Delaware
Estuary
Comprehensive
Study
REPORT NUMBER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
-------
T?£TL fluoeE Earufle
Co rviPeeHEf\JS»OE
hi
N)ESv4Ar*lNy
S
"St uDy
Tk Nivjy pftCx. Ce
0/
Fe^ »vjoms(?-|4^
Hon)E5
TwcoDEl
u^>g.5.-"R+ii-«. ¥floti»roes
Tfeu). Me.*v15e »£>£,(=
(Oor to Sgple
^/z-y/63
6,0
-------
Delaware
Estuary
Comprehensive
Study
Report Number
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
Region II , New York, New York
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
Review of Present Water Quality and Interstate Standards
of the Delaware Estuary^
Interim Report from the Technical Committee
to the Policy Advisory Committee
September, 1963
SUMMARY
The following interim report was prepared at the request of the
Policy Advisory Committee of the Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study-,
The charge from the Committee essentially covered four specific areas
which related to the existing interstate standards for control of
pollution in the Delaware River Basin. These four areas are:
1) present water quality condition of the Estuary,
2) present degree of compliance with the quantitative
aspects of the interstate standards,
3) effect on the quality of the river if literal com-
pliance with the quantitative aspects of the standards
were adhered to everywhere and
U) estimates of what changes must be sought in present
levels of waste treatment to meet the 50% DO saturation
goal set by the standards for Zone III (Pennypack Creek
to the Ponnaylvania-Dolaware State Line.
These four points are considered in the report. The estimates
that are given in each case are based on the available data and should
be considered as preliminary and subject to future change. It is felt,
however, that the report will prove to be a useful guide for the members
of the Policy Advisory Committee.
-------
2.
The results can be summarized as follows:
1. Mean dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations for the total period
August-October 1962 and June-July 1963 were less than or equal
to 1.0 mg/1 from central Philadelphia to Marcus Hook, Pa., a
distance of about 20 miles. At times, the DO is completely
exhausted. The mean pH during June-August 1963 decreased
continually from a level of about 7.0 at the upper end of the
estuary to a level of about 6.0 at the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Highest turbidity levels were observed in the vicinity of
Florence, li, J. Geometric mean coliform counts varied from a
high of 260,000/100 ml around the Tacony-Palmyra Bridge to a low
of 12,000/100 ml at Florence, N. J.
2. Discussions held with representatives of Pennsylvania and New
Jersey indicated that administratively practically all sources
were considered to be in compliance with the existing standards.
Delaware has previously indicated that all sources within that
state were considered to be in compliance. In some cases, data
were available that indicated present per cent BOD removals less
than that of the standards. I/hile these sources were considered
to be in administrative compliance by the State agency, a literal
adherence was used in the analysis of the effectiveness of complete
quantitative compliance with the standards.
3. In the analysis of the effectiveness of complete compliance, two
municipalities and three industries in New Jersey and one industry
and one municipality in Pennsylvania were used. The removal of
BOD from these sources to literally comply with the standards
-------
3
produced a numerical increase of at least ,01 mg/1 of DO in some
portion of the estuary. Four other municipalities and tvro other
industries in New Jersey were suspected to be not in compliance
with the standards. However, raising the per cent BOD removal
of these sources produced a response less than .01 mg/l DO.
ho A computer analysis of literal compliance by the significant
sources mentioned above indicated that in general the DO response
would be quite low and, considering the assumptions that were made,
the responses could be considered as negligible. The maximum DO
increase that could be expected was about 0.1; mg/1 in the vicinity
of the Schuylkill River and about 0.3 mg/1 for about three miles
above and below this area. DO responses elsewhere in the estuary
were all less than 0.3 mg/1.
5. The $0% DO saturation goal in Zone 3 was not met during June-July
1963 and August-October 1962 in most of the Zone. On the average,
deficits from 50% saturation range from 0.5 mg/1 at Pennsauken Creek
to 3 mg/1 at the Pennsylvania-Delaware State Line. There are many
different programs of effluent modifications, any one of which will
correct the deficits. Among these, a minimum cost program of effluent
modifications was computed. The cost of this optimal program was two
hundred eighty-two million dollars ($282,000,000). Due to the
sparseness of available cost data and the neglect of esoteric
alternatives (e.g. mechanical and diffusive aeration) this figure
is, at best, only approximate. In those sections of Zone 3 in which
effluent modifications were part of the optimal program, the
resulting BOD removal ranged from 61% to 98$. Therefore, the
effluent BOD standard in Zone 3> 35$ removal, is inconsistent
with the attainment of $0% DO saturation.
-------
Review of Present Water Quality and Interstate Standards
of the Delaware Estuary
Interim Report from the Technical Committee
to the Policy Advisory Committee
September, 1963
1. Introduction
At the first meeting of the Delaware Estuary Study's Policy
Advisory Committee on July 25, 1963, concern was expressed over the
length of time which would elapse before completion of the Study and
the development of a Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan. The
Policy Committee was also concerned over the present compliance and
degree of effectiveness of the existing interstate standards for the
Delaware River Basin, commonly known as the Incodel Standards.^ The
Committee then requested a short report which would indicate the present
state of water quality of the estuary as well as the effect on quality
of complete literal compliance with the Incodel standards. The final
requirement was that an estimate should be made, on the basis of present
knowledge, of what measures would have to be taken to improve the water
quality. The report as given herein attempts to comply with these
requests.
At a meeting of the Technical Committee on August li±, 1963* it
was agreed that the report would essentially be a statement of factual
information and would not attempt to interpret the results obtained in
any detail. This implies that those aspects of the Interstate Standards
which are qualitative in nature would not be analyzed. An analysis of
t: '
A copy of the Standards is attached herewith as Appendix 1 for ease
of reference.
-------
2.
this type would have required the imposition of numerical limits which
were not now a part of the present standards. The results as reported
on herein are based on the available data coupled with several assumptions
which were made as realistic as possible within the restrictions imposed
by ease of computation and by the time allowed for completion of the
analysis.
As is known by the members of the Policy Committee, the Delaware
Estuary Study staff is now engaged in an extensive field investigation to
obtain additional information so that the final analyses can be made as
precisely and as accurately as possible.
The report first provides an estimate based on available data
of the present water quality of the estuary. A discussion of the present
degree of compliance with the standards is then given and the information
obtained is used in an analysis of the effects of literal compliance with
an 8£/S> BOD removal in Zone II and a 35$ BOD removal in Zone III. Finally,
an analysis of what must be done to present loads to reach the $0% DO
saturation goal for Zone III is given. Time did not permit an analysis
of the additional quantitative standard for Zone II - that no discharge
shall reduce the DO in the stream by more than 10$.
The report was prepared by the staff of the Delaware Estuary
Comprehensive Study and was reviewed by the members of the Technical
Committee. Pertinent comments, if any, made by the members of this
Committee are given in Appendix 2. It is sincerely hoped that all who
are concerned with the resuits as given here will accept them with the
full realization that they are preliminary in nature and subject to
future change. It is believed, however, that the results can serve
as useful guidelines for the members of the Policy Committee in
determining the effectiveness and usefulness of the present, standards.
-------
2. Estimates of Present Water Quality of the Delaware Estuary
The present water quality cf the estuary can be summarised
from the results of the weekly sampli"., ;orc£\ram being carried out by
the Study staff. Although a consider ;X.c amount of data has been and
is being collected by other agencies, analyses of these data with the
exception of some continuously recorded data from the U.S.G.S. - Phila.
monitoring stations have not ypt been carried out. All available sources
of data will eventually bj tr.p;wd and every attempt will be made to
incorporate the results int? a complete picture of the present water
quality.
The stations occupied Irj the Delaware Estuary Comprehensive
Study (DECS) are given In Table 1 c i a map locating these stations is
given in Figure 2.,- Ths stations being sampled fit the present time
cover approximate"1" r. 60 mile stretch of the estuary from the Delaware
Memorial Bridge to Fieldsboro, N. J. Samples are collected once each
week and at appro.icimr.tely the same time for every run. In this manner
estimates of any tidal influences which are present and which affect a
particular variable can be obtained.
Since the primary objective of this report is to assess the
effects of the present quantitative interstate standards, major emphasis
was placed on the dissolved oxygen regime of the Delaware. Table 2
summarizes the distribution of this variable as well as the distribution
of the 5-d?.y BGT0 The DO values given in Table 2 were those used in the
analysis of the j0% DO saturation goal of the Incodel standards, a
discussion of which is given in the final section of the report. The
results given in the Table indicate that at no place over the indicated
-------
2
3
h
$
6
7
8
9
IP
11
12
13
Ut
TABLE 1
LOCATION OF "SAMPLING STATIONS
DELAWARE ESTUARY- COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
River-
Mile
(approx.)» Location
Mile 69.0 Delaware Memorial Highway Bridge - West Tower
Mile 79.1 At Mycin Hook, Pa.; between Pier No. 1 of Sun
Oil Gc. and lighted markers on New Jersey shore
Mile 8ii.8 At Eddyjtone, Pa, in line with Buoy "IE" and end
of dry dock on Pennsylvania shore
Mile 89.2 At Paulsboro, N. J. between Buoy Qk FI "IF" and
light tctfer on New Jersey shore
Mile 92.2 At Navy lard "between Pier No. 2 and ferry on
New Jersey a/1 ere
Mile 98.1; At "VJharto:a Street, Philadelphia, Pa. and Kaighns
Point, Camden, N. J, bet-toen, Pier No. 55 and the
Camden Refrigerating and Terminals Co. building
Mile 100.5 At Benjamin Franklin Bridge between Pier No. 12N
and a tank on New Jersey shore
Mile 102.2 At Lehigh Ave., Philadelphia, Pa., between Pier
No. 18 and west bank of Petty Island
Mile 107.3 At Palmyra opposite Buoy C "11" approximately $00
yards upstream from Tacony-Palnyra Bridge
Mile 110.h At Torresdale opposite Buoy 19
Mile 117.8 At Burlington-Bristol Bridge approximately 100
yards upstream
Mile 122.U At Florence, N. J., opposite Buoy "6^"
Mile 127-5 At Fieldsboro, N. J. between Buoy "85" and "8^"
* Above of Delaware Bay
-------
-------
TABLE 2
WATER QUALITY REGIME USED IN ANALYSIS
OF J TTRSTATE STANDARDS
Station No.
DO (mg/l)
BODc; (mg/1)
2
3.3
U.6
3
1.0
8.6
h
1.0
8.3
5
c.,-3
6.5
6
C'c7
5.3
7
—
¦L u V'
li.2
8
"1 'j
' • —'
ii.l
9
1,3
U.l
10
li.O
3.U
11
ln7
3.1
12
5.2
3o2
13
6.2
3.6
lk
7.8
3.5
* Based on sampling runs by Delaware Estuary Study. Conditions
are average over the period August-October 1962 and June-July
1963.
-------
u.
length of the estuary was the average DO at the saturation value although
at Station #1U, it almost attained this level. Since the values are means
over about a five month period, considerable deviation from these values
can be expected. On any given day poor oxygon conditions may occur over a
considerable length of the stream. For example, on June 19, 1963, during
flood tide conditions, the L'<0 vas below ? -for at least UO miles of
the river. Data from the ccr.+ inuously reccrdirg momtoring stations
indicate complete exhaus''".i.».^ the DO do^s 01 cur over at least a 20 mile
stretch of the estuary., KCD values sb-vn .'ire generally consistent
with the low DO values '-.hi'I observed.
Table 3 present3 recent data en reveral other aspects.of
water quality, A d^f.'.nT.ti'r., .V r'jltuclj '-."1 pliant ir the pH and
alkalinity can b? not*? i v.- '.h lo.j «c.ciiv. \v; ¦-'> the loxrer end of
the study area,, Iv\?reaped turbiLi^- j-].n dv: stream dredging
activities can also be seen from the results in the Table. Finally,
increasing bacteriological counts can be noted from Station #13 to
Station #6. No attempt will be made here to present a detailed analysis
of the causes which could lead to the conditions shown.
3. Present Degree of Compliance with the Incodel Standards
In order to determine the present compliance with the existing
interstate standards, discussions were held with representatives from
Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It had previously been determined that the
State of Delaware considered all the sources of waste within that state
to be in compliance with the standards. Furthermore, since there are no
quantitative BOD standards for Zone IV which lies entirely within the
-------
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Hi
TABLE 3
Seme Recent Results on Water Quality
of the Delaware Estuary
(Average during June-July-August, 1963)
Geometric Means
Alkalinity
(mg/l)
NOo
(mg/l)
NOp
(mg/l)
Turbidity
(mg/l Silica)
Coliforms
(#/lOOml)
Fecal Strep
(#/l00ml)
6.0
7
2.86
.61
1*7
6.1
18
1.62
.60
28
6.3
2l*
1.77
.50
23
e.u
31
.69
.30
22
6.5
35
.71
.21*
16
21*0,000
1,500
6.5
35
1.11
.17
16
110,000
1,1*00
6.6
37
•
CD
.15
17
81,000
800
6.6
39
.82
.11*
20
220,000
2,900
6.6
36
1.02
.06
3fc
260,000
1*80
6.7
3b
1.20
.Oh
1*5
93,000
320
6.6
38
.80
.06
62
li8,000
370
6.8
39
.5h
.08
77
12,000
120
7.1
1*0
.39
.08
57
25,000
510
-------
State of Delaware, it was not considered necessary to investigate the
present degree of removal of wastes in the State of Delaware. The
application of such results in the assessment of the effectiveness
of the standards would have required a quantitative interpretation,
where in fact no such numerical standard now exists.
The procedure followed in determining the compliance with
standards in Pennsylvania and Hew Jersey was to review each municipal
and industrial waste source in the light of available data. For many
sources, this meant a relatively subjective decision that a secondary
plant was removing at least of the BOD and that a primary plant was
removing at least of the BOD. In some cases, data were available
for municipalities that did indicate present per cent removals. While
some of the municipalities that indicated removals less than standards
were considered to be in compliance, a literal adherence was used in the
analysis of the standards given in section U below.
For industrial installations, it was extremely difficult to
determine degree of compliance with the quantitative BOD standards.
For a complex industry, the concept of per cent removal has little or
no meaning. Wastes can be generated and treated at many different
locations within the plant. In the absence of any data to the contrary
many plants were considered to be in administrative compliance although
it is probable that following the completion of laboratory analyses of
the larger industrial effluents, quantitative adherence to the standards
may be found to be lacking.
For Pennsylvania the discussions indicated that administratively
practically all waste sources were considered to be in compliance with
the standards. The Pennsylvania Sugar Division of the National Sugar
-------
6.
Refining Co. which only recently has been found to be discharging
some untreated industrial waste to the estuary is considered not
in compliance until a more specific investigation can be made. The
South West treatment plant of the City of Philadelphia while considered
to be in compliance by virtue of its primary treatment facilities has a
present degree of removal of about 30% and hence was one of the sources
used to illustrate the effects of literal compliance with the 35% BOD
removal standard for Zone III. The results of this analysis are
discussed in section U.
In New Jersey, the discussions followed a procedure similar to
that indicated above. Several of the municipalities and industries that
were not considered in compliance are under orders by the State Health
Department to rectify the situation. Analagous to the South West plant
of Philadelphia, the City of Camden's Main plant is considered to be in
compliance, although it is estimated that it is presently removing about
30^ of the influent BOD.
The results of the aforementioned discussions are summarized in
Tables U and Table U presents those discharges that were used to
illustrate the effects on the DO of the estuary of literal compliance
with an 8BOD removal in Zone II and a 35$ BOD removal in Zone III.
The results of the c.omputations are given in Section U. Table 5 lists
those sources that are suspected to be removing less than the standard.
It is not necessary to include these sources explicitly in the following
analysis since even the most crude estimates of waste discharges
produced an insignificant dissolved oxygen response in the stream.
-------
TABLE k
Discharges Used to Illustrate the Effects
of Literal Compliance with Quantitative
Aspects of Existing Interstate Standards
Estimated
Additional
BODt^ (#/day)
Name
John A. Roebling's
Sons Division,
Division of The
Colorado Fuel &
Iron Corp,
Burlington City
Weyerhauser Co.
Shipping Container
Division
McAndrews & Forbes
Co.
Camden City
Main Plant
Penna. Sugar Div.
National Sugar
Refining Co.
Philadelphia, Pa.
S.W. Plant
Estimated Estimated
Present Present
Location & INCODEL Per Cent # BOD^/day to be Removed
Section No. Zone Removal W Discharged
omp iance
Roebling, K.J, II
(Burlington Co.)
(Florence Twp.)
#3
Burlington Co. II
N.J.
#h
Delair, N. J. Ill
#10
Camden, N. J. Ill
#13
Camden, N. J. Ill
#13
Philadelphia,Pa. Ill
#13
Philadelphia,Pa. Ill
#15
1700
lhSO
55
0<2)
30
0
(3)
30
950
2000
5000
37,500
6000
103,000
6U0
700
1750
6250
2100
7690
(1) Per cent removal of the present waste being discharged directly to
stream.
(2) Discharges sanitary sewage to municipal sewer for subsequent treatment.
(3) Discharges sanitary sewage and some industrial waste to municipal sewer
system for subsequent treatment.
(U) Removal of the amounts of BOD indicated would resuit in a numerical
increase of at least 0.01 rag/1 of dissolved oxygen in some section of
the estuary. See Table 6 for the total increase in DO.
-------
TABLE 5
Smaller Discharges that are Suspected
c-i \
to be m Non-Compliance with Incodel Standards KJ
Name & Location Zone
B. F. Goodrich Industrial II
Products Co., Riverside, N. J.
U. S. Steel Products Div. - III
U. S. Steel Corp., Delair,
W.J.
Wood-Lynne, N.J. Ill
Brooklawn, N. J. Ill
The Rubberoid Company III
Gloucester City, N. J.
Woodbury City, N. J. Ill
Paulsboro, E. J. Ill
Estimated
Present Per Cent
Removal (2)
0(3)
o(W
20
15
20
10
30
(1) Raising the per cent removal of these sources to that indicated
by Incodel standards results in a DO response < 0.01 mg/1 in all
sections of the estuary.
(2) Per cent removal of present wastes being discharged directly to
stream.
(3) Discharges sanitary wastes to municipal sewer system for
subsequent treatment.
(k) Sanitary wastes discharged to septic tank.
-------
7.
U# Analysis of Effects of Literal Compliance with BOD Standards
The methodology used to determine the effects on DO of literal
adherence to the BOD standards is embodied in a mathematical representation
of the Delaware. It is beyond the scope of this report to present the
technical details of this approach. As with many mathematical descriptions,
there are several parameters that must be estimated. For the purposes of
this report, the following parameters were used:
a) steady incoming flow of 3000 cfs at Trenton with other
tributary streams to the estuary scaled accordingly,
b) diffusion coefficient equivalent to a 2 mi^ / day as
determined from dye studies in the Delaware model at
Vicksburg, Miss.,
c) reaeration rate that is equal to the decay rate in the
stream with a numerical value of 0.2/day,
d) conversion of 5-day BOD of effluents to ultimate BOD based
on an effluent decay rate of 0.1/day.
While these assumptions are somewhat arbitrary, they are
consistent with the physical situation. With reference to the equality
of the reaeration rates and the decay rate in the stream, this assumption
can be visualized as a base line from which statements can be deduced
as to which direction the computed results would take if the numerical
values of the coefficients were changed.
Using the parameters given above, a 160U Control Data Corporation
Computer located at New York University was used to generate a set of
mathematical functions which form the basis for this analysis as well as
the analysis given in Section 5. The mathematical model that is used in
-------
8.
these computations considers the estuary to be a series of connected
finite sections starting at the head of tide at Trenton and continuing
down the estuary to approximately Liston Point, Delaware. Figure 2 is
a map of the estuary that shows the location of the various sections that
were used in the mathematical representation.
The mathematical functions (or input-output relationships) that
are generated by the computer essentially indicate the effect of a BOD
discharge in one section on the dissolved oxygen concentration in any
other section. For example, the functions indicate the effect of a
discharge in say, section 9 on the dissolved oxygen in sections #1
through #30. Conversely, for a given section in the stream, the
functions indicate the extent to which discharges in all other sections
affect the DO in the given section. For example, for the DO in section #9,
the functions indicate the effect on DO in that section due to discharges
into sections #1 through #30. A copy of the computer output is available
for inspection in the offices of the DECS.
With the input-output relationships determined, the problem then
was to remove a certain amount of BOD load from various sections and to
note the increases in DO response that would result. Hence, the reduction
in BOD discharged as shown in the last column of Table h was used in the
sections indicated and the resulting increases in DO were computed. The
results of this computation are shown in Table 6,
An inspection of this Table indicates that in general the DO
increases that were computed are relatively low and indeed are of a
size that, considering the data that were available, may be considered
as almost negligible„ If the Table is read by columns, the results
-------
-------
table 6
Estimated DO (mg/l) Improvements Resulting from Literal Compliance with Quantitative BOD Interstate Standards*
DO Response j
in Section §
3
h
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
III
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Input "in
Section #
#3
.05
.07
.06
.06
.05
.OU
.Oh
.03
.02
.02
.01
.01
.02
.03
.03
.03
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.01
o
1—I
.01
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.01
#13
.02
.OU
.111
.25
.30
.25
.18
.11
.07
,oU
.02
.01
#15
.02
.03
.08
.19
.16
.12
.08
.ok
.02
.01
Total
DO Response
.05
.09
.09
.09
.08
.06
.07
.09
.09
.21
.32
.hi
.U5
.35
.23
.15
.08
.OU
.02
NOTE: Reading the Table across a row indicates the computed increase in DO due to removal of BOD in the
indicated section. Reading the Table down a cola^/i indicates the computed DO responses for the section
due to inputs in each of the rows,
See also Table b for reductions in BOD^ (///day) discharged which were used to estimate th? rss^lti. in this
tabulation.
-------
9.
indicate the computed increases in DO for the given section due to
removal of BOD in the other sections. For example, reading down the
column for Section ;fl%j it is seen that the DO in this section would
increase by ,01 nig/1 due to removal of BOD in Section #10, by .25 mg/1
due to removal of BOD in Section #13 and by .19 mg/l due to removal of
BOD in Section #15* IE" the Table is read across any one of the rows,
the results indicate the computed increases in DO in each of the Sections
shown due to removal of BOD in the given section. For example, reading
across the row fur removal of BOD in Section #13, it is seen that the DO
would increase by .02 mg/l in Section #10, by .OU mg/1 in Section #11, by
.Ik rng/1 in Section #12, etc. Since the mathematical model that was used
to obtain these values is a linear model, the total DO increase in each of
the sections is Riven by the sum of the individual responses. The total
is thus shown in last line of the Table. The total increase of 0.U5
mg/l is largest in Section #15. The responses decrease both upstream and
downstream from this section. It is seen then that the removal of the BOD
loads indicated in Table ii from the estuarine system produces only a
relatively scroll increase in the DO.
5. Anaiyk! 5: of 50% Saturation Goal in Zone III
The attached interstate Standards indicate that the intent of
35% BOD remove! .m Zone III is to restore the DO to fifty per cent of its
saturation coiv.cr.crations in the zone. In the analysis of effluent
modifications chat will reach this goal, a saturation DO of 8 mg/l was
used; this com spend,s to an average temperature of approximately 27°C.
It is clear^ from Table 7, that the goal of U mg./l did not prevail in
much of Zcne III, In particular, the reach from about Pennsauken Creek
to the Pennsylvania-Delaware State Line (Sections #9 through #19 in
Figure 2) had a mean DO of less than U mg/l.
-------
TABLE 7
DEFICITS FOR 50% SATURATION IN ZONE 3
Deficit (mg/1) from
Section No.-*
DO (mg/l)-5Ht
50% Saturation
19
1.0
3.0
18
1.0
3.0
17
1.0
3.0
16
0.8
3.2
15
0.7
3.3
1U
l.C
3.0
13
1.1
2.9
12
1.3
2.7
11
1.8
2.2
10
2.7
1.3
9
3.5
0.5
8
U.o
None
7
h*h
None
* Figure 2, Delaware Estuary Sections, shows the sections'
boundaries.
-sh'c Based on sampling runs by Delaware Estuary Study.
Conditions are average over the period August-October
1962 and June-July 1963.
Values for sections 7, 9, 10, 13 and 18 are by inter-
polation from adjacent sections.
See also Table 2.
-------
10.
The replacement of the deficits from 50% saturation (Table 7)
can be accomplished in many alternative ways. There are, in other words,
numerous programs of effluent modifications any one of which will bring
about DO improvements at least sufficient to replace the deficits.
Each of these programs has an associated cost and an -unnecessarily
expensive one is of no practical importance. Therefore, from among
all the programs that would eliminate the deficits, an optimal or
minimum cost program was sought.
An optimal solution was found with a mathematical procedure
whose details are beyond the scope of this report. The estuary para-
meters that were used were the same as those specified in a) through
d) in section U on page 7 of this report. The cost functions that
were used were, at best, gross approximations. Their lack of precision
was due primarily to the dearth of reliable data. An explanation of
the estimation of the cost functions would be lengthy and will not be
included in this report. The computations and graphs that were used,
however, are available for inspection in the offices of the Delaware
Estuary Comprehensive Study. It suffices to say that in the analysis,
effluents in the same section were treated as a unit.
The minimum cost program is presented in Table 8, section by
section, together with the estimated present BOD condition and those
conditions computed under the optimal program. The procedure with
which an optimal program was sought considered modifications of
effluents in all sections from 1 to 30. Table 8 shows that it was
found to be inefficient to take actions in sections 7, 8, 9, 11 and lh.
Similarly, a program that modified effluents in any of sections 1 through 6
-------
TABLE 8
Minimum Coat Attainment of 5Q$ Saturation in Zone 3
Section Present Discharge
Wo. of BOD£ (lb/day)
19 73,800
18 57,£00
17 Ul,500
16 22,600
15 11*7,600
Hi 87,500
13 69,700
12 None
11 8,200
10 66,800
9 600
8 500
7 200
Present Mean* %
Removal of BODc;
33
53
lb
35
1x6
1*6
35
h5
73
73
75
8h
BODcj Discharged
to be Removed
Under Optimal
Program (lb/day)
63,000
38,U00
28,200
21,800
15,100
None
1*2,000
None
None
61,800
None
None
None
Msan %
Removal BOD^*
Under Optimal
Program
90
8U
92
98
61
7k
98
Necessary
Investment Under
Optimal Program
($1,000,000)
56.7
38.7
27.5
23.0
1*0.8
None
Uu9
None
None
50.2
None
None
None
576,500 300,300 281.2
* 111 each section, computation of the mean per cent is weighted by size of effluent in BOD^.
-------
11.
or 20 through 30 would have had a cost higher than that of the optimal
program. These sections, therefore, did not enter into an optimal
solution and were not noted in Table 8.
The estimated cost of the optimal program is $282,000,000
(two hundred eighty-two million dollars). It should be realized that
this figure and the nature of the optimal program (Table 8) can be
treated only as rough guides. The short time in which this report was
prepared and the sparsity of data, particularly costs, require that use
of the results be tempered with caution. Future results, it should be
noted, may change noticeably if esoteric devices (mechanical aeration,
diffusive aeration, storm water overflow retention basins, dredging to
change section volumes, etc.) or new strategically located waste sources
are included as alternatives in the search for an optimal program.
Inspection of Table 8 indicates that the removal of effluent
BOD necessary to attain the 5>0 per cent saturation goal must exceed, by
large amounts, the treatment specified in the standards.
-------
APPE©IX 1
-------
m^xt'rtUUAL AQHJJiiiEKT FOR THE CORRECTION ADD CONTROL
OF POLLUTION OF THE WATERS OF THE INTERSTATE DELMARS RIVER
As embodied in:
lieu Jersey - Chapter lljo, Laws of 1939
tiexor Yoric - Chapter 600, Laws of 1939
Delaware - Chapter 93> Laws of 19U1
Penns/l/ania - Act No. 123, April l?s 19Ui?
Article I
MMHnCNMMM
Each of the signatory States pledges to each of the other
signatory States faithiul cooperation in the control of future pollu-
tion and in the correction of existing pollution of the waters of the
interstate Delaware river and its west branch froi the lieu Ycric -
Pennsylvania boundary line "dcim to the Atlantic ocean. In order to
effect such objects, each of the States agrees to enact adequate legis-
lation, if necessary, to enable each such State so to require the treat-
ment of sewage, industrial waste or other artificial polluting matter
as to place and maintain the waters of the aforesaid interstate Delaware
river, and of the tributaries thereof just above the confluence with
the Delaware rivp.r, in the clean and sanitary condition required by
the provisions of this agreement. Furthermore, each such State agrees
so to enforce the provisions of these requirements, and other supple-
mentary applicable legislation, if nry, as to bring about the attain-
ment of the objective£ of pollution control and correction in accordance
with such reasonable and effective programs as may be determined from
time to tiiae by the States in the manner prescribed herein.
Article II
It is recognized by the signatory States that due to such
variable factors as location, size, character, and flow, and of the
many varied uses of the v?aters of the interstate Delaware river and
its aforesaid west branch, such as water supply, recreation, navigation,
industrial developments, maintenance of fish life, shellfish culture,
agriculture, and other purposes, that no single standard of sewage and
waste treatment and of quality of receiving waters is practical for all
parts of the river. Therefore, in order to apply iiiinimum requirements
for the attainment of correction and control of pollution which will be
appropriate to the varied factors including the existing and potential
quality and uses of the waters, the interstate Delaware river is here-
by divided into four zones, to wit;
-------
Zone I: Zone one is that part of the Delaware river and its
west branch extending from the New York - Pennsylvania boundary line to
the head of tidewater at Trenton, Mew Jersey, and Morrisville, Pennsyl-
vania,
The drainage basin contributary to this zone, excepting part
of the Lehigh River Basin, is relatively sparsely inhabited and contains
few sewered communities and relatively few industrial establishments pro-
ducing waste water. The streams draining this area being, in general,
relatively clean and of high elevation are well adapted as sources of
public water supplies, Ctfter treatment or purification.
The principal uses of the waters of the Delaware river in Zone
one are expected to be for water supply after such treatment or purifica-
tion as may be necessary, and for recreation, bathing, maintenance of
fish and aquatic life, agriculture, and for other related purposes*
Zone II: Zone two is that part of the Delaware river extending
from the head of tidewater at Trenton, New Jersey, and Morrisville, Penn-
sylvania, to a line diawn perpendicular to tho channel of the Delaware
river from the mouth or --r,;\ypack creek in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
to the corresponding poriv.': u\ the New Jersey shore.
The drainage basin contributary to this zone is somewhat more
densely populated than that Zone one, and it contains more sewered
communities and industrial establishments*
The principal uses of the waters of the Delaware river in Zone
two are expected to be for water supply, aftr-r treatment or purification,
and for recreation, navigation, maintenance oi fish and aquatic life,
agricultural, industrial and other purposes.
Zone III: Zone three is that part of the Delaware river extend-
ing frcm the aforesaid 3v.:- connecting the mouth of Pennypack creek in
Philadelphia and the cor-re sir-nding point in New Jersey to the Pennsylvania-
Delaware boundary line.
The drainage basin contributary to this zone contains populous
metropolitan areas including Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden,
New Jersey.
The principal uses of the waters of the Delaware river in Zone
three are expected to be for navigation, industrial water supply, and
other purposes.
The water in this zone, however, should be of such sanitary
quality that it will not be unfit for use as sources of water supply,
will not be harmful to fish life, and will not adversely affect the
quality of the waters of the tidal tributaries.
Zone IV: Zone four is that part of the Delaware river extending
from the Pennsylvania - Delaware boundary line to the Atlantic ocean.
The principal uses of the waters of the Delaware river in
Zone four are expected to be for navigation, industrial water supply,
commercial fishing, shellfish culture, recreation and other purposes.
-------
- 3 -
In order to attain conditions of cleanliness and sanitation
of the waters of the Delaware river which will be consistent with the
appropriate existing and future quality and uses of such waters, the
follox-jing minimum requirements shall apply to the several zones herein
provided. It is the purpose and intent of such requirements to apply
to artificial (not natural) causes of pollution.
Article III
In order to put and maintain the waters of the interstate
Delaware river and its west branch as aforesaid, in a clean and sanitary
condition, no sewage, industrial wastes or other polluting matter shall
be discharged into, or be permitted to flow or fall into, or be placed
in any respective zone of the interstate Delaware river as herein estab-
lished, unless such sewage, industrial waste or other artificial polluting
matter shall first have been so treated as to produce an effluent which
will meet the following minimum requirements:
Zone 1: (1) Suaffluent shall be free of noticeable floating
solids, color, oil, grease, or sleek, and practically free of suspended
solids.
(2) Such effluent shall be sufficiently free of turbidity that
it will not cause noticeable turbidity in the water of the Delaware
river.
(3) Such effluent shall show a reduction of organic substances
of at least eighty-five per centum (8as measured by the bio-chemical
oxygen demand, and furthermore, such effluent in no case shall exceed
a biochemical oxygen demard of fifty (50) parts per million, and further-
more, the discharge of such effluent, after dispersion in the water of
the river, shall not cause a reduction of the dissolved oxygen content
of such water of more than five per centum (5%). The aforesaid reduction
in dissolved oxygen content shall be determined by the average results
obtained from dissolved oxygen tests made upon sarnies collected on not
less than six (6) consecutive days from points in the river above and
below the point or points of effluent discharge„
(It) Such effluent shall be of such quality that the most
probable number of organisms of the Coli Aero^snes group shall not exceed
one (1) per milliliter in more than ten per Centura (10$) of the samples
of sewage effluent tested by the confirmed test; and provided, further,
that no single sample shall contain more tiv.n one hundred (100) organisms
of the Coli Aerogenes group in one (1) milliliter.
(5) Such effluent shall be sufficiently free of acids, alkalis,
and other toxic or deleterious substances, that it will net create a
menace to the public health through the use of the waters of the Delaware
river for public water supplies, for recreation, bathing, agriculture
and other purposes; not be inimical to fish, animal or aquatic life.
(6) Such effluent shall be free of offensive odors and also
be free of substances capable of producing offensive tastes and odors
in public water supplies derived from the Delaware river at any place
above or below the discharge of such effluent.
-------
- k -
Zone 2: (1) Such effluent shall be free of noticeable floating
solids, color, oil or grease, and practically free of both suspended
solids and sleek.
(2) Such effluent shall be sufficiently free of turbidity that
it will not cause noticeable turbidity in the water of the Delaware
river.
(3) Such effluent shall show a reduction of organic substance
of at least eighty-five (85) per centum as measured by the bio-chemical
oxygen demand, and furthermore, such effluent in no case shall exceed
a bio-chemical oxygen demand of one hundred (100) parts per million, and
furthermore, the discharge of such effluent, after dispersion in the water
of the river, shall not cause a reduction of the dissolved oxygen content
of such water of more than ten (10) per centum. The aforesaid reduction
in dissolved oxygen content shall be determined by the average results
obtained by dissolved oxygen tests made upon samples collected on not
less than six (6) consecutive days from points in the river above and
below the point or points of effluent discharge.
(jj) Such effluent shall be of such quality that the most
probable number of organises of the Coli Aerogenes group shall not exceed
one (1) per milliliter in nore than twenty-five (25) per centum of the
samples of sewage effluent tested by the confirmed test; and provided,
further, that no single sample shall contain more than one hundred (100)
organisms of the Coli Aerogenes group in one (1) milliliter.
(5) Such effluent shall be sufficiently free of acids, alkalis,
and other toxic or deleterious substances, that it will not create a
menace to the public health through the use of the water of the Delaware
river for public water supplies, for recreation, industrial and other
purposes; nor be inimical to fish, animal or aquatic life.
(6) Such efflv-wt shall be free of offensive odors and also
be free of substances capable of producing offensive tastes or odors
in public water supplies derived from the Delaware river at any place
below the discharge of such effluent.
Zone 3: (1) Such effluent shall be free of noticeable floating,
solids, oil or grease, and substantially free of both suspended solids
and sleek.
(2) Such effluent shall be sufficiently free of turbidity that
it will not cause substantial turbidity in the water of the Delaware
river after dispersion in the water of the river.
(3) Such effluent shall show a reduction of at least fifty-five
(55) per Centura of the total suspended soli^-n and a reduction of not less
than thirty-five (35) per centum of the bio-chemical demand. Ct't is the
intent of this requirement to restore the dissolved oxygen content of
the river water in this zone to at least fifty (50) per centum saturation.
To accomplish this it may be necessary in the case of certain wastes to.
obtain reductions greater than those required under this item.)
-------
- 5 -
,(U) Such effluent, if it be discharged within two miles of a
public water works intake or within prejudicial influence thereof, shall
at all times be effectively treated with a germicide.
(5) Such effluent shall be sufficiently free of acids, alkalis,
and other toxic or deleterious substances, that it will not create a
menace to the public health through the use of the waters of the Delaware
river for public water supplies, or render such waters unfit for indus-
trial and other purposes| or cause the water of the Delaware river to
be harmful to fish life.
(6) Such effluent shall be practically free of substances
capable of producing offensive tastes or odors in public water supplies
derived from the Delaware river.
Zone U: (1) Such effluent shall be free of noticeable floating
solids, oil, or grease, and substantially free of both suspended solids
and sleek.
(2) Such effluent shall be sufficiently free of turbidity that
it will not cause substantial turbidity in the waters of the Delaware
river after dispersion in the water of the river.
(3) Such effluent shall show a reduction of at least fifty-five
(55) per centum of the total suspended solids and shall be subject to
such further treatment as may be needed to prevent a nuisance.
(U) Such effluent, if it be discharged within prejudicial
influence of a public water works intake, or of recreational areas, or of
shellfish grounds, shall at all tines be effectively treated with a
germicide, except that in the case of recreational area influence, such
treatment need not be provided during the period from October fifteenth
to May fifteenth of each year.
(5) Such effluent shall be sufficiently free of acids, alkalis,
and other toxic or deleterious substances that it will not create a menace
to the public health through the use of the waters of the Delaware river
for public water supplies or render such waters unfit for commercial
fishing, shellfish culture, recreational, industrial, or other purposes.
(6) Such effluent shall be practically free of substances
capable of producing offensive tastes or odors in public water supplies
derived from the Delaware river.
It is further recognized by the signatory States that the quality
of the waters of the intrastate tributaries of the Delaware river and
its aforesaid west branch are of interstate concern at their points of
confluence with the Delaware river and its west branch. Therefore, it
is also agreed that sewage, industrial waste or other artificial polluting
matter discharged into, or permitted to flow or to fall into, or be placed
in any intrastate tributary of the aforesaid Delaware river shall be
treated to that degree, if any, necessary to maintain the waters of such
intrastate tributary immediately above its confluence with the aforesaid
Delaware river in a condition at least equal to the clean and sanitary
condition of the waters of the Delaware river immediately above the
confluence of such tributary.
-------
- 6 -
Analyses and tests regarding the minimum requirements herein
prescribed, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions
contained in the Ajnerican Public Health Association's latest edition
on "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Sewage."
The aforesaid requirements as to treatment of sewage,
industrial wastes or other artificial polluting matter and as to the
sanitary quality of receiving waters are minima.. It is the intent and
purpose of these requirements to accomplish reasonable and adequate
control and correction of pollution. Due to the many variable factors
involved, however, and to the impossibility of forecasting future
developments with certainty, it may be necessary in the future to
impose additional requirements, particularly in Zones two and three.
The minima herein prescribed therefore shall be considered
the first steps toward attaining the objectives sought, and if necessary
may be required to be supplemented in the case that the general
application of such minimum requirements does not adequately improve
and maintain the sanitary quality of the waters of the Delaware river.
-------
APPENDIX 2
-------
WATER POLLUTION COMISSION
State of Delaware
Dover, Delaware
C
0
P
Y
September 13, 1963
Dr. Robert V. Thomann
Technical Director
Delaware Estuary Study
321 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Dear Dr. Thor.iann:
Thank you very rouch for the draft copy of the report
to the policy committee. I have only one comment to make.
As the cost functions are gross approximations, the price tag
to increase the quality in Zone III should be omitted from
the report. I was under the impression that there would be
no attempt to incL-ude price tags at this stage of study.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ !>:. C. Vasuki
W. C. Vasuki
Assistant Engineer
NCV;ib
-------
c
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
BOX 151*0, TRENTON 25
C
0
0
p
p
Y
Y
September 16, 1963
Dr. Robert V. Thomann, Technical Director
Delaware Estuary Study
U. S. Public Health Service
321 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Dear Dr. Thomann: Re; Draft of Interim Report to
I have reviewed the draft of the Report and offer the following
comments as constructive criticisms:
STO-1ARY, SECOND PAGE;
Last sentence of Paragraph #2 is ambiguous and not clear.
The arithmetic is not clear with respect to Burlington #U, Camden #13
and Philadelphia #15. Also, the B.O.D. poundage data for Camden do
not compare with the previous estimate of 37*500 lbs. per day, which
was believed to be a realistic figure.
TABLE 5, ITEMS i'/2 and
Brynwooa Estates and Kingston Estates both have secondary treatment.
Although both plants are recognized as overloaded and deliver
unsatisfactory effluents by New Jersey standards, our most recent
sampling data indicate the effluents do meet the more lax INCODEL
standards for Zone III, 35$ removal.
It is suggested that instead of the above items you might substitute
the following municipal plants, all in Zone III, which have primary
treatment for domestic sewage:
Brooklawn, 210,000 G.P.D., with 15% B.O.D. removal.
Paulsboro, 610,000 G.P.D., with 30% B.O.D. removal.
Policy Committee
TABLE k:
Wood-Lynne, 320,000 G.P.D.,with 20$ B.O.D. removal.
-------
Dr. Robert V. Thomann, Technical Director
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Page 2
9-16-o3
In general, the report is very well pointed and straightforward in form.
More emphasis and discussion might be placed on the highly inadequate
standards now existing for Zone III and the need for their upward revision.
Also, the question might well be raised at this time: "Is the $Q>% D.O.
saturation goal compatible with the needs of the Estuary?" I think we
will eventually come to agree that we need a higher goal, and therefore
a whole new set of effluent standards.
Yours very truly,
6E3:G7
/s/ Harry H. Hughes
Harry H. Hughes
Principal Public Health Engineer
-------
C CGMKOi HEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA C
0 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 0
P P. 0. BOX 90 P
Y HAREISBURG Y
September 20, 1963
Mr. Robert V„ Thcmann, Technical Director
Delaware Estuary Study-
Department of Health, Education & Welfare
321 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Dear Mr. Thomann;
We have reviewed your interim -report, "Review of Present Water
Quality and Interstate Standards of tto Delaware Estuary".
The assumptions made appear rea.scna.ble as does the procedure fol-
lowed in answering the questions posed by the Policy Advisory Committee.
We recognise that certain short-cuts were necessary to overcome the short
time limit and the scarcity of data in some areas.
The statement on Page 6 and Table V concerning the Borough of
Trainer is not correct. Only a portion of Trainer Borough is sewered and
the collected : s treated in the sewage treatment works of the City
of Chester. The balance of the borough is not severed.
The statement on Table IV concerning Pennsylvania Sugar Division
of National Sugar Refining Company indicates that the company does not pro-
vide treatment for its industrial wastes. Our records indicate that many
years ago all industrial wastes and sewage from thij establishment were
being discharged directly to the Delaware River. The company later con-
structed facilities to discharge its sanitary sewage to the City of Phila-
delphia s?-<7eT* system and also to discharge industrial wastes having a high
BOD to the city sewers. Investigation will be needed to determine the
present decree of compliance. Our main objection is that the "0" shown
under the percent removal column gives a wrong impression.
Although you have presented one solution to the Policy Advisory
Committee's question, we feel that the analyses of the 50 percent satura-
tion goal for Zone 3 gives a rather misleading pict'are of the pollution
abatement steps necessary to attain this goal, since the analysis applies
the cost of necessary treatment facilities to Zone 3 only.
-------
c c
0 0
p p
Y Y
Mr. Robert V. Thomann - 2 - September 20, 1963
An anajyv.? j?hich applies the cost of necessary treatment
facilities to t:^ ."ntire estuary would give the committee a much more
realistic picture of the necessary treatment and associated costs.
Very truly yours,
/ s. ¦ F~lr>h 1, Rhodes
Ph.L.-1-, i,, Rhodes
A at Chief
S^rodni Quality Section
<>
------- |