CWT 10-11
WATER
AN
EVALUATION
OF THE
SIGNIFICANCE
OF
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
IN THE
HUDSON RIVER CONFERENCE AREA
JUNE 1969
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION • U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
HUDSON-DELAWARE BASINS OFFICE, EDISON NEW JERSEY
-------
AN EVALUATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
IN THE
HUDSON RIVER ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE AREA
U. S- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
NORTHEAST REGION
HUDSON-DELAWARE BASINS OFFICE
June 1969
-------
Excerpts from the Conference In the Matter of Pollution of the
Interstate Waters of the Hudson River and its Tributaries -
New York and New Jersey September 28, 29, and 30, 1965.
Item 13 - Conclusions and Recommendations
The magnitude of the pollution problem caused by discharges
from combined sewer overflows is recognized. The Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, in cooperation with the States
of New Jersey, New York, and the Interstate Sanitation Commission,
will undertake a review of the problem and develop a program for
action for consideration by the Federal Government, the. States
and the Interstate Sanitation Commission by December 31, 1968.
The construction of combined sewer systems in newly developed
or redeveloped urban areas shall be prohibited, and existing com-
bined sewers shall be eliminated wherever feasible.
Programs shall be established for surveillance of existing
combined sewer systems and flow regulating structures to convey
the maximum practicable amount of combined flows to and through
treatment plants.
ii
-------
Acknowledgement
We wish to thank the States of New York and New Jersey and the
Interstate Sanitation Commission for their assistance in gathering
data contained in this report.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary and Recommendations vi
Introduction 1
Methodology . . 5
Results 12
Methods of Correction 20
Discussion 25
Bibliography (References) 28
Appendix
A. Previous Studies 31
B. Discussion of Methodology 39
C. List of FWPCA Grants and Contracts for
the Investigation of Storm and Combined
Sewer Overflows 53
IV
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Sections Established for the Evaluation of 8
Combined Sewer Overflows
2 Estimated BOD Load from Municipal Discharges 14
and Combined Sewer Overflows in the Hudson
River Conference Area
3 Future Waste Loads as Discharged to Prescribed 18
Water Use Areas
A-l Quality Characteristics of Combined Sewer Over- 37
flows for Various Studies
A-2 Quality Characteristics of Stormwater Runoff 38
Collection Systems
B-l Estimated Load from Municipal Discharges -45
Hudson River Conference Area
B-2 Estimated Load from Combined Sewer Overflows 50
Hudson River Conference Area
C-l Water Pollution Control, Storm and Combined 55
Sewer Grants, Fiscal Year 1968. Awarded Under
Section 6 (a) 1 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, As Amended
C-2 Water Pollution Control, Storm and Combined 60
Sewer Contracts, Fiscal Year 1968. Awarded Under
Section 6 (a) 1 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, As Amended
FIGURES
1 Hudson River Conference Area 3
2A Collection Systems With Combined Sewer Overflows, 9
Green Island to Kingston, Hudson River
2B Collection Systems With Combined Sewer Overflows, 10
Kingston To Yonkers, Hudson River
2C Collection Systems With Combined Sewer Overflows, 11
Tarrytown to Port Richmond, Hudson River
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The waters of the Hudson River Enforcement Conference Area
receive the discharge from 74 municipal sewerage systems, 43 of
which have collection systems which are totally or partially
combined.
2. After implementation of the conference recommendations,
combined sewer overflows will contribute approximately 82% of
the estimated BOD from municipal discharges, or 61,000,000
pounds per year.
3. Only 2.6%, or 1,600,000 pounds per year of the future combined
sewer overflow load will discharge to bodies of water classified
for water supply or bathing. Significant quantities of combined
sewer overflow in the New York Metropolitan Area discharge immed-
iately adjacent to waters used for bathing (salt water beaches of
Staten Island, Coney Island and western Long Island Sound). Bac-
terial contamination of these recreational areas is of particular
concern.
4. Studies are needed in the conference area to determine: a)
the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of combined sewer
overflow resulting from differing land use areas; and b) the effect
of combined sewer overflow on the quality of the receiving water.
5. When the above studies are completed, consideration should be
given for remedial action, if indicated, to eliminate combined sewer
overflows in areas of highest proposed water use.
vi
-------
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope
Overflows from combined sewer collection systems can create pollu-
tion problems. The extent of these problems in the Hudson River Con-
ference area are not known. Studies have been carried out in other areas
to evaluate the quality of combined sewer overflows, and to a lesser ex-
tent, their effect on the receiving water. The purposes of this study
are to review briefly the work already done, assess the problem as it
relates to the Hudson River Conference Area and offer suggestions to the
conferees regarding a solution to the problem.
The Hudson River Enforcement Conference Area, as shown in Figure 1,
is defined as the main stem of the Hudson River from the Federal Lock at
Troy, New York to the Battery in New York City, the Upper Bay of New York
Harbor, the East River from the Battery to Throgs Neck, the Harlem River,
Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay.
Background
Because of the need for power, transportation and water supply, the
vast majority of American cities developed along waterways. Even before
the installation of public water supplies, diversion of stormwater was of
concern in these communities. To this end open ditches and later closed
piping systems were developed. All discharges were made directly into the
nearest water course.
As public water supplies were developed it became necessary to collect
and dispose of wastewater. The most convenient and economic solution was
to utilize the existing storm sewers to carry the domestic wastewater. As
municipalities became increasingly aware of the need to treat sanitary
wastewater, the many short sewers discharging untreated wastewater to the
nearest watercourses had to be intercepted and the collection system modified
1
-------
to deliver the wastewater to a single point - the treatment plant.
Because it was considered hydraulically and economically impractical
to deliver all wastewater and stormwater to a plant, intercepting sewers
were constructed which diverted only the dry weather flow to the treat-
ment plant. All flows in excess of this were diverted directly to a
watercourse via diversion chambers. Design of the intercepting sewer
was usually based on the acceptance of two to three times the average
dry weather flow. It was not recognized until later that these diverted
flows constituted a significant source of pollution.
Since the overflow is a mixture of sanitary wastewater and stormwater,
such diversions result in the discharge of untreated wastes to the stream.
Overflows also flush any organic matter which has accumulated in the col-
lection system during dry weather-low flow periods. This phenomenon is
one of the many factors responsible for substantial organic loading of
streams during storms.
The latest unpublished FWPCA inventory of municipal sewage facilities
in the United States lists more than 1300 jurisdictions which are served
in whole or part by combined sewers. These systems, serving a total pop-
ulation of 54 million represent 43% of the total sewered population.
There have been few studies conducted which provide information on
the quality and quantity of overflow from either combined sewer or separate
stormwater systems. These studies differ widely in their approach to the
problem and presentation of the pertinent data- The results of several
of these studies are summarized in Appendix A.
These limited studies show that the quality of both combined sewer
overflows and stormwater runoff is highly variable and dependent on the
particular characteristics of an individual drainage or catchment area.
Data collected in one area are not generally applicable to other areas of
-------
HUDSON RIVER CONFERENCE AREA
Figure 1
3
-------
similar, let alone different, characteristics. Combined sewer overflow
data have not been collected for systems within the study area. There-
fore, an evaluation of the problem necessitates the use of data collected
in other areas; namely, that contained in the literature.
-------
METHODOLOGY
The procedure used to evaluate the significance of the pollutional
load from combined sewer overflows in the Hudson River Conference Area
involved developing estimates of:
1. The pollutional load resulting from combined sewer overflows.
2. The pollutional load from existing municipal systems.
3. The pollutional loads from municipal systems after implementation
of the conference recommendations. One of these recommendations states,
"All wastes prior to discharge into the waters covered by the conference
(a) shall be treated to provide a minimum of 80 percent reduction of bio-
chemical oxygen demand at all times. It is recognized that this will re-
quire a design for an average removal of 90 percent of biochemical oxygen
demand".
These loadings were compared to assess the significance of combined
sewer overflows. Urban runoff via separate collection systems and rural
surface runoff were not included in this evaluation since they do not con-
tribute to the combined sewer overflow problem as defined within the con-
text of this report. Although some data are available on the magnitude of
industrial waste discharges, they are not considered sufficiently accurate
for inclusion in the waste load comparison.
For purposes of evaluating the data, the waters in the conference area
were divided into eight sections which conform to those established by the
water quality standards. The description of each section and its designa-
ted use under the Standards is summarized in Table 1. Figures 2A, 2B and
2C illustrate these sections.
The pollutional load from combined sewer overflows was estimated by
(2)
using a procedure similar to the analysis suggested by Stanley. This tech-
-------
nique involves the computation of the average volume discharged from each
combined sewer collection system and a calculation of the yearly average
BOD load contained in the discharged volume. Calculation of the volume
discharged was based upon the equation:
Q0 = CIA + Qd - Qp
Where:
Q = volume of combined sewer overflow per unit time
C = runoff coefficient
I = average intensity of rainfall
A = drainage area served by combined sewers
Q^ = volume of average municipal dry-weather flow per unit time
Q = capacity of waste treatment facility
P
The overflow BOD load was determined by using the equation:
L0 = Qo x T x B0
TIT
Where:
L0 = the BODs load from combined sewer overflows
Qo = volume of combined sewer overflow per unit time
T = time duration of storms which cause combined sewer overflow
B = average concentration of 5-day BOD
A detailed discussion of the computational procedure is presented in
Appendix B.
The two most significant variables in this computation are the runoff
coefficient, "C", and the BOD concentration, "B0". Runoff coefficient
values for each area were chosen primarily on the basis of population den-
sity. Two values of BOD concentration were used: 150 rag/1 for the highly
urbanized metropolitan area (Sections VI - VIII) and 40 mg/1 for the less
-------
urbanized areas of the central and Upper Hudson River Valley (Sections I -
V).
Present municipal waste discharge loads were obtained from^ published
reports and documents or were computed using the population served, ajfac-
tor of 0.17 pounds of BOD. per capita per day, and a percentage of BOD
removal based on the existing waste treatment facilities (see Appendix B)<
Future municipal loads were computed based on present municipal waste
loads treated to 90 percent BOD removal.
-------
Table 1
Sections Established for the Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflow
Section Limits of Section
I Troy Locks to New Baltimore
II New Baltimore to Esopus
Water Quality
Standards
NY - Class C
NY - Class A
Definition of Best Usage o£ Waters
Fishing and any other usages ex-
cept for bathing or as a source of
water supply for drinking, culin-
ary or food processing purposes.
Source of water supply for drinking,
culinary or food processing pur-
poses and any other uses.
Ill
IV
VI
Esopus to Chelsea
Chelsea to Bear Mountain
Bridge
Bear Mountain Bridge
to N. J. State Line
NY-NJ State Line to The
Narrows, including Upper
New York Harbor
NY - Class A
NY - Class B
NY - Class SB
NY - Class I
Source of water supply for drinking
culinary or food processing pur-
poses and any other uses.
Bathing and any other usages, ex-
cept as a source of water supply
for drinking, culinary or food
processing purposes.
Bathing and any other usages ex-
cept shellfishing for market pur-
poses .
Fishing and any other usages ex-
cept bathing or shellfishing for
market purposes.
NJ - Class TW-2 Tidal surface waters having limited
recreational value and ordinarily
not acceptable for bathing but
suitable for fish survival
although perhaps not suitable for
fish propagation. These waters
shall not be an odor nuisance and
shall not cause damage to pleasure
craft having occasion to traverse
the waters.
VII
The East River from the
Battery to Throgs Neck,
including the Harlem River
VIII Newark Bay and Kill Van Kull
NY - Class II
NY - Class II
All waters not primarily for rec-
reational purposes, shellfish cul-
ture or the development of fish
life.
All waters not primarily for
recreational purposes, shellfish
culture or the development of
fish life.
NJ - Class TW-3 Tidal surface waters used primarily
for navigation, not recreation.
These waters although not expected
to be used for fishing shall pro-
vide for fish survival. These
waters shall not be an odor nuis-
ance and shall not cause damage
to pleasure craft traversing
them.
8
-------
Cohoes
Watervliet
Albany
Green Is.
Troy
Rensselaer
Castleton-on-Hudson
Coxsackie
Catskill
Saugerties
Kingston
H
Hudson
COLLECTION SYSTEMS WITH
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
GREEN ISLAND TO KINGSTON
HUDSON RIVER
Figure 2A
9
-------
Kingston
Highl
Poughkeepsie
COLLECTION SYSTEMS WITH
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
KINGSTON TO YONKERS
HUDSON RIVER
K
Peekskill
Ossining
Braircliff Manor
No. Tarrytown
Tarrytown
Yonkers
Figure 2B
10
-------
Tarrytown
COLLECTION SYSTEMS WITH
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
TARRYTOWN TO PL RICHMOND
HUDSON RIVER
H
Wards
Island
Hunts Point
Bowery Bay
SECTION 1ZH
Figure 2C
n
-------
RESULTS
The significance of the pollutional load from combined sewer overflow
can be evaluated by comparing them with municipal waste discharges. How-
ever, before making this comparison, several factors should be emphasized
concerning the methodology employed, the distribution of the combined sewer
overflow load and the validity of the estimated loads versus those which
exist in the real environment.
1. The discharges from municipal systems and combined-sewer overflows
are unevenly distributed throughout the conference area.
2. The degree of treatment given municipal discharges at present
varies from no treatment (raw discharge) to secondary treatment. This sig-
nificantly affects the magnitude of the municipal discharge load to a given
section, but does not materially influence the load from combined sewer overflows.
3. In the calculations for this report, municipalities with combined
sewers discharging untreated (raw) waste were not considered to contribute to
the present combined sewer overflow load. After implementation of the con-
ference recommendations, these systems would have combined sewer overflows
which are then included in the waste load tabulation.
k. The occurrence of overflows from combined sewers is a random phenomenon
dependent on rainfall. Computations for the overflow load were based on an
average rainfall intensity for an average precipitation year. Actual overflow
conditions, however, depend upon the type of storm, its intensity and duration.
Short duration, high intensity storms impose significant transient loads upon
a collection system and the receiving water. Long duration, low intensity
storms, can also produce high loadings which are spread over greater time
periods. The initial discharge from a given storm can contain a large portion
of the total load because of flushing of solids accumulated in the collection
12
-------
(3) (4)
system during dry weather conditions.
5. It has been reported that as much as 95 percent of the untreated
wastewater can be discharged directly to the receiving water via combined,
(5)
sewer overflow during periods of rainfall.
6. It is recognized that untreated municipal discharges and combined
sewer outflows contain significant quantities of suspended solids and bac-
teria. The large variability in the available data precluded a detailed
evaluation of these parameters.
Present Combined Sewer Overflow Load
The combined sewer and municipal discharge loads to the conference
area are summarized in Table 2. The location of the existing combined sewer
collection systems are shown in Figures 2A, 2B and 2C. Within this area,
there are 74 municipal collection systems, 43 of which have combined sewers.
These combined systems serve an area of approximately 165,000 acres and a
population of approximately 7.5 million people. The average annual load of
5-day BOD presently discharged to the waters of the conference area from
these combined sewer overflows is estimated at 48 million pounds per year
or approximately 11 percent of the 449 million pounds per year originating-
from existing municipal systems. Nearly all of this combined sewer overflow
pollutional load is discharged to Sections VI, VII and VIII, which includes,
the highly urbanized New York Metropolitan Area. The municipal collection,,
systems discharging to these sections serve a drainage area of 124,000 acres
and a population slightly in excess of 7.0 million people.
In Sections I through V, Troy to the New York-New Jersey state lines,
the average combined sewer overflow load is 8 percent of the annual 27 million
pounds of BOD from municipal discharges. The largest concentration of these
loads is in Section I, the Albany-Troy metropolitan area. Combined sewer
-------
TABLE 2
Estimated BOD Load from Municipal Discharges and
Combined Sewer Overflows in the Hudson River Conference Area
Section
I
II
III
IV
V
Sub -Total
VI
VII
VIII
Sub -Total
Total
Number
Municipal
Sources
17
9
5
8
15
54
10
6
4
20
74
Number
of
Comb ine'd
Sewer
Systems
7
6
2
1
7
23
10
6
4
20
43
Municipal
Discharge
Lbs/yr .
13,955,000
2,496,000
2,352,000
3,331,000
4,531,000
26,665,000
316,909,000
94,800,000
10,550,000
422,259,000
448,924,000
Present Waste Load
C omb ined Sewe r—
Overflow
Lbs/yr .
838,000
353,000
256,000
631,000
2,078,000
9,608,000
32,840,000
3,185,000
45,633,000
47,711,000
Ratio of Combined
Sewer Overflow
to Municipal
Discharge
Percent
6
14
11
14
8
3
35
30
11
11
Municipal
Discharge
Lbs/yr .
1,789,000
350,000
362,000
406 , 000
757,000
3,664,000
37,487,000
31,077,OOC
1,962,000
70,526,000
74,190,000
Future Waste Load
Combined Sewer-
Overflow
Lbs/yr .
1,760,000
462,000
256,000
259,000
631,000
3,368,000
18,898,000
35,500,000
3,185,000
57,583,000
60,951,000
Ratio of Combined
Sewer Overflow
to Municipal
Discharge
Percent
98
131
71
64
83
92
50
114
162
82
82
I/ Present combined sewer overflow load does not include the load from those combined systems discharging raw,
untreated waste.
-------
overflows in this section represent a very small portion of the total mu-
nicipal load because, based upon the methodology used, four of the eight
combined systems discharging without treatment were not considered to
contribute to the present overflow load.
The combined sewer overflow load in Sections VI, VII and VIII was es-
timated to be 11 percent of the total municipal load. Wide discrepancies
between the overflow and municipal discharge loads were found among the
respective sections. In Section VI, combined sewer overflows contributed
only 3 percent of the municipal load. This results from the large raw dis-
charges from Manhattan with the assumption of no associated combined sewer
overflow and the municipal discharge from the Passaic Valley Sewerage Com-
mission, which discharges its combined sewer overflow to waters outside the
conference area. In contrast, the combined sewer overflow load in Sections
Vll and VIII was approximately one-third the municipal load. In both these
sections, the large metropolitan service areas are characterized by dense
urban development with generally high runoff coefficients which increase
combined sewer overflows, while there is a significant reduction of the mu-
nicipal discharge load through treatment.
Future Combined Sewer Overflow Load
After implementation of the conference recommendations, the significance
of the pollutional load from combined sewer overflows becomes more apparent.
Overflow loads will then be greater than 80 percent of the municipal discharge
load, or 61,000,000 versus 74,200,000 pounds of BOD per year. A significant
change occurs in Sections I through V, where the load from combined systems
will be 92 percent of the municipal load or 3,400,000 versus 3,700,000 pounds
of BOD per year. In Sections VI through VIII, combined sewer overflows will
be 82 percent of the municipal discharge load, or 57,600,000 versus 70,500,000
pounds of BOD per year.
15
-------
Although data are not available to include industrial waste discharge
loads in the overall comparison with combined sewer overflows, an estimate
was made to determine in which .sections it will have the most significant
effect. Large industrial discharges are known to exist in the Albany-Troy
arjeaCSection I) and in the Tarrytown area (Section V). When these indus-.
trial waste loads are considered, combined sewer overflow would drop to
about 1.7 and 2.2 percent of the present load and 19.5 and 11.5 percent of
the future load, respectively, in Sections I and V. The ratio of combined
sewer overflow to total discharge load for other sections of the study, area
do ,not materially change.
Although this report is concerned primarily with the BOD load contained
in combined sewer overflows, there are other pollutional characteristics-
such as suspended solids and bacteria that add to the total problem.
Suspended Solids
Overflows from combined sewers contain suspended solids normally found
in municipal sewage and accumulated solids that have settled in sewers and
are flushed out during periods.of storm flow. This material constitutes a
portion of the BOD contained in combined sewer overflows. It increases the
turbidity of the receiving water and may settle to form oxygen demanding
benthic deposits. The suspended solids concentrations found in combined
sewer overflows from previous studies are summarized in Appendix Table A-l.
Applying an average concentration for suspended solids to the estimated
volume of combined sewer overflow after implementation of the conference
recommendations indicates that approximately 150 million pounds per year.
will be discharged to the water of the conference area.
Bacteria
Combined sewer overflows have been found to contain densities of .coli-
(6)
form organisms in the order of magnitude of that present in raw sewage.
16
-------
Other studies have indicated that coliform densities increased by a factor
of ten in the vicinity of combined sewer overflows, and persisted for
periods of several days. It is reasonable to assume that similar conditions
would o.tfcur in the conference area.
Effect on Water Uses
The conference recommendations specify in part that all wastes in the
conference area "...require a design for an average removal of. 90 percent
of biochemical oxygen demand..." and "...effective disinfection of the
effluents as required to protect water'uses...". Combined sewer overflows
will continue to introduce to the1 receiving water constituents that mayt tempo-
rarily violate the standards for the prescribed uses. Overflows contribute
organic material which decrease dissolved oxygen, introduce floating, sus-
pended and settleable material which reduce the aesthetic and recreational
values of the water and increase bacterial densities which can constitute
a danger to public health.
The future combined sewer overflow and municipal discharge loads in
relation to the primary water uses as defined by the water quality standards
are summarized in Table 3.
Of the 43 combined systems in the conference area, 16 will discharge
overflows representing 2 percent of the total load, or 1,600,000 pounds of
BOD per year, to waters classified for water supply and bathing. Overflows
from 27 combined systems will discharge the remaining 59,000,000 pounds per
year to water classified for fishing and navigation. A large portion of
this latter discharge, however, affects bathing waters which are immediately
adjacent to New York Harbor in the western end of long Island Sound and the
Lower Bay outside the Narrows. Water quality and dye studies conducted by
the FWPCA in connection with the Conference on Pollution of Raritan Bay and
17
-------
TABLE 3
Future Waste Loads as Discharged to Prescribed Water Use Areas
Primary
Water Use
Water Supply
Bathing
Fishing
Navigation
Total
Section
II, III
IV, V
It VI
VII, VIII
Number
Municipal
Sources
14
23
27
10
74
Number Municipal
Sources with
Combined Systems
8
8
17
10
43
Future Waste Load
Municipal Discharge
Lbs/yr.
712,000
1,163,000
39,276,000
33,039,000
74,190,000
Combined Overflow Sewer
Lbs/yr .
718,000
890,0(Jp
20,658,000
38,685,000
60,951,000
oo
-------
Adjacent Interstate Waters showed that waste discharged to Upper
Bay of New York Harbor affected the waters 'off Coney Island and Staten
Island.
19
-------
(1) (5) (4)
Methods of Correction
Several alternatives are available for the elimination and/or treat-
ment of the overflow from combined sewers. For the purpose of, discussion,
these methods have been divided into the following categories:
1. Separation of sewers
2. Storage and return to the system for treatment
3. Treatment at the point of overflow
4. Miscellaneous
Separation of Sewers
Complete Separation
New construction of waste collection systems favors a separation of
stormwater and sanitary waste. One recommendation of the conferees in the
Hudson River Enforcement Conference, September 1965, was "the construction
of combined sewer systems in newly developed or redeveloped urban areas
shall be prohibited". This recommendation has been effected for new con-
struction throughout the conference area. The conferees also recommended
elimination of combined sewers wherever feasible.
Complete separation of an existing combined system can be an enormous
structural and economic undertaking. In many instances, the task is further
complicated by the presence of underground utility lines (gas, electric,
telephone, steam, etc.) and subways, and the traffic rerouting associated
with open-cut excavations.
The American Public Works Association has estimated that the cost
of complete separation of sewers on a national basis will exceed $49 billion.
These studies indicate average per acre .costs of $13,000 and $19,000 and
average per capita costs of $1125 and $700 for the Middle Atlantic and,New
England areas, respectively. It is reasonable to expect that costs for
20
-------
complete separation in the New York Metropolitan Area would be signi-
ficantly higher than these estimates. Weighing these factors with the
need for funds for other 'aspects of the pollution control program,
complete separation does not appear feasible in the conference area.
Partial Separation
In lieu of complete separation, collection of either street runoff,
roof drains, air conditioner flow or foundation drains for diversion to
a separate collection system can represent an alternative which would
partially alleviate the problem of combined sewer overflows. Partial
separation has been calculated to reduce the total volume of runoff by
30-60 percent. The cost can be from 10-50 percent of that required for
W
complete separation.
Storage and Return to the System for Treatment
Methods for the storage of combined sewer overflow include: (1) util-
ization of excess capacity of the combined sewer, (2) underground storage
facilities such as tunnels, (3) surface structures such as holding basins,
ponds or lagoons, and (4) inflatable underwater holding tanks. The stored
wastewater would' be returned to the system for treatment during low flow
•periods. Each of these methods has merit depending on the physical char-
acteristics of the area, geological structure and proximity to a water
body. Among the storm and combined sewer grants and projects that have
been awarded by the FWPCA (see Appendix C), Minneapolis, Minn, is investi-
gating in-sewer storage, Chicago, 111. is constructing a tunnel for storage
and several areas are studying inflatable tanks. Surface ponds and lagoons
are feasible only where sufficient land is available rxea'r the point of over-
flow, i.e., in rural areas or close proximity to tidal or flood plain flat-
lands. When studies of these storage concepts are completed, the results
21
-------
will provide guidelines for recommending alternative solutions for other
areas.
All methods which provide storage of combined sewer overflow will
effect some degree of treatment by the removal of grit and other settle-
able solids. The need for collection and removal of this accumulated
matter will increase operation and maintenance costs.
Treatment at the Point of Overflow
Various types and degrees of treatment may be effected at the point
of overflow. Selection of the type of treatment should be dependent on
the projected use of the receiving water. Treatment methods which can
be used include disinfection, screening, settling or any combination of
the three. Disinfection alone can significantly reduce the bacterial
concentrations to levels required by the standards but will have little
effect upon the solids and BOD concentrations present in the overflow.
Chlorination, when applied at the proper dosage, will require effective
contact time in terms of residence or flow time in the sewer or holding
basin. High solids concentrations tend to reduce the bacteriocidal ef-
fects of the disinfectants resulting in the need for larger and costlier
dosages. It has been estimated that the chlorine needed to disinfect a
mixture of stormwater and sanitary sewage would be 20 percent greater than
(8)
for sanitary wastes alone.
Screening or microstraining at points of discharge can effectively
reduce, suspended solids and associated BOD, and the solids can then be
returned to the intercepting sewer for transport to the treatment, plant.
This method is presently being investigated in the Philadelphia, Pa. area
(see Appendix C).
22
-------
The City of New York, with the aid of an FWPCA construction grant,
has completed design and initiated construction of its first prototype
"Auxiliary Water Pollution Control Plant" (see Appendix C). This study
is supported by an FWPCA demonstration grant. The facility is designed
i
to settle and disinfect overflows and return the impounded water and
settled solids to the water pollution control plant. This project, lo-
cated at Spring Creek in Jamaica Bay, also includes a study of the effect
on water quality from the effluent.
Miscellaneous Methods
By the addition of polyelectrolytes to combined sewers, their capa-
city to carry greater volumes is increased. These polymers reduce friction
and increase the hydraulic capacity by a factor greater than two. This
method is presently being investigated with the aid of an FWPCA grant (see
Appendix C).
Most combined sewers in the Hudson River Conference Area were built
over 50 years ago. Interstate, state and local water pollution control
agencies are concerned that population densities have increased such that
the collection systems are overloaded, causing raw sewage to be by-passed
to the receiving stream via structures intended to divert stormwater flow
only. Many of these diversion structures are presently under-designed or
mechanically inoperable without continuous maintenance. Improved diversion
chambers with anti-fouling mechanisms or devices automatically controlled
in conjunction with flood routing of storm induced flows would result in
improved sewer efficiency and a reduction in the number and frequency of
combined sewer overflow. An FWPCA grant has been given the City of New
York to construct and evaluate a new diversion structure design which is
intended to eliminate dry weather discharge and increase interceptor
23
-------
efficiency during storm flows (see Appendix C).
Constant changes in zoning with resultant increases in population
densities, and change in land use patterns and surface characteristics
can impose conditions for which sewers were not designed. Through
proper regional planning.it may be possible to control land, use .and
maximize the capabilities of a collection system to reduce combined
sewer overflows.
Infiltration is a major problem in many collection systems, both
old.and new, and the increased flow often results in overflows even
without rainfall. Rigid specifications should be adopted and enforced
regarding methods of joining pipe sections, including more stringent
construction.inspection and testing. The evaluation of infiltration
problems.in old collection systems should be encouraged together with
the establishment of logical long-range programs to correct dificiencies
and replace or repair sewer lines as required. For existing .sewers,
recent innovations for television inspection and in-place seal ing.have
become available.
-------
Discussion
A conservative approach was taken in developing the data discussed in
this report. For example, values for the runoff coefficient "C" were
reduced because an annual average rainfall intensity was utilized in com-
puting combined sewer overflow volumes. The use of a lower runoff co-
efficient was substantiated by comparison with runoff coefficients*compu-
ted from actual rainfall-runoff data collected by the Federal Water pollu-
tion Control Administration, Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study. Lower
values of BOD in combined sewer overflows were applied to the less urban-
ized-communities as opposed to the large, densely populated Metropolitan
areas.
Many factors complicate the solution of the combined sewer overflow
problem: The foremost of these is the necessity of channeling presently
available 'funds into areas of more immediate need, namely the construction
of municipal waste treatment facilities. Also, the construction of com-
bined sewer overflow treatment facilities will not completely eliminate
the problem because, at this time, it appears that technical and economic
problems preclude the design of a system which provides complete treatment
of overflows from all storms. Systems can be designed, however, to pro-
vide minimum treatment for most overflows.
Another factor affecting the solution to the problem is the existence
of combined sewer collection systems which have been designed and construc-
ted many years ago. Hydraulic loads to intercepting sewers and diversion
structures in these systems often exceed design capacity. This results
in more frequent overflows during storm periods and in some cases the
diversion of raw sewage during dry weather periods. Many of the existing
diversion structures are mechanical devices which foul readily and func-
tion inefficiently. Before a massive construction program of combined
25
-------
sewer overflow treatment facilities is initiated, a program of maintenance
and/or modernization of the diversion structures should be undertaken.
There is a lack of sufficient quantitative information on the charac-
teristics of combined sewer overflows, particularly in the Hudson River
Conference Area. It is known that land use and developmental characteris-
tics of a given community or municipality greatly affect the quality and
quantity of combined sewer overflows. Most previous studies have been
conducted in larger cities which have high runoff characteristics, high
population densities and areas of commercial and/or industrial activities.
Very few studies have been conducted in less urbanized, lower population
density areas such as those located in the middle Hudson River Valley.
Few studies have been conducted which show the effect of combined sewer
overflows on the receiving water body. Studies such as those presently
being carried out by the City of New York in Jamaica Bay for the "Spring
Creek Auxilliary Water Pollution Control Program" will add significantly
to knowledge regarding these effects. Additional comprehensive studies
should be conducted in other water bodies (i.e. fresh water and salt
water) classified for different water uses (i.e. water supply, bathing,
fishing and shellfishing) which receive combined sewer overflows. The
effect of various land use characteristics should be integrated into such
a program wherever possible.
The method to treat combined sewer overflow is dependent on many
factors such as economics, a feasible treatment process and the availabil-
ity of space within close proximity of the overflow point. In the rural
middle and Upper Hudson Valley, land might be available for the construc-
tion of treatment facilities at the point of overflow. In the urbanized
New York Metropolitan area surrounding New York Harbor, where space is
26
-------
at a premium and land costs are high, a combination of methods such as in-
creased utilization of in-sewer storage through automated overflow regula-
tors, inflatable storage in the receiving water with return to the system
for treatment or some method' of treatment at the point of overflow might
prove feasible. The City of New York is awaiting an evaluation of its
Spring Creek-Jamaica Bay prototype installation before recommending a
course of action for future auxilliary projects.
To receive the maximum benefit from a combined sewer overflow abate-
ment 'program, remedial action should first be undertaken in high priority
water use-areas. These include Sections II, III, IV, and V in the Hudson
River'a'nd the Sections in the New York Metropolitan Area which affect the
recreational waters immediately adjacent to the conference area. The
health' hazard resulting from the discharge, of bacteria in the overflows
may be of prime concern with regard to the established water uses. The'
program may then be extended to areas of less critical water uses, or to
sections where the water quality standards may be upgraded in the future.
27
-------
Bibliography (References)
1. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department of
Interior, "Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows, (1967),
WP-20-11.
2. Stanley,- R. H., "How to Analyze Combined Sewage-Storm Water Collection
Systems", Water and Wastes Engineering, 3, 3, 58 (March 1966) and
3, 4, 48 (April 1966).
3. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U- S. Department of
Interior, Delaware Estuary Study, Chapter 4, Section F, Storm Water
Overflow, to be published July 1969.
4. Dunbar, D. D., Henry, J. G. F., "Pollution Control Measures for Storm-
waters and Combined Sewer Overflows", Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, 38, 1, 9 (January 1966).
5. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Serv-
ice, "Pollutional Effects of Stormwater and Overflows from Combined
Sewer Systems", Public Health Service Publication No. 1246, (November
1964).
6. Burm, R. J., "The Bacteriological Effect of Combined Sewer Overflows
on'the Detroit River", Journal of the Water Pollution Control Fede'ra-
tion, '39, 3, 410 (March 1967).
7. U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, Northeast Region, Raritan Bay Project, Edison, N. J.','
"Report for the Conference on Pollution of Raritan Bay and Adjacent
Interstate Waters", Third Session, May 1967.
8. Camp, T. R., "Chlori'nation of Mixed Sewage and Stormwater", Journal
San. Eng. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engr., 87, SA 1, 1 (19'61).
9. Chanin, G.,'"Summary of Storm Water Studies at the East Bay Municipal
Utility District's Wastewater Treatment Plant" Oakland, California,
(Undated memorandum).
10. Riis-Carstensen, E., "Improving'tlie Efficiency of Existing Intercept
tors", Journal of the Water Pollution'Control Federation, 27, 10,'
1115 (October 1955).
11. Burm, R. J., and Vaughan-, R. D., "Bacteriological Comparison between
Combined and Separate Sewer Discharges in Southeastern Michigan",
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 38, 3, 400
(March 1966).
28
-------
12. Burm, R. J., Krawczyk, D. P., and Harlow, G- L-, "Chemical and Physi-
cal Comparison of Combined and Separate Sewer Discharges", Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 40, 1, 112 (January 1968).
13. U. S- Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Serv-
ice, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Great Lakes -
Ill.inois River Basins Project, "Report on the Illinois River-System -
Water Quality Conditions", Part I Text; Chicago, Illinois, (1963).
14. Weibel, S. R., Anderson, R. J., and Woodward, R. L., "Urban Land Run-
off as a Factor of Stream Pollution", Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, 36, 7, 914- (July 1964).
15. American Public Works Association, "Interpretive Data, Combined Sewer
Overflows", Appendix B, Questionnaire, 1967.
16. Benjes, H. H., Haney, P. D., Schmidt, 0. J. and Yorabeck, R. R.,
"Storm-Water Overflows from Combined Sewers", Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, 33, 12, 1252, (December 1961).
17. Benzie, W. .J. and Courchaine, R. J., "Discharges from Separate Stbrm
Sewers and Combined Sewers", Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, 38, 3, 410 (March 1966).
18. Camp,.T. R., "The Problem of Separation in Planning Sewer Systems",
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 38, 12, 1959
(December 1966).
19. Ctiow, V. T., "Handbook of Applied Hydrology", McGraw-Hill Book Com-
pany, 1964, p!4-8.
20. City of Mew York, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Water Pollu-
tion Control,, "A. Presentation on the New York City Water Pollution-
Program", September 1967.
21. Evans, L- S. Ill, Geldreich, E- E., Weibel, S. R., and Robeck, G. G.,
"Treatment of Urban Stormwater Runoff", Journal of the Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 40, 5, R162 (May 1968).
22. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department of
the Interior, "Inventory of Municipal Waste Facilities", (1968, un-
published).
23. Geldreich, E. E., Best, L. C*, Kenner, B. A., and Van Donsel, D..J- •
"The Bacteriological Aspects of Stormwater Pollution", Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation, 40, 11,.1861 (November 1968).
29
-------
24. Hess, S. G-, and Manning, F. G., "A Rational Determination of Storm
Overflows from Intercepting Sewers", Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, 22, 2, 145 (February 1950).
25. Johnson, C* Frank, "Equipment, Methods, and Results from Washington,
D. C-, Combined Sewer Overflow Studies." Journal of the Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 33, 7, 721, (July 1961).
26. Moorehead, George J., "Overflows from Combined Sewers in Washington,
D. C." Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 33, 7,
711, (July 1961).
27. New York State Department of Health, "Existing Polluter Printout",
April 1968.
28. Palmer, C. L., "Feasibility of Combined Sewer Systems", Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation, 35, 2, 162 (February 1963).
29. Palmer, C. L., "The Pollutional Effects of Storm Water Overflows
from Combined Sewers", Journal of the Water Pollution Control Fed-
eration, 22, 2, 154 (February 1950).
30. Romer, H., and Klashman, L. M., "The Influence of Combined Sewers
on Pollution Control", public Works, March, April, 1962.
31. Weather Bureau, U- S. Department of Commerce, "Hourly Precipitation
Data", New York, (1961).
30
-------
APPENDIX A
PREVIOUS STUDIES
31
-------
Studies of Combined Sewer Systems
(5) (9)
East Bay Metropolitan Utility District, Oakland, Calif.
Of the six cities connected to the wastewater treatment plant,
only Oakland retains combined sewers which generate overflows through diver-
sion structures. These structures permit stonnwater-diluted wastewater to
pass through outfalls to San Francisco Bay. In spite of the essentially
separate collection system, wastewater flows in the interceptors increase
substantially during storms. Because the treatment plant will not accommo-
date the increased flow, it is necessary to bypass the plant during storms.
Extensive sampling of the various features of the system indica-
ted that substantial pollutional loads as measured by organic and inorganic
standards are carried by the combined sewer overflows. In addition, the
effect of overflows on the receiving streams was also examined. The
effect was clearly shown by the increase in BOD concentration from an aver-
age of 6.8 mg/1 above to 25 mg/1 below the overflow discharge and the in-
crease in coliform levels from an average of about 2,000/100 ml to
40,500/100 ml.
(5) (10)
Buffalo, N. Y.
In Buffalo, a number of methods were investigated with the ob-
jective of reducing pollution from combined sewer overflows. A special
term "Ch", or characteristic factor, was introduced as a method of compen-
sating for variables in population density and runoff coefficient. The
results of the study indicated that it was not possible to calculate a
favorable balancing of diversion factors for an actual combined sewer
system.
32
-------
(11) (12)
Detroit, Michigan
This investigation involved a sampling program of the outfalls
of combined sewers in the Detroit area. The Detroit-Connors Creek combined
sewer system, located in the northwest portion of the city, serves about
25 percent of the city population in an area of approximately 22,000 acres.
Total coliform concentrations were found to approach those in raw waste-
water .
(3)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
An investigation was conducted to evaluate the significance of
combined sewer overflows in the Delaware Estuary at Philadelphia. An auto-
matic instrumentation system was developed to record combined-sewer over-
flows and determine the quality of these overflows at six outfalls in
Philadelphia. Data from two of the outfalls were generated continuously
for a period of two years. A network of 21 rain gages was installed at
strategic locations in the city.
It was found that on the average, combined-sewer overflows con-
tributed approximately 6 percent of the total carbonaceous oxygen demand-
ing material to the Delaware Estuary. Since the investigation was conduc-
ted during an extended drought period, this was considered a conservative
estimate.
(5) (13)
Illinois River System
A 9-month :study was carried out in Chicago, Illinois in an area
of about 8.6 square miles served by the Roscoe Street sewer. During the
study period 31 storms occurred. The total BOD load discharged to the
stream was computed at 278,000 Ibs . These figures were used to estimate
the total BOD overflow load to the canal system. Flew data from three
33
-------
major plants were used for the computation and on this basis the average
total BOD overflow load was calculated to be 46,900 Ibs/day.
(6)
Detroit River
The Detroit River was studied to determine the effects of com-
bined sewer overflows on stream coliform densities. The effects of the
discharges from combined sewers were evident for several days after the
actual overflows had ceased. The duration of adverse effects on the
river was directly proportional to the intensity of the storm. After a
moderate rain, "the "relative increase'in coliform density was greater than
a thousandfold within a few miles of the discharge points. Patterns of
fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus densities were similar to those
of the total-coliforms, but to a lower order of magnitude. Total coliform
densities exceeded 100,000/100 ml in a large volume of the receiving water
after a moderate rain, and exceeded 1,000,000/100 ml after a severe storm.
Jamaica Bay
In 1968, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
with the cooperation of the City of New York, conducted a bacteriological
survey in Jamaica Bay to evaluate the significance of seasonal versus
year round chlorination of treatment plant effluents. Results indicated
a reduction in the steady state coliform levels to approximately 3,000/100
ml near the point of discharge after the start of chlorination. During
periods of combined sewer overflow, coliform levels increased by at least
a factor of ten and persisted for a period of approximately three days.
Summary
As a result of these studies, there is little doubt that com-
bined sewer overflows are important sources of water pollution.
34
-------
Table A-l is a compilation of data gathered from these investigations re
garding the quality of overflow discharges.
Studies of Separate Stormwater Systems
Cincinnati, Ohio
This study, conducted over a one-year period (July 1962 -
September 1963), investigated the pollutional characteristics of urban
land runoff. The study covered a 27 acre residential and light industrial
section of the city served by separate sewers. The study area consisted
primarily of single family homes, apartments and commercial buildings. The
population density was nine persons per acre. The results indicated that
the BOD from surface runoff is about equal to that expected from the
effluent of a secondary sewage treatment plant, but suspended solids con-
centrations are equivalent to those found in raw domestic sewage.
(11) (12)
Detroit, Michigan
A study was conducted which included the sampling of the Ann
Arbor - Allen Creek stormwater drain serving approximately 3,800 acres.
This area included residential, commercial and light industrial sections
as well as some undeveloped area. Results indicated that:
1. BOD in separate stormwater discharges was generally about one-
fifth of that observed in combined sewer overflows.
2. Total coliform densities were approximately one-tenth of those
in combined sewer overflows.
(5)
Washington, D. C.
A study was conducted to obtain data on street runoff. Limi-
ted sampling at catch basins during storm periods indicated that the
35
-------
average'BOD concentrations in the storrawater runoff from1 this urbanized'
area was 126 mg/1. The average concentration of suspended solid's"was
found to be 2,100 mg/1.
(5) (9)
East Bay Metropolitan Utility District, Oakland, Calif.
Sampling during storm periods at 21 sampling stations located
throughout the East Bay Metropolitan Area indicate that these flows con-
tained substantial pollutional loads. The resultss as reported, showed
that BOD concentrations ranged from 3 to over 700 mg/1 with an average
concentration of 87 mg/1. Coliform densities (MPN/100 ml) ranged from
4 to 70,000 and averaged 11,800. The average concentration of suspended
solids was 613 mg/1 with a range of 16 to 4,400 mg/1.
(5)
Los Angeles Flood Control District
A-,study, by the Water Conservation Division of the Los Angeles
Flood Control District, determined the quality of stormwater for the pur-
pose of investigating the feasibility of replenishment of groundwater
supplies. Average BOD concentrations during the storm seasons of 1932-34,
1957-58 and 1962-63 were 6.9 mg/1, 8.2 mg/1 and 16.1 mg/1, respectively.
The results also indicated that in the early period of storms BOD concen-
trations were about 70 mg/1 and decreased to around 10-20 mg/1 as the
storm continued.
Table A-2 is a summary-of the results of studies conducted on
stormwater runoff collection systems.
36
-------
TABLE A-l
Quality Characteristics of
Combined Sewer Overflows for Various Studies
Combined-Sewer Average Average Average
Overflow Study Total Coliform Susp. Solids 5-Day BOD
Areas per 100 ml (mg/1 )• (mg/1
Oakland, California
East Bay Met. Utility
Dist.
Interceptor Flows 293,000 128 ISO
Plant Bypassed Flows 1,408,000 253 133
Detroit Michigan
Corner Street Sewer
System 37,000,000 274 153
Buffalo, New York
Bird Ave. Sewer — 544 100
Baily Ave. Sewer — 436 121
Philadelphia, Pa.
WIN - H St. & Ramoria -- 330 145
SUS - Wildey & Susquehanna — 484 152
Ave.
BING - Garland & Bingham St. — 373 192
CHRIS - Water & Christian — 573 243
St.
37
-------
TABLE A-2
Quality Characteristics of
Stormwater Runoff Collection Systems
Average Average
Stormwater Collection System Average Total Coliform Suspended Solids 5-Day BOD
Study Areas MPN/100 ml (mg/1) (mg/1)
Cincinnati, Ohio
208
21
Ann Arbor - Allen Creek
(Detroit, Michigan)
Washington, D.C.
East Bay Met. Utility Dist.
Los Angeles Flood Control Dist.
(1962-63)
11,800
2,080
2,100
613
2,909
28
126
87
16
38
-------
APPENDIX B
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
39
-------
APPENDIX B
Discussion of Methodology
A summary of data and results of discharge load computations for all
municipal waste systems which significantly affect the waters of the Hud-
son River Conference Area is presented in Table B-l. Discharge loads were
computed on the basis of present conditions and estimates prepared which
represent conditions after implementation of the conference recommendations.
Assumptions used are described as footnotes in the Table.
The data used in computing the combined sewer overflow loads and the
results of these computations are summarized in Table B-2. The basic
equations employed were:
Q0 = CIA + Qd - Op 1)
LO = QOXJL*BO 2)
24
The methodology used in developing the entries in Table B-2 follow.
Column (1) - Combined Sewer Systems, (2) - Estimated Population Served. (3)
Area Served, (4) - Population Density, (5) - Treatment Plant Capacity, (6) -
Average Dry Weather Flow
All collection systems served by combined sewers are listed, including
raw discharges. Data were obtained from FWPCA Municipal Waste Inventory,
(22) (27)
1968, New York State Existing Polluter Printout, a New York City
(20)
Publication, ^ ' FWPCA Report WP-20-11 and correspondence with the
States of New York and New Jersey and the Interstate Sanitation Commission.
For certain selected communities with large tracts of undeveloped marginal
lands, the area served was derived by measurement from USGS quadrangle
topographic maps. When actual data were not available, dry weather flow
was computed on the basis of the population served and a per capita flow
of 100 gallons per day.
HO
-------
Column (7) - Average Runoff Coefficient
The runoff coefficient for a given area depends upon both natural
topography and patterns of land development. Runoff coefficients used
(19)
for this report are based upon those published by Chow, which were
originally formulated as the basis for (1) calculating runoff for storms
of high intensity and (2) calculating runoff at peak flow conditions.
However, the coefficient of runoff to be used to calculate average
flow conditions is less than the coefficient for determining peak runoff
during any storm. For the purposes of this investigation, the runoff
(19)
coefficients as published in Chow were reduced by one-third. This
reduction was substantiated by comparing computed runoff coefficients
from prototype data collected by the FWPCA, Delaware Estuary Comprehensive
Study, with the values listed in Chow. The computed values were found to
be approximately one-third less than those published.
Exceptions to the above rationale were made for Manhattan and por-
tions of the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn. These areas, which are unique in
terms of population density and land use characteristics, are served by
the Wards Island, Newtown Creek, Red Hook and Manhattan collection systems.
The runoff coefficients for these areas were not reduced as described above.
(19)
The coefficients used were the mean of the ranges given by Chow for
areas characterized as (1) Business: Downtown Areas and (2) Residential:
Apartment Dwellings.
Column (8) - Average Storm Intensity
Rainfall data for the study area were obtained from the Environmental
Science Service Administration, Weather Bureau for, stations located at
Albany-City, Poughkeepsie-1 N and New York-Central Park. Data for 1961,
an average precipitation year, were used in the computations.
41
-------
All rainfall falling on a given area does not produce combined -sewer.
overflow. To determine the minimum intensity which would produce overflow
in each of the systems, the following expression was used:
Qo =
-------
I = I. X n
avg. L i
ni
where:
I = average rainfall intensity (in/hr)
avg.
I. = unit storm intensity (in/hr)
n^ = number of occurrences of unit storm intensity
Example calculation - Bayonne, N. J.
I = 6.322 = 0.076 in/hr
avS- ~83~
Column (9) - Combined Sewer Overflow
The combined sewer overflow volume was calculated by using the data
from columns (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) and equation (1),
Q0 = CIA + Qd - Qp
For the systems which are presently discharging raw wastes, it was
assumed that the future treatment plant capacity would be equal to the
average dry weather flow (Column (6)). Therefore, the future overflow
volume for these systems would be equal to QQ = CIA.
Example calculation - Bayonne, N. J.
C = 40%
1 = 0.076 in/hr
A = 1260 acres
Qd = 8.0 MGD
Q = 20.0 MGD
Q0 = 0.40 x 0.076 inAr x 1260 acres x 0.645 MGD/CFS
+8.0 MGD - 20.0 MGD
QQ = 12.7 MGD
-------
Columns (10) and (11) - Combined Sewer BOD Load, Present and Future
The estimated BOD load was computed using equation (2),
Lo =
-------
TABLE B-l
(1)
Municipal Sewerage System
Pleasantdale
Troy
East Greenbush
Castleton-On-Hudson
Rensselaer
Latham S. D. Colonie
Delmar & Elsmere S. D. Bethlehem
Haplewood S. D. Colonie
Albany-Schenectedy S. D.
Cohoes
Green Island
Watervliet
Menands
Albany
West Albany
Colonie Latham
Ravena
Sub-Total
(2)
V
Type of"
System
S
C
S
C
C
S
S
S
S
C
B
C
S
C
S
S
S
Estimated
(3)
Estimated
Population
Served
8hO
67 673
5,200
1.752
10,506
7,000
11,900
2,500
9,000
19,950
3,533
lh.000
2.30U
126,000
600
3.000
2,ti2h
288,1(12
Loud from Municipal Discharges Hudson River
(U)
Type of
Treatment
Section I - Trov to New
None
None
Primarv
None
None
Primarv
Primary
Primarv
Primary
None
None
Primarv
None
Primary
None
Primary
Primary
(5)
Treatment
Plant
Capacity
(USD)
Baltimore
--
--
75
--
--
77
1 60
2 50
1.50
--
--
2 00
30.00
—
.77
.21
Conference Area
(6)
b/
Average
Dry-Wea ther
Flow (MOD)
0.08
6 80
0 52
0.18
1 05
0.70
1 20
0.25
0.90
2 00
0.35
l.UO
0.21i
12 60
0.06
0.30
0.2h
(7)
Municipal
Present c/
(Lbs/day) ~
1U3
11,500
575
298
1,786.02
771i
1,320
276
995
3,392
601
1.552
392
13,923
102
332
268
(8)
Discharge
Present
(Lbs/vr)
52,000
11,200,000
210,000
110,000
652,000
283,000
1»80,000
101,000
363,000
1,238,000
219,000
566,000
11*3,000
5,082,000
37,000
121,000
98,000
13.955,000
(9)
BOD Load
Future -
(Lbs/vr)
5,000
U20,000
32,000
11,000
65,000
1.3,000
7U,ooo
16,000
56,000
12li,000
22,000
87,000
lJi,000
782,000
U.ooo
19,000
15,000
1,789,000
-------
TABLE B-l (cont'd.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(li)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Municipal Sewerage System
Greenport S. D.
Hudson
Coxsackie
Athens
Catskill
Whittier S. D.
Saugerties
Kingston
Tivoli
Sub-Total
Highland S. D. Lloyd
Millbrook
Poughkeepsie
Arlington S. D. Poughkeepsie
Wappinger Falls
Sub-Total
a/
Type of
System
S
C
C
C
C
S
B
C
S
C
S
B
S
S
Estimated
Population
Served
1,500
11,270
2,8li9
1.75U
5,825
250
3.250
28,817
750
56,265
5,000
1,823
liO.OOO
8,000
3,500
58,323
Type of
Treatment
Section II - New Baltimore to
Primary
Primary
None
None
None
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Section III - Esopus
Primary
Primary
PrimarV
Primary
Primary
Treatment
Plant
Capacity
(M3D)
Esopus
0.15
3 70
--
--
--
0 10
0 80
S.oo
0.10
to Chelsea
0 50
0.15
10.00
1.00
75
Average-
Dry -Weather
Flow (MGD)
0.15
1 10
0 30
0 20
0 60
02
0 50
3.50
08
0 20
0.18
h 00
0.80
JL3JL
Muni cioal
Present V
(Lbs/day)
166
1.2U6
hfih
298
990
28
359
3,l81i
83
553
201
U,U20
881i
387
Discharge
Present
(Lbs/vr)
61.000
155,000
177,000
109,000
361,000
10,000
131,000
1,162,000
30,000
2,196,000
202,000
73,000
1,613 000
323,000
Ihl.OOO
2,352,000
BOD Load ./
Future -
(Lbs/vr)
9,000
70,000
18,000
11,000
36,000
2,000
20,000
179,000
5,000
350,000
31,000
11,000
2li8,000
50,000
22,000
362,000
-------
TABLE B-l (cont'd.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
tt)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Treatment
Municipal Sewerage System
Beacon
Newburgh
Cornwall
New Windsor
Cornwall S. D. #1
Highland Falls - North
Cold Springs
Highland Falls - South
Sub-Total
West Haverstraw
Haverstraw
Upper Nyack
Nyack
South Nyack
Orangetown S. D. #2
Peekskill
Croton-Gn -Hudson
Ossining-Water St. STP
Briarcliff Manor #1
N. Tarrvtown
Tarrytown
Irvington
Ossining-Liberty St. STP
Briarcliff Manor #2
Sub-Total
a/
Type of ~
System
S
C
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
B
S
B
B
B
B
S
B
B
Estimated
Population
Served
17,500
30,000
2,000
6,250
2,500
h,h69
2,083
65,302
Section
6,500
6,000
900
5,300
3,200
3li,000
18,000
3,920
llt,000
125
9,100
10,000
a, ooo
2,000
S.ooo
122,01,5
Type of
Treatment
Section IV - Chelsea to
Primarv
None
Primary
Primarv
Primary
Primary
None
Primary
V - Bear Mountain Bridge
Primarv
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Intermediate
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary
Plant
Capacity
(M3D)
Bear Mountain
It. 10
—
.2UO
625
21)0
1.00
~
.1
to New Jersey
.30
1.00
0.11
.80
30
8 50
3.00
0.75
2.00
.01,1,
1.70
1.50
1.00
l.ltO
0.1,5
Average-
Dry-Weather
Flow (M3D)
Bridge
1.75
3 00
0.20
.625
0.25
.«
0 20
.05
State Line
0.65
0.60
0.09
0.53
0.32
5.00
1.80
0.1)0
1.1,0
0.01
0.90
1.00
0.1)0
.20
—
Municipal
Present Sf
(Lbs/dav)
1,933
5,100
221
691
276
1»91»
351.
55
718
663
99
586
351,
3,757
910
U33
1,51.7
11.
1,006
1,105
10,2
221
553
Discharge
Present
(Lbs/vr)
706,000
1,862,000
81,000
252,000
101,000
180,000
129,000
20,000
3,331,000
262,000
21)2,000
36,000
211), 000
129,000
1,371,000
335,000
15B.OOO
565,000
5.000
367,000
1)03,000
161,000
81,000
202,000
a, 531,000
BOD Load d/
Future -
(Lbs/vr)
109,000
186,000
12,000
39,000
16,000
28,000
13,000
3,000
1,06,000
1,0,000
37,000
6,000
33,000
20,000
211,000
112,000
2lt,000
87,000
1,000
56,000
62,000
25,000
12,000
31,000
757,000
-------
TABLE B-l (cont'd.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Treatment
Municipal Sewerage System
a/
Type of ~
System
Estimated
Popula tion
Served
Type of
Treatment
Pl=nt
Capacity
(M3D)
Average ~
Dry-Weather
Flow (M3D)
Municipal Discharge BOD
Present I/
(Lbs/day)
Present
(Lbs/yr)
Load ri/
Future -
(Lbs/yr)
Section VI - New Jersey State Line to The Narrows
Edgewater
Hoboken
West New York
Jersey City-East Side
North Bergen
C
C
C
C
C
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission B
Yonkers
Manhattan
Red Hook
Owls Head
Sub-Total
Wards Island
Hunts Point
Bowery Bay
Newtown Creek
Tallman's Island
Manhattan
Sub-Total
Bayonne
Jersey City-West Side
Kearny
Port Richmond
Sub -Total
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
11.700
97,000
52.600
160.000
15,000
1.200.000
500.000
811 tiOO
235,000
800 000
3.882.700
1.250 000
703,000
637 ..000
763.600
390.000
291.UOO
h, 035. 000
71i,000
110,000
32,100
131,000
3^7,100
Primary
Pn marv
Primary
Primar/
Primar/
Primar /
Primar/
None
None
..
Section VII - East
--
—
--
—
--
None
Section VIII - Newark
Primary
Primary
Primarv
h UO
20 80
10 00
Ii6 00
3 30
21jO
63 00
--
--
160 00
River
220 00
150 00
120 00
310 00
60 00
..
Bav and Kill
20 00
36.00
h 00
10.00
2.30
IS 30
5 50
29 10
2 00
2U2 00
62.00
113 50
32 20
92.00
210.00
120 00
100 00
110 00
Ii2 00
Ijl 00
Van Kull
8.00
15 70
3.20
10.00
1,700
10,700
5.830
17,700
1 650
563.000
55.200
125,000
35,UOO
52,000
57.000
33.500
52.000
51,000
21,500
liS.ooo
8,200
12,200
3,SLo
5,000
620,000
3,900.000
2,130,000
6,k60 000
eoii.ooo
205,ii95,000
20.200,000
US ,600, 000
12.900,000
19,000,000
316.909,000
20,800,000
12,200.000
18.950.000
18. 600. 000
7,850,000
I6.lj00.000
91i.800.000
2,990,000
li.hSO.OOO
1,290,000
1,825,000
10,555,000
73,000
602,000
326,000
993,000
93,000
22,800,000
3,100,000
k, 560,000
1,290,000
3,650,000
37,ll87,000
9,617,000
U, 526,000
6,351,000
6,205,000
2,738,000
1,6110,000
31,077,000
U59,000
683,000
199,000
621,000
1,962,000
Total
8,85U,917
.929,000 7U,190,000
-------
TABLE B-l (cont'd.)
a/ S • Separate sewer collection system
C - Combined sewer collection system
B - Separate and combined sever collection system
b/ Actual flow if available. Where not available, computed using the estimated population served and a per capita flow of 100 gallons per day.
c/ Where plant data were not available, waste load was computed based upon the population served and a factor of 0.17 pounds of BOD per capita per day.
Treatment plants were credited with 35 percent BOD removal for primary treatment and 70 percent removal for intermediate treatment.
d/ Calculated on the assumption that implementation of the conference recommendations require all wastes receive an average of 90 percent removal of BOD.
-------
TABLE B-2
Estimated Load from Combined Sewer Overflows Hudson River Conference Area
(1)
Combined Sewer Systems
(2)
Estimated
Population
Served
(3)
Area
Served
(acres)
(10 (5) (6)
Treatment
Population Plant Average
Density Capacity Dry-Weather
(Persons/acre) (HDD) Flow (MM)
(7)
Runoff
Coefficient
( Percent)
(8)
Average
Storm
Intensity
(in/hr)
(9)
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
(MOD)
(10) (11)
Combined Sewer BOD Load
Present
(Lbs/yr)
Future
(Lbs/yr)
Section I - Troy to New Baltimore
Albany
Watervliet
Castleton-On-Hudson
Rensselaer
Troy
Green Island
Cohoes
Sub-Total
126,000
lli.OOO
1,752
10,506
67,673
3,533
19.950
2U3,Ult
8,5U,
705
38U
1,790
6,1,50
510
2,1.30
20,813
11,. 7
19 9
b.6
5.9
10 5
6 9
8.2
30 00 12
2.00 1
0
1
6
0
2
.60
.1,0
.18
.05
.80
.35
00
Section II - New Baltimore to
Hudson
Kingston
Saugerties
Catskill
Athens
Coxsackie
Sub-Total
Highland
Poughkeepsie
Sub-Total
11,200
28,817
3,250
5,82S
1,751,
2,81,9
53,695
5,000
1,0,000
1.5,000
1,000
2,51.0
1,000
500
333
6,081,
792
2,1,00
3,192
11.2
11.3
3 2
11.6
5.3
li.O
6.3
167
3 70 1
5.00 3
0.80 0
0
0
0
Section III - Esopus to
0.50 o
10.00 1,
.10
50
.50
60
.20
30
Chelsea
.20
.00
35
35
25
25
35
25
—
Esopus
30
25
30
30
20
20
20
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
_0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.056
.056
056
.056
.056
.056
056
.056
.01.8
.01,8
.056
056
.056
01,8
.01,8
90 60
8.30
3 50
16 20
81.60
li.60
_30_70_
8.3
18 2
9 0
s.a
2.1,
5.1
h.6
20.0
768,000
70,000
—
—
—
—
__
838,000
70,000
189,000
9li,000
~
—
353,000
1,8,000
208,000
256,000
768,000
70,000
29,000
137,000
691,000
39,000
260,000
1,991,,000
70,000
189,000
9l,,000
1,6,000
20,000
1,3,000
1,62 ,.000
1,8,000
208,000
256,000
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont'd.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Combined Sewer Systems
Estimated
Population
Served
Area
Served
(acres)
Population
Density
(Persons/acre)
Treatment
Plant
Capacity
(HID)
Section IV - Chelsea
Newburgti
Sub-Total
Peekskill
Ossinlng
Briarcliff Manor
N. Tarrytown
Tarrytown
Sub-Total
Hoboken, West New York,
Union City & Weehawken
Edgewater
lonkers
Manhattan
Red Hook
0»ls Head
Ho. Bergen
Jersey City
Sub-Total
JO, OOP
30,000
18,000
lii.OOO
125
9,100
10,000
51,225
11*9,600
11,700
500,000
811,1*00
235,000
800,000
15,000
160.000
2,682,700
2,300
2,300
2,880
1,920
SUO
1,110
1.790
8,51iO
2,680
890
2,700
7.U02
3,051.
12,9U7
550
3.880
3U.103
13.0
Section V
6.3
7.3
23
6.5
_!L6_
Section VI
55.8
13.1
185.2
109.6
76.9
61.8
27.3
lil.2
_„
- Bear Mountain
3.00
2 00
0 Olili
1 70
1 50
Average
Dry-Weather
Flow (KJD)
to Bear Mountain
_Loo_
Runoff
Coefficient
(Percent )
Bridge
JL.
Storm
Intensity
(in/hr)
O.OU8
Sewer
Overflow
(K>D)
2U.9
Combined
Present
(Lbs/yr)
—
—
Sewer BOD Load
Future
(Lbs/yr)
259.000
259,000
Bridge to New Jersey State Line
1 80
l.liO
0.01
0.90
1.00
25
25
20
25
25
0.051
0.051
0 051
0 051
o.oSi
22.5
1U.O
3.5
10.8
V±2_
218,000
136,000
31i,000
105,000
138,000
631,000
218,000
136,000
31), 000
105,000
138,000
631,000
- New Jersey State Line to The Narrows
30.80
k ko
63.00
—
--
160.00
3.30
U6.00
20.80
2.30
62.00
113-50
32.20
92.00
2.00
29.10
ho
35
1»0
So
60
US
35
UO
o.osi
o 051
0.051
o.oSi
0.051
0.063
0.051
0.063
25-3
8.2
3U.5
195.0
60.3
169.0
5.0
h6.1
921,000
79,000
1,255,000
—
—
5,6UO,000
182,000
1,531,000
9,608,000
921,000
79,000
1,255,000
7,100,000
2,190,000
5,6Uo,ooo
182,000
1,531,000
18,898,000
-------
TABLE B-2 (cont'd.)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(10
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Estimated
Population
Combined Sewer Systems Served
Wards Island
Hunts Point
Bowery Bay
Newtown Creek
Tallman's Island
Manhattan
Sub-Total
Bayonne
Jersey City
Port Richmond
Kearny
Sub-Total
1,250,000
703,000
637,000
763,600
390,000
291, UOO
b,035,000
7U.OOO
110,000
131,000
32,100
3b7,100
Area
Served
(acres)
Treatment
Population Plant
Density Capacity
(Persons/acre) (MJD)
Average Runoff
Dry -Weather Coefficient
Flow (BED) (Percent)
Storm
Intensity
(in/hr)
Sewer
Overflow
(MBD)
Combined Sewer BOD Load
Present
(Lbs/yr)
Future
(Lbs/yr)
Section VII - East River
12,056
16.66U
15,203
ll,39li
16,860
2,775
7li,9S2
1,260
U,li70
7,7liO
1,692
15,162
103.7
Ii2.2
1,1.9
67.0
23.1
10.5
58.7
2h.6
16.9
19 0
220 00
150.00
120.00
310 00
60.00
„_
Section VIII -
20 00
36.00
10 00
li.OO
210.00
120.00
100.00
110.00
h2.CO
la. oo
Newark Bay and Kill
8 00
15.70
10.00
3 20
60
ItO
ho
60
35
80
Van Kull
ho
ho
35
liO
0.051
0.051
0.051
0.103
0 051
o.oSi
0.076
0.063
o.oSi
0.063
226.0
189.0
180.0
255.0
176.0
_LLP_
.12.7
52.3
89.0
26.7
8,300,000
6,870,000
6,550,000
h, 720, 000
6,1*00 ..000
--
32,8bO,000
3UO.OOO
1,7U5,000
863,000
237,000
3,185,000
8,300,000
6,870,000
6,550,000
h, 720, 000
6, bOO, 000
2,660,000
35,500,000
3ttO,000
1,7U5,000
863,000
237,000
3,185,000
Total
7,li88,131j
165,lb6
Ii7,711,000 61.185.000
-------
APPENDIX C
LIST OF FWPCA GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
FOR THE
INVESTIGATION OF STORM AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
53
-------
A listing of Federal Water Pollution Control Administration spon-
sored grants and contracts for the investigation of combined sewer over-
flows and stormwater runoff is provided in Tables C-l and C-2. These
grants and contracts are designed to assist projects which will develop
or demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the discharge
into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated wastes from sewers
which carry stormwater or both stormwater and sewage.
-------
TABLE C-l
•WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
STORM AND COMBINED SEWER GRANTS
FISCAL YEAR 1968
AWARDED UNDER SECTIOH 6(a)l OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED
LOCATION/GRANTEE
PROJECT TITLE
GRANT NO.
ESTIMATED TOTAL FWPCA
PROJECT COST GRANT
CALIFORNIA
City and County of San
Francisco
San Francisco
IDAHO
City of Meridian
Meridian
ILLINOIS
City of Chicago
Chicago
City of Shelbyville
Shelbyville
Springfield Sanitary
District
Spr ingf ieId
Treatment of Combined Sewer Over- WPRD-258-01
flows by the Dissolved Air Flotation
Process
Reduction of Ground Water Infiltra- 29-IDA-2
tion into Sewers by Zone Pumping
Lawrence Avenue Overflow, Sewer 31-ILL-6
System
Systems Approach to Combined Sewer 24-ILL-4
Storm Water Overflow Pollution
Abatement
Evaluation of a Stabilization Pond 3-ILL-l
for Treatment of Combined Sewer
Overflows
1,463,000
25,000
2,640,760
199,140
921,000
18,375*
14,389,600 1,500,000*
440,000*
86,570*
* Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years.
in
-------
LOCATION/GRANTEE
PROJECT TITLE
GRANT NO.
ESTIMATED TOTAL FWPCA
•PROJECT COST GRANT
INDIANA
East Chicago Sanitary
District
East Chicago
East Chicago Treatment Lagoon
11-IND-l
LOUISIANA
Sewerage and Water Board Chlorination and Hypochlorination
of Polluted Storm Water Pumpage
14-LA-l
New Orleans
MASSACHUSETTS
Merrimack College
North Andover
Controlling Pollution from Combined WPD-217-01-68
Sewer Overflows and Storm Water by
Electrode Potential
Metropolitan District
Commission
Boston
MICHIGAN
Cit-y of Detroit
Board of Water Commissioners
Detroit
City of Mt. Clemens
Mt. Clemens
The Regents of the
University of Michigan
Detroit
The Construction of a Storm Deten-
tion and Chlorination Station
7-MASS-1
System Monitoring and Remote Control 4-MICH-l
A Combined Sewerage Collection and 37-MICH-2
Treatment Facility
Rainfall - Runoff Relations on
Urban (and Rural) Areas
3,116,533 1,044,120*
1,429,000 1,034,250*
45,413
21,563
4,345,650 1,000,000*
2,113,000 1.000,000*
667,500 500,250
WP-00834-04 20,085 (1968-69) 18,986
* Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years.
in
-------
LOCATION/GRANTEE
PROJECT TITLE
GRANT NO.
ESTIMATED TOTAL FWPCA
PROJECT COST GRANT
MINNESOTA
Minneapolis-St.,Paul
Sanitary District
St. Paul
City of South St. Paul
South St. Paul
City of South St. Paul
South St. Paul
NEW HAMPSHIRE
City of Somersworth
Somersworth
NEW JERSEY
Dispatching System for Control of
Combined Sewer Losses
1-MINN-l
Demonstration Project for Temporary WPRD-249-01
Detention of Storm and Combined Sewage
in Natural Underground Formations
Efficiency and Economy of Polymeric WPRD-111-01
Sewage Clarification
Somersworth Combined Sewage Overflow
Treatment Project
30-NH-l
1,741,500
380,000
845,159
931,800
870,750*
385,000
450,000*
559,080
Borough of New Providence
New Providence
NEW YORK
City of New York
New York
City of New York
New York
Utilization of High Rate Trickling 34-NJ-l
Filters for Treatment of Combined
Sewer Overflows
Evaluation of Spring Creek Auxiliary 36-NY-2
Pollution Control Project
Wards Island Water Pollution Control 25-NY-l
Plant Ponsar Flow Regulating Siphon
637,500
1,126,000
223,000
474,000
843,750
167,250*
* Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years.
-------
LOCATION/GRANTEE
PROJECT TITLE
GRANT NO.
ESTIMATED TOTAL FWPCA
PROJECT COST GRANT
OHIO
City of Cleveland
Cleveland
City of Columbus
Columbus
Montgomery County
Board of County Com-
missioners
Kettering
TEXAS
A Program for Demonstrating Com-
bined Sewer Overflow Control
Techniques for Water Quality
Improvement and Beach Protection
Modification of Whittier Street
Storm Stand-by Tanks
The Determination of Ground Water
Infiltration and the Effects of
Internal Chemical Sealing of Sani-
tary Sewers
City of Dallas
Dallas
WASHINGTON
Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle
Seattle
WASHINGTON. D. C.
National Association of
Counties - Research
Foundation
Washington, D. C.
Stormwater Treatment Facilities
Duwamish River-Elliot Bay Storm
Water Contol System
Community Action Guide for Erosion
and Sedimentation Control
WPRD-234-01
27-OHIO-1
WPRD-211-01-68
13-WASH-1
15030 DTL
1,030,000
1,231,519
137,000
WPRD-35-TEX-1 1,105,000
56,543
325,162
300,000*
96,570
828,750
3,891,900 1,400,000*
41,343
* Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years
Ul
co
-------
LOCATION/GRANTEE
PROJECT TITLE
GRANT NO.
ESTIMATED TOTAL FWPCA
"PROJECT COST GRANT
WISCONSIN
City of Chippewa Falls
Chippewa Falls
City of Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Utilization of a Storage Pond with 22-WIS-2
Treatment for Combined Sewer Overflows
773,983
289,685*
Humboldt Avenue Overflow Detention
and Chlorination Facility
10-WIS-l
2,118,118 1,468,589*
* Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years,
in
-------
TABLE C-2
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
STORM AND COMBINED SEWER CONTRACTS
FISCAL YEAR 1968
AWARDED UNDER SECTION 6(a)l OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED
LOCATION/CONTRACTOR
PROJECT TITLE
CONTRACT NO.
AMOUNT
CALIFORNIA
Acoustica Associates
Los Angeles
Aerojet-General Corp.
El Monte
Aerojet-General Corp.
El Monte
American Process Equipment Corp.
Los Angeles
FMC Corporation
Santa Clara
FMC Corporation
Santa Clara
FMC Corporation
Santa Clara
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Engineers
Palo Alto
Demonstrate Feasibility of Use of 14-12-23
Ultrasonic Filtration in Treating
Overflows from Combined and/or Storm
Sewers
A Method for Assessing the Extent of 14-12-197
Pollution from Storm Water Run-off in
an Urban Area
Role of Solids in Combined Sewage 14-12-180
Pollution
Fabrication and Evaluation of a 14-12-195
Ultrasonic System for Treating Sewage
Feasibility of a Periodic Flushing 14-12-19
System for Combined Sewer Cleansing
Feasibility of a Periodic Flushing 14-12-19
System for Combined Sewer Cleansing
Evaluation of a Periodic Flushing 14-12-466
System for Combined Sewer Cleansing
Engineering Investigation of the East 14-12-407
Bay Municipal Utility District of the
San Francisco Bay Area (Oakland)
$ 75,693*
402,594
92,605
248,500
31,093*
1,278
323,600
141,300
* Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years.
-------
LOCATION/CONTRACTOR
PROJECT TITLE
CONTRACT NO.
AMOUNT
CALIFORNIA (Cont'd.)
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Palo Alto
Water Resources Engineers, Inc
Walnut Creek
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Economic Systems Corp., AYCO
Washington
Underwater Storage Inc.
Washington
Underwater Storage Inc. and
Silver Schwartz Ltd.
Washington
FLORIDA
University of Florida
Department of Environmental
Engineering
Gainesville
GEORGIA
Triumvirate, Storm Water Pollution
Control Management
Triumvirate, Storm Water Pollution
Control Management
Develop the Relation between Land-Use
Practices and Influence of Pollution
in Urban Storm Water
Demonstrate Underwater Facility to
Provide Temporary Storage of Storm
Overflows from a Combined Sewer
Pilot Demonstration Underwater Storage
Facility for Storm Water Overflow
Triumvirate, Storm Water Pollution
Control Management
14-12-502
(11024 DOC)
14-12-501
(11024 EBI)
14-12-187
14-12-42
14-12-139
14-12-503
(11024 EBJ)
$253,800
114,860
114,300
97,714*
573,067
144,990
Black, Crow & Eidsness
Atlanta
An Engineering Investigation of Com- 14-12-458
bined Sewer Problems of Atlanta, Georgia
263,826
* Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years.
O>
-------
LOCATION/CONTRACTOR
PROJECT TITLE
CONTRACT NO.
AMOUNT
ILLINOIS
American Public Works Association
Chicago
Analysis of Regulator Facilities,
Their Application and Maintenance
Practices
14-12-456
$ 65,000
American Public Works
Association-Research Foundation
Chicago
American Public Works Association
Chicago
American Public Works Association
Chicago
MARYLAND
Bowles Engineering Corp.
Silver Spring
Hercules Incorporated
Cumberland
Hittman Associates
Baltimore
Causes, Extent and Control of
Infiltration
Study Methods for Reducing Water WA-66-23
Pollution from Storm Sewer and Com-
bination Discharges through Defined
Public. Work Practices
The Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities 14-12-65
and Overflows in United States Communities
Fluidic Interceptor Study
A Feasibility Study of Utilizing a
Self-Cleaning, Self-Adjusting Spiralloy
Filter
System Study, Design and Evaluation of
Local Storage, Treatment and Reuse of
Water
14-12-20
104,000*
250,000
14-12-486
(11020 DGZ)
14-12-39
58,891
108,293
197,724
MASSACHUSETTS
Ionics Incorporated
Watertown
Feasibility of High Current Density
Hypochlorite Generation
14-12-490
(11023 DAA)
74,646
* Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years,
o>
10
-------
LOCATION/CONTRACTOR
PROJECT TITLE
CONTRACT NO.
AMOUNT
MICHIGAN
Dow Chemical Company
Midland
Dow Chemical Company
Midland
NEBRASKA
Demonstrate the Use of Polymeric
Flocculants for Improved Efficiency in
the Treatment of Combined Sewer Over-
flows at the Milk River Pumping Station
Rock Creek Clarification Project
(Washington, D. C.)
Henningson, Durham, & Richardson An Engineering Investigation of Storm
and Combined Sewer Problems
Omaha
NEW JERSEY
American Standard Incorporated
New Brunswick
Develop a Suspended Solids Monitor
14-12-9
14-12-170
14-12-402
14-12-494
$700,000*
52,604
301,200
121,946
NEW YORK
American Society of Civil
Engineers
New York
OHIO
Feasibility and Development of New
Methods of Separating Sanitary Sewage
from Combined Sewerage Systems
14-12-29
343,210
Burgess & Nipple, Limited
Consulting Engineers
Columbus
Havens and Emerson Consulting
Engineers
Develop the Relation Between Land-Use
Practices and Increase of Pollution in
Urban Stormwater
14-12-401
Feasibility Study and a Preliminary De- 14-12-27
sign of a Full-Scale Stabilization Re-
tention Basin to be Installed in Lake Erie
and to Serve the Demonstration Area Within
the Easterly Sewer District
136,665
87,616*
Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years.
-------
LOCATION/CONTRACTOR
PROJECT TITLE
CONTRACT NO.
AMOUNT
OHIO (Cont'd.)
Karl R. Rohrer Associates
Akron
Design,- Construction, and Operation
of a Facility to Demonstrate Offshore
Underwater Temporary Storage of Storm
Overflow from a Combined Sewer
14-12-143
$498,248
Rand Development Corporation
Cleveland
Design, Construction, Operation and
Evaluation of a Rapid-Flow Combustile
Filter for Treatment of Combined Sewer
Overflow
WA-67-2
300,000*
OKLAHOMA.
Rhodes Corporation
Oklahoma City
Rhodes Corporation
Oklahoma City
Demonstration Project of a Prototype 14-12-11
Treatment Plant Designed to Treat Wastes
Found at a Combined Sewer Overflow
Demonstration Project of a Prototype 14-12-11
Treatment Plant Designed to Treat Wastes
Found at a Combined Sewer Overflow
256,448*
61,285
OREGON
Cornell, Howland, Hayes
and Merrifield
Corvallis
Primary Treatment of Storm Water Over-
flow from Combined Sewers by High Rate
Fine Mesh Screens
14-12-128
139,331
PENNSYLVANIA
Glenfield and Kennedy Inc.
King of Prussia
Microstraining Pilot Tests
14-12-136
186,086
* Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years
o>
•F
-------
LOCATION/CONTRACTOR
PROJECT TITLE
CONTRACT NO.
AMOUNT
PENNSYLVANIA (Cont'd.)
R. F. Weston
West Chester
The Franklin Institute
Philadelphia
RHODE ISLAND
Fram Corporation
Providence
Develop and Demonstrate a Method for 14-12-403
Assessing the Extent of Pollution from
Storm Water Run-off in an Urban Area
Selected Abstracts of Storm Water 14-12-467
Discharges and Combined Sewer Overflows
Feasibility Investigation of a Self- 14-12-17
Cleaning Strainer and a Self-Cleaning
Filter
$223,514
8,946
32,733
TEXAS
Western Company
Richardson
Western Company
Richardson
Western Company
Richardson
Methods to Reduce Water Pollution 14-12-34
Caused by Storm Water Sewer Loading by
Using Fluid Flow Friction Reducers
Methods to Reduce Water Pollution 14-12-34
Caused by Storm Water Sewer Loading by
Using Fluid Flow Friction Reducers
Development and Demonstration of 14-12-146
Materials to Reduce or Eliminate Water
Infiltration Into Sewerage
300,178*
76,000
96,702
VIRGINIA
Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern
Roanoke
Melpar, Incorporated
Falls Church
Engineering Investigation of Combined 14-12-200
Sewer Overflow Problem
Construction of a Facility to Demon- 14-12-133
strate Off-Shore Underwater, Temporary
Storage of Storm Overflow from a Com-
bined Sewer
Ul
* Active in FY 1968 - Supported by funds awarded in previous years.
104,191
411,305
-------
LOCATION/CONTRACTOR
PROJECT TITLE
CONTRACT NO.
AMOUNT
WISCONSIN
All is-Chalmers
Milwaukee
Rex Chainbelt, Inc.
Milwaukee
Design, Construction, Operation and 14-12-24
Evaluation o£ a Demonstration Waste
Treatment Device Termed the Rotating
Biological Contractor
Demonstration of the Applicability of 14-12-40
Screening and Chemical Oxidation of
Storm and Combined Sewage
$388,526
197,989
------- |