zusgs · additional support for the construction of the mctt and subsequent evaluation work was...
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management DeviceBy Steven R. Corsi, Steven R. Greb, Roger T. Bannerman, and Robert E. Pitt
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 99-270
Prepared in cooperation with theWISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Middleton, Wisconsin 1999
ZUSGSscience fora changing world
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Charles G. Groat, Director
Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
For additional information write to:
District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 8505 Research Way Middleton, Wl 53562-3586
Copies of this report can be purchased from:
U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225-0286
CONTENTS
Abstract.................................................................................................................................^ 1Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose and scope....................................................................................................................................................... 1Acknowledgments..............................................................................................~^ 1
Study description.........................................................................................................................................................^ 2Design of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train....................................................................................................... 2Site description..................................................................................................^^ 2Sampling design.......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation of Multi-Chambered Treatment Train efficiency................................................................................................ 3Water quantity............................................................................................................................................................. 3Concentration summary statistics ............................................................................................................................... 5Water-quality characteristics....................................................................................................................................... 6Major ions................................................................................................................................................................... 9Nutrients...................................................................................................................................................................... 11Metals.......................................................................................................................................................................... 11Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.............................................................................................................................. 12Microtox results.......................................................................................................................................................... 13Particle-size distribution ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Summary...................................................................................................................................................................^ 13References cited.................................................................................................................................................................... 14Appendixes:
1. Concentrations and other measurements of monitored water-quality characteristics in influent and effluent tothe Multi-Chambered Treatment Train at Ruby Street garage in Milwaukee, Wis.............................................. 18
2. Loads and removal efficiencies of monitored constituents in the influent and effluent to the Multi-ChamberedTreatment Train at Ruby Street Garage in Milwaukee, Wis................................................................................. 23
3. Results from Microtox analyses of influent and effluent samples at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Trainat Ruby Street Garage in Milwaukee, Wis........................................................................................................... 24
FIGURES
1. Cross-sectional view of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train device, showing the two samplinglocations in Milwaukee, Wis................................................................................................................................ 2
2. Cumulative rainfall distributions for the study period and historical rainfall records (1948-92) forMilwaukee, Wis.................................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Total influent and effluent loads for volatile suspended solids, total suspended solids, and totaldissolved solids accumulated over the entire rating period at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in Milwaukee, Wis.................................................................................................................................................... 10
4. Event-mean concentrations of chloride in influent and effluent for the 15 monitored storms,Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, in Milwaukee, Wis............................................................................ 10
5. Event-mean concentrations of ammonium in influent and effluent for the 15 monitored storms,Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, in Milwaukee, Wis............................................................................. 11
6. Average influent and effluent particle-size distributions for the 15 monitored storms in theMulti-Chambered Treatment Train, in Milwaukee, Wis...................................................................................... 14
TABLES
1. Aggregate water-quality characteristics and inorganic constituents list analyzed for Multi-ChamberedTreatment Train study, Milwaukee, Wis............................................................................................................... 4
2. Organic constituents analyzed for Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, Milwaukee, Wis.............................. 53. Inorganic influent and effluent minimum, maximum, and median event-mean concentration values for the
monitored storms (n=15) at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in Milwaukee, Wis. ................................... 74. Dissolved and total influent minimum, maximum, and median event-mean concentrations of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons for the monitored storms (n=15) at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in Milwaukee, Wis.................................................................................................................................................... 8
CONTENTS III
CONVERSION FACTORS AND ABBREVIATED WATER-QUALITY UNITS
Multiply By To Obtain
centimeter (cm)meter (m)
meters2 (m2)meters3 (m3)
liter (L)gram
kilogram (kg)
0.3943.28
10.7635.31
0.26422.20 x ID'32.20
inchfootfeet2feet3gallonpoundpound
Abbreviated water-quality units used in this report: Chemical concentrations and water temperature are given in metric units. Chemical concentration is given in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or micrograms per liter (|ig/L). Milligrams per liter is a unit expressing the concentra tion of chemical constituents in solution as weight (milligrams) of solute per unit volume (liter) of water. One thousand micrograms per liter is equivalent to one milligram per liter. For concentrations less than 7,000 mg/L, the numerical value is the same as for concentrations in parts per million. Other units of measurement used in this report are microsiemens per centimeter at 25°Celsius (|iS/cm) and micrometers (Urn).
IV CONVERSION FACTORS AND ABBREVIATED WATER-QUALITY UNITS
Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
By Steven R. Corsi 1 , Steven R. Greb2 , Roger T. Bannerman2 , and Robert E. Pitt3
Abstract
This paper presents the results of an evalua tion of the benefits and efficiencies of a device called the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train (MCTT), which was installed below the pavement surface at a municipal maintenance garage and park ing facility in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Flow- weighted water samples were collected at the inlet and outlet of the device during 15 storms, and the efficiency of the device was based on reductions in the loads of 68 chemical constituents and organic compounds. High reduction efficiencies were achieved for all particulate-associated constituents, including total suspended solids (98 percent), total phosphorus (88 percent), and total recoverable zinc (91 percent). Reduction rates for dissolved fractions of the constituents were substantial, but somewhat lower (dissolved solids, 13 percent; dissolved phos phorus, 78 percent; dissolved zinc, 68 percent). The total dissolved solids load, which originated from roadsalt storage, was more than four times the total suspended solids load. No appreciable difference was detected between particle-size distributions in inflow and outflow samples.
INTRODUCTION
The implementation and installation of water-qual ity best management practices (BMP's) in developed urban areas is problematic. A landscape composed of buildings and pavement presents little opportunity for placement of new BMP's. To overcome this obstacle of limited space, new retrofit BMP technologies are emerging that use underground space, and thus do not disrupt current above-ground land uses. One such device, called the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train (MCTT), uses aeration, settling, filtration, sorption, and ion exchange to provide a high level of treatment of stormwater runoff (Pitt and others, 1997). Underground retrofitted BMP's have two additional advantages. First, they are effective at targeting source areas that generate
large pollutant loads, such as maintenance yards and busy parking lots. Second, they provide a viable alterna tive where space limitations preclude the use of larger open BMP's such as wet detention ponds.
As part of an ongoing program of urban water- quality research in Wisconsin, the U.S. Geological Sur vey (USGS), in cooperation with the Wisconsin Depart ment of Natural Resources, evaluated the water-quality benefits of a newly constructed MCTT. The primary objective of this project was to design and install a MCTT at a municipal maintenance yard and measure the pollutant reduction achieved by this device. The purpose of this project was to provide Wisconsin's urban land managers with additional information about the MCTT with which to make decisions on the imple mentation of BMP's.
Purpose and Scope
This report describes the methods of the Milwau kee MCTT study and presents the results of the USGS and WDNR evaluation. Detailed data on selected water- quality properties and constituents, including concen trations, loads, toxicities, and efficiencies of removal by the MCTT, are listed in appendixes.
Acknowledgments
Additional support for the construction of the MCTT and subsequent evaluation work was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Region V, Section 319 funds), and the City of Milwaukee. The authors thank Timothy Thur of the City of Milwaukee for providing the site and facilities support and Thomas Davenport, USEPA Region V project officer for program support.
.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, Wisconsin.2Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison,
Wisconsin.3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Abstract
Inflow
Inletsamplingpoint
Ground level
Drawing not to scale; actual size of selected components given in centimeters (cm).
38.1-cm-diameterconcretepipe
Outletsamplingpoint
Figure 1. Cross-sectional view of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train device, showing the two sampling locations in Milwaukee, Wis.
STUDY DESCRIPTION
Design of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train
The MCTT consists of three components: a grit chamber, a settling chamber, and a filter media chamber (fig. 1). The 1.22-m-diameter grit chamber or catch basin removes the larger sized particles in runoff from the contributing area. In addition, a mesh bag of column packing balls suspended in the grit chamber enhances aeration and removal of highly volatile components (this component was not used for the MCTT in this project). The second chamber, where most of the set tling takes place, contains inclined tube settlers that increase removal of solids by reducing the distance that particles must fall. The modular tubes are slanted at 60 degrees, so particles are not required to fall the full depth of the tank. As the water flows through the tubes, particles settle on the tube walls. Eventually, built-up material on the tube walls sloughs off and collects in the bottom of the tank, where it is periodically pumped out. The chamber also contains absorbent pillows that remove floatable hydrocarbons. Stormwater fills the tank and then slowly drains to the final chamber by way of a 0.9-cm orifice. This restricted outlet increases
x
water-retention time in the settling tank (24 hours when filled completely) and enhances the particle settling. The third chamber, called the filter media chamber, con
tains a mixed media of sand, peat, and activated carbon supported by filter fabric and is designed to remove fine particles, along with some dissolved constituents by means of sorption and ion exchange. Water exits this chamber through a perforated pipe underlying the filter media and flows directly into the existing storm sewer.
The second and third chambers at the study site were constructed from a single partitioned concrete box (3.0 m wide x 4.6 m long x 1.5 m high). The capacity of the settling chamber is 21 m3 , although the height of the
o
orifice results in a dead-storage capacity of 10.5 m , leaving the actual storm-volume capacity at 10.5 m3 . Once this capacity is reached, any additional water backs up on the parking-lot surface, eventually spilling over to an adjacent storm-sewer inlet.
Manhole covers were placed in the top of the set tling and filter media chambers for access and mainte nance purposes. According to design and operation specifications, the unit should be inspected every 6 months to ensure all chambers are operational. The maintenance requirements are somewhat site specific, although the catch basin and settling chambers should be cleaned every 6-12 months and the filter media should be replaced every 3-5 years.
Site Description
The site chosen for this project was a municipal maintenance garage and parking facility in Milwaukee,
2 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
Wis. The site is used heavily by garbage trucks, plows, and other large road equipment. The garage, originally built in 1948, is surrounded by a large parking area composed mainly of aged asphalt with some concrete pavement. Given the nature of the parking lot's activi ties, it is common for oily deposits, yard waste, sand, and salt to accumulate on the pavement surface. Runoff water from the parking area drains into the storm-sewer system through several storm grates/catch-basin inlets. The MCTT device was installed below the pavement surface and placed in line between one of the catch basins and the existing storm-sewer pipe. Because of the finite capacity of the MCTT and the slow draining of the settling chamber, the unit was expected to become surcharged when rainfalls exceeded 1.26 cm, but an overestimation of the runoff area draining to the MCTT led to an overdesign of the device. Conse quently, the device can actually hold water from a 2.5 cm rainfall without being surcharged (the surface
r*
area draining to this device is approximately 426 m ).
Sampling Design
The evaluation of the installed MCTT device was based on results of chemical analyses of flow-weighted samples collected during 15 storms at two locations, the inlet and outlet of the device.
The 15 storms (events) were monitored as three separate groups. The first group consisted of four con secutive events, the second was five consecutive events, and the third was six consecutive events. This was done for two reasons: first, because the settling tank has some permanent storage, monitoring individual events would not allow for direct comparison of influent and effluent from the same event, and second, technical difficulties two times during the monitoring period prevented the sampling of 15 consecutive events.
Flow into the device was calculated from velocity measurements in the inlet pipe. Flow out of the settling chamber was calculated from water-level measure ments in the settling chamber. Outlet flow was assumed to be equal to flow out of the settling chamber.The influ ent (inlet) sample was collected from a creased flat plate mounted below the storm grate. The effluent (outlet) sample was collected from the perforated pipe draining the filter-media chamber. The 15 flow-weighted sam ples were collected by automated sampling equipment. Two refrigerated samplers equipped with peristaltic pumps and Teflon-lined sample tubing collected the
influent and effluent samples in four 10-L glass jars. Composite samples were processed for analysis only if at least two subsamples were collected during increas ing flow, two subsamples during decreasing flow, and one near the peak flow. Samples were transported to the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (WSLH), where they were analyzed for a total of 68 constituents, including solids, nutrients, trace metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's). All constituents tested at the WSLH, along with their abbreviations, detection limits, and method used, are listed in tables 1 and 2. The Microtox toxicity screening procedure (Azur Environ mental Inc., Carlsbad, Calif.) was performed on all 15 influent and effluent samples. This rapid procedure involves a marine bioluminescence bacteria (Vibrio fis- cheri)', samples having greater toxicity are indicated by less light output. Particle-size analysis was performed on all samples using a Coulter Counter Multisizer II (Beckman Coulter Inc., Fullerton, Calif). Both Micro tox and particle-size analysis were done at the Univer sity of Alabama, Birmingham, Environmental Engineering Laboratory. Loads were computed as the product of the event-mean concentration and total stormflow volume, thus the removal performance of the device was measured by comparing differences in con stituent mass into and out of the device. All computa tions and statistical analyses were done with SAS statistical software (1988).
EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY
Water Quantity
Fifteen storms, occurring from April 29 through September 8,1996, were monitored and sampled. Rain fall amounts for these storms ranged from 0.45 to 3.48 cm. Calculations based on the delineated drainage area indicate that total stormwater volumes for the storms ranged from 1.96 to 14.9 m3 . The actual quantity of water passing through the MCTT was 1.72 to 9.10 m3 . None of the storms resulted in surcharge of the MCTT. On average, 87 percent of the rainfall resulted in direct runoff to the MCTT. The remaining rainfall volume may have been lost in interception storage, through cracks in the aged pavement surface, or through joint leaks between the grit chamber and the main settling chamber.
EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY
Table 1. Aggregate water-quality characteristics and inorganic constituents analyzed for Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, Milwaukee, Wis.[mg/L, milligrams per liter; ug/L, micrograms per liter]
Constituent
Aggregate Characteristics
Alkalinity, total
Biochemical oxygen demand
Chemical oxygen demand
Color
pH
Specific conductance
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Turbidity
Volatile suspended solids
Nutrients
Ammonium as N
Nitrate + nitrite as N
Dissolved phosphorus
Total phosphorus
Major ions
Total calcium
Dissolved calcium
Chloride
Dissolved magnesium
Total magnesium
Sulfate
Metals
Dissolved cadmium
Total cadmium
Dissolved chromium
Total chromium
Dissolved copper
Total copper
Dissolved lead
Total lead
Dissolved zinc
Total zinc
Abbreviation
Alk.
BOD
COD
Color (PU)
pH
SC
TDS
TSS
Turbid.
VSS
NH4
NO3
DP
TP
Ca
Ca
Cl
Mg
Mg
S04
Cd
Cd
Cr
Cr
Cu
Cu
Pb
Pb
Zn
Zn
Units
mg/L as CaCO3
mg/L
mg/L
Plat. -Cobalt
Standard Units
Us/cm
mg/L
mg/L
NTU
mg/L
mg/L as N
mg/L as N
mg/L as P
mg/L as P
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
Hg/L
f-ig/L
Ug/L
Hg/L
l-ig/L
[j,g/L
f-ig/L
fj,g/L
Limit of Detection
5
3
5
1
0.1
7
5
5
.05
5
.027
.02
.002
.008
1
1
1
1
1
5
.02
.04
.5
1
.7
1
.4
.8
8
19
Method 1
SM 2320B
SM5210B
EPA 41 0.4
SM2120B
SM4500B
SM2510B
SM2540C
SM2540D
SM3120B
SM2540F
SM4500H
SM4500F
SM4500PF
SM4500PB
SM3111B
SM3111B
SM4500CL
SM3111B
SM3120B
SM4500SO4
SM3113B
EPA 200.9
SM3113B
EPA 200.9
SM3113B
EPA 200.9
SM3113B
EPA 200.9
SM3113B
EPA 200.9
'EPA (1979); and SM, Standard Methods, American Public Health Association and others, 1989.
4 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
Table 2. Organic constituents analyzed for Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, Milwaukee, Wis.[mg/L, milligrams per liter; ^g/L, micrograms per liter; PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; -, none]
ParameterDissolved organic carbonTotal organic carbonSum of total PAH's2AcenaphtheneAcenaphthyleneAnthraceneBenz[a]anthraceneBenzo[a]pyreneBenzo[6]fluorantheneBenzo[g, h, /]peryleneBenzo[£]fluorantheneChryseneDibenz[a, /j]anthraceneFluorantheneFluoreneIndeno[l,2,3-c,J]pyreneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePyrene
Abbreviation Units Limit of DetectionDOC mg/L as C 1TOC mg/L as C 1
TPAH ug/L 0.47N/A ug/L .048
Ug/L .044Ug/L .015Ug/L .059Ug/L .041Ug/L .073ptg/L .05Ug/L .059Ug/L .03Ug/L .019Ug/L .098Ug/L .12Ug/L .078Ug/L .054Ug/L .035Ug/L .063
Method 1SM5310SM5311SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310SW8310
'SM, Standard Methods, American Public Health Association and others, 1989; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1996) solid-waste method.
2Sum of total PAH's includes the sum of all 16 species of total PAH.
Compared to historical precipitation records, the depths of rainfall for these 15 storms were larger than average (fig. 2). This may be due to the short period that the MCTT was monitored, which included mainly warm weather rainstorms. The historical record includes precipitation from the entire year (from intense summer thunderstorms, long duration fall and spring rainfall, and snowfall). Long-term records (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1997) show only 20 percent of Milwaukee storms are greater than 1.3 cm in precipitation, whereas during the period of study, approximately half of the storms were greater than 1.3 cm. Therefore, in terms of rainfall amounts, the study- period events may be considered a rigorous test of the system. The fact that none of the storm-runoff amounts exceeded the design capacity, even though the largest amounts were expected to, was due to inaccurate delin eation of the drainage area at the design phase and resultant overdesign of the unit.
Concentration Summary Statistics
Summaries of the inorganic and organic concentra tion data for the inflow and outflow samples are given
in tables 3 and 4 and in appendix 1, and a summary of the load data and removal efficiencies of the MCTT is given in appendix 2. All samples were collected on a volume-weighted basis; hence, the concentrations reported here are event-mean concentrations. The con stituent concentrations in the runoff entering the unit were characteristic of stormwater quality found in pre vious studies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983; Ellis, 1986; Bannerman and others, 1983, 1993, 1996). The data sets were tested for normality/ log-nor mality using the Shapiro-Wilk statistic (SAS, 1988). This procedure produces a test statistic for the null hypothesis that the input data values are a random sam ple from a normal or transformed-normal distribution. In general, inorganic as well as organic constituent con centrations were found to be log-normally distributed. Of the 68 constituents measured in the influent, 21 were normally distributed and 47 were log-normally distrib uted (a <0.05). This test should be interpreted with cau tion, however, because of its low power when applied to the sample size of 10-15 observations. The log-normal distributions are consistent with the findings of others (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983; DiToro, 1984).
EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
FRACTION OF RAINFALLS, LESS THAN THE GIVEN AMOUNT
Figure 2. Cumulative rainfall distributions for the study period and historical rainfall records (1948-92) for Milwaukee, Wis.
Influent samples generally had detectable concen trations of most constituents tested. The exception was dissolved zinc (Zn) and the dissolved fractions of 15 of the 16 PAH's, which rarely were detectable. The one dissolved PAH that was consistently measurable in the influent was phenanthrene (median = 0.1 fig/L).
In the effluent water, all dissolved and total PAH concentrations were below detection limits. In addition, total suspended solids (TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), dissolved cadmium (Cd), dissolved lead (Pb), dissolved Zn and total Zn were generally below detec tion limits in the effluent samples. The preponderance of nondetectable values in effluent samples made the determination of normality problematic. Having efflu ent values reported as "less than" for a constituent also made the exact calculation of removal efficiencies impossible. In those cases, removal efficiencies were estimated using one half of the detection limit as the concentration of the effluent.
The nonparametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test (SAS, 1988) was applied to the influent and effluent concentrations of all constituents, the null hypothesis being that the distributions of the influent and effluent concentrations are the same. Constituents with signifi
cant differences (a=0.05) are noted in tables 3 and 4. A paired statistical test comparing individual storms was not used because, during any given storm, the water exiting the device will not be the same water that entered the device because of the permanent storage volume and hydraulic residence time in the settling tank. Influent and effluent concentrations of constitu ents that were not found to be significantly different were either soluble constituents that are generally con sidered conservative (for example, chloride) or constit uents that have the potential to be generated within the tank (for example, ammonia). Because influent and effluent concentrations of some constituents (for exam ple, dissolved PAH's) frequently were below detection limits, significant changes in concentrations were inde terminable.
Water-Quality Characteristics
Concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS) in influent ranged widely, from 79 to 1,050 mg/L; median concentration was 232 mg/L (table 3, appendix 1). As stated previously, most of the effluent TSS concentra-
6 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
Table 3. Inorganic influent and effluent minimum, maximum, and median event-mean concentration values for the monitored storms (n=15) at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in Milwaukee, Wis.[BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; COD, chemical oxygen demand; TDS, total dissolved solids; TSS, total suspended solids; VSS, volatile suspended solids; NH4, ammonium, as N; NO3, nitrate plus nitrate; Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium; Cl, chloride; SO4, sulfate; Cd, cadmium; Cr, chromium; Cu, copper; Pb, lead; Zn, zinc; TOC, All units in milligrams per liter unless otherwise noted. Bold font identifies constituents for which influent concentrations are significantly different (a=0.05) from effluent concentrations using a nonparametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test.]
Characteristic or constituent
Aggregate characteristicTurbidity (NTU)
Color (PU)BOD
CODpH (SIC)Alkalinity
TDS
TSS
VSS
NutrientsNH4 as NNO2 + NO3 as N
Phosphorus, totalPhosphorus, dissolved
Maior IonsCa, total
Ca, dissolved
Mg, total
Mg, dissolvedCl
SO4
MetalsCd,dissolved (fAg/L)
Cr, dissolved (f^g/L)Cu, dissolved (f^g/L)
Pb, dissolved (^ig/L)
Zn, dissolved (^ig/L)Cd-total (ng/L)
Cr, total (jig/L)Cu, total (fAg/L)Pb, total (fAg/L)
Zn, total (fAg/L)
OrganicsTotal organic carbon
Dissolved organic carbon
Sum of total polycycli aromatic hydrocarbon
Minimum
9.3
108.8
526.8
20164
79
17
<.027.180
.101<.002
18
8.3
4.0
.4
5710
.03
<.5
1.7
<.4
<8.48
31116
55
2.2
2.1
2.9
InfluentMaximum
100
7051
2608.1
58
5,930
1,050
154
.258
1.36.440.040
210
45
100
1.2
3,56058
1.1
2.012
7.6
383.7
14
5872
250
20
17
23
Median
41
3015
1157.2
40
634
232
52
.051
.353
.262
.0025
43
16
14.82
30219
.22
.84.4
.9
<81.5
63248
150
7.9
6.8
8.3
Minimum
0.7
5.0<3.0<5.0
7.551
320
<5.0
<5.0
<.027.074.014
.002
19
18
2.1
2.0
10016
<.02<.5
<.7
<.4
<8<.04
<1
2<.8
<19
2.1
2.0
<.47
EffluentMaximum
10
259.2
338.1
122
3,070
18
12
.115
.463
.088
.0016
66
68
13
13
1820
47
.97
3.4
5.7
1.3
221.0
18
83.9
53
11
9.5
<.89
Median
2.6
15<3
137.8
82
885
<5.0
<5.0
.062
.273
.023
.002
32
313.4
3.4
427
27
.05
.81.4
<.4
<8.10
<1
31.8
<19
4.4
4.1
<.89
EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY
Table 4. Dissolved and total influent minimum, maximum, and median event-mean concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for the monitored storms (n=15) at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in Milwaukee, Wis.[Concentrations in micrograms per liter. All effluent concentrations were below detection limits.]
Constituent
Dissolved PAH species
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
B enz [a] anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
B enzo [&]fluoranthene
B enzo [g, h, i Jperylene
Benzo[£]fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz [a, h] anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno [l,2,3-c,d] py rene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAH species
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
B enz [a] anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[6]fluoranthene
B enzo [g, h, Jperylene
B enzo [k] fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz [a, h] anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno[7,2,3-c,c?]pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Minimum 1
<0.048
<.044
<.015
<.059
<.041
<.073
<.05
<.059
<.03
<.019
<.098
<.12
<.078
<.054
<.035
<.063
<.048
<.044
<.015
<.24
<.4
<.23
<.64
<.46
<.26
<.24
.51
<.12
<.8
<.054
.12
.47
Maximum
<0.048
<.044
.026
.23
.38
.54
.38
.24
.52
.038
1.1
<.12
.39
<.054
.35
.79
.23
<.044
.34
1.4
1.6
2
1.4
1
2.1
1.4
5.1
.38
1.4
<.054
2.8
3.2
Median
<0.048
<.044
<.015
<.059
<.041
<.073
<.05
<.059
<.03
<.019
<.098
<.12
<.078
<.054
.105
<.063
<.048
<.044
.101
.5
.55
.77
.53
.31
.8
.5
1.75
<.12
.48
<.054
.71
1.3
Digestion of samples for total analysis resulted in higher detection limits. In addition, detection limits varied during the period of study. Bold font identifies constituents in which influent concentrations are significant ly different (a=0.05) from effluent concentrations using a nonparametric two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
8 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
dons were below detection limit (8 out of 14). The high est concentration of TSS observed in the effluent was only 18 mg/L. Because most effluent TSS values were below detection limit, it was difficult to determine if any discernible relation existed between influent and efflu ent concentrations. The influent TSS concentrations from all 15 storms exceeded Wisconsin's discharge limit of 30 mg/L (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 210, 1997). The cumulative load of TSS to the unit for the 15 consecutive storms was 18.3 kg (appendix 2). The amount of TSS in the effluent was estimated to be only 0.30 kg, making the overall removal efficiency greater than 98 percent. Pitt and others (1997) reported a lower overall TSS removal of 83 percent in their pilot- scale testing. In examining concentrations at intermedi ate points, they found that most of the TSS was removed in the settling chamber.
Influent volatile suspended solids (VSS) ranged from 17 to 154 mg/L; median concentration was 52 mg/L. The VSS concentrations averaged 21 percent of TSS in the influent, an indication that most of the par- ticulate material entering the unit was inorganic. On a cumulative mass basis, the VSS influent load was 17 percent of the influent TSS load. Effluent VSS con centrations ranged from less than 5 to 12 mg/L; 58 per cent of the samples were below the detection limit. The overall load reduction of VSS (> 94 percent) was simi lar to that for TSS. The influent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentrations ranged from 8.8 to 51 mg/L. Only one sample had a BOD concentration that would exceed the Wisconsin discharge limit of 30 mg/L (Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 210, 1997). Again, most BOD in effluent samples (58 percent) was below the detection limit. The estimate of overall removal efficiency for BOD was 82 percent or greater. The chemical oxygen demand (COD) influent and effluent concentrations (median = 115 and 13, respec tively) were considerably greater than the BOD concen trations. Influent VSS concentrations were well correlated with both BOD and COD concentrations (r = 0.62 and 0.82, respectively), confirming the organic nature of this solid material. The average ratio of BOD to COD was 0.15 in the influent, suggesting that this organic material was highly refractory. The unit removed 86 percent of the total COD load.
Total dissolved solids (TDS) in influent samples had a median concentration of 634 mg/L and a range of 164 to 5,930 mg/L. The source of the high dissolved solids in samples collected during the middle of the study period was road salt stored within the drainage
area. This salt resulted in a load of dissolved solids to the unit that was more than 4.5 times the paniculate (suspended solids) load for the period of study. The rel ative loads of the three aggregate solids characteristics are illustrated in figure 3. (Note that the y-axis is plotted on a log scale.)
Major Ions
Total calcium (Ca) had the greatest influent con centrations (median = 43 mg/L) of the reported cations (table 3, appendix 1). Though not directly measured, the ionic balance and high chloride concentrations suggest that sodium and/or potassium were most likely the dom inant cations. Dissolved Ca concentrations generally made up half of the total Ca in the influent. Total mag nesium (Mg) concentrations followed a similar storm- to-storm pattern as total calcium concentrations, but at about one-third the concentration (median = 14 mg/L). Dissolved Mg generally made up only 10 percent of the total Mg in the influent.
In effluent, total Ca concentrations were always less than those in the influent, although the median val ues differed by only 4.5 mg/L. Somewhat surprisingly, the dissolved Ca concentrations in the effluent were consistently greater than the influent concentrations, suggesting either dissolution of some of the influent paniculate Ca and (or) addition of Ca ions to the storm- water from the unit itself (that is, concrete walls of the catch basin and main tank). Magnesium behaved simi larly, with dissolved Mg concentrations in effluent greater than those in influent. On a load basis, the unit removed 55 and 85 percent of the total Ca and Mg, respectively (appendix 2). The increase in dissolved Ca and Mg concentrations resulted in negative efficiencies for these analytes (-62 and -340, respectively). The effluent loads of both dissolved Ca and Mg were equal to their respective total loads, implying that the Ca and Mg leaving the unit was virtually all in the dissolved phase.
Chloride (Cl) was by far the dominant anion in all the samples (median influent and effluent = 302 and 427 mg/L, respectively). Again, this was a result of road salt being stored within the drainage area during the study period. Both influent and effluent concentrations during the 15 storms are shown in figure 4. Placement of the road salt on site occurred between the fourth and fifth storms, and this is clearly evident in the sharp increase in Cl concentrations in figure 4. Peak effluent
EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY
300
100 -
cc CD o
o <o
VOLATILESUSPENDED
SOLIDS
TOTALSUSPENDED
SOLIDS
TOTALDISSOLVED
SOLIDS
Figure 3. Total influent and effluent loads for volatile suspended solids, total suspended solids, and total dissolved solids accumulated over the entire rating period at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train in Milwaukee, Wis. (Removal efficiencies, in percent, are noted above the effluent load bars.)
a: 4000LU
CC LUa.CO
3000
2000
1000
DC O
O
<CC
5 o
Influent
Effluent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
STORM NUMBER
Figure 4. Event-mean concentrations of chloride in influent and effluent for the 15 monitored storms, Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, in Milwaukee, Wis.
10 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
ccUl H_l CC Ula.CO
1 (D
d
<cc
LUooo
o 2 2 <
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
010 12 14 16
STORM NUMBER
Figure 5. Event-mean concentrations of ammonium in influent and effluent for the 15 monitored storms, Multi-Chambered Treatment Train study, in Milwaukee, Wis.
concentration, however, was substantially less than the peak influent concentration. This attenuation of maxi mum effluent concentrations was due to dilution of the influent waters with previously stored water in the set tling tank. Although Cl is generally considered to be a conservative constituent, the difference between influ ent and effluent loads of 20 percent suggests that the unit did remove a portion of the Cl.
Alkalinity concentrations were considerably less than Cl concentrations (median influent and effluent concentrations = 40 and 82 mg/L, respectively). On an equivalence basis, alkalinity (as bicarbonate) closely tracked Ca concentrations and increased as the water passed through the unit, again pointing to an addi tion/dissolution of calcium carbonate in the unit.
Nutrients
cent) was somewhat greater than that for NO3 , although the rate decreased over the study period because of a steady rise in effluent concentrations over the last five storms (fig. 5). This rise of ammonium concentrations in effluent indicates that the settling-chamber contents may become anaerobic as sediments begin to accumu late and reduced species are subsequently released within the unit.
Influent total phosphorus (P) ranged from 0.10 to 0.44 mg/L; the median was 0.26 mg/L. Effluent concen trations were generally an order of magnitude less than influent concentrations (median = 0.02 mg/L), resulting in a high overall removal efficiency of 88 percent. Dis solved P was consistently less than 10 percent of the total P in the influent and the effluent samples. Dis solved P removal efficiency (78 percent), although somewhat less than total P removal, was still substan tial.
The median nitrate (NO3 ) concentrations in the influent and effluent were 0.35 and 0.27 mg/L, respec tively (table 3). Removal efficiency of this mobile nitro gen species was 32 percent (appendix 2). Ammonium (NH4 ) concentrations were often considerably less than NO3 concentrations in the influent and the effluent (appendix 1). The removal rate for ammonium (47 per-
Metals
Influent metals concentrations were characteristic of values previously observed in stormwater runoff in Wisconsin (Bannerman and others, 1996). Median total recoverable metal concentrations, in increasing order,
EVALUATION OF MULTI-CHAMBERED TREATMENT TRAIN EFFICIENCY 11
were Cd (1.5 (ig/L), Cr (6 (ig/L), Cu (32 (ig/L), Pb (48 |ig/L), and Zn (150 (ig/L) (table 3). The total recov erable metal concentrations in effluent followed a simi lar order of increasing concentration, except that lead and copper were reversed (appendix 1). Concentrations of all total recoverable metals in effluent were generally an order of magnitude less than concentrations in influ ent. A comparison of total recoverable metals concen trations in influent to Wisconsin acute toxicity criteria for warmwater sport fisheries (Wisconsin Admininstra- tive Code, NR105, 1997) showed that Cu exceeded the criteria in 15 of 15 samples, Pb in 7 of 15 samples, and Zn in 14 of 15 samples. In contrast, no total recoverable metal concentrations in effluent exceeded metal-toxic - ity criteria.
Removal efficiencies of the MCTT were substan tial for all the total recoverable metals, ranging from 78 percent for Cr to 96 percent for Pb (appendix 2). Because most of the total recoverable metal concentra tions were in the particulate form, the physical removal of particulates may be occurring in all three chambers of the unit, although the bulk of the particulates (associ ated with the suspended solids) was most likely being removed in the settling chamber. MCTT performance data collected by Pitt and others (1997) for TSS and unfiltered metals also suggests this, although for Cd and Cu, efficiencies were substantially less than those for the unit used in this study. This difference may have been due to several factors, such as a different mixture of filter media, the different concentration ranges of Cd and Cu, and differences in the proportion of these met als in the dissolved form, which are less effectively removed than those in particulate form.
Concentrations of dissolved metals in the influent to the MCTT followed the order of Cd < Cr < Pb < Cu < Zn. The concentrations in effluent appeared to follow a similar order, although a full characterization of met als concentrations is again difficult because of many below detection limit. With the exception of Cr, removal efficiencies of dissolved metals ranged from 66 to 78 percent, somewhat less than their respective total metal removals efficiencies (appendix 2). Because con centrations in effluent were generally found below detection limits, actual removals may have been greater, especially for Cd, Pb, and Zn. The order of removal effi ciencies of dissolved metals was Cr < Cd < Zn < Cu <Pb. The removal of the dissolved phase of these metals most likely occurred in the sand/peat/carbon filter chamber. A similar order of "affinity" in peat materials was noted by Pakarinen and others (1981) for Cu, Pb,
and Zn. They did not describe Cd and Cr affinities. Dis solved chromium, which has a higher valence and requires time to reach exchange equilibrium, had virtu ally no removal efficiency (-3.3 percent) (Aho and Tummavuori, 1984).
Although the concentrations of metals generally were greatly reduced by the treatment of the MCTT, the proportion of metal in the dissolved phase generally increased. In the influent samples, the average ratio of dissolved metal to total metal concentrations ranged from 3 percent for Pb to 19 percent for Cu. In the efflu ent samples, the proportion of the dissolved phase in the total recoverable metal was higher ranging from 20 per cent for Cd to 80 percent for Cr.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Detectable concentrations of 12 of the 16 total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) species were typically found in influent samples to the MCTT (table 4, appendix 1). The four species that were below detection limits in more than 50 percent of the samples were total acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene, and naphthalene. Concentrations of total fluoranthene and pyrene were consistently double or more than the con centrations of other PAH species, with median concen trations of 1.8 and 1.4 jag/L, respectively. The sum of total PAH concentrations for all 16 species (2 total PAH) in the influent samples ranged from 2.9 to 23 |ig/L. The median 2 total PAH concentration was 8.3 M-g/L, considerably less than what was reported by Steuer and others (1997) for parking lots. All of the 15 influent samples exceeded the Wisconsin human cancer criterion of 0.1 (ig/L (Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR105,1997) for the class of streams draining this area. This criterion is based on dermal contact and the con sumption of warmwater sport fish taken from these waters.
In the influent, the 2 dissolved PAH averaged 14 percent of the 2 total PAH. The average percentage may be less because the dissolved fractions were com monly reported as less than detection limits, and actual concentrations are unknown. The only dissolved PAH species in the influent that was consistently reported above the detection limit was phenanthrene (median=0.1 (ig/L). The dissolved PAH concentrations were also consistently above the Wisconsin human can cer criterion of 0.1 (ig/L.
12 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
Little interpretation can be made from the effluent PAH data because, without exception, all values were reported as less than the detection limit. Consequently, all PAH removal efficiencies are conservative estimates of actual removal rates. Efficiencies of individual total PAH's ranged from >53 percent for total fluorene to >98 percent for total phenanthrene, and for 11 of the total PAH's, efficiencies were 90 percent (appendix 2). The removal efficiencies of the dissolved PAH fractions ranged from >22 percent (dibenzanthracene) to >86 percent (phenanthrene) and were consistently lower than the removal efficiencies for total PAH's. This finding does not necessarily suggest a lower removal efficiency of dissolved PAH fractions; the lower efficiencies may be an artifact due to a preponder ance of "less-than" values or concentrations approach ing the detection limit.
Because most of the PAH's were found in the par- ticulate fraction, most of the removal probably occurred in the settling chamber, consistent with the findings of Pitt and others (1997). In addition, peat materials, such as those found in the filter chamber, have been shown to be effective in removing oily material (Mathavan and Viraraghavan, 1989).
Microtox Results
Microtox-assay results, reported as gamma values, are computed as the amount of light lost from exposed fluorescent bacteria (as compared to a laboratory con trol) divided by the amount of light remaining. The larger the value of gamma, the greater the detrimental effect the sample has on the test microbes. Influent- sample gamma values from 15-minute assays ranged from 0.02 to 0.49; the median was 0.12 (appendix 3). In contrast, all effluent samples yielded negative gamma values (median = -0.17), suggesting that the effluent water was a better medium for microbial growth than the laboratory control water. Without exception, Micro tox gamma values were less in effluent samples than influent samples, a strong indication that toxicity was reduced by MCTT treatment. There was however, little indication of any simple relation (linear regression) between Microtox gamma values for influent and con centrations of any single constituent.
Particle-Size Distribution
The particle-size data were summarized by averag ing the 15 influent and effluent cumulative distributions of those data (fig. 6). Each trace on this plot represents the average percentage of particles less than the given size for each measured particle-size fraction. Most influent and effluent particles were in the silt-size frac tion. Somewhat surprising was the fact that no apprecia ble shift in the particle-size distribution was observed between the influent and effluent particle sizes. One might expect a selective removal of the larger particles and subsequent decrease in the average particle size as the water passed through the filter media. The findings here, however, suggest that the mean particle size, or D50, actually increased from 18 jim in the influent water to 28 Jim in the treated effluent water; thus, the unit may not have been selective in the size of particles it removed. Another possibility is that large particulate materials were indeed removed in the settling chamber, but escaped sand fines from the filter media were later reintroduced. Because no samples were collected between the settling and filter chambers, the proportion of the suspended-solids treatment that can be attributed to each section of the unit cannot be determined. Another indication that the filter chamber can poten tially lose particles is reported by Pitt and others (1997), who noted a slight increase in TSS concentrations as the water passed through the filter tank of their pilot-scale unit. Therefore, the unit may be selectively removing larger particles but, coincidently, may be adding similar particles from the filter-media material, resulting in lit tle change in the distributions. It is emphasized, how ever, that even though the particle-size distribution influent remained similar, the overall removal rate of the particulate material by the unit was 98 percent of the influent suspended-solids load.
SUMMARY
The MCTT treated all the stormwater that drained to the unit for the 15 storms monitored. The actual quan tity of water passing through the MCTT ranged from 1.7 to 8.9 m3 for individual storms and was, on average, 87 percent of the rainfall volume. High reduction effi ciencies were found for all particulate-associated con stituents, such as TSS (98 percent), total P (88 percent), and total Zn (91 percent). Dissolved fractions were removed at substantial but somewhat lower rates (TDS, 13 percent; dissolved P, 78 percent; dissolved Zn,
SUMMARY 13
100
LU
£ 80LU
O£ 60a.LU 40
Oz< 20h-u)u>y oCO LU
d 100fc <S: soLU
ILU O DC LUa.
60
20
Influent
Effluent
20 40 60 80 100
PARTICLE SIZE, IN MICROMETERS
120 140
Figure 6. Average influent and effluent particle-size distributions for the 15 monitored storms in the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (The dotted lines represent +/-1 standard deviation.)
68 percent). The TDS load, which was composed mainly of road salt, was four times the load of TSS. Increases of Ca, Mg, and alkalinity were attributed to dissolution or leaching of the cement from the MCTT tanks. In addition, NH4 began to rise slowly over the lat ter part of the study, presumably because of aneaerobic sediment buildup in the settling chamber. No apprecia ble shift was seen between influent and effluent parti cle-size distribution.
REFERENCES CITED
Aho, M., and Tummavuori, J., 1984, The effect of experimen tal conditions on ion exchange properties of sphagnum peat: Suo, v. 35, p. 47-53.
American Public Health Association, 1989, Standard Meth ods for the Examination of Water and Waste water, 17 th ed.: Washington, D.C. [variously paginated].
Bannerman, R.T., Baun, K., Bohn, M., Hughes, P.E., and Graczyk, D.A., 1983, Evaluation of urban nonpoint source pollution management in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Vol. 1. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Publication PB 84-114164 [variously pagi nated].
Bannerman, R.T., Legg, A.D., and Greb, S.R., 1996, Quality of Wisconsin stormwater, 1989-94: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-458, 26 p.
Bannerman, R.T., Owens, D.B., Dodds, R.B., and Hornewer, N.J., 1993, Sources of pollutants in Wisconsin stormwa ter: Water Science Technology, v. 28, no. 3-5, p. 241-259.
14 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
DiToro, D.M., 1984, Probability model of stream quality due to runoff: Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, v. 110, no. 3, p. 607-628.
Ellis, J.B., 1986, Pollutional aspects of urban runoff, Torno, H.C., Marsalek, J., and Desbordes, M., eds., Urban run off pollution: Berlin, New York, Springer Verlag, p. 1-36.
Mathavan, G.N., and Viraraghavan, T., 1989, Use of peat in the treatment of oily waters: Water, Air, and Soil Pollu tion, v. 45, p. 17-25.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1997, National Climatic Data Center: Milwaukee General Mitchell Airport Precipitation records 1948-1996 [variously paginated].
Pakarinen, P., Tolonen, K., and Soveri, J., 1981, Distribution of trace metals and sulfur in the surface waters of Finn ish raised bogs in Proceedings, Sixth International Peat Congress, Duluth, Minnesota, USA: Eveleth, Minn., Fisher, p. 645-648.
Pitt, R., Robertson, B., Barren, P., Ayyoubi, A., and Clark, S., 1997, Stormwater treatment at critical areas. V. 1 The Multi-Chambered Treatment Train (MCTT), University of Alabama-Birmingham: Edison, NJ. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wet-Weather
Flow Management Program, National Risk Manage ment Research Laboratory. 08837, 169 p.
SAS Institute Inc., 1988, Language guide for personal com puters, release 6.03 Ed: Gary, N.C., 558 p.
Steuer, J., Selbig, W., Horner, N., and Prey, J., 1997, Sources of contamination in an urban basin in Marquette, Mich igan and an analysis of concentrations, loads, and data quality: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Inves tigations Report 97-4242, 25 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Test methods for evaluation of solid waste, S W846 (3d ed.): Washing ton, D.C. [variously paginated].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983, Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, volume 1- final report, Water Planning Division: Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NTIS No. PB84-185552 [variously paginated].
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979, Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes: U.S. Environ mental Protection Agency EPA 600/4-79-020, 460 p.
Wisconsin Administrative Code, 1997, Department of Natu ral Resources, Environmental Protection General. Chap ters NR100- and 200 [variously paginated].
REFERENCES CITED 15
APPENDIXES 1-3
APPENDIXES 1-3 17
iuaiua6eue|/\|e 'UJBJJ. luauiieajj. pajaqiueu.o-!i|n|/\| am jo uorjenieAg
^/l ^. U) to O
OO ~-J ^J ^J^o r^: oo r~; r>j ~^ ~^ N> *^ N> NJ ' 'oo o <-" ^o -t^- oo
Cs Cs O\ O^ O^ O^
to to -Px to (J\ Ki
^/l \O O L*J L*J L*J
OO ~-J ^J ^J
iS to 2S to to \o o o\ ^o -t^ \o
^h ^h ON ON ON ^^
k tO tO Ul O Ul tO U)Ul O '- tO Ul tO \O \O L*J ^- tO
O ON to OOO 'O U) »O ~-J Ul Ul ON CTN £ ~- O\
L*J L*J tO L*J ' CTN ^-0 ^- U> Ui Ul
to to to i to ui o o ui ui ui
A A A»O ^ L*J L*J L*Jto ^. b\
U) k k tO L*J \O L*J ^. Ul O
bo
~-J ^J ^J ^J OO ^J*». bo (o o o ~JON tO L*J ^. OO L*J
oo o ^O O to ^J to o to ^. to o
L>J LO L*J 4^. 4^. L*Jto ±^ ^j u) -~J Ui O *>. -t^. -t^. to oo
A A -~J ^. ^. OO Ul ,bo bo oo oo
A A A . u) £*. ^. ^ ui !bo bo oo oo
Ui O\ O\ ^J OO ON -t^. L*J oo O\ to CTN ~-J to O\ U) ^J k
O 5 aw
\O OO ^J ON Ui
c\ o\ CTJ o\ g^^J ^J Ul tO tO^2 *O *O ^O ^D ON ON ON CS ^
to *x tO L^> \O *> U) Ul tO k O ON -t^. tO k U)
OS OS ON OS ON OO ^J ON UJ tO
ON ON ON ON ON
Ul \O tO U) k O to to U) ^.^J Ul ON ^O ~J
OO k L*J ON tOO ^J ^O ON tO^J k k H-
to o to toU) ^-0 tO k U)
O O O O O
A A A A AU> U> U> L*J L*J
L*J tO k ^. \O
~-j ! ! ^J oo^J ^J Ul ^0
Ul , Ul OOto ! ! k ui
to to U) to o ^o o to ui OO OO -~J UJ ^.00000
A A A k- A 4-^ 4-^ 4-^ CO 4-^bo bo bo bo oo oo oo oo
, A A A ', 4^ 4^ ON 4^
oo oo bo oo oo oo
£ £ to'k "to Vj U) ,OOOOo ! loo
O0 ato
4^. U) to
Ul Ul Ul 4^.to ^ 1^ foO 4^ O iOvO *O vo ^OON ON ON ON
k- tO k- 4i. O Ul U>L^> O 4^- toON ~-J ON k
Ul Ul Ul 4^.fj ii ii C3 k- ui o o\O O \O \O ON ON ON ON
\O L*J OO H-
O OO Ul S
tO Ul U) U)ON k 4x \O 4^- U) oo
to 4^- Ui OON U)
toui ui o ui
^J 4^ ! vo
A toui ui k o
OO ^J -~J OO
Sbo bo o -~J Ul Ul
~-J Ul ON OO\O *O OO ON
oo \o ^o Ul k tO
to oo oo 1
A A A . 4^ 4^ 4^ !bo bo bo oo oo oo
A A 4^ 4^ to !bo bo oo oo
- ON "-J "-J ON to Ui ON ON0000
o0 a
Ui 4^- u> to k o
OO ~J ^J ^J
oo o Ui *o 4^- oo
ON ON ON ON ON ON
k tO tO
Ul O Ul k 4i. Ulk Ul O Ul k O
OO ~J ^J ~-JiS to 92 fo to OO O ON ^O 4^- OO
ON ON ON ON ON ON
to k to tO ^J k- 4^. tO
to to to ui ui ui OO Ul OO Ul tO O
to k- to ui Ui oo ^J 4^ O*O Ul OO ON Ul U)
*O ON to k- ooO O Ul O -^1 Ul Ul ON ON 4^. k ON
Ul O Ul Ul ,
U) 4X
Ul Ul Ul tO Ului o o ui o !
oo 4^. Ui O oo 4^. k bo ui ui bo
Ul 4^. k OO ON U)O O O ON 4^- ^J
ON ~-J ^J ON ^J ONoo ui to o oo Ul 4^. Ul ~-J ~-J Ul
Ul 4^. Ul to 4^ 4^. tO ON O tO OO
k- 4i. tO ONA \D Ul ON 4^- ^ ~-J O to 4^- ON Oo
k Ul tO k tO tO OO Ul ^J OO tO Uloo oo oo to o to
4^- ON Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul tO ^J 4^- OO tO
Ul Ul OO tO 4^. "tO tO 4^- k ON O ^J ON ^J Ul OO 4^ O
O0 aw
^O OO ^J ON Ul
ON ON ON ON ON
ON ON ON ON ON
k- tO k- 4i. k- to oo ON 4^ k O tO
k -J 4^. OO ON
OO ^J ON tO tO
ON ON ON ON ON
to Ul Ul k , Ul
5*C*B
tO k U)O ON \D Ul ' 'Ul k \O Ul OO
OO k- Ul ON tOO ~J O ON N>
k OO U) Ul OO
O Ul O Ul O
00 O OO -
bo ^~j bo bo
^J Ul ON O .oo to o O I
^J ^J ^J OO ^JN> k k O OO Ul Ul -~J Ul
Ul tO Ul Ui Ul OO ^J Ul Ul Ul
ON
to ui uiOO Ul \D O OO §^J O Ul \D o o o o
to o ui ~-J ^J O Ui 4^.to \o ON o o
4i.k-4i.ului
-O\ ON "ui j ' "ui Ul 1O tO Ul f^i O U) O O O
oo ato
4i- Ul tO >
Ul Ul 4^.to !=0 to
ON ON ON ON
Ul OO ^J ^Jo ui k- k-4^. oo o oo
Ul Ul Ul 4^.jo ~ kt: joo ui o *o
ON ON ON ON
^J ON 4^. Ulk Ul Ul k ON ^J Ul
k Ul tO--J 4i. 4i. OOO OO Ul
to ui ui uiON 4*. k-*O 4^- Ul OO
^J Ul Ul OO OO ^J ^O ~-J
bo
Ul k t tO 4^
O O O Ui
Ul k- .- ,- Ul Ul Ulto ui bo ui
to k- k- _ §O 4i- to 000
Ul Ul ON 4^.to oo ui -~J
Ui Ul 4^. 4^. OO Ul O O
ON 4> "k- "k- Ul 4^ tO Ul -ti- 0 0 0
Ul k tO 4^.
ON Ul \O tO O ON ON tO
O Ul ON ^J ON ON OO tO
i tO tO"k OO "k "k
\O tO Ul ON O ^J O O
oo o
Stormno.
Beginningsample
date
Beginningsample
time
Endingsample
date
Endingsample
time
Rainfall (mm)
Flowvolume
(m3)
Turbidity(NTU)
Color(PU)
Biochemicaloxygendemand(mg/L)
Chemicaloxygendemand(mg/L)
PH(SIC)
Alkalinity(mg/L)
Totaldissolved
solids(mg/L)
Totalsuspended
solids(mg/L)
Volatilesuspended
solids(mg/L)
Specificconductance
(us/cm)
(Q (Q3(Qa(DTJto
3<D
W
o. 77w 52. -
o 3/
3 n>O - o 3 W W§ 33 roH "
<~> 3 « i *
o psELo §.
1 <f S'lw <s>§"1^ £
*? * '
T=eraro'
3era3
aro12. 1'
p
io
1. f?'
ro3
CO
oCO3a.
roro",'-'30g-
ZHCZU5'
uga-Si
c
£13C
ET5'
1oo <yELc3£?
DOn
a >?"§
*< aCO x"5 r*2- Q
QOQJ -Js, o a> CD
CQ DCD =r'^, 91 ~ °'^ 13
D) ^^- DCD Q- CD o
||
CD 0)WcCD
CD
W0^
30"'
0CDa.
B.0
c9L*<o0)
1CDW.'
o'W5'5'^**
cCD
0)Z3Q.CD
CD-*
O
CD
^C_
60)3crCDCDQ.HCD0)
3CD
Hn\
3
Ap
pen
dix
1.
Con
cent
ratio
ns a
nd o
ther
mea
sure
men
ts o
f m
onito
red
wat
er-q
ualit
y ch
arac
teris
tics
in i
nflu
ent
and
efflu
ent t
o th
e M
ulti-
Cha
mbe
red
Tre
atm
ent T
rain
at
Rub
y S
tree
t G
arag
e, M
ilwau
kee,
Wis
. C
on
tinu
ed
Nut
rien
ts
E .
2
c
z in re I* Z
n O
z Z
+ w
CM
re
O
Phosphorus, dissolve
d (mg/L)
Phosphorus, tota
l (mg/L)
Calcium,
dissolved (mg/
L)1
~ d
|1|
O
"""
Magnesium, dissolve
d (mg/L)
Maj
or i
ons
| _
«"
S -
w
« d
1
>
=Jfl)
£
O
) o
O
O>
c o
p 2
m c
a>
£.
J=
w S
|
0 =
5
Met
als
oT w
'-j-
5
o "&
>
Hardness, dissolve
d (mg/L)
Hardness, total
(mg/L)
Cadmium, dissolve
d (H9/L)
Pi
12 ~
-3
(D 0
Chromium, dissolve
d (H9/L)
? T
E
S *
?L
o 2 1
0
Infl
uent
Gro
up 1
1 1 3 4
0.13
3
0.05
1.0
97
<.02
7
0.19
2.3
01.2
81
.363
0.04
--
.025
<.00
2
0.25
5.2
29
.205
.308
14 13 13 22
36 37 34 90
0.5 .4
6.5
2
.96
10
619
10
613
10
215
31
302
21 18 16 30
36 34 34 60
130
130
130
350
1.1 .03
.03
.15
1.7
1.2
1 1.9
1.1 .9 .8 1.4
7 6 6 9G
roup
2
5 6 7 8 9
.128
.251
<.02
7.1
8<.
027
.347
.18
.404
1.36 .3
63
.001
<.00
2.0
02.0
12
0
.215
.44
.234
.101
.188
35 45 31 11 16
65 150 79 18 34
.98
1.1 .8
2.4 .5
2
17
2,42
046
3,
560
25
1,70
04
177
11
458
42 58 41 18 19
91 120 80 30 41
230
560
300 61 130
.51
.74
.33
.05
.1
1.4
3.7
1.2 .4
8
.99
<.5 .6
<.5
<.5 .5
5 12 4 3 5G
roup
3
10 11 12 13 14 15
.258
.031
.053
<.02
7.0
44<.
027
.273
.276
.4 .426
.353
.393
.031
<.00
2
.04
<.00
2
.003
.026
.388
.31
.262
.311
.33
.288
16 17 8.3
17 14 13
45 35 57 210 43 31
1.2
1.1 .51
.98
.75
.89
14
342
10
84.9
21
57.2
100
208
15
68.4
9.8
127
19 15 10 22 16 17
45 47 23 47 37 37
170
130
230
950
170
120
.63
.22
.11
.31
.13
.41
2 1.7
1.3
3 1.9
1.5
1.4
1.7 .6 2 .6 .8
8 7 6 14 8 4
Eff
luen
tG
roup
1I 2 3 4
.069
<.02
7<.
027
<.02
7
.273
.294
.281
.27
.016
--
.007
.004
.046
.03
.018
.016
18 22 21 26
19 22 20 27
3.4
3.7
2.6
2.7
3.6
427
3.7
476
2.6
478
2.8
427
39 24 27 28
60 70 64 76
61 70 61 79
.97
.4 .02
.05
1 .12
.09
.06
1.5 .8 1.9
1
2<1
1
<1G
roup
2
5 6 7 8 9
.088
<.02
7.0
62
<.02
7
<.02
7
.456
.463
.328
.353
.317
.002
.002
.001
.001
.001
.017
.014
.022
.019
.018
68 38 47 42 30
66 39 46 42 29
13 5.6
4.6
3.3
2
13
777
6.4
1,24
04.
7 1,
820
3.3
1,79
02.
1 1,
290
36 33 44 47 38
220
120
140
120 82
220
120
130
120 82
.02
<.02 .0
2
<.02
<.02
<.04 .0
4.0
4
<.04
<.04
1 .8 1 .8 .7
<1 <1 <1 <1 <1G
roup
310 11 12 13 14 15
<.02
7.0
64.0
82.0
89.1
05.1
15
.074
.127
.126
.11
.166
.139
.001
<.00
2.0
03<.
002
.01
.004
.043
.023
.037
.033
.051
.088
23 43 37 31 34 28
25 44 39 32 33 28
2.4
4.6
3.8
3.4
3.3
2.9
2.9
144
4.8
167
4.3
158
3.4
139
3.4
116
3.1
100
22 25 22 20 19 16
68 130
110 92 99 83
74 130
120 94 97 83
.14
.05
.07
.05
.1 .15
.2 .1 .12
.01
.1 .26
1.2
<.5
3.4
<.5 .7
<.5
2<1 18 <1
2<1
90JA9Q iuauia6eue|/\|e 'WBJI }uaui)eaji pajaquiei|0-!)|n|/\|02
Lft .fx LO to O
LO tO A ' K)
i O ~~3 4x LO
ON LO LO LO tO .fx
A A A A H-NO -fX ,fX ,fX ,fX LO
to i > LO to LO
LO Lft NO LO
A A A A A AOO OO 00 OO 00 OO
A A A A A
NO NO NO NO NO Lft
5 £ £ £ £ *
~ OS U, * 4, *NO »-> bo jx LO
A : : A i A2 22 OO 00 00
A : i A : A2 22 tx Jx Jx
A ! i A ! Ab b bLft Lft Lft
A ! ! A ! Ab b b Lft Lft LftNO NO 0
A ! ! A ! Ab b b LO LO UJ
A ! i A i !b bNO NO
A ! 1 A i Ab b b NO NO NOOO OO OO
A : : A : Ab b b ~o ~o ~o LO LO LO
Ooc aCO
O oo ^1 Cs Lft
*- Ato oo u> ~J -J
tO tO LO LO .fx
A A A A-fx ,fx .fx -fx Lft
A to to O 00 LO LO
A A A A A00 OO OO OO OO
A A A A Lft NO NO O-2 NO O
to ! to .fx !LO
to ! to .fx !-fx ON -fx
i ! i A !
gOO
A i A A !b b b fx -fx -fx fx .tx -t-
A i A A !b b bLft Lft Lft
! i ! A !bLftNO
A ! A A !b b b LO LO LO
A i A A !b b bNO O NO
A ! A A !b b boo oo oo
A ! A A !b b bLO LO LO
Ooc aro
Jx LO to '
i > Lft
to cs oo ^i
LO to LO OO
A A NO -fx -fx to
i ' tO
O LO OO O
A A A to00 OO OO tO
A A A >-> tO
to to ! Lft
tO tO [ Lft
LO ^- bo
! ! i !
! , 1 1
: : : i
: i : i
1 i i !
....
! ! ! !
! 1 1 !
Ooc a-1
FT
C(D<-*
Lft .fx '-0 to >-> O
_ , _ , , _O -fx to -fx O to
fx !fx
LO LO LO to LO Jx-fx 4x NO ^ ~~J ' '
Lft H- H- ^1
OO Lft Lft Lft O ON
tx ON Jx ON Lft Lft ON K) OO tO Lft ON
tsJ A i A LOON OO OO OO NO 00
<-* to to to toLft O Lft Lft O ~O O O O O O
H- H-
^1 00 i 00 ON Lft tO LO
to tO H-O oo to oo O oo
bo cs
A : : A A Ab bob Jx Jx Jx Jxoo oo oo oo
A i ! A A Ab bob Jx Jx Jx Jx-Px Jx Jx Jx
A ! i A AO O O O
Lft ON Lft Lft
Ail A Ab k> b b Lft U> Lft LftNO NO NO
A ! ! A b Lft i b u> to oo u>
A ! ! A ib b bO OO O
A ! ! AO LO O
OO OO
A ! ! Ab Lft » bLO LO
0ocT3CO
O OO ^1 O\ Lft
LO LO LO LO K>
UJ tO Lft OO Lft
to . to Lft . OS ' tO OO NO
A A Lft .fx .fx OS
LO i > LO ^1 to OO ON UJ N) LO
A A A ALO OO OO OO OO
' H- tO
LO Lft i Lft NOO Lft O O O
fx Lft Lft Lft to
LO tO LO OS '<-'
t*. Lft ON Lft to
ON O LO ^J to
! A ! A Ab b b fx -tx -fxoo oo oo
A A A A Ab b b b b Jx Jx Jx K JxJx Jx Jx Jx Jx
A A A A00000
Lft Lft Lft Lft Lft
! A ! A Ab b b Lft Lft LftNO NO NO
A A A A Ab b b b b LO LO LO LO LO
A A A A Ab b b b bNO NO NO NO NO
A A A A A
SO O O O NO NO NO NO
oo oo oo oo oo
A A A A Ab b b b b ^ ^} ^ -~j ^} LO LO LO LO LO
0oc
T3ro
Jx LO to
^1 tO i 00
LO ON --J
-fx LO to LOOO to Jx H-
>- A A LO 4x 4x Lft
^1 ix Jx Jx -Px ON OO
A A toNO OO OO ON
to Jx Lft ON0000
l _ ̂to Jx LO ON
OS NO OO
OS Lft Ji. ^1
tO LO NO
A i ; o2 2 0° 00
A A ! o00 o fx -fx KJx Jx ^
A A A 0
0 0 0 oLft Lft Lft <y,
A A A ob b b o Lft Lft Lft ,7;NO NO NO ^
A A o ob b o b LO LO g g
A A o o
b b o bNO NO 0 0
A A oo o o o NO NO NO CgOO NO OO £o
A A A ob b b o ~j -J -~J ijLO LO LO J3
Ooc a-1
-*.C(D3
Stormno.
Copper,dissolved
(M9/L)
Copper,total(ng/L)
Lead,dissolved
(ug/L)
Lead,total
(ng/L)
Zinc,dissolved
(ng/L)
Zinc,total
(ng/L)
DOC,(mg/L)
TOC,(mg/L)
Acenaph-thene(^g/L)
Acenaph-thylene(ng/L)
Antnracene(ng/L)
Benzo [a]anthracene
(ng/L)
Chrysene(^g/L)
Dibenzo [a,h]anthracene
(ua/L) \r*5J /
Fluoranthene(uO/L)
Benzo [b]fluoranthene
/. . fi/i \
22.5T
0
o
O w'0)o_<Q.
5X
2
Cc*<C
ocCc2
(CC
«
* <ccpc(1<«
c
Cc
EClc
> > * «i*
DT3
7 3: a^ *3 r*
> ) O13 3
3 CD2 3D =T
CO^ "* ^ o'
>- CO C 3D Q-D 9.
o' ~*
3i S3 »i ^
? i D CD 2. 3M"
3o3.o
Q.
10cC0_
oCO
o.CD
1'5'
s[ E"CD
CO
a.CD
c"CD
3-0
CD
i6CO3CTCD
cBQ.
H
CDCO
3CD
HCO3'
Ap
pen
dix
1.
Con
cent
ratio
ns a
nd o
ther
mea
sure
men
ts o
f m
onito
red
wat
er-q
ualit
y ch
arac
teris
tics
in i
nflu
ent
and
efflu
ent
to t
he M
ulti-
Cha
mbe
red
Tre
atm
ent
Tra
in
at R
uby
Str
eet
Gar
age,
Milw
auke
e, W
is.
Co
ntin
ue
d
o
1 Q.
Dis
solv
ed P
AH
li
CO
0)
S1
g ^
o o
£ J
g
JS
it
§!
a) »-
>3
3 >3
m
§
E
co
! 52
r"
|* Q
) t.
-^
Y
§' -
3
t!
§5 -
3;
Z
g
S.
m
i g§
ss£
£ 3
£3
J!L a>
^ S
itg
a.3
m
& n
£
~$i
£
Q.
0) T
(o
c d
CO
O)
8 £
38
£
3
0)
^
c ^
Tot
al P
AH
0)
s g ~
O
<-> d
o> £ 3
m
c (0
0) O ~
jjjj
lw
® j
1
i||
u.
Benzo
(b]
fluoranthene (H9/
L)
Infl
uent
Gro
up 1
1 2 3 4
<0.0
59
<0.1
2
<.05
9<.
059
<.1
2
<.05
9 <
.12
<0.
054
<0.0
5<.
05
<.05
<.05
4 <.
05
<0.0
35
<0.0
63
<.06
3.1
2 .0
63.1
.082
<0.0
41<
041
<.04
1
<.04
1
<0.
078
<.07
8<.
078
<.07
8
<0.0
48- <.
12
<.04
8
<0.0
44
<.l
l<.
044
<.04
4
0.34 .1
7.2
1
.19
1.1 .54
.6 .98
1.3 .9
21 1.
3
0.14 .1
2.0
84
<.14
3.5
2.1
2.6
3.2
1.3 .9
6
1 1.3
Gro
up 2
5 6 7 8 9
<.05
9 <.
12<.
059
<.1
2<.
059
<.05
9 <
.12
<.05
9
<.05
4 <.
05<.
054
<.05
<.05
<.05
4 <.
05<.
05
.12
<.06
3
.2
<.06
3.0
97.1
6 <.
063
.1
<.04
1
<.04
1- <.
041
--
<.07
8<.
078
<.07
8<.
078
<.07
8
<.04
8.1
7<
.l<.
048
<.l
<.04
4
<.04
4<.
044
<.04
4
<.04
4
<.01
5
.32
.093
<.2 .1
1
.16
1.4 .3
7<,
24 .54
.35
2.1 .5
8<.
26 .71
.029
.16
.046
.02
.068
.78
5.1
1.7 .5
11.
8
.36
2 .6<.
23 .71
Gro
up 3
10 11 12 13 14 15
<.05
9 <.
12
.072
<
.12
.24
<.1
2- - <.
059
<.1
2
<.05
4 <.
05
<.05
4 .1
3<.
054
.38
.. <.05
4 <.
05
.11
<.06
3.0
51
.27
.35
.79
.. .. <.03
5 <.
063
<.04
1.0
75
.38
- - <.04
1
<.07
8
.14
.39
- - <.07
8
<.04
8
<.04
8-
.23
<.04
8<.
048
<.04
4<.
044
-- <.04
4<.
044
<.04
4
.034
<.01
5--
.26
.041
.026
<.32 .1
8-- 1 .4
6<.
34
.69
.5- 1.
5 .89
.55
.042
.03
-
.13
.065
<.04
4
1.6 .9
-- 3.9
1.7
1
<.65 .4
6- 1.
7 .84
<.44
Eff
luen
tG
roup
11 2 3 4
-- - --
-- .. ..
-- .. .. --
-- - - --
-- -- -- --
<.04
8<.
048
-- <.04
8
<.04
4<.
044
<.04
4
<.04
4
<.01
5
<.01
5<.
015
<.01
5
<.05
9<.
059
<.05
9
<.05
9
<.03
<.03
<.03
<.03
<.01
9<.
019
<.01
9<.
019
<.09
8<.
098
<.09
8
<.09
8
<.07
3<.
073
<.07
3<.
073
Gro
up 2
5 6 1 9
- <.05
9 <.
12<.
059
<.05
9
.. <.05
4 <.
05<.
05
<.05
.. <.03
5 <.
063
--
-- <.04
1-- -
-- <.07
8<.
078
<.07
8
<.04
8
<.04
8-- ~
<.04
4
<.04
4<.
044
<.04
4
<.01
5
<.01
5<.
015
<.01
5
<.05
9<.
059
-- -
<.03
<.03
<.03
<.03
<.01
9<.
019
<.01
9
<.01
9
<.09
8
<.09
8<.
098
<.09
8
<.07
3<.
073
<.07
3
<.07
3G
roup
310 11 12 13 14 15
<.05
9 <
.12
<.05
9 <.
12- - <.
059
<.1
2
<.0
54
<.05
.. <.05
4 <.
05-. <.
054
<.05
<.03
5 <.
063
<.03
5 <.
063
.. - <.03
5 <.
063
<.04
1- <.
041
- <.04
1
<.07
8- <.
078
- - <.07
8
<.04
8<.
048
<.04
8<.
048
<.04
8
<.04
4<.
044
<.04
4<.
044
<.04
4
<.01
5<.
015
<.01
5<.
015
<.01
5
<.05
9<.
059
<.05
9<.
059
<.05
9
<.03
<.03
<.03
<.03
<.03
- <.01
9
<.01
9<.
019
<.01
9
<.09
8<.
098
<.09
8<.
098
<.07
3<.
073
<.07
3<.
073
<.07
3
App
endi
x 1.
Con
cent
ratio
ns a
nd o
ther
mea
sure
men
ts o
f m
onito
red
wat
er-q
ualit
y ch
arac
teris
tics
in i
nflu
ent
and
efflu
ent
to t
he M
ulti-
Cha
mbe
red
Tre
atm
ent T
rain
at
Rub
y S
tree
t G
arag
e, M
ilwau
kee,
Wis
. C
on
tinu
ed
I 6 D)
D> D>
(O
(0 9
E .
1
8
0)
s?S
- £~
w
|5
II
g &
5 gs
CD o
-
jjj-
m £
w 5
f *
*
CO
^-^
Tot
al P
AH
C
0)
< r£
C
C
0) -
3
W
,J
«S
C
J
sfi
111
go.
°- ~
CD
0)
^~,
> £
fli
Indeno [1,2,3-c
,d] pyren
e (ng/L)
Influ
ent
Gro
up 1
1 2 3 4
0.79
<0
.25
.51
<.15
.48
<.17
<.46
<.
12
<0.
054
<.14
<.05
4<.
054
1 1.
5<.
64
1.3
.77
1.4
1 2
2.4
1.6
1.8
2.4
1.2
<.62 .8
5
1
1 <.8 .7
4
1G
roup
2
5 6 7 8 9
.16
<.12
1 .3
8.2
7
.098
<.
12.3
4
<.05
4<.
054
<.06
<.05
4<.
08
.24
.28
1.4
2.8
.4
.86
.15
.12
.61
.56
.47
3.2
1.1 .5
51.
4
.21
1.6
<.4 .1
4.7
3
.23
1.4 .4
1.1
6.5
2
Gro
up 3
10 11 12 13 14 15
.29
<.12
.19
<.12
..
.79
.21
.4
<.12
.19
<.12
<.05
4<.
054
- <.09
5<.
054
<.05
4
.45
.56
.34
.15
__ 1.3
1.6
.64
.53
.44
.28
1.2 .7
5- 2.
81.
2 .72
.41
.28
- 1.5 .7 .3
9
.44
.32
-- 1.2 .6 .3
8
Efflu
ent
Gro
up 1
1 2 3 4
<.05
9 <.
12<.
059
<.12
<.05
9 <.
12<.
059
<.12
<.05
4
<.05
4
<.05
4
<.05
<.
035
<.05
<.
035
<.05
<.
035
<.05
<.
035
<.06
3
<.06
3<.
063
<.06
3
<.04
1<.
041
<.04
1<.
041
<.07
8
<.07
8<.
078
<.07
8G
roup
2
5 6 7 9
<.05
9 <.
12<.
059
<.12
<.05
9
<.05
9
<.05
4<.
054
-- -
<.05
<.
035
<.05
<.
035
<.05
<.05
<.06
3
<.06
3-- -
<.04
1
<.04
1-- --
<.07
8
<.07
8<.
078
<.07
8G
roup
3
10 11 12 13 14 15
<.05
9 <.
12<.
059
<.12
<.05
9 <.
12<.
059
<.12
<.05
9 <.
12
<.05
4<.
054
-- <.05
4<.
054
<.05
4
<.05
<.
035
<.05
<.
035
-
<.03
5<.
05
<.03
5<.
05
<.03
5
<.06
3<.
063
-- <.06
3<.
063
<.06
3
<.04
1<.
041
-- <.04
1<.
041
<.04
1
<.07
8<.
078
-- <.07
8<.
078
<.07
8
Ap
pen
dix
2.
Load
s an
d re
mov
al e
ffici
enci
es o
f m
onito
red
cons
titue
nts
in t
he in
fluen
t an
d ef
fluen
t to
the
Mul
ti-C
ham
bere
d T
reat
men
t Tra
in a
t R
uby
Str
eet
Gar
age
in M
ilwau
kee,
Wis
.[m
g, m
illig
ram
; N
D, n
ot d
etec
ted;
PA
H, p
olyc
yclic
aro
mat
ic h
ydro
carb
ons]
Agg
rega
te c
hara
cter
isti
cs
Q.
|
j= 1
» 8
£ 1 w
" 1"
w"
o o>
°* 5
E
'g
o> «
5 E
:=
E *-
-C
5* £
2
ID 5*
P
2 ^2
o y
8 -S
o> j=
g «>
o> *
o>O
°
TO
O °
TO
'
< ^
ffi
1 25
5 2,
070
600
2 29
6 1,
610
775
3 74
1 3,
860
1,13
0
Tota
l 1,
290
7,55
0 2,
510
1 68
.8
128
1,02
0 2
ND
26
1 94
4 3
122
658
2,64
0 To
tal
224
1,05
0 4,
600
TO
>
**
"""
*~ .
2 «
,0)
7,80
0 66
,700
9,
790
84,3
00
10,2
00
52,0
00
11,1
00
73,3
00
Q)
"- *
a\
<U
-~^
T
OIO
M
.S! T
O OT
OT
OT
W
O)
£»
OT
OT
O)
3
^
*^
3
^
OT
OT
3,22
0 67
6 10
,000
1,
340
5,04
0 1,
090
18,3
00
3,11
0
ND
60
.2
158
58.7
11
6 60
.4
301
179
Nut
rien
ts
z "
5T
®
'OT'
5 S
O
S
z
z
Loa
dsIn
flue
nt1.
13
4.06
2.
41
8.8
2.71
10
.9
6.26
23
.8Ef
fluen
t
.371
4.
05
0.65
8 8.
51
2.28
3.
5 3.
31
16.1
OT O
>
"**"
& "
5
m
«
OT
0)
O
^^
Q_
0.25
8 .0
37
.632
.9
28
.098
0.
023
0.08
1 0.
202
Phosphorus, total
(grams)
3.48
5.
99
9.85
19
.3 .385
0.
394
1.62
2.4
llf
3|1
>
215
644
444
1,30
0
311
899
897
2,11
0
.2 s
E
_o
o 2
TO
*^
n>o
658
1,75
0 2,
310
4,72
0
311
889
926
2,13
0
Maj
or io
ns
Magnesium, dissolve
d (grams)
8.42
17
.5
29.4
55
.4
44.1
10
5 93.9
243
Magnesium, total
(grams)
201
535
953
1,69
0 45
112
102
259
Chloride, dissolved
(grams)
5990
39
,500
58
50
51,3
00
6590
30
,500
40
00
41,1
00R
emov
al e
ffic
ienc
y as
a p
erce
ntag
e of
inf
luen
t lo
ad
Appendix 2
23
1 77
94
-7
0 2
89
84
-22
3 84
83
-1
33
Tota
l 83
86
-8
3
Maj
or io
nsTO
^^
«f T
O _
«f
_
Q.
o> «
OT w
o> w
y at
g g
| E
g|
E £
« E
A
15
g S
"S
jg
P2
=5 -'
i
=5 **
i
^-"
1 29
1 56
7 24
70
2 82
0 1,
690
6,53
0 3
543
1,24
0 9,
820
Tota
l 1,
650
3,50
0 18
,800
1 42
0 96
4 96
0 2
857
2,69
0 2,
650
3 60
5 2,
660
2,75
0 To
tal
1,88
0 6,
320
6,36
0
-31 22
-1
3 13
I "
~
I 1
o f
I<0
.
<0O
TO
O
99
93
98
96
98
94
98
94
E «
E
If
§ i f
|||!
o '
o
4.16
19
.8
14.5
97
.9
8.2
41
9.96
15
1 12
60
.2
37.8
23
9 24
.4
121
62.2
48
8
4.69
.2
86
3.36
8.34
4.22
20
14
.6
.661
18
.4
ND
5.
42
25.9
82
.5
10.3
64
.3
108
67
073
3
16
68
47
33
Met
als
Q.
^r
O)
Q.
W
O)
5r* M
cz
5r* O
c
O
I.J
-^-'
O
**
^»^
0 -|
0
Loa
dsIn
fluen
t64
.3
474
76.4
74
0 30
8 1,
100
449
2,32
0Ef
fluen
t35
.7
54.1
20
59
.9
67.6
12
6 12
3 24
0
62 38
87
78 ,"1-
TO 9.98
13
.1
133
156 7.
95
5.16
21
.9
35
89
93 84
88 II!
ill
990
1,60
03,
320 24.5
33
82
.7
140
-44
-40
-102
-6
2
TO
N
g
141
163
727
1,03
0
115
ND
N
D32
7
53
49
60
55
Jj
TO
O)
2330
34
20
5920
11
,700 19
938
4 42
3 1,
010
-424
-5
02
-219
-3
40
TO.y
e »
«rc
O
P
^
.O
O
m
^
(0
(A
n*o
o|3
77.6
92
.5
420
590 34
.6
52.2
18
3 27
0
78
79
89
85
Org
anic
s
fill
O
o S
94.9
99
.548
8 68
3 35.4
58
.6
204
298
-10 23
32
20
nf «
32s
E.
182
216
201
599
605 67
11
724
4R
emov
al e
ffic
ienc
y as
a p
erce
ntag
e of
infl
uent
loa
d1
-44
-70
61
2 -4
-5
9 59
3
-11
-114
72
To
tal
-14
-81
66
-13 97
72
66
79
-38
85
98
-85
93
91
31
66
91
-3
78
44
89
74
92
78
89
73
90
20
61 84
78
97
97
95
96
19 45
83
68
91
89
93
91
62 44
56 54
68
41
58
56
97
97
94
96
Appendix 3. Results from Microtox analyses of influent and effluent samples at the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train at Ruby St. Garage, Milwaukee, Wis.
Microtox Gamma values
Storm no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
5 minute
0.26
.09
.11
.32
.05
.01
.12
.25-.04
.09
.5
.24
.15
.12
.26
Influent
15 minute
0.34
.1
.15
.41
.03
.02
.04
.34
.02
.09
.49
.31
.17
.23
.3
5 minute
-0.12-.23
-.16
-.06
-.23
-.19
-.15
-.23
-.25
-.05
-.07
-.02
-.12
-.12
-.1
Effluent
15 minute
-0.14-.28
-.24
-.09
-.27
-.23
-.22
-.25
-.26
-.04
-.17
-.05
-.13
-.12
-.13
24 Evaluation of the Multi-Chambered Treatment Train, a Retrofit Water-Quality Management Device
^p Printed on recycled paper