Evaluation of reaeration efficiencies of sidestream elevated pool

Loading...
Contract Report 653

Evaluation of Reaeration Efficiencies of Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration (SEPA) Stations by Thomas A. Butts, Dana B. Shackleford, and Thomas R. Bergerhouse

Prepared for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

October 1999

Illinois State Water Survey Watershed Science Section Champaign, Illinois

A Division of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources

EVALUATION OF REAERATION EFFICIENCIES OF SIDESTREAM ELEVATED POOL AERATION (SEPA) STATIONS

by Thomas A. Butts, Dana B. Shackleford, and Thomas R. Bergerhouse

Illinois Department of Natural Resources Illinois State Water Survey 2204 Griffith Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820-7495

This report was printed on recycled and recyclable papers.

Table of Contents

Introduction Background Study Objectives Acknowledgments Dam or Weir Aeration Theory Theoretical Considerations Semiempirical Weir Aeration Formula Empirical Design Equation Methods and Procedures Study Design Temporal Considerations Monitoring Schedule QA/QC Program Field Operations Monitor Installation/Removal Weir-Box Operation Grab Sampling Manual DO/Temperature Surveys Laboratory Operations Continuous Monitors Biochemical Oxygen Demand Nitrogen Data Reduction and Analyses Monitor Output Adjustments Missing Data and Curve Reconstruction Aeration Efficiency Statistical Analyses Results Manual DO/Temperature Measurements Additional Studies Weir-Box Aeration Experiments DO Saturation Experiments Nitrogen Changes BOD Changes Continuous DO Monitoring General Observations Specific Observations Discussion Sedimentation and Aquatic Macrophytes Screw Pump Aeration Future Design Considerations Summary and Conclusions References

iii

Page 1 1 2 3 4 4 7 8 10 10 10 11 13 17 17 17 18 19 20 20 22 23 23 23 25 25 27 32 32 34 34 35 36 36 36 37 39 45 45 47 48 52 55

Page Tables 57 Figures 89 Appendix A: YSI Model 6000ups .........................................................................125 Appendix B: DO/Temperature Location/Measurement Recording Forms and SEPA Data Form 133 Appendix C: SEPA DO Saturation and Weir-box Aeration Experimental Data... 141 Appendix D: QA/QC Procedures for Continuous Monitor and DO/Temperature Meter Temperature Control 147 Appendix E: Biochemical Oxygen Demand Test Results 151 Appendix F: Walk-Through YSI Model 59 DO-Meter DO Readings Compared to In-place, Continuous-Monitor DO Readings 157

iv

EVALUATION OF REAERATION EFFICIENCIES OF SIDESTREAM ELEVATED POOL AERATION (SEPA) STATIONS by Thomas A Butts, Dana B. Shackleford, and Thomas R. Bergerhouse INTRODUCTION As a result of increased pollutant loading and low in-stream velocities, dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the Chicago waterway historically have been low. During the 1970s, water quality modeling was performed by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (District) to evaluate the effectiveness of tertiary treatment on reducing the occurrence of low DO levels. The results were not encouraging. The construction of advanced waste treatment facilities at each of the three major District plants would result in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars while producing questionable results. Consequently, the District began investigating in-stream aeration as an alternative for increasing waterway DO concentrations. Background During the late 1960s, four in-stream aeration approaches were considered by the District: barge-mounted aeration devices, in-stream mounted mechanical aerators, U-tubes at head loss structures, and diffused air systems using ambient air blowers or molecular oxygen. The in-stream mechanical system, although the most cost-effective, could not be used because of navigational considerations. The barge-mounted system was evaluated by the District in Chicago area waterways, but it was shown not to be practical. The U-tubes are not applicable at most locations at which chronic low DOs occur in the Chicago area waterways because such installations require large instantaneous head losses to operate. By default, diffused aeration was selected by the District for supplementing waterway DO at ten locations. Subsequently, two diffused aeration stations were built. In 1979, the Devon Avenue station was completed on the North Shore Channel. A second aeration station was constructed at Webster Street on the North Branch of the Chicago River and became operational in 1980. These diffused aeration stations became beset with operational and maintenance problems. Prior to building the eight additional aeration stations, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) deferred its regulatory requirement that the District build advanced wastewater treatment plants while, in turn, endorsing the use of instream aeration. This reversal prompted an immediate search for an improved technological approach to aerating the waterways. In 1984, the District (Macaitis et al., 1984) issued a feasibility report on a new concept of artificial aeration referred to as sidestream elevated pool aeration (SEPA). The SEPA station concept involves pumping a portion of the water from the stream into an elevated pool. The water is then aerated by flowing over a cascade or waterfall, and the aerated water is returned to the stream. 1

Over the next several years, modifications were made to the SEPA station design as originally proposed by Macaitis et al. (1984). In particular, Tom Butts, with the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS), suggested using a stepped-weir system in place of a continuous cascade or one large waterfall. As a result, during 1987 and 1988, research scientists from the ISWS and the District's Research and Development (R&D) Department cooperated in conducting full-scale testing of a sharp-crested weir system. A prototype SEPA station was built along the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal at the District's Stickney Water Reclamation Plant. As a result of the experimental work, SEPA station design criteria were developed (Butts, 1988). Information and recommendations in this report were used by District consultants to design five SEPA stations located along the Calumet waterway system shown in figure 1. Vicinity area details of SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5 (the three SEPA stations evaluated) are presented in figure 2. Plan views of the principal geometric features of these three SEPA stations are shown in figures 3-5. Photographs of all five SEPA stations are shown in figures 6-12. Waterway mile locations and basic design features of all five SEPA stations are presented in table 1. Study Objectives Additional artificial aeration stations are being planned for future locations along the Chicago waterway system. Information is needed on the operating characteristics of the SEPA stations and their effects on DO concentrations in the waterways below their discharge. The District, in a November 25, 1994, letter to James Park of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), proposed a two-year study to accomplish five objectives. Three of these objectives were addressed through a two-phase study conducted between 1995 and 1997. The two-phase study was designed to: 1.

Determine the actual oxygen transfer rate due to the waterfalls at the SEPA stations.

2.

Determine the actual oxygen transfer rate due to the spiral-lift screw pumps at the SEPA stations.

3.

Determine the effect of the operation of the SEPA stations on the DO levels in the Calumet waterway system.

This report will present the results and conclusions relative to objectives 1 and 2. Objective 3 is addressed by the separate report Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration (SEPA) Stations: Effects on In-stream Dissolved Oxygen (Butts et al., in press). The work tasks to address objective 3 were deemed the highest priority and were performed first. Therefore, that part of the overall study was designated as Phase I. Consequently, the studies associated with objectives 1 and 2 were designated as Phase II work items.

2

Acknowledgments This study was funded principally by a research contract granted to the ISWS from the R & D and Engineering Departments of the District. Irwin Polls (R&D) was project leader and coordinated scheduling and sampling. Mike Sopcak, Rich Schackart, and Irwin Polls performed specialized water quality sampling and measurements during the SEPA station monitoring events. David Tang of the District's Maintenance and Operations (M&O) Department coordinated SEPA station pumping operations with ISWS monitoring schedules and provided the operational data used in this report. Thanks are extended to ISWS personnel Bob Larson and Bill Meyer for their intensive efforts in the field and in the laboratory that helped make this study successful. Bill Meyer's role was especially significant in that he was responsible for preparing the monitors/dataloggers for field use, downloading and filing the data, and performing quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. This report was prepared under the general administration of Derek Winstanley, Chief of the ISWS. The original manuscript was typed by Linda Dexter and edited by Eva Kingston and Agnes Dillon. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsor or the Illinois State Water Survey.

3

DAM OR WEIR AERATION THEORY The theory governing weir or dam aeration (or deaeration) will be succinctly reviewed and discussed. Both theoretical and stochastic relationships that are particularly relevant to and useful in analyzing the large amount of data generated in the present study will be presented. Appendices A-F give supplemental data. Theoretical Considerations A simple, theoretical mathematical relationship, referred to as the deficit ratio, is generally used to evaluate aeration efficiency of a head-loss structure in a stream or river. It is formulated as:

where r = deficit ratio Sa, Sb = the DO saturation concentrations above and below a head-loss structure, milligrams per liter (mg/L), respectively Ca, Cb = the observed DO concentrations above and below a head-loss structure, mg/L, respectively This basic relationship was the primary tool Butts (1988) used to evaluate the aeration efficiencies of the full-scale prototype study used in developing SEP A design parameters. Reaeration is proportional to the DO deficit, i.e., waters low in oxygen reaerate at a much faster rate than do those that have DO concentrations near saturation (S). The deficit ratio should remain constant for a given geometric configuration regardless of the value of Ca. The nature of equation 1 indicates that higher deficit ratios are commensurate with higher aeration efficiencies. The deficit ratio is unity when no aeration occurs. Values less than 1.0 or negative values indicate measurement errors or anomalous conditions. Frequently, anomalies do occur in field-generated, weir-aeration data resulting in unrealistic r-values from equation 1. In some situations data reduction using equation 1 can result in r-values that cannot be effectively used to evaluate aeration (or deaeration) efficiencies. Various combinations of field-measured Ca, Cb, Sa, and Sb values that produce unusable information frequently are observed. Assuming S = Sa = Sb, the various scenarios that produce unusable r-values, as computed by equation 1, can be described mathematically as follows:

4

Case

Specifications

I II III IV V VI

S > C a > Cb S < C a < Cb Ca < S < C b Ca > S > C b S = C a ≠ Cb S = C b ≠ Ca

Resultant r-value Sign Value + + -

± ±

r<1.0 r<1.0 1.0
Two situations produce theoretically correct r-values, i.e., ones that are both positive and greater than unity; they are: VII VIII

C a
+

r>1.0

c a >cb >s

+

r>1.0

Case VII represents reaeration when the up-stream DO concentration is below saturation, and Case VIII represents deaeration when the up-stream DO concentration ranges between 100 and 200 percent saturation. A special situation develops when DO levels equal or exceed 2S as expressed by Case LX. IX

C a >2S>C b

+

r>1.0

When DO concentrations reach levels above 200 percent, the fraction above 200 percent is extremely unstable and will tend to be released immediately in bubble form at the top of the weir, dam, or spillway during physical disturbance. True dam deaeration will occur only at DO concentrations between 100 and 200 percent of saturation, and it will occur on the face or at the foot of the weir (Butts and Evans; 1978). Between 200 and 100 percent saturation, water will deaerate at the same rate as water will reaerate between 0 and 100 percent saturation. True weir aeration (deaeration) efficiencies cannot be determined for situations in which Ca > 2S. Often Case VH and VIII values also are unusable in evaluating the reaeration capacity of a head-loss structure when Ca ≈ Cb ≈ S. Although positive values can result, they become exaggerated as Ca approaches the DO saturation level as exemplified by the wide range of situations presented in table 2. Note, measurement errors as small as ±0.1 mg/L in Ca, Cb, or S result in very large or inflated deficit ratio values as shown by the eight-fold r/3-ratio derived for the 30°C, Ca = 7.40 mg/L example in table 2. Small errors in the DO measurements have little affect on r-values when Ca is low compared to S even at high temperatures when S is at its lowest level. All the data generated during the original prototype weir study were reduced to useable r-values (Butts, 1988). This was achieved principally by operating the system only when input DO levels were significantly below saturation. Also, the results from the

5

prototype weir study were not significantly influenced by unusual water quality conditions, such as those resulting from photosynthesis or increased sediment loads due to storm events. Due to storm events and photosynthesis, dramatic and, at times, almost instantaneous changes in water quality in the Cal-Sag Channel occurred during the SEPA station evaluation. For QA/QC purposes, the prototype r-values computed for various weir-step combinations were used as the criteria to accept or reject extreme positive rvalues computed for the SEPA station experimental data. The criteria for rejection are presented in table 3. The criterion for SEPA station 5 differs from that for SEPA stations 3 and 4 because of the differences in the heights and number of weirs (table 1). The r-values for the intake to pool 1 in the SEPA stations are governed by screw pump operation and aeration. Because prototype r-values were available for screw pump operation, acceptance criteria were estimated. The assumption was that the screw pumps are somewhat better aerators than a single 3- to 5-foot weir. Corollary to this, the overall intake to outfall r-values in table 3 also are estimated due to the inclusion of the screw pump operation. Only from pool 1 to the other pools and the outfall are the values taken directly from Butts' (1988) prototype study. For example, for either SEPA station 3 or 4, normal r-values would be expected to range from a low of 4.6 to a high of 10.0 between pool 1 and the outfall (Butts, 1988). The DO saturation concentrations for various water temperatures were computed using the American Society of Civil Engineers (1960) DO saturation formula:

where ST = DO saturation concentration, at sea level, mg/L T = water temperature, °C β = water quality factor (1.0 for distilled water) This formula represents saturation levels at sea level. Water impurities can increase the saturation level (β > 1.0) or decrease the saturation level (fi < 1.0), depending upon the surfactant characteristics of the contaminant. The sea level concentrations produced by the formula must be corrected for differences in air pressure caused by air temperature changes and for elevations above sea level. The following formula was developed for use during this study:

where f = correction factor above sea level s = air temperature, °C E = site elevation, feet above mean sea level (ft-msl) The mean sea elevations used for this study are the following:

6

Mean Sea Level Elevations (ft-msl) at SEPA Stations 3, 4, and 5 SEPA stations 3 and4 5 Inlet Pool 1 Pool 2 Pool 3 Pool 4 Outlet

578.6 593.6 588.6 583.6 -

578.6

578.6 590.6 587.6 584.6 581.6 578.6

Ambient water temperatures were used to approximate "s" in equation 3. Semiempirical Weir Aeration Formula Gameson (1957) and Gameson et al. (1958) developed a semiempirical equation relating water temperature, water quality, geometric design, and head loss to the deficit ratio, as represented by equation 1. A modified form of this equation, as presented by the Water Research Centre (1973), is: r = 1 + 0.38abh (1 - 0.11h) (1 + 0.046T)

(4)

where a = water quality factor b = geometric reaeration coefficient h = head loss, meter (m) T = water temperature, ˚C This equation can be used to model the relative and absolute efficiencies of a weir spillway or flow-release structure by determining specific values of b. Every spillway or gate has a specific coefficient, but generalized categories can be developed in reference to a standard. The standard weir, in which b = 1.0, is, by definition, a sharp-crested weir with the flow free-falling into a receiving pool having a depth equal to or greater than O.1h + 6 centimeters (cm). An idealized step weir (a series of sharp-crested weirs) has a b-value of 1.9 (Water Research Centre, 1973). However, actual field-measured values usually are lower. Equation 4 was developed by British researchers from data collected at many relatively low-head channel dams and weirs transecting small streams. Good reproducibility can be achieved when h does not exceed 3 to 4 m, the maximum height of the dams at which data collections were made during development of the formula. In addition, close examination of the equation reveals that the factor (h) (1 to O.11h) mathematically restrains the use of the equation to heights of 4.55 m or less.

7

The water quality factor (a) has to be evaluated experimentally in the field or estimated from published criteria. Refinements of Gameson's (1957) early categorization of a-values are: grossly polluted water, a = 0.65; moderately polluted water, a = 1.0; slightly polluted water, a = 1.6; and clean water, a = 1.8. These values are based on a minimal amount of field and laboratory data. Their direct applications are subjective; and, because considerable numerical latitude exists between values, significant errors can result. For 44 in-stream head loss structures across rivers and streams in northeastern Illinois, Butts and Evans (1978) found b-values ranging from a low of 0.05 for an underflow sluice gate to a high of 2.55 for a flat, broad-crested, vertical-face weir. For the controlled, full-scale experimental pilot study, conducted at the Stickney Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Butts (1988) observed b-values from a low of 0.90 for a 5-foot simple weir to a high of 3.54 for a 15-foot high, 3-step, step-weir SEPA station pilot system. Empirical Design Equation Butts (1988) developed an empirical equation, using statistical stepwise regression techniques to predict weir-aeration efficiencies. The evaluation included statistically correlating 11 physical- and chemical-dependent variables to the output DO in percent of saturation based on equation 2, the weir aeration factor b derived from equation 4, or the deficit ratio r derived from equation 1. These analyses resulted in the following prediction or design equation:

where Po = output DO, percent saturation (% of f. ST) Pi = input DO, percent saturation N = number of steps H = total weir-system height, ft 54.78 = intercept constant The range of values for each independent variable for which this equation was derived is as follows: Range of Values Independent variable

Low

High

PI N

2.0% 1

H

5ft

93.1% 3 15ft

Also, although temperature is not directly included in the equation, water temperatures ranged between 15 and 28°C during the experimental work; theoretically, the application 8

of this equation is best limited to conditions within these temperature ranges. Overall, the three independent variables associated with equation 5 explained 87 percent of the variability observed in Po.

9

METHODS AND PROCEDURES The study was designed to determine weir and screw-pump aeration efficiencies under seasonal and controlled operating conditions at SEP A stations 3, 4, and 5. These three stations are the largest of the five SEP A stations on the Calumet waterway system in terms of maximum flow (table 1), represent divergent design configurations (figures 2-5 and 8-12), and are located in the most critical DO-deficit area in the Cal-Sag Channel. Data were generated using continuous water quality monitors/dataloggers. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical tests were performed to determine if seasons and pumping rates affect aeration efficiencies within the SEPA stations, and a one-way ANOVA test was used to determine whether aeration efficiencies differed among stations. The deficit ratio or r-value (equation 1), the weir aeration coefficient or b value (equation 4), and the output DO saturation value or Po (equation 5) are the parameters that gage weir aeration efficiencies and are amenable to ANOVA testing. Study Design Temporal Considerations Four seasonal monitoring/sampling events were scheduled. Monitoring/Sampling Events Event 1 2 3 4

Season Summer Fall Spring Early summer

Inclusive dates 08/12-08/23/96 09/30-10/11/96 04/28-05/09/97 06/16-06/27/97

During these four events, different pumping rates were sustained for the time periods shown in table 4. Tests were not conducted with the operation of four pumps at stations 3 and 4 or five pumps at SEPA station 5 because doing so would result in severe turbulence in the Cal-Sag Channel. Such turbulence interferes with commercial and recreational boat traffic and resuspends benthic sediments affecting water quality. Perusal of the pumping periods presented in table 4 shows that the general plan for events 1, 2, and 4 consisted of operating one and two pumps at SEPA stations 3 and 4 and one, two, three, and four pumps at SEPA station 5 for a minimum of 72 hours. Threepump operations at SEPA stations 3 and 4 were extended to a continuous 144 hours to match the time periods for the four pump settings at SEPA station 5. During event 1, two pumps at SEPA station 3 became inoperative. Consequently, two-pump operation was extended to cover the planned three-pump operation period as shown in table 4. The seasonally staged events include the entire range of Lake Michigan diversion flow rates released into the Little Calumet River that flows into the Cal-Sag Channel at the 10

O'Brien Lock and Dam. Because Lake Michigan water quality is different in all aspects (chemical, physical, and biological) than waters in the Cal-Sag Channel, water quality in the Cal-Sag Channel will vary greatly, depending on the volume of diversion being maintained during a given period. Consequently, diversion rates, theoretically, could influence the reaeration efficiencies at the SEPA stations as witnessed by the incorporation of the water quality factor in equation 4. The timing of the events was selected, in part, to capture the possible effects due to lake water diversion and no diversion (spring), 180 to 200 cubic feet per second (cfs) (early summer), and 300 to 400 cfs (summer and fall). Monitoring Schedule Continuous Monitoring. Because the primary purpose of this phase of the study was to evaluate the oxygen transfer rates through the screw pumps and at the step weirs, accurate and frequent DO/temperature measurements were required. This was accomplished using 25 YSI model 6000 water quality monitors/dataloggers purchased for this study. In addition, at selected monitoring locations and under certain conditions, Hydrolab DataSonde I water quality monitors/dataloggers were used. The Model 6000 performance specifications (Yellow Springs Instruments, Yellow Springs, Ohio) and standard operating procedures (SOPs) developed and used by ISWS staff for deploying the monitors are presented in appendix A. All monitors, including the DataSondes, were equipped with sensors to measure DO, conductivity, temperature, pH, and salinity. These parameters were recorded at hourly intervals for events 1 and 2, and at 30-minute intervals for events 3 and 4. Settings were staged so that a minimum of 48 hours of data was collected for any given pump setting. Each monitoring event required 12 to 14 days (including one or two weekends). Times for the pump settings per event at each SEPA station, including the start and stop dates and times, are given in table 4. This schedule resulted in inequitable "sample sizes" (e.g., monitoring periods) for different pumping rates. As an example, during event 2, pumping periods were: Pumping Periods (hours) at SEPA Stations 3, 4, and 5 Stations Number of pumps 1 2 3 4

3

4

5

48 216 0 0

48 120 96 0

48 120 48 48

During this event, the inequitable times resulted from two pumps failing at SEPA station 3, inclusion of a weekend during two-pump operations, and the fact that four pumps were

11

operated at SEP A station 5. As evident from table 4, four-pump operations were not evaluated at SEPA stations 3 and 4 (explained previously). The normal one, two, and three pump time sequences at SEPA stations 3 and 4 were 48, 120, and 96 hours, respectively; for SEPA station 5, the one, two, three, and four normal sequences were 48, 120, 48, and 48 hours, respectively. The 120-hour period for two pumps was constant because it always included an extra weekend (72-hour period). Event 3 did not fit this criteria by design, in contrast to the inadvertent anomalous sequence that occurred during event 2. Event 3 operations were modified to fit Phase I, or in-stream experimental needs. Instead of continuing to operate three pumps at SEPA stations 3 and 4 during the four-pump operation at SEPA station 5, all pumps at SEPA stations 3 and 4 were shut down during this 48-hour period. The in-stream study objective was to determine what influence a four-pump, SEPA station 5 operation alone had on the DO profile of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal without the influence of lake diversion. Grab Sampling. The primary objective was to determine SEPA station reaeration efficiencies, but several additional studies were conducted to determine if other water quality improvements were occurring within the SEPA stations. The SEPA stations could possibly be functioning as "wastewater" treatment facilities, thereby effectively reducing oxygen-demanding substances in water passing through the stations. Consequently, a sampling program was designed to evaluate this possibility by periodically collecting inlet and outlet samples for analysis of nitrogen and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) constituents. Consideration also was given to the possibility that sediment oxygen demand (SOD) in the distribution pools could reduce the DO concentration of the SEPA stations. This appeared to be a distinct possibility as significant sediment deposition was occurring in SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5, as shown by figure 13. Contingency plans were developed to perform in situ SOD measurements using methods developed by Butts and Evans (1978) if early DO monitoring results indicated SODs may be affecting DO levels in the SEPA station pools. Preliminary results indicated that SOD testing was not necessary. Weir-box Operation. An accurate evaluation of SEPA station aerating efficiencies requires precise knowledge of water quality conditions and DO saturation levels of water being routed through the SEPA stations at specific time intervals. When βvalues are actually less than unity (1.0), use of a standard DO saturation computation formula, such as equation 2 without adjustment, will tend to underestimate reaeration efficiencies, whereas using such equations without adjustment when β-values exceed unity will overestimate reaeration efficiencies. Also, as equation 4 indicates, weir aeration efficiency varies with changes in water quality. Therefore, the effects of water quality require investigation when conducting weir aeration experiments under ambient conditions. For the present study, a standard weir box as used by Butts (1988) during the fullscale SEPA station pilot study, was used to determine the variability in water quality and

12

to assess its affect on SEPA station reaeration efficiencies. The weir-box setup used at SEP A station 5 is shown in figure 14. Identical setups were operated at SEPA stations 3 and 4. The basic operation consists of using compressed air to aerate water to saturation and to measure the above and below weir-box DO concentrations during the beginning and ending of each event and during the beginning of each change in pump settings. With the physical factors being set (including β = 1.0) and Sa and Sb being determined experimentally on site, the effects of variability in water quality on deficit ratio can be computed using equations 1 and 4. This procedure was applied to events 1, 2, and 3 but was discontinued when preliminary analyses of the data indicated that the use of experimentally derived DO saturation concentrations and water quality factors did little to enhance the data analyses and outputs. In fact, inclusion of these adjustments in the data reduction process tended to obscure the results even more by producing more rejected data sets on the basis of the criteria required for equation 1. QA/QC Program Many procedural safeguards were used to ensure that credible results were achieved. The SOP and QA/QC procedures detailed in appendix A and D, relative to the management and handling of the continuous monitors, were applied at all times under close supervision of the principal investigator. Normally, monitor deployment time is limited to six to eight days during warm weather in nutrient-rich waters such as the CalSag Channel. However, because the SEPA events required 12 to 14 days of undisturbed deployment, extra effort was taken to collect significant amounts of independently measured DO/temperature data for use in making QA/QC corrections or adjustments in the recorded outputs. A number of factors were expected to negatively impact datalogged DO readings with time. Principle among these are influences due to inherent instrument drift, biological growth on sensors, and sediment accumulations around sensors and in the protective shrouds. To determine the combined, cumulative effects of these factors, periodic DO/temperature measurements were manually made at each SEPA station using a YSI Model 59 DO/temperature meter equipped with a YSI Model 5739 stirrer/probe. The number of manual measurements made for each event were: four for event 1, three for event 2, and two for each of events 3 and 4. When practical, surface DO/temperature measurements were manually recorded near the locations of the submerged monitors. The stirrer/probe was maneuvered into position using a flotation device consisting of an 8½ inch x 19½ inch piece of standard green-treated lumber (figure 15). The stirrer/probe was secured on the bottom side with rubber-covered ¼ inch U-bolts fastened with wing nuts on top. The rig was positioned using either a rope or a long-handled, rigid pole. A garage-door handle was provided for carrying the setup between measurement locations. The rope or pole was attached through an eyebolt so that the stirrer/probe would always face downstream. The upstream comers

13

of the board were cut at 45-degree angles so that the flotation device would remain stable and in-line with the flow. Measurements of DO and temperature were manually taken at a number of locations within each SEPA station as shown by the areal schematics presented in appendix B. The approximate locations of monitor placements are shown on figures 3, 4, and 5. Measurements were taken at or near the location of monitors within SEPA station 5; at all monitor locations, with the exception of the distribution pool placement, within SEPA station 4; and at the monitor location of the distribution pool within SEPA station 3. The manual measurements provided data and information for deriving the "best estimate" or average DO and temperature values for monitor locations that could not be accessed with the YSI meter and probe setups (figure 15). Also, it provided data and information, albeit somewhat limited, for determining the variability of DO and temperature within the distribution and aeration pools. Furthermore, manual measurements were made outside the bounds of QA/QC requirements during the staging of the first two events. The measurements were actually started during the summer of 1995 and continued into 1996 in excess of the required QA/QC needs associated with events 1 and 2. During 1997, manual measurements were conducted only during events 3 and 4. No independent measurements were made. The DO and temperature measurements also were manually made at SEPA stations 1 and 2, albeit less frequently than at SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5. This accounts for the inclusion of the SEPA station 1 and SEPA station 2 schematics in appendix B. These manual measurements were made in unison with the manual measurements at SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5 starting in late summer 1995 and continuing through the fall of 1996. Regimented SOP and QA/QC procedures were developed specifically for the project study and applied to DO/temperature meter calibration procedures and measurement techniques used for taking manual measurements. The portable YSI meters were turned on and left to warm up for at least 15 minutes prior to calibration; potassium chloride (KG) solutions and cell membranes were changed in the laboratory 24 hours prior to field use. Calibration of the DO meters with air was performed in a 6-inch diameter by 8-inch deep (3.7 liter) chamber constructed with schedule 40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. The chamber was designed to house the inclusive stirrer/probe in an airtight, constant-temperature environment. Temperature stability was maintained via a ½inch thick water bath contained around the outside of the chamber. A moist sponge provided 100 percent humidity. The portable YSI meter was readjusted to 100 percent DO saturation when drift occurred. When 100 percent stability was registered, the meter was switched to the oxygen/temperature (operating) mode, and the initial calibration time, temperature, DO concentration (mg/L), and percent saturation were recorded on the field forms in appendix B. After the manual measurements were completed, the sensor was patted dry with a paper towel and inserted into the air calibration chamber. Sufficient time was allowed for a 14

stable reading. The time, temperature, DO concentration, and percent saturation were recorded on the field form. The beginning and ending readings were used to correct the manually collected data for instrument drift using linear interpolation. The early 1995 manual DO/temperature measurements provided important planning information relative to choosing the best or more representative monitor placements, i.e., optimum areal locations in SEPA pools and outfalls and optimum vertical locations at intakes. Intake measurements were made at 2-foot depth intervals; outfall measurements were made at 1-foot depth intervals. During each monitoring event, water quality monitors were placed in duplicate at the inlet and outlet locations at each SEPA station as shown on figures 3, 4, and 5 to minimize loss of data at the most critical measurement locations. A malfunction of one or both monitors at these locations would prevent making an assessment of the overall reaeration efficiency for a particular set of operating conditions. The ISWS experienced approximately 95 percent functional reliability during in-stream deployment, but the placement of two water quality monitors at these locations, significantly but not completely, reduced the risk of data loss. A complete loss of intake data alone also would preclude assessing the aeration efficiencies of the screw pumps, a major consideration to be addressed during the present study. In spite of the safeguard of collecting data in duplicate at the intake and outfall, some loss of data occurred for the intake structure during event 3 at SEPA station 5. The primary cause appeared to be due to severe sedimentation inside the protective shrouds and around the sensors. This loss of data occurred in spite of using a double-shroud, duplicate in-line rigging at the SEPA station 5 intake (figure 16). The monitors were deployed along the bottom of the intake wall to prevent obliteration by barges and their towboats. Barges use the intake wall as a navigation guide wall when traveling both upand downstream in the Cal-Sag Channel. Loose, thick sediments are pandemic in the extreme lower reaches of the Cal-Sag Channel. High flows and/or barge traffic tend to cause continual shifting and movement of these sediments. During event 4, a third intake monitor was installed inside SEPA station 5 in a vertical position on the pump-1 trash rack. This unit was deployed for added insurance against a complete loss of intake data during the event and provided an opportunity to compare two totally independent monitoring locations at this station. The trash-rack installation was not used previously, nor was it even considered as a replacement for the outside rigging; the outside location was a permanent installation used in conjunction with the continuous in-stream monitoring program associated with the Phase I portion of the study. The outside location was quickly and conveniently accessible and serviceable by boat, as were the intake and outfall installations at SEPA stations 3 and 4. A disadvantage of the independent trash-rack setup was that data generated would be selectively dependent on pumping rates. Four-pump operations may have required a rigging at all five trash racks; and, when certain pumps were not operating, superfluous data would be generated. If only two monitors were used, conceivably one or both could have been

15

recording stagnant water DO and temperature readings during times when less than five pumps were operating. Deploying monitors in tandem also enhanced the QA/QC procedures. It permitted evaluating on a selective basis the reliability, consistency, and reproducibility of data generated by individual monitors at a given location. Tandem installations were restricted because of the limited number of monitors available and the preparation and deployment times necessary. A total of 27 water quality monitors were required during events 1, 2, and 3. During event 4, 28 units were required due to the addition of the intake unit at SEPA station 5. At SEPA stations 3 and 4, seven units were used as shown in figures 3 and 4. At SEPA station 5, either 13 or 14 units were used as shown in figure 5. The monitor/datalogging units available for deployment for a given event were: 25 YSI 6000s, 1 YSI 6920, 1 DataSonde 3 (DS3), and 5 DSls. Whenever possible, the 25 YSI models and the DS3 were used, and replacements, backups, or additions were selected from the pool of old DSls when warranted. Beginning with event 1, at least one of the YSI monitors became dysfunctional prior to deployment in the field. Consequently, during all the events, to some extent, DSls were used to fill voids created by inoperable YSI units. Because these units were old, less reliable, and technologically less sophisticated, they were placed at locations in which failures would least influence or hinder analyses associated with determining overall SEPA station aeration efficiencies. An example of such placement was the addition of the third intake unit at SEPA station 5 during event 1. A contingency rank-order schedule was devised for DS1 deployment as outlined below: DS1 Deployment Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6

Placement Third unit at any station intake Second unit in outlets of SEPA stations 3 or 4 Second unit in either outlet of SEPA station 5 Both units in one of SEPA station 5's two outlets Any interior aeration pool Any distribution pool

The need to use DSls never extended beyond a rank-3 situation. The routine tandem installations at all the inlet and outlets, plus the triplicate inlet installations during event 4 at SEPA station 5, provided QA/QC data for use in evaluating the duplicity of outputs between separate monitors installed at the same location. By using the data in concert with the manually measured data, the accuracy, precision, and reliability of each instrument could be identified and characterized. These data were particularly valuable in assessing and identifying the best DS1 units as the study 16

progressed and how well their outputs matched those of the YSI 6000s, YSI 6920, and the DS3. Field Operations Field tasks included monitor installation and removal, weir-box operation, periodic manual measurements, and BOD and nitrogen sample collections. The ISWS was responsible for the installation and removal of the monitors and for periodic manual DO and temperature measurements. Personnel from the District's R & D were responsible for conducting the weir-box and DO-saturation experiments and for collecting and analyzing the nitrogen samples. The ISWS personnel collected and analyzed the BOD samples. All these tasks were performed with the cooperation and aid of District personnel, who were responsible for the operation, management, and maintenance of the SEP A stations. Monitor Installation/Removal The in-line, single-shroud riggings (figure 17) were installed within each SEPA station a week before the start of event 1. The riggings were left in place until spring 1997, at which time they were replaced with double-shroud, V-riggings (figure 17). The in-place riggings were redesigned over the winter with the intent to reduce sediment deposition and fouling of the sensors. With the new design, the monitor has been raised off the bottom by securing the standard 6-inch PVC shroud to the top of a 12-inch polyethylene pipe section. This, in effect, raised the centerline of the monitor 9 inches above the bottom compared to 3 inches for the single-shroud system. The raising of the level of deployment was limited to approximately this elevation because siltation had reduced the water depths to approximately 1 to VA feet at many points upstream of the weirs. The monitor installation process began on the first Monday of each event beginning at SEPA station 3 and ending at SEPA station 5. The pumps at SEPA station 3 were shut down by District personnel around 0800, and installation was completed by 0900. Similarly, pump shutdowns and installations were completed by 1000 at SEPA station 4 and by 1100 at SEPA station 5. Removal of the monitors would commence after the pumps were shut down at each SEPA station on the last Friday of each event. Time schedules adhered to during deployment would be duplicated during the removal process. The deployment of the monitors at the intake and outlet structures of SEPA stations 3 and 4 was done using a boat. These units often were installed on the Friday prior to an event as part of the weekly or biweekly exchanges associated with the Phase I, in-stream monitoring operation. However, the units were always removed at the termination of an event in concert with the in-SEPA monitor removals. Weir-Box Operation Weir boxes were installed at each SEPA station and left in place throughout the duration of the study. The only difference between weir boxes was that the box at SEPA 17

station 3 was constructed of ¾-inch plywood (figure 18), whereas the boxes at SEPA stations 4 and 5 were constructed of ½-inch Plexiglas. The setups, along with associated equipment and materials, were supplied, installed, and checked for proper operating performance by ISWS personnel. Operational experiments were conducted four times during each event by District R&D personnel. Two work tasks were associated with the weir-box experiments. One was to pump water into the elevated box under a fixed set of conditions to periodically determine water quality conditions as represented by a in equation 4. The second task was to aerate contained channel water, in concert with running the weir box, to determine ambient DO saturation concentrations. The weir boxes were set up in areas above trash racks in the intake channels of each SEPA station (figure 14). The experiments were started by priming the pumps to fill the boxes. As soon as the boxes were filled, pumping continued for a minimum of 20 minutes to ensure representative measurements. The pumps were 2-horsepower (hp), electric-driven, cast iron units with 2-inch suction and l½-inch discharge connections (figure 19). Standby pumps were available at SEPA station 4 in case of failures. One standby was a gasoline-driven unit; the other was a 1½ hp electric-driven unit. Pumping rates of 0.95 liters per second (L/sec) were maintained via a gate valve on the discharge line. This produced water surface elevations of 1.79 and 0.51 m in the weir and receiving boxes, respectively, and a constant water fall height h in equation 4 of 1.28 m. Special field sheets were used to record the weir box and DO-saturation data (appendix B). Two DO samples were collected near the V-notch weir in the upper box and two DO samples were collected near the rectangular outlet weir on the receiving box. All four samples were siphoned simultaneously into 300-milliliter (mL) DO bottles through Vi-inch flexible tubing. The DO concentrations were determined using the Winkler Method (APHA, 1992) using chemicals and titration apparatuses on site (figure 20). If the difference between the duplicate samples was 0.2 mg/L, a third sample was siphoned and fixed. Similarly, a third analysis was performed if the difference between the two DOsaturation samples exceeded 0.2 mg/L. The DO saturation was achieved by aerating 2 liters (L) of water with small, household-type, 120-volt, 1.0 cubic feet per minute or cfm (30 pounds per square inch or psi) air compressors fitted with fine-bubble air stones. The pumps were shut off after completing each weir-box experimental sequence, and both boxes were siphoned dry with ¾-inch tubing. A stepladder was provided for accessing the top weir box for DO sampling and for draining. Grab Sampling Grab samples were collected periodically for BOD and nitrogen analyses. The ISWS collected two sets of BOD samples at each SEPA station in 1-gallon Nalgene bottles. One set was collected from the inlets and outlets during the monitor installations 18

on Monday; the other set was collected at the same locations during the removal of the monitors on Friday. These samples were immediately transferred to the ISWS Peoria laboratory and prepared for 20-day BOD incubations. The maximum time lapse between collection and incubation was approximately eight hours. The samples were not iced because the relatively short time between collection and incubation made it unnecessary, and the method used for analyses (Elmore, 1955) precludes cooling below 20°C. Samples returned to the laboratory cooler than 20°C were allowed to warm to 20°C or greater to avoid production of "phantom" BODs during the initial incubation period. Nitrogen grab samples were collected ten times at the inlet and outlet of each SEPA station by District R & D personnel during events 1, 2, and 3. No samples were collected during event 4. Nitrate and nitrite samples were filtered through a Katadyn Model 2050 field pressure filter fitted with a 0.2 micrometer (μm) diatomaceous earth filter element. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen samples were not filtered. Samples were cooled in the field and in the laboratory until analyses were completed. Sampling times were recorded on the weir-box field form as shown in appendix B. Manual DO/Temperature Surveys The DO and water temperature measurements were conducted by two ISWS personnel, one of which was always the principal investigator of this study. The principal investigator was present at all times and provided an element of consistency in performing the technical aspects of this task. The principal investigator also could make field observations relative to anomalies in the operation of a SEPA station. The DO and temperature measurements were taken approximately 2 inches below the water surface at all distribution and aeration pool locations using the floatation device shown in figure 15. Measurements were made at 2-foot intervals beginning at the bottom from the relatively deep vertical seawalls containing the intakes at SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5. Only bottom and surface readings were taken at the shallow intake areas of SEPA stations 1 and 2. Effort was made to consistently record data at all the points shown on the schematics in appendix B. Walkways provided access to a larger number of measurement locations in some pools of SEPA stations 1, 3, 4, and 5. This was particularly true at SEPA station 5. The walkway across aeration pool 1S at SEPA station 5 permitted four measurements to be made in this pool and five to be made in the distribution pool. Measurements in the distribution pool were made by attaching the stirrer/probe float, shown in figure 15, to a 16-foot rigid pole to counteract the high velocities at weir 1S. From 60 to 90 minutes were required to complete DO and water temperature measurements. A backup YSI meter, complete with a separate stirrer/probe hookup, was available. If a meter/probe failure occurred at any point during the survey, the backup unit was calibrated and the entire survey was repeated.

19

Laboratory Operations Continuous Monitors In the laboratory, YSI 6000 monitors were calibrated for DO, pH, and specific conductivity. All calibrations and data downloading were performed using the PC6000 software provided with the instruments. Data files were downloaded in the proprietary PC6000 format and converted within PC6000 to comma-delimited value format for importing into Microsoft Excel (version 7.0). Hydrolab DataSonde I instruments were calibrated using the standard Windows 95 terminal program. Data files for the DataSondes were downloaded as ASCII capture files and imported into Excel. After formatting in Excel, data were moved into Microsoft Access where all calculations and statistical analysis were performed. The pH calibrations were performed using Fisher Scientific® buffers of pH 7.0 and 10.0. Before calibration, the sensor was cleaned and rinsed with deionized water and pH 7.0 buffer to remove any contamination. The sensor was placed in 500 mL of pH 7.0 buffer, and allowed to stabilize for ten minutes, or until the electrode readings were stable, at which time the calibration was entered. The sensor then was removed from the solution and rinsed in a beaker of deionized water. Prior to placement in the pH 10.0 buffer, the sensor was rinsed with pH 10.0 buffer to remove any residual pH 7.0 buffer or deionized water droplets, which may contaminate the pH 10.0 buffer. The sensor then was immersed in a beaker containing 500 mL of pH 10.0 buffer and allowed to stabilize for ten minutes, or until stable readings were obtained. After calibrating at pH 10.0, the sensor was rinsed again and returned to the pH 7.0 buffer to verify calibration. Calibration buffers were checked periodically with an Orion model 920A benchtop meter equipped with a model 91-56 pH electrode. Hydrolab instruments were calibrated in an identical manner, with the exception that the amount of buffer used was reduced to the amount necessary to cover the electrodes in the smaller calibration cups. Specific conductance at 25°C was calibrated using a standard of 1.413 millisiemens/centimeter (mS/cm). The standard was made by diluting a stock solution of 12.880 mS/cm. The standard was checked using a Labcraft model 264-774 conductivity meter calibrated separately with ready-made standards. Sensors were cleaned and prerinsed with the conductivity standard before immersion in 500 mL of the calibration standard. Calibration was accepted after a ten-minute interval if all readings were stable. Cell constant values were confirmed to be within the correct operating range. Units with "out-of-range" cell constant values were cleaned and recalibrated. Cell constants could not be checked on the DataSondes because the internal software of the sonde does not provide a means for doing this. The DO sensor was always calibrated after specific conductance because specific conductance is utilized by the internal software of the monitors to calculate DO. The DO sensor membranes were changed prior to each deployment. This was done at least 24 hours prior to calibration to allow for relaxation of the membrane. The sensor was rinsed

20

with deionized water and dried with tissue before calibration. Care was taken to ensure that no water droplets were present on the membrane. For the YSI monitors, calibration cups containing moist sponges were placed over the sensors. The monitors were placed on their sides with the DO sensors on top for calibration. This reduced the chance of water dripping onto the membranes from the top of the sensor. Monitors were run for at least ten minutes in the discrete sampling mode prior to calibration to warm the electrodes and confirm the stability of the environment within the calibration cup. Monitors then were calibrated for DO while compensating for barometric pressure. Barometric pressure was obtained from the National Weather Service and adjusted to the elevation of the laboratory. Hydrolab instruments were calibrated in an inverted position in a specially designed open-bottom calibration cup. Calibration cups were filled with tap water to levels below an o-ring holding the DO membrane on the electrode. Care was taken to ensure that the membrane was free of water droplets. Rubber caps were lightly placed over the open cup bottom to isolate the probe from ambient air currents. These monitors do not need preliminary warming up. The monitors are run in a calibration mode until acceptable, stable calibrations are obtained. These instruments automatically compensate for atmospheric pressure. The data generated by the continuous monitors are subject to a certain amount of drift. This drift is a combination of two factors: calibration drift inherent to the sensor design and operation, and drift caused by environmental conditions such as the buildup of foreign matter on the sensor. Therefore, corrections were applied to the DO measurements obtained by the monitors to compensate for such drift. Drift compensation was performed in Microsoft Access 97 through a Visual Basic program written by ISWS personnel. The program utilized a combination of pre- and post-deployment Winkler test values and field values obtained during manual measurements. The compensation equation adjusts for drift between two known points, but more than two points may be used by segmenting the data into sequential time periods. The compensation or correction equation can be expressed mathematically as:

where: coti = moti = mo1 = co1 = mo2 = CO2 =

corrected DO, mg/L at time ti, days monitor DO, mg/L, to be corrected at time ti monitor DO, mg/L recorded at time t i , days correct YSI 59/Winkler DO, mg/L at time ti monitor DO, mg/L, recorded at time t2, days correct YSI 59/Winkler DO, mg/L at time t2

21

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Twenty-day BOD tests were performed in the ISWS laboratory in Peoria. Total BOD (TBOD) and carbonaceous BOD (CBOD) were directly measured, whereas nitrogenous BOD (NBOD) was determined indirectly by calculation. The CBOD was determined using a nitrification inhibitor. Bottles and DO probes used for measuring CBOD were labeled and used only for samples containing inhibitor to prevent the inhibitor from contaminating the TBOD samples. The TBOD and CBOD tests were performed in triplicate. The YSI model 59 DO meters were calibrated to air saturation in a custommade, six-probe capacity calibration chamber. Six YSI model 5730 BOD stirrer/temperature/DO probes and meters were used simultaneously. Three were reserved for each of the triplicate TBOD and CBOD (inhibited) readings. Nitrogenous BOD data and curves, presented in this report, were derived by subtracting measured CBODs from measured TBODs. The CBODs were determined by inhibiting nitrification using Hach nitrification inhibitor formula 2533. During event 1, for a cursory comparison, the inhibitor method was run in concert with the progressive ammonia oxidation (nitrification) method. The latter involves measuring ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) concentrations in the BOD water at periodic daily intervals and calculating the oxygen usage stoichiometrically by multiplying each 1.0 mg/L decrease in NH3-N by 4.57 as 4.57 mg of DO is required to oxidize 1.0 mg of ammonia-N to nitrate-N (Gaudy and Gaudy, 1980). The stoichiometric results appeared to be somewhat more accurate, but time and monetary constraints dictated the use of the inhibitor method. Extreme accuracy was not needed as the BOD experiments were a relatively minor part of this study. The BOD samples were collected in 1-gallon bottles and analyzed within a few hours of collection. The initial 1-gallon samples were split into two half-gallon sample bottles with dispenser tubes on the bottom. The first bottle was used for TBOD, and the second was used for CBOD. A dose of 1.92 grams (g) of Hach nitrification inhibitor formula 2533 was added to the CBOD bottle. No inhibitor was added to the TBOD bottle. Both bottles were aerated with airstones for approximately 30 minutes to raise the DO to near saturation levels. Three 300-mL BOD bottles with glass stoppers and plastic caps were filled from each half-gallon bottle. Excess sample was retained in the half-gallon bottles for replacing sample losses occurring during periodic DO measurements. The DO measurements were made in each of the six 300-mL bottles. Between readings all sensors were rinsed with deionized water. If significant disagreement was found between the readings, the meters were checked and recalibrated. When necessary, sample was added from the half-gallon bottles to replace volume displaced by the sensors. The bottles were capped with glass stoppers and checked for air bubbles. Plastic caps were placed over the mouths of the bottles to prevent evaporation of the water seal. The 300-mL and half-gallon bottles were then placed in a Hotpack model 352602 incubator set to 20°C. Using the same protocol, subsequent DO measurements of the 300-mL bottles were made every 1 to 2 days for 20 days. When DO levels in the 300-mL bottles became low (~3 mg/L) the samples were returned to their respective half-gallon bottles, aerated for 30 minutes, and again dispensed into the 300-mL bottles. The NH3-N samples were 22

taken from the half-gallon TBOD bottle every four to five days. The NH3-N testing from BOD samples was performed by ISWS personnel at the Peoria laboratory; 100 mL samples were analyzed by method 4500-NH3 D from Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA, 1992) using an Orion 920A meter and a model 95-12 ammonia electrode. The TBOD, CBOD, and NH3-N data were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. All calculations were performed within Excel. Nitrogen Nitrogen samples from the SEPA stations were analyzed by District personnel at the Stickney R & D laboratory facilities using method 4500-NH3 D from Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA, 1992).

Data Reduction and Analyses Field DO measurements, continuously recorded at the SEPA stations, had to be reduced and organized so that meaningful mathematical and statistical analyses could be performed to achieve the two major objectives of the study. The first step in data reduction was to adjust and/or correct for differences between the continuous monitor DO measurements and manually recorded values and those derived from QA/QC laboratory procedures using the Winkler method by use of equation 6. After these corrections and/or adjustments were made, the DO data were subjected to statistical analyses in the form of the deficit ratio, as derived from equations 1 and 2, and in the form of the output DO saturation percentage, as predicted by equation 5. Statistical analyses were performed using standard computer programs capable of handling the large number of data generated by the current study. The ANOVA procedures, t-tests, and multiple range analyses were used to evaluate the data. Either "normal" or rank-order techniques were applied, depending on the condition of the data. Data were first tested for normality. If the data appeared to be normally distributed with a 95 percent degree of confidence, statistical tests applicable to "normal" data were used. For data not normally distributed, nonparametric, rank-order testing usually was performed. These tests provide powerful means of testing for differences in data sets that are not normally distributed. Monitor Output Adjustments The continuously recorded DO values were first corrected by matching measured and recorded laboratory tank values. The initial and ending Winkler DOs (co1 and CO2, respectively, equation 6) were compared with corresponding monitor outputs (mo1 and mo2, equation 6) recorded close to the time at which the DOs were determined by the Winkler method. All monitor values were then corrected using equation 6. Further

23

corrections following the same procedure were made using the DOs manually measured in the field with the YSI Model 59 DO/temperature meters. Table 5 lists the manual DO/temperature measurement locations (as referenced to the appropriate figures in appendix B), which were used to adjust or correct monitor outputs. The intake water depths ranged between 10 and 12 feet at SEPA stations 3 and 4 and between 8 and 10 feet at SEPA station 5. At times, pronounced DO stratification occurred at these intakes. For example, on August 14, 1996, the DOs ranged from 3.54 mg/L on the bottom to 6.03 mg/L at the surface. Table 6 lists all 5-foot depth values at SEPA stations 3 and 4 and all bottom and near-bottom values at SEPA station 5 recorded manually, including those in 1995. Statistical tests, using the t-test, were performed to determine if one could accept the hypothesis that the individual DO values measured at the intakes are equal to the vertical means listed in table 6 at a 95 percent confidence level. The results show that such a hypothesis could be accepted only for the SEPA station 4 data. Although the 5-foot depth and average means are relatively close for the SEPA stations 3 and 5 data, the individual data points display more variability (see variance statistic in table 6). Consequently, regression equations were developed and used to predict the average intake DOs based on the individual values. A prediction equation also was developed for SEPA station 4 to provide consistency in the data analyses. The equations developed using linear statistical regression analyses are: DO3avg = 0.959

DO 5 +0.166

(7)

DO4avg = 1007 DO5 - 0.072

(8)

DO 5avg = 0.875 DO-1 +0.841

(9)

where DO3avg = average vertical DO, mg/L, at SEPA station 3 DO4avg = average vertical DO, mg/L, at SEPA station 4 DO5avg = average vertical DO, mg/L, at SEPA station 5 DO5 = DO, mg/L, at 5-foot depth DO-1 = DO, mg/L, 1-foot off bottom The coefficient of determination (R2) for equations 7, 8, and 9 are 0.9893, 0.9667, and 0.9407, respectively, and the standard error of estimate (SEE) for equations 7, 8, and 9 are 0.091, 0.215, and 0.334, respectively. The R2 represents the fraction or percentage of the total variance in the mean DO that is explained by the point source DOs. In other words, 98.93 percent of the variability in the mean DO at SEPA station 3 is explained by the variability in the DO observed at the 5-foot depth. At SEPA station 5, the observations made 1 foot above the bottom account for 94.07 percent of the variability observed in the vertical average. 24

Equations 7, 8, and 9 were used to compute a mean DO concentration for every intake monitor reading recorded during both the Phase I and II studies. The equations produce good estimates of the mean vertical values and could be applied with confidence to future data generated using point monitoring at these three locations. The conversion of the point data to mean values was done using Microsoft Access 97. Missing Data and Curve Reconstruction Overall the YSI and Hydrolab monitors performed satisfactorily. However, at times, gaps in the data developed due to unit malfunctions caused by either defects inherent in the instruments or by technician error. Depending upon the severity of the data loss and the sampling location, some of the missing data could be reconstructed with a good degree of confidence. Reconstruction of missing data was done using a combination of: residual data from the deployment of the defective monitor, fully generated DO curves from monitors up- and downstream of the defective unit, and manually recorded measurements. For example, if a monitor in aeration pool 2 produced an incomplete curve or a complete curve with obvious outliers, the shape and proportionality of curves generated by units in pools 1 and 3 would be compared and the possibility of reconstruction evaluated. If overall consistency between the two curves prevailed, including sinuosity, difference in magnitude, and proportionate manually recorded values, attempts would be made to fully reconstruct the pool-2 curve. Attempts at reconstruction usually were successful to some degree. The overall results of this study would not have been significantly affected if they had not been. The end result was that essentially complete, finely tuned sets of data were produced. Aeration Efficiency Parameter Selection. The SEPA station components and overall aeration efficiencies can be evaluated using deficit ratios, as defined either by equations 1 and 4 or by relative DO outputs expressed as a function of the percentage of saturation (Po in equation 5). However, in the final analyses, Po was selected for use. Preliminary calculations indicated that deficit ratios (r-values) would not be suitable because use of equation 1 resulted in too many rejections due to acceptance criteria. This is shown by the low (<1.0) and negative values exemplified in table 7. Table 7 lists deficit ratios calculated for both a day and a night situation at SEPA station 4 for all combinations of point changes in DO, including those between the intake and all the pools and between all pool combinations. Theoretically, the deficit ratio should remain relatively constant for a specific geometric design, irrespective of the ambient DO level of the above-weir water. Consequently, the r-values for all single and double weir combinations listed in table 7 should, theoretically, be roughly equivalent. In other words, the r-value for the three single weir passes (pools 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and 3 to out) should be 25

reasonably equivalent. Similarly, the two double-weir combinations (pools 1 to 3 and 2 to out) should exhibit equivalency to some degree. Review of the data shows this is not true. Note, from table 7, that during the April 25, 1997, day operation, the r-values generated between the intake and the first weir were realistic and consistent up to the 1200 hour. The average for this period was 2.57, and it represents the r-value equivalency of the screw pumps. However, after the first pool, r-values became extreme both in magnitude and variability with many negative values. The values ranged from a low of -833.2 (intake to out at 0930) to a high of+566.8 (intake to out at 1000). These untenable results were produced because ambient above-weir DO concentrations quickly approached saturation levels after pumping and were at or above saturation above weir 3. Consequently, conditions exemplified by the computations summarized in table 2 occurred between weir 1 and the outfall. The June 13, 1997, night deficit ratio results also were ambiguous, but the nature of the ambiguity was slightly different from that of April 25, 1997. In this case, the intaketo-pool-1 r-values produced were somewhat less than realistic. Deficit ratios rose steadily from somewhat unacceptable negative values during the early morning hours of June 14, 1997. Overall, r-values ranged from a low of-684.9 (intake to out at 0300) to a high of +928.9 (intake to out at 0215). Interestingly, two nighttime situations produced consistent, reasonable data. The intake-to-pool-2 average was 5.2 and the pool-2-to-pool3 average between 2100 to 0330 hours was also 5.2. However, after 0330 hours the values steadily rose to 18.9 at 0600 hours. An effort was made to improve the r-value outputs by incorporating DO saturation and water quality factor corrections in their calculations. The DO saturation concentrations calculated using equations 2 and 3 were adjusted using a β-factor derived from the experimental DO saturation values generated during the weir-box experiments. Also, water quality factors, a in equation 4, were computed from the weir-box experimental data. The modified deficit ratio that resulted did not improve the overall output at any SEPA station location. In fact, the problem of negative and/or inordinately high values was often exacerbated, apparently because the β-values were often less than unity as shown by the results in table 8; 35 of the 54 β-values presented are less than one. The r-values derived for selected April 25, 1997, monitor outputs at SEPA station 4 using a β-factor of 0.966 are presented in table 9. The "uncorrected" results are presented in table 7; table 9 lists 136 negative values compared to only 52 in table 7. This simple example illustrates the extreme sensitivity of r to small changes in DO concentrations, relative to either saturation or ambient DOs, when ambient DO values are near saturation levels. Temperature/DO Saturation. To circumvent the pitfalls of using r as the evaluation parameter, Po was selected as the comparative variate. Dissolved oxygen saturation values were computed using equations 2 and 3 in conjunction with temperature

26

data generated by the continuous monitors. A β-factor was not applied to the DO saturation concentrations used to compute Po. Historically, ISWS researchers have found that monitor temperature outputs are accurate, relative to National Institute of Standards and Technology grade mercury thermometers, and are precise relative to other monitors. Elaborate QA/QC procedures have been developed to ensure adherence to accepted deviation tolerances (Butts et al., 1995). The QA/QC procedures employed when monitors were used to measure water temperature during thermal discharge studies are presented in appendix D. During the present study, these strict procedures were not followed precisely. Monitors that were not individually calibrated were routinely compared with those that historically had been (mostly YSI Model 59 DO/temperature meters). During this study, as is commonly the case, temperature sensor malfunctions did not occur. Table 10 presents water temperature data, which shows good-to-excellent precision between duplicate monitors and monitors and temperatures manually measured with YSI Model 59 DO/temperature meters. No statistically significant differences could be shown to exist at a 95 percent confidence interval between the means for each location within each SEPA station. Statistical Analyses The results and subsequent conclusions of this study were largely derived through the use of statistical testing. The statistical testing calculations were performed using SigmaStat (Version 2.0). This statistical software package automatically subjects data to a normality check. If the data fail normality, appropriate nonparametric statistical tests are offered. Both parametric and nonparametric statistical testing were used and is done on either a two-group basis or a three- or greater group basis. Two groupings use the tstatistic as the basic test parameter; greater-than-two groupings use the F-statistic (or its nonparametric equivalent) as the basic test parameter. Most data sets failed the "normal test". Therefore, many of the analyses were performed using nonparametric methods. The nonparametric tests used in this report produced more reliable results than could be achieved using a transform to normalize data, then subjecting the normalized data to parametric testing. Two-Group Tests. The Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test (a nonparametric test) was used to ascertain if two samples come from the same population of values. One form uses the t-statistic as the test parameter. This test was used to determine if the medians of the meter-measured and sonde-measured temperatures could be assumed to be equal at a 5 percent level of significance.

27

The methodology used in rank-order testing will be presented using SEPA station 3 meter and sonde intake temperature data presented in table 10. The computations are outlined as follows: Temperature order Meter (m) Sonde (s)

Rank Meter (m) Sonde (s)

14.8 15.3 16.3 19.3 19.4 19.6 24.1 24.3 24.7 24.8 25.3

1 14.94 15.25

4 5

17.18

7

19.32 19.37

10 11

19.79

13

24.21

15

24.31

17 18.5

24.80 24.96

21

25.33

Rank sums, T No. of samples, N Mean rank, R Total Rank sums (Tm + Ts)

122.5 11 11.14

28

2 3 6 8 9 12 14 16 18.5 20 22 130.5 11 11.86

253

From a standard t-distribution table for a two-tail test at a = 0.05 and 21 degrees of freedom (Nm + Ns - 1), t = 2.080. Because the computed /-value is smaller than the table value, the conclusion is that the median values are equal, signifying both groups probably came from a common population. In other words, a statistically significant difference does not exist between the two groups. Three or More Group Testing. Data generated from scientific studies involving three or more levels of one or more variables can be analyzed statistically using ANOVA. This statistical approach separates the variances of the measured variable in the fraction caused by several factors (each of which can be viewed singly or in combinations) and the fraction caused by experimental error. Both parametric and nonparametric ANOVA tests are available. However, data that fail a normality check are best analyzed using rank-order procedures (nonparametric test). Rank-order testing is limited to a one-way analysis. This study was designed to examine data using parametric two- and three-way testing. For example, a two-way design could include using, as comparable variates, seasons (events) and pumping rates (number of pumps) for SEPA station outlet Po-values (P) given below: Events (E) a b c d

1

Number of pumps (N) 2 3

4

Pall,

Pa21,

Pa31,

Pa41,

Pal2,...Pali

Pa22,...Pa2i

Pa32,...Pa3i

Pa42,... Pa4i

Pb11,

Pb21,

Pb31,

Pb41,

Pbl2,...Pbli

Pb22,...Pb2i

Pb32,...Pb3i

Pb42,... Pb4i

Pcll,

Pc21,

Pc31,

Pc41,

Pcl2,...Pcli

Pc22,...Pc2i

Pc32,...Pc3i

Pc42,... Pc4i

Pdll,

Pd21,

Pd31,

Pd41,

Pdl2,...Pdli

Pd22,...Pd2i

Pd32,...Pd3i

Pd42,... Pd4i

E-mean

N-Mean

The objective of this example is to determine if null hypotheses that and can be accepted as being true at some confidence level such as 95 percent. This is accomplished by examining the variability between column and row groupings and the interactions between the two. Looking at only mean values without considering the overall variability of the individual data points often can be misleading and result in incorrect conclusions. A simple example can demonstrate this point. Two hypothetical sets of five numbers (1, 25, 50, 75, and 99) and (48, 49, 50, 51, and 52) both have a mean of 50, but the first set is much more variable than the second. A t-test or ANOVA testing procedure would reject the hypothesis that both sets of numbers are equal.

29

Unfortunately, most of the data failed the normality test. Consequently, one-way, rank-order ANOVAs were used to analyze the data for significant differences. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks was used to determine if median values were equal by examining the variability of the rankings between groupings. A representation designed to test the variability between pumping rates for SEPA station outlet Po-values (P) is given below: 1 P11, P12, P13, P 1 4 , . . . . P1i

N-Median (Ñ)

Ñ1

Number of pumps (N) 2 3

4

P21, P22, P23,

P 3 1 , P3 2 , P 3 3 ,

P41, P42, P43,

P 2 4 , . . . . P2i

P34,

P4 4 ,....

....P3i

41

Ñ4

Ñ3

Ñ2

P

The Po values under each pump column include results from all four seasons. To determine if seasonal variability exists, the test is used with seasonal groupings as the following illustrates: Event (E) a

E-Median (Ẽ )

c

b

d

P a l , Pa2, Pa3,

Pbl, Pb2, Pb3,

P e l , Pc2, Pc3,

P d l , Pd2, Pd3,

Pa4,....Pai

Pb4, . . . . Pbi

Pc4,

P

Ẽ1

Ẽ2

....P c i

Ẽ3

d 4

, . . . Pdi

Ẽ4

In this case, the Po values under each column are inclusive of all pumping rates (three for SEPA stations 3 and 4 and four for SEPA station 5). The ANOVA testing results only provide information about whether two or more groups in a multiple comparison are different at some defined level of significance (usually at 5 percent, i.e., P < 0.05). A null hypothesis is stated that is either accepted or rejected on the basis of a computed test statistic. For normally distributed data, ANOVA is used and an F-statistic is computed from the data and compared to a tabulated F-value at the appropriate degree of freedom and confidence level. The F-statistic compares sample variances that permit conclusions to be drawn as to whether two or more means are different. For data that are not normally distributed, ANOVA is used by nonparametric methods and the H-statistic is computed. The H-statistic compares median values to determine if the data are consistent with the null hypothesis, and that the samples were all derived from the same population. In either case, if the computed F or H values are greater than the table value, the conclusion can be reached that significant differences occur within groupings. When differences are found among groups, they can be separated using multiple comparison or multiple range tests. Pairwise comparisons are made of all possible

30

combinations of group pairs. The tests compute the Q-test statistic and make comparisons with theoretical distributions of Q. The Dunn's test is applied to nonparametric rank ANOVA test results, and the Tukey test usually is applied to parametric ANOVA results. Large calculated (Q-values, exceeding theoretical Q-values at some level of significance, indicate that differences between groups being compared are statistically significant. Differences in rank means are used in the Dunn test whereas differences in arithmetic means are used in the Tukey test.

31

RESULTS The results will be presented in three categories. First, temperature and DO-data generated by manual measurements, including the preliminary evaluations conducted at all five SEPA stations and the QA/QC data collected during the three-station SEPA operational studies. Second, the results of additional studies and sampling conducted to determine water quality conditions of water entering and exiting SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5. Third, the results of the continuous DO/temperature monitoring within SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5. The results are best reported in this order as the continuous monitoring results were adjusted and modified by the information developed during the walk-through runs and from the operation of the weir box. Manual DO/Temperature Measurements The water temperatures, DO concentration, and percent saturation values measured at the intake and outfall for each date manual measurements were made and for each SEPA station are presented in table 11. Statistical summaries of DO percent saturation values (minimum, average, maximum, and standard deviation) for all sampling locations within each SEPA station are shown in figures 21-25. Also, presented in table 11 are the predicted outlet DO percent saturation values (Po) derived using equation 5. Similarly, predicted Po values will be presented for the continuous-monitoring data. The preliminary manual DO and temperature measurements produced valuable information. Foremost they provide good overviews of the basic characteristics of each SEPA station from which the best monitor placement strategies could be determined. Without the study, monitors could have been inadvertently placed in the distribution and/or aeration pools at locations that would have produced incorrect and/or misleading results. For example, without prior knowledge of the aeration characteristics and flow patterns at SEPA station 5, the selection of sampling location V (appendix B, figure 25) as the Cal-Sag Channel outfall monitoring site would have been disastrous. At this location, an eddy current or hydraulic "dead zone" exists. Low-DO, Cal-Sag Channel water is drawn into this eddy current, trapped, and obscures the weir-aeration effects. Figure 25 shows that average Po value at location V was only 89.2 percent versus a value of 97.7 percent at location V1 on the opposite side of the outfall pool. Note that the minimum Po value at location V was 64.4 percent versus a minimum of 91.1 percent at location V1. Such "dead zones" caused by unusual circulatory patterns persisted at many locations in all the SEPA stations. The "dead zones" detected while conducting manual measurements at SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5 are indicated by the shaded areas in figures 3-5. Other "dead zones" undoubtedly exist but cannot be ascertained by walking the periphery of the stations. The manual DO and temperature measurements provided good data for assessing deficiencies in flow patterns and hydraulic design. Peripheral "dead zone" affects can be demonstrated by presenting DO observations made at specific locations in a SEPA station on a given date. As an example, the results of the manual observations made in the "dead zone" areas of SEPA station 4 on June 17,

32

1997 are presented below (see appendix B for alpha designations of measurement locations): "Dead zone" location

DO percent saturation

C D E G J L M

111.7 107.6 128.0 147.4 107.8 100.4 100.6

The "dead zones" in SEPA station 4, as well as those in the other stations, usually produce supersaturated values in localized areas. "Dead zone" G, in SEPA station 4, was notorious in producing very high supersaturated DO levels as exemplified by the 147.4 percent value. Perusal of the minimum, average, and maximum percent saturation summaries for all five SEPA stations given in figures 21-25 can provide additional insight into the affects of the dead zones on overall SEPA station operations. The manual DO and temperature data also afforded the opportunity to generate significant background data on the basic operational characteristics of SEPA stations 1 and 2, the two stations that were not included in the continuous monitoring studies. Of particular interest is the data collected from SEPA station 1. Table 11 shows that, on all but one occasion, observed Po values at SEPA station 1 were > 100.1 percent. However, table 11 also shows that the inlet DO percent saturation (Pi) values were > 90 percent during nine of the ten runs. Because of the high saturation at the intake, only once, on July 23, 1996, was Pi sufficiently low (73.9 percent) to permit reaeration to be reasonably traced throughout the SEPA. The high DO saturation levels at the intake suggest that SEPA station 1, although effective in aerating water flowing through it, may have a minimal impact on in-stream DO saturation levels. Observed Po values in excess of 100 percent were continuously observed throughout this study, although these values violate the theoretical precepts as discussed in the section "Dam or Weir Aeration Theory". For the manual measurements, the ratio of the number of observed Po values greater than 100 percent that violate theoretical precepts versus the total number of runs are: SEPA station 1 (9/10), SEPA station 2 (4/11), SEPA station 3 (5/19), SEPA station 4 (7/19), SEPA station 5C (5/18), and SEPA station 5S (7/18). Table 11 lists the applicable reaeration case scenarios for the preliminary, manual measurements. The italicized cases indicate situations in which theoretical conditions were violated. Ninety-five total runs were made at all SEPA stations. Of course, 38 had outfall DO conditions that theoretically could not of been caused solely by physical reaeration processes. All but two of the situations were Case HI scenarios; the other two included a 33

Case I scenario (SEPA station 2, 8/10/95) and a Case II scenario (SEPA station 2, 8/22/96). These results, which defy theoretical physical reaeration laws, indicate that biological activity must be contributing significantly to the oxygen balance within the SEPA pools. Photosynthesis, as would be expected, appears more pronounced in SEPA stations 1 and 4 in which the design includes long, wide distribution and aeration pools. Figure 21 shows that the average DO percent saturation values for all 10 SEPA station 1 runs at location H in aeration pool 1 was 103.4 percent with the maximum value being 114.8 percent. Similarly, the SEPA station 4, G-location average value (figure 24) is 100.6 percent, and the maximum is an amazingly high 146.7 percent. The covered distribution pool and the compact design at SEPA station 3 reduce, but do not eliminate, photosynthesis. Note that supersaturated DO levels were recorded in all three SEPA station 3 aeration pools. Figure 25 shows that the average DO value within the SEPA station 5 distribution pool increased by 0.5 to 1.8 percent from the top of the pool to the weir, and no supersaturation levels were observed. Therefore, SEPA station 5 shows little evidence of photosynthetic activity. The manually measured DO data also provided an opportunity to evaluate the predictive accuracy of equation 5 using quality controlled data. Table 11 lists outfall Po values predicted by equation 5. Statistical t tests were performed to determine if the mean values of the observed and calculated Po values were equal. The results of the statistical analysis are summarized in table 12. They indicate that statistically significant differences exist between the observed and predicted Po-values at SEPA stations 1, 2, and 3. However, for SEPA station 4 and for both SEPA station 5 outlets, no statistically significant differences were found between the two means. Additional Studies The results of the weir-box aeration experiments, DO saturation aeration determinations, and nitrogen and BOD sampling analyses will be presented. Weir-Box Aeration Experiments Weir-box aeration experiments were conducted to provide information on the relative condition of the quality of the water being routed through each SEPA station during each pumping scenario. The water quality was determined indirectly with standard weir setups as shown in figures 14 and 18-20. The methods and procedures are presented in the "Methods and Procedures" section of this report. Weir-box data were used in equation 4 to produce a dimensionless water quality coefficient a that was intended to be used to adjust all sample runs to a common water-quality base. The results of the weir-box experiments are presented in appendix C. Only one run was conducted during event 4 at all SEPA stations. The experiments were reduced for this event because the manually measured data and results from the previous events indicated that the results probably would be of limited use in determining overall SEPA aeration 34

efficiencies. Also, several weir-box experiments were not conducted due to equipment failures. Statistical analyses were used to determine if significant differences existed between the mean a-values for events, SEPA stations, and varying pumping rates (table 13). No significant differences were found between the aerating capacity of the station intake waters. However, a seasonal difference was shown between the second and third events. No significant interaction occurred between events and stations (F = 0.868). The average a values for SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5 were 0.56, 0.57, and 0.65, respectively, for all four events. Gameson et al. (1958) state that a-values range from a low of approximately 0.65 for water that only can be poorly aerated to a high of 1.8 for water that can be well aerated. Based on this scale, the aerateability of the Cal-Sag Channel water was persistently low throughout all four events. Experimental a-values (assuming b = 1.0) derived at other locations and situations are referenced as follows: Experimental Values at Various Locations Location

a-value

Reference

Peoria, Illinois River tap water Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Lockport Dam Brandon Road Dam Dresden Island Dam Marseilles Dam Starved Rock Dam Peoria Dam LaGrange Dam

1.11 1.20 1.28 1.22 0.95 1.01 1.12 0.90 1.08

Butts and Evans (1980) Butts (1988) Butts and Evans (1980) Butts and Evans (1980) Butts and Evans (1980) Butts and Evans (1980) Butts and Evans (1980) Butts and Evans (1980) Butts and Evans (1980)

Relative to these reported values, Cal-Sag Channel water appears to be the most difficult to aerate. Interestingly, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal water, used during the SEPA station prototype study, exhibited the highest reaeration factor. Peoria tap water (from the Illinois River) exhibited only a slight improvement in aerating capability over that found in the river at the Peoria Dam. Although Chicago area waterways exhibit high a-values, the current SEPA stations are such highly efficient aerators that these high avalues appear to have little or no affect on the ability of the stations to operate at maximum efficiencies. Consequently, water quality represented by the a-value should not play a major role in future SEPA station design as long as the designs are patterned after those now operating. DO Saturation Experiments Results from the saturation experiments are presented in table 8. Although maximum DO saturation values (β) in table 8 indicate that day-to-day ambient saturation values may deviate somewhat from theoretical clean-water levels, statistical tests indicate that long-term ambient measured mean values cannot be distinguished from computed 35

means at the 95 percent confidence level. The t-test was used to compare the average experimental and computed means for SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5. The results of the statistical analyses are summarized in table 14. The results indicate that the differences in either the median or mean values for each data set are not great enough to exclude the possibility that the differences are due to randomness or experimental error. Consequently, using DO saturation concentrations based on equations 2 and 3 to analyze SEPA aeration efficiencies are fully justified for this study. Nitrogen Changes The mean and median nitrogen values of the samples collected during the study are presented in table 15. In order to determine if the inlet and outlet mean or median values were equal, the nitrogen data were subjected to a rank sum or t-test (table 15). The statistical analyses showed that the mean or median values were equal. Apparently, neither significant biological oxidation nor biological assimilation of nitrogen is occurring within the SEPA stations. No tests were run to ascertain if statistical differences occurred between station means, but a subjective examination of the data listed in table 15 indicates that differences may have occurred for some parameters. However, the total nitrogen concentrations are remarkably close for intake and outfall locations and between stations. Note, particularly, that differences between the 5C and 5S (C = Cal-Sag Channel, S = Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal) outfall values are extremely small for all the nitrogen species. BOD Changes The cumulative 20-day BOD values are presented in appendix E for all samples collected. Typical BOD curves, showing TBOD, CBOD, and NBOD, are shown on figures 26 and 27 for SEPA station 4 intake and outfall conditions during event 3. Statistical tests were performed to determine if the SEPA stations removed significant amounts of BOD. The testing was done collectively by integrating the data for all the stations into one data set for each BOD component. Both t-test and rank sum tests were performed using the collective ±20-day long-term values to determine if statistically significant reductions in BOD were being affected by the SEPA stations. The results, presented in table 16, show no significant difference between intake and outfall BOD, CBOD, or NBOD values. This indicates that the SEPA stations probably do not effectively remove BOD, although the outfall mean and median 20-day BODs are slightly less than the intake values for each fractional BOD. Continuous DO Monitoring The results presented in this section represent the most important facet of the study. Continuous monitoring of DO concentration and temperature at the SEPA station locations was conducted for different seasonal and hydraulic conditions. The enormous amount of data permitted finite conclusions to be reached concerning the aeration efficiencies associated with the design and operation of the SEPA stations. The summary 36

data will be presented in tables. The manually measured DOs and companion monitor results are summarized in appendix F to show the DO values used in the QA/QC adjustments of the continuous monitors. Typical QA/QC-adjusted DO-curves are shown for each station in figures 28-31 (the adjusted data are available on floppy disk in a Microsoft Access 97 Database format). The summarized, tabular data and those used for statistical analyses are presented in percent saturation. The matched monitor and manually measured DO values used for QA/QC adjustments to the overall DO curves generated in each SEPA station pool during the four events are presented in appendix F. General Observations Figures 28-31 show some interesting results that occurred during the monitoring. Most striking are the sharp "spikes", which are evident in figures 28, 30, and 31. Those shown in figure 29 are particularly deep. These spikes appear to be caused by temporary fouling of the DO sensors. In almost all cases, this fouling was very transient; but, in a few instances, significant periods of data were lost due to this phenomenon. The probe fouling appears to be biologically induced and occurs because of the extended deployment time required to conduct this study in the nutrient-rich waters of the Cal-Sag Channel. Normally, the monitors are retrieved on a weekly basis in the waterway proper. However, during this study the monitors had to be left undisturbed for a minimum of two weeks. Probe fouling is minimal for weekly deployment periods, but two-week deployment encourages fouling. Figures 28-31 also show the dramatic increase in DO that occurs in a stepwise manner through the SEPA stations. Particularly evident is the large increase effected by the screw pumps as shown by the differences between the intake and the distribution pool. The weir systems also temper the wide temporal fluctuations in intake DO levels. Beyond the distribution pool, almost no correlation exists between pool DO and intake DO concentrations. At the initiation of this study, the reaeration capacity of the screw pumps was completely unknown; albeit, it was suspected to be significant. Because it turned out to be highly significant, as shown by figures 28-31, new design equations have been derived using data generated from this study and will be presented and discussed later. At this point, suffice to say that the basic stepwise design concept appears sound and adheres to predicted results; however, because of screw-pump considerations, at least one weir can probably be eliminated as will be demonstrated later. During event 4 at both the SEPA station 3 inlet and outfall, data for one of the two duplicate monitors were lost due to instrument failure. This demonstrates the importance in the study design of providing two monitors at critical locations. These curves also serve to show the excellent precision in the outputs of the companion intake and outfall units. Note that the A and B DO curves for the intakes on figures 29, 30, and 31 are almost 37

indistinguishable. The small spikes are about the only physical evidence that distinguishes unit B from A at the SEPA station 5 intake (figures 30 and 31). Table 17 provides a summary of the continuous DO monitoring data for all conditions in terms of both percent saturation and concentration. Note the large number of individual data points listed in the last column of table 18 that were generated using the monitors. The totals of the data readings recorded or computed for each station are: SEPA station 3, 20,294; SEPA station 4, 20,124; and SEPA station 5, 47,204. The data points for all three stations totaled 87,622. The intake and outfall measurements are nearly double those for the internal pools because of the duplicate units placed at these locations. The arrangement of the data presented in table 17 provides a convenient means for determining overall average conditions at any location within the three SEPA stations. For example, an extraordinary situation developed in SEPA station 4, pool 1, event 4 in that the mean DO saturation was 99.91 percent. Furthermore, conditions for SEPA station 4, pool 1 with two pumps operating reveals that the DO averaged well above saturation. Obviously, physical aeration could not account for these values. This suggests that photosynthesis within the distribution pool appears to influence the aeration characteristics of this station a great deal of the time. Overall, all three SEPA stations are highly efficient aerators as shown by the DO concentration and percent of saturation summaries given in table 17 and the following tabulation of DO concentrations. SEPA Station DO Summary from Table 17

SEPA 3 4 5C 5S

Mean DO (mg/L) In Out 6.41 6.20 5.32 5.32

9.21 9.11 8.78 8.93

Mean DO (% saturation) In Out 68.6 66.3 59.8 59.8

100.3 101.9 98.5 98.4

% Change 43.7 46.7 65.0 67.9

Both outfall values at SEPA station 5 are slightly lower than at SEPA stations 3 and 4. This is probably due to the fact that the mean intake DO (Pi, equation 5) at SEPA station 5 is significantly lower (59.75 percent) than those for the intakes at SEPA station 3 (68.59 percent) and SEPA station 4 (66.25 percent). Also, the Po-values at SEPA station 4 appear to be "artificially" elevated due to photosynthesis. Note that the DO values for the distribution pools immediately above the outfalls (pool 3 for SEPA stations 3 and 4 and pools 4C and 4S for SEPA station 5) approach 100 percent saturation and differ little from the outfall values. The fact that the mean percentage change in DO at SEPA station 5 is greater than those changes observed at SEPA stations 3 and 4 should not be construed to mean that SEPA 5 is a more efficient aerator. It may or may not be. Conversely, the fact that the 38

mean outfall DO concentrations are lower at SEPA station 5 does not necessarily mean that SEPA station 5 is the least efficient aerator. The information presented in the proceeding paragraph helps explain this phenomenon. For further insight relative to this, the "Dam or Weir Aeration Theory" section of this report should be perused. Although the differences between percent saturation for many of the scenarios in table 17, such as seasons for SEPA station 3 and events 2 and 3 for pool 3 of SEPA station 3, are small, these differences can be statistically significant. The large sample sizes associated with this study greatly contribute to these statistical outputs and conclusions. For example, the difference in the mean percentage saturation values between the summer and fall events for pool 3 of SEPA station 3 is only 0.30 (102.43-102.13). However, this value can be shown to be statistically significant because the number of data points total almost 800 for each event. If such a small difference were associated with sampling sets one-tenth this size, this difference would not be statistically significant. Also, contributing to the frequent rejection of null hypotheses (the assumption that the means are equal) is that much of the data displayed great variability. Analysis of variance tests actually check to determine if sample sets come from the same population of values through sample-value variability as the ANOVA connotations implies. Two sample sets may have exactly equal numerical means; but they could, with a high degree of probability, not come from the same population of values. A simple example is used to illustrate this point. Assume the means of two, three-value sample sets are 50 resulting from set-values of 1, 50, and 99 and 49, 50, and 51. The variability of the former is very large and for the latter it is very small. One could only accept the fact they are equal with a high degree of probability of being wrong. Specific Observations Statistical analyses have been performed to determine if significant differences exist between seasons and between the number of pumps in operation. Also, statistical analyses were performed to ascertain whether the two outfall weirs at SEPA station 5 operate at similar efficiencies. Comparisons of Events (Seasons) . The effect of seasons on aeration by SEPA stations was studied by using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis, rank-order ANOVA test. The tests were performed for each pool at each SEPA station. The Kruskal-Wallis test compares median values and percentile ranges. The results for SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5 are presented in tables 18, 19, and 20, respectively. The statistical analyses showed that all the pools exhibited seasonal differences at all three stations. Consequently, the 25 and 75 percentiles along with the median values (50 percentile) are presented in tables 18-20. Also, included are the mean values ( ). The Dunn multiple comparison test was used to isolate seasonal differences within each SEPA station pool (tables 18, 19, and 20). Except for a few instances, differences in DO percent saturation occurred for almost all seasonal combinations irrespective of the 39

pool location. For SEPA station 3, 19 of 24 combinations were different; for SEPA station 4, 21 of 24 combinations were different. Of the 54 possible combinations at SEPA station 5, 50 were different. These results show that operating efficiencies can vary by season. This is especially true for the overall station efficiency. For SEPA station 4 and both SEPA station 5 outfalls, all seasonal combinations were different. The SEPA station 3 outfall data indicated that only the combination of events 2 and 3 produced similar overall operating efficiencies (table 18). The following example ranks the median outlet DO saturation (Po) by event for each station, with 1 representing the highest Po and 4 the lowest Po. The "C" and "S" represent the Cal-Sag Channel and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, respectively, at SEPA station 5 for all the following listings. Median Po -ranking for SEPA Stations Event

3

4

5C

5S

Summer Fall Spring Early summer

3 1 2 4

3 1 2 4

3 1 4 2

3 1 4 2

This ranking shows a somewhat consistent trend between all stations, at least as to which events rank first and third. For all SEPA station outfalls, the late summer/early fall produced the highest Po-values, and the mid-summer ranked third. The spring and early summer ranked second and fourth (last) for stations 3 and 4; the ranking for these events was reversed for both SEPA station 5 outfalls. Not unexpected is the fact the rankings were the same for outfalls 5C and 5S. The differences between the highest and lowest seasonal mean and median DO percent saturation values for all four outfalls are as follows: Seasonal High Minus Seasonal Low (Po)

Outfall

Mean

Median

SEPA 3 SEPA 4 SEPA 5C SEPA 5S

2.53 10.56 8.69 9.65

2.31 11.84 8.80 10.82

SEPA stations 4 and 5 show relatively large seasonal differences, but the seasonal effect at SEPA station 3 appears minimal. Sedimentation and macrophytic growth, particularly in the distribution pools of SEPA stations 4 and 5, may contribute to this 40

seasonal phenomenon. The late-summer/early-fall period (event 2) would include the height of the growing season for rooted vascular aquatic plants in these systems. Comparisons of Hydraulic (Pumping) Operations. The different pumping rates were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test (tables 21, 22, and 23). Statistical results were similar to those for the event analyses. All pools, at all stations showed significant changes in DO output with changes in the number of screw pumps in operation, although for the SEPA station pilot-study weir system Butts (1988) found that flow-rate changes had no effect on Po. The results of the Dunn tests indicated that, with a few exceptions, pumping-rate changes produced significant changes in DO concentration in all the pools at all three stations. SEPA stations 3 and 4 each had 12 possible pool-pumping combinations (tables 21-23). For SEPA station 3, 10 of 12 combinations were significantly different; for SEPA station 4, 11 of 12 combinations were significantly different. Of the possible 54 combinations at SEPA station 5, 52 were significantly different. The following example ranks median outlet DO saturation (Po) for the number of pumps in operation, with 1 representing the highest Po: Median Po-Ranking for SEPA Stations Number of pumps

3

4

5C

5S

1 2 3 4

1 1 3

1 3 1

-

-

4 3 2 1

4 3 2 1

For SEPA station 3, pumping rates 1 and 2 were both assigned 1 because the Dunn test indicated equality (table 21, Outfall). For the same reason, Is were assigned rates 1 and 3 for SEPA station 4 (table 22, Outfall). Unlike seasonal variability, for which there is no control, the number of pumps in service and weir-unit-hydraulic loadings can be controlled by engineering design and/or operating procedures. The following tabulation shows the differences between the highest and lowest mean and median DO saturation values for all four outfalls.

41

Pumping Rate Po Values High Minus Low (percent saturation)

Outfall

Mean

Median

SEPA 3 SEPA 4 SEPA 5C SEPA 5S

1.46 3.08 9.45 8.25

1.89 4.44 3.04 6.95

The pumping effects could be influenced by two factors: the pumps themselves or the hydraulic loadings at the weirs. To determine the origin of the difference, the effects of pump operation on the distribution pool was statistically tested. The DO percent saturation values in the distribution pools will be referred to as Pd. The following tabulation shows the median Pd rankings by pumping rates, again with 1 indicating the highest ranking. Median Pd-Ranking for SEPA Stations

Number of pumps

3

1 2 3 4

1 2 3

Stations 4

5 4 3 2 1

2 1 3

Differences between the highest and lowest mean and median values in the three SEPA station distribution pools are: Pumping Rate Pd Values High minus Low (percent saturation) Distribution pool SEPA 3 SEPA 4 SEPA 5

Mean

Median

3.59 15.22 10.52

4.97 8.91 10.78

For the three SEPA stations, the percentage increases in DO levels (or Pa-values) in the distribution pools, due to increases in pumping, are significantly higher than at the outfalls. The mean difference in Po and Pd means due to screw pump operation are 5.56 and 9.78 percent, respectively; the respective median averages are 4.08 and 8.22 percent. The conclusion can be reached that the turbulence within the pumps and at their discharge points are responsible for most or all of the increased aeration. Increased turbulence at the 42

weirs due to increased unit-hydraulic loadings appears to enhance reaeration very little. This corresponds to the finding reported by Butts (1988) in the scale-model study. However, photosynthesis that occurs in the distribution pools has to be taken into account. The water quality monitors are located in the distribution pools far downstream of the pump outlets (figures 3, 4, and 5). Increased DO concentrations recorded at these locations include effects due to both pumping and photosynthesis. Because the distribution pool (channel) is underground in SEPA station 3 and not exposed to light (figure 3), little or no photosynthetic oxygen production would be expected. This appears to be the case, as documented by the data presented. The difference between the mean high and mean low Pd at SEPA station 3 is only 3.59 percent; these differences for SEPA stations 4 and 5 are 15.22 and 10.52 percent, respectively. Comparison of SEPA Station Outfalls 5C and 5S. The basic geometric design of both SEPA station 5 outlets (Cal-Sag Channel and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal) are the same. However, the Cal-Sag Channel outlet weirs are about half as long as the weirs on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (figures 5 and 11). Also, the flow patterns in the distribution pools leading to each outlet are different. The Cal-Sag Channel side of the distribution pool is heavily silted and supports a persistent growth of rooted aquatic vegetation. Consequently, a hypothesis was developed that outlets 5C and 5S produce different Po-values. This hypothesis was tested using the Mann-Whitney rank sum tests by combining all data measured during the different seasons and pump operations (table 24). The results indicate that the two outlets produced significantly different median P-values at all pool levels. The large sample size, plus the wide differences in variability between each sample group, accounted for the statistically significant differences. This situation is exemplified by the outfall-pool results. The Cal-Sag Channel outfall had a median of 101.30 percent saturation for 4,784 data points with a 25 to 75 percentile range of 5.05 percent. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal outfall had a median of 100.22 percent saturation for 5,586 data points with a 25 to 75 percentile range of 8.08 percent. The statistical analysis shows that the outfall to the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal is a less efficient and more variable aerator than the Cal-Sag Channel outfall. Comparison of Pools between SEPA Stations. Distribution pool mean and median DO saturation values and outfall-pool mean and median DO saturation values were statistically compared between SEPA stations. All seasonal and pumping values were combined for these analyses. Also, the data for both outfalls were combined to represent SEPA station 5 as a single unit. The results of the Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA are summarized in table 25; similar results were derived using the t-test to test the equality of the means. The results of these statistical analyses, combined with subjective observations, help identify and/or define physical and environmental factors that affect and distinguish operating conditions at the stations. The DO saturation values in all three SEPA station distribution pools and in all three SEPA station outfall pools are shown to be significantly 43

different (table 25). The distribution pool DOs are theoretically controlled by two physical factors: the intake DO level (Pi as defined in equation 5) and the aeration mechanism. Consequently, if all three aeration mechanisms are the same (screw pumps in this case) then Pi should dictate Pd. Based on the total mean intake Pis in table 17, SEPA station 3 Pa should be the highest (it is not, table 25) and SEPA station 5 Pd should be the lowest (it is, table 25). Furthermore, Pd at SEPA station 5 also probably is less because the screw pump there is only 80 percent as long as the ones at SEPA stations 3 and 4 (table 1). The higher Pd-values in SEPA station 4 can be attributed to photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants that grow in sediment deposited in the distribution pool (figure 13). The differences between the DO saturation levels between the SEPA station distribution pools (Pd) are lessened as water passes over the weirs. Note from table 26 that, although the three Po-values are shown to be significantly different statistically, the absolute differences are minimal.

44

DISCUSSION The amount of data that can be generated using continuous water quality monitors on a scale such as during this study can be staggering. Careful planning in selecting and applying the appropriate sampling design, data retrieval/storage procedures, and data reduction/analysis methods permitted the fullest benefit from the data and observations. Overall, the SEPA stations operate at or above design expectations. However, some problems, both design and operational, exist that can be corrected at the present SEPA stations and in future designs. The results of the present study should result in future operational and capital savings. Three major considerations will be discussed: • Effect of sedimentation and aquatic macrophytes on DO levels in the distribution pools. • Effect of screw pump operation on SEPA aeration efficiencies. • Evaluation and modification of SEPA station design. Sedimentation and Aquatic Macrophytes Sedimentation in the distribution pools (the pools into which the screw pumps discharge before water flows over the weirs) of SEPA stations 1, 4, and 5 and to a lesser degree in SEPA station 3 is a major problem. Also, sedimentation is a minor problem in the aeration pools (pools below weirs) of SEPA stations 1,3, and 4 and in the outfall pool of SEPA station 3. Typical sediment deposits in distribution pools are shown in figures 13, 32, and 33. Filamentous algae and macrophytes are abundant in these sediments (figure 34). Photosynthesis has a pronounced effect on the oxygen balance in the distribution pool of SEPA station 4. The long-term effect is demonstrated by the average percent DO saturation values (Pd) shown in figure 24. The average Pd value at point A (screw pump outlet) is 84.3 percent compared to 89.7 percent at point E (upstream of the first weir). The percent DO saturation value would have been much higher had this pool not been treated twice with herbicides during the summer of 1996. Figure 35 shows higher DOs in the distribution pool during the summer of 1997 in the absence of chemical treatment. Figure 25 shows a minimal effect on DO saturation values from photosynthesis in SEPA station 5, and large sediment deposits are found in the distribution pool. The sediment and macrophyte growth must be removed periodically to maintain the hydraulic characteristics of the SEPA station. If sediment deposition is left unchecked, the distribution pool eventually could fill up and reduce the volume capacity of the station. Overall, photosynthesis in the distribution pools, although having some short-term positive effects, has no beneficial effects on the overall DO outputs in the SEPA stations. Figure 35 shows that the DO in the distribution pool of SEPA station 4 was 1.0 mg/L to 2.5 mg/L greater than it was in the outfall pool because supersaturated water is deaerated

45

by the weirs at the same rate that subsaturated water is aerated. Also, photosynthesis essentially stopped on June 23, 1997, and DO saturation values dropped sharply from supersaturation to subsaturation values. Several options are available for reducing sedimentation in the distribution pools of SEPA stations 4 and 5. One method is to modify pump operation during storm events. During the present study, heavy sediment deposition in the distribution pools at SEPA stations 4 and 5 occurred during intense rainfall when the waterway levels were being reduced. The intake of sediments during these periods probably accounts for much of the deposition. By ceasing pump operation during these major storm events, the import of sediment from the waterways could be reduced considerably. A second option would be to remove the riprap in the distribution and aeration pools and replace them with a fabric lining or with hard, smooth asphalt or concrete bases. This should be done for all pools at SEPA stations 3 and 4 and the SEPA station 5 distribution pool. At the very least, the riprap should be removed, except around the pool edges at these stations. Reducing sedimentation in the SEPA stations also would reduce aquatic vegetation. The aquatic vegetation observed in the SEPA stations use the deposited sediment as a substrate. By eliminating the substrate, the rooted aquatic vegetation will have nothing in which to anchor its roots. As long as sedimentation occurs, an ecologically sound, well-managed program should be established to control rooted aquatic vegetation and filamentous algae. These aquatic plants reduce hydraulic efficiencies, facilitate further sedimentation, and provide no dependable increase in DO. Future SEPA stations should be designed with sediment traps, similar to that schematically shown in figure 36, at the pump discharge point and possibly at the bottom of the first weir (beneath the waterfall). Sediment traps at weirs should be deeper than weir overflow penetration. This depth should be significantly greater than the water jet penetration estimate of three-tenths of the waterfall height (Nakasone, 1987). The pools, including the distribution pools, all should be very shallow (except for the trap areas) to promote continuous natural hydraulic flushing of "escaping" sediments through the remaining pool/weir areas. The entire pool should be constructed of concrete. All traps should be accessible to backhoes or endloaders for sediment removal during periods when the station is inoperable. Future designs similar to SEPA station 2 would probably not require special considerations in controlling or removing sediments and, therefore, are recommended. Basic unencumbered compact designs can be rendered aesthetically pleasing and still provide efficient aeration and hydraulics while essentially decreasing sediment deposition. Supersaturated DO levels occurred at all five SEPA stations due to photosynthesis (figures 21-25). The average DO levels measured in all the aeration pools of SEPA station 1 exceeded 100 percent saturation during a number of the manual measurements. Even 46

SEPA station 2, with its compact design, exhibited supersaturated DO levels at least once during the manual measurements (figure 22). Although prolific aquatic vegetation is present in the aeration pools at SEPA station 3 (figure 34), the DO concentrations are only marginally effected by photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is most pronounced in SEPA station 4. The maximum manually measured DO saturation value observed exceeded 146 percent at point G (figure 24). SEPA station 5 appears to be least affected by photosynthetic activity. No supersaturated DO concentrations were observed in the distribution pool of SEPA station 5 (figure 25). This is surprising as the distribution pool is heavily silted and macrophytes were present in the pool throughout the study. Supersaturated values in the SEPA station 5 short aeration pools are difficult to explain, either by physical or biological processes. Screw Pump Aeration The screw pump shown in figure 37 contributes significantly to reaeration at SEPA stations 2, 3, 4, and 5. The pumps were expected to provide aeration, but not to the degree observed at the four SEPA stations equipped with screw pumps. Because the continuous monitors were placed immediately above the first weir (figures 4 and 5), which include the impact of photosynthesis, the DO data cannot be used to accurately predict or model the pump contributions at SEPA stations 4 and 5. The manually measured DO data at the A points (figures 21-25), which are near where the screw pumps discharge, must be used for evaluating pump effects on aeration at SEPA stations 1, 2, 4, and 5. The pumping contribution at SEPA station 1 is due to propeller pump operation (table 1). Because the distribution pool at SEPA station 3 is underground, the DO above the first weir probably represents the effect of pumping. The relative effect of the contribution of the screw pumps and the steps on overall SEPA station aeration is presented below. DO Contribution as a Percent of Total

SEPA station

Screw pump plus photosynthesis

Weir 1

2

3

4

3 4 5C 5S

55.8 75.8 50.4 50.5

27.5 9.3 26.1 27.2

12.6 6.8 17.9 14.8

_

4.1 8.1 4.1 0.3

-

1.5 7.2

The screw pumps, based on this very general analysis, appear to contribute somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of the total DO production in the SEPA station. The 75.8 percent value for SEPA station 4 is inflated because the distribution pool of this station frequently experiences high rates of photosynthesis, as previously discussed. The true affect of the screw pumps at SEPA station 4 probably mimics those of the other stations.

47

The pump contributions to DO saturation are given in weir-height equivalents to compare the effectiveness of the screw pumps with that of weirs. The weir-height equivalents were computed using equation 5 with Pi set equal to the mean intake values and P set equal to the mean A values shown on figures 21-25. For comparative purposes, the weir-height equivalents also were computed using the continuous monitoring data in table 17 and manually measured points near the top of the first weir, which would include the effects of photosynthesis. The overall results are given in table 26. For the average manually measured conditions, the pump reaeration efficiencies range from a low equivalent equal to a 1.45 foot weir at SEPA station 5 to a high equivalent equal to a 10.29-foot weir at SEPA station 2. The difference between the A and B values represent the weir equivalent of the photosynthetic oxygen production input. The weir-height equivalent computations are very sensitive to small changes in Po. For example, if Po at SEPA station 5, measurement location A were 84.9 percent instead of 78.9 percent the weir-height equivalent would have been 6.39 feet instead of 1.45 feet. The fact that the SEPA station 5 distribution pool DO variability is small (figure 25), indicating low photosynthesis activity, is surprising. Abundant aquatic vegetation was observed in the SEPA station 5 distribution pool throughout the study. As noted earlier, the SEPA 4 distribution pool harbors profuse algae and aquatic vegetation. The photosynthetic weir-height equivalent nearly equals that of the screw pump, 6.65 feet for the screw pump versus 5.93 feet for photosynthesis. The combined screw pump/photosynthetic equivalent of 16.26 feet, derived for the continuous monitoring results, is impressive. Unfortunately, this DO "reserve" is in the form of supersaturation, which is removed by the weirs in the same way that subsaturated water is aerated. This "reserve" cannot be saved without also reducing the capability of the weirs to aerate subsaturated water because deaeration occurs at the same rate as aeration. In other words, water is deaerated at 150 percent saturation at the same rate as water is aerated at 50 percent saturation. This "reserve" could be saved only by channeling the water around the weir during productivity in the pools. Furthermore, channeling around the weirs would decrease pool detention times, thereby effectively reducing potential photosynthetic activity. Future Design Considerations The sole use of equation 5 for predicting weir aeration efficiencies for designing future SEPA stations is invalid. It must be used in conjunction with an appropriate algorithm for predicting output as a result of pump reaeration (Pop). To estimate weir aeration, Pop should be substituted for Pi in equation 5. The legitimacy of using equation 5 for designing SEPA stations was established, to some degree, with data presented in tables 11 and 12 for SEPA station 3, and station 5 outfalls C and S, three locations relatively free of photosynthetic activity. Intuitively, the best procedure for developing a screw-pump aeration prediction equation is to use statistical regression procedures to relate the intake DO, in the form of Pi. to the output Pop. This would have to be done for both 12-foot and 15-foot lift pumps. 48

Fortunately, continuous monitoring data, relatively free of photosynthetic effects, are available for both conditions: a 12-foot lift at SEPA station 5 and a 15-foot lift at SEPA station 3. However, the relationships between Pi and Pop at both SEPA stations 3 and 5 are not as good as was expected. This is demonstrated by the plots of Pi versus Pop shown in figures 38 and 39. In fact, the statistical relationship between the two variables can be classified as poor for SEPA station 3 (R = 0.56) and very poor (R = 0.39) for SEPA station 5. This indicates that other intake characteristics influence the Pop value more than the screw pumps. Another variable in addition to Pi could be identified, the number of operating pumps. Consequently, multiple regressions were performed using both the number of pumps (Qp) and Pi as independent variables to predict Pop. This produced an R = 0.69 at SEPA station 3, and R = 0.62 at SEPA station 5. Both are improvements over using just Pi to predict P op. The 15-foot lift equation at SEPA station 3 is:

where Pop = DO percent saturation at the pump outlet Pi = DO percent saturation at the pump intake Qp = number of pumps operating 61.19 = intercept constant The 12-foot lift equation at SEPA station 5 is as follows:

However, neither of these equations is satisfactory for use in predicting pump aeration. Some peculiarities exist within the properties of each equation and between equations. For example, the Pi-coefficient in equation 11 (0.03) is insignificant; therefore, in reality, the equation is reduced to predicting Pop strictly on the basis of Qp. This does not seem to be a logical design approach. Also, the pumping factor in equation 10 is negative, and in equation 11 it is positive. As a result of this ambiguous output, a conservative generic equation (good for all pump lifts) has been developed and is recommended for future design. It is based on the regression output and attendent statistics derived for SEPA station 3. For the sake of conservatism, Qp in equation 10 is set equal to 3 producing the following equation:

49

For the sake of ultraconservatism, or an added safety factor, equation 12 has been reduced by two standard errors of the estimate or by 2 x 2.75 = 5.50. Consequently, equation 12 reduces to:

or following rounding of coefficients:

Consequently, for an inlet DO of 50 percent, the intake/pump geometric configuration design of a new SEPA station would be credited with a Pop value of 70 percent. Note from table 17 that the mean Pop values for SEPA stations 3 and 5 were 86.25 and 79.30 percent, respectively. Crediting the pumps for anything greater than that predicted by equation 14 seems unwise as many additional factors at or in the intake influence changes in Pi than just the screw pumps. Future SEPA station intake structures may not aerate the water as vigorously as those in SEPA stations 2, 3, 4, and 5. An example of a problem used to design a SEPA station is: • Total station height: 12 ft • Weir length: 260 ft • Unit hydraulic loading: 1.38 cfs/ft = 622 gpm/ft = 0.89 mgd/ft (three screw pumps each with a capacity of 120 cfs) • Intake DO = 3.0mg/L • Intake temperature = 28.0°C Based on equations 2 and 3, the intake DO percent saturation is: Pi = 3.0/7.55 = 0.40 = 40 percent Based on equation 14, the intake-structure/pump aeration contribution is: Pop = (0.5)(40) + 45 = 65 percent Based on equation 5, the weir structure contribution is: • N = l

P o = (0.32)(65) + (4.13)(l) + (0.81)(12) +54.78 Po = 89.43 percent

• N = 2

Po = (0.32)(65) + (4.13)(2) + (0.81)(12) +54.78 Po = 93.56 percent

•' N = 3

Po = (0.32)(65) + (4.13)(3) + (0.81)(12) + 54.78 Po = 97.69 percent

50

The three-step weir scenario (N = 3) produces a Po-value that essentially equals the 5C and 5S mean values of 98.49 percent and 98.39 percent given in table 17 for an N = 4, H = 12 ft scenario. One less weir for a 12-foot lift results in significant savings in construction costs and in routine maintenance/operation costs.

51

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A field study was conducted to evaluate the aeration efficiencies of SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5 during their full range of seasonal operation and their full range of practical pumping capacity. Four, two-week events were monitored during the spring, summer, and fall seasons using continuous remote water quality monitors to record DO/temperature at intervals ranging from 15 to 60 minutes while pumping rates were varied by using from one to three pumps. The results of the study show that the SEPA stations are operating at or above design specifications. The overall mean DO percent saturation at each step from intake to outfall were: for SEPA station 3, 68.6, 86.3, 95.0, 99.0, and 100.3 percent; for SEPA station 4, 66.3, 93.3, 95.6, 99.0, and 101.9 percent; for SEPA station 5, 59.8, 79.3, 89.4, 96.3, 96.9, and 98.5 percent on the Cal-Sag Channel side and 59.8, 79.3, 89.8, 95.5, 98.3, and 98.4 percent on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal side. Although all SEPA stations produce high Po values, the internal flow-through aeration patterns are distinctly different for each station. The screw pumps appear to contribute from 50 to 60 percent of the overall DO production in the SEPA stations based on the results of SEPA stations 3 and 5. The contribution of the screw pumps at SEPA station 4 is indeterminate because the DOs at the end of the distribution pool of this station are greatly influenced by photosynthesis. Statistical analyses were used to ascertain if aeration efficiencies varied for different seasons and were affected by changing pumping rates. Four seasonal events were monitored at SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5: August 12-28, 1996; September 30-October 11,. 1996; April 30-May 9, 1997; and June 16-27, 1997. Flow rates associated with one-, two-, and three-pump operations also were evaluated. Statistically significant differences were found to exist between the means and medians of the seasonal Po values. The highest mean Po occurred in the fall at all three SEPA stations studied; the lowest mean Po was in early summer at SEPA stations 3 and 4 and in spring at SEPA station 5. Similarly, aeration efficiencies were found to vary with changes in pumping rates or the changing of flow volumes through the SEPA stations. These differences in aeration efficiencies were attributed to screw-pump operation not to changes in hydraulic loadings at the weirs. Mean DO saturations at the outfalls for SEPA stations 3 and 4 were near or above 100 percent saturation for all pump settings. SEPA station 5 showed mean outfall DO saturation near or above 100 percent saturation for situations in which more than one pump was operated. However, with only one pump operating, the outfall DO saturation dropped to around 93 percent. The overall mean DO percent saturations for one-, two-, and three-pump operations were 101.02, 100.81, and 99.46, respectively, for SEPA station 3 and 101.26, 104.56, and 101.67, respectively, for SEPA station 4. The overall mean DO percent saturations for one-, two-, and three-pump operations at SEPA station 5 were 92.56, 100.13, 102.06, and 101.68, respectively for outfall C and 93.98, 98.73, 101.19, and 102.23, respectively, for outfall S. These results indicate that higher pumping rates do not necessarily increase DO levels in the outfall pools. In fact, of the five outfall pools, only SEPA station 5S exhibited a mean value greater than that which occurred in the previous pool. However, higher pumping rates do result in higher DO loads to the waterway. For example, the oxygen load discharge at SEPA station 3 when operating

52

three pumps would be 2.95 times greater when operating one pump based on the overall mean results. Additional studies were performed during each season to determine if the SEPA stations reduce BOD and/or nitrogen compounds. The results of these studies showed that no BOD was removed during operation of the three SEPA stations. Also, nitrogen compounds, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (NH3, NO2, NO3, and TKN), were found to be unaffected during passage through the SEPA stations. Ambient water samples collected from the Cal-Sag Channel were aerated to saturation, and the DO was measured and compared to "book"-value concentrations. No statistically significant difference was found between the experimental and book-value DO saturation values. Detailed analyses were made of the aeration characteristics and efficiencies of the screw pumps used to lift Cal-Sag Channel water 15 feet into SEPA stations 3 and 4 and 12 feet into SEPA station 5. The increase in DO between the SEPA intake headwall and the point at which the water leaves the pumps was significant. However, a statistical analysis of the data indicates that the overall geometric design of the intake structure, in combination with the screw pumps and not the screw pumps alone, probably accounts for the increased DO concentration. This study was not designed to isolate or partition degrees of aeration within SEPA station intake structures. Only a "black box" reaeration value can be reported based upon DO readings taken in the Cal-Sag Channel at each intake and at the outlet in the upper end of each distribution pool. Mean differences in DO percent saturation values between the intake and pump discharge for SEPA stations 3, 4, and 5 are 17.7, 21.8, and 19.6 percent, respectively. A method for designing new SEPA stations was developed to incorporate the intake-structure/screw-pump reaeration contribution. Statistical analysis showed that the scale-model derived, weir-aeration prediction equation used to design the five existing SEPA stations is valid when applied to the weir portions of the stations. A design equation was statistically derived to predict intake-structure/screw-pump DO saturation percent output. These outputs are used as inputs into the weir design equation. A design problem and its solution are presented. Sedimentation readily occurs at all three SEPA stations and directly affects operation and maintenance; it indirectly affects the aeration characteristics and DO resources within the SEPA stations. The riprap on the bottom of the pools reduces hydraulic efficiencies and promotes sedimentation in the distribution pools. Vascular, aquatic plants grow in the sediments, and filamentous algae attach to the riprap and sediment that frequently increase DO in the distribution pools to supersaturation levels through photosynthesis. Photosynthesis-induced supersaturation is particularly pronounced in the distribution pool at SEPA station 4. The DO concentrations may remain above saturation for periods in excess of nine to ten days in SEPA station 4. Periodic DO values in excess of 146 percent of saturation were recorded. Supersaturated DO levels decrease in the long distribution pool of SEPA station 4, but they seldom fall much below 100 percent of saturation at night during periods of peak photosynthetic activity. Unfortunately, the excess DO is "blown out" via deaeration at each successive 53

weir, and little remains at the outfall. Serious consideration should be given to removing the existing riprap and installing a smooth fabric or cement lining. New SEPA designs should specify smooth linings and appropriately spaced sediment traps.

54

REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers, Committee of Sanitary Engineering Research. 1960. Solubility of Atmospheric Oxygen in Water. ASCE Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division SE7(86):41. APHA, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation. 1992. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th edition. American Public Health Association, Inc., New York, NY. Butts, T.A. 1988. Development of Design Criteria for Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration Stations. Illinois State Water Survey Contract Report 452. Butts, T.A., and R.L. Evans. 1978. Effect of Channel Dams on Dissolved Oxygen Concentration in Northeastern Illinois Streams. Illinois State Water Survey Circular 132. Butts, T.A., and R.L. Evans. 1980. Aeration Characteristics of Flow Release Controls on Illinois Waterway Dams. Illinois State Water Survey Circular 145. Butts, T.A., D.B. Shackleford, and T.R. Bergerhouse. Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration (SEPA) Stations: Effects on In-stream Dissolved Oxygen. Illinois State Water Survey Contract Report (in press). Butts, T.A., D.B. Shackleford, and R.S. Larson. 1995. Illinois Power Company Baldwin Power Plant Ash-Pond Effluent Boron Mixing with the Kaskaskia River. Illinois State Water Survey Contract Report 588. Elmore, H.L. 1955. Determinations of BOD by a Reaeration Technique. Sewage and Industrial Wastes 27(9): 993-1002. Gameson, A.L.H. 1957. Weirs and the Aeration of Rivers. Journal of the Institution of Water Engineers 6(11):477. Gameson, A.L.H., K.F. Vandyke, and C.G. Ogden. 1958. The Effect of Temperature on Aeration at Weirs. Water and Water Engineering 753(62):489. Gaudy, A.F., and E.T. Gaudy. 1980. Microbiology for Environmental Scientists and Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Macaitis, B., J. Variakojis, and B. Kuhl. 1984. A Planning Feasibility Report on Elevated Pool Aeration Stations. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Chicago, IL.

55

Nakasone, H. 1987. Study of Aeration at Weirs and Cascades. ASCE Journal of Environmental Engineering 113 (1):64. Water Research Centre. 1973. Aeration at Weirs. In Notes on Water Pollution. June, No. 61. Elder Way, Stevenage, Herts, England.

56

TABLES

57

Table 1. Engineering Design Features of SEPA Stations

Station

Pumps

No.

Location

River mile

Type

No.

Size

No.

1 2 3 4 5

Torrence Ave. 127th St. Blue Island Worth Cal-Sag Jct.

328.09 321.40 318.00 311.51 303.57

Propeller Screw Screw Screw Screw

4 2 4 4 5

100 cfs 84-in. 120-in. 120-in. 120-in.

4 4 3 3 4

Weirs Height (ft)

Design maximum

Per weir 3 3 5 5 3

Total

flow (cfs)

12 12 15 15 12

400 87 479 479 577

Table 2. Potential Errors in Oxygen Deficit Ratios Resulting from Inaccurate DO Measurements at Various Temperatures for Ca = 1.0m g/L and 7.4 mg/L: An Example Temperature (˚C)

15 20 25 30

S 10.03 10.03 9.02 9.02 8.18 8.18 7.44 7.44

True values cb Ca 1.00 7.02 7.40 9.15 1.00 6.35 7.40 8.48 1.00 5.79 7.40 7.92 1.00 5.29 7.40 7.43

r 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

5 10.13 10.13 9.12 9.12 8.28 8.28 7.54 7.54

Error values* ca Cb 7.12 0.90 7.30 9.25 0.90 6.45 8.58 7.30 0.90 5.89 7.30 8.02 0.90 5.39 7.30 7.53

re 3.07 3.22 3.08 3.37 3.09 3.77 3.09 24.00

re/3.00 1.02 1.07 1.03 1.12 1.03 1.26 1.03 8.00

Notes: * S = 0.1 mg/L greater than true value, C a = 0.1 mg/L less than true value, and Cb = 0.1 mg/L greater than true value re = The deficit ratio computed after incorporating the error factors

Table 3. Rejection Criteria for Computed r -Values From SEPA Pool 1 3, 4, and 5 locations Low High SEPA stations 3 and 4 1.3 6.2 Intake Pool 1 2 3 SEPA station 5 1.2 6.2 Intake Pooll 2 3 4 -

Locations within a SEPA station Pool 4 Pool 2 Pool 3 Low Low High Low High High

outfall Low

High

2.1 1.3 -

8.5 4.5 -

4.6 2.1 1.3 -

11.0 7.5 4.5 -

-

-

4.6 4.6 2.1 1.3

12.0 10.0 7.5 4.5

1.8 1.2 -

8.5 4.5 -

4.0 1.7 1.2 -

11.0 7.5 4.5 -

4.1 4.0 1.7 1.2 -

11.5 10.0 7.5 4.5 -

4.2 4.0 4.0 1.7 1.2

12.0 11.0 10.0 7.5 4.5

59

Table 4. Schedule of Pump Operations Event 1

SEPA 3

4

5

2

3 4

5

No. pumps 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4

Date (1996) Start Stop 08/14 08/12 08/14 08/19 08/23 08/19 08/14 08/12 08/14 08/19 08/19 08/23 08/14 08/12 08/14 08/19 08/19 08/21 08/21 08/23 09/30 10/02 10/02 10/11 09/30 10/02 10/02 10/07 10/07 10/11 09/30 10/02 10/07 10/02 10/07 10/09 10/09 10/11

Time Start Stop 0800 0800 0900 0800 0900 1000 0900 0900 1000 0900 1000 1000 1000 1100 1200 1000 1100 1000 1100 0900 0800 0800 0900 1100 1000 0900 1000 0900 1000 1000 1119 1100 1200 1100 1200 1100 1200 0800

Event 3

SEPA 3

4

5

4

3

4

5

60

No. pumps 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4

Date (1997) Start Stop 04/28 04/30 04/30 05/05 05/05 05/07 05/07 05/09 04/28 04/30 04/30 05/02 05/02 05/07 05/07 05/09 04/28 04/30 04/30 05/05 05/05 05/07 05/07 05/09 06/16 06/18 06/18 06/23 06/23 06/27 06/16 06/18 06/18 06/23 06/23 06/27 06/16 06/18 06/23 06/18 06/25 06/23 06/27 06/25

Time Stop Start 0800 0800 0815 0800 0815 0800 0815 0800 0900 0900 0915 0900 0915 0900 0915 0900 1000 1000 1015 1000 1015 1000 1015 1000 0800 0800 0815 0800 0815 0800 0900 0900 0915 0900 0915 0900 1000 1000 1015 1000 1015 1000 1015 1000

H1

Table 5. Manual DO Measurement Locations for Correcting Monitor Measurements Using Equation 6

SEPA station 3 4 5C 5S

Inlet (4 ft + 6 ft)/2 (4 ft + 6 ft)/2 Bottom -

Locations referenced to data spaces in appendix B forms Distribution Aeration pool pool 1 2 3 B (D + F)/2 (G + H)/2 (J + L)/2 E or D I or H J or K L or M M1 H1 P1 S1 I N Q

4 VI T

Notes: C = Cal-Sag Channel S = Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Table 6.. Comparison of Vertical Mean Concentrations with Walk-through DO Concentrations Measured at Intake Monitor Depths

3 Statistic

5 ft 5.21 4.52 5.49 5.30 6.30 3.83 6.10 4.84 5.91 5.43 5.77 6.60 7.14 7.34 6.30 4.92 5.47

Mean 5.24 4.51 5.37 5.30 6.08 3.90 6.00 4.84 5.73 5.34 5.75 6.46 6.92 7.42 6.26 4.77 5.47

No. of samples = Mean = Variance =

17 5.675 0.831

17 5.609 0.772

Intake DO values (mg/L) at SEPA station 4 5 Mean Bottom Bottom (-1 ft) 5 ft 4.57 4.66 3.53 3.42 5.11 4.82 2.55 2.59 4.08 3.82 3.34 3.32 4.99 4.96 5.16 5.16 5.93 6.63 6.60 6.46 6.11 6.14 4.39 4.42 4.25 4.22 3.82 3.81 5.04 4.98 3.67 3.68 4.38 4.44 3.54 4.53 6.08 5.87 5.45 5.42 4.52 4.51 5.63 5.64 5.98 5.92 5.98 5.91 5.74 5.70 5.91 5.79 7.15 6.99 7.69 7.79 7.32 7.21 6.45 6.43 7.26 7.29 7.74 7.72 7.58 7.58 4.67 4.73 4.19 4.23 4.05 4.09 6.34 6.09 19 19 18 18 5.614 5.579 5.009 5.051 1.329 1.390 2.318 2.184

61

Mean 3.75 3.39 3.35 5.21 6.54 4.97 3.76 3.94 4.91 5.31 5.71 6.17 5.80 7.73 6.62 7.78 4.86 4.28 18 5.227 1.882

Table 7. Selected Deficit Ratio (r) Values Measured at SEPA Station 4 Exemplifying Commonly Derived Extremes

Date 04/25/97 (day)

06/13/97 (night)

06/14/97

Time 0645 0700 0715 0730 0745 0800 0815 0830 0845 0900 0915 0930 0945 1000 1015 1030 1045 1100 1115 1130 1145 1200 1215 1230 1245 2100 2115 2130 2145 2200 2215 2230 2245 2300 2315 2330 2345 0000 0015 0030 0045 0100 0115 0130 0145 0200 0215 0230 0245

1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.3 3.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.4 4.6 7.6 30.3 7.4 7.9 8.7 9.2 9.1 10.1 11.0 11.6 11.7 11.2 12.5 14.4 17.8 21.8 22.0 21.6 22.4 29.2 24.9 27.0 25.5 22.0 22.8 23.6

r-values between intake and pools Out 3 2 6.2 13.7 5.5 6.2 14.3 6.3 6.6 14.5 7.1 6.8 16.9 9.3 14.1 10.4 7.6 8.2 16.8 13.2 9.1 35.7 16.1 32.6 27.1 11.0 38.7 12.6 43.2 14.5 80.8 100.2 17.9 128.7 73.1 22.8 -833.2 -122.9 23.5 30.3 -41.9 44.8 566.8 -35.2 60.9 252.6 -32.0 69.9 7.6 26.0 39.8 5.0 103.8 27.8 31.1 -40.3 124.7 4.1 -41.0 43.8 -22.3 3.2 65.0 6.6 -18.21 68.1 -28.3 4.4 -12.0 -181.9 1.5 8.0 1.7 -8.8 -2.3 7.3 1.1 4.7 20.2 78.7 21.2 4.9 61.9 21.8 4.8 71.8 22.5 4.9 82.5 21.9 4.9 93.0 22.7 4.7 83.2 22.0 4.9 79.1 22.1 5.0 76.5 5.1 21.6 127.8 4.7 22.8 63.9 22.6 269.8 4.8 25.7 206.1 5.1 21.7 5.0 182.2 5.1 26.5 164.2 23.9 5.0 162.3 5.1 25.5 563.4 5.2 26.9 187.0 5.2 24.7 169.8 5.1 25.3 583.3 5.2 27.8 433.5 32.8 634.1 5.2 31.4 5.1 928.9 5.2 32.4 -291.0 5.1 32.3 -657.1

62

r -values between pool 2 an>d pools 1 and pools 2 3 3 Out Out 2.7 3.0 2.5 6.7 1.1 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.3 6.9 3.3 3.0 2.0 6.6 0.9 4.1 3.0 0.7 1.8 7.5 1.4 4.4 3.2 0.7 5.9 5.5 3.4 0.6 1.3 7.0 6.5 3.7 0.6 2.2 14.5 10.4 0.4 1.2 4.2 12.5 14.6 4.8 0.3 1.1 16.3 37.6 5.4 30.4 0.1 0.8 25.7 6.3 0.2 1.8 45.2 -43.1 6.8 8.0 -292.3 -0.2 -12.6 7.1 -0.7 9.1 -0.6 -10.7 13.7 -16.1 172.9 -1.3 -12.7 24.1 100.1 -1.9 -7.9 2.7 9.2 24.8 2.7 0.3 32.1 12.3 0.4 0.1 1.5 -13.1 9.0 10.1 -0.7 -0.8 -13.8 41.9 1.4 -3.0 -0.1 -7.5 14.7 -0.1 1.1 -2.0 -0.4 -6.3 22.3 2.3 -3.6 -7.9 18.9 1.2 -2.4 -0.2 -2.6 -38.9 0.3 15.2 -0.1 1.0 -0.2 -1.1 0.2 -0.9 -0.1 0.2 0.1 -3.2 -0.5 0.6 2.7 10.6 4.3 16.6 0.6 2.7 7.9 4.3 12.7 0.6 2.5 4.5 14.9 8.3 0.5 2.5 9.0 4.6 16.8 4.4 0.5 2.4 10.2 18.8 4.8 0.5 2.2 8.2 17.6 4.5 0.5 2.0 7.2 16.2 4.5 0.4 1.9 6.6 15.4 0.4 1.8 10.9 4.3 25.3 0.4 2.0 5.7 4.8 13.6 4.7 0.4 1.8 21.6 56.0 1.8 14.4 0.3 5.1 40.8 4.4 0.2 1.2 10.2 36.5 7.5 5.2 0.2 1.2 32.4 7.4 4.8 0.2 32.8 1.1 5.0 0.2 1.2 26.1 110.0 1.2 8.4 5.2 0.2 36.1 0.9 5.8 4.8 0.2 32.9 1.0 23.4 5.0 0.2 115.4 5.4 1.0 0.2 16.0 83.7 6.3 0.2 1.3 24.8 121.4 6.2 0.2 1.4 42.2 182.4 1.4 6.2 0.2 -12.8 -55.9 1.4 -27.9 6.3 0.2 -129.3

3 and out 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.5 1.9 2.0 3.9 3.0 3.4 5.6 7.2 -36.5 1.3 12.7 4.2 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.2 0.2 3.9 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.5 5.9 2.8 11.9 8.0 8.4 6.2 6.8 22.1 6.9 6.9 23.1 15.6 19.3 29.6 -9.0 -20.4

Table 7. (Concluded)

Date

1

Time 0300 0315 0330 0345 0400 0415 0430 0445 0500 0515 0530 0545 0600

24.3 23.7 24.5 22.9 27.1 29.1 31.3 50.7 54.0 67.6 405.3 -154.9 -63.6

r-values between intake and pools 2 3 5.2 34.8 5.3 33.1 5.3 38.1 5.3 38.2 5.3 37.8 5.3 41.1 5.4 41.9 5.5 44.2 5.6 48.9 5.6 65.7 5.9 54.4 6.2 77.5 6.6 124.1

r -values between pool 1 and pools

2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Out -684.9 -308.8 -203.8 -91.8 -145.6 -147.4 -161.7 -110.3 -127.0 -93.5 -94.0 -64.2 -62.9

2 and pools Out 3 6.7 -132.3 -58.5 6.3 -38.2 7.1 -17.3 7.2 -27.6 7.2 -27.8 7.8 -30.0 7.8 -20.1 8.0 8.7 -22.5 -16.8 11.8 -16.1 9.3 12.5 -10.4 18.9 -9.6

Out

3 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.1

-28.2 -13.0 -8.3 -4.0 -5.4 -5.1 -5.2 -2.2 -2.4 -1.4 -0.2

•0.5 -1.9

0.4 1.0

3 and out -19.7 -9.3 -5.4 -2.4 -3.9 -3.6 -3.9 -2.5 -2.6 -1.4 -1.7 -0.8 -0.5

Table 8. Experimental Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Saturation Values and Resultant β-Values DO concentration Temperature

(°C)

(mg/L) β-values at SEPA

at SEPA stations

3

at SEPA stations

4

5

stations

Date

3

4

5

Exp

Cal

Exp

Cal

Exp

Cal

3

4

5

08/12/96

23.5

23.5

25.0

8.10

8.19

8.10

8.19

8.00

7.95

0.989

0.989

1.006

08/14

24.0

24.0

24.5

8.00

8.11

7.80

8.11

7.95

8.03

0.986

0.962

0.990

08/14

-

-

23.5

-

-

-

-

8.15

8.19

-

-

0.995

08/16

23.0

24.0

23.0

8.30

8.27

7.80

8.11

8.30

8.27

1.004

0.962

1.004

08/19

25.0

24.0

25.0

7.90

7.95

7.90

8.11

8.00

7.95

0.994

0.974

1.006

08/21

-

25.5

-

-

-

8.10

7.87

-

-

-

1.029

-

08/23

24.0

25.5

25.5

8.00

8.11

8.05

7.87

8.00

7.87

0.099

1.023

1.017

09/30

18.0

17.5

15.0

9.20

9.17

9.55

9.27

9.75

9.80

1.003

1.030

0.995

10/02

20.0

19.5

18.0

8.80

8.79

8.95

8.89

8.95

9.17

1.001

1.007

0.976

10/04

16.0

17.5

14.5

9.80

9.58

9.85

9.27

10.00

9.91

1.023

1.063

1.009

10/07

16.5

17.0

16.0

9.45

9.48

9.50

9.37

9.15

9.58

0.997

1.014

0.955

10/09

14.0

14.0

14.5

9.90

10.02

9.75

10.02

9.35

9.91

0.998

0.973

0.944

10/11

13.0

13.5

14.5

9.95

10.26

10.30

10.14

9.85

9.91

0.970

1.016

0.994

04/28/97

13.5

13.0

12.0

9.95

10.14

9.90

10.26

9.65

10.50

0.981

0.966

0.919

04/30

15.5

14.5

14.5

9.30

9.69

9.60

9.91

9.50

9.91

0.960

0.969

0.958

05/02

15.0

14.5

14.0

9.30

9.80

10.05

9.91

9.80

10.02

0.949

1.014

0.978

05/05

14.5

13.0

14.0

9.45

9.91

9.65

10.26

9.90

10.02

0.954

0.941

0.988

05/07

17.0

16.5

14.0

9.00

9.37

9.26

9.48

10.00

10.02

0.961

0.976

0.998

05/09

-

-

13.5

-

-

-

-

9.95

10.14

-

-

0.981

06/27

24.0

24.5

26.0

8.14

8.11

7.97

8.03

7.97

7.80

1.004

0.993

1.021

Notes: Exp = Experimental Cal = Calculated using equations 2 and 3 β = Water quality factor = Exp/Cal 63

Table 9. Selected Deficit Ratio (r) Values measured on April 25, 1997, at SEPA 4 Exemplifying Commonly Derived Extremes Adjusted to Experimental DO Saturation Values (β = 0.966)

Time 0645 0700 0715 0730 0745 0800 0815 0830 0845 0900 0915 0930 0945 1000 1015 1030 1045 1100 1115 1130 1145 1200 1215 1230 1245

J 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.5 4.2 4.2 3.0 3.5 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.9 6.9 19.5 -8.9

r-values between intake and pools 3 2 9.5 12.0 12.4 12.7 17.0 13.9 15.3 43.8 101.0 20.4 28.6 -66.9 -32.5 47.2 459.7 -17.4 -13.8 -73.5 -11.0 -39.4 -11.7 -25.8 -17.7 -8.8 -21.3 -8.4 -8.0 -14.3 -7.5 -12.5 -17.5 -12.0 -15.0 -11.9 -7.7 -15.7 -7.5 -10.2 -6.3 -11.8 -5.6 -10.0 -12.0 -7.2 -5.5 -10.5 -4.7 28.1 -1.5 -72.8

Out -71.0 -52.4 -50.5 -32.9 -54.8 -30.2 -14.6 -15.5 -13.3 -11.4 -10.9 -9.5 -17.5 -10.9 -10.7 21.6 7.9 -14.9 6.0 4.2 19.3 6.6 1.6 1.9 1.1

r-values between pool 2 and pools 1 and pools 3 Out 2 3 Out 5.3 -31.3 -7.5 4.2 1.3 5.3 -22.5 1.0 -4.1 5.5 5.7 -20.6 0.8 -3.0 6.9 5.9 -12.8 -0.7 17.1 0.3 7.5 -20.0 0.2 -0.5 36.9 10.2 -10.8 -0.4 0.5 -23.8 16.4 -5.1 -11.2 -1.5 0.5 -5.6 148.0 -5.0 -26.4 0.9 -4.3 -23.1 -4.2 5.3 1.0 1.0 -3.4 -12.3 -3.6 3.6 -7.4 -3.4 -3.1 2.2 0.9 -5.0 -2.7 -2.5 2.0 1.1 -5.0 -4.1 -2.0 2.5 2.1 -3.4 -1.9 -2.6 1.8 1.4 -2.5 -4.2 -3.6 1.7 1.4 -5.1 -3.5 -1.2 6.2 0.7 -3.6 -0.7 -2.9 1.9 1.3 -2.0 -4.0 2.1 1.9 -3.8 -2.7 1.4 -0.8 -2.0 1.6 -3.1 -0.7 -1.6 1.9 1.1 -2.6 -1.5 5.1 1.8 -3.5 -1.5 -2.5 1.4 1.7 -0.9 -1.5 -0.8 0.2 1.9 -0.3 -0.2 1.4 -6.0 -0.4 0.1 0.2 8.2 47.0 -0.7 -0.1

64

3 and Out -5.9 -4.2 -3.6 -2.2 -2.7 -1.1 -0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.9 -1.8 -0.5 0.9 -0.6 -0.4 -1.9 -0.6 -0.1 0.1 0.0

Table 10. Comparison of Water Temperatures Manually Recorded at SEPA Stations for QA/QC Analyses Temperature values (˚C) at Intake

Event

Outfall

Pool 1

Sonde

2

4

3

Sonde

Date

Time

Meter

1

2

Meter

Sonde

Meter

Sonde

Meter

Sonde

Meter

Sonde

Meter

1

2

08/13/96

1358

24.8

24.96

24.3

24.40

24.4

24.43

24.4

24.46

n.a.

n.a.

24.4

24.49

24.48

SEPA 3 1

2

3 4

08/14

0903

24.3

24.31

08/21

1445

25.3

25.33

08/22

0815

24.7

24.80

-

*10/01

1702

19.4

19.32

*10/02

0957

19.3

*10/08

1210

16.3

*04/03/97

1416

*05/07

0741

24.2

24.26

24.2

24.30

24.2

24.31

n.a.

n.a.

24.2

24.28

24.27

25.0

25.07

25.0

25.10

25.0

25.14

n.a.

n.a.

25.0

25.10

24.08

24.6

24.79

24.7

24.78

24.7

24.80

n.a.

n.a.

24.7

24.81

24.80

19.47

19.3

19.30

19.3

19.32

19.3

19.34

n.a.

n.a.

19.3

19.36

19.33

19.37

19.56

19.2

19.30

19.3

19.29

19.3

19.31

n.a.

n.a.

19.3

19.36

19.34

17.18

17.37

16.3

17.21

16.3

17.20

16.3

17.30

n.a.

n.a.

16.2

17.24

17.21

15.3

15.25

15.21

15.7

15.13

15.5

15.14

15.3

15.16

n.a.

n.a.

15.3

15.15

15.18

14.8

14.94

14.92

14.8

14.87

14.8

14.91

14.8

14.92

n.a.

n.a.

14.8

14.92

14.93

*06/17

1442

19.6

19.79

19.89

19.4

19.63

19.6

19.61

19.6

19.52

n.a.

n.a.

19.6

19.66

19.69

*06/26

1427

24.1

24.21

24.47

23.7

23.81

23.7

23.81

23.8

23.64

n.a.

n.a.

23.8

23.85

23.86

Mean

20.72

20.86

20.71

20.75

20.72

20.61

20.72

20.65

19.40

19.63

19.60

19.61

19.60

19.52

19.60

19.66

19.69

*Mean

18.40

18.58

18.70

*Median

19.30

19.32

19.47

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

20.75

19.79

-

20.60

19.60

-

20.59

Median

-

-

-

-

24.9

24.94

24.8

24.8

24.7

24.61

24.6

25.6

25.56

25.5

SEPA 4 1

2

3 4

25.14

n.a.

n.a.

24.8

25.20

25.22

24.6

24.76

n.a.

n.a.

24.6

24.78

24.79

25.4

25.56

n.a.

n.a.

25.4

25.57

25.56

25.5

25.84

n.a.

n.a.

25.6

25.73

25.81

18.47

19.4

19.22

n.a.

n.a.

19.2

19.20

19.19

19.0

19.13

19.0

19.22

n.a.

n.a.

19.0

19.14

19.11

16.53

16.2

16.52

16.2

16.59

n.a.

n.a.

16.1

16.55

16.55

14.65

15.1

14.67

14.8

14.71

n.a.

n.a.

14.8

14.31

14.72

14.8

14.84

14.7

14.80

14.9

14.84

n.a.

n.a.

14.8

14.41

14.82

20.17

20.8

20.11

20.1

20.42

20.0

20.40

n.a.

n.a.

20.6

20.50

20.49

24.56

25.0

25.08

25.1

25.25

25.3

25.24

n.a.

n.a.

25.2

25.24

25.24

21.05

20.94

20.90

21.05

21.05

20.10

20.00

20.40

20.60

20.50

20.49

18.79

18.58

18.39

18.47

-

-

19.13

19.00

18.47

-

-

19.12

-

18.79

19.00

-

-

20.97

20.11

-

20.92

20.80

-

20.90

20.00

-

-

-

-

-

08/13/96

1251

25.1

24.49

08/14

1001

24.5

24.59

08/21

1336

26.2

25.48

08/22

1129

25.7

24.97

-

26.6

25.73

25.6

-

*10/01

1448

19.4

19.19

19.05

19.1

19.14

19.2

*10/02

1213

19.0

19.12

19.13

19.0

19.13

*10/09

1049

16.1

16.31

16.42

16.2

*05/01/97

1402

14.4

14.57

14.58

14.9

*05/07

0909

14.6

14.77

14.79

*06/17

1246

19.9

20.00

*06/26

1255

25.9

26.07

Mean

20.98

20.87

Median

19.90

*Mean *Median

-

65

-

-

-

Table 10. (Concluded) Temperature values (˚C) at 1

Sonde Event

Meter

I

Outfall

Pool

Intake

2

Date

Time

08/13/96

1112

24.5

24.61

24.61

1101

24.7

24.65

24.64

08/21

1201

25.0

24.96

25.06

08/22

1352

25.7

25.73

25.70

10/01

1308

18.1

18.03

2

4

3

Sonde

Meter

Sonde

Meter

24.8

24.80

24.8

24.93

25.01

26.2

26.2

24.97

25.2

25.35

25.2

25.7

25.86

25.7

-

24.8

26.2

18.39

18.5

18.20

18.3

18.32

18.75

18.4

Meter

Sonde

Meter

Sonde Sonde

Meter

1

2

24.8

24.92

24.8

24.97

25.09

26.2

24.90

26.2

24.92

25.09

SEPA5C 1

08/14

2

3

4

10/02

1354

18.4

18.58

10/09

9099

15.8

15.83

15.54

05/01/97

1221

14.2

14.27

14.29

05/07

1038

14.5

-

14.31

06/17

1127

20.0

20.04

06/26

1024

24.8

Mean Median

25.2

25.38

25.2

25.38

25.2

25.38

25.52

25.7

25.81

25.7

25.79

25.7

25.83

25.94

18.5

18.30

18.5

18.36

18.5

18.40

18.37

18.55

18.4

18.55

18.55 15.89

18.58

18.4

18.56

18.4

18.51

18.4

15.7

15.90

15.8

15.88

15.8

15.85

15.8

15.89

15.8

15.90

14.4

14.45

14.4

14.50

14.4

14.54

14.4

14.55

14.4

14.53

14.59

14.4

14.50

14.4

14.52

14.4

10.52

14.4

14.52

14.4

14.57

14.53

20.12

20.1

20.33

20.2

20.77

20.2

20.36

20.2

20.64

20.2

20.65

20.67

24.92

24.97

25.0

25.14

25.0

25.15

25.0

25.18

25.0

25.17

25.1

25.10

25.17

20.52

20.56

20.58

20.77

20.74

18.07

18.24

20.78

20.40

20.78

20.79

20.79

20.78

20.86

20.00

20.04

20.12

20.10

20.33

18.30

18.32

20.20

20.36

20.20

20.64

20.20

20.65

20.67

SEPA5S 1

2

3 4

08/13/96

1112

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

24.7

24.83

24.7

24.81

24.7

24.79

24.7

24.86

24.92

08/14

1101

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

26.4

25.01

26.5

24.96

26.5

24.92

26.4

25.02

25.06

08/21

1201

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

25.1

25.48

25.1

25.45

25.1

25.32

25.1

25.50

25.59

08/22

1352

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

25.7

25.91

25.7

25.90

25.8

25.89

25.8

25.95

25.94

10/01

1308

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

18.3

18.26

18.3

18.26

18.3

18.20

18.3

18.30

18.28

10/02

1354

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

18.4

18.52

18.4

18.51

18.4

18.51

18.4

18.53

18.51

10/09

9099

n.a

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

15.8

15.91

15.8

15.91

15.8

15.90

15.8

15.93

15.92

05/01/97

1221

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

14.5

14.59

14.4

14.51

14.5

14.45

14.3

14.55

14.50

05/07

1038

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

14.4

14.50

14.5

14.56

14.5

14.57

14.4

14.57

14.54

06/17

1127

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

20.1

20.34

20.1

20.37

20.1

20.37

20.1

20.58

20.58

06/26

1024

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

25.0

25.15

25.0

25.16

25.0

25.14

25.0

25.17

25.15

Mean

20.76

20.80

20.77

20.76

20.79

20.73

20.75

20.91

20.82

Median

20.10

20.34

20.10

20.37

20.10

20.58

20.58

Notes: An asterisk (*) indicates means and medians calcuiated using duplicate sondes where available n.a. indicates that data was not available C = Cal-Sag Channel S = Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

66

20.10

20.37

Table 11. Summary of Manually Measured DO/Temperature Values for Vertically Averaged Intake and Outfall Values

SEPA station 1

Date 08/10/95 08/30 08/31 09/06 07/08/96 07/16 07/23 08/14 08/22 10/02

Temperature (˚C) ˚ In Out 23.8 24.0 26.2 26.4 26.3 26.2 24.4 24.5 22.6 22.3 23.8 23.8 24.3 24.6 23.4 23.4 23.9 24.3 19.3 19.4

Dissolved oxygen Saturation percentage Concentration (mg/L) Intake Outfall (Po) Intake Outfall (Pi) Observed Equation 5 8.41 8.74 99.4 103.8 112.8 111.0 7.59 8.29 93.9 102.8 102.4 7.27 8.26 90.0 109.8 93.1 110.8 7.78 8.68 104.1 110.4 8.02 8.88 91.9 102.3 8.24 8.59 97.4 101.6 112.2 6.18 8.50 73.9 102.0 104.7 7.95 8.25 93.4 110.9 96.9 8.45 8.60 100.1 113.1 102.9 94.7 111.3 8.74 9.48 102.9

Aeration case scenario III III III III III III III VII II III

2

08/10/95 08/30 08/31 09/06 07/09/96 07/16 07/23 08/14 08/22 10/02 10/09

26.4 26.6 25.3 25.0 24.0 24.1 23.4 24.0 24.7 19.2 17.6

25.8 26.5 25.4 25.1 23.7 24.0 22.9 24.1 24.8 19.4 17.6

7.84 8.96 5.91 6.81 7.01 7.26 3.50 5.38 6.42 6.50 7.26

7.91 8.87 8.14 8.28 8.35 8.11 8.30 7.86 8.62 9.26 9.19

97.4 88.9 72.3 82.3 83.4 86.6 41.2 63.9 77.3 70.3 76.1

97.3 110.3 99.1 100.3 98.6 96.2 96.6 93.6 103.8 100.6 96.3

112.2 109.5 104.2 107.4 107.7 108.7 94.2 101.5 105.8 103.5 105.4

VI III VII III VII VII VII VII III III VII

3

08/02/95 08/10 08/30 08/31 09/06 07/09/96 07/16 07/23 08/13 08/14 08/21 08/22 10/01 10/02 10/08 04/30/97 05/07 06/17 06/26

24.2 25.2 25.8 25.5 25.1 22.9 24.2 22.2 24.6 24.2 25.2 24.7 19.4 19.3 16.3 15.3 14.8 19.6 23.9

24.2 24.8 26.0 25.5 25.2 22.8 23.9 22.2 24.4 24.2 25.0 24.7 19.3 19.3 16.2 15.3 14.8 19.6 23.8

5.22 5.08 5.24 4.51 5.37 5.30 6.08 3.90 6.00 4.84 5.73 5.34 5.75 6.46 6.92 7.47 6.26 4.77 5.41

7.57 7.78 8.11 8.16 8.12 8.41 8.19 8.21 7.85 7.87 8.27 8.40 9.11 9.63 9.53 10.20 9.75 8.59 8.07

64.1 60.7 64.4 54.9 65.1 61.4 72.5 44.7 72.2 57.6 69.6 64.3 62.4 70.0 70.6 74.8 61.8 51.4 64.1

93.0 93.8 100.0 99.7 98.4 97.6 97.1 97.2 93.9 93.7 100.1 100.1 98.8 104.3 96.1 102.1 96.3 93.6 95.4

99.8 98.7 99.9 96.9 100.2 99.0 102.5 93.6 102.4 97.8 101.6 99.9 99.3 101.7 101.9 103.3 99.1 95.8 99.8

VII VII III VII VII VII VII VII VII VII III III VII III VII III VII VII VII

67

Table 11. (Continued)

SEPA station 4

5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S

Date 08/02/95 08/10 08/30 08/31 09/06 07/09/96 07/16 07/23 08/13 08/14 08/21 08/22 10/01 10/02 10/09 05/01 05/07 06/17 06/26 08/10/95 08/10 08/30 08/30 08/31 08/31 09/06 09/06 07/09/96 07/09 07/16 07/16 07/23 07/23 08/13 08/13 08/14 08/14 08/21 08/21

Temperature (˚C) In Out 23.7 23.7 25.5 25.6 26.5 26.0 25.5 25.6 24.8 24.8 23.7 23.7 24.3 24.4 22.0 22.0 24.8 24.9 24.6 25.5 25.4 26.1 25.6 25.6 19.2 19.3 19.0 19.0 16.1 16.1 14.4 14.8 14.6 14.8 20.6 19.9 25.2 25.6 25.6 25.6 26.8 26.8 25.8 25.8 25.1 25.1 24.4 24.4 24.2 24.2 21.2 21.2 24.7 24.7 25.1 25.1 25.2 25.3

25.6 25.6 26.2 26.8 26.0 25.9 25.5 25.5 24.2 24.3 24.1 24.0 21.6 21.6 24.8 24.8 26.2 26.2 25.2 25.3

Dissolved oxvsen Saturation percentage Concentration (mg/L) Intake Outfall (Po) Intake Equation 5 criteria Outfall (Pi) 4.54 8.77 55.4 97.0 106.8 3.65 7.96 43.4 93.2 97.2 4.82 8.14 59.4 98.3 101.2 3.82 8.05 46.7 94.3 98.3 4.96 8.11 59.8 98.5 97.7 6.63 8.30 79.1 104.6 98.0 6.13 8.11 73.6 96.8 102.9 4.25 8.42 48.5 96.3 94.8 4.98 7.85 98.6 60.2 94.8 4.44 8.01 96.4 53.3 96.3 5.87 8.46 72.2 102.4 103.1 4.51 8.19 53.7 100.1 96.5 5.92 8.63 64.1 93.5 99.8 5.74 9.98 61.6 107.6 99.0 6.98 10.46 70.8 102.0 106.3 7.29 9.75 71.4 102.2 96.2 7.58 9.81 74.6 103.2 96.8 4.22 8.97 46.5 100.1 94.5 6.09 7.94 74.5 96.5 103.2 3.75 3.75 3.39 3.39 3.35 3.35 5.21 5.21 6.54 6.54 4.97 4.97 3.76 3.76 3.94 3.94 4.91 4.91 5.31 5.31

8.25 8.29 7.55 7.54 7.72 7.94 8.18 7.94 8.05 8.29 8.38 8.54 8.18 8.30 7.68 7.70 7.97 7.62 8.22 8.23

68

46.0 46.0 46.2 46.2 41.1 41.1 63.2 63.2 78.2 78.2 59.2 59.2 42.4 42.4 47.5 47.5 59.6 59.6 68.0 68.0

101.9 101.3 93.6 94.3 95.1 97.7 100.0 97.2 96.1 99.1 99.6 101.5 92.7 94.1 92.7 92.8 96.2 94.1 99.8 100.1

95.7 95.7 95.8 95.8 94.2 94.2 101.2 101.2 106.0 106.0 100.0 100.0 94.6 94.6 96.2 96.2 100.1 100.1 102.8 102.8

Aeration case scenario III VII III VII VII VII VII VII VII VII III III VII III III VII VII III VII III III VII VII VII VII III VII VII VII VII III VII VII VII VII VII VII VII III

Table 11. (Concluded)

SEPA station 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S 5C 5S

Date 08/22 08/22 10/01 10/01 10/02 10/02 10/09 10/09 05/01/97 05/01 05/07 05/07 06/26 06/26 06/17 06/17

Temperature (˚C) In Out 25.8 25.7 25.8 25.8 18.5 18.3 18.3 18.5 18.4 18.5 18.4 18.5 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 14.4 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.4 14.6 14.4 14.6 25.1 25.0 25.0 25.0 20.2 19.9 19.9 20.1

Dissolved oxygen Saturation percentage Concentration (mg/L) Intake Outfall (Po) Intake Outfall Observed Equation 5 (Pi) 103.5 5.71 8.40 70.1 103.0 103.5 70.1 103.3 5.71 8.43 65.6 100.7 102.0 6.17 9.46 102.0 6.17 9.41 65.6 100.3 100.8 5.80 9.20 61.8 98.0 100.8 5.80 9.45 61.8 100.6 105.9 77.9 104.1 7.73 10.32 77.9 104.8 105.9 7.73 10.38 101.7 6.62 9.38 64.7 91.9 101.7 64.7 89.7 6.62 9.16 105.4 7.78 9.88 76.3 96.7 105.4 7.78 9.81 76.3 96.1 97.6 4.28 8.14 51.8 98.6 97.6 4.28 8.28 51.8 99.8 53.4 98.1 4.86 8.86 97.9 98.1 53.4 97.8 4.86 8.92

Aeration case scenario III III III III VII III III III VII VII VII VII VII VII VII VII

Notes: The italicized cases indicate when theoretical considerations were violated C = Cal-Sag Channel S = Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

Table 12. Statistical Summary of Comparisons of Walk-Through Generated Observed (Obs) and Equation S Predicted (Pred) Po Values

SEPA station 1 2 3 4 5C 5S Notes:

Number of samples Obs Pred 10 11 19 19 18 18

10 11 19 19 18 18

Mean Obs Pred 102.17 99.34 97.43 99.14 97.70 98.03

110.70 105.46 99.64 99.02 100.09 100.09

Standard deviation Pred Obs 2.001 4.548 3.154 4.113 3.622 3.932

= mean C = Cal-Sag Channel S = Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

69

2.353 4.786 2.435 3.534 3.847 3.847

t-value @0.05 level of significance Computed Theoretical 8.733 3.078 2.418 0.093 1.918 1.585

2.101 2.080 2.034 2.034 2.034 2.034

N N N Y Y Y

Table 13. Weir Box Aeration Experimentally Derived a -Values; Two-Way ANOVA Results, Events Versus SEPA Stations

Event 1 2 3 Station mean

Mean a -Values SEPA station 3 4 0.562 0.583 0.485 0.490 0.666 0.652

5 0.603 0.612 0.655

Event mean 0.583 0.529 0.658

0.566

0.623

*0.590

0.580

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates overall mean ANOVA Statistics Degrees of freedom 2 2 4 45 53

Source of variation Event Station Event x sta. Residual Total

Sum of squares 0.119 0.039 0.030 0.386 0.574

Mean square 0.0596 0.0192 0.0075 0.0085 0.0108

F-statistic Computed @ 6.944 2.236 0.868

Accept equality @ P = 0.05 P = 0.05 yes no 3.21 X 3.21 X 2.59 X

Table 14. Comparison of Experimental (Exp) Versus Calculated (Cal) Dissolved Oxygen Saturation Concentration (mg/L) Standard SEPA

Median

No.

Mean

station

Exp

Cal

Exp

Cal Exp

3

17

17

9.20

9.37

8.973

9.27

9.004

9.80

9.064

4

18

18

9.38

5

19

19

9.35

Notes:

deviation

Cal

t-value Calcu-

@ P=

Hypothesis

Exp

Cal

lated

0.05

Accept

Reject

9.115

0.757

0.833

0.520

2.120

X

9.059

0.906

0.913

0.181

2.110

X

-

9.208

0.842

0.978

0.485

2.101

X

-

= Mean Exp = Experimentally derived Cal = Calculated using equations 2 and 3

70

Table 15. Summary of Nitrogen Changes through SEPA Stations Concentration (mg/L) Minimum

SEPA station

No

In

Out

Mean In

Out

Percentile

Maximum

Standard dev

In

In

Out

In

Out

In

Out

In

Out

25

75

50

Out

Ammonia-N 3

28

0.20

0.15

0.700

0.688

1.46

1.43

0.360

0.344

0.410

0.415

0.625

0.625

0.965

0.970

4

28

0.25

0.22

0.601

0.603

2.29

2.39

0.406

0.422

0.365

0.350

0.505

0.515

0.645

0.685

5C

30

0.22

0.22

0.625

0.561

2.32

1.66

0.480

0.326

0.340

0.320

0.485

0.450

0.680

0.700

5S

30

0.558

0.21

1.82

0.349

0.445

0.320

0.680

Nitrite-N 3

28

0.05

0.05

0.136

0.139

0.26

0.26

0.058

0.057

0.095

0.100

0.125

0.125

0.170

0.175

4

28

0.05

0.05

0.126

0.126

0.20

0.25

0.041

0.042

0.095

0.100

0.125

0.125

0.160

0.150

5C

30

0.06

0.06

0.148

0.149

0.38

0.38

0.067

0.066

0.100

0.110

0.130

0.130

0.160

0.170

5S

30

0.149

0.06

0.37

0.066

0.130

0.110

0.170

Nitrate-N 3

28

1.25

1.23

3.048

3.048

6.33

6.32

1.627

1.628

1.765

1.745

2.360

2.360

4.630

4.580

4

28

1.24

1.26

3.098

3.083

6.48

6.15

1.626

1.573

1.730

1.745

2.520

2.575

4.405

4.420

5C

30

1.40

1.41

3.313

3.334

5.57

5.59

1.453

1.446

1.860

1.913

3.230

3.210

4.793

4.740

5S

3.322

1.42

30

5.58

1.442

1.915

3.210

4.773

TKN 3

28

0.79

0.95

1.877

1.904

2.95

2.85

0.580

0.536

1390

1.550

1.780

1.815

2.295

2.295

4

28

1.02

0.99

1.774

1.817

4.06

4.01

0.600

0.636

1.410

1.405

1.735

1.755

1.965

2.040

5C

30

0.77

0.85

1.722

1.706

2.86

2.92

0.555

0.525

1.360

1.350

1.615

1.615

2.150

2.040

5S

30

1.665

0.83

2.89

0.494

1.320

1.560

2.000

Total-N 3

28

2.09

2.23

5.061

5.091

9.54

9.43

2.265

2.221

3.250

3.395

4.265

4.300

7.095

7.050

4

28

2.31

2.30

4.998

4.915

10.74

10.41

2.267

2.251

3.235

3.250

4.380

4.455

6.530

6.610

5C

30

2.23

2.32

5.183

5.189

8.81

8.89

2.075

2.037

3.320

3.373

4.975

4.955

7.103

6.950

5S

30

2.31

5.136

8.84

2.002

Notes: C = Cal-Sag Channel S = Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal TKN = Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Boldface inlet and outlet values were shown to be equal using statistical analysis.

71

3.345

4.900

6.943

Table 16. Summary of Statistical Analyses of 20-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Changes through SEPA Stations for Total BOD (TBOD), Carbonaceous BOD (CBOD), and Nitrogenous BOD (NBOD) Median/Mean Statistics 20-day BOD concentrations (mg/L) Percentile No. In Out

Type

TBOD CBOD NBOD

24 24 24

32 32 32

Type TBOD CBOD NBOD

Type TBOD CBOD NBOD Notes:

25 In

Out

8.522 6.633 1.735

8.307 6.332 1.752

0.758 0.229 0.529

mi —

mo

0.215 0.301 0.030

Median In (mi) Out (mo) 9.768 7.562 2.378

9.268 7.010 2.348

75 In

Out

12.877 7.933 4.527

11.248 8.112 3.208

In

10.561 7.414 3.147

t-test Statistics t-statistic Computed @P = 0.05 1.217 1.985 0.668 1.985 1.259 1.985

Accept X X X

Rank Sum Test t-statistic Computed @ P = 0.05 737.5 1085 719.0 1085 172.0 1085

Accept X X X

= mean m = median

72

Standard

Mean (X) Out(X) 9.803 7.185 2.618

deviation In Out 2.750 1.386 1.941

Reject -

mi

=

mn

Reject -

1.915 1.179 1.193

Table 17. Mean DO Values and Percent Saturation at SEPA Stations 3, 4, and 5 for Different Seasons and Pump Operation Dissolved oxygen SEPA

Location

Percent saturation 3 Intake Pool 1 2 3 Outfall

Summer

Event Fall Spring

72.26 88.30 97.24 99.37 100.20

69.60 87.46 99.66 102.13 101.00

Number of pumps 2 3

Early summer

1

70.29 88.91 97.35 102.43 101.84

64.63 83.44 92.21 95.24 99.31

66.38 88.36 96.50 99.82 101.02

68.57 86.43 95.71 99.31 100.81

Total number 4

Mean

readings

71.72 84.76 94.40 97.95 99.46

-

68.59 86.25 94.95 99.03 100.32

4691 3196 3186 3186 6035

4

Intake Pool 1 2 3 Outfall

65.18 88.47 96.64 100.71 101.02

62.59 80.22 95.03 101.03 108.50

70.36 91.52 95.85 97.49 97.94

64.15 99.91 95.75 100.24 103.00

62.37 92.21 96.37 98.20 101.26

67.18 101.58 97.11 100.54 104.56

69.05 86.36 94.35 99.35 101.67

-

66.25 93.32 95.64 99.04 101.85

4940 3354 3354 3354 5122

5

Intake Pool 1 2C 3C 4C Outfall C 2S 3S 4S Outfall S

57.04 80.57 88.81 95/06 97.49 100.55 89.73 92.61 96.98 98.92

64.25 83.18 88.20 93.55 100.95 104.31 91.43 96.69 98.24 104.32

67.33 76.74 87.68 96.54 94.75 95.34 88.90 91.68 92.93 94.68

55.92 81.39 92.00 98.58 99.49 99.10 92.00 99.87 100.32 100.91

54.40 75.39 86.89 92.56 95.05 92.56 86.34 90.97 94.14 93.98

57.86 78.36 88.66 95.06 97.22 100.13 90.87 95.75 98.91 98.73

64.33 82.50 91.61 99.31 99.59 102.06 92.73 98.56 100.75 101.19

66.09 85.91 92.89 103.85 99.96 101.68 92.59 97.67 100.98 102.23

59.75 79.30 89.40 96.33 96.90 98.49 89.77 95.48 98.31 98.39

5071 3379 3379 3379 3379 5737 3379 3379 9364 6758

Concentration (mg/L) 3 Intake Pool 1 2 3 Outfall

5.81 7.09 7.82 7.99 8.06

6.40 8.03 9.17 9.39 9.29

7.02 8.86 9.70 10.25 10.19

5.49 7.17 7.85 8.20 8.48

6.39 8.21 8.96 9.28 9.43

6.52 7.89 8.74 9.09 9.28

6.52 7.32 8.15 8.48 8.64

-

6.41 7.87 8.66 9.05 9.21

4691 3196 3196 3186 6035

4

Intake Pool 1 2 3 Outfall

5.23 7.06 7.75 8.08 8.07

5.80 7.43 8.81 9.38 10.08

6.86 8.92 9.59 9.72 9.82

5.46 8.66 8.12 8.51 8.69

5.79 8.38 8.76 8.92 9.19

6.28 8.94 8.58 8.87 9.14

6.59 7.87 8.56 9.01 8.87

-

6.20 8.47 8.70 9.00 9.11

4940 3354 3354 3354 5122

S

Intake Pool 1 2C 3C 4C Outfall C 2S 3S 4S Outfall S

4.55 6.41 7.06 7.56 7.76 7.99 7.14 7.37 7.72 7.86

5.98 7.75 8.22 8.72 9.41 9.73 8.52 9.07 9.15 9.72

6.59 7.64 8.62 9.64 9.37 9.49 8.71 9.14 9.39 9.46

4.79 6.81 7.83 8.17 8.33 8.36 7.74 8.41 8.39 8.47

4.84 6.83 7.87 8.39 8.61 8.28 7.83 8.25 8.30 8.51

5.12 7.12 8.07 8.66 8.86 8.95 8.29 8.70 8.64 8.98

5.53 7.34 8.15 8.83 8.86 8.87 8.24 8.75 8.51 8.99

5.62 7.60 8.20 9.21 8.82 8.78 8.17 8.61 8.46 9.02

5.32 7.19 8.11 8.76 8.80 8.78 8.15 8.66 8.55 8.93

5071 3379 3379 3379 3379 5737 3379 3379 2364 6758

Notes:

C = Cal-Sag Channel S = Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

73

Table 18. Summary of Kruskal-Wallis, Rank-Order One-Way ANOVA Analysis Comparing Seasonal Operations by Pools Using Percent DO Saturation as the Variate for SEPA Station 3

Event

n

ANOVA H-value

Hypothesis:

Calculated

Accept

@P = 0.05 & 3 df

Reject

Events com­ pared

Multiple comparisons (Dunn method) Hypothesis Q-value Calcu­ Rank @P = 0.05 lated differences &3df Accept Reject

√ Pool 1 Summer 336 Fall 338 Spring 864 Early 1052 Summer ANOVA Results

Pool 2 Summer 336 Fall 338 Spring 864 Early 1052 Summer ANOVA Results

Pool 3 Summer 335 338 Fall Spring 864 1052 Early Summer ANOVA Results

85.28 86.37 85.86 81.31

88.08 90.04 87.81 82.97

94.31 91.79 91.94 85.92

88.30 87.46 88.91 83.44 751

96.35 97.03 95.69 91.38

97.26 100.50 96.91 92.49

98.24 103.26 99.67 93.27

99.43 103.00 102.33 95.62

101.26 106.21 104.64 96.41



97.24 87.46 97.35 92.21 1723

97.04 99.05 100.27 94.43

5.25

5.25



99.37 102.13 102.43 95.24 1677

5.25



1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

15 66 784 81

0.26 1.37 16.73 1.69

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

2-4 3-4

769 850

16.45 24.76

2.65 2.65

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

272 5 1173 276

4.71 0.11 25.02 5.76

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

2-4 3-4

1444 1167

30.88 34.00

2.65 2.65

√ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

375 510 814 135

6.51 10.60 17.36 2.81

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √

2-4 3-4

1189 1324

25.45 38.58

2.65 2.65

√ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Table 18. (Concluded)

Event

ANOVA H-value [email protected]=0.05 lated & 3 df

n

Pool: Outfall Summer 336 Fall 676 Spring 1728 Early 2104 Summer ANOVA Results Notes: n = sample size

99.07 100.08 100.02 97.64

100.65 101.92 101.83 99.61

101.32 103.62 103.82 101.25

Hypothesis: Accept

Events Reject

100.20 101.00 101.84 99.31 870

5.25



com­ pared

Multiple compartsons (Dunn method) Hypothesis Q-value Rank differences

Calcu­ lated

@P=0.05 &3df

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

724 805 443 81

7.76 9.66 5.39 1.27

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

2-4 3-4

1167 1248

18.88 27.48

2.65 2.65

Accept

Reject

√ √ √ √ √ √

Table 19. Summary of Kruskal-Wallis, Rank-Order One-Way ANOVA Comparing Seasonal Operations by Pools Using Percent DO Saturation as the Variate for SEPA Station 4 ANOVA H-value [email protected] = 0.05 Event Pool 1 Summer Fall

Spring

lated

n

336 336 864 1075

Early Summer ANOVA Results

Pool 2 Summer 336 Fall 336 Spring 864 Early 1063 Summer ANOVA Results

Pool 3 Summer 336 Fall 336 Spring 864 Early 1063 Summer ANOVA Results

84.54 75.14 89.29 82.14

89.83 83.29 92.17 107.44

92.96 86.83 93.45 114.23

95.79 94.39 95.39 95.59

97.66 98.36 97.40 96.91

100.24 100.64 97.42 100.73

103.55 104.35 98.71 102.08

Reject

5.25



96.64 95.03 95.85 95.75 34

96.26 97.76 96.15 99.56

Accept

88.47 80.22 91.52 99.91 561

94.56 91.72 93.66 94.38

& 3 df

Hypothesis:

5.25



100.71 101.03 97.49 100.24 721

5.25



Events com­ pared

Multiple comparisons (Dunn method) Hypothesis Q -value Rank Calcu­ @P = 0.05 differences lated & 3 df Accept Reject

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

532 268 542 800

9.15 5.54 11.51 16.51

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √

2-4 3-4

1075 275

22,81 7.96

2.65 2.65

√ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

307 172 93 135

5.31 3.66 1.99 2.81

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √

2-4 3-4

214 79

4.56 2.28

2.65 2.65

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

179 679 189 858

3.09 14.07 4.02 17.77

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

2-4 3-4

10 867

0.21 25.24

2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Table 19. (Concluded) ANOVA H-value Event

Calculated

n

Pool: Outfall Summer 336 Fall 672 Spring 8684 Early 2126 Summer ANOVA Results Notes: n = sample size

97.95 107.38 96.S9 101.28

100.64 109.68 97.84 103.90

104.83 111.18 99.39 104.99

@P = & 3 df

Hypothesis:

Events 0.05 Reject

Accept

101.02 108.50 97.94 103.00 2153

5.25



com­ pared

Multiple comparisons (Dunn method) Hypothesis Q-value Calcu­ Rank @P = 0.05 lated differences &3df Accept Reject

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

1736 962 504 2698

22.50 12.96 7.44 45.44

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √

2-4 3-4

1231 1466

24.11 31.49

2.65 2.65

√ √

Table 20. Summary of Kruskal-Wallis, Rank-Order One-Way ANOVA Analysis Comparing Seasonal Operations by Pools Using Percent DO Saturation as the Variate for SEPA Station 5 ANOVA H-value Event

Calculated

n

Pool 1 Summer 336 Fall 333 Spring 1061 Early 1063 Summer ANOVA Results

Pool 2C Summer 336 Fall 333 Spring 1061 Early 1063 Summer ANOVA Results

Pool 3C Summer 336 Fall 333 Spring 1061 1063 Early Summer ANOVA Results

75.83 79.35 72.82 80.02

79.93 84.39 74.51 82.12

84.11 87.46 81.08 84.08

86.53 87.84 86.95 92.87

90.14 90.93 90.19 94.09

93.36 94.16 94.02 99.68

97.42 96.26 98.70 101.48

Reject

5.25



88.81 88.20 87.68 92.00 992

92.18 90.74 91.96 97.43

Accept

80.57 83.18 76.74 81.39 542

84.99 85.77 85.74 91.66

@P = 0.05 &3 df

Hypothesis:

5.25



95.06 93.55 96.54 98.58 602

5.25



Events com­ pared

Multiple comparisons (Dunn method) Hypothe sis Q -value Rank Calcu­ @P = 0.05 differences lated & 3 df Reject Accept

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

383 521 181 904

6.13 10.33 3.59 17.84

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √

2-4 3-4

201 703

3.97 20.08

2.65 2.65

√ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

112 47 978 159

1.80 0.92 19.38 3.14

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

2-4 3-4

866 1025

17.09 29.28

2.65 2.65

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

230 112 766 342

3.68 2.23 15.17 6.75

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

2-4 3-4

995 653

19.65 18.66

2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Table 20. (Continued) ANOVA

Event

H-value [email protected] = 0.05 lated & 3 df

n

Pool 4C 336 Summer 333 Fall 1061 Spring 1063 Early Summer ANOVA Results

Pool: Outfall C Summer 672 Fall 666 Spring 1326 Early 2120 Summer ANOVA Results

Pool 2S 336 Summer Fall 333 1061 Spring 1063 Early Summer ANOVA Results

95.07 100.04 92.37 99.35

96.12 100.95 94.48 100.41

99.35 101.74 96.48 101.26

101.54 104.15 95.35 101.97

103.33 106.50 98.06 102.56

88.24 92.44 89.52 93.21

92.99 93.89 90.54 94.77

5.25



100.56 104.31 95.62 99.09 2508

86.45 88.51 88.04 92.00

Reject

97.49 100.95 94.75 99.49 1483

98.55 102.03 92.80 101.02

Accept

5.25



89.73 91.43 88.90 92.00 839

5.25



Events com­ pared

Multiple compart:tons (Dunn method) Hypothesis Q -value Rank differences

Calcu­ lated

@P - 0.05 &3df

Accept

Reject

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

912 517 675 1429

14.63 10.23 13.37 28.21

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √

2-4 3-4

237 1191

4.69 34.05

2.65 2.65

√ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

1152 1754 203 2905

15.25 26.81 3.32 44.29

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √

2-4 3-4

949 1957

15.46 40.47

2.65 2.65

√ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

444 186 793 630

7.12 3.68 15.71 12.44

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √

2-4 3-4

349 979

6.89 27.97

2.65 2.65

√ √

Table 20. (Concluded) ANOVA H-value Event

Pool 3S 336 Summer Fall 333 1061 Spring 1063 Early Summer ANOVA Results

Pool 4S 336 Summer 333 Fall 265 Spring Early 1063 Summer ANOVA Results

Pool: Outfall S 672 Summer 666 Fall Spring 2122 2126 Early Summer ANOVA Results Notes:

Calculated

n

90.17 95.54 88.55 100.84

91.74 97.13 90.88 101.70

94.31 97.99 94.63 102.36

96.10 98.98 93.56 101.50

98.62 100.49 95.43 103.03

98.04 105.39 94.57 102.98

= mean n = sample size C = Cal-Sag Channel S = Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

101.56 107.16 97.18 103.80

5.25



96.98 98.24 92.93 100.32 918

96.13 101.64 92.34 102.08

0.05 Reject

Accept

92.61 96.69 91.68 99.87 1745

95.04 97.35 90.92 100.50

@P = & 3 df

5.25



98.92 104.32 94.67 100.91 3333

5.25



Events com­ pared

Multiple comparisons (Dunn method) Hypothe sis Q-value Rank differences

Calcu­ lated

@P = 0.05 & 3 df

Accept

Reject

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

512 148 1255 660

8.21 2.93 24.87 13.02

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √

2-4 3-4

743 1403

14.68 40.09

2.65 2.65

√ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

115 379 666 494

2.58 8.01 18.46 10.42

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

2-4 3-4

551 1046

15.22 26.41

2.65 2.65

√ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3

1811 1282 1230 3092

20.54 17.95 17.23 43.17

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √

2-4 3-4

581 2511

8.11 50.75

2.65 2.65

√ √

√ √ √ √

Table 21. Summary of Kruskal-Wallis, Rank-Order One-Way ANOVA Analysis Comparing Pumping Rates by Pools Using Percent DO Saturation as the Variate for SEPA Station 3 ANOVA No. of pumps

H-value [email protected] = 0.05 laled & 2 df

n

Pool 1 1 554 2 1368 3 668 ANOVA Results

85.06 83.24 82.52

Pool 2 1 554 2 1368 3 668 ANOVA Results

92.29 92.40 93.21

Pool 3 1 554 2 1367 3 668 ANOVA Results

94.32 95.46 96.47

Pool: Outfall 1 1060 2 2544 3 1240 ANOVA Results

98.16 99.41 98.34

Notes: n = sample size

89.41 86.29 84.44

92.39 90.87 87.25

100.43 98.28 95.23

105.08 102.39 99.41

103.79 102.56 101.15

4.75

4.75

4.75

1-2 1-3 2-3

282 576 295

7.48 13.41 8.35

1.95 1.95 1.95

√ √ √

1-2 1-3 2-3

151 380 230

4.00 8.85 6.51

1.95 1.95 1.95

√ √ √

1-2 1-3 2-3

43 187 144

1.14 4.35 4.09

1.95 1.95 1.95

1-2 1-3 2-3

63 720 656

1.23 12.30 13.56

1.95 1.95 1.95

√ √ √ √



100.98 100.78 99.52 217

Multiple comparisons (Dunn method) Hypothesis Q -value Rank Calcu­ @P = 0.05 differences lated & 2 df Accept Reject



99.82 99.31 97.95 23

101.88 101.04 99.99

4.75

96.49 95.71 94.40 82

100.95 99.83 97.55

Reject

88.35 86.43 84.76 181

98.02 96.03 93.92

Accept

Events com­ pared



√ √ √

Table 22. Summary of Kruskal-Wallis, Rank-Order One-Way ANOVA Analysis Comparing Pumping Rates by Pools Using Percent DO Saturation as the Variate for SEPA Station 4 ANOVA No. of pumps

H-value [email protected] = 0.05 lated & 2 df

n

Pool 1 1 636 2 912 3 1063 ANOVA Results

84.02 92.61 80.86

Pool 2 1 624 2 912 3 1063 ANOVA Results

93.88 95.69 93.08

Pool 3 1 624 2 912 3 1063 ANOVA Results

95.86 98.51 97.40

Pool: Outfall 1 936 2 1512 3 1550 ANOVA Results

98.13 103.54 98.62

Notes:

89.82 96.81 87.90

106.56 114.16 92.23

98.08 98.16 95.72

99.84 102.44 100.82

= mean n = sample size

103.83 105.72 104.41

4.75

4.75

4.75

1-2 1-3 2-3

553 330 884

14.21 8.73 25.97

1.95 1.95 1.95

√ √ √

1-2 1-3 2-3

416 356 772

10.68 9.40 22.80

1.95 1.95 1.95

√ √ √

1-2 1-3 2-3

677 335 342

17.36 8.85 10.09

1.95 1.95 1.95

√ √ √

1-2 1-3 2-3

901 70 831

18.78 1.47 19.93

1.95 1.95 1.95





101.67 104.75 101.87 521

Multiple comparisons (Dunn method) Hypothe sis Q-value Calcu­ Rank @P = 0.05 differences lated & 2 df Reject Accept



98.20 100.54 99.35 307

101.47 104.91 100.47

4.75

96.37 97.11 94.35 520

98.01 101.06 99.42

Reject

92.21 101.58 86.36 679

95.13 96.76 94.38

Accept

Events com­ pared



√ √ √

Table 23. Summary of Kruskal-Wallis, Rank-Order One-Way ANOVA Analysis Comparing Pumping Rates by Pools Using Percent DO Saturation as the Variate for SEPA Station S ANOVA H-value [email protected] = 0.05

No. of pumps

lated

n

& 3 df

Events Accept

Reject

com­ pared

Multiple comparisons (Dunn method) Hypothesis Q-value Rank Calcu­ @P = 0.05 differences lated & 3 df Accept Reject

Pool 1 1 622 1200 2 3 480 4 491 ANOVA Results

72.92 79.29 82.50 85.73

74.95 79.29 82.50 85.73

78.84 82.49 84.36 87.58

75.39 78.36 82.50 85.91 1172

5.25



1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4

378 988 1510 610 1132 521

9.48 20.18 31.02 14.02 26.21 10.08

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4

210 803 1014 593 805 212

5.26 16.39 28.84 13.62 18.63 4.09

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4

340 1139 1606 798 1265 467

8.54 23.24 32.98 18.33 29.29 9.02

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √ √

Pool 2C 1 622 1200 2 480 3 491 4 ANOVA Results

83.85 85.83 89.75 91.27

86.36 87.67 91.86 92.91

90.96 91.85 93.40 94.02

86.89 88.66 91.61 92.89 625

5.25



Pool 3C 1 622 1200 2 480 3 4 491 ANOVA Results

91.32 92.70 97.08 101.13

92.62 94.54 100.74 102.46

95.48 97.98 101.70 108.92

92.56 95.06 99.31 103.85 1444

5.25



Table 23. (Continued) ANOVA

H-value No. of pumps

Calculated

n

@P = 0.05 & 3 df

Accept

Reject

Events com­ pared

Multiple comparisons (Dunn method) Hypothesis Q -value Rank Calcu­ @P = 0.05 differences lated & 3 df Accept Reject

Pool 4C 1 622 2 1200 480 3 4 491 ANOVA Results

91.19 94.43 98.58 97.58

95.63 97.66 99.58 101.37

99.77 99.89 101.11 102.35

95.04 97.22 99.59 99.96 495

5.25



1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4

198 715 911 517 713 196

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4

751 1482 1537 731 786 55

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4

628 1114 1111 486 482 4

4.98 14.60 18.72 11.87 16.50 3.79

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √ √

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √

Pool: Outfall C 1 1100 2 2038 3 816 4 830 ANOVA Results

91.61 97.53 100.56 99.12

99.53 101.13 102.26 102.57

101.45 102.14 103.09 104.20

92.69 100.29 102.14 101.95 803

5.25





Pool 2S 622 1 2 1200 3 480 4 491 ANOVA Results

84.69 89.16 90.71 90.18

87.13 90.61 92.67 93.40

91.00 92.73 95.26 95.40

86.34 90.87 92.73 92.59 724

5.25

/

15.77 22.75 22.81 11.16 11.16 0.08

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √ √

Table 23. (Concluded) ANOVA No. of pumps

H-value [email protected] = 0.05 lated & 3 df

n

Accept

Reject

Events com­ pared

Multiple comparisons (Dunn method) Hypothe sis Q-value Rank Calcu­ @P = 0.05 differences lated &3df Accept Reject

Pool 3S 622 1 1200 2 480 3 491 4 ANOVA Results

88.12 90.73 96.39 95.84

89.87 95.09 98.14 98.26

98.19 101.99 101.92 100.63

90.97 95.75 98.56 97.67 387

5.25



1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4

527 904 686 377 159 218

13.22 18.45 14.09 8.66 3.68 4.21

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4

449 757 878 308 429 121

13.59 18.44 21.51 8.28 11.60 2.73

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √ √

1-2 1-3 1-4 2-3 2-4 3-4

831 1572 1906 741 1075 334

14.75 22.69 27.68 12.03 17.60 4.56

2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65

√ √ √ √ √ √

Pool 4S 478 1 840 2 336 3 343 4 ANOVA Results

93.38 96.27 98.70 98.93

96.13 100.82 102.88 102.83

99.29 101.40 103.32 104.08

94.14 98.91 100.75 100.98 573

5.25



Pool: Outfall S 1244 1 2400 2 960 3 982 4 ANOVA Results Notes:

92.15 94.02 98.18 98.45

96.35 99.19 101.80 103.30

= mean n = sample size C = Cal-Sag Channel S = Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal

101.15 103.17 103.96 104.14

93.98 99.41 101.19 102.23 932

5.25



Table 24. Summary of Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Tests Comparing Cal-Sag Channel (C) and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (S) Outfall Pools Using Percent DO Saturation (x) as the Variate

Pool step 2

3

4

Outfall

t-value @P = 0.05 Calculated & a df

Hypothesis

Pool 2C 2S

n 2793 2793

86.15 88.70

90.20 90.94

92.78 93.39

89.52 90.48

29.24

1.96



3C 3S

2793 2793

93.04 90.89

96.52 96.87

100.41 101.15

96.78 95.51

31.01

1.96



4C 4S

2793 1997

94.91 96.07

98.99 100.18

100.82 101.99

97.63 98.43

27.77

1.96



Out C Out S

4784 5586

97.49 95.16

101.30 100.22

102.54 103.24

98.99 98.71

40.63

1.96



Notes:

= mean n = sample size

86

Accept

Reject

Table 25. Summary of Kruskal-Wallis Rank-Order One-Way ANOVA Analysis Comparing Distribution Pool and Outfall Pool DO Saturation (X) Between SEPA Stations ANOVA

SEPA

H-value Calcu- @P = 0.05 lated 2 df

n

Accept

Reject

Multiple comparison (Dunn method) SEPAs Hypothesis O -value Rank Calcu­ @P = 0.05 com­ pared differences lated 2 df Accept Reject

Distribution Pool (P d ) 3 4 5

3186 3354 3379

83.48 84.27 47.71

86.23 91.73 79.56

89.42 100.31 83.49

86.25 93.32 79.30

2033

ANOVA Results

3.00

3-4 3-5 4-5

1153 2769 3922

16.28 39.16 56.20

1.95 1.95 1.95

√ √ √

3-4 3-5 4-5

1143 2151 3294

10.68 16.58 29.08

1.95 1.95 1.95

√ √ √



Outfall Pool (P o ) 3 4 5

6035 5122 12495

98.83 98.55 95.57

ANOVA Results

Notes:

= mean n = sample size

100.46 101.50 100.35

102.15 104.82 102.56

101.85 100.32 98.44

559

3.00



Table 26. SEPA Station Pump Aeration Capacity in Terms of Weir Height Equivalents for N = 1 in Equation 5

Po

Database Walk through

Continuous monitor

SEPA 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5

92.8 75.8 63.5 62.5 58.8

A 96.1 91.5 85.4 84.3 78.9

B 97.3

68.6 66.3 59.8

86.3 -

. 93.3 79.3

Pi

Notes: A = point of pump discharge B = point above first weir

88

89.1 79.8

Weir height equivalent (ft) A B 9.25 10.73 10.29 7.62 6.65 12.58 1.45 2.56 6.71 -

16.26 1.55

FIGURES

89

Figure 1. Chicago area waterways showing aeration stations and SEPA stations 1-5 (WRP = water reclamation plant)

91

Figure 2. Vicinity area details of SEPA Stations 3 (a). 4 (b), and 5 (c)

92

Figure 3. Plan view of geometric features of SEPA 3 showing location of continuous monitors

Figure 4. Plan view of geometric features of SEPA 4 showing location of continuous monitors

Figure 5. Plan view of geometric features of SEPA 5 showing location of continuous monitors

Figure 6. SEPA Station discharge weir to Calumet River, summer 1996

Figure 7. SEPA Station 2 discharge weir to Little Calumet River, summer 1996

Figure 8. SEPA Station 3 discharge weir to Cal-Sag Channel, summer 1996

97

Figure 9. SEPA Station 4 weir 1 overflow, summer 1996

Figure 10. SEPA Station 4 discharge weirs to Cal-Sag Channel, summer 1996

Figure 11. SEPA Station 5 distribution pool, summer 1996

99

Figure 12. SEPA Station 5 discharge weir to Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, summer 1996

Figure 13. Sediment deposition in SEPA Station 4 distribution pool, spring 1995

Figure 14. Standard weir box; SEPA Station 5

101

Figure 15. YSI stirrer - DO/temperature probe flotation board used during manual measurements

Figure 16. Double shrouded, duplicate in-line rigging used at SEPA Station 5 intake

Figure 17. In-SEPA station monitor riggings: events 1 and 2 (left), and 3 and 4 (right)

103

Figure 18. Plywood weir box, SEPA Station 3

Figure 19. Electric, cast iron weir-box pump with suction and discharge hoses

Figure 20. DO titration and saturation equipment for weir-box experiments

105

Figure 21. Statistical summary of DO percent saturation values recorded during manual measurements at SEPA 1

107

Figure 22. Statistical summary of DO percent saturation values recorded during manual measurements at SEPA 2

Figure 23. Statistical summary of DO percent saturation values recorded during manual measurements at SEPA 3

108

Figure 24. Statistical summary of DO percent saturation values recorded during manual measurements at SEPA 4

109

Figure 25. Statistical summary of DO percent saturation values recorded during manual measurements at SEPA 5

110

Figure 26. BOD at SEPA Station 4 intake at beginning and end of event 3

111

Figure 27. BOD at SEPA Station 4 outfall at beginning and end of event 3

112

Figure 28. Continuous monitoring data showing DO concentration within SEPA Station 3 during June 1997

Figure 29. Continuous monitoring data showing DO concentration within SEPA Station 4 during October 1996

113

Figure 30. Continuous monitoring data showing DO concentrations within SEPA Station 5 for Cal-Sag Channel outfall weirs during August 1996

Figure 31. Continuous monitoring data showing DO concentrations within SEPA Station 5 for Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal outfall weirs during August 1996

115

Figure 32. Sediment deposition in SEPA Station 4 distribution pool, spring 1996

Figure 33. Sediment deposition in SEPA Station 5 distribution pool, spring 1996

Figure 34. Filamentous algae and macrophyte growth in SEPA Station 3, summer 1996

117

Figure 35. Continuous monitoring DO data showing the affects of photosynthesis in the distribution pool of SEPA Station 4 during June 1997

119

Figure 36. Proposed design of a sediment trap

Figure 37. Typical screw pump used in SEPA stations

121

Figure 38. SEPA Station 3 15-foot screw pump reaeration correlation

Figure 39. SEPA Station 5 12-foot screw pump reaeration correlation

123

Appendix A YSI Model

6000UPS

125

Appendix A. YSI Model 6000 UFS : Water Quality Monitor/Datalogger Specifications General Specifications • Medium: Fresh, sea, or polluted water • Temperature: -5 to+45°C • Computer interface: RS232, SDI-12 • Software: Works with a PC compatible with 3.5-inch or 5.25-inch high- or low-density floppy disks; 256K RAM minimum. Graphic card recommended. • Depth: 0 to 500 feet • Size 3.5-inch dia., 19.5-inch long, 6.5 pounds • Internal logging memory: 256 kilobytes, 150,000 individual readings • Power: 12VDC, 8 alkaline C cells; external 12VDC • Battery life: 120 days; 90 days with DO; 45 days with DO and turbidity, at 15-minute logging intervals at 25°C

Typical Performance Specifications Parameter Dissolved oxygen Dissolved oxygen Conductivity Temperature PH Salinity Turbidity

Unit % Saturation mg/L mS/cm °C

pH units ppt NTU

Range 0 to 200 0 to 20 0 to 100 -5 to 45 2 to 14 0-70 0-1000

Notes: mS/cm = millisiemens/centimeter ppt = parts per thousand NTU = nephelometric turbidity units

127

Specification Resolution Accuracy 0.1 ±2% 0.01 ± 0.2 mg/L 0.01 ± 0.5% +0.001 mS/cm 0.01 ±0.15°C 0.01 ± 0.2 0.01 greater of: ± 1%; 0.1 ppt 0.1 greater of: ± 5%; 2 NTU

Appendix A. (Continued) YSI 6000 U P G : Water Quality Monitor/Datalogger: Standard Operating Procedures Presented are standard operating procedures (SOP) including quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures developed during this study for water quality monitor deployment. Although specifically referenced to the YSI 6000 U P G units, most of the information presented here is applicable to the DataSonde 1 and 3s and the YSI model 6920. EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

IBM compatible PC DO Winkler kit Laboratory pH meter pH standard solutions Laboratory conductivity meter Conductivity standard solutions Temperature regulated water bath NIST-grade mercury thermometer Large water tank suitable for holding and submersing the maximum number of units expected to be deployed at one time. Voltmeter Razor knife 50x magnifying glass Log book, checklist, record sheets 5-gallon buckets Alcohol Cotton swabs Standard 1 mil DO membranes Saturated KC1 solution Size-C alkaline batteries (YSI 6000), size-D (DataSonde 1); size - AA (YSI 6920 and DS 3) Lightweight plastic wash tub Large scrub brush Small, soft-bristled scrub brush

PREPARATION FOR CALIBRATION Approximately 45 minutes are required to prepare for the calibration of each instrument These procedures are to be performed at least 24 hours prior to actual calibration. A standard maintenance checklist is used to ensure quality and consistency over the course of a study. The maintenance procedures include: • Washing instrument exteriors using mild detergent or soapy water solution if necessary with large scrub brush • Removing and cleaning probe guards • Cleaning all probe exteriors with deionized (DI) water and/or alcohol if necessary • Cleaning cable connection contacts • Cleaning and lubricating all O-rings • Cleaning conductivity electrodes with small, soft-bristled scrub brush • Removing batteries from instrument compartment and cleaning compartment with compressed air • Checking collectively, all eight batteries for minimum acceptable voltage • Replacing all eight batteries if collective voltage is less than 10.5 V

128

Appendix A. (Continued) • • • • • • •

Testing voltage of all replacement batteries to ensure each has a minimum voltage of 1.5 V Replacing KC1 electrolyte and DO membranes Examining replaced membranes using a magnifying glass for tears, creases, holes, and air bubbles Installing clean probe guards with bottom open (i.e., bottom guard removed) Filling 5-gallon buckets with tap water for rinsing probes between calibration steps Draining and refilling holding tank with fresh tap water Immersing all instruments to be used vertically in holding tank.

CALIBRATION PROCEDURES Prior to actual instrument calibration, calibration reagents are prepared; this requires 15 to 30 minutes of effort Approximately 75 minutes are required to calibrate each instrument. A standard calibration checklist and recording sheet is used to ensure quality and consistency over the course of the study. Starting with the instrument submersed in a water-filled holding tank, the calibration procedure consists of: • Removing units, as needed, from the holding tank and calibrating each probe (parameter) according to the procedures outlined in sections 3.1 (calibration tips) and 3.2 (calibration procedures) of the YSI 6000UPG Multi-Parameter Water Quality Monitor Instruction Manual, Endeco/YSI Incorporated, Environmental Monitoring Systems, 13 Atlantis Drive, Marion MA 02738, pp 3-1 through 3-8. • Calibrating all monitors using a common batch of calibration reagents. However, difficult calibrations for a given parameter may be encountered. Try overcoming such occurrences by preparing and using a new set of reagents for that parameter. • Running the monitor diagnostic function (following calibration) using YSI's PC 6000 software and recording the cell constant, DO gain, and DO charge. Acceptable ranges for these parameters are: cell constant DO gain DO charge

5.0 + 0.4 0.5 to 2.0 25.0 to 75.0

This information is used to assess the quality of the calibration and whether the probes are functioning properly. • Returning the monitor to the holding tank with it set to record parametric readings at five-minute intervals over a 15-minute period. Commensurate independent readings of DO, pH, temperature, conductivity, and, in some instances, turbidity are taken to determine if the instrument readings meet specifications. Also, these readings are to be used later in QA/QC computations to correct for instrument drift and probe fouling in the field. The independent readings are determined as follows: DO pH temperature conductivity turbidity

Winkler wet chemistry technique Orion lab pH meter NIST grade mercury thermometer Labcraft lab conductivity meter Monitek nephelometer

The instrument parametric readings are viewed on the PC monitor screen as the independent readings are recorded. • Setting the field data logging interval using the RUN menu in the YSI PC6000 software program when all calibration specifications are met • Setting up a computer file for each instrument using no more than eight characters for identification. • Labeling or identifying each unit using tape and an ink marker as to file location and/or in-stream deployment location.

129

Appendix A. (Continued) • Leaving units submersed in holding tank until deployment from lab. DEPLOYMENT FROM LAB Approximately 60 minutes need to be allotted in the lab to prepare for transporting the instruments to the field. The units are fitted with two 3/8-inch soft-rubber collar-bushings secured with stainless-steel hose clamps, which act as protective shock absorbers during transportation and during in-stream deployment. The units are transported inside 6-inch, 30-inch long schedule 40 PVC tubes. Units are hung in the tubes from ½-inch hex-head bolts secured on the threaded sides with hitch pin clips and flat washers. The monitor probes should never be exposed to freezing conditions, and the units, as a whole, should never be directly exposed to the sun or other heated conditions when out of the water. During outdoor exposure to freezing conditions, the transport cups (a.k.a. DO calibration cups) should be filled with a saturated brine solution of common salt To help maintain a moist environment, the calibration/transport cups are supplied with a small, thin piece of kitchen-type sponge which lays loose in the cup bottom. This arrangement is deficient in several aspects: because it is loose, it easily becomes lost or misplaced; because it is small, it readily dries out quickly; and because of the poor quality of material, it quickly deteriorates with use. The factory-supplied loose-sponge method has been abandoned and replaced with a more voluminous and stable sponge insert. Circular pieces of ¼-inch thick rubber sponge have been cut to snugly fit into the bottom of the cup where it is glued with rubber cement On top of the sponge, ¼-inch thick Plexiglas rings with 2½-inch diameter center holes have been glued. The primary purpose of the rings is to provide free space between the sponge and the probe surfaces. This free space is needed as the bottom plate of the probe guards are not used. These protective plates restrict water movement past the probes and provide a media for undesirable biological film development in nutrient-rich water. The probe most vulnerable to in-stream damage, the DO probe, is protected by a ¼-inch wood-dowel rod spanning the diameter of the guard. An aluminum protective dowel was tried initially, but a transfer of electrons between the electrolyte in the probe cells and the metal set up galvanic activity, and deposits quickly built up along the metal rod. Work tasks associated with the transfer of the monitors to the field include: • Measuring DO, pH, conductivity, and temperature in the holding tank immediately before removal of the units. These measurements are for use later in performing QA/QC computations. • Checking to ensure computer file identifications match the marked label on the monitor. • Adding DI water to the transport cups until sponges are thoroughly saturated. • Removing units from the tank and inserting cups over the probe guards and past the O-ring seals. The single mini set screws provided with each cup have all been removed and are not used during transport The screws tend to get lost during deployment, and the O-ring seal is more than sufficient to hold the cups in place. • Inserting the monitors into the PVC transport tubes and carefully handling the tubes during movement from the lab to the transport vehicle. • Maintaining a transport cup seal for a time period sufficient for the monitor to log at least four readings before in-stream placement Such measurements are useful in helping to trouble shoot "quirky or unusual" instrument malfunctions. IN-STREAM PLACEMENT/RETRIEVAL Tasks associated with field installing and removing of the monitors include: • Removing the monitors from the transport shrouds when appropriate, and removing the transport (calibration) cups from the units when appropriate. At some installations, both the monitor and

130

Appendix A. (Concluded)





• • •

• •

transport shroud are exchanged; for these situations, great care should be taken to remember to remove the transport cups. Taking water quality measurements for DO concentration, DO percent of saturation, temperature, pH, and conductivity at the in-stream monitor location before disturbing and/or removing in-place units. If an in-place unit is within ten minutes of a recording sequence, do not retrieve unit until the forthcoming measurement/recording has transpired. For insurance, allow a factor of safety of two to three minutes. These readings are for use later in performing QA/QC computations. Retrieving the in-place units, removing them from their protective shrouds, and inserting the replacement units into the shroud (or replacing the combined shroud/unit assembly when necessary). Inspect all pins, clips, and lines for wear and damage. Remove trash and biological growth from installation. Be sure safety line is attached directly to monitor wire handle. Returning units to the water being sure that the harness systems are free of entanglement and are stretched tight Taking water quality measurements reasonably close to the nearest scheduled unit recording time and recording time and date. Cleaning retrieved units with a scrub brush with water placed in the tub when in a boat or with water from a 5-gallon bucket when on shore. Care should be taken not to clean or disturb probes. Notes should be taken on general cleanliness of probes, including membrane integrity, periphytonic grown, and sediment deposition or accumulation. Placing the transport cup over the guard after making sure the cup sponge is moist Loose water should be removed from the cup to prevent accidental "cleaning" of the probes during handing and transport Placing monitors in protective shrouds and transporting them back to lab. Extremes in temperature should be avoided when staying over night in the field. During the summer, vehicles should be parked in the shade and left ventilated. During extreme freezing conditions, care should be taken to prevent the probes from freezing.

Notes: NIST = National Institute of Standards and Technology DI = deionized water PVC = polyvinyl chloride

131

Appendix B DO/Temperature Location/Measurement Recording Forms and SEPA Data Form

133

SEPA Station 1

135

SEPA Station 2

SEPA

Station 3

SEPA Station 4

138

SEPA Station 5

139

Appendix C SEPA DO Saturation and Weir-box Aeration Experimental Data

141

Appendix C. SEPA Station 3 DO Saturation and Weir-box Aeration Experimental Data DO

Weir-box aeration results Intake Outfall

saturation

test results Temp

DO (mg/L)

Temp

DO (mg/L)

Temp

Average DO results (mg/L)

DO (mg/L)

Event

Date

Time

(°C)

1

2

(°C)

1

2

(°C)

1

2

Sat

In

Out

r

a

1

08/12/96 08/14

1200

8.10

24.0

5.00

24.5 24.5 24.0

6.70 6.40 6.70 6.90

6.70 6.40 6.60 7.00

8.10 8.00 8.30 7.90

5.00 4.40 4.55 5.60

6.70 6.45 6.65 6.95

2.21 2.32 2.27 2.42

0.54

24.5

5.00 4.40 4.50 5.60

24.0

8.00 8.20 7.90

8.10 8.00 8.40 7.90

2

3

4

08/16 08/19

0840 0840

23.5 24.0 23.0 25.0

24.5

4.40 4.60 5.60

08/23

0840

24.0

7.90

8.10

25.0

5.30

5.30

25.0

6.70

6.80

8.00

5.30

6.75

2.16

0.51

09/30

0815

18.0

9.20

9.20

18.5

5.70

5.80

18.5

7.60

7.60

9.20

5.75

7.60

2.16

0.58

10/02

0820

8.80

8.80

19.5

5.70

7.30

5.75

7.35

2.10

9.80

9.80

18.0

5.90

7.70

7.65

1.84

0.53 0.44

16.5

9.40

18.5

7.65

1.64

033

0815

10.00 10.00 9.30 9.30 9.40 9.00 8.11

16.0

9.90 9.95 9.95 9.30

7.85

0715

9.90 9.90 9.90 9.30 9.30 9.50 9.00 8.17

6.10

10/11 04/28/97 04/30 05/02 05/05 05/07 06/27

14.0 13.0 13.5

6.50 6.10

6.50

10/09

9.50 9.90

9.80 9.45

5.85

0725

18.0 18.5

7.40 7.60

8.80

0815

5.80 5.80

19.5

10/04 10/07

20.0 16.0

5.65 6.35 6.20 5.40 6.80 6.00 4.64

7.75 8.10 7.90 7.55 8.15 7.85 6.68

1.85 1.95

2.23 2.04 2.61 2.39

0.48 0.55 0.54 0.65 0.67 0.57 0.83 0.61

2.14

0.56

0900

0830

0855

15.5 15.0 14.5 17.0

1015

24.0

0820 0830 0845

24.5

17.0

13.1 15.0 14.5 14.0 15.0 24.0

5.60 6.40 6.20 5.40 6.80 6.00 4.60

6.50 6.10 5.70 6.30 6.20 5.40 6.80 6.00 4.68

17.0 16.0 13.1 15.0 14.5 14.0 15.0 24.0

7.60 7.80 7.70 8.10 7.90 7.50 8.20 7.90 6.60

7.70 7.90 7.80 8.10 7.90 7.60 8.10 7.80 6.69

930 9.45 9.00 8.14

Average

Notes: r a h b

= = = =

deficit ratio defined by equation 1 water quality factor computed by equation 4 1.26 meters (equation 4) 1.0 (equation 4)

143

1.95 2.21

0.58 0.57 0.61

Appendix C. SEPA Station 4 DO Saturation and Weir-box Aeration Experimental Data Weir-box aeration results

DO saturation

Intake

test results Temp

DO (mg/L)

Temp

Event

Date

Time

(°C)

1

2

1

08/12/96 08/14

1040 0905 0850

23.5 24.0 24.0 24.0

8.20 7.90 7.80

8.00 7.70 7.80

(°C) 24.0 25.0 25.0

8.00 8.20

7.80 8.00

24.3 25.5

8.10 9.60 8.90 9.80

8.00 9.50

26.0 18.5

9.00 9.90

19.5 18.0

9.60 9.70

9.40 9.80 10.40

17.5 15.5

08/16 08/19

0850 0850

08/21 08/23 2

3

0845 0900

09/30 10/02 10/04 10/07

0845 0835 0845 0845

10/09 10/11 04/28/97

0845 0845

04/30

4

0915 0830 0830 1015 1036

05/02 05/05 05/07 06/27

25.5 25.5 17.5 19.5 17.5 17.0 14.0 13.5 13.0 14.5 14.5 13.0 16.5 245

10.20 9.80 9.50 10.00 9.60 9.30 7.80

Outfall

DO (mg/L)

Temp

Average DO

DO (mg/L)

results (mg/L)

1

2

(°C)

1

2

Sat

In

Out

r

a

4.10 4.30

4.00 4.20 5.40

24.0 25.0

6.10 6.50 7.00

8.10 7.80 7.80 7.90

4.05 1.25 5.40 5.00

6.15

6.60 7.60

6.60 7.60

8.10 8.05

5.00 4.80

7.10 7.50 7.60 8.20

7.20 7.40 7.60

9.55 8.95 9.85 9.50

8.20 8.30 8.50

9.75 10.30 9.90

5.70 5.00 5.45 5.75 6.85

6.65 6.60 7.60

2.08 2.63 2.82 2.23 2.14

0.47 0.71

6.60 6.60

6.20 6.40 6.90 6.60 6.70

8.20 8.30 8.50 8.60 6.70

9.60

5.40 5.00 4.90 4.80 5.70 5.00 5.40 5.70

5.00 5.10 4.80 5.70

24.5 24.3 25.5 26.0

5.00 5.50 5.80

17.0 19.5 18.0 17.5

6.80 6.60

6.90 6.70

15.5 14.0

10.00

14.0 13.5

6.80

6.80

13.5

8.30 8.60

9.70 10.10 9.70 9.20

15.5 14.0 14.5 15.0

6.70 6.70 7.00 7.60

8.00

24.5

5.15

6.70 6.70 7.00 7.60 5.10

15.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 24.5

8.30 8.20 8.40 8.60 6.60

10.05 9.65 9.25 7.97

6.45 6.95 6.60

7.15 7.45 7.60 8.20

2.19 1.83 1.97 1.87

6.65 6.80

8.30 8.55

1.83

6.70 6.70 7.00 7.60 5.18

8.25 8.25 8.45 8.60 6.63

Average

Notes: r a h b

= = = =

deficit ratio defined by equation 1 water quality factor computed by equation 4 1.27 meters (equation 4) 1.0 (equation 4)

144

2.24 1.97

2.30 2.15

0.79 0.53 0.48 0.52 0.49 0.58 0.42 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.74

1.86 2.21 2.54 2.09

0.63 0.47 0.69 0.80 0.47

2.16

0.57

Appendix C. SEPA Station 5 DO Saturation and Weir-box Aeration Experimental Data DO saturation

Weir-box aeration results

test results

Intake

Outfall

Average DO

Temp

DO (mg/L)

Temp

DO (mg/L)

Temp

Event

Date

Time

(°C)

1

2

(°C)

1

2

(°C)

1

2

Sat

In

Out

r

a

1

08/12/96

1030 0835 0745 0740 0900 0725

25.0 24.5 23.5 23.0 25.0

7.90 8.00

8.10

25.0

3.70

25.0 25.0 25.0

4.30 4.40 4.60

6.20 6.50 6.50

8.00 7.95

3.65 4.30

4.60 4.10

4.40 4.10

25.0 25.0 26.0

6.70 6.50 6.40

8.15 8.30 8.00 8.00

4.40 4.60 4.50

0.66 0.69 0.56

25.0 26.0

6.50 6.70 6.40 6.40

6.30 6.55 6.50

2.56

7.90 8.10 8.30 7.90 8.00

25.0 25.0 25.0

6.40 6.60

8.20 8.30 8.10 8.00

3.60 4.30 4.40 4.60

6.70 6.45 6.40

2.31 2.26 2.44

9.70 8.90

17.0

4.30 5.80

17.0 18.5

7.30

7.50

18.5

4.30 5.70

7.50

7.60

9.75 8.95

08/14 08/14 08/16 08/19 08/23 2

7.40

2.32

5.75

7.55

2.29

0.64

10.00

5.15

7.55

1.98

0.54

7.20

9.15

5.15

7.20

2.05

8.00 8.00 7.70 830 830 8.00 8.60 8.40

7.90 8.10 7.80 8.20 830 8.00 8.60 8.50 6.50

6.25 6.20 5.45 6.55 6.30 6.00 7.30 6.80 4.90

7.95 8.05 7.75 8.25 8.30 8.00 8.60 8.45 6.47

2.21 2.03 2.21 2.36 2.33 2.05 1.93 2.10 2.04

0.55 0.67 0.56 0.71 0.75 0.74 0.59 0.52 0.62

8.40

9.35 9.85 9.65 9.50 9.80 9.90 10.00 9.95 9.97

0705

25.5 15.0

0845

18.0

9.80 9.00

10/04

0700

14.5

10.00

10.00

17.5

5.10

5.20

17.5

7.50

7.60

10/07 10/09

0845

16.0

9.10

9.20

18.0

5.20

18.0

7.20

14.5 14.5 12.0 14.5 14.0 14.0 14.0 13.5 26.0

9.40 9.90 9.60 9.50 9.80 9.90 10.00 10.00 8.00

9.30 9.80 9.70 9.50 9.80 9.90 10.00 9.90 8.20

15.5 15.0 14.0 15.0 14.5 14.5 15.0 15.0 26.0

6.30 6.20 5.50 6.50 6.30 6.00 7.30 6.80 4.90

5.10 6.20 6.20 5.40 6.60 6.30 6.00 7.30 6.80

15.5 15.0 14.0 15.0 14.0 14.5 15.0 15.0 26.0

3

10/11 04/28/97

4

04/30 05/02 05/05 05/07 05/09 06/27

0720 0645 0700 0700 0650 1130

4.80

4.10 4.30

Average

Notes: r a h b

= deficit ratio defined by equation 1 = water quality factor computed by equation 4 = 1.27 meters (equation 4) = 1.0 (equation 4)

145

2.61 2.27

0.58 0.53 0.60 0.71

09/30 10/02

0815 0840 0710

results (mg/L)

DO (mg/L)

2.13

0.43 0.65

Appendix D QA/QC Procedures for Continuous Monitor and DO/Temperature Meter Temperature Control

147

Appendix D. QA/QC Procedures for Continuous Monitor and DO/Temperature Meter Temperature Control Prior to the initial deployment of each continuous monitor, basic mathematical statistical procedures are used to develop methodologies for accurately and precisely correcting the temperature readouts to National Institute of Standards Testing (NIST) referenced values. Three heating/cooling constant temperature water baths are available to use for finite control of water temperatures during calibration and QA/QC testing procedures. Each monitoring unit is evaluated using 110 separate temperature measurements between 14 and 34°C. This generates 110 sets of NIST-referenced, thermometer monitoring-unit (or DO/temperature meter) readings from which a linear regression equation is developed relating the NIST-thermometef reading to that of the monitoring unit, i.e.,

where: Tc To c d

= = = =

NIST thermometer reading in °C DataSonde temperature reading in °C Te-axis (y-axis) intercept in °C Slope of the regression line

The standard error of the estimate was derived using:

where: E = standard error of estimate in °C Tobs = observed NIST thermometer reading in °C Tcomp = temperature computed (Tc) using observed To in conjunction with equation 1 N = number of observations used to develop equation 1, i.e., normally The regression coefficients (c and d) derived for each unit are used to correct the temperature readings. A 3E value was used for ascertaining if a unit was within quality control limits after its retrieval from use in the field. The monitoring instruments retrieved from the field are returned to the lab for QA/QC testing. Three constant temperature baths are available that can be used for the QA/QC procedures in which temperatures are set at approximately 14, 24, and 34°C. The monitors are placed in a water bath, and NIST-calibrated thermometer readings are taken in concert with "real-time" D S temperatures viewed from a computer monitor. A water quality monitor temperature probe is deemed "out of control" if the difference between the NIST reading and the monitor reading divided by 3E exceeded unity as represented by:

An ex post facto "out of control" situation is handled by recalibration, combining 110 sets of new data and the 110 old data sets to develop a new 220-set regression equation. This effectively averages the instrument drift over the life of its deployment

149

Appendix E Biochemical Oxygen Demand Test Results

151

Appendix E. Biochemical Oxygen Demand Test Results for SEPA Stations

3 In Time C (days) T Event 1: 0 8/12/96 0.25 0.91 1.90 0.73 1.30 2.90 1.62 3.90 1.81 5.05 2.20 2.74 6.86 3.08 7.84 8.94 3.34 5.96 10.99 7.08 13.13 7.47 13.60 7.85 6.45 14.56 8.36 15.88 8.59 17.90 9.03 20.03 Event 1: 08/23/96 0.77 0.99 2.13 0.86 1.15 2.61 1.37 1.32 3.61 2.07 2.13 4.90 2.54 3.16 6.91 4.36 3.34 . 9.03 4.27 5.47 10.08 5.87 4.65 12.89 6.42 5.13 13.89 5.71 16.05 7.15 6.49 17.88 7.91 7.23 8.80 18.90 7.56 9.35 19.89

N

T

0.41 0.54 1.40 -

0.31 0.88 1.42 1.80 2.02 2.87 3.35 3.70 5.68 6.54 6.66 6.84 7.41 7.84 8.06

0 0 0 0.07 0.62 1.02 1.20 1.22 1.29 1.44 1.41 1.57 1.79

1.05 1.22 1.96 2.93 3.97 5.17 5.90 6.34 6.74 7.22 7.75 8.34 8.81

Out C

SEPA stationBOD (mg/L) 4 Out T C N N

T

In C

N

T

N

T

In C

1.66 5.13 -

0.60 1.21 1.71 -

0.21 0.40 0.98 1.13 1.27 2.47 3.04 3.38 5.11 6.17 6.18 6.71 7.11 7.36 7.89

0.11 1.42 4.69 -

0.10 0.95 2.03 -

0.33 0.81 1.24 1.58 1.77 3.09 3.78 4.34 5.95 6.65 6.79 7.00 7.57 7.87 8.17

0.33 1.94 5.13 -

0.00 1.15 1.87 -

0.95 1.45 2.01 2.13 2.30 3.23 3.58 3.98 5.41 6.23 6.32 6.63 7.15 7.38 7.64

0.95 2.68 • 5.00 -

0.00 0.55 1.63 -

0.66 1.43 2.04 2.15 2.56 3.88 4.46 5.19 6.86 7.50 7.57 7.73 8.25 8.61 8.89

0.80 0.92 1.06 1.69 1.97 2.75 3.48 3.88 4.16 4.42 4.88 5.59 5.85

0.25 0.30 0.90 1.24 1.99 2.42 2.42 2.46 2.59 2.80 2.88 2.75 2.96

1.12 1.28 1.80 2.52 3.70 5.35 6.29 6.83 7.19 7.74 8.07 8.50 8.80

1.08 1.22 1.36 1.99 2.73 3.79 4.58 4.94 5.19 5.49 6.07 6.38 6.65

0.04 0.06 0.43 0.54 0.97 1.56 1.71 1.89 2.00 2.25 1.99 2.11 2.15

1.35 1.56 2.34 3.43 4.74 6.09 6.87 7.34 7.53 8.11 8.48 8.98 9.21

0.94 1.13 1.36 2.07 2.57 3.46 4.23 4.55 4.80 5.06 5.52 6.18 6.31

0.41 0.43 0.99 1.37 2.17 2.63 2.64 2.79 2.73 3.05 2.97 2.80 2.90

1.19 1.35 1.94 3.05 4.69 6.10 7.13 7.55 7.82 8.34 8.69 9.18 9.67

1.13 1.33 1.59 2.30 2.66 3.55 4.26 4.79 5.03 5.59 6.06 6.71 7.04

0.06 0.01 0.35 0.75 2.02 2.54 2.87 2.76 2.79 2.75 2.63 2.47 2.64

1.26 1.52 2.54 3.96 5.14 6.23 6.82 7.23 7.44 8.15 8.53 8.99 9.46

5 Out C C

Out S C N

N

T

0.66 2.64 5.86 -

0.00 1.24 1.87 -

0.72 1.35 1.82 1.94 2.03 3.18 3.80 4.47 6.13 6.80 7.13 7.25 7.72 7.97 8.17

0.72 2.09 5.56 -

0.00 1.09 . 1.69 -

0.77 0.93 1.17 1.92 2.40 3.35 4.07 4.38 4.54 4.82 5.28 5.99 6.26

0.50 0.60 1.37 2.04 2.74 2.88 2.75 2.85 2.90 3.33 3.24 3.00 3.20

1.00 1.15 2.06 3.32 4.68 5.94 6.65 7.27 7.51 8.13 8.52 8.80 9.32

0.89 1.31 1.49 2.29 2.77 3.81 4.44 4.96 5.20 5.68 6.23 6.69 7.22

0.12 0.00 0.57 1.03 1.90 2.13 2.21 2.31 2.31 2.46 2.29 2.11 2.10

Appendix E. (Continued)

3 Time (days) T Event 2:09/30/96 0.30 1.03 1.55 1.99 2.18 3.02 4.04 2.61 3.74 6.05 7.02 4.32 4.94 8.03 5.63 9.02 12.10 6.83 13.88 7.59 15.03 7.76 7.96 16.01 17.02 8.57 9.02 17.99 9.58 20.06 Event 2: 10/11/96 0.97 1.34 4.10 2.76 5.05 3.90 4.90 6.13 6.81 5.89 6.87 7.52 8.89 9.84 11.28 11.84 11.86 12.88 13.87 12.21 12.70 16.07 16.93 13.03 17.66 13.31 13.63 19.90

In C

N

T

0.14 1.70 2.30 2.88 3.73 3.98 4.35 4.61 5.40 6.02 6.27 6.37 6.89 6.69 7.59

0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.34 0.59 1.03 1.43 1.57 1.49 1.58 1.88 2.33 1.99

0.05 1.16 1.51 1.93 2.90 3.40 3.74 4.23 4.78 5.38 5.60 5.76 6.25 6.62 7.37

0.62 2.08 2.76 2.92 3.42 3.94 5.05 6.17 6.36 6.60 6.98 7.89 8.12 8.46

0.72 2.02 2.29 3.21 3.38 3.57 4.79 5.11 5.50 5.61 5.72 5.14 5.18 5.17

0.66 2.29 3.44 4.21 5.07 5.81 6.81 7.73 8.38 8.73 9.09 9.35 9.53 9.86

Out C

SEPA station BOD (mg/L) 4 Out N T C N

N

T

In C

T

In C

N

T

0.05 1.46 1.70 2.21 2.90 3.20 3.35 3.42 3.86 3.35 4.61 4.76 5.13 5.38 5.93

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.39 0.81 0.92 1.04 0.99 1.00 1.12 1.23 1.44

0.33 0.95 1.17 1.52 2.38 2.86 3.29 3.84 4.49 4.89 5.10 5.64 6.11 6.55 7.37

0.18 1.10 1.17 1.54 2.03 2.25 2.47 2.61 3.02 3.33 3.73 3.79 4.24 4.60 5.09

0.15 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.35 0.61 0.82 1.23 1.47 1.56 1.37 1.85 1.87 1.95 2.28

0.35 1.03 1.48 1.85 2.72 3.24 3.72 4.16 4.79 5.43 5.59 5.71 6.18 6.56 7.40

0.06 0.97 1.04 1.36 1.84 2.14 2.32 2.44 2.85 3.22 3.73 3.85 4.10 4.39 4.90

0.28 0.06 0.43 0.49 0.88 1.10 1.39 1.72 1.93 2.21 1.85 1.85 2.08 2.17 2.50

0.48 1.23 1.89 2.82 5.00 5.75 6.63 7.48 8.74 9.47 9.66 9.83 10.28 11.10 11.57

0.25 1.24 1.51 2.10 2.99 3.37 3.94 4.28 5.12 5.88 6.17 6.28 6.61 6.94 7.69

0.23 0.00 0.38 0.72 2.01 2.39 2.69 3.20 3.62 3.60 3.49 3.59 3.67 4.16 3.88

0.55 1.26 1.93 2.92 5.11 5.97 6.73 7.51 8.58 9.55 9.79 9.97 10.41 10.85 11.87

0.33 1.20 1.89 2.06 2.75 3.12 3.77 5.25 5.44 5.66 6.03 6.89 7.07 7.46

0.33 1.09 1.55 2.15 2.32 2.69 3.03 2.48 2.94 3.07 3.05 2.46 2.46 2.40

0.99 3.25 4.66 5.93 7.33 8.60 10.94 12.61 13.33 14.05 14.58 14.75 15.07 15.49

0.89 2.59 3.31 3.57 3.95 4.36 5.16 6.56 6.75 6.91 7.13 7.35 7.48 7.74

0.10 0.66 1.35 2.37 3.38 4.24 5.78 6.05 6.58 7.14 7.45 7.40 7.59 7.75

1.05 2.16 3.37 4.31 5.11 5.71 7.02 8.63 9.27 9.87 10.09 10.46 10.64 10.%

0.68 1.40 2.09 2.28 2.66 3.07 3.69 4.98 5.32 5.62 6.09 6.52 6.80 7.30

0.37 0.76 1.28 2.03 2.45 2.65 3.33 3.65 3.95 4.25 4.00 3.94 3.84 3.66

0.44 1.38 2.37 3.19 3.51 3.89 5.66 6.40 7.05 7.69 8.62 8.99 9.29 9.86

0.11 0.34 0.82 0.96 1.18 1.45 2.05 2.90 3.22 3.53 3.88 4.13 4.34 4.63

0.33 1.04 1.55 2.23 2.33 2.44 3.61 3.50 3.83 4.16 4.74 4.86 4.95 5.23

0.17 0.36 0.83 1.29 1.93 2.57 4.31 4.89 5.62 6.47 7.19 7.51 7.91 8.32

5 Out C C

Our S C

N

T

N

0.19 1.33 1.68 2.31 3.39 3.84 4.48 4.90 5.62 6.69 6.98 7.17 7.57 7.97 8.77

0.36 0.00 0.25 0.61 1.72 2.14 2.25 2.61 2.96 2.86 2.81 2.80 2.84 2.87 3.10

0.50 1.35 2.19 3.29 5.07 5.83 6.69 7.56 8.67 9.66 10.04 10.20 10.67 11.17 12.02

0.10 1.13 1.39 1.89 2.77 3.17 3.76 4.10 4.87 5.77 6.24 6.34 6.77 7.16 8.02

0.40 0.22 0.79 1.40 2.30 2.65 2.93 3.46 3.80 3.89 3.80 3.85 3.90 4.01 4.01

0.01 0.08 0.26 0.41 0.62 0.83 1.40 2.68 3.04 3.41 3.90 4.17 4.38 4.80

0.16 0.28 0.57 0.88 1.31 1.73 2.91 2.21 2.58 3.06 3.28 3.35 3.53 3.53

0.24 0.83 1.56 2.78 3.51 4.08 4.96 5.92 6.55 7.23 7.76 8.11 8.48 9.10

0.16 0.47 1.03 1.21 1.54 1.87 2.36 3.47 3.82 4.15 4.76 5.19 5.54 5.88

0.08 0.36 0.53 1.58 1.97 2.21 2.60 2.45 2.73 3.08 3.00 2.92 2.94 3.22

Appendix E. (Continued)

3 In Time C (days) T Event 3: 04/28/97 0.57 0.69 0.77 1.74 1.11 1.94 1.50 2.42 2.95 2.12 3.78 3.10 3.22 5.54 6.12 3.40 6.97 6.33 3.93 7.55 7.76 4.30 8.60 9.00 4.60 9.16 9.68 5.63 10.27 11.10 11.24 6.09 13.12 6.32 13.76 11.61 6.57 11.87 14.71 7.25 12.84 16.98 7.61 18.04 13.23 7.98 13.68 20.08 Event 3: 05/07/97 0.72 0.84 1.37 1.99 2.17 3.47 2.46 2.31 4.10 2.61 5.07 2.74 3.53 4.21 7.33 4.66 3.92 8.39 5.66 4.36 10.43 6.16 4.79 11.15 7.97 5.91 13.34 8.77 6.45 15.33 9.53 6.92 17.17 7.42 9.91 19.33 10.04 7.57 20.29

N

T

0.11 0.62 0.92 0.98 2.32 2.92 3.62 4.30 4.56 4.64 5.15 5.29 5.31 5.58 5.62 5.70

0.57 1.40 2.22 3.03 4.74 5.64 6.75 7.82 8.41 9.30 10.65 10.90 11.18 11.91 12.32 12.64

0.12 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.68 0.74 1.30 1.36 2.06 2.32 2.61 2.49 2.48

1.03 2.37 2.69 3.39 4.99 5.60 6.68 7.15 8.37 9.07 9.67 10.20 10.34

Out C

SEPA station BOD (mg/L) 4 Out N T C N

N

T

In C

T

In C

N

T

0.57 1.03 1.75 2.45 3.08 3.25 3.63 4.05 4.33 5.01 5.92 6.20 6.48 7.37 7.77 8.17

0.00 0.37 0.47 0.57 1.66 2.39 3.12 3.77 4.07 4.29 4.72 4.70 4.70 4.53 4.55 4.47

1.11 2.34 3.48 4.48 6.58 7.64 9.10 10.46 11.15 12.26 14.27 14.68 15.11 16.22 16.57 16.98

0.94 1.93 2.88 3.29 4.48 4.75 5.46 6.05 6.42 7.12 8.30 8.64 8.98 10.03 10.50 10.81

0.17 0.41 0.61 1.19 2.11 2.88 3.64 4.41 4.73 5.14 5.97 6.04 6.13 6.19 6.06 6.17

0.76 1.50 2.80 4.10 5.61 6.65 7.85 8.83 9.39 10.31 11.56 11.90 12.23 13.21 13.70 14.22

0.57 1.08 1.76 2.20 3.22 3.46 3.91 4.35 4.69 5.23 6.31 6.60 6.88 7.85 8.21 8.68

0.19 0.42 1.04 1.90 2.39 3.19 3.95 4.47 4.70 5.08 5.24 5.29 5.35 5.36 5.48 5.55

0.58 1.10 1.70 2.41 3.97 5.06 6.64 8.10 9.09 10.40 12.68 12.99 13.26 14.02 14.30 14.70

0.48 0.92 1.37 1.83 2.89 3.06 3.47 3.83 4.13 4.68 5.65 5.93 6.22 7.20 7.54 7.88

0.10 0.17 0.33 0.58 1.08 2.00 3.17 4.27 4.96 5.72 7.04 7.06 7.04 6.81 6.76 6.82

0.65 1.26 1.74 2.29 6.08 7.23 8.28 9.10 9.54 10.16 11.09 11.39 11.59 12.45 12.87 13.39

0.99 2.05 2.51 2.84 3.96 4.32 4.89 5.21 6.28 6.82 7.30 7.90 8.05

0.03 0.32 0.19 0.54 1.03 1.28 1.79 1.94 2.09 2.25 2.38 2.30 2.29

0.83 1.86 2.28 2.74 4.21 4.80 6.44 6.99 7.96 8.69 9.24 9.76 9.95

0.46 1.49 1.86 2.23 3.27 3.63 4.27 4.56 5.58 6.18 6.63 7.27 7.44

0.38 0.37 0.42 0.51 0.94 1.17 2.17 2.43 2.39 2.51 2.61 2.49 2.51

0.66 1.81 2.32 2.93 4.00 4.54 6.08 6.61 7.79 8.38 8.84 9.35 9.47

0.54 1.21 1.69 2.17 3.10 3.42 4.03 4.34 5.37 5.92 6.40 7.11 7.28

0.12 0.60 0.63 0.76 0.90 1.12 2.05 2.28 2.42 2.46 2.44 2.23 2.19

1.48 1.93 2.40 4.32 4.98 6.08 6.59 7.68 8.38 8.95 9.58 9.71 9.88

1.23 1.59 1.94 3.20 3.54 4.18 4.50 5.49 6.20 6.85 7.70 7.87 8.00

0.25 0.34 0.46 1.12 1.43 1.90 2.09 2.19 2.17 2.10 1.89 1.83 1.89

1.70 2.15 2.58 4.39 5.05 6.28 6.92 8.07 8.71 9.29 9.89 10.02 10.19

5 Out C C

Out S C N

N

T

0.63 1.13 1.50 1.88 3.42 3.70 4.12 4.52 4.84 5.31 6.30 6.60 6.81 7.69 8.02 8.18

0.03 0.13 0.24 0.41 2.66 3.53 4.15 4.58 4.69 4.84 4.79 4.78 4.77 4.76 4.94 5.21

0.41 0.93 1.48 2.32 5.19 6.43 7.42 8.37 8.83 9.57 10.37 10.60 10.85 11.63 12.28 13.09

0.75 1.35 1.76 2.42 3.67 3.93 4.30 4.67 4.96 5.51 6.43 6.67 6.93 7.91 8.26 8.67

0 0 0 0 1.52 2.50 3.12 3.70 3.87 4.06 3.94 3.93 3.92 3.72 4.02 4.42

1.67 1.98 2.26 3.41 3.76 4.32 4.70 5.73 6.39 6.96 7.71 7.88 7.99

0.02 0.17 0.32 0.97 1.29 1.96 2.23 2.34 2.32 2.33 2.18 2.14 2.20

1.35 1.70 2.06 3.73 4.25 5.59 6.20 7.43 8.10 8.79 9.41 9.53 9.68

1.58 1.86 2.13 3.27 3.70 4.39 4.84 6.22 6.89 7.55 8.28 8.44 8.52

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.55 1.20 1.35 1.21 1.21 1.24 1.13 1.08 1.16

Appendix E. (Concluded)

3 Time (days) T Event 4: 06/16/97 1.10 1.01 2.28 2.01 3.01 2.98 3.68 4.02 4.40 5.09 7.03 6.21 8.03 6.82 9.00 7.72 10.03 8.88 9.50 11.14 10.43 12.97 10.70 13.75 15.02 11.21 11.95 16.94 12.71 19.23 13.00 20.04 Event 4: 06/27/97 1.36 1.82 1.76 2.59 3.00 3.87 5.78 4.60 5.92 7.94 6.26 9.09 9.86 6.46 6.76 10.86 7.30 12.83 13.87 7.54 8.08 16.07 8.20 16.84 8.37 17.87 8.85 19.88

In C

N

T

0.39 0.89 1.90 2.67 3.31 4.15 4.61 5.59 6.53 6.85 7.70 8.05 8.49 9.29 9.84 10.02

0.71 1.39 1.09 1.01 1.10 2.05 2.21 2.12 2.34 2.65 2.73 2.64 2.72 2.66 2.87 2.98

0.97 2.18 3.23 4.19 5.13 6.88 7.41 7.97 8.93 9.38 10.43 10.63 11.11 11.85 12.36 12.53

1.01 1.44 2.23 3.13 3.86 4.42 5.05 5.16 5.75 6.10 6.59 6.66 6.78 7.17

0.35 0.32 0.77 1.47 2.05 1.84 1.41 1.60 1.55 1.44 1.49 1.53 1.59 1.68

1.60 2.27 3.41 4.57 5.62 5.98 6.26 6.46 6.85 7.19 7.49 7.64 7.85 8.29

Out C

SEPA station BOD(mg/L) 4 Out In C N T C N

N

T

0.20 0.69 1.46 2.67 3.60 4.75 5.36 6.02 6.79 7.14 7.75 8.12 8.55 9.35 9.78 9.93

0.77 1.50 1.77 1.52 1.53 2.13 2.05 1.95 2.14 2.24 2.68 2.51 2.57 2.50 2.58 2.60

1.03 2.29 3.18 3.97 5.05 6.66 7.26 7.93 8.34 9.03 10.24 10.50 10.99 11.77 12.41 12.76

0.50 1.02 1.75 2.37 3.14 3.95 4.55 5.11 5.32 5.78 6.72 7.11 7.55 8.38 8.96 9.22

0.53 1.27 1.43 1.60 1.91 2.71 2.71 2.82 3.02 3.25 3.52 3.40 3.44 3.39 3.44 3.54

1.28 2.31 3.24 4.03 5.05 6.16 6.82 7.37 7.83 8.34 9.12 9.33 9.76 10.51 11.18 11.54

0.25 0.55 1.30 2.21 2.81 3.68 4.20 4.74 5.19 5.56 6.13 6.53 6.89 7.72 8.33 8.66

0.81 1.30 2.17 2.88 3.70 4.12 4.34 4.78 5.19 5.60 6.04 6.17 6.67 6.86

0.80 0.97 1.24 1.69 1.92 1.86 1.91 1.68 1.66 1.59 1.45 1.47 1.17 1.43

1.46 1.88 2.86 4.19 5.43 5.89 6.20 6.42 7.09 7.34 7.73 7.81 8.13 8.24

1.06 1.56 2.22 3.15 3.60 4.07 4.49 4.60 5.31 5.63 5.99 6.05 6.35 6.62

0.39 0.32 0.64 1.04 1.83 1.82 1.71 1.82 1.78 1.71 1.74 1.76 1.78 1.62

1.49 1.94 2.99 4.33 5.20 5.71 6.00 6.21 7.05 7.24 7.43 7.54 7.71 8.15

1.07 1.56 2.30 3.30 3.90 4.24 4.84 4.83 5.79 5.90 6.27 6.36 6.53 6.90

Notes: BOD = biochemical oxygen demand T = total BOD C = carbonaceous BOD N = nitrogenous BOD

5 Out C C N

T

In C

N

T

1.03 1.77 1.94 1.82 2.25 2.48 2.62 2.63 2.64 2.78 2.99 2.80 2.86 2.79 2.85 2.88

0.69 1.31 2.02 2.81 3.41 3.89 5.08 5.63 5.96 5.96 6.08 6.37 6.95 7.45 7.70

0.09 0.16 0.78 1.42 1.95 2.16 3.47 4.02 4.32 4.32 4.66 5.02 5.74 6.12 6.34

0.60 1.15 1.24 1.39 1.47 1.73 1.62 1.61 1.64 1.64 1.42 1.35 1.21 1.33 1.36

0.90 1.59 2.35 3.01 3.85 4.48 5.05 5.59 6.14 6.46 7.07 7.22 7.54 8.15 8.64 8.93

0.23 0.54 1.04 1.58 2.01 2.43 2.94 3.56 4.09 4.34 4.67 5.00 5.29 5.98 6.40 6.63

0.67 1.05 1.31 1.42 1.83 2.04 2.11 2.03 2.05 2.12 2.39 2.22 2.25 2.17 2.24 2.30

0.72 1.29 1.97 2.84 3.59 4.19 4.57 5.03 5.35 5.67 6.29 6.42 6.72 7.37 8.03 8.35

0.15 0.40 1.04 1.56 2.05 2.56 3.01 3.50 3.89 4.17 4.60 4.97 5.28 6.09 6.65 7.00

0.57 0.87 0.93 1.28 1.53 1.63 1.56 1.53 1.45 1.50 1.69 1.45 1.44 1.27 1.37 1.35

0.42 0.39 0.69 1.03 1.30 1.47 1.17 1.38 1.26 1.35 1.16 1.18 1.18 1.25

0.91 1.17 1.82 3.07 4.35 5.04 5.43 5.78 6.51 6.80 7.12 7.17 7.40 7.78

0.86 1.33 2.02 3.03 3.59 3.97 4.55 4.65 5.64 6.02 6.23 6.34 6.50 6.95

0.05 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.76 1.06 0.88 1.14 0.87 0.77 0.89 0.83 0.90 0.83

1.14 1.49 2.34 3.90 5.13 5.81 6.15 6.45 6.92 7.23 7.77 7.86 8.11 8.53

0.93 1.36 1.99 3.02 3.61 3.98 4.38 4.93 5.24 5.51 6.09 6.16 6.33 6.74

0.21 0.13 0.35 0.88 1.52 1.84 1.76 1.51 1.68 1.72 1.68 1.70 1.78 1.79

0.97 1.24 1.94 3.32 4.07 4.55 4.84 5.26 5.94 6.16 6.49 6.60 6.91 7.36

0.87 1.31 1.95 3.00 3.59 3.86 4.15 4.51 5.26 5.67 6.03 6.16 6.34 6.82

0.10 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.48 0.69 0.69 0.75 0.68 0.49 0.46 0.45 0.57 0.54

T

Out S C N

Appendix F Walk-Through YSI Model 59 DO-Meter DO Readings Compared to In-place, Continuous-Monitor DO Readings

157

Appendix F. Walk-Through YSI Model 59 DO-Meter DO Readings Compared to In-place Continuous-Monitor DO Readings: SEP A Station 3

Date 08/13/96

08/14/96

08/21/96 ,

08/22/96

10/01/96

10/02/96

10/08/96

04/30/97

05/07/97

06/17/97

06/26/97

Time 1358 to 1415 0903 to 0916 1445 to 1506 0815 to 0831 1702 to 1720 0957 to 1016 1210 to 1224 1416 to 1437 0741 to 0806 1422 to 1446 1427 to 1448

Type of data Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through

Intake A B 5.98 5.43 6.63 6.63 5.26 4.73 5.13 5.13 5.46 4.89 5.99 5.99 5.22 4.86 5.43 5.43 6.05 6.11 6.61 5.85 5.77 5.77 6.13 6.24 6.78 5.99 6.60 6.60 6.48 6.86 7.56 6.78 7.14 7.14 6.72 7.47 6.52 7.02 7.39 7.39 6.07 6.63 5.87 6.32 6.30 6.30 6.19 5.63 6.28 5.46 4.92 4.92 5.75 6.13 5.47 5.47

DO concentration (mg/L) Pool Outfall 1 2 3 A B 7.46 8.40 8.06 8.12 7.85 6.92 8.20 7.70 7.69 7.82 7.15 7.76 7.85 7.91 7.85 6.93 8.22 7.98 8.05 7.70 6.41 8.03 7.62 7.62 7.69 6.88 7.52 7.81 7.87 7.87 6.01 8.48 8.01 7.89 6.08 5.68 8.35 7.55 7.72 6.26 7.44 7.85 8.07 8.23 8.23 6.25 8.51 8.00 7.94 6.97 5.94 8.39 7.61 7.72 7.17 7.21 7.68 8.16 8.40 8.40 8.13 8.13 9.54 9.04 7.68 7.68 8.95 8.53 8.23 8.64 8.98 9.11 9.11 8.14 8.14 9.60 9.33 9.04 7.72 7.72 8.81 8.67 9.24 9.63 9.58 9.63 9.41 8.14 8.13 9:86 7.88 7.87 9.11 9.21 8.16 9.05 9.53 9.35 9.53 8.09 8.78 9.33 9.72 9.19 7.71 8.52 9.48 9.25 8.93 9.16 9.80 10.25 10.20 10.20 8.04 9.00 9.66 10.01 9.61 7.68 8.70 9.50 9.72 9.30 8.23 9.20 9.60 9.75 9.75 9.70 7.54 9.42 8.15 8.82 9.13 7.71 9.28 8.05 8.11 7.63 8.20 8.38 8.59 8.59 9.50 7.23 7.37 8.04 8.99 8.97 7.69 8.96 7.78 9.00 7.00 7.68 7.94 8.07 8.07

Note: "Mon: Winkler corrected" is the raw monitor value corrected for a match-up, lab-tank Winkler

159

Appendix F. (Continued) SEPA Station 4

Date 08/13/96

08/14/96

08/21/96

08/22/96

10/01/96

10/02/96

10/09/96

05/01/97

05/07/97

06/17/97

06/26/97

Time 1251 to 1302 1001 to 1014 1336 to 1357 1129 to 1141 1448 to 1603 1213 to 1234 1049 to 1127 1402 to 1428 0909 to 0935 1246 to 1319 1255 to 1325

Type of data Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through

Intake A B 5.65 5.14 5.04 5.31 4.84 4.38 5.42 5.06 5.94 5.29 4.93 4.52 5.80 5.71 5.54 4.35 5.98 5.98 5.39 5.47 5.14 3.39 5.70 5.70 6.26 6.41 6.23 3.52 7.15 7.15 7.19 7.19 7.17 7.00 7.26 7.26 7.41 7.65 7.46 7.49 7.58 7.58 3.94 3.83 4.10 3.25 4.19 4.19 6.09 6.55 6.50 6.97 6.34 6.34

DO concentration (mg/L) Outfall Pool 3 2 A B 1 8.10 8.60 7.89 6.89 7.89 8.48 7.51 6.59 7.79 7.78 7.85 7.85 7.62 8.14 8.59 7.99 6.53 7.92 8.49 7.58 6.22 7.60 7.82 8.01 8.01 7.27 7.78 2.21 7.73 6.51 7.62 2.26 7.17 6.15 7.77 8.40 8.46 8.46 7.58 6.76 2.23 7.26 5.86 6.60 2.28 5.49 6.68 6.83 7.49 8.23 8.19 8.19 9.07 12.89 8.66 6.96 9.29 8.40 6.63 9.08 8.64 6.43 8.65 8.74 8.63 7.80 8.63 9.09 10.68 8.40 5.25 9.37 4.61 8.21 4.93 9.17 8.66 8.84 9.62 9.98 9.98 7.76 8.27 6.05 9.69 9.11 8.20 5.77 9.66 8.83 9.28 9.54 10.46 10.46 8.69 10.57 8.41 9.39 9.88 9.19 9.47 10.03 8.23 9.94 9.57 9.80 9.75 9.75 8.31 9.58 9.80 11.24 8.07 9.26 9.39 10.44 9.19 9.42 9.87 -9.81 9.81 9.88 8.00 8.73 8.50 8.13 10.70 8.16 8.63 8.81 8.43 9.57 8.80 8.93 8.97 8.97 6.98 7.48 8.67 7.15 7.54 7.44 7.92 8.73 8.03 8.32 7.44 7.65 8.08 7.94 7.94

Note: "Mon: Winkler corrected" is the raw monitor value corrected for a match-up, lab-tank Winkler

160

Appendix F. (Continued) SEPA Station 5, Cal-Sag Channel Outlet

Date 08/13/96

08/14/96

08/21/96

08/22/96

10/01/96

10/02/96

10/09/96

05/01/97

05/07/97

06/17/97

06/26/97

Time 1112 to 1136 1101 to 1115 1201 to 1212 1352 to 1406 1300 to 1308 1354 to 1427 0900 to 0910 1221 to 1237 1038 to 1054 1127 to 1145 1024 to 1044

Type of data Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through

Intake A B 4.17 4.31 3.61 3.63 3.67 3.67 4.68 4.73 4.12 4.08 3.54 3.54 5.29 5.41 4.76 4.86 5.45 5.45 5.08 5.48 4.54 4.95 5.63 5.63 5.85 5.41 5.53 4.31 5.98 5.98 5.87 5.73 5.57 4.34 5.91 5.91 6.19 5.66 6.01 2.43 7.69 7.69 6.58 6.36 6.45 6.45 -

-

7.74 5.62 5.22 4.67 4.91 5.01 4.05

7.74 5.24 5.03 4.67 4.18 4.30 4.05

DO concentration (mg/L) Pool 1 2C 4C 3C 6.30 7.77 8.04 5.85 7.35 7.67 6.14 6.94 7.39 7.55 6.53 7.96 8.17 6.12 7.52 7.81 6.50 6.89 7.26 7.43 6.62 8.10 8.32 7.64 7.98 6.49 6.84 7.36 8.05 8.04 6.40 7.96 8.22 6.32 7.50 7.88 6.82 8.01 8.11 8.08 8.14 8.64 8.30 9.23 7.94 8.57 3.68 6.34 8.58 8.85 9.24 9.41 7.80 8.20 7.18 9.24 7.22 8.23 3.10 6.55 7.51 7.83 8.77 9.04 8.37 8.92 8.06 8.96 8.37 8.94 9.33 9.58 8.05 7.75 11.56 8.74 8.30 8.00 10.85 8.91 8.13 8.66 9.09 9.24 8.34 7.81 10.70 8.49 8.64 8.18 9.83 8.87 8.82 9.26 9.62 9.86 7.03 9.22 7.50 8.32 7.02 8.73 7.87 9.08 8.05 8.49 8.70 8.79 5.61 8.43 7.22 5.95 7.81 7.53 6.49 7.36 8.12 8.13

Note: "Mon: Winkler corrected" is the raw monitor value corrected for a match-up, lab-tank Winkler

161

Out fallC

A 8.11 7.61 7.68 8.23 7.74 7.97 8.40 7.95 8.22 8.31 7.86 8.40 9.68 9.28 9.46 9.67 9.30 9.20 9.58 9.40 10.32 9.16 9.37 9.38 9.03 9.32 9.88 8.80 8.65 8.86 8.27 8.22 8.14

B 7.63 8.35 7.68 7.68 8.41 7.97 6.90 7.70 8.22 6.97 7.79 8.40 10.90 9.80 9.46 10.87 9.85 9.20 11.18 10.68 10.32 9.35 9.93 9.38 8.07 8.64 9.88 9.04 9.11 8.86 8.53 8.73 8.14

Appendix F. (Concluded) SEPA Station 5, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Outlet

Date 08/13/96

08/14/96

08/21/96

Time 1148 to 1158 1124 to 1126 1122

to 08/22/96

10/01/96

10/02/96

10/09/96

05/01/97

05/07/97

06/17/97

06/26/97

1127 1317 to 1320 1324 to 1327 1317 to 1320 0917 to 0920 1245 to 1320 1102 to 1105 1153 to 1156 1051 to 1056

Type of data Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through Monitor: raw Mon: Winkler corrected Walk-through

DO concentration ( mg/L) Intake Pool A B 1 3 4 2 (see Cal-Sag 7.78 6.99 8.10 outlet for intake 7.26 6.79 7.54 and Pool 1 data) 6.83 7.43 7.61 7.92 7.11 8.18 7.41 6.92 7.61 6.78 7.16 7.38 8.04 7.44 8.20 7.59 7.31 7.73 7.64 7.17 7.95 7.89 7.31 8.14 7.45 7.22 7.68 7.38 7.82 8.20 8.80 9.83 9.53 8.96 8.15 8.24 8.59 9.02 9.12 8.71 9.67 9.49 8.82 8.12 8.17 8.50 8.96 9.18 8.73 9.98 9.83 8.35 9.25 8.47 8.91 9.29 9.54 7.99 9.54 9.98 7.47 9.39 9.97 9.06 8.76 9.06 7.69 8.69 8.97 7.40 8.59 8.96 9.18 9.60 9.77 8.43 8.51 8.29 8.11 8.24 8.38 8.16 8.56 8.78 7.50 8.27 7.95 7.31 8.07 8.18 7.43 7.93 8.22

Note: "Mon:Winkler corrected" is the raw monitor value corrected for a match-up, lab-tank Winkler

162

Outfall A B 7.96 8.03 7.55 7.64 7.70 7.70 7.97 8.03 7.68 7.60 7.52 7.52 8.03 7.81 7.57 7.78 8.12 8.12 7.97 6.95 7.75 7.76 8.43 8.43 10.63 9.56 8.90 9.66 9.32 9.32 10.61 9.50 8.89 9.68 9.45 9.45 11.00 9.78 10.34 9.78 10.38 10.38 9.15 9.89 9.84 9.36 9.16 9.16 9.67 9.01 9.66 9.31 9.81 9.81 8.44 8.20 8.41 8.19 8.87 8.87 7.25 8.08 7.69 8.00 8.24 8.24

Loading...

Evaluation of reaeration efficiencies of sidestream elevated pool

Contract Report 653 Evaluation of Reaeration Efficiencies of Sidestream Elevated Pool Aeration (SEPA) Stations by Thomas A. Butts, Dana B. Shacklefor...

5MB Sizes 1 Downloads 0 Views

Recommend Documents

Assessment of elevated creatinine - BMJ Best Practice
Since creatinine is generated in a steady manner and can be measured very simply from blood samples, it has become a use

Final Report: In-situ monitoring of efficiencies of condensing - Gov.uk
boilers carried out on behalf of the Energy Saving Trust. The trials had four stated goals: to evaluate the in-situ perf

Swimming Pool Feet of Head Calculations - Specialty Pool Products
Dec 16, 2014 - How to calculate pool pump feet of head - you have to know, or at least approximate, the resistance in a

Response of Sinorhizobium meliloti to Elevated Concentrations of
Oct 2, 2007 - ... Department of Biological. Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5410. Phone: (269

Simulation and Analysis of Cylindrical wall of Ground Elevated - IAWE
case of reinforced concrete silo, ring stiffeners are not normally provided to avoid construction hazards during slip fo

Home Care Efficiencies Project - Summary of the Final Proposal CYC
Home Care Efficiencies Project - Summary of the Final Proposal. CYC Care Services. Re-ablement Service. Care Service. Sh

Research Pool – School of Communication Studies
Instructors for COMS 1010, 1030, 1100, and 2020 as well as another other courses voluntarily using the system, should in

Neurological Evaluation of Autism
Developmental language disorder. ▫. Duplication of bands 15q11-13. ▫. Down Syndrome. ▫. Eating Disorder: Pica. ▫

Evaluation of Exercises - Msb
dation for courses and training in exercise evaluation and thus contribute towards developing common .... is really just

California Pool Association - Page 5 of 32 -
19 Apr 2016 - CPA on “Your Work” and Insurance Unbeknownst to many in the service and repair industry, the standard