A}PVQEN£
UO/L
MO
C««ftV*»ENC
UG/L
NO
fLUQilANTHtrit
UO/L
NO
HtRACHLO^UCTrtANf
UO/L
NO
«fcHfc
UO/L
NO
UtNZG ( A ) AN THRACCNC
UG/L
NO
1 •J*DtCHLOft(X)£N;£NE
UO/L
2*2
naphthalene
UO/L
NO
U1St2~£ THTLHCKVLlPHTHALATe
UG/L
3*6
bmiVOUAllLt ACID


A - CHLOHO-J - Nfc THYL phenol
UG/L
MO.O
2*4-01 NtTMVLPHfc'NOL
UG/L
HO
PHCNOL
ir,#L
170*0
fc>LSllCID£^ESTtf*tTAfli_E<, 4 .

LI m USS THAN
or a oDCArEP TtMM
no * i*or ucT&creo
H«i a N3T S«M»tEO
POLLUfANrs NQP Ltsrco
*ERfc NOT DfSTCCrCO
U5H.E C— 42
MO	&T3ftK EveNT THKtC
°P4I*
OF
1111*1
MAItt
cso
111 16
pQAin
FI»iT FLUSH
t :»i7
»RAtO
I t 1 JH
branch
wee if»
I ! 1 19
is.o it
6t9ti«0
6m>o«o
J62.0
o.o lt
12.0 LT
I'i.O LT
I 2 « O LT
% •«»
ba.o
2J.0
17.Q
2*1*
NO
NO
NO
~ .I
St .0
I *2
11*0
2t> »T
2* J
NO
NO
NO
$.6
164.0
2.0
S7.0
52.0
6.1
I *4
2.4
3*9
2.2
23*0
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
t *6
e»*2
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
4*0
7*0
NO

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ii.o
2.%
3.6
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
*•6
a.s
*•0
3*9
9*0
0.0
3*9
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
16.O
NO
NO
NO
90.0
74*0
169*0
159*0
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
ST. PAUL
tus
OH tlKr»0
pollutant
UNI fS
1096 1


tflOCHfcttlCAL OATGLN D€ MANO
MO/L
22.0 LT
CHLMIC4L OKVGCN OEMAND
MG/L
270.0
fUlAL UROANIC CANUUN
MG/L
NS
NUN-PAKf ICULA VC f OC
MO/L
24.0
TOTAL WHO'.
MG/L
lt»9.0
rnTM. VUIATIK SOLlUt*
MO/L
34.0
roT*t_ VOL SOLI US
MG/L
6.0
IOTAL SUSPENOLC SOL IDS
HG/L
2J.0
TOTAL VOL OlS SOLIDS
MO/L
2M.0
roTAL OlSsULVtO SOLIDS
MC/L
166.0
St » rLLAUtfc SJL lOS
ml/l
1.0 lt
CtLO'M'A
MG/L
29.0
ANMOfUA N| TllOGCN
MO/L
6. A
fljfAL PHtNOL
UG/L
40.0
il|L ANU (A£AOL
MG/L
S.O LT
"t-IALU- 	


AlittHUNV
UG/L
4.0 lt
AH'jCNIC
UG/L
J.O lt
HtHULlU*
UG/L
6.0
L40M|i#*4
MG/L
S.O
chromium
UG/L
1940.0
CUMPC.H
UG/L
JJl.O
LiAU
UG/L
61 7.0
Mr UCUWV
UG/L
1 .0 lt
NICKEL
UG/L
40.0 LT
S(rtr.NIUK
UG/L
4.0 lt
SlLVtt*
UG/L
io.o lt
Thallium
•K./L
100.0 lt
I |I«L
UG/L
230.0
uiuta^			


C TANIDfc
UG/L
20.0 LT
UUtiLUtlXCfilIiOeiAL.*£XAUa...-.


ALUMINUM
ug/l
J6-1.0
BARIUM
UG/L
JO.O
BORCIN
UG/L
200.0
CALLlUM
UG/L
2A3OO.0
If ¦ I.CSS THAN
gt *. bWCATift Than
na M NUT tlCILLfCO
N'j m NO! SAM^tLD
tmurANf!, hot listeo vcpc not otTecTeo
VAI&C C-iB
MN OAV	tb'ATHtA COMPOSITE
MHA SAN	PHA STM FUS
OK tlKuO	rox M20 TAP VATCP
|0*#OJ	1096 J I
»00«0	22#0 LT	5*0 LT
2*00.0	tiO.O	JO.O
NS	4.0	1A • 0
490 .O	NS	N'j
11 10.0	J4/.0	I 42.0
OMiO	72.0	24*0
144*0	4.0	4*0 LT
J40.0	4.0	4.0 LT
520.0	(.A.O	24.0
7#M.O	JJrt.U	142.0
J.O	1.0 LT	1,0 LT
I 1.0	.15.0	10.0
7.rt	1.0 IT	I .0 LT
JH•0	H.O	7.0
15.0	1.0 CT	25.0
4.0 LT	4
1.0 lt	J
6.0	7
4.0	fe
22.0	IH
76.0	6
160.0	£50
1.0 lt	I
40.0 LT	46
4.0 LT	4
7.0	7
100.0 LT	100
102.0	9
20.0 LT	ZO
767.0	35
41.0	6*»
I6H.0	34
464 00.0	9*400
• 0
LT
4.0
LT
.0
LT
J.O
LT
• O

7.0

.0

2.0
LT
.0

H.O
LT
• 0
LT
1 J.O

.0

5J.0

.0
LT
1.0
LT
.0

40.0
LT
• 0
LT
4.0
LT
.0
LT
7.0
LT
• 0
LT
100.0
LT
.0
LT
96.0

• 0
LT
20.0
LT
• 0
LT
910.0

• 0

4.0
LT
• 0
LT
J4 .0
LT
.0

4 68.0

-------
«>r. I'AUL
POLLUTANT
UNITS
CU'j
f>i» uicr4)
ioooi
COtlALf
tMltf*
MULVtlDCNUM
^•M>| IJtf
UN
1|tANIUM
VANADIUM
ffTWlUK
VC/L
vo/b
UO/L
UO/L
UO/L
Ufc/L
UG/L
IfO/L
UO/C
(K»/W
lri.O
4tf/•»
0
17.0
LT
2 J900.fl
3 IftO.O
6«Q
16.0
'*•0
Lf
¥dLAliLt-Q9feA*ltS__-
CHiUMl»OR«l
lULUtNt
Mi IHVUNC €»lttt)IO£
I .1 *	MCOJ»OL THANK
TwicHumoc tnt hz
UC/L
UG/L
UO/t
UC/L
VC/L
NO
NO
12*9
2.1
iiLttl?KUL*IlLL.UA*L£t&UlBAL*.
pitrMriPMfHAiAa	uo/c
Ml t»( 2-t rNVktHiXVL IPMfHACAtfi UC/L
S.4
?• 3
kLttiXUI»&UU.~6£lQ	
«-CHLOdO-i-Mt fMVLPMCNflL
UG/L
eC*ll£i&L.t&XSA£lASUbS-_—
Lf * LI'jG Than
(.V a uMtATcK THAN
NU * HOT OeTLCTCD
N* m NOT VAmPl^D
ItJLLUfANl* NOT Ll*T£0
•€Rt NOT OCTCCTCO
TAji.fc C- 13
NN	DAT VCATHCK CONPU^ITC
P»IA SAN
0« ItKf.O
|0'I0^
pma %t«
COOL lUO
I0V6J
f.U0
r«» vatc"
IQ'^64
I J.O
<9*t«u
loJOO.O
lt>l .o
2'wO
A6HOO.O
bO^O.O
I 4* • O
* .O
lt
LT
I 4 • O
Hf.O
moo.o
JO', .o
i-».o
ewo.o
J.O
JO.O
2.0
Lf
LT
7.0 LT
2J7.0
1 I 4 • <1
<4.0
*H.O
37*00.0
M%.o lt
5,0
|(t*0 lt
2*0 LT
NO
2*1
30.O
1.2
NO
NO
2 3.*
NO
NO
10* I
NO
NO
NO
4*N
|*«0 NO
0*1
NO
NO
-------
C-l.


ST*
PAUL*
MN

torn rvENT
ONE








EUS

EUS

cus

(US

EUS

EUS



HV OKGO
CSF

est)

FiasT ri us«
OUNOFP

pnecip

POCLUTAMf
UNITS
10465

(6V66

IO-167

1 09AK

I0'J6<>

10176

CQt4tttJllU£*4L£tfdt»£atlX£*li.Qtl&l.












HtOCMKMICAL UArGFN OF MANO
M&/C
26.0

IS.O
LT
IS.O

17.0

15.0
LT

NS
COMICAL DKYUtN DCMANQ
MG/L
Tb.O

%.o

140.0

1 30*0

J4.0


NS
TOTAL ORGANIC CAAdOh
MG/L
43.5


NS

NS

NS

NS

NS
NON-PAWTICOLAIE TOC
MG/L

NS


14.5

17.0

14.S


NS
rufAi ^ULiOb
MG/L
2T(J.O

210 .a

249.0

2AO.O

St .O


NS
TOfAL VULATtLfc SllLlOS
MG/L
tt»*0

<#J.O

95.0

1 1 1.0

1 1.0


NS
TOTAL VOL SMS SOLIDS
MG/L
27.0

61 .0

61.0

62.0

A.O


NS
TOTAL SUViWiO SOtlOS
MG/L
32*0

1 J7.D

IB9.0

IS2.0

IS.O


NS
forAC VOL UlS SOLIDS
MG/L
61 *0

J^.U

J2.0

44.0

?.o


NS
total dissolvco solids
MG/L
246*0

73.0

60*0

an »

16.C


NS
SI: r TLtAtfLt SOL IDS
ML/L
1.0
IT
1.1

2*1

t. %

i *o
LT

NS
CmuOWIUE
KG/ l
' 120.0

24.0

11*0

27.0

H. 1


NS
AMMONIA k! t*ugen
MG/L
12.0

1 .T

1 .0

1 .6

1 «o
LT

NS
TUfAL »VtLNUL
UG/L
».*

«#.r

9.7

a. i

->*5


NS
OIL ANO GWEASE
MG/L
JO.O
LT
6.0

4.0

a.o

S*0
LT

NS
FtT.fit*	 		













ANT I MONV
UG/L
4 *0
LT
A *0
LT
4 .O
LT
4.0
LT
4 0
LT
4.0
LT
AWSfcNIC
UG/L
J.O
LT
3.0
LT
J.O
LT
J.O
LT
J.O
LT
3*0
LT
»£»*rLLiuM
UG/L
2.0
LT
2.0
lt
2*0
LT
2.0
LT
2.0
LT
2.0
L T
CADMIUM
UG/L
10.0
lt
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
13.0
LT
to >0
L T
CHROMIUM
UG/L
20*0
LT
2O.0
LT
20*0
LT
20*0
LT
20.0
LT
20 .0
LT

UG/L
40.0
lt
40.0
LT
40.0
LT
40.0
LT
40 . 0
LT
40.0
L T
Lt AO
ug/l
150.0
LT
3?3.0

3dA.O

2 44 . 0

150.0
LT
150.0
LT
MtRCUH*
UG/L
1*1.
t T
I .0
LT
1.0
LT
1 .0
LT
1 .0
LT
1 .0
LT
NlUU
UG/L
60.0
LT
60.0
LT
60.0
LT
60.P
LT
6C-0
1. T
60 . 0
L T
SfcLtNtU*
UG/L
4.0
LT
•4.0
LT
4*0
LT
4.0
«.T
4.0
LT
4.0
L T
SlLVEM
UG/L
10*0
LT
10*0
LT
IO*0
LT
to.o
LT
10.0
LT
to.o
t T
Thallium
UG/L
100.0
LT
too.o
LT
100*0
LT
100*0
LT
too.o
LT
100.0
L T
zinc
MG/L
ttS.O

I6J.0

2<#4 *0

2M«o

74 . O

23.0

oThhws „ 		













CYANIDE
ug/l
JH.O

20*0
LT
20*0
l.T
e
.
e
M
LT
20.0
LT

NS
&U>A:U&X£tft£l.QUAL.U&XAU&._—













ALUMINUM
ug/l
J7J.O

2370.0

4060 .0

JOSO.O

607.O

¦ eo.o
LT
BARIUH
UG/t
44.0

40 • ©

70.0

69.0

10. 0
LT
10.0
LT
BORON
UG/L
JO.O
LT
JO.O
LT
10*0
LT
30.0
LT
30*0
LT
30.0
L T
L ALC 1 UM
UG/L
26600.0

12100.0

14000.0

|40 00.O

bion.o

4 10.0

LI • LCM Than
or m GUEAT fcU THAN
NO s MOT OE TEC JED
MS * NUT SUMPLLD
Puaur4N>« nor listed
MERE NOT DETECTED
-------
ST* PAUL*


CUS


«tf nxbP
»»ocwtant
UNITS
1 090V
CO.-fACT
UC/L
1 1.0
|*OM
UG/L
A JA.O
MAUNtSIUM
UG/L
6260.0
NANCANESt
UC/L
44*0
MOtVBOCNUH
UO/L
J'i.0 lt
SOOlUM
ur./L
2*200.0
tin
UO/L
A50.C LT
TITANIUM
UG/L
12.0 LT
VANADIUM
UC/L
25.0 LT
YTTRIUM
UO/L
10*0 LT
*vJLfiHLC-0Bi«6MiCti	


CHLONOFOmi
UG/L
B.e
TOLUtNC
UG'L
NO
*fc TNVCtNE CH-O*!0E
UO/L
9.*
aUU-*ULAllL£_U4St*«.ULHAL&_

UtN^O(K ^LUOWANrHCMC
UG/L
NO
HfcM/OtAjPTPfcNE
UG/L
NO
fLUO^ANrHtNt
UG/L
NO
MHCNANfMHLNt
UG/L
NO
PYMcNt
UG/L
NO
HE NZOI A) ANThMACCNC
UG/L
NO
ai 1»(2-E TMTLHEXVL IfHTMALATC
UG/L
36.0
Dl-h-uura MMfHALATE
UG/L
73.0
lifc!UKUL4llL£_fl£I Q	
et.iiii.iuc_tai«4Ci4tiLts
ir « uus nuN
or * Gtt£AT£ft VHAN
no * nut otrecTco
Mi x not sampled
^olluvani^ Njr listed
NCMC NOT OCTfcCTeO
rAlltf C- I A
STO** FVf-NT QUE
tus

r.us

CUS

CM*#

' EU'j

CSF

c so

FIRST FLUSH
ttUNOFF

MHFC IP



I00O7

1 096H

I 0109

I0'»7<)

b«0

16*0

4*0
LT
~>* 0

5.0
LT
iri»o.o

7TJO.O

fcjrn.o

6 1 f> • 0

IS .0
LT
J590 .o

6X70.0

5370*0

1000.0

6H.0

I 10*0

1 HA .0

1 50 . 0

21 .0

39 .0

35 .o
LT
V».0
LT
35.0
LT
J5.r>
LT
3fi. 0
L T
5000 .0
LT
5000.0
LT
5000.0
LT
5000.0
LT
5000.0
L T
~ 50. *>
LT
A 50 • 0
LT
« 00.0
LT
A 50 • 0
LT
A5O.0
LT
bs « 0

t *W . 0

1 21 .0

12.0
LT
I* .O
LT
25 .0
LT
r»*o
LT
25.0
LT
25.0
LT
25.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
1O.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
I T

NO
A.7


NO

NO

NS
1 .o

1 .0

1 .3


NO

NS
7.5

8.6

7.A

2 J .2


N5
3*0

6« 1

5.0


NO

N5

NO
A.S

5.6


NO

NS

NO
6*9

5.3


NO

MS

NO
3.rt


NO

NO

NS

NO
5.M

5*0


NO

NS

NO
A.O

A.O


NO

NS
J3«0

3f» . 0

3* *0


NO

NS
1 I «0

10.7

16.0


NO

NS
-------
tAbi t C-l
st. Paul* mm	s»r
ME.* SAN	PHA VAN
VW 'J«CO	C!i*
MUtLUTANt	UNITS	I0<«tl2	lO«lrtl
&gcjxtttiiaa&L£au!fCf»vt«£iutt6i




mocHCKKAt OMfcitN n+.MAMO
MC/l

NS

MS
CH&NICAL UXVGtN O£*A*0
MG/L
940.0

2f*0*O

T^TAL UXUNIC CAffttdK
HC/L

NS

MS
NO*t-**AWT ICOLAT& TOC
MG/L
210.0

57.0

TOTAL MJLI0S
MG/L
Aao.o

247*0

TOTAL VOL A TILL sanos
*0#L
401 *0

1 St *0

f.JliL VOL SuS SOLIDS
MC/L
337.O

b'i.o

VOTAL SU>'f M)l:0 SOLltf*
MG/L
47O.0

12S.0

fjT-L VOL OI!» SOL ID'#
MO/L
164.0

r>r»*0

total oissolvlo solio*
MG/L
402*0

122*0

Sf Tf LfcAULL SOLID*.
ML/4.
1 J|*0

1*7

CfA-OKlufc
MG/L
22.0

l.rt

AHMUNIA NITRUWtH
MG/L
10.0

1 *0
LT
Total phluol.
UG/L
J J.O

37*0

Ult An|> wlau
MG/L
51.0

I 1 *0

•JdlOLS		





AWf1 Mum*
UG/L
4*0
LT
4.0
lt
AMSC.NIC
UC/L
3.0
LT
3*0
LT
ftt"*LL(U*
UG/L
2.0
LT
2*0
LT
CAUMIU4
UG/L
10*0
LT
lO.O
lt
CHWOtlUN
UC/L
20.0
LT
20*0
lt
CUPPf»
UG/L
71*0

40*0
lt
LfcAD
IK»/L
202*0

1SO.O
lt

UC/L
1*0
LT
1 »o
LT
HICAkL
UC./L
60.O
LT
60*0
Lt
SFLLNIUM
UG/L
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
SILVC*
UG/L
10*0
LT
10*0
LT
thallium
ug/l
100.0
LT
100.0
LT
/IMC
UG/L
SM)*Q

I2(**0

Of»ft-(I5





crANiue
UG/L
20*0
LT
20*0
LT
*UttL(ttf2£2*XI09Ml^e!lLXALS	





ALOMlMiM
UG/L
5040,0

2TV0.0

tfAMIU*
UG/L
129.0

34.0

bOMOU
UG/L
176*0

30*0
LT
CALC lUM
UG/L
41300*0

10400*0

Lf * Less fHAM
(•I i (idfArtM THAN
HO a NU1 OLItCTEO
M*» * tlUI SAMl*L£0
hAXUTANf', NOT LUrtU
•e«c not oerecrco
CVS NT ONC
PMA SAN	PHA 5Alt	PHA SA+t	P$4A STM	PHA
CbO	f IflST FUbH	POWVf	SS	PPtCIP
io.0
4*0
JiH
1 .0
12.O
LT
|3.0
150.0
l«.0
NS
LT
LT
62.0
2T.O
4*0
4,0
24 .o
60, 0
I, o LT
~ 7
1.0 Lf
t 2.0
10.o LT
*•0 Li
3*0 LT
2*0 LT
10.0 if
2O*0 Lf
4Q.0 LT
130*0 Lf
1*0 LT
00*0 LT
• *0 LT
10*0 LT
100*0 LT
137*0
4*0 LT
.>*0 LT
2*0 LT
(0.0 LT
20.0 LT
40*0 LT
150*0 LT
1 *0 LT
60*0 L*
4.0 LT
10.0 LT
I 00 * O L T
304 .0
4*0 LT
3.0 LT
2.0 LT
10*0 LT
20.0 IT
+ 0.0 LT
150*0 LT
I .0 LT
*0.0 LT
4*0 IT
10.0 LT
I Ort.O LT
I Jft*0
4*0 I T
3.0	LT
2,0	IT
10*0	LT
2O*0 LT
*0.0 lt
150.0	L T
I «0	L T
60.0	LT
4 • O	L t
10,0 LT
I 00 .0 LT
101.0
4*1) IT
3.0 L T
*.0 LT
10.0 L T
*0.O LT
40.0 lt
150.0 LT
1.0 LT
60.0 LT
4 . O L T
10.0 L r
100.0 LT
6S.0
20.0 LT
20*0 LT
20*0 LT
1040*0	30*0*0	3410*0	1690.0	224.0
43*0	99.0	45*0	49.0	10.0 LT
10*0 LT	40.0	30.0 LT	30.0	LT 30.0 LT
IO|O0«O	17400.0	IISOO.O	24t»On.O	1620.O
-------
tABLl OI4
ST. PAUL* MN	&r()MN LVtNT (>Nt


PHA SAN
PHA SAN
PHA SAN


«W HKM>
CS*

cso

pollutant
UNI 15
10*1(12

lO^HJ

IOVf»*

coualt
UG/L
fl.O

'..0
LT
s.o
LT
IWON
UC/L
6i*o.o

4VIO«0

SI IO.O

KAGNi^llH
UG/L
|4M0O*0

•190*0

4130.0

MAM.AN6M.
UG/L
2»i.o

141 *0

I4M.0

MULVHUCNtJM
UG/L
JS.O
L*
11.0
L*
35.0
LT
SODIUM
UC/L
50700.0

5000*0
LT
sooo.o
LT
TIN
UG/L
4S0.0
LT
4S0.0
LT
4Sl».0
LT
T1 TANIU*
UC/L
ma.o

*1.0

SJ..0

VAMAOIUN
UC/L
2*.o
LT
20*0
LT
2S.0
LT
rrfKiuM
UG/L
IO.O
LT
to.o
LT
10.0
LI
			







CHLU»IOFURM
UG/L
7.0


NO
4.S

tULUfc'Nt'
UG/L
24. S

2.1

2*1

t THTLrJfcNZtNt
UG/L
10.2


NO

NO
UttONOMiTHANE
UG/L
9.2


NO

NO
CMlU»*0«C THAN£
UG/L
I*. I


ND

NO
MtTHTUiNt CHLOMIOC
UG/L
3a.o

1 J.O

12.1

TttMACHLUaOtTHE Nfc
UG/L

ND

NO

NO
ifL«i-xai&llU._tl&S££C)£UlflALS..






t-'LUOnA.'lTHLNC
UG/L

NO

HO

NO
PHtNAHrHRI-Ne
UG/L

NO
JJ.O


NO
atS(2-eTMVLHfcAVLlPHTMALATe
UG/L

NO
13*0

11*0

O 1 — N-LSilT VL PHTHALATe
UG/L

NO

NO

NO
iLilUClLailLt-ftClQ	
etui!Lii;c_tsieaciAULt5.
LT * UiS THAN
(if * GtttATfcf* THAN
NO * NOT OETtCTCO
MS t NOT sampuo
POLLUTANTS NOT LISTED
«£»t NOT DETECTED
PHA SAN
PHA SAN
PHA ST*
P»«A

[NOT *LUSH
PUNOtF

SS PL

PWEC IP

IOVHO

torn

109**

I09SS

O.O
LT
5.0
LT
V.»

S.O
LT
•tfid*o

4SSO.0

22 HO•0

UH,0

7140.0

JSSO.O

1 1 * 00 . o

^•60.0

2 IS • 0

ITh.O

2 41 .0

J. 0
LT
JS.O
LT
JS.O
LT
JS. 3
LT
J>.0
LT
SOOO.O
LT
0000.0
LT
SOOO.O
LT
SOOO.CI
LT
4S0.0
LT
*50.0
LT
450.0
LT
• SO .0
LT
1 15.0

1*0.0

U. 0

12.0
LT
20.0
LT
21.0
LT
2S.P
LT
2«». C
LT
10.0
LT
IO.O
LT
10.C
L T
10.0
LT
s.o


ND

NO

NS
2.4


NO

NO

NS

NO

NO

NO

NS

NO

Nt>

NO

NS

NO

NO

NO

NS
20.0

10. «

11 .2


NS
t .6


NO

NO

NS
6.1


NO

NO

NS
3.8


NO

ND

NS
26*0

11.0

12.0


NS
3.7


NO

NO

NS
-------
t>H.( C-IS
ST. Paul, mn	or on* Event two
OH* SAN	PIIA S«N	PH» SAN	PHU SAN	PH* SAN	PHI ST«
«W BKCO	ISF	CSU	rl»SI FLUSH	»UNOFf	SS Fl
pollutant	units	io>ro	iot?i	lo**r;	loqrj	io<>7«
£WXEifll(tt&L£iia*& .0
LT
tHtfflCAl. OKTUEN DEMAND
mc/l
790*0

430.0

400.0

700.0

1 JO .9

7«.0

TUT AC ORGANIC CARBON
MC/L
2C0.0

150*0

170.0

! no.o

32.0

Sfr.O

total solids
mq/l
7 23*0

399*0

4*J3«0

592.0

2 10.0

2'>4 • 0

total v*l*til£ solids
Mf./L
390.0

I4S.0

28S.0

JOft.O

1 Jt. • 0

1 JO. 0

TOTAL VOL UUS SOLID'J
M&/L
215.0

12*1.0

16rt.0

201.0

27.0

is.o

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
MC/L
393.0

2 3S.0

305.0

3HI .0

1 14.0

21 .0

toial vol ois sglios»
MO/L
101*0

70.0

117.0

10 7,0

1 09.0

1 1 !» • 0

TOTAL Dt j>OLVED UOtlOS
MWL
32*.0

164 .0

lai.o

21 1.0

1 16.0

24 1.0

StTTLtABLE SOL I OS
ml/l
11*0

7.3

H.rt

7.S

1.0
LT
1.0
LT
CHL LW 1 U£
HG/C
^•o

1 J.O

i

19. 0

W5

** . I

AMMONIA N1TU0GEN
MG/L
T.«

3.9

3.S

4.H

t .0
LT
t .0
LT
TOTAL PHENOL
UO/L

Ni
H')«0

77.O

39.O

690.0

H.S

OIL AH0 CREASE
KG/L
31.0

2S.0

(9.0

25.0

14 «0

5.0
LT
&L14L i — 		













ANt 1 MONV
UC/L
4«0
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
4 . O
L T
4.0
L 7
4 • 0
LT
ARSUNIC
UC/L
J.O
LT
7.0
LT
3.0
Lt
3.0
LT
3.0
LT
3 .0
LT
HLMVLLlUM
UC/L
2.0
LT
2.0
LT
2.0
LT
2.0
LT
2. O
LT
* .0
LT
CADMIUM
UC/L
16*0

15.0

. 15.0

17.0

15.0
LT
17.0

CHROMIUM
UC/L
52.O

40*0
L T
40.0
LT
40.0
LT
42.0

40. O
LT
COPPEH
UG/L
1 JO.O

94.0

91 .0

1 06.0

60.0

S7.0

L€ AO
UC/L
204.0

I9J.O

201 .0

2*2.O

2or*. 0

IHO.O
LT
MtMCUKV
UC/L
I.O
LT
1 .0
LT
1 .0
LT
1.0
LT
1 .0
LT
1 .0
LT
NKKtL
UG/L
1 M.O

99.0

91 .0

VI.0

ttJ.O

201.0

'ifcLENlUM
Ub/L
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
4 . li
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
* .0
LT
SILVER
UG/L
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
IO.0
LT
10.0
LT
10.0
LT
10 .0
L T
Thallium
UCA.
70.O
LT
70.0
LT
70.0
LT
70.0
LT
70.0
LT
70 .0
L T
t INC
uc/l
J99,0

234.0

243.0

31 1.0

1 ftH.O

6 1 .0

oTHt»;i 				













CfANlue
UC/L
2S.O

20.0
LT
2O.0
LT
K
O
•
o
LT
20.0
LT
20 .0
L T
MOJjCQ£#X£fittIflMAk_a£lAL5	













aluminum
UC/L
3070.0

4110.0

3690.0

47O0.0

34 80.0

749.0

UA'IIUM
UC/L
165.0

9S.O

95.0

1 23.0

62. 0

77.0

UOfcON
UG/L
244.0

111*0

44*0

80.0

20.0
LT
99.0

CALCIUM
UC/L
412QO.O

20300.0

19300.0

271 OO.O

9510.0

493 no•0

cobalt
UC/L
35.0

30*0
LT
30*0
LT
3rt.O

10.0
LT
37. 0

LT m	Less Than
CI x	CRttrER THAN
NO >	NOT UE TEC TED
NS •	HOI SANPlEO
pollutants nor listed
WERC NOT DETECTED
-------
ST. MAUL
pollutamt
units
PHA jM
«« n«cr»o
I097O
IMON
MAGNt&tU*
MANOANtbk
MULTUDLNUN
SOO I OM
tin
rt tan*um
VANAOtU*
vrmiUN
VH*/U
uc/i
uc/t
Ufe'L
UO/L
UO/'I.
Wi/l'
UO/L
uc/t
7|60*Q
io^oo.o
^8>ltO
• S.O Lf
*S.?00.0
rtOO.O 1.1
i«sr.o
2O»0 LT
IS.O Lf
XUIA Z ILt-dtiHtllCi—		
C ML OKI* ohm	UG/L
lULllCf*	UC/L
MCfHVLtNC O4.UUI0C	U&/L
Tt tHAC 'LOHUbTHCNC	UG/(,
I «^-OtCHLQRUMRO>ANC	UO/L
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
?
m
:iU!X=XULlLliWL_llA&Ue£lll8AV&_
AMfHrfACLtt	UGSl
FLUUWANThLN€	UC/l
BcNZUUtANVlMACCNC	OG/l
BIM2-C rHrLHt-XVDPHfNAUTe UC/L
NO
NO
NO
NO
>&9l2aLAilL£.&UQ—
*.*-OI<,MLOPQMm£NOL
* •*-01 NE fHtLPKENCt
PMlNUL
PL N f ALNLGMOPH* NOL
UCA.
UG/t
UG/t
UG/t
S.6
NO
NO
et:«ixciat.U(X8i£i*aLC2
Lt « L€SS Than
GT m gs(4TER Than
NO « NOT OC If-CTtO
NS * NOT SAMPLIO
POUUIANT& NO I CISTCO
VCPC NUT dctcctco
fAtlLL C-lf*
MN	CV£nr TfO
PHA *» AN
C'»K
in^M
PHA SAM
Cf.0
tO'172
PHA SAN
fI1ST FLUSH
I 097 J
PHA SAN
RUNOFF
109 7*
PMA STM
55 h L
I09 7S
O7J0.O
M*>«0
AO.O lT
jjiqo.o
MSO.O L.T
utl«0
20.0 lT
4S.9 Lf
6soo««
199*0
*0*0 Lf
2*jdr)f>« 0
nr>o«o lt
I JU.O
20 . o lt
15.0 lt
61 *a«0
»t«60,0
2 J2.0
*r>.o lt
A62C0.0
rso.o lt
i j**.o
20 *0 LT
10*0 lt
S6TO.O
2AI0.0
IV*. 0
• S.O LT
I l*>l>0.0
KOO.O LT
ITO.O
20.0 LT
lr>.0 LT
b>>}*0
2IHOO.0
2«»S>Q
4T..0 LT
?JiU0.0
H?»0.0 LI
• 0
20.0 L T
10.D LT
I I .o
S.2
20.0
7*4
A«6
21 .0
3*2
7.9
7.0
41 .0
NO
4.1
2.9
W • 9
NO
NO
ltt.0
I
NO
NO
NO
2*«0
IA.0
5.9
2A.0
A.5
«•*
4.9
K.O
11 *0
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
9*2
NO
<>•0
11*0
NO
NO
NO
?»0
952.0
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
-------
fAMLC t-$5
st. Paul* m*	.roftM fcvf.Nr r«o
tus	m/s	eu'j	cufj	eu*>
CV	CSO	f (M&r *LU5H	«UM)Ff	WtCtP
pollu taut	units	twrr*	io«»n	to* no	ioo*u	uouu
CQtnftfc£lttJ&L£!»£toCQ*2&tfLiQtlAL
tilUCIteHlCAL OKTGCN OfcMANO
MC/L
in.o
Lf
f».o
lt
ftO.O

15.0
Lf
45.0
LT
CHEMICAL UVTGfcH ULNANO
MO/l
77.0

67.0

V0.0

<»0.0

25.0
LT
rot AC ORGAN K C Ai'UOH
*6/L


2.T.©

1 50* 0

»2-0

5.0
LT
TOTAL SOLI OS
MG/L
1 2 J.O

165.0

<34.0

50.0

50.0

TOTAL VOLATlLt SOlIUj
NG/L
67*0

ttfl «o

l« j«o

JH.O

55 * O

TOTAL VOI. Sift VKlO'i
Mfe/i
2« .0

10.0

105 *0

9.0

5.0

total so'^'iKOto *>otro!»
NG/L
/fl.O

VJ.I)

2irt.o

17.0

4.0
Lf
rgtH VOL DlS UKIU!t
MG/L
«.i.o

71 .0

IH.O

29.0

50.0

fafAL OlMULVtD SOL 101
MG/L
45*0

72.tf

104*0

J3-0

50*0

StTTLtAOLt FOLIOS
ML/L
1*0
LT
K .0
LT
7. 4

1 .0
LT
I .0
LT
CHLUifloe
MG/L
J.5

2.1

2 J.O

. 7

.7

AMMONIA NlVWOOtN
MG/L
1*0
Lf
1 .o
Lf
1 1 .0

1 .0
LT
1 .0
Lf
Torac mnot
UG/L
7.5

7.rt

.10.0

1 1.0

5.2

UIL ANU GRfeA5fc
ng/l
10*0
LT
»o.o
LT
KuU

IO.O
LT
to.o
Lf
CLlAl*	 . — —











ANflMONF
UC/L
4*0
L t
4*0
LT
4.0
LT
4*0
LT
4.0
Lf
AHSiNK
uo/u
1.0
LT
1.0
LT
3*0
LT
3.0
L f
3.0
LI
tfiwriiiun
UG/L
2.0
lt
2*0
lt
2.0
l r
2.0
Lf
2.0
Lf
CAOMION
UG/L
12.O
t.T
IJ.O
LT
12.0
U*
i:.-o
Lf
12 .O
LT
CHNUNIIlft
UG/L
29.0

JB.O

.140.0

2S.0
Lf
25.0
LT
COI'fLH
UG/L
JH.O

32.0

22'.0

20.0
Lf
20.0
L f
LI. All
UC/L
JOfc.O

4|7.O

461 .0

200*0
Lf
2 00, 0
L f
HE MCUUV
UG/L
1.0
LT
1 .0
LT
1 -o
lt
t«0
Lf
1 .0
LT
NICKEL
UG/L
75*0
LT
75.0
LT
7^.0

75.0
Lf
75.0
Lf
*JtLf NIU*
UG/L
4.0
LT
4.0
LT
4.0
lT
4.0
Lf
% .0
Lf
•>ILVC«
UG/L
IO.0
Lf
IO.O
Lf
10.0
LT
IO.O
Lf
10.0
Lf
THAUlUt
UG/L
7*1.0
lt
75.0
LT
75.0
lt
70.0
i_f
75.0
t f
/INC
UG/L
1 39.0

161.0

416.0

W.O

5.0
Lf
OTifEtIS











CVANtoe
UG/L
O
•
o
N
Li
20.0
LT
20.0
LT
20.0
Lf

NS
t#U!rtUfttfcetflQtlflU..E?tIALS	











AlUMIfrUW
UG/L
20QO.0

2510.0

3010.0

573.0

1 05.0
Lf
tfARIUM
UG/L
43*0

44 .0

72.0

25*0
LT
25.0
Lf
tfOWUN
UG/L
J2«0

IO.O
Lf
-------
*?• MAUI.
tus
csp
POLtUTANT
UNITS
109/'I
NON
UO/L
W »O,0
KAON^SIUN
UO/L
JObo.o
MAWiANCbl
UC/L
1 l#.0
MUU1itC£NUM
UO/L
•a*o lt
UUOlUH
UC/L
flMO.O
TIM
UO/L
Ar>0.0 IT
titanium
UO/L
Hf*0
vanaoioh
UO/L
15.o lt
VTMlUN
UO/L
u«o lt
fcyLAllLt_0tfW4Ml.CU	


t1M.Ot.NL
UO/L
1.7
MtTHVLtNE CMLOPIUC
UO/L
IT.O
rLTMACMLOMObTKCNE
UO/L
NO
ub?izyuc6iiLk.aA^t^tfeuXBAkS-
H(-NZU|d|FLUOI'ANTHlNe	UO/L	2*0
rftNZU(A|MVMtr4l	UO/L	NO
- CHLUHU1	) e TmCD UC/L	NO
FLUOUANIHcNc	Ub/L	NO
«Ol

1 1 ooo

41 JO.II

*070.0

1 2 30 • 0

40.0
LT
JI60.0

«.1l 0*0



3?.0

1/4*0

706.A

40.0

J.O
LT
40«f)
Lf
40*0
LT
40.0
LT
«0*0
LT
¦*000.0
LT
25400*0

nooo.o
LT
4000.0
LT
Hf»0«Q
LT
6S0.0
Lf
650.0
LT
aso.o
LT
vtt.u

llrt.O

27.0

12.0
lt
10*0
LT
13*0
LT
15.0
LT
15.0
LT
12.0
LT
12*0
LT
12*0
LT
12.0
LT

NO

ND

NO

NO
fe.r

15.0

14.0

26.0


ND
)?.0


NO

NO
2.0

J.O


NO

NO

NO
2.1


NO

NO

NO
r.o


NO

NO

ND



NO

NO

NO
4.0


NO

NO

NO
4.0


NO

NO
6.7

21 .0

4.0


NO

NO
6*0


NO

NO
-------
TABLE C-H
SEDIHEST RESLLTS
rrovidence
	St. Paul		Seattle		Ernest Interceptor
Pollutant	l!nlt»	Euatia Phalen	Lander Mic&irao	at Allea*	Lipe
MetiU
Astlaony
Mt/kt
3,000
<400
2,600
1,900
4,900
640
Artfjic
Mt/k|
1,700
3.200
27,000
11,000
290,CM
3,600
krylliu*
MAC
70
70
UO
460
171
210
Cadaiua
Ml/kg
360
£60
600
4,>00
320
4,400
Chcoalua
M|/k|
310,000
17,000
6,000
31,000
32,000
120,000
Copper
ft/Its
SI ,00b
26.000
4(0,000
110,COO
150,SCO
500,000
lead
Ml/Its
200,000
490,000
140,000
260,000
SO,000
330,000
Mercury
Ml/k|
'.J
:,joo
UO
>,400
17,00
1,200
Sicfcel
Mt/kt
33,000
7.JC0
26,000
37,000
96,000
74,COO
S-leniua
M|/k t
<400
<400
<500
<500
<200
<10,000
SiIver
Mt/kt
640
1,100
460
3,200
2,000
520
Thalli.ua
Ml/kg
<2,000
<200
<200
<200
<70
<400
line
Mt/kg
96,000
'.00,000
140,000
320,000
240,000
1,000,000
Othtrt







Cyanide
Mt/k«
<12,000
<45,000
1,400
7,500
12,tOO
3,400
IOC
Mt/kt
9t
204
4,tOO
1,500
8,400
>10,000
COD
Mt/k|
10,000
13,000
60,000
ISO,000
44,000
66,000
Volatiles







1,1-dlcbloroethane
Mf/k(
SD
NO
K>
150
75
NO
Trlchloraetbena
MS/kg
ND
SO
3D
NO
7S
SD
1,1,1-tricbloroethane
Mt/kf
SD
XL
SO
570
ND
630
1,l'dicbloroetheae
MI/kg
KB
¦VD
m
57
ND
ND
Toluene
Mt/kt
SIS
MD
SD
300
KD
3,400
112-trane-dlchloioethy Una
Mt/kt
80
SO
KD
ND
SD
490
Etbylbenzene
Ml/kg
as
3ID
SO
KD
ND
530
AciJi







laae/Seutrala







Saptbalene
Mt/kt
2,600
SO
SD
ND
SD
1,200
11*(2-«thyItexy1)phthalit*
Mt/kt
MO
1,400
ND
960
SO
36,000
¦utyl benzyl pbthalate
Mt/kt
71
310
NO
ND
SD
1,200
#eaio(a)aat!iracena
Mt/kt
2,400
340
SD
ND
ND
:,4oo
l«nzo(j)pyrcnc
Mt/k|
1,100
210
ND
MS
ND
1,600
B*nxo(k)f luonntheae
Mt/kt
1,700
1,400
ND
ND
ND
SD
Chryaeoe
Mt/kt
5,400
910
KD
ND
ND
1,100
Anthracene
Mt/kt
4S0
92
KD
ND
62
880
Fluorene
Mt/kt
1,000
SD
ND
SD
ND
790
FhenencUteaa
Mt/kt
4,300
510
NO
XD
380
3,800
Dlbeuo(« ,h)anthraetne
Mt/k|
320
ISO
ND
ND
ND
MD
¦«n»(f ,b.i)perylen*
Mt/kt
KD
tt
ND
ND
ND
ND
Fluoraalbcna
Mt/kt
ND
NO
NP
SD
460
3,300
Pyrene
Mt/kt
KD
ND
ND
ND
460
2,800
N"nitrctod:ph*nylaaln«
Mt/kt
ND
ND
1,900
ND
ND
ND
Di-o-butyl phttulate
Mt/kt
KD
ND
170
KD
SD
SD
AceaeplittieiM
Mt/kt
JfD
ND
Nl)
SD
SD
360
t ,2 ,4- tricholocobaaieoe
Mt/kt
KD
KD
ND
KD
ND
400
t ,4-dlctiolorob«axes«
Mt/kt
KD
ND
ND

ND
2,700
fsllutanti not lifted wart not detected.
C-54
-------
APPENDIX D
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL RESULTS
0-\
-------
TABLE 0-1. PERCENT RECOVERIES - WASTEWATER VOLATILE ORGANIC POLLUTANTS
Providiuce	Satttlt	Sc. Louii	St. Paul	Total
Surrot«t«	lKc»n ± c (¦>)! fMe»n ± g (*)1 |Me«n t CT (»)] t.leula (»)1 fMtan ± C (*)1
A. Method Spike
Acryl»ottrile-dj
90 t
17
(6)



76 i
9
(4)
93 i
26
(5)
87 t
18
(IS)
Baniant-d^
102 i
13
(6)



114 1
IS
(4)
97 ±
26
(S)
104 t
19
(15)
Carboa-llC Tetrachloride
85 i
14
(«)



95 1
8
(4)
100 i
15
(5)
• 93 t
13
(IS)
Cblorebeezene-dj
101 ±
9
(«)



110 t
13
(4)
102 t
6
(5)
104 t
9
(15)
1,2-Dlcbloroethanc-d^
82 t
5
(6)
79 ± 13
(3)
99 1
13
(4)
103 ±
9
(5)
91 ±
9
(18)
l,l,l*Ttlcliloro«th»ne-dj
86 t
14
(6)



91 «
8
(4)
92 1
10
(5)
89 1
11
(15)
1,l-Dlcbloroethane-2,2,2-d^
91 ±
14
(6)



98 i 10
(4)
99 t
8
(5)
96 t
11
(IS)
It 1,2'Trlchlorscthane-iaCj
97 t
16
(6)



106 i
19
(4)
108 t
8
(5)
103 1
14
(IS)
l,1.2,2-T«trBchloroethia«-<]2
91 ±
8
(6)



84 1
5
(4)
84 t
10
(5)
87 t
8
(15)
Cttlorefora-llC
17 ± 16
(6)



93 1
10
(4)
92 t
10
(5)
90 t
12
(15)
1,l-Dlchloroetbylene-dj
91 t
15
(6)



99 i
13
(4)
99 t
9
(5)
96 1
12
(IS)
1,2-Dicbleropropane-dg
99 *
14
(6)



111 t
18
(4)
111 t
7
(5)
106 i
13
(IS)
Etbflb«ataaa-dj0
100 t
7
(6)
89 t
2
(I)
108 t
13
(4)
103 1
6
(5)
101 t
8
(17)
Methylene Chloride-d2
97 t
10
(«)



99 i
11
(4)
101 t
7
(5)
99 1
9
(IS)
»roaofona-l*C
•9 1
10
(«)



80 1
4
(4)
80 t
9
(5)
84 t
8
(15)
Toluaaa-J^^^^-dj
102 t
1
(«)
92 t
S
(3)
109 t
IS
(4)
106 t
S
(5)
103 ±
8
(18)
Meaa 1 a
93 i
13
(96)
86 * 7 (8)
98 t
12
(64)
98 t
11
(80)
96 t
12
(248)
B. Matrix Srika















Acryloaltrllt-dj
91 t
17
(46)



73 t 23
(44)
100 4
21
(38)
87 t
20
(128)
Beasea**dg
103 i
13
(46)



109 t
18
(45)
103 t
17
(38)
105 ±
16
(129)
Carbon-lsC Tetrachloride
91 t
IS
(46)



86 1
IS
(45)
98 t
IS
(38)
91 t
IS
(129)
Cblorobeaiene-dj
100 i
12
(46)



105 ±
15
(45)
104 t
7
(38)
103 t
12
(129)
1,2-Dlchloroethaae-d^
97 t
19
(47)
101 t
15
(4)
93 *
16
(42)
104 *
10
(38)
98 t
15
(131)
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane-dj
101 t 20
(45)



86 t
15
(45)
94 t
10
(38)
94 t
IS
(128)
l,l-Dlcbloroethaae-2,2,2-dj
100 ±
12
(46)



90 1
15
(45)
102 t
11
(38)
97 i
13
(129)
1,1,2-Trichloro«th*a«-1
102 ±
13
(46)



102 t
15
(45)
110 t
9
(38)
104 t
8
(129)
l,l,2,2-T«tr*chloro«th«a*-dj
105 t 20
(46)



85 i
15
(45)
88 t
9
(38)
93 t
15
(129)
Chloroform-1JC
96 *
17
(46)



87 ±
15
(45)
95 i
11
(38)
93 t
15
(129)
1,1-Dichloroethylene-dj
91 *
11
(46)



91 1
15
(45)
100 *
9
(38)
94 t
12
(129)
1,2-DicMeropropana-dj
104 1
14
(43)



104 t 22
(45)
112 *
9
(38)
106 t
15
(128)
Ethylbeueoe-djQ
101 t 11
(47)
109 t
17
<4)
101 t
16
(45)
103 t
7
(38)
102 t
12
(134)
Methyleae Chloride-d^
9t t
12
(46)



102 t 36
(*5)
106 «
19
(38)
102 t
22
(129)
Bro«ofor»-uC
91 t
10
(46)



83 S 71
(45)
84 t
11
(38)
86 ±
14
(129)
Tolueae-2,3,4,S,6-dj
100 ±
11
(47)
110 t
IS
(4)
101 t
14
(45)
105 t
7
(38)
102 t
11
(134)
Haaa t 0
98 * 14(737)
107 t 16 (12)
90 * 18(716)
101 t
11(608)
96 t
15
(2,073
0 Standard deviation
(*) NiiAii lo p*r«nth«aii li tha auatwr of data polnta
D-lCv.
-------
TA31£ 0-2. JllTfMCE RELATIVE PERCEVT DIFFERENCE FOR DUPLZCATE
ANALYSIS-VA£7TWIXR VOLAHU ORCA/iIC POllWAVTS
Fo22utJnc
Providence
f!»e« (*)]
Seattle
fSe.o f*)l
St. Louie
r*«» (*>]
St. Paul
Oleao (*)l
Total'
(Mean (*)
A. Unsplketl V«»tev«ti!r Duplicate!




Beoiene
>.
121.0(1)
*.0(1)
-•
64.5(2)
Carbon Tetrachloride
0.0(1)
--
—
—
C.0(1)
1,1,1-Tricbloroethane
15.6(4)
—
--
2R.«(2)
20.1(6)
1,1-DUhloroetbaoe
3-UD
0.0(1)
"
47.9(1)
13.1(4)
1,1,2-Trichloroethaaa
—
IS.7(2)
—
—
11.7(2)
111,2,2-Tetrachleroethaae
—
--
14.6(1)
—
14.6(1)
Cfclorofora
6.6(4)
3.7(2)
22.7(2)
21.1(3)
14.9(1)
1,1-Dlchloroethyleaa
*.0O)
--
—
—
9.0(3)
Ethylbenzene
13.8(3)
10.5(1)
4.3(2)
7.1(1)
9.6(7)
Methylene Chletide
14.2(5)
17.9(3)
*9.6(4)
47.4(6)
44.4(1*)
Broaofora
—
16.7(1)

—
16.7(1)
Toluene
33.0(4)
3»4(3)
53.3(3)
1*.»(2)
36.6(12)
1,2-Tran»-Dichloroethyleue
12.0(1)
—
26.1(2)
—
19.4(4)
Tetttcbloroethyltac
22.7(4)
131.0(2)
14.2(2)
4.7(1)
42.9(9)
Trichloroetlylene
16.9(4)
73.5(4)
24.1(2)
26.7(1)
39.7(11)
Vinyl Chloride
27.9(2)
"

—
27.9(2)
E. Sulked Vaeteweter Duplicate!




^crylonitrile-dj'
10.D (S)

33.1 (5)
16.3 (6)
19.9 (16)
Beueae-d^
10.t (5)

IS.S (5)
2.3 (6)
(.9 (16)
Citboa-,3C Tetrachloride
U.9 (5)

10.9 (5)
4.8 (6)
».?  1,2,2-Tetrtchloroethjiue-iij
• * (5)
hrfenel
4.6 (5)
6.4 (6)
6.6 (16)
ChloroloPB-^C
7.4 (3)

10.1 (5)
7.3 (6)
4.4 (l»)
l.l-Dichloroethylece-dj
*.1 (5)

11.3 (5)
3.7 {*)
*.2 (16)
1 ll-Mchloroprop»»*'j
I I (5)

S.I (S)
6.1 «>
«.» (16)
tUylbeoiene-d<0
12.* (S)

13.6 (3)
3.9 (6)
9.7 (16)
Methylene Chijride-dj
6.0 (S>

11.1 (5)
14.1 (6)
14.7 (16)
Bro«ofone-J1C
9.* IS)

».» (5)
T.O (6)
*.4 (16)
Tolueoe-2,3,4,J,6-4j
U.9 (S)

T.9 (5)
3.* (6)
• 4 (14)
(*) Muabat is |tr«ath«ii» ii tb« auat«r ot datt palate
— Pollutjnt not detected.
-------
tabu #-j. rwcmr ucovuctts • kastowatu mh-moitiiai. rou.uTAirro
S«rroj»l«				
tUiiIn Sgtjw
bese •i «(2-et by Ihccyl) rfctlulat«-3,4,J.t-4^
Difkitirt ffctb»l»tt-3,4.S,6-^
Dl-B-cKlyl
DiaetSyl r1ilkjl3t«-l,4fS,4-^
Clir]ra*nc-4|2
AaU>rarrae-d|g
HwraiH|S
fheMMl hr«a*-

S3
ft
IS
(45)
S7
ft
9
(34)
t4
ft
15
(127)
S2
t
35
(IS)

91
ft
31
(36)
*5
ft
26
(32)
89
1
31
(106)
S5
2
22
(65)

59
ft
24
(*«)
64
ft
20
(34)
59
ft
22
(121)
52
ft
24
{«)

49
ft
IS
(42)
61
ft
It
(34)
53
t
19
(121)
JJ
ft
16
(45)

77
ft
16
(47)
S3
ft
13
(34)
77
ft
15
(126)
lit
t
27
(65)

104
ft
41
(44)
107
ft
20
(34)
109
ft
30
(123)
M
t
2*
(45)
»» 5 (3)
7*
ft
It
(45)
16
1
24
(J*)
63
1
22
(127)
110
t
21
(45)
St ft 47 (3)
96
ft
2B
(43)
95
ft
22
(34)
too
ft
27
(12*)
•7
t
21
(45)

SI
ft
16
(43)
85
ft
15
(34)
84
1
18
(122)
U
±
»
(44)

76
ft
25
(42)
95
ft
22
(34)
S4
1
28
(120)
71
t
2S
(45)

t4
ft
16
(44)
It
ft
15
(34)
83
t
20
(121)
S4
ft
>1
(~~)

76
ft
27
(45)
101
t
27
(34)
16
ft
28
(123)
27
ft
16
(45)

29
ft
It
(44)
24
ft
9
(34)
27
ft
15
(123)
n
t
22
(44)

71
ft
29
(45)
100
ft
33
(34)
88
ft
28
(123)
92
ft
SI
(43)

69
t
37
(45)
92
ft
33
(31)
63
ft
41
(119)
II
ft
22
(U)
« i * (J)
78
ft
29
(45)
100
ft
33
(34)
87
ft
27
(126)
•3
ft
17
(45)

t9
ft
24
(45)
95
ft
It
(34)
88
ft
21
(126)
It
ft
1}
(45)
S7 ft * (3)
92
ft
It
(45)
104
1
21
(34)
92
ft
17
(127)
•I
i
17
(45)

S9
ft
24
(45)
95
t
18
(34)
88
ft
20
(124)
S7
ft
21
(«)

90
ft
26
(45)
102
t
21
(34)
92
ft
21
(124)
79
*
24(8S7)
65 ft 15(12)
7S
ft
24(179)
tt
ft
21(675)
SI
ft
23(2,453)
-------
TAME B-4. AVEUOt ULATIVK PIKER DtlTtaUCXS FM DUTLICATE AM ALTS It - ttttmcVATEH MSK-RUmUL fOLUITAm
Mlrtwt ____________
A.	IhtflM llHtlwUI PmllciUI
ft*rl irmtt
CH
liv.» (*n
St. Umlt
St. CnI
Tot. I
|te«n (*)i
iit»-«(trii«iyi)rUk>liu
Dt-a-tatylphthalat*
bptbltu
UlethyIpfctkjlat*
133.0(1)
33.0(1)
67.0(1)
•11.0(1)
l».0(t)
17.9(5)
16.2(1)
0.0(1)
38.8(2)
37.1(6)
2*.6(2)
33.5(2)
11).0(1)
153.0(1)
38.8(2)
I. _ Mltil M»ilewt«t D»pllcat«»
Arviuptitlwie-il^
Hi ¦ (2-chlorMtky l)Etlker-4^(cli] oroothy 1-1,1,2,2-d^)
1,2-0icltlorofe«irei»e-3,4,5,6-d^
1,6-fll tfclotab«»itw-2,3ti >6"d^
4-Chlorof>b«ay I MmtyI-4-j Etker
1 •o|>lioro«ie-dB(3-tlctfcy l-dj-5 ,W laKtkylryclohcX-2
Naphthalene-dg
mtnbciMw^
N-HilruWMtiplienyl-2,2' .4,4' ,6
lla(2*«llif!liciyl) FhllulaU-3
Ut-a-batyl Fhthalatc-S.^.S.i-d^
Dt-i-ociyt nitkilatc-},4,J,('il^
Dlntkyl
I ,lalcMaalliiiC(M<rtormt4
14.1(5)
71.MI)
3».7(4)
38.0(4)
19.2(5)
36.5(5}
32.7(5)
19.7(5)
25.4(5)
46.9(5)
16.6(5)
47.0(5)
41.5(5)
39.7(5)
66.8(5)
39.9(5)
IS.2(5)
10.7(5)
18.2(5)
26.3(4}
10.6(6)
68.7(5)
70.9(6)
70.9(6)
21.2(6)
7.4(6)
14.5(6)
14.0(C)
22.5(6)
25.5(6)
23.7(6)
20.1(6)
55.6(b)
12.9(6)
47.7(6)
12.9(6)
16.0(6)
7.0(6)
16.0(6)
11.6(6)
II.7(16)
57.4(12)
50.1(15)
50.6(15)
III.7(16)
21.0(16)
21.1(16)
15.2(16)
22.6(15)
33.1(16)
19.90S)
33.9(16)
40.0(15)
23.8(15)
',0.1(15)
19.8(16)
13.9(16)
8.2(16)
14.6(1})
20.4(16)
(4) Umber In |urailk»li la Uw noli rr of data point*
— Pollutant not detected.
-------
TABLE D-5. PERCENT RECOVERIES - WASTEWATER ACID EXTRACTABLE POLLUTANTS
Surrogate
Providence Seattle St. Louis St. Paul Total
Mean ± o (*)	Mean ± a (*) Mean ± q (*)	Mean ± d (*)	Mean ± a (*)
Matrix Spike
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol-3,5-d^
A-Chloro-3-«#ethylphenol-2,6-d2
2-Chlotophenol-3,4,5,6-d,
* 3
2,4-Dichlorophenol-3,5,6-d
2,4-Dimethylphenol-3,5,6-d^
2-Mitrophenol-3,4,5,6-d^
2,4-Oinitroptienol-3,5,6-d^
V 4,6-Dinitro-2-n»ethylphenol-3,5-d,
Ul	*
Pentachlorophenol-13
Phenol-d.
64
±
18
(45)
65
±
22
(39)
72
+
20
(34)
67
+
20
(HP)
81
±
27
(45)
80
+
28
(39)
80
+
21
(34)
80
+
26
(118)
67
±
26
(44)
58

27
(38)
72
+
20
(34)
66
+
25
(116)
63
+
18
(45)
70
+
28
(39)
70
+
22
(34)
67
+
22
(118)
49
±
25
(45)
69

30
(39)
68
+
25
(34)
61
+
27
(118)
69
+
21
(45)
69
±
29
(4'0
77
+
19
(34)
71
+
23
(121)
40
±
42
(44)
30
±
3*
(38)
14
+
22
(34)
29
+
34
(116)
49
±
34
(45)
34

25
(38)
39
+
22
(34)
41
+
28
("')
81
+
26
(45)
71
+
37
(39)
95
+
41
(34)
82
±
34
(118)
53
+
23
(45)
35 ± 3 (3) 39
+
20
(38)
41
+
14
(34)
45
±
19
(120)
Mean ± o
62 ± 26(448)
35 ± 3 (3) 59 ± 28(389)
63 ± 23(340)
61 ± 26(1,180)
a Standard deviation
(*) Number in parenthesis is the number of data points
-------
TABU »-*. AVCSAGK KIAT1W KtCEMT PIIUJBJHXS FM DWLICATK ANALYSIS - VASTKWATK* ACID EXTRACTABLE POLLOTAKTS
Pollutant
FmMeaM
(»"» (*»
Seattle
life.. (*M_
St. Ionia
I*"" <»)!
St. Faal
iHeaa (*)|
Total
C*>1
*!	VMtUwfr EwlUaf
<-CUvi«-]-wtt|r)fknwl
RkmI
2,4-DiaethyIphenol
I. Spiked MtiUaaUt BwUulw
2,4,6-TricUtoro|>hee«l-3,5-d2
*-Chlor«-3-«ethyIpheiw>l-2,6-dj
2-Chl o ropheool -J, * ,5 ,*-d^
2l4-Diebloropbeaol-3,$,6-d'
2l4-Diaelbylpbe»l*3lS|6-d^
2-M11 ropheiiol -3, *,5,6-d^
2 ,4-Dinil ropitenol-3 .5 ,4-dj
4,6-Dlaltro-2-»etttjlphenol-3, S"-2
Prut*cUJoropbc«ol-13
Pfc.no I-d.
K«(l>
12.4(1)
1.7(1)
9.9(2)
25.3(3)
1.7(1)
10.0(5)

W.l(S)
22.4(6)
15.9(16)
*.*(5)

20.8(5)
31.4(6)
27.8(16)
*2.5(5)

38.3(3)
40.4(6)
40.7(14)
14.3(5)
Duplicate
15-1(5)
2S.i(6)
18.9(16)
32.8(5)
Spiked
18.3(5)
32.8(6)
28.3(16)
24.0(5)
Analysis
18.9(5)
29.5(6)
24.5(16)
165(4)
Sot
98.4(3)
69.1(2)
55.S(9)
23.»(5)
Perforated
77.1(4)
36.2(4)
44 £,.13)
22.2(5)

47.0(5)
31.1(6)
33.5(16)
*2.3(5)

23.0(4)
45.0(6)
38.2(15)
{*) Nuaber ia paresthesia is tke Mifaer »f data polats
— (alUtiat was not detected.
-------
TABLE D-7. PERCENT RECOVERIES - WASTEWATER PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
Priority Providence	Seattle	St. Louis	St. Paul	Total
Pollutant	Heap t a (*) Mean ± o (*) Mean ± o (*) Mean 1 O (*) Hean t o (*)
A. Method Spike
Antimony
82
±
11
(4)

NA
100
±
0
(1)
82
± ]
13
(3)
84
±
10 (8)
Arsenic
95
t
6
(4)

NA
86
±
0
(1)
94
t
3
(4)
94
+
4 (9)
Beryllium
93
±
3
(4)
99
(1)
98
±
1
(3)
96
±
1
(4)
96

2 (12)
Cadaiiua
94
±
3
(4)
99
(1)
95
±
8
(3)
95
±
3
(4)
95
±
4 (12)
Chrosiua
93
±
4
(4)
99
(1)
97
±
4
(3)
92
+
1
(4)
94
±
3 (12)
Copper
95
±
6
(4)
100
(1)
99
+
2
(3)
96
+
2
(4)
97
±
3 (12)
Lead
96
±
6
(4)
99
(1)
95
±
8
(3)
98
±
6
(4)
97
+
6 (12)
Mercury
95
4-
A
4
(4)

NA
103
i
0
(1)
99
±
2
(4)
97
+
2 (9)
Nickel
94
t
3
(4)
100
(1)
97
±
5
(3)
97
±
2
(4)
96
±
3 (12)
Selenium
91
±
7
(4)

NA
100
±
0
(1)
93
±
1
(4)
93
+
4 (9)
Silver
91
±
6
(4)

NA
92
±
0
(1)
89
±
7
(4)
90
±
6 (9)
Thalliua
93
t
2
(4)

NA
93
±
0
(1)
86
+
4
(4)
90
±
3 (12)
Zinc
95
±
2
(4)
99
(1)
99
±
1
(3)
9?

3
(4)
97
±
2 (12)
Hean 1 O
93
±
5
(52)
99 ± 1(7)
97
±
3
(27)
92
±
4
(51)
94
±
4(137)
B. Hatrix Spike

















Antimony
121
t
20
(3)
84
(1)
95
±
21
(3)
132
±
0
(1)
108
+
15 (8)
Arsenic
115
±
23
(3)
103
(1)
102
±
4
(3)
120
±
7
(3)
111
±
10 (10)
Beryllium
83
±
6
(3)
109
(I)
105
~
7
(2)
87
±
6
(3)
92
±
6 (9)
Cadraiuin
91
±
4
(3)
107
(I)
98
±
11
(3)
91
±
2
(3)
95
±
5 (10)
Chromium
93
±
4
(3)
112
(1)
102
±
7
(3)
91
±
0
(1)
99
+
4 (8)
Copper
85
±
16
(3)
92
(1)
98
±
2
(2)
86
±
8
(3)
89
±
8 (9)
Lead
79
t
0
(1)
106
(1)
100
±
9
(3)
98
±
0
(2)
97
±
4 (7)
Hercury
90
t
0
(1)

NA
95
±
12
(3)
110
±
0
(1)
97
±
'7 (5)
Nickel
88
t
0
(1)
103
(1)
97
1
8
(3)

NA


96
±
5 (5)
Selenium
91
±
24
(3)
94
(1)
97
±
16
(3)
111
±
9
(3)
99
±
15 (10)
Silver

NA

99
(1)
79
±
27
(2)

NA


86
t
18 (3)
Thalliua

NA

79
(1)
75
±
18
(2)

NA


76
±
12 (3)
Zinc
85
±
6
(3)
100
(1)
104
±
2
(2)
88
±
3
(3)
92
±
3 (9)
Mean ± a
94
±
11
(27)
99 t 10(12)
96
1
11
(34)
99
±
5
(23)
97
±
8 (96)
a Standard deviation
(*) Number in parenthesis is the number of data points
NA Not available
-------
TABLE D-8. AVERAGE RELATIVE PERCENT DIFFERENCES RK DUPLICATE AHALYSIS-
VASTEWATER PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
Priority Providence Seattle St. Louis St. Paul Total
Pollutant	Mean (*)	Wean (*)	Mean (*)	Mean (*)	Mean (*)
A. Wastewater Duplicate!
Antimony
0.0
(5)
0.0
(1)
0.0
(2)
0.0
(2)
0
(10)
Arsenic
0.0
(5)
18.1
(1)
10.3
(2)
0.0
(2)
3.9
(10)
Beryllium
0.0
(6)
0.0
(1)
0.0
(3)
6.0
(3)
1.4
(13)
Cadniua
11.1
(6)
18.1
Cl)
14.4
(3)
4.4
(3)
7.1
(13)
Cbromi ua
6.1
(6)
3.6
(I)
33.7
(3)
1.5
(3)
11.2
(13)
Copper
4.3
(6)
4.4
(1)
23.1
(3)
5.5
(3)
8.9
(13)
Lead
6.4
(6)
0.0
(1)
3.7
(3)
9.3
(3)
6.0
(13)
Mercury
0.0
(4)


0.0
(2)
0.0
(2)
0.0
(8)
Nickel
4.2
(6)
6.8
(1)
4.1
(3)
0.0
(3)
3.4
(13)
Seleniua
0.0
(5)
0.0
(1)
0.0
(2)
0.0
(2)
0.0
(10)
Silver
108.0
(2)
18.1
(1)
0.0
(2)
46.1
(2)
46.5
(7)
Thalliua
40.4
(2)
0.0
(1)
0.0
(2)
1.9
(2)
12.1
(7)
Zinc
2.8
(6)
3.8
(1)
24.9
(3)
8.7
(2)
9.4
(12)
B. Spiked Duplicates - Hot Applicable
(*) Nunber in parenthesis is the number of data points
-------
¦«JI mptMliWHH IWWIIIMUWIMI*'


•V'
" v-El
* 5-
'	'¦"¦¦¦¦•¦¦ Vtt' V ' i '
;	.. v . • ...... »;¦. - ,»-¦•' v
'	tV ' '¦¦¦ C ••..« >- ,' i -4
irS
k *
ijlJt
{¦ ¦ 'r\ S"' •- ¦ *< _


i •


vnamm
"ti -f ¦¦ %>»*
; v;vj. ""'iy
• -V , i i . ¦ .. i	'• *.S +«¦;•¦*¦¦

I <*w*
, *-^0*


' '4S&}h
j >
'V,.

¦/_}
rtU&fa..
/
s *	\ fy. Vv	* vr. .* , < .jp
'"•'l
»*
V'
'i
* *
I'il .»¦¦.•'../ •
"*	x*"«:
. 'ft"* Awfc
\ * '	- T|
t «>«i?-V

* yii^*
'S^sfl
n ^

V * ^ '/ % "	„ • ' ¦ -'	**"«
.*!?• »„% »«,~ .4 ;»	i »¦ »<**¦»	I/A-." <*.'•;¦	I-SWJ.
- , <' '• ~;vv^ t *\i *¦>'ir. - *.v^ss* t. \ .** • \v\-4
-------