-------
fcl
«, estimate of the maximum number of viable particles that
JJ will be emitted to the Des Plaines atmosphere under the
most adverse conditions? Under these adverse conditions,
|j how many particles per breath will our children inhale at
the fence line of the plant? What percent degradation from
[ the upwind ambient air quality will be caused.by the aerosols
from the proposed sewage plant under the average and most
F adverse conditions?
L : .
F 3. page ii (Bib conf,) "There is no demonstratable health
*• hazard associated with these aerosols." Why was the Clavey
CEye Irritation Study omitted from consideration in the
draft EIS after it had been submitted to the Illinois Pollu-
tion Control Board on December 9, 1974 and the USEPA on
!P
1^ December 19 and 27, 1974? ^e must assume that .the Clavey
Study was omitted to justify the USEPA draft conclusions.
4. page iii (2a) "The effluent flow in the design year is
f* projected to be 72 MGD." By whom? Other projections have
• been given as low as 40 MGD by various reviewers including
§Des Plaines starting with the actual flow of 30 MGD in
1970 from a population of 223,000. There is more discussion
t
m of this subject in the Section III letters as well as later
m
I* in this section.
W
|wt 5. -page iii (4A) "Alternatives Considered - Nine site locations
for the WRP." The USEPA omitted considering the 3 sites
f. that were the first choice of the MSD in their June, 1964
ii*.
study. The USEPA was made aware of these sites in Attach-
T ment #11 to Des Plaines 12/27/74 Comments. All three sites
' are still undeveloped and partially owned by the.MSD or
r Chicago. Why were they omitted from consideration?
fe
p 6- Page iii The most significant alternative that was omitted
L from MSD or USEPA consideration is the most cost-effective
and environmentally sound option of utilizing the increased
•^ collection capacity and flow equalization capabilities
of the proposed Tunnel and Keservior Plan. Possibly there
I is a message in the March 12, 1975 statement by USEPA
-------
Deputy Administrator John Quarles that "getting this money
into the economy is EPA's No. 1 goal at this time." (Chicago
Tribune, 3-13-75). Des Plaines officials and others have
contended that this Nation could save over $100 million by
examining the "cost-effective calculations" that were edited
out of the rough draft of the EIS. It seems reasonable to
expect that getting the money into the economy in a cost-
effective and environmentally acceptable manner should be
EPA's No. 1 goal.
7- page iv • USEPA acknowledges that portions of the draft EIS
were taken directly from the November, 197^ Environmental
Assessment prepared by the MSD. The USEPA should state that
it accepts the responsibility for the accuracy of those por-
tions taken from the EA. i
8-. Page 1-1 Does the USEPA accept the .responsibility for the
accuracy of the draft EIS statement, "The projected average
dry weather flow by the year 2000 is 72 MGD"? |
9. figure 1-1 The outlined area is inaccurately described as ,
the "Upper Des .Plaines Drainage Basin". This is a proposed
service area that the MSD desires to create without the justi-
fication of cost-effective, calculations..
10' page.1-6 "During wet weather, the North Side sewage treatment
plant is presently overloaded and existing interceptors are
approaching capacity." This is an unsubstantiated statement
that may not be considering the capacity of the Salt .Creek
plant or the planned 104- MGD expansion of the Northside plant.
11. page 1-9 "Prior to the issuance of a draft EIS in November
1972 an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the TARP program was
prepared," The draft EIS was issued in 1973, not 1972 and by
the applicant (MSD) and not by a federal agency — therefore,
it may be misleading to call it a draft EIS. Does the USEPA
concur? Also, why has a draft and/or final EIS not been *
published on the TARP system as of now? It is impossible to
examine the O'Hare "Service Area" until the reviewing agencies
6-69
-------
have examined the interrelationship with the total Facility
Plan. Quite obviously thin has not been accomplished and
this may be the reason why the cost-effective calculations
that justify creating the O'Hare service area have been
omitted.
12. page 1-9 "A public hearing on the TARP EA was held July 26,
1973, and discussion was presented. " The records indicate
that this was called as a meeting and not a hearing. Also
the required 30 days notice for a "hearing" was not given
to the public. The purpose of the meeting was to present
TARP alternatives and several speakers were invited in addi-
tion to the MSD staff. The testimony that this reviewer
offered was .uninvited and unexpected.
13. page 1-10 This is one of the most important pages in the
entire draft EIS. It reveals that "other engineering studies"
(not referenced) justify the creation of the O'Hare service
area and plant. This is the section where the References to
"cost-effective calculations" were eliminated from the pub-
lished draft EIS either because they did not exist or because
they did not justify creating the service area. A logical
and factual discussion in the final EIS is absolutely essen-
tial for the public trust to be restored in the environmental
review process, The second paragraph on page 1-10 is equally
revealing — "The O'Hare Service Area can be separated from
TARP"." — but should it be? The last sentence reveals that
the USEPA really does not know what should be done in relation
to the $3.3 billion TARP system. That is a very honest but
sad admission. Unfortunately the federal courts and the Presi-
dent's Council on Environmental Quality may not be sympa-
thetic to the regional draft findings.
14. Page 1-12 Reference to January 20, 1975 MSB answer to USEPA
December 23, .197^ questions is missing. Also, January 29»
1975 follow-up questions from USEPA to WSD is missing. Also
February 3* 1975 follow-up answers by MSB to USEPA is missing.
Why? Besides dealing with a number of relatively important subjects
-------
this series of letters contain the core of the 10 year con-
trpversyi the MSD's environmental justification for the
Oakton-Elmhurst site. This exchange between the applicant
(MSB) and the USEPA is a classic example of the political
arrogance and moral integrity of the MSD and the utter frus-
tration of the USEPA staff. The USEPA staff caved in under
this historical MSD tactic possibly because the staff may
not have had the backing of their superiors,
For those of you reading these comments that have been
denied the MSD's January 20, 1975 site evaluation, copies
have been included on the following pages for your reference.
Using the same MSD sites and environmental factors, we will
. reconstruct the matrix and the USEPA is requested to comment
on both versions in the final EIS. We agree that the water
quali-ty will be the same at all six sites. Regarding, air
quality, sites 1 and 3 are both upwind from substantial resi-
dential populations. Sites kt 5 and 6 would be relatively
isolated (3,000 people now live on site 4 but would have to
be relocated, which of course should not even be considered).
Site 2 falls between 1 and 3 and bt 5 and 6 in terms of rela-
tive isolation. The noise and visual effect would be the
same on all sites. The flood potential of each site is seen
on page 2-22 of the draft EIS. Sites 1 and 2 are in the 100
year flood area. Site 6 would partially be flooded and sites
3, b and 5 are not flood prone. Please note the different
. site numbering system by the MSD and USEPA. Using the same
. sites and factors the matrix should look like thisi
MSD Site # I 2' 2 4 £ 6 •
Water tl +1 fl +1 fl fl
Air -1 0 -1 fl fl . fl
'Noise 0 0 00 0 0
Visual Effect 000000
Flood Potential -1 -1 fl fl fl 0
-i o fi f3 f3 f2
Can anyone reading this imagine what would have been
the USEPA "findings" if the MSD had honestly prepared the
environmental site matrix. The USEPA staff was on the right
track in requesting the matrix but they lacked the fortitufle
and the time and the support to insist on honesty. However,
6-71
-------
this reviewer has the fortitude, the time and the support
and as wo have insisted on honesty for the last 10 years,
we will continue to demand honesty into the future,
15. page 1-12 "February 6, 1975 USEPA received Revised Environ-
mental Assessment and Responses of the MSDGC to Public com-
ments". Another tactic frequently used by the MSD is deny-
ing requests for documents during the environmental review
process because of pending litigation. The-federal authori-
ties are responsible for finding a solution to this tactic
which short-circuits the review process. Even though the
Facility Plan Documents were requested early in January when
no litigation was pending, the City of Des Plaines did not
obtain these documents until the end of March. Even the
Illinois EPA did not receive the Revised EA as of the public
hearing March 31, 1975. As this review is being written on
April 11, 1975 I have, still not received a copy of the Revised
EA, If there was not so much at stake for our community, we
too might have become utterly frustrated as the MSD desires.
16. page 2-1 "The area is 60% developed...The 1970 population
for the area was 223,000." As page 1-5 indicated 5,000 acres
(13#) of the 37,250 acres are expected to remain undeveloped.
If the Wo = 223,000 ~ 30 MGD = 1970 then the remaining 7.1%
development will result in 13.5 MOD additional flow in the service
• area or an ultimate average dry weather flow of 43.5 MGD,
. The ultimate development of the area will occur sometime after
the year 2030. Therefore this is a further correlation that
our 40' MGD estimate for the design year 2000 is reasonable.
17. page 2-4 This figure confirms that the Devonshire/Waycinden
area is downwind from both sites. 1 and 2.
is. page 2-23 Note the location of the "combined overflow reser-
voir". Federal Regulations require the combined impact of
related components to be considered. If the reservoir is
to be retained in this EIS, then the plant cannot be con- <•
sidered alone. The USEPA is requested to address this aspect
of their regulations in the final EIS,
-------
19. T?aqe 2-25 Particulate matter standards are currently being
5*| violated.
fcei
if? 20. page 2-25 The highest nitrogen oxide levels were obtained...
^ near the ends of runways l^R and I**-!*.
M 21. page 2-26 "Total hydrocarbon levels...(west Of site 1)
ranged from 1535 ^g/m^ to 2100 /ig/m^." "The maximum standard
H rf for a 3 hour period, which is not to be exceeded more than
once per year is .160 /ag/m3. "
™
* 22. page 2-26 "In general, it appears that air quality in the
H vicinity of the project sites is severely degraded because
of the proximity to O'Hare Airport." The draft EIS discus-
H sion stops at that point. Again the omission of inputs by
** Dr. Carnow and Dr. Rogoff were necessary in order to justify .
H the site i favorable findings. In the final EIS, we expect
1 that the USEPA will discuss the effect chemically polluted
air has on the probability of infection from microbial con-
j| tamination.
1 23. page 2-29 "Other Programs in the Area" possibly should
include the combined sewage reservoir.
24. page 3-10 Why is the word contiguous omitted from the refer-
H ence to the MSD 1965-66 site criteria of 100 acres?
m 25. page 3-11 The plant can be accommodated on a ^-0 acre rectan-
m • gular plot — not 65 acres as the draft EIS .states.
H 26. page 3-11 Why is an "adequate buffer zone for aesthetic
reasons" needed if 'the USEPA has found that the plant will
y * • be attractive and there will be no odor or health related
problems? This is an apparent contradiction.
» .
I • • " •
27• Page 3-11 In addition to "the tpllway on the south", 3000
r people also live there (on site 4). *
y • '
f 28. Page 3-13 Why would site 2 require 500 to 1500 feet of
^ 7 foot diameter influent sewer to dewater the 20 foot tunnel
6-73
-------
that ends on that site? Also why should site 1 only require
600 - 700 feet of influent sewer? How large is site 2?
29. Page 3-13 In 1966 the airport authority said 3 other sites
were not available, not site 3. Please refer to Des Plaines
12/27/7** Attachment #11. Also site 3 was not recently con-
sidered for a stormwater retention reservoir as the draft
EIS incorrectly states.
X
3Q ,i5age 3-1** What i's the current value of the industrial build-
,/' ing under construction on site 5? Is that sufficient reason
/ for the site being eliminated? How large is site'5?
' 31. page 3-1** How large is site 6 and what is the value of the
buildings on that site?
32. Page 3-lft Please state reference to draft EIS conclusion
that "WRP on Site #7 may cause a safety hazard to aircraft".
33. Page 3-15 If site 8 is for sale as the letter in the USEPA
files indicates, why was the site downgraded because the
"MSDGC does not have the powers of eminent domain?"
/
34. page 3.-16 "Since all of the sites considered, except site 3
are within areas zoned for light industry, the plant is
visually well suited for placement in any of the sites con-
sidered. " Sites 4 and 7 are also not zoned for light industry.
35. Page 3*17 Sites 3 and 8 were eliminated because of unknown
availability and/or undetermined acceptance. These are not
reasons, they are excuses, Because the site question has been
the central issue for 10 years the USEPA could have at least
solicited letters from Chicago and DuPage stating they were
opposed to a sewage plant on those sites. Of course, possibly
DuPage may not have been able to find a reason to refuse the
plant and then the June 30, 1975 deadline may have been exceeded.
*
36. page 3-18 "The proposed Water Reclamation Plant appears
to be adequately designed." We desire a stronger assurance
-------
Pi
J
that the plant has been designed to'the highest standards.
37. page 3-20 The responses to the questionnaire in Appendix D
are referred to but there is no discussion that indicates
that 5 of the 8 responses indicated a potential health hazard
would exist. A composite of the responses would be desirable.
38. page 3-21 If the USEPA really believes that there is no
health hazard and no odor problem then the location is irre-
levant and the alternate sits question should not have even
been discussed in the draft EIS. USEPA please comment.
39. -page 3-21 The present 150 foot buffer zone would have been 300
feet if V/ille Road had been vacated. The 300 foot number from
the 1968 Brown and Caldwell report should be incorporated into
the final EIS. !
40. page 3-29 The MSD 1990 assumption of a total flow of 2118 MOD
and a service population of 5,770,000 equals 367 gallons
per day per capita which deserves some USEPA comment.
• . • ' • • l
41. page 3-^-1 Colonel Miller of the Army COE is quoted regarding
the Land Treatment Alternative as being not "socially accept-*
able". Has the USEPA made a determination that the uncovered
t '
O'Hare plant on site 1 is socially acceptable?
42. page. 3-^3 The draft EIS notes that, the plant design capacity-
may be excessive but that has no effect on considering alter-
natives. That is not accurate because it is difficult to
justify creating a separate service area to process ^0 MGD
(12%) of the projected 329 MOD Northside flow in 1990. See
."Northside Service Area" graph in Section in letter dated
2-22-75.
43. page 3-^7 The "No Action" discussion overlooks the Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan with the Northwest Tunnel connected to
the Des Plaines River Tunnel. . ,
6-75
-------
44. page 5-5 It mentions that occasional odors can usually be
traced to 5 sources. What are the other possible sources of
odors?
45. paffe 5-11 "The only potential sources of odor at O'Hare"
will be covered. Certainly the aeration tanks and settling
tanks can also be sources of odors as the testimony and refer-
ences in the previous Section IV has indicated,
46. page 5-12 During the pre-chlorination process, what per-
cent of the H2S that may be generated during low flow con-
ditions in the 66 square mile collection system will be reduced
to chemical compounds devoid of any. unpleasant odor through
•oxidation? Whatever percent is left will very effectively be '
stripped from the raw sewage in the next process — the first
stage open aeration tanks.
47. page 5-13 What is the distance from the ozonated exhaust air
stack to the fence line? V/hat is the maximum height allowed
by the PAA under the approach path of runway l^L at the pro-
posed stack location. Does the comprehensive plan of the City
of Des Plaines allow a stack of 115 feet in this location
across the street from an established residential area?
The USEPA is requested to discuss the aesthetic qualities of
the proposed stack as related to the visual qualities a resi-
dential area should expect from an adjacent typical suburban
light industrial facility.
48 page 5-13 The exhaust ozone concentration will be kept below
an average of 0.015 ppm which is double the "ozone watch"
level of 0.00? ppm. What has the MSD experience been at their
other plants that use ozone systems to control odors?
49. page 5-1^ We concur that the plants cited at the December 19 »
197^ public hearing have experienced either over-loading or
by-passing or indifferent maintenance. But the odors were not
always associated with one of those three situations and it-
does not logically follow that the O'Hare Plant will somehow
6-76
-------
,
& be a shining exception in the MSD system. Why has the MSD
not taken the initiative to improve its odor image at its
'\ *'*
y| existing plants?
"i 50. page 5-15 "....it cannot be assumed that this plant
oi
will experience the odor problems associated with other MSIV-C
[ft facilities. If significant odor problems result from the
Lil
operation of the proposed plant, it would be possible to
|U take necessary mitigative measures at that time." Would
. these measures be similar ,o the actions that have not been
ei taken at the existing plants? Des Plaines is certainly not
H* ready to accept an empty promise and that is exactly why we
have adopted the odor threshold lim.it in our health ordinance.
j| It would be greatly appreciated if the USEPA would read and
comment on the internal KSD memo dated September 11, 1973
H regarding their inability to meet a standard 8 times the odor
threshold concentration (12/2?/?^ Attachment #10).
51. page 5-15 If any one of the aerosol generation studies taken
g as a separate isolated situation could be interpreted as a
•" potentially alarming problem by a non-expert, then what does
•a the composite of all the studies mean to the experts? In
H' Appendix D, they either say "We don't know" or "Because of
m ' the potential hazard we should be cautious." None of them
H concluded that "a good location for a 96 MGD sewage plant is
adjacent to a. residential area". Somehow the USEPA picked
jl ' an ear of corn out of a basket of apples and oranges. The
•USEPA should explain what conclusions they drew from Appen-
I ' dix D. '
"*•
H 52. Page 5-15 If the "Public Health Service and many medical
, groups have been carefully scrutinizing these individual
§ problems for many years" —then'why are there no published
studies to document this USEPA statement? Also we are not
predicting "epidemics or similar catstrophic problems" —
j§ we are concerned about the more subtle 5% or 10$ increase
of respiratory problems that may not even qualify as "statis-
H tically significant". We are also concerned about the
ff 6-77
-------
doubts and fear that we have indirectly helped to create
in the minds of our citizens. We are not willing to accept
the hope of a possible future answer. We are not ready to
allow the plant as proposed to be built next to us while
waiting for the probably useless $278,000 Salt Creek Health
Study on persons living beyond a half-mile from that sewage
plant. Incidentally, the Salt Creak plant may have been
selected for the study because there possibly were no situa-
tions in the United States whero a sewage plant of the size
desired was being built next to a substantial existing popu-
lation. The USEPA is requested to verify or deny this obser-
vation with specific details. . ' ^
53. page 5-16 USEPA Region V is "recommending diligence in the
pursuit of this missing information". This is nearly a
duplicate of the statement that Region V made in July, 1971
and during those last ^ years the federal authorities
have produced nothing. And we are concerned that when the
Salt Creek results are available in 1976, we will still have
no answer. The Clavey Eye Irritation Study offers some insight
into the scope of the hazard, but the USEPA failed to address
that study in the March, 1975 draft EIS. We can only question
"why" .and will offer no opinion at this time.
54 page 5-16 "Much of the reported work with biological aerosols
has centered on the study of coliform bacteria that have been
the traditional indicators of domestic fecal pollution." Why
have the coliform bacteria been excluded from the Salt Creek
study? Including them would offer an opportunity to relate
the current results to previous studies.
55. page 5-17 "This differentiation demonstrates the need for
specific testing of Klebsiella and other specific pathogens
in biological aerosols from wastewater studies in lieu of
the more traditional general coliform group". Des Plaines
co'ncurs and has set standards that will limit the respiratory
intake to similar levels prescribed in the USPHS Water Quality
Standards for average daily digestive intake. While the legal
aspects of interpreting the federal regulations are being
-------
argued in U. S. District Court;the reasonableness of the 42
E. Coli and t^ Klebsiella standards should be discussed in
the final EIS. If the USEPA desires to propose air quality
"*; - standards to fill the current federal and state void, the
*** Des Plaines officials would be most willing to participate.
"•»,
;"•'
*^ 56 page 5-17 It is good to know that the "activated sludge
pj process liberates ten times as many airborne coliforms as
& the trickling filter." But no whers in the 362 pages of the
* draft EIS can we -find an estimation of the aerosol microbial
^ *
•'•'.• concentrations that the proposed 96 MOD O'Hare plant will
emit under average and most adverse conditions. How can the
fi^Q
g - USEPA approve any facility before estimating the pollution?
n 57. page 5-18 Kenline's dispersion model that predicted the con-
i *
centration downwind from an aeration tank with an emission
i|i rate, of 440 bacteria/sq. m,/sec does not make a correction
W for plant size. Even though the emission rates are the same
p, per square meter of surface, the concentration 500 feet down-
H wind from the proposed 8 acres or O'Hare tanks will be greater
than 500 feet downwind from a 80 square meter aeration tank.
?3
H The USEPA is requested to comment in the final EIS on the
estimated concentration 500 feet downwind from the proposed
Si O'Hare- aeration tanks.
m . • . • • .
H 58. page 5-1.9 "The fact that aerosols are generated cannot be
23 ' •
** disputed". Des Plaines concurs,
S- •' •
^* 59 page 5-20 Des Plaines also concurs that at 20 feet downwind
m from the proposed aeration tanks, 60$ of the bacteria remain-
F*^
£'* ing are small enough to penetrate the lungs. This percentage
of the remaining bacteria inr^eases as the bacterial cloud
•m, '• • '
passes into our residential area. What is the USEPA estimate
aU
of this percentage at the MSD fence line and nearest residen-
H tial lot line? Also what is the USEPA estimate of the quan-
$s
tity (average and adverse) and percent of viruses that will
f- allow lung penetration? f
u,'-
w • 6-79
-------
60. page 5-21 The USEPA should further explain the statement,
"Because little is known of the minimum infecting dose of
most organisms, little can be concluded from a public health
standpoint." Please relate this to the recent U. S. Supreme
Court decision on the Reserve Mining Case in Minnesota that
recognized that potential hazards, as well as after-the-fact
evidence, must be taken into account. As the Chicago Tribune
editorial on April 8, 1975 stated, "Water pollutants that
require up to 20 years to kill need not be tolerated until
dead victims can .be cited in court. All branches of govern-
ment, with public support, are saying ever more clearly that
a technically complicated society requires sophisticated safe-
guards of its water. The days when it was all right to dump
any amount of anything anywhere are over. They have to be."
Again Des Plaines simply desires the air we breathe to be as
pure as the water we drink.
61. page 5-22 We concur with the USEPA conclusion that, "it is
not adequate to compare 'sewage workers' to individuals-in
the general population who may come into sporadic contact
with infectious agents in sewage aerosols or on vegetation
and soil". Does the USEPA concur that this statement is a
contradiction to the primary MSD argument in "Health" position
paper on page I-2,"The purpose of this survey is to review
what is known about aerosols generated by sewage treatment
plants for two points of viewi
1. The aerosols themselves, their persistance and
composition
2. Public health implications associated with sewage
treatment facilities.
The second topic will be discussed primarily with respect to
wastewater treatment personnel,"
62 page 5-23 "There is simply no epidemi©logical data available,
of which we are aware. that would indicate any public health
impacts whatsoever."(emphasis added) Please explain this
Statement in relation to the Clavey Eye Irritation Study tHat
was presented to the USEPA on December 27, 1975.
-------
Li
63• page 5-23 The reference to "implement compliance with any
?- law applicable" is an apparent contradiction to Mr. Mayo's
statement of August 21, 1974, "To the extent that your ordi-
TI nances would not be in conflict with Federal law and con-
struction grant regulations, it would be an implied condition
te of any grant." The U. S. District Court of Appeals recently
^* ruled against the AEG for violating their own regulations
tw; f at Portage, Indiana. This decision also cited that the AEG
la overlooked their own staff recommendations. A similar situa-
m tion may exist wi-thin the USEPA where possibly contrary
jj, * recommendations may be contained in "3 memoranda, dated
1/7/75, 2/4/75 and 3/5/75, concerning first the drafters'
|r conclusions and thoughts regarding site and size alternatives."
This is a statement from a letter dated April 7, 1975 from
H Robert B. Schaefer, the USEPA Regional Counsel in which he
denies our request for examination of these documents. Be-
E cause the site question has been the core of the controversy,
we feel it is improper for the drafters * conclusions and
P thoughts regarding site alternatives to remain legally hidden.
&t We pray that the USEPA will reconsider this denial and incor-
porate these memos in the final EIS or at least make them
^ available for evaluation to a neutral third party such as
Congressman Crane.
64. Paf^e 5-23 "Because of the interest in this particular subject,
P we have also included MSDGC's position paper with respect to
health aspects in Appendix I." The draft EIS contained only
ip ' the USEPA and MSB's ideas. Any contrary ideas were excluded
"•~" with the exception of 3 respondents in Appendix D. This does
«• not improve the reputation of the USEPA for being objective.
L. . Will someone reviewing the draft EIS be aware of our imputs
of 12/19M, 12/27/74, 1/21/75, 1/25/75, 2/13/75, 2/14/75,
£ . 2/21/75, 2/22/75, 2/26/75? How do we know they were even
considered if they were not discussed in the draft EIS? We
P assume they will each be included and discussed in detail in
the final EIS.
r
65. Page 5-24 The "Village" of Des Plaines is a City.
r
L 6-81
-------
66. gftpe 5-25 "The (HUD) Handbooks do not provide specific regu-
lations which must be followed (for example, distance require-
ments)." The USEPA should agree that it would be impossible
for the HUD handbooks .to provide specific isolation minimums
for every conceivable situation. But the USEPA is remiss for
not attempting to determine how the non-specific guidelines
are specifically interpreted by local and regional HUD offices.
Again, this information had to be omitted by the USEPA to
justify their approval of Site 1. The Des Plaines officials
did the work for .the USEPA and requested inputs from all 8?
HUD offices in the United States. As of this writing we have
received a total of 46 ret lies that contain substantial and
detailed information that very clearly proves that site 1
could not be approved by the agency of our federal government
that is concerned with the homes of our citizens. These HUD
replies also revealed the existence of State Isolation Standards
in b out of the 6 states within our own USEPA Region V. All
^6 replies are reproduced in the following Section VI.- No
additional replies have been received as of this writing
(4/l^/75)(and therefore none have been withheld because they
did not support our position). The USEPA is requested to <
study these federally required isolation distances and comment
in the final EIS. They will find for an average sized plant
an average required isolation distance of 1000 feet between
the plant boundary and the residential boundary. The half mile
long 100 foot width of Oakton would be totally unacceptable.
67 "Page 5-25 Concerning the homes adjacent to the sewage plant
the draft EIS concludes "any long-term decrease will be
negligible." Please relate this conclusion to the HUD regula-
tions included in the draft EIS Appendix 0. Apparently HUD
does not concur. We suggest the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the United States Department of Housing .
and Urban Development should begin a dialog before the final
EIS is written. Their local phone number is Area Code 312,
353-7660. The phone numbers of the other *f5 HUD offices that
responded to our request for information are included in their
letters reproduced in the following Sectior, VI.
6-82
-------
V:
H, \
68. p&fte 5-25 "Onco constructed and landscaped, the site should
be aesthetically pleasing in the context of its surroundings.
This is not accurate either considering the broadest meaning
of the word (see Itr, to Mayo dated 2/14/75 in Section III)
or considering the proposed 115 foot stack.
69. page 5-2? 'Vhy is it important "to maximize the ground level
visual screening" if the plant should he such an attractive
and socially accepted addit-.on to our community.. This is
an apparent contradiction that the USEPA is requested to
explain,
• **'
70. page 5-28 The draft EIS states that "Extensive provisions
y
have been made in this project for odor control at key
!i| odor generating points." This is an apparent contradiction
KJ
™ to the statement on page 5-11 that is worded VThe only
«Hi potential sources of odors " We agree with Ketcalf &
|;?|
li Eddy and the USEPA Technology Transfer Series that the aera-
tion and settling tanks are also' potential sources of odor
n
H release. Uncovered tanks on site 1 are not acceptable to
Des Plaines. Uncovered tanks on sites 2 through 9 are con-
§ ditionally acceptable.
/
|i . 71> page 5-31 The draft EIS states that "The use of sludge as
a landfill will not have any detrimental effects on the sur-
f rounding area," This is an apparent contradiction to the
$<*& . • , •
* Illinois Pollution Board Case #75-112 which is the "Illinois
•& EPA vs. KSDGC — Complaint charging respondent with the dis-
&..i
charge of contaminates so as to cause air pollution in vio-
lation of the Environmental Protection Act in the operation
j| of its sludge utilization and disposal facilities in Fulton
A
County. A hearing is mandatory." (IPCB Environmental Pvegis-
1 , ter #100 dated March 28, 1975 - New Cases). The USEPA is
a
requested to clarify their draft EIS statement,
3»
Jjj •••'''
72. "Page 5-32 (Finding #1) Funding is not permitted until all
jf conditions are met including state certification and compliance
I. - • '
y. 6-83
j
It
-------
with local environmental laws and regulations (40 CFR 35.925-1^)
Site 1 is not permitted under federal interpretations of mini-
mum isolation distances from residential areas,
73 Pages 5-32 (Finding #2) Covering of tanks at site 1 is man-
datory to meet local emission standards and to "assure for
all Americans, safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically
and culturally pleasing surroundings — without degradation,
risk to health or safety.... "(National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969). The MSD has demonstrated that they will, not even
acknowledge the U5EPA recognized odor problems at their existing
facilities,
74. "pages 5-32 (Finding #3) The present buffer zone of 100 feet
(width of Oakton) is not adequate based on federal decisions
made by sanitary engineers from the housing viewpoint. The
status of v/ille Road will not change the 100 foot boundary
distance which is the federal measurement practice. Also the
USEPA should explain why a "larger buffer would!be desirable
for aesthetic reasons." This is an apparent contradiction to
the USEPA conclusion that a sewage plant is an attractive and
socially acceptable neighbor similar to an attractive suburban
light industrial facility.
75. .page 6-rl This chapter should not have" been left blank if. the
USEPA desired to present contrary opinions in the draft EIS
for 'circulation, examination and comment. If the USEPA intended
to limit the circulation of opposing ideas, opinions, facts
and conclusions, then the objective was accomplished. ,ve will
predict the USEPA explanation that because of the voluminous
nature of the input, it was all excluded. If limited to state
and municipal comments without attachments, it would have
added approximately 70 pages to the 362 page draft EIS.
76. page 7-1 What is the status of the draft EIS on the Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan? The USEPA is requested to comment on the
Des Plaines opinion that the entire TARP system concept should
6-84,
-------
'-*!>> #
have been studied before the O'Hare facilities (which are an
element of TARP)are approved for funding. Also please comment
on the decree of federal involvement in the preparation of
the TARP draft EIS. Does the responsible federal agency
accept responsibility for the accuracy of statements made by
the MSD and Bauer in their preliminary draft EIS?
77. page 7-7 The City of Des Plaines M-23-74 Health Ordinance
is referenced but is not discussed anywhere in the draft EIS.
• Can the environmental review process be completed without
addressing the reasonableness of the air pollution limitations
for bacteria and odors ' Will funding be approved before the
legal aspects are resolved? Will funding for the northwest
porti-on of TARP be approved before TARP is evaluated to deter-
mine the cost-effective interrelation?
ft*
78. page A -12 "population equivalent of 439,000" should be
revised downward to 300,000 in the design year 2000 to agree
If with NIPC projections adopted by Illinois and MSD.
L '
1? 79. Page A-13 Note use of "land located in the clear zones for
^ t additional public benefit." Please relate this in the USEPA
* draft EIS statement on page 3-17 i "Site 7 is being elimina-
& ted because it lies in the 'clear zone' approach to runway 9L
^ . on O'Hare International Airport." Of course an effort would
\ '
a* • have to be made to keep all structures low or flush with the
surface but this would be less expensive than the $30 million
^•^ tank covers on the Oakton-Elmhurst site plus another $15
million for air purification equipment and the annualized
F " operating costs. USEPA please comment.
iL *. .
^ 80. page A -15 Has a cost-effective analysis been calculated on
*" utilizing the 850 acre-feet combined sewage retention capacity
••.«i of the Mount Prospect reservoir as a flow equalization on-line
it reservoir in conjunction with the. connection of the proposed
,r northwest tunnel to the Des Plaines River Tunnel. Our calcu-
i^ lations indicate this would be more cost-effective and elimi-
nate the need for the O'Hare plant and reservoir. The USEPA
in
I is requested to evaluate this option in the final EIS. Please
-------
considert 1) the start-up of the Salt Creek plant 2) the
1968 capacity of ^9.7 MOD in the Rand interceptor 3) the
planned 10^ MGD expansion of the Northside Plant and 4) the
planned expansion of the Stickney plant. .
81. page B-l Please examine the cost-effective calculations of
TARP Alternatives G, H, and J that do not include the O'Hare
reservoir and relate these calculations to the need for the
O'Hare plant based on the revised service area flow estimate
of ^1 MGD (including industries and infiltration) from an
effective population of 300,000 in the year 2000.
82. Page B-2 Has a delay beer approved by the Illinois Pollution
Board to allow the estimated 6 overflows per year into Weller
Creek after the December 31, 1977 deadline? This will be
necessary if the 1800 foot O'Hare combined sewage reservoir
is no longer actively being considered. Of course, if the
reservoir is still a vital part of the plans, then the com-
bined pollution impact must be considered in the final EIS.
83. pape B-2 The Stearns Reservoir has been dropped from the
1975 major revision of TARP based on a request from Chicago
that said "it would become a lar^e open-pit during dry weather"
periods and a pool of combined sewer overflows during and
after storm periods." Such use "is in conflict with city
requirements and planning. " In an MSD report dated September A
197^ the Stearns Quarry was dropped from the TARP system.
The Stearns Quarry is in Mayor Daley's home llth Ward. The
location of the O'Hare plant and reservoir are in conflict
with our planning and we have requested consideration of more
environmentally sound'sites for 10 years. The USEPA is
requested to comment on the possible relationship between the
disposition of these two requestr regarding the engineering,
environmental and cost-effective principles used in each MSD
decision. . .
84. -page B-12 Without the Stearns Quarry reservoir the mainstream
•
tunnel would have to be increased in size from ^2 foot to
55 foot diameter. This will raise the system cost from $25
-------
to
to $50 million dollars according to MSD district superintendent
f; Bart Lynam (Sun Times, 3/7/75). USEPA please comment.
K, oc page B-13 The MSB statements on this page leave the impres-
ts
sion that a 2700 acre-foot O'Hare reservoir is still being
H considered. Again let us repeat that federal regulations
^ require the consideration of the combined environmental impacts
fjs* and combined cost-effective calculations. Is the USEPA read-
is ing their regulations differently than Des Plaines? USEPA
please comment. •
86 page B-lfr- Increasing the diameter of the Des Plaines River
f| •c—a ~
y Tunnel should allow sufficient capacity for the connection
to the northwest tunnel system. Has the USEPA scheduled a
i] draft EIS for the Des Plaines River Tunnel and the McCook-
Summit Reservoir?
87. page B-20 The ?/!SD describes the 58$ changes in the November
m '74 TARP system as "minor variations". The "possible inter-
Hi . connection" under O'Hare Airport has been eliminated. USEPA
m please comment if this is cost-effective. Also please comment
|f if public hearings will be required on the 58$ "minor varia-
tions" of the TARP system.
88. Page C-3 There are no cost-effective calculations or even
3 a comparison of the total costs of .various alternatives in
Appendix C or any of the References. Citing the "review of
1 the planning history" as the cost-effective justification for
** creating the service areas should not.be acceptable to the
t USEPA because a history does not fulfill the requirements in
the federal regulations. The various policies and plans that
m . were revised over the past 15 years should be updated to reflect
J the adoption of the TARP system. No federal funds can be
approved for the O'Hare plant until the creation of the service
H , area is justified.
fl 89. page D-16 & D 17 When our windows are open during July and
August and our backyards are used most frequently, the
ll 6-87
-------
predominate wind will be out of the S-SW 32# of the time.
Subtracting the calm conditions from 100# and multiplying
by 3/16 would sive an evenly distributed wind from this direction
of 18$ of the time.
90 pape D-36 Dr. Bunch (USEPA research) states that "the actual
data available would indicate that the risk is very small."
But no data is provided to justify that conclusion.
91. page D-36 "Primary settling basins may need covers if the
sewers coming into the plant are septic or contain offensive
organic compounds." Should this be classified as a potential
source of odor in the final EIS?
i
92. page D-36 Why are "scientifically placed wind baffles"
. suggested if the "risk is very small"'from "the drift of
bacteria from the aeration tanks'? f
I
%
-93. Page D-39 Dr. Wellings (State of Florida) "These data indicate
that there is a possible health hazard in siting a waste
treatment facility of this size and type in this location".
USEPA please comment.
94 Page D'-40 "There are odor problems in- a half to one mile
radium of a 5 MOD activated sludge treatment plant in northwest
St. Petersburg. The odors are augmented by humidity and wind
direction. I would anticipate that the proposed plant would
pose similar problems."
95. "Page D-**-5 Dr. Love (USEPA Research) "There is some potential
health hazard but too little is known to define the extent
of the hazard". Does this constixute the "assurance" and
"without degradation, risk to health or safety" that is pro-
vided by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969?
96. page D-^6 Why was Clifford Risley of USEPA Region V not aware
of the minimun isolation distance requirements in 4 out of
the 6 States in Region V?
-------
Ml
97. Pa^e D-^7 Why did Clifford Risley of USEPA Region V not
recall the Clavey situation when answering question #7?
USEPA please comment on paragraph ^.13 of our 12/27/75 comments.
98. page 1-4 "up to JQ% reduction in coliform counts per
meter distances from 1320 to 4-224 feet.". What was the bottom
U-limiJl™. V..O-U1L-™-
end of this range up to
^ 99. Page 1-9 "It is recognized that as little as one tissue
culture infective dose (TCID) of certain viruses may initiate
$
-------
105. pafte J-8 Considering the MSB's "prime obligation to promote
a healthful environment within its jurisdiction" why has
the MSD been so insensitive to the odor problems at Northside
revealed in the 1968 and 1973 surveys?
106 page K-2 Why is the f'SD "evaluating methodology for reducing
aerosol transmission from the plant proper1?
107. Page K-4 If the MSD "has chosen" not to attempt to answer
each individual question, will the USEPA address each of our
questions and comments in the final EIS? This, of course
should have been done in tne draft EIS.
108. Page N-l*t- Why is the "Chicago Building Code" being used
for a plant proposed for the City of Des Plaines? USEPA
please relate this to the federal regulation ^0 CFR 35.935-^
which states in part "each treatment works grant shall be
subject to the following conditionst State and local laws
—The construction of the project shall conform to.,.local
laws and ordinances,"
ing, page 0-1 Federal HUD Regulations state "the best means of
assuring protection against possible odors is to provide
adequate space between the residential properties and the
sewage treatment plant." Without even being aware of the
HUD interpretations in the following section and just relying
on simple common sense — does the USEPA Region V really
believe that the 100 foot width of Oakton Street between
the one-half mile long common boundaries constitutes an
. adequate and reasonable "isolation" strip?
.Respectfully submitted,
Richard F. Ward
Commenting for the City of Des Plaines
6-90
-------
Response:
1. Odors may occur if the biological processes are upset for some
reason. Under normal operating conditions we have concluded
that no significant odors will develop. We.likewise do not
believe the aeration tanks or settling tanks will be sources
of odor.
2. A discussion of the aerosol suppression facilities which we
are requiring MSDGC to provide is found in Chapter 3, "Section C.
3. See our response in Section A of this Chapter! to Slides
36 and 37.
4. Our analysis of projected flows to the proposed WRP is discussed
in Chapter 3, Section B.
5. The status of sites identified as 1, 2, 3 in the June 25, 1964
report is as follows: •..
Site 1 - Ravenswood Airport - MSD owns 22 acres at the north
end of the property and the City of Chicago owns the remainder
of the parcel. MSD hopes to acquire the remainder of the
parcel to construct a storm water reservoir., on the site as
part of the Higgins Creek Watershed Plan. See Appendix A.
Site 2 is at the end of one of the O'Hare runways.
Site 3 is the same as site #10 in Appendix Q, Attachement A.
These three sites referred to by Mr. Ward were not part of
the nine possible sites that were identified by Mr. Ward
when he met and visited each site with USEPA staff on January
.23, 1975.
6. The option of utilizing the increased collection capacity
and flow equalization capabilities of TARP identified by
Mr. Ward was evaluated by USEPA (See Chapter 3, Section A, B)
and found not to be the most cost-effective alternative.
6-91
-------
7. USEPA accepts full responsibility for the content of the body
of the Final EIS statement and those appendices written by
USEPA. The appendices by MSDGC have been reviewed by USEPA
Other appendices represent the positions of the authors.
8. The 72 MGD projection includes a dewatering capacity of 24 MGD.
(See Chapter 3, Section B)
9. The area is now referred to as the Upper Des Plaines Service Area.
10. See response to slides #9 and #10.
11. We do not concur with At. Ward's statement that MSB issued
a Draft EIS on TARP. It is our understanding that the Army
Corps of Engineers issued the Draft EIS. The question about
when the Corps will issue a Final EIS on TARP should be
directed to the COE. Chapter 3, Section A of the O'Hare WRP
EIS determined that the O'Hare Service Area should be formed
and the WRP constructed.
12. Since MSD stated that the July 26, 1973 was a meeting and not a
hearing, the requirements for a public hearing are not applicable.
13. Chapter 1, Section E and Chapter 3, Section A have been revised
to address these questions.
14. All correspondence relating to the proposed project is not
referenced. USEPA does not feel it necessary to list each
letter related to the proposed projects. The MSD environmental
matrix has been revised by MSD and is found in appendix Q.
15. Copies of the Revised Environment Assessment and Responses
of the MSDGC to Public Comments were transmitted to the City
of Des Plaines and the Des Plaines Public Library by MSD.
16. Chapter 3, Section B address these questions.
17. No comment necessary
18. The impacts of the possible combined overflow reservoir have
not been addressed in this EIS since it is not part of the
proposed project. Constructing the proposed WRP and tunnel
conveyance system does not makf a commitment to constructing
the combined overflow reservoir. (See Chapter 1, Section E)
19. No comment necessary.
6-92
-------
20. No comment necessary.
21. No comment necessary.
22. See response to slide #38.
23. See response to question //18.
24. The word contiguous was not a word used by MSD in their criteria
for selecting a plant site in their November 1974 Environmental
Assessment.
25. The statement on Page 3-11 is that the WRP has been designed so
that it can be accomodated on a rectangular plot of land of
approximately 65 icres.
26. USEPA believed that greater flexibility in the architectural
landscaping could be achieved with a larger buffer zone.
27. The trailer home on site #4 is identified when site #4 is
discussed and the population density surrounding site 1 and site 2
are reflected in Mr. Ward's relative population density
analysis found in appendix R.
28. Chapter 3, Section C and appendix Q identify the approximate
distances of the 10 foot diameter influent sewer necessary to
dewater the 20 foot diameter tunnel.
29. The status of site 3 is discussed in Chapter 3, Section C.
30. See Chapter 3, Section C and appendix Q.
31. See Chapter 3, Section C and appendix Q.
f
32. Site #7 was eliminated because the land was said to be unavail- ^
able by the Chicago Airport Authority. The statement that
site #7 may cause a safety hazard to aircraft has not been
confirmed or denied by the Airport Authority and is a moot
point since the site is not available.
33. See Chapter 3, Section C and appendices Q and V.
34. See Chapter 3, Section C and appendices Q and V.
35. See Chapter 3, Section C and appendices Q and V.
36. Prior to constructing the O'Hare WRP the State and USEPA will
certify that the WRP design plans meet all required engineering
and environmental standards.
6-93
-------
37. The responses are available for review. Chapter 3, Section C
and Chapter 5, Section I and L address USEPA evaluation of
the potential health hazard question.
38. USEPA regulations require that alternative sites be evaluated
for all wastewater treatment plants funded under PL 92-500.
39. This could only have been incorporated if the City of Des Plaines
had vacated Wille Road.
40. See Chapter 3, Section B.
41. USEPA considered social acceptability as one of the factors
in evaluating sites for the location of the WRP. We feel that
the proposed WRP as designed with aerosol suppressive facilities
is socially acceptable.
42. See Chapter 3, Sections A and B.
43. Building and interconnecting tunnels is not a no action
alternative; it is an action alternative and was evaluated.
(Chapter 1, Section E and Chapter 3, Section A)
44. Other sources of odor could occur if the biological processes
of the treatment plant were upset.
45. Other sources of odor could occur if the biological processes
of the treatment plant were upset.
46. The dewatering capacity (24 MGD) of the tunnels should preclude
the sewage from becoming septic. Pre-chlorination is included
as a precaution to handle any sewage which might become septic.
It is not possible to predict exact quantities of H^S that
might be generated.
47. The stack is 200 feet from the North property line and
130.5 feet CCD. The site elevation is 80.5 feet, so the stack
height is 50 feet. The site is zoned for light industry and
this 50 foot stack will not be aesthetically incompatible
with the surroundings.
48. Page 5-14 of the Draft EIS is in error. IPCB rules state
that an "ozone watch" must be crlled when the average ozone
concentration exceeds .07 ppm for two hours and the official
weather forecast indicates no substantial improvement in
stagnation conditions. The emission concentration at the
stack discharge point will average less than .015 ppm and
6-94
-------
this concentration is diluted as mixing with the air occurs.
49. The MSDGC has addressed the odor issue raised at the North
Side Plant. (See appendix Q )
50. It is our conclusion that the proposed odor control measures
will be sufficient to avoid any significant odor problem
at the O'Hare WRP. We r"o not feel this plant can be compared
to other MSDGC facilities. Should a significant odor problem
develop, the State of Illinois has an established enforcement
mechanism for addressing these problems.
51. The ability to isolate and replicate on nutrient media pathogenic
organisms does nr t indicate if the organisms are virulent
enough to infect man. Therefore, studies that isolate and
replicate pathogenic organisms from a sewage treatment plant
do not determine infection potential or a health hazard. See
Chapter 3, Section C and Chapter 5, Section I and L for
further discussion on the potential health hazard question.
52. We believe that the mitigative measures we have proposed in
Chapter 3 will be sufficient to preclude the possibility of
a health hazard to the residents in close proximity to Site 1.
53. See response to slide #38.
54. Coliform bacteria are not generally considered to be pathogens
but rather indicators of pathogens.
55. The proposed WRP shall meet all applicable Federal, State and
local laws.
56. While we could make estimates of the concentration to be at
a certain distance downwind, it would be impossible to judge
the accuracy of these estimates. The concentration would
also never be static, but would fluctuate considerably under
various atmospheric conditions. As pointed out in the literature,
the bacteria and viruses are subject to factors such as wind
speed, humidity and temperature, which result in a particular
die-off rate. This rate would also be specific for various
species of bacteria and viruses. We are requesting the MSDGC
to demonstrate to us the effectiveness of the aerosol suppression
facilities which they are being required to install. This will
provide us with further information on possible aerosol movement
from the site.
6-95
-------
57. See previous response.
58. No comment necessary.
59. See response to comment 56.
60. See Chapter 3, Section C and Chapter 5, Sections I and L.
61. Since sewage plant workers gererally represent an age group
from 18 to 65 years of age and most often are males, they do
not reflect statistically a general community population.
62. See response to slide #38.
63. There is no conflict between the language of August 21, 1974
and the statement "implement compliance with any law applicable"
on Page 5-23 of the draft. With respect to the 3 memoranda,
they come precisely within the exemptions defined in the
Freedom of Information Act of the Congress, as recently amended
by Public Law 93-502. The freedom of staff to set forth and
exchange thought processes, free from thought of censure or
disturbance, is thereby determined to be important even as the
importance of the right of the public to have access to the
factual information contained in our files is parallelly assured.
This viewpoint was expressed to Congressman Crane in a May 6, 1975
letter from Mr. Francis Mayo.
64. The letters submitted from all agencies of the City of Des Plaines
and the general public have been reviewed by USEPA staff as to
their applicability and content and have been given consideration
in reaching the conclusion in the final EIS.
65. The word Village has been changed to City in the final EIS.
66. See response to slides #'s 49, 50, 51, 55, 56 and 57.
67. Same as above.
68. The stack will be 50 feet tall. The site will be designed to be
aesthetically pleasing.
69. Processing equipment by itself is not known for its inherent
aesthetic beauty.
70. The two statements quoted are not at all contradictory. The
statement on Page 5-11 recognizes that some units in the
treatment process are much more likely to be a source of odors
than others. The statement on Page 5-28 recognizes that
6-96
-------
certain precautions should be taken at these particular potential
odor sources.
71. There is a fundamental difference between the use of sludge in
a landfill and its use for application on land, such as in
Fulton County. In order to be used in a landfill the sludge
must be dewatered considerably before being disposed of. It is
then covered by other material in a properly operated landfill.
In a land application project, the sludge is sometimes simply
sprayed on the land, thereby it could more easily be a source
of odor.
72. Construction grant regulations do require compliance with
applicable state and local laws. The applicability of the
Des Plaines ordinance is being determined by the courts. The
500 foot HUD guideline cannot be applied to all cases, since
each case must be judged on its own merits.
73. We are requiring mitigative measures to comply with the cited
intent of the National Environmental Policy Act. (See Chapter
3, Section C and Chapter 5, Section I and L)
74. See responses #26 and #72 as well as Chapter 5, Section C.
75. Chapter 6 is to express public comment in the final EIS, not the
draft. Public comments were reviewed and considered by USEPA
prior to writing the draft EIS.
76. See response to question #11, Chapter 1, Section E and Chapter
3, Section A of the final EIS on the O'Hare WRP.
77. The legality and validity of the City of Des Plaines, M-23-74
Health Ordinance will be resolved in the courts. A grant
condition of funding the WRP is that it meet all applicable
Federal, State and local laws.
78. See Chapter 3, Section B.
79. See response to question #32.
80. Constructing a single 850 acre foot combined overflow reservoir
is not a solution to the problem defined for the O'Hare Service
Area. The formation of the O'Hare Service Area and decision to
build the WRP is discussed in Chapter 1, Section E and Chapter 3,
Sections A, B and C.
81. See Chapter 3, Section A.
6-97
-------
82. See Chapter 1, Section E.
83. See response to question #18, Chapter 1, Section E and Chapter
3, Section A.
84. This statement is relevant to the projects being evaluated in
this impact statement.
85. See response to question
86. As of this date, we are examining the need to do an EIS on TARP.
87. See Chapter 1, Section E and Chapter 3, Section A. At the
present time, we have not determined whether any additional
public hearings will be necessary.
88. See response to question #83, Chapter 3, Sections B and C
and appendix Q.
89. No comment necessary.
90. Dr. Bunch is referring to the fact that there has been no
documentation of a health problem resulting directly from
the aerosols generated by a sewage treatment plant. He
therefore concludes that the risk would be very small. Very
little actual study has actually been done to conclusively
define the risk involved.
91. The O'Hare water reclamation plant is designed without primary
settling basins, since it will generally be operated as a
two-stage aeration facility.
92. They were suggested simply as a means of decreasing any risk
that does exist, however small.
93. We are in complete agreement with Dr. Wellings statement. This
was one of the many factors considered in our conclusion to
require adequate aerosol suppression facilities.
94. It is not clear that the St. Peterburg plant cited has sludge
handling facilities on site, although this is likely to be the
case. It would not be valid to compare a plant without
sludge handling facility and with its proposed odor control
measures to another activated sludge plant unless they have
similar process facilities. Furthermore, many other factors
relating to composition of raw sewage, type of processing
equipment and operation and maintenance procedures must be
similar to make a comparison.
6-98
-------
95. Our proposed mitigative measures will be sufficient, we feel,
to provide the assurance prescribed in the National Environmental
Policy Act.
96. The distance requirements cited are applied to forestall any
odor problems and not to protect adjacent residential com-
munities from a potential health hazard, which was the
subject of question 5.
97. Apparently, Mr. Clifford Risley does not feel that Clavey
Road and the proposed O'Hare WRP are comparable situations. We
have considered paragraph 4.13 in evaluating the proposed
project as discussed in the final EIS on the WRP.
98. The cited reference shows that from 1800 feet to 4224 feet
there was only a 58% reduction. It should be pointed out,
however, that this was only one sample and before any generali-
zations or conclusions are made, all the data given in Table I
of the Adams and Spendlove article must be considered.
99. See response to #56. It is impossible to state explicitly
what is risk-free.
100. No comment necessary.
101. MSD was relating their experience at the Hanover treatment
plant with respect to effect on property values and the
acceptance of a sewage treatment plant adjacent to their
residences.
102. One instance of which we are aware is the Coney Island Water
Pollution Control Plant operated by the City of New York.
The capacity of the plant is approximately 100-110 MGD. There
are apartment buildings and two-family dwellings immediately
adjacent to the plant site.
103. The Salt Creek Plant does not have a high population density
around it. Much of the area adjacent to the plant is
undeveloped. We anticipate that microbial survival data will
be available when the Salt Creek Study is completed.
104. No comment necessary.
105. See appendix Q, attachment D for MSB's position on this question.
6-99
-------
106. Possibly, they anticipated our concern for aerosol suppression.
107. USEPA has tried to answer all relevant questions raised by all
groups and individuals related to the proposed O'Hare projects.
108. With respect to 12.2 in Appendix N, beginning on N-13, the
listed items are points of reference to be applied consistent
with 40 CFR 35.935.4.
109. See response to slides #49-52 and #55-57 and see Chapter 3,
Section C and Chapter 5, Sections C, I and L.
6-100
-------
f. HUD Isolation Interpretations
The City of Des Plaines sent the letter on the following
page to 87 HUD offices in the United States. The responses
they received are summarized in the following table. Our
response to this issue is discussed in Ahapter 5, Section
C and in our response to Slides 49-52 and 55-57.
Summary of HUD responses to Des Plaines letter dated 3/11/75.
Name of Office Isolation Distances Recommended
Anchorage, Alaska FHA Insuring Office 1000 feet
Atlanta,Georgia Area Office 500 feet
Charleston, West Virginia FHA Insuring Office 500-1000 feet
Chicago, Illinois Area Office 500 feet
Cleveland, Ohio FHA Insuring Office 500-1500 feet
Columbia,South Carolina Area Office 300 feet
Coral Gable, Florida FHA Insuring Office 400 feet
Houston, Texas FHA Insuring Office 300 feet
Indianapolis, Indiana Area Office 250-500 feet
Des Moines, Iowa FHA Insuring Office 1000 feet
Jackson, Mississippi Area Office 200 feet
Jacksonville, Florida Area Office 400 feet
Louisville, Kentucky Area Office 250-600 feet
Lubbock, Texas FHA Insuring Office 1600 feet
Grand Rapids, Michigan FHA Insuring Office 800 feet
6-101
-------
Name of Office Isolation Distances Recommended
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Area Office 750-1000 feet
Minneapolis, Minnesota-St. Paul Area Office 1000 feet
Phoenix, Arizona FHA Insuring Office 500 feet
San Francisco, California Area Office 300 feet
San Juan, Puerto Rico Commonwealth Area Office 330 feet
Shreveport, Louisiana FHA Insuring Office 500 feet
Washington, D. C. Area Office 1000 feet
San Diego, California FHA Insuring Office 500 feet
6-102
-------
RICHARD f. WARD
Ald«rm»n 8th Word
THE CITY OF DBS PLAINES
COOK COUNTY. ILLINOIS
•••
MEMBER ILLINOIS
(AC 312) 827 8715 MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
March 11, 1975
SEtslT "To ALL 87 MuD Off(t£$ liJ
ANSWERS WERE
We are attempting to determine a reasonable isolation
distance "between the boundary line of our proposed ?2 MGD
activated sludge sewage treatment plant and existing
residential boundary lines.
As the attached excerpts from several HUD Regulations
indicate, local interpertation is necessary and each
situation is carefully examined for mortgage insurance
purposes. It is our understanding that the advice of
qualified sanitary engineers and local health authorities
is solicited and considered to determine the eligibility
of a property for mortgage risk insurance.
We would appreciate copies of your local guidelines and
2 or 3 representative field reports or appraisals that
cite distances from sewage plants. We are aware that
the outdated Neighborhood Standards #6 specified a
minimum isolation distance of 750 feet and we have already
received a few examples that cite distances of 500 feet
to one-half mile. We need your input so that we will have
a broader base of information. We would appreciate your
reply before March 21st so that it can be incorporated
in our presentation at the USEPA public hearing on March
31, 1975. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard F. Ward
Attachment
6-103
-------
2. William H. Radcliffe 136 W. Dover Dr.
DCS Ploiries, Illinois bOOxo
April 18, 1975
hr. liar Ian D. Hirt
Phi t-.f " f- I ]f c'l^^ivr
o IA.LOJL. £ py '*c^
Planning Branch . v
United States TSnvironmental Protection Agency
236 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 6060!+
Subject: Environmental Impact Statement for the O'Hare Sewage
Treatment Plant and Its Associated Projects.
Dear Mr. .Hirt:
When the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago had
their hearing on the O'Karo T.rt-;atrnonc Plant on December 19, 1971;,
I submitted a report. Because of the l^ck of good technical process
flow data in the MSDGC EIS, ths report was aimed at pointing out
potential areas of concern. A copy of this report was sent to your
branch. Unfortunately, I find myself in a similar situation after
studying the US3PA SIS on the O'Hare projects. It is therefore my
intent in this letter to address a few of those concerns.
I. Site Location
It is my opinion that the site at Oakton and Slmhurst Roads does
not correspond to 'good engineering practice1 and does not comply
vith thf3 guidelines for the locations of sewage treatment plants
within the State of Illinois as outlined in the 'Ten State Standards
for Sewage Treatment Plants'. There/ are three key factors factors
which negate the selection of this site; bordering residential
area, major prevailing wind and size of the plant. The plant to be
constructed is a large treatment plar.t. It is to be built down wind
6-104
-------
2
0'1-are WTP
4
and across the utroet from an existing; residential area. I do not,
believe that a 100 foot or a 1+00 feet buffer zone is justified when
considering these facts. It is my opinion that a plant of this s^e
should be at least £ mile away froir existing residential areas,
especially when it is to be built down wind of the residential area
in the direction of the major prevailing wind.
II. Sewer Detention Time
In one of the USEPA technology transfer bulletins prepared by Roy
E, Western Inc., one of the problems presented was the receipt of
septic sewage at the Washington D. C. sewage treatment plant. It
occurred primarily during the hotter months and was attributed -co
low flow in the complex sewer system. The toxic, flammable, highly
odorous gasses associated with such septic sewage would be stripped
out into the atmosphere by aeration. A solution to this is to add
sodium hypochlorite up stream of the plant. This will inhibit the
generation of lipS, but it also increases the load on the aeration
tanks since it is a bacterielde for the bacteria required for
BOD reduction. I question the design of the tunnel and reservoir
system. Will this generate septic conditions? Further with the
tunnel and reservoir system and potential varying septic conditions,
will the sodium hypochlorite system truly control odor problems or
tend to minimize them at best? I believe the latter is true.
6-105
-------
3
O'Hare WTP
4
HI. Or, one for Odor Control
A building will be built to contain the incoming. odorous screenings.
To control the odors ozone will "be employed to treat the exist
gassfts. The system as described leaves m* very skeptical. I believe
that an excess of ozone will have to be employed with this system
to effectively control the odor. This is not a desirable condition.
As the system is to theoretically work, I again perceive a unit which
will minimize odors but not control them0
IV. Potential Health Hazard from Air Borne Bacteria.
Here we are dealing in true speculation. The USSPA EIS speculates
i
IS
that there mostlikely^no major health hazard and in the future if
this proves to be wrong then they will try to correct the problem.
I have a lot of respect for the U33PA. I consider this concept to
be well below their usual policy.
It is a known fact that there are many different viruses and bacteria
in waste water. We are concerned only with those that are pathogens.
As the EIS states those pathogens will have a air borne life in a
generated aerosol directly dependent of the particular pathogen and
the climatic conditions present. Farther in publications of the
American Water Works Association^, it is pointed that such pathogens
borne in water have their greatest effect on the young. As individuals
grow older they develop a greater irr.ranity to the pathogens found in
waste water,
Kow I run Into a problom. It was my understanding that in
standards were to be adopted on just such emissions as what is
being considered here. But, I find very little and for the most
-------
page I;
0«Hare WTP
t
very Inadequate work being done on this subject. One apparent
standard is to use E. Coli as the guideline for concentrations
of pathogens present. It is assumed that the various pathogens
are present in some concentration proportional to the known
concentration of E. Coli. Although this is true, the proportion
will vary with the incidence rod the type of illnesses prevalent
in the area. The only documentation whichAstudied"«, Coli aerosol
emissions from equipment processing sewage is reported in the
American Institute of Chemical Engineers', Recent Advances in Air
Folution Cpntrol, Volume 70, 197l|. In this publication data is
accumulated from which estimates of S. Coli emissions can be made.
further in this publication, Ic is recommended that aerosol S. Coli
emissions be the same as those for water when related to human
intake. This would limiz E. Coli emissions to e maximum of 3.5 S.
Coli per cubic meter.
Based on the above article and a flow of \tfy KGD, the S. Coli
emissions from the plant would be as low as one million S. Coli
per hour to more than several billion E. Coli per hour. The source
concentration could range from, about 3H-0 3. Coli per cubic meter
to above 10,000 E. Coli per cubic laeber. No known relationships
between these concentrst j ons to other pathogens were found. V.'ith
the possibility of generation of such high quantities of pathoger.s
in aerosols, it is hard for me ,,^ lightly dismiss the potential
problem.
»
and
Now for an aside some speculation on my part. In the Chicago Tribu:
anted Friday, April [j., 197£ two items x^ere reported on page p,
6-107
-------
page
p'Hare WTP
i
The first article wns the fact that Chicago had double the national
average of known cases of infectious hepatitis. Is this a problem
in this area? Such reports make mo curious about the location of
a large treatment plant in relation to residences.
The second article dealt with the study of cancer causing viruses in
the Fox River, In this article thero was a map of Aurora with symbols
identifying leukemia and lymphoma victims. I noted that there appeared
to be a heavier cluster ec^t of the Fox River and towards the middle
to south end of Aurora. This cluster is located down wind from a
treatment plant which I believe might be within one mile of the
cluster. This particular plant is located at the south end of Aurora
on the west bank of the Fox River. It employs extensive spray systems
and costantly seems to have a heavy mist generated. Is there a
relationship? j am not qualified to address such a question, and for
me to"speculate is just as bad as the speculation in the EIS.
V. Combined Reservoir
In the USKPA EIS there is a map which shows a combined reservoir
southwest of MSD site. This is the reservoir that the KSD would
not admit to on December 19, 197I)-* This reservoir, depending on
design, with the proposed treatment plant at Oakton and Elmhurst
Roads would compound the problems. One known proposed design for
this reservoir at £0 acre surface and an annual potential evaporation
rate of 32.66 inches per year, will have an average evaporation rate
of about 14-0,000 pounds of water per hour. A southwest wind across
such a reservoir then crossing the treatment plant would hp.ve to
increase the life span of the air borne bacteria because of the
' fi-ino
-------
pCRO 6
0' Hnre WTf
incivased humidity. If such a plan is a possibility, I cannot see
how tho current EIS can be valid since a reservoir could drastically
effect the overall environmental impact .
It is my opinion that a plant built at Oakton and Elmhurst Roads
should be inclosed because of the previously stated reasons. Also,
from the information presented in the EIS on odor control and
considering this location, I believe such a plant should employ
incineration of exit gas streams. The cost penalties that are
incurred in building such an inclosed plant contradicts my engineerinc
economic principles,
I believe the plant should be built as proposed in the EIS, but wi~ch
the proper site selected. This site should be remote to existing
residential areas; thus, allowing for the natural decay and dilution
of the pathogen containing aerosols. It is my opinion that a minimum
of % a mile should be adequate for most normal conditions.
It is my opinion that it is wrong to build a treatment plant on t,he
basis that we don't know ii" there is a problem, but in the future
if there is a problem, we will try to correct it. .
Yours truly,
William H. Radcliffe/ P.;
State of Iliionis
6-109 Number
Dat«
-------
Bibliography:
i
1. Metropolitan Sanatary District of Creator Chicago, gnv i ronment _al_
Assessment. Statements for Proposed Projects for the Upper
Dos Plainos Service" Basin: O'Hare Tunnel Project, O'Haro
Water Reclamation Plant, and O'Hare Solids Pipeline,
November, 197ij..
2, Climates of th« TJnitud States, Volumo 1, by the Officials
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 197lj.* v
3» U.S. Department of Commerce, National Weather Service, Chicago
Euro au * ,
>
ij., Lako Evaporation in Illinois by W. J. Roberts & J. B. Stall,
Illinois State Water Survey, Report Investigation No. 57 •
5>. C horn i c al En g i ne e r s ' H s ndb o ok , Fifth Edition, Robert H. Perry and
Cocil H. Chilton, editors, McGraw-Hill, 1973.
6, Standard Kathods for tho ExaminaTCion of Water and Wastewatar,
Thirteenth Edition, Prepared and published by : American
Public Hop.lth Association,, American Water Works Association,
Water Pollution Control Federation.
7. Summary Roport of Wastewator Kcxnagcmont Study for Chicago
' -.-.T South Hind of Lake Michigan^ Dapartment of the Army,
Chicago District, Corps of Engineers, April, 19?i{..
8, ASHRAK Handbook of Fundamental.- ^American Society of Hofflting,
Refrigerating, and Air- Condition ing Engineers, Inc. ,197i|.
9. Wastowater Engineering, by Mctcalf & Eddy, Inc., McGraw-Hill,- ;1 972.
10. Coliforrn Emissions from Air/Wator Contactorsj A Preliminary
Attempt to Establish Maximum Concentrations by L. J.
Thibodenux and N. J. Carter, Rocgnt Advances in A_ir
Pollution Control, American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, Voluinc 70, 197^.
11, Air Pollution, by Virginia Brodino, Harcourt Brae© Jovanovich Inc. -
12, Operation of Wastawator Troatmont Plants, V/PCP Manual of
Practice No. 11. Water "Pollution Control Federation, 1970,
i
13. Wat ft r Quality Network, 1971, Summary of Data, Volume 2, State
of Illinois' Environmental Protection Agftncy,
.. Process Posign Kanusl f or .JTprrri.d.l.ng J^yl stinp; w
- treatment Plants , for "Environmental Protection Agency,
by Roy F. Woston, Inc., October, 1971*.
»
^. Rocormnondod Standards for Sewage Works, 1971 Revised Edition,
Member States: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin;
Health Education Service.
-------
16, Do a j p;n C r IT. o r 1 n f o r S o wo rap; o Sy_a tjrmg^y Division of Wustowatcr
Technology and Surveillance, Section of Environmental
Health Sorvico3s Texas State Department of Health, 1970.
17. Supreme Cour-c Affirms I\Ton- Do gradation Ruling, Journal of tho
;.lr Pollution Control A^s-jociation, Volumo 23, p. 720
August 1973.
18. Air Pollution Control,, Chemical Engine a ring, Doakbook Issue,
19- Technology Gear Up to Control 7ino Particles, Chemical
Enpanooring, p. 50^ Augj^rc 21, 1972.
20» Controlling Pino Particlos, Chemical Engineering, Deskbook
lo^uo, pa 107 ) tlun« 16, 1973.
21. .lir Pollution second ..clioxon by Arthur C. Stern, Volume 1,
Academic Press, 1 /66«
22« Nitrification and Dc-nitr-if Ication Facilities , Wastewatcr
j U.S, "shvironmoii-cdl Protection Agency, August, 1973.
23* Dosi^n. Crltoria OUIaro VJatcr Reclamation Plant, Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, March 15, 1972.
6-111
-------
2. Response to Mr. William H. Radcliffe
I. Site Location - See Chapter 3 Section C, and Chapter 5
Section B, C, K and L.
II. Sewer Detention Time
It is theoretically possible that low flow conditions could
prevent adequate scouring of the proposed tunnels and thereby
allow some deposition to occur. We believe, however, that low
flow conditions will not cause odor problems at the WRP given
the odor control planned.
III. Ozone for Odor Control - No comment necessary.
IV. See response to I.
V. Combined Reservoir - See Chapter 1, Section E.
6-112
-------
Richard J.
Registered Professional Engineer
'State of Illinois
1270 Leslie Lane
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
3. Richard J. Maggio
April 19,1975
iNG bKAiNUi - Kegion V c
FIL£ NO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Kent Puller RECEIVED
Plannin g Branch
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois 6060U
Dear Mr. Fuller«
I have reviewed the Draft of the Environmental Impact Statement dated
March, 1975 for the MSDGC O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant And Solids
Pipeline and my comments, which I would like incorporated into the
notes of the March 31, 1975 meeting, are as follows*
1. In the operational Impact - air quality section (page ii) the use
of the words "occasional odors", "expected to be infrequent" and
"aeration tanks will generate a 'limited quantity of aerosals' containing
bacteria and virus particles" brines to mind an old engineering slogan.
If something can happen, it will happen. In my experiences, I have found
that this slogan can be extrapolated to say, If something 6annot happen,
it probably will happen infrequently; If something is expected to happen
infrequently, it .just may happen fairly often, too often.
5^ Pages l-r> and 1-7 address the present problem of overload of the
ftenth Side Sewage Plant during wet weather and resultant discharge of
raw sewage into streams and backup into basements^ I would certainly wel-
come a permanent solution to thi
-------
2.
cost figures generated for these alternatives. Appendix A and C dcas not
provide adequate coverage. I wpuld certainly expect the MSD to prove be-
yond a shadow of a doubt that their proposed WRP will at least handle a
maximum credible rain storw with no discharge or backup of raw sewage into
streams or homes,
3. On page 2-1, It is shown that Des Plainec has the 2nd hierhest population
of the entire 58.2 square mile service area. I certainly do not object
to a WRP in Des Plaines. What I do object to is the frequent and non-
justified statement made throughout the ri- aft report that "WRP*s must be
located in high population zones." I wjuld like this statement to be
justified and have adequate cost and operational effectiveness data and
analysespresented qualifying this philosophy. I refer you to the nuclear power
plant -i which was recently disallowed on the Indiana Dunes portion of Laka
Michigan because of the esthetic ard health aspects. I also refer you to the
similar claims made by the nuclear industry in regard to their perfect
record of never having had an incident in which a life was lost or d isease
inflicated upon a human being duo to the operational malfunction or accident
in a nuclear plant. Nuclear plants, even with their excellent safety record are.
forced to be placed in low population zones andwith a very large buffer
zone between the plant boundary and residential areas. Why so much attention
is given to the location, design, and operation of nuclear power plants
and such .little attention to sewage plants is beyond me. Unlike the nuclear industry,
the sewage treatment industryappears to take the attitude that precautions will not
be taken until a major incident occurs and many people are seriously affected by a
plant malfunction or accident. These occurences should be anticipated andthe site
and plant design fixed accordingly. .* •
-, f
I*. On page 2-21, It is mentioned that *no endangered or rare species —•
are known to be present in this area," I wholeheartedly disagree with this
statement. My son and daughter are the only ones I havei how rare can jrou
get. Let's give as much attention to people, particularly children and
infants who are* fci&hly susceptible to disease. Although I do not know
much of physiology, medicine, and health, I must ask how many" people will
contract disease due to the WRP which are not publicized as related to or
caused by the WRP. It seems that although nobody dies from "sewage-itis",
many people contract deseases due to the complicated physiology between
germ (sewage) and man. I would certainly not want to feel the MSD com-
promised an unknown quantity of childrens lives for a few dollars,
5. Page 2-26 states that "air quality in the vicinity of the project sites
is severely degraded because of the proximity to O'Hare Airport." I Bust
say that the proposed area is particularly plagued by air pollution from the
airport, too many restaurants, shopping areas and resultant pollution from
auto traffic and noise. Mr. B. T. Lyman of KSDGC states in his letter
dated Feb.'^l, 1975 that " it is somewhat incongruous that the district
must respond to concerns associated with e'.:i.ssions from aircraft operations."
•JMr. Lyman should be informed that we are not dealing here with life-in-a-
goldfish-bowl. The total health aspect picture must be analyzed, not the
adequacy of one piece of equipment, one process, or even one WRP,
6e In regard to chapter 3f section A on capacity of the proposed WRP,
insufficient data concerning plant design vs. capacity of various sewage
treatment plants throughout the country is presented. The plant is a very
large capacity plant and most research, both pro and con has been conducted on plants
much smaller in size . We can certainly expect the health
/
6-114
-------
hazards and odor problems to crrow at least in direct proportion to size
unless a great deal more air confining and purification features are de-
signed into the plant oar larger buffer zones employed between Ihe plant
boundary and residential areas (or preferably both).
7. On page 3-10 and 3-H» site selection criteria are presented. It is
very striking that the health aspects of an adequate buffer zone are not
mentioned. I would think this should be tl,e most fundamental criterion
in selecting a site. I would certainly chink an organization such as the
EPA (if not the MSDGC) would agree. I m fully aware that sewage treatment
plants have, in the past, been locate-! in high population zones and with
little or no buffer zone. However, 1 believe this lack of consideration for
people near the sewage plants by t'oe plant owners was0ne of the reasons the EPA
was formed| to protect us from such negligence and lack of concern. The
faot that the applicant owns &Lpiece of property should not affect the
decision of the EPA, The XSDGC should be made to reevaluate each of the
9 sites objectively* Answers such as "the availability of sites is
unkhown" or "The airport authority appears to be opposed to the construction
of a sewage treatment facility on its land" as stated on page 3-17, are
strictly inadequate, The airport would benefit from the WRP, the plant
will be low profile and. in no way can interfere with flight operations, and
if it is as esthetically pleasing as the draft statement claims, it
should actually improve the ugly terrain around the airport. The area
presently looks like a slum, and I can't think of a better site for tfcis
WRP.
gB I'm not very impressed with the statement on pages 3-17 that the
"construction of the WRP should occur as soon as practical"t since for
the past 10 years the people of Des Plaines have resisted construction on
the proposed site 1. The MSDGC has stubbornly insisted on this site and
•gainst the wishes of the City, went ahead and purchased the site. If
they had given at least a. little consideration to the people living near
to the site, they could have had their plant built already.
9» If sewage treatment plants are necessary "as an economic stimulus to
the local and national economy", why is the MSDGC so intent on building a
"minimum feature" treatwent plant on a most convenient and ecologically
inadequate plant siteT I admit that a better design on a better site
would cost more, but all the better for our economy.
10. The inadequacy in the Environmental Inpacts of chapter 5 on Air
Quality are apparent. All sorts of problems concerning odors and aerosel
generation are discus see* and several techniques presented which could
mitigate their effects. Then the EPA states that although there is much
scientific evidence indicating health hazards generated by sewage treat-
ment plants, the evidence must be put "into perspective in terns of public
need". Now, I ask you, why should research be performed if regulatory
agencies totally ignore the evidence. The EPA is essentially saying,
don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up. True, an
"interpretation at this time is not in the interest of everyone concerned"
but an interpretation by the EPA shoulu be made in performing the duties
made law under the Environmental Protection Act since no-interpretation
is certainly not in the interest of anyone living near the WRP.
11. The EPA has no right to state (pages 5-22) that "Immunization by
inhalation of small quantities of pathogens may protect us from disease1?.
I wonder what the Surgion General would say about the MSD appearing to practice lief
medicine on a mass scale with vaccines unknown in nature.
6-115
-------
12. In the EPA findings on pages 5-32, how can the "present buffer zone be
adequate" when there is literally no buffer zone at all? In addition,
stating that covering of the plant is unnecessary for "plants of tH s size1*, |
I aga-l.n remind the EPA that this is not a small plant. Allowing an un-
covered plant of this size is certainly not "protecting" anyone.
13. Appendix D questionnaires certainly present a great deal of evidence
on the O'Hare WRP, pro and con. It anpears that the EPA dismissed all of the j
con in their evaluation and preliminary approval of the plant, I feel more
interpretati on of these questionnaires should be performed by the EPA. .
P.. In appendix I, page 1-7, the MSDGC admits that buffer distance is very f
important in site location by dismissing 1 r.j Randall and Ledbetter findings
on the basis that only a 100 ft. distant was employed in the research.
What was the capacity of the plants studied? Why have they totally dis- i
regarded buffer distance in the site location of this WRP? *
15. In regard to the Plotkin and Katz findings that "the virus particle j
ntust come in contact with a susceptible cell", I am sure that a certain j
percentage of virus particles will eo^e in contact with a certain percentage |
of susceptible cells (people). We can't change the quantity of susceptible !
cells but we certainly can minimize the quantity of virus particles through j
proper site location and plant design.
16. On pa.ge 1-13, the MSDGC claims that "sewage treatment plant workers are
healthier than workers in other industries". I am sure the MSB has very |
stringent health requirements for employment and that their claims are i
probably true. I wonder what percentage of sewage plant workers are infants,
young children, and senior citizens who are less immune to WRP plant aerosols?
17. In appendix N covering Plant Design Criteria, it appears that certain
plant deficiencies such as inadequate buffer zone, location of plant in
high population area, and design of plant with no confining of aerosols and
minimal treatment of aerosols with ozone is to be compensated for by the
chlorination of raw sewagB. I would like to point out, that analytical instru- '
mentation such as residual chlorine analyzers are not highly reliable and !
I would expect frequent over-chlorination and under-chlorination of the j
raw sewage in this plant. Over-chlorination would tend to produce a i
chlorinated aerosol from the aeration tanks and resultant eye irritation
to nearby residents, Under-chlorlnation in turn would increase pathogen
levels in the aerosols. I believe simply relying on chemical treatment
of raw sewage and aerosols is inadequate and further that all possible aerosol
generators in the plant are not handled by the ozone units supplied. In
addition, I would like to see further proof that ozone will not only mask
odors but will reduce the amount of pathogens in the primary plant aerosols,
I believe we should remove, not cover up, all plant emitted pathogens. H
18. In regard to on-site power generators, I would like to know whether
sufficient power is available, on loss of off site power, to operate plant
at sufficient capacity to handle the influent from a severe rain stor**. If
the on-site power system is not adequately sized for severe rain storm cap-
acities, we can certainly expect that the flooding, discharge and sewage
backup problems have not been completely re:, /Ived even assuming the storm water
reaches the plant intake at sufficient rate to avoid flooding and backup,
19» The limiting factor in flood control may not be WRP plant capacity
but the capacity of all main and branch conduits leading to the WRP. Before
flooding can be effectively controlled, a thorough study of all sewer mains
in the entire service area must be made, if this is not done, the flooding of
homes can be expected to continue. I feel the entire service area population
is possibly being deceived that this WRP is a cure-all. The problem is certainly not
that simple.
20. I»m not satisfied with the MSDGC claim that the HUD-FHA will lower their
standards, In regard to isolation distances, to comply with MSDGC design.
-------
5.
Tha MSDGC should be forced to comply wit.hHUD-FHArequiremen^s, not have the
KUD-PHA lower it's standards. These standards were established for certain
reasons and if these standards are to be violated, the MSDGC should be made
to provide detailed .justification and adequate proof that the basis for the
standards are erroneous. The MSDGC certainly has not adequately addressed
HtJD-FHA isolation distance standards.
In conclusion, I would like to add that the 3 year construction period
could easily be extended if certain prcble-ns arize. The service area is in
bad need of flood control measures anH I don't feel we can wait 3 years or
longer for this flood relief. Other "lore expedient alternatives need to be
studied.
In addition, any facility that is provided sVould be designed to give max-
imum environmental protection tc neighboring residential areas. Later
backfitting of more effective environmental control features is totally
inadequate for 2 reasons. First, the plant (unlike other types of industrial
facilities) cannot be shutdown until remedial measures are taken. People
will be forced to suffer unt .1 the measures are completed. Secondly, the
remedial measures will take a considerable amount of time for completion.
I believe if there is any possibility of the need for more environmental
controls, they should be incorporated into the initial plant design and I
might add that confining and removal of dangerous pathogens from plant
aerosols appears called for en the basis of fcther plants in existence.
There incorporation now would certainly be more nays* effective than backfit«
ting at a later date.
Lastly, if the MSDGC plant design and location is suspect, one might also
lack confidence that the plant would be operated with any greater degree of
conscientiou sness and concern.
Based upon the above, it is apparent that although the plant may be de-
signed and plant site land purchased, the MSDGC has grossly failed, by their
own admission, to consider the total "environmental picture11 into their
design criteria.
I believe the EPA should favor a conservative plant design and site lo-
cation where a great deal of environmental unknowns are present rather than
favoring the proposed design and site location. I believe an. organization
sticks its neck out when they make a decision in favor of economy and con^
venience where a great deal of public health and welfare implications exist.
A decision by the EPA in favor of a more conservative design and site
location would certainly remove much 6f the fear and doubt of nearby re-
sidents and maintain the creditable reputation the EPA presently has.
With confidence that the EPA will make a decision, on this matter, in
favor of our environment, I remain,
Very truly yours,
<&> sj* ^
Richard J.Tfeggio
RJM/CMM
co» Francis T. Mayo
Harlan .. Hirt
Valdas 7'. Adamkus
Richard F. Ward
Alan M, Abrams
Philip M, Crane 6-117
William J. Scott
-------
3. Response to Richard J. Maggio
1. Any biological process is capable of being upset. With respect
to the operation of a WRP, excessive concentrations of heavy
metal could cause a biological upset and a temporary odor.
Since the influent sewage is primarily municipal and ordinances
control influent concentrations of industrial wastes, biological
upsets are not expected but cannot be completely ruled out during
the life of the facility.
2. See Chapter 1, Section E and Chapter 3, Sections A and B.
3. In the site selection and EIS process, we have followed the
requirements of PL 92-500 (funding of wastewater treatment
plants), NEPA (PL 91-190) and USEPA regulations.
4. We agree that one's children are most precious and have considered
the potential health problem question. (See Chapter 3, Section C
and Chapter 5, Sections A, B, K and L.
5. No comment necessary.
6. See Chapter 5, Section B.
7. See response to question #4.
8. No comment necessary
9. See response to question #4.
10. See response to question #4.
11. No comment necessary.
12. There is a buffer zone.
13. USEPA is requiring facilities to suppress aerosol movement
from the site as a precautionary measure.
14. MSD would have had a larger buffer zone if the City of Des Plaines
had abandoned Wille Road.
15. See response to question #4.
16. No comment necessary.
17. Prechlorination is being provided for the purpose of mitigating
any potential odor problem and not to prevent pathogens from
being aerosolized. The mitigative aerosol suppression facilities
will be sufficient to avoid any potential health hazard.
6-118
-------
18. Sufficient backup power shall be provided .
19. USEPA is not building the WRP and conveyance system to control
flooding, but for water pollution abatement.
20. See Chapter 5, Section C for HUD - VA discussion.
The summary comments of Mr. Maggio have been addressed in
the Final EIS.
6-119
-------
C. Letter Comments
6-120
-------
Office of Water Program Operations
Comments on
Pre-Draft Environmental Statement
O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant
Des Plaines, Illinois
1. The statement contains much v; luable data on the project. As presented
in the statement, however, it is difficult to locate specific items of
required information. Section 1500. 8(a) of the CEQ Guidelines (40 CFR
1500) defines the topics that must be included in an EIS. Although these
may be discussed in different order; the discussion of each topic must
be easily identifiable. Th3 EPA regulations for EIS preparation (40 CFR
6) contain the same requirements, but are more specific with regard
to EPA related subjects.
2. It is stated (pg. 7) that approximately 5000 acres of the 37, 250 acres
in the Upper Des Plaines Basin are expected to remain unsewered
and are not included in the project. The statement should more
clearly state the reasons why these lands are expected to remain
undeveloped.
3. In the discussion of the flood prone areas, explanation should be
provided indicating the flood protection measures for the plant
which is situated in these flood areas.
4. It is indicated that the water quality in Higgins Creek is "probably"
below state water quality standards (pg. 28). This indicates that we
are in doubt about the quality (which could easily be measured). The
statement should be reworded to indicate that during storm bypass
conditions the runoff pollutes the stream to a point where the standards
are violated.
5. On page 66, it is stated that 15 GPCPD is considered excessive
infiltration. No information is given, however, whether MSDGC
has a program to relieve this flow or whether it has been
determined that it is more economical to treat these flows
rather than remedy them. This should be discussed.
6. The discussion of site selection mentions the closing of Wille
Road which crossed the site (pg. 81). Since this seriously
impacts the usable portion of Site 1, further discussion of the
disposition of this road should be provided.
7. The statement indicates (pgs. 2
-------
Some ambiguity exists in the discussion of the Higgiris Creek
modifications (pg. 129). The discussion should more clearly
differentiate between existing and proposed conditions and
should give a more detailed description of the proposed
storage and channel facilities.
The proposed plant will divert flows from Weller Creek and
Feehanville Ditch to Higgins Creek. A. discussion should be
provided concerning the expected impacts on Weller Creek and
Feehanville Ditch when this flow is removed and upon Higgins
Creek when the flow is increased. The discussion should
include conditions of low flow as veil as peak flows.
10. It is noted that ozone is to be used for odor control (pg. 141).
The impacts of this ozone on the plant operators were not
discussed. No discussion • /as provided concerning the noise
levels within the plant and the impacts upon the workers.
11. The conveyance system and the storm water storage facilities
are discussed in a separate EIS. The odor problems from the
storage pond may have significant influence upon the site
selection for the treatment plant, particularly with respect to
both sites owned by the MSDGC. Therefore, a further discussion
of the interrelations between these sites and the impacts from
the storage facilities should be provided.
6-122
-------
Responses:
1. The specific sections referenced in the regulations have been
included as Section I,J, and K of Chapter 5.
2. There are actually 41,382 acres in the service area. The 5000
acres which will remain uusewered consist of land uses as
forest preserves, cemetpries, military reservations and
designated open space areas.
3. This discussion is included in Chapter 4.
4. Higgins Creek is not subject to combined sewer overflows.
Additional water quality data is contained in Appendix T.
5. The MSDGC will uake any necessary action to relieve excessive
infiltration.
6. The proposed project has been designed with the assumption of
Wille Road remaining in place. If the City of Des Plaines had
vacated Wille Road it might have been possible to locate the
water reclamation plant further south on Site 1.
7. The discussion of plant capacity (Section B, Chapter 3) has
been revised.
8. These changes have been reflected in Chapter 4.
9. While the combined sewer overflows will be reduced from over
80 to 6 per year, this will not have an adverse effect on
Weller's Creek or Feehanville Ditch. The increased flow in
Higgins Creek will be easily accomodated since the channel
is being modified to handle 100-year storm events. The plant
effleunt would only be a small portion of such a flow in wet
weather.
10. Ozone will not have any impacts on the plant workers since the
only exhaust from the ozonation system is to the atmosphere.
This will be monitored and controlled so that the exhaust
concentration of ozone will not exceed the detectable level.
The noise levels in the plant will be maintained below OHSA
standards.
11. Chapter 1, Section E contains a discussion of why we believe
the combined sewer overflow reservoir can be separated from
the projects presently under consideration.
6-123
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P.O. Box 678, Champaign, Illinois 61820
April 9, 1975
Mr. J^rancis T. Mayo
Regional Administrator
U. S0 Environmental Protection Agency
Region V ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
230 South Dearborn Street RECEIVED
Chicago. Illinois 60604
APR 111975
Attention: Planning Branch - EIS Unit
PiANMiMi; BRANCH - Regio. V
'Dear Mr. Mayo: HI* wo. __
Ihe draft environmental impact statement for the proposed
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago O'Hare
Water Reclamation Plant and Solids Pipeline in Cook County,
Illinois, was forwarded to the Soil Conservation Service
on March 4, 1975 for review and comment.
Ihe proposal refers to levee and berm construction,, The
Soil Conservation .Service has standards and specifications
for establishing vegetative and woody plantings which may
be useful in contracting.
If land application is selected for disposal of solids, a
conservation plan for the site is extremely Important. Such
items as the soil type, .slope, erosion, cropping system,
conservation practices and other such items must be con-
sidered in planning such an operation.
Ihe local Soil and Water Conservation District, with assistance
of the U. S.. Soil Conservation Service and'other cooperating
agencies, provide this type of conservation planning assistance.
Contracts for construction of the proposed facilities and
spoil deposition should'include erosion and sediment control
as a requirement.
If
there are questions concerning the soils, fertilization,
herbaceous and woody 'plantings, or any soil and water con-
servation practice, don't hesitate to contact the U. S. Soil
Conservation Service District Conservationist.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the
proposed project.
Sincerely,
Daniel E8 Holmes A
State Conservationist
6-124
-------
Response:
Land application of sludge will be practiced. At the present
time, the MSDGC is applying sludge on strip-mined land in
Fulton County, Illinois. A comprehensive land use and water
quality control plan is prepared for each site used in the
Fulton County area.
MSDGC contracts routinely contain erosion and sedimentation
control measures.
6-125
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
CHICAGO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
219 SOUTH DKARBORN STREET
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6O6O4
NCCPD 22 April 1975
Mr. Francis T. Mayo
Regional Administrator
Region V
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Mayo:
This is in response to your letter of M March 1975 requesting
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the proposed Des Plaines - O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant (WRP)
and Solids Pipeline.
Our comments have been restricted to only those items which
we feel will clarify or add to the understanding of the proposed
action. The adequacy of the treatment process design is con-
sidered a matter outside the purview of the Corps. It is
assumed, however, from the statement on page 4-2 of the draft
EIS that the discharge from the O'Hare WRP will comply with the
water pollution regulations adopted by the Illinois Pollution
Control Board in July 1973 and approved by your office.
Chapter A, Description of the Proposed Action, should be
expanded to include a discussion of the restrictions on the type
and concentrations of pollutant loadings discharged into the
sewer system. It is our understanding that the treatment plant
is designed to achieve an effective control of only three
pollution constituents; namely, the biochemical oxygen demand,
suspended solids and ammonia nitrogen. The regulatory control
of discharge to the sewers is needed to comply with the
effluent and stream standards for all other polluting constituents.
This type regulatory control is particularly important in view of
the projected industrial developmer-1- within the service area.
Moreover, it is not clear whether or not provisions for in-stream
aeration are included as part of the plant design in order to insure
6-126
-------
NCCPD r';1 /U'i'i i 19Y1)
Mr. Kraru: In T. Mayo
coinp iianoe with the water- quality :;taridardr> for dissolved oxygen.
A statement should be included in the discussion on projected
design flows to clarify If the population projections are in
consonance with the official Ltate estimates prepared by the
Illinois Bureau of the Budget as the basis for resource planning.
In evaluating the cost-effective tradeoffs in sizing the plant,
consideration should be given to the dewatering rate and the
duration of the period when the water level in the tunnel
would be higher than the surrounding ground water (See page
5-12 of the draft EIS lor the proposed tunnel conveyance system
in the Des Plaines - O'Hare Service Area). This could be a major
problem with construction of the main reservoir deferred,
The disposal alternatives for the sludge from the John E. Egan
WRP should be discussed in greater detail in the EIS. The
discussion should cover the availability of possible disposal
sites, the cost of shipping the sludge and public acceptance
of the individual alternatives. The potential for incorporating
the sludge into the existing MSDGC Fulton County Reclamation
Program should also be assessed and the comparative (to the
other alternatives) beneficial as well as adverse impacts
identified along with the reasons for eliminating such an
alternative.
No Information is provided on the environmental impact of
the project relative to the affected aquatic ecosystems. The
EIS should discuss the existing aquatic ecosystems and describe
any expected changes in both Higgins and Willow Creeks and the
Des Plaines River. Such discussion should include not only
the type and quality of future fisheries but also the change
in flow regimen and the potential for both in-stream and bank
erosion.
The opportunity to review the draft EIS is appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
/te--
f / JAMES M. MILLER
^ Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
6-127
-------
Response:
The MSDGC has ordinances prohibiting or limiting the discharge
of certain materials, which could upset the treatment process,
to their system.
Instream aeration is not needed in this project to maintain
compliance with water quality standards.
The population projections are in consonance with the projections
of the A-95 clearinghouse, the Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission.
Discussion of the plant size has been revised (Chapter 3, Section
B).
The sludge from the John E. Egan Plant will eventually be land
applied in Fulton County, Illinois. We agree that the environ-
mental impact of this proposed sludge disposal method should
be addressed. We intend to prepare an EIS, specifically on the
land application project in Fulton County.
No biological sampling has been conducted on the streams in
the project area. The IEPA will begin some biological survey
work on Higgins Creek this summer.
6-128
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
CHICAGO AREA OFFICE
17 NORTH DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602
May 6, 1975
MKIilON V
100 flmilli W«< km Drive-
fill. *«.., llll.uil. f)l)000
INKF. PLY HI-F-K.N IO-
5.2PP (Goldfarb)
< . i
Mr. F. T. Mayo, Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency r
Region V ^ <-
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604 —
C c,
Dear Mr. Mayo: />
C
The Chicago Area Office of -he Department of Housing and Urban development
appreciates the opportunity to review the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
Greater Chicago's EIS for the O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant and thereby
recognize the responsible manner in which the MSD is planning to meet the
needs of Greater Chicago. In reviewing the EIS we were impressed with both
the comprehensive manner in which the MSD is meeting its demands and with the
careful design of this particular plant. We also appreciated the fine work
the USEPA did in preparing this EIS, particularly the sections on process
and solids handling alternatives. The USEPA seemed to identify several
alternatives which might be attractive for future use and it is hoped that
their dissemination in this form will prove to be the first phase of a planning
cycle that will lead to their eventual implementation.
Although the design of the plant seems to have given careful consideration to
the potential for adverse environmental impacts we were struck by the lack of
such consideration in the site selection criteria listed on pages 3-10 and
3-11 of the EIS. Such consideration would seem appropriate as both odor and
aerosol concentrations seem to be inversely proportional to a geometric
function of distance from the plant. The absence of environmental impact
considerations from site selection criteria would be justified if possibili-
ties of both odor and aerosol generation were eliminated. This has not been
demonstrated possible nor claimed in the EIS. It therefore seems inappro-
priate that the site closest to a residential was ultimately chosen.
The EIS prepared by the USEPA seems to indicate that there will be no adverse
impacts from construction of the proposed facility. In the absence of evi-
dence to the contrary we must take this assessment at its face value. We
would, however, 'Jtke to see the alternatives section of the final EIS expanded
to include the following points:
What are the total relative impacts of each site upon residential
communities. This might be evaluated by using a system of concentric
rings around each source of odors and aerosols and tabulating the
number of residential units in each ring. For example, the following
6-129
-------
2
system might be used
ring 1 = 0 - 250' radius
ring 2 = 250' - 400' radius
ring 3 = 400' - 600' radius
ring 4 = 600' - 900' radius
ring 5 = 900' - 1500' radius
ring 6 = 1500' - 2500' radius
Why is the City of Des Plaines refusing to vacate Willie Road? It
seems as if this action would significantly increase the attractiveness
of this site and therefore merits a full exposition of the relevant
issues.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this EIS. We would
appreciate receiving a copy of it in its final form.
Sincerely,
hnJU Waner
irector
Chicago Area Office
6-130
-------
Response: Chapter 3, Section C of this EIS addresses the environmental
impact considerations of odor potential and aerosol generation.
This is further expanded upon in Chapter 5 (Environmental
Impacts of the proposed action) Sections B,C,F,I, and L.
Appendix R contains an anaDj-sis of population density from
the center of sites 1 and 2 (based on 1,000 foot concentric
circles) and is part of the site selection discussion in
Chapter 3, Section C.
The City of Des Plaines must answer the question why they
are refusing to abandon Wille Road.
6-131
-------
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2200 Churchill Road j|§C?
-------
s-~- STATE OF ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
605 STATE OFHfL bUILDINC)
400 SOUTH SPRING ST
ANTHONY T DEAN SPRINGFIELD 62706 HAROLD l_. ELLSWORTH
DIRECTOR _—— ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
CHICAGO OFFICE ROO"/ 1OO, 1 6O N. LA SALLE ST., 6O6O1
April 4, 1975
Mr. Francis T. Mayo
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Mayo:
The Department of Conservation has reviewed the draft EIS's for the
proposed tunnel conveyance system for the Des Plaines-O'Hare Service
Area and the proposed Des Plaines-O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant and
Solids Pipeline.
Both EIS's indicate the project will cause adverse impacts to Higgins
and Weller's Creeks. Since these creeks are presently degraded by
pollution and channelization and do not maintain a significant fishery,
the Illinois Department of Conservation believes the project's projected
improvement in water quality will far outweigh any minor adverse impacts
associated with the projects.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce A. Rogers
Supervisor,
Division of Long-Range Planning
BARraf
cc: Al Lopinot
Harry Wight ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RECEIVED
APR 1 : 1975
6-133 PIANJNUNG bHAJNCH - Region V
Recycled Paper
-------
Village of Mount Prospect
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
E. Northwest Highway Mount Prospect, Illinois BOO5B
Robert D. Teichert '"/to^Phane 312 / 392-6OOO
Mayor *f
March 31, 1975
United States Environmental
Protection Agency - Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Attention: Harlan D. Hirt, Chief of Planning
Dear Mr. Hirt:
Since I will be unable to attend the public hearings being
held today regarding the Metropolitan Sanitary District O'hare
treatment plant, I should like to use this letter as a means of
placing my comments and observations as the Mayor of the Village
of Mount Prospect before your agency.
While I can be sympathetic with the viewpoint of those who are
objecting to the installation of this facility on the basis that
it will adversely affect the local environment, I do not believe
such sympathy requires that I ignore the existing and known health
hazards in deference to speculations as to what might be. Inade-
quacies of the present MSD facilities for removing sewage from
our community have well been documented over the past ten years ...
it is the same for our sister communities, Elk Grove Village and
Des Plaines. The inability of the MSD interceptors to handle our
accumulated sewage results in raw sewage being overflowed into
our creeks and drainage ditches and backed up into the basements
of our residents.
For seven years the means to resolve this major area problem
has been at hand, but the specter of bad environmental impact
has been used to delay the implementation of this most needed
facility. No one can convince me that untreated raw sewage
stored in the basements of residences and spread across the open
land is preferable to storage of such sewage in controlled
circumstances. Unless your agency can assure our citizens that
the storage of raw sewage in and about our properties is a lesser
health hazard than the storage of such sewage at the O'hare
treatment facility, I would believe it mandatory that you approve
this facility for immediate construction.
6-134
-------
Ill ri, rMfj,- ;- March 31, 1975
The eit.i/tiiio oi' t,he commun i t, u-.;; in our area have long enjoyed
a dream world existence where by the flick of a handle they
could transport their sewage into Chicago for treatment and
disposal. We have refused to cooperate with each other and the
MSD on sewerage or flood control matters, particularly if it
would cost us our own money. The disposal of sewage and solid
waste materials is of little concern to us so long as we can
dump it in somebody else's b.^kyard ... when it is our own back-
yard, we become quite concerned. If each community was required
to collect and treat its own sewage within its own boundaries, I
wonder if the standards we demand of others would be exacted from
ourselves.
Certainly we should not through undue haste create new problems
when we solve old problems, but the seven years of delay on this
project with the multitude of hearings and court cases can
hardly be considered "hasty". If there is going to be continuing
delays, it would seem that those responsible for such delays
should be required to compensate the citizens of our communities
who suffered damage due to sewage backup.
I do not believe that a project designed via established experts
in the sanitary field can be so patently deficient as to warrant
the attacks being made on this project. If after seven years the
"alleged" deficiencies have escaped the notice of the Federal
experts, I would suspect that political pressure is now replacing
reason. We are not considering a beautification project for the
area, but a much needed reclamation plant to treat our own sewage
in a controlled and healthy manner.
Our citizens will no longer tolerate the stench of putrifying
raw sewage nor will we continue as spectators while the sewage
backs up into our basements and recreation rooms. We have a
present health hazard ... there is a solution at hand ... further
delay is unwarranted unless it can be proved that the proposed
facility will present a greater health hazard.
Please enter these comments in the record of your proceedings.
Very truly yours
Robert D. Teichert
6-135
-------
CfilCQQO
Qudubon
/oclety
(Chapter of the
National Audubon Society)
6414 N. Ridge
Chicago, Illinois 60626
(312) 262-1716
Founded by
R. Sethuraman
Helen P. Sethuraman
President & Chairman
Board of Directors
R. Sethuraman
Vice President
Dr. Peter L. Ames
Treasurer
William C. Florian
Recording Secretary
"•isan C. Pettinger
Bonding Secretary
--_ ictoria E. Kohlman
Chairmen of Committees
Broadcasts
Marcella Gewirth
Conservation
Marjorie B. Molyneaux
Education
R. Sethuraman
Field Trip
Sonia Florian
Finance
William C. Florian
Indiana Dunes
National Lakeshora
George Bunce
Membership
Helen P. Sethuraman
Nature Study &
Photography
Mildred A. Glueck
Program
Mildred A. Glueck
Publications
Philip Hablutzel
Publicity
Susan C. Pettinger
Scientific Research
Robert Tweit
Board of Directors
Homer C. Bishop
Jack Brickner
Virginia J. Brown
Philip Hablutzel
Bruce Sturzel
" --rge Bunce
Ann Garner
, las J. Jacob
x^_^de Kaplan
Robert Leighton
Sonia Florian
7322 East End Avenue
Chicago, Illinois
April 17, 1975
Franoia T. Mayo
Regional Adainiatrator
United States Envlronaental Proteotioa Agency
Region f
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 6otO
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
0*HARK SERVICE AREA wASTBWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
O'HARE WATER RECLAMATION PLANT AND SOLIDS PIPELINE
la responding to the environmental impact statements for the above projects we
would like to state at tha outset that we support the two plans, in principle,
and we believe that they are a big step forward to improve the total water
quality of the area« However, our review of these projects would be aore
understandable to all if we were asked to first respond to the total project
and then to the remaining seven of its partso ^his plan would give the reviewer
the opportunity to judge the impact on Jae environment of the total program
rather than to respond piecemeal for ex»ch separate part. Without this complete
understanding we will respondto the irdividual projects separately.
O'Hare Service AreaWastewater Conveyance System
We are concerned about the disposition of the rook and debris removed when digging
the tunnels. Mutt is to be done *dlth it, and how long will it remain there?
We would like to see positive t^atements about measures to be taken regarding:
Noise pollution abatement
Heavy drilling effects
Effect on private wells and supplies of water to those property owners
during construction * even though monitoring will be done
Sealing of drop shafts to prevent aerosol release at top of shafts
Reduction of partieulate matter levels from blasting and excavation
Restoration of the habitats for plant and animal life by replacing or
replanting vegetation to its original state
Incorporating ways to increase the retention time in the pond to reduce
siltation into Biggins Creek during construction
As combined sewer overflows to Weller's Creel: and Feehanville Ditch are reduced
from 80 per year to 6, water quality in these streams will improve and will serve
to encourage indigent plants and small animals to reestablish in the area*
O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant and Solids Pipeline
From our review of the proposal we feel there is more concern for the aesthetic
value of the plant and its surroundings than the biological impact on the area.
The fact that so little is known about the effects on public health of bacterial
and viral respiratory pathogens should cause the Metropolitan Sanitary District
to promote or to assure that others will promote increasing research in these
areas in order to solve specific problems. Giving rewards to scientific leaders
for their accomplishments and setting up future rewards for work to be done is
one method which could be used. Innumerable others would be of value so that we
no longer have to say that scientific knowledge hasn't uncovered the answers.
We are concerned with the impact of the plant on Higgins Creek, the nearby
forest preserve and the flood plain - the biological effects on the population
of the area, on the local traffic flow through and the siae of the buffer zone
around the plant.
Marjorie Molyneaux, Chai
Conservation Committee
Chicago Audubon Society
6-137
-------
Response:
The impacts of the proposed water reclamation plant on Higgins
Creek are discussed in Chapter 5, Section A. The proposed
pipeline through the forest preserve should have little
impact since the proposed route follows an existing pipeline
right-of-way. Discussion of the other concerns mentioned
can be found in Chapter 5.
6-138
-------
GRFAT LAKES CHAPTER
930-10 E. Shady Waj
Arlington Hts, II 60005
April 18, 1975
cr/
•*
c
Mr. Francis T. Mayo _.
Regional Administrator O <=>
U. S. B P A > c •
230 S. Dearborn Street CC o
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Subject: O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant & Solids Pipeline Project
Bear Mr. Mayo:
We have examined the environmental impact statements concerning the
O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant and associated Solids Pipeline
Project proposed by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Metro-
politan Chicago. The Sierra Club gives its approval to both of
these projects contingent upon the continued awareness and action
on the part of the MSD8C to eliminate any environmentally hazardous
consequences of the construction and operation of these projects.
The expected growth of the population and industrial activity of the
area serviced by the proposed projects will be accompanied by in-
creasingly larger wastewater loads. This, together with the very
limited assimilative capacity of the receiving waters in the area,
along with the Water Pollution Control Regulations of Illinois
(effective December, 1977) require that some type of wastewater
treatment system be developed for the region. It is the opinion
of the Sierra Club that a reasonable analysis of the problem was
presented in the Environmental Impact Statements, and that fair
and rational judgement was used to decide the best possible alter-
natives to the problem.
While construction and operation of the proposed projects present
some environmentally undesireable consequences, they are far out-
weighed by the potential benefit. . Nevertheless, every possible
thing should be done to limit or eliminate these undesireable
side effects. Areas of special attention include:
1) Potential health hasards of air borne pathogens. The existing
6-139
-------
(2)
evidence, while very incomplete, implies that airborne pathogens
pose no significant health problem. However, the MSDQC must be
prepared to control the aerosol emissions from the VHP if future
evidence and/or resident complaints show that, indeed, airbom*
pathogens do present a dangerous health problem.
2) Odors - Evidence is given that ;:he odors generally associated
with a sewage treatment plant occ^i- only urder conditions of
overflow or bypass, during sludga treatment, or as the result
of poor maintenance and operation procedures. The O'Hare WRP
is designed with sufficient design capacity and backup facilities
to prevent the overload or bypass situations. The plant does
not have sludge treatment facilities. Attention must be given
by the MSDGC to maintain high standards in the operation and
maintenance of the system so as to not create situations which
will cause odor problems. The MSDGC must be prepared to eliminate
any odorous emissions if such emissions do, in the future, become
a problem*
3) The ultimate site of sludge disposal - while sludge disposal
will be outside the service area of the O'Hare WRP, it must be
considered an integral part of the project. The MSDGC must be
prepared to handle the sludge disposal problem in an environ-*
mentally acceptable manner.
4) Every effort must be made to make the WRP project aesthetically
pleasing.
5) Every effort must be made to eliminate disturbances caused
by the construction of the O'Hare WRP and the associated Solids
Pipeline. Residents should be compensated for any damages or
costs attributable to decreased water quality or any loss of
property resulting from construction of the project.
6) Disposal of excavated material - The MSDGC must, be prepared
to dispose of the material excavated from the Solids Pipeline
Project in an environmentally and economically acceptable manner.
If the MSDGC maintains a constant vigilance over the above environ-
mental concerns, the Sierra Club must then give its approval to
the entire project.
Very truly yours,
L
Ann Fisher
Conservation Chairman
6-140
-------
Response:
Both the aerosol and odor questions are addressed in Chapter
3 and 5. Mitigative measures are planned to suppress the
movement of aerosols. Odors will not be a problem given the
extensive odor control measures which are proposed. Other
aspects of the submitted comments are discussed in Chapter 5.
6-141
-------
April 12, 1975
US Environmental Protection Agency
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 6060^
To Whoever Will Listen,
As a father who lives in the proposed sewerage treatment
area (within $ mile) and whose fe^ily would be the ones sub-
jected to any health hazard or ill effects of this project,
I wish to voice my protest against the O'Hare Water Reclamation
Plant at the proposed site*
I do so with the persistent feeling that my objections
and those of my neighbors' are only a waste of our time and
energy* I feel the Metropolitan Sanitary District and the USSPA
have already decided what best serves our needs and the Public
Hearings are only window dressing to give the public an
appearance of listening, I write this letter in the hopes that
I am wrong.
I have been following the pros and cons of this proposed
project, depending primarily on my neighborhood paper Cor most
of my information. When I learned the USEPA was holding a Public
Hearing on March 31, 1975, I attended to determine in my own mind
what effect this would have on my home and community.
I felt this was a very complicated project, consisting of
engineering layouts and data, statistical projections, environmental
studies, doctor reports and legal rulings, etc., and felt I was
not qualified in any way to offer an opinion* After attending
the hearing and reading the Environmental Impact Statements,
to my surprise, the more I got involved the less complicated
it appeared.
Instead of getting lost in all that mumbo-jumbo, I was
getting the clear picture, that what this argument boiled down to
was, in essence, a determined effort to reassert authority.
Would the MSD or any other government agency be able to retain
their exclusive right to dictate their pet projects as they saw fit
on an unwilling community?
If that is not the reason, then why won't the MSD consider
alternate sites away from residential homes? Why won't they
sit down with Community Representatives and try to work out
a satisfactory compromise?
Why was Site 2 rejected when it's tanks would be 950*
further away from residential homes, meets all of their own
requirements and is presently owned by the MSD?
Why were Site 3 and 8 rejected because the availability
of these sites are unknown? What action, if any, was taken to
determine their availability?
With the control devises, the MSD claims this facility
will not experience the foul odor problem as they have at ether
treatment plants and then contradict that statement by claiming
it is not possible to judge the exact extent of the potential
odor problem from the proposed WRP project.
6-142
-------
The NSD states they recognize the infection potential in
wastewater aerosols and claims it would be improper to conclude
that it will positively result in a public health hazard, but why
can't they deny that such aerosols present no potential public
health danger? Is it because th3y can't? They admit they do not
realize the full extent of thin problem and yet are still willing
to jeopardize the health of my children and family to these dangers.
We recognize the need for building proper sanitary facilities,
but we also recognize a need for our families to grow in a healthful,
pleasant, environment.
Were willing to work with you and the Metropolitan Sanitary
District. Are you as willing to work with us?
Bd Verri
760 Devonshire Dr.
Des Plaines, 111.
6-143
-------
Response:
As indicated in previous chapters of this EIS, we have made
a determination that the MSDGC provide adequate aerosol
suppression facilities to restrict the movement of aerosols
from Site 1.
6-144
-------
HURRY Hff MOODY
933 South Plum Grove Road, Suite 101
- •&*/
Palatine, Illinois 60067
Phone: 312 / 358-5960
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RECEIVED
MAR 211975
OANNiWfe ttKANCH - Region V
March 27, 1975
Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch
U.S. EPA Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
I wish to express my opinion on the question of the proposed
construction of the O'Hare Treatment Plant by the Metropolitan
Sanitary District to serve the Northwest section of Cook County.
In my professional opinion as a consulting engineer working in
the said section, 1t is no longer a question of \f_ the plant 1s
needed. It 1s merely an urgent question of when. I hope and
trust that permission for construction will be given Immediately
Very truly yours,
MURR'Y AND MOODY
cc: Mr. A.Y. Ta1ham1
Metropolitan Sanitary District
6-145
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION1 V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of Extension of Comment Period
On March 4, 1975, we announced the availability of -two Draft
Environmental Impact Statements for several projects proposed
by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. One
EIS concerns tVie proposed tunnel conveyance system for the
Des Plaines - O'Hare Service Area, and the other, the proposed
Des Plaines - O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant and Solids Pipeline.
The deadline for comments on these Drafts was given as April 7, 1975,
In view of the public interest surrounding these projects, proposed
EPA regulations and CEQ guidelines,the final date for receipt of
written comments is being extended to April 21, 1975. Because of
the large volume of comments expected however, we would appreciate
receiving comments as early as possible.
?rancis T. Mayo
Regional Administrator
o
"fcJL.
6-146
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION' V
230 SOUTH DEARBORN STREEJ.....^.,...,,,, '
'NVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 RECEIVED
.',''.' . ' APR. 31975
PUBLIC NOTICE etAMSiiMG tfKANCH - Region V
—: fiui NO
i
Notice of Extension of Comment Period
On March 4, 1975, we announced the availability of two Draft
Environmental Impact Statements for several projects proposed
by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. . One
EIS concerns the proposed tunnel conveyance system for the
Des Plaines - O'Hare Service Area, and the other, the proposed
Cos Plaines - O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant and Solidsr Pipeline.
The deadline for comments on these Drafts was given as April 7, 1975,
In view of the public interest surrounding these projects, proposed
EPA regulations and CEQ guidelines,the final date for receipt of
written comments is being extended to April 21, 1975. Because of
the large volume of comments expected however, we would appreciate
receiving comments as early as possible.
? rands T. Mayo
Regional Administrator
.6-147
-------
/w ,
6-148
-------
JL
^^
-------
s, 11 ] in»1a
Cblefl»». Illinois
As a e«nc«rn«<* clti7«n *»f Das Plaints, Illinois, T am
s letter ^n r«r*r»< t« the e>r«no««d O1t« «f t^e Munielptl S
Distriet a^ Gr««t*v Cvilc««'» ' a s«w»r« nlunt at 0*kt«n *H< Blmtourst
b«
f«r
I,
f»r
t«
Is
«• many •tb^rs, kn»w tVl«r« Is a
fl»««H.nr nr«bl«m wh1«li tk«
but I «ann»t uml«rstan^ wht "thlp Itcatl«»w. Tk« sit«
an< 1««w mu«k m«r« p«llut1«n ««n w« t»k« Is
k*n
un<«rat«nrf
the M.S.D. wfe«n tfc«y
is f«v«T">bl« (if n«t
1n ttala ••nrrmnlty.
t» y«u us a very
1n
w«n't you ple«s« ln«lp ua?
99.
M.
•>•> a 1 t* la
t*
daman* by
t«
, k«up.«wif« an*
pl«1nes. W« NEED y«ur
S1ne«r«ly
D»a Plains, Illln.ls 60016
TTnlt«i
D?
6-150
I
>
DC
-------
M*YO
L^- * i^
ft M<4Mtnu
DONALD S. KRUTO
431 EASY
DCS PLAINES. ILL*
\ t«|H*r*
I.... I-/
75 AP?
AM 10: 15
MOT. uiv. - GAB
r ~L ~J-
j^A-tstJUA ,
J*JfyAnL& „ f -
\^btitt**'~flb ^W4^W^
/7 / /7 / / /_ i7
^/___
" — —~"
•»>
/ /?
>i-«^'^L^fc«6
-------
~^^
-------
(^^
itf*^\g"Afai^6n^y<^.^^^*^ili^r
^u a&^^&Z'
'--l^^'^^iX/^^-*-^' *— ^x?
t&M^L
6_153
-------
-------
^Az^o
*^Ca£u4
£-.2^0 /2 -fiz^i^L a^xi&f. aja^^^^u
^ Q^ns&^A—- 3te44r ^
*J$) y^L^'t- ^&i&??Cs &v&e^'\ (QZ&^p '^^t^cs.
6-155
-------
Response: (to 6 previous comments)
As discussed in Chapter 3 and 5, we will require the MSDGC to
provide adequate aerosol suppression facilities to restrict
the movement of aerosols from the site. We believe the odor
control measures proposed by the rtSDGC will be sufficient to
avoid any significant odor problems.
The airport site must be eliminated because of the restriction,
placed on the FAA grant to purchase the land, that it only be
used for facilities of direct benefit to the airport.
A distinction must be made between the literature which concludes
that there is a possibility of a health hazard associated with
aerosol transmission :nd the fact that an actual health hazard
has not been demonstrated. The risk involved however, led us
to the conclusion to require aerosol suppression facilities.
With respect to odor considerations, the proposed O'Hare Water
Reclamation Plant cannot be compared to other MSDGC facilities.
The absence of sludge handling facilities and the proposed odor
control measures will be sufficient to avoid any significant odor
problems.
The statement concerning the decrease in property values being
negligible over the long term means subsequent to the period
of construction.
6-156
-------
I Food Services Division
INC
2600 Lively Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 6000?
April 22, 1975
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Stree;
Chicago, Illinois 6060lj.
SUBJECT: Proposed O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant -
Oakton and Elmhurst Roads
Dear Sir:
The Village of Elk Grove Village has consistently supported the
construction of that facility because it is vital to the long
range development of the Village of Elk Grove and in particular
the industrial community of Elk Grove Village. Without a new
plant location nearby, the Village of Elk Grove could conceivably
be faced with limitations imposed by the Metropolitan Sanitary
District, prohibiting new construction or additions to private
property in the Village. Both residential and industrial
development could be curtailed. The new facility is desperately
needed to relieve the extreme back pressures created in our
sanitary system due to the introduction of both sanitary and
storm water in municipalities located north of the toll road.
Such flows in periods of wet weather in our opinion create back
pressures on the interceptor systems servicing Elk Grove Village
which, in turn, cause sanitary sewer backups in both residential
and industrial properties.
As a business resident of Elk Grove Village, I am concerned that
the future progress and development of our Village not be
curtailed. My second concern is the health factor, which is
faced not only by my business associates, but also by the home-
owners who in periods of wet weather are faced with sewer backups,
I encourage you to support, by all means at your disposal, the
as soon as possible of the new treatment plant.
Ditribution Branch Manager
Elk' Grove Sales and 6-157
Distribution Center
-------
Additional letters, substantially identical to the previous letter, in support
of the proposed O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant project were received from
the following:
James P. Jacobs
Vice President & General Manager
LOEB Corporation
Chicago - 1925 Busse Road
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
Washington - 7301 Roosevelt
Landover, Maryland
W. K. Leutz
President
Gane Brothers & Lane, Inc.
1400 Greenleaf Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
60007
Jeanne Shaw
General Manager
Easy Travel Service, Inc.
573 Landmeler Road
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
60007
Frederick Roemer
Industrial Relations Manager
Chicago Magnet Wire Corporation
901 Chase Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Henry J. Duda
President
Zip Dee, Incorporated
96 Crossen Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
William Bruce
General Manager
The Voice
1495 Tonne Road
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Ira A. Eichner
Chairman of the Board, AAR Corp.
2050 Touhy Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Robert 0. Kramer
President
Keen Screw Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 34
1535 Brummel Avenue
F.Ik Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Clarence Nowicki
Regional Manager
ZEP Manufacturing Company
1390 Lunt Avenue, P.O. Box 177
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
J. W. Brittingham
Rollex
2001 Lunt Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Kenneth A. Dobbs
ABRA Enterprises, Incorporated
360 Kent Street
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
60007
Eli Field
President
Field Container Corporation
1500 Nicholas Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Bruno Diekmann
President
Buss-Condux, Incorporated
2450 Delta Lane
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
R. F. Kowalski
General Manager
J. T. Ryerson & Son, Incorporated
2180 Pratt Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
6-158
-------
John M. Lengyel
Manager
Warner-Lambert Company
1350 Bates Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Alvin A. Brzycki
General Manager
Oxy-Dry Sprayer Corporation
2011 Landmeier Road
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Gayle B. Bantner
President
Elk Grove Drugs, Incorporated
11 Park 'N Shop Lane
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Frank Di Canio
President
F-D-C Drafting Aides Corporation
85 Gaylord Street
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Irv Harvey
President
Galaxy Carpet Mills, Incorporated
850 Arthur Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Charles R. Wilcox
Vice President
J. F. Helmold & Bro.,
901 Morse Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Incorporated
James N. Martin
Traffic Supervisor
AMF Voit, Incorporated
2601 Lively Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Brandt W. Berger
Jet Die Casting Corporation
850 Elmhurst Road
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
William E. Huntsha
Manager, Distribution Center
Amerace Brands Division
Amerace Corporation
1201 Mark Street
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
L. Allen Singer
President
Schwinn Sales Midwest, Incorporated
21C1 Arthur Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Joseph E. Turley
Thomas Equipment Corporation
675 Lively Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
William Goldman
Vice President
L. Karp & Sons, Incorporated
1301 Estes Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Gerald A. Skillicorn
Director of Operations
Lieberman Enterprises
1000 Touhy Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
James H. Weeks
Secretary Treasurer
Overhead Door Company of Elk Grove
100 Kelly Street
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
J. J. Pawlak
General Superintendent
Lifetime Foam Products, Incorporated
3001 Cullerton Drive
Franklin Park, Illinois 60131
Edward E. Dormal
Panlmatic Company
79 Bond Street
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
6-159
-------
Glenn E. Ronk
President
Sola Electric
1717 Busse Road
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
James Moyles
President
James Moyles & Associates, Inc.
2680 Coyle Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
K. H. Sankman
Secretary-Treasurer
Globe Amerada Glass Company
2001 Greenleaf Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60C07
District Manager
Ryder Truck Rental, Incorporated
P.O. Box 13
Bensenville, Illinois 60106
Pat Starr
Vice President
Biltmore Tire Company, Inc.
2500 Devon Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
I. Kacsh
Director of Finance
Eskay Products Corporation
123 Scott Street
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Wayne A. Hudec
Manager - Midwest Region
Markem Corporation
2082 Estes Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
E. J. Burke
Central Warehouse Company
2311 2301 West Touhy Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
G. A. Strehlow
Treasurer
National Material Corporation
2525 Arthur Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Joseph A. Hollander, Jr.
President
Hollander Storage & Moving Company
1801 Pratt Boulevard
IJk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
William J. O'Shea
Vice President
Shamrock Electric Company, Incorporated
1281 E. Brummel Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Bernard L. Peterson
Executive Vice President
and General Manager
Wayco Foods Corporation
2000 Pratt Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Robert F. Tomalka
District Manager
J. C. Penney Company, Incorporated
851 Devon Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Edmund J. Burke
United States Flour Milling Company
2301 West Touhy Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Norman G. Jensen
Vice President
Cosmos Shipping Company, Incorporated
1351 Brummel Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
E. J. Burke
E. J. Burke and Company
2301 West Touhy Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
6-160
-------
Richard C. Hoskins
President
Hoskins Chevrolet, Incorporated
175 North Arlington Heights Road
P.O. Box 175
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
George E. Noldan
President
Noldan Steel Fabricators, Inc.
105 Weiler Avenue
Elk Grove Township, Illinois 60JOS
Dan Thomson
Executive Vice President
Halo Lighting
400 Busse Road
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Louis H. Bennit
Vice President
Wilson Enterprises, Incorporated
2390 United Lane
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Rob't W. Church
Manager
Ilford, Incorporated
1230 Jarvis Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
R. C. Atherton
President
Raco Industrial Corporation
2323 Touhy Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
J. R. Franzen
Vice President
Hanke Company, Incorporated
1001 Fargo AVenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
George D. Crawford
Chairman
Northwest Collectors, Incorporated
30 Lively Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Major Lawrence
President
Lawrence Foods, Incorporated
2200 Lunt Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Tony Weinhammer
Operations Manager
Curtin Matheson Scientific,
1850 Greenleaf Avenue
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Incorporated
Thomas J. Chodl
Sales Manager
General Box Division
Southwest Forest Industries
2628 Delta Lane
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Brother Felix Bettendorf
President/Chief Executive Officer
Alexian Brothers Medical Center
800 West Biesterfield Road
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Gene H. Rocklin
President
wational Threaded Fasteners Corporation
630 Lively Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Dick Neville
President
Continental Studios
100 North Gordon Street
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Roland Tetmeyer
Regional Distribution Manager
Sperry Remington Electric Shavers
177-179 North Randall Street
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
John M. Hyslop
Business Manager
John Sexton & Company
1099 Pratt Boulevard
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
6-161
-------
Joseph A. Nava Henry Cretors
President Iroquois Popcorn Company, Inc.
Timing Gears Corporation 1330 Louis Avenue
2425 American Lane Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Larry W. McCormick Gerald S. Howard
President President
McCormick's Enterprises, Incorporated Exliibitgroup Chicago, Incorporated
1570 Louis 2800 Lively Boulevard
P.O. Box 97 r,lk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
Lewis B. Handler Lewis B. Handler
General Manager Managing Partner
Elk Grove Bowl Billiards Elk Grove Tennis Club
75 Park and Shop 1650 Howard Street
Higgins and Arlington Heights Roads Corner Route 83
Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007 Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007
6-162
-------
Advisory Council
On.Historic Preservation
1 ).': Fv Suu-t .\.\V. Suite 4 H)
\\'.isliinyton D.C 20005
April 8, 1975
Mr. Francis 1/kr'o
Regional Administrator ''RONMENrAL p'--oitCr(cj
Environmental Protection Ageroy _ ^ r< £ I • c.n hidf/h-mlmf unit of tbf Ilxcciitnr Brunch of the Fd1cr.il Government i-bai^al /'>• the Act of
Ot /, her 15, /'i(,f, ,r> j.lvhc the Prriijfut anJ Cony,tc^ in the field of llhforic Prncrration.
-------
c
b. Compliance with Executive Order 11^93 of May lj;
In the case of lands not uncle; the control or jurisdiction
of the Federal Government, r statement should be made as
to whether or not the proposed undertaking will contribute
to the preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned
districts, sites, buildi-j^r^ structures, and objects of
historical, archeolo&lcal, architectural, or cultural
significance.
To ensure a comprehensive reviev of historical, cultural,,archeological,
and architectural resources, the Advisory Council suggests that the
environmental statement contain evidence of contact with the appropriate
State Historic Preservation Officer and that a copy of his comments con-
cerning the-effects of the undertaking upon these resources be included
- in the environmental statement. The State Historic Preservation
Officer for Illinois is Mr. Anthony Dean, Director, Department of
Conservation, 602 State Office Building, UOO South Spring Street,
Springfield, Illinois 62706.
Should.you have any questions or require any. additional assistance,
please contact Jordan Tannenbaum (202-25^-3380) of the Advisory Council
staff.
Sincerely yours,
John D. McDermott
Director, Office of Review
and Compliance
r-
6-164
-------
EMVIRONMENTAl PROTECTION AGENCY
April 24, 1975
Mr. John D. McDetwotf-
Director. Office of Review & Corrrpli.fince
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1522 K Street, N.W., Suite 430
Washington, 1). C. 20005
Dear Mr. McDermott:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 8, 1975 to Mr. Mayo
regarding the Draft EIS for the O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant and Solids
Pipeline, Cook County, Illinois.
You are advlaed that the most recent Hating of the National Register of
Historic Places has been consulted and we have determined that no national
register property/ (listed or eligible therefof) is affected by the above-
uantiuiecl project.
Per Exi-cu;lye Ordar 11593, there are no known non-federally owned districts,
witea, buildings, structures and objects of historical or architectural
significance to be affected by the project. With regard to non-federally
owned objects of archaeological and cultural significance, you are advised
that we are in communication with the Illinois Archaeological Survey to
determine archaeological concerns.
We enclose copies of our letter to the State Historic Preservation Office
for Illiuoibi dated'January 16, 1975 and letters from the Illinois Historic
Landmarks Survey dated April 18, 1975 and Illinois Historic Structures
Survey 'dated April 9, 1975 to this agency. We will forward copies of
correspondence from the State Historic Preservation Office upon receipt of
sane. - - -- .
We hope this letter enables the Council to complete its review of the
Draft EIS. If further information is needed, please contact this office.
Sincerely yours,
6-l65
-------
Er 'IRONP.iENTAL PROTECTION AGEr '<
January 16, 1975
Mr. Anthony T. Dean, Director
Department of Conservation
605 State Office Building
400 South Spring Street
Sprinsfie.ld, Illinois .62706
Dear Mr. Been:
We are initiating the preparation of a draft" Environmental Itapact
Statement on a proposed sewage treatment project in the Upper Des Plaines
River Basin, Illinois. Enclosed are maps of the area and descriptions
of the conveyance system, the water redaction plant, and thft solids
pipeline.
As a part of this process, we need to determine If there are any sites
affected by this project which have significant historical, archeological,
architectural, or cultural value, particularly those included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. To
the best of our present knowledge, no such sites will be adversely
affected by these proposals.
P3r .••»?•.'<'"'advise us of the status of this project's historical, archeological,
architectural or cultural impact. Feel free to contact Cathy .Grissots of
iay staff at 353-7730 if you have any questions regarding the project.
Sincerely yours,
&vW ,<(Pxs"i«* Jw-i'Xj/'"^ "Titr.r''
cc: Virgil Horath/Hist.Soc.A
UALXOU D. Hirt
Mary Virginia Wright, Des Plaines chief, Planning Branch
Historical Society •
6-166
-------
FaclH H r IF.
The oorvlce area for the O'Hsre Water Reclawntlon Plant (Mop 3) is 58.2 r,q. mi.
and Includes DCS PJalues, Mt. Pror.pect, Arlington Heights, Elk Grove, Rolling
Meadow.j, Prospect tieights, Wheeling, P >.d Buffalo Grove, Illinois.
The proposed treatment pl*nt slta is in Dos Plaines, bounded on the north by
Oaktoa Street, on the weat by Elmht rat Road, on lie south by the Northwest
Tollway, and on the east by Marshall Road. Willy icoad tranaversea the site
and will remain in its prrsent location. (Map 2)
A new waatewater conveyance system will be constructed in the Mt. Prospect and
Des Plaines area. (Map 3) Tbo tunnels will be excavated at 40-160 feet below
the surface, with the major .surface construction impacts occurring at the
drop shaft points, as indicated on Map 3. Manholeo will also connect the
sewers to the surface. Following are specific route descriptions:
Upper Des Plaines 20, Contract 73-317-25
This consists of constructing 22,200 linear feet of 20* I.D. sewer in tunnel
approximately 150* below the ground surface in bedrock. Also Included in the
construction are five (5) hydraulic drop shaft structures, a main construction
shaft and access manholes to be located at intervals of approximately. 2000'
along the tunnel. This contract will be located along Elmhurst Road between
the Northwest Tollway and Weller Creek and along Weller Creek Between EMhurst
Road and Central Road. . •
Upper Des Plaines 20A, Contract 73-318-28
This consists of constructing connecting structures and sewer laterals to
intercept combined sewers presently discharging water to Weller Creek and
Peehanvilla Ditch and «l»o dry weather flow. This contract will divert the
combined sewage to the rock level tunnels until they are filled thereby reducing
the frequency of spillage of combined sewage to waterways from an average of
80 times par year to fewer than 6. This contract will be constructed at the
locations of combined sewer outfalls along Weller Creek between Centre! and
Rand Roads and at the FeehanvUle Ditch near Rand Road.
Upper Des Plaines 20JB, Contract 73-319-28
This consists of construction of 6,000 linear feet of 5' I.D. sewer in earth
tunnel approximately SO1 below the ground surface and also includes construction
of manholes at approximately 600' intervals along its lougth as well ,as connect-
ing structures. The contract will i* lercept the District's Upper Des Plaines
1AA Interceptor at Rand and Wolf Roads, which serves Wheeling Township north of
Rand Road and a small area in the western portion of Northfield Township,
thereby diverting sewage presently being treated at th« North Side Sewage
6-167
-------
— 2 ~
Treatment Works In Skokia to the propoued O'llare Water Reclamation Plont.
This contract will bs constructed alcag Tit. Prospect Road fro;n teller Creak to
Princeton Street- (extended) and onst along Princeton Street and Princeton Street
(extended) to Wolf Road thence north ale • •«, Wolf Road to Rand Road.
Uj^r_PjR£_jlain^
Tula contract consists of construction .-.<: 11,200 linear feet of 16* I.D. aad
2,000 linear feat of 9f I.D. sower fn tunnel approximately 120' to 150' below
the gi-ouAd surface in bedrock. Also included is construction of three (3)
hydraulic drop shaft atructureo and access manholes to be located at intervals
of approximately 2000* along the length of the tunnels. This contract will
serve aa a sanitary sewage interceptor and will also intercept and convey
combined sewage overflows presently discharging to Waller Creek and Feehanville
Ditch. The 16' I.I), tunnel will extend from Elmhurst Road and Lonnquist
Boulevard east to William Street then north in William Street to a point nor-
therly of Rand Road and Isabella Street. The 9" I.D. branch will extend along
Wellnr Creek from William Street to Mt. Prospect Uoad.
Upper Pea Plainea 20C,Contract 69-307-2S
This coi'sists of constructing 11,000 linear feet of 5'0" I.I), 'sever in earth
tunnel approximately 25' to 45' below the ground surface, also construction of
manholes at approximately 600' intervals along the length of the tunnel as
well BS connecting and .Junction structures. This sewer will intercept the
District's Interceptor UD 11D at Wildwood Road and Oakton Street, and at Busse
Road and Oakton Street thus providing relief and diverting the flow to Upper
Des Plalnes 20 at Elmhurst Road and Oakton Street. The contract will be con-
structed along Oakton Street between Wildwood and Elohurst Roads.
Sludge generated at the O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant will be piped west to
the Salt Creek Plant for processing. Open trench construction will be employed
for this pipeline. Alternate 1 of the following discussion is the proposed
pipeline route.
-6-168
-------
STATC. OF ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
605 STATE Ci F1C.H DUILDING
400 5OI Til SPRING ST.
SPRINGFIELD 62706
CHICAGO OFFI,;e—1227 S. MICHIGAN AVE.
ILLINOIS HISTORIC STRUCTURES SURVEY
1800 South Prairie Avenue Chicago, Illinois
GLESSNER HOUSE
60616
9 April 1975 - .
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt .
Chief, Planning Branch
U.S. Environmental' Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Subject: Environmental Irap.ict Statement: . Proposed Sewage Treatment
Project, Upper Des Plaines River Basin, Illinois
Dear Sir: . . -
So far as we can tell from our incomplete survey of this region of
Cook County, the proposed improvement will not impact any structures of
historic visual significance.
Yours sincerely,
E. Sprague, director
Illinois Historic Structures Survey
PSS/psk
ENVIRON MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
RECEIVED
APR 1 1 1975
WKAWCH - Region V
«« wo,
6-169
.Recycled Paper
-------
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
605 STATE OFHCE BUILDINc;
•WO SOUTH SPRING S'l.
SPRINGFIELD 6T 706
CHICAGO OFFICE— 1ZZT S. MICHIGAN AVE. «060S
April 18, 1975
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief • '
Planning Branch
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V . • • •
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago,. Illinois 60604 i
Dear Mr. Hirt: |
Enclosed is a memorandum from my northern area field
surveyor concerning the historic impact of the proposed sewage
treatment project in the Upper Des Plaines River Basin. As.
you can see by the memo, your project appears to have no adverse
impact on historic sites. Mr. Hild does note the existence of
marsh prairie and I assume that you are taking that into
account:
If you need any further information on this, please
feel free to contact me. ,. ' '
* t
Sincerely,
. WILLIAM G. FARRAR
Director
Illinois Historic Landmarks Survey
P. 0. "ox 986
Carbondale, Illinois 62901
Enclosure • •. •
WGF/kpg ' , ' ' •
' ' - ' - . ENV1RONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
R >E -S E I V E n
6-170 ' ' - -
- ' . - APR^iS/,;
PLANNING BKANCU - on V
Recycled Paper . r,,rlj_. • „.
-------
V
c
STATF OF ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
W> S PATH O! Ml 1 HUIiniNi;
400 .SOUTH SPRING ST.
SPRINGFIELD 6Z706
CHICAGO orrif---!Z27 s. MICHIGAN AVE.
Illinois Historic Landmarks Survey / 1^ April 1975
To;, Bill Farrar '
Fronj T. HildTW - -
Subject?. Environmental Impact Statement: Proposed Sewage Treatment-
~"~"""*"~~~~" Project, Upper Des Plaines River Basin
Since our research in the area under consideration has .hardly begun it
was deemed advisable to nake an irrnediate field-survey. This was done
on Saturday, April 12. *
To 'accomplish this I traveled all the routes (alternates and sub-alternates)
indicated on the enclosed maps. I .did not enter the Cook Bounty Forest
Preserve lands except for those portions through which public highways ran.
The ma^or part of the land in question is covered by industrial parks,
apartasnt complexes, and residential subdivisions all of relatively recent
construction. The remainder of the land was open space which prwixled r-.e
unobstructed views of wide vistas.
.After covering the entire route I 'found no places that would .appear to
qualify for the National Register. In fact", I found nothing that would
•oven qualify for inclusion in our inventory that would be in the »way of
the proposed sewage project. ...
I night- add, however,- that much of the open land in the forest preserves
night be virgin prairie since it appears quite marshy in places and was
.not settled until relatively late (after the Civil War).
6-171
Recycled Paper
-------
u ,'
ILLINOIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
109 DAVENPORT HALL UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS URBANA, ILLINOIS 61801
Itutiwtion*:
Unirenity "' Illinois
St/n Illuiou Univeriity
Illinois State Museum
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
Dr. Peter Roberts of the Illinois Department of Conservation '
has sent me a copy of your letter of January 16 and maps regarding
the proposed sewage treatment project in the Upper Des Plaines
River Basin, Illinois.
A check of our master archaeological site file indicates that at
least one known site (a mound) is located near Alternate 2 and one is
'located south of Alternate 1 (village) on the*map showing the alignment
alternates. We recommend that an archaeological reconnaissance survey
be undertaken of the proposed treatment plant site, the pipeline,
and throughout the wastewater conveyance system when an alternate
is selected. The portions of the system traversing the Cook County
Forest Preserve or any tracts not previously disturbed by urban
development will .be particularly important to check.
Please get in touch-with our office if we can be of any further
.assistance with this project.
Cordially yours,
Charles J. Bareis
Secretary-Treasurer
CJB:cb
cc: Peter. Roberts
6-172
-------
April U,
Hr. Charles J. Barois
Secretary - Treasurer
Illinois Archaeological Survey •
109 Davenport Hall
University of Illinois
Urbaoa, Illinois 61SQ1 •
Dear Mr. Barala
This nlll follow up oar letter to the Illinois DeparW8e*t *f
dated January 16, 1975* end yottr letters to this Agency dated February 10
and March 18, 1975.
We concur that archaeological input is a necessary part of environtsental
assessments relating to projects considered by this offlea. We hope that
* tocotlng vith your office, Illinola Eaviromwatal Protaction Agency and
the Department of Cowaerratlon and o«r office can b« held to disease
theso isauas.
Presently wt ask your attention to the propo««d Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Qiicago project* in the Upper Dies Plainea River Basin,
Cook County. Oar letter of January 16, 1975 to Director Dean included a
facilities deacriptlon of the proposal*
A reconnaiaaanca sunmy at selected locations may b« necessary to identify
archaeological concerns. Specifically,:
A. Solids Pipeline (6.22 miles in length)
Alternate i on the map previously seat has been the
alignment chosen. The nipellne is planned for existing
rights-of-vay in tnost locations. A dlscusaloa with
the Cook County Forest Preserve District Indicated
that the portion proposed through District property
is within aa open field and within an existing eighty
-foot right-of-way granted _to a Petroleum Products
Company* ' -
. 6-173
-------
Mr. Charles J» B&rai»
April 14, 1975
Pag* Two
B. Coaveyaac* System
Tho ttrauiila will 5>« c-xcave.ed at 40-140 feet below
tlid our£ac«« Major eurfo >•& couatruction impacts
occur at aigftt drop shaf :; points sad it appear® thfct
the drop shaft locations anH tunael construction
other t'hfen i» barfirock vorsld have arehoeolostcal
C* Water fccclaaatiem P^.
^»
Tiro 01t«3 pt*««tttly owued by T'SBGC way require a
Site It located at th« southeast coraar of Oaktos
Soada (Hiinoic Route $3) cecuoiste of 104 &cre««
Sit* 2, locatad Booth of the Ncrthweat Tollway «a4 west
of Elsiiurat: fi04ul con?,i»te of
Ve ask that you refer to your ftrcha«ological files aad incfctccce t© tliis
office th*
• . 1. A4diti
-------
ILLINOIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
109 DAVENPORT HALL UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS URBANA, ILLINOIS 61801
Cooperating Institutions:
University of Illinois
Southern Iliinou Univ»-rsity
Illinois State Museum
May 2, 1975
Mr. Harlan D. Hirt
Chief, Planning Branch
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Dear Mr. Hirt:
Thank you for your letter of April 14 and enclosure of maps pertaining to the
proposed Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago projects in the. Upper
Des Plaines River Basin, Cook County.
There is no new additional information or changes in the data that we have pre-
viously provided you'for these projects. A check of our master site file indicates
that no known archaeological sites are recorded within the right-of-way of Alternate 1
for the solids pipeline or in the areas of sites 1 and 2 for the Water Reclamation
Plant. A field check would have to be made to ascertain whether the village (Ck-97)
we previously mentioned, is still located south of Alternate 1. We do not know the
specific locations of the eight drop shaft points to check for archaeological sites in
our records. .
* .
We, of course, recommend a detailed reconnaissance archaeological survey of all
project areas to be developed. Please contact Dr. Robert L. Hall, Chairman, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, University of Illinois-Chicago Circle, Chicago, Illinois.
Dr. Hall is a member of the Illinois Archaeological Survey and will be able to prepare
a time and cost estimate for the proposed survey work..
I agree with you that we should have a meeting in the future to discuss the Impact
of the many applications for interceptor-collection systems and sewage treatment plants
by various cities and towns throughout the Illinois. East separate project could very
well effect the archaeological resource base in each particular area, and every effort
should be taken to insure preservation of our archaeological resources.
We appreciate your concern and interest. Please stay in touch Vith our office.
Cordially yours,
Chai
Secretary-Treasurer*
CJB:sh
cc: Robert L. Hall .. " 6-175
-------
D. Resolutions and Petitions
6-176
-------
Chronology of Interest
by Elk Grove Vi11 age
i n the
O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant
March 31, 1975
Hay 7, 1971 Letter to NIPC re: A-95 #71-067 O'Hare Treatment Plant.
Federal Grant of $13,95^,200 toward $46,51^,000 (now $82,500,000
toward $110,000,000).
48 MGD 450,000 POP. 37,250 AC.
(72 & % MGD) (3000,000 TOP.) (37,250 AC.)
Des Plaines, Mt. Prospect, Elk Grove, Rolling Meadows, Wheeling
and Buffalo Grove.
1972
In 1972, we spent an enormous amount of time working with the
Metropolitan Sanitary District in an attempt to reduce the amount
cf storm water infiltration into our sanitary sewers. The reason
we had to do that, I will tell you, is because the City of Des
Plaines, Village of Mount Prospect and the Village of Arlington
Heights operate combined sewers which allows storm water into the
MSD system and thereby usurping the capacity of the MSD lines
otherwise available to EGV.
January 31, Letter from Village; Manager to MSD President requesting information
1373 about the Proposed Retention Basins south of the NW Toll road
removing 138 acres from our future tax base.
Expressing reservations about failure of MSD to consider Elk
Grove Village Comprehnnsive Plan.
February 13,
1973
Letter from Village President to MSD President regarding the
position of Elk Grove Village.
-- Remained silent on the O'Hare Plant Issue in respect of
our neighbor, Des Plaines, to permit the MSD and City of
Des Plaines to explore and resolve their differences.
-- Further delays and increased costs to taxpayers to occur if
the plant is to be relocated.
— Pollution and flooding would continue to worsen.
-- Upper Salt Creek Plant (now called John E. Egan WRP) is
being built adjacent to Elk Grove Village west of Inter-
state 90 within 350 feet of a single family subdivision.
-- Delays in constructing O'Hsrc Plant represents a failure
to act responsibly in protecting the public health.
February 27,
1973
Resolution #13-73
Proceed without delay, incorporate Village President's
February 13, 1973 'Position Statement' sent to MSD; send
copies of Resolution to City of DCS Plaines and others.
6-177
-------
-,e 18, 1973 Letter from Village Manager to Chairman, MSD Committee 0,1
finance, recommending early construction of
— O'Harc Plant
— Oakton Interceptor Lines to O'liare Plant
Ju.'ia 28, 1973 Letter from NSD President providing information re: farming
of waste treatment by-produ ts and retention basins south
__ cf'Northv/ost Toll way. C |0™ A4jMCawT TO SGrV^)
(Higgins basin of 135 acres to store overflow from Des
Plaines, Mt. Prospect and Arlington Heights combined
sanitary and storm sewers. Liquids in Basin would
~ • have to be 24 feel deep to store 3,300 acre-feet of
overflow.)
Ouly 2, 1973 Letter from Village Manager to NIPC concerning A-95 #73-124
(O'Hare Solids Pipeline to Salt Creek Plant) and A-95 #73-
125 (Northwest Liquid Fertili.-r Pipeline from SaU Creek
Plant to West/Southwest MSD Plant).
— Support both projects.
"ctober 3, 1973 Letter to NIPC re: A-95 #73-265 (Demonstration Grant for
putting O'Hare Plant entirely underground).
— Support and favor, but
— Proceed with a Plant to avoid sewage back-ups and
overflows.
~ . -- Particular caution requested in design and operation of
open-air retention and overflow basin in interest of
public health and public safety.
— ' -- However, it is unfortunate, unfair to delay the O'Hare
Plant any longer.
March 29, 1974, MSD letter to Elk Grove Village requesting permission and
an ordinance for the Oakton Street Interceptor line to
__ provide relief to the MSD lines in Oakton and Buss Road.
:ril 9,1974 Minutes of Village Board meeting reviewing need for the
— • O'Hare Plant and supporting Ordinance granting an easement
to MSD for an Interceptor lire in Oakton Street, Elk Grove
Village.
. ;ril 9,1974 Ordinance #920 granting easement, construction and maintenance
_ • rights to MSD for Oakton Street Interceptor.
6-178
-------
_ "2 —
April 23,
May 16,
December 2,
December 19,
Resolution #37-7** urging the Illinois Municipal League to
withdraw support from Des Plaines' efforts to delay construc-
tion of the O'Hare Plant.
— Support Home Rule but believe need for O'Hare Plant
to be of overriding importance.
Letter Village President to Alderman Ward, Des Plaines.
-- Appreciate your interest and your constituents' concerns.
— We believe the gsneral public need for the O'Hare Plant
transcends Ward's objections.
-- See no need to meet, but ask reconsideration by
Alderman Ward.
Letter to NIPC re: A-95 7^-603-
(Federal Grant to MSD for Step 1 Facilities Planning
for $9,000 of $12,000 study.)
-- 20 year sewage collection and treatment needs in
O'Hare basin area.
-- Support application.
Village Trustee Edward Kenna and Village Manager testified at
the MSD Public Hearing in Mt. Prospect on the Environmental
Assessment Statement to the effect:
-- O'Hare Plant is essential,
-- Parties in dispute should resolve differences,
-- Contemporary pollution control standards should be observed,
-- Public health requires that delays not be tolerated, and
— That the O'Hare Plant be built now.
January 2, Letter to NIPC re: A-95 1
1975 O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant Environmental Assessment Statement.
-- Supported the construction of the Plant and use of
environmental protection measures in its design and
eventual operation.
-- Supported the 'overflow' basin adjacent to Elk Grove
Village and recommended use of environmental protection
techniques to minimize adverse air quality conditions.
6-179
-------
January 31»
1975
January 2, Letter to NIPC re: A-95 7
1975 Solids Pipeline between the O'Hare Plant £ John Egan Plant
(via EGV).
-- Supported the 6.2 mile project ^s essential to a total
system of modern waste disposal.
-- Expressed belief that both dSD S its contractors will
exercise due consideratior when working on the 5.0 miles
of pipeline within Elk G jve.
Letter to NIPC re: A-95 7^-650;
-651
-652
-653
concerning Deep Tunnel facilities.
— Supported their construction,
-- And other improvements essential to a total system of
Waste Water Treatment.
March 31, Village of Elk Grove testified at the U.S. EPA Public Hearing
1975 in Des Plaines re: 'Environmental Impact Statements' about:
-- Deep Tunnel System. " _
— O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant.
' 6-180
-------
While a smaller plant was proposed in 1971 at a cost of
some $i|6 million, that cost ts now approaching $95,000,000. You know
where costs are going because you buy bread and eggs and milk at the
grocery store. This plant is no different to you and me, it is vital
to the public health of this total area, and, if it is not built soon,
its cost is simply go'\rj to go up, and you and I and others in this
District are going to pay for it.
We believe that the Metropolitan Sanitary District is
responsive to reasonable suggestions for the protection of the
environment. We still encourage the District to listen carefully
to the City of Des Plaines and to observe the environmental standards
being suggested. We would hope that if the proposed plant is not
successfully operated, that such modifications as made the Clavey
Park and Sacramento plants will also be carried out in the O'Hare
Plant.
6-181
-------
Finally -
Our position remains unchanged. But our interest in having
a modern waste water treatment plant is increasing. We believe it is
better to have sanitary sewage treated in a modern urban treatment
plant which has been designed and 'c operated at the highest most
reasonable standards of environmental protection possible, rather than
to continue to overload existing facilities with storm water to the
point where raw, untreated sanitary waste spills out on the streets,
in yards, and, yes, into the basements of private homes.
We continue to respect the concern of our sister municipality,
but it seems to us that raw sewage belongs in a modern treatment plant
and not in the basements and yards of private citizens.
Please, we urge you to proceed without further delay.
Thank you.
6-182
-------
RESOLD!I ON ]3-73
O'HflRr TREATMENT PLANT
WHEREAS: The Metropol itan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago is prepared
to construct the O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant at Elnihurst and
Oakton Roads, and
WHEREAS: The objections and concerns of an adjoining municipality have
been given considerable rttontion by the Metropolitan Sanitary
District both in Court and out of Court, and
WHERL'.AS: Said rev lev/, debate and legal proceedings have not only served
their purpose but have caused an inordinate delay in the
construction of a much needed public health service facility, and
WHEREAS: Further delay will serve little purpose but it v/ill create extras
hardship and increased public health hazards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Board of Trustees oT the
Village of Elk Grove Village that:
One: The Metropolitan Sanitary District proceed without further delay
to construct the O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant as planned for
the intersection of Oakton & Elmhurst Roads.
Two: The letter of February 13, 1973 from Charles J. Zettek, Village
President, to John E. Egan, President, Metropolitan Sanitary
District, be incorporated into and made'an official part of this
Resolution.
Three: Copies of this Resolution and the February 13 communication be
sent to the City of Des Plaines and others.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take full force and effect
Trri;,! ;uH after it", passage and appro "1 ciccrding to lav;.
PASbL') '(HIS 2/lh day of February , 1973. AYES 6 NAYS 0_
APPROVED THIS 27th day of February , 1973.
ATTKT: ,
. /, • . •' - '/ /I ' '. / . 6-183
' - ' ' "
-------
CIIAK1 I S |. XI '[ 11 K , )
VllUj.r I Icil.
RICH \M> A M.f.KI XI K \
C1IAKI.LS A. V.'ll.l Is
l.l) 1.. (.1II f, M^ K
«)l:i.UI II. I.'. , MM.
I.'I)\V \KI) \V. r.l S'X \ \
(iF.oiu.r. '[' ^:-t.i<
THr.OiK)!;t~. |. SI \Dhl.
NANCY L. VANin.r^vi
February 13, 1973
Mr. John E. Egan, President
Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago
TOO East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 6C611
Dear Mr. Egan:
We have remained relatively silent with regard to the O'Hare
Sewage Trcotrn.cnt Plan and its ultimate construction at the southeast
corner of Oakton Street and Elrhorst Road in Des Plaines. V/e have done
so in respect for the Sanitary District and the City of DCS Plaines, as
well as to maintain our good neighbor standing and policy v/i th both
parties.
However, we now feel compelled to speak out on the matter.
We were painfully surprised to hear of Mayor Behrel's proposal that the
sanitary site be built on the south side of Oakton Street, west of Busse
Road. It is our understanding this proposal, if acted upon, would result
In an added delay of two or more years and would cost some additional
8 to 11 million dollars. Elk Grove Village cannot afford this considera-
tion being given any serious thought. The delay would cause to our
residents an increase in taxes and bring about unnecessary delay in the
resolvcrnent of sewage pollution and flooding in the eastern part of Elk
Grove. \,'e cannot and will not allow this to occur.
We wish to remind the Sanitary District of the Upper Salt Creek
Plant which is located adjacent to the western boundary of Elk Grove and
our complete cooperation and support of same. V/e have long recognized
the need to accept public responsibility, including cur share of facilities
which nay not always receive the. endorsement and applause of our residents.
V/e appreciate our need to ensure and provide for the public safety, health
and welfare of our residents. In the :nstance of the Upper Salt Creek
Plant, our support and .cooperation was given with pride and courage to
maintain a posture that was in the best interest of the general public.
Therefore, we rr.ust G.I behalf of the residents of Elk Grove
Village encourage you to proceed without further delay in the construction
of the O'Hare Treatment Plant at the southeast intersection of Oaktcn
and Clr.hurst Roads. To explore other sites would require further unwarranted
6-184
-------
Mr.
February 13,' 1573
delay in tin-c, increase the burden to the taxpayer and fail to r.ect
for thr icjh.t ly the responsibility for the rra i n teruir.ce of the public health,
Me support you and are ready and anxious to assist and/or cooperate with
you in any way which v/i 1 1 contribute to an early construction of the
O'Hare Treatment Plant as presently proposed.
Si nee re 1y yours /
CJZ:ins
Charles J
President
cc: Village Trustees
Vil lagc Clerk
Vi 1lage At torney
Vi 1 1 acje Manager
Vi 1 lage Eng i r.eer
Herbert Behrel, fiayor of Des Plaines
Trustees - Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
Nicholas J. deles, Vice President
.. - Joanne Al ter (!',rs .)
Joan G. Anderson (firs.)
Valentine Janicki
V/i 1 1 i am Jasku 1 a
James C. Kirie
Chester P. Majewski
John V/. Rogers
Acting General Superintendent Bart Lynam -
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
V/illiam E. Shannon, EJk Grcve Village Plan Commission Ch.airnan
6-185
-------
MINUTES Of Till REGULAR Ml"III IMG OF
THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD Of TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OK ELK GROVE VILLAGE
HELD ON APRIL 9, 19"/"*
President diaries J. Zettck called I lie- meeting to order at 8:08 p.m. in the
Municipal Building, 901 Wellington Avenue, Elk Grove Village and directed the
Village Clerk, Eleanor G. Turner to coll the roll. Upon the roll being called
the following answered PRESENT: Trustees Ronald L. Chernick, George T. Specs,
Theodore J. Staddler, Michael Tosto, Nancy L. Vanderweel ; ABSENT: Trustee Edward
\l. Kcnna. Village Attorney, Edward. C. Hofert and village Manager, Charles A.
Willis were present at this meeting.
The Chief of Police, Harry P. Jenkins, dc'livered the invocation.
It v/as moved by Trustee Specs and seconded ' ,y Trustee Vande rwee 1 that the minutes
of the regular meeting of April 2, 197'* I (" approved as submitted and that the
Board dispense with the reading thereof. The motion was voted upon by acclamation;
whereupon the President declared the :notion carried.
President. Zettek issued a Proclamation, proclaiming the week beginning May 1, 197^
as Youth Week by the Benevolent and I'rotective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 2k23.
It v/as moved by Trustee Chernick and seconded by Trustee Tosto that the Board
authorize the disbursement of $17,'/'l8.55 from the Water and Sewer Department
Operating Account, $39,693.08 from the General Corporate Account, $29^.95 from
the Civil Defense Fund Account, and $P>,'tOO.OO from the Municipal Buildings
Construction Fund Account in payment of invoices as shown on the April 9, 197^
Accounts Payable V/arrant. The President directed the Clerk to call the roll on
the motion and upon the roll being called the following answered AYE: Trustees
Chernick, Spees, Staddler, Tosto, Vanderweel; NAYS: None; ABSENT: Trustee Kenna;
whereupon the President declared the motion carried.
It was moved by Trustee Chernick and seconded by Trustee Staddler that the Board
waive the first heading rule with respect to an ordinance making transfers among
appropriations. The motion was voted upon by acclamation; whereupon the President
declared the motion carried.
It was moved by Trustee Chernick and seconded by Trustee Staddler that the Board
adopt Ordinance No. 919 entitled " A,J ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING TRANSFERS AMONG
APPROPRIATIONS". The President directed the Cleric to call the roll on the motion
and upon the roll being called the following answered AYE: Trustee? Spees, Staddler,
Tosto, Vanderweel, Chernick; NAYS: None; ABSENT: Trustee Kenna; whereupon the
President declared the motion carried. __
It v/as moved by Trustee Tosto and seconded by Trustee Staddler that the' Board
waive the first reading rule with respect to an ordinance relating to installation
of a 60 inch sanitary sewer on Oakton Stieet. The motion was voted upon by accla-
mation; whereupon the President declared the motion carried.
It was moved by Trustee Tosto and seconded by Trustee Staddler that the Board
adopt Ordinance No. 920 entitled "AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY
DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A 60 INCH SANITARY SEVER
INTERCEPTOR ALONG OAKTON STREET FROM WILDUOOD ROAD EAST TO APPROXIMATELY ELMHURST
ROAD". The President directed the Clerk to call the roll on the motion and upon
the roll bning called tho following answred AYE: Trustees Staddler, Tosto
V.nderweel, Chernick, Spees; NAYS: None; ABSENT: Trustee Kenna; whereupon the
President declared the motion carried.
The Village Manager stated that the installation of the interceptor line on Oakton
Street is^onc of the most important improvements the Metropolitan Sanitary District
can make in the immediate area, the next most •, portant improvement is the proposed
O'Hare Water Reclamation plant which has been under consideration for many years.
One of the conitiunity needs is relief from the enormous back pressure on the existing
Metropolitan Sanitary District interceptor system adjacent to the Village. Tho back
pressure causes, on occasion, sanitary backups in .the Village, a problem the Village
has had for over three and a half years. The proposed interceptor line will relieve
and el iinin.ilc! th.it pressure entirely, and will result in the eventual elimination of
the Ridge Avenue Lift Station and other lift stations in the Village.
6-186
-------
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUIION URGING CERTAIN ACTION BY THE ILLI'IOIS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
REGARDING THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATEf. CHICAGO
WHEREAS, the Village of Elk Grove Village is a member of the Illinois
Municipal League; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Elk Trove Village is within the jurisdiction of
the Metropolitan Sonitory District of Greater Chicago; and •
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1973, the Village adopted Resolution Ho. 1/-73 urging
the Metropolitan Sanitary District to proceed without further delay the construction
of the O'Hare Sanitary Sewage Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Elk Grove Village was informed through the news
media that the Illirjis Municipal League has commenced active support of the
City of DesPlaines, Illinois in that city's efforts to prevent construction of
e sewage treatment plant at the southeast corner of Oskton Street and Elmhurst
Road; and
.WHEREAS, the expressed purpose of Illinois rVjnici pal Lesgue support is
based on the assumed right of the City of DesPlaines to exercise Municipal Home
Rule powers as represented in the Constitution of the State of Illinois and that
such home rule powers supercede Metropolitan Sanitary District jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Elk Grove Village considers iraied i ate construction^
of said sewage treatment plant to be vital in resolving sewage pollution and
flooding In Elk Grove Village and neighboring co~.'njni t ies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the President and Board of Trustees of the
. «
ViHege of Elk Grove Village, Counties of Cook and'DuPage, State of Illinois, that
the Illinois Municipal League cease its support of the City of DesPlaines in that
city's dispute. with the Metropolitan San'tary District of Greater Chicago.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Elk Grove Village, Counties of Cook and DuPage, State of Illinois thdt the
Village of Elk Grove Village strongly supports h'o.'e Rule for Illinois Municipal-
ities, but considers the importance of the construction of the aforementioned
sewage treatment plant to be of overriding importance.
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESO.^tD, that a certified copy of this resolution be
distributed to the Executive Connittee of the Illinois Municipal League.
PASSED this 23rd day of __ Apr! 1 __ , 197*4.
' APPROVED this 23rd day of ___ ^JilLl— _ • '97^-
.Charles J. Zcttck
ATTtST: President
6-187
Ele.inot C. Turner
-------
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION URGING THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT TO PROCEED WITH A
__ DEEP TUNNEL PLAN A^hTHE O'HARE TREATMENT PLANT
WHEREAS, urbanization has taken place in the Greater Chicago Metropolitan
Area, and -as a result thereof large areas which were formerly rtiarsh land
and lowland have been filled in and storm sewer system-s have been in:
stalled changing the character of the land and imposing excessive flows
on the rivers, streams, and creeks; and
WHEREAS, urbanization is continuing throughout tne drainage basin and
the adjacent states, counties, local communities and developers have pre-
viously failed to provide adequate collection and storage for storm water
and sanitary sewerage collection in new developments; and
WHEREAS, the people in and adjacent to the tillage of Mount Prospect and
neighboring communities are continuing to experience severe property
damage, hazards to health, and inconvenience; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is presently served with an inade-
quate combined storm and sanitary sewer system owned and operated by the
Metropolitan Sanitary District; and
WHEREAS., the Metropolitan Sanitary District is currently studying the al-
ternate designs for the O'Hare Sewage Treatment Plant Interceptor System;
' and
WHEREAS, the deep tunnel system is an alternate design that will- have
great benefits to the Metropolitan Area and the Village of Mount Prospect
in the prevention of severe flooding by storm waters and sanitary sewerage;
and
WHEREAS, a solution to this property damage, hazards to health and incon-
venience rests in the Metropolitan Sanitary District's proposed O'Hare
Treatment Plant and implementation at the earliest date possible;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS;
SECTION ONE: That the Metropolitan Sanitary District select the Deep
Tunnel System design and construct the O'Hare Treatment Plant and In-
terceptor System at the earliest -possible date.
SECTION TWO: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from
an'd after its passage and approval in 'the manner provided by law.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
PASSED AND APPROVED this 5th day of July _ ; __ , 1972.
ROBERT D. TEICHEIIT
Village President
ATTEST:
DONALD W. GOODMAN
Village Clerk
6-188
-------
r:a.-
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COOK
ss
I, Marie T. Hard, do hereby certify that I am the duly
qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect
1n the County and State aforesaid, and as such Deputy Clerk I am
the keeper of the records and files of the Board of Trustees of
said Village.
I do further certify that attached hereto is a full, true
and correct copy of RESOLUTION 14-72
duly adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, at its legally convened meeting
held on the 5th day of July, 1972 , and that at the
time of adoption of said RESOLUTION 14-72
the Board of Trustees voted as follows:
• AYES: 6
NAYS: o '
ABSENT: '0
all as appears 1n the official records of said Village In my care
and custody,
Dated at Mount Prospect, Illinois, this 27th day of
March, 1972.
It-
!1
1
//UU ^ _^
Deputy C"U>rl
-------
RESOLUTION NO. 7-75
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CERTAIN LICENSE TO THE
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
WHEREAS, Section 6(a) of Article VII of the 1970 Constitution of the State of -
Illinois provides that "any municipality \\.iich has a population of more than
25,000 (is) a Home Rule Unit" and the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County,
Illinois, with a population in excess of 25,000 is, therefore, a Home Rule Unit
and may, under the power granted by said Section 6 (a) of Article VII exercise
any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to such authority, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect have heretofore passed and approved an ordinance
amending the Mount Prospect Municipal Code of 1957, by adding thereto Sections
9.202 and 9.203 requiring certain approvals by the Mayor and Board of Trustees
of the Village of Mount- Prospect prior to certain work within certain areas of
the corporate limits of the Village of Mount Prospect; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago has requested
certain licenses, easements, rights, and authorities be granted it in order to
construct and maintain the "Tunnel and Reservoir Plan" as well as certain
conveyance facilities and appurtenances thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE
OF M3UNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: That, subject always to the approvals required of Section 9.202
and Section 9.203 hereinabove mentioned as well as subject always to the
conditions hereinafter stated, the perpetual license, right, and authority be
and the same is hereby granted and given to the Metropolitan Sanitary District
of Greater Chicago (hereinafter referred to as "Sanitary District"), to construct,
reconstruct, repair, maintain, and operate the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, Rock
Tunnels and Drop Shafts, Weller Creek, Central Road to Elmhurst Road and Elmhurst
Road, Upper Des Plaines No. 20, Contract 73-317-2S; Tunnel and Reservoir Plan,
Rock Tunnels and Drop Shafts, Weller Creek and Feehanville Ditch, Lonnquist
Boulevard and William Street, Upper Des Plaines 21, Contract 72-320-2S; Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan, Earth Tunnel, Weller Creek, Mount Prospect Road, Princeton
Street and Wolf Road, Upper Des Plaines 20-B, Contract 73-319-2S; and Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan, Connections and Laterals, Weller Creek, Various Locations,
Upper Des Plaines 20A, Contract 73-318-2S; together with the appurtenances thereto,
hereinafter designated as "Coneyance Facilities" upon, under and through those
certain streets, highways, public lands, public rights-of-way, and public ease-
ments of the Village of Mount Prospect, (hereinafter referred to as "The Village")'
within the territorial limits of The Village traversed by said Conveyance
Facilities, which rights-of-way within said territorial limits are shown upon
a map attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" and which
rights-of-way are described as follows to wit.
That portion of Elmhurst Road lying within the corporate limits
of the Village of Mount Prospect bounded on the South by Dempster
Street and on the North by Council Trail: the West Half (1/2) of
Elmhurst Road bounded on the North by a point approximately 720 feet
South of the center line of Dempster Street and on the South by
6-190 ,
-------
Oakton Street; those portions of Council Trail, and Mknawa Trail,
bounded on the East by Elmhurst Road and on the West by We-Go Trail
(extended); and that portion of Keller Lane bound on the North by
Central Road and on the Soutli by a point approximately 417 feet
South of the South line of C3even Avenue in Sections 23, 14,13,12 ^id 11
in Township 41 North, Ram;e 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian
and also in Section 33, i\,vvnship 42 North, Range 11, East of the
Third Principal Meridian, Cook County, Illinois; and also
That portion of Lonquist Boulevard between Elmhurst Road and a
point approximately 1?0 feet East of the East line of Albert Street
in Sections 12 an;" j.3, Towm>hiD 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, Cook County, Illinois; and that portion of
William Street between Lonriquist Boulevard and Isabella Street in
Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal
Meridian, -r,•'• in Section 34, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the
Third Principal Meridiem, al] in Cook County, Illinois, and also that ,
portion of .sabella Street between William Street and Edward Street
extended :;nd that portion oi Gregory Street between Rand Road and a
point SOS. 00 fc-et ):.ast of the Uest line of Section 35-42-11, all in
Sections 34 arid 35, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, Cook County, Illinois; and also
That portion of the West Half (1/2) of Mount Prospect Road
between a point approximately 250 feet South of the South line
of Prospect Avenue and the South line of Milburn Avenue in
Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, Cook County, Illinois; and also
That portion of Lincoln Street between Weller Creek and
Kenilworth Avenue in Section 11, Township 41 North, Range 11,
East of the Third Principal Meridian, Cook County, Illinois;
and also
That portion of Central Road between Weller Creek and Bobby
Lane in Section 11 of Township 41 North, Range 11, East and
Section 33 of Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, Cook County,'Illinois; and. also
Those portions of Can-Dota Avenue, Na-Wa-Ta Avenue and See-Gwun
Avenue between Council Trail and Manawa Trail in Section 11,
Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian,
Cook County, Illinois; and also
That portion of We-Go Trail not heretofore vacated by the Village
of Mount Prospect which lies between Shabonee Trail and Manawa
Trail in Section 11, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the
Third Principal Meridian, Cook County, Illinois; and also
Those portions of Manawa Trail between Na-Wa-Ta Avenue and Wapella
Avenue and between I-Oka Avenue extended and Elmhurst Road in
Section 11, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian, Cook County, Illinois; and also
That portion of William Street lying within the intersection of
Berkshire Lane and Weller Creek in Sections 12 and 13, Township 41 .
North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, Cook County,
Illinois.
SECTION TOO: That the location, size, and manner of construction of the
Conveyance Facilities shall be in accordance with plans and specifications
prepared by the Sanitary District, as approved by the Mayor and Board of
6-191
-------
Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect.
SECTION THREE: That the rights hereby granted to the Sanitary District are so
granted upon- the following conditions:
A. That the Sanitary District shall, at its own expense, make
such changes in the location of the police and fire alarms
and street lighting, and electric wires of The Village as
may be rendered necessary by the construction of the
Conveyance Faci'Jties of the Sanitary District.
B. That the Sanitary District shall, at its cost and expense,
install all such safety devices and traffic control signals
as may become necessary and required by The Village for the
public convenience, health and safety, as a result of any
routing or rerouting of traffic caused by the construction
contemp ated in this Resolution,
C. That the Conveyance Facilities of the Sanitary District
shall be constructed, reconstructed, repaired, and efficiently
maintained and operated solely by the Sanitary District at its
sole expense and cost; and The Village shall not be held
responsible in any manner for the location or manner of
construction, reconstruction, repair", or operation of the same.
D. That the Sanitary District shall defend, protect, indemnify,
keep and save harmless The Village, its Mayor, Trustees, officers,
agents, employees, contractors and sub-contractors and/or their
employees against all claims for damage to real and personal
property as well as against all injuries, liens", suits, liabilities,
judgments, costs, expenses, and attorneys fees .suffered and/gr *.
incurred by The Village, its Mayor, its Trustees, its officers,
its agents, its employees, its contractors and sub-contractors
and/or their employees, and/or its citizens which claims, injuries,
deaths, losses, damages, liens, suits, liabilities, judgments,
costs, expenses, and attorneys fees may directly or in-
directly be incurred, suffered, and/or arise by or from the
construction, reconstruction, repair> maintenance and/or operation
by the Sanitary District of the Conveyance Facilities. The
Sanitary District shall defend, indemnify, and hold The Village
and/or citizens thereof harmless from any and all liability,
cost, or expense resulting from the failure of the Sanitary
District to keep and perform the foregoing covenant.
B. That the Sanitary District shall, at its sole cost and expense,
restore to their former condition of usefulness the pavements
of all streets, public alleys and highways, as. well as all other
structures, shrubs, trees and sod which may be disturbed or
interfered with or damaged by the construction, maintenance,
repair, -or operation of the Conveyance Facilities, as well as
all walks, crosswalks, curbs, gutters, catch basins, and ditches
as soon as practicable, and shall thereafter maintain such
restoration from ^.ime to time as may be necessary, but not to
exceed two (2) years. All surplus excavation and other spoil
shall be removed from the paved streets, public alleys, and high-
ways by the Sanitary District.
F. That The Village does hereby order and direct all persons,
partnerships, or corporations which shall at the time of the
6-193
-------
ccnstruction of the Conveyance Facilities cum, operate or maintain
, any conduits, wires, poles, pipes, gas mains, cables,electric, I
\l steani' and street railway tracks and equipment or other St.. jctures
|! within any portion of the streets, public alleys and highways to
6e excavated in the construction of the Conveyance Facilities, at
is, its, or their own expense, to make such changes in the j
,| location of such conduits, wires, poles, pipes, gas mains >
'i ' and cables, electric, steam and street railway tracks;, and ;
equipment or other structures as may be rendered necessary by '
the construction of the Conveyance Fpcilities. \
G. That the Sanitary District and its contractors are hereby given
and granted the right to use in the construction of the
Conveyance Facilities such mot jr trucks, excavators, hoisting
engines, and other plant, equipment and materials as may be
necessary for the complete construction of said work,
H. That the Sanitary District shall, at its own expense and cost,
make such alterations in the location of the water mains of The
Village as may be rendered necessary by the construction of the
Conveyance Facilities ;f the Sanitary District. And in all such
cases, where it shall become and be necessary that water service
pipes be removed, cut off, or damaged in any way on account of
the construction of the Conveyance Facilities, the Sanitary
District shall remove, alter, repair, and replace such water
service pipes at its own cost and expense, providing.any water
service pipes disturbed shall be replaced by the Sanitary District;
provided, however, that all work done on said water mains and
water service pipes shall be subject to the approval of the
Village Engineer.
I. That The Village shall give, grant, and issue without fees or cost
therefor, to the Sanitary District or to any contractor to whom
this work or any part thereof specified in this Resolution shall
be awarded, all permits or licenses required for doing said work
upon application and shall not require the Sanitary District or
its contractors to deposit any sums of money required under any
ordinance of The Village for similar work and, further, shall not
require the payment by the Sanitary District of any fees or
salaries for inspectors employed by The Village on said work.
Water shall not be furnished the Sanitary District or any
contractor to whom said work or any part thereof shall be awarded,
unless and until construction meters have been paid for by the
Sanitary District and then all water needed in the performance of
said work shall be paid for by the Sanitary District, at the then
regular rate charged by The Village to its consumers, all said
water to be measured through meters furnished as aforesaid by
the Village at the expense of the Sanitary District or its
contractors.
SECTION FOUR: That this Resolution shall, be in full force and effect from and
after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law.
AYES: S
NAYS: °
PASSED and APPROVED this /f day of FE&G.O*&Y , 1975.
/s/ Robert 1). Tcichcrt
Mayor
6-194
ATTEST:
VnTagc Clerk
-------
. J
) SS
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COOK )
I, DONALD W. GOODMAN, do hereby certify that I am the duly qualified
and acting Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect in the County
and State aforesaid, and as such Village Clerk I am the keeper of the
records and files of the Board of Trustees of said Village.
I do further certify rhat attached hereto is a full, true and correct
copy of RESOLUTION NO. 7-75 duly adopted by the Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, at its legally convened
meeting held on the 18th day of February, 1975, and that at the time of
adoption of said RESOLUTION NO. 7-75 the Board of Trustees voted as
follows:
AYES: 5
- NAYS: 0 •
ABSENT: 1
all as appears in the official records of said Village in my care and
custody.
Dated at Mount Prospect, Illinois, this 4th day of.March, 1975. ^
Village Clerk, Village of Mount Prospect
Cook County, Illinois
6-195
-------
T H l_ CITY O f- G O O D N E I G II 13 O R S
Village of Arlington Heights
MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 33 S. ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD 60005
Area 312/253-2340
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW
SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES
PROPOSED FOR THE NORTHWEST SUBURBS BY THE
METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO
MAr^II 31, 1975
THE ARLINGTON HEIGHTS VILLAGE BOARD HAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY
TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL BY THE METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF
GREATER CHICAGO TO CONSTRUCT A DEEP TUNNEL SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
AND A NEW SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY FOR THE NORTHWEST SUBURBS. THE
PROPOSED SYSTEM WILL IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT IN ARLINGTON HEIGHTS
BY PREVENTING THE BACKUP AND FLOODING OF COMBINED SEWAGE AND RAIN
WATER INTO RESIDENTIAL BASEMENTS AND STREETS DURING HEAVY RAIN
STORMS. SUCH FLOODING HAS OCCURRED PERIODICALLY FOR MANY YEARS IN
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS AND HAS BEEN HAZARDOUS TO THE HEALTH AND WELL-
BEING OF OUR CITIZENS. THE SEWAGE BACK-UP IS LARGELY DUE TO THE HIGHLY
INADEQUATE SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES WHICH NOW EXIST.
THE PROPOSED NEW DEEP TUNNEL SYSTEM AND THE SEWAGE TREATMENT
FACILITY WILL ALSO PREVENT THE PERIODIC POLLUTION OF WELLER CREEK,
WHICH OCCURS WHEN COMBINED SEWAGE AND RAIN WATER OVERFLOW INTO
WELLER CREEK DURING EVEN MODERATE RAIN STORMS. THE POLLUTION OF
WELLER CREEK CAUSES A PERSISTANT ODOR PROBLEM ALONG WELLER CREEK
AND IS HIGHLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE RESIDENTS NEAR
THE CREEK.
THE VILLAGE BOARD OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS BELIEVES THAT THE
PROPOSED NEW DEEP TUNNEL SYSTEM AND SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY
SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO OVERCOME THE HAZARDS
OF FLOODING AND POLLUTION WHICH ARE NOW BEING EXPERIENCED IN THE
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS AREA.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
FRANK PALMATIER,
VILLAGE TRUSTEE
CHAIRMAN, FINANCE COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS ACTION
COMMITTEE AGAINST FLOODING
6-196
-------
April
Mr. Francis T, Mayo
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 6060^
Dear Mr. Mayoi
C
The attached petitions were presented to Congressman Crane's
Administrative Assistant at the March 31t 1975 USEPA Public
Hearing and are now being submitted as comment on your draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Please incorporate the peti-
tions into the final EIS document.
The petitions were circulated by the following citizens in the
Devonshire and Waycinden areasi
Pat Lutsch
Pat Alfano
Alice DeSilvia
Sorrell Pischke
Diane Ruh
Sandy Gualano
Jean Arredia
Judy Janczak
Nancy Janczak
Karen Frahtn
Terry Lipa
Toni Burdi
Camille Dressel
Loretta Anthony
Fay Butler
Dolores Hermansen
Virginia Lonigro
Audrey Munger
Pat Yaccino
Ann Yurkiewicz
Lucille DiCianni
Barbara Davison
Norma Kalb
Angie Cozzi
Virginia Respond
Ann Randall
Shirley Campanella
Ilene Arshonsky
Diane Losinski
Florence Adamczyk
Stacia Choroznak
Gerry Francione
Dolores Leuthner
Al Barry
Don Dvorak
Pete Lazzara
Richard Brown
William Kent
Michael Opager
David Cox
Donald Argus
Robert Argus
Martin Cain
Dan Lutsch
Allen Dvorak
David Cox
Jim Conrad
Gregg Ochab
John Jamrozik
Jack Wilds
David Wilds
Brian Friberg
We anticipate your objective consideration of the OfHare structure.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Rosemary Argus
^95 Courtesy Lane
Des Plaines, Illinois 60018
6-197
-------
\ 4* 0 • ^ ttllMrt I *"»«. -r
. . »»•-—
Petition to the Honorable Philip M. Crane
Congressman 12t'h Congressional District
WHEREA'S the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater
Chicago is proposing to construct a sewage treatment plant
having a capacity approaching 100 million gallons a day and
described as the O'Hare Water reclamation Plant in surburban
Cook County within the City of Des Plaines and within the
12th Congressional District;
WHEREAS the residents of the area and the City of Des
Plaines have opposed location of such plant at the proposed
site for at least eight years because of the dangers to the public
health and the odor nuisances associated with such plant;
WHEREAS the Sanitary District has publically indicated that
in building the proposed plant it will not take the necessary
precautions to limit the emissions of odor or air-borne pathogenic
bacteria from the plant so as to avoid a serious hazard to public
»
health; and
WHEREAS the Sanitary District is now seeking Federal funds
to construct such plant;
NOW THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, hereby petition you to
.to take all necessary steps to prevent the expenditure of
Federal funds for the construction of the proposed plant which
will create a potential threat to the public health and par-
ticularly to the citizens now living within the immediate area
of the proposed plant.
Name Address
U"
-------
CHAPTER 7
SELECTED REFERENCES
Adams, A. P. and J. D. Spendlove, 1970. Coliform Aerosols Emitted by
Sewage Treatment Plants. Science 169:1278
Albrecht, C. R. 1958. Bacterial Air Pollution Associated with the
Sewage Treatment Process. Master's Thesis, University of
Florida.
Alvoro, Budick and Howson, 1969. Report Upon Adequate Water Supply for
the Chicago Metropolitan Area, 1969-2000.
Argonne National Laboratory, Energy and Environmental Systems Division,
1973. Airport Vicinity Air Pollution Study.
Bauer Engineering, Inc. 1973-A. Environmental Assessment, Alternative
Management Plans for Control of Flood and Pollution Problems Due
to Combined-Sewer Discharges in the General Service Area of the
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
Bauer Engineering, Inc. 1973-B. Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, A Plan for Control of Flood and Pollution Problems
Due to Combined-Sewer Discharges in the General Service Area of
the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
Baum and Parker, 1974. Solid Waste Disposal, V.I. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc.
Bielenberg, D. and T. Hinesly, 1970. The Basin Plan. Metropolitan
Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
Brown and Caldwell, 1968. Design Report, O'Hare Reclamation Plant.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.
Burd, R. S., 1966. A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal.
Federation of Water Pollution and Control.
Burd, R. S., 1968. A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal, Federation
Water Pollution Control Administration, Pub. WP-20-4.
Camp, Dresser and McKee, Salt Creek Report for the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago.
7-1
-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
Consoer, Townsend, and Associates, 1973. Mount Prospect 1973 Flood
Control Report.
Csallany, S. and W. C. Walton, 1963. Yields of Shallow Dolomite Wells
in Northern Illinois, Illinois State Water Survey, Report of
Investigation No. 46.
DeLeuw, Gather, and Co. 1972. preliminary Plans for O'Hare Collection
Facility, Conventional Intercepting Sewers and Tunnel and Reservoir
Plan.
DeLeuw, Gather and Co., Geotechnical Report on Upper Des Plaines Tunnel
and Reservoir Plan, V. 2.
Dowling, H. F. 1966. Airborne Infections - the Past and the Future.
Bact. Rev. 30:485.
Druett, H. A. and K. R. May, 1968. Unstable Germicidal Pollutant in
Rural Air.Nature 220:395.
Fair, G. M. and W. F. Wells, 1934. Measurement of Atmospheric Pollution
and Contamination by Sewage Treatment Works. Proc. 19th Ann. Mtg.
N. Y. Sewer Works Association 1934.
Federation of Sewage Works Association, 1946. Manual of Practice,
Utilization of Sewage Sludge as Fertilizer.
Flood Control Committee, August, 1972. Summary of Technical Reports,
Development of a Flood and Pollution Control Plan for the
Chicagoland Area.
Foundation Sciences, Inc., 1974. Geotechnical Report on Upper Des Plaines
Tunnel and Reservoir Plan, Contracts 73-317-2S, V.I. Bedrock
Geologic Investigation for DeLeuw, Gather, and Company.
Greeley and Hansen, Report on Basic Data.
Herr, G. A., 1973. Odor Destruction - A Case History. Paper presented
at the 66th Annual AICHE Meeting, Philadelphia, Pa., November 13, 1973.
7-2
-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
Herr, E and R. L. Potorak, 1974. Program Goal - No Plant Odors. Water
and Sewage Works, October, [974.
Herzik, G. R. 1958. From Effluent to Alfalfa: Texas Approves Irrigation
of Animal Crops with Sewage Plant Effluents. Wastes Engineering
27:418.
Higgins, F. B. 1964. Bacterial Aerosols from Bursting Bubbles. Doctoral
Dissertation, Georgia Tech.
Hinesly, T. and B. Sosewitz, 1968. Digested Sludge Disposal on Crop
Land. Paper presented at Water Pollution Control Federation
Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
Kenline, P., 1968. The Emission, Identification and Fate of Bacteria
Airborne From Activated Sludge and Extended Aeration Sewage
Treatment Plants. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Koenig, L., October 1973. Ultimate Disposal of Advanced - Treatment
Wastes. AWTR - 3.
Ladd, F. C., 1966. Airborne Bacteria from Liquid Waste Treatment Units.
Master's Thesis, Oklahoma State University.
Ledbetter, J. 0., 1964. Air Pollution from Aerobic Waste Treatment.
Water Sewage Works 111 (l):62-63.
Ledbetter, J. 0. and C. W. Randall, 1965. Bacterial Emissions from
Activated Sludge Units. Ind. Med. and Surg. 34 (2):130-133.
Lightheart, B., 1973. Survival of Airborne Bacteria in a High Urban
Concentration of Carbon Monoxide. Appl. Micr. 25(1):86-91.
Magill, P., F. Holden and C. Ackley, 1956. Air Pollution Handbook.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
May, K. R. ejt.a.1., 1969. Toxicitv of Open Air to a Variety of Micro-
organisms. Nature 221:1140-1147.
Melnick, J. L., 1967. Comment on D. M. McLeans paper, Transmission of
Viral Infections by Recreational Water. In Trans Virus by the Water
Route, ed. G. Berg, Interscience Publisher, New York.
7-3
-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Engineering Department
1971. Utilization of Liquid Fertilizer.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 1972. The Beneficial
Utilization of Liquid Fertilizer on Land.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 1973-A. Environmental
Assessment of the Prairie Plan-Fulton County, Illinois.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 1973-B. Fortieth
Annual Report.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, October, 1974.
Evaluation of Mechanical Dewatering Facility for Project 73-181-2p
at West-Southwest Sewage Treatment Works, Pro Fac, MSDGC.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, November, 1974.
Environmental Assessment for Proposed Projects for the Upper Des
Plaines Service Basin, O'Hare Tunnel System.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, December, 1974.
Facilities Planning Report. MSDGC Overview Report.
Napolitano, P. J. and D. R. Rowe, 1966. Microbial Content: of Air Near
Sewage Treatment Plants. Water and Sewage Works 113:12.
Northeastern Illinois Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, 1966. The
Water Resource in Northeastern Illinois, Planning tts Use. Technical
Report No. 4.
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1971. Regional Wastewater Plan.
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, September, 1974. Regional Water
Supply, Report No. 8.
Peterson, R. J. and Associates, 1973. A Report on Flood Control of
Arlington Heights, Illinois.
Poon, C. P., 1966. Studies on the Instantaneous Death of Airborne
Escherichia coll. Am. J. Epidemiology 84(1):l-9.
Poon, C. P. 1968. Viability of Long-Storage Airborne Bacterial Aerosols.
J. Sanitary Eng. Div. ASCE. 94(SA6):1137-1146.
7-4
-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
Randall, C. W. and J. 0. Ledbetter, 1966. Bacterial Air Pollution
4 from Activated Sludge Units. Am. Ind. Hygiene Assoc. J. 27:506-519.
\ Roy F. Weston, Inc., 1971. Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing
f Wastewater Treatment Plants. EPA Technology Transfer.
Sanitary District of Los Angeles County. Composting Studies at the
County.
Sasman, R. T. et^-al_- 1973. Water-Level Decline and Pumpage in Deep Wells
in Northeastern Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey, Circular 113.
Schicht, R. J. and A. Moench, 1971. Projected Groundwater Deficiencies
in N. E. Illinois, 1980-2020. Illinois State Water Survey,
Circular 101.
Spendlove, S. c., 1957. Production of Bacterial Aerosols in a Rendering
Plant Process. Public Health Reports 72:176-180.
State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, 1973. Summary of Local
Planning Documents in Illinois.
State of Illinois, Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. Water Quality
Network, Summary of Data, V. 2.
State of Illinois, Environmental Protection Agency, March 7, 1972.
Water Pollution Regulations of Illinois.
State of Illinois, Pollution Control Board, July, 1973. Rules and
Regulations, Chapter 3.
Stone, R., 1974. Sewage Sludge Processing, Transportation, and Disposal.
Paper presented at Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers on Water Resources
Engineering, Jan. 21-25, 1974.
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, November, 1973. Draft Environmental
• Assessment on Tunnel and Reservoir Plan.
U.S. Army,Corps of Engineers, Chicago District, April, 1974. Summary
Report, Wastewater Management Study for Chicago-South End of Lake
Michigan. (C-SELM).
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970. Census of
Population, Numbers of Inhabitants, Illinois. Pub. PC(1)A15-I11.
7-5
-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocoanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, Environmental Data Service, 1973. Local Climatological
Data, Chicago, Illinois, O'Hare Irternational Airport.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March, 1974. Alternative Waste
Management Technique for Best Practicable Waste Treatment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agoncy, October, 1974. Process Design
Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Task Force, March, 1972. Sewage
Sludge Incineration. EPA Task Force No. PB211-323.
Walker, John £jt.aA. Sludge Disposal Studies. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland.
Walton, W. C., 1964. Future Water-Level Declines in Deep Sandstone Wells
in Chicago Region. Illinois State Water Survey. Reprint series No.36.
Wascher, H. L. e_t.si.l. 1960. Characteristics of Soil Associated with
Glacial Tills in Northeastern Illinois. University of Illinois
Agricultural Experiment Station, bulletin 665.
Webb, S. J. _et^.3tl_. 1963. The Effects of Relative Humidity and Inositol
on Airborne Viruses. Can. Jour. Micro. 9:87-92.
Wells, W. N. 1961. Irrigation as a Sewage Reuse. Pub. Works 116:118.
Winklepleck, R. G. 1973. Particulate Collection by Scrubbing. Water
and Wastewater Engineering.
Won, R. D. and H. Ross, 1969. Reaction of Airborne Rhizobium mellloti
to Some Environmental Factors. Appl. Micr. 18:555-557.
Woodcock, A. H. 1955. Bursting Bubbles and Air Pollution. Sewage Ind.
Wastes 27:1189.
Zetner, R. J. 1966. Physical and Chemical Stresses of Aerosolization.
Bacterial Review 30(3):551-558.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 1975. Transcript
of Public Hearing, O'Hare Sewage Collection System, plus Additional
Statements and Testimony and Response by the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago, V.I-III.
7-6
-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
City of Des Plaines, Illinois, 197^. An Ordinance Amending Title VIII
of the City Code by Adding Chapter 15 Entitled "Health and Welfare
Standards for Waste and Sewage Treatment Plants and Works" M-23-74.
Metcalf and Eddy, October, 197'+. Process Design Manual for Upgrading
Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants.
Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, Engineering Department.
January, 1974, December, 1974. Infiltration-Inflow Analysis, Upper
Des Plaines Service basin (O'Hare Water Reclamation Plant).
7-7
-------